The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Going up the hill is just a matter of power. I find it hard to imagine that this is a situation that can't be overcome with a larger battery pack and/or motor.

Oh well. Maybe they start transitioning towards the end of the decade.

This news story from early in the year notes a few reasons, and it sounds like a transition will begin to happen at some point.


“Ultimately, we want to start acquiring electric vehicles,” said Mayor Fred Eisenberger, who urged HSR staff to start studying electric bus options two years ago. “We know they are viable ... the outstanding issue is cost.”

The city test drove two different models of electric buses on loan in 2018 and a planned new bus storage facility is expected to be outfitted for electric charging. HSR officials say a report on a possible electric bus pilot is on the way.

But the latest bus purchases by the city are still for CNG vehicles — and an electric-powered light rail transit line planned for Hamilton’s busiest transit corridor was infamously cancelled by the province in 2019.

LRT politics aside, Hamilton has a few other challenges to overcome before it can go electric, said HSR fleet manager Mark Selkirk.

An electric bus costs up to $1.2 million compared to an $700,000 CNG equivalent — and charging infrastructure is pricey, too. The federal and provincial governments put up more than $40 million toward Oakville’s recent commitment to replace dozens of diesel buses with electric over six years.

“Range anxiety” is another potential issue on longer HSR routes — as is Hamilton’s steep escarpment.

But the biggest problem right now might be where to store and power up the buses.

Selkirk said the city could temporarily accommodate and charge up to 10 electric buses at its crowded Upper James facility. But to add any more, the city needs to build a new lower city bus barn that is still awaiting long-requested federal and provincial grant money.


And in the spring the city partnered with the gas company on a renewable natural gas bus program. I didn't see anything about this until just now, but perhaps a portion of the new buses will run on this fuel? (or can you have compressed renewable natural gas?)
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/en...first-carbon-negative-bus-890245563.html

[MalcolmTucker]

Sure you can. Not that it matters- you just need to make sure enough renewable natural gas is injected in the network by someone as the gas you use.

[ScreamingViking]

So this all makes much more sense now. Later in the decade there will probably be a mix of electrics and CNG with a portion of the latter powered by renewable gas.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Sure you can. Not that it matters- you just need to make sure enough renewable natural gas is injected in the network by someone as the gas you use.

RNG really isn't much of a thing. And it's certainly not available in the kinds of numbers HSR will be consuming.

CNG is better than diesel. And hopefully they get the confidence to start bus electrification in the next 5 years.

Part of the reason, I cheer this on (other than the obvious environmental benefits), is because the $170/tonne carbon tax in 2030, is going to burn a real hole in the budgets of transit agencies that haven't electrified at least a third of their bus fleets by then.

And the current federal combination of grants for electrification infrastructure and loans for the BEB cost differential is one of the best deals that transit agencies are ever going to get.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

RNG really isn't much of a thing. And it's certainly not available in the kinds of numbers HSR will be consuming.

CNG is better than diesel. And hopefully they get the confidence to start bus electrification in the next 5 years.

Part of the reason, I cheer this on (other than the obvious environmental benefits), is because the $170/tonne carbon tax in 2030, is going to burn a real hole in the budgets of transit agencies that haven't electrified at least a third of their bus fleets by then.

And the current federal combination of grants for electrification infrastructure and loans for the BEB cost differential is one of the best deals that transit agencies are ever going to get.

But it is. Both a thing, and a thing in enough quantity.

Lots of landfill gas is produced in Canada. RNG is just if we expanded that concept wider - cut out the middle man and go direct from greenbins to digesters. https://www.hamilton.ca/government-infor...gas-partners-city-hamilton-fuel-ontarios

"RNG vehicle fuel is upgraded biogas; the gaseous product of the decomposition of organic waste from homes and businesses that has been processed into green fuel. This green HSR bus operates with carbon-negative RNG—fuel that goes beyond net-zero—provided from the StormFisher facility in London, Ontario"

The gas is not novel, the amount of gas is large-ish.

For one bus for the year, "it requires 450 tonnes of organic waste to produce 38,940 m3 of RNG (1500 GJ). 450 tonnes is roughly equivalent to 38 garbage trucks of organic waste (assuming 12 t per truck)."

Just short of 80,000 tonnes of waste for enough gas, or equivalent to 80% of the existing StormFisher plant RNG plant by London.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But it is. Both a thing, and a thing in enough quantity.

Lots of landfill gas is produced in Canada. RNG is just if we expanded that concept wider - cut out the middle man and go direct from greenbins to digesters. https://www.hamilton.ca/government-infor...gas-partners-city-hamilton-fuel-ontarios

"RNG vehicle fuel is upgraded biogas; the gaseous product of the decomposition of organic waste from homes and businesses that has been processed into green fuel. This green HSR bus operates with carbon-negative RNG—fuel that goes beyond net-zero—provided from the StormFisher facility in London, Ontario"

The gas is not novel, the amount of gas is large-ish.

For one bus for the year, "it requires 450 tonnes of organic waste to produce 38,940 m3 of RNG (1500 GJ). 450 tonnes is roughly equivalent to 38 garbage trucks of organic waste (assuming 12 t per truck)."

Just short of 80,000 tonnes of waste for enough gas, or equivalent to 80% of the existing StormFisher plant RNG plant by London.

You didn't keep going with your math. That 80,000 t is equivalent to 177 buses.

Now, how many MW is the plant rated at? How many electric buses would it power.

Locally, we have a plant that does about 1.6 MW from landfill gas. How many buses would that be?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You didn't keep going with your math. That 80,000 t is equivalent to 177 buses.

Now, how many MW is the plant rated at? How many electric buses would it power.

Locally, we have a plant that does about 1.6 MW from landfill gas. How many buses would that be?

1.6 MW can simultaneously charge 10 buses. Over 8 hours (generously-nights), 20 buses could be charged. 60 if you thought about offsets and 24 hours. All assuming 86% efficiency (but losses along the entire chain would be higher). Edited due to rushed math

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

1.6 MW can simultaneously charge 6 buses. Over 8 hours (generously-nights), 12 buses could be charged. 36 if you thought about offsets and 24 hours. All assuming 100% efficiency.

We have over 90 buses for over 40 routes. So, our local landfill cannot meet the needs of charging. Would that amount of gas be able to run all 90 buses?

What about Hamilton?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

1.6 MW can simultaneously charge 6 buses. Over 8 hours (generously-nights), 12 buses could be charged.

1600 kW × 8 hrs ÷ 12 buses ≈ 1067 kWh/bus.

That seems a tad high when most of these buses have packs in the 200-400 kWh range. I would expect 1.6 MW continuous power to be able to charge 30-40 buses over 8-10 hrs.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

1600 kW × 8 hrs ÷ 12 buses ≈ 1067 kWh/bus.

That seems a tad high when most of these buses have packs in the 200-400 kWh range. I would expect 1.6 MW continuous power to be able to charge 30-40 buses over 8-10 hrs.

Which is still too low for here.

Is there anywhere that can supply their own power for their fleet?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Which is still too low for here.

Is there anywhere that can supply their own power for their fleet?

You're mixing up power generation and charging capacity. They aren't the same thing.

A 1.6 MW plant running over 24 hrs outputs 38 400 kWh of energy.

90 buses with 300 kWh batteries need 27 000 kWh of energy.

So the plant clearly generates more than the buses need. It just doesn't do it in the 8-10 hr the buses have to charge. So either they get additional generation or they store energy on site to transfer to the buses during their overnight charging period.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You're mixing up power generation and charging capacity. They aren't the same thing.

A 1.6 MW plant running over 24 hrs outputs 38 400 kWh of energy.

90 buses with 300 kWh batteries need 27 000 kWh of energy.

So the plant clearly generates more than the buses need. It just doesn't do it in the 8-10 hr the buses have to charge. So either they get additional generation or they store energy on site to transfer to the buses during their overnight charging period.

Thank you for clarifying that up. Sounds like some sort of powerwall/battery bank. Or, swapable batteries that can easily be removed so that the buses don't need to be idle to charge. That is the future.

Now, using the potential gas, would it be able to power those same buses?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Thank you for clarifying that up. Sounds like some sort of powerwall/battery bank. Or, swapable batteries that can easily be removed so that the buses don't need to be idle to charge. That is the future.

Now, using the potential gas, would it be able to power those same buses?

Just as a gas grid, why would you go to that trouble? As long as you net out who cares? Does it matter if it is the ‘correct’ electron or CH4 molecule? No.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Just as a gas grid, why would you go to that trouble? As long as you net out who cares? Does it matter if it is the ‘correct’ electron or CH4 molecule? No.

Exactly, but if they claim they are using "100% renewable natural gas" they will be filthy liars, same way Calgary Transit is with their claims of running the CTrain on renewable energy when it's the exact same stuff the rest of us use. I can't call myself a vegetarian if I buy a burger that contains 0-10% synthetic meat depending on availability.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Exactly, but if they claim they are using "100% renewable natural gas" they will be filthy liars, same way Calgary Transit is with their claims of running the CTrain on renewable energy when it's the exact same stuff the rest of us use. I can't call myself a vegetarian if I buy a burger that contains 0-10% synthetic meat depending on availability.

But that isn't a filthy lie. Literally the entire emissions trading scheme which underpins environmental progress is built on similar transactions. All built up from foundational work with the Delaware River study which proved using market mechanisms led to the most emissions reductions for the least cost (they divided up the river into three branches with different policy instruments applied to each).

The whole point is having a tank to store RNG that was produced proximate to the fueling site, or a specialized pipeline to supply the site with only RNG is ineffective. The same result comes from injecting RNG into the gas network anywhere, and using gas from the same network.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Now, using the potential gas, would it be able to power those same buses?

I'm not sure. One would need figures on how much gas is pumped in and consumption of those buses. Given the general inefficiency of combustion at the vehicular level, I have my doubts that the gas that solely supplies the plant could fuel 90 buses.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But that isn't a filthy lie. Literally the entire emissions trading scheme which underpins environmental progress is built on similar transactions. All built up from foundational work with the Delaware River study which proved using market mechanisms led to the most emissions reductions for the least cost (they divided up the river into three branches with different policy instruments applied to each).

The whole point is having a tank to store RNG that was produced proximate to the fueling site, or a specialized pipeline to supply the site with only RNG is ineffective. The same result comes from injecting RNG into the gas network anywhere, and using gas from the same network.

Just because a whole system is built on a lie does not make it less of a lie. The entity that gets to take credit for a carbon neutral energy source is the one that made it, not the one that uses it. Building duplicate gas tanks and transmission lines for renewable energy would indeed be pointless, but we don't have to be dishonest about the system we use.

Does Calgary Transit shut down the LRT when the wind isn't blowing? No.

We have a mechanism for reducing emissions - pricing. We all know that's the best system, so let's use it. That renewable gas should have the federal carbon tax applied and the electricity Calgary Transit uses has whatever scheme our grid uses. No need for lying about using green electrons and CH4 molecules.

[Nouvellecosse]

A system being more complex doesn't make it a lie. With cap and trade systems the entity buying the credits is putting funding toward and thus incentivizing the clean energy. It would be like if you want to only eat home cooked meals but you have trouble doing it all yourself due to your schedule or disability so you hire someone to do some of the cooking for you. It would be lying if you claimed that you cooked all of your meals, but if you simply said that all your meals are 100% home cooked, there's no lie there. I suppose one could argue that it's misleading if people are getting a false impression, but I don't believe that any potential false impression is material to the situation. In the case of the meals, the purpose is to state the type of food your're eating, while with the renewable energy, the purpose isn't to communicate how they're obtaining the renewable energy but rather the that they're obtaining it.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm not sure. One would need figures on how much gas is pumped in and consumption of those buses. Given the general inefficiency of combustion at the vehicular level, I have my doubts that the gas that solely supplies the plant could fuel 90 buses.

450 tonnes of organic waste to produce 38,940 m3 of RNG (1500 GJ).



So 80,000 tonnes a year for the buses, producing 266k GJ.



One GJ is equal to 277.8 kilowatt hours (kWh) of heat. 73,894,800 kWh total. But the conversion is only 40% efficient to electricity. So 3.3 MW of production in an average hour. Then distribution losses, then losses on conversion in the charger, then on drawing from the battery. So lets say roughly charging 30 buses simultaneously in 4 hour cycles. So 60 overnight, and the equivalent of 180 over 24 hours, assuming no efficiency losses besides the gas heat value to electricity.





266666.6666666667

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Just because a whole system is built on a lie does not make it less of a lie. The entity that gets to take credit for a carbon neutral energy source is the one that made it, not the one that uses it. Building duplicate gas tanks and transmission lines for renewable energy would indeed be pointless, but we don't have to be dishonest about the system we use.

Does Calgary Transit shut down the LRT when the wind isn't blowing? No.

We have a mechanism for reducing emissions - pricing. We all know that's the best system, so let's use it. That renewable gas should have the federal carbon tax applied and the electricity Calgary Transit uses has whatever scheme our grid uses. No need for lying about using green electrons and CH4 molecules.

The bold part is wrong. When you buy the renewable energy, you have the option to buy the renewable energy certificate. That transfers the zero or negative emissions to you, or in a market like Alberta, you could opt for natural gas combined cycle only, and you get the certificate for the level of emissions, instead of the grid average. Of course, you have to decide if the certificate is worth more to you, or is a lower price worth more. Lots of renewable energy produced in Alberta is not renewable energy for Alberta-the certificates are sold to mostly California, and then technically the company in Alberta then should report California average grid emissions for the same amount of power as emissions from their project. Main point is, you can't sell the certificate twice-a renewable energy project which sells its certificates elsewhere should not be counted towards the Alberta average carbon intensity of the electricity grid for the purpose of calculating Scope 2 emissions.


The system above is driving by pricing. That is where your thought process is failing. They no longer have to pay the carbon price, as they by purchasing RNG for injection into the grid are generating carbon credits-negative emissions. The facility is generating the negative emissions, and the purchaser is buying them.