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."

17 of 491 comments (clear)

  1. And low-emission transport trucks, too by haruchai · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Diesel engines are powerful but they pollute A LOT. And don't forget ships. That bunker fuel many of them burn is NASTY.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    1. Re:And low-emission transport trucks, too by aliquis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or be nuclear powered.

      Oh no I didn't?! ;D

      But yeah, wind - Can't imagine no-one have thought about that one before!! .. with solar panels :)

    2. Re:And low-emission transport trucks, too by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the difference is that as a government it's a lot easier to bully consumers than it is to bully large corporations.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:And low-emission transport trucks, too by macpacheco · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's no bullying. There's ignorance and lack of interest in finding the truth.
      I like solar panels for many applications, and support rooftop PV and solar CSP plants. But the current wind energy credits are destroying the USA regional grids.
      The credits given for wind turbines are making regional grids to into negative energy costs overnight (more power than needed in the grid, even with all peaking plants shutdown, and wind turbines are still making money because they can pay a little bit of money to deliver electricity to the grid, like paying one dollar to sell a MWh to the grid while making 23 dollars per MWh by the wind credits), results, baseload natural gas, baseload coal, baseload nuclear is getting destroyed, but those are needed when the wind isn't blowing. The USA is shooting itself in the foot with a bazooka.
      We need to explain this truth to everyone thinking wind turbines are great.
      The credits must be reformulated, such that they are a % of revenues earned from selling that electricity, instead of a fixed value, this way wind turbines would be forced to have large energy storage capacity, so they don't sell into an oversupplied electric grid.

    4. Re:And low-emission transport trucks, too by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, sorry, Diesel is worse in every way.

      Congratulations, you just proved that you have no idea what you're on about. Then you kept going.

      I work on both kinds of engines.

      So?

      Put a super charger on it and the diesel can get over 40mpg

      Engines don't have MPG ratings. Cars do.

      but the pollutants are still awful

      NOx is higher and CO2 is lower per kW/h, soot is about the same but the soot is bigger so it's easier for your cilia to sweep it out of your lungs. Victory, diesel.

      If you doubt me, go work on a diesel engine and then check your hands when you're done.

      But what does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

      Do the same with Gas.

      Ah yes, that's a great fucking idea, given that you can often find methanol in gasoline, or MTBE, and both are toxic and readily absorbed through the skin. Why don't you just tell people to shoot themselves up with Dioxin for an encore?

      I'm jet black from the solders to my finger tips after I get done on a diesel.

      What is with all the morons who won't wear gloves? You should be at worst jet black from the shoulders (I assume) to the wrists. And they also make these things called coveralls.

      With diesels, the mechanic gets dirty. With gasoline engines, we all get dirty.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Re:Apples and Oranges (buses are not cars) by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A bus will only get a few mpg, but carries a lot more people.

    Sometimes it does. I see a lot of buses driving around 90+% empty.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  3. Re:Apples and Oranges (buses are not cars) by theycallmeB · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see a lot of cars driving around 80% empty. To and from work, I must admit that one of them is mine.

  4. Well, we really should be at that stage by now. by robbak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We should have been working hard at improving nuclear power, and solving its problems, to the point that this would, by now, be a no-brainer. So those polluting diesels are another thing we can blame on the environmentalists that shut down nuclear power research in the '70s.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
    1. Re:Well, we really should be at that stage by now. by evilviper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We should have been working hard at improving nuclear power, and solving its problems, to the point that this would, by now, be a no-brainer.

      The US Navy has been all-in with Nuclear power. R&D has been non-stop. If they haven't "solved its problems", it's unlikely throwing even more money at it, would do so.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Well, we really should be at that stage by now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At this point I am not sure how many problems nuclear vessels actually have. The US Navy seems to have a pretty decent track record. There have been two nuclear vessels lost and those were in the 60s and not nuclear related. One was accidental torpedo detonation and one was a sub sinking during its trials. Even Russia who had a number of issues for a while there have no nuclear vessels being lost due to a nuclear accident since the 80s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy#Accidents_involving_naval_nuclear-powered_vessels

    3. Re:Well, we really should be at that stage by now. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you want nuclear research to restart, we first need to combat the real enemy of nuclear power today which is the public, that was carefully fed lie after lie about nuclear power, and the BIG lie that solar+wind can do the trick (THEY CAN'T).

      Yes. They can. There is more than enough renewable energy to convert, if necessary, into syntethic fuel like hydrogen or hydrocarbons where direct efficient battery storage hasn't enough energy density.

      That is cheaper that any nuclear accident.

    4. Re:Well, we really should be at that stage by now. by Stolpskott · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is the manpower to operate it just doesn't scale well to something as small as a ship.

      Why is it then possible and viable to have nuclear powered submarines but not ships?

      Economically, it should not be. Because the value metrics and usage requirements for a submarine are vastly different to those for a ship. Both go on water, but when a submarine is underwater it needs a controlled non-toxic emission propulsion and power system - older and smaller subs use electric batteries, which are charged when on the surface by a diesel engine which exhausts out into the air, so they have very limited underwater endurance. A sub with a nuclear reactor does away with the electric battery element, has no need of diesel engines, so it can stay underwater for months at a time - even to the point where they can if necessary complete an entire tour of duty without breaking the surface of the water.
      That ability to stay underwater and (probably) undetected gives the ability to project power into areas and in ways where highly visible surface ships just would not work.
      The reason it works is that submarines are not used for economic activity - their value to the Navies that have them falls into the "money is no object" category and profit is irrelevant in the face of security and force projection.

  5. Re:Batteries? Seriously? by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As one of the ACs mentioned, the wires are 'ugly'. The other problem is that running a wire power network that meets today's safety requirements is expensive, thus only good in areas toeing the line of where subways and such would be logical.

    It's also a question of flexibility. Sure, the bus doesn't need to go down every road, but they more or less can, providing flexibility. If it'd cost a few million to install new lines to provide electricity to the buses, they're less likely to change/extend the routes.

    With batteries becoming so much better, it's actually a good question as to whether they're cheaper today than the power lines.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  6. What makes you think it was environmentalists? by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously? Do you really believe a bunch of hippies put the breaks on something as profitable as Nuclear power?

    Coal and oil lobbies, the folks paid to store nuclear waste instead of processing it into new power. Look at those folks. Follow the money. When anything of importance happens it's always money.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  7. Re:Batteries? Seriously? by tragedy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's also a question of flexibility. Sure, the bus doesn't need to go down every road, but they more or less can, providing flexibility

    A electrically powered bus with overhead wires _and_ a battery could go down every road, more or less. There's still the problem of long haul trips. I'm still a little unclear on why the buses have to have a fixed battery capacity that has to charge in place as opposed to swappable, extendable batteries. Buses travel around on fixed routes with set schedules. Why can't there be multiple batteries for each bus, left charging at swap stations along the route. Make them automated. The driver can drive up, hop out, put a key into the swap station, position some forks onto the battery in the bus, push a button and have the used battery hauled out and a charged one slotted in. The whole thing shouldn't take more than five minutes. For long trips, why can't a bus haul a battery trailer with extra capacity?

  8. Re:WTF? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, but in a bus you can read a book. You better won't when driving a car.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  9. Re:Batteries? Seriously? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In Japan we have trams with both a pantograph and a battery pack the pack covers areas where they can't put up cables. Buses are doing the same with inductive charging at bus stops.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC