The biggest lie here is that maintenance costs will be lower. Not gonna happen.
robert108 - 09:06pm on 06/02/2006
"Extremism in the pursuit of environmentalism is no vice!” -Barry Newsomwater
Proofreader emeritus - 04:06am on 06/03/2006
The normal maintenance costs may actually be lower but when it comes time to replace the batteries it’s going to leap in multiples of normal costs. I’m, off the grid with over 80% of my power coming from solar, for the expenses of ‘cheap’ solar I could run two of the diesel generators I have 24-7 and cut my costs by more than 60% every three years when I factor in battery replacement. I use the solar because I want to, not because it’s saving anything. I’m also doing it with my own money, big difference. In the case of SF and NYC the treehuggers are forcing other people to pay more for less to make themselves feel better, not to help the environment. Liberal ‘reasoning’ at its finest.
bullwinkle - 05:06am on 06/03/2006
Given that the big diesels used in semis typically reach about half a million miles before even needing an overhaul, I’d agree that the idea of “lower maintenance costs” is dubious at best. You can’t get much cheaper than diesel, and this bus is adding parts to break. As a rule, that doesn’t reduce costs, but rather increases them. Worse, use of a diesel engine in a “full hybrid” mode (turning it on & off) is the best way to accelerate engine wear that I know of.
I’m also somewhat curious about why adding a big electric motor/generator and battery pack is increasing the cost of these buses by $120,000 while decreasing passenger capacity by 30%. This leads to two interesting conclusions; efficiency per passenger is virtually the same, and S.F. is paying approximately thirty times more for a hybrid system than people buying a hybrid Prius, Civic, Escape, or Accord. How do they do this so badly?
When could they break even? My calculation is that the extra cost is about $18000/year (10 year bus life before major overhaul/replacement, 5% lost interest) is equivalent to driving the bus about 100,000 miles per year.
In other words, I think that the engineers and environmentalists got together and told the financial guys and taxpayers where to go.
Robert Perry - 07:06am on 06/05/2006
Yeah, but they feel morally superior now.
The Whistler - 07:06am on 06/05/2006
Excuse my error; the break even point is 150k miles per year or so, not 100k miles, as the cost difference is about 40 to 50 times that of a hybrid automobile vs. standard. That’s about 500 miles per day, or about 35 hours at the rate a typical city bus progresses. It is mathematically impossible for these buses to pay for themselves.
Morally superior? Tell that to a Bay area homeowner around tax time.
The biggest lie here is that maintenance costs will be lower. Not gonna happen.
"Extremism in the pursuit of environmentalism is no vice!” -Barry Newsomwater
The normal maintenance costs may actually be lower but when it comes time to replace the batteries it’s going to leap in multiples of normal costs. I’m, off the grid with over 80% of my power coming from solar, for the expenses of ‘cheap’ solar I could run two of the diesel generators I have 24-7 and cut my costs by more than 60% every three years when I factor in battery replacement. I use the solar because I want to, not because it’s saving anything. I’m also doing it with my own money, big difference. In the case of SF and NYC the treehuggers are forcing other people to pay more for less to make themselves feel better, not to help the environment. Liberal ‘reasoning’ at its finest.
Given that the big diesels used in semis typically reach about half a million miles before even needing an overhaul, I’d agree that the idea of “lower maintenance costs” is dubious at best. You can’t get much cheaper than diesel, and this bus is adding parts to break. As a rule, that doesn’t reduce costs, but rather increases them. Worse, use of a diesel engine in a “full hybrid” mode (turning it on & off) is the best way to accelerate engine wear that I know of.
I’m also somewhat curious about why adding a big electric motor/generator and battery pack is increasing the cost of these buses by $120,000 while decreasing passenger capacity by 30%. This leads to two interesting conclusions; efficiency per passenger is virtually the same, and S.F. is paying approximately thirty times more for a hybrid system than people buying a hybrid Prius, Civic, Escape, or Accord. How do they do this so badly?
When could they break even? My calculation is that the extra cost is about $18000/year (10 year bus life before major overhaul/replacement, 5% lost interest) is equivalent to driving the bus about 100,000 miles per year.
In other words, I think that the engineers and environmentalists got together and told the financial guys and taxpayers where to go.
Yeah, but they feel morally superior now.
Excuse my error; the break even point is 150k miles per year or so, not 100k miles, as the cost difference is about 40 to 50 times that of a hybrid automobile vs. standard. That’s about 500 miles per day, or about 35 hours at the rate a typical city bus progresses. It is mathematically impossible for these buses to pay for themselves.
Morally superior? Tell that to a Bay area homeowner around tax time.