Webinar The economics of Electric Freight in urban areas Tuesday 5 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Webinar The economics of Electric Freight in urban areas Tuesday 5 th September 2017 Programme 15.00-15.05: Welcome 15.05-15.15: Presentation of the FREVUE project 15.15-15.45: Presentation on the economice of electric freight in
Tuesday 5th September 2017
Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe
Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe
FRE FREVUE Web ebin inar 5 Sep eptember r 2017
Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe
Demonstrate suitability of electric freight vehicles for urban last-mile deliveries Underpin future uptake of these vehicles Provide evidence for policy intervention Project to be finalised in September 2017
Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe
City + Policy
City of Amsterdam
City of Lisbon City of Madrid City of Milan City of Oslo City of Rotterdam City of Stockholm
Swedish Transport Adm.
Co-ordination and Dissemination Hyer Polis Cross River Partnership (Co-ordinator) Vehicle Manufacturers ICT Partners Imperial College London SINTEF (NO) TNO (NL) Research Logistics Grid Operators
Transport for London
EMEL
Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe
Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe
urban freight operations
under 3.5t
Tan anja Dal alle le-Muenchmeyer tanj anjadall llemuenchmeyer@ r@crossriv iverp rpartn tnership.org
ECON ECONOM OMICS ICS OF EVS FOR OF EVS FOR CITY CITY LOG OGIST ISTICS ICS Based on FREVUE Deliverable 3.2
September 5, 2017 FREVUE webinar
Aim: answer the question “what are the conditions to get a feasible / successful business case for EFVs in city logistics?” How:
comparison)
and how to deal with these challenges next years
Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer segment Customer Relation Cost Structure Revenue Stream Key Resources Distribution
Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer segment Customer Relation Cost Structure Revenue Stream Key Resources Distribution
Small vehicle: Limited changes - vehicles available from OEM Charging infrastructure relatively easy (similar to passenger cars) and available Close cooperation authorities / UCC Medium / large vehicles: Difficulties in procurement (no OEM available: retrofitting) Impact on grid / charging infrastructure Maintenance and service More contact with city authorities
Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer segment Customer Relation Cost Structure Revenue Stream Key Resources Distribution
More difficult in planning (range) Advantages due to policy exemptions Perform similar to CFVs in
Charging time
Example of EFV and CFV operations compared (UPS Rotterdam)
Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer segment Customer Relation Cost Structure Revenue Stream Key Resources Distribution
Purchase price higher for large vehicles up to 2.5 times. Operating costs lower (diesel vs electricity) Charging infrastructure required Lower taxation Uncertainty in depreciation of battery and residual value
Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer segment Customer Relation Cost Structure Revenue Stream Key Resources Distribution
Concluding in costs: Higher initial investment – even with purchase subsidy More ownership, less lease Lower costs for energy, tax, maintenance Higher costs for charging infrastructure
Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer segment Customer Relation Cost Structure Revenue Stream Key Resources Distribution
Almost (no) change in customer-side (no higher fee) Improved image in outside world (customers and general public)
Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer segment Customer Relation Cost Structure Revenue Stream Key Resources Distribution
Concluding in revenues: No extra revenues
Key Partners Key Activities Value Propositions Customer segment Customer Relation Cost Structure Revenue Stream Key Resources Distribution
Value proposition No tangible value added for customer Value for society: fewer emissions and less nuisance
Dealer Shipper Logistics
Receiver € Service € Delivering product Purchase product Dealer € Vehicle + maintenance Fuel station Oil companies Vehicle manufacturer Suppliers of parts Vehicle € € Parts Fuel+ retail products € € Fuel Retail Retail products € (Un)satisfaction
Truck producent Power networks Charging infrastructure Charging + infra € Charging + infra € Electricity suppliers Electricity producers
Electricity producers
Electricity + retail € Supplier- electric € Parts Suppliers € Truck manufacturer electric Parts Shipper Logistics
Receiver € Service € Delivery product Purchase Product (Un)satisfactory Dealer Dealer € Vehicle + maintenance Vehicle € Suppliers € Charging infra € Electricity € Electricity
€20K €0K €20K €40K €60K €80K €100K €120K €140K Taxes Insurance Maintenance and tyres Fuel / electricity Subsidy for charging infra Charging infrastructure Vehicle purchase subsidy Vehicle purchase price
€20K €0K €20K €40K €60K €80K €100K €120K €140K Residual value Congestion charge Taxes Insurance Maintenance and tyres Fuel / electricity Subsidy for charging infra Charging infrastructure Vehicle purchase subsidy Vehicle purchase price
€0K €20K €40K €60K €80K €100K €120K €140K EFV excluding subsidy CFV bought
TCO Medium 60 km/day 10 years
€20K €0K €20K €40K €60K €80K €100K €120K €140K Grid investment Residual value Congestion charge Taxes Insurance Maintenance and tyres Fuel / electricity Subsidy for charging infra Charging infrastructure Vehicle purchase subsidy Vehicle purchase price
€20K €0K €20K €40K €60K €80K €100K €120K €140K Taxes Insurance Maintenance and tyres Fuel / electricity Subsidy for charging infra Charging infrastructure Vehicle purchase subsidy Vehicle purchase price
€20K €0K €20K €40K €60K €80K €100K €120K €140K Taxes Insurance Maintenance and tyres Fuel / electricity Subsidy for charging infra Charging infrastructure Vehicle purchase subsidy Vehicle purchase price
< 3.5 ton OEM 3.5 ton – 12 ton > 12 ton: small manufacturers
In FREVUE demonstrations most EFVs replace a CFV roundtrip If range is an issue, logistics concepts need to be adapted, examples: Cargohopper (Amsterdam) Binnenstadservice (Rotterdam) BREYTNER decoupling swap bodies (Rotterdam) Cross dock center (Madrid) Consolidation centers (Stockholm)
Many aspects play an important role when replacing CFVs with an EFVs… Energy cost differences per km (fuel vs. electricity) (←charging speed (slow vs. fast) and possibly the moment of charging) Charging equipment (depreciation) costs (←charging speed) Purchase price difference between CFV and EFV (←battery size, ←max. trip len.) Desired depreciation time Daily and yearly mileage (←average trip length, ← # trips per day) Depreciation difference between CFV and EFV (←battery costs, ←cycle life) Payload capacity difference between CFV and EFV (←battery size) (← Extra vehicles required for fulfilling the same operation?!?) Time available for overnight and opportunity charging (← Costs associated with extra waiting time) (← Extra vehicles required for fulfilling the same operation?!?)
All these aspects can be translated into costs (TCO)
Focus: TCO neural upscaling of 3 GVW classes… Explores the preconditions for a TCO neutral (non-subsidized) upscaling of 3 GVW classes: 3.5 ton, considering the TNT case (~BD e-Ducato (based on Fiat Ducato)) 13 ton, considering the Heineken case (~Ginaf (based on Mercedes Atego)) 19 ton, considering the Breytner case (~EMOSS (based on MAN TGM)) …and discusses the more generic conditions for replacing CFV fleets with EFVs of the considered GVW classes in a non-subsidized TCO neutral way. …and focuses on the most important aspects first in order to get a feeling about the business case potential (more fidelity to be added in later iterations, thereby taking more details of the operation into consideration).
Approach (1) The aim for this chapter was to come up with an approach that is both generic, simple (enough) as well as insightful, thereby explaining the approach through (the EFVs used in) the aforementioned 3 cases. First simplifications:
per year
Approach (2) Energy cost benefits Battery costs Conversion costs Budget for electrification
Assumptions (1) 3.5 ton: CFV 0.106 l/km, EFV 0.370 kWh/km, 62 kWh battery 13 ton: CFV 0.22 l/km, EFV 0.77 kWh/km, 120 kWh battery 19 ton: CFV 0.26 l/km, EFV 0.91 kWh/km, 200 kWh battery Slow charging: + 0.01 €/kWh depreciation of charging equipment Fast charging: + 0.05 €/kWh depreciation of charging equipment
Assumptions (2) Battery pack price projection
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 expected cycle life 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 year of battery purchase
expected cycle life based on info from (AKASOL 2017) and (EUROBAT 2005)
Diesel and electricity prices are expected to increase… Large variation between prices (diesel and electricity) in Europe
Assumptions (3) Electricity prices small companies & households (past, inc. VAT)
Assumptions (4) Electricity prices industrial users (past, ex. VAT)
Assumptions (5) Presumed electricity prices industrial users (ex. VAT) Projection of expected average electricity prices Projection of expected electricity prices in Sweden (best case) Projection of expected electricity prices in Germany (worst case)
approach: energy cost benefits (price projection for 2019)
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000
€ savings # km during depreciation period
Operational benefits electricity vs. fuel
Normal charging 19t Normal charging 13t Normal charging 3.5t Fast charging 19t Fast charging 13t Fast charging 3.5t
approach: energy cost benefits (sensitivity) (1)
20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000
€ savings # km during depreciation period
Operational benefits electricity vs. fuel
Normal charging 19t Normal charging 13t Normal charging 3.5t Fast charging 19t Fast charging 13t Fast charging 3.5t
approach: energy cost benefits (sensitivity) (2)
5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
€ savings # km during depreciation period
Operational benefits electricity vs. fuel
Normal charging 19t Normal charging 13t Normal charging 3.5t Fast charging 19t Fast charging 13t Fast charging 3.5t Battery depreciation 3.5t Battery depreciation 13t Battery depreciation 19t
approach: energy cost benefits (sensitivity) (2) Mileage for earning back the investment in an EFV (battery pack: 278 €/kWh) Mileage for earning back the investment in an EFV (battery pack: 195 €/kWh) Mileage for earning back the investment in an EFV (battery pack: 452 €/kWh)
EFVs can perform city logistics operations in daily life TCO comparisons show that a positive business case is possible for small EFVs, under circumstances (and in the future) for medium EFVs; A positive business case for rigid EFVs is however not yet feasible Many changes are required when procuring an EFV in case no OEM- product is available Current demonstrations mainly replace EFV-feasible roundtrips, logistics concepts need to be adapted for large scale usage. In general it can be stated that if there is space (time & common locations) in the CFV fleet operation for fast charging, then this should be used for that
are likely candidates.
The TCO gap is expected to decrease (transition to series produced EFV, lower battery prices and higher cycle life) Different energy prices affect potential business case Different charging schemes combined with smaller battery packs can make positive business case for EFV possible Fast charging is a means to achieve a maximum exploitation of the battery system (cycle life) during the envisioned depreciation period. Fast charging also helps to reduce the initial investment and avoid extra costs due to the reduced payload capacity of the EFV.
TCO comparisons show that a non-subsidized positive business case for an EFV is feasible if the cost savings per km exceed the extra depreciation costs per km, where the costs savings can be approximated by the following formula: For in large series produced EFVs, it is expected that the difference between a comparable CFV will be dominated by the price of the battery. For a 278 €/kWh priced battery with a cycle life of around 3750 (80% depth) cycles that is completely exploited during its operation, this would imply extra depreciation costs in access 0.09 € per kWh, resulting in the following more generic formula:
𝐷𝑝𝑡𝑢𝑇𝑏𝑤𝑗𝑜𝑄𝑓𝑠𝐿𝑛 = 𝐺𝑣𝑓𝑚𝑄𝑠𝑗𝑑𝑓 3.5 − 𝐹𝑚𝑓𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑗𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑧𝑄𝑠𝑗𝑑𝑓 × 𝐹𝑚𝑓𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑗𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑧𝐷𝑝𝑜𝑡𝑣𝑞𝑢𝑗𝑝𝑜
𝐺𝑣𝑓𝑚𝑄𝑠𝑗𝑑𝑓 3.5
− 𝐹𝑚𝑓𝑑𝑢𝑠𝑗𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑧𝑄𝑠𝑗𝑑𝑓 ≥ 0.093
A short-term market stagnation where transport companies are waiting for robust OEM products (especially for rigids) can be anticipated, given that they are faced with uncertainties on the purchase of higher priced products from conversion companies. This stagnation is not desirable, since there is a significant optimization potential by a combination of smart fleet planning and optimal charging regimes Here national or more localized legislation, and/or incentive programs, could play a significant role in encouraging the uptake of electric commercial vehicles in the next few years.
Hans Quak and Robert Koffrie
hans.quak@tno.nl robert.koffrie@tno.nl For more information:
(on transition towards zero emission city logistics, TCO analyses and requirements for wide scale electrification)
http://frevue.eu/reports/
Questions and Answers