Content uploaded by Emilia M. Szumska
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emilia M. Szumska on Dec 16, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Ek s p l o a t a c j a i Ni E z a w o d N o s c – Ma i N t E N a N c E a N d REl ia b i li t y Vo l . 24, No. 1, 2022
7
E-mail addresses:
Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc – Maintenance and Reliability
Volume 24 (2022), Issue 1
journal homepage: http://www.ein.org.pl
Indexed by:
1. Introduction
Currently, the largest part of the fleet of Polish companies oper-
ating urban public transport have buses equipped with conventional
diesel propulsion systems. Positive information is the growing year-
by-year share of buses powered by alternative fuels or equipped with
alternative drives.
The increase in the number of low-emission vehicles is associated
with the increasing level of ecological awareness of the society. Low-
ering noise levels, environmental protection, and air quality are the
main reasons why Polish cities are trying to replace conventional bus-
es with low-emission vehicles. Adopted more than two years ago, the
Responsible Development Strategy [20] assumes the dissemination
of transport based on electric buses and other vehicles using electric
drive trains. The Ministry of Development has assumed that by 2021
1,000 electric urban buses will be in operation on Polish roads. With
the help of EU funds and Polish government programs, city carri-
ers can count on cofinancing for the purchase of alternative powered
vehicles.
Rising fuel prices are another issue. In the global economy, oil
plays a key role in the economic system [13]. Transport is particularly
dependent on oil. The fuel market is sensitive to any economic and
political changes. Oil prices depend on political, economic, social,
technical, climatic, and military factors. Large fluctuations in the fuel
market occur during armed conflicts, especially in areas extracting
crude oil [21, 29].
It is also worth emphasizing that vehicles with alternative drives
show lower energy consumption, which significantly reduces operat-
ing costs. These factors make hybrid (HEV) and electric (EV) vehicles
more and more competitive compared to conventional vehicles. One
of the barriers to increasing the market share of this type of vehicles
is still high purchase costs.
The diversity of alternative powertrain technologies increases the
challenges in decision making, so it is necessary to study in detail
the different configurations of city buses. This is especially important
when estimating the profitability of city buses, taking into account
operating schedules and route planning. Compared to passenger cars,
the energy indicators that characterize the fuel consumption of city
buses for the period of their operation are much higher.
The aim of this work was an analyse of the economic efficiency of
city buses with different types of drive system for selected urban and
suburban lines, using the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) method. The
From an economic perspective, the purchase cost of an electric bus is greater than that of a
conventional one. This results from the additional components of the bus drivetrain and the
costly charging infrastructure. However, it should be noted that electric bus ensures greener
and more sustainable public transport. The presented study focuses on the economic and
energy eciency analysis of city buses with dierent types of driving system evaluated for
selected urban and suburban routes. The routes dier in terms of the number of journeys per
day, elevation, the daily distance travelled, and the daily operating time. The results demon-
strate that driving conditions can aect economic eciency. The Total Cost of Ownership
(TCO) method used in the study shows that electric buses represent the highest TCO values
among the vehicles taken into account. However, for the TCO calculated for electric and
hybrid buses, fuel (energy) costs have a much lower share than for the TCO of conventional
buses.
Highlights Abstract
We have described a modelling framework for •
some urban bus routes in Kielce, Poland.
We have defined assumptions for the conducted •
TCO analysis.
We have presented some results of the TCO anal-•
ysis for different types of urban buses.
We have determined two factors that have a sig-•
nificant impact on TCO values.
In our opinion, electric buses represent the highest •
TCO values among urban buses.
Total Cost of Ownership analysis and energy efciency of electric, hybrid
and conventional urban buses
Emilia M. Szumska a, Marek Pawełczyk b , Rafał Jurecki a
a Kielce University of Technology, Faculty of Mechatronics and Mechanical Engineering,
b Kielce University of Technology, Faculty of Management and Computer Modeling,
Szumska EM, Pawełczyk M, Jurecki R. Total Cost of Ownership analysis and energy efciency of electric, hybrid and conventional urban
buses. Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc – Maintenance and Reliability 2022; 24 (1): 7–14, http://doi.org/10.17531/ein.2022.2.2.
Article citation info:
public transport, electric bus, Total Cost of Ownership
Keywords
This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
EM. Szumska (ORCID: 9000-0002-2222-0000) eszumska@tu.kielce.pl, M. Pawełczyk (ORCID: 9000-0002-3333-0000)
m.pawelczyk@tu.kielce.pl, R. Jurecki (ORCID: 9000-0002-4444-0000) rjurecki@tu.kielce.pl
Ek s p l o a t a c j a i NiEzawodNosc – Ma i N t E N a N c E a N d RE l ia b i li t y Vo l . 24, No. 1, 2022
8
value of owning and operating costs for city buses depends largely on
the type of propulsion system. Electrically powered vehicles require
batteries to be replaced during the lifetime of the bus. Operators who
decide to purchase low-emission vehicles should take into account the
costs of additional infrastructure, and this applies to electric buses.
Often this involves adapting bus depots or bus stops to install battery
charging devices. TCO makes it possible to estimate the total costs
of a vehicle related to its purchase, use and decommissioning. The
aim of this paper was to estimate the amount of the following costs:
purchase cost of the vehicle, cost of fuel consumption, cost of repairs,
cost of battery replacement, cost of charging infrastructure during the
lifetime of the vehicle. In this study, an analysis of the costs associ-
ated with the ownership of urban buses with conventional, hybrid and
electric drive systems was conducted.
The presented paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes
the general description of the Total Cost of Ownership concept. Sec-
tion 3 illustrates the modelling framework, presenting the selected
routes, vehicles, and simulation program. Section 4 provides the TCO
model. Section 5 discusses the results. Section 6 concludes and high-
lights shortcomings of the study.
2. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
Total Cost of Ownership - TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is the
sum of all vehicle costs from its purchase phase, through usage, to
its disposal. The TCO analysis allows for the assessment of direct
and indirect purchase costs. It gives the opportunity to determine the
amount of costs associated with the use and possession of the pur-
chased means of transport. In the literature, the main cost categories
that make up a vehicle’s TCO are: purchase cost, fuel (energy) cost,
repair, and maintenance costs.
In the work [37] it was suggested that the total cost of vehicle use
consists of: One-Time Cost (e.g. purchase cost, registration cost) and
recurring costs (e.g. fuel, repair, insurance costs). According to the au-
thors of [15], the TCO analysis of a vehicle can be carried out in two
categories: consumer-oriented research and society-oriented research.
The first group takes into account the costs distinguished by consum-
ers and compares various technologies of vehicle propulsion systems.
For society-oriented TCOs, consumer costs include the external costs
of using a vehicle, such as air pollution, noise, accidents, congestion,
climate change, and environmental impact.
In many analyses and studies, the total cost of using vehicles is
extended to include factors relevant to the author. For example, in [37]
it was shown that as many as 34 different factors influence the TCO
level of a vehicle with an electric drive system. Among them there
were identified the main groups of costs associated with the produc-
tion of the vehicle and batteries, operating costs, costs associated with
charging, taxes and fees. These costs were distinguished on the basis
of available scientific articles and articles, opinions of specialists and
employees of the automotive industry, and on the basis of the results
of the consumer survey.
The article [10] presents the TCO analysis carried out for passenger
cars with electric and conventional hybrid drives. The authors have
shown that consumer preferences have a significant impact on the
purchase of an electric vehicle. According to the results of the analy-
sis, buyers (consumers) are mainly guided by the purchase price of
the vehicle.
For example, work [1] presents a comprehensive TCO model, in
which special attention has been paid to the costs of using a vehicle
with a hybrid plug-in drive system. The maintenance cost of the ve-
hicle includes the insurance cost, the annual cost of registration, the
fuel cost, the repair cost, the value of the redemption and the cost
of the loan. The authors emphasized that the value of TCO is sig-
nificantly influenced by vehicle type, annual mileage, and changes in
fuel prices. The authors of the articles [17, 3] drawn similar conclu-
sions. A TCO analysis was carried out for various types of passenger
car (small, medium, large) and three assumed annual mileage values.
Furthermore, in the TCO cost analysis of hybrid and electric vehi-
cles presented in [17], the resale value of the battery for its next use
(so-called second life, for example, as an energy storage device) was
taken into account.
The article [40] presents the TCO values for various types of pas-
senger cars (small, medium and large). The Monte Carlo method was
used to estimate the TCO in 2025. Based on the results obtained, it
was found that “small” electric cars in 2025 will have a lower TCO
level than conventional cars of the same class.
Owners of new vehicles usually use them for an average of 5 to
8 years. Then they resell the vehicle. According to [9], the vehicle’s
resale price is influenced, among others, by mechanical reliability,
durability, user feedback, and social trends. In the works [28, 9], the
costs of the total use of vehicles with conventional and alternative
drives were compared. The analyses assume that the car has a lifetime
of 5 years and the TCO includes the resale value of the vehicle. The
authors developed a model on the basis of which it was found that
the resale price of a vehicle depends on its mileage. On the basis of
the results, hybrid and electric vehicles have higher resale prices than
conventional vehicles, in addition to lower fuel costs.
Vehicle use conditions have a significant impact on the total cost
of their use. The article [11] provides an analysis of the TCO level for
light duty vehicles (LDV) with conventional and alternative drives.
The results presented show that the values of the total cost of owner-
ship values of electric and hybrid vehicles are lower in urban driving
conditions and higher when the share of driving on highways is high.
The geographical region may also affect the TCO level. Fuel price
level, average annual mileage, taxes and insurance prices, as well as
climatic conditions, as well as road condition depend on the country
or region [33]. The impact of the factors mentioned above on the TCO
values of vehicles with various types of propulsion system was con-
firmed in the paper [2]. Based on the TCO analyzes carried out for 14
cities in the United States, electric vehicles have been shown to have
the highest TCO levels. Government subsidies are a key factor in the
increase in the number of electric and hybrid vehicles on the vehicle
market. In the article [31], an analysis of the cost of using passenger
cars was carried out for 11 Chinese cities.
In the paper [25], the TCO level for passenger cars with hybrid,
electric, and plug-in hybrid cars was estimated in the years 2000-2015
for the UK, the US, and Japan. Using the regression model, the rela-
tionship between the TCO value and the market share of hybrid and
electric vehicles was determined. The authors conclude that the in-
crease in the market share of alternative powered vehicles is affected
by a reduction in the TCO value through government subsidies (Ja-
pan). Similarly, the authors of the work [18] state how the cost of TCO
for conventional and electric passenger cars is calculated in eight Eu-
ropean countries. The authors analysed the impact of taxes and fees
on the TCO level of a vehicle. As in previous publications, the authors
emphasize that government subsidies can increase the number of elec-
tric vehicles.
In addition to economic factors, in the analysis of the total cost of
ownership, many studies also consider the ecological aspects of vari-
ous types of propulsion systems in vehicles. For example, the analysis
of operating costs presented in [12] takes into account the emission
costs of 44 vehicles available on the market with 6 different hybrid
propulsion configurations. Based on the results, driving conditions
have a significant impact on the level of total cost of ownership. Hy-
brids tested show the lowest costs in urban driving conditions, while
the highest on highways. The paper [35] presents the analysis of TCO
costs, including emission costs for passenger cars with conventional
(gasoline, diesel) and alternative (HEV, HEV, plug-in HEV, EV, LPG)
cars.
The paper [14] presents the analysis of operating costs, including
the cost of emissions of conventional and alternative heavy-duty ve-
hicles (HEV, EV, CNG). Fuel consumption, energy, and emissions
values were estimated for six routes in the British Columbia (Canada)
region.
Ek s p l o a t a c j a i Ni E z a w o d N o s c – Ma i N t E N a N c E a N d REl ia b i li t y Vo l . 24, No. 1, 2022
9
In the literature, one work can be found in which the value of the
total cost of use includes social costs. Among the factors that influ-
ence social costs, the following are mainly distinguished: emissions
costs, costs of climate change, costs of accidents, costs of noise, and
costs of congestion. The article [9] presents the analysis of total cost
of use, taking into account the social costs of passenger cars with con-
ventional propulsion (Diesel, gasoline) and equipped with engines
fueled with natural gas (LPG, CNG). Social costs include the cost of
the harmful effects of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions on
the human body. In [30], the TCO values were estimated taking into
account the social costs of 66 passenger cars with conventional and
alternative drives. As a result of the analyses, the average TCO value
was estimated for each of the types of propulsion system available on
the market. The total cost of ownership values presented in [5] include
the social costs of using the vehicle. The authors also examined the
impact of driving behavior on the TCO level. Based on the results of
the aforementioned works, electric vehicles are characterized by the
lowest social costs. They show the lowest emission values and have
the lowest noise level.
In many works, the level of TCO cost was considered as the one
taking into account technical aspects, such as the capacity of the fuel
tank and the distance that the vehicle runs using only an electric motor,
among other [24, 38]. The paper [16] presents
the TCO analysis of LDV category vehicles
with different types of propulsion system (ICE,
BEV, HEV, FCEV and FC-R) taking into ac-
count the impact of range of electric vehicles.
Electric vehicles and vehicles equipped with
fuel cells show significantly higher TCO val-
ues. The authors predict that this may change
only after 2030, when the cost of lithium ion
cell and battery production decreases and the
range of this type of vehicle increases.
In the literature, TCO cost analyses can be
found mainly for passenger cars. The authors focus on compar-
ing vehicles equipped with conventional and alternative drives.
Few publications on the evaluation of economic benefits and
the TCO estimate for city buses are available. These works as a
rule present a comparison of the TCO cost level for buses with
different types of propulsion system, including [23, 36, 8].
3. Modelling framework
3.1. Routes
Routes regularly served by public transport vehicles in
Kielce, Poland, have been used for analyses. The routes run
through the city centre. The route chosen as the first cycle (KI)
reflects the bus route 13, which runs more or less latitudinal,
from the east to the west of the city, in a relatively flat area. For
the second urban cycle (KII), the bus route No. 30 was used,
which runs longitudinally from the northern to the southern part of the
city in the highland area. The maximum gradient of the route is 4%.
Lines No. 41 (PI) and No. 43 (PII) were used to develop subur-
ban cycles. These lines are characterized by similar length and similar
travel time, while they differ in vertical profile. Differences in the
height of the terrain along bus route No. 41 reach 160 meters, while
for route No. 43 - only 60 m.
The urban KI cycle lasts 4568 s, its length is 20.25 km, and the
average speed is 15.95 km / h. The KII cycle is about 700 m shorter
and has a higher average speed of 16.44 km / h. The PI suburban cycle
is about 4 km shorter than the PII and has a higher average speed. The
duration of both cycles is similar. Selected driving cycle parameters
are presented in Table 1.
The speed profiles of the selected driving cycles are presented in
Fig. 2.
3.2. Vehicles
A city bus with a length of 12 meters, a frontal area equal to 7.24
m2, a rolling resistance coefficient equal to 0.001, and an aerody-
namic drag coefficient of 0.6 was chosen for the simulation tests.
Simulations were carried out for the following propulsion system op-
tions: conventional, series hybrid (SHEV), parallel hybrid (PHEV)
and electric with a battery of 200 kWh (EV 200 kWh) and 300 kWh
(EV 200 kWh) energy capacity. Other vehicle technical specifications
are presented in Table 2.
Lithium ion batteries were assumed to be used in vehicles. The
initial battery state of charge (SoC) in hybrids was 70% and in electric
buses was 100%.
3.3. Ways to charge electric vehicles
Buses with an electric drive system have a limited range, usually
100-150 km. This determines the need for the appropriate selection of
Table 1. Driving cycle parameters
cycle time [h] length [km] average speed
[km / h]
average acceleration
[m / s2]
urban KI 1,35 21,90 15,95 0,55
KII 1,27 20.81 16,44 0,54
suburban PI 2,19 49.61 26,62 0,58
PII 2,08 53.19 23,64 0,4
Fig.1. Vertical shape of terrain for a) urban and b) suburban routes
Fig. 2. Speed profiles of driving cycles
b)
a)
Ek s p l o a t a c j a i NiEzawodNosc – Ma i N t E N a N c E a N d REl i a bi l it y Vo l . 24, No. 1, 2022
10
the strategy and the battery charging method so that the vehicle can
properly implement the assumed timetable. The energy charging of
electric buses can be performed in the depot or using fast charging
devices at stops or bus termini. Currently, the following methods for
charging electric bus batteries are distinguished:
• charging via plug connector,
• charging using a pantograph,
• wireless (inductive) charging.
Two of the above-mentioned methods are widely used in Poland:
charging with a plug connector and with a pantograph. The battery
charging system using a plug connector (similar to obvious plug-in) is
similar to charging systems for electric passenger cars. It is about sup-
plying electricity using a cable with a plug, DC or AC. When charging
with alternating current, it is necessary to use a rectifier installed in
the vehicle, which results in an increase in the weight of the bus and a
reduction in the passenger space. The charging method using a plug-in
connector is carried out mainly in depots during a night stopover due
to the long charging time.
Charging electric bus batteries using a pantograph is currently the
most popular method. Unlike the previous charging method, the use
of a pantograph allows the battery to be recharged at bus stops and
loops (bus termini). Depending on the configuration of the system,
the pantograph can be pulled out of the charging station (‘Off-board
Top-down Pantograph’) or from the vehicle (‘Off-board Bottom-up
Pantograph’). After stopping at a designated place, the bus is con-
nected to the charging station using a pantograph. Charging is carried
out with a direct voltage of up to 750V at a current of up to 1000A.
The pantograph charging method allows for quick charging of the bus
battery; however, it requires appropriate and expensive infrastructure
[6, 32].
Plug-in chargers usually allow buses to charge with a power of
100-150 kW. It takes several hours to fully charge the battery. For
pantograph chargers, it is possible to charge at night with a power of
50-150 kW, as well as to recharge the battery at stops and loops with
a power of 150-600 kW. High charging power allows batteries to be
recharged in a short time [34].
3.4. Vehicle Modelling and Simulation Software - ADVISOR
ADVISOR software (ADvanced Vehicle SImulatOR) software was
used for simulations. Their results have been presented in the paper.
The software is an overlay on the Matlab / Simulink environment.
ADVISOR is a popular tool for simulating vehicles with various drive
configurations. It was developed by the American National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL). The software contains embedded vehicle
models (LDV, HDV) with conventional, serial, and parallel hybrid
drives, electric vehicles, and vehicles equipped with hydrogen cells.
Using extensive libraries, the user develops the vehicle model using
drop-down menus in the dialog box. In the first step, the type of vehicle,
the type of drive, and the individual elements of the drive system can
be selected. The user can specify the parameters of the power train, its
efficiency, and mass. In the next step, the driving cycle can be chosen.
With the assumed propulsion configuration and the specified driving
cycle, the program enables the evaluation of the drive characteristics
and execution of the energy flow analysis for the developed vehicle.
The program also allows modification of models by entering files
with vehicle data, characteristics and parameters of the propulsion
system modules and the storage tank, or design and implementation
of the user’s own model. It is also
possible to modify the built-in or add
developed by the user driving cycle
by implementing files with data de-
scribing speed as a function of time,
road gradient as a function of road
distance covered, etc. [19, 39].
ADVISOR is a widely used tool
for assessing the energy of vehicles
equipped with an alternative drive
train. Examples of using the ADVI-
SOR program in city bus modeling and simulation tests can be found,
eg, in works [22, 4, 26].
4. Cost analysis
4.1. TCO model
The total cost of ownership in relation to the route covered by the
vehicle can be described in the following form:
( )
11
NI
TCO p f m b i
ni
C CCCCC
==
=++++
∑∑
(1)
where: CTCO - the total cost of ownership, Cp - the cost of vehicle
purchase, Cf - the cost of fuel consumption, Cm - the cost of main-
tenance and operation, Cb - the cost of battery replacement, Ci - the
cost of infrastructure, i (1,2,..., I) - vehicle age, n (1,2,..., N) - number
of vehicles.
The first component of the TCO is the cost of vehicle purchase
(CP). Companies providing public transport services decide on the
selection of the transport means supplier based on the tender results.
Therefore, city bus manufacturers always adapt the offer to the indi-
vidual buyer’s expectations. The cost of purchasing Cp can be calcu-
lated as follows:
1
N
Pa
n
CP
=
=∑
(2)
where: Pa - purchase price of the bus.
The TCO cost includes the fuel costs (Cf) for conventional or hybrid
buses and, in the case of an electric vehicle, the electric energy pur-
chase costs. The fuel cost (Cf) can be calculated using the formula:
1100
Nc
ff
n
f
C PD
=
=⋅⋅
∑
(3)
where: fc - average fuel consumption (energy) [dm3 / 100km, kWh /
100km], Pf - price per unit of measure [euro / dm3, PLN / kWh], D -
annual mileage [km].
Another component of the total cost of ownership (TCO) is the
cost of vehicle maintenance and operation (Cm), which includes in-
surance costs, periodic inspection costs, costs of replacement of tires
and working fluids, as well as the costs of repairs required and costs
of removing defects.
Current operational experience shows that the energy storage de-
vice has a much shorter service life than the bus life. It was assumed
that the battery pack should be replaced every 6 years; therefore, the
battery will need to be replaced twice during the life of the bus. The
cost of the battery replacement Cb is as follows:
Table 2. Data describing the configuration of bus propulsion systems
Diesel EV 200 kWh EV 200 kWh SHEV PHEV
combustion engine power [kW] 205 - - 140 190
electric motor power [kW] - 200 170 150 40
battery energy capacity [kWh] - 300 200 9,4 1,8
Ek s p l o a t a c j a i Ni E z a w o d N o s c – Ma i N t E N a N c E a N d REl ia b i li t y Vo l . 24, No. 1, 2022
11
( )
11
NJ
bb
nj
CPB
==
=⋅
∑∑
(4)
where:
Pb – is the battery replacement price [euro / kWh], B - battery capac-
ity [kWh], j (1,2,..., J) - the number of battery replacements during
vehicle life.
Buses equipped with an electric drive system require special infra-
structure to be launched. It is a set of battery charging stations. The
cost of the infrastructure - Ci can be calculated as follows:
iC
CLP=⋅
(5)
where: L - number of charging stations on a given bus line, PC – total
cost of installation of the charging station [euro].
4.2. Data used for cost analysis
The analysis has assumed that the useful life of the bus is 15 years,
the price of diesel oil is 1.17 euros / dm3, and the price of electricity is
0.15 euros / kWh (Polish Chamber of Liquid Fuels, 2020). The prices of
fuels, electric energy and the cost of replacing batteries in EV and HEV
vehicles mentioned above were treated as fixed. In Table 3 data from
vehicles taken for analysis are presented. Repair and operating costs are
based on [41]. The battery replacement cost was taken from [7].
In the paper, two main methods of charging electric bus batter-
ies were considered: fast charging using a pantograph located on the
loops and slow charging using a plug-in, used mainly in depots. Table
4 presents the prices of the chargers taken from [41].
The driving cycles presented in the previous section reflect the cur-
rently implemented public transport routes in Kielce (Poland). Table 5
shows the daily parameters of selected urban and suburban bus routes.
Data were taken from the Urban Mobility Plan for City Kielce [27].
5. Results
5.1. Energy consumption
Fig. 3 shows the energy consumption values obtained for the ana-
lyzed vehicles after completing the routes once.
Fig. 3. Energy consumption
The highest energy consumption values obtained for the ve-
hicles analyzed were observed for urban cycles. This is espe-
cially evident for buses with conventional and hybrid propul-
sion systems. For the KI urban cycle, the vehicle with a classic
powertrain recorded about 35% lower energy consumption
in suburban cycles. Compared to the KI cycle, electric buses
showed a 27% lower energy consumption in the PI suburban
cycle and a 16% lower energy consumption in the PII cycle.
The bus with parallel hybrid drive compared to the KI cycle
noted a lower energy consumption by about 20% in suburban
cycles. In relation to the KI cycle, a vehicle with a serial hybrid
drive recorded a lower energy consumption of 54% in the PI
cycle and 34% in the PII cycle, respectively.
For cycles with a varied route profile (KII and PII), the electric and
hybrid buses that were analyzed, the higher level of energy consump-
tion was obtained. Vehicles with electric and hybrid powertrains can
recover some of the kinetic energy during braking. Fig.4 presents the
energy regenerated in the cycle per 1 km of the route.
Fig. 4. Regenerated energy level
The highest values of recovered energy were obtained for urban
cycles. It can be explained by short driving distances and, thus, the
need for frequent accelerations and braking. Higher levels of recov-
ered energy were achieved on routes with a varied route profile.
Table 3. Vehicle data for TCO analysis
Diesel EV SHEV
(9,4 kWh)
PHEV
(1,8 kWh)
purchase cost [euro] 214 300 595 300 357 100 357 100
maintenance and opera-
tion costs [euro/year] 3 500 3 000 3 600 3 600
cost of battery replace-
ment [euro] - 215 000 6 700 13 000
Table. 4. Prices of pantograph chargers used for calculations
charging power [kW] cost [PLN]
Plug-in charger 150 12 000
Pantograph charger
150 72 000
300 85 000
450 95 000
600 120 000
Table. 5. Daily operation parameters on selected bus route
cycle daily work
time [h]
weekly dis-
tance [km]
number of
trips per week
number of buses
on the route per
day
KI 21.15 951.75 87 3
KII 15.56 956.97 82 4
PI 10.95 256.9 6 1
PII 18.72 500.13 9 1
Ek s p l o a t a c j a i NiEzawodNosc – Ma i N t E N a N c E a N d REl i a bi l it y Vo l . 24, No. 1, 2022
12
Fig. 5 shows the percentage share of energy taken from the electric
bus battery after one cycle. The initial battery state of charge (SoC)
has been assumed to be 100%.
Fig. 5. Percentage share of energy taken from the battery
An electric bus equipped with a 300 kWh onboard battery con-
sumes 16% of the energy available during a city cycle. For suburban
cycles, the level of energy spent from the battery is 31% for the PI
cycle and 38% of the energy stored in the battery pack for the PII
cycle.
For the electric bus with the 200 kWh battery, for a single KI cycle
about 22% of the stored energy must be used and for the KII cycle
- 25%, respectively. This bus consumes about half of the energy avail-
able in the battery to perform one suburban cycle.
For the routes analyzed, electric buses are not able to meet the as-
sumed daily working time (Table 5) without recharging the battery.
The possible solution may be installation of the pantograph chargers
with high charging power: 150, 300, 450, or 600 kW at the termini. In
the presented study, the percentage of energy that can be stored when
charging during 5 min 10 min, and 15 min stops between courses has
been estimated (Fig. 6).
The selection of the appropriate charging power depends on the
range of the vehicle, the daily schedule, and the length of the routes. It
can be seen in the figure above that using the 150 kW charger during
15 minutes of bus inactivity can charge 9% of the 300 kWh battery
and 13% of the 200 kWh battery. This is not sufficient for the consid-
ered driving cycles.
For the KI and KII urban cycle routes, usage of the 450 kW charger
is to be used, which should allow 300 kWh battery charge by 18%
and a 200 kWh battery charge by 27% within 10 minutes. For the PI
suburban route, the daily number of routes is small and the average
sum of break time is 30 minutes. On this route, it is possible to use a
300 kW charger. For the PII route, three courses are scheduled in the
morning and three at the traffic peak in the afternoon. This requires
the installation of a 600 kW charger.
5.2. TCO analysis
The total cost of ownership (TCO) values for vehicles taken into
account for urban and suburban cycles are presented in Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. Summary of Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) on selected bus routes
The total cost of ownership significantly depends on the route (R).
For urban routes, the TCO values obtained for hybrid and convention-
al vehicles are similar. In urban cycles, the TCO values calculated for
electric buses are nearly 50% higher compared to buses with standard
power trains.
The vertical profile of the route is also an important issue. For the
urban KII and suburban PI cycles, the route profile was varied, which
significantly influenced the fuel (energy) consumption, and thus the
TCO values of the analyzed vehicles increased. For hybrid buses,
lower fuel consumption values were obtained compared to conven-
tional vehicles. Therefore, hybrids work well on routes with varying
terrain. For the urban cycle KI, the TCO values
obtained for hybrids were similar to the TCO
level of conventional vehicles, and in the PII
cycle, the TCO was lower for hybrids by ap-
proximately 25%.
Furthermore, the number of courses per-
formed during the week has a significant im-
pact on the value of TCO. The purchase costs
and infrastructure installation costs are in-
curred on a one-off basis and therefore they are
not dependent on mileage. The more courses,
the lower the influence of the fixed costs listed
above is. This is especially visible in the case
of the PI route, which is operated by only one
vehicle and runs only six courses a week.
Purchase costs represent the highest share
in the TCO of buses with electric and hybrid
drives (Fig.8). Depending on the route, its
share is 50-74% TCO. However, for electric
and hybrid buses, fuel (energy) costs have a
much lower share. For electric buses, this
share is 4-18% TCO, and for hybrids, 15-40%
TCO, respectively. Fuel costs have the largest share of the TCO of
conventional vehicles.
6. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to analyze the total ownership cost of
city buses with different types of propulsion system and for selected
urban and suburban cycles. On the basis of the results, it can be seen
that the route and the daily courses have a significant impact on the
TCO values. These two factors significantly affect the total cost of
Fig. 6. Percentage of energy stored in the battery during charging of the battery with an energy capacity of
a) 300 kWh, b) 200 kWh
Ek s p l o a t a c j a i Ni E z a w o d N o s c – Ma i N t E N a N c E a N d REl ia b i li t y Vo l . 24, No. 1, 2022
13
ownership of the vehicle regardless of the type of propulsion
system.
In addition, it was shown that the costs of owning and operat-
ing a city bus depend on the type of drive train. The TCO meth-
od allowed the assessment of the values of the individual cost
components comprising vehicle purchase and operating costs.
The test results show that electric buses represent the highest
TCO values among the vehicles taken into account. Compared
to standard buses, the TCO values obtained for electric buses
in urban cycles are about twice as high. Currently, only hybrid
buses can compete with conventional buses. They are character-
ized by a lower level of fuel consumption and similar values of
the total cost of ownership.
Many authors of the works mentioned in the first part of the
paper expect that vehicles equipped with electric propulsion
systems will become competitive for vehicles with standard
buses in a few years. This will be the result of the lower prices
of lithium-ion batteries and the rising fuel prices. Currently, the
only chance to increase the share of electric buses in the fleets
of Polish municipal public transport companies is the total or
partial financing of their purchase using government or local
government subsidies.
Fig. 8. TCO structure for the analyzed bus routes
References
1. Al-Alawi, BM, Bradley TH. Total cost of ownership, payback, and consumer preference modeling of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Applied Energy 2013; 103: 488-506, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.10.009.
2. Breetz HL, Salon D. Do electric vehicles need subsidies? Ownership costs for conventional, hybrid, and electric vehicles in 14 U.S. cities.
Energy Policy 2018; 120: 238-249, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.038.
3. Bubeck S, Tomaschek J, Fahl U. Perspectives of electric mobility: Total cost of ownership of electric vehicles in Germany. Transport Policy
2016; 50: 63-77, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.05.012.
4. Chen, D, Li X, Chen L, Yang L, Tian F, Xu D. Research on simulation of the hybrid electric vehicle based on software ADVISOR. Sensors
& Transducers 2014; 171: 68-77, http://www.sensorsportal.com/HTML/DIGEST/P_2085.htm.
5. De Clerck Q, Van Lier T, Messagie M, Macharis C, Van Mierlo J, Vanhaverbeke L. Total Cost for Society: A persona-based analysis of
electric and conventional vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2018; 64: 90-110, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2018.02.017.
6. Dobrzycki A, Filipiak M, Jajczyk J. Zasilanie układów ładowania akumulatorów autobusów elektrycznych. Poznań University of Technology
Academic Journals. Electrical Engineering 2017; 92: 25-35, https://doi.org/10.21008/j.1897-0737.2017.92.0002.
7. Dybalski J. MPK Tarnów has tested the electric bus and lists the vehicle's disadvantages (in Polish). Transport Publiczny 2018, available at:
https://www.transport-publiczny.pl/wiadomosci/mpk-tarnow-przetestowalo-elektrobus-i-wylicza-wady-takiego-pojazdu-59229.html.
8. Gerbec M, Samuel RO, Kontić D. Cost benet analysis of three dierent urban bus drive systems using real driving data. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2015; 41: 433-444, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.10.015.
9. Gilmore EA, Lave LB. Comparing resale prices and total cost of ownership for gasoline, hybrid and diesel passenger cars and trucks.
Transport Policy 2013; 27: 200-208, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.12.007.
10. Hagman J, Ritzén S, Stier JJ, Susilo Y. Total cost of ownership and its potential implications for battery electric vehicle diusion. Research
in Transportation Business & Management 2016; 18: 11-17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.01.003.
11. Harvey DLD. Cost and energy performance of advanced light duty vehicles: Implications for standards and subsidies. Energy Policy 2018;
114: 1-12, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.063.
12. Hutchinson T, Burgess S, Herrmann G. Current hybrid-electric powertrain architectures: Applying empirical design data to life cycle
assessment and whole-life cost analysis. Applied Energy 2014; 119: 314-329, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.01.009.
13. International Energy Agency - World Energy Balances and Statistics. 2019; https://www.iea.org/.
14. Lajevardi SM, Axsen J, Crawford C. Comparing alternative heavy-duty drivetrains based on GHG emissions, ownership and abatement
costs: Simulations of freight routes in British Columbia. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2019; 76: 19-55,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.08.031.
15. Lebeau K, Lebeau P, Macharis C, Van Mierlo J. How expensive are electric vehicles? A total cost of ownership analysis. World Electric
Vehicle Journal 2013; 6(4): 996-1007, http://doi.org/10.3390/wevj6040996.
16. Le Duigou A, Smatti A. On the comparison and the complementarity of batteries and fuel cells for electric driving. International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy 2014; 39(31): 17873-17883, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.08.077.
17. Letmathe P, Suares M. A consumer-oriented total cost of ownership model for dierent vehicle types in Germany. Transportation Research
Part D: Transport and Environment 2017; 57: 314-335, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.09.007.
18. Lévay ZP, Drossinos Y, Thiel C. The eect of scal incentives on market penetration of electric vehicles: A pairwise comparison of total cost
of ownership. Energy Policy 2017; 105: 524-533, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.02.054.
19. Markel T, Brooker A, Hendricks T, Johnson V, Kelly K, Kramer B, O’Keefe M, Sprik S, Wipke K. ADVISOR: a systems analysis tool for
advanced vehicle modeling. Journal of Power Sources 2002; 110: 255–266, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7753(02)00189-1.
20. Ministry of Development Funds and Regional Policy - The SRD Strategy for Responsible Development for the period up to 2020 (including
Ek s p l o a t a c j a i NiEzawodNosc – Ma i N t E N a N c E a N d REl i a bi l it y Vo l . 24, No. 1, 2022
14
the perspective up to 2030), 2017. https://www.gov.pl/documents/33377/436740/SOR_2017_streszczenie_en.pdf.
21. Mollick VA, Sakaki H. Exchange rates, oil prices and world stock returns. Resources Policy 2019; 61: 585-602, https://doi.org/10.2139/
ssrn.3127547.
22. Nicolaides D, Cebon D, Miles J. An Urban Charging Infrastructure for Electric Road Freight Operations: A Case Study for Cambridge UK.
IEEE Systems Journal 2019; 13(2): 2057-2068, http://doi.org/10.1109/JSYST.2018.2864693.
23. Nurhadi L, Borén S, Ny H. A Sensitivity Analysis of Total Cost of Ownership for Electric Public Bus Transport Systems in Swedish Medium
Sized Cities. Transportation Research Procedia 2014; 3: 818-827, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.058.
24. Oer GJ, Contestabile M, Howey DA, Clague R, Brandon NP. Technoeconomic and behavioural analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel
cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system in the UK. Energy Policy 2011; 39: 1939–1950, h tt p s://d o i .
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.006.
25. Palmer K, Tate JE, Wadud Z, Nellthorp J. Total cost of ownership and market share for hybrid and electric vehicles in the UK, US and Japan.
Applied Energy 2018; 209: 108-119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.10.089.
26. Pawełczyk M, Szumska E. Evaluation of the eciency of hybrid drive applications in urban transport system on the example of a medium
size city. 13th International Conference Modern Electried Transport – MET’2017, MATEC Web of Conferences 2018, 180: 03004, http://
doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201818003004.
27. Plan on Urban Mobility for City Kielce; ZTM - Kielce Municipal Transport Authority. Polish Chamber of Liquid Fuels: Fuel prices report,
available at http://www.paliwa.pl/strona-startowa/aktualnosci.
28. Propfe B, Redelbach M, Santini DJ, Friedrich H. Cost analysis of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles including Maintenance & Repair Costs
and Resale Values. World Electric Vehicle Journal 2012; 5(4): 886-895, https://doi.org/10.3390/wevj5040886.
29. Qadan M, Idilbi-Bayaa Y. Risk appetite and oil prices. Energy Economics 2020; 85: 104595, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2019.104595.
30. Rusich A, Danielis R. Total cost of ownership, social lifecycle cost and energy consumption of various automotive technologies in Italy.
Research in Transportation Economics 2015; 50: 3-16, http://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2015.06.002.
31. Saxena S, Phadke A, Gopal A. Understanding the fuel savings potential from deploying hybrid cars in China. Applied Energy 2014; 113:
1127-1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.057.
32. Sidorski F. - Work characteristics of charging stations for electric buses. Przegląd Elektrotechniczny 2018; 94: (10), 95-98.
33. Skrúcaný T, Kendra M, Stopka, O, Milojević, S, Figlus, T, Csiszár C. Impact of the Electric Mobility Implementation on the Greenhouse
Gases Production in Central European Countries. Sustainability 2019; 11(18): 4948, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184948.
34. Suarez C, Martinez W. - Fast and Ultra-Fast Charging for Battery Electric Vehicles – A Review. 2019 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and
Exposition (ECCE), Baltimore, MD, USA, 2019; 569-575, https://doi.org/10.1109/ECCE.2019.8912594.
35. Szumska E, Jurecki R, Pawełczyk M. Assessment of Total Costs of Ownership for Midsize Passenger Cars with Conventional and Alternative
Drive Trains. Communications - Scientic Letters of the University of Zilina 2019; 21(3): 21-27, https://doi.org/10.26552/com.C.2019.3.21-27.
36. Szumska E, Pawełczyk M. TCO comparison for city buses equipped with hybrid and conventional propulsion drive. Prace Naukowe
Politechniki Warszawskiej. Transport 2017; 118: 277-285.
37. Van Velzen A, Annema JA, Van de Kaa G, Van Wee B. Proposing a more comprehensive future total cost of ownership estimation framework
for electric vehicles. Energy Policy 2019; 129: 1034-1046, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.071.
38. Van Vliet O, Kruithof T, Turkenburg WC, Faaij APC. Techno-economic comparison of series hybrid, plug-in hybrid, fuel cell and regular
cars. Journal of Power Sources 2010; 195: 6570–6585, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.04.077.
39. Wipke KB, Cuddy MR, Burch SD. Advisor 2.1: a user-friendly advanced powertrain simulation using a combined backward/forward
approach’, IEEE Transaction on Vehicular Technology 1999; 48 (6): 751–1761.
40. Wu G, Inderbitzin A, Bening C. Total cost of ownership of electric vehicles compared to conventional vehicles: A probabilistic analysis and
projection across market segments. Energy Policy 2015; 80: 196-214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.004.
41. Wyszomirski O, Wołek M, Jagiełło A, Koniak M, Bartłomiejczyk M, Grzelec K, Gromadzki M. - Electromobility in public transport (in
Polish). Polish Development Fund (PFR) 2018.
