Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and Emission Reduction
An FAA/NASA/TC-sponsored Center of Excellence
Aviation Mobility, Economy and Environment
Evaluating Choices and Options
Professor Ian A. Waitz Massachusetts Institute of Technology
32nd Annual FAA Forecast Conference Washington DC, March 15-16, 2007
This work was funded by the
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration,
Office of Environment and Energy
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the FAA, NASA or Transport Canada.
2
Mobility, economy, environment
• Aviation is a unique service, an integral part of the economy
– 740 million enplanements in 2005 in the US (ATA, 2006) – 28 billion revenue ton miles of freight in 2005 (ATA, 2006) – 9 million people employed, $640 billion to economy (Blakey, 2007)
•
Environmental impacts are small, but not insignificant
– Climate: perhaps 2% to 4% of the contribution to climate change – Local air quality: perhaps 200 premature deaths/yr in the U.S. – Noise: perhaps 5 million people annoyed in US ( > 55dB DNL)
•
Environment may be the dominant constraint on growth of the US air transportation system Twin negatives:
– Environmental impacts on people and ecosystems – Economic impacts on people through constraining mobility and increasing costs
3
•
Gains from technology and operations
95% reduction in people impacted by noise
60% improvement in efficiency
4
Choices exist
• • • • Every airplane design represents a different balance of noise, performance, emissions Every operational procedure represents a different balance of noise, performance, emissions The capital costs are high (e.g. $10B for a new airplane program) The time-scales are long (20-30 years)
5
How do we make choices today?
ICAO CAEP/6 NOx stringency
Cost-effectiveness estimates 2002-2020, cumulative
450000 400000
2012 implementation
$/tonne NOx reduced
350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 0%
Most cost-effective scenario $30,000/tonne-NOx 10% stringency 2008 implementation
2008 implementation
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
% Increase in Certification Stringency
Source: FESG CAEP/6-IP/13, estimates shown assume high estimate of manufacturers’ NRC and lost fleet value, discount rate 3%
6
An incomplete balance sheet
• CAEP/6 NOx stringency example
– Of several options for NOx reduction, the least expensive is $30,000/tonne-NOx; does this produce a net benefit to society? – What is the impact of the additional fuel burn and noise estimated to be associated with the NOx reduction?
• Must fill in the balance sheet to assess trade-offs
– Local air quality, noise, climate change, consumer and industry costs
• The stakes are high (serious impacts, billions of $)
– We, as a community, need to improve our methods and tools and do this better than we do it today
7
How should we make choices?
• Aviation benefits and environmental effects result from a complex system of interdependent technologies, operations, policies and market conditions
Report to the U.S. Congress, 2006, available at www.partner.aero
8
FAA is building the tools to help make better-informed choices
• FAA Environmental Design Space (EDS)
– Aircraft level technology trade-offs
• FAA Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT)
– Translating aircraft and operations into emissions inventories and noise footprints
• FAA Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT)
– Evaluating economic and health and welfare impacts of technology, operations, market, environmental and policy scenarios
9
APMT functionality
(reports available at www.partner.aero)
Cost-effectiveness Policy scenarios
•Certification stringency •Market-based measures •Land-use controls •Sound insulation •$/kg NOx reduced •$/# people removed from 65dB DNL •$/kg PM reduced •$/kg CO2 reduced
Market scenarios
Benefit-cost
inputs
•Demand •Fuel prices •Fleet
Environmental scenarios
•CO2 growth
APMT
•Health and welfare impacts •Change in societal welfare ($)
outputs
Distributional analyses
Technology and operational advances
•CNS/ATM, NGATS •Long term technology forecasts
•Who benefits, who pays •Consumers •Airports •Airlines •Manufacturers •People impacted by noise and pollution •Special groups •Geographical regions
Global, Regional, Airport-local
10
Policy and Policy Scenarios Scenarios
demographic economic technical Measures & Strategies
Tool suite architecture
BENEFITS VALUATION BLOCK Climate
Impulse response functions for aviation climate impacts as ĘT Health and welfare impacts as f(ĘT) associated with global emissions
PARTIAL EQUILIBRIUM Demand and Supply Projection (DSP) Current Air BLOCK Transport Database
Present air transport demand Operations Current Fleet and Technology Flight Operations Future Air Transport Demand Costs to AEDT
Emissions & Noise from planes performing operations
Emissions
Non-aviation emissions inventories and scenarios
Meteorological and other CLIMATE IMPACTS environmental data
DEMAND Aviation Operating & Manufacturer (Consumers) Costs
Aircraft Price Module New aircraft Fares prices New (EDS) Technology
SUPPLYFares Assumptions (Carriers) Schedule Fleet Development & Fleet
and Operations Airline Operating Costs
AEDT
Air Transport Movements
Simplified box model for local air quality chemistry
Emissions
Pollutant concentrations as functions of time and space near airports (exposure)
Local Air Quality
LOCAL AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Coefficients from meta-analyses linking noise, annoyance and welfare impacts Incidence of impacts associated with ground level noise
Concentrationresponse curves linking health & welfare endpoints to pollutants
Incidence of various health Impacts associated with ground level emissions
Population and demographic data
Noise
NOISE IMPACTS
Noise
EDS
Partial Equilibrium
New Aircraft
Flight Operations Module (FOM) Detailed flight operations by specified aircraft types
Monetization and Economic values Database
Benefits Valuation
Computation of Actor Related Impacts (CAI) Air transport related quantities COLLECTED COSTS
Noise & Emissions
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Benefit-Cost Analysis
MONETIZED BENEFITS
EDS AEDT APMT
EXTERNAL DATA
General Economy (via simple multipliers)
Collected Costs
Monetized Benefits
Distributional Analysis (Balance Sheet) Analysis and Display
COSTS AND BENEFITS
Graphical User Interface and Output
11
Notional example application
747-400 Stage Length 9
Note: This is a notional reduced thrust scenario with reduced thrust maintained to 10,000 ft. This is not typical of airline operations
12
Notional example application
Even simple changes may lead to complex trade-offs, for example… • One aspect of airplane operations changed
– Throttle setting reduced during take-off
• Emissions and noise change
– CO2 increases – NOx decreases – SOx increases – PM decreases – Noise decreases
• Affects aviation economics
13
Noise impact (number of people impacted)
Population in 55 dB Contours in North America
Population (million) 12 9 6 3 0 Full Thrust Reduced Thrust
14
Noise impact
Noise Depreciation Index (NDI) used to correlate noise levels with housing capital depreciation Adding additional noise metrics in the near future
15
Noise impact
Net present value of depreciation of housing capital
(MAGENTA Shell 1 U.S. airports only)
Preliminary results do not cite or quote
16
Health impacts assessment
Consistent with EPA and EU practice, only considering effects of ozone and PM
All-sources Emissions Local Air Quality Modeling Changes in Ambient Concentration Concentration – Response Functions Change in Health Endpoint Incidence All-sources Emissions minus Aviation
Δ health costs = Δ emissions ×
health incidence cost Δambient concentration × × Δambient concentration health incidence Δemission
17
Impact pathway
α1
ΔO3
β1
NOx decreases
α2
Δpremature mortality δ1 Δrestricted activity days ... Δpremature mortality Δchronic bronchitis ... Δpremature mortality Δchronic bronchitis ... Δpremature mortality Δchronic bronchitis ... δ2
Δ$/inc Δ$/inc ... Δ$/inc Δ$/inc ... Δ$/inc Δ$/inc ... Δ$/inc Δ$/inc ...
ΔPMambient
β2
?
Total Impact Δ$
SOx α3 increases PM α4 decreases
ΔPMambient
β3
δ2
ΔPMambient
β4
δ2
Local air quality and climate response cannot be determined simply from observing changes in inventories
18
Contribution of aviation to emissions inventory (U.S. only)
Preliminary results do not cite or quote
Total Anthropogenic [million tons]* Primary PM2.5 NOx SOx
*EPA 2001, latest available data **Total aviation emissions below mixing height
Total Aviation Baseline [million tons]** 0.00025 (0.004%) 0.04 (0.2%) 0.0015 (0.01%)
6.6 22 16
19
Reduced thrust emissions impact
For 266 major airports within continental US, emissions below 3000 ft
Preliminary results do not cite or quote
Emissions below mixing height (in 103ton/year) Baseline Full thrust Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary Particulate Matter
39.7
1.46
0.25
Policy Reduced thrust
39.6
1.51
0.23
20
Local air quality impact of aviation PM
(cases per year, U.S.) Preliminary results do not cite or quote
PM-related Endpoints
(mean estimates shown, 95% confidence intervals typically ± 50% of mean) Premature mortality: Long-term exposure (adults age 30+) Long-term exposure (infants age <1 yr) Chronic bronchitis Hospital admissions-respiratory Hospital admission-cardiovascular Emergency room visits for asthma Minor restricted activity days
Baseline: Full Thrust
Policy: Reduced Thrust
Compare: Highway Vehicles
198 1.31
79.5 26.3 57.8 113 77,171
195 1.29
78.7 26.1 57.3 112 76,437
26500 172
10590 7700 7660 15140 10,270,000
21
Local air quality impact
Aggregate metrics derived from estimates of aviation pollution effects
Preliminary results do not cite or quote
Primary PM Total health impact of pollutant ($ per kg emitted) Amount emitted (106 kg per year) Cost ($M per year) SOx via PM NOx via PM NOx via Ozone*
591 0.25 150
127 1.45 185
22.9 39.7 907
2.0 43.3 46
*Total ozone health impact divided by total NOx emissions
22
Simplified methods for valuing the impact of aviation on climate
Aviation Operations
(current or projected)
Emissions inventories: CO2, NOx, fuel
Climate Impact
• Mass→Atm. conc • Atm. conc→global RF • Global RF→global ΔT • λ’s for short-lived effects
Global average ΔT Impact Valuation cost/year
• Damage ∝ a1ΔT + a2(ΔT)2
Policy Assessment
23
Average global surface ΔT:
Full power
NOx-O3 Cirrus Sulfate Soot H2O Contrails NOx-CH4 NOx-O3long CO2 Total
x
Preliminary Results Only--Do not cite
24
Damage [% GDP]:
Full power
NOx-O3 Cirrus Sulfate Soot H2O Contrails NOx-CH4 NOx-O3long CO2 Total
x
Preliminary Results Only--Do not cite
25
There are significant economic interdependencies too
operating costs ticket prices
Preliminary Results Only--Do not cite
demand change in consumer surplus
Preliminary Results Only--Do not cite
26
Summary
• FAA has made a commitment to use APMT/AEDT/EDS
– to inform decision-making for the ICAO/CAEP meeting in 2010 – to help establish trades among noise, local air quality and climate impacts in order to better quantify and manage the impacts associated with NextGen operations
• We have many challenges ahead of us • Our purpose
– is not to provide “one answer” or a single “best estimate” – but to provide a framework that may be used to communicate potential outcomes using a variety of metrics, under a variety of assumptions and scenarios
27
Final words
• These tools will not make decision-making easier (they may well make it harder) • However, our goal is to make decision-making better informed (not to make it easier)
28