Improving Energy Efficiency of Transport – Lessons from ESOS

Improving The Energy
Efficiency of Transport –
Lessons from ESOS
Robert Anderson
Cenex
Senior Fleet Specialist& Lead Assessor

Transport Energy Efficiency
Agenda
 Who are Cenex
 Transport Within ESOS
 Drivers for Transport Efficiency
 Lessons
 Efficiency Options
 The Future

Who are Cenex?

Cenex
 Not-for-profitindependent research and consultancy
 Specialists in low emissionvehicles,associatedinfrastructure, energy
systems and supply chain development.
 Help clients to assess,validate and apply low emission automotive
strategies and technologies.
 Operate across Europe through collaborationand partnership
working.
 Manage the UK’s largest lowcarbon vehicle event

Transport Within ESOS

ESOS considerations
 Energy consumption from transport is within the scope of ESOS.
 Only required to include transport where the organisation is supplied
with the fuel, not where they procure a transportation service that
includes an indirect payment for the fuel consumption e.g.:
 Train or flight tickets include an indirect payment for the fuel
consumed
 Many logistics services include an indirect payment for fuel
 However, if transport is less than 10% of the company’s significant
energy use, it can be discounted.

ESOS considerations
 The Energy Audit should cover energy usage relating to fuel which is
supplied to the participant for use in its business:
 Owned/ Leased HGVs
 Owned/ Leased Vans
 Owned/ Leased Cars
 A supply to an employee of the participant counts as a supply to the
participant, provided the fuel is used in the business of the participant.
 Grey Fleet (personal vehicles used on company business)

Drivers for Transport Efficiency

Low emission vehicle drivers
Inward Investment
Air Quality
Carbon
Energy Security

Low emission vehicle drivers
Ultra-low Emission Zone
London T-Charge Technology Bans
Clean Air Zones

Where’s the energy?
 Energy and energy consumption are not phrases used in transport
 Different terminology: kWh vs MPG/ gCO2 km
 First time transport has been included in energy/carbon audits

Lessons …

Cenex audits
 Partnered with:
 Provided clients with two compliance options:
1. Light Touch
 Top level assessmentbased on Simple Payback Periods
2. In Depth
 Full assessmentbased on Life Cycle Cost Analysis

Issues …
 Managing client expectations
 Compliance vs. in depth analysis
 Hinderance vs. useful
 Rushed timescales
 Issues with sign off
 Senior Management questions
 Awkward conversations
 Sign off to implement changes
 Transport fuel costs seen as ‘necessary evil’
 Empowerment needed to trial options

Issues …
 Data supply & quality
 Fuel consumption
 Fuel cards
 Business expenses
 Mileage
 Telematics systems
 Business expenses

Options for Efficiency

 Mobile asset
 User choice
 Job need
 Multi user?
 Daily / annual mileage
 Refuelling and recharging
 Technology options
 Whole life costs
 Dealer support
 Vehicle payload
Issues …

Energy saving measures identified
 Grey fleet management
 Company car selection policy changes
 Lightweight van bodies
 Double deck trailers
 Improved aerodynamics of trailers & cabs
 Transmission remapping
 Electric power take-off
 Driver training
 Trailer loading software
 In-cab driver aids
 Alternative fuels
 Energy efficient tyres
 Low viscosity oils
 Hybridisation of vans, buses, off-highway

Options
 Four key variables
 The Driver
 The Vehicle
 The Journey
 The Policy
 There is no single solution
 One technology/ approach will not fit all, it will take a blend

The Driver

Impact of the driver
 Key factor for fuel efficiency
 Potential fuel savings
 Immediate ~15%
 Long term ~5%
 Other impacts
 Tyres
 Insurance
 Maintenance
 Sustaining savings

The Vehicle

The impact of vehicle selection
 Job need vs. user selection
 Duty cycle
 Ownership period
 Load requirements (volume vs. weight)
 Engine size
 Aerodynamics
 Engine downsizing
 Low carbon options
 Battery Electric/ Plug in Hybrid/ Hybrid/ Gas

Cars Small vans
Large vans Mid-size trucks Large trucks
Low carbon options

Vehicle Classification Electric Gas Liquid
Tank-to-Wheel CO2 Savings ~20 – 100% 0 to 100% ~15% worse to 100%
Well-to-Wheel CO2 Savings ~20 – 50% 0 to ~85% ~15% worse to ~90%
Air Quality Savings
Some improvement to zero
emissions
AQ benefit to zero emissions Similar AQ to some AQ benefit
Battery
Electric
Hybrid
Electric
Plug-in
Hybrid
Range
Extended
Electric
ICE
LPG
Hydrogen
Fuel Cell/Range
Extender/Dual Fuel
Dedicated
CNG
Diesel & LPG
Dual Fuel
Petrol Biodiesel Drop-in
Fuels

Electric vans
Whole Life CostExample
Models:
Nissan NV200
1.5dCi Acenta
(Diesel)
Nissan e-NV200
Acenta
(Electric)
Vehicle £15,030 £22,088
Plug-in vangrant discount £0 £5,301
Fuel costs £5,449 £2,103
Road tax £700 £0
Maintenance costs £2,114 £1,416
Resale value £3,096 £4,622
Life time cost £20,198 £15,684
Cost permile 33.7p 26.1p
Whole life cost savings £4,514
If used in the London Congestion Zone (£10.50 per day with 5 days/week)
Life time cost £33,323 £15,684
Whole life cost savings £17,639
• Economics
o Vehicle: 2.2t Small panel van
o Annual mileage: 12,000 miles (48 miles per day)
o Ownership period: 5 years
o Cost saving: £4,514 rising to £17,639 if used daily in the London Congestion Charging Zone
• Environment
o 40 – 50% WTW CO2 savings & Zero tail-pipe air quality and CO2 emissions

Diesel-electric hybrid trucks
• Economicsbreak-even point
o Vehicle: 7.5t Eco-Canter
o Annual mileage: 15,000 – 30,000 miles (60 – 120 miles per day)
o Ownership period: 5 years
• Environment
o Up to 20% fuel and CO2 savings & associated air quality and noise savings

Dedicated Gas Trucks and Vans
• Economics
o Station capacity dependent:
• Environment(Coca Cola & IVECO STRALIS Truck)
o 60% reduction WTW CO2 (using biomethane)
o 86% reduction in NOx (Euro 5)
o 97% reduction in PM (Euro 5)

The Journey

Grey fleet
 Usually older and have higher
fuel consumption
 Other forms of car provision
such as pool or hire may be
more cost effective.
 Mileage reimbursement rates
may be significantly higher than
the costs incurred by drivers,
incentivising unnecessary travel.

The Policy

Policy changes
 Incentivisation of fuel efficiency
 Vehicle allocation policy
 Job need vs. user choice
 CO2 emission cap
 Be aware of vehicle usage
 Others:
 Travel policy
 Grey fleet policy
Make VW Tiguan
Mitsubishi
Outlander (PHEV)
Official MPG 49.6 148.5
Miles per Annum 22,602 22,602
Operating Period(years) 4 4
Potential Operating Costs
Fuel Use (l) 8,286 2,768
Fuel Spend (£) 8,949 2,989
Carbon Emissions (kgCO2e) 23,290 7,779
Energy Consumption (kWh) 88,939 29,706

Conclusions

Conclusions
 Including fleet within energy management
 ‘Fit and forget’
 Need to test and monitor impacts
 Procurement process
 Purchase price vs. total cost of ownership
 Careful planning is needed
 Vehicle characteristics
 Operational limitations
 Fitting right vehicle to operation

Success?
ESOS Compliant
But also:
Cutting costs and carbon
Delivering competitive advantage

The Future?

Vehicles as part of the energy systemEVs as part of the building energy system
Source: electriccarsreport.com/2015/12/nissan-and-enel-team-up-on-v2g-technology

Thank you for listening
Rob Anderson
Senior Fleet Advisor
Cenex
Email: robert.anderson@cenex.co.uk
Mobile: 07833 447 352

Improving Energy Efficiency of Transport – Lessons from ESOS

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Improving Energy Efficiency of Transport – Lessons from ESOS

Similar to Improving Energy Efficiency of Transport – Lessons from ESOS (20)

More from EMEX

More from EMEX (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (16)

Improving Energy Efficiency of Transport – Lessons from ESOS