Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Minimizing the costs of constructing an all plug-in electric bus

transportation system: A case study in Penghu
Bwo-Ren Ke ⇑, Chen-Yuan Chung, Yen-Chang Chen
Department of Electrical Engineering, National Penghu University of Science and Technology, Taiwan

h i g h l i g h t s

The proposed model simulated e-bus operation and battery-charging schedules.

An existing bus transportation system was converted to an all plug-in e-bus system.

The effects of day- and nighttime charging were examined.

The construction cost of the e-bus system was minimized using a GA.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The growth of worldwide environmental awareness has prompted numerous countries to focus on devel-
Received 24 February 2016 oping energy-conservation and carbon-reduction technology. The advancement of such technology
Received in revised form 23 May 2016 enables the emergence of low-noise, low-polluting alternatives for bus systems, such as hybrid-
Accepted 26 May 2016
electric, battery-electric, and fuel-cell electric buses (e-buses). For such buses to serve the existing sched-
ules and lines operated by their conventional counterparts, reorganizing bus transportation systems is a
major challenge and entails construction costs that comprise the costs of e-buses, battery capacity, charg-
Keywords:
ers, and bus scheduling.
Plug-in electric bus
Timetable
To facilitate the development of environmentally friendly public transportation, this study proposes a
Transportation system modeling model for simulating the operation and battery charging schedule of plug-in e-buses on the basis of an
Battery charging existing schedule and line network. The model was used to estimate the overall construction cost of con-
Minimizing costs verting the existent bus transportation system into an all plug-in e-bus one. Focusing on the bus trans-
Genetic algorithm portation system in Penghu, an archipelago of Taiwan, this case study examined the effects of day- and
nighttime charging requirements on the construction cost of an e-bus transportation system to improve
the practicability of e-buses. It also applied a genetic algorithm to determine the minimum construction
cost, which varied depending on the number of e-buses, level of battery capacity, number of chargers, and
electricity costs. The optimized parameters involved the hourly residual battery capacity and battery
charging times during the daytime operating hours. The results showed that although daytime charging
involved electricity uses during peak hours and thus incurred additional costs, it contributed to the use of
e-buses and an overall reduction in the construction cost. In summary, the proposed optimization
method would successfully reduce the construction cost of the Penghu e-bus transportation system.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In recent years, drastic climate changes have been caused by
excessive uses of petroleum and coal, incurring severe air pollution
and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To address the environmen-
tal impact of human activity, renewable energy sources (such as
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: brke@npu.edu.tw (B.-R. Ke), o91a50415@gmail.com
(C.-Y. Chung), frog790413@gmail.com (Y.-C. Chen).
wind, solar, and hydraulic power) have been progressively devel-
oped and widely applied across the world. The growing emergence
of new energy sources and the increasing output of renewable
energy have reshaped human life. Households in many countries
use renewable energy and energy storage devices, in addition to
purchasing electricity from electric utility companies, to reduce
their electricity load and peak time power demands [1,2]. In
addition, with the introduction of electric vehicles (EVs), charging
stations have been built to address the stochastic nature of the
EV charging load. Smart grids have therefore become increasingly

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.152
0306-2619/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
650 B.-R. Ke et al. / Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660
crucial. A smart grid manages various technologies, such as renew-
able energy generation, energy storage devices, EVs, and telematics
systems. Many countries have built microgrids that use distributed
generation energy sources to regulate the use of the aforemen-
tioned technology.
EVs have been increasingly used in recent years. Novel ones
such as the hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), battery electric vehicle
(BEV), and fuel cell EVs have progressively dominated the main-
stream automobile industry. In addition to electric motorcycles,
scooters, and cars, electric buses (e-buses) have also gained grow-
ing popularity. The use of e-buses as a form of public transporta-
tion can not only improve environmental wellbeing and promote
the EV industry but can also increase renewable energy use
through their energy storage devices and contribute to energy sav-
ing and carbon reduction [1–5].
A previous study comparing the energy consumption and costs
of electric commercial vehicles (ECVs) with those of conventional
diesel trucks in the United States determined that the former is
four times cheaper in energy cost and three times more expensive
in purchase cost than the latter [6]. It also suggested that ECVs,
despite being simpler in design and easier to maintain, have uncer-
tainties associated with the lifespan and replacement costs of their
batteries, but that these vehicles, if driven for sufficient miles, can
be a viable replacement for trucks. A cost-benefit analysis compar-
ing both plug-in hybrid and electric city buses in fleet operation
with conventional diesel city buses revealed that plug-in hybrid
and electric city buses have the greatest capability to reduce
energy consumption and tailpipe emissions [7]. BEVs and HEVs
are the most common electric buses. HEVs use two powertrains
(an internal combustion engine and an electric motor) and a con-
version mechanism responsible for alternating between both
power sources, thus adding to their curb weight and repair costs.
In addition, the vehicles facilitate the transition from fossil fuel
vehicles to battery electric ones [8,9]. However, because HEVs have
low cost-effectiveness, BEVs may eventually achieve a command-
ing lead in the EV market. In this study, battery buses were inves-
tigated to estimate the minimum cost of establishing an e-bus
transportation system.
The lifespan of BEV batteries may be shortened by prolonged
use. BEVs are typically equipped with an on-board energy storage
system involving a pack of batteries or supercapacitors [10]. Bat-
teries are characterized by high energy density, whereas superca-
pacitors exhibit high power density and fast charging/discharging
responses [11–15]. The acceptance of EVs is influenced by battery
performance, as determined by energy density, power density, and
lifespan. Several studies on the optimization of EVs and their
energy storage systems have suggested that the weight, size, and
cost of an EV can be reduced when it is retrofitted with batteries
and supercapacitors; moreover, two such energy storage systems
can be integrated to complement each other and applied to the
vehicle [16–20]. In addition to investigating on-board energy stor-
age systems, other studies on BEVs have discussed the influence of
driving patterns on battery capacity and the impact of the locations
and electricity load of charging stations on power grids [21,22].
Data regarding these topics are available from [23], which estab-
lished EV driving patterns by analyzing the daily driving ranges
and distances of EVs. The present study simulated e-buses com-
pleting an existing schedule currently run by diesel buses and
specified the e-bus charging station loads every 5 min. The simula-
tion results may be applied in further research.
A life cycle assessment comparing the efficiency of four types of
buses regarding primary energy consumption, fossil energy, and
GHG emissions determined that fuel cell-hybrid and battery elec-
tric buses can better meet the global fossil energy consumption
efficiency and GHG emission reduction targets from 2008 to
2030 [3]. Another study [24] compared the total life cycle cost of
conventional diesel buses with that of e-buses, the operating
modes of which were divided into plug-in and battery-swapping
modes. The results indicated that the plug-in mode was more
applicable to e-buses, whereas the battery-swapping mode costed
1.5 times as much in batteries. Factors such as the operation mode,
battery property, battery capacity, charging location, battery-
swapping location, and bus route affect battery selection and cost
and should be considered for the electrification of conventional bus
transportation systems [8,25–27]. Previous studies have suggested
that e-buses capable of inductive (wireless) charging at bus stops
feature reduced battery capacity and costs and can be operated
continuously all day [28,29]. Although inductive charging at bus
stops enables frequent charging and contributes to the reduction
of bus weight, this charging method may satisfy the fuel consump-
tion of city e-buses, rather than buses that operate long stop-to-
stop distances or pull over for only a few stops. Thus, plug-in and
battery-swapping e-buses are more suitable for suburban routes
[30]. In summary, to neutralize the environmental impact of public
transportation, replacing a conventional bus system with an e-bus
transportation system would minimize the required number of e-
buses and charging stations and the level of battery capacity,
thereby streamlining the use of e-buses and decreasing the overall
cost of the replacement [28,30–33].
In this paper, the genetic algorithm (GA) was used as an opti-
mization tool. The GA is a search algorithm used to optimize com-
plex systems and has the following main features [34]: (1) using
decision variables as operational variables, (2) using objective
functions directly as search information, (3) using multiple search
points to search different information simultaneously, and (4)
using a probabilistic search technology. In recent years, the GA
was extensively applied for applications of energy research
[35–37].
The originality of this paper can be explained as follows. First,
the focus of previous e-bus research was on comparing the energy
efficiency, GHG emission and life cycle cost between conventional
diesel buses and various types of e-bus. In this current paper, a
complete conversion from a conventional bus transportation sys-
tem to an electric system entails substantial costs. To minimize
the cost of constructing an all plug-in e-bus system, a custom-
designed algorithm is applied to model an e-bus system on the
basis of schedules and lines operated by diesel buses. Second, this
paper presents a novel and effective model to construct an all-
plug-in e-bus transportation system. The model includes the fol-
lowing variables: electricity consumption with a full-passenger,
onboard battery capacity, the numbers of e-buses and battery
charging sites, and charging costs. The variables are employed to
demonstrate e-bus operations and onboard battery charging state
for additional applications of V2G technology in the future; how-
ever, personnel and maintenance costs were not considered. To
address the environmental impact of human activity, renewable
energy sources have been progressively developed. With the intro-
duction of e-buses, charging stations are being built to address the
stochastic nature of the charging load. The use of e-buses as a form
of public transportation can not only improve environmental well-
being but can also increase renewable energy use through their
energy storage devices and contribute to energy saving and carbon
reduction.
This paper is structured as follows. First, the model simulated
only a nighttime charging scenario. Next, a daytime charging sce-
nario was implemented to improve the e-bus use. Finally, the
hourly residual battery capacity (RBC) and battery charging time
(BCT) during the daytime operating hours were applied as the opti-
mized parameters, and a genetic algorithm was used to minimize
the cost for establishing an e-bus system.
 B.-R. Ke et al. / Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660
2. Creation of the e-bus public transportation system
An existing bus line network and the specifications of e-buses
were examined, and the schedules of the network were then con-
verted for electric operation. A model of the e-bus schedules was
constructed, with battery capacity and daytime charging amount
adjusted to minimize the construction cost of an all-plug-in e-
bus transportation system. Thus, a two-dimensional grid was
established to create an e-bus operation-line sequence diagram,
e-bus number-line sequence diagram, e-bus battery capacity
sequence diagram, and e-bus charging sequence diagram. The hor-
izontal axis of each diagram denoted a full 24-h work day divided
Fig. 1. Steps for constructing the e-bus transportation system.
651
by a graduation of 5 min. These four sequence diagrams are
induced by the following flow chart.
Step 1: An e-bus operation-line sequence diagram was created on
the basis of an existing schedule operated by diesel buses.
The diagram recorded the number of required e-buses for
each operating line at 5-min intervals.
Step 2: The e-buses were dispatched sequentially at each 5-min
interval according to the requirements of the reference
schedule. At each 5-min interval, dispatched e-buses for each
operating line were analyzed to determine whether they had
completed their respective trips since the previous interval.
E-buses that satisfied this criterion were designated as
‘‘undispatched” and parked at e-bus parking lots as candi-
dates for redispatching. The e-bus number-line sequence
diagram, which numbered dispatched e-buses for each line
at each 5-min interval, was subsequently updated.
Step 3: E-buses were dispatched to their respective operating lines
according to the e-bus operation-line sequence diagram. E-
buses that remained ready for dispatch from parking lots
and had sufficient battery capacity to complete a round-
trip route were dispatched. If no e-buses satisfied both cri-
teria, new e-buses with full battery capacity (FBC) were
added for operation. After the additional e-buses were dis-
patched, both e-bus number-line and e-bus battery capacity
sequence diagrams were updated. The e-bus battery capac-
ity sequence diagram recorded the amount of electricity
remaining in each e-bus during each 5-min interval; specif-
ically, the amount of electricity required to complete an
operating line was deducted from the battery capacity.
The third step was reinitiated until the e-buses were dis-
patched to all operating lines during each interval.
Step 4: E-buses that required daytime charging received this type
of charging; the e-bus battery capacity and e-bus charging
sequence diagrams were then updated. The e-bus charging
sequence diagram displayed all the e-buses charged at var-
ious chargers at each 5-min interval. Updates on the e-bus
battery capacity sequence diagram denoted the amounts
of electricity charged into the e-bus batteries. However, this
step was excluded when the modeled e-bus transportation
system operated without daytime charging.
Step 5: We determined whether all e-bus schedules in operation
were completed; if not, Steps 2–4 were reinitiated until
all these schedules were all completed.
Step 6: Nighttime slow charging was performed on all e-buses,
followed by updates on both the e-bus battery capacity
and e-bus charging sequence diagrams, until all the e-
buses were fully charged (see Fig. 1).
2.1. Modeling e-bus and charger operations
2.1.1. Creation of the e-bus operation-line sequence diagram
Data on the existing bus schedule, lines, and operation times
were used to create an e-bus operation-line sequence diagram,
with the vertical axis denoting the line name and the horizontal
axis denoting the operation times (Fig. 2). The elements in the
matrix refer to the numbers of e-buses operating on each line at
each temporal point (representing a 5-min graduation). In the dia-
gram, a ‘‘1” represents one e-bus operating at its corresponding
temporal point. After the bus schedule data were input into the
diagram to obtain the number of e-buses required for all operating
lines at all 5-min intervals, the required e-buses were arranged
into the e-bus number-line sequence diagram for number
assignment.
In the upbound direction of Line A, tAU1 denotes the departure
time of the first e-bus; tAU2 is the departure time of the second
652 B.-R. Ke et al. / Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660

TAU TBL
TAD
Line A
(Upbound) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Line A
(Downbound)
1 1 1 1 1
Line A
(Downbound)
1 1 1 1 1
Line B
(Loop)
1 1 1 1 1 1

tAU-1 tAD-1 tBL-1 tAD-2 tAU-2 tBL-1+TBL tAU-2+TAU

tAU-1+TAU (tAD-1+TAD) tAD-2+TAD

Fig. 2. Sequence diagram of e-bus operation and lines.

e-bus. The travel time of a Line A (upbound) e-bus from the depar-
ture station to the terminal station is represented by TAU . Because
TAU occupies five graduations on the e-bus operation-line sequence
diagram, this suggested that the total travel time of a Line A
(upbound) e-bus from the departure station to the terminal station
was 25 min. The time at which the first e-bus of Line A arrives at
the terminal station is obtained through tAU1 þ TAU . The second
e-bus of Line A departs 20 min after the departure time of the first
e-bus ðtAU1 þ 20 ¼ tAU2 Þ.
The departure time of the first and second Line A (downbound) e-
buses on the return trip are indicated by tAD1 and tAD2 , where TAD
refers to the travel time from the terminal station back to the depar-
ture station. Because TAD occupies five graduations on the e-bus
operation-line sequence diagram, this suggested that the total tra-
vel time of a Line A (upbound) e-bus from the terminal station to
the departure station was also 25 min. The time at which the first
e-bus of Line A arrives at the departure station is equal to
tAD1 þ TAD . The departure time of the second e-bus on the return
trip is derived through tAD1 þ TAD ¼ tAD2 and is 5 min earlier than
the time at which the first e-bus arrives at the departure station.
However, when two or more e-buses overlap during their operation,
a row was added to the diagram to note the overlapping finding.
The departure time of the first Line B (loop) e-bus is represented
by tBL1 , where TBL denotes the round-trip time of the e-bus
(30 min in total).
In summary, the e-bus operation-line diagram illustrates the e-
bus network operation by presenting the number of e-buses
required for all operating lines at all 5-min intervals. It was used
as a reference to plot other sequence diagrams.
2.1.2. Creation of the e-bus number-line sequence diagram
On the basis of the e-bus operation-line sequence diagram, an
e-bus number-line sequence diagram was created (Fig. 3), with
the horizontal axis denoting the times (each graduation represent-
ing a 5-min interval) and the elements in the matrix referring to
the numbers assigned to e-buses operating in each route at each
temporal point. After bus schedules were input into the diagram,
the e-buses were arranged into the e-bus electricity consumption
sequence diagram. The three e-bus directions are as follows:
upbound, downbound, and loop. Medium-sized e-buses ran on
loop lines within urban areas and large-sized e-buses operated in
up- or downbound directions. The e-bus assignment methods are
introduced as follows:
1. Dispatching additional e-buses if the number of e-buses
assigned to a schedule is deemed inadequate.
2. Dispatching additional e-buses if an e-bus that completed its
upbound or downbound directions cannot operate the opposite
direction.
3. Dispatching additional e-buses if two e-buses overlap in opera-
tion times.
These three assignment methods placed five e-buses into an e-
bus schedule (Fig. 3). Because the departure and finish times of the
up- and downbound Line A e-buses did not allow for opposite
direction operations, additional e-buses were sent as backups.
The departure and finish times of the upbound Line A Bus 1 are
represented as TAU1 and TAU1 þ TAU , respectively. The departure
time of the downbound Line A Bus1 ðTAD1 Þ was 15 min earlier than
the finish time of the upbound Line A Bus 1; thus, Bus 2 was added
to the downbound line. The departure and finish times of down-
bound Line A Bus 2 are represented as TAD1 and TAD1 þ TAD ,
respectively. The finish time of downbound Line A Bus 1 over-
lapped with the departure time of upbound Line A Bus 2; hence,
if the battery capacity of the bus was insufficient for another
upbound trip, Bus 3 was added to the upbound line. Bus 4 was
added to both up- and downbound directions of Line A, in case
the battery capacity of upbound Line A Bus 1 could sustain only
a return to the departure station and was not inadequate for an
opposite route operation, the departure time of downbound Line
A Bus 2 was TAD2 , and no other buses were available for service.
Line B was a loop line entirely operated by medium-sized e-
buses. Thus, only one additional medium-sized bus (Bus 101)
was added to the line, with its departure time denoted by

Line A
1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3
(Upbound)
Line A
2 2 2 2 2
(Downbound)
Line A
4 4 4 4 4
(Downbound)
Line B
101 101 101 101 101 101
(Loop)

tAU-1 tAD-1 tBL-1 tAD-2 tAU-2 tBL-1+TBL tAU-2+TAU

tAU-1+TAU (tAD-1+TAD) tAD-2+TAD

Fig. 3. Sequence diagram of e-bus series numbers and lines.

 B.-R. Ke et al. / Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660
tBL1 and finish time by TBL1 þ TBL . All e-buses were assigned num-
bers that were input into a matrix.
2.1.3. Creation of the e-bus battery capacity sequence diagram
After the number of e-buses was calculated and the buses were
numbered, the e-bus electricity consumption for individual opera-
tion services was estimated. Based on the existing specifications of
e-buses, a large-sized e-bus was specified to have a total battery
capacity of 250 kW h, consume 1.3 kW h for each kilometer trav-
eled without passengers onboard, and have a net weight of
16.5 t, whereas a medium-sized e-bus was specified to have a total
battery capacity of 110 kW h, consume 0.6 kW h for each kilometer
traveled without passengers onboard, and have a net weight of
7.7 t. The respective amounts of electricity consumed by
passenger-empty large- and medium-sized e-buses for each kilo-
meter traveled were obtained by multiplying the total number of
kilometers traveled on a full charge and the total battery capacity
by an efficiency coefficient. Regarding the total weight of all
onboard passengers (each weighing 60 kg) onboard, the respective
amounts of electricity consumed by large- and medium-sized e-
buses for each kilometer traveled were 1.6 kW h and 0.74 kW h.
The electricity consumption for the operation of different e-bus
lines was not measured in simulation or practice, although this
limitation did not affect the validity of the proposed method.
On the basis of the e-bus number-line sequence diagram, which
depicts the temporal points at which e-buses operate on their
respective lines, the battery capacity sequence diagram of each e-
bus was plotted (Fig. 4), with the vertical axis denoting the bus
number and the horizontal axis denoting a full 24-h work day
(each graduation representing a 5-min interval). The RBCs follow-
ing the completion of each e-bus operation service were estimated
using a matrix. The battery capacity sequence diagram was
updated using the electricity consumption data of all e-bus opera-
tion lines (recorded by the e-bus number-line sequence diagram)
to estimate the respective amounts of electricity consumed by
passenger-loaded and empty e-buses on each line. E-bus schedules
were analyzed by applying the following conditions:
1. The operation distances of the up- and downbound directions of
Line A were both 41 km, and each took 65.5 kW h to complete.
2. The operation distance of Line B was 13 km and took 9.62 kW h
to complete.
3. In Line A (upbound) and Line B, the distance from the parking
lot to the departure station was 5 km and took 6.5 kW h to
complete.
4. In Line A (downbound), the distance from the parking lot to the
departure station was 33 km and took 42.9 kW h to complete.
Under the aforementioned conditions, the RBCs following the
completion of individual e-bus operation services were estimated.
Bus 1 17800 17800 17800 17800 17800
Bus 2
Bus 3 17800 17800 17800 17800 17800
Bus 4
Bus 101
tAU-1 tAD-1 tBL-1
Fig. 4. Sequence diagram of battery dump energies of e-buses.
653
Buses 1–4 were large-sized, and Bus 101 was medium-sized. The
departure and finish times of the up- and downbound Line A e-
buses did not allow for opposite direction operations. Thus, before
departure, the battery capacity of upbound e-buses was inspected
to determine whether it was adequate for a round trip. If not, an
additional e-bus was sent as a backup. The battery capacities of
departing e-buses, as illustrated in Fig. 4, were fully charged. The
amounts of electricity consumption for traveling from charging
stations to departure stations and from departure stations to ter-
minal stations were subtracted from the total battery capacities.
The RBC levels were input into the matrix.
As Fig. 4 shows, on upbound Line A, the distance from the
charging station to the departure station was 5 km and took
6.5 kW h to complete. The operation distances of up- and down-
bound directions of Line A were both 41 km and took 65.5 kW h
to complete. After Buses 1 and 3 finished upbound Line A, their
RBCs were estimated: 250 kW h  (6.5 kW h + 65.5 kW h)
= 178 kW h. On the downbound Line A, the distance from the park-
ing lot to the departure station was 33 km and took 42.9 kW h to
complete. After Buses 2 and 4 finished downbound Line A, their
RBCs were estimated: 250 kW h  (42.9 kW h + 65.5 kW h)
= 141.6 kW h. On Line B, the distance from the charging station
to the departure station was 5 km and took 6.5 kW h to complete.
The distance of this e-bus line was 13 km and took 9.62 kW h to
complete. After Bus 101 finished Line B, its RBC was estimated:
110 kW h  (6.5 kW h + 9.62 kW h) = 93.88 kW h.
Based on the aforementioned estimations, the RBC levels of the
five buses were as follows: 178 kW h (Buses 1 and 3), 141.6 kW h
(Buses 2 and 4), and 93.88 kW h (Bus 101). These RBC levels were
multiplied by 100 and rounded to the closest whole integer, and
input into the matrix as the actual electricity storage levels.
2.1.4. Creation of the e-bus charging sequence diagram
On the basis of the e-bus battery capacity sequence diagram,
which recorded the RBCs of all e-buses after one full operation
day, an e-bus charging sequence diagram was plotted (Fig. 5), with
the vertical axis denoting the charger number, the horizontal axis
denoting a full 24-h operation day (each graduation representing
a 5-min interval), and the elements of the matrix denoting e-bus
numbers. The matrix illustrated all e-bus charging activity at vari-
ous chargers during all the 5-min intervals. When an e-bus was
charged, both e-bus charging and battery capacity sequence dia-
grams were updated.
To extend battery lifespans, the lowest battery capacity of all
plug-in e-buses was defined as 20% of the full capacity. Because
of the reduced price of electricity during off-peak hours (2230–
0730), nighttime charging was performed during this period until
all e-buses were fully charged. When an e-bus returned to the
parking lot at the end of its routine operation, it was charged dur-
ing off-peak electricity hours. As soon as its battery was fully
14160 14160 14160 14160 14160
14160 14160 14160 14160 14160
9388 9388 9388 9388 9388 9388
tAU-1+TAU tAU-2 tBL-1+TBL tAU-2+TAU
(tAD-1+TAD)
654 B.-R. Ke et al. / Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660

TCH1
TCH2
TCH3
TCH4
TCH5

Charger 1 101 101 101 101 101 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Charger 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Charger 3 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Charger 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0

Charger 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

tch 1 tch 3 tch 2 tch 1+TCH1 tch 2+TCH2 tch 3+TCH3

tch 4 (tch 4+TCH4) (tch 5+TCH5)
tch 5

Fig. 5. Sequence diagram of e-bus battery charging schedules with different chargers.

charged, the e-bus was automatically cut off from the charger to
prevent overcharging. Daytime charging was provided during peak
electricity hours to e-buses operating longer lines. Although day-
time charging added to electricity costs, it facilitated decreasing
the number of e-buses and battery chargers used.
The e-bus battery capacity sequence diagram recorded the RBCs
of all e-buses at the end of routine operations. The charging times
of the e-buses were determined according to two on-board battery
charging curves, which were characterized by quick (daytime) and
slow (nighttime) charging (Fig. 6). The charging times of the quick
charging curve totaled 2 h (Fig. 6a), whereas that of the slow charg-
ing curve totaled 7 h (Fig. 6b). When an e-bus was connected to a
charger, an algorithm was performed to determine the RBC of
(a) Quick charging
the e-bus, and a charging curve was used to determine its initial
location on the curve, by which the amounts of electricity charged
over the upcoming 5-min intervals could be predicted. The charg-
ing curve indicated the amount of time required to reach a full
charge and the amount of electricity stored after a certain amount
of charging time. Daytime charging was performed to reduce the
charging time, whereas nighttime charging was performed to
extend the battery lifespan.
Daytime charging was defined as charging between 0600 and
1800 and was provided to undispatched e-buses at each top of
the hour depending on their RBCs and BCTs. Undispatched
e-buses with RBCs lower than predetermined guideline levels at
the top of the hour underwent quick charging. Their ideal BCTs
were also predetermined.

2.2. Calculating the construction cost of an e-bus transportation (b) Slow charging
system
Fig. 6. Onboard battery charging curves.
This study aimed to determine the minimum cost (comprising
expenditures on e-buses, batteries, and electricity) for establishing
an all plug-in e-bus transportation system. Table 1 shows the bat-
tery, charger, and peak (summer months)/off-peak (nonsummer
months) electricity costs of a passenger-empty e-bus. To ensure Table 1
that all e-buses underwent nighttime charging, the number of e- Equipment and electricity prices.
buses and chargers was equalized. Both their lifespans were set Price items E-bus type
to 10 years and their battery lifespan to five years. The optimal
Large Medium
adjustment parameters were as follows: the number of e-buses,
E-bus price (NTD/E-bus) 6,000,000 4,000,000
battery capacity, initial level of battery capacity at each 5-min
Price of full capacity battery (NTD/E-bus) 2,600,000 1,200,000
interval of charging, and charging time. Price of battery charger (NTD/site) 800,000 600,000
The optimal combination of these parameters was determined Electricity price (NTD/kW h) Summer months:
through optimization, as expressed in Eq. (1): Peak: 3.89 Off-peak: 1.99
Nonsummer months:
Min:TC ¼ C EB þ C BA þ C CH þ C EP ð1Þ Peak: 3.79 Off-peak: 1.88
 B.-R. Ke et al. / Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660 655


where C EP kW hpeaki ; kW hoffpeak i
TC – total cost, X
2
 
C EB – e-bus cost, ¼ kW hpeaki  EPpeaki þ kW hoffpeaki  EPoffpeaki ð5Þ
C BA – battery cost, i¼1

C CH – battery charger cost,

C EE – electric energy cost. where
i – 1: summer months; 2: nonsummer months,
1. E-bus cost kW hpeak i energy charged during peak usage hours,
The costs of large- and medium-sized e-buses were estimated kW hoffpeak i energy charged during off-peak usage hours,
as follows: EPpeak i peak usage electricity price,
EPoffpeak i off-peak usage electricity price.
C EB ðNLB ; NMB Þ ¼ NLB  C LB þ NMB  C MB ð2Þ
where 3. Genetic algorithm for minimize the construction cost of the
N LB – number of large e-buses, e-bus transportation system
N MB – number of medium e-buses,
C LB – large e-bus price, A GA was applied to address the optimization problem of min-
C MB – medium e-bus price. imizing the e-bus transportation system cost.
In this study, the decision variable comprised the RBCs and BCTs
2. Battery cost of all undispatched e-buses during battery charging at the top of
Several e-buses were more economical with electricity use; each hour from 0600 to 1800. Daytime charging was performed
thus, their battery capacity was appropriately reduced to cut bat- on the e-buses with RBCs lower than the predetermined levels at
tery costs. The minimum on-board battery capacity was defined the top of an hour. All the BCTs were predetermined. The predeter-
as 30% of the FBC because the total e-bus battery capacity must mined guideline RBC level was specified to increase from 30% to
not fall below 20%. Thus, the FBC was reduced in segments of 90%, in increments of 10%; the BCT was specified to increase from
10%. During simulation, e-buses whose minimum on-board battery 5 to 60 min, in increments of 5 min. The GA operations used to
capacity was below 20% of the FBC when they operated round trips derive the minimum construction cost of the e-bus transportation
were replaced. The estimation of battery costs entailed calculating system are described as follows:
the battery capacity percentage of each e-bus, as expressed in Eq. (1) Representation
(3): Real-number encoding was adopted to satisfy practical needs
and increase calculation speed.

 X10
 
C BA NBLBi ; NBMBi ¼ NBLBi  C BLB  i  10% þ NBMBi  C BMB  i  10% (2) Initializing population
i¼3 The number of genes in the population is pop. The number of
ð3Þ chromosomes in each gene doubles that of the time scale. The con-
tent denotes the RBC and BCT. All chromosomes are produced by a
where random number generator. The population can be described as
N BLB – number of large e-buses with different onboard battery follows:
capacities,
8  
N BMB – number of medium e-buses with different onboard bat- > x1 ¼ x11 ; x12 ; . . . ; x1N ; x1Nþ1 ; . . . ; x12N
>
>
tery capacities, >
>
>
> ¼ ½RBC 11 ; RBC 12 ; . . . ; RBC 1N ; BCT 11 ; . . . ; BCT 1N 
C BLB – battery price of large e-buses, >
>  2 2 
>
>
> x2 ¼ hx1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xN ; xNþ1 ; . . . ; x2N
2 2 2
C BMB – battery price of medium e-buses. >
>
> i
>
>
< ¼ RBC 21 ; RBC 22 ; . . . ; RBC 2N ; BCT 21 ; ; . . . ; BCT 2N
3. Battery charger cost ð6Þ
> :
All e-buses underwent slow nighttime charging to ensure that >
>
>
> :
they would be fully charged before departure the next day. Thus, >
>
>
>
the number of battery chargers and e-buses was equalized to sat- >
> :
>
>  
>
> xpop ¼ xpop ; xpop ; . . . ; xpop pop pop
N ; xNþ1 ; . . . ; x2N
isfy this condition. The numbers of chargers and large- and >
>
:  1 pop 2 
medium-sized e-buses were estimated respectively. The battery ¼ RBC 1 ; RBC 2 ; . . . ; RBC N ; BCT 1 ; . . . ; BCT pop
pop pop pop
N
charger costs were estimated as follows:
C CH ðNLB ; NMB Þ ¼ NLB  C CLB þ NMB  C CMB ð4Þ where
xi – ith gene in the population,
where xij – jth chromosome of the ith gene,
C CLB – charge price of large e-buses,
N – number of time scales,
C CMB – charger price of medium e-buses.
RBC ij – residual battery capacity (RBC) of jth time scale of the ith
4. Electric energy cost gene,
E-bus battery charging can charged during daytime or night- BCT ij battery charging time (BCT) of jth time scale of the ith
time. The peak and off-peak electricity prices during summer gene,
months are 3.89 NTD/kW h and 1.99 NTD/kW h, respectively, pop – population size.
whereas those during nonsummer months are 3.79 NTD/kW h
and 1.88 NTD/kW h, respectively. Off-peak electricity hours start (3) Crossover
at 2230 and end at 0730; the remaining periods are peak electricity First, each gene generated a random number between 0 and 1.
hours. In this study, the peak electricity prices were applied to day- The random number was then compared with the crossover prob-
time charging, whereas the off-peak electricity prices were applied ability. The crossover operation of a gene was performed if the
to nighttime charging. The electricity costs were estimated as given number was greater than the crossover probability. Finally,
follows: the crossover operation was performed on the chromosomes at
656 B.-R. Ke et al. / Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660

0
the same position in adjacent genes. The calculation operation for- The new jth chromosome (xij ) of ith gene was calculated by
mula is expressed in Eq. (7) [34,38]: summing itself (xij ) with the product of dðtÞ and the difference
8   U
> 0
< xij ¼ xij þ a  xij  xjiþ1 between xij
and xij .
The value of dðtÞ gradually decreased, to a
  ð7Þ degree that was dependent on the constant b, as the evolved gen-
>
: xiþ1
0
¼ xjiþ1 þ a  xiþ1  xij
j j eration increased. This method prevented the range of the muta-
tion operation from becoming a local optimal solution and
where enabled it to converge toward a more favorable solution. Genes
0
xij – jth chromosome of the ith gene after crossover and muta- produced by the mutation operation were also placed in the
tion operation is executed. enlarged population.
0
0
The jth chromosomes (xij and xiþ1 ) of new ith and (i + 1)th genes (5) Selection
j
The results generated through the crossover and mutation
were calculated by the sum of themselves (xij and xiþ1
j ) and the pro- operations were placed in the enlarged population, which
duct of the difference between xij andxiþ1
j and a random number (a). incorporated the genes of the current and previous iterations.
Because the random number a ranged between 1 and 1, new When the selection operation was performed, the fitness values
genes produced by the crossover operation were placed in the of the genes in the enlarged population were calculated and
enlarged population. ranked. The number of optimal genes identical to the number of
(4) Mutation the original population were retained and constituted a new
The mutation operation was performed similarly to the cross- population, which served as the basis for the subsequent
over operation. First, a random number between 0 and 1 was evolution process.
assigned to the chromosomes in each gene and compared with (6) Ending evolution
the mutation probability. The mutation operation of a chromosome The evolution was terminated when the difference between the
was performed if a given random number for the chromosome was average and optimal fitness values of the enlarged population was
greater than the mutation probability. The calculation operation smaller than the default value.
formula is expressed in Eqs. (8) and (9) [34,38]:
 U 
0 4. Public bus transportation system in Penghu
xij ¼ xij þ xij  xij  dðtÞ ð8Þ
This study was conducted in Penghu. Currently, the bus trans-
 b
T portation system in Penghu comprises 15 bus lines. Google Maps
dðtÞ ¼ r  1  ð9Þ
T max was used to draw a route map of the bus lines on the basis of an
existing schedule and a list of the bus stops that these lines span
where (Fig. 7). The operation times of all bus lines was estimated (Table 2).
U
xij – upper limit of the jth chromosome of the ith gene, In this simulation, the entire Penghu bus transportation system
dðtÞ – formula for producing a random number; dðtÞ 2 ½1; 1, was electrified, and the construction cost (determined by the num-
r – random number; r 2 ½1; 1, ber of e-buses and chargers, battery capacity, required battery
T – evolved generation, charges, daytime and nighttime charging rates, and required
T max – maximum evolved generation, charging times) for the e-bus transportation system was
b – constant to determine the reduced degree of dðtÞ. minimized.

Fig. 7. Route map of Penghu public bus system.

 B.-R. Ke et al. / Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660 657

Table 2 the costs associated with different battery capacity thresholds

Driving distances and times of bus lines in Penghu. were calculated. In Case 2, the total costs associated with different
Lines Driving distance Driving time predetermined guideline RBC levels during daytime charging and
(km) (min) different BCTs were estimated. In Case 3, the optimizations of pre-
Penghu Branch, Tri-Service General 13 42 determined guideline RBC levels and BCTs were performed to
Hospital (TSGH-PB) determine the minimum construction cost of the Penghu e-bus
Zero West (0W) 6.5 34 transportation system. All cases were examined using the method
Zero East (0E) 7 34
Shanshuei (SS) 12 35
illustrated in Section 2, and MATLAB was applied to construct the
Taiwu (TW) 14 35 e-bus transportation system and provide data regarding the oper-
Beiliao (BL) 14 32 ation and charging schedules of e-buses. These data were used to
Waian (WA) 41 76 estimate the cost of the system. The results of these three cases
Guanghua (GH) 8 29
are as follows.
Jianshan (JS) 16 33
Shagang (SG) 13 34
Qingluo (QL) 14 39
Fongguei (FG) 18 63 5.1. Case 1: E-bus transportation system without daytime charging
Wukan (WK) 14 47
Tongliang (TL) 24 51 In this case, all e-buses underwent only nighttime charging
Longmen (LM) 16 34 after completing their daily operation and returning to parking
lots. Table 3 displays the results of this case. The numbers of
chargers and e-buses were equalized, with 35 large-sized and 3
Fig. 8 illustrates the Penghu public bus schedule. The bus lines, medium-sized e-buses being required, to ensure that each e-bus
types of bus services, and bus schedules vary according to popula- received nighttime charging. Table 3 also shows that a 60%
tion density and tourist destination distributions. Fig. 8 indicates threshold of battery capacity was required to operate 25 large-
that Lines Waian (WA), Jianshan (JS), Shagang (SG), Fongguei sized and 1 medium-sized e-buses and a 40% threshold to operate
(FG), Tongliang (TL), and Longmen (LM) operate the highest num- 10 large-sized and 2 medium-sized e-buses. The large-sized
bers of buses. Lines Zero West/East and TSGH-PB are loop lines e-buses consumed a combined total of 5439.4 kW h per day,
operating medium-sized buses in cities, whereas all nonloop lines whereas the medium-sized e-buses consumed a combined total
operate large-sized buses. Upbound directions are highlighted in of 124.8 kW h per day. The lifespans of both e-buses and chargers
yellow squares, downbound directions in blue squares, and loop were set to 10 years and the battery lifespan to 5 years. The
lines in green squares. The purple squares denote two buses oper- 10-year operational cost (comprising the costs of e-buses,
ating in parallel directions. batteries, chargers, and electricity consumption) of the e-bus
transportation system was estimated to facilitate exploring the
5. Results and discussion construction cost of the system for long-term operation. All cost
items, whose results are tabulated in Table 3, were estimated
This study determined the cost of constructing an e-bus trans- using Eqs. (1)–(5).
portation system in Penghu with day- and nighttime charging It was determined that, in actual operation, these 38 e-buses
and different combinations of battery capacities and charging could run without FBC, which would reduce battery costs by 87
times. Three cases of the e-bus transportation system are dis- million NTD (46%) over a 10-year period compared with when they
cussed. In Case 1, only nighttime charging was performed, and ran with FBC. Without daytime charging, the number of chargers

Fig. 8. Timetable of Penghu public bus system.

658 B.-R. Ke et al. / Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660

Table 3
Results of Case 1.

Creation of e-bus transportation system Cost calculation

E-bus type Large Medium Cost items Cost per decade (Million NTD)
Number of buses with different battery capacities 60% 25 1 E-bus cost 222
40% 10 2 Battery cost 102.2
Number of chargers 35 3 Charger cost 29.8
Charging energy per day (kW h) 5439.4 124.8 Energy cost 38.9
Total cost 392.9

on the basis of off-peak electricity prices. This estimation

accounted for the variations in off-peak electricity prices during
summer (spanning approximately 4 months each year) and non-
summer months, as stipulated by the Taiwan Power Company,
the state-owned monopoly electricity utility in Taiwan. In sum-
mary, the 10-year operational cost of the Penghu e-bus transporta-
tion system in Case 1 totaled 392.9 million NTD.

5.2. Case 2: E-bus transportation system with different RBCs and BCTs

In Case 2, e-buses with RBCs that decreased below predeter-

mined guideline levels during daytime operation received daytime
charging; they also received nighttime charging at the end of daily
operation. Although the electricity prices in the daytime peak
(a) Number of e-bus
hours are double those in off-peak hours, the number of e-buses
required for service could be reduced. The optimization of both
electricity cost and the number of e-buses is discussed as follows.
During a daily e-bus operation, the predetermined guideline
RBC level was raised from 10% to 80% in increments of 10% and
the BCT from 10 to 60 min in increments of 5 min to estimate
the number of e-buses and the construction cost required at differ-
ent predetermined guideline RBC levels and BCTs, with the estima-
tion results displayed in Fig. 9(a and b). The lowest construction
cost was obtained when the predetermined guideline RBC level
was at 50% and the BCT reached 30 min. The construction cost rose
when both predetermined guideline RBC levels and BCTs were at
their highest and lowest.
Table 4 displays the calculation results of the lowest construc-
tion cost. In total, 26 large-sized and three medium-sized e-buses
(b) Total cost
were used. The numbers of chargers and e-buses were equalized
Fig. 9. Results of Case 2 with different predetermined guideline RBC levels and to ensure all e-buses received nighttime charging. Table 4 presents
BCTs. different battery capacity thresholds for e-buses of both sizes. The
battery capacity thresholds for all the large-sized e-buses were as
follows: 100% for 12, 90% for 1, 80% for 4, 70% for 4, 60% for 2, 50%
and e-buses was equalized to ensure that all e-buses received for 2, and 40% for 1. The battery capacity thresholds for all the
nighttime charging. Daily nighttime charging costs were estimated medium-sized e-buses were as follows: 60% for 1, 50% for 1, and

Table 4
Optimal results of Case 2.

Creation of e-bus transportation system Cost calculation

E-bus type Large Medium Cost items Cost per decade (Million NTD)
Required number of buses with different battery capacities Full 12 0 E-bus cost 168
90% 1 0 Battery cost 115.2
80% 4 0
70% 4 0
60% 2 1
50% 2 1
40% 1 0
30% 0 1
Number of chargers 26 3 Charger cost 22.6
Charging energy per day (kW h) Day 2533.7 0 Energy cost 57.6
Night 3061.8 124.8
Total cost 363.4
 B.-R. Ke et al. / Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660
Fig. 10. Convergence of the GA in Case 3.
30% for 1. The large-sized e-buses consumed a combined total of
2533.7 kW h per daytime charge and 3061.8 kW h per nighttime
charge. The medium-sized e-buses consumed a combined total of
124.8 kW h, which was consistent with the charging consumption
amount of their equivalents estimated in Case 1. In summary, the
10-year operational cost of the Penghu e-bus transportation sys-
tem in Case 2 totaled 363.4 million NTD.
Compared with the results of Case 1, the optimal results of
Case 2 suggested a reduced construction cost of 7.51%, indicating
an association of this cost reduction with daytime charging. This
reduced construction cost was caused by the reductions in the
number of required e-buses and chargers by nine each.
Day- and nighttime charging electricity consumption amounted
to a total of 5595.5 kW h, which is 159.1 kW h greater than the
nighttime charging consumption amount estimated in Case 1.
The charging consumption was higher because e-buses in Case 2
were charged multiple times every day. Thus, the electricity cost
rose by 18.7 million NTD, which was consistent with the expected
outcomes.
5.3. Case 3: Optimization of RBCs and BCTs
Similar to those in Case 2, the e-buses in Case 3 with RBCs that
decreased below predetermined levels during operation received
daytime charging. Additionally, all the buses received nighttime
charging after operation. However, daytime charging for e-buses
in this case was specified to start at 0600 and end at 1800. The pre-
determined guideline RBC level was raised from 10% to 80% in
increments of 10% and the BCT from 10 to 60 min in increments
of 5 min. Optimization was conducted using the GA to estimate
the hourly RBC levels and BCTs, thereby determining the minimum
construction cost.
Table 5
Optimal results of Case 3.
Creation of e-bus transportation system
E-bus type
Required number of buses with different battery capacities Full
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
Number of charger
Charging energy per day (kW h) Day
Night
659
Fig. 11. Optimal predetermined guideline RBC levels and BCTs at each hour in Case 3.
Fig. 10 illustrates the convergence of the GA during optimiza-
tion. When the GA evolved to the 42nd generation, the difference
between the average and lowest cost of the population were smal-
ler than the default value; hence, the evolution of the algorithm
was terminated. Table 5 lists the calculation results of the lowest
construction cost. A total of 26 large-sized and three medium-
sized e-buses were used. The number of chargers and e-buses
was equalized. Table 5 presents different battery capacity thresh-
olds for e-buses of both sizes. The battery capacity thresholds for
all the large-sized e-buses are as follows: 100% for 9, 90% for 2,
80% for 4, 70% for 6, 60% for 1, 50% for 2, 40% for 1, and 30% for
1. The battery capacity thresholds for all the medium-sized e-
buses are as follows: 60% for 1, 50% for 1, and 30% for 1. The
large-sized e-buses consumed a combined total of 1630 kW h per
daytime charge and 3900.4 kW h per nighttime charge, whereas
the medium-sized e-buses, which received only nighttime charg-
ing, consumed a combined total of 124.8 kW h. In summary, the
10-year operational cost of the Penghu e-bus transportation sys-
tem in Case 3 totaled 350.7 million NTD.
The construction cost in Case 3 was lower than that in Case 1 by
10.74% and that in Case 2 by 3.49%, verifying that daytime charging
decreased the construction cost, and that the proposed optimiza-
tion method is applicable to decreasing the construction cost. In
Case 3, the combined electricity consumption for day- and night-
time charging (5655.2 kW h) as well as the daytime charging con-
sumption (1630 kW h) were lower than those in Case 2. The
battery cost in Case 3 was also reduced.
Fig. 11 illustrates the optimal results regarding the predeter-
mined guideline RBC levels and BCTs at the top of each hour from
0600 to 1800. No data were available at 0600 and 0700, when
e-buses were all fully charged, or at 1600 and 1700, when
e-buses began recharging on completing their daily operation.
Cost calculation
Large Medium Cost item Cost per decade (Million NTD)
9 0 E-bus cost 168
2 0 Battery cost 109.7
4 0
6 0
1 1
2 1
1 0
1 1
26 3 Charger cost 22.6
1630 0 Energy cost 50.4
3900.4 124.8
Total cost 350.7
660 B.-R. Ke et al. / Applied Energy 177 (2016) 649–660
6. Conclusion
This study determined the total construction cost of an e-bus
transportation system capable of 10-year operation. The cost com-
prised the costs of e-buses, batteries, chargers, and electricity. The
e-bus lifespans were set to 10 years, whereas the on-board battery
lifespans were set to 5 years. The number of e-buses and chargers
were equalized to ensure that all e-buses received nighttime
charging. The electricity cost included the price differences
between summer and nonsummer months.
In Case 1, e-buses received only nighttime charging after com-
pleting their daily operation and returning to the parking lots.
These e-buses operated without FBC, contributing to a battery cost
reduction of 46% over a 10-year period.
In Case 2, e-buses with RBCs that decreased below predeter-
mined levels during operation receive daytime charging with pre-
determined BCTs. All the buses also received nighttime charging
after completing their daily operation and returning to the parking
lots. Because the electricity price stipulated by the Taiwan Power
Company during the daytime peak hours is twice that of the off-
peak hours, daytime charging incurs additional costs. However,
the number of e-buses is also reduced accordingly. By exploring
the results acquired through various predetermined guideline
RBC levels and BCTs to identify the condition that yields the min-
imum construction cost, this study showed that the optimal num-
ber of e-buses used was reduced by 10 and the construction cost
was lowered by 7.51%, compared with Case 1. This indicated that
daytime charging reduced the construction cost.
The simulation process of Case 3 was identical to that of Case2
but involved a GA to optimize the predetermined guideline RBC
levels and BCTs at the top of each hour during daytime operation,
thereby deriving the minimum construction cost. The resulting
construction cost in Case 3 was lower than that in Case 1 by
10.74%. In addition, the number of chargers used in Case 3 was
identical to that used in Case 2; however, the construction cost
in the former was lower by 3.49% because of the improved use rate
of e-buses. These findings suggested that the proposed optimiza-
tion method can decrease the construction cost of an e-bus trans-
portation system.
The proposed method can not only be applied for the existing
bus transportation system of Penghu, but it can also be used to
analyze and optimize different bus transportation systems or dif-
ferent types of e-bus if new timetables, operation parameters,
and cost information are provided.
Acknowledgment
This research was sponsored in part by the Ministry of Science
and Technology, Taiwan, under Grant MOST 104-2221-E-346-007.
References
[1] Noel L, McCormack R. A cost benefit analysis of a V2G-capable electric school
bus compared to a traditional diesel school bus. Appl Energy 2014;126:246–55.
[2] Yong JY, Ramachandaramurthy VK, Tan KM, Mithulananthan N. A review on
the state-of-the-art technologies of electric vehicle, its impacts and prospects.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:365–85.
[3] Sanchez JAG, Martinez JML, Martin JL, Holgado MNF, Morales HA. Impact of
Spanish electricity mix, over the period 2008–20030, on the life cycle energy
consumption and GHG emissions of electric, hybrid diesel-electric, fuel cell
Hybrid and diesel bus of the Madrid transportation system. Energy Convers
Manage 2013;74:332–43.
[4] Yuan X, Li L, Gou H, Dong T. Energy and environmental impact of battery
electric vehicle range in China. Appl Energy 2015;157:75–84.
[5] Wanga L, Patel PL, Yu S, Liu B, McLeod J, Clarke LE, et al. Win–Win strategies to
promote air pollutant control policies and non-fossil energy target regulation
in China. Appl Energy 2016;163:244–53.
[6] Feng W, Figliozzi M. An economic and technological analysis of the key factors
affecting the competitiveness of electric commercial vehicles: a case study
from the USA market. Transp Res Part C 2013;26:135–45.
[7] Lajunen A. Energy consumption and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid and electric
city buses. Transp Res Part C 2014;38:1–15.
[8] Sinhuber P, Rohlfs W, Sauer DU. Conceptional considerations for electrification
of public city buses – energy storage system and charging stations. IEEE
Emobility-Electr Power Train 2010:1–5.
[9] Kühne Reinhart. Electric buses – an energy efficient urban transportation
means. Energy 2010;35:4510–3.
[10] Lewis Research Center. Ultra-capacitor energy storage in a large hybrid electric
bus. In: 14th International electric vehicle symposium and exposition. NASA/
TM-97-206319.
[11] Williamson S, Khaligh A, Oh S, Emadi A. Impact of energy storage device
selection on the overall drive train efficiency and performance of heavy-duty
hybrid vehicles. In: IEEE vehicle power propulsion conference. p. 381–90.
[12] Zhang Y, Jiang Z, Yu X. Control strategies for battery/supercapacitor hybrid
energy storage systems. In: IEEE energy 2030 conference. p. 1–6.
[13] Zhang Y, Wu L, Hu X, Liang H. Model and control for supercapacitor-based
energy storage system for metro vehicles. In: International conference
electrical machines systems. p. 2695–7.
[14] Lu Y, Hess H, Edwards D. Adaptive control of an ultracapacitor energy storage
system for hybrid electric vehicles. Proceedings of IEEE electrical machines
drives conference, vol. 1. p. 129–33.
[15] Curti JMA, Huang X, Minaki R, Hori Y. A simplified power management
strategy for a supercapacitor/battery hybrid energy storage system using the
half-controlled converter. In: IEEE industrial electronics society conference. p.
4006–11.
[16] Khaligh A, Zhihao L. Battery, ultracapacitor, fuel cell, and hybrid energy storage
systems for electric, hybrid electric, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles: state of the art. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2010;59:2806–14.
[17] Hoelscher D, Skorez A, Gao Y, Ehsani M. Hybridized electric energy storage
systems for hybrid electric vehicles. In: IEEE vehicle power propulsion
conference. p. 1–6.
[18] Burke AF. Batteries and ultracapacitors for electric, hybrid, and fuel cell
vehicles. IEEE Proc 2007;95:806–20.
[19] Lukic S, Emadi A. Charging ahead. IEEE Ind Electron Mag 2008;2:22–31.
[20] Vulturescu B, Trigui R, Lallemand R, Coquery G. Implementation and test of a
hybrid storage system on an electric urban bus. Transp Res Part C 2013;30:55–66.
[21] Jung J, Chow JYJ, Jayakrishnan R, Park JY. Stochastic dynamic itinerary
interception refueling location problem with queue delay for electric taxi
charging stations. Transp Res Part C 2014;40:123–42.
[22] Huang Y, Zhou Y. An optimization framework for workplace charging
strategies. Transp Res Part C 2015;52:144–55.
[23] Pearre NS, Kempton W, Guensler RL, Elango VV. Electric vehicles: how much
range is required for a day’s driving? Transp Res Part C 2011;19:1171–84.
[24] Ning W, Yun L, Yafei L. Economic evaluation of electric bus charging
infrastructure. In: IEEE 17th International Conference on Intelligent
Transportation Systems. p. 2799–804.
[25] Zhu C, Chen X. Optimizing battery electric bus transit vehicle scheduling with
battery exchanging: model and case study. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci
2013;96:2725–36.
[26] Wang R et al. Can propulsion and fuel diversity for the bus fleet achieve the
win-win strategy of energy conservation and environmental protection? Appl
Energy 2015;147:92–103.
[27] Hu X, Murgovski N, Johannesson L, Egardt B. Energy efficiency analysis of a
series plug-in hybrid electric bus with different energy management strategies
and battery sizes. Appl Energy 2013;111:1001–9.
[28] Miles J, Stephen P. Developing a viable electric bus service: the Milton Keynes
demonstration project. Rese Transport Econ 2014;48:357–63.
[29] Bi Z, Song L, Kleine RD, Mi CC, Keoleian GA. Plug-in vs. wireless charging: life
cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an electric bus system. Appl
Energy 2015;146:11–9.
[30] Guo S, Zhao H. Optimal site selection of electric vehicle charging station by
using fuzzy TOPSIS based on sustainability perspective. Appl Energy
2015;158:390–402.
[31] Pihlatie M, Kukkonen S, Halmeaho T, Karvonen V, Nylund NO. Fully electric
city buses – the viable option. In: IEEE electric vehicle conference. p. 1–8.
[32] Xu L, Mueller CD, Li J, Ouyang M, Hu Z. Multi-object component sizing based
on optimal energy management strategy of fuel cell electric vehicles. Appl
Energy 2015;157:664–74.
[33] Xu L, Ouyang M, Li J, Yang F, Lu L, Hua J. Optimal sizing of plug-in fuel cell
electric vehicles using models of vehicle performance and system cost. Appl
Energy 2013;103:477–87.
[34] Gen M, Cheng R. Genetic algorithms and engineering design. John Wiley &
Sons; 1997.
[35] Ying J, Xu P, Duan P, Lu X. Estimating hourly cooling load in commercial
buildings using a thermal network model and electricity submetering data.
Appl Energy 2016;169:309–23.
[36] Blaifi S, Moulahoum S, Colak I, Merrouche W. An enhanced dynamic model of
battery using genetic algorithm suitable for photovoltaic applications. Appl
Energy 2016;169:888–98.
[37] Ogunjuyigbe ASO, Ayodele TR, Akinola OA. Optimal allocation and sizing of PV/
Wind/Split-diesel/Battery hybrid energy system for minimizing life cycle cost,
carbon emission and dump energy of remote residential building. Appl Energy
2016;171:153–71.
[38] Ke BR, Chen N. Signalling block layout and strategy of train operation for
saving energy in mass rapid transit systems. IEE proceedings power electric
applications, vol. 152. p. 129–40.