Review

Technical and Business Aspects of Battery Electric Trucks—

A Systematic Review
Shishir Bhardwaj 1 and Hamid Mostofi 2, *

1 Sustainable Mobility Management, EUREF Campus, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany;
[email protected]
2 Mobility Research Cluster, Department of Work, Technology and Participation, Technische Universität Berlin,
10587 Berlin, Germany
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Heavy-duty trucks (HDTs) are responsible for considerable fuel consumption and green-
house gas emissions (GHG) in the road transportation sector due to their heavier weight, and
significantly more miles travelled in comparison with other vehicles. Regarding the climate change
mitigation policies, HDTs need to become zero-emission vehicles. One of the technological solutions
in this sector is the battery electric truck (BET). This paper includes a systematic review on relevant
studies in the field of BETs, including the following: (1) the technical, stakeholder, and customer aspects
in terms of charging solutions to give a comprehensive insight into their technological advantages
and disadvantages; (2) the total cost of ownership (TCO) for BETs and diesel trucks; and (3) a CO2 life
cycle assessment (LCA) from different technologies. Moreover, the result is formulated in the form of
SWOT analysis to describe the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of different charging
technologies. Moreover, the different calculation methods of the total cost of ownership for the
heavy-duty battery trucks and diesel trucks are compared. In addition, the CO2 LCA is analyzed, and
the different estimation methods of the CO2 released in the environment are compared, which includes
the CO2 emissions during mobility operations and during the different manufacturing processes.
Citation: Bhardwaj, S.; Mostofi, H.
Technical and Business Aspects of
Keywords: battery electric trucks; battery swapping; fast charging; total cost ownership; life cycle
Battery Electric Trucks—A Systematic
analysis; SWOT analysis
Review. Future Transp. 2022, 2,
382–401. https://doi.org/10.3390/
futuretransp2020021

Academic Editors: Armando Cartenì 1. Introduction

and Laura Eboli
Electric vehicles (EVs) have been developing over the past three decades and are seen
Received: 5 February 2022 as a substitute for internal combustion engines (ICEs). EVs have vastly improved in every
Accepted: 13 April 2022 aspect, such as reduced cost, gross vehicle weight, engine efficiency, and performance
Published: 22 April 2022 for consumers. Opportunities for electrification are foreseeable in the coming decades,
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
despite modes where emissions are tough to abate in HDTs, aviation, and the shipping
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
sectors. The GHG emissions from freight trucks in the EU contribute to around 20% of
published maps and institutional affil- road emissions [1]. A vehicle with a gross vehicle weight (GVWR) higher than 26,000 lbs is
iations. generally termed as an HDV [2]. Expeditious growth in demand for HDVs and their GHG
emissions have created the incentive to develop alternative drivetrain options for many
research institutions and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). Despite enhancement
in the efficiency standards for vehicles, various governments across the globe are planning
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. to come up with some strategies to reduce fuel consumption and emissions.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. The transport sector is a dominant and growing contributor to GHGs emissions
This article is an open access article worldwide. Despite their relatively small portion on roads, HDVs are responsible for a
distributed under the terms and vast percentage of transport sector fuel consumption and GHG emissions due to their
conditions of the Creative Commons heavier weight and more significant miles travelled in comparison with other vehicles [3].
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
The transport sector in Europe is currently responsible for almost a quarter of total GHG
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
emissions, with road transport representing 17.8% of total emissions [4].
4.0/).

Future Transp. 2022, 2, 382–401. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp2020021 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/futuretransp

Future Transp. 2022, 2 383

The European Emission Trading System (EU-ETS) legislative framework was amended
for phase 4 in 2018 to achieve the EU’s 2030 emissions reduction target (of 40% relative to
the level in 1990), as well as their commitment to the Paris Agreement [5]. Europe requires
new policies and strategies to electrify all HDVs and decarbonize the freight sector to
comply with the EU’s Green Deal commitments [6]. Trucks with 200–300 km of range can
cover most urban and regional deliveries. In the EU, almost half (47%) of road freight
distances are trips of less than 300 km, corresponding to 90% of transport operations [7].
For the adoption of EVs, the range anxiety and time of charging remain prominent
issues. However, analysts predict that the demand for BETs is to exponentially rise in the
near future as the price of EVs will continue to decline, with increases in driving range and
government initiatives placing stringent rules on diesel vehicles. The success of the BETs
in the market depends on different aspects, including the technical, business, customer,
environmental, and stakeholder aspects. This paper reviews and compiles relevant studies
to acknowledge a broader spectrum of the different aspects of BETs. Moreover, this paper
focuses on the two main dominant charging methods for BETs, which are fast charging and
battery swapping. The advantages and disadvantages of charging methods are compared
to give an insight into the market and adaptability of these two charging methods. In terms
of technical aspects, the paper studies the charging and swapping time, the performance of
the battery, and battery specifications.
The research purposes were formulated through five key questions, as follows:
Q1: What are the technical aspects of heavy-duty battery vehicles?
Q2: What are the customer and stakeholder aspects of heavy-duty battery vehicles?
Q3: What is the total cost of operation of heavy-duty battery trucks?
Q4: What is the CO2 life cycle assessment of heavy-duty battery vehicles?
Q5: What is the SWOT analysis for fast charging and battery swapping methods?

2. Materials and Methods

Materials for this study were accumulated from different sources, such as online
newspapers and articles, predominately from research papers on Google Scholar, Scopus,
Web of Science, and Research Gate.
Figure 1 illustrates the Prisma Flow Chart—demonstrating the whole process from
identification to inclusion and exclusion of papers, including qualitative and quantitative
synthesis of the literature review to generate a systematic review.

2.1. Criteria in Inclusion/Exclusion for the Selection of Studies

We found many fascinating facts and figures during the research, illustrated in this
paper. Online searches were conducted through search engines such as Scopus, Google
Scholar, Web of Science, and Research Gate. We made a colossal selection from immense
sources after assessing 106 articles and excluding 53 full-text articles based on their topic
and material content. The materials are compiled for examination and positioned on the
facts of their titles, abstract, introduction, and keywords. Full-text articles were screened
for eligibility at the eligibility stage, and 55 studies were selected based on relevance and
the paper’s primary focus. The criteria of the selection of sources are based on the paper
topic, keywords such as electric trucks, battery-electric trucks, battery swapping, and fast-
charging stations. Furthermore, the articles were reviewed to check the paper’s relevance
to the review purposes in the field of electric trucks.
Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 3
Future Transp. 2022, 2 384

Figure
Figure 1. 1. Systematic
Systematic Review
Review Scheme.
Scheme.
2.2. Selection and Analysis of Studies
2.1. Criteria in Inclusion/Exclusion for the Selection of Studies
At the included phase, 55 scientific articles, journal articles, conference proceedings,
We found many fascinating facts and figures during the research, illustrated in this
and reports were selected to be reviewed. The findings of the 55 studies are categorized
paper. Online
into five searches
sub-topics weretoconducted
related the researchthrough search
questions, engines in
as declared such
theas Scopus, Google
introduction section.
Scholar, Web of Science, and Research Gate. We made a colossal
The categories and their sub-topics are explained in detail in the subsequentselection fromsections.
immense
sourcesAn after assessingconsideration
additional 106 articles and excluding
is the 53 full-text
geographical articles
allocation ofbased on their
the data. topicare
Studies
and material content. The materials are compiled for examination and positioned
gathered mainly from the USA, Europe, China, and India. Primarily, the data was collected on the
facts of their titles, abstract, introduction, and keywords. Full-text articles were
for the heavy-duty trucks, but in some cases, we referred to the heavy-duty vehicle, includ- screened
foring
eligibility
buses. To at give
the eligibility
an overviewstage, andEV
of the 55 market
studies and
wereproblem
selectedstatement,
based on relevance andan
we also gave
theinsight
paper’s primary
into EV cars. focus. The criteria of the selection of sources are based on the paper
topic, keywords such as electric trucks, battery-electric trucks, battery swapping, and fast-
charging stations.
3. Synthesis Furthermore,
of the Review Resultsthe articles were reviewed to check the paper's relevance
to the review purposes in the field
The study is based on two charging of electric trucks.for EVs: Plug-in charging and the battery
methods
swapping method. Cohesive research is developed and describes the difference between
2.2. Selection
these and Analysis
two charging of Studies
solutions for each aspect. For Business aspects, the focus is on the
perception of OEMsphase,
At the included and logistic companies,
55 scientific such
articles, as; fees
journal for services
articles, such as
conference charging and
proceedings,
andswapping batteries,
reports were parking
selected to berequirements,
reviewed. The mode of payment,
findings and
of the 55 batteryare
studies standardization.
categorized
The
into customer
five aspects
sub-topics focus
related on the
to the satisfaction
research and as
questions, need for their
declared use.introduction
in the Customers might
sec-
be The
tion. interested in the
categories and pricing of BEVs, the
their sub-topics are price for the
explained service,
in detail timesubsequent
in the in battery sections.
swapping
or changing, mileage
An additional of BEVs, battery
consideration is the ownership/life, availability
geographical allocation of charging/swapping
of the data. Studies are
stations, and power upgradation at homes, parking availability.
gathered mainly from the USA, Europe, China, and India. Primarily, the Finally, thedata
impacts
was on
col-the
stakeholders play a vital role in assessing the adoption of heavy battery
lected for the heavy-duty trucks, but in some cases, we referred to the heavy-duty vehicle,trucks, including
obstaclesbuses.
including such To
as; give
standardization,
an overview compatibility,
of the EV market pricing
and strategy,
problem commercial
statement, we viability,
also
substantial
gave an insightupfront
into EV investments,
cars. and reliability of leased batteries. For TCO, we compared
the difference between the diesel and BETs, and for LCA, we outened the difference between
3. the diesel and
Synthesis other
of the fuel technologies.
review results Furthermore, SWOT analysis is constructed to give
an in-depth knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of Battery Charging and
The study is based on two charging methods for EVs: Plug-in charging and the bat-
Swapping and diesel technologies.
tery swapping method. Cohesive research is developed and describes the difference be-
tween these two charging solutions for each aspect. For Business aspects, the focus is on
Future Transp. 2022, 2 385

3.1. Technical Aspects

The technical aspects include charging time, battery swapping time, battery range,
battery life, battery types, and performance. The conditions for battery-electric trucks have
drastically changed since 2010 when lithium-ion battery prices were $1100/kWh, and the
battery prices have come down 89% to $137/kWh in 2020 [8]. In terms of battery range,
many automakers allege long-haul trucking due to battery advancement [8,9].

3.1.1. Battery Swapping and Charging Time

The need for the swapping method came into force for the following reasons; firstly,
long haul trucks run on predefined routes with predefined time schedules so the goods
will be on time and remain reliable and punctual to the customers. Secondly, trucks run
continuously during service hours unless it is out of service. The characteristics have both
positive and negative sides to electrification. Some companies have found the solution
and come way forward to make more use of long-haul electric trucks and allow customers
to buy. Here are some service providers; Foton launched its IBLUE truck, which takes
3–5 min to swap [9]. An Indian startup, Sun Mobility Smart bus swap time is 3 min [10].
The Chinese XJ Group Corporation takes 7 min for an e-bus battery to be swapped [11].
A Swedish Startup started battery replacement within 3 min [12], and Next-Gen Battery
requires only 6 min of swap [12]. In Germany, a prominent fashion logistic company -
Meyer and Meyer, uses two battery packs and takes 15 min in battery swapping.
Fast-Charging service providers; Tesla requires 30 min for a single charge [13]. MAN
trucks use 150 kW DC chargers and take 60 min to charge [14]. An American truck manufac-
turer, Freightliner’s eCascadia (class 8) can charge 80% in 90 min [15]. Another Freightliner’s
electric truck—eM2, has 315 kW of capacity and can drive with 80% charging in 60 min [16].
Germany’s automobile giant Mercedes Benz’s eActros has a capacity of 336–448 kWh,
depending on the available charge. Fully charging takes between two and eleven hours (at
150 kW or 20 kW) and goes up to the 300–400 km range [17]. Volvo FL has a power output
of 200–395 kWh with a range of 300 km and can be charged in 11 h with AC (22 kW) and
in 2 h with DC (150 kW) [18]. Volvo FE has a power output of 200–395 kWh with a range
of 200 km and can be charged in 11 h with AC (22 kW) and in 2 h with DC (150 kW) [19].
BYD heavy-duty vehicles take 1.4 h to charge the 350 kWh battery capacity with a 150 kW
DC charger and 3.6 h with a 100 kW charger [20].

3.1.2. Performance of E-Vehicles

Czech manufacturer SOR supplied an 8-m-long vehicle with 22 seats, 35 standing
places, and a range of 160 to 170 km, and can be extended up to 220 to 260 km. Its maximum
speed is 80 km/h [21]. In 2014, an 18 t E-Force truck started operations for the supermarket
chain group in Switzerland. In 2018 both MAN and Mercedes placed pilot e-trucks with
customers. Volvo with the 16 FL Electric claimed a range of 300 km [18]. VDL partnered
with MAN to develop a 37 t truck. However, the range is aimed at inner-city deliveries
of around 100 km [14]. The Newton is available worldwide with three different payload
capacities from 2800 to 7300 kg, ranging from 89 to 177 km, and a top speed of 80 kmph [22].
The Netherland-based company, Ebusco, makes E-buses for the public transport fleet
and runs in many European countries, including Germany. The company claims the bus
can carry 90–130 passengers with a mileage between 350 km and 500 km for second and
third-generation buses, respectively [23]. In addition, the battery range of Meyer and
Meyer logistics trucks is up to 300 km [24]. American truck company Nikola produces an
E-truck-Tre with a 250–300 km range with up to 750 kWh battery capacity and 350 KW
maximum charge power [25]. eActros has a range of 200 km with 11 Li-ion battery packs
with a combined capacity of 240 kW and can be charged through CCS [26]. Tesla requires
1 MWh of electricity for a single charge and charge in 30 min [27] and accelerates from
0–60 mph in 20 s [28].
Future Transp. 2022, 2 386

3.2. Customer and Stakeholder Aspects

The Policymakers are drawing a climbing portfolio of measures to dwindle climate
impacts and GHG emissions from road freight. It includes actions, such as green freight
programs, fuel-efficiency standards, and mandates such as vehicle efficiency standards
or limits on exhaust pollutants [29]. In addition, the government plays an integral role in
replicating and maintaining economic competitiveness while mollifying adverse effects
associated with the freight sector, such as congestion and emissions. Moreover, they also
perform a decisive role in the interests of transport, industry sectors, and other stakeholders
and work to delineate the imperative legislation and guidelines for the zero-emission for
long haul distances [30]. Customer aspects encompass each offering by a company, whether
it is a product, service features, ease of use and service, or product liability. Customers
would expect the same for each service, Battery swapping station, or fast charging solution.
For battery-swapping stations, customers first have a mindset of service price for changing
the used battery with a fully charged one, as it is based on the fixed charge or service fee
or subscription-based model [31]. However, this process is fast as it takes a few minutes
to replace the battery to reduce the waiting time. In addition, high-power chargers can
minimize the wait time for charging but still, it is expensive for the customer [20]. However,
for battery swapping technologies, the truck owner should not upgrade their charging point
to high power voltage because the swapping stations charge the battery collectively with
their own charging facilities for a considerable number of batteries at the industrial level [32].
Whereas for fast charging, customers need the charging other than home. EV users
have to wait and pay for parking in public areas if not available as per demand. Since 2014,
eRoaming has become highly dynamic. Roaming platforms allow different manufacturers
to charge their vehicles at charging points run by other operators [32]. Around two-thirds
of the population in Germany live in multiple-story apartments. Few house owners have
their own parking spaces, some residents rent specific areas in the locality, and others use
on-street parking [32].
The main obstacles to the battery swapping method are standardization, pricing
strategy, commercial viability, upfront investments, and battery liability [32]. Installation of
Battery Swapping Stations (BSS) should be near the city center, every major road, and the
countryside that connects the suburbs to the city used by the commuters who travel every
day. A BSS on busy streets works as a marketing tool for buying EVs so that people will go
electric. A fixed fee for the swapping service should be designed to make EV’s owner pay
the same amount regardless of the location. The bidirectional power flow is incorporated
in BSSs for connection with the grid. Battery swapping stations are profitable for station
owners when they have enough charged batteries to support their needs. Swapping demand;
is the only critical factor that affects Battery Swapping Station’s income, including amount
level and distribution characteristic. If too few vehicles adopt these compatible batteries,
then the BSS becomes useless for the market as a whole. Likewise, the electricity price level
is another main factor influencing BSS’s income. Furthermore, the lower the electricity
price, the more profit for BSS. Additionally, Costs for facilities such as EV’s battery, battery
charger, and the swapping robot are three main components of BSS. The availability of the
same standard interchangeable batteries from different manufacturers is the only option
for a battery swapping system.
While in fast charging cases, station operators are allowed to charge as per local
regulations. For example, only regulated utilities can sell electricity per kWh in some
jurisdictions. The most straightforward and inexpensive path is installing the necessary
connection points for future fast chargers and planning for upgrades in the number and
size of transformers. When the fixed fee is amortized over all the charging carried out in
a month, daily users have a lower effective cost per kWh than users who do make much
of their vehicles [33]. Electric trucks are predominantly charged at locations where trucks
can be left for long periods, such as parking spaces, at home, or work, so they do not
require space for infrastructure. Installing charging stations in customer parking spaces is a
viable option for businesses. Operators should support publicly accessible charging points
Future Transp. 2022, 2 387

using smartphone apps or RFID cards [32]. Therefore, interim charging complements a
widespread fast-charging network based at central locations. Additionally, fast charging
also acts as an emergency charging network if drivers suddenly and unexpectedly need to
charge their vehicles.

3.3. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

In this section, the different methods and approaches for TCO analysis of BETs are
reviewed and compared with other technologies, including diesel, and fuel cells, to define
a framework for the TCO calculation. The different scenarios are considered for the TCO
components in the future within the next 5 and 10 years from 3 international studies and
their formulas for calculating TCO:
1- European Federation for Transport and Environment (T&E) For a period of 5 years
(1st ownership) = Cost of truck + Battery Cost + Maintenance cost + Wages of driver
+ Road charge + Electricity Consumed + Insurance
2- International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) Total Cost of Ownership (for
10 years) = Capital Cost + Maintenance cost + Fuel cost
3- International Energy Analysis Department—Lawrence Berkeley National Labora-
tory (UCLA)

Cost of ownership = cost of operation + fuel cost + maintenance cost + capital cost (1)

Fuel cost (e-truck) = charging equipment cost + electricity cost (2)

Capital cost (e-truck) = cost of Battery and other components + unit capital cost (diesel truck) − the cost of
(3)
diesel truck components
In this paper, we recalculated Battery Electric Truck TCO based on each study’s
assumptions and compared the results with other technologies such as diesel and have
been made to put together for a comprehensive and brief analysis. Each international
research has made assumptions about the operational phase of BETs and ICEs such as
driver wages, maintenance cost, fuel cost, and insurance cost. They have speculated the
span of first ownership of 5 and 10 years by T&E and ICCT. The study of UCLA Berkeley
says the operational period is 260 days a year. Likewise, only the T&E estimation included
the personal wages or driver salary of €50,000 per year. At UCLA Berkeley, operating costs
include driver wages, road charges, and insurance costs.
Additionally, BET cost and Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) cost also differ, while
UCLA mentions the cost of the truck without a drive train. The assumptions and calcula-
tions from T&E, ICCT, and UCLA study for various variables are drafted into one frame,
and below is the compiled framework of studies. Table 1 distinguishes all the above three
studies based on operational cost, cost of truck (Diesel or BET), maintenance cost, fuel cost,
insurance cost, and road charges.
The first TCO calculation method was the European Federation for Transport and
Energy (T&E) study in May 2018. The various cost has been assumed for a simple under-
standing and calculations. The operational cost is divided into segments such as personal
wage (driver’s salary), vehicle cost, road charges, maintenance and repair cost of the vehicle,
insurance, cost of fuel, and supercharging fees.
Figure 2 represents varying costs related to TCO for Long haul Trucking in the EU for
both ICEs and BETs. This price is a gross overestimate, ignoring the cost of the remainder
of the truck and any profit margin. The truck’s price is a gross estimate, ignoring the cost of
the truck’s resale, besides the price difference between the two models, assuming that the
price difference is associated only with the battery size. The 800 Tesla truck has a range of
800 km and is priced at $US 180,000, but that is likely to exclude optional extras desirable for
EU haulers. Assuming the final price of €170,000 and expecting that assembly takes place in
Tesla’s Dutch-based plant, evading the EU’s 22% import tariff (Commission Implementing
Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, amending Annex I to Council Regulation
Future Transp. 2022, 2 388

(EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and the Common Customs
Tariff, OJ L 285, 30.10.2015). The study has deduced haulage of 150,000 km annually for
the business case and correlated to the EU fleet average of around 110,000 km [34]. The
maintenance cost calculated for ICE is €12,500 per year, and T&E estimated about one and
half of ICE for the BET because of having a simpler drivetrain and less wear and tear on the
braking system due to regenerative braking, and no presence of a gearbox. Importantly, it is
assumed that there is no battery replacement in the initial five years. Insurance is driven by
the impact assessment and is believed to be proportional to the upfront cost of the vehicle.
The EU average industry rate is approximately €0.12/kWh, whereas Tesla’s superchargers
are currently €0.24/kWh. Tesla is promising (US customers at least) a charge of €0.06/kWh
for supercharging service. The EU average for the best-in-class semi is €0.18/km, and for
BET, it would be €0.09/km [1].

Table 1. The assumption made by T&E on different fuel technologies for TCO calculation.

Description Rates Unit Note

Wage €50,000 €/year The personnel wages for the driver
Assuming the price is €170,000 at today’s exchange rate and
Tesla Truck cost €170,000 € assembly in Tesla’s Dutch-based plant, avoiding the EU’s
22% import tariff 1 .
Battery cost €150 €/kWh
BYD truck cost €110,000 € No information about the BYD, €110,000 has been assumed.
Maintenance and repair costs equate to €12,500 per year for
Maintenance cost the ICE and half of that for the BET because of the simpler
drivetrain, less wear and tear on the brakes
Diesel €12,500 €/year
BET €6250 €/year
Avg. annual haulage 150,000 km
When assessing costs, consider both the EU industry
EU average
€0.12 ct/kWh average and supercharging option. The cost of electricity will
Electricity price
make or break the cost competitiveness of BETs in the EU.
Supercharging rates
Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW €0.06 ct/kWh Tesla promising (US customers at least) 8
The infrastructure access cost—road charging
Road charges
(Eurovignette legislation)
Diesel €0.18 €/Km
BET €0.09 €/Km
at least) a charge of €0.06/kWh for supercharging service. The EU average for the best-in-
1 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1754 of 6 October 2015, amending Annex I to Council Regulation
class semi
(EEC) No is €0.18/km,
2658/87 and
on the tariff andfor BET,nomenclature
statistical it would beand
€0.09/km [1].Customs Tariff, OJ L 285, 30.10.2015.
the Common

Figure 2.
Figure Total cost of ownership (5 years) analysis of diesel ICE long haul trucks and BET.
2. Total BET.

Regarding the
Regarding the TCO
TCO calculation
calculation of
of T&E
T&E in
in 2018,
2018, the
the cost
cost per
per km
km for
for BET
BET best-in-class
best-in-class
(160 km) is €0.93/km, whereas the cost involved in running a diesel truck (best-in-class)
(160 km) is €0.93/km, whereas the cost involved in running a diesel truck (best-in-class) is is
€1.01/km. Therefore, it is concluded that BETs (160 km range) have less TCO than
€1.01/km. Therefore, it is concluded that BETs (160 km range) have less TCO than diesel diesel
trucks, even though the initial vehicle purchase cost is high. This calculation made some
assumptions based on the market growth, government policies for the taxes, employee
rights, the diesel, electricity rates, road and toll charges, and zero-emission freight strate-
gies for cities and their infrastructure. The analysis was demonstrated with a simplified
Future Transp. 2022, 2 389

trucks, even though the initial vehicle purchase cost is high. This calculation made some
assumptions based on the market growth, government policies for the taxes, employee
rights, the diesel, electricity rates, road and toll charges, and zero-emission freight strategies
for cities and their infrastructure. The analysis was demonstrated with a simplified road
load equation for an average ICE, a best-in-class diesel ICE, and three battery-electric trucks.
The next international study is on Transitioning to zero emissions for heavy-duty
freight vehicles and was performed by The International Council on Clean Transportation
(ICCT) in September 2017. This study was conducted for the International Zero-Emissions
(ZEV) Alliance and was supported by its members. The cost investigation intends to
illustrate the disparities in the cost of various trucks technologies over a specific course of
time. The total cost of ownership analysis is over ten years of long haulage, including capital
costs (truck price), maintenance costs, and fuel costs over the vehicle’s life period. The
fuels and technologies weighed in the analysis are diesel, fuel cell (renewable), overhead
catenary electric, and electric dynamic induction. All costs in the analysis are in U.S. dollars
in the year 2015. The study is constrained to vehicle and fuel costs, and taxes, insurance,
personal wages, and road charges are excluded.
The EU fleet has average annual haulage of around 110,000 km [35]. The costs are
estimated per kilometer and are assumed to remain steady for vehicles manufactured
between 2015 and 2030. The maintenance and repair costs are simulated at $0.12 per
kilometer for diesel and $0.11 per kilometer for electric trucks [35]. As trucks become more
efficient over time, the maintenance costs become a higher percentage of the total vehicle
operating costs because of advancements in technology. The fuel price is based on the
International Energy Agency (IEA) World Energy Outlook (WEO) 2015. Table 2 illustrate
prices for each fuel technology.

Table 2. The assumption made by ICCT on different fuel technologies for TCO calculation.

Description Rates Unit Note

Capital Cost Truck price
Diesel 300,000 $
Fuel cell (renewable) 375,000 $
Electric (overhead) 300,000 $
Maintenance Cost
The maintenance and repair costs are assumed
Diesel 0.12 $/km
to be $0.12 per km for diesel by ICCT.
Fuel cell (renewable) 75,000 $
Catenary wires are estimated to cost between
$0.8 million and $3.8 million per KM, with
Electric (overhead) 75,000 $ annual operation and maintenance costs of
1–2.5% of the initial capital cost of the catenary
and energy infrastructure.
Fuel Cost
Diesel 400,000 $
Fuel cell (renewable) 200,000 $
Electric (overhead) 230,000 $

The cost per km for diesel is $0.77/km, the cost incurred in fuel cell technology is
$0.59/km, and the price at which electric overhead truck run is $0.55/km. The TCO
calculation is not based on personal wages, operation costs, and insurance. The operational
period for which the TCO is calculated is ten years. The conventional diesel vehicle
costs increase over time but are relatively consistent in years compared to alternative fuel
technologies. All the other technologies have a reduced price of ownership as years pass
because their capital costs decreased from 2015 through 2030. The zero-emission vehicle
technologies show that the highest cost reduction is in fuel cell technology. Excluding
infrastructure costs, the two electric vehicle scenarios, induction, and overhead catenary,
ultimately arrive at among the lowest total vehicle cost during the 2025–2030 timeframe.
Compared with diesel vehicles in 2030, overhead catenary costs are 25–30% lower, and
Future Transp. 2022, 2 390

induction results in 15–25% lower prices. However, the cost gap between diesel and
electric technology widens across the regions as diesel trucks become more advanced and
expensive in compliance with future efficiency regulations.
Another study for TCO calculation was carried out by the International Energy Analy-
sis Department—Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Table 3 shows the assumptions
for the cost of the different components. Total Cost of Ownership is fundamentally per-
mile, equating to unit capital, maintenance, fuel, and general operating costs, as shown in
Equation (1). The fuel cost of an electric truck comprises electricity cost, and the standard
cost of the charging equipment is shown in Equation (2). By Computing the unit capital
cost of an electric truck as the unit capital cost of a diesel truck plus the capital cost of the
battery and electric power train minus the price of the diesel truck components such as; the
power train and fuel tank.

Table 3. The assumption made by UCLA on different fuel technologies for TCO calculation.

Description Rates Unit Note

Battery pack cost (in 2020) $135/kWh $/kWh 2030 Price $60
Cost of Truck $85,000 $ Without Battery and Drivetrain
Electricity price $0.13/kWh $/kWh Derived from Phadke et al., 2019
Charging rates $0.03/kWh $/kWh Derived from Phadke et al., 2019
Diesel price $3.30/gallon $/gallon Result of VDM; validated by industry numbers
Maintenance cost $12,000–30,000/year $/year For Diesel
Maintenance cost $6500/year $/year Estimated based on Cannon (2016) (For Electric)
BET’s Fuel efficiency of 2.1 kWh/mile
Fuel efficiency of diesel truck 5.9 miles/gallon (Alternative Fuels Data Center, 2020)
Such as driver wages, insurance, tire replacements, permits,
General operation cost $0.76/mile or 1.22 km $/km and tolls are identical for diesel and EVs and ignore the
difference in end-of-life value.
Assuming an average daily driving distance of 300 miles
for a 375-mile range truck and 400-miles for a 500-mile
Traveling time, a year 260 Days
range truck to achieve an average daily depth of discharge
of battery of 80% and 260 days of driving for any truck.

The major component of the incremental capital cost of an electric truck is the battery
cost. The UCLA study amortized total capital cost to estimate per-mile incremental capital
cost, primarily driven by battery prices and the range of electric trucks. It accounted for the
depreciation of the battery and ignored the vehicle’s devaluation. UCLA estimated electric
truck fuel costs, charging a fee (Phadke et al., 2019), including electricity and fast charging
infrastructure costs. The unit cost of the charging equipment is the minimum price per unit
of energy delivered (kWh) that a charging service provider should charge consumers to
break even on the investment in charging equipment and grid interconnection.
We recalculate the operational time for 5 and 7 years for diesel and BET separately.
Diesel trucks cost €1.6/km for five years and €1.485/km for seven years. At the same time,
BET costs around €0.63/km for five years and €0.73/km for seven years.

3.4. CO2 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

The CO2 life cycle is the number of carbon emissions emitted by a vehicle during its
lifetime. The CO2 assessment calculated by T&E and ICCT is compared in this section.
Each study has its own assessment methodology, specific guidelines, and terminology.
A truck’s complete LCA would account for the fuel or battery’s energy required (and
associated emissions) and all manufactured components. Pollutants such as NOx, SOx, and
PM for BETs are zero from a powertrain perspective. Wheel-to-wheel (WTW) is equal to
Well-to-tank plus Tank-to-Wheel emissions.
The term Well-to-Tank (WTT) describes emissions from fuel supply from the energy
source (petrol, diesel, electricity, natural gas). Tank-to-Wheel (TTW) refers to emissions
from the energy chain of a vehicle from the point at which energy is absorbed (charging
point; fuel pump) to discharge (being on the move) and use the fuel in the vehicle and
emissions during driving [36]. In Figure 3, CO2 life cycle emissions accounted for two
Future Transp. 2022, 2 391
Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 11
Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 11

phases; WTT and TTW for battery-electric trucks and ICE trucks. Emissions produced by
emissions are emitted by ICE vehicles, but production of CO2 is zero for Tank-to-wheel in
well-to-wheel are significantly lower than the tank-to-wheel in ICE. It is seen that both
the case ofare
emissions BETs since BETs
emitted dovehicles,
by ICE not havebut
any tailpipe emissions.
production of CO2 is zero for Tank-to-wheel in
emissions are emitted by ICE vehicles, but production of CO2 is zero for Tank-to-wheel in
the case of BETs since BETs do not have any tailpipe emissions.
the case of BETs since BETs do not have any tailpipe emissions.

Figure 3. Well-to-wheel CO2 emissions of diesel and battery long-haul electric trucks [1]
Figure 3.
Figure Well-to-wheel CO
3. Well-to-wheel CO22 emissions
emissions of
of diesel
diesel and
and battery
battery long-haul
long-haul electric
electric trucks
trucks [1]
[1].
Figure 4 shows that ICCT calculated the life cycle emissions in CO2 tons per kilometer
Figure 4 shows that ICCT
for different calculated the life cycle emissions in CO 2 tons per kilometer
Figure 4 technologies
shows that ICCT fromcalculated
2015 to 2030. Compared
the life with fuel
cycle emissions in CO cells,
2 tons diesel vehicles
per kilometer
for different
emitted 5% fewertechnologies
emissions from 2015 to 2030.fuel
in 2015. Compared with fuel cells, diesel vehicles
for different technologies from 2015Into2020, cell emissions
2030. Compared dropped
with fuel cells, from
diesel1850 tCO2
vehicles
emitted 5% fewer emissions in 2015. In 2020, fuel cell emissions dropped from 1850 tCO2
to 1100 tCO
emitted , almost
5% 2fewer 40% of emissions
emissions in 2015. Incompared
2020, fueltocell
2015. Its carbon
emissions intensity
dropped fromsignificantly
1850 tCO2
to 1100 tCO2 , almost 40% of emissions compared to 2015. Its carbon intensity signifi-
decreases
to 1100 tCO as2,hydrogen
almost 40% is produced
of emissionsmainly from fossil
compared fuels
to 2015. Itsthrough steam methane
carbon intensity refor-
significantly
cantly decreases as hydrogen is produced mainly from fossil fuels through steam methane
mation to renewable energy sources. Diesel vehicles continued to release
decreases as hydrogen is produced mainly from fossil fuels through steam methane refor- the same amount
reformation to renewable energy sources. Diesel vehicles continued to release the same
of CO2 even
mation in 2020. In
to renewable addition,
energy the emissions
sources. produced
Diesel vehicles by electric
continued overhead
to release the samecatenary
amount in
amount of CO2 even in 2020. In addition, the emissions produced by electric overhead
2020
of COsaw a significant
2 even in 2020. Inreduction
addition,compared to 2015
the emissions becauseby
produced ofelectric
technological
overhead advancement.
catenary in
catenary in 2020 saw a significant reduction compared to 2015 because of technological
Due
2020 to
sawthea high efficiency
significant of electric
reduction motorstoand
compared 2015tobecause
generate ofelectricity
technologicalfromadvancement.
zero or low-
advancement. Due to the high efficiency of electric motors and to generate electricity from
carbon
Due to sources,
the high BETs would
efficiency of have lower
electric emissions
motors and to in the running
generate phase
electricity thanzero
from similar in-
or low-
zero or low-carbon sources, BETs would have lower emissions in the running phase than
ternal combustion engine vehicles. In 2015 catenary electric vehicles
carbon sources, BETs would have lower emissions in the running phase than similar in- had 32% lower life-
similar internal combustion engine vehicles. In 2015 catenary electric vehicles had 32%
time
ternalCO2e emissions than conventional diesel vehicles in Europe, while
hadfuel cell vehicles
lower combustion
lifetime CO2engine vehicles.
e emissions thanIn 2015 catenary
conventional electric
diesel vehicles
vehicles in Europe, 32% lower
while fuellife-
cell
have
time 5% 2more
CO e emissions.
emissions than conventional diesel vehicles in Europe, while fuel cell vehicles
vehicles have 5% more emissions.
have 5% more emissions.

Figure4.
Figure LifecycleCO
4.Lifecycle CO22emissions
emissionsover
overvehicle
vehiclelifetime
lifetimeby
byvehicle
vehicletechnology
technologytype
type[35]
[35].
Figure 4. Lifecycle CO2 emissions over vehicle lifetime by vehicle technology type [35]
Future Transp. 2022, 2 392

During 2015–2030 the diesel truck reduced 22–35% carbon intensity, the fuel cell
technology resulted in a 73% reduction in carbon emissions, and the catenary and dynamic
induction electric vehicle technology had a drop of 66–76% and 61–77%, respectively [36].
ICCT conducted another study in 2017 on the Fleet level impacts of zero-emissions
truck penetration. The penetration of zero-emission technologies in heavy-duty vehicles
in the European fleet from 2015 to 2050 estimates the CO2 emission impact. This model
simulates advanced technologies being phased into the fleet from 2020 beginning as new
vehicles increasingly replace the older ones and take over more significant fractions of
freight through 2050.
The first is the base case scenario, which assumes the entire European truck fleet
remains of ICE vehicles powered by diesel. The second scenario assumes the efficiency
standards are implemented, heading towards advanced improvement in diesel efficiency
to the baseline. The third scenario—the fuel cell intensive scenario, has initial fuel cell truck
sales starting in 2020 and attaining 50% of the sales share in 2050. In the same period, the
Overhead catenary electric truck sales begin in 2020 and reach 15% of the market share in
2050. The final scenario is the electric intensive scenario, which has electric sales starting
in 2020 and hitting 50% of the sales share in 2050, whereas Fuel cells starting in 2020 and
reaching 15% of the market share in 2050.
From Table 4, by introducing the scenarios to the current technology, we can see
that after 2015, there were reductions in CO2 emissions. The first is the base case, where
emissions are reduced because it was taken as a benchmark for other scenarios. In the base
case, lifecycle emissions are estimated to increase approximately 38% during 2015–2050
from 281 to 386 million metric tons of CO2 e. With the fuel efficiency, an 18% cut in emissions
till 2030 and a 40% reduction from base case to 2050. In fuel cell incentive, sales starting
in 2020 and reach up to reach 50% of the sales share in 2050, overhead catenary electric
truck sales reach 15% of the sales, and emissions are estimated to peak around 2025 at
300 million metric tons of CO2 e and decrease through 2050, resulting in a 63% reduction in
emissions relative to the base case in 2050. Electric sales start in 2020 and go up to 50% of
the sales in the electric efficiency scenario, and fuel cells 15% in 2050. As a result, emissions
are expected to decrease by 70% relative to the base case in 2050.

Table 4. GHG emissions from EU trucks for baseline, fuel cell vehicle intensive, and electric vehicle
intensive scenarios for 2050, with associated changes in emissions [35].

Emissions by Year (Million-Ton CO2 e) Change in Emissions

Scenario
2005 2015 2050 2015 to 2030 From 2050 Base Case
Base Case 275 280 386
Increased
275 280 230 −18% 40%
efficiency
Fuel cell
275 280 145 −48% 63%
incentive
Electric
275 280 115 −59% −70%
efficiency

3.5. SWOT Analysis of Battery Swapping Technology in Comparison with Fast Charging and
Internal Combustion Engine
SWOT analysis is the strategic planning of any organization that measures liability
and acceptance by analyzing its key strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. In
the same view, we developed a model to evaluate the different aspects of battery swapping
and fast charging solutions. Finally, we will construct some of the keynotes for SWOT and
develop an evaluation. We will assess the technical feasibility, energy consumption data
approach, and economic viability by comparing battery swapping and fast charging with
ICE technologies. Table 5 shows the SWOT analysis chart.
 Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 13

Table 5. SWOT analysis.

Future Transp. 2022, 2 393
S W O T
Strength Weakness Opportunities Threats
• Time-saving • Cooling System • Rise in EVs market • Standardisation
• 5. SWOT
Table analysis.
Efficient solution • High potential to • Subsidies by gov- of Batteries
for Load Management provide services in the ernment • Swapping de-
S •
W
Independency of electric grid with batter- • OEnvironmental con- mand T
Strength Weakness Opportunities Threats
service fee with time ies in swapping stations cerns • Space availabil-
• Potentially no • Additional logis- • Improvement in ity
• Time-saving • upgradation
Cooling System
of regular tics • Rise intechnology
EVs market •
•
Standardisation
High competi-
• Efficient solution for • High potential to provide • Subsidies by government of Batteries
power connection • Initial investment • Adequate trip dis- tion with fast charg-
Load Management services in the electric grid • Environmental concerns • Swapping demand
• Less customer in- tance ing solutions
• Independency of service fee with batteries in • Improvement in technology • Space availability
with time volvement
swapping stations • •
Adequate Decline
trip in EV’s
distance • High competition with
• Potentially no upgradation • Additional logistics • Declineprice
in EV’s price fast charging solutions
of regular power connection • Initial investment • •
Installed onInstalled on desig-
• Less customer involvement nated routes
designated
• Move•ownershipMove to the
ownership to
stationthe
operator
station operator
• Total cost
• ofTotal
Ownership
cost of Own-
ership

3.5.1. Strength
3.5.1. Strength
Time Saving
Time Saving
The time taken by the swapping method in replacing the depleted battery with a
The timeone
fully charged takenis by the swapping
much less than method in replacing
the charging ofthe
EVs depleted
with battery with a fully
fast chargers. For heavy-
charged one is much less than the charging of EVs with fast chargers. For
duty vehicles, charging by fast chargers typically takes 0.5–1 h, while time by swapping heavy-duty
vehicles, charging by fast chargers typically takes 0.5–1 h, while time by swapping takes
takes only 3–15 min. Time varies due to different battery technology used by various
only 3–15 min. Time varies due to different battery technology used by various manufac-
manufacturers and connection
turers and connection power.time
power. Waiting Waiting time is
is excluded andexcluded
not takenand
into not taken
account into account
when
when calculating
calculating theused
the time timein used
batteryincharging
batteryorcharging or battery
battery swapping swapping
and generally and generally
depends
depends
on theon the number
number of the
of vehicles, vehicles,
numberthe numberavailable
of batteries of batteries availableorfor
for swapping, theswapping,
number or the
of charging
number points at
of charging one place.
points From
at one Section
place. From 3.1.1, Figures3.1.1,
Section 5 andFigures
6 shows5the time
and in the the time
6 shows
fastfast
in the charging and battery
charging swapping
and battery by different
swapping by service providers.
different service providers.

Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 14

Figure
Figure 5. Fast-Chargingtime
5. Fast-Charging time by
bydifferent
differentservice providers
service (in minutes).
providers (in minutes).

Figure 6. Battery Swapping time by different service providers (in minutes).

Figure 6. Battery Swapping time by different service providers (in minutes).

Efficient Solution for Load Management

High peak loads disturb the electrical grids because they must be designed for the
maximum expected power and slash power consumption (peak shaving) with BESS [37].
Peak shaving is similar to load leveling, and customers can save electricity demand by
lowering peak demand and cutting operational costs during peak periods [38]. Fast charg-
Future Transp. 2022, 2 394

Efficient Solution for Load Management

High peak loads disturb the electrical grids because they must be designed for the
maximum expected power and slash power consumption (peak shaving) with BESS [37].
Peak shaving is similar to load leveling, and customers can save electricity demand by
lowering peak demand and cutting operational costs during peak periods [38]. Fast charging
causes a high load on power, which requires expensive grid connections and storage
systems that can help cut costs for loading peaks. Fast charging causes immense power
load peaks, which require costly grid connections, and storage systems can help cut costs
for these power load peaks [39]. Fast charging stations can cause immense power load
peaks during the rush time of charging vehicles, mainly when it is at the same time as high
peak loads on grids. However, the battery swapping solution makes it possible to manage
peak loads and charge a large number of the batteries during the off-peak hours. Therefore,
it helps to cut costs related to the power load peaks.

Independency of Service Fee with Time

The battery swapping is based on the fixed charge or service fee or subscription-based
model for replacing the charged battery in place of a discharged one from the vehicle [31].
Therefore, individual customers do not have to worry about increasing electricity prices
based on time. However, the service provider of BSS can manage the cost of charging with
smart technology and aggregate-charging solution during the off-peak hours. They have to
pay a fixed amount whenever they need to change their EV battery. However, this fee is
not set at every location because of changes in taxes and local electricity rates. Moreover,
the customer has to consider charging their vehicle during peak hours due to the added
surcharge rates in fast charging. In addition, the per kWh is more cost-effective for those
users who highly use their EVs than those customers who rarely use their EVs. Below is
the graph of the hike in electricity and gasoline prices in Germany over time.

Potentially No Upgradation of Regular Power Connection (Comparison with Fast

Charging)
There is no need for upgradation of the power system for the swapping station. There
will be a call for high load transformers for the fast chargers depending upon the charging
point output. Since the houses are not designed for high voltage, raising the desired energy
will cost significantly. In the swapping method, the charging of batteries does not need fast
chargers to charge them. We can charge the batteries with slow chargers, which generally
take 7–8 h.
In fast charging, 150 kW and more are emerging for BEVs, drafted for long-distance
mobility. Suppose 150 kW and over outputs are made available, requiring a more prominent
investment in hardware and grid connection, and new transformers connections will be
needed in some instances [32]. High-power chargers can minimize wait time for charging at
the household level but are a considerable expense to the customer. Moreover, high-power
chargers might not be applicable in rental housing or places where the electricity supply
cannot accommodate an increased power demand [40].

Less Customer Involvement (Comparison with Fast Charging)

The main facilities used in BSS are EV battery, battery charger, and the swapping
robot [41]. For some older people and those who are less educated, it is difficult for them to
plug in and plug out, enter vehicle data to start charging and pay the bill through RFID
mode at charging points. In addition, BSS is free from all this. The customer has to go to
the station, park their vehicle, and the machines do all work. The diagrams show a man
plugging the charger into a vehicle and a robot swapping a battery.
Future Transp. 2022, 2 395

3.5.2. Weakness
Cooling System (Comparison with Fast Charging)
Battery temperature is a deciding factor regarding a battery’s performance and life
cycle. Air used as a heat transfer medium is very inefficient compared to liquid cooling, such
as flow rate of cooling air, the inhomogeneous temperature distribution within batteries,
vehicle cabin temperature, and safety issues generated by the emission of toxic gases from
the batteries [42]. However, the cooling system is easy when the number of batteries at
the swapping station is less. If the number of batteries is large, maintaining the room
temperature will become difficult because the heat produced during charging also warms
the surrounding environment and will automatically increase the temperature of the
batteries.

High Potential to Provide Services in the Electric Grid with Batteries in Swapping Stations
(Comparison with Fast Charging)
How much energy is transferred, and how much electricity is needed to charge the
batteries for swap? Distinct charging modes can be implemented, depending upon the
BSS size and the voltage level available at the distribution grid [42]. The average yearly
electricity consumption of a household in the EU is 3.5 MWh. A single truck charge of
1 MWh would be equivalent to a third of the annual consumption of an average house,
around 6% of an average home. The total electricity consumption to charge the long-haul
BETs of the European fleet per truck is 1.44 kWh/km. If the number of trucks in the EU is
assumed 4.5 million with average annaual mileage of 50,000 km/year, the required energy
will be 324 TWh or over 10% of EU generation in 2015 (3000 TWh) [1]. To overcome this
surge, we need a large amount of clean energy. Despite power from fossil fuels, we can
benefit from being EVs if solar panels and wind turbines are installed to acquire the clean
energy required to charge many batteries. Electricity production in Germany from clean
energy in 2020 accounted for 56.2% (Renewable Energy is 44.9% and nuclear energy is
11.1%) of gross electricity production. However, the gross energy production decreased
compared to the 2018 and 2019 levels [1].
The minimum power required at BSS from the grid supply is calculated by the assump-
tion of zero power loss, which are from different factors such as the voltage, distance of the
charge point from the grid, the conversion of AC to DC, heat-dissipating from batteries
during charging. Power consumption by various manufacturers varies due to the power
output at the charging facility and the battery’s capacity. So, the power required by an
example of 100 batteries at BSS is:
Let’s take an example of MAN truck;
Capacity of Battery = 185 kWh
Power output from Charging point = 150 kW
Time = Capacity/Power = 185/150 = 1.2
Electricity required from grid = 185 × 1.2 × 100 = 22,200 kWh
So, to charge 100 batteries at same time, we need minimum power of 22,200 kWh.
For 24 h we can charge 2000 batteries.
Let’s take an another example of Tesla Semi Truck;
Power output from charging port = 1.6 MW = 1600 kW (Claim by Tesla)
Time = 30 min = 0.5 h
Capacity = 1600/0.5 = 3200 kWh (Approx.)
Electricity required from grid (100 batteries)= 3200 × 100 × 0.5 = 160,000 kW
This energy is required for the inventory of batteries at the industrial level. We need
minimum power of 160,000 kWh to charge 100 batteries. In 24 hours, we can charge
4800 batteries.

Additional Logistics
The other case might be if the batteries’ charging facility is at a different location due
to various reasons such as space and a grid system. Both BCSs and BSSs are connected to a
Future Transp. 2022, 2 396

logistics system consisting of a transportation network and considerable truck fleets. The
trucks are responsible for transporting batteries among the BCSs and the BSSs. In the BSCS,
EVs, BSSs and BCSs can be regarded as customers, retailers, and manufacturers [43].

Initial Investment (Comparison with Fast Charging)

The commencing investment in this method is high. Heavy machinery and infrastruc-
ture for battery swapping and battery management system are enormous. Manufacturers
will seek the probability of customer appeal and accessibility to customers before investing
their substantial money. Additionally, significant batteries are committed to making the
Swapping technique successful and would cover all demands, including colossal capital,
since the battery alone costs 25–30% of EV value.

3.5.3. Opportunities
Rise in EV Market (Comparison with ICE)
The rise of EVs gives a new business opportunity to set up both battery swapping
stations and fast charging points. EV sales boosted by double-digit in 2019 in almost every
European country. For example, EV sales in China in 2019 were around 1.2 million units
(a 3% increase from 2018), whereas EV sales in the United States slammed by 12%, with
only 320,000 units sold. At the same time, EV sales in Europe rose by 44% and reached
590,000 units. After the first quarter of 2020, EV sales showed a downturn from the previous
quarter by 57% and 33% in China and the United States, respectively. Moreover, Europe’s
EV market increased by 25%. The EV market of Germany and the Netherlands contributed
nearly half (around 44%) of the total EV market growth in Europe. Both countries sold
about 40,000 units more compared in 2018. the growth rate in 2018 was 55% and 144% for
Germany and the Netherlands, respectively [44].

Subsidies by Government (Comparison with ICE)

Subsidy by the government acts as an opportunity since it will decrease EV costs. As
EV trucks are in the evolving ages, they are a bit costly compared to diesel vehicles. So
to engage the consumers, several governments are pushing them with different policies
and giving subsidies directly to the manufacturers to put less burden on buyers during
buying. China is giving 50,000 Yuan per vehicle. In March 2020, China announced that the
subsidy scheme would remain until 2022 [45]. There are copious incentives for buying an
EV in Germany such as free parking, reserved parking lot, bus lane use, and tax exemption.
For the above purchase of 40,000 Euros, a total of 9000 Euros subsidy is granted by the
federal government [46].

Environmental Concerns (Comparison with ICE)

Trucks account for less than 2% of the vehicles on the road but 22% of CO2 emissions
from road transport [7]. Road transport represents 17.8% of total emissions arising from
vehicles. Combined heavy-duty vehicles in Europe account for 5% of Europe’s GHG
emissions, while they carry 75% of all land-based freight [47]. Transport accounts for 32%
of total emissions. HDVs are responsible for approximately 25% of the CO2 emissions from
road transportation. Due to growing freight demand and stagnating HDVs’ fuel efficiency,
they will increase to 10% by 2030 [48]. Germany’s emissions reduction in 2019 was the
country’s most significant annual decline since 1990. Compared to then, Germany has
already reduced its emissions by 35.7% [49]. However, whether the primary electricity
generation resource is renewable energy or fossil energy resources should be considered.
Since if the electricity generation is mainly based on non-renewable, then BETs are indirect
producers of significant CO2 emissions. In the same situation, e-micro mobilities such as
scooters become new CO2 emission producers in cities [50].
Future Transp. 2022, 2 397

Improvement in Technology (Comparison with ICE)

Advancement in EV technology gears up the sales globally and makes the cost cutting
and economically feasible for EV buyers. As a result, BETs have become viable, zero-tailpipe
emission alternatives to diesel-fuelled trucks in recent years. As a result, a growing number
of models of EVs will hit the market, accompanied by technical specifications, such as range,
air drag coefficient, and prices. These data enable comparison between diesel trucks on the
roads and compare BETs and diesel trucks from the technical and economic viewpoint [1].

Adequate Trip Distance

Maree et al. found that 69% of truck trips in Germany were shorter than 350 km. In the
EU, almost half (47%) of road freight kilometers are trips of less than 300 km and represent
90% of the transport operations. BETs manufacturers such as Volvo claimed a range of
300 km, and Meyer and Meyer logistics trucks range up to 300 km, extending up to 500 km.
We can see that EV trucks can cover most of the trips without charging the battery with this
range. Therefore, the advancement in battery truck technology made long trips with one
charge feasible. So, it is an opportunity for the e-trucks market compared to ICE, which
also promises market growth for both battery swapping and fast charging.

Decline in EV’s Price

Over the past decade, we have seen an upward trend in using EVs as commercial-duty
vehicles. In addition, to make it successful, the different battery manufacturers, automotive
companies, and research institutions are working together to enhance EVs’ technology
to make it more feasible and cost-effective. According to the ‘price survey’ report of
BloombergNEF, the average price per kilowatt-hour of a lithium-ion battery dipped to
$137 (13%) from $157 in 2019. A decade ago, these batteries sold for more than $1100 per
kilowatt-hour. The threshold for price parity with gasoline engines, according to BNEF,
Future Transp. 2022, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 18
is around $100/kWh. In the report, BNEF analysts said they expect battery makers to hit
$101/kWh in 2023 [51] (see Figure 7).

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Lithium-ion
Lithium-ion battery
battery pack
pack costs
costs globally
globally between
between 2011
2011 and
and 2020
2020 ($U.S.
($U.S. per
per kWh)
kWh) [52].
[52].

Installed on
Installed on Designated
Designated Routes
Routes (Comparison
(Comparison with
with Fast
Fast Charging)
Charging)
Most heavy-duty
Most heavy-dutytrucks
trucksororlong-haul
long-haultrucks
truckscarrying
carrying utilities
utilities ride
ride onon a designated
a designated or
or same route. Therefore, planning and developing infrastructure for
same route. Therefore, planning and developing infrastructure for battery swappingbattery swapping
sta-
stations
tions is not
is not difficult
difficult since
since we we already
already have
have a defined
a defined pathway
pathway to travel.
to travel. Furthermore,
Furthermore, for
fast charging points, customers have to plan the duration of charging in their journey be-
fore the start and ensure that the route they plan to ride has an available charging station,
and they should reserve and book it before. Therefore, the advanced travel information
systems (ATIS) applied for trip planning and routing and have a high potential to change
Future Transp. 2022, 2 398

for fast charging points, customers have to plan the duration of charging in their journey
before the start and ensure that the route they plan to ride has an available charging station,
and they should reserve and book it before. Therefore, the advanced travel information
systems (ATIS) applied for trip planning and routing and have a high potential to change
mobility behaviors [53] should also provide booking services special the fast charging
stations for BETs.

Move Ownership to Station Operator

That relieves Capex and responsibility for batteries from logistics companies and
could be very attractive to logistics companies that might not be willing to bother with this
new technology.

Total Cost of Ownership

In the 2030 time frame, excluding infrastructure costs, overhead catenary electric
heavy-duty vehicles would have a total cost of ownership of approximately 26% less than
diesel vehicles. Likewise, hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are estimated to have a 22% lower
total cost of ownership than diesel vehicles [48].

3.5.4. Threats
Standardisation of EV Batteries
Standardization of batteries appears to be very unlikely and is primarily the competi-
tive edge for EVs; the OEMs are closely aligned with their underlying proprietary battery
technology. Furthermore, the battery pack is a core part of the EV’s strength, stability, and
safety at design time, making it numerous difficulties for OEMs to share a similar battery
architecture across the market. Hence there is no standard procedure or policies that bind
the manufacturers to produce one battery that fits all EVs. Moreover, the machinery cannot
be calibrated at the stations whenever it faces a change in the EV brand. Transport and
energy stress the need for a single dynamic charging system standard set by EU authorities
by 2023 [7].

Swapping Demand
The success of the battery swapping model is dependent on demand. Huge capital is
involved in setting the model, so manufacturers, station owners, and stakeholders struggle
to make the break-even point at the earliest. On the contrary, the demand is proportional to
the EV sales in the region. Marketing plays a crucial role in accumulating the customers
towards the station.

Space Availability
Space for construction of the swapping infrastructure is limited inside the city or city
centers. The reason is space occupied by heavy machines, storage of many batteries, heavy
trucks, or logistics trucks waiting in the queue. Moreover, if a car has very little charging and
cannot drive until the swapping station, the vehicle needs to be charged somewhere in the city.

Competition with Fast Charging Solutions

The swapping method will face a one-to-one trade-off with charging batteries at charge
points. Most customers might raise concerns about battery health, battery ownership,
mileage, and safety issues associated with the replaced battery; these are keynotes where
the swap solution might be left behind. In addition, the fast-charging network’s ongoing
developing infrastructure is vast compared to the swapping network.

4. Conclusions
This paper highlights the different aspects of the heavy-duty electric trucks, including
stakeholder aspects, the total cost of ownership (TCO), CO2 lifecycle assessment, and
SWOT analysis on battery swapping and fast charging methods.
Future Transp. 2022, 2 399

Regarding the customer and stakeholder analysis, the performance range of trucks per
one charge and charging time are critical factors in the market adaptation. The performance
range of the battery-electric trucks had significantly improved since 2010, when lithium-ion
battery prices came down shapely, which made its application feasible for heavy-duty trucks.
The different methods and assumptions of the TCO calculation are reviewed and
compared between battery-electric trucks and other technologies such as diesel. The TCO
calculation depends on the market growth factors, government policies regarding the taxes
and toll charges, employee rights, the diesel price, electricity price, and zero-emission
freight strategies for cities and their infrastructure.
The CO2 lifecycle analysis of the electric trucks was reviewed and compared with
diesel trucks. The CO2 lifecycle analysis includes WTT (well-to-tank) and TTW (tank-
to-wheel). Although the TTW of BETs is zero, the CO2 produced in the WTT phase
for BETs is greater than ICE trucks. Therefore, this finding emphasizes the necessity of
reduction in the WTT phase, which includes GHG emissions released into the atmosphere
from the production, processing, and distribution of electricity in the network for BETs.
Moreover, the emissions in manufacturing batteries and all components are considerable
and significant.
Moreover, a SWOT analysis was conducted to give an insight into the charging
methods and compare the battery swapping technology and fast charging. Charging
time is essential for adopting the e-truck, as waiting time can disrupt the supply chain
operation. The time taken by the swapping method in replacing the depleted battery with
a fully charged one is much less than the charging of EVs with fast chargers. Moreover, the
standardization of the batteries is the biggest challenge for OEMs and service providers.
There should be a consensus on battery production and vehicle manufacturing policies.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.M. and S.B.; methodology, H.M. and S.B.; formal
analysis, S.B. and H.M.; data curation, S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, S.B.; writing—review
and editing, S.B. and H.M.; visualization, S.B. supervision, H.M. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding, and the APC was funded by Technical Univer-
sity of Berlin.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: We acknowledge support by the German Research Foundation and the Open
Access Publication Fund of Technical University of Berlin.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Thomas, E.; Lucien, M.; Stef, C.; Samuel, K.; Carlos Calvo, A.; James, N. Analysis of long haul battery electric trucks in EU.
In Proceedings of the 8th Commercial Vehicle Workshop, Graz, Austria, 17–18 May 2018; p. 15.
2. U.S Department of Energy. Alternative Fuels Data Center: Maps and Data—Vehicle Weight Classes & Categories. Available
online: https://afdc.energy.gov/data/ (accessed on 18 July 2021).
3. Carlo, C.; Mahn Kien, T.; Youngwoo, L.; Shinghei, K.; Vincent, L.; Michael, F. A Review of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Powertrain
Technologies: Diesel Engine Vehicles, Battery Electric Vehicles, and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles. Clean Technol. 2021, 3,
474–489. [CrossRef]
4. European Automobile Manufacturers Association. Reducing CO2 Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles. p. 6. Available online:
https://reducingco2together.eu/assets/pdf/trucks.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2021).
5. European Commision. EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Climate Action. 23 November 2016. Available online: https:
//ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en (accessed on 16 June 2021).
6. Lucien, M. Transport & Environment. Roadmap for Electric Truck Charging, 19 February 2020. Available online: https:
//www.transportenvironment.org/publications/roadmap-electric-truck-charging (accessed on 17 June 2021).
7. Lucien, M. Transport and Environment. Recharge EU Trucks—Time to Act. Available online: https://www.transportenvironment.
org/sites/te/files/publications/2020_02_RechargeEU_trucks_paper.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2021).
Future Transp. 2022, 2 400

8. BloombergNEF. Battery Pack Prices Cited Below $100/kWh for the First Time in 2020, While Market Average Sits at $137/kWh.
16 December 2020. Available online: https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-cited-below-100-kwh-for-the-first-time-
in-2020-while-market-average-sits-at-137-kwh/ (accessed on 3 March 2022).
9. Chinaspv. Foton IBLUE Trucks Take Only Three Minutes to Complete Battery Swapping. 19 August 2020. Available online:
http://m.chinaspv.com/news/3701.html (accessed on 15 December 2021).
10. Panday, A. To put electric mobility in fast lane, firms push for swappable batteries. Mint, 27 June 2019. Available on-
line: https://www.livemint.com/auto-news/to-put-electric-mobility-in-fast-lane-firms-push-for-swappable-batteries-156165
5633564.html (accessed on 16 June 2021).
11. Phenix Contact. Battery Swapping for Electric Buses in Qingdao. Available online: https://www.phoenixcontact.com/assets/
downloads_ed/local_gb/web_dwl_promotion/5733e.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
12. Diwan, P. Midium: Is Battery Swapping a Viable Option for Public Transportation EVs. Medium. Available online: https://pdiwan.
medium.com/is-battery-swapping-a-viable-option-for-public-transportation-evs-adb4ced74ff2 (accessed on 16 June 2021).
13. Qayyah, M. Business Insider: Electric Trucks Like the Tesla Semi are Pointless Both Economically and Ecologically According to
a Vehicle-Tech Expert. Available online: https://www.businessinsider.com/this-expert-says-tesla-semi-is-economically-and-
ecologically-pointless-2019-2 (accessed on 15 December 2021).
14. MAN Germany. Fully Electric, Whisper-Quiet, and Highly Efficient: MAN eTGM. Available online: https://www.man.eu/de/
en/truck/all-models/the-man-etgm/etgm.html (accessed on 16 June 2021).
15. Freightliner Trucks. e-Cascadia—Specifications. Available online: https://freightliner.com/trucks/ecascadia/specifications/
(accessed on 16 June 2021).
16. Freightliner Trucks. eM2—Specifications. Available online: https://freightliner.com/trucks/em2/specifications/ (accessed on
16 June 2021).
17. Mercedes-Benz. eMobilität: The eActros and Its Services. Available online: https://www.mercedes-benz-trucks.com/content/
mbo/markets/de_DE/emobility/world/our-offer/eactros-and-services.html (accessed on 10 December 2021).
18. Volvo Trucks Global. Volvo FL Electric. Available online: https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/trucks/trucks/volvo-fl/volvo-
fl-electric.html (accessed on 10 December 2021).
19. Volvo Trucks Global. Volvo FE Electric. Available online: https://www.volvotrucks.com/en-en/trucks/trucks/volvo-fe/volvo-
fe-electric.html (accessed on 10 December 2021).
20. The International Council on Clean Transportation. BYD EV Sedema—BYD EV Vehicles. Available online: https://theicct.org/
sites/default/files/BYD%20EV%20SEDEMA.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
21. Inmod. Inmod-Bus—Electric Mobility in the Countryside. 28 February 2015. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20
150228104552/http:/www.inmod.de/de/technologie/inmod_bus (accessed on 15 December 2021).
22. Smith Eectric Trucks. The Newton—Electric Truck. Available online: https://web.archive.org/web/20140517121955/http://www.
smithelectric.com/wp-content/themes/barebones/pdfs/SmithNewtonUS_SpecSheet_2011.pdf (accessed on 14 June 2021).
23. Ebusco. 101Media. Electric Buses. Available online: https://www.ebusco.com/electric-buses/ (accessed on 16 June 2021).
24. Motionist. Swapping the Battery in Electric Vehicles Cuts Long Charging Times. 13 July 2020. Available online: https:
//motionist.com/en/quick-battery-swap-rather-than-long-charging-frustration/ (accessed on 16 June 2021).
25. Nikola Motor Company. Nikola Tre—BEV. Available online: https://nikolamotor.com/tre-bev (accessed on 16 June 2021).
26. Manthey, N. Daimler Reveals Electric Truck Eactros to Press. 21 February 2018. Available online: https://www.electrive.com/20
18/02/21/daimler-reveals-electric-truck-eactros-press/ (accessed on 16 June 2021).
27. Turpen, A. Teslarati, Tesla Semi Truck’s Battery Pack and Overall Weight Explored. 24 February 2018. Available online:
https://www.teslarati.com/how-much-tesla-semi-truck-battery-pack-weigh/ (accessed on 10 December 2021).
28. Tesla Trucks. Tesla Semi. Available online: https://www.tesla.com/semi (accessed on 13 December 2021).
29. Meszler, D.; Delgado, O.; Yang, L. International Council on Clean Transportation. Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Available online:
https://theicct.org/heavy-duty-vehicles (accessed on 18 July 2021).
30. Global Green Freight. Climate and Clean Air Coalition—National. Available online: http://www.globalgreenfreight.org/
stakeholders/government/national (accessed on 18 July 2021).
31. Global EV Battery Swapping Market is Driven by Low Penetration of DC Fast Charging Station and Remunerative Prospects
for Shared E-Mobility Services: P&S Intelligence. GlobeNewswire News Room. 19 March 2020. Available online: https://www.
globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/03/19/2003424/0/en/Global-EV-Battery-Swapping-Market-is-Driven-by-Low-
Penetration-of-DC-Fast-Charging-Station-and-Remunerative-Prospects-for-Shared-E-Mobility-Services-P-S-Intelligence.html
(accessed on 16 June 2021).
32. National Platform Electric Mobility. Charging Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles in Germany—Progress Report and Recom-
mendations 2015. November 2015. Available online: https://leonardo-energy.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Technical-
prediction_en_Document_3_Charging-Infrastructure-for-Electric-Vehicles.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2021).
33. Nicholas, M.; Hall, D. Lessons Learned on Early Electric Vehicle Fast-Charging Deployments, The International Council on Clean
Transportation. p. 54. Available online: https://theicct.org/publication/lessons-learned-on-early-electric-vehicle-fast-charging-
deployments/ (accessed on 17 June 2021).
Future Transp. 2022, 2 401

34. Meszler, D. The International Council on Clean Transportation, European Heavy Duty Vehicles: Cost-Effectiveness of Fuel-
efficiency Technologies for Long-Haul Tractor-Trailers in the 2025–2030 Timeframe. p. 82. Available online: https://theicct.org/
sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_EU-HDV-tech-2025-30_20180116.pdf (accessed on 17 June 2021).
35. Moultak, M.; Lutsey, N.; Hall, D. Transitioning to Zero-Emission Heavy-Duty Freight Vehicles. p. 59. Available online:
https://theicct.org/publication/transitioning-to-zero-emission-heavy-duty-freight-vehicles/ (accessed on 11 March 2022).
36. Volkswagen. T Is for Tank-to-Wheel (TTW). Available online: https://www.volkswagenag.com/en/group/the-a-to-z-of-e-
mobility/t-is-for-tank-to-wheel.html (accessed on 1 August 2021).
37. European Environment Agency. Overview of Electricity Production and Use in Europe. Available online: https://www.eea.
europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/overview-of-the-electricity-production-2/assessment (accessed on 6 July 2021).
38. Fraunhofer Energy Alliance. Peak Shaving with Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). Available online: https://www.energie.
fraunhofer.de/en/events-trade-fairs/allianz-energy-storage_2019/peak-shaving-with-battery-energy-storage-systems-a8
.html (accessed on 16 June 2021).
39. Hitachi Energy. Grid Edge Solutions. Available online: https://www.hitachienergy.com/cn/zh_cn/offering/solutions/grid-
edge-solutions (accessed on 10 December 2021).
40. Tesvolt GmbH. Peak Shaving with Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Available online: https://www.tesvolt.com/en/projects/
peak-shaving-with-electric-vehicle-charging-stations.html (accessed on 16 June 2021).
41. Sarker, M.; Pandžić, H.; Ortega-Vazquez, M. Electric vehicle battery swapping station: Business case and optimization model.
In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICCVE), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2–6 December
2013; pp. 289–294. [CrossRef]
42. Adegbohun, F.; Jouanne, A.; Lee, K. Autonomous Battery Swapping System and Methodologies of Electric Vehicles. Energies 2019,
12, 667. [CrossRef]
43. Liu, X.; Zhao, T.; Yao, S.; Soh, C.B.; Wang, P. Distributed Operation Management of Battery Swapping-Charging Systems. IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid 2019, 10, 5320–5333. [CrossRef]
44. Schaufuss, P.; Schenk, S.; Hertzke, P. McKinsey & Company, McKinsey Electric Vehicle Index: EV Market Trends & Sales. 17 July
2020. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/mckinsey-electric-
vehicle-index-europe-cushions-a-global-plunge-in-ev-sales (accessed on 10 December 2021).
45. Transport Oversize, Germany. Available online: http://www.transportoversize.eu/en/do_i_need_a_transport_permit/germany/
(accessed on 16 June 2021).
46. Randall, C. Electrive. Germany Doubles EV Subsidies, No More Diesel Support. 4 June 2020. Available online: https://www.
electrive.com/2020/06/04/germany-doubles-ev-subsidies-no-more-diesel-support/ (accessed on 17 June 2021).
47. Website of the Federal Government. Effectively Reducing CO2 Emissions. 22 September 2020. Available online: https://www.
bundesregierung.de/breg-en/issues/climate-action/effectively-reducing-co2-1795850 (accessed on 17 June 2021).
48. Rodriguez, F.; Delgado, O. International Council on Clean Transportation, CO2 Emissions and Fuel Consumption Standards for
Heavy-Duty Vehicles in the European Union. May 2018, p. 15. Available online: https://theicct.org/publication/co2-emissions-
and-fuel-consumption-standards-for-heavy-duty-vehicles-in-the-european-union/ (accessed on 17 June 2021).
49. Gonzalez, J. Deutsche Welle, Climate Change: Germany Cuts Carbon Emissions by 6.3% in 2019. 16 March 2020. Available online:
https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-germany-cuts-carbon-emissions-by-63-in-2019/a-52791753 (accessed on 17 June 2021).
50. Şengül, B.; Mostofi, H. Impacts of E-Micromobility on the Sustainability of Urban Transportation—A Systematic Review. Appl.
Sci. 2021, 11, 5851. [CrossRef]
51. Bloomberg, Batteries for Electric Cars Speed Toward a Tipping Point. Available online: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2020-12-16/electric-cars-are-about-to-be-as-cheap-as-gas-powered-models (accessed on 17 June 2021).
52. Statista. Worldwide—Lithiumion Battery Pack Costs. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/883118/global-
lithium-ion-battery-pack-costs/ (accessed on 11 December 2021).
53. Mostofi, H. The Association between ICT-Based Mobility Services and Sustainable Mobility Behaviors of New Yorkers. Energies
2021, 14, 3064. [CrossRef]