Study on National Construction Equipment Fleets for Potential Renewal and Modernization

ANMOPYC, together with Finanzauto and other companies in the sector, conducted a study analyzing the current aging of construction machinery in Spain and its associated consequences.

The study identified the need for collective action among all stakeholders to carry out a comprehensive renewal and modernization of Spain’s construction equipment fleets.

Current Status of Construction Machinery Fleets

Construction projects utilize a wide variety of machines and equipment, from small tools like jackhammers to large machines such as excavators. The majority of this machinery consists of mobile machines powered by internal combustion engines, including earthmoving, compaction, drilling and foundation works, concrete transport and distribution, material handling, and power generation.

Currently, Spain’s mobile construction machinery fleet is estimated at around 70,000 units, although this figure may be underestimated due to the absence of an official national registry.

A recent study by ANMOPYC, analyzing over 66,000 self-propelled machines, concluded that 79.1% of these machines are over 10 years old, with an average age of 18.5 years.

This highlights the technological obsolescence of the current fleet, as new technologies can only be implemented on modern machines, primarily those manufactured from 2012 onward.

Emissions of Pollutants

Non-road mobile machinery emissions have been regulated in the EU since 1999 under Directive 97/68/EC, covering CO, total hydrocarbons (THC), NOx, and particulate matter (PM). Subsequent amendments introduced stricter emission stages, culminating in Stage V, adopted in 2019 through Regulation (EU) 2016/1628.

Modern construction machines are now among the cleanest in the world, reducing NOx emissions by 96% and particulate emissions by 98% compared to Stage I machines from 1999.

Manufacturers have invested heavily in R&D over the past 25 years to integrate aftertreatment technologies such as EGR (exhaust gas recirculation), SCR (selective catalytic reduction), DOC (diesel oxidation catalyst), and particulate filters.

Paradoxically, current regulations do not restrict the use of older, highly polluting machines on construction sites, creating unequal competition between clean and outdated machines.

For example, a 2022 machine produces 20 times less pollution than a 2010 machine, and 46 times less than a 1999 machine. Currently, 24% of the fleet (15,858 units) predates 1999 and is responsible for roughly 37% of NOx and 46% of particulate emissions. Machines over 10 years old (79.1% of the fleet) account for 96% of NOx and 98% of PM emissions.

A typical 25-ton excavator with a Stage V engine (147 kW) manufactured in 2021 emits 85% less NOx and 93% fewer particulates than an equivalent 2010 Stage IIIA machine.

Fuel Savings

Each new generation of construction machinery is more sustainable than its predecessor, and over the past decade, these generational improvements have been occurring at an accelerated pace. Technological advances have allowed manufacturers to optimize the design of their machines, providing better performance, higher productivity and efficiency, as well as lower fuel consumption.

Fuel consumption represents a significant portion of the total hourly cost of a construction machine, highlighting the importance of energy efficiency in the machinery used for construction and civil engineering projects.

The incorporation of more efficient, next-generation engines, electronic power management systems, and anti-slip systems in modern machines allows them to achieve optimal efficiency in every working situation, resulting in fuel savings and reduced operating costs.

Broadly speaking, thanks to this increased efficiency, fuel consumption in construction machines manufactured in 2021 has been reduced by approximately 15% compared to machines manufactured in 2010, with a particularly notable impact for public works machinery. This savings percentage refers to an average value calculated for all machines manufactured in those two periods, so the actual savings for a specific type of machine will vary depending on its characteristics (type, size, power, etc.).

In addition to this greater efficiency, it is also important to consider that, thanks to the new technologies implemented in the machines and longer maintenance intervals, a machine manufactured in 2021 can be estimated to have 10% higher productivity compared to its equivalent model from 2010. Therefore, the real fuel savings will be even greater than what would be suggested by average fuel consumption alone.

To illustrate this fuel savings with a specific example, consider two 68 kW backhoe loaders: the first manufactured in 2010 with an average consumption of 5.8 L/h, and the second, more efficient, manufactured in 2021, with an average consumption of 4.9 L/h. While the 2010 backhoe loader would need to operate 1,500 hours per year to complete a given production, the 2021 backhoe loader, taking its higher productivity into account, would only need 1,350 hours.

If we only consider the difference in fuel consumption, the 2021 machine would save 1,350 liters of fuel. Additionally, when factoring in the higher productivity of the 2021 machine, the annual fuel savings would amount to 2,085 liters, which represents a 24% reduction in fuel consumption.

According to the study conducted by ANMOPYC, taking into account the average fuel consumption and estimated productivity improvements for mobile machinery based on their manufacturing year, replacing all machines manufactured between 1999 and 2010 in company fleets (36,348 units) with new, more efficient equipment would result in a positive global impact for the construction sector, saving 51 million liters of fuel annually for small machines and 173 million liters for large machines.

For machines manufactured before 1999 (15,858 units), replacing them with new units would yield a total annual fuel saving of 20 million liters for small machines and 109 million liters for large machines.

Therefore, these significant fuel-saving figures highlight the need to implement a Machinery Renewal Plan for construction equipment — not only to equip construction sites with cleaner machines, but also with equipment that offers greater efficiency and lower fuel consumption.

CO2 Emissions Reduction

CO₂ emissions from the use of construction machinery represent only a small fraction of the total CO₂ emissions generated by construction activity. It is estimated that construction machinery contributes just 0.5% to the total greenhouse gas emissions within the EU-27. (Source: CECE Position Paper – The role of construction equipment in decarbonising Europe).

However, the machinery sector can also play its part in reducing carbon emissions from construction and civil engineering projects. The significant fuel savings achieved by modern mobile equipment translate directly into a major reduction in CO₂ emissions.

Assuming that each litre of diesel consumed produces on average 2.64 kg of CO₂, replacing all machines manufactured before 1999 (15,858 units) with new equipment would reduce annual carbon emissions by approximately 340,560 tonnes of CO₂. Likewise, replacing all machines currently in operation that were manufactured between 1999 and 2010 (36,348 units) would achieve an annual reduction of around 591,360 tonnes of CO₂.

The Challenge of Zero Emissions

To achieve net zero carbon emissions, although technology with the potential to make this possible already exists, there is still a long way to go before its practical implementation in the construction machinery sector due to the numerous challenges that must be addressed.

In the case of electrification, the main challenge would be the size required for the battery. The energy density of currently available batteries is much lower than that of hydrocarbon fuels (for example, a modern Li-Ion battery has an energy density about twenty times lower). This generally limits the feasibility of this technology to compact machines.

Another challenge is the availability and charging time required. Construction machines are typically used in workplaces where an electricity supply is not available, making it impossible for heavy machines to operate directly or to recharge their batteries quickly, especially when several machines are operating simultaneously. The current time required to recharge batteries also affects the machines’ uptime and, consequently, their operational efficiency.

In the case of hydrogen, the main challenges to be solved include hydrogen supply infrastructure and storage. To implement this technology, it will be necessary to have a considerable production capacity for green hydrogen and to develop distribution networks. In addition, green hydrogen production processes still need further industrial development to become cost-effective. Furthermore, as with electricity, it is not practical to transport a machine to a vehicle refueling facility; therefore, hydrogen would have to be supplied at the worksite where the machine operates.

Regarding storage, hydrogen refueling can be achieved in a time comparable to filling a diesel tank. However, gaseous hydrogen tanks generally operate at 350–700 bar, which requires additional safety measures and a fuel tank with approximately eight times the storage volume to contain the same amount of energy as diesel.

Biofuels and synthetic fuels offer a good opportunity to decarbonize the existing machinery fleet, as this technology could be implemented more quickly by using the existing fuel storage and distribution infrastructure. However, in the case of biofuels, to ensure sustainability, production would need to come from waste and biomass residues and/or from the cultivation of specific energy crops. In the case of synthetic fuels, the challenge lies in improving the development of production processes so that they become economically viable.

Manufacturers are committed to reducing carbon emissions, investing in the development of new electrified and hydrogen-powered machines. However, although electric equipment is beginning to appear on the market alongside clean diesel-powered machines, their number and variety are still very limited, both technically and economically, being confined to equipment below 15–20 tons primarily for use in urban environments. For machines above these weight ranges, the cost of electric equipment would increase up to ten times compared to their diesel equivalents. Therefore, work is currently underway on hydrogen-powered machines, although still in an experimental phase.

Consequently, at present, it would not be feasible to propose a renewal plan that applies exclusively to the replacement or upgrading of existing mobile construction machinery with equipment using alternative fuels such as hydrogen or electricity. It would be more appropriate to design a renewal plan focused on replacing older, more polluting machines with new, more fuel-efficient units, and therefore with lower carbon emissions.

Conclusions

To support future construction projects, Spain requires a national plan to renew and modernize its mobile construction machinery fleet.

Such a plan should include financial incentives or subsidies to replace old machines with technologically advanced, clean, energy-efficient, and safe models, as is already being implemented in other industrial sectors and countries.