| Summary: | The main objective of idle reduction devices is to reduce the amount of energy wasted by idling trucks, decrease exhaust emissions and save in fuel use and maintenance costs and vehicle life extension. To achieve reductions emissions from vehicle idling in heavy-duty trucks, strategies and actions have been employed through the use of various technologies, namely auxiliary power units (APUs), direct-fire heaters (DFHs), truck stop electrification (TSE) and advanced truck stop electrification (ATSE). Little quantitative data exists on the amount of emissions that are emitted by heavy-duty trucks during idling. In general, diesel engines emit less CO and hydrocarbons (HC) when compared to gasoline engines since fuel-lean mixtures tend to reduce CO and HC emissions.
The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review that illustrates the status of data present in literature for costs and emissions reduced for APUs, DFHs, TSEs and ATSEs. From the review process, a cost calculator was devised from the synthesis of literature data to measure cost-effectiveness of these technologies in dollars per year per ton per year of emissions reduced over a 30 year investment period. Data on capital costs, maintenance and operational costs, and fuel costs were reported in order to calculate net present values, payback periods and fuel savings from each technology. Given the relevant data available from various studies that compute the efficiency of competing technologies, TSEs were the most cost-effective for the investor and the truck owner in regards to NOx emissions reduction. Cost-effectiveness measured for investors at $1,707.57 and $1,473.27 per ton of NOx reduced, and $16,799.91, $22,261.44, and $20,583.79 per ton of NOx reduced for truck owners.
The calculator also served as a tool to illustrate insufficient data currently present in the body of literature. Limited quantitative data and unknown variability of costs as a function of time over the 30-year investment period was used to assess best practices. Thus, policymakers and other stakeholders can benefit from this review in order to conduct future studies that would enlighten greater understanding of data points from specifications of the operating context and devise more robust models for the sake of comparing these technologies based on impact and risk
|
|---|
