PIANC Smart Rivers 2022

Reviewing Presentation documents

Topic:

Title:

Author(s):

Author 1

Name：

Affiliations：

Region：

Email：

Is corresponding author or not (one only)：

Author 2

Name：

Affiliations：

Region：

Email：

Is corresponding author or not (one only)：

Author 3

Name：

Affiliations：

Region：

Email：

Is corresponding author or not (one only)：

Abstract : *(250~1000 words)

Overview and motivation
To stay in the safety threshold of a 2°C (or 1.5 °C) increase in average temperature of global warming, the transport sector must be decarbonized. For managing the decarbonization of transport, the measurement of emissions is an essential prerequisite. One of the central goals of freight carbon accounting has been to produce estimates that are consistent, transparent and comparable across all transport modes, operators, commodities, supply chains and geographies. Therefore, the quality of calculated emissions and emission intensities depends on availability, specification, quality and exchange of data. The road sector has been focusing on the collection of data to demonstrate environmental performance improvements. Across rail and inland waterway transport the availability of data is scarce. In the absence of accurate data, it is impossible to adequately commit science-based targets, assess options for decarbonisation, and track progress in reducing emissions over time. Thus, this paper investigates the different emission factors along multimodal transport chains and their effects on emission calculation results.

Methodology, results and main contributions
A literature review was conducted to identify the different emission factors. Up to now, there is no single internationally agreed calculation method, except the wide adoption of the EN 16258 standard and the Global Logistics Emissions Council (GLEC) framework. Efforts are made to introduce the current establishment of the global ISO standard 14083 on the quantification and reporting of GHG emissions arising from operations of transport chains. Moreover, new online tools for example EcoTansIT, CarbonCare or Mobitool were developed. The problem is, for example, that a calculation with the EcoTransit compared with a calculation including the manual GLEC calculation is emerging in different values. The emission factors are often different as well as the assumptions made about empty runs. For example, in 2011, the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine compiled studies in which values for CO2 intensity (CO2 emission factors) were determined for inland navigation. The values given in gram per tkm vary greatly. A reason is, CO2 emissions of inland barges can only be determined with a certain degree of accuracy if energy consumption data for individual waterways and the type of vessel used are available.

Conclusion and future works
It is important, that the drive for consistency, transparency and comparability is strongly maintained in the future for the collection of freight emission data. This means that the future framework for calculating GHG emissions needs to be reliable, relevant, and accurate to enable adequate comparison of emissions from transport operations, thereby placing all modes and operations on equal footing. The CO2 emission factors for inland waterway transport is quite extensive in comparison to other modes, so more effort is needed. Future research should focus not only on the CO2 emissions from the transportation, but also those emissions which are related to handling, where the data situation is currently inadequate.

Acknowledgment: This project received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 861377.

Key words: (max: 5)

Reference no.

Slides：

click to download