> TE Home
> About TE
> Contact Us
> Editorial Info
> IEEE-USA

10.07

Making PHEVs a Reality: Coverage of Plug-In Hybrids — Accelerating Progress 2007

By Patrick E. Meyer

Introduction & PHEV Basics

On 19 September 2007, experts from a vast array of industries and sectors converged on Washington, D.C., to discuss all aspects of one of the most promising technologies for the future of the American automobile industry. Individuals and groups from academia, government, industry, services, electric utilities and non-profit organizations came together in a day-long symposium to discuss plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV). The primary take-home message was this: plug-ins are coming. Whether federal or state governments choose to incentivize the vehicles or not, they are coming. Sure, government incentives to invest in, develop and purchase the vehicles will ease the process of taking the technology to the mainstream, and allow the technology diffusion to occur sooner rather than later — but even without such incentives, our children and especially our children’s children will be plugging their vehicle into a wall outlet each night before they go to bed.

Even a passing glance at the Omni Shoreham Hotel on 19 September would have elicited a pause. Something wasn’t right. Where taxi cabs, shuttle buses and VIPs would normally park, instead were a procession of what appeared to be hybrid electric vehicles. While the line-up of a half-dozen or so hybrid electric vehicles is a rarity in itself, these vehicles were particularly rare — and particularly important for the future of the nation’s energy and transportation sectors. These were PHEVs — a selection of the relatively tiny handful of such vehicles in existence today.

A plug-in hybrid vehicle, according to the California Cars Initiative (CalCars), is essentially a regular hybrid with an extension cord. You can fill it up at a gas station, and you can plug it into any 120-volt outlet. CalCars explains that a PHEV operates as if it has a second fuel tank that you always use first — you fill that one up at home, from a regular outlet. When you plug the vehicle in, the electricity from the wall outlet recharges onboard batteries. The most outstanding benefit of PHEV technology is that most vehicles developed so far are able to drive in an electric-only mode for fifty miles or more. This means that your average daily commuter — who commutes about 40 miles each day — will never use gasoline [1]. Thus, the vehicle would not produce any tailpipe emissions — an incredible environmental advantage. Even in longer trips, as reported by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, a PHEV with only a 60-mile range could cut gasoline consumption by about two-thirds [2].

As of September 2007, PHEV passenger vehicles were not yet in production. However, a number of automobile manufacturers such as Toyota, General Motors and Ford have announced their intent to produce PHEVs within the next few years. Some automobile industry analysts anticipate an all-out production war between the largest car manufactures in the world [3]. Many PHEV advocates push for such a battle, but the question remains: how does the PHEV industry bring the technology to the point where it would even stand a fighting chance against the reigning conventional gasoline vehicle paradigm? In other words, what can PHEV industry representatives do to create a boom in their own industry? One of the primary purposes of Accelerating Progress 2007 was to answer this exact question.

Plug-in Hybrids: Accelerating Progress 2007

An array of entities, including IEEE-USA and various IEEE societies (Power Electronics, Computational, Vehicular Technology, Industry Applications, Power Engineering, and Social Implications of Technology), along with the Electric Vehicle Association of Greater Washington, D.C., the Set America Free Coalition, and the Electric Drive Transportation Association sponsored Plug-in Hybrids: Accelerating Progress 2007. Such an array of sponsors attracted an equally diverse array of attendees. Attendees included representatives of the U.S. Senate, academia, the automotive industry, the electric battery industry, electric utilities, and the transportation research realm, among many others. The day consisted of a series of stimulating panels and discussions covering topics from PHEV fuel economy, to environmental implications, to the impact on the electric grid, to the challenges and opportunities facing development and mainstream deployment, to the role of government policy in promoting and guiding the industry.

Electrification, Fuel Economy and the Environment

Accelerating Progress 2007 was divided into four panels, each tackling some of the most pressing issues facing the PHEV industry's development. The first panel, entitled Electrification, Fuel Economy and the Environment covered a wide range of introductory topics. Don Hillebrand, Director of the Center for Transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory, began the day with a fitting question: “Why PHEVs in the first place?” He identified two major reasons for the emergence and discussion surrounding the PHEV phenomenon. First, President Bush’s 2006 Advanced Energy Initiative identified PHEVs as one of three major future transportation technologies in need of greater investments and progressive policy (the other two being cellulosic ethanol and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles). Second, Hillebrand pointed out, the major push in the transportation sector today is not necessarily to promote energy conservation, but to reduce petroleum consumption. Indeed, the widespread usage of PHEVs may not decrease net energy consumption, but will certainly reduce the consumption of petroleum. These two factors paved the way for the recent buzz surrounding PHEV technology — and they served as building blocks of the Accelerating Progress 2007 symposium.

Equally as important as the “why PHEVs” discussion is Hillebrand’s next topic: What can kill the PHEVs? He identified bad standards, bad regulation, bad legislation, over-hyping, and hasty product development as factors that could lead to an overshoot-and-collapse situation, possibly destroying the industry before it even gets off the ground. Hillebrand presented a formula that would end up being repeated by others throughout the day: Hype = Talk ÷ Action. The larger “Talk” gets, the larger “Hype” gets, with no guarantee of any change in “Action.” Regarding regulation, Hillebrand stated: “We have to make sure we don’t regulate them out of existence before they even start” — a powerful take-home message.

Luke Tonachel, of the Natural Resources Defense Council, began his presentation with a bold, yet increasingly popular message: “Global warming is the most pressing environmental issue of our time.” Empirical data and a growing body of literature seem to back up the statement. Regardless of where you stand on the global warming issue, few would argue against the wisdom of reducing greenhouse gas emissions produced by automobiles. The EPA has reported that transportation is the fastest-growing source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and the largest end-use source of CO₂ [4]. Tonachel identified three solutions for the current transportation dilemma: (1) increase the fuel economy of vehicles; (2) produce more low-emission vehicles; and (3) switch vehicle fleets to clean fuels. But in any of these three options, he argued, one must base their decision on what the “ultimate” environmental impact will be. Ultimate impact can be determined through total fuel cycle — or “well-to-wheels” — analysis. Tonachel asserts that a PHEV, measured on a fuel cycle basis, actually produces 11 percent greater emissions compared to a traditional hybrid if traditional coal is used to produce the electricity. However, Tonachel remains convinced that there are environmental benefits for PHEVs; the magnitude of potential benefits is strictly dependent on the source of the electricity used to recharge the vehicles.

Herman Wiegman from the GE Global Research Center began by pointing out that although GE has been working with PHEV technology for a long time, only recently has there been a real demand to pursue the technology. Due to the emergence of a “green trend,” PHEVs are actually becoming a viable transportation option. But, what are people actually willing to pay for a PHEV? Wiegman pointed out that any vehicle with a $10- to $15-thousand-dollar surcharge (as is the case with some prototype PHEVs) is simply off the willingness-to-pay graph. Efforts must be made, said Wiegman, to reduce PHEV prices if the technology has any hope of going mainstream. But even more importantly, he argued, analysis must be done on how to make PHEVs affordable after incentive periods. PHEV introduction will almost certainly be accompanied by some initial incentivization — but how do we make the PHEVs catch on once these incentives dry up?

Plug-in Vehicles and the Electric Grid

The second panel of the day, Plug-in Vehicles and the Electric Grid, focused on technical issues associated with the act of plugging these vehicles into the electric grid. Richard DeBlasio, president of the IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee-21, addressed PHEV-electric systems integration. Stating that PHEVS are the “key to the future,” DeBlasio declared that it is now time for PHEV industry specialists to more strictly focus their efforts. Insisting that the industry must not “spend millions on the technology if you’re not sure you’re going to use it,” he proposed the creation of a PHEV “textbook” to serve as the foundation for the industry's next stage. Most importantly, DeBlasio pointed out that, ultimately, a technical specification for PHEV interconnection to the grid will be needed — and that the industry cannot progress without such a specification.

Mark Kapner, Senior Strategy Engineer at Austin Energy, raised a pressing question: “How many PHEVs can the power system accommodate without additional generating capacity?” Although he did not provide a direct answer, he stressed that one fact is concrete: PHEVs must only charge during off-peak hours. Kapner insisted that every PHEV coming off an assembly line must have an automatic function that prevents PHEVs from charging during peak hours. While limiting consumers' ability to charge their vehicle on their own schedule raises concerns, Kapner's point that the grid cannot accommodate millions of vehicles charging during peak hours is a crucial consideration.

Andrew Tang, of PG&E Corporation, countered that a PHEV can't have a device which limits the time of day during which a consumer is allowed to charge their vehicle. However, he agreed with Kapner's point that the grid cannot support millions of PHEVs recharging during peak hours. Tang suggested instead that charging schedules be determined by a financial scheme. A rather simple concept, charging a PHEV during peak hours would cost more and charging during non-peak hours would cost less. Consumers, he suggested, will react to price and will almost always recharge during less expensive periods. However, the financial scheme allows consumers to recharge during the middle of the day if, for whatever reason, they needed to do so. Tang argued that we don’t necessarily need to develop “smart charging” cars — what we need is to provide the right incentives to make consumers charge smartly.

Kapner also raised a new issue that had yet to be discussed: the question of distribution transformers. According to Kapner, transformers typically experience a “cool-off period” during non-peak hours. What happens if we entirely eliminate non-peak hours due to the high number of vehicles charging at night? If the transformers no longer have a cool-off period, will that affect transformer life and safety? Studies aimed at answering this issue have not yet been completed.

Alec Proudfoot, of Google, Inc., provided an overview of RechargeIT, a Google.org project. RechargeIT views PHEVs as a “near-term viable solution” but also as a “long-term solution part of a suite of solutions.” Indeed, Proudfoot believes that the future of the transportation sector will be a diverse combination of vehicle technologies and fuels. RechargeIT’s objectives focus more heavily on the near term. According to Proudfoot, the project’s objectives are to (1) demonstrate new technologies; (2) stimulate demand among consumers; and (3) engage relevant stakeholders. Their Web site accomplishes this objective by presenting PHEV test data in user-friendly graphs and logs and by providing PHEV information aimed at educating industry representatives and the public-at-large.

New Technology Challenges and Opportunities

The third panel, New Technology Challenges and Opportunities, focused primarily on technical issues with PHEVs and batteries. Ken Marko, from the Engineering Research & Development Center at ETAS (Bosch), opened by asking: “What new technologies are needed apart from batteries?” The implication is that there may be an overemphasis on overcoming hurdles associated with batteries, and not enough attention being paid to other technologies required to make widespread adoption of PHEV technology a reality. Despite Marko's foray into other technologies, the discussion wound its way back to batteries.

Ric Fulop, Founder and VP of Business Development at A123 Systems, argued that cost per watt hour is by far the most important metric for advanced batteries — and, in many cases, the cost is still too high on new technology. Still, the future of the battery industry looks good to Fulop. On the matter of mass-production of advanced batteries, Fulop contended that “the economies of scale we gain [in mass production] allow us to offer a product that is closer to the cost metrics that the automotive industry needs.”

Donald Sadoway, Professor of Materials Chemistry at MIT, provided at technical presentation based on the premise that “the road to success is paved with advanced materials.” For Sadoway, it is not about electrochemistry, but rather that progress must be made in advanced anodes, cathodes, electrolytes, and so on. Marko, Fulop and Sadoway all see PHEVs as a realizable technology, but they agree that considerable technical hurdles persist and must be overcome.

Philippe Gow, Vice President of Research, Development & Engineering at International Battery, Inc., pointed out that PHEVs are not a new technology — but they are in desperate need of new technological components. Gow posed the question: “Should [PHEVs] be done?” In terms of economics, environment, national interests, and so on, are PHEVs the route to pursue? Gow's answer is "yes." Using the example of a lithium ion battery, Gow insisted that the technology is efficient, effective, repeatable, usable under varied conditions, and safe. PHEVs, he claimed, made economic sense once gasoline reached $2.50 per gallon. Yet, many people now pay upwards of $3.00 per gallon. According to Gow, widespread development of PHEVs is long overdue.

Need for Federal Action Now

The fourth and final panel of the day, Need for Federal Action Now, focused on the federal government's role in guiding and promoting the PHEV industry. Providing an aggressive policy conversation, Anne Korin, Director of Policy and Strategic Planning at the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security, insisted that the government must be actively involved with PHEV development due to “time problems.” She explained that cars typically have a lifetime of more than 15 years. According to Korin, this timeline is highly problematic because the "world cannot wait 15 years for an alternative to gasoline to reach high levels of mainstream deployment." The government, she said, must be involved to provide the proper incentives to get the PHEV industry moving today.

Korin contends that legislation which promotes not only the development of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), but also widespread conversions to PHEV technology, must be crafted and pursued today. Converting existing gasoline and gasoline-hybrid vehicles to full-fledged PHEVs will assist in overcoming the time problem by filling the gap between today and when the OEMs are ready to be mass-produced. Furthermore, Korin called for a pro-market approach which utilizes tax credits and other incentives for both producers and consumers. She pointed out that although EPAct ’92 required that a certain percentage of vehicles be alternative-fuel vehicles, this legislation does not list hybrids or PHEVs as qualifying technologies. Korin called for a change, saying that PHEVs must be on that list. Moreover, Korin appealed for more transparent battery price reporting. She argued that companies who hold technology demonstrations need to publish price statistics and actually make vehicles and batteries at the published price. Lastly, Korin argued that the development of stationary applications of PHEV batteries would greatly increase economies of scale for the technology and thus such applications should be pursued simultaneously to automotive applications.

Criticisms

PHEV technology's negatives and criticisms are widely published, but were only mentioned in brief passing at the symposium. In a recent report, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) argued that in places like California, where electricity generation is comparatively low-carbon, a PHEV with a 40-mile range could cut CO₂ emissions by one third relative to a regular hybrid. However, in regions with coal-heavy electricity generation — which is a considerably more common mix — PHEVs would not reduce CO₂ emissions at all [2]. In fact, PHEVs charged in the Midwest, where coal-fired power plants supply the majority of electricity, not only would there be zero reduction of CO₂ but there would also be a four-fold increase in sulfur-dioxide emissions [5]. As another example, in a joint report, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) claimed that upon widespread deployment of PHEVs, some areas of the country will witness an increase in ozone levels, and emissions of particulate matter and mercury [6].

Other disadvantages of PHEVs include the added cost, weight, and durability of batteries, and, despite recent interest in PHEVs, the overall reluctance of car companies to truly invest. Furthermore, despite Korin’s excellent promotion policy aimed at PHEV conversions, consumers interested in converting their existing hybrid electric vehicle to a PHEV face significant barriers, including emissions certification, safety compliance, and loss of vehicle warranty [7].

Identifying criticisms and disadvantages of PHEVs is not meant to discourage PHEV development or investment. Instead, organizations who identify the negatives usually do so to provide identification of priority issues for research and development. Identifying these bottle-neck issues gives industry experts something to think about and work on.

Making PHEVs a Reality Today

If there is one take-home message from the symposium it is this: whether in ten years or fifty, PHEVs are coming. If the mainstream adopts the technology within the next two or five decades depends on a number of factors, including the price of the technology (both the batteries and the vehicles themselves); the development of standards for interconnecting with the electric grid (including a standardized recharging protocol); the development and availability of advanced materials; and the progressiveness of federal-level policy. Anne Korin’s discussion on policy options was particularly enlightening in that she identified numerous policy options that are needed to propel PHEVs into the mainstream. These policy options must be taken seriously; technological advances alone will not be enough to thrust PHEVs into the mainstream in the nearer timeframe.

Plug-in Hybrids: Accelerating Progress 2007 was a monumental event. The symposium was successful at bringing together representatives from all relevant sectors and industries from across the nation. However, as Hillebrand astutely identified, Hype = Talk ÷ Action. If all we’ve done here is talk, then the result will simply be an increase in hype. Yes, talk is important, but it must lead to action. Only action will make PHEVs a reality in the near-future.

References

1. "What are PHEV's?" in Team FATE (online blog), Davis, CA. [cited 29 September 2007], Available www.team-fate.net/wordpress/?page_id=11.

2. J. Kliesch and T. Langer, Plug-In Hybrids: an Environmental and Economic Performance Outlook, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 2006.

3. S. Terlep, "GM Races Ahead with Plug-in Car. 2007," The Detroit News: Auto Insider: Detroit, Mich., 29 Septmeber 2007. Available: www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070810/AUTO01/708100342/1148.

4. EPA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation and Other Mobile Sources, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 2 October 2007.

5. M. Clayton, "A Reality Check on Plug-in Hybrids," The Christian Science Monitor, 29 September 2007.

6. EPRI and NRDC, Environmental Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif.

7. EPA, State Clean Energy-Environment Technical Forum - Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [cited 29 September 2007]. Available from: www.keystone.org/spp/documents/03_15_07%20CEETF%20Call%20Summary%20PHEV.pdf.

Patrick E. Meyer is IEEE-USA Today's Engineer Students' Voice Editor, and a doctoral student at the University of Delaware. Comments may be submitted to todaysengineer@ieee.org. Opinions expressed are the author's.