4.8 Article

The potential of electric trucks - An international commodity-level analysis

期刊

APPLIED ENERGY
卷 236, 期 -, 页码 804-814

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.12.017

关键词

Electric trucks; Road freight transport; Logistics; Charging infrastructure

资金

  1. Kone Foundation [b4b919]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of battery technology is making battery electric heavy duty trucks technically and commercially viable and several manufacturers have introduced battery electric trucks recently. However, the national and sectoral differences in freight transport operations affect the viability of electric trucks. The aim of this paper is to develop a methodology for estimating the potential of electric trucks and demonstrate the results in Switzerland and Finland. Commodity-level analysis of the continuous road freight survey data were carried out in both countries. As much as 71% of Swiss road freight transport tonne-kilometers may be electrified using battery electric trucks but Finland has very limited potential of 35%, due to the use of long and heavy truck trailer combinations. Within both countries the electrification potential varies considerably between commodities, although in Finland more so than in Switzerland. Commodities which are constrained by payload volume rather than weight and are to large extent carried using medium duty or < 26t rigid trucks trucks seem to provide high potential for electrification even with the current technology. Electric trucks increase the annual electricity consumption by only 1-3%, but truck charging is likely to have a large impact on local grids near logistics centres and rest stations along major roads. A spatial analysis by routing the trips reported in the datasets used in this study should be carried out. Future research should also include comparison between the alternate ways of electrifying road freight transport, i.e. batteries with charging, batteries with battery swapping and electrified road systems.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据