Advocates Are Math Challenged And Politically Incompetent
Minuscule Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Huge Costs
[Update below]
NJ Spotlight ran another fact free puff piece on a “Report” advocating electrification of the public school bus fleet, see:
I previously wrote to criticize a similarly misguided proposal to electrify the NJ Transit diesel bus fleet, concluding:
Of course, the NJ energy sector and corporate NJ are breathing sighs of relief as environmentalists divert public attention from anything that could change the corporate status quo or cost them a thin dime.
Electric bus fleet replacement cost would be at least $660 million, and all of it from PUBLIC money, not one corporate dollar. *** There were no estimates provided of actual GHG emissions reductions associated with this public expenditure. (*** See Technical Update below)
If anything, the cost, equities, and greenhouse gas emission reductions are even worse for the public school bus fleet than the NJ Transit fleet.
1. Strategic or Stupid?
While I expect the advocates to be clueless on numbers and basic math, my jaw dropped when I read this quote from a highly regarded NJ energy consultant:
“Electric school buses are highly strategic — they reduce operating costs for the districts, lower harmful emissions in the local community and provide compelling evidence that electric vehicles are ready for mainstream adoption,’’ said Mark Warner, a vice president of Gabel Associates, an energy consulting firm based in Highland Park.
I think Mr. Warner meant “highly visible” or “a highly symbolic gesture” – because first of all, the numbers don’t work (see my back of the envelope sketch below).
But far worse, strategically, imposing huge new costs on chronically cash strapped, over-burdened, and underfunded public school districts (particularly in light of all the huge new costs related to COVID) is about the worst greenhouse gas reduction strategy I can think of.
It is enormously costly, provides tiny greenhouse gas emissions reductions, diverts scarce resources from far more cost effective options, and is almost designed to generate harsh public opposition and spawn a backlash (think “Yellow Vests”).
A local school budget is the most closely and critically scrutinized public budget there is. School budgets drive local property taxes and require local taxpayer and voter approval.
School budgets are annualized and school boards and voters approve annual budgets, so any alleged “long term” cost savings associated with electric conversion – even if real – are irrelevant (do the Report authors and Mr. Warner understand how school budgets are structured and approved??? Do they really think that entire budget structure would be abandoned to buy high cost electric school buses? Do they think voters will approve long term bonds to buy these buses, when school facilities are dilapidated and inadequate?)
Does anyone think that local voters will approve a $200,000 climate premium on purchase of a $100,000 new school bus?
Even if they would, diverting scarce public education resources to an extremely cost-ineffective greenhouse gas emission tactic is obscene.
There are many other far more cost effective greenhouse gas emissions tactics, including private sector fleet vehicles (like Amazon, Fed Ex, UPS, etc), but the “advocates” lack the courage to take on the fight with these powerful corporate interests. It’s sooo much easier to target the public sector and school buses!
Targeting public school buses is not “strategic”, it’s just plain stupid.
2. The Number Don’t Work
According to the “Report”:
Transitioning to all-electric school bus fleets would avert 5.3 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions each year,5 keeping our air cleaner and our communities healthier— all while saving school districts money to invest in the classroom.
I attempted to find the basis for the 5.3 MT estimate. The Report cited footnote #5. So, I went to that FN, which was to a prior October 2019 Report by the same group. That 2019 Report cited the basis of the 5.3 MT estimate in footnote #37. So, I went to FN #37, which then sent me to Footnote #2, which said this:
2. Emissions savings calculated using Argonne National Laboratory’s Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions Calculator available at https://afleet-web.es.anl.gov/hdv-emissions- calculator.
The link to Argonne failed – and even if it worked, they probably have individual vehicle emissions factors but I highly doubt that they would have a national estimate of total school bus GHG emissions – so I was unable to confirm or replicate their methodology or the calculations used to derive this critically important point, which is the primary basis for spending all the money to electrify the school bus fleet (there are air quality and health co-benefits beyond the scope of this rough estimate). (My 8th grade algebra teacher emphasized the need to show your work! And I got a 99 on the Algebra NYS Regents exam for failure to put a check mark next to my work)
So, I thought I’d do a back of the envelope estimate based on a quick Google (not an advisable methodology!).
The alleged 5.3 million ton national greenhouse gas emission reduction is tiny, and requires context.
For context, according to the most recent 2018 US EPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory:
In 2016, total gross U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were 6,511.3 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 Eq.11
Do the math – at the national level, 100% fleet replacement of electric school buses would reduce national GHG emissions by just 0.08% (5.3 MT/6,511.3 MT) x 100 = 0.08%
How much would that tiny 5.3 MT emission reduction cost?
The Report did not address that question or provide even basic data (e.g. size of the school bus fleet, gallons of diesel fuel consumed, etc).
So I tried to find a reliable estimate. According to the NY State School Bus Contractors Association:
- Nationally, 26 million children in the U.S. take 480,000 buses to and from school each day.
- School buses travel about 12,000 miles per year per bus or almost 6 billion cumulative miles per year.
- Each school bus, at an average 7 mpg and 12,000 miles, uses 1,700 gallons of fuel per year.
According to the US Energy Information Administration, there are 22.4 pounds CO2 per gallon of diesel.
Let’s do the math to estimate total emissions from the school bus fleet:
(480,000 buses) X (1,700 gallons/bus) X (22.4 Lbs/gal)/2,000 lbs/ton = 9, 139,200 tons CO2
That almost twice the 5.2 MT from the Report – a discrepancy that large raises credibility issues. It could be due to the difference between the Report (total greenhouse gas emission) and my back of the envelope (total CO2 emissions). Because the Report failed to show their numbers or methodology, we can’t know.
So, let’s do the math to estimate total costs (additional cost of electric over diesel) and cost effectiveness in reducing emissions ($/ton):
(480,000 buses) X $200,000/bus = $96 BILLION
Cost effectiveness: ($/ton reduced)
($96 BILLION)/5.2 MT = $18,461/ton
That’s an absurdly high cost. Certainly not a “strategic” option.
For context, for an equivalent CO2 emissions reduction from cars, it would translate into a gas tax of $181 per gallon! (See:
(2000 lbs/ton)/gas emission factor: (19.6 lbs/gal) = 102 gallons of gas per ton of CO2
($18,461/ton cost)/(102 gallons gas/ton CO2) = $180.99/gal
Typically car goes 15,000 miles at 25 mpg = 600 gallons/year
(600 gallons/year) x $181/gal = $108,600 per car!
It would be 1/3 the cost to buy people an electric car!
[Update: The comment section on this blog does not work. So, here’s what a reader suggested, with which I completely agree:
you raised some good points but your argument would be stronger – if you showed the larger reduction by spending that money on EE. [energy efficiency] The $10 million from CEF going to busses vs EE for low and moderate income families .EE would reduce the pollution and save those families money exponentially compared to few school buses .Same thing with RGGI money EE for L&M verses trucks for Amazon
end update]