Life cycle ownership cost and environmental externality of alternative fuel options for transit buses |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, 260 Panama St, Stanford, CA 94035, United States;2. Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States;3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States;4. Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States;1. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Schlossplatz 1, 2361 Laxenburg, Austria;2. School of Business and Management Sciences, Istanbul Medipol University, 34810 Istanbul, Turkey;1. Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA;2. Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria;1. ESMIA Consultants, Blainville, Quebec, Canada;2. GERAD and Department of Decision Sciences, HEC Montréal, 3000 chemin de la Côte-Ste-Catherine, Montréal, Quebec H3T 2A7, Canada;3. SCMS Global, Toronto, Ontario, Canada;1. College of Management & Economics, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China;2. Center for Energy & Environmental Policy Research, Institute of Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China;3. TIERS, Research Institute of Economics and Management, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 611130, China;1. Energy Policy Research Team, Korea Institute of Energy Research (KIER), Republic of Korea;2. Department of Business and Technology Management, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Republic of Korea;3. Policy Development Team, Korea Research Institute of Chemical Technology (KRICT), Republic of Korea |
| |
| Abstract: | This paper assesses alternative fuel options for transit buses. We consider the following options for a 40-foot and a 60-foot transit bus: a conventional bus powered by either diesel or a biodiesel blend (B20 or B100), a diesel hybrid-electric bus, a sparking-ignition bus powered by Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) or Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), and a battery electric bus (BEB) (rapid or slow charging). We estimate life cycle ownership costs (for buses and infrastructure) and environmental externalities caused by greenhouse gases (GHGs) and criteria air pollutants (CAPs) emitted from the life cycle of bus operations. We find that all alternative fuel options lead to higher life cycle ownership and external costs than conventional diesel. When external funding is available to pay for 80% of vehicle purchase expenditures (which is usually the case for U.S. transit agencies), BEBs yield large reductions (17–23%) in terms of ownership and external costs compared to diesel. Furthermore, BEBs’ advantages are robust to changes in operation and economic assumptions when external funding is available. BEBs are able to reduce CAP emissions significantly in Pittsburgh’s hotspot areas, where existing bus fleets contribute to 1% of particulate matter emissions from mobile sources. We recognize that there are still practical barriers for BEBs, e.g. range limits, land to build the charging infrastructure, and coordination with utilities. However, favorable trends such as better battery performance and economics, cleaner electricity grid, improved technology maturity, and accumulated operation experience may favor use of BEBs where feasible. |
| |
| Keywords: | Transit bus Alternative fuel Life cycle ownership cost Externality Greenhouse gas Criteria air pollutant |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
