4.8 Review

Electric buses: A review of alternative powertrains

期刊

RENEWABLE & SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS
卷 62, 期 -, 页码 673-684

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.019

关键词

Electric bus; Fuel cell; Hybrid; Well-to-Wheel review

资金

  1. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) [886-2013-0001]
  2. Automotive Partnership Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evidence suggests that the role of electric buses in public transit is important if we are to take steps to reduce climate change and the environmental impacts of fossil fuels. Several electric alternatives are currently operationalized, and the debate about which is most suitable is attracting considerable attention. This article provides a detailed review of various performance features for three categories of electric buses: hybrid, fuel cell, and battery. Economic, operational, energy, and environmental characteristics of each technology are reviewed in detail based' on simulation models and operational data presented by various scholars in different contexts. The study develops a holistic assessment of electric buses based on side-by-side comparison of 16 features that best inform the decision making process. The review indicates that the selection process of electric technology is highly sensitive to operational context and energy profile. In addition, it highlights that hybrid buses will not provide a significant reduction in GHG and would be suitable only for short-term objectives as a stepping-stone towards full electrification of transit. Battery and fuel cell buses are arguably capable of satisfying the current operational requirements, yet initial investment remains a major barrier. Overnight Battery Electric Bus is advocated as the most suitable alternative for bus transit contexts given the expected improvements in battery technology and the trend to utilize sustainable sources in electricity generation. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据