Meeting the New CARB ZEV Mandate Requirements

Transcription

Meeting the New CARBZEV Mandate
Requirements: Grid-Connected Hybrids and
City EVs
Andrew Burke
Reprmt
UCTC No 523
TheUniversi~7of C.alLfornia
Tr’,~asportation Center
Urdversity of Cali~rnla
Berke/ey, CA94720
The Umversity of Califomla
Trmaspor~atmn Center
The Umvarmtyof Cahfornm
Transpor~atmn
Center[UCTC]
Isoneoftenreglonal
un/~s
mandated by Congress and
establL~hedm Fail 1988to
support research, educatzor~
and training msurface transpo~ataon. The UC Center
Centerachvltms
Researchers
at otherumversltms
vathm
the regmnalsohave opportunines to collaborate on selected s~u&es Currently facul~at Calfforma State Umverm~,
LongBeach,andat Arizona
State Umvers~, Tempe, are
serves federal Re.on IX and
is supported by matching
actwe parbcipants
grants from the U S Department of 22mnsportatmv~the
UCTCs educe~nal and
research progreans are focused
Cstfforma State Department
of Transportabon
(Caltrans],
and the Urnvermty.
on strate~.c planmngfor
maprevmgmetropolitan
accesszbihtT, vath emphams
on’,he specm]conchtmns m
Based on the Berkele~"
Campus, UCTCdraws upon
emstmg capablhhes and
resources of the Instates of
Transportation Stu&es at
Berkeley, Dav~, and Irvme,
the Insntute of Urban and
RegmnIX. Part~cular attention
m directed to st~ateg, es for
Regmnal Development at
Berkeley, the Graduate
Schoolof Archrtecture and
Urban Plannm~ at Los
Angeles, and several aca=
denuc departments at the
Berkeley, Davm,Irvme, and
Los Angeles campuse~
Faculty andstudents
on other
Umvermtyof Cal~ornm
campuses ma~ partzczpate m
"asm8 tr~rtabon
as an
instrument of econon-ac
developmenL
while also accommodating
to the re~kra’s persstent expanmen
and while maintaining and
enhancing the quality of
l~e there
The Center dl~nbutes reports
on as research m worhng
papers, monographs, and m
reprints of pubtmhederbales.
For a hat of pubhcatmns
m printvmteto the address
below
Unn,erszty of C.,~fornm
Trnnsporm~on
Center
108 Nave]ArcZutectureBudding
Berkeley, Cshforma94720
Tel4151643-7378
FAX415/643-~4SS
Authors of papers mpo~mg
on UCTC-sponaored
research are solely
responsible
forthe~
coment.
Tins
research
wassupported
by file
U.S
Department
of Transportahon
and hheC~h~erniaState Department
of
Transportabon,
nmther
ofwhmhassume~
habihtl~
forxtscontem
oruse
Meeting the New CARBZEV Mandate Requirements:
Grid-Connected Hybrids and City Evs
Affiliate
Program WorkshopPresentation
Materials
Jeffery Brown
Daniel Baldwin Hess
Donald Shoup
Inshtute of Transportation Studies
School of Public Pohcy and SoelaI Research
Umversltyof C,’-dtiomla, Davis
Davis, Cahfomla 95616-8762
(530) 752-4909
http/hts ucdavls edu
~spubhcatlons@ucdavts edu
Reprinted From UCD-ITS-RR-01-02
UCTCNo. 523
The Umversltyof CahfomiaTransportanonCenter
University of Cahformaat Berkeley
Meeting the New CARBZEV Mandate Requirements:
Grid-Connected Hybrids and City EVs
UCD-ITS-RR-01-02
Affihate Program Workshop
Presentation Materials
May15-16, 2001
Buehler AlumniCenter, UCDavis
Orgamzer and Host
Dr Andrew Burke
Institute of TransportationStudies
University of Cahfomla, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, Cahfomla 95616-8762
Tel (530) 752-4909; Fax (530) 752-6572
webhttp//its ucdavls edu
e-mml ltspubhcatlons@ucdavls edu
Special thanksto the Umversltyof Cahfomla
TransportationCenterfor their
financial supportof this workshop.
Affiliate ProgramSponsors
Chevron Products
Company
ExxonMobtl Corporation
IMRA Amerma
Ntssan Techmcal Center North America~
Ntssan North America
Panasomc EV Energy
Powercell Corporation
Southern Cahforma Edtson
Subaru
Superfarad Svenska, AB
Toyota Motor Sales
ITS-Davis Affihate Program Workshop
Meeting
the New CARBZEV Mandate Requirements:
Grid-connected Hybrids and City EVs
May 15-16,
2001
Organizer: Dr. AndrewBurke
Scope and Focus
In January 2001, the CahfomlaAir Resources Board adopted slgmficant
modaficahonsto the ZEVMandateThese changes affect the options available to large auto
companies marketing cars m Cahformathat must meet the reqmrementsof the Mandate
starting in 2003 In the newregulahons, up to 50%(2%of sales) of the ZEVrequirement
(4%of sales) maybe met with grid-connected, plug-mhybndvehicles having a 20-mile
longer all-electric range In addition, city EVsthat mayor maynot be freeway worthyare
designated for full ZEVcredit and can be used to meet the 4%ZEVreqmrement.In the case
of both types ofvelucles, there ~s muchless informationavailable concerningtheir design,
cost, and marketingthan for full function electric vehicles (FFEVs)-- whichhavein the past
been the fbcus of meeting the ZEVMandateThis two-day workshopwill consider m-depth
howthe inclusion of the grid connected hybndsand city EVsin the Mandatemayaffect how
st will be met in 2003-2006In addition, each of the newtechnology options will be
rewewedm terms of vehicle deslgn, utlhty, cost, and marketing.
Agenda
Grid-connectedHybrid-electric Vehicles
MAY15, Tuesday A.M. (8:30-12:00)
1. Welcome(8:30) (A Burke, ITS-Daws)
2. Review of the new ZEVMandaterequirements with emphasis on the role of
plug-in hybrids (8:45-9:15) (C Cbalders, Cahfornla Air Resources Board (CARB))
BREAK
(15 rain.)
Design options with emphasison performanceand cost (9:30-12:30)
Emissions and Performance Expectations (E. Kassoy, ADLlttle/EPRI)
ANL/DOE
Study (D Santinl, Argonne National Laboratory)
ITS-Davis EV/HEVCost Study (M DelucchffA. Burke, ITS-Davis)
® Auto Industry Perspective Toyota Motor Company(D Hermance, Toyota
Techmcal Center, USA,Inc
¯ Systems Design Options for Plug-m Hybrids (A Frank, UCDavls/EPRI)
LUNCH
(12:30-1:30)
MAY15, Tuesday P.M. (1:30-5:30)
®
Batteries for plug-in hybrids with emphasison cost and cycle life (1:00-2:45)
® Nickel metal hydride (D Comgan,Ovonlc Battery Company)
Llthmm-lon (K Hlronaka, Shin Kobe Elecmc Machinery Co, Ltd)
® Useof ultra caps wlth batteries (A Burke, ITS-Davis)
BREAK(15 min.)
Marketing issues & prospects (3:00-4:00)
CommerclalizahordMarket/CustomerIssues (D. Taylor, Southern Cahforma
Edison/EPR[)
So
Q
Panel discussion of prospects for plug-in hybrids (4:15-5:30)
® Speakers from the previous sessions of the day (ARB,EPRI, ITS-Davis, auto
industry)
RECEPTION
(6:0t)-6:30)
DINNER
(6:30-9:00)
Talk:
University
University
Club Lounge
Club Dining Room
Electrifying UrbanAmerica~ Is It Really Possible?
Robert Graham,Manager,Electric Transportation,
Electric PowerResearchInstitute
City Electric
Vehicles
__MAY
16, WednesdayA.M. (8:3(!-12:15)
1. Welcome(8:31)) (A. Burke, ITS-Davis)
2 Review of new ZEVMandate requirements with emphasis in role of city EVs
(8:35-9:0t)) (C. Chllders, Cahfomla
BREAK
(15 rain.)
3. City EVProducts - Specification/utility, availability, cost (9:15-10:15)
® Toyota e-cam (D Hermance, Toyota Technical Center, USA,Inc
¯ Nlssan Hy-permlnl (M Teramoto, Nlssan TechmcalCenter)
¯ Ford Think (D Fabncatore. Th~n&City Project)
® NEVCOGizmo (C Watkms, NEVCO)
BREAK(15 min.)
,
Developmentof Small Full-Function EVs(10:30-12:00)
® ATT Parade (H Woo, ATT R&D)(20
¯ Solectria Force EV(V Brachos, Solectna Corporation) (20 mm
¯ Design Options and Simulation Results (A Burke, ITS-Davis) (20 mm.)
Lunch(12:00-1:00)
M,~y 16, WednesdayP.M. (1:00-4:30)
Battery issues for small EVswith emphasison cycle, calendar life and cost
(1:00-2:00)
¯ Lead-acid (K Snyder, Panasomc-Matsushlta) (15 mln.)
¯ NaMtChlZebra Battery (C. Dustmann, MES-DEA
S A.) (15 mln
So
1
Marketingissues (2:00-3:00)
¯ Marketing NEVs, CEVs, and Small FFEVs(K Kuram, ITS-Davis) (20 mm
¯ Car Sharing Posslbllmes for ZEVCredits (S Shaheen, ITS-Davis) (20 mln.)
BREAK(15 miu.)
7~
Panel discussion and wrap-up;newinsights (3:15-4:30)
¯ Speakers from previous sessions of the day (ARB,ITS-Davis, battery and auto
industry)
Meeting
the New CARB ZEV Mandate Requirements:
Grid-connected
Hybrids And City EVs
May 15-16, 2001
Attendee List
ITS-Davis
Jim Antone
Yolo-Solano Air Quahty
ManagementDistrict
1947 Gahleo Court, State 103
Daws, Cahforma 95616
Phone 530-757-3653
E-marl [email protected]
Gerry Bemis
Callfomga Energy Commlssmn
1516 Ninth Street, MS-41
Sacramento, Calgfomla 95814
Phone 916-654-4960
E-mad [email protected] us
KevJin Armstrong
DamalerChrysler RTNA
1510 Page Mllt Road
Palo Alto, Cahforma94304
Phone 650-845-2535
E-mail
[email protected]
Professor Antonio Bento
The Donald Bren School of Engineering
Sciences and Management
Umvermtyof Calgforma, Santa Barbara
4670 Physical Sciences North
Santa Barbara, Cahfornla 93106-5131
Phone 805-893-7611
E-mad" bento@bren ucsb.edu
Tom,Austin
Sierra Research, tnc
1801J Street
Sacramento, Cahfonua 95814
Phone" 916-444-6666
E-marl taustm@s~erraresearch.com
Justin A. Bereny
Electric VehmleInformahon Service
P O Box 6025
Moraga, Cahfomla 94556
Phone 925-299-1829
E-mini evmfo@evmfo com
Paravastu Badrinadayanan
Instgmte of TransportatgonStudges
One Shgelds Avenue
Davgs, Cahforma 95616
Phone 530-754-6770
E-mad pbadr~L@ucdavlsedu
Bill Boyce
SacramentoMumclpalUtdlty District
6301 S Street, MSA351
Sacramento, Cahforma 95817
Phone 916-732-5471
E-mad bboyce(~smud org
Roger Banowetz
Fuj1 HeavyIndustries (Subaru)
6431 Global Drive
Cypress, Cahforma 90630
Phone 714-828-1875
E-rural banowetz@qmkcorn
Robert Battersby
Caltrans
P.O. Box 942873
Sacramento, Cahfomla 94273-0001
Phone" 916-654-9773
E-marl robert.battersby@dot corn
Vasilios Brachos
Solectna Corporation
33 Indusmal Way
Wilmington, Massachusetts 01887
Phone 978-658-3224
E-mad brachos@solectna corn
Andrew Burke
Inshtute of Transportation Studles
Umversgty of Cahfomm,Davgs
One Shields Avenue
Davis, Cahfomm95616
Phone" 530-752-9812
Robert Cassidy
Nlssan Technical Center North America
18455 So Flgueroa St
Gardena, Cahfornla 90248
Phone" 310-771-5827
E-mall robert cassldy@nlssan-usa corn
Lloyd Dixon
Rand Corporation
1700 Main Street
Santa Momca,California 90407
Phone 310-393-0411
E-mall &[email protected]
Craig Childers
Cahfornla Air Resources Board
2014 Capitol Avenue
Sacramento, California 95814
Phone" 916-445-6012
E-mall cchllder@arb cagov
Cord-Henrich Dustmann
Zebra Battery Department
MES-DEA S A
Via Laveggio 15, CH-6855
Stablo, SWITZERLAND
Phone 41 91 6415352
E-real1 cdustmann@mes-deach
Dennis Corrigan
OvomcBattery Company
1707 Northwood, Cahfornla
Troy, Michigan 48084
Phone 248-362-1750
E-mail" corrigan@ovonlc corn
Joshua Cunningham
Instltute of TransportahonStudies
University of Cahfomla, Davls
One Shields Avenue
Davis, Cahforma 95616
Phone" 530-752-7435
E-mall _lmcunnlngham@ucdavlsedu
Arthur de Cordova
Moblhty Partners
614 Spruce Street
San Francisco, Cahfornla 94118
Phone" 415-531-4084
E-mall aedecordova~yahoo.com
Mark Delucchi
Institute of TransportationStudles
Umversltyof Cahfornla, Davis
One Shlelds Avenue
Davis, Cahfornla 95616
Phone" 916-989-5566
E-mad. madelucchl@ucdavls edu
Claudia Diniz
Inshtute of Transportation Studies
Umverslty of Cahforma, Daws
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA95616
Phone. 530-754-9000
E-marl ° cvdmiz@ucdawsedu
Anthony Eggert
Institute of TransportatmnStudies
University of Cahfornla, Daws
One Shields Avenue
Phone 530-754-6770
E-mad aregge~ucdavls edu
Professor Fidelis Eke
Mechamcal& Aeronautical Englneenng
University of Cahfornla, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, Cahfornm 95616
Phone 530-752-2309
Tom Evashenk
Cahfornia Air Resources Board
P.O. Box 2815
Sacramento, Cahfomla 95812
Phone 916-445-8811
E-mall.tevas_____hen@arb
ca gov
David Fabrieatore
ThVnkMobility
5920 Pasteur Court
Carlsbad, Caht%rnla 92008
Phone: 760-438-6127
E-mall [email protected]
Zeng Feng
Hydrovolt Energy Systems
3410 Industrial Blvd SW105
West Sacramento, Callfornla 95691
Phone 916-371-7501
E-mall dr zeng@hydrovolt corn
Sofia Franco
Umvermtyof California, Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, Calaforma93106-5131
Phone 805-893-7611
E-mml sfranco@bren ucsb edu
Andrew Frank
Department of Mechanical and
Aeronautical Englneenng, University of
Cahfornla, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Phone 530-752-8120
AnupomGanguli
South Coast Air Quahty
ManagementDxstnct
21865 E. Copley Drive
DiamondBar, Cahfornla 91765-4182
Phone. 909-396-3185
E-mad’ agangull@a_qmdgov
Karl Heinz-Hauer
Institute ofTrmlsportahonStudaes
Umverslty of Cahfomla, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Phone 530-752-9110
David Hermance
Toyota Techmcal Center USA
1630 W186th Street
Gardena, Cahfornla 90248
Phone" 310-787-5622
E-mall hermance@ttc-usa corn
Yoshiaki Higuchi
Manager, Techmcal Information
Mltsublshl Motors R&D
6430 WKatella
Cypress, Cahfornla 90630
Phone" 714-895-7763
E-mail yhlguchl@cl mrda corn
Hirokazu Hirano
18455 So Flgueroa Street-Mad Stop D-1-A
Gardena, Callfornm 90248
Phone: 310-771-3072
E-mml’[email protected] jp
Kensuke Hironaka
Shln-KobeElectric Machinery Co, Ltd
1707 Northwood, Cahforma
Troy, Michigan 48084
Phone’ 530-754-6770
E-mall k [email protected] ]p
Masahiro Hisatomi
Nlssarl Technical Center North America
18455 So F1gueroa Street Marl Stop D-1-A
Gardena, Cahfomla 90248
Phone 310-771-3072
E-mail masahlro h~satoma@nlssanusa corn
Brian Johnston
Nlssan Techmcal Center North America
3300 Industrial Boulevard, State 400
West Sacramento, Cahforma 95691-5002
Phone 916-375-3704
E-mall [email protected] corn
Robert Justice
Caltrans
1227 O Street, Room500
Phone" 916-654-8894
E-mall bobdustlce@dot ca gov
Erin Kassoy
Arthur D. Little
10061 Bubb Road
Cupertino, Call£omia 95014
Phone" 408-517-1566
E-mad: kassoy erln@adhttle corn
Jamie Knapp
J Knapp Con~nunlcahons
2505 Westernesse Road
Phone: (530) 756-3611
E-mail .lknapp@mothercorn
Joe Krovoza
InsUtute of TransportatmnStudies
Umverslty of Cahfornla, Daws
One Shields Ave
Daws, California 95616
Phone. 530-752-7435
E-mall j [email protected]
Kenneth Kurani
Institute of TransportahonStudies
University of Cahforma,Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, Cahfomia 95616
Phone’ 530-752-6500
E-mall access@foothill net
Scott Lowe
Umvermtyof Cahfomm,Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara, Cahfomla 93106-5131
Phone 805-893-7611
E-mall" s_lowe@brenucsb edu
John Lucas
Hydrovolt Energy Systems
3410 Industrial Blvd SW105
West Sacramento, Cahforma 95691
Phone 916-371-7501
E-marlo!_q__hn@hydrovolt
corn
Ruth MacDougall
Electric Transportation
Sacramento MumclpalUhhty District
Phone. 916-732-6625
E-mall. rmacdou@snmdorg
Jerry Mader
Center for AutomotweResearch (CAR)
P O Box 134004
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-4004
Phone 734-662-1287
E-mall"/_mader@enmorg
Motohiro Matsumura
39001 Smmse Drive
FarmmgtonHills, Michigan 48331
Phone 248-488-4045
E-rural. matsumm@ntcnamssan-usa com
Donald McGrath
EV News Magazine
t685 Voorhes Circle
St Helena, Cahfomm94574
Phone. 707-968-9667
E-mail vmtner@pobox com
Douglas McGregor
Environmental Engineering
BMWof North America
1 BMWPlaza
Montvale, NewJersey 07645
Phone. 201-573-2193
E-mall doug mcgregor@bmwnacorn
Lisa Mirisola
South Coast Air Quahty
ManagementDistrict
21865 E Copley Drive
Dmrnond Bar, Cahfomm91765-4182
Phone 909-396-2638
E-marl lmmsola@aqmd
go_y_v
Ben Ovshinsky
Ovonlcs -OvomcBatter3’ Company
589 Arhngton Avenue
Berkeley, Cahfomla 94707
Phone 510-525-8236
E-marl benovsh@msncorn
Willa Pettygrove
City of Davls
Alternative Fuel Vehicles Task Force
23 Russell Boulevard
Davis, Cahfonua 95616
Phone 530-753-6808
Isaac Porche
Rand Corporahon
201 N Crmg Street #102
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
Phone" 412-683-2300
E-mini isaac porche@randorg
Sitaram (Ram) Ramaswamy
Insntute of Transportation Stu&es
Umverslty of Cahfomxa, Davis
One Stnelds Avenue
Daws, California 95616-8762
Phone 530-754-9000
E-marl sxramaswamy@uedawsedu
Suzan KahnRibiero
Federal Umversltyof Rao De Janetro
Centro De Tecnologla Blocoh-Saia HlllIiha Do Fundao
Rmde JaneIro 21945-970
BRAZIL
E-marl" [email protected]
Manoel Rodrigues
V1smngScholar
Institute of TransportationStudies
One Shields Avenue
Daws, Cahforma 95616
Phone. 530-752-0608
E-marl. mgrodngues@ucdavlsedu
Philip Ross
LawrenceBerkeley National Laboratory
MS-2-100
Berkeley, Cahfomla 94556
Phone 510-486-6226
E-mad pnross@lbl gov
Kent Snyder
P anasomc-Matsushlta
26455 American Drive
Southfield, Mlchagan48034
Phone 248-447-7121
E-mad snn_yderk2@panasomccorn
Irene Salazar
Callff~mla Energy Colmmsslon
1516 Ninth Street, MS41
Sacramento, Cahfornla 95814
Phone 916-654-4046
E-madlsalazar@energy state us ca
Christopher Stipe
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
Umverslty of Cahfomla, Berkeley
1 Cyclotron Road, MS70-108-B
Berkeley, Cahfomm94611
Phone 510-486-4134
E-mad [email protected] edu
Danilo (Dan) Santini
Center for Transportation Research
Argo~meNational Laboratory
9700 S Cass Ave
Argonne,Illinois 60515
Phone 630-252-3738
E-mad. dsantml@anI gov
Bo Saulsbury
Oak thdge National Laboratory
P.O Box 2008, Btdg 4500N
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
Phone 865-574-4694
E-madsaulsburxjw@orj_fi gov
Robert Sawyer
Mechamcal l~ngmeenng Department
Umw:rslty Cahfomla, Berkeley
Berkeley, Cahfomm94720-1740
Phone’ 510-642-5573
E-mad [email protected]
Susan Shaheen
Inshtute of TransportahonStudies
Umversltyof Cahfornia, Davis and
Umverslty of Callfomm, Berkeley PATH
RachmondField Statmn, Bldg 452
1357 S 46th Street
Rachmond, Cahfomla 94804-4648
Phone 510-231-9460
E-mad" [email protected]
Kenneth Smith
AmericanLung Association of California
921111th Street, State 700
Phone 916-961-3090
E-matl kendsmlth@earthhnk net
Meena Sundaresan
lnshtute of TransportahonStudies
Umverslty of Cahfomm,Davm
One Shields Avenue
Davis, Cahfomla 95616
Phone 530-754-6770
E-marl. msmadaresan@ucdavlsedu
Kenzabu Tasaki
Chief Sclenhst, CPIMAAdwsory Board
Mltsublshl Chemical Research &
Innovation Center Inc
444 Castro Street, State 505
MountainVtew, California 94041
Phone’ 650-694.-7927
Dean Taylor
SouthemCahfornla Edison
2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Quad 1A
Rosemead,California 9 I770
Phone 626-302-8513
E-mad: dean taylor@see corn
Masahiko Teramoto
18455 So Flgueroa Street-Mall Stop D-1-A
Gardena, Callforma 90248
Phone 310-771-3072
E-mad" [email protected]
Yoichi Uraki
Ntssan Technical Center North America
39001 Sunrise Drive
Farmlngton Hdls, Mlcbagan48331
Phone. 248-488-4018
E-mail urakly@ntcna mssan-usa corn
William R. Waft
ProJect Manager,Electric Transportation
Sacramento MumcipalUtility Dastnct
Phone’ 916-732-6976
E-mall. bwarf@smud
or__g
Carl Watkins
NEVCO
P.O Box 11319
Eugene, Oregon 97440
Phone 541-687-5939
E-mail cwatklns@nevco corn
Wolfgang Weiss
DalmlerChrysler
3300 IndustrlaI Boulevard, Suite 800
West Sacramento, Cahfornla 95691
Phone" 916-375-0377
E-mall wolfgang welss@dcrtna net
Steve J. Welstaad
Chevron Products Company
6001 Bolhnger Canyon Road
Room T4036
San Ramon, Cahfomla 94583
Phone 925-842-5393
E-mall jwel@chevron corn
Daniel Wolfe
Moblhty Partners
51 Priest Street
San Francisco, Cahforma 94109
Phone 415-845-9656
E-mall: danIelwolfe@mmdspnngcorn
Hyungpyo Woo
ATT R&D
Midas Venture Tower,
Dungchan-3-dang 678-10
Ilsan, Koyang, Kyungkl
KOREA
Phone" 82-31-907-5333
E-mad" msklm@attrd com
Toshiyuki Yamamoto
VasmngScholar
c/o Professor Fred L Mannermg
Cwll & Environmental Engineermg
Unlvermty of Washington
101B Moore Hall, Box 352700
Seattle, Washington98195-2700
Phone. 206-543-7612
E-mad. [email protected] ac lP
Akimasa Yasuoka
American Honda Motor Co, Inc
1919 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, California 90501-2746
Phone 310-781-5667
E-mall akl yasuoka@ahmhonda corn
Bill Yerkes
Indusmal Design
912 Ohve Street
Santa Barbara, Cahforma93101
Phone 805-886-8623
E-marl biily443@sflcom corn
Part
1: Hybrid EVs
May 15, 2001
Craig Childers
California Air Resources Board
Heetlncj the CARBZEV Reqmremen~
God-ConnectedHEVsand C,ty EVs
i" Hybrid EVs
Cra]
California Air
Ma~15-16~
rs
oard
Why-~ZF_~s
?
:e
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
The need for
ZEVs
ZEVRegulationOverview
ZEVCredit Determination
GodHybrids
GrindHybridChallenges
Mild Hybrids
Increasing Faster
Than
ulation
¯ Emlssmnsreduchon
- Zero tallp{pe em0sslons
-- Durabmhty-Emms~ons
reducedas ZE
¯ Efficiency Improvement& CO2reduchon
¯ Transportation energysource dwerslty
¯ Potentla{ Vehicle-to-Grid powergenerationan(
ancillary services
¯ ’"SecondaryBenefits of the ZEVMandate"
(UCD/ITS& WestStart-Calstart)
December ZEV Regulation
Proposal
H~g hts
¯ Smoother translhons as requ,rL~l=ent
increases by incorporating phas~’~qll~
multipliers
¯ New ATPZEVcategory created
= Reduction in long-term NEVcredit
¯ Modification
and phase-out of range cre~
= Phlase-in of efficiency credit mulhpher
= in-~erv=ce & under-warranty credit
¯ Require vehicle placement to earn muihple
credits
Sta,us
¯ January Board Meeting Key’B~l~chves
- 2x ZEVs beyond Dec Staff Propo~012+
- Phase in LDT2 when determining
ob
/
- Modify treatment of Grid-HEVs
(move to ATPZEV)
¯ Staff IS presently
developing
chang es~/
the regulation
in response to the Board’~
requests
¯ Proposed changes (15-Day Notice)
eshmated release in Mid June
R
Regulatory.Status
¯ Whenpossible, presentatlo~ ncludes
changesreflecting the
thinking In
responseto the Board’s re(
¯ Thesechangeshave not yet been
and wdl hkely changefurther before I
day notice is released
® In particular, staff is shli workingon
® Muchof this presentation
on
proposed amendmentsto
released 1218100and considered at
January Board Hearing
¯ This presentation mcJudesslmph~/mg
assumptions regarding ZEVcredit
determination Please consult re
actual determmahons
- Advanced componentry cred=t for ATPZEVs
- Gr=d HEV, and Transportation System credct
o Please withhold formal commentto ARBur
after changesare formally released m June
GHEV
"~ I’~s
an~TPZEV
¯ All PZEVs and ATPZEVs
meet
- SULEVemission standards
- "Zero" Fuel SystemEvapStandal
- OBDII requirementfor 150,000
- Emissionswarrantyextension to 15’
150,000miles
¯ For all HEVs, battery must be included
as a warranty item
zEv
Req
,
P~Vs?
¯ PZEVsachieve slgnifican~lsslon
reduction, but will not necess=~Nl~y
assist
with propagation of ZEV-relatecD~
technologies
¯ u
Near-term ATPZEVsexpected to be,’~hllb
e For example, ~n 2018 and beY~li~
ZEV requirement grows to 16%
- Up to 6% may be PZEV,
’~
- Up to 5% maybe ATPZEV,and
’~
- At teast 5%mustbe Pure ZEV
¯ As ZEV requirement grows In 2009- 201
- CNG
- Mdd HEVs
¯ Longer*term ATPZEVs
6% PZEVcap remains frozen
- Grld-HEVs
- Methanom reformer
- Hydrogen ICE
rease
FCVs
/
2
~2~03-La--~-M..a n U fact u rer
PZEVs"ln~006+
¯ IF
¯ 6% is capped, and may
much, but after phase-m
qq hke
I
I
J
J
J
- No ATPZEVs
placed In service
- Ignore’01- ’02 credit accumulations
- FFBEV
avg credit m ’03 ts -4 15
J
THEN
- ZEVsRequired =
[( 04)* (CAsales) / ZEVcredit]
=- 8,900 FFEVs
I
[6% / (0 2 credit per vehmcle)]
¯ [-stlmated number of PZEVs= 380
(large + intermediate mfgs
ZEVObl~q~,,""""
- PZEVSsold =maxtmum
allowan’~l~%)
- Largeauto manufacturerCahfornlalllml~salesare
IJ °
920,000
I
J
ZE:V
Oblig
a’tie[1...
ZEVC redltq3...eterm
mation
(Combined
LargeNanufa¢lu~,er.s)
l
i
l
I
:
In,hal ZEVCredit =
) ---i
{1+[(Range Muir -1) x (Range Mult Ph~jl~
{1+[(Eft Mult-t) x (Eft Muir Phase In)I}/
(TransportabonSystemMult )
(Early Intro Muir)
(NEV/LSV
dmcount)
o;
200o
R
I n - Se~-vi-ce71Jn~
e r-Warranty
VehiclePowerSeu,,[ce Credit
Range (20+ mile) vehmles onl~
:ZE
Includes Grid HEVs, NEVsexctuded~tl.
Al:,phes to 4th year m service andbeyorl~
1/10th ongmalcredit (wRhoutphase4nmul~
Is earnedeachyear
¯ ZEV~n service andunderwarrantyfor 13 ye~
eventually accumulatesm-serwceunder-warr
credit equalto ongmalZEVcredit
Early Introd~,,,Mulbplier
¯ Addresses"gap" in ava~labill~l~
¯ Rewards mfg s Ior early mtrod~b
ZEV&
4
NEV
PZEV& 4
ATPZEV
4
4
125 125 t25
4
2
1 ~,
1 33 1
RangeMultiplier
RangeMul.tiplier
* Addressesconcerns with
capabJhtyof
early-year BEVs
o Encouragesdeploymentof ion
vehnctesIn early years of program
o As marketmatures,range is de-eml:
- Phasedownover 2004-2012
tsmeframe
- Capsor, maxrangeusedfor credit deterr
ZEVl~Ingo MulttpllO¢
tol
9!
T
7~
T
3 I,
,225 m~lesin 2011
¯ 175mJ~es
~n 2012
,.=----4-’--
~
,
,5.~/ -!
o Apphesto ZEVand GHEVonly
* undercons~derahon
60
i-
I~O
Z60
UrbanAER(redes)
EfflcBenoy
Multlpller"
CMPEGDebarkation
Efficienc~c~MultipHer
® Assumes
powerplant
ZEVenergyuse
* Alsoa factor unrangeperformance
(gofurtheror reduce
batterycost)
* Appliesto both ZEVsand ATPZEVs
(but no phase-fnfor ATPZEVs)
o Rewards
mostefflcEentandthereforelowest
emnss~ons
vehicledesigns
~/
¯ Gasohne vehicles CMPEG= i~usted
combined ERAfuel economy
¯ For BEV& ATPZEV,C. MPEG=
[33,705 whr/gal / ( 55 UDDSAC wh~
+ ( 45 * HFEDS
ACwhdmale)]
¯ AIt Fuel CMPEG
=
unadjusted combined EPA fuel economy~
(uncompensated
by "fuel content" factor)
J
------~nc~ IVlu Itiplier
VEHICLE
CLASS
City (EV)
"’-~FFICIENCY
M’~I~.IPLIER
CMPEG/’~ 45 9)
SubcompactPC
CMPEG/(1
5"~
CompactPC
CIViPEG/(I
5x 31~
Msdslze
PC
LargePC
SmallTruck
Medium
Truck
Large
Truck
CMPEGI
(1 5x 27 0~
Ii
CMPEG/(1
5 x 25 6)
CMPEG/(1
5 x 25 0}
CMPEG/(1
5 x 21 4)
CMPEG/(1
5 x 18 2)
--~z--Ev"-R
a~lge.Pha s e-ou t
Efficiency
Ph~
’04 ’05 ’06
Range
Eff
1 825
0
010
060
035
’07 ’08 ’09~
045
055
030
085
025
090
0’~
100~
tl
4
2006 ZEVC>r.gdltExample.
RAV4"
¯ Cert Data
- UDDSeft = 291 3
- Highwayeft = 374 1 AC
¯ CMPEG=
[33,705 whr/gal / ( 55 * UDDSAC
whr/mile) + ( 45 * HFEDSAC whr/ml
= 1026
2006Z-"E~C-ceditExample.
RAV4"E~
Initial ZEVCredft =
{1+[(Eft Mult-1)
x (Eft
Mult Phase
{1+[(Range
Mult-1)
x (Range
MultIn)]}
Pha~l
I
~
(TransportationSystemMult )
(Early Intro Mult)
/
(NEV/LSVdIscount)
e EFF MULT = CMPEG/(1 5 x 25 0)
=274
1
2006 ZEV~r.edit Example.
RAV4"F~
Initial
ZEV Credit
(1+[( 4 70- 1) x (0 60)]}
,1 + [(2 74- 1 ) x (0 35)]}
(TransportabonSystemMult )
(Early Intro Mutt)
= "~
’-7
,t -
2006
pie.
G~H~V Credit
¯ GHEVcredit determination
not yet final
mLa~l~ology
¯ Staff ,s exploring the poss,blhty of
harmonizing
GHEV credit
determinat~
with other ATPZEVs
(NEV/LSV
dtscount)
Y{ ar 4 In-Service/Under-Warranty
I
=~0 52 per year
’" -~-~--
/
Cred
Examp"le~006 GHEV
ATPZEV"Gr_~it
¯ Th~s example uses method
December 2000 proposed ame311~
¯ Phase-in multiplier has expired by~
¯ GHEVcredit determination based o~
- (ZEVrangemulttpher)
- (efficiencymultiplier), and
- GHEVs
also eligible for in-service/underwarrantycredit
Exam ple%?~06 GHEV
ATPZEV
"Gr~i t
Per December
2000 Proposal
¯ GHEVsuse 3.~5 X actual Urban AE3~
- P 20 uses 70 mile range m determlnat~or~L"
¯ Efficiency Mutbpher
- Favors GHEVs
based on electric-mode only /
- Assume
GHEV
w~ll attain -2 0 X
/
¯ P20credtt= -3 6 initial, plus 0 36/year
/
(>year4)
GHEV VS MJFd~HEV VS Year
¯ Assumptions
- MildHEV
achieves
1 3 Xeffn( ~enc
- GHEV
achneves
2 X e~clency
multJ
’01 ’02 ’03 ’04 ’05
Early- 4 4
4
Intro
M~Ed 18 18 18
HEV
P20
72 72 72
GHEV
2
133
~her
1
09 08
06
36 48
36
Grid-- E- E- E~’Ghallenges
® Battery pack cost
¯ Battery pack ilfetame
- GHEV
batteries subjected to
aggressivecycling hmutsthan BEVs
¯ Battery pack warranty requirement
¯ OBDdetailed requirements TBD
¯ HEVtest protocols may need
refinement
¯ Public perception (mdd-HEVads)
GHEV C~Oh~n g e~Re-cap
¯ Move from gold" to "sJLver"~
(ATPZEV) category
¯ Battery warranty requnrement rerfli~
but GHEVs rewarded for tn-Servsc~
.I
EPRi Stody
® ARB co-funded
¯Senes hybndsfell out of stud~
due to poor performance
¯ Focus shifted to P0, P20, and P6
¯ Onglnally mid-size, but now consmdc
a variety of ctasses
¯ Examined performance, cost, consum,
acceptance, and commercuahzatnon
¯ GHEVPrototypes
- UCDPrototypes
- GMTnax
- Volvo HEV
- Suzuki EVSport
- Aud~Duo
- MitsubJsh~
- Renault
Re~a--L~.e.e Range
P20 & P60 Nomencfature
® NomenclatureManufacturers
chooseto
refer to P20andP60with a
nomenclature
¯ Typical customer"drive cycle" w~thma
batterieswouldlikely provmde
less than,i
60 m~lerange
Hondtns ght
¯ EmissionStandards
- ’01 5 spd- ULEV(61 mpg
- ’01 CVT-SULEV
(57 mpgcaty/
¯ Battery monitoredby OBD
° If battery"falls", NOx
increase
>15!
will dtummate
OBDMIL
¯ Batterywarranty
voluntarilyextended
Toy6ta.pnus
¯ MY ’00 Toyota Hybn~m/
SULEV
emnss~onsstandarc~t
~
¯ Battery
- OBDmomtored
- Ba~teen~e~arranty
als° v°luntar’lY
Vision f Pthe Future
¯ ;Steady, sustainable
ZEVs
¯ Regulatoryflex~blhty encoura!
diverse transportation technolog~
uncludnng GHEVs
¯ Cleanandhealthyair for all Cahfornl
AbbrevlatleusUsed
¯ BE~
r Elec’tr c Vehicle
¯ I SVLowSpeedVehicle
¯
¯ NEV-Neighborhood
Etectrlc
’Jehlcle (zerooemlsslon
LSV}
¯ GHEV
nected HEV
CEVC~tyElectric Vehpcle
* AERell electric
e -TEV- ZeroEmissionVehicle
¯ -TEM-ZeroErr.sslon Motorcyc;e =
! MID
¯ PZEV-PartlalZero Eit~ss~on
¯ EFFMULTEfficiency
Vehncles
¯ DOTDept
¯ ~,T PZEVAdvanced
¯ CMPEC.,-Cahfomta
Miles F
Fechnology
Par’ual Zero
EquivalentGallon
I:mlss~onVehtcie
¯ LEV-LowEnmsslon
Vehtel,
¯ SULI=VSuperUltra Low
Regulat.ons
EmissionVehicle
¯ LEVII - 1998amendments
to
¯ VMT-Vehacle MdesTraveled
LE’,/program
¯ GtmFle- gramsper m~le
EXTRA SLIDES
Provided for Reference
Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Performance and Emissions
May 15, 2001
Erin Kassoy
Arthur D. Little
Both Grid Connectedand NonGrid ConnectedHybrid Electric
Vehicles were comparedagainst conventmnalvetecles
¯ Theresults of modehng
of HEVsby NRELand UCDavis wereusedto
calculate vehlcie performance
efficiency and emissions
¯ ThreeHEVswere stud~ed
HEV0 -- Charge=sustaining
HEVw~thno all electric range
HEV20 -- ChargedeplebngHEVwJth a 20 m=leall-electnc range
HEV60 -- ChargedeplebngHEVwith a 60 m¢leall electnc range
¯ Workss pert of EPRIHEVWG
project
¯ Final Reporton Midsize vehicleswill be out in June
HEVPe,formenc~end Emh~dons
Des~g~~te~s
HEVPerformmtc~
arid Embmlon=
Pe~ormance
Trad~offs
HEVsweredesignedto perform, look and feel I=ke the
equtvatent conventloneBvehicle
Sometrm:le-~ffs were madeIn performancematchingto reduce
vehicle costs
¯ MY 2000 Chevrolet Lumma3 1t was chosen as
equ valent conventional vehicle
Sustained Top SpeedCV has a top speedof t20 mphHEVs
car~maintain120mphfor approximately
2 minutesbut sustain
speedsof ever 90 mph
¯ Gradeabd~ty
CVsgenerally can cizmba 7 2%gradeat 50 mph
for 30 rmnutesHEVscan chmb7 2%gradeat 50 mphfor ~5
minutesand at 30 mphfor 30 minutesCanchmbany h;ghway
grademUS at 50 mph
- Accelerationbraes for 50 to 70 mph
=, PassingPerformance
relaxedfrom4 8 secondsfor CVto 5 1 secondsfor HEVs
All
HEVshad better 0-30 mphand 0-60 mphaccelerabonbraes
than CVs
¯ Engineon/off cycles - Constrained
to 30 on/offs dunngFUDS
cycle Reduces
fuel economy
by about 10%,but resutts in
better dnveab~lcty
andcustomer
sabsfac~Jon
All HEVshad the same aerodynamics, frontal area,
ghder and cargo mass, and accessory loads as the CV
¯ All HEVswere designed to have s~mllar accelerabon,
top speed, range, and gradeab~{~ty as the CV, with
some exceptions
HEV
Performallce
and~,nlm~or~
Vehc~e
Spec~’K:~tens
Engineand Motor powerof HEVswas slightly less than that of
CV, due to moreeff=cmnt designs
Battery Energyfor Grid ConnectedHEVsmuchh~gherthan for
Vehlc|e mass for the HEV0 and HEV20 less than CV due to use of
CVT and smeller engine
19o~
18oo
~
HEVs had better times in 0-30 mph, 0-60 mph and 40-60 mph
accelerations 50-70 mph accelerations and top speed results
were somewhat compromised with lower cost HEV designs
....................
U-30
0-60
40-60
50-70
CV
HEV0
mph
mph
mph
mph
’ 35 ’
93
46
45
31"
87
42
52
30
89
43
52
30
89
43
52
HEV20
NRELand UC Davis modeled HEV fuel economy using ADVISOR
Severe! fuel eConomymeasuresare defined
¯
C~sohneOn~y - Fuel economywhen the vehicle =s in charge
sustalnmg mode tn mpg
¯
Electhc Only - Fuel economy of Gnd Connected HEVs when in
charge depleting modeGiven In kWh/ml and converted to mdes
per equivalent gasoline gallon using 33 44 kWh/equwalsnt
gasoline gallon
NREL end UC Davis
modeled HEV fuel
economy using
ADVISOR
Mdeaga Weighted Probabdttles -- HEV 20 = 39%, HEV 60 = 74%
Ubhty Factors -- HEV 20 = 31%, HEV 60 = 63%
140
® M~teageWeighted Pmbabthty We=ghtsd- Measureof actual allelectric use Determined from 1995 NPTSdata
g Utdlty Factor Weighted - Discounted MWPfactors determined by
SAEfor use m J1711 Assumesvehicle starts each day with a
full charge
,D SAEJ1711 - Uses UF for all*electnc usage determination and
assumesthe veh;cle starts 50%of the t~me w;th a full charge and
the other 50%of time with low SOC
CV
=, Batteryhfa and replacement dependsupona number of factors
Dnvlng patterns
Vehicle electnc fuel economy
Battery technology
Vehicle ~fat~ma
Charging frequency
Battery con~’oJler logic
*Daliy dnwng patterns were determined through mtsrviews of
approximately 400 potentzal HEVowne~(market survey)
Purchaseda vehicle in the last 5 years
Reguladyparked within 25 feet of an electrical
Results binned into three catsgone~¢,
short commute
= medium commute
long commute
All-electric
dady driving
HEV~
HEV2~
HEV60
operation for the HEV20 and HEV60 was derived from
patterns
Basedupon being able to dnve 20 mdes or 60 m~tes ~n all-electnc
operation, annual ali.-electhc mileagewas calculated for charging nightly
Miles
4i900
.... : 5i300 5i40(
5,900 10,100 12190[
outlet
/~ !.!
City
Portion
..
47% 49%
t!
:--I!
47%
Real world fuel economyis generally less than fuel economy
meas~.lredusing smndardiz:ed
tests
ChargeSustaining HEVshave d=fferent discharge patterns than
ChargeDepleting HEVs
s Fuel economy
=s reduceddueto the fol}owmgfactors
Aggresswednvmg
Air condcbonmg
use
Openwindows
Others
= Re~=iWoddfuel economy
d=scountsare approxtmatad
by
USL:PA
for fuel economy
guide
10%=ncreasemc=ty fuel consum~.bon
22%increase mh~ghway
fuel consumpbon
Charge
sustainingHEVs
chargeandd=scharge
battenes
~na senes
of shallow
drscharges
whileCharge
Depleting
HEVs
d=sc,t~rgeba~tenes
whde
mall-elect~c
operatlorl
ChargeOeptettng
HEV
PerfocmCn~
andEmissions
Bal~ryL~eBact~y
C,~eLife
NIMHbatteries in 2010are assumed
to last longer than today’s
batteries
Vehiclelifehmes weredefinedaa t00,000 miles of tetal vehicle
operation or t0 years, whichevercamehrsL
,P Currant NIMH
betteneshavecycte hves of 800 te 1200deep
d=scharge
cycles beforechargecapac¢b/drops
to 80%of the
ongmalcapacity
¯ N=MH
battenes havedemonstrated
1500 te 2000deepdischarge
cycles underconkoltedlaboratory cond~bons
Actualvehicle hfe m~ghtbe longer
= "Improvements
mposJbveelectrode composd:on
have
sub~tanbally increasedN=MH
battery chargeacceptance
and
efficiency (espec=altyat elevatedtemperature
andnearthe end
of charge), wdhthe consequence
that averagebattery operabng
temperatures
w}II be s~gmficantlydecreased"
- Fntz Kalhammer
¯ 1750 deepdischargecycles (to 20%SOC)wereassumed
to
available m2010
HEVPer#cmlsncllmdE,,niss]o,-m
Batl~LlfeC’yc~Lffe
HEV
Perform~
mtdErnkmt~tl
E~ttet*f~..pla~’n~nl
A/t~lv~s
No replacement =s n~ededfor HEV60 HEV20 might reqmre
battery replacementif user chargesmghtly and has an average
or low commutedistance
Sevm’~!
attsrnagvas
to battery replacement
canbe ~mplemented
Commutel~stance
Total
Energy,
~
kwh
~
Deep O,scharge
~
Cycles
~
Low
13,800
16,900
2,900
1,200
Average
High _
11,100
8,400
21,90=0 20,700
2 400
1,800
1,400
t,j0
¯ Smartconfroller
L~mltall-electnc
operation
sothat vehiclelasts100,000
rr~leswlLhout
needfor batteryreplacement
Increases
gasohne
consumption
(-40 additionalgaflonsof gasoline
per yearon averaged,wmg
scenano
Orc~nanly,
220gallonsper
year are usedby HEV20 on averagednvmg
scenano)
¯ Degrade
all elect~c range
HEV20 movestowardsHEV0
= ReplaceHEV20 battery wdhan HEV0 battery
HEV20 becomesan HEV0
= Usea targer battery
,, Increases
vehicleweight,fuel consumpt;c~
and¢mt~alveh=cle
cost
Hi~’ Performancelind ~tulom~Fue~Cycle ~ns
Since Grid-Connected Hybrids derwe some or all of their energy
from electnmty,
ernlssmns comparisons between HEVs and CVs
should inc|ude well-to..wheels emissions (both fuel cycle and
vehicular)
Fuel Cycle EmlSslOr~sInclude emlSSIOIlSassociated with ~he
extracbon, processing and dlStl]but]on of the gasoline or
elec~clty
Power generated for HEVcharging ~s small and wdl be on the
generation margin usung efficient
natural gas fired combined cycle
power plants
70o0o
~" so0~ ,...._%~
withEVforecastfor2Ol0
¯ VehzculerEm~sslonsincludets@ipeand evapo~veemissions
Both smog precursor (NOx + HC) and greenhouse gas
emissions were examined
3
|00GO
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 2 4
6 8 10
Time of Day (h)
UEVPsl~om~nce
andErn,mlon¢Fu~l Cy~aErm~.~.
HEV
PsROm~l",C8
lind Emilml(~rl~G~enhou~,
Gases
Fuel
For the Average Driving Pattern and Charging Nightly, Greenhouse
gas emissions are s~gnlf=cantly lower for grid-connected hybrids
Cycle
EmmsmnsAssumptions
¯ Plug-~n HEVsare charged pnmanly at night
¯
¯
Less efficient powergenerators, older coal and fuel oil power
plants cani’~ot readily be turned on andoff and cannot sat~,fy
marginal needs
Nuclear and hydroelectric powerplant~ generally are already at
capacity fulfiihng the base load and would not be used for
marginal needs
¯
By 2010, manyolder fossil fuel power p}ants wdl have been
replaced with newcomb,ned cycle turbines
¯
Newpower plants and refinenes m non-attainment areas wdl
need to meet BACTw~thout em~ss=onoffsets
45O
II Vehcte
-7
250
SO I
CV
HEVS
HEV20
HEV
${)
HEV
perfotm~c~l
t;nd Eml~ldon~
HEVP~fon’n~nclandEmii~do~Smog
For the Average Drwlng Pattern and Charging Nightly, smog
precursor emlssmns are s~gmficantly ,ower for grid-connected
hybnds
HEVsoffer major effic=ency ~mprovementsas well as
subs~anba! reductions In the consumpbonof petroleum-based
fuels and em~ss¢onsof air pol}ut~on precursors (NOx and HC)
and carbon d~ox~de
Petroleum consumpbonof an HEV60 (using
gasoline/electricity) can be lass than that of the PNGV
Glese~
engine-battery HEVO concept vehicles w~thout resorbng to
costly hGht-welght constrnc~on or body aerodynamics
HEV0 technology =s ~n the early commerclaI stage Relabve to
ma~ura combus0onengenesand stage-of-the-art EV technology,
HEYtechnology requires only evolubonary advances to meet
technical requirements, with the possible excepbonof ba~tenes
o
-cv
HEY0
-HEVe0
HEVt~
N,MH
battenesare technologicallycapable,but there are
uncertaintiesregardingthe;r life andcosts, especmlly
in plug-m
H EVservice
¯
Boththe Honda
Insight and the ToyotaPnusare currently =n
producbenmJapanthe U S, and EuropeSeveral other
automob=lemanufacturershave anrouncedupcomingmodels
TheRenaultKangoohas beenannounced
for launch In 2001=n
Europeas a plug-mhybnd
¯
Thereare several~ssuesthat havebeentalent]fled that needto
be examined
for successfulcommercJal,zatJon
mclud=ng
battery
hfe and packaging
Observations
From a DOE HEV
Technology Assessment
May 15, 2001
Dan Santini
Argonne National Laboratory
Observations From a DOEHEV
Technology Assessment
S. Plotkin, D. Santm,*,A. Vyas,J.L. Anderson,
M. Wang,
J. He,D. Bharathant,L. Games,
andF. An
(* Presenter)
ArgonneNational Laboratory
Nat=onalRenewable
EnergyLaboratory
CARB ZEV Workshop by
Universityof Californiaat Davis,ITS
Sacramento,CA
May15-16,2001
ArgonneNat,onal Laboratory
Transportatmn Technology R&DCenter
Acknowledgment
The HEVtechnology assessment work presented here
was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE), Office of Transportation Technologies (OTT)
Primary sponsor: Dr. Philip Patterson
OTT Planning
Partial support by: David Rodgers
Director, Office of Technology
Utilization within OTT
2
Transportat=on TechnologyR&DCenter
/~Argonne
National
(ANL)Assessment
Conducted
This Laboratory
HEVTechnology
o:o Workstartedin 1996
|nitlal work covered full fuel cycle energy assessment
Expanded,n 1998 to include cost
Somemater=als analysis conducted and recychng potent=al
evaluated
*:o The assessment
involved
Analys=s of parallel and ser=es, mild and full charge sustaining,
and full charge depleting (gr=d-connected, 20 m=le AER) HEVs
Use of Nat=onal Renewable Energy Lab’s ADVISORmodel for
vehicle performance simulat=ons
Development of a cost estimation procedure
~.- Use of ANL’s GREETmodel for greenhouse gas analysis
°:o Publications/presentations
8 presentatmnsl papers
A report to be pubhshed soon
Transportat,onTechnologyR&DCenter
~
This PresentationPuts the ANLStudyinto
Context With RespectTo:
°:o EPRI HEVWorkingGroupanalyses
°:°Effects of comparableperformancerules on MPG
gain estimates
o:° Comparison
of conventionalvehicle (CV) lifecycle
costs to various HEVtypes
o:° GM-GAPC
estimatesof MPGgains via hybridization
o:o HEVtype’s impactoniifecycle costsvs. Fuel price
4
TransportationTechnologyR&DCenter
Mild andFull HEVsDiffer by Shareof
PeakPowerProvidedElectrically
~~
FullHybnd
(Charge
Sustaimng)
Series
GndConnected
20m!
Electnc
Range
(Charge
Depleting)*
FullHybrid
(Charge
Sustaining)*
F
"
I
MddHybrid
(Charge
Sustaining)#
Denominstor=lCE÷Bsttery
* Type
alsoin EPRt
study
# Type
alsoin GM
study
Conventional
Veh¢le
(cv)*
!
0%
I
I
20%
40%
60%
80%
Battery Share of Peak Power(8 sec 0-60 cases}
Argonne Natmnal Laboratory
Transportation Technology R&DCenter
Simulations SuggestLowerHEVIn-use
MPGGainsThanCertification Tests Imply
,l~gr,ssive~=,lCyo~.
t
100
~ll II~b~Td-
-
:>
tj
8Q
¯ 60
E
>
£
E
L=$ 2O
HYCC
(71)
6
Japan
1015
(141)
F]P
CAF~
US06
cycle
(29)
(41~)
cdy
(21~)
Driving Cycle (Avg MPH)
Hwy
(48.,?,)
REP5
(515)
Argonne Nahonal Laboratory
TransportaUon Technology R&DCenter
3
Four Points Can Be Made From the Prior
~ Slide,
But Appearances Can Be Deceiving
in
1. Full hybridscan only doublethe fuel economy
very congestedconditions
2. Mild hybridsprovidea verylarge fraction of the full
hybridfuel economy
gains, especially in
congesteddriving
3. Deceptively, the percentageMPGgains of
hybridizationare greatestin city driving
4. Deceptively, the percentageMPGgains are lower
in moreaggressiveor high-speeddriving
(The next slide showsthe extent of deception)
Transportat=on Technology R&DCenter
Examining Fuel Savings Per Hour of
Driving Is More instructive Than % Gain
O4
[A_ggl’gli$1Ye
~Ke~I]-I,,yCltl~i l
03
O2
01
6O
NYCC
(7 1)
Japan
16-15
(14 ~)
FTP
CAFE
U~,06
cycle(29)
(48)
city
(21.2)
Drlv=ng C~cle (Av~; MPH)
Hwy
(48;’)
REP5
(515"}
ArgonneNat=onal Laboratory
Per Hour Fuel SavingsGive a Different
Perspective
o:. Savingsper hourare similar for all driving cycles
°:.Mild vs. full HEVand congestedvs. high-speeddriving
differences becomeclearer
Mild HEVsare nearly as goodas full HEVsin congestion
Full HEVsclearly savemorefuel in high-speed
driving
¯ :o Compared
to CV, mild and full hybrid differences
becomeclearer
Gainsby mild hybridsare greatestin congested
driving
Gainsby full hybridsare greatestin high-speed
driving
;~ Gainsby full hybridsin high-speed
drivingare larger for
aggressivedriving cycles
Transportat,onTechnology
R&DCenter
MPGPenalties For High Performance,
Large In CVs, Can Be Small In HEVs
~,.._.._..ParallelFull HEV
B...~
Parallel Mild HEV
I
f
I
10
12
11
0-60 MPHAcceleration
I
g
8
Time, Seconds
TransportatmnTechnologyR&DCenter
Downsizing HEV’s Engine Causes Reduced
ContinuousGradeability (and Top Speed)
22
-..--cv
"i
.~
.~a -Mdd Parallel HEV
Full Paraltel HEV
J’
--
.,.o--- - SermeSpar~FUll
HEV
........................
........
~j=
Note’gradeab~lJty
design
veluefor full NEVs
was6 5%
10
0-60 T=rne (seconds)
12
11
8
~
ANL/EPRI MPGGain Estimates Are
Consistent; Differ Notably From GM-GAPC
"GM=GAPC"Truck - 8s
Base, 6s HEV
ANL mEId HEV 8s 0-60
EPRI "HEV.-6" 9s 0-60
ANL todd HEV 10s 0-60
t0
12
20
3o
40
50
6o
MPGGain (%)
ArgonneNahonal Laboratory
MakingANLHEVs2 Sec Faster to 60 mph
Than CVs Explains Someof the GM/ANLGap
60%
m HEV2 Sec Faster Than CV ]
[ (Pickup
Truck)
12
10
8
0-60 Time of Base CV
Argonne Nat,onal Laboratory
13
~
Adjusted ANLResults ShowConsistency
With GM-GAPC
Results
(Confirmation
of more MPGgain at higher
performance)
GM79to63se¢
ANL 12 to 9 6 sec i
¢
i +:i~’
!
ANL
12
I
+
to
0%
+
8
7
$ec
,./
,/
7%
14%
MPGGa+nvm Mild Hybridization,
t4
~
/./’
21%
7
Engine Size ~ Constant
?
ADVISORRuns imply Road Load Reduction
/~ Having Positive Synergism With HEV MPG
~
ANL8 sec 0-66
CaS6S
EPR;9 sec 0-60
er
ANL 10 sec 0-60 "
0%
lliBase
j
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Hybrcd Gazn =n MPGvs. ComparableCV
t5
~
Load
1
ln Separate Analyses, GMand ANLDiffer On
Benefits of Hybridizing With S! and C! Engines
IANLMid-size car
12 sec 0-60 base
andfull HEV
4O%
o
.N 30%
,,r
__
iGMPeckuptruck
$~ 8 sec 0-60base,
6 sec todd HEY
CIDI9 sec0-60
base,7 sec todd
HEV
20%
>
C
m
m
lOOA
ANLTRB01/01
0%
GMGAPC03101
SI
CIDI
t6
ArgonneNat=onal Laboratory
2000 Results ShowedRelative Superiority of
Full vs. Mild HEVto DependOn Fuel Price
$~,0o0
,~
$2,000
’~
$1 000
©,
($1,000)
CO
~:~ 152000)
0~
=¢
($3 000~
5
15
25
35
45
Speed(,MPtt)
55
65
PrtusO251ffd, $J 25/gal)
’O - MHV(I
25h/d, $1 2$/gal}
~. - MHV(I
25h/8, $2 25/gal)
J . ,C, - MHV(2
5h/d, $2 25/gml)
.,.~..,Pnus(l 2$1v’d,$2 25/gat)
--=F-.Pdus(25h/d, $2 25/gal)
L
TransportationTechnology
R&DCenter
17
ANLResearch Implies That Mild Hybrids
Can Competeon Lifecycle Cost Basis
45
E-., 40
O
GasolinePrice $1 301Gallon
> 35
in 30
0
A 25
~
2o
~ 15
0
¯ 10
o
5
"J
0
12 S, 0-60 mph
t8
8 S, 0-60 mph
Transportatmn Technology R&DCenter
The Desirable Proportion of Electric Power
Rises With Rising Gasoline Price
f0
,m
o
8
6
0
4
_,1
t’-
~ o
-2
UB~dFull Grid 20
19
~
I~ld Full
Grid20
MddFull Grid 20
Transportation Technology
R&DCenter
Our Analysis Leads to the Following
Conclusions
¯:~ At lowU.S. gasolineprices, nationalresearchshould
focus on mild hybrids (and 42V systems)
o:o In comparisons,
hybrids cannotbe made
performanceequal, only performancecomparable
o:. Thehigh percentageMPG
gains for hybridsin
congesteddriving are deceptive- savingsper hour
is a better measure
°:.U.S. driving patterns are not the reasonthat HEVs
will be difficult to market,lowgasolinepricesare
o:. GM=GAPC’s
constraint of performance
compatibility
in simulatingHEVMPGgains raises an issue of
consumer
valuation of top speed. Howlarge is the
marketfor HEVswith downsizedengines?
19
ArgonneNatmnalLaboratory
TransportatBon
TechnologyR&DCenter
An Electric-Vehicle Design
Performance, And Life-Cycle
Cost Model
May 15, 2001
Institute
Mark Delucchi
of Transportation Studies, Davis
AN ELECTRIC-VEHICLE DESIGN,
PERFORMANCE, AND LIFE-CYCLE
COST MODEL
WHAT WE MODEL IN DETAIL
¯ Variable costs of manufacturing vehicles
¯ "Fixed" costs of making vehicles, as a
function of production volumes
MDelucchl
A Burke
MM111er
T Llpman
¯ Cost and performance of EV drivetrains
and batteries
¯ Vehicle energy use
InstRuteof TransportatlonStudles
Uruvermtyof Cahforma,Davis
"FIXED" COSTS
¯ EV designed to meet range and
performance requirements
¯ Sales tax
- function of vehicle retail price
¯ Division co, sts
- costs related to manufacturing cost
- costs per unit
¯ Coworate costs
- costs related to
mamffacturing+division
- costs per unit
- interest cost
- corporate profit
¯ Operating costs
costs
¯ Dealer costs
- costs related to factory costs
- costs per unit
- interest cost
- warranty cost
¯ Shipping cost
- function of vehicle weight
EV LIFECYCLE COST AND
PERFORMANCE
Mld-szzevelucle, advancedtechnology,tugh-volume
productwn, FUDS
EV Ni/m-h2
EV:
~-
140
EV Pb/acld
Range (rnl)
’ 65WT7
0-
~65-
93
93
93
93
93
vehicle wt (kg)
1,635
2,354
1,361
1,809
1,273
fuel economy (mpg)
95 5
73 9
875
739
146 0
0 - 60, 0%grade (sec)
vehicle price ($)
battery
pnce (S/kWh)
24,553
29,422 28,034
35,759 27,678
259
202
475
battery price ($)
3,482
6,003
9,675
16,603 12,993
hfecycle
cost (c/m
0
present value ($)*
38 31
44 12
53 39
55 36
breakeven $/gal
361
51 34
11,632 18,955 21,369 136,974 12,339
264
419!666
414
*Present value of gasohne hfecycle costs,
EV present value
2 77
&fference between gasoline and
SOCIAL COST OF EVs vs.
VEHICLES
(cents/mile)
GASOLINE
Difference in costs
low
hzgh
best
Private hfecycle costs
O0
3O 00
10 00
Noise1
0 O0
-0 40
-0 01
Externalities of oil use2
-0 20
-1 12
~0 36
Chmate change3
-0 O0
-0 06
-0 03 I
Air pollutlon4
-0 17
-2 11
-0 69 I
Total externahtles
-0 37
Social cost
337
. -9_6d_
-4
I Assumes range of damages on coIlector~ and principal arterlals
2 Assumes 25 rnpg
3 Use hfecycle CO2-eqmvalent emissions at 25 mpg
4 Uses Delucchl $/kg damage estimates, adluCted for ebttmated
differences ill exposure
R
EXTERNALCOST OF EVs vs.
GASOLINE VEHICLES
(cents/mile)
Battery EVs
loll)
high
best
Noise1
0 O0
1 20
0 04
Externahtles of off use2
0 02
0 12
0 04
Chmate change3
0 O0
013
0 06
Air pollutlon4
0 02
0 21
0 07
TOTAL
1 Assumes range of damages on collectors and prmopal artenals
2 Assumes 25 mpg
3 Use hfecycle CO2-eqmvalent ermsslons at 25 mpg
4 Uses Detucchi $/kg damage estamates, adjusted for estimated
differences m exposure
Hvbrid Electric
Myth versus
Vehicles
Reality
May 15, 2001
Dave Hermance
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
What Does the Market Want?
HybridElectric Vehicles
Myth versusReafity
A s=gmflcant and growing percentage of
customers mdmate a wllhngness to buy
an environmentally friendly vehicle,
Toyota Technical Center, USA,Inc
=f and only if, all other attributes are
Dave Hermance
l.
Myth #1
Powerassist HE1/Variations
All "power assist hybrids"are
the same
-Architecture
- Performance
-Cost
-Emissions
-Fuel Eoonomy
- Electr=c Operation
EEAAnalysis
ArgonneLabs Analysis
NoteCostsandBenefits are Dnvetram
Only
Mr/ta ;c~I
Myth #2
Prius could easily be madeinto a
grid-connected HEV
Reality #2
Probable Attributes of Grid-Prius
¯ Markedly reduced performance ,n EV
mode
- Slower 0-60
-Lower top speed
The un,que Pnus dnvetram (THS) =s not
appropriate for a grid-connected apphcatmn
-Motor is much too small
-Battery energy and power are too small
-No way to carry required battery mass or
volume
-Engine ~s too large
-Reduced pass,ng performance
¯ Drast=caly reduced battery hfe
. Loss of iCE fuel economy due to mass
- S=gmlcantly higher cost
-THS transm|ss|on design =s inappropriate
~ly ts =~ol
Battery life/durability
Vehicle Performance
Comparison
of performance
for PrlusandG~|dPr, us
~
LIFE
OF
EVBATTERY
Grid Pnus
Current
Prius/TH$ I Pnus
wrth
e.com
battery
1 RAV4EV
1
(S~ulat;on)
-500 Wh
6 8 of ~ 4 kWh
29 kWh
Motor/ Max power 33kW
Generator
Vehzcle 1255kg
Weight
125 sec
O - 60 mph
(ICE÷EV)
Max power 40kW
t255+ t50kg
19 3 sec
(EV)
Max power
50kW
1560kg
18 6sec
Ita~owr~)
Distance(kin)
Battery life/durability
Myth #3
i blankout ] LIFE OF ItVBATTERY
2o
AnHEV-20will have significant
EV use
o8
w
cl
o4
I
5o,o0o
1 ooooo
Distance (kin)
1so (x~
¢~
o
20ooo0
M=yIS Z~I
Reafity #3
Sierra Analysis of EPAData
¯ AIER~ Real World(RW)range
¯ Even20 mile RWis only ~ 20%VMT
substitutionif re-chargeddady
Ff_
May15 l~l
May
is ;ira01
Reafity #4
Myth #4
UCDavis Vehicles Are Viable
UnderCurrent Regulations
May1520Ol
¯ Controlstrategyis probablya "defeat
dev,ce" under EPA/ARB
rules
¯ Emlss:ons
claims require averagingEV
andICE em=ss,ons
¯ Performanceclaims are stmulatmn
based,actualis far different
¯ Publ,shedcost esbmates
neglect cnbcal
components
Idly 1S ~
UCDControl Strategy
Technical Issues for Grid=HEVs
- Real worldcontrot strategy
- Vehicle Performance
- Real world EV/VMTfraction
- Battery Technology
- Cost
- Emissions
- Test Procedure
EV Performance
EVoperation=n Gnd-HEV
dependson archttecture
- Slower0-60
- Lowertop speed
- Reducedpassing performance
Theselim=tat,on mustbe considered
=n conjunctnon
wnthreal worldoperattonandtest procedure
~t~y152+01
Regulatory issues for Grid-HEVs
¯ 15/150,000 Battery Warranty
¯ Cred=t Structure
¯ Test Procedures
Test Procedure for Grid-HEV
issues to be addressed:
- Defeatclewcetreatmentfor EVoperat=on
- Emnss=ons
for iCE-on
in/off mode
- Sat:sty/system
protection
issues
- Determmatuon
of DFfor emnssmn
control
system
- Evaporattveem|ssnonduringEV operatmn
- OBDrequtrements
Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Technology
from
No Plug to Plug-In to Plug-out
Hardware & Control
EPRI-HEV WG/UCDavis-HEV Center
May 15, 2001
Andrew Frank
University of California, Davis
Department of Mechanical & Aeronautical Engineering
~.j "
Hybnd
EtectncVehicleTechnology
from
NoPlugto Plug-tnto Plug-Out
Hardware
& Control
EPRI-HEVWG/UCDavts=HEV
center
Hybnd
ElectricVehicleTechnologies
Addressedby the HEVWG
r~l "
t
,
AndyAlfonsoFrank-’ TheFonz"
Director HEVCenter
MechAero Eng
Umlvof C8-Davis
530 7528120
aafrank@ucdav=s
edu
?
Other points of design and discussionamong
HEVWGmembersinclude
¯ A s~ngle irachon motor/Genor 2 unds?--I EM, G
selected
¯ Battery location for HEV20 and 60? SUVok, smaller
vehicles harder to find a place
¯ "Turtle Light* and performancehmdallowance
¯ Cabin coohng and healing techmquesLow cost soln
= Auxd=ary powerconcepts Mechanical, unless electric
Is cheaper
¯ Zero Evaporahonconcepts.-csnlster or pressurized
tank?
¯ Simplr~ed and ~owcost emission control concepts
¯ Battery coohngand heating
¯ Battery life replacement management
and pohc=ea
~t ,ConventionalGasolinePowertralnVeh=cie
-CVConvenUonal
1
Gas
ICE ATw/TO
¯ Series or Par~tlel configurahons--OnlyParallel
becauseof efficiency
¯ Technology and hadw-are soluhons and system
configurations
¯ Plug to electric companyor no plug-- Both vehs are
consideredto evaluate FIE and Emissions- tall pipe
and well to wheels
e Control pohc~..,s and options--discussed
¯ Energy from the Electric Compan0es
or energies back
to the Electric companiescan be done Howto
control? N~Nrlem to study for the next phase
Hybnd
VehicleTechnology
ZEV(CnterJaEm=sslons)
NoPlugType
t
?
t
i J"
t
Hybndwth Zero All Bectnc Range
0 mde AER
Hybrid Electric
Vehicle HEV 0
~ ~~ IcE ¢V’TEM
~uelTank
Aut~ "~S
(~ ICE
L~rg~
ICE
L-’VT
?
HybridPlug-In
with 20 mile AER
t
Hybrid Electric
Vehade
’ilk
Conventional
Autotransmission
Parts
-
¯
~tandardAutoTransmission
Number
of parts
are over700~
#
~//"/,,!*
/:
’
):.t
/
t/
~ I
~ -’~
,
o
-~.-’1
t
,~
/
6, f:.) 9(’,,~D~(’)O~O
~ ~’,a~,
I; -:-&’I;iE~~
I
J
I
’,
\
,,,.a.,..=.._
It
ConventionalCVTcutaway
I
!.
t
UCDawsHEV Center
CVTControlSystem
Simplification
UCDavlsHEVCenter
~50 hp ContinuouslyVanabteTransmission
PartsCountless than60
UCDHEV Center
Hybrid 350 hp-CVTChevroletSuburban
Powertram
~Cl)avls Hybrid Center HEV60 Future Truck
° Electric operation@GMprovinggrounds
UCDavns
HybNdCenter
HEV60’s with CVT’s
The HEVol and Coulomb
tv1~dsize Fuel Economy
CalculationsStd
construction HEVWG
EPRI-10%reduced mass,30%lower rolhng resnstance
and 40%tmproved Aero
all less th~ ½ of PNGVcars HEMWG
o
¢
? From the Technology Slides HEV WGConclude
That HEV’s Have the following Properties
I o ’~ NOengine
clio andTorque
Converter--Electric
motorLaunch
2 Regenetatnte
BraKing
~ enough
to sustaincharge
in theCtty
w~theappropriate
engine
"~Jm
= on"speed
3 Aliows
IGealengine
operst]on
at 33%
efflclency
ongasoline
~.
todayandopens
thedoorto design
much
highereffic~nt
gasohne
engines
over40%
efficmntmataremuch
simpler
thancurrentctesigns---Teyo~a
Pnus=38%
Mechancal
complex~’
wlttl Electron¢
controlstor
4 Replaces
much
higheroverallefficiencyrehabd~
andlowercosts
.5 Much
lighter powe~rain
for t~e same
performance
HEV
60
powertram
is 1/3theweight
of CV
e Tot;~lvehicle
wecJht
of theHEV
60cant:,e thesame
astheCV
w~theuseof some
bettermatenats
7 WrthPNGV
materialsandaerodynamics
a 5-6 passenger
sedan
suchasthe Lumina
canach~ve
over100mpgw~h~n
todays costrange
for thesevehicles
1Tifrastructure--The
Alternative
4
~t
UseE/M/Gandbattenes for low speeddriving and
vehicle accelerationand decelera|lonperformance
UsegasohneEngfor SteadyState speedsand
loads
Thesecars are Z_~ at low speedc d~_d~but
cleaneff~caenthighway
crgr,~erswtth upto 2Xor
better MPG
Gasohne
Is usedat highwayspeedswith E/M/Gfor
better acceleration,decelerationandengine
regulation for minimum
fuel and Iow~stemlssm.ns
for SSpower
Parallel HEV’sprey=deopportund=es
for
opt=mlzalmn
of manyother parameters
s,mu~neously
WGControl for battery management
of zero AERsmall batteries HEV0 to HEV20
Objective
¯ Usebatteries and EMG
to enhancedown,sizedeng
for vehicleperformance
andlaunchup to about5 to
16 mph
¯ Usebatteries to collect regeneratwe
brakingenergy
TheremenoughenergyIn =normal"cdy dnvingto
ma=ntmn
battery SOC
¯ Aggresewe
dnvmg
for a few minutesw~ll cause"turtle
hght" to come"on", hmdmg
performanceLarger
~
batteries reducethe frequen¢,yof the "T
1
Small and m=dslze5 passengerPlug-In HEM
vehicles and SUV’scanuse today’s gasoline
stations and12Orelectric plugsvwthGFI
to fill
tanks and chargebattenesat 1 5kwNo Infra Prob
2
L~rgeSUV’scouaduse220vGFi plugsor speclat
120vplugs wdhGFIat 3 kwRapidchargeis n_~ot
requiredsince it’s anovernightchargeanda parhal
chargedoesnot affect Performance=or
rancle~n a~l
pl_ug-lnHEV’s
Completelyautomaticcharqin,q systemsare easy
to design at these low powersStandardsneeded
tfor all manufacturers
Noachonrequire(/of user
Researcharea for the future HEVWG
3
4
GeneralControlPhilosophy
for parallel
HEV’s
Achdles Heel of A~I
Fuel Vehicles
HEVWGidentified
12 control strategy rtems
e 3 techniquesfor engineTurnOn-T/O,speed,45, 60,
80 mph
¯ RampdownEngineTtO speed/SOC
for increased
range
on
electric
energy
~.~
¯
¯
Driver~nteractlon
allowance
for batterelectncuse
Smad-cartnp planning capabdd=es
Enhanced
etectnc modesto increase AER
s Better engineStart algorithmdevelopment
¯ CVTophm~zatlon
for gasohne-EV-~egen
operahon
¯ Minimizebattery replacement
strsteg~es
Mountainmodestrategies
¯ Theh=ghhghts
are discussedm the next few slides
$~ *
t
WGContro~ of batteries
for plug4n long AER, HEV20 to HEV60
¯ Ba~ene~s
are usedfor low speedc~y dnvmg
wig eng
(ZEV)unlessthe batteries are depleledto a certain
state then ZEVup to 25 mphZEVperformance0 to
60mph=n 6 to g secondsor less
® Upto 60mph
eng"o~ untd 20 to 60redesare driven,
then ba~teneswdl be maintainedat about 20%SOC
e EnginecontroEedto alwayscome"on" above60
mph
¯ WAh
Eng"on" EMG
andbattenes are usedto
enhanceperformancehke the HEM0
= Largerbatterypackleadsto a longertimeto "turtle
hght" HEM
80 mayonly see Tudle light whendnwng
faste~than 100mphfor 20 minutes
4
WGContro{ of energy for
Fuel Economy
~ Thebettery-EMG
Is usedwtth the CVTto atlow the
engineto only operatealongan"ideal" hnemtorque
andspeed,AnteL This affowsthe engineto
operateat 30%
to 38%effic~erd shaft powe~
froma
minimumpowerto a maximum
power
o Thegasolineeng is sized to provideenoughpower
for h~ghway
~ on a level road, then the betteryEMG
is usedfor acceleretmnandhill climb Small
packs
will suffer"Turtlelight" if thehill is tooinngAll
carsare designedto travel Denvergradew~oTurtle
light
. Enginepowergoesright to wheelsfor best efficiency
e Mechanical
CV’T"=s muchmoreefficient (95%)than
Auto-transmissions
Control of dally energy use
to increase battery fife
e Canbe doneby taking less energypar dayfromthe
battenesby sustainingat a higher SOC
Therefore,
the dnvergoesfewerAEm=tseper day andcovers
moremiles using gasoline---Degrades
HEV20 to
HEV15 etc
¯ Battery Endof Lde (EEL)wasdefined as 80%
capacity for HEV0 to HEV20 battenes For HEV20
to HEV60 plug-In vehmiebettenesEeLcanbe
extendedto lower oapacdythus extending
replacement
rangeControlto extendbattery Idle may
be doneonly after 100,000miles hasbeencovered
.= 150,000vehicle mile battery hfe canbe accomplished
requlnngfewerpure eiectncmdestowardthe battery
endof life
Conclusions
qDTechnology
Is nowpossiblebut not yet completely
developad
<DTheheart of the Technology
is the mechanical
CMT
which has been demonstratedby UCDaws
HEV
Center,moreefficient than manual
transmissions
~=Thelarger the batterypack.the moreefficient the
Plug-In HEVup to a rangeof about 60 miles The
optimum
rangewlll increaseas battery technology
improves
~PThereare numerous
control strategies that the
technologycanbe usedto optimizethe many
parameters
not nowpossible with CV’s
,b It is possibleto integratePing-InHEV’s
withthe
Electncpowergndto improvethe systemefficiency
andlowerthe electric energycosts to all
Control System to managethe battery SOCas
the car ~s dnven
Q Canbe doneby engine"turn on (T/O)" speed- The
lower the TIe the moregasohne
usedandthe less
electncenergyusedin mtydriving
e Forhighwaycruise, onewayis to require the engine
to makeshghUy
moreIx~werthan neededto maintain
a givenspeedthento usethe EIVK3to generate
enoughto keepthe bettenes al the minimum
SOC
about 20%SOC
Thenwadfor the vehicle to park to
plug-in beforechargingto "full" SOC
Gasolinets
not usedto chargeto lO0%---onlyto maintainSOC
= T/Oconceptallowsbattery chargingto be automatic
¯ Dnvmg
habits can be usedto determineadaptiveor
pred:chvecontrol strategy Controlsare simpler
whenbatteries are larger
t
~,
,
~i i,
=.~.
|
Bi-dlrectlonal charging to provide Electric
Utiht~es ~ reserves and re_.gulabon
¯ Pfug-mHEV’swdhbPdlrectional chargersunder
utility company
control Thenuse pni¥ the
betten_______es_es
of HEV’s
to levelandregulate
thegrid
QTheuser pays6 cents/kwhrto chargehmbatts but is
deducted18 cents/kwhrto feed energyto the gnd
¯ Thisis only possibled energyIs takenfrombattenes
¯ Running
the engineto rechargebeckto the grid is
too expenswe--75-80
cents/kwhr,due to gasoline
enginecomponent
Ide andcost of fuel
= This conceptonly makessensefor Plug-mHEV30 to
HEV60 or higher AERNot HEV-.O
or PureEVof
today
¯ lmdkon vehmlesplugged met 1 kweechIs 1000mw
----enoughto regulatepowerandpreventrolling
black=outstAndthe poweris alreadydmtnbutedl
Conclusion
cont.
¯ Complete
automatm
control of the vehmleIs expected
andthus the vehmleIs transparentto CV’s
¯ Usercontrol of energymanagement
maynot be
advisableuntil the publicis better reformed
"~t.~ ¯ Fleet energymanagement
control m a natural and
7"
cangreatlyreducefleet operatingcosts
¯ All emmsmns
andCO2can be greatly reduced
® Fuel economy
canbe further increasedby advance
gasolineenginedesignwdhefficiencles up to 45%
¯ A sh~ff in the useof fuel (Gto E) canmean
h~clher
profits to EnergyCompanies
Car companies
also
Gain$
¯ Plug-in HEV’scanlead eventuallyto advanced
altematwepowersuchas FICand others after
infrastructure andtechnologms
ere developed
~
t
Ovonic Nickel-Metal Hydride
Batteries For ZEV-Range HEVs
May 15, 2001
Dennis Corrigan
Ovonic Battery Company
o
01,.,
>
~D
oo
...., ~>~a:::
Z 111
9
ill
Z
~n
UJ
.> .-
"~
~ 09
LU~
"u 0 0 o
:~ o~ 0EO
(UQ..
!~ o
CO 0~- w nw I ~
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
<O
o
(D
A
O
0
(M
o9
0m._
©
rn
-(
Am:~’%,42
E
to
>
~e
o
if) ..~
--.1~
0
~Do
r,>..,
W<
.-©
©
¢D’r-
O
,,,-,
o,e_
>d~
WO
"-r-~
W la’~O
0
’t::
O3
8,.
Y
>
C)
oOC
oooc
~E
.= C
"ltO
"1: C
0 E
(
u
Ill
13
II
L~
0
W
._
E
u..
I
;
__i iil
(.
0
°° ~~
o ~’~
Z
0
m
~"
rn
!
go
LLI0
0
,..J
"0"0
ww
N-IT
©
0
¢~0 cO ~"
0
0
mm
Z’o
~:’
liill
m
iim
0
o
>o0
Z
.<
>..
E:
0 s._
"->m
0’1
m
,..o
©
w>E+
.___0
E~
E~
~w
¯ ~N
|
_9.Oo
E wN
w
E
W ©m
6O’4
t-
mw
o-1-
go
z
0
!-.00
0
0
L...~
OCOO~
0 o o C~
oO 000o o~
O~
uJZ
0
c
0
0
e0
w
0
Q"I~
O
0
E e0
w
gO
L.
©
|
o,,,
0
0
r~*"e--
OOO~
w
-r
_9_o
w
0’- 0
gOg,j
0
0
000
000 ~I o
00 x--~--~0
0
0
ty
Ii
©
>->
n,w
C~O00
l.-W
0000
o000
.<N
rn~
n,O
WN
F.’=
0
O00C)
h~
0
0
0
0000
0
v
Manganese-type Lithium Ion Battery
for City EVs
May 15, 2001
Kensuke Hironaka
Shin-Kobe Electric Machinery Co., Ltd.
~2
=~.
~
~
~ ~)
~.E -~
0""
0
~
u
~’~
10
°-i
-~
..~- ~’r.
0
~
~
0""
m
gq
-~
0
0
If)
00
t
~
0
ID
°~
0
~2
~
°~
L L~
~
+
r~
0
~
d
F
._~ e .]
I~
+
i
f-
0
~2
g
¯
¯
¯
¯
Y
0
0
I
{
m
r
m
°~
,-...
m
.;
©
~p
\
°~
J
w
i
/
"-7
_=
t_.
7"
el tI~
~Z
/
o
04
~
.<
CO
0
~
0
~"
0
C~I
0
0
0
o
04
.~
=
i
~
"~
~p
,L.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
H / ~!3BdB~ OADBI;~
0
I
o
_.7. :"
..m
o
,--
~
g... ffi ~u
0
0
0
V / iua~.ln~)
~I ,r_
0
00
l
0
¢,g)
a~.iilqD
0~i"
0
t’~
0
__1__
N
o..m
6.
/
r~
o0
.=.
¯
N
,m
°~
~Q
L
-,
¢¢I’"~lt
0
!,0
6.
0
~Q
t~
~
A / a~till0A ilOD
|
0
t-q
¢,9
m
c~
=
o
Cost-effective Combinations of
Ultracapacitors and Batteries for
Hybrid Vehicle Applications
May 15, 2001
Institute
Andrew Burke
Co,st-effective
Combinations of
Ultracapacitors and Batteries for Hybrid
Vehicle Applications
Outline of the Presentation
Introduction
Ultracapacitors vs. Batteries
Reasons for combiningbatteries and
ultracapacitors
Combinationsstudied
Ultracapacitor characteristics
Battery characteristics
Applications studied
Results
Conclusions
Andrew Burke
Institute of*I ransportatlon Studies
Umverstty of Cahforma-DavJs
Davl% Cahforma 95616
Paper presented to
Meeting the ZE~, Mandate
Requsrements G~ td-eonnected
llybr~ds and CIly EX’s
May 15-16, 2G0!
Ultracapacitors vs. Batteries
lU/~acltors
,~ ihgh pov,~ r and Io~ resistance (2kW/kg, 95%)
,~ Long c~ele hfe (>i00K cycles)
,~ Cycle hfe ,ndependent of the pattern of SOC
,m Longshell hfc (>10 years)
¢ Relatively Io~ energy densJt) (<lOWh/kg)
¯ i’oss er ch~racterJst~es |ndepcndent of SOC
¯ High energy dcns|ty (30-150 Wh/kg)
¯ Moderate po~cr (< 5 kW/kg)
¯ Short ~helf life (<i year w/u recharge)
e Rclat|ve|y shor| cycle life (<1Kcycles, deep dt~charge)
o C~clc |fie can dependent on the pattern of SO(
[_Q V_arEatm.of powercharacter!saes_~_iill St_)(_
Reasons for combining Batteries
and Ultracapac~tors
¯ In order to get high po~er m both motmmg(discharge)
and regcneratwc braking (charge) the batteries arc
maintained at an intermcdmt¢ SOC(approx. 50%)
¯ Dual h|gh power reqmrements result m only a fraet|oa of
stored energy being a,~adable for use
¯ Ultracapacltors
can prov|de the power ~hen the po~er
dcnstty of the battery Js le~s than needed permitting the
battery to be discharged over a wtde SOCrange
The total energy stored m the battery can be reduced
because a greater fract|on of the energy ts available for
use
The max|mumpo~er of the comb|nat|on is greater for
both motor|ng and rcgenerahve braking
In some apphcat|ons, use of a battery w~th a htgher
energy density than possible when the battery mu~! meet
the maximum system power requ|rements
for both
I ....motoring and braking
I.
Combinations studied
¯ Ultracapacstorswithlead-acidbatteries
¯ Ultraeapaeltorswith nlckel-metal-~ydride
batlerJes
¯ Ultraeapacltorswith hthmm-lon
batteries
Ultraeapacitor Characteristics
a Carbon-based,
organicelectrolyte
I 2.5-3 V/cell
¯ Energydensity 3-5 Wh/kg
¯ Powerdensity 1.5-2 kW/kg,95%efficiency
Applications studied
¯ Mild hybrids(42V)
® Powerassist hybrids(200V)
Seminar3, of the charac{ertsRcs of ad,~anced protoq, pe and
commerciall~ avadabIe carbon-based uliracapaellors
(’2} Povber based on P=9/16*(DEF)*V2/R,
EF=.efficlenc) of discharge,
V-3V
PageI
F~gure 3 Photograph of the Ness 2 3V, 2500F Capacitor
,Pr~nczpal
Spec[_f~ca~tg.n_~
EC-HV1225
o
t15~
0
0
~)
e~
r"
I
~J
¢M
!
1
O
~e
!
UJ
EL
>
I
T i
! ,
!
m
!
I
!
{
o
13_
!
7
I
()utput/In~ut
Power Performance
II
1
I
,/
’,4,,,
o
o
o
0.
>-
rW
l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
Shm-Kobe
Manganese
based LHonCell for HEV
C=~thode
Mat
ena~
Capacity (Ah)
Size(ram)
Volta~a
IV)
I 40~ ~0~
~=’s-4~
I
Power
Char~ctenstzcs
of a Cell for HEV
\
3000
= 2500 ~--~echarge
~ 500
X
0
9
20
40
60
80
~00
soc(%)
Sail
Salt
Table 1 Automotive Lion Cell Characteristics
(ram)
HE40
MI~IS
~az~
,.’~z
54
s4
C/3
Total
Energy
Operating Capacity
@Hag
@C/3
(ram) (kg~
Voltage Voltage
(Wh/k9~
iv)
(Ah)
220 ~ 1 OS
I 41 0
140
2;~-9~ I 105
4 0 13901390 [ ~35
lOO 6 7~
~
~-1i"~---I~4f
~;,8 -o~
~
MaxPow~
Total
(Wtk~)
Energy
@C/3
~Wh/~) Pulse Conbn~.
290
280
4~°-
42(]
080
s~e ~
288
415
3~s
8se
I[ 8zoo
I ~_s
I I ~s~l~
HP6
104 " 0 38
39
hOI
75
158 [ 1420
76(]
Themaximum
vo~,geof h~henergyandm~um
rangecells ~ssl~-c~fledat 40Vwhde
R is onf 39vfor hlgh
[39V)resuJtsmlowere~gy(abOut]5%)but maybe neede~
for HEV
due
TheHPceffscanrunat 4 0Vunder
aFphcab~n
wl~hOdt
re~ener~hve
s c~=k~_
De~r~c~
power
u~ade~
18 ~cond
pulse@50%
DOD
and2. 7Vcut-off
2 t.la~lmum
continuous
currentrPult~phed
by ~vera~e
volt~9~
Saff manufactures
outertypesof hth um~a eels ~schas medium
pas~a’ac
o ~or(n~landh~gh
PowerCapability
Dlschar Power
P Max ~ 18 Sec
2Sec
mQ
W/kg
1 48
2790
2 13
I 48
2600
2 08
! 55
2150
2 19
257
176 1 2346
Tempt Voc V o/o SOC R 2 Sec
mQ
7~,’o
50%
qO°C~_ 3 04
, 3 5~----30%
I 3/4 l 70%
i
i ~7’I
o °c
I 70% ~_37__5. ’, 1101 1 505
f~-I
No~eI
Note 2
Note3
Note4
Configurabon of Salt HP LiON Cells
(HEVapphcatlons) Cha_rge
- Powel
~-~-~’-~
so~
P Max R 2 Se<:
25~
18See
m~ |w~;,
W/kg
~
[
1221
1938
1794
] 46 ’ 14’:;C
1522 =~
1606 [ I-~-7~I
894
| 817
1 398
[-_~ _I
I
38q
~
DatafromHP12
c~ll sample(0 S8kg) Not& Sp~ClfiC~tlOtl
Maximum
powercalculatedas follows
DischargePntax = Vimx Zmaxwith |max= (Vocv*Vmm)/R
ChargePmax= Vmaxx Imaxwith lmax = (VmaxVocv)/R
Vmax= 4 OV andVim=2 7V
Short r~genspikecould reach4 05V~sultlng ~npoweracceptance
iI’,C~i~seof mo~than10°/oat h:ghstateof charge
Lower
cut off voltage(below2 7V)especiallyat lowtemperatures
IS possible
re~ulLsin higherd~scharge
power
UltracapacRor
Unit Characteristics
~
+
200V
!00 Wh(useable)
25 kg (4 g h/kg useable)
up
to
SO kW (2kW/kg,
90% charge/d~hcharge
$12/Wh or $1200/umt
(eqm~alent to $30 for a 2500F cell)
5-10
~ear cycle
and shelf
hfe
< m
el,
~r
~g
~g
It ¢q
II ¢-t
+ +
+ +
t~
e~
~Lg
~L
L~
r,
"r
e~
!
N
!
e~
.g
L
e~
~3
r.
_=
~q
g
e-!
F
I__ _A~
.....
i
Conclusions
Summary of the Characteristics
of Various
Batteries with Uitracapacitors
cost
I Type [
(kg)
[ Energy I power
I I,ead-I
80
l
acidw/o[
Lead- |
acid wtth
caps
400
I
25
~4-O-O-
!
I
53
_
] 800
50
40o--- 25
Nickel [ 45
metal [
hydrideI
with 1
L-_c_a~s.~_
!
1000
il metal
i hydride [
t ion w/o t
, ca sg!_~
40
1350 e
[
[-~-,~L~ 40
Lithium- "
] IOn~ llh I
($)
5O
~_
,
I
I
l
1
960
1200
I
t
35
50
s .I ...... 1 ..... [____
L~P
1920 1
i All the battery/ultraeapacttor systems are heavier
and more expensive than those with the battery
alone
o All the battery/ultracapac~tor systems ale highe~
power and have more useable energy than those
with the battery alone
* The use of capacitors with batteries permits the
batterses to be used over their complete SOC
e The use of capacitors results m the same power for
vehicle acceleration and braking independent of
battery SOC
o Lead-acid battel tes benefit most of the use of
uitraeapaettors and hthmm-tonthe least
o The lead-acid batterylultracapacitor
combmatmn
Ds particularly attractive in terms of performance
and cost
® The use of capacitors should significantly improve
the cycle life of lead-acid batter les in charge
sustaining hybrids, but the effect on the cycle life of
the other types of batteries is not known
Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Commercialization,
Market Potential,
Customer Preferences
May 15, 2001
Dean Taylor
Southern California Edison
SeveralDifferent Names
for HEVsWith
or WithoutPlug -in Capab=hty
HybridElectric Vehicle
Commercialization,
MarketPotential,
CustomerPreferences
HEVWG
Study Draft Final
N~,-gr~<~=~ HEY
~ug4n or ~e,~t~ HSV
I .........
! .........
--
J
!
!
t
Results
Mayf5 2001
DeanTaylor
Southern
C~flforntaEdison
Nine Attributes
for CBMM
Overview of Customer Preference Study
¯
Two teems of the WGworked wtth ADA to design the format
questions, and educebonshdes of the study
- CustomerPreferenceteam(mdupedtwo automekers)
= Modehngteam (included one eu~omakerUCDNRELADAothers
8 Focus Groups
1 P~ot Interview
400 + Quantttat=ve interviews
- 9 independent
sttnbutestestedfirst in trade-offq~.lesbons
- Thenhnkedto descnbeHEV0 HEV20 andHEV60 in full profile trade
Off queettons
- About’~00 direct assessment
q~est=ons
tested other benefits
demographicss~tudesetc
Customer Based Market Model
Examplesof Trade-Off and Direct
Assessment Quesbons
Focus Groups and Quantltatwe Study
Assumptmns
"i’rede off question example
~f you hadh~reptsceyour cgrmntFordTauruswhlchw~uldyouprefer~
Fuel costs$60per month
(25%less than current costs)
Fuel costs$8 per month
(90%less than currentcosts)
Vehicle price
Fuel cost savings
Tnps to the gas station
Environmental benefits
Maintenance costs
Battery Ire end replacementcosts
Electnc~t system(infrastructure) upgradecosts
Governmentincentives
Special features/options such as a 110/120-volt outlet to run
venous=appliances’, and pre-heet/pre~cool capability
(available w;th engineon or off)
I
Costs$600per monthfor 36 months Costs$650per monthfor 36 months
w~th$3000down(Total $24,700)
Lv,~th $3000down(Tote $23g00)
Demographics
anddlre~’~ assessments
providecontextfor th e preference
results (sttltudes sexIncomeeducationetc) endcan also be useful in their
c~mnght Fer example,respondents
werssskeddlrsclly wh=chfactors would
I:~ mostinfiue~tlSl in the purchase
decisionThesequestionsalsoprovided
the input to compute
the fuel usagetnps to the gasstst=onpreferredw~yof
purchasing(cash leaseetc) endother custominputs for eachrespondent
¯ HEVshave been evadable in the market for about 10 years
¯ The technology cs safe and rehable
¯ $kdled mechanicsare a..,elJable
¯ Performance, intoner room~ess convenience/~omfort
features, and resale value ~s comparableto the equivalent
conventloRet
V~hlcles
¯ HEVs~re produced by manymanufacturer’s ~n a wide range of
styles such that any model can be purchasedas an HEV
¯ Information about HEVsis widely evadablefrom the Internet
magazines, automakere government, consumer groups and
other sources
The intent was to focus respondentson their preferences with
respect to their choice of welFestabhshed
powertrain
(conventional or several hybrid) options, not on any other
differences In the vehicle ~tself
MarketPreferenceVersusVehiclePrice for Mid- size HEVs
Scenarm
1 - SimplaMsrket(HEV0 vz CVHEV20 v= CVHEV60 v= CV)
60%--
MarketPreferenceVersusVehicle Price
for Mid-size HEVs
~,
iOLow
50%-
~
40%
~’-I
~---~
’
’~---i
....
~20%
10%
0%
HEV0
HEV20
HEV60
HEV0
60%
’
513%
~
40%
d’
HEV(~
Mld-S~zeCar Component
BasedCaseCosts
(Wethout
Mark-ups)
or ANLCosts0Nith Parbal
Mark-ups
on 3 ~tems
HEVMarketPotenbal
at Constant
Price
~
HEV20
BHEVO r
m HEV20!
I~HEy
eoj
20%
o
O%
$24 000
l J,
$27 500
Vehicle R=tall Price ~quivslent
cv
HEre
Hl~2~
HEV¢~
Draft Fmal
Mid-s,zeCarSpeclficmt=ons
NIMHBattery ModuleCoststo OEM
VersusBattery Energy
S450
tEV0
S400
~
$250
5
10
15
Sattew Power~nergy
(W/Whl
20
2
Summaryof the Base and ANL Methods
Vehicle Fully LoadedCost Estimates
for the Mid-sizeCar
_~ ~~ -~ o~r ............
Draft Fmal
$35ooo
¯ ~ $3oo~o
825000
-- i
o $20000
o.
.....2
E=~$’~0,000
-:
~N
J¢
$5000
$0
CV
HEY0
HEV20
HEVI~0
Vehacie
R PEfor the HEV0 is from$2 500to $4 0gOhigherthe HEV
20 from$4 000
to $6 000andthe HEV60 from$7 400to $10000than the comparable
CV
LowPrice Scenario
Market
Preference
Versus
Vehtcle
Pricefor Mid-s~zeHEVs
DraftFinal
"S~gn=f=cantuncertamty exists regarding HEVretail pnca Ever~EM
prices products d~fferently For example,HEVO vehicles ere =n the
early commerc,ahzat+on
stage because of the w¢l~mgnessof major
automC~bllemanufacturers to submdtzethm promlsmgnewautorrmfe
product VVn~lenewtechnologywill cost moreto produce, final retail
pncmgwltt be e function of compet~t+ongovernment=ncentwes,cost
market demand,benefits of ZEVand CAFEcompliance, betters’
le~smg, and other factors the WGdml not knowhowto quant#y"
6O%
50%
409+0
...........
I ....II
3O%
20%
I0%
Desire to capture newmarkets (such as fleets or youngbuyers) end
desire to improve the corporate image(technological or environmental)
are examp(esof howcompetition result in cross product Imesubsidies
0%
HEV0
HEV20
HEV~0
FederalincentivesandTax Credits
Apphcable to HEVs
Tax credits end other incentives could Offset muchof the
purchase and Ida cycle cost d~erence between HEVs
(especially plugln HEVs)end convenbonalvehicles that renan
after allowmgfor the lower energy and maintenancecosts of
HEVsHowever,the appl=cabdt~yof most of the ex=stmg
tncenhvesto the d~erent HEVtypes ,s not clear, but sho,Jtd be
madeclear Generally there appears to be ius~cet+on for larger
mcentwesgoing to those HEVtypes that have greater all
electric range becauseof the larger environmental and energy
securdybenefits associated with all electhc vehicle opersbon
I
l)l~nldl~ f~l N
’ ~=~=~.-~.
~+,~..~
~+.~.~’+’=
~"~
Tax Credits andOther Incentives
Conclusions
DraftFinal
DraftFinal
HEV Reductaonsm Smog-FormingGases
CO2, Energy Use and Petroleum Consumptmn
HEVEnergy and PetroleumUse Reductions
II
E] NaturalGas
.......
¯
"Y~lte des=table reducbensof abo,Jt 15%=n smog-form=riggases and
25%in C02emlsslons, energy rise and petroleum consumption can
be expected for a properly desJgnedHEV0 a 50%reduction in
smog precursors CO=and energy use aswe{] as a 75%reduct=on
in petroleum consumption,is predletec for the HEV60 This is
compared to a CV meet=ng the ve~ clean $ULEVem=sstons
standard Specifically ADVISOR
slmulat=or’s showthat the
petroleum consumptionof an HEV60 (us=ng gasohne/efectnclty) can
be less thal~ that of the PNGV
dlese= engine-battery HEV0 concept
veh=clesandatta=n the equivalent of 80 mpgw~thoutresorting to
costly hght-we~gh~construction or body aerodynamics"
_
Versus Vehicle
Price
for
Mid- size
HEVs
1_
_- 2
CV
Merket Preference
_F-I
HEV¢
HEV20
HEVSO
Scenario4 BaseCaseResultsfor Mid-size
and All Respondents
60%
....
3 ....
;;
30%
=
o~ 25%
~= 20%
!~- 15%
,~10%
5~
0%
0%
HE’VO
H~V20
HEV0
HEV60
ConstantMarketPotentla| VersusHEVPrice
$3500O
¢
¢= ~n00OO
>
3 $250OO
HEV
20
HEV
HEVMarketPotential at ConstantPrice
60%
f/ e~v~o
to~V~J
II HEV201
~L~v~
40%
$2oooo
~o~
$~5,0OO
i
¢ StO,(X~}
~=$5,ooo
so
20%
10%
O%
$24 000
18%
25%
45%
$27 5OO
Vehl©leRetinal Price Equlv~kmt
CustomerPref=rer~ca over CV
4
CBMModelConstructedto Be Extremely
Flexible
Preferencefor HEVsWhenChoosingI Vehicle from
all Configuratmns
(2015 Possmble
Scenario)
HEro~ HEY20 vs HEV~~ CV
¯
¯
Market preferences can be predicted for any vehicle described
by the attr;butes
Market preferences can be roughly estimated for other HEVs
w=thsimilar prices andattributes -e g hybr~t pick-up trucks
The modelcan be re-run with a different base case veh;cle and
newsensitivities
The model can also estimate complex markets where more than
one HEVis offered by OEMsin a market segmerlt Base case
was also ran to showth=s (HEV 0 vs HEV20 vs HEV60 vs CV}
E ut =t ~s a very aggressivecase for 2010andmorehkely for
2015or later
Dated on Linked Assumpbons
and Attributes
80%
7O%
50%
ke
oE3O%
L)
10%
Sensitivities: MarketPotenbalfor HEV0 versus
Conventional Vehicle
p
HEVMarketSensitivities for Fue| Price and
Battery Replacement
¯
Fuel prmealso hada s~gndicanteffect on market potenhal If
ga,,ohne prices rose from $1 65 per gallon (besehneassumpberk’~
$3 0(3 per gallon (an 82%~ncrease), market potential for an HEV
wc~JId ~ncrease about 30%, an HEV20 would increase about 35%,
and en HEV60 woul6 ~ncrease about 65%
-
Onthe other s=deIf batteries need to be replaced at 5 years or
50 000 mdes, market polent~al for the HEV0 is reduced by about
Iwo-lh~rds and the HEV20 and HEV60 by about half Battery
replacementsat 80,00~ redes or 120 00~ miles were not tested and
shoutd not be inferred
Sensitw|bes: MarketPotential for HEV20 versus
Convent|onal Vehicle
a.,c~
KeyAssumptmn
F~lug:n Eachight
Sensltw=t~esMarketPotent~a!for HEV60 versus
ConventJonalVehmle
Other Sens=t=vltles
ExtraFeaturesOptJon(Pre heat / Pre-c~olfor $300and120V ouUetfor
recreahonalwork or homeapphancas
for $300
- Forthe HEV
20andHEV
60that ¢~nusethesefealtureswdhthe e;gflle off
(usingbatterypower
~don~)
~.t %wouldchooee
bo~at. ==dcM~nd
26=/=wou~d
select onefeature~d33%
wouldselect none
= Farthe CVandHEV
0 whichuse thesefeatures ~ the eng~eon 63%would
select no fea~e~t 6%wotddseCecto~e~eabJteand1%wo~ldChoose
b~
features
If eJectnc=typncasrose 66%
to t 0 cantsper kWhthe HEV60 fuel cost
savingswoula~ecteaseby $162per year Th~sis equwaient
to a gasol,ne
pnoeof $1 40 per galen wh=chhgs btUe Impacton marketpetenbalA
simdsre×ample
for the HEV20 is equwalent
to a gasolinepncaof $1 61 per
ga~onBecause
of the high e~c~ency
of HEV=
evensxpenslvesleotnc~tyis
expectedt~ hsve only a smallimpacton marketpoten~al(mthe above
example)
If sevenmcentwes
(e 0 ccarpoo~
lane accessandfree or reservedparking)
ere available the FeEV
20 marketpotenhalwould:ncreasefrom35%to
50%andthe HEV60 would increase from 17%to 30%
Dra
t+tFznzl
ConstantMarket Potentml VersusHEVPrice
$.35OO0
WhyPayMorefor HEVs?
Ranking
of HEV
Benefits
~ HEV0-~
¢=
-~ $30,000
~= $25,00~
_~$2oooo
$150O0
$10,000
Z: $5O0O
18%
25%
45%
Customer Preference over CV
Plugg=ngin VersusGoingto the GasStation
Parbc~pants
wereaskedaboutthe=rpreferences
fur veh¢cleept~onson the
bastsof pluggingin versusg~m
to the 0as station on a rankln0 scaleof 1 9 whereI = stronglyprefer to 0
fuel myvehiclewlth gasat ~egasstation
and9 = ~P,rongiypreferto fuel myvehlcteby p;ugg=ng
~t mat home
Ranking
Average
vath ccanfidenca
interval
1-3
0 Rankm
4+6Ranking
7-9 Ranking
ASerdlon
I ptoneer
~mage
Avoldl]l
KeCLI~
op,ler~naJ
MarketPreference
VersusVehtc|ePrice for M,d-razeHEVs
50%
................
Results
6 9 ± 35
1 1%
35 9%
63 G°/=
MoresophtsttcatedCBMM
results for ~lhngnessto purchasean HEV20
andHEV60 (basedon pluggingthemIn eachnight) showmarketpotential
that Is generallylower because~ factor+ mvehtdapncaandcost to upside
electocal systems
0%
~~-~L_
HEV0
....
x
HEV20
,’~__I
.
HEV60
6
Draft Final Conclusions
Draft Final Conchlslorls(continued)
1 HEV0 technclogy is ~n the early commerc~a~
stage Relative to
mature Combustionengines and state-of-the-art
EVtechnology HEY
technology requ{res only evolutionary advancesto meet technical
requirements with the possible exception Of batteries NIMHbatteries
are technologically capablebut there are uncertainties regarding
the.- life andcosts, especially m plugn HEVservice
2 All HEVsw~,ECost moreto produce than their CVequ~vaEeot
Estimated mcreasesin the retad price equwalent (RPE)are from
$2 500 to $4 000 for an HEV0 from $4000to $6000 for an HEV20,
and from $7400 to $10 000 for an HEV60 Battery costs are the
primary reason for this incremental cost
3 Total energy (motor fuel and electnc~ty) and maintenancecosts
plug.~nHEVsw~li be less than that for CVspart~ally offsetting the
mlpact of battery costs Incenbvesto buyers of HEVscould prc~e
adddlonalcost offsets but more analysis is necessaryto confidently
quanttfy andcomparelife cycle costs
4 The CustomerPreference study Indicates defimte markel potential
for all HEVsThat potenbal Is large If cost equwatence
w=th
conventional vehicles can be achieved but even at higher cos~ere
~s hkely to be slgmficant marketpotential
5 PeoplaarewdhngtopaymoreforanHEV6OthananHEV2OTiore
for an HEV20 than an HEV0, and more for an HEM0 than a CV is
not clear why so manypeople prefer m~fBizeHEVsover their CV
counterparts Howeverten HEVbenefits have a high to strong
influence on the purchase decision for most consumersespecl~tfor
those whoprefer HEVsThis refers a broad package of benefitsou/d
be marketed
6 Themajority of the peoplesurveyed preferred plugging In a vehgcle
to fuehngat the gas station
Draft Final Conclusions
(continued)
7 Thereare someissuesthat havebeenidentified thai needto be exam=n~d
for successfulcommerclahzatlon
including battery cost andpackaging
Real
woddtesting mustbe doneregardinghfe Batterycostswh=ledlfr~.ult to
estimate,appearto be attainable basedon whatweknowtoday
8 HEVOvehlclesaremtheesdycommerc,
ahzationstagebecsuseorthe
valhngness
of majorautomobile
manuficcturers
to subsidizethis pror~slng
newautomotwe
productHoweverthere is an unclear commer~attzafion
path for plug-mhybnd
electncvehlclesdespde
the=rsubstant=alsoc~et~
benefits because,in pa~colar,there are no corresponding
automakers
irlltlah’~es p-esumabty
because
of batterycostandbattery repcacernent
concernsHowever
HEV{~s coultt be a steppingstoneto plug-in hybrids
9 The=ncremental
costs for all HEVsare very scgndlcaofin low sndmedmm
volume
productJon
(higher thanthe numbers
,n this report) Yetthere are else
very let@esocletaEbenefits tf HEW
are commerc~a~tzed
Andthe
infrastructure tssuesfor HEMs
are fewcompared
with sltematlvefuel
vehicles (Evenfor plug-in HEVsthe survey found86%hadreletwely easy
overnightaccessto a p, ug wth120Vsystems
beingrelatively hasslefree)
Part
2: City
and Neighborhood
May 16, 2001
Craig Childers
California Ail: Resources Board
EVs
Heetmgthe CARBZEV Requirements"
Grid-ConnectedHEVsand City EVs
Part Ih
e
and Neighborhood EVs
¯ BEV Challenges
¯ Emerging Small BEV Classes
¯ City EVs (CEVs)
Ne,ghborhood EVs (NEVs)
¯ Enclosed ZEMs
¯ ZEV Credits for Small BEVs
- NEV Credit
- CEV Credit
Challenges~orBEVs
Cost
¯ Near-termcostsare hk
han CV
¯ Establish appropriateincen
¯ Develop necessary
¯ Increase public awareness
- BEV VS HEV
Emer(
;mall
Clas
¯ City EVs(CEVs)
¯ NeaghborhoodEVs (NEVs)
¯ Zero em=ss=on
motorcycles
(=ncludmg enclosed
¯ e-b=kes, scooters, etc
BEV
¯ Volume production
- Vehicle, or
- Componentry
¯ shared components
¯ Addltmnal battery developments
¯ Mission=specifiC BEVs
- Neighborhood EVs
- C,ty EVs
¯ NmheApplicationsShared platforms
- Postal Delivery Trucks, etc
Range~d
Graph
!
E~a~’~f
City
EVs
Exam"~les~City EVs
/
® Nnssan Hypermnm
¯ FordThinkCity
Exampl~City
......
EVs
i;
~"i
o Toyotae com
¯ HondaCityPal
~m~
Ex~EVs
~
,~
¯ DC GEM
¯ Ford ThunkNeighbor
2
-
’NEV
Examples"-o4
ZEMs
s
¯ Dynasty"iT
!1
es of ZEMs
¯ CItyEI
¯ Corbin Sparrow
--~d~Vs
(NEVs)
)eed
¯ USOOTestablished new
Vehicle (LSV) category
¯ LSVcreateddueto increasing¢
betweenstate and federal law
¯ Rulemaking
initiated in responset(
Bombardier,Inc. in 1996
Neighb
(NEVs)
¯ DOTconsidered 3 o
- Raise motor
, Bombardieroriginal request
- No change
- Create newLSVcategory
¯ LSVsIn-betweenPassengerCar and G~
Carts
¯ Further DOTInformation on LSV
development:
hrcp/www
nldsadot govlcamlruleslrullngsflsvllsv
html
3
~d~Vs
(NEVs)
Neig
US DOT Low Speed VehJcle~nitJon:
- 4-wheel motor vehicle
- M=mmum
20 mph
¯ AttainableIn "t mile ..........
,20 mphselectedas ’ d=wdmg
line"
- Max=mum25 mph
- Nopowerplantdefinition, so
¯ NEVs
= LSVsthat are zeroemission
¯ LSVs=
AnyvehiclemeetingDOTregulat=on
(NEVs)
Cahforma Vehncle Code Defm
- 4=wheel
- Mm20 mph Max 25 mph
- <1800tbs unladen we=ght
¯ Vehicle disclosure to purchaser
¯ Modifications proh=bJtlon
¯ Not allowed on roads posted >35 mph
¯ Local restnct=ons
R
ment
in
ZEV
Regula’li n
Neighborhoo~¢
i
Or=glnal 1990 ARB ZEV Reg~i~n
- NEVs not yet proposed or cot~ed
CAZEVCredit Earned
- NEVsnow part of new~y expanded~
definlt=on of "passeng~veh=cle" thl
included LSVs
ehgEblefor ful.__j ZEV
- Wouldbecome
credit
¯ Revised ZEVRegulation (January 2001)
- NEVstreated separatefy
(creditd=scounted}
’00 ’01 ’1}2 ’03
Early
4
4
4
1 25 1
Intro Mulhpher
NEVdiscount 1
1
1
1
5
NEVs
¯
¯
¯
¯
¯
Bombardier
NV(1998,
GEM
(DC) (1999, 2000)
DynastyIT (2001)
(Ford ThinkNeighbor)
(lacocca?)
2o00)
Resulting
NEVCredit
4
4
4
(NEVs)
I 25 625
¯ No concrete defimtmn
o Usually2 seat
= -60 mph range
= -60 mphtop speed
¯ Battery capacity~113-1/2of full
BEV or-9-15 kwhr
(NEVsusually carry less, typ 8.6 kwhf
¯ Must meetaH standards applicable to
motor vehicles
- Will mosthkelybe designed
andbudtby large
automakers
4
i EVs
ZEV Cre~dTt~ermination
¯ Usually intendedfor city
(not freeway)travel
¯ Usuallyfit Japanese
mlcrocarch
limits
- Length< 3400 mm(some< 2500
- Width < 1480 mm
NOTEsomeNEVsare larger than C~ty
EVs
= Mostmanufacturers
targeting sharedor
station car applications
t0 ............
~
Rang~
....
ZEVCredit =
{1+[(RangeMult -1) x (RangeMult
{1+[(Eft Mult-1) x (Eft Mult Phase
(TransportationSystemMuir )
(Early Intro Mult)
(NEV/LSVdiscount)
Effl(
Range~M~tiplier
ZEV
Initial
Mu~
, .........
’ f~"i ~ ~ E-,0,,,
Multipher
VEHICLE
CLASS
C~ty(EV)
Subcompact
PC
FFICIENCY
]’IPLIER
CMPEq
x 459)
CMPEG/(1
CompactPC
Madslze
PC
CMPEG/(1
5
LargePC
CMPEG/(1
5 x 27
CMPEG/(1
5 x 25 6)
SmallTruck
Medium
Truck
LargeTruck
CMPEG/(1
5 x 25 0)
CMPEG/(1
5 x 21 4)
CMPEG/(1
5 x 18 2)
Urban AER (mdos)
2006
Example:
Typ.
Initial ZEVCredit =
{1+[( 1 4 - 1) x (0 60)]}
{1+ [(1 85- 1)x (0 35)]}
(TransportationSystemMuit )
(Early Intro Mult)
=~1_66
=-0 16 per year
changes
* Stationcar cred,t multi
:EVs
- Enhancesusablhty of mass
- Freewaycapabilbtyand long
unnecessary
- Amount
of addJtmnalcredit may
increase from December
proposed
rewslons(2X)
e Newclass for eft credit determmatlor
(NEV/LSVdpscount)
Year 4+ In-Service/Under-Warranty
City EV
Cre¢
~1)Credit
Gem
n
High FFEV
Credit
Typ CEV
Credit
NEVCredit
’01
19
’02
19
’03 ’04
5 87 5 87
56
56
~8
4
4
125 625 625 01!
18
CEVs
’06
20t2
Estimated number
2003:
ZEVs
18
tf t00%Fu||
Function EVs
if 109%City EVs
If 100%NEVs
PZEVs
ATPZEVs
Vision
icles in
Without
ATPZEV
9,300
23,500
30,900
15,450
94,500
0
94,509
t0,700
.= Future
¯ Clean& healthfulair
¯ Steady,sustainable
¯ Mission-specificBEVsmaypl
Manufactu~Qbiga ion
Manufacturers)~
--.o,,.
_!.................
]___-.)
JL L- Il
12
10
8
6
,.-1-
a 4NI
4
2
e
CurrentRegulation
Timefrim~yr
.~
6
Abbrevi,atieq.S.
Used
¯
¯
EXTRA SLIDES
¯ BEV~atteryEleclrtc Vehicle
¯ HEV-R~E[ectr~cVehlcle
= GHEV-Gnd~l~ected HEV
O.BO: On Bo?rd p a~lb
~
MILMaffui3ctton
Inelce~l
~
ZEM-Zero Em=sslenMotorcycle ¯
¯ MIL-Malfuncbon
Indl
PZEV-PaPal Zero Emtsslon
¯ EFFMULT-Efficmrcy
Veh{cles
¯
DOT
Dept.
ofTransperla
AT PZEVAdvanced
I
¯ CMPEC~
California MdesP
Equwale!qt
Galen
EmissionVehicle
..... ~u~r ulna LOW
¯ LEVVehicle
SULcV_
. Low
. En-~se:on
- .....
Regu’,ahens
EmissionVehicle
¯ cEvC,~/E,e~c
Vehicle !,~ee~?~t?.~e
H~V)
¯ zEvZ~o
Er.,ss,on
Ve,.c,e. ~R.~,~~
¯
¯
Provided for Reference
LSV LowSpeedVehicle
NEV NmghborhoodElec~c
Vehicle (zero=emission
LSV)
!
¯
Technology
P.~a,
Zero
¯ c~E.c~.c~,l~,oi,
M,l~,P/
II- LOg8
am~r.~oe=
~
¯ VMTVeh,cle
M,es
T~.~ed̄ ~V
LEV program
¯ ~/m=le- gramsper mile
!1
7
Toyota
EV Commuter(e-corn)
May 16, 2001
Dave Hermanee
Toyota Technical Center, USA, Inc.
e-corn - Features
¯ 2-door, 2-passengermini-car
¯ Local personal transportation concept
¯ NaMH
batteries - -8 4 kW-hr, 320 pounds
° Regeneratwebraking
¯ High efficiency permanentmagnetmotor
® 60 mphtop speed
¯ 50 mile range(FTPcity)
Toyota
EV Commuter (e-corn)
1 oyota TechmcalCenter, USA,Inc
Dave Hermance
e-com Battery Pack
EV Commuter (e-com)
¯ 24 12-volt NIMH
batteries
¯ -8 4 kW-hr
capacity
e-com Battery Pack Location
e-com Placements
vehmle
floor panin a
reseflcarrier
¯ 103 worldw;de,15 in CA
¯ Demonstrationsonly
¯ Japandemosinclude integrated ITS elements
¯ Mamtec~ance-free
RAV4-EVbattery
pack
e-corn Motor
l
- Front-wheeldrive tr~nsaxle
¯ Three-shaft, single-speedreduction gearunut
¯ Max;mum
output = ~9kwat 2200-350(]rprn~- ,, =~,
e-com- Retail Potential
¯ Limitedretail potential dueto cost, range,top
speed,utdlty of design
¯ Not equal to conventionalgasoline
CrayonProject (e-corn)
City EV Regulatory Issues
¯ Credlts relat,ve to FFEV
. Cost per credEt
CrayonProject (e-coral
City EV Technical Issues
FMVSS compliance
° Real=world safety
- Acceleration performance
° Top speed
o Battery choice
- Range
¯ Recharge time
City EV Marketing Issues
¯ Americans don’t buy small cars
¯ Buyer expectat,ons
What Does the Market Want?
A significant
and growing percentage of
customers indicate a wdhngness to buy
an envlronmentaUy friendly veh,cJe,
if and only if, all other attributes are equal
The Demonstration
Test
of ITS/EV City car System with "Hypermini"
May 16, 2001
Masahiko Teramoto
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.
The Demonstration Test
of ITS/EV City car System
with UHypermini"
MasahikoTeramoto
NISSANMOTOR
CO,,LTD.
Outhneof the Project
Figl,Concept
Seamless transportatmn system~
= Doorto door
Res’ad::t~
I Yokohama
Mmato
M~rm2
"800
Companies in 1Kin square
I
J*50,00O
"Parking business
capacity persons
lO,O00cars
I
Yokohama
ITStEV CJ~ Car S~stem
P~
luagi
Tame NewTo~n)
ITS/EV Second Car System
Kvoto
J
Fig2, Howto use the system
Control center
~-~ -R ......
t~or~charge
~IL~Ia
~
/]
~"-’~
! *Comps,,,
oer~O00~s/
I ".ewbus,ne..~ea~tnce~osL~
~~
D~strmt
FIg4,1TS function
EVstation
(~-’-~,
Battery level warning
Call button in trouble
Vehicle st,uus mo
,~,
Voiceser~tce
~__.~=~
~ [
hate Mtre121
~r I authorlzatlor#rent/return
~ivlgaUott
~
Batterylevel warning
C~ll burton
t
Iti
,,~
I I \center/
Ill
EV stations
Fig5,1TS new funcbon-2
Fig3,System Components
E co-frmndlmess rod=cater
10
r
Your eeo-frtendilness
index
Saving weight of CO2431g-C
this vagueIs equtvalent to
B~’~’~.
,~
.!
3,8CC
volume
of
gasoline
Fig6,One day distance of EV
mlcro
A
~001II "-/"T
o
Fig8,Charging operation
,qaso~ef-’p~
,0 ....
[] I_l Ii
u. 0 I~l ¢I
o
/l~
o
l-.,.
l
lis:=~i=~<ojll
I
Ir I1"I-1
Easy and safe
r-
Oust insert the paddle)
Lselfcharge by user after
~i r, r q -,l~./,
o
o
o
i
aday
ddve:
0,0es0
t
Iths workioadl
one day distance (km)
F,gg,Parking space
~::-:~" ~W-;~o~--:--~-~’/
~m~,_ ’,--ll~ltrrlllli,,+__
- I~0 Hyper~lm
for4OrdmaryVehlc|e
= ~,5O,000($fi00}lmonth 6~%rsductfon pctenbal
I
I
-
\ ---I
Flgl0,Level
of Vehicles Use
I
Vi ,800,000($18,O00)t5yrslcar
NISSAN Car deeler
I
FIg12,CS for ITS new function
/F,~-verage rate of operation tn weekdayI
9host users
i
- +
Q, Is this function necessary for ITS/EV city car system ?
N=185
Call button
i~I tiei" d I~velWimlng
Ecofriendliness Index
"~ Yesoxacfly
2 Yes
3,Uncett~in
Onetouch route
~
guid~ ,o retum ~
Traffic information
service (compass
hnk ~~4No
5 Noabsolutely
0% 26% 40% 60% 80% 100%
20%
@%
Customers~tisfied this
system and service
Fig11 Adequate numberof users
per one car
6 8usersperonecar
~ =,
s.,~ .~
!{
.........
i
V/- ’:"
ACtualnumbero|’uscrs per oneczr
36%
Fig14.Development of NewITS system
i:~-I(o..o,.r..oo.,
...... d.t
for this system
~=~W,~
combination with EV
city car system has htgh
potentual of business
~ Ev station
A
(crowded)
I autho~on
price
’~
*hands
froe
Announcement
telephone !~ i~ .~
chargefee of EVstation B
~
(vacant)
/
Figl5, Self growth
model(YOKOHAMAxINAGI)
2001FY
...,o,.
.....
,roo.
ko
C-~’,.__
~I_
I~
.°,~’,
.........
r---"
~~II¢
3
F~
¯ ~iZ=~l~’~’~ II
- -~-~:~,
r
Chdd
2001FYpoints of the test
new dedicated ITS un¢t
synergy(ex cost) effect
-Yokoham~ mtegratmn
*Confirmation of income
(actual charging fee etc)
Th!NK
May 16, 2001
David Fabricatore
Th!nk City Project
~v
S
t
O
David Fabncatore
@
TH rNK city
T t
ProJect
Coordinator
@
@
@
@
@
@
TH*NK
Mobfltty
"IH%rK
technology
0
Our Vlston
,/ Create a news~tamablebusiness
enterprise
4 Connectv,~th customersin fun 8_
lnnovaaveways
Our Mtsslon
./ Providemnovatwe
soluuonsfor personal
mobthty
¯/ Incubatecutting edgetechnologies
EnvironmentalTrends
¯ / "Mostcars areusedfor shorttrips"
4" 70-80%
hve In c~t~asand close commurattes
"/Approx70%of all car driving ~s mthese areas
¢" 1 2 - 1 3 peopleper car onaverage
¯ / W~th
onlyhttle / or someluggage
Mostcars are larger than needed.
~’~ ~’:’~ ~ /~ Fresh approaches -~"--~
Canng for the enwromnent
EnvironmentalTrends
,/"Averagedriving &stancelower than 35 miles per day"
-,/7 ~%"*all be stop-and-godrivingby 2010w~thaverageof
21) mph}
Conclusion
I
¢" Best selhngvehicles m USare SUV’sand trucks
*" B;g d~sconnectbetweencustomerneedsvs purchase
dec~smn
¢" Manyconsumershavemulti-vehicle fleets - mwtuch
vehMes
have dafferent utthzatmnpatterns
Consumer
transportationneed~are evolwng
Opporturatyto prowdespeemhzed
vehicles &mobtht),
servicesthat replaceregularvel’acles
I
Pilot Program
Goals
¢" Develop
the marketfor the newctry-elass electric vetucle
¢" Test the FH~NK
city mnewroche marketingprograms
stated to urbanvehicles
¯ / Provideunderstanding
of
c~t?,,~iasscustomers
prior to
~~,°
~| ;~"’~
? ~
launch m 2002
¢" GenerateposlW~e
PR/
a~areness
~~
,," ZEV
credits - 4 48
!
~ ~
~r e er~tt Of
Frame and Body
General Specifications
LowerFrame Steel frame~90%high
.~
~trcngthsteel ~’le
coated
UpperFr~ae,e I/xma~edand welded
ah~rdaum
Bod~vt~rk Thcnnop|asl~e
(polyethylene)
~..~,~:: ,
~,~ +~ ~
Roof
ABSplas~c
Sea~ngCapaeJty 2
Body D~mcamons
length 9 8 fL
w~dth 5 25tL
hezBht 5 I
luggage 124 ca.IL
Curbweight
2,075lbs
GVW
2,490lbs.
Tep Speed
56 mph
Aec~leraUon
0-30 ~ m 7
Range,city driving 53 rml~(¢st)
Electrical Systems, Motor & Chasms
it
coolea
PowerStorage |1 5 KWh,IOOAh
Charger
Condueiave
Internal
190-240V- 14A
(3 212kW)a~r cooled
Charge Time 4 - 6 hout~at 14A
MotorType ThreePhase A/C
lnductaon Motorwater
cooling
May Oa~ut 27kW
Voltage
114volts
Drive
Tires
Brakes
--~,~+.~
Front WheelDm’¢
155/70 RI3
front d~ebrakes
reard .,-..wabrake
Safety
LowCenter of Gravity
hteel and Aluminum
Safety Frame
S~de Imp~Bearmm the Doors
DnverI, mmA~rBag
Sealb¢ltswtffi pre trnmonera
Battery Separatedfrom P~ssenger
Con~amnent
¯ HeatedFrontend RearWu~Is.luelds
¯ ChddSeat Te~er Anchor
Standard Equipment
TmtedGl~s~
3kWhlecm¢ Heater
Pro C~bmHca~g/Coolmg
AM/FM]CD
Radio wlth 2 gw-akees
, !2V Auxlhar/Choler
13 5 .~13okr allunmum
"~h eels
Regcneran~¢ Braking
Customer Profile
Pri~ at e.qRetad(Tustomers
,/ Urb~based, secxmdcar
¢" Substitutefor mlolder
~econd]tlurdcar
¯ / Envlronmental
b aware
- pelsonalpnontles
~ Opmtor,Leade"sand
innovators
Fleet Customers(prlvate/govenamc~t)
¢" Local droving
4 Antlcrpamd/fixedroutes
~" Stop& Gost)le of driving
95%+
of Vehicleis RecycIab~e
For more information
www.thinkmobility.eom
+
@
3
NEVCO Gismo
May 16, 2001
Carl Watkins
NEVCO
Presentationby Carl Watkins,Neighborhood
Electric Vehicle Company,
at:
Meeting the NewCARBZEV MandateRequirementsConference
The, object=veof the A~r Resources
Board=s to producecleanera~r Thereis an
urgentneedto reducethe useof gasolineby replacingICEveh=cleswith zero
emissionvehicles or ZEVsFossil fuels shouldnot be usedfor local transportation
wherealternative fuels w~ll accomphsh
the task Electric Vehicles,,f desCgned
for
specific uses,are enhrelycapableof accomplishing
local, in-towntips Incentives
are an effect=vetool to get ZEVsInto useas quickly as possibleAnyZEVthat
ehm~nates
the useof a gasohne
vehicle for a large segment
of the marketshould
receive equ=valentgovernment
incentives as other ZEVs
Threewheeledenclosedelectric motorcyclescanehmlnatea large segmentof the
vehicle miles traveled in ICEvehicles In someways,they havea better chanceof
accomplishingthis substitution than other types of ZEVsor AFVsSuchvehicles as
the Gizmo,from NEVCO,
and the Sparrow,by Corb=nMotors, deservethe same
incentives as other EVsTheyare capableof hawngat least as muchimpact as
more,car-hke EVs,andsoonerthan other EVsthat haveincentives, becausethey
are moreaffordably pncedandcurrently available, andthey meetlarge segments
of
the market
Morethan 75 percent of all travel can be accomplishedby the G~zmo
Demographic
ands,tat~stlcal mformatton
showthat mosttravel is onepersontravelnngalone, and
go=ngfewerthan 25 miles in a daywith a small amountof cargoMostof thesetrips
do not include freewaytravel With other conslderahons
of cost andcongestion,
small single personEVsoffer an excellent ophonfor future urbantransportation
DemographicData
In 1990,the NahonalPersonalTransportahon
Surveyindicated that 50 percentof all
car tips took fewerthan 10 m~nutes.
Sixty-five percentof all tips are non-work
tips,
whichaccountfor 59 percentof all vehicle miles traveled It also showed
Non-work
Activity
Social/Recreational(lncl Vacabon)
Other Family/PersonalBusiness
Shopping
AverageD~stance
11.8
74
51
This type of tip can easily be accomphshed
~n a Gizmoor other similar vehicles
CommuterTravel
TheBayAreaCommute
Profile 2000revealedthe following facts
Over70 percent of area commuters
traveled less than 40 m~les
Forty-five percenttraveled fewerthan 20 miles
The averagespeedwas30 miles per hour
The averaget~mewas34 m~nutes
Sixty-sevenpercentof all commuters
travel alone
TheGizmocanaccomplishth~s type of travel at a reasonablepnce
Because
of the hmitat~onsin rangeof EVs,they will almostalwaysbe a secondor
third vehicle Th~smeans
they w~tt be addedto the exxst~ngvehiclesthat a family
owns.Wherea secondor third car is concerned,the 1998AlamedaExposit~on
surveyshowsthat the m~leage
requirements
are evenless stringent, requiring a
mediandistanceof only 20 m~lesThestype of apphcat~on
~s especially appropriatefor
the Gizmo
See Attached Graph
EnergyEfficiency
TheBureauOf TransportationStatistics keepsrecordson vehicle "energyintensity"
=n terms of BTUsper passenger-mileThis allows us to makea companson
of
vehIcles’ averageefficiency Theless energyusedper mile, the less pollution is
generatedBetter energyefficiency should be encouragedThe Gizmoms designed
to accomphsh
the requireddrlwngas efficiently as possible
1996EnergyIntensity by Vehicle Type
Type
Automobile
Light truck
AmtrakTrains
Airhnes
Transit Bus
Inter-city Bus
BTUsper passengermite
3700
4529
2400
4100
4500
1000
Current AFVs
Hybnd(50 mggal)
HondaPlus EV
Gizmo
2280
1300
650
Speed
Thefirst G=zmos
weredesignedto havea top speedof only 30 miles per hour to
s=mpl,fyhcensmg
Ourexperiencewasthat this wasnot fast enoughto travel on
neighborhood
arterial roadsthat feed traffic from oneareato anotherTheseare the
roads that commuters
use, and are the sameroads that peopleuse whentravehng
aroundtown At 30 mph,the driver feels uncomfortablebecauseof the actions of
other dnverswhenencountenng
a delay in order to blend comfortablyw,th normal
traffic, a vehicle mustbe able to attain a speedof 40 mphor moreWecompletely
redesignedthe Gizmoto meetthis requirement
Replacinggasolinevehicles
Thetype of gascars that are in mostneedof replacingare older, morepolluting
vehicles Theseare generally driven by peoplewhoare less able to pay morefor a
vehicle That~s whya low priced EV~s essential for replacinggasvehiclestn large
numbers
Congestion
For mostcity planners,increasingcongestionis a biggerproblemthan pollution. By
buildIngelectric vehiclesthat are smaller,a better long termsolutionis possible
Bumper-to-bumper
stop-start traffic andcontinual rdhngare majorsourcesof
pollulson, whichthe Gizmo
eliminatesby bemng
electnc, but also by taking up less
spaceandparkingeasily
Conclusion
If youwantto get a large number
of ZEVson the road, youhaveto makeit as easy
as possiblefor peopleto buythemBecause
thesewill all be ntchemarketveh,cles,
youvv~ll needto havea variety of optionsto meetmanypeople’sneeds
Theeffort to get peopleto sw~tchto ZEVsis aboutcompetitionbetween
gas vehicles
and ZEVs, not amongZEVsthemselves
Thereare mJlhonsof cars sold everyyear CARB
is just trying to get a small
percentageof those to be clean
Thebetter eachmanufacturer
does,the better weall will do Weall needcred,b=llty
Weall needto help peoplelearn a newwayof getting around.It is tremendously
difficult to get peopleto change
Theauto ~ndustry=s spending
bllhonsof dollars
trying to conwncepeople to buy SUVsWeneed to build momentum
by hawng
thousandsof peopleswitch to ZEVsevery month.
All EVs,whateverthe type, needall the incentivesthey canget
Commute
Distanceover Time(by mi4eag
I
One-WayMdes
1992
1994
1995
1996
1998
0-5 Mdes
29 0%
36 3%
33 8%
32 7%
6-10Miles
183%
181%
18 6%
11-20 Mdes i
26 0%
23 4%
21-40Miles
20 4%
41+ Mdes
7"/=
i
1999
2000
25 I% i
27 6%
27 8%
20 0%
20 2%I
19 8%
17 2%
24.9%
24.6%
27.5%
261%
25 9%
16 8%
15 2%
161%
2O 7%
19 O%
22 0%
6.3%
5.4%
7.6%
6.6%
6.5%
7.5%
71%
1,600
3,201
400
3,188
1,171
3,572
3, 608
J
¯ --.------’1
1992
1.=’Ill.2
1993
1,L4
--
11
~
1994
~immmm=
Miles Per Hour
11.0
15
1995
1996
3’ .7
3C.2
2~. 8
1~
199ej
2000
[~
=="==’~= Average Minutes
~
One-Way
Miles
1998 4lamexta bttemaoonal Eleemc I ehtcle E.wosmonI~de & DtTve Summata
QUESTION 7-
APPROXIMATELY HOW MANYMILES DOES
EACH CAR TRAVEL PER DAY?
Exhibit I I shows the average number of males driven per day for the ,,ehlcles
in the household
Themedianvalue Is also shownThemm~mum
numberof miles for all vehicleswas1 nule per
day Willie the maximumvaried between 100 and 200 mdes per day
Exhibit 11
Average and Media. Miles Driven per Day
First Car
SecondCar
Thtrd Car
[] A’,erage I~ Me&an
’
Fourth Car
Developmentof Affordable Electric Vehicles
May 16, 2001
Hyungpyo Woo
ATT R&D
FACT
SHEETS
MAY,
200
OF
|
PARADE
DESIGN
&
DEVELOPMENT
Meetlrlg the NewCARBZEVMandateRequirements
May15 -16, ITS-UC
Davis
HyungpyoWoo
Parade, an affordable Bec~ric Vehicle
RTTY~]ZJ
OUTLINES
I WhatPeopleWantor ExpectFromElectric Vehtcle
& Pnce
- Right Balanceof Performance
- Attrachve Styhng, Economecs
& Ergonomics
- Safetyas the First Pnonty
II NewApproachto Vehicle Design
- NewVehicle Platform Development
- NewManufactunngMethod
Development
- New/Carry-overComponents
A~’r~&DCo
t~%~eTowet
#211JQrlqtl~775 I ~ ~:~.~ k~-~akLI~ofec1411837 T~ +B~3190~ 533~FG~-. +87_319075344SL~ct~C~,Fd~
1
Parade,an affordableElectncVehtcle
III ReducingDevelopment
Cost
- UseAll the Available Resources
- GeographscalAdvantages
-tn-houseEngineeringCapability
- Outsourcmg
IV CurrentStatus
Fmancmg
for Buridmg40 prototypes for Test
. D~scussmg
w~thUScitres for Manufactunng
Faclhty Setup
DevelopingLowSpeedElectric Vehicles
parade
i
,
1st Stage - Scale Models
¯ ................. r
1
t;
2
parade
Ideation
Skelches
Intenor colorsketches
for MJ=V
parade
-~-.....
..........
FinaIModel . ..
Exterior
3
Manutacturlng Costs at Vehlcles Affected by Process & Volumes
~
Manu~c~JOng
COS
CO~ ~un=~’Jt
~
cf~g~3-Cra
CCs[OfTyDIcal
EV o~ ~
~
C°sl of TYDLaJ EVO/
t
~,a~t F_-ct~:rl o’ H ,lh S:e:J
"
Cost of P@r@O~of ArT FlSO [ ......
q
~m~l~.
i
5 0(30
Armualpro~ct~n
Volume
60 000
f
Base Camp in Korea 1c~ EV Development
RTT;-’ L,
O CostAdvc=n~c=ge
of Loco|Services& Parts
K~r~
¯7
GNo P~- Copda in1995
"~8
’~1
Devo~uo~lo~c~t Kocea~ Currency
O Avall=bllty of Technology
& Pc=rls o~ SmallVehicles
D~veloped
&
Pr~duc~td
mUIi
~ S
Vehicle Models ~th V,~qee~bc~eot 2 500mmor Less
O Over-supplyof Tc=lente¢~Human
Resourcesin Korea
,4 KoreanAuto Makers(Out of 7) wereMergedS~nce’i998
* More Tt~,n 30 %of ExperiencedDescgnEngineersChanged
Career Since 19£8
Early R~rsmentProgrsmsof Auto MakersERCOU,~ge
Tal~:~qted Engineersto Leave
ATTR&OCO~d~sVer~ureT~r#2~~ J;~1qha~q77S ~ ~n K~ ~unq~K~rea4~ ~ 837 T~ ÷82~ ~3 P~ +82 3~ ~7 ~3~ ~l¢~r~f¥C.anl~a[
4
Parade
,,e,-~ ~, OtherEVsIn Market
Honda EV+
EV60 / EV150
Construction
GM EV1
[
D~rnen.slons/Welg~s____
$~ffng Capedty (~.t+l~r)
4 {2 + 2
Wheet.bnt,e
2 4r~~=
I
I
42- 2
2
250I ~.~
2 52~
Number of D~s
/
Performances
[
Accele~l~ ~-~o ~r~ h)
15 C sec
C~rry~ng C~pad~
Pur~ase[Lea~e
177 sec
323~g
9 sec
3f 1 l:g
~[,
Terms
t~t~ly Lease Price
I~O’ / TBD
’
$ 454
$ 424= [ $ ,~gg"
’, ~ ~er~Vs4ue~r~v~.vpvz "t~3~ ~Jel~L ’SOH~V~ M~rd~19~9 ,~FCHE’vt~,~hLeaoAeda~y
4 M~cht~9~V~L~:CMEv~" N~H88~e~
Body-In-White (Summary]
Ptofform-Y
Ptlrnc~ Male~bl
A[%rI qlZ’qAJk~#
J ~C.CLJ
Convenfionol
SI~
t~tmaB~ Fon’nlng Ro~=
F.~#u~-~nBe~q.3
8tompln~
Refe~edJo=nt Proce~
Ar~’~P~f’>3 ~r,~.- ~
~.1"l~J
Spot We~r~
~
ooo}
~4
#
ManufaCturing Cod
.......
LL’~’’"-" ~-"-~
’’ - "-
~
$2
$1000
.&3P~
400’
Conventional ’~,~.Number
~ P~rt=
~¢.~,
so
~ 300kg
We~t~t
OK ~OK
4~K ~OK 80K lOOK
--210m
L~gt~
~ ,,~ ~t
S
Body~n-whrte
{sideBocl+y)
~ RTT 7~.E~D
6
Vehicle Safety Crashworthlness
Before Crash
¯
After Crash
ol ,’ ¯
! +6231 907~=333
AT~liPiD CoMidas~n~feTo’~eti~211~g77~-1~ Kc~gKyungkl
I~ore(i 41 | a37Te
Fax.+8231 90= 5344~J al ~.~ r.f~t
Chassis
Design
Resources
f
.=,=
f lfl’l-’l"~7,~,J
....
Full CAEAbfl~y from Concept to Production
= CATLAfor CADop~ofioo
® ADAMS
DADSMAil~B for vehecle dynamics analy=s
¯ NASTRAN
ANSYS
for finrh9 element cmoly~is
Highly Qualified Engineers
¯ Able to handle boih deign and analy~s
¯ Over 10 years experience eachin autcrnoflve indusJiy
O Design Cycle Experience
¯ All of drawing, anoly~sand tes~ corretaflc~ work ~eps
¯ Average3 maio car programcarrle¢t out
Q Tightiy
Combined VVori~ow
= Design, ana,~,s=s, devetopmeotand outsourcing wtJhln ane team
0 ’,..Veil
Developed Information Flow
" V~Ide knovAedge an ~rcmg and I~otc~yptng
Full awarenessof ~multoneous e~glr~e~ng about produc~on
r-I/’iillil
til|
/~-TR&DITO
flei:~ll..ervoJieTowi!t#21
i Jl~ne~nq775
I ll~ri. Koyanq
Kyunqie
i(orlti4n-8]7Tel~82~11
itlOG5-:13]FIll ~82311107~t~Jt14
:irlrttt
7
Chassis Worhng Recess
Dynamic Bounct~-y Cond~hon
’
Fie)~ble Boc~estr~ormatlon
Strength &
$tlffness
AI~ R&D’sChassis Design Capability
-3 Resource to Develop NewChassmPlatform
ATT R&D
O~’her
Automakers
-5 Month~
U~
~~~,
---
Analyam
~~
Rofoh/p~ng
8 Months
Time
ATr R&D
Other
Aulorn~kers
~-~
25 Man-Month~
Pr ofotyp~ng
~’~~’~~,~’:-~
~ ~’,~!~:~
;’!,,, "~~,,~:~?~h,~
s
~0IVl~n-Months
Manpower
ATT R&D
¢
~
10~20%
Other
Aulomokers
.
~ .....
. ........
; ~ ~
t 00%
Expense
~’~ I~C~Mi~$Ventut’eTower#211J~l~m~r~q775
I~arcK~fzn~
Kyun~
~orea~111~7
Tel -B231
907533~
F~, +8231~07-53-~
~’.~tTl~o~,~,l
8
Suspension
L~ghtlng Dewces
.......
L
Ta,~~rp
° U3 ody
--EU
9
InstrumentPanel Assembly
Instrument Panel Common
Use Concept
¯ ghC Handed ,
Lef~ Handed
.~TFR~?..DCo
t~Cd~’~entu~e~r#2H
J~qha~1775-11b,
an, l~y~q K?un,~lta~rea411-837 TeL+B23~
~0Y-53~3Fa~ +~23l-~75344~1~¢~"
10
Heating & ~r-Condltionlng System
-’t
.I,;,
~Rffim
Mechanismfor Enclosure Parts
Advantages
of AT1R&D’sTechnobgy
Development
=----~’
A
Production
Use & Dlspesa|
@
EVMa’,.ulactu~ngCost
[ Fc-AGcured
JpEVMode
)
..........
$’10 $’tSm,~’on
..............................
31)- 40 ~L~O,~
[;%h
2
Local ContentsOf P~’ts
Todlnginvec~ment
Fo~B oc~Parts
DoclFas~rg~
CcrMo~e )
F~,~de
$2-- $3 m;! k*n
;"
---.2/
F~zade
01~ EV
{~Jum.’~um
Bid~i S~eel UnL~:~i
%
Parade,
anaffordable
ElectricVehicle
r
CurrentStatusof Parade
EVProject
- Financing
for Building40 prototypes
for Test
- OnGoingD~scusslon
with USc~tles for Manufactunng
Fac~htySetup
LowSpeedElectncVehicles
- Developing
AffR&DCo
Mk:lcaVe~elc,~’#21| J~ 7~5 1 I~n K~,~ngKwng~Ko~eo411-~37
Tel +B2319(175333FC~+823~9Q75344$1~rC~rr~,~L~,
12
The Force EV- Solectria’s
Path to Emerging as a
Premier Electric and Hybrid Electric Drive
System Component Developer and Manufacturer
May 16, 2001
Vasilios Brachos
Solectria Corporation
Design Options and Simulation Results for
Small Full-Function EVs
May 16, 2001
Institute
Andrew Burke
Design Opllions and Simulation Results
Small Full-function
EVs
for
Andrew Burke
Institute of Transportation Studies
Unwerslty of Cahforma-Davls
Outline
of the Presentation
Introduction
Types of EV designs
Design Considerations
for Small FFEVs
CharactensOcs of small ICE passenger cars
Characteristics
of electric passenger cars
EV design parameters
Simulation
approach (SIMPLEV)
Simulation results
Cost considerations
and estimates
Comparisons with grid-connected
hybrids
Conclusions
Pap¢r pre~el;t~ to
Mee{mg the ZEV Mandate
[ Requlremen{~ Grid-connected
t |{ybn,4s
and C~ I~Vs
N|a~ !~16,
2001
Types
of EV Designs
Full-function EVs- designed to open ate on
interstate highways and fi eeways at speeds up to
75-80 rnph (ex EVI}
C~ty EVs - designed to operate on cnty artermls at
speeds up to ~ mph(ex E-corn and "i 10nk)
N__e.mghborhood
EVs. designed to operate on city
streets at speeds upto 25 mph(ex DynasO’)
Design Considerations
Small Full-function
for a
EV
¯ Minimumvehicle length that is marketable m large
numbers
¯ Safety- must satisfy the FMVSS
tests and be
perceived as safe by public and insurance industry
¯ llave sufficient acceleration performance for
mergingon fi eewa~sand interstate highways (sets
poweu reqmremeut)
¯ Sufficient range for regional use ( probably about
100 redes at highwayspeeds)
CharacterBstlcs
Characteristics
of Small/Compact Passenger
Using Engines and Gasoline
of Electric
Cars
i"o+’e"
"P
i~o---dei t~---~Cnr~b---- Len-~--~h-~Widtl~--~ Tt~ax.---]
!
[We,ght (inches) [(inches) [(inches)
-
Ibs~
--A~--F--2o~--¢8-----~
------7
Passenger Cars
51
49
]
|67
137
--
61
63
I
36
25
- ~---T-+s+-
- + I~-i
! Escort ! 247s _,~ 17s~_~, -~-~sY L H~ I
Small Fall-function EV Design Parameters
D~MIFRBENZ
- Mm+mum
size pm ametel s- length 140-150 iqches,
width 60-65 inches, height 55-60 inches
Speed and acceleration - cruising speed of 70-75
mphand 0-60 mph time of 12-15 seconds
* Highway range - 100-125 miles at 65 mph
. Vehicle utlht’v - batteries should be placed outside
the passenger compartment and trunk, probably
undel the vehicle
* Safety - vehlc|e must pass insurance industry crash
tests with excellent rating (not just acceptable)
® Cost- materials selection and manufacturing done
to minimize(control) cost consistent with battery
selection to meet the range ~ equlrement
The A-Class
Electric Vehicl(
+
t2-HEVt2
GMG-1
GMO
- 2
~ZHEV-60 7-HEV28
Monobtoc
p~oouc,i¢o~
~o’roTyPE F~J~TOPr
PE PROTOTYPE I~OTO’P~pE
HEV
-EV
EV
HEV
HEV
1’i
10
’~0
15
1Q
132
12
12
72
~2]
We~ht
(kg)
Voltm~e
{tL)
C~pactty
(Ah)
4C0
102
178
177
74
85
388
~02
175
174
69
95
388
1+02~
~+~ ~~
1~4
4~,.
~
~40
102
81
43
2
28
!
Simulations
Simulations done using SIMPLEV
Vehicle parametersselected to be approprtatefor a
small full-fu.ct~on EV
Powertrampowel (motor and reverter) selected
meet the accelel ation and speed l equ. ements
¯ Battery sized to meet the range requirementat
highway speeds
Simulations done for advancedbatteries -mckel
metal hyd~ ide, hthmm-mn,and sodmmmetal
chloride (Zebra) teehnologees
167i
~02
125
32
22
12
Simulation Results
Simulation Results
Concept
Fu|kfunction
Small EV
(Cd= .25, Af=2.1 m2, fr= 008.)
~
~ttery[Batteryl
~ype i Welght
Stored
Ene-~gy
Test
Insight
~.-~ehi~n~all-~
[ Cycle (miles)
(kVI (kWh)We,ght
I
-~
Use
0Xh/m,)
t type
We,ght
188
~
,
m[
I
~u
J .....
[---
1
I
L__2
i Ltthium [
ion [
I
I92 [
___ __fI
l
_
/
t
t meta| I
~
[ chl°mde
F-- It--- -7--
I
174
~m~l
I~-----F’
~---
22 i
rfii~-wav7
1054
--¢I --
~UDS~+
~s9
i5-o
~L
’
[
i
I
~
144
Stored
l Cycle
test
[(,n,les)]
(kg) ! (kWh)I Weighq
metal
dr=d¢
,--~--~---
EV
(Cd=.25, Af= 1.86 m2, fr=o0O7)
~
16
! I095
|
l
[
I _
~
I
[
l
I
!
138 t
~ ---’
I
--~ I .......
--,
143 ~ 170 *
i FUDS I
’
136
I Hlgh~_vavl 163 ~
Aeeeleratzon performance motorlm~erter 45kW,
0-30 mph 4 see, 0-60 mph 12 sec, top speed -70 mph
Cost Considerations
Cost estimates made for a small full-function
EV
Electric drive power - 45 kW
Battery energy storage - 22 kwh
Motor/rover ter cost to OEM- $40/kW, $20/kW
Barrel y costs to OEM- $3So/kWh, $2S0/kWh,
$150/kWh
Differential
OEMcosts between EV and ICE cars
® Batteries assumed to last the hfet,me of the car
iI
%.~ z=
I
|
,><-j
|
.LH_lg!,,,’~
I_L~.
6___L
_±6S.,ph
1 98=8_L
__
Aceelerat;on performante ,8 kWmotor/m~erter, 204
0-30 mph4 sec, 0-60 mph 11.5 sec, top speed > 70 mph
=i°
]0~
_~,
.-
Estimated OEMCost Differentials
between the
Small FFEV and ICE Car for Various Batter)
and Motor/Inverter
Costs
Cost Estimate Comparisons for batten
Electric and P|ug-in Hybrid Veineles
~o~~~
--198~
20
r
7300 6100
]-~5~--}
5100~ 3900
150 I~oo ~ ~00
{
[
!
250
manufac{llrmg
__
Cost(S)
(I) rower~ram
2) Tota; veh
2675 -
[ $535/I.Wh}
I 1800- [--5500j
’
-
Inverter } kWh [ Cost
Cost
! (S/k~x
b)
]
i Motor/reverter ~- Battery MotorT-V-Ba~OEM
EV OEM
UmtCost
Cost
Inverter [ Cost ] drtvehne dtfferena~l
{$/RW)
’ (S/kWh) Cost(S)
($)
cost ($) cost ($)
I
¯
|_~ ....
[_
I ........
40
lsoo [ 7700 I 9500
8300
} ~o
i,
y-powered
(I) |0371
($44/kW)
(Ntwth3,
(2) ~s4ss
($357/kW|)
600-!:.:7400
r 9oo_ oo__
iI 6400
! 900 , 5500
[ 5200 -4
~]-Sg
6 ~ [
3478
¯ ICE car ha~ a 60 kWengine costing $20/kWto the OEM
(t) s~4s
(2) 13448
Delta-manufactui tag cost compal ed to an ICE cat
$4400-$5300
* II)brtd (range 25-40miles)
$8400-$9500
o EV(range 130-165miles)
Conclusions
¯ Performance
Fuel Econom)of Small Plug-m Hybt nd Vehicles using
L~thmm-~on
Batte, ~cs
I
Vehicle
(_’~ncept
FFEV
Battery
SVetglt t
(kg)
59
[All-eleetNc[
Range on
the F lIDS
_ (n.)
--8 ....
~
Driving
( ycle
(mpg)
FUDS
617
64 4
41 I F’u.S
67 3
71.6
.......
59
Fuel
economy
] itjgh~ ax
¯ Packaging
- no problem
- no problem
® Safe~’
- probably no problem with
good engineermg
. Cost
- this ts the problem,
especmlly battery costs,
need to be about $150/kWh
High Power, Long-Life Advanced
VRLAfor Cycling Application
May 16, 2001
Kent Snyder
Naoto Hoshihara
Panasonic-Matsushita
ZEBRA Battery
May 16, 2001
Cord-H. Dustmann
MES-DEA
~-DEA
ZEBRA
Battery
Cord - H Dustmann
~-DEAsA
Stablo, Switzerland
ITS - Davts
Daws,15/1605 2001
Davis t5/16 52001 (1)
IIz
~-DEA
ZEBRA,Best Available High Energy Battery
Basicbattery chemistry
Cell Design
Battery Design
Battery SystemComponents
- BMI(Battery Management
Interface)
- MBS
(MultyBatteryServer)
- BC(Battery Charger)
5 Safety,durability, recycling
poweredvehicles
6 ZEBRA
7 Production,conclusion
1
2
3
4
Davis 15/16 5 2001(2)
~-DEA
Periodisches System der Elemente
~enode
~chale
bt
ZSNder
Gruppet
El~menie
]e a
b
Penode I
2 t~=2
1H
2 2~-8
3U
22~.8
11N~
2 32= t8
t9 K
2 32= 18
37 P~
~ 47=32
5~Cs
GrL~ppe
II
a
b
Gr uppeW
b
GruppeV
a
b
5B
6C
7N
13~
~4$!
15P
Gruppe
Vt
a
b
Grippe
VII
a
b
,t JUppe
VIli
t
! Gml’,pe
(~
2He
I 4Be
12~
20el
21S¢
29Cu
22TI
31Ga
3~Sr
47 Ag
39Y
48 Cd
S6B=
~Hg
87 F[ 79 Aa 88 R=
3
I
I Gtu:ope
II
b
Iz
J407J
49k~
5?L=:)
23V
32Ge
Sn
24C.z
83B=
,
34 Se
25 ~n
:35~
42 Mo
43T¢
51Sb
521"e
~J
73T=
~.Pb
9F
10Ne
17CI
33As
4t Hb
72Hf
6O
74 W
84 P=
75 Re
I
85~
t
26 Fe 27 Co
36Kr
44 gu 45 Rh 4~P~
54 Xe
76 OS T/k 78 P=
86 Rn
I
Davis15/16 5 2001(3)
~-DEA
RKeramlk
= 2: 0nterfacel
+ Knstall+ KG+ Interface2)
+ f (Onenherung)
R Keram~k
ca 6 £z cmbe1300°C
- bel Raumtemperatur
> 20 k~ cm
Daws15/16 5 2001 (4)
I! ZEBRA
~-DEA
Load
Charger
:,.Ni,
%
, 2Na+ NiCI2
NI + 2NaCI,
ZEBRA
Technology
- BasicElectrochemistry
~-DEA
2NaCI+Ni
oO
Details
on
theright
Currentcollector (+ pole)
OCV
2 58 at 3000C,
OperatingRange
270°Cto 350°C,
Typicalcapacity32Ah
N~ckelchlorlde
+
-~-6-dlum
alumlnlu
mchlonde
--~ NiCIz +2Na
~
NaAI CI4 LiquidElectrolyt
13"Alp 03 Ceramic
Elecirolyt
lary Gap
~
Charge
2NaCl+Nl 4
NICl2+2Na
Ceramic
eleclTolyt
NaAI CI4 Liquid Elec~o~yt
Sed~L~m
B" AI203 Ceramic
Electrolyt
Capillary.Gap
Cell can(pole)
W~ck
tl
2 NaCI+ Ni ~---_--* NiCl
2 + 2 Na
~{~
Discharge
tQad
Cell Reachon
3
~-DEA
Cell voltage[V]
2Na+2A~CI3+NtCI2
~ NI+2NaAECI4
3,05
2Na+N~CI2~ NJ+2NaCI
2,58
3Na+NaA~CI4~ 4NaCI+A~
1,58
100
Cell React=on
at 300°C
~-DEA
ML1cell crosssection
Status of charge[%]
~-DEA
~"- Alumma
Electrolyt
I1"- Ceramtc
with TCB
5
NJ+ 2NaCI~
= 2Na+ NsCI2
unit
Capac=ty
Ah
OCV
V
Normal charge voltage V
Fast charge voltage
V
Max Regen Voltage
V
Peak power
W
(80% DOD, 2/30CV,
ML3
32
2 58
2 67
2 85
31
185
ML4
26
2 58
2 67
2 85
31
155
ML8
2O
2 58
2 67
285
31
125
+ 112/- 60 90
705
605
232
198
117
110
262
256
70
5OO
146
103
250
30s, 335°C)
Maxcurrent
Weight
Lenght
Spectfic energy
Specrfic power
A
g
mm
Wh/kg
W/kg
6"- Ceramic with TCB
-DEA
Vacuum
insulat~on
Coohng
+
i
1
JBectnc heater I
Heating / cooling Systemof the ZEBRA
Battery
Currentterminals
~-DEA
Heater
Thermal
Insulation
Battery Management
interface
Air
Coohng
__~
~---+Power
~aO~ I"- CAN
Cells
Upto 16batteryunits in parallel ( 285kWh/ 510kW)
ZEBRABattery
System
Cooling Plates
?
~-DEA
Insulahonbox
Type
Z5-278- Z5-557ML-64 ML.32
Capacity
Ah
64
32
Rated Energy
kWh 178
178
OpenCircuit Voltage
278 6
0-15% DOD
V
557
Maxdischarge current
A
224
112
°
Cell Type/Nof cells
ML3/ 216
Weightw~th BMI
kg
195
Specific energyw.t~t BMIWh/kg
94
EnergydansAty~houtSMI Wh/I
148
Specific power
W/kg
169
Powerdensity
W/I
265
Peak power
kW
32
80%DOD2/30CV 36,s 335"C
Ambienttemperature
Thermalloss
at 27(}°CInternal temperature
Z5 standardBattery with maindata
°C
W
-40 to +50
< 110
~-DEA
V A Ah
Fastcharge
1 h rating
\ j.-----
300t 0 ! 60
27617
s! 50
40
250
I 5 0 30
225 2 5
20
10
200
0
0 00
1 23
2"46
4 10
5 33
6.56
Z5C Normal Charge m 7 5h
V
250
200
150
100
50
A Ah
100
i
80~’l~___li~.......j----
to J L..__.~
40
-100
~ ~Volt_age
L Curren-~_~ --
20
----
I
..........
~.
I
i,, :’
i
I
-150
-200! 0
,,
0 00
Integrated booster
0 33
1"06
1-40
2:13
-DEA
c
60
o~ 40
Ni/MH
20.
0-
0
25
50
75
100
Specific constant power
125
150 Wlkg
Ragone
D)agram
for tract(onbatterIes
ZEBRA
Battery SystemDesign
10
r
~
~<
--7
1 --~ I trac on
Input
¢ Vehlele
Interface
+ CAN
11- Processor
--~
-Processor~
r
......
LV
BMi- Battery Management
System
MBS- MultyBatteryServer
11
~-DEA
Technical
data
(Prehmmary)
Type
Output voltage
DCoutput power
Input current AC
Efficiency/ load
Protect=onclass
Input voltage
Controt
Cooling
Ambient temperature
EMC
Weight
i ! ZEBRA°Chargers
BC-278-Z-3-A
Unit
V
W
A
kg
BC-557=Z,,3-A
240 to 305
480 to 610
3300
- 15,5
95%/3 3 kW, 90%/400W
IP 6 5
170-253VAC,47=63 Hz
PWMby BMI
Air
-25°C to 40°C
4O°Cto 70°C derated
95/54/EG
ca 8
BatteryCharger
CanDisplay
t2
~-DEA
ZEBRA
Battery Safety Concept
ZEBRA
Battery TypeZ12- Crashtest at 50 Krn/h
~-DEA
Steel
BMI
2%
4%
Thermal Insulation SiC
3 5%
Mica
4%
Cells
78%
materials of Z5
o"
Cu
~BMI
~SS
D Steel
Therma~
insulation
cellaneous
2%
I MICA
@Cu
¯ Mlscellen~ous
0 Ceils
Material of ZEBRA
Battery TypeZ5 (Wetght195 kg)
’,-"O-- Dt~ltm’gt~2223M~ch
1993I
IX 25,
20,
15.,
A,,
45-
""
~ t~s bratty ~ becQo~ ~’~t fm 9y~r~
Calendarhfe
I4
~-DEA
ce~ 24o
~.~r--
i!i--
~
na,meplat~
cycl~
Cycle hfe
Requirementsof the AutomotiveIndustry
PW"soft" Hybrid, 42 V, 1-2 kWh, 10-20 kW
"power assist" Hybnd, 300 V, 2-4 kWh, 25-40 kW
"range extender" Hybrid, 300 V, 20-30 kWh, 40-60 kW
Transporter
(+ mmibuses)300 V, 30-50 kWh, 40-60
Buses EV, 300 oder 600 V, 90-285 kWh, 80-120 kW
HEV with EV, 600 V, 35-70 kWh, 60-120 kW
HEVw~thoutZEV, 600 V, 10-30 kWh, 60-120 kW
]5
~-DEA
Payload
600 kg
Drive
Drwe Power
Typeof Battery
Energy Content
Asynchronous Motor
40kW at 2000-50O0/mm
2 x ZSC
Battery Voltage(OCV)
Wegghtof Battery
MaxtmumSpeed E
Range
Vlto 108Eof DalmlerChryslerwath ZEBRA
~-DEA
t<" ,
Electric Spnnterfor Clty-Logeshc
35,6 kWh
278V
400 kg
120 krn/h
126-170 km
~-DEA
Payload
Drwe
Drive Power
Typeof Battery
EnergyContent
Battery Voltage(OCV)
Weightof Battery
MaximumSpeed E
Range
9t
Continuous Power 38 kW
Peak Power 83 kW
6 x Z5
102 kWh
278V
1200 kg
70 km/h
150 km
M~crovett
15t- Imola,Italy
_~d
._P.J.e_£.t~c
10 + I Seating 10 + 1 Seatm
29 Standing
29 Standing
Drive
BrushlessDC BrushlessDC
Drive Power
50kW
50kW
Typeof Battery
2 x Z5C
5 x Z5C
Energy Content
35 6 kWh
89 kWh
27g V
Battery Voltage(OCV) 279 V
400 kg
1000kg
Weightof Battery
MaximumSpeed E
50 km/h
60 kmlh
Capacity
AUTODROMO
C~ty Bus~n Bologna,Italy In Service
]?
~-DEA
34 Seating
68 Standing
2 Asynchron
Drwe
Hub Motors
150kW
Drive Power
2x2xZ5A/B
Typeof Battery
68 kWh
Energy Content
Battery Voltage (OCV) 2 x 284 = 568 V
806 kg
Weightof Battery
Maximum Speed E
60 krn/h
E.Rangeper Charge
40 - 70 km
Capac~’y
40ft HybndBus from EvoBusoperate in Oberstdorf, Germanyand In Leiden, Holland
~-DEA
Dieselkraftstoffverbrauch
Dleselbus
................................................
--~,
MehrverbrauchHybndbus
durch h~heresLeergewzcht
ca
==
" I Gesamtpr=m~renergleersparms
ca
10%
/
/
,// . /"
’Rekuperations~.
Kraftwerks, antell ’,
anted
~,//
~"O~.,/
,~’7/
;
.....
#=
50
60
80
t00 %
Energlebllanzyon Hybndbussen
mlt ZEBRA
Battene
Linlenlange
ZEBRA
Plant - February
~e 01t" 2001
~-DEA
ZEBRA
Plant- Apnl~he24th 2001
19
Marketing Neighborhood, City,
and Small Highway-capable Electric Vehicles
May 16, 2001
Ken Kurani
Institute of TransportationStudies, Davis
Marketing Neighborhood, City,
and Small Highway-capable
Electric Vehicles
t6 May 2001
Ken Kuranl
Institute of Transportation Studies
Unlverslt) of Cahforma, Davis
¯ HIghway-capable EV Market Stu&es
- 1991to 1997
- Householdmarkets for vehMesand elecmctty
¯ NeighborhoodElectric Vehicle Studies
- 1993to 1995
- Multl-objectwe
¯ Secondary Benefits of ZEVsReport
- Summer2000
¯ Types of small EVs
¯ Somethings we’ve learned
¯ Market Segments
- Who?
¯ Where9
¯ Market Segment S~ze
- Howmanyq
¯ What nextq
¯Ctty EVStation Car User Evaluation
- 1997
¯ Consumer Benefits of EVs and Plug-m
HEVs
- 1998
¯ Consumer Markets for EVs
- GreenCarInstitute, 2000
W
¯ NewTypes of Vehicles
- NHTSA
Low Speed Vehicle defmmon
¯ Fourwheels,20to 25mph
maxspeed
¯ FMVSS
No500 (49 CFR571500)
- head
stopturnstgnal,andtadlamps,
reflectors
parktog
brakes,
rearelew
mirrors
va~dstue|ds,
seatbeltsand
VINs
-- Examples
¯ GEM Neighborhood
EV, THINK Netghbor
¯ Newtypes ofvehtcles
- City EVs
¯ not quite highway-capable
- top speeds vaDmgfrom 56 to 62mph
- none as yet cernfled to FMVSS
for hght duty
motorvehtete,;
¯ two-seats
(sofar)
- Examples
. Toyotae-corn,NtssanHypennml,
TtttNK
Ctty
Tvl~
Seating
Golfcar Golfcars
2
casestudy_
’t’*n
Rv
! NEVs
arm I to 4
d.nvts
CEVs
Household NEV~
I to 2
mals
CASurveyi N’EV
2 to 4
t Coram EV 2to7
Regon
2 to 7
EV
City EV
CEV
2
Speed
I8 to 20
Range
15to 25
35to 75
2togO
35to 40
20to 35
40
70
85
40
60to 80
120tO150
68
40to 55
¯ Vehicle "choice" sh~fls
¯ The effects of constraints on travel
decisions
¯ Howfar a household can travel m a NEV
¯ Modeshifts within households
¯ All places are not equal
. User valuation of veh:cle characteristics
¯ Land Use
- Small towns big crees
- Low-density suburb, medmmdensity
city
¯ Actwlty-based Approaches to Travel
Analysis
- t3udd your ownaction space
Preferred Body Style
Non-EV
Type Chome
Neighborhood
Style
EV
Commumty EV
Regional EV
EV Style
6
12
5
21
37
8l
15
27
Natural Gas
33
52
Gasohne
53
96
Range-extend
HEV
Could mpbe made
9another t~me
Scvce
Passenger~
and Sacramento
Ye~
244
Total
No
No
387
Yes
128
13
141
To~l
515
257
772
631
Low
IFnps
41
72
l0
19
43
6
Males
ii.......
..........
o
BtcvcI¢
’ICE
Davis
....... 48
15~
Sl~ento
0
93
!
* Less-than-highway-capable ,¢eh~cles
- Usersstart to groupvehiclecharacteristics
. RangeandTopSpeed
o Passenger
SeatingandCargo
Capacity
o TopSpeed,Vehicle
Size,Handling,
andSafety
¯ A word about Plug-m Hybrids
- Benefits based on threes systems
¯ Environmental,
Recharging,
Dnvetram
¯ NEVscan dxsplace manytrips and much
VMT:n households
¯ Itousehold travel mode sphts durmg NEV
tests depend on prior behawor
- determinedmpart by local land use and
transportauonoptions
¯ NEVscan displace environmentally
superior opUonsfor sometrips
¯ Small vehicles
- Oneor two seats, regardless of range or speed
¯ Hybrid households
- City EVs, Small Highway.capableEVs
¯ LSV-amenable places
I
¯ Pro
- One-personhouseholdsq
¯ Over25percentof UShouseholds
(2000Census)
¯ Con
- Smallcar sales hlstoncal~ytroy
¯ Two-seats
1 1 percentof newearsales
¯ Automotive
News
"budget"and"small"ears
2t 2 percentof ears
- Basedon the wrongquestion
¯ Guesttmate from 1995 ITS
- 2 percent combined Nelghborhood/Commumty
EVmarket share
¯ Onlysmallandcompact
sedans,sportscar, and
compact
pickuptruckbod~styles
¯ Not LSVs/CEVs
¯ Guest~mate from 2000 GCI
- Interested9
¯ 24percentLSV,43 percentCEV
- 1 percent newLDVmarket share
3
¯ Markets for LSVsdefined
-pnmanly
by characteristics of the use
environment
- secondarilyby characteristics of the user
¯ Places can be dynamictoo
- doLSVsfit the place, andthe plans for the
place9
¯ Infrastructure includes roadway, vehicle
maintenance, electricity dtsmbutlon,
° Bmld market segments
- Motivate consumers and producers
-Faclhtate expressmn of a wider set of
household lifestyle goals and values
¯ Transform Markets
¯ Avoid gaming of regulations
¯ Whose We9
- Broad coalmons of stakeholders
- Government
. Industry
¯ Issue Advocates
¯ Independent Researchers
¯ Marketing Green and Social
- Market Research based on multiple
methods, mult@etypes of exposures
. City EVs, Small Highway-capable
and Hybrid EVs
EVs
-Users v, lll figure themout
* LSVs and City EVs
- Users are constrained as to wherethey
can use such vehicles
- Marketmthose places that are statable
, Buildingandretrofitting
- PalmDesert, PASStown,
NewUrbamsm
4
Shared-Use Fleets:
Lessons Learned
May 16, 2001
Susan Shaheen, Ph.D.
Honda Distinguished Scholar
University of California,
New Mobility Center & PATH
SHARED-USE FLEETS:
LESSONS LEARNED
Susan A. Shaheen, Ph.D.
HondaDistinguished Scholar
Umverstty of Cahforma,
NewMoblhty Center & PATH
ITS-Davls ZEVMandate
Workshop
May16, 2001
WHAT IS CARSHARING?
SHARED-USE FLEETS:
OVERVIEW
¯ Carsharing and CarLink Defined
¯ CarLink I Findings & Management
Issues
¯ Market Opportumties
¯ Pilot
Project
Recommendations
ROOTS IN EUROPE
¯ Individuals Gain the Benefits of
Private Cars without the Costs and
Responsibihties of Ownership
¯ Sefage (1948) of Zurich, Switzerland
¯ Recent developments began in 1980s
¯ Over 200 fleets active in 400 cities
¯ Individuals Access a Fleet of Cars
¯ Claim over 125,000 participants
¯ Generally~ Participants Pay a Usage
Fee Each T~mea Vehicle Is Used
¯ Mobdity (Switzerland,
UoS. TRENDS:
1998 TO PRESENT
.
¯
¯
¯
o
¯
¯
8 Carsharmg Programs
2 Station Car Programs
2 Pdot Research Programs
9 Planned Programs
AdvancedTechnologies
Partnership Management
]honeering --> Growth & VolumePhase
1987) and
StadtAuto (Bremen, 1990)
WHATIS CARLINK?
¯ A Commuter-Based Carsharlng
Program, Linked to Transit
¯ Public-Private Partnership
¯ Smart Technologies
¯ Three User Groups: Homebased
Users, Workbased Commuters, and
Day Users
C AR].7]~K
MODEL
CARLINK I:
USER GROUPS
¯ Homebased Users:
Vehicle)
$200/Month
(Per
¯ Workbased Commuters:
$60/Month
(Minimum of Two Participants
Per
Vehicle)
¯ Day Users:
$1.50/Hour
CARLINK I:
¯ Environmental
and $.10/Mile
KEY FINDINGS
Concern High
- Reduced Cost & Increased Convemence
Key Usage Factors
¯ Users Wanted More Mixed Fleet (e.g.,
P~ckup Truck)
¯ Members Would Share Rades More
Frequently,
Facihtated
If Communication
CARLINK I:
PROGRAM FINDINGS
. 54 Participants
¯ 67% Male and 69% Married
. 81% Homeowners and All Employed
® 81% Average Yearly Income of> $50,000
¯ 36% ~ 2g to 40 Years of Age
¯ 59% ~ 41 to 64 Years of Age
¯ 75% Bachelor’s Degree or Higher
CARLINK I:
KEY FINDINGS
Ira Permanent Service, Several
Homebased Users Would Sell Personal
Veh~c|es
¯ Net Reduction in Vehicle Mzles Per Day
(~20 Ml|es) for CarLink Commuters
¯ At Least 20 New BARTTr~ps Generated
Per Day
CARLINK I:
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
ISSUE ONE
Vehicle Maintenance
& Emergencies
RESOLUTION
¯ Personnel Provide
Qmck Response
¯ 24-Hour Roadside
Assistance
¯ Local Dealership for
Servlcmg/Repatrs
¯ Hide-A-Keys m
Emergenc)
CARLINK I:
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
ISSUF THREE:
Vehicle Cleanhness
RESOLUTION"
¯ Gmdehnes for
Cleamng Own Trash
¯ Personnel or
Detadmg Company
~o Service (Wash
Vacuum)
¯ Economic Penalties
CARLINK I:
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
ISSUE FI$’ E
¯ Schedubng & Bdhng
¯ Smart Access &
Vehicle Tracking
Technologies
RESOLUTION’
¯ Develop or Purchase
Advanced
Technology
¯ Integrate Systems,
Where Posssble
¯ Test Prior to Launch
CARLINK I:
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
ISSUE TWO
Clean-Fuel Vehicle
Refuehng
RESOLUTION
¯ Gmdehnes for
Refuehng--l/4
Tank
¯ Fuehng Cards
¯ Anhclpate Demand
¯ Refueling Training
¯ High-Quah~ &
Multiple Refueling
Sites
CARLINK I:
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
ISSUE FOUR"
Vehicle Insurance
RESOLUTIONUmbrella Policy
Through
Organizations
Spectahzed m Shared
Fleets (e g,
Insurance One &
vesI)
CARLINK I:
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
ISSUE SIX.
Parking & Lot
Assignment
RESOLUTION.
¯ Partner to Access
Subsidized/Donated
Premmm Parking
¯ Flexibihty with
Customers In
Identifying Lots
¯ Employ Wireless
Management System
CARLINK h
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
ISSUE SEVEN
Roadstde Service
RESOLUTION
Contract with 24Iiour Prowder for
EmergencyService
CARLINK I:
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
ISSUE NINE"
Lost & Found
System
RE. SOLUTION"
Provide Lost &
FoundCenter for
RetrievingItems I,eft
m Fleeg Veh~c|es
CARLINK I:
MANAGEMENT ISSUES
ISSUE EIGHT:
Guaranteed-Ride
Service
CARLINK
RESOLUTION"
¯ Provide Guaranteed
Taxi or Shuttle
Service
¯ Partner with Region,
If Possible, ToAccess
Free, R~de-Home
Services (DemandManagement
Strategy)
Ih
MAY 2001
¯ Pubhc-Prwate Partnership:
UC Davis,
PATH, Caltrans, Honda, and Caitram
¯ 27 ULEVCivics Based Out of Caltrain
Statnon
¯ Homebased Users and Business Subscrtbers
. Advanced Seamless Technology
MARKET OPPORTUNITIES
¯ Incentives:
Parking
¯ Media: Marketing
¯ Data: Feedback
Understanding
& Policy
& Social
& Customer
Tool
INCENTIVES
¯ ZEVMandate Credits for Shared Use
Systems
¯ Parking, Where Limited is Huge
Incentive
¯ ReducedFares (e.g., Transit)
¯ D~scounts at Local Stores
¯ Frequent Flyer Miles
¯ Access to HOVor HOT Lanes
MEDIA:
A MARKETING
¯ Can Increase
TOOL
Program Interest
AUTOMATED
DATA
¯ Instant Feedback on System
Functionality
¯ Subsidize Marketing Costs
¯ Key Information
Logistics
¯ Promote Social & Environmental
Benefits of Program
¯ Understanding of Underlying
Market Forces
PILOT PROJECTS:
RECOMMENDATIONS
¯ Outhne Project Purpose & Design
¯ Maintain F~exible Partnership
Management
¯ Integrate Smart Technologies
. Employ Economic Signals
¯ Thai & Reduced User Fees
to Improve Service
PILOT PROJECTS:
RECOMMENDATIONS
¯ Adjust User Guidelines As Necessary
¯ Deploy Top-Notch Clean Fuel
Infrastructure
¯ Apply for Demonstration Grants
¯ Conduct Nonmonetary Benefits
Research
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
* CahformaDepartmentof Transportation
¯ Partners for Advanced
Transit and ltwys
. AmericanHondaMotorCompany,Inc
o BayAreaRapidTransit District
* LawrenceLIvermoreNational Laboratory
* INVERS
and Teletrac
o UCTransportationCenter
* NationalScienceFoundation
. CarLmkII TeamLmdaNovick, John
Wright,Dlmltrl Loukakos,NiharGupta,and
Barbara Bower
5

Meeting the New CARB ZEV Mandate Requirements

Transcription

Similar documents

ES14-OTDR

Electric Cars

solexworld.com

Longlife Hybrid Solar Battery Systems

Vu 102 cms (40”) LED TV Model: 40D6575

SES-300-XXX-ATEX eng

Sat Buddy 2

Pricelist, Pedego, 2016

Autopath - BricsCAD

P-PS-02610-0-2Wr2 VIPIR Quantum FX Chameleon