ZERO AND NEAR ZERO BUS OPTIONS Los Angeles Metro Technology Assessment

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Hawaii: 2020 Presented by Alex Waegel for Team Cake B.
Advertisements

Analysis of Energy Infrastructures and Potential Impacts from an Emergent Hydrogen Fueling Infrastructure Andy Lutz, Dave Reichmuth Sandia National Laboratories.
Cost Effectiveness Analysis of Defense Department Deployment of Fuel Cell Forklifts at Large Distribution Centers Michael E. Canes July 29, 2013.
: Conventional natural gas is clean, low carbon, affordable, and available 2050: Renewable biogas from landfills, animal waste and wastewater.
Building lifetime relationships with our clients and employees. Organic Waste Fuels Vehicle Fleet in Sacramento Omni Resort June
The Role of Hydrogen Production in Landfill Gas Utilization Prepared By Kurt Kornbluth, Dr. Paul Erickson, Zach Mccafferty Department of Mechanical and.
Key Factors in the Introduction of Hydrogen as the Sustainable Fuel of the Future John P Blakeley, Research Fellow Jonathan D Leaver, Chairman Centre for.
Alternative Fuels for Transit Buses Institute of Transportation Studies University of California, Davis Marshall Miller UC Davis June 3, 2008.
Tenth Annual Midwest Energy Conference March 7, 2007 How Best Satisfy Midwest Electric Load Growth? Thomas R. Casten Chairman Recycled Energy Development.
Toward a Sustainable Future Name of Conference, Event, or Audience Date Presenter’s Name | ©2011 Synapse Energy Economics Inc. All.
The Future of Renewable Energy in CA - Near Term Approaching 33% renewable electricity Governor announced goal of 12,000 MW of distributed generation.
Cake B. Smart Grid Description –Communication between grid and appliances –Peak load shaving and elimination of vampire loads CO 2 savings from distribution.
Transforming Transportation: Now and for the Future Jack Kitowski May 10, 2001 Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency Air, Energy.
Well-To-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles Amgad Elgowainy, Andy Burnham, Michael Wang, John Molburg, and.
Katrina Pielli U.S. Environmental Protection Agency CHP Partnership
Worcester Regional Transit Authority Key Performance Indicators Electric Bus Deployment Project December 18, 2013.
Cost effective hydrogen transport and emissions reduction Amanda Lyne Green Fleet Scotland 2015.
Transportation 1. Learning Objectives Understand that gasoline combustion moves the vehicle as well as emit greenhouse gases. Understand that carbon emissions.
Clean Cities Funding Workshop 2015 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CLEAN CITIES FUNDING WORKSHOP BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Thursday,
Cow Power to Horsepower: Sustainable Transportation for Whatcom County Vehicle Research Institute Western Washington University Eric Leonhardt Director.
Is Lithium the New Oil? The Future of Electric Cars John Hiam. Hatch.
Anaerobic Digestion and the Path Towards Zero Waste Paul Relis Senior Vice President CR&R Incorporated July 14,2009.
Alternative Fuels Electricity Electric Car Early History Invented between 1832 and 1839 by Robert Anderson storage batteries were improved in 1865 and.
1 Alternative Fuel Vehicles A brief overview of electric, natural gas and bio- diesel fueled vehicles Dan Bowermaster Manager, Electric & Natural Gas Vehicles.
1 UTA & Alternative Fuel Vehicles GOVERNOR’S ENERGY DEVELOPMENT SUMMIT JUNE 2014.
Attributes of the Chevrolet Volt. VOLT Lithium-Ion Battery 288 Cells 70% of the Cost Module Pack.
11/08/01 1 SunLine’s Fuel Cell Bus Demonstration Program Presented to the California Transportation Commission June 03.
Evaluation of Environmental and Economic Impacts.
Options to Manage Electricity Demand and Increase Capacity in Santa Delano County Jon Cook Jeff Kessler Gabriel Lade Geoff Morrison Lin’s Lackeys.
Earth’s Changing Environment Lecture 24 Increasing Transportation Efficiency.
AQMD’s Five Cities Program: Demonstrating Hydrogen Vehicles and Infrastructure Patricia Kwon South Coast Air Quality Management District.
California Environmental Protection Agency AIR RESOURCES BOARD Public Transit Bus Fleet Rule and Emission Standards for New Urban Buses California Air.
Environmental Benefits of Renewable Portfolio Standards in an Age of Coal Plant Retirements September 10 th, 2015 Energy Policy Research Conference Denver,
SAUSALITO COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY Years 2005 and 2010.
Five Generations of Hydrogen Buses at SunLine
Staff Presentation to Transit Advisory Committee June 5, 2014 Alternative Fuel Choices Clean Diesel & Bio-Diesel Buses.
Worcester Regional Transit Authority Key Performance Indicators Electric Bus Deployment Project December 17, 2015.
ZERO AND NEAR ZERO BUS OPTIONS Los Angeles Metro Technology Assessment
Transportation.
Communities Renewable Energy Study
Pan-Canadian Wind Integration Study (PCWIS) Prepared by: GE Energy Consulting, Vaisala , EnerNex, Electranix, Knight Piésold Olga Kucherenko.
Preparing for Zero Emissions Buses
Future Technologies and Fuels for the Trucking Sector
Reducing New Zealand Transportation Emissions
CALACT Spring maintenance 2017
ZERO AND NEAR ZERO BUS OPTIONS Los Angeles Metro Technology Assessment
Methane Capture and Use: Current Practices vs. Future Possibilities
ZERO AND NEAR ZERO BUS OPTIONS Los Angeles Metro Technology Assessment
Renewable Biogas Options
Renewable Compressed Natural Gas
San Joaquin valley clean transportation summit
Sun Jae Professor of Engineering, Emeritus
Advanced Powertrains for Commercial Vehicles
Fresno County Rural Transit Agency Moses Stites General Manager
Environmental Policy & Outlook Conference
Rose Drive Friends Church Solar Project Proposal
Opportunities for Hydrogen-Based Energy Storage for Electric Utilities
MULTIPLE BENEFITS PATHWAYS APPROACH – EXPERIENCE FROM BANGLADESH
Understanding Updates to the EPA Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Natural Gas Systems Richard Meyer Managing Director, Energy Analysis August.
Bob Wimmer Director, Energy & Environmental Research February 1, 2018
Energy Conservation CERD /12/2017
New England Electricity Restructuring Roundtable September 18, 2009
Innovative Clean Transit Regulation
Optiresource – Daimler‘s „Well-to-Wheel“- Optimizer
100% Electric Bus Goal for MTD
Anna Garcia Air Innovations Conference August 2004
PURCHASING ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ELECTRICITY
Mid-West Consumers Association Annual Meeting December 12, 2018
Policy Discussion: Energy Storage and Renewable H2
Cummins Westport Near Zero Engines.
Presentation transcript:

ZERO AND NEAR ZERO BUS OPTIONS Los Angeles Metro Technology Assessment APTA Webinar June 30, 2016 Dana Lowell M.J. Bradley & Associates, LLC

Background California Air Resources Board has proposed a “Zero Emission Bus” (ZEB) rule Applicable to all California Transit Agencies All buses must be “zero emission” by 2040 Only electric & fuel cell buses qualify as ZEB LACMTA commissioned this study to: Evaluate cost of compliance with the ZEB rule Evaluate the costs and benefits of “near zero” emission options that are based on the continued use of natural gas

ZERo emission BUS options BATTERY ELECTRIC BUS Depot-only charging, or Depot and in-route charging HYDROGEN FUEL CELL BUS Hydrogen fuel produced from electricity (electrolysis), or Hydrogen fuel produced from natural gas (steam methane reforming)

“Near Zero” BUS Option RENEWABLE NATURAL GAS (RNG) Produced by landfills, wastewater treatment plants, animal manure – anaerobic digestion Processed to remove water, sulfur, CO2 - can be injected into pipelines, used in NG engines LOW NOx NATURAL GAS ENGINE Commercially available from Cummins; based on ISLG platform used in transit 90% lower tailpipe NOx than required by EPA/CARB; 70% lower tailpipe CH4

RNG captures & uses a resource that is normally wasted rENEwable natural gas RNG captures & uses a resource that is normally wasted This results in significant life cycle GHG reductions compared to petroleum NG

What did we do? Estimated total fleet costs and “wells-to-wheels” fleet emissions from 2015 – 2055 under three bus technology/fuel options, compared to baseline business as usual: BASELINE: continue to buy “standard” CNG buses and conventional natural gas LNOx Bus + RNG: Starting in 2016 purchase Renewable Natural Gas and in 2018 start transitioning fleet to Low NOx CNG engines ELECTRIC BUSES: In 2025 start transitioning fleet to electric buses FUEL CELL BUSES: In 2025 start transitioning fleet to hydrogen fuel cell buses

2016 LACMTA Fleet All buses are CNG 1,212 40-ft transit 625 45-ft transit (composite) 356 60-ft articulated 2,194 total 75% of fleet has MY2007+ engines that meet most stringent EPA/CARB standards (0.2 g/bhp-hr NOx) Approximately 7% of fleet (178 buses) are retired and replaced with new buses each year

Bus Technology/Fuel Scenarios LNOx + RNG ELECTRIC FUEL CELL FLEET REPLACE-MENT Purchase 178 new buses/yr with LNOx engines beginning in 2019 Repower 178 old buses/yr with LNOx engines beginning in 2018 Purchase 178 – 240 1 new electric buses/yr beginning in 2025. Purchase 178 new fuel cell buses/yr beginning in 2025 FUELING RNG provided through utility pipeline; fueling at existing CNG fuel stations Depot based charging or Depot and In-route charging Hydrogen fuel produced on-site by electrolysis of water or steam reforming of natural gas (SMR) NEW INFRA-STRUCTURE None required Depot and In-route chargers. Depot expansion for expanded fleet, and for depot chargers Hydrogen production and fueling stations Upgraded ventilation, H2 sensors at depots 1 Due to daily range restrictions 1.35 electric buses replace one existing CNG bus if charging is only at the depot

Major Cost Assumptions BASELINE LNOx + RNG ELECTRIC FUEL CELL BUS PURCHASE 2015 $490,000 $500,000 $760,000 $920,000 2045 $495,000 $692,000 $506,000 MID-LIFE OVERHAUL $35,000 $38,000 $281,000 $335,000 $237,000 $135,000 DAILY RANGE NA 125 mi 175 mi FUEL USE 0.48 therm/mi 0.49 therm/mi 2.1 kWh/mi 0.16 kg/mi 1.9 kWh/mi 0.14 kg/mi FUEL COST $0.78/therm $0.006/kWh $0.028/kWh $1.60/kg $4.62/kg All costs in 2015 $, and do not include inflation. Inflation assumed to be ~2%/year Fuel Costs: Higher electricity cost ($/kWh) for in-route charging, lower for depot charging. Higher hydrogen cost ($/kg) for electrolysis, lower for SMR Costs for CNG, RNG, Electricity, and Hydrogen are net of Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Credits

Major Cost Assumptions (cont) BASELINE LNOx + RNG ELECTRIC FUEL CELL MAINT COST 2015 $0.850/mi $0.865/mi $0.808/mi $0.867/mi 2045 $0.859/mi FUEL INFRA-STRUCTURE Future upgrade costs included in $/therm NG cost $41,000/bus (depot chargers) $14,000/bus (in-route chargers) $105,000 /bus (H2 production and fuel station) DEPOT MODS NONE $36,000/bus (depot expansion) $28,000/bus (H2 sensors & ventilation) All costs in 2015 $, and do not include inflation. Inflation assumed to be ~2%/year

Depot vs In-route Charging LACMTA buses average 130 miles/day To be reliably used on ALL routes, need to have ~170 mile range per charge (30% operational reserve) Current 40-ft electric buses have 325 kWh battery pack Can achieve ~125 mi/charge in Metro service (80% depth of discharge) With depot-only charging would need 1.35 electric buses for every CNG bus replaced, and dead-head mileage would increase due to in-service bus swaps Alternative: Depot and In-route charging CNG buses can be replaced one-for one, no increase in dead-head mileage One or more chargers required at every bus lay-over (310 system-wide); assume 10 minutes charge time for every hour of driving

Infrastructure Electric Bus In-route Chargers 30 kW x 310 “no plug” Electric Bus Depot Chargers 23 kW x 2000 “plug-in” Fuel Cell Bus On-site H2 production via electrolysis or SMR Sized based on H2 throughput Sized based on daily energy use and available charging time

Fuel Costs In-route charging higher cost because more during peak periods

GHG Emissions (g CO2-e/mi) Tailpipe emissions per EMFAC2014 emissions model. Upstream emissions per CA GREET. CO2 shown in chart is total tailpipe plus upstream RNG assumed to be 100% landfill gas.

Electricity Grid Mix ARB targets for future generation 78% zero emission generation by 2050

NOx Emissions (g/mi) Tailpipe emissions per EMFAC2014 emissions model. Upstream emissions per CA GREET. RNG assumed to be 100% landfill gas.

Projected Annual Fleet GHG (tons CO2-e) Significant early reductions from RNG use. Low NOx engine gives minor reduction due to lower tailpipe CH4 Emissions from H2 produced by SMR significantly higher than other options

Projected Annual Fleet NOx (In-basin tons) Significant reductions under baseline as fleet turns over to 2010+ engines. Low NOx engine further reduces emissions Emissions from H2 produced by SMR similar to baseline

Projected TOTAL Fleet Emissions 2015 – 2055 (million tons)

Projected TOTAL Fleet Costs 2015 – 2055 ($ MillionS)

Projected INCREMENTAL Fleet Costs 2015 – 2055 ($ billionS) Compared to baseline: LNOx+RNG +1% Electric Bus +8%-14% Fuel Cell Bus +9%-13%

Emission Reduction Cost Effectiveness 2015 – 2055 ($/ton) LNOx + RNG ELECTRIC BUS FUEL CELL BUS Depot Charge Depot & In-route SMR ELECTR Compared to Baseline Cost Increase (NPV $ million) $161.3 $2,154.9 $1,224.5 $1,420.7 $1,992.4 GHG Reduction (million tons) 11.4 8.3 8.4 3.3 6.7 In-basin NOx Reduction (tons x 000) 2.7 2.9 0.1 2.5 Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) 1 GHG $14 $259 $146 $432 $296 IB NOx $59,000 $755,000 $427,000 $20 mill $795,000 1 Assumes that 100% of cost increase attributed to each pollutant

Summary Over the next 40 years the use of RNG and transition to Low NOx CNG engines will be: More effective at reducing GHGs from the LACMTA fleet than transition to either Electric or Fuel Cell buses More effective at reducing in-basin NOx emissions than transition to fuel cell buses, and almost as effective as transition to electric buses Significantly less expensive than transition to either electric or fuel cell buses Emission reductions of both GHG and NOx from LNOx engines and RNG are an order of magnitude more cost effective than reductions from transition to electric or fuel cell buses

THANK YOU John Drayton Los Angeles Metro One Santa Fe Ave MS 63-1-1, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90013 213-617-6285 Draytonj@metro.net Dana Lowell M.J. Bradley & Assoc. LLC 47 Junction Square Drive Concord, MA 978-405-1275 dlowell@mjbradley.com Julia Lester Ramboll/Environ 707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 4950 Los Angeles, CA 90017 213-943-6329 JLester@ramboll.com