Travel option-based environmental comparison between passenger aircraft and high-speed rail

Abstract

The short-haul flights have higher emission values than medium or long-haul flights when emissions per distance are considered. In this study, the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by replacing short-haul flights which carried out by a narrow-body commercial aircraft from/to Konya City in Turkey with regional jets or high-speed trains (HSRs) has been investigated. The flight trajectory is selected from Konya Airport to İstanbul Sabiha Gökçen Airport, and that trajectory is a frequently performed domestic flight between Konya and İstanbul. The IMPACT platform is used for the calculation of fuel burn and gas emissions. According to the results, traveling with regional jets or high-speed trains from/to Konya City which is the most 15th polluted city in Europe, provides advantages in terms of environmental impact. Traveling with HSR which is the best traveling option in this study, provides approximately 3.3 times more green travel than the currently used narrow-body passenger aircraft between Konya and İstanbul. In addition, this mode of transportation can become more environmentally friendly by using renewable energy sources to produce its electricity needs. It is expected that this study will serve as a guide for airline and high-speed rail operators and regulators to determine the most environmentally efficient travel options based on fuel burn and emission parameters.

Keywords

• Emissions
• CO2
• PM2.5
• travel options
• aircrafts
• high-speed trains

Kaynakça

1. [1] Roser M, Ritchie H, Ortiz-Ospina E, Rodés-Guirao L. World population growth. 2013.
2. [2] Smil V. Energy transitions: global and national perspectives. ABC-CLIO; 2016.
3. [3] Ritchie H, Roser M, Rosado P. Energy. Published online at OurWorldInData. org. 2020.
4. [4] IEA. World CO2 emissions from fuel combustion by fuel, 1971-2019; Last updated 2022. Available from: https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/world-co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion-by-fuel-1971-2019. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
5. [5] ENERDATA. Global Energy and Climate Trends, yearbook.enerdata.net. 2022.
6. [6] Huang Y, Kuldasheva Z, Bobojanov S, Djalilov B, Salahodjaev R, Abbas S. Exploring the links between fossil fuel energy consumption, industrial value-added, and carbon emissions in G20 countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2023;30(4): 10854-66.
7. [7] Karakurt I, Aydin G. Development of regression models to forecast the CO2 emissions from fossil fuels in the BRICS and MINT countries. Energy. 2023;263: 125650.
8. [8] Yi S, Raza Abbasi K, Hussain K, Albaker A, Alvarado R. Environmental concerns in the United States: Can renewable energy, fossil fuel energy, and natural resources depletion help? Gondwana Research. 2023;117: 41-55.

9. [9] Kyoto protocol. UNFCCC Website; 1997. Available from: https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
10. [10] Agreement P. Paris agreement. Report of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (21st Session, 2015: Paris). Retrieved December. 4. HeinOnline; 2015:2017.
11. [11] Gota S, Huizenga C, Peet K, Medimorec N, Bakker S. Decarbonising transport to achieve Paris Agreement targets. Energy Efficiency. 2019;12(2): 363-386.
12. [12] Meinshausen M, Lewis J, McGlade C, Gütschow J, Nicholls Z, Burdon R, et al. Realization of Paris Agreement pledges may limit warming just below 2 °C. Nature. 2022;604(7905): 304-309.
13. [13] Watch C. World Greenhouse Gas Emissions in 2016 (based on raw data from IEA (2018), CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion, www.iea.org/statistics; modified by WRI); 2020. Available from: https://www.wri.org/data/world-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2016. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
14. [14] Study into the impact of the global economic crisis on airframe utilisation EUROCONTROL (The European Organization for the Safety of Air Navigation), CND (Cooperative Network Design) / CODA (Central Office for Delay Analysis). 2011: 39.
15. [15] Baumeister S. Replacing short-haul flights with land-based transportation modes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: The case of Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2019;225: 262-269.
16. [16] Givoni M, Rietveld P. The environmental implications of airlines' choice of aircraft size. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2010;16(3): 159-167.
17. [17] Miyoshi C, Mason KJ. The carbon emissions of selected airlines and aircraft types in three geographic markets. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2009;15(3): 138-147.
18. [18] Morrell P. The potential for European aviation CO2 emissions reduction through the use of larger jet aircraft. Journal of Air Transport Management. 2009;15(4): 151-157.
19. [19] Filippone A, Parkes B. Evaluation of commuter airplane emissions: A European case study. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment. 2021;98: 102979.
20. [20] Tosun H. Türkiye’de Yüksek Hızlı Trenlerin Önemi ve Diğer Ulaşım Türleri Arasındaki Tercih Nedenleri. Düzce Üniversitesi Bilim ve Teknoloji Dergisi. 2021;9(3): 2148-2446.
21. [21] IQAir. 2022 World Air Quality Report; 2022. Available from: https://www.iqair.com/. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
22. [22] ICAO. ICAO Doc 8643 - Aircraft Type Designators; 2023. Available from: https://www.icao.int/publications/doc8643/pages/search.aspx. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
23. [23] Skybrary. Available from: https://skybrary.aero/. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
24. [24] Airfleets. Available from: https://www.airfleets.net/home/. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
25. [25] Worldwide Airport Database, Airport Nav Finder; Available from: https://airportnavfinder.com/ [Accessed 04.04.2023].
26. [26] Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü, Uçuş Noktaları; Available from: https://www.dhmi.gov.tr/Sayfalar/UcusNoktalari.aspx. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
27. [27] Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü, İstatistikler; Available from: https://www.dhmi.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Istatistikler.aspx. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
28. [28] FlightAware; Available from: https://flightaware.com/. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
29. [29] T.C. Ulaştırma ve Altyapı Bakanlığı, Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü, Konya Havalimanı; Available from: https://www.dhmi.gov.tr/sayfalar/havalimani/konya/anasayfa.aspx. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
30. [30] TCDD Taşımacılık A.Ş.; Available from: https://www.tcddtasimacilik.gov.tr/. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
31. [31] Enerji Atlası; Available from: http://www.enerjiatlasi.com:80/haber/yuksek-hizli-tren-elektrik-tuketimi-yirmibin-konuta-esdeger. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
32. [32] T.C. Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanlığı; Available from: https://www.enerji.gov.tr/anasayfa. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
33. [33] EUROCONTROL; Available from: https://www.eurocontrol.int/. [Accessed 04.04.2023].
34. [34] Ranzi E, Frassoldati A, Stagni A, Pelucchi M, Cuoci A, Faravelli T. Reduced Kinetic Schemes of Complex Reaction Systems: Fossil and Biomass-Derived Transportation Fuels. 2014;46(9): 512-542.
35. [35] Zettervall N, Fureby C, Nilsson EJK. A reduced chemical kinetic reaction mechanism for kerosene-air combustion. Fuel. 2020;269: 117446.
36. [36] Edwards T. "Kerosene" Fuels for Aerospace Propulsion - Composition and Properties. 2002.
37. [37] Lam NL, Smith KR, Gauthier A, Bates MN. Kerosene: a review of household uses and their hazards in low- and middle-income countries. Journal of toxicology and environmental health Part B, Critical reviews. 2012;15(6): 396-432.
38. [38] Transport and environment report 2020 Train or plane? : European Environment Agency (EEA); 2020.