Plug In Vehicle Technology

The Case for a Multi-Technology Approach

Bill Reinert

Advanced Technology Group,

Toyota Motor Sales, USA, INC

October 5, 2010

COMPETE Coalition

Washington DC

Today – 2 4 Additional by 2050

New York, NY

18.65M

Los Angeles, CA

12.22M

2006 citymayors.com

Atlanta, GA

Miami, FLDallas –

Fort Worth, TX

Chicago, IL

On One Hand: Growing Megacities (>10M)

Urban Mass Transport Solutions

Personal Rapid TransitLight Rail

Developing Solutions For The Last Mile Problem

iReal

Winglet

CityCar

On the Other Hand: Populations are Spreading

2/3 of US jobs, 3/4 economic output, are within 35 mi of

98 largest central business districts (CBD). Increasingly,

they are moving to a ring 10-35 mi from CBD.

(Brookings Inst.)

Geographic Distribution of Job Share 98

Metro Areas, 1998 - 2006

Most Commutes Are Suburb to Suburb

Metropolitan Flow Map (Millions of Commuters)

Source Brookings Inst.

Unique US Urbanization and Transportation Trends

Fifty-year US Travel and Economic Trends

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Perc

en

t (%

) C

han

ge s

ince 1

960

GDP: US Bureau of Economic Analysis, chained 2000 dollars; VMT:

“Highway Statistics 2007” Table VMT-421, FHWA; Population: US Census;

Gas Price: “Short Term Energy Outlook-October 2009” US Energy

Information Administration, annual prices scaled by US CPI in 2008

• US Vehicle Miles Traveled grows with US economy

• Jobs and housing are decentralizing (despite efforts to do the opposite)

• Commute distance increasing (often between suburbs of metro area)

• Highway car remains critically important to US

National Highway Travel Survey 2001, US

Bureau of Transportation Statistics Omnibus

Household Survey 2003, ABC News/Time

magazine/Washington Post poll 2005

One-way Commute Distance

0

5

10

15

20

1981 1991 2001Pe

rso

n T

rip

Le

ng

th (

mile

s)

Personal Income (2000 $)

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Gas $/Gal CPI Adj.

Population

Oil Prices Strongly Influenced by Excess Capacity

Source: Neftex (Dr. Peter Wells)

Excess

Capacity PriceExcess

Capacity

Platform DesignCheap Oil

Expensive Oil

Scarce Oil

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

b/d

Non Opec

Opec

Spare capacity

NGLs

Canadian tar sands

Biofuels

CTL

GTL

0

20,000,000

40,000,000

60,000,000

80,000,000

100,000,000

120,000,000

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

b/d

Non Opec

Opec

Spare capacity

NGLs

Canadian tar sands

Biofuels

CTL

GTL

Oil Production Forecast Oil Price Forecast

2020

Finding replacements part 1

Heavy crude

lb per MMBTU

of fuel

BTU input

per BTU

of fuel

per

MMBTU of

fuel

per

gallon

of fuel

MMBTUe of

fuel per

acre

gallons of

fuel per

acre

Fraction of

U.S.

cropland

Acresb

Transportation

energy

displacement

Fuel

source

CO2

emissionsa

Energy

ratio

Water use

(gallons)Land use

240,000c50%

120,000c25%Tar sands ~180~0.25~38~5~350,000~3 Mlow

48,000c10%

37,000c50%

19,000c25%In situ

oil shale~240~0.15~45~6~65,000~20 Mvery low

7,500c10%

~200~0.25~80~10--very lowa few

thousand0-100%

~150~0.1 d~10dn/a--very lowa few

thousand0-100%CNG

20,60050%

10,30025% ~380~0.5243~500,000~4.4 Mvery low

4,10010%

Coal-to-liquid

1750.088010--very lowa few

thousand0-100%

Conventional

diesel

1750.05455--very lowa few

thousand0-100%

Conventional

gasoline

Source: Kreider and Associates

Finding replacements part 2

lb per MMBTU

of fuel

BTU input

per BTU

of fuel

per

MMBTU of

fuel

per

gallon

of fuel

MMBTUe of

fuel per

acre

gallons of

fuel per

acre

Fraction of

U.S.

croplandAcresb

Transportation

energy

displacement

Fuel

source

CO2

emissionsa

Energy

ratio

Water use

(gallons)Land use

~1050.6655--very lowtens of

thousands0-100%

MSW-based

ethanol

0.24005080060004 %13 M50%

0.24005080060002%6.5 M25%absorbs CO2

waste

0.2400508006000< 1%2.5 M10%

Algaculture

2400.766900900757390%1.2 B50%

2400.766900900757120%380 M25%

2400.76690090075780%253 M10%Soybean

biodiesel fuel

3300.9219001493951072%228 M50%

3300.9219001463951535%112 M25%

3300.9219001463951515%46 M10%Cellulosic

ethanol

3500.98290022028360103%337 M50%

3500.9823001802837051%160 M25%

3500.9822001702837020%65 M10%Corn-based

ethanol

1750.088010--very lowa few

thousand0-100%

Conventional

diesel

1750.05455--very lowa few

thousand0-100%

Conventional

gasoline

Source: Kreider and Associates

0 60 12020 100

50

100

40 80 140

Source: 1990 Nationwide personal transportation survey

(%)Cumulative percentage of

personal automobile trips

Cumulative percentage of

travel distance energy

Approx.

20%

Average Daily Travel Distance per Vehicle (miles)

U.S. Driving Patterns

PHV Role: EV Mode For Short Distance HV Mode for

Longer Trips

Approx.

35%

80% Trips

Toyota‟s PHV Development

Operation Specifications

Electric Vehicle Charger Assembly

Engine

Electric Motor Electric Vehicle Charger

Cable Assembly

HV Battery

AC 110 V to 220 V

Household

Outlet

Max. OutputEngine 98 HP (73 kW)

MG2 80 HP (60 kW)

In EV Driving

Mode

Max. Speed Approx. 62 mph (100 km/h)

Range Approx. 13 miles (21 km )

Power Source Household Electrical Outlets

Charging Time Approximately 3 hrs (110 V)

HV Battery Cooling

Additional fans

New ductwork

42 Temperature Sensors

Intake Air Ducts

HV Battery

Cooling Blowers

HV Battery Temperature Sensors

(for HV Battery Pack)

HV Battery Temperature Sensors

(for Intake Air Duct)

Sub 2 Main Sub1

DC/DC Converter

Cooling Blower

„10 „09 „08„07

Accumulate

Field dataSmall demo

Test car Field Data

NiMH Li Li (Revised)Battery

Accumulate

Field data

Step by Step approach, dependent on Battery Development

Li (Adv)

Understand market potential

Field Test Phase

Medium

volume

Mass volume

Toyota‟s PHV Introduction Scenario

(10)

(150)

(~25K)

Last Century Urban Mobility Projects

Toyota e-Com shared-use „community‟ EVsfor employees

Crayon Systempay-as-you-go public EV rentals

New Urban Mobility – EV Concept

Range: 50 miles

Charge Time:

~ 2.5hr/7.5hr (220V/110V)

2012

Transition in Personal Mobility

Mobility

based on

Personal

Automobile

Mobility based on

Multiple Modes

• Car Sharing

• Personal Rapid Transit

• Mass Rapid TransitTransition will require:

1. Real-time Communication from Vehicle

a) to customer (web portal, Smart Phone)

b) to utilities

2. Shift to other modes of personal

transportation

3. Partnerships

Technology Enables New Possibilities

Wireless Technology Promotes

Modal Diversity

Convergence of:

• Wireless Computing

• Consumer Electronics

• Transportation

• Energy Management

• Eco-impact Metrics

Recommend optimal mode to

minimize price &

travel time

Eco Technology Conserves

Energy, Reduces CO2

Locate

Charge Station

Locate Mass Transit

Zipcar Available? Smarter

Charging

Stations

Vehicle to

Grid

Smart Grid

PEV ENABLERS

Monitor

Charge Status

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Fox Business 2008 (70 Campuses); Innovative Mobility Research 2007 (current members), CNW Research 2008 (8 million forecast)

Members

(000s)

200k+

Current

Members

U.S. Car Sharing Growth Forecast

8 mm

Potential

2007 ~2020

Currently at 70+ U.S. college campuses

Car Sharing is Growing

Car Sharing Opens New Market Opportunities

Two Basic Models, OEM Owner and Independent OEM Owned Example: Mercedes Smart Car To Go

Two Locations, Austin, Texas and Ulm Germany

Charge $.35/minute or $70 for all day

Insurance (and future charging) Provided

Mercedes Retains Control of Vehicle

Municipality Provides Free Parking

Income Stream From Services not From Sales Enabled by Smart Phone Applications

Independent Owner Example: Zip Car 350,000 Subscribers and Climbing

49 US Cities, Plus Toronto, Vancouver and London

6000 Vehicles, 70 Different Models

Largest Car Sharing Operation in the World

Estimated to be $1 Billion Company in 5 years (Fortune Magazine)

iPhone App Finds the Car, Reserves the Car and Unlocks the Car

Municipalities Provide Dedicated Parking and Charging

Key Infrastructure Issues Remain

Vehicle to Grid Communications

Electric Utilities have excess electricity generation capacity during off-peak

hours – typically at night

Even during off-peak times, however, there is insufficient electricity distribution

capacity for many PEVs to charge at the same time

Communication between vehicle and “grid” is necessary to avoid

negative impacts to distribution system (such as local outages)

Level 2 Charging Equipment

The majority of customers, particularly larger-capacity BEVs (50+ miles), will

need/want L2 (220V) charging at home and business

The installation of L2 charging equipment is extremely challenging: high cost,

lengthy time period, complex interactions among City, Utilities, Contractor,

Customer, OEM and Dealer

Resolving L2 installation issues will be critical for EV market adoption

Last Mile Grid System not Developed

Old Transformers Cannot Accommodate Multiple EVs Charging in One

Neighborhood

Night Time Charging Limits Charging Hours

Public Charging Not Assured

“What the Market will Bear”

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0 to

2499.9

5000 to

7499.9

10000

to

12499.9

15000

to

17499.9

20000

to

22499.9

25000

to

27499.9

30000

to

32499.9

35000

to

37499.9

40000

to

42499.9

45000

to

47499.9

Prius

Prius

PHV

Mass Market

Source: PIN

2008 Midsize Car Prices

0 --

2500

5000 --

7500

10,000 --

12,500

15,000 --

17,500

20,000 --

22,500

25,000 --

27,500

30,000 --

32,500

35,000 --

37,500

40,000 --

42,500

45,000 --

47,500

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

The U.S. market is primed for light PHVs . . . . .

if oil prices play along

Source: Lux Research

The Obama administration has made EVs an

agenda item…

Congress passed energy

legislation in 2009 to reduce U.S.

emissions below 2005 levels

(Senate has not voted on

legislation)

17% reduction by 2020

83% reduction by 2050

American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act included $2.4

billion in funding for battery

development and electric vehicle

component

Energy Plan from Campaign - Key Points Progress vs. Campaign Promises

Put 1 million plug-in hybrid

and/or electric vehicles on the

road by 2015

Ensure 10% of energy comes

from renewable sources by 2012

and 25% by 2025

Implement economy-wide cap-

and-trade program to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions 80%

from 1990 levels by 2050

…backed by significant financial commitments

25,000

465

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

1,636

Tesla Nissan

NA

AVMIP

Fundin

g

FiskerFord

16,545

24529

Tennec

o

Not

Distribute

d

5,801

Advanced Tech Vehicles Manufacturing Loan ProgramMeasured in USD Millions

2,410

1,247

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2,200

2,400

2,600

Oth

er

81

Tot

al

Not

Distribu

ted

35

Adv

Veh &

Trans

Electr

347

Elec

Drive

Compo

nent

465

Adv

Batt

Supp

Mfg

235

Cell,

Batt,

and

Mtls

Mfg

American Reinvestment & Recovery Act AwardsMeasured in USD Millions

Source: U.S. Department of Energy

ATVM provides loans for the

cost of re-equipping, expanding,

or establishing manufacturing

facilities in the United States to

produce advanced technology

vehicles or qualified

components, and for associated

engineering integration costs

ARRA provides funding for

U.S.-based manufacturers

to:

• Produce batteries and

components

• Produce electric drive

components such as

electric motors and power

electronics

However, past presidential agenda items such as solar

power

have struggled once funding was cut

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

175

200

225

250

275

300

325

350

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

USD Millions

Estimated Department of Energy Solar FundingMeasured in 2007 Dollars

Source: Sissine, “Federal Spending for Solar Energy”, Congressional Research Service July 11, 2008; EIA “Solar Thermal Collector Shipments by Type, Price, and Trade 1974 - 2007

ConcentrationPhotovoltaic

Shipments of Solar Thermal CollectorsMeasured in Millions of Square Feet

8

2

20

16

4

18

14

6

01990

6.2

3.6

2.5

1988

4.1

3.3

0.7

1986

4.9

3.8

1.1

1984

16.4

4.5

11.9

1982

18.6

7.5

11.1

1980

19.4

12.2

7.2

1978

10.9

Square Feet

(Millions)

5.0

1976

5.8

3.9

1.9

5.91.3

1.1

0.1

12

10

1974

Low-TempMedium-Temp1977 - 1979: President Carter makes multiple

speeches touting solar power and installs

panels on roof of White House

President Reagan cuts funding

for solar development

Strong Regulatory Push: Reduce CO2

CARB expects BEV/FCV sales volume to surpass conventional gas by 2035 and reach 30% of mix by 2040

However, the above vision does not achieve the 80% reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2050;

ZEVs will need to reach 100% of vehicle sales by 2040, to meet the 80% goal

CARB 2050 Vision

Sources: California Air Resources Board; “[ZEV] White Paper”

CARB Assumptions: Retail Price Increase Versus 2035 Hybrid

2035 Plug-in Hybrid (30 mile AER) $3,400

2035 Battery Electric (100 mile range) $5,500

2035 Fuel Cell $2,800

Duke University, Plug-in and regular hybrids: A national and regional comparison of costs and CO2 emissions.

Outside Voices: Evaluation of PHVs, Duke University

Comparison of Vehicle Powertrain Technologies

Lifetime emissions

Lifetime energy use

CO2 equiv SOx NOx Hg

lb lb lb lb MMBTU

Gasoline (30mpg Sentra) 140,000 150 160 0.00084 721

EV-40 (Current US Grid) 110,000 430 210 0.00190 339

PHEV-20 (Reduced Volt) 100,000 270 160 0.00120 409

HEV (2010 Prius) 97,000 140 120 0.00071 472

Fuel Cell (70mi/kg) 76,000 4,100 53 0.00047 626

Comparison of Vehicle Powertrain Technologies

Lifetime energy use breakdown

FC HEV PHEV-20 EV-40 Gas

Material production 17% 17% 20% 25% 11%

Vehicle assembly 3% 3% 4% 5% 2%

Fuel production / transport 10% 10% 9% 5% 12%

Vehicle operation 63% 63% 59% 54% 71%

Vehicle maintenance 3% 3% 3% 4% 2%

Vehicle disposal 4% 4% 5% 7% 3%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Electricity HydrogenGasoline, Diesel,

Biofuel,

etc

Public transportPrivate use

i-series

Bicycle

Electric

welfare

vehicle

Med/Large vehicles

Scooter

Light vehicle

Microbus

City bus

Delivery truck

Delivery

vehicle

WingletPMR

High-Speed,

Long-Distance Driving

Lower-Speed,

Short-Distance Driving

Highway driving

between cities

Low-Speed,

Inter-City Driving

Med-to-High Speed,

Med-Distance Driving

Large truck

Vehicle Size

FCV

Sector

EV

sector

Driving distance

ICE HV &

PHV Sector

EV commuter

Mobility-based Vehicle-based

PHEV

HV

Roles of EV/PHEV/FCV

Apply existing technologies in new ways

Most of the technologies mentioned already exist, just not yet

in the mobility space

For now smaller battery approaches are more cost

effective

Implies multiple charge periods throughout the day

At the end of the day, customer is king

All solutions must solve customers problems without creating

new ones

Charging solutions to manage the grid may be at odds with customer expectations.

Summary