TOSCA Work Package 3 - KTH · TOSCA: Structure and Work Packages (WP) 2 WP1 Road WP2 Air WP3 Rail...

TOSCA Work Package 3Techno-economic analysis of Energy and GHG reductions

in Rail Transport

Evert Andersson, Mats BergBo-Lennart Nelldal

KTH StockholmWorkshop in Leipzig, 24.02.2011

TOSCA: Structure and Work Packages (WP)

2

WP1 Road

WP2 Air

WP3Rail

Marine

WP4 Fuels

WP5Capacity

Modelling

Future Policies

Future Scenarios

Promising Technology/Policy combinations for reducing EU GHG Emissions to 2050

3

WP3: Characteristics of the Rail sector (1)EU official statistics (DG TREN)

Market share passenger transport (2007), incl metros and trams• EU-27 (intra-EU) 8 % (of total passenger-km, pkm)

cf. Switzerland 16 %Japan 32 % (2006)

Increasing share in EU-15 since 1995, in particular FR+UK+SE.

Market share freight transport (2007)• EU-27 (intra-EU) 11 % (of total net-tonne-km, tkm)

cf. Switzerland 54 %USA 43 % (2006)

Increasing share in some EU states since 1995, in particular DE+UK.

4

WP3: Characteristics of the Rail sector (2)• Low energy use and GHG emissions (per pkm or tkm) are

inherent in the basic technology of rail transport:- low rolling and aerodynamic resistance - simple means of electricity supply by an overhead cable;

energy can also be recovered at braking through this cable - can use electric supply over long distances (with arbitrary

primary energy, not only fossil)

Modest attention to energy issues until quite recently => great potential for further improvement

5

WP3: Reference trains (1)

Passenger trains, representative for new trains 2009• Four reference type trains Top speed Share*

- High-speed (double-decker) electric; 300 20 %- Intercity & regional (loco + 8 cars) electric; 160 43 %- Intercity & regional (selfpropelled cars) diesel; 140 12 %- Local city (selfpropelled, incl metros) electric; 140 25 %

* Estimated pass-km

• Most trains have modest aerodynamic performance (except HS) + modest space utilization (number of seats per metre train)+ modest energy recovery at braking+ manual driving “by experience” with modest consideration

to energy efficiency

6

WP3: Reference trains (2)

Freight trains, representative for new trains 2009

• Four reference type trains Tot mass (t) Top speed Share*- Ordinary wagon load electric 1250 90 65 %- Ordinary wagon load diesel 745 80 15 %- Intermodal electric 1070 100 19 %- High-value fast freight electric 720 160 1 %

* Estimated tonne-km

• Most trains have modest aerodynamic performance + modest total mass and volume (compared to North America)+ manual driving “by experience” with modest consideration

to energy efficiency

7

WP3: Technology development Most promising

Year at market readiness (sales)2030 20402020 2050

Low drag (aerodynamics)

Low mass (stopping pass trains)

Energy recovery

Space efficiency (pass) and compact freight

Eco-driving (driving advice)

2010

Low-carbon electric power

Energy efficiency of trains and supply systems

8

WP3: Estimated trends of GHG (2009-2050)Per passenger-km, aggregated over all electric rail services, at constant load factor (occupied/capacity)

11.0%

55.8%

85.2%

85.8%

87.0%

93.8%

89.7%

14.7%

73.5%

91.1%

91.5%

92.2%

97.5%

93.8%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

All comb + Higherspeed + Low GHG el

All comb + Higherspeed

Eco drive

Space efficiency

Energy recovery

Low mass

Low drag

2050 2025 2009 reference

4. Low aerodyn drag

5. Low mass

3. Energy recovery

2. Space efficiency

1. Eco driving

All comb + higher speed (0-40 %)

-“ - + Low GHG el (-80 %)

9

WP3: Estimated trends of operating costPer passenger-km, excl energy, all electric servicesCapital & maintenance + crew + track&stations charges + sales&adm

88,2%

90,0%

100,0%

91,1%

97,8%

101,1%

100,7%

92,9%

94,0%

100,0%

94,7%

98,6%

100,7%

100,4%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

All comb + Higherspeed

All comb +incremental

Eco drive

Space efficiency

Energy recovery

Low mass

Low drag

2050 2025 2009 reference

Low drag

Low mass

Energy recovery

Space efficiency

Eco driving

All comb + incremental

- “ - + higher speeds

10

WP3: Estimated trends of GHG (2009-2050)Per net-tonne-km, aggregated over all electric rail services,

at constant load factor (net load/capacity)

5. Low drag

3. Energy recovery

1. Compact freight

4. High energy efficiency

2. Eco driving

All comb + higher speed (0-20 %)

-“ - + Low GHG el (-80 %)

11

WP3: Estimated trends of operating costPer net-tonne-km, excl energy, all electric servicesCapital & maintenance + crew + track&stations charges + sales&adm

Low drag

Energy recovery

Compact freight

Higher energy efficiency

Eco driving

All comb + incremental

- “ - + higher speeds

12

WP3: Summary of analysis 2009-2050• Most efficient means of reducing GHG (per pass/tonne-km) are

- Eco-driving, space-efficient & compact, energy recovery, low drag

- Low-GHG electricity (outside railway sector!)• Eco-driving and energy recovery are inexpensive + reduce cost• Space-efficiency may reduce willingness to pay by 0-4 %,

but will reduce cost by 7-10 % and GHG by 12-15 %.• Reduced travel time increases willingness to pay by 10-15 % and

reduces operational cost (pass + freight), thus contributes to mode shift to rail.

• Energy and GHG reduction of 40-50 % per pass-km or tonne-km is possible with combined means (with electricity mix of 2009).

• With GHG of European electricity reduced 60-80 % by 2050, => 4 - 10 gCO2-eq/pass-km or 2 - 5 gCO2-eq/tonne-km.

13

WP3: Further options (not analysed in detail)

• Electrification of diesel-operated rail services• Dual-mode (diesel + electric) and/or hybrid trains• Biofuels in diesel engines Above measures are applicable to diesel operations only (12 – 15 % of total).

• Improved load factor (net load versus loading capacity)

Some of the above improvements are likely to be partly introduced.

They are in TOSCA WP3 considered as a “reserve”, in case other proposed technologies will not be fully implemented.

Further: Rail investment assumed on an average level as in 1995-2010, as percentage of GDP.

14

Acceptance, research, incentives• Neither strong positive nor negative attitudes

to proposed energy-saving technologies,i.e. social acceptance is high.

• Substantial research is needed for “low-mass” trains (most efficient for stopping trains),partly also for further improved “eco-driving” and “low drag”

• Economic incentives (subsidies /penalties) - or legislation may be needed for some technologies (low mass, low drag)

• Declaration and certification of energy performance proposed.Contributes to confidence in energy-saving features.

15

Constraints and challenges

• Conservatism and lack of long-term life-cycle perspectives (short pay-off time) in the liberalized EU railway sector

• Public resistance might occur against construction of new railway infrastructure

• Rail transport capacity, in particular if mode shift to rail• Funding for rail infrastructure capacity and performance

(upgraded and new)

16

A “best practice” rail system • With GHG of European electricity reduced 60-80 % by 2050,

=> 4 - 10 gCO2-eq/pass-km or 2 - 5 gCO2-eq/tonne-km.• Electrified rail transport is expected to have

an outstanding performance with respect to energy useand GHG emissions, in particular on longer distances.

• How much GHG can be saved by a significant mode shift to rail ?• Is such a mode shift possible with reasonable efforts ?• Some countries with efficient and competitive rail systems

have a high rail market share (EU statistics for 2007)Market share EU-27 USA Japan Switzerland

Passenger (%) 8 32 16 Freight (%) 11 43 54

• Can a market share of 30 % be achievable for the EU until 2050 ?

17

How to reach high market share ?• For passenger transport

- Extended high speed rail network from 6 000 to 36 000 km (i.e. current trend until 2050 => 30 % of core network)

- Upgraded conventional network (speed, capacity, reliability)- More efficient trains for reduced cost- Market liberalization for decreasing prices

• For freight transport- Rail freight corridors, seamless through borders- Improved service through market liberalization- More efficient (higher axle load, larger loading gauge,

longer trains) for reduced cost- New intermodal network with automatic transhipment- Increased capacity through released capacity and ERTMS

18

Investment implicationsIncreased total investment or a modest reallocation of investment from road to rail, would create the necessary funds for upgrading European railways according to world’s “best practice”. Must however be studied more closely.

?

?

Investments in European road and rail infrastructureInvestments in 1995 2008 2015-% of GDP 2050

Road 0,55 0,69 0,55

Rail 0,24 0,36 0,50

Total 0,79 1,05 1,05

Source: EEA statistics of 20 countries 75% ofpopulation in EU

19

“Best practice rail” impact and implications • 30 % market share for passenger and freight rail will

reduce intra-EU GHG emissions by 25-30 % of theremaining after most promising technology changes

• This will need more capacity in the rail system (high-speed rail, freight corridors, upgraded conventional rail, ERTMS Level 3, etc)

• Not only reduced energy and GHG, but also availability tomodern high-performance transport

20

Spares

21

European transport infrastructure investments Source: EEA (European Environmental Agency)20 European countries representing 75 % of EU population

Total GDP EU-27 (2008): 12 461 billion EUR.

0.69% of GDP

0.55%

0.36%

0.24%

Rail

Road

22

Worldwide High-speed rail network

● Europe built and planned

● Europe total opened 2009

?

23

“Best practice” rail investment• 0.5 % of GDP (2015-2050) =>

=> 2180 billion EUR (in 2008 GDP and prices)

• Example of use:- 30 000 km additional HS rail => 660 bill EUR- 25 000 km Freight corridors => 300 bill EUR- Upgrading of Conventional rail => 940 bill EUR *- Metro and trams => 280 bill EUR

* Double and quadruple tracking, higher average speed, ERTMS Level 3, sidings and signalling for longer trains,higher axle load, larger loading gauge , improved receptivity for regenerated energy, improved reliability, etc.