## Volvo/KPMG analysis finds cities could save millions with electric buses instead of diesel

##### 26 September 2015

A city with half a million inhabitants would save about SEK 100 million (US$12 million) per year if the city’s buses ran on electricity instead of diesel, according to an analysis conducted in collaboration between the Volvo Group and the audit and advisory firm KPMG. The analysis has taken into consideration such factors as noise, travel time, emissions, energy use, taxes and the use of natural resources. Standard investment appraisals do not take into account all of the costs that impact society and the environment. Therefore, to quantify all of the aspects, we have now calculated the monetary value of an electric bus line The results show that irrespective of the number of parameters taken into consideration, electric buses comprise the leading public transport solution. —Niklas Gustafsson, Head of Sustainability at the Volvo Group The analysis was based on a city with about half a million inhabitants and 400 buses. If the buses were run on electricity instead of diesel, the total annualized societal saving would be about SEK 100 million. Among other areas, the savings stem from reduced noise and air pollution, which is estimated to lead to decreased care costs of up to SEK 24 million (US$2.9 million). The annual reduction in carbon dioxide emissions would total 33,000 tons, corresponding to about 3,000 Swedish households.

In June 2015, an entirely new electric bus line was opened in Gothenburg with the aim of developing and testing new solutions for sustainable public transport. The line is the result of a partnership between the Volvo Group and several partners from industry, research and society.

It is difficult to accept that any city would buy new diesel buses instead of e-buses available from BYD, Proterra, Volvo and many others.

Chinese cities are moving faster with the purchase of electric and/or FC buses by the thousand.

The same should apply to school buses. A school Commission North of Montréal QC has started to change its diesel buses with electric units. The complete change over for 60+ buses may take up to 5 years at the rate of 12+ per year. Many other School Commissions will certainly follow. In many small cities, they use as many if not more buses than the Public Transport Agencies. School buses have hours to recharge between the morning and afternoon runs. Most runs/routes are well under 100 Km and very few are over 150 Km.

For many the short term economic approach combined with human aversion to change and the associated anxiety would be a big disincentive for management especially if they aren't supported or budget constraints and quick solutions are needed.

The electric solutions are only getting better but I think there are more sweeteners available that would bring greater confidence to the e mobility market.

Batteries.

I see an analogy with this imaginary scenario where the battery is the fuel delivery component.

Imagine if in 1910 that petrol cars were restricted to only using fuel from one distributor.This could be achieved by ensuring only one retailers delivery nozzle fit only one brand of car. Or each car manufacturer and fuel supplier used incompatible fuels.

This is one approach in the "free market" possibly to make things difficult for newcomers but also to keep consumers in house.

This could be compared with e cars that wont plug into the nearest convenient outlet.

While it is easy to say "just get an adaptor" that simply doesn't cut it unless it's also ok to carry ten adaptors to allow one to refill the "gasser".

More importantly - as this is about natural competitors (business) working together in their own and the consumers interests.It is as relevant I.M.O. as the 'adaptor conundrum above.

If the option to use alternative suppliers of batteries either improved next gen or from cheaper better or just a different colour- if that's what is required, I consider it as about the equivalent for all practical purpose as a fuel tank option.

The reason against such a co-operative approach is -economic-
It is also anti competitive.

For the consumer there is a denial of choice.

If the consumer in this case invests such large sums into dedicated (effectively) propriety machinery,there is a very large psychological barrier.

Give ten or more years of proven reliability, consumers will be more relaxed, by which time the convention will be set.

We see VW engaging two battery suppliers and seeking others for supply chain security.
They also use body architecture in kit platform.
The benefits are apparent to VW the manufacturer saves a bucket of money and wasted effort.

Consumers on the other hand are at a much bigger penalty when reconfiguring a vehicle.

To continue down that path is lawful but unethical.
Suggest strong standards need to be established in the industries best interest.

This could be compared with e cars that wont plug into the nearest convenient outlet.

While it is easy to say "just get an adaptor" that simply doesn't cut it unless it's also ok to carry ten adaptors to allow one to refill the "gasser".

More importantly - as this is about natural competitors (business) working together in thier own and the consumers interests.It is as relevant I.M.O. as the 'adaptor conundrum above.

If the option to use alternative suppliers of batteries either improved next gen or from cheaper better or just a different colour- if that's what is required, I consider it as about the equivalent for all practical purpose as a fuel tank option.

The reason against such a co-operative approach is -economic-
It is also anti competitive.

For the consumer there is a denial of choice.

If the consumer in this case invests such large sums into dedicated (effectively) propriety machinery,there is a very large psychological barrier.

Give ten or more years of proven reliability, consumers will be more relaxed, by which time the convention will be set.Suggest strong standards need to be established in the industries best interest.

We see VW engaging two battery suppliers and seeking others for supply chain security.
They also use body architecture in kit platform.
The benefits are apparent to VW - the manufacturer saves a bucket of money and wasted effort.

Consumers (and their local workshop) on the other hand are at a much bigger penalty when reconfiguring an vehicle.

If vehicle manufactures could demonstrate versatile battery architecture, I'd have NO range or reliability anxiety.

@Arnold:

One should not exagerate EV batteries charging facilities complexity. It would be very easy (at very low relative cost) to have, the most popular connectors and/or adaptors, built in every public charging station.

Eventually, the world will accept one or two standard connectors. Future super chargers will automatically adapt to the connector used and/or selected.

Future, much lower cost EV batteries will soon be available with well over 120+ kWh capacity for extended range to match ICEVs. TESLA is already talking about 1000 to 1200 Km range in the near future.

High voltage (800+ Volts) 3-phase public quick charge stations will evolve and will soon recharge most large battery packs in 10 to 12 minutes or less.

Wireless (slower) charging will become an option on many BEVs soon.

It makes a great deal of sense to electrify stop-start urban vehicles - buses, bin trucks, delivery vans.

The question is - where to start and who will pay.
Many of the savings are in pollution (chemical and noise) so the truck owner does not benefit directly.

What you really want to do is to take the worst vehicles off the roads first and replace them with something better (which could be electric or diesel that meets modern environmental specifications).

So you have to identify the worst vehicles (takes time) and legislate to get them off the road asap.
You don;t want to put the operators out of business either, so you'll have to provide some grants to help them buy or modify their vehicles.

If you could assess the problems and sort the results by GMS(pollutant) / \$ to fix, you could get a pareto optimum solution.

You have a problem if you try to replace all the diesels passenger cats that are on the roads as there are just too many in European cities.

OK, diesel passenger cars.
The diesel passenger cats create very little pollution.

A few sure ways to convince current truck owners would be with:

1) a much higher annual registration fee based on TOTAL pollution created and/

2) a progressive carbon tax on fossil and bio fuels and/

3) a much higher subsidy and/or tax free loans for the initial purchase of electrified trucks to offset most of the difference with equivalent ICE units

I cannot imagine that electric buses will not become more popular than their diesel counterparts. Electric drive is more quiet, but even more importantly, electronics can generate more smooth acceleration and braking profiles.

I have found that some bus drivers really suck at braking gently. I have been told that it is quite difficult, because the brake pedal governs a valve that regulates pressurized air to the brake calipers, i.e. there is no mechanical link between pedal and brake, as in regular cars. E-motors can be regulated with much more finesse.

Also, an E-motor can give constant, or at least continuous acceleration that achieves the same speed increase with less peaks in acceleration that cause the jerkiness, leading passengers standing up to loose their balance.

The comments to this entry are closed.