Volvo: Decarbonizing and Boosting Efficiency of Heavy Vehicles Requires a Combination of Technologies

No single technology currently exists that can decarbonise and improve the efficiency of heavy vehicles, says Volvo Group Australia.

During a recent inquiry hearing, Timothy Camilleri, e-mobility solutions manager at the Group—different from Volvo Cars owned by Chinese automotive conglomerate Geely—outlined the limitations of heavy electric vehicles (EVs).

“After extensive studies on various technologies, the Volvo Group concluded that there is no single technology that will provide the solution to decarbonise and increase efficiency for these vehicles,” he said.

The manager also noted that more than one type of technology would be needed to help transition the heavy transport industry.

“Just as heavy vehicles are used for a range of applications, multiple technologies and fuels will be required for the decarbonisation journey, including battery, hydrogen fuel cell, and traditional ICE [internal combustion engine] vehicles operating on renewable fuels such as HVO [hydrotreated vegetable oil] and gases,” he said.

“Each has its own advantages and limitations when it comes to development, infrastructure, cost, productivity and life cycle, impact and efficiency.”

For example, Camilleri said battery-powered EVs were ideal for shorter, urban trips while hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles were more suitable for longer hauls.

Regulations Need to Be Loosened for Heavier EV Trucks

At the same time, Camilleri raised the concern that the current weight allowance on heavy vehicle axles—simply put, the amount of weight a truck can carry—posed a significant challenge for the net zero transition, as heavy EVs can exceed the maximum limit.

“Australia’s current axle mass limit of 6.5 tonnes is not enough for our heavy-duty EVs when they want to carry the same payloads as comparable to today’s internal combustion engine vehicles,” he said.

In recent years, state governments have been loosening the limit to accommodate heavier vehicles.

The Volvo manager elaborated that each battery weighed up to as much as 500 kilograms, and an average electric truck would need around six batteries.

The number of batteries will increase if a heavy EV operates at a longer range.

“This is not only a Volvo challenge, but industry-wide, across all OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] in this space,” he said.

While Camilleri said some states had conducted trials for higher axle mass limits, he noted that it was largely applied to state roads.

“We request there to be national harmonisation across the different jurisdictions in these increased mass limits, not just between states and territories, but into those local councils as well,” he said.

EV Trucks More Expensive

Regarding the cost issue, Camilleri said an electric truck could be around two to three times more expensive than a conventional vehicle.

However, he noted that its operating costs were lower depending on how the owner bought electricity.

“If they get the kilometres up and hold the vehicle for long enough, [the costs will] be at least net neutral, if not better, depending on how they buy electricity,” Camilleri stated.

The manager also talked about other benefits that owners could get from heavy EVs.

“From a driver comfort point of view, there are fewer vibrations, there are fewer gear changes, [and] there’s less noise, if they’re driving the vehicle for whatever reason,” he said.

Road Damage Not As Significant

Camilleri also dismissed concerns about the impact of heavy EVs on roads, saying it was insignificant.

“While we acknowledge the concerns around pavement and structure where are warranted, we also stress the impact is not as great as some may say,” he said.

The manager said there were reports about heavy vehicles equipped with road-friendly suspension causing less impact compared to lighter vehicles operating legally with thin tyres.

Furthermore, Camilleri said the cost of road damage caused by heavy electric trucks needed to be looked at “a more holistic level,” taking into account the drop in healthcare costs due to reduced emissions and the rising costs incurred by extreme weather events caused by climate change.