TRANSITIONS TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES— PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies

Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



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



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
TRANSITIONS TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES— PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEmIES PRESS • 500 Fifth Street, N.W. • Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract DE-AT01-06EE11206, TO#18, Subtask 3, between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number 13: 978-0-309-14850-4 International Standard Book Number 10: 0-309-14850-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2010925717 Cover: Images (adapted) courtesy of California Cars Initiative (left) and U.S. Department of Energy (right). Available in limited supply from: Additional copies for sale from: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems The National Academies Press National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Keck W934 Washington, DC 20055 Washington, DC 20001 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (202) 334-3344 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet: http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2010 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COmmITTEE ON ASSESSmENT OF RESOURCE NEEDS FOR FUEL CELL AND HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGIES MICHAEL P. RAMAGE, NAE,1 Chair, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired), Moorestown, New Jersey RAKESH AGRAWAL, NAE, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana DAVID L. BODDE, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina DAVID FRIEDMAN, Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, D.C. SUSAN FUHS, Conundrum Consulting, Hermosa Beach, California JUDI GREENWALD, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, D.C. ROBERT L. HIRSCH, Management Information Services, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia JAMES R. KATZER, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Washington, D.C. GENE NEMANICH, ChevronTexaco Technology Ventures (retired), Scottsdale, Arizona JOAN OGDEN, University of California, Davis, Davis, California LAWRENCE T. PAPAY, NAE, Science Applications International Corporation (retired), La Jolla, California IAN W.H. PARRY, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM F. POWERS, NAE, Ford Motor Company (retired), Boca Raton, Florida EDWARD S. RUBIN, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ROBERT W. SHAW, JR. Aretê Corporation, Center Harbor, New Hampshire ARNOLD F. STANCELL,2 NAE, Georgia Institute of Technology, Greenwich, Connecticut TONY WU, Southern Company, Wilsonville, Alabama Consultant JAMES CANADA Project Staff Board on Energy and Environmental Systems ALAN CRANE, Study Director JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director, BEES JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Project Assistant NAE Program Office PENELOPE GIBBS, Senior Program Associate 1NAE, National Academy of Engineering. 2Resigned from the committee June 2009. v

OCR for page R1
BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONmENTAL SYSTEmS DOUGLAS M. CHAPIN, Chair, NAE,1 MPR Associates, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia ROBERT W. FRI,2 Vice Chair, Resources for the Future (senior fellow emeritus), Washington, D.C. RAKESH AGRAWAL, NAE, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana WILLIAM F. BANHOLZER, The Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan ALLEN J. BARD,2 NAS,3 University of Texas, Austin ANDREW BROWN, JR., NAE, Delphi Corporation, Troy, Michigan MARILYN BROWN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, NAE, University of Wisconsin, Madison PAUL DeCOTIS, Long Island Power Authority, Albany, New York E. LINN DRAPER, JR., NAE, American Electric Power, Inc. (emeritus), Austin, Texas CHRISTINE EHLIG-ECONOMIDES, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Station WILLIAM FRIEND, NAE, Bechtel Group Inc. (retired), McLean, Virginia CHARLES H. GOODMAN,2 Southern Company (retired), Birmingham, Alabama SHERRI GOODMAN, CNA, Alexandria, Virginia NARAIN G. HINGORANI, NAE, Consultant, Los Altos Hills, California MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, Princeton University, New Jersey WILLIAM F. POWERS,2 NAE, Ford Motor Company (retired), Ann Arbor, Michigan MICHAEL P. RAMAGE, NAE, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired), Moorestown, New Jersey DAN REICHER, Google.org, San Francisco, California BERNARD ROBERTSON, NAE, DaimlerChrysler Corporation (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan MAXINE SAVITZ, NAE, Honeywell, Inc. (retired), Los Angeles, California MARK H. THIEMENS, NAS, University of California, San Diego, California SCOTT W. TINKER,2 University of Texas, Austin, Texas RICHARD WHITE, Oppenheimer & Company, New York City Staff JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director DUNCAN BROWN, Senior Program Officer DANA CAINES, Financial Associate ALAN CRANE, Senior Program Officer JOHN HOLMES, Senior Program Officer LaNITA JONES, Program Associate JASON ORTEGA, Senior Project Assistant (until December 2009) MADELINE WOODRUFF, Senior Program Officer JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Project Assistant 1NAE, National Academy of Engineering. 2Term ended September 30, 2009. 3NAS, National Academy of Sciences. vi

OCR for page R1
Preface The Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for structure to supply the energy to operate them, and unlike Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies completed its report all-electric battery vehicles, drivers will not have to worry about charging the batteries on a long trip. However, PHEVs Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies—A Focus on Hydrogen (The National Academies Press, Wash- have their own limitations, as discussed in this report. ington, D.C.) in 2008. Subsequently, the U.S. Department It is unusual for the NRC to reconvene a committee orga- of Energy requested the National Research Council (NRC) nized for one purpose to investigate another, but this is an to expand that analysis to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles unusual committee in another way, too. I have never worked (PHEVs). The committee reconvened to examine the issues with a committee that was so dedicated, knowledgeable, associated with PHEVs and wrote this report in response to and talented. This entire additional task has taken about that additional task. 6 months, an extraordinarily fast pace for a complex issue. The nation has only a few options for making great The committee members have my deepest appreciation. The reductions in its dependence on oil and emissions of carbon project also was very fortunate in having as its study director dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, from the transportation Alan Crane, who contributed immeasurably with his experi- sector. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are one, and electric ence and expertise and his ability to keep the whole process vehicles are another. Both have great potential but also seri- moving on schedule. ous disadvantages and uncertainties. In particular, costs for The committee operated under the auspices of the NRC both are currently very high, and both have limited range. Board on Energy and Environmental Systems and is grate- In comparison, PHEVs have some attractive characteris- ful for the able assistance of James Zucchetto and Jonathan tics. Unlike hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, they can be deployed Yanger of the NRC staff, and Penelope Gibbs of the National in the marketplace without simultaneously building an infra- Academy of Engineering Program Office staff. Michael P. Ramage vii

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgments The Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies is grateful to the many standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the individuals who contributed their time and efforts to this study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript National Research Council (NRC) study. The presentations remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative at committee meetings provided valuable information and process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their insights that enhanced the committee’s understanding of the review of this report: technologies and barriers involved. The committee thanks the following individuals and companies for their briefings Paul Blumberg, Consultant, and information: Andrew Brown, Delphi Corporation, Doug Chapin, MPR Associates, Shinichi Abe, Toyota Motor Corporation, John German, International Council for Clean Dick Cromie, Southern California Edison, Transportation, Bob Graham, Southern California Edison, Charles Goodman, Consultant, Dave Howell, U.S. Department of Energy, Paul Gray, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Tien Nguyen, U.S. Department of Energy, Daniel Greenbaum, Health Effects Institute, Phil Patterson, U.S. Department of Energy, Trevor Jones, ElectroSonics Medical, Incorporated, Bill Reinert, Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc., Maryann Keller, Maryann Keller and Associates, and Sandy Thomas, H2Gen, Brijesh Vyas, LGS Innovations, Limited Licensing Mark Verbrugge, General Motors, Corporation. David Vieau, A123 Systems, Michael Wang, Argonne National Laboratory, Although the reviewers listed above have provided many Jake Ward, U.S. Department of Energy, constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked Compact Power, Inc. to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they Delphi Corporation, see the final draft of the report before its release. The review DENSO International America, Inc., and of this report was overseen by Elisabeth M. Drake (NAE), Ford Motor Corporation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Appointed by the National Research Council, she was responsible for making This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals certain that an independent examination of this report was chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical exper- carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and tise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s that all review comments were carefully considered. Respon- Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent sibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with review is to provide candid and critical comments that will the authoring committee and the institution. assist the institution in making its published report as sound viii

OCR for page R1
Contents SUMMARY 1 1 INTRODUCTION 6 2 BATTERIES AND BATTERY PACKS FOR PHEVS 7 Types of PHEVs, 7 Lithium-Ion Battery Cell Chemistries, 8 Lithium-Ion Battery Packs, 9 Projected PHEV Incremental Costs, 13 Other Technology Options and Potential Breakthroughs, 15 3 U.S. ELECTRIC POWER INFRASTRUCTURE 17 U.S. Electric Power System, 17 The System Out to 2030 and Beyond, 18 Charging the Batteries, 19 Additional Issues, 20 4 SCENARIO ANALYSIS 21 Scenario Descriptions, 21 Transition Costs, 25 Oil Consumption, 28 Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 30 Scenario Summary, 32 5 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 33 REFERENCES 35 APPENDIXES A Committee Biographical Information 39 B Presentations and Committee Meetings 43 C Scenarios 44 D Statement of Task 52 E Acronyms and Abbreviations 53 Estimation of Lithium-Ion Battery Pack Costs1 F 54 1Appendix F was added to this report after release of the prepublication version to clarify how the cost estimates were made. ix

OCR for page R1
Tables, Figures, and Boxes TABLES S.1 Estimated Future PHEV Incremental Costs, 2 S.2 PHEV Transition Times and Costs, 4 2.1 Characteristics of Li-Ion Batteries Involving Different Chemistries, 9 2.2 Estimates of Li-Ion Battery Performance Parameters for a PHEV-40, 12 2.3 Estimated Battery Performance Properties for a PHEV-10, 12 2.4 Projected Incremental Cost of Components for PHEV-40 for Production in 2010 Using Current Technology Compared with an Equivalent Current Nonhybrid Vehicle, 14 2.5 Projected Incremental Cost of Components for PHEV-10 for Production in 2010 Using Current Technology Compared with an Equivalent Current Nonhybrid Vehicle, 14 2.6 Percent Projected Cost Reductions for Different Components with Increased Production and Learning by Doing, 15 2.7 Estimated PHEV Incremental Costs, 15 3.1 Approximate Charging Time as a Function of Vehicle Size and Electric Driving Range, 20 4.1 Energy Requirements of Midsized Vehicles, 26 4.2 Estimated Retail Prices of PHEVs Incremental to Retail Price of Reference Case Gasoline Car, 26 4.3 PHEV Transition Times and Costs, 28 4.4 Comparison of Transition Costs for PHEV and HFCV Cases, 29 C.1 Ratio of Energy Use in PHEVs Compared to Energy Use in Gasoline HEVs, 47 C.2 Input Variables for Sensitivity Study, 50 C.3 Range of Inputs Normalized to Base Value, 50 FIGURES S.1 Projections of number of PHEVs in the U.S. light-duty fleet, 3 S.2 Gasoline use for PHEV-10s and PHEV-40s introduced at the Maximum Practical rate and the Efficiency Case from the 2008 Hydrogen Report, 3 S.3 GHG emissions for cases combining high-efficiency conventional vehicles and HEVs with mixed PHEV or HFCV vehicles for the two different grid mixes, 3 S.4 Gasoline consumption for scenarios that combine conventional vehicle efficiency, PHEVs, biofuels, and HFCVs, 4 2.1 Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle concepts, 8 2.2 Differences in state of charge (SOC) requirements for PHEV batteries and HEV batteries, 10 x

OCR for page R1
xi TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 3.1 Net generation of U.S. electric power industry, 2007, 18 3.2 Electric generation by fuel in four cases, 2007 and 2030, 19 4.1 Number of light-duty vehicles in the fleet for the Reference Case, 22 4.2 On-road fuel economy of vehicles for the Reference Case, 22 4.3 Types and numbers of light-duty vehicles for the Efficiency Case, 22 4.4 Fuel economy of new light-duty vehicles for the Efficiency Case, 22 4.5 Biofuel supply for the Biofuels-Intensive Case, 22 4.6 Penetration of PHEVs in the U.S. light-duty fleet, 23 4.7 Number of vehicles for the Portfolio Cases, a mix of PHEVs and efficient ICEVs and HEVs, introduced at the Maximum Practical rate, 25 4.8 Retail prices for PHEVs for probable and optimistic rates of technology progress, compared to the Reference Case vehicle (conventional ICEV), 27 4.9 Price of gasoline over time and at electricity price of 8 cents per kilowatt-hour, 27 4.10 Cash flow analysis for PHEV-10, Maximum Practical Case, Optimistic technical assumptions, 28 4.11 Gasoline consumption for PHEV-10s or PHEV-40s introduced at Maximum Practical and Probable penetration rates, 29 4.12 Gasoline use for the Reference Case and the Efficiency Case and when PHEVs are included in an already highly efficient fleet, 29 4.13 Gasoline use for scenarios that combine efficiency, biofuels, and either PHEVs or HFCVs, 30 4.14 GHG emissions from the future electric grid, 30 4.15 GHG emissions for PHEVs at the market penetrations shown in Figure 4.6 for the grid mix estimated by EIA, 30 4.16 GHG emissions for PHEVs at the market penetrations shown in Figure 4.6 for the grid mix estimated by EPRI/NRDC, 30 4.17 GHG emissions for cases combining ICEV Efficiency Case and PHEV or HFCV vehicles at the Maximum Practical penetration rate with the EPRI/NRDC grid mix, 31 4.18 GHG emissions for cases combining ICEV Efficiency Case and PHEV or HFCV vehicles at the Maximum Practical penetration rate with the EIA grid mix, 31 4.19 GHG emissions for cases combining the ICEV Efficiency Case and PHEV or HFCV vehicles for the EPRI/NRDC grid mix, 31 4.20 GHG emissions for scenarios combining ICEV Efficiency Case, Biofuels Case, and PHEVs or HFCVs, for the EIA grid mix, 31 4.21 GHG emissions for scenarios combining ICEV Efficiency Case, Biofuels Case, and PHEVs or HFCVs for the EPRI/ NRDC grid mix, 32 C.1 Number of vehicles in the Hydrogen Report Reference Case, 45 C.2 Fuel economy for vehicles in the Hydrogen Report Reference Case, 45 C.3 Number of vehicles in the ICEV Efficiency Case (Hydrogen Report Case 2), 45 C.4 Fuel economy for the ICEV Efficiency Case (Hydrogen Report Case 2), 45 C.5 Biofuel supply for the Biofuels-Intensive Case (Hydrogen Report Case 3), 45 C.6 Numbers of light-duty vehicles for portfolio approach, where PHEVs are combined with efficient ICEVs and HEVs, 45 C.7 PHEV operating modes, 46 C.8 National VMT fraction available for substitution by a PHEV using 100 percent electric charge-depleting mode, 47 C.9 Tank-to-wheels energy use in advanced vehicles, assuming 44 percent blending during charge-depleting operation, 47 C.10 Energy consumption in a PHEV-30 as electricity and gasoline for different blending strategies in CD mode, 47 C.11 Estimated on-road, fleet-average gasoline consumption for ICEVs, HEVs, and PHEVs in this study, 48 C.12 Estimated fleet-average electricity use over drive cycle for PHEVs in this study, 48 C.13 Cash flow analysis for PHEV-40, Maximum Practical case, Optimistic technical assumptions, 48 C.14 Cash flow analysis for PHEV-40, Probable case, Probable technical assumptions, 48 C.15 Cash flow analysis for PHEV-10, Maximum Practical case, Optimistic technical assumptions, 49 C.16 Cash flow analysis for PHEV-10, Probable case, Probable technical assumptions, 49 C.17 Cash flow analysis for mixed case (70 percent PHEV-10s and 30 percent PHEV-40s), Maximum Practical case, Optimistic technical assumptions, 49

OCR for page R1
xii TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES C.18 Cash flow analysis for mixed case (70 percent PHEV-10s and 30 percent PHEV-40s), Probable Case, Probable technical assumptions, 49 C.19 PHEV-10: Sensitivity of break-even year to changes in input variables, 50 C.20 PHEV-40: Sensitivity of break-even year to changes in input variables, 50 C.21 PHEV-10: Sensitivity of buydown cost to changes in input variables, 50 C.22 PHEV-40: Sensitivity of buydown cost to changes in input variables, 51 C.23 GHG emissions from the future electric grid, 51 C.24 Hydrogen GHG emissions per megajoule of energy, 51 F.1 Historical cost reduction experience for NiMH battery packs and for Li-ion battery packs, 56 BOXES 2.1 Department of Energy Targets for Battery Performance, 13 4.1 Manufacturers’ Announced Plans for Electric Vehicles (Partial List), 23 4.2 Factors Affecting Deployment and Impact, 24