5. Result And Analysis
5.1. Electric Vehicle Adoption and Emission Reduction Strategy
The result of EV adoption in the system based on the percentage and numerical strategy is compared to know whether using percentage and numerical strategy will give different effect to EV adoption in the system. The comparison is done based on the same strategy part on low daily demand, which means that the percentage emission reduction strategy that has yearly emission target will be compared to the maximum numerical emission based on the yearly emission target and the rest follows the same pattern. The result is compared based on the percentage of an electric truck in the system for each year, which is calculated based on the number of electric trucks owned devided by total vehicles that company uses.
It is worth noting that the target of emission reduction target is generated based on the Netherlands’s government plan. The government sets the emission reduction target by fuel emission due to transportation activity in 2020 must be 6% lower than transportation emission in 2010 (emissionsauthority.nl, 2017). This 6%-emission target is used as the emission reduction target strategy described at percentage reduction, which is explained in Table (5).
Table 5. Percentage of Emission Reduction Target
Strategy 1 Strategy 2 Strategy 3 Strategy 4
33
The first comparison is shown in the Figure (8) to see the difference between yearly emission target is compared to the maximum numerical emission based on the yearly emission target. Both results show that percentage of EV in the system will always be same during planning horizon if there is no difference in the percentage reduction of emission and maximum allowable emission each year.
Figure 8. Percentage of EV in The System and Yearly Emission Reduction Target Based on Percentage and Numerical Strategy
Figure 9. Percentage of EV in The System and Total Emission Reduction Target Based on Percentage and Numerical Strategy
The second comparison is done to see whether there is a difference in EV adoption pattern between total percentage emission reduction for 16 years strategy and maximum allowable total emission for 16 years. Both results, which are explained in the Figure (9), show that there is no difference of EV adoption pattern if percentage and numerical strategy to define emission
0,00
Percentage of EV in The System and Yearly Emission Reduction Target Based on Percentage and Numerical Strategy on Low Daily Demand
yearly percentage emission reduction yearly numerical maximum allowable emission
percetangeof EV in the system(%)
0,00 10,00 20,00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Percentage of EV in The System and Total Emission Reduction Target Based on Percentage and Numerical Strategy on Low Daily Demand
total percentage emission reduction at the endof planning horizon total numerical allowable emission at the end of planning horizon
percetangeof EV in the system(%)
34
constraint target is used. This emission reduction strategy gives the flexibility the system to choose when to adopt EV, and it is also shown that the system tends to adopt EV gradually and decide to adopt EV in the later stage.
Figure 10. Percentage of EV in The System and Progressive Emission Reduction Target Based on Percentage and Numerical Strategy
The third comparison is done to see whether there is a difference in EV adoption pattern between progressive emission reduction target based on the past emission generated explained by percentage and numerical emission constraints. Both results, which are explained in the Figure (10), show that there is no difference of EV adoption pattern. Because the emission reduction each year is progressive, the number of EV in the system also increases gradually from year 0 to year 15.
Figure 11. Percentage of EV in The System and The Emission Reduction Target at The End Year of Planning Horizon
The fourth comparison is done to see whether there is a difference in EV adoption pattern between emission reduction target at the end year of planning the horizon by percentage and numerical emission constraints. Both results, which are explained in the Figure (11), show that there is no difference of EV adoption pattern. Both results show that emission reduction at the end of planning year generate an optimum cost for the company if company delay the adoption near at the end of the planning horizon.
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00 20,00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Percentage of EV in The System and Progressive Emission Reduction Target Based on Percentage and Numerical Strategy on Low Daily Demand
progressive percentage emission reduction based on the previous emission progressive maximum emission target
percetangeof EV in the system(%)
0,00 10,00 20,00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Percentage of EV in The System and The End of PlanningHorizon Target Based on Percentage and Numerical Strategy on Low Daily Demand
progressive percentage emission reduction based on the previous emission progressive maximum emission target
percetangeof EV in the system(%)
35
Based on the four comparisons, it is shown that there is no difference in EV adoption pattern in the system when emission reduction target is defined by percentage emission reduction or maximum allowable emission generated. The difference of EV adoption pattern only occurs based on emission reduction target strategy. The Figure (12) shows that the percentage of EV in the system based on the emission reduction percentage system with all four emission reduction strategies on high-daily demand.
Figure 12. Percentage of EV in The System and Emission Reduction Target Strategies
Figure (12) shows that all of three strategies has its own EV’s percentage pattern in the system.
The first and third strategy that use yearly emission target and progressive emission target have the numbers of EVs in the system to fulfil the emission reduction target every year during the planning horizon. Those two strategies have defined emission reduction target each year. By having emission reduction target each year, the system might dictate the company to reduce its emission by having electric truck each year. Therefore these emission reduction strategies might control and force the company always to use EV.
The second and fourth strategies that use percentage emission reduction target to the total emission for 16 years and emission reduction target at the end of planning horizon year are generated to give more flexibility to the system to decide when and how many electric trucks should be owned. Both of strategy tends to postpone EV’s adoption to the latter years.
Nevertheless, the second strategy adopts EV’s gradually while the fourth strategy adopts EV near the year where there is emission reduction target is put.
Since the main goal of the EV adoption is to reduce emission, and the company has a concern regarding cost; therefore emission generated by four strategies and its total cost needs to be compared. Figure (13) shows the emission reduction each year and the total emission reduction throughout the planning horizon for four emission reduction strategies on high-daily demand setting. It is worth noting that the EV adoption for low and high daily demand has a similar pattern.
The emission reduction percentage is calculated based on the emission reduction (kg CO2 eq) generated by using diesel and electric trucks divided by total emission generated by the company if the company use only diesel trucks to deliver demand.
0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Percentage of EV in The System and Emission Reduction Target Strategies on High Daily Demand.
yearly percentage emission reduction
total percentage emission reduction at the end of planning horizon progressive percentage emission reduction based on the previous emission the end planning horizon target
percetangeof EV in the system(%)
36
Figure 13. Emission Reduction Each Year and Total Emission Reduction throughout Planning Horizon
Figure (13) shows that the emission reduction follows the same pattern of EV adoption since the reduction depends on the numbers of electric truck used. It can be seen from this figure that the least total emission reduction throughout the planning horizon is had by the emission reduction number four, which is 0.82% emission reduction. This is because the fourth emission reduction strategy only adopts EV near the end of the planning horizon. The first, second, third strategy have total emission reduction throughout the planning horizon as 6.58%, 6.02%, and 6.29%.
Figure 14. Total Cost and Total Emission Reduction throughout Planning Horizon
Figure (14) explains the relation between the total cost and emission reduction based on the emission reduction strategy. It is clear from this figure that high emission reduction has tendency to require a high cost. The high cost might be due to the needs of the company to build battery switching station and manage it. Based on Figure (15), it can be seen that the cost related battery building station, such as investment cost to build BSS, maintenance cost for BSS, purchase and maintenance costs for safety stock battery at BSS is the third highest cost component after maintenance cost for vehicle and energy cost.
0,00 5,00 10,00 15,00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 total
reduction Percentage of Emission Reduction in The System and Emission Reduction Target Strategies
on High-Daily Demand
yearly percentage emission reduction
total percentage emission reduction at the endof planning horizon progressive percentage emission reduction based on the previous emission the end planning horizon target
percetangeof EV in the system(%)
6.58% 6.02% 6.29%
0.82%
0,001,00 2,003,00 4,005,00 6,007,00
90000000 95000000 100000000 105000000 110000000 115000000 120000000
Percentage- Yearly Emission Reduction Target Percentage- Total Emission Reduction Target for all Planning Years Percentage- Emission Reduction Target Based Past Emission Target Percentage- Emission Reduction at The End of Planning Year
Total Cost and Total Emission Reduction for High Demand Setting
Total Cost ($) total emission reduction (%)
37
Figure 15. Percentage of Cost Component
The difference EV’s adoption pattern, total emission reduction, and cost between the emission reduction strategy can be used as the insight for government to choose which emission reduction strategy that is more attractive to the company while considering the urgency to reduce transportation emission. From emission reduction point of view, from Figure (12) and Figure (14), it can be seen that the first strategy has the highest total emission reduction. The first and third strategies have similar total emission reduction throughout planning horizon. The first strategy has more EV from the earlier years EV compare to the third strategy, but the third strategy will have more EV at the end of planning year. Having more EV at the end of planning year might be a good thing for the emission reduction in the future since it can help to reduce more emission in the future and reduce the force of company to buy more EV in the future because the company already have high numbers of EV.
Based on an economic point of view, the company might want to compare the ratio of total cost and emission reduction percentage. This ratio can be seen in the Table (6).
Table 6. Ration of Total Cost and Total Emission Reduction Percentage
Total Cost ($) 114463795.9 111915177.5 114673206.4 98245378.89
total emission
reduction (%) 6.58 6.02 6.29 0.82
ratio of cost/emission reduction ($/%)
17395713.66 18590561.05 18227510.85 119811437.7
From Table (6), the second emission reduction strategy has the highest ratio of total cost per emission reduction percentage. This strategy can be an attractive strategy for a company and the
11,88
Percentage of Cost Component for Percentage-Yearly Emission Reduction Target on High Demand
holding battery cost for vehicle (0.51%) salvage battery cost for vehicle (0.02%) waiting time cost (0.05%)
38
government might consider adopting this strategy since the total emission reduction throughout the planning horizon does not differ far from the first and the third strategies. Moreover, the second strategy can give more flexibility to the company to decide when and how many EV to be owned.
The second strategy has a tendency to delay the adoption of EV. Since the EV’s technology is still growing, the company might think that the third strategy that gives more flexibility to decide EV’s adoption and has a tendency to adopt at a later stage is more interesting. Nevertheless, the company that has strong desire to reduce emission and does not mind to adopt EV at an early stage might think the system that gives less flexible EV’s adoption decision will be more interesting.