Tallinna Autobussikoondise linnaliinibusside alternatiivkütuste kasutuselevõtu asjaolude selgitamine

The report assesses four fleet scenarios for the Tallinn Bus Company (TAK) up to 2020: continuing with conventional diesel, or transitioning to bioethanol (ED95), biodiesel (B100), or diesel-electric hybrids. While alternative fuels significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and external costs, they are more expensive to operate than conventional diesel. The study finds that the most cost-effective way to reduce local air pollution (PM and NOx) is simply replacing old buses with new Euro V and VI diesel models, as the emission gap between new diesel and alternative technologies has narrowed. Biodiesel offers the highest CO2 reduction potential, while hybrids provide the best fuel economy. The report recommends a diversified technology approach to mitigate risks associated with fuel prices and supply.

• Biodiesel and bioethanol scenarios offer the most significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, with biodiesel potentially reducing CO2e by 83% and bioethanol by 76% compared to 2010 levels.
• Reducing CO2e emissions via biofuels is considered an inefficient and expensive measure, costing between 206 €/ton (hybrids), 311 €/ton (biodiesel), and approximately 450 €/ton (bioethanol), which is 10 to 20 times more expensive than measures in the energy and heating sectors.
• The most effective way to reduce local air pollutants (PM and NOx) is the replacement of older buses with new Euro V and VI diesel models; by 2020, PM emissions would decrease by 85% and NOx by 80% compared to 2010.
• Operating costs for alternative technologies are higher than for conventional diesel: bioethanol is approximately 60% more expensive, biodiesel 50% more expensive, and hybrids about 10% more expensive.
• External costs associated with TAK buses exceeded 2 million euros in 2010; transitioning to ethanol or biodiesel could reduce these external costs by 80% by 2020.
• The report identifies significant risks in choosing a single technology, suggesting that TAK should select up to three different technologies to diversify risks related to fuel prices, supply, and technical performance.
• There is currently no production or marketing of biofuels in Estonia that comply with the established sustainability criteria.

APA

Jüssi, M., Poltimäe, H., & Aru, B. (2012). Tallinna Autobussikoondise linnaliinibusside alternatiivkütuste kasutuselevõtu asjaolude selgitamine. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4409.pdf

Chicago

Jüssi, Mari, Helen Poltimäe, and Birgit Aru. Tallinna Autobussikoondise linnaliinibusside alternatiivkütuste kasutuselevõtu asjaolude selgitamine. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2012. https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4409.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Jüssi |first1=Mari |last2=Poltimäe |first2=Helen |last3=Aru |first3=Birgit |title=Tallinna Autobussikoondise linnaliinibusside alternatiivkütuste kasutuselevõtu asjaolude selgitamine |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=2012 |url=https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4409.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{jssi2012tallinna, author = {Jüssi, Mari and Poltimäe, Helen and Aru, Birgit}, title = {{Tallinna Autobussikoondise linnaliinibusside alternatiivkütuste kasutuselevõtu asjaolude selgitamine}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2012}, url = {https://www.sei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/4409.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }