Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 s2.0 S2212827117309198 Main 5
1 s2.0 S2212827117309198 Main 5
com
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 517 – 522
25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference, 30 April ± 2 May 2018, Copenhagen, Denmark
Use of Liquefied Biomethane (LBM) as a Vehicle Fuel for Road Freight Transportation:
A Case Study Evaluating Environmental Performance of Using LBM for Operation of
Tractor Trailers
Abstract
The environmental performance of Liquefied Biomethane (LBM) and Diesel operated Tractor Trailer (TT) is compared using the Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) study. In this study we consider, raw biogas produced from an anaerobic digestion process of a Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP) in Umea, Sweden, which is then upgraded and liquefied to LBM and used as a fuel for TTs. Currently, the
WWTP in Umea is utilizing biogas, produced onsite for cogeneration of heat and electricity, thereby meeting its energy needs. A system
expansion approach is applied where electricity and heat equivalent to amount of biogas displaced for LBM production is supplied from
Swedish grid (SE) mix and incineration of wood chips respectively. Correspondingly, the biogas avoided for cogeneration of electricity
and heat is accounted in the study. The equivalent IXQFWLRQDOXQLWFKRVHQIRUWKH/&$VWXG\LV³16,000,000 ton-km of a TT transporting
products and goods´. The study is modelled using SimaPro LCA Software. The ReCiPe Midpoint (H) impact assessment methodology
is used to quantify ten selected and relevant midpoint environmental impacts. When compared with Diesel TT system, LBM TT exhibits
superior environmental performance in seven out of ten impact categories measured than the Diesel TT system. The highest reduction is
seen in Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Fossil Depletion Potential (FDP) impacts thereby suggesting that LBM derived from raw
biogas of WWTP an environmentally preferred alternative to diesel for operation of TTs. However, this value proposition can have other
trade-offs such as increase in eutrophication and ecotoxicity impacts. Further, replacing diesel with LBM for TT operation may not have
any significant environmental benefits when electricity is drawn from carbon intensive grid mixes (e.g. coal).
© 201
© 207 TheThe Authors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier B.V. ThisB.V.
is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference
Keywords: Liquefied Biomethane; Life Cycle Assessment; Tractor Trailers; Environmental Impacts
1. Introduction in transport sector. TTs consume more than 50% of the fuel and
therefore stands as largest contributor of GHG emissions [1].
Tractor Trailers (TTs) represent a class of Heavy Duty Furthermore, a portion of the vehicle miles travelled by TT in
Vehicles (HDVs) that deliver products and goods to our its lifetime is attributed to empty miles. At least one fifth of the
doorsteps, to our departmental stores and supermarkets. In the distance travelled by TTs on EU roads in 2015 is empty [2],
European Union (EU-28) - alone, 881, 123 million ton-km of which simply accounts for unwanted GHG emissions. The EU
road freight is transported by TTs (25.5-WRQV 30.5 tons is currently aiming at a 40% reduction of GHG emissions for
load capacity) in 2015. This amounts to 50% of entire road HDVs by 2030 [3]. This translates to a motivation of searching
freight transported during 2015 [1]. While TTs, moving freight greener and more renewable fuel alternatives that can substitute
are undoubtedly the most essential mobile infrastructure of diesel in HDVs, particularly in TTs. Biofuels derived from
transportation industry. However, TTs predominantly operate forest biomass, agricultural residues, and waste feedstocks are
on diesel thus making them a worst offender of the environment actively being pursued by the trucking industry as a potential
2212-8271 © 201 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 25th CIRP Life Cycle Engineering (LCE) Conference
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.133
518 Kavitha Shanmugam et al. / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 517 – 522
replacement to diesel. Among these cleaner fuel options, LBM production implies that energy needs (electricity and heat) of
produced from biogas holds a great promise to decarbonize the WWTP are to be met from an alternate source. Thus, a system
TT fleet. expansion approach (shown in Figure 1) is applied to make
Biogas is an important byproduct obtained when organic LBM TT system equivalently comparable with diesel TT
waste from various sources (sewage sludge, food waste, farm system. In this case, the equivalence of comparison is, Diesel
manure waste etc.) is subjected to anaerobic digestion process. TT versus [(LBM TT) + (electricity and heat required by Umea
The biogas generated by anaerobic digesters (ADs) typically WWTP from alternate sources) - (electricity and heat from
contains 66 % methane is purified to 100% clean gas through a biogas which is otherwise utilized by WWTP internally)].
variety of upgradation technologies such as water scrubbing,
pressure swing adsorption (PSA), amine scrubbing etc [4]. The 2.1.1 Functional unit (FU) and system boundary:
upgraded gas is liquefied cryogenically to produce LBM [5]
which is considered as lowest carbon alternative for diesel in The equivalent functional unit selected for the study is
HDVs to slash emissions [6]. ³16,000,000 ton-km of a TT transporting products and goods´
Sweden is world leading today in automotive use and non- (100,000 vehicle miles travelled by TT with lifetime of 10
grid base transportation. The biomethane is either transported years transporting an average payload of 16 tons). The system
in compressed state to mobile storage units or liquefied state boundary of the study is shown in Figure 1. The scope of this
and by ways of local gas grids. Sweden had its first Liquefied LCA includes two fuel systems. The life cycle of LBM TT
Biogas plant in Lidköping operating from 2012 thus enhancing system starts from the raw biogas produced by anaerobic
the market scope for the fuel making the fuel more attractive digesters of a WWTP. This raw biogas entering the LBM plant
for long distance road haulage applications [7]. Other best is burden free (i.e. no processing burdens of WWTP and AD
practices countries like Denmark, Austria, Switzerland and are included). Diversion of raw biogas for LBM production
Netherlands experience positive biogas markets setting implies that raw biogas is not utilized by gas motors for
example for other countries to follow. cogeneration of heat and electricity. Consequently, heat and
The objective of this work is to understand potential benefits electricity need to be supplied from alternate sources.
and implications of using LBM as a transport fuel in TTs from Therefore, system expansion approach is applied and change
an environmental perspective. This is illustrated by conducting occurring at the WWTP due to displacement of raw biogas is
an LCA study to quantify and compare environmental impacts taken into consideration. This includes: (a) accounting for
of LBM and diesel driven TTs on equivalent basis. Although burdens associated with electricity from Swedish (SE) grid and
LBM can be produced from various biogas sources, this study district heat from incineration of wood chips; and (b) avoided
focuses on biogas derived from anaerobic digestion of sewage (credit) biogas for cogeneration of heat and electricity.
sludge. The raw biogas data is obtained from a Wastewater At LBM plant, raw biogas is upgraded to clean gas (99%
Treatment Plant (WWTP), Umea, Sweden. The plant treats methane) via amine scrubbing process where the unwanted
sewage wastewater from the city, digests the sludge impurities (H2S) are removed. The upgraded gas is liquefied
anaerobically and produces raw biogas. Currently, the energy using a closed nitrogen reversed Brayton recycle refrigeration
needs of the plant are fulfilled by utilizing the biogas in biogas process to obtain LBM which is stored in tanks onsite. The
engines for cogeneration of heat and electricity. But the biogas LBM from storage tanks is pumped into LBM tanker and is
produced by ADs of WWTP can be diverted to make LBM. transported a service station. The tanker is unloaded into a
storage tank at service station from where it is distributed as a
2. Evaluating environmental performance of using LBM fuel to be used in TTs. LBM fueled TT operates for 16,000,000
in tractor trailers ton-km carrying a payload of 16 tons. Correspondingly, in
Diesel TT system, the crude oil refining process produces low
The LCA work in this study is performed following the sulfur diesel, stored onsite, transported to service stations
recommended practices of the ISO 14040:2006 and before it is used as a fuel in TTs.
14044:2006 [8]. This paper describes the four phases to
conduct an LCA: goal and scope, life cycle inventory, life cycle
impact assessment, results interpretation.
LBM Plant x Methane content of raw biogas from ADs = 66%. Diesel System
x Methane content of biogas is upgraded and liquefied, Diesel x The dataset includes impacts of diesel (low sulfur)
whereas the CO2 is not captured (released as emission). System production from crude oil refining, transport from
However, this CO2 is treated as biogenic emission. refinery to storage tanks at user, and use in trucks.
x Electricity per Nm3 of biogas: (a) 0.25 KWh- upgrading x Fuel consumption of a diesel truck- 31 liter/100 km [14]
(amine scrubbing-99% efficiency); (b) 0.75 KWh- = 0.0160 kg/ton-km.
liquefaction (9 [4, 11]; and (c) 0.0018 KWh/kg of
LBM- pumping from storage tank to tanker [12]. Table 2. LCI data for LBM-TT life cycle
x Liquid N2: 0.16 Nm3/ N m3 [11] Inventory Amount Notes
x Steam consumption: 2.34/ Nm3 [5]
LBM 280,000 kg x 0.0175 kg LBM consumed
LBM x 300 with LBM transported in cryogenic tanker (liquid by TT per ton km. This
Transport CO2 refrigerant system, under freezing conditions). amounts to 280,000 kg LBM
x LBM tanker capacity = 15.5 tons [13] (=364,000 NM3 of clean gas.
x Liquid boil-off rate from tanker = 0.08% of volume of 1kg LBM = 1.3 NM3 gas [18]
methane transported/day [3]. For 300 km driven in 6 = ~ 553280 m3 biogas)
hours = 10.3 g/ton-km.
Electricity 1745 MWh x Raw Biogas from AD (1184
LBM x Pumping LBM to storage tank 0.0018 KWh/kg. From SE Grid MWh) + LBM Plant (364
Service x Methane slip emissions from LBM storage tank MWh) + Pumps (1 MWh) +
Station = 0.08% volume of LBM stored [3]. For 1 tanker + Service Station (196 MWh)
volume stored = 3 g/kg LNG.
LBM Use in x Fuel consumption LBM TT = 28 kg/100 km [14] = x Avoided electricity from
Elec. Credit -1184 MWh
TT 0.0175 kg/ton-km. biogas cogeneration unit.
from Biogas
520 Kavitha Shanmugam et al. / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 517 – 522
Note: Other emissions of diesel are not reported here. Table 4. Modeling parameters varied for uncertainty analysis
Life Cycle Parameter Notes
2.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Stage Variation
LBM-TT System
ReCiPe, Europe (H) [19] impact assessment methodology LBM Plant Elec: 0.7-1.0 KWh x Varied based on different
is used to quantify the midpoint environmental impacts of LBM Steam: 0-2.35MJ upgrading and liquefaction
and diesel TTs. Ten, most relevant midpoint impact categories Methane Slip: technologies [4, 11].
0.00656-0.0131 kg x Varied based on amine
are selected and will be discussed in the study. The categories (1 Nm3 clean gas)
included are climate change or Global Warming Potential scrubbing (0.1%) & water
scrubbing (2%) for
(GWP) in kg CO2 eq.; Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) in kg upgrading [4].
CFC-11 eq.; Acidification Potential (AP) in kg SO2 eq.;
Freshwater Eutrophication Potential (FEP) in kg P eq.; Marine Emissions Emission Ranges x Based on literature data
Eutrophication Potential (MEP) in kg N eq.; Human Toxicity (per ton-km): (CO2 emissions are
from LBM
CH4: 0.0166-0.097g biogenic) [22].
Potential (HTP) in kg 1.4 DB eq.; Photochemical Oxidation use in TT
NOx: 0.026-0.046g
Formation Potential (POFP) in kg NMVOC; Particulate Matter CO2: 50-75g
Formation Potential (PMFP) in kg PM10 eq.; Aquatic
Ecotoxicity Potential (AETP) in kg 1.4-DB eq.; and the Fossil Diesel TT System
Depletion Potential (FDP) in kg oil eq. respectively. AETP is Emissions Emission Ranges x Based on literature data on
considered as a summation of marine and freshwater from diesel (per ton-km): diesel emissions [22]
use in TT CO2: 57.5-62.5 g
ecotoxicity potentials. PM: 0.12-0.23 mg
SO2 0.18-0.31 mg
2.4. Sensitivity analysis- alternate electricity and heat source
3. Results and discussion
Displacement of raw biogas for LBM production requires
substitution of electricity and heat from an alternate source. For 3.1. Baseline comparison (LBM Vs Diesel in TT)
baseline study, electricity from SE grid and district heat from
incinerating wood chips are considered as sources of energy The ten midpoint environmental impacts of LBM and Diesel
carrier. However, changing the source of heat (e.g. from natural fueled TT systems are shown in Figure 2. As a result of system
gas, incineration of municipal solid waste etc.) and electricity expansion, the environmental impacts LBM TT system are
(from a different country) may affect the overall environmental represented as [(impacts of LBM fueled TT) + (impacts of
performance of LBM fueled TT system. Production of LBM electricity from SE grid and district heat from incinerating
from biogas and its application as a fuel in commercial vehicles wood chips) - (impacts for biogas utilized in cogeneration unit
is a rapidly growing initiative in the UK [20]. For this reason, for heat and electricity at WWTP)].
a sensitivity analysis is performed to understand the effect of
changing electricity from SE to UK grid mix and district heat
from incineration of wood chips to heat from combustion of
Kavitha Shanmugam et al. / Procedia CIRP 69 (2018) 517 – 522 521
in HTP and 31% in MEP categories respectively. The results of for funding support and Umea and Umea Wastewater treatment
sensitivity analysis clearly indicate that the overall plant for providing key data on production of biogas.
environmental performance of using LBM as a fuel in TTs
greatly depends on alternate source of electricity and heat used References
by WWTP when biogas is avoided at cogeneration unit.
[1] Eurostat. Eurostat Road freight transport by vehicle characteristics. 2017
15.09.2017]; Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
3.4. Uncertainty analysis explained/index.php/Road_freight_transport_by_vehicle_characteristics
[2] eurostat. Road frieght transport by journey characteristics. 2016 [cited
The results of uncertainty analysis are shown in Figure 5. 2017 Feb 16th 2017 ]; Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php/Road_freight_transport_by_journey_characteristics
[3] Delgado, A. and R. Muncrief, Assessment of heavy-duty natural gas
vehicle emissions: Implications and policy recommendations 2015,
International Council on Clean Transportation: Washington, USA. p. 1-
42
[4] Dominguez, J., LNG blue corridors. 2014, European Commission:
Brussels, Belgium. p. 1-31
[5] Johansson, N., Production of liquid biogas, LBG, with cryogenic and
conventional upgrading technology, in Environmental and Energy
System Studies. 2008, Lund University: Lund, Sweden. p. 1-94
[6] association, E.b., EBA s Biomethane factsheet. 2013
[7] Tobias Persson, M.S., Non-grid biomethane transportation in sweden
and the development of liquified biogas market, in Energy from biogas,
D. Baxter, Editor. 2014, IEA Bioenergy Task 37: Sweden
[8] ISO, Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles
and framework, in ISO 14040:2006 I.o.f. standardization, Editor. 2007
[9] Simapro. Simapro. [cited 2017; Available from: https://simapro.com/
[10] Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent Database V3.2. 2015; Available from:
Fig.5. Uncertainty analysis of LBM and Diesel TT Systems http://www.ecoinvent.org/database/ecoinvent-32/ecoinvent-32.html
[11] SIAD, Micro and mini biomethane or natural gas liquefaction plant.
The probability of LBM-TT system having lower 2015, SIAD: Bergamo, Italy. p. 1-24
environmental impact than Diesel TT system is 100% in GWP, [12] EBARA. Cryogenic centrifugal pump efficiency calculator. 2016 [cited
FDP and AP categories, and close to 100% in PMFP, POFP and 2017 November 4 2017]; Available from:
http://www.ebaracryo.com/cryogenic-centrifugal-pump-efficiency-
ODP categories. On the other hand, the probability of LBM TT calculator/
system having higher impacts than Diesel TT is 100% in AETP [13] Prometheus. LNG quick facts. 2017 [cited 2017 November 4th 2017];
category. The MEP impact of LBM TT is lower than Diesel TT Available from: http://www.prometheusenergy.com/services/storage-
regas-field-services
75% of the time. The probability of Diesel TT system having a [14] Rosenstiel, D.P.V., et al., LNG in Germany: Liquefied natural gas and
lower HTP impact than LBM TT is high whereas both have renewable methane in heavy duty transport. 2014, German Energy
almost equal probability in FEP impact category. This indicates Agency: Berlin, Germany. p. 1-28
[15] Schubert, R. and M. Kromer, Heavy duty truck retrofit technolohy:
that optimizing energy consumption of LBM upgradation and Assessment and regulatory approach. 2008, TIAX LLC: Berkeley, CA,
liquefaction will have positive influence, i.e. contributing to the USA. p. 1-33
reduction of FEP impact but AETP and HTP remains high. [16] Ricardo, The role of natua gas and biomethane in the transport sector.
Overall the study suggests that fuel shift from diesel to LBM 2016, Ricardo Energy and Environment: Didcot, UK. p. 1-85
[17] Banks, C., Optimizing anaerobic digestion. 2009, University of
improves the environmental performance of TT. However, the Southampton: Southampton, UK. p. 1-39
magnitude of environmental benefits of diverting biogas as a [18] IGU, Natural gas conversion pocket book. 2012, International Gas
feedstock for transport fuel (instead of using it for cogeneration Union: Barcelona, Spain. p. 1-40
[19] RVIM. ReCiPe. 2011 [cited 2017 November 4 2017]; Available from:
of heat and electricity) is highly dependent on alternate source http://www.rivm.nl/en/Topics/L/Life_Cycle_Assessment_LCA/ReCiPe
of electricity and heat required for operation of WWTP. This is [20] gasrec. Liquefied biomethane 2016 [cited 2017 November 23rd 2017];
evident from sensitivity analysis results where changing the Available from: http://www.gasrec.co.uk/lbm/
[21] CoC, The future of heating in UK buildings 2016, Committee on
source of electricity from SE to UK grid (and heat from wood Climate Change: London, UK. p. 1
chips to natural gas) resulted in reduction of environmental [22] Ricardo-AEA, Provision of HGV emissions testing: RM4470-SB2925.
performance of LBM TT system. )URP6ZHGHQ¶VSHUVSHFWLYH 2015, Ricardo-AEA Limited: Didcot, UK. p. 1-121
[23] Ibrahim, A.E.D.M., Nox and Sox emissions and climate changes. World
the toxicity related impacts could be reduced in the future as
Applied Sciences Journal 2014. 31(8): p. 1422-1426
nuclear power is anticipated to be phased out in Sweden by [24] Caroll, S., The coca-cola enterprises biomethane trial report. 2012,
2040. Currently, 50 TWh of power in Sweden is nuclear and by Cenex: Loughborough, UK. p. 1-31
2030 will be reduce to 20 TWh and zero by 2040 [27]. The [25] Long, A.E., Life cycle assessment analysis of coal versus nuclear power
in Levy county, Florida, in Urban and Regional Planning. 2011,
results of this LCA are to be considered as screening level and University of Florida: Gainsvelle, Florida. p. 1-114
need to be supported with a detailed full scale LCA in future. [26] von-Sperling, E., Hydropower in Brazil: overview of positive and
negative environmental aspects. Energy Procedia, 2012. 18: p. 110-118
[27] Mathias, G., et al., Energy scenario for Sweden 2050: Based on
Acknowledgements renewable energy technologies and sources. 2011, Swedish
Environmental Research Instiute Goteborg, Sweden. p. 1-100
The authors would like to acknowledge Green Technologies
and Environmental Economics Platform at Umea University