Downloaded 14 times
Uploaded byWRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities
CK2017: Global Experience of Electric Buses
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.
More Related Content
Similar to CK2017: Global Experience of Electric Buses
More from WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities
CK2017: Global Experience of Electric Buses
- 1. GLOBAL EXPERIENCE OF ELECTRIC BUSES ErinCooper, Research Associate, WRI
- 2. OBJECTIVE OF RESEARCH Helpagencies and operators make cost-effective emissions reduction choices during fleet renewal
- 3. ZERO EMISSION ANDLOW EMISSION BUSES ARE ALREADY A REALITY
- 4. ELECTRIC BUS ADOPTIONIS ALSO MOVING RAPIDLY, BUT THERE STILL IMPLEMENTATION BARRIERS
- 5. RESEARCH FOCUS Operations Fuel Production Raw material productionWaste 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 INTERVIEWSCARRIED 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IMPLEMENTATION More expensive vehicles and infrastructure Uncertainty about change Technology readiness (e.g. range) Outdated procurement models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 DECISIONMAKING 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 EMISSIONSGOALS • 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 OPERATIONALAPPROACHES • 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 DEDICATEDCHARGING ZONE
- 12. SHIFTING FROM BUSAPPROACH 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 ELECTRICBUSES • 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 EMISSIONSREDUCTION GOALS • Compared to other options, are electric vehicles the most cost-effective option? – Energy efficiency – Lifecycle costs – Tailpipe emissions – Upstream emissions
- 15. COMPARING CNG ANDELECTRICS 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 OFDIFFERENT BUSESMilesperDGE
- 17. UPSTREAM EMISSIONS DIESEL pathwayand key stages ELECTRICITY pathway and key stages
- 18. LIFECYCLE GHG EMISSIONSVS. 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 ISVIABLE – 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
Editor's Notes
- #3 The outward objective of the project is here: We focus on buses because HDVs make up a major portion of emissions in low to middle income countries Address issues from the perspective of the agency, in the short to medium term, different to more global programs looking at longer term improvements in fuel quality and setting emissions standards – between now and 2050 when we all have hydrogen vehicles, and now and 2030, when diesel worldwide is clean, what fuel is best?
- #4 Geographical distribution of cities with hybrid and electric buses – US, Europe, East Asia
- #5 Geographical distribution of cities with electric buses – mostly global north and China. Technology barrier exists, but it’s not the focus of this presentation. This is also one of the reasons we are working on business models. Upfront is definitely expensive, but the total cost depends on the location (like Belo Horizonte)
- #7 3 main barriers for implementation, however innovation to overcome these barriers has happened around the world. Barrier 1: Innovative business models Barrier 2: deeper involvement of manufacturers Barrier 3: Technology is more of a perceived barrier, since there are already cities that have tested extensively these technologies (10+ years).
- #8 Learning to live with a diversity of fuels and technologies is probably going to be important for a while, especially in this transition phase. Especially in the HDV category, very likely that 50 to 80% of vehicles will still be run on fossil fuels into the future From global calculator: Fossil fuel use must fall from 82% of our primary energy supply today to around 40% by 2050.
- #10 Para tratar de identificar las tendencias a nivel mundial y las posibles barreras que otras ciudades han enfrentado en estas implementaciones, hicimos una investigación extensiva de casos reales a nivel mundial. Quisimos tener una distribución global y de diferentes tecnologías, para asegurarnos de encontrar casos que fueran relevantes para América Latina. Los criterios principales para escoger estas ciudades fueron: El tamaño de la flota Los mecanismos innovadores de implementación (financiamiento, fuentes de recursos) Distribución geográfica.
- #11 Charging stations cost $349,000 each, and station installation cost $300,000. Slow chargers costing $50,000 Depot charging usually occurs overnight and can be slow charge, taking 3 to 6 hours or fast charge, taking 5-10 minues. On-route charging, or opportunity charging, can be plug-in or wireless. Plug-in chargers use an automatic connection that links buses to high-capacity overhead chargers; usually 3 to 6 minutes of charging equates to 10 to 30 km of travel.
- #12 Depot charging usually occurs overnight and can be slow charge, taking 3 to 6 hours or fast charge, taking 5-10 minues. On-route charging, or opportunity charging, can be plug-in or wireless. Plug-in chargers use an automatic connection that links buses to high-capacity overhead chargers; usually 3 to 6 minutes of charging equates to 10 to 30 km of travel. Inductive chargers are wireless, using specially equipped pads on the road and underbelly of the bus to transfer electricity.
- #14 Land- locations are selected by the transit authority in charge of route planning, and must consider charging technology being used, grid access, and foot traffic. For different charging methods require different amounts of space; inductive charging stations require less visible space than overhead charging structures. Battery Swapping facility - These are facilities where batteries are housed and recharged to be swapped with old ones. Due to the size of the batteries a robotic system is used to facilitate the process, requiring specific infrastructure. Power supplyCharging stations need electricity to operate. Power is supplied via underground electric cables in trenches for on-route charging and through depot renovations for overnight charging. Grid stability and access is crucial to the functionality of charging infrastructure and as such utility company engagement is important.
- #16 Not including infrastructure costs
- #18 Oil extraction: 75% of India’s oil is imported from the ME or A regions. Oil refinery: India has excess refining capacity Gas extraction: 75% is extracted in India 25% imported from Qatar Sources: Coal 57% Nuclear 2% Hydro 19% Renewable 12% Natural Gas 9% Diesel 1 %