Search Results

A new method is proposed for controlling the temperature of high-temperature batteries namely, varying the hydrogen pressure inside of multifoil insulation by varying the temperature of a reversible hydrogen getter. Calculations showed that the rate of heat loss through 1.5 cm of multifoil insulation between a hot-side temperature of 425°C and a cold-side temperature of 25°C could be varied between 17.6 W/m2 and 7,000 W/m2. This change in heat transfer rate can be achieved by varying the hydrogen pressure between 1.0 Pa and 1000 Pa, which can be done with an available hydrogen gettering alloy operating in the range of 50°C to 250°C. This approach to battery cooling requires cylindrical insulating jackets, which are best suited for bipolar batteries having round cells approximately 10 to 18 cm in diameter.

A hybrid bus powered by a diesel engine and a battery pack has been analyzed over an idealized bus-driving cycle in Chicago. Three hybrid configurations, two parallel and one series, have been evaluated. The results indicate that the fuel economy of a hybrid bus, taking into account the regenerative braking, is comparable with that of a conventional diesel bus. Life-cycle costs are slightly higher because of the added weight and cost of the battery.

Advanced battery technology evaluations are performed under simulated electric-vehicle operating conditions at the Analysis & Diagnostic Laboratory (ADL) of Argonne National Laboratory. The ADL results provide insight into those factors that limit battery performance and life. The ADL facilities include a test laboratory to conduct battery experimental evaluations under simulated application conditions and a post-test analysis laboratory to determine, in a protected atmosphere if needed, component compositional changes and failure mechanisms. This paper summarizes the performance characterizations and life evaluations conducted during 1991 - 1992 on both single cells and multi-cell modules that encompass eight battery technologies [Na/S, Li/MS (M=metal), Ni/MH, Ni/Cd, Ni/Zn, Ni/Fe, Zn/Br, and Pb-acid]. These evaluations were performed for the Department of Energy, Office of Transportation Technologies, Electric and Hybrid Propulsion Division, and the Electric Power Research Institute.

The U.S. Department of Energy sponsored several student engineering competitions in 1993 that provided useful information on electric and hybrid electric vehicles. The electrical energy usage from these competitions has been recorded with a custom-built digital meter installed in every vehicle and used under controlled conditions. When combined with other factors, such as vehicle mass, speed, distance traveled, battery type, and type of components, this information provides useful insight into the performance characteristics of electrics and hybrids. All the vehicles tested were either electric vehicles or hybrid vehicles in electric-only mode, and had an average energy economy of 7.0 km/kWh. Based on the performance of the “ground-up” hybrid electric vehicles in the 1993 Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge, data revealed a 1 km/kWh energy economy benefit for every 133 kg decrease in vehicle mass.

The 1994 Hybrid Electric Vehicle Challenge provided the backdrop for collecting data and developing testing procedures for hybrid electric vehicle technology available at colleges and universities across North America. The data collected at the competition was analyzed using the HEV definitions from the draft SAE J1711 guidelines. The energy economy, percentage of electrical to total energy used, and acceleration performance was analyzed for any correlation between the over-the-road data and the commuter-sustaining, commuter-depleting, and reserve-sustaining hybrid vehicles. The analysis did not provide any direct correlation between over-the-road data and the three hybrid types. The analysis did show that the vehicle configurations provide the best information on vehicle performance. It was also clear that a comprehensive data analysis system along with a well-defined testing procedure would allow for a more complete analysis of the data.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) through Argonne National Laboratory sponsored and recorded energy data of electric vehicles (EVs) at five competitions in 1994. Each competition provided different test conditions (closed-track, on-road, and dynamometer). The data gathered at these competitions includes energy efficiency, range, acceleration, and vehicle characteristics. The results of the analysis show that the vehicles performed as expected. Some of the EVs were also tested on dynamometers and compared to gasoline vehicles, including production vehicles with advanced battery systems. Although the EVs performed well at these competitions, the results show that only the vehicles with advanced technologies perform as well or better than conventional gasoline vehicles.

As a life-cycle analysis tool, MARVEL has been developed for the evaluation of hybrid/electric vehicle systems. It can identify the optimal combination of battery and heat engine characteristics for different vehicle types and performance requirements, on the basis of either life-cycle cost or fuel efficiency. Battery models that allow trade-offs between specific power and specific energy, between cycle life and depth of discharge, between peak power and depth of discharge, and between other parameters, are included in the software. A parallel hybrid configuration, using an internal combustion engine and a battery as the power sources, can be simulated with a user-specified energy management strategy. The PC-based software package can also be used for cost or fuel efficiency comparisons among conventional, electric, and hybrid vehicles.

Electric vehicle batteries use energy and generate environmental residuals when they are produced and recycled. This study estimates, for four selected battery types (advanced lead-acid, sodium-sulfur, nickel-cadmium, and nickel-metal hydride), the impacts of production and recycling of the materials used in electric vehicle batteries. These impacts are compared, with special attention to the locations of the emissions. It is found that the choice among batteries for electric vehicles involves tradeoffs among impacts. For example, although the nickel-cadmium and nickel-metal hydride batteries are similar, energy requirements for production of the cadmium electrodes may be higher than those for the metal hydride electrodes, but the latter may be more difficult to recycle.

The life-cycle energy and fuel-use impacts of U.S.-produced aluminum-intensive passenger cars and passenger trucks are assessed. The energy analysis includes vehicle fuel consumption, material production energy, and recycling energy. A model that simulates market dynamics was used to project aluminum-intensive vehicle market shares and national energy savings potential for the period between 2005 and 2030. We conclude that there is a net energy savings with the use of aluminum-intensive vehicles. Manufacturing costs must be reduced to achieve significant market penetration of aluminum-intensive vehicles. The petroleum energy saved from improved fuel efficiency offsets the additional energy needed to manufacture aluminum compared to steel. The energy needed to make aluminum can be reduced further if wrought aluminum is recycled back to wrought aluminum. We find that oil use is displaced by additional use of natural gas and nonfossil energy, but use of coal is lower.

In the 1995 HEV Challenge competition, 17 prototype Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) were tested by using special HEV test procedures. The contribution of the batteries during the test, as measured by changes in battery state-of-charge (SOC), were accounted for by applying SOC corrections to the test data acquired from the results of the HEV test. The details of SOC corrections are described and two different HEV test methods are explained. The results of the HEV test methods are explained. The results of the HEV tests and the effects on the test outcome of varying HEV designs and control strategies are examined. Although many teams had technical problems with their vehicles, a few vehicles demonstrated high fuel economy and low emissions. One vehicle had emissions lower than California's ultra-low emission vehicle (ULEV) emissions rates, and two vehicles demonstrated higher fuel economy and better acceleration than their stock counterparts.

There has been a recent trend toward the use of lifecycle analysis (LCA) as a decision-making tool for the automotive industry. However, the different practitioners' methods and assumptions vary widely, as do the interpretations put on the results. The lack of uniformity has been addressed by such groups as the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), but standardization of methodology assures neither meaningful results nor appropriate use of the results. This paper examines the types of analysis that are possible for automobiles, explains possible pitfalls to be avoided, and suggests ways that LCA can be used as part of a rational decision-making procedure. The key to performing a useful analysis is identification of the factors that will actually be used in making the decision. It makes no sense to analyze system energy use in detail if direct financial cost is to be the decision criterion.