MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3135612200 · doi:10.1115/1.4049455

Feasibility Study of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Compressed Renewable/Natural Gas Vehicles in Canada

2020· article· en· W3135612200 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Wahiba Yaïci, Hajo Ribberink

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Energy Resources Technology · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnergy
ThématiqueEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Établissements canadiensNatural Resources Canada
Organismes subventionnairesWirth Institute for Austrian and Central European Studies, University of Alberta
Mots-clésTruckCompressed natural gasGreenhouse gasHeavy dutyNatural gasRenewable energyEngineeringDiesel fuelNational laboratoryWaste managementFossil fuelEnvironmental scienceTransport engineeringAutomotive engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Concerns about environmental degradation and finite natural resources necessitate cleaner sources of energy for use in the transportation sector. In Canada, natural gas (NG) is currently being appraised as a potential alternative fuel for use in vehicles for both medium- and heavy-duty use due to its relatively lower costs compared with that of conventional fuels. The idea of compressed natural gas vehicles (CNGVs) is being mooted as inexpensive for fleet owners and especially because it will potentially significantly reduce harmful emissions into the environment. A short feasibility study was conducted to ascertain the potential for reduced emissions and savings opportunities presented by CNGVs and renewable NGVs (RNGVs) in both medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The study which is discussed in the present paper was carried out on long-haul trucking and refuse trucks, respectively. Emphasis was laid on individual vehicle operating economics and emissions reduction, and the identification of practical considerations for both the individual application and CNGVs/RNGVs as a whole. A financial analysis of the annual cost savings that is achievable when an individual diesel vehicle is replaced with a CNG vehicle was also presented. This paper drew substantial references from published case studies for relevant data on maintenance costs, fuel economy, range, and annual distance traveled. It relied on a summary report from Argonne National Laboratory’s GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) (Argonne National Laboratory, 2018, Argonne GREET Model, US Department of Energy. https://greet.es.anl.gov/. Accessed October 5, 2020) for its discussion on relative fuel efficiency penalties for heavy-duty CNGVs. The fuel cost figures were mostly drawn from motor fuel data of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation since the Ministry is one of the few available sources of compressed natural gas fuel prices. Finally, the GHGenius life-cycle analysis tool ((S&T) Squared Consultants Inc., 2019, GHGenius, (S&T) Squared Consultants Inc. https://www.ghgenius.ca. Accessed October 5, 2020) was employed to determine fuel-cycle emissions in Canada for comparison purposes. The study produced remarkable findings. Results showed that compared with diesel-fuelled vehicles, emissions in CNG heavy-and-medium-duty vehicles reduced by up to 8.7% (for well-to-wheels) and 11.5% (for pump-to-wheels), respectively. Overall, the most beneficial application appeared to be long-haul trucking based on the long distances covered and higher fuel economy achieved (derived from economies of scale), while refuse trucks appeared to have relatively marginal annual savings. However, these annual savings are actually a conservative estimate, which will ultimately be determined by a number of factors that are likely to be predisposed in favor of NG vehicles. Significantly, the prospect of using RNG as fuel was found to be a factor for improving the value proposition of refuse trucks in particular, certainly from an emissions standpoint with a reduction of up to 100%, but speculatively from operational savings as well.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,365
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,650

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,215
Écart entre enseignants0,203 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2020
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Energy Resources TechnologyMême sujetEnergy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesTravaux en français237 207