MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal configuration of hydrogen- and battery-based electric bus transit systems

2025· article· en· W4407931174 on OpenAlexafffund
Ahmed Foda, Moataz Mohamed, Hany E. Z. Farag, Patrick Jochem, Elkafi Hassini

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hydrogen Energy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBattery (electricity)Transit (satellite)Computer scienceHydrogenElectric vehicleAutomotive engineeringPublic transportElectrical engineeringPhysicsEngineeringTransport engineeringPower (physics)Thermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electric bus transit is crucial in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, decreasing fossil fuel reliance, and combating climate change . However, the transition to electric-powered buses demands a comprehensive plan for optimal resource allocation, technology choice, infrastructure deployment, and component sizing. This study develops system configuration optimization models for battery electric buses (BEBs) and hydrogen fuel cell buses (HFCBs), minimizing all related costs (i.e., capital and operational costs). These models optimize component sizing of the charging/refueling stations, fleet configuration, and energy/fuel management system in three operational schemes: BEBs opportunity charging, BEBs overnight charging, and electrolysis-powered HFCBs overnight refueling. The results indicate that the BEB opportunity system is the most economically viable choice. Meanwhile, HFCB requires a higher cost (134.5%) and produces more emissions (215.7%) than the BEB overnight charging system. A sensitivity analysis indicates that a significant reduction in the HFCB unit and electricity costs is required to compete economically with BEB systems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.194 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Hydrogen EnergySame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207