How BMW is lowering its diesel truck CO2 emissions by 50%
How do you make a long-haul diesel truck emit 50% less CO2 without changing a single thing about it? Sounds like a riddle, right? A new pilot solution embraced by BMW Group Logistik and supplied by partner firm Trailer Dynamics here in Germany, though, can do just that. I spoke with Mo Koellner from BMW and Michael Nimtsch from Trailer Dynamics about this tech on a call earlier in the week.
As to the answer to the above riddle: This is a semi-truck trailer that has a massive battery pack (up to 600 kWh) installed in its floor, and that battery powers an electrically driven axle underneath the trailer. The solution isn’t conceptually novel; e-trailers, or electrified trailers, have been on the market in various forms for a number of years now (though the technology is still in a relative stage of infancy). The basic principle is simple, too. By adding a battery-electric driven power source to a diesel tractor-trailer, you reduce the fuel consumption of the diesel portion of the system. In other words, you’ve created a plug-in hybrid-electric big rig. Pretty straightforward, yeah?
What makes Trailer Dynamics’ solution cool is just how “plug and play” it is. In fact, the company says that its electric trailers can work with any truck they are physically capable of hitching to. No trailer-to-truck connection is utilized; the e-trailer operates totally independently. Trailer Dynamics says this makes its product unique* in the space, as most other e-trailer solutions require active communication with the connected truck to enable the electric-assisted drive. BMW is currently testing TD’s solution on its BMW Group Logistik fleet. (*US-based Range Energy also claims to work with basically any truck, and their solution seems quite similar to Trailer Dynamics. We covered them back in May. The biggest distinction I’ve seen is that Trailer Dynamics offers far larger batteries and is designed for use with European tractor-trailer configurations. BMW’s fuel consumption figures also seem to indicate TD’s solution may be more efficient, but it’s hard to know how apples-to-apples these numbers are given the pack size differences.)
The way TD achieves this is down to a proprietary sensor pack that lives in the kingpin of the trailer. There, a computer control model takes input from the sensors (used to monitor various forces on the kingpin) and converts that data into a decision about when and how much power to apply to the electric motors in the axle. The logic of the system takes into account the sort of things you’d expect. For example, if the trailer knows the truck is currently stopped and is beginning a start — when large trucks tend to make use of their fuel most inefficiently — it will apply very substantial power to get the truck rolling. The result is a huge reduction in the amount of diesel used. Similarly, if the system detects the truck is going uphill, electric assist will be applied generously to minimize the effects of an otherwise high fuel consumption situation. According to TD’s website, factors like weather conditions, route topography, and traffic can also be considered, though it was less clear to me how these play in to when the trailer applies power. The system can also be configured to disable itself if the battery capacity reaches a predefined cutoff point (important, as fleet operators ideally want a minimum level of charge guaranteed at any moment).
The system itself is, by the standards of passenger electric vehicles, some very heavy-duty stuff. Battery packs of either 400 kWh or 600 kWh are employed (a 200 kWh unit is coming later), with the 600 kWh configuration being the most desirable among TD’s prospective customers. That’s because the economics of efficiency apparently pay off best for longer routes, where a larger battery is going to be necessary. The electric motor unit outputs up to 580 kW (777 hp), which is impressive, but it’s the insane 13,000 nm of torque that’s doing the heavy lifting (literally). Charging is also pretty damn quick, with the 800V architecture supporting 44 kW AC and up to 350 kW DC fast charging. The supersized figures here make sense when you consider the weights at play — BMW is testing TD’s trailers with a payload of 16 metric tonnes, or over 35,000 pounds. (Specifically, BMW has been using them to haul electric drive units for its passenger cars.)
As for the end efficiency, BMW is seeing fuel consumption lowered by nearly 50% on some of the long-haul routes it’s testing, meaning emissions on those routes are cut in half. Even on shorter routes, the figure is in excess of 45% fuel savings. Because BMW is using 100% carbon-neutral sources to recharge the trailer batteries, it estimates that each e-trailer could cut up to 120 tonnes of CO2 emissions from its fleet each year. For comparison, assuming a “typical” ICE car emits around 5 tonnes of CO2 annually, each trailer optimally utilized is like taking 60 cars off the road. All that is to say: It’s hard to overstate how much fuel a real big truck uses.
BMW has also been testing TD’s trailers with electric trucks, where the system effectively acts as a range extender. Depending on the specific truck, payload, and route, BMW says the range of an electric truck could be extended by a factor of 2-3x, opening up entirely new scenarios for the use of BEV tractor units. In one test, BMW used an unspecified Volvo e-truck in combination with a TD mega trailer to go over 600 km (373 miles) without recharging.
In a perfect world, diesel trucks would be replaced with electric ones wholesale. But in reality, the design principle of trucks as long-life assets means that ICE trucking will stick around a fair bit longer than combustion passenger cars. If we can reach a point where e-trailer systems like Trailer Dynamics’ are minimizing trucking fuel consumption at scale, though, we can still have a real net-positive impact on emissions while that transition occurs. And because this kind of system benefits both ICE and EV tractors (arguably, the latter even more so), this is a scenario where the hybrid step-transition makes much more sense. There’s nothing redundant being engineered here for the sake of ICE trucks; these trailers will retain their usefulness in the age of BEV trucking.
For BMW, the EV trucking side of the equation has an added bonus — the low-liner “mega trailer” configuration it uses for a large amount of its transport fleet greatly limits the range of available EV truck options. Using TD’s mega trailer solution as a range extender is thus an excellent way to work around that challenge. (Mega trailers are a high-capacity trailer class specifically developed for use in the EU, where they remain extremely popular. These space-maximized trailers require a particular class of truck chassis with a very low deck floor for towing, and that leaves very little room for a battery.)
As for the challenges of stuffing a massive battery in the bottom of an already super-heavy-laden trailer? They’re not nonexistent. According to BMW, TD’s solutions are best for shipping in “cubed out” configurations — that is, utilizing the maximum volume of a container, not its maximum weight. And sure, the battery cannibalizes some of the available space for cargo. But, over time and with the evolution and refinement of the system (weight reduction is one of TD’s immediate goals), greater and greater payloads will become feasible. Human behavior is another big factor to consider. Suppose a tractor operator is still driving like a leadfoot. In that case, it’s possible to mitigate a fair bit of the system’s fuel savings (BMW saw fuel consumption variability of up to 20% during testing based on driver). On the economics, BMW believes that e-trailers will significantly lower fleet operating costs, offsetting initially higher acquisition costs for the equipment.
Down the road, TD suggests it could also start using its tech to assist in the on-road safety of tractor-trailers, applying power or engine braking force for stability management (for example, if a truck is in danger of jackknifing). Right now, the company is just getting started, and currently has seven trailers in operation (an eighth was just delivered).
While cleaning up our passenger cars will have a real effect on global CO2 emissions, the impact of trucking transport is something we should all be considering, too. According to data from the IEA, road freight accounts for 30% of all global transportation emissions, making it the second-largest contributor behind passenger vehicles — and by a wide margin. (For comparison, all air and sea transit contribute just above 10% of global emissions each. Rail sits at a measly 1%.)
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Tesla has launched a new accessory enabling you to “Macgyver” a couple of power outlets from the Cybertruck’s charge port.
It appears to be designed for the new cheaper Cybertruck, which doesn’t have power outlets in its bed.
Earlier this week, Tesla launched the Cybertruck Long Range RWD: a new, cheaper, and badly nerfed version of the electric pickup truck.
The new version is extremely disappointing as it is $9,000 more expensive than the Cybertruck RWD was supposed to be, and while it has more range than originally planned, Tesla has removed a ton of features, including some important ones.
Here’s what you lose with the Cybertruck RWD:
- You get a single motor RWD instead of Dual Motor AWD
- You lose the adaptive air suspension
- No motorized tonneau, but you have an optional $750 soft tonneau
- Textile seats instead of vegan leather
- Fewer speakers
- No rear screen for the backseat
- No power outlets in the bed
The last one has been pretty disappointing, as it can’t be that expensive to include, and Tesla is basically removing $20,000 worth of features for only a $10,000 difference with the Dual Motor Cybertruck.
But the automaker appears to have come up with a partial solution.
Tesla has launched a $80 ‘Powershare Outlet Adapter’ on its online store:
When combined with Tesla’s Gen 3 Mobile Connector plugged into the Cybertruck’s charge port, it gives you two 120V 20A power outlets.
Tesla describes the product:
Powershare Outlet Adapter allows you to power electronic devices using Mobile Connector and your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s battery. To use this adapter, plug Mobile Connector’s handle into your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s charge port and connect the adapter to the other end of your Mobile Connector. You can then use this adapter to plug in any compatible electronic device you want to power.
For now, Tesla says that this only works for the Cybertruck and you have to buy the $300 mobile charging connector, which doesn’t come with the truck.
Electrek’s Take
I guess it’s better than nothing, but I’m still super disappointed in the new trim. It makes no sense right now.
Not only you lose the 2x 120V, 1x 240V outlets in the bed, but you also lose the 2x 120V outlets in the cabin. Now, you can can pay $380 to have a “Macgyver” solution for 2 120V outlets in the back.
I’m convinced that Tesla designed this trim simply to make the $80,000 Cybertruck AWD look better value-wise.
It looks like Tesla took out about $20,000 worth of features while giving buyers only a $10,000 discount.
It’s just the latest example of Tesla losing its edge.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
The International Maritime Organization, a UN agency which regulates maritime transport, has voted to implement a global cap on carbon emissions from ocean shipping and a penalty on entities that exceed that limit.
After a weeklong meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO and decades of talks, countries have voted to implement binding carbon reduction targets including a gradually-reducing cap on emissions and associated penalties for exceeding that cap.
Previously, the IMO made another significant environmental move when it transitioned the entire shipping industry to lower-sulfur fuels in 2020, moving towards improving a longstanding issue with large ships outputting extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, which harm human health and cause acid rain.
Today’s agreement makes the shipping industry the first sector to agree on an internationally mandated target to reduce emissions along with a global carbon price.
The agreement includes standards for greenhouse gas intensity from maritime shipping fuels, with those standards starting in 2028 and reducing through 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero emissions in shipping by 2050.
Companies that exceed the carbon limits set by the standard will have to pay either $100 or $380 per excess ton of emissions, depending on how much they exceed limits by. These numbers are roughly in line with the commonly-accepted social cost of carbon, which is an attempt to set the equivalent cost borne by society by every ton of carbon pollution.
Money from these penalties will be put into a fund that will reward lower-emissions ships, research into cleaner fuels, and support nations that are vulnerable to climate change.
That means that this agreement represents a global “carbon price” – an attempt to make polluters pay the costs that they shift onto everyone else by polluting.
Why carbon prices matter
The necessity of a carbon price has long been acknowledged by virtually every economist. In economic terms, pollution is called a “negative externality,” where a certain action imposes costs on a party that isn’t responsible for the action itself. That action can be thought of as a subsidy – it’s a cost imposed by the polluter that isn’t being paid by the polluter, but rather by everyone else.
Externalities distort a market because they allow certain companies to get away with cheaper costs than they should otherwise have. And a carbon price is an attempt to properly price that externality, to internalize it to the polluter in question, so that they are no longer being subsidized by everyone else’s lungs. This also incentivizes carbon reductions, because if you can make something more cleanly, you can make it more cheaply.
Many people have suggested implementing a carbon price, including former republican leadership (before the party forgot literally everything about how economics works), but political leadership has been hesitant to do what’s needed because it fears the inevitable political backlash driven by well-funded propaganda entities in the oil industry.
For that reason, most carbon pricing schemes have focused on industrial processes, rather than consumer goods. This is currently happening in Canada, which recently (unwisely) retreated from its consumer carbon price but still maintains a price on the largest polluters in the oil industry.
But until today’s agreement by the IMO, there had been no global agreement of the same in any industry. There are single-country carbon prices, and international agreements between certain countries or subnational entities, often in the form of “cap-and-trade” agreements which implement penalties, and where companies that reduce emissions earn credits that they can then sell to companies that exceed limits (California has a similar program in partnership with with Quebec), but no previous global carbon price in any industry.
Carbon prices opposed by enemies of life on Earth
Unsurprisingly, entities that favor destruction of life on Earth, such as the oil industry and those representing it (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the bought-and-paid oil stooge who is illegally squatting in the US Oval Office), opposed these measures, claiming they would be “unworkable.”
Meanwhile, island nations whose entire existence is threatened by climate change (along with the ~2 billion people who will have to relocate by the end of the century due to rising seas) correctly said that the move isn’t strong enough, and that even stronger action is needed to avoid the worse effects of climate change.
The island nations’ position is backed by science, the oil companies’ position is not.
While these new standards are historic and need to be lauded as the first agreement of their kind, there is still more work to be done and incentives that need to be offered to ensure that greener technologies are available to help fulfill the targets. Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said:
While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.
One potential solution could be IMO’s “green corridors,” attempts to establish net-zero-emission shipping routes well in advance of the IMO’s 2050 net-zero target.
And, of course, this is only one industry, and one with a relatively low contribution to global emissions. While the vast majority of global goods are shipped over the ocean, it’s still responsible for only around 3% of global emissions. To see the large emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst effects of climate change, other more-polluting sectors – like automotive, agriculture (specifically animal agriculture), construction and heating – all could use their own carbon price to help add a forcing factor to drive down their emissions.
Lets hope that the IMO’s move sets that example, and we see more of these industries doing the right thing going forward (and ignoring those enemies of life on Earth listed above).
The agreement still has to go through a final step of approval on October, but this looks likely to happen.
Even without a carbon price, many homeowners can save money on their electricity bills today by going solar. And if you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the new Tesla Cybertruck RWD, more tariff mayhem, Lucid buying Nikola, and more.
The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.
As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.
After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:
We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.
Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:
Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway