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.

When comparing the potential of advanced versus conventional powertrains, a traditional approach is to hold glider design constant and simulate “comparable performance” to a conventional vehicle (CV). However, manufacturers have developed hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), and all-electric vehicle (EV) powertrains in gliders designed to synergistically enhance fuel saving benefits of such powertrains by further reducing road load and engine output power (or continuous power for the EV) where no conventional powertrain option is provided. In the U.S. marketplace, there are now several examples of both hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles using gliders common to top selling CVs and a few using low load gliders to further reduce fuel consumption.

The recovery of braking energy through regenerative braking is a key enabler for the improved efficiency of Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Plug-in Hybrid Electric, and Battery Electric Vehicles (HEV, PHEV, BEV). However, this energy is often treated in a simplified fashion, frequently using an overall regeneration efficiency term, ξrg [1], which is then applied to the total available braking energy of a given drive-cycle. In addition to the ability to recapture braking energy typically lost during vehicle deceleration, hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles also allow for reduced or zero engine fueling during vehicle decelerations. While regenerative braking is often discussed as an enabler for improved fuel economy, reduced fueling is also an important component of a hybrid vehicle's ability to improve overall fuel economy.

Vehicles with electrified powertrains, such as hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in HEV (PHEVs), and AEVs (all-electric vehicles using grid-supplied battery energy exclusively), are potentially marketable because of low operating costs, but each comes with a significant initial cost penalty in comparison to a conventional vehicle (CV) powered by an internal combustion engine. Accordingly, a high rate of utilization is necessary for cost effectiveness. This paper examines the projected future (2020) cost effectiveness of several alternative powertrains within a standard compact sedan glider: an AEV and a set of selected input-split and output-split HEV and PHEV powertrains with various battery power and energy storage capabilities. Vehicle performance and consumption rates of fuel and electricity were estimated using vehicle simulations, and vehicle prices were estimated using cost models.

To restrain the phenomenal increase in oil consumption in China, the Chinese government called for measures to reduce oil consumption of the road transportation sector through adopting vehicle fuel consumption standards. This paper describes the development of China's first set of fuel consumption standards for light-duty passenger vehicles. The adopted standards cover M1 class vehicles, which, according to European definition (and adopted by China), include passenger cars, minivans, and sports utility vehicles (SUVs). In particular, we present the goal, technical background, structure, and values of the adopted standards. We also present their potential effect on oil use reduction. The standards are set in liters of fuel consumption per 100 km for individual vehicle weight categories. The standards are maximum fuel consumption values for given vehicle weight categories.

The strong correlation between vehicle weight and fuel economy for conventional vehicles (CVs) is considered common knowledge, and the relationship of mass reduction to fuel consumption reduction for conventional vehicles (CVs) is often cited without separating effects of powertrain vs. vehicle body (glider), nor on the ground of equivalent vehicle performance level. This paper challenges the assumption that this relationship is easily summarized. Further, for hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) the relationship between mass, performance and fuel consumption is not the same as for CVs, and vary with hybrid types. For fully functioning (all wheel regeneration) hybrid vehicles, where battery pack and motor(s) have enough power and energy storage, a very large fraction of kinetic energy is recovered and engine idling is effectively eliminated.

This paper analyzes fuel economy benefits of direct hydrogen and gasoline reformer fuel cell vehicles, with special focus on cold-start impacts on these fuel cell based vehicles. Comparing several existing influential studies reveals that the most probable estimates from these studies differ greatly on the implied benefits of both types of fuel cell vehicles at the tank-to-wheel level (vehicle-powertrain efficiency and/or specific power), leading to great uncertainties in estimating well-to-wheel fuel energy and/or greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction potentials. This paper first addresses methodological issues to influence the outcome of these analyses. With one exception, we find that these studies consistently ignore cold-start and warm-up issues, which play important roles in determining both energy penalties and start-up time of fuel cell vehicles. To better understand cold-start and warm-up behavior, this paper examines approaches and results based on two available U.S.

This paper analyzes four recent major studies carried out by MIT, a GM-led team, Directed Technologies, Inc., and A. D. Little, Inc. to assess advanced technology vehicles. These analyses appear to differ greatly concerning their perception of the energy benefits of advanced technology vehicles, leading to great uncertainties in estimating full-fuel-cycle (or “well-to-wheel”) greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction potentials and/or fuel feedstock requirements per mile of service. Advanced vehicles include, but are not limited to, advanced gasoline and diesel internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) with gasoline, diesel, and compressed natural gas (CNG) ICEs, and various kinds of fuel-cell based vehicles (FCVs), such as direct hydrogen FCVs and gasoline or methanol fuel-based FCVs.

This paper assesses the technical potential, costs and benefits of improving the fuel economy of light-duty trucks over the next five to ten years in the United States using conventional technologies. We offer an in-depth analysis of several technology packages based on a detailed vehicle system modeling approach. Results are provided for fuel economy, cost, oil savings and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. We examine a range of refinements to body, powertrain and electrical systems, reflecting current best practice and emerging technologies such as lightweight materials, high-efficiency IC engines, integrated starter-generator, 42 volt electrical system and advanced transmission. In this paper, multiple technological pathways are identified to significantly improve fleet average light-duty-truck fuel economy to 27.0 MPG or higher with net savings to consumers.

This paper describes the integration of a Modal Energy and Emissions Model (MEEM) into a hybrid-electric vehicle simulation model, the PNGV System Analytic Toolkits (PSAT). PSAT is a forward-looking computer simulation model for advanced-technology vehicles. MEEM is a vehicle fuel-consumption and emissions model developed by one of the authors for internal-combustion-engine (ICE) -powered vehicles. MEEM engine simulation module uses a power-demand physical model based on a parameterized analytical representation of engine fuel and emissions production. One major advantage of MEEM is that it does not rely on steady-state engine maps, which are usually not available for most production vehicles; rather, it depends on a list of engine parameters that are calibrated based on regular vehicle dynamometer testing. The integrated PSAT-MEEM model can be used effectively to predict fuel consumption and emissions of various ICE-powered vehicles with both conventional and hybrid power trains.

The effects of hybridization on heavy-duty vehicles are not well understood. Heavy vehicles represent a broader range of applications than light-duty vehicles, resulting in a wide variety of chassis and engine combinations, as well as diverse driving conditions. Thus, the strategies, incremental costs, and energy/emission benefits associated with hybridizing heavy vehicles could differ significantly from those for passenger cars. Using a modal energy and emissions model, we quantify the potential energy savings of hybridizing commercial Class 3-7 heavy vehicles, analyze hybrid configuration scenarios, and estimate the associated investment cost and payback time.

Recent advances in fuel-cell technology and low-emission, direct-injection spark-ignition and diesel engines for vehicles could significantly change the transportation vehicle power plant landscape in the next decade or so. This paper is a scoping study that compares total fuel cycle options for providing power to personal transport vehicles. The key question asked is, “How much of the energy from the fuel feedstock is available for motive power?” Emissions of selected criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases are qualitatively discussed. This analysis illustrates the differences among options; it is not intended to be exhaustive. Cases considered are hydrogen fuel from methane and from iso-octane in generic proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel-cell vehicles, methane and iso-octane in spark-ignition (SI) engine vehicles, and diesel fuel (from methane or petroleum) in direct-injection (DI) diesel engine vehicles.