CO2 standard for new aircraft

2,926 views

Published on

2degreesnetwork webinar

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,926
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
739
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
63
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

CO2 standard for new aircraft

  1. 1. The Role and Design of a CO2 Standard for New Aircraft Dan Rutherford, Ph.D. Senior Researcher NGO Observer to ICAO Emissions and Technology Environmental Working Group 2degreesnetwork webinar 14 April 2010
  2. 2. Overview   Overview of the climate challenge   Introduction to an aircraft CO2 standard –  Recent policy developments –  Why an aircraft standard? –  Key design criteria   What can’t a standard do?   Conclusions
  3. 3. Business As Usual: 4X CO2 by 2050 ICAO 2050 projection (CAEP/8 forthcoming) Mt CO2/yr Source: IPCC Working Group III 4th Assessment Report, 2007. In total, 3.5~5.0% of global RF in 2005, counting NOx and cirrus impacts (Lee 2009)
  4. 4. Aviation CO2 missing from international climate agreements Kyoto protocol coverage of global aviation CO2 emissions assuming no post-2004 growth 700 600 CO2 emissions covered (MMT) 500 400 300 200 100 0 Worldwide total Kyoto now Source: ICCT, from data in SAGE Version 1.5 Global Aviation Emissions Inventories for 2000 through 2004.
  5. 5. What is the international community doing?   ICAO High Level Declaration (10/2009) –  2% fuel efficiency improvement target to 2020 –  2% “aspirational goal” 2020~2050 –  Development of a CO2 standard for new aircraft “types”   UNFCCC/COP-15 (12/2009) –  Ultimately silent on the issue of “bunkers” –  Much interest in marine and aviation as source of adaptation funding   CAEP/8 (2/2010) –  Reaffirmed intent to set CO2 standard for new aircraft –  Work may be completed 2013 with possible interim deliverables
  6. 6. Why an aircraft CO2 standard?   Traditional industry position: Aviation is fuel price sensitive --> sufficient driver for efficiency already   Evidence suggests room for improvement: –  Efficiency gains from new equipment declined markedly after 1990, approximately flat since 2000 –  Large jet manufacturers slow to develop new single-aisle aircraft –  Race for speed and range impose efficiency penalty –  Under-optimization of aircraft to allow for general use (stage length, belly freight capacity)   An aircraft CO2 standard, properly designed, can: –  Provide an incentive to deploy new technologies –  Minimize emissions vs. performance tradeoffs –  Promote increased optimization of aircraft to mission –  “Force” technology???
  7. 7. New aircraft efficiency flat today
  8. 8. Lack of new designs driving stagnation Average Age of Aircraft Manufacturer Production Lines, 1960-2008 25 100 20 80 Seat-km Fuel Burn (1960=100) Age of Production Line (yr) Engine family 15 60 10 40 Aircraft series 5 20 0 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Year ICCT (2009). “Efficiency Trends for New Commercial Jet Aircraft, 1960 to 2008.”
  9. 9. Emissions and performance tradeoffs exist Two flight options, San Francisco to Italy 907 kg CO2 517 kg CO2 62 kg 277 kg CO2 CO2 Estimated CO2 emissions (one-way) Ave EIS:1993 SFO-ZRH-FLR (6100 miles): 969 kg CO2 18% reduction Ave EIS:1985 SFO-JFK-PSA (6700 miles): 794 kg CO2 ICCT analysis, kayak.com and Piano-X model
  10. 10. Standard design issues   Metrics: How to measure/compare aircraft efficiency?   Applicability: cover all new aircraft or just new designs?   Thresholds: need to cover turboprops, BJs?   Certification procedure: what is an aviation “duty cycle”   Stringency: How strict?   Compliance: –  Pass/fail at the aircraft level? –  Averaging within an aircraft family? –  Corporate averaging?   Criteria for cost/cost effectiveness
  11. 11. Certification test points matter Relative block CO2 reductions at various operating points for an historical narrowbody replacement ICCT analysis using Piano-X model
  12. 12. Alternative compliance mechanisms important for an aircraft CO2 standard   Efficiency standards enforced on a “pass/fail” basis tend not to raise fleetwide efficiency –  “Pass/fail” used to regulate vehicle emissions, but rarely efficiency, and only in developing markets with large gap between best and worst –  Sets up high stakes game where viability of particular models and even manufacturers is on the line –  Favors “bottom scraper” rather than “top runner” standards   Need to think flexibly about alternatives to traditional certification –  Averaging within an aircraft family (commonality issue) –  Corporate average: set a single target for a manufacturer --> let comply through means of their choice –  “Soft” (e.g. financial, etc.) penalties for non-compliance? –  Labeling –  Other ideas?
  13. 13. What can’t an aircraft CO2 standard do?   A standard cannot: –  Put a general price on aviation carbon –  Improve the efficiency of in-service aircraft –  Promote operational improvements in fuel burn (ATM, CDAs, etc.) –  Address NOx, AIC impacts   Aircraft standard is only one part of a comprehensive climate strategy for aviation –  Market-based measures –  Incentives for operational improvements –  Measures to address non-CO2 impacts of aviation –  Others?
  14. 14. Non-CO2 climate impact may be the low hanging fruit Normalized operating costs vs. normalized 100 yr global warming impact for various designs of a narrowbody aircraft Schwartz, E. and Kroo, I.M. Aircraft Design: Trading Cost and Climate Impact. AIAA 2009-1261.
  15. 15. Conclusions   Aviation climate challenge is a massive one that requires new thinking   ICAO work on aircraft CO2 standard underway   Potentially, standards can: –  Speed technology deployment –  Manage emissions vs. performance tradeoffs –  Promote better optimization of aircraft to mission   Standard one part of a comprehensive strategy –  MBMs to price carbon –  Measures to improve operational efficiency –  Action on non-CO2 climate effects
  16. 16. Acknowledgements   ClimateWorks and Hewlett Foundations   Mazyar Zeinali, Fanta Kamakate, and Drew Kodjak (ICCT)   CAEP WG3 colleagues

×