scholarly journals Cost Benefit Analysis of Using Clean Energy Supplies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Global Automotive Manufacturing

Energies ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (10) ◽  
pp. 1478-1494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiang Zhai ◽  
Huajun Cao ◽  
Xiang Zhao ◽  
Chris Yuan
Energy Policy ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 45 ◽  
pp. 122-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Makena Coffman ◽  
James P. Griffin ◽  
Paul Bernstein

World ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 456-481
Author(s):  
Yifan Wang ◽  
Laurence A. Wright

Global maritime transportation is responsible for around 3% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and significant proportions of SOx, NOx, and PM emissions. Considering the predicted growth in shipping volumes to 2050, greenhouse gas emissions from ships must be cut by 75–85% per ton-mile to meet Paris Agreement goals. This study reviews the potential of a range of alternative fuels for decarbonisation in maritime. A systematic literature review and information synthesis method was applied to evaluate fuel characteristics, production pathways, utilization technologies, energy efficiency, lifecycle environmental performance, economic viability, and current applicable policies. Alternative fuels are essential to decarbonisation in international shipping. However, findings suggest there is no single route to deliver the required greenhouse gas emissions reductions. Emissions reductions vary widely depending on the production pathways of the fuel. Alternative fuels utilising a carbon-intensive production pathway will not provide decarbonisation, instead shifting emissions elsewhere in the supply chain. Ultimately, a system-wide perspective to creating an effective policy framework is required in order to promote the adoption of alternative propulsion technologies.


2012 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 660
Author(s):  
Mathew Nelson

The oil and gas industry in Australia consists of a range of complicated joint venture (JV) and processing arrangements. With a future price on carbon in the Clean Energy Future Legislation Package, parties are keen to understand their carbon liabilities where they have interests (both operated and non-operated), and the extent to which a price on carbon can be passed on to customers. Many oil and gas companies have been reporting greenhouse gas emissions from their facilities to the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency since 2009 using the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System framework. Subsequently, numerous companies from the sector have developed greenhouse gas reporting systems linking into existing oil and gas production allocation systems. These companies are now turning their attention to using this information to allocate greenhouse gas emissions from their facilities to specific oil and gas sales products, as well as to JV partners. This extended abstract, which includes a case study, explores these developments and discusses the key considerations when allocating greenhouse gas emissions to specific products and JV partners. Also explored are the following questions: What assumptions need to be made at the facility level for emissions associated with extracting, processing and refining specific products ready for sale? How robust and defensible are these assumptions? How do you build these assumptions into a system or model that allocates emissions to different products? What processes do you then put in place to allocate emissions to specific JV partners, and what information will be reported to them and what quality and assurance processes need to be in place to provide comfort to your JV partners of the robustness of the numbers? How will the costs associated with carbon be allocated?


2010 ◽  
Vol 1 (08) ◽  
pp. 1357-1362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Rodrigues ◽  
Tomaz Dentinho ◽  
C. Silva ◽  
E. Azevedo

1994 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Erdmann

AbstractThe basic message put forward by Spash is sound, namely that cost-benefit analysis (CBA) can hardly be used to address the question of how much money society should optimally spend in order to avoid greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, the points in Spash’s paper against the use of CBA for the GHG assessment vary in their significance.


Author(s):  
John S. Dryzek ◽  
Richard B. Norgaard ◽  
David Schlosberg

It is all very well to contemplate what policies are likely to prove effective and just, as we did in Chapters 4 and 5, but that assumes we have some effective authority to put them into practice. So comparisons of (for example) emissions trading schemes against carbon taxes as ways of achieving greenhouse gas emissions reduction need some kind of body to craft the policy and implement it effectively. Sometimes that body will be a sovereign government, but sometimes the government is missing altogether or has only partial jurisdiction—for example, if a carbon trading scheme can extend across national boundaries. When government is missing we can however still speak of processes of governance— notably at the global level. “Governance” is a broader concept that allows for more fluid, informal, and transnational arrangements, though it can also include government as conventionally defined. Global inaction on greenhouse gas emission reduction and inadequate national policies are sometimes blamed simply on an absence of political will. But a big part of the story is that if we can’t get the structure and process of governance right, we are not going to get the policies right. So it remains remarkable that some high-profile proposals either ignore the governance question altogether, or treat it in simplistic terms. For an example of ignoring governance altogether (doubly remarkable in that the person doing it is a political scientist) consider the policy proposals ranked by a group of experts assembled by Bjørn Lomborg under the auspices of his Copenhagen Consensus Center (Lomborg, 2010). Using cost–benefit analysis plus expert judgment, the top three solutions were: 1. Marine cloud whitening research 2. Energy research and development 3. Stratospheric aerosol insertion research The first of these would require creating mists from sea water to create clouds that better reflect sunlight, the third injecting tiny particles into the atmosphere to simulate the cooling effects of volcanic eruptions. Though cast in terms of “research” the reason for this ranking is the anticipated net benefit of the anticipated policy (policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions came bottom).


Author(s):  
Ioan Pavel ◽  
Radu Radoi ◽  
Gabriela Matache ◽  
Ana-Maria Popescu

Biomass stores solar energy that man can convert into electricity, fuel or heat, resulting in cheap, clean energy with a negative carbon balance. The use of biomass from agricultural secondary production as a potential energy source can improve soil quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a complementary, non-competing way. The paper presents a piece of combustion equipment performing the burning process by biomass gasification on the TLUD (Top-Lit UpDraft) principle, from which hot air and biochar are obtained. The main function of this type of gas generator set on the TLUD principle is to generate a syngas flame which can be used as a heat source. The biochar obtained as a by-product is a sterile, active carbon with a large adsorption surface which is used as a soil amendment in environments with limited capacity for carbon sequestration and in soils depleted of resources. Gasification on the TLUD principle occurs when the biomass layer is introduced into the reactor and rests on a grate through which the air flow for gasification passes from bottom to top. Priming of the gasification process is done by igniting the upper layer of biomass in the reactor. The oxidation front continuously descends consuming the biomass in the reactor. Due to the heat radiated by the oxidation front the biomass is heated, dried, and then it enters a fast pyrolysis process from which volatiles emerge and unconverted carbon remains there. When the combustion front reached the grate, all the volatiles in the biomass were gasified and some of the carbon fixed was reduced; about 10 - 20% of the initial mass in the form of sterile charcoal, called biochar, remains on the grill. Compared to wood direct combustion or gasification combustion processes, the TLUD gasification process is characterized by very low values of the superficial velocity of gas passing through the pyrolysis front. The slow process maintains superficial velocity of the generator gas produced at very low values, which ensures reduced carrying away of free ash of approximate size below PM2.5 and maxim values of 5 mg/MJbm when leaving the burner; such values are well below the target imposed in the EU in 2015 for biomass combustion processes, which is below 25 mg/MJ. The result of monitoring the gasification process can be used to automate and optimize the TLUD process in order to achieve green energy, for carbon sequestration in the obtained biochar and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, thus contributing to achieving efficient protection of the environment and to ensuring sustainable energy development


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document