Korean Journal of Chemical Engineering, Vol.38, No.5, 938-944, May, 2021
Life cycle assessment of LPG and diesel vehicles in Korea
With LPG automobile deregulation in 2019, the demand for LPG automobiles has increased in Korea; therefore, a comparison of the eco-friendliness of LPG and other petroleum-based vehicles has become necessary. We conducted a well-to-wheels (WTW) analysis of diesel and LPG fuel in Korea. GREET, PRELIM, and GHGenius models were utilized to calculate and appropriately allocate the energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission in the life cycle process of diesel and LPG fuel. In the well-to-tank (WTT) step, the GHG emissions of LPG were lower than that of diesel because of the lower energy consumption of LPG in fuel production. For the WTW comparison, we selected four automobiles currently sold in Korea and a 1,500 kg curb weight model. The WTW GHG emissions of the LPG automobiles were lower than those of the diesel SUV and the 1 ton truck. On the other hand, the WTW GHG emissions of diesel automobiles were lower in the sedans and in the 1,500 kg model. Finally, it was verified that LPG automobiles were advantageous in terms of GHG emission in the SUV and one-ton truck, although the GHG emissions of diesel and LPG vehicles can vary depending on the fuel economy of the vehicles.
Keywords:Life Cycle Assessment;Well-to-wheel Analysis;Greenhouse Gas Emission;Diesel and LPG Vehicles
- Paris Agreement, European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiation s/future/index_en.htm.
- U.S. EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2017.
- IPCC Working Group 3, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change, 5th assessment Report (2014).
- The White House Briefing Room, Obama Administration Finalizes Historic 54.5 MPG Fuel Efficiency Standards.
- Woo J, Choi H, Ahn J, Transp. Res. D, 51, 340 (2017)
- Bicer Y, Dincer I, Int. J. Hydrog. Energy, 42(6), 3767 (2017)
- Korea MOTIE (2019), http://motie.go.kr/motie/ne/presse/press2/bbs/bbsView.do?bbs_seq_n=16146 4&bbas_cd_n=81.
- Unnasch S, Goyal L, Life Cycle Analysis of LPG Transportation Fuels under the Californian LCFS, Life Cycle Associates Report (2017).
- Boureima FS, Messagie M, Matheys J, Wynen V, Sergeant N, Mierlo JV, Vos MD, Caevel BD, World Electr. Veh. J., 3(3), 469 (2009)
- ANL (Argonne National Laboratory), GREET 2019 (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation), 2019.
- Obnamia JA, Dias GM, MacLean HL, Saville BA, Appl. Energy, 235, 591 (2019)
- Pegallapati AK, Frank ED, Algal Res., 18, 235 (2016)
- Jong SD, Antonissen K, Hoefnagels R, Lonza L, Wang M, Faaij A, Junginger M, Biotechnol. Biofuels, 10, 64 (2017)
- Pereira LG, Cavalett O, Bonomi A, Zhang Y, Warner E, Chum HL, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev., 110, 1 (2019)
- (S&T)2 Consultants Inc. GHGenius transportation fuels life cycle assessment model version 5.0. http://www.ghgenius.ca/. (2019).
- (S&T)2 Consultants Inc., GHGenius model 4.03, vol. 1: model background and structure, 445 (2013).
- (S&T)2 Consultants Inc., GHGenius model 4.03, vol. 2: data and data sources, 57516 (2013).
- Young B, Hottle T, Hawkins T, Jamieson M, Cooney G, Motazedi K, Bergerson J, Environ. Sci. Technol., 53, 2238 (2019)
- Gencer E, Torkanmani S, Miller I, Wu TW, O’Sullivan F, Appl. Energy, 277, 115550 (2020)
- NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory), PRELIM (Petroleum Refinery Life Cycle Inventory Model), ver 1.3 (2019).
- Petronet (2018) http://petronet.co.kr.
- Voyage Calculator (2019). http://sea-distances.org/advanced.
- Dobrota D, Lalic B, Komar I, Trans. Marit. Sci., 2, 91 (2013)
- Elgowainy A, Han J, Cai H, Wang M, Forman GS, DiVita VB, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 7612 (2014)
- Knoema (2019). http://knoema.com.
- Jang JJ, Song HH, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 20, 1102 (2015)