The companies were also asked, what had been the primary objective for energy efficiency actions. The most common objective was unsurprisingly cost reduction, which was stated by 82% of respondents. The second objective, on the other hand, is slightly surprising. Environmental concern was mentioned as primary objective by 9% of respondents, far more often than fulfilling customer expectations (4%) and improving company image (3%). Some altruistic, ‘soft’ environmental values can therefore be found in the supposedly ‘hard’ technical haulier business. Some of the studied freight hauliers reported additional energy efficiency actions that were not mentioned among the listed 16 actions. Improving backhauls was mentioned many times, as well as pre-heating the motor during winter. The companies which have implemented energy efficiency actions reported to have gained fuel savings of 5–15%, but only a few companies gave such estimate. The companies also pointed out that they have not been able to fully assess the effects because of varying operations. Some companies also reported safety improvements.
The total fuel savings acquired through the energy efficiency actions of the respondents was estimated based on the reported utilization rate of each action in the respondents’ fleets and estimates of average saving for each action (Table 27). The utilization is calculated by first determining that the action is utilized in 17% of respondents vehicles if the respondent said the action is implemented with less than 33% of trucks/drivers, 50% if the respondent said the action is implemented with 33-66% of trucks/drivers and 83% if the respondent said the action is implemented with more than 67% of trucks/drivers and then multiplying the number of vehicles the respondent reported to operate with this percentage. Then each respondents’ number of vehicles utilizing each action are summed to calculate the utilization in the total fleet of 1459 vehicles the respondents operate.
The fuel saving in respondents’ fleets for each action is then calculated by multiplying the average saving and utilization. The total fuel savings is then calculated with the following equation where the si is the saving in respondents’ fleets for each action. Also the maximum saving is calculated using this principle to illustrate the potential savings if each action would be fully utilized in the respondents’ fleets.
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔 = 1 − �(1 − 𝑠𝑖) 17
𝑖=0
In order to avoid double accounting of savings in calculations, some adjustments were made. The respondents could choose in the survey four levels of ecodriving, from theoretical training to bonus scheme, but in the savings calculation only the highest level of ecodriving practice is taken into account, i.e. the respondent is calculated to use only ecodriving bonus scheme although he would have marked to use also theoretical ecodriving training, ecodriving courses and regular monitoring, which are here considered as prerequisites for the bonus scheme. Also with the
117 aerodynamics the respondents could choose that they use aerodynamically designed trucks/trailers and aerodynamic add-ons, which may both have great savings, but if the respondent uses both, the savings are likely to be less than the sum of the individual savings. Thus the utilization of aerodynamics is divided in the three groups in the calculation.
The energy efficiency actions are also divided into two groups in Table 27 to make a distinction between “tactical measures” and “operational measures”. Tactical measures are considered to be more subjectively defined by each respondent and the average savings are also more difficult to determine than with the operational measures. Hence, the fuel saving estimation of tactical measures should be interpreted with caution.
Table 27. Estimated fuel savings gained by the respondents. The average saving estimations are made based on DfT (2010a), FTA (2012), RICARDO (2009), RASTU (2009) and DTL (2009).
Average saving Utilization Saving in respondents' fleets Maximum saving with 100% utilization
Energy efficiency action vehicles # of
% of all vehicles (n=1459) Ta ct ica l m ea su re s Hybrid vehicles 15% 6 0.4% 0.1% 15%
Purchasing trucks with low consumption 5% 669 46% 2.3% 5%
Lightweight trucks and trailers 5% 436 30% 1.5% 5%
Choosing the vehicle size according to the load 10% 863 59% 5.9% 10%
Computerized routing and scheduling 8% 457 31% 2.5% 8%
Total tactical fuel savings 11.8% 36%
O per at io na l mea su re s Ecodriving
- Theoretical ecodriving training 2% 102 7% 0.1% - Ecodriving course with driving and theory 4% 92 6% 0.3% - Regular monitoring of ecodriving 6% 420 29% 1.7%
- Ecodriving bonus scheme 8% 142 10% 0.8% 8%
Avoiding idling 2% 868 60% 1.2% 2%
Limiting driving speed 5% 662 45% 2.3% 5%
Aerodynamics
- Aerodynamic trucks and trailers 7% 86 6% 0.4% - Add-ons which improve aerodynamics 7% 67 5% 0.3%
- Both design and add-ons 10% 324 22% 2.2% 10%
Low rolling resistance tyres 3% 512 35% 1.1% 3%
Using oils that improve energy efficiency 2% 533 37% 0.7% 2%
Regular monitoring of tyre inflation 1% 725 50% 0.5% 1%
Total operational fuel savings 11.0% 27%
118
It is thus estimated that the respondents currently consume 21% less fuel than they would consume without their energy efficiency actions. This equals approximately 13 million litres of fuel and 34 thousand tons of CO2 annually, based on the total reported annual fuel consumption of the respondents (48 million l). The estimate is indicative, because the estimates for the average saving of each action cannot be verified to be true in the respondents’ fleets. The actual saving that has been gained with an action varies from company to company, especially with the tactical measures. This is because each respondent is likely to perceive the actions differently than another and differently than the researcher has perceived them and thus the average saving may not reflect the actual saving. Furthermore, the actions have interrelations that may diminish the impact of individual actions (e.g. limiting driving speed decreases the savings of improved aerodynamics). The current fuel consumption is also different in each company and this affects the potential savings. It should also be noted that there may be overlap between some actions, especially with the ecodriving and avoiding idling, limiting driving speed and monitoring tyre inflation, all of which can be considered to be a part of ecodriving, but can also be done using automated equipment. In this survey these distinctions were not made so the respondents may have interpreted these actions differently.