Every route on the PureFlow network is designed to minimize environmental impact. Rail-first logistics, renewable-powered sourcing, and verifiable emissions data across every corridor.
−62%
CO₂ vs ocean shipping
Lower CO₂ emissions vs container shipping
−95%+
CO₂ vs air cargo
Lower CO₂ emissions vs air freight
54,800
km
Total network length
Combined km across all branches of the rail network
Scope 3
GHG Protocol aligned
Transport emissions auditable under GHG Protocol
Section 03 · Source advantage
Iceland generates virtually all its electricity from geothermal and hydroelectric sources. Water sourced, processed, and loaded for transit in Iceland starts its journey with a near-zero carbon footprint.
~100%
Renewable electricity
Iceland's electricity generation comes from renewable sources — hydroelectric and geothermal — with negligible fossil generation.
Source: Orkustofnun (Iceland National Energy Authority)~25–30%
Geothermal share
Share of total electricity generated by geothermal power plants in Iceland.
Source: Orkustofnun annual energy statistics~70–75%
Hydroelectric share
Share of total electricity generated by hydroelectric power plants in Iceland.
Source: Orkustofnun annual energy statisticsVery low
Grid carbon intensity
Iceland has one of the lowest grid carbon intensities in the world thanks to near-100% renewable generation.
Source: IEA Country Reports — IcelandIceland electricity mix
Approximate annual share, ~100% renewable
Approximate shares — the hydro / geothermal split varies year to year with rainfall and demand. See Orkustofnun for current figures.
What this means for AFW
Water sourcing, processing, and port-side loading in Iceland are powered by the national grid. Because Iceland's grid is generated almost entirely from renewable geothermal and hydroelectric sources, these operations carry minimal carbon emissions before the water even begins its journey to market.
Based on Iceland's published national energy statistics. AFW's specific facility energy consumption will be published when operations commence.
Section 03 · Emissions by mode
Published ranges from international transport agencies. Hover any bar to read the underlying source.
Ranges reflect published data from IEA, IMO, ITF/OECD, EEA and ICAO. Actual emissions vary with specific equipment, load factors, route conditions and grid carbon intensity. Bar scale capped at 100 g/t·km — air freight is shown as a relative multiplier so the chart stays readable.
Section 04 · Hub model
Bulk storage at a strategic hub plus on-demand rail dispatch reduces waste at the design level — before any operator's good intentions enter the picture.
Traditional model
Point-to-point shipping
Scheduling
Fixed sailing schedules regardless of demand. Ships run whether full or partially loaded.
Route efficiency
Each shipment travels the full sea route from origin to destination. No consolidation between customers.
Load optimisation
Containers booked individually per sailing. Partial loads common for niche origins like Iceland.
Last mile
Port-to-door requires truck for every destination. No rail option in most shipping models.
Inventory waste
Over-ordering to buffer against irregular ship schedules. Product sits in warehouses for weeks.
PureFlow hub model
Iceland → Rotterdam → rail
Scheduling
Water stored in bulk at NL hub. Rail dispatched on demand when orders exist. No empty runs.
Route efficiency
Single sea leg (Iceland → Rotterdam) serves all European and Asian destinations. Rail fans out from one hub.
Load optimisation
Bulk water shipped to hub at full vessel utilisation. Rail containers loaded to capacity from storage.
Last mile
Rail reaches 96 destinations directly. Truck only for the final hop where rail does not extend.
Inventory waste
Continuous supply from NL hub. Order what you need, when you need it.
Operational design comparison. AFW hub-model advantages are structural features of the logistics architecture, not performance claims tied to specific shipments.
Section 05 · Calculator
Pick any of PureFlow's destinations and see CO₂ savings vs an equivalent all-sea route, with EPA equivalencies and a full methodology breakdown.
Pick a destination from the platform's route database. Distances are real, factors are published midpoints, output is a transparent calculation.
Direct rail · 2,024 km · 5 d
CO₂ saved per shipment
0.06t CO₂
−9.9% vs an equivalent all-sea route to Berlin
PureFlow vs sea
0.51 t → rail route
0.57 t → all-sea baseline
Route breakdown
Equivalent to
US EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator
0.92
tree seedlings grown for 10 years
0.23k km
of car travel avoided
0.07 mo
of average home energy use
Section 06 · ESG framework alignment
Each card lists the specific target or category PureFlow data supports — not generic logo soup.
UN SDG 6
Clean Water & Sanitation
Core mission alignment
UN SDG 9
Industry, Innovation & Infrastructure
Infrastructure & innovation
UN SDG 13
Climate Action
Direct mitigation lever
UN SDG 17
Partnerships for the Goals
Multi-stakeholder model
GHG Protocol
Scope 3 Cat. 4 — Upstream Transport
Audit-ready disclosures
EU Taxonomy
Sustainable Transport activity
Climate Delegated Act
Section 07 · Partner reporting
Every shipment on the PureFlow network generates route-level emissions data structured for GHG Protocol Scope 3 reporting. Customers can use this data directly in their corporate sustainability disclosures.
Scope 3 Transport Emissions — Sample
Supplier: Arctic Freshwater ehf. · Reporting period: [Reporting Period]
Category 4: Upstream Transportation and Distribution
| Description | Distance | Mode | Emission factor | Calculated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water shipment: Iceland → Rotterdam (sea) | 1,324 km | Container vessel | 8–20 g CO₂/t·km (IMO) | [Calculated at shipment] |
| Water shipment: Rotterdam → [Destination] (rail) | [Route distance] km | Electric rail freight | 5–15 g CO₂/t·km (IEA) | [Calculated at shipment] |
Methodology: emissions calculated using published factors from IMO (sea) and IEA (rail). Route distances from PureFlow logistics platform. Midpoint of published ranges applied.
Data confidence: AI-verified, 75%+ confidence score per data point.
Confidence-graded data
Each rate carries an A–D grade based on freshness, source count and cross-validation.
Drops into annual reports
Aligned to the categories CSRD, CDP and TCFD reviewers already expect.
Sample values are clearly marked. Per-shipment emissions and downloadable reports become available to partners once they're connected to the PureFlow network.
Section 08 · Impact at scale
Adjust the volume slider to see estimated environmental impact at different shipping volumes.
Projections based on network-average route data and published emissions factors. Actual impact depends on specific routes, volumes and conditions.
Annual volume: 5,000 TEU
Projected CO₂ avoided per year
2.6kt CO₂
Rail route ~4.4k t vs all-sea baseline ~7.0k t
43,666
Tree seedlings grown for 10 years
EPA equivalency
10.9kk km
Of car travel avoided
EPA avg passenger vehicle
3,440 mo
Of average home energy use
EPA avg US household
Equivalencies: US EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Emission factors: IEA (rail), IMO (sea). Network averages calculated from PureFlow route database. Assumes 20 t / TEU payload.
Explore the dashboard for live route data, confidence-graded rates and country-level breakdowns.
Open dashboard →