1. Home
2. Environment
3. Environmental Programs
4. ecoTRANSPORT
5. ecoFREIGHT
6. Air
7. Propane-Powered Airport Ground-Support Equipment

Propane-Powered Airport Ground-Support Equipment

The analysis and conclusions contained in this case study are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent the point of view of the Government of Canada.

Organization
Air Canada Ground Handling Services

Major Findings
This demonstration project showed that propane-powered airport equipment can operate in cold temperatures, provide fuel cost savings of 42% and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 34% without decreasing reliability.

Project Timeline
July 2005 to December 2006

Please note that some figures such cost savings on fuel are based on data from the period that this project took place.

Introduction

Although most airline fuel is used by aircraft, ground-support equipment also offers opportunities for reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This project, undertaken by Air Canada Ground Handling Services (ACGHS) with funding from Transport Canada's Freight Sustainability Demonstration Program, examined the feasibility of substituting propane for gasoline to reduce fuel costs and emissions from ground support equipment.

Project Description

ACGHS had previously converted ground equipment to propane, but trials had been limited to Vancouver's relatively moderate climate. This demonstration project examined the use of propane to power equipment in Calgary, with conditions similar to many cold-weather airport locations served by Air Canada. The project began in the summer of 2005 and wrapped up in December 2006.

Project Goals and Objectives

The objectives of the project were to:

• Reduce GHG emissions by using a more environmentally friendly fuel;
• Reduce fuel cost; and,
• Demonstrate the reliability of propane in a wide range of temperatures.

Project Methodology

ACGHS' alternative fuels project employed Six Sigma®, a business management strategy for analyzing business processes, to assess opportunities for improving ground support equipment. This resulted in realizing that of all Air Canada's airport locations, only Vancouver powered ground support equipment with propane. It was decided to test the reliability of propane for colder climates.

Calgary was selected because its wide range of temperatures would provide findings that could indicate the suitability of propane for ground operations at many other Air Canada airport locations. Preliminary investigations showed that a fleet of propane-fuelled school buses operated in Calgary with no problems, so the project converted 12 pieces of ground support equipment (Table 1), representing a wide range of functions, to propane.

   Table 1 Types of equipment used in the study

Type	Number	ID Numbers
Belt loaders	3	BLG105C, BLGI07C, BLGI16M
Bag tractors	5	BTG290C, BTG292C, BTG293C, BTG294C, BTG295C
Cabin service truck	1	CSCO 19M
Tow truck	1	MTSO I IF
Pick-up trucks	2	PKL090F, PKL094F

Baseline data was acquired using a gas emissions analyzer to assess the emissions from the vehicles before and after their conversion to propane. Data was stored in the computerized fleet maintenance system for each vehicle for the following parameters:

1. Hours of operation
2. Litres of fuel used
3. Maintenance costs per hour
4. Temperature
5. Vehicle emissions

Results

4.1 Fuel Use

Before and after fuel consumption data was collected for the 12 test vehicles. The units were fitted with locking fuel caps to ensure data integrity. All fuelling was performed by maintenance staff who recorded hour-meter readings (hours of operation), litres of fuel and dates at each fuelling. Data was collected for 90 days before and after conversion.

Table 2 shows the fuel costs before and after conversion to propane. For the gasoline and propane costs in effect at the time of the study, using propane lowered fuel costs by 42%. It should be noted that data for three units (*) is suspect and therefore the average savings could be even higher.

   Table 2 Fuel cost per operating hour

BASELINE					90 DAY TOTAL
Unit #	Hours Operated	# Litres Gasoline Dispensed	Litres / Hour	Fuel Cost/ Hour @ $0.7146 / litre	Hours Operated	# Litres Propane Dispensed	Litres / Hour	Fuel Cost/ Hour @ $0.4090 / litre	% Change from Baseline
BLG105C	284.4	968.3	3.4	$2.43	329	930.2	2.8	$1.16	-52.5%
BLG107C	207.6	776.2	3.7	$2.67	414	1305.7	3.2	$1.29	-51.7%
BLG116M	262.3	852.6	3.3	$2.32	448	1487.2	3.3	$1.36	-41.5%
BTG290C	158.4	686.9	4.3	$3.10	252	1183.8	4.7	$1.92	-38.0%
BTG292C	177.7	997.3	5.6	$4.01	335	1732.7	5.2	$2.12	-47.3%
BTG293C	101.4	550.7	5.4	$3.88	202	1200.8	5.9	$2.43	-37.4%
BTG294C	218.3	864.4	4.0	$2.83	252	1004.3	4.0	$1.63	-42.4
BTG295C	184.6	974.4	5.3	$3.77	224	1333.3	6.0	$2.43	-35.5%
CSC019M	271.3	1206.3	4.4	$3.18	61	278.8	4.6	$1.87	-41.2%
MTS011F*	123.0	489.9	4.0	$2.85	344	1934.9	5.6	$2.30	-19.2%
PKL090F*	167.3	314.0	1.9	$1.34	281	841.9	3.0	$1.23	-8.6%
PKL094F*	76.9	505.7	6.6	$4.70	173	547.5	3.2	$1.29	-72.5%
Totals	2233.2	9186.8	4.1	$2.94	3315	13781.0	4.2	$1.70	-42.2%

4.2 Greenhouse gases

GHG emissions reductions were determined by comparing how much gasoline was used before conversion to how much propane was used after conversion, based on 2.4 tonnes of CO₂ per 1,000 litres of gasoline and 1.6 metric tonnes of CO₂ per 1,000 litres of propane (www.ghgprotocol.org/standard/tools.htm). Table 3 shows the before and after data, which indicates an average 34% reduction on CO₂ equivalent emissions.

   Table 3 Emissions per operating hour (excludes three units with technical issues)

BASELINE					90 DAY TOTAL
Unit #	Hours Operated	# Litres Gasoline Dispensed	Litres / Hour	Equivalent CO2 Emissions (kg) Per Operating Hour	Hours Operated	# Litres Propane Dispensed	Litres / Hour	Equivalent CO2 Emissions (kg) Per Operating Hour	% Change from Baseline
BLG105C	284.4	968.3	3.4	8.2	329	930.2	2.8	4.5	44.6%
BLG107C	207.6	776.2	3.7	9.0	414	1305.7	3.2	5.0	43.8%
BLG116M	262.3	852.6	3.3	7.8	448	1487.2	3.3	5.3	31.9%
BTG290C	158.4	686.9	4.3	10.4	252	1183.8	4.7	7.5	27.8%
BTG292C	177.7	997.3	5.6	13.5	335	1732.7	5.2	8.3	38.6%
BTG293C	101.4	550.7	5.4	13.0	202	1200.8	5.9	9.5	27.0%
BTG294C	218.3	864.4	4.0	9.5	252	1004.3	4.0	6.4	32.9
BTG295C	184.6	974.4	5.3	12.7	224	1333.3	6.0	9.5	24.8%
CSC019M	271.3	1206.3	4.4	10.7	61	278.8	4.6	7.3	31.5%
Totals	1866	7877.3	4.2	10.1	2517	10456.7	4.2	6.6	34.4%

4.3 Reliability/maintenance

The period of observation included summer and winter temperatures. Operators did not observe increased difficulty starting propane-powered vehicles in winter. Maintenance data did not indicate any decrease in reliability due to temperature compared to gasoline-powered units. The overall reliability of the propane-powered units was found to be between 7.5 % worse and 1% better, depending on how the comparison was made. It was felt that a longer period of observation was required to firmly establish reliability/maintenance trends, but early indications show that propane power is likely to have little impact on reliability/maintenance.

Conclusion

Twelve airport ground-support units were converted to propane. Monitoring showed that propane-powered units saved 42% in fuel costs based on the costs of gasoline and propane at the time of the study and reduced GHG emissions by 34%. There was no noticeable difference in reliability as a result of extreme high or low temperatures. Overall reliability was somewhat better or worse depending on how the data was analyzed. A longer observation period is required to learn the effect of propane power on relability and maintenace costs, but based on the study results, the reliability of propane-powered units appears to be very similar to that of gasoline-powered units.

Additional Information

• Air Canada Ground Handling Services
• Proquip Sales Inc., Tel: 403-692-9388

Alternative Format

The following document is available for downloading or viewing:

PDF version (Size: 375 KB)

Date modified:

2012-02-16

Primary navigation