Comparative analysis of alternative fuels for bus transit.

详细信息   

• 作者：Rukowicz ; Stefan Frederick.
• 学历：Master
• 年：2006
• 导师：Faghri, Ardeshir
• 毕业院校：University of Delaware
• 专业：Engineering, Civil.;Transportation.
• ISBN：9780542719271
• CBH：1435870
• Country：USA
• 语种：English
• FileSize：1094423
• Pages：209

文摘

Alternative fuel use is becoming more popular within the United States, especially in transportation applications. In bus transit, conventional diesel is the most heavily used fuel. However, since the Energy Policy Act of 1992, transit agencies have been implementing more alternative fuel buses within their bus operations. The Act listed eight fuels to be designated as alternatives: ethanol, methanol, propane, natural gas, electric, biodiesel, hydrogen, and p-series (added in 1999). The effect of using a particular fuel has not been fully discovered. A comparative analysis is conducted in this thesis to evaluate alternative fuel and conventional diesel buses within a bus transit scenario.;Several parameters are considered when evaluating a certain fuel. The parameters are safety, reliability, serviceability, maintainability, infrastructure, fuel economy, and environmental effects. The alternative fuels are analyzed and compared with No. 2 diesel by examining case studies and traffic simulation software. The fuels that are analyzed are E95 (95% ethanol, 5% Diesel), M100 (100% Methanol), Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), Hydrogen, B20 (20% Biodiesel, 80% Diesel), and Hybrid-Electric. Given the results of the comparative analysis, data is available to transit agencies, government bodies, and fuel and bus providers on the efficiency of the different fuels to operate along a bus transit network.