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 urban areas • 15.45-16.00: Questions & Answers – Conclusion Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe
Speakers • Tanja Dalle-Muenchmeyer, Cross-River Partnership, FREVUE Coordinator • Hans Quak, TNO, FREVUE Research partner • Robert Koffrie, TNO, FREVUE Research partner Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe
FREVUE Freight Ele lectric Vehicles in in Urb rban Europe An In Introduction FRE FREVUE Web ebin inar 5 Sep eptember r 2017
Objectives 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
Consortium Co-ordination and Dissemination City + Policy Research Cross River Partnership Hyer Polis Imperial College (Co-ordinator) London City of Amsterdam Logistics TNO (NL) City of Lisbon SINTEF (NO) City of Madrid City of Milan ICT Partners City of Oslo City of Rotterdam City of Stockholm Vehicle Manufacturers Grid Operators Swedish Transport Adm. EMEL Transport for London Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe
FREVUE Vehicles Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe
Findings • Vehicles technically and operationally suitable for most urban freight operations • Currently available range sufficient for most urban freight operations • A positive business case is achievable for small EFVs under 3.5t • For larger vehicles this is not impossible but more difficult • Attitudes towards EFVs change over time – for the better • Policy and governance changes are required • And, crucially, environmental benefits are significant Freight Electric Vehicles in Urban Europe
Thank you 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
Introduction Economics of EVs for city logistics Aim: answer the question “what are the conditions to get a feasible / successful business case for EFVs in city logistics?” How: 1. FREVUE demonstration analyses (operations and business model comparison) 2. Analysis of changes in value network 3. TCO comparison (small – medium – large vehicles) 4. Replacing CFVs and changing the logistics concepts 5. Analysis of barriers and challenges when scaling up the EFV fleet and how to deal with these challenges next years
FREVUE demonstration analyses (operations and business model comparison) Key Activities Value Propositions Customer Relation Customer segment Key Partners Distribution Key Resources Cost Structure Revenue Stream
FREVUE demonstration analyses (operations and business model comparison) Key Activities Value Propositions Small vehicle : Limited changes - vehicles Customer Relation available from OEM Charging infrastructure relatively easy Customer segment (similar to passenger cars) and available Close cooperation authorities / UCC Key Partners Distribution Key Resources Medium / large vehicles : Difficulties in procurement (no OEM Cost Structure available: retrofitting) Revenue Stream Impact on grid / charging infrastructure Maintenance and service More contact with city authorities
FREVUE demonstration analyses (operations and business model comparison) Key Activities Value Propositions Customer Relation More difficult in planning (range) Customer segment Key Partners Distribution Advantages due to policy Key Resources exemptions Perform similar to CFVs in Cost Structure Revenue Stream operations Charging time
FREVUE demonstration analyses (operations and business model comparison) Example of EFV and CFV operations compared (UPS Rotterdam)
FREVUE demonstration analyses (operations and business model comparison) Key Activities Value Propositions Customer Relation Customer segment Key Partners Purchase price higher for large vehicles up to 2.5 Distribution times. Key Resources Operating costs lower (diesel vs electricity) Charging infrastructure required Cost Structure Revenue Stream Lower taxation Uncertainty in depreciation of battery and residual value
FREVUE demonstration analyses (operations and business model comparison) Key Activities Concluding in costs: Value Propositions Customer Relation Higher initial investment – even with purchase subsidy Customer segment More ownership, less lease Key Partners Lower costs for energy, tax, maintenance Distribution Higher costs for charging infrastructure Key Resources Cost Structure Revenue Stream
FREVUE demonstration analyses (operations and business model comparison) Key Activities Value Propositions Customer Relation Customer segment Almost (no) change in customer-side Key Partners Distribution (no higher fee) Key Resources Improved image in outside world (customers and Cost Structure general public) Revenue Stream
FREVUE demonstration analyses (operations and business model comparison) Key Activities Value Propositions Customer Relation Concluding in revenues: Customer segment No extra revenues Key Partners Distribution Key Resources Cost Structure Revenue Stream
FREVUE demonstration analyses (operations and business model comparison) Key Activities Value Propositions Customer Relation Customer segment Key Partners Distribution Key Resources Value proposition Cost Structure No tangible value added for customer Revenue Stream Value for society: fewer emissions and less nuisance
Analysis of changes in value network Shipper Oil companies € Service Purchase € € Fuel product € (Un)satisfaction € Logistics Receiver Retail Fuel station operator Delivering Fuel+ Retail product retail products products € Vehicle + maintenance Dealer Dealer € Vehicle Parts Vehicle Suppliers of manufacturer parts €
Analysis of changes in value network Charging + infra € Shipper Power Suppliers networks € Charging € Service infra Charging Purchase € € + infra Product (Un)satisfactory € Charging Logistics Receiver infrastructure operator Delivery Electricity product + retail € Electricity € Vehicle + maintenance € Electricity Dealer Dealer suppliers Parts Electricity Suppliers € Vehicle € Truck Electricity Electricity Parts producent producers producers Truck Supplier- - grey - green manufacturer electric electric €
TCO comparison (small EFV)
TCO comparison (small EFV)
TCO comparison (small EFV) €140K €120K €100K Taxes €80K Insurance Maintenance and tyres €60K Fuel / electricity Subsidy for charging infra €40K Charging infrastructure €20K Vehicle purchase subsidy Vehicle purchase price €0K €20K
TCO comparison (small EFV)
TCO comparison medium EFV
TCO comparison medium EFV
TCO comparison medium EFV €140K €120K Residual value Congestion charge €100K Taxes €80K Insurance Maintenance and tyres €60K Fuel / electricity Subsidy for charging infra €40K Charging infrastructure €20K Vehicle purchase subsidy Vehicle purchase price €0K €20K
TCO Medium 60 km/day 10 TCO comparison medium EFV years €140K €120K €100K €80K €60K €40K €20K €0K EFV excluding subsidy CFV bought - €20K €140K €120K Grid investment Residual value €100K Congestion charge Taxes €80K Insurance €60K Maintenance and tyres Fuel / electricity €40K Subsidy for charging infra Charging infrastructure €20K Vehicle purchase subsidy Vehicle purchase price €0K €20K
TCO comparison small rigid EFV
TCO comparison small rigid EFV
TCO comparison small rigid EFV €140K €120K €100K Taxes €80K Insurance Maintenance and tyres €60K Fuel / electricity Subsidy for charging infra €40K Charging infrastructure €20K Vehicle purchase subsidy Vehicle purchase price €0K €20K
TCO comparison medium rigid EFV
TCO comparison medium rigid EFV €140K €120K €100K Taxes €80K Insurance Maintenance and tyres €60K Fuel / electricity Subsidy for charging infra €40K Charging infrastructure €20K Vehicle purchase subsidy Vehicle purchase price €0K €20K
TCO comparison First conclusions – for this moment 3.5 ton – 12 ton < 3.5 ton OEM > 12 ton: small manufacturers
Replace or reorganize? 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)
Recommend
More recommend
