ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS SYSTEMS LIKELY NOT COST-EFFECTIVE IN VERMONT AT PRESENT.

China, India, New England and Vermont

 

Electric bus proponents often point to China to advance their interests, i.e., sell more electric buses

China has made electric buses and EVs in urban areas a priority to reduce its well-known excessive pollution.

 

This pollution is due to: 1) using a lot of coal in dirty, inefficient power plants, and 2) vastly increased vehicle traffic in urban complexes with 15 to 30 million people each.

 

India has a China pollution problem, but not China's money and work ethic, i.e., few electric vehicles.

 

Those two countries emit about 45 - 50% of all world pollution and GHG.

 

The US has much less of a pollution problem than China, except in its larger urban areas. 

The US uses more domestic gas and much less coal, and nuclear is still around.

 

New England has a pollution problem in its southern urban areas.

 

Vermont, known for its cleaner air, has a minor pollution problem in Burlington and some of its other urban areas, i.e., no need to get panicky, and to use scare-mongering to rush into expensively advancing Montpelier’s TCI and RE goals.

  

Governor and Senators Seeking More Electric Vehicles and Buses with Federal COVID Money

 

The energy priorities of New England governments are driven by a self-serving cabal of RE zealots, because of excessive subsidies for wind, solar, etc. They have powerful allies on Wall Street, which is molding the minds of people by means of generous donations to universities and think tanks. Here is an example of the resulting double-speak:

 

Vermont’s Governor: “Investing in more energy-efficient public transportation is important for our economy and environment,” the governor said. He added that the COVID money is enabling the transportation agency to replace as many as 30 buses and fund energy-efficient projects."

http://www.truenorthreports.com/governor-and-senators-seeking-more-...

 

The Vermont House Energy/Environment Committee and the VT Transportation Department echo the same message, to "convince" legislators, people in the Governor's Office, and Vermonters to use COVID money to buy expensive electric buses to deal with a minor pollution problem in a few urban areas in Vermont.

Such an electric vehicle measure would be much more appropriate in the over-crowded Boston Area and the Connecticut Gold Coast.

 

They urge Vermonters to buy electric buses at about:

 

$750,000 - $1,000,000 per mass-transit bus, plus high-speed charging systems; a standard diesel mass-transit bus costs $380,000 - $420,000

$330,000 - $375,000, per school bus, plus high-speed charging systems; a standard diesel/gasoline school bus costs about $100,000

https://atlaspolicy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Electric-Buses-a...

 

Federal COVID Money for Expensive Electric School Buses: The Governor and bureaucrats are throwing COVID money, meant for suffering households and businesses, into another climate-fighting black hole.

 

Vermont has cold winters, and hills, and snow-covered roads, and dirt roads in rural areas; kWh/mile would be high.

Those buses likely would need 4-wheel-drive, or all-wheel-drive in rural areas.

 

Spending huge amounts of capital that yield minor reductions in CO2, is a recipe for low economic efficiency, and for low economic growth, on a state-wide and nation-wide scale, which would adversely affect state and US competitiveness in markets, and adversely affect living standards and job creation.

 

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS PILOT PROGRAM

An electric bus pilot program was funded through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) with about $2 million, and administered by the Massachusetts State Department of Energy Resources.

Vermont Energy Investment Corporation, VEIC, performed the evaluation of the program

 

The pilot program operated three Lion electric buses, at three locations, from the Fall of 2016 to early 2018

Battery Service Useful Life

- Battery University recommends batteries be operated between 20% charge and 80% charge for long useful life, such as 15 years; that range happens to be the most efficient, in terms of kWh DC/mile. See green line in image.

https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_lithium_...

- The efficiency curve moves slightly upward from the average at higher temperatures, slightly downward at lower temperatures.

- Charging from 5% to 20%, and from 80% to 95%, is inefficient, i.e., more kWh/mile from the wall plug, as would discharging for these ranges.

- Discharging the batteries from 5% charge to 95% charge, aka “range driving”, would significantly reduce useful service life, as would charging from 5% to 95%.

- This means the Lion typical operating range, for long useful service life, would be significantly less than 75 miles under normal conditions, but even less during colder days in winter.

 

Pilot Program Experience

 

During the pilot program, the buses averaged 2.38 kWh AC/mile, at about 20 hours of charging, which includes charging and miscellaneous losses, per page 32 of VEIC report, which includes charging and miscellaneous losses.

This high value was due to haphazard/uncontrolled charging.

 

Fig 14 of URL shows:

 

Charging from 5 pm to 7 am the next day, 14 hours, would lead to about 2.0 kWh AC/mile.

Charging from 9 pm to 7 am the next day, 10 hours, would lead to about 1.90 kWh AC/mile, and avoid demand charges.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

 

- If Pilot Program charging losses were 62.5%, the 2.38 kWh AC from the wall plug would become 1.465 kWh DC in the battery.

If miscellaneous losses, detailed below, were 8%, the 1.465 kWh DC would become 1.347 kWh DC, which is close to the Lion average value of 1.35 kWh DC/mile.

 

If controlled charging losses were 30%, the 1.90 kWh AC from the wall plug would become 1.462 kWh DC in the battery.

If miscellaneous losses, detailed below, were 8%, the 1.462 kWh DC would become 1.353 kWh DC, which is close to the Lion average value of 1.35 kWh DC/mile.

 

The analysis in this article assumes 30% charging losses, due to an automatically controlled charging regimen, which would not jeopardize safety and reliability of service.

 

NOTE: The batteries of efficient EVs, such as of a Tesla, have a charging loss of about 17 to 18 percent, and about 6% of miscellaneous losses. See URL and Appendix.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

NOTE: Each year, thousands of Tesla owners report their mileage and battery kWh to Tesla.

It was found batteries lose range at about 1%/y. Tesla is known for its excellent batteries.

SUMMARY

 

Including Amortizing Capital Cost for a Rational Approach to Projects

 

RE proponents do not want to include amortizing costs, because it makes the financial economics of their dubious climate projects appear dismal. This is certainly the case with expensive electric buses.

 

If any private-enterprise business were to ignore amortizing costs, it would be out of business in a short time.

 

Capital cost of electric bus, plus charger is $327,500 + $25,000 = $352,500

Capital cost of diesel bus is $100,000

Additional capital cost is 352500 - 100000 = $252,500

Amortizing was at 3.5%/y for 15 years, equal to the assumed life of batteries and buses

 

VEIC calculated operating costs of the buses based on pilot program travel of 4,634 miles/y. This is unrealistic, because Vermont school busses travel an average of 12,000 miles/y

 

This article includes a "what-if" analysis, that assumes the electric buses would be fully utilized, i.e., their travel would be about 12,000 miles/y, to better represent reality.

 

School bus systems have a very low usage pattern compared to mass-transit buses, i.e., about 2 hours to make a 30 - 40 mile run in the morning, and another 2 hours to make a 30 - 40 mile run in the afternoon, for about 180 days, plus summer school trips.

 

The cost of amortizing the very large capital cost difference of a diesel bus system vs an electric bus system, overwhelms any operating cost reduction that might occur, i.e., replacing low-cost diesel buses with expensive electric buses would not be cost-effective.

 

Vermont has much better alternatives to reduce CO2 emissions. See Appendix.

 

Comparison of Operating and Owning Costs

 

See Summary table 1

 

Massachusetts Pilot Program, 4634 miles/bus, uncontrolled charging loss 63%

 

VEIC ignored amortizing costs, which should have been included.

 

Cost of electric bus was 43.5 c/mile for amortizing, plus 53.4 c/mile for energy, equals 96.9 c/mile

Cost of diesel bus was 12.3 c/mile for amortizing, plus 31.7 c/mile for energy, equals 44.1 c/mile

 

The amortizing cost of an electric bus system would be at least 43.5/12.3 = 3.5 times of a diesel bus system, on a system-to-system basis.

 

The above 3.5 ratio is for only the buses. It excludes various capital costs for a complete electric bus system.

See Parking Diesel and Electric Buses

 

The high energy cost of the electric bus is due to uncontrolled charging procedures and electricity demand charges. See Summary 1 table.

 

NOTE: VEIC performed an "on-paper" simulation, which assumed charging would be limited to pre-determined hours and periods to eliminate demand charges and reduce electricity consumption.

 

The "on-paper" simulation, using optimum operating conditions, yielded an estimate of about 1.47 kWh AC/mile, per VEIC. See page 34 of URL

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

 

The Lion buses require 1.3 - 1.4 kWh DC/mile, an average of 1.35 kWh DC/mile.

 

The VEIC optimum charging percent would be 1.47/1.35 = 8.9%. That would be twice as good as Tesla and other EVs, which typically require 17 to 18 percent for charging!!! See Appendix

 

The VEIC value is highly unrealistic. It is based on too low a percentage for charging and ignores miscellaneous losses.

 

VEIC-calculated operating costs and CO2 values are invalid and should be ignored.

  

Real-World Operation, 12,000 miles/y, charging loss 30%, zero demand charges

 

The typical 17 to 18 percent loss for charging EVs would not apply to school buses, because they are required to provide high reliability of service on Monday morning, even after they were parked on Saturday and Sunday.

 

At night, on cold days, the battery charger needs to be plugged in, so the battery can be kept warm enough to:

1) Prevent damage

2) Provide electricity to operate various “always-on” systems, similar to Teslas and other EVs  

3) Be ready for service, as soon as the driver enters the bus.

On cold days, the driver would need at least 70% charge to make his morning round, because batteries would require more energy per mile.

 

No one should risk having an electric bus run out of juice, with a busload of children, in the winter.

Summary 1, Cost/mile

Pilot program

Pilot program

Real World

Real World

Electric

Diesel

Electric

Diesel

Travel, miles, per VEIC

13902

13902

Buses

3

3

Travel, miles/bus

4634

4634

12000

12000

Lion cost, $/bus

327500

100000

327500

100000

Level 2 charger, etc., $/bus

25000

25000

Total cost

352500

100000

352500

100000

Amortizing, 3.5%/y for 15 y

30240

8579

30240

8579

Amortizing, c/mile

43.5

12.3

16.8

4.8

.

Electricity, per Lion, kWh DC/mile

1.35

1.35

Uncontrolled charging loss, %

63

Controlled charging loss, %

30

Electricity, kWh AC/mile

2.16

1.76

Miscellaneous loss, %

8

8

Total electricity, kWh AC/mile, per VEIC

2.38

1.90

Electricity energy cost, c/kWh, per VEIC

13

13

Electricity energy cost, c/mile

30.9

24.6

Electricity demand cost, c/mile, per VEIC

18.8

0.0

Total electricity cost, c/mile

49.6

24.6

Fuel oil, $/gal, per VEIC

2.93

2.93

Cabin heating, c/mile

3.8

3.8

.

Diesel bus mileage, miles/gal, per VEIC

6.3

6.3

Diesel consumption, gallon/bus

736

1905

Diesel cost, $/gal, per VEIC

2.00

2.00

Diesel cost, c/mile

31.7

31.7

Total energy cost, c/mile

53.4

31.7

28.4

31.7

Energy + Amortizing, c/mile

96.9

44.1

45.2

36.5

Cost of CO2 Reduction, 12000 miles/bus, real-world charging loss 30%, zero demand charges

 

See Summary table 2

 

The CO2 reduction cost would be an exorbitant $1,617/metric ton

 

It would be irrational to waste federal COVID money on such a highly uneconomic CO2 reduction measure, while tens of thousands of Vermont households and businesses have, and will continue to struggle for some years.

 

Lifetime, A-to-Z Analysis to Determine Overall CO2 Emissions

 

A much more realistic CO2-reduction analysis would be on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis. Such analyses regarding electric vehicles have been performed for at least 20 years. Engineers are very familiar with them. They would include:

 

1) Upstream CO2 of energy for extraction, processing and transport to a user

2) Embodied CO2 of expensive batteries, from extraction of materials to installation in a bus

3) Embodied CO2 of $352,500 electric buses vs $100,000 diesel buses

4) Embodied CO2 of balance-of-system components

5) Embodied CO2 of much more expensive electric bus parking facilities, with a Level 2 charger for each bus, than for a diesel bus parking facility with a diesel pump.

 

Any CO2 advantage of electric buses vs diesel buses would be minimal on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

The cost of CO2 reduction would be much greater than $1617/metric ton.

 

Summary 2, CO2 reduction cost/Mt

Electric

Diesel

 

Real World

Real World

CO2

CO2

Travel, miles/y

12000

12000

Electricity, kWh AC/mile. See Summary 1

1.90

Grid CO2, g/kWh

334

CO2, Mt/y

7.597

Cabin heating, miles/gal, per VEIC

78

Fuel oil, gal/y

154

Diesel, miles/gal , per VEIC

6.3

Diesel, gal/y

1905

CO2, kg/gal

10.285

10.285

Cabin heating CO2, Mt/y

1.582

Total CO2, Mt/y

9.179

19.590

Lifetime, y

15

15

Lifetime CO2, Mt/15y

137.7

293.857

CO2 reduction Mt/15y

156.2

Cost reduction, $/Mt

1617

 

Parking Diesel and Electric Buses

 

Diesel school buses usually are randomly parked, on a paved or hard-pack lot, outdoors. The parking lot likely has a diesel pump

 

Electric buses would need a paved lot, with raised, curbed areas, with one charger for each bus.

The capital cost of such a parking lot would be significantly greater than of a diesel parking lot.

 

On colder days, buses would be continuously plugged in, to protect the batteries and keep them fully charged, to be reliably available for the next day.

 

The conversion to electric buses would significantly increase:

 

1) Capital costs for parking facilities

2) Electricity consumption and demand load on local distribution grids

 

Charging the Batteries of the Buses

 

An electric or diesel school bus would make a 30 - 40 mile run in the morning, and in the afternoon. 

The tank of a diesel bus would be filled once or twice per week. In each case, that would take only a few minutes.

 

The batteries of an electric bus could be filled during midday, because midday solar power would be available on sunny days.

Midday solar DUCK-curves would be reduced.

 

The batteries of an electric bus would need to be charged at night, after utility demand charges would not be in effect.

 

For midday or nighttime charging, each bus would need its own charger, because it takes 3 - 4 hours for a half charge, per Lion.

   

Additional Demands on New England Grid due to EVs and Heat Pumps

 

In the near future, in New England, there may be 2 million EVs charging for several hours, each drawing about 10 kW, plus there may be 50,000 buses and trucks, each drawing about 20 kW, for a total of 21,000 MW, if they were all charging at the same time.

The 21,000 MW may be reduced to, say 10,000 MW, by means of clever juggling of time slots.

 

On colder days, two million heat pumps, each drawing about 2.5 kW, a total draw of 5,000 MW, would be in addition; more clever juggling.

 

These additional demands, even with juggling, would significantly exceed the existing demands on the NE grid and electricity generating capacity. See Appendix.

 

If nuclear and gas power plants were closed down, per RE zealot wishes, where would the electricity come from, when:

 

1) Midday solar electricity is minimal, because it is cloudy, or the panels are covered with snow and ice?

2) Wind electricity is minimal many hours of almost each day of the year?

3) Periods of minimal wind and minimal sun, which occur at random in NE, last 5 to 7 days?

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/reality-check-regardin...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-utility-s...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-vagaries-of-solar-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-england-is-the-leas...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/burning-wood-is-not-ren...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/vermont-co2-reduction-o...

 

ANALYSIS

 

Here is an evaluation of the MA electric bus pilot program by VEIC.

See page 4 and 45 of URL

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

 

Lion Corporation of Quebec, Canada, builds eLion electric school buses. Three eLion buses were used in this pilot program by the school districts of Amherst, Concord, and Cambridge.

 

The capital cost at each site was $327,500 for the bus, plus about $25,000 for infrastructures, including single-direction Level 2 chargers.

 

There may be other balance-of-plant items, but they are ignored

The increased cost of parking lot with chargers of electric vs diesel are ignored

https://thelionelectric.com/en/products/electric

 

The eLion buses can have three, four or five battery packs. Five battery packs would provide about a 100-mile range, using 130 to 140 kWh DC of battery charge. This means the eLion buses would be capable of servicing almost any route of a school district,

 

OPERATING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS 

 

- Pilot program bus range is about 75 miles, per Lion. VEIC determined the range averaged from 60 miles at 15F, to 90 miles at 75F, in Massachusetts, where it is not as cold as Vermont. See Notes.

 

- On-board, fuel oil-fired cabin heater, with fuel tank, to ensure cabin temperatures are maintained.

- Cabin heating was assumed at an average of 78 miles of bus travel per gallon, per VEIC

- Diesel bus mileage was assumed at 6.3 mpg, per VEIC

- Diesel price was assumed at $2.00/gal, per VEIC

- Electricity price was assumed at 13 c/kWh, per VEIC

- Battery capacity is 104 kWh DC, per Lion.

- Charging time is 6 - 8 hours, per Lion

- Electricity from the battery is 1.3 - 1.4 kWh DC per mile while driving, per Lion. This does not include:

 

1) The charging loss

2) Miscellaneous losses of about 6% (ideal conditions), about 8% (real-world), about 10% (adverse conditions).

 

Example of Range Calculation: Miscellaneous losses, drawn from the battery, at about 8% (real-world), would be about 0.08 x 104 kWh DC = 8.32 kWh DC

The real-world average range would be about (104 - 8.32)/{(1.3 - 1.4)/2} = 70.9 miles, instead of Lion's 75 miles 

 

See URL, and next section, and Appendix for 4 real-world EV examples.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

Pilot program consumption, measured at the wall meter, was about 1.35 kWh DC/mile, per Lion x 1.63, charging factor x 1.08, miscellaneous loss factor = 2.38 kWh AC/mile, as measured by VEIC.

 

The pilot program charging factor was about 1.63, because of uncontrolled charging.

 

During charging, the battery is rapidly filling, while slowly being drawn down by miscellaneous consumption. See next section.

 

Miscellaneous Losses of Electric School Bus

The losses drawn from the battery, as kWh DC, include:

1) Battery heating and cooling during charging, operation and standing; some EVs use heat pumps

2) Hot and cold weather operation, which has increased battery losses

3) Heated driver seat/mirrors/wipers

4) Audio/video/various lights/on-board electronics

5) Road conditions, such as dirt roads, snow and ice, hilly terrain

6) A load of students with backpacks

7) While parked in a garage or field

8) Driving habits of operators

 

NOTE: Cabin heating is provided by an on-board, oil-fired heater. See next section.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 
NOTE; Real-world 
range of electric vehicles is about 10 to 20% less than EPA combined, and up to 40% less on hilly, snow/ice-covered roads, during winter days, with 20F or less temperatures.

 

NOTE: Real-world consumption of EVs is greater than EPA combined, due to miscellaneous losses, which, on an annual average basis, vary from about 6% (ideal conditions) to about 10% (adverse conditions). See Appendix

 

ELECTRIC BUS FUEL OIL-FIRED CABIN HEATER

 

If electric bus cabin heating were performed with electric heaters drawing from the battery, about 0.8 kWh DC/km, or 1.28 kWh DC/mile would be required at 0 C, or 32 F outdoor temperature, even more at less than 32 F. That would place an unacceptable burden on the battery. Therefore, fuel oil-fired heaters are used.

 

Proheat-M80, fuel oil-fired, bus cabin heater, rating 80,000 Btu/h, fuel consumption 0.78 gal/h.

The heater efficiency is 80,000 Btu/h output/ (0.78 x 140,000, heating value) = 73%

https://www.tomahawkind.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/M-series.pdf

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION 

 

The pilot program buses consumed a measured 2.38 kWh AC/mile, per VEIC, which is high, due largely to haphazard charging and miscellaneous losses.

 

VEIC found, if connected to a charger for a long time, such as during week-ends, or during cold nights, while parked, to protect the battery, the measured consumption increased to 3 to 4 kWh AC/mile.

 

Buses are used many days during the winter, with high kWh/mile.

Batteries have lower efficiencies at low temperatures during operating and charging periods.

Battery heaters are used to reduce those inefficiencies, and to prevent the batteries from freezing.

Buses use more kWh/mile at low temperatures, which reduces range. See page 34 of URL.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

 

Buses could not be used for longer field trips, say 100 miles, due to a lack of range; students would be waiting for at least an hour or more, during an on-the-road recharge, which would cost at least 30 to 40 c/kWh, instead of 13 c/kWh. See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

LOW UTILIZATION RATES AND OPERATING CHALLENGES 

 

Participating school districts encountered a number of mechanical and logistical challenges, i.e., this emerging technology requires further testing and refinement before widespread deployment can occur. 

 

All three buses were out of service for many days

 

The three buses logged a total of 13,902 miles, or 4,634 miles/bus. See Note

The three buses provided school transportation for about 382 days (including some summer school), or 127 days/bus

 

If the buses had been driven every school day (180 days), including summer school (say 40 days), each bus would be on the road 220 days.

 

However, each bus was on the road only 127 days, i.e., 127/220 = 42% of the days the electric buses were not used, largely due to a variety of breakdown issues, which often took a long time to correct, because Lion has no service infrastructure in the US. See VEIC report.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20...

 

NOTE: Annual school bus travel in the US and Vermont is about 12,000 miles.

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310

 

Comment on table: During “recorded days” electric bus operating data were collected. This was not the case for 382 - 279 = 103 days of the pilot program, for various reasons. It would be interesting to know the reasons operating data were not collected for each day. 

 

School

Total miles

Recorded days

Travel days

Miles/d

kWh/mile

Amherst

5302

 150

150

34

2.38

Cambridge

4425

39

142

31

2.38

Concord

4176

90

90

46

2.38

Total

13902

279

382

 

 

Days/bus

 

 

127

 

 

 
High Energy Costs of Pilot Program

Energy costs were greater for the electric buses than diesel buses, due to:

 

1) Uncontrolled charging of batteries,

2) High “miscellaneous” losses associated with fans and heaters to heat or cool batteries during charging, driving, and standing.

3) Excessive electricity usage and demand charges, due to lengthy charging and charging during high-demand hours.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

Total energy cost of electric buses, per VEIC

 

Electricity, including charging loss and miscellaneous losses, was 2.38 kWh AC/mile, per VEIC

Electricity energy cost was 2.38 kWh/mile x 13 c/kWh = 30.9 c/mile, per VEIC

Electricity demand cost was 13902/3, miles x $2,608/3 x 13 c/kWh = 18.8 c/mile, per VEIC   

 

Cabin heating cost was 13,902 miles/(78 miles per gallon of fuel oil) x $2.93/gal = $522, or 522/13902 = 3.8 c/mile, per VEIC.

 

Total energy cost was 30.9 + 18.8 + 3.8 = 53.4 c/mile, per VEIC. See Summary 1 table

 

Total energy cost of diesel buses, per VEIC

 

Diesel cost was 13,902 miles/6.3 mpg x $2.00/gallon = $4,413, or 4413/13902 = 31.7 c/mile, per VEIC. See Summary 1 table

AMORTIZING CAPITAL COSTS

Assumptions

 

Capital cost an electric bus, plus charger, about $352,500

Capital cost of diesel bus about $100,000

Annual school bus travel about 12,000 miles

Life of bus about 15 years

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10310

 

Amortizing electric bus $352,500 at 3.5%/y for 15 years would be $30,240/y, or 30240/ (12000 x 15) = 16.8 c/mile

Amortizing diesel bus $100,000 would be 8,579/y, or about 8579/ (12000 x 15) = 4.8 c/mile

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

  

CO2 AND OTHER EMISSIONS 

 

Emissions of pollutants, such as volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, NOx, and SOx, would be less, in case of electric buses.

However, power plants also have such pollutants

 

Combustion CO2 of a Gallon of Diesel Fuel

 

Combustion CO2eq/gallon is 10.21 kg CO2 + 0.41 g x 25/454, CH4 + 0.08 g x 298/454, N2O = 10.285 kg. See Summary 2 table

 

This excludes the upstream CO2 of the energy for crude oil extracting, processing, and transporting the finished product to a user.

In case of diesel, the upstream CO2 is about 26% of the combustion CO2. See URL

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/emissi...

APPENDIX 1

 

Vermont Has Much Better Options Than Expensive Electric Buses

 

1) Buildings: A state-wide building code, which would require new buildings to be highly sealed, highly insulated so they could easily be energy-surplus buildings, or be entirely off-the -grid. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, etc., have had such codes for at least a decade.

 

Vermont should be replacing run-of-the-mill, old houses, with up-to-date, energy-surplus, off-the-grid, new houses, at a rate of at least 5,000 houses per year. There would be 150,000 such houses by 2050.

 

Dabbling at weatherizing, at $10,000 per house, is politically attractive, but a gross waste of money. The goal should be energy conservation and high efficiency. Their combined effect would reduce CO2 at the least cost.

 

2) Vehicles: A gas-guzzler vehicle code, which would impose a fee on 40-mpg vehicles. The more below 40-mpg, the higher the fee. Any vehicles with greater than 40-mpg, such as the 54-mpg Toyota Prius, would be exempt.

 

“Break their will” RE zealots would have everyone drive unaffordable EVS, that would not reduce much CO2 compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.

 

On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, the: 

 

NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 metric ton of CO2 over 10 years.

TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26,490 Mt over 10y

SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt over 10y

VT Light Duty Vehicle mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56,315 Mt over 10y

 

Future VT Light Duty Vehicle Mix

 

If the VT LDV mix, gasoline and hybrid vehicles, average mileage would become 40 mpg (by means of carrots and sticks), CO2 would become about 22.7/40 x 56.315 = 32 Mt over 10y, which is near the CO2 of a Prius L Eco, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

It would take relatively minor changes to reduce the average CO2 from 56.315 Mt to about 32 Mt, an average reduction of 24 Mt per vehicle. Reducing the average by an additional 4 or 5 Mt would require major changes.

 

The future VT LDV mix, as EVS, likely would have an average of about 30 - 35 Mt of CO2, because it would include full-size SUVs with AWD, which have more Mt of CO2, than the NISSAN Leaf S Plus, a compact SUV, without AWD.

 

The minor additional metric ton of CO2 reduction could be achieved by going the EV route, but that would involve $billions, and be unaffordable by already struggling households and businesses. See “Electrify Everything”

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/poor-economics-of-elec...

 

APPENDIX 2

 

“Break their will” RE zealots want to “Electrify Everything”, but that is an easily uttered slogan

 

It would require:

 

– Additional electricity generation plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro
– Additional grid augmentation/expansion to carry increased loads for future EVs and heat pumps
– Additional battery systems to store the midday solar electricity surges for later use, aka, DUCK-curve management.
– Major command/control-orchestrating to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:

 

1) Charging times and duration of EVs and heat pumps
2) Operating times of major appliances
3) Control of electricity demands of commercial/industrial businesses

 

APPENDIX 3

 

EVs are Money Losers Compared to Efficient Gasoline Vehicles and Hybrids

 

Increasing the use of high-mileage vehicles, such as hybrids, and getting gas-guzzlers off the road (which need not involve any government subsidies), would reduce CO2 at much less cost per vehicle, than would the government-subsidized replacement of light duty vehicles with EVs.

 

The table shows the total cost of owning and operating four vehicles.

 

The Nissan Kona EV, and Toyota Prius L eco hybrid, both without all-wheel-drive, AWD, are not as versatile as the Subaru Outback and the Tesla Model Y for New England conditions, especially in rural areas.

All four have similar cargo space.

 

The difference in vehicle purchase cost was amortized at 3.5% for 10 years.

 

Summary 2/EV vs Gasoline

Operating

Owning

Total cost

CO2

CO2

 

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

Mt/y

g/mile

Kona, no AWD

 

 

 

2.529

239

Cost, on-the-road charging

8.39

12.3

20.69

 

 

Cost, at-home charging

5.98

12.3

18.28

 

 

Model Y, AWD

 

 

 

3.024

286

Cost, on-the-road charging

9.37

26.1

35.47

 

 

Cost, at-home charging

7.04

26.1

33.14

 

 

Subaru, Outback, AWD

 

 

 

4.302

407

Gasoline vehicle; 30 mpg

7.33

0

7.33

 

 

Prius L Eco, no AWD

 

 

 

 

 

Gasoline/electric; 56 mpg

0

0

3.93

 

251

 

APPENDIX 4

 

Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House

 

My annual electricity consumption increased about 50%, after I installed three 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each bedroom.

They are used for heating and cooling my, well-sealed/well-insulated house. 

They displaced a small fraction of my propane consumption.

 

My existing propane system, 95%-efficient in condensing mode, is used on cold days, 15 F or less, because heat pumps would have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat; a perverse situation!

 

There have been no energy cost savings, because of high household electric rates, augmented with taxes, fees and surcharges.

Amortizing the $24,000 capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.

There likely will be service calls and parts, as the years go by, in addition to service calls and parts for the existing propane system.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com 

 

APPENDIX 5

 

FOUR REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES OF EV ELECTRICTY CONSUMPTION AND COST

 

Below are four examples. There are two additional examples in the Appendix.

 

1) 2020 Hyundai Kona, Based on User Data

 

Charging a Hyundai Kona EV, 64 kWh battery, with Level 1 charger takes about 54 hours, with Level 2 charger about 10 hours.

 

On-the-road charging from 10% full to 80% full, adds about 0.8 x 64 - 0.1 x 64 = 44.8 kWh DC to the battery, or about 190 miles of range, according to the owner.

 

The Electrify America invoice stated 54.03 kWh AC, equivalent to 54.03/190 = 0.284 kWh AC/mile, which is greater than the EPA value of 0.270 kWh/mile in table 1

 

The Kona owner’s invoice states an electricity draw of 54.03 kWh AC, at a cost of $21.07, or 39 c/kWh, not a member*

 

*Since that time, Electrify America increased its rates to 43 c/kWh, not a member.

 

Real-world charging efficiency, on-the-road, is 100*44.8/54.03 = 82.9%, a loss of 17.1%.

The loss is similar to the real-world value in table 3

https://www.wnd.com/2021/01/electric-car-driver-discovers-fast-char...

 

Cost, on-the-road charging, for a member is 31/43 x $21.70/190 miles + 0.4 c/mile = 8.39 c/mile

Cost, at-home charging, is 20 c/kWh x 0.326/0.310, see table 3 x 0.284 kWh/mile = 5.98 c/mile

 

2) 2019 Tesla Model 3, Based on User Data

 

An owner logged the data shown bold in Table 3

 

1) Electricity, kWh AC, via a dedicated meter, and the kWh DC added to the battery, when charging at home, and

2) Electricity, kWh DC, added to the battery, when high-speed charging on the road.

 

His 2019 Model 3 used 0.326 kWh AC/mile, based on real-world driving, and at-home charging.

His real-world charging efficiency is a measured 82.2%, a charging loss of 17.8%

 

His consumption is significantly greater than in table 1, likely due to his driving habits, i.e., 1) more than one person, 2) cargo loading, 3) adverse environmental conditions, such as hot, cold, hilly, snow/ice, dirt roads.

 

His range could be 35 - 40 percent less on colder days in New England.

https://forums.tesla.com/discussion/167646/battery-charging-kwh-com...

 

Cost, on-the-road charging, is 28 c/kWh x 0.310/ kWh/mile = 8.68 c/mile

Cost, at-home charging, is 20 c/kWh x 0.326 kWh/mile = 6.52 c/mile

 

Consumption and Cost, if Model Y

 

Consumption, on-the-road charging, is 27/25 x 0.310 = 0.335 kWh/mile

Consumption, at-home charging, is 27/25 x 0.326 = 0.352 kWh/mile

 

Cost, on-the-road charging, is 28 c/kWh x 27/25 x 0.310/ kWh/mile = 9.37 c/mile

Cost, at-home charging, is 20 c/kWh x 27/25 x 0.326 kWh/mile = 7.04 c/mile

 

Table 3/Actual Driving; 2019 Model 3

Charging loss

kWh DC

%

kWh AC

On-road charging of battery

1055

15.8

1222

Home charging of battery, Level 2

6690

17.8

8135

Metered total

7745

9357

Total miles

28927

On-road miles, by proration of DC charges

3940

Home miles, by subtraction

24987

Consumption, based on on-road charging, kWh/mile

0.310

Consumption, based on at-home charging, kWh/mile

0.326

 

3) Long-Term Road Test of Tesla Model 3

 

Edmunds, a car dealer in California, performed a long-term road test of a 2018 Tesla Model 3, starting in January 2018.

Edmund logged three sets of data. See table 9. See URL

https://www.edmunds.com/tesla/model-3/2017/long-term-road-test/2017...

 

- Electricity use averaged at 0.314 kWh AC/mile

- Miscellaneous losses averaged 100 x (31.36/29.00 - 1) = 8.13% in excess of EPA tests. See Note

- Charging loss averaged 17.97%; similar to the values of the four examples in Part Three

- February, March and April were not shown, because of missing data.

https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

 

NOTE: EPA combined for a 2018 Tesla Model 3, AWD, long-range, is 0.29 kWh AC/mile. See URL

https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2018_Tesla_Model_3.shtml

 

Table 9/Tesla Model 3

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Average

Odometer, per Edmund

1388

2922

3937

5237

6009

6659

7679

9329

10307

11174

Travel, miles, per Edmund

1534

1015

1300

772

650

1020

1650

978

867

Wall meter, kWh AC/mile

Real-world, per Edmund

0.317

0.314

0.318

0.317

0.310

0.311

0.308

0.314

EPA combined test result

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

0.290

Misc. losses, %

9.31

8.28

9.66

9.31

6.90

7.24

6.21

8.13

Vehicle meter, kWh DC/mile

Real-world, per Edmond

0.252

0.248

0.250

0.251

0.248

0.247

0.245

0.249

Total loss, %

25.94

26.46

27.05

26.35

25.20

25.91

25.77

26.08

Charging loss; 26.08 - 8.13

16.63

18.18

17.39

17.04

18.30

18.67

19.56

17.95

 

4) One-Year Experience with a Tesla Model S

 

An upstate New York owner of a Tesla Model S logged the following, for one year:

  

Fill-up of 1,275 kWh DC, via on-the-road charger, for 4,000 miles, or 1275/4000 = 0.319 kWh DC/mile

Fill-up of 3,799 kWh DC, via at-home charger, for 11,243 miles, or 3799/11243 = 0.338 kWh DC/mile

Fill-up of 5,074 kWh DC, for 15,243 miles, or 5074/15243 = 0.333 kWh DC/mile; includes miscellaneous losses. See Note

 

Operating electricity, via wall meters, was 0.333 x 1.1795, charging factor = 0.393 kWh AC/mile; includes miscellaneous and charging losses.

Loss factor was 100 x (0.393 / 0.300, EPA - 1) = 31.00%, using EPA combined as a base.

Misc. losses, upstate NY, were 31.00 - 17.95 = 13.05%, of the electricity drawn via wall meters. Those losses are higher than in California, mainly due adverse conditions. See Note.

  

NOTE: EPA combined for a 2019 Tesla Model S, 100 kWh battery, is 30 kWh AC/100 miles. See URL

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=noform&ye...

 

Table 4A/Tesla Model S

 

On-road

At-home

Total

Electricity leaving battery, per owner

kWh DC

1275

3799

5074

Travel, per owner

miles

4000

11243

15243

Electricity leaving battery, incl. misc., per owner

kWh DC/mile

0.319

0.338

0.333

Charging loss, %

 

17.95

Electricity, real-world, per owner

kWh AC/mile

0.393

EPA combined, laboratory

kWh DC/mile

 

 

0.300

Loss factor, 100 x (0.393/0.300, per EPA - 1)

%

 

 

31.00

Misc. losses, 31.00 - 17.97

 

 

 

13.03

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views: 193

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Kenneth Capron on February 15, 2021 at 11:55am

GPCOG/PACTS has extensive plans for electric buses in their "Transit Tomorrow" plan. Belinda Ray slid  in five corridors of BRT or Bus Rapid Transit. They run from the City out Rt302, Rt100/26, Rt1 N+S and Rt22.

Having been involved with the testing of electric buses in the 90's, the weren't very efficient. Despite being told that the should have lasted a half day on one set of batteries, we found ourselves have to replace the battery packs every 2.5 hours. Considering that the process to forklift one set out and the other set in was length, the recharge was almost 24 hours.

Now when I ask about the efficiency of electric buses, all I get is "things have improved since the 90's".

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service