Transportation fuels: LCA of Well-to-Tank and Tank-to-Wheels GHG emissions

NewImage

Well-To-Tank (WTT) Life Cycle Analysis of a petroleum based fuel pathway includes all steps from crude oil recovery to final finished fuel. Tank-To-Wheel (TTW) analysis includes actual combustion of fuel in a motor vehicle for motive power. WTT and TTW analysis are combined to provide a total Well-To-Wheel (WTW) analysis.

Following up on my previous post Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources, I have looked into the GHG contributions of the various parts of the hydrocarbon-fuel part of the transportation cycle. Crude Refining contributes on the order of 13% of the total WTW life cycle of hydrocarbon fuel based transport. Roughly 80% of the emissions are consumption, burning the damn stuff, downstream of the supply chain which puts the fuel into the vehicle tank. Refining is a bit over half of the fuel supply chain. Of course, “your mileage may vary” as there are many variables depending on location, fuel choice, how that fuel is supplied, and how it is consumed.

First, regarding questions about the oil sands GHG footprint, the US Congressional Research Service has recently surveyed just this: Canadian Oil Sands: Life-Cycle Assessments of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The CRS report begins with this summary:

CRS surveyed the published literature, including the U.S. Department of State-commissioned studies for the Keystone XL pipeline project in both the August 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the March 2013 Draft Supplementary EIS. The primary literature reveals the following:

  • Canadian oil sands crudes are on average somewhat more GHG emission- intensive than the crudes they may displace in U.S. refineries, as Well-to-Wheel GHG emissions are, on average, 14%-20% higher for Canadian oil sands crudes than for the weighted average of transportation fuels sold or distributed in the United States;
  • discounting the final consumption phase of the life-cycle assessment (which can contribute up to 70%-80% of Well-to-Wheel emissions), Well-to-Tank (i.e., “production”) GHG emissions are, on average, 70%-110% higher for Canadian oil sands crudes than for the weighted average of transportation fuels sold or distributed in the United States;
  • compared to selected imports, Canadian oil sands crudes range from 9% to 19% more emission-intensive than Middle Eastern Sour, 5% to 13% more emission- intensive than Mexican Maya, and 2% to 18% more emission-intensive than various Venezuelan crudes, on a Well-to-Wheel basis;
  • compared to selected energy- and resource-intensive crudes, Well-to-Wheel GHG emissions for Canadian oil sands crudes are within range of heavier crudes such as Venezuelan Bachaquero and Californian Kern River, as well as lighter crudes that are produced from operations that flare associated gas (e.g., Nigerian Bonny Light);

The above graphic on GHG for transportation fuels focuses on LCA of the Well-to-Wheels. This is from the Jacobs Consultancy slide deck: Life Cycle Well to Wheels Assessment of GHG Emissions from North American and Imported Crude Oils [PDF slide deck 34pp]. The data source for that particular slide is the Detailed California-Modified GREET Pathway for Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) from Average Crude Refined in California [PDF 47 pp]. GREET is the Argonne National Laboratory LCA Model. That report is focused on ULSD, but it confirms the general magnitude of the refining GHG footprint, with the entire supply chain contributing about 21%:

NewImage 

For estimates of how large is the supply chain GHG contribution associated with process heat or electricity I am reviewing the in-depth 2012 study by Jacobs titled: EU Pathway Study: Life Cycle Assessment of Crude Oils in a European Context [PDF 364pp]. This is an industry-funded study, for the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission. The study was prepared for the EU context – EU refineries, EU crude oil sources, etc.  I am curious how big a GHG reduction would be obtained by replacing these heat and electricity inputs with nuclear plants. For oil sands the nuclear substitution would improve both recovery (esp. steam generation) and refining.

What do you think? (first time comments are moderated)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s