CARBON FOOTPRINT

PERSONAL CARBON FOOTPRINT BUILT ENVIRONMENT:THE ENERGY CONTEXT INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING AMALIA VRANAKI

UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON

1 | INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, global warming which is caused mainly by the greenhouse effect, is a major environmental, political and economic issue. It is widely known that the main gas responsible for these phenomena is Carbon Dioxide emitted mainly from fossil-fuel combustion. Thus, there have been excessive studies on how to reduce current CO2 emissions and on ways to benefit from renewable sources of energy.

Carbon Footprint Carbon Footprint is the total emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) produced by a country, industry, service, or individual. The total kilograms of greenhouse gases emitted by one person in the time frame of one year could be one simple term describing what the personal carbon footprint is. It is measured in kilograms of CO2, or most frequently, in kilograms of CO2 equivalent, including emissions of other GHGs, such as CH4 and N2O. Carbon dioxide emissions can be produced by travelling, heating, electricity; even eating habits and fashion preferences can influence them.

Through this study we will investigate different aspects of everyday life that produce CO2 and in what extend.

Aim of the report is to investigate what actually the carbon footprint represents and how it is measured. It comprises the examination of the annual emissions of a Greek female, residence of Athens. The main categories that are going to be analyzed are:

• • • •

Household Working Environment Transport/ Travelling Embodied energy of major products

The results will be criticized and then compared with the results of another two females, originated from Italy and from the US. This process will help making assumptions on:

1) Which are the main “polluting” activities of everyday life 2) Lifestyle changes that can actually reduce our carbon footprint 3) Whether is possible to make our footprint sustainable with small differences, 4) how can renewable energy help in reducing the carbon footprint

This report is above all an opportunity to better understand the numbers relating to energy consumption behind our everyday activities and enhance critical judgment. It will be a useful tool in order to develop the ability to criticize -and debate on- controversial opinions relating to energy and environmental issues, evaluate policies and effectively challenge different assumptions.

“The carbon footprint is the amount of carbon dioxide emitted due to your daily activitiesfrom washing a load of laundry to driving a carload of kids at school. “ (BP, 2007)

“If everyone does a little we will only achive a litte bit” or “Every little helps’?

David, Mackay, 2009

2

“The carbon footprint is a measure of the exclusive total amount of carbon dioxide emissions that is directly and indirectly caused by an activity or is accumulated by the life stages of a product” Thomas Wiedmann

2 | CALCULATIONS In the following calculations we are going to examine the example of a Greek female, residence of Athens, Greece. The methodology involves calculations for both consumed energy and carbon emissions. General rule is that by using the appropriate Emission Factors for each category we are going to convert fuels, distances or energy to kilograms of CO2e emissions. Moreover, regarding the energy calculations, we are going to use the amount of consumed fuel and its calorific value, unless indicated differently.

2.1 | HEATING AND ELECTRICITY a) DOMESTIC HEATING AND ELECTRICITY The first category is domestic heating and electricity. After collecting the bills of electricity and heating oil for one year, the annual consumption of oil (in liters) and electricity (in kWh) can be estimated. The results are for one person. (see appendix) electricity (kWh/year)×x EF (kgCO2e/kWh)=kgCO2e/year heating oil(litres) x×EF(kgCO2e/litre)=kgCO2e/year USE (unit)

EF (kgCO2e/unit)

CO2 EMISSIONS (kgCO2e/year)

tCO2e/year 1.760

ELECTRICITY (kWh)

1956

0.9

1760.4

HEATING OIL (litres)

235

2.537

596.195

0.596 TOTAL tCO2e/year

Table 1: household The EF for electricity is published by the Public Power Corporation (PPC, 2009) The EF for heating oil is taken by DEFRA’s DCFCarbonFactors.xls

2.357 +2.97

Using the above equations and replacing with the appropriate Emission Factors (EF) that are presented in the table, we can easily calculate the total Carbon dioxide emissions.

+2.35

b) WORKING ENVIRONMENT +0.00

As far as the heating and electricity in the working environment are concerned, a different methodology is applied. Using the CIBSE Guide F, we can find the benchmarks for offices.

For a standard air-conditioned office with typical consumption we get the values: 226kwh/year for electricity and 178 kwh/year for heating oil.

In our example, the working environment was a small architectural office situated in Athens and therefore, the benchmarks given by CIBSE could be relatively big. Additionally, the examined person was working part-time.

Thus, in order to be more accurate we can calculate the proportion that corresponds to the working schedule of this specific person. Through this process we will intentionally reduce the amount of CO2 emissions, making it more realistic.

By multiplying working hours x working days x total weeks we can calculate the working hours and then calculate the kwh corresponding to this specific person, i.e. the kWh corresponding 1536 working hours. Having done that, we have to estimate the working space used by each person, which in our case is 14.2 m2 and multiply by the factor for electricity. personal kwh/m2 per year x m2/person x EF(kgCO2e/kwh) 3

ELECTRICITY

HEATING OIL Sep-July

DURATION

Sep-July

HOURS/DAY

8

8

DAYS/WEEK

4

4

TOTALK WEEKS

48

48

kwh/m² per year*

226

178

kwh/m² per person**

39.63

31.21

m²/person

14.2

14.2

total Kwh/person per year

562.71

443.20

EF (kgCO2e/kwh)

0.90

0.246

TOTAL kgCO2e

506.44

109.03

tCO2e

0.51

0.11

Table 2: Work

TOTAL tCO2e 0.62

*CIBSE GUIDE F- standard air-conditioned office, typical consumption **kwh corresponding to my working schedule

2.2 | TRANSPORT AND TRAVELLING

1 | PUBLIC TRANSPORT

The emission factors for public transport are usually published in government reports. In order to calculate the emissions, we have to multiply the distance travelled by each mean of transportation (tube, tram etc.) with the appropriate EF. In our example, there were two main means used: metro and bus.

a. METRO

The Emission Factor given for London Tube by the British Government is 0.09. Since there are no published values for Athens Metro by Attiko Metro, we can use this factor which is an average of existing metros (Transport for London 2008, p.16-17)

b. BUS

The gCO2e per passenger kilometer for an average bus equals 0.13kgCO2e (Company 2009)(Department of Energy & Climate Change 2014)

MODE OF TRANSPORTATION

EMISSIONS FACTOR (kgCo2e/passengerkm)

TRAVELLED DISTANCE (km)

CO2 emissions (kg)

TUBE

0.093

6240

580.32

BUS

0.13

500

65

TRAM

0.07

0

0

TRAIN

0.06

0

0

BICYCLE

0

300

0

2 | CAR

T O T A L t C O 2 e

+0.65 +0.00

0.65

Table 3: Calculations for transport

The examined car is a Seat Cordoba (Table 4). For calculating the distance, a rough approximation has been made by multiplying the times using the vehicle per week and the average daily distance travelled. Road trips are included in the calculation.

There are three ways to calculate the emissions from using the car.

•Using the EF given by the manufacturer, multiply it by the annual usage and then by a 15% uplift factor(Company et al. 2009, p5). Best practice, as defined by DEFRA 2012, states that “manufacturer data on average fuel consumption should be uplifted by 15% to take into account further real-world driving effects on emissions relative to test-cycle based data”. (Company 2009)

energy per unit of fuel (calorific value for petrol) divided by the distance per unit of fuel (which can be found by the economy of the car). Following this method we will estimate the consumed energy in kwh, which can then be converted to kgCO2e by using the appropriate conversion factor (Defra 2012).

•To calculate the direct, indirect and construction emissions for the car and multiply the sum by the travelled distance Only the methodology 2 is presented, because it includes the calculation of consumed energy. Nevertheless, the other methodologies can be found in the appendix.

•Using the annual driven distance multiplied by the

CAR Seat - Cordoba II - 1.9 SDI (68 Hp) economy: 6.8L/100km type of fuel: petrol gCO2/km: 178 Sedan 34mpg

Table 4: Car specifications

+1.00

Table 5: Car-Methodology 2 4

+0.00

3 | AIRPLANE-FLIGHTS

Regarding to flights there are two methods for calculating the total carbon dioxide emissions.Knowing the travelled distance, you multiply by coefficients that take into account either the flight’s length, or the seating class, or both of them. Different guides and reports give you different Emission Factors. In the calculations presented in the table I used the EFs given by DEFRA, following the methodology of Calculations and Emission Factors (2009). In the methodology there is an uplift factor=1.09 that takes into account take off, circling and non-direct routes (Company 2009) (Defra 2013) (Defra 2012) The other methodology is to find the specifications for the plane. The plane for our example is a Boeing 737-800 that RYANAIR uses for short and medium haul flights. (see appendix for specifications and table). Knowing the duration of the flight and the fuel it consumes per hour, we can calculate the amount of fuel needed for each flight. If we multiply by the calorific value of the fuel and divide by the number of passengers we get the energy (kwh/passenger). Using the Emission Factor for aviation fuel (kgCO2e/KWH), the energy can be converted to carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (kgCO2e/passenger) (David & Mackay 2009)(Defra 2012).

METHODOLOGY 1a*

METHODOLOGY 1b(uplift factor)**

DESTINATION DISTANCE (km) NUMBER OF FLIGHTS CLASS TYPE OF FLIGHT kgCO2e/pkm

ATHENS - LONDON 3222.00 6.00 economy class short haul 0.077

ATHENS - CRETE 400.00 1.00 economy class domestic 0.143

ATHENS - LONDON 3222.00 6.00 economy class short haul 0.096

ATHENS - CRETE 400.00 1.00 economy class domestic 0.172

kgCO2e/year

1488.56

57.20

1855.87

68.80

Tonnes of CO2e

1.49 n.a.

0.06 n.a.

1.86

UPLIFT FACTOR*** TOTAL (tCO2e)

0.07 2.02

1.55

0.07

2.10

Table 6: Airplane-comparing different emission factors and the impact of applying the uplift factor

4 | FERRIES-BOATS

Using again the conversion factors by DEFRA for Ro-pax ferries, (2012), which are 0.13 for passengers with cars and 0.02 for foot passengers, we can calculate the emissions using the same methodology.

ATHENS-CRETE

ATHENS-MYKONOS

DISTANCE TRAVELLED

400

144

NUMBER OF TRIPS

1

2

TRAVELLING WITH CAR?

YES

NO

CONV. FARTOR (kgCO2e/pkm)

0.15

0.02

TOTAL kgCO2e/passenger

60

5.76

tonnes kgCO2e/passenger

0.06

Table 7: Ferries

+7.04

0.006

Table 8: Embodied energy-laptop LAPTOP

kgCO2e

MJ

MATERIALS

71

1120

PROCESS

9

140

DISTRIBUTION

10

122

USE

162

3630

TOTAL

252

5012

2.3 | PRODUCTS

For the embodied energy of one laptop bought in the previous year, we used data given by Deng et al.

(2011), which are reflected in Table 8.

5

+0.00

3| ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS The total sum of emissions produced by each category gives a total of 7 tonnes of CO2 emissions, which is the carbon footprint of the studied person in the time frame of one year.

The two pie charts compare the percentages of carbon dioxide emissions and consumed energy. Housing is the sector with the largest overall proportion in both charts. Nonetheless, a closest look reveals that energy consumption and the corresponding carbon dioxide emissions are not always proportional. For example, car accounts for 15% in the case of carbon footprint, while in the energy chart the percentage increases to 27% - it almost reaches house section that accounts for 31%. Therefore, we can assume that car is a source of huge energy waste with less impact on emissions.

CARBON FOOTPRINT tCO2e PRODUCTS, 0.25, 4%

ENERGY kwh/ year Products, 1392.22, 10%

CAR, 1, 14%

HOUSE, 2.35, 33%

HOUSE, 4299, 31%

PUBLIC TRANSPORT, 0.65, 9%

car, 3625.17, 27% SHIPS, 0.07, 1%

work, 1005.91, 7%

WORK, 0.62, 9%

public transport, 424.50, 3%

flights, 3033.00, 22%

FLIGHTS, 2.1, 30%

HOUSE

WORK

FLIGHTS

SHIPS

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

CAR

PRODUCTS

HOUSE

work

flights

public transport

car

Products

Having said that, one can argue that there are two ways of ameliorating the effects of CO2 emissions. Firstly, we have to reduce the emissions produced by each category, but is also important to reduce the total energy. In the case of car, for example, it is not only a matter of reducing emissions; most importantly we have to reduce -or find efficient ways to replace-the energy consumed by vehicles. The same pattern applies also to the product section, where we can observe that the energy consumed for producing one laptop is not minimal at all.

Table 8: Total tCO2e, kWh and MJ for each category

6

4| COMPARISONS In this section we are going to compare the current results Female 1 (Greece) with those of two other females, one from Italy (Female 2) and one from the USA (Female 3).

ENERGY (kWh)

TOTAL TONNES CO2e

4.00

16000

3.80

14000

3.50 3.00

tCO2e

2.50

3.00

2.93

FEMALE 1 GREECE

12000 10000

2.35 2.10

2.00

8000

1.80

1.70

1.50

1.00

0.95

1.00

0.80

0.65

0.62

FEMALE 2 ITALY

2000

0.25

0.10

0.07

4000

0.80 0.50

0.50 0.00

6000

1.32

0

HOUSE

WORK

FLIGHTS

SHIPS

NATIONAL RAIL

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

CAR

PRODUCTS

FLIGHTS

SHIPS

NATIONAL RAIL

PUBLIC TRANSPORT

CAR

PRODUCTS

1 GREECE

2.35

0.62

2.10

0.07

0.00

0.65

1.00

0.25

4299

1005

3033

392

0

424.5

3625.17

1392.22

2 ITALY

2.93

0.95

1.80

0.00

0.10

0.00

1.32

0.50

13617

3143

7548

0

24

0

6160

0

3 USA

3.80

1.70

3.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.80

0.80

10623

7535.0

6188.8

0

0

0

1718.7

1111

1 GREECE

2 ITALY

HOUSE

WORK

3 USA

Chart 3a: Comparison of total amounts of CO2 emissions for each category

FEMALE 3 U.S.A.

Chart 3b: Comparison of total amounts of energy for each category

General observations: A first look at the bar charts reveals that Female 3 has significant emissions compared to the other two females, and more specifically in house, work and flights sections. Nonetheless, Female 2 has higher energy consumtpion in house and flight sectors, and therefore these domains are going to be explained in more detail. Moreover, in the case of Female 1, we can easily observe that while there is a comparatively small amount of energy used for domestic heating and electricity, the carbon emissions tend to reach those of Female 3. As far as transport is concerned, it is worth mentioning that only Female 1 uses public transport, while there is an excessive use of car in the case of Female 2. Female 1 comes last when it comes to heating, with extreme differences from the other two cases, something that can be explained if we take into account the economic crisis in Greece. During the last few years, the price of heating oil has increased in such levels, that led to a dramatic drop in its usage.

1. Housing In order to investigate more thoroughly the house and work section, we are going to compare separately heating and electricity (Chart 4a,b). As mentioned above, the first striking detail is the difference between the proportions of energy consumption to CO2 emissions for each female. To begin with, an interesting fact is that in the case of Greece, while the energy consumption is low, there is a surge in CO2 emissions. This can be explained by looking at the emission factor for Greece, which is 0.98, i.e. a relatively big factor in relation to other countries. The problem stems, therefore, from the inefficient and old electric power stations, as well as from the fossil fuels that are used for electricity production -mainly lignite- which produce high levels of CO2.

As mentioned before, in the case of Female 2 there is a higher level of energy consumption compared to Female 3, but a respective decline in CO2 emissions. In other words, Female 3 consumes less energy, but she produces more CO2. As we can see on Chart 4, main reason for that is the the big amount of energy used for domestic heating, where the fuel used is heating oil. In the case of Female 2 the fuel used is natural gas, which is undoubtedly more efficient than oil in terms of CO2. The same pattern applies to work heating and electricity for Female 3, where again we have a mixture of natural gas, hydroelectric power and biomass.

It is worth mentioning that in the case of US, the emission factor for electricity is 0.29; extremely reduced compared to the 0.98 factor of Greece.

ENERGY (kWh)

ELECTRICITY

1.2

0.7

0.11 0.25

WORK

HEATING

0.5

HEATING

0.51

0.7 0.78

ELECTRICITY 0

0.5

1

TONNES CO2 EMISSION USA

1.7

1.5

2

2.5

HEATING

443.2

7620

1578

1751 1385 562.71

ELECTRICITY

3.1

2.3

0.6

HOUSE

HOUSE

WORK

tCO2e

3

3.5

HEATING

2622 1978 1956

ELECTRICITY 0

TONNES CO2 EMISSION ITALY

2000

4000 USA

TONNES CO2 EMISSION GREECE

12052 11050

2343

6000

ITALY

8000

10000

12000

14000

GREECE

Chart 4a-b

7

2.Flights In the case of flights the total travelled distance for Female 1, 2 and 3 was 19700km, 11000km and 20000km respectively. Female 3 has the highest emissions due to the number of km travelled. On the contrary if we compare female 1 and 2 in terms of emissions, they are almost equal despite the difference in kilometers. That is caused because in the case of female 2, calculations were made considering radiative forcing and therefore higher uplifting factors were used. Moreover, it is worth commenting on the energy chart, where in Female’s 1 case the energy is significantly lower. The first explanation is that the energy was calculated by using the specifications for a BOEING of Ryanair, at full capacity. That gave an optimized result in terms of energy. In the case of Female 2 the energy calculations were based on the already uplifted emissions -that is why they are further increased than expected. It is interesting with this example to compare the differences between the worst and best case scenario; which result is closer to reality is a question for further examination.

3. Public Transport/ car As far as vehicle is concerned, travelled distance is around the same for Female 1 and Female 3 (USA), but we can see from the graphs that the energy and emissions are more for individual 1. That is explained if we look at the methodology followed for each example. In the case of Greece, the final result was multiplied by an uplift factor (see Calculations) As far as the individual from Italy is concerned, she uses the car more frequently than the other two cases, and so there is the adequate rise in energy consumption and emitted gases.

As mentionned previously, only Female 1 uses public transport. The 6740km covered by transportation save Female 1 from an extra 4000kwh of energy and another 1.3 tonnes of CO2 emissions!

5| DISCUSSION According to Carbon Footprint for Nations (2010), an average person in Greece produces 10tCO2 annually. In 2000, the average world footprint was 5 tonnes of CO2 per capita (David, Mackay, 2009). USA was ranked second after Australia, with the biggest footprint -24.5 tCO2e per capita.

The answer to whether the Female’s 1 footprint is sustainable is a challenging question. On one hand, taking into consideration the numbers mentioned above, we can note that there are much bigger carbon footprints in the world, so a value around 7 could be considered ideal, especially for a European country.

On the other hand, it is common ground that all carbon footprints of developed countries must be reduced in order to be sustainable. Thus, if we take as an example the UK which aims at a reduction of 80% in carbon emissions by 2050, a sustainable footprint of any citizen should also be reduced at a same rate. That means 2 tonnes or less.

But even now, an extreme view could be that a sustainable footprint is a zero carbon footprint. One can argue that this “new flow of carbon that have been created by humanity” (David & Mackay 2009) should be completely reduced, in order to avoid any impact on the environment. In that case, the goal is the total de-carbonization of energy that currently sounds a utopian scenario.

Before reaching this dream-point, though, there are changes that can be made in order to reduce carbon emissions, and we can separate them in two big categories: • Large scale – indirect changes: that concerns measures to be taken by governments or international organizations that will have an impact on personal carbon footprint • Small scale – direct changes: Changes in everyday habits and lifestyle that can reduce personal CO2 emissions

1. Heating-electricity

Housing, even in our examples, consists the most energy consuming and “polluting” category, confirming the fact that almost 50% of consumed energy is coming from domestic heating and electricity (Centre for Alternative Technology, 2010). Thus, the first step to be taken in order to reduce our carbon footprint

8

is to improve the building envelope through retrofit. By adding efficient insulation, double glazing or passive solar systems, we could reduce significantly the amounts of spending energy. This initiative could be taken from individuals, but in order to be more radical and efficient it should consist governmental policy aiming to improve the building stock.

Another big scale change would be to change or improve the system of electricity in each country. Taking the example of Greece, we saw that due to inefficient and polluting power stations, the lack of new technologies, and limited sustainable systems, the conversion factor is inexcusably big for a European country.

Greece was among the most polluting countries in 2009, due to production of electricity. If, as in the example of the US resident, the conversion factor for electricity was 0.29 (mixture of gas, hydroelectricity= and biomass) we would have a reduction of 70% on carbon emissions.

Other changes to be made in everyday life would be to replace the appliances with more efficient ones, use low energy bulbs or a thermostat. For our example, another proposal would be the replacement of the existing electricity system by natural gas. .

2. Flights

If we take a look at the emission Factors (Defra, 2014) (Defra, 2013) the smallest emissions factors are for long-haul and economy class, in other words that under these conditions the flight become more sufficient.

Thus, there are ways of improving the situation by targeting the other categories, such as domestic flights or Business-First class. Having said that, the development of an efficient and fast railway system would motivate passengers to travel by train for short distances and replace domestic hauls. It would follow the example of Eurostar and it could be achievable in the UK, but in Greece is still a dream scenario (Committee on Climate Change 2009) (Centre for Alternative Technology 2010).

Another solution would be to reduce or totally exclude business class in order to gain more space in the aircraft –if it is within the weight limits- and improve the efficiency per passenger. Additionally, in order to increase the efficiency per passenger, we should try to have full airplanes.

3. PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND CAR As we saw earlier, avoiding the car and taking public transport instead, would make a great difference in the carbon footprint. Therefore, as far as car is concerned, a solution would be to gradually replace it by public transport. At the same time, governments should promote the means of transportation by improving them continuously. The existence of appropriate infrastructure, accurate schedules, bicycle roads would constitute a measure against car, as citizens would be enhanced to use transport, bicycle or walk. In relation to the car, we should find ways to optimize it, either by optimizing the fuel, or the vehicles. Electric car is a solution often mentioned in literature. The above could also apply for public transport; better and more efficient vehicles, alternative fuels, better schedules, full capacity.

4. RENEWABLE ENERGY

Renewable energy must gradually replace fossil fuels, if we want to talk about a sustainable future. As the need of decarbonization of increases, we have to be more open in new systems and technologies that will help us save energy, money, but most importantly our planet.

In our example, the first domain of sustainable energy that could help is obviously solar energy. The actual solar energy that reaches the ground in the latitude of Greece is around 270watts/m2 (NASA, 2009). In July, solar radiation levels can reach 7.5kwh/m2 per day (Boyle, 2004). Thus, the roof of the house -in our example- can be used for solar panels. Moreover, with solar collectors we can use the direct solar energy for hot water or space heating. Another system that is very popular to Greece and can help in decreasing the carbon emissions is the thermosyphon, which is a solar water heater.

In a more general scenario, renewables could help if there was an efficient system supplying the country.

In Greece solar heating, wind, hydropower and waves could be potential sources of energy. Nowadays, the electricity system is supplied by renewable energies at about 8%. There are wind turbines, especially in the Aegean Islands and Crete, 8 hydroelectric power stations and solar panels all over the country. Let’s hope that in the next years there will be a rise in sustainable systems not only in the country, but generally in the world.

9

CONCLUSION This report was an attempt to analyze and examine the personal carbon footprint.

There was a step by step analysis of the factors that can contribute in energy consumption and gasses emission. Through this process, we understood that every little aspect of our lives can produce energy. If we want to seriously contribute in dropping the CO2 emissions, we have to understand which the most polluting aspects of our life are. A change of lifestyle may be indispensable in order to reduce CO2 emissions to sustainable levels. Changes must be made not only by individuals, but primarily by governments and international organizations, in order to have serious results. Nevertheless, personal initiative is always important. It is in our hands to prove that, indeed, every little helps.

10

BIBLIOGRAPHY

11

APPENDIX 1

ELECTRICITY (kwh)

NUMBER OF PERSONS

31/12/2013-2/5/2014

1322

2

2/5/2014-29/8/2014

1226

2

29/8/2014-31/12/2014

1383

2 TOTAL PER PERSON

TOTAL

HEATING OIL

ELECTRICITY BILLS

DATES

3931

1965.5

MONTH

CONSUMPTION (L)

PERSONS

November 2015 December 2015 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015

80 120 120 80 70 TOTAL 470

2 2 2 2 2 TOTAL/PERSON 235

METHODOLOGIES-CAR

DISTANCE

PASSENGERS

EMISSION FACTOR FOR VEHICLE (kgCO2/km)

CO2 EMISSIONS (kgCo2e/year)

EVERYDAY ROUTES

3713

1

0.178

660.914

ATHENS-THESSALONIKI (round trip)

1044

2

0.178

185.832

ATHENS-KARPENISI (round trip)

572

2

0.178

101.816

TOTAL KM DRIVEN

5329

948.562

DIRECT EMISSIONS kgCO2/km

0.158

INDIRECT EMISIONS kgCO2/km

0.028

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS**

0.037

DISTANCE TRAVELLED PER YEAR (km)

5329

TOTAL CO2 EMISSIONS (kgCO2e/year)

1186.449

UPLIFT OF 15%

FINAL RESULT kgCO2e

142.2843

1090.8463

METHODOLOGY AIRCRAFT BOEING 737-800

METHODOLODY 3-CONSUMED FUEL ATHENS-LONDON AIRCRAFT TYPE FUEL CONSUMPTION PER FLYING H FLIGHT'S DURATION LITRE kg cerosin per flight NUMBER OF FLIGHTS

ATHENS-CRETE

RYANAIR BOEING 737-800

RYANAIR BOEING 737-800

2526.00

2526.00

3.50

0.75

8841.00

1894.50

6.00

1.00

NUMBER OF PASSENGERS

186.00

100.00

CALORIFIC VALUE (KW/L)

10.00

10.00

2851.94

189.45

0.29

0.29

827.06

54.94

ENERGY COST Kwh/passenger kgCO2e/kw for aviation fuel* TOTAL kgCO2e/passenger

3041.39

TOTAL (tCO2e) 0.88

specifications for Boeing 737-800 http://www.airberlin.com/en-WW/site/seatplan. php?seatTyp=B737_800&LANG=eng

12

13