Comparative evaluation of energy efficiency strategies for green and low-carbon e-commerce logistics operations
Pengcheng Xie, Limei Hu, Chunwei Lu, Jui-Chan Huang, Mina Alizadeh
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
ECラストマイル物流の5つの省エネ・低炭素戦略を120の模擬運用シナリオで比較評価した研究。電動化(S3)は最終エネルギー消費を66.4%、CO₂e排出を61.2%削減し、統合戦略(S4)はそれぞれ74.1%・70.1%削減と最大の効果を示した。ただし非ベースロード電源構成では電動化の優位性が120シナリオ中91のみに留まり、戦略選択は条件依存であることを示す。
English
This study compares five energy-efficiency and low-carbon strategies for e-commerce last-mile logistics across 120 calibrated simulated scenarios. Electrification cut final energy use by 66.4% and route CO2e by 61.2%, while an integrated strategy achieved the largest reductions (74.1% energy, 70.1% CO2e) and higher productivity. Electrified strategies stayed lower-carbon under average grid factors but lost advantage in 29 of 120 scenarios under non-baseload factors, indicating condition-dependent strategy selection.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
物流の2024年問題とScope 3排出削減が焦点となる日本では、EV化・共同配送・ルート最適化の効果を定量比較する本知見は、荷主企業の物流脱炭素計画やSSBJのScope 3算定に実務的に資する。
In the global GX context
As CSRD and ISSB push companies to disclose Scope 3 logistics emissions, this paper offers quantitative evidence on which last-mile decarbonization levers deliver the largest reductions and how grid carbon intensity conditions electrification benefits.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:ラストマイル物流の脱炭素戦略を感度分析・モンテカルロで比較する評価枠組みの参考になる。
🏢実務担当者:EV化・共同配送・ルート最適化の削減効果と電源構成依存性を踏まえた物流脱炭素計画の立案に使える。
🏛政策担当者:電動化の便益が系統炭素強度に依存する点は、物流EV普及策と電力脱炭素政策の連動設計に示唆を与える。
📄 Abstract（原文）
This study evaluates five energy-efficiency and low-carbon strategies for e-commerce last-mile logistics using 120 calibrated simulated operating scenarios distributed across five metropolitan regions and three delivery-density classes. Each scenario was evaluated under a conventional internal-combustion baseline (S0), route optimization (S1), consolidation (S2), electrification (S3), and an integrated strategy (S4). Paired scenario-level comparisons, controlled-response analysis, factorial decomposition, grid-carbon break-even analysis, Monte Carlo simulation, and robustness tests were applied. Relative to S0, S1 and S2 reduced mean final energy use by 11.07% and 14.58% and route-operational CO₂e emissions by 11.06% and 14.56%, respectively. After accounting for 90% charging efficiency, S3 reduced grid-purchased final energy use by 66.43% and route-operational CO₂e emissions by 61.15%. S4 achieved the strongest central performance, reducing grid-purchased final energy use by 74.13% and route-operational CO₂e emissions by 70.05%, while increasing productivity from 29.34 to 33.81 deliveries per vehicle-hour. Factorial and alternative-combination analyses showed that S4 retained its first-place ranking after removal of the 0.99 integration multiplier and under the examined alternative combination rules. Both electrified strategies remained lower-carbon under average grid factors, although S3 retained this advantage in only 91 of 120 scenarios under nonbaseload factors. Strategy ordering remained unchanged across all ordinary-uncertainty simulations but frequently reversed under deliberately severe implementation stress. The findings support condition-dependent strategy selection but remain limited to calibrated simulated operations and route-level energy and emissions.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-76431-xfirst seen 2026-10-27 04:48:25 · last seen 2026-11-06 04:50:23
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。