Multi-technology Approach
to
Vehicle Integration With the Grid
IEEE Communications Society
24th Annual Computer
Communications Workshop
Lake Arrowhead, CA
Bill Reinert
Advanced Technology Group,
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, INC
October 25, 2010
Agenda
Future Society
Future Energy
Future Vehicles
On One Hand: Growing Megacities (>10M)
Today – 2
4 Additional by 2050
New York, NY
18.65M
Atlanta, GA
Chicago, IL
Los Angeles, CA
12.22M
Dallas –
Fort Worth, TX
Miami, FL
2006 citymayors.com
Urban Mass Transport Solutions
Light Rail
Personal Rapid Transit
Developing Solutions For The Last Mile Problem
iReal
Winglet
CityCar
On the Other Hand: Populations are Spreading
Geographic Distribution of Job Share 98
Metro Areas, 1998 - 2006
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.)
Most Commutes Are Suburb to Suburb
Metropolitan Flow Map (Millions of Commuters)
Source Brookings Inst.
Unique US Urbanization and Transportation Trends
• 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
Fifty-year US Travel and Economic Trends
400
20
15
10
5
0
1981
1991
2001
National Highway Travel Survey 2001, US
Bureau of Transportation Statistics Omnibus
Household Survey 2003, ABC News/Time
magazine/Washington Post poll 2005
Percent (%) Change since 1960
Person Trip Length (miles)
One-way Commute Distance
350
Personal Income (2000 $)
300
Vehicle Miles Traveled
250
200
150
Population
100
50
0
Gas $/Gal CPI Adj.
-50
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
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
2010
Agenda
Future Society
Future Energy
Future Vehicles
Oil Prices Strongly Influenced by Excess Capacity
Oil Production Forecast
Oil Price Forecast
120,000,000
Excess
Capacity
Spare capacity
100,000,000
b/d
80,000,000
Price
Opec
Biofuels
60,000,000
CTL
NGLs
GTL
40,000,000
20,000,000
Non Opec
Canadian tar sands
2020
0
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
2030
Platform Design
2040
Cheap Oil
Expensive Oil
Scarce Oil
Source: Neftex (Dr. Peter Wells)
Finding replacements part 1
Water use
(gallons)
Land use
Energy
ratio
CO2
emissionsa
Fuel
source
Transportation
energy
displacement
Acresb
Fraction of
U.S.
cropland
gallons of
fuel per
acre
MMBTUe of
fuel per
acre
per
gallon
of fuel
per
MMBTU of
fuel
BTU input
per BTU
of fuel
lb per MMBTU
of fuel
Conventional
gasoline
0-100%
a few
thousand
very low
-
-
5
45
0.05
175
Conventional
diesel
0-100%
a few
thousand
very low
-
-
10
80
0.08
175
10%
4,100
25%
10,300
very low
~4.4 M
~500,000
3
24
~0.5
~380
50%
20,600
CNG
0-100%
a few
thousand
very low
-
-
n/a
~10d
~0.1 d
~150
Heavy crude
0-100%
a few
thousand
very low
-
-
~10
~80
~0.25
~200
10%
7,500c
25%
19,000c
very low
~20 M
~65,000
~6
~45
~0.15
~240
50%
37,000c
10%
48,000c
25%
120,000c
low
~3 M
~350,000
~5
~38
~0.25
~180
50%
240,000c
Coal-to-liquid
In situ
oil shale
Tar sands
Source: Kreider and Associates
Finding replacements part 2
Water use
(gallons)
Land use
Fuel
source
Transportation
energy
displacement
Acresb
Energy
ratio
CO2
emissionsa
Fraction of
U.S.
cropland
gallons of
fuel per
acre
MMBTUe of
fuel per
acre
per
gallon
of fuel
per
MMBTU of
fuel
BTU input
per BTU
of fuel
lb per MMBTU
of fuel
Conventional
gasoline
0-100%
a few
thousand
very low
-
-
5
45
0.05
175
Conventional
diesel
0-100%
a few
thousand
very low
-
-
10
80
0.08
175
10%
65 M
20%
370
28
170
2200
0.98
350
25%
160 M
51%
370
28
180
2300
0.98
350
50%
337 M
103%
360
28
220
2900
0.98
350
10%
46 M
15%
515
39
146
1900
0.92
330
25%
112 M
35%
515
39
146
1900
0.92
330
50%
228 M
72%
510
39
149
1900
0.92
330
10%
253 M
80%
57
7
900
6900
0.76
240
25%
380 M
120%
57
7
900
6900
0.76
240
50%
1.2 B
390%
57
7
900
6900
0.76
240
10%
2.5 M
< 1%
6000
800
50
400
0.2
25%
6.5 M
2%
6000
800
50
400
0.2
50%
13 M
4%
6000
800
50
400
0.2
0-100%
tens of
thousands
very low
-
-
5
65
0.6
Corn-based
ethanol
Cellulosic
ethanol
Soybean
biodiesel fuel
Algaculture
MSW-based
ethanol
Source: Kreider and Associates
absorbs CO2
waste
~105
Agenda
Future Society
Future Energy
Future Vehicles
PHV Role: EV Mode For Short Distance HV Mode for
Longer Trips
U.S. Driving Patterns
(%)
100 Cumulative percentage of
personal automobile trips
80% Trips
Cumulative percentage of
travel distance energy
50
Approx.
35%
Approx.
20%
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Average Daily Travel Distance per Vehicle (miles)
Source: 1990 Nationwide personal transportation survey
Toyota’s PHV Development
Operation Specifications
Electric Vehicle Charger Assembly
HV Battery
Engine
Household
Outlet
AC 110 V to 220 V
Electric Vehicle Charger
Cable Assembly
Electric Motor
Max. Output
In EV Driving
Mode
Engine
98 HP (73 kW)
MG2
80 HP (60 kW)
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 Temperature Sensors
(for HV Battery Pack)
DC/DC Converter
Cooling Blower
HV Battery Temperature Sensors
(for Intake Air Duct)
Sub 2 Main Sub1
HV Battery
Cooling Blowers
Toyota’s PHV Introduction Scenario
Step by Step approach, dependent on Battery Development
‘07
‘08
‘09
‘10
Field Test Phase
Test car
(10)
Field Data
Understand market potential
Small demo Accumulate
Field data
(150)
Medium
volume
(~25K)
Accumulate
Field data
Mass volume
Battery
NiMH
Li
Li (Revised)
Li (Adv)
Last Century Urban Mobility Projects
Toyota e-Com
shared-use ‘community’ EVs
for employees
Crayon System
pay-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
Multiple Modes
• Car Sharing
• Personal Rapid Transit
Transition 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
Mobility
based on
Personal
Automobile
• Mass Rapid Transit
Technology Enables New Possibilities
Wireless Technology Promotes
Modal Diversity
Locate Mass Transit
Eco Technology Conserves
Energy, Reduces CO2
Smart Grid
Convergence of:
• Wireless Computing
• Consumer Electronics
• Transportation
• Energy Management
• Eco-impact Metrics
Zipcar Available?
Locate
Charge Station
Smarter
Charging
Stations
PEV ENABLERS
Recommend
Monitor
optimal mode to
minimize price &
travel time
Charge Status
Vehicle to
Grid
Car Sharing is Growing
Currently at 70+ U.S. college campuses
U.S. Car Sharing Growth Forecast
Members
(000s)
8 mm
Potential
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
200k+
Current
Members
1,000
0
2007
~2020
Fox Business 2008 (70 Campuses); Innovative Mobility Research 2007 (current members), CNW Research 2008 (8 million forecast)
For Plug-in Cars To be Successful 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”
2008 Midsize Car Prices
Mass Market
25%
25%
Prius
20%
20%
15%
15%
10%
10%
Prius
PHV
5%
5%
0%
-5000 -25,000 -- 30000
30,000 -- 35000
35,000 -- 40000
40,000 -- 45,000
00 to
5000
to 10,000
10000-- 15,000
15000-- 20,000
20000-- 25000
45000-2500
7500
12,500
17,500
22,500
27,500
32,500
37,500
42,500
47,500
2499.9
7499.9
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
12499.9 17499.9 22499.9 27499.9 32499.9 37499.9 42499.9 47499.9
Source: PIN
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…
Energy Plan from Campaign - Key Points
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 capand-trade program to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions 80%
from 1990 levels by 2050
Progress vs. Campaign Promises

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
…backed by significant financial commitments
Advanced Tech Vehicles Manufacturing Loan Program
American Reinvestment & Recovery Act Awards
Measured in USD Millions
Measured in USD Millions
26,000
25,000
24,000
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
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000
2,600
2,400
16,545
1,200
10,000
1,000
465
1,636
Tesla
Nissan
NA
1,247
800
600
5,801
4,000
2,000
24
465
1,600
12,000
6,000
347
1,800
1,400
529
2,410
2,000
14,000
8,000
81
2,200
35
400
235
ARRA provides funding for
U.S.-based manufacturers
to:
• Produce batteries and
components
• Produce electric drive
components such as
electric motors and power
electronics
200
0
0
Ford
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
Fisker
Tennec
Not
AVMIP
o
Distribute Fundin
d
g
Cell,
Batt,
and
Mtls
Mfg
Adv
Elec
Adv
Batt Drive Veh &
Supp Compo Trans
Mfg
nent Electr
Oth
Not
er Distribu
ted
Tot
al
However, past presidential agenda items such as solar
power
have struggled once funding was cut
Estimated Department of Energy Solar Funding
USD Millions
Measured in 2007 Dollars
Photovoltaic
Concentration
1977 - 1979: President Carter makes multiple
speeches touting solar power and installs
panels on roof of White House
350
325
300
Shipments of Solar Thermal Collectors
Measured in Millions of Square Feet
Square Feet
Medium-Temp
Low-Temp
(Millions)
19.4
20
18.6
18
16
275
250
14
225
12
200
7.2
11.1
10.9
11.9
10
175
President Reagan cuts funding
for solar development
150
125
100
75
4
50
2
25
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
5.0
8
6
0
1970
16.4
2005
2010
5.8
1.9
1976
1978
4.9 4.1
0.7 2.5
1.1
7.5
1.3
5.9
0.1 3.9
1.1
1974
6.2
12.2
4.5 3.8
3.3 3.6
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
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
Strong Regulatory Push: Reduce CO2
CARB 2050 Vision
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
Sources: California Air Resources Board; “[ZEV] White Paper”
 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
EV Costs vs CO2 Reduction
Outside Voices: Evaluation of PHVs, Duke University
Duke University, Plug-in and regular hybrids: A national and regional comparison of costs and CO 2 emissions.
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
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%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Material production
Total
Roles of EV/PHEV/FCV
Private use
Vehicle Size
ICE HV &
PHV Sector
High-Speed,
Long-Distance Driving
Med-to-High Speed,
Med-Distance Driving
Lower-Speed,
Short-Distance Driving
Med/Large vehicles
EV
sector
Highway driving
between cities
Light vehicle
Electric
welfare
vehicle
Public transport
FCV
Sector
Large truck
Delivery truck
HV
Scooter
City bus
Bicycle
EV commuter
PHEV
Microbus
Delivery
vehicle
Low-Speed,
Inter-City Driving
PMR
Driving distance
Winglet i-series
Electricity
Gasoline, Diesel,
Biofuel, etc
Mobility-based
Vehicle-based
Hydrogen
Summary
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.