Cover Image

Not for Sale

View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 73

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 72
72 RESULTS Fixed Costs of Frost Deicing (per winter season) Using Standard Deicing Only $0 Using Mix of Spot and Standard Deicing $68,000 Cost Savings from Implementing Spot Deicing -$68,000 Variable Costs of Frost Deicing (per operation) Using Standard Deicing Procedure $1,400 Using Spot Deicing Procedure $870 Cost Savings from Implementing Spot Deicing $530 Impact of Implementing Spot Deicing (per winter season) * Financial Savings $568,000 Glycol Savings 120000 liters Initial Investment Required to Implement Spot Deicing Set-up Costs $17,000 Capital Costs $700,000 Winter Seasons to Breakeven 2 *Assumes: 2400 frost deicings conducted annually; 50% of frost deicings use spot procedure; and spot deicing procedure uses 40% of the glycol of a standard procedure. See next page (Breakeven Schedule) for further details Figure 28. Sample results page. understanding of the industry's perceptions and current frost removal would be financially advantageous for their oper- usage of diluted fluids. Key findings are: ation. The model estimates the annual financial savings, annual glycol savings, and number of years until the initial investment Although a reasonable number of operators are currently has been recouped. When applied to typical airport conditions, using spot deicing, there are many operators who are not the model output clearly shows the value of implementing spot familiar with this methodology for frost removal. deicing. In many cases, the financial outlay to implement spot Spot deicing is seen to be a cheap and effective methodology deicing for frost removal can be recouped in a year or two. for frost removal. Cost and fluid and time savings are notable If implementation of spot deicing enables relocation of benefits of spot deicing compared to conventional deicing. the defrosting activity from remote sites to passenger terminal Fluid savings are estimated to be between 30 and 60%. gates, very significant benefits can be achieved in reduced oper- Spot deicing for frost removal is currently being employed ating costs, improved on-time performance, and reduced envi- using Type I fluid mixed to a 10C buffer heated to 60C and ronmental impact from spent fluid and from carbon emissions applied using a regular deicing vehicle. due to fuel burn. Training, lack of qualified individuals to make assessments about its usage, and asymmetrical application resulting in Recommendations risks to safety, were identified as the key obstacles in employ- ing spot deicing for frost removal. The following recommendations resulted from the work The methodology was seen to be more suitable for opera- conducted for the spot deicing for frost removal task: tions at warmer temperatures. Although it does not appear to be required in order for A cost-benefit model was developed for use by operators to operators to implement spot deicing for frost removal, it is determine if making a switch from standard to spot deicing for recommended that the regulatory authorities (FAA and