5 ms·
I was looking recently at a report about the costs of running electric buses, and it seems to be on the edge of profitable at the moment, which is why private i
by Brakenshire 8y ago
I was looking recently at a report about the costs of running electric buses, and it seems to be on the edge of profitable at the moment, which is why private investment isn't piling in.
It does seem like the right place to make a public investment, though, that will be one of the first areas where electric vehicles will be the hard-nosed cheapest option.
Especially given the money will presumably go in part to public institutions like schools, which can potentially reduce bills, certainly in the long-run.
- ams6110 8y agoEven if the buses are not strictly profitable, buses are usually diesel powered and probably contribute quite a bit to smog-forming emissions. So electric buses have the benefit of removing (or relocating) those emissions, which is a public benefit.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- BRAlNlAC 8y agowhy is relocating smog and all of the industrial waste associated with the production of a new bus and bus batteries a "public benefit"? Diesel engines last a long time, as do bus bodies, I don't have first hand experience managing a fleet but I'd be very interested to know how the pollution stacks up--is generating, transmitting, distributing, and storing the power, with all the losses incurred, along side making the batteries, which I assume wouldn't last that long in a fleet vehicle, really that much better than just burning diesel? I need to see a spreadsheet or something.
- seanmcdirmid 8y agoCalifornia doesn’t get much if it’s energy from coal anyways, utility generation is fairly clean. Not as clean as Washington, which has a lot more hydro, but close.