Slashdot Mirror
To Really Cut Emissions, We Need Electric Buses, Not Just Electric Cars
An anonymous reader writes: All the EV attention these days is going to Tesla and other sedan manufacturers, but this article makes the case that it's far more important to switch our buses over to electric power than our cars. "Last year, according to the American Public Transportation Association, buses hauled 5.36 billion passengers. While usage has fallen in recent years, thanks in part to the growth of light rail and subway systems, buses still account for more rides each year than heavy rail, light rail, and commuter rail combined—and for about half of all public transit trips." This, while managing around 4-5 miles per gallon of gas, and public buses usually average about 50,000 miles per year. The electric buses themselves are significantly more expensive, but the difference is made up dramatically lower fuel costs. And there will be difficulties: "The range—up to 30 miles—limits Proterra buses to certain routes, so it's hard for an agency to go all in. Drivers have to be trained to brake and accelerate differently, and to maneuver into the docking stations. And Doran Barnes of Foothill Transit notes that some of the cost advantage of using electricity instead of diesel can dissipate. Electric cars can be charged at night, when power prices are low. But buses have no choice but to recharge in the middle of the day, when utilities often impose higher peak usage rates."
As one of the ACs mentioned, the wires are 'ugly'.
So don't do wires - just put a high-voltage rail in the ground instead of a wire. Sure, we lose a few people not smart enough to NOT touch the third rail - but that would also serve to eliminate overcrowding on buses as well. Win-win!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I see a lot of cars driving around 80% empty. To and from work, I must admit that one of them is mine.
You wastrel... At least my Ferrari is only 50% empty!
Why is it then possible and viable to have nuclear powered submarines but not ships?
The navy does not expect its submarines to operate at a profit. This is partly because they know that the market for nuclear missile-generated craters is fickle, so their sales are going to vary dramatically from year to year, include whole decades at a stretch where they may not deliver even a single warhead. It is partly because their other principle cargo, national influence, is very hard to value objectively. Most companies carry this product as "goodwill," and serious accountants completely disregard it in valuations.
The whole business model of nuclear submarines is a sham. A ponzy scheme foisted off on a credulous public awed by technology and investor story time, run by directors spending other people's money, but guaranteed to collect their own luxurious salaries regardless of whether the business ever turns a profit. 50 years without delivering a single megaton warhead...you'd think investors would wake up.