Home | Fuel Cells

Social Cost Comparison Among Fuel Cell Vehicle Alternatives (cont.)


<< Prev  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   Next >>

Table 5: Local Fuel Upstream Emissions

Local Upstream

Gasoline

Methanol

Hydrogen

Emissions (g/gal-eq, HHV)

Petroleum

NG-SR

NG-SR

NOx

DTI (decentral.)

-

-

0.001

DTI (centraliz)a

-

-

4.634

Acurex

0.324

0.154

0.631 b

Greet 1.5a

0.289

0.068

0.475

Greet 1.4

0.264

0.180

1.575

Assumed

0.310

0.120

0.500

NMOG

DTI (decentral.)

-

-

0.004

DTI (centraliz)a

-

-

0.025

Acurex

1.520

0.573

0.109 b

Greet 1.5a

0.507

0.081

0.031

Greet 1.4

0.627

0.360

0.075

Assumed

1.300

0.400

0.080

CO

DTI (decentral.)

-

-

0.003

DTI (centraliz)a

-

-

0.576

Acurex

0.143

0.140

0.096 b

Greet 1.5a

0.175

0.031

0.177

Greet 1.4

0.198

0.120

0.675

Assumed

0.160

0.080

0.200

PM10

Greet 1.5a

0.021

0.005

0.012

Greet 1.4

0

0

0.075

Assumed

0.030

0.008

0.050

SOx

Greet 1.5a

0.018

0.013

0.009

Greet 1.4

0.025

0.075

0.028

Assumed

0.020

0.015

0.010
  1. Centralized plant inside the basin.
  2. LH2 considered in the marketing stage.

Table-6: Vehicle Life Cycle Emissions of CO2

CO2 Emissions

Gasoline (RFG)

Methanol (NG-SR)

Hydrogen (NG-SR-CH2)

(g/gal-eq, HHV)

Fuel

Vehic.a

Total

Fuel

Vehic.a

Total

Fuel

Vehic

Total

Acurex

1,349

8,421

9,770

1,150

7,969

9,119

11,044b

0

11,044

Greet 1.5 a

2,965

8,431

11,396

1,970

7,969

9,939

10,688

0

10,688

DeLucchi (1997)

2,397

8,563

10,960

2,699

8,500

11,199

10,667c

0

10,667
  1. Calculated from the model assumed Carbon Content in the fuel.
  2. LH2 considered in the Market Stage.
  3. Since DeLucchi (1997) does not include production of H2 using an NG steam reformation process, the Mark (1996) SR data were used to make a composite result.


<< Prev  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   Next >>



Top | Home | Fuel Cells | Search | E-Mail

Copyright © 1996-2010
Methanol Institute