User avatar
TonyWilliams
Posts: 9982
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am
Location: San Diego
Contact: Website

Re: Battery-electric bus discussion

Thu Jul 21, 2016 11:44 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote: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.
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.

As I said above, that $2M plus the vehicle cost savings can be put to purchasing a few more of the smaller shuttles to allow some to be at the depot charging while others are out. Then the massive savings on fuel will be gravy on top of all that. There is not place for H2 FCV in our national parks. That's why the article you posted said they were purchasing BEVs. There was absolutely no justification for you to pollute this thread with FCV nonsense while posting that article about BEV buses.


I really can't believe he said that... the park is trying to reduce infrastructure, so lets build a multi-million dollar hydrogen infrastructure. Just crazy.

If they do have to run high voltage wires in, I hope that they are buried. Yes, it costs more, but still less than running a hydrogen station. With buried wires in the street, I guess we could have an effective inductive charging system. Particularly going up the hills at low speed, the bus could be getting some juice... it seem the technology is up to about 20kW now in ideal circumstances.

As to the battery swapping, it won't really be much of a station if there are just two buses and a total of 4 batteries. Actually seems like there wouldn't need to be any building at all. Some kind of automated trolley could grab the battery out of the bus while the passengers are loading, and another trolley brings the freshly charged battery from it's power outlet (these things could sit in outside, or in a simple small shed) to pop it into the bus. None of this is even startling, and could all be orders of magnitude cheaper than H2.

A combination of all the above (in highway inductive, then when parked, fast conductive, and finally swapping) would be possible to have the smallest, lightest batteries. Unlike an H2 plant, or some huge diesel spewing tanker truck bringing the H2 in, while noisy pumps and refrigeration running, I'll take quiet, cheap, dependable electricity... in DC, just like Edison proved was safe by electrocuting elephants with AC ;-)

GRA
Posts: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Battery-electric bus discussion

Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:12 pm

LTLFTcomposite wrote:What do you suppose Elon Musk is talking about for a Tesla bus? They mentioned no aisle. My guess is it's a bus with lots of doors (hopefully not falcon wing) so you just open a door on an available seat and get in. Forcing everyone through one or two doors really doesn't make sense.

Which is fine for slow speed buses, but not so good for high speed, high stress ones, as all those openings cause structural issues (see Falcon Wing doors).
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Battery-electric bus discussion

Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:21 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote: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.
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.

As I said above, that $2M plus the vehicle cost savings can be put to purchasing a few more of the smaller shuttles to allow some to be at the depot charging while others are out. Then the massive savings on fuel will be gravy on top of all that. There is not place for H2 FCV in our national parks. That's why the article you posted said they were purchasing BEVs. There was absolutely no justification for you to pollute this bread with FCV nonsense while posting that article about BEV buses.

Actually, the article said they were considering EV buses for Zion, with the specific tech unstated. BTW, I'm not suggesting that H2 stations would need to be the full-Monty (although that's an option), indeed, since buses generally use 350 bar (5,000 PSI) rather than 700 bar, something like the temp trailers that Toyota has put at many of the FCEV dealerships might do the trick (and might be available for cheap once Toyota doesn't need them any more). But again, this is all so much hand waving until we get actual TCO figures.

I had a rummage around last night looking for the 1980 Draft General Management Plan and didn't find it, but I did find the 1997 Draft Yosemite Valley Implementation Plan Supplemental EIS (292 pages) . Early on it became apparent that trying to do everything at once wasn't going to happen, so the Park Service decided to break the GMP down into more manageable chunks (Yosemite Valley, Tuolumne Meadows, etc.) and even those chunks were sometimes further broken down. Anyway, one of the appendices of the Valley EIS summarized the "Alternative Transportation Modes Feasibility Study Volume IV Yosemite National Park California", done by BRW in 1994. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be available online, but a later (2001), more general study also done by them is:
Federal Lands Alternative
Transportation Systems Study
Summary of National ATS Needs
https://www.nps.gov/transportation/pdfs ... ummary.pdf

Anyway, the 1994 study breaks down the number of parking spaces needed for each alternative method (Outside the Park staging, Remote in Park staging, and In-Valley staging) and the costs of same:

Comparison of Remote and In-Valley Staging Areas for Yosemite Valley Access.

    Comparative Measures: Staging Areas Outside Park / Remote In-Park Staging Areas / [In Valley] Staging Area (I.D. left out so you can make your own pick)

    # of Parking Spaces 2,720 / 2,470 / 1,840

    # of buses required 83 / 61/ 21

    Construction & Equip. cost $27,337,000 / $21,692,000 / $10,864,000

    Annual O&M cost $$21,639,000 / $15,190,000 / $3,158,000

    Avg. delay to through travellers (minutes) 132/ 97 / 23

and after explaining why they concluded that in-Valley staging was the recommended option, and discussing the relative costs of regular buses, articulated buses or trams, LRT and even something called Group Rapid Transit that involved building elevated electrified rail (IMO more to show its excessive costs and unacceptable impact on views than as a realistic option) it also shows annual private vehicle and bus vehicle miles traveled, total VMT/year, and annual bus fleet capital and operating costs of the three best areas (out of 7 considered), before narrowing it down to the one they believed to be the one that best matched all the requirements.

Comparison of Valley Staging Areas

    Comparative Measure: Pohono Quarry / Yellow Pine / Taft Toe

    Private VMT/year* 905,538 / 7,582,854 / 3,325,560

    Bus VMT/year* 1,408900 / 531,800 / 877,100

    Total VMT/year* 2,329,800 / 8,113,300 / 4,202,000

    Bus fleet capital cost $6,525,000 / $3,480,000 / $4,567,500

    Bus operating cost/year $5,072,100 / $1,914,400 / $3,157,700
*In Valley

Which of the above three do you think was recommended? As you can see, they'll require far more detailed calcs and costings than the off-the-cuff statements of somebody on the internet, and have to take far more issues into consideration than I've listed here. The variance in O&M costs of "a few more buses" is likely rather large. In any case, none of the transportation options of this study has so far proceeded, as YARTS was established which helped to reduce some of the day-use load, and public resistance has torpedoed the rest.
Last edited by GRA on Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Battery-electric bus discussion

Fri Jul 22, 2016 3:31 pm

TonyWilliams wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote: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.
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.
They can be provided that their usage allows that. As I've pointed out, in some cases they don't.

TonyWilliams wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:As I said above, that $2M plus the vehicle cost savings can be put to purchasing a few more of the smaller shuttles to allow some to be at the depot charging while others are out. Then the massive savings on fuel will be gravy on top of all that. There is not place for H2 FCV in our national parks. That's why the article you posted said they were purchasing BEVs. There was absolutely no justification for you to pollute this thread with FCV nonsense while posting that article about BEV buses.

I really can't believe he said that... the park is trying to reduce infrastructure, so lets build a multi-million dollar hydrogen infrastructure. Just crazy.

If they do have to run high voltage wires in, I hope that they are buried. Yes, it costs more, but still less than running a hydrogen station.
There's no 'hope' about it, they have to be buried, and please do provide comparative costings.

TonyWilliams wrote: In fWith buried wires in the street, I guess we could have an effective inductive charging system. Particularly going up the hills at low speed, the bus could be getting some juice... it seem the technology is up to about 20kW now in ideal circumstances.
And you have costings for this?

TonyWilliams wrote:As to the battery swapping, it won't really be much of a station if there are just two buses and a total of 4 batteries. Actually seems like there wouldn't need to be any building at all. Some kind of automated trolley could grab the battery out of the bus while the passengers are loading, and another trolley brings the freshly charged battery from it's power outlet (these things could sit in outside, or in a simple small shed) to pop it into the bus. None of this is even startling, and could all be orders of magnitude cheaper than H2.

A combination of all the above (in highway inductive, then when parked, fast conductive, and finally swapping) would be possible to have the smallest, lightest batteries. Unlike an H2 plant, or some huge diesel spewing tanker truck bringing the H2 in, while noisy pumps and refrigeration running, I'll take quiet, cheap, dependable electricity... in DC, just like Edison proved was safe by electrocuting elephants with AC ;-)

Tony, I think you and Reg should feel free to provide all the technical, cost, environmental, scenic, archaeological, cultural, etc. impact data to the NPS, which will save the Federal government oodles of cash through avoiding an unneeded study. After all, what do the people at NREL know that a few of us amateurs (well, I used to get paid for this kind of thing, albeit at a much smaller level) don't?
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Battery-electric bus discussion

Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:45 pm

Found this article from 2003 discussing the possible use of diesel-hybrid buses for the Yosemite Valley shuttles - http://www.metro-magazine.com/managemen ... tric-buses (note that they did in fact opt for diesel-electrric hybrids for Valley and Tioga Road shuttles). Among other things, it says:

In 1994, the Yosemite National Park Electric and Alternative-Fuel Shuttle Bus Demonstration Program was launched. The intent was to provide the in-valley shuttle system with a source of funding for the acquisition and testing of various alternative-fuel buses for operation on the 8.5-mile shuttle loop. Several factors contributed to the selection of the park as a test site for an electric-powered shuttle bus system. Among these factors were desires to protect the beauty of the park, reduce both exhaust and noise pollutions and test technology that could lead to advanced transportation applications in the National Park System. Four buses were acquired under this program. The buses included a 31-foot electric bus manufactured by Specialty Vehicles, a 35-foot electric bus manufactured by APS Systems and two 32-foot, 9-inch electric buses manufactured by Blue Bird Corp. Because maintenance, operation and durability features inherent to these electric vehicles proved to be extremely problematic and ineffective, none of the electric buses continue to operate on the Yosemite Valley shuttle loop.

In accordance with the Yosemite Valley Plan, the park began in 1999 to determine the general feasibility of other alternative-fuel buses for in-valley shuttle bus service. A comprehensive technology assessment was conducted covering a broad spectrum of available and emerging technologies. This assessment included extensive surveys of existing bus systems. Alternatives scrutinized included clean diesel, diesel electric hybrid, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), alcohol fuels (ethanol/methanol), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG/ propane), pure battery electric and fuel cell. Evaluation criteria included commercial technology availability, performance requirements/needs, cost, fuel availability/integration, maintenance facility modifications, maintainability, technological maturity and existing/previous operator experiences. Focus groups were conducted within the park to educate and inform stakeholders of implications and opportunities presented with various technologies and systems. Operations and maintenance issues, as well as associated costs, were documented and communicated. Hybrid vehicle demonstrations have also been conducted within the park, traversing actual conditions with excellent results. . . .

In terms of propulsion technology “fit,” CNG and LNG introduce challenges to existing park infrastructures (such as the needs to construct costly fueling facilities and completely rebuild the existing 14,500-square-foot bus maintenance facility to address safety issues). Moreover, CNG and LNG only present minor, if any, emissions benefits relative to diesel hybrid, according to recent tests performed by the California Air Resources Board. Alcohol-based fuels have commercial availability limitations. Meanwhile, the park has compiled a large body of marginal performance operating experience with pure battery electric technology, which has not advanced appreciably over the past decade. In addition, several park infrastructure issues are introduced, such as the need to reconstruct the existing bus maintenance facility from a safety and efficiency standpoint, as well as install new and costly electrical infrastructure systems to facilitate recharging operations.

Here's a master's thesis from 2008 on Visitor attitudes towards Alternative Transportation Systems in National Parks, which describes experiences in 5 (including Zion, Grand Canyon and Yosemite) http://www.academia.edu/1428875/VISITOR ... IONAL_PARK. Here's Grand Canyon's experience with BEV shuttles :

In 1974, Grand Canyon introduced an optional free shuttle bus service to address the traffic congestion caused by the nearlythree million visitors entering the park annually (NPS, 2008b; Turnbull, 2004). By 1993,nearly five million visitors were entering the park causing managers to reevaluate transportation methods to and within the South Rim of the Grand Canyon (NPS, 2008b).Park managers wanted to address these traffic issues by introducing alternative fuelshuttle services; however, while trying to do so, the park began to experience a fews etbacks. In 1997, Grand Canyon purchased three electric buses, along with other natural gas buses, in an effort to switch from diesel to more environmentally friendly alternative fuels. But because the park experiences such a high volume of visitors, the electric buses did not have the capability or the power necessary to drive the route that was originally designated. This resulted in the buses’ batteries exploding a total of three times within the first year of use. In order to restore the electric buses, an additional $50,000 was required(Tuck, 1999).

Obviously, battery tech has improved considerably in the interim since these dem/val projects occurred, so many of the maintenance, operation and durability issues that made the BEV buses "problematic and ineffective" or even explosive, would likely no longer apply or at least be considerably reduced, but the infrastructure issues still would (as they would for H2/FCEVs). In any case, it does give an example of many issues the Park Service has to consider, and how they base their decisions on operational data and costs rather than unsupported opinions.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Battery-electric bus discussion

Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:19 pm

Via IEVS:
Proterra Opens Electric Bus Fast Charging Technology
http://insideevs.com/proterra-opens-ele ... echnology/

Proterra announced it would be opening its single-blade overhead fast-charging technology on royalty-free basis, which seems like a nice gesture to its peers in the industry.

The technology was covered in three patents, which have now become available to any company…or individuals if you fancy yourself in need of a rechargeable bus. . . .

The opening of the overhead fast charging technology is crucial if Proterra would like to see it adopted as the industry standard (so maybe not a totally altruistic action after all). Whether or not there are other companies interested in using the system has yet to be determined.
Proterra stated that its single-blade overhead fast-charging enables to charge at 250-1000 V and up to 1,400 A. . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5421
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Battery-electric bus discussion

Mon Aug 01, 2016 7:05 pm

That interface is capable of over 1MW! If a municipality could manage 600kW, that would mean they could add 10 miles to a bus in about a minute. Half that rate would be about 5 miles. Charging at each terminus should be sufficient for the vast majority of routes.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Battery-electric bus discussion

Fri Aug 05, 2016 4:20 pm

I'm not sure just what the issues they're trying to solve with this are (other than allowing electric 'trams' and cars to use the same road space without hindrance), but full points for thinking outside the box, via GCC:
Huge Chinese road-straddling elevated bus carries first passengers (video)
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/110 ... gers-video

I don't see how cars are supposed to turn off the tram route. and it would seem to require the use of autonomous cars to make this work.
Last edited by GRA on Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

baustin
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 1:23 pm
Delivery Date: 09 Mar 2015
Leaf Number: 402162
Location: North Las Vegas, NV

Re: Battery-electric bus discussion

Fri Aug 05, 2016 5:02 pm

I think it's a very interesting concept. It allows cars to pass under the bus, instead of having to wait behind it at stops. It allows for public transit, but keeps the traffic moving with little hindrance.
2013 Leaf SV - Cayenne Red - QC Port - LED Headlights

GRA
Posts: 6829
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Battery-electric bus discussion

Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:25 pm

baustin wrote:I think it's a very interesting concept. It allows cars to pass under the bus, instead of having to wait behind it at stops. It allows for public transit, but keeps the traffic moving with little hindrance.

Yes, the question is does that make it necessary and less expensive compared to just designating a bus-only lane? After all, you've got to lay down and maintain all those miles of rails (and I still don't see exactly how cars are supposed to cross them, as they appear to be raised), and build very high, expensive raised boarding platforms. Is this really cheaper or faster than just building light or heavy rail with a dedicated, separated right of way, or BRT routes?

The main advantage I can see is in cities that already have high density and can't afford to spend the time building up or tunneling under, but it just seems like the easier and cheaper answer is to prohibit people from commuting singly in their cars, by banning such commuting in certain city areas with limited space for them (and their parking). Some cities already ban cars entirely in certain areas, so allowing only multi-occupant vehicles to enter some areas seems like an obvious next step, if somewhat harder to enforce. Autonomous car-sharing strikes me as likely to arrive about the time this does, and be a lot cheaper and more flexible.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Other Electric Cars & Plug-In Hybrids”