Electric and Hybrid Vehicles: Power Sources, Models, Sustainability, Infrastructure and the Market

by Gianfranco Pistoia (Editor)

Overview

Electric and Hybrid Vehicles: Power Sources, Models, Sustainability, Infrastructure and the Market reviews the performance, cost, safety, and sustainability of battery systems for hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and electric vehicles (EVs), including nickel-metal hydride batteries and Li-ion batteries. Throughout this book, especially in the first chapters, alternative vehicles with different power trains are compared in terms of lifetime cost, fuel consumption, and environmental impact. The emissions of greenhouse gases are particularly dealt with. The improvement of the battery, or fuel cell, performance and governmental incentives will play a fundamental role in determining how far and how substantial alternative vehicles will penetrate into the market. An adequate recharging infrastructure is of paramount importance for the diffusion of vehicles powered by batteries and fuel cells, as it may contribute to overcome the so-called range anxiety."" Thus, proposed battery charging techniques are summarized and hydrogen refueling stations are described. The final chapter reviews the state of the art of the current models of hybrid and electric vehicles along with the powertrain solutions adopted by the major automakers.

• Contributions from the worlds leading industry and research experts
• Executive summaries of specific case studies
• Information on basic research and application approaches

Product Details

ISBN-13:	9780444535665
Publisher:	Elsevier Science
Publication date:	07/27/2010
Sold by:	Barnes & Noble
Format:	eBook
Pages:	670
File size:	17 MB
Note:	This product may take a few minutes to download.

Read an Excerpt

ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLES

Power Sources, Models, Sustainability, Infrastructure and the Market

---

By Gianfranco Pistoia

Elsevier

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V.
All right reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-444-53566-5

---

Chapter One

Economic and Environmental Comparison of Conventional and Alternative Vehicle Options

Ibrahim Dincer, Marc A. Rosen and Calin Zamfirescu Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Ontario, Institute of Technology (UOIT), Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

Contents

1. Introduction 1 2. Analysis 2 2.1 Technical and economical criteria 3 2.2 Environmental impact criteria 5 2.3 Normalization and the general indicator 10 3. Results and Discussion 11 4. Conclusions 15 Acknowledgement 15 Nomenclature 16 Greek symbols 16 Subscripts 16 References 16

1. INTRODUCTION

Of the major industries that have to adapt and reconfigure to meet present requirements for sustainable development, vehicle manufacturing is one of the more significant. One component of sustainability requires the design of environmentally benign vehicles characterized by no or little atmospheric pollution during operation. The design of such vehicles requires, among other developments, improvements in powertrain systems, fuel processing, and power conversion technologies. Opportunities for utilizing various fuels for vehicle propulsion, with an emphasis on synthetic fuels (e.g., hydrogen, biodiesel, bioethanol, dimethylether, ammonia, etc.) as well as electricity via electrical batteries, have been analyzed over the last decade and summarized in Refs.

In analyzing a vehicle propulsion and fueling system, it is necessary to consider all stages of the life cycle starting from the extraction of natural resources to produce materials and ending with conversion of the energy stored onboard the vehicle into mechanical energy for vehicle displacement and other purposes (heating, cooling, lighting, etc.). All life cycle stages preceding fuel utilization on the vehicle influence the overall efficiency and environmental impact. In addition, vehicle production stages and end-of-life disposal contribute substantially when quantifying the life cycle environmental impact of fuel-propulsion alternatives. Cost-effectiveness is also a decisive factor contributing to the development of an environmentally benign transportation sector.

This chapter extends and updates the approach by Granovskii et al. which evaluates, based on actual cost data, the life cycle indicators for vehicle production and utilization stages and performs a comparison of four kinds of fuel-propulsion vehicle alternatives. We consider in the present analysis two additional kinds of vehicles, both of which are zero polluting at fuel utilization stage (during vehicle operation). One uses hydrogen as a fuel in an internal combustion engine (ICE), while the second uses ammonia as a hydrogen fuel source to drive an ICE. Consequently, the vehicles analyzed here are as follows:

• conventional gasoline vehicle (gasoline fuel and ICE),

• hybrid vehicle (gasoline fuel, electrical drive, and large rechargeable battery),

• electric vehicle (high-capacity electrical battery and electrical drive/generator),

• hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (high-pressure hydrogen fuel tank, fuel cell, electrical drive),

• hydrogen internal combustion vehicle (high-pressure hydrogen fuel tank and ICE),

• ammonia-fueled vehicle (liquid ammonia fuel tank, ammonia thermo-catalytic decomposition and separation unit to generate pure hydrogen, hydrogen-fueled ICE).

The theoretical developments introduced in this chapter, consisting of novel economic and environmental criteria for quantifying vehicle sustainability, are expected to prove useful in the design of modern light-duty automobiles, with superior economic and environmental attributes.

2. ANALYSIS

We develop in this section a series of general quantitative indicators that help quantify the economic attractiveness and environmental impact of any fuel-propulsion system. These criteria are applied to the six cases studied in this chapter. The analysis is conducted for six vehicles that entered the market between 2002 and 2004, each representative of one of the above discussed categories. The specific vehicles follow:

• Toyota Corolla (conventional vehicle),

• Toyota Prius (hybrid vehicle),

• Toyota RAV4EV (electric vehicle),

• Honda FCX (hydrogen fuel cell vehicle),

• Ford Focus H₂-ICE (hydrogen ICE vehicle),

• Ford Focus H₂-ICE adapted to use ammonia as source of hydrogen (ammonia-fueled ICE vehicle).

Note that the analysis for the first five options is based on published data from manufacturers, since these vehicles were produced and tested. The results for the sixth case, namely, the ammonia-fueled vehicle, are calculated, starting from data published by Ford on the performance of its hydrogen-fueled Ford Focus vehicle. It is assumed that the vehicle engine operates with hydrogen delivered at the same parameters as for the original Ford design specifications. However, the hydrogen is produced from ammonia stored onboard in liquid phase. Details regarding the operation of the ammonia-fueled vehicle are given subsequently.

The present section comprises three subsections, treating the following aspects: economic criteria, environmental criteria, and a combined impact criterion. The latter is a normalized indicator that takes into account the effects on both environmental and economic performance of the options considered.

2.1 Technical and economical criteria

A number of key economic parameters characterize vehicles, like vehicle price, fuel cost, and driving range. In the present analysis, we neglect maintenance costs; however, for the hybrid and electric vehicles, the cost of battery replacement during the lifetime is accounted for. Note also that the driving range determines the frequency (number and separation distance) of fueling stations for each vehicle type. The total fuel cost and the total number of kilometers driven are related to the vehicle life.

The technical and economical parameters that serve as criteria for the present comparative analysis of the selected vehicles are compiled in Table 1.1. For the Honda FCX the listed initial price for a prototype leased in 2002 was USk$2,000, which is estimated to drop below USk$100 in regular production. Currently, a Honda FCX can be leased for 3 years with a total price of USk$21.6. In order to render the comparative study reasonable, the initial price of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is assumed here to be USk$100.

The considered H₂-ICE was produced by Ford during the years 2003–2005 in various models, starting with model U in 2003 which is based on a SUV body style vehicle with a hybrid powertrain (ICE + electric drive) and ending with the Ford Focus Wagon which is completely based on a hydrogen-fueled ICE (this last model is included in the analysis in Table 1.1). The H₂-ICE uses a shaft driven turbocharger and a 2171 pressurized hydrogen tank together with a specially designed fuel injection system. The evaluated parameters for a H₂-ICE Ford Focus Wagon converted to ammonia fuel are listed in the last row of Table 1.1. The initial cost is lower than that of the original ICE Ford Focus due to the fact that the expensive hydrogen fuel tank and safety system are replaced with ones with negligible price, because ammonia can be stored in ordinary carbon steel cylinders. Moreover, NH₃ is a refrigerant that satisfies onboard cooling needs, reducing the costs of the balance of plant.

For the ammonia-fueled vehicle, previous results of Zamfirescu and Dincer are considered. Based on a previous study, it is estimated for the electric vehicle that the specific cost is US$569/kWh of nickel metal hydride (NiMeH) batteries which are typically used in hybrid and electric cars. The specific cost of an electric car vehicle decreased in recent years to below US$500/kWh (and in some special cases to below US$250/kWh). Here, we assume the same figure as Granovskii et al., that is, US$570/kWh, which is considered more conservative. For gasoline and hybrid vehicles, a 40 l fuel tank is assumed, based on which determines the driving range.

Annual average prices of typical fuels over the last decade are presented in Fig. 1.1, based on Energy Information Administration (EIA). Few and approximate data are available for historical trends of hydrogen fuel prices, so the results by Granovskii et al. are considered to obtain hydrogen price trends.

Here, hydrogen price trends are derived based on the assumption that the price of low-pressure hydrogen, per unit energy content, is about the same as the price of gasoline. The hydrogen fuel price accounts for the cost of energy required to compress the hydrogen from 20 bar, the typical pressure after natural gas reforming, to the pressure of the vehicle tank, which is on the order of 350 bar. The compression energy is estimated to be approximately 50 kJ of electricity per MJ of hydrogen in the vehicle. The cost of ammonia is taken from the analysis by Zamfirescu and Dincer.

2.2 Environmental impact criteria

Two environmental impact elements are accounted for in this study of fuel-powertrain options for transportation: air pollution (AP) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The main GHGs are CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, and SF₆ (sulfur hexafluoride), which have GHG impact weighting coefficients relative to CO₂ of 1, 21, 310, and 24,900, respectively. SF6 is used as a cover gas in the casting process for magnesium, which is a material employed in vehicle manufacturing. Impact weighting coefficients (relative to NOx) for the airborne pollutants CO, NO_x, and VOCs (volatile organic compounds) are based on those obtained by the Australian Greenhouse Office using cost–benefit analyses of health effects. The weighting coefficient of SOx relative to NO_x is estimated using the Ontario Air Quality Index data developed by Basrur et al. Thus, for considerations of AP, the airborne pollutants CO, NO_x, SO_x, and VOCs are assigned the following weighting coefficients: 0.017, 1, 1.3, and 0.64, respectively.

The vehicle production stage contributes to the total life cycle environmental impact through the pollution associated with the extraction and processing of material resources and manufacturing. As indicated in Table 1.2, it is also necessary to consider the pollution produced at the vehicle disposal stage (i.e., at the end of life). The data in Table 1.2 are on the basis of the curb mass of the vehicle (i.e., the vehicle mass without any load or occupants).

The AP emissions per unit vehicle curb mass, denoted APm, are obtained for a conventional car case by applying weighting coefficients to the masses of air pollutants in accordance with the following formula:

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (1.1)

Here, i is the index denoting an air pollutant (which can be CO, NO_x, SO_x, or VOCs), m_i is the mass of air pollutant i, and w_i is the weighting coefficient of air pollutant i.

The results of the environmental impact evaluation for the vehicle production stage are presented in Table 1.3 for each vehicle case. The curb mass of each vehicle is also reported. We assume that the ammonia-fueled vehicle has the same curb mass as the H₂-ICE vehicle from which it originates. The justification for this assumption comes from the fact that the ammonia and hydrogen vehicles have system components of similar weight, because the car frame is the same, the engine is the same, and the supercharger of the hydrogen vehicle likely has a similar weight as the ammonia decomposition and separation unit of the ammonia-fueled vehicle, etc. Since the engines of the hydrogen and ammonia-fueled vehicles are similar to that of a conventional gasoline vehicle, the environmental impact associated with vehicle manufacture is of the same order as that for the conventional vehicle.

We assume that GHG and AP emissions are proportional to the vehicle mass, but the environmental impact related to the production of special devices in hybrid, electric and fuel cell cars, for example, NiMeH batteries and fuel cell stacks, are evaluated separately. Accordingly, the AP and GHG emissions are calculated for conventional vehicles as

GHG = m_carGHG_m (1:2b)

For hybrid and electric vehicles the AP and GHG emissions are evaluated as

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (1.3a)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (1.3b)

Finally, the environmental impact for fuel cell vehicles is found as

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (1.4a)

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (1.4b)

Here, m_car, m_bat, and m_fc are, respectively, the masses of cars, NiMeH batteries, and the fuel cell stack; AP_m, AP_bat, and AP_fc are AP emissions per kilogram of conventional vehicle, NiMeH batteries, and the fuel cell stack; and GHG_m, GHG_bat, and GHG_fc are GHG emissions per kilogram of conventional vehicle, NiMeH batteries, and fuel cell stack. The masses of NiMeH batteries for hybrid and electric cars are 53 kg (1.8 kWh capacity) and 430 kg (27 kWh capacity), respectively.

The mass of the fuel cell stack is about 78 kg (78 kW power capacity). According to Rantik, the production of 1 kg of NiMeH battery requires 1.96 MJ of electricity and 8.35 MJ of liquid petroleum gas. The environmental impact of battery production is presented in Table 1.4, assuming that electricity is produced from natural gas with a mean efficiency of 40% (which is reasonable since the efficiency of electricity production from natural gas varies from 33% for gas turbine units to 55% for combined-cycle power plants, with about 7% of the electricity dissipated during transmission).

The material inventory for a proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) is presented in Table 1.5, based on data of Handley et al. and Granovskii et al. The environmental impact of the fuel cell stack production stage is expressed in terms of AP (air pollution) and GHG emissions (Table 1.4, last row). Compared to NiMeH batteries, the data indicate that the PEMFC production stage accounts for relatively large GHG and AP emissions. The manufacturing of electrodes (including material extraction and processing) and bipolar plates constitutes a major part of the emissions.

Additional sources of GHG and AP emissions are associated with the fuel production and utilization stages. The environmental impacts of these stages have been evaluated in numerous life cycle assessments of fuel cycles, (e.g., [6, 14–16]). We also use the results of Granovskii et al. for quantifying the pollution associated with fuel production and utilization stages.

Regarding electricity production for the electric car case, three scenarios are considered here:

1. electricity is produced from renewable energy sources and nuclear energy;

2. 50% of the electricity is produced from renewable energy sources and 50% from natural gas at an efficiency of 40%;

3. electricity is produced from natural gas at an efficiency of 40%. Nuclear/renewable weighted average GHG emissions are reported by Granovskii et al. as 18.4 tons CO₂-equivalent per GWh of electricity. These emissions are embedded in material extraction, manufacturing and decommissioning for nuclear, hydro, biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal power generation stations.

AP emissions are calculated assuming that GHG emissions for plant manufacturing correspond entirely to natural gas combustion. According to a study by Meier, GHG and AP emissions embedded in manufacturing a natural gas power generation plant are negligible compared to the direct emissions during its utilization. Taking these factors into account, GHG and AP emissions for the three scenarios for electricity generation are calculated and presented in Table 1.6.

(Continues...)

---

Excerpted from ELECTRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLES by Gianfranco Pistoia Copyright © 2010 by Elsevier B.V.. Excerpted by permission of Elsevier. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---

Table of Contents

1. Economic and Environmental Comparison of Conventional and Alternative Vehicle Options (I. Dincer). 2. Lifetime Cost of Battery, Fuel-Cell, and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (M. Delucchi, T. Lipman). 3. Relative Fuel Economy Potential of Intelligent, Hybrid and Intelligent-Hybrid Passenger Vehicles (C. Manzie). 4. Cost-Effective Vehicle and Fuel Technology Choices in a Carbon Constrained World: Insights from Global Energy Systems Modelling (M. Grahn, J.E. Anderson, T.J. Wallington). 5. Expected Green House Gas Emission Reductions by Battery, Fuel Cell, and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (T. Lipman, M. Delucchi). 6. Analysis of Design Tradeoffs for Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles (B. Geller, C. Quinn, T. Bradley). 7. Evaluation of Energy Consumption, Emissions and Costs of Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles (C. Silva, T. Farias). 8. Improving Petroleum Displacement Potential of PHEVs Using Enhanced Charging Scenarios (T. Markel, K. Smith, A.A. Pesaran). 9. Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles, Battery Electric Vehicles, and Their Impact on Energy Storage Technologies: An Overview (U. Eberle, R. von Helmolt). 10. On the Road Performance Simulation of Battery, Hydrogen and Hybrid Cars (B. Sorensen). 11. Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Fuel Cell and Gasoline Vehicles (I. Dincer). 12. Doe's National Fuel Cell Vehicle Learning Demonstration Project – NREL's Data Analysis Results (K. Wipke, S. Sprik, J. Kurtz, T. Ramsden, J. Garbak). 13. Battery Requirements for HEVs, PHEVs and EVs: An Overview (M. Broussely). 14. Battery Environmental Analysis (P. Van den Bossche, J. Matheys, J. Van Mierlo). 15. A Roadmap to Understand Battery Performance in Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Operation (B.Y. Liaw, M. Dubarry). 16. Batteries for PHEVs: Comparing Goals and the State of Technology (A. Burke, J. Axsen, K. Kurani). 17. Battery Size and Capacity Use in Hybrid and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (P. Albertus, J. Newman). 18. Safety of Lithium-Ion Batteries for Hybrid Electric Vehicles (A. Arora, J. Swart, N.K. Medora, T.G. Livernois). 19. Management of Batteries for Electric Traction Vehicles (D.D. Friel). 20. Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructures (P. Van den Bossche). 21. Market Prospects of Electric Passenger Vehicles (P. Mock, S.A. Schmid, H.E. Friedrich). 22. Automakers' Powertrain Options for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (F. Orecchini, A. Santiangeli)