3.2. Solar Modules
The first technology to evaluate its power output is solar modules to be installed on the rooftop and sides of the double-decked buses. The calculation below is a theoretical evaluation of its power output.
Table 3.
Weather Data [
56].
Table 3.
Weather Data [
56].
User defined area |
Parameter |
Value |
Area (London) |
2013.00 km² |
Perimeter |
183.02 km |
Report generated |
14 July 2023, 16:16 |
Area Info |
Parameters |
Value (min-max range) |
Specific photovoltaic power output |
2.80 – 2.89 kWh/kWp |
Direct normal irradiation |
2.39 – 2.52 kWh/m² |
Global horizontal irradiation |
2.81 – 2.90 kWh/m² |
Diffuse horizontal irradiation |
1.57 – 1.58 kWh/m² |
Global tilted irradiation |
3.30 – 3.41 kWh/m² |
Optimum tilt of PV modules |
36 – 38 °C |
Air temperature |
10.3 – 11.1 °C |
Terrain elevation |
-1 – 227 m |
Simplified equation to calculate solar module (SM) power output (kWh):
Global formula for calculating solar panel power output (kWh):
Where:
Figure 7.
layout of the available area (highlighted in green) on the bus to install solar modules. Area highlighted in yellow is mostly used for advertisement. White and Red areas are used for windows, doors, ventilation, and wind turbine [
57].
Figure 7.
layout of the available area (highlighted in green) on the bus to install solar modules. Area highlighted in yellow is mostly used for advertisement. White and Red areas are used for windows, doors, ventilation, and wind turbine [
57].
A (
m2) =
Length (
m) ∗
width (
m) = 10.8 ∗ 2.55 = 27.54
m2 [
57]
As it is obvious that most of the area on the bus is used for windows, doors, advertisement, and ventilation systems. Therefore, the only useful area with the potential of integrating solar modules accounts for approximately 20 percent of the area.
It must also be noted, it was proven experimentally that the output power generation of the sides is only 0.615 compared to the output power generation of the rooftop [
11]. Therefore, the ratio is introduced in the main equation.
Table 4.
known parameters.
Table 4.
known parameters.
Parameter |
Value |
Source |
Area (A) |
27.54 m² (horizontally placed solar panels) / 20.77 m² (vertically placed solar panels) |
[57] |
Efficiency (r) |
22% or 0.22 |
[11] |
Daily direct normal solar irradiation (H) |
2.39 kWh/m² |
Table 3 |
Performance Ratio (PR) |
0.75 |
[50] |
The following equation is used to calculate the power output:
Table 5.
calculated parameters.
Table 5.
calculated parameters.
Parameter |
Value |
Energy (E) |
10.86 kWh/day (horizontal) / 5.04 kWh/day (vertical) |
Total Power Output (E_t) |
15.9 kWh/day |
Cruising Range Increase |
10.72 km/day |
The weight of SMs also adds to the existing weight of the buses, and hence decreases the cruising range of the buses. For this research, the weight of the SMs is negligible because there is not enough information of the specific type of the SM chosen for this research. Also, according to literature, the weight of III-V solar cells is very little [
58].
3.2. Mini-Wind Turbine
The second technology to be installed on the buses is having a mini-wind turbine in the front face of the bus. To assess the amount of power output, the global formula to calculate power output of wind turbines is used [
51].
And available wind power formula is as follows,
(P
wind = available wind power, A= sweep area, ρ = air density (usually 1.225 kg/m
3), V = wind speed (m/s))
For horizontal axis wind turbine (HAWT):
L: blade length or radius of horizontal axis turbine
Sweep area of the wind in the front face of the bus when L is (50 cm)
The efficiency of wind turbines usually does not exceed Boltz’s limit which is 59%. In a study, the efficiency of small wind turbines has been investigated for different speeds with added flanged diffusers. The researchers concluded that the efficiency of wind turbines exposed to different wind speeds is 0.45 on average Chen et al. [
34].
To find the wind speed at the height of one meter, Power-law model [
53] has been utilised.
Vz is the wind speed at height z (meters)
Vref is the reference wind speed at height Zref (usually 10 meters)
Z is the desired height (1 meter in this case)
Zref is the reference height (10 meters)
α is friction coefficient or the power-law exponent (also called the Hellmann exponent), which depends on the surface roughness and atmospheric stability
Table 6.
value of alpha for different landscape types [
59,
60,
61].
Table 6.
value of alpha for different landscape types [
59,
60,
61].
Landscape type |
Friction coefficient α |
Lakes, ocean and smooth hard ground |
0.10 |
Grasslands (ground level) |
0.15 |
Tall crops, hedges and shrubs |
0.20 |
Heavily forested land |
0.25 |
Small town with some trees and shrubs |
0.30 |
City areas with high rise buildings |
0.40 |
Using the power-law model with an alpha value of 0.4, the estimated wind speed at a height of 1 meter is approximately 1.073 m/s.
The wind speed blowing on the mini wind turbine in the front face of the bus is changing since the vehicle is moving and thus generates more wind speed in the front face called effective wind speed (Veffective). To find this effective wind speed, a thorough computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis is carried out to find out (Veffective). ANSYS Fluid is used for the CFD analysis, and the computation is run six times, each time for a different wind speed (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30) mph. The results are shown below.
Figure 8 shows the results of the CFD analysis for six different speeds of the vehicle. The air streamline colour can be matched with the legend to show the effective wind speed. The results of the effective wind speed are summarized in
Table 7 below. According to the table, the maximum speed is set to be 30 mph because in most areas of London the speed limit is set to be not more than 30 mph taken from a map published by Transport for London [
63].
Figure 8.
CFD analysis of the bus for different speeds. velocity streamlines around the bus shows different effective wind speed [
62].
Figure 8.
CFD analysis of the bus for different speeds. velocity streamlines around the bus shows different effective wind speed [
62].
Table 7.
speed of the vehicle compared to the effective wind speed blowing on the front face of the bus.
Table 7.
speed of the vehicle compared to the effective wind speed blowing on the front face of the bus.
mph |
m/s |
Effective Wind speed on moving vehicle (m/s) |
5 |
2.24 |
2.18 |
10 |
4.47 |
4.5 |
15 |
6.71 |
6.89 |
20 |
8.94 |
9.25 |
25 |
11.18 |
11.78 |
30 |
13.41 |
14.01 |
It should be noted that the direction of the wind might slightly affect the power generation of the wind turbine though the direction that blows directly on the front face of the vehicle generates most power. However, for the case of wind direction blowing on the sides or the back of the bus might cause the wind turbine to generate slightly less power outage. In this case, since the effective wind speed is generated by the direction of the bus and speed, the direction of the atmospheric wind does not affect the effective wind speed and thereby the power outage of the wind turbines.
After finding the effective wind speed (V
effective), the power outage generated by the wind turbine can be found for each speed of the bus, and the results are summarized in
Table 8 below.
Table 8.
results of the wind turbine power outage for different speed of the bus.
Table 8.
results of the wind turbine power outage for different speed of the bus.
Air density (kg/m³) |
Effective velocity (m/s) |
Sweep area (m²) |
WT efficiency |
Power output (wh) |
1.225 |
2.18 |
0.79 |
0.45 |
2.2 |
1.225 |
4.5 |
0.79 |
0.45 |
22.66 |
1.225 |
6.89 |
0.79 |
0.45 |
56.72 |
1.225 |
9.25 |
0.79 |
0.45 |
220.16 |
1.225 |
11.78 |
0.79 |
0.45 |
397.16 |
1.225 |
14.01 |
0.79 |
0.45 |
2067.35 |
Taking the average power outage of the buses in an hour, it is 461.1 Wh. Also, the buses in London usually operate 18 hours a day. Therefore, the power harnessed by the buses in London via the wind turbines is equal to 8.3 kWh in a day. The power generated through the wind turbines which is equal to 8.3 kWh can increase the cruising range by 5.6 km a day.
3.3. Piezo Electricity
This section details the use of polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) polymer in piezoelectric technology for energy harvesting in bus tires.
Introduction to PVDF in Piezoelectric Technology: while ceramic-based materials are commonly used for their high piezoelectric constant, PVDF has been identified as an efficient alternative for large-scale energy harvesting. Its flexibility and durability make it suitable for application in vehicle tires [
44].
Electricity Generation from Bus Tires: placing PVDF in the outer layer of car tires can generate electricity. This is based on the contact area between the tires and the ground.
-
Calculation of Power Output: To calculate the power output from the tires, the following steps are undertaken:
-
o
-
Contact Area Calculation:
- -
Each tire supports 4800 kg of the total 19200 kg bus weight [
57].
- -
Using a load per square cm value of 13.6 kg/cm², the contact area per tire is calculated to be 352.94 cm².
-
o
-
Power Output Calculation:
- -
PVDF polymer induces a power output of 0.00089 W/cm² [
44].
- -
The power output per tire is 0.31411 W (0.00089 W/cm² * 352.94 cm²).
-
o
-
Total Power Output Calculation:
- -
For all four tires, the total power output is 1.25644 W (0.31411 W * 4).
-
o
-
Daily Energy Generation Calculation:
- -
Assuming the bus operates for 18 hours a day, the total energy generated is 22.61592 Wh.
-
Energy Efficiency and Distance Calculation:
-
o
The energy required to drive a unit distance is calculated as 2387.5 Wh/km [
57].
-
o
Using the 22.6 Wh generated, the bus can drive approximately 0.00947 km, under ideal conditions.
It should be noted that these calculations are based on several assumptions and may not fully represent real-world scenarios, which include varying road conditions, traffic, and driving behavior.
The study conducted thorough theoretical calculations on selected technologies and discovered varying levels of power generation. Solar modules proved the most efficient, generating 15.9 kWh, followed by wind turbines at 8.3 kWh and piezoelectric materials at 0.0226 kWh as depicted in
Figure 6. This variance significantly impacts the cruising range of electric vehicles; solar modules can extend it by approximately 10.7 km, wind turbines by about 5.6 km, and piezoelectric materials by just around 0.015 km. The findings suggest that investing in piezoelectric materials for tire integration is economically less viable. However, further investigation into solar modules and wind turbines is advised to understand their potential in reducing dependence on public charging infrastructure.
Figure 6.
power outage of Solar Modules (SM), Wind Turbine (WT), and Piezo Materials.
Figure 6.
power outage of Solar Modules (SM), Wind Turbine (WT), and Piezo Materials.
Solar modules and mini wind turbines show promise in power output capabilities. Integrating both technologies on a single bus could generate 24.2 kWh daily, increasing the cruising range by about 16.3 km a day. This enhancement could significantly reduce the time buses spend at charging stations, a notable challenge in the United Kingdom, especially in London. The scarcity of charging stations complicates the scheduling of electric vehicle charging. Chargers vary in charging speed (slow, fast, rapid, ultra-rapid), time required, and cost. However, the combined use of solar modules and mini wind turbines could provide a daily renewable energy yield of 24.2 kWh, potentially eliminating the need for charging stations and their associated costs.
Table 9 in the study details the different types of chargers, the time and cost for each, and the potential savings from integrating these technologies on a single bus.
Table 9.
types of chargers, charging time, and cost of charging per bus [
64,
65].
Table 9.
types of chargers, charging time, and cost of charging per bus [
64,
65].
Type of chargers |
Charging Time per kWh (min) |
Cost (£) |
Time Saved (min) per day |
Saved Cost (£) per day |
Slow (3.7 kW) |
16.8 |
Not available |
406.56 |
Not available |
Fast (22 kW) |
4.0 |
0.63 |
96.8 |
15.25 |
Rapid (50 kW) |
1.6 |
0.73 |
38.72 |
17.67 |
Ultra Rapid (150 kW) |
0.8 |
0.77 |
19.36 |
18.63 |
The next sub-section of the study includes a feasibility study to assess the financial viability of integrating solar modules and mini wind turbines on a single bus, capable of generating 24.2 kWh daily. This feasibility study is crucial for future decisions in energy management and environmental sustainability in urban public transportation networks.
3.4. Feasibility Analysis of Solar Modules and Wind Turbines Fitted to Electric Buses
This feasibility report, utilizing RETScreen Clean Energy Management Software, investigates the introduction of renewable energy in London's transportation, focusing on solar panels and mini wind turbines on double-decker buses. It examines the practicality of installing these systems to generate 24.2 kWh daily. The study begins with weather data, particularly wind speed and solar irradiation, crucial for outcome accuracy. Adjustments in wind speed data are made to reflect changes when buses are in motion. The report also evaluates the environmental benefits, particularly in reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs) and the potential revenue from selling GHG reduction credits. Financial aspects, including inflation, debt ratio, costs, revenue, and annual cash flow, are thoroughly analyzed.
Table 10 provides the main parameters for this analysis. The report concludes with a risk and sensitivity assessment, determining the project's feasibility through Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR) calculations.
The project's success hinges on climate and location factors, as high wind speeds and solar irradiation significantly boost the electricity output of the renewable technologies used.
Table 11 displays critical climate data, including heating and cooling design temperatures, earth temperature amplitude, and monthly weather specifics. This data is essential for understanding the conditions under which the photovoltaic system and wind turbines will function, impacting their efficiency and lifespan. It's important to note that the only tailored weather data is the average wind speed, set at 8.1 m/s, to account for the dynamic motion of the bus, which increases wind speed when the bus is moving, and wind hits its front face.
The project's financial viability is enhanced by its environmental impact, with solar modules and wind turbines reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by an impressive 93% compared to conventional fossil fuel methods. This significant reduction shows a drop from 2.1 tons to 0.1 ton of CO2 emissions, equivalent to removing the emissions of 0.4 cars and light trucks. Therefore, these renewable energy technologies not only offer economic benefits but also play a crucial role in global climate change mitigation.
This subsection delves into key financial aspects of the project, including inflation rate, discount rate, reinvestment rate, and the project's projected lifespan. It outlines the financial structure, focusing on debt ratio, equity, and debt interest rates. The revenue projections consider savings from bus charging and CO2 reduction benefits. Initial costs for solar panels and wind turbines are also examined.
Table 12 outlines the financial parameters set at the start of the analysis. The inflation rate is fixed at 2.8%, reflecting the average rate in the UK from 1989 to 2023 [
66]. Other parameters like discount rate, reinvestment rate, project life, and debt details are set according to RETScreen values. The debt ratio is set at 70%, with a 7% interest rate on loans repayable over 15 years.
Table 13 details revenue sources, including electricity generation and GHG reduction credits. Annually, 8.7 MWh of electricity is generated, saving £6,712 per bus in charging costs. Additionally, each bus reduces GHG emissions by two tons, potentially generating £140 annually from selling these credits.
Table 14 presents initial and annual costs, debt payments, and savings. The initial investment for the renewable energy systems is £57,000, with an annual maintenance cost of £828 and debt payments amounting to £4,381. The total annual cost is £5,209, while the net annual revenue from electricity generation and GHG reduction is £6,850. Consequently, the net yearly cash flow is £1,641. This financial analysis emphasizes that savings and revenue stem from reduced charging costs, not from selling excess energy back to the grid.
The feasibility analysis of the project crucially includes evaluating cash flows. This cash flow analysis provides a detailed view of the financial inflows and outflows related to the installation of solar panels and mini wind turbines on double-decker buses in London. It allows stakeholders to assess potential profitability and liquidity, helping them make informed decisions about the project's viability, identify financial risks, and ensure sufficient operational funding. This subsection focuses on the projected cash flow statement, highlighting key areas and offering insights into the financial sustainability of this innovative endeavor.
Table 15 displays the pre-tax and cumulative cash flow over 20 years, showing a continuous increase in inward cash flow. In year zero, the pre-tax cash flow is a negative £17,100, representing the initial investment cost, excluding any loans. Also, the pre-tax cash flow over 20 years illustrates an increase from the first year to the end of the project. Additionally, cumulative cash flow indicates that the project reaches a positive cash flow around its eighth year, also known as the payback period.
The financial evaluation of renewable energy projects is critically anchored on key metrics, notably the Net Present Value (NPV) and the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), which offer insights into profitability and return on investment. As indicated in
Table 16, the NPV stands at 11,256 GBP, suggesting a positive outcome from the project's future cash flows discounted back to the present value. The IRR for equity and assets is reported at 14.8% and 2.7%, respectively, indicating a robust potential return for equity investors and a modest return for the assets overall.
The Modified Internal Rate of Return (MIRR) for equity and assets is 11.8% and 5.3%, respectively, which adjusts the IRR to account for the difference in reinvestment rate and financing rate, providing a more accurate reflection of the investment's profitability.
The project's simple payback period is 9.5 years, with an equity payback period of 7.9 years, which delineates the time needed to recoup the initial investment from net cash flows. The Benefit-Cost (B-C) ratio is 1.7, highlighting that the benefits of the project exceed the costs by 70%. A Debt Service Coverage ratio of 1.4 further confirms the project’s ability to generate sufficient earnings to cover its debts.
Additionally, the analysis considers the costs associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, showing a cost of -298 GBP/tCO2, which implies a credit or revenue per ton of CO2 reduced, and an energy production cost of 0.778 GBP/kWh.
In summary, the financial viability of renewable energy projects, as evidenced by the favorable NPV and IRR figures, indicates a solid potential for profitability. The project's ability to generate adequate returns and savings, alongside a reasonable payback period and a positive B-C ratio, reflects a sound investment. However, it's crucial for stakeholders to weigh these optimistic forecasts against the inherent uncertainties, with thorough planning and risk assessment being essential throughout the project's lifecycle.
Table 16.
overall financial viability [
68].
Table 16.
overall financial viability [
68].
Metric |
Value |
Pre-tax IRR - equity |
14.8% |
Pre-tax MIRR - equity |
11.8% |
Pre-tax IRR - assets |
2.7% |
Pre-tax MIRR - assets |
5.3% |
Simple payback |
9.5 yr |
Equity payback |
7.9 yr |
Net Present Value (NPV) |
11,256 GBP |
Annual life cycle savings |
1,233 GBP/yr |
Benefit-Cost (B-C) ratio |
1.7 |
Debt service coverage |
1.4 |
GHG reduction cost |
-298 GBP/tCO2 |
Energy production cost |
0.778 GBP/kWh |