Emmissions per passenger KM [Archive]

Longershanks

August 19th, 2009, 03:41 PM

CO2 (Kgs) Passenger journeys CO2 per journey
MTR (2007) 675,560,000 915,000,000 0.738
KMB 1,003,000,000 ??

How much C02 equivalent does a bus generate?

http://people.exeter.ac.uk/TWDavies/energy_conversion/Calculation%20of%20CO2%20emissions%20from%20fuels.htm

looking at the above and working it through then in car equivalents it would be around 0.25lts of diesel per journey, which if you were driving a VW polo bluemotion would be 8kms, but as this car can seat 5 that is an equivalent of 40Km best case, which is more than the average journey length on the MTR. Is a car less polluting than the MTR? Happy if maths is all wrong.

Rachmaninov

August 19th, 2009, 03:58 PM

Longershanks

August 19th, 2009, 04:48 PM

blue motion polo 99g/km
http://green.autoblog.com/2007/07/18/vw-polo-bluemotion-is-now-down-to-99g-km-co2/

Rachmaninov

August 19th, 2009, 04:57 PM

0.1 kg per km is optimised, does not include traffic congestion and certainly does not include 5 passengers.

Even if it can achieve 0.1 kg per km with 2 person on board it is still only equivalent to the same 10 MTR stops.

Longershanks

August 20th, 2009, 04:43 PM

what is a double decker with 50+ passengers?

Rachmaninov

August 20th, 2009, 05:15 PM

Maybe you can work that out for us.

StanleyJ

August 22nd, 2009, 03:21 PM

0.738 kg of CO2 per journey on the MTR

a "medium car" is 0.22 km of CO2 per km
i.e. one person on a medium car can travel 3.35km with 0.738 kg of CO2, which is more or less equivalent to the distance between 2 MTR stops.

Even in the most favourable case that you have 5 person it means 10 MTR stops, and still that's discounting congestion.

Exeter University isn't one of the renowned ones... can't even present information properly.

The way I read is for a medium car is that of 1.4L ~ 2.1L engine capacity, the amount (in kg) of CO2 emitted is 0.22/km.

Thus, the amount emitted by the car is in the range of 1.4x0.22 and 2.1x0.22... so it's actually 0.308kg/km ~ 0.462kg/km.

Problem though, is this being the UK (and Exeter for that matter), it doesn't specify if that emission rate is motorway driving (where engines are more efficient) or grinding low gears in urban traffic jams (which kills your MPG).

So let's try another way. I would assume the average car driving around in HK manage at best 10 MPG (lots of stop-starting with little/no efficient cruising), with 1 gallon of fuel being 19 pounds of CO2. For the sake of easy maths, say 20 pounds of CO2 for 10 miles exactly... which is 2lb of CO2 per mile. Metricated, that's 0.56kg/km... which as I expected, slightly worse than the figures from the UK.

Furthermore, Longershanks calculation of the MTR figures are "wrong"(comparing apples to oranges). It's 675,560 tonnes of CO2 for a whole year, where in that year there are 915,000,000 passengers. So that's 0.738kg of CO2 per passenger journey... in a whole year. Plus it's for the operation of the entire MTR... the station lighting, aircon, elevators, etc etc etc.

Looking here: https://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/sustainability/2007rpt/2007-g3.html

For 2007 is say it uses 2.25KWh/car-km (traction energy... what's used to run the trains). 1KWh is 43kg CO2 (that Exeter Uni site). So that's 96.7kg(CO2)/car-km.

But what is a "car" in MTR-speak? Is it a carriage, or is it the entire train set of ~8 carriages (4 Ma On Shan/Disney Line, 7 West Rail, 8 ISL/TWL/KTL/TKO, 12 East Rail) or traction car, where a typical MTR train has at least 1, with up to 3.

Say an average loading of 200 passengers. Then have to divide 96.75kg(CO2)/car-km by 200 or 1600 (8 * 200), which is 0.484kg/pax-km (or 0.06kg/pax-km).

The former would be "right" but really not much more efficient than a car and the latter is in the range of what rail should be, as the Exeter Uni site lists 0.06(kg CO2) per person per km (and if anything the MTR should be even more efficient on a per pax basic due to higher loadings).

Strange!

Rachmaninov

August 22nd, 2009, 03:32 PM

Exeter University isn't one of the renowned ones... can't even present information properly.

The way I read is for a medium car is that of 1.4L ~ 2.1L engine capacity, the amount (in kg) of CO2 emitted is 0.22/km.

Thus, the amount emitted by the car is in the range of 1.4x0.22 and 2.1x0.22... so it's actually 0.308kg/km ~ 0.462kg/km.

Problem though, is this being the UK (and Exeter for that matter), it doesn't specify if that emission rate is motorway driving (where engines are more efficient) or grinding low gears in urban traffic jams (which kills your MPG).

So let's try another way. I would assume the average car driving around in HK manage at best 10 MPG (lots of stop-starting with little/no efficient cruising), with 1 gallon of fuel being 19 pounds of CO2. For the sake of easy maths, say 20 pounds of CO2 for 10 miles exactly... which is 2lb of CO2 per mile. Metricated, that's 0.56kg/km... which as I expected, slightly worse than the figures from the UK.

Furthermore, Longershanks calculation of the MTR figures are "wrong"(comparing apples to oranges). It's 675,560 tonnes of CO2 for a whole year, where in that year there are 915,000,000 passengers. So that's 0.738kg of CO2 per passenger journey... in a whole year. Plus it's for the operation of the entire MTR... the station lighting, aircon, elevators, etc etc etc.

Looking here: https://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/sustainability/2007rpt/2007-g3.html

For 2007 is say it uses 2.25KWh/car-km (traction energy... what's used to run the trains). 1KWh is 43kg CO2 (that Exeter Uni site). So that's 96.7kg(CO2)/car-km.

But what is a "car" in MTR-speak? Is it a carriage, or is it the entire train set of ~8 carriages (4 Ma On Shan/Disney Line, 7 West Rail, 8 ISL/TWL/KTL/TKO, 12 East Rail) or traction car, where a typical MTR train has at least 1, with up to 3.

Say an average loading of 200 passengers. Then have to divide 96.75kg(CO2)/car-km by 200 or 1600 (8 * 200), which is 0.484kg/pax-km (or 0.06kg/pax-km).

The former would be "right" but really not much more efficient than a car and the latter is in the range of what rail should be, as the Exeter Uni site lists 0.06(kg CO2) per person per km (and if anything the MTR should be even more efficient on a per pax basic due to higher loadings).

Strange!

Actually you're right. I haven't read the exeter site properly.

As for CO2 emission per passenger journey, if we want to separate rail operations only, then we would probably want to use the figure 444,984,000 kg per year instead, which is 2/3 of what Longershanks quoted. This should give 0.486 kg of CO2 per passenger journey.

The rest of the calcs is just the matter of finding the average passenger journey length.

Otherwise, we could use your assumption, although clarification needs to be sought as for what a "car" really is. I would think that we should probably use per revenue car-km (5.68) instead, and a car would probably already mean a train with 8 cars.

StanleyJ

August 22nd, 2009, 04:52 PM

Actually you're right. I haven't read the exeter site properly.

As for CO2 emission per passenger journey, if we want to separate rail operations only, then we would probably want to use the figure 444,984,000 kg per year instead, which is 2/3 of what Longershanks quoted. This should give 0.486 kg of CO2 per passenger journey.

The rest of the calcs is just the matter of finding the average passenger journey length.

That's still for a whole year though. So...

Otherwise, we could use your assumption, although clarification needs to be sought as for what a "car" really is. I would think that we should probably use per revenue car-km (5.68) instead, and a car would probably already mean a train with 8 cars.

I couldn't find anything for the Singapore or Taipei MRT, as they are of similar age to the MTR, but the London Underground CO2 emissions is a marginally better than rail 0.048kg(CO2)/pax-journey: http://www.carbon-innovation.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?p=560 (with an average journey being more than 1km in London... probably closer 10km, so that's 0.0048kg(CO2)/pax-km)

So there's absolutely no way how a more modern MTR can use ~100x(!!) more CO2 than the very old London Underground (if that is the case, may as well shut the whole system down and tell people to take taxis! ;))

Therefore, an "MTR-speak" revenue-car must be the full 8-carriage train, which would on average move 1,600 passengers per train. So that would actually be the latter figure of a much more environmentally friendly 0.06kg(CO2)/pax-km.

We know we have 0.486kg(CO2)/pax-journey/annum. It's 915,000,000pax/annum. Daily ridership is 3,760,000pax/day. So that's ~250 journeys for any given passenger in one year. Let's be really stingy and say each passenger travels only 1km on the network (about 2~3 stops)... so 0.486 divided by 250, gives an extremely efficient 0.0019kg(CO2)/pax-km... which in turn would better the London Underground by a factor of 2. That sounds more like it... :banana:

Rachmaninov

August 22nd, 2009, 04:53 PM

Rachmaninov

August 22nd, 2009, 04:58 PM

edit

StanleyJ

August 22nd, 2009, 05:16 PM

By the way, I found this:

http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr05-06/english/bc/bc03/papers/bc031028cb1-2266-7-e.pdf

Average fare per passenger km (post merger, 2008) = USD$0.13 = HKD$1.01

http://mtr.com.hk/eng/sustainability/2008rpt/MTRSustainabilityReport2008.pdf

827,732,000 kg of CO2 emission for railway operations, 2008

http://mtr.com.hk/eng/investrelation/2008frpt_e/E111.pdf

Total fare revenue in 2008 HKD$11,467,000,000

Therefore passenger km operated = 11467000000/1.01 = Approx. 11353.5 million

(i.e. average passenger journey length = 12.4km)

CO2 per passenger km = 827.732/11353.5 = 0.073 kg per km

Which is slightly higher than the exeter figure of 0.06 possibly because of the proximity of stations in HK resulting in less efficient use of electricity (more accelerations/decelerations per km operated).

This stuff is crazy... haha! I'm looking at page 56 of said report... and I'm certain the "Electricity consumption for rail operations", is exactly that, ie: not just the energy required to run trains... but energy for air-con, lighting, elevators, etc etc etc. That why the 2007 vs. 2008 figures went from 780,673MWh to 1,337,016MWh... as power usage shot up with all the open-air ex-KCRC stations.

Also, the KWh per revenue car-km (whatever a "revenue car" is... it should be the whole train), you can see ex-KCRC stock is more efficient (they don't have to run in tunnels... so not wasting a load of electricity pushing air through a tube)... and actually manages to improve the MTR average from 2007 to 2008.

Edit:

Which is slightly higher than the exeter figure of 0.06 possibly because of the proximity of stations in HK resulting in less efficient use of electricity (more accelerations/decelerations per km operated).

MTR trains from the start featured regenerative-braking, so electricity sucked during acceleration will be "fed back to the system" when the train stops. Typically such systems have about 30% efficiency.

Second, UK trains are 2-2 seat config, with about 10 rows and run 6 carriages. Meaning just 240 passengers, so a typical loading of maybe 100 people. Thus a train vs. high-capacity metro CO2 emmission/pax-km would be out by a factor of 10 to 20.

Lastly, surely the HK MTR would at the very least be as efficient as the ancient London Underground?

StanleyJ

August 22nd, 2009, 05:25 PM

My turn to edit. :lol:

Rachmaninov

August 22nd, 2009, 05:26 PM

^^ I would suppose so, so I don't know how they came up with 0.048 per passenger JOURNEY...!

The average passenger km fare in HKD is factored by PPP, which probably skewed the result a bit?

EricIsHim

August 22nd, 2009, 05:54 PM

you guys are doing these math too quick... i spent the last hour and half to research and come up with the same thing you two posted... and now it's me to remove the math and assumptions. :lol::nuts:

This stuff is crazy... haha! I'm looking at page 56 of said report... and I'm certain the "Electricity consumption for rail operations", is exactly that, ie: not just the energy required to run trains... but energy for air-con, lighting, elevators, etc etc etc. That why the 2007 vs. 2008 figures went from 780,673MWh to 1,337,016MWh... as power usage shot up with all the open-air ex-KCRC stations.

Also, the KWh per revenue car-km (whatever a "revenue car" is... it should be the whole train), you can see ex-KCRC stock is more efficient (they don't have to run in tunnels... so not wasting a load of electricity pushing air through a tube)... and actually manages to improve the MTR average from 2007 to 2008.

The KCRC operated approx. 30-35 more km of tracks than the MTR back in the old days, but it used only ~556k-MWh, 224k-MWH less than the MTR did.
Sure the underground facilities used much more energy than the open-air stations.

Anyways, I think we can conclude the rail is much more efficient than the passenger car, right? And this is based on a more conservative number.
This rail number include the energy consumption by operations other than just running the trains, e.g. station a/c, lighting etc. as StanleyJ said; that's like we have to include energy consumption by traffic lights, street lights, VMS, parking etc. for passenger car to get the apple-to-apple comparison.

Or if we can somehow dig up the same rail operation information numbers for the KCRC prior to the railway merging, then do the same math; I think the final number is more relevant to the true operating energy consumption for train service only in terms of kg CO2 per km. But given KCRC was more efficient than the MTR, the average number is going to go down, and widen the CO2 generation gap between passenger and rail, possibly even less than the Exeter's 0.06 which could be based on some less efficient systems in UK or Europe.

StanleyJ

August 22nd, 2009, 06:22 PM

^^ I would suppose so, so I don't know how they came up with 0.048 per passenger JOURNEY...!

The average passenger km fare in HKD is factored by PPP, which probably skewed the result a bit?

Let's see if we can reverse engineer the logic behind the madness in that article. :lol: It says:

During 2007/08 LU ran more trains than ever before, clocking up a huge total of nearly 70million kilometres

... and:

LU’s total carbon footprint in 2007/08 was 754,437 tonnes CO2e. Carbon emissions from electricity use accounts for 82 per cent of total emissions, two thirds of which arise from train services.

Curiously, LU's and MTR's daily ridership is about the same... 4 million people.

So... approx 750,000,000kg CO2. ~80% is electricity usage, so 4/5ths. Train services use 2/3rd of that. So 8/15ths (heh) of 750,000,000... which is 400,000,000kg CO2 (curious... very similar to the MTR figure).

400million kg(CO2)/70million km = 5.71kg(CO2)/km

An LU train can carry about 900 pax max... and they are pretty much on the limit at all times of the day.

So... 5.71kg(CO2)/km / ~900... = 0.006kg(CO2)/pax-km. If it's 0.048kg(CO2)/pax-journey... that makes for an average journey of 8km, not that different from my 10km assumption (I was reading a different report saying the average journey in Central London being 7 miles).

Now let's guess how many kilometers the MTR travels in a year? The network (in the 2008 report) is ~210km. Assume the average train interval is 12 per hour (@5 mins), and it runs for 20-hours per day, for 365 days a year. That's 210 * 12 * 20 * 365 = 18,396,000km. So carrying about the same amount of people, similar top speeds between rolling stock (~80kph), but more stop-start on the MTR. So in reality probably just a little less efficient than the LU, but more efficient than a typical UK train config.

Waaah!~~~ :nuts:

StanleyJ

August 22nd, 2009, 06:31 PM

Oh... and the HKD PPP thing. That will definitely muck up the results a lot. Hong Kong's GDP (nominal) per capita is ~USD30,000, yet GDP (PPP) per capita is ~USD43,000.

So instead of the exchange rate being 1HKD = 0.129USD... you would be better to use 1HKD = 0.184USD. Maybe... since the MTR don't qualify what the PPP benchmark is. :ohno::nuts:

Rachmaninov

August 22nd, 2009, 06:35 PM

Let's see if we can reverse engineer the logic behind the madness in that article. :lol: It says:

... and:

Curiously, LU's and MTR's daily ridership is about the same... 4 million people.

So... approx 750,000,000kg CO2. ~80% is electricity usage, so 4/5ths. Train services use 2/3rd of that. So 8/15ths (heh) of 750,000,000... which is 400,000,000kg CO2 (curious... very similar to the MTR figure).

400million kg(CO2)/70million km = 5.71kg(CO2)/km

An LU train can carry about 900 pax max... and they are pretty much on the limit at all times of the day.

So... 5.71kg(CO2)/km / ~900... = 0.006kg(CO2)/pax-km. If it's 0.048kg(CO2)/pax-journey... that makes for an average journey of 8km, not that different from my 10km assumption (I was reading a different report saying the average journey in Central London being 7 miles).

Now let's guess how many kilometers the MTR travels in a year? The network (in the 2008 report) is ~210km. Assume the average train interval is 12 per hour (@5 mins), and it runs for 20-hours per day, for 365 days a year. That's 210 * 12 * 20 * 365 = 18,396,000km. So carrying about the same amount of people, similar top speeds between rolling stock (~80kph), but more stop-start on the MTR. So in reality probably just a little less efficient than the LU, but more efficient than a typical UK train config.

Waaah!~~~ :nuts:

The tube is nowhere near full capacity on many lines outside zone 1.

I think the chief problem is:

1. the tube did not count station operation and all that crap.

2. maybe the tube was using nuclear power to calculate lol

3. PPP. If, using your supplied PPP of 0.184 USD would give an average of 0.051 kg of CO2 per passenger km on the MTR in 2008, with 16230 million km operated.

StanleyJ

August 22nd, 2009, 07:17 PM

I think we should just ask the MTR? :lol:

Rachmaninov

August 24th, 2009, 03:09 PM

I think we should just ask the MTR? :lol:

Maybe :P

I'm trying to ask some Imperial College professors :banana:

EricIsHim

August 24th, 2009, 03:52 PM

Maybe :P

I'm trying to ask some Imperial College professors :banana:

We are going highly institutional here now. :nuts:

Rachmaninov

August 24th, 2009, 09:50 PM

「落車」搭港鐵減碳六成半
(明報)2009年8月24日星期一 05:05

【明報專訊】綠色和平認為，大馬力私家車排放較多溫室氣體。以全港有42萬輛私家車，平均每公里排放207克二氧化碳，及每年平均行車里數推算，這40多萬部車全年共排放了109萬公噸二氧化碳，每日排放量2900多公噸。香港汽車工業學會會長李耀培分析，本港交通網絡完善，加上「養車貴過買車」，一般市民寧願使用交通工具，私家車漸漸成為顯示身價的高消費品，有經濟能力的一群，都愛大馬力的豪華房車。

「食油」大房車成「身分象徵」

綠色和平認為，香港完善的交通網絡其實有助減少汽車溫室氣體排放，以上環至柴灣為例，駕駛私家車會排放2.3公斤二氧化碳，乘搭港鐵的排放量只有0.8公斤，減幅高達65%。

經營汽車銷售的富利堡集團主席黃毅力說，本港公共交通系統「太完善」，愈來愈少打工仔買車，有經濟能力者則視私家車為身分象徵，不介意座駕耗油量較高。

他說，排放量逾2000cc的七人車近年很受歡迎，用家包括在內地設廠的商人，方便中港兩邊走；另一種是父母為了接載子女上課及參加課外活動，將七人車當小巴用，隨時比坐的士划算，「小朋友忙過大人，一日要去多個地方，上課、學琴、補習等，行走里數極高，每年高達3、4萬公里，較一般人的6000公里高好多，廢氣排放量自然高」。

I think this is relevant.

StanleyJ

August 24th, 2009, 11:16 PM

I think this is relevant.

... err, and in English? :nuts:

Edit: Right, Cantodicted it... 2.3kg(CO2) in a car and just 0.8kg(CO2) on MTR. The distance (according to Google Maps) from Chai Wan to Central is ~12. So that makes 0.19kg(CO2)/km for the car and 0.06kg(CO2)/km on the MTR.

Hmmm, the car seems overly efficient and the MTR figure seems to take into account the entire CO2 costs... which to be fair is probably "better" as to run the MTR it does have to use that energy... not just powering the trains. Makes for a very difficult apples-to-apples comparison though, as is the cost of energy used to transport/store/sell petrol from refinery to petrol station taken into account for the car? No it isn't... :nuts:

Rachmaninov

August 25th, 2009, 10:32 AM

... err, and in English? :nuts:

Edit: Right, Cantodicted it... 2.3kg(CO2) in a car and just 0.8kg(CO2) on MTR. The distance (according to Google Maps) from Chai Wan to Central is ~12. So that makes 0.19kg(CO2)/km for the car and 0.06kg(CO2)/km on the MTR.

Hmmm, the car seems overly efficient and the MTR figure seems to take into account the entire CO2 costs... which to be fair is probably "better" as to run the MTR it does have to use that energy... not just powering the trains. Makes for a very difficult apples-to-apples comparison though, as is the cost of energy used to transport/store/sell petrol from refinery to petrol station taken into account for the car? No it isn't... :nuts:

The article gave us an average of 0.207 kg/km for cars.

And a professor at Imperial College said that it would not do justice to the MTR by comparing such figures directly with buses, due to the following reasons:

1. Without the MTR, it would be more difficult for a city to be dense, and denser cities have way lower CO2 emissions than sparse cities.

2. Without the MTR, there will be more car/bus use, resulting in more congestion which leads to a way higher CO2 emission. He is researching on quantifying such "hidden" benefits.

StanleyJ

August 25th, 2009, 12:21 PM

The article gave us an average of 0.207 kg/km for cars.

And a professor at Imperial College said that it would not do justice to the MTR by comparing such figures directly with buses, due to the following reasons:

1. Without the MTR, it would be more difficult for a city to be dense, and denser cities have way lower CO2 emissions than sparse cities.

2. Without the MTR, there will be more car/bus use, resulting in more congestion which leads to a way higher CO2 emission. He is researching on quantifying such "hidden" benefits.

Agree on both points. Interesting whom this professor is and do they have any of thise research stuff online yet @ imperial.ac.uk? Even though the thermal performance of Hong Kong's housing is lousy (no insulation, single plane glass), running air-con on "Arctic" during summer, etc etc... it's still probably the greenest city in the world measured in energy use per capita. All by virtue of density... :banana:

Longershanks

September 2nd, 2009, 10:25 AM

So in reality probably just a little less efficient than the LU, but more efficient than a typical UK train config.

To entice ridership and profits MTR has developed a business model of having large shopping malls associated with the 'experiance' of getting to and from the platform (older stations are much simpler with more direct access to platforms).

The cooling of these shopping malls is part and parcel of the travel service.

KMB only has one air-conditioned bus stop

Are buses less polluting than Mass Transit Railways?
http://www.hkie-mmnc.org/Conference2009/Download/Presentation/Hybrid%20technology%20for%20buses.pdf.

Rachmaninov

September 2nd, 2009, 11:25 AM

To entice ridership and profits MTR has developed a business model of having large shopping malls associated with the 'experiance' of getting to and from the platform (older stations are much simpler with more direct access to platforms).

The cooling of these shopping malls is part and parcel of the travel service.

KMB only has one air-conditioned bus stop

Are buses less polluting than Mass Transit Railways?
http://www.hkie-mmnc.org/Conference2009/Download/Presentation/Hybrid%20technology%20for%20buses.pdf.

Thanks for the link.

As I have said before (and I doubt you have read anything at all), it would be daft to compare figures directly between rail and bus because of the huge secondary benefits of rail. If you do not understand, then here is what you should compare - a city with tens of thousands of buses with no rail, and the same city with an efficient rail system with significantly less buses. Equally speaking, you cannot merely compare passenger kms between buses and cars.

If you would like to add the carbon footprint of shopping malls into the operation of rail, you are trying to compare very different things because the malls do not even contribute to the running of MTR services.

And if you want to use the most efficient technology in the world for buses to compare with normal MTR efficiency, then I suggest you start building a case for the MTR if it uses solar/wind power - possibly near-zero emissions :cheers:

Longershanks

September 2nd, 2009, 03:24 PM

If bus operators extensively used air-conditioned bus stops with integrated convenience stores then the carbon footprint of these would need to be included in the bus system carbon footprint. New stations are very large energy leaking cathedrals for shopping not simple transport interchanges.

Rachmaninov

September 2nd, 2009, 06:00 PM

EricIsHim

September 3rd, 2009, 02:05 AM

Wait a minute... do we have hydrogen or solar powered buses in operation anywhere yet?
If you say electric buses have zero carbon emission, then my question is, where does the electric come from? Doesn't it come from the power plant just like the rail?

Hybrid buses aren't particularly new. Volvo isn't the only one has it.
The American's Gillig and NewFlyer has already manufactured hybrid for a few years, and it has been widely used in the NA cities. Other alternative fuel vehicles have been running for over a decade.

The diesel engine has about 300+/- HP, but the alternate fuel and hybrid only has 200+/-. Although the hybrid can install a diesel to support the electric engine when extra power is needed, but then why do you need the electric engine when you need the diesel to jump you all the times either climbing hills and/or fully loaded in HK?

StanleyJ

September 3rd, 2009, 01:36 PM

Wait a minute... do we have hydrogen or solar powered buses in operation anywhere yet?
If you say electric buses have zero carbon emission, then my question is, where does the electric come from? Doesn't it come from the power plant just like the rail?

I've ridden the Hydrogen powered buses in Iceland (Reykjavik)... so yes, they do exist. However, hydrogen is just a store of energy and currently created by electrolysis... which Iceland can do very cheaply and cleanly as they have geothermal power, which is basically "free". Elsewhere, it'd still have to rely on dirty fossil fuels, so that would just be shifting pollution from one source to another.

Longershanks

September 4th, 2009, 07:31 PM

there are a number of small communities that are using wind to generate hydrogen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind-hydrogen_hybrid_power_system

What tax is applied to the primary source of energy for the MTR and Bus operators?

Rachmaninov

September 5th, 2009, 12:55 AM

In any case, the MTR could potentially operate with zero carbon emissions.

Rachmaninov

September 7th, 2009, 03:21 PM

Btw, Longershanks, if the MTR didn't build the malls and properties above/nearby stations, somebody else would have done so. The MTR does not build stuff that doesn't have enough demand, and when there's demand there's always somebody who wants to build those properties so the net effect remains unchanged, whether or not it was the MTR who built it or somebody else. In light of this, how much in terms of emissions does other rail companies around the world create in terms of people having to change modes of transport instead of walking straight up into their homes? Or, how much does the MTR save by having more buildings right on top of it so that at least a bulk of passengers only had to walk? What is the carbon emission of a human being walking normally?

And surely we're comparing modes of transport, not business models?

What is the emissions like for the London Tube if they were to manage the whole Canary Wharf complex? How much is the tube losing in terms of lost potential profit, with which they could offset part of their carbon footprint? Where do they find the money to upgrade their fleet and to ensure a low carbon footprint, high efficiency, high speed rolling stocks and reliable signalling systems?

hkskyline

September 8th, 2009, 04:35 AM

EricIsHim

September 8th, 2009, 04:47 AM

Is it safe though to adapt hydrogen to a double-decker bus with A/C on full blast? Isn't it a bit volatile to use as a fuel? If there is an accident and the tank gets the impact, wouldn't it cause major casualties on a busy urban street?

LPG we are using in taxi and minibuses are just as explosive as hydrogen.
The tanks are super strong to prevent rupture under extreme pressure or heat, such as collision.
The chance of a 20 ton vehicle gets so badly damaged in a collision and ruptures the gas tank would be pretty small, unless it falls off the cliff... or t-boned/rear-ended by other heavy vehicles at very high speed.

Longershanks

September 11th, 2009, 03:14 AM

if the MTR didn't build the malls and properties above/nearby stations, somebody else would have done so.

Old MTR station are small compact and quick to navigate. New ones are full of shops you have to walk past to get to the station e.g. Elements If KMB built air-conditioned bus interchanges with 7-11, watsons etc then this should count in the total Carbon footprint.

EricIsHim

September 11th, 2009, 03:53 AM

^^ It isn't a snowball.

Rachmaninov

September 11th, 2009, 10:42 AM

Old MTR station are small compact and quick to navigate. New ones are full of shops you have to walk past to get to the station e.g. Elements If KMB built air-conditioned bus interchanges with 7-11, watsons etc then this should count in the total Carbon footprint.

You've missed yet again the whole point. If you have a new MTR station, developers are going to be very interested in building malls around anyway. In fact, it's probably even better to have the malls right on top/around the station to save people from going longer distances on top of travelling to that station. I'd have preferred Elements to Megabox.

Longershanks

September 11th, 2009, 03:42 PM

CO2 per passenger km = 0.073 kg per km

MTR CO2 per passenger km = 0.073 kg per passenger km
KMB CO2 per passenger km = 0.039 kg per passenger km

Rachmaninov

September 11th, 2009, 04:51 PM

MTR CO2 per passenger km = 0.073 kg per passenger km
KMB CO2 per passenger km = 0.039 kg per passenger km

Show us how you got that.

And this is the 3rd time i'm posting this:

As I have said before (and I doubt you have read anything at all), it would be daft to compare figures directly between rail and bus because of the huge secondary benefits of rail. If you do not understand, then here is what you should compare - a city with tens of thousands of buses with no rail, and the same city with an efficient rail system with significantly less buses. Equally speaking, you cannot merely compare passenger kms between buses and cars.

If you would like to add the carbon footprint of shopping malls into the operation of rail, you are trying to compare very different things because the malls do not even contribute to the running of MTR services.

Don't make me repeat this a fourth time.

Longershanks

September 12th, 2009, 12:19 AM

One could argue that a bus rapid transit system has the same benefit as a subway except that it also removes low efficiency vehicles from the roadside in high pollution areas.

A subway system allows greater travel (generating overall more pollution) within a city so yes there is huge economic benefit in a city having a subway as it allows people to find jobs / do business that they would not be able to with out it. Pure road based transport infrastructure would not cope with the number of journeys taken so less journeys would be taken. Shopping walkways and Malls that must be used to get to the train service should be taken into account as these subsidise the rail travel, they are an integral part of of the system.

The question was about pollution directly generated by modes of transport. The KMB figures are directly from KMB themselves.

So if a HOT lane insisted on a minimum of 5 passengers per vehicle and buses and a congestion free 40 Km / hr was maintained through variable pricing. This would offer a lower carbon emission solution than a Subway system with less roadside pollution overall.

I am not suggesting underground rail systems should not be built but the bad publicity buses get is probably down to a lack of pro bus policy by the MTR owning transport department.

Sher

September 12th, 2009, 06:19 AM

EricIsHim

September 12th, 2009, 05:41 PM

Just found a graph as of 1997 from MTR website:

http://www.mtr.com.hk/chi/sustainability/sustainrpt/2001rpt/images/co2.gif

I bet CO2 emissions from buses, light buses and taxi should now be reduced to a different level. Take bus for example, majority were either pre-euro or euro I vehicles at that time.
I wonder if we have a limitation on the number of taxi licenses. They are just a little too much on the road while Macau is at the opposite extreme.. :bash:

The buses have been converted from pre-euro or Euro I since 1997, but at the same time, almost all non-AC vehicles have also been replaced by the AC buses which consume more energy. It is hard to tell the Euro engine is exhausting cleaner air, and at the same time reducing the energy consumption or is it taking up more energy due to the AC.

And yes, there is a limited number of taxi licenses; there are just a little over 18k licenses out there. (That's why each license cost a few million HK$...)
Actually, it is not surprising taxi had such a high CO2 emission per passenger carried. Taxi is nothing more than a car carries one to two passengers at most time, but lots of people share to use the same vehicle. It doesn't particularly generate less pollutant per capita compares to a typical private car; however it reduces the number of car ownership, parking and roadway demand. But then, since 1997, all taxis have be replaced by LPG powered, so the emission rate is probably lower these days than it used to be.

Longershanks

September 12th, 2009, 11:19 PM

Also congestion in urban areas has become worse so buses will be stuck in traffic more (As there are on 22Kms of bus lane) resulting in worse efficiency for fuel and passenger journeys. But also MTR stations have become bigger meaning more Aircon energy is wasted. Still waiting for an answer from MTR on CO2 per passenger Km.

Longershanks

November 11th, 2009, 05:15 PM

using
passenger data www.mtr.com.hk/eng/investrelation/2008srpt_e/E215.pdf
Pollution data https://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/sustainability/2007rpt/2007-g3.html

total passenger Km's for 2007 around 23,466,200,000
CO2 annual total 675,560,000Kgs

Giving
MTR CO2 per passenger km = 0.029 kg per passenger km

Rachmaninov

November 12th, 2009, 01:07 PM

Longershanks

November 13th, 2009, 05:26 PM

Rachmaninov

November 18th, 2009, 02:16 PM

without the Government subsidised property aspect of the business the MTR would have much higher fares or have direct fare subsidy so surely CO2 from those operations must be included. If not mathematical models of a X% increase in MTR fares would result in Y% shift to buses etc and that would be very messy. MTR is a property company that runs trains. A very good model as it is an effective way to subsidise rail transport to make it viable without it being a cash black-hole.

I'm talking about the train operations so I think we should stick to this 0.019 figure.

Otherwise, can I equally say that without the MTR there will be a lot more cars/buses on roads and so the MTR CO2 emissions per km is actually negative?