„A first assessment of the ecological impacts of NOx- based landing charges at German airports” Janina Scheelhaase, Wolfgang Grimme and Sven Maertens* DLR – German Aerospace Center, Cologne, Germany G.A.R.S. session, Infraday 2011, 7-8 OCT, TU Berlin Sven Maertens – DLR – GARS INFRADAY – Airport market power – Page 1
Structure Research background and question History of the Local Emission Charge at German airports Design of the German Local Emission Charge at German airports Impacts of the charge – a first assessment Page 2 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Research background Aviation causes nitrogen oxide (NO X ) and hydrocarbon (HC) emissions in the vicinity of airports NO X and HC are main contributors to combustion-related local air pollution und precursors of ground level ozone Some German airports have introduced a standardized emission charge targeting these emissions What are the economical and ecological effects after the charge has been in operation for > 3 years? Page 3 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Structure Research background and question History of the Local Emission Charge at German airports Design of the German Local Emission Charge at German airports Impacts of the charge – a first assessment Page 4 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
History of the emission charge at German airports History of Local Emission Charges in the aviation sector Switzerland (Zürich) London Heathrow Sweden Introduction of a German Local Emission Charge in 2008 at the airport Frankfurt, Munich and – later in the same year – Cologne/Bonn In the meantime, Düsseldorf and Hamburg airports have also joined the scheme, and there are plans for the new Berlin BER airport to also introduce the charge Page 5 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Structure Research background and question History of the Local Emission Charge at German airports Design of the German Local Emission Charge at German airports Impacts of the charge – a first assessment Page 6 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Design of the emission charge at German airports EV A/C = E * EEV (Engine Emission Value) where EV A/C = Emission Value Aircraft E = Number of engines EEV = Engine Emission value EEV = a * NOx Engine/LTO cycle where: a = Multiplicator for aircraft/engines with hydrocarbon (HC) emissions exceeding 19,6 g/kN (does not apply to most relevant engines; here: a=1) Charge = 3 € * EV A/C = 3 € per kg of NOx equivalent during the standardised LTO cycle Sweden: 5.5 € Switzerland: 1-3 € UK: 1.6 € Page 7 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Design of the emission charge at German airports Standardized LTO cycle: landing and take-off movements below 3000 ft Source: ICAO Page 8 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Design of the emission charge at German airports Certified values matter, not actual emissions (ICAO Engine Emissions Data Bank as reference) Operators have to proof actual engine types (UID number) with noise certificates or similar aircraft-specific documentations REG-EV database (monitored by the DLR), containing 19,600 aircraft Source: DLR, Fraport Page 9 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Design of the emission charge at German airports Revenue-neutrality Total airport revenues (from weight- and noise-based landing fees + the new NOx charge) must not increase Ex-ante estimation of the volume of NOx-related revenues Reduction of the weight-based landing fees – over all carriers – by this amount Some airlines (with high NOx emissions) pay more than before, others pay less, in total all airlines pay the same as before Source: Scheelhaase et al. (2005) Page 10 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Structure Research background and question History of the Local Emission Charge at German airports Design of the German Local Emission Charge at German airports Impacts of the charge – a first assessment Page 11 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Impacts of the charge – a first assessment Questions Overall objective of the charge: Reduction of NOx emissions! But do we have a local air quality problem at (German) airports? Does the charge give an incentive to purchase low-NOx aircraft? Does the charge influence operational decisions by the airlines? Methodology Quantitative assessments and calculations wherever possible Interviews with stakeholders Page 12 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Impacts of the charge – a first assessment Local air quality at German airports Local air quality is monitored at all larger airports Frankfurt Airport (annual mean values) Nitric oxide NO = 36 μ g/m 3 (reference = 200 μ g / m 3 ) Nitrogen dioxide NO 2 = 31/39/45 μ g/m 3 (3 measuring points on the airport premises; limit = 40 μ g/m 3) Higher concentrations (except for Sulfur dioxide SO 2 ) at other places in the Frankfurt region Involuntary experiment inm April 2010 („ash cloud period“) No significant reduction of pollutant concentration Car traffic and other factors seem to have much more influence than air transport No local air quality problem at the German airports! Is the charge nevertheless justified? Page 13 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Impacts of the charge – a first assessment Does the charge give an incentive to purchase low-NOx aircraft? Does the charge significantly punish operators of high-NOx aircraft? What are the alternatives? Total cost perspective necessary! Page 14 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Impacts of the charge – a first assessment Composition of airport charges (A330-200, 75% SLF, next destination: outside EU; arrival 15:00 l.t., departure: 16:00 l.t., pier-side position) Source: DLR based on charges manuals Page 15 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Impacts of the charge – a first assessment High-NOx Aircraft Boeing 747-200 with RB211-524D4 engines at Frankfurt airport EEV = 82.056 EV = 328.224 Charge = 984.66 € = 6,4% of total charges Noise charge = 2,600 € Passenger charge = 6,405 € NOx charge still relatively small even for high-NOx aircraft Source: Fraport Page 16 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Impacts of the charge – a first assessment Alternatives = Purchase of low-NOx aircraft? NOx reduction potential: Lufthansa fleet Lowest NOx Aircraft/Engine in use NOx in NOx/LTO Lowest Reduction NOx Manuf. Type Variant # in fleet Engine Engine variant g/LTO NOx Engine per LTO in % Reduction possible Boeing 737 300/500 49CFM56 3B1 3595 3595 0% through engine change Boeing 737 300 1CFM56 3B2 4213 3595 -15% Lower NOx engine not Boeing 737 300/500 13CFM56 3C1 4810 3595 -25% available Airbus A320 210 36CFM56 5B4/2P 4506 3847 -15% Airbus A319 110 17CFM56 5B6/2P 4367 3020 -31% Overall reduction potential of Airbus A320 210 10CFM56 5B4/2P 4511 3847 -15% Airbus A319 110 5CFM56 5B6/2P 3363 3020 -10% 13.3% for Lufthansa‘s fleet Airbus A340 310 8CFM56 5C2/P 7077 6240 -12% Airbus A340 310 18CFM56 5C4/P 8702 7641 -12% Boeing 747 400 29CF6 80C2B1F 11113 11113 0% BUT: Higher fuel consumption of Airbus A319 130 1CFM56 5B6/2P 4720 3020 -36% Airbus A321 130 20CFM56-5B2/2 DAC 7732 5756 -26% Airbus A321 230 21CFM56-5B2/2 DAC low-NOx engines! 8646 5756 -33% Airbus A321 230 7CFM56-5B2/2 DAC 8377 5756 -31% Airbus A340 640 11Trent 556-61 16113 16113 0% Airbus A340 640 13Trent 556A2-61 16167 16167 0% Airbus A330 340 15CF6-80E1A4 - Low Emissions 17784 15027 -16% Airbus A380 840 5Trent 970-84 16555 16555 0% Source: Ascend, ICAO, own composition by DLR Page 17 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Impacts of the charge – a first assessment Additional outcome of the stakeholder interviews Airlines: no additional competitive disadvantage for most airlines + (except some carriers operating relatively old cargo aircraft) Hardly any impact on flight operations and aircraft scheduling: other factors such as aircraft capacity and demand, overall - airport costs, planning of scheduled maintenance visits are much more dominant and hardly leave any room for carriers to react Airports: Signaling, long-term perspective Working policy measure in place + Low transaction costs Good publicity? Page 18 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Thank you! Page 19 Maertens – GARS – 9-10 MAR 2010
Recommend
More recommend
