Transcript Slide 1

Insert the
title of your
Carbon
Calculators
– Statuspresentation
here
Quo
and Perspectives
Presented
by Name Here
Holger
Dalkmann
Job Title
- DateC4S – 02/10/2008
Group
Manager
Table of contents
Carbon Calculators – Status-Quo and Perspectives
1
Background: Transport and Climate Change
2
Purposes for carbon calculating
3
Application: Mode Comparison
4
Future Applications
5
Conclusions
Page  2
EU: Climate Change and Transport –
needed but too little is happening
 Between 1990 and
2005 CO2 emissions
from the transport
sector increased by
26%
 Had transport sector
emissions followed the
same reduction trend
as in society as a
whole, total EU-27
GHG during the period
1990–2005 would have
fallen by 14% instead
of 7.9%.
26%
1990 - 2005
7.9%
much is
2020 Projections for Transport Sector
The 'targets' for the transport sector for
2020 are linked to:
• EU target of a 20% reduction
• Target band in the Bali
roadmap (25–40%)
• EC position for developed
countries - 30%
1091
Mt
CO2-eq.
949
Mt
CO2-eq.
767
Mt
CO2-eq.
1990
Emissions
EEA 2007
2010
Emissions
2020
Emissions
Carbon Calculation
Key target groups and the application
 POLICY
 Business (Operators)
 CONSUMERS
 GHG – Inventory (IPCC
Requirements)
 Competition
 DfT – Carbon Calculator
for Biofuels;
 Other BUSINESS
 Guidance for purchase
decision (e.g. buying a
car (DfT: Act on CO2)
 Governmental Bodies
(e.g. HA)
 Benchmarking
 Travel Plans
 Audit (ISO 14001),
Carbon Management
 Future Emission Trading?
Page  5
 Personal carbon footprint
 Journey information
Policy Application: IPCC
2006 IPCC Guidelines for
National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories Volume 2
Energy
 CO2 emission based on fuel
consumption (sold)
 National emission standards
should be used
 Some advice on biofuels
 N2O and CH4 as further GHG
http://www.ipcc-ggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_3_Ch3_Mobile_Combustion.pdf
Page  6
Business/Governmental Application
Sustainability Management System for the Asphalt Industry
 TRL is undertaking a project for the HA / QPA / RBA to establish a sustainability
management system for the asphalt industry
 The system will assist the industry to calculate and report on its environmental
impacts in a consistent manner, using a life-cycle based approach
 resource extraction – processing - use – maintenance - waste management
 The system will assimilate the requirements of existing standard calculation
methodologies - LCA (ISO 14040 series), GHGs (PAS 2050), GHG Protocol
Page  7
Consumer Perspective: ICAO: London to Paris
78.56 kg
CO2
UIC: Paris to London
122 kg CO2
Trip/Mode
CO2 (kg per
passenger trip
- return)
CO2
(g/pkm)
Journey time (one way
direct. Info from service
provider websites)
Short-haul air (average)
Heathrow
122
168
1h40
Eurostar
10.9
11.0
2h45
Short-haul air (average)
Heathrow
160
219
1h15
Short-haul air (average)
Gatwick
222
322
1h05
Eurostar
18.3
24.3
2h20
London-Paris (return)
London-Brussels (return)
Source: www.ecopassenger.org; Paul Watkiss Associates and AEA Technology Environment 2006
UIC: London to Zurich
Source: www.ecopassenger.org
UIC vs National Express: London to Zurich (947 km)
Source: www.ecopassenger.org,
http://www.nationalexpress.com/coach/OurService/CarbonEmissionsCa
lculator.cfm
Transport Modes - Trains
Scenario / specification
Passenger Rail (average)
CO2 Emissions
48.6g/pkm
All passenger Rail
40g/pkm
Virgin West Coast Pendolino
(Electric)
Virgin CrossCountry Voyager
(Diesel)
Average Rail
Older diesel passenger
locomotive
Older diesel passenger
locomotive
Modern passenger DMU
27.2g/pkm
Modern passenger DMU
26g/pkm
Older electric passenger
locomotive
Older electric passenger
locomotive
Modern electric passenger
EMU
Modern electric passenger
EMU
19g/pkm
74.1g/pkm
69g/pkm
71g/pkm
31g/pkm
55g/pkm
13g/pkm
22g/pkm
15g/pkm
Assumptions
Average load obtained from relevant UK
train operators
Average for electric and diesel weighted
by the proportion of electric to diesel train
km in 2003.
Load factor of 0.51 (224 passengers),
2005/06
Load factor of 0.55 (119 passengers),
2005/06
First Group rail fleet, 2005/06
Average occupancy, Class 43 HST train
set, London – Bristol route
100% occupancy, Class 43 HST train set,
London – Bristol route
Average occupancy, Class 180 Adelante
DMU 5 car trainset, London – Bristol
route, year in service 2002
100% occupancy, Class 180 Adelante
DMU 5 car trainset, London – Bristol
route, year in service 2002
Average occupancy, Class 91 locomotive
set, London – Edinburgh route
100% occupancy, Class 91 locomotive
set, London – Edinburgh route
Average occupancy, Class 373, Eurostar
type 16 car trainset,
100% occupancy, Class 373, Eurostar
type 16 car trainset,
Data Gaps
Load Factor
Load Factor
Source
AEA Technology
Environment (2005).
Defra (2005)
Virgin Trains (2007)
Virgin Trains (2007)
First Group PLC (2006)
AEA Technology
Environment (2005)
AEA Technology
Environment (2005)
AEA Technology
Environment (2005)
AEA Technology
Environment (2005)
AEA Technology
Environment (2005)
AEA Technology
Environment (2005)
AEA Technology
Environment (2005)
AEA Technology
Environment (2005)
Transport Modes - Aircraft
Scenario /
specification
Short Haul
CO2
Emissions
148g/pkm
Short haul
180g/pkm
Short haul
134g/skm
Assumptions
Short haul
Regional
95.7g/pkm
223g/pkm
Domestic air
231g/pkm
Based on 500km journey with a typical 128 seat capacity
with a 65% load factor (based on factors in IPCC manual).
Less than 500km. Data used from UNEP (2000) The GHG
Indicator – UNEP Guidelines for calculating Greenhouse
Gas Emissions for Businesses and Non-Commercial
Organisations.
Based on figures for year 2000, decreasing to 104g/seat
km by 2020. Seat capacity 99, Combine further with load
factor of 70% to get g/pkm (191),
3.80 litres fuel per 100 passenger km, easyJet fleet
Based on an average flight distance of 565km and annual
average of Group fleet in 2006.
2005/6 (+5% since 1995/6)
LondonEdinburgh
198g/pkm
Based on actual load factors and fleet mix
LondonEdinburgh
LondonManchester
135g/pkm
100% occupancy
330g/pkm
Based on actual load factors and fleet mix
LondonManchester
LondonNewcastle
229g/pkm
100% occupancy
230g/pkm
Based on actual load factors and fleet mix
LondonNewcastle
153g/pkm
100% occupancy
191 g/pkm
Data Gaps
Source
Defra (2005)
Mieszkowicz, J
(2006)
CE Delft (2003)
Occupancy levels
easyJet (2007)
Lufthansa (2006)
Assumptions not
made clear
Load factors and
fleet mix not explicit
in study
ATOC (2007)
Load factors and
fleet mix not explicit
in study
Load factors and
fleet mix not explicit
in study
AEA Technology
Environment (2001)
AEA Technology
Environment (2001)
AEA Technology
Environment (2001)
AEA Technology
Environment (2001)
AEA Technology
Environment (2001)
AEA Technology
Environment (2001)
Exploring the assumptions affecting emissions
Direct Factors:
 Technical – vehicle characteristics (weight, vehicle shape,
engine type, fuel type, energy source, load capacity)
 Operational – driving speed and driving dynamics (speed
variations, accelerating and decelerating, cruising and
breaking for trains)
 Logistical – occupancy rates of vehicles (buses, passenger
cars and trains); density of the infrastructure networks,
determining distance travelled
Indirect Factors:
 Construction and maintenance of infrastructure
 Production and maintenance of vehicles
 Energy production (particularly for vehicles without an
internal combustion engine)
Van Wee et al (2005)
Exploring the assumptions affecting emissions –
Full life cycle
Conceptual model showing energy use and emissions according to transport mode (van Wee et al, 2005)
Ideally, all calculations would take into consideration the direct and indirect energy
use/emissions for each mode, however, this is not usually the case, making it difficult to
compare modes
Exploring the assumptions affecting emissions –
Full life cycle
 Direct and Indirect Emissions (considering the
full life cycle)
-
Direct – ‘tailpipe’ emissions
-
Indirect – energy used in the production of vehicles and the construction and maintenance of infrastructure – often quite significant
(see figure below)
-
Inconsistencies in what is included for the various modes making it difficult to undertake a ‘like for like’ comparison.
70
66
60
50
40
30
17.4
20
10
4
6.6
1.4
4.6
0
Vehicle operation
Vehicle
maintenance
Vehicle
manufacture
Infrastructure
provision
Raw material
manufacture
Energy
generation
Energy Used in Different Life-Cycle Phases (Tolley and Turton, 1995)
Comparison of Modes
CO2 – g/passenger km
Plane
(with RFI)
Mode
Plane
Train
Coach
Car
0
100
200
300
400
CO2 (g/passenger km)
500
600
700
Intermodal Comparisons - What is required to
make accurate comparisons?
 Consistency in the way data is collected
 Occupancy rates derived from actual passenger data for
transport services/modes
 Linked to this, clear information about the vehicle type, engine
size, fuel type, energy generation
 Comparisons between start and end points, ‘door to door’
(including use of other modes where appropriate, e.g.
taxi/car/cycle to station or airport, realistic distances etc)
 Understanding of the differences between locations/countries
(demographics, culture, energy generation etc)
 Full energy life cycle data (to include energy generation for
electrically-propelled vehicles: rail, tram etc).
 Monetary cost comparisons (fares, taxes, fees, vehicle
purchase, insurance, maintenance, fuel, tolls and charges) –
important to the end user
 Journey time comparisons (including waiting and transfer
times, congestion) – important to end user
http://directgov.transportdirect.info/
Future Applications for Carbon Calculations
Multi-modal journey
information incl. all
modes and
companies
Benchmarking for
companies
Full-life cycle
information on
materials and
products
Better monitoring
for (local)
governments
Conclusions
 To tackle climate change
transport has to be tackled
 Broad variety of calculation
are needed for different
purposes
 Standards and approved
methodologies are required
 Comparing modes is needed
for better sustainable
decisions
 Common understanding
needs:- More work
- Agreement across sectors
Thank you
Carbon Calculators
Presented by Holger Dalkmann
Group Manager – 02/10/2008
Tel: 01344 770279
Email: [email protected]
Page  25