2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2011.09.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Well-to-wheel analysis for electric, diesel and hydrogen traction for railways

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
36
0
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(37 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
36
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The scope of the external costs analysis can focus on the emissions related to the use of the transport mode (tank-to-wheel analysis), on the production phase (well-to-tank analysis) or on both aspects (well-to-wheel analysis, e.g. Hoffrichter et al, 2012). For the geographical issue, we suggest the definition of a specific corridor on which comparisons of different modes of transport can be achieved.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The scope of the external costs analysis can focus on the emissions related to the use of the transport mode (tank-to-wheel analysis), on the production phase (well-to-tank analysis) or on both aspects (well-to-wheel analysis, e.g. Hoffrichter et al, 2012). For the geographical issue, we suggest the definition of a specific corridor on which comparisons of different modes of transport can be achieved.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A big exception is the US, where diesel-electric locomotives are used on virtually all freight routes. Hoffrichter US grid in 2008 would have been 0.9 kg per kWh [48]. The current US grid is around 20% cleaner than in 2008 [49], and the benefit of a shift to electric traction would be correspondingly greater.…”
Section: Rail Freightmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The marginal external cost analysis can focus on the emissions related to the use of the transport mode (tank-to-wheel analysis), on the production phase (well-to-tank analysis) or on both aspects (well-to-wheel analysis, e.g. Hoffrichter et al, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%