DOCSLIB.ORG

Electric Bus 101

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Electric Bus 101 Electric Bus 101 Dana Lowell [email protected] Update March 2020 MJB&A Electric Transit Bus Clients LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Santa Monica Transit TransLink/Coast Mountain Bus (Vancouver) MTA New York City Transit Milwaukee County Transit Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 2 Current NA Electric Buses (Feb 2020) ▪ Approximately 900 electric buses in service and 1,300 more on order in North America (~2.5% of fleet) ▪ Almost 200 agencies with electric buses (~10% of agencies); 70% have <10 electric buses, but 10 have ordered more than 50 ▪ Electric buses are concentrated in California, but there is at least one in 50 states and Provinces ▪ Some analysts predict by 2026 electric buses could be 33% of new bus orders and 7% of the NA fleet 3 Recent Notable NA Electric Bus Orders In-service & On-order LA Metro 210 LA DOT 159 Antelope Valley, CA 85 Foothill Transit, CA 80 Formal commitments for zero Toronto 60 emission transition (outside of California): NYCT, King County Denver RTD 53 Metro, Minneapolis Metro, Edmonton 52 Toronto, TransLink in Vancouver King County Metro 51 Montreal 44 Metro, Minneapolis 35 SEPTA 35 Miami-Dade 33 4 MY 2020 40-ft Electric Bus Models METRIC BYD GILLIG NEW FLYER NOVA PROTERRA GVWR 43,431 lb 45,000 lb 44,308 lb 43,000 lb 43,650 lb 29,650 lb 30,134 lb 26,649 lb CURB WEIGHT 32,920 lb 32,000 33,750 lb 32,920 lb 33,149 lb BATTERY TYPE Iron-phosphate Lithium-ion Lithium-ion Lithium-ion Lithium-ion 160 kWh 148 kWh 220 kWh 267 kWh BATTERY SIZE 324 kWh 296 kWh 150 kWh 440 kWh 388 kWh 444 kWh 660 kWh 466 kWh STRUCTURE Tubular steel Tubular steel Tubular steel Tubular steel Composite Dual 190 kW MOTOR Dual 150 kW No Data 200 kW 230 kW 250 kW None – direct None – direct None – direct None – direct 2-speed auto GEAR BOX drive drive drive drive shift Other electric bus manufacturers: Manufacturers have standardized charging: • Green Power Motor Company • PLUG-IN: SAE J1772 CCS Type 1 • Complete Coach Works (diesel conversion) • CONDUCTIVE: SAE J3105-1 • Alexander Dennis (Double Decker) Every major NA Transit Bus manufacturer now sells electric buses Climate Concerns are Driving the Market… 2050 GHG Reduction Targets Climate Commitments *Arizona target for 2040; Delaware target for 2030; Maryland target for 2030, North Carolina target for 2025 Note: GHG reduction targets from different baseline years; though most are 1990 California “Innovative Clean Transit Regulation” • Adopted by CARB in December 2018 12 member states: U.S. Climate Alliance • Mandates ALL California transit buses “zero emission” by 2040 10 supporting states: Paris Agreement • Supported by significant subsidies via LCFS, state grant 274 member cities: Mayors National Climate Action Agenda programs … but US policy is driven by States & Cities 6 Transit Bus GHG Emissions For Fleet Average 12 MPH In-service Speed For diesel and CNG includes upstream and tail-pipe emissions; includes CO2, CH4, and N2O 7 Transit Bus NOx Emissions For Fleet Average 12 MPH In-service Speed For diesel and CNG includes upstream and tail-pipe emissions. 8 Electric Bus Economics ▪ Electric buses are significantly more expensive than diesel and hybrid buses ▪ Charging infrastructure is expensive – but less so CAPITAL than incremental cost of buses ▪ Batteries will (likely) need to be replaced at mid-life ▪ Electricity is cheaper than diesel OPERATING ▪ Potential for modest maintenance cost savings CAPITAL / OPERATING COST TRADE-OFFS WORLD-WIDE “BREAK EVEN” (vs Diesel) VARIES BY COUNTRY BASED ON ENERGY PRICES – which are primarily driven by tax policy THERE ARE OTHER COST & OPERATIONAL TRADE-OFFS BASED ON CHARGING STRATEGY 9 Relative Energy Prices – Diesel & Electricity Assumes 35% diesel engine efficiency ▪ Compared to the rest of the world US diesel prices are low (chart is based on $2.50/gallon) ▪ This negatively affects electric bus economics in the US compared to other countries better ELECTRIC BUS ECONOMICS worse Cost Difference between Diesel Fuel and Electricity by State (diesel is more expensive except in Hawaii) 10 Bus Purchase Cost US$ 40-ft Transit Bus Purchase Based on weighted average of recent purchases reported to APTA Transit Vehicle Database (2019) ▪ 40-ft Diesel buses cost about ~$500,000 ▪ Electric buses with the largest available battery (450 kWh) cost $850,000 - $900,000 ▪ Electric buses with a 150 – 200 kWh battery, suitable for in-route charging, cost $720,000 - $780,000 ▪ Electric bus costs are projected to fall over time, as the technology matures, and battery costs continue to fall 11 Electric Bus Charging Scenarios SCENARIO DEPOT CHARGING IN-ROUTE CHARGING All energy added “overnight”, using All energy added “in-route”, using 450 CONCEPT 50-100 kW chargers located at each kW chargers located throughout Transit Centre service area • Very large battery required on bus, high bus cost • Smaller battery required on bus, lower bus cost COST • Practical limitation on battery size limits range – in the near-term • Smaller number of chargers TRADE- additional buses will be required, but higher cost/charger OFFS required • Siting in-route chargers could be • Large number of chargers difficult required – space claim at Depots 12 Depot vs In-route Charging DEPOT CHARGING IN-ROUTE CHARGING • More direct control over • Less expensive now infrastructure • Do not need to shorten daily bus • Lower infrastructure costs assignments PROS (+) • Potentially less expensive in • No loss of depot parking capacity the long run • Greater resiliency/reliability –a few • Lower electricity cost (lower chargers out of commission won’t demand charges) affect bus operations • Space claim for chargers • Charger site acquisition & permitting reduces parking capacity • Less control over infrastructure • Must re-configure daily bus • Higher infrastructure costs assignments to shorten CONS • Higher cost/difficulty of charger them; increased dead-head (-) maintenance time • Additional time in schedules to • Difficult/costly to provide accommodate charging back-up power to entire • Higher electricity cost (higher depot demand charges) 13 Charging Infrastructure Cost DEPOT CHARGING IN-ROUTE CHARGING (50 kW/bus) (450 kW/charger) Corded, ground mount $60,000 - $70,000/bus 15% - 20% fewer parking spots Must plug/unplug buses Corded, overhead mount $75,000 - $120,000/bus 0% - 5% fewer parking spots Must plug/unplug buses Overhead pantograph $160,000 - $200,000/bus 0% - 5% fewer parking spots $750,000 - $850,000/charger Do not need to $95,000 – $110,000/bus plug/unplug buses (one charger every 6 – 8 buses) 14 Electric Bus Axle Weight + 4,700 - 5,500 lb Electric buses are typically heavier than diesel buses – the larger the battery pack the bigger the difference 15 Range per Charge 450 kWh nameplate capacity ▪ Batteries degrade over time, losing effective capacity Battery Degradation 2.4%/yr x 7 years ▪ Most battery manufacturers don’t recommend bringing 375 kWh Reserve for battery life 5% batteries all the way down to 356 kWh zero state of charge every Reserve for operational flexibility 10% 320 kWh Usable at bus mid-life day – maintain a reserve of 5% - 20% On-board 320 kWh ▪ Daily energy use can vary Battery ÷ from the average by 10% or more on a given day 2.1 kWh/mi 3.2 kWh/mi ▪ Electric bus planning should = 152 miles = 100 miles be based on a “reliable” 3-season 0° F Day range per charge that accounts for these factors – not on name plate range of a “reliable range at bus mid-life” new battery and average (planning factor) energy use Based on 12 MPH avg speed 16 Bus Scheduling – Miles per Day ▪ For most transit agencies average miles/bus/day is between 100 and 200 miles ✓ It can vary significantly by depot at the same agency ▪ However, 50% of buses do more miles than the average ▪ Some buses travel 250+ miles per day Each line is a ▪ This is NOT a function of how different depot. “long” routes are, but rather of how buses are scheduled ▪ When using depot-charged electric buses, long assignments will need to be shortened to fit within available range – for most agencies this will INCREASE peak bus requirements ▪ Bus routes with higher average speed and/or low Peak/Base ratio will tend to have higher daily energy requirements and will therefore be harder to implement depot charging given current limits on battery size 17 Replacement Ratio vs Range per Charge To have a 1:1 replacement ratio, the reliable range per charge (miles) for an electric bus needs to be ~25% greater than fleet average daily miles - i.e. if average is 150 mile/day/bus range per charge needs to be ~187 miles to replace diesel buses 1:1 For full fleet conversion if using overnight depot charging, many transit agencies will need 5% - 20% more electric buses than current diesel/CNG buses due to limitations on battery size and range for current buses from most manufacturers Future buses are expected to have larger batteries and greater range per charge as battery energy density increases 18 Electric Bus Average Life-time Costs MY2018 40-ft Bus – $/mi Total Cost $/mi Incremental Cost Battery Bus vs Diesel Bus $/mi Projected Evolution of Electric Bus Costs Electric drivetrain costs Battery costs Industry Battery energy density Range Replacement ratio Projections Battery life Electric drivetrain efficiency Energy use ENERGY INFORMATION Diesel cost relative to electricity cost ADMINISTRATION All indicators point to electric bus life-cycle costs falling over time relative to diesel and CNG buses 20 Projected Electric Bus Costs - US Assumes no additional operating or capital subsides for electric buses. Does not include monetized value of electric bus emission reductions. 21 Projected Electric Bus Costs - CA California Low Carbon Fuel Standard program provides subsidies for electricity use by electric buses 22 Projected Electric Bus “Break Even” Average Life Cycle Costs MARKET vs HYBRID vs DIESEL US (AVG) MY 2050+ MY 2050+ CA MY 2040 MY2050 CANADA MY 2040 MY 2045 UK MY 2035 MY 2030 FRANCE MY 2025 MY 2025 23 Projected Battery Costs ▪ Battery costs have a huge impact on electric bus economics ▪ This analysis is based on a fairly conservative view of future battery costs ▪ If battery costs fall faster, diesel cost parity will arrive sooner 24 Electric Bus Market Barriers 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alternative Fuels in Public Transit: a Match Made on the Road
    U.S. DEPARTMENT of ENERGY, March 2002 OFFICE of ENERGY EFFICIENCY and RENEWABLE ENERGY Alternative Fuels in Public Transit: A Match Made on the Road As alternative fuels compete with conventional fuels for Transit agencies across the nation operate approximately a place in public awareness and acceptance, one of their 75,000 buses. As shown in the table, transit buses con- most visible applications is in public transportation. sume more fuel per vehicle annually than some other Vehicles, particularly buses and shuttles, that carry niche market vehicles on average, although the fuel use people in large numbers, stand to gain much from using of individual buses varies widely. (Source: Charting the alternative fuels. Such high-demand fuel users can help Course for AFV Market Development and Sustainable sustain a fueling infrastructure that supports private Clean Cities Coalitions, Clean Cities, March 2001; see autos and other smaller vehicles. www.ccities.doe.gov/pdfs/ccstrategic.pdf.) Buses are the most visible Public transit operations are well suited to alternative Percentage of Vehicles fuel use. Transit vehicles often travel on contained transit vehicles and in Transit Fleets by Type routes with centralized fueling, they are serviced by account for 58% of the a team of technicians who can be trained consistently, transit vehicle miles trav- and they are part of fleets that travel many miles, so eled, but transit agencies economies of scale can be favorable. Transit agencies operate a variety of other also typically operate in urban areas that may have air vehicles that can also use quality concerns. Alternative fuel transit vehicles offer alternative fuels.
    [Show full text]
  • A-1 Electric Bus & Fleet Transition Planning
    A Proterra model battery electric powered bus (photo credit: Proterra, May 2021). 52 | page A-1 Electric Bus & Fleet Transition Planning Initiative: Assess the feasibility of transitioning Pace’s fleet toward battery electric and additional CNG technologies, as well as develop a transition plan for operations and facilities. Study other emerging technologies that can improve Pace’s environmental impact. Supports Goals: Responsiveness, Safety, Adaptability, Collaboration, Environmental Stewardship, Fiscal Solvency, and Integrity ACTION ITEM 1 Investigate and Plan for Battery Electric Bus (BEB) Pace is committed to the goals of environmental stewardship and economic sustainability, and recognizes how interest to electrify vehicles across private industry and US federal, state, and local governments has been intensifying throughout 2020-2021. Looking ahead, the agency will holistically evaluate a transition path to converting its fleet to battery electric buses (BEB). As a first step, Action Item 2 of the A-2 Capital Improvement Projects initiative describes Pace’s forthcoming Facilities Plan. This effort will include an investigation of the prerequisites that BEB technology requires to successfully operate. Once established, Pace will further plan what next steps and actions to take in pursuit of this vehicle propulsion system. A Union of Concerned Scientists 2017 study3 indicates that BEB’s have 70 percent lower global warming emissions than CNG or diesel hybrid buses even when considering the lifecycle emissions required to generate the necessary electricity. Similarly, a 2018 US PIRG Education Fund Study4 indicates that implementing BEB’s lower operational costs yields fuel and maintenance savings over a vehicle’s life cycle. Pace praises the efforts of many other transit agencies across the nation and world who are investing heavily in transitioning their fleets to BEB and other green, renewable, and environmentally-cognizant sources of vehicle propulsion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Route to Cleaner Buses a Guide to Operating Cleaner, Low Carbon Buses Preface
    The Route to Cleaner Buses A guide to operating cleaner, low carbon buses Preface Over recent years, concerns have grown over the contribution TransportEnergy is funded by the Department for Transport of emissions from road vehicles to local air quality problems and the Scottish executive to reduce the impact of road and to increasing greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to transport through the following sustainable transport climate change. One result of this is a wider interest in cleaner programmes: PowerShift, CleanUp, BestPractice and the vehicle fuels and technologies.The Cleaner Bus Working New Vehicle Technology Fund.These programmes provide Group was formed by the Clear Zones initiative and the advice, information and grant funding to help organisations Energy Saving Trust TransportEnergy programme. Its overall in both the public and private sector switch to cleaner, aim is to help stimulate the market for clean bus technologies more efficient fleets. and products. Comprising representatives of the private and CATCH is a collaborative demonstration project co- public sectors, it has brought together users and suppliers in financed by the European Commission's an effort to gain a better understanding of the needs and LIFE-ENVIRONMENT Programme. CATCH is co-ordinated requirements of each party and to identify, and help overcome, by Merseytravel, with Liverpool City Council,Transport & the legal and procurement barriers. Travel Research Ltd,ARRIVA North West & Wales Ltd, This guide is one output from the Cleaner Bus Working
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Analysis of Battery Electric Transit Buses (PDF)
    Financial Analysis of Battery Electric Transit Buses Caley Johnson, Erin Nobler, Leslie Eudy, and Matthew Jeffers National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-5400-74832 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC June 2020 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 Financial Analysis of Battery Electric Transit Buses Caley Johnson, Erin Nobler, Leslie Eudy, and Matthew Jeffers National Renewable Energy Laboratory Suggested Citation Johnson, Caley, Erin Nobler, Leslie Eudy, and Matthew Jeffers. 2020. Financial Analysis of Battery Electric Transit Buses. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5400-74832. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/74832.pdf NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy Technical Report Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy NREL/TP-5400-74832 Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC June 2020 This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications. 15013 Denver West Parkway Golden, CO 80401 Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov NOTICE This work was authored by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Vehicle Technologies Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Buses for Your City Smart Choices for Cities Clean Buses for Your City
    Smart choices for cities Clean buses for your city Smart choices for cities Clean buses for your city Table of contents Preface. 4 Summary. 5 Introduction . 6 Drivers.and.challenges. 7 Policy measures . 7 Current market situation . 10 Challenges in introducing the clean buses . 12 What.are.the.clean(er).bus.options? . 13 Fossil fuels . 14 Biofuels . 20 Electricity . .. 26 Diesel hybrid: hybrid/electric . 32 Hydrogen . 36 Which.energy.carrier.to.choose.for.your.bus?. 40 Comparing different bus options . 41 Comparison emissions . 42 Comparison economy . 43 Comparison other considerations . 44 Achieving.short.term.and.long.term.targets.. 45 Current decisions . .. 45 Future outlook . 46 Conclusions. 47 References . 48 Glossary. 47 Annex.1 ..Comparison.of.bus.technologies.on.a.set.of.indicators. 49 © 2013 TNO 3 Smart choices for cities Smart choices for cities Clean buses for your city Clean buses for your city Preface Summary Thank you for reading the first policy analysis of the CIVITAS This policy analysis provides clear and in-depth information ■■ Full electric buses are starting to become commercially WIKI Policy Analyses series . The mission of the CIVITAS WIKI which will guide policy makers in European municipalities, available . Driving range and costs of batteries are still project is to provide information on clean urban transport public transport operators and other local decision makers an issue . Where a trolleybus network exists, wider utili- and on the CIVITAS Initiative to EU city planners, decision- in their choice of clean(er) public transport. First, it defines sation of these buses should be considered . makers and citizens . With its policy documents WIKI wants drivers and challenges that influence municipalities to look at to inform people in the cities on a number of topics that ‘cleaner’ bus options.
    [Show full text]
  • Refueling Vs Recharging
    recharging vs. refueling GET THE FACTS: REFUELING VS RECHARGING INSIDE LOOK: PROPANE AUTOGAS VERSUS ELECTRIC INFRASTRUCTURE If your district operates — or is considering purchasing — electric school buses, charging up for the day could also mean draining budgets due to inefficient infrastructure. With its quick refueling and transparent costs, propane autogas provides a simpler and more convenient solution to the headaches of electric charging. THE PITFALLS OF ELECTRIC ∆ INSTALLATION: Even getting started with electric buses can hit your budget hard. The power requirements needed for multiple charging stations dramatically increase site preparation costs, on top of the trenching, conduits, cables, and repaving required to run a power line to the charging center. With propane autogas, you have options for infrastructure setups that keep your costs in check. ∆ DOWNTIME: Charging electric fleets around the clock means keeping those buses off the road for long periods of time — up to five hours, in some cases. Refueling a propane autogas bus is safe and quick, taking a similar amount of time as fueling with gasoline or diesel. ∆ RANGE: Because electric buses rely on frequent battery charging to stay mobile, their full driving range is limited (only up to about 120 miles on one charge) and often makes drivers anxious. Propane autogas buses can provide a range of more than 400 miles on a single refueling. ∆ POST-INSTALLATION: In the long term, electric fleets also have to install and pay for charging management software to adequately maintain charging schedules for multiple vehicles. Outside of routine maintenance, propane autogas infrastructure doesn’t require additional costs after installation.
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Vehicles for Public Transportation in Power Systems: a Review of Methodologies
    energies Review Electric Vehicles for Public Transportation in Power Systems: A Review of Methodologies Jean-Michel Clairand 1,* , Paulo Guerra-Terán 1 , Xavier Serrano-Guerrero 2,3 , Mario González-Rodríguez 1,4 and Guillermo Escrivá-Escrivá 3 1 Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad de las Américas—Ecuador, Quito 170122, Ecuador 2 Grupo de Investigación en Energías, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, Cuenca 010103, Ecuador 3 Institute for Energy Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain 4 Intelligent & Interactive Systems Lab (SI2 Lab), Universidad de las Américas—Ecuador, Quito 170125, Ecuador * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +593-9-95860613 Received: 3 July 2019; Accepted: 9 August 2019; Published: 14 August 2019 Abstract: The market for electric vehicles (EVs) has grown with each year, and EVs are considered to be a proper solution for the mitigation of urban pollution. So far, not much attention has been devoted to the use of EVs for public transportation, such as taxis and buses. However, a massive introduction of electric taxis (ETs) and electric buses (EBs) could generate issues in the grid. The challenges are different from those of private EVs, as their required load is much higher and the related time constraints must be considered with much more attention. These issues have begun to be studied within the last few years. This paper presents a review of the different approaches that have been proposed by various authors, to mitigate the impact of EBs and ETs on the future smart grid. Furthermore, some projects with regard to the integration of ETs and EBs around the world are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Bus Technologies August, 2018 Produced By: C40 Cities Finance Facility in Collaboration with Grütter Consulting
    Ciudad de México, México Alternative Bus Technologies August, 2018 Produced by: C40 Cities Finance Facility in collaboration with Grütter Consulting 1 Alternative Bus Technologies 2 Alternative Bus Technologies Table of Content List of Acronyms 10 Summary 11 1 Introduction 14 2 Methodology 14 2.1 Introduction 14 2.2 Operating Conditions 15 2.3 Environmental Criteria 16 2.3.1 Parameters 16 2.3.2 Energy Use 16 2.3.3 Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions 17 2.3.3.1 Combustion Emissions 17 2.3.3.2 Black Carbon Emissions 18 2.3.3.3 Emissions from Electricity 18 2.3.3.4 Upstream Fuel Emissions 19 2.3.3.5 Emissions by Vehicles and their Components 19 2.3.3.6 Parameters and Values Used 19 2.3.4 Local Emission 20 2.4 Financial Criteria 21 2.5 Economic Criteria 24 2.6 Risk Criteria 25 2.7 Summary 25 3 Baseline Bus 26 4 Alternative Bus Technologies 29 5 Gas Buses 30 5.1 Description of the Technology 30 5.2 Environmental Impact 32 5.2.1 GNC Buses. 32 5.2.2 LNG Buses 35 5.3 Summary and Conclusions 37 6 Hybrid Buses 37 3 Alternative Bus Technologies 6.1 Description of the Technology 37 6.2 Environmental Impact. 40 6.3 Financial and Economic Impact 44 6.4 Risk and Use of the Technology in Fleet. 46 6.5 Summary and Conclusions 47 7 Plug-in Hybrid Buses 48 7.1 Description of the Technology 48 7.2 Environmental Impact 49 7.3 Financial and Economic Impact 51 7.4 Risk and Use of the Technology in Fleet 53 7.5 Summary and Conclusions 53 8 Opportunity Charging Systems 54 8.1 Description of the Technology 54 8.1.1 Barcelona.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Diesel-And Alternative-Fuel Bus Trials
    Report on Diesel-and Alternative-Fuel Bus Trials December 2019 Report on Diesel- and Alternative-Fuel Bus Trials Prepared for: Department of Transport, Tourism & Sport Ref: 546-19X0091 Public Version December 2019 Byrne Ó Cléirigh, 30a Westland Square, Pearse Street, Dublin 2, D02 PN76, Ireland. Telephone: + 353 – 1 – 6770733. Facsimile: + 353 – 1 – 6770729. Email: [email protected]. Web: www.boc.ie Directors: LM Ó Cléirigh BE MIE CEng FIEI FIMechE; LP Ó Cléirigh BE MEngSc MBA CEng FIEI FEI; ST Malone BE MIE CEng FIEI; JB FitzPatrick FCA. Registered in Dublin, Ireland No. 237982. Byrne Ó Cléirigh Consulting Report on Diesel- and Alternative-Fuel Bus Trials DISCLAIMER This report has been prepared by Byrne Ó Cléirigh Limited with all reasonable skill, care and diligence within the terms of the Contract with the Client, incorporating our Terms and Conditions and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the Client. We disclaim any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the scope of the above. This report is confidential to the Client and we accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to whom this report, or any part thereof, is made known. Any such party relies upon the report at their own risk. 546-19X0091 Public Version December 2019 Byrne Ó Cléirigh Consulting Report on Diesel- and Alternative-Fuel Bus Trials Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. I ABBREVIATIONS
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal Title: Go Electric: Analysis of an All-Electric Transportation Fleet at Rutgers University
    Proposal Title: Go Electric: Analysis of an All-Electric Transportation Fleet at Rutgers University Total number of pages (not counting cover pages): 10 Student Name: Timothy Lee E-mail address: [email protected] Major(s): Chemistry Minor(s): N/A Planned graduation Month and Year: May 2017 Mailing address: 6737 RPO Way, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Contact phone number: (862) 223-9269 Project Summary: Using a systematic approach to modeling the current bus transportation system, a streamlined and more efficient bus transportation network is proposed to decrease the size of the Rutgers transportation fleet from ~50 biodiesel buses to ~40 electric buses. The environmental and financial impact of the transition from biodiesel buses to electric buses is also analyzed and presented in this proposal. Over a 12-year period, switching from the current biodiesel fleet to an all-electric bus fleet can prevent 23,640 metric tons of CO2 gas emissions and save $12.4 million. Go Electric: Analysis of an All-Electric Transportation Fleet at Rutgers University Timothy Lee I. Research Problem and Potential Impact Over the past several years, the admittance and attendance of students at Rutgers University has continued to increase rapidly.1 In order to accommodate this immense scale of growth, Rutgers has created the Rutgers 2030 Master Plan. The most notable change undergoing development is the University Transportation Master Plan, which will outline the physical growth of Rutgers over the next 15 to 20 years to match the growth in attendance.2 With eleven routes, over 50 buses, and a ridership of more than six million daily, the Rutgers-New Brunswick bus transportation system is both a large cost and a hefty energy expenditure.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional School Bus Study (2012)
    REGIONAL SCHOOL BUS STUDY A Comparison Of Alternative Fuels For School Transportation Fleets January 2012 SOUTH CENTRAL REGIONAL COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS PLANNING FOR OUR REGION'S FUTURE REGIONAL SCHOOL BUS STUDY January, 2012 Prepared By: VN Engineers, Inc. 116 Washington Avenue North Haven, CT 06473 (203) 234-7862 Prepared For: South Central Regional Council of Governments 127 Washington Avenue, 4th Floor West North Haven, CT 06473 (203) 234-7555 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY School buses are an important part of our transportation system, as they provide a safe and reliable means for many children throughout the nation to get to and from school. However, exhaust from diesel engines contains numerous pollutants that not only contribute to poor outdoor air quality, but also can leak into passenger cabins of buses, amassing in concentrations that are much higher than outdoor air. Diesel exhaust has serious health impacts for all who are exposed to it, but children are particularly susceptible to its harmful effects and disproportionately suffer from asthma, respiratory irritations, and other possible long-term conditions. The vast majority of school buses in Connecticut and the SCRCOG region are diesel-powered. However, there have been a number of recent advances in alternative fuel technology and corresponding opportunities for bus operators to benefit from the use of alternative fuel technology to reduce diesel emissions, improve air quality, limit health risks, improve efficiency, extend vehicle life, and increase energy independence. Four of the most commonly used alternative fuels have been tested and used for school bus operations. They include: biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electricity, and propane.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Adopting Full Battery-Based Electric Transit Bus Systems on Ontario Electricity Grid Motivation
    Impacts of Adopting Full Battery-Based Electric Transit Bus Systems on Ontario Electricity Grid Motivation 2 Motivation-1 Electric City Bus Electric Coach Bus Electric School Bus GreenPower Single Decker 40-45 ft: 320 kWh GreenPower Double Decker 45ft: 480 kWh GreenPower 36.5 ft: 100-200 kWh NewFlyer 40ft: 150-480 kWh NewFlyer 60ft: 250-600 kWh BYD Single Decker Lion Bus C: 88-220 kWh BYD Double Decker 45ft: 420 kWh 45ft: 496 kWh Proterra 40 ft: 90-880 kWh Lion Bus A 26ft (mini school bus): Alexander Dennis Inc. Double Decker 80-160 kWh BYD 40 ft: 324 kWh BYD 60 ft: 591 kWh 45ft: customized-kWh Impacts of Adopting Full Battery-Based Electric Transit Bus Systems on Ontario Electricity Grid 3 Motivation-2 Battery Capacity P Fixed routes (i.e. mileage range) P Predefined schedules Charger Power P Shared infrastructure (i.e. charging refueling rate) Ends of service: 20:00 Overnight E-bus A Opportunity Trip x charging Trip x+1 charging BEBs SoC Consumption Route R 4 Motivation-3 Technical specifications Overnight charging Opportunity Charging Shape of charger • Charge in 3 to 6 minutes • Smart charging • One charger can serve multiple vehicle types and • Small infrastructure footprint of the depot charge box Key features brands • Flexible design for roof and floor mounting • Safe and reliable fully automated connection • CCS and OCPP compliant • Based on international IEC 61851-23 standard • Remote diagnostics and management tools • Remote diagnostics and management tools Power Modular: 50 kW, 100 kW, 150 kW Modular: 150 kW, 300 kW, 450 kW,
    [Show full text]