ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS SYSTEMS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE IN NEW ENGLAND AND CANADA

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 air pollution, 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 use scare-mongering to rush into expensively advancing Montpelier’s electric school bus goals.

RE proponents 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

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 folks. All is decided at high levels. Ordinary people rarely participate during government hearings, except those pre-selected to say the right things.

 

The cabal has 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-...

 

NOTE: Each $325,000 electric school bus reduces CO2 by about 10 metric ton/y, compared to a $100,000 diesel bus. Vermont has much better CO2 reduction options. See Appendix.

The Vermont House Energy/Environment Committee, the VT Transportation Department, VEIC, EAN, etc., echo the same message, to "convince" legislators, people in the Governor's Office, and Vermonters, to use COVID money and Volkswagen Settlement 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, down-town Boston Area and the Connecticut Gold Coast.

 

The cabal urge Vermonters to buy electric buses at about:

 

$750,000 - $1,000,000 per mass-transit bus, plus high-speed charging systems.

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...

Two Proterra Electric Buses in Burlington, VT: The buses, which cost a total of over $2 million, including infrastructure, are scheduled to be in service March, 2020.

The buses have been in operation for more than a year, but no electricity consumption data, and other maintenance and operating costs, have been made public.

The buses are parked and charged in the Town garage.

 

Per Proterra, the battery capacity, 324 kWh, provides:

 

1) Maximum range of 187 miles of travel on a level road, no starts/stops, warm weather; 1.733 kWh/mile

2) Normal range of 140 miles on the Burlington Red line route, with start/stops; 2.314 kWh/mile

3) Winter range of 100 miles, with start/stops; 3.240 kWh/mile.

 

Avoided diesel bus emissions: (30,000 miles/4.25 mpg) x 22.163 lb CO2/gal x 1 Mt/2204.62 lb = 71 Mt/y.

https://vermontbiz.com/news/2020/january/28/green-mountain-transit-...

“Free” 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.

 

Spending huge amounts of capital on various projects 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.

 

Costs of Government RE Programs

 

Vermont’s government engaging in electric bus demonstration programs, financed with COVID money, likely would prove to be expensive undertakings, requiring hidden subsidies, white-washing and obfuscation.

 

Lifetime spreadsheets, with 1) turnkey capital costs, 2) annual cashflows, 3) annual energy cost savings, 4) annual CO2 reductions, and 5) cost of CO2 reduction/metric ton, with all assumptions clearly stated and explained, likely will never see the light of day.

 

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, per Economics 101

 

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

Battery system cost, $100,000, for a 60 to 80-mile range.

Capital cost of diesel bus, $100,000

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

Travel, 12,000 miles/y, the average of diesel school buses in Vermont.

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

Summary of Costs

Table 1 shows the reduction in energy and operating cost, if an electric school bus replaces a diesel school bus.

The maintenance data for the MA buses was pro-rated from real-world operating data of the electric school bus system on Salt Spring Island, British Columbia.

Amortizing the capital cost difference of only the buses is ($352,500 - $100,000) at 3.5%/y for 15 years = $21,661/y, or 180.1 c/mile, about 238.0/22.8 = 7.9 times the annual operating cost reduction!!

 

SSI electric school buses are 238.0/57.5 = 4.14 times more expensive to operate than diesel buses.

MA electric school buses are 243.2/62.7 = 3.88 times more expensive to operate than diesel buses. See table 1

 

That ratio would be greater for complete electric and diesel bus systems, because electric school buses would need much more elaborate parking areas with battery charging infrastructures.

See COMPARISON OF ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS COSTS for detailed calculations

  

Table 1

Energy

Maint.

Cabin Htg

Total

Amortizing

Total

Times

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

SSI

 

Diesel

34.5

23.0

 

57.5

Electric

28.4

6.4

none

34.8

Reduction

6.1

16.6

 

22.8

180.5

238.0

7.9

MA

 

Diesel

39.7

23.0

 

62.7

Electric

31.9

6.4

3.8

42.1

Reduction

4.0

16.6

 

20.6

180.5

243.2

8.8

Lifetime, A-to-Z Analysis Includes Combustion, Upstream, Embodied and Downstream CO2

 

A much more realistic CO2-reduction analysis would be on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

Such analyses 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.

6) Downstream CO2 of disposal of batteries, etc.

 

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

The cost of CO2 reduction would increase from $2,076/metric ton to about $2,500/Mt.

 

Vehicle-to-Grid Operation, VtG

 

Proponents of VtG claim electric school buses could be used by utilities, to have the batteries absorb a fraction of midday solar bulges, and deliver that electricity, minus about 20% losses, to the gid during late afternoon/early evening, when peak demands are occurring, and solar has gone to sleep until mid-morning the next day.

 

As part of managing midday-solar DUCK curves, 10 electric school buses, capital cost at least $3.5 million, already partially charged, would absorb 500 kWh during midday and discharge 400 kWh from 5 pm to 8 pm (peak demand hours). See Note.

 

The $100,000 batteries, part of a $325,000 electric school bus, would have extra wear and tear, which would shorten their 15-year lives. This is like doing yardwork in a tuxedo.

A utility could purchase a 600-kWh battery system, for a turnkey cost of about $450,000, and achieve the same results.

 

NOTE: For long life, say 15 years, Li-ion batteries should not be discharged to less than 20%, and not be charged in excess of 80%, per Battery University, which would limit VtG “benefits” of electric school buses and regular EVs. That range also happens to have the highest efficiency. See URLs

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180801093718.htm

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/tesla-jaguar-and-nissan-evs-lose-po...

Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions

 

School Bus Normal Operation at 32F and below: On cold/freezing days, an electric bus would use on-board systems to heat the battery, as needed, during its daily route.

 

EV Parking: When at home, it is best to keep EVs plugged in during periods with 32F and below, whether parked indoors or outdoors.

When parking at a motel, or an airport, it is best to fully charge EVs prior to parking, to enable the on-board systems to heat the battery, as needed, during parking.

 

Charging at 32F and below: Li-ion batteries must not be charged when the batterytemperature is at 32F or less.

Turn on “pre-conditioning”, i.e., the battery heating/cooling system (which could be a heat pump) very slowly heats up the battery to about 40F. After the battery is “up to temperature”, normal charging can be started, either at home, or on the road.

 

Pre-conditioning can be set to:

 

1) Preheat the car cabin and/or seats

2) Defrost windshield wipers, windows, door handles and charge port, etc.; Tesla has a charge port heater. See URL

https://getoptiwatt.com/news/tesla-extreme-weather-considerations-h...

 

Power Failure, while parked at 32F and below: Partially charged batteries, connected to dead chargers, could use much of their remaining charge to prevent freezing of batteries.

See URLs.

 

NOTE: Li-ions (pos.) are absorbed by the anode (neg.) at lesser rates at a batterytemperature of 32F and below. Any excess Li-ions plate out on the anode, which further reduces the absorption rate. This condition increases charging percentage, increases kWh/mile, and reduces range. This condition is permanent, i.e., cannot be reversed.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/12/electric-bus-inferno-in-hano...

https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/263036/why-charging...

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

NOTE:

- Batteries have miscellaneous losses to provide electricity to on-board systems, similar to Tesla and other EVs  

- On cold/freezing days, an electric bus should be ready for service as soon as the driver enters the bus

- On cold/freezing days, the driver would need at least 70% charge, because travel would require more energy per mile

 

NOTE:

If the battery temperature is less than 40F or more than 115F, it will use more kWh/mile

The higher efficiency range, charging and discharging, is 60F to 80F.

Batteries have greater internal resistance at lower temperatures.

Pro-bus folks often point to California regarding electric buses, but in New England, using electric buses to transport children would be a whole new ballgame, especially on colder days. See URLs

 

NOTE: Where would the electricity come from to charge and protect from cold, expensive batteries during extended electricity outages, due to multi-day, hot and cold weather events, with minimal wind and sun, as occur in California, Texas and New England?

Emergency standby diesel-generators? Emergency standby batteries?

 

https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-cold-weather-tips/

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127610_keep-your-parked-elect...

COMPARISON OF ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS COSTS

Electric school buses are beginning to be adopted by a few US school districts as part of reducing CO2.

The main impetus is “free” Volkswagen Settlement funds, and “free” federal COVID funds, to provide “free” electric school buses to school districts.

 

Electric school buses have significantly less O&M costs than diesel buses.

However, that reduction is minuscule, compared with amortizing the turnkey capital cost of the buses

 

O&M operating data of electric school buses have been insufficient to perform any analysis, except for a few cases. This article will show the impact of climate on school bus performance and O&M expenses.

 

- Salt Spring Island, SSI, British Columbia, Canada, has a mild climate

- Massachusetts, New England, has a cold climate

 

The SSI data includes diesel and electric bus maintenance costs, which were prorated to complete the MA data.

The travel was assumed at 12,000 miles per year, the US average for school buses.

 

The SSI project involved 10 Lion electric school buses.

Turnkey CAPEX; Can $4.375 million, or US $3.5 million

Travel for all buses; 139,345 km, or 87,091 miles, or 8,709 miles/bus

http://saltspringcommunityenergy.com/Electric_Schoolbus_Study/SD64_Electric_School_Bus_Study.pdf

 

The MA project involved 3 Lion electric school buses

Turnkey CAPEX; $1.05 million

Travel for all buses; 13,902 miles, or 4,634 miles/bus

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20school%20bus%20pilot%20final%20report_.pdf

 

O&M Cost Reduction per Bus; see tables 1 and 2

Diesel bus maintenance for US and Canada = 23.0 c/mile

Electric bus maintenance for US and Canada = 6.4 c/mile

Values from SSI report

 

Electricity, energy, commercial/institutional rate; 13 c//kWh, per VEIC

Electricity demand, controlled charging, assumed for SSI at 25%, and for MA at 30%, of energy cost

 

SSI bus electricity = 0.14 Mt CO2/y x 1,000,000 g/Mt x 1 yr/8,709 miles x 1 kWh AC/9 g CO2 = 1.745 kWh AC/mile.

See spreadsheet in SSI URL

 

SSI electric buses averaged 1.745 kWh AC/mile, from the wall outlet, to have 1.325 kWh DC/mile in the battery (near the low end of the Lion range); mild climates require less electricity/mile. See table 2

 

MA electric buses would require 1.890 kWh AC/mile, from the wall outlet, to have 1.390 kWh DC/mile in the battery (near the high end of the Lion range); cold climates require greater electricity/mile. See table 2

A separate fuel oil-fired heating system is required for cabin heating, which emits CO2. See Note

 

MA diesel bus mileage; 6.3 mpg, cold climate, per VEIC

SSI diesel bus mileage; 1.15 x 6.3 = 7.25 mpg; mild climates have better mpg and require minimal, or no, cabin heating, per author assumption.

 

SSI electricity cost = 1.745 kWh AC/mile x 13 c/mile = 2722, energy + 0.25 x 2722, demand = US $3,403/y, or 28.4 c/mile    

SSI electric bus total cost = 6.4, maintenance + 28.4, electricity = 34.8 c/mile; no cabin heating.

 

SSI diesel bus fuel = 12000 miles x 1 gal/7.25 miles x $2.50/gal = $4,138, or 34.5 c/mile. See Note

SSI diesel bus total cost = 23, maintenance + 34.5, fuel = 57.5 c/mile

SSI cost reduction per bus = 57.5 - 34.8 = 22.8 c/mile, or $2,732/y

 

NOTE: Diesel fuel cost (bulk purchase), author used $2.50/gal, for this calculation. The MA pilot program used $2.00/gal in 2018.

See section VEIC EVALUATION OF THE MA-PILOT PROGRAM

Amortizing the capital cost difference; ($352,500 - $100,000) at 3.5%/y for 15 years = $21,661/y, or 180.1 c/mile, about 7.9 times the annual cost reduction!!

 

MA electricity cost = 1.890 kWh AC/mile x 13 c/kWh = 2948 + 0.30 x 2948, demand = US $3,833/y, or 31.9 c/mile

MA electric bus cabin heating cost; 12000 miles x 1 gal/78 miles x $2.93/gal = 3.8 c/mile

MA electric bus total cost = 6.4, maintenance + 31.9, electricity + 3.8, cabin heating = 42.1 c/mile

MA diesel bus total cost = 23, maintenance + 39.7, fuel = 62.7 c/mile

MA cost reduction per bus = 62.7 - 42.1 = 20.6 c/mile, or $2,470/y

 

Amortizing the capital cost difference ($352,500 - $100,000) at 3.5%/y for 15 years = $21,661/y, or 180.1 c/mile, about 8.8 times the annual cost reduction per bus!!

Table 2

Energy

Maintenance

Cabin Htg

Total

Amortizing

Total

Times

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

c/mile

SSI

 

Diesel

34.5

23.0

 

57.5

Electric

28.4

6.4

none

34.8

Reduction

6.1

16.6

 

22.8

180.5

238.0

7.9

MA

 

Diesel

39.7

23.0

 

62.7

Electric

31.9

6.4

3.8

42.1

Reduction

4.0

16.6

 

20.6

180.5

243.2

8.8

CO2 Reduction per Bus

 

NE Grid CO2; 334 g/kWh; that value would slowly decrease as more wind and solar would be added to the electricity mix.

Combustion CO2 of diesel fuel and cabin heating fuel oil is 10.285 kg/gal. See Note.

 

SSI electric bus CO2 = 1.745 kWh AC/mile x 12000 miles x 334 g/kWh x 1000000 g/Mt = 6.99 Mt/y; no cabin heating.

 

MA electric bus CO2 = 1.890 kWh AC/mile x 12000 miles x 334 g/kWh x 1000000 g/Mt = 7.58 Mt/y

MA electric bus cabin heating CO2 = 12000 miles/y x 1 gal/78 miles x 10.285 kg/gal x 1 Mt/1000 kg = 1.58 Mt/y

Total electric bus CO2 = 7.58 + 1.38 = 9.16 Mt/y

 

SSI diesel bus CO2 = 12000 miles x 1 gal/7.25 miles x 10.285 kg/gal x 1 Mt/1000 kg = 17.02 Mt/y

MA diesel bus CO2 = 12000 miles x 1 gal/6.30 miles x 10.285 kg/gal x 1 Mt/1000 kg = 19.59 Mt/y

 

SSI CO2 reduction per bus = 17.02, diesel - 6.99, electric = 10.03 Mt/y

MA CO2 reduction per bus = 19.59, diesel - 9.16, electric = 10.43 Mt/y

 

MA electric buses, cold climate, have 9.16/6.99 = 31% more CO2 than SSI electric buses, mild climate

 

NOTE: Energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption, CO2, and energy costs, such as by 1) exchanging traditional light bulbs for LEDs, and 2) insulating and sealing energy-hog housing and other buildings, and 3) increasing the mileage of existing gasoline vehicles, would cost $50 to $200 per metric ton, much less than the $2,076/Mt of electric school buses.

  

NOTE: 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 table

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

 

Table 3/Cold versus Mild Climate

SSI

SSI CO2

MA

MA CO2

Climate

mild

Mt/y

cold

Mt/y

Buses

10

3

Turnkey CAPEX, Can $

4375000

Turnkey CAPEX, US $

3500000

1050000

Travel, km

139345

Travel all buses, mile

87091

13902

.

Diesel maintenance, Can $

25082

4004

Diesel maintenance, US $

20066

3203

Diesel maintenance, US c/mile

23.0

23.0

.

Electric maintenance, Can $

6967

1112

Electric maintenance, US $

5574

890

Electric maintenance, US c/mile

6.4

6.4

.

Travel basis per bus, mile/y

12000

12000

12000

12000

Electricity, kWh AC/mile

1.745

1.890

Electricity, kWh AC/y

20940

20940

22680

22680

Electricity, cost, US c/kWh

13

13

Electricity, cost, $/y

2722

2948

Demand, % of electricity cost

25

30

Demand, US $/y

681

885

Total electricity cost, $/y

3403

3833

Total electricity cost, $/mile

28.4

31.9

Electric bus total, $/mile

34.8

42.1

.

Diesel fuel cost, bulk, $/gal

2.50

2.50

Diesel mileage, mile/gal

7.25

7.25

6.30

6.30

Diesel fuel cost, gal/y

4138

4762

Diesel fuel cost, c/mile

34.5

39.7

Diesel bus total, c/mile

57.5

62.7

.

Cost reduction, c/mile

22.8

20.6

Cost reduction per bus, $/y (1)

2732

2470

.

CO2, g/kWh

335

335

Diesel and fuel oil CO2, kg/gal

10.285

10.285

Cabin heating CO2, Mt/y

0.00

1.58

Electric bus CO2, Mt

6.99

9.16

Diesel bus CO2, Mt

17.02

19.59

CO2 reduction, Mt/y

10.03

10.43

.

Amortizing cost diff., $/y (2)

21661

21661

Ratio of amort’g/cost reduction, (2)/(1)

7.9

 

8.8

 

CO2 Reduction, $/Mt

2160

2076

 

MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC SCHOOL BUS PILOT PROGRAM 

 

The electric bus pilot program was funded by 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. Three Lion electric buses were operated by the school districts of Amherst, Concord, and Cambridge from the Fall of 2016 to early 2018

  

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

 

There are other balance-of-plant costs for a complete electric bus system, but they were ignored. For example, the capital cost of parking facilities with chargers for an electric bus system is much greater than diesel bus system

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

 

Cold Climate Penalty

 

The MA buses, with a cold climate, required 1.890/1.745 = 8.3% more electricity from the wall outlet to have 1.390/1.325 = 4.3% more electricity in the battery than the SSI buses, with a mild climate, to travel the same distance.

 

Table 4 shows:

1) The draw of kWh AC/mile, from wall meter

2) The resulting “in battery” kWh DC/mile

3) The charging ratio for an EV car and 3 electric school buses

 

The MA column is included to compare the SSI system with an MA system, if the MA had been efficiently operated


The MA Pilot Program was poorly executed, due to uncontrolled/haphazard charging, which greatly increased electricity consumption, plus there were numerous equipment issues.

It would have been wiser to have had all three buses at one location, instead of one bus at each of three locations.

 

Table 4/Losses

Vermont

SSI 

MA

Pilot Program

"Optimum"

Car

School bus

School Bus

School Bus

School Bus

Climate

Cold

Mild

Cold

Cold

Cold

Parking location

Indoor

Outdoor

Outdoor

Outdoor

Outdoor

Wall meter, kWh AC/mile (1)

0.350

1.745

1.890

2.380

1.470

AC to DC, etc., factor

1.060

1.060

1.060

1.060

1.060

To battery kWh DC/mile

0.330

1.646

1.783

2.245

1.387

Battery resistance factor

1.080

1.080

1.080

1.080

1.080

Loss-while-charging factor

1.025

1.150

1.188

1.496

1.496

In battery, kWh DC/mile (2)

0.298

1.325

1.390

1.390

1.390

Battery resistance factor

1.080

1.080

1.080

1.080

1.080

Available, kWh DC/mile

0.276

1.227

1.287

1.287

1.287

Misc. losses, % of (2)

5.000

5.000

5.000

5.000

5.000

Misc. losses, kWh DC/mile

0.014

0.061

0.064

0.064

0.064

To wheels, kWh DC/mile

0.262

1.166

1.222

1.222

1.223

Charging ratio (1)/(2)

1.173

1.317

1.360

1.713

1.058

VEIC EVALUATION OF THE MA-PILOT PROGRAM

 

Pilot Program travel 4,634 miles/bus; uncontrolled charging loss 71.3%; with demand charges

See page 4 and 45 of URL

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

 

Pilot Program measured consumption, at wall outlet, was 2.38 kWh AC/mile

This includes charging and miscellaneous losses while charging, and all other losses.

The charging factor was about 1.713, because of haphazard/uncontrolled charging. See table 4

Various electric systems are “always-on”, i.e., during charging, driving, or parking.

 

Amortizing Capital Cost: VEIC ignored amortizing costs, which should have been included.

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

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

 
Both systems would need to have the same levels of service for comparison purposes, such as 12,000 miles/y. 

This may not be the case for electric buses, if there were a need for long road trips.

Operating Parameters: 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 drawn from the battery is 1.3 - 1.4 kWh DC per mile while driving, per Lion

VEIC “ON-PAPER” SIMULATION TO REDUCE ELECTRIC BUS ENERGY COSTS

 

This section shows all references to the VEIC “on-paper” simulation, including figure 18, should be deleted from the VEIC report, because the simulation led to at least 2 physical impossibilities!!

 

1) VEIC assumption of 1.47 kWh AC/mile, with a cold climate, is physically impossible

2) VEIC assumption of NO DEMAND charges is physically impossible

 

Quote from VEIC report: Using a bus operating efficiency of 1.47 kWh/mile, the schools’ electric rates, hours of bus use, and mileage, VEIC was able to estimate the cost savings available if charging were to be managed to a minimum number of hours, outside of peak demand times (i.e., no demand charges). Bus total energy costs would have been $0.22 / mile and efficiency 1.47 kWh / mile, much closer to Lion bus purported operating efficiency of 1.3 - 1.4 kWh/mile. See Note

 

NOTE:

1) The VEIC statement “1.47 kWh / mile, much closer to Lion bus purported operating efficiency of 1.3 - 1.4 kWh/mile” is in error; it mixes AC with DC.

The 1.47 kWh/mile should have been stated as 1.47 kWh AC/mile.

VEIC uses 1.47 kWh AC/mile to calculate its “On-Paper” 22 c/mile. See below calculation.

 

2) Lion brochures state bus consumption as 1.3 - 1.4 kWh DC/mile (energy from battery to travel a mile), for a range of climates and operating conditions.

The 1.3 is for mild climates, flat/smooth roads, as on SSI, British Columbia.

The 1.4 is for cold climates, hilly/rough roads, as in New England. See table 4

 

As calculated by VEIC:

 

MA Pilot Program

Electric bus electricity = $4,110, energy + $2,608, demand = $6,718

Total energy cost: ($6718/13902 mile = 48.3 c/mile) + 3.8 c/mile, cabin heating = 52.1 c/mile

 

Diesel bus fuel cost = 13902 miles/6.3 mpg x $2.00/gal = $4,413

Diesel bus fuel cost = $4413/13902 miles = 32 c/mile.

 

“On-Paper” Simulation; no demand charges

Electric bus electricity cost = 1.47 kWh AC/mile x 13902 x 0.13 c/kWh = $2,561/y

Total energy cost: ($2561/13902 mile = 18.4 c/mile) + 3.8 c/mile, cabin heating = 22.2 c/mile

See pages 35, 36, 37 of URL

 

Utilization of School Buses

School buses, diesel or electric, are parked most of the time during a school day, and during Xmas vacation, Spring break, summer, 2 or 3-day weekends, and holidays. 
All-together, they are used about 5 h/d x 180d / 8766 h/y = 10.3% of the year. 

 

VEIC claimed no charging is required in New England, with a cold climate, during:

 

1) Most of these idle hours, cold or not

2) No charging during all peak demand hours, cold or not.

 

The VEIC assumption of no demand charges is contrary to SSI real-world experience

 

Quote from SSI ReportBritish Columbia Hydro has filed an application with the BC Utilities Commission for a special rate for fleet charging. They are proposing to eliminate the demand charge for the Large General Service rate, which would reduce that cost of charging a school bus by as much as half depending on the power rating of the chargers used.

http://saltspringcommunityenergy.com/Electric_Schoolbus_Study/SD64_...

   

NOTE: Interrupting the protection of $100,000 batteries is not an option, with a mild climate or a cold climate.

See section “Charging Electric Buses During Cold Daytimes and Night-times”

See SSI report.

 

Charging of Electric Buses: The VEIC claim of 1.47 kWh AC/mile, from wall outlet, equivalent to about 1.390 kWh DC/mile, in the battery, would lead to a charging percent of 1.470/1.390 = 5.8%, which is physically impossible, because the charging percent would be only 5.8/17.3 = 33% of the real-world values of Teslas and other EVs!! See table 4 and Note

 

NOTE: The typical 17 to 18 charging percent of EV cars certainly would not apply to school buses, because: 

 

1) They have idle-time of about 90% of the hours of a year, and would be parked outdoors, 

2) They are required to provide high reliability of service on Monday morning, even after they have been parked on Saturday and Sunday, especially during cold days.

3) See EV charging percent of three real-world examples in Appendix

 

Summary of Charging Percentages; see table 4

- MA Pilot Program required about 2.38 kWh AC/mile; charging loss 71.3%

- Vermont; average winter temperature 22F; requires about 1.890 kWh AC/mile; charging loss 36.0%. See fig. 13 of mass.gov URL

- SSI, BC; average winter temperature 45F; required about 1.745 kWh AC/mile; charging loss 31.7%

- EV charging loss 17 to 18 percent. See real-world examples in Appendix

- MA Pilot Program, VEIC “optimized”, would require 1.47 kWh AC/mile; charging loss 5.8%; physically impossible, as proven by real-world data of the SSI, BC bus program.

https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/04/30/Mass%20DOER%20EV%20school%20bus%20pilot%20final%20report_.pdf 

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?

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

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

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS

 

Electric Bus Range

 

Lion states the buses have a new battery capacity of 104 kWh DC and a range of 75 miles, and that they use 1.3 - 1.4 kWh DC/mile

This does not include charging losses

 

Lion does not state how that range was determined.

 

- Was an empty bus tested at the factory?

- Was an empty bus driven on a flat, dry, paved road, at a steady speed, on a 70F-day, which would require minimal kWh DC/mile from the battery?

- Was the bus driven on a hilly road, with some snow and ice, while loading children, often with backpacks, in a start-stop manner, on a 15F-day, which would require maximal kWh/mile from the battery?

 

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

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

 

Battery Loss of Range, due to Aging

 

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.

The batteries lose about 9% of range at 288,000 km, or 12,000 x 15y =180,000 miles

 

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; Real-world 
range of new 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

 

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_based_batteries

- 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.

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. 

 

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. 

 

Table 5/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

 

 

APPENDIX 1

 

Vermont Has Much Better Options Than Expensive Battery Systems

 

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.

 

Energy efficiency measures to reduce energy consumption, CO2, and energy costs, such as by:

 

1) Exchanging traditional light bulbs for LEDs

2) Insulating and sealing energy-hog housing and other buildings

3) Increasing the mileage of existing gasoline vehicles

 

Such measures would cost $50 to $200 per metric ton, much less than the $2,100/Mt of electric school buses.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l...

 

Vehicles: Vermont needs a gas-guzzler code to impose a fee on low-mileage vehicles.

The more below 40-mpg, the greater would be the fee.

Vehicles with greater than 40-mpg, such as the 54-mpg Toyota Prius, would be exempt.

 

RE folks would have everyone drive unaffordable EVs, that would not reduce much CO2 compared with EFFICIENT gasoline vehicles.

 

On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years, the CO2 emissions, based on the present New England grid CO2/kWh, would be:

 

NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile

TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26.490 Mt, 251 g/mile

SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile

VT LDV mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56.315 Mt, 533 g/mile

See table 6

 

The above shows,

 

A NISSAN Leaf, a compact vehicle, would have CO2 reduction of 30.3 Mt over 10 years (3 Mt/y), if compared with the VT LDV mix, which contains small and big vehicles.

 

A NISSAN Leaf would have CO2 reduction of 16.3 Mt over 10 years (1.63 Mt/y), if compared with my 30-mpg Subaru Outback, a vastly more useful vehicle

 

NOTE: EAN estimated 4.5 Mt/y, based on an artificial 25 g CO2/kWh electricity, instead of using the 300 g/kWh of the NE rid, calculated by ISO-NE on a rational basis. EAN neglected: 1) the CO2 of MAKING the battery, etc., and 2) LIFETIME conditions

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

 

NOTE: These URLs show, EVs are driven an average of 7,000 miles/y, compared to 12,000 miles/y for the US LDV mix. The difference holds for: 1) all-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, 2) single- and multiple-vehicle households, and 3) inside and outside California. This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce less CO2 than envisioned by RE folks’ dream scenarios.

 

http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/Davis%20AEL%202019.pdf

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a35498794/ev-owners-low-mileage-s...

 

Any analyses by EAN, or VT-DOT, or Concerned “Scientists” (anyone can join), etc., using 12,000, or even 15,000 miles per year, would be GROSSLY in error and DECEPTIVE.

 

HUGE investments to implement EVs would be required, including:

 

Chargers everywhere,
Additional generation with HEAVILY SUBSIDIZED, EXPENSIVE, VARIABLE, INTERMITTENT wind and solar,
Additional grid build-outs
Additional grid-scale batteries everywhere,

Additional costs for balancing
Worldwide battery materials supply chains

 

This means, as a fleet, EVs would reduce less than 50% of the CO2 envisioned by RE folks’ dream scenarios.

RE promoters of “GOING EV” are seriously deranged, if they keep spouting EVs have no CO2 emissions.

Table 6/Vehicle

Energy

Drive

Type

Mileage

Mt/10y

g/mile

NISSAN Leaf S Plus

EV

no AWD

compact SUV

 

25.967

246

TOYOTA Prius L Eco

hybrid

no AWD

compact car

62.0

26.490

251

SUBARU Outback

gasoline

with AWD

medium SUV

30.0

43.015

407

VT Light Duty Vehicle mix

mix

many with AWD or 4WD

mix

22.7

56.315

533

 

APPENDIX 2

 

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 CO2 values are on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

 

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.

 

Owning cost is the difference of (EV - gasoline vehicle) purchase cost, amortized at 3.5% for 10 years.

 

Table 7/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 3

Heat Pumps are Money Losers in my Vermont House (as they are in almost all people's houses)

 

I installed three Mitsubishi, 24,000 Btu/h HPs, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms. The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.

The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000

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

 

Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House: The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3500 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, except the basement, which has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.

 

I do not operate my HPs at 10F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures. The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my highly efficient propane furnace.  

 

High Electricity Prices: Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would: 1) increase electric rates and 2) worsen the already poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

Energy Cost Saving: My energy cost savings due to the HPs were $253/y, on an investment of $24,000!!

 

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

This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

Other Annual Costs: There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.

This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.

 

Cost of CO2 Reduction would be (2,059, amortize - 253, energy cost saving + 200, parts and maintenance)/0.998 Mt/y, CO2 reduction, table 6 = $2028/Mt, which is similar to money-losing, very expensive, electric school buses. See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-bus-systems-l...

 

Highly Sealed, Highly Insulated Housing

 

If I had a highly sealed, highly insulated house, with the same efficient propane heating system, my house, for starters, would use very little energy for space heating, i.e., not much additional energy cost saving and CO2 reduction would be possible using HPs

 

If I would install HPs, and would operate the propane system down to 5F (which would involve greater defrost losses), I likely would displace a greater percentage of propane, and might have greater annual energy cost savings; much would depend on: 1) the total energy consumption (which is very little, because of my higher-efficiency house), and 2) the prices of electricity and propane. See Note.

 

I likely would need 3 units at 18,000 Btu/h, at a lesser turnkey capital cost. Their output, very-inefficiently produced (low COP), would be about 34,000 Btu/h at -10F, the Vermont HVAC design temperature. 

 

However, any annual energy cost savings would be overwhelmed by the annual amortizingcost, and parts and service costs. i.e., I would still be losing money, if amortizing were considered.

 

NOTE:

 

1) About 1.0 to 1.5 percent of Vermont houses are highly sealed and highly insulated

2) Vermont’s weatherizing program, at about $10,000/unit, does next to nothing for making energy-hog houses suitable for HPs; it is a social program for poor people.

 

Heat Pump Evaluation in Vermont

 

VT-Department of Public Service found, after a survey of 77 HPs installed in Vermont houses:

 

- The annual energy cost savings were, on average, $200, but the maintenance and annual amortizing costs would turn that gain into a loss of at least $200.

 

- On average, the HPs provided 27.6% of the annual space heat, and traditional fuels provided 72.4%. These numbers are directly from the survey data.

 

- Owners started to turn off their HPs at about 24F, and very few owners were using their HPs at 10F and below, as shown by the decreasing kWh consumption totals on figure 14 of URL

 

- On average, an HP consumed 2,085 kWh during the heating season, of which:

 

1) To outdoor unit (compressor, outdoor fan, controls) + indoor air handling unit (fan and supplemental electric heater, if used) to provide heat 1,880 kWh;

2) Standby mode 76 kWh, or 100 x 76/2085 = 3.6%;

3) Defrost mode 129 kWh, or 100 x 129/2085 = 6.2%. Defrost starts at about 37F and ends at about 10F.

 

- Turnkey cost for a one-head HP system is about $4,500; almost all houses had just one HP. See URLs.

 

On average, these houses were unsuitable for HPs, and the owners were losing money.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-sou...

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...

 

NOTE: Coefficient of Performance, COP = heat delivered to house/electrical energy to HP

See page 10 of URL

https://mn.gov/commerce-stat/pdfs/card-air-source-heat-pump.pdf

 

Heat Pump Evaluation in Minnesota

 

The image on page 10 of URL shows:

 

1) Increasing coefficients of performance, COP, of an HP, versus increasing outdoor temperatures (blue)

2) The defrost range from 37F down to 10F (yellow)

3) Operation of the propane back-up system from 20F to -20F (green).

 

Such operation would be least costly and would displace propane, that otherwise would be used.

The image shows, HPs are economical down to about 13F, then propane, etc., becomes more economical; much depends on the prices of electricity and propane.

https://mn.gov/commerce-stat/pdfs/card-air-source-heat-pump.pdf

 

BTW, all of the above has been known for many years, and yet, RE folks, in and out of government, keep on hyping air source HPs in cold climates.

 

Ground Source HPs

 

They are widely used in many different buildings in northern Europe, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland.

 

Their main advantage is the coefficient of performance, COP, does not decrease with temperature, because the ground temperature is constant

GSHPs can economically displace 100% of fuel.

ASHPs can economically displace at most 50% of fuel; the percentage depends on how well a building is sealed and insulated.

 

The main disadvantage of GSHPs is greater turnkey capital cost, i.e., high amortization cost. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/residential-and-other-g...

APPENDIX 4

Energy Losses of Large-Scale Battery Systems

 

1) The 18 losses of a battery system, including thermal management, monitoring and control, total about 20%, excluding transformer losses. See note

Open URL and click on “View Open Manuscript”

See figures 3, 4 and 17 of article.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261917315696

 

2) Per EIA, grid-scale battery efficiency is about 80%, AC to AC basis, excluding transformer losses. See note.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46756

 

NOTE: Usually, electricity from a distribution grid has to pass through a step-down transformer, about a 1% loss, to reduce the voltage to that of the battery, then through the battery, then via a step-up transformer, about a 1% loss, to the distribution grid, for an overall efficiency of 78%.

 

EV Charging Losses

 

Electric vehicle charging has losses of about 16% in summer, about 18% in winter, from wall outlet, as AC, to a charge inside the battery, as DC. There are additional losses for the charged electricity to go from the battery to the wheels, plus losses for operating the vehicle, such as battery cooling/heating, cabin cooling/heating, heated seats, music, instrumentation, etc.

 

This article four real-world examples of EV charging losses. See part 3 of article

POOR ECONOMICS AND MINIMAL CO2 REDUCTION OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN NEW ENGLAND

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

 

 

Views: 750

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 Willem Post on May 28, 2021 at 3:34pm

Ken,

RE folks talking about “improved” compared to 1990s are right.

I wrote this article to show how much the improvement has been.

Far greater improvement is needed for “prime time” performance regarding school buses and transit buses, and also regarding EVs, which presently are in the Model T or Model A stage.

The money spent on electric school buses essentially is wasted, i.e., throw away 

There are much less costly ways to reduce CO2. See article.

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