TY - JOUR
T1 - Life cycle assessment of yard tractors using hydrogen fuel at the Port of Kaohsiung, Taiwan
AU - Chang, Ching Chih
AU - Huang, Po Chien
AU - Tu, Jhih Sheng
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors acknowledge the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan , ROC for providing partial funding to support under contract numbers MOST 107-2410-H-006-076 .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2019/12/15
Y1 - 2019/12/15
N2 - The purpose of this study is to use LCA to evaluate different fuel usage in yard tractors, which include diesel, electric, LNG, and hydrogen fuel cells. This study refers to ISO regulations to assess the investigation. Empirical results show (1) for the diesel yard tractor, the total carbon emissions is 43,870.60 kgCO2e, and the carbon footprint is 6.40×10−6 kgCO2e/TK. The hotspot is the usage stage (76.83% of the total emissions); (2) for the electric yard tractor, the total carbon emissions is 16,563.63 kgCO2e, and the carbon footprint is 2.42×10−6 kgCO2e/TK. The major emission hotspot is the raw material stage (96.15% of the total emissions); (3) for the LNG yard tractor, the total carbon emissions is 33,560.09 kgCO2e, and the carbon footprint is 4.89×10−6 kgCO2e/TK. The main emissions hotspot is the usage stage (85.04% of the total emissions); (4) for the hydrogen yard tractor, the total carbon emissions is 13,709.87 kgCO2e, and the carbon footprint is 2.00×10−6 kgCO2e/TK. The biggest emission's hotspot is the raw material stage (95.32% of the total emissions). The results demonstrate that the better fuel alternative to use for yard tractors is hydrogen, which has the greatest effect on GHG mitigation, followed by electric and LNG.
AB - The purpose of this study is to use LCA to evaluate different fuel usage in yard tractors, which include diesel, electric, LNG, and hydrogen fuel cells. This study refers to ISO regulations to assess the investigation. Empirical results show (1) for the diesel yard tractor, the total carbon emissions is 43,870.60 kgCO2e, and the carbon footprint is 6.40×10−6 kgCO2e/TK. The hotspot is the usage stage (76.83% of the total emissions); (2) for the electric yard tractor, the total carbon emissions is 16,563.63 kgCO2e, and the carbon footprint is 2.42×10−6 kgCO2e/TK. The major emission hotspot is the raw material stage (96.15% of the total emissions); (3) for the LNG yard tractor, the total carbon emissions is 33,560.09 kgCO2e, and the carbon footprint is 4.89×10−6 kgCO2e/TK. The main emissions hotspot is the usage stage (85.04% of the total emissions); (4) for the hydrogen yard tractor, the total carbon emissions is 13,709.87 kgCO2e, and the carbon footprint is 2.00×10−6 kgCO2e/TK. The biggest emission's hotspot is the raw material stage (95.32% of the total emissions). The results demonstrate that the better fuel alternative to use for yard tractors is hydrogen, which has the greatest effect on GHG mitigation, followed by electric and LNG.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072802988&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072802988&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.energy.2019.116222
DO - 10.1016/j.energy.2019.116222
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85072802988
SN - 0360-5442
VL - 189
JO - Energy
JF - Energy
M1 - 116222
ER -
