Decarbonizing SCIENCE & RESEARCH International Transportation | Collection 2021 57 Future transportation A current review of goods transportation decarbonizing Battery electric trucks, Green logistics, Decarbonizing, Goods transportation, Renewable energies, CO₂ emissions reduction In 2019, the European Parliament endorsed the objective to make the European Union climate-neutral by 2050. The transportation sector is highly affected by this decision as carriers need to look for low emission trucking solutions. The paper summarizes the current state of research concerning battery electric trucks (BETs). It examines major studies on ready-to-use technology that can be immediately implemented by carriers. The results were then compared with data sheets from battery electric truck manufacturers and with experts’ interviews conducted during two state founded research projects. This combination of sources provided senior management of both logistics service providers as well as carrying companies the key economic and environmental impacts of battery-electric heavy-duty trucks. Boris Zimmermann, Jozo Acksteiner, Lou Coenen, Philipp Knauf O n June 25 th 2019, the European Commission released Regulation 2019/ 1242, which requires truck manufacturers to reduce CO 2 emissions in their fleets by 15 % by 2025 in comparison to 2019, and by 30 % in 2030. In Article 12 of the regulation, the EU further commits to monitor real time data of the trucks to calculate the CO 2 results for each manufacturer. Manufacturers face severe consequences if the targets are not reached and would have to pay up to EUR 4,250 per g CO 2 per tkm when exceeding the limits [1]. With this legislation the path for low emission vehicles is set. However, the EU regulation does not demand battery electric trucks (BETs), but only speaks of Zero or Low Emissions Vehicles (ZLEVs). Nevertheless, this regulation is a game changer and therefore truck manufacturers must provide new solutions. In January 2019 the EU started drafting the legislation to reduce CO 2 emissions of newly sold trucks from 2025 on. This legislation was strongly influenced by academic research and the work of NGOs, such as the European Federation for Transport and Environment AISBL, which was focused on BETs [2]. Objectives This paper aims to determine whether BETs are a viable possibility for reducing the transport sector’s carbon footprint, and an economically sound alternative to diesel trucks. Therefore, their TCO, energy consumption and CO 2 emissions will be examined. The paper focusses on Heavy Duty Trucks (HDT) as these are most critical to be electrified, because of their disproportionally high CO 2 emissions compared to their relative share in road traffic [3]. In the following, we refer to be battery operated vehicle as BE HDTs. Science Research Method In the first step, six studies are selected for in-depth examination. The key information of these studies is summarized, and the limitations of each study are analysed. The papers are closely viewed regarding their TCO calculation, the total CO 2 emissions of the overall supply chain, and the costs of the infrastructure to provide charging stations. The following key factors were examined: 1. The impact of the energy mix regarding CO2emissions (E) 2. The data quality of the reviewed studies (D) 3. The costs of lithium batteries regarding CO 2 emissions (B) 4. If and how a market review of BETs is done (MR) 5. The influence of temperature on BETs driving range-(T) 6. The up-to-datedness of the data used in the reviewed studies (UTD) These key factors and their influence on BETs are then deeper investigated. This is done on the bases of the data limitations found in each study. A scoring model is introduced to evaluate how the examined papers cover the relevant key factors. In the second step, the data from the examined studies is compared with data sheets from truck manufactures offering BETs. Additionally, experts from manufacturers and logistics companies are interviewed about their experiences with constructing and driving BETs, and data from the research projects EN WIN and EMOLSE2020 is analysed. PEER REVIEW Submission: 18 Feb 2020 Final version: 30 Apr 2020 SCIENCE & RESEARCH Decarbonizing International Transportation | Collection 2021 58 The analysis’s results supported manufacturers, regulators, and researchers by showing if BETs promise actual potential regarding their market readiness and, consequentially, their potential for road transport decarbonisation. Step 1: Literature review Six studies about BETs are selected for in-depth analysis (2013-2019). Table 1 shows all literature which was deeply examined, what types of truck was analysed, how they reference to each other and how often they are quoted by each other [4]. As table 1 shows, the main literature on the topic of BETs and that the recent authors use material from older studies, especially the study of Den Boer is cited often. Next the main content of the studies is summarized and reviewed. Table 2 only provides a short review of the studies. Therefore, the studies will now be closer examined regarding the before mentioned key factors (E, D, B, MR, T, UTD). The key factors are further subdivided into 13 categories to increase the resolution and listed in a scoring model to evaluate the studies on their emphasis and deficits in a short but detailed overview. The studies are marked with a “+” or “-” depending on whether they contain or consider information regarding each of the 13 sub-categories, and if they are still to be considered as up to date. Table 3 shows the results of the scoring analysis. Den Boers [9] papers took 9 out of 13 key factors into account, Sen [8] 8 out of 13, Mareev [7] and Earl [6] 7 out of 13. These papers are also the most cited studies. However, Den Boer [9] and Sen [8] are to be considered as outdated. This makes further academic research necessary. The most significant shortcoming is the lack of data from real driving experiments (Real Data D1) and the impact of the temperature on the energy consumption (T2), followed by emissions of battery manufacturing (B3) and then by the cost of infrastructure (E2). In this paper the impact of the temperature on the energy consumption (T2) could not be analysed because there was not sufficient data collected in the research programs. To determine the TCO, real market battery prices (B1) are the most important factor. This is only considered by three studies: Den Boer [9], Earl [6] and Sen [8]. The other papers just refer to these three studies, without conducting their own market research. Most of the studies used real market data, all studies analysed the problem of battery weight in the context of payload losses. The most relevant studies covering the 13 key factors are den Boer [9] and Sen [8], but as they were published in 2013 and 2016 they do not provide a sufficiently up-todate database for decision makers. The following four gaps in the research will be examined in detail: 1. Real data (D1) 2. Real market battery prices (B1) 3. Cost of infrastructure (E2) 4. Emissions of battery manufacturing (B3) These topics are most reluctantly analysed in the literature so far, what will be compensated now. To analyse the temperature impact on the battery (T1) and on the consumption (T2) the collected data was not sufficient. Hence, the gap could not be closed. Step : Comparison of the data provided by the reviewed studies and data from 2018 to 2021 as a result from the research projects EN WIN and EMLOSE2020 In the second step, the data used in the examined studies is compared with real data, with the aim to close the four parts of lack of research mentioned above (D1, B1, E2 and B3). The data for this analysis is taken from two research projects, sponsored by state subsidies from Hesse (Germany) and the Federal Republic of Germany. The first research project EMOLSE2020 [12] was conducted between 2016 and 2018. The first series model of a BE HDT 4x2 was tested during one year by several carriers in Hesse. During the tests, two terra bytes of real-world data were generated from real driving in Hesse. A data logger was installed, taking data from the CAN-BUS of the trucks, to record as much data as possible in accordance with the Fleet Management System (FMS) standard. The second research project was EN WIN [13], which started in 2017 and ended in 2021. Two trucks of the initial series of BE HDT 18 t 4x2 were analysed the same way as in EMOLSE2020 [12]. Additionally, market offers of BE HDT were reviewed, experts were interviewed and data of BE HDT and diesel HDT was collected. EN WIN [13] included a detailed market research with the goal to buy a BE HDT. Quotations were obtained from different BE truck manufactures in Germany. Real data (D1) The market for BETs is described in detail by Wyatt [3]. The data from Wyatt [3] is taken for a detailed market analysis in addition with own research results. The results are compared with the reviewed paper, the focus of the analysis being on Germany. Additionally, a total of 29 market offers of BETs were compared, divided into tractor units and trucks with 26 t total gross weight as well as 18 t total gross weight. The average battery size and range were determined, as well as the resulting consumption per km driven. The results are shown in figure-1 and figure 2. Nr. Study Year LDT MDT HDT References Number of citations 1 Liimatainen [5] 2019 X X Earl [6], Mareev [7], Sen [8], and den Boer [9] 0 2 Earl [6] 2018 X Mareev [7], Sen[8], and den Boer [9] 1 3 Mareev [7] 2018 X Sen [8], Dünnebeil [10] and den Boer [9] 2 4 Sen [8] 2016 X X den Boer [9] 3 5 Dünnebeil [10] 2015 X den Boer [9] 1 6 Den Boer [9] 2013 X X 5 Table 1: List of studies analysing BETs by year, if light duty trucks (LDT), MDT or HDT are examined, to which studies they refer and the number of citations in the other studies Decarbonizing SCIENCE & RESEARCH International Transportation | Collection 2021 59 The average range is 290 km considering the six major offers of BETs with 26 TGW and the average battery net capacity is 283 kWh. Analysing 11 offers of BETs of tractor units (40 TGW) the average battery net capacity is 423 kWh and the average range is 324 km. The battery size is scalable from 100 up to 800 kWh. The standard offers are 240 and 310 kWh for trucks with less than 26 t TGW. In this respect, the results are different when calculating energy consumption per km. The net capacity of batteries is lower than the capacity as specified by the manufacturer. The studies are roughly in line with today’s market offerings. The ranges were assessed more conservatively than by the suppliers themselves. In the research programs BE tractor units were not available and therefore no test results could be collected, this is Nr. Author Summary Critics 1 Liimatainen [5] The electrification potential of road transportation is calculated based on the energy consumption of an average road transport in Finland and Switzerland. Data assumptions are also made about the energy density of the batteries, the charging power, and time variations of the working shifts. Recharging power is considered as well as gross vehicle weight restrictions and the influence of hilly highway routes. The result of this analysis is that in Switzerland 58 % of the MDT and 18 % of HDT could be replaced with BETs. In Finland it would be 38 % of MDT and 28 % of HDT. The study assumes that the energy consumption is linear with the driving time. It also assumes that the battery capacities and the ranges provided by the manufacturers are accurate. The ambient temperature as a significant parameter for the trucks’ energy consumption is not considered, nor are aerodynamic effects mentioned in the study. The report is focussed on very small countries in Europe and therefore results cannot be transferred on a bigger scale. 2 Earl [6] Ten different truck manufacturers which introduced BET models between 2012 and 2018 were examined. By comparing rolling resistance and drivetrain efficiencies between diesel HDT and BE HDT, it shows the superiority of BETs in energy consumption and emissions. Several battery sizes are discussed. The cost for infrastructure were also calculated and the TCO for a diesel truck as well as a BET. Wages, vehicle costs, road use charges, insurance, energy, fast charging, maintenance, and repair were included in the TCO. The paper assumes laboratory conditions, simple calculations and without using experimental driving data. No simulation for energy consumption in different driving scenarios, e.g., mountains or flat land, is conducted. The effect of temperature is not considered. A deeper analysis of the battery market is also not included. 3 Mareev [7] The life cycle costs of HDT considering the requirements of long-haul transportation were analysed. The study considers the average energy consumption on German highways, using different battery sizes and simulated transportation scenarios. The latter includes payloads, infrastructure costs, and the total costs of ownership. In his simulation model Mareev considers air resistance, rolling resistance, slope resistance, acceleration resistance, cell temperature, overall temperature, state of charge, aging over time and loading cycle aging of the battery cells. The assumption of 1 Mio. km per truck live lies more than 10 % above an estimate given by German DEKRA automotive Ltd. [11]. It remains to be proven whether batteries will last for seven years or longer under real-world conditions. The cost of the battery pack are only assumptions, its estimated price is based on theoretical studies but not on actual market prices. Due to this, the real price range is unclear and not predictable for potential buyers. 4 Sen [8] The BE HDT in comparison with CNG, hybrid and conventional diesel trucks were examined, comparing their total emissions in respect to the manufacturing process (raw material extraction, transportation of raw material and production) and the total costs of ownership. The EIO-LCA (Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment) and process-LCA were used to explore the environmental impacts. The truck’s lifespan and average annual mileage, the maintenance of lithium-ion batteries and manufacturing cost of the battery system as well as battery replacement costs, the costs of the electric motor, and the costs of the power electronics were examined. The cost of energy strongly depends on numerous factors, for example energy market, green energy price, general grid costs and amount of energy bought by the company. Furthermore, the battery replacement cycle depends on the range. The energy consumption and therefore the cost of energy also strongly depend on the range and the road gradient. There is no data from real-world driving tests, only simulations. Due to differences in energy mix all over the world, the real emissions can only be estimated. 5 Dünnebeil [10] A simulation is done with the help of the Vehicle Energy Consumption Calculation Tool (VECTO) which considered 90 different technical criteria such as engine and powertrain, aerodynamics, rolling resistance, optimisation of vehicle weight, auxiliary consumers and vehicle control. The document’s aim was to reduce CO₂ emissions of trucks and then analyse the TCO. It distinguishes between a 40 t truck on long haul cycles and regional delivery cycle compared with a 12 t truck in an urban delivery cycle. The paper uses a Well-to-Wheel method and calculates the parameters for CO₂ emissions. The service life under real driving conditions has a maximum of seven years not eighteen [11]. The service life of MDT is a lot shorter under real conditions than Dünnebeil [10] assumes. The data presented for the trucks’ TCO is a theoretical assumption and can hardly be compared to truck usage in real driving situations. The fluctuations of energy prices, the simulations with no real driving data, and the battery price taken from studies instead of real market prices are additional problematic areas of this study. 6 Den Boer [9] This paper starts with a market review of BE MDT and HDT. It gives a projection how energy density (Wh/ kg) needs to develop to make BETs market ready. This paper reviews truck simulation concepts from 2010 and different ways to charge energy. The data is from 2010 and none of the BETs in the paper are available for purchase anymore. Furthermore, the results are not detailed enough for decisions makers in logistics management. Unfortunately, none of these ideas are still considered state-of-the-art. Den Boer also reviews catenary and hydrogen trucks. As this paper solely focusses on BETs, both options are not examined any closer. The cost basis of den Boer is 2010. Table 2: List of studies analysing BETs by year, if light duty trucks (LDT), MDT or HDT are examined, to which studies they refer and the number of citations in the other studies SCIENCE & RESEARCH Decarbonizing International Transportation | Collection 2021 60 the reason why only BE HDT with less than 26 TWG were analysed. A benchmark analysis followed. Logistics companies which have already tested a BE HDT made exact statements towards the range of the used truck. These statements were published in business journals and newspapers, where they were collected [15 to 27]. A total of eight key statements are summarised figure 3 shows the results. With a test drive range of only 140 km the real ranges are much lower than the data sheets promised with 290 km. The specifications on the suppliers’ data sheets are not reached in practice. This gap between theoretical range and actual range can also be observed when comparing e-cars and fossil fuel driven cars see [28]. The factor here is almost 50 % in the consumption figures, which is as high as in the comparison with this analysis. One of the reasons for this is the gradient of the road. The higher it is the more energy is needed - therefore, hilly roads are less suitable for BE HDTs. An upper and lower limit for the range of a 26-t BET was defined, based on this study. The lower limit is 140-km driving range and the upper limit is 190 km [29]. To further analyse range and energy consumption the test results from EN-WIN [13] and EMOLSE2020 [12] are added to the research made so fare. In the further investigation, a BET was examined during a period of one year. During this period, the values from journeys in the greater Berlin area were evalu- Study 1 Fluctuating Electricity Prices (E1) 2 Cost of Infrastructure (E2) 3 Different Energy Mixes (E3) 4 Real Data (D1) 5 Simulation Data (D2) 6 Different Driving Scenarios (D3) 7 Real Market Battery Prices (B1) 8 Payload Losses (B2) 9 Emissions of Battery Manufacturing (B3) 10 Market Review (MR) 11 Temperature Impact on the Battery (T1) 12 Temperature Impact on the Consumption (T2) 13 Up-to-datedness (UTD) ∑ Den Boer [9] + - + - + + + + + + + - - 9 Sen [8] + - + - + + + + - + + - - 8 Mareev [7] + + - - + + - + - - + - + 7 Earl [6] + + + - - - + + - + - - + 7 Liimatainen [5] - - - - + + - + - + - - + 5 Dünnebeil [10] - - + - + + - + - - - - - 4 ∑ 4 2 4 0 5 5 3 6 1 4 3 0 3 Table 3: The results of scoring analysis of the key factors Figure 1: Current models of BETs with less than 26 t TGW, Research paper [9] Figure 2: Current models of BETs with 40 t TGW (tractor units); Research papers [6, 7, 14] Figure 3: Figure 1 with added practical benchmark analysis Decarbonizing SCIENCE & RESEARCH International Transportation | Collection 2021 61 ated, and further values from journeys within one month in Germany were generated and analysed. Figure 4 and figure 5 show the measured tour kilometres in Berlin and in Germany. The test truck was a BE HDT 18 t 4x2 with 18 t TGW, first registration in 2015 as Designation Vehicle type [5], as truck panel with an empty mass of 12,040 kg (BET incl. batteries). The total payload was 5,960 kg, and the rated battery capacity was 240 kWh. The driving capacity was supposed to be 300 to 350 km with an energy consumption of 1 kWh/ km. After one year of tests in Berlin, the truck had a maximum range of 220 km and an average range of 110 km. The energy consumption was 1,3 kWh/ km. Berlin is a very flat area and, as a big city, predestined for BETs. Therefore, additional four weeks of test drives were conducted by four companies in Germany. The truck drove 165 km as maximum and an average of 146 km with an energy consumption 1,56 kWh/ km. The mileages were comparable to the benchmarking results of the other companies with BETs in use. Thus, the assumptions were verified by test drives. With the help of these findings, approx. 7.2 million km and 27,000 tours in six companies were now evaluated to show how many diesel trucks could be replaced by BETs. The lower (140 km) and upper (190 km) limits found were used to make a prediction of how many diesel trucks could be replaced by BETs. The results of the evaluation are depicted in figure 6. Due to the range restrictions, only 13 % of the tours can be driven with a BET, and in total only 5 out of 54 trucks can be completely replaced by a BET. It should be noted that the vehicles examined were already preselected by the companies, which assumed that they could be completely replaced by a vehicle with a range of at least 190 km. If a range of 400 km was consistently possible, 51 % of trips could be made with a BET. The analysis shows that in practice, BETs can currently only be used to a very limited extent. The figures given by the manufacturers are more than 34 % above the maximum possible ranges, and the consumption figures are also significantly higher. The real test drives on actual routes show that BETs are currently not an alternative to diesel (table 4). Real market battery prices (B1) To achieve a range of 400 km at a consumption of 1.54 kWh/ km, the battery must have a size of 616 kWh. An estimate of the battery costs was made based on a total of eight different sources [30]. The results were formed by linear interpolation of the mean values, considering the scatter [31]. In this way, the market price of a battery was calculated. In addition, various sources on the second life of the battery were analysed [32 to 40]. The battery’s residual value was determined in this way, which is essential for the TCO of a BET. The battery costs are expected to decrease significantly in 2035 based on the hope of radical technical improvements and innovations. These innovations are still under development, the assumptions are based on ex post reviews and therefore not exact predictions of the real future values. As table 5 shows, from 2040 onwards, the costs of the battery would have a significantly lower impact on the TCO due to its resale value. In this context, the TCO of a BET with 26 t TGW will be compared with different market offers so that the influence of the battery costs can be shown. Assuming that costs for employees and general overhead are equal, Figure 4: Recorded test drives - Berlin Figure 5: Recorded test drives - Germany SCIENCE & RESEARCH Decarbonizing International Transportation | Collection 2021 62 the TCO analysis boils down to a few factors that are determine the cost. First, all quotations considered had significantly higher purchasing prices than their diesel equivalents, namely two 26 t TGW trucks costing EUR 345,000 and EUR 335,000 respectively, as well as a quotation for a tractor unit being offered for EUR 307,000 [42, 43, 44] (table 6). Knowing the batteries share of the price for one of the quotations and considering table 5, it is sound to assume that the development of the purchasing prices is closely tied to the advancements in battery technology. In BET1 battery costs were responsible for 49 % of the total costs [42]. The second major driver of costs is ongoing costs for energy and maintenance. One of the manufacturers states the maintenance costs of a BET to be 20-% below that of a comparable diesel truck [46] (table 7). Energy costs are depending on the specific road driven, the weight carried and the energy price of the company. Due to this it is hard to compare these factors against diesel trucks. However, with 1,56 kWh/ km and a maximum auf 6 t payload the energy costs of the BETs are 20 % higher than a comparable truck with a payload of 10 t and more than 60 % higher than a truck with the same payload [11, 47, 48]. Due to this fixed costs and variable cost are significantly higher than comparable diesel trucks until 2040 this will not change. One of the major reasons for purchasing BETs is the lower CO 2 emissions. As shown above the TCO are three to four times higher. Using the energy consumption of 1,56 kWh/ km the results of the analysing the emissions are shown in figure 7. With 730 g/ km the CO 2 emissions of the BET are higher than the emissions of a 12 TGW diesel truck with a comparable payload. Compared to a diesel truck with 26 t TGW, the BET only emits 42g/ km less. This shows that BETs do not reduce TCO and they do not significantly reduce CO 2 emissions. Only with a different energy mix the CO 2 emissions will be lower, for example in Austria or Switzerland. As mentioned above, batteries need to provide energy for a range of 400 km to enable BETs to replace 51 % of tours, which is projected for 2030 in table 5. Whether this will lead to sufficient mileage to tip the TCO in favour of BETs will depend on the diesel and energy prices - how they will look nine years in the future cannot be predicted. Until battery technology has sufficiently developed, BETs depend on government subsidies or higher taxation of fossil fuels to be economically viable options for carriers. Cost of infrastructure (E2) Additionally, there are two more hurdles: To charge a BET in an acceptable time, fast charging stations and the electrical infrastructure to support them are additionally necessary investments. Adding to that, the capability of an industrial park’s local electric grid to support a larger number of battery-electric vehicles may become a returning point of debate with an increase in BETs - making further investments necessary. The additional investments had to make to drive with a BET, which leads to even more higher costs. Emissions of battery manufacturing (B3) A total of 15 literature sources were evaluated, and the average emissions per year were presented in table 8 [54-to 68]. CO 2 emissions and their equivalents were calculated on the basis of a 400 kWh battery. The emissions were then converted from kilograms to grams. An annual mileage of 50,000 km was assumed for a useful life of 4-years. By this, the emissions per km were calculated as follows: It shows that the emissions from battery production have decreased by more than 70 % since 2011, the effect on the total emissions are shrinking year by year. Data reviewed Results Trucks total reviewed 54 Total kilometres analysed 7,274,014 Total trips analysed 26,935 Average kilometres driven over 3 years per day per truck 239 Number of electrifiable tours 3,436 Electrifiable share of the analysed tours 13 % Trucks that can be completely replaced by an e-truck without intermediate charging 5 of 54 Table 4: Overview of test drives and electrifiable tours Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 kWh 616 616 616 616 616 EUR/ kWh 500 420 350 250 125 Total battery costs in EUR [41] 308,000 258,720 215,600 154,000 77,000 Driving Range with an energy consumption of 1,56 kWh/ km 400 400 400 400 400 Residual value after reaching the 80 % capacity limit in % 0 % 10 % 20 % 50 % 80 % Residual value after reaching the 80 % capacity limit 0 25,872 43,120 77,000 61,600 Table 5: Projected development of battery cost and performance Mercedes Actros 2545 LL BET 1 (26t TGW) BET 2 (26t TGW) BET 3 (Tractor) 110,000 EUR 345,000 EUR 335,000 EUR 307,000 EUR Table 6: Purchasing prices of BETs vs. diesel truck [45] Figure 6: Figure 3 with added data from test drives in Berlin and Germany Decarbonizing SCIENCE & RESEARCH International Transportation | Collection 2021 63 Conclusion Summing up the results, major gaps in the current research were discovered: The lack of real driving-data, the lack of actual battery prices as well as the necessary investments in infrastructure, and the lack of consideration of the emissions of the battery production. The effect of temperature on the battery and energy consumption was identified as a gap in research, but the available data was insufficient to address this. A comparison of real driving data from the studies EMOLSE2020 and EN-WIN in Germany with technical data from manufacturers, and with reports from practice shows that BETs are currently still on the lower end of the range which is predict from manufacturers (figure 6). After analysing 26.935 tours in Berlin and Germany (table 4), only 13 % of those are considered for being driven with a BET. Hence, being on the lower end of the potential can be attributed to the limited potential, as batteries do not yet provide sufficient range to enable BETs to drive longer and consequentially more tours. BETs have significantly higher purchasing prices, which are to a large part a result of the expensive batteries and their significant decrease in resale value. Simultaneously, the battery’s limited capacity prevents the cost advantages of lower energy and maintenance costs to make a sufficient impact to neutralise the higher upfront investment. Additionally, the necessary investments in infrastructure are costly. This makes the advancements in battery technology, namely their cost, resale value and capacity, the primary constraint for the future viability of BETs as an economically sound alternative to diesel trucks. Projecting the development of prices and capacity as in table 5, sufficient ranges will be available in 2030, with the overall cost dropping sharply in 2040. Yet, the development of the battery production’s emissions gives hope: In the last nine years, the emissions have decreased by 70 % (table 8), rendering their footprint substantially less significant. ■ REFERENCES [1] European Union, Regulation (EU) 2019/ 1242 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 setting CO 2 emission performance standards for new heavy-duty vehicles and amending Regulations (EC) No 595/ 2009 and (EU) 2018/ 956 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Directive 96/ 53/ EC. 2019. https: / / eur-lex. europa.eu/ eli/ reg/ 2019/ 1242/ oj [2] Transport & Environment, About us. www.transportenvironment.org/ about-us (accessaccess Juni 21, 2021). [3] D. Wyatt, Electric Trucks 2020-2030. 2020. [4] Trucks can be categorised in various ways. LDT, MDT and HDT refer to the US convention, which is widely adapted and used. MDT range from 8.500 to 26.000 pounds (3.856 to 11.793 kg) in Total Gross Weight (TGW), heavier trucks being considered as HDT, lighter trucks being considered as LDT. When put next to their metric analogues, MDT range from above 3,5 tons to 12 tons. If we do not state otherwise, weight categorisations as in e.g. a 12 tons truck always refer to its TGW. [5] H. Liimatainen, O. van Vliet, und D. Aplyn, The potential of electric trucks - An international commodity-level analysis. In: Appl. Energy, Bd. 236, S. 804-814, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.1016/ j.apenergy.2018.12.017. [6] T. Earl, L. Mathieu, S. Cornelis, S. Kenny, C. C. Ambel, J. Nix: Analysis of long haul battery electric trucks in EU. In: Eur. Fed. Transp. Environ. TE, S. 22, 2018. [7] I. Mareev, J. Becker, D. U. Sauer: Battery Dimensioning and Life Cycle Costs Analysis for a Heavy-Duty Truck Considering the Requirements of Long-Haul Transportation. In: Energies, Bd. 11, Nr. 1, Art. Nr. 1, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.3390/ en11010055. [8] B. Sen, T. Ercan, O. Tatari: Does a battery-electric truck make a difference? - Life cycle emissions, costs, and externality analysis of alternative fuel-powered Class 8 heavy-duty trucks in the United States. In: J. Clean. Prod., Bd. 141, S. 110-121, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1016/ j. jclepro.2016.09.046. [9] E. den Boer, S. Aarnik, F. Kleigner, J. Pagenkopf: Zero emissions trucks: An overview of state-of-the-art technologies and their potential, S. 151, 2013. [10] F. Dünnebeil, C. Reinhard, U. Lambrecht, A. Kies, S. Hausberger, M. Rexeis: Zukünftige Maßnahmen zur Kraftstoffeinsparung und Treibhausgasminderung bei schweren Nutzfahrzeugen, S. 213. [11] Lastauto Omnibus Katalog 2018, Bd. 47. Stuttgart: Eurotransport Verlags- und Veranstaltungsgesellschaft GmbH, 2019. [12] EMOLSE2020 - Elektromobilität im Schwerlastverkehr 2020, Forschungsprojekt der Hochschule Fulda gefördert durch das Land Hessen. www.hs-fulda.de/ wirtschaft/ forschung/ forschungsprojekte/ emolse-2020 (access Juni 17, 2021). [13] EN-WIN - Elektromobile Nutzfahrzeuge wirtschaftlich und nachhaltig einsetzen, Forschungsprojekt der Hochschule Fulda gefördert durch das Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit. www.en-win.de/ (access Juni 21, 2021). [14] S. Kühnel, F. Hacker, W. Görz: Erster Teilbericht des Forschungsvorhabens “StratON - Bewertung und Einführungsstrategien für oberleitungsgebundene schwere Nutzfahrzeuge”, S. 151. [15] KFZ-Anzeiger, E-Actros im CO₂-neutralen Verteilerverkehr, Aug. 18, 2020. https: / / kfzanzeiger.com/ logistik-verkehr/ e-actros-im-CO₂-neutralen-verteilerverkehr (access Apr. 04, 2021). Type Power Price Mobile Charger 25 kW 15.000 € Mobile Charger 40 kW 25.000 EUR Stationary Charger 150 kW 58.000 EUR Stationary Charger 300 kW 155.000 EUR Table 7: Types of charger, power and price [53] 2011 2013 2016 2020 kg CO₂ eq / kWh 200 180 80 60 kWh 400 400 400 400 Total CO₂ in kg 80,000 72,000 32,000 24,000 Total CO₂ in g 80,000,000 72,000,000 32,000,000 24,000,000 g/ km with a total driving range of 200,000 km 400 360 160 120 Table 8: Emissions of battery production, spread over mileage and per km Figure 7: Comparison of CO 2 equivalent emissions per km from three different diesel trucks to the BET test truck [11, 49 to 52] SCIENCE & RESEARCH Decarbonizing International Transportation | Collection 2021 64 [16] C. Harttmann: Renault Trucks: Erster vollelektrischer 26-Tonner für Carlsberg-Gruppe. In: TRANSPORT, Nov. 26, 2020. https: / / transport-online.de/ news/ renault-trucks-erster-vollelektrischer-26-tonner-fuer-carlsberg-gruppe-40756.html (access Apr. 04, 2021). [17] J. Hoffmann: E-Lkw für Lyon: Renault übergibt D Wide Z.E.: In: Eurotransport, Juli 02, 2019. www.eurotransport.de/ artikel/ e-lkw-fuer-lyon-renault-uebergibt-d-wide-z-e- 10843664.html (access Apr. 03, 2021). [18] C. Nallinger: Ludwig Meyer beliefert Rewe-Märkte: In Hamburg mit dem eActros unterwegs. In: Eurotransport, Okt. 19, 2018. www.eurotransport.de/ artikel/ ludwig-meyerbeliefert-rewe-maerkte-in-hamburg-mit-dem-eactros-unterwegs-10477290.html (access Apr. 04, 2021). [19] T. Buchholz: Elektromobilität: Zwei eActros für die Schweiz. In: TRANSPORT, Juni 19, 2019. https: / / transport-online.de/ news/ elektromobilitaet-zwei-eactros-fuer-die-schweiz-14847.html (access Apr. 04, 2021). [20] C. Benetti: German food discounter tests heavy etruck. In: Transport Journal, Jan. 07, 2021. www.transportjournal.com/ en/ home/ news/ artikeldetail/ german-food-discounter-tests-heavy-etruck.html (access Apr. 04, 2021). [21] H. Petro: Rhyner Logistik mit neuer Energie unterwegs. In: TIR transNews, Jan. 27, 2021. www.tir-transnews.ch/ rhyner-logistik-mit-neuer-energie-unterwegs/ (access Apr. 03, 2021). [22] C. Benetti: Solar energy is cool. In: Transport Journal, Jan. 11, 2021. www.transportjournal. com/ en/ home/ news/ artikeldetail/ solar-energy-is-cool.html (access Apr. 03, 2021). [23] D. Kohnen: Rigterink Logistikgruppe testet Lkw eActros. In: TRANSPORT, Mai 09, 2019. https: / / transport-online.de/ news/ rigterink-logistikgruppe-testet-lkw-eactros-14449. html (access Apr. 04, 2021). [24] J. Hoffmann: Mercedes eActros Erprobung: E-Lkw starten in die zweite Testphase, Eurotransport, Aug. 06, 2020. www.eurotransport.de/ artikel/ mercedes-eactros-erprobunge-lkw-starten-in-die-zweite-testphase-11166247.html (access Apr. 04, 2021). [25] Transport-Online.nl: Transport Online - Simon Loos gaat de eerste Mercedes-Benz eActros van Nederland in de praktijk testen, Aug. 06, 2020. www.transport-online.nl/ site/ 117631/ simon-loos-gaat-de-eerste-mercedes-benz-eactros-van-nederland-in-depraktijk-testen/ (access Apr. 04, 2021). [26] T. Schweikl: E-Lkw: Mercedes-Benz eActros im Pharmatransport. In: LOGISTRA, Nov. 06, 2020. https: / / logistra.de/ news/ nfz-fuhrpark-lagerlogistik-intralogistik-e-lkw-mercedes-benz-eactros-im-pharmatransport-61027.html (access Apr. 04, 2021). [27] C. Benetti: First Belgium haulier tests battery-electric truck. In: Transport Journal, Nov. 06, 2020. www.transportjournal.com/ en/ home/ news/ artikeldetail/ first-belgium-hauliertests-battery-electric-truck.html (access Apr. 04, 2021). [28] Kostenvergleich: Elektroauto vs. Benziner (TCO-Analyse). The Mobility House. www. mobilityhouse.com/ de_de/ ratgeber/ tco-vergleich-elektroauto-vs-benziner (access Juni 22, 2021). [29] Based on this initial investigation, a total of 26 companies were now surveyed, followed by a workshop. Four companies were now surveyed, followed by a workshop. Four companies were willing to use an e-truck on their routes, six companies provided their data for the analysis of the average range of diesel trucks. The result of the survey was that 25 % of the companies questioned would only use BETs for trips less than 50 km, 12 % only for trips below 100 km and 25 % only for trips under 150 km. Based on these estimates, the companies generally assumed a 34 % discount on the manufacturers’ stated range. Therefore, the maximum range is 190 km which is 34 % from 290 km. [30] The development of the energy density from 2015 to 2030 was calculated on the bases of the studies of Liimatainen [4], Kühnel [13], Mareev [6], Sen [7] and den Boer [8]. In comparison Illgen [47] and eforce [48] made own predictions. On this basis the net capacity is calculated, with a rising energy density and a constant battery volume the capacity is rising exponentially. [31] Only two out of 29 offers utilised LiFePo-batteries. [32] M. Atzorn, C. Gey, F. Leplow, M. Piayda: Projektarbeit der Hochschule RheinMain in Kooperation mit Prof. Dr. Thomas Schmid Hessisches Landesamt für Naturschutz, Umwelt und Geologie, S. 61, März 2018. [33] M. Gellner, L. Wuschke, H.-G. Jäckel, U. A. Peuker: Akkus mechanisch aufbereiten. In: Recycl. Mag., Nr. 16, S. 26-29, 2015. [34] K. J. Thomé-Kozmiensky: Recycling und Rohstoffe. Neuruppin: Thomé-Kozmiensky Verlag GmbH, 2012. [35] A. Kampker, D. Vallée, A. Schnettler: Elektromobilität: Grundlagen einer Zukunftstechnologie. New York, Vereinigte Staaten: Springer Publishing, 2018. [36] H. Engel, P. Hertzke, G. Siccardo: Electric vehicles, second life batteries, and their effect on the power sector. McKinsey, Apr. 30, 2019. www.mckinsey.com/ industries/ automotiveand-assembly/ our-insights/ second-life-ev-batteries-the-newest-value-pool-inenergy-storage# (access Juni 22, 2021). [37] University of Warwick, Used Nissan LEAF batteries given second life thanks to WMG, Jan. 21, 2020. warwick.ac.uk/ newsandevents/ pressreleases/ used_nissan_leaf (access Juni 22, 2021). [38] Volkswagen AG, Batterie-Recycling-Anlage. www.volkswagenag.com/ de/ news/ stories/ 2019/ 02/ lithium-to-lithium-manganese-to-manganese.html# (access Juni 22, 2021). [39] Volkswagen AG: Effiziente Wiederverwendung. In: Volkswagen Newsroom, Feb. 15, 2019. www.volkswagen-newsroom.com: 443/ de/ id-insights-sustainable-e-mobility-4650/ effiziente-wiederverwendung-4656 (access Juni 22, 2021). [40] Volkswagen AG: Klimabilanz von E-Fahrzeugen & Life Cycle. In: Engineering, Apr. 24, 2019. https: / / uploads.volkswagen-newsroom.com/ system/ production/ uploaded_ files/ 14448/ file/ da01b16ac9b580a3c8bc190ea2af27db4e0d4546/ Klimabilanz_von_E- Fahrzeugen_Life_Cycle_Engineering.pdf? 1556110703 (access Juni 22, 2021). [41] With rising net capacity and slower falling battery prices the battery costs are rising before the total price will drop stronger. [42] BET Manufacturer 1, Quotation Available. [43] BET Manufacturer 2, Quotation Available. [44] BET Manufacturer 3, Quotation Available. [45] BET1 was offered with a 318 kWh Battery, BET 2 with a 185 kWh battery, and BET 3 with a 350 kWh battery. [46] R. Domina: MAN-Workshop zu Wartungsarbeiten bei E-Lkw. In: PROFI-Werkstatt - Die Zeitschrift für den Nutzfahrzeug-Aftermarket, Feb. 03, 2020. www.profi-werkstatt.net/ de/ news/ elektromobilitaet-e-mobilitaet-werkstatt-einrichtungen-und-anlagen-manworkshop-zu-wartungsarbeiten-bei-e-lkw-30212.html (access Apr. 03, 2021). [47] Taking into account 50.000 km range per year a 240 kWh battery an energy consumption of 1,56 kWh/ km and 25 l/ km with a energy consumption of 1,56 kWh/ km and 25 l/ km with an energy price per kWh of 18 Cent [46] an diesel costs of 96 Cent per litre [11] p. 285. [48] S. Wilke: Erneuerbare und konventionelle Stromerzeugung. Umweltbundesamt, Juli 18, 2013. www.umweltbundesamt.de/ daten/ energie/ erneuerbare-konventionelle-stromerzeugung (access Juni 21, 2021). [49] M. Stallmann: Bilanz 2019: CO₂-Emissionen pro Kilowattstunde Strom sinken weiter. Umweltbundesamt, Apr. 08, 2020. www.umweltbundesamt.de/ presse/ pressemitteilungen/ bilanz-2019-CO₂-emissionen-pro-kilowattstunde-strom (access Juni 21, 2021). [50] Taking into account the german energy mix 2020 with 468 CO₂ per kWh [48] and 3,15 g/ l diesel [49], [50], the 12 TGW was calculated with 18 l/ km the 18 TGW with 25 l/ km and the 26 TGW with 32,5 l/ km [10] p. 285. [51] M. Schmied, W. Knörr: Berechnung von Treibhausgasemissionen in Spedition und Logistik gemäß DIN EN 16258, 2. Aufl. Bonn, 2013. www.dslv.org/ dslv/ web.nsf/ gfx/ 8F102DF8C3 E4A2F141257BB7007779CB/ $file/ DSLV-Leitfaden%20Berechnung%20von%20THG-Emissionen%20Stand%2003-2013.pdf (access Juni 21, 2021). [52] M. Schmied, M. Mottschall: Berechnung des Energieverbrauchs und der Treibhausgasemissionen des ÖPNV: Leitfaden zur Anwednung der europäischen Norm EN 16258, S. 60, 2014. [53] BET Manufacturer 4, Quotation Available. [54] M. Romare, L. Dahllöf: The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Lithium-Ion Batteries, S. 58. [55] G. Majeau-Bettez, T. R. Hawkins, A. H. Strømman: Life Cycle Environmental Assessment of Lithium-Ion and Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries for Plug-In Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles. In: Environ. Sci. Technol., Bd. 45, Nr. 10, S. 4548-4554, Mai 2011, doi: 10.1021/ es103607c. [56] L. A.-W. Ellingsen, G. Majeau-Bettez, B. Singh, A. K. Srivastava, L. O. Valøen, A. H. Strømman: Life Cycle Assessment of a Lithium-Ion Battery Vehicle Pack: LCA of a Li-Ion Battery Vehicle Pack. In: Journal of Industrial Ecology, Bd. 18, Nr. 1, S. 113-124, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1111/ jiec.12072. [57] Y. Wang, Y. Yu, K. Huang, B. Chen, W. Deng, Y. Yao: Quantifying the environmental impact of a Li-rich high-capacity cathode material in electric vehicles via life cycle assessment. In: Environ Sci Pollut Res, Bd. 24, Nr. 2, S. 1251-1260, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1007/ s11356-016- 7849-9. [58] C. M. Lastoskie, Q. Dai: Comparative life cycle assessment of laminated and vacuum vapor-deposited thin film solid-state batteries. In: Journal of Cleaner Production, Bd. 91, S. 158-169, März 2015, doi: 10.1016/ j.jclepro.2014.12.003. [59] Q. Lu, P. F. Wu, W. X. Shen, X. C. Wang, B. Zhang, C. Wang: Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicle Power Battery. In: MSF, Bd. 847, S. 403-410, März 2016, doi: 10.4028/ www.scientific.net/ MSF.847.403. [60] T. P. Hendrickson, O. Kavvada, N. Shah, R. Sathre, C. D Scown: Life-cycle implications and supply chain logistics of electric vehicle battery recycling in California. In: Environ. Res. Lett., Bd. 10, Nr. 1, S. 014011, Jan. 2015, doi: 10.1088/ 1748-9326/ 10/ 1/ 014011. Decarbonizing SCIENCE & RESEARCH International Transportation | Collection 2021 65 [61] H. Helms, et al.: Weiterentwicklung und vertiefte Analyse der Umweltbilanz von Elektrofahrzeugen, S. 176, 2015. [62] D. A. Notter, et al: Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles. In: Environ. Sci. Technol., Bd. 44, Nr. 17, S. 6550-6556, Sep. 2010, doi: 10.1021/ es903729a. [63] R. Frischknecht, et al: Bundesamt für Umwelt BAFU" S. 113, Jan. 2012. [64] J. B. Dunn, C. James, L. Gaines, K. Gallagher, Q. Dai, J. C. Kelly: Material and Energy Flows in the Production of Cathode and Anode Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries.In: ANL/ ESD- -14/ 10 Rev, 1224963, Sep. 2015. doi: 10.2172/ 1224963. [65] B. Li, X. Gao, J. Li, C. Yuan: Life Cycle Environmental Impact of High-Capacity Lithium Ion Battery with Silicon Nanowires Anode for Electric Vehicles. In: Environ. Sci. Technol., Bd. 48, Nr. 5, S. 3047-3055, März 2014, doi: 10.1021/ es4037786. [66] S. Amarakoon, J. Smith, B. Segal: Application of Life-Cycle Assessment to Nanoscale Technology: Lithium-ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles - April 24, 2013, S. 126, Apr. 2013. [67] M. Held: Fraunhofer System Research for E-Mobility (FSEM): Current LCA results and need for further research. Apr. 06, 2011. www.lcaforum.ch/ portals/ 0/ df43/ DF43-01%20 Michael%20Held%20(v2).pdf [68] C. Bauer: Oekobilanz von Lithium-Ionen Batterien - Analyse der Herstellung von Energiespeichern für den Einsatz in Batteriefahrezeugen. Studie im Auftrag von Volkswagen AG, Paul Scherrer Institut, 2010. Philipp Knauf Research Assistant at the department of business at Hochschule Fulda - University of Applied Sciences philipp-edgar.knauf@w.hs-fulda.de Lou Coenen Proven International Business Leader and Adjunct University Lecturer. Sessional Lecturer and Unit Coordinator experience at post-graduate level at the department of business at Hochschule Fulda LouCoenen@outlook.com Jozo Acksteiner Prof. Dr. Professor for Business Administration, in particular logistics, at the department of business at Hochschule Fulda - University of Applied Sciences. Director of the integrated degree program Logistics Management (B.A.) jozo.acksteiner@w.hs-fulda.de Boris Zimmermann Prof. Dr. Professor for Business Administration, in particular logistics, at the department of business at Hochschule Fulda - University of Applied Sciences. Director of the integrated degree program Logistics Management (B.A.) boris.zimmermann@w.hs-fulda.de FACING THE CHALLENGES OF MOBILITY Founded in 1949 - bound forward to face the challenges of tomorrow‘s mobility: With an editorial board of renowned scientists and an advisory board of directors, CEOs and managers from all transport industry areas, »Internationales Verkehrswesen« and »International Transportation« - the worldwide distributed English-language edition - rank as leading cross-system transport journals in Europe for both academic research and practical application. Rail and road, air transport and waterway traffic — »International Transportation« and »Internationales Verkehrswesen« stimulate a worldwide interdisciplinary discussion of the numerous defiances in mobility, transport, and logistics. The magazines are targeted at planners and decision makers in municipalities, communities, public authorities and transportation companies, at engineers, scientists and students. With peer-reviewed scientific articles and technical contributions the magazines keep readers abreast of background conditions, current trends and future prospects - such as digitalization, automation, and the increasing challenges of urban traffic. Read more about the magazines and the subscription conditions: www.internationales-verkehrswesen.de www.international-transportation.com INTERNATIONALES VERKEHRSWESEN AND INTERNATIONAL TR ANSPORTATION »Internationales Verkehrswesen« and »International Transportation« are published by Trialog Publishers Verlagsgesellschaft, D-Baiersbronn IV_Image_halb_quer.indd 1 IV_Image_halb_quer.indd 1 15.04.2018 19: 50: 55 15.04.2018 19: 50: 55