RESEARCH PAPER
Evaluation of the Life Cycle Costs for urban buses equipped with conventional and hybrid drive trains
1
Faculty of Mechatronics and Mechanical Engineering, Kielce University of Technology, Polska
2
Faculty of Management and Computer Modelling, Kielce University of Technology, Polska
3
Brno University of Technology, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technická 2896/2, 616 69 Brno, Czech Republic
Submission date: 2018-11-27
Final revision date: 2019-01-08
Acceptance date: 2019-02-19
Publication date: 2019-03-29
Corresponding author
Emilia Szumska
Faculty of Mechatronics and Mechanical Engineering, Kielce University of Technology, Al. Tysiąclecia P.P. 7, 25-314, Kielce, Polska
Faculty of Mechatronics and Mechanical Engineering, Kielce University of Technology, Al. Tysiąclecia P.P. 7, 25-314, Kielce, Polska
The Archives of Automotive Engineering – Archiwum Motoryzacji 2019;83(1):73-86
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
The life cycle cost (LCC) methodology provides understanding of economic aspects of urban buses equipped with different types of propulsion. The LCC analysis delivers the sum of costs related to the acquisition, operation, repair and maintenance disposal as well as the costs for the each bus power train technology. The method allows to take into account all costs for the whole vehicle’s life cycle and creates a recondition for precise information database for decision making. In addition to the economic factors LCC can be extended to environmental aspects such as greenhouse gases emissions. The environmental impacts of the vehicle lifetime may be presented in monetary values.
The paper presents the Life Cycle Cost analysis undertaken for urban buses fitted with conventional, series hybrid and parallel hybrid drives. Provided LCC analysis includes the economic and environmental aspects. The paper also delivers the evaluation of the total air pollutant emissions for all stages of lifetime of the each analysed urban bus. The results show that the hybrids have slightly lower life cycle cost than conventional bus. Moreover, hybrid buses were found to have lower life cycle environmental impacts.
REFERENCES (45)
1.
Ally J., Pryor T. Life cycle costing of diesel, natural gas, hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell bus systems: An Australian case study, Energy Policy 94, 2016, pp. 285–294, DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.03.039.
2.
Ally J., Pryor T. Life-cycle assessment of diesel, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell bus transportation systems, Journal of Power Sources 170, 2007, pp. 401–411, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2007.04.036.
3.
Bicer Y., Dincer I. Life cycle environmental impact assessment and comparison of alternative fuel for clean vehicles, Resources, Conservation and Recycling Vol. 132, 2018, pp. 141-157, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.036.
4.
Cockroft, C.J., Owen, A.D. The economics of hydrogen fuel cell buses, Economic Record.
5.
Vol. 83, Is. 263, 2007, s. 359-370, DOI: doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.2007.00426.x.
6.
Emery I., Mbonimpa E.,Thal A.E. Jr. Climate-based policies may increase life-cycle social costs of vehicle fleet operation, Energy Policy 101, 2017, pp. 1–9, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.11.018.
7.
Ercan T., Zhao Y., Tatari O., Pazour J.A. Optimization of transit bus fleet’s life cycle assessment impacts with alternative fuel options, Energy Vol. 93, Part 1, 2015, pp. 323-334, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.09.018.
8.
Ercan T., Tatari O. A hybrid life cycle assessment of public transportation buses with alternative fuel options, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 20, 2015, pp. 1213–1231, DOI: 10.1007/s11367-015-0927-2.
9.
Finkbeiner M. Special Types of Life Cycle Assessment, Springer, 2016, ISBN 978-94-017-7610-3.
10.
Harris A., Soban D., Smyth B.M.: Best R. Assessing life cycle impacts and the risk.
11.
and uncertainty of alternative bus technologies, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
13.
He Y., Zhang Q., Pang X. The development pattern design of Chinese electric vehicles based on the analysis of the critical price of the life cycle cost, Energy Policy Vol. 109, 2017, pp. 382-388, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.07.015.
14.
Hu J., Morais H., Sousa T., Lind M. Electric vehicle fleet management in smart grids: A review of services, optimization and control aspects, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
16.
Jwa K., Lim O. Comparative life cycle assessment lithium-ion battery electric bus and Diesel bus from well-to-wheel, Energy Procedia Vol. 145, 2018, pp. 223-227, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.04.039.
17.
Klocke F., Kampker A., Döbbeler B., Maue A., Schmieder M. Simplified Life Cycle Assessment of a Hybrid Car Body Part, Procedia CIRP Vol. 15, 2014, pp. 484-489, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.06.056.
18.
Kliucininkas L., MatuleviciusJ., Martuzevicius D. The life cycle assessment of alternative chains for urban buses and trolleybuses, Journal of Environmental Management Vol. 99, 2012,.
20.
Kommalapati, R., Sheikh, S., Du, H.B. Huque, Z. Life-Cycle Analysis of Bio-Ethanol Fuel Emissions of Transportation Vehicles in Greater Houston Area, Journal of Environmental Protection 7, 2016, pp. 793-804, DOI: dx.doi.org/10.4236/jep.2016.76072.
21.
Lajunen A. Energy consumption and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid and electric city buses, Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies Vol. 38, 2014, pp. 1-15, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.10.008.
22.
Lownes N., Cohen J., Pines D., Islam A., Larsen D. Sustainability Strategies to Minimize the Carbon Footprint for Connecticut Bus Operations, Connecticut Academy of Science.
24.
Mahmoud M., Garnett R., Ferguson M., Kanaroglou P. Electric Buses: A Review of Alternative Powertrains, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2016, pp. 1-19, DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.019.
25.
McKenzie E.C., Durango-Cohena P.L. Environmental life-cycle assessment of transit buses with alternative fuel technology, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment Vol. 17, Is. 1, 2012, pp. 39-47, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.056.
26.
Miah J.H., Koh S.C.L., Stone D. A hybridised framework combining integrated methods.
27.
for environmental Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing, Journal of Cleaner Production Vol. 168, 2017, pp. 846-866, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.187.
28.
Pawełczyk M., Szumska E. Evaluation of the efficiency of hybrid drive applications in urban transport system on the example of a medium size city, MATEC Web of Conferences Vol. 180, 2018, pp. 1-7, DOI: doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201818003004.
29.
Ribau J.P., Silva C.M. Sousa J.M.C. Efficiency, cost and life cycle CO2 optimization of fuel cell hybrid and plug in hybrid urban buses, Applied Energy Vol. 129, 2014, pp. 320-335, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.05.015.
30.
Richardson, S.: Hybrid-Diesel vs. CNG (an updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives). Dallas/Ft. Worth: Public Solutions Group, Ltd, 2013.
31.
Rose L., Hussain M., Ahmeda S., Malek K., Costanzo R., Kjeang R. A comparative life cycle assessment of diesel and compressed natural gas powered refuse collection vehicles in a Canadian city, Energy Policy, 52, 2013, pp. 453–461, DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.064.
32.
Sharma A., Strezov V. Life cycle environmental and economic impact assessment of alternative transport fuels and power-train technologies, Energy Vol. 133, 2017, pp. 1132-1141, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2011.09.008.
33.
Soo V.K., Compston P., Doolan M. Interaction between New Car Design and Recycling Impact of Life Cycle Assessment, Procedia CIRP Vol. 29, 2015, pp. 426-431, doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.02.055.
34.
Soo V.K., Peeters J., Compston P., Doolan M., Duflou J.R. Comparative Study of End-of-Life Vehicle Recycling in Australia and Belgium, Procedia CIRP Vol. 61, 2017, pp. 269-274, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.11.222.
35.
Tong F., Hendrickson C., Biehler A., Jaramillo P., Seki S. Life cycle ownership cost and environmental externality of alternative fuel option for transit buses, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment Vol. 57, 2017, pp. 287-302, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.023.
37.
of alternative fuel and powertrain transit bus options using real world operation data: Life-fuel cycle and emission modeling, Applied Energy 154, 2015, pp. 143–159, DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.112.
38.
Yao Z., Wei H., Perugu H., Liu H., Li Z. Sensitivity analysis of project level MOVES running emission rates for light and heavy duty vehicles, Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition) Vol. 1, Is. 2, 2014, pp. 81-96, DOI: doi.org/10.1016/S2095-7564(15)30092-1.
40.
Panorama et évaluation des différentes filières d’autobus urbains, French Environment.
42.
GREET Life-cycle model. User Guide, Center for Transportation Research Energy Systems Division Argonne National Laboratory, 2016.
44.
www.greencarreports.com/news/1114245_lithium-ion-battery-packs-now-209-per-kwh-will-fall-to-100-by-2025-bloomberg-analysis [date of access: 10 August 2018].
CITATIONS (9):
1.
Determinant Study of Conventional Transportation and Online Transportation
Abdillah Nasution, Keulana Erwin, Ladislav Bartuska
Transportation Research Procedia
Abdillah Nasution, Keulana Erwin, Ladislav Bartuska
Transportation Research Procedia
2.
The Use of Smart Elements for the Transport Operation in the Slovak Cities
Oliver Bubelíny, Irina Ďaďová, Milan Kubina, Jakub Soviar
LOGI – Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics
Oliver Bubelíny, Irina Ďaďová, Milan Kubina, Jakub Soviar
LOGI – Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics
3.
Life Cycle Cost (LCC) Level of an Urban Transport Fleet with Differentiated Share of Buses with Alternative Drive Systems
Emilia Szumska, Rafal Jurecki, Marek Pawelczyk
Communications - Scientific letters of the University of Zilina
Emilia Szumska, Rafal Jurecki, Marek Pawelczyk
Communications - Scientific letters of the University of Zilina
4.
Multi-criteria Evaluation of Railway Transport Using Evaluation Method
Štefan Čarný, Adrián Šperka, Vladislav Zitrický
LOGI – Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics
Štefan Čarný, Adrián Šperka, Vladislav Zitrický
LOGI – Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics
5.
Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Hybrid and Conventional Drive Vehicles in Various Driving Conditions
Emilia Szumska
Communications - Scientific letters of the University of Zilina
Emilia Szumska
Communications - Scientific letters of the University of Zilina
6.
Exploiting the Scientific Literature for Performing Life Cycle Assessment about Transportation
Christian Spreafico, Davide Russo
Sustainability
Christian Spreafico, Davide Russo
Sustainability
7.
The Importance of Alternative Drive Vehicles in Road Transport in Poland and the European Union
Damian Frej, Paweł Grabski, Emilia Szumska
LOGI – Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics
Damian Frej, Paweł Grabski, Emilia Szumska
LOGI – Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics
8.
Regional Differences in the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the Demand for Bus Transport in the Slovak Republic
Vladimír Konečný, Martin Zuzaniak, Mária Brídziková, Marek Jaśkiewicz
LOGI – Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics
Vladimír Konečný, Martin Zuzaniak, Mária Brídziková, Marek Jaśkiewicz
LOGI – Scientific Journal on Transport and Logistics
9.
Multi-criteria decision analysis of alternative fuel buses: methodology and case-study
Martin Kügemann, Heracles Polatidis
International Journal of Green Energy
Martin Kügemann, Heracles Polatidis
International Journal of Green Energy
Korzystamy z plików cookie (oraz innych podobnych technologii) i przetwarzamy unikalne identyfikatory oraz dane przeglądarki – w celu umożliwienia funkcjonowania naszej strony internetowej. Więcej informacji o tym jak przetwarzamy Twoje dane osobowe znajdziesz w
