APPENDIX E Brief Background on Powertrains The following is an excerpt from Chapter 6, Powertrain Developments, of the committee's second report, to provide the reader background on powertrains and series and parallel hybrid vehicle configurations (NRC, 1996). Even when combined with reductions in vehicle mass, aerodynamic drag, tire rolling resistance, and other energy-saving vehicle design parameters, the PNGV technical team estimates that achieving the Goal 3 fuel economy target (up to three times fuel efficiency of today's comparable vehicle) will require a power plant with at least 40 percent thermal efficiency (PNGV, 1996). Achieving this efficiency by incremental improvements to current gasoline engines is unlikely. Therefore, a variety of alternative energy conversion devices and drivetrain components are being considered by the PNGV. None of these alternatives is, at present, suitable for passenger car application without further development. Moreover, many combinations are possible; therefore, system tradeoff analyses must be performed to fully understand the fuel efficiency potential of each. For instance, adding hybrid and regenerative braking driveline' components reduces the power plant efficiency gain needed for the PNGV Goal 3 vehicle but increases the size, weight, complexity, and cost of the complete powertrain. This kind of first-order qualitative analysis has resulted in the powertrain technologies listed below. These technologies are currently being pursued by PNGV for Goal 3 vehicles, all of which will operate as hybrid systems. The powertrain technologies being pursued by the PNGV for Goal 3 vehicles are as follows: 'The term driveline (or drivetrain) typically refers to the transmission system from engine output shaft to driven road wheels. 144 REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE PNGV: THIRD REPORT ⚫ reversible energy-storage devices (namely, batteries, flywheels, and ultra capacitors) electrical and electronic power-conversion devices Hybrid powertrain systems are attractive to increase powertrain efficiency for two reasons. When combined with a suitable energy-storage device, these systems allow the possibility of recovering a significant portion of the kinetic energy of the vehicle as it decelerates. They also allow the primary energy converter (engine or fuel cell) to be smaller and to operate under load and speed conditions that are independent of the vehicle's immediate needs. This reduces its size and permits its efficiency to be optimized. In addition, this arrangement allows an engine to operate at a speed and load that are independent of the vehicle, and increases the feasibility of using power plants that would otherwise be unsuitable for passenger vehicles. Emissions can also be reduced significantly, especially at startup when the car can start without the engine. Both series and parallel hybrid configurations are being considered. In the series configuration, all of the engine power is transmitted to the wheels through electric machines. In a parallel configuration, the engine supplies some power directly to the drive wheels through a mechanical transmission, and this is supplemented by electrical machines and an electrical power source. Continuously variable transmissions allow the relationship between engine speed and vehicle speed to be changed at will and are candidates for the parallel hybrid application. It appears that little or no work with respect to continuously variable transmissions is being conducted on behalf of the PNGV program in the United States. However, foreign firms are continuing to develop such transmissions. The committee, therefore, believes that these developments should continue to be incorporated into the PNGV agenda. REFERENCES NRC. 1996. Review of the Research Program for a New Generation of Vehicles, Second Report. Board on Energy and Environmental Systems and Transportation Research Board. Washington, Compressed Air Challenge Q18. On page 6 of your written testimony, you also state: "Compressed Air Challenge: Air compressors represents about 3% of total industrial electricity use and 1% of total U.S. electricity consumption. In midJanuary, DOE and major equipment manufacturers announced a new agreement aimed at significantly enhancing efficiency in this sector. Under the agreement, changes in equipment and operating practices are anticipated to reduce energy use in this category by 10% by 2010 at a cost savings of $150 million per year while reducing greenhouse gases by 700,000 metric tones of carbon." Q18.1. Please provide a listing of the participants of the Compressed Air Challenge. Q18.2 Please provide the FY 1998 and proposed FY 1999 funding for the A18.2 DOE funding of the Compressed Air Challenge for FY 1998 is $30,000. For FY 1999, DOE's budget combines funding for work on steam systems and compressed air systems, and the total budget request is $3 million. It is expected that less than half of that amount will be used for work on compressed air systems. Q18.3 Please document your statement that “Under the agreement, changes in equipment and operating practices are anticipated to reduce energy use in this category by 10% by 2010 at a cost savings of $150 million per year while reducing greenhouse gases by 700,000 metric tones of carbon.” A18.3 According to a market study sponsored by the Motor Challenge program in 1995, compressed air systems used 27 to 32 billion KWh of electricity per year. Compressed air system consultants, compressed air equipment companies, and compressed air users have observed improvements of 20-50 percent are readily achievable in many installations through the introduction of a best-practices approach and the optimization of compressed air systems. The Compressed Air Challenge board established that a goal of 10 percent energy-savings industry-wide by 2010 would be very reasonable, and most likely would be conservative relative to the savings possible from improved compressed air systems. Such an improvement would amount to a savings of 3 billion KWh per year. Using average electricity costs (5 cents/KWh) and average electric power plant efficiencies and carbon emissions, this would represent a total cost savings of $150 million per year, and would reduce greenhouse gases by 700,000 metric tons of carbon. BP Solar Opening Q19. On page 6 of your written testimony, you also state: “BP Solar Opening: Last Friday, BP Solar opened its first manufacturing plant in the United States. Located outside San Francisco, the Vice President flipped a switch to start the plant. This facility will produce a new generation of thin film photovoltaic cells. Spurred by DOE's recently announced Million Solar Roof Initiative, planned plant expansions and openings by other solar cell manufacturers, as well as the President's budget request for enhanced funding for renewable technologies, demonstrate that efforts to increase market penetration based on harnessing the sun's energy are now making significant advances. In fact, the Vice President was able to announce that the private partners in the Million Solar Roofs Initiative have already announced plans for well over half the solar panels needed to get to our goal--a full ten years early." Q19.1 Why did the Vice President "flip the switch" to start a foreign-owned manufacturing plant? Has the Vice President ever "flipped the switch" to start a domestic-owned manufacturing plant? A19.1 The BP Solar facility represents a significant investment in bringing cutting-edge solar technology and high paying jobs to California. The Vice President has participated in a number of events at a number of manufacturing facilities across the country. Q19.2 Please provide documentation for your statement that “the private partners in the Million Solar Roofs Initiative have already announced plans for well over half the solar panels needed to get to our goal--a full ten years early.” A19.2 We are excited by the tremendous response to the President's June announcement of the Initiative. In just nine months, the Department of Energy tells us, several utilities and states have already set goals to place about 50,000 solar energy systems on U.S. roofs. In California alone, utilities have set a goal to install over 200,000 systems. Q19.3 If indeed "the private partners in the Million Solar Roofs Initiative have already announced plans for well over half the solar panels needed to get to our goal--a full ten years early” in the absence of taxpayer subsidies, then why is the Administration proposing that taxpayers now subsidize that A19.3 The proposed tax credit for solar roofs will enable a greater number of citizens and public and private institutions to participate in this program. This will have the long-term benefit of reducing the costs of production of solar panels, further expanding their potential market. VCR/TV Energy Star Program Q20. On page 6 of your written testimony, you also state: "VCR/TV Energy Star Program: TV and VCRs represent one of the fastest growing sources of electricity demand. Consumers spend over $1 billion annually to power VCRs and TVs that are switched off. In early January the Vice President announced a pathbreaking partnership between EPA and the major manufacturers of these electronic goods. The program is quite ambitious with a goal of achieving up to a 70% reduction in energy use when the equipment is turned off without sacrificing product quality, utility or increasing costs. The average household could cut its energy bills by 30% or $400 per year by switching to the full line of Energy Star products." Q20.1 Please identify the TV and VCR manufacturers participating in this partnership. A20.1 The TV/VCR manufacturers participating in the Energy Star program are (corporate name is followed by brand names in parentheses, if different): JVC; LG (Lucky Goldstar); Matsushita (Panasonic, Quasar); Phillips (Phillips, Slyvania, Magnavox); Radio Shack; Samsung, Sanyo Fisher; Sharp; Sony; Thomson (GE, RCA, ProScan); Toshiba; and Zenith. Attached is a fact sheet on the Energy Star TV/VCR Program. |