NAFA Presentation Fuel Effecient Technlogy

7/27/2019 NAFA Presentation Fuel Effecient Technlogy

1/12

NAFA I&E Presentation Fuel Efficient Technology

U.S. Energy TransportationResearch Trends

Alternate Fuels and VehicleElectrification

NAFADon Hillebrand, Ph.D.

Director Center for Transportation

Research

25 April, 2010

Transportation = Three Main Concerns

2

1. Smog &Toxins

2. Greenhouse GasGlobal Warming

3. Energy SecurityDiminishing Resources

Number of Vehicles Expanding

3

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

Industrialized Developing World

BillionsofVehicles

2001

2050

April 5, 2010 - Vehicles per 1000 People in Other Countries

Compared to the U.S.

4

February 8, 2010- Transportation Petroleum Gap

5 6

World Oil Production

2005: 84.58 mbpd

2006: 84.54 mbpd

2007: 84.40 mbpd

2008: 85.37 mbpd

2009 (nine months): 83.79 mbpd

Does this look like we have hit a plateau?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t21.xls


2/12


Exxon Mobil 2009 Energy Outlook

7

Are We Ever Going To Run Out Of Oil?

8

Out of Oil

No!

Hubberts Prediction Tells Us Important Date To

Consider Peak Production!!

9

1972

EverythingChanges

What Will Happen When The Worlds Bell Curve

Turns Down?

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1899 1919 1939 1959 1979 1999 2019 2039 2059 2079 2099

MillionbarrelsperDay

Oil Price Shocks Are Important To Economy

11

Oil Prices are Rising Again

12

And Natural Gas appears tobe heading down


3/12


Recovery Act Funding

13

EERE Recovery Act Funding

14

1) $5 billion for the Weatherization Assistance Program

2) $3.1 billion for the State Energy Program

3) $2.73 billion for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grants

4) $2.0 billion for Advanced Battery Manufacturing Grants

5) $800 million for the Biomass Program

6) $454 million for Retrofit ramp-ups in energy efficiency

7) $400 million for the Geothermal Technologies Program8) $400 million for Transportation Electrification

9) $346 million for Energy efficient building technologies

10) $300 million for Energy Efficient App liance Rebates / ENERGY STAR

11) $300 million for the Alternative-Fueled-Vehicles Pilot Grant Program

12) $256 million for the Industrial Technologies Program

13) $115 million for the Solar Technologies Program

14) $110 million for the Vehicle Techno logies Program

15) $104 million for National Laboratory Facilities

16) $100 million for Facility improvements at National Renewable Energy Lab

17) $93 million for Wind energy projects

18) $50 million for Information and Communications technology

19) $41.9 million for Fuel Cell Markets

20) $32 million for Modernizing existing U.S. hydropower infrastructure

21) $25 million for the Massachusetts Wind Technology Testing Center

22) $22 million for Community Renewable Energy Deployment

23) $18 million for Small Business Clean Energy Innovation Projects

15

Vehicle Market Snapshot

Efficiency reduces oil use and CO2 emissions

240 million vehicles on the road

Approximately 9M new cars & light trucks for 2009. Average is 15.7 M/yr 2002-2007

Hybrid vehicles at 3% of sales

13 Million cars and light trucks taken out of use per year

2009 Oil Use in the U.S.(19.4 MBPD)

2007 Trans. CO2 Emissions32% of Total U.S.

Rail

Highway

82%

Air

10%

Water

3%

Pipeline

2%

3%

Highway

59%

Other Transportation

11%

Residential

3%

Commercial

2%

Industrial

24%

Electric Power

1%

US Mix

NE Mix

CAMix

- .

- .

- .

- .

- .

- .

- .

- .

- .

- .

.C

D&

LSD

E85,

Switchgrass

C

G&

R

FG

C

D&

LSD

E85,

Switchgrass

C

G&

R

FG

E85,

Switchgrass

H

2,

NG

H

2,

Biom

ass

Conventional ICE rid-Independent

HEVG ri d- Co nn ec te d PH E V 4 0 F CV

US MixN ixCAMix

Analysis Informs Strategy

%PetroleumReduction20

60

0

40

80

20

60

0

40

80

100

Well-to-Wheels Petroleum/GHG ReductionBy Vehicle Type

ConventionalICE

ConventionalHybrid Electric

Plug-In Hybrid40 Mile

HydrogenFuel Cell

CellulosicE85

Diesel

CellulosicE85

Diesel

Gasoline

Gasoline

CellulosicE 85

US MixNE MixCA Mix

%GHGReduction

Petroleum (Conventional & Alternative Sources)

Bio Fuels (E10, E85, Cellulosic Ethanol, Bio-diesel)

Hydrogen (Conventional & Non-Carbon)

Electricity (Conventional & Renewable Sources)

ImproveFuel EconomyReduce GHG

Emissions

DisplacePetroleum

IC Engine andIC Engine andTransmissionTransmissionAdvancesAdvances

Light &Heavy-Duty

Light &Heavy-Duty

Light-Duty

Light-Duty

Key Focus Areas

Improved Eff. of engines (25-40%)

Powertrain Electrification (2.5X current MPG)

Lightweighting to Improve Efficiency (30%)

Alternative Fuel Utilization (2B gallons/yr by2020)

BatteryBattery ElecElec,,Fuel CellFuel Cell

PlugPlug--Ins &Ins &BatteryBatteryElectricElectric

HEV &HEV &PlugPlug--InsIns

Engine &Engine &TransmissionTransmissionEff.Eff.

FromB

iomass

FromN

at.Gas

Mission, Goals, Targets & Budget

FY10 Request $333.3M Distribution of Funding

Hybrid-Electric

$164

$58Combustion

Materials$55

Fuels $25

TechnologyIntegration $31

Key Administration Goals Relevant toVehicle Technologies

One million PHEVs on the highway by 2015

Reduce oil use in 10 years by an amount equivalentto todays imports from the Middle East andVenezuela (~3.5 mbpd). The transportation share ofthis goal is estimated as ~1.75 mbpd.

Status Target

Power Electronics: $12/kW; 15 yr life; 55kW peak for 18 sec & 30 kW constant

Battery: PHEV $300/kWh; 15 yr life;durability; 100 kWh/kg HEV dischargepower of 25 kW for 18 sec; storage at300Wh; cost of $500 per sys

Combustion Efficiency: passengervehicle up to 45% and commercialvehicles 55% at todays cost

Efficiency reduces oil use and CO2 emissions

Lightweighting improves efficiency of all vehicles

Material weight reductions up to 50%in body in white and component parts

Electric drive cost at $19/kWpower elec. and motor combined

Li-ion R&D: PHEV -70 MPG HEV

Advanced Combustion Regimes(HCCI / low temp combustion)

R&D Focus

HCCI Range -Limitedby knock,high

NOx, misfires

Emissions Control Technologies

Waste Heat Recovery Mechanicaland Thermoelectric Devices

Demonstrate diesel-like efficiency(>45%) with less than 0.07 g/mi NOxemissions

Complex combustion modeling forfuels -reduce reaction paths fromthousands to less than 100

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)engine models for HCCI -reduceprocessing time by 90% for use byindustry

Improve NOx catalyst conversion efficiencyby 50%. Integrate four after-treatmentcomponents into one and reduce cost by 50%.

Develop on-board diagnostics and sensorssuch as 50ms response NOx sensors

Increase practical ZT from 1.2 (current)to >2 for 20% conversion efficiency

Increase durability of the thermoelectricsystems for 15 year life

Develop capability to process 12Ktons/yr of thermoelectric material

-5-

i-blends:overcome blend wall, displace oil & meet RFS mandates

Fuel savings not direct displacement Enabling technology for advanced engine technologies Mostly compatible with existing infrastructure

250M gallons displaced in 2008 Biodiesel & 3rd Generation Renewable Fuels Easier deployment with larger fleets`

7B gallons displaced in 2008 Renewable and synthetic fuels, such as E85 and F-T Little consumer sacrifice and currently available Opportunity for greater optimization with some blends

Advanced & Alternative Fuels

Direct Displacement of Petroleum and Enabling Advanced Engine Technology

Ethanol Blend Wall is approximately 11-15 billion gallons per year with E10

Targets and Status

2009 Status Targets

2011 Target: Havedefinitive answer onviability of E15 and B20

2022 Target: Attainment

of RFS II mandate 36 Bgallons/year includingexpanded E85 use

2009: Intermediateblends testing insupport of E15 waiveron-track to finish 2010.

2009: Approximately10.5 billion gallons ofrenewables used

Technologies and Benefits

Advanced Conventional Fuels

LD Fuels

HD Fuels

R&D Focus

500

550

600

650

700

750

800

850

900

950

E0 E10 E15 E20

ExhaustPortTemperature(C)

HondaGenerator

HondaGenerator(used)

BriggsandStrattonGenerator

KohlerGenerator

StihlLineTrimmer

PoulanBlower

NewEngineTrendline

NoE15dataforused

Hond

Small Engine Exhaust Temperatures

E85 Optimized FFV Engines Increase use of E85 bydecreasing the fuel economy penalty of ethanol

Biodiesel -Increase acceptance for legacy equipment.

Emissions results looks similar to E0.Catalyst temperature increase seen.

Testing 79 vehicles (26 models) up to120,000 miles -long-term durabilityeffect on NMHC, CO, NOx, and toxics

$38M project includes emissions,durability, driveability, and materialscompatibility for vehicles, small engines,and infrastructure

Eliminate half of energy content penalty by taking advantage of higher octane

Utilizing turbo-charging, variable valve timing, direct injection, and compressionratio increase to achieve 15% increase in fuel efficiency with E85

Determining effect of B20 onemissions and after-treatmentsystems 12% / 48%reduction -in PM for B20/B100.

Developing codes & standardsfor acid value, cloud point,water interfacial tension, etc.

B20 recently approved for usein 2011 Ford light-duty trucks(46% U.S. diesel market sharein 2009

NOx

PM

CO

HC

Perce

ntchangeinemissions

PercentBiodiesel

22.517

10.5

22.5

17

10.5

38.5

44

50.5

16.522

28.5

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Baseline 75% 50%

Materials DevelopmentVehicle lightweighting is one of the most cost effective ways of reducing fuel consumption resulting in a

6-8% improvement in fuel economy with every 10% reduction in vehicle weight

Types of Materials and Benefits

Magnesium

Carbon Fiber

25-35% Lighter than aAluminum Engine Block and

45-55% Lighter Comparedto Cast Iron

50-60% Lighter than a

Standard Steel Body in White

Targets and Status

2009 Status:Modeling demonstratedthat body and chassisweight reduction goal of40% could be achieved,but not at cost parity.

2010 Target:

Cost-effectively

reduce the weight of

passenger vehiclebody and chassis by50% in high volumeapplications comparedto 2002 vehicles.

Other

Powertrain

Chassis

Body

Weight Reduction of 50% Possible

Weight Reduction

Through weightdecompounding only20-25% of primaryweight reductionrequired

Key Materials: Carbonfiber, Mg alloys, highstrength steel

Changes vehicleweight distribution

** HypotheticalDistribution

Weight Decompounding is an iterative solution: Lower overall weight reduces the engine size required, which inturn reduces weight, which in turn allows the vehicle structure to be reduced, etc.

SuperTruckDemonstrate a 50% improvement in freight efficiency b y 2015

Trailer skirtsGap reductionTractor/trailer integration (major redesign)

Combustion improvementsTurbocompoundingWaste heat recovery

New generation wide base single tires

Tire rubber compoundCentral tire inflation

HybridizationReduced drivetrain friction

Automated manual transmissions

Electric accessories

Heavy-duty trucks use 20% of the fuel consumed in the United States.Fuel economy improvements in t hese trucks directly and quickly reduces petroleum

consumption Energy losses in Class 8trucks and opportunities for

efficiency improvements

Highway 59%Ur ban 5 8%

Highway 2%Urban 7%

Highway 2%Urban 5%Highway 0%

U rb an 16 %

Highway 16%Urban 9%

Highway 21%Urban 5%


5/12


Outreach & Deployment

Since 1987, DOE hassponsored more than two

dozen university-level

competitions, providing

engineering students an

opportunity to conduct

Graduate Automotive Training EducationEight Centers of Excellence

University of California-Davis, Virginia Tech, PennsylvaniaState University, The Ohio State University, University ofMichigan-Dearborn, University of Tennessee, University ofIllinois, Champaign-Urbana, University of Alabama-Birmingham

Improving the speed and scale of marketpenetration for alternative fuel

vehicles and infrastructure

Focus

Petroleum & Emissions Reduction

Vehicles and Infrastructure

Education and Outreach

Economic Opportunities

Unique Assets

Local Strategy Advances Nat. Goal Coordinators Coa li tions Technical Information/Resources

www.fueleconomy.govhttp://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/

Providing a new generation ofengineers with knowledge/skills in

advanced vehicle technologies

Advanced Vehicle Competitions

hands-on research anddevelopment. EcoCAR has 17 teamspursuing a variety of advanced vehicletechnologies

SuperCapacitors

AdvancedFlywheels

ConventionalFlywheels

Ni/ZnLithium Ion

H2 ICE

Methanol

Gasoline

Pb-Acid LiM/FeS2 Zn-Air

H2 FuelCell20

50

100

200

500

1000

2,000

5,000

10,000

PeakPower(W/kg)

Specific Energy(Wh/kg)

Major Interactions with

Office of Science

CombustionResearch Facility

at Sandia NationalLaboratories Livermore

VT Program contributed$2.5M in FY 2009/2010 for expansion ofmodeling and simulationcapability

BES funds infrastructure,VT Program fundsengines, test cells

On-Going Relationships Developing Relationships

Energy Storage BES recently restarted its activities in

electrochemical storage

Held joint workshop on basic research needs forelectrical energy storage

Information exchange through Energy MaterialsCoordinating Committee and the Chemical WorkingGroup of the Interagency Advanced Power Group

Jointly develop topics for SBIR solicitationsAnalysis of particles formed

from burning fuel is performedwith a visible laser.

Areas of Potential Collaboration

Ultracapacitors Materials for Power Electronics Thermoelectrics

ElectricalPower Pm

Heat FlowQmh

Heat Leakage Q.

Thermo Electric ComponentHeat Flow Qml

1111 2222

3333

Recovery Act: > $2.8 Billion

$1.5 Billion in funding toaccelerate the manufacturing anddeployment of the nextgeneration of U.S. batteries

$500 Million in funding forelectric-drive componentsmanufacturing

$400 Million in funding fortransportation electrification

Recovery Act will fund 48 newprojects in advanced battery andelectric drive componentsmanufacturing and electric drivevehicle deployment in over 20states: Directly resulting in thecreation tens of thousands ofmanufacturing jobs in the U.S.battery and auto industries

SuperTruck and Advanced

Combustion R&D $104.4Million Solicitation

Heavy-duty trucks areemphasized because theyrapidly adopt newtechnologies and account for20% of the fuel consumed inthe United States.

Solicitation closed 9/9/2009

Facilities and EquipmentUpgrade up to $105 Million: UserCenters, offer expert staff and uniqueequipment capabilities that no oneindustrial entity can afford to maintain.

Solicitation closed on 8/10/2009

Clean Cities: Petroleum

Displacement through Alt FuelVehicles and ExpandedAlternative Fuel Infrastructure

National Laboratories

28

Pacific Northwest

Lawrence Berkeley

LawrenceLivermore

Los AlamosSandiaOak Ridge

Argonne

Brookhaven

Natl RenewableEnergy Lab.

Idaho Natl Lab.

Introduction to Argonne: One of the

U.S. DOEs Largest Research Facilities

29

Argonne National Laboratory occupies

1,500 wooded acres in DuPage County, Ill,

about 25 miles southwest of Chicago.

The first national laboratory,chartered in 1946

Operated by the University of Chicagofor the U.S. Department of Energy

Argonne is ideally located to partnerwith industry in transportation research

Eight divisions at Argonne are involvedin the transportation research program

Vehicle manufacturers Light-duty engine industry Heavy-duty engine industry Motor fuels companies Trade associations

Basic science and applied engineering pushes

the frontiers of transportation research.

Transportation Hutch

APS x-rays

Materials Research Battery electrodes Fuel cell catalysts Tribology

Advanced PowertrainResearch Facility

End of LifeVehicle Recycling Modeling and Simulation

PSAT

GREETHigh Performance

ComputingFuel Cell and

Battery Testing

Testing and Validation

Basic and AppliedCombustion Research


6/12


31

PHEVs Assist the DOEs Efforts to Diversify Our

Sources of Transportation EnergyDisplaces a portion of petroleum with electric energy:

Electricity propels the vehicle instead of petroleum-based gasoline

Electricity from potentially renewable, clean and sustainable energyin the future

Much of gasoline usage is on short daily trips: 31-39% of annual miles are the first 20 miles of daily driving,

while 63-74% are the "first 60 miles.

So PHEVs with 20 mile range can use electricity to power about 35%of annual miles!

Benefits to plug-in hybrids:

Reduces petroleum or other liquid fuel usage

Potential for reducing most criteria emissions in urban areas

Vehicle-to-Grid services- have potential to improve electricity systemcost structure

31

TTR Component Photos

32

Rear view of cargo area showing JCS10kWhr Li-ion battery mounted ontransmission type rubber isolatorsaluminum deck plate coveringcomponents below Underside view TTR electronics/cooling

UQM 75kW liquid cooled motor, coupledto modified transmission, near customizedexhaust.

Some Lessons Learned from Benchmarking

PHEVs

Old vision of PHEVs (PHEV40, etc) now expanded with Blended ModePHEVs

Conversions validated in lab

Good emissions (can pass SULEV)

Up to 70% petroleum displacement

Energy Management

Blended mode can be better than EV, then sustaining

Best theoretical blended distance matches trip in question

Any use of HVAC can greatly reduce (or eliminate) electric range (ordepleting MPG)

Aggressive driving can also has an adverse effect on electric range and fueleconomy

33

Load Management is Required to Realize Potential

Impact of PEVs on the 2020Summer Load of SouthernCalifornia Electric Power Grid*

Peak power willincreasesubstantially withoutmanagement

Optimalmanagementrequires smart gridsand smart vehicles

Local circuits (blocksand neighborhoods)must be protectedfrom overload

Consumer educationand pricing policywill be key enablers

* SouthernCalifornia Edisonanalysis,2009

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324Hours

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324

Init ial Load Forecast Ports Rail Trucks Forklifts PEVs

Best CaseBest Case

Load ShiftingLoad Shifting

Worst CaseWorst Case

Smart Vehicle-Grid Interface

Requires standard connectivity/communication protocols to minimize impact onautomotive industry and utilities/grid operators (cost, complexity, reliability)

Vehicle-Grid Interface Issues Customer Requirements/Behavior

Battery Ownership and Usage

Vehicle-Grid Communication

Codes & Standards Unique requirements International compatibility

Outreach and Education

Best practices Training Public information

Enabling Technologies Electric Vehicle Support Equipment, smart charge control, etc.


7/12


Recycling can drastically reduce lithium demand

37

Could we be trading one cartel for another?

38

Alternative Fuel Engines Present Opportunity for

Advanced Technology Potential to significantly reduce demand upon foreign oil

Otto S.I. engines Alcohols (EtOH, MeOH)

Diesel engines Biodiesel (fatty acid methyl esters)

Increase demand for agricultural products

Reduce emissions CO, HC, soot

Several key obstacles remain:

Cost $$$

Consistency of fuel properties

Engine Durability

Alternative fuel technologies need to retain current advantageswhile reducing or eliminating the obstacles

Argonnes Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Ethanol

Directly Influenced the Current E-85 Campaign

Enhanced Ethanol Blends Study: Quick Look

Overview

The objective of the study is to identify emissions, fueleconomy and durability issues that may arise from

introducing E15 or E20 into vehicles designed to run on a

maximum of E10.

The purpose of the project is to do a study of late modelvehicles and determine if there is any obvious roadblocks

to introducing E15 or E20 to the US Veh icle Fleet before an

exhaustive investigation into the effects of E15 and E20

are undertaken.

41

Approach/Methodology Fuel Types

E0, E10, E15 Splash Blend vs matching RVP blend for E15 E20 Splash Blend vs matching RVP blend for E20

Vehicles and Test Procedures

Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks (2003MY and 2007 MY)

LA 92 test schedule with regulated and nonregulated emissions

Catalyst temperatures monitored for durability

Data will be input into EPA MOVE air qualitymodel to determine impact on regionalemissions inventory.

Study Collaborators:, ANL, NREL, ORNL and USEPA and US DoE.

Results

Fuel economy was ~5.5% worse for E20 and E15than for E0.

The blends Nox emissions effects varied from vehicleto vehicle , however, there were no large scaledifferences in NOx emissions.

Exhaust temperatures varied 20 to 30 degrees Cbetween fuels during some Wide Open Throttle tests.These temperature excursions raised concern forcatalyst durability. However, no major temperatureexcursions during the 7% grade to wing tests.

4242

Resource Management Must Be Addressed at Regional Level

Significant regional variations in irrigationwater consumption for corn

Water consumption factor for non-irrigated cellulosic biofuel is comparable tothat of petroleum gasoline.

Published in Journal of EnvironmentalManagement

Results provided key references forGAOs biofuel report to Congress (Sept.2009) and Congressional testimony byGAO on Energy and Water (July 2009)


8/12


Issues with Hydrogen

43

Plug-in Hybrid Electric VehiclesNAS Study

PHEV Market Penetration Rates Oil and CO2 Savings

Battery and Vehicle Costs

Timing and Potential Costs to Achieve MarketCompetitiveness for PHEVs

Infrastructure Issues

44

Market penetration projections

Maximum Practical (with optimistic technicaldevelopment estimates): 4 million PHEVs in 2020and 40 million in 2030

Probable (with probable technical development):1.8 million PHEVs in 2020 and 13 million in 2030

45

PHEV Growths Rates

0

50

100

150

200

250

2 00 0 2 01 0 2 02 0 2 03 0 2 04 0 2 05 0

No.ofvehicles(millions)

Maximumpractical

penetration

Probablepenetration

46

PHEV Fuel Savings

Relative to HEVs

47

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Gasolineconsumption(m

illiongal/year)

Reference Case

Efficiency Case

PHEV-10(Maximum)+Efficiency

PHEV-40(Maximum) +Efficiency

PHEV Fuel Savings

Relative to HEVs (continued)

PHEV fuel savings highly dependent on driving andcharging patterns.

Both PHEVs and HEVs will achieve higher fuel

economy. Average PHEV-10 projected to use 81% of the fuel

used by a comparable HEV (40 mpg), saving about 70

gallons in 15,000 miles.

PHEV-40 uses 45%, saving about 200 gallons.

48


9/12


Batteries are key question

Need acceptable cost for reasonable range,

durability, and safety Looked at 10 and 40 mile midsize cars

- PHEV-10s and PHEV-40s

Battery packs with 2 and 8 kWh useable

or 4 and 16kWh nameplate energyStart of life, not after degradation

200 Wh/mile

50% State of Charge range (increases to compensate fordegradation)

49

Current Cost Estimates Compared

$700-1500/kWh (McKinsey Report)

$1000/kWh (Carnegie Mellon University) $800-1000/kWh (Pesaran et al)

$500-1000/kWh (NRC: Americas Energy Futurereport)

$875/kWh (probable) NRC PHEV Report

$625/kWh (optimistic) NRC PHEV Report

$560/kWh (DOE, adjusted to same basis)

$500/kWh (ZEV report for California)

50

Future Cost Estimates Compared

$600/kWh (Anderman)

$400-560/kWh in 2020 (NRC PHEV)

$420/kWh in 2015 (McKinsey)

$350/kWh (Nelson)

$168-280/kWh by 2014 (DOE goals adj.)

NRC estimates higher than most but not all

Assumed packs must meet 10-15 year lifetime

Dramatic cost reductions unlikely; Li-ion technology welldeveloped and economies of scale limited

51

Vehicle Costs

PHEV-40 Total Pack cost now $10,000 - $14,000 Total PHEV cost increment over current conventional (non-

hybrid) car: $14,000 - $18,000

PHEV cost increment in 2030: $8,800 - $11,000

PHEV-10 Total Pack cost now $2500 - $3,300 Total PHEV cost increment over current conventional (non-

hybrid) car $5,500 - $6,300

PHEV cost increment in 2030: $3,700 - $4,100

52

Electric Infrastructure

No major problems are likely to be encountered for severaldecades in supplying the power to charge PHEVs, as long as

most vehicles are charged at night.

May need smart meters with TOU billing and other incentives

to charge off-peak.

Charging time could be 12 hours for PHEV 40s at 110-V and 2-3 hours at 220-V. Thus home upgrade might be needed.

If charged during peak, potent ial for significant issues withG/T/D in some regions of US.

53

Transition Cost continued

54

PHEV-40 DOEe High Oil Pricef PHEV-10

30/70

PHEV-40/PHEV-10Mix

MaximumPractical

MaximumPractical

MaximumPractical

MaximumPractical

MaximumP ra ct ic al P rob able

Breakeven yearb 2040 2024 2025 2028 2032 2034

Cumulative cash net

flowc untilthe breakevenyear

$ 40 8 b il li on $2 4 bil lio n $ 41 b il lio n $33 billion $9 4 b il li on $4 7

billion

Cumulative vehicle retail

price differenceduntilthebreakeven year

$1,639 billion $82 $174 $133 $ 36 3 b il lion $ 17 9billion

Number of PHEVsat

breakeven year (millions)

132 10 13 24 48 20

a Does notinclude infrastructure costs for home rewiring, distributionsystemupgrades, andpublic chargingstations whichmightaverage over $1000 per vehicle.b Year whenannualbuydownsubsidiesequals fuelcost savings for fleet.c Subsidies for new PHEVs minus fleet fuelsavings.dCost of PHEVs minus the cost of Reference Case cars.e Technology progress meets DOE goal($300/kWh)for the PHEV-40 in2020.f Oilat twice basecase, or $160/bbli n2030, results for the PHEV-40.


10/12


Snapshot of Electric Vehicles

55

IHS Global Insight Projections

2030 Market Projections for PHEVs and EVs

January 2010 9.9% EVs8.6% PHEVs

Major Challenges: consumer preference for long range,versatile vehicles, cost and uncertainty about battery life,

perceptions of safety hazard, adequacy of the power grid

U.S. Light vehicle sales forecast, March 2010

11.8 in 2010, followed by 14.0, 15.8, and 17.0 in 2013

56http://press.ihs.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=4187

EIA has lowered their projected 2030 HEV sales over

the last three Annual Energy Outlooks (AEO)

AEO Projected HEV Sales in 2030

0.0

1000.0

2000.0

3000.0

4000.0

5000.0

6000.0

7000.0

8000.0

9000.0

Hybrid PHEV10 PHEV40 Micro Total Hybrid

Type of HEV

ThousandsofNewSales

AEO2009 Reference Case

AEO2009 Updated Reference Case

AEO2010 Reference Case

57

AEO Projected HEV Sales in 2030

Projections for 2020 Market Shares indicate that Electric

Vehicle share will GrowRoland Berger: Powertrain 2020

U.S. Europe Japan China

HEV 13% 7% 9% 6%

PHEV 9% 15% 11% 9%

EV 4% 5% 4% 6%

58http://www.rolandberger.com/media/pdf/Roland_Berger_Li-Ion_batteries_20100222.pdf

The Electric Vehicle?

59

Its the battery, Stupid!

6kW ChargerTank Capacity16kWh = Gallon

GasolineRange = 90 milesCharge Time 8 hours

Gas Pump = 10MW RechargeRate15 GallonsRange > 350 milesRefuel Time = 3 min(Gasoline is a good way to storeenergy!)

Range Anxiety can be addressed through

Several Approaches

Battery Swaps

Fast Charging

Really Big Batteries Research on better Batteries

60

In Perspective:A major electric vehicle companyproduced 700 vehicles last year.

In 1985 - Sterling Height AssemblyPlant made 700 vehicles in half a day.


11/12


Battery Swaps Back of the Envelope

Need standardized or interchangeable batteries Need sufficient vehicles to justify the infrastructure Need a cost model that can work

Current EV Battery Pack is listed as costing $12,000 for replacement

(Which we all believe to be wildly optimistic)

$12000 x 5% annual return on investment = $600

3 year battery life means amortizing cost is $4000

Annual Return for each pack must surpass $4600 per year

For battery swapping profit, must drive 1300 miles per day per battery pack!

Conclusion: The EV Battery is twenty times too expensive for theswap model.

61

Fast Charging Back of the EnvelopeTo make the economics work will require Subsidies

Need to handle Thermal Loads and power distribution

Massive investment in infrastructure required simi lar to

hydrogen Fast Charging will not be the first resort, because there will be

other options, so the gasoline forecourt model will not hold.

Cost of level three charger is $15K $60K

Value of electricity is about $5 per car

EDF estimate: $15,000 charger is estimated to return a profit of$60 per year

Scottish power estimates that a break even cost for electricity is60 cents/ kW-h (making fast charge electric vehicles moreexpensive per mile than gasoline.)

62

Lithium-Air Batteries enable Electric VehiclesBut the Batteries are not ready

Source: Amended from Product data sheets

1

2

4

6

10

2

4

6

100

2

4

6

1000

SpecificEnergy(Wh/kg)

100 101 102 103 104

Specific Power (W/kg)

Lead-Acid

Capacitors

IC Engine

36 s0.1 h1 h

10 h

Ni-MH

Li-ion

Lead-Acid

Capacitors

Li-Air,

Fuel Cells

IC Engine

36 s0.1 h1 h

10 h

Ni-MH

Li-ion

Acceleration

Lead-Acid

Capacitors

IC Engine

HEV goal

3.6 s36 s0.1 h1 h

10 h

100 h

Ni-MH

Li-Ion

Range

EV goal (EoL)

PHEV-10 (EoL)

PHEV-40 (EoL)

Na/NiCl2

Ragone Plot of Various Electrochemical Energy-Storage Devices

64

Public Priorities for

2010Pew Research Center

http://people-press.org/report/584/policy-

priorities-2010

This survey was releasedon January 25, 2010 andit shows energy to bethe 10th most importantnational priority (with49% of the respondentslisting it as a highpriority), whereas globalwarming was the 20th

most important (with a28% rating). Even theenvironment was

ranked behind energyat 15th place with a 44%score.

Priority for Global WarmingCBS News and NYT Poll, December 2009

Should Global Warming be a priority for government

leaders?

High Priority: 52% in April 2007/ 37% now

Serious problem but not high priority: 37% in April 2007/33% now

Not a serious problem: 9% in April 2007/ 27% now

Do not know: 2% in April 2007/ 3% now

65http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Dec09aglobalwarming.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Gallup Survey: March 11, 2010[The percent of Germans who are worri ed about Global Warming dropped from 62%

in 2006 to 42% in 2010.]

66


12/12


Gallup Survey: March 11, 2010

67

The Economy is more important than the

Environment now

68

The number of vehicles per household has increased in every survey

since 1969. Over that period, the number of vehicles per licensed driver

increased 47%

40

69

Percentchange

1969 1977 1983 1990 1995 2001 2009 19692009Persons per household 3.16 2.83 2.69 2.56 2.63 2.58 2.66 -16%Vehiclesper household 1.16 1.59 1.68 1.77 1.78 1.89 1.92 66%Workersper household 1.21 1.23 1.21 1.27 1.33 1.35 1.26 4%Licensed drivers per household 1.65 1.69 1.72 1.75 1.78 1.77 1.87 13%Vehiclesper worker 0.96 1.29 1.39 1.40 1.34 1.39 1.52 59%Vehiclesper licensed driver 0.70 0.94 0.98 1.01 1.00 1.06 1.03 47%Average vehicle trip length (miles) 8.89 8.34 7.90 8.98 9.06 9.87 10.14 14%

Source:U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal HighwayAdministration,1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey:

Summary of Travel Trends, FHWA-PL-92-027, Washington, DC, March 1992, Table 2. Data for 1995 , 2001 and 2009were generated fr omthe Internet site nhts.ornl.gov. (Additional resources: www.fhwa.dot.gov)

Note: Average vehicle trip length f or 1990 and 1995 is calculated using only those records with trip mi leage informationpresent. The 1969 survey does not include pickups and other light trucksas household vehicles.

Demographic Statisti cs fromthe 1969, 1977, 1983, 1990, 1995 NPTSand 2001, 2009 NHTS

70

Conclusions

Project Independence projections were way off.

U.S. employs about the same level of light vehicletechnology as elsewhere in the world (with the

exception of diesels)

Some projections are very bullish about EV marketpenetration.

Significant decline in the percent of people whothink global warming is serious.

The US has Adequate Energy Supplies

It Lacks Sufficient Petroleum

Solar Energy

Wind Power

Biomass

Coal

71

The Challenge is finding ways to use those EnergySupplies for Mobility

Nuclear

Tar Sands

Shale Oil

The End Game: 1000 Year Vision

72

NuclearEnergy

CoalWater

Synthetic Fuels

SI Engines

Diesel Engines

Hydrogen Vehicles

Fuel Cells

Solar

EnergyWind

Energy

Electricity

or

or

The EndGame: 1000 Year Vision

Documents

NAFA Presentation Fuel Effecient Technlogy