Daimler SuperTruck Doubles Fuel Economy To 12 MPG

Yes, you read that right. This is a story about a truck that gets 12 miles per gallon. Why is that news? Because we are talking about a big, heavy tractor pulling a 65,000 lb load. Most of the big rigs you see out on the highway only get half of that — or less.

A year ago, the US Department of Energy created a Super Truck program designed to find ways of boosting fuel economy and reducing emissions for those road going Goliaths so essential to our economy. The program was funded by $40,000,000 in grant money and its goal was to create a truck that got 50% better fuel economy.

Daimler Trucks North America, which markets its machines under the Freightliner brand name, not only beat the stated goal, they shattered it. Through an extensive design and testing process, they came up with is a vehicle that averages 12.2 mpg in real world conditions. That’s more than double what a stock 2009 Freightliner could manage. The results were so impressive, the company decided to call its creation “SuperTruck.” By comparison, a truck built by Cummins and Peterbilt average only 9.9 mpg in the same tests.

Daimler engineers started with a standard production version of its Cascadia Evolution model, then added aerodynamic tweaks like a louvered grille that shutters itself for smoother passage through the air on the highway but opens to provide cooling air at slower speeds. But the biggest gains came from using the company’s Intelligent Powertrain Management system, a computer program that selects the most efficient gear for the transmission at all times. The package also includes low rolling resistance tires and electric subsystems for the power steering and air conditioning systems instead of traditional belt driven accessories.

Daimler is not the only manufacturer looking to squeeze more miles out of a gallon of fuel. Walmart has pioneered its quirky WAVE truck and AirFlow has designed its aerodynamically efficient Bullet Truck. Walmart trucks pile on millions of miles a year delivering consumer products to its stores. Raising fuel economy by as little as 1 mile per gallon can add a lot of money to the company’s bottom line.

Along with raising the average fuel economy of passenger cars, the federal government is looking for improvements to big trucks. Pushing those beasts through the air is like dragging a parachute behind your pickup — it takes a lot of power. The more aerodynamic trucks become, the less drag they will have to overcome and the more efficient they will be. In the end, getting the job done while burning less fossil fuel is not only good for corporate fleet managers and accountants, its good for all of us.

• 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

DOE Spending $20 Million For $4 A Gallon Hydrogen, But Why?

The Department of Energy has announced a round of grants totaling $20 million with the goal of bringing hydrogen fuel costs down below $4 a gallon equivalent. That’s frankly a stupid idea, because consumers will end up paying the same (or more!) for hydrogen as they do for gasoline. So like, what is the incentive to “go green” if you can’t even pretend like it’s saving you money?

The first round of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are just starting to roll out, with the Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell leading the way. And if you thought EVs were expensive, wait until you get a load of fuel cell vehicles.  The Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell leases for $599 a month, and the Toyota FCV will be somewhere in the $75,000 range when it goes on sale next year. While the Hyundai will come with free fuel (at least at first), Toyota hasn’t mentioned a similar scheme for its hydrogen vehicles.

While it’ll all depend on specific fuel economy, if hydrogen fuel goes mainstream, consumers will end up with the same monthly fueling costs as before. Meanwhile, drivers of pure electric vehicles can save, literally, hundreds of dollars every month by filling up on cheap electricity. The Nissan Leaf is rated at 73 miles, and costs between $2 and $4 to fully charge. Split the difference at $3, and you’re still cheaper than a gallon of gasoline.

You can also plug in at home with EVs, or even better, get your power from roof-mounted solar panels, essentially refilling your car for free. The difference is even more pronounced on a long range EV like the Tesla Model S, which if charge during off-peak hours, can be fully recharged for between $4 and $10. A comparable car would need between $60 and $80 of gasoline.

I know Obama is suddenly hot for hydrogen, but it’s a dead-end technology that doesn’t benefit the customers except for one way, and that’s faster refilling, and that gap is closing thanks to the Tesla Superchargers. Oh, the government is throwing cash at that experiment too. At best, hydrogen fuel cells maintain a cost status quo for consumers, and where it comes down to dollars and cents, EVs have a major advantage. Too bad the DOE can’t figure that out.

Source: Gas 2.

VW wants CNG vehicles in the US

US Department of Energy records show that there are only about 600 compressed natural gas (CNG) refueling stations in the US, but Volkswagen still wants to sell CNG-powered cars here, Automotive Newsreports. Before it commits to that, however, VW wants a more expansive refueling infrastructure and more incentives to sell the gas-powered cars, so the automaker is busy lobbying the US government to help out on those ends.

Jonathan Browning, CEO of Volkswagen Group of America, says that, due to CNG's roughly 20-percent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions compared to gasoline and diesel engines, vehicles equipped with CNG-burning powerplants should be eligible for more credits under US fuel economy standards. He sums up the ingredients that, when combined in sufficient amounts, will get VW to start selling CNG vehicles here: "We're waiting for the signal that [CNG] is supported from a regulatory point of view and there's some degree of infrastructure available," according to Automotive News.

In Germany, there are about 900 CNG refueling stations, which is a relatively large amount when considering the country's small size compared to the US. But VW's product development head, Heinz-Jakob Neusser, says that he still struggles to find CNG stations there.

When/if more CNG refueling stations start popping up in the US, VW will be ready with factories retooled with the ability to produce the same car with different types of powertrains. That will include the automaker's Puebla, Mexico, plant, which will be able to build Golfs with CNG engines for US consumption if demand is high enough.

News Source: Automotive News - sub. req.

DOE awards Envera $2.8M to develop and to test efficient variable compression ratio engine

Brake specific fuel consumption (BSFC) curves for a 5.7L V8, a 3.6L Turbo-DI V6 (both with actual data), and a 2.2L VCR 4-cylinder engine (projected data) from a 2011 report by Envera. All three engine BSFC curves correspond to an engine speed of 2000 rpm.Click to enlarge.

The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) of the US Department of Energy (DOE) has awarded Envera LLC a $2.8-million contract (DE-EE0005981) to develop and to test a high-efficiency variable compression ratio (VCR) engine with variable valve actuation (VVA) and an advanced high-efficiency supercharger to improve fuel efficiency.

The new engine will achieve high efficiency using the Atkinson Cycle with an 18:1 compression ratio, combined with aggressive engine downsizing. To attain high power levels, new high-efficiency supercharging technology will be used to boost the engine and provide V8-like performance from only four cylinders. Envera estimates that the new engine could deliver up to a 40% improvement in fuel economy over a conventional port-fuel injection engine at a relatively low cost while also delivering performance, torque and flex-fuel capability.

Valve events will also be adjusted with the VVA to trap more air in the cylinders when power is needed. Engine displacement is 2.4L. A low 8.5:1 compression ratio will be used during supercharged conditions to accommodate the higher power levels. The engine can also be combined with a hybrid drivetrain to attain even greater mileage improvements.

The engine will include new technologies developed by Envera and Tier-1 supplier Eaton. Envera is responsible for development of the engine and providing the VCR system. Eaton will provide a new advanced supercharger and variable valve actuation (VVA) technology. Current plans call for testing the engine in a full-size pickup truck or utility van.

Background. Envera specializes in the development of advanced technologies for improving automotive fuel economy. Prior advanced technology engine development and prototype build projects for DOE include a port fuel-injected VCR engine for the Argonne National Laboratory; a common-ratio turbo-diesel VCR engine for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory; and a gasoline direct-injection / port fuel-injection VCR engine for the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

In a 2010 report (revised in 2011) for NETL, Envera described the technology and the its approach to achieving a high-efficiency VCR engine.

Engine downsizing is a key tool in improving fuel economy. However, to meet torque and power requirements, a smaller engine needs to do more work per stroke, Envera notes. This is typically accomplished by boosting the incoming charge with either a turbo or supercharger. Current production gasoline engines are limited in the degree of engine boosting by detonation (combustion knock) at high boost levels. In addition, the charger needs to be responsive and efficient while providing the needed boost.

VCR technology can eliminate engine knock at high load levels by reducing compression ratio to ~9:1 (or whatever level is appropriate) when high boost pressures are needed. By reducing the compression ratio during high load demand periods, there is increased volume in the cylinder at top dead center (TDC) which allows more charge (or energy) to be present in the cylinder without increasing the peak pressure. Cylinder pressure is thus kept below the level at which the engine would begin to knock. When loads on the engine are low the compression ratio can be raised to as much as 18:1, Envera said.

Using variable valve control (VVC), the Envera VCR engine will run most of the time on the Atkinson cycle. When high torque values are required the valve settings are adjusted to maximize the amount of intake air trapped in the cylinders, as needed for maximizing power and torque.

Variable valve control can be used to adjust the “effective compression ratio” by adjusting the amount of air trapped in the cylinder—trapping more air in the cylinder provides a higher effective compression ratio and more power, while trapping less air in the cylinder provides a lower effective compression ratio and less power.

Unfortunately, the opposite compression ratio values are needed. A low compression ratio is needed at high power to avoid detonation, and a high compression ratio is needed at low power levels to provide higher engine efficiency. VCR is unique in its ability to provide the correct compression ratio when needed. Unlike VVC systems, the Envera VCR mechanism adjusts the physical size of the combustion chamber and is able to provide the ideal compression ratio settings at all power levels.

—Envera report to DOE

Combining VCR and VVC delivers much higher efficiencies are attained at low load by increasing the mechanical compression ratio with VCR, reducing pumping losses with VVC, and operating the engine using the high-efficiency Atkinson cycle. High power output levels are attained by reducing compression ratio with the VCR to avoid detonation, boosting the engine, and adjusting the valve timing with the VVC to trap as much intake air as possible in the engine cylinders.

Envera variable compression ratio mechanism from a 2011 report to DOE. Click to enlarge.

The Envera VCR mechanism uses an eccentric carrier approach to adjust engine compression ratio. The crankshaft main bearings are mounted in this eccentric carrier and pivoting the eccentric carrier 30 degrees adjusts compression ratio from 9:1 to 18:1. The eccentric carrier is made up of a casting that provides rigid support for the main bearings, and removable upper bearing caps. Oil feed to the main bearings transits through the bearing cap fastener sockets. The eccentric carrier design was chosen for its low cost and rigid support of the main bearings.

A control shaft and connecting links pivot the eccentric carrier. The control shaft mechanism features compression ratio lock-up at minimum and maximum compression ratio settings. Envera selected the control shaft method of pivoting the eccentric carrier due to its lock-up capability. The control shaft can be rotated by a hydraulic actuator or an electric motor.

Resources

• Envera Variable Compression Ratio Engine Final Report

DOE announces Apps for Vehicles Challenge Winners

The US Department of Energy (DOE) today announced the winners of the Apps for Vehicles Challenge. The competition asked app developers and entrepreneurs to demonstrate how the open data available on most vehicles can be used to improve vehicle safety, fuel efficiency and comfort.

DOE awarded New York City-based Dash the Judges’ Prize and MyCarma, headquartered in Troy, Michigan, the Popular Choice prize. Green Button Gamer, based in Boston, Massachusetts, won the Safety Innovation award and Augusta, Georgia-based Fuel Economy Coach received the Fuel Efficiency Innovation award.

The Apps for Vehicles Challenge is focused on spurring innovative projects or services to reduce fuel costs and increase safety for consumers by utilizing vehicle-generated information, including data on engine speed, brake position, headlights, and distance traveled. Entries were judged based on their potential to help consumers improve fuel efficiency, creativity and innovation, use of open vehicle data, and consumer accessibility.

The Energy Department announced the competition during the first Energy Datapalooza in October 2012. Nearly 40 entries were submitted for the first phase of the competition, and seven were selected as finalists to advance to the second stage. These finalists also received guidance on their business plans and early stage prototypes from the industry experts, including Google, Connected World Magazine, Greenstart, OSISoft, CleanWeb and SAE International as well as the Departments of Energy and Transportation and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Specialized technical support was provided in the form of sample data creation by Ford Motor Company’s “OpenXC Platform” and Moj.io, a startup company focused on utilizing vehicle data and connecting cars. The products developed through the Apps for Vehicles Challenge are now available for download.

ARPA-E RANGE: $20M for robust transformational energy storage systems for EVs; 3x the range at 1/3 the cost

The US Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) has issued a funding opportunity announcement (DE-FOA-0000869) for about $20 million for the development of transformational electrochemical energy storage technologies intended to accelerate widespread electric vehicle adoption by significantly improving driving range, cost, and reliability. ARPA-E anticipates making approximately 8- 12 awards under this FOA.

The Robust Affordable Next Generation EV-Storage (RANGE) program’s goal is to enable a 3X increase in electric vehicle range (from ~80 to ~240 miles per charge) with a simultaneous price reduction of > 1/3 (to ~ $30,000). If successful, these vehicles will provide near cost and range parity to gasoline-powered ICE vehicles, ARPA-E said.

RANGE is focused on supporting chemistry and system concepts in energy storage with robust designs in one or both of:

• Category 1: Low-cost, rechargeable energy storage chemistries and architectures with robust designs;
• Category 2: Multifunctional energy storage designs.

ARPA-E defines robust design as electrochemical energy storage chemistries and/or architectures (i.e. physical designs) that avoid thermal runaway and are immune to catastrophic failure regardless of manufacturing quality or abuse conditions.

Examples of robust designs cited by ARPA-E include: the development of an electrochemical energy storage chemistry that utilizes non-combustible aqueous or solid state electrolytes; the use of a redox flow battery architecture that is inherently more robust due to the physical separation (storage) of its active components far from the cell electrodes; and the design of a mechanism that allows a battery to automatically fail in open circuit when placed under abuse conditions.

Robust designs can transform EV design and create new pathways to dramatically loThe US Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) has issued a funding opportunity announcement (DE-FOA-0000869) for about $20 million for the development of transformational electrochemical energy storage technologies intended to accelerate widespread electric vehicle adoption by significantly improving driving range, cost, and reliability. ARPA-E anticipates making approximately 8- 12 awards under this FOA.

The Robust Affordable Next Generation EV-Storage (RANGE) program’s goal is to enable a 3X increase in electric vehicle range (from ~80 to ~240 miles per charge) with a simultaneous price reduction of > 1/3 (to ~ $30,000). If successful, these vehicles will provide near cost and range parity to gasoline-powered ICE vehicles, ARPA-E said.

RANGE is focused on supporting chemistry and system concepts in energy storage with robust designs in one or both of:

Category 1: Low-cost, rechargeable energy storage chemistries and architectures with robust designs;

Category 2: Multifunctional energy storage designs.

ARPA-E defines robust design as electrochemical energy storage chemistries and/or architectures (i.e. physical designs) that avoid thermal runaway and are immune to catastrophic failure regardless of manufacturing quality or abuse conditions.

Examples of robust designs cited by ARPA-E include: the development of an electrochemical energy storage chemistry that utilizes non-combustible aqueous or solid state electrolytes; the use of a redox flow battery architecture that is inherently more robust due to the physical separation (storage) of its active components far from the cell electrodes; and the design of a mechanism that allows a battery to automatically fail in open circuit when placed under abuse conditions.

Robust designs can transform EV design and create new pathways to dramatically lower cost by: 1) reducing the demands on system-level engineering and its associated weight and cost; 2) liberating the energy storage system from the need for vehicle impact protection, which allows the energy storage to be positioned anywhere on the vehicle, thereby freeing-up the EV design; and 3) enabling multiple functions, such as assisting vehicle crash energy management and carrying structural load.

For this first category, examples of technical approaches include but are not limited to:

High specific energy aqueous batteries. Areas of particular interest are approaches to novel high specific energy cathode/anode redox couples; materials and device designs for long life metal-air systems; ultrahigh capacity negative electrode materials to replace La-Ni alloys in nickel metal hydride batteries; and organic and inorganic redox couples, including their hybrids.

Ceramic and other solid electrolyte batteries. Areas of particular interests are high conductivity inorganic electrolytes for lithium and other alkaline metal ion systems; and solid state and hybrid battery designs and low cost manufacturing processes.

Other batteries completely without or with negligible combustible or flammable materials.

Materials and architectures that eliminate the possibility of thermal runaway.

Robust design architectures. Examples include flow cells and electrically rechargeable fuel cells, fail open circuited designs, non-propagating system architectures, and designs resulting in reductions in individual storage unit sizes and energy contents.

Hybridization of different energy storage chemistries and architectures to offer improved robustness including mechanical abuse tolerance.

The second objective of RANGE is to fund the development of multifunctional energy storage systems. Robust design characteristics may enable energy storage systems to simultaneously serve other functions on an electric vehicle. Energy storage systems which absorb impulse energy during a vehicle crash and/or which carry mechanical load are of particular interest, ARPA-E suggested. Both of these functions are expected to extend the EV’s operating range by reducing the vehicle’s overall weight.

For Category 2, examples of technical approaches include but are not limited to:

Energy storage systems that assist vehicle impact energy management. Areas of particular interest are material, cell, pack, and system designs that act synergistically with the rest of the vehicle structure to manage mechanical impact. Energy absorption mechanisms may include deformation, disintegration, and disengagement by design.

Energy storage systems that act as structural members. In this case, the energy storage system may directly replace other structural members of the vehicle in the load path.

Energy storage systems that serve other vehicle functions not listed above.

ARPA-E anticipates that the core technologies developed under this program will advance all categories of electrified vehicles (hybrid, plug-in hybrid, extended-range electric, and all-electric vehicles); however, the primary focus of this program is on all-electric vehicles.

Technical performance targets. The final research objective for projects funded under this FOA is a fully integrated energy storage unit with energy content of 1 kWh or greater. ARPA-E is setting primary technical targets of:

Cost to manufacture: < 100 - 125 $/kWh

Effective specific energy:> 150 Wh/kg

Effective energy density:> 230 Wh/L

Secondary technical targets are:

Cycle life at 80% depth of discharge (DOD): > 1000

Calendar life: > 10 years

Effective specific Power – Discharge, 80% DOD/30 s: > 300 W/kg

Operating temperature: >-30 °C (a higher bound is not defined)

Specifically not of interest to ARPA-E are:

Applications that fall outside the technical parameters, including but not limited to: incremental improvements to Li-ion components that have little potential to reduce system complexity, weight, and cost; approaches that employ higher specific energy cells coupled with a reduction in packing factor; incremental improvements to mechanical protection structures for energy storage systems; sensing,monitoring,and modeling of lithium-ion battery cells and systems that improve diagnosis but do not reduce system cost and improve crash worthiness; and energy storage technologies with significantly lower performance than lithium-ion batteries at a vehicle level, unless they are offered as part of a system solution that meet program metrics.

Applications that were already submitted to pending ARPA-E FOAs. Also, applications that are not scientifically distinct from applications submitted to pending ARPA-E FOAs.

Applications for basic research aimed at discovery and fundamental knowledge generation.

Applications for large-scale demonstration projects of existing technologies.

Applications for proposed technologies that represent incremental improvements to existing technologies.

Applications for proposed technologies that are not based on sound scientific principles (e.g., violates a law of thermodynamics).

Applications for proposed technologies that do not have the potential to become disruptive in nature.

ARPA-E also published a list of potential teaming partners for the RANGE FOA.wer cost by: 1) reducing the demands on system-level engineering and its assoThe US Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy (ARPA-E) has issued a funding opportunity announcement (DE-FOA-0000869) for about $20 million for the development of transformational electrochemical energy storage technologies intended to accelerate widespread electric vehicle adoption by significantly improving driving range, cost, and reliability. ARPA-E anticipates making approximately 8- 12 awards under this FOA.

The Robust Affordable Next Generation EV-Storage (RANGE) program’s goal is to enable a 3X increase in electric vehicle range (from ~80 to ~240 miles per charge) with a simultaneous price reduction of > 1/3 (to ~ $30,000). If successful, these vehicles will provide near cost and range parity to gasoline-powered ICE vehicles, ARPA-E said.

RANGE is focused on supporting chemistry and system concepts in energy storage with robust designs in one or both of:

Category 1: Low-cost, rechargeable energy storage chemistries and architectures with robust designs;

Category 2: Multifunctional energy storage designs.

ARPA-E defines robust design as electrochemical energy storage chemistries and/or architectures (i.e. physical designs) that avoid thermal runaway and are immune to catastrophic failure regardless of manufacturing quality or abuse conditions.

Examples of robust designs cited by ARPA-E include: the development of an electrochemical energy storage chemistry that utilizes non-combustible aqueous or solid state electrolytes; the use of a redox flow battery architecture that is inherently more robust due to the physical separation (storage) of its active components far from the cell electrodes; and the design of a mechanism that allows a battery to automatically fail in open circuit when placed under abuse conditions.

Robust designs can transform EV design and create new pathways to dramatically lower cost by: 1) reducing the demands on system-level engineering and its associated weight and cost; 2) liberating the energy storage system from the need for vehicle impact protection, which allows the energy storage to be positioned anywhere on the vehicle, thereby freeing-up the EV design; and 3) enabling multiple functions, such as assisting vehicle crash energy management and carrying structural load.

For this first category, examples of technical approaches include but are not limited to:

High specific energy aqueous batteries. Areas of particular interest are approaches to novel high specific energy cathode/anode redox couples; materials and device designs for long life metal-air systems; ultrahigh capacity negative electrode materials to replace La-Ni alloys in nickel metal hydride batteries; and organic and inorganic redox couples, including their hybrids.

Ceramic and other solid electrolyte batteries. Areas of particular interests are high conductivity inorganic electrolytes for lithium and other alkaline metal ion systems; and solid state and hybrid battery designs and low cost manufacturing processes.

Other batteries completely without or with negligible combustible or flammable materials.

Materials and architectures that eliminate the possibility of thermal runaway.

Robust design architectures. Examples include flow cells and electrically rechargeable fuel cells, fail open circuited designs, non-propagating system architectures, and designs resulting in reductions in individual storage unit sizes and energy contents.

Hybridization of different energy storage chemistries and architectures to offer improved robustness including mechanical abuse tolerance.

The second objective of RANGE is to fund the development of multifunctional energy storage systems. Robust design characteristics may enable energy storage systems to simultaneously serve other functions on an electric vehicle. Energy storage systems which absorb impulse energy during a vehicle crash and/or which carry mechanical load are of particular interest, ARPA-E suggested. Both of these functions are expected to extend the EV’s operating range by reducing the vehicle’s overall weight.

For Category 2, examples of technical approaches include but are not limited to:

Energy storage systems that assist vehicle impact energy management. Areas of particular interest are material, cell, pack, and system designs that act synergistically with the rest of the vehicle structure to manage mechanical impact. Energy absorption mechanisms may include deformation, disintegration, and disengagement by design.

Energy storage systems that act as structural members. In this case, the energy storage system may directly replace other structural members of the vehicle in the load path.

Energy storage systems that serve other vehicle functions not listed above.

ARPA-E anticipates that the core technologies developed under this program will advance all categories of electrified vehicles (hybrid, plug-in hybrid, extended-range electric, and all-electric vehicles); however, the primary focus of this program is on all-electric vehicles.

Technical performance targets. The final research objective for projects funded under this FOA is a fully integrated energy storage unit with energy content of 1 kWh or greater. ARPA-E is setting primary technical targets of:

Cost to manufacture: < 100 - 125 $/kWh

Effective specific energy:> 150 Wh/kg

Effective energy density:> 230 Wh/L

Secondary technical targets are:

Cycle life at 80% depth of discharge (DOD): > 1000

Calendar life: > 10 years

Effective specific Power – Discharge, 80% DOD/30 s: > 300 W/kg

Operating temperature: >-30 °C (a higher bound is not defined)

Specifically not of interest to ARPA-E are:

Applications that fall outside the technical parameters, including but not limited to: incremental improvements to Li-ion components that have little potential to reduce system complexity, weight, and cost; approaches that employ higher specific energy cells coupled with a reduction in packing factor; incremental improvements to mechanical protection structures for energy storage systems; sensing,monitoring,and modeling of lithium-ion battery cells and systems that improve diagnosis but do not reduce system cost and improve crash worthiness; and energy storage technologies with significantly lower performance than lithium-ion batteries at a vehicle level, unless they are offered as part of a system solution that meet program metrics.

Applications that were already submitted to pending ARPA-E FOAs. Also, applications that are not scientifically distinct from applications submitted to pending ARPA-E FOAs.

Applications for basic research aimed at discovery and fundamental knowledge generation.

Applications for large-scale demonstration projects of existing technologies.

Applications for proposed technologies that represent incremental improvements to existing technologies.

Applications for proposed technologies that are not based on sound scientific principles (e.g., violates a law of thermodynamics).

Applications for proposed technologies that do not have the potential to become disruptive in nature.

ARPA-E also published a list of potential teaming partners for the RANGE FOA., ciated weight and cost; 2) liberating the energy storage system from the need for vehicle impact protection, which allows the energy storage to be positioned anywhere on the vehicle, thereby freeing-up the EV design; and 3) enabling multiple functions, such as assisting vehicle crash energy management and carrying structural load.

For this first category, examples of technical approaches include but are not limited to:

• High specific energy aqueous batteries. Areas of particular interest are approaches to novel high specific energy cathode/anode redox couples; materials and device designs for long life metal-air systems; ultrahigh capacity negative electrode materials to replace La-Ni alloys in nickel metal hydride batteries; and organic and inorganic redox couples, including their hybrids.
• Ceramic and other solid electrolyte batteries. Areas of particular interests are high conductivity inorganic electrolytes for lithium and other alkaline metal ion systems; and solid state and hybrid battery designs and low cost manufacturing processes.
• Other batteries completely without or with negligible combustible or flammable materials.
• Materials and architectures that eliminate the possibility of thermal runaway.
• Robust design architectures. Examples include flow cells and electrically rechargeable fuel cells, fail open circuited designs, non-propagating system architectures, and designs resulting in reductions in individual storage unit sizes and energy contents.
• Hybridization of different energy storage chemistries and architectures to offer improved robustness including mechanical abuse tolerance.

The second objective of RANGE is to fund the development of multifunctional energy storage systems. Robust design characteristics may enable energy storage systems to simultaneously serve other functions on an electric vehicle. Energy storage systems which absorb impulse energy during a vehicle crash and/or which carry mechanical load are of particular interest, ARPA-E suggested. Both of these functions are expected to extend the EV’s operating range by reducing the vehicle’s overall weight.

For Category 2, examples of technical approaches include but are not limited to:

• Energy storage systems that assist vehicle impact energy management. Areas of particular interest are material, cell, pack, and system designs that act synergistically with the rest of the vehicle structure to manage mechanical impact. Energy absorption mechanisms may include deformation, disintegration, and disengagement by design.
• Energy storage systems that act as structural members. In this case, the energy storage system may directly replace other structural members of the vehicle in the load path.
• Energy storage systems that serve other vehicle functions not listed above.

ARPA-E anticipates that the core technologies developed under this program will advance all categories of electrified vehicles (hybrid, plug-in hybrid, extended-range electric, and all-electric vehicles); however, the primary focus of this program is on all-electric vehicles.

Technical performance targets. The final research objective for projects funded under this FOA is a fully integrated energy storage unit with energy content of 1 kWh or greater. ARPA-E is setting primary technical targets of:

• Cost to manufacture: < 100 - 125 $/kWh
• Effective specific energy:> 150 Wh/kg
• Effective energy density:> 230 Wh/L

Secondary technical targets are:

• Cycle life at 80% depth of discharge (DOD): > 1000
• Calendar life: > 10 years
• Effective specific Power – Discharge, 80% DOD/30 s: > 300 W/kg
• Operating temperature: >-30 °C (a higher bound is not defined)

Specifically not of interest to ARPA-E are:

• Applications that fall outside the technical parameters, including but not limited to: incremental improvements to Li-ion components that have little potential to reduce system complexity, weight, and cost; approaches that employ higher specific energy cells coupled with a reduction in packing factor; incremental improvements to mechanical protection structures for energy storage systems; sensing,monitoring,and modeling of lithium-ion battery cells and systems that improve diagnosis but do not reduce system cost and improve crash worthiness; and energy storage technologies with significantly lower performance than lithium-ion batteries at a vehicle level, unless they are offered as part of a system solution that meet program metrics.
• Applications that were already submitted to pending ARPA-E FOAs. Also, applications that are not scientifically distinct from applications submitted to pending ARPA-E FOAs.
• Applications for basic research aimed at discovery and fundamental knowledge generation.
• Applications for large-scale demonstration projects of existing technologies.
• Applications for proposed technologies that represent incremental improvements to existing technologies.
• Applications for proposed technologies that are not based on sound scientific principles (e.g., violates a law of thermodynamics).
• Applications for proposed technologies that do not have the potential to become disruptive in nature.

ARPA-E also published a list of potential teaming partners for the RANGE FOA.

DOE funding 20 Clean Cities projects with alt-fuel infrastructure

The US Department of Energy is funding 20 new projects to support states and local governments in streamlining the infrastructure needed for alternative fuel vehicles to thrive. Working through the DOE'sClean Cities initiative, these projects could help governments and other stakeholders cut red tape and implement the infrastructure, training and regional planning required to recharge and refuel vehicles running on electricity, natural gas and propane autogas.

It's not a big investment of federal funds – about $11 million will go to 20 Clean Cities projects that require hundreds of thousands to complete. The funding will pay for a range of infrastructure and training needs such as safety and technical training for fleet operators, mechanics, first responders (such as paramedics) and code officials; streamlining permitting and procurement; and working with public and private fleets to integrate petroleum reduction strategies.

Of the 20 funded projects, the biggest allotment is going to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in San Francisco. Its "California Fleets and Workplace Alternative Fuels Project" is supporting development of templates and best practices for permitting
the alternative fuel vehicle refueling infrastructure; working with colleges on first responder training; promoting workplace electric vehicle charging; and working with fleets to implement petroleum reduction strategies. The project will receive $1 million to meet these goals.

Several of the Clean Cities coalitions are receiving $500,000. One of them, the city of Austin, TX, will assist in the streamlining of infrastructure procurement; conduct electric and natural gas vehicle safety training; host workshops for fleets in the San Antonio and Austin areas; and setting up training seminars on multi-unit dwelling and workplace EV charging. You can read about each of the 20 Clean Cities initiatives in this PDF.

If you're out there talking to stakeholders in the alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure – whether that be automakers, charging and fueling suppliers, government agencies, fleet managers or advocacy groups – the question inevitably comes up: What comes first – the chicken or the egg? Would consumers and fleets buy a lot more alternative fuel vehicles if there were enough charging and fueling stations, and other needed resources, in place? Or would putting the infrastructure in place alleviate range anxiety and make these vehicles viable options? Another difficult question usually pops up – when will the vehicle sticker prices come down? There are no easy answers, but at least the process is moving along, one city at a time.

Source: Autoblog Green