Well-to-Wheel System

The WtW net GHG emissions of ethanol are calculated as the product of the WtT net GHG emissions and the specific fuel consumption of ethanol in the fuel blend (as reported in Table 3). The WtW net GHG emissions of ethanol (expressed in kg CO2 eq./km) are then com­pared to those of unleaded gasoline.

1.1 Net Energy Use and Energy Substitution Efficiency

The net energy use of a fuel most often refers to the consumption of nonrenewable primary energy along the life cycle of a biofuel or fossil fuel. Although the energy balance is often lim­ited to the comparative energy efficiency of fuels production, the actual performance of fuel blends must be taken into account in order to obtain a global picture of the potential sub­stitution of nonrenewable energy associated with biofuels. In order to measure the efficiency of nonrenewable primary energy substitution over the life cycle of bioethanol, the concept of energy substitution efficiency is defined later, including both production and utilization of the biofuel.

According to the data in Table 3, the most efficient use of fuel-bioethanol is in the form of E10 (1.174 MJth/km compared to 1.413 MJth/km for bioethanol as E5 and 2.485 MJth/km for bioethanol as E85). The energy substitution efficiency is here defined as the ratio of the savings of nonrenewable primary energy of a given bioethanol system (incl. production and use) with respect to conventional gasoline to the savings of nonrenewable primary energy of an ideal bioethanol system (i. e., bioethanol with a zero nonrenewable primary energy consumption and utilization as E10).

3 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS TABLE 2 Effects of Ethanol on Vehicle Fuel Performance

37

Testing body

Fuel

Vehicle

Cycle

Variation of fuel consumption w. r.t gasoline" (l/km) (kg/km) (MJth/km)

EMPA (2002)

E5

FORD Focus

NEFZ

—1.0%

—0.6%

—2.6%

ECE

—1.9%

—1.6%

—3.5%

EUDC

—0.7%

—0.4%

—2.4%

IDIADA (2003)

E5

RENAULT Megane

Stage III

—0.6%

—0.3%

—2.2%

AEAT (2002)

E10

TOYOTA Yaris

Cold ECE

—3.3%

—2.9%

—6.6%

Cold EUDC

—1.6%

—1.2%

—4.9%

WSL average

—1.1%

—0.6%

—4.4%

E10

OPEL Omega

Cold ECE

—17.3%

—17.0%

—20.1%

Cold EUDC

—14.5%

—14.1%

—17.3%

WSL average

—6.4%

—6.0%

—9.5%

E10

FIAT Punto

Cold ECE

—5.6%

—5.2%

oq

об

1

Cold EUDC

—12.5%

—12.2%

—15.5%

WSL average

—3.0%

—2.5%

—6.2%

E10

VW Golf

Cold ECE

—8.5%

—8.1%

—11.6%

Cold EUDC

—3.8%

—3.4%

—7.1%

WSL average

—4.3%

—3.9%

—7.6%

E10

ROVER 416

Cold ECE

+1.1%

+1.6%

—2.3%

Cold EUDC

—0.8%

—0.3%

—4.1%

WSL average

—2.8%

—2.3%

—6.0%

EMPA (2007b)

E85

FORD Focus FFV

NEFZ

+35.0%

+41.8%

—2.5%

ECE

+33.5%

+40.2%

—3.5%

EUDC

+36.4%

+43.3%

— 1.4%

Average

E5

— 2.7%

Averageb

E10

—7.5%

Average

E85

—2.5%

a The variation of fuel consumption with respect to gasoline (in l/km, kg/km and MJth/km) is calculated according to the results presented in the various studies. The calculations are based on the actual characteristics and properties of the fuels as quoted in these studies, which may differ slightly from the data presented in Table 2. The average values at the bottom of the table are based on the variation in MJth/km. b The average variation offuel consumptionfor E10is based on the complete set ofresults ofthe AEAT (2002) study. Only a part ofthese results are quoted in the table, which explains why the average calculated from the data given above may differ from the actual average of — 7.5%.

Fuel

(km/MJth)

(MJth/km)

(% MJ/MJ)

(km/MJth)

(MJth/km)

(% MJ/MJ)

(km/MJth)

(MJth/km)

Gasoline

0.390

2.564

100.0%

0.390

2.564

0.0%

E5

0.401

2.496

96.6%

0.390

2.564

3.4%

0.708

1.413

E10

0.422

2.371

93.1%

0.390

2.564

6.9%

0.852

1.174

E85

0.400

2.501

21.0%

0.390

2.564

79.0%

0.402

2.485

TABLE 3 Specific Fuel Efficiency/Consumption of Gasoline and Ethanol Components in Fuel Blends

Fuel blend Gasoline component Ethanol component