TonyWilliams
Well-known member
A little less than one mile per kWh is typical for a bus.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/07/20160718-nrel.htmlNREL supports propane-to-electricity shuttle bus conversion at Zion National Park
I'd think this is a good match for BEV buses, given the slow speeds, single flat route and limited distance covered, as well as the generally warm temps in the months the shuttles are operating. Always assuming they have enough range, or can take time to charge at the Visitor Center and/or Zion Lodge. Average headways are apparently 15 minutes, less during peak, and more outside of it. Route shown here: https://www.nps.gov/zion/planyourvisit/upload/Zion-Summer-2016-Web.pdf. . . As the propane-powered fleet ages and associated maintenance costs rise, NPS is working with NREL to use this drive-cycle information to optimize the conversion of 14 of its propane buses to run on electricity.
Each bus pulls a passenger trailer. The open-air nature of the bus/trailer setup, which accommodates 68 passengers, is popular among park visitors. By working with NREL to make an informed, data-driven decision, NPS can transition to a new vehicle technology without sacrificing operational capacity or the positive visitor experience.
—Robert Prohaska, NREL
To support the transition, NREL researchers are gathering operational data from the propane buses via onboard logging devices to understand dispatching patterns, evaluate the effect of road grade on system requirements, and determine optimal power and energy storage requirements based on the fleet’s unique operation. . . .
GRA said:I'd think this is a good match for BEV buses, given the slow speeds, single flat route and limited distance covered, as well as the generally warm temps in the months the shuttles are operating. Always assuming they have enough range, or can take time to charge at the Visitor Center and/or Zion Lodge. Average headways are apparently 15 minutes, less during peak, and more outside of it. route shown here: https://www.nps.gov/zion/planyourvisit/upload/Zion-Summer-2016-Web.pdf
Might work for Yosemite Valley Shuttles too, although maybe not the Tioga Road or Glacier Pt./Badger Pass ones. Those have been using HEV shuttles for some years, so maybe FCEVs are the way to go there.
The question, as always, Tony, is how well each matches up with the usage patterns and TCO. Yes, BEV buses could be used on the more mountainous routes in Yosemite, but probably not given the headways, distances and unwillingness of the park service to allow major upgrades of the electrical system for charging away from the Valley. Installing an H2 tank is probably a lot easier, as it can more easily be hidden, and the buses would only need to fill up once per day. If BEV buses can do the job at the lowest cost, I say bring 'em on, but knowing what I know of Park Service ideology, I suspect given current tech they may be a poor fit for those types of routes. However, that's why they're doing a usage study in Zion, to see which EV tech's the best fit, and it should be more or less directly applicable to Yosemite Valley shuttle and tour bus routes with some adjustment for winter temps, as Yosemite Valley shuttles run year-round.TonyWilliams said:Wow, talk about a lot of FUD. EVs are not restricted to flat roadways, over short distance or warm temps. With the exception of the warm temperature issue, any vehicle will consume more energy regardless of the energy source if it is operated a longer distance over hilly you terrain.GRA said:I'd think this is a good match for BEV buses, given the slow speeds, single flat route and limited distance covered, as well as the generally warm temps in the months the shuttles are operating. Always assuming they have enough range, or can take time to charge at the Visitor Center and/or Zion Lodge. Average headways are apparently 15 minutes, less during peak, and more outside of it. route shown here: https://www.nps.gov/zion/planyourvisit/upload/Zion-Summer-2016-Web.pdf
Might work for Yosemite Valley Shuttles too, although maybe not the Tioga Road or Glacier Pt./Badger Pass ones. Those have been using HEV shuttles for some years, so maybe FCEVs are the way to go there.
The temperature issues can be mitigated by any power source that can create heat efficiently. That could even be hydrogen, however some type of biofuel or alcohol is probably more logical.
There is no place in Yosemite park that an electric powered vehicle can't go. When considering all the costs to operate a hydrogen powered vehicle versus an electric powered vehicle, I'm confident the EV will win every time. BYD, alone, has sold more EV buses than all the hydrogen cars and buses in the entire world multiplied by an order of magnitude.
For the record, there is not a single data point of hydrogen that cannot be exceeded by an EV bus, and that includes a quick refueling.
Oh come now. Where's the multi-megawatt charger that can do this, and the bus battery that could accept it? If 5 kg. 700 bar fills can be accomplished in three minutes, as they're required to demonstrate to be certified, that's 5 x 33.7 kWhe = 168.5 kWhe / 3 = 56.2 kWhe/minute. The chargers going to be used in Switzerland have a maximum rate of 600kW, or 10 kWh/minute assuming no taper. The efficiency difference is nowhere near 5.6 times.TonyWilliams said:For the record, there is not a single data point of hydrogen that cannot be exceeded by an EV bus, and that includes a quick refueling.
GRA said:Oh come now. Where's the multi-megawatt charger that can do this, and the bus battery that could accept it? If 5 kg. 700 bar fills can be accomplished in three minutes, as they're required to demonstrate to be certified, that's 5 x 33.7 kWhe = 168.5 kWhe / 3 = 56.2 kWhe/minute. The chargers going to be used in Switzerland have a maximum rate of 600kW, or 10 kWh/minute assuming no taper. The efficiency difference is nowhere near 5.6 times.TonyWilliams said:For the record, there is not a single data point of hydrogen that cannot be exceeded by an EV bus, and that includes a quick refueling.
smkettner said:That is what we need a big hydrogen depot in Yosemite National Park. I don't think so.
IMO electric is the answer but I don't think they can even agree on getting electric to the campsites for eliminating RV generators.
But clearly H2 FCVs are the only solution to practically every transportation application given that BEVs are only capable of travelling short distances at low speeds on flat roads in warm climates. :roll:TonyWilliams said:In other words, it's complete hypocrisy to suggest that because there is not an adequate electric supply, that hydrogen somehow the answer over electric vehicles.
He comes here daily to promote H2 but expects us to accept his insistence that he is promoting BEVs also when his "positive" statements are back-handed compliments like this one.GRA said:I'd think this is a good match for BEV buses, given the slow speeds, single flat route and limited distance covered, as well as the generally warm temps in the months the shuttles are operating.
Hardly necessary to build a 'big depot". The Park Service has been removing infrastructure from Yosemite Valley where they can; the Valley Gas station was taken out at least a decade ago. Most facilities removed from the Valley have been re-located to El Portal. Of course, you could just bring a trailer into the Valley, with or without the necessary compression and cooling gear, if that were desirable.smkettner said:That is what we need a big hydrogen depot in Yosemite National Park. I don't think so.
IMO electric is the answer but I don't think they can even agree on getting electric to the campsites for eliminating RV generators.
And here I am, repeating nonsense as usual. As it happens, having done some finer calcs, I now think BEV buses might be suitable for the winter shuttle runs from the Valley to Badger Pass, but still have my doubts about their efficacy for the Tioga Road and Glacier Pt. shuttles, given the usage patterns and lack of electric infrastructure.RegGuheert said:But clearly H2 FCVs are the only solution to practically every transportation application given that BEVs are only capable of travelling short distances at low speeds on flat roads in warm climates. :roll:TonyWilliams said:In other words, it's complete hypocrisy to suggest that because there is not an adequate electric supply, that hydrogen somehow the answer over electric vehicles.
But I'm sure GRA will, as is usual, be here soon to claim that he meant to imply nothing of the sort when he wrote this:
He comes here daily to promote H2 but expects us to accept his insistence that he is promoting BEVs also when his "positive" statements are back-handed compliments like this one.GRA said:I'd think this is a good match for BEV buses, given the slow speeds, single flat route and limited distance covered, as well as the generally warm temps in the months the shuttles are operating.
As Tony said, when all is said and done, there will be very few, if any, applications left over for H2 FCV buses once BEVs have taken all the rest.
makes no sense to me. Why invest in costly, wasteful technology when the obvious solution is to use the BEVs where they fit today and use existing bus technology until the BEVs grow into any and all remaining roles?GRA said:I don't see current BEV buses having the range to manage this run, but an FCEV could, possibly with a fueling stop mid-day.
If multiplication of types isn't an issue I'd agree with you, but usually it is, and re-roleing occurs frequently. That being the case, a single, more versatile (because longer-ranged) type may be cheaper than multiple specialized types. And of course, fuel cells have also improved rapidly in both price and performance, and are currently doing so faster than batteries. As you should know by now, while I prefer the most energy-efficient tech AOTBE, I'm perfectly willing to opt for a less energy-efficient one if it's available sooner. I'd rather see ZEVs appear sooner rather than later in areas like National Parks (particularly areas like Yosemite Valley or Zion Canyon, where the walls hold smog in, and the limited road net makes for stop and go parking lots during summer that make air quality really unhealthy), even if a more energy-efficient option may be available 'someday'. Those somedays tend to be long enough out that an entire generation (or two) of vehicles using the interim tech may live out their lifetimes. As an example, I'm really glad that Yosemite opted to replace the diesel shuttles they formerly used along Tioga Road with HEV shuttles some years back. That was certainly preferable to waiting until the 'ideal' tech was available 'someday' (not yet), and the same goes for replacing the HEVs with ZEVs at the earliest possible date, whether BEV or FCEV. I much prefer not being able to smell anything as the shuttles pass.RegGuheert said:Thanks for the details, GRA!
Let's remember that Li-ion batteries for BEVs are currently improving in terms of specific energy at a rate of over 9% per year. Doing a static calculation and then concludingmakes no sense to me. Why invest in costly, wasteful technology when the obvious solution is to use the BEVs where they fit today and use existing bus technology until the BEVs grow into any and all remaining roles?GRA said:I don't see current BEV buses having the range to manage this run, but an FCEV could, possibly with a fueling stop mid-day.
Good, then we agree. You, yourself, just said this:GRA said:If multiplication of types isn't an issue I'd agree with you, but usually it is, and re-rolling occurs frequently.
So, no need to multiply types. There are already two.GRA said:The usage situation of the Glacier Pt. and especially the Tioga Road shuttles is very different from this. They use smaller buses similar to this: http://midamericacoach.com/cms/wp-conte ... hot-SM.jpg, not the full size ones that are used on the Valley-Badger shuttle.
You just said there were already two types. Now you think they should go to one? Makes no sense.GRA said:That being the case, a single, more versatile (because longer-ranged) type may be cheaper than multiple specialized types.
So? H2 FCVs are far behind BEVs and there is NO crossover point.GRA said:And of course, fuel cells have also improved rapidly in both price and performance, and are currently doing so faster than batteries.
Fine. If you MUST do it now, BEVs will STILL be less expensive than H2 FCVs even if you have to purchase more of them to meet the need. Better yet, just swap the batteries, as Tony has suggested. As you pointed out, the routes are trivial. The task only gets challenging if you string them all together and require it to be done with a single machine. Going with a BEV-only solution today will minimize the construction of infrastructure and equipment which will soon be stranded while also reducing the amount of energy that needs to be brought into the valley. No need to expand the electricity grid or truck H2 into the valley. And no need to store volatile chemicals at high pressures, either.GRA said:I'd rather see ZEVs appear sooner rather than later in areas like National Parks (particularly areas like Yosemite Valley or Zion Canyon, where the walls hold smog in, and the limited road net makes for stop and go parking lots during summer that make air quality really unhealthy), even if a more energy-efficient option may be available 'someday'.
No, your other standby "It's better than a BEV" technology would be a much better fit here: PHEV buses. Run on CNG until you get to the valley and then switch to battery power while in the park.GRA"' said:There's also the YARTS (Yosemite Area Regional Transit) bus service, which isn't affiliated with the park service or the Concessioner, but does provide long distance travel to/through the park. Those would have to be done with FCEVs for at least the next few years, should they be looking/required to change.
Actually, we should probably ban everything except longer-range BEVs from our parks to avoid the need to upgrade the electrical grid and to prevent the possibility of our national treasures from being damaged by an H2 explosion.GRA said:As to making use of limited electrical infrastructure, at the moment I'd rather see that used to provide destination charging for cars, as people will still use those primarily, and most PHEVs now will have enough range to completely exit the park from any point in it while running solely on the battery, as well as doing most/all in-park driving on it. Gen 2 BEVs will obviously have no problems. Some people will ride the shuttles, but others won't or can't (I often have to use my car because I'm out hiking before the shuttles start running, or after they've finished).
Actually, there are at least three types in use that I know about, the above two plus the open top tour buses used in the Valley during the summer, similar to the shuttles in Zion Canyon. You seemed to be suggesting that we should add the same type using different types of powertrain. Ideally, if you can get down to a single powertrain tech, the TCO may be less than having multiple types, even if the latter may be individually lower cost in their specific niche. This is exactly what happened with early BEV trucks, which were used in combination with gas trucks and/or horses, each in their own niche. It was cheaper to replace them all with gas trucks and keep one stock of spares/do one type of maintenance even though each individually was cheaper in its niche.RegGuheert said:Good, then we agree. You, yourself, just said this:GRA said:If multiplication of types isn't an issue I'd agree with you, but usually it is, and re-rolling occurs frequently.So, no need to multiply types. There are already two.GRA said:The usage situation of the Glacier Pt. and especially the Tioga Road shuttles is very different from this. They use smaller buses similar to this: http://midamericacoach.com/cms/wp-conte ... hot-SM.jpg, not the full size ones that are used on the Valley-Badger shuttle.You just said there were already two types. Now you think they should go to one? Makes no sense.GRA said:That being the case, a single, more versatile (because longer-ranged) type may be cheaper than multiple specialized types.
They are behind in areas of cost and efficiency, yes, but not in cost reduction, range (especially winter), and refueling time. Being at an earlier stage of development, they are on a steeper part of the development curve than batteries are. You mentioned a 9% average annual increase in specific energy for batteries, but the current generation (Mirai/Clarity) of fuel cells improved their power density by 100% over the previous generation ( about 5 or 6 years). Price decreases were also greater than batteries, 95% over 10 years (roughly 2003-2013). Toyota thinks they can get that down another 80% (and need to) by 2020-2024 (I forget which). Battery prices aren't coming down that fast, and won't barring a breakthrough, while fuel cells are mainly able to achieve major improvements by refining current tech. As they get more mature the improvement rate will slow down, natch, and may have different priority areas, perhaps emphasizing increased longevity, ramp rates or something else over power density.RegGuheert said:So? H2 FCVs are far behind BEVs and there is NO crossover point.GRA said:And of course, fuel cells have also improved rapidly in both price and performance, and are currently doing so faster than batteries.
Your assertion is unsupported by evidence; If that were known to be correct there would be no need to do the study, they could just pull a BEV bus off-the-shelf and go on their merry way.RegGuheert said:Fine. If you MUST do it now, BEVs will STILL be less expensive than H2 FCVs even if you have to purchase more of them to meet the need.GRA said:I'd rather see ZEVs appear sooner rather than later in areas like National Parks (particularly areas like Yosemite Valley or Zion Canyon, where the walls hold smog in, and the limited road net makes for stop and go parking lots during summer that make air quality really unhealthy), even if a more energy-efficient option may be available 'someday'.
Um, just where are you going to build this battery swap facility, and how much will it cost? It didn't exactly prove to be a cost-effective solution for Tesla and their owners. As for stranding H2 infrastructure, that only happens if it doesn't catch on, and the same goes for BEV buses. Neither is yet at the stage where they can claim dominance over their rivals. Personally, if they go the H2/FCEV route I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were to build H2 fueling facilities in El Portal (Yosemite) and Springdale (Zion), just outside the park, as it's been NPS policy for a couple of decades now to move as much of their and concessioner administrative personnel, as well as infrastructure, outside the parks to a gateway community. I'm sure that NPS would love to be able to remove the three remaining gas stations in Yosemite from the park, as they did with the one in the Valley, but I'm guessing that they concluded they'd have too many people running out of gas, clogging the roads and needing fuel.RegGuheert said:Better yet, just swap the batteries, as Tony has suggested. As you pointed out, the routes are trivial. The task only gets challenging if you string them all together and require it to be done with a single machine. Going with a BEV-only solution today will minimize the construction of infrastructure and equipment which will soon be stranded while also reducing the amount of energy that needs to be brought into the valley. No need to expand the electricity grid or truck H2 into the valley. And no need to store volatile chemicals at high pressures, either.
Again, an assertion unsupported by evidence. I'll wait on the study.RegGuheert said:No, there is no need to shoehorn H2 FCVs into Yosemite when BEV buses will handle the job better and cheaper today.
Certainly the lowest cost option, but not a ZEV one. PHEVs would be the purely commercial choice, FCEVs would put more weight on the ZEV angle. I'd be happy with either, and since YARTS is an independent entity I'd expect them to go with PHEVs as making the most commercial sense now.RegGuheert said:No, your other standby "It's better than a BEV" technology would be a much better fit here: PHEV buses. Run on CNG until you get to the valley and then switch to battery power while in the park.GRA"' said:There's also the YARTS (Yosemite Area Regional Transit) bus service, which isn't affiliated with the park service or the Concessioner, but does provide long distance travel to/through the park. Those would have to be done with FCEVs for at least the next few years, should they be looking/required to change.
[/quote]RegGuheert said:Actually, we should probably ban everything except longer-range BEVs from our parks to avoid the need to upgrade the electrical grid and to prevent the possibility of our national treasures from being damaged by an H2 explosion.GRA said:As to making use of limited electrical infrastructure, at the moment I'd rather see that used to provide destination charging for cars, as people will still use those primarily, and most PHEVs now will have enough range to completely exit the park from any point in it while running solely on the battery, as well as doing most/all in-park driving on it. Gen 2 BEVs will obviously have no problems. Some people will ride the shuttles, but others won't or can't (I often have to use my car because I'm out hiking before the shuttles start running, or after they've finished).
Which would require upgrading electrical infrastructure, and the Park Service is trying to reduce infrastructure inside the parks, and (always) to eliminate non-natural features from view.TonyWilliams said:Without knowing all the details of the park, clearly a battery hybrid like the Wright trucks would work.
Just use a small natural gas / propane / alcohol / diesel / biofuel turbine generator to supplement any battery shortfall. But, as Reg said, it's a little nutty to plan for complicated when the batteries are improving so fast.
Every time that bus is stopped, it should be getting charged... fast.
If that's true, then BEVs really are the only solution. It makes absolutely no sense to build $2M hydrogen refueling stations in each of these parks. BEVs can be charged by consuming electricity from existing transmission lines when other loads are minimized.GRA said:Which would require upgrading electrical infrastructure, and the Park Service is trying to reduce infrastructure inside the parks, and (always) to eliminate non-natural features from view.
Enter your email address to join: