Evaluation of Difference between LNG and Diesel Heavy-duty Commercial Vehicle's Life Cycle Environmental Emission

China Mechanical Engineering ›› 2013, Vol. 24 ›› Issue (11): 1525-1530.

Previous Articles Next Articles

Evaluation of Difference between LNG and Diesel Heavy-duty Commercial Vehicle's Life Cycle Environmental Emission

Tu Xiaoyue1;Yang Yanping1 Xu Jianquan1,2 Chen Yisong1

1.The State Key Laboratory of Advanced Design and Manufacturing for Vehicle Body,Hunan University,Changsha,410082
2.Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University,Fuzhou,350002

Online:2013-06-10 Published:2013-06-04
Supported by:

National Natural Science Foundation of China（No. 70973034，71173072）;
Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of the Ministry of Education（No. 20090161110008）

LNG重型商用车和柴油重型商用车全生命周期环境排放差异评价

涂小岳1;杨沿平1;徐建全1,2;陈轶嵩1

1.湖南大学汽车车身先进设计制造国家重点实验室,长沙,410082
2.福建农林大学,福州,350002

基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助项目（70973034，71173072）；教育部博士点基金资助项目（20090161110008）
National Natural Science Foundation of China（No. 70973034，71173072）;
Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of the Ministry of Education（No. 20090161110008）

Abstract

Abstract:

An evaluation model of the difference between LNG and diesel heavy-duty commercial vehicles' life cycle emissions was established. Through an empirical analysis of the LNG and the diesel heavy-duty commercial vehicle, it is found that the NOx, SOx and PM of the LNG vehicle are reduced by 32.83%, 83.68% and 100% relatively comparing to the diesel vehicle, but CO emission is increased by 21.39%, the HC emission increases 7.83 times.Meanwhile, the LNG heavy-duty commercial vehicles' CO2 emission in the using phase is 6.82% less than that of the diesel vehicle, but 8.88% more in the whole life cycle.

Key words: liquified natural gas(LNG) heavy-duty commercial vehicle, life cycle assessment, environmental emission;difference

摘要：

基于生命周期评价理论建立了液化天然气(liquified natural gas, LNG)重型商用车与柴油重型商用车的生命周期环境排放差异评价模型。通过实证分析,LNG搅拌车和柴油搅拌车相比,NOx排放量减少了32.83%,SOx排放量减少了83.68%,PM排放量减少了100%;而CO排放量却增加了21.39%,HC排放量增加了7.83倍。在CO2排放方面,使用阶段LNG搅拌车的排放量比柴油搅拌车减少了6.82%,全生命周期LNG搅拌车的排放量比柴油搅拌车减少了8.88%。

关键词: LNG重型商用车, 生命周期评价, 环境排放, 差异

CLC Number:

U465

CHU Xiao-Yue-1, YANG Yan-Beng-1, XU Jian-Quan-1, 2, CHEN Die-Song-1. Evaluation of Difference between LNG and Diesel Heavy-duty Commercial Vehicle's Life Cycle Environmental Emission[J]. China Mechanical Engineering, 2013, 24(11): 1525-1530.

涂小岳1, 杨沿平1, 徐建全1, 2, 陈轶嵩1. LNG重型商用车和柴油重型商用车全生命周期环境排放差异评价[J]. 中国机械工程, 2013, 24(11): 1525-1530.

References

[1]张晓萌,李武.我国液化天然气汽车发展前景的探讨[J].汽车工业研究, 2009(9):23-25.
Zhang Xiaomeng,Li Wu.The Discussion of Liquefied Natural Gas Vehicle Development Prospects in Our Country[J]. Auto Industry Research, 2009(9):23-25.
[2]李西秦，刘冰.燃气汽车发动机研究现状与发展趋势[J].天然气工业，2009,29(4):105-108.
Li Xiqin,Liu Bin. Research Status and Development Trend of Gas-fueled Vehicle Engine[J].Natural Gas Industry, 2009,29(4):105-108.
[3]王寿兵,董辉,王如松,等.中国某轿车生命周期内能耗和环境排放特性[J]．复旦学报(自然科学版)，2006,45(3):328-334.
Wang Shoubin,Dong Hui,Wang Rusong,et al.Life Cycle Inventory of a China Car[J]. Journal of Fudan University (Natural Science), 2006,45(3):328-334.
[4]胡志远，浦耿强，王成焘.木薯乙醇汽油车生命周期排放评价[J].汽车工程，2004，26(1)：16-19.
Hu Zhiyuan,Pu Gengqiang,Wang Chengtao. Life Cycle Emission Assessment of Cassava-Based Ethanol-Gasoline Dual Fuel Vehicle[J]. Automotive Engineering，2004，26(1)：16-19.
[5]胡志远，张成，浦耿强，等.木薯乙醇汽油生命周期能源、环境及经济性评价[J].内燃机工程，2004,25(1):13-16.
Hu zhiyuan,ZhangCheng,Pu Gengqiang. Life-cycle Energy,Environment and Economy Assessment of Cassava-Based Ethanol Gasoline[J].Chinese Internal Combustion Engine Engineering, 2004,25(1):13-16.
[6]邵新宇，邓超，吴军,等.产品设计中生命周期评价与生命周期成本的集成与优化[J]. 机械工程学报，2008，44(9)：13-20.
Shao Xinyu, Deng Chao, Wu Jun, et al.Integration and Optimization of Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing for Product Design[J].Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2008，44(9)：13-20.
[7]浦耿强，胡志远，王成焘.木薯乙醇—汽油混合燃料生命周期排放多目标优化研究[J].环境科学，2004，25(5)：37-42.
Pu Gengqiang,Hu Zhiyuan,Wang Chengtao.Multi-objectives Optimization on Life Cycle Pollutants Emission of Cassava-based Ethanol Blended Gasoline Fuels[J].Environmental Science,2004，25(5)：37-42.
[8]李飞龙，郭孔辉，杨沿平,等.基于GREET模型的汽车材料轻量化能耗评价研究[J].中国机械工程，2013， 24(5)：681-684.
Li Feilong, Guo Konghui, Yang Yanping, et al. Research on Assessment of Energy Saving in Light-weight of Automotive Material Based on GREET Model[J].China Mechanical Engeneering, 2013,24(5)：681-684.
[9]Di Xianghua, Nie Zuoren, Yuan Baorong, et al.Life Cycle Inventory for Electricity Generation in China[J]. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2007, 12(4):217-224.
[10]狄向华. 资源与材料生命周期分析中若干基础问题的研究[D].北京：北京工业大学，2005.
[11]高峰.生命周期评价研究及其在中国镁工业中的应用[D].北京：北京工业大学，2008.
[12]朱光强，朱诚意．钢铁冶金的环保与节能[M].北京：冶金工业出版社，2006.
[13]国家环保局科技标准司.工业污染物产生和排放系数手册[M]. 北京：中国环境科学出版社，2003.

Evaluation of Difference between LNG and Diesel Heavy-duty Commercial Vehicle's Life Cycle Environmental Emission

LNG重型商用车和柴油重型商用车全生命周期环境排放差异评价

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 6

Recommended Articles

Metrics

[1]	XU Jianquan1;YANG Yanping2. Whole Life Cycle Assessment of Automotive Products Considering Recycling Processes [J]. China Mechanical Engineering, 2019, 30(11): 1343-1351.
[2]	GU Fu, GU Xinjian, Zhang Wujie, Ni Yihua. Transparent and Fair LCA Method for Products [J]. China Mechanical Engineering, 2018, 29(21): 2539-2545.
[3]	CHEN Yisong, DING Zhensen, LIU Jiahui, MA Jinqiu. Life Cycle Assessment and Prediction of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Vehicles for 2020 [J]. China Mechanical Engineering, 2018, 29(21): 2546-2552,2564.
[4]	ZHENG Handong, CHEN Yi, LI Enzhong, SHI Peijing, XU Binshi. LCA Modeling and Applications for RPSS [J]. China Mechanical Engineering, 2018, 29(18): 2197-2203.
[5]	Tu Xiaoyue1;Xu Jianquan1,2;Chen Yisong1;Yang Yanping1. An Evaluation of Differences between LNG and Diesel Commercial Vehicle's Life Cycle Energy Consumption [J]. China Mechanical Engineering, 2013, 24(23): 3211-3215.
[6]	BAO Hong, LIU Guang-Bi, ZHANG Lei, WANG Jin-Jing. Product Configuration Design Oriented to Satisfaction for Diversity and Green Requirements [J]. China Mechanical Engineering, 2012, 23(7): 815-822.