Fuel Cells as Range Extenders for Battery Electric Vehicles · Fuel Cells as Range Extenders for...

Fuel Cells as Range Extenders for Battery Electric Vehicles 2013 DOE Hydrogen Program and Vehicle Technologies

Annual Merit Review May 15th, 2013

Phil Sharer, Aymeric Rousseau Argonne National Laboratory

Sponsored by Pete Devlin

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information

Project ID # MT012

Project Overview

2

Timeline Barriers Start Date: July 2012 End Date: March 2013 Percent Complete: 100%

• Evaluate energy and cost benefits of H2 FC technologies

• Suite of Models and Tools • Unplanned Studies and Analysis

Budget Partners Total Project Funding • DOE share: $200,000 • Contractor share: none

Formal Collaborator • Strategic Analysis (provided fuel

cell and hydrogen storage cost) Interactions • Multiple reviews with OEMs and

other National Laboratories

Relevance

Does a fuel cell range extender hold promise to cost effectively extend the range of a battery electric vehicle?

What size should the fuel cell system and hydrogen storage be? What are the manufacturing and operating cost impacts? What effect does the addition of the fuel cell system have on

vehicle mass, battery power, battery capacity and motor power? Is the benefit the same for all vehicle platforms?

3

The objective is to evaluate the potential of using a fuel cell system to double the range

of current Battery Electric Vehicles

Approach

Two vehicle platforms were selected – Compact (Similar to Nissan Leaf®) – Class 4 HD (Similar to Navistar® Estar™)

Fuel Cell system and hydrogen storage costs based on current technologies & 10,000 units production

Vehicle components were sized to double the initial BEV range Vehicle control parameters set to use the fuel cell throughout the

entire range Various control options considered

– Load following – Thermostat

• Demanded power at max power • Demand power at optimal power • Demanded power at 50% power

4

Approach Large Number of Combinations Considered

5

Current BEV

Current BEV

x2 range

Fuel Cell Rated Power

(kW)

H2 On Board (kg)

ESS Sizing to Meet x2 Range

Vehicle Control

Parameter Tuning

10

12.5

15

17.5

20

2

4

6

8

Run Simu

2 BEV + 5 Fuel Cell rated Power * 4 H2 On Board = 22 Vehicles All vehicles sized to meet similar Vehicle Technical Specifications

Class 4 Vehicle Example

Approach For Each Control Strategy, Specific Automated Sizing Algorithms were Developed

6

Objective is to define: - Fuel Cell Power - H2 weight - Battery Energy - Vehicle level control parameters

Approach Sizing Algorithms Used to Define the Vehicles and Run the Drive Cycles Using Distributed Computing

7

Vehicles Automatically

Sized

Distributed Computing

Autonomie Post-processing

API

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 22000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Mass (kg)

Fuel

Cel

l + S

tora

ge ($

)

Power-2(kW)Power-3(kW)Power-4(kW)Power-5(kW)Power-6(kW)Power-7(kW)Power-8(kW)Power-9(kW)Power-10(kW)Power-11(kW)Power-12(kW)Power-13(kW)Power-14(kW)Power-15(kW)Power-20(kW)Power-25(kW)Power-30(kW)Power-35(kW)Power-40(kW)Power-45(kW)Power-50(kW)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

50

100

150

200

250

Mass (kg)

Ele

c C

onsu

mpt

ion

(W.h

/mile

)


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

5

10

15

20

25

Mass (kg)

Fuel

Cel

l Pow

er O

n Th

resh

old

(kW

)

Power-3(kW)Power-4(kW)Power-5(kW)Power-6(kW)Power-7(kW)Power-8(kW)Power-9(kW)Power-10(kW)Power-11(kW)Power-12(kW)Power-13(kW)Power-14(kW)Power-15(kW)Power-20(kW)Power-25(kW)Power-30(kW)Power-35(kW)Power-40(kW)Power-45(kW)Power-50(kW)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

5

10

15

20

25

Mass (kg)

Fuel

Cel

l Pow

er O

n Th

resh

old

(kW

)

Power-3(kW)Power-4(kW)Power-5(kW)Power-6(kW)Power-7(kW)Power-8(kW)Power-9(kW)Power-10(kW)Power-11(kW)Power-12(kW)Power-13(kW)Power-14(kW)Power-15(kW)Power-20(kW)Power-25(kW)Power-30(kW)Power-35(kW)Power-40(kW)Power-45(kW)Power-50(kW)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

50

100

150

200

250

Mass (kg)

Ele

c C

onsu

mpt

ion

(W.h

/mile

)


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 22000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Mass (kg)

Fuel

Cel

l + S

tora

ge ($

)


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 22

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3x 10

4

Mass (kg)

Man

ufac

turin

g C

ost (

$)


.a_process

Milestones 2012 Q3 2012 Q4 2013 Q1

8

Run the simulations for the Class 4

Run the simulations for the Compact Car

Analyze & Review Results

Write Report

Develop vehicle energy management

Develop automated sizing algorithm

Define study assumptions

2 3 4 5 6 7 80

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3x 10

4

Mass (kg)

Bat

tery

Cos

t ($)

Power-10(kW)Power-12.5(kW)Power-15(kW)Power-17.5(kW)Power-20(kW)

Technical Accomplishments Battery Cost Decreased by 80% While Energy Decreased to Less than 10kWh

Increased onboard hydrogen fuel leads to smaller battery energy to maintain a constant range

The battery transitions from a high energy to a high power battery (the fuel cell at this value is supplying the average load on the vehicle while the battery is handling transients)

9 Cost of 2X range BEV Vehicle based on 500 $/kWh for battery

$42000 for BEV

2 3 4 5 6 7 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Mass (kg)

Bat

tery

Ene

rgy

(kW

.h)


106 kWh for BEV

Class 4 P&D

Onboard H2 Weight (kg) Onboard H2 Weight (kg)

2 3 4 5 6 7 83

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6x 10

4

Mass (kg)

Man

ufac

turin

g C

ost (

$)


Technical Accomplishments Total Manufacturing Cost Saving Up to $25,000

10

$59600 for BEV

Cost of 2X range BEV Vehicle based on 500 $/kWh for battery

Class 4 P&D

Onboard H2 Weight (kg)

Technical Accomplishments Levelized Cost of Driving(*) Decreased by 40% with 6 kg of H2

11

2 3 4 5 6 7 80.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

Mass (kg)

LCO

D ($

/mile

)


1.29 $/mile for BEV

Main Parameters Value

H2 Fuel 3.5 $/ge

ESS Cost 500$/kWh

Vehicle Life Time

5 years

Annual Miles

14,500 miles

(*) Maintenance and resale not included


Class 4 P&D


Technical Accomplishments Uncertainty Analysis Demonstrates Robustness of Benefits

12

H2 Fuel $8/gge ESS 250$/kWh

10 years Lifetime 30K Miles/Year

Class 4 P&D




Technical Accomplishments Using the Fuel Cell System Close to its Peak Efficiency Decreases the Benefits

The more expensive upfront cost of the larger fuel cell is not recovered through fuel savings by operating the fuel cell more efficiently.

13

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Mass (kg)

LCO

D ($

)


2 3 4 5 6 7 80.7

0.8

0.9

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

Mass (kg)

LCO

D ($

)

Power-30(kW)Power-40(kW)Power-50(kW)Power-60(kW)Power-70(kW)

Max Efficiency Strategy Max Power Strategy


Class 4 P&D


0 0.5 1 1.5 22

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4x 10

4

Mass (kg)

Man

ufac

turin

g C

ost (

$)

Power-2(kW)Power-4(kW)Power-6(kW)Power-8(kW)Power-10(kW)Power-12(kW)Power-14(kW)Power-16(kW)

Technical Accomplishments Extending the Range of a Compact Car Leads to Lower Benefits Than for a Class 4 P&D

14

Up to $13,000 manufacturing cost reduction


Compact Car


Technical Accomplishments Component and Controls Have to Be Carefully Selected to Achieve a Better LCD for Compact Cars

15

0 0.5 1 1.5 20.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

Mass (kg)

LCO

D ($

/mile

)

Power-2(kW)Power-4(kW)Power-6(kW)Power-8(kW)Power-10(kW)Power-12(kW)Power-14(kW)Power-16(kW)



Compact Car

Collaboration and Coordination with Other Institutions

16

Fuel Cell System and Hydrogen Storage Manufacturing Cost

Component Performance, Other Costs and LCD

Results provided to OEMs and other National Laboratories involved in similar activities. Results will be used for an RFI.

17

Proposed Future Work

Evaluate the impact of additional driving cycles (i.e. various distances, driver aggressiveness…) on optimum component size, on-board hydrogen and control.

Evaluate the impact of the vehicle energy management on fuel cell system durability.

Evaluate the potential of additional vehicle classes. Assess the potential of the technology for 2015, 2020 using DOE

targets. Validate the study outcomes using fuel cell hardware-in-the-loop

Summary Based on the cost assumptions and drive cycle considered:

– Fuel Cell is cheaper than a battery to store energy – Battery is cheaper than a fuel cell to deliver power – Using the fuel cell close to its rated power (i.e., maximum

power control) would provide the lowest LCD – For the drive cycle considered

• For the compact car, a 4-8 kW fuel cell system with 2kg of H2 would provide optimum solution

• For the Class 4, a 10 kW fuel cell system with 6 kg of H2 would provide optimum solution

The results are impacted by H2 cost, vehicle life, driving distance, battery cost… However, the fuel cell APU option consistently reaches a lower LCD compared to a BEV with twice the original electric range

18

Fuel Cells as Range Extenders for Battery Electric Vehicles · Fuel Cells as Range Extenders for...

Documents

Transcript of Fuel Cells as Range Extenders for Battery Electric Vehicles · Fuel Cells as Range Extenders for...