ARTICLE IN PRESS

Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Alternative fuel buses currently in use in China: Life-cycle fossil energy use,
GHG emissions and policy recommendations
Xunmin Ou a,b,c, Xiliang Zhang b,c,, Shiyan Chang b,c
a

School of Public Policy and Management (SPPM), Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
China Automotive Energy Research Center (CAERC), Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
c
Institute of Energy, Environment and Economy (3E), Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China
b

a r t i c l e in f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 17 June 2009
Accepted 21 September 2009
Available online 31 October 2009

The Chinese government has enacted policies to promote alternative vehicle fuels (AVFs) and alternative
fuel vehicles (AFVs), including city bus eets. The life cycle (LC), energy savings (ES) and GHG reduction
(GR) proles of AVFs/AFVs are critical to those policy decisions. The well-to-wheels module of the
Tsinghua-CA3EM model is employed to investigate actual performance data. Compared with
conventional buses, AFVs offer differences in performance in terms of both ES and GR. Only half of
the AFVs analyzed demonstrate dual benets. However, all non-oil/gas pathways can substitute oil/gas
with coal. Current policies seek to promote technology improvements and market creation initiatives
within the guiding framework of national-level diversication and district-level uniformity. Combined
with their actual LC behavior and in keeping with near- and long-term strategies, integrated policies
should seek to (1) apply hybrid electric technology to diesel buses; (2) encourage NG/LPG buses in gasabundant cities; (3) promote commercialize electric buses or plug-in capable vehicles through battery
technology innovation; (4) support fuel cell buses and hydrogen technology R&D for future potential
applications; and (5) conduct further research on boosting vehicle fuel efciency, applying low-carbon
transportation technologies, and addressing all resultant implications of coal-based transportation
solutions to human health and natural resources.
& 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Alternative fuel bus
Life-cycle analysis
Alternative fuel vehicle policy

1. Introduction
The transport sector, a major oil consumer and greenhouse gas
(GHG) emitter worldwide, accounted for 26% of worlds energy

Abbreviations: AFB, alternative fuel bus; AFV, alternative fuel vehicle;

AVF, alternative vehicle fuel; CA3EM, China Automotive Energy, Environmental and
Economic Model; CAERC, China Automotive Energy Research Center, Tsinghua
University; CCS, CO2 capture and storage; CDMEB, coal-derived DME bus; CI,
compression ignition; CM100B, coal-derived methanol bus; CNG, compressed
natural gas; CNGB, compressed natural gas bus; CO2,e, CO2 equivalent; CTL,
coal-to-liquid; CTLB, coal-to-liquid bus; DB, diesel bus; DME, dimethyl ether; EB,
electric buses; EC, energy consumption; EF, energy use factor; ES, energy savings;
EV, electric vehicle; FCB, fuel cell bus; FE, fuel economy; GB, gasoline bus; GHG,
greenhouse gas; GR, greenhouse gas reduction; GREET, Greenhouse gas, Regulated
Emissions and Energy use of Transportation energy; HEV, hybrid electric vehicles;
ICE, internal combustion engine; LC, life cycle; LCA, life-cycle analysis; LPG,
liqueed petroleum gas; LPGB, liqueed petroleum gas bus; M100, methanol;
Mt, million ton; NG, natural gas; NGHFCB, natural gas-derived H2 fuel cell bus;
PE, primary fossil energy; PF, process fuel; PICV, plug-in capable vehicle; PTW,
pump-to-wheels; SI, spark ignition; TSD, transportation, storage and distribution;
WTP, well-to-pump; WTW, well-to-wheels
 Corresponding author at: China Automotive Energy Research Center (CAERC),
Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, PR China. Tel.: + 86 10 6277 2754;
fax: + 86 10 6279 6166.
E-mail addresses: oxm07@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (X. Ou),
zhang_xl@tsinghua.edu.cn (X. Zhang).
0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.031

use and 23% of energy-related GHG emissions in 2004 (IPCC,

2007).
With the substantial increase in passenger and freight
transportation demand, Chinas energy consumption for this
sector is soaring upwards. Table 1 indicates that the total energy
use per year by all the transportation activities including railway,
road, water way, air and pipeline has quadrupled from 2000 to
2007 (Wang, 2009). Correspondingly, transportation has been the
most rapidly growing sector in terms of energy and particularly oil
demand and GHG emission in China (Yan and Crookes, 2009).
In 2005, it accounted for 37% of Chinas total oil consumption
(121 out of 327 Mt) (IEA, 2008). Though the related GHG emission
data have not been ofcially published, IEA (2003, 2008) made the
following estimates and projections: the share of CO2 emissions
from the transportation sector in China is 6% and 8% of all CO2
emissions in 2000 and 2005, respectively, and Cai (2008)
projected this gure to be 1215% by 2020. IEA (2008) has also
forecasted that without aggressive policies and measures to
reduce oil demand in the next two decades, Chinese oil demand
will reach 808 Mt per year in 2030, and road transport would
account for 43% of that value. However, the slow growth of Chinas
domestic oil supply has increased its dependency on imported oil
and this ratio has risen to over 50% in 2007 (EIA, 2008; NBSC,
2008). At the same time, as one of the two largest emitters of
CO2 in the world today, China has received and will continue

ARTICLE IN PRESS
X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

Nomenclature
CC
carbon content factor of process fuel (g/MJ)
CH4,direct WTP direct CH4 emissions (g/MJ fuel)
CH4,feedstock WTP indirect CH4 emissions from non-combustion
sources for 1 MJ feedstock obtained (g/MJ)
CH4,indirect WTP indirect CH4 emissions (g/MJ fuel)
CH4,noncomb WTP CH4 indirect emissions from non-combustion
sources (g/MJ fuel)
CH4,WTP WTP CH4 emission (g/MJ fuel)
CO2,direct WTP direct CO2 emissions (g/MJ fuel)
CO2,indirect WTP indirect CO2 emissions (g/MJ fuel)
CO2,WTP WTP CO2 emission (g/MJ fuel)
life-cycle primary fossil energy use factor for process
EFLC
fuel (MJ/MJ)
EN
WTP use amount of process fuel for MJ fuel obtained
(MJ/MJ fuel)
PTW direct fossil energy use (MJ/km)
EPTW
ERCH4 WTP CH4 direct emission factor for process fuel (g/MJ)
ERN2O WTP N2O emission factor for process fuel (g/MJ)
EU
WTP direct use amount of process fuel (MJ/MJ)
WTP primary fossil energy use (MJ/MJ fuel)
EWTP
WTW primary fossil energy use (MJ/km)
EWTW
FE
vehicle fuel economy (MJ/km)

to receive more and more pressure to reduce GHG emissions

(He et al., 2007).
The effort of energy-saving (ES) technologies and alternative
vehicle fuel (AVF) application in the transport sector is growing in
China (Ouyang, 2006; Wang and Huo, 2009; Yan and Crookes,
2009). In 2008, approximately 53.06, 55.85 and 1.64 Mt of
gasoline, diesel and bio-ethanol served on-road vehicles, respectively. A certain amount of liqueed petroleum gas (LPG) and
natural gas (NG) and more than 2 Mt of methanol was estimated
to be used for these vehicles in China (Zhang, 2009).
Due to their large size, which facilitates the inclusion of larger
engines and fuel tanks, along with their xed routes and refueling
points, city bus eets provide excellent opportunities for commercial
demonstrations of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) (Ally and Pryor,
2009; Chen et al., 2007; Collantes, 2008; Collantes and Sperling,
2008; Frenette and Forthoffer, 2009; Hekkert et al., 2005;
Karamangil, 2007; Kathuria, 2004; Katrasnik, 2009; Khillare et al.,
2008; Kim and Moon, 2008; Lai et al., 2009; Solomon and Banerjee,
2006; Steenberghen and Lopez, 2008; Tzeng et al., 2005; Wang and
Ouyang, 2007; Yeh, 2007; Zhao and Melaina, 2006).

Table 1
Energy use by fuel type for transportation in China.

Gasoline (Mt)
Diesel (Mt)
Kerosene (Mt)
Residual oil (Mt)
Electricity (TWh)
Natural gas (Mm3)
Coal (Mt)
Total (Mtce)

1990

1995

2000

2005

2007

18.43
10.95
0.93
2.08
10.48
190
10.58
56.51

28.25
19.82
2.5
2.28
14.99
160
9.77
86.41

34.15
36.07
5.36
8.5
19.6
580
8.15
132.11

50.73
64.43
8.82
16.11
43.03
1643
8.15
212.72

51.16
82.56
11.3
13.9
53.19
1689
6.88
273.2

Note: (1) Source: Wang (2009). (2) The data were calculated based on international
general practice: both commercial and private activities are included in road
transportation.

407

FOR
the fuel oxidation rate of process fuel (  )
GHGPTW PTW direct GHG emission (g CO2,e/km)
GHGWTP WTP GHG emission (g CO2,e/MJ fuel)
GHGWTW WTW GHG emission (g CO2,e/km)
N2Odirect WTP direct N2O emissions (g/MJ fuel)
N2Oindirect WTP indirect N2O emissions (g/MJ fuel)
N2OWTP WTP N2O emission (g/MJ fuel)
life-cycle indirect CH4 emission factor for process fuel
TCH4
(g/MJ)
life-cycle indirect CO2 emission factor of process fuel
TCO2
(g/MJ)
life-cycle indirect N2O emission rate for process fuel
TN2O
(g/MJ)
Greek symbol

conversion energy efciency factor

Subscripts
i
j
p

primary fossil fuel type

process fuel type
life-cycle sub-stage number

Some AFV technologies have already been applied in city bus

eets in China: LPG, compressed NG (CNG), methanol (M100) and
dimethyl ether (DME) bus technologies are already in commercial
operation in cities where these fuels or their feedstock are abundant,
while hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), electric buses (EB) and fuel cell
bus (FCB) technologies are in varying stages of demonstration or
deployment (Wan, 2008; Wang, 2006; Ouyang, 2006).
The Chinese government has taken a number of actions for
AVF/AFV technology improvement and market creation, including
AVF/AFV promotion policies, funding for R&D and market
demonstrations of technology (Ouyang, 2006; Wan, 2008; Yan
and Crookes, 2009; Zhao and Melaina, 2006). In 2009, more
intensive policies and initiatives have been initiated, including the
implementation of a demonstration project introducing 1000
electric vehicles (EVs) in 10 cities (Xinhuanet, 2009a) and
providing nancial subsidies for energy-saving vehicles and AFVs
buyers (Xinhuanet, 2009b).
As Jaramillo et al. (2009) observed, actual life-cycle (LC) energy
inputs and GHG emissions of these technologies are critical
factors informing policy decisions regarding their implementation
or abandonment.
Published Chinese life-cycle analysis (LCA) studies of AVF/AFV
technologies to date have primarily been based on unique single
fuel/vehicle scenarios (Huang and Zhang, 2006; Zhang and Huang,
2005, 2007), or have compared multiple technologies, but
explored only one stage of the fuel production or vehicle
operation cycles (Di et al., 2002; Song et al., 2008; Wei et al.,
2008; Xiao, 2002; Zhang, 2007). Due to the shortage of actual
data, some of the previous conclusions were based on laboratory
studies of vehicle engine rigs or on projections lacking supporting
data (Hu et al., 2007a, 2007b; Zhang et al., 2005). Therefore, it is
not possible to use such results for comparisons among multiple
technologies in a way that reects recent AFV implementation
projects including full LC comprehension (Chai, 2008; Shen et al.,
2006; Zhang et al., 2008).
The well-to-wheels (WTW) module of the Tsinghua-CA3EM
model (China Automotive Energy, Environmental and Economic
Model) (Ou et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2009) is employed here to

ARTICLE IN PRESS
408

X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

analyze the LC energy consumption (EC) and GHG emissions of

Chinas current dominant alternative fuel bus (AFB) in detail,
using the same platform, and actual China data. By parallel
comparison with gasoline and diesel buses, LC ES, GHG reduction
(GR) and oil/gas substitution effects of the AFB technology have
been explored. Through key factor analysis and comparative
studies, some potential approaches for improving these dual
effects have also been discussed. Finally, based on a quick scan of
the AVF/AFV promotion policy history, status and trends in China,
and combined with the analysis of the actual LC behaviors of these
AFBs, some suggestions are presented for future policy decisions
and implementation.

2. Methodology

where EWTW is the WTW primary fossil energy use per km

(MJ/km), EWTP is the WTP primary fossil energy and is used to
show the WTP overall conversion efciency (MJ/MJ fuel), FE is the
vehicle fuel economy (MJ/km), EPTW is the PTW direct primary
fossil energy use (MJ/km), GHGWTW is the WTW GHG emissions
(g CO2,e/km), GHGWTP is the WTP GHG emissions (g CO2,e/MJ) and
GHGpTW is the PTW GHG emissions (g CO2,e/km).
2.5. Pathways selected
Chinas current dominant six AFB pathways are selected with
the gasoline bus (GB) and diesel bus (DB) as the baselines: LPG
bus (LPGB), CNG bus (CNGB), NG-derived H2 FCB (NGHFCB),
coal-derived methanol bus (CM100B), coal-derived DME bus
(CDMEB) and EB.

2.1. Tsinghua-CA3EM employed

2.6. WTP calculation methods
Tsinghua-CA3EM is an integrated computerized model for
Chinas automotive energy supply and demand balance calculation and analysis which is based on Chinas national conditions
and integrates the widely used transportation energy micro-level
computing GREET (GHG, Regulated Emissions and Energy use of
Transportation fuel) model (Wang, 2007). Parts of the GREET
model structure have been adjusted to be specic to China, such
as reecting the dominance of coal utilization. A majority of
the parameters have also been modied with local Chinese data
(Ou et al., 2008a, 2008b, 2009).

2.2. System boundary and sub-stages divided

Well-to-Pump (WTP) and Pump-to-Wheels (PTW) are the two
stages included in this well-to-wheels (WTW) EC and GHG
analysis: WTP comprehends both EC and GHG during the
upstream fuel production stage, including raw resource extraction, feedstock transportation, fuel production, and fuel transportation, storage and distribution (TSD), while PTW comprehends
both EC and GHG during the downstream fuel combustion
process in the vehicles engine. The WTP stage is divided to
four sub-stages: (1) feedstock production for the fossil energy
source; (2) feedstock transportation; (3) fuel production; and
(4) fuel TSD.

2.3. Covered primary fossil energy, process fuel and GHG types
Three types of primary fossil energy (PE) and nine types of
process fuel (PF) are considered in this study. The former includes
coal, natural gas and oil, and the latter includes crude coal, crude
NG, crude oil, coal, NG, diesel, gasoline, residual oil and electricity.
The rst three types of PF are just extracted and transported but
not processed to secondary energy. Three key types of GHG
emissions (CO2, CH4 and N2O) are considered.

2.4. Functional units and WTW calculation methods

The functional unit in the WTP stage is MJ of fuel supplied in the
form of liquid fuel, gas or electricity and in the PTW stage it is km
driven for the city bus. To calculate the WTW results, the two units
are linked through the fuel economy (FE) of the AFB:
EWTW EWTP FE EPTW

GHGWTW GHGWTP FE GHGPTW

2.6.1. WTP energy use

EWTP is calculated as the sum of the corresponding PE
consumption due to the PF directly used during each of the substages of the life cycle:
EWTP

4 X
9 X
3
X

ENp;j EFLC;j;i

p1j1i1

where i is the PE type, j is the PF type, p is the sub-stage number,

ENp,j is the use amount of PF type j during the sub-stage p for MJ
fuel obtained (MJ/MJ fuel), EFLC,j,i is the LC energy use factor (EF) of
PE type i for PF type j (MJ/MJ).
ENp,i can be derived through the direct amount of PF type j
used during sub-stage p (EUp,i) combined with the product of each
of the energy conversion efciency factors from the following substages (Zp):
ENp;j EUp;j =Zp 1    Z4 for p 1; 2; 3

EN4;j EU4;j

where the unit of EUp,i is MJ/MJ feedstock/fuel obtained for p =1,3

and MJ/MJ feedstock/fuel through used for p = 2,4, respectively; Zp
is the result of one divided by the sum of one and all PF used for
power and process feedstock or transportation fuel during substage p.
2.6.2. WTP GHG emission
The three key types of GHG emissions are converted to their
CO2 equivalents (CO2,e) according to their global warming
potential value (IPCC, 2007) as shown by the following expression:
GHGWTP CO2;WTP 23CH4;WTP 296N2 OWTP

where CO2,WTP is WTP CO2 emissions (g/MJ fuel), CH4,WTP is WTP

CH4 emissions (g/MJ fuel) and N2OWTP is WTP N2O emissions
(g/MJ fuel).
During each of the sub-stages, LC GHG emissions generally
include the direct and indirect parts: the former refers to those
emissions directly due to PF combustion and PF usage for process
feedstock within the system boundary, and the latter includes the
emissions during their LC upstream stages of those PF utilized
directly, though they occur outside the entity boundary. For CH4,
an additional indirect part is considered for its LC GHG emission:
some emissions from non-combustion sources, including spills
and other fugitive emission losses during the feedstock extraction
stage (g/MJ fuel).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

CO2,WTP is calculated as the sum of the direct and indirect

parts:
CO2;WTP CO2;direct CO2;indirect

4 X
9
X

ENp;j CCj FORj 44=12 TCO2;j

p1j1

7
where CO2,direct reects WTP direct CO2 emissions (g/MJ fuel),
CO2,indirect corresponds to WTP indirect CO2 emissions (g/MJ fuel),
CCj is the carbon content factor of PF type j (g/MJ); FORj is the fuel
oxidation rate of PF type j, TCO2,j is the LC indirect CO2 emissions
factor for PF type j (g/MJ) and 44/12 is the mass conversion rate
from c to CO2. The calculation for CO2,indirect is based on a carbon
balance equation (Ou et al., 2008a; Wang and Weber, 2001).
Calculations CH4,WTP and N2OWTP are similar:
CH4;WTP CH4;direct CH4;indirect

4 X
9
X

ENp;j ERCH4;j TCH4;j CH4;noncomb

p1j1

8
4 X
9
X

N2 OWTP N2 Odirect N2 Oindirect

ENp;j ERN2 Oj TN2 Oj

p1j1

9
where CH4,direct is WTP direct CH4 emissions (g/MJ fuel), CH4,indirect
is WTP indirect CH4 emissions (g/MJ fuel), ERCH4,j is the direct CH4
emissions factor for PF type j (g/MJ), TCH4,j is the LC indirect CH4
emissions factor for PF type j (g/MJ), CH4,noncomb corresponds to
indirect CH4 emissions from non-combustion sources, including
spills and losses during the feedstock extraction stage (g/MJ fuel),
N2OWTP corresponds to the WTP N2O emissions (g/MJ fuel),
N2Odirect is the WTP direct N2O emissions(g/MJ fuel), N2Oindirect is
the WTP indirect N2O emissions (g/MJ fuel), ERN2Oj is the direct
N2O emissions factor for type PF j (g/MJ), TN2Oj is the LC indirect
N2O emissions factor for type PF j (g/MJ).
For the CH4 non-combustion calculation:
CH4;noncomb CH4;feedstcok =Z2 Z3 Z4

10

where CH4,feedback corresponds to the indirect CH4 emissions from

non-combustion sources, including spills and losses during the
feedstock extraction stage (g/MJ feedstock obtain).

3. Data and assumptions

Based on Eqs. (1)(10), for WTP LCA of all AFV pathways
(excluding electricity) two parts of the data are essential: (1) the
energy conversion efciency factors of each sub-stage (Z) and
direct use amount of each type of PF during each sub-stage (EU);
and (2) the direct and indirect PE use and GHG emission factors
for each type of PF (EFLC, CC, FOR, TCO2, ERCH4, TCH4, ERN2O, TN2O
and CH4,noncomb). The intermediate data for MJ fuel obtained (EN)
can be calculated based on the former part (Z and EU), and
provided for the calculation of WTP when combined with the
latter part. Due to a wide variety of feedstock for its generation,
WTP data of the electricity pathway will be described in a
separate section.
For the PTW stage, the essential data are vehicle fuel economy
(FE) and the corresponding PE use (EPTW) and their associated GHG
emissions (GHGPTW).
3.1. Z, EU and EN
3.1.1. Original data and source
Table 2 lists original Chinese data on feedstock extraction and
processing efciency, process fuel mix, transportation mode and
average distance, fuel production efciencies, and process fuel

409

Table 2
WTP stages: input data for oil-, NG- and coal-based fuel.
Oil extraction
Extraction efciency: 93.0% (Ou et al., 2008a)
Process fuel mix: electricity (37%), crude oil (20%), NG (23%), coal (10%),
diesel (8%), residual oil (1%) and gasoline (1%) (NBSC, 2008)
Oil transportation mode
Sea tanker: 50% (11000 km); rail: 45% (950 km); pipeline: 80% (500 km) and
waterway: 10% (250 km) (CTTA, 2008)
Oil renery
Process fuel mix: crude oil (50%), coal (20%), electricity (12%), renery still
gas (10%), residual oil (4%), diesel (1%) and gasoline (1%) (NBSC, 2008)
Gasoline production efciency: 89.1%; diesel production efciency: 89.7%;
LPG production efciency: 90.3% (Ou et al., 2008a)
Gasoline and diesel TSD mode
Sea tanker: 25% (7000 km); railway: 50% (900 km); waterway: 15%
(1200 km) and road (short distance): 10% (50 km) (CTTA, 2008)
LPG TSD mode
Sea tanker: 65% (7000 km); railway: 50% (900 km); pipeline: 15% (160 km);
waterway: 25% (1200 km) and road (short distance): 10% (50 km) (CTTA,
2008)
NG extraction and processing
Extraction efciency: 96.00% (Ou et al., 2008a, b); the process fuel mix for
NG extraction: electricity (40%), NG (23%), residual oil (20%), diesel (8%), coal
(7%) and gasoline (2%) (NBSC, 2008); NG processing efciency: 94.00% (Ou
et al., 2008a, b); the process fuel mix for NG processing: residual oil (40%),
NG (28%), coal (20%), electricity (10%), diesel (1%) and gasoline (1%) (NBSC,
2008)
NG transportation mode
For CNG production, pipeline: 100% (625 km) (CTTA, 2008); for H2
production, pipeline: 100% (50 km) (Ou et al., 2008a, b)
CNG production
NG compression efciency: 96.00% (Ou et al., 2008a, b); the process fuel
mix: electricity (100%) (CATARC, 2007)
CNG TSD mode
Pipeline: 100% (900 km) (Ou et al., 2008a, b)
H2 production
H2 production efciency by steam reforming of NG: 71.50%; the process fuel
mix for H2 production: NG (99.8%), electricity (0.20%); H2 compression
efciency: 92.50%; the process fuel mix for H2 compression: electricity
(100%) (CATARC, 2007)
H2 TSD mode
Pipeline: 100% (50 km)(Ou et al., 2008a, b)
Coal extraction and processing
Coal extraction efciency: 97% (NBSC, 2008); coal processing efciency: 97%
(NBSC, 2008; Ou et al., 2008a); the process fuel mix for crude coal extraction
and processing is coal (80%), electricity (16%), diesel (2%), gasoline (1%) and
NG (1%) (NBSC, 2008)
Coal transportation
Railway: 50% (1000 km); waterway: 17% (650 km); road (long distance): 8%
(310 km) and road (short distance): 100% (50 km) (CTTA, 2008)
M100 production
Gasication efciency for coal to M100: 45%; synthesis efciency for coal to
M100: 95%; the process fuel mix for M100 production: coal (91%) and
electricity (9%) (Ou et al., 2008a)
M100 TSD mode
Road (short distance): 100% (100 km) (Ou et al., 2008a)
DME production
Gasication efciency for coal to DME: 41%; synthesis efciency for coal to
DME: 95%; the process fuel mix for DME production: coal (93%) and
electricity (7%) (Ou et al., 2008a)
DME TSD mode
Railway: 50% (900 km); waterway: 50% (1200 km) and road (short distance):
10% (50 km) (Ou et al., 2008a)
Note: (1) While renery still gas is produced onsite from crude oil inputs, no
additional PE inputs are necessary for production of this by-product (Wang, 2009),
which is characterized by a CO2 emission factor of 65 g/MJ fuel and has a
production energy efciency of 100%. (2) Transportation mode: % share (average
distance). (3) Some data sources directly from Ou et al. (2008a), containing a
comprehensive and detailed LCA study of Chinas transportation sector compiled
by the China Automotive Energy Research Center (CAERC). CAERC is a universityand education-based research center targeting sustainable transportation energy
pathways for China. It is jointly supported by Tsinghua University, the GM
Corporation and the China Shanghai Automotive Industry Company. The CAERC
has conducted site investigations, held expert panel meetings and conducted
extensive literature reviews to create a full and detailed picture of Chinas
automotive energy issues including LCA (Ou et al., 2008a, 2008b).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
410

X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

mix with TSD modes average distances for oil-, NG- and coalbased fuels (CATARC, 2007; CTTA, 2008; NBSC, 2008; Ou et al.,
2008a). Although H2 has many production pathways, this study
assumes all H2 was produced by steam reforming of NG (Ou,
2009).
Table 3 lists the data for transportation energy intensity
(kJ/t km) and the fuel mix for each mode. These data can serve
for the calculation of direct amount of PF used (EU) during
feedstock transportation and fuel TSD sub-stages when the
low heat values (MJ/kg) of these transportation fuels are known
(Ou et al., 2008a).

3.1.2. Z and EU
Based on the original data in Section 3.1.1, all the energy
conversion efciency factors (Z) and amount of direct use PF (EU)
for each sub-stage for the oil-, NG- and coal-based fuel can be
calculated. The former is listed in Table 4 and the latter is used
directly to calculate ENp,j.
3.1.3. EN
According to Eqs. (4) and (5), EN is based on the inputs of Z and
EU, and the results are listed in Table 5.
3.2. Direct and indirect energy use and GHG emission factors
for WTP

Table 3
Transportation mode and fuel mix.

Sea tanker
Rail
Pipeline: oil
Pipeline: NG
Waterway
Road: short distance
Road: long distance

Energy
intensity
(kJ/t km)

Fuel mix and percentage

23
240
300
372
148
1362
1200

Residual oil (100%)

Diesel (55%) and electricity (45%)
Residual oil (50%) and electricity (50%)
NG (99%) and electricity (1%)
Residual oil (100%)
Diesel (68%) and gasoline (32%)
Diesel (68%) and gasoline (32%)

The factors for both direct and indirect energy use and GHG
emissions are shown in Table 6 (Ou et al., 2008a). The noncombustion CH4 emission values (CH4,feedstock) are 0.009, 0.072 and
0.406 g for each MJ of crude oil, crude NG and crude coal obtained
in China, respectively (3E-THU, 2003), and their CH4,noncomb values
are calculated based on Eq. (10) and listed in Table 7.
3.3. Original data for electricity WTP
The energy use and GHG emission effects of electricity are
highly dependent on feedstock utilized and should be calculated
accordingly and then converted to accommodate mixed scenarios
(Wang and Huo, 2009). The original data about power supply mix,
transmission and distribution loss ratio, generation supply
efciency and LCA behaviors of each pathway are listed in Table 8.

Note: (1) Souce: Ou et al. (2008a).

3.4. Original data for PTW

Table 4
Energy conversion efciency factors (Z) of each sub-stage (%).
Sub-stage

Gasoline

Diesel

LPG

CNG

H2

M100

DME

Feedstock production
Feedstock transportation
Fuel production
Fuel TSD

93.0
99.4
89.1
99.7

93.0
99.4
89.7
99.7

93.0
99.4
90.3
99.6

90.2
99.6
96.0
99.7

90.2
99.4
66.1
99.8

94.1
99.8
42.8
99.5

94.1
99.8
39.0
99.4

While precise vehicle fuel efciencies are extremely important

to WTW analysis, many of these values are difcult to determine,
and wide ranges of estimates currently exist (Ally and Pryor, 2009;
Wang and Huo, 2009). Here we use recent FE data and GHG
emission factors for AFBs currently in use, either on a demonstration or on a commercial basis as shown in Table 9.

Table 5
Type of PF used during each sub-stage (EN) (kJ/MJ fuel).
Gasoline

Diesel

LPG

CNG

Fuel/sub-stage no.

Crude coal
Crude NG
Crude oil
Coal
NG
Diesel
Gasoline
Residual oil
Electricity

0.0
0.0
21.8
10.9
25.1
8.7
1.1
1.1
40.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.4
1.9

0.0
2.5
73.6
24.5
0.0
1.2
1.2
4.9
14.7

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.7

0.0
0.0
21.1
10.5
24.3
8.4
1.1
1.1
39.0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.4
1.9

0.0
2.3
69.1
23.0
0.0
1.2
1.2
4.6
13.8

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.9
1.0

0.0
0.0
21.0
10.5
24.1
8.4
1.0
1.0
38.8

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.3
1.9

0.0
2.2
64.7
21.6
0.0
1.1
1.1
4.3
12.9

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
2.0
0.7

0.0
30.4
0.0
17.2
0.0
4.5
1.6
37.2
26.1

0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

CNG

M100

H2

DME

Fuel/sub-stage no.

Crude coal
Crude NG
Crude oil
Coal
NG
Diesel
Gasoline
Residual oil
Electricity

0.0
41.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1

0.0
42.8
0.0
24.2
0.0
6.4
2.3
52.5
36.8

0.0
8.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1

0.0
4.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
81.3

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1

160.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
32.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.4
1.6
0.0
0.0

1089.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
107.7

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
1.5
0.0
0.0

176.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2
4.4
2.2
0.0
35.2

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.8
4.2
0.0
0.0

1334.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.5

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
0.1
2.4
1.3

ARTICLE IN PRESS
X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

411

Table 6
LCA PE use factors and direct and indirect GHG emission factors for PFs.a
PF

EFLC

Crude coalb
Crude NGb
Crude oilb
Coal
NG
Diesel
Gasoline
Residual oil
Electricity
a
b
c

PE: coal
(MJ/MJ)

PE: NG
(MJ/MJ)

PE: oil
(MJ/MJ)

1.05
0.08
0.10
1.06
0.11
0.18
0.18
0.14
2.86

0.00
1.01
0.02
0.00
1.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03

0.00
0.06
1.05
0.11
0.05
1.12
1.12
1.06
0.36

TCO2
(g/MJ)

TCH4
(g/MJ)

TN2O
(mg/MJ)

ERCH4
(g/MJ)

ERN2O
(mg/MJ)

CC
(g C/MJ)

FOR

4.26
11.91
16.00
5.73
16.58
27.87
28.83
25.33
265.22

0.42
0.07
0.05
0.43
0.05
0.08
0.09
0.07
1.01

0.06
0.15
0.27
0.17
0.12
0.44
0.47
0.41
3.92

0.001
0.001
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.004
0.080
0.002
0

0.001
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.002/0.028c
0.002
0.000
0

24.08
15.30
20.00
24.74
15.32
20.20
18.90
21.10
0

0.90
0.99
0.98
0.9
0.99
0.98
0.98
0.98
0

Source from Ou et al. (2008a).

These fuels are mined and transported but not rened.
For vehicles, the utilization value is 0.002, while for other applications this value is 0.028.

Table 7
Non-combustion CH4 emission (CH4,noncomb) (g/MJ fuel).

CH4,noncomb

Gasoline

Diesel

LPG

CNG

H2

M100

DME

0.010

0.010

0.010

0.076

0.110

0.955

1.049

Table 8
Input data for electricity pathway WTP.
Electricity supply mix
Coal (80.1%), oil (1.8%), NG (0.7%), nuclear energy (1.9%), biomass (0.1%) and
many other sources (14.7%) (CEC, 2008; NBSC 2008)
Loss ratio during transmission and distribution
6.97% in 2007 (CEC, 2008; NBSC 2008)
Power supply efciencies
Coal (36%), oil (32%), NG (45%), nuclear energy (32%) and others (100%) (Ou
et al., 2008a)
Coal power LCA
Fossil energy use: 3.894 MJ/MJ, including coal (3.527), NG (0.007) and oil
(0.361); GHG emissions: 322.311 g CO2,e/MJ (Ou et al., 2008a)
Oil power LCA
Fossil energy use: 4.098 MJ/MJ, including coal (0.467), NG (0.087) and oil
(3.544); GHG emissions: 334.633 g CO2,e/MJ (Ou et al., 2008a)
NG power LCA
Fossil energy use: 3.329 MJ/MJ, including coal (0.522), NG (2.572) and oil
(0.235); GHG emissions: 270.338 g CO2,e/MJ (Ou et al., 2008a)
Nuclear power LCA
Fossil energy use: 0.063 MJ/MJ, including coal (0.052), NG (0.005) and oil
(0.006); GHG emissions: 6.506 g CO2,e/MJ (Ou et al., 2008a)
Hydroelectric power LCA
Energy use can be neglected, while GHG emissions are approximately 5 g
CO2,e/MJ (Weisser, 2007)
Biomass power LCA
Case of cotton stalks: 0.075 MJ/MJ, including coal (0.010), NG (0.002) and oil
(0.064); GHG emissions: 5.846 g CO2,e/MJ (Ou et al., 2008a)
Note. (1) Nuclear power LCA mainly covers uranium mining, processing and
transportation sub-stages. (2) Hydroelectric power is primarily non-fossil energy
power used in China. (3) Biomass power LCA is based on the following values: the
heat value of feedstock is 15.89 MJ/kg; feedstock transportation distance is
set to 100 km; and fuel economy for feedstock transportation (by diesel truck) is
0.0745 l/t km.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. WTW results
The complete benets of fuels are compared on a WTW basis
including differences in vehicle system efciency (CATARC, 2007;
Ou et al., 2008b; Wang and Huo, 2009). WTW results are presented

on a per-km basis in Fig. 1. In general AVFs achieved reductions in

petroleum use, but coal-based fuels faced major challenges in
terms of GHG emissions. CM100Bs and CDMEBs emit 120% more
GHGs, use 100% more fossil fuel (primarily coal) but use 97% less oil
than DBs. Because EBs achieve signicant gains in fuel economy
over conventional ICE buses, these vehicles showed a 20% reduction
in fossil energy use and a 13% reduction in GHG emissions
compared to DBs. Noticeable differences between WTP and WTW
results are found for hydrogen FCBs and EBs. This nding illustrates
the importance of including vehicle efciencies in evaluating
transportation fuels (CATARC, 2007; Ou et al., 2008b; Wang and
Huo, 2009). Because the actual efciencies of operational FCBs are
lower than might be desired, they do not present signicant
benets over DBs in terms of ES and GR, and have fossil energy use
and GHG emissions that are 33% and 16% greater, respectively, than
those of DBs. CNG buses use approximately the same amount of
fossil energy as DBs, but primarily use NG, and consequently emit
26% less GHGs. Among buses using petroleum-based fuels, the
ranking of energy use and GHG emissions follows the order of
GB4DB4LPGB, with each pathway differing from the next by
approximately 10% in both categories.

4.2. General sensitivity analysis

Generally, AVF/AFV LCA results can be impacted by the
following factors: fuel characteristics, location of feedstock
extraction/production sites, fuel/feedstock transportation mode
and distance, conversion efciency and utilization efciency
(Jaramillo et al., 2009; Shen et al., 2006; Weisser, 2007). For the
AFVs considered, there are no obvious differences in energy
extraction efciency (CATARC, 2007; Hekkert et al., 2005; Wang
and Huo, 2009), but there are potentially signicant differences in
fuel transportation and distribution distances and small variations
in fuel production efciency and vehicle fuel economy (CATARC,
2007; Ou et al., 2009).
Fig. 2 presents the impact on WTW fossil energy use and GHG
emissions of the variations of the above-mentioned factors.
Interestingly, a 50% variation in transportation and distribution
distances results in only a 0.152.25% difference in WTW results
for all AFBs. Differences in fuel production efciency can
substantially impact WTW results for vehicles using fuel sources
with relatively low transformation efciencies, including
hydrogen produced from NG, M100 and DME from coal, as well
as for EBs. Changes in vehicle fuel economy result in proportional
changes in WTW efciency and emissions.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
412

X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

Table 9
Key parameters for operating AFBs.
Pathway no.

Propulsion system

Fuel type

Fuel consumption/100 km

FE (MJ/km)

EPTW (MJ/km)

GHGPTW (g CO2,e/km)

GB
DB
LPGB
CNGB
NGHFCB
CM100B
CDMEB
EB

SI ICE
CI ICE
SI ICE
SI ICE
FCB
SI ICE
CI ICE
EB

Gasoline
Diesel
LPG
CNG
Hydrogen
M100
DME
Electricity

55 l
45 l
30 kg
45 kg
10.76 kg
90 l
80 l
150 kWh

17.53
16.12
15.56
16.02
13.02
16.23
15.18
5.40

17.53
16.12
15.56
16.02
0
16.23
15.18
0

1191.78
1171.32
963.18
893.9
0
1072.41
1039.9
0

Note: (1) Data sources are Ou et al. (2008a, 2008b) and site investigations. (2) SI: spark-ignition; ICE: internal combustion engine; CI: compression-ignition. (3) Fuel use
data are based on actual in-city operation of buses with a 12-m vehicle length and 70-passenger capacity using heat and air conditioning as needed.

50

Fossil energy

Coal

NG

Oil

4000
GHG emission
level of DB

GHG

3000

Energy use
level of DB

40

3500

2500
2000

30

1500

20

1000
10

500

GHG emission (g CO2, e/km)

Fossil energy use (MJ/km)

60

0
GB

DB

LPGB

CNGB

NGHFCB CM100B CDMEB

EB

Results change (%)

Fig. 1. WTW fossil energy use and GHG emissions per km traveled by AFBs.

1.5

4.3. Key impact factors analysis

CNGB

DB

GB
EB
CDMEB

0.5

CM100B
NGHFCB
LPGB

0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10

-0.5

10 20 30 40
Input change (%)

50

-1

Results change (%)

-1.5
9

EB

NGHFCB

LPGB

0
-3

DB
GB
CNGB
10

-10

CDMEB
CM100B

Input change (%)

-6
-9
Fig. 2. The sensitivity analysis for WTW fossil energy results. (a) For changes of
transportation and distribution distance. (b) For changes of energy use in the fuel
production stage.

Based on the sensitivity analysis in Section 4.3, several key

factors affecting LCA results can be identied, including
fuel production efciency, vehicle fuel economy, and fuel/feedstock transportation and distribution distances. By identifying
opportunities to modify these factors for the different classes of
AFBs studied, we can further analyze the potential to realize
greater gains in AFB ES and GR and dene future scenarios
including the introduction of new coal-to-liquid (CTL) and
corresponding CTL bus (CTLB) pathways, and a new CO2 capture
and storage (CCS) method to reduce GHG emissions, as shown in
Table 10. The WTW results under different future scenarios are
shown in Fig. 3.
Due to substantial improvements in fuel production efciency,
FCBs use only 15% more energy and have roughly comparable GHG
emissions compared to DBs, while buses using coal-based fuels
use about 50% more energy and have 60% greater GHG emissions,
respectively. Only with the application of CCS, the latter fuel (CTL)
can compete with petroleum-based fuel with a 25% GHG
emissions reduction. However, the resulting energy use is 40%
more than that of DB.
For LPGB and CNGB pathways, the reduction of feedstock and
fuel transportation distances can strengthen their obvious
benets in terms of both ES and GR.
For EB, CCS is a potential method to reduce about 65% of GHG
emissions when compared to DBs. Even if this relatively ideal
technology is not employed, the dual benets of EBs can be
enhanced by introducing the new clean power mix where ES and
GR are increased to the values that are 2030% lower than those
for DBs.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

Fuel economy is critical to realizing ES and GR gains (Ou et al.,

2008b; Wang and Huo, 2009). When HEV is applied to DBs, only
modest dual effects are achieved. In the case of FCBs, when the
long-term objective of an efciency ratio of 2.4 times that of DB is
achieved, dramatic ES and GR gains of about 3040% are
projected. Finally, by optimizing the battery performance of EBs,
a 10% improvement in fuel economy can be realized, with
concomitant improvements in ES and GR.

4.4. Comparative studies

Due to different vehicle fuel economy data used, the comparison across the WTW results using the same fuel type in different
studies should be based units of per MJ fuel obtained and utilized in
order to avoid inevitable errors when comparing to the WTW unit
of per km traveled.
4.4.1. Oil-based fuels
As Fig. 4 shows, the oil-based fuel WTW EC results for China
(Huang and Zhang, 2006; Hu et al., 2007a, 2007b; Shen et al.,
2007) are close to the worst in the world (Campanari et al., 2009;
Granovskii et al., 2006; Hekkert et al., 2005). Among studies
focusing on China, the current study reports some of the most
pessimistic GHG emissions gures.

Table 10
The denition of future scenarios.
Denition

DB@HEV10

DB fuel economy gets an improvement of 10% in currently

operating eets with HEV technology (Ou et al., 2008b)
DB@HEV20
DB fuel economy gets an improvement of 20% according to
research projections (MOST, 2008)
LPGB@D50
LPG feedstock and fuel transportation distance is greatly
reduced to 50 km for the LPGB in the districts adjacent to
large-scale oil reneries such as Changchun city in Jilin
CNGB@D100
CNG feedstock and fuel transportation distance is greatly
reduced to 100 km for CNGB in locally gas abundant areas
such as Sichuan and Chongqing
NGHFCB@EF15 Hydrogen production efciency from NG is improved
substantially by 15% in the future according to estimates by
Huang and Zhang (2006) and Wang and Huo (2009)
NGHFCB@FE2.4 Extensive efforts have been made to raise the efciency of
FCBs to be 2.4 times that of diesel buses (Concawe and
EUCAR, 2007) from the value of 1.24 for the current study
CM100B@EF25 M100 production efciency from coal is improved
substantially by 25% when considering the optimistic
projections of Song et al.(2008) and Zhang and Huang (2007)
CDMEB@EF35
DME production efciency from coal is improved
substantially by 35% when considering the optimistic
projections of Song et al. (2008) and Zhang and Huang (2007)
CTLB@CCS
CTL would be supplied commercially to fuel the bus in the
future based on current success of production tests on the
1 Mt oil scale. Additional 80160 kWh is consumed to
capture 80% of CO2 produced in the factory when CCS is
applied according to Jaramillo et al. (2009). Based on that the
aforementioned, CTL (with CCS) results in WTP fossil energy
use of 2.965 MJ/MJ and GHG emissions of14.7 g CO2,e/MJ
(Ou et al., 2008a)
EB@CCS
The electricity is supplied from coal-red power plants with
CCS technology to capture 80% of CO2 produced on-site with
the penalty of the conversion efciency reduction to 32%
(IPCC, 2005)
EB@CE
The ratios of nuclear and renewable energy are increased to
15% and 10%, respectively, in the future (Ou et al., 2008a)
EB@FE10
A 10% improvement in fuel economy of EB can be realized by
optimizing battery performance (Ou et al., 2008a)

4.4.4. Electricity generation

As Fig. 7 shows, electricity generation WTW EC results for
China are among the worst in the world (Weisser, 2007). Even
among studies focusing on China, the present work reports some
of the most pessimistic energy use and GHG emissions results
(Di et al., 2002; Xiao et al., 2006).
4.4.5. Causal analysis of differences across various LCA studies
Differences between results in life-cycle energy use from
studies of transportation fuel in China and other countries can
be largely attributed to: (1) low efciencies of feedstock
extraction/processing, for example, oil extraction efciency in

5000
Current GHG
emissionlevel of DB

GHG emissions

4000

DB

LPGB

CNGB

FCB

Coal-based
fuel bus

EB@CE

EB@FE10

EB

EB@CCS

CTLB@CCS

CDMEB@EF35

CDMEB

CM100B@EF25

NGHFCB@FE2.4

NGHFCB

NGHFCB@EF15

CNGB

CNGB@D100

1000
LPGB@D50

10
LPGB

2000

DB@HEV20

20

DB

3000

DB@HEV10

30

EB

Fig. 3. WTW fossil energy use and GHG emissions under different future scenarios.

GHG emissions (g CO2, e/km)

40

4.4.3. Coal-based fuels

As Fig. 6 shows, there are not many studies for coal-based
M100 and DME pathways, and the results for China show that as
this technology improves, efciency increases (Hu et al., 2007b;
Shen et al., 2006; Wei et al., 2008; Zhang and Huang, 2007).
Vehicles using NG-based fuels in the US (Steenberghen and Lopez,
2008) showed better performance than buses running on coalbased DME in China.

Current energy
use level of DB

Fossil energy use

GB

Fossil energy use (MJ/km)

50

4.4.2. NG-based fuels

As Fig. 5 shows, the CNG WTW EC results for China (Shen et al.,
2006) are close to the values reported for Italy (Campanari et al.,
2009), but the values for hydrogen produced from NG for China
(Huang and Zhang, 2006) are higher than the levels reported for
Canada (Granovskii et al., 2006). Among studies focusing on
China, the present work reports some of the most pessimistic GHG
emissions results.

CM100B

Scenario

413

ARTICLE IN PRESS
414

X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

1.6
Gasoline

Diesel

WTW EC (MJ/MJ fuel)

1.5

1.3

Huang and Zhang,

2006
This study

1.2

Hu et al.,
2007b

Shen et al., Campanari et al.,

2007
2009 (Italy)

70

Hu et al., 2007a
Hekkert et al.,
2005 (World)
Shen et al., 2007

this study

Granovskii et al.,
2006 (Canada)

1.1
1

80

This study

Hekkert et al., 2005

(World)

This study

This study
WTW oil EC

100
90

Hu et al., 2007a

Granovskii et al.,
2006 (Canada)

1.4

LPG

This study

WTW EC

50
40

Hekkert et al.,
2005 (World)

WTW GHG

60

WTW GHG (g CO2, e/MJ fuel)

This study

30

Fig. 4. WTW results for oil-based fuels in different studies.

160
CNG

2.8

This study

H2

WTW EC (MJ/MJ fuel)

2.6
Granovskii et al.,

2.4
2.2

2006 (Canada)
This study

100
80

This study

1.8

Huang and

1.6

Zhang, 2006
This study

120

Shen et al., 2006

1.4

140

Shen et al.,

Campanari et al.,

2006

2009(Italy)

60
40
Granovskii et al.,

1.2

WTW GHG (g CO2, e/MJ fuel)

20

2006 (Canada)

1
WTW EC

WTW GHG
Fig. 5. WTW results for NG-based fuels in different studies.

WTW EC (MJ/MJ fuel)

4.3

M100

DME

Hu et al.,
2007b

Wei et al.,
2008

2.8

Zhang and
Huang, 2007

This study

WTW GHG

50
0
-50
-100

Hu et al., 2007b

WTW EC

200

100
Steenberghen and Lpez,
2006 (US, NG)
Steenberghen and Lpez,
2006 (US, NG))

This study

1.8

250

150

Shen et al., 2007

3.3

1.3

Shen et al.,
2007

This study

3.8

2.3

This study

Zhang and
Huang, 2007

Shen et al.,
2007

WTW GHG (g CO2, e/MJ fuel)

Shen et al.,
2007

4.8

-150
-200

Fig. 6. WTW results for coal-based fuels in different studies.

China is only 93.0% while this value is 98% for US as used in the
GREET model (Wang, 2007); (2) Chinas relatively high energy
consumption in the process of fuel production (NBSC, 2008; Ou
et al., 2008a), particularly in the case of widely used steam
boilers mainly fueled with coal, which achieve low efciency
levels of 80%, compared to the global average of 90% (IPCC,
2006); (3) high energy intensity for Chinas transportation
sector, which are higher than the corresponding North American values (Wang, 2007). As Fig. 8 shows, for the same diesel
pathway, based on the above-mentioned factors, the WTP fossil
energy use is one time higher than US results.

What is more, due to Chinas coal-dominated energy mix

(Jiang, 2008), coal use accounts for 54% of WTP fossil energy use
for diesel production while it is only 18% in the US, as shown in
Fig. 8. Moreover, with its higher carbon content than that of NG
and oil, coal emits more CO2 when it is used to supply the same
energy service. There are also more CH4 emissions associated
within Chinas coal mining and crude oil and NG exploration
stages, resulting in higher GHG emissions in WTP results.
Therefore, the following measures have been taken to
rationalize the difference across all Chinese AFVs LCA studies:
(1) collection of additional actual Chinese data, including EC and

ARTICLE IN PRESS
X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

This study

Coal
power

Xiao et al., 2006

This study

3.5

Oil
power

Mixed
NG
power

This study

This study

This study

Nuclear
power
Weisser, 2007
(World)

Weisser, 2007
(World)

Weisser, 2007
(World)

2.5
2
1.5

Biomass
power

WTW EC

WTW GHG

Di et al., 2002

Weisser, 2007
This study
(World)
Weisser, 2007
(World)
This study

WTW EC (MJ/MJ fuel)

WTW GHG (g CO2,e /kWh)

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200

415

0.5
0

Fig. 7. WTW results for electricity in different studies. Note: Data from Di et al. (2002) refers to thermal power generation (including coal, NG and oil).

(1) By sub-stage

400

kJ/MJ fuel

300

(2) By fuel type

Fuel TSD

Oil use

Fuel production

NG use

Feedstock transportation

Coal use

Feedstock production

200

100

0
China

U.S.

(1) By sub-stage

China

U.S.

(2) By GHG type

40

g CO2, e/MJ fuel

Fuel TSD

30

20

N2O

Fuel production

CH4

Feedstock transportation

CO2

Feedstock production

10

0
China

U.S.

China

U.S.

Fig. 8. WTP results for diesel pathways in both China and US. Note: US data source from Wang (2007). (a) Fossil energy use, (b) GHG emissions. Note: US data source from
Wang (2007).

GHG emissions of all the life-cycle stages as suggested by Zhang

et al. (2008); (2) a more comprehensive analysis of CO2 and CH4
emissions associated within Chinas coal mining and crude oil and
NG exploration stages as suggested by Chai (2008).

5. Chinas alternative fuel/vehicle policy

This section briey reviews Chinas AFV and AVF policy history,
status and trends, and considers the LC ES and GR implications
with respect to future policy recommendations.

5.1. Main current policy frameworks and key initiatives

As noted by Yeh (2007) and Stepp et al. (2009), there are two
principal types of policies commonly employed to stimulate
AVF/AFV development: technology-pushing and demand-pulling
policies. Both types of policies have been pursued by the Chinese
government since as early as the 1990s (Gan, 2003; Zhao and
Melaina, 2006), resulting in initiatives such as the Clean Vehicles
Initiative and the Deployment of 1000 EVs in Ten Cities (Ouyang,
2006; Wan, 2008; Wang, 2006). Moreover, national-level policy
frameworks have been established to guide central- and provincial-governments in supporting these initiatives as well.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
416

X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

We can dene key functions in terms of Setting Policy

Frameworks, Subsidizing Technology R&D and Supporting Market
Creation. For these three key functions there are seventeen related
policy documents and initiatives; nine for Setting Policy Frameworks, four relating to Subsidizing Technology R&D and four
Supporting Market Creation.

market-based tools, such as carbon pricing mechanisms, have

been researched in depth by domestic scholars (BGSRI, 2009; Fen,
2009; Zhang and Lu, 2009) and are expected to expand the scale
of low-carbon AVF development and promote AFV technology
innovation.
Carbon pricing and trading mechanisms are being developed
and/or deployed in certain markets within the industrialized
world. Currently, Chinese companies are actively involved in
providing (selling) certied emission reduction projects (credits)
in accordance with the Clean Development Mechanism within the
framework of the Kyoto Protocol. However, there are considerable
issues to be studied in depth for domestic carbon trading to
become actualized, like quota assignment (the allocation of
allowances), supervision mechanisms and the formation of a
trading platform before creating a possible GHG reduction
commitment for China. These policy mechanisms take time and
global coordination to develop, deploy and manage. Therefore,
enactment of these kinds of tools to aid in Chinas energy policy
implementation will not happen in the near-term. That being said,
the ofcial energy-saving targets for China are in line with global
efforts to reduce GHG emissions (NDRC, 2007; Zeng et al., 2008).

5.2. Policy trends: strategic synergies between energy-saving and

GHG reduction efforts
Three priority principles have been suggested for developing
effective AVF/AFV policies in China: (1) keeping the role of AVFs as
important as vehicle energy-saving technology; (2) shaping the
results of national-level diversication and district-level focus for
AVFs; and (3) promoting the domestic automotive industry
(Ouyang, 2006; Wan, 2008; Wang, 2006; Wang and Ouyang,
2007).
GHG reduction consensus is playing an increasingly important
role in China, and it is publicly recognized that low-carbon or
climate-friendly energy policies should support the following
activities: more efcient fossil energy utilization, shifting to lowcarbon fossil fuels, using more nuclear energy and renewable
energy, and applying CCS technologies (NDRC, 2007).
In combination with the current LCA of fossil energy use and
GHG emissions, additional policy milestones should be incorporated into technology-pushing and demand-pulling policies and
implementations for the transportation sector. These include:
(1) a long-term strategy to commercialize EVs or the so-called
PICVs (plug-in capable vehicles) and support FCB technology
innovation; and (2) a short- and medium-term strategy to utilize
AVFs such as LPG, coal-based fuels and NG-based fuels as
petroleum substitutes.
Additional issues require increased attention and study,
including: (1) the effectiveness in the past and the feasibility in
future for those policy tools currently in use; (2) further research
into the toxicity and human health impacts of coal-based fuel
such as M100; and (3) additional analysis of obstacles restricting
AVF/AFV development, such as the issues of high cost and lack of
infrastructure, along with innovations to overcome these barriers
through publicprivate partnerships between AFV manufacturers
and governments.

6. Concluding remarks
(1) Current alternative fuel/vehicle technologies differ substantially in their life-cycle fossil energy use and GHG emissions
proles, and only half of the six alternative fuel bus pathways
studied, currently realize energy savings and GHG emission
reductions relative to conventional technologies, as shown in
Fig. 9.
(2) All technologies, excluding fuel cell buses, are currently
feasible in China today due to the benets of oil/NG
substitution, though most lack obvious energy savings and
GHG reductions.
(3) Current energy use and GHG emission scenarios can be
improved by a series of measures: (a) improving fuel economy
for non-ICE vehicles such as fuel cell buses and EVs, while
incorporating HEV technology for ICEs or employing PICVs;
(b) improving fuel production efciency for coal-based fuels
and NG-based H2; (c) developing some AVF/AFVs based on
local resource abundance; and (d) employing low-carbon
methods such as renewable energy and CCS technologies for
both electricity generated and coal-based fuel production.
(4) Integrated policies should be implemented to pave the way
for promoting alternative fuel/vehicles. These might include:
(a) supporting energy-saving technologies for conventional

5.3. Policy tools on discussion

Besides the above-mentioned methods including subsidizing technology R&D and support for market creation, other

CM100B

WTW GHG (kg CO2, e/km)

CDMEB

III

II
DB

NGHFCB
2
EB
1
I

LPGB

GB

CNGB
IV

0
10

15

20

25
30
35
WTW fossil energy use (MJ/km)

40

Fig. 9. Quadrant chart of WTW fossil energy use and GHG emissions of AFB.

45

50

ARTICLE IN PRESS
X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

ICEs, HEVs or PICVs to begin capturing large-scale dual

benets immediately; (b) supporting R&D and the application
of gaseous and coal-based fuels by accelerating infrastructure
development; (c) supporting EV demonstration projects and
creating markets to catalyze large-scale commercialization;
(d) jumpstarting innovation in fuel cell bus technology,
including solutions to H2 feedstock and fuel production
issues; and (e) addressing critical issues such as the potential
human toxicity of Methanol fuels, and the application of CCS
and other clean coal technologies.

Acknowledgements
The project is co-supported by the China National Natural
Science Foundation (Grant no. 50520140517) and the CAERC
program (Tsinghua/GM/SAIC-China). The authors would like
to thank the reviewers, Dr. Kristin. B. Zimmerman of GM and
Mr. Benny Zhang of GM-China for their generous help.

Appendix. Supplementary materials

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found
in the online version at doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.09.031.

References
3E-THU (Institute of Energy, Environment and Economy at Tsinghua University),
2003. Report of Inventory of CH4 Emission Sources and Sinks of China
Petroleum and Natural Gas Sector in 2000. Institute of Energy, Environment
and Economy, Tsinghua University, Beijing (in Chinese).
Ally, J., Pryor, T., 2009. Accelerating hydrogen implementation by mass production
of a hydrogen bus chassis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13
616624
BGSRI (Beijing Great wall Strategy Research Institute), 2009. Carbon trade: a new
method to prompt energy saving and emission reductions. New Material
Industry (5), 7477 (in Chinese).
Cai, W.J., 2008. Comparison of CO2 emission scenarios and mitigation opportunities in Chinas ve sectors in 2020. Energy Policy 36, 11811194.
Campanari, S., Manzolini, G., Garcia, F., 2009. Energy analysis of electric vehicles
using batteries or fuel cells through well-to-wheel driving cycle simulations.
Journal of Power Sources 186, 464477.
CATARC (China Automotive Technology and Research Center), 2007. Well-toWheels Analysis of Energy Consumption and GHG Emissions of Multi Vehicle
Fuel in Future China. CATARC, Beijing.
CEC (Chinese Electricity Council), 2008. China Electric Power Statistics Analysis
2008. CEC, Beijing (in Chinese).
Chai, Q.H., 2008. Research on the Biomass-Derived Automotive Alternative Energy
Industry. Tsinghua University, Beijing (in Chinese).
Chen, F.Z., Fernandes, T.R.C., Roche, M.Y., Carvalho, M.D.G., 2007. Investigation of
challenges to the utilization of fuel cell buses in the EU vs. transition
economies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 11, 357364.
Collantes, G., 2008. The dimensions of the policy debate over transportation
energy: the case of hydrogen in the United States. Energy Policy 36, 10591073.
Collantes, G., Sperling, D., 2008. The origin of Californias zero emission vehicle
mandate. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42, 13021313.
Concawe, EUCAR & EC Joint Research Centre, 2007. Well-to-wheels analysis of
future automotive fuels and power trains in the European context. /http://ies.
jrc.ec.Europe.eu/WTWS.
CTTA (China Trafc and Transportation Association), 2008. China Transportation
Statistic Yearbook 2007. China Transportation Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Di, X.H., Nie, Z.R., Zuo, T.Y., 2002. Life cycle emission inventories for the
fuels consumed by thermal power in China. China Environmental Science 26,
632635 (in Chinese).
EIA (Energy Information Agency, DOE, US), 2008. International energy outlook
2008. DOE, Washington, DC.
Fen, W., 2009. International carbon trade: status and trends. China Science and
Technology Investment 7, 5253 (in Chinese).
Frenette, G., Forthoffer, D., 2009. Economic & commercial viability of hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles from an automotive manufacturer perspective. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34, 35783588.

417

Gan, L., 2003. Globalization of the automobile industry in China: dynamics and
barriers in greening of the road transportation. Energy Policy 31, 537551.
Granovskii, M., Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2006. Life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell
and gasoline vehicles. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31, 337352.
He, J.K., Liu, B., Wang, Y., 2007. Addressing global climate change: challenges and
countermeasures in China. Journal of Tsinghua University (Philosophy and
Social Sciences Ed) (5), 7583 (in Chinese).
Hekkert, M.P., Hendriks, F.H.J.F., Faaij, A.P.C., Neelis, M.L., 2005. Natural gas as an
alternative to crude oil in automotive fuel chains well-to-wheel analysis and
transition strategy development. Energy Policy 33, 579594.
Hu, Z.Y., Tan, P.Q., Lou, D.M., Dong, R.Q., 2007a. Life cycle emission assessment of
diesel and its alternative fuels. China Internal Combustion Engine Engineering
28, 8084 (in Chinese).
Hu, Z.Y., Tan, P.Q., Lou, D.M., 2007b. Life cycle assessment of energy consumption
and emissions of vehicle gasoline alternative fuel. Journal of Tongji University
35, 10991103 (in Chinese).
Huang, Z.J., Zhang, X., 2006. Well-to-wheels analysis of hydrogen based fuel-cell
vehicle pathways in Shanghai. Energy 31, 471489.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2005. Carbon dioxide Capture
and Storage: IPCC Special Report.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2006. IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report: Climate Change 2007.
IEA (International Energy Agency), 2003. Transport Technologies and Policies for
Energy Security and CO2 Reductions. OECD/IEA, Paris.
IEA (International Energy Agency), 2008. World Energy Outlook 2008. Paris: OECD/IEA.
Jaramillo, P., Samaras, C., Wakeley, H., Meisterling, K., 2009. Greenhouse gas
implications of using coal for transportation: life cycle assessment of coal-toliquids, plug-in hybrids, and hydrogen pathways. Energy Policy 37, 26892695.
Jiang, Z.M., 2008. Reections on energy issues in China. Journal of Shanghai
Jiaotong University 42, 345359 (in Chinese).
Karamangil, M.,I., 2007. Development of the auto gas and LPG-powered vehicle sector in
Turkey: a statistical case study of the sector for Bursa. Energy Policy 35, 640649.
Kathuria, V., 2004. Impact of CNG on vehicular pollution in Delhi: a note.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 9, 409417.
Katrasnik, T., 2009. Analytical framework for analyzing the energy conversion
efciency of different hybrid electric vehicle topologies. Energy Conversion
and Management, doi:10.1016/j.enconman.2009.04.016.
Khillare, P.S., Hoque, R.R., Shridhar, V., Agarwal, T., Balachandran, S., 2008.
Temporal variability of benzene concentration in the ambient air of Delhi: a
comparative assessment of pre- and post-CNG periods. Journal of Hazardous
Materials 154, 10131018.
Kim, J., Moon, I., 2008. The role of hydrogen in the road transportation sector for a
sustainable energy system: a case study of Korea. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 33, 73267337.
Lai, C.H., Chang, C.C., Wang, C.H., Shao, M., Zhang, Y.H., Wang, J.L., 2009. Emissions
of liqueed petroleum gas (LPG) from motor vehicles. Atmospheric Environment 43, 14561463.
MOST (Ministry of Science and Technology, P.R. China), 2008. Application guideline
for modern transport technology in National High-tech R&D Program (863
Program). /http://www.most.gov.cn/htmS, 2008-05.
NBSC (National Statistic Bureau of China), 2008. National Statistic Bureau of China,
China Energy Statistic Yearbook 2007. China Statistic Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
NDRC (National Development and Reform Commission of P.R. China), 2007. Chinas
National Climate Change Program. /http://news.xinhuanet.com/politics/
2007-06/04/content_6196300.htmS.
Ou, X.M., Zhang, X.L., Chang, S.Y., 2008a. Life-cycle analysis of energy consumption,
GHG emissions and regulated pollutants emissions of automotive fuel
pathways in China. Center of Automotive Energy Research Center, Tsinghua
University, Beijing.
Ou, X.M., Zhang, X.L., Chang, S.Y., 2008b. Life-cycle analysis of energy consumption.
GHG emissions and regulated pollutants emissions of new energy bus
pathways in China. Automobiles and Parts 757, 1620.
Ou, X.M., 2009. A review on the research and development of hydrogen production
and storage technologies. Energy Research and Information 25 (1), 14
(in Chinese).
Ou, X.M., Zhang, X.L., Chang, S.Y., Guo, Q.F., 2009. Energy consumption and GHG
emissions of six biofuel pathways by LCA in China. Applied Energy, 86, S197
S208.
Ouyang, M.G., 2006. Chinese energy-saving and new energy vehicle development
strategy and actions. Automotive Engineering 28, 317322 (in Chinese).
Shen, W., Zhang, A.L., Han, W.J., 2006. Well-to-wheel analysis on energy use and
GHGs emission of NG-based alternative fuels. Natural Gas Industry 26
148152 (in Chinese)
Solomon, B.D., Banerjee, A., 2006. A global survey of hydrogen energy research,
development and policy. Energy Policy 34, 781792.
Song, W., Guo, J.Q., Wang, C., 2008. Study on China coal-based vehicle fuel energy
consumption and carbon dioxide emissions based on WTW fuel cycle analysis.
Automobile Technology 1, 59 (in Chinese).
Steenberghen, T., Lopez, E., 2008. Overcoming barriers to the implementation of
alternative fuels for road transport in Europe. Journal of Cleaner Production 16,
577590.
Stepp, M.D., James, J., Winebrake, J., Hawker, S., Skerlos, S.J., 2009. Greenhouse gas
mitigation policies and the transportation sector: the role of feedback effects
on policy effectiveness. Energy Policy 37, 27742787.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
418

X. Ou et al. / Energy Policy 38 (2010) 406418

Tzeng, G.H., Lin, C.W., Opricovic, S., 2005. Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel
buses for public transportation. Energy Policy 33, 13731383.
Wan, G., 2008. Thinking on Chinese energy-saving and new energy vehicle
development mode and the initiatives. Trafc and Transportation 2, 13
(in Chinese).
Wang, H.W., Ouyang, M.G., 2007. Transition strategy of the transportation energy
and powertrain in China. Energy Policy 35, 23132319.
Wang, B.G., 2006. How far from clean vehicle?. Chinese University Technology
Transfer 03, 4850 (in Chinese).
Wang, M.Q., 2007. Operating manual for GREET version 1.7. /http://greet.anl.gov/
publications.htmlS.
Wang, M.Q., Huo, H., 2009. Transportation: meeting the dual challenges of
achieving energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Frontiers of
Energy and Power Engineering in China 3, 212225.
Wang, M.Q., Weber, T., 2001. Well-to-Wheels energy use and GHG emissions of
advanced fuel/vehicles system-North American analysis. Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory.
Wang, Q.Y., 2009. Chinas energy end use and efciency in 2007. Energy Saving and
Environment Protection 02, 1417 (in Chinese).
Wei, Y.C., Peng, S.P., Jiang, Y.F., Qian, X.R., 2008. Analysis on life cycle GHGs
emission of coal based methanol. Clean Coal Technology 14, 1012 (in
Chinese).
Weisser, D., 2007. A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from
electric supply technologies. Energy 32, 15431559.
Xiao, B., Zhang, A.L., Chen, G.F., 2002. Life cycle inventory of clean coal-red power
generation in China. Clean Coal Technology 11 (2), 14 (in Chinese).
Xinhuanet, 2009a. The Program of Demonstration Project of 1000 EV Application in
10 Cities. /http://news.xinhuanet.com/auto/2009-01/07/content_10615121.htmS.

Xinhuanet, 2009b. Financial Support Approach of Energy-Saving and New Energy

Vehicle Buyer Subsidies. /http://news.xinhuanet.com/auto/2009-05/15/con
tent_11377958.htmS.
Yan, X.Y., Crookes, R.J., 2009. Reduction potentials of energy demand and GHG
emissions in Chinas road transport sector. Energy Policy 37, 658668.
Yeh, S., 2007. An empirical analysis on the adoption of alternative fuel vehicles: the
case of natural gas vehicles. Energy Policy 35, 58655875.
Zeng, N., Ding, Y., Pan, J., et al., 2008. Climate change: the Chinese challenge.
Science 2008 (319), 730731.
Zhang, G.B., 2009. Report on Chinas Energy Development for 2009. Economic
Science Press, Beijing.
Zhang, L., Huang, Z., 2005. Life cycle assessment and selection of natural gas-based
vehicle alternative fuels. Automotive Engineering 27, 553556 (in Chinese).
Zhang, L., Huang, Z., 2007. Life cycle study of coal-based dimethyl ether as vehicle
fuel for urban bus in China. Energy 32, 18961904.
Zhang, L., 2007. Study on Life Cycle Energy Use, Pollutants Emission and Economy
of Coal-Based Vehicle DME. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai (in
Chinese).
Zhang, M.Q., Lu, G.F., 2009. Analysis on carbon trade market mechanism.
Environment Protection 18, 7881 (in Chinese).
Zhang, H., Wang, S.J., Li, Z., 2005. Well-to-tank life cycle assessment for coal
derived methanol fuel. Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology) 45, 15691572 (in Chinese).
Zhang, A.L., Shen, W., Han, W.J., Chai, Q.H., 2008. Life Cycle Analysis of Automotive
Alternative Energy. Tsinghua University Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
Zhao, J.M., Melaina, M.W., 2006. Transition to hydrogen-based transportation in
China: lessons learned from alternative fuel vehicle programs in the United
States and China. Energy Policy 34, 12991309.