{"title":"尽早过渡到清洁公交车队:从生命周期角度看替代品的效益、成本和政策评估","authors":"Eyal Razy-Yanuv , Noa Meron","doi":"10.1016/j.cesys.2024.100172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Older urban buses are significant contributors to environmental effects. This study assesses the economic and environmental feasibility of transitioning to cleaner bus fleets by following the <u>concept of early replacement of older buses that are still operational</u> while examining several propulsion alternatives and policy approaches in Israel. Relying on assessments of environmental costs (EC) and the total cost of ownership (TCO), <u>the proposed concept is feasible</u> for all the propulsion systems examined. This feasibility is then reflected in the propulsion systems' marginal social costs (MSC), which are all lower than the MSC of continued reliance on diesel Euro 5 buses that are still operational, as well as in their incremental benefit-cost ratio (IBCR) that is greater than 1.5. Early replacement is an effective measure, reflected primarily in a substantial reduction of air pollution and noise. Electric bus was found to be the best in EC (0.17 USD/vkm) but worst in TCO (1.65 USD/vkm). It was followed by diesel-electric hybrid (EC 0.27 USD/vkm; TCO 1.6 USD/vkm), compressed natural gas (CNG) bus (EC 0.32 USD/vkm; TCO 1.4), and diesel Euro 6 bus (EC 0.33 USD/vkm; TCO 1.61 USD/vkm). Determining which alternative is preferable relies on additional considerations.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34616,"journal":{"name":"Cleaner Environmental Systems","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100172"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666789424000102/pdfft?md5=8fd01a89016a578686d45c623c6a72f1&pid=1-s2.0-S2666789424000102-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early transition to cleaner bus fleets: Benefits, costs, and policy evaluation of alternatives from a life cycle perspective\",\"authors\":\"Eyal Razy-Yanuv , Noa Meron\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cesys.2024.100172\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Older urban buses are significant contributors to environmental effects. This study assesses the economic and environmental feasibility of transitioning to cleaner bus fleets by following the <u>concept of early replacement of older buses that are still operational</u> while examining several propulsion alternatives and policy approaches in Israel. Relying on assessments of environmental costs (EC) and the total cost of ownership (TCO), <u>the proposed concept is feasible</u> for all the propulsion systems examined. This feasibility is then reflected in the propulsion systems' marginal social costs (MSC), which are all lower than the MSC of continued reliance on diesel Euro 5 buses that are still operational, as well as in their incremental benefit-cost ratio (IBCR) that is greater than 1.5. Early replacement is an effective measure, reflected primarily in a substantial reduction of air pollution and noise. Electric bus was found to be the best in EC (0.17 USD/vkm) but worst in TCO (1.65 USD/vkm). It was followed by diesel-electric hybrid (EC 0.27 USD/vkm; TCO 1.6 USD/vkm), compressed natural gas (CNG) bus (EC 0.32 USD/vkm; TCO 1.4), and diesel Euro 6 bus (EC 0.33 USD/vkm; TCO 1.61 USD/vkm). Determining which alternative is preferable relies on additional considerations.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34616,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cleaner Environmental Systems\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100172\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666789424000102/pdfft?md5=8fd01a89016a578686d45c623c6a72f1&pid=1-s2.0-S2666789424000102-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cleaner Environmental Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666789424000102\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleaner Environmental Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666789424000102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Early transition to cleaner bus fleets: Benefits, costs, and policy evaluation of alternatives from a life cycle perspective
Older urban buses are significant contributors to environmental effects. This study assesses the economic and environmental feasibility of transitioning to cleaner bus fleets by following the concept of early replacement of older buses that are still operational while examining several propulsion alternatives and policy approaches in Israel. Relying on assessments of environmental costs (EC) and the total cost of ownership (TCO), the proposed concept is feasible for all the propulsion systems examined. This feasibility is then reflected in the propulsion systems' marginal social costs (MSC), which are all lower than the MSC of continued reliance on diesel Euro 5 buses that are still operational, as well as in their incremental benefit-cost ratio (IBCR) that is greater than 1.5. Early replacement is an effective measure, reflected primarily in a substantial reduction of air pollution and noise. Electric bus was found to be the best in EC (0.17 USD/vkm) but worst in TCO (1.65 USD/vkm). It was followed by diesel-electric hybrid (EC 0.27 USD/vkm; TCO 1.6 USD/vkm), compressed natural gas (CNG) bus (EC 0.32 USD/vkm; TCO 1.4), and diesel Euro 6 bus (EC 0.33 USD/vkm; TCO 1.61 USD/vkm). Determining which alternative is preferable relies on additional considerations.