Automotive
World’s first all-electric bus fleet shut down due to breakdowns and expense
From Heartland Daily News
Electric Buses Not a Panacea
Last week, the city of Seneca, South Carolina decided to shut down the Clemson Area Transit System, which served Seneca and nearby Clemson University. Once touted as owning the world’s first all-electric bus fleet, just a few years later two thirds of its expensive electric buses had broken down, the company that made them went bankrupt, parts were no longer available, and the city can’t afford to buy replacement buses.
Seneca is not exactly a major metropolis. But Clemson Area Transit isn’t the only transit agency to have trouble with electric buses. Just the day before Seneca decided to shut down its transit system, Austin’s Capital Metro announced that it was giving up on its plan to electrify its bus fleet by 2030. Electric bus technology, said the agency, simply hasn’t progressed far enough to replace Diesels.
California’s Foothill Transit, one of the first agencies to use rapid-charge electric buses in 2010, has also had problems. Like Austin, the agency had hoped to completely electrify by 2030. Instead, by 2020 most of the electric buses in its fleet were out of service. In 2021, the agency decided to return the buses even though doing so would require it to pay a $5 million penalty to the Federal Transit Administration, whose grant initially paid most of the cost.
The Southeast Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) may be the largest agency to have practically given up on electric buses. It pulled its 25-bus electric fleet out of service in 2021 when the buses were just five years old. The buses had suffered cracks in their chassis, but it appears that problem was only the straw that broke the omnibus’s back. “We do not feel the current [electric bus] technology is a good investment at this time,” concluded SEPTA’s general manager.
Transit agencies in Asheville, Colorado Springs, and several other cities have reported similar problems. Albuquerque completely gave up on its electric buses and returned them to the manufacturer, a Chinese company called BYD.
Electric buses cost 50 to 100 percent more than their Diesel counterparts. A 2019 study by US PIRG predicted that such buses would nevertheless save transit agencies $400,000 apiece over their lifetimes due to lower fuel and maintenance costs. US PIRG relied on four “success stories” to justify this conclusion. Success story number one was Seneca, South Carolina.
The report acknowledged Albuquerque’s problems but blamed them on the city’s hills and high temperatures. Compared with Austin, Albuquerque is practically flat and its temperatures are nowhere near as extreme. If electric buses can’t work in Albuquerque, they aren’t going to work in a lot of other cities.
Other than Albuquerque, one thing many of these failures have in common is electric buses manufactured by Proterra, one of four major electric bus manufacturers that have recently sold buses in the U.S. and the only one to actually be a U.S. company. In 2023, it claimed that COVID-related supply-chain problems had driven it into bankruptcy. The company’s three divisions — transit buses, batteries and drive trains, and charging systems — were sold to three other companies to pay Proterra’s debts and none of the buyers are supporting Proterra’s buses or even making similar buses. In view of the many problems transit agencies were having with its buses before 2023, it seems likely the supply-chain explanation was just a dodge for Proterra’s shoddy design and workmanship.
One reason for that may simply be opportunism on the part of bus manufacturers, including both Proterra and BYD. Before passage of the 2021 infrastructure bill, the federal government was paying 80 percent of the cost of Diesel buses but 90 percent of the cost of electric buses purchased by transit agencies. For a transit agency, that meant that an electric bus could cost twice as much as a Diesel bus without costing local taxpayers an extra dime. Bus manufacturers thus felt free to increase their profits by raising the price of their electric buses and, having done so, may have compounded the problem by cutting costs.
Beyond manufacturing defects, electric buses have several generic problems. First, while a Diesel bus can operate all day, an electric bus can operate only a few hours on a single time-consuming charge. Proterra claimed to have solved this problem with a rapid-charge system, but that didn’t prevent Foothill Transit from suffering enormous problems with its electric buses. This probably is particularly serious on long bus routes: Austin’s Capital Metro estimates that today’s electric buses could satisfactorily serve only 36 percent of its routes.
Second, the batteries needed to power electric bus motors are heavy, which is probably why SEPTA’s buses suffered cracks in their chassis. Supposedly, the frames on SEPTA’s Proterra buses were made of “resin, fiberglass, carbon fiber, balsa wood, and steel reinforcement plates,” which almost sounds like a joke. But making frames strong enough to support the batteries means adding even more weight to the buses, which shortens their range and adds to wear and tear on other parts of the buses.
Third, electric buses are not necessarily climate-friendly enough to justify their added cost. In Washington state, where most electric power comes from hydroelectric dams, switching from Diesel to electric buses will definitely reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But most other states, including New Mexico, South Carolina, and Texas, get most of their electricity from fossil fuels and thus electric buses may not reduce greenhouse gas emissions at all when compared with Diesels.
Under the 2021 infrastructure law, the federal government is handing out close to a billion dollars to buy electric buses. Advocacy groups such as US PIRG want transit agencies to “commit to a full transition to electric buses on a specific timeline.” Such funding and commitment may be premature, however, if electric bus technology is not capable of equalling Diesel buses, will cost agencies more in the long run, and won’t do much to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.
Originally published by The Antiplanner. Republished with permission.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
The future direction of federal energy policy related to the transportation sector is a key question that will be determined in one way or another by the outcome of the presidential election. What remains unclear is the extent of change that a Trump presidency would bring.
Given that Tesla founder and CEO Elon Musk is a major supporter of former President Donald Trump, it seems unlikely a Trump White House would move to try to end the EV subsidies and tax breaks included in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). Those provisions, of course, constitute the “carrot” end of the Biden-Harris carrot-and-stick suite of policies designed to promote the expansion of EVs in the U.S. market.
The “stick” side of that approach comes in the form of stricter tailpipe emissions rules and higher fleet auto-mileage requirements imposed on domestic carmakers. While a Harris administration would likely seek to impose even more federal pressure through such command-and-control regulatory measures, a Trump administration would likely be more inclined to ease them.
But doing that is difficult and time-consuming and much would depend on the political will of those Trump appoints to lead the relevant agencies and departments.
Those and other coercive EV-related policies imposed during the Biden-Harris years have been designed to move the U.S. auto industry directionally to meet the administration’s stated goal of having EVs make up a third of the U.S. light duty fleet by 2030. The suite of policies does not constitute a hard mandate per se but is designed to produce a similar pre-conceived outcome.
It is the sort of heavy-handed federal effort to control markets that Trump has spoken out against throughout his first term in office and his pursuit of a second term.
A new report released this week by big energy data and analytics firm Enverus seems likely to influence prospective Trump officials to take a more favorable view of the potential for EVs to grow as a part of the domestic transportation fleet. Perhaps the most surprising bit of news in the study, conducted by Enverus subsidiary Enverus Intelligence Research (EIR), is a projection that EVs are poised to be lower-priced than their equivalent gas-powered models as soon as next year, due to falling battery costs.
“Battery costs have fallen rapidly, with 2024 cell costs dipping below $100/kWh. We predict from [2025] forward EVs will be more affordable than their traditional, internal combustible engine counterparts,” Carson Kearl, analyst at EIR, says in the release. Kearl further says that EIR expects the number of EVs on the road in the US to “exceed 40 million (20%) by 2035 and 80 million (40%) by 2040.”
The falling battery costs have been driven by a collapse in lithium prices. Somewhat ironically, that price collapse has in turn been driven by the failure of EV expansion to meet the unrealistic goal-setting mainly by western governments, including the United States. Those same cause-and-effect dynamics would most likely mean that prices for lithium, batteries and EVs would rise again if the rapid market penetration projected by EIR were to come to fruition.
In the U.S. market, the one and only certainty of all of this is that something is going to have to change, and soon. On Monday, Ford Motor Company reported it lost another $1.2 billion in its Ford Model e EV division in the 3rd quarter, bringing its accumulated loss for the first 9 months of 2024 to $3.7 billion.
Energy analyst and writer Robert Bryce points out in his Substack newsletter that that Model e loss is equivalent to the $3.7 billion profit Ford has reported this year in its Ford Blue division, which makes the company’s light duty internal combustion cars and trucks.
While Tesla is doing fine, with recovering profits and a rising stock price amid the successful launch of its CyberTruck and other new products, other pure-play EV makers in the United States are struggling to survive. Ford’s integrated peers GM and Stellantis have also struggled with the transition to more EV model-heavy fleets.
None of this is sustainable, and a recalibration of policy is in order. Next Tuesday’s election will determine which path the redirection of policy takes.
David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Author: Kris Sims
The Trudeau government’s ban on new gas and diesel vehicles is a nonstarter for three powerful reasons.
First, Canadians want to drive gas-powered minivans and diesel pickups.
Second, Canada does not have the electrical power to fuel these battery-powered cars.
Third, Canadians do not have the money to build the power-generating stations that would be needed to power these government-mandated vehicles.
Let’s start on the showroom floor.
The Trudeau government is banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035.
In about 10 years’ time, Canadians will not be allowed to buy a new vehicle powered by an internal combustion engine because the government will forbid it.
Canadians disagree with this.
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released Leger polling showing 59 per cent of Canadians oppose the federal government’s ban on new gas and diesel vehicles.
Among those who are decided on the issue, 67 per cent of Canadians, and majorities in every demographic, oppose the Trudeau government’s ban.
Now let’s look under the hood.
Canada does not have the electricity to charge these battery-powered cars. The government hasn’t presented any plan to pay for the power plants, transmission lines and charging stations for these government-mandated vehicles.
That leaves a big question: How much will this cost taxpayers?
Canada’s vehicle transition could cost up to $300 billion by 2040 to expand the electrical grid, according to a report for Natural Resources Canada.
Let’s look at why this will cost so much.
The average Canadian household uses about 10,861 kWh in electricity per year. The average electric car uses about 4,500 kWh of energy per year.
The average household’s electricity use would jump by about 40 per cent if they bought one EV and charged it at home.
Canada is home to 24 million cars and light trucks that run on gasoline and diesel, according to Statistics Canada.
If all those vehicles were powered by electricity and batteries, that fleet would use about 108 million mWh of power every year.
For context, one large CANDU nuclear reactor at the Darlington nuclear plant in Ontario generates about 7,750,000 mWh of power per year.
Canada would require about 14 of these reactors to power all of those electric cars.
Building a large nuclear reactor costs about $12.5 billion.
That’s a price tag of about $175 billion just for all the power plants. The Natural Resources report estimates the transition to electric vehicles could cost up to $300 billion in total, when new charging stations and power lines are included.
Who would be paying that tab? Normal Canadians through higher taxes and power bills.
Canadians cannot afford the cost of these mandatory electric vehicles because they’re broke.
Canadians are broke largely because of high taxes and high inflation, both driven by the Trudeau government’s wasteful spending.
About half of Canadians say they are within $200 of not being able to make the minimum payments on their bills each month. That’s also known as barely scraping by.
Food banks are facing record demand, with a sharp increase in working families needing help. That means parents who are holding down jobs are still depending on donated jars of peanut butter to feed their kids.
Rubbing salt into the wound, the federal government also put taxpayers on the hook for about $30 billion to multinational corporations like Honda, Volkswagen, Stellantis and Northvolt to build EV battery factories.
The roadside sobriety test is complete, and the Trudeau government is blowing a fail on this policy.
Canadians are opposed to the Trudeau government banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.
Canada does not have the electricity to charge these battery-powered cars.
Canadians don’t have the money to build the new power plants, transmission lines and charging stations these vehicles would demand.
It’s time to tow this ban on new gas and diesel vehicles to the scrapyard.
Franco Terrazzano is the Federal Director and Kris Sims is the Alberta Director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation
Multi-million dollar drug seizure in southwest Edmonton
10 reasons Donald Trump is headed for a landslide victory over Kamala Harris
Ottawa’s plan to decarbonize Canada’s electricity by 2035 not feasible and would require equivalent of 23 Site C hydroelectric dams
Release the names! Foreign interference scandal reaching boiling point in shocking press conference
-
Bruce Dowbiggin1 day agoWhy Canada’s Elites Are Captives To The Kamala Narrative
-
C2C Journal17 hours agoMischief Trial of the Century: Inside the Crown’s Bogus, Punitive and Occasionally Hilarious Case Against the Freedom Convoy’s Tamara Lich and Chris Barber, Part I
-
Business19 hours agoPremiers fight to lower gas taxes as Trudeau hikes pump costs
-
Agriculture1 day agoSweeping ‘pandemic prevention’ bill would give Trudeau government ability to regulate meat production
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta Bill of Rights Amendment, Bill 24 – Stronger protections for personal rights
-
Economy1 day agoGas prices plummet in BC thanks to TMX pipeline expansion
-
Economy2 days agoOne Solution to Canada’s Housing Crisis: Move. Toronto loses nearly half million people to more affordable locations
-
Business2 days agoTrudeau government spends millions producing podcasts