TABLE 4-1 Reported HHV Fuel Economy Improvements

Developer and Vehicle

Fuel Economy Improvement (percent)

Eaton Electric Hybrid

 

UPS P100 Delivery Vana

36 (in field)

Adv. Technology HEVb

47 (on dynamometer)

HTUF Utility Truckc

67-150 (in field)

Oshkosh Electric Hybrid

 

AHHPS Refuse Truckd

36 (in field)

EPA Hydraulic Hybrid

 

Urban Delivery Vane

39-74 (in field)

aData from Kevin Beaty, Eaton Corp., and V.K. Sharma, International Truck, “Hybrid Technology Program Review,” Presentation to the committee, Washington, D.C., February 8, 2007, Slide 5.

bData from Beaty and Sharma presentation, Slide 20.

cData from Beaty and Sharma presentation, Slide 8.

dData from Nadr Naser, “Oshkosh Truck Corporation–AHHPS,” Presentation to the committee, Washington, D.C., February 8, 2007, Slide 16.

eData from Charles Gray, Jr., “EPA’s Transportation R&D,” Presentation to the committee, Washington, D.C., March 28, 2007, Slide 24.

of funding was necessitated by the sharp reduction in the total 21CTP initiative funding that was enforced beginning in FY2007, requiring deep cuts in even successful project areas. In contrast, funding has continued for hybrid truck projects supported by DOD and EPA, although this hybrid work apparently falls outside of the 21CTP initiative.4

The 21CTP Roadmap (DOE, 2006a) identifies the major challenges for hybrid truck commercialization to be:

  • System reliability

  • System cost

  • System integration into the vehicle.

Based upon these commercial issues, it identifies the top priority areas for HHV funding to achieve the 21CTP goals as:

  • Drive unit reliability

  • Drive unit cost

  • Energy storage system reliability

  • Energy storage system cost

  • Demonstrated ability to meet heavy-duty 2007 emission standards

  • Demonstrate 60 percent improvement in fuel economy, compared to current production heavy duty vehicles.

The 2012 goals stated in the 21CTP 2006 Roadmap for heavy-duty hybrid vehicles are as follows:

  • Develop a new generation of drive unit systems that have higher specific power, lower cost and durability matching the service life of the vehicle. Develop a drive unit that has 15 years of design life and costs no more than $50/kW by 2012.

  • Develop an energy storage system with 15 years of design life that prioritizes high power rather than high energy, and costs no more than $25/kW peak electric power rating by 2012.

  • Develop and demonstrate a heavy hybrid propulsion technology that achieves a 60 percent improvement in fuel economy, on a representative urban driving cycle, while meeting regulated emissions levels for 2007 and thereafter.

However, summary presentations by government staff have shown significant changes in program goals over time. Skalny presented information which showed that the original fuel economy improvement targets when 21CTP was established, following the earlier Review of the DOE Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies (National Research Council, 2000) were between 100 and 200 percent improvements for heavy-duty hybrid vehicle demonstrations, depending upon the application.5 Rogers reported a goal of “up to a 100 percent improvement” in fuel economy without reference to a driving cycle.6 The current official 21CTP goal of demonstrating 60 percent improvement in fuel economy on a representative urban driving cycle neither defines the cycle nor does it identify the vehicle class or intended use. This gradual reduction in the fuel economy improvement target during the past seven years has the effect of aligning the goal more closely with what available electric or hydraulic hybrid technology can achieve in Class 5/6 urban delivery vehicles, as summarized in Table 4-1.

Some insight into the background of these changing program objectives was provided by the 21CTP management in response to a question posed by the committee. The committee was informed that “the change in goals is mainly attributable to a change in focus at the government level soon after the development of the 2000 roadmap, in which government agencies (DOE in particular) were encouraged by the Administration to focus more on component technologies and less on vehicle/system technologies.”7

The timetable for hybrid truck development is very brief (truncated beyond 2007) as a result of the decision to terminate further research in the heavy hybrid propulsion area.

4

Charles Gray, Jr., “EPA’s Transportation R&D,” Presentation to the committee, March 28, 2007, Washington, D.C.; Paul Skalny, “Briefing to the National Academies’ Committee to Review the 21CTP,” Presentation to the committee, March 28, 2007, Washington, D.C.

5

Paul Skalny, DOD (U.S. Department of Defense), U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research and Development Command, “Briefing to the National Academies’ Committee to Review the 21CTP,” Presentation to the committee, March 28, 2007, Washington, D.C.

6

Susan Rogers, DOE, FCVT, “Heavy Hybrid Propulsion Overview,” Presentation to the committee, February 21, 2007, Washington, D.C.

7

DOE, FCVT, Response to committee query on “Partnership History, Vision, Mission, and Organization” section of “Responses to NAS Queries on 21CTP Management and Process Issues,” transmitted via e-mail by Ken Howden, March 27, 2007.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement