skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Cost Benefit Analysis Modeling Tool for Electric vs. ICE Airport Ground Support Equipment – Development and Results

Abstract

This report documents efforts to develop a computer tool for modeling the economic payback for comparative airport ground support equipment (GSE) that are propelled by either electric motors or gasoline and diesel engines. The types of GSE modeled are pushback tractors, baggage tractors, and belt loaders. The GSE modeling tool includes an emissions module that estimates the amount of tailpipe emissions saved by replacing internal combustion engine GSE with electric GSE. This report contains modeling assumptions, methodology, a user’s manual, and modeling results. The model was developed based on the operations of two airlines at four United States airports.

Authors:
; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
Sponsoring Org.:
DOE - EE
OSTI Identifier:
911917
Report Number(s):
INL/EXT-07-12270
TRN: US200801%%365
DOE Contract Number:
DE-AC07-99ID-13727
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
29 - ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY; AIRPORTS; COMPUTERS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIESEL ENGINES; ECONOMICS; ELECTRIC MOTORS; GASOLINE; INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES; LOADERS; SIMULATION; airport electric ground support equipment

Citation Formats

James Francfort, Kevin Morrow, and Dimitri Hochard. Cost Benefit Analysis Modeling Tool for Electric vs. ICE Airport Ground Support Equipment – Development and Results. United States: N. p., 2007. Web. doi:10.2172/911917.
James Francfort, Kevin Morrow, & Dimitri Hochard. Cost Benefit Analysis Modeling Tool for Electric vs. ICE Airport Ground Support Equipment – Development and Results. United States. doi:10.2172/911917.
James Francfort, Kevin Morrow, and Dimitri Hochard. Thu . "Cost Benefit Analysis Modeling Tool for Electric vs. ICE Airport Ground Support Equipment – Development and Results". United States. doi:10.2172/911917. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/911917.
@article{osti_911917,
title = {Cost Benefit Analysis Modeling Tool for Electric vs. ICE Airport Ground Support Equipment – Development and Results},
author = {James Francfort and Kevin Morrow and Dimitri Hochard},
abstractNote = {This report documents efforts to develop a computer tool for modeling the economic payback for comparative airport ground support equipment (GSE) that are propelled by either electric motors or gasoline and diesel engines. The types of GSE modeled are pushback tractors, baggage tractors, and belt loaders. The GSE modeling tool includes an emissions module that estimates the amount of tailpipe emissions saved by replacing internal combustion engine GSE with electric GSE. This report contains modeling assumptions, methodology, a user’s manual, and modeling results. The model was developed based on the operations of two airlines at four United States airports.},
doi = {10.2172/911917},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Thu Feb 01 00:00:00 EST 2007},
month = {Thu Feb 01 00:00:00 EST 2007}
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • The intent of the electric Ground Support Equipment (eGSE) demonstration is to evaluate the day-to-day vehicle performance of electric baggage tractors using two advanced battery technologies to demonstrate possible replacements for the flooded lead-acid (FLA) batteries utilized throughout the industry. These advanced battery technologies have the potential to resolve barriers to the widespread adoption of eGSE deployment. Validation testing had not previously been performed within fleet operations to determine if the performance of current advanced batteries is sufficient to withstand the duty cycle of electric baggage tractors. This report summarizes the work performed and data accumulated during this demonstration inmore » an effort to validate the capabilities of advanced battery technologies. This report summarizes the work performed and data accumulated during this demonstration in an effort to validate the capabilities of advanced battery technologies. The demonstration project also grew the relationship with Southwest Airlines (SWA), our demonstration partner at Ontario International Airport (ONT), located in Ontario, California. The results of this study have encouraged a proposal for a future demonstration project with SWA.« less
  • This document contains the description, methodology, and results of a benefit/cost study on the impacts of accelerating the RD and D of nine program elements in electric energy at ERDA. These programs were selected for acceleration because they have potential for near-term (before 1985) benefits to the nation. The assessment shows that some restructuring of the accelerated program is advisable. However, when the proposed acceleration is evaluated as a single package, the present value of the projected benefit of the acceleration of the RD and D is 10 times greater than the present value of the government expenditures required tomore » achieve the acceleration.« less
  • This report evaluates the costs and the risk trade-offs associated with the two pit lining or confinement options being considered as part of the Tank 241-C-106 Waste Retrieval Project. Both of these pit secondary confinement options (i.e., stainless steel pit liners and epoxy coating) can be implemented in a fashion that complies with criteria for secondary containment systems specified by the Washington Administration Codes (WAC-173-303-604). Direct life cycle costs of the two options including design, fabrication, installation, radiation, exposure, and decontamination and disposal costs are compared. Risk is expressed as probability weighted with the confinement consequences that could be mitigatedmore » by the pit liner. The risk impact of the choice of the confinement option is also evaluated in the context of the overall risk associated with the sluicing project and continued storage of the high-heat waste in the Tank 241-C-106 pending completion of the W-320 Project. The two pit secondary containment options are stainless steel line and epoxy coating.« less
  • The guide familiarizes state and local ground water program managers with the tools of economic analysis. It shows how these tools can be used to evaluate ground water programs through cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analysis. Case studies show the practical application of cost analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, and cost-benefit analysis. A bibliography is included if a program manager needs further information on any of these subjects.