Search Results

A methodology for evaluating life cycle cost of electric vehicles (EVs) to their buyers is presented. The methodology is based on an analysis of conventional vehicle costs, costs of drivetrain and auxiliary components unique to EVs, and battery costs. The conventional vehicle's costs are allocated to such subsystems as body, chassis, and powertrain. In electric vehicles, an electric drive is substituted for the conventional powertrain. The current status of the electric drive components and battery costs is evaluated. Battery costs are estimated by evaluating the material requirements and production costs at different production levels; battery costs are also collected from other sources. Costs of auxiliary components, such as those for heating and cooling the passenger compartment, are also estimated. Here, the methodology is applied to two vehicle types: subcompact car and minivan.

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.

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.

In recent years, vehicle manufacturers have made great progress in developing and demonstrating commercially available and prototyped hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). These vehicles include commercially available gasoline hybrid cars (Toyota Prius and Honda Insight) and Partnership for the Next Generation Vehicle (PNGV) diesel hybrid prototypes (Ford Prodigy, GM Precept, and DaimlerChrysler ESX3). In this paper, we discuss tested and claimed fuel benefits and performance of these commercial and prototyped HEVs relative to conventional vehicles (CVs) that are otherwise similar to these HEVs, except for hybridization. We also describe a reverse-engineering approach to de-hybridize or “conventionalize” these five existing commercial and prototyped HEVs. Because these commercial and prototyped HEVs represent a variety of technological choices, configurations, and development stages, this analysis gives us in-depth knowledge about how each of these vehicles achieves high efficiency.

This paper evaluates the impact of energy management strategy on the cost benefits of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) by taking into account the impact of PHEV energy management on battery life and petroleum displacement over the life of the vehicle. Using Battery in the Loop (BIL), a real battery is subjected to transient power demands by a virtual vehicle. The vehicle energy management strategy is varied, resulting in different battery utilization scenarios. Battery life, which varies with battery utilization, is estimated for the different energy management scenarios. The same representative drive cycle is used over the different energy management strategies to isolate the impact of energy management on battery utilization. PHEV gasoline savings, in comparison to a charge sustaining hybrid, are calculated for each of the energy management strategies, for a fixed distance of 40 miles.

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.

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.