ArticleScientific reports2026
Life cycle externalities and abatement costs of public transport electrification using fuel cell and battery electric buses in Putrajaya city.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
City-level bus electrification is needed for urban decarbonization. Previous research shows varied preference between battery electric buses (BEBs) and fuel cell electric buses (FCEBs), due to region-specific factors. Hence, to determine the more practical option for deployment in a Malaysian city, this case study evaluates environmental and economic performance through life cycle assessment (LCA) and total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis, based on simulated energy consumption. The system boundary covers both vehicle and fuel cycles, assessing fossil-, solar-, and biomass-based hydrogen pathways. Results show that BEBs exhibit the lowest values across all three endpoint environmental impact categories, compared to all other FCEBs scenarios, with its environmental externalities priced at USD 831,587. They also achieve the lowest life-cycle GHG emissions at 58.1 kgCO2/100 km under Malaysia’s fossil-heavy grid, compared with the best FCEB scenario of 121.2 kgCO2/100 km. BEBs also yield the lowest TCO at 8.9 million USD and the lowest GHG abatement cost of 0.39 USD per kgCO2. The findings show BEBs deliver greater environmental-cost benefits than FCEBs, but future improvements in hydrogen supply chain might narrow this gap. Future work should assess whether FCEB deployment could be justified as a strategic option in helping a national hydrogen ecosystem development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.