In recent years, people have begun to prioritize the use of alternative fuels to reduce the environmental damage caused by fossil fuels. The transition to new energy sources represents a revolution that will help decarbonize the automotive industry. But how much real benefit can these new energy sources provide in reducing the carbon footprint generated by transportation?
Gasoline and Diesel
In terms of conventional fuels, diesel engines produce a lower carbon footprint than gasoline (about 13%). As a result, diesel has lower greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline in the acquisition, conversion and distribution, and use phases.
On the other hand, gasoline and diesel hybrid technologies can reduce the carbon footprint by 18% and 26%, respectively, compared to conventional internal combustion engines, and by 17% and 37%, respectively, in the fuel use phase.
Natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas
Compared to gasoline, compressed natural gas produces an 18 percent reduction in impact over the entire life cycle of the energy source. However, compared to diesel, the reduction is only 5%.
On the other hand, LPG has a 16% reduction compared to gasoline and therefore has a similar carbon footprint reduction to natural gas.
While natural gas has a more significant impact during the fuel acquisition and distribution phase, LPG is less effective in reducing its carbon footprint during emissions through the vehicle’s exhaust.
Biofuels
In the case of biofuels, it must be taken into account that the CO2 emissions from their combustion process are similar to the CO2 absorbed by plants during their growth. Therefore, in this respect, their emissions can be considered neutral.
In the case of choosing a representative production route for each biofuel, selected according to the medium-term availability of combustion and the production process implemented in Europe, bioethanol reduces the carbon footprint of the whole life cycle by 28% compared to gasoline. Furthermore, its carbon footprint will be negative in the acquisition phase due to the possibility of absorbing CO2.
On the other hand, compared to gasoline, biodiesel reduces its carbon footprint by 54% over the whole cycle. The former also shows negative emissions in the first phase due to the CO2 absorption taken into account.
Electric vehicles
Using the 2016 European power generation system, the carbon footprint generated by the energy life cycle used by electric vehicles is 68% lower than that of gasoline. In the use phase, the carbon footprint is reduced by up to 100%, i.e., zero emissions.
However, the emissions associated with the production process of electrical energy are 71% higher than gasoline in the energy acquisition stage. In 2016, the energy mix used for electricity generation in Europe was 43% fossil, 29% renewable and 26% nuclear.
Synthetic fuels and hydrogen
The advantages of synthetic fuels are that the former is independent of non-renewable sources such as oil, and synthetic fuels can be used in existing vehicles without developing new technologies for engines.
Their production pathways are diverse and produce widely varying carbon footprint values. For example, choosing wood waste as a source produces carbon emissions that are 99% lower than gasoline, while choosing coal is 188% higher.
As for hydrogen, its carbon footprint is 50% lower than gasoline over its entire life cycle and 100% lower in the use phase. In contrast, depending on the hydrogen production process, the carbon footprint generated during the hydrogen acquisition phase can be 167% higher than gasoline, specifically referring to the so-called grey hydrogen, the former being the main production route today.
Thus, grey hydrogen has a more significant impact on climate change than electric vehicles and vehicles using biofuels or synthetic fuels.
Their production pathways are diverse and produce widely varying carbon footprint values. For example, choosing wood waste as a source produces carbon emissions that are 99% lower than gasoline, while choosing coal is 188% higher.
As for hydrogen, its carbon footprint is 50% lower compared to gasoline over its entire life cycle and 100% lower in the use phase. In contrast, depending on the hydrogen production process, the carbon footprint generated during the hydrogen acquisition phase can be 167% higher than that of gasoline, specifically referring here to the so-called grey hydrogen, the former being the main production route today.
Thus, grey hydrogen has a greater impact on climate change than electric vehicles and vehicles using biofuels or synthetic fuels.