And, SAE Goes into a Stall

Like it?

comments

Posted February 18, 2008 with 98 reads

Keywords: hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, sae hybrid vehicle technology symposium, transportation

Green Car Congress¹ reports on the 2008 SAE Hybrid Vehicle Technology Symposium last week in San Diego.

Two main themes were:

Explorations of the near- to -medium-term technical viability of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)—which mainly (although not entirely) means the viability of the lithium-ion battery technology—and
The desirability of pursuing PHEVs now, versus alternatives such as focusing on broadening the conventional HEV market and treating PHEVs as a longer range solution.

Anderman graph at SAE presentation
Featured in one presentation was a graph with a prominent arrow in the background encouraging the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) in attendance to move away from grid-able vehicles.

One of the organizers of the SAE symposium, John German, Manager of Environmental and Energy Analysis for Honda, took an unscheduled opportunity to present a few slides calling into question the near-term benefit of plug-ins.

While acknowledging that “plug-ins are likely to be one of the alternatives to fossil fuels,” German said that given the projected near-term economics, a premature focus on plug-ins might deliver less benefit than focusing on expanding the market share of conventional hybrids.

German referenced economic payback analysis from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE), as well as a detailed May 2007 study by Matthew Kromer and John B. Heywood at MIT on the prospects for electric power trains in the US.

To quote from the Tao of Lutz, “Do the right thing or not. And, if you are going to spend all that very precious time building a rationale for avoiding the right thing, at least be honest and admit that it is a circle jerk.” Whoops, misquote, I think it was from the Tao of Pooh.

The plug-in hybrid offers a striking opportunity to reduce petroleum consumption to a level half of that offered by the hybrid vehicle. In addition, while the plug-in hybrid’s business-as-usual GHG emissions do not project a significant benefit, they offer a continuous path for incremental improvement through decreased carbonization of the power sector—an opportunity that does not exist for the hybrid vehicle.

…At the same time, the PHEV is a less cost-effective way to reduce petroleum and greenhouse gas emissions than the hybrid (particularly in the near-term); and, due to its higher upfront cost, it will have a harder time penetrating the market. The plug-in hybrid also faces greater technical and infrastructure risk than the HEV: while the hybrid has already enjoyed market success, the plug-in hybrid still requires significant improvements in battery technology to meet the rigors of an automotive duty cycle.

And, while the infrastructure for supporting hybrid vehicles is already mature, deploying the plug-in hybrid at scale will require regulation to ensure that off-peak generation capacity is used; depending on geography, it could also require capacity expansion. While the infrastructure issues represent a relatively low barrier to deployment, the technical challenges will delay the time-to-market for the plug-in hybrid.

Taken together, the long time to market penetration and the lower cost-effectiveness of the plug-in hybrid suggest that the HEV offers a higher leverage, lower-cost path to reducing petroleum and GHG emissions in the near-term. However, given the upper bound on the HEV’s effectiveness, the plug-in hybrid offers a mid- to long-term path to continued reductions.

—Kromer and Heywood (2007)

Photo / Donna Coveney (John Heywood, director of the Sloan Automotive Lab and professor of mechanical engineering, on far right)

Dan Browne, “I’m thinking all it would take is one single commercial aired during the superbowl:”

Scene 1:: Camera pans across a huge line of cars waiting for gas, some guys fighting and shouting at each other. Gas price says $4.50. There are guys turning people away at the end of the line saying “not enough gas, try again later”.

A couple youngish guys drive past slowly in their plug-in, flip the bird to the guys in the line and say “suckers!”

Voice over: Plug-in Freedom Car does not NEED gasoline.

The demand would be enormous.

Ostensibly, Menahem Anderman argues that it is for environmental and societal benefits, yet the gist of the argument is economic. “PHEVs are a detour and not a step forward, Anderman said, if”:

For the sake of the PHEV, car and battery companies dilute their efforts to expand conventional HEVs and to introduce li-ion batteries into the market;
If governments miss the opportunity to provide incentives for conventional HEVs, “the only electrified vehicle technology that can make an impact on the environment in the next 10 years” and
If the PHEV is rushed to market by bypassing prudent automotive engineering design, verification, qualification and supplier management standards.

As one commentator observed, the graph is way too short. “The environmental impacts are far from properly delineated.”

Anderman’s conclusions about the economic viability of PHEVs were vigorously questioned by Dr. Mark Duvall from EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), GCC commentator hal found the Kromer and Heywood MIT study on line at:

http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/kromer_electri...

and comments:

To me, their comments are more credible than the EPRI guy, because his job is to promote electricity use, and PHEVs are a good way to do that. The MIT people would be much less likely to have an ax to grind.

To which, I respond:

I would agree with you that Big Eddie is pushing plug-ins out of self-interest. OTOH, in this day and age, on the academic freedom front, or lack thereof, I wonder if you are speaking from ignorance as to how much money the automobile manufacturers pour into Sloan, or whether it is more spin.

You know, UNLEASH THE CAR SALESMEN AND the SAE

Still, the writing would seem to be on the wall. GCC commentator Wintermane noted that when a Honda bigwig says the near term future is HEV, rather than PHEV, and the market for hybrids is now led by their main rival Toyota, then you should believe him.

TARDEC (Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center) sez: Accomplish mission while using less fuel.

What rubbed my fur the wrong way was a comment by Rafael Seidl:

What the graph shows you is that relatively small improvements in fuel economy applied to a very large number of vehicles will deliver greater aggregate environmental benefits than producing a few very green cars will.

The market shows that US consumers either do not understand or do not care about the aggregate environmental benefits. They want the bragging rights that come with choosing a very green car.

To which, I replied:

Unfortunately, Seidl’s statement seems to reflect a common industry attitude, i.e., telling the public what they want with billions in advertising, then taking no responsibility for the forced choices. It is about corporate ethics, or the absence thereof.

And, such ethical positions extend to the political arena. Maybe, you have noticed that the truth-telling candidates have fallen by the wayside and from now to November it will be image and the swift-boating thereof.

I heartily agree with the first part of his statement, “relatively small improvements in fuel economy applied to a very large number of vehicles will deliver greater aggregate environmental benefits”. It would seem that transportation, energy, and environmental policy could effect such improvements.

Yes, the absence of such policy is about public responsibility and corporate responsibility. It’s the Seven Generations thing, folks. Quite ironic that engineers, who want to build things that people admire, would desist in such responsibility.

GCC commentator Tom quipped, “Bragging rights implies that others would be ‘green with envy’. That’s a good thing.” Eric also thought that Seidl’s interpretation of public behavior was harsh.

You could alternatively say that the vast majority of Americans have zero environmental awareness, and a small minority have a very strong awareness, hence the desire for “deep green” cars.

Several GCC commentators, like sjc, observed that “we already are on our way to having quite a few HEVs on the road.”

Come out with a PHEV option that people can purchase on new HEVs and allow them to upgrade over time. It is not like you have to have an either or.

Economics could probably make the decision for us. The battery packs for PHEV will be expensive and in short supply. Over time, the HEV bought with PHEV option can be retrofitted as batteries become more available and affordable.

GCC commentator Neil:

I think many of those advocating HEVs over PHEVs are making some basic assumptions about the future. They’re assuming that the future will just be a linear continuation of the present.

While it may very well be as simple as that, it’s never been a straight line. While HEVs are a great improvement, and I’d like to see many more on the road, they have one basic limitation. They still rely on oil for all of their motive power. That still leaves the owners vulnerable to supply disruptions (Katrina, Chavez, OPEC, Putin and geology). If there are any supply disruptions between now and the introduction of the PHEV, then they will sell like hotcakes to those who can afford a little security.

I think Tom Turrentine has a very valid point. People choose their vehicles for a number of reasons, both intellectual and emotional, economic payback of technology is just one factor.

GCC commentator Jim G.:

The difference between an HEV and a PHEV is the battery, which happens to be the most expensive part of the car, so PHEV’s are more expensive. Other than that the technology is the same.

Some advocate going all HEV into the foreseeable future, because the environmental advantage of PHEV’s is slim (it’s only slim because it costs more money for those batteries). Does that mean you’ll never see plug-in architecture develop? Well, some vested interests would like it to mean that, but it doesn’t mean that.

Toyota is already designing a PHEV. All that needs to happen is for batteries to become cheap and the entire equation changes drastically. That’s going to happen, most likely due to battery demand in the non-automotive sector. Can’t wait.

Former fed chair Alan Greenspan says the electric car is the best solution to high gas prices and we need to find ways to make more of them.

Coincident with the GCC post, Autoblog Green reported that we have a leading economist, someone this nation trusted with monetary policy analysis for many, many years, arguing the converse.

(Dons Wehrmacht helmet)

Hmm, very interesting.

GCC Recommended Resource