Applied Energy 86 (2009) 610615

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Comparison of GHG emissions from diesel, biodiesel and natural gas refuse trucks of the City of Madrid
Jos Ma Lpez *, lvaro Gmez, Francisco Aparicio, Fco. Javier Snchez
Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM), Automobile Research Institute (INSIA), Carretera de Valencia, km 7, Madrid 28031, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The aim of this paper is to carry out a comparative study with regard to energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, in respect of two types of engines with three different fuels. The fuels analysed are diesel, biodiesel 30% (B30) and compressed natural gas (CNG). The engines tested were a spark ignition engine (Otto cycle) and two compression ignition engines (Diesel cycle), the rst fed with CNG and the last two with B30 and diesel. What is new about this study is its scope of application concerning refuse collection services in the city of Madrid. The tests were carried out on refuse trucks of the FCC Company along actual urban routes in the city of Madrid. Also taken into account were the energy input and the greenhouse gases emitted for each of the paths taken by the fuels analysed, from resource recovery to delivery to the vehicle tank. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 8 November 2007 Received in revised form 11 August 2008 Accepted 14 August 2008 Available online 23 October 2008 Keywords: Well-to-wheel Refuse truck Biodiesel Natural gas Greenhouse gas

1. Introduction The technological improvements that have been implemented in vehicles during the last decades have greatly reduced the emissions of some pollutants as CO, NOx and NMVOC. However, energy consumption and CO2 emissions have experienced a sustained growth. Available forecasts show that, under a business-as-usual scenario, this growth will continue in the near future [1,2]. A diversication of automotive fuels and powertrain technologies will be needed if national and international targets on greenhouse gas emissions are to be met. Following this diversication, advanced technology vehicles such as hybrid electric vehicles with gasoline and diesel, and various fuel cell based vehicles, are currently under extensive research and development [3]. Recently, life cycle assessment (LCA) has been garnering increased interest from policy analyst and decision-makers. LAC can be used effectively to analyze transportation fuel pathways. Many quality and comprehensive studies have been conducted for transportation fuels, both in North America [4] and non-North America [5,6] contexts. Against this background, in order to evaluate the greenhouse gas emissions reduction potentials, we focus on estimating well-totank (considerating fuel from resource recovery to delivery to the vehicle tank) greenhouse gas emissions of automotive fuels to be used in these refuse trucks for the present and near future. Further, by adding these to well-to-tank results, we show well-to-wheel (integration of the well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel components)
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 91 336 53 06; fax: +34 91 336 53 02. E-mail address: josemaria.lopez@upm.es (J.Ma . Lpez). 0306-2619/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.08.018

greenhouse gas emissions under specic condition of driving a refuse truck. A number of studies with comparisons of diesel, natural gas and diesel/biodiesel blends bus emissions have been published previously [79]. The basis for these comparisons, the choice of vehicles and even the outcome vary signicantly. Other researches have been conducted to develop a methodology for the generation of driving and duty cycles for refuse vehicles matching the statistical metrics and distributions of the generated cycles to the collected database [10,11]. These cycles will be utilized in the development and computer simulation of future refuse vehicle designs, specically energy-saving hybrid-electric vehicles. Other comparisons include a chassis-based testing program to document emission reduction (NOx, HC, CO and PM) performance from a eet of vehicles accumulating mileage or applying standard driving cycles [12,13]. In this study, we have aimed to show the results of the tests made on three refuse collection vehicles with regard to their energy consumption. Each of the three vehicles was designated to run on a different fuel: diesel, biodiesel and natural gas. The compaction process has a strong inuence on the consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in this kind of vehicle. Compaction process and transfer to dump causes a relatively high consumption and CO2 emission, comparing with other types of urban eet such as buses. Collections segment is a combination of kinematic and hydraulic operation and also includes a signicant number of stops per kilometre. The vehicle spends a large portion of this driving cycle idling (over 50%), mostly while the refuse is being collected. Due to frequent compactations, body hydraulics

J.Ma . Lpez et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 610615

611

are engaged (power-take-off operation) for more than 19% of the whole cycle. The fact that three fuels were analysed is due, on the one hand, to the current state of activity in eets of refuse trucks, and on the other hand, to the recommendations from the European Commission regarding biofuels for this decade and the next. NG is considered to be one of the alternative fuels with the greatest potential for application to urban services [14]. The use of NG in transport is growing rapidly in Spain in public services, and in other countries even for general use in automobiles. In Europe, the European Commission, in its Green Paper, has made replacing 23% of conventional fuel with alternative fuel a goal for 2020. With regard to NG, it was thought it should have a penetration of 10% [15]. Recently, the EC has ratied this value [16]. The EU White Paper on transport warns of the need to reduce dependency on oil-based fuels in order to have clean efcient transport [17]. In many countries NG has been introduced for urban service eets, in urban bus services, for instance. Urban buses operate on xed routes and refuel in the bus depots. This same situation is now successfully applied to refuse collection vehicles in Madrid, Barcelona, Oviedo, Tarragona, Valencia, Reus, Vigo and other cities, with Spain alone reaching 800 industrial vehicles in urban applications with a daily service. A detailed study of this kind of vehicles working in such specic conditions had never been performed, so it can be an important contribution to the state of art of these kind of studies. 2. Calculation methodologies Energy Logistic Modelling (ELM) is a method developed at the Department for Transportation and Logistics at Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, for the transportation sector [18]. ELM is based on traditional logistics and on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The ELM for motor fuel describes a method for analyzing energy and exergy utilization and emissions for a fuel that is made from dened raw materials, with dened production processes, located at specic places and used by specic users, e.g. vehicles, vehicle eets and vehicle categories. It is well known that the use of the exergetic method when a whole fuel and vehicle LCA is to be done. In this study it was not so necessary since we have started from the General Motors data, that have even been checked by manufacturer cars. Several processes (e.g. oil or natural gas supply) can be combined to energy chains by input/output relation (energy, material). In many LCAs all kinds of energy are treated in the same way, notwithstanding, the quality of the energy, i.e., the exergy. There is, indeed, a big difference in elds of application between 1 MJ of electricity, 1 MJ of biomass and 1 MJ of surplus heat. Electricity is produced, oil is rened before use, biomass is cultivated, etc. In our study these factors have been considered. Effective decision-making about fuel vehicle policy and regulation requires a life cycle perspective. When LCA is applied to fuel/ vehicle pathways it is often called well-to-wheel (WTW) analysis. The proposed methodology is based on a global knowledge of the energies involved in the entire process. The methodology is divided into three segments: (a) The well-to-tank (WTT) component accounts for the energy use and the resulting GHG emissions associated with resource recovery through to delivery of the useable fuel to the tank of the vehicle. (b) The tank-to-wheel (TTW) evaluation which accounts for the energy use and GHG emissions from the use of the fuel in vehicles. (c) Well-to-wheel (WTW) global analysis, taking account of the above combinations.

3. Well-to-tank emissions analysis The well-to-tank assessment accounts for the energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with the production of the fuel, including the production of its feedstock, processing the feedstock and transportation of the fuel to the dispenser at the fuelling station. The following fuels will be analysed:  Diesel.  Natural Gas.  B30 (biodiesel 30%, diesel 70%). Much information can be found from technical literature sources about well-to-tank analysis [1921]. For this study, the well-to-tank data have been selected from the General Motors European Well-to-Wheel Study [6], corrected in those particular cases where it has proved necessary. 3.1. Diesel A representative European crude oil mix is delivered via maritime vessel from the point of origin to a European port. Near the port, the crude oil is rened, to obtain several compounds, one of which is diesel. The product is delivered via pipeline, inland ship or railroad to a depot. Finally, it is assumed that distribution to the service stations will require about 150 km of road transport. Table 1 shows GHG emissions and energy requirements of diesel pathway. The Fig. 1 illustrates the energy diagram blocks for the diesel pathway. 3.2. Natural gas 3.2.1. Description of the natural gas based pathway to CNG fuel Europes ve largest natural gas suppliers are Russia, Algeria, Holland, Norway and Great Britain. They supply 85% of Europes natural gas, which is called EU natural gas mix. NG from European Natural Gas Mix is delivered to the refuelling station supplied with a suction pressure of 0.1 MPa (a) or 4 MPa (b) and is dispensed into the vehicle under an unload pressure of 25 MPa. Table 2 shows GHG emission and energy requirements of the CNG pathway. NG from the European network is supplied to service stations under different pressures: (a) Low pressure network (domestic network): CNG is compressed at the station from its entry pressure of 0.1 MPa to a supply pressure of 25 MPa (the electric power consumption by the compressor is 0.011 kWhel/MJCNG). (b) High pressure network (industrial network and power plants): CNG is compressed at the station from its entry pressure of 4 MPa to a supply pressure of 25 MPa (the electric power consumption by the compressor is 0.003 kW hel/ MJCNG). NG supply pressure in the city of Madrid is around 1.2 MPa, which means that the above table must be modied. For each MJ of energy reaching the tank, 1.14 MJ have been input and 9.71 g CO2 equivalent have been emitted. 3.2.2. Compressed natural gas from liquid natural gas (CNG from LNG) Natural gas is liqueed in a remote area and transported by ship more than 10,200 km, supplied to a European port and nally distributed more than 500 km to the service stations. Turning CNG into gas and the supply destined for vehicles is done at 25 MPa.

612

J.Ma . Lpez et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 610615

Table 1 GHG emission and energy requirements of the selected crude oil pathways: DIESEL supply Energy inputa,b MJ/MJdiesel Crude oil extraction Crude oil transport Rening Distribution Total
a b

Finally, biodiesel B30 (30% methyl ester and 70% diesel) offers advantages in respect of diesel-related greenhouse gas (1.65 g CO2/MJ-obtained by calculation). 4. Tank-to-wheel analysis For the tank-to-wheel analysis three routes were evaluated by monitoring: average speeds, distances, times, and the fuel consumption. In consultation with FCC staff, it was determined that the most severe usage of a refuse vehicle in terms of physical harm to the vehicle is in residential settings. The vehicles specications are described below: s IVECO 240 E 26 GNC Sel 25 m3 CE Double Polyvalent. IVECO 8469.41.10 engine. Rear-loading. Turbo intercooling. Displacement: 9500 cm3. Multipoint injection. Stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. Fuel: natural gas. Hereafter CNG. s IVECO 240 E 25 Cross Sel 25 m3 CE Double Polyvalent. IVECO 8460.41.320 engine. Rear-loading .Turbocharged intercooling direct injection. Displacement: 9500 cm3. Fuel: diesel. Hereafter Diesel. s IVECO 240 E 25 Cross Sel 25 m3 CE Double Polyvalent. IVECO 8460.41.320 engine. Rear-loading.Turbocharged intercooling direct injection. Displacement: 9500 cm3. Fuel: biodiesel 30%. Hereafter B30. Three real itineraries were selected as illustrated in Table 5. The daily data collection procedure requires shadowing of the test vehicle along its route during 57 h. Every vehicle repeated the itinerary seven times charging the refuse truck in the same sequence. The EDM eco of SIEMENS VDO was used to measure the fuel consumption. EDM eco was connected to the electronic device of the truck. EDM eco is an interactive consumption measurement system that guarantees economical vehicle operation. Some of the EDM specications are presented in Table 6. Alongside current fuel consumption, average consumption and accumulated running costs are also displayed on the Eco-Display screen. EDM eco was calibrated before starting individual itineraries, in order to check the fuel consumption at stationary condition, accelerated idle1500 rpm- to assure k = 1 on CNG vehicle. For the calibration an external CO2 analyzer was used, connected to the Pitot tube installed at the end of the exhaust tailpipe (Fig. 2). The vehicle mass was measured before and after each dump and the amount of a fuel to ll the tank at the end of the shift was measured in order to provide fuel consumption metric. This value was used to recalibrate EDM eco parameters. Table 7 shows the data parameters that were directly available on the device. There is a download software available for further data processing, allowing the data to be downloaded from the display into a PC and evaluated and recorded as both driver-related and vehicle-related data. Table 8 shows measured average consumptions for each route. It can be seen that engine consumption in g/km, with B30 is 13.4%

Energy lossesb MJ/MJdiesel 0.027 0.012 0.060 0.020 0.119

Greenhouse gases(GHG)b g/MJdiesel 3.6 0.9 4.7 1.1 10.2

1.027 1.039 1.099 1.119 1.119

Cumulative, includes the energy delivered to the vehicle. Per MJ delivered to the vehicle.

In this case, for each MJ delivered to the tank, 1.23 MJ have been input and 16.2 g CO2 equivalent have been emitted. 3.3. Bio-ester from rapeseed (biodiesel) Rapeseed or sunower seed is cultivated, collected and transported by truck 50 km to an oil processing plant. There the oil is extracted, rened and esteried with methanol. The plant oil ester is transported 150 km for blending with diesel fuel. Table 3 shows GHG emission and energy requirements of biodiesel pathway using glycerine as a fuel in the process. The CO2 emissions depends on energy inputs. Therefore, we need a formula to calculate resulting CO2 emissions as a function of a carbon content of energy inputs:

CO2 emissions Energy input CO2 content of energy carrier CO2 content of product
Oil production and esterication process, the formula gives:

CO2 emissions 2; 11 0 76; 7 76; 7 gCO2 equiv=MJ

The glycerine from the biodiesel plant substitutes glycerine which is produced in conventional way in the chemical industry, for that reason, a credit is added to give 80 gCO2-equiv/MJ. 3.4. Fuel pathways comparison (well-to-tank) Table 4 shows an overall summary of energy input and greenhouse gas emissions for the fuels analysed. The greenhouse gas emissions in order to obtain diesel and CNG are relatively similar. Most of the carbon is contained in the fuel and is given off as CO2 during combustion in the vehicles engine. With biomass, the CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere during the growth process and is not given off until used in the vehicle. This is why CO2 emissions are usually negative, but the use of external fossil energy or fertilisers needed for their cultivation, transport and processing make the CO2 equivalent emissions less negative. In the case of methyl ester from rapeseed, the most important emissions are N2O when it comes to the nal count of greenhouse gas emissions (1 g N2O  310 g CO2).

3,6 g CO2-equiv/MJ 0,9 g CO2-equiv/MJ 1,027 MJ/MJ

CRUDE OIL EXTRACTION CRUDE OIL TRANSPORT

4,7 g CO2-equiv/MJ 3,6 g CO2-equiv/MJ 1,119 MJ/MJ

REFINING DISTRIBUTION

0,027 MJ/MJ

0,012 MJ/MJ

0,06 MJ/MJ

0,02 MJ/MJ

Fig. 1. Connection of processes to energy chains by energy ows.

J.Ma . Lpez et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 610615 Table 2 GHG emission and energy requirements for CNG from EU NG-Mix EU NG-Mix at 4 MPa Energy input MJ/ MJCNG EU NG-Mix high pressure delivery Low pressure distribution CNG Refuelling station (NG compression and dispensing) Total
a a

613

EU NG-Mix at 0.1 MPa Energy losses MJ/ MJCNG 0.09 0.03 0.12 GHG g/ MJCNG 6.5 1.4 7.9 Energy input1 MJ/ MJCNG 1.08 1.09 1.20 1.20 Energy losses MJ/ MJCNG 0.09 0.01 0.11 0.21 GHG g/ MJCNG 6.6 2.9 4.9 14.4

1.09 1.12 1.12

Cumulative.

Table 3 GHG emission (CO2 equivalent) and energy requirements for methyl ester Glycerine used as a fuel in the process Energy input [MJ/MJRME] Rapeseed cultivation Drying rapeseed Transport Oil production and esterication Distribution Total Cumulative. 1.26 1.27 1.29 2.11 2.12 2.12 Energy losses [MJ/MJRME] 0.26 0.01 0.02 0.82 0.01 1.12 GHG [g/MJRME] 60 0.7 0.6 80 0.4 18.3

Table 4 GHG emission (CO2 equivalent) and energy requirements for the fuel paths analysed Energy input [MJ/MJ] UE CNGa CNG from LNG Diesel Biodiesel B30b
a b

Energy losses [MJ/MJ] 0.14 0.22 0.119 1.12 0.44

GHG emissions [g CO2-eq./MJ] 9.71 16.2 10.2 18.3 1.65

1.141 1.23 1.119 2.12 1.40

Calculated for a 12 bar line pressure. Calculated for a mix of 30% methyl ester and 70% diesel.

Table 5 Type of service and average load, for each of the itineraries selected Type of service Itinerary 1 (120 km) Itinerary 2 (130 km) Itinerary 3 (124 km) Domestic waste-1st run (kg) 6 380 5 826 6 766 Domestic waste-2nd run (kg) 3 607 4 922 5 621 Plastic waste (kg) 1 095 1 053 817

greater than for diesel; this is mainly due to its lower heat value. Diesel and CNG consumptions are approximately equal. In order to calculate CO2 emissions in g/km, the carbon balance method through stoichiometry of the chemical reaction was applied:

In US legislation a differentiation between methane and nonmethane hydrocarbons (NMHC) has been already applied de facto for many years, basically regulating non-methane hydrocarbons. The rationale for this is that methane is neither toxic nor reactive; it is, however, a relatively strong greenhouse gas, with an effect approximately 20 times greater than CO2. In diesel engines, the exhaust contains hydrocarbons (HC) derived from partly burned fuel. During the combustion process, some new types of hydrocarbons or components like aldehydes and ketones are also formed [22]. In a natural gas engine, typically more than 90% of the total hydrocarbon value (THC) is methane, and only small portion is NMHC. For the time being, the European legislation for heavyduty vehicles regulates total hydrocarbons (THC) for conventional diesel engines and both methane and NMHC for natural gas engines. Measurements on modern buses, diesel and CNG vehicles, have been carried out in Finland by VTT Processes [23]. Two different duty cycles were used, the European Braunschweig cycle and the US Orange County cycle. It turned out to be that both cycles gave practically identical results. As can be expected, the THC values with CNG were higher than with diesel. The THC values for CNG ranged from 0.25 to 2.0 g/km. In the case of diesel, the THC values were within the range of 0.4 to 0.05 g/km. The methane emission of the CNG vehicle was low. Even if the methane was multiplied by a factor of 20 and added to the CO2 emission value to quantify total greenhouse gas effect, this would not change the outcome of the comparison. Estimated N2O emission factors for diesel engines are about 0.0099 g/km and 0.0087 g/km for CNG. Even considering a factor of 310, does not change the outcome of the comparison. The current heavy-duty CNG engines are spark-ignition engines operating on the Otto cycle. For this reason, the thermal efciency of these engines is lower than for diesels. For chemistry, less carbon and more hydrogen in natural gas than diesel fuel compensate for the lower efciency resulting in tailpipe CO2 emissions lower than from diesels. As can be seen from the results (see Table 10), the vehicle with the CNG engine is the one that emits the lowest amount of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere during the selected cycle, compared to diesel and B30 engines. 5. Well-to-wheel analysis The total WTW energy use is calculated by multiplying the WTT energy requirements by the fuel consumption of the vehicle. The WTW emissions are calculated multiplying the WTT GHG emissions in gram per MJ by the energy consumption of the vehicle in MJ per km, to which the TTW GHG emissions were added (in gram per km, see Figs. 3 and 4). From the well-to-wheel analysis, it may be deduced that the vehicle fed with CNG is the one that emits the lowest amount of greenhouse gases into the air, both per kilometre run and per MJ of energy input. As for energy demands, that is, the number of

  b Ca Hb a c O2 3:773N2 4   b b ! a CO2 H2 O 3:773 a c N2 c O2 2 4

For diesel, the composition was C13.5H24.6. For B30 the following composition was used: C18.7H34.9O2 and for NG, 85% of CH4 was used and 15% of C2H6. Table 9 shows the gures for CO2 emissions in kg/km. It can be seen that for the CNG engine with a catalytic converter and stoichiometric ratio, emissions are the lowest with 1.76 kg CO2/km.

614

J.Ma . Lpez et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 610615 Table 10 Tank to wheel analysis GHG emissions [gCO2-eq./MJ] Tank-to-wheel Diesel B30 CNG (TTW) 73.37 74.13 61.32 GHG emissions [gCO2-eq./km] 2 009.77 2 298.20 1 751.36 Fuel consumption [MJ/km] 27.39 31.00 28.56

GHGg=km=consumptionl=km densitykg=1 LHVMJ=kg gfuelCO2 =MJ.

WELL-TO-WHEEL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

DIESEL

CNG
Fig. 2. Refuse collection vehicle calibration.

B30 0 10 20 30 40 50

Table 6 EDM technical information Operating voltage Operation temperature Signal inputs Tachograph interface On-board output interface Measuring accuracy Download interface UB = 12 / 24 V 30 C to + 70 C Speed, injection valve, EBC signal, CAN Counter output (1100 L) UB Impulse output 5 V (11000 impulses/L) 3% depending on calibration PC standard COM part serial RS232

[MJ/km]
Fig. 3. Energy requirements in MJ/km of vehicles fed with B30, CNG and diesel for the global well-to-wheel analysis (WtW).

Well-to-Wheel

Table 7 Basic functions Overall consumption Distance Average consumption Current consumption Average speed Driving time Liter (09999 L) km (09999 km) l/100 km l/100 km km/h h (09999 h)

B30 CNG Diesel

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

[gCO2-eq./km]
Fig. 4. Greenhouse gas emissions in g CO2 eq./km for the well-to-wheel analysis (WtW) for vehicles fed with B30, CNG and diesel.

Table 8 Measured average consumptions for the routes run and its standard deviation Vehicle Fuel consumption [g/km] Diesel B30 CNG 646.68 756.5 637.5 [l/km] 0.77 0.89 0.85 m3 N/km [MJ/km] 27.39 31.00 28.56

6. Conclusions
r
0.040 0.037 0.047

The following basic conclusions can be extracted from this comparative study:  Well-to-tank analysis shows that B30 pathway fuel presents the best conditions from the GHG point of view.  The Tank to Wheel GHG emissions for CNG vehicle were the lowest.  CNG refuse collection vehicles are those that emit the lowest emissions of CO2 during well-to-wheel, which means that their global environmental impact (greenhouse effect) is lower. In the t VTT study, the best available European diesel bus technology was compared with the best available European CNG bus technology. The average CO2 emissions were 1.224 g/km for diesel buses and 1.077 g/km for EEV certied CNG buses [23]. Acknowledgements

Table 9 Calculation of CO2 emissions Diesel Calculation of CO2 emissions Density [kg/l] Fuel mass [kg] kg CO2/kg fuel Mass CO2 [kg] Mass CO2 [kg/km] 0.835 532.57 3.18 1 693.57 2.03 B30 0.85 557.54 3.07 1 711.74 2.32 CNG 0.00075 515.1 2.77 1 426.82 1.76

MJ needed to run a kilometre, it can be seen that the vehicle fed with CNG is positioned between the diesel vehicle and the biodiesel one, due basically to the performance of the Otto cycle.

Special thanks should be given to FCC for their collaboration with this study, not only for making the vehicles available to run the chosen routes but also for the drivers enthusiastic willingness

J.Ma . Lpez et al. / Applied Energy 86 (2009) 610615

615

to follow the instructions for carrying out the driving cycles with the seriousness required by the replicate of these tests. References
[1] Burn JM, Lpez JM, Aparicio F, Martn MA, Garca A. Estimation of road transportation emissions in Spain from 1988 to 1999 using COPERT III program. Atmos Environ 2004;38:71524. [2] Burn JM, Aparicio F, Izquierdo O, Gmez A, Lpez I. Estimation of the input data for the prediction of road transportation emissions in Spain from 2000 to 2010 considering several scenarios. Atmos Environ 2005;39:558596. [3] Jefferson M. Long-term energy scenarios: the approach of the World Energy Council. Global Energy Issues 2000;13:13. [4] Wung M. GREET. Greenhouse gas regulated emission and energy use in transportation model version 1.7 (beta); 2006. <http:// www.transportation.anl.gov>. [5] EUCAR. Well-to wheel analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrain in the european context. European Council for Automotive R&D; 2006. <http:// www.ies.jrc.cec.eu.int/wtw.html>. [6] Europe GM. GM well-to-wheel analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of advanced fuel/vehicle systems European study. Report From General Motors; 2002. <http://www.lbst.de/gm-wtw>. [7] Air Resources Board, California Environmental Protection Agency. Study of CNG and diesel transit bus emissions. Air Resources Board; 2002. <http:// www.arb.ca.gov/research/cng-diesel/cng-diesel.html>. [8] Ayala A, Kado NY, Okamoto A, Holmn BA, Kuzmicky PA, Kobayashi R, Stiglizt KE. Diesel and CNG heavy-duty transit bus emissions over multiple driving schedules: regulated pollutants and project overview. SAE Technical Paper, 2002-01-1722. [9] Tzirakis E, Karavalakis G, Zannikos F, Stournas S. Impact of Diesel/biodiesel blends on emissions from a diesel vehicle operated in real driving conditions. SAE Technical Paper, 2007-01-0076. [10] Dembski N, Rizzoni G, Soliman A, Fravert J, Kelly K. Development of refuse vehicle driving and duty cycles. SAE Technical Paper, 2005-01-1165. [11] Ivani Z. Data collection and development of new york city refuse truck duty cycle. SAE Technical Paper, 2007-01-4118.

[12] Walkowicz K, Proa K, Wayne S, Nine R, Campbell K, Wiedemeier G. Chassis dynamometer emission measurements for refuse trucks using dualfuelTMnatural gas engines. SAE Technical Paper, 2005-01-3366. [13] Block M, Clark N, Wayne S, Nine R, Miller W. An investigation into the emissions reduction performance of an scr system over two years in use heavy duty vehicle operation. SAE Technical Paper, 2005-01-1861. [14] Latest international NGV statistics. IANGV (International Association for Natural Gas Vehicles), Undated. <http://www.iangv.org>. [15] European Commissions. Green paper: towards a european strategy for the security of energy supply. Luxembourg; 2001. 105 p. ISBN 92-8940319-5 <http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/doc-principal/pubnal_ en.pdf>. [16] Alternative Fuels Group. An assessment of the emissions performance of alternative and conventional fuels; 2003. <http://europa.eu.int/comm./ energy_transport/envir/2003_report_en.pdf>. [17] Europan Commissions. White paper: European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. Luxembourg; 2001. 119 p. ISBN 92-894-0341-1 <http:// europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/library/lb_texte_complet_en.pdf>. [18] Blinge M. ELM: Environmental assessment of fuel supply systems for vehicle eets. Report 35, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology. Gteborg, Sweden; 1998. ISBN 91-7197-670-1. [19] Ishitani H, Nishimura F, Matsumoto K, Nakanishi K, Kobayashi S, Hoshi H, et al. Well-to-wheel analysis of greenhouse gas emissions of automotive fuels in Japanese context. Report From Toyota Motor Corporation. Mizuho Information & Research Institute, Inc.; 2004. <http://www.mizuho-ir.co.jp/english/>. [20] Rousseau A, Sharer P. Comparing apples with apples: well-to-wheel analysis of current ICE and fuel cell vehicle technologies. SAE Technical Paper, 2004-011015. [21] Edwards R, Griesemann JC, Lariv JF, Mahieu V. Well-to Wheel analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrain in the european context. Report from EUCAR/JRC/CONCAWE. European Commission. Joint Research Centre; 2005. [22] DieselNet.com. Emissions standards. Summary of worldwide diesel emission standards; 2004. <http://www.dieselnet.com/standards.html. [23] Nylund N, Erkkil K, Lappi M, Ikonen M. Transit bus emission study: Comparison of Emissions from Diesel and Natural Gas Buses. PRO3/P5150/ 04. VTT Processes; 2004.