Selection of Cutting Inserts in Dry Machining for Reducing Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions
<p>Assembly of the dynamometer, insert and part, and types of forces.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Values of the S/N ratios of significant main factors for energy/MRR.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Values of the S/N ratio of the significant interactions for energy/MRR.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Values of the S/N ratios of the significant main factors for CO<sub>2</sub>-eq emissions/MRR.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Values of the S/N ratios of the significant interactions for CO<sub>2</sub>-eq emissions/MRR.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Contribution of tools to CO<sub>2</sub>-eq emissions/MRR as a percentage.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) Values of the S/N ratio (Energy/MRR) with respect to <span class="html-italic">le</span> and <span class="html-italic">d</span>; (<b>b</b>) Values of the S/N ratio (CO<sub>2</sub>-eq emissions/MRR) with respect to <span class="html-italic">le</span> and <span class="html-italic">d</span>.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>(<b>a</b>) Values of the S/N ratio (Energy/MRR) with respect to <span class="html-italic">coating</span> and <span class="html-italic">le</span>; (<b>b</b>) Values of the S/N ratio (CO<sub>2</sub>-eq emissions/MRR) with respect to <span class="html-italic">coating</span> and <span class="html-italic">le</span>.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Fitted linear regression model.</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Section
2.1. Experimental Procedure
Density | 4.43 g/cm3 |
---|---|
Hardness, Brinell | 360 |
Thermal conductivity | 6.70 W/mK |
Melting point | 1604–1660 °C |
Beta transus | 980 °C |
Code | WNMG | WNMG PVD | CNMG | CNMG PVD |
---|---|---|---|---|
Insert with pointed tool chip breaker | ||||
Material | WC | WC | WC | WC |
Coating | - | TiN + TiAlN | - | TiN + TiAlN |
Number of edges | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 |
Cutting length, le (mm) | 9.525 | 9.525 | 12.7 | 12.7 |
2.2. Calculation Procedure
Origin | Percentage (%) |
---|---|
Coal | 11.3 |
Combined cycle | 9.1 |
Wind | 25.0 |
Hydro | 16.2 |
Nuclear | 20.5 |
Photovoltaic solar | 2.4 |
Renewable thermal | 2.1 |
Thermal solar | 0.8 |
Cogeneration and remaining | 12.6 |
2.3. Statistical Procedure
Factor | Coating | Tool Cutting Length, le (mm) | Feed Rate, f (mm/rev) | Cutting Speed, vc (m/min) | Cutting Depth, d (mm) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level | ||||||
1 | Uncoated | 9.525 | 0.1 | 50 | 1 | |
2 | PVD | 12.7 | 0.2 | 100 | 2 | |
3 | - | - | - | 150 | 3 |
3. Results and Discussion
No. Test | Factors and Levels | Values of Factors at Each Level | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tool Characteristics | Cutting Parameters | Tool Characteristics | Cutting Parameters | |||||||
Coating | Tool Cutting Length, le | Feed Rate, f | Cutting Speed, vc | Cutting Depth, d | Coating | Tool Cutting Length, le (mm) | Feed Rate, f (mm/rev) | Cutting Speed, vc (m/min) | Cutting Depth, d (mm) | |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Uncoated | 9.525 | 0.1 | 50 | 1 |
2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | Uncoated | 9.525 | 0.1 | 50 | 2 |
3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | Uncoated | 9.525 | 0.1 | 50 | 3 |
4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | Uncoated | 12.7 | 0.2 | 50 | 1 |
5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | Uncoated | 12.7 | 0.2 | 50 | 2 |
6 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | Uncoated | 12.7 | 0.2 | 50 | 3 |
7 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | PVD | 9.525 | 0.2 | 50 | 1 |
8 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | PVD | 9.525 | 0.2 | 50 | 2 |
9 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | PVD | 9.525 | 0.2 | 50 | 3 |
10 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | PVD | 12.7 | 0.1 | 50 | 1 |
11 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | PVD | 12.7 | 0.1 | 50 | 2 |
12 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | PVD | 12.7 | 0.1 | 50 | 3 |
13 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | Uncoated | 9.525 | 0.1 | 100 | 1 |
14 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | Uncoated | 9.525 | 0.1 | 100 | 2 |
15 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | Uncoated | 9.525 | 0.1 | 100 | 3 |
16 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | Uncoated | 12.7 | 0.2 | 100 | 1 |
17 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Uncoated | 12.7 | 0.2 | 100 | 2 |
18 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | Uncoated | 12.7 | 0.2 | 100 | 3 |
19 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | PVD | 9.525 | 0.2 | 100 | 1 |
20 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | PVD | 9.525 | 0.2 | 100 | 2 |
21 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | PVD | 9.525 | 0.2 | 100 | 3 |
22 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | PVD | 12.7 | 0.1 | 100 | 1 |
23 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | PVD | 12.7 | 0.1 | 100 | 2 |
24 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | PVD | 12.7 | 0.1 | 100 | 3 |
25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | Uncoated | 9.525 | 0.1 | 150 | 1 |
26 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | Uncoated | 9.525 | 0.1 | 150 | 2 |
27 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | Uncoated | 9.525 | 0.1 | 150 | 3 |
28 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | Uncoated | 12.7 | 0.2 | 150 | 1 |
29 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | Uncoated | 12.7 | 0.2 | 150 | 2 |
30 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | Uncoated | 12.7 | 0.2 | 150 | 3 |
31 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | PVD | 9.525 | 0.2 | 150 | 1 |
32 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | PVD | 9.525 | 0.2 | 150 | 2 |
33 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | PVD | 9.525 | 0.2 | 150 | 3 |
34 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | PVD | 12.7 | 0.1 | 150 | 1 |
35 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | PVD | 12.7 | 0.1 | 150 | 2 |
36 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | PVD | 12.7 | 0.1 | 150 | 3 |
No. Test | Energy/MRR (GJ/m3)* | S/N (Energy/MRR) | CO2-eq Emissions/MRR (kgCO2/m3)* | S/N (CO2-eq Emissions/MRR) | Edge Life (min) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1.90 | −5.593 | 869.32 | −58.785 | 14.41 |
2 | 1.84 | −5.315 | 831.75 | −58.400 | 10.84 |
3 | 1.51 | −3.595 | 683.23 | −56.691 | 8.50 |
4 | 1.74 | −4.796 | 803.02 | −58.094 | 19.90 |
5 | 0.98 | 0.127 | 454.89 | −53.158 | 15.72 |
6 | 0.71 | 2.912 | 331.79 | −50.419 | 12.80 |
7 | 2.35 | −7.421 | 1042.54 | −60.362 | 29.80 |
8 | 1.62 | −4.179 | 718.17 | −57.125 | 23.70 |
9 | 1.94 | −5.774 | 857.88 | −58.669 | 19.80 |
10 | 1.65 | −4.330 | 784.39 | −57.891 | 27.03 |
11 | 1.60 | −4.100 | 743.01 | −57.420 | 20.23 |
12 | 1.41 | −2.963 | 650.93 | −56.271 | 17.23 |
13 | 1.97 | −5.891 | 908.12 | −59.163 | 5.81 |
14 | 1.65 | −4.372 | 757.76 | −57.591 | 3.78 |
15 | 1.73 | −4.746 | 799.31 | −58.054 | 2.10 |
16 | 1.96 | −5.864 | 940.30 | −59.465 | 4.78 |
17 | 1.50 | −3.551 | 726.49 | −57.225 | 2.80 |
18 | 1.16 | −1.303 | 579.35 | −55.259 | 1.80 |
19 | 1.24 | −1.899 | 565.86 | −55.054 | 6.28 |
20 | 1.74 | −4.800 | 781.83 | −57.862 | 3.92 |
21 | 1.42 | −3.069 | 642.11 | −56.152 | 2.45 |
22 | 1.50 | −3.515 | 728.62 | −57.250 | 11.50 |
23 | 1.53 | −3.714 | 727.25 | −57.234 | 7.30 |
24 | 1.82 | −5.187 | 864.03 | −58.731 | 4.16 |
25 | 2.06 | −6.291 | 1001.11 | −60.010 | 1.69 |
26 | 1.45 | −3.212 | 681.03 | −56.663 | 1.86 |
27 | 1.71 | −4.685 | 816.68 | −58.241 | 0.83 |
28 | 1.67 | −4.434 | 863.42 | −58.724 | 1.93 |
29 | 1.48 | −3.416 | 737.39 | −57.354 | 1.44 |
30 | 1.10 | −0.797 | 587.43 | −55.379 | 0.80 |
31 | 1.92 | −5.680 | 883.00 | −58.919 | 2.22 |
32 | 2.33 | −7.342 | 1050.74 | −60.430 | 1.66 |
33 | 1.54 | −3.727 | 703.30 | −56.943 | 1.10 |
34 | 1.34 | −2.563 | 690.78 | −56.787 | 5.20 |
35 | 1.40 | −2.915 | 687.68 | −56.748 | 3.67 |
36 | 1.41 | −3.014 | 743.04 | −57.420 | 1.43 |
3.1. Energy/MRR
Source | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Mean Square | F-Ratio | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coating | 3.589 | 1 | 3.589 | 2.40 | 0.1470 |
Le | 32.431 | 1 | 32.431 | 21.72 | 0.0006 |
f | 3.353 | 1 | 3.353 | 2.25 | 0.1598 |
Vc | 0.490 | 2 | 0.245 | 0.16 | 0.8505 |
d | 20.780 | 2 | 10.390 | 6.96 | 0.0099 |
coating-d | 16.560 | 2 | 8.280 | 5.55 | 0.0197 |
le-vc | 12.886 | 2 | 6.443 | 4.32 | 0.0387 |
Residual | 17.917 | 12 | 1.493 | ||
Total (corrected) | 143.98 | 35 |
3.2. CO2-eq Emissions/MRR
Source | Sum of Squares | Degrees of Freedom | Mean Square | F-Ratio | p-value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Coating | 2.049 | 1 | 2.049 | 1.38 | 0.2624 |
le | 16.382 | 1 | 16.382 | 11.05 | 0.0061 |
f | 4.519 | 1 | 4.519 | 3.05 | 0.10635 |
vc | 4.468 | 2 | 2.234 | 1.51 | 0.2606 |
d | 20.934 | 2 | 10.467 | 7.06 | 0.0094 |
coating-vc | 12.062 | 2 | 6.031 | 4.07 | 0.0448 |
coating-d | 15.270 | 2 | 7.635 | 5.15 | 0.0243 |
le-vc | 13.662 | 2 | 6.831 | 4.61 | 0.0327 |
Residual | 17.784 | 12 | 1.482 | ||
Total (corrected) | 130.553 | 35 |
3.3. Contribution of Cutting Inserts to CO2-eq Emissions
3.4. Evolution of Factors
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2014, Report; IPCC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Rosen, M.A. Engineering and sustainability: Attitudes and actions. Sustainability 2013, 5, 372–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanaka, K. Review of policies and measures for energy efficiency in industry sector. Energy Policy 2011, 39, 6532–6550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhai, Q.; Cao, H.; Zhao, X.; Yuan, C. Cost benefit analysis of using clean energy supplies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions of global automotive manufacturing. Energies 2011, 4, 1478–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, X.C.; Wang, Y.Y.; Gu, B.H.; Mu, Z.K.; Yang, C. Improved methods for production manufacturing processes in environmentally benign manufacturing. Energies 2011, 4, 1391–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Domingo, R.; García, M.; Sánchez, A.; Gómez, R. A sustainable evaluation of drilling parameters for PEEK-GF30. Materials 2013, 6, 5907–5922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beggs, P.J. Adaptation to impacts of climate change on aeroallergens and allergic respiratory diseases. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7, 3006–3021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carlin, A. A Multidisciplinary, science-based approach to the economics of climate change. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 985–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Aguado, S.; Alvarez, R.; Domingo, R. Model of efficient and sustainable improvements in a lean production system through processes of environmental innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nishitani, K.; Kaneko, S.; Fujii, H.; Komatsu, S. Are firms’ voluntary environmental management activities beneficial for the environment and business? An empirical study focusing on Japanese manufacturing firms. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 105, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yoon, H.S.; Kim, E.S.; Kim, M.S.; Lee, J.Y.; Lee, G.B.; Ahn, S.H. Towards greener machine tools—A review on energy saving strategies and technologies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 48, 870–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, S.; Liu, F.; He, Y.; Hu, T. An on-line approach for energy efficiency monitoring of machine tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 27, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Avram, O.I.; Xirouchakis, P. Evaluating the use phase energy requirements of a machine tool system. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 699–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sreejith, P.S.; Ngoi, B.K.A. Dry machining: Machining of the future. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 2000, 101, 287–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pusavec, F.; Krajnik, P.; Kopac, J. Transitioning to sustainable production—Part I: Application on machining technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 174–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pusavec, F.; Kramar, D.; Krajnik, P.; Kopac, J. Transitioning to sustainable production—Part II: Evaluation of sustainable machining technologies. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1211–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalpakjian, S.; Schmid, S.R. Manufacturing Engineering and Technology, 7th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Alvarez, R.; Domingo, R.; Sebastian, M.A. The formation of saw toothed chip in a titanium alloy: Influence of constitutive models. Strojniski Vestn. J. Mech. Eng. 2011, 57, 739–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balazic, M.; Kopac, J. Machining of titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V for biomedical applications. StrojniskiVestn. J. Mech. Eng. 2010, 56, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Norgate, T.E.; Wellwood, G. The potential applications for titanium metal powder and their life cycle impacts. Jom 2006, 58, 58–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kundrak, J.; Mamalis, A.G.; Gyani, K.; Markopoulos, A. Environmentally friendly precision machining. Mater. Manuf. Process. 2006, 21, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özel, T.; Sima, M.; Srivastava, A.K.; Kaftanoglu, B. Investigations on the effects of multi-layered coated inserts in machining Ti-6Al-4V alloy with experiments and finite element simulations. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2010, 59, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajemi, M.F.; Mativenga, P.T.; Aramcharoen, A. Sustainable machining: Selection of optimum turning conditions based on minimum energy considerations. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 1059–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balogun, V.A.; Mativenga, P.T. Modelling of direct energy requirements in mechanical machining processes. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 41, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, T.; Xu, X.; Wang, L. A novel energy demand modelling approach for CNC machining based on function blocks. J. Manuf. Syst. 2014, 33, 196–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iqbal, A.; Zhang, H.C.; Kong, L.L.; Hussain, G. A rule-based system for trade-off among energy consumption, tool life, and productivity in machining process. J. Intell. Manuf. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultheiss, F.; Zhou, J.; Gröntoft, E.; Stahl, J.E. Sustainable machining through increasing the cutting tool utilization. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 59, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mativenga, P.T.; Rajemi, M.F. Calculation of optimum cutting parameters based on minimum energy footprint. CIRP Ann. Manuf. Technol. 2011, 60, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, K.; Uhan, N.; Zhao, F.; Sutherland, J.W. A new approach to scheduling in manufacturing for power consumption and carbon footprint reduction. J. Manuf. Syst. 2011, 30, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yingjie, Z. Energy efficiency techniques in machining process: A review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 71, 1123–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, T.; Xu, X. Energy-efficient machining systems: A critical review. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2014, 72, 1389–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matweb. Material Propriety Data. Available online: http://www.matweb.com (accessed on 15 May 2013).
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 1832:2012. Indexable Inserts for Cutting Tools—Designation, International Organization for Standardization; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Klocke, F.; Döbbeler, B.; Binder, M.; Kramer, N.; Grüter, R.; Lung, D. Ecological evaluation of PVD and CVD coating systems in metal cutting processes assessed. In Proceedings of the 11th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing—Innovative Solutions, Berlin, Germany, 23–25 September 2013; Seliger, G., Ed.; pp. 381–386.
- Andriya, N.; Rao, P.V.; Ghosh, S. Dry machining of Ti-6Al-4V using PVD coated TiAlN tools. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, London, UK, 4–6 July 2012; pp. 1–6.
- Prengel, H.G.; Jindal, P.C.; Wendt, K.H.; Santhanam, A.T.; Hegde, P.L.; Penich, R.M. A new class of high performance PVD coatings for carbide cutting tools. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2001, 139, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaffery, S.I.; Mativenga, P.T. Assessment of the machinability of Ti-6Al-4V alloy using the wear map approach. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2009, 40, 687–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dahmus, J.B.; Gutowski, T.G. An environmental analysis of machining. In Proceedings of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) International Mechanical Engineering Congress, Anaheim, CA, USA, 13–19 November 2004; pp. 1–10.
- Sun, S.; Brandt, M.; Mo, P.T.M. Evolution of tool wear and its effect on cutting forces during dry machining of Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. BJ. Eng. Manuf. 2014, 228, 191–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Red Eléctrica Española (RED). Informe Mensual; Red Eléctrica Española (RED): Alcobendas, Madrid, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Volume 3: Industrial processes and product use, Chapter 4: Metal industry emissions. In IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K., Eds.; Institute for Global Environmental Strategies: Kanagawa, Japan, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Pré Consultants. SimaPro 8 Software; Pré Consultants: Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 3685:1993. Tool-Life Testing with Single-Point Turning Tools; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Taguchi, G. Introduction to Quality Engineering; Asian Productivity Organization: Tokyo, Japan, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Kopac, J.; Bahor, M.; Sokovic, M. Optimal machining parameters for achieving the desired surface roughness in fine turning of cold pre-formed steel workpieces. Int. J. Mach. Tools Manuf. 2002, 42, 707–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Motorcu, A.R. The optimization of machining parameters using the Taguchi method for surface roughness of AISI 8660 hardened alloy steel. StrojniskiVestn. J. Mech. Eng. 2010, 56, 391–401. [Google Scholar]
- Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5th ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Statgraphics. Available online: http://www.statgraphics.com/ (accessed on 22 September 2014).
- Bhushan, R.K. Optimization of cutting parameters for minimizing power consumption and maximizing tool life during machining of Al alloy SiC particle composites. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 39, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Domingo, R.; Marín, M.M.; Claver, J.; Calvo, R. Selection of Cutting Inserts in Dry Machining for Reducing Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions. Energies 2015, 8, 13081-13095. https://doi.org/10.3390/en81112362
Domingo R, Marín MM, Claver J, Calvo R. Selection of Cutting Inserts in Dry Machining for Reducing Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions. Energies. 2015; 8(11):13081-13095. https://doi.org/10.3390/en81112362
Chicago/Turabian StyleDomingo, Rosario, Marta María Marín, Juan Claver, and Roque Calvo. 2015. "Selection of Cutting Inserts in Dry Machining for Reducing Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions" Energies 8, no. 11: 13081-13095. https://doi.org/10.3390/en81112362