In the response phase the most important step is to assess disaster after occurrence. By disaster ASSESSMENT, we can obtain all the needed information for controlling, decision-making and also disaster planning. Lack of disaster ASSESSMENT causes you to make unsuitable decisions based on limited or inadequate data which leads to imperfect disaster response. According to IFRC, disaster response operation will have an unsuitable function without disaster ASSESSMENT. This paper presents the principles and concepts of disaster ASSESSMENT.

Ports are involved in transferring more than 80% of materials and goods. With life cycle ASSESSMENT, all environmental impacts are assessed simultaneously and this method has not been implemented for non-container ports. The goal of the study is life cycle ASSESSMENT of liquid, gas, container, bulk, and tanker loading in the port to define the most impactful sub-processes in the port operations. Life cycle ASSESSMENT is done from the source of production to the port (scope 1) and from the gate of the port to loading to ships (scope 2). One MMt of loading material is considered as functional unit. The results of the study showed that the impacts of scope 1 are far lower than scope 2 and it is worth focusing on scope 2 for any environmental improvements. In the global warming impact, gas loading has the highest share of 35%, of which 50% is due to electricity, and 45% is due to flaring. Bulk loading with a share of 30% entirely due to electricity is the second. Liquid loading with a share of 20% has the third rank as a result of electricity by 95%. It can be seen that in all sub-processes, electricity has a major role in all impact categories. In port operation LCA, per each MMt of total loading, bulk, liquid, and gas loading have the highest share over 18 impact categories to different extents. It is suggested to develop improving scenarios focused on electricity consumption, considering renewable energy sources, and no flaring for the port.

This study uses real driving cycles of a city bus and a standard driving cycle “ WLTP” to implement a full comparison for energy demand and fuel consumption for different propulsion systems (i. e., Diesel ICE, Fuel cell and Electric engines). These results were obtained by simulating each propulsion system in MATLAB, SIMULINK and EES. To better understand the comparison, a life cycle ASSESSMENT is conducted using “ GREET” and “ GHGenius” software, which represents a clear demonstration of side effects and emissions of each engine on the environment. The results show that for “ WLTP” cycle the bus needs 2423kJ energy for traveling each kilometer while the averaged amount of energy for traveling one kilometer of real driving cycle reaches to 1708kJ, the difference is due to speed range difference and number of stop/start points. In both cycles inertia force consumes the most used energy portion of the bus. By computing total energy use of an electric bus we conclude, electric buses use almost 58% of electric energy for driving and the rest is lost. Then fuel cell and internal combustion engine buses have energy efficiency of 36% and 24% respectively. Concerning LCA analysis, it becomes apparent that unlike efficiency, electric buses are not environmentally benign as fuel cell buses. LCA analysis showed that fuel cell buses that use steam reforming hydrogen production process are a cleaner option than electric buses, for instance a fuel cell bus emit 90 (g/100km) CO, 140 (g/100km) SOx and 67 (g/100km) NOx while an electric bus emit 110 (g/100km), 220 (g/100km) and 99 (g/100km) respectively which in all cases the fuel cell bus is more environment friendly than the electric bus. Finally, since diesel buses produce the most emission, especially CO2, and consume the most energy in the total life cycle, they have no advantage for public transportation fleet.

The utilization of fuel cell technology has created a promising outlook for the emergence and development of hydrogen vehicles. However, some major concerns including fuel cell degradation, battery aging, short lifespan, and powertrain complexity, have emerged as important obstacles to the commercialization of these vehicles. This study introduced a dynamic model of a hydrogen bus under a real driving cycle to investigate the main challenges in fuel cell vehicles. Unlike previous studies, this research implements a model that considers the simultaneous effects of fuel cell and battery degradation o system performance, as a main contribution. The designed hydrogen bus consumes 1.58 kg of hydrogen for 13.3 km during one driving cycle. After 3500 h of operation, the hydrogen consumption has been increased under a rule-based energy management strategy. Additionally, the start-stop mode has the highest impact on the degradation rate. The battery capacity was reduced by about 0.025% during one driving cycle. The results of the life cycle ASSESSMENT analysis revealed the significance of renewable hydrogen production methods. Using coal instead of solar energy results in 89% higher emissions