George Karbowski, director of operations and maintenance at Foothill Transit, concurs with Pezoldt. Although the price of electricity in southern California does not enable as much savings as LINK's—about 68 cents per kilometer for diesel versus about 31 cents per kilometer for electricity—Karbowski says anecdotal evidence suggests the company is saving greatly in other areas.
"Given that our electric buses do not charge in the yard, they are actually available for up to three extra hours each day because they don't have to wait in the refueling line," he says. "Also, a typical diesel bus requires an inspection every 45 days that uses $1,100 in supplies and 10 man-hours. Our Proterra buses take three hours and don't use any filters, oils or spark plugs—or anything like that—and have much lower preventative maintenance costs." Karbowski also attributes lower lifetime brake-associated costs to the regenerative braking system in the bus, which uses the braking force of its electric motor to generate electricity, saving the physical brakes from as much wear and tear.
Greener transit
Although both operators are focused on saving money and increasing operational efficiency as the driving goals of their electric bus programs, they readily tout the green aspects of their projects as well. Aside from having zero tailpipe emissions, both types of buses use some of the cleanest electricity in the world. In Wenatchee more than 96 percent of its power comes from seven dams within 160 kilometers and—at a residential rate of 2.2 cents per kWh—is also some of the cheapest electricity in the country, thanks to the well-established public utility traditions of the region. California already has more than 20 percent of its electricity coming from solar, wind and hydropower, and has set a statewide goal of 33 percent renewable power consumption by 2020. But Foothill has gone even farther by purchasing 100 percent renewable energy credits to provide all the power for its electric buses.
Both transit operators plan on expanding their electric bus service and have received additional grants from the Transit Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) program—an offshoot of the stimulus package. With an additional $2.5 million from TIGGER, LINK plans to buy five more Ebus trolleys and three additional fast-charging stations. With $10 million more, Foothill plans to buy between nine and 11 additional Proterra buses, resulting in the full electrification of an entire bus route.
Although Foothill and LINK have funded the vast majorities of their projects with federal grant money to this point—and have hedged against the risk inherent in being pioneers with that money—both say the buses and associated equipment are now at the point where they compare very well in terms of up-front costs with purchasing new diesel—or even compressed natural gas–powered buses.
The Ebus trolleys already cost less than comparable diesel-powered ones, and even the larger 12-meter-long Proterra buses carry a reasonable price tag. "Our initial purchase of Proterra buses cost us about $1.2 million each, but it will likely cost us $800,000 each for this next batch," Karbowski says. "Compare that to approximately $650,000 for a compressed natural gas bus and it's getting closer. With higher volume it will likely be completely on par soon."
Early results being what they are, other public transit operators have come knocking with an interest in the emerging technology. According to Pezoldt, Wenatchee's much larger neighbor to the west, Seattle, is learning a thing or two from LINK's experience and plans to invest in the technology in the next couple of years. In California Proterra just inked a deal with the San Joaquin Regional Transit District for two more of its battery-powered buses. Given that the pioneers' experiences have not revealed a downside yet, it's no wonder interest is rising quickly.
Subscription Center
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentLuckily the electricity to charge the batteries is produced with zero emissions? (while also forgetting the environmental load of the production, installation, maintenance, and ultimate disposal of the vehicle itself)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA trolly on rubber wheels...who would've guessed? That is a nice looking trolly though. With those savings in favor of E-buses and the improvements coming fast with batteries, transit systems would be a fool not to transfer over.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey didn't say 'zero emissions', they only said there are 'zero tailpipe emissions'. This is pretty beneficial for urban air quality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would the production etc of these vehicles be any more energy intensive etc than with a diesel bus? Frankly I don't know the lifecycle impact of one vs the other, but I see no specific reason to think there's a huge difference.
Overall it sounds like this is a fruitful line of development. The thing is we've optimized the heck out of ICE systems. While there's always SOME more to be gained it is telling that these electric buses are ALREADY at a similar level of utility, price, efficiency, etc and they are far further down on the optimization curve. It is hard to imagine that the electric bus of 20 years from now won't be vastly superior, at least for the kind of applications being discussed here. I'd imagine they will have wider applicability as well.
Believe it or not, when I posted my comment, the article was completely different than the one that appears now. It led off with a statement about a 'zero emissions' solution. I agree with the points in this new content.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wonder if the local fish, especially the spawning salmon, would agree to the term "green hydropowered electricity"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectric buses are great, but they are nothing new. In fact, most electric vehicles sold are for commercial & industrial applications
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn an October 24, 2011 article, Electric Vehicles Research indicated that currently 60% of the value of the electric vehicle market is being spent on commercial and industrial vehicles – and this trend is expected to continue and grow into the next decade.
Heavy industrial vehicles (those used do heavy lifting, such as forklifts) make up the largest segment of the market. This is understandable, since by law, forklifts must be electric to be used indoors. While little opportunity may remain in this market, there are plenty of other uses for electric vehicles in the commercial and industrial sector.
Airports are under increasing pressure to switch their Ground Support Equipment (GSE) to pure electric versions, both on and off the tarmac. Besides lowering their carbon footprint, this would lower their cost of ownership, cost of maintenance and their exposure to price increases in fossil fuel supplies.
Governments, wanting to be perceived as environmentally conscientious, will help to drive the continuing growth of the commercial and industrial EV market.
This market is seen as being less dependent on government incentives and funding than the more fragile personal EV market, and innovations seem to appear in the industrial and commercial market sooner.
Electric vehicles offer so many advantages over traditional vehicles in the industrial/commercial environment. Electric delivery vehicles cope better with frequent stopping and starting. Electric shuttles can be used to transport visitors through industrial plants, airports, and other venues with no concern about noxious emissions. Rangers can use electric vehicles to access areas of parks and natural areas where it is important that environmental impact be limited. The applications are only limited by the imagination!
I was a little disappointed that there wasn't more information about the truly unique characteristics of both of these systems. They both use AltairNano Lithium Titanate batteries plus ultra-fast charging to achieve all day running without huge battery packs. These buses charge at about 240kW for a few minutes at the end of the route. This is enough juice to get to the other end of the route and charge again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese LTO batteries can be charged extremely fast, and also have a super long number of times they can be charged. Perfect for buses that run the same route and can be charged every hour or so. They aren't so good for cars because they weigh more than the other types of lithium batteries. Since you only charge your car maybe once a day, car batteries need to have very high energy per kg. Buses are different since they run the same route all day and can charge at the route ends.
Trolley buses?!? Trolley buses are buses that run on overhead power lines, and Streetcars are trolley buses that run on rails. Unbelievable, but Greenies are still pushing the dumb idea of streetcars & trolley buses. The rails are a death trap for cyclists, and the overhead trolley lines are very expensive, unreliable and make moving large loads through a city very difficult. A really obsolete idea. The only sensible use of trolley lines nowadays is for LRTs or Electric Trams with multiple cars for high volume corridors, and even those could soon be converted to batteries and/or ultra-capacitors, with inductive charging.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth the Proterra & Ebus are poor examples of what EV tech is capable of. Believe it or not the drivetrain of the Tesla Model S sedan is more powerful with larger batteries than the Proterra Bus. With an 85 kwh battery, a 270 kw motor, 45 min recharge, 1 min battery swap, it is quite capable of running a City Bus, with about a 85 km range between charges. It also would not be difficult to convert existing smoke belching diesel buses to battery electric, that would be the most cost effective way to rapidly replace diesel buses with Electric, with much lower operating and maintenance costs.
And full lifecycle analysis of EVs vs ICE vehicles indicate similar embodied energy & emissions in both, and both are only about 15% of the full lifecycle emissions of the vehicles, most of that comes from fuel consumption, or grid mix Electricity emissions. Even fed from a Coal power plant, a typical EV is equivalent in full lifecycle emissions to an ICE vehicle getting 45 mpg.
Too bad California is ripping off its citizens with high Electricity prices due to its whacky Renewable Standards Portfolio idiocy. The biggest source of Green Energy in California is its Nuclear Power plants. They would be much better off abandoning their devious, cowardly, secretive Renewable Energy massive subsidies, and start on a Nuclear Power build, then their Electric City buses would be even cheaper to operate.
Great progress being made, I would say :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrolley buses run in Seattle on several routes and seem to do very well. Also, how much can the battery pack be sold for when it declines to say 75% of original capacity. I understand that old battery packs may be more useful recycled intact to users who don't need the full capacity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrolley buses are archaic, and need to be replaced with battery electric buses. Usually Battery Packs for EVs will be replaced when they have about 80% of rated capacity. They are quite valuable at that time for off-grid storage batteries, and utility storage batteries, and there is a big demand for them, utilities are already negotiating with EV manufacturers for buying expired battery packs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would seem that adding a resonance-charging system at one or more stopping points along the route would be an improvement over any "trolly" connection or even manual plug-in wherever for a recharge. The primary coil would likely be underground with the secondary permanently mounted under the bus on the framework. Trolly-supplied power is so yesterday, to use our children's expression.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not use a trolly connection where it exists as a recharging device for a bus battery? Who cares if it is not the latest technology?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe horseless carriage (automobile) got its start because it used a type of fuel also used by some kitchen stoves. The fuel was available anywhere in the United States and most of the rest of the world. Blacksmiths could repair them and existed in every town in the country. Thus the automobile was a conservative change and did not require a brand new infrastructure. It could exist alongside the horse and buggy and eventually provide the replacement.
A new technology should start off trying to use an existing infrastructure or simply use one at the home base. We could create filling stations that would provide a hybrid with both gasoline and a battery charge. When enough filling stations had battering charging capability, then we could go over to electric cars. Such would use current technology.
Instead of using the phrase "federal grant money" be honest and say "taxpayer funded"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of using the phrase "federal grant money" be honest and say "taxpayer funded"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRetpro1...true, and whats your point...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislamorpa...don't know why your not more concerned with the lack of water exiting streams than the damning of them...just check out the colorado...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this