Cooper Jasmin, Hawkes Adam, Balcombe Paul
Sustainable Gas Institute, Imperial College London, London SW7 1NA, UK; Department of Earth Science and Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
Sustainable Gas Institute, Imperial College London, London SW7 1NA, UK; Department of Chemical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BP, UK.
Sci Total Environ. 2019 Jul 15;674:482-493. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.091. Epub 2019 Apr 11.
Using natural gas as a fuel in the road freight sector instead of diesel could cut greenhouse gas and air quality emissions but the switch alone is not enough to meet UK climate targets. A life cycle assessment (LCA) has been conducted comparing natural gas trucks to diesel, biodiesel, dimethyl ether and electric trucks on impacts to climate change, land use change, air quality, human health and resource depletion. This is the first LCA to consider a full suite of environmental impacts and is the first study to estimate what impact natural gas could have on reducing emissions form the UK freight sector. If LNG is used, climate change impacts could be up to 33% lower per km and up to 12% lower per kWh engine output. However, methane emissions will eliminate any benefits if they exceed 1.5-3.5% of throughput for typical fuel consumption. For non-climate impacts, natural gas exhibits lower emissions (11-66%) than diesel for all indicators. Thus, for natural gas climate benefits are modest. However, emissions of CO, methane and particulate matter are over air quality limits set for UK trucks. Of the other options, electric and biodiesel trucks perform best in climate change, but are the worst with respect to land use change (which could have significant impacts on overall climate change benefits), air quality, human toxicity and metals depletion indicators. Natural gas could help reduce the sector's emissions but deeper decarbonization options are required to meet 2030 climate targets, thus the window for beneficial utilisation is short.
在公路货运领域使用天然气作为燃料而非柴油,可以减少温室气体和空气质量排放,但仅凭这一转变不足以实现英国的气候目标。已开展一项生命周期评估(LCA),将天然气卡车与柴油、生物柴油、二甲醚和电动卡车在气候变化、土地利用变化、空气质量、人类健康和资源耗竭方面的影响进行比较。这是首次考虑一整套环境影响的生命周期评估,也是首次估计天然气对减少英国货运部门排放可能产生何种影响的研究。如果使用液化天然气,每公里的气候变化影响可能降低多达33%,每千瓦时发动机输出的影响可能降低多达12%。然而,如果甲烷排放量超过典型燃料消耗吞吐量的1.5 - 3.5%,将抵消所有益处。对于非气候影响,天然气在所有指标上的排放量均低于柴油(低11 - 66%)。因此,天然气对气候的益处不大。然而,一氧化碳、甲烷和颗粒物的排放超过了英国卡车设定的空气质量限值。在其他选择中,电动和生物柴油卡车在气候变化方面表现最佳,但在土地利用变化(这可能对整体气候变化益处产生重大影响)、空气质量、人类毒性和金属耗竭指标方面表现最差。天然气有助于减少该部门的排放,但需要更深入的脱碳选择来实现2030年气候目标,因此有益利用的窗口期很短。