Interim_report_12-mth_Chi_Shing_ES_eng_20131121_c.pdf

(464 KB) Pobierz
Pilot Green Transport Fund
Executive Summary for Interim Report
On
Trial of Electric Van for Construction Industry
(Chi Shing)
(18 November 2013)
PREPARED BY:
Dr. C.S. Cheung
Dr. W.T. Hung
Dr. D.W. Yuen
The Monitoring and Evaluation Team’s views expressed in this report do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Environmental Protection Department, HKSAR.
1
List of Monitoring and Evaluation Team Members
Dr. C.S. Cheung (Team Leader)
Professor
Department of Mechanical Engineering
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Dr. W.T. Hung (Deputy Team Leader)
Associate Professor
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Dr. D.W. Yuen (Project Administrator)
Teaching Fellow
Department of Mechanical Engineering
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
2
Pilot Green Transport Fund
Trial of Electric Van for Construction Industry (Chi Shing)
Interim Report
(Trial Period: 1 August, 2012 – 31 July, 2013)
Executive Summary
1.
Introduction
1.1
The Pilot Green Transport Fund (the Fund) is set up to encourage transport operators
to try out green and innovative transport technologies, contributing to better air quality and
public health for Hong Kong. The Fund has subsidized Chi Shing Transportation Company
(Chi Shing) to try one electric van-type light goods vehicle (electric van) for construction
industry operation.
1.2
PolyU Technology and Consultancy Company Limited (PolyU) has been engaged by
Environmental Protection Department as an independent third party assessor to monitor the
trial and evaluate the performance of the trial vehicle. PolyU regularly contacted Chi Shing to
collect information to evaluate the performance of the electric van as compared with a diesel
light goods vehicle that was used for similar purpose. The information includes the said
vehicles’ operation data, fuel bills, maintenance records, reports on operation difficulties, and
opinions of the electric van driver from survey questionnaires.
1.3
This Interim Report summarizes the performance of the electric van for construction
industry service in the first twelve months of the trial as compared with its conventional
diesel counterpart.
2.
Trial Vehicles
2.1
Chi Shing procured one Micro-Vett Electric Doblo light goods vehicle (EV) for trial.
The EV has a gross vehicle weight of 2,510 kg capable of carrying 425 kg payload. It has a
44.4 kWh lithium-polymer battery pack. According to its manufacturer, it has a travel range
of 190 km with its batteries fully charged and air-conditioning off. A 32-ampere outlet with
electricity consumption meter was set up at Chi Shing’s Yuen Long office to charge the
batteries of the EV.
2.2
Chi Shing used a Land Rover Defender diesel light goods vehicle (DV) for
comparison but its previous operations are now carried out by the EV. During the trial period,
the modes of operation of the two vehicles are very different and the data to be collected
from the DV may not be suitable for comparison. As Chi Shing has maintained a detailed
record of data on the maintenance and fuel consumption of the DV from May 2008 to August
2013, relevant extract from such data would be used to compare with the data collected from
the EV trial.
2.3
Key features and photos of the EV and DV are in Appendices 1 and 2 respectively.
3
3.
Trial Information
3.1
The trial started on 1 August 2012 and will last for 24 months. The EV was used for
transporting people and tools to construction sites. During the first ten months of the report
period, the EV was normally parked at night in Morrison Hill Road, Wan Chai. It was driven
mainly from Wan Chai to Chi Shing’s office in Yuen Long, visiting en route a number of
work sites in various parts of Hong Kong, including one in Kennedy Town, one in Ma On
Shan and two in Yuen Long. In the last two months of the report period, the EV was normally
parked at Chi Shing’s office in Yuen Long. The EV was required to serve three construction
sites, one in Connaught Road West, one in Ma On Shan and another in Yuen Long. The EV
did not travel on fixed route and the longest journey in one day was 269 km.
3.2
In the first ten months of the report period, the EV was mostly charged at public quick
chargers throughout Hong Kong to reduce charging time and to avoid affecting its normal
operation. The charging time was around one hour. Chi Shing set up a 32-ampere battery
charging facility at its office near Tam Kong Chau Road, Mai Po, Yuen Long. In the last two
months of the report period, the EV was charged mainly at Chi Shing’s office in Yuen Long.
The EV was occasionally charged using other private 16-ampere slow chargers and the
charging time was up to six hours. The EV was charged almost everyday two or three times
when it had to travel over 150 km. The longest distance travelled without recharging was 169
km.
3.3
During this 12-month report period, the EV travelled about 21,850 km. Related
statistics of the EV and the DV’s historical data are summarized below:
EV
3.849 km/kWh
$0.286/km
$0.425/km
DV (historical)
9.17 km/litre
$1.341/km
$1.646/km
Average fuel economy
Average fuel cost
Average total operating cost
[1]
[1]
Including costs incurred from repair and maintenance.
3.4
The average fuel cost of the EV was about 79% lower than the DV. The average
saving for EV over the DV was $1.055/km. The fuel cost advantage of the EV is obvious.
3.5
Besides fuel cost, maintenance cost and other costs associated with breakdowns, such
as towing fee and rental fee for replacement vehicles, if any, were also accounted for in
calculating the total operating cost. The total operating cost of the EV is lower than the DV
by an average of 74% or $1.221/km.
4.
Maintenance and Downtime
4.1
During the report period, the EV had six scheduled maintenance with 29 days
downtime. The record showed the DV had two scheduled maintenances with 10 days
downtime during the first twelve months of its operation. Utilization rate of the EV was 92%,
compared with 97% for the DV.
4.2
The first maintenance of the EV involved battery balancing. The second one was a
regular service after 5,000 hours of operation while the third one involved scheduled
maintenance of refrigeration system and battery balancing. The fourth one involved checking
4
and balancing the batteries, adjusting handbrake and door lock and lubricating the front axle.
The fifth one is a major one in which the gear box was replaced by one with an additional
low gear to improve the EV’s ability to start on and go up steeper terrain. The sixth one
involved annual examination.
5.
5.1
Summary of Findings
The average fuel cost of the EV was about 79% or $1.055/km lower than the DV.
5.2
The driver has no problem operating the EV. In general, he was satisfied with its
performance and found no change in its performance or driving range. Overall, Chi Shing
agreed that using electric vehicle is good, which can provide a greener and quiet environment
as well as much lower fuel cost. However, Chi Shing expressed the following concerns about
the EV: (a) the travel range is relatively short; (b) at this stage, there is insufficient
information to determine the actual cost incurred for the maintenance after the warranty
expires; (c) the cost of EV is on the high side.
5.3
Frequent battery balancing was carried out at the vehicle supplier’s workshop at the
beginning of the trial. The supplier clarified that battery balancing would only be done at the
end of a slow charge cycle. Since Chi Shing mostly relied on public quick chargers at the
time, the EV battery was not properly balanced and hence the aforesaid balancing was
conducted at the workshop. Chi Shing has since installed a slow charging facility at its office.
Once the EV was mainly charged using this slow charging facility, balancing at the supplier’s
workshop was not needed.
5.4
The findings only reflect the performance of the EV in the first twelve months of the
trial. More time is needed to test the performance of the batteries and reliability of the EV.
5

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin