ALABC: 48V mild hybrids can meet emission targets with CO2 reductions of 15-20%
27 January 2016
Current mild-hybrid vehicle projects, in partnership with Ford and Hyundai/Kia, that utilize advanced 48V lead-carbon batteries, can reduce CO2 emissions by 15-20%, according to the latest data from the Advanced Lead Acid Battery Consortium (ALABC), presented at the Advanced Automotive Battery Conference (25-28 January, Mainz).
The T-Hybrid (based on a Kia Optima) (earlier post) and the ADEPT (based on a Ford Focus) (earlier post) both utilize an advanced 48V lead-carbon battery system with bolt-on electrical components that allow for significant engine-downsizing without loss in performance.
This engine downsizing means less fuel usage and subsequently lower CO2 emissions compared to the base vehicle—including a 16% reduction in the Kia Optima.
Project Partners for the T-Hybrid include ALABC, Hyundai Motor Group, AVL Schrick, Valeo, and East Penn Manufacturing.
This concept vehicle is powered by the Optima’s existing 1.7 liter CRDi turbo-diesel engine, paired with a Valeo 10 kW electric starter generator and electric supercharger powered by a 48V version of East Penn’s lead-carbon UltraBattery system.
The diesel-electric powertrain concept enables the T-Hybrid (turbo-hybrid) to be driven in electric-only mode at low speeds and when cruising, with deceleration serving to recharge the battery pack. It includes start-stop functionality and regenerative braking, but also provides the enhanced power and torque at low speeds that have made it popular in test drives.
Some of the support for the Kia Project was obtained through special funding from ALABC members such as the RSR Corporation, the Doe Run Company, Teck Metals, Acumuladores Moura, Britannia Refined Metals.
The low additional cost of introducing 48V mild-hybrid powertrains is continuing to attract automakers because it is the most cost-effective means of complying with stringent CO2 regulations over the next 10 years.—Alistair Davidson, ALABC
The ADEPT vehicle has undergone early testing, and is targeting to cut CO2 emissions levels to 75g CO2CO2km—far below the EU requirements for CO2 levels. New automotive designs in the EU are currently required to emit no more than 130 grams of CO2 per kilometer (g CO2/km), and by 2021, automakers will need to reduce that by an additional 28% to meet the requirement of 95g CO2/km.
Project partners in ADEPT include ALABC, Ford Motor Company, Ricardo, CPT, Provector, Faurecia, the University of Nottingham, and the University of Sheffield.
Based on a Ford Focus, the ADEPT (Advanced Diesel Electric Powertrain) combines low-cost, micro/mild hybrid technologies to reduce CO2 emissions by an additional 15-20%. This vehicle indicates a pathway to 70g/km at a cost/emissions reduction ratio superior to a full-hybrid solution.
The system includes regenerative braking and other efficiency improvements for optimized oil flow and pressure control, as well as a 48V electric turbine that captures exhaust waste heat for conversion to additional recovered electrical energy. However, unlike the T-Hybrid, it does not have an electric supercharger but will rely solely on the starter/generator for initial torque assist on the engine.
The 48V vehicles also solve some of the problems with making 48V low-emission systems appealing to the general consumer, ALABC said.
By downsizing and down-speeding the engine to reduce CO2 emissions, you significantly reduce the vehicle’s performance, making it less fun to drive. But by adding electrical components like the Valeo supercharger and the CPT SpeedStart ISG, you can give a 1.4 liter engine the performance of a 1.8 liter engine or better, and still provide the same enhanced emission benefits. In essence, this system allows you to reduce fuel consumption with additional electrical components, but increase performance while still maintaining a low production cost because of the use of lead-carbon batteries.—Allan Cooper, European projects coordinator for ALABC
Advanced lead batteries are 99% recyclable, and are significantly cheaper than alternative battery technologies used in HEVs.
15% is trivial compared to the required reduction of 85%, but given that it's available today I'll take it.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 27 January 2016 at 05:50 AM
What, a 15-20% reduction?? You've got to be kidding! We need an 80-90% reduction in automotive emissions according to the Paris climate agreement, within 5 years. This means R&D needs to be focused on this NOW.
What manufacturers could do is find ways to put relatively small and cheap lithium batteries in their cars, that run for 20-50 miles, which takes care of most driving, then have the "planet-killer" engine kick in afterwards. The VOLT does this already, but is too expensive for mass-market.
I'm starting to think this 48V lead-acid battery plan is a non-starter, and just a way for automotive companies to say they are doing something, but it isn't really moving the needle much - just a delaying tactic.
I think FORD is losing this race. I also wonder how the smaller manufacturers can survive if they don't have the capital to re-engineer their product lines quickly.
Posted by: Juan Valdez | 27 January 2016 at 05:59 AM
It's impossible to achieve an 80% reduction in 5 years; even full electrification wouldn't do that. The fossil-free electricity just isn't there, and not even a complete conversion to wind+PV+gas would achieve it.
That said, something like a $30/bbl oil import fee would halt the trend toward big SUVs in the USA.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 27 January 2016 at 06:19 AM
The notion that Bigger is Better may have started in Texas but has spread to 100% of USA and is quickly spreading to most of the world.
How can Texans (and 300+ millions national friends) be convinced to use small efficient super light 1,000 lbs mini vehicles to go to work and drive around instead of 5,000+ lbs SUVs and eat much less (2,000 colories/day instead of the current 3,800+ calories/day)?
The above could progressively reduce fossil and bio fuel consumption and GHG/pollution by more than 50% over 20 years or so?
With 50% less farm animals, animal feed and human food being transported and up to 75% less private vehicle weight being moved around, the current 1.5 million/year worldwide road fatalities could be progressively reduced by at least 50% to 75%.
However, reality being different, we will probably continue to eat more and more and get fatter and fatter and continue to drive around in vehicles 3 to 4 times too large and too heavy for many more years and continue to pollute more and more or until such times as we have to wear mask with air filter to walk outside and/or die from pollution.
Will smaller become beautiful and better soon?
Posted by: HarveyD | 27 January 2016 at 08:43 AM
The news here is the cheaper 48 volt lead/carbon battery. Not for automobile use; but, for industrial use in forklifts, mining equipment, etc. And, lastly it's a cheaper storage device for grid storage buffers. Lithium is still just too damn expensive.
I agree. We will never meet the goals to reduce GHGs in time.
What is needed is a way to clean the CO2 that is produced out of the air as we also implement full-on programs to stop using fossil fuels.
I'll go further and say the problem has a political solution; with every Republican you elect to any political position,especially state Government, you are delaying our transition off fossil fuels. Why? Because the Republican party is deeply dependent on the fossil fuels industry for financial support and the party is tasked with the job of slowing down the necessary changes to maintain the 'status quo.' Do I like the Democrats? No, they are doing a lousy job on the pollution issues; but, at least we have hope there.
Posted by: Lad | 27 January 2016 at 10:42 AM
Read this to see my point about Republicans:
Posted by: Lad | 27 January 2016 at 10:56 AM
We can't meet the 5 year emissions target but are we any more likely to see a $30bbl tax?
We probably could reach the emissions reduction target with both.
We possibly have the technology today to meet the targets (if they would just stand still) but there is no way the vested interests politically backed financiers will co -operate.
Evolution is by definition slow.
Climate change is historically blindingly fast.
Legislators advised by scientists could force the hand.
Technical engineers that aren't compromised are unanimously on board and understand the goals.
No one has all the facts as the boggle is across all human activity without borders or exemptions.
Posted by: Arnold | 27 January 2016 at 01:30 PM
48V technology has been sitting in a bottom drawer for the last 30 years. Even push bikes are overtaking it as enabling 96v technology efficiency is available.
You are right to think that the sub lethal voltages are still very useful and have a great future for secondary systems but for motive applications - really?
Posted by: Arnold | 27 January 2016 at 01:36 PM
Run a 48 volt hybrid on renewable fuels, reduce carbon even more.
If we want to reduce carbon, coal fired power plants are a good start.
Posted by: SJC | 27 January 2016 at 03:21 PM
I didn't say that, I just said it couldn't be done by 2030. 2050 is a target we can hit if we start now and get serious (e.g. no Energiewende-type demands for ideological purity over actual performance).
Meanwhile, New York Democrat governor Mario Cuomo is trying to shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant and substitute natural gas. Vermont Democrat governor Pete Schumlin was instrumental in shutting down Vermont Yankee and replacing it with natural gas.
Anti-nuclear activist Gregory Jaczcko cut his teeth in the retinue of Democratic Congressman Ed Markey, advanced to the staff of Democratic Senator Harry Reid, and was advanced to the NRC chairmanship by Democratic President Barack Obama. Once there he single-handedly threw major monkey wrenches into the nuclear programs of both the USA and Japan; the Japanese hysteria created billions of dollars in new fossil-fuel sales PER MONTH. Don't give me this nonsense, Lad. The side of the money party that wears D-jerseys is just as bad as the side that wears R-jerseys, if not more because greenwashers give them cover.
We can de-carbonize energy fairly easily if we get serious. Take the Liberty Ship as a model. They weighed about 3600 tons empty, or about 5 times as much as a NuScale unit with its containment. 2710 Liberty Ships were built in ~4 years, or about 680/year. The corresponding production rate of NuScale units would be about 3400/yr, roughly 10 per day. That is about 475 MW(e)/day net, or enough to replace the average US electric consumption with nuclear power in about 950 days.
World electric consumption is perhaps 5x US consumption. The same production rate of NuScale units would replace it in 4750 days, less than 13 years. But we'd need at least 5 years to certify the design and 5 years to ramp up, so 2030 is hopeless. 2050? Difficult but doable.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 27 January 2016 at 07:08 PM
At my age 2030 is 'never.' and 2050 is unattainable; so, I'll sticking with my statement from my perspective and my definition of never.
Nuclear is feared because humans don't trust humans to design and operate them on a no error allowed basis; for good reason and last time I looked they are too expensive for an interim solution until renewables ramp up. Come up with something cheaper than solar with a no failure guarantee and I'll go along with nuclear. There has to be good reason France is moving from nuclear to renewables. Perhaps they know something you don't know or can't define by cut and paste google searches.
I don't support either party and reserve the right to criticise either one; BTW, we haven't had a good Republican President since Eisenhower or a good Democrat since Harry. I urge people to vote for the person who will do the best for them, not because they are just a Republican, Democrat or 'No Party.'
Posted by: Lad | 27 January 2016 at 10:00 PM
It's no necesary to increase Nuclear Power.
Spain, for example, has more than 40% of renewable electricity generation.
It's based in eolic, hydro, and solar (Photovoltaic and also solar termal power).
It can be increased quickly, but we have too much power generation capacity.
Several natural gas combined cycle power plantas have been installed in the past years... and energy comsuption hasn't increased due to the crisis.
50% renewable electricity is an easy attainable goal, and it is not really expensive.
Renewable energy, now, in 2016, is economically competitive.
Posted by: energetico | 28 January 2016 at 01:07 AM
Only if the other 50% is hydro, and you have enough reservoir capacity and rainfall to back it up.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 28 January 2016 at 06:03 AM
If everyone had your mindset, Notre Dame cathedral would never have been started. You have made yourself irrelevant to the future.
Modern nuclear plant designs have expected useful lifespans in excess of 80 years. I don't expect to live 80 years, let alone 80 more years, but I would still make the investment in 80-year assets.
Good reason?! It's all due to phobias created by anti-nuclear propaganda. All of the "design and operate" errors thus far have had less "social harm" (at the most recent estimate of $220/ton CO2 and $3 million per life) than the output of a single 1 GW(e) natural-gas plant in ONE YEAR. Seriously. Calculation:
Radiation fatalities from TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima combined: 56
Natural gas consumption of 1 GW(e) plant at 60% efficiency: 120 t/hr
CO2 production: 330 t/hr
Social cost at 90% capacity factor and $220/ton: $573 million/yr
Equivalent lives lost at $3 million each: 191/yr
The anti-nuclear movement is based on phobias driven by propaganda.
Nuclear is not an interim solution. Nuclear is a long-term solution, and the only one that has been proven in the field. Neither wind nor solar has ever de-carbonized an existing grid, and with their unreliability they never can. Ruling out nuclear as a solution to CO2 emissions is planning to fail.
Show me solar with a guarantee that you can get under 50 gCO2/kWh net system emissions. Denmark is in excess of 380. Germany is almost 500.
France isn't moving squat. Hollande mouthed some noises to placate the Greens, but energy minister Segolene Royale pooh-poohed the idea. Areva is having trouble with their FOAK builds of their terribly over-engineered EPR (over-engineered due to paranoia), but the projected cost of power from Olkilouto is still just a fraction of what Denmark is paying to go "Green".
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 28 January 2016 at 06:05 AM
@Lad, my comment at the NRC blog:
To put it bluntly, the worst nuclear plant in the USA is safer than the best natural gas plant in the world.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 28 January 2016 at 06:46 AM
It's your spanish OK? If so... an interesant file:
Year 2014: renewables: 42.8%, non-renewables: 57.2%.
thermal renewable: 1.9%
Our huge capacity of generation (103 GW), compared with our real consumtion (about 40 GW), makes that now, it has no sense to invest in new renewable plants (nor in non-renewable).
We are paying electric plants that never are connected, because between 2005 and 2008, Spain was in "the champions league of the Economy" (our president said), and we began to build a lot of electric plants (mainly, gas combined cycle), and now, they are underused, and we have to pay them...
But 50% of renewable electricity is a goal almost every country can achieve.
Because our wind-plants are, in many cases, 10 or more years old... now there are bigger turbines, and in Spain we have not "offshore" turbines installed...
50% renewable electricity, is a relative easily affordable goal.
Posted by: energetico | 28 January 2016 at 07:34 AM
It's said that 48 volt system is significantly cheaper as it doesn't need to implement some high voltage protection features.
I read many articles on the web about 48V hybrids, and nowhere they mention even a possibility of using a voltage upconverter from battery to e-motor(s), as in Prius from 2010 (or so) onwards. They can increase 50 V (ie 48 V) to 120-150V, and use 25-30 kW e-motor(s).
High voltage would exist only in the inverter-motor compartment, only when motor spins at higher speeds.
That way they could easily drive compact cars on flat up to 40-50 kph. New city street limits in Paris are 30 kph, to cover half of streets by the end of 2016, all streets by 2020 (yesterday's news).
Prius upconverter raises battery voltage from 280V to 650V (if I remember correctly).
With upconverter the 48 Volt PHEV would make sense. Maybe even without upconverter if 2 e-motors are used.
Posted by: Alex_C | 28 January 2016 at 09:20 AM
Battery inverter/power supplies can be made, it all comes down to cost.
Posted by: SJC | 28 January 2016 at 11:12 AM
Plug-in hybrid PHEV tech offers benefits that all-battery BEV and fuelcell vehicle tech cannot when emission reduction can only be achieved by reducing VMT(vehicle miles travelled). All EVs offer households the choice whether electricity is used for driving or for keeping household electric appliances operating, especially in grid failure. The PHEV's small 5kwh battery pack and limited driving range (10-30 miles) is an incentive to drive less, whereby mass transit, walking, bicycling become more viable travel options, more trips become possible without having to drive, local economies become more self-sufficient. The relatively small PHEV battery pack is the ideal match to modest rooftop solar arrays (rather than giant PV arrays controlled by utility companies) that in grid failure will likewise strand households. The combination of PHEV + rooftop PV arrays make grid modernization possible without major grid expansion. Therefore, PHEVs matched to rooftop/neighborhood PV arrays have the most potential to reduce VMT and electricity consumption overall. We drive too much, too far, for too many purposes, fly too much, truck and ship goods around the world too much, all at too high cost and impact. We've become mer slaves to automobile-related business interests (finance, insurance, fuel/energy, parking, advertizing, etc) who have constructed and intend to maintain a transportation monopoly and a global economy that cannot be sustained.
Posted by: Sirkulat | 28 January 2016 at 11:16 AM
To back you up, I would state that not only is the worst nuclear plant in the USA safer than the best natural gas plant in the world it is also safer than all of the supposedly safe renewable energy sources although the most of the renewable energy is safer than fossil fuels with coal being on the bottom of the list.
I did some calculations and came up with wind energy requiring an area twice the size of Wyoming to provide enough energy for the US using recommended turbine spacing. Maybe, it could be done but consider the amount of steel and copper, etc that this would require.
Posted by: sd | 28 January 2016 at 11:45 AM
Spain's reckless overbuilding of "renewables", and the economic crash caused by the malinvestment, has been a story for quite some time. One study found that every "Green" job destroyed 2.2 jobs. Given Spain's unemployment problem, the people who pushed this should be considered criminals and expelled from public office.
Why "renewable", and not "carbon-free"? Why rule out things that have not been given the "renewable" label?
So Spain made massive investments and found that they had an economic lifespan of perhaps 10 years. Why are you insisting that other countries make the same crazy mistake Spain did? "Misery loves company"?
Hogwash; neither Denmark nor Germany have affordable retail power due to all the "environmental" charges added to consumer bills.
Know what countries have affordable and nearly carbon-free power? Sweden and France. Sweden does not use "renewables" as Greens define them (wind and solar); it uses nuclear power and hydropower.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 28 January 2016 at 02:43 PM
"Spain's reckless overbuilding of "renewables", and the economic crash caused by the malinvestment"
Economic crash has been caused by "property bubble", based in a cheap credit.
Of course, there is an study for everything that says what you want to hear. Smoking is healthy, a Hummer is more "Green" than a prius, etc.
You insist in "nuclear". Is it a global solution? Do you agree with nuclears in Iran? In Egypt? In Syria? In Morocco? etc.
Nuclears only for our friends?
Nuclear is not a global solution.
Green Energy has got a faster economic return. Requires less investment. Once you decide to invest in solar, or wind... you can have it producing in one year... in Nuclear, you need almost 10 years to produce the first kWh...
Wind power has a positive economic return. And has advanced a lot in 10-15 years. Now, are avaliable more powerful turbines, than make windfarms still more profitable.
Spain is growing economically. And we can do this with 40% renewable electricity.
And we can do this, with our GDP per capita that is half than the US's.
It's absolutely affordable.
Renewable energy is cheap.
It has few risks.
Its easely scalable. You can invest ten thousand dollars... one hundred thousand... a million... ten million... one hundred million dollars...
and always, you begin to receive energy in less than one year, and with a ROI of less than 10 years.
In nuclear... well... remember Olkiluoto-3 (Finland).
Estimated time construction: 4 years.... real, 11 years. (The project really began in 2.000, the construction began in 2005, now, January 2016, is beginning their first testing).
Estimated cost: 3 Billions. Real: 8 Billions. ¡¡¡!!!
So... if you decide to invest in nuclears TODAY... you will not receive a single kWh until 2031 (5 years for the project, permissions, economic analysis, etc.... and 10 years for the construction).
If you decide to invest in renevables TODAY... you will begin to receive energy in about one year. In January-February 2017.
Posted by: energetico | 28 January 2016 at 11:56 PM
The housing bubble was private debt, and was not encouraged by government subsidies. It did not create massive deficits in Madrid.
Yes. There are nuclear technologies which are impossible to use for weapons. We can and should develop and deploy them world-wide. But the biggest energy consumers are first-world countries which are already nuclear weapons states or allies, so we don't need those to get started.
Is that why nobody builds it to "compete" with fossil-fired grid power unless they can get some rather large subsidies?
You were just telling me that some of your wind farms were obsolete at just 10 years old. Nuclear plants in the USA are being licensed to 60 years and the first application for an extension to 80 years is imminent.
Only because it is massively subsidized, not the least by the balancing services provided by the fossil-fired grid. If wind had to provide base-load reliability from its own production using storage, it would be several times as expensive as anything but solar PV.
Iceland and Quebec can grow using 100% renewable electricity, but that's because they have massive hydro resources. Have you tried siting a huge hydro project in Morocco lately?
If this stuff is so great, cut the subsidies.
- Spanish investors in solar, lured by government-guaranteed rates of return, borrowed money and are now at risk of going bankrupt.
- Global, sure. Mountain tops and deserts, where there's nothing else.
- Few risks? If government pulls your operating subsidy, you go broke. And your 10-yr-old wind farms are obsolete in what, half their projected lifespan?
- It only scales until the fossil-fired grid can't offset its unreliability any more. Once it starts requiring storage to expand, the cost multiplies. NO wind projects of any significant size use storage to provide dispatchable base-load electric supply; that is its scaling limit.
Finland has ditched Areva for their next plant and appears to be going with Rosatom, but power from Olkiluoto 3 is still going to cost less than the FIT set for offshore wind power in the UK... and O-3 performs day or night, gale or calm.
Why does it take 5 years to get government approvals, when wind farms are apparently rubber-stamped? Why don't you equalize that too, and see what it does for the competition between sources.
You mean, I'll get energy when the weather feels like letting me have it.
I am here at about 45° N and 88° W. It is just barely starting to get light. Winds are dead calm. The outside temperature is -8°C. Tell me, O prophet of renewable energy: how would any investment I made in wind or solar a year ago warm my house up right now?
Actually dealing with this problem requires energy storage, and that's what I have. As soon as I post this comment I am going to uncover the hot coals beneath the ashes in the wood stove and throw a bunch of stored energy (firewood) into it.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 29 January 2016 at 04:27 AM
"You were just telling me that some of your wind farms were obsolete at just 10 years old."
No. Wind farms are not obsolete in ten years.
But technology has upgraded power, so when ten years ago, we only could have 1 MW turbines... today, there are 5 MW turbines.
Today, wind energy is cheaper than 10 years ago... but turbines installed ten years ago, still work, and they are far from be obsolete.
Solar investors in Spain... made investments with prices of solar panels that, 5 years ago, where two times more expenses than today ones.
They profited an elevated aid... and the new government have cut it.
Today, january (almost february) 2016, solar photovoltaic, is competitive.
You can see investments in Chile, China, the US, etc.
Your country (US?) has a big variety of climatic regions. 100% renewable is a difficult and expensive goal... but 50% renewable... it is a very different goal.
Good luck with your renewable energy (firewood).
Biomass is also a good choice.
(but take care about inner pollution, make a good maintenance in your chimney)
Posted by: energetico | 29 January 2016 at 06:33 AM
Nuclear power, not only extremely dangerous, is just another centralized power system that leaves households stranded in grid failure. What is wrong with you people?
Uh duh, uh, we don't want no stinkin power source on or near our roofs! We want super duper nukular power, man. Yeah, and we wanna drive all day everywhere too, see, in big cars, lectric ones, cuz then we get laid, groovy.
Posted by: Sirkulat | 29 January 2016 at 10:01 AM