SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Electric-drive vehicles use electricity as their primary fuel or to improve the efficiency of conventional vehicle designs. With the range of styles and options available, there is likely one to meet your needs. Electric vehicles (EVs) include all-electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) helps federal agencies electrify their fleets and support the deployment of charging infrastructure. To assist agencies with the transition to zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), including battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), FEMP offers technical guidance on electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) installations and site-specific planning through on-site and virtual EVSE Tiger Teams.
Electric vehicles (EVs) use electricity as their primary fuel or to improve the efficiency of conventional vehicle designs. EVs include all-electric vehicles, also referred to as battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). In colloquial references, these vehicles are called electric cars, or simply EVs, even though some of these vehicles still use liquid fuels in conjunction with electricity. EVs are known for providing instant torque and a quiet driver experience. Other types of electric-drive vehicles not covered here include hybrid electric vehicles, which are powered by a conventional engine and an electric motor that uses energy stored in a battery that is charged by regenerative braking, not by plugging in, and fuel cell electric vehicles, which use a propulsion system similar to electric vehicles, where energy stored as hydrogen is converted to electricity by the fuel cell.
Plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), including battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), have been promoted globally for their emission reductions and energy conservation. In addition to financial incentives for PEVs in many countries (Stephens et al. 2018), emission and energy regulatory systems provide additional incentives for PEVs in the USA, Europe, and China (European Union 2014; Innovation Center for Energy and Transportation 2019; U.S. EPA and NHTSA 2012). These incentives, together with PEV technology advances and cost reductions, have caused PEV sales to grow exponentially in many countries and global regions; PEV stocks totaled more than 5 million by the end of 2018 (Fig. 1). The International Energy Agency (2019) projects that PEV sales will grow even more quickly through 2030 to reach a total global PEV stock of 130 million to 250 million.
Plug-in electric vehicles (PEV) appears to have sales momentum in major personal vehicle markets but are still at the early market stage. Opportunities to accelerate PEV adoption can be discovered through comprehensive total cost of ownership (TCO) analysis. Understanding the cost-effective electric ranges of PEVs for consumers, manufacturers, and the society is critical for any discussion of PEV mass markets. This study expanded the traditional TCO approach by (1) fully considering heterogeneous consumer driving patterns, (2) quantifying the charging inconvenience and range anxiety cost of battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), and (3) monetizing both tangible and intangible PEV policies. Uncertainties were handled through Monte Carlo simulation. The results suggest that BEVs with an electric range of 250–350 km have the lowest TCO in cities with government-enacted purchase limitations, and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) have the lowest TCO in cities without purchase limitations, even when considering PEV subsidies. The lowest TCO for some consumer groups is obtained by BEVs with an electric range of 400–450 km, especially in northern China, where the weather is colder. The cost-effective all-electric range for BEVs in each city in 2025 will decrease due to improved battery performance in cold environments and an expanded charging infrastructure. Finally, based on TCO, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) are currently more suitable for drivers with a high average daily mileage or a large mileage variance. However, by 2025, BEVs with a long driving range may become a more cost-effective choice for these drivers.
Widespread vehicle electrification appears to be necessary to achieve timely and deep reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG) and pollutant emissions as well as petroleum use in the transportation sector. The lack of a sufficient refuelling infrastructure has defeated many past efforts to promote alternatives to petroleum fuels. The papers in this special issue on the “Role of Infrastructure to Enable and Support Electric Drive Vehicles” address the diverse challenges posed by a transition from fossil-fuelled internal combustion engine vehicles to vehicles powered by electric motors and the special role of refuelling/recharging infrastructure in this transition. Electric drive vehicles are herein considered to be plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). BEVs and FCEVs are also known as Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs) because their propulsion systems produce no tailpipe emissions.
Abstract This paper examines both mathematical formulation and practical implementation of an ecological adaptive cruise controller (ECO-ACC) with connected infrastructure. Human errors are typical sources of accidents in urban driving, which can be remedied by rigorous control theories. Designing an ECO-ACC is, therefore, a classical research problem to improve safety and energy efficiency. We add two main contributions to the literature. First, we propose a mathematical framework of an online ECO-ACC for plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). Second, we demonstrate ECO-ACC in a real world, which includes other human drivers and uncertain traffic signals on a 2.6 (km) length of the corridor with eight signalized intersections in Southern California. The demonstration results show, on average, 30.98% of energy efficiency improvement and 8.51% additional travel time.
This code was developed to calculate the levelized cost of light-duty electric vehicle (EV) charging (LCOC) for the paper "Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United States" by Borlaug et al.(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.05.013). The calculation takes inputs from a variety of publicly available data sources (e.g., utility tariffs from the Utility Rate Database; EV charging station locations from the Alternative Fuels Data Center; energy price forecasts from the Energy Information Administration) and produces the current LCOC, considering when, where, and how light-duty EVs are recharged. In addition, the lifetime fuel cost savings (LFCS) calculation estimates the discounted fuel cost savings for a new battery EV (BEV) or plug-in hybrid EV (PHEV) over a 15-year time horizon using state-level gasoline price and LCOC projections.
SF-26-016 The Battery Performance and Cost model (BatPaC) is a calculation method based on Microsoft Excel spreadsheets that has been developed at Argonne for estimating the performance and manufacturing cost of lithium-ion batteries for electric-drive vehicles including hybrid-electrics (HEV), plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) and pure electrics. BatPaC was first developed in 2007, was subsequently peer reviewed, and it has served Argonne researchers and the greater battery community in studying the impact of material properties on performance at the pack level. BatPaC has been updated and re-released multiple times since its original public release in 2011. This current version is BatPaC 6.0, which contains additional functionality needed to handle advances in automotive batteries, like the use of lithium metal and silicon anodes and the need to accommodate cell expansion and apply high levels of pressure.
The individual motorist dataset contains data and analysis of consumer electric vehicle (EV) ownership trends in rural Appalachian Ohio in comparison with statewide trends. The data span four years, from Q1 2020 to Q2 2023 (partial). They are sourced from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles registration records and contain detail on drivetrain type (battery-electric vehicle [BEV] or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle [PHEV]); specific vehicle make and model; and registration location at county, city, and ZIP code levels of spatial resolution. Registration data are analyzed at the county level against such indicators as median income, poverty status, urban-rural status, and density of public charging infrastructure. In addition to tabular data, a GIS shapefile with many analysis fields joined is included.
Abuse tests are designed to determine the safe operating limits of HEV\PHEV energy storage devices. Testing is intended to achieve certain worst-case scenarios to yield quantitative data on cell\module\pack response, allowing for failure mode determination and guiding developers toward improved materials and designs. Standard abuse tests with defined start and end conditions are performed on all devices to provide comparison between technologies. New tests and protocols are developed and evaluated to more closely simulate real-world failure conditions. While robust mechanical models for vehicles and vehicle components exist, there is a gap for mechanical modeling of EV batteries. The challenge with developing a mechanical model for a battery is the heterogeneous nature of the materials and components (polymers, metals, metal oxides, liquids). This year saw the stand up of a new drop tower tester capable of providing dynamic mechanical test results.
The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO) aim to develop sustainable, affordable and efficient technologies for transportation of goods and people. Translating investments in advanced transportation component technologies and powertrains to estimate vehicle-level fuel savings potential is critical for understanding DOE’s impact. In this work, we simulated technologies funded by VTO and HFTO for light duty vehicles. The simulations were performed across: Multiple powertrain configurations (i.e., conventional, power-split, extended-range electric vehicle, battery electric drive, and fuel-cell vehicles), Vehicle classes (i.e., compact car, midsize car, small sport utility vehicle [SUV], midsize SUV, and pickup trucks); and Fuels (i.e., gasoline, diesel, hydrogen, and battery electricity). These various technologies are assessed for six different timeframes: laboratory years 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2045. A delay of 5 years is assumed between laboratory year and model year (year technology is introduced into production). Finally, uncertainties are included for both technology performance and cost aspects by considering two cases: Low case, aligned with DOE technology manager estimates of expected original equipment manufacturer (OEM) improvements based on regulations, business as usual; and High case, aligned with aggressive technology advancements based on R&D targets developed through support by VTO & HFTO. These scenarios are not intended as predictions of future performances. The energy and cost impact of different technologies were estimated using Autonomie (www.autonomie.net), Argonne vehicle system simulation tool. Autonomie is a state-of-the-art vehicle system simulation tool used to assess the energy consumption, performance and cost of multiple advanced vehicle technologies across classes (from light to heavy duty), powertrains (from conventional to HEVs, FCEVs, PHEVs and BEVs), components and control strategies. Autonomie is packaged with a complete set of vehicle models for a wide range of vehicle classes, powertrain configurations and component technologies, including vehicle level and component level controls. These controls were developed and calibrated using dynamometer test data. Autonomie has been used to support a wide range of studies including analyzing various component technologies, sizing powertrains components for different vehicle requirements, comparing the benefits of powertrain configurations, optimizing both heuristic and route based vehicle energy control and predicting transportation energy use when paired with a traffic modeling tool such as POLARIS. This report documents the assumptions and estimates the vehicle-level energy consumption benefits and associated technology costs for the various types of light duty vehicles. All details of vehicle assumptions and simulation results are available in the spreadsheets accompanying this report.
Current inverter technologies used in electric vehicles (EVs) are bulky, heavy, and expensive. The performance of the inverter is also limited by the traditional Si-based semiconductor and packaging technology. These constraints are responsible for extra weight and volume in the vehicle that reduces the driving range along with usable space within the vehicle. Moreover, operating temperature restrictions, and boundaries on the inverter location within the vehicle drastically reduces the inverter performance. Thus an improved inverter design is required for next generation electric vehicles. The objective of this project was to research, develop and demonstrate a highly integrated WBG power module targeting the next generation of plugin hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). This power module needed to be functionally and mechanically optimized for General Motors (GM) traction inverter architecture. General Motors was the prime contractor, led the project, and oversaw the design, build, and test of the integrated power module. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VT) performed modeling and simulation tasks as well as power module design support. Monolith Semiconductor, Inc provided SiC dies and consulted on devices for the inverter. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) performed power module technology evaluations, design evaluations of interconnect options, and performed material analysis and cross-sectioning of die activities.
Abuse tests are designed to determine the safe operating limits of HEV\PHEV energy storage devices. Testing is intended to achieve certain worst-case scenarios to yield quantitative data on cell\module\pack response, allowing for failure mode determination and guiding developers toward improved materials and designs. Standard abuse tests with defined start and end conditions are performed on all devices to provide comparison between technologies. New tests and protocols are developed and evaluated to more closely simulate real world failure conditions. While robust mechanical models for vehicles and vehicle components exist, there is a gap for mechanical modeling of EV batteries. The challenge with developing a mechanical model for a battery is the heterogeneous nature of the materials and components (polymers, metals, metal oxides, liquids).
This study provides a comprehensive life cycle analysis (LCA), or cradle-to-grave (C2G) analysis, of the cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a variety of vehicle-fuel pathways, the levelized cost of driving (LCD) and cost of avoided GHG emissions. The C2G analysis assesses light duty midsize sedans and small sport utility vehicles (SUVs) across a variety of vehicle-fuel technology pathways, including conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), flexible hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs) with varying vehicle ranges, and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). Coming at a timely manner, given the marked increase, since 2016, in climate aspirations announced by governmental institutions and private firms both in the US and across the globe, this analysis builds on a previous comprehensive life cycle analysis, updating that study’s 2016 assumptions and methods (Elgowainy et al. 2016). These updates incorporate technological advances and changes in energy supply sources that have emerged during the intervening period. Utilizing these updated assumptions and methods, alongside more recent data, the present report accounts for a broader range of vehicle technologies and considers both current (2020) and expected future (2030-2035) conditions. Reflecting increased research interest in synthetic liquid fuels produced using renewable low-carbon electricity and CO 2 sources, electro-fuels (a.k.a. e-fuels) were added to the potential future fuel technologies that are evaluated. This study takes a “pathway” approach rather than a “scenario” approach; hence distinct, technically feasible, routes or sequences of processes starting with one or more feedstocks and ending with an intermediate or a final product are examined, not necessarily constrained by practical feedstock, economic, policy, and market considerations.
Under the umbrella of EERE’s Office of Sustainable Transportation, the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) and Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO) seek to develop sustainable, affordable, and efficient technologies for transportation of goods and people. Translating investments in advanced transportation component technologies and powertrains to estimate the potential for vehicle-level fuel savings is critical to understanding DOE’s impact and success in this mission For this study, Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) simulated technologies funded by VTO and HFTO for light-duty vehicles across the following: Powertrain configurations (conventional, power-split hybrid electric vehicle, extended-range electric vehicle, battery electric drive, and fuel-cell vehicles); Vehicle classes (compact car, mid-size car, small sport utility vehicle [SUV], mid-size SUV, and pickup truck); Fuels (gasoline, diesel, natural gas, hydrogen, and battery electricity). We assessed each technology for five different timeframes: laboratory years 2015 (reference), 2020, 2025, 2030, and 2045. We assumed a delay of 5 years between laboratory year and model year (i.e., the year the technology is introduced into production). Finally, we included uncertainties for both technology performance and cost by considering two cases (note that these cases are not intended as predictions of future performance): Low case , aligned with DOE technology manager estimates of expected original equipment manufacturer (OEM) improvements based on business as usual regulatory and market environments; High case , aligned with aggressive technology advancements based on research and development (R&D) targets developed through support by VTO and HFTO. We estimated the energy and cost impact of different technologies using Autonomie (Argonne undated), a state-of-the-art vehicle system simulation tool developed by Argonne and used to assess the energy consumption, performance, and cost of multiple advanced vehicle technologies. The tool comprises a complete set of vehicle models to assess impacts across a wide range of classes (from light- to heavy-duty), powertrain configurations (from conventional to hybrid electric vehicles [HEVs], fuel cell electric vehicles [FCEVs], plug-in hybrid electric vehicles [PHEVs], and battery electric vehicles [BEVs]), components, and control strategies, including vehicle-level and component-level controls developed and calibrated using dynamometer test data. Autonomie has been used to support a wide range of studies: analyzing various component technologies, sizing powertrain components to meet different vehicle requirements, comparing the benefits of powertrain configurations, optimizing both heuristic and route-based vehicle energy control, and predicting transportation energy use when paired with a traffic modeling tool such as POLARIS. This report documents the assumptions made and the vehicle-level energy consumption benefits and associated technology costs estimated for various types of light-duty vehicles. Details regarding vehicle assumptions and simulation results are available in the spreadsheets accompanying this report.
This study provides a comprehensive life cycle analysis (LCA), or cradle-to-grave (C2G) analysis, of the cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a variety of vehicle-fuel pathways, the levelized cost of driving (LCD) and cost of avoided GHG emissions. The C2G analysis assesses light duty midsize sedans and small sport utility vehicles (SUVs) across a variety of vehicle-fuel technology pathways, including conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), flexible hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs) with varying vehicle ranges, and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). In evaluating the vehicle-fuel combinations, this study considers both low-volume and high-volume “CURRENT TECHNOLOGY” cases (nominally 2020) and a high-volume “FUTURE TECHNOLOGY” lower-carbon case (nominally 2030–2035).
This document reports on a study conducted to estimate the cost of U.S-produced automotive battery packs for model years (MY) 2023 to 2035, using Argonne National Laboratory’s BatPaC tool. The costs were estimated by designing batteries for several classes of vehicles for four discrete model years (2023, 2026, 2030, and 2035), where a representative battery technology and material prices are selected based on information available today. Correlations were developed from the four discrete years to enable annual pack cost estimates as a function of pack size (kWh) and model year. A consolidated cost curve was then developed that includes battery size, technology by model year, and the anticipated sales volumes of each class of vehicles over the years. This cost curve estimates the volume-averaged, U.S.-manufactured battery pack cost of PHEVs and BEVs in the United States to be $\$140$/kWh for the model year 2023, which will reduce to $\$86$/kWh in MY2035. Applying tax credits from section 45X of the Inflation Reduction Act can further reduce the average pack cost to as low as $\$56$/kWh in MY2029. The report also includes several sensitivity studies that investigate the effect of pack production volume, material prices, fast charge requirements, and labor rates.