Energy consumption and GHG emissions evaluation of conventional and battery-electric refuse collection trucks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".