Energy consumption and GHG emissions evaluation of conventional and battery-electric refuse collection trucks
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The notorious fuel consumption and environmental impact of conventional diesel refuse \ncollection trucks (D-RCTs) encourage collection fleets to adopt alternative technologies \nwith higher efficiency and lower emissions/noise impacts into their fleets. Due to the nature \nof refuse trucks’ duty cycles with low driving speeds, frequent braking and high idling \ntime, a battery-electric refuse collection truck (BE-RCT) seems a promising alternative, \ntaking advantage of energy-saving potentials along with zero tailpipe emissions. However, \nwhether or not this newly-introduced technology can be commercially feasible for a \ncollection fleet and/or additionally mitigate GHG emissions should be examined over its \nlifetime explicitly for the specific fleet. This study evaluates the performance of a D-RCT \nand BE-RCT in a collection fleet to assess the potential of BE-RCT in reducing diesel fuel \nconsumption and the total GHG emissions. \nA refuse truck duty cycle (RTDC) was generated representing the driving nature and \nvocational operation of the refuse truck, including the speed, mass, and hydraulic cycles \nalong with the extracted route grade profile. As a case study, the in-use data of a collection \nfleet, operating in the municipality of Saanich, British Columbia (BC), Canada, are applied \nto develop the representative duty cycle. Using the ADVISOR simulator, the D-RCT and \nBE-RCT are modeled and energy consumption of the trucks are estimated over the \nrepresentative duty cycle. Fuel-based Well-to-Wheel (WTW) GHG emissions of the trucks \nare estimated considering the fuel (diesel/electricity) upstream and downstream GHG \nemissions over the 100-year horizon impact factor for greenhouse gases. The results \nshowed that the BE-RCT reduces energy use by 77.7% and WTW GHG emissions by 98% \ncompared to the D-RCT, taking advantage of the clean grid power in BC. Also, it was \nindicated that minimum battery capacity of 220 kWh is required for the BE-RCT to meet \nthe duty cycle requirements for the examined fleet. A sensitivity analysis has been done to \ninvestigate the impact of key parameters on energy use and corresponding GHG emissions \nof the trucks. Further, the lifetime total cost of ownership (TCO) for both trucks was \nestimated to assess the financial competitiveness of the BE-RCT over the D-RCT. \nThe TCO indicated that the BE-RCT deployment is not financially viable for the \nexamined fleet unless there are considerable incentives towards the purchase cost of the \nBE-RCT and/or sufficient increase in carbon tax/diesel fuel price. From the energy useevaluation, this study estimates the required battery capacity of the BE-RCT for the studied fleet, and the TCO outputs can assist them in future planning for the adoption of battery-electric refuse trucks into their collection fleet where the cost parameters evolve.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».