To obtain the total energy demand in long-distance traffic
between Hamburg and Berlin the specific primary energy
demand of the individual vehicle used to transport passengers (chapter 3) needs
to be multiplied with the amount of traffic (chapter 4). In another step the
total energy demand for the individual vehicle used to transport passengers is determined
by using CO2-emission conversion factors for each specific vehicle used to transport
passengers.
For the conversion of the energy demand (gigawatt-hours
= GWh) into CO2-emissions (million tonnes = mio t) the following factors have been
used:*
Railway, Transrapid: 184 t/GWh
Airplane: 263 t/GWh
Car, bus: 269 t/GWh
The following four tables present the results from chapter 3 (primary energy
demand) and chapter 4 (amount of transport) and determine the total energy
demand and CO2-emissions.
Amount of traffic, energy demand and CO2-emissions in long-distance
traffic per year in the corridor Hamburg - Berlin
Actual situation
| amount of
traffic
bln. pnkm | primary energy demand | CO2-
emission
1000 t |
specific
Wh/pnkm | total
GWh |
| car | 2.600 | 538 | 1399 | 376 |
| bus | 1.140 | 77 | 88 | 24 |
| airplane | 0.065 | 557 | 36 | 9 |
| railway | 0.820 | 149 | 122 | 22 |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
| average | | 356 |
| total | 4.625 | | 1645 | 431 |
Reference case scenario 2010 (IC only)
| amount of
traffic
bln. pnkm | primary energy demand | CO2-
emission
1000 t |
specific
Wh/pnkm | total
GWh |
| car | 5.68 | 538 | 3056 | 822 |
| bus | 2.50 | 77 | 192 | 52 |
| airplane | 0.13 | 557 | 72 | 19 |
| railway
(IC) | 2.23 | 116 | 259 | 48 |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
| average | | 340 |
| total | 10.54 | | 3579 | 941 |
Scenario 2010 (With Transrapid)
| amount of
traffic
bln. pnkm | primary energy demand | CO2-
emission
1000 t |
specific
Wh/pnkm | total
GWh |
| car | 5.12 | 538 | 2755 | 741 |
| bus | 2.50 | 77 | 192 | 52 |
| airplane | 0.00 |
| railway | 0.00 |
| transrapid | 3.24 | 446 | 1445 | 266 |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
| average | | 404 |
| total | 10.86 | | 4392 | 1059 |
of
that addit.
transport | 0.32 |
Table Scenario 2010 (With ICE, without Transrapid)
| amount of
traffic
bln. pnkm | primary energy demand | CO2-
emission
1000 t |
specific
Wh/pnkm | total
GWh |
| car | 5.48 | 538 | 2948 | 793 |
| bus | 2.50 | 77 | 192 | 52 |
| airplane | 0.00 |
| railway
(ICE) | 2.78 | 142 | 395 | 73 |
| ---------------------------------------------------------- |
| average | | 329 |
| total | 10.76 | | 3535 | 918 |
of
that addit.
transport | 0.22 |
The following conclusions can be made from the results of the above tables:
-
Compared with the sharp increase of total traffic, as forecasted in the Federal
Traffic Routes Plan (Bundesverkehrswegeplan) of 1992, there are no relevant energy
savings per person transported. Therefore, total energy
demand and the resulting CO2-emissions increase by more than a factor 2.
This is more or less the same magnitude than the increase of traffic, compared
with today.
-
The scenario with Transrapid is the most energy intensive
of all scenarios for the year 2010. Additional energy demand
for all long-distance traffic in the corridor Hamburg - Berlin amounts to 857,000
megawatt-hours, as compared with the scenario with ICE, without Transrapid.
Additional CO2-emissions are 141,000 tonnes. This is exactly the opposite result
than the CO2-reduction claimed by the supporters of the Transrapid 5*2 .
-
The scenario with ICE, without Transrapid needs 44,000 megawatt-hours
less per year than the reference case scenario which uses the IC with a maximum
speed of only 160 km/h., i.e. 23,000 tonnes less CO2 are emitted. Therefore, an
economically optimised ICE with a maximum speed of 250 km/h contributes to both,
a reduction of total energy demand and a reduction of
CO2-emissions. This reduction is caused by a relatively high number of people
shifting from their car to the railway, and to the relatively
lower energy demand of the ICE, compared with the Transrapid.
-
The fundamental tendencies regarding CO2-emissions basically correspond to those
of the energy demand. The shift away from the more CO2-intensive
car to the somewhat less CO2-intensive Transrapid does
not alter fundamentally the general result that in the scenario with
Transrapid there are even higher CO2-emissions than in the two scenarios without
Transrapid (reference case scenario and scenario with ICE, without Transrapid).
The results obtained here are in contradiction to the announcements made by the supporters
of the Transrapid. At first sight, it is somewhat surprising to state that the
introduction of a new track-bound public vehicle used to transport passengers would
aggravate the total energy balance. However, this result can be put down to
several reasons:
-
As shown in chapter 3.4 describing the energy demand at
constant speed, with 446 Wh/pnkm specific energy demand
per passenger is not considerably lower for the Transrapid than for an airplane
or a car. This is due to the high maximum speed of
the Transrapid. Therefore, any shift in the vehicle used to transport passengers,
e.g. from car and airplane to the Transrapid, does not result in any substantial
energy savings. Hereby, a dramatically higher efficiency in
electricity generation has been supposed for the year 2010, compared with today.
Based on today's power plant technology, the Transrapid would have more or
less the same features with regard to energy consumption than a car or an airplane.
-
The new additional traffic (see chapter 4.3.2) - i.e. traffic which would simply
not exist without the Transrapid - is considerable for the magnetic suspension
railway with a speed of 430 km/h. Additional annual energy
demand for the new traffic is with 143,000 megawatt-hours clearly higher
than the savings achieved by the shift from car and airplane
which is equal to a total of 65,000 megawatt-hours.
-
The most important reason for the additional energy demand
however, is the shift of the total, comparably energy efficient IC-traffic of
2.23 billion pnkm to the energy intensive Transrapid.
This shift in passenger behaviour alone leads to an additional energy demand
of 736,000 megawatt-hours.
The question raised at the beginning
Can the Transrapid in the corridor Hamburg - Berlin contribute to a reduction of
energy demand and emissions? Would such a reduction not
also be possible by creating and optimised ICE-connection?
can now be answered as follows:
Instead of a reduction of energy demand and emissions by
the introduction of the Transrapid the contrary is true: Real energy savings and
a reduction of emissions can only be achieved when an optimised ICE-connection
with a maximum speed of 250 km/h from Hamburg to Berlin via Uelzen - Stendal
is realised.
In general, the facts analysed in this study allow the conclusion that a track bound
vehicle used to transport passengers will loose its environmental bonus with
regard to energy demand when it is designed for maximum
speeds beyond 300 km/h. Even if energy demand per passenger for the Transrapid
is slightly below the one for a car or an airplane,
there is a higher total energy demand by the shift from the eco-friendly slower rail
transport to the more energy intensive magnetic suspension railway, and the
additional traffic created by this. In view of the global environmental problems
this additional energy demand seems to be difficult to justify.