Raadsinformatiebrief inclusief bijlagen.pdf

‘Well-to-wheel’ (WTW): all emissions from fuel or

comparison is between HSR speeds of 250-300 km/h

electricity consumption, and it also includes the

and hyperloop with operational speeds of 700 km/h.

impact of infrastructure and vehicle construction.

If fuel (all types) and electricity become

For propulsion the depicted development takes into

sustainable and has a low CO2-footprint, the energy

account the annual efficiency increase of 1.5%.

demand becomes the key factor.

For fuel production we assumed a decrease of 20%

25

in 2030 and 30% in 2050 based on (ECN, 2010)10. Hyperloop at 700 km/h results in TTW energy use of

The energy demand for vehicle production (minimal

38 wh/pkm.

impact) and infrastructure (long-term impact)

The main energy components during operation are the

is assumed to stay the same. The graph depicts a

motors and the pumps. In rail and aviation, almost

scenario for electric aviation, assuming that an

all energy used by the airplane and the rolling

electric engine is twice as efficient as a jet

stock comes from their propulsion systems. In the

engine (Down to earth, 2019)11 and that efficiency

case of hyperloop, this is the motor energy that is

will improve with 0.75% per year12.

used to bring the hyperloop to its cruise speed and overcome magnetic and aerodynamic drag. Pumps are used to minimise the aerodynamic drag and therefore

2.5 2.0

Impact on climate change of the Hyperloop system per passenger-km

1.5

45

1.0

39

40

30

34

35

0.5

28

30 25

Primary energy (MJ/pkm)

also the necessary motor energy.

gramCO2-eq.

PRE-FEASIBILITY SCHIPHOL – HYPERLOOP

Future developments towards 2050 see the total

operating at speeds of 700 km/h, would produce

PRE-FEASIBILITY SCHIPHOL – HYPERLOOP

24

The prospective LCA results show that hyperloop,

Aviation kerosene Aviation battery electric Hyperloop / GCD pkm

Aviation k + infra Aviation be + infra Hyperloop + infra / GCD pkm

0.0

20

2015

15

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

10 Figure 11. Primary energy demand for scenarios towards 2050 for aviation and hyperloop (CE DELFT)13

5 0 WLO high

WLO low

commercial shift from aviation only

WLO high

WLO low

commercial shift from aviation & rail

8

Current HSR emissions amount to 45 – 55 gr CO2-eq/pkm (Average – High). But the HSR operates at a lower load

factor (55-75%) than hyperloop as modeled in the LCA (80%). When factoring in the load factor differences this results in a hyperloop footprint of 40 – 59 gr CO2-eq/pkm.

Infrastructure

10.4

15.5

5.0

6.5

9

EU-average, Source: UIC, 2018. Annual energy consumption figures EU average (in Excel), sl: UIC.

Energy

23.5

23.5

23.5

23.5

10

ECN, 2010. Raffinaderijen naar 2030, sl: ECN.

11

Down to earth, 2019. https://downtoearthmagazine.nl/elektrisch-vliegen-lowtech/. [Online] Available at:

Total

33.90

39.0

28.5

30.0

https://downtoearthmagazine.nl/elektrisch-vliegen-lowtech/ [Geopend 3 oktobre 2019]. 12

Part of the annual 1.5 % increase in efficiency will be due to aerodynamic improvements to the plane. Electric

planes can also benefit from this. We assumed half of the efficiency increase is due to aerodynamic improvements.

Figure 10. Climate impact per pkm hyperloop

13

(CE Delft)

and assuming 1 km distance by plane requires, on average, 1.5 km to be travelled on the hyperloop network.

The primary energy demand of hyperloop is expressed per passenger-km in great circle distance (GCD) equivalents,

PRE-FEASIBILITY SCHIPHOL – HYPERLOOP

Total annual economic benefits per scenario

Hyperloop would be able to drastically reduce

€’8.00’B

travel times between the Amsterdam Metropolitan

€’7.00’B

Area (MRA) and other Dutch and European metropoles,

€’6.00’B

increasing the cohesion and connectivity of

€’5.00’B

economic top locations. The Toekomstbeeld OV 2040

PRE-FEASIBILITY SCHIPHOL – HYPERLOOP

26

ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL CASE

14

€’4.00’B

and Klimaatakkoord underline the importance of an

€’3.00’B

international and cross-border network in order to

€’2.00’B

provide the Netherlands with a fast and sustainable

€’1.00’B

connection to the main economic centres of Germany,

€’0.00’B

Belgium, France and the UK, at distances up to 700 km . Hyperloop would strongly deliver on 15

27 2040-H

Direct benefits

2040-L

2050-H

External Benefits - GHG

2050-L

Indirect benefits

External Benefits - Energy reduction

both agendas, therefore as part of the study the preliminary economic benefits and costs of the proposed hyperloop network are assessed here.

Financial & Economic Case Assessment WLO-2050-H

The estimated annual economic benefits of the

€ 100,0 B

proposed hyperloop network total in the range

€ 50,0 B

€5 – €7 billion per year (price-level 2019). Direct

€ 0,0 B

benefits due to travel time reductions account for

-€ 50,0 B

a large share (78%) of the economic case, ranging

-€ 100,0 B

between € 4 Billion and € 5 Billion per annum.

-€ 150,0 B

These direct effects concern the user benefits as

-€ 200,0 B

a result of utilisation of the hyperloop network

-€ 250,0 B

compared to existing modes of rail or aviation. Direct benefits

€ 47,7 B

€ 132,1 B

€ 1,4 B

Operating Revenues

Residual Value

-€ 89,5 B

Capital Costs

The starting point is that users maintain the same travel behaviour and therefore spend less time on

€ 121,6 B -€ 117,9 B

Operating Costs

External Benefits - GHG

WEB

ENPV

Indirect benefits

Indirect benefits - Noise

the journey. As a result, users can spend more time on other activities.

Capital Costs: represent the estimated riskadjusted total cost of developing the proposed

The revenues represent the estimated annual total

2.200 km hyperloop network, totaling in the range

revenues of operating the proposed hyperloop

€143 – 156 billion (price-level 2019). Capital

network, totaling in the range € 5 – 8 billion

costs incorporate the following cost components:

per year (price-level 2019).

infrastructure, station, land acquisition, project

A linear scaled baseline ticket fare of € 0.10 per

development, solar panels. The number of vehicles

passenger-kilometre is used for projecting revenue

required depends on the demand scenarios ranging

streams, which represents the ticket prices of

between 920 (low scenario) – 1340 (high scenario)

aviation passengers. No distinction is made between

vehicles.

15%

9% 3% 1%

revenue sources of business or leisure passengers, nor are there dynamic prices for peak vs off-peak,

Cost per route km: Based on the cost study on the

or different services.

Amsterdam-Cologne corridor, a typical kilometre

20%

hyperloop infrastructure above ground is estimated

13%

at € 23.4 million per km. These cost estimates per 14

“Contouren Toekomstbeeld OV 2040, Programma Toekomstbeeld

OV, 2019”: https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/

typical kilometre do not include station costs, indirect, or general costs.

rijksoverheid/documenten/rapporten/2019/02/06/contourentoekomstbeeld-ov-2040/contouren-toekomstbeeld-ov-2040.pdf

40%

Comparing the benefits and costs of the proposed

Breakdown of infrastructure costs Infrastructure (1%)

network from an economic perspective, the program

Tunnel (15%)

Anders Reizen, pg 71, “Geen vliegtuig maar trein voor

results in a positive case, with Economic Rate of

Unforeseen (9%)

afstanden onder de 700 km; waarbij reistijd deur tot deur

Return ranging between 5.0% - 6.1%. As the program

Specials (stations) (3%)

met trein <150% reistijd vliegreis is.”: https://www.

progresses, further quantification of benefits

Land acquisition (40%)

klimaatakkoord.nl/binaries/klimaatakkoord/documenten/

in strategic economic impact metrics put forth by

Indirect Costs (20%)

publicaties/2019/06/28/klimaatakkoord/klimaatakkoord.pdf

National and European policy agendas will follow.

General Costs (13%)

15

“Klimaatakkoord, 2019”: Box Huidige top 10 van maatregelen

sk

St oc kh ol m

THE CASE FOR SCHIPHOL

Warsaw

New York

Without interference, all WLO growth scenarios in 2050 result in capacity constraints for Schiphol Airport and a corresponding unaccommodated passenger demand due to the restrictions on the

Hamburg

growth of the airport. This restricted scenario is taken as a reference scenario.

Bei

jin

Cancun

g

PRE-FEASIBILITY SCHIPHOL – HYPERLOOP

PRE-FEASIBILITY SCHIPHOL – HYPERLOOP

Min

To determine the effects of hyperloop on the hub

29

function of AAS, two alternatives are drafted depending on the utilisation of the “freed up”

Berlin

Amsterdam

sb

on

capacity. The two scenarios steer towards the

Li

extremes of the spectrum. Alternative 1 focuses on maximum reduction of ATMs and maintaining the network quality, whereas alternative 2 concentrates on maximising passenger growth and expanding the

Eindhoven

London

network.

Dusseldorf

Introducing a potential hyperloop network could

Cologne/Bonn

Brussels ona

provide a capacity of 75.400 – 76.600 annual Air cel

Traffic Movements (ATMs) at Schiphol Airport in 2050.

Bar

For alternative 1, hyperloop substitution without utilising the freed up capacity, the added

Frankfurt

value ranges between €11.3 – 36.8 billion. For

Mil

alternative 2, hyperloop substitution with maximum

an

utilisation of freed up capacity, the added value ranges between € 21.1 – 73.1 billion. Eventually the policy for utilising the freed up capacity will depend on the minimum number of destinations Paris

that AAS needs to operate in order to maintain its function as a hub airport, and to maintain the quality of its network in a sustainable way.

Alternative 1: Reduction ATMs: 75.400 2050 WLO-Low 160.0

External Benefits: 9.9 bEUR

140.0

Indirect Benefits: 0.0 bEUR

Reduction ATMs: 76.600

120.0

18,4

12,5

100.0

Direct Benefits: 26.2 bEUR

80.0

Alternative 2:

External Benefits: 10.5 bEUR

60.0

Reduction ATMs: 59.400*

Indirect Benefits: 0.1 bEUR

40.0

Total: 36.8 bEUR

20.0

Reduction ATMs: 76.600 110,5

60.0 110,5

Alternative 2:

20.0 0.0

Reference

Aviation current

Alternative 1

Aviation new

Alternative 2

Hyperloop

Reference

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

0.0

80.0 40.0

106,4

18,4

120.0

Total: 11.1 bEUR 2,6

106,4

140.0

12,3

12,3

118,5

2050 WLO-High 160.0

Direct Benefits: 1.2 bEUR

Alternative 1:

100.0

123,0

28

Direct Benefits: 14.0 bEUR External Benefits: 7.0 bEUR

Aviation current

Aviation new

Hyperloop

Indirect Benefits: 0.0 bEUR Total: 21.1 bEUR

Direct Benefits: 81.4 bEUR

*Footnote: In the 2050-low scenario, the unaccomodated demand is less than the potential passengers

External Benefits: 8.7 bEUR

substituted by hyperloop. This scenario sees a potential reduction of 59.400 ATMs. But the introduction

Indirect Benefits: 0.4 bEUR

of hyperloop might result in increased competition in the transportation market. Changing competitive

Total: 73.1 bEUR

conditions and corresponding price effects is left out of scope for this study.

PRE-FEASIBILITY SCHIPHOL – HYPERLOOP

END NOTES The study is executed in collaboration and consultation with stakeholders within Royal Schiphol Group and industry partners. A big thank you to all partners and contributors for their valuable input and expertise.

30 Pre-feasibility study Schiphol-Hyperloop Prepared by: Hardt Hyperloop In collaboration with: Royal Schiphol Group Partners and contributors to the study: BAM, UNStudio, CE Delft, Stibbe, AirportCreators, SEO Amsterdam Economics (Advisory Role).

Hardt Group B.V. Paardenmarkt 1 2611 PA Delft +31(0)88 024 3920 connect@hardt.global

Printed on FSC-certified paper.

IN 2050… …ZIJN SUPPLY CHAINS BINNEN EUROPA IN SLECHTS ENKELE UREN MET ELKAAR VERBONDEN.

WELKOM IN DE WERELD VAN HYPERLOOP

WAAR HET OM GAAT Wat we vragen:

We vragen hulp om gemeenschappelijk de haalbaarheid van Cargoloop te onderzoeken. Wat hebben we daar nu voor nodig: Uw handtekening onder ons convenant, om funding voor het ontwikkelprogramma te verkrijgen.

REGIONALE UITDAGINGEN Port of Amsterdam groei versus duurzame bereikbaarheid

Bereikbaarheid van Schiphol staat onder druk

De A4 staat op de eerste plek van de file-top-10.

Stedelijke dichtheid maakt weguitbreiding moeilijk

Vervoer van bederfelijke goederen van en naar Westland staat onder druk

Congestie op wegen en waterwegen in de regio Rijnmond

Matige bereikbaarheid van Europa’s toegangspoort de Maasvlakte 2

BEHOEFTE AAN TOEKOMSTBESTENDIGE INFRASTRUCTUUR

Efficient in te passen

Efficient in energieverbuik

Kosteneffectief

…EN COMPETATIEF OP SNELHEID EN CAPACITEIT

DIT IS CARGOLOOP

SNELHEID VERSNELLING CAPACITEIT FREQEUNTIE

TRANSPORT DOOR LAGEDRUKBUIS

MAGNETISCHE VOORTSTUWING

TECHNISCHE SPECIFICATIES 150-400 km/h 0.1 G 3 (half)-Europallets/Asian pallets 15+ Voertuigen per minuut

ONDER- EN BOVENGRONDS INPASBAAR

VEEL INTERESSANTE MARKTEN OP DEZE CORRIDOR Groenten en fruit tussen de Port of Rotterdam en Barendrecht/Ridderkerk Bloemen en planten tussen Naaldwijk, Rijnsburg, Schiphol en Aalsmeer

Internationaal pakketvervoer tussen Den Haag en Schiphol Dranken tussen Zoeterwoude en Port of Rotterdam Groenten en fruit tussen Port of Rotterdam en Westland

IMPRESSIES

DREAM BIG, START SMALL BUT MOST OF ALL, START

2050

2040

2030

Europees netwerk

Realisatie van het Nederlandse

Cargoloop pilot geimplementeerd,

netwerk en eerste

samen met stakeholders

internationale verbindingen

Cargoloop Holland

ROADMAP

TEST TRACK CARGO-SCALE (Groningen)

PROOF OF CONCEPT 2017

2020

CARGOLOOP FIRST COMMERCIAL ROUTE (5km pilot) 2023

CARGOLOOP FIRST COMMERCIAL ROUTE (extension)

2026

CARGOLOOP NETWORK EXPANSION

2029

2030+

HYPERLOOP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DOEL Ontwikkelen en testen van de Cargoloop samen met publieke en private partners Het ministerie van I&W publiceerde op 19 oktober de aankondiging van deze toekomstige publiek-private samenwerking Ministerie van EZK Ministerie van I&W

€4.5 M* Omvang totale programma €30 M

Provincie Groningen

€3 M*

HYPERLOOP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM *Subject to final approval projected for November 2020

SAMEN VOORUIT SAMENWERKEN Namens het Hyperloop Development Programma, nodigen wij stakeholders langs de Cargoloop Holland route uit, om gezamenlijk onderzoek te doen, naar de haalbaarheid van het Cargoloop-concept.

HET CONVENANT Wij geloven erin dat het Cargoloop-concept alleen maar kan slagen als onze stakeholders vanaf het eerste begin betrokken zijn. De ambitie is om op 15 januari 2021 het convenant met alle belanghebbenden getekend te hebben.

Doe met ons mee!

Mars Geuze Co-founder & CCO mars@hardt.global +31 6 2225 2346

Hardt.global Paardenmarkt 1 2611 PA Delft The Netherlands

INTENTIE VAN HET CONVENANT Het convenant is een samenwerking tussen alle (publieke en private) stakeholders om een haalbaarheidsstudie naar de eerste toepassingen van Hyperloop-technologie (Cargoloop) te ondersteunen in de provincies Noord-Holland en Zuid-Holland. In het convenant komen de stakeholders overeen om nader onderzoek te doen om de voordelen van Cargoloop te valideren, zoals Grotere betrouwbaarheid, veiligheid, flexibiliteit en capaciteit, en; Afname van congestie, transportkosten en-tijd, energie en uitstoot.

En om nader onderzoek te doen naar aspecten zoals

Integratie met bestaande logistieke stromen en supply chains,

Schaalbaarheid, hub-locaties, alignementen, ruimtelijke inpassing, inpassingsprocedures, vergunningen en aanbesteding

Sociaal-economische kosten en baten, projectmanagement en verdere ontwikkelingen

PROCES OM CONVENANT GEZAMENLIJK TE TEKENEN Stap 1

Stap 2

Stap 3

Stap 4

Hardt lanceert concept Cargoloop Holland

Eerste contact met stakeholders Cargoloop Holland

Gezamenlijke groepsessie om het concept samen te doorleven

Gezamenlijk tekenen convenant Cargoloop Holland

September

Oktober

November

December

Januari ‘2021 Van start!

Januari

Activiteiten naar aanleiding van het convenant 2020 Q4

Opzet concept en vooronderzoek Onderzoek naar top-level requirements Vervoersstromen, Inpassing maatschappelijker kosten-baten Ontwikkeling/demonstratie van marktspecifieke systemen Financiële structuur, projectrealisatiemodel, beheer, operatie, besluitvormingsproces Vervolgstappen definiëren

Q1

Q2

2021

Q3

Q4

2022 Q1

Stakeholders die al mee doen in het convenant Stakeholders die al getekend hebben Agora Flores Holland Air Cargo Netherlands (ACN) Amsterdam Airport Area (AAA)

Amsterdam Logistics Board (ALB) APTM/Maersk Baas (grower, Ens) BestFreshGroup De Wintertuin Dummen Orange Dutch Flower Group Europool systems EvoFenedex Gemeente Haarlemmermeer Gemeente Rotterdam Greenport Duin- en Bollenstreek Gemeente Westland GroentenFruithuis InnovationQuarter Port of Amsterdam Provincie Noord Holland SADC Schiphol The Greenery TLN

Stakeholders die nog gaan tekenen Greenport Aalsmeer PostNL Provincie Zuid Holland