[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC
VEHICLE ACT OF 2006
(DISCUSSION DRAFT)
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 17, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-50
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-587 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD SHERMAN, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
JO BONNER, Alabama JIM MATHESON, Utah
TOM FEENEY, Florida JIM COSTA, California
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas AL GREEN, Texas
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana DORIS MATSUI, California
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
------
Subcommittee on Energy
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JO BONNER, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas JIM MATHESON, Utah
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington BRAD SHERMAN, California
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana AL GREEN, Texas
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York BART GORDON, Tennessee
KEVIN CARROLL Subcommittee Staff Director
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Republican Professional Staff Member
CHARLES COOKE Democratic Professional Staff Member
MIKE HOLLAND Chairman's Designee
COLIN HUBBELL Staff Assistant
RICHARD CHANDLER Republican Fellow
C O N T E N T S
May 17, 2006
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Judy Biggert, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Michael M. Honda, Ranking Minority
Member, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 13
Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 14
Witnesses:
Dr. Andrew A. Frank, Professor, Mechanical and Aeronautical
Engineering Department; Director, Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Research Center, University of California-Davis
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Written Statement............................................ 19
Biography.................................................... 57
Mr. Roger Duncan, Deputy General Manager, Austin Energy in Texas
Oral Statement............................................... 57
Written Statement............................................ 59
Biography.................................................... 60
Dr. Mark S. Duvall, Technology Development Manager, Electric
Transportation & Specialty Vehicles, Science & Technology
Division, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Oral Statement............................................... 60
Written Statement............................................ 62
Biography.................................................... 65
Financial Disclosure......................................... 66
Mr. John German, Manager, Environmental and Energy Analyses,
American Honda Motor Company
Oral Statement............................................... 67
Written Statement............................................ 69
Biography.................................................... 72
Dr. S. Clifford Ricketts, Professor, Agricultural Education,
School of Agribusiness and Agriscience, Middle Tennessee State
University
Oral Statement............................................... 72
Written Statement............................................ 74
Biography.................................................... 80
Financial Disclosure......................................... 81
Dr. Danilo J. Santini, Senior Economist, Energy Systems Division,
Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 81
Written Statement............................................ 84
Biography.................................................... 91
Financial Disclosure......................................... 92
Discussion....................................................... 93
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Mark S. Duvall, Technology Development Manager, Electric
Transportation & Specialty Vehicles, Science & Technology
Division, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)............. 112
Mr. John German, Manager, Environmental and Energy Analyses,
American Honda Motor Company................................... 114
Dr. S. Clifford Ricketts, Professor, Agricultural Education,
School of Agribusiness and Agriscience, Middle Tennessee State
University..................................................... 116
Dr. Danilo J. Santini, Senior Economist, Energy Systems Division,
Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory 118
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Discussion Draft of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.. 124
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 134
Department of Energy Workshop Paper on Plug-in Hybrids........... 136
Plug-In Partner National Campaign................................ 163
THE PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE ACT OF 2006 (DISCUSSION DRAFT)
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Judy L.
Biggert [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Plug-In Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Act of 2006
(Discussion Draft)
wednesday, may 17, 2006
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Wednesday, May 17, 2006, the Energy Subcommittee of the House
Committee on Science will hold a hearing on a discussion draft of
legislation to promote research and development (R&D) on plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles and related advanced-vehicle technologies.
2. Witnesses
Mr. Roger Duncan is the Deputy General Manager of Austin Energy in
Texas and serves on the board of the Electric Drive Transportation
Association.
Dr. Mark Duvall is a Technology Development Manager for Electric
Transportation & Specialty Vehicles in the Electric Power Research
Institute's (EPRI) Science & Technology Division. He currently oversees
EPRI's Grid-Connected Hybrid Electric Vehicle Working Group and is
EPRI's technical lead for the DaimlerChrysler-EPRI Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Sprinter Van Program. EPRI is the research arm of the U.S.
electric utility industry.
Dr. Andrew Frank is a Professor in the Mechanical and Aeronautical
Engineering Department at the University of California, Davis, and the
Director of the UC Davis Hybrid Electric Vehicle Research Center.
Mr. John German is Manager of Environmental and Energy Analyses for
American Honda Motor Company. Mr. German is the author of a variety of
technical papers and a book on hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles
published by the Society of Automotive Engineers.
Dr. Cliff Ricketts is a Professor of Agricultural Education in the
School of Agribusiness and Agriscience at Middle Tennessee State
University. Dr. Ricketts has designed and built engines powered from a
variety of sources including ethanol, methane, soybean oil, and
hydrogen.
Dr. Danilo Santini is a Senior Economist in the Energy Systems Division
of Argonne National Laboratory's Center for Transportation Research, as
well as a former Chair of the Alternative Fuels Committee of the
National Academy of Sciences' Transportation Research Board.
3. Overarching Questions
The hearing will address the following overarching questions:
1. What major research, development, and demonstration work
remains on plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies? How
should this work be prioritized?
2. What are the largest obstacles facing the widespread
commercial application of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and
what steps need to be taken to address these hurdles?
(batteries, infrastructure, consumer preference, automotive
inertia, cost-competitiveness, etc.)
3. How does the Federal Government support the development of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies? What can the
Federal Government do to accelerate the development and
deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?
4. Does the discussion draft of the Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Act
of 2006 address the most significant technical barriers to the
widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?
4. Brief Overview
Hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius or the Ford
Escape, combine batteries and an electric motor, along with a
gasoline engine, to improve vehicle performance in city driving
conditions and to reduce gasoline consumption.
Plug-in hybrid vehicles are a more advanced version
of today's hybrid vehicles. They involve larger batteries and
the ability to charge those batteries overnight using an
ordinary electric outlet.
Unlike today's hybrids, plug-in hybrids are designed
to be able to drive for extended periods solely on battery
power, thus moving energy consumption from the gasoline tank to
the electric grid (batteries are charged overnight from the
grid) and emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant
(where, in theory, they are more easily controlled).
Plug-in hybrids could significantly reduce U.S.
gasoline consumption because most daily trips would be powered
by a battery. The potential for oil savings is related to the
length of time, or the distance, that a plug-in hybrid can
travel solely on battery power.
President Bush, as part of his Advanced Energy
Initiative, has established the goal of developing technology
that would enable plug-in hybrids to travel up to 40 miles on
battery power alone. Plug-in hybrids that could operate for 40
miles on an overnight charge from the electrical grid could
offer significant oil savings because most Americans commute
less than 40 miles a day. The electricity used to charge the
batteries overnight would be generated from domestic sources
(only three percent of the electricity used in the United
States is generated from oil) and that electricity would
primarily be consumed at night when demand is low.
Plug-in hybrids could benefit consumers because of
their greater fuel economy and the relatively low cost of
energy from the electric grid. Fuel economy in hybrid vehicles
is related to the degree to which engine load can be carried by
the electric motor (powered by batteries). Because plug-in
hybrids have large batteries and are designed to operate for an
extended period on battery power alone, they offer the
potential of significantly greater fuel economy. Some
proponents of plug-in hybrids claim that consumers will be able
to recharge their batteries overnight at gasoline-equivalent
cost of $1 per gallon.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Plug-In Partners website. Date accessed--May 12, 2006. See
http://www.pluginpartners.org/plugInHybrids/economicBenefits.cfm
While plug-in hybrid vehicles offer many advantages,
a number of technical barriers must be overcome to enable their
development and widespread commercial application. Although
specialty conversion kits are available (in very limited
quantities and at high cost) to upgrade an ordinary hybrid to a
plug-in hybrid, many component technologies, particularly
battery technology, must be advanced before plug-in hybrids can
be made available to consumers, at mass-market scale, and at
reasonable cost and reliability. R&D is needed to increase the
reliability and durability of batteries, to significantly
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
extend their lifetimes, and to reduce their size and weight.
In May 2006, Mr. Smith of Texas prepared a discussion
draft of legislation to conduct research and development (R&D)
on advanced plug-in hybrid vehicle technologies and to
demonstrate plug-in hybrid vehicles so as to promote their
commercial application in the consumer marketplace. (A section-
by-section analysis of the bill is included later in this
charter.)
5. Background
How would plug-in hybrid vehicles differ from today's hybrid
vehicles? Plug-in hybrid vehicles would have a much bigger battery and
motor, and thus could offset even more gasoline consumption than
hybrids do by using more electric power. Unlike today's hybrid
vehicles, the battery of a plug-in hybrid would be charged while parked
using a standard 120-volt electrical outlet. (Additional technical
information is available in the technical appendix to this charter.)
How would plug-in hybrid vehicles promote energy independence?
Plug-in hybrids could greatly decrease the need for petroleum by
shifting the energy supply for vehicles from the gasoline pump to the
electrical grid. Since only three percent of petroleum is used to
generate electricity (a figure unlikely to increase due to poor
economics associated with electricity from oil), an expansion in plug-
in hybrids would help decrease U.S. dependence on imported oil. Because
of their greater ability to operate on electric power, plug-in hybrids
have the potential for significantly greater fuel economy than
currently-available hybrid vehicles. An entrepreneurial group in
California (CalCars) has experimented with plug-in hybrids and claims
to have achieved fuel economy in excess of 100 miles per gallon after
converting a standard hybrid vehicle to a plug-in hybrid.
How would plug-in hybrid vehicles affect the grid? Plug-in hybrids
typically would be used during the daytime, when people commute to work
or when businesses are making deliveries, and charged overnight, when
the grid is running well below its peak load. The increased demand for
electricity during overnight charging also would provide a load
leveling effect--idle generating capacity would be brought into
productive use during off-peak hours. Allowing plants to operate with
less variability and closer to optimum output could enhance the overall
efficiency of the electrical system.
How would plug-in hybrid vehicles affect emissions? Plug-in hybrids
shift much of the emissions from the tailpipe to the power plant.
Proponents claim that the overall emissions level of the most common
pollutants is lower from plug-in hybrids than from standard
automobiles, even accounting for emissions at the power plant. The one
exception is sulfur dioxide emissions in areas that utilize a great
deal of coal-fired electricity.
Widespread use of plug-in hybrids would enable metropolitan areas
suffering from high air pollution concentrations during morning and
evening commutes to shift those emissions away from city centers and to
nighttime hours. This shift would reduce the exposure of high
population density areas to harmful ozone levels and other tailpipe
pollutants. Greenhouse gas levels could also be reduced, depending on
the mix of energy sources used to generate electricity.
What does the President's budget include for plug-in hybrid R&D?
The President's fiscal year 2007 (FY07) budget submission requests $12
million for R&D on plug-in hybrid vehicles, including an increase of $6
million for R&D related to advanced battery development. The
President's FY07 request also includes $51 million for R&D on related
vehicle technologies, including advanced power electronics, simulation
and validation, and vehicle test & evaluation.
Addition details on the difference between plug-in hybrids and
today's hybrids, along with details on the technical barriers to
developing mass-market plug-in hybrid vehicles, are given in the
technical appendix (section 8) of this charter.
A description of Mr. Smith's discussion draft, as provided to the
witnesses, is given below. The language describing the demonstration
program in the discussion draft has been modified since it was sent to
the witnesses.
6. Section-by-Section Description of the Discussion Draft
Sec. 1. Short Title.
The Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.
Sec. 2. Near-Term Vehicle Technology Program
a. Definitions.
Defines terms used in the text.
b. Program.
Requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of
research, development, demonstration, and commercial application for
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric drive transportation
technology.
Requires the Secretary of Energy to ensure that the research
program is designed to develop
high capacity, high efficiency batteries with:
improved battery life, energy storage capacity, and
power discharge;
enhanced manufacturability; and
the minimization of waste and hazardous material
production throughout the entire value chain, including
after the end of the useful life of the batteries
high efficiency on-board and off-board charging
components;
high power drive train systems for passenger and
commercial vehicles and for non-road equipment;
control systems, power trains, and systems
integration for all types of hybrid electric vehicles,
including:
development of efficient cooling systems; and
research and development of control systems that
minimize the emissions profile of plug-in hybrid drive
systems
a nationwide public awareness strategy for electric
drive transportation technologies that provide teaching
materials and support for university education focused on
electric drive systems and component engineering.
c. Goals.
Requires the Secretary of Energy to ensure that the program
develops projects, in partnership with industry and institutions of
higher education, which are focused on:
innovative electric drive technology developed in the
United States;
growth of employment in the United States in electric
drive design and manufacturing;
clarification of the plug-in hybrid potential through
fleet demonstrations; and
acceleration of fuel cell commercial application
through comprehensive development and demonstration of electric
drive technology systems.
d. Demonstration and Commercial Application Program.
Requires the Secretary of Energy to develop a program of
demonstration and commercial application for plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles and flexible fuel plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Requires the Secretary of Energy to award grants under this program
on a competitive basis, but give preference to applications that are
matched with state or local funds.
Requires that grants awarded by the Secretary do not exceed the
annual maximum per-vehicle amounts as follows:
e. Merit based federal investments.
Requires the Department of Energy to ensure that the funding for
the activities in this section are awarded consistent with the merit
based guidelines for federal investments established in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) (P.L. 109-58).
f. Authorization of Appropriations.
Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Energy of $200
million for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2016 to carry out the
program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric drive
transportation technology.
Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Energy of $50 million
for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2016 to carry out the
demonstration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and flexible-fuel
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Sec. 3. Lightweight Materials Research & Development.
a. In General.
Requires the Secretary of Energy to create a lightweight materials
research and development program. The program will focus on materials
(for both light and heavy duty vehicles) that will reduce vehicle
weight and increase fuel economy while maintaining safety. In addition,
the program will investigate ways to reduce the cost and enhance the
manufacturability of lightweight materials used in making vehicles.
b. Authorization of Appropriations.
Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Energy of $50 million
for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2012 to carry out this section.
7. Witness Questions
In the letters inviting them to the hearing, each of the witnesses
was asked to address the following questions in his testimony:
What major research, development, and demonstration
work remains on plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies?
How should this work be prioritized?
What are the largest obstacles facing the widespread
commercialization of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and what
steps need to be taken to address these hurdles? (batteries,
infrastructure, consumer preference, automotive inertia, cost-
competitiveness, etc.)
How does the Federal Government support the
development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies?
What can the Federal Government do to accelerate the
development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?
Does the discussion draft address the most
significant technical barriers to the widespread adoption of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?
8. Technical Appendix
What are the technological differences between plug-in hybrid vehicles
and the hybrid vehicles on the road today?
The hybrid vehicles on the road today leverage the battery and
electric motor at certain peak demand points during the drive cycle of
the vehicle. The battery, generally nickel metal hydride (NiMH)
technology, is replenished by occasionally transferring energy from the
engine as well as from recovering energy expended in braking the
vehicle (i.e., regenerative braking). The battery maintains a state of
charge within a fairly narrow band, never gaining or losing a great
deal of energy; this is known as shallow cycling or a ``sustained
charge'' approach. Using the energy from NiMH battery to avoid gasoline
consumption helps hybrid vehicles achieve increased fuel economy.
Plug-in hybrid vehicles take advantage of the same fuel economy
principle, only the goal is to use a better battery to avoid even
greater amounts of gasoline. Lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery technology
has been identified as the most promising candidate for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles. Li-ion batteries have greater energy density than
NiMH batteries and greater power discharge, characteristics that would
allow a vehicle to travel further using less gasoline and offer better
performance than one with a NiMH battery.
In addition, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles could offer long
ranges of electric-only operation (also known as a ``ZEV'' range or
Zero Emissions Vehicle range). This attribute is particularly desirable
in congested metropolitan areas. If today's hybrid vehicles with a NiMH
battery were available with an electric-only operation mode, they would
be capable of only a one-two mile ZEV range. In comparison, experts
familiar with battery technology claim that Li-ion batteries could
achieve ZEV ranges of 20, 40, or even 60 miles.
It is not clear whether plug-in hybrid vehicles would be
manufactured with an option of driving in ``electric-only'' mode.
Regardless, the overwhelming majority of the energy used in city
driving would stem from the battery, given that the engine is
inefficient in stop-and-go traffic. Thus, the long ZEV range figures
associated with Li-ion batteries not only indicate the large quantity
of electrical energy they contain, but also the potential to drive
lengthy distances under city conditions using mostly electrical energy.
With Americans commuting an average of 20-30 miles roundtrip each day,
the plug-in hybrid vehicle with a Li-ion battery could greatly reduce
petroleum consumption.
Why don't we use lithium-ion battery technology today given its
benefits?
Li-ion batteries are not a new technology. They are used in cell
phones and laptop computers. Scaling up Li-ion batteries for use in
automobiles, however, is new territory and presents new challenges.
Experts in the field estimate that the cost of Li-ion batteries is two
to four times above the level needed to be commercially viable. Cost
reductions are needed in the areas of raw materials and processing, as
well as cell and module packaging.
In addition, it is not clear if Li-ion batteries are capable of
lasting 15 years, the average life of a vehicle. This issue is
compounded by the fact that plug-in hybrid vehicles would use deep
cycling, which shortens the life of the battery, over the course of its
drive cycle. Unlike the sustained charge approach used in today's
hybrid vehicles, the profile of plug-in hybrid is much different. Plug-
in hybrids would start the day at nearly 100 percent state of charge
(SOC), having been charged overnight. To minimize use of gasoline, the
battery would be depleted over the course of the day until the SOC
reached about 20 percent; fully depleting the battery each day would
severely limit its lifetime. At a SOC of about 20 percent, the plug-in
hybrid would act like a hybrid vehicle and proceed with a ``sustained
charge'' approach until the vehicle could be fully recharged again.
Further testing is needed to determine whether Li-ion batteries could
last the life of the vehicle under this combined deep/shallow cycling.
Additional R&D is needed in other areas as well. There is
uncertainly about the ability of Li-ion batteries to handle abuse and
improper maintenance, such as crushing the battery or overcharging.
Current Li-ion batteries require mechanical and electronic devices for
protection against these abuses. Likewise, more work is needed to
enhance Li-ion technology in colder temperatures. Under these
conditions, Li-ion demonstrates a reduction in its ability to discharge
power and its lack of tolerance for handling surges from regenerative
braking. In addition, thermal management issues will need to be
addressed, as long periods of continuous battery use can lead to a
build up of heat. There are existing technologies that can be used that
tolerate higher temperatures, but they would increase the cost of the
battery.
What challenges inhibit the near-term introduction of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles?
As noted earlier, the battery technology for plug-in hybrids is not
yet cost-competitive. Since the battery represents a large proportion
of the incremental cost of plug-in hybrid over a conventional vehicle,
R&D will likely be focused here. The issue of cost is further
complicated by the deep discharges that are used in plug-in hybrids. If
batteries do not last the lifetime of the vehicle, replacement
batteries will make the plug-in hybrids even less attractive from a
cost standpoint. The cost of a plug-in hybrid passenger vehicle with a
20 mile ZEV is approximately $4,500 to $6,100 more than a conventional
vehicle of comparable size, according to a 2002 report by the Electric
Power Research Institute.
Major manufacturers of today's hybrids have exerted a great deal of
effort to educate consumers that hybrid vehicles differ from all-
electric vehicles of the past in that they do not need to be plugged
in. The plug-in hybrid would be a new technology, also using the word
``hybrid'' in its label, but will require customers to plug into an
electrical outlet in their home or garage. Even if customers understand
this distinction, they may not be willing or able to conform to a new
norm. Plug-in hybrids may provide the convenience of reducing the
number of trips to gas stations, but consumers must become comfortable
with and accustomed to the idea of plugging in their vehicle. Other
customers may be interested in plug-in hybrids, but currently may live
in a dwelling without a plug-in infrastructure or otherwise not
conducive to vehicle charging. Responding to all of these challenges
will likely require outreach and education.
Chairwoman Biggert. The hearing of the Energy Subcommittee
of Science will come to order.
Before we begin, I ask unanimous consent that my colleague,
Mr. Smith from Texas, be allowed to join the Energy
Subcommittee for this hearing. If there are no objections, so
ordered.
I would like to welcome everyone to this Energy
Subcommittee hearing on the many potential contributions that
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles could make to our energy
security.
Last year, if somebody had asked me if I had any plans to
chair a hearing on plug-in hybrids in 2006, my response would
have been: ``What is a plug-in hybrid?'' Yet here we are today
examining a discussion draft of legislation that will be
introduced by a senior Member of this committee, Congressman
Lamar Smith, to promote the development and use of plug-in
hybrids. I want to thank Mr. Smith for introducing me to plug-
in hybrids.
What is so special about a plug-in hybrid? Well, in a
nutshell, average Americans who drive their cars or trucks
between 25 and 30 miles a day could complete their commute and
run some errands without burning a drop of gasoline. That is
good for energy security, not to mention the pocketbook.
Furthermore, the technology to make this happen is an
improvement upon existing technology in the market today.
Unlike hydrogen fuel cells, which are still very much in the
research and development stage, and by some estimates, still 20
years from reaching the market, conventional or traditional
hybrids can be found in dealership lots across the country and
are growing in popularity. With research, I hope this
transition from conventional hybrids to plug-in hybrids can
proceed quickly.
And there is nothing like a $3 gallon of gasoline to help
get us thinking about new and creative ways to diversify the
fuel supply and use anything besides gasoline to power our
vehicles. As I have said many times before, I do not believe
that there is a single solution to our energy problems. Plug-in
hybrids would allow us to power our cars with clean energy,
including from renewable sources, such as solar and wind. They
can also be fueled by other clean and abundant sources, like
nuclear and even coal, preferably from power plants employing
advanced clean coal technologies that I hope will soon be the
norm.
The fact of the matter is that all Americans, including
those in my suburban Chicago district, want to hop into their
cars and go. Very few care what makes their car go. They simply
want it to be inexpensive and easy to get. Again, the consumer
is pointing us in the right direction. We should be working
towards cars that can run on whatever energy source is
available at the lowest cost: be it electricity, gasoline,
biofuel, or some combination of these.
That brings me to my final point on the potential benefits
of the plug-in hybrid. They do not require a whole new
``refueling'' infrastructure. To think that you could pull into
your garage at the end of the day and ``fill 'er up'' just by
plugging your car into a regular 110-volt socket in the garage
is very appealing. Imagine the convenience of recharging your
car just as you recharge your cell phone, blackberry, or laptop
every evening, by simply plugging it in. The next morning,
unplug it, and you are ready to go.
That is not to say there aren't challenges to realizing the
potential benefits of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Our
purpose here today is to identify the most significant
obstacles facing the widespread commercial availability of
these vehicles. Are there technical or cost-competitiveness
issues with important components, such as batteries or power
electronics? Do consumer preferences or auto industry inertia
present high hurdles? Our witnesses today can help us
understand what additional steps the Federal Government can
take to address these barriers and accelerate the development
and deployment of plug-in hybrids.
And I, again, would like to thank Mr. Smith for bringing
this to our attention.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Judy Biggert
Good morning. On behalf of Ranking Member Honda and myself, I want
to welcome everyone to this Energy Subcommittee hearing. We are
examining the potential contribution that plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles can make to the energy security of this nation. We also want
to obtain feedback on a discussion draft of legislation Representative
Lamar Smith has developed to promote the use of plug-in hybrids.
Needless to say, energy security is a rather timely issue.
Americans consume more than 20 million barrels of oil products every
day, and 40 percent of that goes to fueling our cars and trucks. By the
year 2020, more than sixty percent of our oil will come from foreign
sources. If that comes true, we will face real and significant
challenges to our efforts to maintain our security and fight terrorism.
A major interruption in the supply chain, whether accidental--as we saw
with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita--or intentional could have enormous
impacts on our economy.
As our economy grows and our population prospers, our demand for
oil and other sources of energy will only increase. But continuing on a
business as usual path is risky not only for our security and for our
economy but also for our environment. The carbon dioxide, particulates
and ozone-forming emissions from cars and trucks contribute to both
global climate change and localized urban air pollution. Not only is
urban air pollution correlated with high levels of asthma, lung cancer
and other devastating illnesses, but it reduces the quality of life for
those who live in and around cities. I can assure you none of my
constituents are demanding more smog!
As I have said many times before, I do not believe that there is a
single solution to our energy problems. We need to use the resources we
do have more wisely, and we need to expand domestic sources of clean
energy, including both renewable sources, such as solar and wind, and
nuclear energy.
Some technologies that we hope will be a part of the solution--such
as hydrogen fuel cells--are still largely in the research and
development stage. They are likely to be many years off. There are
other technologies that may be economically deployed on a large scale
in the near term. We are looking to you, our witnesses, to tell us
whether you believe plug-in hybrid vehicles are in this category.
Personally, I hope they are. I find the concept of plug-in hybrids
fascinating. To think that I could pull into my garage at the end of
the day and ``fill 'er up'' just by plugging my car in to a socket is
very attractive. Imagine how convenient that would be: Recharge my car,
walk in the house, recharge my cell phone. The next morning, unplug and
be ready to go. I'd only have to go to the gas station before road
trips!
I also think it is important--exciting is probably not the word--
that plug-in hybrids offer the chance to diversify the fuel supply for
our transportation sector. Plug-in hybrids would allow us to power our
cars with coal--I hope that will soon be clean coal--nuclear or some
combination of renewable resources. Here in D.C., we have the oil
lobby, the switch grass lobby, the corn lobby, the coal lobby, the wind
and solar lobby. In my district in suburban Chicago, my constituents
want to hop in their cars and go. Very few of them care what makes
their car go. Consumers may be pointing us in the right direction. We
should be working towards cars that can run on what ever energy source
is available at the lowest cost: be it electricity, gasoline, or some
biofuel.
In our hearing today, we will examine the major research and
development questions facing plug-in hybrid technologies and try to
understand how this work should be prioritized. We want to be able to
identify the most significant obstacles facing the widespread
commercial availability of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Are there
technical or cost-competitiveness issues with important components,
such as batteries or power electronics? Do we lack essential
infrastructure? Do consumer preferences or auto industry inertia
present high hurdles? Our witnesses today can help us understand what
additional steps the Federal Government can take to address these
barriers.
I don't want to presume to speak for my colleagues on this
subcommittee, but I think all of us would like to see the development
and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles accelerated. I know
my constituents think plug-in hybrids sound exciting when they hear
about the technology. They want to know when they will be able to buy
them, and--to be honest--so do we.
I would like to thank each of our witnesses for taking the time to
educate us about this important subject and to comment upon our draft
legislation. I would like to thank Representative Smith of Texas for
the leadership he has taken on this issue. We greatly appreciate the
opportunity to provide input on his draft legislation, and we hope to
see it move expeditiously towards enactment.
Finally, I would like to mention that at the conclusion of our
hearing, we have an opportunity to see two plug-in hybrids by CalCars
at noon at the corner of New Jersey Avenue and C Street Southeast,
courtesy of Representatives Jack Kingston and Elliot Engel. Begging
everyone's apologies, this really is a technology right around the
corner.
And now, I want to welcome my colleague Mr. Honda and recognize him
for his opening remarks.
Chairwoman Biggert. And I would recognize the Ranking
Member, Mr. Honda, for his opening statement.
But before I recognize him, I just want to make a quick
announcement and recognize a couple of folks from CalCars who
have a special treat for us this morning. At the conclusion of
our hearing, we have an opportunity to see two plug-in hybrids
by CalCars on the corner of New Jersey Avenue and C Street
Southeast, courtesy of Congressman Jack Kingston and
Congressman Eliot Engel. And begging everyone's apology, this
really is a technology right around the corner, so I hope
everyone here will join us. If you would like to stand up and--
so with that, I recognize Mr. Honda for five minutes.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
I guess that infrastructure, if you don't have one, you can
congratulate yourself for not having one.
I want to thank the Chairwoman for holding this important
hearing today and thank all of our witnesses for being here to
share their expertise with us. You have come from all across
the country. And let me just say to the Honda dealer--the Honda
folks that there is no relationship, and when I mentioned
Prius, it is only because they had the hybrid out, the first
one. I was looking for one, and then you came right after that.
As you may know, I do drive a Prius hybrid, and I have
asked my poor staffers to hook up a server cell to my Prius,
because when I left my car at the airport for a week or so, the
starting battery would die out, and I couldn't figure it out,
and so I decided to try to add a little bit more technology and
have a trickle charge hooked up to the back of my car.
So I think it is fair to say that you can count me in among
the converted on this technology.
As gasoline prices have skyrocketed in recent weeks, there
seems to be more of a sentiment, fortunately, among us policy-
makers to support the development of more efficient vehicles.
Consequently, 75 percent of the energy consumed in
transportation is provided by petroleum. Of that 75 percent in
2004, nearly 63 percent came from foreign sources. The trend
indicates that this will only get worse if the United States
does not make significant strides towards reducing consumption
in the transportation sector.
Small steps can make a big difference. A 10 percent
reduction in energy use from cars and light trucks would result
in a savings of nearly--approximately 750,000 barrels of
petroleum per day. Today's electric hybrids are a step in the
right direction to reducing our dependence on petroleum with
the Prius traveling about 42 to 50 miles per gallon of
gasoline. But because the only source of energy for today's
hybrids is gasoline, some of that energy must go into charging
the batteries, limiting the overall vehicle efficiency. I am
excited about the prospect of plug-in hybrids because they are
able to store more electrical energy on-board, meaning that
they can travel further on their initial charge than the
gasoline carried on-board.
Plug-ins can also reduce the overall amount of pollution,
because the power plants are more efficient at controlling
combustion emissions than the vehicles are.
One question I do have, however, is that what impacts
would--plug-in hybrid use will have on the Nation's electricity
grid if we are successful in convincing hundreds of millions of
Americans to purchase and use plug-in vehicles. And that is a
question. In California, we don't have a whole lot of
electricity to spare. Advocates for plug-in hybrids say that we
will recharge these cars at night when most of the demand is
baseload, so it won't be a problem. But if we get enough people
to adopt plug-in hybrid technology, will we exceed the capacity
of a baseload generation and need to use more power plants,
ones that use natural gas as fuel? If so, then I fear we would
just be shifting our addiction from one petrochemical to
another.
Hopefully, the witnesses will address this in their
testimony or in the question-and-answer period.
Now please let me apologize in advance. I may need to leave
early to go to a markup in another committee, but rest assured
that I share the Chairwoman's enthusiasm for this technology,
and I look forward to hearing the testimony. Again, I thank the
witnesses for being here, for your knowledge, and for your
enthusiasm.
I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Michael M. Honda
I thank the Chairwoman for holding this important hearing today,
and thank all of our witnesses for being here to share their expertise
with us.
As you may know, I drive a Prius hybrid, and I've asked my poor
staffer about hooking up a solar cell to keep the starting battery
charged for those times when I've left the car at the airport for a few
weeks. So I think it's fair to say that you can count me among the
converted on this technology.
As gasoline prices have skyrocketed in recent weeks, there seems to
more sentiment among policy-makers to support the development of more
efficient vehicles.
Approximately 75 percent of the energy consumed in the
transportation is provided by petroleum. Of that 75 percent, in 2004
nearly 63 percent came from foreign sources. The trend line indicates
that this will only get worse if the U.S. does not make significant
strides towards reducing consumption in the transportation sector.
Small steps can make a big difference. A 10 percent reduction in
energy use from cars and light trucks would result in the savings of
nearly 750,000 barrels of petroleum per day.
Today's electric hybrids are a step in the right direction to
reducing our dependence on petroleum, with the Prius traveling about 50
miles per gallon of gasoline. But because the only source of energy for
today's hybrids is the gasoline, some of that energy must go into
charging the batteries, limiting the overall vehicle efficiency.
I'm excited by the prospect of plug-in hybrids because they are
able to store more electrical energy on-board, meaning they can travel
farther on their initial charge and the gasoline carried on board.
Plug-ins can also reduce the overall amount of pollution because power
plants are more efficient at controlling combustion emissions than
vehicles are.
One question I do have, however, is what impact plug-in hybrid use
will have on our nation's electricity grid if we are successful in
convincing hundreds of millions of Americans to purchase and use plug-
in hybrid vehicles. In California, we don't have a whole lot of
electricity to spare.
Advocates for plug-in hybrids say that we will recharge these cars
at night, when most of the demand is base load, so it won't be a
problem. But if we get enough people to adopt plug-in hybrid
technology, will we exceed the capacity of the base load generation and
need to use more power plants, ones that use natural gas as a fuel?
If so, then I fear we would just be shifting our addiction from one
petrochemical to another. Hopefully the witnesses will address this in
their testimony or in the Question and Answer period.
I share the Chairwoman's enthusiasm for this technology, and I look
forward to hearing the testimony. Thanks again to the witnesses for
being here, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
Any additional opening statements submitted by Members may
be added to the record.
[The prepared statement by Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before
our committee to discuss a draft of legislation sponsored by
Representative Smith, to promote research and development (R&D) on
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are hybrid cars with an added
battery. As the term suggests, plug-in hybrids--which look and perform
much like ``regular'' cars--can be plugged in each night at home, or
during the workday at a parking garage, and charged. Plug-ins run on
the stored energy for much of a typical day's driving--depending on the
size of the battery up to 60 miles per charge. When the charge is used
up, the car automatically keeps running on the fuel in the fuel tank.
Therefore, plug-in hybrids can deliver dramatic improvements in fuel
economy by driving their first 25 to 50 miles on clean renewable
electric fuel for about one-fourth the price of gasoline before turning
on the combustion engine. Many experts contend that widespread use of
plug-in hybrids could significantly contribute to the reduction of
emissions and dependency on foreign oil.
While hybrid-plug in cars could benefit consumers because of their
greater fuel economy and the relatively low cost of energy from the
electric grid, I am interested in learning what are the largest
obstacles facing the widespread commercialization of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles and what steps need to be taken to address these
hurdles. In addition, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on
their assessment of the discussion draft. Thank you.
[The prepared statement by Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member. We have a number of
witnesses here today to discuss the feasibility of plug-in hybrid
vehicles and how they can help America lessen its dependence on foreign
fossil fuels.
I would like to provide a special Texas welcome to Mr. Roger
Duncan, who is the Deputy General Manager of Austin Energy and a fellow
Texan.
Madam Chair, I am pleased to see this Subcommittee focused on the
issue of energy as it relates to this nation's transportation needs.
Gas prices continue to escalate, especially in Texas. Pair that
with the issue of urban sprawl, what we're seeing is an energy crisis
that experts predict will affect American's spending and vacation plans
this coming summer.
Congress must provide strong leadership to spur research and
development in the areas of energy efficiency and alternative fuels.
Again, I am pleased we are having this discussion today and welcome
the witnesses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
Madame Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity today to explore the
development and relevance of plug-in hybrid technology, and to discuss
the merits of legislation that promotes research and development of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
As we are all aware, this country faces both short-term and long-
term energy crises, most immediately evidenced by gas prices that creep
higher every day. Our dependence on oil, and the negative consequences
inherent in this dependency, is well documented and one of the few
policy issues over which there is no partisan dispute.
The plug-in technology combines a significantly more powerful
battery with gasoline fuel, with the added benefit of being able to
plug in the vehicle to an electricity outlet and recharge the battery.
At this time, the batteries last for approximately 20 to 30 miles,
which is, coincidentally, the average American commuting distance.
Imagine spending money only to fuel long-distance drives, and
recharging your car completely every night!
The fuel economy and energy efficiency of plug-in hybrid vehicles
could benefit consumers and the economy as a whole. The legislation
directs the Secretary of Energy to pursue further research on
technology such as high capacity and high efficiency batteries, as well
as research into lightweight materials, which can also affect the
efficiency of the car.
One of the many reasons I enjoy sitting on this subcommittee is the
frequent exposure and discovery of innovative policy options. I am so
pleased today to have the opportunity to discuss one consumer option
that appears feasible and practical, and that is likely to prove its
worth in the marketplace. I applaud all of the witnesses for their
efforts in making electric vehicles even more of a reality.
Thank you Madame Chairman, and I yield back the remainder of my
time.
Chairwoman Biggert. And at this time, I would like to
introduce our witnesses and thank you all for coming this
morning.
First, we have Dr. Andy Frank. He is a Professor in the
Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering Department at the
University of California, Davis, and the Director of the UC
Davis Hybrid Electric Vehicle Research Center. Welcome.
I would now like to recognize my colleague, Mr. Smith, to
introduce the next witness.
Mr. Smith. I thank you, Madame Chairman.
First of all, let me thank you for having this hearing on
the general subject of hybrid vehicles and more specifically on
the discussion draft of the bill ``The Plug-In Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Act of 2006,'' which I expect to introduce in a few
days with your good support as an original co-sponsor, and I
thank you for that.
I would like to introduce Roger Duncan, who is from my home
state of Texas and also from Austin, which is a city that is in
my Congressional district. He is here to share his knowledge of
plug-in hybrid electric technology.
Mr. Duncan has been a leader in energy conservation and
environmental policy for over 20 years. He is the Deputy
General Manger of Austin Energy, which is the Nation's tenth
largest community-owned electric utility.
Since joining the City of Austin's management staff in
1989, he has overseen the development and implementation of
water and air quality programs, environmental reviews, and
energy and water conservation programs.
Prior to his service in city management, he served four
years as a city council member. So, Madame Chair, I think we
should probably call him honorable today, among other terms.
He also serves as a board member of the Electric Drive
Transportation Association and is the campaign coordinator for
Plug-In Partners.
He has been recognized by BusinessWeek Magazine as one of
the 20 top leaders of the decade in the effort to reduce gases
that cause global warming.
So I am pleased to introduce him today to our fellow
colleagues on this committee, but I also have to say, Madame
Chairman, that because of a markup on the Homeland Security
Committee on which I also sit, I am going to need to leave
after his testimony, but I do intend to stay at least for that
amount of time.
And thank you again for the privilege of introducing a
constituent.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
It must be Wednesday morning. We seem to have a lot of
hearings every Wednesday. We are all trying to be in three
places at once.
Next, Dr. Duvall, is a Technology Development Manger for
Electric Transportation & Specialty Vehicles in the Electric
Power Research Institute's, or EPRI, Science & Technology
Division. He currently oversees EPRI's Grid-Connected Hybrid
Electric Vehicle Working Group and is EPRI's technical lead for
the DaimlerChrysler-EPRI Plug-in Hybrid Electric Sprinter Van
Program. Welcome.
And next we have Dr. John German. He is a Manager of
Environmental and Energy Analyses for American Honda Motor
Company. Mr. German is the author of a variety of technical
papers and a book on hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles
published by the Society of Automotive Engineers. Welcome, Mr.
German.
Mr. Gordon, our Ranking Member on the Science Committee, is
here to introduce the next witness.
Mr. Gordon. Thank you, Madame Chair.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to introduce one of my
home boys. Dr. Cliff Ricketts is one of the most innovative
individuals I know. He has held the land speed record for
hydrogen vehicles at the Bonneville Salt Flats for 15 years and
has experimented with a variety of electric hybrid and
biodiesel fuel vehicles in his 30 years at my alma mater,
Middle Tennessee State University. He has also worked with
solar energy and has a 10-kilowatt solar unit that banks
electricity with the local electric supplier to charge his own
hybrid vehicle and hybrid--and produce hydrogen from water
through electrolysis to operate his own internal combustion
automobile. The only two sources of energy that runs his
vehicles are sun and water.
But I think the importance of Dr. Ricketts being here today
is he represents a cadre of hundreds, maybe thousands, of
garage innovators all around this country that are working with
virtually no resources but only their own innovation. And it is
my hope that we are going to be able to find them ways to get
the resources so that we can spark a new technology here. I am
convinced that there are Orville and Wilbur Wrights in our
midst, and we just have to go out and find them. And Dr.
Ricketts, I think, is at the head of that stream.
So thank you, Dr. Ricketts, for being here today.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Gordon.
And last, but not least, we have Dr. Dan Santini. He is a
senior economist in the Energy Systems Division of Argonne
National Laboratory's Center for Transportation Research as
well as the former Chair of the Alternative Fuels Committee of
the National Academy of Sciences' Transportation Research
Board. Thank you very much for being here.
As I am sure the witnesses know, spoken testimony will be
limited to five minutes each, after which the Members will have
five minutes each to ask questions. So try and keep somewhat
near to that limit. I know you have a lot to say, and I really
look forward to hearing from you.
And we will begin with Dr. Frank.
Dr. Frank, could you turn on the microphone, please, and
pull it a little bit closer?
STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW A. FRANK, PROFESSOR, MECHANICAL AND
AERONAUTICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
DAVIS
Dr. Frank. Okay. Here we go.
I am going to waste a minute of my precious time right
here, but I will play this little clip from----
[Video.]
Okay. Now I am going to address some questions that I think
Mr. Honda had just started, but here are some questions.
What major R&D work remains for plug-in hybrids technology
and what needs to be prioritized?
I think the most important thing is: a lot of the R&D has
been done by many of us sitting here at the table, but the most
important thing is it is not ready for production. Pre-
production vehicles and demonstrations are really needed. And
we have got to develop a supply chain. There are pieces of the
supply chain not completed, and that is one of the reasons why
car companies say, ``Well, we can't put these in production
tomorrow.''
But in terms of the priorities for a demo fleet, I think we
would have to focus on the most important, the mid-sized, high-
volume car and then the minivan and small SUVs. I think Ford
has already started that. And we need to go to compact cars,
like Prius. But we have to convert these to plug-ins.
Finally, the objective is to obtain feedback from customers
and the manufacturing of the structure with the supply chain
development, and then, of course, how much are we going to
charge for these.
And then, most important is to integrate with the electric
utilities, and Dr. Duvall will talk about that and what we
should do.
But beyond the utilities, we need to consider wind and
solar.
So do the feds support plug-in hybrids now? Well, we have
had some support in the past, but my support has primarily come
from student competitions, surprisingly enough, from the U.S.
DOE, so I have to thank people for that. But it is really, and
as I think the chairperson said this morning, they didn't hear
about it last year. Anyway, government support is needed today
to build a fleet of, I think, 100 advanced, fully-engineered,
plug-in hybrids just to demonstrate.
But the--one of the big issues is electric range. How far
should these things go? Ten or sixty miles? What I have done is
I have demonstrated that 60 miles is possible, but it may not
be economically feasible. So OAMs are talking about that.
How much is it going to cost? Well, I don't know, but I
think $50 million or so would get us started.
Convincing the oil companies--and what technical and social
barriers are needed in convincing the auto and oil companies?
You know, when you introduce these to the oil companies, they
say, ``You mean, you want to support something that is going to
reduce the use of oil? That doesn't help our business.'' But in
actual fact, it does. And the reason why is oil is a world
market, and what oil we don't use in this country at a low cost
will sell in the world market at a higher cost. So they will
make more money rather than less. So it will--it behooves them
to support this as well. And I know they haven't supported it
in the past.
Auto companies, it is the same thing. If we, in our
American auto companies, don't do something, foreign car
companies will jump in immediately.
Ethanol. You know, the problem with ethanol is--we have
cars that will burn ethanol, but we don't have an ethanol--we
don't have an infrastructure to make ethanol. With a plug-in
hybrid, we have infrastructure to--for electricity, but we
don't have cars that use electricity. So what we really need to
do is to marry these two concepts with the largest and quickest
impact on oil reduction.
Use of plug-in hybrids to integrate rooftop solar and wind.
I am not talking about big solar and wind, in other words,
vehicle home office systems with rooftop solar can be all
integrated. And what this will do is create new industries and
jobs for Americans. And so anyway--and it will improve and move
us towards a zero CO2 emission society.
What is, as pointed out by the Chairperson, the most
important thing is the cost of fuel. Fuel using electricity--
using gasoline is about 15 cents per mile, but using
electricity from the power plants is around three cents per
mile. So you know, that is a major difference. Of course, using
solar, you drive that even--down lower. What we don't want to
do is step back in technology.
What are our technical and social barriers to the
widespread adoption to PHEVs? We have an acceptance of home
fueling, and I--by the way, you can't just plug these things
into any old plug. You really need to have properly installed
electric plugs in garages and so on. You see, the City of Davis
has already passed an ordinance that every garage, new
construction garage, has to have an EV-charging plug in the
garage, so that is the kind of thing that has to be done.
We change our habits a little bit, because, as you point
out, you plug it into the house and the most important thing is
by fueling at home, you reduce your trips to the gas station
from 35 times a year to about five times a year.
And for the electric grid, on the electric grid size, you
really--you know, there is always the question that Mr. Honda
pointed out. Okay, what is going to happen to the grid? We have
all of these hundreds of millions of cars plugged in.
Eventually, we are going to have to go to something like the
grid-wise system of the U.S. DOE where you only get a charge
when the power company has it.
All right. So I think--am I running out of five minutes?
Yeah. Okay. I will skip to the conclusion here.
I made this chart here, which shows the gasoline--gallons
of gasoline saved per year for all electric ranges, ranging
from zero range, so that is a regular hybrid, up to 40 miles.
So when the President said all electric cars--plug-in hybrids
with 40 miles range is kind of an optimum, he was right. Forty
miles--beyond forty miles of all electric range, there isn't
much gain, because you don't save much more gasoline after
that.
Okay. Conclusions. R&D for plug-in hybrids has been done
and ready for pre-production. We need 25 to 50 pre-production,
completely engineered, properly integrated systems on existing
cars to show that mass manufacturing can be done. And we need
standards for design and tests by SAE and EPA and CARB, because
at this current time, the standards for testing cars don't
apply to plug-in hybrids. It is very important to redevelop
that. And then finally, we need to integrate plug-in hybrids
with small solar, wind, and ethanol and move towards--move the
United States towards zero oil, coal, and CO2. In
the end, we can end up with an improved lifestyle and a much
more energy-efficient society without any change in
infrastructure.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Frank follows:]
Biography for Andrew A. Frank
Professor Frank received a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering in 1967
from the University of Southern California, he has a Master's and
Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering, 1955 and 1957 from UC-
Berkeley. He worked in the aerospace industry for over ten years on
such projects as the Minute Man Missile, and the Apollo space craft to
the Moon. He holds patents on helicopter stability systems from this
period.
After his Ph.D. from USC in 1967, he became a Professor at the
University of Wisconsin. While there, his research turned toward
advance transportation systems for much higher fuel efficiency. A goal
of developing cars with 100 mpg and 0 to 60 mph in six seconds or less
was set then. He began research on the hybrid electric drive train to
improve fuel efficiency. He received nine patents in the next 18 years
on various flywheel and electric drive systems for automobiles. He left
Wisconsin for his present position at the University of California-
Davis in 1985.
Since coming to UC-Davis, he has continued research into super fuel
efficiency. In 1992 he and his student team set the world record in
super fuel efficiency by constructing a car with his students that
achieved 3300 mpg on gasoline and another car at 2200 mpg on M-85.
These vehicles set the boundary of what is possible but are not real
practical cars since they weigh less than 100 lbs.
Since then he and his students have been designing and constructing
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles which have the capability of using
electric energy from the utility system and ordinary gasoline. All this
research is being done in the U.S. DOE GATE Center for Hybrid Electric
Vehicle Research. Recent studies from the Center show that such cars
will reduce gasoline consumption by 75 percent or more, and provide two
times the energy efficiency while providing zero emission driving
capability with no change in the energy infrastructure. As part of this
research program a large amount of effort is also being spent on
Continuously Variable Transmission design development and theory. The
research in the CVT allows vehicles to be either a conventional vehicle
or a hybrid with no change in the power train. The CVT systems designed
by Dr. Frank and associates have no power or torque limitations and are
over 95 percent efficient. At the Center, we have developed world class
research in these areas.
Professor Frank is the author of over 120 publications and
currently holds 27 patents with many more pending.
Professor Frank has worked as a consultant on patent problems,
electrical accidents, and design defect cases for the last 30 years.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you, Dr. Frank.
Mr. Duncan, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROGER DUNCAN, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, AUSTIN
ENERGY IN TEXAS
Mr. Duncan. Madame Chairman and Members of Congress, thank
you for inviting me today to give testimony on the proposed
legislation regarding plug-in hybrid vehicles. We have several
expert witnesses today to speak to the technical aspects of how
a flexible fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle works, and the state of
research and development of such a vehicle.
In my opinion, any obstacles in research and development
will be met by the proposed legislation. I believe that the
battery issues can be rather easily addressed, and I do not
think that there are any major infrastructure issues to
overcome, because the infrastructure is the existing electric
grid.
The main obstacle I see to widespread commercial
application of these vehicles is automotive industry inertia
based on a perception that there is not a commercially viable
market. So today, I will focus on customer acceptance and the
potential market for these vehicles, specifically the Plug-In
Partners campaign currently being conducted by the City of
Austin.
We became very excited in Austin when we found out about
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. These vehicles can reduce
America's reliance on foreign oil, decrease greenhouse gas
emissions from automobiles, and help Americans save on fuel
costs.
In Austin, citizens could charge their vehicles overnight
and then drive around town the next day on the electric
equivalent of 75-cents-a-gallon gasoline. The equivalent cost
of electricity in our nation anywhere is under a dollar a
gallon. And we were also very excited in Austin when we
realized that we could use our Green Choice renewable energy
program, which is primarily wind-based, as a transportation
fuel.
Our Mayor, Will Wynn, now proudly tells people that in
Austin we intend to replace Middle Eastern oil with West Texas
wind. And the fueling infrastructure is already in place. In
fact, we have an alternative vehicle fueling station in this
hearing room today: the electric wall socket.
Last August, our city, county, chamber of commerce, and
local environmentalists joined together to kickoff the Plug In
Austin campaign. Our utility is setting aside $1 million in
rebates for the first plug-in hybrids in our service area. And
we came up with the idea of ``soft'' fleet orders, asking our
partners to seriously consider purchasing such vehicles if they
became available.
We realized, however, that the automakers were not going to
make these vehicles just for Austin, Texas, even though we are
the home of the national champion Texas Longhorns.
So my Mayor and Council said to take this campaign to the
50 largest cities in the Nation, and we launched the Plug-In
Partners campaign here in Washington four months ago.
Today, we are proud to be joined in this effort by cities
such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Baltimore,
Dallas, Fort Worth, Memphis, Denver, Salt Lake City, Kansas
City, San Francisco, Seattle, Boston, and many other cities and
counties.
Since we are promoting a flexible-fuel plug-in hybrid, the
American Corn Growers Association and the Soybean Producers of
America have joined us.
Our broad-based coalition now has over 200 partners
throughout state and local governments, non-profit
organizations, including environmental and national security
organizations, public and private utilities, and businesses.
We already have ``soft'' fleet orders for over 5,000
vehicles.
But almost all of our partners ask me the same question:
where can I get one? The proposed legislation will be very
helpful in this regard. The demonstration program in this
legislation will directly address our most pressing need,
providing demonstration vehicles to the state and local
governments, businesses, and other Plug-In Partners. We will
help in matching the great consumer demand that we are
uncovering with the demonstration program proposed in this
legislation.
The only additional recommendation I have is to consider
federal fleet commitments. The diversity of federal vehicles
would provide a wonderful testing and demonstration platform
for this new technology. We would also ask you to encourage the
Postal Service to transition their neighborhood delivery
vehicles to plug-in hybrids and to perhaps provide incentives
to the post office for that transition. This type of vehicle is
perfect for this technology, and it would show everyone in the
country what they are.
In conclusion, we believe the proposed legislation is a
very important step in addressing the energy crisis facing this
nation and encourage you to move forward with it.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duncan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Roger Duncan
Madame Chairman and Members of Congress, thank you for inviting me
today to give testimony on the proposed legislation regarding plug-in
hybrid vehicles. Solving the energy crises that America faces today
requires new and innovative thinking and I am glad to see that this
committee has focused on what I consider to be one of the prime
solutions.
You have several expert witnesses today to speak to the technical
aspects of how a flexible fuel plug-in hybrid vehicle works and the
state of research and development of such a vehicle. In my opinion, any
obstacles in research and development will be met by the proposed
legislation. I believe that the battery issues can be easily addressed
and I do not think there are any major infrastructure issues to
overcome--because the infrastructure is the existing electric grid.
The main obstacle I see to widespread commercial application of
these vehicles is automotive industry inertia based on a perception
that there is not a commercially viable market. So today I will focus
on customer acceptance and the potential market for these vehicles--
specifically the Plug-In Partners campaign currently being conducted by
the City of Austin.
We became very excited in Austin when we found out about plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles. These vehicles can reduce America's reliance
on foreign oil, decrease greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, and
help Americans save on fuel costs.
Also, plug-in hybrid vehicles can also be built with flexible fuel
engines, magnifying the national security, environmental and economic
benefits while also increasing business for American agriculture.
In Austin we are particularly interested in electricity because if
an Austin citizen could charge their vehicle overnight, they could
drive around town the next day on the electric equivalent of 75 cents a
gallon gasoline. As we checked utility rates around the country, we
realized that the equivalent cost of electricity anywhere in our nation
is under a dollar a gallon. And we were also very excited in Austin
when we realized that we could use our Green Choice renewable energy
program, which is primarily wind-based, as a transportation fuel.
Our Mayor, Will Wynn, now proudly tells people that in Austin we
intend to substitute West Texas wind for Middle Eastern oil. And the
fueling infrastructure is already in place. In fact, we have an
alternative vehicle fueling station in this hearing room today, the
ordinary electric wall socket.
Our Mayor and Council launched Plug-in Austin last August. The
city, county, chamber of commerce, and local environmentalists joined
together to kick off the campaign. Austin Energy, the City of Austin's
public utility, is setting aside a million dollars in rebates for the
first plug-in hybrids in our service area. And we came up with the idea
of ``soft'' fleet orders, asking our partners to seriously consider
purchasing such vehicles if they became available.
We realized, however, that the automakers were not going to make
these vehicles just for Austin, Texas--even though we are the home of
the national champion Texas Longhorns.
So out Mayor and Council said to take this campaign to the 50
largest cities in the Nation and we launched the Plug-In Partners
campaign here in Washington four months ago.
Today we are proud to have been joined in this effort by cities
such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Dallas, Fort
Worth, Memphis, Denver, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, San Francisco,
Seattle, Boston, and many other cities and counties.
Since we are promoting a flexible-fuel plug-in hybrid, the American
Corn Growers Association and the Soybean Producers of America have
joined the coalition.
Our broad based coalition now has over 200 partners throughout
State and local governments, non-profit organizations--including
environmental and national security organizations, public and private
utilities, and businesses. We already have ``soft'' fleet orders for
over 5,000 vehicles. A complete list of our partners had been provided.
But almost all our partners ask me the same question--where can I
get one? And this is one place where I think the proposed legislation
will be very helpful. The demonstration program proposed in the
legislation will directly address our most pressing need--providing
demonstration vehicles to the State and local governments, businesses
and other Plug-In Partners. We will help in matching the great consumer
demand that we are uncovering with the demonstration program proposed
in this legislation.
If I were to recommend that anything at all be added to the
legislation, it would be consideration of federal fleet commitments.
The diversity of federal vehicles would provide a wonderful testing and
demonstration platform for this new technology. We would also ask you
to encourage the Postal Service to transition their neighborhood
delivery vehicles to plug-in hybrids and to perhaps provide incentives
to the Post Office for that transition. These types of vehicles are
perfect for this technology, and it would show everyone in the country
what they are.
In conclusion, we believe the proposed legislation is a very
important step in addressing the energy crises facing this nation and
encourage you to move forward with it. Thank you.
Biography for Roger Duncan
Roger Duncan is the Deputy General Manager of Austin Energy, the
Municipal Utility for Austin, Texas. He manages Strategic Planning,
Government Relations, On-site Generation, Demand-side Management, and
Green Building for the Utility. Prior to joining Austin Energy, Mr.
Duncan was Director of the Environmental Department for the City of
Austin and was elected to two terms on the Austin City Council.
Mr. Duncan is currently Co-chair of the Urban Consortium
Sustainability Council and serves on the Board of Directors of the
Environmental and Energy Study Institute and the Electric Drive
Transportation Association. He also is a member of the Western
Governor's Association Committee on Energy Efficiency and was appointed
by the Secretary of Energy to the Federal Energy Management Advisory
Council.
Mr. Duncan holds a B.A. degree with a major in Philosophy,
University of Texas at Austin.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Duncan.
I have to say that you did forget one city when you were
mentioning all of those, and that is Naperville, Illinois,
which is the largest city in my suburban Chicago district, but
they are a Plug-In Partner and one of the campaign's founding
members. I am not sure if the campaign has switched to--from
cities to individuals yet, but if it has, that makes the list.
I would buy a plug-in hybrid if they were available today.
Thank you.
Dr. Duvall, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARK S. DUVALL, TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT
MANAGER, ELECTRIC TRANSPORTATION & SPECIALTY VEHICLES, SCIENCE
& TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE (EPRI)
Dr. Duvall. Thank you, Chairman Biggert, for the
opportunity to address your committee.
I would like to briefly highlight a few key points of the
written testimony I have submitted in response to questions
posed by the Committee, and I look forward to any additional
inquiries you have.
In 2000, EPRI created a Hybrid Electric Vehicle Working
Group. It was a collaboration with Ford, General Motors,
several of our utility members, some state and local agencies,
and two National Laboratories, Argonne National Lab, and the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and others. This group of
stakeholders completed the first comprehensive study on the
benefits, costs, technical challenges, and market potential of
conventional hybrid and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
EPRI used this study as a roadmap to guide research and
development activities over the past six years on battery
technology, control system development, infrastructure, and
also on environmental analysis. While the R&D continues, EPRI
has worked with others to inform federal and State policy-
makers about the energy security benefits of plug-in hybrids,
reducing U.S. dependency on petroleum while maintaining the
usefulness and utility of conventional automobiles.
During this work, we found that the cost and durability and
safety of advanced battery technologies were high-priority
development issues, followed closely by other overall electric
drive system development and integration issues. Our current
experience suggests that these technologies are sufficiently
well developed to move plug-in hybrid technology to the market
for early entry. It further suggests that continuing R&D on key
component technologies is critical and has the potential to
significantly improve the performance of the technology,
especially with respect to advanced batteries.
I would like to highlight three important actions that can
dramatically improve near-term prospects for plug-in hybrid
vehicles, and which I believe are also supported well by the
draft legislation.
The first is to establish programs with automotive
manufacturers to develop production prototype plug-in hybrid
vehicles and to demonstrate them with private and public
fleets. One example of this type of program is a collaboration
between EPRI and DaimlerChrysler with several electric
utilities and the South Coast Air Quality Management District
in southern California to test a fleet of plug-in hybrid
delivery vans with advanced battery technology. These
prototypes are currently undergoing extensive testing in
Germany and Los Angeles and currently demonstrating excellent
performance with the potential to provide long-term durability
in a demanding application.
The second is to develop a plan for acquiring and deploying
larger fleets of plug-in hybrid vehicles in various vehicle
platforms and configurations for multiple locations across the
United States. Plug-in hybrid vehicles have a wide variety of
application to different platforms. We should not assume that
they are only for small passenger cars. They can serve many
different needs. One example is that EPRI and some of the
utilities are working with a major hybrid drive system
manufacturer to develop a plug-in hybrid electric utility
vehicle that can go and repair distribution lines in
neighborhoods using only electricity, without exposing the
operator to harmful diesel emissions, and while providing
backup power to customers during some outages.
There are always additional costs and risks associated with
the development of new technology, and large scale fleet
demonstrations help to minimize these issues and build market
familiarity with plug-in hybrids and create a minimum level of
certainty for the first-to-market manufacturers.
Finally, the creation of national research programs focused
on increasing the overall performance of batteries, electric
drive systems, and power electronics. The Department of Energy
recently held a meeting to define key plug-in hybrid research
challenges, and this effort should be fully supported as much
and as soon as possible.
One of the most important benefits of plug-in hybrid
vehicles is the ability to diversify our transportation energy
sources by displacing a portion of the sector's petroleum
consumption with electricity. At high levels of market
penetration, PHEVs can achieve dramatic reductions in petroleum
consumption with a modest increase in the nationwide
electricity demand. The electric sector has a large capacity to
provide for electricity for transportation uses with minimal
adverse impact and several significant potential benefits to
the electric grid as a whole.
The effort to move PHEVs into commercialization must be a
serious one, given the current status of the technologies. And
this is an achievable near-term objective with enormous
potential to reduce national petroleum consumption, to lower
transportation fuel costs, to diversify and secure
transportation energy sources, and to reduce vehicle emissions.
In closing, I would like to thank Chairman Biggert and the
Members of Congress for your attention, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Duvall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark S. Duvall
On behalf of the Electric Power Research Institute, I appreciate
the opportunity to address your committee. My remarks will offer a
brief history of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle development, the
current status of the technology and answers to some questions posed by
Committee staff.
Recent History of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Development
In 2000, EPRI created a Hybrid Electric Vehicle Working Group
(HEVWG) in conjunction with Ford, General Motors, Argonne National
Laboratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, New York Power
Authority, Southern Company and Southern California Edison. The HEVWG
was supported by a consulting team with a strong background in
marketing, emissions, and cost analysis.
The resulting study that compared the benefits, costs and
challenges between conventional vehicles, hybrid vehicles and plug-in
hybrid vehicles (PHEV) set the stage for additional research over the
past six years on battery technology, control system development,
infrastructure, and environmental analysis. While R&D continues, EPRI
has worked with other advocates to inform federal and State policy-
makers about the energy security benefits of plug-in hybrids--reducing
U.S. dependency on petroleum while maintaining the usefulness and
utility of conventional automobiles.
This R&D work identified the challenges facing plug-in hybrid
commercialization. We found that the cost and durability of advanced
battery technologies was the highest priority, followed closely by
battery system and drive system vehicle integration and coordinated
energy management. The analysis to date suggests that the technology,
control systems and advanced battery systems are sufficient to move
plug-in hybrid technology to the market at an early entry level. It
further suggests that continued R&D on key component technologies is
critical, especially advanced batteries. Additional analysis and
experience with the vehicle and systems can lead to further
optimization as test data is applied to the design of motor and engine
systems, and engine/motor coordination strategies are further refined.
Current Status
At this time, plug-in hybrid technology is at the prototype stage,
although with excellent prospects for near-term commercial development.
As one example, EPRI and DaimlerChrysler are working with several
electric utilities and the South Coast Air Quality Management District
to test a small fleet of PHEVs with advanced battery technology. These
prototypes are undergoing testing in Germany and Los Angeles. They are
demonstrating excellent performance, and have the potential to
demonstrate long-term durability.
Current battery technology is also proceeding well. The most recent
batteries demonstrate excellent safety, power performance, and
laboratory life. Future challenges will include verifying lifetime
testing in field testing, and developing production facilities to ramp
up the availability of this technology.
Questions
What major research, development, and demonstration work remains on
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies? How should this work be
prioritized?
What are the largest obstacles facing the widespread commercial
application of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and what steps need to
be taken to address these hurdles (batteries, infrastructure, consumer
preference, automotive inertia, cost-competitiveness, etc.)?
There are three main technical challenges which will need to be
addressed in the commercialization of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles:
first, proof of concept of high performance energy batteries capable of
PHEV operation; second, the development of a robust supplier base for
automotive electric motors and hybrid vehicle components; third, the
coordination of a safe and usable set of charging standards.
The first and primary challenge is the validation of batteries
capable of meeting PHEV operation requirements. This is a considerable
challenge which has been under evaluation for many years, but this work
has made tremendous progress and the batteries which are currently
available in prototype form are capable of meeting PHEV requirements.
Although more basic research can always be helpful, the best way to
address the battery challenge is to increase testing of current pre-
production technology and push forward towards meeting the production
challenges.
The development of a robust supplier base is an important second
step. Plug-in hybrid vehicles are generally similar to conventional
hybrid vehicles, so an important first step is increasing the potential
pool of component users and component suppliers so that economies of
scale can be generated as quickly as possible. This is a broad effort
that will have to be addressed on a nationwide basis.
The third challenge is the coordination of a safe and usable set of
charging standards. Americans need to know that charging their vehicles
is as safe and easy as charging their cell phones. This is the easiest
challenge to meet from a technical standpoint, but it will require
active participation from regulators, the automotive industry, and the
electric power industry.
How does the Federal Government support the development of plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle technologies? What can the Federal Government
do to accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles?
The most important question is what the Federal Government can do
to help. The primary hurdle to plug-in hybrid development is the
uncertainty of the market for electric transportation. In order to
build batteries and components at a reasonable cost, considerable up-
front capital investment is required. Although public comments by
national leaders in support of PHEVs have been tremendously helpful,
government can help further address this challenge by sending a clear
signal that it supports this technology in the future. The following
measures can be an important first step:
Establish a program with the automotive manufacturers
to create prototype demonstrations with a focus on near-term
applications.
Develop a plan for acquiring a fleet of plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles in various configurations to be
operated in multiple locations across the United States.
As fleet data becomes available, collect and share
the operating data to appropriately inform consumers and fleet
operators about the benefits of plug-in hybrid technology.
Direct the appropriate regulators to develop a
certification test protocol for plug-in hybrid drive systems to
maximize the benefits received by the manufacturer and
consumer.
Create an education program that informs the general
public on the attributes of plug-in technology. In addition,
create a program which reaches into the university level to
educate science and engineering students on all types of
electric-drive technology.
Direct the national research programs to focus
development on increasing the performance of batteries,
electric drive systems, and power electronics. The Department
of Energy recently held a summit laying out the research
challenges; this effort should be fully funded and expanded as
much and as soon as possible.
Does the discussion draft address the most significant barriers to the
widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?
EPRI has reviewed the discussion draft and is of the opinion that
it addresses the most critical technical challenges to the development
and adoption of plug-in hybrid vehicles. There is a high degree of
correlation between the discussion draft and the six priorities listed
by EPRI in response to the previous question.
How much additional energy demand could the electricity grid and
utilities absorb if PHEV users decided to charge their vehicles in the
middle of the day during peak power demand?
It is important to place the energy requirements of plug-in hybrids
in perspective with current and projected U.S. electrical energy
demands. A typical battery charger for a plug-in hybrid will draw about
1400 watts of power from a 120 volt outlet and be active for about two
to eight hours per day. This is roughly equivalent to an electric space
heater. Several analyses by EPRI or the DOE estimate the energy demand
of plug-in hybrids, even at 50 percent market penetration, at between
four and seven percent of total U.S. electricity demand. By 2050, total
U.S. electrical demand is projected by the EIA to grow by almost 100
percent, 200 million plug-in hybrids (with an equivalent of 20 miles of
electric range), driven and charged daily by their owners, would be
responsible for approximately four to seven percent of this growth.
It will take many years to reach even this level of electrical
energy consumption--the charging load from PHEVs will grow slowly and
predictably. The total PHEV charging load is anticipated to be
relatively consistent and electric utilities and system operators will
be able to accurately monitor and react to the adoption of the
vehicles.
What would be the likely net impact in criteria pollutant emissions and
greenhouse gas emissions with the commercialization of PHEVs?
There are two primary components to the criteria pollutants of
PHEVs--upstream emissions--produced by the refineries that produce the
gasoline or diesel fuel and power plants that generate the electricity
to recharge the batteries--and tailpipe emissions produced when driving
the vehicles.
Utilities today operate under a number of different compliance
requirements for criteria emissions. In many cases key pollutants are
capped. The recent EPA Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) has established
new, lower limits on the emissions of SOX and NOX. The Clean Air
Mercury Rule (CAMR) will set a strict limit on mercury emissions. When
these federal regulations are combined with State and local
requirements, the general result is that each year utilities must
generate more and more energy while decreasing the total amount of
pollutants generated. A historical review of electric sector emissions
in the U.S. shows a steady growth in demand (typically one to two
percent per year) alongside a steady decline in emissions.
There is significant potential for PHEVs to improve urban air
quality by the elimination of a portion of the tailpipe emissions.
PHEVs with a moderate ability to operate in an all-electric driving
mode can reduce the emissions associated with ``cold starts'' of the
combustion engine. These vehicles can also operate using only
electricity for extended stop-and-go driving in cities or other
congested areas.
The greenhouse gas emissions of a plug-in hybrid are the sum of
tailpipe emissions from the combustion of fuel, refinery emissions, and
power plant emissions. Plug-in hybrids use less hydrocarbon fuel and
have lower refinery and tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions than either
conventional vehicles or non-grid hybrids that are commercially
available today. PHEVs have the added greenhouse gas emissions produced
by generating electricity to recharge the battery.
Plug-in hybrids that are recharged from today's national electric
grid will have 37 percent fewer GHG emissions than conventional cars
and 13 percent fewer than comparable hybrids. However, it is more
useful to look at the future characteristics of electricity in the U.S.
when there would be significant numbers of PHEVs in the market.
The carbon intensity of the electric sector is declining year-over-
year. This is due to several factors, including the retirement of old,
inefficient fossil plants (many of which are more than 50-70 years
old), construction of new more efficient power plants, and introduction
of renewables and other non-emitting technologies. As the utility
sector reduces carbon intensity, the greenhouse gas emissions of PHEVs
that are recharged from this electricity will also decline.
The degree to which the electric sector reduces carbon intensity
depends on a number of factors, including the rate of introduction and
cost of new technologies, cost of different energy feedstocks, and
governmental policy. EPRI has simulated a number of future cases for up
to 200 million PHEVs in the U.S. by the year 2050 as part of our
current work characterizing the emissions characteristics of plug-in
hybrids. Each of these cases, including a ``worst case'' scenario of
minimum technology introduction and no downward drivers on
CO2, resulted in a minimum GHG reduction of 44 percent
compared to a conventional car.
Biography for Mark S. Duvall
Mark S. Duvall is the Manager of Technology Development for
Electric Transportation at the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI), a non-profit organization whose mission is to provide
collaborative science and technology solutions for the electric power
industry.
Dr. Duvall conducts research and technology development efforts in
advanced transportation, including hybrid system design, advanced
energy storage, vehicle efficiency, systems modeling, and environmental
analysis. His primary focus is plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and he
oversees a number of EPRI research partnerships and collaborations with
the automotive industry, State and federal agencies, national
laboratories, and academic research institutions.
Dr. Duvall holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in Mechanical Engineering
from the University of California, Davis and a Ph.D. in Mechanical
Engineering from Purdue University.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you very much, Dr. Duvall.
Mr. German, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN GERMAN, MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENERGY
ANALYSES FOR AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR COMPANY
Mr. German. Yes. Good morning, Madame Chairman and Members
of the Subcommittee.
Honda thanks you for the opportunity to provide our views
on the subject of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
However, before beginning my testimony, I want to share
with the Subcommittee several energy announcements Honda is
making this morning.
First, Honda has established a goal to increase its
industry-leading corporate average fuel economy by five percent
from 2005 to 2010, resulting in a combined car and light truck
CAFE fleet average of about 30.6 miles per gallon.
Second, we will introduce new diesel technology that
achieves tier 2 bin 5 emission levels within the next three
years without using Urea.
Third, we will introduce an all new and more affordable
dedicated hybrid car with a goal of 100,000 sales in North
America in 2009. These new commitments are part of our
company's ``2010 Vision: Commitment for the Future.''
The automotive industry is in a period of unprecedented
technology development. Gasoline development is still
proceeding rapidly. The manufacturers are working hard on
diesels that can meet the U.S. emission standards. Honda is
producing third-generation hybrid electric vehicles, and most
other manufacturers have also, or will be introducing hybrid
electric vehicles.
Honda continues to make a dedicated compressed natural gas
vehicle, the Civic GX, and a number of manufacturers are--
produce flexible-fuel vehicles that run on gasoline or E-85.
Fuel cells are being heavily researched and developed, and
plug-in hybrids are yet another advanced technology that merits
further examination.
The development of all technologies is accelerating in
response to growing concerns about energy security and global
warming. Global demand for transportation energy is so immense
that no single technology can possibly be the solution. There
is no ``magic bullet.'' We are going to need rapid development
and implementation of as many feasible technologies as
possible. But what is cutting-edge one day can quickly become
outdated. And Honda, as well as other manufacturers, is
constantly exploring a variety of technologies to achieve
energy sustainability.
Thus technology-specific mandates cannot get us where we
need to go. Performance requirements and incentives supported
by research and development are much more effective.
Plug-in hybrids have a lot of promise, especially to
displace oil consumption. However, plug-in hybrids and advanced
batteries are still in the early stages of development. In that
regard, the thrust of the draft legislation on research and
development makes a great deal of sense.
The Subcommittee asked that I address the obstacles facing
the widespread commercial application of plug-in hybrid
vehicles and the steps that need to be taken. There are many
issues that still need to be addressed. The extra batteries
required for plug-in applications are heavy, decreasing
performance, and take up valuable interior space. Plug-in
systems must be safe and easy to use, and customer acceptance
to plugging in the vehicle must be evaluated. Performance must
be preserved, which means that either a larger, more costly
electrical propulsion system must be installed, or the engine
must be used for harder accelerations and higher speeds, which
has potential emission implications.
From a societal point of view, there are additional issues
with criteria pollutants and CO2 emissions. How the
electricity is generated will have a significant impact on
benefits other than energy security.
While these are all legitimate issues that need further
research, the issue of energy storage is much more significant.
Although current hybrid vehicles have relatively small battery
packs, the battery pack is still the largest single cost of the
hybrid system. In addition, the energy flow in conventional
hybrids is carefully monitored and controlled to ensure that
the battery pack will last the life of the vehicle.
The battery pack for a plug-in hybrid must be many times
larger. This adds thousands of dollars to the initial price of
the vehicle and detracts from performance and interior space.
Further, the battery pack is routinely discharged during
electric-only operation and is subject to higher temperatures
and rapid energy draws to maintain performance. This would
cause much faster deterioration of the battery pack and a
shorter battery life.
The lithium-ion battery is being promoted by some as the
answer to these challenges. However, despite intense
development of lithium-ion batteries for many years, durability
has not been proven, they are more susceptible to damage than
nickel metal hydride, and they do not perform well in cold or
hot environments. End-of-life battery disposal may be a larger
issue for lithium-ion than for nickel metal hydride, as the raw
materials in the nickel metal hydride battery are much more
valuable.
Cost effectiveness is the major issue. Even at $3 per
gallon and including the cost of electricity to recharge the
battery pack, adding plug-in capacity to a conventional hybrid
car would initially cost about $3,000--I am sorry, would save
about $3,000 over the vehicle lifetime. These energy savings
would likely be offset just by the initial incremental costs of
the additional batteries, even in high-volume applications. If
you add in the costs of shorter battery life, lower
performance, less interior space, off-board charging systems,
plus the customer discounting of fuel savings, customer
acceptance is going to be a major challenge unless fuel prices
rise to substantially more than $3 per gallon, fuel shortages
occur, plug-in hybrids are heavily subsidized, or there is a
breakthrough in energy storage.
Thus, by far, the most important action the government can
take is research into improved energy storage. Honda strongly
supports the research program outlined in the House plug-in
discussion draft. Hybrids, including plug-in hybrids, have a
great deal of promise, and the potential issues should be
adequately investigated for solutions, especially energy
storage. Until improved batteries can be developed, there is
little need to assess customer acceptability or conduct vehicle
demonstration projects.
As Dr. Duvall mentioned, the Department of Energy held a
workshop on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on May 4-5. This
was an excellent workshop, and I request that the paper be used
as the basis for the workshop you submitted for the record. The
Department of Energy's work in this area should be supported
and funded by Congress.
I appreciate the opportunity to present Honda's views, and
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. German follows:]
Prepared Statement of John German
Good morning Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is John German and I am Manager of Environmental and Energy
Analysis with American Honda Motor Company. We thank you for the
opportunity to provide Honda's views on the subject of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles.
The automotive industry is in a period of unprecedented technology
development, encompassing everything from gasoline engines and
transmissions to diesels, hybrid-electric vehicles, fuel cells, and
vehicles powered by alternative fuels. The efficiency of the
conventional gasoline engine has improved by 1.5 to two percent per
year for the last 20 years, although these gains have largely gone into
features more highly valued by customers than fuel economy, such as
performance, utility, luxury, and safety. Gasoline technology
development is still proceeding rapidly, with variable valve timing,
direct fuel injection, variable cylinder displacement, and turbo-
charging all on the horizon. Diesel engines have also seen dramatic
improvement in recent years and manufacturers are working hard to meet
the U.S. emission standards. Hybrid-electric vehicles are in their
second and third generation at Toyota and Honda and most other
manufacturers have also or will be introducing hybrid-electric
vehicles. Honda continues to market a dedicated compressed natural gas
vehicle, the Civic GX, and is backing it with development of a home
natural gas refueling system developed by Fuelmaker, called PHILL. A
number of manufacturers produce flexible-fuel vehicles that run on
gasoline or E-85. Development of battery-electric vehicles continues
and they have found a niche in neighborhood vehicles for closed
communities. And, of course fuel cells are being heavily researched and
developed. Different companies are working on different technologies,
which is the optimal way and makes good use of competition.
Development of all technologies is accelerating in response to
growing concerns about energy security and global warming. Global
demand for transportation energy is so immense that no single
technology can possibly be the solution. Fuel cells might be the final
solution someday, but the challenges of hydrogen production, transport,
and storage will take a long time to solve and implement, especially on
the volume demanded for transportation worldwide. Biofuels are
promising and can replace some fuel use, but even development of
cellulosic ethanol only has the potential to displace, at most, 10 to
20 percent of the world's oil demand. The point is that there is no
magic bullet--we are going to need rapid development and implementation
of as many feasible technologies as possible. Honda is developing
technology that meets both the needs of our customers and those of
society. What was cutting edge one day can quickly become out dated.
Thus we are constantly exploring a variety of technologies to achieve
energy sustainability.
Given the rapid changes in technology, performance-based incentives
are the best way to move the ball forward. It is impossible to predict
the pace of technology development and when breakthroughs will or will
not occur. Accordingly, technology-specific mandates cannot get us
where we need to go. In fact, previous attempts to mandate specific
technologies have a poor track record, such as the attempt to promote
methanol in the 1990s and the California electric vehicle mandate. The
primary effect of technology-specific mandates is to divert precious
resources from other development programs that likely are much more
promising. If there are to be mandates, they should be stated in terms
of performance requirements, with incentives and supported by research
and development.
With respect to plug-in hybrids, it is really too early in the
development of hybrid vehicles and advanced batteries to predict
whether plug-in vehicles will reach their hoped-for potential. Plug-in
hybrids have a lot of promise, especially to displace oil consumption.
They need and deserve further research and development. In that regard,
the thrust of the draft legislation makes a good deal of sense. Before
plug-in vehicles can be viable, however, there are a number of
technology, consumer acceptance, environmental and cost issues that
still need to be addressed.
A. Battery Weight and Size and Motor Performance Demands
The extra batteries add 175 to 500 pounds to the vehicle, which
decreases performance, and it is difficult to find space for the extra
batteries without detracting from the utility of the vehicle. Systems
to plug the vehicle in to the electric grid must be safe and easy to
use. Customer reaction to having to plug in the vehicle is largely
unknown. Performance must be preserved, which means that either the
electric motor and energy storage must provide performance equivalent
to the engine; or the engine must be started and used with the electric
motor for harder accelerations and higher speeds.
If the engine is not turned on for high accelerations, the vehicle
is entirely dependent on the electrical system for acceleration. This
requires a much larger electric motor and power electronics, which adds
cost and weight and requires more cooling. The high electrical demand
during high accelerations also generates high battery temperatures and
accelerates battery deterioration. Adding an ultra-capacitor to handle
the high loads might solve the battery problem, but this adds yet more
cost and takes up additional space.
If the engine is turned on only during high accelerations,
emissions become a major issue. Catalytic converters are used to reduce
most of the harmful emissions from the engine. However, these
converters must be at least 350 degrees Centigrade (660 degrees
Fahrenheit) to function properly. If the engine is off most of the
time, catalyst temperatures will drop well below the level needed for
conversion of emissions and tailpipe emissions will be orders of
magnitude higher. Also note that current emission and fuel economy test
procedures are not designed to accurately measure emissions from these
types of vehicles and would have to be revised.
B. Energy Storage
However, while these are all legitimate issues that need further
development, the issue of energy storage is the most significant. Some
industry analysts have been critical of hybrids because they cost more
and the fuel savings are not recoverable in the short term. Although
current hybrid vehicles have relatively small battery packs, the
battery pack is still the single largest cost of the hybrid system.
Further, energy flow in conventional hybrids is carefully monitored and
controlled to ensure maximum battery life. The battery state-of-charge
is never allowed to rise above about 80 percent or drop below about 20
percent, where more deterioration occurs. Battery temperatures are
carefully monitored at many points inside the battery pack and battery
assist and regeneration is limited when necessary to keep the
temperature at levels that ensure low deterioration. Also, the duty
cycle of a conventional hybrid usually just changes the battery state-
of-charge by a few percent of the total energy capacity. As a result of
these efforts, the NiMH battery packs in current hybrid vehicles are
expected to last the life of the vehicle.
The battery pack must be many times larger for a plug-in hybrid,
even with just a 20-mile electric range. This adds thousands of dollars
to the initial price of the vehicle, not to mention the impact the
extra batteries have on weight and interior space. Further, the battery
pack is now subjected to deep discharge cycles during electric-only
operation and to much higher electrical loads and temperatures to
maintain performance. This will cause much more rapid deterioration of
the battery pack, likely requiring replacement of the battery pack at
least once during the vehicle life.
The lithium-ion battery is being promoted by some as the answer to
these challenges. Lithium-ion has the promise to increase energy and
power density compared to NiMH, perhaps by as much as 100 percent,
which would reduce the weight and size impacts. However, despite
intense development of Lithium-ion batteries for many years, durability
has not been proven, they are more susceptible to damage than NiMH, and
they do not perform well in cold or hot environments. Additionally,
Lithium-ion batteries are expensive and may not offer significant cost
savings compared to NiMH batteries.
C. Cost Effectiveness Challenge
Let's examine the real world economic problem posed by the battery
storage issue using a specific example to help illustrate the issues.
According to statements made by Mark Duvall of EPRI at the SAE
Government/Industry Meeting on May 10, about 40 percent of the duty
cycle of a plug-in hybrid should be electric-only operation. For a
typical vehicle lifetime of 150,000 miles, this means that about 60,000
miles will be accumulated while the battery is being charge depleted.
For a vehicle with an all-electric range of 20 miles, this requires
that the battery pack be able to tolerate 3,000 deep discharge cycles
without significant energy or power storage deterioration. Note that
assumptions about the proportion of operation in charge-depleting mode
directly affect the number of deep discharge cycles that the battery
pack must be able to tolerate. For example, if the vehicle operates in
charge-depleting mode 60 percent of the time, the battery pack will be
used for 90,000 miles and it must be able to tolerate 4,500 deep
discharge cycles or it will need to be replaced. 3,000 deep discharge
cycles is the current goal for Lithium-ion batteries, but it has not
been proven yet, especially under the range of temperatures and
operating conditions experienced in the real world.
For our example, let us assume that the starting point for a plug-
in hybrid is the Toyota Prius. Real world fuel economy for the Prius is
in the 45-50 mpg range. To be conservative, we will assume 45 mpg.
Thus, for 150,000 miles, the Prius will use 3,333 gallons of fuel. If
40 percent of the mileage on the Prius is in charge-depleting mode,
then the fuel savings will be 40 percent of 3,333 gallons, or 1,333
gallons.
Even at $3 per gallon, the fuel savings for a plug-in vehicle like
the Prius is only $4,000 over the average vehicle lifetime. After
factoring in the electricity cost to recharge the battery pack, which
would be at least $1,000, the net savings to the consumer is less than
$3,000. Even if the Lithium-ion battery meets all of its targets, the
incremental cost of just the additional batteries in high volume
applications would be close to the lifetime fuel savings. This ignores
the tradeoff between electric motor size and emissions, the performance
penalty from the additional weight of the batteries, the space needed
for the batteries, the higher deterioration rate and increased risk of
battery replacement due to the deep discharge cycles, and the cost of
safe off-board charging systems. From a manufacturers' and customers'
point of view, there is no business case unless fuel prices rises to
substantially more than $3 per gallon, fuel shortages occur, plug-in
hybrids are heavily subsidized, or there is a breakthrough in energy
storage. By far the most important action the government can take is
research into improved energy storage.
Until improved batteries can be developed with lower cost and
better durability, there is little need to assess customer
acceptability or conduct vehicle demonstration projects. However,
customer discounting of fuel savings is a potential long-term barrier
that eventually will need to be overcome. While some customers value
fuel savings more highly, the average new vehicle customer only values
the fuel savings for roughly his or her period of ownership, or about
50,000 miles. This means that, at $3 per gallon, the average new
vehicle customer would only value a plug-in hybrid at about $1,000. Of
course, this would change dramatically if fuel shortages were to occur.
The government may also wish to explore ways to incentivize the full
useful life savings to manufacturers or customers.
D. Environmental Considerations
From a societal point of view, there are additional issues with
criteria pollutants and CO2 emissions. How the electricity
is generated will have a significant impact on benefits other than
energy security. If coal is the primary source of the energy, criteria
pollutants and CO2 emissions will be higher with the plug-in
hybrid. If renewable sources of energy are used to generate the
electricity, plug-in hybrids can offer benefits for clean air and
global warming. Another societal issue is end-of-life battery disposal.
This is not likely to be a problem for NiMH batteries, as the raw
materials are very valuable and recyclers will be active in setting up
systems to recycle the batteries. However, it may be a problem for
Lithium-ion batteries, where the raw materials are far less valuable.
These are all additional areas for research.
E. Additional Research Is Needed
Honda strongly supports the research program outlined in the House
discussion draft of the Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.
Hybrids, including plug-in hybrids have a great deal of promise and
their potential issues should be actively investigated for solutions,
especially energy storage. The outlined research program is the best
way for the Federal Government to accelerate the development and
deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
Fortunately, the Department of Energy is already developing plans
to identify plug-in hybrid research needs and solutions. The Department
of Energy held a Workshop on Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles on May 4-
5, 2006 to discuss issues and questions on plug-in hybrid research
needs. The paper issued in advance of the workshop presented an
excellent outline of the advantages of plug-in hybrids, the challenges
faced, especially energy storage, the technical gaps, and the questions
that need to be answered. The paper is an excellent resource for
planning future research and development for plug-in hybrids and should
be read by everyone interested in promoting plug-in hybrid vehicles.
The Department of Energy's work in this area should be supported and
funded by Congress.
I appreciate the opportunity to present Honda's views and would be
happy to address any questions you may have.
Biography for John German
John German is Manager of Environmental and Energy Analyses for
American Honda Motor Company. His responsibilities include anything
connected with environmental and energy matters, with an emphasis on
being a liaison between Honda's R&D people in Japan and regulatory
affairs.
Mr. German has been involved with advanced technology and fuel
economy since joining Chrysler in 1976, where he spent eight years in
Powertrain Engineering working on fuel economy issues. Prior to joining
Honda eight years ago, he spent 13 years doing research and writing
regulations for EPA's Office of Mobile Sources' laboratory in Ann
Arbor, MI. Mr. German is the author of a variety of technical papers
and a book on hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles published by SAE. He
was the first recipient of the recently established Barry D. McNutt
award, presented annually by SAE for Excellence in Automotive Policy
Analysis.
He has a Bachelor's degree in Physics from the University of
Michigan and got over halfway through an MBA before he came to his
senses.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you very much, Mr. German.
Dr. Ricketts, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. S. CLIFFORD RICKETTS, PROFESSOR, AGRICULTURAL
EDUCATION, SCHOOL OF AGRIBUSINESS AND AGRISCIENCE, MIDDLE
TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Ricketts. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today.
I want to focus my comments on flex-fuel. It was mentioned
in the draft legislation, but it--and you mentioned it, I
think, once in your opening statement, so all the things that I
say today is going to pyramid in to flex-fuel.
I believe the help with the high fuel costs lies in plug-in
flex-fuel, and I emphasize flex-fuel hybrid vehicles. I believe
the legislation is on track, but I believe it can do more.
Now let me explain my rationale.
I have been working with alternative fuel since 1978. In
the early 1970s and 1980s, we did an ethanol engine, ran
ethanol from corn. Our whole objective was to make the American
farming energy independent in the time of a national crisis.
That is why an ag. boy is here against these heavyweights today
from the agricultural production point of view.
After we ran an engine off of corn, our next endeavor was
to run engines off cow manure. Well, that was from methane.
That actually led to my next goal, and that was running engines
off of water. On October 14, 1987, we ran our first engine for
eight seconds off of hydrogen from water. Four years later, we
set the land speed record at the Bonneville Salt Flats with our
hydrogen vehicle and held it for several years. Then we ran an
engine off soybean oil, now called soy diesel. And actually, I
didn't know it was called that in 1991, but we had a flex-fuel
vehicle in 1991 that ran off hydrogen, propane, and gas, or a
combination of any of those fuels. And then one of our latest
things was to run an electric vehicle.
However, my ultimate goal has always been to run engines
off water, specifically sun and water.
Now that brings us up to where we are today, and let me
talk about the plug-in flex-fuel vehicle, because I think this
legislation, from a personal point of view, brings my research
into focus from the last 25 to 30 years. Everything that we
have done so far can be pyramided into this flex-fuel plug-in
hybrid vehicle. I believe we can have some legislation, again,
by beefing up the flex-fuel part. It was only eluded to in a
couple of places, so let me briefly say that what we are doing
now, my vision for the future and why flex-fuel is important to
be added to this legislation.
Now Representative Gordon mentioned earlier that we are
running engines off of sun and water. Let me tell you how we
are doing this.
We installed a 10-kW cylinder unit through the Green Switch
program with Tennessee Valley Authority. It goes into the
Murfreesboro Electric Gridline, which is under the umbrella of
TVA. Now with the aide of automatic readings and computers and
calculations and so forth, all of the electricity is monitored.
Since the unit was started March 9, 2004, that little unit has
produced over 28,000 kilowatts. The system works analogous to
the banking system. The energy is stored in the bank for use at
any time, day or night, sunny or cloudy. And when the electric
component plug-in of the electric hybrid is charged, the
kilowatts used are counted through another meter. So in other
words, the electricity is taken from the bank, and an immediate
balance is also available by comparing the difference in the
input meter and the output meter. The present kilowatt balance
is 24,000.
Now, when I am starting to do this, I wanted to run the
electric component directly off the solar unit. I wanted to run
the hydrogen component directly off the solar unit, but I was
talked out of it, and I am glad I was. I would have lost 90
percent efficiency.
Chairwoman Biggert. Dr. Ricketts, your microphone seems to
be cutting out. Maybe if you could just turn it, this part of
it, up a little bit more. No, like this. Yeah, and then pull it
a little bit closer to you.
Dr. Ricketts. Okay.
Chairwoman Biggert. Okay.
Dr. Ricketts. How are we doing now? Okay.
People think you have to have a solar panel on a vehicle
for it to be a solar vehicle. Actually, you don't. As explained
earlier, once you bank it into the grid, once the vehicle is
charged, the electricity is taken from the bank. Let us say we
have to travel to an adjoining county that has a different
electric co-op. This hasn't been developed. This is creative
stuff. By using a barcode system, the electric charge of
kilowatts could be used to transfer the visited electric co-op
to your home-based co-op. The amount would be charged against
you, or taken from your bank. Now this can work for solar. It
can work for wind. It can work for some other alternative
fuels.
Now the same process works with the hydrogen or water
component. A similar procedure occurs when the hydrogen is
produced. The kilowatts needed to power the electrolysis is
metered. The banked electricity powers the electrolysis unit
which separates the hydrogen from the water. It goes through
several processes that I won't bore you with, but eventually,
it is compressed and fills an on-board 5,000 psi carbon wrapped
tank.
So by using the system described above, vehicles are driven
only with sources of sun and water.
So in conclusion, by adding the flex-fuel part of the
legislation to the plug-in, we could use gasoline, that is what
we are trying to get away from obviously, a plug-in, a solar, a
wind, or ethanol, or hydrogen with this legislation that we are
proposing. The thing that I couldn't figure out was how to run
an internal combustion spark-ignited engine off soy diesel. So
with the flex-fuel hybrid technology in place as our near
innovative technologies come on of sun and hydrogen, and as
they continue to gain momentum, the infrastructure, the vehicle
technology will already be in place.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ricketts follows:]
Prepared Statement of S. Clifford Ricketts
Alternative Fuel: Past, Present, and Future
(Plug-in Flex-Fuel Hybrid Electric Vehicles)
PAST
Work on alternative fuel began at Middle Tennessee State University
(MTSU) in 1979. The work was spurred by the fact that the Iranians had
taken hostages, and OPEC was attempting to control the world's fuel
(petroleum) supply. Out of frustration, the author and his students
started the conquest for the American farmer to be energy independent
in the time of global crisis.
Running an engine off corn (ethanol) was the first challenge.
Although many other persons or groups were doing similar research
making ethanol, it was the persistency of the MTSU team that eventually
led to the building and running of an ethanol-powered truck that ran
over 25,000 miles on pure ethanol. Presentations were made at the 1982
World's Fair and TVA's 50th Anniversary Barge Tours.
Having succeeded in building an ethanol-powered vehicle, the next
challenge was to run an engine off cow manure (methane). Once hydrogen
sulfide and carbon dioxide are removed, the gas which remains is
CH4 (natural gas). Natural gas engines were fairly common,
and several engines were reviewed that ran off methane. It was found
that methane production was viable and methane digesters were available
in selected large dairy farms.
The knowledge gained in the study of methane production lead to the
ultimate challenge; to run an engine off hydrogen from water. On
October 14, 1987, the MTSU team ran an engine for eight seconds off
hydrogen from water. The next day they ran the eight horsepower engine
for two minutes.
Since that time, the author and his students have run tractors,
cars, trucks, and stationary engines off hydrogen. The MTSU team was
invited to the world's first hydrogen race at the 1991 Bonneville Speed
Trials at the Great Salt Flats in Wendover, Utah, where they set the
world's land speed record (timed only) for a hydrogen vehicle.
Researchers at MTSU proceeded to build another engine to run off pure
hydrogen. The MTSU team entered the vehicle in the Southern California
Timing Association (SCTA) World Finals on October 18, 1992, at the
Bonneville Salt Flats in Wendover, Utah, and set a new world land speed
record for pure hydrogen-fueled vehicles. The record stood for several
years.
The next fuel to be tested was soybean oil. An Allis-Chambers
diesel tractor engine was placed in a 1975 Corvette. The author and his
students placed fourth of 40, behind two entries by NASA and one from
American Honda, in an alternative fuel road rally sponsored by the
Florida Solar Energy Commission and others. The rally started at Cape
Canaveral and ended at Disney World. A clogged fuel line resulted from
the decomposition of soybean oil. Soybean oil breaks down after six
months.
PRESENT
The lifetime goal of the MTSU research is to run engines off sun
and water (hydrogen from water). This is presently happening at Middle
Tennessee State University. An electric/hydrogen hybrid truck is
presently being developed. The electric component (plug-in) is
complete, and the internal hydrogen combustion engine generator set is
complete. The range and on-board charging system is in the process of
being tested.
The following explains how to run engines off sun and water.
Sun
A 10-kilowatt unit was installed. The unit was installed by Big
Frog Mountain Energy. Through the Green Power Switch program with the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the electricity produced by the solar
array goes into the Murfreesboro Electric Grid Lines within TVA. With
the aid of automatic computer readings and calculations, all the
electricity produced is monitored. Since the 10-kilowatt solar unit was
started March 9, 2004, over 28,000 kilowatts have been produced.
The system works analogously to the banking system. The energy is
stored in the ``bank'' for use at any time--day or night, sunny or
cloudy. When the electric component (plug-in) of the electric hybrid
truck is charged, the kilowatts used are counted through another meter.
In other words, the electricity is taken from the bank and an immediate
balance is also available by comparing the difference in the input
meter and output meter. The kilowatt balance is presently over 24,000.
This is enough stored kilowatts to drive from New York City to Los
Angeles, approximately four road trips. The ``plug-in'' component of
the hydrogen/electric hybrid truck uses approximately one kilowatt per
mile.
Water (Hydrogen)
A similar procedure occurs when the hydrogen is produced. The
kilowatts needed to power the 40 cubic foot per hour electrolysis unit
is metered. The unit is a Proton 40 electrolysis unit from the Proton
Energy Company. The banked electricity powers the electrolysis unit
which separates the hydrogen and oxygen from the water. The hydrogen is
then temporarily stored in two 500-gallon tanks at 200 psi. Another
system, constructed by General Hydrogen, Gallatin, Tennessee (U.S.
headquarters), compresses the hydrogen to fill the 4-K cylinders at
6,500 psi. Using a cascading system, a 5,000 psi (4.2 kilogram)
hydrogen tank is filled on-board the hydrogen electric/hybrid truck.
(NOTE: We also have three hydrogen internal combustion engine cars
which can run off sun and hydrogen from water.)
By using the system just described, vehicles are being driven with
the only power sources being sun and water. Please note that both the
electric component of the truck and the hydrogen component of the truck
could be powered directly from the solar unit. However, approximately
90 percent of the electricity produced would be lost. By banking the
electricity through the grid, the solar unit is working and saving any
time the sun is shining and somewhat when it is cloudy. Time has not
permitted energy cost calculations as of today.
FUTURE
I believe the alleviation of the future U.S. energy crisis lies
within Plug-in Flex-Fuel Hybrid Vehicles. I will explain my rationale.
At Middle Tennessee State University, as mentioned before, we are
running engines off sun and/or water. We are working on a vehicle that
runs off most any fuel. The vehicle is a plug-in hybrid but not in the
sense that modern hybrids are once they have the proper adaptation
kits. Here is my vision for the future, with the versatile use of
PHEVs.
*Option 1 (Plug-in wall outlet)--The plug-in hybrid can be driven
on short trips of 20-40 miles simply by plugging into either a 110- or
220-watt outlet. You get a quicker and deeper charge with 220 current.
*Option 2 (Make it a solar car)--We are doing this at Middle
Tennessee State University. People think that you have to have a solar
panel on a vehicle for it to run off the sun. This is not true. As
explained earlier, the 10-kilowatt solar unit that we have installed at
MTSU produces electricity and stores it (``banks it'') into the
electric grid. Once the vehicle is charged, the stored electricity is
taken from the ``bank.'' Let us say that we have to travel to an
adjoining county that has a different electric cooperative. By using a
bar code system, the electrical charge or kilowatts used could be
transferred from the visited electric cooperative to your home-based
electric cooperative. The amount would be charged against, or taken
from, your ``banked'' amount. For example, the University is a member
of the Murfreesboro Electric Cooperative, but my home residence is
served by Middle Tennessee Electric. Nashville (32 miles away) is a
part of Nashville Electric Service. Electric plug-ins could be
installed in selected parking lots with the appropriate bar code
system. This way, people could drive their cars off solar energy
without having a solar unit on board the vehicle. Obviously, the same
principle would work with wind generators.
*Option 3 (Gasoline)--For trips with a range over 20-40 miles, the
internal combustion engine starts charging the system and the vehicle
works like a normal hybrid. Even though we are using gasoline, our
electric utilities are saying the electricity to move a plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle (PHEV) down the road costs about one-third the cost of
the equivalent gasoline at today's prices.
*Option 4 (Ethanol--E-85)--A flex-fueled vehicle that uses spark
plugs can run off practically anything except diesel fuel and any oil-
based alternative fuels (soybean oil, cooking oil, etc.). Ford Motor
Company has the Ford F-250 Super Chief that can run off hydrogen,
gasoline, or E-85 ethanol fuel. Option 4, ethanol, would be used as an
alternative to gasoline.
Using E-85 instead of gasoline is also good for the environment
because it generates 30 percent less carbon monoxide and 27 percent
less CO2 than a comparable gallon of gasoline, and most of
that CO2 is carbon cycle neutral because it is derived from
plants which need CO2 to grow. (E-85 generates 17.06 pounds
of CO2 to create 15,500 BTUs compared to the 23.95 pounds
for gasoline.) (www.evworld.com/electrichybrid.cfm)
*Option 5 (Hydrogen from water, separated by the sun)--This process
was explained earlier. I really believe that the fuel of the future is
hydrogen and sun. (NOTE: From an agriculture point of view, I am for
ethanol from corn and soybean oil as fuels. However, realistically, I
believe they are only short-term solutions. I believe the price of corn
and soybeans in five to ten years will become so expensive due to
agriculture economics (supply and demand) that these products will be
cost prohibitive as a fuel stock. I don't have a ``handle'' on the
potential of switch grass and other cellulose materials.)
With the flex-fuel hybrid, the automotive technology will already
be in place while the hydrogen technology continues to gain momentum.
Realistically, sun and water are the most viable fuel alternatives.
Once they are gone, we will have no need for fuel anyway.
Answers to Specific Questions About PHEVs
1. What major research, development, and demonstration work remains on
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies? How should this work be
prioritized?
The biggest obstacles are conversions of the existing hybrids to
become plug-in hybrids. The cost of most conversions listed on the
Internet was approximately $10,000. It seems reasonable that if the
automotive companies engineered the cars as PHEVs, the cost should not
be much more than the price of conventional hybrids currently coming
off the assembly line.
I believe the priority on PHEVs should be developing flex-fuel
PHEVs. The rationale for this was given earlier. There are so many
options on alternatives to the purchase of foreign oil with flex-fuel
PHEVs. There are also environmental and other implications.
2. What are the largest obstacles facing the widespread commercial
application of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and what steps need to
be taken to address these hurdles (batteries, infrastructure, consumer
preferences, automotive inertia, cost-competitiveness, etc.)?
Three issues need to be mentioned:
First, the development of the perfect battery is always an issue
and a challenge. If the perfect battery had already been developed, it
would have a range of 300-350 miles with a 15-minute charging time at
an affordable cost. Obviously, we are not there. However, nickel
cadmium, nickel-metal hydride batteries, and lithium-ion are very
adaptable and would work quite well with PHEVs. One battery engineer
told me to give him the range needed and he could build the battery. On
the other hand, the cost would probably be prohibitive.
The second issue would be cost competitiveness. Presently, hybrids
are around $4,000 more than an equal counterpart. A PHEV would be
around $6,000 more than a regular car. It seems that a flex-fuel PHEV
would be even higher, but I have no data for proof.
The third issue would be infrastructure. Charging at home would not
be a problem; but charging at work, while shopping, or while on simple
leisure trips could pose a problem. Coin-operated charging meters would
need to become commonplace. While visiting the University of Alaska at
Fairbanks last summer, I noticed the electrical outlets at nearly every
parking spot. These were a necessity for block heaters on the vehicles
with the ^50+ temperatures in the winter. Yet, it was a part
of the infrastructure in Fairbanks, Alaska.
3. How does the Federal Government support the development of plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles technologies? What can the Federal Government
do to accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles?
I am not aware of any direct federal funding of plug-in electric
hybrids. Indirectly, converted PHEVs have been at U.S. Energy
Department-sponsored ``Future Truck'' competitions. Also, General
Dynamics built the U.S. Marine Corps' diesel-electric PHEV-20 HUMVEE.
The Federal Government can offer grants to develop a more economic
conversion kit. Secondly, automotive companies need some incentive to
build PHEVs. Thirdly, customers that buy PHEVs or flex-fuel PHEVs could
be offered a tax credit between the difference in cost of a regular
automobile and a PHEV or flex-fuel PHEV.
4. Does the discussion draft address the most significant technical
barriers to the widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles?
Yes. However, I do not believe we should overlook the internal
combustion engine for hydrogen. Hydrogen can work with a flex-fuel
vehicle. Fuel cells are great, but the cost makes them a non-issue for
several years. The minimum cost for any fuel cell strong enough to
power a highway vehicle would be $55,000 plus the price of the vehicle.
Presently, the cost of construction for a fuel cell is around $700 per
kilowatt (1.2 horsepower) compared to $50 per kilowatt for an internal
combustion engine.
5. Would commercial applications of PHEVs be delayed by incorporating
flexible fuel capabilities?
I suspect that the commercial applications of PHEVs might be
delayed a year or two. As stated earlier, Ford Motor Company already
has a flex-fuel vehicle and a hybrid. I suspect other manufacturers are
close behind. Since the present hybrids have to be redesigned and
engineered to offer the plug-in options, it may take the same amount of
time to develop their flex-fuel vehicle hybrids.
Biography for S. Clifford Ricketts
Dr. S. Cliff Ricketts is a Professor of Agricultural Education and
Acting Director in the School of Agribusiness and Agriscience at Middle
Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
Dr. Ricketts has been involved with alternative fuel research since
1978. He and his students have designed and built engines powered from
a variety of sources, including ethanol, methane, soybean oil,
hydrogen, solar/electric, and hydrogen/electric hybrid.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you very much, Dr. Ricketts.
Now Dr. Santini, who--are you still living in Downers
Grove?
Dr. Santini. I am in Westmont now.
Chairwoman Biggert. Okay. You are still in my district,
so----
Dr. Santini. Right.
Chairwoman Biggert.--I am glad for that.
Thank you.
You are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. DANILO J. SANTINI, SENIOR ECONOMIST, ENERGY
SYSTEMS DIVISION, CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH, ARGONNE
NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Santini. Thank you.
Madame Chairwoman, Representative Honda, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you very much for your invitation to
testify.
I respond to your request to answer several questions and
discuss the draft bill the Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act
of 2006.
Your first question was what major research, development,
and demonstration work remains on plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle technologies, and how should this be prioritized.
I believe that the highest priority is that Congress and
the Department of Energy make a long-term commitment to
research and development of lithium-ion batteries, in
particular, and energy storage, in general, with the focus on
needs of plug-in hybrids. The ``Discussion Issues and
Questions'' white paper distributed at the Department of
Energy's May 4-5 workshop on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles,
which I have included with my written testimony, stimulated
discussion of plug-in priorities. The participating national
and international experts have provided excellent guidance on
research priorities. The consensus view of participants was
that plug-in hybrids belong in the research portfolio of the
Federal Government.
The second question was what are the largest obstacles
facing the widespread commercial application of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles, and what steps need to be taken to address
these hurdles.
I quote the DOE workshop white paper ``battery technology
could be a showstopper for plug-in hybrids.'' Lithium-ion
batteries are superior to nickel metal hydride in terms of
specific energy and specific power, but are not yet competitive
in cost per kilowatt hour per unit of energy. Because of
increasing materials cost for nickel metal hydride batteries
and steady power increases and cost per kilowatt reductions,
lithium-ion batteries may soon be used in hybrids, but low
costs per kilowatt hour are needed for plug-in hybrids to
succeed. Simple adaptation of current parallel hybrids will not
allow consumers to drive all electrically with performance
suitable for universal use. Top all-electric operation speeds
would not match current urban and highway test speeds. The need
to fully deplete batteries will reduce battery life relative to
conventional hybrids. There are multiple component alterations
and control systems adaptations possible to eliminate or reduce
these limitations but at a cost. Perhaps these would increase
marketability, perhaps not.
A key question is whether we should ever expect or require
a plug-in hybrid to operate all electrically on current test
cycles. If a lesser capability satisfies consumers and
significant oil savings and environmental benefits could be
realized, then regulation and legislation should be adapted to
allow this to happen. DaimlerChrysler and the Electric Power
Research Institute plan to evaluate intermittent engine
operation accompanying electric charge depletion, which would
allow electricity to replace gasoline and diesel fuel without
sacrificing vehicle performance. Perhaps this type of charge
depletion strategy with top all-electric speeds below 55 miles
an hour would be the most attractive approach to cost-
effectively achieve oil savings nationwide.
But this option cannot meet present California Air
Resources Board minimum zero-emissions vehicle emissions credit
requirement that vehicles operate all electrically for 10 or
more consecutive miles on the federal-city test--cycle test.
That test requires a top all-electric speed of 55 miles an
hour.
Representative Honda had a question that my next paragraph
addresses.
For decades, infrastructure will be adequate to support a
far larger market penetration to plug-in hybrids than is
likely. Interim reports by colleagues at three National
Laboratories and Mark's work at the Electric Power Research
Institute all imply that national electric infrastructure, both
power plants and grid, has overnight charging capacity far in
excess of plausible near-term needs.
When this eventually changes, the industry can easily and
smoothly adapt. There may be some regional exceptions, but not
many. Hypothetical mass success of plug-ins has been estimated
by two National Labs to increase electric generation needs only
a few percent and also by colleagues of Mark's at the Electric
Power Research Institute.
However, it is desirable for utilities everywhere to
promptly adopt overnight charging rate options for plug-ins.
Automakers need and deserve this reassurance.
The problem for domestic automakers will be scarcity of
resources, not resistance to plug-in research, development, and
demonstration. They will want to see evidence of success in
battery technology. If they see it, with rate structure
encouragement from electric utilities, I believe they would
develop plug-in hybrids. I believe that initial development of
plug-in hybrids should focus on switching from nickel metal
hydride to lithium-ion battery packs in existing and eminent
full hybrids, providing 10 to 20 miles of urban electric range.
Chargers should allow inexpensive plugging in using 110-volt
circuits, which are standard in modern houses. Regulations or
incentives requiring significantly more electric range could
delay development.
The third question is how does the Federal Government
support the development of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
technologies and what can the Federal Government do to
accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles.
The authorizations of spending and directions to include
research on plug-in hybrids contained in last year's Energy
Policy Act were an excellent first step. Appropriation of funds
to allow the work authorized is desirable. I anticipate, as
mandated plug-in studies are completed, the wisdom of a
significant plug-in program will be demonstrated. Studies being
promoted by the Energy Policy Act can prove very valuable by
validating potential plug-in benefits. Proponents see promising
implications for oil savings, greenhouse gas reductions, zero-
emissions capability, energy savings, electric utility system
efficiency, and emergency services. I expect careful
documentation of reasons for these implications to accelerate
emergence of consensus and development and deployment.
The fourth question is does the ``Discussion Issues and
Questions'' paper in the prior DOE meeting address the most
significant technical barriers to the widespread adoption of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
I do believe that the Department of Energy's workshop
``Discussion Issues and Questions'' paper and affiliated
morning presentations properly identified the most significant
technical and cost barriers. However, a number of excellent
comments and suggestions were developed by experts there, which
will lead to desirable modifications and refinements.
Question five is if a standard zero----
Chairwoman Biggert. Dr. Santini, if you could, sum up. I am
sure we will get to those other questions.
Dr. Santini. Okay.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Dr. Santini. I will move to my comments on the Plug-In
Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.
I provided some suggestions on wording and several
instructions on plug-in grants. I like the overall content and
structure of the bill. I recommend that plug-ins be allowed to
qualify with less than 20 miles of all-electric range. I
recommend rewording to allow flexibility in establishing the
all-electric driving schedule required to qualify at the
minimum range. I like the decline of per-vehicle grants over
time. I suggested that per-vehicle grants in any given year be
altered to create a sliding scale, increasing in magnitude with
increasing all-electric range capability. I suggested much
higher per-vehicle grants through about 2010 with the limit of
50 prototype vehicles per manufacturer, and then after 2010, I
suggested that grants be provided to individual manufacturers
only if 10,000 or more plug-ins were produced. I noticed that
the funding authorization level of $200 million per year is
comparable to the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, but I
defer to battery and electric drive experts concerning
judgments on how much money is necessary.
I do understand the desire to authorize a prompt
significant expansion in plug-in research, development, and
demonstration, and since I believe results of ongoing studies
will be quite positive, I am not inclined to ask the
Subcommittee to await further study.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Santini follows:]
Prepared Statement of Danilo J. Santini
Introductory remarks
Madame Chairwoman, Representative Honda, and Members of the
Subcommittee, it is my pleasure to submit this written testimony in
support of my more brief oral testimony concerning plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles. I respond to the questions posed in your letter of
invitation and provide requested discussion of a draft of the bill
``Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.'' I believe that my
comments on the discussion draft bill will be more clearly understood
if they come after my responses to the questions. Note that the
substance of my answers to the questions was developed before I saw the
draft legislation.
1. What major research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) work
remains on plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technologies? How should
this work be prioritized?
In recent presentations at meetings organized by the Society of
Automotive Engineers in January and May, I included very similar lists
of major research needs, without providing an explicit priority
ordering. However, it was not a coincidence that lithium ion battery
research and development was first on the list. In my latest
presentation, I listed lithium-ion battery cost, longevity, and safety
as the key priorities.
Concerning the setting of priorities, I participated in the May 4-5
Workshop on Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles at the Department of
Energy. This workshop's purpose was to provide expert guidance to DOE
on the priorities for the planned plug-in hybrid research program.
Before that workshop a ``Discussion Issues and Questions'' paper was
circulated to participants to stimulate discussion. I enclose that
document as supporting written testimony. Although results of that
workshop remain to be documented, I think the consensus view of
participants was that plug-in hybrids belong in the research portfolio
of the Federal Government and Department of Energy. I also anticipate
that the well-chosen national and international experts will provide
excellent guidance on research priorities.
I am confident enough about the potential of plug-in hybrid
technology to recommend that Congress and DOE make a long-term
commitment to research and development of lithium-ion battery chemistry
R&D in particular, and energy storage in general, with a focus on needs
of plug-in hybrids. I am also optimistic that the workshop participants
will agree with my opinion that a second high priority is the conduct
of a comprehensive assessment to determine where plug-in hybrid
technology should be in the current RD&D portfolio of federally
supported advanced 21st Century transportation powertrain and fuel
options. Included in this assessment must be an examination of
continuation along the present path. Costs and environmental effects of
such options as oil shale, coal-to-liquids, natural-gas-to-liquids,
heavy oil, deepwater oil, and arctic oil should be compared with those
of improved conventional powertrains, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and
fuel cell hybrids. Ethanol and hydrogen should be evaluated as possible
fuels for any of these powertrain options.
In my professional judgment ``demonstration'' is a very important
part of RD&D. Sustained, but steadily declining real subsidies for
critical technologies are very valuable in creating a ``learning-by-
doing'' cost reduction path that cannot be obtained any other way. I
believe that plug-in hybrids should remain on the Nation's list of
critical transportation energy technologies for a long while. In
effect, what government researchers think of as ``demonstration'' is
often in reality the proper handing over of research and development to
the private sector.
2. What are the largest obstacles facing the widespread commercial
application of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and what steps need to
be taken to address these hurdles? (batteries, infrastructure, consumer
preference, automotive inertia, cost-competitiveness, etc.)
Batteries
I quote the aforementioned white paper ``battery technology could
be a show-stopper for plug-in hybrids.'' In fact, value to the customer
is the crucial hurdle. Lithium-ion batteries have swept past nickel
metal hydride battery technology in consumer electronics. This could
happen in hybrid vehicles, but the challenges are great. Lithium-ion is
clearly superior to nickel metal hydride in terms of gravimetric and
volumetric specific energy and specific power, features that have
allowed the packs to be ``dropped into'' spaces developed for less-
capable batteries and thereby enhance value to the consumer by
extending operating time. ``Time is money'' as they say, so even though
the cost per unit of energy stored ($/kWh) is presently higher for
lithium-ion than nickel metal hydride, it is the runaway winner in
consumer electronics. For plug-in hybrids, optimism about lithium-ion
competing with nickel metal hydride batteries arises in part because
the costs per unit of energy of nickel metal hydride batteries have
gone up, as a result of rising materials costs. Switching battery
chemistry because of increasing battery cost is not the way to build a
quick mass market for hybrids, but may get potentially more attractive
long-term battery chemistry into the plug-in hybrid market, which would
be beneficial.
Cost-competitiveness
The fundamental battery discoveries that enabled today's hybrids
were achievement of specific power and longevity far in excess of the
expectations of all battery experts that we surveyed in the mid-1990s.
Further, the parallel hybrid powertrain allowed effective use of much
less electric energy storage for hybrids than the 1990s experts
anticipated. Effective use of very small amounts of energy allowed a
narrow state-of-charge swing, which allows battery life to be extended
dramatically. The experts we surveyed had anticipated a series hybrid
powertrain that would cost more than an electric vehicle. Instead, the
technology commercialized by the Japanese that succeeded was a parallel
hybrid powertrain that costs far less than a comparable electric
vehicle, and also costs less than a series hybrid. This commercial
hybrid succeeds economically in part because there is no attempt to
make the electric drive suitable for all-electric operation serving
universal customer needs.
Consumer acceptance
Therein are problems limiting consumer acceptance of the plug-in
hybrid. Adaptation of current parallel hybrids will not allow consumers
to drive all-electrically with performance suitable for universal use.
The need to fully deplete batteries should reduce battery life relative
to conventional hybrids. Top all-electric operations speeds would not
match required current urban and highway test speeds. There are
multiple ways to deal with these limitations, too numerous to mention
here. All will add cost, but if adopted successfully could add
significant consumer value and marketability to a plug-in hybrid
concept.
Nevertheless, a key question is whether we should ever expect or
require a plug-in hybrid to operate all-electrically on our current
test cycles. It may be far more cost effective to recognize that we
cannot afford this capability and develop new test cycles legitimate
for a totally new kind of vehicle. Test cycles are, after all, a
reflection of the behavior of the technology being tested. If a
combination of attributes of plug-in hybrids can be found that makes
consumers more satisfied, then regulations and legislation should be
adapted to allow this satisfaction to be realized.
In the short-run, DaimlerChrysler is not attempting to make its
plug-in hybrid Sprinter serve all needs when operating all-
electrically. Selection of the plug-in option by customers using all-
electric operation in slow stop-and-go driving may create a profitable
niche market.
An alternative battery charge depletion strategy
DaimlerChrysler and the Electric Power Research Institute also plan
to evaluate intermittent electric operation with charge depletion,
which would allow electricity to replace gasoline or diesel fuel use
without sacrifice in vehicle performance. But this option cannot be
guaranteed to provide the extremely low emissions that California Air
Resources Board (CARB) regulators originally hoped for when creating
its first emissions credit system for plug-in hybrids required to
operate continuously in all-electric mode for 20 miles or more. Note
that CARB has since modified the credit system to allow plug-in hybrids
with 10 miles of all-electric range on the city test cycle to obtain
credits. A sliding scale of increasing credits as range increases
remains in CARB's plug-in credit system. I recommend a sliding scale of
grants increasing with range in the draft legislation.
For the Nation as a whole, where all-electric operation may seldom
be needed for air quality purposes (many hybrids are already among the
cleanest light duty vehicles), charge depletion with intermittent
engine operation might be the most attractive approach to consumers.
Such hybrids would still have to have emissions as low as for
conventional vehicles. Charge depletion with intermittent engine
operation could be implemented in places and at times when emissions
would be low enough to cause no air quality deterioration.
Infrastructure
Infrastructure is adequate to support a far larger market
penetration of plug-in hybrids than is likely to be seen for decades.
Interim reports from ongoing analyses by colleagues at Argonne National
Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory and the Electric Power Research are all highly
supportive of the argument that the electric infrastructure--both power
plants and grid--is adequate on a national average basis to serve any
plausible plug-in hybrid market for many years. There are likely some
regional exceptions, but not many. Avoiding charging at times when the
grid is at peak load is important, but I am confident that creative
minds will readily determine how to avoid charging at critical times
and places. I am also confident that such restrictions will prove
quantitatively paltry relative to annual hours of charging and
operation of plug in hybrids and to total national electricity
generation.
To enable any automakers to take advantage of the capability of our
infrastructure we need to develop economically legitimate model off-
peak incentive rate structures and encourage utilities and Public
Utilities Commissions across the Nation to adopt such rates. This is a
critical path item that should be done as rapidly as possible; to
assure automakers that the national power generation and distribution
industry does support the introduction of plug-in hybrids. Commitment
to retention of the rate structures for a long period is highly
desirable.
Automotive inertia
In my opinion, under the current fuel price environment, and given
the level of political as well as geological uncertainty about
availability of oil supplies, automotive inertia is no longer the
primary problem constraining the development of plug-in hybrids. Time
and scarce resources are now a problem. For U.S. motor vehicle
manufacturers, the traditional preference of consumers for large
vehicles means that a shift in oil and gasoline prices has a larger
effect on U.S. producers than on vehicle manufacturers in competing
nations. Losses of market share for large domestically produced
vehicles occur at the same time that investment in production of more
fuel efficient technology becomes increasingly desirable to U.S.
consumers. This puts U.S. producers in a bind with respect to
profitability and capability to develop new technology, even if they
are willing.
Because of limited resources, it seems less likely that U.S.
automakers will be less likely to develop a plug-in hybrid in new
purpose-built platforms such as the Prius. Instead, if trying to get a
plug-in hybrid vehicle to market promptly, they would be likely to try
to adapt the coming full hybrid powertrains and a vehicle containing
them. DaimlerChrysler is adapting an existing vehicle platform's
powertrain its plug-in Sprinter program. Adapting existing vehicle
models implies limitations on battery space and all-electric range that
could be provided. One recent paper study by Siemens implied that a
lithium ion battery pack option in place of a nickel metal hydride pack
could lead to a hybrid with between 10 and 20 miles of all-electric
range, which is comparable to the expectations for the plug-in
Sprinter. Such a capability would be consistent with adoption of cheap
120V overnight charging, with little or no modification of the wiring
in most modern houses, at least for the first plug-in hybrid in the
household. Promotional information on a SAAB hybrid show-vehicle
indicated that if a breakthrough in lithium-ion batteries were achieved
in the next few years, their vehicle could use such a battery and
operate all-electrically at speeds up to about 30 mph and travel 6-12
miles in all-electric mode under those conditions.
These are the kinds of plug-in hybrids that I would expect to
initially emerge in the market. They may not pass the current
California Air Resources Board's test to allow plug-in hybrid emissions
credits, but they could offer many consumers in the United States the
opportunity to decide whether they would like to have a capability to
save gasoline by using electricity and perhaps drive to nearby
destinations all-electrically.
Consistent with my professional judgment that demonstration in
market niches is a critical path step to widespread market success for
a technology, I am encouraged by the possibility that such plug-in
hybrids produced by original equipment automakers will emerge within a
few years. An obstacle would be for the government to try to alter this
evolutionary path and push the industry to develop plug-in hybrids with
so much range and/or all-electric operations capability that major
redesigns of vehicle platforms would be required to accommodate large
enough battery packs to comply, and/or powerful enough electric motors.
3. How does the Federal Government support the development of plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle technologies? What can the Federal Government
do to accelerate the development and deployment of plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles?
The authorizations related to research on plug-in hybrids contained
in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT05) are an excellent first step.
Funds should be allocated to allow the work. Although I may be
premature in saying this, since I'm a scientist committed to the value
of peer review, I do believe that as mandated studies of plug-in
hybrids called for in Section 705 are completed, the wisdom of focusing
on plug-in hybrid vehicles will be strongly supported.
In trying to prepare summaries of ongoing activities by the Federal
Government and private sector for the recent meeting at DOE, I have
been very encouraged by the response to EPACT05. From my perspective as
an analyst EPACT05 appears to have caused a shift in thinking and
priorities among the many key parties that must work cooperatively to
make plug-in hybrids succeed. I have found the recent dialogue very
valuable, in that it answers a lot of my questions and strengthens my
opinion that this technology deserves a high priority in a portfolio of
options to ensure that U.S. consumers continue to enjoy a high level of
transportation services in the 21st Century, with far less
environmental damage.
I believe that the studies that EPACT05 is promoting can be very
valuable by illustrating the potential benefits of plug-in technology.
In the white paper we mentioned that the enthusiasm for plug-in hybrids
that caused the legislation in EPACT05 arises from promising
implications for oil savings, greenhouse gas reductions, timely and
well placed zero emissions capability, energy savings, improvement in
electric utility system efficiency, and provision of emergency
services. In my opinion, comprehensive confirmation and testing of
existing and emerging estimates, with thorough peer review, will
reassure the public, electric utilities, automakers, government
employees, elected representatives and the scientific community that
there is significant merit to steady, deliberate pursuit of success for
this technology. Although the process is often slow, I have always been
optimistic that careful technology assessment can result in the most
desirable technologies, and eliminate those that lack merit.
Thus, I believe that Congress should allow RD&D to proceed for a
while and then review the plug-in hybrid RD&D programs for a more
detailed needs assessment, in light of the evolution of events (and
battery technology) over the next few years.
I am concerned about EPACT05 Sec. 706 (b) (2). Requiring a minimum
of 250 miles per gallon of petroleum consumption to provide funding for
plug-in hybrid demonstrations could cause adversely affect RD&D. In my
view, for near-term technology, the only way to meet this requirement
would be for the plug-in hybrid to also be able to run primarily on
ethanol, probably as E-85.
Emissions with charge depletion and intermittent engine operation
may involve difficulties for current hybrid emissions control systems
running on gasoline, much less E-85. Our experience with flex-fuel
gasoline/ethanol vehicles whose emissions control system was originally
designed for gasoline was that when adapted for E-85 they generally had
higher emissions running on E-85 than on gasoline. Thus, forcing plug-
in hybrids to simultaneously develop an ability to use both electricity
and E-85 might create a major ``show slowing'' impediment to
implementation, requiring far more costly emissions control and
implementation delays. I would emphasize that a plug-in hybrid is a
multi-fuel vehicle, even if it does not have the ability to run the
engine on an alternative fuel. Further, for many years hence the E-85
fueling capability of conventional powertrain flex-fuel vehicles
already in and entering the market will greatly exceed the quantities
of E-85 available. Thus the EPACT Section 705 (b) (2) requirement
satisfies no useful near-term commercialization need. In my opinion,
this requirement should be repealed. I am pleased to see that this
requirement does not carry over into the present draft of the Plug-In
Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.
4. Does the ``Discussion Issues and Questions'' paper address the most
significant technical barriers to the widespread adoption of plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles?
I believe that the ``Discussion Issues and Questions'' paper and
the affiliated morning presentations did properly address the most
significant technical and cost barriers, identified opportunities, and
educated participants concerning important considerations outside their
field of expertise. However, the reasons for the workshop were to
assure that we had not missed anything, confirm that our best judgment
was legitimate, and help set priorities among items on our list. Based
on my recollection of the reports of the breakout sessions on May 5,
the discussion paper did set the stage well, but a number of excellent
comments and suggestions were developed by the experts, which will lead
to desirable modifications and refinements.
5. If a standard ZEV range was needed to facilitate the commercial
application of PHEVs, what would be the optimal ZEV range that would
still allow users to meet their driving needs? What would be the likely
impact on fuel economy and oil savings?
One point made at the DOE meeting is that there is no single ZEV
range that will suit all consumers. The ideal range will vary by
consumer, depending upon driving patterns. According to the Electric
Power Research Institute's 2001 study Comparing the Benefits and
Impacts of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Options, consumers with relatively
short commutes would always prefer a plug-in hybrid with a relatively
short all-electric range, while consumers that had a long commute
became more interested in plug-in hybrids with a lot of all-electric
range as the theoretical cost of the plug-in powertrains came down.
Since batteries will probably always be relatively expensive, it will
always be smart to only purchase as much electric range as you can use
in everyday travel. So, just as consumers have a choice of engines in
most vehicle models, the participants thought that consumers should be
given options in battery size and electric range capability. In one
trade-off analysis by scientists at the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, if a single range were picked, a range between 10 and 20
miles seemed most likely to be cost-effective to the largest number of
consumers. If the range of the plug-in hybrid were 20 miles, then those
who only needed 10 miles might not benefit. However, of those being
able to use perhaps 15 miles or more, all were estimated to benefit
from a plug-in hybrid with 20 miles of all-electric range.
Effects of plug-in hybrids on oil savings will depend dramatically
on future oil prices and on regulatory priorities with regard to all-
electric operation. Although the vehicles have so far been evaluated
under the assumption of one or less charges per day, this perspective
is too narrow. Possibly a more important question is what is the
plausible range of electricity substitution for gasoline in the event
of a range of gasoline prices? What is the degree of resilience of our
economy that would be provided by the flexibility of consumers owning
plug-in hybrids to shift from less than one charge per day to more than
two per day? Could such an increase in charging frequency be
accomplished with battery life remaining proportional to total energy
throughput?
Oil Savings
The total national benefits depend on two interacting factors--how
many vehicles can be sold, and once they are sold, how much oil each
vehicle can save (a variable quantity, as discussed in the prior
paragraph). While plug-in hybrids with a lot of all-electric range
could save more oil per vehicle than plug-in hybrids with only a small
amount of electric range, we don't know if enough of the vehicles with
a lot of range would be sold. The short term risks to the automobile
industry of ``jumping'' to plug-in hybrids with a lot of all-electric
range instead of making less-challenging adaptations of existing
powertrains has not been evaluated in prior studies, but this would
also be a factor to consider.
I believe we should start with plug-in hybrids with an ``electric
equivalent'' range between 10 and 20 miles, try to learn to use them as
cost-effectively as possible to reduce oil consumption, and hope that
RD&D can lead to a steady sequence of battery improvements and cost
reductions that allow platform changes to be planned in advance to take
advantage of emerging battery improvements. Perhaps the number of
electric range options available to customers in a single vehicle
platform could thereby be expanded.
I am familiar with one idea that might nearly double the energy
storage capability of a lithium-ion battery pack of a given amount of
material, if successful. If such a development were to occur, we could
nearly double the range of a plug-in hybrid model by simply switching
to a new battery technology, with minimal adaptation of the vehicle.
Admittedly, this may not happen, and it may be that the only way to
extend range would be with physically larger batteries. Nevertheless,
the possibility does illustrate that early emphasis on 10-20 miles of
all-electric range may not be inconsistent with a long-term R&D effort
whose goal is to achieve double that range.
6. How large an impact could PHEVs have in reducing oil consumption
over the next 10 years?
7. How long will it take before we begin to see PHEVs in the
marketplace?
The impact on oil consumption is unlikely to be large in the next
decade because the plausible market share of new plug-in hybrids would
be hard pressed to exceed one to two percent at the end of the next
decade, with essentially no significant penetration early in the
decade.
To help understand how long it takes for a more efficient, but
significantly more costly vehicle to affect total fleet fuel
consumption, consider hybrids. Hybrids, available for about a decade,
have only reached a little over one percent of the new light duty
vehicle market in 2005. At this rate, to reach one percent of the total
fleet of cars on the road (the vehicle stock) would take nearly one
more decade, at which time hybrids might reduce light duty vehicle oil
consumption by about one third of one percent. Since light duty vehicle
oil consumption is about half of total national oil consumption, this
would be one sixth of one percent of national oil consumption.
However, since hybrids are expanding their share of the new light
duty vehicle market, and since consumers drive new vehicles more miles
per year, the reality will be better than this. Nevertheless, this
discussion demonstrates limitations involved in turning over the
vehicle stock. Successfully penetrating the new vehicle market is the
first step, but it takes several years of continued success to affect
the entire fleet and its oil consumption.
EPACT05 calls for plug-in hybrid commercialization within five
years. If the Prius history is used as a model, the first Prius factory
produced 30,000 commercial vehicles per year in 1997. The 2004 Prius
comes from a new factory that can produce well over 100,000 per year.
It took over five years to ``mass market'' sales of Prius hybrids,
after the first model was commercialized. Thus, the Prius path to
commercialization implies at least a decade before a tiny fraction of
national oil consumption reduction could result from plug-in hybrids.
The point is that the process will be slow during a peaceful,
deliberate expansion of the technology.
During a true international crisis with oil supplies restricted for
long periods, the contributions could be far more significant. Though
subject to verification in the market, it does appear that retrofit of
a Prius to become a plug-in hybrid is possible. If research promoted by
EPACT05--or by private sector innovators--suggests that simple plug-in
retrofits of several existing and coming hybrids would be possible,
then an option would be to provide incentives for manufacturers to
allow for such retrofits when they produce and sell hybrids, so that
such retrofits could be accomplished in the event of a prolonged
emergency, or--more optimistically--in the event of battery
breakthroughs during the life of the vehicle.
Alternatively, if the plug-in option becomes ``fashionable'' to
consumers for reasons other than just saving fuel, the technology could
``take off'' within the hybrid powertrain category. My opinion is that,
if battery technology does improve enough, switching from a focus on
hybrids to a focus on plug-in hybrids would be a far less daunting step
than was switching from conventional powertrains to hybrids. Further,
we must acknowledge that the sense of urgency about reducing oil use is
greater now than in the 1990s when the Prius was developed, so the
level of effort on plug-in hybrids across automobile manufacturers
could be significantly greater in the next decade than for hybrids in
the last.
Comments on the draft ``Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006''
While I have emphasized that a focus on lithium ion batteries is
desirable, it is wise to allow administrative flexibility for energy
storage research, as has been done in the legislation. This flexibility
could be extended even further by deleting the word ``electrochemical''
in Sec. 2 (1), or substituting ``electrical.''
It is good that hybrid fuel cell vehicles are included. For Sec. 2
(a) (7) (A) I suggest ``provides motive power by converting either
liquid or gaseous fuel to power and/or uses electric power extracted
from an on-board battery.'' I recommend this or a similar change to
make it clear that a hybrid fuel cell vehicle capable of using hydrogen
is included in the umbrella definition of a hybrid electric vehicle.
For Sec. 2 (a) (5) (B) I suggest ``that uses a fuel cell and stored
battery energy for motive power.'' It is fair to call this a flexible
fuel vehicle because there are a number of possible original fuels from
which hydrogen can be derived.
In Sec. 2 (a) (8) I suggest a bit of ``word engineering'' to allow
the flexibility that I suggested is desirable in my prior answers to
questions. Recall that CARB will now provide credit for 10 miles of
all-electric range on the city cycle. If the types of plug-in hybrids I
discussed are to be allowed under this bill's research umbrella, I
suggest that a lesser range and less difficult driving cycle be allowed
for. I recommend that you change ``20 miles under city driving
conditions'' to ``15 miles under most urban driving conditions.'' Note
that average daily miles driven are about 30 miles. Based on EPRI's
preferred estimate, if a plug-in hybrid with 15 miles of range were
charged once a day, gasoline use would be reduced by 31 percent. This
would be equivalent to a miles per gallon increase of 45 percent.
I like the sliding subsidy scale in Sec. 2 (d). Consistent with the
argument that multiple plug-in hybrid ranges should ultimately be
offered to consumers, I suggest a tiered subsidy. If we think about
evolution from 15 to about 40 miles of range, it is likely that one
would go from congested urban driving for the 15-25 mile range, to
relatively free flowing, higher speed suburban cases with 40 miles of
range. I expect that, as range goes up, top electric-only speed to
cover usual trips would also increase. To illustrate, for the initial
$10,000 per vehicle from 2007 to 2009, one might allow $3000 for a
plug-in hybrid with 15 miles of urban range, $5000 for a plug-in with
20 miles of city test cycle range, and $8500 for a plug-in with 40
miles of highway test cycle range. If any of these vehicles were flex-
fuel vehicles the subsidy could be increased by $1500. This would allow
an automaker to take advantage of up to $10,000 of subsidy per vehicle.
If this idea were acceptable, then similar allocations could be made
for remaining years.
Concerning the funding levels that are to be authorized if the
draft bill becomes law, I note that if these funds were appropriated,
expenditure on the plug-in program would be comparable to the
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. I also note that by including
fuel cell hybrids the draft bill supports the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
and may enhance the odds of success of that program. I like the fact
that the funds would do ``double duty'' providing another path away
from oil dependence via plugging into the grid, for either combustion
engine or fuel cell motive power. Our ongoing R&D on pathway energy use
and greenhouse gases indicates that this may be a desirable combination
even if hydrogen fuel cell breakthroughs are realized. There are some
pathways where generation and use of electricity for a plug-in hybrid
will be a better choice than producing hydrogen for a fuel cell,
whether or not the plug-in hybrid uses a fuel cell or combustion
engine.
It is quite difficult when attempting to cause technological
breakthroughs to know the probability of success as a function of the
amount of money assigned to the task. I defer to battery and electric
drive experts with respect to judgment on how much money is necessary
to cause needed breakthroughs. With regard to oil prices and energy
security, concerns are greater today than when the hydrogen fuel
initiative started, and the circumstance of domestic automobile
manufacturing is more precarious. Due to a scarcity of automaker
resources and a greater national need, and due to a degree of optimism
about plug-in-hybrids which started several years ago and which has
increased significantly over the last several months, I am supportive
of a very significant increase in funding for plug-in hybrid research,
development and demonstration.
As I have stated, I believe that learning-by-doing is critical, so
I support the grants provision.
It is possible that the allocation of funds might be better tilted
toward production subsidies. $50,000,000 per year, if allocated at
$10,000 per plug-in hybrid, would support only 5000 vehicles. On the
other hand, if $3000 were to be adequate to create an incentive for a
15 mile hybrid suitable to run electrically for most urban driving,
then one manufacturer's production run of about 17,000 vehicles could
garner the present draft's total subsidy for each vehicle produced.
Most factories produce hundreds of thousands of vehicles, while the
initial Prius factory produced 30,000 per year. So, if the intention is
to cause multiple factories to produce plug-in hybrid powertrains, the
incentives may not stretch far enough. One positive feature of
incentives of this nature is that the government only has to pay them
if vehicles are produced. If production capabilities with economies of
scale are an intended outcome, I would suggest after 2010 that no
manufacturer be allowed any subsidy unless a minimum of 10,000 plug-in
hybrid powertrains were produced and sold per year. Total subsidies,
which may need to be larger, could be allocated among all manufacturers
meeting this criterion.
The first steps toward mass production of plug-in hybrids are
likely to involve limited runs of prototype vehicles. In its Sprinter
program, DaimlerChrysler intends to follow a sequence from less than
five vehicles to 30, then hopefully large fleet tests, and finally
commercialization. This process was anticipated to take four years.
Thus, it might be desirable to alter the subsidy authorization schedule
to allow for significantly higher per vehicle subsidies in the first
four years for prototype vehicles produced in the dozens. You might
consider subsidies as high as $100,000 per vehicle, up to a total of 50
vehicles per manufacturer from about 2007 to 2010. Thereafter, impose
the 10,000 unit production volume requirement and a per vehicle maximum
grant schedule similar to the present one for any further subsidy. This
would be consistent with the Energy Policy Act goal of
commercialization within five years.
Biography for Danilo J. Santini
Senior Economist, Section Leader, Technology Analysis, Center for
Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory
Danilo Santini obtained his Ph.D. in Urban Systems Engineering and
Policy Analysis from Northwestern University in 1976, a Master's in
Business and Economics from the Illinois Institute of Technology in
1972, and a Bachelor of Architecture from MIT in 1968. From 1968 to
1970 he taught Physics and Math at George Washington High School in the
Kanawha County school district in West Virginia. He worked at three
Architectural firms over the period 1963-72. He began working at
Argonne National Laboratory in 1974. Dr. Santini was Chair of the
Chicago Chapter of the International Association of Energy Economists
from 1985-86. From 1992-2004 Dr. Santini was section leader of the
Technology Assessments section within the Center for Transportation
Research at Argonne National Laboratory, and now is leader of the
Technology Analysis section. He served as Chair of the Alternative
Fuels Committee of the National Research Council's Transportation
Research Board from 1996-2002. In 2003 he was awarded the title Senior
Economist. Since May of 2001, he has been the Department of Energy's
primary technical representative for the U.S. to the International
Energy Agency Implementing Agreement on Hybrid and Electric Vehicles.
In 2003 he became a member of the American Transportation Research
Institute's Research Advisory Committee. Dr. Santini has authored, co-
authored or edited 150 articles, reports, and conference papers.
Discussion
Chairwoman Biggert. I thought we were going to have
technical difficulties.
Thank you very much.
And now, at this point, we will open our round of--first
round of questions.
And I recognize myself for five minutes.
My first question is that the legislation that we are
considering has two major components. One is the research on
batteries, the control systems, and the lightweight materials,
and the second is a demonstration component that would add
federal dollars to efforts to purchase plug-in hybrid vehicles.
And right now, the research--right now, the ratio is $5 of
research for every dollar of demonstration. Is this the right
ratio and why? If anyone would like to start, take a stab on
that.
Mr. Duncan, you look like----
Mr. Duncan. Thank you.
I cannot say exactly whether it should be five-to-one or
whatever. The people who are more technical and the research
and development area can speak to that. I am just happy to see
that the $50 million dedicated to demonstration vehicles
because that is certainly--there is an overwhelming demand
among the people who learn about plug-in hybrids to have some
vehicles spread around the Nation. Right now, we have a couple
of vehicles in California and some in New York and one in
Kansas and trying to move those vehicles around the Nation to
meet the demand of people who want to see one and drive one is
tremendous. So we--I am very happy that we are providing some
money. And I think the important thing is to get a number of
vehicles in various states all at once. And I do not know if
the five-to-one ratio is appropriate, but----
Chairwoman Biggert. Okay. Thank you.
Anybody have any information on that?
Dr. Frank.
Dr. Frank. I would like to say that, you know, the plug-in
hybrid is--uses components developed by the hybrid cars, and so
we are going just one step further. And while there are still
things that have to be researched, of course, as pointed out by
Mr. German at Honda, but really, I think, at this point, we
should be spending more in demos and less in R&D, because this
is near-term technology , and it is not something like the
hydrogen program. So I would like to see the ratio closer to
two-to-one.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Let me just follow up with that, then.
There seems to be some disagreement about how--just how far
along these technologies are. And I think Dr. Frank and Dr.
Duvall indicate that they are quite close to the market. And
Mr. German, you seem to cite numerous difficulties. I think
that you talk about the heating and longevity as the main
issues with the batteries and--what has been the experience
with batteries in transportation use, and why do you think
these are disagreements? And then I think, Mr. German, you
talked about storage, too, and also mentioned that--what are we
going to do with these batteries when they wear out? And
actually, if we have to replace them within, you know, 90,000
miles, is this--how much of a cost is that going to be?
Mr. German. Yeah, the--I think that our hesitation to
launch immediately into demonstration fleets has to do with the
previous demonstration program in California on battery
electric vehicles, which was hugely expensive and did not
succeed in advancing battery technology to the point where it
could be commercial for battery electric vehicles. And what we
are concerned is the same thing may be happening here is that
the--you need a good battery, or a good source of energy
storage of some kind in the system. And it is critical that we
do the R&D on this, and this what we like about the House
proposal. But there is no question that these plug-in batteries
are going to be subjected to more severe operating conditions.
They are not going to last as long. And they are very
expensive. I haven't even talked about the current price,
because that is just prohibitive. You know. We are trying to
estimate where the price might be with further development, and
there is a lot of uncertainty there, but even that price is
potentially a problem with customer acceptance.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Anybody else like to comment? Dr. Duvall, I think that you
had a different point of view.
Dr. Duvall. Well, I would present a different point of
view, and that is that our experience has led us to believe
that the current state-of-the-art for automotive batteries,
particularly with lithium-ion, shows extremely good use--
durability in this application. We are not ready to say that
they are ready for production, but they are certainly ready to
move to the next stage, which is to be run in very rigorous,
real-world demonstration programs and a certain number of them.
When we started working on the battery electric vehicles, the
first vehicles launched with very primitive, very short-lived
batteries in the mid-1990s, but by the end of the decade, so
before 2000, some of the best vehicles in class were tested by
certain utilities up to 150,000 miles of battery life under
extremely rigorous conditions with extremely hot weather
charging. So the technology showed that it could dramatically
improve year over year very quickly.
And the same thing is happening now with lithium-ion
batteries. There is a lot of activity. There are some startling
innovations going on right now that show tremendous potential
to improve the technology. And it is important to understand
that a plug-in hybrid vehicle really relies on its battery, and
the better that battery is, the more electric capability the
vehicle has, the more range, the more petroleum you can
displace.
So to really state right now, we believe the best batteries
are very good and good enough to really be run through their
paces and attempt to really understand how long they can last.
It is a different operating cycle than a hybrid, but I think it
is unfair to say that it is directly more severe or less
severe. It is different. That needs to be understood.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
My time has expired.
Mr. Green from Texas, you are recognized.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madame Chairlady.
And I would like to thank our Chairman and Ranking Member
for having this hearing. I think the intelligence that we are
acquiring is invaluable. And I also thank the members of the
panel for participating.
I attended a meeting this morning wherein our Speaker
talked about the price of oil, in a sense, being a blessing in
disguise. By going up to the extent that it has, it has caused
us to focus on these various alternatives. But then he went on
to make another comment, and that is that there are people in
the world who are capable of manipulating the price of oil such
that if we start to make an inordinate amount of progress, the
price of oil can be brought back down. Now whether that is true
or not is debatable.
But first, I ask how important has the price of oil, the
escalating of the price of oil, been to this process? And I see
that Dr. Ricketts is prepared to answer, so why don't you take
the first stab at it.
I read faces quite well.
Dr. Ricketts. Thank you.
Necessity is the mother of invention. My rule of thumb, it
seems to be $2.50. It seems like there is not much excitement
until gas gets $2.50, and then once it gets over $2.50, people
start going, ``Wow.'' Yeah, probably the best thing that could
happen in this country is fuel to go to $5 a gallon and stay
there for a year. We would be having committee meetings every
months, we would get something done, and we will move on with
it.
Mr. Green. No disrespect, Dr. Ricketts, it may be the best
thing, but I don't--I suspect some of us might not be sitting
here if it happens.
But given that high gas prices can be a benefit, sort of a
blessing in disguise, what type of policies do you envision
necessary to assist us such that we can make it through a
crisis of $5-a-gallon oil? How would we work through that?
Dr. Ricketts. I can't answer that question, but I was
hoping you would ask me another question----
Mr. Green. Okay.
Dr. Ricketts.--and that was why--that is why I am so strong
about flex-fuel. If gas goes back down to $1.50, then with the
flex-fuel, we will just use the gas component. But if it gets
to $5 a gallon, we will use the ethanol or whatever. So that is
why I am so strong on the flex-fuel part of it.
Mr. Green. With reference to the hydrogen that you talked
about----
Dr. Ricketts. Yes.
Mr. Green.--is that technology, right now, in its infancy
of course, but is it something that we can assume will, at some
point, replace or will it become a substitute for other
technology?
Dr. Ricketts. In my opinion, the long-term future of this
country, I am talking 30-plus years, is with hydrogen and the
sun, because once they are done, we won't have any need for
fuel anyway. I think--I am for ethanol. I am for soy diesel. I
am an agriculturalist, but I believe, at best, they have got a
five- to 10-year run, because just pure agricultural economics,
supply and demand, I am afraid corn and soybeans both are going
to go so high that we can't even feed the country or feed our
cattle for our beef and so forth. Again, that is why I like the
flex-fuel. You have got so many options to go. It is almost
like we are playing the stock market. Which fuel am I going to
use today? Which one is the best option?
Mr. Green. Dr. Duvall, do you have an additional comment?
Dr. Duvall. I think one of the keys is diversity. The--you
have to have a diversity of fuels, which will allow you to
address this issue, which right now is high fuel prices, or
tomorrow's issue, which may be carbon management in the
transportation sector, or it may be something else. And one of
the key advantages to electricity, and possibly ultimately
hydrogen, is that they are carriers, energy carriers, that can
be generated with a number of--produces a number of different
fuel sources. Also, this is one strength of biofuels. But I
agree with Mr. German's statement that there is no silver
bullet, that we have a very limited list of options, and we
should explore all of them fully. And many of these, and
especially, we believe, electricity, instantly brings you
diversity and can be an instant, very secure component.
Mr. Green. Will the additional use of the electricity,
which is generated from sources other than oil--generally
speaking, about three percent of our electricity comes from
oil, as I understand it. With the additional, however, tax on
electricity, will we have enough of our coal, the wind, and
other forms of power, nuclear, to sustain us with the plug-in
cars?
Yes, Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. There is a short-term and a long-term answer to
that. And in the short-term, the answer is an unqualified yes.
The extra capacity in the electric grid, particularly at night,
is--as was addressed in other testimony, is very adequate. You
could put millions of these vehicles on the road without having
to build a new power plant of any type.
In the long-term, however, if you are successful in
transitioning a significant portion of our transportation
sector over to the electric grid, you are going to have to
build new power plants. And the questions remain the same,
whether the plants are clean coal or nuclear or solar or wind
or whatever, still have to be addressed, and in fact, in my
opinion, this technology raises the stakes in those decisions.
But in the short-term, there is certainly plenty of capacity
for these vehicles without building new power plants.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Madame Chairlady.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Schwarz, you are
recognized.
Mr. Schwarz. Gentlemen, I am going to ask some pie-in-the-
sky questions, and you can give me pie-in-the-sky answers, if
you want. But I just want to get a fix as to where we are with
this technology. So just very briefly, I am going to throw
these out.
How much oil are we going to save if, for example, in 10 or
15 years 10 or 15 percent of the vehicles on the road are
hybrids?
Secondly, I think I am getting some fix from you on what
stage this technology is in right now. You talked about the
supply chain is not ready. Is there interest, real interest,
from American companies, like GM and Ford? I know--and I am
from Michigan, but are they serious? In your opinion, are they
serious about putting hybrid vehicles on the road as opposed to
ethanol-burning vehicles, E-85 compatible vehicles, that sort
of thing?
And thirdly, you have got to convince me that hydrogen
really is fuel X. Is there something else out there? Are your
labs working on anything else? It costs money to produce
hydrogen. And I am from Missouri a little bit on whether in the
future it really is going to be hydrogen or not.
So I free-associated a little bit with my questions, and
you certainly have my permission to free-associate with your
answers--with your responses.
Thank you.
Dr. Frank. Can I answer the first part?
I have a slide on the--that I showed. If 10 percent of the
cars were plug-in hybrid, you save about 4.5 percent oil per
year, which is quite a bit, actually. That is enough to make a
real dent. So of course, you have got--but to get to 10 percent
plug-in hybrids, it is going to take five or 10 years, because
you don't replace car fleet--but--the whole car fleet--new car
fleet is only 10 percent of the fleet--the total fleet. So to
get to 10 percent penetration within the entire car fleet, it
is a 10-year program.
So that answers that question.
Dr. Santini. The thing that I like about the plug-in hybrid
option is that it gives us--it is part of our research
portfolio that would give us a significant amount of diversity
of options. And with respect to hydrogen, the bill does allow
for a hydrogen plug-in option to be researched. And some of the
research that we see indicates that there could be pathways,
solar and wind I have in mind, in particular, would be better,
and Andy Frank has pointed this out, better to simply use the
electricity in the plug-in mode rather than hydrogen under
those circumstances. So it would add--it may make the hydrogen
option even more efficient in the very long run.
Another question on the long run, utilities, it--the
paper--the presentation that I submitted into the record that
was submitted at the May 4-5 workshop included analysis by the
National Renewable Energy Lab and Argonne colleagues in which
they evaluated the effect on the electric utility industry of
massive increases of plug-in hybrids. We will be lucky if they
are right, but going out to 2040 or 2050, and both of them were
optimistic about wind. One of them estimated, under certain--
with the higher-range vehicle, that wind could actually
increase in an amount that would be sufficient to cover the
needs of the vehicles themselves, the other just a share. There
is reason to believe that the movement would be toward clean
technology, including coal. Actually, the scenarios accelerated
the development of the--an implementation of the cleaner coal
technology and market-shared ways that coal can evolve in a way
that it could actually reduce net CO2 emissions.
Another thing I like about the technology is that there are a
number of ways that it could be seen as a benefit, and so it
may have staying power if oil prices drop. I mean, it may--
there may be markets where it would continue to be sold and
used because of the air quality benefits. It--people might be
interested because climate change is becoming more of an issue
and they might buy it simply to show their commitment to that.
So those are a few thoughts.
Mr. Schwarz. Thank you, Madame Chair.
I see that my time has expired.
I have many questions left on this simply because, as
someone who comes from an auto manufacturing state and has the
biggest plant that General Motors has built in the last 50
years in my district in Delta Township, just outside of
Lansing. It is imperative that we know which way this is going
to go. And I don't know yet whether the hybrid is the answer,
whether ethanol is the answer. The capacity of ag. to make
enough ethanol and soy product comes up in my district all of
the time, so I am fascinated by your answers and by the
questions.
And I thank you, Madame Chair.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
The gentleman from Maryland, Dr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
The observation that when gasoline went up we could then
switch to ethanol for a flex-fuel vehicle, I would like to
suggest that ethanol prices are very likely to track gas
prices, because it is unlikely that we will do better than
three-fourths of a gallon of fossil fuel to produce a gallon of
ethanol. So there will be an obligatory linkage between those
two.
Right now, coal provides a meaningful amount of our
electricity. And the question is, would it be better to use
this electricity to drive--of course, I am a big, big fan of
plug-in hybrids. Or would it be more efficient simply to use
the coal and produce coal oil? When I was a kid growing up, we
didn't have kerosene lamps. We had coal oil lamps. I was born
in 1926 and Hitler ran all of his country in World War II on
coal oil, and South Africa did the same thing.
So if we simply are using fossil fuels to produce the
electricity, would--all of them could be converted into a fuel
to run cars. I think that if we are going to go to plug-in
hybrids, don't we have to have electricity produced by other
than fossil fuels or we really aren't solving a fundamental
problem?
And then I have a question about how quickly we can get
there. And I would like to be there tomorrow, but we have two
variables here. And I know they trade off one against another.
One is the price of oil. How expensive will gasoline have to be
before people are serious about moving to plug-in hybrids? And
secondly, how quickly can we develop batteries that are
economically-acceptable? Of course, the higher gasoline prices
go, the more expensive batteries can be and still be acceptable
in the market. What is your best judgment as to--and I know it
is anybody's guess what oil is going to do. I think it is up
and up and ever up with saw teeth up and down, but more up than
down. What is your best guess of how soon these two things are
going to come together so that electric hybrids will be really
competitive out there, that is the price of oil and improvement
of batteries?
Mr. Duncan. Well, I will start and address the first one,
and I am not really the expert on the speed of battery
adaptation here. The other speakers are.
As far as using fuels other than fossil fuels, what really
interested Austin in this initially is because we sell more
wind power than any other utility in the Nation, and we saw a
way to get wind in as a transportation fuel. And as--and the
research that was addressed earlier by Dr. Santini, wind power,
alone, has the capability, at least on paper, to meet this
transportation need. But it--I mean, it is a fundamental
decision that has to be made and as in relation to the other
decisions on carbon that the Congress and the Nation need to
make. I think there is no question that we have the technical
capability to transition the transportation sector away from
fossil fuels through the electric grid, which has the ability
to take multiple fuels and combine them in any way that you
want to provide a transportation fuel, if you use it that way.
And it is not just the cost of gasoline itself. It is really
the spread between the gasoline cost and other fuels. You
mentioned how ethanol is starting to track and will track
gasoline. That is not necessarily the case for the electric
grid in comparison with gasoline, because you are dealing with
totally different fuel structures and infrastructures. So the
spread between the electric grid and the liquid fuel of
gasoline and ethanol could grow to be quite great and quite
rapidly.
Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Duncan.
Yes, sir. Go ahead.
Dr. Duvall. One of the things that EPRI forecasts for the
future in the electric sector is that we have a diversity of
energy sources now, and we will continue to have a diversity of
energy sources in the future. And we can provide some
additional information in writing to show how these scenarios
play out, depending on what the future looks like. There is an
aggressive technology development roadmap for coal to be more
efficient, to be cleaner, and to ultimately be low-carbon-
emitting at the plant level. So electricity from coal could
ultimately be a very good source, very low-emitting source for
transportation.
This second comment is that, in general, batteries follow a
very strict cost-volume relationship. And so when there is not
much production volume, the costs are very high. And when we
completely learn out the manufacturing techniques for batteries
and we have high consistent volume and a lot of competitive
choices in the marketplace, battery costs can be minimized. It
is still an expensive component. But at today's current gas
prices, life cycle cost studies done at EPRI show a variety of
very favorable results for hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles
of different configurations, and we can provide examples of
those in writing now. So today's fuel prices really do, I
think, incentivize alternatives and more efficient vehicles.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you.
Madame Chairman, this is a great hearing. I wish that it
occurred 10 years ago then we would still be behind the curve,
actually. Thank you very much for holding the hearing. I think
that plug-in hybrids are a great, great partial solution to the
pending liquid fuels crisis that we are facing. And batteries
are the pacing item, and any amount of money that it takes to
infuse into that technology to make this happen sooner would be
money well invested for our future.
Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you, Dr. Bartlett. And I couldn't
agree more with you. I wish I had known about it 10 years ago,
but since I didn't, I think that we really do have an
opportunity right now to move forward with our main goal,
really, which is to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and
this certainly is one means of doing that. And I think that the
sooner that this can roll out, the better, as well as all of
the other alternatives that we have talked about. And so I
think that this is a real challenge. But we have the
opportunity, and I think, as Mr. Honda had said earlier, that
because of the spiraling of gasoline prices, that it calls our
attention to it. What I hope, and what we can't let happen, is
that we then let this slide when the gas--when the prices start
going down again, as we have done so--in so many cycles before.
And I think with the President's Advanced Energy Initiative and
our looking at developing GNEP with the nuclear as well as the
hydrogen, and I had an opportunity to drive the hydrogen car
yesterday, thanks to Mr. Chairman's company. It was kind of
scary to drive a $1.5 million car around the streets of
Washington, but I made it without any damage, so--you know, and
those things are on the way, but I think that we have to really
take this very seriously and really do all that we can to--you
know, to move us forward on that.
And with that, Mr. Hall, do you have a question?
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madame.
I am--inasmuch as I have not been here, I don't know the
questions that have been asked. I am honored to have Mr. Duncan
here and the knowledge that he brings and the history of
success that he has known and all of them to give their time,
travel time, and testimony time and all. I know that the
Chairlady appreciates that, as I do.
I will submit questions. I am sure you will get that
unanimous consent at the end.
Chairwoman Biggert. Yes.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
Chairwoman Biggert. Yes. Thank you.
All right. Then we will start the second round, and I will
ask----
Mr. Sherman. Madame Chair?
Chairwoman Biggert. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. I just came into the room for the first round.
Chairwoman Biggert. Oh, I am sorry, Mr. Sherman.
You are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Sherman. Well, I thank you.
The big problem with electric cars, whether--and the reason
why we are told that we need to put a gasoline engine is their
limited range. And one would hope that we would see new
developments in battery technology that would solve that
problem. Another way to solve that problem, and I would like
your comment on it, and my guess is it doesn't work because
nobody is talking about it, and it is relatively obvious, is
that we could have a system where, say, the major oil
companies, who happen to already have an infrastructure of
service stations, would own batteries of, say, 500 pounds, you
would lease those, or--from the oil companies or the service
station chain owners. You would drive in. Somebody would have a
forklift. Imagine service at a service station. It once
happened. And they would remove your depleted 500-pound
battery, install a fully charged one, both of which are the
property of the same oil or other company anyway, and you would
drive off for another several hundred miles. But of course,
when you use the car just for commuting, you would just plug it
in at your home and recharge the existing battery, but you know
that the car is great for commuting, say, 48 weeks a year and
that you can drive across country, if you want to, on vacation
as well.
Put aside the governmental and societal problems of
creating an infrastructure where there are thousands of
stations across the country ready to install a battery that is
fully charged and to charge--and to cause the customer to pay
an appropriate amount, and deal with the technical problems of
a battery-switching electric--a nationwide system of battery-
switching electric cars, knowing that most of the time they are
going to be recharged by the consumer, but on cross-country
trips or whatever, or you just happen to have a lot of driving,
you can stop at a service station.
Mr. Duncan. Congressman, two responses.
The first is that that is why we were so excited about the
plug-in hybrid is that it did not have the range limitation of
the all-electric vehicle. It is truly a hybrid. If you don't
plug it in or forget to plug it in, it still goes. So we didn't
have the range limitation and it didn't require a special
charging station. You could put it into an ordinary wall socket
to charge it.
As far as the second suggestion, I think it is a good
suggestion, and actually, it is my understanding that the
French utility EDF has the type of system that you are talking
about where you can drive in and they will exchange a battery
in your vehicle.
Mr. Sherman. How much would a--using current or technology
pretty well guaranteed to be available in the next couple of
years, how much would a battery weigh that could get you 200 or
300 miles?
Mr. Duncan. I don't know the answer to that.
Dr. Duvall. I think Mr. German and I can agree that it
would weigh--it would still be a lot. I think maybe the more
critical----
Mr. Sherman. Excuse me. Can you--a lot is not the kind of
specificity we are used to in the Science Committee.
Dr. Duvall. Okay. It would be a minimum of a 50- to 60-
kilowatt hour battery, which would probably weigh somewhere
around 300 to 600 kilograms, depending on how good the battery
was. I think the major----
Mr. Sherman. So you are talking over--well over 600 pounds,
and I put forward the idea of a 500----
Dr. Duvall. The more critical aspect would be the battery
would be extremely expensive, and the architecture of a modern
car is extremely complex and may not facilitate the
installation. But it requires a lot of volume and a lot of
packaging design work to integrate that battery into a vehicle
and to integrate it to be easily removable. This is done very
common--this is very common for electric material handling
equipment. Forklifts with electric batteries are--often have
the batteries changed so that you can run a two- or three-shift
operation where you don't have time to stop the vehicles and
charge. But actually, high-power fast charging is becoming an
alternative even there, because there is a certain amount of
time that if you actually did, maybe, the back of the envelope
economics, that the labor required to change the batteries and
the added cost, it might not work out as well.
Mr. Sherman. With high-power recharging, how long would it
take to recharge an automobile with a 200-mile range?
Dr. Duvall. Twenty to thirty kilowatts of charge capacity
is pretty common, and there are--is a possibility to make that
greater in the future.
Mr. Sherman. All right. Then I want to say how long would
it take, using the technology available two or three years from
now.
Dr. Duvall. An hour to two hours to completely recharge a
battery with significant range capable and, like, a five- to
10-minute recharge.
Dr. Ricketts. Mr. Sherman, I will tell you how far we have
come with better technology. I am still using deep cycle lead
acid. I have 26 batteries on my truck at 70 pounds a piece.
That is 1,820 pounds of batteries. That will get you just 60
miles. So these fellows with the lithium-ion, that is how far
we have come.
Mr. German. But you need to consider the interior space in
a vehicle is extremely valuable.
Mr. Sherman. But let me just ask one more question. The
Chair has been very indulgent with time. And that is, let us
say I just use the car for short range, so I am always home to
plug it in. And I never actually turn on the gasoline engine.
And let us say I happen to live in one of those very few
American cities where they actually generate the electricity
using petroleum. And so you have to burn a certain amount of
petroleum to get a certain amount of kilowatts to charge my
commuter car. How many miles per gallon or--am I getting? In
other words, how much fuel do you have to burn at my local
electric utility, assuming it is burning petroleum, and I
realize most don't, but some do, in order to get me 100 miles
or whatever the range is?
Dr. Duvall. It would almost certainly be lower than if
you----
Mr. Sherman. I know, but is it three times lower, 10 times
lower, or 20 times lower?
Dr. Duvall. No, it would be a fraction lower. I can provide
an answer later, but it would be some fraction lower. It
wouldn't be double the fuel consumption. In most areas where
there are still oil-fired power plants, they are primarily
peaking plants, and so they only operate a very limited number
of hours per year. So in general, the margin of electricity,
wherever you are in the United States, is probably not
petroleum unless there is some peak activity.
Mr. Sherman. I yield back.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
We will start a second round, if we could go quickly, and I
have just a couple of questions.
Going back to the battery, some experts suggest that the
lithium-ion batteries are the answer for the plug-in hybrid
vehicles yet this battery type has been under development for
many years and still presents challenges for use in the
vehicles. So I would like just a quick answer from Dr. Frank
and Dr. Duvall and Mr. Duncan and Mr. German. What is your view
on the lithium-ion batteries? Just a very, very brief----
Dr. Frank. Real quick, you--batteries for all of these cars
are no longer benign things. They are all intelligent batteries
with computer controls. And by the way, computer control is a
very small marginal cost for the total battery system. The
computer controlled batteries are what will make lithium even
metal hydride now practical for these kinds of applications.
And it changes the picture entirely. So it becomes very
practical very quickly.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. I will defer to the other witnesses on the
battery question. I am not----
Chairwoman Biggert. Okay.
Mr. Duncan.--the expert in this field.
Chairwoman Biggert. Okay.
Dr. Duvall.
Dr. Duvall. I would like to share an opinion of a
representative of one of the leading auto makers with respect
to hybrid vehicle technologies who felt that we would see
lithium-ion batteries introduced into commercial hybrid
vehicles within three years and by 10 years, likely to dominate
the market. So there--I think there is a strong undercurrent
that believes that the technology is rapidly becoming ready for
automotive application. And there are already at least one or
two commercial applications of lithium-ion batteries in
commercial hybrid vehicles.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Mr. German.
Mr. German. I think part of the problem here is that when
people say lithium-ion, they have the connotation that you have
a single battery. And the--part of the problem I had with
lithium-ion is that the formulations, depending on anode
materials and other things are tremendously variable. And what
the industry has been--batteries have been doing is
experimenting with all of these different combinations trying
to come up with something that has both high energy and good
durability and is robust and long-lasting. And it is very
difficult. They are still working through this. As far as the
lithium-ion batteries for conventional hybrids, that is
actually a different formulation than you need for a plug-in.
Plug-ins need to be lower power density, higher energy density.
So even those might not be the optimum for plug-in. It is this
complexity that is causing the problems, and they are still
trying to find the right combination.
Chairwoman Biggert. Okay. Can you estimate if it will be
cost-effective?
Mr. German. It depends on how you define cost-effective.
The estimate--the targets I have seen for lithium-ion
batteries, even in the future in high volume, are not going to
be accepted by most customers. Certainly there can--might--may
be a niche market. But it is very difficult to talk about the
future price of lithium-ion because we don't know what the pace
of development is going to be. That is why research and
development is so important.
Chairwoman Biggert. Dr. Santini.
Dr. Santini. Lithium-ion has eclipsed nickel metal hydride
in consumer electronics and at the advanced automotive battery
conference last year, there was a presentation that indicated
that a very large number of patents of lithium-ion batteries
had been adopted by Nissan, Toyota, and Honda, not by the
battery manufacturers. So obviously, the auto industry found
the technology to be intriguing. So that is indirect evidence
that it is a promising technology. John gave you a very good
description of the difficulties and the fact that it is very
complex, many alternatives. There is an alternative that my
colleagues at Argonne have that they are hopeful would double
the amount of energy storage per unit volume and per unit--per
kilogram. If that would happen, that would be a great boom.
So----
Chairwoman Biggert. Well, I have been out to see your
program at Argonne. You are doing a great job.
And then just one other question. This really isn't--part
of this--it is really not the jurisdiction of the Science
Committee, because it has to do with tax relief and tax
credits, but the hybrid cars right now, and under the energy
bill that we passed in--last August, has a component in for tax
credits for buying hybrid cars. And the companies are limited
to 60,000 cars sold a year. And it--a question is, of course I
think probably we would have to have something like that for
hybrid plug-ins to have that, because what people tell me when
they go to buy a hybrid is that they are so expensive that the
tax breaks makes it--brings it down to about equal to a regular
car. But they are also--they can't get them, that there is such
a waiting list. And I see this happening, you know. I am
certain--since I already want a plug-in, I am sure everybody
else does, too, and it is going to be hard to get them, but--
and I think that Dr. Santini, you, in your testimony, said
about 100,000 of the hybrid cars like the Prius had been sold,
in the past year, it started out, you know----
Dr. Santini. Per year.
Chairwoman Biggert. Per year. Right. Is that holding up for
most all of the hybrids? The SUVs and----
Dr. Santini. We--sales showed some sensitivity to oil
prices over the period--it looked like, anyway, from the
Katrina, and then prices subsided. The sales came down a bit.
And then, you know, when, more recently, the prices have
spiked, and sales--the pressures took off. Toyota said that the
Prius--there was actually a decline in Prius' monthly sales
rate, but Toyota said it was due to availability and some
glitches----
Chairwoman Biggert. But why aren't these companies, then,
making more of them when they are--you know, they are wanted by
the public? Is there some reason why there is such a backlog
when other--you know, other--the regular cars? Is it cost? Or
does anybody know?
Dr. Santini. Well, one thing I am--that I observed in
studying the purchasers and the highest level of interest in
hybrids was that high level of education explained it much
better than annual driving, for example. So there are people
that, I think, are probably a relatively significant market
that are interested in the technology for many of its, sort of,
own sake attributes.
Chairwoman Biggert. So we probably need an education or a
PR campaign as well about the benefits and the conservation
that people would be making by driving these cars?
Dr. Santini. That is why I think that the ongoing study is
trying to cover all of the potential benefits look--that look
promising for their ability to back up leaders.
Chairwoman Biggert. So Mr. Duncan, with your demonstration
project, is this something you think will help to--for
individuals to realize the importance of conservation?
Mr. Duncan. Oh, absolutely. As I have said, when fleet
managers and ordinary individuals are explained this
technology, they have the same reaction that you and others
have had: ``Where do I get one?'' But a major hold-up is
actually being able to see and drive one and see that it drives
like an ordinary vehicle does and there is nothing you have to
do. So that is why I am pressing so hard to get some spread
around the country instead of--I will take the vehicle you are
seeing here today, in order to get it here in time, had to be
flown in, because there are so few around the country right
now.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
Chairwoman Biggert. I am sorry.
Mr. Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Okay. The electric meter at my home is 1950's
technology. It cannot distinguish whether I am buying the
electricity at peak or non-peak hours. If I am going to
recharge a car at home, I am going to be paying, say, 10 cents
a kilowatt because the--that is a fair price if you are paying,
sort of , a blend between peak and non-peak fair prices. Should
we have a system whereby those who own plug-in hybrids are able
to fill out a form saying, ``Look, this is how much electricity
my car used. I only plug it in non-peak hours. Therefore, for
that amount of electricity, cut me down to four cents or five
cents a kilowatt.'' How much--this is something Congress could
require. How much of an incentive will it be to getting plug-in
hybrids accepted if people are able to pay a fair, non-peak
cost for their kilowatts rather than having to pay the blended
average rate that we all pay now?
Yes. Mr. Santini.
Dr. Santini. In my testimony, I mentioned that it is very
important for the electric utility industry across the country
to adopt, and I--in the written testimony, I used the word
economically-legitimate off-peak rates as promptly as possible
and show the auto industry that what they tell me and what I
believe as an economist that there are good reasons for low
marginal costs off peak. And I--it is a short-term benefit to
the--not short-term, but it is a significant benefit to the
electric utility industry, so the rates should be in place. Now
whether Congress should require that or not, I didn't say that,
but----
Mr. Sherman. Well, it would need, almost, a consumer-
completed form. There--at a huge industrial facility, they can
keep track of how many kilowatts are on-peak and how many are
off-peak and how many--and at my home, there is no way to know
when--which kilowatts are going to the TV I am watching during
peak hours and which kilowatts are being used in--to recharge
the car. But if you had a system by which, perhaps under
penalty of perjury, the same way you sign a tax form, you are
able to inform the utility how many recharge hours you used,
and they were required to give you the same low rate that they
give non-peak industrial customers, that would be a reduction
in price. I am trying to get a handle on this from a consumer
standpoint. I know what it costs to operate a regular car. I
know what it costs to operate a hybrid car. And I know that a
plug-in hybrid is going to be somewhere in between a purely
electric car on the one hand and a hybrid non-plug-in car on
the other. Let us say I buy one of these plug-in hybrids and I
never have to turn on the electric--the gasoline motor, because
I just use it for short distances. What is my fuel or energy
cost per mile at 10 cents a kilowatt? How many miles can I go
per kilowatt if I am just going short distances.
Dr. Frank. Well, these cars have--I can answer that. Or
maybe I can answer part of that. But these cars get about 250
watt hours per mile, roughly.
Mr. Sherman. Two hundred and fifty watt hours----
Dr. Frank. Watt hours per mile.
Mr. Sherman.--per mile. And at 10 cents a kilowatt, is----
Dr. Frank. Well, there are two-tenths of a--0.2--a quarter
of a kilowatt hour a mile.
Mr. Sherman. A quarter of a kilowatt hour, so I am paying
2.5 cents to go a mile----
Dr. Frank. Yeah.
Mr. Sherman.--for fuel costs?
Dr. Frank. Right. That is about right. Yeah.
Mr. Sherman. Whereas, at $3 a gallon, even if I am getting
30 miles per gallon----
Dr. Frank. It is about 12 cents kilowatt----
Dr. Santini. The EPRI study had about 0.3 kilowatt hours
per mile, and my colleagues are concerned about effects of air
conditioning and auxiliary loads, so I use 0.38 in some of my
most recent calculations. I am going to give you a range of
values to think about.
Mr. Sherman. Okay. So I am seeing one range here of a
difference between 2.5 cents a mile and 12 cents a mile?
Dr. Frank. That is about right.
Mr. Sherman. That is about right?
Dr. Frank. Right.
Mr. Sherman. Okay. And that is at--that is paying the
regular cost for electricity rather than non-peak cost?
Dr. Frank. Right. Right.
Mr. Sherman. So that could come down----
Dr. Frank. Even more than that.
Mr. Sherman. Okay. The other problem I----
Mr. German. Keep in mind that even if you drive, I am
sorry, 800 miles a month just on the battery alone, that is
going to work out to $20 a month on your electric bill. Getting
this low rate is going to cut it from $20 to $10. And I am not
sure how much of an impact it is going to have on the
customers.
Mr. Sherman. Got you. So what you are saying is that the
technology--the fuel usage economy is already so good----
Dr. Frank. Yeah.
Mr. Sherman.--that you don't need to pay a fair price for
the electricity? The other thing that is missing, of course, is
places to plug it in.
Dr. Frank. That is an incentive right there to plug it in.
Mr. Sherman. Well, no, what I mean--what we have not done,
as a society, is require every garage owner to have places you
could plug it in, whether it be three or whether it be--or
whether you would, you know, be coin-operated or whatever, the
most important thing that would make my vehicle more efficient
is drive to work, have a place to plug it in----
Dr. Frank. Yeah.
Mr. Sherman.--and then use the electricity to come back
rather than having to use the engine. I hope that as the bill
goes forward, we are able to come up with a workable plan to
require those in the business of garaging cars to provide a few
spots where you could re-plug.
Dr. Frank. In Canada, they do, you know. Canada has--the
cold climates have plugs on every parking spot.
Mr. Sherman. I wonder if Mr. Duncan has a comment, and then
my time is expired.
Mr. Duncan. Speaking from an electric utility, I think you
are right on target with several points. Several--the electric
utility could start providing--charging positions in parking
garages. Ultimately, you know, you could even reverse this
technology, and if we started wiring parking garages, a vehicle
could charge at night, come in, plug in, and then on a hot
afternoon day in Austin, for instance, we could actually
reverse that charge and draw down just a little bit on a whole
bunch of batteries and avoid peaking power plants. The
transportation system could actually act as a capacitor in that
regard. The utilities could certainly start to offer off-peak
pricing during the evenings for charging. I think that you may
find one of the greatest obstacles in the electric utility
industry is not really the technology of the metering and such
but the billing system. And it has been my practical
limitations on learning how to--in dealing with this. But it is
certainly all possible within the electric utility industry.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Before I recognize Ms. Jackson Lee, I just wanted to remind
everyone that is here that we do have the demonstration out at
New Jersey and C Southeast, which is right out--just a block
away. And I think that I will enjoy seeing the hybrid plug-in
cars that are available there. So I would urge you all to--
after here to go over there.
So now, Ms. Jackson Lee from Texas, you are recognized.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madame Chair. Thank
you for, I think, a very timely hearing.
Let me welcome Mr. Roger Duncan from Austin, Texas. We are
just--or at least Austin Energy in Texas. And hopefully--is
that in Austin?
Mr. Duncan. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And we are your neighbors in Houston. So
let me welcome you and congratulate you for some of this work.
Thank you for yielding to me, and I ask for you to indulge
the fact that I was in a Homeland Security hearing, but I
thought this was extremely important. I am going to raise,
just, some questions, and I would like everyone to take a stab
at them.
Obviously, you are in the backdrop of the rising eye of
Americans on gasoline prices and the lack of focus on
alternative fuels. And so I raise the question on, first,
though you may have covered this, the kind of standards
necessary to begin to set up the framework of an industry that
would engage in the plug-in hybrid. I would also be interested
in what role universities can play in this research. Are we at
the peak level of the research, or can we utilize new
technologies through more research funding through
universities? I am also concerned about the workforce. This is
a broad question of alternative fuels, but the plug-in is
particularly unique. What skills will the new--or training will
the new workforce need to really, if you will, plug in to this
new plug-in hybrid to make this a viable industry or a viable
concept? And finally, the Administration has the Advanced
Energy Initiative. Is that enough, or what more can we do? I am
noting legislation that is proposed to this committee, and I am
going to be looking at this very carefully. But what more can
we do around the Advanced Energy Initiative to really pump, if
you will, energy into this concept of alternative and this
plug-in hybrid?
And gentlemen.
Dr. Santini. Well, I will speak first.
The--I am proud to have been associated with the--but very
indirectly, just--most of my colleagues did the work, the
student competitions program that Andy mentioned earlier where
a number of technologies have been evaluated over the years,
but this is a cooperative program of universities, industry,
and the National Labs that has tried to work to make it--to
keep it moving and with a good topic every year. So but the
plug-in hybrid technology itself emerged, in part, as a result
of the student competitions. It did train students to work in
the auto industry. So I think it is a good model going forward.
It has been focused on very long-term technology. We may be in
a different environment, but it is a good model, and working
with universities has--is probably responsible for the great
interest, in significant part, in plug-in hybrids now.
Ms. Jackson Lee. And should--we should expand that work
with universities?
Dr. Santini. Well, you certainly--if the technology is to
succeed and if electric drive is a technology that is a great
long-term interest to the country, and I believe it looks like
it is, then probably it should--something like that should be
expanded.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Just jump in.
Dr. Ricketts. I feel strong about demonstration projects.
My, probably, role in this energy thing is more a linker in
linking these technologies together. Earlier, I explained the
processes in producing hydrogen. I didn't really invent any of
that, but I brought the electrolysis unit together. I brought
the solar unit together. I brought the storage together. So it
is there in a demonstration spot so that people could come in
and see how it can be done.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Others? The training, the standards, the
amount of money invested?
Dr. Frank.
Dr. Frank. Yeah, I really would like to say that one of the
biggest problems we have in judging these hybrids, and
especially plug-in hybrids, which uses, really, two energy
sources, electricity and gasoline, is how to measure
performance. EPA has, over the years, established performance
for conventional cars. That is miles per gallon and emissions
and so on. But no standards, no such standards have been made
for a dual fuel--dual energy source system like the plug-in
hybrid. And we have to establish those standards so that
industry can have something to work towards. And it is--that is
kind of the first step that we should be taking, establishing
those kinds of standards to give all of the car companies an
equal footing on getting a program started.
Then your last point was on advanced energy?
Ms. Jackson Lee. The Advanced Energy Initiative that has
been proposed by the President. Is it enough? Or what more do
we need to do?
Dr. Frank. Yeah, I think the--that--in that program, you
number of--you specify a number of areas where you are going to
be putting money into. And relative to the plug-in hybrid, I
think the plug-in hybrid has the biggest chance to offset the
use of oil. And we really should be focusing on that now,
because this is an important--this is the most important thing
for our country. So I would like to see a reallocation of
resources and effort on--in that energy bill. Some of the
things that are important are, perhaps--lightweight materials
is important, but that is a much longer research. And certainly
fuel cells may be, but that is even longer research. So what is
important now to the country is to do something that we can get
started now on.
I mentioned earlier, even if we were to start the plug-in
program today, we would only be saving about five percent of
the oil after five or six years, and maybe even 10 years. So
all of these other programs, it would be--it is even longer
than that. We have got to do something in the next five or 10
years.
Mr. German. Yeah, the--your basic research on batteries and
other forms of energy storage is extremely important, not only
for plug-in hybrids but for conventional hybrids, for battery
electric vehicles. There are neighborhood electric vehicles
that are already a commercial market, and there are ways to
expand that. Even fuel cells can benefit from it. So I think
that anything you--any amount you can spend on basic energy
storage research is going to be money well spent.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. German----
Chairwoman Biggert. If we could close this, we are--there
are--we are expected at the demonstration of the hybrid cars
that have----
Mr. Sherman. Request 20 seconds.
Chairwoman Biggert. Go ahead.
Ms. Jackson Lee. If I could let someone just tell me about
the skills, and I will end. And I thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
I will just--if someone just have skills, and I will certainly
thank you for any other answers you can put in writing. I thank
you.
Mr. German.
Dr. Duvall. Duvall, actually. I think that----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Dr. Duvall, I am sorry.
Dr. Duvall.--one of the main requirements that is needed in
the university are now that we are putting a lot of power
electronics on board vehicles and high-voltage systems is that
power systems engineering has become extremely rare at the
university level. It is a common concern in the utility
industry before transportation. A lot of the electrical
engineering students cannot--simply cannot study power systems
engineering even though they go to major research universities.
And I think this is one extremely important near-term
requirement, because the--we will have to be training engineers
and technicians that are very familiar with power electronics
and power systems.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Biggert. And with that----
Mr. Sherman. Madame Chair, if I could just speak for 20
seconds.
Perhaps your slogan, or our slogan, should be ``Plug in to
62-cent-a-gallon gasoline,'' because I have done the
calculations.
Dr. Frank. Yes.
Mr. Sherman. And 2.5 cents a mile is like taking us back to
62 cents a gallon.
Dr. Frank. Right.
Chairwoman Biggert. Before we bring this hearing to a
close, I want to thank our panelists for testifying before the
Energy Subcommittee.
If there is no objection, the record will remain open for
additional statements from the Members and for answers to any
follow-up questions the Subcommittee may ask the panelists.
Without objection, so ordered.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mark S. Duvall, Technology Development Manager, Electric
Transportation & Specialty Vehicles, Science & Technology
Division, Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. Do you see the development of advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles
more as a transitional technology to get us to the point where fuel
cells are available or as a substitute for fuel cells for
transportation purposes?
A1. They are separate and complementary technologies. The role of
electricity in transportation is to introduce an energy source that is
extremely efficient, can be generated with many low- or non-emitting
(including renewable) plant technologies, and is relatively near-term
in its commercialization prospects. The role of hydrogen fuel cells is
to replace combustion engines--increasing efficiency and allowing the
use of non-petroleum, renewable energy sources (although at lower
efficiency than direct electricity-battery systems.
As an example, hydrogen is a very good fuel for large, commercial
applications like trucks, transit buses, and other vehicles that use a
very large quantity of diesel fuel each day. These vehicles are fueled
at large depots, minimizing hydrogen infrastructure requirements and
there are significant criteria pollutant savings by replacing the
diesel engine with a hydrogen fuel cell.
For light- and medium-duty vehicles, a plug-in hybrid with 20-40
miles of electric range will generally have superior fuel cycle energy
use and greenhouse gas emissions compared to an equivalent fuel cell
vehicle, with dramatically lower infrastructure costs.
Hydrogen vehicles are unlikely to become either as efficient or as
cost-effective as plug-in hybrids in the foreseeable future. Renewable
electricity (e.g., wind) is three to four times more efficient when
applied to a plug-in hybrid or electric vehicle as when used to
generate hydrogen.
In the future, these two technologies will likely co-exist and can
even be combined as plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicles--the fuel cell
replaced the combustion engine and the vehicle runs on a combination of
electricity and hydrogen energy.
Q2. In your statement, you say that the most recent batteries
demonstrate excellent safety, power performance, and laboratory life.
Future challenges will include verifying lifetime testing, and
developing production facilities to ramp up the availability of this
technology. Expand on your statement and tell us what you see as the
biggest hurdles in the development of satisfactory batteries and why
these problems continue to be significant.
A2. The single most important issue with advanced batteries for plug-in
hybrid vehicles is that there is presently no large-scale manufacturing
capacity for these batteries. Existing lithium ion ``energy'' batteries
are adequate to meet the near-term requirements of plug-in hybrids. The
costs of these batteries are currently high because volume is very low.
The government and industry need to discuss how to ``prime'' this
market so that battery suppliers will build the manufacturing capacity
to supply an emerging plug-in hybrid market. This can provide promising
opportunities to incentivize domestic manufacturing capacity.
We currently need to do more testing (both in the laboratory and in
the field with demonstration vehicles) to thoroughly understand how to
get the best long-term performance from plug-in hybrid battery systems.
Near-term R&D needs to focus on large-scale demonstration programs
(minimum of 200-300 vehicles) as this will promote both good battery
system development and provide suppliers and manufacturers with
valuable in-use data on the performance of these systems.
A secondary issue is to encourage and support R&D on new energy
batteries suitable for plug-in hybrids. The majority of the battery R&D
in transportation is focused on high-power designs for current hybrid
vehicles. Specifically supporting R&D on high-energy designs more
suitable for plug-in hybrids will help promote further development to
ensure that energy batteries continue to improve in cost, performance,
and durability.
Q3. You mention in your testimony that one of the three technical
challenges is the development of a set of charging standards. Of the
three parties you mention--government, the auto industry and the
electric utilities--which one should take the lead in developing the
standards? Should the legislation address the standards issue, and if
so, what should be done?
A3. The utility industry should take the lead on this issue, but
charging standards must be developed in tandem by the automotive
industry and utility industry to account for both vehicle-related and
infrastructure-related aspects of standardization. The utility industry
already has an organization in place--the Infrastructure Working
Council (IWC)--to facilitate this collaboration between industries. The
IWC has worked in the past to bring auto manufacturers, utilities, and
component suppliers together to develop standards and make appropriate
recommendations to the official standards-making bodies like SAE, NEC,
etc. The Federal Government, who already participates in the IWC (via
the National Labs), can support this process both technically and
financially. Legislation can direct the DOE to support the standards
making process.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The President has requested $12 million for R&D on plug-in
hybrids, including an increase of $6 million for R&D to develop better
car-batteries.
Is this amount enough to provide sufficient momentum for
development and application of these technologies? What amount do you
feel is sufficient for such an initiative?
A1. There are three previous federal programs that were similar in
intent and objectives-the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium to develop
electric vehicle batteries, the FreedomCAR (PNGV) effort to develop
hybrid electric vehicle technology, and the FreedomCAR program to
develop hydrogen and fuel cell technology.
Ramping up plug-in hybrid vehicle program support to similar levels
as these programs will significantly aid commercialization prospects
for the technology--the technology gaps for plug-in hybrids are
significantly fewer than for each of the previous programs at their
inception.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by John German, Manager, Environmental and Energy Analyses,
American Honda Motor Company
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. Do you see the development of advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles
more as a transitional technology to get us to the point where fuel
cells are available or as a substitute for fuel cells for
transportation purposes?
A1. It is not possible to give a definitive answer to this question.
Clearly, at some point in the future transportation must become truly
sustainable, with no net carbon emissions and little, if any, fossil
fuel use. There are a number of possible options that could provide
this sustainability. One broad option is a fuel cell vehicle powered by
hydrogen created from renewable sources. Another possibility is
battery-electric vehicles powered by electricity created from renewable
sources. A third option could be highly efficient vehicles powered by
fuels created with renewable methods, such as biomass and waste-to-
energy. Combinations of these three broad options are also possible.
To further complicate matters, there is a multitude of potential
pathways forward that could greatly improve our energy security and
reduce greenhouse gas emissions while we are working towards truly
sustainable technologies. Also note that from a technical and market
viewpoint liquid fuels have two huge advantages, assuming similar
production costs and environmental impacts. One is a readily available
infrastructure with very fast, convenient refueling. More importantly,
liquid fuels have very high energy density. Ten gallons of gasoline
only weighs 62 pounds, but contains about 330,000 Wh (watt-hour) of
energy. By comparison, a current state of the art NiMH battery (70 Wh/
kg) with the same energy capacity would weigh over five tons. A
theoretical advanced Li-ion battery pack (120 Wh/kg) would still weigh
over three tons. One of the advantages of fuel cells over battery
electric vehicles is that hydrogen energy density is a lot better than
battery energy density. However, hydrogen is a very lightweight gas
that is difficult to compress and turns to liquid only at
^423+F (^253+C). Thus, the energy density of
hydrogen is still much worse than liquid fuels.
As long as fossil fuels are readily available, battery-electric
and, to a lesser degree, hydrogen vehicles need a breakthrough in
energy storage in order to compete with liquid fuels in light-duty
vehicles. This is the appeal of hybrid vehicles, as they obtain large
improvements in efficiency with relatively small battery packs. This is
also where plug-in hybrid vehicles may be able to compete if the cost
of energy storage comes down, as liquid fuels are still used to provide
extended range when needed. However, note that the current electrical
grid has a large coal fraction with high CO2 emissions,
especially for the marginal units that would be used for
transportation. A switch to plug-in hybrid vehicles would not help
reduce global warming gases very much unless electricity generation
moves to low greenhouse gas sources.
If hydrogen storage is resistant to solutions or the cost of making
and distributing hydrogen proves to be higher than other options, then
highly efficient conventional vehicles, possibility including hybrids
and plug-in hybrids, may be the optimal solution for a long time. But
there are a lot of potentially productive pathways that may not include
either of these two alternatives. For example:
Efficient hybrids (not necessarily plug-in) could
lead to fuel cell vehicles.
Efficient ICE vehicles utilizing renewable liquid or
gaseous fuels could lead directly to fuel cell vehicles.
Natural gas and hydrogen ICE vehicles could lead to
fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen.
If a genuine breakthrough occurs in energy storage,
then hybrid vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles are more
likely to be a transitional technology to battery-electric
vehicles, or a mixture of fuel cell and battery-electric
vehicles.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The President has requested $12 million for R&D on plug-in
hybrids, including an increase of $6 million for R&D to develop better
car batteries.
Is this amount enough to provide sufficient momentum for
development and application of these technologies? What amount do you
feel is sufficient for such an initiative?
A1. Honda strongly supports R&D to develop better energy storage in
general. Better energy storage is critically needed for hybrid
vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles.
Improved energy storage, including both batteries and ultra-capacitors,
will have great benefits for all types of hybrid and electric vehicles.
Fuel cell vehicles may potentially benefit as well.
Batteries have been in widespread use and development for over 100
years. If it were easy to develop an improved battery, it would have
already happened. Advanced battery formulations are extremely complex
and there are a wide variety of options that need to be explored. While
$6 million for R&D to develop better batteries is not likely to be
enough, it is not possible to predict the pace of technology
development. Larger amounts of research increase the chances of finding
a breakthrough and battery research should be among Congress' highest
energy-related R&D priorities. Congress should seek a five-year
research plan from the Department of Energy that is updated annually to
reflect progress. Funding should be re-evaluated as the plan is
updated.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by S. Clifford Ricketts, Professor, Agricultural Education,
School of Agribusiness and Agriscience, Middle Tennessee State
University
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. Do you see the development of advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles
more as a transitional technology to get us to the point where fuel
cells are available or as a substitute for fuel cells for
transportation purposes?
A1. I did not believe that the development of advanced plug-in hybrid
vehicle is either (1) ``a transitional technology to get us to the
point where fuel cells are available'' or (2) ``a substitute for fuel
cells for transportation purposes.''
Rationale for Statement (1): I did not believe ``plug-ins'' are a
transition to anything. I believe that they are viable within
themselves. It is unfathomable that the automotive companies ever built
hybrid vehicles without the plug-in component (option). Fuel cells are
the power for the future for automobiles, but presently they cost 6.5
times the equivalent horsepower of an internal combustion engine.
Furthermore, plug-ins cost one-third as much as gasoline per mile.
Rationale for Statement (2): Plug-ins are not a substitute for fuel
cells. Plug-ins are valuable today, and offer many opportunities to run
vehicles off a variety of energy sources through the grid lines. As
mentioned above, fuel cells are the power source in vehicles for the
future, but due to the cost the future is twenty to thirty years away.
My Proposal for the Future: In reality, I don't believe ``The Plug-
In hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006'' goes far enough. CalCars and
others have already developed plug-in hybrids. Let us amend the Act and
call it ``The Flex-Fuel Plug-In Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.'' Let us
get real serious about the energy crisis. I have always been taught not
to bring up a problem unless you have a solution. The following is
where I really believe our legislation should center:
(1) Provide research funds for researchers (public or private) to
develop flex-fuel vehicles to run off (a) plug-in (b) gasoline (c)
ethanol (d) hydrogen (e) propane and (f) natural gas. Note: These
vehicles exist but are not available as plug in hybrids.
Justification: With the plug-in component, we have the
infrastructure to run vehicles off nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, plus
the fossil fuels. Gasoline is still an option, ethanol can be used in
places where it is available. Hydrogen can be used where it is
available, and be used as a transition in the internal combustion
engine until fuel cells are feasible. Propane and natural gas could be
used in the same vehicle if they are more economical. Really, this is a
``no-brainer.'' That is, let us develop a flex-fuel plug-in hybrid
spark-ignited vehicle that will run off anything that the spark-ignited
(gasoline) vehicle can run off individually.
(2) Provide research funds for researchers (public or private) to
develop a plug-in flex-fuel spark-ignited (gasoline)/heat of combustion
(diesel) engine. For example, a six or eight cylinder engine could be
developed that uses three or four cylinders as spark-ignited and three
or four cylinders as heat of combustion.
Justification: This vehicle could run off everything in proposal
one just discussed, plus the engine/vehicle could run off diesel,
soybean oil, and other vegetable oils. This would be the ultimate
alternative fuel vehicle that could run off anything. This vehicle
would be the true bridge (transition) until fuel cells are available.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The President has requested $12 million for R&D on plug-in
hybrids, including an increase of $6 million for R&D to develop better
car-batteries.
Is this amount enough to provide sufficient momentum for
development and application of these technologies? What amount do you
feel is sufficient for such an initiative?
A1. I don't fell qualified to answer this question. However, I am very
passionate about the answer to Representative Honda's question. The
only educated response that I can give to the question is that a
researcher at a National Energy Convention from Zebra Battery said that
they could develop a battery for any range if they had enough orders to
justify the research, set-up, and construction costs. Therefore, I
believe the technology is available, it is just a matter of cost-
efficient ratio, and I do not know what that is.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Danilo J. Santini, Senior Economist, Energy Systems
Division, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National
Laboratory
Questions submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. Do you see the development of advanced plug-in hybrid vehicles
more as a transitional technology to get us to the point where fuel
cells are available or as a substitute for fuel cells for
transportation purposes?
A1. Actually, though it is only an educated guess at this point, the
answer is neither. I speculate that R&D on the two technologies will
lead to a shift of focus of fuel cell vehicle development toward a
plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicle. If that is correct, then the
development of plug-in hybrid vehicles would be complementary to, and
enabling of fuel cell vehicle technology.
Imagine a success scenario where plug-in hybrids with initially
limited range and electric use capability evolve to plug-in hybrids
with conventional engines and 30 to 60 miles of all-electric range,
followed by plug-in hybrid fuel cell vehicles with similar all electric
range. In my view, this could take one to two decades to evolve. With
such a capability, on most days within an urban area, consumers could
use electricity. Since far less hydrogen would need to be delivered
within the urban area, this would reduce hydrogen infrastructure
construction needs. Since the costs of hydrogen delivery infrastructure
are high in urban areas, this cost is an impediment to hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles. Also, if fewer hydrogen delivery stations had to be
built within urban areas, fewer suitable sites would need to be found,
probably making safety issues less of a problem.
Also, even with less electric use capability than for a plug-in
hybrid with 30-60 miles of electric range, a plug in infrastructure in
place could allow electric heating of fuel cell stacks of plug-in fuel
cell vehicles prior to unplugging. This could help to greatly reduce
concerns over delays while awaiting fuel cell stack warm-up. Further,
since a fuel cell stack in a plug-in hybrid could be smaller, there
would be less stack mass to keep warm.
Finally, if half of a plug-in fuel cell vehicle's mileage was
provided via grid electricity, this would mean that the total hours of
use of the fuel cell stack could be half as much as in a grid
independent fuel cell vehicle with the same total mileage. Since stack
life (total hours of service) is an issue of concern, this could allow
fuel cell stacks to be successfully introduced sooner, with more
reliability than would otherwise be the case.
Though all of these theoretical opportunities would need to be
examined carefully, they are each arguments that support the
possibility that plug-in hybrids could make fuel cell power units more
quickly available, at a lower total cost to the customer.
A reason that it would likely be desirable to keep the plug-in
option as a part of the fuel cell powertrain is that the battery
storage of electricity from wind power and solar energy would provide
more miles of travel than if that electricity were used to produce
hydrogen by electrolysis and used to power the fuel cell stack.
Conversely, once fuel feedstocks were gasified to separate carbon and
hydrogen, it would be less efficient to use the hydrogen to produce
electricity for the grid for use in the plug-in battery than to use
hydrogen on-board to power the fuel cell stack.
From another perspective, previously produced hydrogen should be
used in the fuel cell stack to generate electricity on board a vehicle
rather than to generate electricity off-board for use in electric
vehicles. The reason is that the energy storage capability of the
hydrogen fuel cell powertrain is far better than for batteries--even
lithium based batteries. Thus, if urban areas of the future desire a
zero tailpipe emissions vehicle (as several presently do), but
customers continue to desire a vehicle with 300 or more miles of range,
a pure battery electric option cannot meet the latter need, while a
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle can.
The enticing feature of a hydrogen fuel cell stack is that its
electric generation efficiency is not particularly sensitive to scale.
For other methods of generating electricity, if the amount of power
generated is as small as the amount required to power a vehicle, the
efficiency drops sharply. But for a fuel cell stack, a very small stack
with a power rating suitable for a vehicle will be about as efficient
as a stack providing megawatts of power, and will be far more efficient
than an internal combustion engine.
In my view, opinions of some colleagues notwithstanding, along with
battery cost, the inability of electric vehicles to provide customers
driving range comparable to gasoline vehicles has been their Achilles
heel. Until and unless we know that a battery electric vehicle can
accomplish such a feat, it is appropriate to conduct research on fuel
cell vehicles. Though lithium based batteries would get us closer to a
range capability acceptable to the consumer, at the present time my
estimates imply that they still could not provide enough range at an
acceptable cost. A related issue is the amount of material and
processing energy required to provide large enough batteries to provide
the needed vehicle range. Note that a 2001 MIT study (On the Road in
2020) estimated that a theoretical nickel metal hydride battery
electric vehicle with 300 miles of range would cause more greenhouse
gas emissions than a hybrid electric vehicle with 470 miles of range,
due to processing energy in battery production. This has to be looked
into for li-ion, but you see that it is an issue. While GM says that it
now has a prototype fuel cell vehicle (the Sequel) that can achieve 300
miles of range, I am not aware of any manufacturer claiming that there
is or soon will be an electric vehicle which can do this.
Remember that one of the attractive features of both electric
vehicles and fuel cell vehicles, from environmentalist's point of view,
is that they can never fail to provide zero tailpipe emissions, even if
they are not functioning properly. Many regulators and environmental
scientists I have worked with have been concerned with what are called
``gross emitters''--vehicles whose emissions control system has failed.
Plug-in hybrids using internal combustion engines are unlikely to ever
be perfect in this regard. So, assured zero tailpipe emissions
capability will likely remain a reason that many members of the
environmental community will maintain an interest in the fuel cell
vehicle. Thus, this is another reason to maintain research on fuel cell
vehicles.
Q2. How can the organized research community tap the creativity and
talents of the experimentalists who push technologies and open our eyes
to the possibilities of technological breakthroughs?
A2. In my opinion, the U.S. private sector is the most vibrant and
productive in the world in tapping creativity of experimentalists.
Further, much of the organized research community wishes to tap into
the riches that can become available if a technology is successfully
pursued, so experimentalists do get the best opportunities in the world
here.
I believe that the one area where innovators--those who bring a
product to market--would be well served by the research community would
be through far more unbiased, independent testing and verification of
results claimed by experimentalists. Testing and verification is of
value to both experimentalists and technology innovators because it
helps more efficiently allocate resources. When the claims of the
experimentalist are shown to be unwarranted, the mode of failure or
area of weakness of the technology is identified, allowing the
experimentalist to focus any further work on weak points. Should the
claims of the experimentalists be verified, then innovators such as
venture capitalists can more confidently invest in the conversion of
the experimental technology to a market ready technology.
Actually, I believe that verification and testing--under real
conditions that the product will experience in the hands of consumers--
is extremely important if we want to successfully accelerate the
adoption of advanced vehicle technologies. If we don't do thorough
testing and become knowledgeable about technology limitations before
the technology is in the hands of consumers, then early versions of the
technologies will be seen to be failures. Such experiences could
delay--or even worse eliminate--a technology that could save the Nation
a lot of oil if used properly, recognizing its strengths and
weaknesses. This may mean spending considerable amounts of money to
develop new test facilities and methods. A simple contemporary example
is the approved methods of testing of vehicles with ``auxiliary
loads''--air conditioning in particular--turned off. Vehicles are also
tested and officially rated--across the world--as if they were driven
far less aggressively than in actual use by consumers. For hybrid
vehicles these omissions led to expectations and claims of greater
percentage improvements in fuel economy than has actually been realized
``on-road'' by consumers. As a result, the Environmental Protection
Agency has been working on the development of a significantly more
costly set of vehicle tests than used in the past--adding low and high
temperature tests and more ``aggressive'' and higher top speed driving
tests. The plug-in hybrid will be a far greater challenge than even the
hybrid, which itself has caused us to rethink our vehicle testing
protocols. To develop reliable new technology plug-in hybrid batteries
suitable to consumers throughout the U.S., we will need a lot more
testing at extreme environmental conditions. We should plan on
constructing facilities and establishing multiple fleet test locations
that will allow us to do such testing. With regard to the need to
expand the testing ``envelope,'' testing over a wider range of speeds
and acceleration/deceleration conditions will be necessary. Legal speed
limits have moved up since existing test protocols were developed, and
the increased power available in vehicles allows more rapid
acceleration. Texas just moved the maximum rural speed limit up to 80
mph.
In my opinion, both hybrids and plug-in hybrids will provide owners
an ability to manipulate their fuel efficiency to a far greater degree
than for a conventional vehicle, by altering their driving behavior. If
so, I would argue that potential consumers would need to be made aware
of this. Driver education might eventually be adapted to provide
training in how to get the best fuel economy out of hybrids and plug-in
hybrids.
The bottom line is that if we want to see experiments work their
way successfully and expeditiously into the market, the technology
being experimented with needs to be tested thoroughly and
realistically. In my view, both rigorous field tests and much better
laboratory tests need to be supported.
Q3. There is a belief that there is a secondary market for current
generation of lead acid and nickel metal hydride batteries after they
are retired from service in hybrid vehicles. Do the characteristics of
Lithium-ion batteries lend themselves to follow-on uses after being
used in vehicles?
A3. At this time, I would not regard myself as an expert on secondary
markets. The most appropriate answer would be ``I don't know,'' or ``it
remains to be determined.''
As you imply, although batteries used in hybrids may end their
useful life from the point of view of suitability for the vehicle
customer, they may have remaining useful life from the point of other
customers. Power and/or energy per unit mass and volume may no longer
suit the hybrid vehicle owner, but may be adequate for other purposes.
For nickel metal hydride hybrid batteries, I believe that it remains to
be seen whether a significant post-vehicle market for used batteries
will develop, other than the recycling market.
Of course recycling is presently the primary source of residual
value. The secondary market for recycled materials has proven to be
important to date for lead acid and nickel metal hydride at the end of
their useful life for all purposes. Others have speculated that
recycling of lithium ion batteries is less likely than for nickel metal
hydride. However, for hybrid batteries in particular, I suggest that
this would be subject to the yet-to-be determined path of battery
development, and should be affected by battery design and pack design.
Many combinations of materials and assembly configurations are being
considered, so it is too early to do anything more than study the
possibility of development of secondary markets and recycling
probability. My understanding is that the Department of Energy Office
of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Energy Storage Program now
requires assessment of recycling in each of its contracts supporting
development of different battery chemistries and designs. Perhaps
investigation of possible secondary markets should be included as well.
My limited knowledge is that there is one secondary market for used
vehicle batteries in less developed nations that do not have rural grid
electricity. For these locations, use of batteries, charged at a not-
too distant small generating facility, provides television, radio and
perhaps computer services. For such markets, the batteries have to be
carried back and forth between the generator and the customer. Since
li-ion has more kWh of energy storage per unit volume and per unit mass
than lead acid batteries and nickel metal hydride batteries, it would
have an advantage in this market. More kWh of battery capacity could be
carried in existing transport equipment. Similarly, more kWh of
capacity could theoretically be loaded onto a ship for transport from
the U.S. to other nations.
However, one of the issues to be resolved with li-ion is shelf life
(years of life, regardless of rate of use), and another is the
possibility of fire due to overheating and venting of flammable gases
in the event of excessive overcharging. Both of these factors would
work against li-ion relative to nickel metal hydride or lead acid.
Q4. Should there be a more systematic role for the Federal Government
in developing standards for the various elements of plug-in hybrid
vehicles and its associated infrastructure or should these activities
be left to the private sector?
A4. I have just submitted a draft paper to an academic journal which
addresses the role of technical standards in the U.S. as a part of the
process of causing a transition from one transportation technology to
another. The argument of that paper is that technical standards,
adopted or codified by government in response to pressure from industry
and the public, have always played a critical role in such transitions.
I studied transitions through the 1800s and 1900s. In view of the
arguments of that paper, I would say that it would be without
historical precedent for the U.S. to leave the introduction of the
plug-in hybrid vehicle to the private sector. Even if it tried to do
so, segments of industry would at some point lay one or more sets of
technical standards on the table and ask government to make them
official.
Typically, the process of developing standards involves years of
back and forth discussions between industry and government(s), with
both groups responding to or trying to manipulate public opinion. It
will be no different in this case. Testing and demonstration is a
typical part of this process. Expect it to be necessary again. I do
think that the process can be more systematic. My earlier argument for
support of more thorough and realistic testing is intended to make the
process work better and faster than it otherwise would, hopefully
leading to earlier and more appropriate technical standards than would
otherwise be the case.
I would say that the process of developing and implementing
technical standards is actually already very systematic and built into
how the capitalist system works within the context of our government
structure. The form of your question--how to make it ``more''
systematic--was apt.
Questions submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Q1. The President has requested $12 million for R&D on plug-in
hybrids, including an increase of $6 million for R&D to develop better
car-batteries.
Is this amount enough to provide sufficient momentum for
development and application of these technologies? What amount do you
feel is sufficient for such an initiative?
A1. The President in his budget submission must make judgment on many
worthy programs. I am in no position to offer a better judgment given
the myriad of programs. When it comes to specifying an amount that will
provide a predictable outcome for advanced R&D to cause a technology to
succeed, no one, even in the technical community, is able to provide a
precise answer. But I believe it is safe to assume that if Congress and
the President determine that greater financial resources are warranted,
they would be effectively utilized and a greater chance of success is
probable.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Section-by-Section Description of the Discussion Draft
Sec. 1. Short Title.
The Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Act of 2006.
Sec. 2. Near-Term Vehicle Technology Program.
a. Definitions.
Defines terms used in the text.
b. Program.
Requires the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program of
research, development, demonstration, and commercial application for
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric drive transportation
technology.
Requires the Secretary of Energy to ensure that the research
program is designed to develop
high capacity, high efficiency batteries with:
improved battery life, energy storage capacity, and
power discharge;
enhanced manufacturability; and
minimized of waste and hazardous material use
throughout the entire value chain, including after the
end of the useful life of the batteries.
high efficiency on-board and off-board charging
components;
high-power drive train systems for passenger and
commercial vehicles;
on-board power control systems, power trains, and
system integration research for all types of hybrid electric
vehicles, including:
development of efficient cooling systems; and
research and development of on-board power control
systems that minimize the emissions profile of plug-in
hybrid drive systems.
lightweight materials to:
reduce vehicle weight and increase fuel economy
while maintaining safety; and
reduce the cost and enhance the manufacturability of
lightweight materials used in making vehicles.
c. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Pilot Program.
(1) Requires the Secretary of Energy to establish a pilot
program for the demonstration and commercial application of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. The pilot program would
provide no more than 25 grants annually to State governments,
local governments, metropolitan transportation authorities, or
a combination of these entities.
(2) Grants will be used to acquire plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles, including passenger vehicles.
(3) Requires the Secretary to issue requirements to apply for
grants under the pilot program and sets minimum requirements
for applications, including cost estimates and a description of
how the project will continue after federal assistance ends.
(4) Requires the Secretary to consider the following criteria
in reviewing applications:
prior experience involving plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles;
project or projects that are most likely to
maximize protection of the environment; and
project or projects that demonstrate the
greatest commitment on the part of the applicant to
ensure funding for the proposed project or projects and
the greatest likelihood that each project proposed in
the application will be maintained or expanded after
federal assistance under this program is completed.
(5) Requires the Secretary to provide no more than $20,000,000
in federal assistance under the pilot program to any single
applicant for the period encompassing fiscal years 2007 through
fiscal year 2016.
Requires that grants awarded by the Secretary do not exceed
the annual maximum per-vehicle amounts as follows:
Requires the Secretary to establish mechanisms to ensure
that the information and knowledge gained by participants in
the pilot program are transferred among the pilot program
participants and to other interested parties, including other
applicants.
(6) Requires the Secretary to widely publish requests for
proposals related to this grant program and to begin awarding
grants no later than 180 days after the date by which
applications for grants are due. Requires the Secretary to
award grants through a competitive, peer reviewed process.
d. Merit based federal investments.
Requires the Department of Energy to ensure that the funding for
the activities in this section are awarded consistent with the merit
based guidelines for federal energy R&D investments established in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT) (P.L. 109-58).
e. Authorization of Appropriations.
Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Energy of $250
million for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2016 to carry out the
program of research, development, demonstration, and commercial
application for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric drive
transportation technology. Of the $250 million, $50 million may be used
for lightweight materials research and development as described in
subsection (b)(5).
Authorizes appropriations to the Secretary of Energy of $50 million
for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2016 to carry out the plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle pilot program.
DOE Workshop on Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Discussion Issues and Questions
U.S. Department of Energy
May 4-5, 2006
Washington, DC
Hybrid vehicles with the ability to operate in an electric-only
mode and recharge from an electric outlet (referred to as ``plug-in
hybrids'') have received a great deal of attention recently because of
their energy supply flexibility, ability to reduce petroleum
consumption and potential environmental benefits. Plug-in hybrids are
described in the Advanced Energy Initiative, announced by President
Bush in the State of the Union Address, as a way to increase fuel
efficiency and utilize spare electric generating capacity at night as
well as being ``a practical step toward hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles,
which have some of the same electric-drive and power-management
technologies.''
The Department of Energy (DOE) conducts research and development on
a variety of complementary (and competing) technologies to meet its
energy efficiency and renewable energy objectives, including hybrid
propulsion systems. As a precursor to supporting plug-in hybrid
technology research, DOE must consider:
What are the technical and economic merits of plug-in
hybrids within the candidate set of fuels and powertrains of
the future?
What should be the basis for comparison to other
fuel/powertrain combinations? (e.g., oil use, greenhouse gas
emissions, criteria pollutants, flexibility of fueling and
energy sources, utilization of electricity to enhance
efficiency, cost)
Answers to these questions are complex due to the potential
interdependencies among the elements of the system--including the
vehicle, the recharging infrastructure and the electric utility power
plant. This paper sets the stage for discussion among DOE, industry and
academia by beginning to identify opportunities and impediments,
summarizing the status and applicability of critical technologies and
posing key questions about system elements and their interactions.
Workshop Objectives
The following workshop objectives are expected to lead to
suggestions for R&D and to establish a framework for continuing
dialogue:
1. Identify the state-of-the-art of current technologies that
may have direct application to plug-in hybrids and related
energy technologies.
2. Identify research gaps and their relative importance.
3. Identify possible research roles of the Federal Government,
industry and academia.
4. Establish a technology baseline and develop sets of plug-in
hybrid vehicle architectures to be evaluated.
5. Begin a dialogue among hybrid vehicle designers/producers,
electric utilities and researchers for the purpose of
specifying mutually desirable plug-in hybrid and utility
attributes.
6. Identify the value proposition (for both the customer and
manufacturer) that would allow the widespread application and
adoption of plug-in technology.
Why Plug-in Hybrids?
Advocates have offered the following reasons for government and
industry to support the development and deployment of plug-in hybrids:
Oil savings. Since very little oil is used in the production of
electric power, switching to electric drive using energy from the grid
can result in significant reductions of oil use.
Greenhouse gas reductions. With the use of carbon sequestration for
electricity from coal, nearly all methods of generating electricity
should result in reduced greenhouse gases via use of grid electric
power. The reductions would be dramatic for electricity generated from
nuclear, hydro and renewable sources.
Zero (tailpipe) emissions. Electric drive via plug-in hybrids charged
overnight displaces emissions in time and space. Displacement of
daytime emissions to nighttime should reduce ozone, since sun and
precursor pollutants are necessary to cause this air pollutant.
Displacement of emissions from urban to rural areas could reduce net
population exposure, even if total emissions do not drop. Although
total emissions from coal-fired power plants for some pollutants could
increase, use of electricity in most cases could reduce total
emissions, in addition to reducing urban emissions. And finally,
emissions produced by vehicles prior to warm-up could be greatly
reduced with electric operation.
Energy savings. Plug-in hybrid advocates have noted that grid-sourced
electric vehicle operation may provide the lowest full-fuel-cycle
energy use when compared to other transportation technologies. This
could enhance the long-term energy supply.
Electric utility efficiency. ``Load leveling,'' the concept of filling
the nighttime trough in electric demand by shifting electricity use to
this period, can enhance both economic and thermal efficiency of
electric utilities. Economic efficiency in the short run is enhanced
because capital (power plants and the grid) is more efficiently used
and generating efficiency is improved by operating plants at steady,
near optimum conditions instead of cyclic operation to match varying
demand. In the long-term as more generating capacity is needed, nuclear
and efficient fossil fueled combined cycle power plants could be added.
From another perspective, relatively low cost, clean wind power and
overnight charging match each other in time reasonably well. In the
long run some see a bi-directional flow of power between plug-in
hybrids and the grid, with the batteries used for further load leveling
and to improve the viability of intermittent wind.
Emergency services. Some see the plug-in hybrid as a potential clean,
quiet backup electric generator for the home in the event of power
outages. A more expansive view is that plug-in hybrids could be
connected to a grid that could carry power of many vehicles as a
utility's back-up for power plant outages. Plug-in hybrids could also
provide reserve assurance that, in the event of a long-term shortage of
oil, the most valuable transportation services could be maintained by
domestic fuel supplies powering the grid.
Challenges
Despite the numerous anticipated benefits of plug-in hybrids,
implementation of any complex transportation technology is difficult,
time consuming and costly. Details matter. If the cost is too high, the
anticipated benefits may not be realizable.
Battery technology. Perhaps the most important `detail' is the battery,
as recognized in the State of the Union Address, with notable technical
barriers to achieving the energy capacity for a reasonable electric
range, the power needed for acceptable performance in all operating
modes and life comparable to that of the vehicle--all at a reasonable
cost. Consumers are aware of the benefits of conventional hybrid
vehicles and plug-in hybrids sound even more attractive due to the
higher fuel economy potential. But today's batteries are capable of
only one to two miles electric range, as stated in the Advanced Energy
Initiative, not enough to realize meaningful fuel economy improvements.
And, when subjected to the deep discharges required for long electric
range in a plug-in hybrid, batteries will probably not last as long as
in a conventional hybrid (e.g., typical eight-year/80,000 mile
warranty). Current battery technology could be a show-stopper for plug-
in hybrids.
Electric drives. Another technical detail worth noting is that current
production hybrid vehicles cannot be used as plug-in hybrids without
reduced performance in their all-electric mode. Electric drives in
production hybrids have been optimized for intermittent use--to assist
the engine during peak demands. They are not powerful enough to provide
the same acceleration or top speed without the engine and are not
designed to handle the temperature rise caused by continuous operation.
Production hybrids cannot be easily adapted to remove this limitation
because the motors/generators are highly integrated. The power of both
the electric motor and power electronics must be increased
substantially (up to 100 percent) to provide comparable performance.
This is not a show-stopper for a new vehicle design, but it will add
cost and exacerbate packaging issues.
Interdependencies with utilities. The most obvious interdependency is
the need for plug-in hybrid vehicles to communicate with and (perhaps)
be controlled by the utility during charging for the most effective
electric energy utilization. Beyond that, the requirements and benefits
of the relationship are not as clear. For example, the choice of
powertrain technology could have a regional dependency--a vehicle for
urban areas with air quality problems might not be the best choice for
the Nation as a whole, where priorities other than air quality would
dominate. There are many possible alternative powertrain configurations
and priorities (on both the supply and demand sides) that could alter
design choices. In addition, the optimum mid- and long-term sources of
energy are not obvious. Wind and nuclear power might compete to be the
option that fills a nighttime trough in demand to meet charging needs--
though neither may be the best choice at this time.
A solid R&D roadmap needs to be developed if success is to be
achieved. The following discussions illustrate the numerous challenges
that exist. Using these discussions as a starting point, it is expected
that the attending experts will help determine research gaps, identify
omissions, and provide recommendations on answering the important
questions.
Hybrid Vehicle Systems
Current Status
Current hybrid vehicles are designed to rely heavily
on the engine with intermittent use of the electric propulsion
system--to assist the engine during peak power demands, capture
regenerative braking energy and, in some cases, provide low-
speed electric driving.
Battery, motor and power electronics are sized to
provide part of the propulsion power on an intermittent basis.
Cost in comparison to conventional vehicles appears
to be an important impediment to large scale production and
sales.
The propulsion system control strategy is focused on
fuel economy, emissions reduction and protection of the battery
(i.e., limited to shallow discharge-charge cycles to maximize
life).
Tools and procedures for analysis (i.e. modeling and
simulation) and testing (laboratory and field) for technology
development and validation are in place. Regulatory test
procedures are defined based on standard driving cycles.
Applicability to Plug-in Hybrids
Plug-in hybrids have been proposed with a variety of
vehicle architectures, ranging from the present power sharing
configurations (with the addition of external charging
capability) to vehicles with substantial electric-only range
and intermittent use of the engine.
The battery must be sized (higher energy) for the
desired electric range.
The electric motor and power electronics must be
sized (higher power) for desired performance in the electric-
only mode.
Cost must be competitive; a higher power and energy
electric propulsion system will exacerbate the production cost
differential relative to conventional vehicles.
Present control strategies are not applicable--
revision is needed to focus on electric range and a daily use
pattern that includes external charging.
Analytical tools require revision to account for
mutually exclusive or power sharing operating modes and daily
use patterns. Existing HEV test procedures to measure and
report fuel economy are not applicable to a vehicle with
substantial electric range and a daily use pattern that
includes overnight and/or opportunity charging.
Technical Gaps
Vehicle analysis--Duty cycles (consistent with
consumer use patterns and proposed test procedures) and
projected component characteristics are needed to design
vehicles, specify components and evaluate options.
Control strategy--Algorithms need to be refocused to
maximize petroleum displacement as a function of the vehicle
configuration, on-board energy storage and interaction with the
electric utilities.
Testing--Test procedures that reflect daily driving
and charging patterns are needed to support benchmark testing
(to identify key performance requirements for component
development) and technology validation.
Key Questions
1. What is the definition of `electric range' for a plug-in
hybrid?
Continuous or cumulative electric-mode operation (e.g.,
will intermittent engine operation be allowed in the
determination of range)?
2. What are the design trade-offs among cost, configuration,
control strategy, battery power and energy requirements?
Is the same vehicle performance necessary in hybrid and
electric modes?
What electric range provides the best cost-benefit ratio at
the vehicle level?
Can available battery technology meet the needs of a plug-
in hybrid?
Can ultra-capacitors be used for additional power?
Can control strategy compensate for near-term energy/power
limitations of the electric propulsion system?
3. How will consumers utilize the electric range (i.e.,
battery energy) and recharge the battery on a daily basis?
From a customer perspective, is opportunity charging a
realistic alternative to longer electric range (i.e., a larger
battery)?
How does use pattern and control strategy impact battery
life and life cycle cost?
What duty cycles/daily patterns are appropriate for
analysis (i.e., modeling and simulation of vehicle/propulsion
system alternatives)?
4. Is plug-in technology applicable to and beneficial for
varying vehicle types?
Will plug-ins be beneficial in all regions of the country?
Will plug-in powertrains be viable for a range of platforms
(S, M, L, and XL) and appeal to a range of customers
(performance and/or economy)?
5. How will plug-in hybrids be tested?
Since plug-ins will use both liquid fuel and electric
energy (perhaps with limited use of the engine), how should
fuel economy be measured and reported?
What test cycles and procedures should be used?
Since plug-in hybrids could use both overnight and
opportunity charging, should a daily driving cycle be
considered?
6. What is the value proposition for the customer and
manufacturer?
Why would a customer buy a plug-in hybrid?
Why would the manufacturer invest to develop and produce
plug-in hybrids?
Some believe that a $1300 cost differential or a three-year
payback is necessary for hybrids to have mass market appeal--
will this be different for plug-in hybrids?
7. Will the requirement to plug in and/or the plug-in
limitations (e.g., availability of 220V outlet, charge rates/
times) limit the market?
Energy Storage Technology
Current Status
The typical battery in a production hybrid vehicle is
a nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) sized for power demands, i.e.,
start/stop functionality, power assist during acceleration,
recovering regenerative braking energy and supporting some low-
speed driving.
Energy capacity provides only a few miles all-
electric range (at reduced performance).
Service life appears to fall short of vehicle life,
even if the state-of-charge is maintained within a
relatively narrow range (i.e., not discharged deeply).
Manufacturers employ a control strategy to ensure this
type of operation and provide warrantees accordingly
(e.g., eight years/80,000 miles).
DOE has performed limited testing with NiMH in a
production hybrid with a plug-in duty cycle and the
results have been extrapolated to estimate battery
requirements for various electric ranges. In addition,
NNE batteries have been used in an after-market
modification of a production hybrid to demonstrate the
impact of the plug-in concept on fuel economy.
Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries, being developed by
DOE and considered by some manufacturers for conventional
hybrid vehicle applications, are currently used in consumer
electronics exclusively.
Life tests have successfully demonstrated 300,000
shallow charge-discharge cycles, likely adequate for
conventional power-assist hybrids.
Currently they are considered two to four times too
expensive for vehicles.
Li-ion batteries have been incorporated in a plug-in
hybrid concept vehicle by a major manufacturer and
analyzed by DOE for use plug-in hybrids; the higher
specific energy and power illustrated potential
advantages relative to NiMH.
Other technologies, such as ultra-capacitors (low
energy/high power density) and Li-metal batteries (high energy,
but short life) are being investigated by DOE.
Applicability to Plug-in Hybrids
Analysis and testing with NiMH batteries in current
production hybrid vehicle configurations indicates the
potential for high fuel economy, but their service life with a
plug-in vehicle duty cycle (including deep discharge cycles) is
unknown.
Li-ion batteries could perform better than NiMH in
plug-ins due to their higher specific energy and power. In
addition, they are potentially less expensive and could last
longer, but similar to NiMH, their service life with deep
discharge cycles has not been demonstrated.
Technical Gaps
Cost of Li-ion batteries must be reduced by 50-75
percent; cost drivers (raw materials and processing, cell and
module packaging) are being addressed.
Life with combined deep/shallow cycling as in plug-in
hybrid vehicle use needs to be determined for all batteries;
15-year calendar life target not demonstrated.
Safety--Li-ion batteries are not intrinsically
tolerant of abusive conditions (short circuits, overcharge,
over-discharge, crush or exposure to fire) and currently
require mechanical and electronic devices for protection;
implications of plug-in recharging remain to be determined.
Low-temperature operation of Li-ion batteries needs
to address poor discharge characteristics and failure modes
during charge.
Key Questions
1. What is required of the battery to support plug-in hybrids?
What is the optimum power-energy ratio?
What is the allowable weight and volume?
What are the trade-offs among service life, deep and
shallow cycling?
Can available batteries be utilized in near-term plug-in
hybrids?
Is dual energy/power storage applicable (e.g., battery +
super capacitor)?
Could plug-in batteries be modularized to provide broader
cost benefit to the consumer?
2. How should plug-in hybrid batteries be bench tested?
What cycling profiles match potential vehicle
architectures?
Will daily cycles (with overnight and/or opportunity
charging) be incorporated into the test regime?
Is accurate determination of state-of-charge (SOC)
complicated by a plug-in hybrid duty cycle?
Electric Motors and Power Electronics
Current Status
Electric drive motors and power electronics currently
in production hybrid vehicles are designed for intermittent
operation, i.e., sized for the power requirements, duty cycle
and thermal loads to assist the engine during peak demands,
convert braking energy, charge the battery and, in some cases,
provide low speed driving.
Drive motors/generators are typically optimized for
and integrated within the drivetrain. Typical drive motors in
production hybrids are rated at about 50 kW ( 1500 rpm) and the
latest introductions are up to 100 kW ( 4500 rpm)--both about
half the maximum power of their respective propulsion systems.
``Upgrading'' these systems for electric-only operation, i.e.,
increasing the peak and average power and thermal loads, is not
likely due to the packaging and thermal limitations.
Power electronics are designed to match the
characteristics of the energy storage subsystem and the drive
motor. Batteries are nominally 200-250V, with power electronics
operating at 500-600V max (using a boost converter) to decrease
the current and associated losses. Consequently, the power
semi-conductors are rated at about twice that voltage.
Applicability to Plug-in Hybrids
Several powertrain architectures are being considered
for plug-in hybrids. The power-assist configuration with a
modified control strategy to allow battery depletion would have
the least impact on the motor and power electronics. The
architecture presenting the greatest challenges is the dual-
mode with equal performance in both modes. Current production
hybrid motors and power electronics--optimized for intermittent
use and supplying about half the max power--cannot operate in a
continuous electric-only mode with full performance due to the
inherent power and thermal limitations.
Technical Gaps
Motor power must be increased (perhaps doubled) for
continuous operation in full-performance dual-mode vehicles,
which could require further increases in maximum motor speed
and constant power speed range.
Power electronics must be resized (or redesigned) to
allow higher continuous ratings, putting pressure on packaging
and efficiency. Voltage may have to increase to 800V or more
and the associated silicon devices may need to be rated at
1440V to 1700V.
Thermal management issues are exacerbated because the
electric drive duty cycle is a larger fraction of vehicle
propulsion. Electrolytic capacitors may have to be replaced
with film capacitors--more expensive, but more tolerant of
higher temperatures. Liquid cooling may be required.
Key Questions
1. Are motor and/or power electronics issues unique to plug-
ins?
What types of motors are best suited to various plug-in
hybrid configurations, and how do they differ from conventional
HEVs and fuel cell vehicles?
What motor R&D is most needed to realize commercially
viable plug-in hybrid systems?
2. What are the thermal system requirements (heat rejection,
component and subsystem sizing, coolant temperatures, etc.) for
motor and power electronics in plug-in hybrids?
3. What are the implications of dual energy storage (e.g.,
battery + super capacitor), including the performance
degradation of each at low ambient temperatures?
Recharging Infrastructure
Current Status
Nearly all houses are equipped with 110VAC/15A
circuits throughout, capable of supplying up to 10 kWh in a
six-hour period.
Modern houses have 220VAC/20A circuits (capable of
supplying up to 26 kWh in six hours) for hard-wired appliances
such as the range or water heater.
Not all residences are single family homes with a
garage or carport.
Applicability to Plug-in Hybrids
Examples: A 110VAC outlet could recharge a vehicle
with a 15-20 mile range and a 220VAC outlet could support a
vehicle with a 40-50 mile range (assuming energy consumption of
500Wh/mi and an 85 percent efficient six-hour charge for both).
Technical Gaps
The most efficient nighttime charging (from the
utility perspective) will require a communication link with the
vehicle to control the charge time and the power available, in
addition to metering (if preferential pricing for vehicles is
offered).
Appropriate circuits in convenient vehicle charging
locations (e.g., garages, parking lots and structures)--220VAC
for longer electric ranges.
Key Questions
1. What changes to customers' electrical systems are required
to recharge?
What is a reasonable amount of time to charge?
Should there be a standard interface (for power,
communication and control)?
What is the impact of more than one vehicle per customer/
residence?
How many customers can take advantage of a plug-in hybrid
(due to parking location)?
What is the impact on local substations as well as the
utility in general?
2. How would plug-in hybrids impact/benefit the utility?
How many plug-in hybrids can a utility support?
How difficult is communication with and controlled charging
of plug-in hybrids?
What benefits can be realized from plug-ins returning
energy to the grid?
How many vehicles are necessary and/or desirable for the
utility to implement distribution system modifications?
Would plug-in hybrids affect grid quality? If so, how
important is this and how costly might a fix be?
Electric Power Plant
Current Status
Present power plants are fueled by a variety of fuels across the
country:
Natural gas--clean and efficient, but no longer
thought to be abundant in the United States.
Coal--Abundant, but present technology (with the
exception of integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) ) is
not considered the clean alternative; DOE is undertaking
CO2 sequestration R&D in the FutureGen Initiative.
Nuclear--Present capacity operating at very high load
factors.
Wind--Turbines produce more power at night when
vehicle battery charging needed most; regionally variable and
limited supply but relatively cheap to install.
Solar--Photovoltaic arrays not competitive except in
areas not served by the grid.
Applicability to Plug-in Hybrids
Nuclear--Unlikely spare capacity would be used in the
near-term due to high load factor, load leveling with plug-ins
might enhance economic viability in the future.
Wind--Should benefit from plug-ins, which can match
supply and demand, minimizing the initial impact on existing
utilities.
Solar--Mismatch with overnight charging, but perhaps
long-term source (i.e., central or distributed arrays at
business locations) for opportunity charging.
Key Questions
1. What are the regional impacts and benefits of plug-in
hybrids?
Where is the extra capacity to charge plug-in hybrids, when
is it available and is there fuel to support it?
Does this change in the long-term?
Could additional demand for plug-in hybrids be met with
additional capacity planned for normal demand growth?
What is the impact of variation in electricity cost and
price?
How would local and total emissions/air quality be affected
by plug-in hybrids?
2. Can renewable sources play a significant role?
Is there an adequate match of producers (e.g., wind farms)
and vehicles in a region to make this a viable entry strategy
or a long-term option?
3. How important are the `emergency provisions' of a plug-in
hybrid to the value proposition (considering the customer and
utility)?
What is the value of the grid connection in an oil
shortage?
What is the value of the auxiliary power capability in a
power outage?
How would use in an emergency situation affect grid
operations or power quality?
To what extent would fixing power quality issues raise
technology cost?