Fuel Life-Cycle Analysis of Hydrogen vs. Conventional Transportation Fuels

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisor Dr. E.D. Brill, Committee Chair en_US
dc.contributor.advisor Dr. H. Christopher Frey, Committee Member en_US
dc.contributor.advisor Dr. S. Ranji Ranjithan, Committee Co-Chair en_US
dc.contributor.author DeGolyer, Jessica Suzanne en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2010-04-02T18:03:25Z
dc.date.available 2010-04-02T18:03:25Z
dc.date.issued 2008-10-27 en_US
dc.identifier.other etd-08192008-124223 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/1357
dc.description.abstract Fuel life-cycle analyses were performed to compare the affects of hydrogen on annual U.S. light-duty transportation emissions in future year 2030. Five scenarios were developed assuming a significant percentage of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to compare different feedstock fuels and technologies to produce hydrogen. The five hydrogen scenarios are: Central Natural Gas, Central Coal Gasification, Central Thermochemical Nuclear, Distributed Natural Gas, and Distributed Electrolysis. The Basecase used to compare emissions was the Annual Energy Outlook 2006 Report that estimated vehicle and electricity mix in year 2030. A sixth scenario, High Hybrid, was included to compare vehicle technologies that currently exist to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles that commercially do not exist. All hydrogen scenarios assumed 30% of the U.S. light-duty fleet to be hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in year 2030. Energy, greenhouse emissions, and criteria pollutant emissions including volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, sulfur dioxides, nitrogen dioxides, and carbon monoxide were evaluated. Results show that the production of hydrogen using thermochemical nuclear technology is the most beneficial in terms of energy usage, greenhouse gas emissions, and criteria pollutant emissions. Energy usage decreased by 36%, greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 46% or 9.6 x 108 tons, and criteria emissions were reduced by 28-47%. The centrally-produced hydrogen scenarios proved to be more energy efficient and overall release fewer emissions than the distributed hydrogen production scenarios. The only hydrogen scenario to show an increase in urban pollution is the Distributed Natural Gas scenario with a 60% increase in SOx emissions.. en_US
dc.rights I hereby certify that, if appropriate, I have obtained and attached hereto a written permission statement from the owner(s) of each third party copyrighted matter to be included in my thesis, dis sertation, or project report, allowing distribution as specified below. I certify that the version I submitted is the same as that approved by my advisory committee. I hereby grant to NC State University or its agents the non-exclusive license to archive and make accessible, under the conditions specified below, my thesis, dissertation, or project report in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known. I retain all other ownership rights to the copyright of the thesis, dissertation or project report. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis, dissertation, or project report. en_US
dc.subject fuel en_US
dc.subject life cycle analysis en_US
dc.subject fuel cell vehicle en_US
dc.subject hydrogen en_US
dc.title Fuel Life-Cycle Analysis of Hydrogen vs. Conventional Transportation Fuels en_US
dc.degree.name MS en_US
dc.degree.level thesis en_US
dc.degree.discipline Civil Engineering en_US


Files in this item

Files Size Format View
etd.pdf 588.1Kb PDF View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record