Sprig Electric pairs Tesla Powerpack with rooftop PV system
Valence and EaglePicher enter into Li-ion strategic alliance

ALABC: 48V mild hybrids can meet emission targets with CO2 reductions of 15-20%

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.

Comments

Engineer-Poet
Nuclear power, not only extremely dangerous

Safest in the world at 0.04 fatalities per TWh.  Wind is almost 4x as dangerous at 0.15 fatalities per TWh.

is just another centralized power system that leaves households stranded in grid failure. What is wrong with you people?

You should know that almost all PV is grid-tied and has no batteries, so it also goes down in a grid failure.  What is wrong with you?

Uh duh, uh, we don't want no stinkin power source on or near our roofs!

I want power when it's dark out and the wind isn't blowing.  You know, the same desires that led people to start burning wood for warmth, and then coal when the wood became scarce?

Clowns like you who push "renewables" as solutions for problems they cannot solve are just extending the use of carbon-based fossil fuels.  I suspect you know this and want it, because people who are merely mistaken eventually get a clue after enough education.

Engineer-Poet
Good luck with your renewable energy (firewood).

It isn't exactly renewable; the species I'm burning (American ash) is going extinct because of an invasive predator.  I have the choice of using it to displace fossil fuel or letting it go to waste.  But until it's gone it is stored energy that I can get when I need it, not when the weather deigns to let me have some.

Sirkulat

"Almost all PV is grid-tied, so it also goes down in a grid failure."

Because PV power can be stored in PHEV and BEV battery packs off the grid, nevermind corporate utility company preference to retain total control over power supply, my argument is sound. Your argument, that nukular power is safe, is weak and disregards the many advantages of adding complementary decentralized power sources to regional utility grids.

Engineer-Poet
Because PV power can be stored in PHEV and BEV battery packs off the grid

You can count the PEV car models set up for backing up domestic power supplies on the fingers of zero hands.  I own a Fusion Energi.  It has tens of kW of inverter capability.  Its one AC outlet is rated at 120 VAC, 150 watts.

my argument is sound.

<laugh>

Your argument, that nukular power is safe, is weak

"Nukular"?  George W. Bush, is that you?

disregards the many advantages of adding complementary decentralized power sources to regional utility grids.

Which would be what, exactly?  And how how do they supply power in a grid outage, if they don't have storage or dispatchable generation?  Two responses ago you implied that solar was the solution to blackouts, and the motivation for nuclear was not wanting to have a roof-full of stuff.  (Like I spend time looking at my roof.)  If you have a cogent argument to make, make it.

Sirkulat

If you tried to understand a argument contrary your own, we might find common ground. I usually spell the word nuclear as such and reserve the spelling nukular for bull-headed advocates such as yourself.

It's a given that PV arrays can charge an EV battery pack off the grid. Thus it follows that even grid-tied systems in grid failure can if so designed supply household power for appliances/electronics. Such a "lifesaving" backup power system is enough reason to consider widespread implementation.

In my earlier responses, I've argued that PHEVs offer 'dispatchable generation' off the grid using any combustable fuel including hydrogen. BEVs are more dependent upon the grid. BEVs and fuelcell EVs lull motorists into a false sense that routine long-distance driving and the current economies dependent upon long-distance travel/transport are sustainable. Corporate BS. PHEVs on the other hand offer economic incentives to drive less, whereby more energy efficient modes of travel (transit, walking, bicycling) serve travel needs as rightfully fundamental travel modes that support local economies.

I could continue, but if you can't see my admittedly complex point, it's a stalemate. Your point is singularly that more power is needed by any means. BS. In the 1980's, President Carter's energy policy and Home Weatherization Tax Credit program raised insulation and appliance efficiency standards that make today's homes more comfortable, cleaner and healthier as well. Suddenly, the predicted demand for power was reduced enough to CANCEL Washington State's WPPSS project to build 4 nukular power plants. The decommissioning of Oregon's single nuclear plant Trojan was justified for the same reason - reduced demand that also produced a higher standard of living.

SJC

Narcissists are never wrong, they criticize their opponents because their opponents MUST be destroyed. It is an infantile affliction that most grow out of in adolescence.

Engineer-Poet
If you tried to understand a argument contrary your own

<raises eyebrow>  You start with a flatly false assertion regarding hazards of energy sources, and you want to lecture ME about understanding?  Your problem is that I understand your argument better than you do.

It's a given that PV arrays can charge an EV battery pack off the grid.

But first you need a charger capable of operating off-grid, and then a V2R capability in the vehicle (or direct DC connection to the battery) so you can get power out again.  These things only exist in small pilot tests.  Further, scenarios like arriving at home with a drained battery as the sun is falling will be very frequent.  Empty storage + dark out + grid down = blackout, just what you claimed to be preventing.  A Tesla Powerwall will supply 1 kW of juice for some hours in event of an outage, because its purpose is to sit there fully charged until needed; the EV battery doesn't and can't.

it follows that even grid-tied systems in grid failure can if so designed supply household power for appliances/electronics.

I think there's a better argument for making critical systems like gas furnaces power themselves, with a small power surplus able to run other basics.  You could use an EV battery as a buffer but you might be able to do with a starting battery.

I've argued that PHEVs offer 'dispatchable generation' off the grid using any combustable fuel including hydrogen.

I like the idea of a multi-fuel vehicle engine, but have you looked at the price tag on those gas-ready kits just to be able to bolt a propane or CNG system on?  I've worked in the industry; I can imagine the headaches, such as doing emissions certification.  Nobody's going to go for this.

PHEV as generator, sure, but first the auto companies have to provide high-current access to the battery or connections to the vehicle's inverters to provide AC power.  Nobody's going to go multi-fuel just for emergencies.

Your point is singularly that more power is needed by any means.

You expect to be able to eliminate carbon emissions from the electric sector and convert the vehicle fleet to PEVs without a massive expansion in carbon-free generation?  Specifically, dispatchable generation?  If you do, you've lost it.

HarveyD

The argument against NPPs has gone off the wrong leg. Safety perse is not the main reason (except in Japan?) for NPPs wide spread rejection.

The main reasons are increasing construction cost & time + production cost per kWh and spent fuel acceptable disposal.

When those 4 miracles are solved, NPPs could become a viable solution for clean energy supply. It will not be for tomorrow or the next few decades?

Meanwhile, lower cost clean REs with storage are and will be getting a much larger piece of the energy pie in EU, China, India and many other countries.

Ontario, Canada will soon replace many of its 18-19 CANDUs with REs and imported Hydro.

Sirkulat

Look engineer-poet, you haven't demonstrated anything remotely poetic in your prose nor altered my opinion with pompously professed understanding. More effort to express common viewpoint -multi-fuel PHEV engines for example- would make discussion less contentious.

I contend that PHEVs have more potential than BEVs and FCEVs to reduce fuel/energy consumption overall by incorporating elementary consideration of the need to reduce demand for long-distance travel and transport. Specifically, households with a PHEV 5kwh battery pack and matching rooftop solar array -nevermind prohibitive costs and complex charging infrastructure- offers incentives to drive less.

This point is aligned with my experience working to improve living standards using less energy. Not difficult to comprehend but still missing in your curt replies. Thousands of historic, architecturally valuable homes were saved from the wrecking ball. Whole neighborhoods added or restored functional local economic structure. Energy efficient transit systems improved alongside walking and bicycling becoming more viable modes of travel.

Try answering this question:
How is the automobile like globalization?

Engineer-Poet
you haven't demonstrated anything remotely poetic in your prose

Verse is the wrong medium for this, so I don't use it.

nor altered my opinion with pompously professed understanding.

Your opinion is based on ignorance or dogma.  You weren't argued into it, and arguing won't get you out.

For a simple example of what you just don't grasp, let's assume that your PEV backup scheme is in place.  Someone waves a magic wand and there are 1 million Tesla P85s out there (almost 20 years worth at current production), with full-power bidirectional grid interfaces.  When the rest of the grid's generation (~450 GW average load) suddenly goes out, they are all fully charged and plugged in to take up the slack.

How long would they last?  85 GWh / 450 GW = 0.1889 hr = 11 minutes 20 seconds.

The sheer magnitude of the problem is so far beyond your ken, you can't grasp that your proposals don't begin to address it.  All you are doing is repeating slightly-modified Green talking points.  Those points were crafted by expert propagandists for best feel-good with high opacity, and you have not seen through them.  Until you start digging into the facts and convince yourself that they're wrong, you're not going to.

Sirkulat

Engineer-poet, I tried to find common ground with you, but you prefer to be argumentative. My specific and definitive support for plug-in hybrids over all-battery EVs, especially the Tesla 'S' and other vehicles than can justify a larger battery pack, remains absent in your unnecessarily rude counter-argument. Nevermind. I'm done trying to learn anything useful from you. Hang out with your nukular cult member friends living in the 1950's pretending the self-driving car is just around the corner.

The morning robocar announcement, "State destination" is met with an unusual reply from its daily commuting passenger, "Take me to the nearest cliff and drive off." A short pause later, Robocar queries, "Are you sure this is what you want?" The passenger answers, "Well, drive to the nearest cliff. Stop. I'll get out. Then drive off the cliff and make it look like an accident because I want a new car and the insurance company to pay for it." After a somewhat longer pause, robocar in lurid tones answers, "I can't do that, Dave."

HarveyD

It is so easy to maintain that dirty energy from the grid cannot be replaced with other sources overnight or tomorrow morning. Everybody knows that.

However, the 40-42% from dirty CPPs and the 18-20% from aging NPPs could be progressively replaced with REs with storage and NGPPs over 20-40 years, specially if coupled with an effective all azimuth national e-energy & fresh water saving programs.

The outside walls of all commercial buildings and residences could much better insulated with an add 6-10 cm foam. Windows & doors could be replaced with superior insulated ones. Existing older 10 SEER air-conditioners could be replaced with up to date SEER 25 Heat-Pumps. The same can be done with hot water heaters, cooking surfaces and cloths dryers.

Fresh water usage could be reduced by 50% with better farming methods etc.

Reduce eating 4,000 calories/day to a more essential 2,000.

We may not have too many other alternatives to keep GHG and pollution at bay and reduce harmful obesity.

Engineer-Poet
I tried to find common ground with you, but you prefer to be argumentative...

... says the clown who entered this discussion with a claim that is utterly, totally and definitively wrong.

My specific and definitive support for plug-in hybrids over all-battery EVs

You realize you're talking to someone who's been driving a PHEV for almost 3 years now?  Someone who has an intimate, personal understanding of the issues involved with them... especially the need for dispatchable generation to charge them at times of opportunity, which cannot be done with wind or solar?

especially the Tesla 'S' and other vehicles than can justify a larger battery pack, remains absent in your unnecessarily rude counter-argument.

You dance around issues because you've learned that when you pin yourself down in a false position, you get blown out of the water.  Then you whine about it.  Call the waaaaaambulance, we've got a severely bruised ego here!

I'm done trying to learn anything useful from you.

None is so blind as will not see.

Sirkulat

Please don't bother to reply, engineer-putz.
The credibility of your viewpoint is in the toilet.
Maybe things aren't working out all that well for you.
Maybe you have more money than you know what to do with.
You really don't have to be rude here. Have a nice day.

Engineer-Poet

49 words and not one fact to offer in support of your assertions.

You really don't have to be rude here.

But you have time to write insults.  That says it all.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)