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 • 27 September 2013 2311 Yeh Center NCEL Sponsored by
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
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
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
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% of 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
GL-S Marine Traffic and Fleet Composition (Separate Analyses of Seaway and U.S. fleets) 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 6,386,520 7,037,945 International vessels Total 133,366,590 146,969,982 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
Propulsion Energy Characterization Resistive Force = a + bW + cV + dV 2 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
Bulk Freight (grain) Power Intensity Comparison (Power to Overcome Inherent Resistance) Mode Marine Rail Truck Covered Hopper 8-axle 1,000 ft. Seaway- 90 cars/train 5-axle Equipment (2 Laker bulker 2 (1 trailer) trailers) locomotives/train Tonnes 56,364 28,000 7,721 44.0 22.7 Cargo Weight Tons 62,000 30,800 8,493 48.4 25.0 TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 8
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
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. 10 TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG
Rail Simulation (Cargo-Specific Car and Operating Characteristics and Railway-Specific Locomotive Age Distribution) Car Load Data Fuel Efficiency Average Base Cargo Tonnes Tons (CTK/L) (CTM/US-gal) CN+CP average (2009) 54 59 177 460 Actual System Averages NS+CSXT average (2010) 74 81 170 442 coal unit train 101 111 268 696 grain/other-bulk 87 96 195 505 Estimated Cargo COFC/TOFC 62 68 96 248 Specific Values Derived from tanks (non pressurized) 64 70 158 409 Analysis of Publicly other general freight 49 54 135 349 Available Data 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
Seaway Fleet Energy Efficiency 2010 Post Renewal TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 12
U.S Fleet Energy Efficiency 2010 Post Renewal TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 13
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) Indexed to Marine 1 1.2 5.5 TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 14
Modal GHG Intensity Comparison (Post-Renewal – Canadian and International GL-S Fleet; Each Mode Carrying GL-S Traffic) (Source: RTG Analysis) Indexed to Marine 1 1.7 7.1 TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 15
GHG Comparison 2010 and Post-Renewal (Combined U.S. and Seaway Fleet) (Each Mode Carrying GL-S Traffic) TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 16
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% of 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
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) Indexed to Marine 1 5.76 7.66 TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 18
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) Indexed to Marine 1 7.78 6.31 TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 19
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) Indexed to Marine 1 0.11 0.08 TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 20
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) Indexed to Marine 1 9.3 44.2 TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 21
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) Indexed to Marine 1 3.91 7.24 TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 22
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) Indexed to Marine 1 2.38 11.97 TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 23
Intercity Passenger Rail Emission and Congestion Comparison (with Bus, Auto, Air) 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 Map Source: Natural Resources Canada TranSys Research Ltd. / RTG 24
Recommend
More recommend
