|Anal Sheth||Faculty of Technology, CEPT University, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad 380009, India|
|Debasis Sarkar||School of Technology, Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Gandhinagar-382007, India|
The “business as usual” scenario for most cities in
India involves utilization of fossil fuels (diesel and CNG) for bus transit.
Electric mobility is a potential solution to reduce the carbon footprint of
city public transport. This paper analyzes the feasibility of this and computes
the life cycle cost (LCC) of the procurement and operation of electric as
opposed to diesel buses based on a functional unit of one bus driven 100 km per
day. The research indicates that the total cost of ownership (TCO) of an
electric bus, calculated over a life cycle of 25 years, is 5-10% less compared
to a diesel bus. Sensitivity analysis is performed for the TCO of the electric
bus in order to prepare a robust case to accommodate market fluctuations and
the research assumptions. Component-wise analysis indicates several potential
measures that may be taken to improve the viability and feasibility of electric
buses. The research goal is to enable decision-making on the adoption of
electric mobility by respective urban local bodies. This would promote the use
of sustainable transport in urban localities and would also help in reducing
the carbon footprint.
Electric bus; Feasibility analysis; Life cycle cost analysis; Sustainable transport; Total cost of ownership
The transportation sector in India is a significant contributor to the deteriorating urban air quality and human health. More than 50 cities in India have a population greater than one million, all of whom are subject to transport sector emissions. This is because the “business as usual” case for the cities involves use of fossil fuels (e.g. diesel and CNG) for transportation. There is an established need for energy conservation, energy security (reduction in fossil fuel dependency), an improved carbon footprint (reduction in greenhouse gas emissions) and improved air quality (a reduction in other pollutant emissions). The goal of this research is to synergize electric mobility for bus transport in Indian cities. The case of pure electric buses (zero emissions) is considered for implementation, together with life cycle cost assessment (LCCA). The life of road-based infrastructure projects in India is close to 25 years and therefore the analysis is conducted based on this life span. The functional unit used for arriving at the life cycle costs and comparative assessment is one bus travelling 100 km a day. LCCA and net present value (NPV) with internal rate of return (IRR) computation are two vital decision-making tools which can be applied for the feasibility analysis of a complex infrastructure project. The primary objective of this study is to compare the life cycle cost analysis for an electric bus compared to a diesel one through tools such as total cost of ownership (TCO) and net present value (NPV) analysis and to analyze the feasibility of using electric buses as a sustainable transport mode for mass rapid transit systems (MRTS). Both TCO and NPV analysis are performed for the functional unit of one bus for 100 km trip length. The analysis is predominantly based on the assumptions of cost data, which inherently vary depending on market and policy fluctuations. In order to make a more robust analysis, the sensitivity of various data parameters to the TCO is evaluated and presented in a later section. A secondary objective is to obtain an insight into the external costs of pollution associated with electric and diesel buses.
The research has explored the life cycle costs involved in the procurement and operation of electric buses as opposed to diesel buses through TCO calculations and NPV analysis. It contributes to the academic and professional world in terms of creating awareness of the long-term benefits of using electric vehicles. The research also contributes towards identifying the niche cost components, which need to be addressed for the promotion of electric vehicles. According to the analysis, it was observed that when evaluated over a life cycle of 25 years, which is the normal life of transport infrastructure such as pavements in India, the TCO for electric buses (INR 36.6 million, or USD 571,875) is significantly lower than that of diesel buses (INR 39.1 million, or USD 610,938) even if the external costs of pollution are ignored. This trend is also supported by the NPV analysis, in which the electric bus option NPV (INR 26.2 million or USD 409,375) is significantly cheaper than that of the diesel bus NPV (INR 32.3 million or USD 504,688). Electric buses, although involving a high capital expenditure (two to three times that of diesel buses), have much lower recurring costs and seem to be feasible in light of long-term benefits. The TCO is most sensitive to the bus cost and therefore alternative funding mechanisms for the capital expenditure are identified as an urgent need for intervention. There is also a considerable component of financing costs involved with electric buses (almost a quarter of the TCO) and therefore this should be looked as an opportunity to make it further viable by introducing soft loans or alternative financing mechanisms. The savings in operational cost are the most promising part of the electric bus TCO. These savings can be invested to enable phase-wise procurement for the next set of buses.
Overall, it can be inferred that electric bus mobility is a promising initiative for Indian cities and can be a beneficial investment considering long-term value. A 5-10% life cycle cost benefit is expected by deploying electric buses instead of diesel ones for a functional unit of 100 km daily trips. For the assumed functional unit, minimum savings of INR 25,000 (USD 391) per bus per km are expected for electric buses over diesel ones, given that the trip length is at least 100 km. It should be noted that the longer the trip length, the greater the savings in operational costs and therefore longer routes yield better TCO benefits compared to shorter ones. Therefore, considering long term benefits, electric buses appear to be quite a feasible option as a mode for sustainable transportation over other conventional fossil fuel- based modes of public transport. For future research, it is recommended that similar studies based on computation of TCO are conducted for other modes of fuel technology, such as bio-diesel buses, hybrid-electric buses and hydrogen fuel cell buses. Detailed cost-benefit and value engineering analysis can be made to further validate the feasibility of electric and diesel buses.
The authors acknowledge the co-operation of the transportation authorities of Ahmedabad and Bangalore in providing the necessary data to carry out this research work. No conflict of interest has been reported in the research.
Adheesh, S.R., Shravanth, V.M., Ramasesha, S.K., 2016. Air-pollution and Economics: Diesel Bus versus Electric Bus. Current Science, Volume 110(5), pp. 858–862
Bauer, C., Hofer, J., Althaus, H.-J., Del Duce, A., Simons, A., 2015. The Environmental Performance of Current and Future Passenger Vehicles: Life Cycle Assessment based on a Novel Scenario Analysis Framework. Applied Energy, Volume 157(8), pp. 871–883
Berawi, M.A., Miraj, P., Berawi, A.R.B., Silva, Darmawan, F., 2016, Towards Self–sufficient Demand in 2030: Analysis of Life-cycle Cost for Indonesian Energy Infrastructure. International Journal of Technology, Volume 7(8), pp. 1445–1454
Bubeck, S., Tomaschek, J., Fahl, U., 2016. Perspectives of Electric Mobility: Total Cost of Ownership of Electric Vehicles in Germany. Transport Policy, Volume 50, pp. 63–77
Cooney, G., Hawkins, T.R., Marriott, J., 2013. Life Cycle Assessment of Diesel and Electric Public Transportation Buses. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 17(5), pp. 689–699
De Clerck, Q., Van Lier, T., Lebeau, P., Messagie, M., Vanhaverbeke, L., Macharis, C., Van Mierlo, J., 2016. How Total is a Total Cost of Ownership?. World Electric Vehicle Journal, Volume 8(4), pp. 736–747
Global Green Growth Institute and Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, 2015. Electric Buses in India?: Technology, Policy and Benefits. GGGI, Seoul, Republic of Korea. Available Online at http://www.cstep.in/uploads/default/files/publications/stuff/CSTEP_Electric_Buses_in_India_Report_2016.pdf , Accessed on January 28, 2018
Gnann, T., Funke, S., Jakobsson, N., Plotz, P., Sprei, F., Bennehag, A., 2018. Fast Charging Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles: Today’s Situation and Future Needs. Transportation Research Part D, Volume 62, pp. 314–329
Hawkins, T.R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., Stromman, A.H., 2013. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology, Volume 17(1), pp. 158–160
Heidrich, O., Hill, G.A., Neaimeh, M. Huebner, Y., Blythe, P.T., Dawson, R.J., 2017. How Do Cities Support Electric Vehicles and What Difference Does It Make. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Volume 123, pp. 17–23
Helmers, E., Dietz, J., Hartard, S., 2017. Electric Car Life Cycle Assessment based on Real-world Mileage and the Electric Conversion Scenario. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Volume 22(1), pp. 15–30
Husin, A.E., Berawi, M.A., Dikun, S., Ilyas, T., Berawi, A.R.B., 2015. Forecasting Demand on Mega Infrastructure Projects: Increasing Financial Feasibility. International Journal of Technology, Volume 6(1), pp. 73–83
Jochem, P., Doll, C., Fichtner, W., 2016. External Costs of Electric Vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 42, pp. 60–76
Karaaslan, E., Zhao, Y., Tatari, O., 2018. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Sport Utility Vehicles with Different Fuel Options. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Volume 23(2), pp. 333–347
Levay, P.Z., Drossinos, Y., Thiel, C., 2017. The Effect of Fiscal Incentives on Market Penetration of Electric Vehicles: A Pairwise Comparison of Total Cost of Ownership. Energy Policy, Volume 105, pp. 524–533
Matthews, B.H.S., Hendrickson, C., Horvath, A., 2001. External Costs of Air Emissions from Transportation. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Volume 7(1), pp. 13–17
Mierlo, J.V., Messagie, M., Rangaraju, S., 2017. Comparative Environmental Assessment of Alternative Fueled Vehicles using a Life Cycle Assessment. Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 25(7), pp. 3435–3445
Mitropoulos, L.K., Prevedouros, P.D., Kopelias, P., 2017. Total Cost of Ownership and Externalities of Conventional, Hybrid and Electric Vehicle. Transportation Research Procedia, Volume 24, pp. 267–274
Moro, A., Helmers, E., 2017. A New Hybrid Method for Reducing the Gap between WTW and LCA in the Carbon Footprint Assessment of Electric Vehicles. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Volume 22(1), pp. 4–14
National Electric Mobility Mission Plan 2020 (NEMMP 2020), Department of Heavy Industry, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises, Government of India. Available Online at http://dhi.nic.in/writereaddata/Content/NEMMP2020.pdf, Accessed on January 28, 2018
Nordelöf, A., Messagie, M., Tillman, A.M., Ljunggren Söderman, M., Van Mierlo, J., 2014. Environmental Impacts of Hybrid, Plug-in Hybrid, and Battery Electric Vehicles—What Can We Learn from Life Cycle Assessment?. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Volume 19(11), pp. 1866–1890
Steubing, B., Mutel, C., Suter, F., Hellweg, S., 2016. Streamlining Scenario Analysis and Optimization of Key Choices in Value Chains using a Modular LCA Approach. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Volume 21(4), pp. 510–522
The Automative Research Association of India, 2008. Draft Report on Emission Factor Development for Indian Vehicles. Central Pollution Control Board/Ministry of Environment and Forests
Thiel, C., Perujo, A., Mercier, A., 2010. Cost and CO2 Aspects of Future Vehicle Options in Europe under New Energy Policy Scenarios. Energy Policy, Volume 38(11), pp. 7142–7151
Zulkarnain, Leviakangas, P., Tarkiainen, M., Kivento, T., 2012. Electric Vehicles Market Outlook-potential Consumers, Information Services and Sites Test. International Journal of Technology, Volume 3(2), pp. 156–168