Influence of Methane Emissions and Vehicle Efficiency on the Climate Implications of Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Trucks

Camuzeaux, Jonathan; Alvarez, Ramón A.; Brooks, Susanne; Browne, Joshua B.; Sterner, Thomas

doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b00412

Cited by 52 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If new technology can indeed narrow the efficiency penalty from 20% to 10%, CNG would achieve a baseline emission rate nearly identical to diesel. Our results are consistent with a recent study that found the 100-year GHG impacts of CNG and diesel trucks to be very similar, with the ranking depending on the assumptions for efficiency penalty (the study considered a 0-20% range) and natural gas leak rate (0-4% range) [Camuzeaux et al, 2015].…”

Section: Comparisons Within Sectorssupporting

confidence: 92%

Net greenhouse gas emissions savings from natural gas substitutions in vehicles, furnaces, and power plants

Cohan

Sengupta

2016

IJGW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We compare the net greenhouse gas emissions impact of substituting natural gas for other fossil fuels for five purposes: light-duty vehicles, transit buses, residential heating, electricity generation, and export for electricity generation overseas. Emissions are evaluated on a fuel cycle basis, from production and transport of each fuel through end use combustion, based on recent conditions in the United States. To compare across sectors, the emissions difference between natural gas and its alternative is normalized by natural gas consumption to compute the net reduction in CO 2 e per MJ of natural gas used. Greatest emission reductions can be achieved by replacing existing coal-fired power plants (78 g CO 2 -e/MJ natural gas) or fuel oil furnaces (66 gCO 2 e/MJNG). Compressed natural gas in vehicles yields no significant reductions.Uncertainties arising from upstream emission rates for natural gas and the global warming potential of methane are quantified. The study demonstrates the critical role of deployment choice on the net climate impact of natural gas.

show abstract

Section: Comparisons Within Sectorssupporting

confidence: 92%

Net greenhouse gas emissions savings from natural gas substitutions in vehicles, furnaces, and power plants

Cohan

Sengupta

2016

IJGW

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The measured Barnett methane leakage is low enough that gas fired electricity in this region causes less climate forcing than coal-fired electricity (see the SI Appendix for details, including effect of CH 4 mitigation). By contrast, use of compressed natural gas sourced in the Barnett instead of diesel for freight trucks would cause greater forcing for several decades (1,39,40).…”

Section: Methane Emissions Are Significantly Higher Than Estimates Bamentioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciling divergent estimates of oil and gas methane emissions

Zavala-Araiza

Lyon

Alvarez

et al. 2015

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

252

264

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Published estimates of methane emissions from atmospheric data (top-down approaches) exceed those from source-based inventories (bottom-up approaches), leading to conflicting claims about the climate implications of fuel switching from coal or petroleum to natural gas. Based on data from a coordinated campaign in the Barnett Shale oil and gas-producing region of Texas, we find that top-down and bottom-up estimates of both total and fossil methane emissions agree within statistical confidence intervals (relative differences are 10% for fossil methane and 0.1% for total methane). We reduced uncertainty in top-down estimates by using repeated mass balance measurements, as well as ethane as a fingerprint for source attribution. Similarly, our bottom-up estimate incorporates a more complete count of facilities than past inventories, which omitted a significant number of major sources, and more effectively accounts for the influence of large emission sources using a statistical estimator that integrates observations from multiple ground-based measurement datasets. Two percent of oil and gas facilities in the Barnett accounts for half of methane emissions at any given time, and high-emitting facilities appear to be spatiotemporally variable. Measured oil and gas methane emissions are 90% larger than estimates based on the US Environmental Protection Agency's Greenhouse Gas Inventory and correspond to 1.5% of natural gas production. This rate of methane loss increases the 20-y climate impacts of natural gas consumed in the region by roughly 50%. methane emissions | oil and gas emissions | greenhouse gas footprint | natural gas supply chain | Barnett Shale M ethane (CH 4 ), the principal component of natural gas, is a powerful greenhouse gas. Although natural gas emits less carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) per unit of energy than coal or oil when burned, CH 4 losses during the production, processing, transportation, and use of natural gas reduce its climate advantage compared with other fossil fuels. For example, if CH 4 losses are large enough (e.g., ∼3% of production), new natural gas power plants can cause greater climate damage than new coal plants for decades or longer (∼1% when comparing natural gas to diesel freight trucks) (1).The lack of current data on CH 4 emissions, magnified by intense public concern over the broader environmental implications of shale gas development, has stimulated significant research to improve estimates of CH 4 emissions (2-18). A recurring theme in recent literature is that "top-down" (TD) approaches produce estimates that are significantly higher than those from "bottomup" (BU) approaches. Concerns about available inventories and divergent TD and BU estimates create confusion regarding policy formulation and leave room for conflicting claims about the greenhouse gas implications of increased use of natural gas.TD approaches for estimating total CH 4 emissions at the regional or larger scale include airborne mass balance (2-4, 19), atmospheric transport models (5,6,(20)(21)(22)(23), and enhancem...

show abstract

“…Looking to the individual parameters of Scenario 4 and the individual managerial decisions to be made, we suggest that this CH 4 -emitting effect can only be reduced if engine efficiency of heavy duty vehicles in the combustion of compressed natural gas are improved. Secondly, this CH4 emitting effect can also be reduced if leaking methane emissions through the drilling and extraction of natural gas is reduced in the supply chain of the fuel (Camuzeaux et al, 2015;Brandt et al, 2014). Figure 5 illustrates the total energy consumed by the supply chains in all four of the scenarios considered, and Figure 6 shows the total emissions from the life cycle stages of each scenario.…”

Section: [Insert Figures 3 and 4 Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

How supply chain choices affect the life cycle impacts of medical products

Gabriel

Bortsie-Aryee

Apparicio-Farrell

et al. 2018

Journal of Cleaner Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The natural resource based view (NRBV) of organisations suggests that there are two main models used by businesses to achieve short-term sustainability outcomes. They are the product stewardship and pollution prevention models. Here is the case of a New York-based wholesaler of medical supplies. The business aims to develop a more environmentally sustainable supply chain for one of its products -an emesis basin. The emesis basin is currently only offered in high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic, which has negative effects on the natural environment. This study aimed to assess how the focus of the business' new business model might affect the overall life cycle impacts of this product. To achieve this, we compared the environmental impacts of the conventional product (Scenario 1-an HDPE basin) with equivalent products supplied via pollution prevention (Scenario 2 -a bioplastic basin) and product stewardship (Scenario 3 -green supply chain management and improvements) scenarios, as well as a combination scenario (Scenario 4). The results show that, in line with expectations, the pollution prevention option -switching to a bioplastic product -has the lowest environmental impacts. Unexpectedly though, the product stewardship option had a greater impact on the natural environment than the conventional HDPE, business-as-usual option. We suggest there may greater environmental gains to be obtained by focusing on one's core business, than by extending influence to the entire supply chain. KEYWORDSNatural resource-based view (NRBV); Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); sustainable supply chains; medical supply sector HIGHLIGHTS  Four scenarios comparing conventional and bio-plastics considered  Bioplastic product has lowest environmental impact (pollution prevention scenario)  Supply chain changes (product stewardship) have higher impact due to transport fuels  There are benefits to focusing on core business over supply chain integration  We support deeper inclusion of medical supply industry in sustainability discussion Word Count: 8,082ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2

show abstract

Influence of Methane Emissions and Vehicle Efficiency on the Climate Implications of Heavy-Duty Natural Gas Trucks

Cited by 52 publications

References 16 publications

Net greenhouse gas emissions savings from natural gas substitutions in vehicles, furnaces, and power plants

Net greenhouse gas emissions savings from natural gas substitutions in vehicles, furnaces, and power plants

Reconciling divergent estimates of oil and gas methane emissions

How supply chain choices affect the life cycle impacts of medical products

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About