Hvad betyder omlægning af transport til gas For CO2 reduktion? Kim Winther

CO2 er hovedproblemet

Motorteknologi alene kan ikke løse CO2 problemet The GHG emission can only partially be solved with new engines.

Nye brændstoffer kræves for at løse CO2 problemet Note that several methodologies exist for CO2 calculation! OS: Oil Sands FW: Farmed wood WW:Waste wood T: Tallow

Veje til gasdrevet transport – hvad er bedst for DK? CNG Methanol Syntetisk benzin LNG DME GTL Hydrogen SI engine (gas) Dual fuel (gas-diesel) CI engine (diesel) FCEV Naturgas Biogas Forgasning

Sø og land IEA-AMF Annex 41 Diesel fuel: 200 Megaton/år 200 Megaton/år Heavy fuel: ÷ 5 mio. ton svovl/år ÷ 200 mio. partikelfiltre ÷ 5000 skrubbere + 25 mio. ton gips/år Naturgas: 200 mia. m3/år x 200 mio. IEA-AMF Annex 41

Muligheder for anvendelse af gas i dansk infrastruktur LNG tanker Biogas Naturgas net Liquefaction LNG terminal LCNG 5 min. 2 min. 12 hours 5 min. 80-90% LNG CNG Fast Fill requires a buffer, therefore more expensive than slow fill LCNG pumps and evaporators are less expensive than CNG compressors and tanks Liquefaction kræver kryopumper, derfor ikke økonomisk

Mulighed for anvendelse af naturgas i eksisterende køretøjer GTL: Naturgasbaseret diesel Svovlfri Aromatfri Højt cetantal

GTL er omtrent lige så udbredt som CNG 2011 Kilde: IEA

IEA-AMF Anneks 39-2 GTL synes at være en overlegen teknologi Gas-diesel/LNG foretrækkes på tunge køretøjer pga. virkningsgrad, rækkevidde og trækkraft Emissionerne for gas-diesel under transient last skal undersøges nærmere På LNG køretøjer kan der optræde metan lækage

Methan slip (GWP i forhold til diesel) Fra CH4 i røggas + 0,6 % GWP for støkiometrisk gasmotor (Faktor 23) + 3,9 % GWP for lean burn motor (Faktor 23) + 0 - 8 % GWP for Dual Fuel motorer (Marinetek 2010 / MAN ME-GI) Katalysatorløsning findes (Clean Air Power) Afdampning fra LNG tank + 0 - 800 % GWP (0-100% tab) Fra CNG tank +0 – 16 % GWP (0-2% spild under tankning)

Diesel og CNG er på samme niveau (EN16258)

Biogas og lossepladsgas vinder, CNG, GTL og diesel er på samme niveau (GHGenius) Source: http://pim.sagepub.com/content/225/2/97.full.pdf+html

Biogas vinder, naturgas taber, GTL og diesel er på niveau (RED) Source: http://pim.sagepub.com/content/225/2/97.full.pdf+html

Biogas og lossepladsgas vinder, CNG og GTL taber (Greet) Source: http://pim.sagepub.com/content/225/2/97.full.pdf+html

Biogas en klar vinder (personbiler - JEC) EU Joint Research Center 2007

Konklusioner Kim Winther Senior consultant CO2 er hovedfjenden i fremtidens transport Det kræver alternative brændstoffer at reducere CO2 i transporten Naturgas og GTL er ikke løsningen på lang sigt Biogas og lossepladsgas er de bedste CO2 alternativer Metan udslip skal begrænses Kim Winther Senior consultant Danish Technological Institute Use of LNG is claimed to reduce the direct combustion emissions of CO2 by about 25 per cent because LNG has a higher hydrogen-to-carbon ratio than diesel oils, but the effect on GHG emissions is counteracted by possible methane (CH4) slip. Today, bunkering of LNG is not fully developed A recent study from Sweden has underscored growing doubts over the claimed environmental benefits of using liquefied natural gas as a ship’s fuel. The study, from Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, suggests that while many proponents of LNG fuel highlight a 20% improvement in global warming potential, this could be significantly less depending on various factors, including methane slip during combustion, production and transportation. This is not the first study to raise questions over the well-to-propeller emissions from fuels. A study earlier in the year from the Dutch research institute Marin highlighted similar issues and a report from Norway’s Marintek also posed questions over the supposed benefits of using LNG compared to using distillate fuels or heavy fuel oil. The Swedish study, Life Cycle Assessment of Marine Fuels, agreed with the generally held belief that LNG fuel produces little SOx and a lot less NOx than diesel oils or heavy fuel oils. It says that if an engine has no methane slip, and the same engine efficiency as one using HFO, then the global warming potential can be as much as the 20% claimed by advocates of the process. However, the benefits will only be 12% better in the base line study used in the report and 8% in the worst case scenario. One of the factors often ignored, the report implies, is the methane slip during production and delivery of the LNG to the vessel that will use it as a fuel. The recent spate of reports highlighting the global warming potential of LNG comes as debate over the use of gas becomes highly political. With European Union member states looking to improve their environmental standing they are keen to support new ideas and are using the predicted growth in gas availability, and its greener credentials during combustion, to help their cause.