“Green and Connected”: CAR White Paper Explores Interaction of Vehicle Communications and Electrification of Powertrains
14 October 2010
The Center for Automotive Research (CAR) has released a review draft of a white paper prepared for the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) that explores the interactions between what it calls “two of the most important developments in automotive technology underway”: the introduction of vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications; and the electrification of the powertrain.
The purpose of the paper (which Richard Wallace, CAR’s Director Transportation Systems Analysis Group announced during a session exploring the same topic at the Business of Plugging In 2010 conference in Detroit) is threefold. CAR and MDOT first want to document the interactions between communication and electrification technologies, showing how their simultaneous development enhances both. Second, they are seeking to outline the technical, regulatory, and other factors that are needed to allow these technologies to achieve wide deployment and for the traveling public to realize their full benefits. Third, they want to explore opportunities for the State of Michigan to establish leadership and benefit the state’s economy and industry.
Vehicle communications technology is exemplified by the IntelliDrive program of the US Department of Transportation. The category includes vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) connectivity (communication of the vehicle with the roadway, traffic signals, and other pieces of infrastructure, such as bridges) and vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) connectivity.
Although vehicle communication offers the potential for all forms of alternative and advanced powertrains to become more efficient, the report notes, grid-enabled vehicles—GEVs, i.e. plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), extended range electric vehicles (EREVs), and battery electric vehicles (BEVs)—potentially offer the greatest opportunity to capitalize on connectivity.
The grid-enable vehicle could become the communication focal point for a fully integrated energy system, the report suggests, with the vehicle integrating electric power generation and grid, homes, and the transportation infrastructure.
CAR defines three levels of connectedness:
Simple transportation energy planning and mapping. This includes route planning to optimize efficiency, range estimation, and identification of refueling locations.
The initial grid-enabled model. Specific to GEVs, this requires smart meters either at the charging point or on the vehicle to connect the vehicle to the energy delivery system. Applications can include grid-balancing strategies, service area charging and tracking, and vehicle charging monitoring and control strategies.
The integrated energy transportation efficiency model. This requires the inclusion of smart grid management, and vehicle-to-grid storage strategies. Full communication between the vehicle and IntelliDrive systems, could enable to exploit the full potential of efficient driving.
There are numerous barriers to implementation, the report notes: logistical (e.g., infrastructure and standards); technical (e.g., battery capacity and cost), political, and workforce-related.
Resources
"Grid-balancing strategies"? Does this mean that when I pull up to a quick charger expecting 60 kw that I may only get 3 kw?
Posted by: Zhukova | 14 October 2010 at 07:36 AM
No it doesn't.
However, outside of the need for SOME people to have a quick recharge the fact is most people only use their cars for short commutes and the cars thus spend ~95% of the time parked. During any part of this time it could be used for "Grid-balancing" with only a quick charge at the end needed to give you your full charge. A smart grid could even be kept informed of your needs through an app on your cellphone so that it knows when to make sure you have a full charge.
Posted by: ai_vin | 14 October 2010 at 09:45 AM
Using many (100 to 200) million PHEVs/BEVs to balance the grid has a huge potential whenever vehicular batteries are designed and built to take the extra stress.
Future PHEVs and specially future BEVs will have much more powerful batteries. Something between 50 and 100 KWh for future BEVs is a strong possibility. The energy available in a fully charged future BEV would be enough to supply the average home with e-energy for up to one full week. A BEV with a 100 Kwh battery could be recharged during sunny hours with roof top or parking place solar cells and supply energy for the house for the other 16 hours.
Multiplied by 100 million, it represents a huge clean power source. Why not make better use of it?
Posted by: HarveyD | 14 October 2010 at 10:21 AM
I don't know. I see a lot of ideas here to benefit the utility company. Almost nothing to benefit a driver or vehicle owner. Harvey's scenario is much more intriguing. What he suggests is that a 100kWh BEV could be used as a primary/supplemental energy source for single family residences.
For that matter with the proper wiring - it could power your condo or apartment when not driving, and recharge from either grid or community rooftop solar or NG-fired FC. Question remains how this kind of discharge cycling affects battery performance.
What this V2H (Vehicle to Home) connection does is take another important step toward distributed energy sources. This is of far greater benefit to community and social structure than load balancing a grid IMO.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 14 October 2010 at 10:38 AM
Question remains how this kind of discharge cycling affects battery performance.
Don't quote me but I think I remember seeing a study that said the discharge cycling was more "potential" than "actual" if the renewable energy system is well diversified. Don't just have wind or solar or NG-fired FC - have wind AND solar AND NG-fired FC, and hydro, and disperse and interconnect the turbines and PV cells so that passing clouds or lulls in wind are evened out.
Posted by: ai_vin | 14 October 2010 at 12:12 PM
On my opinion the greatest benefits expected from using plug-in as electricity network stabilizer. If you allow your car battery letting out power for one second when is really needed this could prevent from cascading black out of entire region.Therefore the network utilities should invest less into preventive measures of blackouts instead having contracts with car users.
Posted by: Darius | 15 October 2010 at 03:08 AM
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 16 October 2010 at 06:50 AM
We are already seeing the utils charging extra for TOU meter usage. Their ploy is to raise rates on peak usage for customers with TOU meters - effectively eliminating the benefit of low cost overnight electricity.
Utilities are quarterly profit driven companies who view the EV revolution as a windfall opportunity. They are not satisfied to merely sell the unused capacity overnight - they are raising daytime rates on top of that.
Hence the movement to distributed energy where we can eliminate unsightly, high maintenance transmission lines and retire old coal-fired plants. Utils will put themselves out of business unless they get onboard with the energy independence programs.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 16 October 2010 at 01:00 PM
We are already seeing the utils charging extra for TOU meter usage. Their ploy is to raise rates on peak usage for customers with TOU meters - effectively eliminating the benefit of low cost overnight electricity.
Utilities are quarterly profit driven companies who view the EV revolution as a windfall opportunity. They are not satisfied to merely sell the unused capacity overnight - they are raising daytime rates on top of that.
Hence the movement to distributed energy where we can eliminate unsightly, high maintenance transmission lines and retire old coal-fired plants. Utils will put themselves out of business unless they get onboard with the energy independence programs.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 16 October 2010 at 01:01 PM
It's a simple fact that base-load power is cheaper than peaking power. If you can use an ice-storage A/C or electric car to move your power demand from afternoons to the midnight-6 AM slot, you will be using power that's priced lower because it costs less to generate. The fewer peaking generators are needed, the less the grid costs to run. You can also get a discount if you can schedule your usage when some un-schedulable source of power is available, and you can get paid for providing grid regulation services. Nothing new there.
Ain't gonna happen. The whole idea relies on cheap natural gas, and that will disappear when the bubble in shale-gas companies bursts. Fortunately we won't have time to bet the whole grid on it before that happens, so the damage won't be as severe.Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 16 October 2010 at 08:23 PM
It also makes a lot of sense to have heating / cooling heat pumps with a thermal buffer so the instantaneous power demands can be varied from max to nothing over a short period of time without affection performance.
I thought the problem with shale gas was that in needed a consistent high price otherwise you end up with lots of shut in production that can't break even at the current natural gas price. Since CCGT's are so cheap and quick to build compared to coal / nukes they will increase market share for that reason and the fact that they are a good compliment to wind and solar. Even if there is a large increase in nuclear power, CCGT's are still going to be the weapon of choice for following daily load cycles.
Posted by: 3PeaceSweet | 17 October 2010 at 09:15 AM
To read the comments of many here, one would think the Utilities are rapacious, unbridled, and uncontrolled,evit criminal organizations. Such is not the case.
They are overseen, regulated, and controled, by the precious governmental regulation and unselfish, pure hearted, bureaucrats, that y'all so adore. So it must be an impossibility.
N'est pas?
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 18 October 2010 at 02:19 PM
Plenty of NG for the next century - this is well established. By then new sources of molecular cracking will readily produce abundant energy carriers.
Or disruptive alternatives will be introduced. Fact.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 18 October 2010 at 10:38 PM
EP - no one expects to "bet the whole grid" on anything. The point of energy portfolios is to DIVERSIFY energy resources. Distributed energy, CHP and Residential Power Units simply removes one major source of demand on the grid.
Prudent engineers will acknowledge that transmitting electrons across distance via copper cables is wasteful, inefficient (and outdated!). Also, far more expensive to maintain than localized micro-grids and Residential Power Units.
Diversification of energy eliminates a repeat of the monopolies set up by the oilcos last century.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 18 October 2010 at 10:47 PM
The problem is that it's not diversification, it's concentration. The USA gets about 30% of its energy from NG and the same from coal. Moving electric generation from coal to NG means more eggs in the NG basket.
Cogeneration is another matter. Using cogenerating furnaces and water heaters captures "availability" that is otherwise lost. It can also help exploit truly diverse energy sources. Using a combination of cogenerators, heat pumps and resistance heaters, wind and NG could displace coal with actual savings of all fuels. The less we need, the less we have to worry about finding.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 19 October 2010 at 11:01 AM