The California Air Resource Board has passed a regulation mandating that all transit buses in the state be electrically powered by 2040. Portland’s TriMet has also vowed to eliminate Diesel buses from its fleet by 2040. The motivation behind these goals is supposedly the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Not surprisingly, there’s another hidden motivation. The federal government will cover 80 percent of the cost of a Diesel bus. But it will cover 85 percent of the cost of “low- or no-emissions buses” and 90 percent of the cost of related bus equipment and facilities. That means transit agencies can use their local funds to buy as many electric buses as Diesel buses even if the electric buses cost considerably more. According to one report, a typical Diesel bus costs $500,000 and an electric bus costs $800,000, but those numbers can vary quite a bit depending on how many buses a transit agency orders.
Electric buses come with another cost. According to the Federal Transit Administration, electric buses in Seattle break down every 2,771 miles, while Diesel buses break down only once every 17,332 miles.
As a source of emissions, buses are pretty insignificant, at least outside of the New York urban area. In Portland, for example, TriMet buses travel less than 21 million miles a year generating less than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. All vehicles in the Portland area travel close to 14 billion miles generating more than 2.5 million metric tons of CO2. Thus, TriMet buses are only about a tenth of a percent of the total.
Pulmonary Physical obtain at store order generic viagra Therapy This defensive therapy modality focuses on those diseases related to heart and lung problems. This model has offered us the data needed for developing effective interventional therapies to further slow the aging process and generic viagra online lower glucose effectively and naturally without any serious side effects. Through centuries, these ingredients have been viagra delivery canada view these guys proven to be successful in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. Therefore to avoid these mishaps you are always advised to follow the doctor’s advice and should carry out a clinical best price for cialis visit.
Electric buses are not particularly energy efficient. Although the National Transit Database doesn’t separate battery-powered buses from Diesels, it does separate trolley buses. On average, trolley buses use about 36 percent more energy per vehicle mile than regular buses. Part of the reason is the inefficiency of electrical generation and distribution, which means that about three units of energy must be spent at the power plant in order to deliver one unit to the customer. Battery powered buses necessarily weigh much more than trolley buses, so are probably even less energy efficient.
Still, electric buses kind of make sense in Pacific Coast states where a lot of electricity is generated by hydroelectric dams. Elsewhere in the country, most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, so electric buses have little advantage except as a public relations benefit.
TriMet and other transit agencies would probably buy far fewer electric buses if the federal government didn’t pay for a higher percentage of those buses. The California Air Resources Board probably would have issued its mandate either way as it doesn’t have a track record of worrying much about costs. But in most states away from the Pacific Coast, transit agencies that buy low- and no-emissions buses are doing it more to stroke their own egos and take advantage of the federal government’s generous grant terms than to clean the air.
“The motivation behind these goals is supposedly the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
But a better reason is to reduce kerbside emissions.
” According to one report, a typical Diesel bus costs $500,000 and an electric bus costs $800,000, but those numbers can vary quite a bit depending on how many buses a transit agency orders.”
A typical UK diesel bus is about $100,000. You have some very expensive buses.
“Still, electric buses kind of make sense in Pacific Coast states where a lot of electricity is generated by hydroelectric dams.”
All the hydro generated electricity is already used. Therefore the extra electricity used for electric buses has to come from other sources presumably fossil fuels. There is only a savings of fossil fuels if what is used is a surplus of non-fossil fuel electricity generated that would otherwise not be used.
“A typical UK diesel bus is about $100,000. You have some very expensive buses.”
Where is your reference for this? This might be a price for small buses based on commercial vans but is not the cost of a 40 passenger diesel bus. See my post below on NYC.
This post claims that there is a 7 year payback on the cost of electric buses due to lower maintenance costs,
http://electricschoolbuscampaign.org/cost-analysis-of-new-york-city-transit-buses-going-all-electric/
This confirms that buses cost around $450,000 and up.
Batteries wear out which is why EV depreciation is so high. For EV cars, replacing the battery is the equivalent of replacing the engine of an ICE car, accounting for 1/3–1/2 of the vehicle’s value. I’ve read that EV battery packs are essentially dead after seven years. I didn’t see the periodic cost of replacing dead battery packs in the bus cost analysis above.
Why 2040? The answer is they assume technological progression means buses that don’t emit or are electric will proliferate to he point they’ll be common place. So the government won’t have to do anything when the next contract comes., they’ll just order “Buses”. No bullshit. But they’ll take the credit for telling the uneducated masses what they “Accomplished”.
The large-scale introduction of electric cars and vehicles faces many technological hurdles and promises to be time-consuming and expensive. Greening public transportation and traffic, on the other hand, was done a hundred years ago and can easily be done fast with existing technology for a reasonable price – if we opt for the trolleybus. an electric bus that gets its power from overhead cables, or as a tram (or “street car”) that drives on rubber tyres. Whichever way you look at it, this combination of bus and tram is the most ecological (motorised) means of transport that exists in the world today. A trolleybus also has advantages compared to other means of electric public transport. Contrary to a train or a tram, a trolleybus does not need a rail infrastructure. This not only results in huge cost and time savings, it also saves a large amount of energy. Installing a trolleybus service is of course more expensive than installing a normal bus line, but that extra cost can be recovered because of lower fuel and maintenance costs.
They are generally regarded as ugly and meet protest. Especially at crossroads the cable network can be dense and hard to ignore. Similar to trams, the “tracks” of trolleybuses have points, but the whole mechanism of these hangs in the air. We adore wireless technology and that is probably the reason why trolleybuses are regarded as a ridiculous and inferior technology, a relic from the past.
A power plant has a higher efficiency than a car’s engine, and an electric motor has a higher efficiency than a combustion engine. Herein lies a potential advantage for the environment, even if the electricity needed to power electric cars is generated by fossil fuels. And let’s be optimistic for once and assume that we will have a 100 percent green electricity infrastructure in 10 or 20 years time (let’s call that hugely optimistic, since it’s already an enormous challenge to green the existing infrastructure and a massive introduction of electric cars means we have to build many more power plants).
@ Paul:
As requested, some costs:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/devolution/2015/10/single-object-sums-boris-johnsons-disastrous-mayoralty
Boris’ special bus is £350,000 each – but you’d be daft to pay this much
Double decker is half that at £190,000
A regular diesel bus is a lot less. The actual cost that the bus companies pay is a commercial secret but is about $100,000 each.
The actual cost that the bus companies pay is a commercial secret but is about $100,000 each.
My guess is that number is low by a factor of four, no matter what country we’re talking about. Note the weasel wording in the New Statesman article:
A conventional double-decker costs £190,000 to build…
What the bus costs to build isn’t the question rather, it’s what the bus costs to buy.
…an electric motor has a higher efficiency than a combustion engine. Herein lies a potential advantage for the environment, even if the electricity needed to power electric cars is generated by fossil fuels.
And that fossil fuel generation is by combustion engines so you have to take that drag on efficiency into account. Well-to-wheel, depending on the ultimate power source, hybrid diesel/electric buses are probably just as efficient as battery buses or trollybuses. If particulate emissions are a concern then the hybrid power can be supplied by compression ignition natural gas engines instead of diesels. In either case no additional infrastructure needed.
@CapitalistRoadster:
“What the bus costs to build isn’t the question rather, it’s what the bus costs to buy.”
The bus companies get a volume discount. So, as I said.
@”all transit buses (to) be electrically powered by 2040″
2040: “What was a bus, Daddy?”