Next Article in Journal
Quantifying Climate Change and Ecological Responses within the Yangtze River Basin, China
Next Article in Special Issue
Decarbonisation of Urban Freight Transport Using Electric Vehicles and Opportunity Charging
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial Equilibrium Allocation of Urban Large Public General Hospitals Based on the Welfare Maximization Principle: A Case Study of Nanjing, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Prism of Elasticity in Rebound Effect Modelling: An Insight from the Freight Transport Sector
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/su10093025
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Issues Concerning Declared Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of FAME Biofuels

by
Ján Ližbetin
*,
Martina Hlatká
and
Ladislav Bartuška
Department of Transport and Logistics, Faculty of Technology, Institute of Technology and Business in České Budějovice, České Budějovice 37001, Czech Republic
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2018, 10(9), 3025; https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093025
Submission received: 26 June 2018 / Revised: 3 August 2018 / Accepted: 23 August 2018 / Published: 25 August 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Freight Transport)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The paper deals with the issue of greenhouse gas emissions that are produced by the road freight transport sector. These emissions affect the structure of the ozone layer and contribute to the greenhouse effect that causes global warming-issues that are closely associated with changing weather patterns and extreme weather events. Attention is drawn to the contradictions linked to FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Esters) biofuels, namely the fact that although their use generates almost zero greenhouse gas emissions, their production requires high levels of energy consumption. The first part of the paper deals with the theoretical basis of the negative impacts of transport on the environment and the subsequent measurement of the extent of the harmful emissions generated by the road freight transport sector. In the methodical part of the paper, the calculation procedures and declared energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions generated by transport services are analyzed according to the EN 16258 standard. The experimental part of the paper focuses on the application of the methodology to a specific shipment on a specified transport route, where the total energy consumption and production of greenhouse gas emissions is determined. These calculations are based on comprehensive studies carried out for a particular transport company that assigned the authors the task of determining to what extent the declared energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions change when the type of fuel used is changed.

1. Introduction

Transport, as one of the fundamental parts of a logistics chain, has significant economic influence on the standards of living in the developed countries of the European Union. With the development of transport in the 1990s, came early warning signs of the negative impact of different means of transport on the environment. Initially, it concerned the impact on the environment in urban agglomerations, where emissions from (fossil fuel) engines and noise pollution started to reach permitted limits. The issue of reducing the negative impacts of transport subsequently started to be addressed by a wide range of governmental and non-governmental research organizations [1].
Over time, plans for reducing the negative environmental impact of transport were developed not only at the municipal and regional levels but also at the national and international levels. Scientists started to deal with the issue and developed studies that addressed a much wider range of negative aspects and their impact on the global environment. These works contain, inter alia, many proposals to address the situation, proposals which are considered more or less acceptable in terms of sustaining the growth of national economies and the standards of living of their inhabitants. This poses a fundamental dichotomy, i.e., how do we reduce the negative impacts of transport, as well as all other human activities on the environment, whilst trying to maintain current levels of economic growth and living standards [2,3]?
This article focuses on the specific issue of the declaration of energy intensity and greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels. Biofuels have much more positive results in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, but the efficiency of biofuel production is questionable. FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Esters) are acids that are created during the transesterification of vegetable oils and animal fats that create biodiesel. FAME is the generic chemical term for biodiesel derived from renewable sources [4]. Therefore, the authors have identified a research question: “How does an increase of the bio-components in diesel fuel affect the energy intensity of biofuel production?” For this research work, the authors used the verified methodology EN 16258, which is characterized in Section 3.2. Using this methodology, the energy intensity of production was calculated for the individual shares of the bio-component [5,6]. In addition to the energy intensity of production, the authors also calculated the production of greenhouse gas emissions, but the calculation is illustrative only and aims to point to the environmental benefits of biofuels [7,8].

2. Literature Review

The issue of greenhouse gas emissions in association with freight transport and its sustainability have been extensively discussed in literature. For example, Quiros et al. [5] suggest that 70% of freight transport is conducted with the use of road vehicles that are responsible for producing 20% of greenhouse gas emissions in the area of transport. A study by Pan et al. [6] focuses on the possibilities for reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions through the consolidation of freight transport. In particular, they state: “It is well established that the consolidation of freight transport represents an effective way of improving the use of logistics resources.” The authors explore the impact the pooling of supply chains at the strategic level might have on the environment. The suggested that pooling of supply networks represents a practical approach to CO2 emissions reduction. The study presented by Woodcock et al. [7] produced similar results.
The majority of authors [8,9,10,11,12,13] suggest that the sustainability of freight transport lies in a more effective synchronization of individual kinds of transport; so-called synchromodality. As stated by Agbo and Zhang [8], synchromodality has the potential to increase the use of transport services. The advantages in terms of environmental sustainability lie in the reduced use of lorries and the subsequent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, congestion, noise, etc.
As stated by several authors [14,15,16,17], the use of alternative fuels in road freight transport is another means by which to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. For example, according to Floden and Williamsson [17], the use of biofuels presents a practical way for developing a sustainable system of freight transport. In a study by de Jong et al. [16], measures are examined that could make future biofuel production more efficient.
In contrast to previously published results [8,9,10,11,16], the submitted article focuses on a different way of assessing the efficiency of biofuel use, namely from the point of view of the energy consumption required for its production. The methodology of the European Committee for Standardisation [18] was used as a basis for the assessment and was quoted from a study by Konecny and Petro [19].
The methodology is explained in Section 3.2. Having employed this method, the authors tried to point out the changes of the energy consumption of FAME biofuel production in regard to the increasing share of biofuels. The authors did not find this methodology and procedure in any professional literature.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Emissions Theory

According to Pohl [20], the negative impacts of transport on the environment can be divided into five basic categories, namely:
  • emissions—air pollution associated with the imperfect combustion of fossil fuels;
  • noise pollution—from combustion engines and the movement of vehicles along transport routes;
  • vibrations—due to the movement of vehicles along transport routes;
  • water pollution—from the leakage of working fluids, as well as the leakage of transported substances and fluids due to traffic accidents;
  • traffic accidents—in terms of the people and animals killed.
Airborne pollutants are partially transported by air and therefore do not only influence the place where the emissions are generated. In order to fully analyze the negative impacts of transport, it is essential to fully understand the relationship “emission—transmission—deposition—immission”.
  • Emission—this term describes the generation and release of harmful substances. Emissions are expressed in absolute terms, such as the weight of a specific airborne pollutant, or the pollutants generated by one vehicle in relation to (per) distance travelled.
  • Transmission—this term describes the spread of pollutants by air. Transmission depends on a variety of factors (type and amount of emissions, meteorological conditions, etc.).
  • Deposition—this term describes the deposition of pollutants at different sites on the Earth´s surface due to transmission. Wet deposition includes precipitation in liquid form (e.g., rain, fog, etc.). Dry deposition includes pollutants that fall from the atmosphere due to transmission, mostly in the form of dust.
  • Immission—this term describes the concentration of pollutants in the air and their impact on humans and the environment, as well as on, for example, buildings. The scope of the impact directly depends on the concentration of the pollutant at the point and period of its activity. Immissions are expressed in absolute units of mass per volume (e.g., g/m3).
When describing the impact of specific pollutants, it is necessary to analyze the complex path from emission to immission, since it is the only way to determine with precision the harmful effects, i.e., the relationship between cause and effect [21].
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol highlights six fundamental gases that influence climate change the most: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) [2,22].
The Kyoto Protocol [16,17,18,19] also states that these greenhouse gases must be converted into aggregate average emissions as expressed in CO2e units (carbon dioxide equivalent). This conversion takes into account the different ability of the identified gases to cause the greenhouse effect, as well as their atmospheric lifetime. Although CO2 is not the gas with the greatest ability to cause the greenhouse effect, it is the most significant anthropogenic greenhouse gas. It is for this reason that the other gases are converted into CO2e (see Table 1).
An example of the CO2e calculation process follows. The calculation is based on the production of electricity by a diesel aggregate that consumes 100 L of diesel oil.
  • CO2 emissions = Fuel consumption in unit of volume × CO2 emission factor
  • CH4 emissions = Fuel consumption in unit of volume × CH4 emission factor
  • N2O emissions = Fuel consumption in unit of volume × N2O emission factor
Overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in tCO2e = (CO2 emissions) + (CH4 × 21) + (N2O * 310)
  • CO2 emissions = 100 × 0.00265 [3,23]
  • CH4 emissions = 100 × 0.00000036 [3,23]
  • N2O emissions = 100 × 0.000000021 [3,23]
Overall GHG emissions = 0.265299393 + (0.000035819 × 21) + (0.00000215 × 310) = 0.2667 tCO2e

3.2. Methodology for the Calculation and Declaration of Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Transport Services According to the EN 16258 Standard

The EN 16258 standard sets out the methodology and requirements for the calculation and declaration of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for transport services. The standard was developed for the purpose of unifying existing carbon footprint calculations and their comparison. In calculations of energy consumption and emissions in relation to vehicles, energy consumption and emissions relating to the production and distribution of fuels or electric energy are taken into account. This ensures that the standard assumes a “Well-to-Wheel” (WtW) approach in terms of calculations and declarations (see Figure 1).
WtW therefore includes the aforementioned energy and emissions for the production of fuels or electric energy, Well-to-Tank (WtT), as well as the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions relating to the operation of vehicle Tank-to-Wheel (TtW) [18,19,24,25,26,27,28].
The Well-to-Wheel analysis therefore determines the consumption of fossil fuel energy and the production of CO2e for driving conditions that correspond to the European homologation cycle. The standard further specifies individual processes and principles that are essential for the correct calculation of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions [29,30,31,32].
The operational processes of a vehicle must include the operation of all vehicle systems, including propulsion units (main engines), ancillary services, auxiliary equipment used for maintaining the temperature of the load area, and vehicle handling and transshipment systems.
The energy processes for the consumed fuel must include the extraction or primary energy production, refining, transformation, transport, and distribution of energy during all production stages. The principles for calculating the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of transport services must take into consideration all vehicles used for providing transport services, including those that are subcontracted. Furthermore, it must include the overall fuel consumption of each energy carrier and all laden and unladen journeys [18].

3.2.1. Individual Steps of the Calculations for a Specified Transport Service

The calculation(s) for a specified transport service must include the following steps:
  • Identification of the various journeys (legs) that make up the specified transport service.
  • Calculation of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for each leg of the specified transport service.
  • Sum of the results for each leg of the specified transport service [33,34].
The calculation of overall energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions is performed as follows:
Ew (VOS) = F (VOS) × ew
Gw (VOS) = F (VOS) × gw
Et (VOS) = F (VOS) × et
Gt (VOS) = F (VOS) × gt
where is:
  • Ew (VOS)—Well-to-Wheel energy consumption vehicle operating system (VOS);
  • Gw (VOS)—Well-to-Wheel greenhouse gas emissions VOS;
  • Et (VOS)—Tank-to-Wheel energy consumption VOS;
  • Gt (VOS)—Tank-to-Wheel greenhouse gas emissions VOS;
  • (VOS)—overall fuel consumption VOS;
  • ew—Well-to-Wheel energy factor for fuel used;
  • gw—Well-to-Wheel greenhouse gases factor for fuel used;
  • et—Tank-to-Wheel energy factor for fuel used;
  • gt—Tank-to-Wheel greenhouse gases factor for fuel used.
The values for the energy and greenhouse gas factors are taken from the EN 16258 standard (2013).

3.2.2. Principles for Allocating the Share of Energy Consumption and Emissions per Unit of Cargo

The overall energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of the vehicle operation system (VOS) must be allocated to a unit of cargo. The EN 16258 standard applies tkm as the unit for determining transport performance, which is the product of the mass (weight) of the cargo carried and the kilometers travelled [35,36,37]. The mass is the weight of the cargo transported, including packaging, container(s), pallet, etc. The basic formulas for allocating the cargo are as follows:
S (leg) = (T (leg))/(T (VOS))
Ew (leg) = Ew (VOS) × S (leg)
Gw (leg) = Gw (VOS) × S (leg)
Et (leg) = Et (VOS) × S (leg)
Gt (leg) = Gt (VOS) × S (leg)
where is:
  • S (leg)—factor for calculating the share of energy consumption and emissions of the vehicle operation system (VOS) to be allocated to a specified transport service;
  • T (leg)—transport performance for leg of the specified transport service;
  • T (VOS)—transport performance VOS.

4. Results

The results presented in this article are taken from a study conducted for a private transport company [38] that entrusted the authors with the task of finding out how a change in the kind of fuel used by its lorries for international road freight transport might influence their energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. The calculations were made for a specified transport route, namely Aschaffenburg to Domoradice, as determined by the transport company. The results of the calculations with regard to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions according to EN 16258 for the route are summarized in Table 2.
Table 3 shows the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions figures on the basis of the use of 100% FAME biodiesel. The route is the same but with slight nuances in the distance travelled due to the lorry landing at a different hall.
Figure 2 shows a clearer comparison of the results. The results clearly show that the share of energy consumed for FAME production is much higher than that for diesel. This fact is logical when it is taken into consideration that this type of fuel is made from industrial crops. In this case, it does not concern extraction but the cultivation of crops and the process of their transformation into a substance that can be used, for example, as a fuel for compression-ignition engines.
What is even more important is the fact that there are no greenhouse gas emissions during combustion in compression-ignition engines. Greenhouse gas emissions are generated only in the production and distribution of FAME, which is also partly influenced by the natural production of CO2 during the cultivation of the plants. However, it should be stressed that this article only deals with greenhouse gas emissions, i.e., carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) [39,40,41,42].

5. Discussion

Having conducted their study of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for various kinds of fuels, the authors were motivated by previous existing literature [13,14,15,16,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] to apply the methodology to the calculation of the energy consumption related to FAME biofuel production and the EN 16258 standard.
The results (see Figure 2) reveal a relatively large increase in energy consumption for FAME biodiesel. The applied method enables a quick and easy analysis of the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions related to the production of mixed fuels.
The calculations that follow are based on the following assumption: that the same model of vehicle goes from point A to point B and always consumes 100 L of diesel, but that the volume of the biocomponent in the diesel differs—from pure diesel (0% biocomponent) up to 100% FAME biodiesel.
The calculations were made for all available volume shares of diesel/biodiesel [51,52]. In order to calculate the energy consumption on the basis of fuel production and distribution, so-called WtT (Well-to-Tank), the difference in the numbers for total energy consumption (WtT) and the energy consumed for the transport service (TtW) needed to be explored. The results for WtT are presented in MJ units in Table 4.
The following Figure 3 compares an increase in energy consumption for WtT production of mixed fuel diesel/biodiesel in relation to a percentage volume share of biocomponents with a decreasing production of greenhouse gas emissions from the entire life cycle of WtW fuels.
It is clear from Figure 3 that under current technologies the production of biofuels, namely FAME biofuels, is unacceptably energy-intensive. This results in very poor competitiveness in the fuel market. Fossil fuels are currently considered environmentally unsuitable and, as a result, are presently listed as non-renewable energy sources. Biofuels have the character of a renewable source of fuel, but their huge drawback is their overly “expensive production” (which is shown in Figure 3). It will therefore be necessary to look for a more energy-efficient biofuel production process in order to be competitive with other types of fuels.

6. Conclusions

If we compare the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of 100% FAME biodiesel and the lowest energy consumption necessary for the production of 100% diesel (fuel with 0% biocomponent), it is possible to draw an interesting conclusion. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 69% compared to common diesel, we must produce biofuel, the production and distribution of which would consume more than four times more energy than diesel.
Biofuels, therefore, have considerably more favorable parameters than conventional fossil fuels in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, but their production is inefficient in terms of energy intensity. The high energy intensity of the FAME biofuel production is negatively reflected in its fuel price. The price is still higher than the price of conventional fuels, which results in a lack of interest in using more environmentally acceptable types of fuel. There is still a large group of customers who do not take into account the production of greenhouse gas emissions but only fuel costs.
This opens up a new area of research, namely into the search for possibilities to lower this level of energy consumption to an acceptable level so that 100% FAME biodiesel becomes competitive on the fuel market, thereby contributing to the reduction of the negative impacts of transport on the environment and ensuring sustainable transport development.
In conclusion, the authors want to highlight the need for a new approach in the assessment of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in transport due to the high energy consumption linked to the production of FAME biofuels. Within this context, the presented results should open up a broader discussion into the sustainability of biofuels as a whole.

Author Contributions

M.H. conceived and designed the calculations; L.B. and J.L. analyzed the data; J.L. and L.B. wrote the paper.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank to the GW Logistics company for practical measurements and computations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Duffy, A.; Crawford, R. The effects of physical activity on greenhouse gas emissions for common transport modes in European countries. Transp. Res. Part D 2013, 19, 13–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Schmied, M.; Knörr, W. Calculating GHG Emissions for Freight Forwarding and Logistics Services in Accordance with EN 16258; European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services (CLECAT): Bruxelles, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  3. Telang, S. How to Calculate Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions from Different GHG Sources? Available online: http://greencleanguide.com/2012/06/05/how-to-calculate-carbon-dioxide-equivalent-emissions-from-different-ghg-sources/ (accessed on 8 November 2015).
  4. FAME Biodiesel—Everything You Need to Know about Fame Diesel. Available online: https://www.crownoil.co.uk/everything-need-know-fame-biodiesel/ (accessed on 17 July 2018).
  5. Quiros, D.C.; Smith, J.; Thiruvengadam, A.; Huai, T.; Hu, S.H. Greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty natural gas, hybrid, and conventional diesel on-road trucks during freight transport. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 168, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pan, S.; Ballot, E.; Fontane, F. The reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from freight transport by pooling supply chains. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2013, 143, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Woodcock, J.; Edwards, P.; Tonne, C.; Armstrong, B.G.; Ashiru, O.; Banister, D.; Beevers, S.; Chalabi, Z.; Chowdhury, Z.; Cohen, A.; et al. Health and Climate Change 2 Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: Urban land transport. Lancet 2009, 374, 1930–1943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Agbo, A.A.; Zhang, Y.W. Sustainable freight transport optimisation through synchromodal networks. Cogent Eng. 2017, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, M.; Thoben, K.D. Sustainable Urban Freight Transport: Analysis of Factors Affecting the Employment of Electric Commercial Vehicles. In Dynamics in Logistics, Proceedings of the 5th International Conference LDIC, Bremen, Germany, 22–26 February 2016; Book Series: Lecture Notes in Logistics; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 255–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schliwa, G.; Armitage, R.; Aziz, S.; Evans, J.; Rhoades, J. Sustainable city logistics—Making cargo cycles viable for urban freight transport. Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2015, 15, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bouhana, A.; Zidi, A.; Fekih, A.; Chabchoub, H.; Abed, M. An ontology-based CBR approach for personalized itinerary search systems for sustainable urban freight transport. Expert Syst. Appl. 2015, 42, 3724–3741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pena, D.; Tchernykh, A.; Radchenko, G.; Nesmachnow, S.; Ley-Flores, J.; Nazariega, R. Multiobjective Optimization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Enhancing the Quality of Service for Urban Public Transport Timetabling. In Proceedings of the 4th International conference on Engineering and Telecommunication (EN&T), Moscow, Russia, 29–30 November 2017; pp. 114–118. [Google Scholar]
  13. Oberscheider, M.; Zazgornik, J.; Henriksen, C.B.; Gronalt, M.; Hirsch, P. Minimizing driving times and greenhouse gas emissions in timber transport with a near-exact solution approach. Scand. J. For. Res. 2013, 28, 493–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Schade, B.; Wiesenthal, T.; Gay, S.H.; Leduc, G. Potential of Biofuels to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the European Transport Sector. In Transport Moving to Climate Intelligence: New Changes for Controlling Climate Impacts of Transport after the Economic Crisis; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 243–269. [Google Scholar]
  15. Reijnders, L.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Climate Effects and Non-greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with Transport Biofuel Life Cycles. In Biofuels for Road Transport: A Seed to Wheel Perspective; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2009; pp. 101–127. [Google Scholar]
  16. De Jong, S.; Hoefnagels, R.; Wetterlund, E.; Pettersson, K.; Faaij, A.; Junginger, M. Cost optimization of biofuel production—The impact of scale, integration, transport and supply chain configurations. Appl. Energy 2017, 195, 1055–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Floden, J.; Williamsson, J. Business models for sustainable biofuel transport: The potential for intermodal transport. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 426–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. European Committee for Standardisation. EN 16258: Methodology for Calculation and Declaration of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions; European Committee for Standardisation (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  19. Konecny, V.; Petro, F. Calculation of selected emissions from transport services in road public transport. In Proceedings of the 18th International Scientific Conference, LOGI 2017, České Budějovice, Czech Republic, 19 October 2017; Volume 134. [Google Scholar]
  20. Pohl, R. Úvod do Dopravní a Manipulační Techniky: Městské, Silnční, Vodní, a Vzdušné Dopravní Prostředky; Asociace Dopravních Inženýrů Spolku Česká Technika Při ČVUT: Praha, Czech Republic, 1997; ISBN 80-238-2067-2. [Google Scholar]
  21. Becker, U.; Gerike, R.; Winter, M. Základy Dopravní Ekologie; Ústav pro Ekopolitiku: Praha, Czech Republic, 2008; ISBN 978-80-87099-05-6. [Google Scholar]
  22. Overview of Greenhouse Gases. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases (accessed on 17 July 2018).
  23. EFDB. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2015. Available online: http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/EFDB/main.php (accessed on 14 November 2015).
  24. Lizbetin, J.; Stopka, O.; Nemec, F. Methodological Assessment of Environmental Indicators in Combined Transport in Comparison with Direct Road Freight Transport. In Proceedings of the International Conference Transport Means 2016, Kaunas, Lithuania, 5–7 October 2016; pp. 151–155. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nadolski, R.; Ludwinek, K.; Staszak, J.; Jaskiewicz, M. Utilization of BLDC motor in electrical vehicles. Przeglad Elektrotechniczny 2012, 88, 180–186. [Google Scholar]
  26. Tol, R.S.J. The Economic Impacts of Climate Change. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2017, 12, 4–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nathanail, E.; Gogas, M.; Adamos, G. Smart interconnections of interurban and urban freight transport towards achieving sustainable city logistics. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 983–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kijewska, K. The Importance of the City Logistics Manager for the Sustainable Development of Urban Freight Transport. In Proceedings of the Carpathian Logistics Congress (CLC 2013), Cracow, Poland, 9–11 December 2013; pp. 84–89. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ruesch, M.; Hegi, P.; Haefeli, U.; Matti, D.; Schultz, B.; Rutsche, P. Sustainable goods supply and transport in conurbations: Freight strategies and guidelines. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 39, 116–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mattila, T.; Antikainen, R. Backcasting sustainable freight transport systems for Europe in 2050. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 1241–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Branza, G.; Nistor, C.; Popa, L.; Surugiu, G. The impact of technological changes on sustainable intermodal freight transport in Europe. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on the Management of Technological Changes, Alexandroupolis, Greece, 3–5 September 2009; Volume 1, pp. 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  32. Black, W.R. Sustainable solutions for freight transport. In Globalized Freight Transport: Intermodality, E-Commerce, Logistics and Sustainability; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2007; pp. 189–216. ISBN 978-1-84542-502-9. [Google Scholar]
  33. Konecny, V.; Kostolna, M. Deklarovanie spotreby energie a emisií skleníkových plynov z dopravných služieb. Železničná Doprava a Logistika 2014, 2, 41–49. [Google Scholar]
  34. Iglinski, H.; Babiak, M. Analysis of the potential of autonomous vehicles in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases in road transport. Procedia Eng. 2017, 192, 353–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Meunier, D.; Quinet, E. Valuing greenhouse gases emissions and uncertainty in transport cost benefit analysis. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015, 8, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Petro, F.; Konecny, V. Calculation of emissions from transport services and their use for the internalisation of external costs in road transport. Procedia Eng. 2017, 192, 677–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Roso, V.; Brnjac, N.; Abramovic, B. Inland Intermodal Terminals Location Criteria Evaluation: The Case of Croatia. Transp. J. 2015, 54, 496–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fabera, P. Výpočet a Deklarace Emisí Skleníkových Plynů Nákladní Silniční Dopravy ve Společnosti GW Logistics A.s. Ph.D. Thesis, The Institute of Technology and Business in České Budějovice, Budějovice, Czech Republic, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  39. Cristea, A.; Hummels, D.; Puzzello, L.; Avetisyan, M. Trade and the greenhouse gas emissions from international freight transport. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2013, 65, 153–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Stojanovic, D.; Velickovic, M. The Impact of freight Transport on greenhouse gases emissions in Serbian Cities—The Case of Novi Sad. Metal. Int. 2012, 17, 196–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bartuska, L.; Gross, P.; Nemec, F. Measurement of the Efficiency of the Combustion Engine Using a Mixture of Hydrogen-oxygen Gas. In Proceedings of the International Conference Transport Means 2016, Kaunas, Lithuania, 5–7 October 2016; pp. 481–486. [Google Scholar]
  42. Vermeulen, A.T.; van Loon, M.; Builtjes, P.J.H.; Erisman, J.W. Inverse transport modeling of non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions of Europe. In Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application XIV, Proceedings of the 24th NATO/CCMS International Technical Meeting on Air Pollution Modelling and Its Application, Boulder, CO, USA, 15–19 May 2000; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2001; pp. 631–640. ISBN 0-306-46534-5. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zamora-Cristales, R.; Sessions, J.; Marrs, G. Economic implications of grinding, transporting, and pretreating fresh versus aged forest residues for biofuel production. Can. J. For. Res. 2017, 47, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Licht, F.O. Biofuels in transport in 2016. Int. Sugar J. 2016, 118, 200–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hao, H.; Geng, Y.; Li, W.Q.; Bin Guo, B. Energy consumption and GHG emissions from China's freight transport sector: Scenarios through 2050. Energy Policy 2015, 85, 94–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fedorko, G.; Molnar, V.; Strohmandl, J.; Vasil, M. Development of Simulation Model for Light-Controlled Road Junction in the Program Technomatix Plant Simulation. In Proceedings of the International Conference Transport Means 2015, Kaunas, Lithuania, 22–23 October 2015; Volume 169, pp. 466–499. [Google Scholar]
  47. Garcia-Alvarez, A.; Perez-Martinez, P.J.; Gonzalez-Franco, I. Energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Rail and Road Freight Transport in Spain: A Case Study of Car Carriers and Bulk Petrochemicals. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2013, 17, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Odhams, A.M.C.; Roebuck, R.L.; Lee, Y.J.; Hunt, S.W.; Cebon, D. Factors influencing the energy consumption of road freight transport. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2010, 224, 1995–2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Simikic, M.; Tomic, M.; Savin, L.; Micic, R.; Ivanisevic, I.; Ivanisevic, M. Influence of biodiesel on the performances of farm tractors: Experimental testing in stationary and non-stationary conditions. Renew. Energy 2018, 121, 677–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cho, H.U.; Park, J.M. Biodiesel production by various oleaginous microorganisms from organic wastes. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 256, 502–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Kolb, I.; Wacker, M. Calculation of energy consumption and pollutant emissions on freight transport routes. Sci. Total Environ. 1995, 169, 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Vaishnav, P. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from International Transport. Issues Sci. Technol. 2014, 30, 25–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 10 03025 g001 550
Figure 1. Vehicle life cycle assessment. Source: Authors based on the European Committee for Standardisation [18].
Figure 1. Vehicle life cycle assessment. Source: Authors based on the European Committee for Standardisation [18].
Sustainability 10 03025 g001
Sustainability 10 03025 g002 550
Figure 2. Comparison of diesel with 6% biocomponent and FAME biodiesel. Source: Authors.
Figure 2. Comparison of diesel with 6% biocomponent and FAME biodiesel. Source: Authors.
Sustainability 10 03025 g002
Sustainability 10 03025 g003 550
Figure 3. Comparing results of analysis on FAME biofuels energy consumption. Source: Authors.
Figure 3. Comparing results of analysis on FAME biofuels energy consumption. Source: Authors.
Sustainability 10 03025 g003
Table
Table 1. Global warming potential of greenhouse gases. GHG: greenhouse gas.
Table 1. Global warming potential of greenhouse gases. GHG: greenhouse gas.
GHGChemical FormulaAtmospheric Lifetime (Years)Global Warming Potential
Carbon dioxideCO250–2001
MethaneCH412 (±3)21
Nitrous oxideN2O120310
Sulfur hexafluorideSF6320023,900
Source: Authors based on Telang [3].
Table
Table 2. Calculated results for diesel.
Table 2. Calculated results for diesel.
Diesel with 6% Biocomponent
Distance (km)Consumed Fuel (L)Cargo Weight (t)Ew (MJ/L)Et (MJ/L)Gw (kgCO2e/L)Gt (kgCO2e/L)
58216917,2517469.86033.30534.04424.19
Source: Authors.
Table
Table 3. Calculated results for FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Esters) biofuel.
Table 3. Calculated results for FAME (Fatty Acid Methyl Esters) biofuel.
FAME Biodiesel
Distance (km)Consumed Fuel (L)Cargo Weight (t)Ew (MJ/L)Et (MJ/L)Gw (kgCO2e/L)Gt (kgCO2e/L)
59618416,83012,604.006035.20353.280.00
Source: Authors.
Table
Table 4. Energy consumption analysis for FAME biofuels.
Table 4. Energy consumption analysis for FAME biofuels.
Biocomponent (in %)0%1%2%5%8%10%15%20%50%85%100%
TtW et [MJ]35903590358035703570356035403530344033303280
WtW ew [MJ]42704300432044004480453046604790556064606850
TtW gt [kgCO2e]267264262254246240227214134400
WtW gw [kgCO2e]324323321317313311304298258212192
WtT [MJ]68071074083091097011201260212031303570
Source: Authors based on [17,22,38].

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ližbetin, J.; Hlatká, M.; Bartuška, L. Issues Concerning Declared Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of FAME Biofuels. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093025

AMA Style

Ližbetin J, Hlatká M, Bartuška L. Issues Concerning Declared Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of FAME Biofuels. Sustainability. 2018; 10(9):3025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093025

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ližbetin, Ján, Martina Hlatká, and Ladislav Bartuška. 2018. "Issues Concerning Declared Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of FAME Biofuels" Sustainability 10, no. 9: 3025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093025

APA Style

Ližbetin, J., Hlatká, M., & Bartuška, L. (2018). Issues Concerning Declared Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of FAME Biofuels. Sustainability, 10(9), 3025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093025

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop