COMmon PROcurement - European Commission · changes). According to the self-presentation in the web-site home page, STARBUS goal is to promote “renewable energy sources by proposing

COMmon PROcurement of collective and public service transport clean vehicles

D2.3 Cost/effectiveness analysis of the selected technologies

(CNG and HYBRIDS)

Bologna, 21st July 2008

Deliverable n.° D2.3 Work Package WP2

Authors Silvia Zamboni - Regione Emilia-Romagna Andrea Normanno - Regione Emilia-Romagna

Status (F: Final, D: Draft) Final File Name COMPRO_Deliverable_D2.3

Project Start Date and Duration 1 January 2007, 36 months

2

Introduction........................................................................................................................................3 The Compro project in the UE legislative framework.....................................................................3 Compro’s partners and goals............................................................................................................3 The selection of the two bus technologies .......................................................................................3 The cost/effectiveness analysis of CNG and DE-hybrid .................................................................4 The UE co-financed projects STARBUS and PROCURA..............................................................4

Chapter 1 - CNG BUS TECHNOLOGY - .....................................................................................6 1.1 Advantages and inconveniences ................................................................................................6 1.2 Emissions ..................................................................................................................................6 1.3 Costs..........................................................................................................................................6 1.4 Management and purchase policies ..........................................................................................6

Chapter 2 - HYBRID BUS TECHNOLOGY -................................................................................8 2.1 Hybrid, the new frontier of clean technology ...........................................................................8 2.2 Hybrid characteristics ...............................................................................................................8 2.3 Efficiency gains.........................................................................................................................9 2.4 What makes hybrid bus procurement worth .............................................................................9 2.5 Different hybrid technologies ..................................................................................................10 2.6 Series hybrid configuration......................................................................................................11 2.7 Parallel hybrid configuration ...................................................................................................11 2.8 Series/Parallel or Combined hybrid-electric vehicles..............................................................12 2.9 Mechanical hybrids ..................................................................................................................12 2.10 Electricity storage technologies .............................................................................................13

2.10.1.Battery .........................................................................................................................13 2.10.2 Battery life cycle analysis ...........................................................................................13 2.10.3 Supercapacitors ..........................................................................................................13

Chapter 3 - BASIC COST/EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS - .....................................................14 3.1 Comparative cost/effectiveness analysis between conventional Euro 5 diesel bus and CNG bus technology. ..............................................................................................................................14 3.2 Comparative cost/effectiveness analysis between conventional Euro 5 diesel bus and DE-hybrid bus technology....................................................................................................................14 3.3 Comparative cost/effectiveness analysis between CNG bus and DE-hybrid technology......15 3.4 Efficiency comparison .............................................................................................................18 3.5 Vehicle technology choice criteria finalized to the bus deployment (urban, suburban, long distance) .................................................................................................................................19

3.6 Flexibility .........................................................................................................................19 3.7 Distance to be covered .....................................................................................................20

Chapter 4 - RER’s Survey on CNG and hybrid vehicles on the market - ..................................22 4.1 Cost-effectiveness analysis ......................................................................................................22 4.2 Survey outputs .........................................................................................................................23

4.2.1 Hybrid buses: ................................................................................................................24 4.2.2 CNG Buses....................................................................................................................29

4.3 Future technology possible development towards renewable and cleanest fuel option ..........33 Chapter 5 – Two cost/effectiveness analysis study cases carried out in Ottawa and New York -............................................................................................................................................................34

5.1 The CNG Bus Option Evaluation for the City of Ottawa ........................................................34 5.2 Summary of the “New York City Transit (NYCT) Hybrid and CNG Transit Buses - report”49

Chapter 6 – Conclusions - ...............................................................................................................60

3

Introduction

The Compro project in the UE legislative framework The COMPRO project (COmmon Procurement of collective and public service transport clean vehicles) is co-financed by EACY (the UE Agency for competitiveness and innovation). It aims at favouring the development of the clean vehicles market for local public transport acting on the demand side mainly represented by cities and their local public transport companies. Till now, apart from some positive exceptions (such as Stockholm, for instance), the demand side has not played a strong role by means of joined procurements, while on the other side industry has not considered the demand of clean vehicles enough attractive. In this framework the new proposal for a “Directive on public procurement of road transport vehicles”, approved by the Commission last 19th December, which is currently in the legislative procedure, could in the next future speed up not only the diffusion of clean vehicles but also the process in favour of a more active role by local authorities, since it will directly affect local and regional authorities and public transport operators by introducing certain rules on clean and energy efficient vehicles for all public procurement. According to the proposal, “operational lifetime costs of energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and pollutant emissions shall be included as award criteria for all procurement of road transport vehicles by public authorities and by operators providing services under a contract with a public authority and also for all procurement of road transport vehicles for the provision of public passenger transport services under licence, permit or authorisation by public authorities. Operational lifetime costs means the monetised values for energy consumption, CO2 emissions, and pollutant emissions that are linked to the operation of the vehicles to be procured, calculated in accordance with the methodology set out in this Directive.” The innovative approach chosen by the project COMPRO – acting on and from the demand side - has recently found another significant UE support, precisely in the Green Paper “For a new concept of urban transport”, where common procurement is mentioned among the instruments listed up to implement urban sustainable mobility policies.

Compro’s partners and goals In order to gather the different actors of the demand side, the Compro project partners are representatives both of local authorities and of local transport companies, namely: Nantes Metropoles, the local authority composed by 24 cities in western France; Semitan, Nantes’ public transport operator; the City of Bremen; BSAG, Bremen’s public transport operator; Gatubolaget, the transport service operator in Goteborg; (RER) Emilia-Romagna’s regional local Authority (Directorate General for infrastructural networks, logistic and mobility systems). After analysing the conditions for a common procurement of clean vehicles, COMPRO’s final and concrete goal is to create a European consortium of buyers made of local authorities. The idea behind is that the critical buyers mass reached by this consortium should help to reduce the cleanest vehicles prices, and therefore could foster the procurement of the environmentally best performing buses on the market.

The selection of the two bus technologies At present the cleanest bus technologies available on the market are CNG, Diesel euro V, DE-hybrid, electric vehicles and trolley buses. While CNG and Diesel V appear to be the most ripe,

4

and DE-hybrid seem to be the most promising both for the emission levels and the energy efficiency performance, electric vehicles have a more limited range and trolley buses are less flexible. Finally, the very few hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles circulate mainly, when not exclusively, as prototypes. Under this premises, and also according to their experience and expectations for the future implementations of urban sustainable transport policies, in the first phase of the project COMPRO’s partners have selected CNG and DE-hybrid as the two technologies to be addressed to for a joined procurement of clean buses.

The cost/effectiveness analysis of CNG and DE-hybrid The first deliverable produced within COMPRO, entitled “State of the art”, has been the result of the survey launched all over Europe to collect information on practices, tendencies and expectations in the field of clean technologies for buses, more specifically DE-hybrid and CNG, the two technologies which have been selected in the first project phase to put forward the joined procurement goal. Besides this, the “State of the art” report offers a more deeply and articulated overview of the COMPRO partners’ manufacturer market, bus fleet compositions, basic procurement procedures and trends. In this second report “Cost/effectiveness analysis of the selected technologies”, after a description of the main features of CNG and DE-Hybrid buses (see chapters 1 to 2), these two technologies have been compared not only with reference to the technological aspects (exhausted gas emissions, noise, energy efficiency) but also to the economic ones (purchase cost, fuel cost, extra infrastructures needed, maintenance cost) and the deployment strategy in relationship to the urban or suburban use and the existing bus fleets and structures (see chapter 3). In order to go deeper in the cost/effectiveness evaluation and to place it in a concrete market frame, we have also considered necessary to know which kind of buses – either CNG or hybrid – are on the European market. For this reason, information on the vehicle models currently available have been collected directly from the manufacturers side, and precisely from those who have participated to the workshop organized during the public presentation of the COMPRO project in Nantes (march 2008), that is: Bredamenarinibus, Evobus, Irisbus, Heuliezbus, MAN, Solarisbus, VOLVO. Besides these, Phileas has been asked too. For collecting the data required for the survey, RER has developed a basic template on CNG and hybrid buses which has been mailed to all the manufacturers. Afterwards they have been individually contacted by means of telephone interviews. The results of this survey are described in chapter 4. Finally, in order to provide this report with true experiences of compared cost/effectiveness analysis, the outcomes of two study cases carried out in New York and Ottawa have been summarized in chapter 5.

The UE co-financed projects STARBUS and PROCURA STARBUS. At present COMPRO is not the only European project dealing with public transport vehicle energy efficiency. In January 2006 another Altener/Steer project, named STARBUS (www.starbus-project.eu) has been started, which aims at help public transport decision makers to choice among all energetic pathways like Biofuels, NGV, LPG, Diesel..., with their specific advantages (pollutions, GHG, noise) and their inconveniences (costs, practise & expertise changes). According to the self-presentation in the web-site home page, STARBUS goal is to promote “renewable energy sources by proposing an integrated tool that will valorise pollutants emissions in economics terms, add the "classical" economic costs, and will unit all relevant criteria in one easy-to-use tool adapted to local conditions”. The project will be concluded in December 2008. STARBUS’s partners are 5 national agencies, (that is ENEA, Italy, KAPE, Poland, CRES, Greece, LISBOA e-nova, Portugal, ADEME, project-leader, France), an engine laboratory (CRMT, France), a technical centre (CETE, France), a main European bus operator (RATP, France), an expert decision tool (BR, France).

5

Majors pathways have been identified based on Europe buses fleet. Maximum 10 pathways (Diesel, NGV, LPG, biofuel, Euro Norm 1 to 4) will be fully characterised using parameters and measurement systems already identified, in order to create the central database. This database will be integrated in the software to estimate emissions, noise, with measurements reproducing real use conditions done by user network. In the Work package 3 a deliverable has been produced which contains an energy efficiency analysis well to wheel of the different considered fuels. PROCURA. The PROCURA project addresses the European Union target of 20% substitution of oil-based motor fuels by 2020. This will require a strong effort in infrastructure development and large-scale deployment of Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs). The Procura project, a General Action of the Intelligent Energy for Europe Programme, is developing joint procurement models, fleet scan tools and manuals to facilitate the acquisition and maintenance of AFV vehicles for private and public fleets. According to the self presentation in the web site www.procura-fleets.eu, “PROCURA will also work on the start-up development of second hand markets and certification systems for AFVs. In five pilot projects in Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Spain the models, tools and manuals will be used to assist local fleet owners in their decision to integrate AFVs in their fleets”. Specifically, Procura “aims at facilitating large-scale procurement of Alternative Fuel Vehicles (e.g. natural gas vehicles, biofuels) by lowering traditional market barriers. PROCURA contributes to the EU objectives related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing energy security through achieving a 20%-substitution of conventional fuels by alternatives in 2020. Furthermore PROCURA contributes to intermediate EU goals to substitute 2% of conventional fuels by biofuels in 2005, and 5,75% in 2010. Currently, Alternative Fuel Vehicles form a niche market. Large-scale introduction is hampered by a number of structural market barriers. Earlier EU programs find that market barriers for Alternative Fuel Vehicles include (i) lack of infrastructure (chicken-egg problem), (ii) lack of maintenance and repair facilities, (iii) lack of knowledge of fleet owners and consumers, (iv) higher purchase costs, and (v) lack of second-hand market. PROCURA’s strategy to overcome these barriers consists of developing models for large-scale procurement of Alternative Fuel Vehicles. Procurement models will be developed with a focus on centralised buyer pools (e.g. private and public fleets, rental agencies), permitting centralised infrastructure, maintenance and repair, and stronger purchase power (lower costs). PROCURA will assess and develop incentive systems to compensate for higher purchase prices. Lastly, PROCURA will set up novel ways of facilitating green fleet procurement via GreenLease schemes, organising second-hand market development, and designing a certification system for Alternative Fuel Vehicles”. PROCURA’s partners are: European Natural Gas Vehicle Association, Municipality of Nijmegen, Terberg Leasing bv, ETA Renewable Energies, University Utrecht, FAST, Empresa Municipal de Transportes de Valencia, Krajowa Agecja Poznanowiana Energii S.A, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Ford Motor Company Europe, NTDA Energia, Ecofys b.v.

6

Chapter 1 - CNG BUS TECHNOLOGY -

1.1 Advantages and inconveniences CNG technology is currently regarded as the most mature clean technology. COMPRO “State of the art” report quotes a publication issued in November 2006 by UITP, which “emphasizes the positive ecological balance sheet of natural gas: with the exception of unburnt hydrocarbons, CNG technology already complies with the EEV standard. No carbon dioxide emission reductions are achieved with gas operation”. Referring to over-costs, the quoted report by UITP states that “the additional procurement costs for CNG vehicles are still between 20 and 25% and have not shown any reduction over recent years. These extra costs do not include the often high investments for fixed equipment (refuelling facilities, safety, etc…).These high investment costs are however balanced by the fact that the price evolution of natural gas does not follow the same pattern as for liquid fossil fuels. Some operators are already experiencing some relief from the favourable difference in price between CNG and diesel fuel on a km basis”. Moreover, for the time being all the disadvantages associated in the past to CNG buses (such as, for instance, reduced range and the gas cylinder weight) have been overcome. From the point of view of the range (calculated in km/day) today’s carbon fibre cylinders allow an identical urban use of CNG buses as diesel ones. This result is the proof that negative opinions on natural gas buses, also recently expressed, had not taken into account the potential technological development of this industrial sector. An approach that could be judged rather paradoxical because it overlooked what was going on in the research&development sector of the hydrogen bus tanks.

1.2 Emissions Up to the early 2000 years, compared to diesel buses the CNG technology already offered better performance in relationship to particulate emissions. In the year 2003 natural gas buses managed to reach the EEV emission standard level, before diesel V did so. On the contrary, in the next future diesel V and CNG buses performances will not differ much from each other.

1.3 Costs In the recent past, at present and in the next future, the cost trend of the fossil fuels - compared to the diesel cost - has favoured, is favouring and will favour the CNG technology one. In addition, public transport companies, whose natural gas filling station dimensions have been optimal planned, will further benefit from the possibility of saturating the filling capacity still at disposal. On the contrary, when the filling capacity is reached, the LPT company which buys new CNG buses has to build - of course - another filling station. As far as the vehicle cost is concerned, compared to Euro V buses CNG vehicles cost around 35,000 to 50,000 euros more, while maintenance costs are getting year after year comparable. The above mentioned considerations match those local public transport companies which have already invested in CNG bus fleets. Another item to highlight refers to biogas as an alternative fuel to CNG produced in landfill or water cleaning plants. Biogas represents the solution to energy dependency, which is also economically convenient.

1.4 Management and purchase policies At present the cost difference between a CNG bus and an hybrid one is so big that the extra costs for building the necessary natural gas filling station can be easily written off, provided that they are

7

linked up with the procurement of a remarkably high number of CNG buses with respect to the total bus fleet amount. In other words, CNG technology is not worthwhile for small experimental procurements by those operators who run big bus fleets. On the other hand, a small urban bus fleet is worthwhile if it is entirely made up with CNG vehicles. On average a natural gas filling station costs 2000 euros for each bus. Cost variations depend on the quantity of the compressors and the connected refuelling supply points.

8

Chapter 2 - HYBRID BUS TECHNOLOGY -

2.1 Hybrid, the new frontier of clean technology Still according to the UITP, “hybrid vehicles appear in the immediate future to represent a possible alternative technology. The technology is indeed regarded by manufacturers as a way to dramatically improve bus environmental performances”. On quoting again the State of the art report “the twofold source of driving energy is understood as hybrid, where full power is obtained by addition of the power supplied by some energy storage system and by the fuel cell stacks. Energy storage systems offer a variety of alternatives, some still under intense research, or tests (supercapacitors, superconductors), and others needing some adaptation (flywheels). The semi-continuous or even continuous recharging of the batteries during the journey, allows the basic energy supplier (engines, fuel cells) to be much smaller (and cheaper) than in a conventional vehicle. Naturally, fuel saving depends upon the conditions under which the respective vehicle is used. Some manufacturers estimate the potential decrease in fuel consumption of 20 to 30%. Another advantage of the technology is the bus ability to run only on electric supply for a good share of the route, notably at bus stops where the diesel pollution shows to be the highest. Lastly, according to manufacturers, the over-cost (about 30%, estimates Mercedes) should be paid off in less than 6 years. All manufacturers are now working on the development of this technology, with two technical choices available: series and parallel”.

2.2 Hybrid characteristics The study “Hybrids for road transport” carried out in 2005 by IE (Institute for Energy) and IPTS (Institute for Prospective technological Studies) for the European Commission (DG Joint Research Centre), although referred to hybrid cars, represents a useful tool to point out and understand the basic positive aspects of the hybrid technology, which can apply also to Hybrid buses. As a general principle, the above mentioned study outlines that “hybridisation allows part of the energy produced by the internal combustion engine to be stored and be subsequently used by an electric motor as a main or secondary power source for the vehicle”. “As a result”, it continues, “energy losses are reduced and the internal combustion engine can be down-sized”. Thanks to the these energy efficiency characteristics and the resulting lower fuel consumption and emissions, hybrid technology pathway features a promising option to help decrease dependency on fossil fuels, greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and pollutants from transport. The most striking negative aspect is the increased cost of hybrid buses compared to other typologies, since batteries, electric motors and control electronics have to be added to the basic components of the vehicles. In hybrid technology a large amount of the increased energy efficiency is obtained by capturing the energy from braking that is normally lost in conventional vehicles, which can lose from braking up to 46% of all tractive losses. On the contrary, “hybrid vehicles can capture a part of this energy lost, store it and use it to provide traction through an electric motor. In addition, hybrids allow a more efficient operation of the main power source and the reduction of idle operation. Engines are designed to meet high levels of peak power for acceleration, but are normally operated at only a small fraction of that power, where they are quite inefficient. A hybrid vehicle can reduce the associated energy losses, by using the electrical storage device to either absorb or increase the output of the engine, allowing it to operate at speeds and loads where it is most efficient. Since part of the propulsion power for the vehicle is provided by the electrical storage device, the main power source (internal combustion engine) of the vehicle can be downsized, both in dimensions and weight. Downsizing also allows the engine to be run at a higher fraction of its rated power, generally at higher efficiency. Furthermore, the reduced weight of the engine has also a positive impact on fuel economy”.

9

According to the above mentioned study, especially parallel hybrid (the new generation of this technology) could “exploit further improvements in internal combustion engine efficiency, batteries and increased power electronics efficiency”.

2.3 Efficiency gains “Because of the varying driving conditions, especially in an urban context, a vehicle’s internal combustion engine does not usually operate at its highest efficiency range, which in most case corresponds to a constant speed in the area of 90-120 km/h. Hybrids allow the average power required to be provided by a thermal engine running at peak efficiency and cover peak power demand by using the electric motor. Hybrid vehicles by definition have greater efficiency than conventional vehicles due to several reasons: • The electric generator can be optimised at maximum efficiency • The electric motor can be optimised for drive and regeneration mode • State of the art electronics operate with minimum losses • Battery storage can be optimised (no deep discharges) • Minimum transmission losses • Minimum energy losses during braking • Potential for using several engine technologies Real-life measurements (for hybrids cars, added note) show a fuel economy improvement of 9% to 18%. Regenerative braking alone can lead to an improvement of approximately 17%, while the maximum (theoretical) fuel economy improvement that can be obtained with hybrids is 50% to 60%”.

2.4 What makes hybrid bus procurement worth For the urban Local Public Transport the medium-term scenario foresees:

• electric vehicles as a niche, especially in the case of already existing electrified networks • trolley buses • CNG vehicles • Hybrid

while due to pollution, fuel consumption associated to increasing cost, diesel bus fleets are more or less fast going to decrease. As far as hybrid vehicles are concerned, their ‘marketing mix’ is a combination of fuel economy (low cost of use), low emissions (environmental friendliness), at an higher purchase price. The questions to be put are: Does the improved fuel economy pay off a part or the whole of it? Besides, are DE-Hybrid maintenance cost much higher than by CNG? Purchase decision process should consider cost (purchase, use, maintenance, fuel, etc.), performance, reliability, safety. At present, the higher purchase price, the decreased fuel efficiency advantage outside urban areas lead hybrid to a weak competitive position in terms of overall cost per km driven. From a pure economic point of view, both CNG and diesel are cheapest options, therefore they currently dominate the market. On the other hand, if we consider the environmental external cost, DE-Hybrid can represent an interesting option, especially if we take into account the possibility that purchase price could decrease in the next future while the reliability of these vehicles could increase. Increasing oil prices could certainly favour hybrid penetration in the long term, while oil price beyond US$ 120 per barrel could favour and accelerate the research on fuel cells, which could become competitive and start entering the market by 2020.

10

The graph above shows how an hybrid bus of the Bologna ATC’s fleet works: in light blu the speed curves, in red the traction function and in green the batteries function. The speed (y-axes) can vary from 0 to about 40 km/hour. The vehicle functioning can be distinguished in three different phases: a) the vehicle speeds up (please read the graph from the left side to the right) up to the maximum (40 km/h); in this phase traction and batteries have a plus sign (+), i.e. energy is being used; b) in this phase the vehicle has reached its highest speed and works on a constant movement basis; batteries and traction are represented by horizontal curves; c) this is the phase when the vehicle slows down and the speed tends to 0; traction and batteries have a minus sign (-), although from an energy viewpoint batteries are recharging and recovering energy. In conclusion, just due to their characteristic to be provided with both an internal combustion engine and an electric one, hybrid vehicles are better equipped in the energy cycle, therefore they can recover energy.

2.5 Different hybrid technologies Hybrid technologies can be distinguished in serial, parallel or mixed configuration. According to our information, the initial experiences made in Italy with old generation hybrid (generally featured by a serial configuration) have been rather negative. In Ferrara, for instance, 8 DE-hybrid buses 12 meters long are no more circulating, the same situation applies to 20 hybrid buses in Rome, to 16 in Genoa and to 4 in Terni. All these buses have been produced by Iveco. Ferrara has also experienced the CNG-E hybrid technology in serial configuration with the same negative result. On the other side, in Bologna are now circulating 11 DE-Hybrid buses made by Bredamenarinibus, which are performing positively.

-150,0

-100,0

-50,0

-

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

-5,0

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

P_batterie_[kW]

P_Trazione[kW]

Velicità_veicolo

11

2.6 Series hybrid configuration In the above mentioned study “Hybrids for road transport” after a basic description of the hybrid technology, the different set-up options are quite clearly outlined. “In the hybrid series configuration the motor obtains electrical energy from either a battery pack through a power electronic converter or from a generator powered by the Internal Combustion Engine. A controller determines how the power is shared between the battery and the engine-generator set. The engine-generator set generally supplies the average demanded power while the battery supplies peak power. It should be mentioned that instead of a battery other energy storage devices such as flywheels or supercapacitors can be used. Under low load conditions or braking, the battery is recharged. Series hybrids do not require charging from the grid as they are charge-sustainable. The series hybrid drivetrain is the simplest configuration. Since the electric motor alone drives the wheels, no clutch or complicated multispeed transmission is required. At the same time, the engine can be run at close to constant speed and share its electrical output between charging the battery and supplying power to the motor to drive the wheels. This minimises emissions. The absence of connection of the engine to the wheels opens the door to using “unconventional” engine types, such as gas turbines, Atkinson or Sterling engines, rather than more conventional gasoline engines. Series hybrids with a diesel engine can be quite fuel efficient and offer the advantage that exhaust after treatment systems, such as deNOx can be kept simple as a result of the more or less stationary load. Series hybrids show to their greatest advantage under slow operating conditions characterised by “stop-and-go” driving. During high-speed and highway driving, the inefficiency of always converting the mechanical energy of the engine to electrical energy, storing some of it and re-converting it into mechanical power at the wheels should be taken into account. For this reason, most of the series hybrids currently under development are for buses or other heavy-duty urban vehicles, whose mission is well known. There is also the option of not using an electric storage device and the series hybrid configuration is reduced to a “diesel-electric” transmission. These are widely used in applications such as buses and trains where a full size diesel engine drives a generator, which in turn provides power to the electric motor(s) and drives the wheel(s). However, the energy losses in such application might seem high, these kind of systems can match to large scale applications such as locomotives, big trucks and busses where the power supply needed is relatively constant. One of the advantages of series type hybrid vehicles is the possibility for the primary energy source to work in stable load conditions thus avoiding the variable power requirements of the load. An intrinsic disadvantage of these traction systems is the complexity of the energy chain. Consequently one risks obtaining a low overall energy transformation efficiency, unless high efficiency electronic components are used to achieve an optimized control. It can be noted that in general “Series hybrid configuration systems” are more favourable for medium to large-scale applications. Theoretically in a “series hybrid” system, a Diesel or Petrol thermal engine, a CNG/LPG, a rotary, a microturbine or a fuel cell can be adopted without having significant problems. The type of engine that will be used depends upon the use of the vehicle. However, since most of the application using serial configuration are of large scale, diesel engines are mainly preferred due to their known reliable technology”.

2.7 Parallel hybrid configuration In a parallel hybrid electric vehicle, both the engine and the motor can drive the wheels. Parallel drivetrains are mechanically more complicated than series drivetrains. A rather complicated transmission system is required to allow the engine to drive the wheels. There must also be a means of coupling the thermal engine, motor and transmission. A controller compares the driver demand with the wheel speed and output torque. As in series hybrids, the battery pack in parallel hybrids can be recharged through regenerative braking. Since parallel drivetrains typically use smaller battery packs, much of the recharging can be done this way. In addition, the electric motor can be turned into a generator during normal driving to recharge the batteries…There are different technological options for the realisation of parallel hybrid architectures. The most classical configuration is the one having a conventional engine and an electric traction system driven by a

12

battery. These systems are coupled at the transmission or at the wheels. The two propulsion systems are independent, meaning that it is possible to drive the vehicle in a pure thermal mode, a pure electric mode or in a hybrid mode. During thermal mode, the presence of the electric motor makes possible to have regenerative braking. During hybrid mode, the engine can also be used to charge the battery…The independence of the two driving propulsion systems means that pure electric mode can be used for urban driving in order to minimise emissions… Although series hybrids are mechanically simpler than parallel hybrids and would seem to be easier to design, an important advantage of the parallel hybrid is that it can obtain the efficiency advantages of the series hybrid (use of regenerative braking, engine downsizing, and maintenance of engine operation in the better parts of its operating map) with a more efficient connection of engine shaft power to the wheels. In other words, the combination of transmission, torque converter and differential is more efficient than series hybrid’s shaft-to-wheel path of generator/alternator, (possibly) inverter, motor/controller, transmission or reduction gear and (unless direct drive wheel motors are used) differential. Another major advantage is that a parallel hybrid’s electric motor will be significantly smaller than that required on a series hybrid, since in the series case the motor provides the sole motive power to the wheels. …When long trips are performed regularly in urban highways, parallel hybrids are more efficient than series hybrids. However, there exists a trend of using a parallel architecture also for lorries and long range (tourism) buses, using a “switch” button: when driving on the motorway, the already optimised diesel mode is used, while in urban regions it is possible to switch to the electrical mode. By doing so, one can drive more fuel-efficiently and less polluting in urban regions. Furthermore, noise reduction can be considered as a big advantage in city regions”.

2.8 Series/Parallel or Combined hybrid-electric vehicles In the car hybrids industry, the Toyota Prius has adopted a new concept that combines many of the advantages of the parallel drivetrain with the series drivetrain’s ability to maintain engine operation near its most efficient operating point. In the combined hybrid electric vehicle its drivetrain partially operates as a series hybrid and partially as a parallel hybrid. This is done at the expense of two electric machines, a relatively complex transmission and an intelligent control system. However, due to a high level of system integration, it has been able to achieve an efficient configuration in a cost-effective way. The series/parallel design is similar to the basic parallel drivetrain in that the engine can drive the wheels directly. What makes the design unique, is that the engine can be effectively disconnected from the transmission and operated in the same way as a series drivetrains’ engine/generator set. As a result, the engine can operate near optimum efficiency more often. During lower-speed driving, the engine is disconnected from the demands of the wheels and the vehicle operates with many of the efficiency benefits of the series drivetrain. During higher-speed driving, when the engine can power the wheels efficiently, the inefficient energy-conversion steps of the series drivetrain can be avoided or minimised.

2.9 Mechanical hybrids Mechanical hybrids are also being developed. They differ from the above in the sense that no electrical components are used. Instead, a mechanical flywheel connected to the transmission is used to supply peak power and takes up power during driving and regenerative braking. The transmission is generally of the CVT type. The engine is partially uncoupled from the road load leading to increased efficiency and reduced emissions.

13

2.10 Electricity storage technologies Battery and storage technologies are dramatically evolving.

2.10.1.Battery The penetration of the hybrid technology on the car market will accelerate in the short term the development of reliable battery technology and storage systems.

2.10.2 Battery life cycle analysis The European Battery Recycling Association (EBRA) has recognised the need to work towards an established system of advanced battery dismantling, disposal and recycling. Besides this, Europe is a net importer of all the needed materials, and recovery of the recycled streams could help decrease the dependency on imports. Speaking from the point of view of clean vehicles for LPT, the life cycle of battery components can lead to discharges of toxic materials. These will increase drastically for the metals involved in batteries, if there will be a significant penetration of the market by these vehicles. On the other hand, if lead-acid batteries used nowadays are reduced in size or phased out, there will be an offset in the impacts arising from their life-cycle. These however are issues that have to be examined with relation to specific pathways and should be the object of targeted Life Cycle Assessments. As far as car industry is concerned, according to the above mentioned study the production of hybrid vehicles is more energy intensive. Nevertheless, the energy and CO2 reduction benefits arising from the fuel economy over the life cycle of the vehicle is bigger than the energy demand in the production stage.

2.10.3 Supercapacitors Compared to batteries, supercapacitors represent an innovative technology which is developing very fast. It means that on the market there are already competitive options to choose from, both from a technological and from an economic point of view. Therefore storage systems and batteries are not perceived any longer as a critical, problematic aspect of the hybrid technology, although it must be said that their development will be influenced by the produced vehicle mass. This is another reason why project like COMPRO can positively act in favour of speeding up this process.

14

Chapter 3 - BASIC COST/EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS -

As we have stated in the introduction, the comparison between the selected technologies should be based on several parameters, both technological, financial, environmental and planning-based, such as reliability, deployment flexibility, fuel price, range, exhausted gas emissions, noise, extra infrastructures need. For a first basic approach to the cost/effectiveness compared analysis of CNG and DE-Hybrid, in order to better highlight advantages and inconveniences of the two technologies, it can help to compare them with conventional diesel, which is the most spread bus technology.

3.1 Comparative cost/effectiveness analysis between conventional Euro 5 diesel bus and CNG bus technology. If we compare conventional diesel bus technology and CNG technology we see that referring to

• experience on road: they have been both fully experienced; • extra infrastructure: CNG needs an extra natural gas filling station to be built • range: diesel can guarantee a higher range, while CNG range depends on the availability

of a natural gas filling station within a certain distance • pollution: Pm and NOx emissions are higher than in the case of CNG, which does not

produce PM at all, while NOx are more problematic • fuel cost: diesel cost is rapidly increasing (in Italy one litre diesel costs almost as one litre

gasoline, that is), while natural gas costs almost half so much as diesel (that is…) • vehicle cost: CNG buses cost about 30.000 euros each more than diesel ones • noise: diesel buses are more noisy than CNG ones • energy source dependence: they both depend on energy import.

3.2 Comparative cost/effectiveness analysis between conventional Euro 5 diesel bus and DE-hybrid bus technology If we compare conventional diesel bus technology and DE-hybrid bus technology we see that referring to

• experience on road: in Europe conventional diesel technology is much more experienced than DE-Hybrids one;

• range: they can both guarantee a high range (DE-hybrid can assure a slight better performance)

• pollution: DE-hybrid technology strongly reduces Pm, NOx and CO2 emissions, while conventional diesel technology is responsible for higher emissions

• fuel consumption: DE-hybrid strongly reduces fuel consumption • fuel cost: diesel cost is rapidly increasing (in Italy one litre diesel costs so much as one

litre gasoline, that is more than 1.5 euro), therefore the reduced fuel consumption by DE-hybrid buses indirectly cuts the the consumed fuel cost

• vehicle cost: DE-hybrid buses cost about 150.000 euros each more than conventional diesel ones

• noise: diesel buses are more noisy than DE-hybrids ones • energy source dependence: by DE-hybrid technology we have a reduced dependence on

mineral oil import

15

3.3 Comparative cost/effectiveness analysis between CNG bus and DE-hybrid technology If we compare CNG technology and DE-hybrid bus technology we see that, as far as

• experience on road is concerned: in Europe CNG technology is much more experienced, while DE-hybrid is only partially experienced

• extra infrastructure is concerned: CNG needs an extra natural gas filling station to be built; for already existing filling station, the possibility of saturating its capacity represents an advantage

• range is concerned: DE-hybrid can assure an higher range, while CNG provides a reduced range depending on the availability of a natural gas filling station

• pollution is concerned: DE-hybrid technology strongly reduces Pm, NOx and CO2 emissions, while CNG technology is responsible for higher CO2 and no PM emissions

• fuel consumption is concerned: DE-hybrid strongly reduces fuel consumption • fuel cost is concerned: diesel cost is rapidly increasing (in Italy one litre diesel costs so

much as one litre gasoline, that is 1,5 euro), while natural gas costs almost half so much as diesel

• vehicle cost is concerned: DE-hybrid buses cost about 120.000 euros each more than CNG ones

• noise is concerned: DE-hybrid buses are less noisy than CNG ones • energy source dependence is concerned: there is a reduced dependence on energy

import by DE-hybrid technology, while CNG technology depends on natural gas import. The considerations made above can be summarised in the following tables, which were presented by Bremen at the COMPRO kick-off meeting held in Bruxelles (in the present version they have been modified in relationship to the filling station item). Advantages of each compared technology are featured in green, disadvantages in red. These considerations will be widen in the following chapter with observations dealing with operating and planning, since the best technology choice depends also on the existing bus fleet and on the bus line features on which the vehicles will be deployed. Diesel

• Experienced • High range • Pollution (PM + NOx) • Noise • Increasing fuel costs • Dependence on mineral oil

CNG • fuel filling station infrastructure:

new one to be built saturation of the existing filling station capacity

• Reduced range • Low emission / no PM • Low fuel costs (74 ct/kg) • Higher vehicle costs

(+30.000 €) • Dependence on imported gas

Diesel

• Experienced • High range • Pollution (PM + NOx) • Noise • Increasing fuel costs • Dependence on mineral oil

DE-hybrid • High range + • Low emission • Reduced consumption • Reduced CO2 • Reduced noise • Higher vehicle costs

(+150.000 €) • Partially experienced (more in the Usa

16

than in Europe)

CNG • fuel filling station

infrastructure: new one saturation of the existing filling station capacity

• Reduced range • Low emission / no PM • Low fuel costs (74 ct/kg) • Higher vehicle costs

(+30.000 €) • Dependence on imported gas

(DE)-Hybrid • High range + • Low emission • Reduced consumption • Reduced CO2 • Reduced noise • Higher vehicle costs

(+150.000 €) • Not yet experienced

in Europe

Source: City of Bremen, Mobility department In the next paragraphs a deeper analysis will follow on some specific items: fuel price, energy efficiency, maintenance, infrastructures and deployment. Fuel price trend comparison CNG price trend Also in the future natural gas price is going to confirm a considerable economic positive gap compared to diesel price since natural gas transport costs will further decrease thanks to the creation of new gas pipeline and/ or gasifiers. More over, compared to diesel CNG does not imply refining costs.

Long term Price of Natural Gas and Crude Oil

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

$/M

Btu

LT Price of Natural Gas Brent 6 Month Brent Average

17

Diesel price trend On the contrary, diesel price has dramatically increased all over Europe (and USA) and is going to keep on increasing. Trend of Diesel costs within three years (January 02 up to October 2004) The following charts outline diesel price composition variation from 1970 to 2007 in Italy.

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

gen-

02 Apr Jul

Oct

gen-

03 Apr Jul

Oct

gen-

04 Apr Jul

DIESEL INDUSTRIAL PRICE AND TAX IN ITALY

Tax Industrial price

18

3.4 Efficiency comparison As the following graph shows, if we compare the performance of CNG and DE-hybrid buses on the all-around- efficiency level (that is from well to wheel), the latter – no matter how featured - are better performing than the former, (and than fuel cell and all electric ones, too).

DIESEL PRICE STRUCTURE AND VARIATIONS FROM 2003 TO 2007

Oil company ‘s margin

Operator’s margin

Platts

VAT

Tax

Short term variations are determined by PLATTS

Average 2007Average 2003

19

3.5 Vehicle technology choice criteria finalized to the bus deployment (urban, suburban, long distance) Apart from the vehicle purchase, maintenance and fuel costs, from the viewpoint of a complete cost/effectiveness analysis rational transport planning requires also that the choice for the most suitable vehicle typology is made according to some other basic parameters, such as :

• distances to be covered • passenger demand • environmental impact, emissions, (energy consumption) • vehicle quality (comfort, noise, accessibility) • time needed to implement the network (vehicle recruitment on the market, tenders,

etc…) in the full respect of national and European laws and directives. In few words, as already stated above, the choice for the right vehicle typology in the right place is determined not only by the price but should also take into account the distance and the relationship to the existing fleet typology network. As far as CNG and hybrid technologies are concerned, the basic choice guide-lines for a rational planning approach will be dealt with in the following paragraph on flexibility and distance to be covered.

3.6 Flexibility For urban bus lines CNG vehicles are more flexible and easier replaceable drive system Deployment flexibility/easy

vehicle replacement in urban areas

Hybrid Less flexible

20

CNG More flexible

3.7 Distance to be covered At present, CNG vehicles offer a larger deployment option. Namely, while they can be adopted both for the whole urban area (like diesel buses) and for those suburban lines which end in the bus depot, a rational use of hybrid vehicles is limited only to those urban bus lines which allow battery recharge, since the route to be covered by means of the electric engine (that is when the internal combustion engine is switched off) cannot exceed 3 km. Drive system Urban use Suburban use Long distance

routes Hybrid Suitable for bus lines

crossing town centres and featured by routes which allow battery recharge

Unsuitable Unsuitable

CNG Suitable for the whole urban area

Limited to bus lines which end in the bus depot

Unsuitable

The graphes above and below show the good and bad use of the two bus typologies: the hybrid one (in blue) and the CNG one (in red). This chart try to highlight that hybrids buses match short city centre routes and not mainstream bus lines, which on the contrary are suitable for CNG and diesel vehicles.

Hybrid non sense

Hybrid line

21

Good hybrid choice !!!

Hybrid line

22

Chapter 4 - RER’s Survey on CNG and hybrid vehicles on the market -

4.1 Cost-effectiveness analysis In order to go deeper in the cost/effectiveness analysis and to place it in a concrete vehicle market frame, it is necessary to know which kind of buses – either CNG or hybrid – are already on the European market. For this reason, information on the vehicle models currently available have been collected from the manufacturers who have participated to the workshop organized during the public presentation of the COMPRO project in Nantes (march 2008), precisely:

• Bredamenarinibus • Evobus • Irisbus • Heuliezbus • MAN • Solarisbus • VOLVO

RER has also contacted Phileas, which was not present in Nantes. For collecting the data required for the survey, RER has expressly developed a basic template on CNG and hybrid buses and mailed it to all the manufacturers. Afterwards they have been individually contacted by means of telephone interviews. This is the template of the data required for CNG:

• VEHICLE MODEL/NAME

• Vehicle features

o length o weight o seats/passengers (range) o optional items (i.e. low platform, etc…)

• Emissions o euro NORM o exhausted gases (NOx, PM10,etc) (100 KM) o CO2 emissions (100 KM) o Noise o Noise Abatement (difference between Model and standard Diesel Euro 5

• Engine equipment

o Thermal engine (fuel typology, capacity cc, power KW, torque NM, others) o CNG bottles ( typology, KM, others)

• Reliability/Performance o range o others o Max speed

• Costs o vehicle price o vehicle life (KM)

23

o bottle maintenance cost o vehicle maintenance cost (100 KM) o urban cycle fuel consumption in Kg (100 Km) o suburban cycle fuel consumption in Kg (100 Km) o others

This is the template of the data required for hybrid:

• VEHICLE MODEL/NAME

• Vehicle features o length o weight o seats/passengers (range) o optional items (i.e. low platform, etc…)

• Emissions

o euro NORM o exhausted gases (NOx, PM10,etc) (100 KM) o CO2 emissions (100 KM) o Noise o Noise Abatement (difference between Model and standard Diesel Euro 5

• ENGINE EQUIPMENT (serial, parallel, others)

o Electric engine (model, KW) o Thermal engine (fuel typology, capacity cc, power KW, torque NM, others) o energy storage (battery typology) o braking energy recovery

• Reliability/Performance

o range o others o max speed o stops per km o zero emission range (battery range)

• Costs

o vehicle price o vehicle life (KM) o battery cost o battery life (KM) o vehicle maintenance cost (100 KM) o battery maintenance (100 KM) o urban cycle fuel consumption (100 Km) o suburban cycle fuel consumption (100 Km)

• others

• Infrastructures o battery recovery station o others

4.2 Survey outputs The data collected so far are presented in the following tables. It is to be underlined that not all the manufacturers have answered. Specifically, most of the data concerning hybrid buses were not

24

delivered because many models are still prototypes and not available on the market yet. Some manufacturers answered that the prototypes haven’t been tested already or that not all their features can be disclosed yet (Irisbus, Solarisbus). As far as Heuliez bus is concerned, no data at all have been communicated about the Hybrid bus because the prototype is still in an initial developing step.

4.2.1 Hybrid buses: Hybrid buses 12 mt Bredamenarinibus IRISBUS VOLVO

VEHICLE MODEL/NAME ALTERECO Citelis Single deck vehicle features

length 12,m 12m 12m

weight 12.500kg 11,5 t n.a.d.

seats/passengers (range) 20/35 seats 90/95 total Same as diesel Same as diesel

optional (i.e. low platform, etc…) Air Conditioning, total low floor

100% low floor /

Emissions euro NORM EURO 3 EEV Euro5 EEV exhausted gases (Nox, PM10,etc)

(100 KM) referred to the engine CO=0,8 HC=0,12 NOx=4,39 PM=0,07 (gr/Kwh)

PM close to 0;500g Nox/100Km

Emision on road is expected to be 40-50 % lower than comparable diesel vehicle.

CO2 emissions (100 KM) not available, it depends on the duty cycle which is not standardized for buses

100Kg 20-30 % lower

Noise (EEC 92/97 exterior running level)

75,6 dB(A) / lower then diesel Electric start

Noise Abatement (difference between Model and standard Diesel Euro 5

no -4dB

ENGINE EQUIPMENT (serial, parallel, others)

serial

Electric engine (model, KW) for traction

SIEMENS 2 x 67 Kw 2*67kW (nominal) Siemens AC

120Kw

Thermic engine (fuel typology, capacity cc, power KW, torque NM, others)

Mercedes 130 Kw, 4300cc,700 Nm

Diesel, 3900cm3, 125kW, 560Nm, 390kg

5 litre 215Kw, 800Nm, Diesel engine

energy storage (battery typology) ZEBRA NiMh Li-ion braking energy recovery yes Yes

Reliability/Performance Same as diesel

range 400 Km > 400Km No limits Depending on tank size

others zero emission range (battery

range) 5-6 km n.a.d.

Max speed 65-70 km n.a.d.

Costs vehicle price 400.000 € Not public n.a.d.

vehicle life (KM) 700-800.000 Km 600 000Km. n.a.d.

battery cost 40.000 € Not public n.a.d.

battery life (KM) approximately 150.000 Km Lifetime n.a.d.

vehicle maintenance cost (100 KM) (tyres excluded)

20 €/100 Km Same as diesel n.a.d.

battery maintenance (100 KM) (replacement)

26 €/100 Km No maintenance n.a.d.

urban cycle fuel consumption (100 Km)

30 litres/100 Km (no AC) 30 to35 l/100Km n.a.d.

suburban cycle fuel consumption (100 Km)

30-35 litres/100 Km (no AC)

25 l/100Km n.a.d.

others

25

Infrastructures NO n.a.d.

battery recovery station not required NO n.a.d.

others NO n.a.d.

Table 1 – Hybrid buses 12 mt

Referring to 12 m DE-hybrid buses, 3 manufacturers has answered: Bredamenarini, Irisbus e Volvo. Bredamenarini’s bus is the only manufacturer that has sent all the data required in the survey, while for Irisbus and Volvo not all the data are available because the models are still prototypes and not all the data have already been published. As far as the vehicle general features are concerned, all three bus models can transport the same number of passengers as conventional diesel equivalent vehicles. Irisbus and Bredamenarini have specified that the bus is equipped with low floor; although it has not been specified, probably it is the same for Volvo vehicles too. The emission section shows more differentiated datas: Bredamenarini presents an Euro 3 Bus while Volvo and Irisbus buses comply with EEV standard, (Euro 5 for Volvo). The data on the emission measurements declared by the manufacturers are not comparable:

• Breadamnarini expresses the data in g/kwh unit of measure: CO=0,8 HC=0,12 NOx=4,39 PM=0,07

• Irisbus expresses the data in g/100km unit of measure (as required in the template): PM near to 0, NOx approx 500 g per 100km

• Volvo expresses the measurement in comparison to a conventional diesel equivalent model, that is 40-50% less emissions in favour of the DE-hybrid model

The same situation applies the CO2 emissions: • Bredamenarini did not send any data because it does not exist a standard duty cycle for

buses, • Irisbus declares approx 100kg per 100km • Volvo affirms that CO2 emissions should be approximately 20-30% less than on a

conventional diesel equivalent bus. As far as noise emission are concerned Bredamenarini bus does not guarantee a noise reduction in comparison conventional diesel buses, while Irisbus indicates a reduction of 4 db compared to diesel buses, and Volvo does not specify the amount of the reduction. Taking into account the engine equipment section, the three models mount similar electric engine (Bredamenarini and Irisbus 2*67kw while Volvo 1*20kw total). The thermal (internal combustion engine) generator is more differentiated:

• Breadmenarini: Mercedes 130 Kw, 4300cc,700 Nm • Irisbus: 3900cm3, 125kW, 560Nm, 390kg • Volvo: 5 litre 215Kw, 800Nm, Diesel engine

The electric battery equipment is different for each bus: • Bredamenarini uses Zebra battery, • Irisbus NiMh, • Volvo Li-ion

The performance section was not filled in in the same way by each of the three manufacturers; the only data declared by all refer to the range (that is 400km for Bredamenarini, more than 400 km for Irisbus, and “depend on tank dimension” for Volvo). In general we can argue that the range is comparable to diesel buses. Other data, such as zero emission range (5-6 km) and max speed (65-70 km/h) were sent just by Bredamenarini. With reference to the vehicle cost we have received the answer only from Bredamenarini (that is 400,000 €). Breadamenarini declares a vehicle life cycle of approximately 700-800,000 km, Irisbus a little lower one (600,000 km), while Volvo has not answered. Battery cost is shown only by Bredamearini (40,000 €). Battery life cycle is radically different between Bredamenarini (150,000 km declared) and Irisbus, since the latter declares no need to change it during the bus lifetime.

26

Vehicle maintenance cost is 20€ per 100 km for Bredamenarini bus, and declared to be “the same as for diesel” for Irisbus. While Bredamenarini needs a battery maintenance cost of 26€/100 Km, Irisbus does not declare this cost. Fuel consumption is basically the same for Bredamenarini and Irisbus in urban cycle duty (30liters/100km Bedamenarini, 30-35liters/100Km Irisbus); ion the other hand it is rather different in the suburban cycle duty: 30-35liters/100Km for Bredamenarini versus 25liters /100Km for Irisbus. None of the three manufacturers declares to need specific infrastructural investments. Hybrids 18 mt EVOBUS Phileas Solarisbus

VEHICLE MODEL/NAME CITARO G Phileas 18m Phileas 18m

vehicle features length 17,940 m 18,48 m 18,48 m 18m weight 28.000 kg 16.100 kg 16.650 kg 17700 kg approx. seats/passengers (range) 45 29 / 111 29 / 111 48/140 optional (i.e. low platform,

etc…) light weight body, all

wheel steering, independent wheel suspension, electronic guidance, level boarding

light weight body, all wheel steering, independent wheel suspension, electronic guidance, level boarding

Low Floor

Emissions euro NORM Euro 4 EEV Euro IV EURO "5-" exhausted gases (Nox,

PM10,etc) (100 KM) referred to the engine

NOx 1,28 g/kwh PM 0,013 g/kwh

CO2 emissions (100 KM) depends on fuel consumption


< 76 - 78 dBa < 76 - 78 dBa 77

Noise Abatement (difference between Model and standard Diesel Euro 5

Lower than diesel buses

Lower than diesel buses

ENGINE EQUIPMENT (serial, parallel, others)

Electric engine (model, KW) for traction

4X80 KW 2 electric allison motors of 80kW each

2 electric allison motors of 80kW each

built in 2x75kW


160 KW Diesel Cummins ISB 250 / 250 hp / 185 kW / 1020 Nm at 1200 - 1700 rpm

Diesel Cummins ISL 340 / 340 hp / 252 kW / 1500 Nm at 1200 - 1400 rpm

Cummins ISBe5-; 6,7l; 186kW

energy storage (battery typology)

170 KW NiMeHidride Panasonic

NiMeHidride Panasonic NiMH

braking energy recovery Yes Yes yes Reliability/Performance

range 400 - 500 km 350 - 450 km

others

zero emission range (battery range)

Max speed Costs

vehicle price 1100000 1100000 vehicle life (KM) 20 years / 1,200,000

km 20 years / 1,200,000 km

12 years (70 000km/year)

battery cost 25.000 € 25.000 € replacement battery after 6 years included in the price

battery life (KM) approximately

5 - 7 year 5 - 7 year estimated 6 years


€ 0.60 - € 0.75 / km € 0.60 - € 0.75 / km from 0,20 EUR (depends on items to be considered, local conditions)

battery maintenance (100 KM) (replacement)

inclusive inclusive no maintenance

27

urban cycle fuel consumption (100 Km)

20% 30% less Depends on the use of the vehicle.

tests to be made in MAY

suburban cycle fuel consumption (100 Km)

Depends on the use of the vehicle.

tests to be made in MAY

others Infrastructures

battery recovery station Not necessary Not necessary no additional infrastructure

others Insertion of magnets Infrastructure development route € 150,000.00 per km double track / project costs 3 - 10%

Insertion of magnets Infrastructure development route € 150,000.00 per km double track / project costs 3 - 10%

Table 2 – Hybrid Buses 18 m

Three manufacturers filled in the template for the 18 m hybrid bus typology: Evobus, Phileas with two different models, and Solarisbus. Phileas buses seem not to be completly comparable with other manufacturers, since they need the realization of a special track in a specific route, like tramway. In the general features section a considerable difference emerges between Evobus weight and other manufacturers buses: Evobus model weights 28,000 kg, Phileas buses about 16,000 kg and Solarisbus about 17,700. Referring to the optional items, Solarisbus and Phileas are low floor equipped or level boarding (probably Evobus too, although it is not specified). Phileas buses have even more optional items: light weight body, all wheel steering, independent wheel suspension, electronic guidance. As far as the emission section is concerned, Evobus and Phileas declare the euro norm standard (that is Euro 4 for Evobus, and EEV or Euro 4 for Phileas), while Solarisbus has given more detailles: Euro 5, NOx 1,28 g/kwh, PM 0,013 g/kwh. None of the manufacturers sent data about CO2 emissions; Solarisbus just reminds that they depend on fuel consumption. Noise emission are similar in Phileas and Solarisbus buses (that is 76-78 db for Phileas and 77 db for Solarisbus). In the engine equipment session we can notice a deep difference between Evobus and the other manufacturers with reference to the electric engine:

• Evobus is equipped with 4*80kwh electric engine, • Both Phileas’s buses are equiped with a 2*80kwh electric engine, • Solarisbus is equiped with 2*75kwh electric engine.

The buses considered are equipped with thermal engines which vary from a minimum power of 160 Kwh to a maximum of 252:

• Evobus -160kwh • Phileas EEV - Diesel Cummins ISB 250 / 250 hp / 185 kW / 1020 Nm at 1200 - 1700 rpm • Phileas Euro IV - Diesel Cummins ISL 340 / 340 hp / 252 kW / 1500 Nm at 1200 - 1400

rpm • Solarisbus - Cummins ISBe5-; 6,7l; 186kW

For the reliability and performance section, the only available data is the range of Phileas buses that is between 400 and 500 km for the EEV bus and between 350 and 450 for the Euro 4. The other manufacturers did not send any of these data because the models are prototype and not all the data are available. Referring to the vehicle cost section, Evobus and Solarisbus have not declared the price of their prototypes yet. Phileas buses cost both 1,100,000. The vehicle life cycle is very long for Phileas (20 year about 1,200,000 km) and a little shorter for Solarisbus (12 years, 70,000km/year, approx. 840,000 km total). The battery life cycle is similar for Phileas buses and Solarisbus’s (5-7 years Phileas, 6 Solarisbus). There is a considerable difference in maintenance costs between Phileas and Solarisbus: the former declares 0,65 €/km, the latter only 0,20 €/km; both these data include battery maintenance costs. As before mentioned, the two vehicle typology offer a different kind of service and are not perfectly comparable.

28

The table does not show precise indications on fuel consumption; the only available information came from Evobus who declares 20-30% saving on fuel consumption compared to conventional diesel buses. Most of the data of this section are not available because the vehicles are still being tested. The infrastrucure section shows a remarkable difference between Solarisbus and Evobus on one side, and Phileas on the other: while the firsts do not need any infrastructure, Phileas buses need the adaptation of the road that implies on over-cost of 150,000 €/km. Hybrid (others) Phileas Volvo VEHICLE MODEL/NAME Phileas 24m Double deck vehicle features

length 24,49 m 10,2m weight 21.600 kg -150 seats/passengers (range) 46 / 125 Same as diesel optional (i.e. low platform, etc…) light weight body, all wheel steering,

independent wheel suspension, electronic guidance, level boarding

Emissions euro NORM Euro IV Euro5 EEV exhausted gases (Nox, PM10,etc) (100 KM)

referred to the engine Emision on road is expected to

be 40-50 % lower than comparable diesel vehicle.

CO2 emissions (100 KM) 20-30 % lower Noise (EEC 92/97 exterior running level) lower then diesel Electric start Noise Abatement (difference between Model

and standard Diesel Euro 5

ENGINE EQUIPMENT (serial, parallel, others) Electric engine (model, KW) for traction 2 electric allison motors of 80kW each Thermic engine (fuel typology, capacity cc,

power KW, torque NM, others) Diesel Cummins ISL 340 / 340 hp / 252 kW / 1500 Nm at 1200 - 1400 rpm

6 litre 215Kw, 800Nm, Diesel engine

energy storage (battery typology) NiMeHidride Panasonic Li-Jon braking energy recovery Yes

Reliability/Performance range 300 - 400 No limits others > 14% zero emission range (battery range) Max speed

Costs vehicle price 1290000 vehicle life (KM) 20 years / 1,200,000 km battery cost 25000 battery life (KM) approximately 5 - 7 year vehicle maintenance cost (100 KM) (tyres

excluded) € 0.60 - € 0.75 / km

battery maintenance (100 KM) (replacement) inclusive urban cycle fuel consumption (100 Km) suburban cycle fuel consumption (100 Km)

others Infrastructure development route € 150,000.00 per km double track / project costs 3 - 10%

Infrastructures battery recovery station Not necessary

Table 3 – Hybrid buses (others)

This table shows two different bus typologies: a double deck bus by Volvo and a 24 m Phileas bus. The data of these buses are not really comparable because they have completely different features and offer a different kind of service.

29

4.2.2 CNG Buses CNG 12 m Bredamenarinibus Evobus Heuliezbus Irisbus Volvo VEHICLE MODEL/NAME AVANCITY L Citaro CNC GX 327 GNV Citelis 12m Single deck vehicle features

length 12,00m 11, 950 m 12,04 m 12 m 12m weight 12.200 kg 11. 650 kg 19.845 kg 11.000 kg round 650 Kg more than

diesel vehicle seats/passengers

(range) 20/35 seats

90/100 total 31 > 110 round 7 to10 passengers

lower than diesel vehicle optional (i.e. low

platform, etc…) Air

Conditioning, Total low floor

100% low floor

Emissions euro NORM EEV Euro 4/EEV EEV EEV, Euro6

soon Euro5 EEV

exhausted gases (Nox, PM10,etc) (100 KM)

CO=0,00 HC=0,00 NOx=1,89 PM=0,00 CH4=0,15 (g/Kwh)

Nox 2 g/kw h PM 0,02g/kwh

2 g/kWh PM10

3g/kWh for CO

almost 0 PM, 200g Nox

CO2 emissions (100 KM)

not available, it depends on the duty cycle which is not standardized for buses

1,5 g/kw h 140KgCO2 Equal to Diesel when using CNG. 75 to 80 % reduction when using Biogas


75 dB 76,4 dB Lower than Diesel

Noise abatement no ENGINE EQUIPMENT


Mercedes 205 Kw, 6900cc, 1000 Nm

185 KW . Iveco Cursor 8 engine CNG . 7,8 dm3 . 200 kW at 2 000 rpm . 1 100 Nm at 1 100 rpm

Cursor 8 CNG, 7,8l

9litre, 221Kw, 1400Nm

CNG bottles ( typology, KM, others)

Type 3 /Type 4 (composite) 1284 litres

. 8 bootles of 155 litres . Composit material

Cylinders Containers comprise a liner of HDPE material (High Density Polyethylene) with a moulded-in anodized aluminium flange. The liner is enclosed in a composite material shell of carbon and epoxy. The bulbous ends are then further covered with an energy absorbing material which is then covered with fibreglass.

Reliability/Performance Same as diesel range 400 km > 400Km others 0 to 50

meters : 8.5 s 0 to 50 km/h :

13.6 s

max speed Km/h 85-90 km 90 km Costs

vehicle price (medium market price)

270000 260 to 300 K€ HT

Overcost 20-25%

vehicle life (KM) 700-800.000 km 15 years (depend of running conditions)

600000Km

30

bottle maintenaince cost

6 hours inspection / 4 years

20 years average life

No specific maintenance, replacement according to safety tests


25-30 €/100km 33,31 €/100 km

Over-cost on maintenance

urban cycle fuel consumption in Kg (100 Km)

45 kg/100km (no AC)

SORT 1 : 61,4 Nm3 (approx. 49,12kg/100km)SORT 2 : 50,9 Nm3 (approx 40,72)

suburban cycle fuel consumption in Kg (100 Km)

40 kg/100km (no AC)

Table 4 – CNG Buses 12 m

The table above refers to 12 m CNG buses; five manufacturers have answered: Bredamenarini, Evobus, Heuliezbus, Irisbus, Volvo. The table shows the bus weight of 4 out of 5 manufactures, 3 of them are around 11,000-12,000 kg (Bredamenarini, Evobus, Irisbus), while Heuliezbus is substantially heavier (more than 1,9000 kg). Volvo expresses the data in comparison to standard diesel buses, that is 650 kg more. Bredamenarini declares that his 12 CNG buses have a busload of 20/35 seats, a 90/100 total passenger capacity, Evobus declares 31 (probably with reference to seats, but it is not clearly specified) and Heuliezbus declares more than 110. Volvo only shows the data in comparison to diesel, i.e. that 7-10 passenger less. Only Bredamenarini and Irisbus specify that their buses are low floor equipped. As far as emissions are concerned, all buses comply with EEV standard; the differences refer to euro standard, specifically Evobus model is Euro 4 and Volvo Euro 5. More over Volvo will soon produce an Euro 6 bus. With reference to specific emissions, three manufacturers (Bredamenarini, Evobus and Irisbus) have similar performance in PM reduction (almost 0, or 0,02 g/kWh) and in NOx emissions (around 2 g/kwh), while Heuliezbus emits 2 g/kWh PM (which is rather high). Volvo has not sent any data about emissions. CO2 emission data are not comparable, because they are not expressed in the same measurement unit. As far as noise emissions are concerned, Bredamenarini and Irisbus differ from each other: Irisbus emits 76,4 db, while Bredamenarini 75 db (that is 1,4 db less). Engine equipment: 6,8 l for Bredamenarini , 9 l for Volvo; Evobus is equipped with a 185 kw engine (no capacity shown), while Volvo engine can generate 221 kWh. Table 3 shows few similar data on the reliability and performance section: both Bredamenarini and Irisbus range is approximately 400 Km, max speed is around 90 km for Bredamenarini and Heuliezbus. Bus cost: 270,000 € for Bredamenarini, 260,000-300,000 € for Heuliezbus, while Irisbus indicates only an over-cost of 20-25% compared to conventional diesel model. Average bus life: 600,000 km for Irisbus, and a little longer for Bredamenarini (700,000-800,000). Heuliezbus just indicates 15 years average life without specifying the life cycle expressed in km driven. According to the data sent by the manufacturers, bottles should not need to be changed during the vehicle life; only Bredamenarini indicates a bottles maintenance cost of 6 hours inspection every 4 years. As far as it concerns the general vehicle maintenance costs the table shows two data, one referred to Bredamenarini bus (25-30€/100km) and the other to Heuliez bus (33€/100Km). Irisbus points out a generic premium compared to diesel vehicles. Regarding fuel consumption, the table shows two data: Bredamenarini (45kg/100 km in the urban cycle, 40kg/100km in the suburban cycle), Irisbus (approximately 49,12Kg/100km in town and

31

40,72kg/100km outside urban centers). Even if Breadamenarini seems to have lower consumption we must remind that the data are not comparable because a standard duty cycle for buses does not exist. CNG 10 m Bredamenarini VEHICLE MODEL/NAME AVANCITY N VIVACITY C total low floor total low floor vehicle features

length 10,80m 8,00m weight 12.000 kg 9.100 kg seats/passengers (range) 16/29 seats 80/90 total 12/15 seats 45/60 total optional (i.e. low platform,

etc…) Air Conditioning Air Conditioning

Emissions euro NORM EEV EEV exhausted gases (Nox,

PM10,etc) (100 KM) CO=0,00 HC=0,00 NOx=1,89 PM=0,00 CH4=0,15 (gr/Kwh)

CO=0,00 HC=0,00 NOx=1,88 PM=0,00 CH4=0,13 (gr/Kwh)

CO2 emissions (100 KM) not available, it depends on the duty cycle which is not standardized for buses

not available, it depends on the duty cycle which is not standardized for buses


75 dB(A) 73 dB(A)

Noise abatement no no ENGINE EQUIPMENT


Mercedes 205 Kw, 6900cc, 1000 Nm Mercedes 170 Kw, 6900cc, 800 Nm


Type 3 /Type 4 (composite) 1284 litres Type 3 /Type 4 (composite) 1284 litres

Reliability/Performance range 400 km 400 km others max speed Km/h 85-90 km 85-90 km

Costs vehicle price (medium

market price) 265.000 € 230.000 €

vehicle life (KM) 700-800.000 km 700-800.000 km bottle maintenaince cost 6 hours inspection / 4 years 5 hours inspection / 4 years vehicle maintenance cost

(100 KM) (tyres excluded) 25-30 €/100km (*) 25-30 €/100km (*)


45 kg/100km (no AC) 35 kg/100km (no AC)

suburban cycle fuel consumption in Kg (100 Km)

40 kg/100km (no AC) 30 kg/100km (no AC)

Table 5 – 10 m CNG Buses

Only Bredamenarini have declared data related to two 10 meter long CNG models, which are very similar since they differ basically only for the engine equipment: Avancity N mounts a 205 Kw Mercedes engine, while Vivacity C mounts a 170 kw one; for this reason Avancity costs more (265,000 € vs 230,000 €) and has an higher fuel consumption; at the same time it has an higher passenger transport capacity (16/29 seats and 80/90 totalpassengers versus 12/15 seats and 45/60 total passenger capacity). CNG 18 m Evobus Heuliezbus Irisbus Solarisbus VEHICLE MODEL/NAME Citaro GCNG GX 427 GNV Citelis 18 m Urbino 18m CNG vehicle features

length 17940 17,95 m 18 m 18m weight 17350 30 t ca 17600 seats/passengers (range) 49 > 160 42/148 optional (i.e. low platform,

etc…) 100% low floor Low Floor

Emissions

32

euro NORM Euro 4/EEV EEV EEV, Euro6 soon EEV(OBD1+) exhausted gases (Nox,

PM10,etc) (100 KM) Nox 2 g/kwh PM 0,02g/kwh, 1,5 g/kwh CO

2 g/kWh PM, 3 g/kwh CO

almost 0 PM, 300g Nox

NOx 0,43 g/kwh PM 0,003 g/kwh

CO2 emissions (100 KM) 200Kg per 100Km depends on fuel consumption


78,8

Noise abatement ENGINE EQUIPMENT


240 KW . Iveco Cursor 8 CNG . 7,8 dm3 . 228 kW at 2 300 rpm . 1 100 Nm at 1 100 rpm

Cursor 8 CNG 7,8 l

Iveco CURSOR 8,0l; 200kW


. 10 bootles of 155 litres . Composit material

Cylinders Ulit / will use in future Grundfos

Reliability/Performance Same as diesel range --- > 400Km others --- max speed Km/h 90 km

Costs

vehicle price (medium market price)

380 to 420 K€ Overcost 20-25% depends on equipment, approx. 30% more than standard bus

vehicle life (KM) 15 years (depend of running conditions)

600000Km 12 years (70 000km/year)

bottle maintenaince cost 20 years average life

No specific maintenance, replacement according to safety tests

from 250 EUR up per year


--- from 0,22 EUR up (depending on included items)


as sample - 64,6m3/100KM

Table 6 – 18m CNG Buses

Four manufacturers have given information on the 18 meter long buses: Evobus, Heuliezbus, Irisbus and Solarisbus. Heuliezbus model is rather heavier than Solarisbus and Evobus models, while no data is available on Irisbus vehicle weight. All buses described are EEV, excluding Heuliezbus; they declare very low PM emission (almost 0); Solarisbus declares lower PM and NOx emission. Only Irisbus declares the average CO2 emission (200 kg/100km), while Solarisbus just indicates that CO2 emission is linked up to fuel consumption. Heuliezbus and Irisbus have a very similar engine equipment (i.e.7,8 l capacity), while Solarisbus has an 8 l engine and less power than Heuliezbus. Evobus has communicated only data on the engine power, that is 240 kW. Table 6 shows very few data in the performance section: more than 400 km range for Irisbus and 90 km max speed for Heuliezbus; it can be assumed that performance features are similar to diesel equivalent vehicles. Vehicle price: Heuliezbus indicates a wide range: 380,000 to 430,000 €. Irisbus points out a premium of approximately 20-25% over diesel and Solarisbus even an higher premium (30%).

33

There are some differences referring to the average life: Irisbus life cycle is approximately 600,000 km, while Solarisbus is around 840,000 (12 years, 70,000 km/year) and Heuliezbus 15 years. Solarisbus indicates a bottle maintenance cost of approximately 250 € per year, Heuliezbus and Irisbus declare that usually there is no need to change the bottles during the vehicles life.

4.3 Future technology possible development towards renewable and cleanest fuel option The two selected technologies could further evolve towards renewable and cleanest fuel pathways. Hydrogen, for instance, could be used to hybridize both CNG and DE-hybrid vehicles in order to make them more energy efficient and to cut down pollutants. It is the case of hydromethane (that is a blend made of methane and 15-20% hydrogen) and of hybrid vehicles provided with an internal combustion engine powered by hydromethane (together with the electric engine). As far as hydromethane is concerned, after completing a (partially in laboratory conducted) research in cooperation with Enea (the Italian national research institute on alternative energies), Emilia-Romagna Region is now testing on road two hydromethane powered buses. With reference to the hybrid CNG-electric technology, this sort of vehicles circulate in Usa. Therefore, LTP companies which have already invested considerably on CNG bus fleets and CNG infrastructures could be interested in the evolution of CNG-E hybrid technology or even in Hythane-E hybrid vehicles. On the other hand, hybrid could also evolve towards synergies with the fuel cells technology. Possible different use of hydrogen to hybridize CNG and hybrid technologies

BASIC TECHNOLOGY HYBRIDIZED TECHNOLOGY EXPERIENCE CNG Hythane Tested CNG/E-hybrid*** Hythane/E- hybrid Not yet developped DE-hybrid Fuel cells-hybrid (H-H2ICE

Hybrid)****** Not yet developped

*** Circulating in USA ******bus (similar to DEH – diesel electric hybrid) equipped with an internal combustion engine running on 100% hydrogen and with batteries and/or ultracapacitors

34

Chapter 5 – Two cost/effectiveness analysis study cases carried out in Ottawa and New York - In this section two cost/effectiveness analysis study cases referring to CNG, Hybrids and diesel vehicles will be presented. They were carried out in Ottawa (in May, June and July 2006) and in New York (November 2006). The final report of the Ottawa research was issued in January 2007. They are both available online at the following links: www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/occ/2007/06-27/tc/ACS2007-PWS-FLT-0006%20-%20Document%201.htm (Ottawa) http://www.osti.gov/bridge (New York) Although these two study cases can offer basic method indications for realizing such a cost/effectiveness analysis and some orientations too for a final evaluation, they should not be isolated out of the specific territorial and temporal context in which they have been produced. As far as the CNG cheapness is concerned, for instance, it must not be forgotten that it is co-determined also by the existence (by the absence) of the filling station(s) and by the reached (not reached) saturation of its/their capacity(ies). Another factor which can influence the final total cost is any necessity to modify the depots for safety reasons. Therefore the specific Ottawa and New York situation from these (and similar other) viewpoints have certainly influenced the final evaluation. Besides this, since the time when the research were completed, diesel price has dramatically raised, while natural gas price has remained more or less stable; more over, diesel, CNG and hybrids technologies have been differently improved. As above mentioned, while approaching the final considerations of these study cases it should be considered again that the hybrid vehicles energy performance is determined by the bus line features for which they are deployed; in other words by the possibility to completely exploit or not the energy recovery potential by braking. All this given, here follow the synthesis of the research carried out in Ottawa.

5.1 The CNG Bus Option Evaluation for the City of Ottawa

Origin of the research

Since 1991 the City of Ottawa has been committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, Ottawa adopted a Fleet Emissions Reduction Strategy (FERS) which aimed at giving priority to environmentally friendly procurement. The FERS was based on a study to review current technologies and to make recommendations for a cost effective emissions reduction strategy for the city fleet. The recommended measures were expected to contribute to Ottawa’s commitments as a member of the Partners for Climate Change programme to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20%. The ultimate strategy goal in 20 years was to build up a zero emissions bus fleet. The long-term part of the strategy foresaw to convert the urban transit bus fleet to near-zero emission fuel cell technology, while the mid-term part of the strategy consisted in converting the urban transit bus fleet to DE-hybrid. In that time CNG was not seen as the best alternative as a mid term solution toward the strategic goal of zero-emissions bus fleets and other were the options on the agenda, including DE-hybrid.

FERS was reviewed and updated in 2004, by addressing both air quality improvement (namely emission reduction of Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Oxides, Particulate Matter, Volatile Organic Compounds, Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide) and climate change (CO2 reduction). The four-phase plan foresaw hybrid bus procurement, while the report confirmed the 2002 recommendation

35

not to buy CNG vehicles. Procurements in New York City and Seattle were cited as positive experiences in favour of this solution. Factors which brought to the exclusion of CNG vehicles were:

• Infrastructure costs

• On-board storage limitations

• Special training and licensing requirements for mechanics

• Storage and maintenance safety requirements

• The higher capital costs

• Natural gas rising price

• No advantage offered by CNG buses over hybrid diesel electric in the transition to fuel cells.

In the summer of 2004, Enbridge Gas Distribution approached the City of Ottawa with the opportunity to review and update information regarding CNG buses. Efforts were made through 2004 and 2005 to determine if there were opportunities for shifting to CNG. Finally, a group of CNG industry partners, referred to as the Consortium (Clean Energy Fuels, Cummins Westport Inc., the Canadian Natural Gas Vehicle Alliance and Enbridge Gas Distribution) presented the so-called CNG Option, which supported the use of natural gas in the transit fleet. According to this project proposal there was a potential for 36 million dollars net present value savings in favour of CNG buses over diesel buses. In June 2006, following a resolution of the Council taken in November 2005, the City of Ottawa retained sustain-ABILITY to review the so-called CNG Option. The aim of the review was to provide an independent assessment of the reliability of the CNG Option referring to its financial and environmental components. More specifically, to evaluate the procurement of 226 40-foot (approximately 12 meters) buses. After the study had began, the mandate of sustain-ABILITY was widen in order to enable a fair comparison of Diesel Electric Hybrid and CNG technologies as well. The additional information collected to carry out the comparison between CNG and DEH have permitted to evaluate variations on the basic technologies, that is to include in the comparison both Hythane (the above mentioned blend of hydrogen and CNG) and biodiesel (instead of pure conventional diesel) referred to DE-hybrid (DEH). After outlining an independent assessment of the CNG Option (in Section 2) as well as a review of the DEH Option (in Section 3), two following sections of the final report have been dedicated to the reconstruction of the business (in Section 4) and the environmental (in Section 5) cases, while the final chapter summarizes sustain-ABILITY™’s findings and provides conclusions based on these analyses. In particular, sustainABILITY has founded the analysis of the DEH business case on the best scenario described by the NRC (“Final Test Report. Hybrid Diesel Electric Bus Technology and Feasibility Study”, by National Research Council Canada, NRC) known as low-speed model. On the contrary, an equivalent testing was not carried out for the CNG buses, therefore for its analysis of the CNG business case sustainABILITY has used the average performance and costs of the Ottawa fleet. The general assumptions taken into consideration for the analysis of both technologies have been: Inflation rate (2,5% per year) Discount rate based on the (at that time) current capital cost of the City of Ottawa (5,25%) Requirement (226 40-foot buses) Deliveries (68 buses in 2007, 80 in 2008, 78 in 2009) Average km/bus/year (59.156) Subsidies have not been considered.

36

Cost evaluation factors/The CNG Option To evaluate the vehicle technology costs the following items have been taken into account:

1. Capital costs (all prices/costs are expressed in Canadian dollars): 1. bus acquisition, 2. fuelling installation and equipment, 3. facilities upgrade (that is the building housing improvements and changes needed to

ensure personnel and property safety, referring to, for instance, indoor fuelling, indoor bus service and storage, transit depots)

4. training of maintenance personnel (calculated on the basis of 172 staff employees and 40 hours/week each).

With reference to capital costs, in the sustainABILITY’s survey the 2006 base CNG prices ranged from 361.888 to 418.675 Canadian dollars per bus. The Capital cost summary for the CNG case (table 19 of the final report) is the following: Table 19 - Capital Cost Summary for CNG Case

Reconstructed CNG Business Case Unit Cost

(August 2006)

Lifecycle (Non

discounted) Capital Investment

40-foot Buses (adjusted for inflation, including GST) $418,273 $95.4 M Building and Infrastructure Cost (excluding taxes) - Buildings - Transitways - Fuelling Stations

(see table 16)

$35.1 M $2.2 M

$13.0 M Other Soft, Non-Recurring Costs - O&M personnel (172 mechanics @ 40 hrs each, at shop rate) - Drivers (1,136 drivers @ 4 hrs each, in overtime)

$2,840 per person

$179 per person $0.7M Total Capital Costs $146.3M

Source: sustain-ABILITYTM, 2006

2. Operating costs: 1. fuel (natural gas, fuelling station operation and maintenance, electricity for the

station, fuel efficiency and consumption). The survey conducted in the framework of the sustainability study provided CNG fuel costs ranging from Canadian dollars 0,132 to 0,576 per km.

2. bus maintenance costs, which are dependent on several variables, such as labour rate and replacement parts. In the final report it is said that while replacement parts and supplies costs are comparable from one site to the other, labour rates vary enormously from one system to the other. According to the sustainABILITY’s survey maintenance costs ranged from Canadian dollars 0,1186 to 0,899 per km.

37

The summary of the annual operating costs for the CNG case (table 24 of the final report), excluding increases related to inflation, fuel price variations or net present value is following:

Table 24 - Operating Cost Summary – CNG Fleet Reconstructed CNG Business Case August 2006 Lifecycle Operating Costs (taxes included) $ per km $ per bus Total Fleet Cost ($) O&M Cost (excluding fuel) 0.805 47,620 193.9 M Fuel Cost (NG only)

Compressor Maintenance Cost 0.446 26,396 112.1 M

Electricity 0.016 946 6.3 M

Total Cost (not discounted) 319.0 M Source: sustain-ABILITYTM, 2006 The renewable fuel options Biogas and HCNG are both viable renewable fuel options for the CNG platform. The study mentions the several renewable fuel source options at disposal, such as biomass including common landfill sites and animal waste. Nevertheless the conclusion is that they did not represent a reliable supply source in Ottawa at the time the study was going to be published (beginning 2007). As far as the use of hydrogen-CNG (HCNG) blend fuel is concerned, it is mentioned, as well. Specifically, the study highlights that shifting to this blend needs slight modifications to the conventional C-Gas Plus engine and auxiliary systems. The report also quotes a manufacturer, namely Collier, that had developed such technology, who indicates that “assuming that a large number of stock HCNG engines were produced, the incremental cost per engine would be very low compared to bus costs. For 1.000 produced engines, the cost would be less than 5.000Usa dollars”. At the time when the research was carried out there were very few HCNG buses in service on the market and therefore little data was available regarding bus performance. Among these, the sustainABILITY report quotes that UC Davis performed dynamometer tests using the CBD 14 cycle and obtained a fuel economy improvement of 16% compared to CNG buses. The energy density of the HCNG mixture being lower, a 20/80 H/CNG blend has shown to reduce the range of buses by approximately 10%. While in a test conducted by NREL the fuel economy of HCNG buses varied from 0.7 to 1.0 DLE/km or only 79% of the performance of the best CNG bus on a comparable duty cycle. In relationship to green house gas emissions, assuming that HCNG is the addition of more than 20% hydrogen blended with CNG, sustainABILITY final report states that “work done by Collier Technologies suggests that the ‘knee’ in the emission reduction curve for NOx is at roughly 30% blend of hydrogen in natural gas, by volume. The energy content of hydrogen at 30% in an HCNG fuel is about 12%. This is relevant because GHG emission reductions will be a function of the displacement of CNG by energy content. Utilizing more hydrogen can further reduce GHG emissions proportionately. There are two main proponents of modern HCNG engine technologies for transit buses in North America: Citi Engines/Collier Technologies and Cummins Westport Inc. Each has reported test results with credible third parties over the past two years. These studies used pre-commercial prototypes and did not involve testing to certification cycles, or multi-unit comparative testing, so the results should be considered indicative rather than absolute”.

38

Referring to HCNG buses, the following table summarizes the Lifecycle Costs in the Final report: Lifecycle Cost ($) Capital Investment Costs

Bus acquisition 99,337,387 Building and infrastructure costs 56,687,748 Other soft, non-recurring costs 692,074

Total capital costs: 156,717,209

Operating Costs O&M cost (excluding fuel) 193,902,965 Fuel cost 168,398,799 Electricity (Compressor) 9,440,099Battery replacement cost n/aOther costs n/a

Total operating costs: 371,741,863

Non-discounted Total Cost 528,459,072 Discounted Total Cost 385,302,544

Cost evaluation factors/The DEH option The DEH option has been approached with the same method as the CNG one.

1. capital costs refer to bus acquisition; each vehicle cost varies from 385,840 for conventional diesel to 596,748.

2. facilities upgrade 3. other soft costs, such the training of maintenance personnel.

The following table summarizes the capital cost for the DEH fleet:

Reconstructed DEH Business Case

Unit Cost (August 2006)

Total (non discounted)

Capital Investment (including applicable taxes) 40-foot Buses $596,748 $ 139.8 M Building and Infrastructure cost $881,632 $ 1.8 M

Other Soft, Non-Recurring Costs $ 1.0 M Total Capital Costs $ 142.5 M

Note: Taxes are included in the above numbers where applicable Source: sustain-ABILITYTM, 2006 With reference to the operation costs, fuel consumption has been calculated on the same average distance per bus per year (59,156 km) as for the CNG option.

39

The annual operating cost,( including bus maintenance, batteries replacements, etc..) is summarized in the following table:

Reconstructed DEH Business Case August 2006 Lifecycle Operating Costs (including taxes) $ per km $ per bus/yr Total Fleet Cost ($) O&M Cost (excluding fuel) 0.76 44,958 182.9 M Fuel Cost 0.49 28,986 163.4 M

Scheduled Battery Replacement n/a n/a 25.5 M

Others n/a n/a 5.1 M Total Cost 376.8 M

Source: sustain-ABILITYTM, 2006 The renewable option for DEH Also in the case of the DEH option, the study examines the renewable fuel option, namely biodiesel, which is defined as “the most likely renewable fuel option for the DHE buses”. The report underlines that one of the major advantages of biodiesel compared to other low-emissions fuels is that it can be used “with current diesel technology with no or minimal modifications”. More over, “experience has also shown that buses operating on biodiesel have identical performances and fuel consumption as those using conventional diesel fuel”, although “some precautions must be taken to ensure proper blending of conventional and biodiesel fuels, particularly in the winter, in order to avoid added maintenance costs attribuitable to more frequent fuel filter replacements”. No provisions for added operation and maintenance costs when using biodiesel has been made by sustainability final report. Here follows the table which summarizes the annual costs referred to the 226 DEH fleet operating with biodiesel:

Reconstructed Biodiesel DEH Business Case August 2006 Lifecycle Operating Costs (taxes included) $ per km $ per bus/yr

Total Fleet Cost ($)

O&M Cost (excluding fuel) 0.76 44,958 182.9 M Fuel Cost (not taxable) 0.536 37,717 183.3 M Battery Replacement Cost (excluding taxes) N/A N/A 26.9 M Others N/A N/A 6.0 M Total Cost (non discounted) 399.1 M


As far as the capital costs were concerned, no changes has been made in the report with reference to the capital cost forecast developed for the DEH buses fleet operating with biodiesel. Final considerations

The assessment carried out by sustainABILITY has come to the final conclusion that the cost savings attributed by the Consortium to the CNG Option over the diesel alternative were

40

“inaccurate and that from a strictly financial viewpoint the most cheapest solution was the procurement of conventional diesel buses”. In the following paragraphs we have reported the most significant tables and sections of the “Summery of findings and conclusions” together with the unabridged “Recommendations” text. They highlight the complexity of the several factors to be considered in the evaluation of the results of the Ottawa study-case. Indirectly, they provide also a sort of applied guide-lines to address a cost/effectiveness analysis among clean fuel technologies. Findings, conclusions and recommendations.

Total Lifecycle Cost of CNG Buses vs. Conventional Diesel Buses Fleet Average DIESEL CNG Diesel vs. CNG

$$$ % Capital Investment Costs Bus acquisition 90,108,581 95,366,244 5,257,663 5.83%Building and infrastructure cost 0 50,207,748 50,207,748 Other soft, non-recurring costs 0 692,074 692,074

Total capital costs: 90,108,581 146,266,066 56,157,485 62.32% Operating Costs O&M cost (excluding fuel) 192,698,598 193,902,965 1,204,366 0.62%Fuel cost 161,193,810 112,051,396 -49,142,414 -30.49%Electricity (compressor) 0 6,293,399 6,293,399

Total operating costs: 353,892,408 312,247,760 -41,644,649 -11,77% Non-Discounted Total Cost 444,000,989 458,513,826 14,512,837 3.27% Discounted Total Cost 302,108,366 333,267,256 31,158,891 10.31%


For the next 18 years, if CNG buses were deployed indiscriminately out of the two maintenance facilities mentioned earlier in Ottawa, their use would cost the City 10.3% more than using conventional diesel buses in the same manner. Much information required to assess the cost of using CNG buses in their optimal duty cycle is not available, as no in-field tests have been performed in the context of this study. It would however be reasonable to assume that if they were operated in their optimal duty cycle, CNG buses would perform better and therefore cost less to operate than the amount presented in the preceding table. From a non-discounted perspective, the $56 million difference attributable to the cost of adapting two existing garages to CNG and the higher price of CNG buses is partly offset by lower operating costs ($42 million). Since infrastructure costs are incurred in the first few years of the 18-year life of the project, the discounted total cost difference is calculated at $31.5 million in favour of conventional diesel buses.

41

The Consortium estimated cost savings generated over the diesel alternative are therefore inaccurate. Total Lifecycle Cost of DEH Buses vs. Conventional Diesel Buses

Low Speed / Frequent Stops Diesel vs. DEH

DIESEL DEH $$$ %

Capital Investment Costs Bus acquisition 90,108,581 139,816,714 49,708,134 55.16% Building and infrastructure cost 0 1,763,264 1,763,264 Other soft, non-recurring costs 0 955,283 955,283 Total capital costs: 90,108,581 142,535,262 52,426,681 58.18% Operating Costs O&M cost (excluding fuel) 246,834,752 182,890,809 -63,943,943 -25.91% Fuel cost 223,774,936 163,361,122 -60,413,815 -27.00% Battery replacement cost 0 25,481,952 25,481,952 Other costs 0 5,078,268 5,078,268 Total operating costs: 470,609,689 376,812,151 -93,797,537 -19.93% Non discounted Total Cost 560,718,269 519,347,413 -41,370,856 -7.38% Discounted Total Cost 373,459,512 365,250,148 -8,209,365 -2.20%

Source: sustain-ABILITYTM, 2006 By assigning DEH buses to routes where they perform best, the substitution of conventional buses used on low-speed/frequent-stop routes in the City of Ottawa would procure the City with savings of $8.2 million dollars (2.2%). Despite the substantially higher purchasing price of the DEH buses and the added cost of related infrastructure ($52 million, not discounted) compared to conventional diesel buses, fuel and maintenance costs saving of nearly $100 million (not discounted) are possible. …In August 2006, the Ontario government terminated the Ontario Transit Vehicle Program and the RST rebate program does not apply to hybrid electric buses. The City of Ottawa will therefore not benefit from any subsidy if it acquires DEH buses. However, based on recent sales to another Ontario transit system, the price of NFI DEH buses now appears substantially lower than what is used in the NRC Report. Fuel costs … are predicted to be over 11% lower than what the City Staff anticipated in their foreword. The cost of maintenance predicted by sustain-ABILITY™ is also substantially less than what the Staff predicted at almost 26% less than what conventional diesel buses would cost. When 2007-compliant engines are introduced to the market, the benefit of lower emissions or regulated pollutants are expected to be somewhat offset by lower efficiency, increased capital cost, and increased costs of operation (fuel) and maintenance (added emissions control technologies). Sensitivity of the Results The variation of many inputs can influence the outcome of the models reconstructed by sustain-ABILITY™ for the purposes of this study. Unfortunately, performing quantitative sensitivity analysis is beyond the scope of this study. It must be understood however that the 2.2% savings calculated for DEH buses falls within the margin of error of sustain-ABILITY™’s calculations. The following paragraphs are offered to help the reader understand the vulnerabilities of the models developed in the context of this study.

42

Fuel-Related Issues The single most important variability factor in this study is also the least predictable one: the price of fuel. Diesel fuel prices vary widely and their level will depend on market conditions as the City operates on annual contracts renewable for two years. Despite their popularity and frequent usage, EIA forecasts are not and cannot be accurate. The CNG price forecasts are no more accurate than diesel ones but the possibility of locking prices in for as long as ten years provides a good measure of stability to the model. sustain-ABILITY™ took a conservative approach by increasing the natural price component of the CE bid by 11% and yet, geopolitical events could make this provision insufficient. In such an event, the price of oil would also be affected, thereby maintaining a relative balance in the model forecasts. In order to ensure comparability of results, the fuel consumption assumption for conventional and DEH buses was taken from the NRC Report using the low-speed / frequent-stop duty cycle. The buses used by the NRC on DEH buses to perform tests on behalf of the City of Ottawa were not equipped with 2007-compliant engines. Consequently, in-service performances will likely vary from the results obtained by the NRC. The quality of fuel used also has a measurable impact on engine performance that cannot be predicted in the context of this study. CNG buses are not ideally suited for very low-speed and frequent-stop duty cycle. Their assignment to some routes in Ottawa may affect their performance. The use of data from another similar transit system (TTC) to determine fuel consumption in Ottawa is all sustain-ABILITY™ could do within the scope of this mandate. Where the data set used for DEH buses was chosen for an optimal duty-cycle, an average of the fuel consumption of Toronto’s buses has been selected for comparative purposes and somewhat penalizes CNG buses. As well, the common practice of cycling buses through various duty cycles as they age would penalize DEH buses in the later stage of their life. This factor was not taken into consideration in the NRC calculations, nor was it in sustain-ABILITY™’s as the tests necessary to provide additional data on this issue exceeded the scope of this study. Maintenance-Related Issues Bus maintenance data used by Pennant in the NRC Report for its analysis of DEH buses for the City of Ottawa was provided by King County (Seattle) for one month of maintenance transactions and NYC for a limited time period. Pennant notes that Hybrid Electric Drive source data for the New-Flyer-Allison is “of low quality”1[148]. Given this weakness, actual costs in-service could be above the $0.76 per kilometre provided by NRC/Pennant and used by sustain-ABILITY™. In addition, there is obviously no data available on the new 2007-compliant diesel engines, as they have not yet made their market entry. Their supplementary emissions control technologies will likely increase maintenance costs substantially, at least for the first generation of buses the City is considering buying. CNG engines have now matured and already meet 2007 standards, but data on CNG bus maintenance is also poor. This is attributable to the wide disparity of answers provided by respondents to the sustain-ABILITY™ survey, the various inclusions and exclusions in the calculation methods used in various reports published to date and the general lack of data on post-2004 engine models. General Issues Learning curve benefits have not been considered in the course of this study. In addition to being beyond the scope of this study, data currently available on post-2004 CNG buses and 2007-

1[148] Final Test Report. Hybrid Diesel Electric Bus Technology and Feasibility Study. National Research Council Canada (NRC), Patten, J.D. August 22nd, 2005. Annex 1, p. 14.

43

compliant diesel-powered buses (conventional and hybrid) could not facilitate such calculations. It should be expected that several areas of operation will initially cost more than the average amounts used in sustain-ABILITYTM’s long-range forecasts. Environmental Components of the CNG and DEH Options: Environmental Impact of Using Alternate-Fuel Buses in Ottawa Environmental Performances The relative environmental performance of buses is a function of comparability of equipment in terms of model and technology used, the duty cycle on which it is deployed, and the regulatory environment in which it was introduced. This evaluation was conducted on the basis of existing technologies that will undergo fundamental change to comply with 2007 and 2010 regulations, so the applicability of historical data is indicative but limited. There is, unfortunately, no directly comparable analysis of new CNG buses to DEH buses available. The data sample on emissions from newer CNG buses is limited but indicative of relative performance to diesel. The best available sample of in-service testing is from WMATA. The NREL/WMATA study demonstrated a trend in the CNG buses toward improving emissions performance and better fuel economy. Table 43 - Emissions of CNG vs. Diesel Buses at WMATA

Vehicle CO (g/mile)

NOx (g/mile)

Methane (g/mile

Non-Methane Hydro-carbons (g/mile)

PM (g/mile) CO2 (g/mile)

MY 2004 DDC Series 50 With EGR and DPX

.34 17.9 0.003 .025 3346

MY 2004 John Deere 6081H CNG with Oxidation Catalyst

.14 9.08 10.6 0.55 .004 2173

CNG Emissions as % of Diesel

41% 51% 18,333% 16% 65%

* Total Hydrocarbons – Methane plus non-methane hydrocarbons Source: NREL, 2006 The John Deere CNG buses produced 59% lower CO, 49% lower NOx emissions, 84% lower PM and 35% lower CO2 emissions compared to the MY 2004 DDC diesel buses. The UDDS duty cycle, upon which this evaluation is based, is very similar to the EPA, FTP Transient, certification cycle. The following table presents a comparison of USEPA 2006 emissions certifications for comparable Cummins diesel and CWI CNG engines. Unfortunately, the engine certification testing only covers NMHC + NOx and PM emissions and the NREL and Environment Canada studies report emissions in g/mile versus g/bhp-h. The USEPA and Environment Canada results for diesel versus DEH are, therefore, not directly comparable.

44

Diesel vs. CNG Emissions on FTP Transient Cycle Vehicle NOx + NMHC

(g/bhp-h) PM (g/bhp-h)

MY 2006 Cummins 6CEXH0505CAW Diesel

2.8

.07

MY 2006 Cummins-Westport 6CEXH0505CBK CNG

1.8

.01

CNG Emissions as % of Diesel 64% 14% Source: USEPA, 2006 Model Year Certificates of Conformity These numbers are generally consistent with the WMATA results. The only report available on DEH buses on this cycle is based on the Environment Canada testing discussed in Section 3.4. The comparable data based on WMATA, Environment Canada, and the NREL study of 60-ft buses at KCMTA is also discussed in Section 3.4. Table 10 is reproduced here for comparative purposes. As noted previously, any comparison on this basis should be viewed as purely indicative. Emissions of DEH vs. Diesel Buses

Vehicle CO (g/mile)

NOx (g/mile)

Total Hydrocarbons (g/mile)

PM (g/mile)

CO2 (g/mile)

MY 2001 DDC Series 50 With EGR ULSD fuel

1.11

10.46 0.21 0.021 1737

MY 2002 New Flyer DE40LF Allison Transmission ULSD fuel

0.16 11.06 .08 0.019 1337

Emissions as % of conventional Diesel

14.4% 105.74% 36.59 88.1 77%

MY 2004 Orion VII EGR equipped Cummins ISB ‘02 ULSD fuel

0.1 7.98 .03

0.018 1589

Emissions as % of conventional Diesel

9% 76.33% 14.63% 85.71% 91.5%

Source: Environment Canada On a UDDS-type cycle, then, CNG compares favourably to diesel and DEH on a percentage basis. The favourable variance in NOx emissions will tilt considerably more heavily in favour of CNG in the 2007-2009 model years. A direct comparison of CO2 emissions is, however, not available at this time. As discussed above and in the NRC Report, the in-service performance of different technologies, and different manufacturers of the same technologies, can differ substantially depending on duty cycle. Other factors, including weather, bus specifications, exhaust after-treatment and even driving style, can have a significant impact on fuel economy and CO2 emissions.

45

Because the realization of the potential environmental benefits of CNG or DEH technologies is so dependent on duty cycle, it is not possible to conclude that one technology or the other will deliver superior results, or value for money, in the absence of more detailed analysis. The data presented in the NRC study and the economic analysis in this Report suggest that, on the lowest speed routes, DEH buses may provide significant environmental benefits and value for money relative to traditional diesel buses on the lowest speed routes in the City. There is insufficient data to conclude that 226, or 163, buses could be deployed in a way that would achieve superior environmental or economic benefits to the deployment of CNG buses. Consistency with FERS The analysis performed by City Staff and their consultants for FERS and FERS II was based on information available at the time and will not be revisited here. A few key points of note suggest, however, that in the 2007 to 2009 model years, the compatibility of CNG with FERS may be stronger than it was when FERS was developed and last evaluated. FERS clearly addresses both regulated emissions (NOx and PM) and non-regulated emissions (CO2). For the model years in question, CNG will have an advantage over diesel and DEH hybrids in both of these regulated emissions. It can be argued that both CNG and DEH will provide better performance than diesel with respect to CO2 emissions. How much better depends largely on duty cycle and there is insufficient information in the data available to sustain-ABILITYTM to reliably assess this issue without more detailed analysis. For the purpose of this evaluation, if the UDDS cycle is used, it is not clear whether DEH buses would, in fact, perform to their maximum potential, or better than CNG buses. Diagram 20 - Fuel Road Map2[149]

2[149] Experiences of DHL Express Germany with Daily CNG Delivery Vehicles, Ing.Dario Salvati, IVECO. Dipl.-Biol. Peter

Sonnabend, Deutsche Post / DHLBESTUFS-II conference, Malta, May 19th, 2006.

46

There are renewable fuel options available to both CNG and diesel pathways. As portrayed in the preceding diagram, Iveco believes the Natural Gas and Biogas pathways are viable and realistic fuel pathways. The biogas pathway could have the added benefit of reducing CH4 emissions, a stated priority of Ottawa’s 2020 Air Quality and Climate Change Management Plan. The biodiesel pathway can contribute to incremental CO2 reductions and address fuel lubricity issues arising from the adoption of ULSD fuel. Finally, one of the stated long-term objectives of FERS is the implementation of infrastructure changes leading up to implementation of the long-term objective to utilize fuel cell buses. To do so, facilities and Staff will have to be equipped to deal with hydrogen and electric drives. While both CNG and DEH pathways contribute to the preparation for a zero emission/fuel cell future, the CNG and HCNG alternatives would move the City further along such a path. Recommendations Financial Considerations Over the anticipated 18-year life of the new buses the City of Ottawa intends to buy, conventional diesel buses would cost between $302 million (if deployed indiscriminately) and $373 million (if deployed on low-speed / frequent-stop routes). In that same timeframe, CNG buses deployed indiscriminately would cost $333 million and DEH buses $365 million (if deployed on low-speed / frequent-stop routes). These expenditures represent the total net discounted costs calculated by sustain-ABILITY™. From a strictly financial viewpoint, the lowest cost option for the City of Ottawa in 2007 remains diesel buses3[150]. If the City requires buses to operate on their lowest speed / most frequent-stop routes, then it may select DEH buses to perform that duty as long as these buses remain deployed on such routes for their entire lifespan. In doing so, the City may not benefit from substantial savings but will improve air quality and make a positive step towards a zero-emission fleet. On the other hand, should the City require buses for average routes or rural ones, conventional diesel buses offer the cheapest alternative. Total disbursements for CNG buses on such routes is however smaller than the cost of deploying DEH buses on low-speed / frequent-stop routes and again, would improve air quality and make a positive step towards a zero-emission fleet. The possibility and impact of procuring both the DEH and CNG buses should be investigated further. In this event, the cost of deploying each fleet out of a single garage would be less expensive and, ideally, CNG buses should be located in a new facility built to readily accommodate the later introduction of hydrogen-fuelled buses. The City of Ottawa should be aware that several factors involving the adoption of either new technology present a risk that the actual cost of implementation will be different than that predicted by sustain-ABILITY™. The following table is presented as an advisory caution to decision makers.

3[150] The reader is reminded that subsidies are not taken into consideration in the sustain-ABILITY™ calculations.

47

Risk Factors Associated with Alternate Bus Technologies Costs

Diesel Electric Hybrid Compressed Natural Gas Traction Battery

The nickel metal hydride batteries are “targeted”, but not proven, for a 6-year life (replacement batteries are ≈$30K/bus). Currently under evaluation in Seattle. Others under development.

n/a

After-treatment - 2007

The additional cost of a 2007 emissions compliant bus is unknown at this time as are the cost of replacement components and the volume of service and maintenance required.

The current CWI natural gas engine is being certified for 2007 and CWI are confident that it is certifiable for 2010, but the cost is unknown.

After-treatment - 2010

Additional engine modifications or after-treatment for NOx will be required to meet 2010 emissions levels. There are various possibilities (TIAX), but the method, cost and effectiveness in being able to achieve 2010 emissions without performance and cost penalties are unknown at this time.

2007 model CNG engines from all manufacturers are expected to be 2010 compliant and comparable to 2010 diesel costs (TIAX).

Engine Technology Maturity

Significant changes will be introduced in both 2007 and 2010 diesel engine and after-treatment technologies.

The 2007 CNG engine will move to a more “diesel-like” stoichiometric platform with three-way catalyst. This is a new platform for CNG but the technologies are proven. By 2010, CNG will have had three years in service.

Fuel Cost The future cost of diesel is inherently uncertain.

Clean Energy has offered a ten-year fixed price contract. While post year ten price is uncertain, CNG can be bought on long-term contracts and hedged in commodity markets.

Fuel Efficiency

Considerable uncertainty over the effect of ECT after-treatment. Performance against expectations will be duty cycle dependent.

Claims that fuel economy will be neutral or improved but no hard data available on the fuel efficiency of the stoichiometric engine. Performance against expectations will be duty cycle dependent.

Source: sustain-ABILITYTM, 2006 The introduction of DEH buses in the Ottawa fleet represents the least ”disruptive” scenario among those examined by sustain-ABILITY™ in the context of this study because infrastructural changes would be minimal. The use of electric drives in future generations of transit buses is almost certain and the experience gained from working with DEH buses would provide a lasting return on investment to the City. The adoption of CNG buses, on the other hand, is a bolder step towards an eventual hydrogen fleet. It offers the advantage of the use of an abundant Canadian fuel source at a more predictable price in the future (at least for the next ten years) thereby sheltering the City from sharp increases in operating costs that may result from unpredictable oil prices.

48

The sustain-ABILITY™ Report contains limitations resulting from the scope of the mandate given to sustain-ABILITY™ and from the availability of data in some areas. These limitations have an indeterminate impact on the level of precision of the quantitative and qualitative conclusions of the report. The following recommendations aim at improving the level of precision of sustain-ABILITY™’s calculations and conclusions: Refine the comparative Diesel base (including data provided in the NRC Report) case for both technologies to ensure a fair comparison. Characterize Ottawa’s duty cycle with much more precision and focus on route by route characteristics and redo sustain-ABILITY™’s calculations on this basis. In this process, determine the limitations associated with the assignment of buses to Ottawa routes over the life of buses. Perform sensitivity analysis of the results and determine the impact of alternative scenarios relating to operation and maintenance costs. In particular, apply a ten-year @ 75,000km/year and remaining 6 years @ 35,000km/year hypothesis to DEH buses and the corresponding mileage variation for the appropriate duty cycle to CNG buses. Perform a detailed study of the impact of 2007 compliance on maintenance costs for DEH buses. Test MY 2007 CNG buses in-service in Ottawa assigning the vehicles to routes matching the same variety of duty cycles studied in the NRC Report. The test should be conducted at the same time of year as the DEH test and must include emissions testing as well as fuel consumption evaluations using the same methodologies as those used for DEH buses. Participate in testing of MY 2007 diesel and DEH platforms to assess the impact of technology changes. Conduct gas flow analysis on St-Laurent South and St-Laurent Station (at the very least) to ascertain facilities upgrade costs. Refine price forecasts for diesel and CNG fuels with particular emphasis on futures trading. Infrastructure costs for CNG have been calculated on a 20-year basis. Some of the assets can last longer than this. Equipment life span must be ascertained and calculations should reflect lifespan forecast impact on costs. Examine further the progress anticipated in the field of batteries (Idaho Lab Solid Lithium cells), electric Drives (TM4) and ECT (Detroit Diesel solution) for their expected dates of arrival on the market and their impact on cost models. Examine further the environmental impact of using batteries (disposal of NiMH batteries and impact on the environment). Consider the possibility of an outdoor fuelling station at St-Laurent in particular and measure the cost impact of such a change. Evaluate lifecycle GHG emissions for different fuels and bus platforms in the Ottawa context. The preceding additional recommendations represent a significant amount of work that may not be justifiable. Decision makers should therefore determine if the marginal precision that would result from the implementation of these recommendations is worth the investment required given the fact that 100% certainty cannot ever be gained and that there will always be some risk associated with technology choices. Limitations were imposed on the sustain-ABILITY™ investigation within the context of the current study regarding the operational methods used by the City of Ottawa and the management of the fleet. These limitations prohibited the optimisation of the operational context of the technologies being considered. Such limitations should be removed from further investigations to allow all factors to be considered in the revision of the business cases for both DEH and CNG buses. For example, the assignment of CNG buses to two garages should be reconsidered and the cost impact of the conclusions of such analysis should be factored into the sustain-ABILITY™ cost models.

49

The City of Ottawa can derive maximum benefit from the above recommendations by incorporating a long-term strategic plan into its considerations. Such a plan would entail the development of a roadmap (ten years or more) to a zero-emissions fleet in the overall context of public transportation in Ottawa. The selection of the optimal pathway would then be made within the parameters set in the roadmap. Procurement policies and infrastructure upgrading/addition would also be guided by such a long-term plan. With respect to FERS and Ottawa's Air Quality and Climate Control Action Plan, the City’s priorities must determine how “success” will be measured for the implementation of whatever new technology is selected. sustain-ABILITY™ has identified a number of significant conflicts or trade-offs that need to be resolved or accommodated. i.e.: financial vs. environmental, short-term vs. long-term, pollution vs. GHGs, etc. Moreover, a long-term plan must ascertain the coherence of planning and budgeting parameters with the long-term environmental objectives. New buildings and retrofits to current infrastructure should be planned and developed in a manner consistent with the long-term objective of using hydrogen and fuel cells (at a relatively low incremental cost) versus back-end loading significant retrofit costs.

5.2 Summary of the “New York City Transit (NYCT) Hybrid and CNG Transit Buses - report” The report (November 2006) written by R. Barnitt (National Energy Laboratory) and by K. Chandler (Battelle) is part of a series of evaluations by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). DOE, through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), has been tracking and evaluating new propulsion systems in transit buses and trucks for more than 10 years using an established and documented evaluation protocol. The report describes the evaluation results for new Orion VII low floor buses at NYCT with CNG propulsion (equipped with Detroit Diesel Corporation Series 50G CNG) and new hybrid propulsion (equipped with BAE Systems’ HybriDrive propulsion system). These final results represent a 12-month evaluation of these two groups of buses (October 2004 through September 2005). The CNG buses evaluated were part of an order of 260 Orion VII CNG buses ($319,000 each) that started into service in September 2003 at Jackie Gleason Depot and later at West Farms Depot. NYCT expected the buses to seamlessly replace older diesel buses after CNG fuelling infrastructure was added and training was completed at the newly opened West Farms Depot. The hybrid buses evaluated were part of an order of 125 Orion VII hybrid buses ($385,000 each) with the BAE Systems series hybrid propulsion system. The buses started service in March 2004 at Mother Clara Hale Depot in Manhattan and later were also introduced at Queens Villane Depot in Queens. This group of buses is the first large commercial hybrid bus delivery for Orion and BAE Systems. The evaluation presented in the report examines 10 new CNG Orion VII buses (model year 2002) selected at random from the West Farms Depot, and 10 new hybrid Orion VII buses (model year 2002) chosen at random from the Mother Clara Hale Depot. This evaluation of the Orion VII CNG and hybrid buses compares: buses that are the same age and the same bus platform; the CNG and hybrid buses have been operated on similar duty-cycles and the maintenance practices at the two depots appear to be similar. Older (non-exhaust gas recirculation [EGR] engine equipped) diesel buses at both West Farms (model year 1994) and Mother Clara Hale (model year 1999) depots were included in this evaluation for limited comparisons of mileage, fuel economy, and road calls for standard diesel

50

technology. The evaluation team selected 10 vehicles from each study group for analysis; which was determined to be a sufficient number to provide some degree of statistical significance to the results obtained. The hybrid bus average fuel economy for the 12-month evaluation period fluctuated between 60% and 120% higher than the CNG buses based on diesel gallon equivalent units. Figure ES-1 shows 12 months of average monthly fuel economy for the two diesel study groups, CNG, and hybrid buses. The two diesel study groups have similar average fuel economy results for the evaluation period shown. The hybrid bus fuel economy has fluctuated generally between 26% and 52% higher than for the diesel buses (in the same time frame) at Mother Clara Hale Depot; however, during the summer months (June 2005-September 2005), this positive difference dipped as low as only 12% (better compared to diesel average) for one month during the summer.

The hybrid bus average fuel economy had a much larger decrease/fluctuation in fuel economy in the summer months (June through September) than any of the other three study bus groups shown. According to BAE Systems, much of this decrease is due to an increase in energy consumption for air conditioning. Although air conditioning load is similar for all four study bus groups, this is compared as a percentage to a much lower overall fuel consumption for the hybrid buses (see Figure ES-2). Additional factors such as different engine sizes, CNG engine thermal efficiency changes with loading, and others likely contribute to the magnitude of the summer versus winter fuel economy differences between the three different propulsion types. In other words, all four study bus groups have a significant increase of energy consumption for air conditioning in the summer months, but this increase represents a much larger percentage of overall fuel consumption for the hybrid buses, resulting in a larger penalty in fuel efficiency.

51

Fuel Cost Fuel cost for the CNG buses is based on the commodity natural gas price paid by NYCT and an additional charge from Trillium USA to pay the operation and maintenance cost of the CNG fuelling station. The average natural gas commodity price during the evaluation period was $1.00 per therm and the Trillium USA charge was $0.25 per therm for a total cost of $1.25 per therm or $1.74 per diesel energy equivalent gallon. The average diesel fuel cost—sulfur content less than 30 parts per million (ppm)—was $1.78 per gallon during the evaluation period. This translates into a CNG bus study group fuel cost per mile 45% higher than the hybrid buses and 31% higher than the diesel study group at West Farms Depot. Total Maintenance Costs This evaluation focuses on bus operations spanning the first two years of the minimum 12-year life of a transit bus. This short evaluation period does not provide enough of the capital and operating costs to understand the full 12-year life cycle cost of the CNG, or hybrid buses. In order to gain a complete understanding of costs, one must examine the purchase cost of the buses, cost of facility modification or addition, warranty cost, operations cost (and savings), and longer term maintenance costs (such as engine rebuilds or replacements, traction battery replacements, brake repair savings, etc.). However, the intent of this evaluation is to provide accurate actual capital and known operations costs experienced for hybrid and CNG vehicles for the time period selected. Total maintenance costs include mechanic labour at a standardized $50 per hour rate (this is not a NYCT mechanic labour rate) and parts, but do not include warranty costs. The hybrid and CNG buses have had many repairs covered under warranty which are not included in this analysis. The cost of warranty repairs is accounted for in the bus purchase price set by the bus manufacturer. Not accounting for warranty repairs in the evaluation of total maintenance cost offers an incomplete picture of true maintenance cost. However, the maintenance cost reported with the absence of warranty costs does reflect the actual cost to the transit agency for the time period evaluated. Therefore, the maintenance cost analysis presented here does not include warranty repairs, but is limited to labour and parts costs associated with repair work performed by NYCT mechanics. This analysis is not predictive of maintenance costs which will be assumed by the transit agency beyond the warranty period. The general warranty on these particular hybrids is two years from date of purchase, with some drivetrain components warranted beyond two years. The exact components and warranty periods are negotiated by NYCT and Orion, and are contractual. The CNG buses’ average total maintenance cost was $1.29/mile which was 5% higher than the hybrid buses ($1.23/mile) during the evaluation period. Diesel baseline vehicle maintenance costs were not compared due to the older age of the diesels relative the CNG and hybrid vehicles.

52

Propulsion-Related Maintenance Costs Propulsion-related maintenance costs include repairs for transmission, non-lighting electrical (charging, cranking, and ignition), air intake, cooling, exhaust, fuel, engine, electric propulsion, and hydraulics. The CNG buses’ average propulsion-related maintenance costs per mile were 5% lower than the hybrid buses. A summary of propulsion-related maintenance costs is shown in Table ES-2.

Other Important Maintenance Costs In addition to the above measured maintenance costs, this report includes additional information on four maintenance cost topics because of their relevance to hybrid propulsion technology. • Engine—NYCT plans to replace the smaller than standard transit bus diesel engine used in the hybrid buses at approximately year six out of the 12-year life. A standard diesel or CNG bus would typically have one engine overhaul during the 12-year life without any planned engine replacements. • Traction Batteries—The traction batteries for the NYCT hybrid buses are sealed gel lead- acid batteries in two separate tubs of 23 batteries each or 46 battery modules total. These batteries (based on recommendations from the manufacturer), are expected to last at least three years, and then they will need to be replaced (or three sets of traction batteries during the 12-year life of the bus). A total of 22 traction batteries were replaced for the 10 study buses during the evaluation period. This translates into a 4.8% per year replacement rate. BAE Systems reports that analysis shows that none of those 22 traction batteries had failed, and they rolled out a software change in April 2006 (after this evaluation ended) to reduce the number of unnecessary traction battery replacements. While this software change could potentially improve battery life, it may also affect fuel economy; however, this software change occurred after the end of this evaluation period and the impact on fuel economy is unknown. • PMI—this is preventive maintenance inspection labour time spent on the buses. Based upon the data collected during this evaluation, the hybrid buses had 50% more labour spent on scheduled maintenance time. However, due to the way in which the NYCT mechanics record their time, additional unscheduled activities are included in what is defined as PMI. No difference in PMI labour is expected between the CNG and hybrid buses. Recognizing this, but reporting the unmodified data collected on PMI costs, total PMI labour costs are: CNG— $0.12/mile vs. hybrid—$0.18/mile. • Brakes—brake repairs and reline activities are a large expense for transit bus operations. The study’s hybrid buses use regenerative braking, which converts energy back into the electric propulsion generator to slow down the vehicle instead of using only the mechanical brakes. This braking energy is then stored in the traction batteries for later use, and provides increased fuel efficiency for the hybrid buses. Hybrid buses are expected to have reduced brake reline and repair costs because they use regenerative braking. During this evaluation, the hybrid buses had brake repair costs that were 79% lower than for the CNG buses (CNG— $0.18/mile vs. Hybrid—$0.04/mile). CNG buses had nine four-wheel relines (planned at approximately 18,000 miles), and the hybrid buses had none as of the end of the evaluation. Road calls In this report, a road call (RC) is defined as an on-road failure of an in-service bus, which results in a bus being taken out of service or replaced on-route. RCs are a direct indicator of reliability for transit buses. Miles between RC (MBRC) is a typical industry measurement for RC

53

performance for transit buses. NYCT expects transit buses to meet or exceed a rate of 4,000 MBRC for all RCs. The CNG buses had nearly 6,000 MBRC. The hybrid buses had around 5,000 MBRC. For RCs related only to the propulsion system, the hybrid buses are around 8,000 MBRC, and the CNG buses are just above that at nearly 9,000 MBRC. For comparison, the older diesel buses at Mother Clara Hale Depot have the highest MBRC of the groups at just above 10,000. What’s Next? DOE/NREL has started evaluating the EGR equipped hybrid buses from the order of 200 operating at Manhattanville Depot. This new evaluation provides an opportunity to look at newer MY2004 diesel engine technology to be utilized in the hybrid buses, improvements in the BAE electric propulsion system, and traction battery replacement experience. Results from this evaluation will be available in 2007. NYCT recently announced an additional order of 500 Orion/BAE Systems hybrid buses. The price for this additional hybrid bus purchase was reported to be a little less than $500,000 each, which is reportedly about $150,000 more than a similar, new standard diesel bus. The hybrid buses in this evaluation were reported to cost $385,000 or about 25%-30% higher than a similar new standard diesel bus. Diesel propulsion technology Conventional diesel bus propulsion technology (non-hybrid) has also made emissions reduction improvements and is required to become much cleaner in the next few years. PM levels have been restricted to a low level of 0.05 g/bhp-hr since 1996 and are being regulated even lower starting in 2007. Future PM regulations are forcing the use of diesel particulate filters (DPFs) and will require ultra low sulfur diesel fuel (less than 15 ppm sulfur). This level of PM has been addressed by changes in control of engine combustion, and, in a few cases, a diesel oxidation catalyst (DOC) was added.

Hybrid and CNG Baseline Vehicle Differences The hybrid and CNG baseline buses are the same model buses and essentially the same age (model year 2002). Both bus types met the NYCT performance requirements. Some of the differences between the two bus study groups follow. • CNG buses are taller (3 inches) • Hybrid buses are heavier (440 lbs) • Hybrid buses have a smaller size engine (5.9 liter diesel versus a 8.5 liter natural gas) • Hybrid buses have a DPF, the CNG buses did not have additional emissions control • Hybrid buses have regenerative brakes and CNG buses have a retarder

54

• Hybrid buses have a smaller fuel capacity (100 gallons for hybrid and 125 gallons diesel equivalent for CNG) • These hybrid buses (order of 125) were reported to be only $72,000 more per unit than a CNG bus; however, the recent purchase of 500 hybrid buses at NYCT show the incremental hybrid price will exceed $100,000 compared to CNG and $150,000 compared to new diesel buses. Implementation Experience CNG NYCT currently has 481 CNG buses split between two depots—the West Farms and Jackie Gleason Depots. Gleason Depots. NYCT was an early adopter of CNG transit buses. In 1995, it purchased 34 CNG buses; this number grew to 221 by 2001, all operating at Jackie Gleason Depot. As mentioned earlier, NYCT purchased 260 new CNG Orion VII buses. The 260 CNG Orion VII buses were delivered and placed into service from March 2003 through approximately November 2004. West Farms Depot started its first new Orion VII CNG bus in service in September 2003. Figure 7 shows total mileage accumulation at the two CNG bus depots. At the end of September 2005, the total Orion VII CNG fleet had reached nearly 12 million miles of operation.

General problems at start-up or within the first year or so of operation were mostly related to the Orion VII bus, rather than the propulsion system, such as axle bolts coming loose and cooling pump failures. A few items specific to the CNG bus fleet included: • CNG engines were burning excessive amounts of oil—determined to be an engineering and design issue; cylinder kits and sleeves are in the process of being changed out. • Spark plugs were initially a reliability issue (5,000 miles between changes)—NYCT changed to a different spark plug and is now getting the required 24,000 miles between changes. • Fuel door switches were changed out. • Hydraulic cooling fan motor; changing configuration and motors • Regulator problems; now resolved. Hybrid Buses NYCT started operating prototype diesel hybrid buses from Orion and BAE Systems in 1998 with the first of 10 prototype buses. This prototype operation led to a large purchase of hybrid buses to solidify commitment from NYCT and the manufacturers (Orion and BAE Systems). The new orders of 125 hybrid buses and 200 hybrid buses have now been delivered to NYCT. The order of 125 hybrid buses was split between Mother Clara Hale and Queens Village Depots. The order of 200 hybrid buses was split between the Fresh Pond and Manhattanville Depots (Manhattanville was the operating location for the original 10 prototype hybrid buses). The first new hybrid bus was placed into service at Mother Clara Hale Depot in March 2004 and the first new hybrid bus was placed into service at Queens Village Depot in November 2004. Figure 10 shows total mileage accumulation at these two hybrid bus depots and a total. At the end of September 2005, the hybrid fleet had reached nearly 4 million miles of operation.

55

Evaluation Results Fuel Economy and Cost NYCT buses use ultra low sulfur No. 1 diesel fuel at less than 30 ppm sulfur content. This sulfur level is required to be less than 15 ppm by the end of 2006. CNG fuel is provided at West Farms Depot by a compression station operated and serviced by Trillium USA. The CNG study group fuel consumption and economy is shown in Table 9 and Figure 14. The fuel economy for the CNG buses is shown in diesel gallon equivalent units based on an energy conversion of CNG to diesel equivalent at the dispenser. With a fuel economy of 1.70 miles per diesel equivalent gallon, the CNG study group has a 25% lower fuel economy than the diesel buses operating at West Farms. Based on the duty cycle at West Farms Depot (average speed between 6.3 mph and 6.5 mph), this lower fuel economy is within typical expectations based on previous studies. A more recent study from DOE/NREL showed that newer technology CNG engines might show only a 16%-18% penalty compared to diesel.6 The low average speed of the NYCT operation is the key to this significantly lower fuel economy. Compared to the diesel buses operating in a similar duty cycle at Mother Clara Hale Depot, the CNG buses had a 28% lower fuel economy. The NYCT bus duty cycle is a severe application for spark ignited (SI) natural gas engines because of the slow average speed (about 6 mph) and frequent stops, which indicates the engine is operating at a low speed and load for much of its operating time. SI engines typically have a lower thermal efficiency at low speed and load than compression ignition (CI) diesel engines. Consequently, lower natural gas fuel economy is expected in this type of operation. The hybrid study fleet fuel consumption and economy is also shown in Table 9 and Figure 14. The 12-month average fuel economy for the hybrid buses (average of 3.19 mpg) is 34% higher than the diesel buses (average 2.38 mpg for a 12-month period, June 2004 to May 2005) operating at Mother Clara Hale Depot and 40% higher than the diesel buses (average 2.28 mpg for a 12-month period, June 2004 to May 2005) operating at West Farms Depot. Compared to the average diesel fuel economy between both depots, the hybrid study fleet achieved 37% higher fuel economy. The hybrid bus study fleet also exhibited 88% higher fuel economy than the CNG study fleet. Figure 14 shows 12 months of average monthly fuel economy for the two diesel study groups, CNG, and hybrid buses. The two diesel study groups have data shifted four months prior to the start of data for the CNG and hybrid study groups. The two diesel study groups have similar average fuel economy results for the evaluation period shown. The hybrid bus fuel economy has fluctuated generally between 26% and 52% higher than for the diesel buses in the same time frame at Mother Clara Hale Depot; however, during the summer months this positive difference dipped as low as only 12% for one month during the summer.

56

The hybrid bus average fuel economy had a much larger decrease/fluctuation in fuel economy in the summer months (June through September) than any of the other three study bus groups shown. According to BAE Systems, much of this decrease is due to an increase in energy consumption for air conditioning. Although air conditioning load is similar for all four study bus groups, this is compared as a percentage to a much lower overall fuel consumption for the hybrid buses (see Figure 15). Additional factors such as different engine sizes, CNG engine thermal efficiency changes with loading, and others likely contribute to the magnitude of the summer versus winter fuel economy differences between the three different propulsion types. In other words, all four study bus groups have a significant increase of energy consumption for air conditioning in the summer months, but this increase represents a much larger percentage of overall fuel consumption for the hybrid buses, resulting in a larger penalty in fuel efficiency.

57

Table 10 shows fuel consumption and economy results for the two diesel study groups of buses. There is one diesel bus from West Farms Depot listed (and shaded) that is not included in the total because this bus had a new DDC Series 50 EGR engine installed in place of the original DDC Series 50 engine. This bus showed a fuel economy (2.04 mpg) that was consistently 10% lower than the rest of the diesel study group from West Farms Depot (2.28 mpg). This would indicate that for this repower, the fuel economy effect of having the newer, lower emissions engine was a 10% loss of fuel economy.

The hybrid bus average fuel economy for the 12-month evaluation period fluctuated between 60% and 120% higher fuel economy than the CNG buses based on diesel equivalent units. During the evaluation period, diesel fuel at NYCT cost an average of $1.78 per gallon for ultra low sulfur diesel fuel with sulfur less than 30 ppm. The diesel fuel cost went up significantly by the end of the

58

evaluation period for this report ($2.26 per gallon in September 2005). NYCT’s CNG cost is based on two components—the commodity price of the natural gas from the pipeline and the Trillium add-on to pay for the station operation. Over the evaluation period, this has been an average of $1.00 per therm for the natural gas and $0.25 per therm for Trillium, which results in a total cost of $1.25 per therm or $1.74 per diesel equivalent gallon. When compared to the diesel baseline study group, the fuel cost per mile for the CNG buses was $1.02 per mile for CNG ($0.78 per mile for diesel)—31% higher for CNG at West Farms Depot. The fuel costs for hybrid buses were 25% lower than their diesel baseline study group at $0.75 per mile for diesel and $0.56 per mile for hybrid buses at Mother Clara Hale Depot. Across both depots, the CNG buses have a fuel cost per mile 45% higher than the hybrid buses. Total Maintenance Costs Total maintenance costs include the costs of parts and hourly labour costs of $50 per hour, and do not include warranty costs. Cost per mile is calculated as follows: Cost per mile = ((labour hours * 50) + parts cost)/mileage

59

Summary of Costs Table 22 summarizes fuel and maintenance cost per mile for the CNG and hybrid study groups. The hybrid buses have a cost per mile 23% lower than the CNG buses. This lower cost is due almost entirely to the difference in the fuel economies of the hybrid and CNG buses.

60

Chapter 6 – Conclusions - At this stage of implementation of COMPRO project and of the CNG and hybrid technological development, on our opinion it is possible to draw mainly methodological conclusions. More over, beyond the vehicle technology, the energy efficiency performance (which determines fuel consumption) and fuel feature (namely the fossil carbon content), pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions are influenced by many other factors, such as real cycle use, bus line route, driving style, which can vary from place to place. It means that, as stated before in this report, more criteria must be taken into account in the decision making process besides pure investment and maintenance costs. As the Ottawa and New York study-cases show, to make the best choice from a financial and technological viewpoint several factors should be considered, such for instance the final deployment, the existence and saturation grade of the filling station (for CNG), the fuel price. Aim of this cost/effectiveness analysis has been therefore not to state which is the best absolute technology choice, but rather to build up a cost/effectiveness analysis key to approach concrete situations “on field”. This is the reason why we have repeatedly underlined the necessity to take into account both the technological, the financial, the infrastructural, the maintenance and the planning aspects. While focussing on the advantages and inconveniences of the two selected technologies, this report has highlighted that CNG and hybrids are not interchangeable. On waiting for better performing batteries and lower purchase costs, hybrid is a solution which does not match all bus lines. Specifically, hybrid is suitable for short routes in city centres, where it is driven by the electric engine with no exhausted gas emissions. Other very positive aspects of the hybrid technology for the urban use are on one side the automatic motor switch off at bus stops and crossing lights and on the other one the easiness to start again. Given the constantly raising diesel price, if an “operative” conclusion could be taken, beyond all method evaluations, it could be in favour of the CNG great actractivity thanks to its high reliability level comparable with diesel, on the condition that an adequate filling station investement has been foreseen.

Documents

COMmon PROcurement - European Commission · changes). According to the self-presentation in the web-site home page, STARBUS goal is to promote “renewable energy sources by proposing