Navigant Research Blog

DC Fast Charging Gains Momentum

— June 17, 2014

While still in some ways the forgotten child of the charging family, direct current (DC) fast charging is starting to take on some momentum.  At the Electric Drive Transportation Association Annual Meeting in May, BMW and Nissan joined ABB and Fuji Electric on a panel to discuss their experiences in the United States with fast charging and what they see as the main barrier to further development of the market.

The panel addressed three technical questions that continue to hang over the DC charging market.  The first question was whether the industry would ever resolve the dueling standards issue and officially adopt either the CHAdeMO standard prevalent in Japan or the SAE’s combo standard being adopted by European automakers and deployed in the United States.  The clear answer from the panel was that both are here to stay.  As a proponent of the CHAdeMO standard, Nissan has a head start over the combo charger supporters, having deployed over 100 CHAdeMO stations in the United States at Nissan dealerships in addition to its widespread deployments in Japan.  Navigant Research’s view is that, over time, the combo charger will start to edge out CHAdeMO – simply because more automakers will adopt it.  But a few markets, most notably Japan, will stick with the CHAdeMO standard, having made significant investments in deploying it.

Fast Is Better

The second question was on whether battery degradation is a concern.  The consensus was that it is not.  Cliff Fietzek, manager of Connected E-Mobility at BMW and David Peterson, EV Regional Manager at Nissan North America, asserted that no one is more concerned about protecting the battery than they are, and they are comfortable with the use of DC charging for their electric vehicles (EVs).

The final technical question is still open for debate: whether fast charging is more optimal at 50 kW or 20 kW to 25 kW.  ABB is offering both 20 kW and 50 kW units, while Fuji has focused exclusively on the 25 kW size.  Larry Butkovich, general manager of EV Systems at Fuji Electric Corporation of America, made the case for the 25 kW charger, available on the ChargePoint network in California for over a year.  According to Butkovich, the average driver stops for 20 to 30 minutes and gets around a half a charge, with an average output of 18 kW.  The typical fee paid is $6 to $8.  Butkovich noted that usage dropped once the fees were instituted but quickly bounced back, and the company thinks a business case can be made for fast charging.

Distance versus Speed

The case for lower-power fast charging centers on the time it takes to bring a battery to 80% state of charge (SOC).  BMW’s Fietzek noted that a 50 kW unit will get a 20 kWh battery to 80% SOC in 20 minutes, while a 25 kW charger takes 35 minutes.  Fuji’s experience suggests that a driver will be satisfied with a 20- to 30-minute charge that doesn’t quite reach 80% SOC.

Given that the panelists cited cost as one of the biggest barriers to this market, downsizing to a less expensive 20 kW or 25 kW fast charger will make sense in applications where the charger is not expected to enable long-distance trips.  The lower-power units are also less likely to trigger costly demand charges, which are another major barrier to securing more fast charging locations.  These units are poised to capture more market share in the United States ‑ especially for operators not involved in deployments supported by the Department of Energy or the big automakers.

 

Utilities Respond to EV-Induced Grid Pressure

— June 12, 2014

Going green in one way often creates new energy use – or carbon emissions – in other ways.  When you opt out of paper mail in favor of email, you generate Internet data that must be processed and stored (which requires a data center, something that is heavy in both space and energy use).  It’s also the case with electric vehicles (EVs); you might never insert a card at the pump again, but you’ll use more electricity (and see a spike in your energy bill).  Likewise, with increased adoption of EVs, more generation will be required and distribution utilities will increasingly experience pressure on the electrical grid.

Recently, Itron and ClipperCreek announced the launch of their utility-connected charging station for EVs, the CS-40-SG2.  Equipped with a revenue-grade submeter that communicates specific EV charging information to the utility, the charging station also includes ZigBee Smart Energy Profile 1.1 and cellular and Wi-Fi-enabled communications technologies that provide access to smart grid capabilities such as remote monitoring and demand response (DR).

Stress Response

Utilities that anticipate (or are already experiencing) increased EV adoption are eager to shift peak electricity use in order to maintain efficiency in generation resource planning and to better manage new peaks.  This technology allows the utility to remotely monitor and control residential charging, as well as collect interval data that can help guide future planning and action.  Similarly, a smart grid-enabled submeter allows the utility to implement DR and time-of-use rates to curb electricity use for charging.

Another problem associated with EV charging in heavy penetration areas is transformer overload.  Associated with uncoordinated residential charging of EVs, this can cause both stress and congestion on the local distribution network.  Extending the utility’s monitoring capability and control to the point of use can limit the impact of responding to grid stress to the point of use or the individual charger.

It goes (almost) without saying that for this technology to be effective, the utility must already have a basic smart grid infrastructure that allows for DR functionality and grid monitoring, as well as an understanding of current and future effects of increased EV penetration.  Many utilities in the United States are updating their aging infrastructures to accommodate EVs and distributed generation.  However, the small number of existing state and federal grants for EV supply equipment suggests a sluggishness that could be due to uncertainty as to the current effects and how to best manage residential EV charging.  But as demand for EV charging resources grows, so will the need for state public utilities commissions and utilities to adapt.  The ClipperCreek/Itron charging station will be the first of many tools developed to smooth this process.

 

U.S. National Parks and Electric Vehicles: A Match Made in Heaven?

— April 8, 2014

The U.S. Clean Cities program and the National Park Service (NPS) recently announced nine new projects to deploy clean vehicles at U.S. national parks. These projects are part of the Clean Cities National Park Initiative launched in 2010. The nine projects mainly feature plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs).  Around 21 vehicles will be installed through the funding, including some low-speed electric vehicles (EVs).  The projects also include the installation of EV chargers for park visitors. While any move to make the U.S. parks cleaner is welcome, the relatively modest ambitions of this funding effort reflect the challenge that parks present in the adoption of EV or HEV technology.

Parks have long been an attractive target for greener transportation. This is not only for symbolic reasons, but also for practical reasons. Diesel and gas vehicles are noisy and disruptive. Park vehicles may spend time idling, which is both an emissions problem and a cost concern given the large amount of fuel essentially wasted during idling. These factors would seem to make PEV and HEV technology a good option, but to date, deployments have largely been pilot or demonstration programs and there has yet to be a full-scale shift toward electric drives at the U.S. parks.

A Building Barrier

One major barrier has been the lack of truly commercial vehicles available. As discussed in the Navigant Research report Hybrid and Electric Trucks, most of the traditional truck original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) are offering hybrid versions in the larger trucks classes that are not applicable to the park service. In the truck category, parks would primarily utilize utility trucks, pickup trucks, or vans and trucks outfitted to transport passengers.  These would be vehicles in the Class 2b light duty category or medium duty Classes 3-5, where, until recently, there was more attention focused on producing electrified vehicles for delivery service.

Even though pickup trucks are among the top-selling vehicle in the United States, U.S. OEMs have tailed off production of hybrid pickups and only ever offered demonstration models of plug-in trucks.  However, in the past 18 months, there has been an uptick in companies focused on these class levels and in applications with some applicability to national parks. In January, U.S. startup VIA Trucks announced a major commitment by Canadian company SunCountry to place VIA’s plug-in vans into passenger transport services at Best Western hotels. VIA also develops plug-in electric utility trucks, which will be used at several electric utilities in a pilot project funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). U.S. company Odyne Systems will be delivering 120 utility trucks through the same DOE funding; the plug-in system allows utility workers to avoid engine idling by running equipment off of the battery.

Looking at the larger class of passenger buses that are used in national parks, the biggest push is coming from China’s BYD, which has been targeting parks and transit agencies. While most of the company’s orders are outside of the United States, BYD is making a strong push for the U.S. market. After winning bids in Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, the company began to face major backlash from activists and its U.S. competitors. The Long Beach order was recently canceled, although, evidently, the reason was simply a paperwork glitch. In any case, this environment would make it difficult for the NPS to adopt these buses until BYD becomes more established in the United States through transit deployments like the one in Los Angeles.

While increased vehicle availability will help make electric and hybrid options more feasible for any park looking to convert, the issue of the price premium still looms large. With hybrids costing well over 25% more than conventional vehicles and electric buses often reaching a 100% price premium, cash-strapped public services like the NPS will likely find themselves unable to make the switch even if they want to. Lower-cost options, like propane, continue to see uptake in national parks for this reason. This also explains why the Clean Cities National Park Initiative is still necessary to move these vehicles into U.S. parks.

 

Criticism of EV Battery Environmental Impacts Misses the Point

— April 2, 2014

The environmental impact of electric vehicles (EVs) remains the subject of debate, with Tesla Motors becoming the latest scapegoat for allegedly contributing to acid rain in China.  Bloomberg News points out that EV batteries require the use of graphite, which is mostly mined and processed in China.  Graphite mining pollutes the air and water and harms agricultural crops.  The average electric car contains about 110 lbs of graphite, and Tesla’s proposed Gigafactory is expected to single-handedly double the demand for graphite in batteries.

While these are valid concerns, they ignore a few larger facts: the oil industry has far greater overall environmental impact; the production of electricity is much cleaner than refining and burning gasoline; and recycling and reuse techniques are revolutionizing the battery industry.  Tesla, meanwhile, has responded to the graphite concerns. The recent 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill reminds us of one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history, in which 10.8 million gallons of crude oil was spilled into Prince William Sound, off the coast of Alaska.  Ironically, the congested Houston Ship Channel (one of the world’s busiest waterways) was partially closed over the Valdez anniversary because of a weekend oil spill of nearly 170,000 gallons of tar-like crude.

Compared to Gas

Overall, the equivalent lifecycle environmental impact of electricity is much less harmful than gasoline – assuming it isn’t entirely generated by coal.  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a gallon of gasoline produces 8,887 grams (g) of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned in a vehicle.  An equivalent 10 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity emits about 9,750g of CO2 when generated in a coal-fired power plant, 6,000g when generated in a natural gas plant, 900g from a hydroelectric plant, 550g from solar, and 150g each from wind and nuclear.  These figures include the entire lifecycle analysis, including mining, construction, transportation, and the burning of fuel.  Since 63% of the 2012 electricity mix in the United States was derived from non-coal energy sources, it has been estimated that EVs emit about half the amount of carbon pollution per mile as the average conventional vehicle.

At the same time, innovative recycling and reuse techniques are significantly increasing the sustainability of EV batteries.  In the United States and Europe, all automotive batteries are required by law to be recycled.  This has made the lead-acid battery industry one of the most sustainable industries in the world, with nearly 99% recycling rates of all the batteries’ components.  Additionally, the world’s first large-scale power storage system made from reused EV batteries was recently completed in Japan.

Second Lives for Batteries

While these approaches do not fully solve the problems associated with graphite mining, the environmental impact created by the manufacturing, transportation, and disposal of batteries is significantly lowered for each additional cycle a battery supplies.  If battery lifetimes can be doubled, the negative environmental impact is cut in half.  Navigant Research’s report, Second-Life Batteries: From PEVs to Stationary Applications, also points out that a global second-life battery market will create new businesses and jobs in addition to improving sustainability.  The global second-life battery business is expected to be worth near $100 million by 2020.

Even with the negative externalities associated with graphite production, EVs still offer an improved overall environmental picture than traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.  And Tesla, perhaps in response to pollution criticisms, has announced that it will source the raw materials for the proposed Gigafactory exclusively from North American supply chains. Producing graphite in North America is a much cleaner process than in China.

 

Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date

Tags

Clean Transportation, Electric Vehicles, Energy Storage, Policy & Regulation, Renewable Energy, Smart Energy Practice, Smart Energy Program, Smart Grid Practice, Smart Transportation Practice, Utility Innovations

By Author


{"userID":"","pageName":"EV Charging","path":"\/tag\/ev-charging?page=2","date":"10\/1\/2014"}