Plugging In: A Feasibility Study on Public Plug-In Vehicle ...
Understanding Feasibility of Medium/Heavy-duty Plug-in ... Hoshing.pdf · Understanding Feasibility...
Transcript of Understanding Feasibility of Medium/Heavy-duty Plug-in ... Hoshing.pdf · Understanding Feasibility...
Understanding Feasibility of
Medium/Heavy-duty Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
from
Life-cycle Costs and Emissions Perspectives
Vaidehi Hoshing
Dr. Greg ShaverJune 5th, 2019
Motivation
Introduction
Frameworks and Results
Life-cycle Cost Analysis of PHEV Medium-duty Trucks and Transit Buses
Well-to-wheel Emissions Analysis for PHEV Transit Buses
Conclusions
2
Contents
Motivation
Introduction
Frameworks and Results
Life-cycle Cost Analysis of PHEV Medium-duty Trucks and Transit Buses
Well-to-wheel Emissions Analysis for PHEV Transit Buses
Conclusions
3
Contents
Motivation
4Hybridization of vehicles presents a potential to reduce these emissions by reducing fuel consumptionDoes plug-in hybridization also have such a potential?
Light-Duty Vehicles60%
Medium/ Heavy-Duty Trucks 23%
Aircraft9%
Other 4%
Rail 2%Ships and Boats 2%
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in US in 2016
Transportation 29%
Agriculture 9%
Commercial &Residential 12%
Industry 22%
Electricity 29%
US Environmental Protection Agency (2018). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016
Transit Bus
Two Applications of Interest
5
Medium-duty Truck
Cost is critical to fleet owners!
Transit Bus
Two Applications of Interest
6
MD TruckTransit
Bus
Days used/ year 300 300
Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled
25,000 30,000
Medium-duty Truck
Vehicle Usage Assumptions:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10309 - US 2015
Series Architecture
Parallel Architecture
Hybrid Architectures Considered
Engine Generator Battery Motor
Engine
Battery Motor
7
3.33
6
0
2
4
6
2020 2025 2030
Economic Scenario300
150
0
200
400
2020 2025 2030
Economic Scenario
27.415.6
455358
0
200
400
600
0
50
100
2020 2025 2030
Economic Scenario
Fuel
Pri
ce
($/g
al)
Bat
tery
Pri
ce
($/k
Wh
)M
oto
r P
rice
8
Fixed Price ($)
Variable Price ($/kW)
Economic Assumptions
Parameter Value
Electricity Price $0.1/kWh
Electrical AC Charging Efficiency
90%
Battery End-of-Life capacity 70%
Vehicle Life 12 years
Other Constant Economic Assumptions:
At the end of life of the vehicle, the battery is assumed to have a salvage value proportional to the remaining battery life
U.S. Department of Energy. Annual energy outlook 2015, Tech. rep.; 2013V.T. Office. Overview of the DOE advanced power electronics and electric motor R & D program APEEM R & D Program Vehicle, Tech. rep.; 2014B. Nykvist, M. Nilsson, Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles, Nat Clim Change, 5 (4) (2015), pp. 329-332, 10.1038/nclimate2564
Motivation
Introduction
Frameworks and Results
Life-cycle Cost Analysis of PHEV Medium-duty Trucks and Transit Buses
Well-to-wheel Emissions Analysis for PHEV Transit Buses
Conclusions
9
Contents
Framework
10
• Drive cycle: (% time trace missed by > 2mph) < 2%• Gradability (7% at 20 mph)• Payback Period < 2 years• Battery Replacements <= 3 (vehicle life = 12 years)
Constraints for viability
Fuel Consumption
Battery Degradation
Model
Vehicle Parameters
Control Parameters
Sizing Parameters
Drive cycle
Capacity Loss
End of Life
Vehicle Simulation
Model
Economic Post-
Processing
Payback Period
Life-cycle Cost
Economic Scenarios
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series 2030
Parallel
Bus
Series
Parallel
First Scenario of Economic Viability
• Drive cycle: (% time trace missed by > 2mph) < 2%• Gradability (7% at 20 mph)• Payback Period < 2 years• Battery Replacements <= 3 (vehicle life = 12 years)
Constraints for viability
11
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series 2030 2030 2025
Parallel 2025 2025 2025
Bus
Series 2020 2025 2020 2020
Parallel 2020 2020 2020 2020
First Scenario of Economic Viability
Bus application becomes economically viable earlier than Truck.
• Drive cycle: (% time trace missed by > 2mph) < 2%• Gradability (7% at 20 mph)• Payback Period < 2 years• Battery Replacements <= 3 (vehicle life = 12 years)
Constraints for viability
12
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series 2030 2030 2025
Parallel 2025 2025 2025
Bus
Series 2020 2025 2020 2020
Parallel 2020 2020 2020 2020
First Scenario of Economic Viability
Parallel architectures become economically viable earlier.Since they require smaller
motor.
• Drive cycle: (% time trace missed by > 2mph) < 2%• Gradability (7% at 20 mph)• Payback Period < 2 years• Battery Replacements <= 3 (vehicle life = 12 years)
Constraints for viability
13
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series 2030 2030 2025
Parallel 2025 2025 2025
Bus
Series 2020 2025 2020 2020
Parallel 2020 2020 2020 2020
First Scenario of Economic Viability
Urban drive cycles prefer hybridization earlier.
• Drive cycle: (% time trace missed by > 2mph) < 2%• Gradability (7% at 20 mph)• Payback Period < 2 years• Battery Replacements <= 3 (vehicle life = 12 years)
Constraints for viability
14
Motivation
Introduction
Frameworks and Results
Life-cycle Cost Analysis of PHEV Medium-duty Trucks and Transit Buses
Well-to-wheel Emissions Analysis for PHEV Transit Buses
Conclusions
15
Contents
Framework
16
Total WTW Emissions
Vehicle Simulation
ModelInterface
GREET
Electrical Energy Used
Fuel Energy Used
WTW Emissions for Different Energy Sources
GREET (Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation) is a well-to-wheel emissions database and tool developed by Argonne National Labs
0%
55%
6%
10%
1.5%
7%
5%
7%
7%1%
1%
13%
81%
0.3%
3%
California Indiana
17
Electricity Sources in California vs Indiana in 2016
A majority of California’s electricity comes from Natural gas-fired plants whereas that for Indiana comes from Coal-fired power plants.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/09/f33/IN_Energy%20Sector%20Risk%20Profile.pdf
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series 2030 2030 2025
Parallel 2025 2025 2025
Bus
Series 2020 2025 2020 2020
Parallel 2020 2020 2020 2020
Example: Series Transit Bus Solution on Manhattan Cycle
18
MJ of fuel energy used per day
63% FC reduction
19
Daily VMT = 100
Electrical Energy
Diesel Energy
Diesel Energy
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
CO2 GHG100
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
CO2 GHG100
20
Daily Emissions (kg) from Operation of Series Transit Bus PHEV on Manhattan Cycle
Daily VMT = 100
CaliforniaIndiana
LS Diesel
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
CO NOx SOx
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
CO NOX SOX
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
CO2 GHG100
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
CO2 GHG100
21
Daily Emissions (kg) from Operation of Series Transit Bus PHEV on Manhattan Cycle
Daily VMT = 100
CaliforniaIndiana
LS Diesel
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
PM10 PM2.5 VOC
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
PM10 PM2.5 VOC
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
CO NOx SOx
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
CO NOX SOX
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
CO2 GHG100
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
CO2 GHG100
22
Daily Emissions (kg) from Operation of Series Transit Bus PHEV on Manhattan Cycle
Daily VMT = 100
CaliforniaIndiana
LS Diesel
Conclusions
Economic Viability Analysis
• Parallel architectures become viable for hybridization earlier than the series architecture.
• Transit buses become viable earlier than MD truck.
• Urban drive cycles are more favorable for hybridization
WTW Emissions from a Transit Bus PHEV in Indiana and California (not considering battery manufacturing)
• CO2 and GHG emissions reduce by about 60% in both the states
• A reduction in CO, NOx , PM2.5, VOC is shown
• PM10 and SOx emissions are shown to increase
23
Thank You!
24
Back-up
25
Economic Viability Analysis
• Parallel architectures become viable for hybridization earlier than the series architecture.• Transit buses become viable earlier than MD truck.• Urban drive cycles are more favorable for hybridization
26
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series 2030 2030 2025
Parallel 2025 2025 2025
Bus
Series 2020 2025 2020 2020
Parallel 2020 2020 2020 2020
• Drive cycle: (% time trace missed by > 2mph) < 2%
• Gradability (7% at 20 mph)
• Payback Period < 2 years
• Battery Replacements <= 3 (vehicle life = 12 years)
Constraints for viability
27
• Global earth surface temperature has increased by 1°F since the 1970s.• Carbon dioxide constitutes 81% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the US
Motivation
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. 2010. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2010. www.noaa.gov
• 10 parameters; Sparse-sampled DOE size = 1300• Latin Hyper-Cube (LHC) design with “maximin distance” criterion
Parameter Units Min. Value Max. Value
Coefficient of drag - 0.58 0.88
Coefficient of rolling resistance - 0.005 0.007
Vehicle mass kg 12000 18000
M/G peak power kW 150 300
Battery energy capacity kWh 31 198
Engine/generator peak power kW 50 150
Maximum allowed C-Rate for Battery charge/discharge
- 1 4
Power filter parameter T1 - 0 0.5
Slope of Battery SOC regulation power demand (CSHEV mode)
W/SOC 200 20000
% Power demand over which engine is requested (CDHEV mode)
- 0.3 0.9
3 vehicle parameters
4 control strategy parameters
PowertrainSolution
28
Design of Experiments – Series Bus Example
3 sizing parameters
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series(T=1300)
Parallel(T=800)
Bus
Series(T=1000)
Parallel(T=1300)
Scope
• Drive cycle: (% time trace missed by > 2mph) < 2%• Gradability (7% at 20 mph)• Payback Period < 2 years• Battery Replacements <= 3 (vehicle life = 12 years)
Constraints for viability
29
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series 2030
Parallel
Bus
Series
Parallel
First Scenario of Economic Viability
• Drive cycle: (% time trace missed by > 2mph) < 2%• Gradability (7% at 20 mph)• Payback Period < 2 years• Battery Replacements <= 3 (vehicle life = 12 years)
Constraints for viability
30
Simple Comparison of Drivecycles
31
More start stops and lower speed as compared to Orange County
0.0 1.7 3.3 5.0 6.7 8.3 10 11.7 13.3 15 16.7 18.3 20 21.7 23.3 25 26.7 28.3 30 31.7
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series 2030 2030 2025
Parallel 2025 2025 2025
Bus
Series 2020 2025 2020 2020
Parallel 2015 2020 2020 2015
First Scenario of Economic Viability
Bus application becomes economically viable earlier than Truck.
• Drive cycle: (% time trace missed by > 2mph) < 2%• Gradability (7% at 20 mph)• Payback Period < 2 years• Battery Replacements <= 3 (vehicle life = 12 years)
Constraints for viability
32
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series 2030 2030 2025
Parallel 2025 2025 2025
Bus
Series 2020 2025 2020 2020
Parallel 2015 2020 2020 2015
First Scenario of Economic Viability
Parallel architectures become economically viable earlier.Since they require smaller
motor.
• Drive cycle: (% time trace missed by > 2mph) < 2%• Gradability (7% at 20 mph)• Payback Period < 2 years• Battery Replacements <= 3 (vehicle life = 12 years)
Constraints for viability
33
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series 2030 2030 2025
Parallel 2025 2025 2025
Bus
Series 2020 2025 2020 2020
Parallel 2015 2020 2020 2015
First Scenario of Economic Viability
Urban drive cycles prefer hybridization earlier.
• Drive cycle: (% time trace missed by > 2mph) < 2%• Gradability (7% at 20 mph)• Payback Period < 2 years• Battery Replacements <= 3 (vehicle life = 12 years)
Constraints for viability
34
35
Additional Daily Emissions from Battery ManufacturingEm
issi
on
s (k
g)
Daily VMT = 100Battery Replacements = 3
CD CaliforniaCS CaliforniaCD IndianaCS IndianaLS Diesel
Note: The battery manufacturing emissions data available in GREET for NMC/Graphite was used. This does not consider the emissions due to battery recycling.
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
36
Emissions According to Source of Electricity (in g/MJ of electricity generated)
Emis
sio
ns
(g/M
J)
Emis
sio
ns
(g/M
J)
Emis
sio
ns
(g/M
J)
Electricity generation from coal produces most CO2 GHG and SOx
emissions.Electricity generation from biomass produces most PM, CO and NOx
emissions.
Natural Gas firedCoal firedNuclearBiomass
GeothermalOther renewables
– NMC+LMO/Graphite chemistry
𝑄loss,% = 𝑎𝑇2 + 𝑏𝑇 + 𝑐 𝑒𝑥𝑝 𝑑𝑇 + 𝑒 𝐼rate × 𝐴ℎthroughput + 𝑓𝑡0.5𝑒𝑥𝑝[−𝐸a/𝑅𝑇]
– Paper presents validation up to 6.5 C, model is used below 4C in our simulations to predict battery life with confidence
– We assume slow overnight charging at C-rates < 2C (No fast charging)
Combined calendar-life + cycle-life prediction model description – Wang et al. (JPS 2014)
Battery Degradation Model
Cyclic Aging Calendar Aging
37
Application
Drive cycles
P&D Class 6
Refuse Truck
NY Comp.
Man-hattan
Orange County
ChinaNormal
China Agg.
Truck
Series(T=1300)
Parallel(T=800)
Bus
Series(T=1000)
Parallel(T=1300)
Scope
38*T = Total simulations
Although electricity by itself produces more WTW emissions than diesel per MJ of usage, FC reduction combined with little electrical energy used for battery charging enables significant WTW emissions reduction.
39
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
Daily Emissions (kg) from Operation of Series Transit Bus PHEV on Manhattan Cycle
Emis
sio
ns
(kg) CD California
CS CaliforniaCD IndianaCS IndianaLS Diesel
Daily VMT = 100
40
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
Daily Emissions (kg) from Operation of Series Transit Bus PHEV on Manhattan Cycle
Emis
sio
ns
(kg)
Daily VMT = 100
CaliforniaIndiana
LS Diesel