You are browsing the archive for Other Topics, Transportation, Research & Analysis.

A 54.5 MPG Standard to Hit in 2025: Here Are Ten Ways to Improve Mileage

3:35 pm in Other Topics, Transportation, Research & Analysis by info@greentechmedia.com

The White House and the major automakers are on the verge of a deal that would raise the average fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, according to the Washington Post.

It's a definite jump. Right now, the fleet average mileage for new cars coming off the line is 28.3 MPG and will have to jump to 34.1 MPG by 2016. The White House had been shooting for an upper limit of 62 MPG by 2025 while the lower limit had been touted at around 42 MPG. Thus, the compromise figure of 54.5 MPG is toward the middle with a nudge to the high side.

So what will automakers do to get there?

1. Diesel. Diesel engines generally get better mileage than their gas counterparts and auto manufacturers have managed to cut down the particulate matter, SOx and NOx, that gave diesel a bad name in the '70s, '80s and '90s. Nearly half of all U.S. gas stations have diesel now too, Audi execs tell us. Both Audi and Volkswagen have seen tremendous pickup in diesel sales.

General Motors last week announced it would bring out a Chevy Cruze that gets 50 miles per gallon in 2013. Ford has diesel cars in Europe that can compete with that: the company might now be encouraged to bring them to the States. Volvo has a diesel hybrid coming. And think of all of the pickup trucks, those money spinners for U.S. automakers, that could go diesel.

2. Electrics and Plug-in Hybrids. 'Duh' is the word you are looking for. Consumers are still waiting in line to get Nissan Leafs and the Chevy Volt from GM. A Russian oligarch just rescued Think, the electric car maker from Norway, out of bankruptcy. Toyota, Ford, Volkswagen, Honda and other manufacturers all have electrics coming. Demand seems quite strong. The question is really what percentage of the overall car market electrics and plug-in hybrids will occupy. Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn has said electrics will constitute 10 percent of industry shipments by 2020 — 85 million cars will be sold and 8.5 million will be electric, he claims.

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk has said electrics could account for 12 percent or so of vehicle sales by 2020. Both Ghosn and Musk are advocates. Cynics put the figure in single digits. Cynics also warn of evaporating incentives. And range anxiety is real: just ask these stranded Nissan drivers.

Personal view: 10 percent seems very possible. Battery prices, the big sticking point, are declining. Many automakers also see it as a way to gain market share. Nissan transformed itself from a listing laggard in Japan to a technology leader. Mitsubishi, which comes out with the all-electric "i" for the U.S. in a few months, will sell it for $28,000. That's less than the Leaf. By 2018, Mitsubishi will have eight EVs on the market.

Perhaps more importantly, EVs are fun to drive. After you test drive one, you want one. They can be impractical, but so can SUVs and look how well they sold.

3. Regular Hybrids. Ford execs predict that 10 percent to 25 percent of their cars will be electrics, plug-ins or hybrids by 2020. But the vast majority will be regular hybrids.

4. Stop-Start. Also called microhybrids, these cars are like regular hybrids but they have very small electric motors that engage mostly to allow a car to get started quickly. With a micro, a gas engine can go to sleep at an intersection. General Motors recently announced a 2012 Buick LaCrosse that will come with its micro technology, which it calls eAssist. It will get 37 MPG on the highway. Yes, below the 2025 standard, but it's a start and will certainly help the fleet average coming from a particular manufacturer.

A microhybrid system can improve gas mileage by 6 percent to 10 percent, Dan Squiller, CEO of battery maker PowerGenix told us last year.

5. Waste Heat. We love waste here. It's America's untapped source of power. Approximately 50 percent of the energy purchased gets lost as waste heat, according to UC Berkeley. Engines are particularly attractive sources for waste heat: some estimate that 85 percent of the energy injected into engines gets wasted.

That heat can be captured, compressed and then exploited to run the air conditioning system. Panasonic has developed a waste heat AC system for cars: it is derived from a household AC unit. (See award-winning video here.) Tempronics, Phononic Devices and Alphabet Energy are also working on devices for converting waste heat into electricity. (Tempronics — like tempura with electronics — is particularly focused on cooling, as well.)

6. New Engines. Pinnacle Engines is working on an opposed-piston gas engine, while EcoMotors and Achates Power have opposed-piston diesels. Pinnacle says it can improve fuel consumption by 25 percent to 50 percent.

Opposed piston engines were used in aircraft in WW II, but have been refined and retrofitted now for cars. These engines also require fewer raw materials like steel.

So far, these companies have yet to penetrate major auto makers. The big names don't like to license outside technology and all three are licensing firms. Pinnacle and EcoMotors are working with companies in Asia, while Achates is targeting heavy truck makers. Still, with these new deadlines, the big automakers may begin to reach out. In any event, the technology may appear in the U.S. through another route: China. BYD, among other Asian manufacturers, hopes to expand to the U.S.

Expect also to see new, improved engines from the established players. Ford is expanding the number of models of cars it makes that will come with its touted EcoBoost engines. GM and Toyota have worked on HCCI engines for years. (Include Transonic Combustion in the startups-with-mileage-tech-to-license category.)

7. Plastics and Carbon. Weight. It's the third fuel. If you drop weight, mileage goes up. Aptera has struggled to bring a three-wheeled electric car to market. But one of the more impressive aspects of the car is the body. It is made from a durable, lightweight honeycombed material that is six times stronger than steel. CEO Paul Wilbur will give you $100 if you can dent it or scratch it. I couldn't.

Bright Automotive, a startup that spun out of the Rocky Mountain Institute, is working on light delivery trucks. GM is an investor. Non-metallic bodies can also be curved for great aerodynamics.

8. Hemp. Yes, George Washington grew it, but nearly every automaker is tinkering with ways to replace traditional car materials — aluminum, rubber, etc. — with sustainable ones like old plastic and hemp. Some of these should weigh less. Many of these materials should come to market quicker than new materials in auto bodies — Ford and others already exploit soy and other renewables — because they often don't have to serve a structural or safety purpose.

9. Wacky Transmissions. Fallbrook Technologies pulled its IPO earlier this year, but the invention, the NuVinci, is still intriguing: a highly variable transmission that relies on balls instead of gears. The company claims it can improve mileage by 12 percent to 15 percent. (See photo.)

10. Hydrogen. Honda and other automakers keep pushing out the deadline for hydrogen cars, and for good reason. Hydrogen is dirty to make, you can't transport it easily and the cars cost a ton of money. But hydrogen cars are incredible to drive — better than other all-electrics — and Honda and Mercedes continue to research the concept. Maybe by 2025? Class, discuss.

Guest Post: What’s the Best Plug-In Hybrid?

7:09 am in Other Topics, Transportation, Research & Analysis by info@greentechmedia.com

Editor's note: The debate over whether series or parallel architecture is best for plug-in hybrids will be waged in the marketplace. GM and Fisker sit on the series side; Ford and Toyota sit on the other. And EDI, a company founded by UC Davis professor Andy 'Father of the Plug-in' Frank, serves both markets. The question is further complicated by the fact that not many of these vehicles are on the roads. Here's an analysis from attorney and energy enthusiast Jason Jungreis on a matter that we hope to visit a number of times in 2011.

Let us suppose that, through a combination of forces including mileage or emissions requirements, fuel prices, and technology maturation, it becomes de rigueur for vehicle manufacturers to focus their energies on electric vehicles with extended range capacity (EV-ER): after all, such vehicles sooth range anxiety by carrying some energy-dense fuel instead of a huge number of heavy and expensive batteries. Manufacturers probably understand the EV side of the equation — sure, battery chemistry has ever-changing flavors, yet the configuration of the balance of the system (motor, controller, charger, management system, electric peripherals, etc.) are pretty well decided.

However, we don't have a known ideal extended range device to provide electricity and perhaps also motive power. What are manufacturers' options, and which is best?

Clearly, there are a variety of options, including: conventional gasoline ICE; diesel; HCCI; rotary; turbine; Stirling; two cycle; split intake and power stroke designs; ethanol fuel cell; and hydrogen fuel cell. Similarly, there are just as many factors to consider in determining the pros and cons of each model. Some considerations include: does it define whether the vehicle will have parallel or series hybrid architecture (i.e., is the range extender capable of moving the vehicle directly or can it only be used to produce electricity for the batteries/motor; manufacturing cost; fuel economy; fuel flexibility; size; weight; noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH); longevity/maintenance; usability in the full spectrum of real world conditions; and implications for battery pack size. Because there are so many elements to consider, let's compare each of these considerations.

The first critical decision is parallel versus series architecture. If a vehicle is to be used for driving long highway miles, then direct mechanical drive would seem an advantage: otherwise, you have to accept the Rube Goldberg machine-like process of taking mechanical motion, converting it into electricity, shunting that electricity through a controller, storing it in the battery, pulling it back out of the battery, pushing it back through the controller, and running it through the motor to once again get mechanical motion — and accept the loss of energy at each step.

Engineers might point out that this system allows the engine to run at optimally designed speed and load and therefore to be efficient enough to make up for these energy losses. Besides, using this approach, there is no need for a mechanical transmission. It also vitiates the need to engineer for all those annoying on-throttle / off-throttle / part-throttle situations, and as such, complex fuel management, NVH driveline lash, and a host of related issues are sidestepped. However, series design also requires a commitment to a large battery pack, with its attendant cost and weight issues.

But wait — there's more to consider: interestingly, through-the-road parallel does away with the need for two motors. This is clearly a point in its favor, along with providing 4-wheel-drive capability, to boot. Plus, a smaller drive motor can be used in parallel because the engine can help. This would be a clear point for parallel, if it wasn't for the fact that if the engine is an ICE and it only helps now and then, it can't heat up its catalytic converters and must now run inefficiently (d’oh!). Additional considerations include anticipation of improved batteries, which would slot nicely into series design; the lower top speed or need for a more expensive motor in series designs due to the motor's single-speed transmission; and the modularity of a series design that would enable more batteries to be used instead of an engine and broaden the variety of possible ways to extend range. This last point may be particularly convincing for manufacturers: one platform will enable both pure battery-electric vehicles and a choice of range extenders based upon fuel availability choices or technology advances.

GASOLINE
Parallel v. Series: either
Manufacturing Cost: medium (well known)
Fuel Efficiency: approx. 33%
Fuel Flexibility: gas or ethanol
Size: medium
Weight: medium
NVH: good
Longevity/Maintenance: complex but known
Real-World Usability: very good
Battery Size Needed: offers flexibility

DIESEL
Parallel v. Series: either
Manufacturing Cost: medium (well known)
Fuel Efficiency: approx. 40%
Fuel Flexibility: biodiesel
Size: medium
Weight: heavy
NVH: fair
Longevity/Maintenance: complex but known
Real-World Usability: very good
Battery Size Needed: offers flexibility

HCCI
Parallel v. Series: better in series
Manufacturing Cost: medium
Fuel Efficiency: approx. 40%
Fuel Flexibility: gas or ethanol
Size: medium
Weight: medium
NVH: good
Longevity/Maintenance: complex, less well-known
Real-World Usability: good
Battery Size Needed: may offer flexibility

ROTARY
Parallel v. Series: better in series
Manufacturing Cost: medium
Fuel Efficiency: approx. 30%
Fuel Flexibility: gas or ethanol
Size: small
Weight: light
NVH: very good
Longevity/Maintenance: complex, less well-known
Real-World Usability: very good
Battery Size Needed: may offer flexibility

TURBINE
Parallel v. Series: series only
Manufacturing Cost: medium high
Fuel Efficiency: approx. 30%
Fuel Flexibility: excellent
Size: medium
Weight: light
NVH: low vibration, high noise
Longevity/Maintenance: very good
Real-World Usability: good
Battery Size Needed: large pack

STIRLING
Parallel v. Series: series only
Manufacturing Cost: medium
Fuel Efficiency: approx. 50%
Fuel Flexibility: excellent
Size: large
Weight: medium
NVH: very good
Longevity/Maintenance: good
Real-World Usability: fair (slow to start, unclear how to incorporate)
Battery Size Needed: large pack

TWO CYCLE
Parallel v. Series: better in series
Manufacturing Cost: medium
Fuel Efficiency: approx. 40%
Fuel Flexibility: gas or ethanol
Size: small
Weight: light
NVH: good
Longevity/Maintenance: complex, less well known
Real-World Usability: good
Battery Size Needed: may offer flexibility

SPLIT STROKE
Parallel v. Series: better in series
Manufacturing Cost: medium
Fuel Efficiency: approx. 40%
Fuel Flexibility: gas or ethanol
Size: medium
Weight: medium
NVH: good
Longevity/Maintenance: complex, less well-known
Real-World Usability: good
Battery Size Needed: may offer flexibility

ETHANOL FUEL CELL
Parallel v. Series: series only
Manufacturing Cost: high
Fuel Efficiency: approx. 50%
Fuel Flexibility: ethanol only
Size: medium
Weight: light
NVH: excellent
Longevity/Maintenance: unknown, but should be excellent
Real-World Usability: unknown, but should be very good
Battery Size Needed: large pack

HYDROGEN FUEL CELL
Parallel v. Series: series only
Manufacturing Cost: very high
Fuel Efficiency: approx. 50%
Fuel Flexibility: hydrogen only
Size: medium
Weight: light
NVH: fair
Longevity/Maintenance: unknown, but should be excellent
Real-World Usability: unknown, but should be very good
Battery Size Needed: large pack

Once a series design has been chosen, and assuming there is reasonable exploration of range extenders, what do we think will win?

The data comparison demonstrates factors to consider: for instance, if the cost would come down, then direct ethanol fuel cells could be great — but they obviously require pure ethanol, which is simply not available and won't be available without a serious commitment. Similarly, Stirling engines could be great, but they're difficult to manage due to their slow light-up. Further, if they're used in series with large battery packs that will be primarily charged from the grid, does the high fuel efficiency matter that much? Turbines have similarly slow light-up, their noise is disconcerting, and they have lower efficiency. However, all of that may not matter if users are primarily grid-charging the pack, and they have the advantage of being able to burn any fuel. Trade-offs abound.

Purpose-designed series engines, such as Lotus' Omnivore two-cycle (http://www.lotuscars.com/news/en/omnivore-engine, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIG9pWldO8U), seem a good way to go: relatively conventional manufacturing processes, high efficiency, not too weird for existing technicians (we stopped calling them "garage mechanics" when they started charging more than any other blue-collar job you can name), and potentially small and light. But the engine is not really an omnivore, as it does not profess to be able to burn diesel (perhaps it could be designed to live up to its name, and then it could suffice for all possible users). There are a number of manufacturers, would-be manufacturers, and would-be developer-licensors that are each searching for the ideal conventional-but-better-but-not-too-weird engine design to fit this bill.

In the final analysis, manufacturers are going to have make decisions that will effect the planet's travelers, and while everyone wants to look smarter than the other guy and drive in the fast lane, no one wants to drive down a dead-end road. Therefore, given the comfort level that existing engineers have with internal combustion, I think it is likely that the future will be series hybrid architecture to satisfy mass manufacturing, marketing, and modularity concerns, with one or another version of a small, light, efficient, fuel-flexible, and semi-conventional range extender. Vive la difference — as long as it's not too different.