A few days ago, at "PHEVs Analyzed/Debated at Society of Auto
Engineers Event" http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/916.html we
posted Jack Rosebro's report, "To PHEV or Not To PHEV (At Least in
the Near-Term)." Here are two followups:

* another report on the event, in Motor Trend Magazine,
* a response by CalCars' Tech Lead Ron Gremban.


Motor Trend Editorial
To Make The Volt Affordable, GM Needs Toyota
Sharing battery technology is the key
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2008/112_0802_affordable_volt/index\
.html

By Kim Reynolds

When it comes to cars we'll be driving in the future, this much was
clear at the 2008 Society of Automotive Engineers' Hybrid Symposia in
San Diego last week: The future is far from clear.

There were some pretty sharp papers being delivered by such stars as
Ford, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, GM and Chrysler at the event. But by far
the most thought-provoking presentation was given by Dr. Menahem
Anderman of Advanced Automotive Batteries. His paper, 'PHEV - A Step
Forward or a Detour?' took a cold-eyed view of the debate over
plug-in electric hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) based upon his interviews
with over 40 companies, including all the major car manufacturers and
battery makers.

Dr. Anderman's analysis shows that, for one thing, when we talk about
hybrids, we're still effectively talking about one company - Toyota.
With an 83% hybrid market share in 2007, Toyota is the 900-pound
gorilla in the business of mass manufacturing and selling
nickel-metal hydride batteries for automobiles. Moreover, the
transition to lithium-ion batteries (as needed by GM for the Volt)
will be based less on particular chemistries and technical details
than their suitability for being mass manufactured in a reliable,
economic fashion.

At present, and in the near future, Dr. Anderman doubts PHEVs will be
very significant players, as the price of the battery packs - $4000
in the case of a PHEV-10 (one which can travel 10 miles on its
battery alone) or $10,000 for a PHEV- 40 (the Volt, for instance) -
is too high for them to be economically replaced during the vehicle's
service life. At present, Dr. Anderman contends that the longevity of
lithium-ion is just too sketchy.

The best way to restrain CO2 emissions, by Anderman's thinking, is to
as quickly as possible promote present hybrid technology (like
Toyota's) throughout the entire vehicle fleet, as it offers a bigger
efficiency jump over conventional gasoline cars than PHEVs do above
hybrids - and they're a ready-to-go technology. Then, as lithium ion
battery life is verified, the PHEV battery price problem can be
meaningfully hacked by riding on the back of the HEV big boys
(basically, Toyota) as they transition to the new chemistry. In other
words, Anderman says a vehicle like the Volt will be too expensive to
sell in meaningful numbers until Toyota is ready to move from
nickel-metal hydride to lithium-ion batteries and helps pull down the
price of the battery technology.

As for hydrogen fuel cell technology - forget it; the money would be
much better spent on PHEV development. Despite his frosty assessment
of the PHEV situation, Anderman nevertheless sprinkled in a few
intriguing tidbits regarding near-term lithium ion use - for
instance, the technology's employment in an upcoming Mercedes-Benz
S-Class hybrid and an unnamed Toyota/Lexus model. Hmmm.

From GM came a presentation from Peter Savagian, Engineering
Director of Hybrid Powertrain Engineering. Title? 'Driving the Volt'.
Unfortunately, it really wasn't about driving the Volt, but a recap
of the rigorous analysis that's led them to the Volt's radical
powertrain architecture. Consider Mr. Savagian's facts: by 2020 there
will be more than 180,000,000 additional cars on the world's roads.
And by 2030, we're going to need 70% more energy than we are so
hard-pressed to crank-out now.

GM's energy answer is to diversify our transportation energy sources
beyond our current 96% dependence on oil. And GM's Hail-Mary
vehicular answer is the Volt's E-Flex platform which, they go to
great pains to explain, is an 'extended-range electric vehicle', not
a 'plug-in hybrid'. Whatever, you say? Well, there's actually a big
difference between the two. Operationally, a PHEV can be rigged to
function in two ways - either in blended mode where it's frequently
sipping from its battery, or in initial EV mode, where its battery is
relied on for a modest number of miles before the engine gets
involved and the sipping scenario starts. EREVs employ really big
batteries and moreover, stretch their battery-only reliance out to
the maximum of miles before a motor-generator intercedes full-bore.
With EREVs, most drivers would rarely see a gas station. PHEV drivers
would visit them occasionally.

Gary Oshnock, of Chrysler LLC's Environmental and Energy Planning
offered some interesting regulatory as well as technical insights. He
began with a run-through of 2007's dizzying string of legislative
events: in January was the President's '20 in 10' challenge to reduce
gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years. In April, the Supreme Court
ruled that CO2 is a pollutant. In May came a Presidential executive
order to "ensure effective coordination between agencies regulating
vehicle greenhouse gases". And, of course, on December 19th came the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 - the now famous Energy
Bill, which requires by 2020 an industry average of 35 mpg, and after
that, the maximum feasible mpg through 2030. On the same day (just a
coincidence, mind you) the EPA denied California its waiver needed to
implement AB1493 which would have mandated a much stiffer 43.5 mpg
average for cars and light trucks by 2016. What a year.

He also offered a few interesting observations on fuel efficiency.
For instance, on a ton-mpg basis, fuel efficiency has actually been
climbing by a steady 1.2 % per year for the last 22 years. Trouble
is, our liking for added creature comforts, structural stiffness, and
crash-safety features - all of which add weight - has pretty much
nixed any actual fuel efficiency gains. What does 35 mpg by 2020
translate into on a year-by-year basis? 3.5% per year. In other
words, the new CAF standards are going to require three times the
recent historical annual rate of efficiency improvement - and
notably, that's after you factor-in any concomitant weight gain, not
before. We may be using sun-dials to measure zero-to-sixties before
this is done.

Sherif Marakby, Ford Sustainable Mobility Technology Chief Engineer,
spoke about the upcoming Ford Fusion and Mercury Milan Hybrids.
Basically, these two are slated to get the 2009 Escape and
Mountaineer's upgraded hybrid powertrain which is distinguished by
greater displacement (2.3 liters to 2.5), quieter operation, smoother
transition from electric to mixed mode, greater electric-only
operation during city driving, twice the frequency of engine
stop/starts, fuel shut off during deceleration, and better
regenerative braking feel. All told, the Fusion and Milan Hybrids
will offer over 60% better city mileage than a comparable,
conventional-tech, four-cylinder engine.

Tom Turrentine of UC Davis's PHEV Research Center argued that car
buyers don't really calculate the payback periods of advanced
technology offered by their improved fuel economy; lots and lots of
other reasons come first. And maybe he's right. The initial buyers of
hybrids were by in large 'greens'; they were followed by tech geeks,
then folks concerned about oil security, and now good old fashioned
cheapskates who just hate to waste money at the gas pump. Heaven
knows there's a lot of those. It was also stressed that clear and
instructive info displays which readily portray the vehicle's energy
use have been very important to the Prius's good results, and might
be even more significant for PHEV owners.

Dr. Mark Duvall of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) noted
that construction of coal-fired power plants is currently at a
standstill in the United States for fear of significant carbon
penalties and restrictions looming in the near future. Nonetheless,
he dismissed the sometimes-mentioned fear that a nation of PHEV
driver's would swamp the grid's capabilities. At most, the increased
demand would be something like 12%, and of course, the vast majority
of the charging would take place at night, when the utilities are
begging for customers. An interesting sidebar to this had to do with
what the industry calls the 'Smart Grid'. Basically, there's a battle
going on over the design and the operational protocol of future EV
and PHEV plugs. What the utility industry would dearly like is a
means by which, when you plug-in, information about your daily use is
first transmitted to the utility (say, the car needs to be ready to
go at 6:30 AM), and then your specific charging period would be
intelligently scheduled during the night instead of everybody trying
to simultaneously plug in at 12:01 AM.

Other Hybrid Symposia highlights included a nice review of Nissan's
progress, by Toshio Hirota, wherein the Altima Hybrid received due
attention. Honda offered two talks, one on the mathematical modeling
of electric motor controls which next to no one understood, the other
on a peculiar prototype which captures the heat normally lost through
the exhaust system to drive a small Rankine-cycle steam engine
instead. I guess this qualifies as a hybrid. And of personal interest
is the progress of an updated SAE standard for testing PHEVs - J1711
for those of you keeping score at home. Dr. Anderman's reservations
not withstanding, we're going to want to have our ducks in a row when
GM finally delivers on the Volt.




Posted by: Ron Gremban, CalCars' Tech Lead | Feb 25, 2008 9:19:05 PM
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/02/to-phev-or-not.html#more

This splash of cold water by Dr. Anderman appears to be the main
media take-out from the recent SAE Hybrid Symposium, which included
many other discussions and information, so I'll address it here:

1. Dr. Anderman accurately claimed that our standard U.S. measure of
mpg overstates the value of additional fuel savings to
already-thrifty vehicles. For example, the savings from an 80mpg
vehicle over that of a 40mpg vehicle (40mpg difference and 1/80
gallon per mile savings) is less than that of a 40mpg vehicle over
that of a 20mpg one (20mpg difference but 1/40 gallon per mile
savings). He then went on to use this point and various mpg figures
to indicate that there is a bigger difference between ICE and hybrid
fuel usage than between that of hybrids and PHEVs, and that
hybridization therefore has a higher incremental value than plug-in technology.

2. Dr. Anderman then pointed out that, due to their newness, there is
some uncertainty in the longevity of Li-ion batteries in automotive
applications. However, he immediately took that to the overblown
conclusion that the auto manufacturers would need to include the cost
of a warranty battery replacement -- at today's, not lower future,
prices -- in their cost calculations for production PHEVs.

3. As a result of these two assertions, Dr. Anderman placed PHEVs on
a graph where their incremental value is smaller than that of hybrids
but their incremental costs are much higher. From that, he asserted
that promoting further penetration of hybrids into new vehicle fleets
would do more to eventually bring about PHEVs than promoting the
production of of PHEVs themselves at this time.

Let's look at Dr. Anderman's assertions:

1. "Hybridization has a higher incremental value than PHEV
technology." Using fuel consumption rather than mpg figures to avoid
Dr. Anderman's overstatement issue, strong hybrids have generally
been able to reduce fuel consumption by 15-40%. Solid figures are
hard to obtain because performance also varies between hybrid and
non-hybrid versions of vehicles that have both. Let's use 30% as a
rule of thumb. PHEVs don't improve fuel economy so much as they
displace liquid fuels, by 30-90% in normal daily driving. Of course
this 30-90% is of the remaining 70% of ICE consumption still
occurring after hybridization, so it amounts to 21-63% of the
original consumption, potentially a significantly larger cut than for
mere hybridization.

Of course, CO2 emissions are not cut by as much, as electricity is
now consumed, too -- giving Dr. Anderman the chance to say the result
is less significant. But the switch to electricity gives us a chance
for future CO2 emissions decreases that continued complete reliance
on liquid fuels cannot, as well as flexibility not provided by
ordinary hybrids in the case that we really are seeing peak oil (see
below). Also, two things that no one has yet figured into ICE and
hybrid CO2 emissions figures are that real-world all-weather mileage
is significantly lower than EPA estimates (2008 sticker figures are
now better compensated for this, but the automaker CAFE requrements
are NOT!), and well-to-tank emissions are set to spike with increased
use (already begun) of both harder-to-pump deep, low-grade oil and
far more carbon-intensive substitutes from tar sand and even coal.

Of course, Dr. Anderman might say that the answer is then a
combination of hybrids and biofuels. I would agree that at little
more than $100/vehicle added cost, there is no excuse for all
vehicles manufactured today NOT being flex-fuel -- capable of running
on biofuels as well as gasoline or Diesel. However, two major studies
(one California state and one national) have concluded that the
biomass available without cutting into world food production or
cutting down forests, even with expected advances in cellulosic
technology, is capable of supplying no more than 1/3 of our current
transportation energy, without even allowing for growth of the
transportation sector. Therefore, I would submit that the value of
the leap from hybrid to PHEV is significantly LARGER, not smaller,
than that from ICE to hybrid.

2. "Auto manufacturers would need to include the cost of a warranty
battery replacement, at today's prices, in their cost calculations
for PHEVs." In spite of their newness, GM has stated that there are
Li-ion cells that meet their criteria, which means that must have
passed laboratory lifetime tests indicating an expected lifetime
matching or exceeding the expected life of a PHEV. Additionally, NiMH
batteries, now used in all hybrids, have a strong track record in EVs
and are fully capable of powering PHEVs with up to 20 miles EV range,
if not more. For now, battery prices are high -- e.g. $250 per mile
of EV range -- but Li-ion materials costs are low (and estimates of
world lithium reserves are enough for 2.5 billion PHEVs), so there is
plenty of room for eventual cost reductions of a factor of four with
automotive-scale mass production. Even if auto manufacturers did have
to replace some -- even all -- of the batteries in the first year or
two of PHEV production, the cost of the replacement packs would no
doubt be dramatically lower by the time the replacements were
actually needed, and many risk-sharing options and incentives have
been proposed to displace much of the early risks from the automakers.

On the other side of the cost equation,

3. "The incremental value of PHEVs is smaller than that of hybrids
but their incremental costs are much higher." To hybridize a
vehicle's powertrain requires a large amount of change, mechanical as
well as electrical and electronic. Large tooling is needed to produce
new mechanical powertrain components like motor/generators,
power-split transmissions, etc. And achieving 25-40% fuel economy
improvements also requires major redesign and re-tuning of the ICE
itself (check out what Toyota has done to improve the Prius'
Atkinson-Miller engine's efficiency over that of an ordinary
Otto-cycle ICE). Once the hybrid's electric propulsion system is
already in place, the changes required to turn it into a PHEV are
very minor, as proven by all the aftermarket hybrid conversions that
have proliferated since we at CalCars first converted my Prius into a
PHEV. The only big additional expense is that of the larger battery.

The other side of the cost equation is fuel savings. Electricity
costs the equivalent of $1.00 per gallon of gasoline or less. All
return-on-investment (ROI) calculations have been done with today's
$3.00, or yesterday's much cheaper, gasoline. Recent gasoline pricing
predictions have been consistently low, world production is now near
world capacity, new oil discovery has for years been 1/4 the rate of
extraction, and China and India's auto ownership is growing
exponentially. The probability is that the cost equation is going to
continue changing rapidly and consistently in PHEVs' favor.

Dr. Anderman also relies on two more unstated assumptions:

* "Advances in battery production and pricing cannot be hurried-up."
The availability of cells that can do the PHEV job -- which GM has
announced are available -- means that the biggest issues are further
testing, integration into packs, and high volume production. Although
there are limitations to how fast these things can proceed, rapid
ramp-up of high volume, low cost production is amazingly amenable to
infusions of large investment. With the right incentives, it could
happen far faster than the multi-decade process that Dr. Anderman predicts.

* "The changeover from ICE to hybrid, then PHEV powertrains will
happen in a business-as-usual way, as it has up to now." IPCC
scientists are indicating that we need to cut worldwide CO2 emissions
by 50% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 to avoid the worst consequences of
climate change and/or a tipping point that cannot be reversed; it is
possible that we have already hit peak oil; and China and India's
economies are expanding exponentially. At some point soon, when we
see a quantum leap environmental and economic urgency, not only will
new vehicles quickly need to use dramatically less fossil fuel,
especially since they will be burning fuel for at least a decade
after manufacture, but we will need to rapidly begin doing something
about the 820 million vehicles already on the world's roads.

Since PHEVs do have significant added value beyond that of ordinary
hybrids, and because the main extra cost is only for a larger
battery, immediate promotion and incentivization of of PHEVs does
make sense, as it will further speed up the mass production of PHEV
batteries, which require different tuning, testing, and field
experience from those for non-plug-in hybrids!

[Second posting]:
After all that I forgot to mention that immediate promotion and
incentivization of PHEVs is also needed to begin the education of the
public to the myriad social and personal values of automotive
electrification. Most of us don't fully "get it" until we have
actually experienced driving a PHEV. I myself was surprised and
excited by my first experience, and I have been a builder of and
advocate for electric vehicles since 1968!


-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Felix Kramer fkramer@...
Founder California Cars Initiative
http://www.calcars.org
http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --