×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

South Korea Launches First Electric Bus Fleet

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the whole-lot-of-batteries dept.

Earth 168

An anonymous reader writes "The Seoul Metropolitan Government just rolled out the world's first commercial all-electric bus service. The buses were designed to be as efficient as possible — each bus can run up to about 52 miles on a single charge and they have a maximum speed of about 62 miles per hour. The vehicles' lithium-ion battery packs can be fully charged in less than 30 minutes and they also feature regenerative braking systems that reuse energy from brakes when running downhill."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

168 comments

I saw the headline... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705394)

"South Korea Launches First" and expected the rest of it to be "Strike Against North Korea".

Duh - All vehicles on earth are electric (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705422)

Burning gasoline has to do with moving electrons for example.

Re:I saw the headline... (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705862)

Or South Korea was flinging Electric Buses at North Korea...

Re:I saw the headline... (2)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705988)

Or South Korea was flinging Electric Buses at North Korea...

I can see North Korea building Trebuchets to do that after the leaders view the latest in US war tech on Youtube.

Useless (-1)

chatgris (735079) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705410)

So they can go for about an hour before recharging, and then they spent half their active time recharging? Keep in mind, there's also time required to leave from and return to whatever charging station you have. These things are useless.

Re:Useless (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705426)

52 miles could be a days driving for a bus in Seoul.

Overhead wires (3, Informative)

quenda (644621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706246)

I have this brilliant idea to solve the battery range problem.
Since buses travel on fixed routes, you could run overhead electric wires to power them, removing the need for expensive and heavy batteries, and increasing speed.
I cannot believe nobody has thought of this before [wikipedia.org], and this is the worlds first electric bus fleet.

Re:Overhead wires (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706356)

Or just use cables sliding through a slot in the road. Why don't they do that?

Re:Overhead wires (1)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706476)

Or just use cables sliding through a slot in the road. Why don't they do that?

If they rip up the road, they might as well install proper tram rails -- not having to do that is the biggest advantage of trolley buses over trams...

Re:Overhead wires (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706810)

Depends on where you are and what you're doing with the cables.

Are the cables for transferring mechanical force? That's not particularly efficient, and you have to worry about cable stretching, ongoing maintenance, etc. But they still might have some use if you have short inclined runs at low speeds, because you can use the weight of descending cars to balance the weight of the ascending cars, and only have to actually provide power for the difference in weight and mechanical losses, which at low speeds.. will not be too bad.

Or are they electrical cables? Then you've gotta worry about flooding and corrosion, and kids, too.

Raised cables are definitely more efficient, and allow the cable cars a bit more play to pull off to the side of the road to pick up passengers, avoid road dangers, etc. Less aesthecially pleasing, though.

The next question though is this: with a small battery, would it be possible to charge the bus at each stop, just enough to make it the next couple of stops? Maybe you can have your cake and eat it, too.

Re:Overhead wires (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706894)

My joke was: If you insist on promoting an old system (overhead cables) why not just go back all the way to cable cars?.

I assume they are only used in SF for historical reasons. We used to have them in Melbourne but replaced them with electric trams and overhead cables.

In the last decade or so a lot of devices such as street lights have been installed to run on photovoltaic and battery power. The reason is that a PV power supply is a hell of a lot cheaper than anything which involves digging trenches and running cables.

I am pretty sure that if we did the numbers today the trams in my city would run on batteries and there would not be overhead cables.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705458)

So they can go for about an hour before recharging, and then they spent half their active time recharging

Pray tell, what in the summary or article gave you such an idea? If you're doing some math based on the 52-mile range and the 62-mph top speed, then you're rather stupidly assuming that the buses will constantly be careening around Seoul at top speed. Perhaps you think Dennis Hopper has returned from the grave?

Re:Useless (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705652)

So they can go for about an hour before recharging, and then they spent half their active time recharging

Pray tell, what in the summary or article gave you such an idea? If you're doing some math based on the 52-mile range and the 62-mph top speed, then you're rather stupidly assuming that the buses will constantly be careening around Seoul at top speed. Perhaps you think Dennis Hopper has returned from the grave?

He's assuming that everyone in every other country drives like Americunts like him do. I'm shocked he didn't also complain about the fact that the buses can't go 150 mph and/or drive offroad, because both are standard requirements to get some milk from the store in America.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705760)

He's assuming that everyone in every other country drives like Americunts like him do. I'm shocked he didn't also complain about the fact that the buses can't go 150 mph and/or drive offroad, because both are standard requirements to get some milk from the store in America.

Stereotypes are the exclusive domain of the thoroughly stupid.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705780)

We also demand fat cupholders, asshole.

Re:Useless (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705700)

He's (erroneously) thinking of Seoul as a city laid out like an American west coast city, which covers quite a large area. A bus like this would not survive here as people would need to either wait for it to charge, or transfer busses three times to get anywhere. 62mph on a 70mph road would also put you in the slow lane, getting passed by 18 wheelers.

  In Seoul however it DOES make sense, high density and lots of braking + hills could actually improve it's range.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705558)

Never hear of replacing batteries ?
No one takes into account that eventually batteries might as well be leased from your electric grid.
And gas stations might become battery swap and recharge stations.

What would be required for this to work is governments making standards for battery sizes.
As the industry itself will never agree on global standards, (it also never happened for razorblades)
So by UN rules or industry leaders battery type A should have the exact following dimensions, and there and here there should be holes as for place holders in any kind of car....

That's bald politics; however these days politicians have lost their balls..and so they don't rule;
No one rules; its a corporate anarchy

Re:Useless (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705584)

How far do you think these buses really go?
How often does a bus go 60mph for a whole hour in downtown Seoul?

You sir are useless.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705786)

When cycling around Aberdeen, Scotland I regularly over take buses. They never over take me. So that puts their average speed well below 15 miles an hour.

Re:Useless (1)

Mr Bubble (14652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706240)

As the poster said below, 52 miles is along way for an inner city bus. Also, the article discusses regenerative breaking and it seems as though the 52 min is pure battery without the benefits of the breaking - which can only be estimated.

Re:Useless (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706442)

Regenerative braking, by virtue of not being a method of implementing perpetual motion, is limited to generating less energy than is required to get the bus back up to the speed it was going before braking. So it won't extend the range at all, just avoid reducing the range too much in stop-start traffic.

Re:Useless (3, Funny)

MJMullinII (1232636) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707124)

Regenerative braking, by virtue of not being a method of implementing perpetual motion, is limited to generating less energy than is required to get the bus back up to the speed it was going before braking. So it won't extend the range at all, just avoid reducing the range too much in stop-start traffic.

So says you and your elitist "scientists".

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34707506)

How does breaking benefit the bus? Generally speaking, broken things are not beneficial, but then again, most people know how to spell "brakes".

Re:Useless (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34706256)

You're useless. Why don't you go to primary school before spouting nonsense like this on slashdot, retard?

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34706354)

In a city like Seoul I think that would be enough. Even if a bus simply runs "once" for a total distance of it's maximum available charge it's still a win in terms of long management of emissions.

It could be argued that they're also starting to address the issue of oil/gas dependency. I spent a few months there and only rode the buses when with Koreans. They seemed efficient and with some of them came equipped with engines that were programmed to stop at a red lights. With the population they have even a one way electric bus route makes sense when thinking long term.

This being slashdot: I haven't read the article so maybe battery life and or cost doesn't make it a viable long term alternative (but that would surprise me.)

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34706502)

These things are useless.

Do you honestly think that these are issues they didn't consider? Are you really that stupid?

Seoul (5, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705412)

Its hilly and congested. Many major roads are pretty much gridlocked. Urban speeds are quite slow. Many roads are steep. Motors which don't use energy when stopped are a great idea. Regenerative braking is also worth while.

Re:Seoul (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706182)

However, electric buses are nothing new. Many cities have them. The new bit is that they use batteries rather than overhead wires [wikipedia.org].

First? What about Chattanooga TN? (4, Informative)

MaestroRC (190789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705440)

Chattanooga has had electric bus service for years - http://www.carta-bus.org/routes/elec_shuttle.asp [carta-bus.org]. Granted, these are "shuttles" and not full on bus service, as they are used for short routes in the downtown area.

I feel like they should get credit where due, however.

Re:First? What about Chattanooga TN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705496)

My first read made me think of these [wikipedia.org]. Electric != battery powered.

Re:First? What about Chattanooga TN? (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705670)

I for one am surprised Chattanooga has electricity.

Re:First? What about Chattanooga TN? (4, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705954)

I for one am surprised Chattanooga has electricity.

They do, but they call it "'lectric".

Re:First? What about Chattanooga TN? (1)

pctainto (325762) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706432)

Hah, riiight.

As fun as it is to say that, not only does Chattanooga have electricity, Chattanooga also has the fastest residential internet service in the country (I think). 1gbit fiber to your home for $350/mo [epbfi.com].

Re:First? What about Chattanooga TN? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706602)

Now you really are pulling my leg. Internets in TN? Next you will tell me they finally got some dentists too.

Re:First? What about Toronto ON? (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705950)

Admittedly Toronto's electric buses weren't battery operated - they were powered by overhead wires - but they were in service from 1947 to 1993. That start date beats South Korea by more than 6 decades.

Re:First? What about Chattanooga TN? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706190)

Cleveland has CNG buses which probably pollute less than an electric bus would given how much of our power comes from coal. They are used on almost all routes except those that go into the farthest suburbs due to the lack of filling stations.

Please don't (1, Redundant)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705454)

start a headline with the words "______ Korea Launches" unless it's missiles. My heart skipped a beat there.

Re:Please don't (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705460)

You never hear the bullet which gets you.

Re:Please don't (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705596)

Sure you do, if you are far enough away that it has gone subsonic.

Re:Please don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705688)

Not if it's traveled sufficiently far ahead of the sound waves that they haven't caught up yet.

Re:Please don't (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705518)

I got excited. Let those stupid peninsula niggers kill themselves; it means more land for Glorious Nippon.

Same exact thought (1, Redundant)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705556)

I read "South Korea Launches" and that was as far as my mind went before freaking out just a bit.

Nothing like a modern nuclear war to get the blood flowing.

Re:Please don't (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705642)

might I suggest you learn the difference tween North and South, might save you a heart attack

Re:Please don't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34706166)

Eh, don't worry. The combination of worrying about N. Korean retaliation, plus the view that the two Koreas share a kinship would prevent the south from doing anything so aggressive.

ebus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705456)

Our city is getting some of these in the spring: http://www.ebus.com/
Not nearly the range of the korean ones but still pretty neat.

How could battery more green than wire? (2)

kentsin (225902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705482)

This is certainly not the first electric bus service, but the first full battery operated bus service.

For bus service, how come you think battery is better to the environment than cable?

Every people is smart, collectively STUPID

Re:How could battery more green than wire? (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705580)

My thought too. A lot of places have (and many more had) electric "buses" except they were on tracks with overhead wires. Having a trolley with rubber wheels, and a battery for short-gaps where you haven't built out the overhead wires (or don't want them for aesthetic reasons) makes sense. I heard about a bus like that somewhere in Europe that used flywheel energy storage to traverse a roughly 2km gap between overhead wires. Sorry I don't recall the details on that; but IIRC it was being done more than 20 years ago.

Re:How could battery more green than wire? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705602)

Perhaps because running a wire to every single place the bus needs to go isn't always practical? Restricting the route doesn't make much sense for a bus, at that point you could go even MORE efficient and just use a train.

Re:How could battery more green than wire? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706286)

The problem is trains have a very high capital cost, electric buses with overhead wires is much cheaper and adaptable, add batteries for gap coverage and you can achieve 90+% of the benefits with dedicated or HOV lanes at a fraction of the cost. Now for a city with fixed or slow moving demographics rail probably makes sense, but for most US cities with population centers that move every generation rail doesn't make much economic sense.

Re:How could battery more green than wire? (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705612)

Because running wires everywhere costs a lot more than putting some batteries on the buses?

I am going to bet those Korean engineers thought about this just a little more than you.

Re:How could battery more green than wire? (4, Insightful)

BBTaeKwonDo (1540945) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705646)

  1. You don't have to install cable before starting the service.
  2. You don't have to install cable every time you want to want to add a new a bus route. This means the routes can change more frequently, or a destination which might not merit a regular route (sports stadium, e.g.) can get bus service only when needed.
  3. No cables means no cable maintenance and no cable theft (theft may not be a problem in Korea, but can be a big problem in some countries).

Cables have their advantages, and a city with cables in place would probably do better to keep them. I would think most places would be better off starting an electric bus system from scratch without cables.

Re:How could battery more green than wire? (2)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707440)

Frequent changes to routes is a bug, not a feature, where I come from. Makes the whole damn system unpredictable if you're trying to get somewhere you don't go on a regular basis, because the route you took the last time won't get you there anymore.

- RG>

Re:How could battery more green than wire? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705648)

Seattle has had trolleybuses for as long as I can remember. Until Metro started replacing them with hybrids they were the only ones that were allowed to operate in our transit tunnel. That included hybrids where they were able to completely switch between gas and electric, but as far as I can tell couldn't operate like the newer ones. They work well, however they aren't without their disadvantages.

For one thing they can't make 90 degree turns. Any time the driver needs to make a 90 degree turn he has to get out of the bus and manually switch lines.

There's also the need to put up the wires and maintain them, which isn't particularly convenient if you need to change routes at any time.

That being said, we've been getting link light rail installed lately and those do run on a similar system. A single overhead wire that feeds the trains as they go.

Not First Electric Bus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705488)

They have had trolleybuses (electric) all over the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus

Trolley bus (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705498)

Sorry, but electric buses [wikipedia.org] have existed for decades.

The title should read "battery powered buses" instead, but thet's not a great advantage for a bus. A vehicle that always runs through the same route is very easily powered by cables strung along the road.

Re:Trolley bus (3, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705974)

The title should read "battery powered buses" instead, but thet's not a great advantage for a bus. A vehicle that always runs through the same route is very easily powered by cables strung along the road.

We have many of those here in Seattle, and those overhead lines are _BEYOND UGLY_.

Re:Trolley bus (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706326)

I was gonna say, we had a trolley bus system in Edmonton in operation between 1939 and 2009. A closure that was thoroughly opposed by Edmontonians.

What about Wellington New Zealand? (4, Informative)

inanet (1033718) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705504)

Over here in Wellington New Zealand we have had all electric buses for a really long time, since 1949 in fact.

they aren't 100% always battery powered, but nobody said they had to be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybuses_in_Wellington [wikipedia.org]

we have the dedicated trolly bus fleet, that can switch to running on batteries when there is no power, then back to overhead lines when power is restored,

from what I can see this achieves all the positives of the Korean system and none of the negatives (return times, charge times etc) as they are full time
electric but only require the battery power as a backup.

(ok the lines might be a bit unsightly to some, but my point remains)

so this might be the first electric bus system that requires no on the go charging, but is that necessarily a good thing? they still have to plug in sometime.

Re:What about Wellington New Zealand? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705624)

What is the cost to install and maintain all those lines? Is it even possible in Seoul?

Seems like in some places the wire overhead solution would not be ideal.

Re:What about Wellington New Zealand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705686)

What is the cost to install and maintain all those lines? Is it even possible in Seoul?

Probably similar to installing and maintaining and replacing all those batteries.

Re:What about Wellington New Zealand? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705716)

No, not even close. Look into the cost to run electric lines sometime.

Re:What about Wellington New Zealand? (1)

inanet (1033718) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705756)

I don't know what the cost is, but there are 2.5 times the number of people in Seoul as there is in the whole of NZ,

if one assumes economy of scale, then it would be much cheaper.

however if it is the reverse then it is not so.

that wouldn't stop the feasibility of using a hybrid wired/wireless system as has also been suggested.

Re:What about Wellington New Zealand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34706438)

A sky full of electrical lines is a fucking disgrace.

Re:What about Wellington New Zealand? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706612)

Line tend to cost more to run in cities and are often restricted by zoning. In a situation like this were you would have to close streets to run the lines I can't imagine the cost.

Re:What about Wellington New Zealand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34707160)

Should have done it in 1949. fuck keep up korea.

Re:What about Wellington New Zealand? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705906)

from what I can see this achieves all the positives of the Korean system and none of the negatives (return times, charge times etc) as they are full time electric but only require the battery power as a backup.

They do have some negative of their own however - like maintenance of the lines and supporting infrastructure. (Not to mention it's high capital cost.)

Re:What about Wellington New Zealand? (1)

gringer (252588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706668)

we have the dedicated trolly bus fleet, that can switch to running on batteries when there is no power, then back to overhead lines when power is restored

They did this when they were (up/down)grading manners street, with dedicated "pole-removers" waiting to detach buses from the wires before going past the inner city malls, then another group of workers on the other side of the malls.

I wonder if it'd be possible to automate that (i.e. computerised pole-retractors and re-attachers), which would allow the possibility for buses to transfer between charging/powered and unpowered regions of their bus route. That could make the trolley buses useful on more routes, assuming they can be made to have enough stored energy for travel on a partially-powered route. Something like the Southern Shopper would work well for that, Unpowered between Brooklyn, Island Bay, Newtown, but powered within those regions.

The London Electrobus Company - 1906 (2)

bwbadger (706071) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705530)

Koreans slightly beaten to it by The London Electrobus Company founded in 1906 which ran for a couple of years. Well that's what Wikipedia says so it must be true!

30 minutes to recharge, every 52 miles? (-1)

Kaz Kylheku (1484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705536)

Assuming they can actually go 52 miles at the top speed of 62 mph, this means the buses can keep moving for about 50 minutes, and then they need to spend 30 minutes recharging. So it effectively takes 80 minutes to go 52 miles, under the assumption of fast driving on the freeway with no stops, which translates to a speed of 40 mph.

In a long distance race, anything which can average more than 40 mph will beat these buses.

Re:30 minutes to recharge, every 52 miles? (1)

alfrin (858861) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705606)

Assuming they can actually go 52 miles at the top speed of 62 mph, this means the buses can keep moving for about 50 minutes, and then they need to spend 30 minutes recharging. So it effectively takes 80 minutes to go 52 miles, under the assumption of fast driving on the freeway with no stops, which translates to a speed of 40 mph.

In a long distance race, anything which can average more than 40 mph will beat these buses.

Large urban cities would not allow the possibility to drive 52 miles in that amount of time. Cities are very condensed, filled with hills, traffic signals, and a lot of braking. Not to mention its engine doesn't require electricity like a car uses fuel while idle. A conservative estimate probably would give a bus half a day in Seoul. We are not talking about a Greyhound bus service across the countryside.

Re:30 minutes to recharge, every 52 miles? (2)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705696)

You do realize that a bus is a mass transport vehicle that stops every few blocks to pick up passengers and typically doesn't go more than about 40mph on most routes, right? Sure there are buses that travel further and faster, but that's not the norm, most buses are for use in cities at normal speeds.

Re:30 minutes to recharge, every 52 miles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705754)

It IS the norm in America (at least west coast), that's where this misconception comes from. People here think busses, the first thought is long trips or city crossing (40-50 miles).

Re:30 minutes to recharge, every 52 miles? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706090)

Seoul has an excellent underground transit system. The buses are most likely a feeder service for the trains.

Re:30 minutes to recharge, every 52 miles? (1)

korean.ian (1264578) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707104)

While Seoul does have an excellent underground system, there are many occasions when it makes sense to simply take the bus from point A to point B.

Re:30 minutes to recharge, every 52 miles? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705914)

A typical mainline Seoul Metro bus (Blue line, travels across Seoul, usually from one end to the other) travels 27 km (16.8 mi) one-way in 90 minutes.

Which translates into an average of 18 km/h or 11.2 mph. Also, 52 mi range means the above example bus can travel 3 one-way trip fully charged.

No energy spent while stuck still in city traffic, 30 minutes charging every round-trip (total 3.5 hour: 3 hours travel, 0.5 hour charging) seems perfect, even without regenerative braking.

Re:30 minutes to recharge, every 52 miles? (2)

gparent (1242548) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706294)

What kind of buses do you take? Is there a freeway circling around downtown, where a single bus cruises at a constant 62 miles per hour? And passengers are catapulted from the city into the bus and vice versa?

Egads! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705742)

How will the North respond to the inflammatory warmongering of the South Korean puppet buses? An unpredictable defensive blow in a sacred war of justice using nuclear buses?

Trackless Trollys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34705774)

I rode electric buses in th 50's. They ran on the same lines as the old trollys and used the over head electric that the trollys used. Those buses were all electric. Seoul may be the first battery run bus system, but not electric.

Did They Have to Wait? (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705842)

Did they have to wait until they had a whole fleet of them built before they could launch the service? How long does it take to build one of these things anyway?

Re:Did They Have to Wait? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706112)

I bet the S Koreans have a production line which could churn out a bus per day. These guys think large scale. They built a whole new island for Incheon airport. And its not just the airport on the island. Its got its own city and transit system.

Hope future designs have roof mounted solar (1)

mrflash818 (226638) | more than 3 years ago | (#34705880)

If the bus is in sun for most of its service day, then the extra kWh from roof mounted solar panels would help it run the HVAC and get a bit more range.

Not the first - it was tried over 100 years ago (2)

sien (35268) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706042)

This is far from the first electric bus setup.

Around 100 years ago [economist.com] something similar was tried in London. The service collapsed in 1909.

With a bus fleet BTW you can do as they did 100 years ago and just swap out battery packs alleviating the need for long recharging times.

regenerative braking systems (1)

NightFears (869799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706132)

>regenerative braking systems
Now that's innovative! So how hard does the one need to press to generate 1kW of power?

Wellington NZ beat you to it by about 20 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34706138)

Hate to burst your bubble but your only (at least) 20 years too late.

Down here in Wellington, New Zealand, we have had a tram-style electric bus system since before the time I was born (mid 80s). They draw electrical energy from the overhead wires similar to the way early electric tram designs.

This system seems far more logical to me, why bungle about with solar panels and lithium ion batteries.... both technologies are not mature enough to last the distance (I highly doubt the expensive batteries which the Korean buses depend apon to function will work in the year 2020)

Re:Wellington NZ beat you to it by about 20 years. (1)

jrumney (197329) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706636)

Wellington's trolleybuses have been there since 1949, and they were by no means the first. Pyongyang has also had electric buses since 1964. You'd think they'd check these things before making a song and dance about it and handing a propaganda opportunity to their neighbours on a platter.

Power at Stops (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34706264)

Maybe a further improvement would be to provide power above the bus stops so the buses can charge slighly whilst stopping to pick up passengers. Sort of a localised power link, save running cables everywhere?

Who else was worried at South Korea Launches.... (1)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34706458)

and then started breathing when they saw the words First Electric Bus Fleet

Green Busses Good

Missiles BAD

Poor research (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34706642)

There've been electric buses in Florence for years...not of the same size as the pictured buses, but definitely a fleet in being.

The scale of the rollout, on the other hand, is certainly worth noting.

San Francisco has had Electric Buses for Decades (1)

saccade.com (771661) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707162)

Two long, springy polls on the top of each bus connect to a network of bare power lines stretched across the streets.

Commerical, or municipal? (1)

snsh (968808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707448)

The government rolls out a commercial bus... that doesn't make sense, unless the South Korean government is actually a private company.

62 miles per hour (1)

ian_from_brisbane (596121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34707470)

They have a maximum speed of...

Which, as anyone who has been to Korea will tell you, is done precisely 2.3 seconds after an old lady gets on the bus, and hasn't taken her seat yet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...