Air quality effects of alternative fuels : final report

Details

• Creators:
  Guthrie, P ; Ligocki, M ; Looker, R ; Cohen, J
• Corporate Contributors:
  National Renewable Energy Laboratory (U.S.) ; Systems Applications International
• Subject/TRT Terms:
  Air Quality Alternate Fuels Benzene Butadiene Compressed Natural Gas Formaldehyde Mathematical Models Methanol Fuels Ozone Reformulated Gasoline
• Publication/ Report Number:
  NREL/SR-540-23896
• Resource Type:
  Research Paper
• TRIS Online Accession Number:
  806916
• Corporate Publisher:
  National Renewable Energy Laboratory (U.S.)
• NTL Classification:
  NTL-ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT-Air Quality ; NTL-ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT-Alternative Fuels ; AGR-IMPACTS-Environment
• Abstract:
  This report presents the results of Phase 1 of a comparison of the potential air quality effects of alternative transportation fuels. The focus is on reformulated gasoline (RFG), methanol blended with 15% gasoline (M85), and compressed natural gas (CNG). The fuels are compared in terms of their effects on simulated future concentrations of ozone and mobile source air toxics (formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, benzene, and 1,3-butadiene) in a photochemical grid model. The fuel comparisons were carried out for the future year 2020 and assumed complete replacement of gasoline in the projected light-duty gasoline fleet by each of the candidate fuels. The model simulations were carried out for the areas surrounding Los Angeles and Baltimore/DC, and other (non-mobile) sources of atmospheric emissions were projected according to published estimates of economic and population growth, and planned emission control measures specific to each modeling domain. The future-year results are compared to a future-year run with all gasoline vehicle emissions removed. The results of this Phase 1 fuel comparison indicate that the use of M85 is likely to produce similar ozone and air toxics levels as those projected from the use of RFG, both for Los Angeles (using a California definition of RFG) and for Baltimore (using a Federal definition of RFG). Substitution of CNG is projected to produce significantly lower levels of ozone and the mobile source air toxics than those projected for either RFG or M85. The relative benefits of CNG substitution are consistent in both modeling domains.
• Format:
  PDF
• Funding:
  DE-AC36-83CH10093
• Collection(s):
  US Transportation Collection
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha256:2e56f5d704aed70398ea8a1acdb53745376c5dfe532ca4c395453daf0d249c7e
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/14361/dot_14361_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 16.77 MB ]