Download The Design of a Carbon Neutral Airport

The Design of a Carbon Neutral Airport
Joel Hannah, Danielle Hettmann, Chris Saleh, Naseer Rashid, Cihan Yilmaz

Abstract—Increase in aircraft travel has led to increased
greenhouse gas emissions and an increased impact on the global
environment. While aircraft represent a small portion of the
greenhouse gases emitted on a global scale, these emissions
occur in high concentrations at high altitudes surrounding
airports which has lead to increased concern by local
communities. There is no current legislation in the United
States which regulates greenhouse gas levels for stationary and
non-stationary sources at airports. There exists a need for a
system to ensure compliance and accountability to future
legislation for greenhouse gas emissions regulations at airports.
The proposed Airport Inventory Tool (AIT) is the first step
toward carbon neutrality, used to establish current emissions
levels at airports in order to identify sources which can be
optimized to reduce emissions and move toward complete
carbon neutrality. The AIT utilizes fuel consumption and fuel
burn rates to compute CO2output data for each source at the
airport. The system design can feasibly be integrated at any
major airport in the United States to be used to assess current
greenhouse gas emissions in order to advise and guide airport
authority in making critical changes to reduce overall
emissions. (Abstract)
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Context
Concerns continue to increase over potential effects of
anthropogenic (or human-made) activities on earth’s climate
particularly those activities contributing to the rising
concentrations of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Looking
at emissions since the industrial revolution in 1850, there has
been an increase in carbon dioxide concentration and an
increase in global temperature relative to this carbon dioxide
level. This data can be seen in Figure 1: Global Temperature
and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations.
Figure 1: Global Temperature and Carbon Dioxide Concentrations
Manuscript received December 5, 2011 This work was supported in part
by Dr. Lance Sherry, George Mason University Systems Engineering and
Operations Research Department and Dr. Terry Thompson, Metron
Aviation.
Aviation is currently responsible for 3.63% of United
States greenhouse gas emissions (EPA) and 2% of global
CO2 emissions (IPCC, 2004). While this is a small
percentage of the GHG emissions globally, the emissions
from aviation related activities has a direct impact into the
atmosphere and are concentrated in high traffic area.
Political and community concerns have grown in response
to these studies. Internationally, the primary response to
these concerns is the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol is an
environmental treaty with the goal of reducing climate
change through the stabilization of anthropogenic emissions.
The Protocol commits to reduce or trade emissions and
represents a promise by the participating governments to
reduce GHG emissions by an average of 5.2% of the 1990
levels. These GHG’s emissions include carbon dioxide
(CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), and
perfluorocarbons (PFC). The targets set by the Kyoto
Protocol included aviation emissions, but only those related
to domestic travel. As of September 2011, around the world,
193 parties (192 States and 1 regional economic integration
organization) are a part of the Kyoto Protocol. The United
States has been involved in the Protocol legislation since the
creation but remains a signatory and has not ratified the
treaty. Over the past Presidential administrations, there has
been a commonly accepted understanding that the United
States would not ratify the treaty until there are quantitative
emissions commitments for developing countries, such as
China1. Since the limits are based on the size of a country’s
land, carbon trading may become financially advantageous
to geographically large countries with low population
density, such as Russia. Most of the provisions in the treaty
only apply to developing countries which is a direct
violation of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution wherein the US
cannot sign any agreement that does not have fair guidelines
for all countries (STERN, 2007). In the United States,
federal legislation has yet to be developed to regulate mobile
aviation-related GHG emissions. State and local
governments have responded to concerns by developing
policies to control the amount of GHGs generated by airport
operations. Voluntary registries, such as The Climate
Registry, on the national and regional level have been
established to promote meeting Kyoto goals.
Several states have developed state-based laws that
require inventories of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2006,
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) was created
with the goal of reducing GHG emissions in California
through 2020 (ARB Mission and Goals, 2009). The first part
was setting caps for emissions levels in major industries and
requiring participation in the California Climate Action
Registry (CCAR). Other legislation includes the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), and
Washington State’s Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
These policies have led to discussions about who has
authority to regulate GHG emissions. In 2007, it was
declared by the U.S. Supreme Court that the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA or EPA) has
authority over GHG regulations and that the USEPA must
begin to exercise the authority. This ruling increased
pressure on the USEPA to regulate emissions under the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
was established under the CAA to set limits on
concentrations of particulate matter in outdoor spaces. The
limits are set on pollution sources and vary depending on
geographic location and air flow conditions. The NAAQS
are set for six pollutants defined as “criteria” pollutants:
carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate
pollution, and sulfur dioxide. Inventories are taken annually.
Compliance to the standards makes a region an “attainment”
area. Non-compliance earns the title of “non-attainment”.
Non-attainment areas are required to implement a plan to
meet NAAQS or risk losing federal financial assistance.
These policies are a response to public concern of the
effects of increasing energy consumption on the planet. The
end goal of the policies referring to GHG emissions is
carbon neutrality, where the net GHG emissions in an area
created by human activity is close to zero, relative to a
determined baseline level. Airports have to report air quality
statistics from stationary sources under NAAQS. Trends in
policy indicate a move towards controlling byproducts of
energy consumption, including GHG emissions, from both
stationary and non-stationary sources.
B. Airport Operations
From the surrounding communities, passengers and
employees flow-in to the airport through the use of personal
cars, public transportation, and airplanes. Passengers then
leave on similar sources, through personal cars, public
transportation, and airplanes. The case study of this project
will be Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD) of
the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA).
IAD consists of 127 airline gates with five concourses: A, B,
C, D, and Z. The airport always operates an AeroTrain
system and mobile lounges to transport passengers and
employees between the concourses. IAD has a total of four
runways to accommodate the increasing traffic off aviation
(Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, 2011).
Dulles International Airport is serviced by two major
roadways: VA-route 28 and the Dulles Toll Road (VARoute 267). Ground access vehicles include: personal
vehicles, taxis, and public transportation such as buses and
other mass transportation. All of the economy and some of
the employee parking lots are serviced by MWAA
controlled shuttle buses. Employees have 7 parking lots:
North, East, East Reserve, West Reserve, Cargo, CBP, and L
S G (in-flight service provider). Public parking lots include:
Economy, Daily Garage 1, Daily Garage 2, Hourly, and
Valet. There are 24,000 total public parking spaces available
at Dulles. (Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority,
2011)
Bottle necks occur during airport operations in the flow of
aircraft and ground access vehicles. With aircraft there are
delays which include: gate push back, departure congestion,
and taxi times. For ground access vehicles delays include:
congestion on roads servicing airport and increased idling
time at arrivals/departures. Bottlenecks cause an increase in
emissions through the increased engine use of both aircraft
and ground access vehicles. Optimization of airport flow
would assist in overall reduction of GHG emissions.
II. STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
A. Stakeholder Overview
There are three levels of stakeholders involved in airports
with regards to GHG emissions. The first level of this is the
decision makers, including the federal government, local
government, and non-government organizations (NGO). The
second level of stakeholders follows the decisions made by
the first level. This level includes airport management, air
carriers, air service providers, ground transportation, and
airport services. The third level of stakeholders is the
bystanders. These bystanders, or victims, are not decision
makers or those who conform to the decisions, but rather the
people or entities who perform the day-to-day operations
implied by the actions of the first and second level
stakeholders. These stakeholders include passengers,
employees, and surrounding communities.
Within the primary stakeholders, there are two main
points of view: business decision verse an environmental
decision. The business decision focuses on lowering cost,
increasing revenue, and maximizing profit. An
environmental view of a decision focuses on minimizing the
effect of a decision on the community. This effect also
includes an emphasis on environmental impact. These two
views create tension as the two views often do not produce
the same results. Another issue arises when identifying
whose responsibility it is to consider the environmental
decision. A business decision produces the more desirable
immediate, tangible result. Consequently, environmental
impacts have a long, intangible result and are given little
weight when considering changes to airport operations.
To emphasize the value of environmental decisions the
Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) is a valuable metric. The SCC
is a notional value for emitting an extra ton of CO2 at any
time. The average cost is $43 per metric ton of CO2 per
person. This impact includes changes in agricultural
productivity, human health, property damages, and other
ecosystem changes. Monetizing the impact of CO2¬
emissions allows for analysis based on benefits of
environmental decisions. (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, 2007)
B. Airport Stakeholder Model
communities hold voting power over the local government
which governs the airport board. This airport board directly
affects the airport organizational boundary through airport
management and operations. The airport organizational
boundary dictates the capacity for service providers to
operate within the airport service boundary which cycles
back to the amount of operations generating emissions. This
cycle is designed to have a very weak feedback loop through
the stakeholder model since emissions have a slow effect on
the surrounding environment and the time needed for these
effects to be felt through the election process and into airport
management is a very long cycle.
Figure 1: Stakeholder Interaction Diagram
The model of airport organization is shown through
boundaries between different entities of airport operations.
Such boundaries include the airport organizational boundary,
airport service boundary, capital improvement bill payers,
and local economy and community. The airport organization
boundary is controlled by the airport management which is
partly controlled by the airport board. The airport
management has control over the infrastructure of the airport
and operational procedures. They do not have control over
services provided within the airport infrastructure. The
airport service boundary is all of the services provided at an
airport regardless of the organization that has responsibility
and control over that service.
Figure 4: Stakeholder Interactions - Business
There is also a financial or business decision feedback
loop that exists in the airport stakeholder model, seen in
Figure 4: Stakeholder Interactions - Busines. Airports
depend on both capital and operating revenues to pay for
capital projects and operating expenses. The feedback loop
has interactions between passengers, local economy and
communities, and businesses. This feedback loop is the
strongest in response time due to financial decisions and can
have runaway growth since other loops are weak.
Figure 3: Stakeholder Interactions – Emissions
There are several system loops in the airport stakeholder
model. The first is an emissions feedback track, seen in
Figure 3: Stakeholder Interactions - Emissions. Emissions
are generated within the airport service boundary from
airport operations, airport infrastructure, and service
providers. These emissions directly affect the local economy
and community through increased noise and pollutants
entering the environment. For the purposes of this study,
only emissions will be considered, not noise. These local
Figure 5: Stakeholder Interaction - Legislation
The final feedback loop shows the legislative interaction
with the stakeholders, seen in Figure 5: Stakeholder
Interaction - Legislation. This shows the government/capital
improvement funding. MWAA serves as the airport manager
for Dulles International Airport. The MWAA Board of
Directors consists of 13 members. Five members are
appointed from the Governor of Virginia, three from the
Mayor of the District of Columbia, two from the Governor
of Maryland, and three from the President of the United
States. Regulators, which include: FAA, TSA, Federal
Government, Local Government, and NGOs, provide
legislation for aviation which must be enforced. The
conflicting objectives create tension between stakeholders in
decision making. This feedback loop also includes the
elections and government stakeholders. These stakeholders
create tension in the feedback loop through decisions that
can impact funding available through the capital
improvement finds to the airport. The feedback loop has a
very slow response time.
III. PROBLEM AND NEED STATEMENT
A. Problem Statement
Existing legislation in the United States, including the
Kyoto Protocol and NAAQS, require the monitoring of air
pollutants in stationary sources in aviation to improve the air
quality with respect to a target fixed by legislation.
Presently, there is no legislation for aviation in the
continental United States which imposes caps for
greenhouse gas emissions from stationary and non-stationary
sources involved in aviation. Analysis of policy from Europe
regarding capping of emissions suggests that the increasing
awareness of global energy use and its impact on the
environment will prompt the United States to create similar
laws for emissions from aviation. Since there is currently no
legislation against all of the sources of emissions from
aviation, there is no way to assign penalty for those sources
with the largest amount of emissions and assign fines to
these specific sources. With no feedback loop for penalties,
there is a conflicting stakeholder opinion of who should own
the overall problem. No ownership of the identified problem
leads to no one absorbing the cost and time to make changes
and no significant changes can occur.
As the global economy becomes more aware of the impact
of greenhouse gas emissions from both stationary and nonstationary sources within aviation, there will be a desire to
reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from these
sources. To achieve a reduced impact on the environment,
the aviation sector of industry will work toward a carbon
neutral state in which there is no net emission of greenhouse
gases. This implies that the total amount of gases emitted
will be equal to the total amount of gases sequestered or
offset. Due to the lack of legislation currently in place, there
is not a tool which allows for the collection and analysis of
stationary and non-stationary emissions.
B. Need Statement
In order to reach a carbon neutral state for airports, the
total amount of CO2 emissions must first be determined. A
system to collect and report total CO2 emissions for
stationary and non-stationary sources at airports is needed.
This system should be able to receive input, calculate CO2
emissions, analyze data to identify sources to reduce
emissions output and verify compliance with emissions caps.
As the global economy becomes more aware of the impact
of greenhouse gas emissions from both stationary and nonstationary sources within aviation, there will be a desire to
reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions from these
sources. To achieve a reduced impact on the environment, it
is projected that the aviation sector of industry will work
toward a carbon neutral state in which there is no net
emission of greenhouse gases. This implies that the total
amount of gases emitted will be equal to the total amount of
gases offset. Due to the lack of legislation currently in place,
there is not a tool which allows for the collection and
analysis of stationary and non-stationary emissions. There
exists a need for a tool to collect and report GHG emissions
of stationary and non-stationary sources at airports.
IV. CONOPS
A. Statement of Work
In order to move towards a carbon neutral airport several
aspects of the airport must be explored. First you have to see
how much is currently being put out. To do this, previous
inventory methods and results have to be surveyed. The
tools used in these inventories also have to be surveyed.
From there an inventory tool has to be developed to account
for stationary and non-stationary aviation emissions. This
tool will be used to the current status of total emissions and
to identify emissions by source. Those results will be used to
set goals for emissions reduction. Various strategies will be
considered for reducing GHG emissions from all sources.
The strategies will be analyzed to determine the most
effective and beneficial solution.
B. Mission Requirements
Mission requirements derived from the sponsor statement
of work are as follows:
• The system shall report total aviation related CO2
emissions for stationary and non-stationary sources
• The system shall account for aviation related emissions
within the boundary of the landing/take-off (LTO) cycle
around the airport.
• The system shall report GHG emissions by source.
• The system shall calculate emissions within 1.1%
accuracy for each emissions source.*
• The system shall provide structure for additional GHGs
to be calculated.
*Based on magnitude of sample calculations.
C. Scope
The scope of the project is decomposed into geographic,
operations, and emissions scope.
The scope of this project is geographically limited to
airport operations within the landing and take-off (LTO)
cycle below mixing altitude. The mixing altitude is the
where pollutant mixing and chemical reaction occurs in the
atmosphere. Above the mixing altitude, pollutants do not
mix with ground level emissions and have little effect on
ground level concentrations. The geographic scope covers a
radius of 12 nautical miles (22 km) and an altitude of 3,000
feet within the LTO cycle. The LTO, detailed in Figure 6:
Landing Take - off Cycle, is divided into five main
operational modes:
1. Approach: the portion of flight from the time the
aircraft reaches the mixing height or 3,000 ft altitude and
lands and exits the runway;
2. Taxi/idle-in: the time the aircraft is moving on the
taxiway system until reaching the gate;
3. Taxi/idle-out: from departure from the gate until taxied
to the runway;
4. Take-off: the movement down the runway through liftoff up to about 1,000 ft; and
5. Climbout: the departure segment from takeoff until
exiting the LTO cycle.
convert total fuel consumption and fuel economy into tons of
CO2 using predefined equations.
2009 Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas
(percentages based on CO2 equivalent)
2.2%
4.5%
10.3%
83.0%
CO2
CH4
N2O
HFCs, PFCs & SF6
Figure 7: Greenhouse Gas Decomposition
V. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
In order to evaluate solutions for reduction of GHG
emissions, a tool is needed to evaluate the current state of
emissions. The Airport Inventory Tool (AIT) is used to
inventory stationary and non-stationary aviation-related
GHG emissions within the LTO boundary around an airport.
Figure 6: Landing Take - off Cycle
Within the airport boundary, this project will account for
all stationary and non-stationary sources of GHG emissions.
Stationary sources include: Boilers (facility, heating, and
fuel), airport fire department training fires, waste
management devices (waste disposal and incinerators), and
construction activities. Non-stationary sources are broken up
into 3 additional areas: Aircraft, Ground Support Equipment
(GSE), and Ground Access Vehicles (GAV). Aircraft
accounts for all aviation related emissions including their
Aircraft Power Units (APU). GSE accounts for emissions for
airport related activities including: tugs, catering trucks,
transporters, fuel tankers, and passenger boarding stairs.
GAVs include all non-airport related emission activities
including: personal passenger vehicles, and public
transportation such as taxis, buses, and trains.
This project will only measure the output of Carbon
Dioxide (CO2), based on Figure 7: Greenhouse Gas
Decomposition, CO2 accounts for 83% of the total United
States GHG emissions. Because the majority of GHG
emissions are CO2 the tool will be limited to outputting CO2
measurements. To calculate CO2 emissions, the tool will
Figure 8: Airport Inventory Tool
An overview of the AIT is in Figure 8: Airport Inventory
Tool. The AIT calculates total carbon emissions based on
fuel consumption and the appropriate emissions index. There
are two methods for finding the amount of fuel consumed by
non-stationary sources. The first method is the most
preferred method. It uses total fuel consumption from
stationary, GAV, GSE, and aircraft sources. If fuel
consumption data are not available, a second method may be
used. The second method for calculation is uses fuel
economy information and distance travelled to calculate
emissions from GAV, GSE and aircraft sources. Emissions
indices are based on the type of fuel consumed by the source
and are provided by, the Energy Information Administration
(EIA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
Department of Energy (DoE).
For GAV and GSE sources, the total of emissions is
calculated using the number of vehicles, amount of fuel
burned, and the appropriate emissions index. If it is known,
the actual amount of fuel consumed is calculated. If the
amount is not known, the amount of fuel consumed is
calculated using the distance travelled and average fuel burn
rate for each vehicle or vehicle class.
Equation 1: Emissions = ∑^i〖fi*Ei〗
where fi: GAV/GSE fuel consumed; Ei: Emissions Index
Aircraft emissions are calculated using the amount of fuel
burned and the fuels appropriate emissions index. If fuel
consumption data is not available, the amount of fuel used
can be calculated using averages based on the model or type
aircraft and the number of landings and take-offs. Obtaining
the fleet mix of the airport in question is important in
calculation aircraft emissions under the alternative method.
In the event the fleet mix is not available, accepted
distributions of aircraft types may be obtained using the
Seattle-Tacoma emissions inventory.
Equation 2: Emissions = ∑^j〖fj *Ej〗 + ∑^k〖fk *Ek〗
fj: landing aircraft fuel consumed; Ej: landing aircraft
emissions index; fk: take-off aircraft fuel consumed; Ek:
take-off aircraft emissions index
Stationary source emissions are only calculated using the
total fuel consumption method because NAAQS requires
annual reporting of stationary source emissions and fuel
consumption. The total emissions for each stationary source
will be calculated using the total fuel consumed and the
appropriate emissions index. If there are multiple fuel types
being consumed by one source, each fuel input is considered
treated as a separate input in the AIT.
Equation 3: Emissions = ∑^m〖fm*Em〗
fm: stationary source fuel consumed; Em: stationary
source emissions index
B. Risk
The risks associated with emissions inventories are data
availability and data reliability.
Specific data related to fuel consumption and airport
operations is not publically available for use in the
development of the AIT. After development, the process of
data collection will be outside of the scope of the AIT and
will be the responsibility of the airport manager. Therefore,
data is needed to validate the AIT development to ensure
that emissions indices and fuel usage data are correct. To
validate these values, acceptable distributions from previous
inventories performed at Seattle-Tacoma and Denver
International Airports will be used to determine fleet
distributions and ground access vehicle distributions as well
as accepted averages for aircraft and associated ground
service equipment fuel consumption.
Some of the input, calculations, and emissions indices
used in the tool may not be accurate enough to meet
accuracy requirements for the system. To mitigate this risk,
previous inventory inputs and results, such as SeattleTacoma and Denver International Airports, will be
compared to AIT results. Since data specific to Dulles
International Airport cannot be released for public use,
inventory results based on Dulles International Airport will
be presented to the airport managers, MWAA for validation.
The AIT will also be turned over to MWAA for data entry
and validation, with results being returned to the team
without specific data included.
C. Limitations
Carbon Dioxide emissions account for 83% of total GHG
emissions by CO2 equivalency (IPCC, 2004; Brian Kim,
2009). Due to CO2 being such a large percentage of
greenhouse gas emissions, the AIT focus is a Level-1
Inventory tool as defined in ACRP, which focuses on CO2
emissions, and does not include Methane (CH4), Nitrous
Oxide
(N2O),
Sulfur
Hexfluoride
(SF6),
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), and Perfluorocarbons (PFC).
The purpose of the analysis is to identify emissions
sources contained within the airport operational boundary.
Therefore dispersion is not included in the analysis. The
analysis follows the IPCC LTO methodology for calculating
aircraft emission which does not include helicopters in the
inventory model. In the case of Dulles International Airport,
there are less than 10 helicopter landings and takeoffs per
year.
VI. DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
A. Carbon Neutrality Strategy
The long term goal of carbon neutrality is to achieve a
zero carbon footprint relative to a baseline amount. To create
a carbon neutral airport, a tiered approach will be used to
reduce carbon emissions through the use of renewable
energy sources and energy efficient technologies. Figure 9:
Carbon Neutral Strategy shows the project strategy to reach
carbon neutrality.
Reduce energy need
Maximize energy
efficiency
Renewable
Energy
Offset
Figure 9: Carbon Neutral Strategy (Source: The Carbon Neutral
Company)
The first step of the strategy is to reduce energy need for
airports in order to minimize total carbon emissions at
airports. The second step of the carbon neutral strategy is to
maximize energy efficiency in order to minimize energy
waste at airports. The third step of the strategy is to focus on
renewable energy and new energy technologies in order to
produce electricity in all or part of the airports. The fourth
step of the strategy is to share offset studies in order to share
existing and future offset programs for carbon neutral
airports. The reduction strategies are based on the emissions
source classifications: Ground Access Vehicles (GAV),
Ground Support Equipments (GSE), Aircrafts (including
APUs), and Stationary Sources.
B. Proposed Alternatives for Ground Access Vehicles
(GAV)
Ground access vehicles are private and commercial motor
vehicles used by passengers and airline & airport employees
to travel on airport roadways and in parking lots. The first
proposed alternative for GAVs is to reduce energy need. The
first alternative method for energy reduction is a carpooling
program in order to consolidate the number of GAV
emissions sources per passenger. The second alternative
method for energy reduction is establishing a combined
rental car shuttle. For example, there are currently eight
rental car companies at Dulles International Airport which
each run their own shuttles to pick up rental customers from
the main terminal. Instead of running eight different shuttles,
one energy efficient shuttle could be implemented for rental
car companies. The second proposed alternative for GAVs is
investment in better public transportation in order to
encourage passengers to leave their cars at home and utilize
public transportation. Two alternatives for public
transportation are Metro (Dulles Metro, scheduled to open
2013) and hybrid busses. Carpooling programs and better
public transportation will decrease the total number of
GAVs at airports and will lower passengers’ total carbon
emissions.
C. Proposed Alternatives for Ground Support Equipment
(GSE)
The strategy for determining alternatives for ground
support equipment is categorized into two major groups
based on fuel type (gasoline or diesel) and on-road (vehicles
or trucks) or off-road (tugs, tractors or loaders). GSEs
provide services (fuel & baggage loading or transportation
of passengers) to aircrafts between flights. The majority of
existing ground support equipment use gasoline or diesel
fuel. The proposed alternative for GSEs is to invest in new
energy technologies. Alternative energy technologies for
GSEs are electric, hybrid, hydrogen and liquid propane. The
new technologies will minimize fuel consumption and will
lower GSEs’ total carbon emissions.
D. Proposed Alternatives for Aircraft and APU
A majority of existing aircrafts and APUs use aircraft fuel
(Jet A-1). The first proposed alternative for aircrafts is to
invest in alternative fuels. The first alternative is hydrogenpowered aircrafts. Hydrogen is an environmentally friendly
gas fuel for future aircrafts. It shows a significant promise as
fuel and it is a potential replacement for current aircraft fuel,
Jet A-1. The most significant advantage of hydrogen is that
it does not produce any GHG emissions. It is lighter than Jet
A-1 and thereby maximizes energy efficiency and minimizes
carbon emissions for each flight. The second alternative fuel
type is compressed natural gas (CNG). It is a fossil fuel
substitute for gasoline, diesel and propane. It shows a
significant promise as fuel and it is a potential replacement
for current aircraft fuel, Jet A-1. The most significant
advantage of CNG is that it produces less greenhouse gases
and is more environmentally friendly than the current fuel,
Jet A-1. CNG is lighter than current aircraft fuel, Jet A-1
therefore it maximizes energy efficiency and minimizes
carbon emissions for each flight. The third alternative fuel
type is biodiesel. It is also called vegetable fuel and being
used for diesel engines. In 2007, the first biodiesel military
aircraft was tested in Nevada. The second proposed
alternative for aircrafts is fixed ground power. It is an
alternative method to provide aircrafts’ energy consumption
on gateways. It provides 400 Hz gate power and preconditioned air therefore aircrafts can switch off their
engines and APUs while at the gate. The largest advantage
of fixed ground power is that it is clean energy source and is
environmentally friendly. This technology will significantly
reduce the use of APUs and related carbon emissions. The
third proposed alternative for aircrafts is developing more
efficient air traffic management. One option is utilizing
continuous descent approach (CDA) for air traffic
management. It is an optimized landing strategy for aircrafts.
It minimizes engine and fuel usage. Unlike the traditional
landing method, CDA minimizes engine trust at 7000 FT
and 25 miles away from landing point and does not add any
additional trust on engines at 3000 feet above ground level.
This new landing strategy minimizes fuel waste and lowers
aircrafts’ total carbon emissions. Another alternative for
reducing aircraft GHG emissions is minimizing taxiing
times. Taxi time is the total time of an aircraft movement on
the ground between the gate, terminal, ramp or runway.
Delays, previously discussed as bottlenecks, can increase
taxiing times for aircrafts increasing the emissions expelled
into the atmosphere. Shortening taxiing times minimizes the
total time of an aircraft between the gates, terminals, ramps
and runways and therefore minimizes fuel waste and
unnecessary carbon emissions.
recommendations for system optimization and to determine
the best proposed alternative for overall reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions and a step toward carbon
neutrality for the airport.
DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMNS
E. Proposed Alternatives for Stationary Sources
Stationary sources include facilities sources such as power
generators, steam boilers, heaters or waste incinerators. Fire
training, waste management, and construction activities are
other aviation-related stationary sources. The majority of
existing stationary sources use gasoline, oil or electric. The
first proposed alternative for stationary sources is renewable
energy technologies. Solar energy is the most available
renewable energy source to produce electricity through
photovoltaic cells at airports. Solar energy can also be used
for heating. Based on the specific area and locations, airports
might be able to provide total or part of energy
consumptions by solar energy. Wind energy is the second
best available renewable energy source to produce electricity
by wind turbines at airports. Wind turbines convert kinetic
energy to mechanical energy to produce electricity.
Depending on the area and locations, airports might be able
to provide total or part of energy consumptions by wind
energy. For example, Denver International Airport is able to
produce enough electricity by wind and solar farms in order
to provide their energy consumption (Associates, Rocondo
&, 2005). Innovative design in energy efficient terminals &
buildings could be another solution used to reduce or
eliminate energy need and maximize energy efficiency.
These designs also include high efficiency boilers, heating
and cooling systems with effective waste management
techniques. The most important step for innovative designs
is to reduce energy need and generate energy with
environmentally friendly methods. These new technologies
will minimize fuel consumption and will lower stationary
sources’ total carbon emissions.
VII. DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT
The design of experiment for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project is comprised of four main steps. The first step of our
design of experiment is to plug in aviation data in Aviation
Inventory Tool (AIT) in order to collect total carbon
emissions from stationary and non-stationary sources. The
second step of our design of experiment is to analyze
emissions data from AIT in order to determine the largest
contributions of emissions at airports. The third step of our
design of experiment is to implement proposed alternatives
into AIT in order to reduce emissions from inputs. The
fourth step of our design of experiment is to provide
recommendations based on results from third step in order to
optimize airports. The design of experiment for Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Project has three weights: Payoff, Difficulty
and Cost. We will retrieve weights based on discussion with
MWAA and our stakeholders. The weights will be combined
with proposed alternatives in order to provide
ACRP: Airport Cooperative Research Program
AIT: Airport Inventory Tool
Carbon Neutral: no net release of carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere by balancing a measured amount of carbon
released with an equivalent amount offset relative to a
baseline quantity
Climate Change: major changes in temperature, rainfall,
snow, or wind patterns lasting for decades or longer due to
human-made and natural factors
Dispersion: process of air pollutants spreading over a wide
area in the ambient atmosphere
DOE: Department of Energy
EIA: Energy Information Administration
EPA: USEPA, United States Environmental Protection
Agency
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
GAV: Ground Access Vehicle
GHG: greenhouse gas, a gas that traps heat in the
atmosphere
GSE: Ground Support Equipment
ICAO: International Civil Aviation Organization
Inventory: accounting of the amount of GHGs emitted to or
removed from the atmosphere over a specific period of time
Kyoto Protocol: a protocol to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), aimed
at fighting global warming
MWAA: Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority,
Dulles International Airport and Reagan National Airport
managers
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
REFERENCES
1. AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL. (2009). GUIDANCE
MANUAL: AIRPORT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
MANGEMENT.
2. ARB MISSION AND GOALS. (2009, DECEMBER 8).
RETRIEVED 2011, FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY AIR RESOURCES BOARD:
HTTP://WWW.ARB.CA.GOV/HTML/MISSION.HTM
3. ASSOCIATES, ROCONDO &. (2005). DENVER
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT EMISSIONS INVENTORY. DENVER,
CO.
4. BRIAN KIM, I. A. (2009). ACRP REPORT 11 GUIDEBOOK
ON PREPARING AIRPORT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INVENTORIES. WASHINGTON, DC: TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH BOARD.
5. DAVID SCHARR, L. S. (2010). ANALYSIS OF AIRPORT
STAKEHOLDERS. INTEGRATED COMMUNICATIONS
NAVIGATION AND SURVEILLANCE CONFERENCE .
6. DEXINGER. (2009). DEXINGER. RETRIEVED FROM AIA
INTRODUCES 2030 COMMITMENT PROGRAM TO REACH GOAL
OF CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2030:
HTTP://WWW.DEXIGNER.COM/NEWS/17758
7. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION. (2011).
VOLUNTARY REPORTING OF GREENHOUSE GASES PROGRAM.
RETRIEVED 2011, FROM INDEPENDENT STATISTICS &
ANALYSIS U.S. ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION:
HTTP://WWW.EIA.GOV/OIAF/1605/COEFFICIENTS.HTML
8. ENVIRO.AERO. (2011). AVIATION'S ROLE IN CLIMATE
CHANGE. RETRIEVED 2011, FROM ENVIRO.AERO:
HTTP://WWW.ENVIRO.AERO/AVIATIONSROLEINCLIMATECHAN
GE.ASPX
9. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION. (2011).
PASSENGER BOARDING (ENPLANEMENT) AND ALL-CARGO
DATA FOR U.S. AIRPORTS. RETRIEVED 2011, FROM FEDERAL
AVAITION ADMINISTRATION:
HTTP://WWW.FAA.GOV/AIRPORTS/PLANNING_CAPACITY/PASS
ENGER_ALLCARGO_STATS/PASSENGER/INDEX.CFM?YEAR=AL
L
10. FIRST ENVIRONMENT, INC. . (2008). WESTCHESTER
COUNTY AIRPORT AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY.
11. INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.
(2007). 3.5.3.3 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS, DAMAGE COST
ESTIMATES AND SOCAIAL COSTS OF CARBON - AR4WGII
CHAPTER 3: ISSUES RELATED TO MITIGATION IN THE LONGTERM CONTEXT. IPCC.
12. IPCC. (2004). PUTTING AVIATION'S EMISSIONS IN
CONTEXT.
13. MASSECHUSETTS EXECTUIVE OFFICE OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS. (2009). MASSECHUSETTS
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (MEPA). RETRIEVED 2011,
FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF
ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS:
HTTP://WWW.ENV.STATE.MA.US/MEPA/
14. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY.
(2011). FACTS ABOUT WASHINGTON DULLES
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. RETRIEVED 2011, FROM
METROPOLITAIN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY:
HTTP://MWAA.COM/DULLES/663.HTM
15. METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON AIRPORTS AUTHORITY.
(2010). TOTAL OPERATIONS, PASSENGERS, MAIL, & FREIGHT
ACTIVITIES. WASHINGTON, D.C.
16. OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY. (2000).
CONSIDERATION OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS BY AIRPLANE
OPERATIONS AT OR ABOVE 3,000 FEET AGL. WASHINGTON,
DC: US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION.
17. PORT OF SEATTLE. (2008). PORT OF SEATTLE SEATTLETACOMA INTERNATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INVENTORY 2006. SEATTLE, WA.
18. SCHAAR, D. (2011). INTRODUCTION TO AIRPORT
FINANCE.
19. STERN. (2007). STATUS OF KYOTO PROTOCOL
RATIFICATION.
20. THE CLIMATE REGISTRY (TCR). (2008). GENERAL
REPORTING PROTOCOL. LOS ANGELES, CA.
21. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (JUNE 2010). U.S.
CLIMATE ACTION REPORT 2010. WASHINGTON, DC: GLOBAL
PUBLISHING SERVICES.
22. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. (2011,
APRIL 20). CLIMATE CHANGE - GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS. RETRIEVED 2011, FROM U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY:
HTTP://WWW.EPA.GOV/CLIMAGECHANGE/EMISSIONS/INDEX.H
TML