article tools
Increase Text Size Increase Text Size Decreate Text Size Decrease Text Size
Share Email This Story Share Share This Story Reader comments Reader Comments (18) View image gallery Image Gallery (1) Add to favorites Add to Bookmarks Printer friendly version Printer Friendly Version
Article Tool Sponsor:

Advertise with us

More Jobs
0 ratings - Sign-in to rate this article
March 3, 2006

Plug-In Hybrids: The New Focus for the Future of Transportation

New approach, available today, allows renewables to address transportation needs.
by Prof. Andrew Alfonso Frank, Univ. of Ca.-Davis
[RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

Recently there has been a lot of interest in the concept of the Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle or PHEV. I have been researching this concept for about 30 years. Over this time, there have been major improvements in the basic components, such as the batteries, the Continuously Variable Transmission or CVT, and computer control technology in vehicles. As a result, the technology is now ready for introduction to the mass market by the major car companies. We expect that the public will begin to demand this type of vehicle now because they have finally realized that the Hydrogen Economy won't happen in less than 30 to 50 years -- if at all. The reason is that there is no infrastructure for the efficient creation of hydrogen and the transport of hydrogen will be a problem forever.

"In contrast, to the much touted hydrogen economy, there is no need for massive infrastructure development and construction. The PHEV allows us to immediately transition from our dependence on oil for transportation to one where we can begin to transition to cleaner and more efficient electricity without a need for new infrastructure."

- Prof Andrew Alfonso Frank, Director of Hybrid Vehicle Research,

In contrast, the Plug-In Hybrid can use as much as 90% of their driving energy from electricity using the currently available electric sources already in our society, ie the standard outdoor plugs at 120 volts and 1.5 KW in the US and 220 volts at 2 KW in much of the rest of the world. The rest of the energy for these automobiles can come from liquid fuels such as gasoline, Diesel or ethanol from biomass. In addition, the vehicles can be charged directly from small wind and solar systems on top of our homes and workplaces. Of course, large wind and Solar systems could also be used much more effectively. Since wind and solar generators are intermittent, they need an energy storage mechanism to be effective. The batteries of the PHEV's can provide this storage capability at no cost to the Utility companies.

The reason the PHEV is so attractive now is that at the current cost of gasoline is $2.50 and rising whereas the average cost of electricity is stable at about 8 cents/kWh. This translates to about the equivalent of 75 cents a gallon of gasoline when used in a PHEV. In addition, in most places in the US, outdoor plugs are available everywhere in our society. Thus, in contrast, to the much touted hydrogen economy, there is no need for massive infrastructure development and construction. The PHEV allows us to immediately transition from our dependence on oil for transportation to one where we can begin to transition to cleaner and more efficient electricity without a need for new infrastructure.

A major difference between the PHEV and the Electric Cars of the past is that the PHEV does not have to be charged since the car is designed to operate the same whether the batteries are fully charged or at its maintenance state of charge, SOC, about 20% to 30%. With this reserve SOC the batteries are always available for extra power when needed. In addition, most cars in the US and the world are used about 3 to 4 hours a day, meaning it is parked somewhere for 20 to 21 hours a day. Thus the PHEV can be plugged in somewhere to charge its batteries most of the day. We have constructed vehicles that use about 200 to 300 watt-hrs /mile. Thus a 60-mile range requires 12 to 18 kWh. Or at 1.5 kW from the 120 volt plug 9 to 12 hours is required to achieve 60 miles of range for a small car to a full size SUV.

In terms of practical applications to our vehicles, we have designed and constructed at UC Davis eight vehicles in the last 15 years that show that the concept applies equally to small cars up to full size SUVs that do everything a conventional vehicle does in the US including towing trailers while running mostly on electricity from the wall plug or from wind or solar systems. In fact, we have shown that a 60 mile All Electric Range PHEV full size SUV generates less than one half the CO2 emissions of a compact car and uses less than one quarter the liquid fuel of a compact sedan. In addition, these PHEV's have one quarter or less of the moving parts and weigh no more than the conventional car because they have much smaller engines (about one third the conventional) and much simpler and lighter transmissions. This technology can be transferred to industry for high volume manufacturing now.

The reality today is that the car companies have been focused on ever-larger trucks and vehicles that get lower and lower fuel economy but do meet stricter emission standards. They are however emitting more CO2. The PHEV can reverse these trends since the vehicles that we have constructed show not only zero emission operation on a daily basis but when using gasoline only, the fuel economy is more than double the conventional car. If a vehicle travels 40 miles a day commuting to and from work and the vehicle travels 15,000 miles a year the effective gasoline mileage for a PHEV is over 250 miles a gallon. Or compared to conventional car, the PHEV will use about 1/10th the liquid fuel. This fact makes bio-fuels such as ethanol from cellulostic materials and biodiesel practical since we can supply 1/10th of our current oil energy use from croplands and waste agricultural products. In addition, as batteries improve, the electric range of the PHEV can increase reducing the need for liquid fuel further.

Finally, the bigger battery packs of the PHEV can be used to power the house or provide relief for the need for peak power in the middle of the day. The key to this direction of energy flow from the vehicle back to the grid or V2G is to do it at a low power level so that the efficiency of energy transfer is high. Then to affect the overall grid, we would use more vehicles, ie if there is a need for 1MW of electricity at a certain time, it could be supplied by 1000 vehicles at one KW or by 100 vehicles at 10 KW. We are saying that 1000 vehicles is the choice because of efficiency and infrastructure cost.

Conclusions:

The PHEV concept is now ready for development by the major car companies, since all the necessary technology is available. A few of these technologies need further development to bring the cost and durability to a level demanded by the car companies and the consuming public. These requirements mean that the batteries, the CVT, and all the powertrain components must be maintenance free and warranted for 15 years and 150,000 miles, and they must be within the range of the cost of a conventional vehicle of today while providing a profit to the car companies and their suppliers. In addition the public must be educated to demand that these vehicles be built to reduce the risk to the car companies for their investment in the PHEV concept.

It would appear that the low cost of electric energy (1/3 to 1/4) compared to liquid fuels, the fact that the electric drive technology can provide even greater performance than conventional gasoline engines, the fact that big battery pack can begin the integration of the transportation and the stationary energy sector, and the availability of home fueling would be enough incentive to attract the current price difference. However, a car company needs to be assured that they will be able to recover their initial investment in the technology and ultimately make a profit in a short term.

The best way to do this is to make the information about the benefits of the PHEV available to the public and to have the public demand be voiced in "soft orders" which basically says "build them, we will buy them!!" to the car companies. The effort by Austin Energy, EPRI, CalCars various magazines and newspapers is beginning to get the message about PHEV's out. Our US president recently mentioned biofuels and the PHEV as a necessary part of our strategy to immediately begin to reverse the trend of increased oil consumption. This will hopefully get our industry to begin to take the potential up coming oil crisis seriously. This is the "New Game" that we all need to focus on today!

About the author...

Professor Andrew Alfonso Frank is Director of Hybrid Vehicle Research at the University of Californai-Davis. He holds the following degrees: B.S. (1955), University of California, Berkeley, M.S. (1958), University of California, Berkeley, M.S. (1965), University of Southern California, Ph.D. (1968), University of Southern California, Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering.
Image Gallery (1)
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

Reader Comments (18)
 
No image available
March 8, 2006
Wow. Thought provoking. When can I buy one? In response to Luke's analysis, the good doctor has pointed out that a small green energy generator (wind and/or solar) can also be used to supplement both the grid and the PHEV. A truly excellent idea! Thus CO2 generation is reduced both by the car and by the system that charges the batteries. Why not add a solar panel to the top of the car, so that the batteries can charge during the day, when it is typically parked by a day-time worker?
Comment 1 of 18
No image available
March 8, 2006
While I agree with the author that changes are needed, and right away in the US. Some things to consider: The US has 4.5 percent of the world population, but has 35 percent of the world's cars and trucks.The percentage of Americans living in suburban areas has risen from 23.3 percent in 1950 to 49.9 percent as of 1998. CO2 emissions are the single largest man made contributor to global warming. US autos alone are the fifth largest producer of CO2 worldwide. The four larger sources CO2 emissions are; 1. US (total CO2 emissions) 2. China. 3. Russia. 4. Japan.

I think we need a systematic solution, not a patch.
Comment 2 of 18
No image available
March 8, 2006
What this article fails to regard is that the oil supply is running out around the world. Focussing on a switch to a system that is dependent STILL on oil is an unsustainable choice. The world needs to move to another technology. While I agree that the use of eletricity is a great idea, we also have to consider where the electricity comes from. If all the autos in just the U.S. magically became hybrids in the next five years, this would be a great step to reducing AUTO emissions. However, electricity use would definitely rise, and the current system of electricity production is very much focussed, unfortunately, on coal and nuclear resources. I would not encourage the increased use of electricity given the current state of things.

more in next comment
Comment 3 of 18
No image available
March 8, 2006
With X million more cars "plugged in" by year 2020,it would NOW be practical to raise the house by a further 3mtrs,from the rising tides.

Rising emissions would have the US Trade Sanctioned, by year 2015.

I have already ordered by Honda FCX for year 2009 delivery,plus their HESS home hydrogen system !
Comment 4 of 18
No image available
March 8, 2006
A very well developed practical approach that is practical rather than idealistic.

This is an approach that can support us in the transition as we work towards developing the practicalities, read infrastructures and distribution, of other renewable technologies.
Comment 5 of 18
No image available
March 8, 2006
An excellent article by a very well qualified author on a timely subject. Finally, we are beginning to see the outlines of real possible solutions to transportation.
Our present situation is essentially stalemated and an abomination. We must move forward. Time is of the essence.
GO PHEVS. GO RENEWABLES. Your time is NOW.
Comment 6 of 18
No image available
March 10, 2006
I like the conclusion There is no silver bullet so if you are not part of the many solutions you are part of the problem.
Dedefinitely if we shal not consume oxigen to get stupid artifact we shal sustain life and maybe that life will find the optimum sollution.
I think Romania is a very interesting place where such an investment could have instant succes.
Comment 7 of 18
No image available
March 10, 2006
I read at www.evworld.com that if all cars in the USA become EVs US's electricity output must be increased by 250% to meet the demand.
If you think 250% is too much. Even if it is 30-50% it is difficult to achieve without sacrificing the Earth.
Comment 8 of 18
No image available
March 10, 2006
Because "Great Leeps Forward" don't work, I tend to agree with stepwise approaches like the plug-in hybrid: Incremental behavior change and meaningful step forward environmentally. However, I have some issues with the article:

1) Cost: The comparison of fully taxed gasoline (federal excise, state excise, state tax) at $2.50/G against the untaxed incremental cost of electricity ($0.08/kWh) is dishonest or uninformed.
2) Show the CO2 numbers: The author claims to calculate very large CO2 reductions. Please link to the data and analysis! My thought is that *ALL* incremental load on the grid is *100%* fossil - not the grid blend. Why? Because renewable (and large hydro) sources connected to the grid always output their max. All incremental load is supplied by dispatchable generators like nuclear, coal, and gas-fired (as well as hydrothermal as an exception).
Comment 9 of 18
No image available
March 10, 2006
I hope I am able to first get my solar panels for my home, then I can get my hybrid car so that they don't go building more Nukes in order to fuel the electric car. Yucca mountain is still a disaster area acording to Barbara Baxter the Senator of California and this issue is still bad news. She has just written about is in her news letter on her home page. Senator of CA.
Comment 10 of 18
No image available
March 10, 2006
I am a bit concerned that Professor Frank doesn't seem to keep up in this field, let alone not knowing that you never say never. The infrastructure is already in place for the distribution of a hydride slurry. You pull in the "gas station" and pump up as usual. the only difference is that you exchange the "charged" hydrogen slurry for the depleted slurry. The energy content is just a bit less than gasoline and it is non-explosive. You could even recharge the slurry from onboard PV or plug in to any renewable source as the good professor suggests. The advantage is zero CO2 emissions and lower consumer costs.
Comment 11 of 18
No image available
March 10, 2006
Toyota needs to make a plug in version of the prius. They could call it the Prius EV. New battery technology is constantly improving. It may be possible at a later date to upgade the battery pack and load new software. The software would take advantage of the larger battery capacity. The problems is the electric motors output only 22 horsepower. The other is the electric drive can only propel the car at a top speed of 41 mph on level ground.
So to make the car more friendly to drive electric motor horse power must increase. Also gearing on the electric motors must change to allow for higher speed opperation.
Toyota could offer dealer installed retrofit kit. But would be limited to the current electric motor horse power.
Comment 12 of 18
No image available
March 10, 2006
Sounds great at first look but I feel this is just another band-aid fix. Can't you just see all of us driving around with a 500 foot extension cord looking for some poor fools unlocked electrical outlet. I think we had better stick to those energy sources that do not depend on non-renewable hydrocarbon. The problems of using hydrogen can and will be solved.
Comment 13 of 18
No image available
March 10, 2006
PHEVs may play a useful role in the future, but fuel prices will have to go much higher than they are in Europe today before PHEVs become economically competitive. I'm disappointed at the misleading treatment of the economics in the article, which emphasizes the low operating costs while ignoring the very high capital costs. I expect this kind of one-sided presentation from the nuclear industry, but not from my fellow renewable energy proponents.
Comment 14 of 18
No image available
March 10, 2006
I agree wholeheartedly with the report. I am waiting to get my hands on the PHEV's. My one concern about PHEV's is the battery. I am involved in Lithium Ion Polymer battery applications and development, and these batteries certainly can meet the power requirements more effectively than nickel metal hydrate, but there are some significant problems with life cycle durability and cost of the Lithiums. In my opinion, they are not here yet and will not be for some 2-5 years. Nickel metal hydrate on the other hand, have already acheived 150,000 miles in Toyota Prius taxis, but they again will be expensive at the 20KW level needed for PHEV's, and they are not nearly as efficient as Lithium's. It will be interesting to see if the Toyota's, Ford's and Mazda's of the world will build the units. Certainly the Toyota Prius is the only one that could be easily converted to PHEV operation. Sleep on, General Motors.
Comment 15 of 18
No image available
March 10, 2006
You loose 3/4 of electric or CNG energy by converting it to get Hydrogen. No Hydrogen infrastructure, prohibitively expensive vehicles that require exotic fuel cell replacement and most important, the 3/4 reduction in effective energy use will bankrupt us.

Off peak cheap electricity, solar, wind, biodiesel and ethanol are here now. We need efficient stewardship of that energy thru PHEV vehicles. Contact http://www.pluginamerica.com/ and http://www.pluginpartners.org/
Comment 16 of 18
No image available
March 10, 2006
A Honda FCX with a Plug Power fuel cell and fuel processor are not the answer. The FCX uses three times the total energy per mile of a good EV or PHEV and this particular system depends on an already short supply of natural gas. Let's quit nit picking and get PHEV's going in a big way as we continue to increase public transport and efficient rail freight shipping along with all the hundreds of other solutions. There is no silver bullet so if you are not part of the many solutions you are part of the problem.
Comment 17 of 18
No image available
March 14, 2006
I don't know where the good professor lives but electricity rates in most of California (PG&E, SDGE, SCE) are at least 12 cents per KWh...and rising. Furthermore, you need to incentivise plugging in at night during off-peak hours. Conversely, penalize those who would plug in during peak hours.
Comment 18 of 18
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In
Featured Total Access Partners
Click company logos to learn more
ULVAC Technologies, Inc. Siterra Corporation Latin American Wind Energy Association Solar Electric Power Association 3TIER POWER-GEN India and Central Asia
WORLD'S #1 RENEWABLE ENERGY NETWORK
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network Logo