Sustainability Assessment of Public Transport, Part II-Applying a Multi-Criteria Assessment Method to Compare Different Bus Technologies

被引:29
作者
Dahlgren, Sofia [1 ]
Ammenberg, Jonas [1 ]
机构
[1] Linkoping Univ, Dept Management & Engn, Environm Technol & Management & Biogas Res Ctr BR, SE-58183 Linkoping, Sweden
关键词
bus technologies; multi-criteria assessment; MCA; MCDA; public transport; sustainability assessment; sustainable or green public procurement; LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT; LIQUEFIED NATURAL-GAS; ELECTRIC VEHICLES; BIOGAS PRODUCTION; ENVIRONMENTAL-IMPACT; ANAEROBIC-DIGESTION; FUEL-CELL; CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE; GREENHOUSE-GAS; NUCLEAR-POWER;
D O I
10.3390/su13031273
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Many Swedish regional transport authorities want bus fleets driven on renewable fuels. However, it may be difficult to know what technology, or combination of technologies, to choose. There is a need for improved knowledge and supportive methods for sustainability assessments that can support public procurement processes. In the companion article (Part I), a multi-criteria assessment (MCA) method for assessments of public bus technologies' sustainability was established, consisting of four key areas and 12 indicators. In this article, the purpose is to apply the method established in part I on different bus technologies by looking at a general Swedish case and assessing buses driven on diesel, Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO), Fatty Acid Methyl Ester (FAME), ethanol, natural gas, biomethane and electricity. Each technology is assessed on a scale from Very Poor to Very Good according to the indicators: technical maturity, daily operational availability, total cost of ownership, need for investments in infrastructure, cost stability, non-renewable primary energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emission savings, air pollution, noise, local/regional impact on land and aquatic environments, energy security and sociotechnical systems services. The results show the strengths and weaknesses of each technology, which are later discussed. We also critically reflect upon the usefulness and accuracy of the MCA method.
引用
收藏
页码:1 / 32
页数:30
相关论文
共 190 条
[1]  
Adheesh SR, 2016, CURR SCI INDIA, V110, P858
[2]  
Aldenius M., 2016, ELEKTRIFIERING STADS, P66
[3]  
Allen L., 2012, THE WORLDS WATER, P73
[4]   Life-cycle assessment of diesel, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell bus transportation systems [J].
Ally, Jamie ;
Pryor, Trevor .
JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES, 2007, 170 (02) :401-411
[5]   Biogas in the transport sector-actor and policy analysis focusing on the demand side in the Stockholm region [J].
Ammenberg, Jonas ;
Anderberg, Stefan ;
Lonnqvist, Tomas ;
Gronkvist, Stefan ;
Sandberg, Thomas .
RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2018, 129 :70-80
[6]   Assessment of feedstocks for biogas production, part II-Results for strategic decision making [J].
Ammenberg, Jonas ;
Feiz, Roozbeh .
RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING, 2017, 122 :388-404
[7]  
Anenberg S., 2019, GLOBAL SNAPSHOT AIR, P55
[8]  
[Anonymous], WELL TANK APPENDIX 2
[9]  
[Anonymous], 2020, kWh for the first time in 2020, while market average sits at $137/
[10]  
[Anonymous], 2019, SUSTAINABLE BUS ELEC