中国公路货运电动化：49吨电动牵引半挂车

Authors: Tianlin Niu and Geyi Zhu INTRODUCTION Deploying new energy vehicles (NEVs) is an essential step for accelerating thetransition to more green and sustainable freight transport across industries. In recentyears, China has announced implementation plans for ultra-low emission standardstargeting three key industries: iron and steel, cement, and coke. These standardsinclude NEV deployment targets for freight transport (Ministry of Ecology andEnvironment, 2024a, 2024b, 2019). To better understand the benefits of deploying ZETs in these high-pollution industries,this paper presents a total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis to compare theperformance of electric trucks with swap-capable batteries to diesel trucks in coalproduct transportation. We also compare the costs of buying a BET with the batteryversus buying one under a battery-as-a-service (BaaS) model.1All data and informationused in this analysis were collected from publicly available sources or by our partnerorganizations. All data and information used in this analysis were collected frompublicly available sources or by our partner organizations. This study is part of a series on real-world use cases of ZETs and is intended to informthe use of battery-electric and fuel-cell electric trucks in other industrial sectors.2 www.theicct.org communications@theicct.org @theicct.org USE-CASE ANALYSIS The ZET fleet in this use case contained 50 swap-capable electric tractor-trailers,purchased in 2021 under a battery-as-a-service (BaaS) model. Batteries were suppliedby the battery swapping station supplier. The ZET fleet was used mainly for coalproduct, together with 18 diesel tractor-trailers. These tractor-trailers have two primaryfreight routes for their daily operation: a 4 km delivery from the production field to apower plant on a nearby hill and a 50 km route from the production field to the freightstation. Table 1 shows the technical specifications of the current in-use diesel trucks and BETs,as well as the FCETs that could potentially be used. The retail price of the trucks variesgreatly between powertrain types, ranging from ¥300,000 for the diesel truck and¥1,500,000 for the FCET. The price of the BET with the battery installed is ¥806,000,compared to ¥436,000 for a swap-capable BET. The maximum payload of BETs andFCETs with the same trailers are both 2.63 t less than diesel trucks. The operational information for the different truck operation routes is presentedinTable2.Inthe first usecase, the truckstravel 7.5 km (round trip) todeliver coalproducts to a power plantlocatedonasmall hill. These trips occurasoftenas 30timesper day.Inthe secondcase,truckstravel 95 km (round trip) todeliver the products toa freight station.These tripsrun,at most,six times per day.The trucksarerandomlyassigned toeachroute,making itdifficult to quantify theirreal-worldactivity.For this study, we assumethata truck will be used for onlyoneusecase,will be fullyloadedfrom the origin to the destination,and willreturnempty. The costs of the in-use diesel trucks and BETs, broken down by capital expendituresand operating expenses, are listed inTable3. Currently, only diesel trucks are subjectto a purchase tax and an ownership tax; BETs are exempt from these taxes. All BETs inthe colliery use battery swapping for refueling. A fixed grid electricity price of ¥0.6 perkWh, a battery-swapping station service fee of ¥0.2 per kWh, and a battery rental feeof ¥0.6 per kWh are charged, totaling ¥1.4/kWh. The operational profiles of the two use cases are shown inFigure1.Inthepower plantcase, the plant is about 80m above the colliery,and the truck experiencesidling timewhendroppingoff coalatthe plant. Inthefreight station case, therouteincludeshighways where the truck’s speed is over 40km/h, and the elevationis somewhatconsistent. We observed that the fleet owner was aware of thelower energy costs of ZETs.However, the key challenge is that the use of ZETs generates lessrevenuebecausecarrying the battery results in alowerpayload. TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP AND PROFIT Figure2 provides an overview of the current TCO, revenue, and resulting profit ofdiesel and battery-electric trucks in the colliery, assuming the trucks are used for onlyone of the use cases.The total cost of ownership assumes trucks are in operation for8 years in thepower plantcaseand 6 years in thefreight station case.To understandthe benefits of buying swap-capable BETs (marked as BET–BaaS), we also estimate theresults for fleet ownerswhobuy BETs withabattery (indicatedas BET). The resultsof the TCO analysisindicate: »TheBETs thatare charged via battery swapping havea lower TCOcomparedwithdiesel trucks. »In thepower plant case, usinga BET with battery swapping results in a3.8%lowerTCO than using a diesel truck,whilethe TCO of using aBETwith upfront batterypurchase is 2.2% lower.»Forthefreight station case, using a BET with and without BaaS will havea 10.4%and 19.8% lower TCO, respectively,than using a diesel t