IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2023i1p158-d1308805.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spoilt for Choice: User-Centric Choice of Battery Size and Chemistry for Battery-Electric Long-Haul Trucks

Author

Listed:
  • Jakob Schneider

    (Institute of Automotive Technology, Department of Mobility Systems Engineering, School of Engineering & Design, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr. 15, 85748 Garching, Germany)

  • Olaf Teichert

    (Institute of Automotive Technology, Department of Mobility Systems Engineering, School of Engineering & Design, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr. 15, 85748 Garching, Germany)

  • Maximilian Zähringer

    (Institute of Automotive Technology, Department of Mobility Systems Engineering, School of Engineering & Design, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr. 15, 85748 Garching, Germany)

  • Korbinian Götz

    (Institute of Automotive Technology, Department of Mobility Systems Engineering, School of Engineering & Design, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr. 15, 85748 Garching, Germany)

  • Markus Lienkamp

    (Institute of Automotive Technology, Department of Mobility Systems Engineering, School of Engineering & Design, Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr. 15, 85748 Garching, Germany)

Abstract

With growing demands to save greenhouse gases, the rapid market introduction of battery-electric trucks (BETs) will become increasingly important, with truck manufacturers announcing various models entering the market in the near future. Soon, truck operators will be faced with deciding which battery capacity and cell chemistry to choose in their next purchase. In this study, we evaluate the choice of battery capacity, regarding feasibility and cost-effectiveness, for trucks using NMC and LFP cell chemistry. Our results show that higher energy density allows larger NMC batteries to be installed, resulting in the ability to transport higher payloads at low charging powers. The LFP chemistry has to rely on higher charging powers of up to 700 kW to transport the same payloads. When asked to choose a battery capacity for the individual use case, the smallest battery size should always be selected when only charging powers up to 300 kW are available. However, the reduction in publicly charged energy can lead to cost advantages of larger battery capacities at higher charging powers. When deciding between the two cell chemistries, the LFP chemistry shows advantages in most cases. Only at high payloads and low charging powers the NMC chemistry shows cost advantages.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakob Schneider & Olaf Teichert & Maximilian Zähringer & Korbinian Götz & Markus Lienkamp, 2023. "Spoilt for Choice: User-Centric Choice of Battery Size and Chemistry for Battery-Electric Long-Haul Trucks," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2023:i:1:p:158-:d:1308805
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/1/158/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/1/158/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Breed, Annelis K. & Speth, Daniel & Plötz, Patrick, 2021. "CO2 fleet regulation and the future market diffusion of zero-emission trucks in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Remzi Can Samsun & Michael Rex & Laurent Antoni & Detlef Stolten, 2022. "Deployment of Fuel Cell Vehicles and Hydrogen Refueling Station Infrastructure: A Global Overview and Perspectives," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-34, July.
    2. Li, Chao & Yi, Yongxi & Zhang, Aoxiang & Chen, Biao, 2023. "Fuel consumption-reduction investment decisions and coordination contracts in fuel vehicle supply chains: A dynamic analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    3. Ovaere, Marten & Proost, Stef, 2022. "Cost-effective reduction of fossil energy use in the European transport sector: An assessment of the Fit for 55 Package," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    4. João Andrade de Carvalho & André de Castro & Gutemberg Hespanha Brasil & Paulo Antonio de Souza & Andrés Z. Mendiburu, 2022. "CO 2 Emission Factors and Carbon Losses for Off-Road Mining Trucks," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2023:i:1:p:158-:d:1308805. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.