Advanced Automotive Technology - Princeton University.PDF

Advanced Automotive Technology - Princeton University.PDF -...

This preview shows page 1 out of 314 pages.

Unformatted text preview: Advanced Automotive Technology: Visions of a Super­Efficient Family Car September 1995 OTA­ETI­638 GPO stock #052­003­01440­8 Foreword T his report presents the results of the Office of Technology Assessment’s analysis of the prospects for developing automobiles that offer significant improvements in fuel economy and reduced emissions over the longer term (out to the year 2015). The congressional request for this study—from the House Committees on Commerce and on Science, and the Senate Committees on Energy and Natural Resources and on Governmental Affairs­asked OTA to exam­ ine the potential for dramatic increases in light­duty vehicle fuel economy through the use of “breakthrough” technologies, and to assess the federal role in advancing the development and commercialization of these technologies. The report examines the likely costs and performance of a range of technologies and vehicle types, and the U.S. and foreign research and development programs for these technologies and vehicles (to allow completion of this study before OTA closed its doors, issues such as infrastructure development and market develop­ ment­­­critical to the successful commercialization of advanced vehicles­were not covered). In particular, the report presents a baseline forecast of vehicle progress in a business­as­usual environment, and then projects the costs and performance of “advanced conventional” vehicles that retain conventional drivetrains (internal combustion engine plus transmission); electric vehicles: hybrid vehicles that com­ bine electric drivetrains with an engine or other power source; and fuel cell vehi­ cles. OTA has focused on mass­market vehicles, particularly on the mid­size family car with performance comparable to those available to consumers today. Based on our analysis, OTA is quite optimistic that very high levels of fuel economy­up to —are technically achievable by 2015; attaining these three times current averages levels at a commercially viable price will be a more difficult challenge, however. This report is the last in a series on light­duty vehicles that OTA has produced over the past five years. Previous topics include alternative fuels (Replacing Gaso­ line: Alternative Fuels for Light­Duty Vehicles); near­term prospects for improving fuel economy (Improving Automobile Fuel Economy: New Standards, New Approaches); and vehicle retirement programs (Retiring Old Cars; Programs To Save Gasoline and Improve Air Quality). OTA also has recently published a more general report on reducing oil use in transportation (Saving Energy in U.S. Trans­ portation). OTA is grateful to members of its Advisory Panel, participants in workshops on vehicle safety and technology, other outside reviewers, and the many individuals and companies that offered information and advice and hosted OTA staff on their information­gathering trips. Special thanks are due to K.G. Duleep, who provided the bulk of the technical and cost analysis of technologies and advanced vehicles. ROGER C. HERDMAN Director iii Advisory Panel Don Kash Kennerly H. Digges Mary Ann Keller Chairperson Professor of Public Policy George Mason University Assistant Director National Crash Analysis Office Center George Washington University Managing Director Furman, Selz, Inc. Steve Barnett Principal Global Business Network Ron Blum Christopher Flavin Vice President for Research Worldwatch Institute Gunnar Larsson Vice President of Research Volkswagen AG Marianne Mintz Director General Motors NAO R&D Center Transportation Systems Engineer Environmental & Economic Analysis Section Argonne National Laboratories Dave Greene Robert Mull Malcolm R. Currie Senior Research Staff Center for Transportation Analysis Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles Ford Motor Co. Chairman M­B Resources, Inc. Maurice Isaac Project General Manager Toyota Motors Senior Auto Analyst International Union United Auto Workers Tom Cackette Chief Deputy Executive Officer California Air Resources Board John DeCicco Senior Research Associate American Council for an Energy­Efficient Economy iv Christopher Green Manager Automotive Technical Programs GE Automotive Nobukichi Nakamura Peter T. Peterson Director, Marketing Strategies and Product Applications U.S. Steel Daniel Roos Director Center for Technology, Policy and Industrial Development Massachusetts Institute of Technology Rhett Ross Sales Manager/Engineer Energy Partners Dan Santini Section Manager Environmental & Economic Analysis Argonne National Laboratories Owen J. Viergutz Executive Engineer New Generation Vehicles Chrysler Corp. Margaret Walls Fellow, Energy and Natural Resources Division Resources for the Future Claude C. Gravatt Science Advisor National Institutes of Standards and Technology U.S. Department of Commerce Barry McNutt Policy Analyst Office of Energy Efficiency and Alternative Fuels Policy U.S. Department of Energy Note: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the advisory panel members. The panel does not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this report. OTA assumes full responsibility for the report and the accu­ racy of its contents. Project Staff Peter D. Blair Assistant Director Industry, Commerce, and International Security Division PRINCIPAL STAFF Steven Plotkin Project Director Gregory Eyring Emilia L. Govan Assistant Project Director Program Director Energy, Transportation, and Infrastructure Program Eric Gille CONTRACTORS Carol Clark Editor Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc. K.G. Duleep D.E.Gushee D.E. Gushee, Inc. Michael Wang Consultant vi Research Assistant /ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Marsha Fenn Office Administrator Tina Aikens Administrative Secretary Gay Jackson PCSpecialist Lillian Chapman Division Administrator Reviewers John Alic Office of Technology Assessment Wolfgang Berg Mercedes Benz William Boehly National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Mark Delucchi Institute for Transportation Studies University of California, Davis Michael Gage CALSTART Philip Patterson U.S. Department of Energy John Gully Advanced Research Projects Agency H. Pero European Commission Elizabeth Gunn Office of Technology Assessment S. Yousef Hashimi Office of Technology Assessment A. Hayasaka Toyota M. Salmon General Motors Corp. Ray Smith Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Rao Valisetty ALCOA Daniel A. Kirsch Stanford University Robert Williams Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Princeton University Michael Epstein U.S. Council for Automotive Research Paul Komor Office of Technology Assessment Robert White U.S. General Accounting Office Barry Felrice National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Adrian Lund Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Ronald York General Motors Corp. Kenneth Freeman Office of Technology Assessment Joan Ogden Center for Energy and Environmental Studies Princeton University Kevin Dopart Office of Technology Assessment Karl-Heinz Ziwica BMW Kathleen Fulton Office of Technology Assessment vii w orkshop Participants Nabih Bedewi Charming Ewing Brian O’Neill Snell Memorial Foundation Insurance Institute for Highway Safety National Crash Analysis Office Center George Washington University Thomas Hartman Kennerly Digges Automotive Technology ALCOA National Crash Analysis Office Center George Washington University Leonard Evans General Motors NAO, R&D Center Automotive Safety and Health Research Vlll John Melvin General Motors NAO, R&D Center Automotive Safety and Health Research Patrick M. Miller MGA Research Corp. George Parker National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Priya Prasad Department of Advanced Vehicle Systems Engineering Ford Motor Co. Tom Asmus Chrysler Corp. Siegfried Friedmann BMW AG Jeff Bentley Arthur D. Little, Inc. Thomas Klaiber Daimler Benz AG Christopher E. Borroni-Bird James F. Miller Chrysler Corp. Argonne National Laboratory Rolf Buchheim Volkswagen AG Timothy Moore Rock Mountain Institute Andrew F. Burke University of California at Davis Institute of Transportation Studies Larry Oswald General Motors Alan Cocconi AC Propulsion, Inc. Charles Risch Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles Ford Motor Co. Kenneth Dircks Ballard Power Systems Robert Fleming Ballard Power Systems Harold Polz Mercedes Benz Marc Ross University of Michigan Ray Smith Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Al Sobey Independent Consultant Ro Sullivan U.S. Department of Energy Raymond A. Sutula U.S. Department of Energy David Swan University of CA at Davis Institute of Transportation Studies Swathy Swathirajan General Motors Donald Vissers Argonne National Laboratory Ronald E. York General Motors Chapter 1 Executive Summary OTA’S APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OTA’S METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEALING WITH UNCERTAINTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OVERVIEW OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Technical Potential Commercialization Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DETAILED RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Business as Usual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Advanced Conventional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Electric Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hybrid­Electric Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fuel Cell Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PERFORMANCE AND COST OF OTHER TYPES OF LIGHT­DUTY VEHICLES . . . . . . . . 17 LIFECYCLE COSTS­­WILL THEY OFFSET HIGHER PURCHASE PRICES?.............. EMISSIONS PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SAFETY OF LIGHTWEIGHT VEHICLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A NOTE ABOUT COSTS AND PRICES CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY COST AND PERFORMANCE...... . . . . . . . . . . 23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . THE FEDERAL ROLE IN ADVANCED AUTO R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. COMPETITIVE POSITION Leapfrog Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Advanced Conventional Technology= . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U.S. R&D PROGRAM Key Budgetary Changes in FY 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R&D Areas Likely to Require Increased Support in the Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Future Role of Federal R&D Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions ABOUT R&D Boxl­1: Box1­2: Box1­3: Box1­4: Box1­5: Reducing Tractive Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............34 Spark Ignition and Diesel Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Battery Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nonbattery Energy Storage: Ultracapacitors and Flywheels Series and Parallel Hybrids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table l­1 Table l­2: Table l­3: Table l­4: Table l­5: 4 5 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 10 11 13 15 17 19 21 22 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 30 32 36 38 39 40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 What Happens to a Mid­Size Car in 2005? 42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Happens to a Mid­Size Car in 2015? 43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annual Fuel Costs for Alternative Vehicles PNGV­Related FY 1995 Appropriations by Technical Area and Agency . . . . . . . . . . . 44 45 PNGV Budgetary Changes in FY 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Chapter 2 Introduction and Context FORCES FOR INNOVATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONGRESSIONAL CONCERNS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NATURE OF THE TECHNOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DEALING WITH UNCERTAINTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT Box2­1: Box2­2: Box2­3: Box2­4: 46 47 48 49 50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Counterpoint Forces Against Rapid Technological Change Energy Security, Economic Concerns, and Light­Duty Vehicle Fuel Use. . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Greenhouse Emissions and Light­Duty Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Air Quality Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 . Chapter3 Technologies for Advanced Vehicles Performance and Cost Expectations WEIGHT REDUCTION WITH ADVANCED MATERIALS AND BETTER DESIGN . . . . . . 60 Vehicle Design Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Materials Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Manufacturability and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Manufacturing costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Life Cycle Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Manufacturability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Recyclability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Future Scenarios of Materials Use in Light Duty Vehicles 2005­­Advanced Conventional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 2005­Optimistic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 2015­Advanced Conventional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 2015­­Optimistic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 74 AERODYNAMIC REDUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Drag Reduction Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effect of Advanced Aerodynamics on Vehicle Prices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..76 77 ROLLING RESISTANCE REDUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....
View Full Document

  • Spring '17
  • Bitg
  • Wind, Book of Daniel

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern