←back to thread

355 points pavel_lishin | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
myrmidon ◴[] No.45386847[source]
I think this shows one of the downsides of trade barriers very well: You get stuck with undesirable industries (diesel bus manufacturing), binding capital and labor better used elsewhere (and you easily end up with underperforming, overpriced solutions, too).

But I'm curious how much this actually affects transport costs. If such a bus is used 12h/day, then even overpaying 100% for the vehicle should get outscaled by labor + maintenance pretty quickly, long before the vehicle is replaced...

replies(4): >>45386958 #>>45387972 #>>45389020 #>>45392335 #
mrits ◴[] No.45386958[source]
What is wrong with diesel bus manufacturing? Just the exhaust pedestrians have to breath in? It seems near the bottom of the list for things we'd need to solve for carbon emissions.
replies(6): >>45386985 #>>45386995 #>>45387028 #>>45387049 #>>45387060 #>>45387142 #
myrmidon ◴[] No.45387028[source]
I honestly don't think there is any future for them longer term (>10y). Long distance, diesel vehicles might hold out for a bit longer than a decade, but the situation looks kinda inevitable even there to me.

CO2 wise, electrifying a bus like this should pay off much quicker than replacing individual vehicles, because utilization is higher (not a lot of people drive 12h a day).

replies(1): >>45388048 #
xethos ◴[] No.45388048[source]
Even more damning, diesel is objectively, inarguably more expensive to run, costing more than four times as much as [Vancouver's] battery-electric busses in fuel/electricity.

Even looking purely at the financials, diesel is fucked.

replies(2): >>45389014 #>>45389047 #
paddy_m ◴[] No.45389047[source]
citation needed.
replies(1): >>45389836 #
myrmidon ◴[] No.45389836[source]
Here you go: https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/financial_analys...

My takeaway: No reasonable assumption exists that would make operating battery electric busses more expensive than diesel ones.

replies(1): >>45390080 #
numpad0 ◴[] No.45390080[source]

  > On the other hand, he told us that without subsidies, the life cycle costs would be "diesel buses, followed by hybrids, and then with a huge difference, EV buses and then fuel cell buses." He asserts that, as things stand, "neither EV buses nor fuel cell buses would be profitable in terms of life cycle costs without subsidies."

  > Tai said, "Relying on subsidies to introduce EV buses and fuel cell buses cannot be considered a healthy business situation," and added, "I strongly hope that technological innovation and price competition will progress throughout the zero-emission bus market."
"EV too cheap to meter ICE dead" is just hype. The realoty is it's not much more than another subsidy milking, yet. Cleaner air in the city is nice, though.

1: https://trafficnews-jp.translate.goog/post/587367/3

replies(2): >>45390509 #>>45392398 #
happosai ◴[] No.45392398[source]
Your link doesn't work. However, I know electric busses have won tenders over diesel in many places that don't have any eco-subsidies.

Japan may have special conditions, like diesel/electricity price may be unfavorable or "build local" rules and no local competition in EV building.

replies(1): >>45393385 #
1. numpad0 ◴[] No.45393385[source]
ok, it looks like `?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en` parameters were mandatory, sorry. fixed link: https://trafficnews-jp.translate.goog/post/587367/3?_x_tr_sl...