The overall objective of this comparative systems study is to analyse and describe, from a well-to-wheel (WTW) perspective, the energy, greenhouse gas (GHG) and cost performance of existing and potential, new, methane-based vehicle systems solutions. Both thermal gasification (TG) sys-tems using forest residues, anaerobic digestion (AD) systems using organic waste and residues, and natural gas (NG) systems are included, as well as different upgrading technologies and distribution systems including compressed and liquefied methane, gas grids and containers transported by trucks etc. The end-use technologies included are light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles using spark-ignited (SI) otto engines and dual-fuel (DF) diesel engines. The reference systems consist of gaso-line-fuelled, light-duty vehicles and diesel-fuelled, heavy-duty vehicles. The GHG calculations are based on the methodology stated in the EU Renewable Energy Directive (RED), and the methodol-ogy recommended in the ISO standard of life cycle assessment.
The overall conclusion regarding the well-to-tank (WTT) GHG performance of the various renewa-ble methane supply systems, is that these vary only to a limited degree. Thus, the selection of sup-ply and distribution systems will have a minor impact on the WTW GHG performance. A similar conclusion can be drawn for the end-use technologies (tank-to-wheel, TTW), where the minor in-put of fossil diesel in DF trucks is partly compensated for by the higher energy conversion effi-ciency, compared with SI engine trucks. The WTW GHG reduction for the renewable methane sys-tems analysed, compared with the reference gasoline and diesel systems, amounts to roughly 80% or more when the RED calculation methodology is applied. The corresponding reductions for NG-based systems are approximately 10%.
Applying the ISO calculation methodology will give similar reduction levels, but a somewhat changed interrelation between the TG and AD supply systems. Critical aspects regarding the WTW GHG performance are methane losses throughout the fuel chain. One example is methane boil-off emissions from on-board storage tanks of liquefied methane, which may occur if the trucks are not in operation for several days. The relative amount of diesel in DF trucks will also affect the GHG performance, which will be affected by driving patterns and transport operations, as well as the fuel consumption efficiency for SI engine trucks using compressed NG.
The WTW primary energy input is somewhat higher in methane-fuelled vehicle systems than in comparable gasoline- and diesel-fuelled vehicle systems, vaying from +3% up to +33% depending on the type of methane-based powertrain system. The WTW primary energy input in the systems using compressed methane in trucks with SI engines is in the range of 10-15% higher than systems using liquefied methane in DF trucks. If liquefied methane is used as energy carrier in methane-fuelled SI engine trucks, instead of compressed methane, the corresponding total primary energy input increases slightly. A critical aspect regarding the WTW energy efficiency for methane-fuelled SI engine trucks is the fuel consumption, since this may vary due to driving patterns and transport operations. It is assumed that the fuel efficiency of DF trucks and diesel trucks is similar.
The WTT costs of biogas (produced by AD) and bio-methane (produced by TG) vehicle fuel sys-tems are estimated to be similar but these costs from smaller gasification systems are somewhat higher than the costs from the AD systems and larger TG systems. The costs of the different post-treatment and distribution systems of renewable methane are also comparable, and represent in the range of 20-40% of the total WTT costs. Thus, from an economic perspective, the selection of different production, post-treatment and distribution systems of renewable methane vehicle fuel systems are of minor importance. However, there are uncertainties in the WTT cost calculations per-formed, especially regarding the production costs of biogas and bio-methane.
The WTW costs of compressed methane-fuelled, light-duty vehicles are estimated to be in the range of 15-20% higher than the cost of gasoline-fuelled cars, independently of renewable me-thane or NG. The WTW costs include the current market price of the fossil-based fuels, excluding VAT but including other relevant taxes, and the additional vehicle cost of methane-fuelled cars and trucks (thus not the complete cost of the vehicle). For light-duty vehicles, the additional vehicle cost is estimated to represent some 25% of the WTW cost. The WTW costs are sensitive to changes in the market price of fossil-based fuels, including changes in taxes for both fossil and renewable vehicle fuels.
Liquid biogas- and bio-methane-fuelled DF trucks have WTW costs similar to corresponding diesel trucks, whereas liquid NG-fuelled DF trucks have slightly lower WTW costs. Compressed me-thane-fuelled trucks are estimated to have roughly 15-20% higher WTW costs than diesel trucks. The additional TTW costs of methane-fuelled trucks are estimated to represent some 10% of the WTW costs, but this may vary from 5 to 15%. It is estimated that the additional vehicle cost for DF trucks and SI trucks are similar. The uncertainties in the production costs of biogas and bio-me-thane will have a significant impact on the WTW costs. The highest and lowest WTT costs includ-ed in the uncertainty analysis lead to 30-50% higher, and 25% lower WTW costs, respectively, for the renewable methane-fuelled trucks, compared with diesel-fuelled trucks.
The overall conclusions of this study are that the use of renewable methane vehicle fuel systems leads to significant WTW GHG benefits, compared with fossil-based vehicle fuel systems, that the WTW energy efficiency will be comparable or slightly lower than comparable gasoline- and diesel-fuelled vehicles, and that the WTW costs will be comparable or slightly higher, based on current market prices of fossil fuels. The selection of post-treatment and distribution system of renewable methane vehicle fuel systems will be of minor importance regarding the WTW GHG, energy efficiency and cost performance. Thus, there is an incentive to develop and commercially implement all of the various renewable methane systems assessed in this study.