kojose

Kocaeli Journal of Science and Engineering

2667-484X

Kocaeli University

10.34088/kojose.1447855

Environmentally Sustainable Engineering

Çevresel Olarak Sürdürülebilir Mühendislik

Well-to-wheel Analysis of Greenhouse Gases Emissions for Dispenser Operation in the Apron of Istanbul Airport: A Comparative Study

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0228-5674

Uzun Ayvaz

Burcu

ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY-CERRAHPASA

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3036-2809

Onat

Burcu

İSTANBUL ÜNİVERSİTESİ-CERRAHPAŞA

11 30 2024

7 2 131 136 03 06 2024 04 19 2024

2018

Kocaeli Journal of Science and Engineering

This study aims to compare greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of diesel-powered dispenser (DD) and electric-powered dispenser (ED) that are providing refuelling services at Istanbul Airport. The emissions of both dispensers within the framework of the Well-to-Wheel (WTW) system boundary are calculated in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (kg CO2 eq.) according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The study shows that for a "1 m3 refuelling", the GHG emissions of a DD are approximately 14.1 times higher than those of an ED, with a total of 0.549 kg CO2 eq. ED is found to be dominant in reducing the emissions during refuelling, even in a situation where fossil sources dominate the current electricity generation mix. This shows that switching to electric vehicles (EVs) instead of vehicles using diesel fuel may be an appropriate choice at airports with significant operational potential. However, the environmental impact of the ED should be considered in a broader context with a comprehensive life cycle assessment that includes all phases.

Airport operation Refuelling Dispenser Life cycle assessment GHG emissions

Istanbul University-Cerrahapasa

FDK-2021-35905

[1] IEA, 2023. International Energy Agency, Tracking Transport, https://www.iea.org/energy-system/transport (Accessed date 28.11.2023).

[2] Xu H., Xiao K., Pan J., Fu Q., Wei X., Zhou J., Yu Y., Hu X., Ren H., Cheng J., Peng S., Hong, N., Ye Y., Su N., He Z., Hu, T., 2023. Evidence of aircraft activity impact on local air quality: A study in the context of uncommon airport operation. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 125, pp. 603-615.

[3] ATAG, 2023. Air Transport Action Group, Facts & figures, https://www.atag.org/facts-figures/ (Accessed date 28.11.2023).

[4] Bylinsky, M., 2019. Airport carbon accreditation-empowering airports to reduce their emissions. In ICAO 2019 Environmental Report: Destination Green-The Next Chapter, International Civil Aviation Organization, pp. 168-169.

[5] Greer F., Rakas J., Horvath A., 2020. Airports and environmental sustainability: A comprehensive review. Environmental Research Letters, 15(10), 103007.

[6] Greer F., Horvath A., Rakas J., 2023. Life-Cycle Approach to Healthy Airport Terminal Buildings: Spatial-Temporal Analysis of Mitigation Strategies for Addressing the Pollutants that Affect Climate Change and Human Health. Transportation Research Record, 2677(1), pp. 797-813.

[7] Zampaglione de Miguel P., 2017. Sustainability analysis of the ground handling operations using MIVES methodology. Case study: El Prat Airport, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Master’s Thesis, https://upcommons.upc.edu/handle/2117/117566 (Accessed date 28.12.2023).

[8] Wang H., Thakkar C., Chen X., Murrel S. 2016. Life-cycle assessment of airport pavement design alternatives for energy and environmental impacts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, pp.163-171.

[9] Staples M. D., Malina R., Suresh P., Hileman J. I., Barrett S.R., 2018. Aviation CO2 emissions reductions from the use of alternative jet fuels. Energy Policy, 114, pp. 342-354.

[10] ISO, 2006a. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment -Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

[11] ISO, 2006b. ISO 14044:2006. Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Management. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

[12] Moro A., Lonza L., 2018. Electricity carbon intensity in European Member States: Impacts on GHG emissions of electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 64, pp. 5-14.

[13] Ozdemir A., Koc I. M., Sumer B., 2020. Comparative study on Well-to-Wheels emissions between fully electric and conventional automobiles in Istanbul. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 87, 102508.

[14] Kliucininkas L., Matulevicius J., Martuzevicius D., 2012. The life cycle assessment of alternative fuel chains for urban buses and trolleybuses. Journal of environmental management, 99, pp. 98-103.

[15] Moro A., Helmers E., 2017. A new hybrid method for reducing the gap between WTW and LCA in the carbon footprint assessment of electric vehicles. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22, pp. 4-14.

[16] Burchart-Korol D., Jursova S., Folęga P., Korol J., Pustejovska P., Blaut A., 2018. Environmental life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in Poland and the Czech Republic. Journal of Cleaner Production, 202, pp. 476-487.

[17] Sheng M. S., Sreenivasan A. V., Sharp B., Du B., 2021. Well-to-wheel analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption for electric vehicles: A comparative study in Oceania. Energy Policy, 158, 112552.

[18] Bauer C., Hofer J., Althaus H. J., Del Duce A., Simons A., 2015. The environmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis framework. Applied Energy, 157, pp. 871-883.

[19] Petrauskienė K., Skvarnavičiūtė M., Dvarionienė J., 2020. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of electric and conventional vehicles in Lithuania. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 119042.

[20] Vilaça M., Santos G., Oliveira M.S., Coelho M.C., Correia G.H., 2022. Life cycle assessment of shared and private use of automated and electric vehicles on interurban mobility. Applied Energy, 310, 118589.

[21] Onat N.C., Kucukvar M., 2022. A systematic review on sustainability assessment of electric vehicles: Knowledge gaps and future perspectives. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 97, 106867.

[22] RTMENR, 2022, Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources, Info Bank, Electriciy, https://enerji.gov.tr/bilgi-merkezi-enerji-elektrik (Accessed date 28.12.2023).

[23] Ecoinvent, 2020. Ecoinvent database v3.0 https://ecoinvent.org/the-ecoinvent-database/data-releases/ecoinvent-3-0/ (Accessed date 10.09.2023).

[24] Naranjo G. P. S., Bolonio D., Ortega M. F., García-Martínez M. J., 2021. Comparative life cycle assessment of conventional, electric and hybrid passenger vehicles in Spain. Journal of Cleaner Production, 291, 125883.

[25] Shafique M., Azam A., Rafiq M., Luo X., 2022a. Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles: A case study of Hong Kong. Research in Transportation Economics, 91, 101112.

[26] Held M., Schücking M., 2019. Utilization effects on battery electric vehicle life-cycle assessment: A case-driven analysis of two commercial mobility applications. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 75, pp. 87-105.

[27] Shafique M., Luo X., (2022b). Environmental life cycle assessment of battery electric vehicles from the current and future energy mix perspective. Journal of Environmental Management, 303, 114050.

[28] Athanasopoulou L., Bikas H., Stavropoulos P., 2018. Comparative well-to-wheel emissions assessment of internal combustion engine and battery electric vehicles. Procedia CIRP, 78, pp. 25-30.