Meeting Environmental and Fuel Efficiency Goals <br />John German, ICCT<br />CALSTART Workshop on Advanced Clean Vehicles:...
2025 SNOI Proposed Requirements  and Global Context<br />Technology Development and Costs<br />Consumer Behavior<br />Real...
2025 Test Cycle Tailpipe Requirements<br />Credits (maximum):<br /><ul><li>A/C refrigerant: 13.8 gCO2/mi for cars;16.4 for...
A/C efficiency: 5 g/mi (.000563 gal/mi) for cars; 8 g/mi (.000810 gal/mi) for LDT
Off-cycle: 10 g/mi (.001125) for cars and LDT
Pickup: 20 g/mi (.002250) for pickup trucks only
EV:  Zero upstream + multiple credits (assumed 1% market share for cars and 5% for LDT)</li></li></ul><li>Historical fleet...
Four markets absolute and annual rate comparison<br />5<br />
2025 SNOI Proposed Requirements  and Global Context<br />Technology Development and Costs<br />Consumer Behavior<br />Real...
Fiat MultiAir<br />Digital Valve Actuation <br />HCCI Engine<br />Improvement in fuel economy:<br />30%<br />Honda Prototy...
Turbo-Boosted EGR Engines<br />Highly dilute combustion –   considerable efficiency improvement<br />Advanced ignition sys...
Lightweight materials offer great potential<br />Material composition of lightweight vehicle body designs: <br />Approxima...
10<br />Lotus Phase 2 Status – Feb. 2011<br />Low Mass Body Status <br />Body in White CAD Model <br />Status<br />Mass:  ...
US Joint-Agency TAR: Mass Reduction<br />In 2020-2025 timeframe, mass-reduction will be a core technology<br />Looked at m...
Hybrid Technology Advances<br />Synergies with other technologies and optimized control strategies<br />Engine (Atkinson, ...
Joint-Agency TAR: Technology Packages <br />Major CO2-reduction potential from emerging technologies by 2025<br />US EPA’s...
EPA/NHTSA 2025 Technology Assessments<br />EPA/NHTSA Joint NOI Regarding Light-duty Vehicle Standards for the 2017-2025 Mo...
15<br />Technology costs: Near- vs. Long-term<br /><ul><li>Technology availability increases - and its costs decrease - ov...
Incremental vehicle costs and percent improvements are in reference to MY2008 baseline
Data from US EPA/NHTSA 2012-2016 rulemaking and EPA/NHTSA/CARB TAR for 2020</li></li></ul><li>2012 Class-Leading Vehicles<...
Elantra already meets 2020 target
Sonata and F150 need 2.1% to 2.8% annual improvements</li></ul>1.7%<br />2.8%<br />1.0%<br />2.1%<br />2.6%<br />2.1%<br /...
2025 SNOI Proposed Requirements  and Global Context<br />Technology Development and Costs<br />Consumer Behavior<br />Real...
2002 NAS/NRC CAFE Report Technology Cost Curves<br />“Energy Paradox”<br />
Turrentine & Kurani, 2004<br />In-depth interviews of 60 California households’ vehicle acquisition histories found no evi...
Consumers are, in general, LOSS AVERSE<br />2002 Nobel Prize for Economics(Tversky & Kahnemann, J. Risk & Uncertainty 1992...
What MPG will I get (your mileage may vary)?
How long will my car last?
How much driving will I do?
What will gasoline cost?
What will I give up or pay to get better MPG?</li></ul>“A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”<br />Causes the mark...
The implications of a 3-year payback requirement and uncertainty+loss aversion are the same.<br />
New Customer Profile<br />Early<br />Majority<br />Majority<br />Hanger-<br />On<br />Early<br />Adopter<br />Innovator<br...
Rebate<br />0<br />Fee<br />Fuel Consumption<br />New Consumer Discounting is Fixable<br /><ul><li>Increase fuel taxes
Feebates: Pay manufacturers and consumers up front for value of the fuel savings</li></li></ul><li>2025 SNOI Proposed Requ...
Real Gasoline Price<br />$3.82/gal<br />AEO2009 <br />April 2009 <br />update<br />Motor Gasoline Retail Prices, U.S. City...
New Vehicle Fuel Economy<br />34.8 in 2016 <br />plus 4% per year<br />2008 EPA FE Trends Report<br />
New Vehicle Gasoline Cost per Mile<br />$3.82/gal<br />
$19/gal<br />$11/gal<br />Real Fuel Cost - % of Disposable Income<br />$3.82/gal<br />Forecasted Per Capita Disposable Inc...
2025 SNOI Proposed Requirements  and Global Context<br />Technology Development and Costs<br />Consumer Behavior<br />Real...
Significance of Fuel Cell and Electric Vehicles<br />Fuel cell and electric vehicle technology have the potential to concu...
In gauging the potential for advanced vehicles, remember that the competition is changing….<br />What looks good against t...
Uncertainties Larger Barrier for PHEVs<br />How much am I going to save on fuel?  <br />How much will I pay for electricit...
Electricity versus Hydrogen<br />Both are energy carriers – can be dirty or clean, depending on how created<br />Advantage...
Natural Market Barriers<br />Need for technological advances<br />Learning by doing<br />Scale economies<br />Resistance t...
Realty<br />CAFE/feebates needed to fill gap between value of the fuel savings to new vehicle purchasers and to society<br...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Advanced clean-vehicles-john-german-icct

1,385 views
1,289 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,385
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Advanced clean-vehicles-john-german-icct

  1. 1. Meeting Environmental and Fuel Efficiency Goals <br />John German, ICCT<br />CALSTART Workshop on Advanced Clean Vehicles: Working to Ensure Sustainability <br />September 27, 2011 <br />Diamond Bar, California<br />
  2. 2. 2025 SNOI Proposed Requirements and Global Context<br />Technology Development and Costs<br />Consumer Behavior<br />Real Cost of Driving<br />EV Implications<br />
  3. 3. 2025 Test Cycle Tailpipe Requirements<br />Credits (maximum):<br /><ul><li>A/C refrigerant: 13.8 gCO2/mi for cars;16.4 for LDT
  4. 4. A/C efficiency: 5 g/mi (.000563 gal/mi) for cars; 8 g/mi (.000810 gal/mi) for LDT
  5. 5. Off-cycle: 10 g/mi (.001125) for cars and LDT
  6. 6. Pickup: 20 g/mi (.002250) for pickup trucks only
  7. 7. EV: Zero upstream + multiple credits (assumed 1% market share for cars and 5% for LDT)</li></li></ul><li>Historical fleet CO2 emissions performance and current or proposed standards<br />
  8. 8. Four markets absolute and annual rate comparison<br />5<br />
  9. 9. 2025 SNOI Proposed Requirements and Global Context<br />Technology Development and Costs<br />Consumer Behavior<br />Real Cost of Driving<br />EV Implications<br />
  10. 10. Fiat MultiAir<br />Digital Valve Actuation <br />HCCI Engine<br />Improvement in fuel economy:<br />30%<br />Honda Prototype Engine Base( Electro-magnetic valve )<br />20<br />Heat release rate<br />HCCI<br />SI<br />10<br />dQ/dθ[J/deg]<br />0<br />-40<br />0<br />-20<br />40<br />20<br />Crank angle [ATDC deg]<br />Requires increasing the self-ignition region<br />Next-generation Gasoline Engines<br />Dual-loop high/low pressure cooled exhaust gas recirculation<br />
  11. 11. Turbo-Boosted EGR Engines<br />Highly dilute combustion – considerable efficiency improvement<br />Advanced ignition systems required<br />Terry Alger, Southwest Research Institute, “Clean and Cool”, Technology Today, Summer 2010<br />
  12. 12. Lightweight materials offer great potential<br />Material composition of lightweight vehicle body designs: <br />Approximate fuel economy improvement<br />10%<br />25%<br />27%<br />37%<br />Also incremental improvements in aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance <br />Slide 9<br />
  13. 13. 10<br />Lotus Phase 2 Status – Feb. 2011<br />Low Mass Body Status <br />Body in White CAD Model <br />Status<br />Mass: 234 kg (230 kg target)<br />Materials:<br />Aluminum – 75%<br />Magnesium – 12%<br />Steel – 8%<br />Composite – 5%<br />
  14. 14. US Joint-Agency TAR: Mass Reduction<br />In 2020-2025 timeframe, mass-reduction will be a core technology<br />Looked at many studies (e.g., US DOE, Sierra Research, MIT, Lotus)<br />Mass reduction typically deployed before hybrid; with increasing cost<br />Various technical studies suggest feasible levels of mass reduction of 20-35%<br />Every TAR scenario for 2025 found average vehicle mass reduction of 14-26%<br />11<br />
  15. 15. Hybrid Technology Advances<br />Synergies with other technologies and optimized control strategies<br />Engine (Atkinson, Miller, lean-cruise, digital valve); optimization of engine and transmission operation; mass-reduction; automated manual transmission<br />New P2 hybrid – single motor with two clutches<br />Pre-transmission clutch: engine decoupling and larger motor<br />Nissan, VW, Hyundai, BMW, and Mercedes<br />Approximately 1/3 lower cost than input powersplit with 90-95% of benefits<br />High-power Li-ion batteries – smaller, lighter, and lower cost<br />12<br />VW Touareg hybrid module<br />Nissan Fuga/M35 parallel hybrid layout<br />
  16. 16. Joint-Agency TAR: Technology Packages <br />Major CO2-reduction potential from emerging technologies by 2025<br />US EPA’s OMEGA used many technology packages, 19 vehicle classes to evaluate scenarios<br />Increasing costs from incremental efficiency, to hybrid, and to electric technology <br />Electric<br />EV150<br />EV100<br />PHEV40<br />Plug-in hybrids<br />Grid-charging<br />EV75<br />PHEV20<br />Hybrid<br />Optimization<br />Regenerative braking<br />Gasoline efficiency <br />Motor-assist<br />Stop-start<br />Aerodynamics<br />Variable valve lift/lift<br />Advanced materials/designs<br />Tires<br />Dual-clutch<br />Direct injection<br />6+ speed<br />Turbocharging <br />Price in figure refers to the incremental cost to the consumer due to the new technology packages; technology packages include many different technologies; technology labels are approximate for illustration; grid electricity applies US EPA assumptions and accounting method for US electric grid (558 gCO2e/kWh) for electric and plug-in hybrids<br />13<br />
  17. 17. EPA/NHTSA 2025 Technology Assessments<br />EPA/NHTSA Joint NOI Regarding Light-duty Vehicle Standards for the 2017-2025 Model Years<br />14<br />
  18. 18. 15<br />Technology costs: Near- vs. Long-term<br /><ul><li>Technology availability increases - and its costs decrease - over time
  19. 19. Incremental vehicle costs and percent improvements are in reference to MY2008 baseline
  20. 20. Data from US EPA/NHTSA 2012-2016 rulemaking and EPA/NHTSA/CARB TAR for 2020</li></li></ul><li>2012 Class-Leading Vehicles<br /><ul><li>Prius 24% to 36% above 2025 target
  21. 21. Elantra already meets 2020 target
  22. 22. Sonata and F150 need 2.1% to 2.8% annual improvements</li></ul>1.7%<br />2.8%<br />1.0%<br />2.1%<br />2.6%<br />2.1%<br />Standard powertrains for Prius, Elantra, Sonata<br />3.5L Eco-boost for F150 with most common wheelbase<br />
  23. 23. 2025 SNOI Proposed Requirements and Global Context<br />Technology Development and Costs<br />Consumer Behavior<br />Real Cost of Driving<br />EV Implications<br />
  24. 24. 2002 NAS/NRC CAFE Report Technology Cost Curves<br />“Energy Paradox”<br />
  25. 25. Turrentine & Kurani, 2004<br />In-depth interviews of 60 California households’ vehicle acquisition histories found no evidence of economically rational decision-making about fuel economy.<br />Out of 60 households (125 vehicle transactions) 9 stated that they compared the fuel economy of vehicles in making their choice.<br />4 households knew their annual fuel costs.<br />None had made any kind of quantitative assessment of the value of fuel savings.<br />
  26. 26. Consumers are, in general, LOSS AVERSE<br />2002 Nobel Prize for Economics(Tversky & Kahnemann, J. Risk & Uncertainty 1992<br /><ul><li>Uncertainty about future fuel savings makes paying for more technology a risky bet
  27. 27. What MPG will I get (your mileage may vary)?
  28. 28. How long will my car last?
  29. 29. How much driving will I do?
  30. 30. What will gasoline cost?
  31. 31. What will I give up or pay to get better MPG?</li></ul>“A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”<br />Causes the market to produce less fuel economy than is economically efficient<br />
  32. 32. The implications of a 3-year payback requirement and uncertainty+loss aversion are the same.<br />
  33. 33. New Customer Profile<br />Early<br />Majority<br />Majority<br />Hanger-<br />On<br />Early<br />Adopter<br />Innovator<br />Increasingly risk averse <br />
  34. 34. Rebate<br />0<br />Fee<br />Fuel Consumption<br />New Consumer Discounting is Fixable<br /><ul><li>Increase fuel taxes
  35. 35. Feebates: Pay manufacturers and consumers up front for value of the fuel savings</li></li></ul><li>2025 SNOI Proposed Requirements and Global Context<br />Technology Development and Costs<br />Consumer Behavior<br />Real Cost of Driving<br />EV Implications<br />
  36. 36. Real Gasoline Price<br />$3.82/gal<br />AEO2009 <br />April 2009 <br />update<br />Motor Gasoline Retail Prices, U.S. City Average, adjusted using CPI-U<br />
  37. 37. New Vehicle Fuel Economy<br />34.8 in 2016 <br />plus 4% per year<br />2008 EPA FE Trends Report<br />
  38. 38. New Vehicle Gasoline Cost per Mile<br />$3.82/gal<br />
  39. 39. $19/gal<br />$11/gal<br />Real Fuel Cost - % of Disposable Income<br />$3.82/gal<br />Forecasted Per Capita Disposable Income from AEO2009 April 2009 update<br />
  40. 40. 2025 SNOI Proposed Requirements and Global Context<br />Technology Development and Costs<br />Consumer Behavior<br />Real Cost of Driving<br />EV Implications<br />
  41. 41. Significance of Fuel Cell and Electric Vehicles<br />Fuel cell and electric vehicle technology have the potential to concurrently help solve the problems of air pollution, global warming, and limited energy resources<br />Developing alternative<br />fuel technology<br />(vehicles and infrastructure)<br />to address energy sustainability<br />Energy Sustainability<br />Fuel cell and electric technology<br />Further advancing<br />fuel efficiency through<br />conventional engine hybrid<br />and other technologies<br />③<br />Climate Change<br />Reducing air pollution<br />with conventional<br />engine technology<br />②<br />Hybrid and internal combustion engine technology <br />①<br />Air Quality<br />Today<br />past<br />future<br />present<br />
  42. 42. In gauging the potential for advanced vehicles, remember that the competition is changing….<br />What looks good against today’s (conventional) car may not look so good against tomorrow’s.<br />Slide from Steve Plotkin, Argonne National Lab, based on ANL’s Multi-Path project<br />31<br />
  43. 43. Uncertainties Larger Barrier for PHEVs<br />How much am I going to save on fuel?  <br />How much will I pay for electricity? <br />How often do I need to plug in?<br />How much hassle will it be to plug in? <br />Can I be electrocuted in the rain or if I work on my vehicle?  <br />What will it cost to install recharging equipment?  <br />How long will the battery last? <br />And how much will it cost to replace it?<br />How reliable will the vehicle be?  <br />What will the resale value be?<br />Especially since the next owner also has to install recharging equipment<br />What kind of PHEV is best for me?<br />Would a blended strategy be better than electric-only operation?  <br />What amount of AER would be best for my driving?  <br />What if I move or change jobs?<br />It’s bad enough to spend $300 on a Betamax - <br />but $30,000+ ?<br />
  44. 44. Electricity versus Hydrogen<br />Both are energy carriers – can be dirty or clean, depending on how created<br />Advantages and needed improvements are very different<br />???<br />15 min = 440v x 1,000 amp<br />
  45. 45. Natural Market Barriers<br />Need for technological advances<br />Learning by doing<br />Scale economies<br />Resistance to novel technologies<br />Lack of diversity of choice<br />Chicken or egg?<br />Lack of fuel availability<br />Lack of vehicles to use new fuel<br />DOE’s hydrogen study estimated transition costs of$25-40 billion <br />
  46. 46. Realty<br />CAFE/feebates needed to fill gap between value of the fuel savings to new vehicle purchasers and to society<br />2025 proposed standards are aggressive, but can be met with conventional technology at reasonable cost<br />EV credits strong incentive to introduce EVs anyway<br />Mainstream customer risk/loss aversion challenges <br />Most customers will continue to value performance, features, and utility higher than fuel savings<br />Significant barrier to advanced technology, especially PHEVs<br />For BEVs, battery recharge time larger barrier than range<br />Fuel prices will not be a driver of advanced technology<br />Real cost of driving is low and will drop in future<br />
  47. 47. Future Directions<br /><ul><li>Conventional technology advances will raise the bar for other technologies
  48. 48. Gasoline engines and hybrids are improving rapidly
  49. 49. Hybrid costs are dropping and synergies are developing: mass market acceptance likely within 15 years
  50. 50. Advanced technologies must be better to be accepted by the mass market
  51. 51. No silver bullet – at least not yet
  52. 52. Support development of hybrids, lightweight materials, batteries, fuel cells, and alternative fuels
  53. 53. Need flexible policies that adapt to technology development and market acceptance</li></li></ul><li>Thank You<br />
  54. 54. No single solution – multi-pronged approach<br />Research for mass production<br />Fleet tests<br />EV/FCV development for future<br />Efficiency/CO2 reduction<br />HEV expansion<br />Clean diesel<br />High efficient gasoline engine <br />HCCI<br />DI turbo <br />Cylinder<br />deactivation<br />Base engine and vehicle improvements <br />weight<br />Aero, tires<br />Trans-<br />missions<br />Friction reduction<br />Variable valves<br />Efficiency/CO2 Reduction Strategies<br />
  55. 55. Are We Looking the Wrong Way?<br />Combustion work focuses on raising output efficiency over typical driving cycles<br />From roughly 20% to 35%<br />Heat losses are the 800-pound gorilla in the closet<br />
  56. 56. Synergies Between Parallel Hybrid and DCTDCT: Dual-clutch automated manual<br />The electric motor is mounted parallel to the transmission shafts and is connected via an electro-magnetic clutch that allows it to connect to either of the two gear sets. <br />
  57. 57. Fuel Economy Trends<br />Car & Light Truck Data from EPA’s 2009 FE Trends Report<br /><ul><li>Since 1987, technology advances have been used to improve attributes other than fuel economy
  58. 58. Fuel efficiency has increased by about 1.4% per year since 1987
  59. 59. Gains have all been used to increase other attributes whose value is more certain – such as performance, comfort, utility, and safety</li></li></ul><li>International Energy Annual 2005, Released June-July 2007, Table 11.8<br />Gasoline Price Comparison<br />
  60. 60. Large impact on size & performance<br />Little impact on vehicle technology<br />(same size vehicles had similar efficiency)<br />Impacts of Fuel Price and Congestion<br />Even 3 years into the European CO2 requirements (1998) and despite 3 x higher fuel prices in Europe, US efficiency still matched that of Europe.<br />Source: Saving Oil and Reducing CO2 Emissions in Transport, IEA, 2001<br />
  61. 61. Fuel Price has Little Technology Impact<br /><ul><li>Size/performance reductions reduce initial purchase cost and future fuel costs
  62. 62. Cost-benefits are clear to purchasers
  63. 63. Fuel price does not have a major impact on technology penetration
  64. 64. Technology increases initial purchase cost, offsetting fuel savings
  65. 65. Net benefits are not clear to purchasers, especially since most new vehicle purchasers severely discount future fuel savings
  66. 66. Fuel price does impact vehicle size, performanceand vehicle miles traveled (VMT)</li></li></ul><li>The Liquid Fuel Advantage<br />ENERGY FUTURE: Think Efficiency<br />American Physical Society, Sept. 2008, Chapter 2, Table 1<br />
  67. 67. Technology du jour<br />25 years ago – Methanol<br />15 years ago – Electric vehicles<br />10 years ago – Hybrid/electric vehicles<br />6years ago – Fuel cell vehicles<br />4years ago – Ethanol<br />Today – BEVs and PHEVs <br /> What’s next?<br />Extremely disruptive and wasteful<br />

×