Alternatives to Diesel Fuel in California: Fuel-Cycle Energy and Emission Effects of Possible Replacements due to the Toxic Air Contaminant Diesel Particulate Decision

Abstract

Limitations on the use of petroleum-based diesel fuel in California could occur pursuant to declaration by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that the particulate matter component of diesel exhaust is a toxic air contaminant subject to the state’s Proposition 65. It is the declared intention of CARB not to ban diesel fuel, per se, at this time. Assuming no total ban, Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) explored two feasible “midcourse” strategies that result in some degree of (conventional) diesel displacement. In the first case, substantial displacement of compression-ignition (CI) by spark-ignition engines occurs and diesel fuel remains admissible for ignition assistance as a pilot fuel in natural gas–powered heavy-duty vehicles. Daily gasoline demand in California increases by 32.2 million L (8.5 million gal) overall, about 21 percent above the 2010 baseline demand projected by California’s energy and environmental agencies. Daily natural gas demand increases by 13.6 million diesel L (3.6 million gal) equivalents, about 7 percent above projected (total) consumption level. In the second case, CI engines utilize substitutes having similar ignition and performance properties for petroleum-based diesel. For each case, ANL estimated localized air emission plus generalized greenhouse gas and energy changes. Fuel replacement by dimethyl ether yields the greatest overall reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions. All scenarios bring about fine particulate matter (PM₁₀) reductions relative to the 2010 baseline, with greatest reductions from the CI-displacement case and the least from fuel replacement by Fischer-Tropsch synthetic diesel. Institutional and cost implications of vehicle and engine replacement were not formally evaluated.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

California Air Resources Board. Predicted California Vehicle Emissions, Ozone Planning Inventory, MVEI7G Emission Factors Scenario (computer model run). May 27, 1997. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/pubs/sw_scab.pdf. Accessed April and June 1998.

California Air Resources Board. Emissions by Category, 1995 Estimated Emissions, Statewide; Emissions by Category, 2010 Forecasted Emissions. 1997. URL since withdrawn.

Truck Inventory and Use Survey. California Truck Registration and Usage: Summary of California Based Trucks by GVW Class, Fuel Type, and Engine Displacement, 1992 (CD-ROM). Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, June 1995.

Delucchi

M. A.

Emissions of Non-CO₂ Greenhouse Gases from the Production and Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity. Report UCD-ITS-RR-97-5. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis, 1997.

Draft 1998 Inventory for U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (1990-1996). Environmental Protection Agency, 1998.

Federal Transit Administration. New Bus Model Testing Program. Dec. 12, 1997. http://www.pti.psu.edu/open/fta/ftaopen.htm. Accessed April 1998.

1996 Transit Fact Book. American Public Transportation Association (formerly American Public Transit Association), Washington, D.C., 1997.

Engine Fuel and Emissions Engineering, Inc. Controlling Locomotive Emissions in California. California Air Resources Board, Oct. 13, 1993.

Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales, 1996. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/pet_frame.html. Accessed March and May 1998.

10.

Proposed Identification of Diesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part A, Exposure Assessment. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, Feb. 23, 1998.

11.

Emission Inventory Procedural Manual, v. 3: Methods for Assessing Area Source Emissions. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, 1995.

12.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Alternative-Fueled Truck Demonstration Natural Gas Program: Caterpillar G3406LE Development and Demonstration. 1996. http://www.afdc.nrel.gov/demoproj/hdv/hdvrpts/vonsec1.html. Accessed June 1998.

13.

Burlington Northern Railroad. The Natural Gas Locomotive at Burlington Northern Railroad. Proceedings of the Pacific Rim TransTech Conference, Seattle, Wash., June 1998.

14.

Wang

M. Q.

GREET 1.5—Transportation Fuel-Cycle Model, Volume 1: Methodology, Development, Use, and Results. Report ANL/ESD-39. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., Aug. 1999.

15.

Hansen

J. B.

Large Scale Manufacture of Dimethyl Ether—A New Alternative Diesel Fuel from Natural Gas. SAE Technical Paper 950063. Society of Automotive Engineers International, Warrendale, Pa., Feb. 1995.

16.

Singleton

A. H.

Advances Make Gas-to-Liquids Process Competitive for Remote Locations. Oil and Gas Journal, Aug. 4, 1997, pp. 68–72.