Randomized trial examines charging infrastructure needs for electric trucks, suggesting implications for logistics planning.
The electrification of long-haul freight transport requires a comprehensive public charging infrastructure along motorways. This study presents a framework combining multi-agent transport simulation (MATSim) with evolutionary bi-objective optimization (NSGA-II) to determine the number and spatial distribution of high-power charging (HPC) points for battery-electric trucks (BETs) on the German motorway network. Beyond infrastructure sizing, the approach also quantifies the impact of BET charging on the duration and distance of long-haul truck trips. The optimization simultaneously addresses the perspectives of two key stakeholders: charge point operators (CPOs), who seek to maximize charger utilization, and logistics operators, who aim to minimize waiting times. The results yield a range of Pareto-optimal configurations balancing the two objectives. A multi-iteration replanning step further lets trucks adapt their routes to experienced waiting times for a more realistic performance assessment, reducing mean waiting times by up to 92%. We evaluate five electrification levels from 1% to 20% across two charging network scenarios with 347 and 779 potential locations, respectively. For the balanced solutions—the knee-point configurations that best reconcile both objectives—at a 10% electrification level, the optimized network reaches a temporal charger utilization of 23% to 32% at mean waiting times of about 1.4 to 1.9 min per charging process. Compared with an internal combustion engine truck (ICET) reference, BET trip durations increase by only 0.9% to 1.3% due to charging detours. Overall, the fast-charging network planned by the German federal government appears sufficient for the HPC demand at electrification levels up to 10% to 15%, whereas additional low-power charging (LPC) infrastructure beyond the planned locations will be needed to cover overnight charging requirements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fadranski et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: