Government Performance Result Act (GPRA) /

Portfolio Decision Support (PDS)

2009 DOE Hydrogen Program and Vehicle Technologies Annual Merit Review

May 19, 2009

Sylvain Pagerit, Aymeric Rousseau, Antoine Delorme, Phil SharerArgonne National Laboratory

Sponsored by Lee Slezak

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information

Project ID # vss_09_pagerit

Project OverviewTimeline

Start – October 2008End – July 200975% Complete

2

BudgetTotal Project Funding

FY08 $ 300kFY09 $ 400k

BarriersAssess benefits of entire FreedomCAR patnershipProvide guidance on R&D strategies

PartnersAll FreedomCAR members

Technical TeamsNational Laboratories

Additional expertsAcademiaPSAT users…

Main Objectives

3

Mandated by

Congress

CAFÉ Fuel Economy Standards

Baseline AdditionalImprovements

■ What are the benefits of the FreedomCAR & Fuel Partnership in terms of petroleum displacement?■ How much additional petroleum could be displaced with additional funding?■ Assess technology potential to guide future research and development

Milestones

4

Q1 Q2 Q3List of technologiesGather dataEnhance process

Define vehiclesRun Simulations

Provide ResultsWrite report

Verify Low Case vs. EIA

Current Status

Q4

EIA = Energy Information Administration

Approach

5

Component & Vehicle Assumptions

Vehicle Definition & Simulation

Results Analysis & Validation

Veh Classes Timeframe2010202020302045

FuelsGasolineDieselEthanolHydrogen

Uncertainties

10%

50%

90%

Vehicle Technical Specifications

Sizing Simulation

Results

Powertrain

Validation

6

Reference Vehicles Fuel Economy Compared to Entire Class

Small SUV

Midsize SUV Pickup Truck

EPA 2008 Adjusted Values – Including Cold Start Penalty

Midsize Car

GPRA/PDS 2008 Results

= Ref. Vehicle

7

HEVs Fuel Consumption Remains Fairly Constant Compared to Conventional

GPRA/PDS 2008 Results

Ratio = HEV

Conv SI

VariableHEV fuel

Pickup Truck

Input Split Configuration Used

H2 ICE only technology to show significant changes

8

FC-HEVs Fuel Consumption Compared to ICE-HEVs Shows Largest Uncertainties

GPRA/PDS 2008 Results

Ratio = FC HEV

ICEHEV

VariableHEV fuel

Midsize Car

Input Split Configuration Used

Early years difference explained by different range assumptions (190 mi for FC)

Later, with same range, FC maintains benefits due to storage improvements

9

Hybridization Benefits Based on Ratio Reduced with Larger Vehicle Class

GPRA/PDS 2008 Results

Ratio = SI HEV

Conv SI

VariableVehicle Class

Input Split Configuration Used

10

Trade-off Between Cost & Fuel EfficiencyAll Vehicles

Incr

emen

tal C

ost (

$) C

ompa

red

to

Ref

eren

ce C

onve

ntio

nal G

asol

ine

GPRA/PDS 2008 Results

Lower fuel consumption leads to increased cost

Bet

ter

BetterFuel Consumption (gal/100mile)

11

Trade-off Between Cost & Fuel EfficiencyConventional Vehicles

GasolineDieselHydrogenEthanolIn

crem

enta

l Cos

t ($)

Com

pare

d to

R

efer

ence

Con

vent

iona

l Gas

olin

e

GPRA/PDS 2008 ResultsFuel Consumption (gal/100mile)

Diesel remains more expensive with benefits decreasing compared to other fuels over time

Each ICE technology has different impact

12

GasolineDieselHydrogenEthanol

Trade-off Between Cost & Fuel EfficiencyICE-HEV Vehicles

Incr

emen

tal C

ost (

$) C

ompa

red

to

Ref

eren

ce C

onve

ntio

nal G

asol

ine

GPRA/PDS 2008 ResultsFuel Consumption (gal/100mile)

HEVs follow similar trends independently of ICE technology

13

Trade-off Between Cost & Fuel EfficiencyICE-PHEV Vehicles

GasolineDieselHydrogenEthanol

Incr

emen

tal C

ost (

$) C

ompa

red

to

Ref

eren

ce C

onve

ntio

nal G

asol

ine

Incr

emen

tal C

ost (

$) C

ompa

red

to

Ref

eren

ce C

onve

ntio

nal G

asol

ine

GPRA/PDS 2008 Results

Higher efficiency ICEs offer less benefits than for HEVs and Conventional

14

Trade-off Between Cost & Fuel EfficiencyFC-HEV Vehicles

HEV

PHEV30 PHEV40

Incr

emen

tal C

ost (

$) C

ompa

red

to

Ref

eren

ce C

onve

ntio

nal G

asol

ine

GPRA/PDS 2008 ResultsFuel Consumption (gal/100mile)

PHEV10

PHEV20Based on the test procedure used, advanced powertrain do not benefit as much of high battery energy as current technologies

15

In Addition to GPRA/PDS, the Results Are Used to Support Other Studies

Component requirement uncertaintiesFuel efficiency improvement of different– Fuels– Configurations

Cost benefit analysis of each technologyProvide inputs to – GREET (i.e., PHEV effort funded by Fred Joseck)– HyTrans Model– …

GPRA/PDS 2008 Results

16

MonteCarlo Analysis Implemented and Evaluated on a Single Vehicle■ Uncertainty is modeled by a probability density function (pdf)■ How is the uncertainty propagated?

■ PHEV 10 miles All Electric Range (AER) midsize used as reference caseInputs

Monte Carlo (MC), Latin hypercube (LHS),Median Latin hypercube (MLHS)Quasi Monte-Carlo

Sampling ResultsCd

FA

Crr

Weight

17

Future ActivitiesGPRA/PDS Studies Will Require Increased Complexity

New Fuels

New Vehicle Classes

New Vehicle Test Procedures

Use of optimization tool for component sizing and control strategy tuning

New Powertrain Configurations

Monte-Carlo

Risk Analysis

Detailed models required to represent future technologies

18

Summary■ GPRA/PDS study evaluates the benefits of the entire FreedomCAR and

Fuels partnership in terms of petroleum displacement.■ The study assesses technology potential to guide future research and

development by evaluating the benefits of the latest technologies both from a component and a control point of view.

■ More than 600 vehicles were simulated for different timeframes (up to 2045), powertrain configurations, and component technologies.

■ Both their fuel economy and cost were assessed to estimate the potential of each technology. Each vehicle was associated with a triangular uncertainty.

■ The results of the study are used to support numerous studies within DOE.

19

ReferencesG. Faron, S. Pagerit, A. Rousseau, “ Evaluation of PHEVs fuel efficiency and cost Using Monte Carlo Analysis”, EVS 24, Norway, May 2009A. Delorme, S. Pagerit, P. Sharer, A. Rousseau, “ Cost benefit analysis of advanced powertrain from 2010 to 2045, EVS 24, Norway, May 2009A. Elgowainy & Co, “Well-To-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles”, SAE 2009-01-1309, World Congress, April 2009A. Rousseau, “ Evolution of Hydrogen Fueled Vehicles Compared to Conventional Vehicles from 2010 to 2045”, SAE 2009-01-1008, World Congress, April 2009 A. Delorme, A. Rousseau, S. Pagerit, “ Fuel Economy Potential of Advanced Configurations from 2010 to 2045 “, IFP HEV Conference, Paris, Nov 2008