Quote:
Originally Posted by Efthreeoh
"Nonetheless, for routes shorter than 300 miles, electric trucking can be attractive if the lower operating cost associated with electric trucks is large enough to offset the upfront cost, which some believe will be persistently higher than the cost of diesel trucks (Miller, 2022). Sripad and Viswanathan (2019) describe the circumstances under which this might happen: reducing the drag coefficient, an initial price difference not exceeding $150 k (possible with a battery pack cost of <$150 per kWh), electricity prices of <$0.20 per kWh, and a battery replacement fraction of < 50 % of the fleet. Other analysts (e.g., (Phadke et al., 2021)) believe that long-haul trucking is already ripe for electrification. In addition to the economic case for electric trucking, there is a strong policy push to decarbonize trucking: e.g., California will require all trucks on its roads to be zero-emissions by 2045, where feasible (California Air Resources Board, 2023)"
"Overall, they conclude that with a much cleaner electricity grid (80 % renewables), BETs would result in an 80 % reduction of climate (CO2) and health (local air pollution) damages compared to future diesel trucks."
"For long haul routes below 300 miles, electrification reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas damages by 13% " - how is this calculated. How are greenhouse damages calculated? The paper does not provide such data.
Also how are health impacts determined and calculated? The paper does not provide the data. It talks about "the environmental justice implications of freight pollution by analyzing the disparity in health impacts across racial groups". How are the health impacts of freight pollution segregated from the health impacts of smoking, vaping, drinking alcohol, drug use, and poor eating habits (which everyone does regardless of socio-economic situation)?
|
They make the numbers the same way they run the climate models, out of their ass.