Per capita incomes in Flint, Michigan, are only about half the national average, and poverty rates are three times the national average. So what does the city’s transit agency do? Why, spend $2.4 million for a $327,000 bus.
Zero emissions? Not really. Flickr photo by Earthworm.
Of course, this is a special bus: instead of being powered by Diesel fuel, it is powered by hydrogen fuel cells. And everyone knows that hydrogen power has zero emissions. The transit agency is so happy with the bus that it wants to order up to 30 more.
There may be no greenhouse gas emissions coming from the bus’s tailpipe, but energy isn’t free, and it takes energy to make the hydrogen. Rather than just measure tailpipe emissions, a California study looked at “well-to-wheel” emissions and found that the life-cycle emissions of hydrogen-powered bus are only about 25 percent less than a Diesel bus (see figure ES-7 on page ES-10). Half of all electrical power in California comes from sources that don’t emit greenhouse gases (see p. 27), while more than 70 percent of Michigan’s electricity comes from fossil fuels, mostly coal (see p. 135), so the savings from using hydrogen power in Michigan is probably even smaller.
According to the National Transit Database, Flint’s transit agency drove its hydrogen-powered bus less than 9,000 miles in 2012, but it drives its most popular Diesel-powered buses about 48,000 miles a year. Based on the California study, if Flint replaces one of its Diesel buses with another hydrogen-powered bus and drives it 48,000 miles, it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 38.4 tons per year. Amortizing the difference in the cost of the buses over 15 years results in a cost per ton of abated greenhouse gases of more than $4,000. (Remember, McKinsey & Company says anything costing more than $50 a ton is a waste.) This doesn’t even count maintenance, which–according to a study of San Francisco Bay Area fuel-cell buses–is more than 75 percent greater for fuel-cell buses than ordinary Diesel buses.
I particularly remember the time he buy levitra was being photographed and he would spoil his hair style each time over. Always combine these medicines with regular exercises, stress tadalafil professional controlling therapies and sex-boosting foods. You can buy Kamagra online or any other buy viagra prescription , which are known to treat erectile dysfunction effectively. Is erectile dysfunction becoming the viagra cheap india root cause of everything wrong in your life lately? ED is one condition that may lead to severe complications like death. Fuel cell costs may come down, but there are already several alternatives that will do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a much lower cost. First, use smaller buses. The average bus in Flint’s fleet has 40 seats, but carries an average of just 11 passengers. These numbers are typical of all transit agencies. Why not use smaller buses, at least for those hours of the day when demand is low? Or even during all hours, just increasing frequencies when demand is high?
Second, increase passenger loads. Why do transit agencies settle for carrying an average of 11 passengers at a time? The answer is that transit routes are determined politically, not based on where the customers are. It’s more important to run empty buses through middle-class suburbs to let people know that their taxes are being put to some use than to run buses into low-income urban neighborhoods where the demand actually exists.
Third, substitute biodiesel for Diesel fuel. According to the California study, buses running with 30 percent biodiesel fuel produce greenhouse gas emissions that are only a little greater than hydrogen-fueled buses (and may even be less in Michigan), yet the cost of converting buses to run biodiesel is negligible.
There are other alternatives, such as compressed natural gas, but these require more modifications to the bus. Flint, for example, is also buying hybrid-electric buses, but the high cost of such buses (though less than fuel-cell buses) is probably not worth the benefits.
However, few people count the costs when someone else is paying the bill. The Antiplanner has read numerous evaluations of fuel-cell bus tests, but most of them merely conclude that the buses worked. None of them compared the supposed benefits with the easily measured costs.
Proponents of hydrogen power no doubt believe that costs will decline to make fuel-cell buses more affordable. But that’s no excuse for wasting millions of dollars on such buses today. The true entrepreneur finds ways to reduce costs, not rely on tax subsidies. If costs can’t be reduced, then the technology is inappropriate.
The Departments of Energy and Transportation have been experimenting with fuel-cell buses for a decade. The results are in: their cost is too great, and their benefits too small. Instead of buying expensive buses that make them look green to politicians and taxpayers, transit agencies should focus on providing better service for their customers.
The Antiplanner wrote:
There may be no greenhouse gas emissions coming from the bus’s tailpipe, but energy isn’t free, and it takes energy to make the hydrogen. Rather than just measure tailpipe emissions, a California study looked at “well-to-wheel” emissions and found that the life-cycle emissions of hydrogen-powered bus are only about 25 percent less than a Diesel bus (see figure ES-7 on page ES-10). Half of all electrical power in California comes from sources that don’t emit greenhouse gases (see p. 27), while more than 70 percent of Michigan’s electricity comes from fossil fuels, mostly coal (see p. 135), so the savings from using hydrogen power in Michigan is probably even smaller.
The above is an issue that is all too frequently ignored when discussing the merits of transit powered by electricity – usually rail transit. There are nice things said about the “clean electric” trains (and much more rarely, trolley buses), but no discussion at all about the attributes of the generators from where the traction power originated.
Third, substitute biodiesel for Diesel fuel. According to the California study, buses running with 30 percent biodiesel fuel produce greenhouse gas emissions that are only a little greater than hydrogen-fueled buses (and may even be less in Michigan), yet the cost of converting buses to run biodiesel is negligible.
Only problem I have heard about with bioDiesel is performance in cold winter weather (which Michigan usually has plenty of). Some (school) bus fleets have had serious difficulty getting Diesel engines to start when temperatures are far below freezing. There was a notorious case in Minnesota (not this past winter, but a year or two earlier) where the entire fleet was inoperable because of problems getting them started. I think they went back to regular Diesel, at least for winter use.
There are other alternatives, such as compressed natural gas, but these require more modifications to the bus.
CNG also requires extensive and expensive modifications to fueling systems at the bus garage. And it take much longer to fill the tank of a CNG-powered bus than it does a bus that uses conventional Diesel or bioDiesel.
Yeah, I always shake my head when I’m behind a Nissan Leaf and their “Zero Emission Vehicle” decal.
In the Pacific Northwest, they’re close to zero emissions, with only 0.8% of Seattle City Light’s electricity coming from coal, and nearly 90% coming from salmon-killing hydro. (Although Portland General Electric’s sources include 17% from coal and another 14% from natural gas.)
Nissan Leafs and other ZEVs make economic sense in Seattle, especially for people who use cars mainly for in-town trips and commutes.
In Austin very little of our electricity comes from Hydro or renewables. Down here, If you drive a leaf it’s coal powered.
I am a big fan of fuel cells, and they will be very useful for electrical generation for industrial parks, large buildings, small towns etc. They take up relatively small amounts of land for what they deliver.
But, they do not and never will make sense in motor vehicles unless there is a huge leap forward in technology. Maybe could be used to move long freight trains – maybe?
In Austin very little of our electricity comes from Hydro or renewables. Down here, If you drive a leaf it’s coal powered.
I’ll be in TX later this year talking about rooftop solar. It’s coming, and fast.
DS
“It’s coming, and fast.”
That’s what she said.
Purchasing a used car is the most “green”, because you “burn” fewer resources earning the money to pay for it. If you save and pay cash, with no car payments, your impact is even less.
If you live in Maryland, it’s a 30% chance we’re running on nuclear. But think about it for a second…..First you mine 250 tons of natural uranium containing 1.75 tons of uranium-235, enrich and get 35 tons of enriched uranium, the U-235 is ”burned”, some plutonium-239 is formed and maybe it’s burned to, assuming the government doesn’t want it for other purposes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11e8XyUBqRQ
After that, you’re still left with 215 tons of depleted uranium-238, the government will gladly take it off your hands.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGUIUQp3LsQ
35 tons of spent fuel which is 33.4 tons of uranium-238, 0.3 tons of U-235, 1 ton of fission byproducts, 0.3 tons of plutonium. All of which has to be stashed for 20,000+ years.
Or………..one ton of thorium in a molten salt reactor…….converts thorium-232 to uranium-233 and destroys 99% of it. You do get one ton of fission byproducts…..but in just 10 years most of the fission products are stable and can be stored indefinitely by burial. The rest are radioactive, but their radioactive half-life is short for only 300 years. And you get 0.0001 tons of plutonium.
Dan,
Where will you be speaking. I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say. People along the gulf coast are leery of rooftop solar, regardless of the value they present, because of the heightened risk to dwellings from windstorm hurricane and hail. Many insurance carriers will exclude homes with solar panels because of the windstorm risk.