Table 5 9. Emissions reported in demonstration projects
Related Figures (29)
Table 1.1. Haul type characteristics (“Compilation of Existing State Truck Size and Weight Limit Laws - FHWA Freight Management and Operations,” n.d., “Light-Duty Vehicles Heavy-Duty Vehicles,” n.d., “WAG Internal Truck Travel Survey and Truck Model Development Study Appendix,” n.d.) Table 1.2. Truck classes and applications Classes 9-13 are not current candidates for ZEV technology; *Heavier loads can be hauled but only with special permit; tG: Gasoline, D: Diesel, CVG: Compressed Natural Gas, HYB D: Hybrid Diesel (“Compilation of Existing State Truck Size and Weight Limit Laws - FHWA Freight Management and Operations,” n.d., “Light-Duty Vehicles Heavy-Duty Vehicles,” n.d., “WAG Internal Truck Travel Survey and Truck Model Development Study Appendix,” n.d.) Table 1.3. Truck classes and sizes Figure 2.1. Simple overview of battery electric vehicle components, from CARB (CARB, 2015a) The weight that electric trucks are able to haul or transport can be reduced due to the additional weight of battery systems. In trials at the port of LA, the battery systems weighed 6,000 Ibs (Port of Los Angeles, 2016). On-road vehicles in California cannot exceed a combined weight of 80,000 Ibs, and when electric vehicles need to add 6,000 lbs of batteries for sufficient range this must result in an equivalent reduction in vehicle payload. This additional weight necessitates either reduced payloads or increased GVWR. If battery energy-to-weight ratios can be improved in future through technological improvements, this problem will be lessened. The location of battery modules on the truck is also important — placing modules in difficult-to- reach locations increases the time and effort associated with maintenance, upgrade, or repair tasks (Port of Los Angeles, 2016). Figure 2.2. Fuel Cell Electric Truck Schematic, taken from CARB who in turn sourced it from Vision Industries Corporation “Building zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell/electric trucks for the 21st century” presentation (CARB, 2015b) Although catenary electric vehicles (i.e., those connected to overhead charging lines) are being explored at the Port of LA (Port of Los Angeles, 2016), existing demonstration projects for medium- and heavy-duty short-haul trucks are focused on battery operated vehicles. Buses using overhead electric lines have been in use for decades, and are currently in widespread deployment in San Francisco (described as “trolley buses”) where they have been in use since 2001 (SFMTA, n.d.). California has been a leader in advancing medium- and heavy-duty electric and fuel-cell vehicle technology (IEA, 2017), but these technologies are still in the early stages of commercialization In aseries of 2015 technical reports, the CARB classifies medium- and heavy-duty hybrids as largely available commercially, while medium- and heavy-duty electric vehicles have limited commercial availability, and medium- and heavy-duty fuel cell vehicles are largely in the demonstration phase (CARB, 2015a, 2015b, 2015d). Numbers of vehicles in service, demonstration, or planned demonstration are shown in Table 3.1; 2,080 hybrid vehicles have been funded by the Hybrid and Zero-Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP) and are currently in service, with over 300 medium-duty electric vehicles and about 40 heavy- duty electric vehicles also currently in demonstration or service. Fuel-cell vehicle numbers are much lower, with only 88 vehicles combined in service/demonstration or planned for demonstration. These ZEV and near-ZEV projects are a tiny portion of medium- and heavy-dut' vehicles currently on the road. Table 5.1. Notable demonstration projects in each category Table 5.2. Major comparative projects analyzed by NREL 9 3 kWh or less per mile converted to miles/DGE using a conversion of 0.031 from kWh to diesel Range of electric and fuel cell vehicles can limit applications of this technology, and both availability of fueling stations and time taken for vehicles to refuel can raise concerns. Demonstration projects in Europe often observed that the actual vehicles ranges fell short of the range promised by the manufacturer (Quak and Nesterova, 2014). In bus applications, electric buses could only be deployed on selected routes due to inability to meet range requirements of some routes, and Foothill transit used a fast-charger at the mid-point of the route to allow frequent recharging (Eudy et al., 2014). Electric vehicles are considered to be promising for class 6 and smaller, especially in applications where they can frequently return to a home base to refuel. Fuel cell vehicles currently have much poorer fuel economy than electric vehicles, and fuel cell bus demonstrations have not yet met the US DOE technical target of 8 miles/DGE set for fuel cell electric buses (Eudy et al., 2016). Demonstration projects of gasoline-electric delivery trucks have not found significant differences in fuel economy compared to standard gasoline delivery trucks (Barnitt, 2011). Recent projects have designed and validated class 6-8 hybrid trucks, which developers are now producing (EPRI, 2015); these heavy-duty PHEVs were found to have significant fuel economy benefits. Fuel cell vehicles often pair a hydrogen fuel cell with a battery, to achieve an overall much greater range than could be achieved with a battery electric vehicle alone. The DOE has set a target for fuel cell buses to achieve a range of 300 miles by 2016, though demonstration projects completed by mid-2016 had not yet reached this goal (Eudy et al., 2016). During the ZEBA demonstration project, there were some issues with real-world bus range being lower than expected and with range anxiety occurring when the fuel light came on (Eudy et al., 2016 Demonstration projects involving fuel cell buses are ongoing with frequent reporting updates and fleet additions. Fuel cell bus demonstrations often involve additional installation of infrastructure to produce hydrogen on-site for refueling (Eudy et al., 2016). No maintenance cost/reliability information found for hybrid vehicles class 5-8 Table 5.7. Costs of ZEV and near-ZEV vs. conventional vehicles Frito-Lay EVs: 0.87 kWh/km for EV and 0.102 S/kWh for electricity, so 0.87*0.102 = 0.089 S/km = 0.14 S/mile; 2Frito-Lay diesel: 3.24 km/L of diesel and $1.00/L cost for diesel = 0.324 S/km Table 5.8. Federal emissions standards Ranges are provided for the Coca Cola and FedEx studies as these both tested emissions in the lab under three different drive cycles, each resulting in a different emission load (Barnitt, 2011; Walkowicz et al., 2012). Given that neither of the fuel cell bus studies provided emissions estimates, there is not a good way to estimate these emissions from energy consumption data — unlike the electric bus, these fuel cell buses draw all or the majority of their power from their hydrogen fuel cells, and do not appear to use the grid to charge their batteries (these batteries are used for storing charge from regenerative braking etc.). Table 6.1. Sample of ongoing demonstration projects Table 6.2. Ongoing ZEV bus evaluations by NREL (figure taken from NREL (2017)) Note: CNG = compressed natural gas; ICE = internal combustion engine; LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. Source: IEA (2017a), Mobility Model, June 2017 version, database and simulation model, www.iea.org/etp/etpmodel/transport/ The IEA projects in a reference scenario (assuming no major policy shifts) that global road freight activity will increase to over 65 trillion tonne-kilometers by 2050, with the reference model showing large growth in India and China while the US remains relatively flat near 7 trillion tonne-kilometers (IEA, 2017). Global demand for oil in this reference scenario is projected to grow to 5 million barrels per day. Projected global freight vehicle stock associated with this increase is shown in Figure 7.1. Figure 7.1 shows a marked growth in hybrid, plug-in, and battery electric light commercial vehicles (LCVs) in both urban and non-urban settings, witl the largest growth area being urban plug-in electric light commercial vehicles. The growth of zero-emission HFTs is projected to be much smaller globally. Note: CNG = compressed natural gas; ICE = internal combustion engine; LPG = liquefied petroleum gas. Source: IEA (2017a), Mobility Model, June 2017 version, database and simulation model, www.iea.org/etp/etpmodel/transport/ In both IEA and NREL examinations of freight vehicle future trends, alternative fuel vehicles ar included as a complement or subset of fuel efficiency measures (Grenzeback et al., 2013; IEA, 2017). That is, it is expected that regulations to improve fuel economy will drive alternative fu vehicles to be more cost-competitive. In contrast to the reference scenario, the IEA also estimates a “Modern Truck” scenario that assumes vehicle efficiency improvements starting immediately and being pushed for over several decades, systemic logistic and operations improvements in freight movement, and support for alterative fuels and technologies that enable their use. The Modern Truck scenario is predicted to require 45% less energy for transport needs compared to the reference scenario. This scenario predicts high uptake of electric light commercial vehicles, and high uptake of hybrid and electric medium-freight vehicles, in both urban and non-urban settings. It also projects high uptake of catenary-enable electric heavy-freight vehicles. The research firm Navigant has produced several reports in this area (e.g., “Market Data: Electric Drive Trucks” focused globally, “Transportation Forecast: Medium and Heavy Duty Vehicles” focused globally, “Market Data: EV Geographic Forecasts” focused on North America, and “The Future of Last-Mile Logistics” focused on North America), but these reports were not included within the research institution’s data access and so are not summarized here. Reporting from GreenFleet magazine interviewing a senior analyst at Navigant indicated that there were roughly 1,000 all-electric medium-duty trucks on US roads in 2014, and at that point in time the segment was projected to reach 2,500-3,500 units a year by 2020 (Lyden, 2014). NREL has also run models to forecast which areas of the country will have the highest demand for specific types of alternative fuel vehicles, though the analysis is not specific to freight vehicles (Johnson and Hettinger, 2014). Figure 7.3 shows the forecast areas with the highest potential for electric vehicle uptake. Figure 7.5. Forecast Alternative Fuel Classes 4-6 Truck Stock, mid-case (CEC, 2017). (Compared to approx. 200,000 diesel vehicle stock holding roughly constant over the same time frame. Mid refers to mid-level policy support for plug-in electric vehicles, vs. low or high support.)
