This document summarizes research on electric buses around the world. It discusses how zero-emission and low-emission buses are being adopted but there are still implementation barriers. The research focuses on operational challenges, fuel and production costs, and lifecycle emissions analysis to help agencies choose cost-effective options for reducing emissions. Case studies of 60 cities identified three main operational approaches for electric buses: depot charging, battery swapping, and on-route charging. A framework is provided to help agencies define their emissions goals and evaluate which technologies best achieve those goals given local operational challenges and financing options.

1. GLOBAL
EXPERIENCE OF
ELECTRIC BUSES
Erin Cooper, Research Associate, WRI

2. OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH
Help agencies and operators make cost-effective emissions reduction
choices during fleet renewal

3. ZERO EMISSION AND LOW EMISSION BUSES ARE
ALREADY A REALITY

4. ELECTRIC BUS ADOPTION IS ALSO MOVING
RAPIDLY, BUT THERE STILL IMPLEMENTATION
BARRIERS

5. RESEARCH FOCUS
Operations
Fuel
Production
Raw material
production Waste disposal
Images from Greenhouse Gas Protocol, World Resources Institute and University of Manchester Bus Logo
• Exhaust/Tailpipe emissions
• Upstream Emissions
• Lifecycle Costs

6. RESEARCH AND INTERVIEWS CARRIED OUT BY WRI
ALLOWED US TO IDENTIFY SOME OF THE MAIN
BARRIERS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
More expensive
vehicles and
infrastructure
Uncertainty
about change
Technology
readiness (e.g.
range)
Outdated
procurement
models

7. FRAMEWORK FOR DECISION MAKING
1. Define Goals: What are agencies trying to achieve?
2. Operational challenges: What technology best
suits the location?
3. Achieving goals: Do available alternatives achieve
emissions or cost goals?
4. Financing options: What is available nationally or
internationally to support the project?

8. 1. DEFINING EMISSIONS GOALS
• Often mayors and governments jump
directly to fleet renewal and technology
options for emissions reduction without
considering other options
• Reducing CO2 vs. reducing PM might
result in different selections
• It is possible to make expensive decisions
that only lead to a small emissions
reduction

9. Casos dobles: Auckland, Colombo, Gothenburg, London, Paris, Seattle, Singapore
Seattle: Hybrid-electric,
Opportunity charging
Foothill: Battery electric
Toronto: Hybrid-electric
Philadelphia: Hybrid-
electric
Bogota: Hybrid-electric
Curitiba: Hybrid-electric
Auckland: Hybrid-
electric, Battery electric
Tianjin: Battery Electric
Zhuhai: Battery Electric
Shenzhen: Battery Electric
Nanjing: Battery Electric
Gumi: Opportunity Charging
Berlin: Opportunity Charging
Turin: Opportunity Charging
Colombo: Hybrid electric,
Battery electric
Singapore: Hybrid
electric, Battery electric
London: Hybrid electric,
Battery electric
Paris: Hybrid electric,
Battery electric
Gothenburg: Hybrid
electric, Battery electric Stockholm: Hybrid electric
Rome: Battery Electric
Américas Asia y Pacífic Europe
N. América Latin america Asia Oceania Europe
5 2 9 2 10
2. OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES: 60 CASE STUDIES
41%
15%
44%
Tecnologías
Eléctricos de
batería
Carga de
oportunidad
Híbridos-
eléctricos

10. THREE MAJOR OPERATIONAL APPROACHES
• Depot Charging: Common approach
• Battery Swapping:
– Tianjin (2000 + buses)
• On-route Charging:
– Overhead – London (76 buses)
– Inductive Charging – Berlin (4 buses)

11. ON-ROUTE OVERHEAD CHARGING
DEDICATED CHARGING ZONE

12. SHIFTING FROM BUS APPROACH TO SYSTEM
APPROACH
• Using smaller batteries along with opportunity
charging can reduce upfront battery costs
• Fast-charging
stations
• Battery swapping
reduces time that the
bus is not in use

13. REQUIREMENTS FOR ELECTRIC BUSES
• Land for new facilities and on-route
charging
• Facilities for Battery Storage/Swapping
• Charging Stations – often need to be
near substations
• Power Supply
• High voltage safety – trained staff

14. 3. ACHIEVING EMISSIONS REDUCTION GOALS
• Compared to other options, are electric
vehicles the most cost-effective option?
– Energy efficiency
– Lifecycle costs
– Tailpipe emissions
– Upstream emissions

15. COMPARING CNG AND ELECTRICS IN INDIA
$167,945,455 $167,945,455
$104,199,905
$44,360,978
$202,133,551
$160,807,773
$40,115,429
$126,139,360
$14,203,770 $43,704,085
$-
$100,000,000
$200,000,000
$300,000,000
$400,000,000
$500,000,000
$600,000,000
Fleet 1 Fleet 2
Annualized Lifetime Cost, By Fleet
Financial Costs
Capital Costs
Depot / Infrastucture Costs
Overhaul Costs
Maintenance Costs
Fuel Costs
Operations Costs

16. ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF DIFFERENT BUSESMilesperDGE

17. UPSTREAM EMISSIONS
DIESEL pathway and key stages
ELECTRICITY pathway and key stages

18. LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONS VS. COST
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
$- $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 $1.60 $1.80 $2.00
TotalGHGemissions(annualg/km/bus)
Unit cost (annualized cost ($)/km/bus)
Electric buses
CNG buses

19. LIFECYCLE PM EMISSIONS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
$- $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 $1.40 $1.60 $1.80 $2.00
Exhaust+UpstreamPMemissions(annualg/km/bus)
Unit cost (annualized cost ($)/km/bus)
CNG buses
Electric buses
Electric buses – on-route only

20. THE TECHNOLOGY IS VIABLE – IS THIS THE RIGHT
TIME FOR RAPID ADOPTION IN INDIA?
Pros Cons
“Leap-frogging” intermediary
tech
Relying on unstable grid for
additional energy
Eliminate on-route PM
emissions
Technology is still changing
quickly
Reduce noise May not reduce CO2 emissions
Lower fuel and maintenance
costs
In some cases, building up
many types of infrastructure
which requires more land and
investment