m III Hi 1

M

jljlll 1 iV

MIST ^^^^^^1

PUBLICATIONS

A11104 EfifilfiT

United States Department of Commerce

Technology Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NIST Special Publication 860

Advanced Components for Electric and

Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Workshop Proceedings

October 27-28, 1993

Gaithersburg, Maryland

K. L. Stricklett, Editor
7he National Institute of Standards and Technology was established in 1988 by Congress to "assist industry in the development of technology . . . needed to improve product quality, to modernize

manufacturing processes, to ensure product reliability . . . and to facilitate rapid commercialization ... of

products based on new scientific discoveries."

NIST, originally founded as the National Bureau of Standards in 1901, works to strengthen U.S.

industry's competitiveness; advance science and engineering; and improve public health, safety, and the

environment. One of the agency's basic functions is to develop, maintain, and retain custody of the national

standards of measurement, and provide the means and methods for comparing standards used in science,

engineering, manufacturing, commerce, industry, and education with the standards adopted or recognized

by the Federal Government.

As an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration, NIST conducts basic

and applied research in the physical sciences and engineering and performs related services. The Institute does generic and precompetitive work on new and advanced technologies. NIST's research facilities are located at Gaithersburg, MD 20899, and at Boulder, CO 80303. Major technical operating units and their principal activities are listed below. For more information contact the Public Inquiries Desk, 301-975-3058.

Technology Services

• Manufacturing Technology Centers Program

• Standards Services

• Technology Commercialization

• Measurement Services

• Technology Evaluation and Assessment

• Information Services

Electronics and Electrical Engineering

Laboratory

• Microelectronics

• Law Enforcement Standards

• Electricity

• Semiconductor Electronics

• Electromagnetic Fields'

• Electromagnetic Technology'

Chemical Science and Technology

Laboratory

• Biotechnology

• Chemical Engineering'

• Chemical Kinetics and Thermodynamics

• Inorganic Analytical Research

• Organic Analytical Research

• Process Measurements

• Surface and Microanalysis Science

• Thermophysics^

Physics Laboratory

• Electron and Optical Physics

• Atomic Physics

• Molecular Physics

» Radiometric Physics

• Quantum Metrology

• Ionizing Radiation

• Time and Frequency'

• Quantum Physics'

Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory

• Precision Engineering

• Automated Production Technology

• Robot Systems

• Factory Automation

• Fabrication Technology

Materials Science and Engineering

Laboratory

• Intelligent Processing of Materials

• Ceramics

• Materials Reliability'

• Polymers

• Metallurgy

• Reactor Radiation

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

• Structures

• Building Materials

• Building Environment

• Fire Science and Engineering

• Fire Measurement and Research

Computer Systems Laboratory

• Information Systems Engineering

• Systems and Software Technology

• Computer Security

• Systems and Network Architecture

• Advanced Systems

Computing and Applied Mathematics

Laboratory

• Applied and Computational Mathematics^

• Statistical Engineering^

• Scientific Computing Environments^

• Computer Services^

• Computer Systems and Communications^

• Information Systems

'At Boulder, CO 80303. ^Some elements at Boulder, CO 80303.
NIST Special Publication 860

Advanced Components for Electric and

Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Workshop Proceedings

October 27-28, 1993

Gaithersburg, Maryland

K. L. Stricklett, Editor

Electricity Division

Electronics and Electrical Engineerinag Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technologay

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

March 1994

U.S. Department of Commerce

Ronald H. Brown, Secretary

Technology Administration

Mary L. Good, Under Secretary for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Arati Prabhakar, Director
National Institute of Standards U.S. Government Printing Office

and Technology Washington: 1994

Special Publication 860

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.

Spec. Publ. 860

212 pages (March 1994)

CODEN: NSPUE2

For sale by the Superintendent

of Documents

U.S. Goverrmient Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402
Executive Summary

This is a key period in the development of electric and hybrid electric vehicles. The landmark

1990 legislation in California requires that 2 per- cent of new automobiles be Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) in 1998, rising to 10 percent in the year 2005. This can only be met by Electric Vehicles (EV). The impact of this legislation could

lead to as many as 150,000 EV per year in 2005.

Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia

have adopted or are in the process of adopting similar legislation, which could increase that total to 400,000 EV per year. Some estimates give the total EV industry to be S8 billion by the end of the

century. Another impact of the legislation is the

potential for Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV) to

satisfy the requirements for Ultra Low Emission

Vehicles (ULEV).

The purpose of the workshop was to concentrate on the technologies to improve the design,

performance, manufacturability, and economics of

the critical components for the next generation

of Electric Vehicles and Hybrid Electric Vehicles

for the year 2000 and beyond. Nearly 200 rep- resentatives from the automobile manufacturers,

aerospace companies, parts suppliers, universities,

electric utilities, and state and federal govern- ment agencies and laboratories attended the workshop. The workshop was sponsored by the Advanced Technology Program at NIST, and organized through the Interagency Coordination Task

Force on Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies. The mission of the Task Force is to coor- dinate and integrate the programs and policies of Federal agencies in developing, testing, and pro- moting electric and hybrid vehicles and their as- sociated technologies. The Task Force includes

members from the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Defense, Transportation and Interior, the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration,

National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology Programs, and Interagency Advanced Power

Group.

The Workshop began with invited speakers to cover the general topics: impact of the California legislation. Federal agency programs, devel- opment of standards, infrastructure needs, advanced battery development, and the imperatives

for commercial success of EVs and HEVs. The

working sessions were five parallel meetings on

Energy Conversion Systems, Energy Storage Systems, Electric Propulsion Systems, Controls and

Instrumentation, and Ancillary Systems. Each

session chairman had been requested to develop

and present a "strawman" set of viewgraphs on

the following areas to act as the basis for the dis- cussions:

• Objectives

• Performance specifications

• Current technical, economic, and commercial

barriers

• Potential technical solutions and opportunities for development

• Requirements and developments needed for improved manufacturing

• Schedule/timetable for EV and HEV component development

• Requirements of future standards/test proce- dures

The session reports in these proceedings include

discussion and summaries by the session chairs, to- gether with the expanded versions of these viewgraphs and other data and papers that were pre- sented.

Presently, the major impetus for EVs and HEVs

is from the environmental legislature for clean air and reduced auto emissions. There also will be

additional impetus from the recent announcement

by the Clinton Administration of an agreement to work collaboratively with the three U.S. automobile companies on the New Generation of Vehicles which will have three times the fuel efficiency

of present internal combustion engine autos. In order for EVs and HEVs to successfully compete

with the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE), these

vehicles must match the performance as well as

offer advantages of fuel economics and reduced

or zero emissions, without any sacrifice on safety,

warranty or convenience of use. There is clearly

iii
iv Executive

a market for these vehicles, although this will re- quire a significant financial investment by the auto

companies and suppliers. It is possible that the

market may initially develop in specialty areas, such as fleets, vans, autos for limited in-town use, niche autos, and vehicles for the military. However, it is important to note that hybrids are also being considered and tested for buses. For successful deployment of EVs, it is necessary to have an infrastructure, including charging stations and

suitable standards. It is somewhat ironic to note

that in 1912 there were 34,000 electric vehicles reg- istered in the United States and an infrastructure

of battery charging stations established between

New York and Philadelphia for electric vehicles

before the ICE took over the market because of

their better performance and convenience.

The energy storage considerations are diflferent for EV and HEV systems, being more critical for the EV system where all the energy must be

stored. The main thrust for energy storage for auto is batteries, although fuel cells are planned

for buses. Several of the advanced battery systems

are under development by the United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC), including

nickel metal hydride, sodium sulfur, lithium metal

sulfide, and lithium polymer systems. It is still not clear if the USABC mid-term performance and

cost goals can all be met. The long-term USABC

goals, which are established to allow EVs to meet

all the performance specifications of ICEs with an EV, are even further in the future. There is no

clear winner yet, as became apparent when some

seventeen alternative battery systems were listed during a workshop session discussion. Other high

energy storage devices such as the "ultracapacitor" and mechanical storage (flywheel) systems are

also promising and under development, and must

be proven for performance, life, and cost. There are still many alternatives for the energy

conversion systems, depending upon the type of

vehicle (e.g., auto, van, bus, or truck), whether it

is an EV or HEV, and the required performance.

The series and parallel designs of hybrid vehicles

place different requirements on the energy conversion and energy storage systems. In the series hybrid system, the primary energy conversion sys- tem provides all of the power, with the energy be- ing replenished by the secondary system. In the

parallel hybrid system, the secondary energy storage systems provide a power boost when needed

to the primary energy system which fulfills the en- ergy storage for range. There was general agree- ment at the workshop that not enough attention

is being paid to the development of small engine

technology to be used to replenish the energy for the hybrid systems; these small engines would be

running at near optimum conditions for fuel ef- ficiency and reduced emissions. It was also felt that there should be attention to hydrogen fueled

or enriched fuel systems as a transitional technol- ogy from gasoline engines to other types of energy

conversion systems. Proton Exchange Membrane

(PEM) fuel cells, as well as Phosphoric Acid Fuel

Cells (PAFC), are being developed for autos and

buses, and Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) are be- ing promoted for the long term. The electric propulsion system is probably the

furthest along in the development, with some

agreement that induction motors are probably

the leading technology for power trains, and that

brushless DC or inductive alternators are the lead- ing technology for serial drive hybrids. Switched

reluctance motors and synchronous reluctance

drive configurations may become viable in the future. Maintenance and maintainability are key

issues. For the control systems, the IGBT (Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor) is the choice in most instances at higher voltages, and the power

MOSFET (Metal Oxide Silicon Field Effect Transistor) is still effective at lower voltages and higher

frequencies. There is a need to improve the per- formance of the IGBT for higher speed and lower

losses. Cost is still a major issue; there is the need

to reduce costs an order of magnitude below tra- ditional power electronics industry standards.

The instrumentation and controls follow the de- velopments of the other systems required for EVs

and HEVs. Control algorithms are an important

area, as are standards for interfaces internal within

the vehicle, from the vehicle to the infrcistructure,

and from the vehicle to the driver. Control sys- tems for hybrid electric vehicles are significantly more complex than for pure EV. Monitoring the

energy storage system to determine the effective remaining range is still a major challenge; this will clearly be dependent on the type of energy storage

system and the characteristic driving technique of

the driver, all of which may have to be eventually modeled. Self test of the electronics, inter-
Summasy V

faces, sensors, and monitoring system will be re- quired. All of the components in the ancillary sys- tems must be optimized in parallel in order to get

the greatest benefit in efficiency. Key components

considered in the ancillary systems are:

• Battery chargers and associated infreistruc- ture (conductive and inductive systems are under consideration and test).

• The braking system, where a major challenge

is to have regenerative and conventional fric- tion braking working together in a seamless,

smooth operation.

• Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

must be very efficient; high efficiency heat

pumps are used, with the possibility of Peltier devices (based on solid state devices) for longterm future use, after further development to improve the performance.

• Power steering assemblies under development

include a hybrid electric system as the boost

mechanism, although there is a need for this to be a very high reliability system.

Important themes that ran through all of the

sessions were the need for development of the manufacturing infrastructure and improved manufacturing techniques to significantly reduce the cost of

the components; the importance of standards for the components, the interfaces between them, and

at interfaces for data exchange; and the need to reduce the risk for investment in technology devel- opment and the formation of new manufacturing

facilities and the infrastructure. The innovation

and expertise are there for solving the technical

challenges. It is the economic challenges that must

be met for the successful introduction of the major new industry of electric and hybrid vehicles.

Alan H. Cookson

National Institute of Standards and Technology

January 1994
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

R. W. Bartholomew

A. H. Cookson

G. J. FitzPatrick

S. Hsiung

T. Leedy

J. Merritt

S. Miles

E. Simmon

G. N. Stenbakken

K. L. Stricklett R. Sutula

TECHNICAL CHAIRMAN

A. H. Cookson

SESSION CHAIRMEN

R. W. Bartholomew

L. Bell C. C. Christianson

SESSION SECRETARIES

D. Spiewak

G. L. Henriksen

A. Lee

T. Lesster H. J. King

A. Sobey

J. W. Weber

T. Winter

SESSION ORGANIZERS

G. J. FitzPatrick

F. Hart

A. R. Hefner, Jr.

E. Simmon

G. N. Stenbakken

PUBLICATION COMMITTEE

G. J. FitzPatrick K. L. Stricklett E. Simmon

LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS

K. Kilmer J. Pitt

L. Phillips J. Von Feldt

vi
Table of Contents

Executive Summciry iii

INVITED PRESENTATIONS

California's Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements and Implications for Hybrid

Electric Vehicles T. Cackette 3 An Overview of the DOE Electric and Hybrid Propulsion Systems Progrema K. F. Barber 19

Infrastructure Needs for EV and HEV . . S. Barsony, D. R. Spiewak, and S. Hsiung 26

Electric and Hybrid Electric Automobiles Imperatives for Commercial Success C. Marks 33

Advanced Battery CommercicJization J. Williams 40

Electric Vehicle Standards—The Current Status R. I. Sims 53

WORKING SESSION REPORTS

Session Report: Energy Conversion Systems ... R. W. Bartholomew and A. Sobey 65

Opening Remarks for the ParfJlel Session on Energy Conversion Systems R. W. Bartholomew 71 The Hydrogen Hybrid Option J. R Smith 76

On-Board Plasmatron Generation of Hydrogen-Rich Gas for Engine Pollution

Reduction A. Rabinovich, D. R. Cohn, and L. Bromberg 83

Thermo-Electric-Compound Engine for Hybrid Vehicles M. A. Paul 89

Phosphoric-Acid Fuel-Cell Bus Development R. J. Kevala 97

Zero-Emission Technology Projects M. A. Bogdanoff and J. H. Leonard 102

Non-Technical Bzirriers to Product Commercialization A. J. Sobey 106

Session Report: Energy Storage Systems ... C. Christianson and G. L. Henriksen 116

The DOE Ultracapacitor Program E. Dowgiallo 131

Westinghouse Zinc-Air Battery Development for Electric Vehicle Applications H. E. Saunders 144

Quasi Bipolar Lead-Acid Battery (Woven Lead Composite Grid) J. Lushetsky 146

vii
viii Contents

Common Vessel Battery Technology A. Nilsson 147

Flywheel Technology R. Post 154

Promising Future Energy Storage Systems: Nano-Material Based Systems, ZnAir, and Electromechanical Batteries .... R. Koopman and J. Richardson 156

Session Report: Electric Propulsion Systems L. E. Lesster 164

An Induction-Motor Power Train for EVs—The Right Power at the Right

Price L. E. Lesster, F. A. Lindberg, R. M. Young, and W. B. Hall 170

Session Report: Instrumentation and Controls .... H.J. King and J. W. Weber 174

Session Report: Ancillary Systems L. E. Bell 182

THE NIST ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

An Introduction to the NIST Advanced Technology Program T. Leedy 199
List of Figures

California's Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements... 3

1 . Elements of the California Air Resource Board program 8

2. California's air quality problem 8

3. Reactivity adjustment 9

4. Technology developments 9

5. Emission durability on-board diagnostics 10

6. Benefits of zero emission vehicles 10

7. Fuel evaporative emissions 10

8. Electricity generation 11

9. Zero emission vehicle progress 11

10. Purpose-built electric vehicle technology 12

11. Battery development 12

12. US Advanced Battery Consortium 12

13. Air Resource Board contracts 13

14. The sealed bipolar lead-acid battery 13

15. Future zero emission vehicle technologies 13

16. Hybrid-electric vehicles 14

17. Air quality benefits of hybrid electric vehicles 14

18. Low emission vehicle regulation and hybrids 15

19. Hybrid electric vehicle certification 15

20. Could a hybrid electric vehicle be a zero emission vehicle? 15

21. Advanced hybrid electric vehicle technology 16

22. Electric vehicle air quality benefits 16

23. Costs 16

24. Infrcistructure 17

25. Conclusions 17

26. Assumptions for power plant emissions 17

27. Hybrid electric versus zero emission vehicle and internal combustion engine 18 An Overview of the DOE Electric and Hybrid Propulsion Systems Program 19

1. Major elements of the DOE electric and hybrid propulsion systems program 20

2. Phosphoric acid fuel cell for small urban buses 21

3. Proton-exchange-membrane fuel cell for light-duty vehicles 21

4. Advanced multi-fuel reformer technology development 23

5. Single shaft AC propulsion system development 23

6. Hybrid vehicle research and development 24

7. Coordination of DOE Electric and Hybrid Propulsion program activities 25

Advanced Battery CommercieJization 40

1. General Motors Impact III 40

2. General Motors Impact HI in snow

.

41

3. General Motors Impact HI wind tunnel testing 42

4. General Motors Impact HI HVAC testing

.

43

5. General Motors Impact HI cra^h test 44

ix
X Contents

6. General Motors Impact III on Belgian Blocks 45

7. Available batteries have low energy 46

8. High-energy batteries are expensive 46

9. Optimizing the battery system 47

10. USABC statement of purpose 47

11. USABC structure , 48

12. USABC and federal government agreements

.

48

13. USABC funding 49

14. Electric vehicle range 49

15. New USABC development contract 50

16. Battery technology time line 52

17. USABC accomplishments 52

Electric Vehicle Standards—The Current Status 53

1. SAE standards groups 53

2. The U.S. standards interface 54

3. International EV standards process flow 59

4. Development route for international EV standards 60

5. The stages of development of international standards 61

The Hydrogen Hybrid Option 76

1. Vehicle efficiency estimates for conventional, battery powered electric, and hybrid . . 78

2. Vehicle emissions estimates for conventional, battery powered electric, and hybrid . . 80

On-Board Plasmatron Generation of Hydrogen-Rich Gas... 83

1. Water plasmatron 85

2. Energy and mass flow diagram 85

Thermo-Electric-Compound Engine for Hybrid Vehicles 89

1. Detail of piston-ring design 90

2. State-of-the-art engine efficiency 91

3. Fundamental test results on B.S.F.C., NOx, and Pmax 92

4. Comparison of thermodynamic cycles 92

5. Float 1: Monocylinder test rig assembly 95

6. Float 2: Monocylinder test rig assembly 96

Phosphoric-Acid Fuel-Cell Bus Development 97

1. Artist's rendering of the test-bed bus 98

2. Test-bed bus hardware configuration 100

Session Report: Energy Storage Systems 116

1. Energy storage systems discussion areas 118

2. Energy storage systems session objectives 118

3. Performance specifications 119

4. Desired EV and HEV energy storage system performance 119

5. Commercial issues 121

6. Technical solutions and opportunities for development 122
Contents xi

7. Energy storage systems requirements for standards 123

8. Energy storage systems requirements for standards 124

9. Energy storage requirements for dual-mode and power-assist HEVs 125

The DOE Ultracapacitor Program 131

1. Peak power density requirement for a pulse-power unit in a compact car 132

2. U.S. Department of Energy ultracapacitor program 132

3. Specifications for Paucisonic 3 V, 1500 F capacitors 135

4. Carbon/metal fiber electrode structure 136

5. Milestone chart for ultracapacitor development 137

6. Specifications of the Maxwell/Auburn 1 V, 75 F capacitor 137

7. Specifications of the Maxwell/Auburn 3 V, 27 F capacitor 138

8. Conclusions 138

9. Objectives 139

10. Deliverables 139

11. Milestones 140

12. What's possible with nanostructure multilayers? 140

13. Why are sub-micron multilayers of interest? 140

14. Strengths 141

15. Why do we care about capacitors? 141

16. Weaknesses 141

17. Projected specific-energy and specific-power for NMCs with various dielectrics .... 142

18. Cost analysis for multilayer capacitors 143

Westinghouse Zinc-Air Battery Development for Electric Vehicle Applications 144

1. Objective 144

2. Advantages of the zinc-air battery 145

3. Summary 145

Common Vessel Battery Technology 147

1. The large battery challenge 147

2. Current battery design options 148

3. Common vessel monoblock battery—A new solution 149

4. Key to the new design 149

5. Common vessel monoblock advantages 150

6. Schematic of a monoblock concept battery 150

7. Operation of a common vessel monoblock battery 150

8. Reactions at regulator 151

9. Summary 153

Flywheel Technology 154

1. Advantages of the electromechanical battery 154

2. Advantages of the electromechanical battery 154

3. Electromechanical battery unit cost projections 155

4. Advantages of the electromechanical battery 155
xii Contents

Promising Future Energy Storage Systems... 156

1. Schematic of the enhancement in charge storage capability 157

2. Capacitance density for various carbon aerogel catalyst ratios 157

3. Observed versus model discharge performance 158

4. Cross section of a multilayer capacitor 159

5. Volumetric capacitance and voltage breakdown curves multilayer capacitors 159

6. Effects of carbon and lithium cobalt dioxide utilization on energy density 160

7. Layout of an electromechanical battery 162

Session Report: Electric Propulsion Systems 164

1. Time frame for development of a commercially viable power train 167

2. Performance specifications 168

3. Key technologies and their state-of-the-art performance 168

4. Technology of EV Power Trains—Systems and Components 168

5. Key components—Motor controllers 169

6. Controller components 169

An Induction-Motor Power Train for EVs... 170

1. Dynamometer test of 100-hp electric power train 170

2. Stock pick-up truck performance 100-hp electric drive versus ICE options 170

3. Highway acceleration and regenerative braking of van 171

4. Prototype versus production system efficiency at 3000 RPM 171

5. Motor plus controller efficiency 171

6. Motor controller operating envelope 172

7. Electric vehicle power train path to target cost 173

Session Report: Instrumentation and Controls 174

1. Energy storage 176

2. Power train performance 177

3. Vehicle subsystem controllers 178

4. Environmental interface 179
List of Tables

California's Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements... 3

1. Low-emission vehicle categories 8

2. Certification status of low-emission vehicles 9

3. Zero emission versus ultra-low emission vehicles 11

4. Cost implication of battery technology 14

5. Battery technologies 18

Advanced Battery Commercialization 40

1. USABC development goals 50

2. Battery development contracts 50

3. Battery development contracts (cont.) 51

4. Cooperative Research and Development Agreements 51

5. Performance projections relative to mid-term criteria 51

Electric Vehicle Standards—The Current Status 53

1. Summary of ERIP performance indicators for the years 1975-1990 73

2. Summary of power requirements of various accessories used in vehicles 74

3. Sample values for the coefficient of rolling resistance 74

4. Aerodynamic drag coefficient of selected vehicles 74

The Hydrogen Hybrid Option 76

1. Vehicle comparison technology assumptions 77

Thermo-Electric-Compound Engine for Hybrid Vehicles 89

1. Comparison of the monocylinder test rig with state-of-the-art engines 93

Phosphoric-Acid Fuel-Cell Bus Development 97

1. Test-bed bus performance and gradability requirements 99

2. Georgetown University Transportation Society test cycle 101

Session Report: Energy Storage Systems 116

1. USABC primary criteria for electric vehicles 120

2. USABC secondary criteria for electric vehicles 120

3. Data on existing electric vehicle batteries 121

4. Battery development and manufacturing opportunities 121

5. Technical, economic, and commercial barriers 122

6. Schedule/timetable for component development 122

7. Energy storage technologies identified 126

8. Energy storage technologies identified (cont.) 127

9. Energy storage technologies identified (cont.) 128

10. System energy versus power 130

11. Projected availability of energy storage systems 130

The DOE Ultracapacitor Program 131

1. Near-term and advanced goals for ultracapacitor programs 131

xiii
xiv Contents

2. Status of ultracapacitor technologies 133

3. Status of ultracapacitor technologies with projections 134

Quasi Bipolar Lead-Acid Battery 146

1. Characteristics of the quasi bipolar lead-acid battery 146

Common Vessel Battery Technology 147

1. Performance characteristics of common vessel monoblock batteries 152

2. Design features in the common vessel monoblock battery 152

Promising Future Energy Storage Systems... 156

1. Estimates of range extension and weight reduction for an urban bus 161

Session Reports Instrumentation and Controls 174

1. Summary 180

2. Summary 2 181

Session Report: Ancillary Systems 182

1. Key technologies and their state-of-the-art performance 187

la. Key technologies and their state-of-the-art performance (cont.) 188

2. Key performance specifications for the next generation of component 189

2a. Key performance specifications for the next generation of component (cont.) 190

3. Current technical, economic, and commercial barriers of these components 191

3a. Current technical, economic, and commercial barriers of these components (cont.) . 192

4. Possible solutions to technical barriers 193

5. Improved manufacturability and manufacturing needs 194

6. Schedule/timetable for component development 195

7. Components not reviewed 196
Invited Presentations

CALIFORNIA'S ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS

AND IMPLICATIONS FOR HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES

T. Cackette

Chief Deputy Executive Officer California Air Resources Board

Sacramento, CA 95814

ABSTRACT

The Air Resources Board has adopted stringent tail pipe emission standards for new 1994 and subse- quent light-Eind medium-duty vehicles sold in California. The first vehicles meeting these requirements

are now for sale. Begiiming in 1998, the larger vehicle manufacturers will be required to certify that

2 percent of their light-duty vehicles have zero tail pipe emissions. Initially, these will be batterypowered electric vehicles (EVs). Progress in developing commerciaUy viable EVs is rapid. In 1994,

prototype EVs wiU enter the marketplace with the objective of better quauitifying consumer reaction. Improvements to the lead acid battery are being made, and a huge reseeirch effort to develop highly

advEinced batteries is underway. Remaining issues are the extent of consumer demand for EVs, how

much adv£uicement in battery performance will occur by 1998, auid whether ultra-low emission hybrid

EVs, whose emissions are no more than the urbein emissions from the electricity generating system, can be developed.

INTRODUCTION

In September, 1990, the Air Resources Board

(CARB) adopted more stringent tail pipe emission standards for new cars, and light-duty trucks,

beginning with the 1994 model year. These regulations require each vehicle manufacturer to meet, on a fleet-average basis, a non-methane organic

gcLS (NMOG) tail pipe emission standard, which

declines annually, and by 2003 is 75 percent lower

than in 1994. A vehicle manufacturer may certify a specific model to any one of four different low emission vehicle (LEV) tail pipe standards,

or to conventional standards. The average of the

NMOG standards, for all vehicles produced in that

year, determines if a manufacturer is in compliance. The four low emission standards are referred to as TLEV, LEV, ULEV TLEV and ZEV TLEV,

where "T" refers to transitional, "U" to ultra, and

"Z" to zero. The NMOG standards for these cat- egories are 50, 70, 84 and 100 percent lower, re- spectively, than the 0.16 gram per kilometer hydrocarbon tail pipe emission standard for conventional cars and light trucks. The oxides of nitrogen

(NOx) emission standard for the LEV and ULEV

categories is 50 percent more stringent.

The first model meeting TLEV standards was

certified in 1992, and as of October, 1993, over ten 1994 models were certified as TLEVs, and one as a LEV. Manufacturers who certify early, or produce more LEVs than are required to meet the fleet average NMOG standard, receive emission credits which may be used to help meet future emission

requirements, or may be traded or sold. The photochemical reactivity, i.e., the smogforming potential, of the exhaust of vehicles certi- fying on fuels other than conventional gasoline is also determined, and those vehicles with less re- active exhaust are allowed to emit more meiss of

exhaust NMOG. This allows fuel type to be considered as an additional, and possibly more cost

effective, approach to meeting tail pipe standards,

and removes a regulatory barrier to the use of al- ternative fuels. In essence, this reactivity adjustment transforms the mass of NMOG emissions to a grams ozone per kilometer basis. Reducing ambient ozone is the primary objective of the LEV

regulations.

CARB has also adopted new evaporative emis3
4 Cackette:

sion standards, and requires new vehicles to be

equipped with a comprehensive on-board diagnostic system that checks the performance of key

emission control systems on an on-going basis. If the performance of an emission control system de- grades such that emissions exceed the certification standard by 50 percent, a warning light is illuminated, and information to help the repair technician identify and fix the problem is stored in the

on-board computer. By 1996, all LEVs will be

equipped with on-board diagnostics, and by 1998

all will meet the more stringent evaporative emission standard.

THE ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV)

MANDATE

A mandate to produce and offer for sale zero emission vehicles is included in the LEV regulations.

Each major manufacturer (the top seven bcised on current sales) is required to produce ZEVs

at a rate of 2 percent of total light duty vehicle

production, beginning with the 1998 model year. This requirement increases to 5 percent of sales

in 2001, and 10 percent of sales in 2003, when all but the smallest vehicle manufacturers must pro- duce ZEVs. By 2003, over a quarter million ZEVs

will be operating in California. If all the states which have expressed interest in adopting California's program do so, cumulative ZEV production

could reach one million by 2003.

The mandate was adopted based on three primary considerations. First, even with LEVs dominating the fleet by 2010, the shear number of

vehicles in the Los Angeles basin, and the dis- tance they travel (projected to be 10 million, and

230 billion kilometers per year, respectively) will continue to make motor vehicles a significant contributor to smog. On-road motor vehicles alone, in 2010, are projected to contribute nearly 100 per- cent of the emissions that can be tolerated with- out exceeding the federal ozone ambient air quality

standard in the Los Angeles basin. For this rea- son the CARB staiT identified ZEVs as a means of

further reducing the adverse health impacts of air pollution in Los Angeles during the first decade of

the 21st century.

The second consideration is ZEVs emit much

fewer emissions than even the cleanest internal

combustion engines, including the ULEV. Internal

combustion engines have historically experienced a

deterioration in emissions with age, and on average

emit hydrocarbon emissions at a rate three times

the emission standard to which they were certified. This is true even in the presence of periodic

inspection programs whose goal is to encourage

maintenance and discourage tampering with emissions control devices. Improved inspection pro- grams, and on-board diagnostics, are expected to lower in-use emissions of future vehicles. However,

maintaining emissions at or near the certification emission standards throughout the vehicle's life, which now extends well beyond 160,000 kilometers, remains a formidable challenge. ZEVs have no tail pipe emissions to deteriorate—zero will al- ways be zero. They also emit no toxic emissions,

and have substantially lower CO2 emissions than

conventional vehicles. ZEVs also have no evaporative emissions. Even

vehicles subject to the new, more stringent evaporative emission standards will emit an equivalent

0.09 gram per kilometer hydrocarbons due to fuel evaporation from the vehicle and various points of

fuel transfer. This is nearly four times the allowable tail pipe standard for a ULEV. Only vehicles

using low volatile fuels (e.g. neat methanol), or dedicated vehicles with sealed fuel systems (e.g. compressed natural gas), and ZEVs, avoid this major source of emissions.

California is also fortunate to have one of the

world's cleanest electricity generating systems.

Nearly all in-state, combustion generated power

uses natural gas as fuel, and during the next decade most of these power plants will add emission control systems which will reduce NOx emissions by another 70 percent (68 grams/MW-h).

Emissions from power plants are minimal. In the Los Angeles basin, only 20 percent of power

demand is met from in-basin, combustion power

plants. Other sources of power include hydroelectric, nuclear, geothermal, wind, and combustiongenerated power produced in arecis downwind of

the basin. The in-basin power plant NOx emissions resulting from charging battery powered

ZEVs, expressed in grams per kilometer of ZEV

operation, are only 0.0025. By comparison, the

NOx emissions of a ULEV are 50 times higher.

Even if all power plant emissions are considered,

including out-of-state purchcised power that is coal generated, the NOx emission rate for a ZEV is 0.06
California's Zero Emission Veliicle Requirements.. 5

gram per kilometer, and is not subject to deterio- ration over time. Although illustrative, this worst

case scenario is not relevant to public policy for urban smog reduction since the downwind power

plant emissions cause far less public health and

welfare damage than do internal combustion en- gines emitting within the Los Angeles basin.

The third consideration in adopting the ZEV

mandate related to technology. The battery has

always been, and remains so today, the Achilles

heel of electric vehicles. However, advancements

in other aspects of electric vehicles, including aero- dynamics, electric motor and control efficiency,

lightweight materials and regenerative braking,

make it possible to design a viable electric vehicle

that can accommodate the limitations of current battery technology. Evidence the General Motors

Impact electric vehicle. It remains our belief that a commercially viable electric vehicle can be built and sold that does not require highly advanced

batteries, the existence which at this time remains

dependent on more research and development.

BATTERIES

The adoption of the ZEV mandate has stimulated a worldwide effort to develop ZEV technologies,

including advanced batteries. U.S. battery manufacturers, car companies, utilities and the federal government have begun a multi-hundred million dollar effort to develop advanced batteries for

electric vehicles. This consortium, called the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC), established a mid-term goal for an advanced battery

that would be available for use in 1998 model year ZEVs. At this time it is doubtful if a battery

meeting the mid-term goals will be available. A

longer term goal for more advanced batteries, such

as those based on lithium, was also established.

The consortium has not supported advancements

in lead acid batteries. Funds to support advanced

lead acid batteries have come from battery manufacturers, utilities, technology companies, and

CARB, however the amount of this funding pales

in comparison to the resources being expended on

axlvanced batteries other than lead acid. The CARB staff has concluded that the lead

acid battery is the primary battery technology

which will be used in 1998 ZEVs. This is consistent with the assumptions made at the time

the regulations were adopted in 1990. We reached

this conclusion because the state of development

of other battery technologies hcis not advanced sufficiently to be ready for production by 1998, or be- cause of current high costs and need for frequent

replacement of technologies such as the sodium

sulfur battery. This conclusion is shared by many

of the seven car companies that must produce

ZEVs in 1998. The question remaining is will these initial ZEVs use conventional lead acid batteries (three years life, 35 W-h/kg), or will advanced lead acid

batteries laased on bipolar technology (50 W-h/kg,

five plus years life) be ready for production. This

is a significant question because the higher en- ergy density promised by sealed bipolar lead acid

batteries (SBLA) increases vehicle range, and

the longer life reduces operating costs, two fac- tors which would increase the market demand for ZEVs.

Two examples illustrate this point. The range

of the GM Impact using an equal mass of SBLA

batteries instead of conventional batteries, would

be extended from a quoted 113 kilometers (city) to 161 kilometers on the CARB standard driving

cycle. The operating cost, including the amortized

cost of the battery, is highly dependent on battery

cost and replacement interval. Ford Motor Company officials often quote the operating cost of its sodium sulfur battery powered ZEV as $0.92 per

equivalent liter of gasoline ($3.50 per gallon). Yet

the operating cost of a GM Impact, with SBLA

batteries having a seven year life (~ 1,000 cycles)

is less than the operating cost of a similar gasoline

powered vehicle. Of all the factors, replacement

interval and cost dominate operating costs, and

should be an important guiding factor in the se- lection of battery technology.

TECHNOLOGY REVIEWS

In adopting the LEV and ZEV requirements,

CARB was aware of the need to periodically re- view the development of technologies, and make

adjustments as needed. The first biennial review,

which focused primarily on LEVs, concluded that

technology was developing ahead of schedule. The

next review is scheduled for summer, 1994, and

will focus on ZEV technology, including the role of hybrid electric vehicles.
6 Cackette:

Cost and cost effectiveness of regulatory requirements are important considerations which also need periodic review. The cost of a battery ZEV

is uncertain because vehicle designs remain proprietary, and battery technology, and the battery replacement interval, have not been finalized. CARB has calculated the environmental value of a ZEV, compared to a comparable vehicle sold in the late 1990s, to be roughly $5,000. This value

is the avoided cost of seeking equivalent emissions

reductions of smog-forming pollutants, CO2, and

toxic materials from other sources. HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES

At the time the LEV regulations were adopted

(1990), CARB was aware of several prototype hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). These vehicles typically featured a conventional internal combustion

engine auxiliary power unit (APU), which in series with the electric motor, served to extend range. Because these engines were typically fueled with

volatile liquids such as gasoline, they had evaporative emissions. Being conventional engines, they were subject to in-use deterioration of emissions

with age or lack of maintenance. Some designs were such that battery deterioration could be over- come by increased use of the APU. In the view of

CARB staff, these hybrids were clearly not ZEVs.

However, to the extent that these hybrids oper- ated on batteries charged from the electric grid,

they could benefit air quality more than a well controlled internal combustion engine such as a ULEV.

To provide an appropriate incentive to manufacturers who chose to produce hybrids, the LEV reg- ulations established hybrid emission levels based on the range the vehicle could operate on the batteries alone. A HEV that could operate approximately 100 kilometers on batteries alone would be

credited with emissions half way between a ULEV

and ZEV. Thus a vehicle manufacturer would obtain the same credit towards the NMOG average

standard for producing one HEV or two ULEVs.

HEVs with shorter range on the battery received

less credit. Since then our understanding of possible HEV

technologies has evolved, as has our quantification

of related power plant emissions. It has been sug- gested that APUs could be developed which emit

no more than the power plant that provides elec- tricity to charge the vehicle's battery pack. If this were the case, then a HEV should be considered a ZEV. Reviewing the rationale behind the estab- lishment of the ZEV mandate, as discussed above, we can visualize a HEV that is as clean as a ZEV.

Such a vehicle would use an APU that is highly

durable, most likely not an Otto cycle engine that

is dependent on exhaust treatment and extensive

feedback to maintain precise air/fuel control, since

this involves sensors and catalysts whose perfor- mance can deteriorate with time. Possible tech- nologies include the gas turbine, which obtains

NOx control through lean operation, and fuel cells. The engine would not use a volatile liquid fuel such

as gasoline or methanol mixtures (e.g. M85) that

result in evaporative emissions from the vehicle as well as the fueling infrastructure. Fuels such

as natural gas and hydrogen, which are contained

in a sealed fuel system, would assure no evaporative emissions. Hydrogen would need to be pro- duced on board using a reformer with only trace emissions, or off-board using a low polluting pro- duction technology. If the VOC emissions for the

APU and associated fuel infrastructure were less than the associated electricity production emissions within the Los Angeles air basin (i.e. less than 0.0025 gram per kilometer NOx, and less than 0.0003 gram per kilometer NMOG), the HEV

would have no more impact on air quality than a ZEV.

Other technologies which may qualify as ZEVs

include fuel cells, and flywheels. Fuel cell devel- opment is advancing rapidly, and prototypes for larger vehicles have been developed. Flywheel

technology is also receiving attention and funding. California government and the private sector are investing funds in both of these technologies.

However, technological advancements and cost re- duction challenges remain, suggesting that commercialization of these technologies for light duty

vehicles will not occur until after the turn of the

century.

CARB staff is evaluating the policy implications

of allowing ultra-low emitting HEVs to qualify as ZEVs. We will be evaluating the types of HEV

technologies under development, and their implications for life-cycle emissions. We intend to pro- pose appropriate emission standards and test pro- cedures for HEV APUs, and definitions governing
CaJifornia^s Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements.. 7

their emission durability.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Substantial progress in developing commercially

viable ZEVs by 1998 is being made. Efficient ve- hicle and component designs are emerging which

when packaged with current battery technology

should result in a vehicle which can serve the needs

of many Californians, the majority of which drive

less than 80 kilometers per day. Hundreds of pre- production prototypes designed to test the con- sumer's reaction to ZEVs will be on the road in 1994. Improvements in battery technology are also be- ing made, although advanced batteries which meet

the USABC mid-term goals are unlikely to be

available for use in the first 1998 model ZEVs.

The greatest short-term opportunity for advancing the capabilities of ZEVs is the SBLA battery,

whose improved energy density and extended life- time could substantially increase the market for ZEVs. Unfortunately, adequate resources are not

being directed to commercialization of this battery. A major effort to realize, within the next two

years, the potential of this technology is needed.

Because ZEVs will use many new technologies

and new parts, their initial cost, for the first few

years, will be higher than conventional vehicles. To offset this cost, incentives are being developed.

The National Energy Act provides a tax credit of

10 percent of the cost of the vehicle, up to $4,000.

The electric utilities in California have proposed

a $1,500 rebate, and free installation of charging units in the purchaser's home ($800 value).

A state tax credit is also under consideration by

the California Legislature. It appears likely that

upwards of $5,000 in credits will be available in California to the initial purchasers of ZEVs.

Substantial progress is underway to assure an

infrastructure is available to support ZEVs. California's electric generation system can support

millions of ZEVs through use of off-peak charging.

Off-peak charging will include opportunity charging during much of the day for those ZEV owners

in need of extending their vehicle's range. The city of Los Angeles intends to be the first ZEV-readyand-friendly city in the country, by 1998. Battery

recycling infrastructure is in place to handle the

lead acid batteries expected to be used in most

ZEVs sold in this decade.

Although most of the impetus for battery de- velopment and ZEV production stems from the

CARB ZEV 1998 mandate, momentum has been

added by several public-private partnerships that

are focusing on applying the skills of the state's high-technology work force on ZEVs. For example, CALSTART, a consortium of California tech- nology companies, is developing ZEV components,

charging equipment, and electric shuttle buses. Project California is putting in place the mechanism to attract new ZEV-related businesses and

jobs to California. These investments in California's ZEV future are one more sign of the confidence we have towards realizing electric trans- portation in our state.
APPENDIX A: PRESENTATION VIEW-GRAPHS

Elements of ARB's LEV Program

• Begins with 1994 model year

• Increaisingly stringent fleet average standard for NMOG

• Three low-emission vehicle categories

• Zero-emission vehicle requirements

Figure 1.

California's Air Quality Problem

o Six of the seven worst areas for ozone in the country are located

in California: Los Angeles, San Bemeirdino, San Diego, Bakersfield,

Anaheim-Santa Ana, and Fresno

• Los Angeles exceeds ambient air quality standards for:

- ozone

- carbon monoxide

- pcirticulate matter

- nitrogen dioxide

Figure 2.

Table 1. Low-emission vehicle categories (Emissions listed are in grams per mile.)

Category NMOG* CO NOx

Conventional 0.25 3.4 0.4 TLEV 0.125 3.4 0.4 LEV 0.075 3.4 0.2 ULEV 0.04 1.7 0.2 ZEV 0 0 0 'adjusted for exhaust reactivity
CaJifornia's Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements.. 9

Reactivity Adjustment

• Adjust NMOG emission from clean fuel vehicles for ozone potentizd

• Previous steindards were mass-based

• Allows all vehicle/fuel systems to be compared without bias

Figure 3.

Technology Developments

• Development has exceeded original projections:

- Progress in EHC technology

- Use of palladium-only close-coupled cateilyst

- Improved fuel systems

- Large catjJysts, more precious metal loading

• Biennial update 1994: ZEVs and HEVs

Figure 4.

Table 2. Certification status of low-emission vehicles TLEV TLEV TLEV MDV LEV

Indolene Phase 2 Gas M85 CNG

1993 2 3 3 1 1994 3 6 3 2
Emission Durability On-board Diagnostics

• On-board diagnostic checks emission control system

• Warning light and information for repair technician

• On-board diagnostics completely phased in by 1996

Figure 5.

Benefits of ZEVs

• No deterioration of emission control systems

• Low associated power plant emissions

• No toxic emissions

• Lower CO2 emissions

• No evaporative or gasoline marketing emissions

Figure 6.

Fuel Evaporative Emissions

• ZEVs have no evaporative emissions

• Most stringent standard for emitting vehicles:

0.09 g/km HC

Figure 7.
California's Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements.. 11

Electricity Generation

• No significant impact on 20-year planning forecasts

• "Time of use" rates will encourage off-peak charging

• Increased use of "clean" renewable resources (solar, geothermal, wind)

Figure 8.

Table 3. ZEV versus ULEV emissions (g/km)

Pollutant LA' Statewide^ ULEV

NOx

ROG

0.0025 0.00030.06

0.001

0.12 0.025 LA power plants only (20% of total power needed)

^Includes out-of-state emissions

ZEV Progress

• Commercially viable by 1998

• Range will be adequate

• Prototypes on the road today

Figure 9.
Purpose-built EV Technology

Improvements in:

• Motors

• Controllers

• Regenerative braking

• Aerodynamics

• Low rolling resistemce tires

Figure 10.

Battery Development

• Weak link

• Short-term improvements — 1998

• Adveinced batteries

Figure 11.

USABC

• Consortium of US battery manufacturers, ccir compeinies, utilities, and

government

• Current USABC contracts focusing on these technologies:

Nickel-meted hydride

Lithium-polymer

Lithium-eduminum iron sulfide Figure 12.
California's Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements..

ARB Contracts

• SBLA (SDG&E — Arias Research)

• SBLA (Pinnacle Research)

• Ultracapacitors (Pinnacle Research)

- complement of SBLA technology

Figure 13.

Sealed Biploar Lead-Acid

• Highest power of any current battery even at low state-of-charge

• Moderate energy density (100-mile range)

• Longer life

t Zero maintenance

• Low cost (similar to standard lead-acid)

Figure 14.

Future ZEV Technologies

• Fuel cell prototypes have been developed

• Flywheels under development

• Technological and cost reduction challenges

• Commercialization after 2000

Figure 15.
14 Cackette

Table 4. Cost implication of battery technology

Battery type Energy Density Cost Life Estimated

(W-h/kg) ($/kW-h) (years) ($/mile) Lead-Acid'^ 35 100 2-3 0.05 SBLA^ 50 100 5 0.03 USABC Mid-term 80 150 3 0.06 (Ni-MH, Na-S)

USABC Ling-term 200 100 5 0.03

(Li-P, Li-(metal)S2)

Assumes 1000 lb battery pack, 0.24 kW h/mile, and 200 cycles/year

^Delco-Remy/GM Impact battery pack

'Numbers for SBLA are projections

Hybrid-Electric Vehicles

• Increased range compared to pure EVs

• HEVs have emission control systems that are subjected to deterioration or failure

• HEVs have fuel transfer emissions (for volatile fuels)

• HEV teiil pipe and evaporative emissions can be much greater than

EV power plant emissions

Figure 16.

Air Quality Benefits of HEVs

• Cleaner than ULEVs

• Potential for greater use in ZEV mode

• Ultra-clezin APU could equal power plan emissions

Figure 17.
Ccdifornia's Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements.. 15

LEV Regulations and HEVs

• LEV regulations handle HEVs in "neutral" way

• More EV range relates to lower emissions

Figure 18.

HEV Certification

• Based on range of operation on batteries

• If APU certified to ULEV emission standard and:

- less than 100 km = 0.5 x ULEV NMOG standard; or

- 70 to 100km = 0.75 x ULEV NMOG standard

Figure 19.

Could a HEV be a ZEV?

• ZEVs have power plant emission from battery recharging

• ZEV power plaint emissions are small in CEilifomia

• Theoretically possible to have HEV emissions less thein or equal to ZEV plant emissions

Figure 20.
Advanced HEV Technology

• Highly durable APU with little possibility of deterioration

• No evaporative emissions (natural gas- of hydrogen-fueled)

• Emissions less than power plant emissions in Los Angeles Basin:

- 0.0025 g/km NOx; and

- 0.0003 g/km NMOG

Figure 21.

EV Air Quality Benefits

• $5,000 per vehicle

• Value based on:

- avoided emission from average vehicle (1996-2000)

- cost to control stationary sources

• Includes HC, NOx, CO, CO2, and toxic emissions

Figure 22.

Costs

• Initial purchase price higher

• Incentives

- $5,000 benefit justified

- NEA tax credit up to $4,000

- Utility incentives: $1,500 rebate and free charging unit proposed

- State tax credit proposed

Figure 23.
CaUfornia's Zero Emission Vehicle Requirements. 17

Infrastructure

• Off-peak charging

• Opportunity charging

• California will be ZEV friendly by 1998

• Battery recycling

Figure 24.

Conclusions

• Motor vehicles account for more thcin hedf of the ozone precursor and

CO emission in California

• ZEVs represent one of the most effective meeins of reducing motor

vehicle emissions in CEilifomia

• If HEV emissions are equal to or below EV emissions, a HEV could

potentially be a ZEV

Figure 25.

Assumptions Used to Calculate

Emissions from Power Plant

• 20 percent of the power SCAB will be generated

• EVs use 0.15 kW-h per km

• Utility emission factors ROG = 0.02 Ibs/MW h

NOx = 0.1 Ibs/MW-h

!' Figure 26.
HEV versus ZEV and ICE

• ZEV + ICE scenario cle£iner

• HEV + ICE only cleaner when HEV uses 100% battery

• Preliminary analysis: deterioration of HEV not included

• Deterioration will increase HEV emissions

Figure 27.

Table 5. Battery technologies

Na-S Na-NiCb NiMH SBLA

Maturity 0 +

Energy density + + + 0 Power density 0 0 0 +

Lifetime 0 0 0 Cost +

+ good, 0 tolerable, - poor
AN OVERVIEW OF THE DOE ELECTRIC AND HYBRID

PROPULSION SYSTEMS PROGRAM

K. F. Barber

Director, Electric and Hybrid Propulsion Division

Office of Propulsion Systems, U.S. Department of Energy

Washington DC, 20585

ABSTRACT

The Depeirtment of Energy continues to focus its efforts on the technologies that are critical in making electric and hybrid vehicles competitive with conventional vehicles in cost, performance, and

reUabihty. The successful penetration of electric and hybrid vehicles in the U.S. vehicle population

is necessary if these vehicles are to contribute significantly to solving a number of national problems,

including dependence on foreign oil, poor air quahty, cind the negative balance of trade. DOE

continues to work with industry in addressing the critical technical barriers and is coordinating its efforts with other federal agencies engaged in similar research and development activities through

the Interagency Coordination Task Force on Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies. This paper

provides an overview of the DOE program.

INTRODUCTION

The successful penetration of electric (EV) and

hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) into the U.S. vehicle fleet would allow the transportation sector to

partially meet its demand for energy with electricity. Dependence on petroleum fuels would be re- duced, since only about four percent of electricity

in the United States is generated from petroleum.

Electric and hybrid electric vehicles will not only

reduce reliance on petroleum and result in more ef- ficient energy use in the transportation sector, but

will also help to reduce severe urban environmental pollution problems. Emissions from on-board

fuel combustion are partly (in the case of hybrid

vehicles) or fully (in the case of electric vehicles)

removed from the street level and, in most cases, from the urban area. In fact, electric vehicles will be essentially non-polluting if they use electricity generated from non-fossil fuels. Even in areas where electric power generation is almost exclusively from fossil fuels, the substitution of electric vehicles for gasoline-fueled vehicles would result

in net reductions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxide emissions. In economic

terms, large national gains could result from cre- ating and expanding domestic and international

markets for domestically-produced electric and hybrid vehicles. However, they still need to be de- veloped and made competitive with conventional,

gasoline-powered vehicles in terms of cost, performance, and safety.

THE DOE ELECTRIC AND HYBRID

PROPULSION SYSTEMS PROGRAM

Recognizing the large potential for energy, environmental, and economic benefits to the Nation,

DOE is devoting considerable resources to an Electric and Hybrid Propulsion Systems Program fo- cused on developing critical component and vehicle system technologies that will enable industry

to:

• Commercialize a 100-mile range electric vehicle in the near-term (1993-1996);

• Commercialize a 250-mile range electric vehicle and demonstrate an unlimited range,

ultra-low emission hybrid vehicle in the midterm (1996-2000); and

• Commercialize cost-competitive, zero-emission vehicles with range and performance

19
Barber:

DOE

Electric & Hybrid Propulaion Program

Exploratory Technology

Advanced

Batteries Fuel Cells Propulsion Systems

Figure 1. Major elements of the DOE electric and

hybrid propulsion systems program.

equivalent to conventional gasoline-powered

vehicles in the long-term (2000-2005).

Specific program objectives are based on achieving steady improvements in key technologies, such

as batteries, fuel cells, and propulsion systems,

thus enabling industry to provide commercially ac- ceptable vehicles that will capture a larger market

share as the technological progress is achieved.

The Electric and Hybrid Propulsion Systems

Program continues to work cooperatively with in- dustry on the development of critical technologies that will lead to the commercial production

of electric and hybrid vehicle systems in the midto late- 1990s. The major program elements are shown in Fig. 1. Research and development activities currently focus on advanced battery sys- tems, fuel cells, propulsion systems, and other crit- ical technologies that are needed to make electric and hybrid vehicles commercially competitive

with conventional gasoline-fueled vehicles. Field

demonstration of vehicles and infrastructure de- velopment efforts are also receiving increased at- tention.

The Energy Policy Act (EPAct) of 1992 (Public

Law 102-486) significantly expands support for the

DOE Program and mandates several activities to promote the commercialization of electric and hybrid vehicles. Section 2025 specifically authorizes

the expansion of DOE's R&D activities on batteries, fuel cells, and other related EV and HEV

technologies. In compliance with these requirements, DOE has developed a comprehensive Electric and Hybrid Vehicle R&D Program Plan. The

EPAct also requires DOE to establish a Commercial Market Demonstration Program for electric

and hybrid vehicles and to initiate a cost-shared

Electric Motor Vehicle Infrastructure and Support

Systems Development Program. A new Field Operations Program Plan has been developed to address these EPAct-mandated activities in conjunction with an expanded Site Operators Program.

This plan will be implemented in FY 1994 based on available resources.

Advanced Batteries R&D

DOE's cooperative agreement with the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) has pro- vided a major boost to advanced battery R&D

activities. This 50-50 cost-shared effort is fo- cused on the development of the most promising battery technologies for EVs and HEVs and

is driving toward a set of ambitious mid- and

long-term battery goals. Several contracts have

been signed with teams of battery companies to develop nickel/metal hydride, lithium polymer,

and lithium/iron disulfide battery systems. Similarly, cooperative research and development agree- ments (CRADAs) have been signed with DOE lab- oratories to assist in the development and test- ing of advanced battery technologies. In tandem

with the R&D on advanced battery systems, DOE

also supports exploratory technology research at the national laboratories to investigate promising

electrochemical cells that will meet the long-term

goals of the USABC.

Fuel Cells R&D

DOE is working closely with industry to develop

commercially viable, fuel cell propulsion systems

for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. More

specifically, the current focus is on: developing

and demonstrating the phosphoric acid fuel cell in an urban transit bus as a near-term application (by 1995); developing the methanol-fueled,

proton-exchange-membrane (PEM) fuel cell as a mid-term option for passenger vehicles; and pro- viding fuel flexibility by developing advanced re- formers (to convert hydrocarbon fuels to hydrogen

for use by fuel cells) and by developing improved

hydrogen storage systems for on-board vehicle use with fuel cells. Of the fuel cell technologies, the phosphoric acid

fuel cell is the only one suitably developed for
.DOE Electric ajid Hybrid Propulsion Systems Program 21

r^ruyrdMi ocricQUic rY i QQQ 4 QQH i QQi lyy 1

i QQO i QQQ i OOR

Phase 1: Feasibility Evaluation

• Preliminary Design

• Power Source Test Phase II: Fabrication of Buses

Phase III: Bus Test and Evaluation Phase IV: Prototype Bus Fleets

r

1 1

• Methanol-fueled

• 50% higher fuel economy, 90% lower emissions, 10-20 db noise reduction

• Co-sponsored by DOE, DOT/FTA, & SCAQMD

Figure 2. Phosphoric acid fuel cell for small urban buses.

Program Schedule FY 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Phase 1: Feasibility Evaluation

• Preliminary Vehicle Design

• 10-kW Power Source Test Phase II: Proof-of- Feasibility

• Propulsion System Integration

• 25-kW Laboratory Test Phase III: System Scale-up

• 50-kW Propulsion System

Phase IV: Proof-of-Concept

• Install and Test in Vehicle

1 p

1==h

1

1

—

• In comparison to gasoline engines: - 70-80% higher fuel economy

- competitive range and performance - near-zero emissions

• Phase I prime contractor: Allison Division of GM

Figure 3. Proton-exchange-membrane fuel cell for light-duty vehicles.

transportation applications at this time. An urban

transit bus was selected as the initial test vehicle

because it can readily accommodate the packaging

of the first generation fuel cell powered propulsion

system. The development of a phosphoric acid

fuel cell propulsion system for a small urban bus

follows the schedule shown in Fig. 2. This effort

is co-sponsored by the Department of Transportation/Federal Transit Administration and California's South Coast Air Quality Management District. In Phase I, two industrial teams demonstrated the feasibility of the concept by building

and testing a laboratory brass-board power system

half the size needed for the bus. Phase II of this project, a 25 percent cost-shared contract awarded

by DOE to H-Power Corporation, includes fabri- cation and delivery of three 29-ft, 25-passenger urban buses, and the design for a full-size 40-ft urban

bus. The first test bed bus will be delivered in October, with two more to follow in FY 1994. All of

these vehicles will then be subjected to rigorous

test and evaluation.

The proton-exchange-membrane (PEM) fuel

cell, when fully developed, will offer significant advantages over the phosphoric acid fuel cell including reduced size and weight, faster start-up, and

potentially lower cost. A fully integrated PEM

fuel cell propulsion system will have the potential

to meet the size and weight requirements for use in automobiles, vans, and light trucks. The schedule

for the development of the PEM fuel cell for lightduty vehicles is shown in Fig. 3. As the prime

contractor for Phase I, General Motors (Allison

Gas Turbine Division) is responsible for overall
22 Barber:

system integration. Support is provided by Los

Alamos National Laboratory for reformer devel- opment and fuel cell testing, Dow Chemical Company for membrane fabrication and testing, Ballard power systems for fuel stack fabrication, GM

Research Laboratories for electrode and catalyst

studies, and GM Advanced Engineering staff for vehicle system engineering. The Phase I effort

will culminate in FY 1993 with the integration

and testing of a complete 10-kW PEM fuel cell system that will lay the groundwork for future en- gineering scale-up and integration of a PEM fuel

cell propulsion system into a vehicle. Development of advanced reformer and hydrogen storage technologies will not only provide fuel

flexibility for fuel-cell-powered vehicles but will also reduce system size and cost, reduce start up

time, and increase transient response capability,

characteristics that will improve the competitiveness of fuel cell vehicles. DOE awarded a cost- shared R&;D contract to A. D. Little, Inc. to de- velop advanced fuel processing systems to reform

methanol, ethanol, natural gas, and other hydrocarbons into hydrogen for use in transportation

fuel cell systems and to develop better systems for on-board hydrogen storage. The schedule shown

in Fig. 4 for the development of the multi-fuel

reformer technology is divided into two phases.

Phase I (Feasibility Studies) is directed at examining system trade-off's (i.e., reformer size, weight,

efficiency, life, cost transient response, and others)

in the design of hydrogen storage systems and re- formers for hydrocarbon fuels. The outcome of

Phase I will be the specifications for the reformer

and hydrogen storage system to be developed in Phase II, where a 10-kW reformer and a 1-kg hydrogen storage proof-of-concept systems will be

built and tested. The project is expected to be

completed by November 1994.

A ten-year research and development plan has

been completed in FY 1993 and is delineated in the document entitled A National Program Plan

for Fuel Cells in Transportation. The plan was

developed from a consensus formed at two meetings of an ad hoc technical panel consisting of more

than fifty representatives from the transportation

industry, universities, national laboratories, gov- ernment agencies, regulatory bodies, and alternative fuels proponents. In 1994, DOE will initiate several new projects: to develop power management devices for fuel cell vehicles; to assess the

feasibility of fuel cell locomotives; and to develop a light-duty passenger/utility vehicle powered by

a PEM fuel cell system with on-board hydrogen

storage.

Propulsion Systems R&D

Focus of this effort has been in the development of a modular electric vehicle propulsion system and

a new initiative in FY 1993 for the development

of a hybrid vehicle propulsion systems.

Through a series of projects conducted jointly

with Ford Motor Company and General Electric

since 1984 (see Fig. 5), DOE has advanced the

state of alternating current (AC) power train tech- nology to the point at which it can provide the basis for competitive electric vehicles as soon as an

adequate battery technology becomes available. A

prototype advanced modular AC power train suit- able for mass production has been developed and

project completion is expected in FY 1993 with

the delivery of the prototype system in a test bed

van to DOE for testing. Field testing of production modular AC power trains will be performed

and funded by Ford Motor Co. in FY 1994 and

beyond.

The Hybrid Vehicle Program was recently ini- tiated as a five-year, cost-shared cooperative pro- gram that will involve industry teams to develop

and demonstrate hybrid/electric propulsion sys- tems for light duty vehicles. These systems will satisfy EPA Tier II emissions standards, improve

fuel economy by as much as 100 percent, and offer performance characteristics that are competitive

with those of conventional vehicles in all other as- pects. The systems will incorporate high-power

batteries and heat engine technologies developed

by DOE and industry programs. Industry teams

have been identified by DOE through the competitive procurement process and as of August 1993, a contract with General Motors Corporation was

signed September 30, 1993, and negotiations on a

second contract are underway. The schedule for the hybrid vehicle research and development pro- gram is shown in Fig. 6.
..DOE Electric and Hybrid Propulsion Systems Program 23

Program Schedule FY 1992 1993 1994

Phase 1: Feasibility Study

• Identify System Requirements

• Inv/ftQtinptP AHv/an/^oH (^fltal\/ctQ

• Evaluate Design Tradeoffs Phase II: Proof-of-Concept Reformer

• Design 10-kW Reformer

• Fabricate 10-kW Reformer

• Test 10-kW Reformer

• Safety and Environmental Analyses

1

1

> 1-'

1

I

1

1 1

• Improved start-up time

• Increased response characteristics

• Fuel flexibility

• Reduced size and cost

Figure 4. Advanced multi-fuel reformer technology development.

Program Schedule fy 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

ETX-1

• 50 hp AC Induction Motor, 2 Speed Transaxle

ETX-II

• 50 hp PM AC Motor, 2 Speed Transaxle MEVP

• 50, 75, 100 hp AC Induction Motor,

Single Speed Transaxle

• Ford Field Test Program (Ford-Funded)

1

r

1

1

• Single shaft integrated motor/transaxle

• Advanced modular AC powertrain suitable for mass production

• Applicable to broad range of vehicle types and sizes

• Cost-shared with Ford Motor Company / General Electric

Figure 5. Single shaft AC propulsion system development.

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

The Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Program emphasizes the involvement of industry in the successful implementation of its research and development. Industry participation and input is solicited in the planning process to identify and review

critical technical barriers and technology require- ments. This involvement cissures that the DOE

program funds are directed to problems and is- sues industry deems a priority. The technical pro- gram focuses on the critical technologies identified through industry and government collaboration;

the technical agenda is executed jointly between

industry, national laboratories, and universities;

and research activities are conducted through a co- operative endeavor involving industry, private re- search and development laboratories, universities,

and federally funded laboratories. This cooperation affords considerable opportunity for interdis- ciplinary review of technology needs, definition of

problems requiring solutions, and for ready transfer of research results to the technology users.

Figure 8 shows the level of coordination be- tween the DOE Program and the private and public R&D for electric and hybrid vehicle program

activities. In 1993, the Interagency Coordination

Task Force on Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies was organized to coordinate and integrate

programs and policies of Federal agencies involved
24 Barber:

Program Schedule FY 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Initiate RAH P'nntrai^tc Select Vehicle Architecture and

System Components

Engineer Prototype Vehicle Production Intent Verification Vehicle Begin Fuel Cell Test (PEM)

Production Preparation

Begin Production

H' 1

1r "HI

1—

1r

• Develop and demonstrate a hybrid propulsion system for light-duty vehicles before the year 2000 - high efficiency - ultra-low emissions - fuel-flexible

Figure 6. Hybrid vehicle resezirch and development.

in developing, testing, and promoting electric and

hybrid vehicles and associated technologies. Over

ten Federal agencies are currently represented on

the Task Force, with DOE playing a coordinating

role. The Task Force meets at least once every quarter to review and discuss the agencies' pro- grams, progress, and opportunities for coordination. CONCLUSION

DOE has ensured that its activities are focused

and continue to focus on the technical issues that

are critical in making electric and hybrid vehicles

commercially viable by actively soliciting private

sector input during the formulation of its research

and development agenda. DOE also ensures that

duplication of efforts is minimized by coordinating

with other Federal agencies conducting similar activities in electric and hybrid vehicles technologies

development. The experience of the DOE Electric and Hybrid Propulsion Systems Program in dealing with the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium in developing a critical technology such as the

advanced battery systems should also serve DOE

well, especially in the recently announced partnership between government and industry to develop a new generation of vehicles.
.DOE Electric and Hybrid Propulsion Systems Program

DOEADTT

- Advanced Propulsion - Materials Development - Alternative Fuels DOEADUT

- Solar Photovoltaic - Hydrogen

DOEyOTT/EHP Division EHV R&D

Program

Commercial

Demonstration

Infrastructure and

Support Systems

Development

R&D Demonstration

• Automobile Industry

• United Stales Advanced Battery Consortium

• Energy and Fuels Industiv System and Component Developers

Universities and National Laboratories

• Fuel Cell Developers

Heat Engine De/elopers

Regulatory

ES&H

Standards

Public

Policy

ES&H

- Alternative Fuels Industry - Electric Vehicle Battery - Readiness Working Group

- Battery Manufacturers and

Recyders - Insurance Underwriters - Environmental Organizations

Infrastructure

K - Trade associations

, ) - Public Interest Groups

State and Local Government I

- Electric Utilities - Energy and Fuels Industry - Electnc Power Research Institute - Electric Vehicle Working Committee

Figure 7. Federsil and non-federal coordination of DOE Electric and Hybrid Propulsion program activities.
INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS FOR EV AND HEV

S. Barsony, D. R. Spiewak, and S. Hsiung

Office of Engineering, Federal Transit Administration

Washington, D.C. 20590

ABSTRACT

For Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) to be successfully incorporated into America's transportation system, an infrastructure equal in availabihty and reliability to the existing infrastructure for internal combustion engine vehicles must be put in place. The ultimate challenge

is to develop the necessary support infrastructure to enable EVs and HEVs to match the internal combustion engine vehicles' ability to travel and be serviced virtually everywfhere. For EVs and HEVs

to be universally accepted, they must ultimately not only be able to provide reUable transportation

for daily urban commutes, but also for intercity travel as well. Supporting infrastructures within

metropoUtan areas as well as between metropolitan areas must be developed before this can happen.

Prompted by deteriorating air quality cind failure to meet the requirements of the 1990 Clean

Air Act Amendments, the California state legislature enacted landmark legislation mandating intro- duction of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in that state. Following Cahfomia's lead, many other states intend to implement the same tough vehicle emissions standards, which require that in 1998 two per- cent of car and light duty truck sales of automakers with aimual in-state sales of over 35,000 vehicles be ZEVs. The percentage increcises to ten percent in the year 2003. Estimates on the market size for ZEVs vary; one projection is that eis many as 588,000 could be on the road by the end of 2003 [1]. EVs and HEVs are two current technologies that are suitable for meeting the ZEV requirements.

In order for EVs and HEVs to be accepted by the consumer though, an infrastructure to support

them must be developed eind put in place concurrently with the introduction of these vehicles. The

required infrastructure includes not only the charging and refueUng facilities, but aU appurtenant

support systems, including driver training, safety and emergency programs, battery and component

recycling programs, mzdnteneince facilities and training programs and public awareness education.

INTRODUCTION

Electric carriages and trucks were in regular use in the early part of this century because they were re- liable, easily maintained and easily operated. By

1912, 34,000 electric cars were registered in the

United States, and charging stations were established between New York and Philadelphia [2]. However, the availability of less expensive gasoline

and gasoline-powered vehicles with better perfor- mance pushed the electric vehicles into a dormant

state. They are now making a come-back for several compelling reasons. The transportation sector is the largest user of

petroleum in the United States and currently ac- counts for approximately 28 percent of the total energy expended in the United States [3]. Last

year, The U.S. used 38 percent more oil than was

produced domestically, which was about 64 per- cent of the total domestic consumption of oil [4]. This heavy dependence on imported oil is detri- mental to the national energy security and the

balance of trade. The total number of privately

and publicly owned motor vehicles registered in the United States grew at an exponential rate from

1900 to 1990; at the end of 1990 there were nearly

190 million registered trucks, buses and automobiles in the U.S. [5]. At the projected annual

growth rates of 1.7 percent for automobiles and

light duty motor vehicles and 1.9 percent for heavy

duty trucks and buses by the end of 2010 there

could be nearly 267 million registered vehicles. The annual increases in vehicle miles of travel is outstripping the gains achieved through improved

automotive emissions control technology. Thus,

although the vehicles that are in use emit fewer

26
Infrastructure Needs for EV and HEV 27

pollutants, we are using them so much more that more pollutants are actually being emitted.

In giving effect to the California Clean Air Act

of September, 1990 for mitigating air quality problems, the California Air Resources Board requires

that beginning in 1998, two percent of all lightduty vehicles offered for sale in that state will have

to be ZEVs. The percentage of ZEVs rises to five percent in the year 2001 and to ten percent in the year 2003. Thirteen other states (viz. CT, DE, IL, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, TX, VT) and

the District of Columbia have adopted or are in the process of adopting similar legislation. These four- teen states and the District of Columbia accounted

for 6.4 million new car sales out of 14 million total sold in 1990 in the United States, amounting to 45.7 percent of the market [6]. As of now, only

electric vehicles meet the ZEV emissions require- ments. Thus, if these states implement similar

legislation and sales match the regulatory requirements, up to 1.7 million electric vehicles could well be on the road by the end of 2003.

Impressive progress has been made in the past

several years in the development and improvement

of EVs and HEVs, to the point where several vehicles are ready for commercial introduction. However, there is a somewhat benign neglect and ap- athy by the technical systems engineering community when it comes to supporting infrastructure. Without the appropriate supporting infras- tructure, there cannot be a large scale deployment

of EVs. The magnitude of the problem becomes

evident when it is realized that there is one gas sta- tion for every 4000 internal combustion engine vehicles and other similar facilities for repairs, parts,

customer information, and so on. Significant effort now needs to be directed toward defining, designing and implementing all of the necessary infras- tructure to support EVs and HEVs.

Successful definition, deployment, and growth

of an infrcistructure to support EVs and HEVs

presents a difficult "chicken and egg" problem.

Without an existing infrastructure to support

them, consumers are hesitant to purchase these new vehicles; without sales of significant numbers of vehicles, investment in infrastructure by

automakers, dealers and utility companies is difficult. Clearly, there must be a coordinated ap- proach taken to bring about the necessary steps

to assure that the new vehicles will be introduced

into the marketplace at the same time that re- quired additions are made to satisfy infrastructure

requirements.

VS^HAT IS INFRASTRUCTURE?

Simply stated, infrastructure is the collection of

all facilities and services required for safe and eco- nomical operation, maintenance and disposal of

vehicles and their subsystems. It is not unrea- sonable for the customer to expect the same, if not better, convenience from the infrastructure as

is currently available for automobiles, trucks, or

buses. A comprehensive support infrastructure

will not be developed overnight. The investment

required is enormous!!! The question is how we

plan to implement the development of that infras- tructure so that efficiencies can be maximized.

An Infrastructure Working Committee was set up under the auspices of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) by the electric utility in- dustry with participation from the auto industry

and others. Specific areas have been identified by the Infrastructure Working Committee in their Transportation Infrastructure Research Plan [7]. These provide a comprehensive basis for addressing the infrastructure development and deployment issues and are listed below. Figure 3 of the

reference provides further breakdown.

• Connecting and connecting stations

• Health and Safety

• Load Management, Distribution, and Power

Quality

• Data Interfaces

• Utility Information and customer education

CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE

SITUATION

Electricity availability

Many studies have been done to determine the ca- pability of the existing generation, transmission

and distribution system to support EVs. Utility companies, acting through EPRI have been

working hard for the past decade to prepare for and promote EVs. One recent study [8] revealed
28 Barsony, Spiewak, and Hsiung:

that existing generation capacity could support

86 million EVs if charged during off-peak times.

It is anticipated that initially most private EVs

may be charged in this manner. Transit vehicles are typically operated during the day and parked

overnight, so it can be anticipated that off-peak

recharging would likely be used for most of these

vehicles, too. However, for intercity travel, charging during peak times must also be available.

Existing recharging stations

As the interest in EVs and HEVs hcis grown, so too has the number of recharging stations in operation. Two of the four consortia recently awarded

grants by the Federal Transit Administration as part of the Advanced Transportation Systems and

Electric Vehicle Research and Development Pro- gram [9] are installing a significant number of

recharging stations as part of their projects; CALSTART, in cooperation with the Los Angeles De- partment of Water and Power, Sacramento Municipal Utility District and local utilities has already

installed ninety charging stations and plans to install fifty more, and the Chesapeake Consortium

has installed seven recharging stations and is now

working on the installation of rapid recharging stations. A third grantee, the Advanced Lead-Acid

Battery Consortium is studying and developing

rapid recharging techniques for lead-acid batteries. The ultimate goal is to develop charging systems

that are "user friendly." The complexities of dif- ferent charging systems and battery types should

be totally transparent to the customer.

Existing FTA EV and HEY programs

The fourth grantee of the Federal Transit Administration's EV Program, the New York Consortium,

is designing, building and testing two 40-foot Hybrid Electric Transit Buses. Both will be low-floor designs utilizing diesel engines initially, and will be able to be converted to alternate fuel heat en- gines at a later date. The Federal Transit Administration is also involved in major research and

development programs with the fuel cell transit bus program at Georgetown University, advanced

technology transit bus programs in Los Angeles

and Houston and the Electric Transit Vehicle In- stitute in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS

FOR EVs AND HEVs

Batteries

Advanced battery designs are being vigorously

pursued by the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium. There are many new kinds of batteries being

developed now, and improvements are being made

to existing batteries. There are infrastructures

in place to handle lead-acid, nickel-iron, nickel- cadmium and other existing batteries, but these

will need to be greatly expanded to deal with the

volume of batteries that will result from EV and

HEV deployment. Entire new infreistructures will need to be developed and put into place to accom- modate the new battery designs, such eis ambientand high-temperature lithium batteries, metal-air

batteries, and high-temperature sodium batteries. Each battery type has its own unique requirements

for infrastructure support. As battery research

and development continues and test results add to the knowledge base, infrastructure requirements

will be defined. The Federal Transit Administration's programs incorporate several battery technologies, including lead-acid and nickel-iron batteries in the TEVans with the Chesapeake pro- gram, nickel-cadmium batteries in the New York

Hybrid buses, and a sodium-sulfur battery in a CALSTART electric bus. Infrastructure requirements and power availability studies are also part

of the Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consortium

program.

Fuels

HEVs will use different kinds of fuels for their heat engines. Some EV charging stations may also use heat engines to generate electricity for opportunity charging. Careful consideration must be

given to developing the infrastructures for alter- nate fuels, as each has its own special require- ments. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 requirements may result in as many as one million al- ternative fueled vehicles being sold to fleets by

the year 2010 [10]. The required infrastructures

for these vehicles will develop as the vehicles are purchased and deployed, and should be easily ex- panded to meet the needs of HEVs and EVs as they are introduced into the market. The Federal Transit Administration is involved with many
Infrastructure Needs for EV and HEV 29

alternative fueled vehicle programs in the transit industry, including ethanol and methanol buses,

compressed natural gas (CNG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG) programs and other clean fuels programs across the nation.

Safety

Extensive safety education programs for federal, state and local government personnel need to be

defined and implemented as part of infrastructure

support for emerging technologies. Fire departments will need to know how to respond to fires and accidents involving many different kinds of fuels and chemicals. Emergency medical technicians

will need to be trained to handle new situations.

Civil defense and police are going to need train- ing in responding to different situations that arise from the storage and use of new fuels and batteries.

Fleet and transit applications

The most likely initial market for EVs and HEVs

is expected to be vans and small delivery vehicles. Los Angeles, for example, has considered or- dinances that would restrict the use of internal

combustion engine delivery vans, thus creating an

entry market for ZEVs in that city [11]. Many util- ity companies have programs that use these type

vehicles; EPRI has recently coordinated a program

using fifty Chrysler TEVans, the first production

EVs from a major U.S. automaker [12]. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 mandates that certain fleet operators purchase alternative fueled vehicles, in- cluding EVs and HEVs, according to strict timetables. The infreistructure requirements for centrally fu- eled fleets and transit operations will be significantly easier to meet than those for the general

public. These vehicles operate within known areas, are centrally garaged and maintained, and are driven by professionals. Recharging and refuel- ing facilities for EVs and HEVs can be located

at the central parking/maintenance facility and at controlled points along the routes served. Access

to these facilities would be controlled and would,

in general, not be open to the general public.

Through existing alternate fuel programs, many

fleet and transit operators have experience dealing with fuels other than gasoline and diesel. Because many of these vehicles operate during

the day, it may be advantageous to incorporate

peak shaving methods in the design of recharging stations. Storage batteries, flywheels, ultra- capacitors and other energy storage devices could

be charged during off-peak and provide energy to EVs and HEVs when needed.

Fleet and transit operations also offer the potential to exchange spent batteries for fully charged

ones (remove and replace). Battery swapping

would allow for off-peak charging of batteries. Safety training programs would need to be enacted, as would design and implementation of an expanded battery recycling program to handle the

increased number and type of batteries. Battery manufacturers, automakers and fleet operators would need to work together on acceptable

designs for batteries, storage facilities, and handling equipment.

Connector development for fleet and transit operations also needs to be standardized, but this should not present a major problem. Mechanical

versus inductive coupling needs to be determined.

As more and more knowledge of the requirements for EV and HEV fleet and transit operations

is gained from existing programs, infrastructure

requirements will become better understood and

defined. One example is the Santa Barbara electric bus program. Buses were routinely running

out of charge short of their anticipated ranges; af- ter implementing an extensive driver training pro- gram, buses are now returned at the end of their runs with as much as thirty percent charge re- maining. Education and training programs such

as these will have to be developed and continuously refined as each new technology matures.

Personal vehicles

The more difficult market to develop and implement an infrastructure for will be the personal EV

and HEV market. There have been a number of

studies performed to determine the initial market

for the new vehicles; profiles of likely early purchasers and users are beginning to be better identified and understood [13]. The existing infrastructure, which supports in- ternal combustion engine vehicles, is widespread

and accepted by motorists; if you plan to drive
30 Barsony, Spiewak, and Hsiung:

your automobile across the country, you know that

you will be able to refuel just about anywhere you

go, whether you use unleaded gasoline or diesel. Similarly, if your vehicle breaks down or runs out

of fuel, you can obtain repairs and roadside assis- tance even in remote areas of the country. This same confidence in the ability to recharge or re- fuel EVs and HEVs or to obtain emergency re- pairs or roadside assistance regardless of where you

are is absolutely essential. Without a reliable and

comprehensive infrastructure, the general public

would be reluctant and hesitant to accept EVs or HEVs as being equal to the current internal combustion engine vehicles, especially since EVs and

HEVs will most likely cost more to purchase.

EV recharging at home

The bulk of EV recharging will initially take place

at the owner's home [14]. Even though the exist- ing electric generation, transmission, and distribution capacity is able to handle this, a number of

other infrastructure concerns must be addressed.

Connectors must be standardized. Building codes

across the country must be reviewed and revised as necessary to allow for home rechargers. Battery

charger designs must be coordinated with vehicle

designs; on-board versus off-board control needs

to be established. Safe, automatic shut-off controls need to be included. Recharging capability

for people who don't own a home but would like to purchase an EV needs to be identified. Utility rate structures need to be reviewed and revised as necessary to promote the sale of EVs; off-peak rate

benefits need to be defined.

Opportunity charging

For EVs to become accepted, a nationwide sys- tem of opportunity charging must be developed.

This would include chargers at work, in parking

garages and at on-street parking places, at stores, supermarkets and shops, and in charging locations

similar to gas stations. This type of infrastruc- ture will require extensive planning between gov- ernment, industry and utility members. A great

deal of work has begun in this area. EPRI formed

the Infrastructure Working Committee to open di- alogue and information exchange among all groups

needing to participate. Three of the four Federal

Transit Administration's EV consortia are studying rapid recharging and its effect on vehicles,

batteries and the utility grid; Baltimore Gcis fe Electric's Dave Brown, a member of the Chesapeake Consortium, chairs the Infrastructure Working Committee's Health &; Safety Committee. It

is links like this that will enhance information ex- change between concerned parties and expedite so- lutions to problems as they arise. Safety issues relating to opportunity charging

must also be carefully studied. EV owners will have to be absolutely convinced that it is safe to recharge an EV, regardless of where they are, what

the weather is like, what kind of EV they drive,

and other considerations. Electromagnetic field exposure, too, must be studied; a national stan- dard for measuring this effect both on-board vehicles and in and around charging locations needs

to be established.

Vehicle charger connectors must be standardized, the same way that gasoline tank inlets and

fuel station nozzles are. Research needs to be con- tinued to determine whether direct coupling or some form of inductive coupling is the preferred

way to access recharge power. Inductive coupling

could be accomplished simply by parking the vehicle over the primary winding or by attaching a

hand-held primary to the vehicle. Impacts on the utility grid will need to be carefully studied. EVs may cause power quality problems; vehicle designs now can take this into consideration, whereeis existing electric customers will need to be assured adequate power quality will continue to be available as more and more EVs

are added to the grid.

Opportunity charging stations require extensive

analysis and research to maximize their usefulness

and acceptance and minimize their impact on the

utilities and their neighbors. Community accep- tance will require proper planning and marketing. Peak-shaving or load-leveling schemes must

be worked out. Rate structures will have to be re- viewed and revised as needed, as will methods of

billing for electricity used.

Public awareness The most critical part of successfully marketing

EVs and HEVs may be how convenient and reli- able the supporting infrastructure can be made.
Infrastructure Needs for EV and HEV 31

More often than not, people's perceptions of EVs

improve after they have driven one; ride and drive events are excellent marketing tools. The CALSTART and Chesapeake EV programs both in- clude extensive public awareness activities; the

Chesapeake program hcis already conducted more

than sixty EV demonstrations, reaching more than

50,000 people. These kinds of activities can also be used to collect market data to improve forecast models.

One of the goals of the Advanced Lead-Acid

Battery Consortium EV program is the development of a state-of-charge indicator for lead-acid

batteries. With further development, this tech- nology would enable a generic "gas gauge" for EV

use regardless of the type of battery used. Con- sumer studies have shown that drivers are more

comfortable with an indication of remaining miles on available charge than with other information

displays [13]. CONCLUSIONS/SUMMARY

The American way of life has developed around

the automobile. The unprecedented freedom and

mobility afforded by safe and economical trans- portation hcis helped shape our culture. Personal

and public transportation allows people to live in suburban communities and commute to work

where the majority of jobs are: the urban centers. However, this freedom has not come with- out a hefty price tag. Urban air quality problems

persist and increase. Our dependence on foreign

energy sources decreases our energy security and

adversely affects the balance of trade. The introduction of increasing numbers of EVs

and HEVs into our transportation system will be

a significant part of the solution to many of the

problems associated with internal combustion en- gine vehicles. EVs and HEVs will lessen air pollution; inasmuch as very little electric power is gen- erated in the U.S. by burning oil, EVs and HEVs

will help reduce our dependence on foreign oil and

thus increase our national energy security. Quality U.S. jobs will be created to design and build

the vehicles and their subsystems and components

and the infrastructure facilities to support them;

many of these jobs will offset work force reductions

due to defense spending cuts. EVs and HEVs may soon be a very substantial

part of our daily lives. How successful they will be will depend, in large part, on how well all of

the necessary infrastructure requirements are defined, developed and implemented. An undertaking of this magnitude requires that federal, state and local government agencies, utilities, automobile manufacturers and suppliers and many others

work together to make it happen.

REFERENCES

[1] Electric Transportation Coalition, "Electric Vehicles: Projected EV Sales Cited," Green Car Journal, September 1993, p. 102.

[2] Bevilacqua-Knight, Inc., "Commercializing Electric Vehicle Issues, Barriers, Solutions; A White

Paper," 501 Fourteenth Street, Suite 200, Oakland, CA 94612, February 1993, p. 5.

[3] S. C. Davis and S. G. Strang, Transportation

Energy Data Book: Edition 13. ORNL-6743,

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN,

March 1993, p. 2-13.

[4] U.S. Department of Energy, 16th Annual Report

to Congress for Fiscal Year 1992. Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,

Office of Transportation Technologies, Washington, DC, August 1993, p. 1.

[5] Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United States, MVMA Motor Vehicle Facts &

Figures '92, Detroit, MI, p. 25.

[6] EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, "Electric Vehicle Policy Perspectives and Pathways

to the Year 2010," prepared for the Congressional Research Service, Arlington, VA, April

1992, p. 12.

[7] Electric Power Research Institute, "The Transportation Program: Transportation Infrastruc- ture Research Plan, 1993-1997," Palo Alto, CA,

pp. 7-8.

[8] T. S. Yau, "Will Utilities Have Adequate Generation, Transmission and Distribution Capacity to Support Electric Vehicles?" in Proceedings: The

National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Conference, December 1992.

[9] Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act

of 1991, Public Law 102-240, Title VI, Part C,

Sec. 6071-6073.

[10] United States Department of Transportation,

Federal Transit Administration, Technical Assis- tance Brief 5, Office of Technical Assistance and

Safety, Washington, D.C. 20590, Spring 1993.
32 Barsony, Spiewak, and Hsiung:

[11] United States Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

Federal Regulations Needing Amendment to Stimulate the Production and Introduction of Elec- tric/Solar Vehicles; A Report to Congress, Pre- pared in consultation with the Environmental

Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 20590, January 1990, p. I- 10.

[12] S. Hoffman, Summary of the 1992 National

EV Infrastructure Conference; prepared for the

Electric Power Research Institute, TR-102422,

Project 3272 Final Report, Santa Clara, CA, May

1993, p. 3-1.

[13] T. Turrentine and D. Sperling, "How Far Can the

Electric Vehicle Go on 100 Miles (162 km)?" in OECD Documents, The Urban Electric Vehicle,

Policy Options, Technology Trends and Market

Prospects, Paris, France, 1992, pp. 259-269.

[14] R. E. Balzhiser, Remarks, in Proceedings: The

National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Conference, Electric Power Research Institute, TR101892, December 1992, p. 10.
ELECTRIC AND HYBRID ELECTRIC AUTOMOBILES

IMPERATIVES FOR COMMERCIAL SUCCESS

C. Marks

Visiting Professor, College of Engineering

University of Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

ABSTRACT

The task of making and selling electric or hybrid electric vehicles in large volume as a commercial

endeavor faces many difficulties. Some are technical but many are not. To understand these issues, a quahtative overview of the automobile business in the U.S. is presented together with a description

of the way in which innovation occurs. This overview establishes the broad scope of the task. It

is Eirgued that, in addition to progress on generally acknowledged technical difficulties, success will require a well orchestrated systems approach which addresses the entire range of problems. Some

importeint, iUustrative research and development considerations for the system are discussed and the

potentieil use of purchase incentives to aid the introduction of such vehicles is noted.

INTRODUCTION

The technical feeisibility of building operational

passenger cars powered by electric or hybrid electric power plants has been demonstrated many

times, spanning a period of decades. Currently,

many major efforts are ongoing to develop components and to build and evaluate the operational characteristics of cars employing a vari- ety of competitive electric power train arrange- ments. These recent efforts have shown substantial progress compared to earlier developments.

However, a demonstration car, even one that per- forms very well, is but the first step in establishing

the feasibility of manufacturing and selling a large

volume of such cars. This task faces great difficulties. The difference between what is often referred to as, "technical feasibility" and the suitability of a car for mass production, are the subject of this paper. The goal is to make and sell electric or hybrid

electric vehicles in the United States in large vol- ume, in order to have a significant impact. To

do this successfully, these cars will have to compete directly with traditionally powered vehicles. This means meeting the transportation needs of a significant proportion of our present and future

car owning population better than competitive designs. Our economic system also requires that this endeavor be commercially successful, i.e., that it conform to traditional business parameters that

provide for amortization of the development and

investment costs incurred as well as generating a

profit and reasonable return to the shareholders of

the businesses involved.

MARKETING NEW CARS

Customers buy cars, and the decisions of millions

of potential customers will determine the success

or failure of the task described. To understand

how to make electric cars a commercial success,

it is instructive to examine a simple description

of some of the marketplace fundamentals for new

cars. Existing passenger cars have established a very high standard for many fundamental characteristics, most of which are absolute imperatives in the

minds of new car customers. Success requires that

the "voice of the customer" be heard and appropriate responses generated. The quality, comfort,

safety, reliability, durability, maintainability, ser- viceability, mission flexibility and functional operating capability of our passenger cars are at a

very high level. Any product not perceived by

customers to be competitive in these characteris33
34 Marks:

tics can not hope to achieve substantial market

penetration.

This does not mean that all cars are equal in these characteristics. Rather, it means that to- day's production cars exhibit variations above a

very high baseline that has risen to this level mostly by small incremental improvements over many years. Car customers' purchcise decisions

certainly are related to their perceptions of differ- ences in these fundamental characteristics as well as their valuation of such things as aesthetics and

detailed comfort and convenience features. History provides many examples of car models that

have quickly lost market share and gone out of

production because new car buyers perceived them

to be significantly deficient in one of these fundamental characteristics, that is, they fell below the

acceptable baseline.

In the United States, most new cars are sold to people who already own one or more used cars. For most of them, their existing car operates perfectly

well or is readily serviceable. Customers buy new

cars for many reasons. Some of these recisons are value judgments, such as a perception of the eco- nomics of maintaining the old car versus increasing

car payments, or a change in transportation needs.

Others may be emotional: a desire for an image, new styling or features, or just the fact that the new car is more fun to drive. Key to the purchase decision for most customers

is the fact that a ready market exists for their perfectly good used car and, therefore, they can satisfy their desire for a new one with an outlay that

is a fraction of the purchase price of the new product. Of course, in addition to buyers who trade in a car at the time of purchase, the market for new

cars includes first time car buyers and those who

are increasing the number of cars they own. The

key point to note, however, is that the competition

for any new car being introduced is not just other

competitive new car models, it is the existence of an abundance of perfectly serviceable used cars.

BASIC PARAMETERS OF THE CAR

MANUFACTURING BUSINESS

Scale

One of the most obvious characteristics of the car manufacturing business in the U.S. is its scale. It

has been estimated that about one out of every seven jobs in this country owe their existence to the automotive industry. Automobiles are ubiquitous. Familiarity with them tends to hide the

magnitude and complexity of the processes used

to design, develop, tool, manufacture, assemble,

market, sell, insure, maintain, repair and eventually disassemble and recycle a large proportion of

them. The number of establishments is huge. In the U.S., in addition to the traditional manufacturers and transplants, there are over 1200 first tier suppliers and 30,000 sub-suppliers; a complex

fuel exploration, production and distribution sys- tem, including over 100,000 gasoline service stations; plus sales and service operations provided

by over 40,000 dealers and more than 200,000 in- dependent establishments. Substantial changes in one part of this system can have far reaching and

sometimes unexpected effects elsewhere.

Most people recognize that there are significant

economies of scale in the car manufacturing business. Small manufacturers survive and profit by

selling niche vehicles, but their costs will not al- low them to achieve significant penetration in a

14 million vehicle per year market. Car manufacturing is a tooling intensive business, requiring

massive investment. A new car program, today, can cost one to three billion dollars. Even minor

changes can cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Lead Time

Because of the size of the endeavor and the complexity of both the product and its manufacturing processes, changes involve a significant lead

time. It is not unusual for five to seven years to elapse between management's commitment for a new model and its arrival on the showroom floor. This lead time, combined with the large invest- ment required, results in a very high risk of making financially catastrophic decisions. Market conditions can easily change during the lead time in- volved. When these changes are not anticipated,

sales will not be as expected and the manufacturing plant capacity both for final assembly and

throughout the supply chain, will not be appropriate. Major dislocations and economic loss re- sult from too much capacity. Too little capacity

results in lost potential sales and cannot be remedied quickly. In addition, the wrong car for market
.Imperatives for Commercial Success 35

conditions is a disaster for dealers who, typically run a small business highly dependent upon vol- ume sales. Many conditions affect the market for new cars because, for most people, the decision to buy a new car is a significant financial commitment and

can be easily postponed. General economic conditions, trade policy and government regulations,

among other things, can dramatically affect the

general car market and, even more, the acceptance

of particular models. The most significant example of such an effect was the 1973 oil embargo that

inverted the market demand between large and

small cars almost overnight, creating severe eco- nomic dislocations.

Externalities

The existing 145 million car population is sup- ported by a massive infrastructure, including a

fuel supply system, maintenance and repair facilities, roads, parking and an insurance system. New

vehicle designs must either fit the boundary conditions imposed by this infrastructure or changes

in these systems must be orchestrated before the new product can be successfully introduced. The

introduction of catalytic converters is an example

of this process. The petroleum industry had to change refining and distribution facilities to pro- duce unleaded fuel and mines had to be dug in South Africa and Russia to produce more platinum before these devices could be introduced.

Other major factors external to the car manufacturing business that establish boundary conditions for car design, include federal, state and local municipality regulations, the product liability en- vironment and the views held by various advocacy

groups. Any of these factors may have a profound

effect on the automobile manufacturers' ability to change car design parameters or to introduce dif- ferent manufacturing processes.

Engineering

Engineering teisks for the car manufacturing busi- ness are performed within the framework de- scribed above. Engineering must provide designs

and manufacturing processes to produce automobiles that meet or exceed high customer expectations and satisfy all of the other system boundary

conditions. These designs and processes must re- sult in a unit cost and up-front investment that is commensurate with the customer perceived value

of the car and which satisfies the financial parameters of the business enterprise.

Because of the major down-side economic risks involved in any new car program, predictability of

the performance of both product designs and manufacturing processes is a very high priority. If this predictability is not established before production

begins, the engineering function runs the risk of

sinking the entire business.

Other specific engineering boundary conditions

include meeting safety, fuel economy, noise and

emissions regulatory requirements. These must be

reconciled with customer expectations regarding

quality, performance, fuel economy, safety, reliability, durability, serviceability and maintainability.

INNOVATION IN THE CAR BUSINESS

The marketing and manufacturing parameters

outlined above clearly present some major chal- lenges to product innovation in the car business.

The risks of innovation are high, the consequences

of failure can be dramatic, and satisfying the imperatives is difficult. Timing of the process makes

it impossible to know if the all of the boundary conditions have been met before huge financial commitments must be made. Nevertheless,

car components and ba^ic designs have changed

dramatically over the years. The marketplace de- mands such change, and this fact has developed

mechanisms that do satisfy the parameters and

adapt vehicles to a continually changing set of

market requirements. The only way to survive and

prosper in this business is to master this change

process and do it better than the competition.

The basic elements of the innovation process are

essentially the same whether the change involves a

small component or the introduction of an entirely new car. They include the following steps:

• Identifying a customer perceived value for the

change

• Conducting a concurrent, iterative development process embracing: marketing, concept

generation, design, prototype construction,
36 Marks:

testing, tooling, validation, cost analysis, pro- curement, manufacturing processing and operations, logistics, maintenance and repair

• Risk assessment judgment and decision making regarding: the technical and business

risks, how the customer will assess value ver- sus cost, how well the predictability and externality requirements have been satisfied,

and the best introduction strategy

• Effective education of potential customers re- garding the benefits of the changed product

and promotion of its sale

• Monitoring results by comparative sales, profitability, and field performance of the changed

product

• Introduction of improvements based upon

field experience

Over this entire change process hangs the potential threat of calamitous product liability lit- igation. On the one hand, manufacturers have

been sued simply because their designs were dif- ferent from others in the industry. On the other

hand, suits have contended that since a design was

changed, the previous design must have been deficient. The complexity of cars makes defense of

such suits extremely difficult. Historically, the marketplace has rewarded a

path of evolutionary change based upon how well

this overall process is executed. The more extensive the change, particularly if it involves basic

functional components, the more diligence in the

development process is required to reach a rea- sonable risk versus reward tradeoff. This, then,

is a framework within which the research and de- velopment agenda for electric and hybrid electric automobiles may be viewed.

ELECTRIC AND HYBRID ELECTRIC

R&D

In deciding what problems need to be resolved for "commercial success," it can not be emphasized

too much that the total system must be considered. The primary system includes the large number of manufacturers and their suppliers and dealers, plus the fuel production and distribution and

service operations that were noted earlier. It is interlinked with processes, attitudes, and proce- dures that have evolved over many years so that

it works extremely well. Any major change runs

the risk that it may dislocate one or more of the

parts, or the upset the interfaces between them,

either of which might jeopardize the success of the

entire transition endeavor. Such changes also must

face the challenge of getting through the thicket of concerns of the legal liability system, various advocate groups, and the insurance companies, as well as regulators at the federal, state and municipal

level. The introduction and sale of electric or hybrid

electric powered automobiles on a large scale will require changes in this transportation system that

are unprecedented in both magnitude and scope. To be successful and sustainable, the new sys- tem elements and the transition to them must be

orchestrated very carefully. Otherwise, the cus- tomers simply won't be there. One way to look at this task is to first enu- merate the research and development that will be needed to cissure that no "show-stoppers" re- main. The previous discussion indicates that this research and development must extend well be- yond cissuring that the functional requirements for

electric and hybrid electric power trains can be met. Some illustrative, important considerations

worthy of significant effort are listed below under

the categories discussed earlier.

Externalities

The energy source presents a real dilemma. Any

new energy source, its distribution system, and

the vehicle service capability, including both facilities and trained people, need to be developed and

put in place before a large number of customers

will commit to buy a car that is dependent upon

this source of energy. This is a "chicken and the

egg" situation that needs an innovative solution

if a rapid transition is to be achieved. A slow

transition would be easier, but this raises another

dilemma. If the vehicle production volumes are too low, costs will be high and the demand reduced

enough to jeopardize the transition. The crux of

the basic dilemma is that the business incentive to put a major new energy supply, distribution and

service system in place will not exist without a
..Imperatives for Commercial Success 37

broad base of demand (a lot of cars) and cars re- quiring such a system can not be sold in volume,

if the energy is not widely available. The importance of orchestrating appropriate

standards must not be overlooked in establishing

such a new system. Proliferation of products and

the details of the interfaces in the system can dramatically slow or halt the transition. Without

standards, critical resources, which are needed to design and develop the product, are wasted to ac- commodate the system variation. On the other

hand, standards set too early in the development

process run the risk of stifling creativity and lock- ing in obsolete technology. Either situation will delay the transition by decreasing customer value. Another challenge to the concept, research, de- sign and development process is to anticipate and

try to mitigate potentially adverse reactions of the

product liability establishment, insurance companies, regulatory bodies, and various advocate

groups. Early anticipation of such reaction can

help to minimize cost and delays in implementation and might even prevent a last minute "show

stopper."

Engineering

The engineering research and development needs

of any new car, for the most part, are evident from

the earlier listing of customer imperatives and en- gineering task parameters. Competitive, "bcise- line" levels must be achieved for basic functions:

safety, emissions, mission flexibility, reliability, ap- pearance, quality, comfort, noise, odor, durability, maintainabiUty, serviceability. These are all a critical part of what customers regard as value. Regardless of cost, large volume sales will not be

possible if a vehicle fails to achieve an acceptable

level of any of these functions.

As indicated earlier, predictability, the ability to assure with reasonable confidence that these

chareicteristics will be achieved, is of utmost importance. For traditional designs and processes,

this predictability is established by extensive analysis, simulation, and testing of components and

sub-systems, and by building prototype and pre- production vehicles. Tests are performed in laboratories and on test tracks, as well as on the public

roads, each venue providing additional assurance

of the suitability of the design. This work is augmented and supported by an extensive knowledge

of what has and has not been satisfactory in past

production vehicles. Such knowledge is a crucial element in both the design and the validation pro- gram.

For an electric or hybrid electric car this product

validation process must be carefully developed. It

is more difficult and requires special consideration

because of the lack of previous field experience,

which makes increased risk inevitable. Each el- ement of the product or production system that

lacks precedence needs to be carefully examined

with all of the analytical tools available, and new

testing techniques must be devised, as required,

to maximize the probability of success. Some il- lustrative qualitative criteria for a few of the pa- rameters are listed below:

• Safety: Federal Motor Vehicle Standards

comprise a necessary but far from sufficient set of criteria to assure that a car will per- form in a safe manner. Meeting these stan- dards is certainly no defense in product li- ability cases. New designs must anticipate

extremely unlikely and unexpected events in order to avoid potentially disastrous field fail- ures. Such failures can destroy customer confidence in a product (or even a company)

in addition to costing hundreds of millions

of dollars for compensation and legal fees. Some vehicles operate in very unusual envi- ronments and encounter incredible operating

conditions. With 145 million of them on the

road, a very small fraction of failures can be

totally unacceptable.

• Durability and maintainabifity: The same

statement with regard to operating conditions

applies. Maintenance requirements for recent model cars have been reduced to very low levels and many cars today remain functional for 10-15 years even though their owners fail to perform the maintenance recommended. In addition, there is legal precedent for expecting cars to function as the driver expects, not

only under extreme conditions but when subjected to "foreseeable abuse."

• Disassembly and disposal: The ultimate goal

is recyclability. A very high percentage of the
38 Marks:

content of existing designs can be economically disassembled and recycled without undo

hazards and the same will be expected of new

designs.

Lead Time and Operating Scale

Very long lead times are inherent in the development process for a totally new car. This fact, and

the large scale of the operations required, puts a

very high premium on agility. Research and devel- opment that can reduce the lead time and increase

the flexibility of the production processes will in- crease the variety of products that can be pro- duced economically. Flexibility and shorter lead

times can reduce substantially the risk of bringing a new car to market. To be effective, this task

must be addressed from a system standpoint, in- cluding the entire chain from the acquisition of

basic resources to the final assembly and distribution of the vehicles. Considerations of flexibility

and lead times should enter into the early design

and development stages of both the product and

its manufacturing processes.

INTRODUCTION STRATEGY

The uncertainties of introducing electric or a hybrid electric cars would not be eliminated, but

would be greatly reduced, if they were completely

interchangeable with current designs in function,

cost and all of the other dimensions described in this paper. Current technology, however, results

in designs with significant cost and functional deficiencies and major infrastructure questions.

It has been proposed that the introduction of

electric or hybrid electric vehicles could be hastened by providing various non-market incentives

that would overcome some of these shortcomings.

This is one way to help to get the infrastructure

established and to obtain some data needed to improve predictability, as well. This approach has

merit, provided the cars so introduced represent an acceptable level of risk and there is a clear path

toward designs that will be supported in the marketplace without such incentives. Otherwise, the

cost of such a subsidy, over time, will rise to an

unacceptable level. This will prohibit substantial

market penetration and the economies of scale will never be realized.

Mission flexibility is one of the key drawbacks

of current electric battery vehicles, a limitation

that is being addressed by hybrid electric designs.

Much remains to be learned about the importance

of mission flexibility to the potential customers of

such vehicles. If it is a critically important fac- tor for a majority of potential buyers, then, other

factors being equal, the hybrid approach will have

much greater market acceptance than the battery

only system with current technology. If a large

percentage of buyers will accept the mission flexi- bility limitations of the current battery only cars, this will greatly hasten the transition. Unfortunately, marketing studies are of only

limited value in answering such questions. Test marketing well developed vehicles can provide some of the answers, but ultimately, this answer must come from the marketplace. This reasoning suggests an observation regarding the use of

non-market incentives. If they are employed to hasten the introduction of such vehicles, it would

be worth trying to structure them so that they

are neutral relative to the battery only versus the

hybrid approach. Then, with both types of vehicles being sold, real market information would be

available, which could used to guide future devel- opments.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of developing and introducing electric or hybrid electric vehicles as a commercial venture

is an exceedingly complex, high risk endeavor, not

unlike efforts to develop oil shale or nuclear power.

A huge financial investment is required to develop

and produce such vehicles on a significant scale and many uncertainties regarding their acceptability remain.

New car customers have extremely high expectations that may not be able to be satisfied with

these power trains. In addition, the process of val- idating such a radically new design is complicated

by the absence of baseline data on comparable vehicles currently in operation, increcising the risk of

unanticipated field failures. Another major consideration is the significant

infrastructure changes that will be needed to sus- tain this different kind of car in the field. Reducing the risk of this endeavor is imperative

if it is to become a commercial success. The entire
.Imperatives for Commercial Success 39

affected system should be addressed in a comprehensive way in order to move forward efficiently.

A broad range of research and development

must be performed successfully to eliminate potential "show stoppers" before committing major

resources to significant production volumes.

The timing and role of potential incentives and

regulations should be carefully considered. Incentives could reduce the risk substantially. On the

other hand, if incentives and regulations result in the production of vehicles that are judged inadequate by the marketplace, customers may reject

this technology for a long time to come.
ADVANCED BATTERY COMMERCIALIZATION

J. Williams

General Motors Corporation

Troy, MI 48007

ABSTRACT

The General Motors Impact program and PrEView Drive are reviewed. An overview of recent US

Advanced Battery Consortium activities is also presented.

IMPACT PROGRAM AND PREVIEW DRIVE

Figure 1.

Consumers to PrEView Impact

General Motors and leading utilities throughout the United States will provide 1,000 consumers with

the opportunity to test drive a GM Impact electric vehicle, similar to the prototype Impact pictured

here, for periods of two or four weeks, beginning in spring 1994. The two-year PrEView Drive will encourage development of the service and charging infrastructure needed to support electric vehicle

use, demonstrate electric vehicle technology and provide valuable engineering data.

40
Advanced Battery Commercialization 41

Figure 2.

Impact Meets Federal Braking Standards

The icy, snow-covered roads at the General Motors Kincheloe Winter Test Site in Kinross, MI, have some of the slickest surfaces a car may ever travel. That's why GM takes its vehicles there for brake

and traction control development.

The Impact electric vehicle is no different. With all-new regenerative and electro-hydraulic brake

technology, it must meet the same standards required of every vehicle on the road. Testing at Kincheloe

ensures the Impact can meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and validates the design of

the electric car's anti-lock brakes, traction control and regenerative braking. Regenerative braking

recharges the battery pack in stop-and-go driving.

GM is testing the Impact's brakes in preparation for a 50-car build this fall.
42 Williams:

Figure 3.

Impact's Aerodynamic Development

General Motors uses its aerodynamic experience with both auto racing and production vehicles to make the Impact electric vehicle the most aerodynamic production car ever. By giving the Impact

a teardrop shape, GM was able to produce a drag coefficient of 0.19 in the wind tunnel. That is 30

percent better than any other production car and comparable to an F-16 fighter jet.

GM is testing the Impact's aerodynamics in preparation for a 50-car build this fall.
Advanced Battery CommerciaHzation 43

Figure 4.

Impact Heat Pump Keeps Things Cool

General Motors' Harrison Division in Lockport, N.Y, is testing the efficiency and dependability of the

first automotive application of an electrically driven heat pump climate system on the Impact electric

test vehicle. In the climatic tunnel, technicians use solar spectrum lights to duplicate the effect of a car sifting in direct sunlight for an extended period of time. When the vehicle's interior reaches intense heat stages,

the Impact's electric heat pump is engaged and GM technicians time how long it takes the air conditioning unit to return cabin temperatures back to a comfortable level. They also lower temperatures

below freezing and test how long it takes the heat pump to again bring the cabin temperature to a

comfortable level. Since the climate system is powered by the vehicle's batteries and not an engine, it must be ultra

efficient to control the cabin temperature without shortening the vehicle's range. GM is testing the Impact's climate system in preparation for a 50-car build this fall.
44 Williams:

Figure 5.

Aluminum Structure Withstands Crash Testing

Barrier crash testing takes on new significance when the car being crashed is electric. The Impact's

lightweight, welded and bonded aluminum structure, a first for General Motors, is designed to meet

the same Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that apply to conventional vehicles. Not only does

it have to perform and protect in a 30-mph crash, but it also must support and retain 1,100 pounds of

batteries. As an additional safety feature, the vehicle's high-voltage battery system will automatically

disconnect in various crash situations. The Impact also includes driver- and pcissenger-side air bags to ensure occupant safety.

GM is testing the Impact's crashworthiness in preparation for a 50-car build this fall.
Advanced Battery CommercializatioD 45

Figure 6.

Impact Conquers Belgian Blocks

The "Belgian Blocks" at the General Motors Milford Proving Ground simulate the worst-case road

conditions a vehicle can experience in a lifetime. GM calculates the average number of times a car

rides over severe road conditions during real-world driving, then parlays the results into tests. The Impact electric vehicle is tested on the "Belgian Blocks" to help develop the durability of its lightweight bonded and welded aluminum structure, suspension and motor mounts. The car must meet

the same testing standards and reliability expectations as any other vehicle. GM is testing the Impact's durability in preparation for a 50-car build this fall.
46 Williams:

Recharge

Efficiency

Calender

Life

Purchase

Price

Energy

Density

Specific

Energy

Cycle

Life

Ptmm

I

Figure 7. Available batteries have low energy.

Recharge

Efficiency

,

Calender

Life

Purchase

Price

if Vi«<gSSf

Specific

Power

Energy

Density

Specific

Energy

Power

Density

Figure 8. High-energy batteries are expensive.
AdvaJiced Battery Commercialization

Purchase

Price

Specific

Energy

Specific

Power

Figure 9. Optimizing the battery system.

OVERVIEW OF USABC ACTIVITIES

Purpose

To develop for commercialization advEinced

battery systems that will provide increased range eind improved performance for electric vehicle in the latter part of the 1990s.

Figure 10.
48 WiUiams:

Structure

Figure 12. USABC and federal government agreements.
Advanced Battery CommerciaUzation 49

Figure 13. USABC funding $262 million

Miles traveled by the customer

on a single charge

Kilowatt-hours of electricity (Analogous to gallons of gasoline)

In an EV, quantity of battery is limited by:

1 . Cost

2. Volume

3. Mass

The USABC has established development

goals for battery technologies that achieve:

1 . Lower Cost

2. Lower Volume

3. Lower Mass

Figure 14. Electric vehicle range.
Table 1. USABC development goals

Nickel USABC

Cadmium Mid-term

Purchase Price 1000 150 ($kW-h)

Energy Density 100 135 (W-h/1)

Specific Energy 55 80

(W-h/kg)

Table 2. Battery development contracts

Start Budget

Timing Company Technology Date (Millions)

Mid-term Ovonic Nickel Metal Hydride 5/92 19.9 Mid-term Saft Nickel Metal Hydride 12/92 18.1 Long-term Saft Lithium Iron Disulfide 12/92 17.3 Long-term W. R. Grace Lithium Polymer 1/93 27.4

New USABC Development Contract

Silent Power, GmbH

Sodium Sulfur Mid-term Goal

$12.1 million for 48 months

Figure 15.

USABC

Long-term GasoUne

100 .02

300 8,800

200 12,200
Advanced Battery Commercialization

Table 3. Battery development contracts (cont.)

Start Budget

Timing Company Technology Date (Millions)

Mid-term Ovonic Nickel Metal Hydride 5/92 19.9 Mid-term Saft Nickel Metal Hydride 12/92 18.1 Mid-term Silent Power Sodium Sulfur 10/93 12.1 Long-term Saft Lithium Iron Disulfide 12/92 17.3 Long-term W. R. Grace Lithium Polymer 1/93 27.4

Table 4. Cooperative Research and Development

National Laboratory Task Lawrence Berkeley

Nat'l Renewable Energy

Argonne

Argonne

Argonne

Idaho

Sandia

Seindia

Tech. Dev.

Tech. Dev.

Test and Evaluation

Test and Evaluation

Tech. Dev.

Test and Evaluation

Tech. Dev.

Test and Evaluation

Agreements (CRADA)

Technology

Lithium Polymer

Thermal Enclosure

Nickel Metal Hydride

Sodium Beta

Lithium Iron Disulfide Sodium Sulfur Lithium Polymer

Sodium Sulfur

Table 5. Performance projections relative to mid-term criteria AVAILABLE MID-TERM

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA UNITS MID-TERM

GOAL

Lead

Acid

Nickel Cadmium

A B c D

Power Density w/1 250 V

Specific Power Discharge w/kg 150 V

Specific Power Regen w/kg 75 V V

Energy Density w-h/1 135 V V V

Specific Energy w-h/kg 80 V V

Power-to-energy Ratio V

Calendar Life yrs 5 V

Cycle Life Cycles 600

Power and Capacity Degradation % 20 Ultimate Price $/kW-h 150 V V V V V

Operating Environment DegC -30/65

Normal Recharge Time Hours 6 Fast Recharge Time Minutes 15 V V

Continuous Discharge 1 Hour % 75
COMMERCIALIZATION

Lead Acid

Nickel Cadmium

Nickel Iron

Nickel Metal Hydride Sodium BetaLithium Iron Disulfide Lithium Polymer

I f I

Figure 16. Battery technology time line.

Accomplishments

Teamwork

• Establish the framework for cooperation

among the stakeholders

• Developed the mid-term and long-term criteria

• Established USABC standard test procedures

and initiated testing of advanced batteries

Technology

• Negotiated agreements with battery developers

and national laboratories

• Focused the battery industry on electric vehicle requirements—business and technical

Tools

Figure 17.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE STANDARDS—THE CURRENT STATUS

R. I. Sims

Ford Research Laboratories

Dearborn, MI 48124

ABSTRACT

Since its formation two years ago, the Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE) Electric Vehicle (EV)

Standards Forum has overseen the development of numerous standards for EVs and Hybrid EVs. There are many agencies, both nationally cind internationally, that support SAE in this endeavor,

and this paper outlines the status of the collective efforts of all those involved in the derivation of

standairds for the U.S. EV industry.

BACKGROUND

Throughout the 1970s and 80s those involved

with the development and testing of electric vehicles (EVs) became very familiar with one Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) EV standard,

namely J227C, which established a baseline for assessing EV performance and energy consumpn

tion. During those two decades there was little additional activity on the standards front other

than a proposed draft update to J227C in 1986

that was not adopted, due mainly to a decline

in interest in EVs in the early 80s. However,

the passage of the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) legislation

in 1990 stimulated a major resurgence of interest

in EVs. By late 1990, most of the major vehicle

manufacturers active in California had instigated

or intensified EV development programs. As the

emergent EV industry responded to the CARB

legislation, the Motor Vehicle Council (MVC) of

the SAE proposed, in 1991, the re-establishing

of an EV Standards Committee to support these new industrial ventures. After due consideration, the MVC further recommended that the EV

Standards Committee should actually be a Stan- dards Forum established within the Vehicle Systems Standards Group of SAE, with supportive in- volvement from other SAE standards groups such

as the Power train and Electrical Systems Groups

and the Maintenance Division. (Fig. 1)

SAE MOTOR VEHICLE COUNCIL

I

Maintenance Powertrain Electrical Vehicle

Division Systems Systems Systems

(^cirical Vehicle / HEV

Issues

Other Divisions Outside the SAE MVC

Electrical Vehicle

) > Forum

Makes Appropriate Assignments\

ISO TC22

Other Systems

Groups Within Other Committees SAE MVC Within the Vehicle Systems Group

Figure 1. SAE standards groups.

SAE EV STANDARDS FORUM

As envisioned by the SAE MVC, the role of the

EV Forum differs from that of a Standards Committee. The Forum, comprising both SAE members and non-members that are actively participating within the EV industry, addresses the stan- dards needs for both EVs and Hybrid EVs (HEVs),

by identifying the areas requiring new or updated

standards. It then produces a brief outline of the

scope of each area and assigns the standards making task, whenever possible, to existing SAE stan- dards committees, both within and outside the

MVC. If no appropriate committee exists, the EV

Forum, with MVC approval, can form new stan- dards committees to handle unique requirements.

It was during the autumn of 1991 that the EV

53
54 Sims:

ISO lEC

others

SAE

others EV Standards Forum

US ABC

Natlorial Fire Protection Agency NEC

NEMA

EPRI

Infrastnjcture Committee

Others

(UL)

Auto

li^anufacturers

WEVA

AVERE

EVAA

EVAAP

JEVA

Utilities J

Customers

Figure 2. The U.S. standeirds interface.

Standards Forum had its first meeting and defined

its mission statement to be: "To specify stan- dards, or variations of existing ones, which support

industry-wide practices for uniform testing, operational flexibility, cost minimization, and consumer

safety in EVs and HEVs." The initial membership

was modest in number, but now includes nearly all of the major vehicle manufacturers, both U.S. and

overseas based. In addition, there are representatives from equipment suppliers, electric utility

companies, trade associations, and research estab- lishments. The first meeting also agreed upon a

prioritized list of areas that required new or re- vised standards; these being:

• Battery charging system:

- vehicle cord and plug

- charger construction and operation

- battery watering, venting, and monitoring systems

• EV safety

• EV wiring practices

• EV testing methods (also includes HEVs)

• Vehicle diagnostics

• Service guidelines and battery disposal

• Electromagnetic compatibility:

- susceptibility

- emissions

U.S. EV STANDARDS ACTIVITIES

Although the American National Standards Insti- tute (ANSI) has requested SAE to take the lead in developing automotive standards, the standardsmaking process involves many interacting national

agencies. As regards the derivation of EV stan- dards, SAE's interface with other organizations

is shown diagrammatically in Fig. 2, from which

it can be seen that the EV Standards Forum is the focal point not only for automotive EV stan- dards but also for international EV standards li- aison and U.S. national EV regulations (electrical

codes, etc.). Since its formation, the EV Standards Forum

has been in liaison with all of the organizations

shown in Fig. 2 as it pursued the making of stan- dards for the following topics:

• High-voltage wiring charging system and operational (propulsion) systems

• Performance testing methods for ZEVs

• Testing methods for HEVs

• Electromagnetic radiation

• EV batteries

In addition, other tasks undertaken by the EV

Forum include:

• Support for National Electrical Code Handbook article

• Liaison with Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) EV Infrastructure Working

Council (IWC)

• Derive EV Terminology Manual (SAE J-1715)

The content and status (as of October 1993) of

each of the above will now be outlined:
Electric Vehicle Standards.. 55

1. Draft J-1719: High-voltage wiring

charging systems

For both this standard and its counterpart, the operational (propulsion) system, two task forces were

set up under a parent committee, the SAE Electrical Distributions Standards Committee. The

charging systems task force has defined its mission

as "To develop a standard for transferring power

and information for the purpose of recharging an

electric vehicle at low, medium, and high rates." In keeping with this objective, an SAE Technical

Information Report (J-1719) is due to be issued

during the first quarter of 1994, the contents of

which are hereby outlined:

1. Utility Infrastructure Issues:

(a) Historical perspective

(b) Generation, transmission, and distribution systems

(c) Load impact (continuous EV load, on- peak fast-charge, cold-load power-up,

rate incentives, management and control, public and private charging)

(d) Power quality (power factor, harmonic

distortion, conducted emissions)

(e) Communication (present and proposed

schemes)

2. Premise Wiring (NEC definition):

(a) Global power supply considerations

(b) Standardization and certification

(c) Charging modes (slow, normal, and fast)

(d) Charging facilities (private and public)

(e) Protection and control (equipment protection, people protection, load management, etc.)

(f) Coupling types (direct conductive and

magnetic inductive)

(g) Operator interface, ergonomics, and

other human factors

(h) Auto docking

3. Vehicle Systems and Issues

(a) Systems overview and definition

(b) Power-system diagrams and component

hardware description

i. DC coupled

ii. AC coupled

iii. AC-DC hybrid coupled

iv. high-frequency coupled (inductive)

(c) Communication and control

i. media

ii. protocol

iii. messages and information

(d) Vehicle environment

(e) Coupling and charging-station issues:

i. security and interlocks

ii. operation interface

(f) Battery considerations

As the numbers of EVs steadily increases it be- comes of paramount importance to derive stan- dards that address the many issues that arise from

connecting the vehicle to the electrical supply for charging. For example, a number of basic assumptions have had to be made regarding the EV plug

and cord connection, these include:

• The coupling configuration for slow, normal,

and fast charging will be common at the point

of connection but have unique cord connec- tion/handle design.

• For normal- and fast-rate charging the cord

and plug will be stored off-board.

• For slow rate charging, an on-board adapter

cord-set will be utilized.

• The coupling should assume no preferred lo- cation for the charger for slow, normal, or

fast-rate charging.

• The safety and control mechanisms identif- ied by the EPRI-IWC Connector and Charging Stations Subcommittee shall be utilized as fundamental considerations in the coupling

design (GFCI, dead-front construction, no- load make-and-break, etc.).

• The cord for slow-rate charging will be stan- dard high/low temperature outdoor rated for
56 Sims:

hard service. The cord for normal rate charging will be standard high/low temperature

outdoor rated for hard service with an additional exterior protective jacket for public charging. The cord for fast rate charging will be a special configuration capable of

withstanding environmental extremes, physical abuse, and extra hard service conditions

and may incorporate additional protective

jacketing.

Similarly, the major functional requirements of

the EV charging connector have also been con- sensed to include:

1. The connection of the EV for the purpose

of recharging shall be accomplished in as few

steps as possible and by using one hand (i.e. Connection: a) Remove plug from stored position, b) Insert plug into receptacle on vehicle, c) Initiate charge commence command.

Disconnect: a) Terminate charge process, b)

Remove plug from vehicle receptacle, c) Return plug to stored position.)

2. To ensure proper conductor connection, the

coupling orientation must be either intuitively

obvious or totally irrelevant.

3. The human efforts expended in joining the

coupling components must be well within the

physical capabilities of 100 percent of the

driving public, including persons with limited

or restricted capabilities as well as children

and senior citizens.

4. The connection process must be free of potentially injurious conditions that could cause

physical harm in any way to the user.

5. The coupling components shall have the highest level of perceived safety possible (i.e. contact points not visible to user, no sharp edges,

etc.).

6. The plug shall be capable of withstanding se- vere physical abuse (i.e. dropped from 6 feet onto a hard surface, run over by vehicle, etc.).

7. The plug in the disconnected position shall be capable of being dropped into salt solution, slush, snow, or mud or immersed in water immediately prior to connection without

causing nuisance ground fault tripping after connection at commencement of charging.

8. Once connected, the coupling interface must

be positively sealed from moisture due to driving rain, direct water stream, etc..

9. It shall not be physically possible to discon- nect the coupling while power is flowing. This

may be a passive or active mechanical inter- lock system in the receptacle that is actu- ated prior to power flow (electro-mechanical,

hydraulic, pneumatic, other) and deactivated

when power flow is terminated. An indexing

or sense mechanism to ensure that the plug

is fully engaged prior to interlock should be

incorporated into the coupling design.

10. The coupling point is to be a minimum of 24"

above ground level and no higher than 36"

above ground level.

11. The preferred point of coupling will be located

in the front, right-hand quadrant of the vehicle.

12. The size and weight of the components shall be held to an absolute minimum using cre- ative design and sophisticated materials as re- quired.

13. Any and all other features that contribute to improved safety; higher performance; lower

cost, weight, or size; greater customer acceptance; ease of manufacturing and assembly;

etc.

2. Draft J-1654: High-voltage Primary

Cable; and Draft J-1673: High-voltage

Primary Automotive Wiring Assemblies

Working m conjunction with the task force on

High-voltage Charging Systems, the High-Volt- age Operational Systems working group has pro- gressed these two draft standards in response to

their mission, which is "To develop standards for high-voltage wiring, terminals, connectors, and

wiring harnesses used in electric vehicles." An

outline of the developing contents of the two draft standards is as follows:

J-1654:
Electric Vehicle Standajds.. 57

• General Requirements of EV Cable

- Dielectric test

- Spark test

- Insulation resistance

- Identification

- Battery electrolyte compatibility

- Battery coolant compatibility

J-1673:

• General Section

- Definitions

- Insulated cable

- Color coding

- Connectors

- Conductor splicing

- Terminal and connector function

- Wire assembly construction

- Wire assembly installation and protection

- Wiring overload protection devices

- Battery cables

voltage drop

cable size cable construction

3. SAE J-1634: Electric Vehicle Energy

Consumption and Range Test Procedure;

and SAE J-1666: Electric Vehicle

Acceleration, Gradeability, and

Deceleration Test Procedure.

Both of these recommended practices were de- veloped under the guidance of the SAE Light

Duty Measurements Standards Committee and

are based on an update of the original SAE J- 227a. SAE J-1634 defines a three day test pro- cedure, in which the EV's energy consumption

and range are determined using a vehicle dynamometer and combinations of Federal Urban

Drive Schedule (FUDS) and Highway Fuel Economy Test (HWFET) duty cycles. The major test activities comprise:

Day 1 -Prepare and instrument test EV

-Charge battery to 100% SOC

-Measure capacity at C/3 rate -Charge battery to 100% SOC

-Thermally soak EV 12-36 h while con- nected to charger

Day 2 -Position EV on dynamometer

-Drive 2 FUDS cycles

-Drive 2 HWFET cycles

-Charge battery to 100% SOC

-Thermally soak EV 12-36 h while con- nected to charger

Day 3 -Position EV on dynamometer

-Drive alternate FUDS and HWFET

cycles until test termination criteria met

-Charge battery to 100% SOC

-Measure battery capacity at C/3 rate SAE J-1666, in the manner previously detailed

in the original SAE J-227a, defines a series of road

and dynamometer tests that measure the following:

• Acceleration characteristics on a level road

• Gradeability limit

• Gradeability at speed

• Deceleration '

• Coast-down characteristics

4. SAE Draft Hybrid Electric Vehicle Test

Procedure

The development of hybrid electric vehicles, in which more than one power source is used to sup- plement the output of a battery powered electric drive train, necessitates the derivation of new test procedures to measure the energy consumption

and emissions, if any, of these relatively complex

versions of EVs. The SAE Light Duty Measurements Standards Committee is presently engaged

in developing a draft standard that prescribes a

five day test procedure that comprises the follow- ing basic steps:
58 Sims:

Day 1 -Prepare and instrument HEV.

-Charge battery and thermally soak

vehicle 12-36 h.

Day 2 -Measure energy consumption as a

pure electric vehicle over the FUDS

and HWFET test cycles.

Day 3 -Measure pure EV range over FUDS

test cycle (until auxiliary engine

starts).

Day 4 -Measure pure EV range over HWFET

cycle (until auxiliary engine starts).

Day 5 -Initiate auxiliary engine HEV mode.

-Measure fuel economy (electric, gasoline, etc.) and emissions in hybrid mode over alternate FUDS and

HWFET cycles.

5. SAE J-551: Electromagnetic

Compatibility

At the request of the SAE EV Standards Fo- rum, the SAE Electromagnetic Radiation Stan- dards Committee recently updated the Electro- magnetic Comparability (EMC) standard SAE J- 551 to include a section that addresses the unique

characteristics of EV propulsion systems.

6. SAE Sponsored NationcJ Electrical

Code Article

The wide-scale use of EVs will be crucially de- pendent upon the timely availability of an EV

charging infrastructure encompassing residential garages through multi-vehicle commercial charging stations. In order to ensure the correct instal- lation of charging equipment, EPRI, through its IWC, recognized the need in 1990 to instigate the

development of an addition to the National Electrical Code (NEC) handbook to provide guidance

for installation of EV charging equipment. As a

consequence, EPRI and SAE jointly established an NEC EV article writing panel that has as its mission "To provide an article to the 1996 NEC

that ensures the safe installation and use of EV

charging equipment at home, work, and in commercial charging stations." This objective arises

in response to the question: Why does the NEC

handbook need an EV charging article? The an- swer being:

• Automotive EVs are presently undefined in the NEC.

• EV charging in the home and at public facilities is not in the current code.

• EVs have unique requirements and issues.

• EVs may be one of the largest electrical loads

in the home.

• NEC enforcement officials need accessible, re- liable information.

Throughout its development in 1993 the EV

charging article went through several stages in- volving numerous agencies:

1. Preliminary Draft: NEC officials, SAE, EEI,

IEEE, UL, EPRI, and NEMA

2. Reviews: Manufacturers of electrical equip>-

ment. Automakers, Utilities, Government,

Technical Experts, and Enforcement Officials

3. Substantiation: UL, Geomet, Penn State University, plus the agencies listed in 1 and 2 above.

4. Submission to NFPA on November 5, 1993 for assessment and subsequent incorporation into

the 1996 NEC handbook

By way of providing a flavor of the article, the

following is an outline of its content:

• General

- Scope

- Definitions

• Methods

- Hard wiring

- Connections

• Equipment Construction

- Ampacity

- Cord-Table 400-4

- Means of coupling
Electric Vehicle Standards. 59

• Control and Protection

- GFCI

- Disconnecting

- Grounding

• Locations

- Indoor site ventilation

- Outdoor site protection

7. EV Battery Standards Committee

This recently formed committee held its first meeting in August of this year, when it defined its mission as "To facilitate the introduction of EVs

by setting and coordinating standards and recom- mended practices for the use of batteries in electric road vehicles. These standards will cover safety, cost eff"ectiveness, reliability, testing, performance,

and interfaces. Also coordinate these activities with other domestic and international standards

organizations/agencies."

In recognizing the many areas of EV batteries

that need standards generated, the committee en- deavored to prioritize those it had identified within

two general categories of Safety and Operational:

Safety

1. Hazardous emissions

2. Auto disconnect, earth protection, and

shock

3. Abuse testing

4. Overcharging

5. Water submersion

6. Labelling

Operational

1. Electrical performance

- power and energy

- charge acceptance

- life

Not yet prioritized:

• Venting and watering systems

• Thermal management

Lead Standards

Organizations (US / Japan / Europe)

Standards

Implementation &

Enforcement

Automobile

Manufac&jrors

Bectric Utility Compani«6 —

Boctric Equipm»nt Manufactjrwe

ANSI UL NEC (NFPA) NEMA

I

National Standards & T«&t/C«rtification Organizalions

Figure 3. International EV standards process flow.

• EMC

• Mechanical performance (retention,

shock, vibration)

• Charging

• Standard types/packages

• Interfacing (power and control, electrical, mechanical, and thermal)

The committee's immediate short term priority

is to conclude a test procedure for measuring the

rate of evolution of hydrogen from aqueous EV

batteries during charging, in support of the NEC

article.

8. EPRI IWC Liaison.

In the same manner that SAE has taken the lead on deriving standards for the vehicle cispects of

EVs, EPRI has been the prime mover in addressing the electrical supply infrastructure issues re- sulting from the wide-scale deployment of EVs.

Under the auspices of EPRI's Infrastructure

Working Council (IWC) five subcommittees have

been established to facilitate the introduction of

EVs as viable alternatives to the ubiquitous inter- nal combustion engine vehicle, part of which is to support the derivation of appropriate standards,

procedures, and regulations. The five subcommittees and their mission statements are as follows:

1. Connecting and Connections Stations: The

Connecting and Connecting Stations mission

is to define standardized physical and electrical configurations for the transfer of power

and a physical configuration for the exchange

of information at the utility-to-vehicle inter- face.
60 Sims:

SAE Commlttoss

Ofaft EV Standards

SAE EV FORUM

SAE US TAG

Detegata

to SC 21

ISO TC22 / SC21

Liaise with lEC TC 69

through vehicle test weight, is being reviewed by

EV Forum members. It is anticipated that it will be issued in the first quarter of 1994.

INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

ACTIVITIES

Figure 4. Development route for international EV

standards.

2. Health and Safety: The mission of the Health

and Safety Committee is to enhance the safety

of people, their property, and the environment from the potential hazards that may be

uniquely associated with operating and maintaining an electric vehicle through research,

development of codes and standards, education, and technical advisory services.

3. Load Management, Distribution, and Power

Quality: The mission of the Load Management, Distribution and Power Quality Committee is to identify and propose resolution

of critical issues relating to the distribution

and use of electricity for EV charging, and,

to promote the research and application of

EV charging Load Management, Distribution

Planning and Power Quality mitigation tools.

4. Utility Information and Customer Education:

The mission of the Utility Information and

Customer Education Committee is to in- form and educate target audiences (regulators, utilities, customers, manufacturers, etc.) about key electric vehicle issues.

5. Data Interfaces: The mission of the Data In- terfaces Committee is to plan and define data

interface(s) across all elements of the EV supply equipment.

Together, the SAE Standards Committees and

the above EPRI IWC committees form the major

part of the standards making "backbone" of the

fledgling EV industry.

9. SAE J-1715: EV Terminology Manual

Presently, this draft SAE document, which pro- vides concise interpretations of the major, com- monly used EV terms, from acceleration power

As regards the development of international stan- dards for EVs, there are two agencies, worldwide, that coordinate activities and issue stan- dards: the International Standards Organization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (lEC). These two organizations

have established technical standards subcommittees, TC22/SC21 and TC69 for the ISO and I EC

respectively for EV activities. It is through these

two subcommittees that national standards in- stitutes (ANSI for USA, JEVA for Japan, and

CEN for Europe) propose standards for adoption

by the international community. This process is shown diagrammatically in Fig. 3. The suggested

route for coordinating the U.S. national committees' submissions to ISO and lEC is outlined in Fig. 4, which illustrates the role of an SAE U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG), comprising national experts, in advising ANSI of U.S. industry

views on proposed international standards offered by ISO/IEC for balloting. The many stages in- volved in the international standards balloting and

development process is shown in Fig. 5. As regards the current activities of the inter- national standards organizations, an overall impression of this can be gained from the numerous

working groups that are presently meeting:

ISO TC22/SC21

WGl: Vehicle safety and definitions

WG2: Road performance and energy con- sumption

lEC TC69

WG2: Motors and control systems

WG3: Batteries

WG4: Chargers

WG5: Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Electric Vehicle Standards,. 61

ISO ANSI

ISO Car It al oranaiaa

DiSballoi

ANSI taxB

IS Id

dslrtb<jlit

ANSI submds

dfiaal US vote b ISO Central

SAE

SAE lecavas DIS

SAE com pies rasponsas &

advises SC Cha»

SAE submtLs US

posljon

10 ANSI

US TAG

SAE ballola OlSio SAE TAG

erpert gfojp

US TAG charman resolvae mmmanls S lorwajds US

posilion to SAE

CONCLUSION

During the two years the SAE has been operating

its EV Standards Forum, numerous draft stan- dards have been progressed. However, SAE ac- knowledges that it has a formidable task to get in place, in a timely fashion, the standards needed

for the emerging EV industry, but the incentive

and the need to do so are clearly there.

Figure 5. The stages of development of international standards.

CEN TC301

WGl: Performance measuring methods

WG2: Safety (regenerative braking)

WG4: Vehicle-to-charger interface

WG5: Safety and other aspects

The Japanese Electric Vehicle Association

(JEVA) is developing its national standards

through four subcommittees:

Vehicle Subcommittee

- Test methods, electrical and acoustical

noise, electric shock prevention, and vehicle wiring

Battery Subcommittee

- Battery dimensions, test methods, and

maintenance

Infrastructure Subcommittee

- Charger specifications

- Safety standards

Eco-station Subcommittee

- A short-term task force to create a base

of draft standards

I

Working Session Reports

i

I
I

I
SESSION REPORT: ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS

R. W. Bartholomew

Senior Evaluator, Office of Technology Evaluation and Assessment

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

and

A. J. Sobey

Private Consultant

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

INTRODUCTION

The workshop session on "Energy Conversion Systems" was attended by over 40 people. These

people brought with them a variety of work ex- periences, technical backgrounds, and interests. Among the attendees were people from the California Air Resource Board and the Environmental

Protection Agency interested in emissions, General Electric's energy storage systems, Hughes and

General Motors' electric vehicle group, Chrysler's

propulsion systems, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's hydrogen-fueled spark ignition engines group, US Postal Service representatives inter- ested in learning about fleet alternatives, developers for aluminum-air and zinc-air batteries, pro- gram managers for various prototype and demonstration projects in the area of fuel cells and engine

designs, and several people working on small start- up companies for the manufax;ture of fuel cells, heat engines, hybrid and electric vehicles.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the session were to identify the current state of technology and to then suggest

possible development options for the more promising energy conversion systems. One method of

ax;cessing the promise of a particular technology was described in the chairman's introductory comments [1]. The method is based on experience

gained in the Energy-related Inventions Program

(ERIP), which is run jointly by the Department of

Energy (DOE) and the National Institute of Stan- dards and Technology. The ERIP, in determining the technical "promise" of a particular technology or product, considers the technical feasi- bility and the technical advantages of a proposed

technology or product over existing technologies

or products, the magnitude and significance of

the energy impact, economic considerations, and

commercial barriers. An additional consideration

raised by the attendees that is applicable for as- sessing the promise of a new technology or product

is the difference between evolutionary (e.g., incre- mental) and revolutionary (e.g., quantum) levels of improvements as well as the maturity of the area of technology.

IDENTIFICATION OF ENERGY

CONVERSION SYSTEMS

Discussions focusing on the first objective of the

session, namely the identification of energy conversion systems suitable for either hybrid or electric vehicles, resulted in the following list (not necessarily in order of importance)

Hydrogen-fueled, or hydrogen-enriched

fuels for spark ignition engines

Discussions during the workshop suggested this was a technology that should be receiving more at- tention as a transitional technology from gasolinefueled engines to other types of energy conversion systems. The principal advantage of hydrogen fuel is in the area of emission reductions. The

obstacles to the development of this technology

include: lack of a distribution infrastructure, the

need for storage technology, the current cost, and

low flammability limits. An additional consideration was the issue that retrofits may not be easy

65
66 Energy Conversion Systems

to perform. The development deemed most criti- cal was the storage technology (as well as to several other energy conversion options). Two papers were presented on hydrogen-related technologies.

The first was by J. Ray Smith [2] from Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory who presented a

brief comparison of hydrogen-fueled spark ignition internal combustion engines and other hybrid

technologies. The second paper was presented by

Daniel Cohn [3] from MIT's Plasma Fusion Center

who discussed the use of a plasmatron to reform a hydrocarbon based fuel into a hydrogen-rich fuel. The advantage of a plasmatron for hydrogen en- richment of the fuel was an anticipated factor of 10 reduction in emissions over a conventionally fueled

internal combustion engine.

Alternative fuels for the internal

combustion engine

The discussion of hydrogen fuels broadened eventually into a more general discussion of alternative

fuels, including the use of hythane (a mixture of

hydrogen and methane), compressed natural gcis, and liquified natural gas. The desirability and the

need for multi-fuel capabilities was discussed with concern expressed over the need and desirability

for vehicles that can run on any fuel: a great cost

is associated with this flexibility. Other alternate

fuel based technologies were not discussed due to a lack of representation by members from the al- ternate fuels research community.

The use of smaller engines running at near-optimal conditions to reduce exhaust

emissions, and the use of high compression

ratio, high thermal efficiency engines

The principal design requirement to consider is the

effort needed to get the internal combustion engine

into a vehicle, i.e., cost, weight, and size. The

consensus was that not enough attention has been

paid to the development of small engine technology, especially in light of the existing infrastruc- ture for current internal combustion engine tech- nology. Marius Paul from Engine Corporation of

America presented a paper [4] on high compression ratio diesel engines that could be used in lowemission vehicles. A discussion on the merits of

2-stroke versus 4-stroke engines was tabled for a

future meeting.

The gas turbine engine as a possible

alternative to conventional internal

combustion engines

Discussion was limited because expertise in this area was not in attendance. However, workshop

participants recognized Volvo's [5] prototype vehicle using a gas turbine engine.

Other internal combustion engine

technologies for a hybrid vehicle

Stirling, adiabatic, and steam engines were not

discussed in this session.

Fuel cell technology

Proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells, phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFC), and solid oxide

fuel cells (SOFC) were noted. Dr. Russ Kevala

of H Power Corporation gave an overview of the

Department of Energy's (DOE) PAFC bus pro- gram [6]. PEM technology for automobiles is still in the development stage, but appears promising.

Ballard's fuel cell bus also was mentioned. SOFC

technology is being promoted for long-term devel- opment. Two advantages of using fuel cells in a

hybrid configuration are economic incentives and

weight benefits. For example, the combination

of fuel cells and nickel-cadmium batteries used

in the PAFC bus weigh about 1/7 the battery

weight for the same range (approximately 240 km

or 150 miles) in a pure battery vehicle.

Aluminum-air and zinc-air batteries

While both of these systems are referred to as

"batteries," aluminum-air batteries consume alu- minum as a "fuel," and thus are more appropriately considered a fuel cell (or semi-cell). Theoretically, zinc-air batteries can be recharged, but a practical method has yet to be found. Thus,

zinc-air can be considered a "battery." Representatives from the aluminum-air battery de- velopment groups felt that this technology was moving toward commercialization with a possible 400 km (250 mile) range for hybrid vehicles. (Aluminum-air batteries are currently used

in a number of applications; one discussed in this
Bartholomew and Sobey: Session Report 67

workshop was as back-up power in the telecommunication industry.) Several disadvantages to

this technology were discussed, namely, the need

for higher specific power and lower cost. The

cost issues centered upon the life cycle costs of

the aluminum-air battery's aluminum electrodes,

which are consumed while the battery generates

electrical power. Zinc-air batteries are currently

cheaper than the aluminum-air batteries, but have

a number of technical problems that need to be

solved before they can be considered a viable can- didate for electric or hybrid vehicles. To reform

the spent aluminum back into electrodes, the alu- minum needs to be refined. The turn-around ef- ficiency of the zinc-air battery is slightly better than aluminum-air batteries. For the aluminumair battery, the manufacture of the aluminum elec- trodes currently uses approximately 15 kW-h/kg

of aluminum. This aluminum, in the form of elec- trodes, will generate approximately 4.3 kW-h/kg.

It was hoped that by the year 2000, fuel refine- ment costs will drop if the battery's intolerance to impurities can be improved.

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

Performance specifications for electric and hybrid

electric vehicles include traditional measures such

as range (equivalent kilometers per gallon) and

acceleration/deceleration rates. The former addresses the energy needs of the vehicle while the

latter considers the power requirements and the re- generative braking system. Questions were raised as to what constituted an acceptable range for the

vehicle. Comments were made about studies per- formed by the automobile manufactures that in- dicated that 240 km was the minimum acceptable

range for the average potential buyer of these vehicles. However, a discussion followed as to whether

this range wa^ acceptable for fleet vehicles. It was

also considered important that the performance of

the electric or hybrid vehicle's energy conversion

system mimic current internal combustion enginebased technology so that the type of energy conversion system in use is transparent to the driver. A key issue in designing and cissessing the

promise of these technologies is the realization that

the energy and power issues are different for the

electric vehicle and the hybrid vehicle. In the

electric vehicle, the power is available for transient performance, but range (energy storage) is the limiting factor. There is also a distinction in the types of hybrid vehicles. In a "series" hybrid, a secondary energy source (such as an engine or

fuel cell) is utilized to replenish the energy of the

primary energy conversion system (such as a battery), and thus increase the range of the vehicle. The primary energy conversion system should thus

be capable of providing the entire power needs of

the vehicle. The secondary energy conversion sys- tem can be a small engine running at constant speed for optimal emissions. It also could be a

battery with a high energy density and low power

capabilities. In contrast to the series hybrid, the "parallel"

hybrid has both of the energy conversion systems

providing power to the vehicle, but only one of the

systems is capable of fulfilling the high energy re- quirements. For example, in a vehicle using fuel

cells and batteries, the batteries can augment the

fuel cell's power for brief periods, such as during

acceleration. The rest of the time, the fuel cells provide all of the power requirements for the vehicle, including the maintenance of the charge for the

battery so that the battery is ready for the next

required burst of power. The battery system is also designed to accept and store the regenerative

energy during braking or deceleration. (This function of the battery, i.e., the storing of regenerative

power, can theoretically be performed by a capacitor, but the current state-of-the-art capacitor can- not provide the sustained power surges needed for acceleration or long-duration hill-climbing.) Most

of the discussions during this workshop session fo- cused on parallel hybrid systems.

The discussion of performance specifications

eventually broadened to include the entire energy

conversion system (e.g., not just the hardware as- sociated with the engine, but also the fuel costs, infrastructure costs, and full life cycle costs). The

discussion showed that the issues used for defin- ing performance and comparing different systems

are difficult to define and evaluate when comparing dissimilar technologies. To do this comparison properly, one must first agree upon a com- mon set of data for efficiencies, braking and simulation models, and correction factors for differ- ences in levels of infrastructure (e.g., actual cost of

using petroleum-based fuels on, for example, the

environment versus "at-the-pump" prices). Fur-
68 Energy Conversion Systems

ther, agreement is needed on what the boundaries

should be for the overall life cycle: how far forward

and how far backward should the history of the entire energy system be tracked? There was a strong consensus that this type of analysis is important

for assessing the promise of various technologies

since to a large degree energy resources will drive

the selection of energy conversion systems. Given

the number of competing technologies and the lack of accurate information concerning their advantages, disadvantages, and benefits, it is nearly impossible to assess technical promise and to identify

possible "winners" without this type of analysis.

CURRENT TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC

AND COMMERCIAL BARRIERS

Technical barriers for the technologies discussed

included:

1. System integration, optimization, and hard- ware experience were identified as obstacles

in the near-term for the introduction of highefficiency environmentally benign energy conversion technology. Progress being made on

the energy conversion component has not been matched by the necessary supporting

systems, i.e., air and fuel supply or thermal

or water management for the PEM fuel cells. The target performance and cost of the en- ergy conversion system for commercial intro- duction must be determined for an optimized

system, which includes all of the components

necessary for operation.

2. The response time for the reformer used with

fuel cells could be a possible barrier to the fuel

cell realizing acceptable performance. When

the fuel cell stack operates on pure hydrogen,

response time is considered to be acceptable.

(Performance of the fuel cell stack is improved

with the use of pure hydrogen compared to reformulated gas. The Ballard PEM fuel cell bus uses this technique to avoid the use of a

battery for surge power.) An on-board steam

reformer, such as the one used by the PAFC

bus discussed by Dr. Kevala [6], adds complexity to the system, but provides a longer

range as well as quicker refueling when us- ing methanol. The slow response time of the

reformer is due to the thermal mass of the

bed, which inhibits rapid changes in the rate of hydrogen production. Rapid-response re- formers have been demonstrated in the lab- oratory, but they generally have much lower

conversion efficiencies. Partial oxidation re- formers being developed by ADL are expected

to demonstrate rapid response and the use of

ethanol to produce hydrogen. The response

time problems associated with the reformer

are thus not insurmountable, but are by no means completely resolved. Two economic barriers were discussed:

1. The principal economic barrier was identified as the true cost of gasoline. Current gasoline

prices are so low that there is very little eco- nomic incentive for the development of alter- nate fuels or energy conversion systems. For

this reason, many people believed it was time

for life cycle cost analyses to be performed for the technologies being considered for the hybrid vehicle, and for this information to be

disseminated to the researchers and developers of these technologies as well as the policy

makers.

2. The second economic barrier was the reluc- tance of the private sector to invest in these

technologies until technical and business risks are better understood. Associated with the assessment of these risks is the total life cycle

costs and benefits of these technologies.

Non-technical barriers, or more appropriately,

commercial barriers for the development of an

electric or hybrid vehicle are many. Particular is- sues are discussed in Albert Sobey's paper [7]. In summary, they are:

1. The existence of a gcisoline-based energy in- frastructure (fuel distribution and storage of

fuel, trained service personnel, and operating

history leading to estimable liabilities) means

that there are many barriers where alternate

technologies can break down. Rather than doing away with these barriers throughout the

nation, it was felt that new infrastructures

should be developed on a local or regional basis.
Baxtholomew and Sobey: Session Report 69

2. Government support (financial, leadership,

and legislative) is required to reduce the level of risk incurred by the private sector as well as minimizing the unnecessary delay in the commercialization of these technologies. While it

is true that government funds are flowing to the larger vehicle manufacturers, innovations

are more likely to come from the smaller de- velopers who generally cannot off'er the gov- ernment the same level of cost sharing.

3. Developing the infrastructure and supporting

service requirements will be critical to the

commercial success of the hybrid and electric vehicles. Suggestions were made that perhaps

these infrastructures and supporting services should be developed through the incremental introduction of products and technologies.

(Good aerodynamic practices for vehicle de- sign and high-pressure tires are just two ex- amples of technologies that could be used by

both conventional and hybrid vehicles.) However, by first using these technologies on con- ventional vehicles, operating experience can

be developed so that liability and service his- tories can be established for hybrid or electric vehicles, which are significant departures from

current designs.

4. Coupled to the issue of how best to develop

the new infrastructure while making the best use of existing infrastructures is a need to understand what our goals should be for the

introduction of the hybrid and electric vehicles. The attendees felt that there is a need

to distinguish between a goal beised upon the

reduction of vehicular emissions (primarily a

state or regional need) and a goal of improved

energy utilization and efficiency (more of a

national need). Furthermore, the issue of

whether policy should be driven primarily by

health considerations or by the depletion of

natural resources weis also discussed.

POTENTIAL TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS

AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

DEVELOPMENT

Key to the commercialization of the aluminumair battery is the reduction of the life cycle cost

of the fuel (i.e., reducing the refining costs) and

increcising the battery's tolerance to impurities,

which also decreases the refining costs. For the

zinc-air battery, recharging technology should be

studied further to see if theory can be reduced to

practice.

There was some discussion on obstacles to getting PEM fuel cells into vehicles. Some of the

people in attendance felt that the humidification

system for the electrodes was an area that needed

further research. However, discussions after the

session suggested that this issue has essentially

been solved for laboratory-scale prototypes. Manufacturing cost reduction was considered to be the next hurdle for the PEM and PAFC fuel cells. Greater fuel flexibility and the reduction in susceptibility to hydrocarbon poisoning of the fuel

cell were also considered to be important areas of possible research.

In the area of alternate fuels, the need for improvements in hydrogen and compressed natural gas storage was seen as an opportunity for devel- opment work.

SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE FOR EV AND

HEV COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT

Hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines were

discussed as a possible transitional technology to move the automotive industry from hydrocarbon

fuels to alternate fuels or technologies. However,

in light of some of the issues still facing this tech- nology (particularly hydrogen storage and generation), many attending the session felt that compressed natural gas held good promise as a transitional technology.

In the area of fuel cells, the demonstration

project for transit bus applications discussed by

Russ Kevala [6], H Power Systems, is scheduled for operation beginning the first of the 1994, with two

additional buses following in succeeding months.

The buses use a phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC)

for the energy conversion system. In Canada, Ballard is expected to demonstrate a full-sized transit bus with PEM fuel cells in late 1995. The at- tendees felt that SOFC technology would require

long-term development.
70 Energy Conversion Systems

REQUIREMENTS FOR FUTURE

STANDARDS/TEST PROCEDURES

One standards issue discussed in our session was

raised by Professor Craig Marks in an invited pre- sentation during the morning session [8]. In his example, Professor Marks told how a vehicle that

had been running up to expectations throughout

the test program in various parts of the country

suddenly ran into drivability problems in the Denver area. The problem was eventually traced to the fact that the natural gas in the Denver area had a high fraction of hydrogen. Thus, in order

to get the fuel into heating value specifications, a

significant percentage of carbon dioxide wcis being

added. While this natural gas mixture was adequate for home heating requirements, it led to sig- nificant problems in the automobile engine's per- formance and drivability. This is one example of

the standards in the area of alternate fuels that

are needed before the hybrid vehicle is introduced

into the market place.

CLOSING REMARKS

A common theme that recurred during these dis- cussions was the need for better dissemination of

technical, economic, and commercial information.

This need was manifested in two ways. Firstly, there was a general lack of agreement of criti- cal data needed to compare different technologies.

This paucity of accurate data led to rather gross cissumptions in making comparisons and brought

into question the validity of these comparisons.

Secondly, the information being used by different groups was not up-to-date. For example, some

people felt humidification of the electrodes in PEM

fuel cells was a critical problem while others felt that satisfactory solutions for this problem were on their way out of the laboratory. In addition to being up-to-date, information must be accurate,

timely, and reliable. The need for a better method

of disseminating technical information was clearly

indicated.

Finally, the enthusiasm and variety of expertise

brought to this session by the people who pre- sented papers is recognized. Their contribution led to interesting, informative, and lively discussions.

Special thanks are extended to Mr. Albert Sobey, a

private consultant; Dr. Russ Kevala from H Power

Corporation and Dr. William Ernst from Mechanical Technology, Inc. for reviewing this summary

for accuracy and completeness.

REFERENCES

[1] R. W. Bartholomew, "Opening Remarks for the

Parallel Session on Energy Conversion Systems,"

these proceedings pp. 71-75.

[2] J. R. Smith, "The Hydrogen Hybrid Option," these proceedings pp. 76-82.

[3] A. Rabinovich, D. R. Cohn, and L. Bromberg,

"On-board Plsismatron Generation of Hydrogenrich Gas for Engine Pollution Reduction," these proceedings pp. 83-88.

[4] M. Pavd "Advanced Engine and Fuel Systems,"

these proceedings pp. 89-97.

[5] Certain commercial equipment, instruments, or materials are identified in this paper. Such identification does not imply recommendation or en- dorsement by the National Institute of Standards

and Technology, nor does it imply that the materials or equipment identified are necessarily the best

availalble for the purpose.

[6] R. J. Kevala, "Phosphoric-acid Fuel-cell Bus Development," these proceedings pp. 97-101.

[7] A. J. Sobey, "Non-technical Barriers to Product

Commercialization," these proceedings pp. 106-

115.

[8] C. Meirks, "Electric and Hybrid Electric Automobiles Imperatives for Commercieil Success," these proceedings pp. 33-39.
OPENING REMARKS FOR THE PARALLEL SESSION ON ENERGY

CONVERSION SYSTEMS

R. W. Bartholomew

Senior Evaluator, Office of Technology Evaluation and Assessment

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

ABSTRACT

This paper defines some of the issues to be addressed in the parallel workshop session "Energy

Conversion Systems." Issues presented included suggested evaluation criteria for ranking the technical

alternatives and an example of the types of engineering paradoxes that need to be evaluated.

INTRODUCTION

There are several issues that we would like to address in this session. These issues relate to the identification of critical components for hybrid electric vehicles for the year 2000 and beyond

and the basic research and development needed

for these components. After identifying these crit- ical components, we will then review their perfor- mance requirements, to identify those components

that are considered to be more or less promising,

to discuss what needs to be done to overcome any

existing or anticipated technical, economic or commercial barriers, and finally, to identify where opportunities for innovation lie. This session focuses on energy conversion sys- tems. These include: conventional internal combustion engines, such as Stirling engines, turbine

engines, or adiabatic engines; fuel cells; alternate

fuels; and hydraulic motors. The session also

eidresses how energy storage systems, such as batteries, flywheels, ultracapacitors, hydraulic accu- mulators, and elastomers impact energy conversions systems and change the operating characteristics and performance considerations of the en- ergy conversion system.

A SUGGESTED EVALUATION

CRITERIA

In evaluating these energy conversion systems, we

need to establish a measure of their commercial

"promise." There are a variety of ways to measure commercial promise: As an opening suggestion, I would recommend criteria developed by the

Energy- Related Inventions Program (ERIP). The

ERIP was established in 1975 and is run jointly

by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the

National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST). NIST's OflSce of Technology Evaluation

and Assessment (OTEA) evaluates inventions and

technology submitted to the ERIP to determine

if an invention is sufficiently promising to warrant

government support for its development. (Inventions identified as having promise are referred to the DOE who may provide grants or other sup- port for commercialization.) Many of these in- ventions represent technologies and products that

are in very early stages of engineering development. For the present discussion, "early stage of

development" will be taken to refer to a product

or technology that needs to be defined conceptually, to have its technical feasibility established, to have a working prototype constructed, or to have

the pre-production design finalized. By this definition, many of the technologies we will discuss

in this session would be considered "early-stageof-development" technologies.

The evaluation process that OTEA applies to inventions submitted to the ERIP has been refined over nearly two decades. The evaluation process has been distilled to the point that the "promise"

of an invention can be determined by consideration

of five criteria:

71
72 Energy Conversion Systems

1. The technical feasibility of the invention.

2. The distinct advantages that the invention

has over competing products.

3. The benefit to energy production or energy

usage at the national level that the invention

will produce.

4. The costs associated with development, manufacture, and use of the invention.

5. Barriers that hinder commercialization of the

invention; such as industrial, consumer, or national bias against the use of a particular product; safety and standards require- ments; or liability, legal, or infrastructure is- sues. These barriers must be identified and

there must be a reasonable expectation that

they will be successfully addressed or over- come.

One should note that these criteria can be applied objectively, and thus are appropriate for the

evaluation of products that are driven by technological considerations. Issues that pertain to products whose commercialization is driven by con- sumer preference are not necessarily addressed,

and the evaluation of a consumer preference product would require additional criteria. However,

the products discussed in this workshop would be

considered as "technologically driven" and thus

should be adequately evaluated by these five cri- teria. The degree to which these evaluation criteria can successfully identify promising, early-stage-ofdevelopment products, is periodically assessed by

ERIP program reviews. The most recent review,

completed in 1990 [1], identified the evaluation

process performance indicators listed in Table 1. A second review, completed in 1993 [2], looked

at inventions reviewed by OTEA for ERIP that

did not meet one of the five criteria (typically in- sufficient energy impact). These products were found to have significantly fewer commercial sales and did not last in the market place as long as the

technologies identified by OTEA as "promising."

One can conclude that the evaluation criteria

listed above can be used to successfully identify promising, early-stage-of-development technologies, and thus are a reasonable starting point

for accessing the "promise" of the technologies

considered here.

SOME ENERGY CONVERSION

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

With discussion points for the determination of a

product's "promise," we now turn to opening re- marks on energy conversion system requirements. For transportation applications, the primary per- formance criterion for the energy conversion sys- tem has been to match the power, torque, and

speed requirements of the vehicle to the power,

torque, and speed of an energy conversion system,

such as an internal combustion engine. To achieve

this match, one would ideally operate the engine

at its highest efficiency (its peak power or its peak

torque) and have a continuously variable transmission that matches the engine's output to the vehicle requirements. However, this is not the solution

that has evolved historically. Instead, the engine

has proven to be easier to control and thus the en- gine output has been continuously varied to match

vehicle requirements through a transmission with

only a few finite steps. As a consequence, the en- gine is usually operating at conditions that differ significantly from its optimal operating conditions.

While decreeised fuel and thermal efficiencies and increased exhaust emissions, which are con- sequences of operating the engine at less than op- timal conditions, have historically been tolerated,

the more recent attention to global warming and

air quality have made the reduction of exhaust

emissions an increasingly important engine design

consideration. The engine designer, who has his- torically been faced with economic considerations,

vehicle drivability, operating behavior, and packaging, now must also consider exhaust emissions.

Designing an energy conversion system that can

either augment or replace the internal combustion

engine and satisfies the above requirements, is the

challenge now facing automotive engineers. To il- lustrate the level of compromise needed to achieve a reasonably successful design alternative, let us

consider one of the design requirements: vehicle

acceleration.
Barthohmew: Opening Remarks.. 73

Table 1. Summary of ERIP performance indicators for the years 1975-1990.

Number of inventions evaluated Over 25,000

Number of inventions deemed "promising" 486

Number of inventions receiving grants Over 80% of "promising" inventions Toted grants (millions of dollars) $25.7

Number of inventions commercialized At least 109 Number of "spin-off" technologies At least 23

Total commercial sales (millions of dollars) Over $500 (from 100 + 23 inventions)

New jobs created Over 750

POWER REQUIREMENTS FOR

VEHICLE ACCELERATION

Under steady cruising conditions, the brake horse- power (bhp) developed by the engine balances the

driving resistance and accessory loads of the vehicle. That is,

•fengine — (^roll H" -faero "H -Pclimb) "(" Paccessory (1)

where Pengine is the brake horsepower of the engine, Pfoii is the rolling resistance of the vehicle, Paero IS the aerodynamic drag of the vehicle, Pciimb

is the climbing resistance, and Paccessory is the

power consumed by the accessories (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; radio; lights; etc.) Collectively, the first three terms on the right hand

side of eq(l) are referred to as the tractive resis- tance, Ptractive- The acceleration of the vehicle, a, is related to the power developed by the engine in excess of the

tractive and a<;cessory power requirements,

^trans ' Pengine ~ (Ptractive ~^ Paccessory) ,n\ V • km • m

where rjtrans is the efficiency with which the torque

of the engine is transmitted to the driving wheels,

V is the velocity of the vehicle, km is the rotational

inertia coefficient (i.e., a measure of the apparent

increase in mass of the vehicle due to the rotation

of the flywheel, crankshaft, wheels, etc.), and m is the mass of the vehicle. From eq(2) it is evident that there are only a

limited number of ways to increase the accelera- tion of the vehicle. One of the most obvious methods is to decrease the terms in the denominator,

i.e., either the mass of the vehicle, m, or the ro- tational inertia of the vehicle. To the degree that

the mass of the vehicle is affected by the mass of

the energy conversion system, we can see that decreaising the mass of the energy conversion system

would improve acceleration.

The rotational inertia coefficient, kmi in eq(2)

has typical values that range from 1.0 to approximately 1.4 and depend upon the mass of the vehicle, transmission gear ratio, tire diameter, and, in the case of the internal combustion engine, engine

displacement [3]. Decreasing the transmission ratio or engine displacement, or increasing the mass

of the vehicle or tire diameter, will decrease the

value of km- Thus, smaller engine displacements

lead to smaller values of kmi ^-^d therefore greater

rates of accelerations. (That is one of the rea- sons why high-performance fighter aircraft engines

of World War II had many small cylinders rather

than a few large cylinders.) For internal combustion engines, r/trans ranges

between 0.88 and 0.92 for longitudinally mounted

engines [4] to 0.91-0.95 for transversely mounted

engines. It is therefore advantageous to use a

transversely mounted engine. This desirability of

the transversely mounted engine dictates to some

degree the size and configuration of the engine.

The power consumed by accessories depends on

operating conditions as well as engine speed. Table 2 summarizes the power requirements of a typical 1977 model year V-8 engine [5, 6]. Actual

power requirements depend upon operating conditions (i.e., day or night, winter or summer, engine

speed, vehicle size, etc.). Values for the operating parameters listed in Table 2 thus should be

interpreted as approximate. The total power re- quirements of the accessories range from a low of

approximately 2 kW (3.6 bhp) to more than 1 1 kW

(17 bhp).
74 Energy Conversion Systems

Table 2. Summziry of power requirements of various

accessories used in vehicles

Accessory

Power Requirements

(kW) (bhp)

Air conditioning compressor

1.5-6 2-8

Alternator 0.6-1.5 0.8-2

ElectriczJ (head light, fog lights, windshield

wipers, etc.)

0.3-0.7 0.4-1

Power steering 0.2-1.5 0.3-2 Radiator fan 0.1-3 0.1-4 Radio 0.01-0.05 0.01-0.07

The final set of terms effecting acceleration are

the three tractive power requirements: i.e., the

rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, and climbing

resistance. Rolling resistance is associated with

the work required to deform the tire and the road

surface sis the vehicle moves. The power required

to overcome this rolling resistance, Proii? is

PtoW = f-m-g-v (3)

where / is the coefficient of rolling resistance, m

is the mass of the vehicle, and g is gravitational

cicceleration. Representative values for the coefficient of

rolling resistance can be found in Table 3. The

rolling resistance depends upon the material of

construction for the tire as well as the road surface

and other parameters [7]. The power required to overcome the rolling resistance of the vehicle can

thus be decreased by reducing the weight of the vehicle, reducing the friction in the wheel bearings,

using better lubricants, or reducing tire deformation work. In terms of options eissociated with

design of the energy conversion system, decreasing the mass of the conversion system would tend

to reduce the rolling resistance. The second contribution to the tractive power

requirement is the power to overcome aerodynamic

drag

i\ero =^Cd-P-A-V-{v- Vq)^ (4)

where is the drag coefficient of the car, p is the air density, A is the frontal area of the vehicle.

Table 3. Sample veJues for the coefficient of rolling resistance

Wheel/road Surface

Rolling Resistance

Coefficient, /

steel wheels 0.001 on rails pneumatic tires 0.015 on concrete asphalt

pneumatic tires 0.35 on fairmland

Table 4. Aerodynamic drag coefficient of selected vehicles

Body Style Drag Coefficient, Co

optimally streamlined 0.15

sedzin body 0.33 streamlined bus body 0.4 van body 0.55 trucks 0.8-1.5

and vq is the velocity of the head wind. Values for the drag coefficient depend upon body styling; several representative styles are listed in Table 4 [8]. The only energy conversion system design parameter effecting the drag coefficient is the size of the

conversion system. For aerodynamic styling, the

energy conversion system should be low and compact.

The third and final contribution to the tractive power requirement is the climbing resistance

power, Pclimb, given by

/'climb = m-g-v sm{0) (5)

where 9 is the angle of inclination and is positive

when going uphill. As was the case for the rolling

resistance power, the effect of engine design would

manifest itself on the climbing resistance through

the weight of the vehicle. Thus, a lighter energy

conversion system would reduce the climbing re- sistance. The only term that has not been discussed up

to this point is the power generated by the energy

conversion system itself. From eq(2) it is clear that the more power the energy conversion system

can generate, the greater the acceleration. Typi-
Baxtbolomew: Opening Remarks.. 75

cally, for an energy conversion system to produce more power, it must be larger and heavier. Thus a

design trade-off is created. Increased acceleration can be obtained by making the energy conversion

system more powerful (and thus larger and more

massive) or smaller and lighter. But these are

conflicting requirements, resolution of this conflict and the introduction of design compromises are

left to the skill of the design engineers.

CLOSING REMARK

Acceleration is but one example of the technical

and performance issues discussed in this session. The design of an energy conversion system that is smaller and lighter than today's internal combustion engines and yet develops comparable power

would have a technical advantage that could make

it "promising." Determining the degree of promise

would require looking into addition technical, eco- nomic, and commercial issues. These are issues that will be identified and discussed in this ses- sion. REFERENCES

[1] M. A. Brown, C. R. Wilson, and C. A. Franchuk,

"The Energy-Related Inventions Program: A

Decade of Commercial Progress," Ocik Ridge National Laboratory Report, ORNL/CON-339, Dec,

1991.

[2] M. A. Brown, T. R. Curlee, S. R. Elliot, and C. A. Franchuk, "A Compeirison Group Analysis of DOE's Energy-Related Inventions Program," Ozik Ridge National Laboratory Report, ORNL/CON365, June, 1993.

[3] R. Bosch, Automotive Handbook, 2nd Edition,

1986, p. 260.

[4] ibid.

[5] op. cit., R. Bosch, p. 422.

[6] D. S. Shupe, "Update: Automotive Fuel Economy," MechanicEil Eng., Dec. 1977, 31.

[7] op. cit., R. Bosch, p. 256.

[8] op. cit., R. Bosch, p. 258.
THE HYDROGEN HYBRID OPTION

J. R. Smith

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Livermore, CA 94551 '

*-'.*. ABSTRACT

The energy efficiency of various piston engine options for series hybrid automobiles are compzired

with conventional, battery powered electric, and proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell hybrid

automobiles. Gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG), and hydrogen are considered for these hybrids.

The engine and fuel comparisons are done on a basis of equal vehicle weight, drag, and rolling resistance. The relative emissions of these various fueled vehicle options are also presented. It is concluded that a higUy optimized, hydrogen fueled, piston engine, series electric hybrid automobile

will have efficiency comparable to a similar fuel cell hybrid automobile and will have fewer tots! emissions than the battery powered vehicle, even without a catalyst.

INTRODUCTION

Today's conventional automobile that meets the

Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) stan- dards of 27.5 mpg uses fuel energy at the rate of

0.8 kW-h per kilometer traveled (1.28 kW-h/mile).

The vehicle energy efficiency (defined here as the

ratio of energy delivered to the wheels to the fuel energy used) is approximately 25 percent for this conventional vehicle on the highway. The highly

refined gasoline piston engines used in current au- tomobiles with compression ratios of about ten have maximum brake thermal efficiencies in the

range of 30 percent. By appropriate selection of gear ratios, it is possible for the automotive designer to operate the engine near this maximum

efficiency when at highway speeds. However, the

urban driving cycle, with its varying speed and

load demands, forces the engine to operate well away from the maximum efficiency point, resulting

in a vehicle efficiency that is about one half of the

peak efficiency. It has long been realized that hybrid vehicle designs that allow the piston engine to operate at its maximum efficiency could make sig- nificant improvements in fuel economy and emissions. How this might be accomplished and the

projected results are the subject of this paper.

VEHICLE ENERGY EFFICIENCIES

The fair comparison of different types of power

train systems is a difficult task. Many assumptions must be made to make the problem tractable. Here, for consistency, we use the component effi- ciencies published in the Department of Energy

Hydrogen Program Plan [1] (see Table 1). Although many of these values are arguable, the significance of the present work is in the trends

not the absolute values projected. Ultimately,

the actual fuel efficiency and emissions that the

automotive designer can demonstrate in a manufacturable, marketable, and profitable automobile

will determine the market penetration and the cor- responding automotive fleet changes. The energy

efficiency of automobiles will continue to improve

through weight reductions, better aerodynamics,

and low-loss tires; but these technologies are avail- able to all power train system options. Thus, for the comparisons made here, it is assumed that all vehicles have the same weight, aerodynamic drag,

and rolling resistance. Implicit in the comparison is similar performance in terms of acceleration, range, and hill-climbing ability. The auto- motive consumer of today is sophisticated and de- manding and is unlikely to purchase an automobile

76
Smith: The Hydrogen Hybrid Option 77

Table 1. Vehicle comparison technology assumptions (abridged from Ref [1])

Current (1990) Advanced (2020)

Efficiency Cap. Cost Efficiency Cap. Cost Technology (%) ($/kW) (%) ($/kW)

Central Base rossil riant 36 1,500 42 1,200

Electricity Transmission (500 miles) 92 300 95 300

Electric Motor Drive 90 100 95 100

Electrolysis 65 1,000 75 250

Fuel CeU 40 2,500 50 300

Battery Storage (5 hours) 70 120 80 80

I.e. Engine (Fed. Urban Driving Cycle) 15 50 19 40

Vehicle Power Train 85 10 90 10 Steam Reforming of Natural Gas 68

that does not compare reasonably well with conventional automobiles. Thus without these per- formance attributes the market penetration of hybrids will be severely limited. Five conceptual

power train system designs are compared to the

conventional gasoline piston engine automobile,

which is examined in both the highway and the

urban driving modes. The conventional vehicle is examined first. The energy efficiencies of the de- scribed hybrids, the battery powered electric vehicle, and the conventional vehicle are compared in Fig. 1.

Conventional Automobile

The typical modern Otto cycle engine achieves a

fuel efficiency of about .30 percent. The chief limitation to improved engine fuel efficiency in the

spark ignition engine is the inability of the en- gine designer to raise the compression ratio due

to "knock." Otto cycle engine efficiency is proportional to the compression ratio, Rc: 77=l-{l/(Rc)^-^} (1)

where 7 is the ratio of specific heats of the gases

in the combustion chamber [2]. Knock, or autoignition of the unburned gases in the combustion chamber, occurs when the combined effects of temperature, charge density, and compression

duration exceed the fuel's ability to resist a chainbranching chemical reaction, resulting in rapid en- ergy release ahead of the flame front. This re- sults in shock waves scrubbing away the protective boundary layers in the combustion chamber,

which enhances heat transfer rates enormously

and ultimately results in engine damage. Using

currently available unleaded fuels with octane rat- ings in the low ninties limits compression ratios to about ten. Clever combustion chamber designs

that enhance heat transfer from the unburned end

gases can allow slight increases in the compression

ratio. There is also the possibility that an envi- ronmentally acceptable additive may yet be found

that will delay the chain-branching reactions and

thus effectively raise the octane rating of gasoline,

which will in turn allow compression ratios to rise along with engine efficiency.

The drive train couples the output of the engine

to the wheels at an efficiency of about 85 percent.

Thus with ideal gearing and a small engine run- ning near wide-open throttle, the engine runs at

its "sweet spot," and the conventional automobile on the highway achieves about 25 percent energy

efficiency. In urban use the engine is required to operate

at low speed or idle (17.7 percent of the EPA Ur- ban Driving Schedule is idle time), which means

that the throttle is partially closed. This results

in most of the output of the engine being used to "pump" air from the atmosphere across the pres- sure drop of the throttle plate. This loss mechanism is referred to as pumping losses. (This loss does not occur in diesel engines because the load is matched by reducing the quantity of injected fuel, but diesels are not considered here because of their inherent emissions problems.) The spark ignition

engine efficiency on the Federal Urban Driving Cycle is given in Ref. 1 as 15 percent. When com-
78 Energy Conversion Systems

Conventional Gasoline Auto (Urban)

Conventional Gasoline Auto (Highway)

Battery Charged by Utility (Bev)

Gasoline Spark Ignition Hybrid

CNG Spark Ignition Hybrid •

Pern Fuel Cell HybridHydrogen Spark Ignition Hybrid

Generation 39% Transmission 92% Charger 90% ^////////////////////(/\

I Non hytfid CR.10 I

Non hytfid CR.10

I I Engine efficiency UA Electrical efficiency

-| E] Vehicle efficiency J

DOE Hy*ogon Plan EHiciwcy 40% I

Optimized Hyc*t>gen Engine. CR-1S+, very lean

10 20 30

Efficiency, %

40 50

Figure 1. Energy efficiency estimates for conventional automobiles, battery powered electric, and hybrid

vehicles. All vehicles have the same weight and drag, no credit taken for regenerative braking.

bined with the drive train efficiency, this yields a

vehicle energy efficiency of about 13 percent.

Battery Powered Electric Vehicle

The battery powered electric vehicle is assumed to be charged by a utility power plant operating at 36 percent efficiency with an electrical transmission efficiency of 92 percent [1]. Battery charger

efficiency is assumed to be about 90 percent. Thus

the energy is delivered to the vehicle with 30 per- cent efficiency. Current secondary batteries have an electrical "turn-around efficiency" (ratio of en- ergy output to energy input) of about 70 percent

[1]. The electric motor used to drive the wheels

has a net efficiency of about 90 percent. Thus

the battery powered electric vehicle has an overall energy efficiency of about 19 percent. This is significantly better than the conventional automobile

in the urban cycle but not as good as the conventional auto in the highway cycle. The impact of

this efficiency on emissions will be discussed.

Gasoline Hybrid

The hybrid power train systems that we consider

here are all similar except for the fuel and the

engine that recharges the energy storage system.

The basic concept is to use electric motors to drive

the wheels, which are powered by an electrical en- ergy storage system which is in turn recharged

from a small piston engine/generator or fuel cell. The piston engine is run only when recharge is nec- essary and only at a single load and single speed

that corresponds to its maximum efficiency oper- ation point. This engine does not idle, and it runs

at wide-open throttle to avoid any pumping losses. The gasoline spark ignition hybrid engine drives a

lightweight aircraft generator (0.6 to 0.8 kg/kW)

that recharges the electrical energy system. It is similar in performance to the conventional ten- to-one compression ratio engines in today's auto- mobiles but has significantly smaller displacement

because it is used primarily for recharging. Near

stoichiometric operation is assumed so that three- way catalysts may be used. The engine would

be sized for long-duration hill climb capability (20

to 40 kW), whereas the energy storage system is
Smith: The Hydrogen Hybrid Option 79

sized for the more demanding acceleration phase

(about 100 kW with 1 to 3 kW-h storage). The

specific energy storage system chosen is the fly- wheel electromechanical battery (EMB) of Post

et al. [3]. Although other electrical storage sys- tems are possible, the EMB is particularly attractive because its low weight of 10 to 20 kg/kW-h,

small volume of 30 to 50 liters/kW-h, and its high

turn-around efficiency of greater than 95 percent.

These weight and volume estimates for the EMB

include containment cases and gimbaling neces- sary for automotive applications. Combining the

engine, generator, and EMB efficiencies gives the

electrical efficiency of 27 percent. Again, this electrical power must pass through the electric drive

motor at 90 percent, resulting in a gasoline hybrid

energy efficiency of about 24 percent. Note that

this is slightly less efficient than the ideal conventional vehicle on the highway because of the additional components. However, such small differ- ences should not be regarded as significant because

of the many assumptions required to get to these estimates.

If the engine only recharged the EMB, this hybrid concept would be referred to as a series hybrid. However, it now appears possible to build

controllers that would allow the electric drive motor to simultaneously receive power from both the

engine generator and the EMB [4]. Thus effec- tively this becomes an electrically paralleled hybrid. The consequences of this controller advance

are that the energy storage requirements and sys- tem costs may be somewhat decreased.

CNG Hybrid

The compressed natural gas (CNG) hybrid is conceived of as identical to the above hybrid except

for the engine and fuel storage. The effective oc- tane rating for natural gas is 120 [5], which allows

the compression ratio to be raised to about thir- teen. We have used an estimated engine efficiency of 35 percent for the CNG fueled hybrid. Here

too, near stoichiometric operation is assumed in order to use a three-way catalyst to reduce emissions. The other components are the same as for the gasoline hybrid, which results in a vehicle en- ergy efficiency of about 28 percent. Note that this

is 16 percent greater than the gasoline hybrid.

PEM Fuel Cell Hybrid

The concept for the proton exchange membrane

(PEM) fuel cell hybrid is identical to the hybrids

described above except that the engine/generator

is replaced with the fuel cell and the hydrogen

storage system. The hydrogen storage problem is made more tractable by the use of the hybrid concept. Without the significant efficiency improvements of hybrids over conventional automobiles,

hydrogen storage issues tend to dominate any au- tomobile design. The choice of hydrogen storage

technology is not yet clear [6]. Progress is being

made in hydrogen storage in adsorbent materials

such as carbon, but storage tank volumes are still quite large. Storage in hydrides has also made

significant progress to the point where the volume

is probably acceptable but the weight of the sys- tem is problematic. Bayerische Motoren Werke

(BMW) has recently demonstrated a 32 gallon liquid hydrogen storage tank (in one of their 7 Series sedans) that has acceptable boil-off rates [7]. However, the energy penalty for hydrogen liquefaction

is currently 32 percent for large plants [8]. To keep the power requirement from the fuel

cell cis small as possible, an EMB is included in the fuel cell hybrid. The energy efficiency of the

PEM fuel cell is cited as 40 percent in the near term in Ref. 1, with the efficiency going to 50 per- cent by the year 2010. Using the near term value

results in a PEM fuel cell hybrid vehicle energy

efficiency of about 34 percent. The high efficiency

of the fuel cell hybrid is attractive, but the total lack of emissions (if the hydrogen is made from

renewable energy sources) is probably its greatest attribute. However, the current cost of PEM

fuel cells is in thousands of dollars per kilowatt

with projections of future cost in the range of $300

per kilowatt. The fuel cell is the "right technical

choice" but may be kept out of widespread use unless major breakthroughs in cost reduction can be

accomplished.

Hydrogen Hybrid

The hydrogen fueled spark ignition hybrid is very

similar to the CNG hybrid described above. Fueling a piston engine with hydrogen allows leaner

operation than with any other fuel. Under very lean operation, hydrogen has little propensity to
80 Energy Conversion Systems

Conventional Gasoline (Fed Urban Cycle)

(50% of Federal Tier 1

)

Battery Charged by Utility (BEV)

(Based on NG Fired Powerplant)

Gasoline Spark ignition Hybrid

(Three Way Catalyst)

CNG Spark Ignition Hybrid

(Advanced Catalyst)

Pern Fuel Cell Hybrid

(Hg from Renewables)

Hydrogen Spark Ignition Hybrid

(Lean Burn, No Catalyst, Hgfrom CNG)

HC [g/mile] CID NOx [g/mile]

EZi CO [g/mile]/ 10

[kg/mile]

77227:^^2Z2iZ2ZZZ7722227L

V772L

E

0.1 0.2 0.3 Emissions [mass / mile]

0.4

Figure 2. Emissions estimates for conventional automobiles, battery powered electric, and hybrid vehicles. Equal weight and drag, bcised on 27.5 mpg conventional automobile.

knock [9]. Therefore the effective octane number

for lean mixtures is very high. (Great care must

be taken in the review of hydrogen engine research

that preignition from hot spots in the combustion

chamber is not misinterpreted as a sign of low ef- fective octane.) Thus the compression ratio can be raised to fifteen or more. In addition, the ratio of specific heats increases from about 1.3 for gasoline and CNG to nearly 1.4, which also increases

efficiency as can be seen in Eq. 1. Hydrogen fu- eled piston engines have demonstrated indicated

engine efficiencies of up to 54 percent at 15.4 Rc

[10]. (Correcting the indicated engine efficiency to account for mechanical friction would reduce

the brake thermal efficiency to about 50 percent.)

Using hydrogen, researchers have also achieved 45

percent engine efficiency at eleven Rc [11]. We

assume here that an optimized hydrogen engine can be developed with an efficiency of 48 percent.

Combining this engine with the other component

efficiencies used above results in a hydrogen hybrid vehicle efficiency of about 39 percent. This

is slightly better than would be expected from a PEM fuel cell hybrid. The cost of an optimized hydrogen fueled piston engine/generator will probably be in the range of $50 to $100 per kilowatt.

VEHICLE EMISSIONS

Emissions have been estimated for each of the

vehicle options by using the relative energy ef- ficiencies projected above in combination with

the demonstrated emissions characteristics of each

type of engine. The PEM fuel cell hybrid, as stated above, does not have any regulated emissions. Also included in our comparison is the CO2

emitted by each vehicle. Emissions comparisons

are made on a gram per mile basis since the reg- ulations are currently stated in these terms. The

results of this comparison are shown in Fig. 2.

Conventional Automobile

We have taken the Federal Tier 1 Light Duty Vehicle (LDV) emissions requirements (0.41 g/mile total hydrocarbons or HC, 3.4 g/mile CO, 0.4 g/mile

NOx) being representative of what the conventional automobile will be capable of in the near

term. All LDVs must meet this standard by 1996. The emissions are estimated on the basis of meeting each requirement by a factor of two, i.e., one

half the allowed emission (this is typical of today's

vehicle certifications). The emissions are certified on the Federal Urban Driving Schedule.
Smith: The Hydrogen Hybrid Option 81

Battery Powered Electric Vehicle

The emissions from a battery powered vehicle

should include the power plant emissions from generating the electricity used to charge the battery.

Like all the cars in this comparison, the electric vehicle requires that 0.33 kW-h/mile be delivered to the wheels. Thus the fuel energy required by the

battery power electric vehicle is 1.6 kW-h/mile.

Utility emission factors for natural gas-fired power

plants were recently reported by the Southern

California Air Quality Management District in Ib/MW-h as 0.02 HC, 0.4 CO, and 0.15 NOx

[12]. Thus the effective emissions from the EV

are 0.016 g/mile HC, 0.32 g/mile CO, and 0.12 g/mile NOx. This represents the optimistic emissions from the "Zero Emissions Vehicle" (ZEV) of

the same weight, drag, and rolling resistance as today's 27.5 mpg car. The national mix of power

plants includes many coal-fired plants that would

contribute much greater emissions. The CO2 emissions shown in Fig. 2 are based on a natural gasfired power plant.

Gasoline Hybrid

The same emissions for the conventional automobile are assumed for the gasoline hybrid. Since

the majority of the HC and CO emissions come at startup, it may be necessary to electrically preheat some fraction of the catalyst prior to engine start. This should be easily accomplished by the controller, which should have continuous information

about the remaining energy in the EMB and be

able to anticipate engine start by several minutes.

CNG Hybrid

The CNG hybrid is assumed to have the emission

characteristics recently demonstrated by Chrysler

Corporation on their CNG van project: 0.02

g/mile HC, 1.4 g/mile CO, and 0.02 g/mile NOx

[13]. This was apparently accomplished with an

advanced catalyst designed for natural gas emissions. Although this vehicle meets the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements for the Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle (ULEV), it was

only certified for the Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV)

standards [14].

Hydrogen Hybrid

The NOx emissions from the optimized hydrogen

engine are based on values (found in Ref. 9) of

0.018 g/MJ of engine output. Thermal NOx pro- duction is extremely low for very lean operation

and is only slightly affected by compression ratio

[11]. Without a catalyst, no further reduction of

NOx is assumed. Even though there is no car- bon in the fuel of the hydrogen engine, there will be some small contribution from lubricating oil, thus a place holder value of 0.005 g/mile has been

arbitrarily assumed. Exact HC and possibly CO

values may be very dependent on engine design

and await the development of the optimized hydrogen engine. If the hydrogen used in the hydrogen hybrid is from renewable sources, there is no

net contribution of CO2. The CO2 contribution

from making hydrogen from natural gas (a 68 per- cent efficient process) is shown in Fig. 2, because

this is a likely hydrogen source during the transition to complete renewables while we await the

cost-effective fuel cell.

CONCLUSIONS

Our estimates of vehicle energy efficiency indicate

that a hydrogen fueled, piston engine hybrid can be built with an efficiency comparable to the PEM

fuel cell hybrid. The emissions of such a hybrid,

although not zero, like the PEM fuel cell hybrid,

are comparable to those from a natural gas-fired

power plant that supplies the energy to charge a

battery powered electric vehicle. Because of the

single load/speed operation and the previous re- search on hydrogen fueled piston engines, the de- velopment of an optimized hydrogen engine is a

near term technology option. The capital cost of a piston engine hybrid operating a generator is likely to be less than an equal power fuel cell well beyond the near term. The use of piston engine

technology to build a significant hydrogen infras- tructure in preparation for the fuel cell should be

considered as an opportunity to start the transi- tion to a hydrogen economy in the near term.

In closing, it should be noted that the greatest

improvement in energy efficiency can be achieved

by reducing weight, improving the aerodynamics, and reducing rolling resistance of the automobile. The prototype GM Impact I required only
82 Energy Conversion Systems

0.11 kW-h per mile at the wheels [15]. This is a

factor of three less than the energy requirement

assumed in this paper for representative current automobiles. Combining the characteristics similar to the GM Impact with the hydrogen piston

engine hybrid concept results in an energy equivalent mileage of over 100 mpg, fuel costs (based on hydrogen from reformed natural gas) per mile

that are comparable to today's conventional gasoline automobile, and emissions that should be clcis- sified as equivalent to the ZEV.

Acknowledgments

This work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the Lawrence Liver- more National Laboratory under Contract No. W7405-ENG-48.

REFERENCES

[1] Hydrogen Program Plan FY1993-FY1997, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation cind Renewable Energy, Table C-1, June 1992.

[2] J. B. Heywood, Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1988,

ch. 5, p. 170.

[3] R. F. Post, T. K. Fowler, and S. F. Post, "A HighEfficiency Electromechanical Battery," Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 81, No. 3, March 1993.

[4] R. F. Post, private communication, August 1993.

[5] E. F. Obert, Internal Combustion Engines and

Air Pollution, New York, Harper & Row, 1973,

ch. 8, Table 8-6, pp. 234-235.

[6] I. F. Kuhn, Jr., "Comparative Performance of Onboard Hydrogen Storage Techniques for Vehicles," presented at Hydrogen Industry Council

Conference, Montreal, Canada, 9 December 1992.

[7] BMW AG, "Current Factbook—Hydrogen

Drive," 1993, p. 3.

[8] W. Peschka, Liquid Hydrogen—Fuel of the Future, New York: Springer- Verlag Wein, 1992, ch. 3, p. 67.

[9] H. S. Homan, "An Experimental Study of Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines Operated

on Hydrogen," PhD Dissertation, Cornell University, 1978, p. 148.

[10] M. Oehmichen, "Hydrogen as an Engine Fuel,"

Engine Laboratory of the Tectmische Hochschule,

Dresden, Germany, VDI-Verlag GmbH, Berlin

NW, V.D.I. Paper No. 68, 1942 (English translation).

[11] L. M. Das, "Hydrogen Engines: A View of the Past and a Look into the Future," IntemationeJ

Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 15, No. 6, pp. 425-443, 1990.

[12] California Air Resources Board presentation at the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Hydrogen Task Force Meeting, Diamond

Bar, CA, 23 September 1993.

[13] R. J. Cogan, editor, "Chrysler Expands NGV

Lineup," Green Car Journal, Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 38, April 1993.

[14] C. Weaver, Engines, Fuels and Emissions Engineering, Inc., private communication, 28 September 1993.

[15] C. A. Amaim, Energy and the Environment in the 21st Century, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1991, pp. 193-205.
ON-BOARD PLASMATRON GENERATION OF HYDROGEN-RICH

GAS FOR ENGINE POLLUTION REDUCTION

A. Habinovich, D. R. Cohn, and L. Bromberg

Plasma Fusion Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Cambridge, MA 02139

ABSTRACT

An on-board compact plasmatron could provide a means to process gasoline or other hydrocarbon

fuels (ethanol, methcinol, natural gas, JP4, and possibly oil) to produce hydrogen-rich gas for vehicular

internal combustion engines. Use of hydrogen-rich gas could substantially reduce NOx, CO, cind hydrocarbon emissions. The electricity to provide the fuel processing in the plcismatron is provided

by a generator driven by the internal combustion engine. When the hydrogen-rich gcis is used as an

additive to gasoline or other hydrocarbon fuel, the overall fuel efficiency could be approximately the same as that of a conventional gasoUne engine. In the longer term, an on-board plasmatron could be

useful in processing all of the hydrocarbon fuel into hydrogen-rich gas for a high efficiency fuel cell. The use of a plasmatron fuel processor could be particularly compatible with a hybrid vehicle.

INTRODUCTION

Hydrogen is attractive cis a fuel or additive for internal combustion engines, because it can significantly reduce air pollution and can also serve

as an alternative energy source to gasoline [1-7]. Moreover, engine efficiency can be 10 to 50 percent

higher than gasoline engine efficiency. However,

using hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles requires large

on-board high-pressure vessels or cryogenic containers if hydrogen is stored as a compressed gas

or liquid, or large getter volumes and weights (if

it is stored as hydride). Moreover, the refill time

for hydrogen is substantially longer than that for gasoline.

A suitably designed plasmatron can provide an efficient and compact means of producing

hydrogen-rich gas (H2 and CO) from gasoline,

diesel, and other fuels. The plasmatron utilizes electrical heating of ionized gases, providing a

highly controllable means to process hydrocarbon

fuel. The plasmatron could be used to turn all the

hydrocarbon fuel into hydrogen-rich gas. However, there could be a large reduction in overall

fuel efficiency due to the power requirements for the plasmatron.

An alternative is to use the plasmatron to process only a small frax;tion of the hydrocarbon fuel

into hydrogen-rich gas. The use of hydrogen-rich

gas as an additive to gasoline facilitates rapid burn

and completeness of combustion and allows operation on very lean fuel-air mixtures thereby reducing NOx emission. In this case, it could be possible

to operate the plasmatron with only a small frac- tion of the mechanical energy of the engine. There

could then be essentially no decrease in overall fuel

efficiency, and substantial reductions in NOx and

CO emissions could still be obtained. Use of plasmatron fuel processing could be particularly compatible with the gasoline engine-battery system in a hybrid vehicle. HYDROGEN ADDITIVE EFFECTS

It has been shown that by optimizing hydrogenconventional fuel mixtures, it is possible to decrease NOx and CO by factors of 2 to 10. CO

and NOx reductions by factors of 5 and 8, respectively, were obtained with hydrogen addition as low as 7 percent by mass [5]. Studies by Belogub

and Talda of the effects of stored hydrogen addition on gcisoline engine truck operation in town

driving were made with engine operation that used a variable hydrogen mass fraction [2]. The aver- age mass fraction of hydrogen, mh/mg (where mj,

is the hydrogen mass and mg is the mass of gaso83
84 Rabinovich, Cohn, and Bromberg:

line), was 14 percent. A 14 percent mass fraction

corresponds to a ratio of hydrogen energy to gasoline energy of 42 percent. The mass fraction varied from approximately 4 percent to 25 percent

depending upon engine load. The fuel efficiency

(related to the energy content of the gasoline and

hydrogen) was 17.5 percent higher for engine operation with the hydrogen additive relative to operation with gasoline alone. Results from driving tests of Mercedes vehicles

showed significant although somewhat smaller re- ductions of CO and NOx production, but at a modest increase of hydrocarbon emissions [4]. For diesel engines, hydrogen addition slightly

increased the NOx and hydrocarbon emissions,

while decreasing the CO and smoke and increasing

the efficiency [5, 6]. On-board generation of hydrogen-rich gas using

conventional steam reforming of gcisoline has also been investigated as a means of reducing engine

pollution by utilization of a mixture of hydrogenrich gas and gasoline [7]. Water and gasoline were

heated to 850 to 1100° C by burning gasoline in a chamber that was separate from the engine. The

efficiency of conversion of gasoline into hydrogenrich gas was about 67 percent. Substantial re- ductions in NOx and CO emission were observed

in laboratory tests. Preliminary tests of operation with the steam reforming products (H2-fC0)

showed effects on engine operation that were similar to the effects of hydrogen. On-board conventional steam reforming, however, has problems

that include low conversion efficiency, substantial

size and catalyst requirements, carbon deposits,

and warm-up requirements during start-up. These

problems could be eliminated by plasmatron pro- duction of hydrogen-rich gas. Due to the many variables involved in internal

combustion engine operation, the quantitative advantages obtained through the addition of hydrogen can vary substantially. In addition, overall system effects including the impact of emissions

control by catalytic converters must be taken into account. Catalytic converters were not used in the

vehicles in which hydrogen gas/gasoline mixture

effects were studied.

Use of three-way catalytic converter operation

to reduce NOx would not be possible with the very

lean operation employed with the hydrogen-rich

gas/gasoline mixtures. However, very lean operation could greatly reduce NOx emission (possibly

by more than a factor of 10) and catalytic converter operation could then be optimized for CO

and hydrocarbon destruction. Moreover, the use

of hydrogen-rich gas could be helpful in reducing

emission problems in cold start-up where rich mixtures and the ineffectiveness of catalytic converters

increase emissions of NOx, CO, and hydrocarbons.

It could also reduce the adverse effects of the deterioration of catalytic converter performance over

time. Thus use of plasmatron-produced hydrogenrich gas in conjunction with an appropriate cat- alytic converter could greatly enlarge the air/fuel

mixture-catalytic converter range of operation and

could provide significant pollution reduction rel- ative to conventional air/fuel mixture operation

with a three-way catalytic converter. COMPACT PLASMATRON

TECHNOLOGY

Based upon work in the former Soviet Union [8] and on experiments with larger plasma devices [9], compact plasmatrons could produce hydrogen-rich

gas from gasoline and other hydrocarbon fuels with greater than 90 percent efficiency (conversion of electricity into thermal processing energy).

More than 90 percent of the hydrocarbon fuel could be converted into CO and H2 with water

plasmatrons.

The plasmatron device (also known as a plasma

reformer) produces an ionized, electrically con- ducting gas that is electrically heated. A mixture of hydrocarbon fuel, hydrogen, and water is heated in the plasma to 1000-3000° C at atmospheric pressure. The high temperatures achieved

with the plasma increase the desired reaction rates without the use of catalysts. As a result of the

large reaction rates, the size of the reformer is substantially decreased.

Gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons are converted

by steam in the plasma by the reaction:

CmH„ -j- mHaO mCO -f- + m) H2 (1)

(where m and n represent the relative amounts

of carbon and hydrogen) producing hydrogen-rich

gas [10]. Since it has been demonstrated that addition

of hydrogen to gasoline results in a very complete
On-Board Plasmatron.. 85

oxidation of gasoline, it is also to be expected that

CO would be completely burned.

It may be possible to use the plasmatron to process a number of other fuels for internal combustion engines in addition to standard gasoline.

These fuels include lower cost gasoline, ethanol,

methanol, natural gas, JP4, and possibly oil. The

capability of the plasmatron to process different fuels provides the option of using the fuel from

one tank for the generation of hydrogen-rich gas and combining the hydrogen-rich gas with gasoline

or some other fuel from another tank.

An illustrative plasmatron for hydrocarbon re- forming with water is shown in Fig. 1. An arc plasma is created between the inner (anode) and

outer (cathode) coaxial cylindrical electrodes and

is rotated by a magnetic force from a magnetic

coil in order to prevent erosion of electrodes. The

water (or mixture of water and liquid hydrocarbons) feeds into the space between two electrodes. Gaseous or liquid hydrocarbons can also feed in- dependently into the zone of the rotating arc. The

inner electrode (anode) does not utilize water cool- ing and works as a heater to turn the water into steam. The plasmatron system weight would be around

10 kg. The plasmatron length would be around

20 cm. Plasmatron power levels would be in the

range of a few kilowatts. The plasmatron could be

used in cyclic operation to optimize performance.

A small amount of hydrogen would be stored in the cyclic operation mode.

SYSTEM EFFICIENCY

The efficiency of the overall system is determined

by an energy balance as shown in Fig. 2. A given mass of gasoline (or some other fossil fuel) is combined with hydrogen-rich gas and injected into the

engine.

The net mechanical energy available for powering the vehicle is: Ep

Emech.net = ' (Eg,e + Ep • R • 7?p) - — (2)

where:

r/e is the the thermal efficiency of the engine,

Eg,e is the chemical energy of hydrocarbon fuel

(for example, gasoline) into the engine.

Magnetic coil

Plasma arc

HjO feed

Figure 1. Water plasmatron.

HO fuel HgO HQ fuel

Eg,.

Plasmatron

Hp

'^reformer

Hydrogen

rich gas

Internal Combustion

Engine

Tie

Generator la

Tlo (Eg e + Ep • R • Tip) -

Mechanical

output

Figure 2. Energy and mass flow diagram

Ep the electrical energy requirement of the plasmatron,

rjp is the efficiency of the plasmatron in converting electrical heating energy into thermal energy,

rjg is the generator efficiency, and

R is the ratio of the chemical energy of reformate

gas to the thermal energy supplied by pi

matron

asThe parameter R is determined from the heating

value of hydrogen-rich gas and the specific power

requirement for equilibrium steam conversion of

liquid hydrocarbons:

R =

Pref Eg,r Ep

(3)
86 Rabinovich, Cohn, and Bromberg:

where: Combining (4) and (6)

Eg,r is the chemical energy of hydrocarbon fuel into the plasma reformer, and

Pre{ is the ratio between chemical energy available

in the hydrogen-rich gas and energy of hydrocarbon fuel into the plasma reformer (for dif- ferent grades of gasoline /?ref = 1.23-1.3).

There is a wide range of R values that could

be applicable. R varied between 4.3 and 5.4 for different grades of gasoline. For methanol, R is 7.4.The overall system efficiency of a hydrogen-rich

gas additive engine is the net mechanical energy

divided by the sum of the fuel energy into the

plasma reformer and into the engine.

Vs =

= Ve

Eg,e + Eg,r

(Eg,e + Ep-R-7?p)-f

(4)

/, Ep-R-r)p \ _ Bp

+ Eg,e ;

rjgEg.e

1 .L ^P'^'^P

Eg,e-/'ref

It is possible to calculate Ep/Eg,e from the mass

fraction of hydrogen-rich gas additive, X.

X =_ rn(H2+co)

m

(5)

g£is,e / Ep-R->;p N _ VHV(H2+co) /

where:

HV(H2+co) IS the heating value of hydrogen-rich

gas additive, in MJ per kg of H2 and CO, and

HVhcf is the heating value of hydrocarbon fuel (such as gasoline) into the engine, in MJ per kg of fuel.

Thus:

Ep _ ^ 1 HV(H2+co)

Eg,e R??p HVhcf

T]s = HV

- X-

(H2+C02^

HV

HVh

1

cf (H2+CO)

1 +

(R • r/p • 7]g) HVhcf

HV(H2+co)

-1

Pref HV Xhcf (7)

Using the results of Belogub and Talda [2], the

overall fuel efficiency of a hydrogen-rich gas additive engine can be determined from Eq. 7. Taking

into account the energy content of H2 and CO,

the amount of energy that would be added to the

gasoline by addition of 14 percent hydrogen mass

hydrogen would require a 73 percent mass addition of hydrogen-rich gas. If T^e = 0.25 and rjp =

r)g = 0.9 and R = 4.3, the overall fuel efficiency ijs = 0.18. In contrast, for an engine operating with

pure gasoline, it can be assumed that the thermal

efficiency would be 17.5 percent lower [2] and that

the fuel efficiency of gasoline-only engine operation

would be 0.21. Thus under these assumptions, the

addition of hydrogen would result in a moderate

decrease in overall fuel efficiency.

It may well be possible to obtain significant re- ductions in NOx and CO emissions by use of a much smaller mass fraction of hydrogen-rich gas. For example, if a 2 percent mass fraction addition

of hydrogen, which is equivalent to an 11 percent mass fraction addition of hydrogen-rich gas, were

used, the plasmatron power requirement would be

greatly reduced. The case for the addition of a

2 percent mass fraction of hydrogen has been considered in a U. S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen Program Plan for FY1993-FY1997, which was

developed by the Office of Conservation and Re- newable Energy [11]. In this document an example

was considered where internal combustion engine

efficiency was increased by five percent to 0.20 and

NOx was reduced by a factor of 2.6. Using R = 4.3, X = 0.11 and the values of rjp and rjg considered above and taking rje = 0.20, the

value of rjs is 0.19. Thus for this case, the overall system efficiency is only slightly changed. Moreover, for such low values of mass fraction addition,

the overall system efficiency is relatively insensitive to any decrease in R or plasmatron efficiency. In general, a variety of tradeoffs between hydrogen mass fraction, compression ratio, timing.
On-Boaid Plasmatrcn. 87

and overall system efficiency may provide optimum operating parameters. In addition, operation on 100 percent hydrogen-rich gas, under special circumstances would be attractive for certain

situations.

Using advanced control technology (already implemented in modern fuel injected vehicles), it may

be possible to develop an engine system where

operation can be readily switched while driving

between 100 percent gasoline operation, hydrogen

additive operation and 100 percent hydrogen-rich

gas operation.

In addition to water plasmatron operation

(steam reforming), it may also be possible to use other plasmatron reforming modes (including partial oxidation). These modes of operation could

reduce the plasmatron power requirement.

The plasmatron-internal combustion engine sys- tem could be particularly useful for hybrid vehicles. The presence of a significant battery and

generator capability in the hybrid vehicle would

allow more flexibility in operation of the plasmatron. In addition, the internal combustion engine

could be operated with parameters that maximize

thermal efficiency (rje)- In this case, the effect of

the plasmatron electricity requirement on overall power balance would be minimized. Moreover, it may be possible to optimize the internal combustion engine design to facilitate operation with ex- tremely lean fuel mixtures (equivalence ratio less than 0.4). Extremely lean operation could provide

further reduction in NOx emissions [7]. CONCLUSION

On-board plasmatron generation of hydrogen-rich

gas could provide a means to substantially reduce

NOx, CO, and hydrocarbon emissions and facili- tate the use of fuels other than gasoline (diesel, oil, methanol, ethanol) in hybrid vehicles. It might be

used in diesel and turbine engines as well as spark

ignition engines. It is possible that this technology could be implemented in a relatively straightforward way. Significant improvement in pollution reduction might be possible without radical

changes in hybrid vehicle design. In the longer

term, on-board compact plasmatron technology

could be useful to reform a variety of hydrocarbons

for use in fuel cells. The high efficiency of fuel cells could allow use of the plasmatron to process all of

the hydrocarbon fuel into hydrogen-rich gas with- out an unacceptably large loss in overall system

efficiency. Important issues for investigation in the development of suitable compact plasmatron

technology include high hydrocarbon and electri- cal conversion efficiencies, reliability, and lifetime. REFERENCES

[1] A. I. Mishchenko, A. V. Belogub, G. B. Talda, V. D. SaEtsky, and V. A. Baikov, "Hydrogen as a

fuel for road vehicles," in Proceedings VII of the World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Vol. 3, 1988, pp. 2037-2056.

[2] A. V. Belogub and G. B. Talda, "Petrol-hydrogen

truck with load-carrying capacity 5 tons," Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 16, pp. 423-426, 1991.

[3] K. S. Varde and L. K. Varde, "Reduction of soot

in diesel combustion with hydrogen and different H/C gaseous fuels," Hydrogen Energy Progress

V, Vol. 4, pp. 1631-1641, 1984.

[4] K. Feucht, W. Hurich, N. Komoschinski, and R.

Povel, "Hydrogen drive for road vehicles-results from the fleet test run in Berlin," Int. J. Hydrogen

Energy, Vol. 13, pp. 243-250, 1988.

[5] A. V. Chuveliov, "Comparison of alternative en- ergy technologies utilizing fossil fuels and hydro- gen based on their damage to population eind en- vironment in the USSR and East Europe," in Hydrogen Energy and Power Generation, T. Nejat

Veziroglu, Ed., New York, New York: Nova Sci- ence Publisher, 1991, pp. 269-300.

[6] L. M. Das, "Exhaust emission characterization of hydrogen-operated engine system: Nature of pol- lutants axid their control techniques," Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, Vol. 16, pp. 765-775, 1991.

[7] R. Breshears, H. Cotrill, and T. Rupe, "Partial hydrogen injection into internal combustion engines," in Proceedings of the EPA 1st Symposium

on Low Pollution Power Systems Development,

Ann Arbor, MI, Oct. 1973, pp. 268-277.

[8] E. M. Rudjak, A. Rabinovich, and N. A. Tul,

USSR Patent 700935, Water Plasmatron, pp. 1-2, Aug. 1979.

[9] G. Kaske, L. Kerker, and K. Muller, "Hydro- gen production by the Huls plasma-reforming

process," Hydrogen Energy Progress VI, Vol. 1, pp. 185-190, July 1986.

[10] A. L. Suris, Handbook of Thermodynamic High

Temperature Process Data, Weishington, D. C.,
88 Rabinovich, Cohn, and Bromberg:

New York, New York and London, United

Kingdom: Hemisphere Publishing Corp., 1987, pp. 510-530.

[11] U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy, Hydrogen Program

Plan, FY1993-FY1997.
THERMO-ELECTRIC-COMPOUND ENGINE FOR HYBRID VEHICLES

M. A. Paul

Chairman and CEO, Engine Corporation of America

Fullerton, CA 91765

ABSTRACT

Advainced Engine Technology, Engine Corporation of America, Adveinced Fuel Systems, The Institute

for Advanced Engine Technology, and Clean Power Propulsion Systems have formed the consortium,

Advanced Propulsion Technology, which is developing engine technology for the presidential initiative, i.e., an 80-mile-per-gallon vehicle. Fundamentally new engine concepts have been developed that demonstrate the capability of miming a thermal engine at enormous pressures. These high pressures

are achieved for the first time in the history of thermal engines. This unique performance was made

possible by eliminating key technical barriers that have stopped the evolution of conventional engine

technology.

BACKGROUND

The Turbo-roto-compound engine concept repre- sents the culmination of 30 years of fundamental

and applied research, theoretical and experimental

data, and laboratory and industrial accomplishments and has resulted in numerous U.S. and in- ternational patents.

The engine concept is based fundamentally on thermodynamic laws, which provide an undeniably solid basis for the research program. The

main thrust of this engine concept is to produce

the highest pressure thermal cycle possible. The

pressures achieved are well above those obtained

in current state-of-the-art engines, which are limited to pressures of 120 to 140 atm. The engine

concept discussed here is pushing pressures to new

frontiers: 250 to 300 atm.

Bcisic thermodynamic laws indicate that ther- mal efficiency depends directly on the peak combustion pressure. Compression ratios between 30

and 50-to-l indicate thermal efficiencies of:

T^t = 1 - = 75 to 80%, (1)

for values of e, the compression ratio, between

30 and 60. The constant k in the above ex- pression is the adiabatic exponent, which has a

value of approximately 1.41. Producing a pres- sure at compression of 214 kg/cm^ can result in

a peak combustion pressure of 300 kg/cm^. This

level of permissible pressures will create conditions

for enormous supercharging levels: supercharging

pressure ratios as high as 20-to-l may be achievable. The projected power densities are enormous,

with a BMEP (brake mean effective pressure) of

70 kg/cm-^, the power density is 700 hp/1 for a 2- cycle engine running at 4500 rpm. This is totally

inconceivable for conventional engines.

To attain these goals it is necessary to overcome

basic conceptual and structural barriers that have

blocked further advances in engine technology for the past 100 years. The Monocylinder Test Rig

(MTR) was developed to demonstrate that these

barriers could be eliminated and to establish new

limits for engine technology. The recently demonstrated values have established new frontiers that

are now opening the possibility of achieving enor- mous increases in power density and efficiency in future engines.

The MTR incorporates normal materials, pro- duction bearings, normal surface quality, normal

heat treatments, and, in general, normal industry standards from current production technology.

The main questions addressed are: How much can we push the highest pressure in the thermal cycle?

And, for the same peak pressure, how much can we extend the life of the engine?

89
90 Energy Conversion Systems

TOP

COMPRESSION

RING

Figure 1. Piston-ring design detail, a) Detroit Diesel Corporation production type ring configuration used

in initial motoring tests. Peak cylinder pressure tested up to 2200 psi. b) EGA "4-ring" high-pressure ring

pack. Peak cylinder pressure tested up to 4100 psi.

The main barriers that have been eliminated

are:

1. The cylinder head, cylinder head valves, push

rods, rockers, cams, high-pressure gaskets,

etc.

2. The side force between the piston and cylinder liners.

3. Piston structure for high mechanical and

thermal stress.

4. The piston rings, with high back pressure.

5. Single injector per cylinder incapable of working at high supercharging level and part load

at low supercharging level.

6. Cylinder block and cylinder liner structural

stresses by tensions, proportional with the

load and peak pressure.

The new concept is based on structural and fundamental principles which are:

1. Opposed piston engine—without cylinder

head, gaskets, valves, etc. (Fit. 1).

2. Counter rotating mechanism, eliminating the

side force and improving engine balance

(Fit. 2).

3. Piston rings without back pressure (Fig. 1).

4. Piston with isotropic, spherical articulation.

5. Multiple injectors per cylinder, working se- quentially on variable load and having vari- able injection length and time.

6. Symmetrical active force clamping the block

and the opposed crankccises, pre-compressed

by longitudinal bolts.

By pre-loading the engine, the pre-compressed

structure of the block and the crankcases are re- laxed during combustion, creating an enormous

capacity for high peak pressure and high power

density.

These concepts were integrated in a monocylinder structure, and tested in two steps:

Cold rig test. The objective of this test was to demonstrate and simulate the highest level of the

mechanical loads and the structural strength and

integrity for all the components. The test rig was

tested by loading the engine structure by varying

the supercharging level and the engine speed. The

focus of this research was the working area and

articulations. Hot rig test. The objective of this test was

to demonstrate the basic combustion process for

different combustion chambers and injection sys- tems. In this phase, the main focus was to test the injection system. The injection system had

two injectors per cylinder, and different injector

tips, orientations, and tip geometries were tested. Subsequent tests have concentrated on the per- formance of the high-pressure fuel pump, elec- tronic system, the general functionality of systems

critical for the combustion process, and the overall performance of the engine.
Paul: Tbermo-Electric-Compound Engine.. 91

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Advanced engine technology has been demonstrated by Engine Corporation of America by

a project sponsored by the U.S. Department of

Defense through the Defense Advanced Research

Project Agency (DARPA). This research was con- ducted in cooperation with Detroit Diesel Corporation; Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Liver- more National Laboratories; and a group of U.S.

Universities. The major objective of the project

include:

• Highest combustion pressure: 250-300 atm.

• Highest supercharging level: 5, 10, 15, and

20-to-l. The potential engine advances that will result from this research include:

1. Highest power density.

2. Lowest pollutant.

3. Lowest fuel consumption.

4. Multi-fuel engine, i.e., liquid or gas.

5. A dramatic reduction in cost of production

and exploration.

6. Universal use, i.e., military or commercial.

Advanced Fuel System was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense, DARPA, Sandia

and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories,

with the participation of Korody-Colyer and Elec- tramotive. Inc. Work was completed on an initial purchase order from Engine Corporation of America. This research demonstrated:

1. The highest fuel injection pressure in the his- tory of engines (50,60, 75, and 105 x 1000 psi).

2. Total gasification of the liquid fuel.

3. Pilot and main injection.

4. Total electronic control.

5. Total freedom of application to any kind of

engine, without structural modification.

6. The design will fit existing engines and is thus

suitable for after-market conversions.

7. The design will fit new engines and is thus

suitable for OEMs.

6 8 10 12 14 Compression Ratio

Figure 2. State-of-the-art engine efficiency.

DISCUSSION

Basic thermodynamic laws indicate that maximum combustion pressure and maximum compression ratios produce the maximum thermodynamic

efficiency. This is shown schematically in Fig. 2. Additionally, fundamental test results, which are shown in Fig. 3, in relation to B.S.F.C. (brake specific fuel consumption), NOx, and Pmax) indicate

that NOx reduction and improved fuel eflSciency

depend on the same factors: maximum pressure

of combustion and maximum compression ratio. Thus for maximum results improvements in two

areas are needed: 1) Advanced engine technology

to run at the highest peak combustion pressure and the highest compression ratio. 2) Advanced

fuel systems to operate at the highest fuel injection pressure and to improve total control of the

process. With the help of the thermodynamic diagram

shown in Fig. 4, the thermal cycles for state-of- the-art and the ECA engines, as well as the Carnot

cycle may be compared.

State-of-the-art engines. The thermal cycle

having a limited peak pressure P2 of 120 bar and

a maximum temperature of the cycle Tmaxi which

in Fig. 4 is T3, represents the actual level of the

current engine technology.

The thermal efficiency

Useful Work . Invested Energy*
92 Energy Conversion Systems

1 1 Bore: 400 mm

B.M.E.P.: 2.23 MPa

1 1 1 1

-^P^=14MPa -

] 5 M Pa ^

Compression

Ratio - •Il^

12.7

14.1

1 1 1 1 1 1 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Change In Corrected NOx, %

Figure 3. Fundamental test results showing the rela- tion among B.S.F.C., NOx, cind PmaxThe Total Invested Energy is represented in the

figure by the area enclosed by the curves connecting points: A, 2", 3, 4, 5, and A. For the remainder of this discussion, I will adopt the convention

of designating the enclosed area by the set of vertices. Thus the Useful Work is the area (1, 1 1", 2", 3, 4, 1), and the Lost Energy is shown by the sum of (A, 1", 1', 1, Ao, A) and (Aq, 1, 4, 5, Ao).

The efficiency for current production engines is limited to approximately 40 percent.

The Carnot cycle. For the same temperature

drop, T3 — Ti, the Carnot efficiency

m = i-'^, (3)

which is shown schematically in the figure by the

ratio _ (Ai,B,C,5.1,Ai)

(A,B,C,5,A)

•

It is easy to see the enormous difference in thermal

efficiencies between the actual cycle and the equivalent Carnot cycle. The area which represents the

missing useful energy is the sum of (2", B, 3, 2"),

( Al, 1", 1', 1, Al), (1, 5.1, 4, 1), and (3, C, 4, 3). The Engine Corporation of America (ECA)

thermal cycle. The ECA thermal cycle with

maximum peak pressure of 300 bar, and the same maximum temperature is also shown in the figure.

The areas representing this cycle are:

Invested Energy: (A, 2'", 3', 3", 5", A)

Useful Work: (1, 1', 1", 2"', 3', 3", 4", 1), and

Lost Energy: (A, 1", 1', 1, 4", 5", A).

The thermal eflBciency of the ECA cycle for this pressure is much higher than the current production engines and ranges between 50 and 70 percent. The area that represents the missing useful en- ergy in comparison with the same Carnot cycle is the sum of (Al, 1", 1', 1, Al), (1, 4", 5.1", 1) and

(2"', B, 3', 2'"), which demonstrates how close the

ECA cycle is to the Carnot cycle.

This is the fundamental achievement, which has

been demonstrated in the DARPA program by

tests conducted with the monocylinder test rig.

0 Entropy

Figure 4. Comparison of thermodynamic cycles.

COMPARISON WITH

STATE-OF-THE-ART ENGINES

A comparison of the performance of the MTR with

two of the best production engines is provided in Table 1. The engines chosen for this comparison

are top performance military engines and are:

1. The German-made MTU-12V-880 engine.

This engine is the top performer for tank engines. It has a 4-stroke cycle and is characterized by a BMEP of 16.1 kg/cm^ (4 cycle)
Paul: Thermo-Electric-CompouDd Engine.. 93

Table 1. Comparison of monocylinder test rig results with state-of-the-art engine performeince

Engine Bore (mm)

Stroke (mm)Speed

(rpm)

Piston

Speed

(m/s)

Power

(.np) BMEP(kg/ cm )

Power

per cyl. (hp)

Power

Density

(hp/1)

Cyl.

UlSpl.

(1) MTU12V-880

144 140 oUUU 1 A loUU 4 cycle iD.l IOC Izo 04. / MTR 123 128/2 4. ZO z cycle iD.o

(4 cycle 33.6')

1 1

Z

741 ^.OR* 1 ^ 1 .o

3000 6.39 168 2 cycle 16.8*

(4 cycle 33.6')

168 112 1.5

4000 8.52 230 2 cycle 16.8*

(4 cycle 33.6*)

230 153 1.5

6570 14 367 2 cycle 16.8*

(4 cycle 33.6*)

377 251 1.5

12V-92

TA-MAR

123 128 2300 9.8 1034 2 cycle 10.95 85.2 57.8 1.5

• tested 718° F exhaust 120° F intake " reference 1292° F exhaust 81° F intake

and a piston speed of 14 m/s at 3000 rpm.

These three parameters in conjunction are un- matched by other existing engines.

2. The American-made 12V-92 TA-MAR engine. This engine is designed for military and

maritime applications. It is characterized by a BMEP of 10.95 kg/cm^ (2 cycle) and a pis- ton speed of 9.8 m/s at 2300 rpm.

These engines are of world-class technical status. The MTR demonstrated a net superiority over both engines by achieving a BMEP of 16.8 kg/cm^

(2 cycle). This is equivalent to 33.6 kg/cm^ (4

cycle), which is more than double the BMEP for the MTU-12V-880 and more than 153 percent of

the value for the 12V-92.

Power density, i.e., horsepower per liter, is a

very important consideration and is best compared

at equivalent piston speeds. In the most recent

tests, the MTR was limited to 2000 rpm and a pis- ton speed of 4.26 m/s, due to the limited rotational

speed of the injection pump, which was supplied

by DTC/DDC and was driven at 4000 rpm, i.e., twice the engine speed. Considering a piston speed

of 14 m/s, which is similar to that obtained in the MTU-12V-880 engine, the MTR engine must

be compared at 6570 rpm. The projected MTR

power density at that engine speed is five times

larger than the MTU-12V-880 or the 12V-92.

Limitations imposed by the fuel injection sys- tem are another important consideration: The fuel injection system used for these tests was the first available and supplied only 30 percent of the fuel that was supposed to be delivered to the MTR.

If this situation of fuel starvation can be elimi- nated, the theoretical limit of the MTR power density will be fifteen times the power density of the

MTU-12V-880 engine. Achieving these projected

performance levels, which are beyond all existing

production engines, depend on the production of an adequate fuel system.

The basic condition for the potential realization

of these huge increases in performance has already

been demonstrated by the achieved top pressure of

4000 psi, which in the near future can be extended

to pressures approaching 5000 psi. This type of

peak combustion pressure is opening the perspective to a supercharging pressure ratio of 20- to- 1, in comparison with 2.5 and 3.5-to-l actual pressure

ratios used in modern production engines.

Achieving total pressure ratios of between 300

and 340-to-l, for expansion ratio, the thermal effi- ciency can reach the enormous level of over 70-

75 percent. This is in comparison with 20 to 35 percent efficiencies for current production engines.

At these peak pressures, combustion can be

made virtually pollutant free by a total multi-fuel
94 Energy Conversion Systems

capability and an ultra-lean mixture. Based on

these considerations, the goal of the U.S. presidential initiative for the development of an 80-mileper-gallon vehicle is now realistically achievable.

REFERENCES

[1] U.S.A. Patent No. 4,791,787 December 20, 1993. Regenerative Thermal Engine. Inventor: Dr. Marius Angelo Paul.

[2] U.S.A. Patent No. 4,809,646 March 7, 1989. High

Pressure Reciprocator Components. Inventor: Dr. Marius Angelo Paul.

[3] U.S.A. Patent No. 4,964,275 October 23, 1991. Multicylinder Compound Engine. Inventor: Dr. Marius Angelo Paul.

[4] U.S.A. Patent No. 5,058,537 October 22, 1991. Optimized High Pressure Internal Combustion Engines. Inventor: Dr. Marius Angelo Paul.
Paul: Tbermo-Electric-CompouDd Engine..

Float 1: Monocylinder test rig assembly. Four cylinders into one.
Energy Conversion Systems

Float 2: Monocylinder test rig Eissembly. Two cylinders into one.
PHOSPHORIC-ACID FUEL-CELL BUS DEVELOPMENT

R. J. Kevala

H Power Corporation

Belleville, NJ 07109

ABSTRACT

In comparison with diesel and other alternative-fuel technologies, fuel cells offer the potential for both reduced emissions and increased fuel economy for buses. The phosphoric-acid fuel-cell (PAFC)

bus with an on-board methcinol reformer can be refueled rapidly by filling its taink with methanol. It

is essentially a zero-emission vehicle without the range and payload limitations of a battery-powered

vehicle. A 9-meter (30-ft) fuel-cell-powered transit bus is under development that will ultimately be used

for revenue service demonstration. Fuel-cell power is augmented by a battery, which also acts as a

reservoir for excess fuel-cell and regenerative-braking energy. The bus retains most of its accessory components that have been proven in transit service, and integrates them with newly- developed

fuel-cell, battery, and electric-drive- train components. System integration is a key component of the

design, fabrication, and assembly process.

INTRODUCTION

Fuel cells generate electric power through electro- chemical reactions involving hydrogen and oxygen. In the transit bus application, the hydrogen

needed by the fuel cell is derived from a mixture

of pure methanol and water. A traction battery

is used to provide added power for acceleration

and grade climbing. The battery also acts as a

reservoir for excess energy from the fuel cell and

regenerative energy from the traction motor during braking and downgrades. The mission of the

project is to provide a proof-of-concept for fuelcell technology in transit-vehicle applications; to demonstrate its suitability for use by transit agencies; and to demonstrate and quantify the envi- ronmental, fuel economy, and other benefits of fuel cell-technology. An artist's rendering of the bus is shown in Fig. 1. The project is sponsored jointly

by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the

U.S. Department of Transportation, and California's South Coast Air Quality Management District. The technical management team for the

project includes representatives from DOE, Ar- gonne National Laboratory, and Georgetown University. H Power Corporation is the prime contractor, with Booz»Allen k Hamilton Inc., Bus

Manufacturing USA Inc., Fuji Electric Corporation, Soleq Corporation, and Transportation Manufacturing Corporation as team participants.

FUEL CELL/BATTERY BUS DESIGN

The Baseline Advanced Design Transit Coach

Specifications [1], (commonly referred to in the

transit industry as the "White Book") was used

as the design starting point. Although the bus

is referred to cis a test-bed bus, it is designed

for durability and reliability. All major nonpropulsion components on the test-bed bus are

service-proven. The operating range should ex- ceed 240 kilometers (150 miles). The performance

and gradability requirements for the test-bed bus

are shown in Table 1. A major design challenge was to maintain the

look and feel of a standard transit bus while benefiting from a radically different power plant. Compatibility with typical transit industry operations

and maintenance practices was also a key consideration.

The bus has been designed to comply with the

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and the

transit vehicle accessibility provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act. The bus should also

97
98 Energy Conversion Systems

Figure 1. Artist's rendering of the test-bed bus.

surpciss any applicable air quality standards since

it will emit extremely minute levels of pollutants,

and only during the start-up process, essentially

making it a "zero emission" vehicle.

BUS COMPONENTS AND

SUBSYSTEMS

The hardware configuration of the bus is shown

schematically in Fig. 2.

Fuel cell subsystem

Major components of the fuel cell subsystem in- clude the fuel cell stack and a variable "upchopper" to match fuel cell voltage to the battery under different battery states-of-charge and

bus operating conditions. Hydrogen is produced

in a steam reformer from a feed-stock of neat methanol and water. Control of the fuel cell subsystem is performed by a microprocessor-bcised in- ternal controller. The fuel cell subsystem also in- cludes a number of variable speed pumps, blowers,

solenoids, and other auxiliary equipment. The fuel

cell subsystem is located in the rear, where the en- gine would be in a standard bus. Automatic hydrogen detection and fire-suppression systems are provided on the test-bed bus for safety.

Battery subsystem

The 2 16- volt battery consists of eighteen SAFT

STM5-200 nickel-cadmium battery modules, ar- ranged in three bays under the bus floor. The battery sub-system also contains cooling fans and a

semi-automatic watering system. Compared with

battery-only electric vehicles, the test-bed bus battery is subjected to higher charge-discharge cur- rent levels during bus operation. Accelerated life cycle tests have indicated a life in excess of three
Kevala: Phosphoric-acid Fuel-cell Bus Development 99

Table 1. Test-bed bus performance and gradability

requirements

Acceleration:

0 to 10 mph 5.6 s 0 to 20 mph 10.1 s 0 to 30 mph 19 s 0 to 40 mph 34 s 0 to 55 mph 60 s Average speed:

0% grade 58 mph

2.5% grade 44 mph

16% grade 7 mph

years for the battery.

Electric and mech£inical power train

The power train includes a separately-excited DC

traction motor, a complementary metal oxide substrate (CMOS)-based motor controller, line filters and reactors, a drive shaft, and a standard dif- ferential housing and rear axle. There is no trans- mission. The motor is chassis-mounted behind the

rear axle.

System controller

A microprocessor-based system controller is needed to oversee and optimize the operation of

the various subsystems, particularly the fuel cell, battery, and electric power train. The system

controller provides interfaces with other vehicle

subsystems via voltage and other sensors, RS-232

communication ports, and other devices. Its primary functions are:

• Energy and power management

• Battery state-of-charge calculation

• Fault monitoring and annunciation

• Operator interface

• Data acquisition and logging for engineering

tests and maintenance.

For energy management, the two most important system controller output signals are the

fuel cell power level request and the regenerative traction current limit. The system controller

is also capable of momentarily shutting down

non-essential bus accessories to save energy when

needed. The central processing unit (CPU) is a hardened IBM 386 PC, running MS-DOS.

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

subsystem

The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

(HVAC) subsystem uses mostly off-the-shelf components, but the configuration is significantly dif- ferent from that of a diesel bus. The refriger- ant compressor is driven by a DC motor that

is mounted under the floor (similar to electric trolley buses). The evaporator/condenser unit is mounted on the roof. A specially designed heat

exchanger is built into the fuel cell stack cooling

loop to transfer waste heat into a separate cabin

heating loop.

Operator's controls

Many of the operator's controls are standard, such

as the master run switch, door controls, wheelchair

lift control, and parking/emergency brake. A stan- dard transit bus layout is used, with front and left- hand side instrument and control panels. However, some non-standard controls are needed. A

rotary switch and two indicator lights are needed

for fuel cell control. Other non-standard items

include an emergency shutdown push button, a

traction ammeter, a system fault indicator, and a motor stall indicator.

Bus body/chassis

The test-bed bus body is of mild steel semimonocoque construction, based on an existing structural design. Two fuel tanks are needed—

a large one for the methanol/water premix and a

small one for the neat methanol that is used in the fuel cell start-up and reformer burners. An

infrared-activated fire suppression system is in- stalled in the fuel cell compartment, in the battery compartments, and over the fuel tanks. The

air compressor and power steering pump are belt- driven by a single DC motor. Nearly all other

accessories and furnishings are standard and are powered by either 24-volts or 12-volts DC.
100 Energy Conversion Systems

ELECTRIC PROPULSION SUBSYSTEM

Line

Filters &

Junction

Box

Motor

Controller

Fuel

Tanks

Battery

Subsystem

HVAC

Subsystem

Low Voltage

Power Supply

System

Controller

Subsystem

Traction

Motor

Rearaxle

(No Transmission)

Air Compressor

& Motor

Air System:

Brakes

Suspension

' Doors

Bus Accessories:

• Operator's Controls

• Lighting

• Destination Sign

• Wheelchair Lift

• Miscellaneous

Key:

Traction Power or High Voltage DC

Low Voltage DC or Control Signals

tvs<wi Fluid Connections

V///A Mechanical Linkage

V-'y^:'-:i:''\ Pneumatic Connections

Figure 2. Test-bed bus hardware configuration.

SYSTEMS INTEGRATION

The test-bed bus development and design has been

significantly more complex than the design of a

diesel-powered bus. The power plant is a hybrid

and uses technologies that are in the developmental stage. Furthermore, key propulsion and other

components are built and supplied by multiple

sources and are being integrated into a working vehicle for the first time. There is a mix of standard

and non-standard transit equipment, and the in- terfaces between electrical and other components

are particularly complex. Finally, there wcis a need to modify some components so that the overall system would be optimized in terms of energy

consumption, performance, payload, and weight.

To deal with these complexities, a structured integration process was implemented to develop the

system design. First, equipment subsystems were

defined, as listed in the preceding section. Partic- ular emphasis was given to defining the electrical and mechanical interfaces between subsystems, so that each supplier worked to a specific set of design constraints. Detailed technical specifications

for each subsystem were then prepared, so that

the overall mission requirements would be incor- porated into the detailed hardware design. Next, a critical design review (CDR) took place, after which detailed designs were prepared and released

for fabrication. Individual component testing was

performed concurrently with the CDR, to pro- vide data and resolve specific issues. The CDR

was followed by hardware fabrication, subsystem

qualification tests, and testing of the completed
KevaJa: Phosphoric- acid Fuel-cell Bus Development 101

Table 2. GUTS cycle characteristics

Route Length: 13.1 km (8.2 miles)

Schedule Time: 33-35 minutes

Number of Stops: 45

Maximum Speed: 72 km/h (45 mph)

Maximum Grade: 7.02%

Minimum Grade: -14.14%

Average Grade: 2.67%

test-bed bus. To assist in many of the major

design decisions, a FORTRAN-based simulation

program known as "Hybrid 27," originally devel- oped by Georgetown University, was used. This

program simulates the test-bed bus performance,

power plant behavior, and other operating characteristics over anticipated revenue routes, and has

been calibrated from the brass-board and laboratory test data. Two routes were used in the model

to verify that performance requirements will be met:

• Transit Coach Duty Cycle (TCDC). The stan- dard transit bus operating duty cycle (Central Business District/arterial/commuter cycle) documented in the White Book [1].

• Georgetown University Transportation Society (GUTS) Cycle. It is a demanding route

profile on which the test-bed bus is expected

to operate. The GUTS cycle is summarized

in Table 2.

CURRENT STATUS

The test-bed bus design is now complete. The bus

body and all major subsystems have been fabri- cated and assembled. Fabrication and testing of some electronic components such as the fuel cell up-chopper and low-voltage power supply are under way. Following fuel cell subsystem verification and

acceptance tests in December 1993, the fuel cell will be integrated into the assembled test-bed bus.

Engineering evaluation testing of the assembled

test-bed bus will begin in early 1994. The bus

is scheduled to be delivered to DOE in June 1994.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

A structured system integration process was fol- lowed because the power plant technology is complex, many of the bus components are in the devel- opmental stage, and several suppliers are involved.

The emphasis wcis on optimizing the system as a

whole, rather than on individual components. A

number of specific design problems were encountered and resolved using the system integration

process. A number of additional development efforts will be needed before the bus can be considered for commercial route operation. These efforts include:

• Development of an improved battery, more

suited to the specific demands of hybrid power

application

• Improvements in the transient response time

of the fuel cell subsystem

• Recovery of water from the fuel cell exhaust

to avoid the need for carrying water on board

the bus for fuel reformation

• Reduced size and weight of major components

and bus structure

• Better integration and consolidation of the

packaging of smaller components

• Consolidation of all control functions into a

single unit

The design of a 12.2-meter (40-foot) fuel cell and

battery hybrid transit bus is currently being inves- tigated by Transportation Manufacturing Corporation. REFERENCES

[1] Baseline Advanced Design Transit Coach Specifications, Urban Mass Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC,

April 4, 1977.
ZERO-EMISSION TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS

M. A. BogdanofF and J. H. Leonard

South Coast Air Quality Management District Diamond Bar, CA 91765

ABSTRACT

The South Coast Air Quality Management District has adopted a comprehensive air pollution control program in the Los Angeles area. To expedite air quality attainment, the Technology Advancement

office was created to identify and foster the development of low-emission technologies and clean

fuels. Cedifomia's Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate was primarily adopted to address the extraordinary aiir qucility problems of the Los Angeles area. Consequently, Technology Advancement

has cosponsored a number of projects to promote ZEV and Electric Vehicle (EV) technology including

battery development, vehicle demonstrations, fuel-cell development and concept studies. Based on

progress to date, it appears that EV technology is on schedule to meet California's two-percent ZEV

mandate in 1998.

INTRODUCTION

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) is responsible for comprehensive

air pollution control in the Los Angeles area. This four-county air basin has the nation's worst

air quality, and consequently, needs extraordinary measures to attain ambient air standards. The

AQMD's Technology Advancement program was

created by the California Legislature in 1987 and is mainly funded through a vehicle registration sur- charge of $1 per vehicle. Its purpose is to identify low-emission technologies and clean fuels that

would contribute to air quality attainment, and

to foster their development and commercialization

through public-private partnerships. Technology

Advancement has an annual budget of about $7

million and hcis cosponsored over 100 mobile- and

stationary-source projects valued at $66 million,

including matching funds from the private sector. In 1990, the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) adopted very stringent emission requirements for new vehicles starting with 1994 models.

These include a declining fleet-average standard

for non-methane organic gases as well as a Zero- Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. This mandate

affects larger vehicle manufacturers and requires

that 2 percent of their 1998 California production

be ZEVs. This mandate gradually increases to 10

percent for the year 2003 and subsequent model

years. California's ZEV mandate was adopted primarily to address the extraordinary air quality problems of the South Coast Air Basin. In the 1991 Air

Quality Management Plan, it was estimated that

50 percent of new passenger cars and 35 percent of

light-duty trucks would need to be ZEVs in order

to meet the clean air goals (The 1994 Air Quality Management Plan is now under development).

Thus, Technology Advancement is highly focused on ZEV technologies and is working closely with

CARB to expedite the introduction of ZEVs. In addition. Technology Advancement is committed

to the development of sustainable energy technologies such as photovoltaics and wind power.

The AQMD has a number of projects to ad- vance ZEV electric-vehicle (EV) technology in- cluding battery development, vehicle demonstrations, fuel-cell development, and concept studies. ADVANCED BATTERIES

The sealed bipolar lead-acid (SBLA) battery has

the potential to deliver a unique combination of

advantages not found in other near-term EV batteries. These advantages include: higher specific

power (vehicle acceleration and hill-climbing), improved specific energy (vehicle range), longer bat102
Bogdanoff and LeoDcird: Zero-Emission Technology Projects 103

tery life, lower cost, and good thermal characteristics for hybrid vehicle applications. The AQMD

and CARB are co-funding the development of two

SB LA battery projects.

Testing of the Arias Research SB LA battery

conducted at Idaho National Energy Laboratory

demonstrated peak power of 950 W/kg, which ex- ceeded the 750 W/kg goal (100 percent SOC, 10 seconds to 2/3 OCV. However, the achieved specific energy of 47 W-h/kg was 94 percent of the

50 W-h/kg goal (C/2 rate). Life-cycle testing by

another independent laboratory yielded more than

2000 cycles (C/2 to 50 percent DOD).

A second project with Polydyne, Inc., is to de- velop and demonstrate the SBLA battery design

from Pinnacle Research. This battery concept dif- fers from Arias in the design of the bipolar plate.

The goal of this battery is high energy storage

(greater than 60 W-h/kg) and high specific power

(greater than 1 kW/kg) without degradation of

battery life. Independent battery testing is being

performed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. EV DEMONSTRATIONS

The AQMD is adding a number of EVs to its fleet. In 1992, the AQMD purchased a Destiny 2000

from Solar Electric Engineering. This vehicle,

based on a Pontiac Fiero with manual transmission, uses deep-cycle, lead-acid batteries to achieve a claimed range of approximately 40-60 miles per

charge. However, most drivers were disappointed

by the vehicle's limited range, slow acceleration,

and rapidly declining power as the battery pack was discharged. Subsequently, Solar Electric re- placed the Destiny 2000 with an improved model,

derived from the Ford Escort. This vehicle was

delivered in April 1993. The AQMD purchased a Honda CRX conversion from AC Propulsion, a small business in the

South Coast Basin. This vehicle includes a state- of-the-art alternating-current , drive train and so- phisticated regenerative braking system. The vehicle has excellent performance, can accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 8 seconds, and has a usable

range of approximately 100 miles. This vehicle

has exceptionally low energy consumption averaging only 0.116 kW-h per mile. It uses a 336-volt

battery pack of Optima BOOS batteries; however,

the life of these batteries is reduced through extensive high-power operation.

The AQMD has also ordered ten EV conversions from Advanced Electric Car Technologies

(AECT), another small business in the Beisin. These vehicles are converted Hyundai's that in- clude the Elantra, Excel, and Scoupe models.

AECT has developed a conversion system based

upon their low-amperage modular lead-acid battery cell. This modular approach allows battery

cells to be placed throughout the vehicle to best

utilize existing space. The vehicles are expected to have a 60-80 mile range. During the first year of

operation, selected vehicles will undergo FMVSS

crash testing, and range and performance tests will be performed by CARB.

To facilitate EV recharging and demonstrate

zero-emission power generation, the AQMD has

installed a photovoltaic charging system consist- ing of a 3,000 square foot, semi-crystalline, 24 kW

array at a fixed angle, 19-degree from horizontal. The system is mounted on a carport at the AQMD's headquarters. Inverters convert the

solar-generated DC power into alternating current, which can be used by conventional EV

recharging systems. The system is designed to provide at least 73 kW-h per day of electri- cal power for about nine months of the year. This energy output corresponds to the amount of

electrical energy required to recharge a current- technology electric van, such as the G-Van, from an 80 percent depth of discharge.

ULTRACAPACITOR TECHNOLOGIES

Pinnacle Research hcis developed a state-of-the-art ultracapacitor that stores five orders of magnitude more energy than a conventional capacitor, and

at least twice the energy of any supercapacitor.

AQMD and CARB are co-funding the development and construction of large ultracapacitors ca- pable of powering an electrically heated catalytic converter in a conventional automobile (24 kJ).

Eight of these large, brick-sized ultracapacitors are now under construction and will be installed in two

vehicles. This technology may also be applicable

for regenerative braking and providing high power

for acceleration and hill climbing. Hybrid batteryultracapacitor power packs are also feasible.
104 Energy Conversion Systems

FUEL-CELL TECHNOLOGIES

Fuel cells have the capability to power ZEVs

and have the potential to replace internal combustion engines as the primary power plant for both mobile- and stationary-source applications.

However, additional research, development and

demonstration efforts are needed to overcome

technological and institutional barriers that cur- rently limit the wide-scale use of fuel cells. Motor vehicle fuel cell applications pose particularly

tough technical challenges. These include the need

for high power, light weight, rapid start-up, long

service life, ability to withstand shock and vibration, and safe convenient fuel storage.

To address the barriers facing fuel-cell vehicle

commercialization, the AQMD has initiated the

Ad Hoc Coalition on Fuel Cells for Transportation, which seeks $450 million in federal funding

for fuel cell research, development and demonstration over the next decade. Membership consists of

about thirty public and private organizations, and

is expanding.

Currently, most development work on fuel cells for transportation involves either the phosphoric

acid fuel cell (PAFC) or the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell. The PAFC is a more near- term technology, but the PEM fuel cell has the

potential to offer significant advantages over the

PAFC for a broad range of transportation applications. It is smaller in size, weighs less, starts up faster, and is thus better suited for automotive

applications. When fully developed, it could also be less costly than the PAFC.

The urban transit bus system is an attractive

early entry point for transportation applications

of both PAFCs and PEM fuel cells. A hybrid fuel cell/battery motor is capable of meeting the ardu- ous power demands that are common to the transit bus driving cycle, while providing ultra-low emission levels and a substantial improvement in vehicle energy efficiency. Moreover, the AQMD's Air

Quality Management Plan effectively targets 30

percent of the Basin's transit buses to be powered

by electricity or fuel cells by the year 2010.

Other vehicle applications for fuel cells are very

likely to follow transit buses as more advanced fuel

cells are developed, such as the solid oxide fuel cell. The high-temperature solid oxide fuel cell offers high power while obviating the need for external

fuel reforming, but limited stack development and

testing has occurred to date. Nonetheless, in 15

to 30 years it may very well become the preferred

power plant for passenger cars, buses, trucks, lo- comotives, and other key transportation applications. The Air Quality Management District is cost sharing a four-phase federal project to develop

and demonstrate near-zero-emissions transit buses

powered by a PAFC/battery hybrid motor. This

congressionally sanctioned program is administered by the US Department of Energy (DOE)

and US Department of Transportation. Phase I, a proof-of-feasibility demonstration, has been successfully completed. Phcise H is now underway,

with the objective to build three 27-ft. buses and

to demonstrate at least one in the Basin beginning

in late 1993. The prime contractor is H- Power

Corporation and is responsible for fuel cell assembly and system evaluation.

Ballard Power Systems of British Columbia,

Canada, is a leader in building PEM fuel cells and is working to improve performance at progressively lower cost. The British Columbia provincial

government, in cooperation with British Columbia

Transit, has commissioned Science Applications

International Corporation (SAIC) and Ballard to build a proof-of-concept, 15-passenger transit bus

powered by the latest Ballard PEM fuel cell design. The AQMD provided oversight of Phase I as a member the British Columbia Fuel Cell Bus

Steering Committee.

Ballard and SAIC have now unveiled the completed and operational Phase-I bus. It is powered

by a 120 kW PEM fuel cell using pure hydrogen

and pressurized ambient air. Ballard and SAIC

were able to build the bus on schedule and essentially on budget, although payload was compromised to keep the weight of the bus manageable.

The Ballard-SAIC team is now seeking funding

for a multi-year, multi-phase program to develop

at least three additional buses with an advanced

PEM fuel cell system. This new system will tar- get a lower-cost, more- efficient PEM, hybridized

with a battery pack for added peak power and

regenerative braking. The AQMD is co-funding

this effort based on the intention of Ballard to demonstrate at least one bus in the Basin and per- form much of the development work in Southern

California. Ballard's work will focus on commer-
Bogdanoff ajid Leonard: Zero-Emission Technology Projects 105

cializing the PEM fuel cell in 1998 for bus applications. They are targeting several key areas

to bring down the cost of the PEM fuel cell to about $500 per kW. These include a more-efficient,

lower-cost membrane, more efficient catalyst us- age, improved cell performance, and volume pro- duction (at least 5,000 stacks per year).

Energy Partners of West Palm Beach Florida

has initiated an accelerated program to develop a ZEV passenger car powered by a fuel cell/battery

hybrid. The AQMD, along with the US DOE,

is cosponsoring this project. Energy Partners bought the rights to the Treadwell PEM fuel cell and has formed a new company, US Fuel Cells. Three pure-hydrogen, air-breathing 8 kW PEM

fuel cell stacks have been fabricated for the Energy

Partners "Green Car" and are being integrated

into a light-weight monocoque sports car chassis

built by Consulier. A lead-acid battery back provides peaking power requirements for the vehicle. This vehicle is now undergoing road testing.

The AQMD is also spearheading an effort with

the DOE to evaluate the most promising fuel-cell technologies and fuels for locomotive applications.

Jet Propulsion Laboratory is the contractor con- ducting the work for the Locomotive Propulsion

System Task Force, an ad hoc committee comprised of academia, government, equipment manufacturers, fuel-cell technologists and, railroad operators. It is expected that the DOE will use this Phase-I study to implement a detailed systems de- sign study on one or more leading fuel-cell technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

EV technology development appears to be on

schedule to meet the CARB 1998 ZEV mandate. SBLA batteries and ultracapacitors are under development and should meet the power re- quirements of near-term EVs. The SBLA batteries should have a specific power greater than

1000 W/kg and specific energy about 50 W-h/kg.

Use of the Arias SBLA battery in the highly ef- ficient AC Propulsion vehicle should yield nearly

200 miles range at 55 mph and have battery life greater than 50,000 miles. The SBLA batteries

will likely compete with improved, conventional

lead-acid and nickel-cadmium batteries. Batteries being developed by the US Advanced Battery

Consortium or others will likely appear after the turn of the century.

Many EV conversions are now appearing in the market place, although without standardized

recharging hardware. In general, these vehicles

have range and performance limitations but are providing an inducement and test bed for battery and EV component development. The AC

Propulsion , drive train system, however, does not have any performance compromises, although the

life of conventional lead-acid batteries may be

taxed and require early replacement under contin- ual high-power modes (fast accelerations, constant

hill climbing).

Progress is being made with fuel-cell technology

and demonstration projects are beginning on small

transit buses with PEM fuel cells and PAFCs.

The Ballard PEM fuel cell bus is a milestone, but

further research, development and demonstration

fuel-cell investment is needed in order to attain

zero-emission transportation.

REMARKS

Communication with component manufacturers

indicates that electric motors and controllers are developing with an effort to reduce cost and improve efficiency. Optimized EVs will likely use AC induction motors, have high-voltage systems

greater than 300 volts, and not require transmissions. High-efficiency ancillary systems are also being developed such as air-conditioning compressors and power-steering pumps. Infrastructure is- sues such as recharging hardware and utility considerations are now under discussion in various

technical committees, but these may require gov- ernment intervention to achieve consensus.
NON-TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO PRODUCT COMMERCIALIZATION

A. J. Sobey

Automotive Consultant

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304

INTRODUCTION

Many promising technologies and new vehicle concepts may never be marketed as useful, consumer

or commercial products. This paper outlines some

of the reasons why and includes some thoughts on how they could be overcome. A description of

the steps in the commercialization of a new product provides the basis for discussions of the nontechnical barriers that can cause a technically successful program to be societally valueless. While

the discussion is based on new automotive vehicle

propulsion systems, most of the comments apply

to the commercialization of any major new tech- nology.

Clearly one paper can not identify all of the

problems or solutions. The objective of this pa- per is to provide investigators with some ideas on how to identify the barriers to the commercialization process. Have all of the problems been found?

How should they be approached?

STAGES IN COMMERCIALIZATION OF

A NEW CONCEPT

Successful commercialization of new products or technologies will require careful planning for each

stage from research to field service. The initial plans will inevitably be wrong. They should be

updated as each new problem or opportunity is encountered. Before a serious investment is made

in commercialization, public and private decision

makers will want to understand if the plans will provide customers with useful economic vehicles

that meet all safety, energy, and environmental

standards and earn a profit. The plans should

identify the uncertainties and define, in so far as

possible, the probable range of performance, pro- gram duration and costs. If major, apparently un- surmountable, barriers are encountered, the sponsors have two options. First, drop the concept.

Second, devise strategies to minimize their delays.

It is increasingly important to avoid wasting time

and resources on research and development of unproductive, or second-best, technologies and concepts. When the development of a new technology

or concept proceeds beyond basic research some

additional questions need to be addressed. Firstly,

how would the technology be applied? And, sec- ondly, will the anticipated performance and cost be superior to existing technologies, or those that

may be mature by the time the new concept could

be commercialized?

The commercialization of new technologies and

non-conventional vehicle concepts, such as all- electric or hybrid cars, will go through a series of

steps. While each manufacturer will describe the

steps differently, for the purposes of this paper I have divided the process into nine steps:

1. Confirm technical feasibility

2. Devise vehicle concepts to meet selected markets

3. Construct pre-production items for tests and

demonstrations

4. Conduct market tests using pre-production

products

5. Design for production

6. Create production capacity

7. Sell to willing buyers

8. Service (maintenance, energy sale, etc.)

9. Dispose of exhausted materials

The research stage on a new technical concept

may take longest, but the cost and complexity of

each step increcises as the product approaches the

106
Sobey: Non-Technical Baxriers. 107

sale to end users. Each step requires different skills and facilities and encounters different problems.

Both industrial and governmental laboratories

have encountered delays in transferring new tech- nologies from the research to commercialization.

The research managers may have good reasons

for hesitating to declare a technology commercial.

There will always be some things that have not been adequately defined—potential problems or troublesome unknowns. They may have serious

personal concerns. If the researchers have spent

decades on research on a technology, the transfer may mean loss of prestige, budgets, staff, etc. They may have to find new problems or concepts

to work on. On the other hand, the laboratory's

success should be measured by the value of the

technologies that they develop and successfully

commercialized.

Confirm technicsJ feasibility

Confirming the technical feasibility of a new concept requires more than laboratory demonstrations. Technical feasibility means that there are no

apparent barriers to developing a concept that will meet the performance needs of the most probable

applications. If it is a hybrid propulsion system it must be more efficient than competitive systems,

provide adequate power for selected vehicles and

be able to fit in the speice available in a typical car

or truck. Confirming technical feeisibility starts with the

design and testing of an experimental bench or brass-board system that addresses critical engineering problems. Typical problems that may

not be considered during research include; heat

transfer, electrical resistance, material selection,

strength, vibration sensitivity, volume, weight,

limiting dimensions, etc. It will usually take a

series of designs—each closer to what is needed

before a design suitable for use by the public is developed.

Device vehicle concepts

While all of the possible applications for a new

technology cannot be even guessed at in awlvance,

it is important that the basic objectives of a new

propulsion system; power, efficiency, emission levels, packaging, responsiveness, etc., be defined

carefully. Vehicle or platform designers will pre- pare studies of a number of "acceptable" vehicle

concepts. These will provide the basis for estimating performance and space requirements, weight,

drag, and customer acceptance and will establish

the cost objectives for the new power plant.

Construct pre-production items for tests and demonstrations

The process of testing, demonstrating, and intro- ducing radically new vehicles will require building

test vehicles, then incrementally larger numbers of

vehicles to conduct demonstrations and meet initial sales forecasts. Car manufacturers build indi- vidual test units by hand, but when even relatively

small numbers (fifty) are required, hand building

appears to be the wrong way. Market demonstrations will require fifty to one-hundred cars. The

first year's sales may be only a few thousand, the

second year two to three thousand, etc. It typically takes five to seven years to achieve market

penetration and high-volume production.

There is no organization that can build rel- atively small numbers of cars and light trucks

economically. Studies are in process on two ap- proaches [1]. First, develop the capability to as- semble fifty to one-thousand vehicles in small ge- ographically strategic facilities. Second, develop

high-volume assembly lines in which every vehicle can be different in concept, size, purpose, and

make.

Market test or demonstrate

pre-production cars The industry has learned—to its dismay—that

what appears intuitively acceptable to the market

may not be. Before the first pre-production cars are built product "clinics" will be held to estimate

public acceptance. The pre-production cars for market demonstrations will embody the results of

these clinics. Large scale demonstrations will be required

when the cars differ significantly in performance,

operation, or other characteristics from traditional

products.

These demonstrations should be designed to provide the information needed to estimate the

size of the market and their actual benefits (will
108 Energy Conversion Systems

people use them). In these demonstrations a small

fleet, fifty to one-hundred cars, should be oper- ated by typical users. They should have the cars

for a long enough period (probably one year) to overcome novelty effects and address the seasonal

changes. The cars should be "near final" in ap- pearance so that people will feel that they are "production" cars and not research vehicles. Operation of pre-production cars or trucics by

the public requires wavers to avoid the expense

and time of conducting demonstrations of safety

standards. Cars produced under wavers usually

cannot be used for other than a specified demonstration. Even with wavers the manufacturers

must still give careful attention to safety requirements as they will be liable for accidents caused

by mechanical failures. Most companies will continue to conduct market tests while the products go through the several redesigns that are usually required before the

manufacturers are confident that the product is acceptable for public use and attractive to buyers.

Design for production

Vehicle program managers are unwilling to commit a new technology to production until they are confident that it will perform adequately, have sufficient life, be competitively priced, and meet all energy, environmental, and safety standards. The

designer of a vehicle incorporating a new technology, such as hybrids, will, for good reasons, limit

the number of untried components. The primary

tasks during this stage are to reduce labor and material costs while maintaining reliability and per- formance. Part counts will be analyzed to deter- mine which parts can be combined. Tooling costs

will be estimated and manufacturing processes de- veloped. Material selections will be analyzed to determine if lower-cost or more easily manufactured materials will be acceptable. Tradeoffs will be made between material cost and labor content. The industry has set goals of starting sale of new vehicle designs within three years of go-ahead.

This can be done if there are no significant new

technologies. New technologies take much longer.

Create production capacity

It would be ideal if existing facilities and tools could be modified to produce the new technologies.

However, this is unlikely with advanced propulsion

systems such as battery electric or fuel cells. They

differ in almost all respects from piston engines.

Tooling, transfer lines, etc., designed for piston en- gines will no longer be needed. It is probable that new—specifically designed—facilities will have to be built. This applies to increased demand for some existing subsystems as well. There would be

insufficient battery production capacity to meet

the needs if large sale demand for battery electric,

hybrid, or fuel cell cars develops.

The major manufacturers are gradually transferring the responsibility for systems and subsystems to the suppliers. While it is tempting to use

"all new" there are good reasons for building on

the prior experience that suppliers have developed.

There are hundreds of companies that provide the

automobile industry with everything from special tools to the complete design and prototype fabrication of new cars or trucks—under contract. Over half the value added in the automobile in- dustry is produced by companies with less than

two-hundred employees. Forty percent have less than seventy employees. The need for new strategies and products could lead to new business structures. There will be an increased role for material

engineers and electro chemists. There will still be

a need for the traditional "metal bending" companies.

Sell to willing buyers

The goal is to produce new cars or trucks that are

so attractive that a buyer, in a show room, will select the product with the new technology over more traditional designs. If initial costs are higher

than traditional cars, because new technology is mandated to meet energy or environmental stan- dards, costs may exceed people's transportation

budgets. People may hold on to their old cars as long as possible. While it is arguable, government

subsidies or other incentives such as use of high

occupancy lanes, lower parking fees, etc., may be

necessary.
Sobey: Non-Technical Barriers.. 109

Service, maintenance, and energy supplies

Access to service and repair facilities and an adequate supply of fuel or energy, should be avail- able before a new propulsion/energy supply concept can be successfully introduced. Some ser- vice items, special lubrication materials, for example, may be in short supply or found inadequate

with field experience. Electric propulsion systems

require maintenance equipment and service skills that do not exist in adequate quantity.

Repair and maintenance will be major items.

Some advanced materials (for example composite structures) are difficult, or impossible, to re- pair and must be replaced. New repair approaches

must be developed—it is unlikely that a car which

would have to be scrapped when the chassis was damaged would be acceptable.

The availability of trained service personnel may

delay the introduction of new propulsion systems.

There will probably be more problems and will certainly be fewer people with appropriate experience. The need for effective service is one reason why first sales may be limited to selected regions

where service facilities can be provided.

Availability of energy (fuel, electricity, etc.) should not be a problem during the demonstrations and introduction. The existing utility elec- trical systems should be able to support a fairly

large number of battery electric cars almost anywhere in the United States. If conventional liquid

fuels (reformulated gasoline, diesel, etc.) are used

by the hybrids, the nation may actually have excess capacity. However, if fuel cells become a major portion of the market, a new kind of fuel (a true synthetic rather than a replicated fuel) may

be required. This may require the construction

of a new distribution system—a costly and time

consuming process.

Disposal

Until recently the disposal of worn out vehicles

has not been a major concern to the manufacturers. There are two ways that the disposal problem

could be approached.

• Recycle as much material as possible

• Rebuild the basic car

The incentives for recycling of materials has in- creased with the public's concern about the envi- ronment and aesthetics. Engines, doors, and fenders are sold by "junk yards" as replacements for cars that have been damaged. There is an established industry for recycling some materials (primarily lead and platinum). By some estimates,

approximately seventy percent of todays cars can be recycled.

Some people think that the nation has been cov- ered with fields of wrecks and abandoned cars. A

semi serious proposal was made several years ago

to require junk yards to spray all cars olive drab

(or sand in the west) with a mixture of paint and

materials that would accelerate corrosion and de- composition.

The requirement to maintain emission characteristics for nearly the life of the car, coupled with

the introduction of materials such as; plastics, and

electrical drives will make the useful life of a platform (chassis, engine, etc.) much longer than has

been true in the past. Seats, tires, batteries, etc.,

all must be worn out. If the cars were designed for rebuilding even appearance and accommodations

could be updated to comply with changes in the owners life cycle. Some remanufacturing is occurring for up-scale large cars (BMWs, etc.). The sponsors face problems in estimating the

cost of disposal. This is difficult for conventional

cars, and perhaps impossible for cars incorporating new technologies until there is experience on

the actual life of the components.

BARRIERS TO COMMERCIALIZATION

While the technical and design problems may be

serious. The most difficult problems to be over- come in the commercialization process may be

what have been called the "non-technical barriers". These include:

• Underestimating the complexity of vehicle design

• Failure to plan for the market

• Availability of financial resources

• Return on investment

• Availability of services and skilled personnel
110 Energy Conversion Systems

• Intellectual property rights

• Competition

• Business traditions

• Government contracting terms

• Inapplicable government regulations

• Demonstrating compliance with safety, energy, and environmental standards

• Product liability

Understanding the complexity of vehicle

design

This is not a barrier as such, but illustrates problems that if not addressed properly can create barriers. Advocates of new technologies are tempted

to develop their program plans and estimate the

costs based on an "ideal" or no problem program.

But this seldom, if ever, occurs. Underestimating costs and over promising delivery times may

help sell a program, but knowledgeable private and

public decision makers will want to be assured that

there are adequate allowances for design mistakes

and major revisions before they provide their support. A friend who provides some financial sup- port for promising start ups has two questions he

asks each prospective entrepreneur. First, have

you mortgaged your house? Second, what will the

balance sheet and profitability look like if it takes

you twice as long and costs twice as much to reach

the market? In his experience, doubling of time

and cost is common.

Failure to reach promised goals may result in

loss of financial support. Accelerating the commercialization may create a negative reputation

and jeopardize the complete program, if problems

are encountered. The GM automotive diesel is a

classic example. The company had successfully

developed commercial diesel and gasoline engines.

The primary objectives were to reduce costs and

weight. The engine encountered many field problems and was withdrawn from service. But, before

production stopped most of the field problems had

been solved. If the company had taken a couple more years to obtain field experience and correct the problems before they were sold to the public,

the engines might still be in production.

It is easy to underestimate the complexity of

automobile design and manufacturing. At first glance cars appear less complicated than aircraft and guided missiles, since they are more forgiving of design errors, but this can be deceptive.

The first digital computer simulations of automobile stability and handling required nearly twice

as many lines of code as the computer models pre- pared by the same people for missile guidance and

control [2]. Most of the factors (tires, suspension

systems, body stiffness, etc.) that affect car handling are nonlinear—unlike missiles where linear models can be used. Design for manufacturing involves not only so- phisticated processing but complex inter-linking of

suppliers and assembly lines to insure parts are

delivered in time and that they are installed on

the right cars. The Automobile Industry Action

Group is an example of a major industry cooperative effort to develop more effective supplier manufacturer communications and data exchange. It was formed about a decade ago and involves several hundred engineers who participate on various

committees and conduct tests.

Failure to plan for the market

Most of us have heard of inventions looking for a problem to solve. Unfortunately many technical

innovations fall into this category, sometimes be- cause they are interesting academically, but not economically viable, or more frequently because

their embodiment has not been based on an un- derstanding of the market and how it may change.

The configuration may be technically sound, but

unattractive or no better than something else that

is, or could be, used for the same service. The sponsors should seek advice from those who

know the market well—what sells, what do people

object to, what information exists on the market

performance of vehicles similar to those based on

the new technology. A caution, if the changes are

significant and the time at which they will be commercial far the future, existing market information

may not be applicable. It is in these cases that

market demonstrations using the new technologies

will be important.

When there is little background on similar products the sponsors may have to take a risk and as- sume that an adequate market will develop when
Sobey: Non-Technical Barriers.. Ill

people understand the benefits of the product.

Availability of financial resources

Major new product developments, in particular

propulsion systems, may require commitments of

hundreds of millions of dollars over decades. In- terestingly, the industry estimates of the cost of

design and tooling for new conventional engines

for automobiles, turbines for aircraft, and diesels for locomotives all are approximately one-billion

dollars. Only the largest companies or the govern- ment can afford such investments.

There is an impression, which is to a great ex- tent justified, that most innovations come from

small innovative companies, usually start ups, be- cause of their freedom to respond to changes. But

small companies seldom have the facilities or technical expertise to determine which technologies

will be useful or the ability to raise the capital

required to commercialize them.

There are many requirements for capital. Other

public expenditures like health may have more political visibility. Most private expenditures will be

directed at meeting immediate problems, like fu- ture energy and environmental standards and for- eign competition. A University of Michigan study

[3] estimated that the U.S. Automobile manufacturers must spend $140 billion on new car de- signs and $84 billion on new truck designs, to compete with foreign suppliers. The Germans

and Japanese are expected to spend more than

$300 billion to increase their penetration into the U.S. market. It is unlikely that the industry can

generate or borrow this amount of money. These

estimates do not include support for new technologies or concepts such as are being considered in this workshop.

Government support will depend on the pro- jected societal (environmental, economic, mobility) benefits. The primary justification for gov- ernment support of research on vehicle propulsion should be to evaluate new opportunities that

would otherwise not be explored. The govern- ment may need to sponsor the development of potentially attractive technologies when the "risk"

is too high to justify private investments. This

support should be discontinued when the business

plan shows adequate promise to interest private

investors.

The requirement to meet near-term needs makes

it difficult for private companies to justify any

significant investment in "high-risk" technologies.

Financial support from private sources will not be

available in sufficient quantities until technical feasibility has been established and a reasonable busi- ness plan prepared. Commercial banks seldom in- vest in new products. Private capital should be

available once the risks have been reduced to the

point that a business plan can be prepared that

confirms a high probability of being able to pro- duce the products at an acceptable price and that

enough people will buy them to earn a profit.

Return on investment

Some private investors have stated that they can- not afford to invest in any business that will take more than three to five years to reach profitability.

The commercialization of the propulsion systems

of interest in this workshop will take decades. High

performance batteries have already taken several decades and gcis turbines at least as long. It will probably take several decades before fuel cells are

cost competitive with piston engines.

The money invested in the research and devel- opment of a new product must be recovered if the

sponsor of the commercialization is to be satisfied. This requires amortization of the investments

and interest over the initial production. The basic

price will include manufacturing, labor and materials, overhead, reserves for future problems, and

profits. In the case of heavy vehicles, the interest charges, alone, on the first products may be as high as the manufacturing costs. The price must

be increased to include the recovery of the research

investment and interest. Alternatively, the risk to private investors may

be reduced by government subsidies for societally

beneficial products, or subsidies may be given to purchasers of the new products to offset the in- crease in price above "traditional" products.

Availability of services and skilled

personnel

There are surprisingly few qualified scientists and

engineers in many of the disciplines that will be

important for the future cars. Examples include:

1 . Design of fuel cells and
112 Energy Conversion Systems

2. Production design of composite materials.

Aerospace engineers who are redundant because

of the end of the "cold war" appear to be a logical source of needed skills. However the cul- tural barriers are serious. We must convert "cap

and gown" engineers and scientists to "dirty fin- ger nails" designers and engineers. I know from

personal experience—it took me several years to change from a rocket scientist to a vehicle systems

engineer and even more to understand the problems of the industry, how it operates and what it needs. Orientation sessions on the needs of the industry, followed by days or weeks of brainstorming,

supported by people who know the problems of the

industry and its existing products, could provide

the insights that aerospace engineers need to find

ways that their backgrounds could be utilized in the automotive industry. Similar processes should

lead to the creation of idecis on uses of aerospace

technologies and perhaps to the creation of special

businesses.

Intellectual property rights

Before there will be major investments leading to commercialization the sponsors must be confident

that they will be able to recover their investments.

If there were no intellectual property protection

(that is, patents, copy rights, company secrets)

the next company could replicate the product and

produce it at a price that the originator could not

afford to match.

When several different kinds of organizations

including government research laboratories have

participated in a program, the assignment of in- tellectual property has caused serious delays. Obviously the researcher and the developer have dif- ferent goals—the first for recognition, the second

for profit. Unless the technical developments are reduced to practice, and sold, the researchers find- ings may contribute little if any to the public well being.

Competition

New product development programs that take

years or decades must not only allow for the emergence of competitors that provide similar products (an inevitable result if they are successful) but

must also consider the possibility that a competitive product will be developed that will be more

useful, lower priced, longer lived, or have other

advantages.

The risk of foreign competition is a major

concern. All industrialized nations face similar

problems, economically, environmentally, and societally, and are developing similar products. The

German and Japanese have traditionally encour- aged cooperation between the public and private

sectors. This has given them an advantage in re- ducing new concepts to practice and in accelerat- ing their commercialization.

The program managers and planners should

continuously evaluate developments in other dis- ciplines that could influence the intended market

and the products sale and profitability.

Business traditions

While most companies do not like to admit it, there are inherent barriers to innovation in mature companies. Many middle managers achieved

their success in the "old" way. A new way is a

threat. It may challenge their knowledge base,

or in some cases their integrity. Investments in "older" plants, manufacturing processes, tooling,

etc., can be a barrier, but if the new products offer the potential of high profit margins, prior invest- ments are usually a less serious barrier than tra- dition or corporate culture. It appears to surprise some people, but in my last eissignment at GM

(determining how it could benefit from commercialization of new technologies) my support came

from the Chief Economist, the top Financial Officer, the Vice Chairman, and the Vice President

over the Technical Center, in that order.

Government contracting terms

Government contracting processes can influence

the technical progress and the acceptance of new

technologies in two ways. First, in the contract- ing procedures for research and development pro- grams. Second, in the process of selling products,

such as transit vehicles, to government units, local, state, and federal. Existing procurement policies can be a problem in both cases. The need for periodic competitive rebidding

causes delays. In one cooperative program, be-
Sobey: Non-Technical Barriers. 113

tween a state and an automobile manufacturer,

it took more than two years to negotiate the contract. Similar delays have been encountered in the

federal contracting process. The causes include:

negotiation of intellectual rights, challenges from

the losers, and the inability to agree on the work

statement or the terms of cost sharing. Government decision makers should be able to authorize

continuation of the efforts on attractive programs

as long major milestones are met. Government contract program managers have

little latitude to investigate new opportunities

they must adhere to work statements that may be

a year or more old even if there are more promising paths. One oil company reported (Gulf) that

it completed a major research project (related to synthetic fuels) for less than their matching share

of a government contract that they had backed out

of.

If the product is to be sold to a government

agency (for example, mass transit) the manufacturer may encounter other cultural problems.

Only a few transit authorities are willing to take a

risk on a new concept. Local government officials have little incentive to select a new and better ap- proach if older, successful, concepts can provide

the same service, even if the cost is much higher.

If they take a risk and it succeeds, the most they

may get is a favorable mention in a trade magazine. If it fails, they may loose their jobs. Fortunately, there are risk sharing mechanisms or or- ganizations for local governments in several states (Florida, Virginia, California, etc.) that may help

in the introduction and demonstration of new sys- tems and technologies.

Inapplicable or obsolete government

regulations

Many government regulations are based on the as- sumption that there will be little change in design

or technology. The details are usually based on

traditional products with some allowance for in- cremental improvements. But major changes; go- ing from liquid to a gaseous fuels, or cars with significantly different dimensions, may not meet the

letter of the regulations—even when they meet the

spirit.

Serious barriers may be encountered when reg- ulations intended for buildings are applied to vehicles. These regulations may be hard to dis- cover, for example. New York City Fire Department rules forbid filling containers with propane

within the city limits. Some other illustrations: When Burlington Northern was developing a natural gas (liquefied methane) locomotive it found

that regulations required that there must be several cars between the locomotive and a natural

gas tank car. I was told that during the first tests the natural gas was stored on a flat car on

a parallel track. The father of a California trans- portation planner was amused and frustrated, in the late 1960's, when he attempted to drive his new front wheel drive Olds Toronado over a snow bound mountain pass. He was stopped by the police and required to move the chains from the front

to the rear wheels because that is where the regulations said they should be.

It may take longer to get revisions to regulations

agreed to and approved than to design a new vehicle and get it into production. The process of

negotiations with regulators should start as soon

as there is a technical base or a design concept

that can be used by the regulators to determine

how to modify regulations to meet the needs of

the new technologies and still meet the intent of

the underlying legislation.

Compliance with safety and energy and

environmental regulations

The increasingly complex environmental, safety

and similar regulations impact the development of new technologies and concepts at four levels:

• The ability to conduct meaningful research

and testing

• The ability to develop manufacturing capacity

• The operation of the concept

• The disposal of the exhausted product

Environmental approvals will be required before construction can start, or major modifications

made, on facilities for the manufacturing the new

products. These approvals can seldom be obtained

in less than a year. Before a product can be sold

it must meet all established safety standards. The

manufacturer must demonstrate compliance with
114 Energy Conversion Systems

the then existing energy and environmental stan- dards. The process of demonstrating that they

meet these requirements can take a year or more

depending on the magnitude of the changes.

Major new infrastructure construction such as freeways or pipelines will require environmental

reviews that may seriously delay or even prevent

their construction. The Federal Highway administration estimates that it will take at least a year and a half to get the permits to build a new highway or transit line if there are no objections. Realistically it would be unlikely that construction of a new facility could be started in less than three

to four years after the first request was formally

made.

Energy researchers have indicated that environmental and occupational safety regulations may

make it difficult or impossible to use certain chemicals and test processes that are necessary to eval- uate new fuels. The research may have to be con- ducted overseas. Safety regulations and liability concerns make it difficult to test a product to the limit, that is, to

failure such as a rollover, or to test of safety equipment beyond the established regulations. Yet the

designer cannot be comfortable with what he has

designed until it is tested to the limit.

Product liability

1 know that product liability is a controversial

topic, but 1 have found that it is a major psychological barrier to new product development and

sale. It is impossible to design a product that is absolutely safe—any new product will encounter problems and misuse that could not logically have

been anticipated in advance.

I have been working for nearly fifteen years to demonstrate the benefits of an non-conventional

personal vehicle, which will deliver over 120 miles

per gallon with conventional technologies, can have all the amenities of a conventional car, and is more maneuverable than most cars. The barrier

to its commercialization has been the concern that

it is different. It should have fewer accidents, but

they will be difi'erent. A single major claim could

wipe out all anticipated profits on the product.

Industry is reluctant to introduce any new tech- nology until there is adequate operating and ac- cident history for the insurance companies to develop a rate structure. This experience may have

to be obtained in a nation with a less litigious cli- mate, unless there is some way to indemnify companies that introduce societally beneficial technologies. One state has offered such protection

for a product they found particularly attractive. The U.S. has a tradition of encouraging innovation, and protecting entrepreneurs from competition at least until patent protection runs out. Similar, limited, protection from liability suits would

make it possible for companies to justify introducing significantly different products.

CONCLUSIONS

It should be possible to resolve most of the nontechnical barriers within the time it will take for the effective development of an all electric, fuel

cell, or hybrid car. The White House sponsored,

"Next Generation Car" initiative should address some of the barriers and provide the mechanism

for sponsoring strategies to overcome the delays

they may create. There are both societal and economic incentives

for accelerating the development of the "new generation" of cars and light vehicles. It will pro- vide the opportunity to allay the public concern

over the future environment and energy availability. Undoubtedly, many new and apparently vi- able concepts will be developed, but only a few

will pass the test of the market. Parallel devel- opment programs during the high risk phases can

serve as a "fly off" to determine which have the

best chance of being commercialized or if more

than one approach will be required for different applications.

I know it is not traditional, or easily accomplished, but I think that all principal investigators,

at any stage after proof of technical feasibility,

should study the commercialization process and

identify those barriers which apply to a specific

technology or vehicle concept. Sponsors should

have a mental picture of how they might be ap- proached. The relatively limited resources in the

country and industry make it important to avoid waste of efforts on second best, or dead ended

concepts, and to use existing resources as effec- tively as possible to accelerate the development

of new competitive technologies for their energy, economic, and societal benefits.
Sobey: NoD-Tecbaical Barriers.. 115

REFERENCES

[1] Study of strategies for production of niche vehicles by the Michigan Industrial Technology Institute.

[2] N. McQueen and A. Sobey, "Simulation of stability and control of automobiles," GM Design Staff, 1965.

[3] "Competitive Survival, Private Initiatives, Public Policy and the North American Automotive

Industry," The Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation, The University if Michigan,

Transportation Research Institute, June, 1992.
SESSION REPORT: ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS

C. Christiansen and G. L. Henriksen

Electrochemical Technology Program, Argonne National Laboratory

Argonne, IL 60439

SESSION ATTENDANCE

The session on Energy Storage Systems was at- tended by 50 people who represented a broad

range of component developers and manufacturers, potential sponsors, EV and HEV manufacturers, EV and HEV users, and other interested

parties.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The "strawman" view-graphs, which were used to conduct the session, are presented in Appendix A. The view-graphs cover the following topics:

• Session Discussion Areas

• Session Objectives

• Performance Specifications and Requirements

for EVs

• Technical, Economic, and Commercial Issues

• Status of EV Battery Development and R&D

Requirements

• Market-driven Commercialization Schedule

• Standards and Test Procedure Requirements

• Session Discussion Approach

ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM

REQUIREMENTS

The mid- and long-term criteria, developed by

the USABC, were used as requirements for EV

energy storage systems. The USABC primary

and secondary criteria are included as part of

Appendix A. A more difficult challenge was to establish some reasonable requirements for HEV

energy storage systems, based on the fact that

there are a very large number of HEV alternatives. Fortunately, Larry Oswald, Manager GM

HEV Program, was willing to provide information on the energy storage requirements GM is seek- ing to achieve for their two primary HEV options:

1) a dual-mode HEV and 2) a power-assist HEV.

These requirements are provided in Appendix B.

ENERGY STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES

The approach used in conducting the Energy

Storage System Session was to identify EV and

HEV energy storage technologies of interest to the group, select a subgroup of technologies for fur- ther consideration at the workshop, and develop

information on these technologies for use in guiding future RfeD for EV and HEV energy storage

systems. Batteries, ultracapacitors, and flywheels were identified as technologies for consideration.

Seventeen diff^erent battery technologies were identified. Information on these energy storage tech- nologies was obtained in the areas of R&D sponsors, developers, and current status. This infor- mation is provided in Appendix C. Due to time limitations, it was necessary to re- duce the number of energy storage systems considered during the workshop. For this reason, it was decided that the EV battery technologies be- ing developed under the sponsorship of the USABC would not be considered as part of this workshop. Brief presentations were given by several attendees, and the materials presented are in- cluded in these proceedings immediately follow- ing this report [1-6]. These materials include in- formation on ultracapacitors, flywheels, and several types of batteries (Zn/air, "quasi-bipolar"

Pb/acid, common-vessel Ni/Cd, and Li-ion).

116
Cbristianson and Henriksen: Session Report 117

SESSION RESULTS

The primary results of the session were summarized during the session wrap-up presentation us- ing two view-graphs, which are provided in Appendix D. Subsequent to the workshop, a preliminary analysis of alternative energy storage systems was

performed. The results are summarized in Appendix E. The system energy versus power matrix helps to categorize the current and potential

capabilities of the energy storage systems identified at the workshop. The projected commercial

availability table identifies the technologies that

are available today (or within the next year) and

provides estimates for the other technologies re- garding pre-2000 or post-2000 availability, based on the implementation of an aggressive development program in all cases. REFERENCES

[l] E. DowgiEillo, "The DOE Ultracapeicitor Program,"

these proceedings pp. 131-143.

[2] H. Saunders, "Westinghouse Zinc/Air Battery De- velopment for Electric Vehicle Applications," these proceedings pp. 144-145.

[3] J. Lushetsky, "Quasi Bipolar Lead-acid Battery

(Woven Lead Composite Grid)," these proceedings

p. 146.

[4] A. Nilsson, these proceedings pp. 147-153.

[5] R. Post, "Flywheel Technology," these proceedings

pp. 154-155.

[6] R. Koopmein and J. Rich£irdson, "Promising Future Energy Storage Systems: Nanomaterial Based

Systems, Zn/Air and Electromechanical Batteries," these proceedings pp. 156-163.
Energy Storage Systems

APPENDIX A: SELECTED "STRAWMAN" VIEW-GRAPHS

SESSION DISCUSSION AREAS

1. Session Objectives

2. Performance Specifications

3. Current Technical, Economic, and Commercieil Barriers

4. Potential Technical Solutions and Opportunities for Development

5. Requirements and Developments Needed for Improved Meinufacturing

6. Schedule/Timetable for EV and HEV Component Development

7. Requirements of Future StandEirds and Test Procedures

Figure 1.

SESSION OBJECTIVES

• Identify energy storage needs for EVs and HEVs

• Identify energy storage components and subsystems processing potential to meet needs, e.g.:

- Batteries

- Flywheels

- Ultracapacitors

- Hydraulic pressure accumulators

- Elastomers

• Investigate development barriers and identify R&D needed to over- come barriers

• Contrast projected R&D program schedules with projected timing of EV Eind HEV market penetration

Figure 2.
Cbristianson and Henriksen: Selected "Strawman" View-Graphs

PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS

• Discharge peak power density

- Volumetric

- Gravimetric

• Charge peak power density

- Volumetric

- Gravimetric

• Energy density

- Volumetric

- Gravimetric

• Operational life

- Calendar

- Cycle

• Abuse tolerance

- Electrical

- Mechanical

- Thermal

• Safety

- Driver and passengers

- Pedestrians

• Cost and manufacturability

Figure 4. Desired EV and HEV energy storage system performance characteristics.
120 Energy Storage Systems

Table 1. USABC primziry criteria for electric vehicles

Criteria Mid-term Long-term

Power Density, W/L 250 600

Specific Power, W/kg

(30 s @ 80% DOD)

150 (200 desired) 400

Energy Density, W h/L

(@ C/3 Rate)

135 300

Specific Energy, W h/kg

(@ C/3 Rate)

80 (100 desired) 200

Life, years 5 10 Cycle Life, cycles (@ 80% DOD) 600 1000

Power/Capacity Degradation, % 20 20

Price, $/kW h (10k units/yr) <150 <100

Operating Environment, "C -30 to 65 -40 to 85 Recharge Time, h <6 3 to 6 C/1 Capacity, % of rated 75 75

Table 2. USABC secondeiry criteria for electric vehicles

Criteria Mid-term Long-term

Efficiency, %

(@ C/3 discheirge and C/6 charge)

75 80

Self-discharge, % 15 in 48 h 15 per month

Meiintenance None None

Thermal loss, W/kW h

(for high-temperature batteries)

3.2 3.2 (15% capacity in 48 h) (15% capacity in 48 h)

Abuse Resisteince

Tolerzint (Minimized by on-boeird

controls)

Tolerant (Minimized by on-boeird

controls)

OTHER REQUIREMENTS

• Packaging Constraints

• Environmentsil Impact

• Safety

• Recyclability

• Reliability

• Overcharge/Overdischjirge Tolerjoice
CbristiiLDspD and HeDriksen: Selected "Strawman^ View-Graphs 121

COMMERCIAL ISSUES

• Infrastructure Investment

• Battery Disposed and Recycling

• Meinufacturing ES&H

• Shipping

Figure 5.

Table 3. ANL data on existing EV batteries

Parameter Lead-acid Ni/Cd USABC Mid-term

Criteria

Peak Power, W/kg 91 175 150 Energy", W-h/kg 36 55 80

W-h/L 92 104 135 Calendar Life, years ? TBD" 5 Cycle Life , cycles 370 1018 600

Price, $/kW-h TBD" TBD' <150

Commercicil Issues Recycling Pb Recycling Cd

* Determined for C/3 discharges

Determined under J227aC dischsirges

' TBD (to be determined)

Table 4. Battery development and m?inufacturing opportunities

Battery

Technology

EV

P/E<4.0

HEV

P/E=4.0-6.0

HEV

P/E>6.0

Major

Issues Pb-Acid Prismatic

Aveiilable UnderDevelopment in Higher- Power

Designs

Under

Development as

Bipoleir Battery

Limited Energy

Pb Recycling

Cycle Life

Ni/Cd Prismatic

Avciilable Low Difficulty as Advanced

Design

? Cost,

Cd Recycling

Ni/MH USABC Project Low Difficulty as Advanced

Design

? Cost,

Na-Beta Commercial

Development

Medium-to-High

Difficulty

Bipolar possible

with Na/NiCl2

Cost

Limited Power,

Ceilendzir Life Li-Polymer USABC Project Medium

Difficulty

? Cost

Limited Power,

Life Li-Al/FeS2 USABC Project

(as Bipolar

Battery)

Under

Development as

Bipoleir Battery

Under

Development as Bipolar Battery

Cost/Life
122 Energy Storage Systems

Table 5. Current technical, economic, and commercieJ barriers

Energy Storage

Device

Technical Barriers Economic Barriers Commercial

Barriers

Batteries Power/Energy, Life Price TBD

Flywheels TBD TBD TBD

Ultracapacitors TBD TBD TBD

H-P Accumulators TBD TBD TBD

Elastomers TBD TBD TBD

POTENTIAL TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS AND

OPPORTUNITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT

• Batteries

- Bipolar batteries for high P/E

- Stable materials and abuse tolerant battery technologies to increase life

- Cost effective materieils and processes to reduce cost

• Flywheels: TBD

• Ultracapacitors: TBD

• Hydraulic pressure accumulators: TBD

• Elastomers: TBD

Figure 6.

Table 6. Schedule/timetable for EV and HEV component development

Market-Driven Schedule

Battery

Type

Engineering

Prototype

Pilot-scale

Production

Commercial

Production

Mid-term EV

Batteries

Available Today Available in 1994-95 Available in 1998

Long-term EV

Batteries

Available in 1994-95 Available in 1999-2000 Available in 2003

Improved HEV

Batteries TBD TBD TBD
CbristiansoD and Heariksen: Selected "Strawman^ View-Graphs 123

REQUIREMENTS OF FUTURE STANDARDS

AND TEST PROCEDURES

EV Battery Test Procedures

(per DOE/USABC)

• Consteint Current Tests: C/3, C/2, C/1, and C/3 (baseline capacity)

• Constant Sustziined Power Tests at Severed Power Levels

• Dynamic Power Tests: FUDS, SFUDS, UFUDS, DST, etc.

• Peak Power Tests at Veirious Depths of Discharge (DOD)

• Speciail Tests:

- Steind test to measure self-discheirge rates

- Hill climb tests

- Thermal limit tests

- Abuse tests: e.g. overcharge/overdischarge tests

- Vibration tests

- Partial DOD tests

- Hapid recharge tests

- Freeze/thaw tests (for high temperature batteries)

• Life Cycle Testing using Dynamic Power Test Regime

Note: Tests of this type will be applicable for overall HEV power

systems

Figure 7.
124 Energy Storage Systems

SESSION DISCUSSION APPROACH

• Identify Energy Storage Technologies of Interest to the Group

• Establish Area of Application for Each Energy Storage Technology

- Plot Performeince on W-h/kg versus W/kg Map

Present Projected

- Identify Major Limitations (Show Stoppers)

e.g. Life, Cost, Etc.

• Select Energy Storage Technologies for Further Consideration by

Group

• For Each Selected Technology, Identify

- Major Barriers Technical

Economic

Commercial

- PotentieJ Solutions, R&D Needed and Timetable

Technical

Mzinufacturing

Other

- Areas With Adequate R&D Presently Underway

- Areas Where R&D Should be Initiated or Expanded

• Identify Future Standards and Test Procedure Requirements

- Electric Vehicles

- Hybrid Vehicles

Figure 8.
CbristiansoD and Henriksen: Dual-mode and Power-assist HEVs 125

APPENDIX B: ENERGY STORAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR DUAL-MODE AND

POWER-ASSIST HEVs

DUAL-MODE HEV ENERGY STORAGE REQUIREMENTS

Goals:

• Improve Fuel Economy by 50-100%

• Reduce Emissions to <ULEV levels Requirements:

Energy 6-8 kW-h 44-59 W h/kg

Power 100 kW 733 W/kg

Cost <$800 <133 S/kW h

<8 $/kW

Weight <300 lb (136 kg)

Cycle Life >2,000

POWER-ASSIST HEV ENERGY STORAGE REQUIREMENTS

Goal: Improve Fuel Economy by 30-50%

Reqviirements:

Energy 0.5-2 W h 22-88 W-h/kg

Power 50-70 kW 2.2-3.1 kW/kg

Cost < $300-500 <600-250 $/kW-h

<6-7 $/kW

Weight <50 lb (23 kg)

Cycle Life 100,000

Figure 9.
126 Energy Storage Systems

APPENDIX C: INFORMATION COLLECTED ON ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

STORAGE SYSTEMS

Table 7. Energy storage technologies identified

Technology R&D Sponsors Developers Status

Ultracapacitors DOE Maxwell/Aubum

LLNL

Pinnacle

SNL

LANL

SRI

FedercJ Fabrics

Laboratory Prototype

Flywheels LLNL

ARPA

NASA

DOE

LLNL

ORNL

Rockwell

US Flywheel

American Flywheel

Honeywell

SATGOM

U. of MarylEind

Laboratory Prototype

Vehicle Demo

Batteries

Ni/MH USABC/DOE Ovonics

SAFT

EPI

MaxceU

Full-Scale EV Battery

Na-Beta USABC/DOE

DOD

Silent Power

ABB

AEG

Hughes

EPI

ANL

Pilot Production
Christianson and Henriksen: Alternative Energy Storage Systems 127

Table 8. Energy storage technologies identified (cont.)

Technology R&D Sponsors Developers Status

Batteries (cont.)

Li/MS USABC/DOE

DOD

ANL

SAFT

Westinghouse

EPI

Electrofuel

Laboratory prototype

Li-Polymer USABC/DOE

DOD

W. R. Grace

Valance/Delco

Hydro-Quebec

Perm State Univ.

Laboratory Prototype

Al/Air ARPA

ALCAN

Alupower

Eltech

8 kW h as Mechanically

Rechargeable

Pb-Acid

- Bipolar CARB

SCAQMD

DOD

EPRl

Arias

Pinnacle

Battelle

EV Prototype

- Prismatic Delco et al. Production

- Woven-grid EPRI BDM/Electrosource Pilot Production in Jem- uary 1994

Li-Ion DOE

DOD

LLNL Laboratory Prototype

Ni/Cd

- Prismatic SAFT

EPI

ERC

ACME

Production

- Common Vessel ACME Electric Laboratory Prototype
128 Energy Storage Systems

Table 9. Energy storage techjiologies identified (cont.)

Technology R&D Sponsors Developers Status

Batteries (cont.)

NI/H2 JCI

EPI

Production

Ni/Fe EPRl (?) EPI Prototype Production

Na-Polymer DOE LBL Reseeirch

Zn/Air DOE

ILZRO

LLNL

AZ Public Service

So. Cal. Edison

Westinghouse

LLNL

DEMI

MATSI

SRI

Electric Fuel

Laboratory-to-EV

Prototypes

Zn/Br: Powercell SEA

Preproduction
CbristiansoD and Henriksen: Results. 129

APPENDIX D: RESULTS OF ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM SESSION

Ultracapacitors

• Promising Technology for HEVs

• Key Barriers

- Cost

- Energy Density

• Higher Funding Level Desirable

Flywheels

• Promising Technology for HEVs -

• Key Barriers , ^ , . . •

- Bearings

- Vehicle Environment '

'

• Higher Funding Level Desirable—Included in DOE HEV Program

Batteries

• EV Batteries Funded by USABC

- Ni/MH

- Na/S

- Li/MS

- Li-Polymer

• Zinc/Air

- High Energy Density

- Low Cost '

- Key Barriers

Power Density

Life

- Funding Support by Several Organizations Including DOE

• Lead-Acid and Nickel/Cadmium

- Commercially Available

- Product Improvements Underway

Test Procedures

• EV Systems-USABC/DOE Procedures Available

• HEV Systems-Procedures Needed

Pilot Production

• Process Development Support Needed
130 Energy Storage Systems

APPENDIX E: ANALYSIS OF ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS

Table 10. System energy versus power

Energy density

(Wh/kg)

Acceleration power density (W/kg)

<300 300-1000 >1000

<75 Pb-Acid

Ni/Cd

Ni/Fe

Ni/Hz

Conventional Flywheels

Bipolar Pb-acid

Ultracapacitors

75-150 Ni/MH

Na-Beta

Zn/air

Zn/Br2

Advanced Flywheels

Bipolar Li/MS

>150 Li-Polymer

Li-ion Na-polymer

Bipolar Li/MS

Table 11. Projected commercieJ availability of energy storage systems

Energy storage

system

Projected commercial availability

Now Before 2000 After 2000

Batteries Pb-Acid

• Prismatic

• Woven-grid

Ni/Cd

• Prismatic

• Common Vessel Ni/Fe

Ni/H2

Na-Beta

Ni/MH

Pb-Acid (bipolar)

Zn/Air

Zn/Br2

Li/MS

Li-Polymer

Li- Ion Na-Polymer

Flywheels l" Generation Advanced

Ultracapacitors l" Generation Adv£inced
THE DOE ULTRACAPACITOR PROGRAM

r E. Dowgiallo

US Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

ABSTRACT

Programs sponsored by the US Depcirtment of Energy for development of ultracapacitors are reviewed.

The specific appUcation of ultracapacitors to electric vehicles is discussed.

ULTRACAPACITOR DEVELOPMENT

Table 1 . Near-term and Eidvanced gozds for the DOE ultracapacitor development

programs

Battery without Capacitor Near-term Advanced

Weight (kg) 500-600 200-300

Power density (W/kg)

Average 10 20 GradeabiUty 30-50 110-160

Peak (acceleration) 80 375-550

Ultracapacitor Unit

Energy stored (W-h) 500 750

Maximum power (kW) 50 80

Weight (kg) <100 <50

Volume (1) <40 <20

Energy density (W h/kg) >5 >15

Maximum usable power density (W/kg) >500 >1600

Round trip efficiency (%) >90 >90

Vehicle Acceleration

0 to 88 km/h (s) <20 <8

131
132 Energy Storage Systems

4.0

3.0

^

2.0

1

COc

(U Q

k-V

o

Q.

CO

(D Q.

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.1

Acceleration

Acceleration time, sec: 0-96 km / h

Pulse Unit Energy Storage: 500 Wh

J—

L

2 3 5 8 10 20

Energy Density (Wh / kg) Primary

Figure 1. Peak power density requirement for a pulse-power unit in a compact ceir.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

Uitracapacitor Program

Technologies

• Carbon/metal fiber composites — MaxweU/Aubum

• Monolith foamed ccirbon — Livermore National Laboratory

• Foamed carbon with a binder — Ssindia NationeJ Laboratory

• Doped polymer layers on carbon paper — Los Alamos National Laboratory

• Mixed metal oxides (ceramic) on meted foil — Pinnacle Reseeirch Institute

Figure 2.
DowgiaJIo; The DOE Ultracapacitor Program 133

&0

cs

a

5

S 2

Si u

S o

u cs

01 O

a 00

3

o

<u3

O"

csiT -V

•so

I c T3

O)X 7 3

-a ^

3

O

V3

IT

ISC

o

u =av

.2 u a >

S 1-1

o ^

oTT o

- V

E ^

=5- ^ O o

E U

.S o

a. ^

<u o

in ^O >

^

-3

bX5

d a

c

_0Z

SOU! ory a< u

0

Si 0 a

> Si

to «J

c

u

e5 O

u

(9 3o

o.c

o

VE

>»oa

S >. •i ^
134 Energy Storage Systems

-0

«

<u>Q §

«^

I o

c

E

Xi o

(3 o OJ O

a 00

<u E

CO 00

•a «

O tn -6

0) >

S o

E 2

<U =3 - >

"2 ^

3

O

<L> 3

(Sc

oX

a =a o u

u

•3 >

? o

O

3

o

V3

(T

(SC I.

t< O S >

? O tsi m

o O ^ H >

E "J

I- s

q o o gov c —

as

«3

CM

I o

01a

a

E

<uata u

dj

(S o

o

13

a

>Q

C tS

(13 C

2

a

SOUI ory a < u

0

X! o a

1-J

El CIS

h4 »:)

c

j:y

e5 oa

E

oO

VO

u

c

oX

tj -a

T) .S

I -c

t2

I

i

E

>.oa

E V

•3 ^ 1 «
DowgiaUo: The DOE Ultracapacitor Program 135

Panasonic 3 V, 1500

• Technology

• Size

• Weight

• Energy stored (charging 100 A, 0 to 3 V)

• Energy Discharged

(100 A, 3 V to 1 V)

• Resisteince

• Maximum power'

(3 V—)- 1.5 V)

*to a matched load

F Capacitors

Single cell, spiral wound, carbonbased, organic electrolyte

Diameter 7.7 cm

Length 14.9 cm

Volume 693 cm^

887 gm

2.667 W h

(3.0 W-h/kg; 3.85 W-h/1)

1.89 W-h

(2.13 W-h/kg; 2.73 W-h/1)

1.2 milliohms

2.1 kW/kg

Figure 3.
136 Energy Storage Systems

2 \irr\ carbon

fibers (47%)

2-4 \im stainless

steel fibers (41%)

2 pm cellulose

I fibers (41%)

Intinnately mixed metal-carbon composite

matrices from paper precursors

Sintering > 1000 °C

Stainless steel - carbon

composite electrode

Figure 4. Carbon/metal fiber electrode structure.
DowgiaJlo: The DOE Ultrctcapacitor Program 137

Months

OXX Program Planning and Control 02X Data Management

020 Progress Reports

021 Financial Reports 1XX Base Period

10 Task 1 Preliminary Investigation

11 Task 2 Scale-Up to Intermediate Device (0.5 Wh)

2XX Phase 1

20 Task 3 Manufacturing Study

21 Task 4 Packaging Modules

(100 V. 4 Wh)

3XX Phase 2

30 Task 5 Full-SIze Pulse Power Unit (550 Wh)

< Baseperiod

! < Phase 1 H<—Phase2

2 4 6 f 101214 16 18 202224 26 2830 32 34 36 3840

I ' I I I I I I I I I I 8/92 10/93 10/94 10/95

.A AAA

AAAA

Figure 5. Milestone chart for the development of ultracapacitor technology electric vehicle applications.

Maxwell/Auburn 1 V, 75 F Capacitor

(as of August 1993)

• Technology

• Size

Single cell, 20 cm^ disk, composite

cEirbon-metal fibers, aqueous (KOH)

electrolyte

Diameter 5 cm. Thickness 0.187 cm. Volume 3.77 cm^

• Weight

• Energy Stored/Discharged

(1 A, 0 3 V)

• Resisteince

• Maximum Power*

(1 V to .5 V)

6 gm

39 W/s

(1.8 W-h/kg, 2.9 W-h/1)

10 milliohms

4.2 kW/kg

* to a matched load

Figure 6.
138 Energy Storage Systems

Maxwell/Auburn 3 V, 27 F Capacitor

(as of August 1993)

• Technology

• Size

Single cell, 20 cm^ disk, composite carbon-meted fibers, organic

electrolyte

Diameter 5 cm, Thickness 0.15 cm, Volume 3 cm^

• Weight

• Energy Stored/ Discharged

(1 A, 0 3 V)

• Resistance

• Maximum Power*

(3 V to 1.5 V)

• to a matched load

4.5 gm

121 W/s

(7.5 W h/kg, 11.2 W h/1)

0.15 ohm

3.3 kW/kg

Figure 7.

Conclusions

• Power capacitors are aveiilable commercially from Panasonic for labo- ratory tests.

• Good progress is being made in the U.S. DOE Program to develop

capacitors with energy density of 5 to 10 W h/kg.

• Ultracapacitors are Ukely to be key components in the drive lines of high-performeince hybrid-electric vehicles.

Figure 8.
Dowgiallo: The DOE Ultracapacitor Program 139

NANOSTRUCTURE MULTILAYER CAPACITORS

Proposed nanostructure multilayer capacitor (NMC) development plans target short term proof-ofprincipal with research activities through May.

Objectives

Development of NMC fabrication processes Research of dielectrics

Characterization of metzJ metjJ-oxide systems

Design of high performeince NMCs

Fabrication and test of proof-of-principed NMCs

Scale-up to large area NMCs

Develop high volume deposition for production

Technology transfer to industry

Figure 9.

1 Deliverables

At first Milestone...

I - Single film neinostructure capacitors

- Report on process development, dielectric conductor materials,

capacitor performance, projected performance of NMCs

^' At second Milestone...

- Small scale (50-60 cm^) NMCs

- Report on NMC fabrication and cheiracterization, projected perj formance of large scale NMCs

Figure 10.

I
140 Energy Storage Systems

Milestones (With 1st funding available November 1) February 15, 1994

Dielectric-conductor materials chziracterized Deposition process proven Caps with target performance fabricated and cheiracterized June 1, 1994

Proof-of-principal NMCs fabricated and tested NMC meisking and fabrication process developed

NMC specified and designed for EV application

Develop follow-on NMC development plan

Figure 11.

What's possible with nanostructure multilayers?

Stoichiometric amorphous neinostructure (down to 2 microns)

Multilayers

• Conductors

• Materials with high permittivity/dielectric constant

• Materials with high dielectric brezikdown voltage

• MaterieJs with complementary dielectric therm2d coefficient

• Materials with low loss tzingents

Structures as thin as atomic monolayers (~10 A) built up to devices up to devices 300 cm^ x 2 mm

Figure 12.

Why are sub-micron multilayers of interest?

They represent a new state of matter not previously available. They are engineered materials fabricated to the desired application

and performance.

They enable new technology approaches to importsint problems.

Figure 13.
DowgiaJIo: The DOE Ultracapacitor Program 141

Strengths

Rugged solid-state construction.

Ability to engineer dielectric performance.

Projected very high energy and power density.

Flat profile attractive for:

• Embedded load leveling capacitors for electric and hybrid vehicles

• Power transmission bus to drive motors

• Distributed power management capacitance

Can be integrated with IGBTs and power electronics. Can be an integral part of battery packaging.

Figure 14.

Why do we care about capacitors?

Components aire crucial to the electronics industry

• Capacitors Eire a $6 B worldwide market

• U.S. share is only 8 percent

• They are a high-volume commodity item

New capability can enable new worldwide markets

• Power electronics; short term energy storage

• Crucied to electric and hybrid vehicle power management applications

• Important in computers and consumer electronics

Figure 15.

Weaknesses

Solid-state construction of NMCs has a weight penalty. Can't take full advantage of high-voltage capability and very high

energy density in electric and hybrid vehicle applications.

W = ^CV^ (1) New program; new untried technology for capacitors.

Rese£irch needs to be done on dielectrics and deposition process. New, high volume deposition process needs development to drive pro- duction costs down.

Figure 16.
142 Energy Storage Systems

0.1 1 10 100 1000

Specific Energy, Whr / kg

Areocapacitor: meaisured performance as of 5-12-93 (S. Mayer. LLNL).

Nanostmcture multilayer capacitor (NMC): predicted performance for var- ious dielectrics ( G. Johnson, LLNL).

Film capacitors: typical performance of high-energy discharge capacitors.

Lithium battery: measurements and specifications from Sony Corp.

Lead-acid battery: from DOE Electric and Hybrid Vehicles Program, Report DOE/CD-0357, 5-92.

Human: professional bicyclist, 68 kg, 150 miles in 5 hours (0.9 HP average)

2 HP peak.

Figure 17. NMCs with various dielectrics are projected to have very high specific-power and competitive

specific energy.
Dowgiallo: The DOE Ultracapacitor Program 143

High volume NMC production for EVs becomes cost-effective

as alternative deposition techniques are developed.

For an annual production target of 10,000 ea. 500 W-h capacitor banks... 190 NMC deposition reactors (as used in research) can meet annual production @ $2,000/unit.

6 High deposition rate machines can produce the 10,000 capacitor banks annueilly @ $l,300/unit.

Capacitor Bank Specifications

Energy

Weight

Volume

Number of individual NMCs

500 W-h, 1.8 MJ

19.5 Kg

3540 cc, flat profile or bulk

59/500 W h bank

NMC Specifications

Capacitance

Voltage

Dimensions

0.38 F

400 V

200x300x1 mm

NMC production

Deposition rate NMC daily production

NMC einnual production

Research deposition rates lO.OE - 06 mm/s

12.4/day

3,100 NMCs/year

High volume deposition

5.8E - 03 mm/s

425/day

106,000 NMCs/year

NMC production costs Labor costs Expendables and materials

Capitalization

Cost summeiry

500 W h capacitor bank cost (with 2 year capital investment pay back)

500 W h capacitor bank cost

(eifter amortization, COGs aind labor only)

$17/NMC

S17/NMC

$1,700 K/chamber

S17,200/EV

$2,010/EV

$5/NMC

$17/NMC

$2,000 K /chamber

$1,850/EV

$1,300/EV

Figure 18.
WESTINGHOUSE ZINC-AIR BATTERY DEVELOPMENT FOR ELECTRIC

VEHICLE APPLICATIONS

H. E. Saunders

Westinghouse Electric Corporation

Science &; Technology Center

Pittsburgh, PA 15235

ABSTRACT

Development of a zinc-air battery for application to electric vehicles, which was performed under

contract to the US Department of Energy (DOE), is described.

OBJECTIVE

TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ZINC-AIR TECHNOLOGY

WARRANTS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT

FOR USE IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Figure 1.

144
Saunders: Westinghouse Zinc-Air Battery Development. 145

ADVANTAGES OF ZINC-AIR

ZINC-AIR TECHNOLOGY HAS POTENTIAL FOR:

• Very High Specific Energy

• Very Low Cost

• Ambient Temperature Operation

• Safe and Environmentally Benign Use

• ElectriczJ Recheirgeability

Figure 2.

SUMMARY

1. Significant Progress Was Made In Meeting USABC Goals:

• Converted To Non-Circulating System

• Improved Practiceil Energy Density By More Than 200%

• Improved Power Capability By 25-40%

2. Progress Indicates That Zinc-Air Warrants Further Development For EV Use

3. Hybrid Systems Will Be Needed To Meet Power Goals

4. Ceirbon Corrosion Issues Must Be Resolved To Achieve MaintenzinceFree Operation

Figure 3.
QUASI BIPOLAR LEAD-ACID BATTERY

(WOVEN LEAD COMPOSITE GRID)

J. Lushetsky

BDM Technologies, Inc. McLean, VA 22102

ABSTRACT

Performeince characteristics of a quasi bipolzir lead-acid battery that incorporates a woven lead composite grid Eire presented.

Table 1. Quasi bipolar lead-acid battery characteristics

Specific Energy (C/3 and 90° F) >50 W h/kg

Peak Power (from J227aD/IETV-l)

0% DOD

80% DOD

500 W/kg

300 W/kg

Cycle Life (C/2 to 80% DOD)

900 Cycles to 64% of Original

Capacity

Fast Recharge Time

(from 80% DOD)

50% in 8 Minutes

99% in 30 Minutes

Cost

(in Volume Production)

200 $/kW h

~0.03 $/kilometer'

'Based on California Air Resources Board baseline, i.e., 1000 lb vehicle battery, 0.24 kW h/mile, and does not include additioneJ cost of

electricity.

146
COMMON VESSEL BATTERY TECHNOLOGY

A. Nilsson

ACME Electric Tempe, AZ 85282

ABSTRACT

The common vessel monoblock (CVM) battery, which has potential for application in future electric vehicles, is described and compzired with conventionzJ vented and sealed batteries.

The Large Battery Challenge

• The operation of a high-capacity, high-voltage battery is not just a

lineeu- scale up of a smaller-capjicity, lower-voltage battery.

• The EV environment is peirticuleirly demanding due to space and

weight limitations coupled with heavy duty cycle operation aind se- vere cost restrictions.

• Temperature variations inside large cells and across a string of cells in a large multi-cell battery will diminish chsirging capability and the

life of the battery.

• Robustness to abuse and to single-cell failure is a must.

Figure 1.

147
148 Energy Storage Systems

Current Battery Design Options

• Standard Vented Cells: — High meiintenzuice — High weight + Robust

+ Low cost

• High-Pressure Seeded Cells: — Seifety issues — Cost issues — Charge control issues — Not robust to abuse — Size limitation

+ No medntenance

• Low-Pressiu-e Sealed Cells (SezJed FNC): — Matching issues -f No maintenance — ThermeJ bedance — Size limitation — Cost implications — Limited robustness to abuse

• Low-MeiintenEince Vented Cells (ULM): — Plate imbidance problems — Can maintenance be predicted

and reduced — Cost and safety implications of maintenance

+ More robust than seeded, less than vented

Figure 2.
Nilsson: CommoD Vessei Battery Technology 149

New Solution—The Common Vessel Monoblock (CVM)

Common Vessel Sealed Ni-Cd Battery of Individually Flooded Cells CVM

Features:

• Flooded cells strung in series, placed and sealed together in a common

multi-cavity vessel with a special gas recombination overcharge buffer

ceU.

• The gas recombination cell is made out of Cadmium Hydrogen chemistry.

• In stoichiometric overcharge, the recombination cell wlU recombine

oxygen and hydrogen back to water.

• The gas recombination ceU can consmne oxygen, and consume or

evolve hydrogen to keep the common vessel at nominal pressure.

• The system maintains water balance through evaporation.

• The system meiintains plate balance over time.

• Fully maintenance-free.

Figure 3.

Key to the New Design

• A Cd-hydrogen cell that is inside a sealed battery container and shares the gas space with "vented" Ni-Cd cells. The Cd-hydrogen cell thus

serves as an electrochemical pressure regulator.

• The regulator also serves as a gas analyzer and the battery's heat

dissipater.

• The regulator can consume oxygen only, hydrogen only, or both. This

allows for fair overcharge over a wide temperature range without venting, building pressure, or temperature rise in the "working" battery

cells.

• The battery is robiist against defective cells, and abuse on charge or discharge.

• The principle is also applicable to Ni-Zn, Ni-MHx, and Pb-acid batteries.

Figure 4.
150 Energy Storage Systems

CVM Advantages:

• An attempt to address the high-voltage, high-capacity, heavy-duty

cycle battery at the battery (rather than the cell) level.

• Combines the robustness and lower cost of a vented cell with the

advzintage of a tot£illy seeded and mMntenance-free battery.

• Multi-cavity plastic packaging offers signiRceint cost and weight sav- ings compared with individual meted packaged cells.

• Uses measured overcharge data (pressure, temperature, and voltage)

at the battery level and low-cost electronics to optimize the cheirge

profile without venting and without causing plate imbalance.

Figure 5.

Figure 6. Conceptued design of a 20-cell monoblock battery.

Operation

• In discheirge, the battery operates as a regvdeir vented battery.

• In chcirge, the battery operates cis a reguleir vented battery until the

on-set of gas evolution.

• In overcharge , gas generated at the working ceUs will be consumed at the regulator.

Figure 7.
NHssod: Common Vessel Battery Technology

Reactions at Regulator:

H2 + —>^ H2O open circuit (1)

consume oxygen

Cd + HzO Cd(OH)2 + H2 (2)

consume hydrogen

Figure 8.
Energy Storage Systems

Table 1. Comparison of performance characteristics of the common vessel monoblock battery with conventional seeded and vented batteries

Specific energy, W-h/kg at C/2

Practical depth

of discharge

Cycle life

Maintenance

Reverse capability

Estimated cost, in volume, $/kW h

Vented

Cell Battery

60

100%

>2000

45

80%

>1500

yes

good

$300

Seeded

55

100%

>2000

45

70%

>1500'

limited

$400

CVM

Cell Battery Battery

60

90%

>2000

none

good

$300

'with thermed control

Table 2. Compeirison of commercial, meiniifacturing, and design features in the common vessel monoblock battery and conventional vented and seeded

batteries Vented Sealed CVM

Cell Battery Cell Battery Battery

Eeise of Meinufacturing good feur good

Plate imbedeince yes no no

Abuse resistance good feur good

State-of-charge

Indicator no no yes

Safety good good good
NUssod: Common Vessel Battery Technology 153

Summary

• New concept that will combine the best aspects of vented and seeded Ni-Cd.

• Low risk, eJI known components, known chemistry, established reliability.

• Experimented data confirms validity of concept.

• Relatively rapid development cycle, ah components in production.

• Incorporate fiber electrodes for low weight, low cost, and long life.

• Potentiad for applications with other battery chemistries.

Figure 9.
FLYWHEEL TECHNOLOGY

R. Post Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Livermore, CA 94550

The electromechanical battery (EMB) has the potential to outperform electrochemical batteries in every important

attribute.

• High specific power: 5-10 kW/kg (lOxV-8 engines)

• High energy recovery efficiency: 0.90-0.95 (Lezid-acid: 0.6-0.7)

• High specific energy: 100-150 W h/kg (Lead-acid: 30-35)

• Long service life under deep dischsirge: more than 10 years

• Long self-discharge time: weeks to months

• No use of hazEU'dous chemiceds or high temperatures

Figure 1.

The physics and engineering disciplines involved in the design of an electromechanical battery are in each case well understood.

They include:

• Electromagnetic theory

• Strength of materisds (in a non-reactive environment)

• Stress emedysis

• Stability of dynamical systems

• Vacuum technology

Figure 2.

154
Post: Flywheel TecbDology

5000

i

4000

5

? 3000

"cw 2000

a>Q.8 1000

0

1 10 100 1000 10.000 Number of Units Produced

Figure 3. Electromechanical battery unit cost projections. The projected cost per kilo- watt of high-power electromechanical batteries is comparable to the cost per kilowatt of the power electronics.

I I I 1 1 ml I II

We have made substantial progress toward the goals

of our presently funded electromechanical battery

prototype development project.

• Theoreticed anailysis of the stability of the beeiring/suspension system

• Finite-element and theoretical analyses of rotor stress distributions

• Vacuum tests of sealed chamber conteiining simulated rotor

• Tests of Halbach array generator

• Sub-system tests of mechanical "backup" bearings

• Sub-system testing of support and damping elements of Lawrence Liv- ermore National Laboratory passive magnetic bearing designs

• Design and construction od solid-state drive electronics

• Design, construction, and initijJ testing of first prototype electromechanical battery

Figure 4.
PROMISING FUTURE ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS: NANO-MATERIAL

BASED SYSTEMS, ZN-AIR, AND ELECTROMECHANICAL BATTERIES

R. Koopman and J. Richardson

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Livermore, CA 94550

ABSTRACT

Future energy storage systems will require longer shelf life, higher duty cycles, higher efficiency,

higher energy and power densities, cind will be fabricated in an environmentally conscious process. This paper describes several possible systems that have the potential of providing stored energy

for future electric and hybrid vehicles. Three of the systems have their origin in the control of material structure at the molecular level and the subsequent neino-engineering into useful devices and components: aerocapacitors, neino-stnicture multilayer capacitors, sind the lithium ion battery.

The zinc-mr battery is a high energy density battery that can provide vehicles with long remge

(400 km in autos) cind cein be rapidly refueled with a slurry of zinc peirticles and electrolyte. The

electromechemical battery is a battery-sized module containing a high-speed rotor integrated with an

iron-less generator, which is mounted on magnetic bearings and housed in an evacuated chamber.

INTRODUCTION

Future emission regulations are driving the auto- motive industry towards the consideration of electric and hybrid vehicles. In order to achieve per- formance comparable with gasoline fueled inter- nal combustion engines, significant improvements

in current energy storage technology are required.

Specifically, higher energy-densities (energy per

unit volume) and specific-energies (energy per unit

mass) will be required. Similar improvements in power density and specific power will also be re- quired. Improvements in durability, shelf life, life- time, and reliability will also be required in order

to compete successfully with gasoline as a means

of energy storage. Materials and manufacturing

processes must be environmentally friendly, with an ability to be recycled high on the list of desired

attributes. Most important of all may be the overall economic viability of any proposed new energy

storage system.

Advanced materials and manufacturing technology offers several potentially promising new routes

to energy storage systems with high energy- and

power-densities. Several systems that are being

developed and evaluated at Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory are based on understanding

and controlling the nano-structure of materials.

These systems are the aerocapacitor, the nanostructure multilayer capacitor, and the lithium ion

battery. Another system, the zinc-air battery,

takes advantage of past work in metal battery sys- tems using air electrodes and novel self-feeding cell design for the zinc particulate fuel. Finally, the

electromechanical battery offers a new look at an

old technology taking advantage of new develop>-

ments in high-strength fiber composites, magnetic

bearings, solid-state power electronics, and permanent magnet materials.

DISCUSSION

Aerocapacitor.

The storage of electrical energy based on the separation of charged species in an electrolytic doublelayer is inherently simpler and more reversible

than in secondary batteries. While obviously not

batteries, capacitors offer the promise of an effi- cient, convenient way to store energy for peak de- mands (e.g., catalyst preheat, acceleration, start- ing motors, load leveling) and waste heat recov- ery (e.g., regenerative braking). In most cases the

cycle life of electrochemical double-layer capaci-
Koopmaji and RicbitrdsoD: Promising Future Energy Storage Systems.. 157

tors is limited by the device packaging and not by

degradation of the device components. Though all electrode-to-electrolyte interfaces exhibit doublelayer capacitance, only devices that do not exhibit

faradaic reactions over the potential range of oper- ation (i.e., are ideally polarizable) are considered

electrochemical double-layer capacitors. The ae- rocapacitor (Fig. 1) exhibits high double layer ca- pacitance without resorting to faradaic reactions

by taking advantage of the unique properties of

carbon aerogels [1].

UNHi|i|. 1

Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the enhancement

in charge storage capability of an electrochemiczd

double layer capeicitor using high-surfsice-area, open

porosity material.

Carbon has the initial cidvantage of being elec- trochemically inert. Aerogels are a class of lowdensity solid foams that are characterized by having open cell structures composed of particles usually less than 50 nm in diameter. Aerogels are usually mcide from silica precursors, and are noted

for their outstanding thermal insulation properties [2]. Aerogels have not been widely used be- cause of the difficulty in producing them (a critical extreiction step is required that usually employs

high temperature and pressure) as well as the initial high cost of precursor materials.

Recently, organic aerogels have been synthesized by condensing aqueous solutions of resor- cinol with formaldehyde in the presence of base

catalyst [3, 4]. The microstructure is regulated

by the catalyst concentration. These materials

routinely have specific surface areas approax;hing

1000 m^/g. For organic aerogels with a high car- bon content, such as resorcinol-formaldehyde, pyrolysis in an inert atmosphere results in the formation of essentially pure carbon aerogels. Besides

having improved mechanical properties, these materials become conductive and suitable for application in energy storage devices. The capacitance

density (F/cm^) of devices made using these conductive, high-surface-area materials can be as high

as 25 F/cm^ without further surface activation.

Figure 2 illustrates the dependence of capacitance on density.

30 1 1 1 1 1

+

•A R/C Ratio

1 1

+

1

1

50 + 200 • 300

A 400

O500

700

A900

1 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

Density (mg / cc)

Figure 2. Capacitance density (F/cm') for various

ceirbon zierogel catedyst ratios (R/C).

At the higher densities desired to maximize the

capacitance, the carbon aerogel material is suffi- ciently robust to withstand air drying, thus elimi- nating the critical extraction processing step. Al- ternate monomer precursors have been demonstrated to also result in suitable carbon aerogel

formation; many of these monomers are considerably less expensive than resorcinol, and in some

cases the co-monomer, formaldehyde, can be eliminated as well. The capacitance of the aerogel electrode is complicated by the distributed nature of the porous

surface. The equivalent circuit diagram has been

analyzed to include the effects of the separator

length, the electrolyte conductivity in the separator, the matrix conductivity, and the external

resistance. Figure 3 illustrates the observed cur- rent discharge compared with the porous electrode

distributed model and a simple resistive model.

Energy densities of approximately 25 J/cm^

have been measured for low-voltage aerocapacitor

devices with aqueous electrolyte; the corresponding power-density is about 10 kW/kg carbon. The
158 Energy Storage Systems

Time (s)

Figure 3. Observed ciisch£irge performance versus porous electrode distributed model (PE) and simple

resistive model (RC) for test device illustrated in Fig. 5 and for 600 mg/cm' carbon aerogel, R/C = 200, from

0.1 to 0.0 V.

use of organic electrolytes, with higher breakdown

voltages (i.e., 3-4 V versus about 1 V for water), results in higher energy-densities albeit lower

power densities. All of these values exceed Department of Energy projected goals for EDLC in

electric vehicles. These devices have been repeatedly charged and discharged, with over 85 percent

retention of initial energy storage capability after 100,000 cycles. Current work is directed towards

fabricating components and devices of increasing

voltage specification; current devices have been

limited to approximately 5 V. Reduction in inter- nal resistance and improved manufacturability are being pursued through the incorporation of carbon

paper and various methods of incorporating metal

fibers into the electrode material.

Nano-Structure Multilayer Capacitors.

Multilayer nano-technology [5, 6] offers the possibility of fabricating new material structures with

customized properties by controlling the struc- ture [7-9] and hence properties at the near-atomic

level. Since nano-engineered multilayers are characterized at the atomic scale they have large

interfacial-area-to-volume ratios. Although the

most visible of such materials are semiconductor

superlattices synthesized using molecular beam

epitaxy techniques, multilayers may be synthesized using elements from all parts of the Peri- odic Table using molecular beam epitaxy, evaporation, sputtering, and electrochemical atom-byatom technologies. Multilayer structures have

been synthesized by PVD—in elemental form, as

alloys, or as compounds—from at least 75 of the

92 naturally occurring elements. The microstructural scale of multilayer materials is typically de- termined during synthesis by controlling the thick- ness of the individual layers. These layers are one monolayer (0.2 nm) to hundreds of monolayers

(greater than 500 nm) thick and generally define

the in-depth grain size. These synthesis processes

typically produce highly textured layers with the

close-packed lattice plane of the material in the

plane of the multilayer, although these grains are randomly oriented in plane.

Until recently, the macroscopic thickness of nano-structure multilayer materials has been generally limited to less than a few microns. Recently, processes for deposition of thick macroscopic nano-structure layers have been developed

at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [10] and used to fabricate free-standing high-quality

structures up to 500 microns thick containing up

to 50,000 individual layers. The existing research

synthesis system produces material having periods uniform to 2 percent of the individual layer

thickness and areas of 400 cm'^. These macroscopic nano-structure multilayer materials enable

use of standard diagnostic techniques for property

characterization and open a path to develop devices with performance that approaches theoretical limits, be it with respect to mechanical properties, magnetic properties, or thermoelectric properties [11]. One application of this technology is the fabrication of capacitors with expected exceptional performance.

A parallel plate capacitor can be fabricated by

depositing alternating thin layers of metal and di- electric (Fig. 4). High energy-densities (greater

than 5 J/cm^) should be possible with high oper- ating voltages (in the kV range).

There are several potential advantages to this design. First, a wide range of materials with cor- responding different properties can be used. Initial designs are based on a simple dielectric [12], amorphous silica (Si02), with a dielectric con-
Koopman and Richardson: Promising Future Energy Storage Systems.. 159

1 .2 ym

"-Copper

Figure 4. Cross section for a typical multilayer capacitor for a 600 V application.

stant of 3 and a maximum standoff field of about

6 X 10^ V/cm. Standoff fields of these materials

in thin film form are not currently well known but

are expected to be substantially larger than those

observed for commercial bulk materials formed us- ing powder compaction and sintering (less than

105 V/cm). In applications where high capaci- tance (as opposed to high voltage) is required a

high dielectric constant material, BaTiOa for in- stance, would be used. Furthermore, unlike rolled

foil with paper or polymer dielectrics, multilayer

capaicitors are solid-state devices with excellent thermal and mechanical properties due to the low

number of defects present. Figure 5 shows the vol- umetric capacitance and breakdown voltage versus

thickness for multilayer capacitors based on amorphous silica (Si02).

0.1 0.5 1.0 1.5 Dielectric Thickness, |jm

Figure 5. Volumetric capacitance and voltage break- down curves for silica based multilayer capacitors.

A proposed Si02 dielectric 100 /zF, 600 V device would be 9.0 X 5.5 X 0.13 cm, and could store 18 J (3 J/cm^) if charged to its breakdown volt- age. Initial laboratory results using Zr/Zr02/Zr

capa4:itor structures deposited on silicon wafers

have demonstrated the technical feasibility of multilayer capacitors, with measured breakdown volt- ages of 3 MV/cm for approximately 1.2 microns of

dielectric yielding an energy density of 10 J/cm"^.

Lithium ion batteries.

The lithium ion battery is a rocking chair battery,

with lithium ions moving from the metal oxide

cathode of the battery through the separator and

intercalating into the carbon anode [13, 14]. Thus,

the intercalating electrodes store the lithium, but

are unchanged in so doing. This process is substantially safer than that used in conventional

lithium batteries, where lithium metal is electro- plated during charging. A substantial fraction of the electroplated lithium metal is typically nonuniform, particulate, or dendritic. With cycling,

this leads to a rapidly fading capacity and conse- quently shorter life. There is also the possibility of dendrites forming, which can puncture the sep- arator and lead to a run-away battery short and

explosion.

Lithium-ion-battery specific-energy and energydensity compare very favorably with other batteries, with projected values on the order of 120 W-h/kg in comparison to about 30 W-h/kg for NiCd. Sony, which achieves about 60-70 W-h/kg,

claims its batteries can provide 1200 cycles at 100 percent depth-of-discharge or 50 percent more

cycles than NiCd (and at 4000 cycles, projections

indicate over 40,000 cycles at 30 percent depth-ofdischarge). Superior power-density is also avail- able in lithium ion densities, potentially on the

order of 250 W/kg at high energy densities, with

high voltage (3.0-4.1 V).

Lithium ion batteries hold significant potential

for electric vehicle applications; Honda has benchmarked the lithium ion battery for its electric vehicle development. However, to realize this potential additional improvements in performance

have to be cLchieved. For example, Sony's car- bon anode achieves approximately 50-60 percent

intercalation of lithium. We have developed car- bon foams that closely match the ideal spacing in LiCe of 3.70 A coupled with continuous structure and hence lower resistance than carbon particle

composites. Up to 95 percent intercalation has

been achieved, resulting in higher energy-densities,

through doping of the carbon foams. Formatting
160 Energy Storage Systems

reactions are being reduced to lower the amount

of lithium lost into the lattice during the initial cycles. Finally, work is progressing on optimizing

the lithium metal oxide cathode to improve conductivity and lithium availability in a manufacturable process. Figure 6 illustrates the projected

improvement in specific-energy as a function of improved cathode utilization for various levels of car- bon utilization.

150

125

2^100-

CDC

LUO

75 -

^ 50-

o

(DQ. W 25-

LLNL

technology

"^Sony 20500

cells

Carbon Utilization 50%

• 75%

A 100%

0.4 0.5

Fractional Metal Oxide Utilization

Figure 6. Effects of carbon and lithium cobalt dioxide

utilization on energy density.

Zinc-air batteries

Background. We are developing a refuelable battery that provides electric vehicles with the

essential functions of automobiles: long range

(400 km); safe acceleration; and rapid (10 minute)

refueling [15]. The battery consumes onemillimeter-size zinc particles to produce electricity and a liquid reaction product. Refueling consists of a hydraulic transfer of the reaction product and a return flow of zinc slurry to a hopper

portion of eeich cell. The zinc fuel particles are recycled from the product liquid by an external

electro-mechanical process. Refueling is particularly attreLctive for extending the range and mission of fleet vehicles such as transit busses, vans, and taxis or enclosure industrial vehicles such as fork lift trucks, by making use of a fleet's existing

home base for both refueling and fuel recycling.

The same fuel recovery process can in principle

be miniaturized and placed on-board an electric

car. This would allow overnight electrical recharge

while retaining the option for range extension at a

service station. This dual mode refueling aids market introduction in advance of an extensive service

network. On-board recovery is more difficult and

is beyond the scope of our current project.

This fuel battery is limited by power (100 W/kg

peak) and not by energy (greater

than 1.50 W-h/kg), but can provide an electric car with performances nearly equivalent to diesel and

modest four-cylinder internal combustion engine

autos. Attractive acceleration and improved battery life and economy require hybridization with a power device such as a flywheel, high-rate batteries or supercapacitors, which may also be used to recover braking energy.

Technical Status and Plans. We have tested a novel battery configuration (600-cm^ cells) that consumes 100 percent of zinc fuel particles gravityfed from an overlying hopper. The cell supports an expanded quasi-stationary bed of negligible hydraulic resistance and constant properties. Air

and electrolyte pumps consume less than 0.5 per- cent of the gross output. Peak-power exceeds 5 kW/m'^ at 50 percent discharge; nominal output

power is 2 kW/m^ at 1.25 V. The novel cell configuration has been engineered into 1000-cm^ cell stacks with internal ("bipolar") series connection

for tests in FY1994.

Hydraulic transfer to hoppers using dripless

hose connectors eliminates human contcict and potential liabilities, and avoids damage to cell membranes by rapidly moving slurry.

The nearest term application of this technology

is fleet vehicles. Busses and vans powered by lead- acid batteries have missions of only approximately

4 hours without battery exchange. Zn-air batteries can more than double this at about one-third the

weight of lead-acid batteries. The zinc-fuel battery

will cost about $50/kW for large scale vehicles,

and allows continuous operation with periodic re- fueling. Retrofitting the APS/MTD Villager Bus

with a fuel battery and flywheel is expected to decrease gross weight by 15 percent (battery weight

is reduced nearly threefold), double the range per

refueling, and allow 24 hour per day operation

where needed. Modeling of a parallel hybrid using

zinc-air and advanced high-power secondary bat-
Koopman and Ricbaxdson: Promising Future Energy Storage Systems.. 161

Table 1. Estimates of range extension and weight re- duction for an urbcin bus of fixed time-average power

of 12 kW (Based on APS Villager Bus, Oxnard, CA) Battery system lead-acid Zn-air, flywheel

Curb weight

(tonne)

10.9 9.3

Battery weight

(kg)

2500 820 (Zn/air) 100 (flywheel)

Delivered energy (kW- h)

64 125

Peak power

(kW)

98 125

Mission duration on charge (h)5.5 11 (extendible)

teries (for regenerative braking and power peaking) indicates a propulsion cost of approximately

1 kW-h-AC/km and an overall electrical efficiency

of 45-50 percent for an 8.2 tonne bus on the SAEJ227a(B) cycle.

Air electrodes using organo-cobalt catalysts and

similar to those used in our cells have tested over 12,000 hours in alkaline electrolytes under fixed

discharge conditions and temperatures similar to those in a hybrid bus. Still, the electrode cost and life under actual duty cycles are not demonstrated. Other problems include demonstration of

closure of the fuel cycle, control of electrode deterioration during cold standby, and optimization of

the controller and power device, and the capacity

of the electrolyte to hold zinc discharge products

as a pumpable fluid. Zinc may also be used as a vector for hydrogen

energy. If the electrowinning of zinc is done with

hydrogen reacted at a gas-diffusion anode, the cell voltage drops from 2.2 V to about 0.5 V, giving

the vehicle a fossil-fuel-to-wheel energy transfer

efficiency of 27-30 percent. This year, we plan

to close the fuel cycle by discharging recycled fuel

in a bipolar stack of six 1000-cm^ cells. An engineering design will be completed on a 24-cell stack

for on-vehicle testing in an electric bus.

Electromechanical batteries.

The electromechanical battery (EMB) is a

battery-sized module containing a high-speed ro- tor integrated with an iron-less generator, and

housed in an evacuated chamber [16]. For the electric car, the EMB offers a means for overcoming

the limitations of electrochemical batteries in specific power, deep discharge lifetime, and energy

recovery efficiency. In the late 1970s, Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory carried out federally-sponsored studies of flywheel materials and technology. Federal funding for this work was terminated, nationwide, before a practical product emerged. In the intervening years, developments in materials,

design concepts, and solid-state power electronics

prompted a new look. What has emerged appears

far more attractive than the concepts and the designs studied in the earlier work.

New materials and design concepts. Besides long service life, two key requirements for ve- hicular batteries are high specific-energy (W-h/kg)

and high specific-power (kW/kg). For an EMB,

energy-density is maximized by fabricating the ro- tor from material with the highest ratio of strength

to density. Today, the prime candidate is fiber- composite made from graphite fibers embedded

in an epoxy matrix. Commercial graphite fibers now have strengths of 7.0 GPa (1,000,000 psi),

heading toward 10 GPa, a factor of five improvement in 20 years. This improvement was achieved

mainly through quality control in manufacture.

Though costly now, the price for these fibers is heading down as their use increases. Our design

studies have centered on the use of graphite fiber- composite for the rotor in an EMB.

High specific-power is essential for snappy accel- eration, to absorb high regenerative-braking rates, and to permit fast (5 to 10 minutes) charging

times. In an EMB, high specific-power goes handin-hand with high rotation-speed. High rotationspeed is achieved by down sizing the EMB module to about the size of a lead-acid car battery.

Other advantages of small module size are major

reductions in gyroscopic effects, and in containment problems in case of rotor failure. Our design

studies have therefore concentrated on small modules, storing about 1 kW-h of energy each. The

rotors of these modules are to be of the "multirim" type, that is, they consist of a series of nested

fiber-composite cylinders, coupled to each other

for torque loads by "separators" that insure mechanical integrity and rotational stability.
162 Energy Storage Systems

I

Figure 7. General layout of an EMB module.

Magnetic bearings—a key technology. Because the rotor of the EMB rotates in vacuo at speeds as high as 200,000 RPM, the only practical

way to support it against the force of gravity, minimize frictional drag, and achieve long service life

is to use a magnetic suspension-bearing system.

We are now studying new concepts for magnetic

bearings that promise to be much simpler and less expensive than the servo-controlled bearings now

in use. With these new concepts, it should be possible to design a bearing that will not only accom- modate vehicular acceleration loads, but reduce

friction under standby conditions to the point that

rotor rundown times (self-discharge) of weeks to months should be achievable.

The generator/motor: the "Halbach Array." Another key element in our EMB module is an iron-less generator/motor, the rotating

field of which is produced by an array of permanent magnet bars supported against centrifugal

forces by the innermost cylinder of the multi-rim

rotor. By using the new Nd-Fe-B magnet material, deployed in a special array (the "Halbach

Array" [ 17]), a rotating dipole magnetic field is produced within the assembly. This field then couples, through a re-entrant glciss-ceramic sleeve-like vacuum barrier, to three-phase windings lying outside the evacuated region. The absence of hysteresis, windage, and bearing losses leads to high

transfer efficiencies. High rotation frequency re- sults in high specific power—many times that of a V-8 engine.

The hybrid electric vehicle: a first use for

the EMB. For economic reasons, the first vehicular use of our EMB modules will be in "hybrid"

electric vehicles, where one or two EMB provide

or accept the peak power required for acceleration

and braking, while a conventional electrochemical

battery, a fuel cell, or a small heat engine provides

average power. If the economics of mass production are favorable, the EMB might, in time, be

able to take over the entire job, resulting in an

electric car that could compete toe-to-toe with the

best internal combustion-driven automobile.

CONCLUSION

Several promising new technologies have been

identified and are being developed for evaluation

as potential energy-storage systems suitable for

electric and hybrid vehicles. Some of these tech- nologies (i.e., aerocapacitors, nano-structure multilayer capacitors, lithium ion batteries) take advantage of the ability to control materials at the

nano-scale, and hence to exert profound control over the resulting macroscopic properties. Other

promising technologies (zinc-air and electromechanical batteries) take advantage of new process- ing and systems design, in addition to modern materials.

REFERENCES

[1] S. T. Mayer, R. W. Pekala, and J. L. Kaschmitter,

"The Aerocapacitor: An Electrochemical DoubleLayer Energy-Storage Device," J. Electrochem.

Soc, Vpl. 140, pp. 446-451, February, 1993.

[2] L. W. Hrubesh and R. W. Pekala, "Thermal

Properties of Organic and Inorganic Aerogels,"

J. Mat. Res., Vol. 28, in press, October, 1993.

[3] R. W. Pekala, "Organic Aerogels from the Polycondensation of Resorcinol with Formaldehyde,"

J. Mat. Sci., Vol. 24, pp. 3221-3227, 1989.

[4] R. W. Pekala, C. T. Alviso, and J. D. LeMay,

"Organic Aerogels: A New Type of Ultrastucture Polymer," in Chemical Processing of Advanced

Materials, L. L. Bench and J. K. West, eds., (New
Koopman and Richardson: Promising Future Energy Storage Systems.. 163

York: John Wiley &: Sons, Inc., 1992), pp. 19-27.

[5] T. VV. Barbee, Jr., "Multilayer Structures: Atomic Engineering in It's Infancy," in Physics,

Fabrication and Application of Multilayer Structures, ed. by P. Dhez and C. Weisbach, Plenum

Press, New York, NY (1988) p. 17.

[6] T. \V. Barbee, Jr., "Synthesis of Multilayer Structures by Physical Vapor Deposition Techniques,"

in Synthetic Modulated Structures, L. L. Chang

and B. C. Giessen, eds.. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, USA (1985).

[7] R. Frahm, T. W. Barbee, Jr., and W. K. Warburton, "In-Situ Structured Study of Thin Film

Growth by QEXAFS," Phys. Rev. B, Vol. 44,

p. 2822 (1991).

[8] T. W. Barbee, Jr. and J. Wong, "EXAFS of Near

Monolayer Hafnium Film," Physica B, Vol. 158,

p. 670 (1989).

[9] T. W. Barbee, Jr., "X-ray Evanescent-Standing

Wave Fluorescence Studies Using a Layered Synthetic Microstructure," Mat. Lett., Vol. 3, p. 17, (1984)

[10] T. W. Barbee, Jr., "Nano-structure Multilayer

Materials," in State of the Laboratory, Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory (1991), UCRL

5200-91-718 (1991).

[11] L. D. Hicks and M. S. Dresselhaus, "Thermoelectric Figure of Merit of a One-dimensional Conductor," Phys. Rev. B, Vol. 47, pp. 16631-16633,

May, 1993.

[12] T. W. Barbee, Jr., D. L. Keith, L. Nagel, and W.

A. Tiller, "Controlled Reactive Sputter Synthesis

of Refractory Oxides," J. Elect. Soc, Vol. 131, pp. 434-439, February, 1984.

[13] B. Scrosati, "Lithium rocking Chair Batteries: An Old Concept?" J. Electrochem. Soc, Vol. 139, pp. 2776-2781, October, 1992.

[14] R. Fong, U. von Sacken, and J. R. Dahn, "Studies

of Lithium Intercalation into Czirbons Using Nonaqueous Electrochemical CeUs," J. Electrochem.

Soc, Vol. 137, pp. 2009-2013, July, 1990.

[15] J. Noring, J. F. Cooper, et al., "Mecheinicallyrefuelable Zn/Air Electric Vehicle Cells," Proc. 183rd Meeting of the Electrochemical Society,

Honolulu, Hawaii, May 16-21, 1993.

[16] R. F. Post, T. K. Fowler, and S. F. Post, "A High

Efficiency Electromehcanical Battery," The Proceedings of the IEEE.

[17] K. HeJbach, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBL-21945 (July 1986).

Work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory under contract No. W-7405-

ENG-48.
SESSION REPORT: ELECTRIC PROPULSION SYSTEMS

L. E. Lesster Westinghouse Electric Corporation

Baltimore, MD 21203

INTRODUCTION SUMMARY AND OUTLINE OF

WORKING SESSION

The working session focussed on the Electric

Power Train as the common component in both

electric vehicle (EV) and hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) propulsion systems. It was recog- nized that the motor drive electronics—the motor controller—-were applicable also to the motorgenerator interface with flywheels and also the in- terface with alternators driven by turbines or conventional internal combustion engines (ICEs). Fol- lowing system issues, component issues were dis- cussed with emphasis on the key power-conversion

and motor components.

The objectives of the session included:

• Establish a forum for discussion of key is- sues common to electric propulsion systems

for EVs and HEVs.

• Achieve a basis for developing common stan- dards, specifications, and test procedures.

• Explore potential new directions for electric- propulsion technology and manufacturing de- velopment.

The discussions were used to identify:

• Candidate component technologies for future

NIST Advanced Technology Program (ATP)

focus.

• Candidate areas for manufacturing advances.

• Areas where standards need to be addressed.

Standard Basis for Performcince

Specifications and Candidate Solution

Technologies for Both Systems and

Components

Selected "strawman" view-graphs that were used

to guide the discussion are presented in Appendix

A of this report.

A brief introduction was presented on typical performance parameters of a state-of-the-art three-phase induction motor based power train. The following paper [1], "An Induction Motor

Power Train for EVs—The Right Power at the

Right Price," which was presented at the ISATA

Conference in Aachen, Germany, in September,

presents this and supplementary information.

While the need for a common basis for specifications was accepted, the choice, for example,

of driving cycle for evaluation purposes was felt to be mission dependent and, within the context

of the working session, consensus on specifications

Wcis not possible. It wcis noted that in Ron Sims'

presentation [2], "Electric Vehicle Standards—The

Current Status," specification issues as well as standards appeared to be addressed in some depth

by ongoing activities within the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). Several key parameters

however were discussed in this session, in particular peak versus average power and the length of

time for which peak power should be available,

likewise torque capability. It was difficult in many

instances to focus on Propulsion Systems (Power

Trains) cis opposed to performance issues that were

either vehicle or battery and power source dependent. One point that met with general approval was the proposition that regeneration should be

implemented and adjusted primarily as a means of

recovering energy efficiently into the energy stor164
Lesster: Session Report 165

age device (battery, flywheel, or, perhaps, ultracapacitor). While regenerative braking would reduce

brake wear, full braking capability should reside

in the friction brakes and melding of regenerative

braking with friction braking should be transparent to the driver. The technical challenge asso- ciated with this, in conjunction with ABS, was

acknowledged.

Reliability of electric propulsion systems would

have to be better than ICE reliability to succeed

in the marketplace and concerns were voiced over

the reliability of the power electronics particularly

in relation to the thermal cycling issue, which is characteristic of automotive use. It was pointed

out that with proper cooling-system design a 5000-

hour life was attainable with full performance ca- pability over the automotive temperature range of

-40° to 49° C. Warranty expectations would be dif- ferent for different platforms, for example, whereas

a car might require 10 years or 100,000 miles, a bus

warranty could be 7 years or 300,000 miles.

Maintenance and maintainability issues pro- voked considerable discussion. In reference to the

thermal cycling issue it was felt feasible to use

built-in microprocessor capability in motor controllers to monitor and record cumulative thermal

cycles. The question of replacement of failed components in dealer service facilities versus replacement of the whole unit found proponents on either

side. The potential lack of control over "adjustments" being made in the field was a key issue. The session members raised surprisingly little challenge to the categorization of induction motor based drives as the present leading technology for power trains. Brushless DC drives were

thought to be good candidates for flywheels and

either brushless DC or inductor alternators likely

candidates for serial hybrid drive alternators. The

switched reluctance motor was discussed briefly

with its chief attributes being its ability to run

at high speed and potentially lower cost construction than induction motors. It was a technology

to be followed also in the synchronous reluctance

drive configuration. One comment on brushless

DC machines indicated the that the idea of few

losses in the rotor of such a machine was not true

if high frequency harmonics were present in the

driving waveforms. These could produce considerable eddy current losses in the permanent magnet

material. It is the high quality sine wave drives at

high frequencies for flywheel and alternator applications that will drive semiconductor switch (e.g., IGBT) technology to higher speed devices.

Component technology centered on the power

switching devices and high voltage high ripple cur- rent capacitors. While it was accepted that the

IGBT is the component of choice in most instances

and at higher voltages, the MOSFET still is eff'ec- tive at lower voltages and higher frequencies. The

predominance of offshore manufacture of IGBTs

w£LS expressed as an issue and indeed represents a

potential cost issue in competing in the world au- tomotive market since the "power bridge" of the

motor controller represents a significant part of the

cost. The IGBT heis enabled the progress in motor drives evident in the last two or three years, but it is still a device (or grouping of devices) that can benefit from improvement in switching speed,

conduction loss, and, in particular, lower thermal

impedance from junction to heat sink. High-voltage, high-frequency capacitors for application in power bridges were discussed and the

merits of both ceramic and film candidates were

considered. It was noted that new film capacitors degrade rather than exhibit single point catas- trophic failure. Typical goals for capacitors for bridge applications are 45 amp ripple (5-20 kHz

range) and 0.005 ohm. Higher voltage electrolytic

capacitor developments were mentioned (voltages

to 1200 V and energy storage values to 2 kJ/kg).

Ultracapacitors with energy storage to 40 kJ/kg

were also mentioned. For an electric propulsion

application an internal impedance is required that

is low enough to permit high current surges with- out excessive voltage drop.

Motor Components

In the motor area the component issue focussed on the speed-and-position feedback device. The

position and speed sensors discussed included: re- solvers, optical encoders. Hall-effect devices, and

speed pickups. The probable eventual removal of

the feedback device as sensorless control strategies are perfected was also discussed. The applicationSpecific design of motors for wide-speed-range

inverter-controlled systems also offers opportunity

for induction-motor design techniques no longer

based on 60 Hz techniques.
166 Electric Propulsion Systems

Technical, Economic, and Commercial

Barriers

Technical barriers:

• No insurmountable hurdles

• Focused development will improve product

Economic and commercial barriers:

• Cost versus quantity and perceived value

• Component manufacturing investment

• Opportunity charging and infrastructure

• How to define "state-of-wear" for lecise and

resale markets

• Maintenance of electronics in a mechanics

world

• Present public perception of EVs and HEVs

Manufacturing Issues

Requirements and developments for improved

manufacturing:

• Drive costs to an order of magnitude lower

than traditional power electronics industry

standards

• New ways to mass produce electric motors us- ing non-traditional motor construction

• New ways to mass produce power electronic

components

• Non-traditional materials and components for electronic assembly

• Flexible manufacturing work cells for low

quantity at low cost

• Improved application of U.S. R&D funds to manufacturing process versus product devel- opment

Future Technology

The possible long-term transition to reluctance

motor drives; the potential in the long-term for sil- icon carbide semiconductors, provided the market

can sustain quantities to establish cost comparable to silicon; and improvements in high-frequency

capacitors and other high-power components such

cis contactors and current sensors all can pro- duce incremental improvements in the cost-to- performance ratio. The power management and

power control for hybrid electric hybrid vehicles

represents a significant challenge that must be overcome in an extremely cost effective manner

if such hybrid propulsion systems are to succeed.

As a general parameter, system efficiency, i.e., effi- ciency of transfer of power in and out of the various

motor/generator and/or energy storage devices in the system via the power electronics unit, must be

as high as possible. Striving for ever higher effi- ciency at affordable cost will drive the continuing

search for new technology.

Standards, Requirements, and Test

Procedures

Requirements for future standards and test procedures:

• Sponsoring Bodies:

- Industry

- SAE

- UL '

- NEC

- NHTSA

- NIST

- EPRI

• Driving Cycles

• Operating Environments, i.e., thermal, EMI,

EMF, etc.

• Standards for Maintenance

• Recyclability of Materials

EMI and EMF issues provided the most discussion. The need for defined standards and specifications as opposed to "the radio works" was clear.
Lesster: Session Report 167

Time Frame for Commercially Viable Power Train

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

With Funding

(Market Stimulus,

Supported Development

of Component and

System Manufacturing Process and Facilities)

As is - - Without

Further Funding

=1 Ei: PROTOTYPE PRE-PROD PRODUCTION

PROTOTYPE PRE-PROD L J

PRODUCTION

Figure 1. Time frame for development of a commercially viable power treiin.

Low-frequency fields are an area of growing public concern and need to be addressed in any specification or standard.

CONCLUSIONS

Technical recommendations:

• Increase system efficiency above 90 percent

• Develop methods for blending of regenerative

braking with ABS and friction brakes and en- gine drag in hybrids

• Keep the role of regenerative braking for effi- cient energy storage, not as the primary brake

• Develop load leveling techniques

• Develop higher frequency, higher voltage and

smaller power electronics components

• Develop resolverless/sensorless motors

• Improve motor design techniques

Issues for improved manufacturing:

• Component cost drives system cost, not touch

labor

• Manufacturing process improvement should

focus at the component level

- Power electronics components

IGBTs

contacts inductors

- Motor/generator components

rotors

stators Two scenarios for the development of a commercial power train are shown in Fig. 1. REFERENCES

[1] L. E. Lesster, F. A. Lindberg, R. M. Young, and

W. B. Hall, "An Induction Motor Power Train for EVs—The Right Power at the Right Price" 26th

ISATA Conference, Aachen, Germany, September,

1993; reprinted in these proceedings, pp. 170-173.

[2] R. I. Sims, "Electric Vehicle Standards—The Current Status," these proceedings, pp. 53-61.

capacitors
Electric Propulsion Systems

APPENDIX A: SELECTED "STRAWMAN" VIEW-GRAPHS

Performance Specifications

• Establish Common Terminology

• Address Scope/Hardware Content of Electric Propulsion System

• Standardize Definitions for:

- Power/ Peak/ Average

- Motoring Efficiency

- Speed Range/Torque/Power Envelope

- Regeneration Efficiency /Energy Recovery

- Hill Holding/Climbing

- Reliability

• Role of Power Source Impedance In Specifications

• Systems or Components?

Figure 2.

Key technologies and their state-of-the-art performance

• Induction motor and vector control

• DC (brushless) permanent magnet motor and field modification control

• Reluctance motor and synchronous or switched control

• DC (brushed) motor and field and armature control

• Synchronous wound rotor motor and stator and rotor control

Figure 3.

Technology of EV Power Trains—Systems and Components

• Current Technology and Limitations

- Motors - design, materiEils and cooling

- Motor Controllers - design, components, cooling and software

- Support Components

- High-power Interconnections/contactors

• Future Developments and Opportunities

- System Solutions

- Component Developments

Figure 4.
Lesster: Selected Strawman View-Graphs 169

Key Components—Motor Controllers

• Capacitors - high ripple current

• Connectors/relays - High DC voltage and current

• Filter components - EMI and feed-through

• Semiconductors

• Gate drivers - Low voltage/high voltage interface

Figure 5.

Controller Components

• Capacitors

- Ceramic

- Polypropylene, etc.

- Electrolytic

• Filter components

- Feed-through capacitors

- Inductors/baluns

- Shielding

• Power semiconductors

- Thyristors

- BJTs

- MOSFETs

- IGBTs

- MCTs

• Silicon

• Silicon carbide

Figure 6.
AN INDUCTION MOTOR POWER TRAIN FOR EVs—THE RIGHT POWER AT

THE RIGHT PRICE

L. E. Lesster, F. A. Lindberg, R. M. Young, and W. B. Hall

Westinghouse Electric Corporation

Baltimore, MD 21203

With no rotor saliency, the induction motor inherently offers the potential for smooth propulsion

for all-electric »nd hybrid-electric vehicles (EVs)

over the wide speed and torque ranges demanded

by applications. Performance must be comparable

to that of an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE)

in a 2000-kg vehicle. To achieve this, an electric power train must provide peak powers of 75 kW

or higher, provide full torque without overheating

at very low speeds on hills in traffic, and provide

high efficiency at the low cruising powers achieved

by modern vehicle design.

The Westinghouse electric and hybrid-electricvehicle power-train has been designed for just such

performance. Prototypes have been built and have

been tested in several vehicles for over a year. The

transition to a production motor and motor controller has begun. The Chesapeake Consortium, a

partnership of Chrysler, The State of Maryland,

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, and Westinghouse has been able to accelerate the devel- opment of a production power train by winning

a competitive grant from the US Department of

Transportation. The premise on which Westinghouse has developed the production power train

is that, while legislation and peripheral incentives

may be a necessary stimulus to initiate an EV market, more is required. For the EV market to be

viable and self sustaining the EV must have the

performance the public has come to expect in a

personal vehicle and it must be affordable. Thus

both the performance and the cost of the power

train are market driven.

The performance of the power train is characterized by its torque and power with respect to speed, range, weight, and volume. Its efficiency,

smoothness and precision of control, and its ability to operate over the full automotive environment are critical to consumer acceptance. Fig200

160 -

Measured

Torque/Speed

cr

120 - Torque for Constant 100 HP

Motor Speed rpm (Thousands)

Figure 1. Dynamometer test of 100-hp electric power

train.

1 1 1 1 I.C Engines and

- Electric Power Train

1 1 I I 1 1 1 y-100 HP, Electric, 4400 b

165 HP, 4200 ^—1 25 HP, 4000 lb

f /// /

^ 90 HP, 3300 lb ^ 90 HP, 4000 b

f /// /

rill! 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 8 12 16 Time (sec)

20

Figure 2. Stock pick-up truck performance 100-hp

electric drive versus ICE options.

170
Lesster et al.: Ad Induction-motor Power Train. 171

400

Q. 200

1

' jT^ '' 1—"^^^l 11

Accelerating

Amps

- ^HP

-

^^Amps /

1 1 1 1 1 J— lV

0 2 4 6 8 10 rpm (Thousands)

Figure 3. Highway acceleration and regenerative

breiking of van.

ure 1 shows the design torque/speed curve for the

prototype units and also the actual data plotted

from dynamometer tests. The degree to which

the desired curve hcis been matched by the test data is an indication of the precision of control over the torque that this vector-control approach

possesses. Whether 100 hp (75 kW) is sufficient power for a 2000-kg vehicle can be judged by ref- erence to Fig. 2. This shows the performance

curves of a selection of engines in a stock pickup truck. The electric power train with its single

speed reducer has much lower engine inertia compared with the internal combustion engine running

in its low gears. A 100-hp induction motor drive can give performance similar to a 150-hp ICE as

it accelerates. The power capability of the pro- totype system is demonstrated in Fig. 3 in which

the power train accelerates a 5900-lb (2680-kg) vehicle from 0 to 75 mph (120 km/h) in 30 seconds

and then uses the induction motor and motor controller to brake the vehicle regeneratively in 10 sec- onds. It must be recognized that such performance

can be achieved in practice only if the vehicle battery or hybrid system can accept energy at the

required rate. The induction motor drive can provide high ef- ficiency over a wide power and speed range. Per- formance of the prototype system was focused on a 240-V battery with an expected internal

impedance of 0.1 ohm. A minimum battery volt- age of 180 V or greater could be expected at full load. Figure 4 shows an efficiency plot of the pro- totype system at these voltages and for compariOl I 1 I I I L

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 HP

Figure 4. Prototype versus production system effi- ciency at 3000 RPM.

320V System

200 1 I

1 1 1 1

2000 4000 6000 8000 10,000 Speed in RPM

Figure 5. Motor plus controller efficiency.

son the efficiency of the production power train. It

is clear that despite the design changes necessary

for more cost effective manufacture, performance

has been maintained in the production version. Figure 5 by comparison shows the 2 percent to 3 percent efficiency improvement of a comparably

powered system at a 300 V nominal battery level. Flux-weakening techniques, which reduce the level of excitation at lower torque levels, in conjunction

with a high-efficiency-motor design, lead to this

level of performance.

The same motor-controller circuits can be used

for the high-voltage system as for the low-voltage

system. An extremely wide operating voltage

range is imperative for a high-power drive operating from a battery or hybrid power-source. Both

will have relatively high internal impedance in re- lation to the power levels of operation. The effect of this is that in high-power motoring the voltage

droops and in high-power regenerative braking the

voltage rises sharply. Typically a nominal 300-V

DC source could be expected to swing between
172 Electric Propulsion Systems

500 Demonstrated

During Regeneration

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Motor Current (Amps, RMS)

Figure 6. Motor controller operating envelope.

250 V and 350 V as it delivers or absorbs power.

The Westinghouse motor-controller is designed to function from 120 to 400 V with adequate stress margins on components. This capability permits

greater flexibility for the system designer to adjust power levels by matching battery and motor

parameters in relation to motor-controller current

options. Figure 6 shows the loci of power train

output power as a function of battery voltage and

motor-controller maximum current. In this way a

family of power trains at power levels of 25 kW,

50 kW, 75 kW, and even 150 kW can be tailored

for different vehicle applications. The production

motor-controller is based on a modular design of

its component assemblies. It is possible to reconfigure its physical layout to meet different vehicle

packaging configurations while maintaining the es- sential design parameters and most importantly an

effective EMI (Electromagnetic Interference) barrier.The transition from prototype to production implies strict adherence to EMI requirements and

standards. Meeting these can impose considerable constraints on the mechanical design of the

system. This includes the choice of housing materials, numbers of conductors passing through the

barrier, and location of modules inside or outside

the barrier. Decisions must be made according to function and location. Appropriate filters must be

used on all conductors passing through the barrier. Such filters on the high-current cables from

the battery, for example, are large. In conjunction

with other filter components, choice of shielding

material, and RFI (Radio- Frequency Interference)

gaskets for the housing; a weight, size, and cost penalty must be borne if true EMI conformance is required.

In the high-torque operating region of the electric power train high currents circulate through

the motor-controller semiconductors. This leads

to high heat concentration in relation to the ef- fective cross sectional area for heat transfer from

the devices when mounted in the motor controller. Heat flux of 40 W/in^ (6.2 W/cm^) or higher is present. This exceeds the levels normally associ- ated with air cooling if thermal stresses are to be

limited and high semiconductor reliability maintained. This is a major issue in connection with

operation over the full automotive ambient temperature range of -40° to 49° C, when determining system reliability and operating life, and in setting warranty periods. In transtioning to pro- duction it is essential to recognize all the needs

for a cooling system. It must protect components

from catastrophic failure or degradation over the

full temperature range for the vehicle specified

operating parameters. It must also keep component temperatures low enough, on the average, in the presence of average ambient air temperatures

over the life of the vehicle, that component reli- ability can support the desired operating life. A

5000-hour operating life is consistent with a warranty of 10 years or 100,000 miles (160,000 km).

To achieve this a Mean Time Between Failure

(MTBF) of 30,800 hours or greater is required. Parts count, thermal and electrical stresses of components, packaging, and construction techniques

must combine in the production unit to achieve

these reliability numbers.

Parts count is a major force that drives the

system in cost a^ well as reliability, and weight

and volume. Figure 7 shows the progression of

parts count and cost multiplier that represents a path to the ultimate cost target, in higher quantities. Such a progression is only possible with

the successive infusion of technological advances.

The projected production quantities will justify

investment in such technology. In the case of

the motor-controller power-electronics such invest- ments include the development of ASICs (Application Specific Integrated Circuits) and integrated

power-bridge structures. A further profitable area

of component count reduction is in the progressive substitution of DSP (Digital Signal Proces-
Lesster et aJ.: Ad InductioD-motor Power Train.. 173

22.2X 7.1x 2.5x

Target Target Target Target

Cost Cost Cost Cost

Advanced Technology

Insertion Reduces Parts 700 Parts 135 Parts 135 Parts 90 Parts Count

Increasing Process

Automation Reduces 32% 10% 7.5% 4%

Labor Content

Increasing 10 ^ 5K ^ 25K ^ 200K

Quantities Units Units/Year UnitsA'ear UnitsA'ear

Figure 7. Electric vehicle power train path to target cost.

sor) technology to generate the control functions.

The functions can then be accomplished in soft- ware rather than in a combination of analog and

digital hardware. The effect of this is so dramatic

that this has, in fact, been the first technology

insertion program to be implemented. It has re- sulted in a reduction in the vector-control circuit- board area from 1045 cm'^ to 211 cm'^ and future

reductions to 150 cm^ are expected.

A complementary paper [1] describes the design

optimization potential of the induction motor. It

is transitioned from a traditional design to one fo- cused on the limited-slip variable-frequency per- formance and design characteristics of a vehicle

motor driven via a three-phase solid-state inverter. REFERENCES

[l] S. Lie and C. DiPietro, "Squirrel Cage Induction Motors for Electric Vehicles," 26th ISATA, Sept.

1993.
SESSION REPORT: INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROLS

H. J. King and J. W. Weber

Delco Electronics/Hughes Automotive Electronics Development

Los Angeles, CA 90009

INTRODUCTION

Discussions in this session dealt with the instru- mentation, controls, and sensors required to pro- duce and develop salable electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Our objective was to define the cur- rent state-of-the-art and future direction of the

technology with specific emphasis on the role that

government assistance could play in enhancing the

technology for commercial use. Our session was attended by instrument and

controls manufacturers and students interested in this aspect of electric vehicle development. Only

one member of the automobile manufacturing

community attended the session. As a result, the

conclusions reflect the component and subsystem

suppliers' viewpoint and emphasize a lack of for- mal specifications and standards, which is an impediment to their work. This is not true within

the engineering teams implementing the major car

designs. It is a problem that may not be rectified until electric vehicles are sold commercially and

the traditional reverse engineering takes place in the retrofit marketplace.

KEY ISSUES

There were several key issues of generic nature which were common to the subsystems discussed

in more detail below.

Instrumentation and controls follow other

subsystems development.

The most desirable situation necessary for an optimum system, is to develop the specification for the

controls concurrently with the overall system design. This will permit the proper balance between

digital and analog control and between hardware

and software implementation. It will also permit

the sensors that generate the control signals to

be properly specified and optionally located both

electronically and physically in the system.

A separate timetable cannot be given for controls development—it is an integral part of the

system design procedure of any vehicle.

Control algorithms are critical

components.

The fundamental algorithms that drive the control process and/or distill and present vital information to the driver or service mechanic give the car

its character and "feel." These may be primary

factors that will influence a potential customer to buy or reject a car. These algorithms are expensive to develop and their nonrecurring cost are dif- ficult to recover in the production hardware since

they take the form of embedded software rather

than physical salable hardware.

While the control algorithms must be tailored

for each specific vehicle their generic development

is an area where government support could materially help speed the process. This could take the

form of customizing software tools, system modeling, sensor development, and assistance with col- lection of human factors data to establish what

the vehicle driver really wants. This area is also an excellent area for graduate students to pursue

as an introduction to vehicle manufacturing.

There is st need for standard interfaces.

Mr. Ron Sims' [1] talk earlier in the meeting indi- cated that much work is underway in several technical societies whose members support electric vehicle development. This is to be commended and

supported.

It should be noted that these interfaces take

many forms:

• internal to the vehicles (i.e. battery voltage

to motor controller)

174
King azicf Weber: Session Report 175

• vehicle to infrastructure (i.e. battery recharge

requirements to power utility)

• vehicle to driver (i.e. energy storage system

to display the driving range remaining).

Recurring system costs must be low.

This can best be achieved by using concurrent de- sign processes to define functions, sensor requirements, and sensor locations while the system is under development and the design is not yet frozen.

Control of a parallel hybrid electric vehicle

is significantly more complex than control

of a pure electric vehicle.

The very nature of a parallel hybrid vehicle, the

number of operating modes that it can assume and

the several paths over which power can flow all increase the complexity of a hybrid electric vehicle. Careful modeling and selection of control tech- niques and algorithms will be necessary to assure a safe, smoothly operating vehicle that operates

continuously in a low emissions mode.

DISCUSSIONS

The very diverse nature of the controls and in- strumentation made it convenient to consider the

several systems under the headings:

• Energy storage

• Power train performance

• Subsystem controllers (internal interfaces)

• Environmental (external interfaces)

It was also noted that the cost, schedule, reliability, and calibration of instrumentation used

to develop hardware differs significantly from the

production hardware and software that is part of

each vehicle sold. The charts describing each of these systems and

a brief summary of the discussion surrounding

each follow. REFERENCES

[1] R. I. Sims, "Electric Vehicle Steindards—The Current Status," these proceedings, pp. 53-61.
176 iDstrumentation and Controls

Instrumentation & Controls

ENERGY STORAGE

NIST

Workshop

October 1993

MEASURE

- Total battery voltage (V > 100 volts) - Individual cell voltages - Temperature within battery pack

OUTPUT

- Multiplexed voltages and temperatures

USES

- Indicate driving range remaining - Diagnose battery condition and lifetime - Control charging cycle

REQUIRED

- Voltage sensors and multiplexers that work across high

voltage DC

- Algorithms to interpret cell voltages in terms of charge

remaining and battery life.

hjlirtsll 1/29/93.3

Figure 1.

Energy storage:

It is imperative to monitor the power flow and energy storage on the vehicle. This is very difficult to do accurately and cheaply, especially at the high currents and high DC

voltages involved.

Some form of information storage will be required to infer the on-board energy

remaining from the power flows because the energy can only be measured directly in a

few storage systems, such as a flywheel or capacitor. It may be possible to estimate

battery degradation over a long period of use by monitoring the maximum energy

stored as a function of time or discharge cycles.

There is an opportunity for development of new voltage sensors that can be embedded

within the battery cell and can read voltage out to ground potential.
King and Weber: Session Report

Instrumentation & Controls

POWERTRAIN PERFORMANCE

NIST

Workshop

October 1993

MEASURE

- Instantaneous currents, voltages, temperatures In battery pack,

power electronics, motor - Self-test power electronics - Self-test safety system

OUTPUT

- Dashboard display while driving - Self-test data through charger interface or standard test connector

USES

- Driver assistance - Require or preventative maintenance

REQUIRED

- Various sensors and analytical algorithms - Standardized hardware interfaces, data formats, and Instrument

panel readouts and symbols

hjknhtt 11/29/83.5

Figure 2.

Power train performance:

Each power train will contain a customized embedded controller that responds to the

driver's commands within the limits of the current and voltage available from the

battery plus other vehicle related inputs (maximum rpm, wheel slip, etc.). Some high-level summary of power consumption related to the operator's driving

technique may be provided to help the driver extend the operating range attainable

with a single battery charge.

EeLch power train will embody some form of built-in test system to inform the driver of an emergency while the vehicle is in operation and should store failure information to

assist a technician when the car undergoes routine or emergency service and repair.
178 Instrumentation and Controls

Instrumentation & Controls

VEHICLE SUBSYSTEM

CONTROLLERS

NIST

Workshop

October 1993

OODII

BRAKE BLENDING (REGENERATIVBCONVENTIONAL)

- Give electric vehicle the "feel" of a conventional car

HYBRID VEHICLE CONTROLLER

- Smooth blending of electric and conventional power sources

ADVANCED MOTOR CONTROLS

- Versatility of modern power electronics enables versatile motor

controls

POWER MANAGEMENT

- Budget power to accessories and drive train to meet driver needs

t^krtet 11/28/93.7

Figure 3.

Vehicle subsystem controllers:

Discussion here centered mostly around the added complexity of parallel hybrid

vehicle control systems as compared to pure electric or series hybrid electric drives. Parameter studies and computer modeling are expected to be required to both

optimize vehicle design and to optimize the controls.
King and Weber: Session Report

Instrumentation & Controls

ENVIRONMENTAL INTERFACE

NIST

Workshop

October 1993

II

MEASURE

- Vehicle location via IVHS information - Energy required to charge battery

OUTPJT

- Location of nearest charging station - Charging energy requirements transmitted to power utility over

charger/vehicle connection

USES

- Assist driver to emergency charging locations - Enable utilities to anticipate/control charging loads

REQUIREMENTS

- Data interfaces with IVHS and power utility system

hjknisll 1/29/93.9

Figure 4.

Environmental interface:

This system must be designed to assure that the electric vehicle fleet interfaces smoothly with the electric utility system during the recharging process. With just a

few vehicles on the roaxi any impact on the utility will be small. We must anticipate a

time when electric vehicles will represent a significant periodic load on the system. At

that time the vehicle will be required to automatically announce its anticipated

charging requirements to the distribution system so that local distribution systems

and transformers are not overloaded.

Summary:

The results of the previous discussions are summarized in the two tables that follow. The general conclusion presented earlier and the recommendations were drawn from

these data.
180 Instrumentation and Controls
King and Weber: Session Report 181

instrumentation & Controls

Summary (2)

NIST

Workshop

October 1993

Topics?

Subsystem

Inexp. embed, sensors

Ry/drive-by-wire/light

Corrtrol optimization

Inexp. embed, sensors

Navigation Emissions monrtoring

Fault tolerance Bus InterfacesFault tolerance Bus interfaces

Barriers

Fly/drive-by-wire/ligfit (perceived liability) Component cost

Non-conventional

(sales resistance to "new")

: Opportunities

Algorithms

inexpensive embedded

sensors

Navigation Inexpensive embedded

M^rtufacUirtng Design tools (automatic) Design for service Design for service

Timetabte • Concurrent with system design

l^knist.11/29/93.12
SESSION REPORT: ANCILLARY SYSTEMS

L. E. Bell President, Amerigon Incorporated

Burbank, CA 91505

ABSTRACT

Ancillary systems for electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles require the development of new

technologies to optimize vehicle performance. When each ancillary system is developed individually, the technological improvements often only marginally contribute to improving the overall vehicle's performance. When, however, the available technology for each ancillary system are evaluated,

developed, and optimized in tandem with the other systems, the collective technological improvements

ccin significantly increEise overall vehicle performance. To maximize the benefit of this strategy,

collective component and system technology selection and development must be addressed early in the design pheise. Similarly, the infrastructure systems required to support the use of such vehicles by

the consumer and community must be evaluated and integrated in a timely fashion to support final vehicle design cind introduction. Specific suggestions for future workshop topics have been addressed

in the appendix.

INTRODUCTION

Government officials from around the world are supporting electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles as a solution for pollution and petroleum

dependence. In the U.S., for example, State air quality officials have mandated that 10 percent of

all new cars sold in California by the year 2003

be "zero emission." That could be as many as 150,000 electric vehicles per year. Similar regulations in other states could require that a total of

400,000 electric vehicles be produced per year in the United States. Amerigon Incorporated and Westinghouse sep- arately estimate that the global electric vehicle in- dustry will total $8 billion by the turn of the cen- tury as a result of the government programs and

consumer demand. Anticipated demand for electric vehicles creates a need for many new advanced

component technologies. Approximately 70 per- cent of the components in electric vehicles must

or should change from their conventional counter

parts to improve vehicle performance and make

them acceptable to consumers. Examples of components that must change

or are new to such vehicles include the battery charger, brakes, energy management system, power steering assembly, voltage and current

sensors, external lighting, DC-to-DC converters,

and the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning

(HVAC) system. When these ancillary systems are developed collectively, with consideration given

to how each will interact and integrate with the

other, the overall resulting vehicle performance

can be greatly increcised.

IDENTIFYING ANCILLARY SYSTEMS

In preparation for the workshop, over thirty ancillary systems and their respective components

were first identified. The eight specific components that were finally chosen represented those

areas in which either the greatest energy improvements couH result, or were determined to be the

most important to the success of electric and hybrid vehicles. The eight components selected were:

• Battery Chargers

• Brakes

• Energy Management System

• Power Steering Assembly

• Voltage and Current Sensors

182
Session Report 183

• External Lighting

• DC-to-DC Converters

. HVAC

KEY TECHNOLOGIES AND THEIR

STATE-OF-THE-ART PERFORMANCE

Chart 1 in the appendix lists a definition of the

components along with the status of the key tech- nologies they employ. It further lists other possi- ble technologies (i.e., other technologies that today

have not been utilized or were not viewed as the

primary approach by the workshop), today's capabilities for each component, target capabilities

for the future, and any special comments concerning the component. The goal was to describe in more detail the capability of each ancillary sys- tem's contribution to electric and hybrid vehicles. The information contained on the charts became

a road map from the current status of the technol- ogy to the direction each technology should take

in the future. The discussion focused in terms of each technol- ogy's evolution over the next five to ten years. The

ancillary systems and components identified were

chosen because (1) they are relevant to today's in- dustrial and business creation endeavors, and (2) they should be investigated from a technology per- spective today with the idea in mind that they can make near-term contributions to the emerging hybrid and electric vehicle industry. Through the course of discussion, it was noted that some of the

components employ alternative solutions that can

be further explored. The following is a summary

of the comments made in the session.

Battery Charging

There are two types of battery charging systems

under evaluation. There is the traditional plug connector type and inductive charging systems. A

careful analysis should be made of each so that

over time one of the two technologies can be identified as the near-term solution while the other is evaluated for long-term development.

Braking Systems

Braking systems have one basic near-term approach—hydraulic with regenerative braking.

The second system which holds promise are the

systems that incorporate Antilock Braking System

(ABS) and traction control. It was the general belief that Anti lock Braking Systems and traction

control are likely to be found on more cars in the near future. Consequently, braking systems for hybrid and electric vehicles should have ABS and

traction control capabilities.

Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning

With heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning

(HVAC), there are several types of systems. The

systems receiving greatest attention are very highefficiency heat pump devices. HVAC systems in very hot or cold conditions become a major con- sumer of energy and the reduction of energy de- mand is critical to the range of electric vehicles. The effect can be as much as a 30 percent de- crease in the range of an electric vehicle for air- conditioning and heating at extreme conditions.

The need is to have available much more efficient HVAC systems with compressors that can pro- vide excellent heat pump performance over a very broad temperature range.

Alternative forms of HVAC such as resistive heating and waste heat capture were considered

marginal because of high energy consumption or limited performance. They were viewed as supplementary systems. In the case of waste heat capture, most hybrid vehicles can use waste heat from

auxiliary power units. Electric vehicles with hightemperature battery systems can extract heated

air from the battery pack.

Another system that is under development is a

Peltier-based solid-state heat pump device. The

system shows promise at lower heating and cool- ing capacities with the best application being spot

heating and cooling in such places as seats and

for defrosting mechanisms. This system does not seem capable of providing air-conditioning that can heat and cool the entire vehicle unless the per- formance of Peltier junctions improves.
184 Ancillary Systems

Power Steering Assembly

The principal approach with the power steering

assembly is to develop a hybrid electric system as the boost mechanism which will equal that of to- day's hydraulic systems. An alternative pure electric system's primary concern is that all of the possible failure modes be fully addressed so that there

are no increased liability risks beyond those of cur- rent hydraulic systems. Electric systems must be

designed to fail in a safe mode to assure that any

failure does not cause steering to become erratic or the car to swerve. CURRENT TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC,

AND COMMERCIAL BARRIERS OF

THESE COMPONENTS

Participants next reviewed current technical, eco- nomic, and commercial barriers. The major re- sults are summarized in the charts in the ap- pendix. Additional comments from the session fol- low below.

Battery Charging Systems

Some components and technologies might have

barriers such as non-concurrence among the vari- ous resources as to which system to use. Charging

systems were of particular interest in this regard

as compatibility is particularly critical since this component interfaces with the charging infrastructure. They are not just an internal part of the

electric vehicle and, therefore, are not necessarily

controllable by the automobile manufacturers. Its will take a coordinated effort with electric utilities and gas stations to provide quick charge systems

and opportunity charging systems. Efforts to use opportunity charging systems to entice people to a specific location (e.g., restaurant or theater) re- quire a system that is consistent nationwide.

Brake Systems

Electric brakes have significant technical barriers

directly related to reliability (actually the same

failure mode concerns as was noted for the power

steering assemblies above). In addition, the re- generation must work effectively and be compatible with conventional friction brakes. When re- generation is in use and the friction braking takes

over (e.g., when the car slows to very low speeds),

then smooth transitions must occur. Secondly, the

systems must not introduce new product liability issues. HVAC

HVAC presents an especially important technical

challenge. It is an area that needs to receive a

great deal of effort and attention and will add a

great deal to the range of electric vehicles if the

technology is well designed and developed. Conversely, if such systems are done poorly, they will decrease the range of electric vehicles in extreme

temperature conditions. While there are several potential solutions, none heis created concurrence

that the solution is at hand. This is one area that was recommended for additional technical review

and effort.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO

TECHNICAL BARRIERS

This area was not discussed directly, but was re- viewed indirectly as sideline discussions related to the other topic areas. Portions of these discussions focused on the possible solutions to technical

barriers. This included determining their technical feasibility and the development time required.

Discussion also focused on whether the development costs would be high or low, and whether the

solutions are highly important to the success of

electric vehicles, or are just marginally important.

Determining this information then allows a prioritization of technical approaches. Results are summarized in the appendix charts. IMPROVED MANUFACTURABILITY

AND MANUFACTURING NEEDS

Although the workshop did not complete a detailed discussion on needs, the objective was to understand if there is some key process, component, or cost item that can enable cost effective manufacture.

Battery Charging Systems

In the charging system, the production cost of the

high-current carrying component is the barrier.
Session Report 185

It is imperative that the cost of high-speed high- current switches such as IGBTs be reduced. In the case of inductive systems, the complexity of the

systems must be reduced along with the component count. Reducing the complexity and number

of components correspondingly reduces the overall electronic control system cost.

Brake Systems

Brake systems must be fail-safe and have very fast actuators that are low cost and highly reliable.

Energy Management Systems

The energy management system requires low cost voltage, current, and temperature sensors. Energy

management systems are likely to use large quantities of sensors—as many as one for each battery

cell or a minimum of one for each battery.

Sensors

Voltage and temperature sensors must be able to interface with arrays of these devices and the devices themselves must be very low cost as noted

directly above.

Steering Assemblies

Steering assemblies have the need for highly reli- able parts and fail-safe systems that can be manufax;tured in high volume at low cost. HVAC

HVAC requires that the systems have highefficiency parts that can be manufactured in large

quantities. Heat pump systems that operate effec- tively over a broad temperature range generally are not available in high volumes at low cost. In the case of solid-state devices, the cost of Peltier junctions must be reduced and the system capacity must be increased.

DC-to-DC Converters, External Lighting,

High-intensity Discharge Systems, Sensors

For DC-to-DC converters, cost is still an issue and

the high cost of power switching devices is the

main concern. External lighting has the issue of

cost reduction for low energy consumption. High

Intensity Discharge (HID) systems require signifi- cant cost reduction while halogen systems require

significant power reduction. Voltage and Current

Sensors must have the ability to have low cost, simple to use arrays of such devices. One possible

solution might be to integrate them directly into the batteries. SCHEDULE/TIMETABLE FOR

COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT

Schedules and timetables were not discussed as an individual topic, although the subject came up

throughout the workshop. A summary of related discussions follow. Each component has several potential timetables. One timetable is for the first generation of

components that are needed for the development

of hybrid and electric vehicles at this time. Prototypes are generally available at present, however,

there needs to be a clear path for the technology to mature to the extent that it can be integrated into a first or second generation of production vehicles. Vehicles under development today will utilize components that are presently available. The next

generation of electric vehicles will use the next

generation of components. To have the components qualify for the second generation of electric vehicles, they must have technologies that are ac- cepted and demonstrated, and they must be well along the manufacturability process. This means

that the technologies and prototypes must mature

and in general be available within the next year

for prototyping. For parts intended for use in vehicles in the near term, there must also be a clear, secure path

to mass manufacture components within the next

several years. If components do not have that

capability, then they will fall into follow-on cat- egories related to improving hybrid and electric vehicle performance in the future. The products that need to have great emphasis to make them available in the second or third

phase are pure electric braking systems and electric power steering assemblies. Both of these are

in a state of development that has not demonstrated complete capability. Consequently, there needs to be significant emphasis on readying them

for manufacture. Similarly, external lighting needs

continued development and DC-to-DC converters
186 Ancillary Systems

need to be developed further to reduce costs. HVAC systems are in an early state of development, but their development timetable is critically

important to electric vehicle production. The crit- ical issue with HVAC is to have the new systems

prepared and tooled for mass production. Greater

emphasis must be placed on creating prototypes,

early evaluation of prototypes, and quick resolu- tion to manufacturing barriers.

road map that can help guide government efforts to facilitate early introduction.

REFERENCES

[1] R. I. Sims, "Electric Vehicle Standards—The Current Status," these proceedings, pp. 53-61.

STANDARDS OR TEST PROCEDURES

TO BE DEVELOPED

Information related to this topic was covered in a generic, but comprehensive way in the article entitled. Electric Vehicle Standards—The Current

Status, by Ron Sims [1]. The viewpoint of the

workshop was that the sources referred to should

be reviewed and used as the primary resource as the standards become available.

KEY PERFORMANCE

SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE NEST

GENERATION COMPONENTS

A discussion of the Society of Automotive Engineers' (SAE) Electric Vehicle (EV) standards and

specifications is contained in the article referenced

above.

CONCLUSIONS

Ancillary Components hold the potential for significantly improved cost-to-benefit ratios for hybrid and electric vehicles. Their continued inte- grated development will ultimately result in lowercost components and increased energy savings.

Meanwhile, government agencies should look for additional means to support the development of

key components and enabling technologies. Proprietary components employing advanced tech- nologies can give U.S. businesses the opportunity

to achieve an economic and technology edge in world markets by supplying the ancillary components for these emerging markets.

The workshop provided benefit by focusing at- tention to the need for advanced ancillary systems.

It also helped by identifying key needs to make

advanced systems available. Finally, it provided a
Session Report

c

B

oO

.2

O

o

1) 3 _

-ava

a; J3

u

c

'o

> CO

S>i; O

a (s O -3 O m O ^ O P

3c

u

X!

•E E

S 2

-0 -0

•-1 -w

^ a EE

Vi 0

"E g O

P (S

ID i-4

2

<u o

4) X!co 3 >>

tfl -a 3

- o

° « ^

— a

O

XI

>aa

>>

o

«

-3 3 u

•E « « ^3 >. « w £ a S

^ -2

"I

"5)

c

*" ^

o ^

m

3

o

-3

c 0

.£ c

3

a, J3

aj jj rip ^ W) pq S

55 .S —! "1

•a ^

c

c

0a

0

ee jS

CP o

n

csun

c

s

I" ^

S § »
188 Ancillary Systems cBa0O

7^ 3 O hC to O 2 5? e .> o (u cn

-S ^

"3 .-ti fi .a Q J

3c8 - J3

Q.O hO u .£

X! JS o £ coH tO

<^ I >

taC

O -rt c a O . M ^ O m >co

(0o u QHca . 4) c3 > Z o JO u— o

4)oac c

«3 o 1 3

-a

4) PS 3 o

CD

u

<U T3W -3

T3

u

<uaV

ao>cW

u cn oa« 2 •r D. o VE a a j2 >

bC —f Xi 13

SIa ^ IS ^ 5

Gb '3

.a o2 O a 3a>aa

<uhC _o

"3X sao

CS "3>aQW

>» 41

MVoa 3 H

ill

SO

u

•E <U 4)

71 ow

es ,—- 4)

a; o

ft)

4) ja ^4) C«

CO ^—

COU

-oo

cn

h '5b c o

.5 c Eu

_4)o

"I

W >i hiH

_ >

4; 4)

4) ~ 3

Co c

<3 'm

C

41bCo

13K

c«

bCCU

cn

U<

fi>

OS

bO _C

CO

4;

aaVaVM

it

GVCoa0O

V

h

C > 01 S oJ to «o - ^ Oh Cfl <

0)uu

V 3 = T3

C > § W

13 5P c .S t .Sf

0)

U 0 Q U
Session Report 189 c

"*»

csu

'va

aa

a co 5 « =3 o

>•I +o

CS+

asIX

ctw

1> -a

j3>

i::

D

c2

>.

0)a

XIVcXauuaoO

aVeoaBou

bCaa

<:Xaa &B

<uhOC

•Eu>ou«uI >

6^^ o a *j o c aa

ISa

O

K

a

X

0-3 o cn Sin

4) •a c

(0 oc

-a3oEQ o

IS

Oa 1

bOc

•Eo

j33o

-0 oE

bC "TJ E S o3

-a

(Uft 3

CO

y 1

-a

bO 3

bO 33

13

<u

(a n ca ^ I* ^ "I £ t. .£ c

"i" S > V V S to CM tn <! s

II
190 Ancillary Systems

09e

u

u

0)a

.a

"53

I

bC

aaCO c J:: .a o

56

>,u

C

crt W izi

J3

oa

•s

B -2 — 3

^ tn O O

a

13

COo

c

2

u3

m

>.bOuc

HI _oa

oH

a

o

u

y5

c

2

"o

>> =3a

bO

bC

U 2

6 01 U o Q O
Session Report 191 uhVB0 _ = o

"0 :=a c a

3S 2 a'

u

O 2 "a

0) 4) a, '

tZ3 tn o »i

O

4)>O

-o

-o

(0 5S " co o 0c0u O U c «

5) ^ S o S >.

aJ -C .-a £ .S 5

01 •«

C3 o u3

-02aS V) a <u >» (ft .2 c o W o

4) :a

'c

,4»

a o « 4) co

in VC

ila.

4JV c

-°

4J ^ a 2

Mlc ^5"

41 - c

^-2

uB

C

en o o 5gbo 4)

bOC

41ao

4>V

^1S Si

4) bC « o S- b3 8 ^flj

-asco

tn 3 i ^ > 6 « I

•3 5 >> u a S uV

*»u«« c

.-s

a

— 4) « S a o " >; V u

'3 .a cou

egaE

-3E

•a -a ^ C

bO

Jl)«

4) ^01

bO in uC J= u

41>Ou

4) c2

Itu —

-2 2 C«eoaE0O If

pau

CO

CBh

PQ

CVE g2^E
192 Ancillary Systems o >

cS J3g -o S -a

>» QJ

T3

-o ><

-aa

1)co

Z.

Va couc0o

"3 Q.-E Co * Z E socou

U)um

-C E

<uO o

-o E a 3 c o> t- ,

(-1 tn S O 5 V w ilo § Z E

•2oO JG o o

bC c a 8

0) 3

"E -c > :a

(A -aO tn

1^

J

aE3a o « .2J O J3 Oo sa u o

bO

C

w 8

PL,o

-E

u

*5 13 c ^ 8

bJO Co >a£

CO>.

i/i >>u C C

<u 4J '0

effi • 3

C33

a*

(U T5a oZ 3

Pi 3a§ e

0) Vo 2 ^ £ § V U Souy3

-is -o c V

t? ^ u bO E « « ^

tf

y -a E 0)

tn 01 4)

•- 3 « 3

J3

bOs

•Q^ >.

CO

u

4;a3

4J <- ? I

TJ

a

"o bC

bO 5 .S m O

>. o

Vl

u

C

4) 'o5E

=3,'3

V3

m

S2 «

bc

V

w «2 scoaS0O

11

,r&H cn <l e

0)

.0 c

"3M c .S X .SP

Q ^ i ? 6 § Q U
Session Report 193

a

3

Importance

to

EV/HEV

Commerce

High

Moderate Moderate

High

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

High High

Development Cost

Low

Moderate

High

Moderate

High

Moderate

Low

Moderate Moderate

High

Moderate

Development Time

Moderate

Long Long

Moderate

Long

Moderate

Short

Moderate

Short

Moderate Moderate

Technical

Feasibility

High High High MbO X

High High High

Moderate

High High High

Technical

Approaches

•

Fast

charge

•

Inductive

•

Electric

•

Software/Hardware

interface

module

•

Electric

•

OpticeJ

systems

/sensor

arrays

•

HeJogen

•

High-intensity

discharge

•

Switching

power

supplies

•

Working

fluid

heat

pumps

•

Sohd-state

heat

pumps

Component

Battery

Charger

Brakes Energy

Management

System

Power

Steering

Assembly Voltage

and

Current

Sensors

External Lighting

DC-to-DC

Converters U

$
194 Ancillary Systems

0

« O

0 bO a- u

3

I—I -wu

lU 0

3

^ g

hO O

o

S3 o

1

c2 S

•^3

a

-a

0)

o

^ u

O o

" a

13

3

13

o o

oj G

05 01 O

1—1 w

•Eu

o2

"aa

3

O

o

oa

o

3

0 c

0) y

a

c

1

3 T3 5 &

E

o

y

a

a

E

oZ

B

V

-a

o2

o

o

>> 3

y

ff5

3

(UbOO

13

J3o

O

O

O2

a

E

3a

a

JS

-01 » V y

3 3

13 .a o «=

a

P3 U

in

. 0)

4) C

cu ^

01 V

.0 c

c .S Q ^

> U 0 Q U
Session Report 195

£

"3

73

Mass

Production

Plug

connector

-

late

1995

Inductive

-

late

1995

2 c V S

early

1996

mid1996

Optical

-

early

1996

1993 1996 late

1995

late

1995

Low-volume

Production

Assemblies

Plug

connector

-

mid

1994

Inductive

-

late

1994

H

-

1993

E

-

unknown

early

1995

1993

Optical

-

early

1995

1993 1994 mid1994

early

1994

Demo

Prototypes

Plug

connector

-

now

Inductive

-

now

Hydraulic

(H)

-

1993

Electric

(E)

-

unknown

early

1994

CO

05

Gi

1—1

Optical

-

early

1994

Halogen

-

1993

High-intensity

discharge

-

1993

1993 1993

Component

Battery

Charger

Brakes Energy

Management

System

Power

Steering

Assembly Voltage

and

Current

Sensors

External Lighting

DC-to-DC

Converters

HVAC
196 Ancillary Systems

toac<u

oa OQ

Q

1)

•3

T3« 2

a;

T3« -9

Oh CC

C0oe§co e o

-T3C

inmO

4)cosoo

0)

73 « O tn 2

"0

wC § 5 u o ^ a «3 S - 5 2 o 5 >oO

a

_oa S

CO PQ

.3>

•cQ o aoOo
The NIST Advanced Technology Program

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NIST ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

T. Leedy

Project Manager, Advanced Technology Program

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

What is the Advanced Technology

Program?

The U.S. Commerce Department's Advanced

Technology Program (ATP) promotes eco- nomic growth and the competitiveness of U.S.

business and industry by accelerating the de- velopment and commercialization of promising, but high-risk, technologies that underlie a wide range of potential applications.

The ATP assists businesses in carrying out

precompetitive, generic research and development to enable commercial technologies that

offer significant benefits to the nation's econ- omy. The program is managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST).

What support does the ATP provide?

The ATP provides technology development

grants, either to single businesses or to joint ventures. The program also may sponsor co- operative research projects between private

industry and federal laboratories.

What is "precompetitive, generic

technology?"

"Precompetitive" here means R&D activities up to the stage where technical problems are

sufficiently resolved to permit assessment of

commercial potential, and prior to development of application-specific commercial prototypes. The ATP will support development

of laboratory prototypes and proof of tech- nical feasibility, but not commercial prototypes or proof of commercial feasibility. At

this stage, results can be shared within a con- sortium that includes potential competitors

without reducing the incentives for the indi- vidual firms to develop and market commercial products or processes.

"Generic" technology means concepts, components, processes, or scientific investigations

that potentially could be applied to a broad

range of products or processes.

Which fields of technology does the ATP

support?

Any.

Who may apply for ATP support?

Any business or industry-led joint venture may apply for an ATP grant. There is no

restriction on size. The ATP provides no di- rect funding to universities, government organizations, or non-profit independent research organizations, but they may participate as members of a joint venture. Other questions

regarding eligibility should be referred to the

ATP office.

Awards to individual firms are limited to $2

million over three years and can be used only

fo.r direct R&D costs. Awards to joint ventures can be for up to 5 years and are limited

only by available funds, but the ATP will fund no more than 50 percent of the total R&D

cost of a joint venture. Applicants may submit more than one proposal.

How are projects selected for ATP

funding?

Selections are made through a multistage

evaluation process. Proposals first are

199
200 Leedy:

screened for compliance with the basic pro- gram requirements. Technical experts then

evaluate each proposal for scientific and technical merit. Those rated highest are then

rated for:

the potential of the proposal for broadbased benefits to U.S. industry;

the technology-transfer benefits of the

proposal;

^y the experience and qualifications of the

proposing organization; and

y/ the proposer's level of commitment and

organizational structure. A small group of "semi-finalists" are asked to make oral presentations at NIST and, in some

cases, site visits may be made to assess special

facilities. Final decisions will be based upon:

y/ assuring an appropriate distribution of

funds among technologies and their applications;

y/ the rank order of the applications on the

basis of all selection criteria; and

y/ the availability of funds.

When may applications be submitted for

ATP awards?

Unsolicited proposals will not be accepted.

NIST publishes announcements calling for ATP proposals in the Federal Register and

Commerce Business Daily at intervals that

depend on available funding — usually at

least once per year.

Proposer's kits containing proposal preparation instructions and the forms required for proposal submission are provided upon re- quest. Only proposals meeting the criteria outlined in the proposer's kit will be accepted,

and proposals will be accepted only during

the solicitation periods noted in the program

announcements.

Upon request, NIST will add your name

and address to the ATP mailing list so that

you automatically will receive new announce- ments by mail.

Who will own the rights to developments

under the ATP?

Generally, grant recipients retain title to any

intellectual property. They may patent inventions and/or copyright software developed under an ATP grant. Their proposals, however,

must contain plans for assuring the use of the

property to enhance U.S. economic growth.

Specific terms are negotiated at the time the

grant is made.

The ATP encourages publication of research

results in a manner consistent with preserv- ing copyright or patent rights to the devel- opments. "Publication" here does not refer to disclosure of proprietary information, but

rather dissemination of information regarding

the new development so that other businesses

may become aware of opportunities to license technology developed with ATP funding.

Proprietary information disclosed by appli- cants to the ATP is exempt from disclosure

under the Freedom of Information Act.

May foreign firms receive funding?

Any firm that is not a "United-States-owned

company" (i.e., that does not have a majority

ownership or control by individuals who are

citizens of the United States) may receive an ATP grant if

\J the Secretary of Commerce finds that

the company's participation in the Advanced Technology Program would be

in the economic interest of the United

States; and

y/ the Secretary finds that the country

in which the company or its parent

company is incorporated affords UnitedStates-owned companies similar opportunities and adequate and eflfective protection for intellectual property rights.

Further details on these eligibility requirements for foreign-owned corporations are

available from the ATP.
... tie NIST Advanced Technology Program

Where do I get additional information?

Additional material on the program, including a copy of the most recent program an- nouncement (request for proposals) and detailed application information can be obtained by writing to or calling:

Advanced Technology Program

A43O Administration Bldg.

National Institute of Standards and

Technology

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001

(301) 975-2636

NIST has established an "ATP Hotline" with a periodically updated recorded status report on the program. The number is 1-800-ATPFUND or 1-800-287-3863.

The ATP was established by the Technology

Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Subpart C, Section 5131).

January 1993

Index of Authors

Barber, K. F. 19-24

Barsony, S. 26-32

Bartholomew, R. W. 65-70, 71-75

BeU, L. E. 182-196

Bogdanoff, M. A. 102-105

Bromberg, L. 83-88

Cackette, T. 3-19

Christianson, C. 116-130

Cohn, D. R. 83-88

DowgiaUo, E. 131-143

HaU, W. B. 170-173

Henrikson , G. L. 116-130

Hsiimg, S. 26-32

Kevala, R. J. 97-101

King, H. J. 174-182

Koopman, R. 156-163

Leedy, T. 199-201

Leonard, J. H. 102-105

Lesster, L. E. 164-170, 170-173

Lindberg, F. A. 170-173

Lushetsky, J. 146 Marks, C. 33-39

Nilsson, A. 147-153

Paul, M. A. 89-97

Post, R. 154-155

Rabinovich, A. 83-88

Richardson, J. 156-163

Saunders, H. E. 144-145

Sims, R. I. 53-61

Smith, J. R. 76-82

Sobey, A. J. 65-70, 106-115

Spiewak, D. R. 26-32

Weber, J. W. 174-182

Williams, J. 40-53

Young, R. M. 170-173

203

i
I
i T X kJ M. Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology— Reports NIST

research and development in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which

the Institute is active. These include physics, chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and computer

sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time

are survey articles on topics closely related to the Institute's technical and scientific programs.

Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs - Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the

Institute's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks - Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes)

developed in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies.

Special Publications — Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NIST, NIST annual

reports, and other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket

cards, and bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series — Mathematical tables, manuals, and studies of special interest to

physicists, engineers, chemists, biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others

engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series — Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical

properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed

under a worldwide program coordinated by NIST under the authority of the National Standard

Data Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: The Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data

(JPCRD) is published bimonthly for NIST by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the

American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions, reprints, and supplements are available from

ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series — Disseminates technical information developed at the Institute on building

materials, components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the

durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes — Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive

in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NIST under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards — Developed under procedures published by the Department of

Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish

nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis

for common understanding of the characteristics of the products. NIST administers this program

in supf>ort of the efforts of private-sector standardizing organizations.

Consumer Information Series — Practical information, based on NIST research and experience,

covering areas of interest to the consumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace.

Order the above NIST publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC 20402.

Order the following NIST publications — FIPS and NISTIRs—from the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB) — Publications in this series

collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves

as the official source of information in the Federal Government regardmg standards issued by

NIST pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315,

dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NIST Interagency Reports (NISTIR)- A special series of interim or final reports on work

performed by NIST for outside sponsors (both government and non-government). In general,

mitial distribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161, in paper copy or microfiche form.
erce

Is and Tei