Citation: Noto, F.; Mostofi, H.
Acceptance Analysis of Electric
Heavy Trucks and Battery Swapping
Stations in the German Market.
Systems 2023,11, 441.
https://doi.org/
10.3390/systems11090441
Academic Editors:
Mahyar Amirgholy and Jidong
J. Yang
Received: 30 June 2023
Revised: 14 August 2023
Accepted: 22 August 2023
Published: 24 August 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
systems
Article
Acceptance Analysis of Electric Heavy Trucks and Battery
Swapping Stations in the German Market
Florian Noto 1and Hamid Mostofi 2,*
1Sustainable Mobility Management, EUREF Campus, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany;
2
Mobility Research Cluster, Department of Work, Technology and Participation, Technische Universität Berlin,
10587 Berlin, Germany
*Correspondence: [email protected]
Abstract:
Heavy-duty vehicles are a major contributor to CO
2
emissions in the transportation sector,
and it is necessary to develop clean and green technologies to replace diesel trucks. Electric trucks
have not reached a breakthrough in the German market. In addition to technology development,
customer acceptance of new technologies is a critical factor in the success of sustainable transportation
policies. This study aims to fill this knowledge gap by investigating the perceptions regarding electric
trucks and providing insights into the acceptance of these technologies. Data and arguments on the
expected risks and benefits of heavy-duty electric trucks, with a special focus on the battery swapping
solution, were collected through a survey and expert interviews in the German commercial transport
sector. The authors collected a sample of 146 qualitative responses and 61 individual statements on
the expected risks and benefits of electric trucks and battery swapping. While the responses to the
classified questions are overwhelmingly positive, the individual statements show that there are still
many open questions.
Keywords:
electric heavy trucks; acceptance model; battery swapping station; sustainable transportation
1. Introduction
The number of electric vehicles in Germany and the EU is growing and has reached
a significant share of passenger cars. For buses and some types of commercial vehicles,
electric drives are also the leading alternative to internal combustion engines (ICE), as
discussed in Section 2.2. The typical use of heavy trucks is still a challenge for electric
drives; they carry heavy loads, travel long distances, and have changing destinations.
TU Berlin is involved in projects for applied science to research and develop electric
trucks and battery swapping systems. The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into
the subjective perception of electric heavy-duty trucks and their battery charging methods.
To this end, we have defined two main research questions: What is the perception of electric
heavy trucks in terms of technical, economic, and environmental aspects? And what is the
perception of battery swapping stations in terms of perceived risks and benefits? These
questions were analyzed through a survey (N = 146) and interviews (N = 4) with experts
who are working with e-trucks, from logistics companies, research and development, and
mechanical engineering.
In the EU, heavy-duty vehicles (HDV) including trucks, city buses, and long-distance
buses generate over 25% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from road transportation, and
they make up more than 6% of the total GHG emissions in the region. These emissions have
been steadily rising, particularly in the field of freight transport [
1
]. The European Union
aims to reduce transport-related GHG emissions, air pollution, and energy dependence on
imported fossil fuels. To achieve this goal, alternative drives should replace fossil fuels as
the power source for HDV [2].
Systems 2023,11, 441. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11090441 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/systems
Systems 2023,11, 441 2 of 15
Customer acceptance is a key success factor for new technology and the implemen-
tation of policy objectives. Currently, heavy trucks highly depend on diesel fuel. It is an
open race as to which alternative power source for HDV will be used in the future. The
major truck manufacturers have developed electric versions of even the largest articulated
semi-trucks, and new companies, which are specialized in e-trucks, are entering the market.
However, the number of registrations of heavy electric trucks is still very low. Many studies
have been published on the technical and economic aspects of electric trucks [
3
–
6
], but
there is a lack of information on user acceptance. This paper examines the perception of
e-trucks in the German market to provide insight into the acceptance of this technology.
Previous research on the acceptance of technology has indicated that the way individuals
perceive concerns and risks plays a significant role in shaping their attitudes toward new
technologies [
7
–
10
]. Lee defined attitude as an individual’s positive or negative thoughts
about performing a particular behavior [
9
]. Classical technology acceptance models such
as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [
11
] and the Theory of Planned Behavior [
12
]
suggest that a person’s attitude towards an object determines, among other factors, their
intention to use it. In addition to concerns and risks, studies on technology acceptance have
shown that attitudes towards emerging technologies that people have not experienced be-
fore are influenced by perceptions of their advantages and potential benefits [
8
,
9
,
11
]. These
studies indicate how customers’ perceptions of the different dimensions of the benefits and
usefulness affect their willingness to use them in the future.
User Acceptance of Electric Vehicles
Electric trucks are still new and rare (see Section 2.5); therefore, there is a lack of
knowledge about user experiences and expectations. Few scientific studies deal with this
topic. Existing studies about user experiences and preferences mainly focus on passenger
cars [13,14] and refer to a lack of knowledge [15].
The German National Platform Future of Mobility (NPM) published a report in 2021
arguing that customer acceptance is the key to the market ramp-up of electric passenger
cars [
16
]. The argument was based on the results of a representative survey (N > 1000) and
interviews with experts. They gave a few, clear reasons for buying an electric vehicle (EV);
these are:
•financial reasons (subsidies, lower total cost of ownership (TCO)),
•test-driving and driving pleasure,
•and environmental considerations.
According to this report, the reasons against EVs are diffuse and not clearly shaped.
Apart from subsidies, the keys to growing acceptance of EV passenger cars are spreading
knowledge, providing testing opportunities, and expanding the charging infrastructure.
In contrast to this, a study from Switzerland (N = 4149) with drivers of conventional
cars questions the substantial effects of better information and test drives on EV adop-
tion [
17
]. Most of the studies focusing on electric trucks deal with calculated economic
or technical aspects [
3
,
18
–
20
] rather than user acceptance and expectations. Only one
recent study, which was published in Hungary in 2021 [
21
], deals with major barriers to
the adoption of electric trucks in the logistics system. This research is based on a survey
among 60 professionals from the logistics industry in Budapest. The authors argue that
the difference in the total costs of ownership (TCO) between e-trucks and diesel trucks is
already marginal. Barriers are related to operational and infrastructural challenges such as
a shorter range, a lack of charging infrastructure, and long charging times. Technological
constraints are seen as a major barrier for e-trucks, including battery capacity and longevity,
charging speed, and accessibility of charging points. A total of 67% of the respondents of
the Hungarian survey were concerned about the short range, while 33% were concerned
about a lack of charging infrastructure. Furthermore, high investment costs and a lack of
incentives are reasons to avoid buying e-trucks. Investment costs for e-trucks are higher
than for diesel trucks, but there is disinformation about the TCO.
Systems 2023,11, 441 3 of 15
An important global political initiative is called ‘Global Drive to Zero’. Governments
from Europe, the Americas, and New Zealand launched this in 2021 by signing a Memo-
randum of Understanding to accelerate the growth of global zero-emission commercial
vehicles. The program is supported by companies and regional bodies (such as Berlin
Partner, a local public–private partnership for economic and technological development
in the German capital). The goal is a full transition to ZE-MHDV (zero-emission medium-
and heavy-duty vehicles) in new fleets by 2040 and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 [
22
].
2. Regulations and Market Analysis
The legal and economic framework conditions are briefly presented below to introduce
the topic.
2.1. Legal Requirements for Clean Transport Vehicles in the EU
The term “clean vehicles” has different definitions for different categories of vehicles in
the European Union legislation. The definition in Art. 4 (4) (b) of Directive (EU) 2019/1161
is: “clean vehicles” of categories N2 and N3 are those that use alternative fuels, as defined
in Art. 2 (1) and (2) of the Directive 2014/94/EU. These alternative fuels include electric
vehicles but also liquid and gaseous fuels that have the potential to contribute to the
decarbonization and improvement of the environmental performance of the transport
sector. Such fuels include hydrogen, biofuels, synthetic and paraffinic fuels, natural gas
(compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG)), and liquefied petroleum
gas (LPG). This means that clean trucks under Directive (EU) 2019/1161 do not have to be
zero-emission vehicles. Instead, gaseous fossil fuels will still cause CO
2
emissions and air
pollutants from combustion.
•
Zero-emission HDV are those with a power source—electricity, hydrogen fuel cell, or
ICE—that emits <1 g CO2/kWh.
•
Low-emission HDV are those with an ICE powered by hydrogen combustion, biofuels,
synthetic and paraffinic fuels, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas
(LNG), or liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).
The relevant legislation is presented in the following two subsections and in Table 1.
Table 1. Legal acts in the EU for clean transport vehicles.
Goal Legal Act Applies to Vehicle Types Until 2025 Until 2030 After 2030
Minimum
procurement target
Directive (EU)
2019/1161
EU member
states
Classes N2, N3
(commercial vehicles
from 3.5 tonnes)
10% clean
vehicles
15% clean
vehicles
CO2emission
performance
standards for new
heavy-duty vehicles
Regulation (EU)
2019/1242 Manufacturers
Exceeding 16 tonnes
technically permissible
maximum laden mass
15% CO2
emission
reduction
30% CO2
emission
reduction
2.2. EU Directive for Clean and Energy-Efficient Road Transport Vehicles
To promote the use of clean and energy-efficient road transport vehicles, the EU has
set minimum procurement targets for such vehicles in the Directive (EU) 2019/1161. The
targets are different for each member state and for each vehicle class. Germany is one of the
EU member states with the highest targets. For Germany, the minimum procurement target
for the share of clean vehicles for heavy trucks (vehicle category N2 and N3) is 10% from
2021 to 2025 and 15% from 2026 to 2030 (Directive (EU) 2019/1161). The vehicle categories
are defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EU) 2018/858. Category N vehicles are used for the
carriage of goods. Category N2 are those with a maximum mass between 3.5 and 12 tonnes;
category N3 are those above 12 tonnes including trailers.
The minimum procurement target of 15% for clean trucks by 2030 applies to 12 EU
member states: Luxembourg, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Germany, France, the Nether-
lands, Austria, Belgium, Italy, Ireland, and Malta.
Systems 2023,11, 441 4 of 15
2.3. EU Regulation Setting CO
2
-Emission Performance Standards for New Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Regulation (EU) 2019/1242 applies to the manufacturers of heavy-duty vehicles of
categories N2 and N3 with a maximum permissible mass exceeding 16 tonnes, 6
×
2 axle
configuration, and tractor units. Manufacturers must reduce the specific emissions of their
fleets by 15% for the reporting periods starting in 2025 and by 30% for the reporting periods
starting in 2030 (Art. 1 lit. a and b). The reference period is from 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020.
2.4. Market for Commercial Vehicles and Trucks—Data Analysis
By 1 January 2023, a total number of 3,641,755 vehicles used for the carriage of goods
and a further 227,938 semi-truck tractor units were officially registered in Germany with
the Federal Motor Transport Authority (Kraftfahrtbundesamt, KBA) [
23
]. Of this number,
85% had a technically permissible maximum laden mass below 3.5 t. Table 2shows the
number of vehicles for each segment and new registrations in 2022.
Table 2. Stock and new registrations of transport vehicles in Germany (2022) [23].
Vehicle Category N1 (<3.5 t) N2 (3.5–12 t) N3
12–20 t >20 t (rigid) semi-trucks
Stock 1 January 2023 3,110,652 291,329 84,370 154,176 227,938
New registrations 2022 253,894 32,608
Renewal rate 7.0% 14.3%
For long hauling, mainly articulated semi-trucks are used. The renewal rate is sig-
nificantly higher than for smaller commercial vehicles. The annual figures published by
KBA on the stock and new registrations make it possible to calculate the renewal rate and
average period of use. Table 3shows the number of semi-trucks in recent years.
Table 3.
Renewal rate and average usage time for semi-trucks in Germany over time (2018–2023 [
23
]).
Year (Y)
Stock of
Semi-Trucks on
1st January (S)
Increase New Registrations (N) Renewal Rate (R) Average Usage
Time in Years (T)
2018 210,941 7513 (3.6%) 38,727 17.7% 5.6
2019 218,454 695 (0.3%) 38,620 17.6% 5.7
2020 219,149 −680 (−0.3%) 25,946 11.9% 8.4
2021 218,469 3810 (1.7%) 29,698 13.4% 7.5
2022 222,279 5659 (2.5%) 32,608 14.3% 7.0
2023 227,938
The renewal rate (R) is calculated by dividing new registrations in a given year (N
Y
)
by the stock in the following year (S
Y+1
), to take account of the annual increase (decrease in
2020). The average usage time (T) in years is the inversion of this result. The renewal rate
and the average usage time are calculated using the following equations:
R=NY
SY+1
and T=R−1
The renewal rate dropped significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The
pandemic and its economic consequences (closures, disruption of delivery chains, and
shortages of inputs) affected both the transport industry on the demand side, as buyers
and users of trucks, and the automotive industry, as manufacturers and suppliers. In 2021
and 2022, the renewal rate increased slightly but has not reached the status quo ante yet. In
2018 and 2019, the average time in use of semi-trucks was less than 6 years. In 2022, it was
7.0 years. This does not necessarily mean that the trucks are scrapped; some may be sold to
other countries. The data show that most of the heavy trucks that will be in use in 2030
have not yet been produced.
Systems 2023,11, 441 5 of 15
2.5. Alternative Drives for Heavy Trucks
Alternative powertrains for semi-trucks are still very rare. In 2022, only 52 battery-
electric, 7 hybrid, 775 fossil gas, and 0 hydrogen-powered semi-trucks were newly regis-
tered in Germany. The share of alternative powertrains in new registrations was 2.6%. The
situation is different for rigid trucks and vans. Of the 253,894 new registrations of trucks
and vans in 2022, 8.5% (21,633) had an alternative drive. Most of these were battery-electric
vehicles (a total of 18,322 = 7.2%). Smaller proportions used H2 fuel cells (30), fossil gas
(2245), or were plug-in hybrids (77) or non-plug-in hybrids (959). Gas supply disruptions
and rising prices in 2022 could give electric trucks a better position in the coming years [
23
].
Detailed figures for the different vehicle classes can be found in Table 4, while Figures 1
and 2illustrate the large differences between semi-trucks and other vehicles.
Table 4. Alternative drives for different vehicle classes in Germany, 2022 [23].
Vehicle Class New Registrations
Alternative Drives
(% of New
Registrations)
BEV (% of
Alternative Drives) Fossil Gas ICE Other Alternatives
(Hybrid EV, FCEV)
Passenger cars 2,651,357 1,315,567 (49.6%) 470,559
(35.8%)
16,852
(1.3%)
828,156
(63.0%)
Buses 4883 1750
(35.8%)
631
(36.1%)
26
(1.5%)
1093
(62.5%)
Commercial vehicles
for the transport of
goods
253,894 21,633
(8.5%)
18,322
(84.7%)
2245
(10.4%)
1066
(4.9%)
Semi trucks 32,608 834
(2.6%)
52
(6.2%)
775
(92.9%)
7
(0.8%)
Figure 1.
Share of alternative drives for new registrations in Germany by vehicle classes in 2022 [
23
].
Figure 2.
Types of alternative drives (gas + hydrogen vs. EV + hybrid) for new registrations in
Germany by vehicle classes in 2022 [23].
Systems 2023,11, 441 6 of 15
Although the number of registrations of electric semi-trucks is low, all the major
companies already offer this type of vehicle, and there are new companies specializing
in this segment. MAN and Scania both belong to the Traton Group, which is part of
Volkswagen AG. Daimler and VW together cover 70% of the market for semi-trucks in
Germany; with DAF and Volvo, the share rises to 94%. More details can be found in Table 5.
Table 5. Semi-truck market shares in Germany, 2022 [23].
Producer Stock of Semi-Trucks in
Germany (1 January 2022) Market Share
Daimler 66,639 30.0%
MAN 59,384 26.7%
Scania 29,678 13.4%
DAF 29,206 13.1%
Volvo 23,278 10.7%
Iveco, Renault, and other 14,094 6.3%
total 222,279 100%
3. Materials and Methods
Electric passenger cars are an emotive topic in Germany, and many people have
reservations about them. In March 2023, the European Commission and member states
agreed to ban the sale of polluting cars and vans in 2035. Before the decision was made,
the German government blocked a compromise and demanded an exemption for ICE cars
using synthetic e-fuels [
24
,
25
]. The question is whether there are similar reservations about
electric trucks. A survey was conducted to find out the motives and fears for the use of
heavy e-trucks.
3.1. STEEP Analysis
In order to find relevant topics for a survey on user perceptions of heavy e-trucks,
the authors carried out a STEEP analysis. STEEP is an acronym for Social, Technological,
Economic, Environmental, and Political factors. It is used to scan the business environment
on a certain topic, such as e-trucks, and to find relevant aspects related to each factor. STEEP
is a variant and extension of the classic PEST analysis, developed by Francis J. Aguilar [
26
],
by adding the factor of environmental issues. Relevant STEEP factors and related aspects
are shown in Table 6. The results are presented in Table 6below.
Table 6. STEEP factors and related aspects for e-trucks.
Factor Related Aspects
Social
Safety
Labor shortage and attractiveness for young people to
become truck drivers
Working conditions
General benefits for truck drivers
Technological
Effort for maintenance and repair
Reliability
Comparison to alternative fuels
Comparison of battery swapping to direct charging
Feasibility
Wear and tear
Time for charging or swapping
Systems 2023,11, 441 7 of 15
Table 6. Cont.
Factor Related Aspects
Economic
Investment costs (for the procurement of the trucks and/or
batteries)
Operating costs (opex)
Total costs of ownership (TCO)
Risk of rising fuel prices
General benefits for transport companies
Flexibility
Ownership of swappable batteries
Environmental
General benefits for the environment
Ability to enter low-emission zones (restricted areas)
Climate protection (lower CO2emissions)
Noise
Air pollution
Political
Taxes and tolls
Infrastructure for charging/swapping/refueling
Standardization of swappable batteries
3.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire consisted of four demographic questions (see Table 7), 33 questions
with a 1-to-5 scale (see Tables 8–10 and Figures 3–5), and one open text field. To keep it
simple and user-friendly, the questions related to the five STEEP categories were grouped
into three main segments: economic, technological, and social potential advantages. En-
vironmental and political issues are integrated within these. The first page was in three
languages: German, English, and Polish. This was followed by three pages of questions
for each language. The questions were identical for each language. The questionnaire was
created on Google Forms and was available online from November 2022 to March 2023.
Participation was voluntary and no personal data was collected.
Table 7. Demographic results.
Answer Options Count Percent
Language
German 71 49%
English 72 49%
Polish 3 2%
Are you a truck
driver?
yes (12–44 t) 12 8%
yes (3.5–12 t) 3 2%
no 131 90%
Age
16–24 28 19%
25–34 64 44%
35–54 36 25%
55–99 17 12%
Gender
Female 41 28%
Male 102 70%
Divers 3 2%
Systems 2023,11, 441 8 of 15
Table 8.
Results for opinions on e-trucks (mean score and standard deviation). A lower score means
more agreement (1 is strongly agree); a higher score means more disagreement with a statement (5 is
strongly disagree).
Lead Questions Sub-Questions Mean Score St. Dev.
What economic
advantages do you
expect from e-trucks
(compared
to diesel)?
Lower investment costs 3.83 1.13
Lower operating costs 2.21 1.13
Lower taxes and tolls 1.99 0.98
Lower total costs of ownership 2.26 1.15
Lower risk of rising fuel prices 2.09 1.17
What technical
advantages do you
expect from electric
trucks (compared
to diesel)?
Less effort for maintenance and repairs 2.16 1.11
Better for the environment 1.68 1.01
Just as reliable 2.12 1.1
Safer for all road users 2.75 1.18
Better than alternative fuels 2.41 1.19
What social benefits
do you expect from
electric trucks
(compared
to diesel)?
Attract young people to become truck drivers
3.16 1.18
Better working conditions for truck drivers 2.75 1.14
Good to enter low-emission zones 1.55 0.86
A contribution to global climate protection 1.81 1.07
Less noise and local air pollution 1.43 0.88
Table 9. Results for rollout and usage of e-trucks (mean score and standard deviation).
Proposed Development Rate Mean Score Standard Deviation
Your company gets one e-truck to gain experience with
this technology 1.66 0.97
You should drive this truck (consider you’re a truck
driver) 1.82 1.02
From now on, 10% of the new vehicles (above 3.5 t) are
e-trucks 2.08 1.18
From 2030, all new trucks should be e-trucks 2.34 1.29
From 2040, all new trucks should be e-trucks 2.15 1.31
Table 10. Results for statements related to battery swapping (mean score and standard deviation).
Lead Questions Sub-Questions Mean Score St. Dev.
What do you think of
battery swapping
(compared to
direct charging)?
It will be better for truck drivers 2.23 1.18
It will be better for transport companies 2.17 1.16
Battery swapping is necessary for e-trucks
to establish 2.44 1.28
In daily practice, battery swapping would be
more feasible than direct charging 2.59 1.30
What are the biggest
benefits of battery
swapping compared to
direct charging?
Time saving 1.77 1.04
Higher flexibility 2.31 1.17
Lower prices (charging when
electricity is cheap) 2.50 1.13
Allow driving long distances 2.37 1.16
Lower investment costs for transport
companies (batteries are rented instead
of purchased)
2.63 1.13
What are the largest
risks of battery
swapping (compared to
direct charging)?
There will be too few swapping stations 2.10 0.93
Higher prices 2.42 0.95
Higher wear and tear on the trucks 2.90 1.09
Technical problems 2.52 1.15
Do you expect other
benefits or risks of
battery swapping?
Open text field to write comments and remarks
Systems 2023,11, 441 9 of 15
Figure 3. Histogram of most-expected benefits of e-trucks.
Figure 4. Histogram of least-expected benefits of e-trucks.
Figure 5.
Histogram of most-expected benefit (time saving) and least-expected risk (higher wear and
tear) for battery swapping.
The survey was announced personally at several events (seminars for students of
TU Berlin, workshops for public consultations on sustainability issues in Berlin, working
group meetings for applied science for e-trucks), and it was distributed in truck driver
online forums on Facebook and other websites. The questionnaire was filled out 149 times,
and
3 sets
of answers were deleted because fewer than half of the questions were answered.
4. Results
The response option for the questionnaire was a 1-to-5 scale. A lower number indicates
agreement with the statement, and a higher number indicates disagreement.
Systems 2023,11, 441 10 of 15
4.1. Opinions on Electric Trucks
The first 15 questions were to solicit opinions on electric trucks in general. The mean
scores and standard deviations for all the questions are shown in Table 8.
The most-expected advantages of e-trucks compared to diesel trucks are all related
to ecological factors: less noise and air pollution (1.43); good to enter low emission zones
(1.55); better for the environment (1.68); a contribution to global climate protection (1.81).
The least-expected advantages of e-trucks compared to diesel are related to eco-
nomic and social factors: lower investment costs (3.83); attract young people to become
truck drivers (3.16); safer for all road users (2.75); better working conditions for truck
drivers (2.75).
The histograms, Figures 3and 4, show the distribution of responses for the most- and
least-expected benefits. The histograms show a clear disagreement with the statement that
e-trucks could have lower investment costs. Other ideas with a high average score are rated
neutral by a majority of respondents.
4.2. Roll-Out and Usage of Electric Trucks
The following five questions were related to the rollout and usage of e-trucks. The
participants were asked to suppose they work in a transport company. How do they rate
the following developments? The results are shown in Table 9.
The agreement for having one e-truck to gain experience is very high (1.66), slightly
lower when someone is asked personally to be the first user of the new vehicle. The
agreement is still high for an immediate low share of e-trucks (10% of new purchases)
and for the long-term goals (100% e-trucks from 2040). The lowest agreement is for
100% e-trucks from 2030 (2.34).
4.3. Battery Swapping Compared to Direct Charging
The last 13 questions were about battery swapping. An explanation and a short video
from a swapping station in China [
27
] were given as an introduction to the topic. The
explanation was:
“Battery swapping for e-trucks is successfully used in some countries. Empty batteries
can be charged directly as usual. Or they are exchanged for full ones and charged outside
the vehicle, and the truck can continue driving immediately. Please watch the short video
(24 s). It shows a time-lapse example of how a mobile exchange station is set up and the
batteries are exchanged”.
The mean scores are shown in Table 10. It is expected that transport companies (2.17)
and truck drivers (2.23) will have advantages from battery swapping. The most expected
benefit is time saving (1.77). There is also hope for higher flexibility (2.31) and that it will
allow for driving long distances (2.37). The most-expected risk is that there will be too few
swapping stations (2.10). The least-expected risk is higher wear and tear.
The histogram, Figure 5, shows the distribution of responses for the two most out-
standing results.
As a conclusion, the results of the survey for the STEEP factors (see Table 6above) are
shown in Table 11.
Systems 2023,11, 441 11 of 15
Table 11. Results of the survey related to STEEP factors.
Factor Results
Social No changes are expected for social aspects. All social
consequences are rated neutral (2.7 to 3.2).
Technological
The biggest technological benefit of battery swapping is time
saving (1.7). It is expected that e-trucks will be just as reliable as
diesel and need less effort for maintenance and repair (2.1). The
other technological aspects are rated slightly positive to neutral
(2.4 to 2.9).
Economic
Lower investment costs (capex) are not expected (3.8). Economic
advantages can be lower operating costs (opex), lower total costs
of ownership (TCO), and lower risk of rising fuel prices
(2.1 to 2.3).
Battery swapping is expected to bring more flexibility and general
benefits for transport companies (2.3). The other economic aspects
are rated neutral (2.5 to 2.7).
Environmental The most-relevant advantages are seen in ecological aspects. The
average rating for all questions is 1.4 to 1.8.
Political
The highest risk is seen in a lack of swapping stations (2.0). Lower
taxes and tolls for e-trucks are an expected benefit (2.0).
4.4. Analysis of Individual Comments and Remarks
The last question was: “Do you expect other benefits or risks of battery swapping?”.
The participants could write an individual response in an open text field. A total of
61 participants
in the survey (42%) made individual statements. Nine comments such as
“I don’t know” were not included. Some statements had more than one argument, so
67 arguments
were identified to be useful for further consideration: 20 expected benefits
and 47 expected risks. Some risks or benefits were mentioned by more than one participant.
SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. A SWOT
analysis is a planning tool to identify these aspects for companies or organizations. It will
be used here to order the individual remarks and comments.
For a SWOT analysis, it is important to choose a point of view. One side’s opportunity
could be the other side’s threat; rising energy prices could be an opportunity for energy
providers and a threat to transport companies. For the purpose of this work—technology
acceptance of heavy e-trucks—it is the user’s perspective, i.e., trucking companies and
truck drivers.
•Aspects that are helpful for freight transport companies are strengths and opportuni-
ties, whereas harmful aspects are weaknesses and threats.
•
Aspects with an internal origin belong to strengths and weaknesses, while opportuni-
ties and threats have an external origin.
The basic scheme of a SWOT analysis is shown in Table 12. The numbers indicate
how many arguments are mentioned in each category. It is noteworthy that 20 benefits and
46 risks are mentioned. This could be an indicator that, despite the positive results of the
quantitative survey, there is a higher awareness of risks, more concerns, and underlying
reservations than positive expectations of the new technology.
Table 12. SWOT analysis, number of comments for each section.
SWOT Analysis (66) Helpful (20) Harmful (46)
Internal origin (34) Strengths (13) Weaknesses (21)
External origin (32) Opportunities (7) Threats (25)
Systems 2023,11, 441 12 of 15
For further analysis, some arguments are clustered under a distinctive keyword. For
qualitative analysis, it is not decisive how often an argument is mentioned, but the number
is still given in brackets. For each keyword, one or a selection of statements are quoted.
It is important to remember that these are participants’ views and not necessarily
scientifically accepted benefits or risks. For example, five people mention an increased risk
of fire. The German Insurance Association (GDV) disagrees with this. According to the
data, there is no evidence that EV passenger cars have a higher risk of catching fire than
ICE vehicles [
28
]. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) published data proving
that EVs are less likely to catch fire than ICE cars, and the number of fires per car in EVs
has decreased over the last three years [29,30].
4.4.1. Expected Strengths
•
Participation in technical progress and risk reduction (5): “You don’t have to worry
about the condition of the batteries, and you always have new models of batteries”.
•
Cheaper energy (3): “Battery replacement makes fast charging unnecessary. This
eliminates very high costs for these charging stations; fast charging electricity is
usually much more expensive per kWh and generates much higher charging losses in
the battery and charging system”.
•
Faster (3): “Changing batteries could possibly be quicker than refueling. So, time saving”.
•
Lighter (2): “Weight savings, as it is not always necessary to drive with the largest battery”.
4.4.2. Expected Weaknesses
•
Mechanical problems (6): “I think that a crushing accident can occur while swapping
battery”. “Wear and tear due to constant installation and removal of batteries”.
•
Safety concerns, fire threat (5): “There are greater risks of fires with trucks. It is more
difficult to fight fires with batteries”.
•
Shortage of swapping stations (4): “Congestion and energy bottlenecks at such
stations”; “Imagine a traffic jam that lasted about 8 or 12 h which is a common
occurrence, unfortunately”.
•
Higher total costs (4): “In total, there must be significantly more battery systems than
e-trucks, and someone has to pay for that. Battery rental increases overall maintenance
costs”, “Higher prices, because the rental company has to earn money”.
•
Driver’s problems (2): “More time pressure, less break time for drivers”; “Not really
necessary as it can be charged during the breaks that are necessary anyway”.
4.4.3. Expected Opportunities
•
Easier to reuse/recycle (3): “Better second-life use of standardized exchangeable batteries”.
•
Electricity grid integration (2): “A great many batteries have to stand around unused
in many places as a stockpile—but they can also be used as grid storage”.
•
Easier to maintain: “Large number of batteries should be maintained at one time in
case of battery swapping”.
•
Political goals: “Battery replacement can be a good complement to the 100% target for
commercial vehicles”.
4.4.4. Expected Threats
•
Threat of no common standard (8): “Disadvantage: Most of the OEMs have to join
in order to have a uniform interface/standardization”; “Through standardization, a
concerted, cross-brand development strategy is conceivable. But there is also a danger
of monopolization and price dictation”.
•
Problems with the market introduction (6): “Introduction scenario difficult to imagine:
standardization (monopoly?) and (international?) area-wide infrastructure prereq-
uisite for use by early adopters, who however generate too little demand for the
necessary investments”.
Systems 2023,11, 441 13 of 15
•
“I see a risk in the comprehensive market penetration and the long road to stan-
dardization on the part of the OEMs. Since there is already an agreement on MCS
standardization, and all OEMs and infrastructure operators are already stepping on
the gas, swapping may come very late”. [MCS—Megawatt Charging System]
•
Limited raw materials and environmental problems (4): “Limited materials for man-
ufacturing batteries will be a risk, which will affect other sectors that use the same
materials in their production processes”.
•
“More batteries needed than the number of vehicles, which might cause more waste”.
•Space problems and grid dependency (3): “It takes up a lot of space”.
•
Limitations in the vehicle design (3): “Exchangeable batteries prevent space-optimized
installations, e.g., under the driver’s cab; the battery position on a 3-axle tractor shown
in the video is impractical in Germany; 3-axle tractors are practically not used”.
•
Neglect of alternative modes of transport (1): “I hope that long overland journeys with
trucks and lorries will soon be a thing of the past, and more traffic will be shifted to
rail and inland waterways”.
5. Discussion
The results of the survey in the section on the subjective perception of the economic
aspects of e-trucks show a relatively high level of disagreement with the idea that e-trucks
have lower investment costs compared to diesel trucks. A score of 3.83 suggests that there
is a moderate level of skepticism or disagreement about the cost benefits associated with
purchasing e-trucks. On the other hand, a score of 2.21 suggests that there is a notable level
of acceptance or agreement with the notion that e-trucks can provide cost savings in terms
of operational expenses. Overall, the results of the perception of the technical aspects of
e-trucks show a generally positive perception of e-trucks across several factors. There is
agreement that e-trucks require less maintenance effort, are better for the environment, are
just as reliable as traditional trucks, and offer safety benefits for road users. However, there
is relatively less agreement that e-trucks are better than those powered by alternative fuels.
While there is a relatively low level of agreement or acceptance for attracting young
people to become truck drivers and improving working conditions for truck drivers,
there is a higher level of agreement for e-trucks being seen as good vehicles for entering
low-emission zones, making a significant contribution to global climate protection, and
effectively reducing noise and local air pollution.
The level of agreement is significantly high for the decision to purchase one e-truck
to gain experience (1.66), although it decreases slightly when individuals are asked to
personally become the first user of the new vehicle. However, there is still a notable level
of agreement for the immediate adoption of a small proportion of e-trucks (10% of new
purchases) and for the long-term objective of moving to 100% e-trucks by 2040. The lowest
level of agreement is observed for the proposal to reach 100% e-trucks by 2030.
The results of the perceived benefits and risks of a battery swapping solution indicate
that both transport companies (2.17) and truck drivers (2.23) will benefit from battery
swapping. The most anticipated advantage is time saving (1.77), with additional hopes
for increased flexibility (2.31), and the ability to drive long distances (2.37). However, the
biggest concern is the potential scarcity of swapping stations (2.10), while the least-expected
risk is increased wear and tear on vehicles.
For the European trucking industry, different paths to the future are possible. In-
frastructure is a major challenge for the introduction of alternative power sources in the
trucking industry, as there is limited space for refueling or recharging facilities. When it
comes to battery swapping, the availability of standardized batteries becomes a critical
factor in determining success or failure. The establishment of a common standard can be
driven by either OEMs or EU policy.
Systems 2023,11, 441 14 of 15
6. Conclusions
In conclusion, the pressing issue of CO
2
emissions from heavy-duty vehicles in the
transportation sector necessitates the development of clean technologies to replace diesel
trucks. This work aimed to study the critical role of customer acceptance in sustainable
transportation policies. By investigating perceptions and acceptance of electric trucks, the
study sheds light on potential pathways for adoption.
Through a survey and expert interviews within the German commercial transport
sector, the study collected insights on heavy-duty electric trucks’ anticipated benefits and
risks and on battery swapping technology. While the classified responses generally exhibit
positivity, individual statements reveal lingering uncertainties.
The perceptions regarding the economic aspects of e-trucks are mixed, with skepticism
around investment costs but notable agreement on operational expense savings. The
technical aspects are generally favorably perceived, including maintenance, environmental
benefits, reliability, and road safety. However, alignment is relatively lower regarding
e-truck superiority over alternative fuel vehicles.
Notably, e-trucks find strong support as vehicles for low-emission zones, climate
protection, noise reduction, and local air pollution mitigation. The gradual transition to
e-trucks enjoys significant agreement, while specific timelines, such as achieving 100%
e-truck adoption by 2030, show less consensus.
Exploring the battery swapping solution highlights potential advantages for time
saving, flexibility, and long-distance driving. Concerns mainly revolve around the scarcity
of swapping stations, while wear and tear risks are less anticipated.
Ultimately, the study underscores the crucial role of standardized batteries and infras-
tructure availability in shaping the future of the European trucking industry. Successful
implementation of alternative power sources hinges on collaboration between OEMs and
EU policies. As the commercial transport sector seeks to reduce its carbon footprint, un-
derstanding perceptions and addressing acceptance barriers will be pivotal in shaping a
cleaner and more sustainable future for heavy-duty vehicles.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, F.N. and H.M.; methodology, F.N. and H.M.; formal
analysis, F.N.; data curation, F.N. and H.M.; writing—original draft preparation, F.N. and H.M.;
writing—review and editing, F.N. and H.M.; visualization, F.N. supervision, H.M. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research received no external funding, and the APC was funded by the Technical
University of Berlin.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments:
We acknowledge support from the German Research Foundation and the Open
Access Publication Fund of the Technical University of Berlin.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
European Commission Q&A: CO
2
Emission Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/
commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_23_763 (accessed on 30 June 2023).
2.
European Commission Reducing CO
2
Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Available online: https://climate.ec.europa.eu/eu-
action/transport-emissions/road-transport-reducing-co2-emissions-vehicles/reducing-co2-emissions-heavy-duty-vehicles_
en (accessed on 31 July 2023).
3.
Bhardwaj, S.; Mostofi, H. Technical and Business Aspects of Battery Electric Trucks—A Systematic Review. Future Transp.
2022
,
2, 382–401. [CrossRef]
4.
Karlsson, J.; Grauers, A. Energy Distribution Diagram Used for Cost-Effective Battery Sizing of Electric Trucks. Energies
2023
,
16, 779. [CrossRef]
Systems 2023,11, 441 15 of 15
5.
Jahangir Samet, M.; Liimatainen, H.; van Vliet, O.P.R.; Pöllänen, M. Road Freight Transport Electrification Potential by Using
Battery Electric Trucks in Finland and Switzerland. Energies 2021,14, 823. [CrossRef]
6.
Tol, D.; Frateur, T.; Verbeek, M.; Riemersma, I.; Mulder, H. Techno-Economic Uptake Potential of Zero-Emission Trucks in Europe; TNO:
Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2022.
7.
Bauer, R.A. Consumer Behavior as Risk Taking. In Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior; Harvard University
Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1960; pp. 389–398.
8.
Vijayasarathy, L.R. Predicting Consumer Intentions to Use On-Line Shopping: The Case for an Augmented Technology Acceptance
Model. Inf. Manag. 2004,41, 747–762. [CrossRef]
9.
Lee, M.-C. Factors Influencing the Adoption of Internet Banking: An Integration of TAM and TPB with Perceived Risk and
Perceived Benefit. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2009,8, 130–141. [CrossRef]
10.
Im, I.; Kim, Y.; Han, H.-J. The Effects of Perceived Risk and Technology Type on Users’ Acceptance of Technologies. Inf. Manag.
2008,45, 1–9. [CrossRef]
11.
Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q.
1989
,13, 319.
[CrossRef]
12. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991,50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
13.
Daramy-Williams, E.; Anable, J.; Grant-Muller, S. A Systematic Review of the Evidence on Plug-in Electric Vehicle User Experience.
Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019,71, 22–36. [CrossRef]
14.
Hardman, S.; Jenn, A.; Tal, G.; Axsen, J.; Beard, G.; Daina, N.; Figenbaum, E.; Jakobsson, N.; Jochem, P.; Kinnear, N.; et al. A
Review of Consumer Preferences of and Interactions with Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. Transp. Res. Part D Transp.
Environ. 2018,62, 508–523. [CrossRef]
15.
Wicki, M.; Brückmann, G.; Quoss, F.; Bernauer, T. What Do We Really Know about the Acceptance of Battery Electric Vehicles?—
Turns out, Not Much. Transp. Rev. 2023,43, 62–87. [CrossRef]
16.
Nationale Plattform Zukunft der Mobilität. Kundenakzeptanz als Schlüssel für den Markthochlauf der Elektromobilität; Arbeitsgruppe
2 “Alternative Antriebe und Kraftstoffe für nachhaltige Mobilität”; Nationale Plattform Zukunft der Mobilität: Berlin, Germany,
2021.
17.
Brückmann, G. Test-Drives & Information Might Not Boost Actual Battery Electric Vehicle Uptake? Transp. Res. Part A Policy
Pract. 2022,160, 204–218. [CrossRef]
18.
Çabukoglu, E.; Georges, G.; Küng, L.; Pareschi, G.; Boulouchos, K. Battery Electric Propulsion: An Option for Heavy-Duty
Vehicles? Results from a Swiss Case-Study. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2018,88, 107–123. [CrossRef]
19.
Shoman, W.; Yeh, S.; Sprei, F.; Plötz, P.; Speth, D. Battery Electric Long-Haul Trucks in Europe: Public Charging, Energy, and
Power Requirements. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2023,121, 103825. [CrossRef]
20.
Schneider, J.; Teichert, O.; Zähringer, M.; Balke, G.; Lienkamp, M. The Novel Megawatt Charging System Standard: Impact on
Battery Size and Cell Requirements for Battery-Electric Long-Haul Trucks. eTransportation 2023,17, 100253. [CrossRef]
21. Qasim, M.; Csiszar, C. Major Barriers in Adoption of Electric Trucks in Logistics System. Promet 2021,33, 833–846. [CrossRef]
22.
Drive to Zero Global Memorandum of Understanding on Zero-Emission Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles. Available online:
https://globaldrivetozero.org/mou-nations/ (accessed on 31 March 2023).
23.
Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt Statistics—Vehicles. Available online: https://www.kba.de/EN/Statistik_en/Fahrzeuge_Vehicles/
vehicles_node.html (accessed on 31 March 2023).
24.
Liboreiro, J. In Win for Germany, EU Agrees to Exempt e-Fuels from 2035 Ban on New Sales of Combustion-Engine Cars. Euronews.
2023. Available online: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/03/28/in-win-for-germany-eu-agrees-to-exempt-e-
fuels-from-2035-ban-on-new-sales-of-combustion-en (accessed on 21 August 2023).
25.
Posaner, J. Brussels and Berlin Strike Deal on 2035 Combustion-Engine Ban. Politico. Available online: https://www.politico.eu/
article/brussels-and-berlin-strike-car-engine-combustion-zero-emissions-ban-deal/ (accessed on 21 August 2023).
26. Aguilar, F.J. Scanning the Business Environment; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1967.
27. XCMGGroup. XCMG Logistic Vehicle Battery Swap Station; XCMGGroup: Xuzhou, China, 2020.
28.
Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft E-Autos in Tiefgaragen: Keine Erhöhte Brandgefahr Feststellbar. Avail-
able online: https://www.gdv.de/gdv/medien/medieninformationen/e-autos-in-tiefgaragen-keine-erhoehte-brandgefahr-
feststellbar-66230 (accessed on 31 March 2023).
29.
Bleakley, D. Petrol and Diesel Cars 20 Times More Likely to Catch Fire than EVs. Available online: https://thedriven.io/2023/05/
16/petrol-and-diesel-cars-20-times-more-likely-to-catch-fire-than-evs/ (accessed on 31 July 2023).
30.
MSB Bränder i Eltransportmedel under 2022. Available online: https://www.msb.se/sv/aktuellt/nyheter/2023/maj/brander-i-
eltransportmedel-under-2022/ (accessed on 31 July 2023).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
