Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Consumer vehicle data”

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.

78 records · Page 5

A Comprehensive Approach to Measure the Mobility Energy Productivity of Freight Transport: Preprint

Freight travel accounts for a major share of the energy consumed in the transportation sector in any country, and the United States is no exception. Understanding and modeling freight movement are critical, particularly in the context of capturing the impact of emerging technologies on freight travel and its externalities. The domain of freight modeling and forecasting is gaining pace in the recent years, but advancement in comprehensive freight performance metrics is still lagging. Conventional freight performance metrics such as truck-miles, ton-miles, or value-miles are unidimensional and aggregate in nature, making them unsuitable to accurately capture the impact of emerging transportation trends on the performance or productivity of freight systems. Addressing the research need, this paper presents the “Freight Mobility Energy Productivity” metric to quantify freight productivity of current as well as future freight systems, accounting for various costs associated with freight transport. The proposed metric was implemented using data from the Freight Analysis Framework along with other published sources, which shows intuitive results in quantifying freight productivity. Further, a scenario analysis exercise was conducted to test the capability of the metric in tracking improvements in system-level freight productivity as a result of vehicle electrification. The relative differences in Freight Mobility Energy Productivity scores help identify which zones benefit from the vehicle powertrain technology improvement. The results of the scenario analysis reinforce confidence that the proposed metric can be used as a decision support tool in assessing the productivity of existing as well as future freight trends and technologies.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

EV Charging Infrastructure Energization An Overview of Approaches for Simplifying and Accelerating Timelines to Processing EV Charging Load Service Requests

The United States has seen significant growth in electric vehicle (EV) adoption, leading to increased demand for EV charging infrastructure. Over the past decade, EV charging infrastructure site developers, site hosts, and electric distribution utilities have navigated the process to integrate chargers onto the electric grid. Site developers and site hosts have raised the alarm that the integration process for high-powered EV charging projects does not meet the needs of the EV market for timeliness or cost. High-powered charging stations typically require a load service request or an agreement with the local utility to connect to the grid. The process of energizing a new high-powered charging site can be complex and time-consuming, often taking up to 2 years. This timeline is the result of current utility energization processes having been designed for construction projects that take longer to build (i.e., buildings). The specific challenges stem from various factors, including compartmentalization in application processes, the integration of EV charging process approvals with other distributed energy resources (DERs), and the need to ensure grid reliability. The energization process needs to evolve to meet the growing demand for high-powered EV charging. This white paper compiles information gathered through various conversations with key stakeholders, including utilities, utility regulators, EV charging operators, site developers, and authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) as well as through an extensive literature review. This document identifies the challenges and provides potential solutions to streamline the process of connecting EV charging infrastructure to the power grid in the United States, serving as a starting point for future conversations around these solutions. The solutions noted in this white paper require collaborative efforts among utilities, regulators, and EV charging infrastructure developers to streamline the grid connection process for EV charging infrastructure. They are broadly organized into four areas: 1. Increase data access and transparency: Develop automated load service request tools, integrate hosting capacity and load service request analyses, incorporate EV adoption forecasts, and provide transparency on the processing queue. 2. Improve energization processes and timing: Create fast-track options based on prescreening criteria, provide flexibility or phased approvals in the load service request/interconnection process, build internal knowledge within utilities about EV charging technologies, and provide standardized workforce training. 3. Promote economic efficiency: Right size distribution components to accurately reflect the load requirements of EV charging infrastructure, make proactive investments in grid infrastructure based on EV adoption forecasts and growth projections, and consider energy equity and environmental justice factors such as equitable access to EV charging when planning infrastructure. 4. Improve grid reliability and resilience: Use load management/power control systems (PCS) at EV charging stations, adopt and implement harmonized standards for communication protocols and information models between the EV charging and grid control infrastructure, and address cybersecurity considerations by implementing robust security measures and standards for EV charging infrastructure—with particular emphasis on clarifying the security requirements for the interface to the grid. The objective of the solutions proposed in this white paper is to accelerate the timeline and decrease costs associated with connecting EV charging infrastructure to the grid. Electric utilities, utility regulators, EV charging infrastructure developers, and site hosts will first need to understand which solutions are available in their service territory, and if warranted, which combination of solutions would support their specific needs. Through the successful implementations of solutions at scale detailed here, industry will demonstrate a new and innovative ecosystem where timely deployment and energization of EV charging infrastructure with greater grid resiliency and reliability is a reality.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains

In order to accurately compare the costs of two vehicles, the total cost of ownership (TCO) should consist of all costs related to both purchasing and operating the vehicle. This TCO analysis builds on previous work to provide a comprehensive perspective of all relevant vehicle costs of ownership. In this report, we present what we believe to be the most comprehensive explicit financial analysis of the costs that will be incurred by a vehicle owner. This study considers vehicle cost and depreciation, financing, fuel costs, insurance costs, maintenance and repair costs, taxes and fees, and other operational costs to formulate a holistic total cost of ownership and operation of multiple different vehicles. For each of these cost parameters that together constitute a comprehensive TCO, extensive literature review and data analysis were performed to find representative values in order to build a holistic TCO for vehicles of all size classes. The light- and heavy-duty vehicles selected for analysis in this report are representative of those that are on the road today and expected to be available in the future. Important additive analyses in this study include systematic analysis of vehicle depreciation, in-depth examination of insurance premium costs, comprehensive maintenance and repair estimates, analysis of all relevant taxes and fees, and considerations of specific costs applicable to commercial vehicles. We find that cars depreciate faster than light trucks and that older plug-in electric vehicles have a greater depreciation rate than newer electric vehicles. Light-duty vehicle (LDV) insurance costs show comparable costs for different powertrains, and lower costs for larger size classes. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicle (MHDV) insurance costs vary significantly by vocation. Electric and electrified powertrains have lower maintenance and repair costs than internal combustion engine (ICE) powertrains for all vehicle sizes, relative to vehicle price. MHDV maintenance and repair costs depend heavily on vocation and duty cycle. LDV taxes and fees are comparable across powertrain types and size classes, though marginally higher registration fees exist for alternative fuel vehicles. MHDV fees depend on the vocation, weight rating, and state. Many electric tractor trailers would be affected by additional battery weight, reducing the available payload capacity, and this cost can be substantial. Electric vehicle charging for commercial vehicles can be time-consuming; labor rates can cause this cost to dominate TCO. With improved knowledge of each of the cost components, we calculate a lifetime TCO for comparison across vehicles of different types and attributes. For a simulated small sport utility vehicle in 2025, modeled using Autonomie, the hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) has the lowest cost, followed by the conventional ICE vehicle. For MHDV, TCO can be drastically different depending on the vocation. Long-haul vehicles typically have the lowest per-mile costs. Excluding labor costs, the class 4 delivery has a comparable TCO to the day cab. Vocational trucks, refuse trucks, and transit buses have a high per-mile cost of ownership due to maintenance and insurance. For all of these vehicles, the cost of operating the vehicle is heavily weighted by the labor of the driver, followed by the fuel costs. While the HEV begins as the lowest cost powertrain for passenger vehicles, fuel cells are forecast to reach cost parity by 2030 when hydrogen prices reach $\$ 5$/kg while battery electric vehicles (BEV) reach cost parity by 2035 at a battery cost of $\$ 98$ per usable kWh of capacity, with these two technologies being the lowest cost in 2050. For the class 8 day cab tractor, the HEV and ICE vehicle begin as the lowest cost powertrains, and the 250-mile BEV reduces in cost from the most expensive to the least expensive by 2030.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Battery Energy Storage Scenario Analyses Using the Lithium-Ion Battery Resource Assessment (LIBRA) Model

Meeting aggressive carbon emission goals will entail widespread deployment of renewable sources of electricity. Because these sources are variable, there is a need to develop scalable energy storage technologies. The U.S. Department of Energy is supporting efforts to increase U.S. manufacturing and recycling capabilities for LIBs and to decrease costs of stationary storage batteries. Many factors influence the domestic manufacturing and cost of stationary storage batteries, including availability of critical raw materials (lithium, cobalt, and nickel), competition from various demand sectors (consumer electronics, vehicles, and battery energy storage), resource recovery (recycling), government policies, and learning in the industry, among other factors. Understanding how these factors interact and identifying synergies and bottlenecks is important for developing effective strategies for the LIB stationary energy storage system. We developed the Lithium-Ion Battery Resource Analysis (LIBRA) model as a tool to help stakeholders better understand the following types of questions: What are the roles of R&D, industrial learning, and scaling of demand in lowering the cost of battery energy storage system production? How do the intersections between the EV and stationary storage sectors affect the battery supply chain? For various stationary storage and EV penetration scenarios, what volumes of critical materials might be required and what role can resource recovery play? What does expected demand for both EVs and stationary storage portend for mineral resources and overall mineral scarcity? The LIBRA model is developed using a System dynamics (SD) modeling approach to represent interactions across the segments of the battery materials supply chain. System dynamics models can capture the complex interactions and feedback between the various system components that influence supply and demand. The LIBRA model is comprised of several interacting modules that represent specific portions of the LIB supply chain. The model tracks the buildout of the domestic LIB industry over time (2020 - 2050) and in the context of competing demands for raw materials, recycling, and markets for LIBs. The LIBRA model represents major systemic feedback loops and delays across the supply chain. This report provides a complete documentation for the LIBRA model, including model assumptions, data, scenario analysis results, and sensitivity analysis of the model's input space.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

Advancing Grid Resilience through Smart Charge Management: Findings from Maryland’s Pilot

This report presents research findings from a four-year Smart Charge Management (SCM) pilot program conducted by Maryland’s largest electric utilities—Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Potomac Electric Power Company (Pepco), and Delmarva Power & Light (DPL)—to evaluate strategies for optimizing electric vehicle (EV) charging loads and enhancing grid stability. Supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Argonne National Laboratory collaborated with all project partners and examined the effectiveness of Time-of-Use (TOU) and Load Balancing (LB) strategies in managing peak demand, deferring costly infrastructure upgrades, and reducing grid constraints at the feeder level. Using charging data from over 4,600 EV drivers, the study analyzed SCM’s impact on the distribution systems of BGE and Pepco, which consists of over 2000 feeders. Unlike prior research that focused on system-wide trends or synthetic feeders, this analysis offers granular, feeder-level insights based on real-world operational data. It highlights how transformer density, load profiles, and infrastructure constraints influence smart charging performance. Results show feeder-level conditions play a crucial role in SCM effectiveness, with most feeders benefiting more from LB, while TOU-based SCM may be sufficient for others. By 2035, LB reduced peak charging loads by 27% on average, compared to 23% under TOU-based SCM, though some feeders saw reductions exceeding 35%, while others experienced minimal impact. Feeders with higher transformer utilization and limited capacity benefited more from LB, which more effectively distributed charging demand during off-peak hours. Beyond reducing grid constraints, SCM offers long-term operational and financial benefits. By shifting EV charging demand strategically, utilities can optimize asset utilization, delay infrastructure investments, and enhance grid performance. In terms of infrastructure upgrade deferrals, at the feeder level, LB consistently reduced peak charging loads and resulting infrastructure upgrade costs, particularly in high EV enrollment areas, decreasing the number of overloaded transformers by up to 35%, while TOU-based SCM achieved 20-30% reductions depending on feeder characteristics. At the system level, LB has the potential to defer total upgrade costs by $\$$186 million for BGE, compared to $\$$159 million under TOU-based SCM. For Pepco, TOU-based SCM performed slightly better, deferring upgrade costs by $\$$30 million, compared to $\$$29 million under LB. Section 4.5 reviews some of the system differences between BGE and Pepco. However, as EV adoption scales, TOU-based SCM will introduce secondary peak charging loads, reinforcing the need for more advanced, adaptive SCM approaches to prevent new grid challenges. As EV adoption continues to grow, feeder-level managed charging strategies will be essential for mitigating grid stress, improving infrastructure efficiency, and maintaining energy affordability for consumers. This report provides critical insights for utilities, Public Utility Commissions (PUCs), and state agencies on the role of feeder-specific smart charging in infrastructure planning, policy development, and grid modernization. The findings underscore the importance of tailored, data-driven SCM solutions that align with local grid conditions, ensuring a resilient, cost-effective transition to increasing EV adoption while safeguarding distribution system performance.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Laboratory-Scale Coal-Derived Graphene Process (Final Report)

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) conducted a laboratory-scale coal-derived graphene (CDG) project focused on developing a technological process for making graphene from four U.S. domestic coal or coal wastes, including lignite from North Dakota, subbituminous coal from Wyoming, bituminous coal from Utah, and anthracite from Pennsylvania. The project was divided into two performance or budget periods (BPs), with BP1 comprising the up-front laboratory experiments to make graphene materials from coal beginning on May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2022. BP2 was conducted from May 1, 2022, to April 30, 2023, and was focused on analyzing the CDG process economic feasibility and the technical gaps for technological scale-up and commercialization. During this project, a few different coal-derived high-value products have been demonstrated, including graphite, graphene oxide (GO), reduced graphene oxide (rGO), and graphene quantum dots (GQDs). A new graphite microstructure was discovered and named “croissant graphite” because of the exterior morphological and textural resemblance to croissant food items sold in commercial groceries stores. The new graphite structure and the associated preparation from coal or coal waste feedstocks has been the subject of a U.S. patent application. The systematic experimental processes involving coal cleaning, upgrading, and conversion to high-value carbon products culminated into a developed upgraded coal-to-products (UCP) technology that is being pursued for potential fast-track commercialization, if funding is available. It is envisioned that commercialization of the UCP technology would increase consumption of U.S. domestic coals or coal wastes to make environmentally sustainable high-value products for the electronics industry, high-energy-storage applications, and clean energy technologies such as electric vehicle (EV) lithium-ion batteries (LIBs), for which graphite has become a critical mineral commodity. Croissant graphite microstructures, when observed by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), display wavy surface morphology and often grow from a base that is made of graphitized particles with honeycomb-like layers, which are believed to be graphene layers. While more studies are needed to fully ascertain the mechanisms of the croissant graphite microstructure formation, it is postulated that their growth may begin from curling of the graphene sheets into ribbon-like structures, and continuous growth and densification of the ribbon-like structures forms croissant microstructures. Additional studies are ongoing to evaluate the electrochemical performance of croissant graphite for LIB applications and to determine the experimental conditions necessary to tune on/off croissant formation so that it can be either optimized or suppressed depending on performance evaluation results. In addition to the discovery of croissant graphite, the graphitization process from the four coal ranks in general was successful. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis showed that the degree of graphitization (DoG) ranged from 12% to 80% in an early sample set, and further optimization on lignite coal produces a DoG of about 92%, which was spectacular to see as lignite is the lowest-rank coal. Thus, it is expected that the graphitization performance for higher-rank coals will be similar or better when optimized as well. The coal-derived graphite was used to make GO and rGO. Analytical characterization, e.g., by methods such as Raman spectroscopy, XRD, Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and FESEM, showed that the sequence of converting the coal to graphite, exfoliating it to GO, and then chemically reducing the GO to rGO was successful. Although coal naturally contains aromatic compounds and some relatively small-sized condensed aromatic units, it does not contain graphene sheets. In the UCP process, the aromatic domains in the coals, particularly low-rank coals, are concentrated and condensed further into graphene sheets, which are ordered into a 3D stack during graphitization. The synthesized graphite is then unpacked by methods such as exfoliation to various graphene products. GQDs were synthesized from all four coal types, and their optical properties were demonstrated to be tunable by the coal precursor preprocessing treatments. In all four coal types, enhanced optical properties were observed for the produced GDQs with incremental improvements made to the coal precursors. GQDs produced from raw coal samples displayed lower ultraviolet–visible (UV–Vis) spectroscopy absorbance intensity compared to those obtained from cleaned and upgraded coal residues. The photoluminescence (PL) intensities also varied with pretreatment conditions and with the concentration of GQDs in aqueous solutions. GQDs obtained from anthracite show longer emission wavelengths and can be excited by visible light as opposed to GQDs derived from the other coal ranks. UV fluorescence 3D maps and spectra revealed that the emission wavelength at which the GQDs solutions display the highest intensity was slightly redshifted based on the coal precursor pretreatments. In low-rank coal (lignite and subbituminous) samples, two clusters were observed in the maps for GQDs, which may suggest that there are potentially two types of fluorophores in solution or two main size populations. The ability to tune the properties of GQDs based on processing methods can be exploited to make GQDs for various optical display or optoelectronics applications. The results also highlight the importance of removing coal-borne impurities to improve the quality of the coal precursor for preparation of graphene products. Coal and/or coal wastes preprocessing methods were developed and applied to clean and upgrade the coal precursors prior to graphitization and subsequent conversion to graphene products. The preprocessing methods involve high specific-gravity separations, mineral acid cleaning (no hydrofluoric acid), and subsequent upgrading by reducing the coal-borne heteroatom (nitrogen, sulfur, and oxygen) content using proprietary chemical agents. Analytical characterization revealed that the preprocessing steps were successful, with ash reductions that range from 38% to 80% and residual ash content that was below the 5 wt% initial target. Based on proximate and ultimate analysis, the heteroatom reduction reactions produced upgraded coal residues with the oxygen content reduced by 8% to 24%, with additional reductions in the nitrogen and sulfur contents. An initial assessment of the waste streams from the UCP process shows very small to negligible environmental impact due to CO 2 , NO x , and SO x because most process steps are performed under inert atmosphere with argon. Consequently, reactive oxygen environments that tend to create these species are avoided. The inorganic and potentially hazardous species are released into aqueous waste streams that are easy to handle for proper disposal. The liquid waste streams were found to contain low-level concentrations of rare-earth elements (REEs), which could be concentrated and recovered as value-added by-products. Additionally, the volatile and gaseous fractions from carbonization and heat treatment contain useful organic compounds that can also be recovered as potential valuable by-products. Thus, the UCP technology is considered an environmentally sustainable and promising emerging technology for making high-value products from coal and coal wastes, with potential additional value-added by-products. Analysis of potential markets for the coal-derived carbon products shows a strong demand in both niche market sectors and across a wide variety of other industrial sectors. Graphite is currently considered a critical mineral commodity that has a large and growing demand in the LIB industry for EV applications. Based on data from Fortune Business Insights (2022) and Marketwatch (2023) reports, the average global graphite market is projected to reach about 33 billion by 2028, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 7%, with much of this growth expected to be in the LIB industry. GO and rGO have strong market potentials in various application areas, such as coatings for anticorrosion, anti-icing, and antimicrobial protection, thermal barriers, wear resistance, sensors, additive manufacturing such as 3D inks, and others. GQDs are the emerging key player in the bioimaging, photovoltaics, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs) applications, with the potential to replace traditional semiconductor quantum dots (SQDs), which are based on metallic systems that are more toxic and more expensive. Biomedical applications of GQDs are becoming more attractive because of low to no toxicity and extremely low cost compared to SQDs. The major challenges for scale-up and commercialization of coal-derived carbon products such as graphene vary from the inherent attributes of graphene itself to reluctance to accept graphene in new manufacturing processes because of the uncertainty of the unknown. The 2D nature of graphene materials with a thickness of one atom presents significant challenges to proper handling/processing, and process scale-up becomes difficult because it requires high-end, expensive equipment, even for routine handling and analysis for quality assurance and control. Pristine graphene can also be extremely difficult to work into other matrices, thus hindering downstream processibility, especially at large scale. Currently, the cost of graphene and graphene products is still high and presents an economic risk that tends to slow down investment in scaling up emerging technologies. The lack of a standard for graphene materials for quality assurance and quality control poses a great challenge not only for the markets but also for commercialization efforts. A first-look economic feasibility analysis of the UCP technology provided valuable information that suggests the UCP process would be feasible, especially when it is scaled to a pilot scale and could be more competitive at the full scale. Graphitization was found to be the most energy-consuming and most capital-intensive step in the overall process. In small laboratory- and bench-scale experiments, labor is a significant contributor to the total process costs. Although these energy, capital, and labor constraints contribute to a higher selling price for the product, a preliminary economic model suggests that the process would be feasible at large scale when the process is fully integrated, optimized, and automated.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗