WP3: Rail Passenger Transport - TOSCA Project

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Note that technology ‘Modular short train’ (PE) or ‘Electrification of non-electrified lines’ (PI) is not explicitly part of the scenarios, since it is not possible within the scope of this study to estimate their future feasibility and implementation. PE and PI are therefore also nonquantified options for additional improvement. Note also that ‘Bio fuels’ (PH) is not either part of the scenarios at this stage, because the potential of this option is dependent on uncertain variables being assessed in Stage 2 of TOSCA. The same is e.g. the case for ‘Low-GHG electric power’ (PJ) but a tentative improvement is anyhow studied in Scenario 8 above, just to understand the possible impact of low-GHG electric power. Scenarios 1 to 5 with single measures are comparatively easy to estimate. The combined scenarios are, however, much more complicated since there are considerable interactions and dependences between the different measures, if combined. In this context a thorough and validated simulation software (STEC) is used, taking all factors into consideration in the same run. In the simulations with STEC the full estimated potential of improvement until year 2050 is used. As it is very hard to find qualified estimates on rail technology for 2050, the total time 2009- 2050 is divided in two periods. Due to the current lack of future estimates for the railway sector, the following procedure is being applied: Period 1 The techno-economic potential for in-service introduction during the next 10–15 years (i.e. until 2025) is estimated according to the earlier mentioned sources. Period 2 Development is assumed to continue after 2025. For most technologies it is assumed that 2/3 of the first period achievement can be achieved in the second period, i.e. 2025–2050, provided there are no obvious physical or economic obstacles. The exception is technology PB (Low-mass train) that requires more substantial research before technology readiness (see Table 3-1), which will delay most to its possible introduction to Period 2. This means that, for most technologies, 60 % of the total achievement until 2050 is what today is known or assumed as appropriate technologies, possible to introduce in regular service during the Period 1, while 40 % is assumed to be achieved during Period 2. As the latter period is longer than the first one, the annual rate of improvement is assumed to be slower in the second period. This assumption is justified as the first steps are considered as technically and economically quite well-founded, while the following steps would likely require more advanced technologies, also being closer to the physical and economic limits. If – for example - the total combined improvement is 50 % reduction of specific energy in the total period (41 years), then the energy will be reduced by 30 % under the first period and by a further 20 % (of the original amount) in the second of 25 years. This ends up with 2.2 % average reduction per year until 2025 and 1.4 % reduction per year during 2025–2050. With the same percentage annual rate the assumed 50 % reduction until 2050 is equivalent to an annual reduction by 1.7 % per year. Table 3-1 presents examples of changes for improvement in the first period (until 2025). These changes have been judged as possible with reference to (mainly) UIC Energy efficiency strategies for rolling stock and train operation as well as (Railenergy, 2009) and (Diedrichs, 2010), i.e. essentially the same as in Section 3.3. They are included in the earlier mentioned 9 scenarios and are investigated both as individual technologeis and in combination. Results are presented in Section 5. Deliverable D4 – WP3 passenger 14
It should be noted that it is not for sure that all these changes in technology will really be implemented: At this stage they will only be studied in the context of their potential of reducing energy use and GHG emissions. Table 3-1 Examples of changes until 2025, in relation to reference trains. High-speed Intercity Local city or regional Aerodynamic drag - 16 % - 21 % a Seats per metre of train + 9 % +22 % a + 0 % Train mass per metre of train - 0 % - 4 % b - 7 % b Per cent of energy recovery at braking c 75 % to 84 % (2050) 44 % to 72 % (2050) Energy loss in power systems, per car e - 18 % - 18 % Energy use for auxiliary and comfort e - 18 % - 18 % Eco-driving Speed profile smoothing and coasting before braking, within a time margin of 3 % d Increase in top speed 15 % 26 % 12 % __________________________________________ a Including transition from locomotive-hauled electric trains to multiple units. b 1/3 of total reduction of tare train mass (until 2050) is estimated to be introduced as state-of-the-art on new trains until 2025, while 2/3 is introduced in the period 2025–2050. c In relation to the theoretically possible amount after energy losses, air resistance and rolling resistance, braking only with electric regenerative brakes. Note that it is assumed that also the reference “state of the art” case have a substantial average amount of energy recovery in electric rail services, which is not the case in all recent rail operations. The average real improvement in relation to the present situation for new trains could therefore in some cases be larger. d Driving style is adjusted until 3 % of time-tabled time is used. Usually the total time margin is in the order of 10 %. The use of 3 % of time-tabled time for Eco-driving is an average, sometimes it can be done, sometimes not and sometimes more, depending on the actual time-keeping situation for the actual train. e As an example, energy efficiency in the train is originally 82 %, i.e. losses are 18 %. With 18 % reduction of losses (until 2025) the resulting energy efficiency increases to 85.2 %. In similar way energy efficiency of the railway’s supply system is increased from 91 % to 92.6 % until 2025. In the very long term (until 2050) energy losses are assumed to be reduced by 30 %. Deliverable D4 – WP3 passenger 15
Page 1 and 2: Technology Opportunities and Strate
Page 3 and 4: CONTENTS CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND
Page 5 and 6: ABSTRACT In Stage 1 of the EU/FP7-f
Page 7 and 8: 1 INTRODUCTION Rail passenger trans
Page 9 and 10: Table 2-1 Reference characteristics
Page 11 and 12: improvements of the rail infrastruc
Page 13 and 14: PD. Space-efficient train According
Page 15 and 16: PJ. Low-GHG electric power Electric
Page 17: speeds in the range of 220-250 km/h
Page 21 and 22: The second issue that may be troubl
Page 23 and 24: 5.2 Energy and GHG characteristics
Page 25 and 26: In most cases it is assumed that th
Page 27 and 28: 2050 2025 2009 reference Low drag 1
Page 29 and 30: Table 5-4a Cost characteristics, ag
Page 31 and 32: Table 5-4b Cost characteristics for
Page 33 and 34: Summary and comments - Some of the
Page 35 and 36: 5.5 Social acceptability Table 5-6
Page 37 and 38: Comment - Most technologies and mea
Page 39 and 40: PF Eco-driving With an estimated av
Page 41 and 42: Combination of measures The combina
Page 43: REFERENCES Andersson E, Lukaszewicz

WP3: Rail Passenger Transport - TOSCA Project

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?