Reasons for decoupling

The decoupling of energy use and CO2 emissions of road freight transport from the economic output can be further analysed through the eight indicators of the decarbonisation framework presented in Figure 10. The sectoral values of these indicators are summarised for 1995 and 2010 in Table 12. The changes of six indicators are analysed here because the modal split could not be analysed sectorally and the fuel CO2 content was kept at the fixed value for diesel (2.66 kgCO2/l), so the possible use of biofuels was not taken into account in this study.

4.7.1. Indicators affecting transport intensity

The term ‘transport intensity’ is used in many contexts and different meanings, e.g. in relation to the amount of transport volume or tonnage and energy use or economic output (GDP), both for passenger and freight transport (Stead 2001). Transport intensity in this study means the relationship between transport volume and economic activity. Here the road freight transport volume is measured in tonne-kilometres (tkm), and the economic activity as value added (€), which is a sectoral value connected to the GDP. Thus the unit measuring transport intensity is here tkm/€. Transport intensity has decreased in Finland from 1995 to 2010 as was seen in Table 11.

Transport intensity is determined by three indicators: value density, modal split and average length of laden trips on road. Another possible indicator is handling factor, i.e. the ratio of the weight of goods produced and the weight of goods transported (McKinnon 2007b), but there is no information available to calculate the handling factor in Finland. Modal split could not be determined by sector either, because there were no sectoral statistics for maritime, rail or air transport available. On national level modal split has been very stable in Finland during the studied period. Road’s share of transported tons has been between 88.6% and 90.0% (Statistics Finland 2010c). Thus the modal split has had virtually no effect on the development of transport intensity.

Value density is here the ratio between value added and road tons moved (€/t). Increasing value density in all sectors is the main reason for the decreasing transport intensity. Value density has increased in all sectors of the economy in Finland from 1995 to 2010. Overall the value density has increased by 73% and the development has been driven by the 118% increase in the value density of the technology cluster.

The average length of laden trips has increased slightly in all sectors except food cluster, in which it has decreased by 11%. The overall average length of laden trips has increased by 22% from 1995 to 2010. In construction and trade the increase has been 30%, but construction still has by far the shortest length of haul at 19 km on average (Table 12). Lengthening trips in construction are mostly due to gravel being transported further than

66

before. In trade the lengthening is caused by centralisation of warehouses to the Helsinki metropolitan area and distribution of goods from there to all of Finland. Longer trips increase transport intensity, but the effect of this is negated by the huge increases in value densities.

67 Table 12. Changes in the indicators for analysing economy and road freight transport by sector in Finland 1995–2010.

Forest cluster Food cluster Energy cluster Construction cluster Chemical cluster Technology cluster maintenance Waste and Trade Total w/o services

Value added (billion €) 1995 → 2010 8.1 → 9.7 3.8 → 4.6 1.9 → 2.4 6.5 → 9.5 2.3 → 3.5 9.0 → 23.2 0.2 → 0.3 8.6 → 15.1 40.4 → 68.3 Value density (€/t) 1995 → 2010 109 → 129 172 → 202 118 → 139 29 → 48 264 → 400 292 → 637 15 → 17 601 → 907 100 → 173 Modal split (% of tons carried on road) 1995 → 2010

n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 90% → 90%

Avg. length of haul (km) 1995 → 2010 83 → 94 131 → 116 105 → 110 15 → 19 128 → 143 77 → 86 39 → 44 96 → 125 48 → 59 Avg. load (t) 1995→2010 24.5 → 28.5 15.3 → 13.5 29.5 → 27.8 16.5 → 17.7 23.4 → 26.0 9.0 → 7.9 5.6 → 5.5 6.8 → 8.0 14.9 → 13.9 Empty running (% of total mileage) 1995→2010 35.2% → 34.4% 25.6% → 21.1% 38.0% → 32.4% 38.9% → 35.9% 33.8% → 29.7% 29.7% → 24.4% 35.3% → 27.1% 25.8% → 20.7% 32.2% → 27.4% Fuel consumption (l/100km) 1995→2010 48.8 → 49.4 37.1 → 39.6 42.6 → 42.7 39.8 → 40.7 41.9 → 40.8 31.2 → 29.3 35.1 → 37.7 29.9 → 31.8 38.4 → 37.2 Fuel CO2 content (kg/l) 1995 → 2010 2.66 → 2.66 2.66 → 2.66 2.66 → 2.66 2.66 → 2.66 2.66 → 2.66 2.66 → 2.66 2.66 → 2.66 2.66 → 2.66 2.66 → 2.66 Green means the change has improved the energy efficiency and/or reduced the CO2 emissions

68

4.7.2. Indicators affecting energy efficiency

Energy efficiency is the ratio between total road freight haulage and energy consumption (tkm/kWh). It it affected by three indicators: average load on laden trips, the level of empty running and average fuel consumption. These indicators are interrelated as the loading of a vehicle affects its fuel consumption greatly.

Sectoral differences are evident in terms of average loads and empty running. The sectors carrying mostly bulk goods (construction, energy, chemical and forest clusters) are characterised by high average loads, but also high level of empty running. On the other hand, small loads and fairly low level of empty running are typical for sectors carrying general cargo (technology cluster and trade). Food cluster is between the two aforementioned types with average loads but low empty running. The waste and maintenance sector has very low loads and average empty running. In Table 12 a clear trend towards lower empty running can be seen on every sector. For average loads there is more mixed development, as for some sectors the loads have dropped, e.g. food and technology cluster, and for some raised, e.g. chemical cluster and trade.

Vehicle fuel consumption determines how much energy is used and CO2 emitted in driving the total mileage. Besides the payload, fuel consumption is a result of many interacting determinants, including vehicle’s own weight, engine and transmission technology, aerodynamics, driver’s behaviour, and traffic conditions. However, there is data on only some of these attributes. In this analysis the fuel consumption is calculated based on vehicle’s gross weight and Euro-class and type of road. The overall average fuel consumption has reduced in Finland from 38.4 l/100km in 1995 to 37.2 l/100km in 2010. The overall average fuel consumption has reduced even though the average fuel consumption has increased in all sectors except chemical and technology clusters. The reduction in overall average consumption is mostly due to the decreasing mileage in bulk transport sectors which have high average consumption (forest, energy and chemical clusters) and growing mileage in general cargo sectors which have low average fuel consumption (technology cluster and trade). It can be concluded that the decrease in empty running and in average fuel consumption is negated by decreasing payloads, and thus the energy efficiency has improved only marginally in Finland.