The Influence of Alternative Fuels on the Development of Large-Scale Production

Anna V.Bobrova,Evgeny A.Stepanov,Tatyana Sakulyeva,Gaukhar Zh. Zhumabekova,Aigul I.Yesturliyeva

1 Department of Customs Affairs,South Ural State University(National Research University),Chelyabinsk,Russian Federation

2 Department of Transport Complexes Management,State University of Management,Moscow,Russian Federation

3 Department of Economics,Accounting and Audit,Kazakh University of Technology and Business,Nur-Sultan,Republic of Kazakhstan

4 Department of Economic Security,Caspian State University named after Sh. Esenov,Aktau,Republic of Kazakhstan

Keywords Present value of fuel Governmental support Energy sources Alternative fuel Ecological consequences

Abstract The relevance of this research is that the ecological consequences were caused by the mass use of transport at the present stage. The purpose of the research is to compare the priority of large-volume production of two groups of fuels based on price and non-price factors; to identify the main development problems for all types of alternative fuel. The main problems were identified in the development of all types of alternative fuel and shown the possibilities of large-volume production of hydrogen and electric engines under the condition of the state’s active financial and legislative influence.

1 Introduction

There are around 50 million cars in the world,and the vast majority of them run on gasoline or diesel fuel. The mass use of liquid hydrocarbons has led to serious global problems,namely:

– Depletion of oil reserves; according to analysts, oil production on Earth will be exhausted within 30-40 years.

–Continuous increase in gas prices.

–Increase in the content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,resulting in global warming.

–Atmospheric and environmental pollution from harmful emissions, for example,sulfur oxides, soot,benzopyrene,and aldehydes.

There are many studies on the ecological consequences caused by the mass use of transport at the present stage(Boschiero et al.,2019;Liu et al.,2019;Nishimura et al.,2019;Rosenhaim et al.,2019;Touratier-Muller et al., 2019; Uteng et al., 2019). It is absolutely clear to the global community that the 21st century will be the decline of the oil era. A decline in the oil production rates in most countries and a decrease in profitability can already be observed today. This is the reason for the growing cost of oil products and, as a consequence,for certain restrictions in the development of the economies of individual countries and the global economy in general. 80% of the mechanical energy used in human activity is generated by internal combustion engines.This circumstance makes us give thought to alternative fuels.

To organize an efficient use of the latest energy sources in transport and improve the environmental situation,we should determine the priority directions for development in the production and use of alternative fuels,i.e.,answer the following fundamental questions:

–What alternative fuel types have been developed at present?

–What are the advantages and disadvantages of these alternative fuels?

–Which fuel is the most efficient,taking into account the costs of technical re-equipment of vehicles?

–What non-price factors influence the development of alternative energy?

–Which alternative fuels and vehicles are suitable for large-volume production?

Major automobile companies already offer cars which run on alternative fuel. This year,the world will spend 44 billion dollars on the development of this field. The government support of new fuels and engines will be 22.4 billion dollars. The cost of a cars that require upgrades or re-equipment to utilize alternative fuel depends on investments. Most of the developed fuel systems either do not stand up to competition with conventional engines, or are available only to the wealthy. Vehicle price will be objectively high without any governmental support,which is feasible only in economically developed countries.

This is one of the main problems in transitioning to the large-volume production and use of alternative fuels at this time. In addition,governmental support is also needed for the construction of a network of special filling stations.

The alternative fuel concept covers all forms of fuel that do not contain liquid hydrocarbons (gasoline and diesel fuel), not only in a pure form, but also as a mixture with classic types of fuel (when the alternative fuel makes up the majority of the mixture). Whatever advantages various types of alternative fuel had,their prospects are determined by their competitiveness with gasoline and diesel. It should be noted that with a decrease in oil prices, the attractiveness of any alternatives drops sharply. The economic factor begins to prevail over public awareness of the harm caused by the mass use of internal combustion engines(Tsybulevsky et al. 2019).

At this time,alternative fuels can be arranged in the following order by degree of development and applicability: methane, ethanol, propane, electricity, hydrogen. We can outline three main groups of alternative fuels according to the raw materials used for their production: biofuel,gas-based fuels,and electricity.

Biofuel can be produced from crops, plant and animal waste, or certain non-food materials: wood, weeds,and plastic. The main advantages of biofuel include:

–reduction of greenhouse gas emissions;

–lack of fundamental requirements for re-equipping vehicles and restructuring filling stations;

–possible on-site production, for example,in regions inaccessible for fuel delivery;

–wide,historically established sphere of application,apart from transport.

However,the first point must be recognized as a relative advantage. When biofuel is burned,almost the same amount of carbon dioxide(CO2)is released as when using oil,but at the same time,carbon previously absorbed by plants returns to the atmosphere, therefore, the carbon balance of the planet remains almost unchanged.When conventional fuel is used, the carbon which was“stored” in the Earth’s crust for millions of years enters the atmosphere, and the concentration of CO2rises. The advantage of the on-site production of biofuel using the simplest devices at small production volumes can be offset by ethical standards if, for example, animal fat is used for biofuel production in the northern regions. From the perspective of protecting biodiversity on Earth,such exploitation of the zoosphere cannot be recognized as an appropriate use of resources which are vital for the population.

The use of food raw materials for biofuel production also poses a global problem,since around 113 million people in 53 countries are experiencing severe food shortages. Some unofficial Internet sites provide calculations showing that about 30% of the total energy demand for transport can be replaced by biofuel without affecting food production. In our opinion, such calculations are questionable from a social and ethical point of view,and are inaccurate without taking into account land depletion as a result of their intensive use.

In six countries of the European Union (EU), as well as in the United States of America (USA), Canada,Brazil,and Malaysia,biofuel is produced on an industrial scale,but its share in the fuel balance does not exceed 0.3%. Let us give examples of using biofuel. Motorcycles and sports cars run on ethanol. This is popular in Brazil,where there are no large oil reserves,but there are ideal conditions for growing sugarcane and producing cheap alcohol from it. About 7 million cars are fueled by ethanol in Brazil. In the United States, which is the second largest consumer of ethanol in transport, alcohol fuel is produced from corn. Ethanol is used in its pure form in 21 states. In Germany,rapeseed biodiesel is sold at 800 filling stations as automobile fuel.

Synthetic fuel is prioritized,in particular,by Volvo,Nissan,and KAMAZ.To date,only China has developed a rational method for producing liquid synthetic fuel on an industrial scale through the direct hydrogenation of heavy hydrocarbons (coal, coal tar, shale, peat, and other carbon-containing substances). Developments to produce synthetic gasoline from coal are underway in England. The production of synthetic motor fuels from natural gas has been developed in New Zealand. 570 thousand tons of motor fuel are synthesized annually from pre-obtained methanol at the Mobil plant. However, currently, synthetic fuel from natural gas is 1.8-3.7 times(depending on the production technology)more expensive than oil fuel. The use of gas condensates as motor fuel is minimized due to its disadvantages: harmful influence on the human central nervous system, unacceptable sparking during motor operation, a 20% decrease in engine power, and an increase in specific consumption(Skvortsov et al. 2012;Skvortsov and Karizin,2017).

Hydrogen,propane,and methane can be used as an alternative gas-based fuel. Some car manufacturers(such as BMW,Mazda,Mercedes,Opel,and General Motors)try to use hydrogen as engine fuel,but hydrogen-fueled models are manufactured in small batches. Separate specialized filling stations have already appeared in Japan and the United States within the framework of the“hydrogen highway”program. Germany,Italy,and Denmark have a significant number of hydrogen filling stations, although some of them are not public. Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, and many other companies are producing concept cars with hydrogen fuel cells. Fuel cells from the aviation industry are still too expensive for the automotive industry. No more than 1% of automobiles consume propane and methane as fuel worldwide. Individual countries periodically adopt fleet “gasification” programs, but the success is usually modest. In the EU, about 9 million cars use propane and 2.8 million cars operate on methane. Germany has set the goal of increasing the number of gas-powered vehicles to 1 million by 2021,which will be only 4%of their total number.

Electricity as a fuel is the latest achievement in the automotive industry. There is even a company specializing exclusively in electric vehicles – Tesla Motors. According to company management, the lithium-ion batteries used by the company are charged sufficiently quickly and perform very well. According to optimistic estimates of Ford specialists,in 2020,a quarter of the global fleet will consist of electric vehicles. Solar Challenge,which is, in fact, a common electric vehicle powered by solar energy, has been developed. However, solar panels cannot be currently used directly in vehicle engines due to its insufficient power; they only expand the battery power range.

Alternative fuel is used in other modes of transport as well. The member states of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) have agreed on a new conceptual vision concerning the production of aviation fuels until 2050;about 40,000 flights were completed on such fuel. The goal of the International Air Transport Association (IATA) is for 6% of the total volume of standard aviation kerosene to be replaced by biofuel by 2020 (DOCPLAYER, 2019), which does not significantly change the fuel consumption structure in aviation.Until now, the energy costs for growing, transporting, and processing the significant biomass volumes needed for aviation reduce the effect of using alternative fuel. Aviation kerosene is acceptable for use with biofuel in the amount of 50%,but complete replacement is not yet possible. In Germany, Siemens is producing nearly-silent hydrogen submarines. Iceland plans to convert all vehicles to hydrogen,including public transport,private cars,and floating crafts. They started with fishing boats: 12,000 of them are now equipped with hydrogen engines. In Europe,MAN Truck&Bus is producing urban low-floor hydrogen buses. In 2008,Boing and certain European companies carried out the first man-made flight of an aircraft with a fuel cell engine.

Consequently,none of the alternative fuels has currently become worldwide spread. There are many reasons for this: there is not always a true reduction in harmful emissions, fluctuations in oil prices, the frequent need for refitting an engine, high cost of alternative fuel vehicles, lack of governmental support, issues in using raw materials for fuel production,specific conditions of individual countries,lack of a system of filling stations,and other reasons. At present, the need to move towards alternative fuels is not being discussed; it is a universallyrecognized need and a global solution,since environmental problems are coming to the fore in society. However,in the conditions of limited resources,it is necessary to understand which alternative fuel types may be produced and used on a massive scale at the current technological and equipment development level.

The goal of the paper is to rank the priority of large-volume production of two groups of fuels based on price and non-price factors,as well as to identify the main development problems for each alternative fuel type.

2 Materials and methods

Our research was based on three main methods: comparative analysis of alternative fuels,calculation of the set of capital and normalized current costs when using alternative fuel in transport, and factor analysis for various alternative fuels. Let use list the conditions and principles of the applied methods. Comparative analysis of alternative fuels covers a combination of price characteristics: the cost of fuel at comparable parameters for the movement of traffic and for mid-range vehicles,taking into account the presence of a network of filling stations,which radically influences the prospects for using alternative fuels. The comparison is based on averaged characteristics, i.e., at world fuel and vehicle prices. The price of the country of origin is not taken into account if a specific type of fuel has been developed on a massive scale in it, and the raw material stocks significantly influence the world market. The factor of the network of filling stations is graded as follows: 3–full provision of filling stations; 2–average number of filling stations, with planned mass construction in the future, and 1–there are separate filling stations for alternative fuel.

Our comparative analysis covers two groups–alternatives to gasoline and diesel fuel,since the characteristics of not only conventional types of fuel, but also of the vehicles, in which they are used, are fundamentally different. The same analysis can be carried out according to the specified methodology for other modes of transport. It is not expedient to compare alternative fuels directly with gasoline and diesel fuel, since none of them has become widespread for the reasons outlined above. We can only highlight the advantages of each type of alternative fuel compared to the classic fuels. It seems more logical to carry out a comparative analysis of the alternatives with each other and to determine which of them will be the first to enter into large-volume production and use.

The environmental parameters of alternative fuels are very important at present, however, the selection criterion is the economy of issue. Tightening environmental standards and requirements on exhaust gases of vehicles is only feasible in economically-developed countries. In developing countries,the cost of an alternative fuel vehicle comes to the fore as a criterion for mass introduction. Consequently, the lower the total cost of additional vehicle equipment and energy used,the larger the probability that a particular type of alternative fuel will be developed. In addition,the economic criterion is strengthened in the absence of an extensive network of filling stations. Therefore,it is expedient to compare the types of fuels for which there already exist production capabilities and filling stations, since the other alternative fuel types have been tested only in concept cars, or their effectiveness has not been proved.

The calculation of the set of capital and current costs when alternative fuel is used in transport takes into account that capital costs for a car are realized on a nonrecurring basis without taking into account the crediting institution,and current fuel costs are incurred on a permanent basis. In this regard,the cost of alternative fuel is reduced to three years of using a car, i.e.,to the conditional ROI period, after which the vehicle is traditionally replaced. It is assumed in the calculation that a car annually travels an average of 25 thousand kilometers.

The factor analysis covering various alternative fuel types takes into account three non-price components:the reduction in the amount of harmful emissions of alternative fuels compared to classic fuels, the level of governmental influence on the production of alternative fuels, and the availability of the latest approved developments for each type of fuel. We believe that these factors have the greatest influence on the prospects for developing alternative types of energy in the automotive industry. Harmful emissions should not take into account the absolute reduction of harmful substances when a vehicle is operated on alternative fuel, but the level of environmental pollution over the entire cycle from its production to use.

Often, traditional fuels are needed to produce alternative fuel, and harmful emissions during production are not inferior in quantity and composition to car exhausts. The governmental influence concept includes:direct financial support for the development of alternative fuels, certain “pressure” on the automotive industry to co-finance alternative fuel vehicles, and prohibitive environmental measures. The coefficient determining the influence of a separate factor for each type of alternative fuel is calculated as a unit minus the fractional assessment of the factor’s impact. Thus,the coefficients will be less than a unit and will reflect a decrease in the impact of the economic factor for each type of fuel. If the factor’s impact is insignificant, the coefficient is 1.The final coefficient is calculated as an average of three factor coefficients.

Alongside with the main methods,our research also applies:

– generalization of scientific research to highlight the full range of advantages and disadvantages for each alternative fuel;

–ranking of alternative fuels according to the level of their development prospects, including by modes of transport, as well as ranking the advantages and disadvantages of each type of alternative fuel by the degree of their impact;

–method of mass fractions of factors affecting the development of alternative fuels,taking into account the mass fractions of each factor in the total costs when alternative fuel is used in transport.

3 Results

Let us systematize the source data in Table 1 to calculate the total cost of vehicles and fuel and present the calculation results.

Two groups of fuel are subject to comparison, as determined by the research methodology: gasoline alternatives (ethanol, methanol, hydrogen, fuel cells, propane, methane, electricity) and diesel fuel alternatives(biodiesel,synthetic fuel,propane,methane,electricity).

The following dependence results from Table 1: the lower the cost of fuel, the more expensive the car becomes due to additional equipment. The economic benefit for a motorist achieved due to the choice of alternative fuel is offset by the cost of acquiring and maintaining the vehicle. In addition, the number of filling stations significantly influences all alternative fuels.

As for gasoline engines, when replacing fuel with ethanol, methanol, propane, or methane, the total cost of fuel and vehicle remains practically unchanged. The savings achieved on alternative fuels are offset by the increase in the vehicle cost due to the re-equipment of the fuel system. The greatest decrease in the total indicator was noted in methanol–6.4%,and when compressed methane is used,it grows by 2.5%(Glushkov et al.,2019).The deviations are so small that the replacement of gasoline with alcohols or carbon-containing gases becomes inexpedient.

In this case,the factor of filling stations does not play a significant role, since the development level of the network of filling stations currently meets the needs of the insignificant number of cars for all types of specified alternative fuels. The only reason for the massive replacement of gasoline with these types of fuels is ecological.To implement non-economic programs, governmental support and long-term educational work with motoristsare necessary(Efimov et al. 2016;Shevgunov et al. 2019;Borodin et al. 2019).

Table 1 A comparative analysis of the total costs of using alternative fuels.

Hydrogen and electricity are as of yet inefficient as an alternative to gasoline,since the price of a specialized car becomes incommensurable with fuel savings. Vehicles using these alternative fuels will cost the owner 90-150%more,even when subject to co-financing by automobile companies and multilateral governmental support.Currently,there is no network of filling stations for these alternative fuel types.

The replacement of diesel fuel with biodiesel, synthetic fuel, propane, or methane provides significant fuel savings at almost the same vehicle cost. The total savings are from 21% for compressed methane to 36% for synthetic fuel. The number of filling stations for synthetic fuel showing the best effect is still small. This factor will constrain mass transition to the new fuels. Given such a substantial freeing up of funds, motorists will certainly benefit from the transition to alternative fuels,as shown by their use in various countries. For the same reason, freight and passenger transport has begun to transit to biofuel en masse. The movement of transport from diesel to electric engines is only due to governmental support and impacts mainly public transport. In the near future,this path is closed to the private sector due to the high vehicle costs.

To clarify the forecast for the development of alternative fuels,let us use the factor analysis,the methodology of which is described in the appropriate section of this article. The factor analysis will allow us to take into account the influence of non-price parameters on the total fuel and vehicle costs. First, let us highlight all the advantages and disadvantages for each type of alternative energy(Table 2),and then focus on the main ones.

Let us highlight the main factors influencing the vehicle and alternative fuel costs to calculate corrected coefficients for the aggregate indicator(Table 3). This will allow a more accurate ranking of alternative fuels by economic advantages and development prospects.

Consideration of the non-financial factors which influence the total vehicle and alternative fuel costs changes the ranking system for the gasoline group towards alcohols. Ethanol begins to lag behind the gas group by its advantages, and alcohols in general become the most promising alternative fuel at the moment from theeconomic perspective. Accents also shift within the group. Gas fuel goes down the ranking, since it has almost no non-price advantages. Alongside electricity, hydrogen and fuel cells go up by many points, as they are accompanied by active governmental support and manufacturers’ efforts to develop the latest technologies. As for alcohols, hydrogen fuel and electricity, an improvement in economic prospects is noted at the average level of 30%. The consideration of the non-financial factors influencing the total cost of the car and alternative fuel does not change the ranking system for the diesel fuel group,but shifts the types of fuel on the ranking scale inan order similar to the gasoline group.

Table 2 Advantages and disadvantages of alternative fuels(New Chemical Technologies,2019).

Table 2 Continued.

Table 3 A factor non-price analysis of alternative fuels in transport.

As a result of our study, we identified the economic prerequisites for the development of alternative fuels in transport. The total cost of the vehicle and fuel, i.e., the value of capital and current costs normalized to a unified form, was the main indicator in the calculations. Alternative fuels are ranked by the probability of their large-volume production, taking into account the development of a network of filling stations. From an economic perspective, first of all, we should expect the transition of diesel engine cars to alternative fuel. The alternative fuel types are arranged in the following order by the degree of reducing diesel use:biodiesel,synthetic fuel,liquefied methane, propane, compressed methane,and electricity. Synthetic fuel should be ranked first by total cost,but taking into account the undeveloped network of filling stations,biodiesel moves it to second place.Electricity,which is the last by total cost,will be a priority for public transport if there are significant investments made by governmental authorities.

In practice,gasoline engines will be replaced more slowly than diesel engines, since most of these vehicles are privately-owned, and public co-financing is not provided in this area. Alternative fuels for gasoline engines are ranked as follows: methanol,liquefied methane,ethanol,propane,and compressed methane. The state of the final fuel time is worsened by the undeveloped network of filling stations. Hydrogen, fuel cells, and electricity are economically inefficient as gasoline substitutes and can only be developed when the cost of the vehicle is reduced at the expense of manufacturers and as a result of government investments. To increase the accuracy of our alternative fuel rankings,we analyzed the disadvantages of each of them,highlighted the main non-price factors affecting the development of new energy sources, and took into account as a share contribution of each factor to the total cost of the car and alternative fuel.

As a result of using the corrected coefficients of the factor analysis, the rankings of diesel fuel alternatives remained unchanged, but the emphasis shifted: reducing for gas fuel due to the lack of influence of non-price factors and significantly increasing for hydrogen and electric engines due to the active intervention of governments and the latest developments. As for gasoline alternatives,ranking of the types of fuel by the degree of risk augmentation in case of large-volume production has changed: ethanol, methanol, liquefied methane, propane,compressed methane. Consequently, alcohols are considered as high priority due to a significant reduction in harmful. The possibilities of hydrogen and electric fuel, as an alternative to gasoline, expanded for the same reason;in the case of electricity–also due to governments’active position concerning large-volume production of such vehicles.

Table 4 The main lines of the development of alternative fuels.

As a result of our study,we were able to identify the key development problems for each type of alternative fuel for the current time period(Table 4). The authors analyzed the quantity and quality of the problems by the types of fuel and determined the level of risk in large-volume production and use of the fuel.

4 Discussion

This study presents an in-depth analysis of the scientific community’s opinions on the development of alternative fuels. First of all, it was necessary to understand the trends in the automotive industry and the extent of the problems of replacing classic fuels with alternatives. Secondly, it seemed appropriate to compare the findings obtained as a result of our study with the opinions of other scientists.

It is assumed that over the next 20 years,the increase in energy generated from alternative sources, as well as nuclear energy, will amount to 50% of the total energy production growth. It is said that it is necessary to double the share of renewable energy in the global energy balance by 2030,i.e. to reach the level of 36%of total energy consumption. The transportation sector accounts for about a quarter of the global energy consumption and CO2emissions. According to Batur et al., (2019), by 2025, it is necessary to reduce 33.5% of the total energy consumption in transport by increasing the share of renewable energy sources(Tkach et al.,2017). This will reduce the volume of CO2emissions by 32.8%. The authors relied on data that the continued use of the classic fuel model will require an increase in the transport energy demand by this particular value.

The scientific community is leading governments towards the need to use waste for the production of biofuel.170-200 billion tons of plant biomass are formed annually worldwide(in their dry form),which is energetically equivalent to 70-80 billion tons of oil. 120-150 g of liquid hydrocarbons are synthesized from 1 kg of raw materials with 200% production profitability relative to the cost of traditional fuels. The only issue is waste sorting, which is performed manually in many countries. This method improves the quality of raw materials,which cannot be provided by automatic sorting,but requires high labor costs. From the economic and resourcesaving perspective, 1.7 kg of biofuel produced from municipal solid waste in landfills replaces 1 m3 of natural gas.

The transition to second-generation bioethanol has been evaluated as a promising technology (Fierro et al.,2019). This forecast coincides with the findings of this study on the first most important alternative fuel to replace gasoline. The authors’ work provides an integrated assessment of the actual benefits of bioethanol in the transport sector. At the same time,Fierro et al. note that the large demand for land to produce bioethanol is incompatible with the transformation of infertile land,since there is no reason to expect a return on investment in agriculture(Troshkov and Storozhev,2018).

Many countries are establishing standards for reducing harmful emissions into the environment and increasing the amount of consumed alternative fuels,but the possibilities for such growth are restrained by the resource and financial fuel production and use possibilities, and even motorists’ preferences. For example, Italy has set a national target indicator of using renewable energy sources in the transport sector, but about 55% of the biodiesel consumed in Italy is imported. Large-scale production of biodiesel in Italy is associated with various environmental and socio-economic problems. Taking into account the importance of supporting small business,Viccaro et al., (2019) carried out a study on the economic feasibility of using rapeseed oil as an independent agricultural biofuel for domestic production in Italy. The authors believe that when rapeseed is grown through conservative agriculture practices, farmers require financial support, i.e.,EU support, due to the fluctuations in some key variables, such as the price of diesel fuel. The need to expand biodiesel production identified by the authors coincides with the results of our study, which defines this type of alternative fuel as predominant for large-volume production. However,it must be recognized that the technology for cultivating rapeseed oil,again,requires the application of classic fuel,which reduces the efficiency of its use(Toropov,2018).

Taking into account increasing environmental problems,transport companies,like other large energy-consuming sectors,are faced with constant internal and external pressure from the global community to meet stringent regulatory requirements. This is why there has been a significant increase in the number of scientific papers searching for compromise among manufacturers, consumers, and society in general on the issues of alternative fuels. The research of Ashtineh and Pishvaee (2019), assessed the economic and environmental characteristics of alternative fuels, considering harmful emissions collectively at all stages of fuel production, distribution,and combustion. The authors concluded that harmful substances, for example,aggregate emissions when using biodiesel,have the same negative environmental impact as classic fuel. Thus,the use of alternative fuels does not eliminate harmful emissions,but simply reduces them,in the case of biodiesel,by 37%compared to conventional diesel fuel. The results of Ashtineh and Pishvaee were used in this study as a fundamental principle to assess the reduction of harmful emissions of alternative fuels in Table 3.

According to Grushevenko et al.,(2018),natural gas and,to a lesser extent,electricity have the best long-run prospects as alternatives to oil products. The authors forecasted that by 2040,the cumulative share of alternative fuels would make up 26% in the total energy consumption in the road transport sector. This position only partially coincides with the conclusions of our study, since gaseous hydrocarbons showed less efficiency than biofuel, and power plants in cars will remain expensive even in the long run. In this case, when discussing the authors’ recommendations, we should take into account the national specifics of countries that have significant volumes of natural gas reserves.

According to J.Webb(2019),vehicles with an internal combustion engine are gradually giving way to electric power units and autonomous driving systems with computer-controlled driving. The author considers both the causes and consequences of these changes, including environmental factors and fuel efficiency standards.The study shows that the appearance of electric cars and the rapid replacement of cars with internal combustion engines are the key factors in the transformation of transport, and the use of autonomous driving systems blurs the lines between private and public transport. In our opinion, the author did not take into account economic aspects of this issue in his study,namely,the cost of electric vehicles,which is a key obstacle to the introduction of electric vehicles. Therefore, the conclusions on the priority development of this type of alternative fuel are premature. In further research by the author(Sioshansi and Webb,2019),the cost factor was already taken into account. He states that the critical condition for the development of electric transport is different: the investment of capital made by automobile companies in further fuel-saving technologies for vehicles with an internal combustion engine or the acceleration of the development and production of electric vehicles, the cost of which is steadily decreasing and will additionally fall through large-volume production. The demand for oil,according to the authors,will pass the peak earlier than was expected by the largest oil companies. However,in our opinion,Sioshansi and Webb did not consider any alternatives to electricity among other newest types of fuel,and,thus,overestimated the expectations concerning the development of electric vehicles.

Cusenza et al., (2019), similarly to Ashtineh and Pishvaee, consider harmful emissions generated from the use of alternative fuels in a complex way,from production to combustion. In their opinion, lithium-ion battery packs for cars with a complex cathode material should be assessed from the standpoint of their performance and environmental efficiency,including recycling after use,including through recovery. The analysis has shown that the battery production phase makes up for over 60% of the environmental impact, and the processing stage is less than 11%,except for freshwater environmental toxicity. The low environmental efficiency of the first stage is related to the production of fuel cells for electric vehicles using oil and gas, which affects greenhouse gas emissions (Fern′andez, 2019). That is why Table 3 of this study reflects the total emissions from each type of alternative fuel.

All the efforts concerning the introduction of alternative fuels should be supported by benefits for producers and consumers. The benefits currently include: subsidies to companies using waste for the production of biofuel,tax breaks or cancellation of taxes when replacing vehicles,as well as in the process of owning an alternative fuel vehicle,reducing import duties on spare parts,free entry to downtown and parking for alternative fuel vehicles,compensation for the purchase of eco-transport, and the disposal of old vehicles. In the near future, developed countries are expected to actively promote biofuel in aviation. To this end,stimulatory and prohibitive economic mechanisms, as well as the spread of the Emission Trading Scheme, will be applied. For example, in the EU,CO2generated as a result of burning environmentally-friendly biofuel is not accounted for in quotas.

Many countries across the world have been actively financially and legally supporting alternative energy.In 2015, China’s total investment volume in renewable energy sources reached a record value of 111 billion dollars, which was spent mainly on the development of wind,solar, and hydropower. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance,Chinese investments accounted for at least 32%of the global aggregate green investments,the total amount of which reached 348.5 billion dollars in 2015. EU comes second;it invested about 58.5 billion dollars. The USA comes third with 56 billion dollars.

In many respects, the development of alternative fuel vehicles and its active governmental financing are obliged to the realities of our time when urban ecology became at risk of a catastrophic deterioration,and public attention to environmental problems,on the contrary,has been growing(Fern′andez,2019). In these conditions,the efforts of governmental authorities aimed at ensuring the environmental sustainability of public transport have become an urgent task for the functioning of transport systems (Alawaysheh and Alsyouf, 2019). City managers should fulfill the indicators for “smart” and sustainable cities (Huovila et al., 2019; Guliyeva et al.,2019). One of these indicators is environmental safety of transport. The indicators can reflect the achieved results and allow us to assess their progress. In terms of transport, progress is the use of alternative fuels. Only the state can financially afford alternative energy development programs at this stage.

A vital problem is the transition of public transport to alternative fuels in developing countries. For example,the use of classic fossil fuels for bus services is typical of most cities in India. The transition to electric transport is a potential solution to reduce carbon emissions. A.Sheth and D.Sarkar(2019)analyzed the feasibility of this transition and calculated the cost of a life cycle of purchasing and operating electric buses. The study shows that the total cost of owning an electric bus calculated over the course of 25 years is 5-10%lower than a diesel bus.The authors urge local self-government authorities to follow their recommendations. In our opinion,the issue is that electric buses will have a negligible effect, and only in a few decades, while the municipalities must incur the costs now. The environmental factor is again the only driving force in such conditions. In addition, there are real issues connected with the allocation of subsidies for urban passenger transport in developing countries(Kulachinskaya et al.,2018).

There are types of public transport that, since their creation, have used electricity as fuel, for example,underground railways. This has always been an environmentally-friendly transport type(Carteni’et al.,2018),which can serve as an example of the strategic development of urban transport. In this study, it was concluded that diesel engines,which are used by bus fleets,will be primarily replaced with alternative fuel systems,so the transition of public transport to electricity with the active support of the state will most likely occur despite the economic obstacles. Consequently, when designing public electric vehicles, it is expedient to take into account technological developments in the organization of transport running on alternative fuel.

Some researchers go even further in their proposals to protect the environment from harmful emissions and suggest not using alternative fuels, but alternative vehicles to move around the city, for example, bicycles(Wahab et al., 2018). This study showed that the joint use of bicycles with the arrangement of public parking places not only reduces harmful emissions, but also solves a number of social problems. Of course, this is the most environmentally friendly option for large cities, but society is not yet ready to disavow vehicles, and the infrastructure is not yet provided for this form of transportation.

Recent studies in the field of alternative fuels are mainly consistent with the final conclusions of our research.Due to the latest achievements in the theory,methodology, and practice of the production and use of alternative fuels,we clarified the objects and principles of the research. Consequently, the developed methodology allows us to obtain reliable and accurate data on the economic prospects of each type of alternative fuel. The approved methodology can be used for all types of fuel and vehicles, and provisions for it will be expanded, refined,and verified with the appearance of new scientific works dealing with alternative fuels.

5 Conclusions

In general,it can be noted that the development of alternative fuel types which both governmental authorities and vehicle manufacturers apply great effort and investment, has the highest number of unsolved problems. These include hydrogen fuel and electricity. The general conclusion of our research is that without the assistance of the state and their “pressure” on automobile companies regarding environmental issues and investments, it is impossible to develop the latest alternative fuel types, since economic issues come to the fore in this case.Environmental problems are related to the ethical aspects of public life and,from the financial perspective,they cannot serve as a stimulus for the development of hydrogen and electric transport. It should be recognized that the environmental characteristics of the alternative fuels themselves are still rather controversial, if we consider the entire fuel production cycle. Ethanol,biodiesel, liquefied propane, and methane,which are actually used in some countries on a mass scale,have the lowest risk indicators.

Our research results will be approbated through active participation in international conferences to enhance the development and improvement of environmental characteristics of alternative fuels. Environmental conservation needs extensive outreach by the scientific community, as it requires large financial investments in the transport sector. The highlighted main lines of development of each type of alternative fuel will allow technologists and technicians to focus on the aspects that are key for the further development of new energy sources. The economic problems of hydrogen and electric cars should be the subject of the governmental authorities’ focus and should be taken into account when forming budgets for the implementation of alternative fuel development programs. In addition, we will elaborate our recommendations for the governmental authorities of the Russian Federation on the development of alternative fuel programs in the country focusing on oil and gas production,i.e., on the use of classic fuels. Further research will deal with searching for the newest factors affecting the total cost of vehicles and alternative fuel. This will allow us to elaborate recommendations on the activation of reserves to reduce the economic costs of the production of alternative fuel vehicles.

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by Act 211 Government of the Russian Federation,contract No. 02.A03.21.0011.