Search Results

The energy density and power density comparison of conventional fuels and batteries is often mentioned as an advantage of conventional vehicles over electric vehicles. Such an analysis often shows that the batteries are at least an order of magnitude behind fuels like gasoline. However this incomplete analysis ignores the impact of powertrain efficiency and mass of the powertrain itself. When we compare the potential of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) as an alternative for conventional vehicles, it is important to include the energy in the fuel and their storage as well as the eventual conversion to mechanical energy. For instance, useful work expected out of a conventional vehicle as well as a BEV is the same (to drive 300 miles with a payload of about 300 lb). However, the test weight of a Conventional vehicle and BEV will differ on the basis of what is needed to convert their respective stored energy to mechanical energy.

Present-day battery technologies support a battery electric vehicle with a 300mile range (BEV 300), but the cost of such a vehicle hinders its large-scale adoption by consumers. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has set aggressive cost targets for battery technologies. At present, no single technology meets the cost, energy, and power requirements of a BEV 300, but a combination of multiple batteries with different capabilities might be able to lower the overall cost closer to the DOE target. This study looks at how such a combination can be implemented in vehicle simulation models and compares the vehicle manufacturing and operating costs to a baseline BEV 300. Preliminary analysis shows an opportunity to modestly reduce BEV 300 energy storage system cost by about 8% using a battery pack that combines an energy and power battery. The baseline vehicle considered in the study uses a single battery sized to meet both the power and energy requirements of a BEV 300.