Transportation Energy Analysis and Modal Comparisons Gordon W. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
transportation energy analysis and modal comparisons
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Transportation Energy Analysis and Modal Comparisons Gordon W. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 06, 2023 394 likes •826 views

National University Rail Center William W. Hay Railroad Engineering Seminar Transportation Energy Analysis and Modal Comparisons Gordon W. English President TranSys Research Ltd. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 12:00 - 1:30 PM

slide-1
SLIDE 1

William W. Hay Railroad Engineering Seminar

Transportation Energy Analysis and Modal Comparisons

Gordon W. English

President TranSys Research Ltd.

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 12:00 - 1:30 PM • 27 September 2013 2311 Yeh Center NCEL

National University Rail Center

Sponsored by

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Transportation Energy Analysis and Modal Comparisons

William W Hay Railroad Engineering Seminar September 27, 2013 by Gordon W. English President, TranSys Research Ltd. Partner, Research and Traffic Group

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Presentation Overview

  • 1. Great Lakes-Seaway Region Bulk Freight

Comparison (Energy Efficiency and Air Emissions Intensity)

  • 2. Intercity Passenger Rail Comparison (Air

Emissions Intensity and Highway Congestion Relief)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 3

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Great Lakes-Seaway (GL-S) Bulk Freight Comparison

Comparison of Freight Mode Emissions Intensities when Carrying a Tonne of GL-S Marine Cargo the Same Distance

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 4

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Air Emissions Comparisons

Each Mode was Simulated for Year-2010 Intensities in a Scenario Where it Carried the GL-S Marine Traffic an Equal Distance. The results are GL-S cargo specific and not applicable to other traffic mixes. GL-S Fleet was based on confidential carrier information (accounted for 79%

  • f the total GL-S activity).

Rail emissions were Derived via Simulation (Calibrated Using Public Data from Railroad Filings to Transport Canada/Environment Canada and the U.S. Surface Transportation Board). Truck Emissions were Derived via Simulation (Using Public Data for Truck Characterization and both Public and Private Data for Truck-Model Validation). A second comparison of the long term capabilities of each mode was made in a ‘post-renewal’ scenario:

  • each mode 100% renewed with new circa-2015 diesel technology, and
  • compliant with mode-specific circa-2016 EPA requirements.

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 5

slide-6
SLIDE 6

GL-S Marine Traffic and Fleet Composition

(Separate Analyses of Seaway and U.S. fleets)

Cargo Type Distribution Iron Ore 38% Coal 25% Aggregate/Other Bulk 20% Grain 12% General Cargo 3% Liquid Cargo 2%

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 6

Country Tonnes Tons U.S. - U.S. 72,888,797 80,323,455 Cross Border 32,731,818 36,070,464 Canada – Canada 21,359,455 23,538,119 Import/Export via International vessels 6,386,520 7,037,945 Total 133,366,590 146,969,982

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Propulsion Energy Characterization

Resistive Force = a + bW + cV + dV2 Where:

W is the combined tare and cargo weight, V is speed, a, b, c and d are coefficients specific to the mode and equipment involved (and can vary with route curvature and ambient temperature).

Power = R V Energy per unit Distance = P / V Stored Energy Components: Potential Energy (due to elevation changes) Kinetic Energy (due to speed changes) Stored energy is only dissipated in a round trip if brakes are applied

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Bulk Freight (grain) Power Intensity Comparison

(Power to Overcome Inherent Resistance)

Mode Marine Rail Truck Equipment 1,000 ft. Laker Seaway- bulker Covered Hopper 90 cars/train 2 locomotives/train 8-axle (2 trailers) 5-axle (1 trailer) Cargo Weight Tonnes 56,364 28,000 7,721 44.0 22.7 Tons 62,000 30,800 8,493 48.4 25.0

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Other Important Energy Factors

  • Hotel Power (marine

adjusted to get like-for- like),

  • Loading / Unloading

(marine adjusted to get like-for-like),

  • Empty/Ballast Return

Ratios (cargo specific values used),

  • Relative Circuity/

Directness (varies significantly by trade, focus was on an equal distance metric).

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Truck Simulation

(Cargo-specific Body Style and Service Specific Age Distribution)

a) straight truck b) straight truck with pony trailer c) tractor-trailer combination d) tractor twin trailer “B-train” combination.

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Rail Simulation

(Cargo-Specific Car and Operating Characteristics and Railway-Specific Locomotive Age Distribution)

Average Base Cargo Car Load Data Fuel Efficiency Tonnes Tons (CTK/L) (CTM/US-gal) Actual System Averages CN+CP average (2009) 54 59 177 460 NS+CSXT average (2010) 74 81 170 442 Estimated Cargo Specific Values Derived from Analysis of Publicly Available Data coal unit train 101 111 268 696 grain/other-bulk 87 96 195 505 COFC/TOFC 62 68 96 248 tanks (non pressurized) 64 70 158 409

  • ther general freight

49 54 135 349 CN+CP average derived for Seaway cargo 213 554 NS+CSXT average derived for U.S. GL cargo 212 551

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 11

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Seaway Fleet Energy Efficiency 2010 Post Renewal

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 12

slide-13
SLIDE 13

U.S Fleet Energy Efficiency 2010 Post Renewal

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 13

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Modal GHG Intensity Comparison

(Adjusted-2010; Canadian and International GL-S Fleet; Each Mode Carrying GL-S Traffic)

(Dashed Orange is Rail Performance Carrying Rail’s Traffic Mix)

(Source: RTG Analysis)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG Indexed to Marine 1 1.2 5.5 14

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Modal GHG Intensity Comparison

(Post-Renewal – Canadian and International GL-S Fleet; Each Mode Carrying GL-S Traffic)

(Source: RTG Analysis)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG Indexed to Marine 1 1.7 7.1 15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

GHG Comparison 2010 and Post-Renewal

(Combined U.S. and Seaway Fleet)

(Each Mode Carrying GL-S Traffic)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 16

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Criteria Air Contaminants (CAC) (Focus was on NOx, SOx, PM)

GHG emissions impacts are global and time insensitive, however, CAC emissions impacts are local and time sensitive, and CAC emissions intensity is fuel-sensitive, Auxiliary Power for most GL-S ships is provided by separate diesel engines that use diesel fuel (MDO) while most main propulsion engines use either diesel or heavy fuel oils (HFO-a mix of residual and distillate fuels) and a few steam ships remain that use residual fuel for all power. Marine’s CAC emissions impacts will be different when at low speed in locks, rivers and at port than when at full speed on open lake waters, Thus, ships’ journeys were segmented by fuel type and fuel consumption location such that two CAC metrics can be generated for marine:

Total emissions at source, and Relative on-land intensities based on the CAC intensities being reduced to 4%

  • f source at 25 miles (40 km) distance – estimated by assuming:

100% intensity when < 25 miles from port or river segments and 4% intensity when >= 25 miles from port or river segments.

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 17

slide-18
SLIDE 18

NOx Intensity Comparison

(Adjusted-2010; Canadian and International GL-S Fleet; Each Mode Carrying GL-S Traffic)

(Solid bars are near-land-equivalent (40 km (25 mile) boundary), dashed line includes open water) (Source: RTG Analysis)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 18 Indexed to Marine 1 5.76 7.66

slide-19
SLIDE 19

NOx Intensity Comparison

(Post-Renewal; Canadian and International GL-S Fleet; Each Mode Carrying GL-S Traffic)

(Ship’s solid bars are near-land-equivalent (40 km (25 mile) boundary), dashed line includes open water) (Truck’s upper bar and other modes based on regulatory limits, truck lower bar based on engine-certification data) (Source: RTG Analysis)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 19 Indexed to Marine 1 7.78 6.31

slide-20
SLIDE 20

SOx Intensity Comparison

(Adjusted-2010; Canadian and International GL-S Fleet; Each Mode Carrying GL-S Traffic)

(Solid bars are near-land-equivalent (40 km (25 mile) boundary), dashed line includes open water) (Source: RTG Analysis)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG Indexed to Marine 1 0.11 0.08 20

slide-21
SLIDE 21

SOx Intensity Comparison

(Post-Renewal via 100% ULS-MDO; Canadian and International GL-S Fleet; Each Mode Carrying GL-S Traffic)

(Solid bars are near-land-equivalent (40 km (25 mile) boundary), dashed line includes open water) (Source: RTG Analysis)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG Indexed to Marine 1 9.3 44.2 21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

PM Intensity Comparison

(Adjusted-2010; Canadian and International GL-S Fleet; Each Mode Carrying GL-S Traffic)

(Solid bars are near-land-equivalent (40 km (25 mile) boundary), dashed line includes open water) (Source: RTG Analysis)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG Indexed to Marine 1 3.91 7.24 22

slide-23
SLIDE 23

PM Intensity Comparison

(Post-Renewal via 100% MDO; Canadian and International GL-S Fleet; Each Mode Carrying GL-S Traffic)

(Solid bars are near-land-equivalent (40 km (25 mile) boundary), dashed line includes open water) (Source: RTG Analysis)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG Indexed to Marine 1 2.38 11.97 23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Intercity Passenger Rail Emission and Congestion Comparison

(with Bus, Auto, Air)

Map Source: Natural Resources Canada

12 Specific City Pairs (sorted by increasing distance) Ottawa-Montreal Victoria-Courtenay Montreal-Quebec City Matapedia-Gaspe Toronto-North Bay Toronto-Windsor Ottawa-Toronto Toronto-Montreal Moncton-Montreal Edmonton-Vancouver Winnipeg-Churchill Toronto-Vancouver

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Services and Modal Distances

(access modes/distances treated as incremental to rail for marginal rail travellers)

City Pair Rail Service1 Distance (km) Rail Air Bus Auto Ottawa-Montreal Corridor 187 156 203 200 Victoria-Courtenay Regional 225 208 251 220 Montreal-Quebec City Corridor 272 193 254 252 Matapedia-Gaspe ELH 325 NA 339 323 Toronto-North Bay Regional (ONR) 347 331 362 357 Toronto-Windsor Corridor 359 272 387 368 Ottawa-Toronto Corridor 446 387 419 454 Toronto-Montreal Corridor 539 527 555 545 Moncton-Montreal ELH 1,042 709 1,002 988 Edmonton-Vancouver WLH 1,245 826 1,174 1,158 Winnipeg-Churchill Remote 1,697 1,018 NA NA Toronto-Vancouver WLH 4,466 3,407 4,493 4,431 1 ELH - eastern long haul, WLH - western long haul.

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 25

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Rail Characterization

(% Distribution of Equipment)

Motive Power Type City Pair

Vic- Crt Ott- Mtl QC- Mtl To- Wnd To- NB Ott- To To- Mtl Mnc- Mtl Edm

  • Van

Wpg

  • Ch

To- Van Ga- Mat

P42DC-HEP

70 100 70 70 70

F40-HEP

30 30 30 30 50 50 50 50 50

F40-Frt

50 50 50 50 50

GP38 + HEP-DG

100

RDC

100

Average Seats/ Car Coach

76 63.5 36.9 61 33 64.8 61.5 32.3 30 42.3 30 33.5

Sleeper

15.8 15.8 11.3 15.8 14.1

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Air Characterization

ICAO Engine Data for Landing Take Off (LTO) European Simulated Trip Data for Climb/Cruise/Descent Above 3,000 ft. Simulation Results Scaled to Reflect Real World Operations

Time-in-mode Thrust Setting (minutes) (% of Rated Thrust) Approach 4.0 30 Taxi and ground Idle (in) 7.0 7 Taxi and ground Idle (out) 19.0 7 Take-Off 0.7 100 Climb 2.2 85 Operating Phase

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 27

Source: Environment Canada

______________ CAC emissions are only considered to have an impact during the LTO phase.

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Post Simulation Adjustments

Simulated Fuel Scaled to Fit U.S. Operators’ FAA Filings for Select Aircraft

Great Circle Distance vs. Navigation Distance vs. Actual Distance. We had navigation distances and developed scale factors from U.S. operator filings of aggregate activity and aggregate fuel consumption.

Source: Environment Canada

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 28

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Aircraft Characterization

Aircraft Seats1 Engine Type1 APU-type2 Medium&Long Haul 737-600 119 CFM56-7B20 GTCP331-350 A319 120 CFM56-5A5 GTCP331-350 A320-(LongH) 140 CFM56-5B4/P GTCP331-350 A320 166 CFM56-5-A1 GTCP331-350 767-200ER 207 JT9D-7R4D, -7R4D1 GTCP331-350 767-300ER 212 CF6-80C2B6 GTCP331-350 A330-300 274 Trent 772 GTCP660-4 A340-300 286 CFM56-5C4 GTCP660-4 Regional CRJ100 50 CF34-3A1 GTCP36-150 Turbo-Props DH3-Dash8-300 50 PW123 GTCP36-150 DH1-Dash8 37 PW120A GTCP36-150 Saab-340B 34 CT7-9B GTCP36-150

1 Source Transport Canada, 2 Representative allocations. TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 29

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Aircraft %-Assignment to City Pairs

Aircraft Type City Pair Vic- Crt Ott- Mtl QC- Mtl To- Wnd To- NB Ott- To To- Mtl Mnc- Mtl Edm- Van Wpg- Ch To- Van Medium&Long Haul 737-600 12 20 A319 15 15 10 32 2 A320-(LongH) 15 A320 23 23 45 48 15 767-200ER 18 26 767-300ER 33 A330-300 8 8 A340-300 1 Regional CRJ100 11 11 7 50 Turbo-Props DH3-Dash8-400 9 31 75 9 DH1-Dash8 42 69 25 100 42 50 Saab-340B 100 100

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 30

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Typical Short Haul Fuel Intensity

(per aircraft not per seat)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 31

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Typical Long Haul Fuel Intensity

(per aircraft not per seat)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 32

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Bus Characterization

(Emissions are Sensitive to Engine Age) (Average Fuel Intensity Estimated from Operator Data)

Representative Engine Type City Pair Vic- Crt1 Ott- Mtl QC- Mtl To- Wnd To- NB Ott- To To- Mtl Mnc- Mtl Edm- Van Wpg- Ch To- Van Ga- Mat DD-S60 (2002) .1 .75 .75 .75 .75 .75 .25 .75 DD-S60 (2003) .1 1.0 .1 .1 .1 .1 1.0 .1 1.0 Cat C10 (2003) .3 Cat-C10 (1998) .3 1990 .2 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Pre-1990 .7 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 Average L/100km 46.1 38.7 37.2 38.7 38.7 38.7 38.7 37.2 37.0 N.A. 38.7 37.2

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 33

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Automobile / Light Duty Truck Characterization Problems Circa-2007

  • We used NRCan/EPA estimates of LDV fuel economy and fleet composition

but noted that,

  • The circa-2007 Highway Fuel Economy metric was recognized as potentially

understating real highway fuel consumption by 12%-25%.

  • EPA’s later updated 5-cycle metric was not available at the time of our study.

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 34

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Sample O-D Results

City Pair / Mode GHG CAC CO2-Equivalent HC CO NOx PM (g/pkm) (kg/trip) (g/pkm) (g/trip) (g/pkm) (g/trip) (g/pkm) (g/trip) (g/pkm) (g/trip) Victoria-Courtenay (225 km rail) Rail-Coach 78 18 0.01 3.3 0.35 79 0.67 150 0.04 8.3 Air (stop in Van) 1,334 278 1.19 246.7 2.67 554 2.86 594 0.22 46.5 Bus 63 16 0.049 12.3 0.54 136 0.87 219 0.0467 11.7 Auto 171 38 0.55 122.0 9.08 1,998 0.48 106 0.004 0.9 Ottawa-Montreal (187 km rail) Rail-Coach 123 23 0.06 10.4 0.14 27 2.13 398 0.04 8.3 Air 498 78 0.44 68.1 1.28 199 1.80 282 0.08 13.0 Bus 42 9 0.017 3.5 0.09 19 0.31 62 0.0071 1.4 Auto 171 34 0.55 110.9 9.08 1,817 0.48 97 0.004 0.8 Toronto-Montreal (539 km rail) Rail-Coach 83 45 0.04 20.0 0.10 52 1.43 769 0.03 16.1 Air 200 106 0.03 17.1 0.23 123 0.91 480 0.03 17.7 Bus 43 24 0.018 9.9 0.10 53 0.32 175 0.0073 4.1 Auto 171 93 0.55 302.2 9.08 4,950 0.48 263 0.004 2.2 Toronto-Vancouver (4,466 km rail) Rail-Coach 100 445 0.03 152.6 0.16 728 1.54 6,867 0.04 177.2 Rail-Sleeper 176 787 0.06 270.1 0.29 1,289 2.72 12,149 0.07 313.5 Air 110 373 0.02 54.1 0.05 159 0.46 1,571 0.02 62.6 Bus 45 203 0.019 83.4 0.10 448 0.33 1,479 0.0077 34.5 Auto 120 532 0.39 1,719.9 6.36 28,171 0.34 1,499 0.0028 12.6

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 35

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Impact of Rail Elimination in the Montreal-Toronto Corridor

GHG Consequences

Emission CO2-E Units kg/rail-pass .488 to Air 29.7 .476 to Auto 22.9 .036 to Bus

  • 0.8

Total 52 Annual Combined (tonnes/yr) 25,921

Mode-shift consequences: Since total elimination of rail service is assumed, the market shares of the alternate modes are considered to reflect the cross elasticities with rail.

Shifts to: Air 48.8% Auto 47.6% Bus 3.6%

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 36

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Highway Congestion-Relief Impacts

  • Assessed as the incremental delay to all

highway vehicles from diverting rail trips to automobile, bus and air (with local ground access trip included).

  • Congestion is an urban area issue and impacts

are time-of-day sensitive.

  • Rail scheduled departure and arrival times were

used for time-of-day congestion state.

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Congestion Impacts of Increasing Traffic on Average Speed of All Traffic

Source: Mekky, 2004. Source: Mekky, 2004.

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 38

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Peak-Spreading, Highway 401 at Keele, 1970 to 2003 (+ 2007 WD overlay)

Source (1970 – 2003): Mekky, 2004.

2007 WD

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 39

slide-40
SLIDE 40

GPS Tracking Truck Sample (91 km Toronto bypass)

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 40

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Congestion Relief (hrs/year)

Time period Toronto Montreal Combined a.m. 44,382 22,815 67,197 p.m. 140,193 88,642 228,835 Total 184,576 111,456 296,032

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 41

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Thank You, Any Questions

TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 42