IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i19p6278-d648675.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment Approach to Air Emissions and Human Health Impacts of Liquefied Natural Gas Supply Chain

Author

Listed:
  • Hussein Al-Yafei

    (Engineering Management, College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar)

  • Murat Kucukvar

    (Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar)

  • Ahmed AlNouss

    (Division of Sustainable Development, College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Foundation, Doha P.O. Box 34110, Qatar)

  • Saleh Aseel

    (Engineering Management, College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar)

  • Nuri C. Onat

    (Qatar Transportation and Traffic Safety Center, College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar)

Abstract

Global interest in LNG products and supply chains is growing, and demand continues to rise. As a clean energy source, LNG can nevertheless emit air pollutants, albeit at a lower level than transitional energy sources. An LNG plant capable of producing up to 126 MMTA was successfully developed and simulated in this study. A hybrid life cycle assessment model was developed to examine the social and human health impacts of the LNG supply chain’s environmental air emission formation. The Multiregional Input–Output (MRIO) database, the Aspen HYSYS model, and the LNG Maritime Transportation Emission Quantification Tool are the key sources of information for this extensive novel study. We began our research by grouping environmental emissions sources according to the participation of each stage in the supply chain. The MDEA Sweetening plant, LNG loading (export terminal), and LNG transportation stages were discovered to have the maximum air emissions. The midpoint air emissions data estimated each stage’s CO 2 -eq, NO x -eq, and PM2.5-eq emissions per unit LNG generated. According to the midpoint analysis results, the LNG loading terminal has the most considerable normalized CO 2 -eq and NO x -eq emission contribution across all LNG supply chain stages. Furthermore, the most incredible intensity value for normalized PM2.5-eq was recorded in the SRU and TGTU units. Following the midpoint results, the social human health impact findings were calculated using ReCiPe 2016 characterization factors to quantify the daily loss of life associated with the LNG process chain. SRU and TGTU units have the most significant social human health impact, followed by LNG loading (export terminal) with about 7409.0 and 1203.9 (DALY/million Ton LNG produced annually), respectively. Natural gas extraction and NGL recovery and fractionation units are the lowest for social human health consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • Hussein Al-Yafei & Murat Kucukvar & Ahmed AlNouss & Saleh Aseel & Nuri C. Onat, 2021. "A Novel Hybrid Life Cycle Assessment Approach to Air Emissions and Human Health Impacts of Liquefied Natural Gas Supply Chain," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-32, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:19:p:6278-:d:648675
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/19/6278/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/19/6278/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Agnolucci, Paolo & Arvanitopoulos, Theodoros, 2019. "Industrial characteristics and air emissions: Long-term determinants in the UK manufacturing sector," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 546-566.
    2. Raj, Ratan & Ghandehariun, Samane & Kumar, Amit & Linwei, Ma, 2016. "A well-to-wire life cycle assessment of Canadian shale gas for electricity generation in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 642-652.
    3. Oliver, Matthew E., 2015. "Economies of scale and scope in expansion of the U.S. natural gas pipeline network," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(PB), pages 265-276.
    4. Tamura, Itaru & Tanaka, Toshihide & Kagajo, Toshimasa & Kuwabara, Shigeru & Yoshioka, Tomoyuki & Nagata, Takahiro & Kurahashi, Kazuhiro & Ishitani, Hisashi, 2001. "Life cycle CO2 analysis of LNG and city gas," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 301-319, March.
    5. Onat, Nuri Cihat & Kucukvar, Murat & Tatari, Omer, 2015. "Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 36-49.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Jinrui & Meerman, Hans & Benders, René & Faaij, André, 2021. "Techno-economic and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions assessment of liquefied natural gas supply chain in China," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 224(C).
    2. Yang, Jian & Zhang, Tiezhu & Hong, Jichao & Zhang, Hongxin & Zhao, Qinghai & Meng, Zewen, 2021. "Research on driving control strategy and Fuzzy logic optimization of a novel mechatronics-electro-hydraulic power coupling electric vehicle," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 233(C).
    3. Jan K. Kazak & Joanna A. Kamińska & Rafał Madej & Marta Bochenkiewicz, 2020. "Where Renewable Energy Sources Funds are Invested? Spatial Analysis of Energy Production Potential and Public Support," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-26, October.
    4. Ruan, Jiageng & Walker, Paul & Zhang, Nong, 2016. "A comparative study energy consumption and costs of battery electric vehicle transmissions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 119-134.
    5. Ruan, Jiageng & Walker, Paul D. & Watterson, Peter A. & Zhang, Nong, 2016. "The dynamic performance and economic benefit of a blended braking system in a multi-speed battery electric vehicle," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1240-1258.
    6. Paul Baustert & Tomás Navarrete Gutiérrez & Thomas Gibon & Laurent Chion & Tai-Yu Ma & Gabriel Leite Mariante & Sylvain Klein & Philippe Gerber & Enrico Benetto, 2019. "Coupling Activity-Based Modeling and Life Cycle Assessment—A Proof-of-Concept Study on Cross-Border Commuting in Luxembourg," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-24, July.
    7. Daraei, Mahsa & Avelin, Anders & Dotzauer, Erik & Thorin, Eva, 2019. "Evaluation of biofuel production integrated with existing CHP plants and the impacts on production planning of the system – A case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Paweł Dec & Jacek Wysocki, 2022. "In Search of Non-Obvious Relationships between Greenhouse Gas or Particulate Matter Emissions, Renewable Energy and Corruption," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, February.
    9. Paul E. Hardisty & Tom S. Clark & Robert G. Hynes, 2012. "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electricity Generation: A Comparative Analysis of Australian Energy Sources," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-26, March.
    10. Wee, Sherilyn & Coffman, Makena & Allen, Scott, 2020. "EV driver characteristics: Evidence from Hawaii," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 33-40.
    11. Maxwell Woody & Michael T. Craig & Parth T. Vaishnav & Geoffrey M. Lewis & Gregory A. Keoleian, 2022. "Optimizing future cost and emissions of electric delivery vehicles," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(3), pages 1108-1122, June.
    12. Murillo Vetroni Barros & Cassiano Moro Piekarski & Antonio Carlos De Francisco, 2018. "Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation in Brazil: An Analysis of the 2016–2026 Period," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-14, June.
    13. Siqin Xiong & Junping Ji & Xiaoming Ma, 2019. "Comparative Life Cycle Energy and GHG Emission Analysis for BEVs and PhEVs: A Case Study in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, March.
    14. Coilín ÓhAiseadha & Gerré Quinn & Ronan Connolly & Michael Connolly & Willie Soon, 2020. "Energy and Climate Policy—An Evaluation of Global Climate Change Expenditure 2011–2018," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-49, September.
    15. Kumar, Satish & Kwon, Hyouk-Tae & Choi, Kwang-Ho & Lim, Wonsub & Cho, Jae Hyun & Tak, Kyungjae & Moon, Il, 2011. "LNG: An eco-friendly cryogenic fuel for sustainable development," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 88(12), pages 4264-4273.
    16. Xianchun Tan & Yuan Zeng & Baihe Gu & Yi Wang & Baoguang Xu, 2018. "Scenario Analysis of Urban Road Transportation Energy Demand and GHG Emissions in China—A Case Study for Chongqing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-32, June.
    17. Fusco Rovai, Fernando & Regina da Cal Seixas, Sônia & Keutenedjian Mady, Carlos Eduardo, 2023. "Regional energy policies for electrifying car fleets," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 278(PA).
    18. Antje-Mareike Dietrich & Christian Leßmann & Arne Steinkraus, 2016. "Buyer’s Premium for Electric Cars: Is Policy Following the Wrong Path?," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 69(11), pages 21-26, June.
    19. Sergio Maria Patella & Flavio Scrucca & Francesco Asdrubali & Stefano Carrese, 2019. "Traffic Simulation-Based Approach for A Cradle-to-Grave Greenhouse Gases Emission Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-14, August.
    20. Kain Glensor & María Rosa Muñoz B., 2019. "Life-Cycle Assessment of Brazilian Transport Biofuel and Electrification Pathways," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-31, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:19:p:6278-:d:648675. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.