Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNajmul Hoque
dc.contributor.authorWahidul Biswas
dc.contributor.authorIlyas Mazhar
dc.contributor.authorIan Howard
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-16T18:42:41Z
dc.date.available2020-07-16T18:42:41Z
dc.date.created2020-07-14 23:34
dc.date.issued2020-07-01
dc.identifieroai:doaj.org/article:1265ad5f71b64ae295c09fc3b22d31e7
dc.identifier10.3390/su12145565
dc.identifier2071-1050
dc.identifierhttps://doaj.org/article/1265ad5f71b64ae295c09fc3b22d31e7
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/3954836
dc.description.abstractEnvironmental obligation, fuel security, and human health issues have fuelled the search for locally produced sustainable transport fuels as an alternative to liquid petroleum. This study evaluates the sustainability performance of various alternative energy sources, namely, ethanol, electricity, electricity-gasoline hybrid, and hydrogen, for Western Australian road transport using a life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) framework. The framework employs 11 triple bottom line (TBL) sustainability indicators and uses threshold values for benchmarking sustainability practices. A number of improvement strategies were devised based on the hotspots once the alternative energy sources failed to meet the sustainability threshold for the determined indicators. The proposed framework effectively addresses the issue of interdependencies between the three pillars of sustainability, which was an inherent weakness of previous frameworks. The results show that the environment-friendly and socially sustainable energy options, namely, ethanol-gasoline blend E55, electricity, electricity-E10 hybrid, and hydrogen, would need around 0.02, 0.14, 0.10, and 0.71 AUD/VKT of financial support, respectively, to be comparable to gasoline. Among the four assessed options, hydrogen shows the best performance for the environmental and social bottom line when renewable electricity is employed for hydrogen production. The economic sustainability of hydrogen fuel is, however, uncertain at this stage due to the high cost of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs). The robustness of the proposed framework warrants its application in a wide range of alternative fuel assessment scenarios locally as well as globally.
dc.languageEN
dc.publisherMDPI AG
dc.relation.ispartofhttps://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/14/5565
dc.relation.ispartofhttps://doaj.org/toc/2071-1050
dc.sourceSustainability, Vol 12, Iss 5565, p 5565 (2020)
dc.subjectalternative transport fuel
dc.subjecttriple bottom line
dc.subjectsustainability assessment
dc.subjectlife cycle approach
dc.subjectthreshold value
dc.subjectimprovement strategies
dc.subjectEnvironmental effects of industries and plants
dc.subjectTD194-195
dc.subjectRenewable energy sources
dc.subjectTJ807-830
dc.titleLife Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Alternative Energy Sources for the Western Australian Transport Sector
dc.typeArticle
ge.collectioncode2071-1050
ge.dataimportlabelOAI metadata object
ge.identifier.legacyglobethics:16784333
ge.lastmodificationdate2020-07-14 23:34
ge.lastmodificationuseradmin@pointsoftware.ch (import)
ge.submissions0
ge.oai.exportid150302
ge.oai.repositoryid52
ge.oai.setnameLCC:Environmental effects of industries and plants
ge.oai.setnameLCC:Renewable energy sources
ge.oai.setnameLCC:Environmental sciences
ge.oai.setspecTENDOkVudmlyb25tZW50YWwgZWZmZWN0cyBvZiBpbmR1c3RyaWVzIGFuZCBwbGFudHM~
ge.oai.setspecTENDOlJlbmV3YWJsZSBlbmVyZ3kgc291cmNlcw~~
ge.oai.setspecTENDOkVudmlyb25tZW50YWwgc2NpZW5jZXM~
ge.oai.streamid2
ge.setnameGlobeEthicsLib
ge.setspecglobeethicslib
ge.linkhttps://doaj.org/article/1265ad5f71b64ae295c09fc3b22d31e7


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record