Alternative fuels in Craiova



Download 3.73 Mb.
Page4/15
Date19.05.2018
Size3.73 Mb.
#48664
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15

C2.1 Economy


Table C2.1.1

Indicator

Before

(date)

B-a-U

(date)

After

(date)

Difference:

After –Before

Difference:

After – B-a-U

Indicator 2 / Average Operating costs (€/vkm)

0.401

(2011)


0.401

(2011)


 

 

 

 

0.402

(2012)


0.396

(2012)


-0.005

-0.006

Differences (%)










-1.32%

-1.56%



Diagram C2.1.1 /Indicator 2

As we expected the total costs of the new technology based on biodiesel B20, reported to the unit of activity is lower (0,396 EURO/vkm) than the current technology based on the use of diesel fuel (0,402 EURO/vkm) ; this indicator is favorable to the general idea of introducing biodisel in the current activity of public transport company.

However the Public Transport Company - RAT is reluctant to the use of biodiesel blend B20 as a technical solution to reduce costs even the results are promising. The company adopt in this case a cautious attitude due to the fact that the buses are very old and introducing of a new fuel could lead to the removal from circulation of these buses.

C2.2 Energy


Table C2.2.1

Indicator

Before

(date)

B-a-U

(date)

After

(date)

Difference:

After –Before

Difference:

After – B-a-U

Indicator 3 /Vehicle Fuel Efficiency (MJ/vkm)

15.61

(2011)


15.61

(2011)


 

 

 

 

15.05

(2012)


14.43

(2012)


-1.27

-0.71

Differences (%)










-8.14%

-4.72%

The diagrams associated to this indicator are further presented.




Diagram C2.2.1 / Indicator 3

We expected that by using biodiesel B20, this indicator have higher values (be less efficient) ​​than the ex-ante situation or BAU situation in 2012, given the lower energy content of B20 than diesel fuel, which would lead to higher fuel consumption for the same activity.

Contrary to expectations during the demonstration with B20 on 10 buses the energy efficiency was better than the case of using diesel fuel on the same buses. This "anomaly" could be explained by the fact that the monitoring period was short and not all the situations that normally occur during an annual activity, were getting produced.



C2.3 Environment


Table C2.3.1

Indicator

Before

(date)

B-a-U

(date)

After

(date)

Difference:

After –Before

Difference:

After – B-a-U

Indicator 8 / CO2 emissions /vkm)

1345,27 (2011)

1345,27 (2011)

 

 

 

 

1296,96

(2012)


1225,38

(2012)


-119,89



-71,58



(g Differences (%)










-8,91%

-5,52%

Indicator 9 / CO emissions (g/vkm)

46,72

(2011)


46,72

(2011)


 

 

 

 

45,04

(2012)


40,76

(2012)


-5,96

-4,28

Differences (%)










-12,76%

-9,51%

Indicator 10 / NOxemissions (g/vkm)

6,20

(2011)


6,20

(2011)


 

 

 

 

5,98

(2012)


7,17

(2012)


0,97

1,20

Differences (%)










15,71%

20,02%

The diagrams associated to the environmental indicators are presented below:




Diagram C2.3.1 / Indicator 8



Diagram C2.3.1 / Indicator 9




Diagram C2.3.1 / Indicator 10
As it was expected, the CO2 emissions decreased and was normally if we think that B20 has a lower carbon content. Biodiesel also contains in his composition (formula) oxygen which contribute to a better combustion, so less CO.

In terms of NOx emissions we have consulted various sources to understand whether or not it is normally to have a growth when using B20. Various studies on this topic produced different reports: for example EPA and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in a study from 2006 stated that B20 has no net impact on NOx4.

Other sources state that NOx emissions are higher for biodiesel but can be significantly reduced depending on engine operating conditions (injection time, engine temperature)5.

There is however a general consensus regarding the fact that biodiesel increases NOxemissions more or less depending on engine type, age, concentration, combustion conditions (temperature, time of injection).

The analysis of the cumulative emissions demonstrates that the the total emissions (we refer to those determined for evaluation) after the Civitas / MODERN intervention were reduced by 8.93 % compared to the situation before the CIVITAS.

Through MODERN project we intended to demonstrate that the introduction of biodiesel fuel leads to the reduction of emissions with 2%, target that was achieved.





Download 3.73 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   15




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message

    Main page