PATH Reporting and the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA)
Government Performance Result Act (GPRA) / Portfolio ...€¦ · Result Act (GPRA) / Portfolio...
Transcript of Government Performance Result Act (GPRA) / Portfolio ...€¦ · Result Act (GPRA) / Portfolio...
Government Performance Result Act (GPRA) /
Portfolio Decision Support (PDS)
2009 DOE Hydrogen Program and Vehicle Technologies Annual Merit Review
May 19, 2009
Sylvain Pagerit, Aymeric Rousseau, Antoine Delorme, Phil SharerArgonne National Laboratory
Sponsored by Lee Slezak
This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
Project ID # vss_09_pagerit
Project OverviewTimeline
Start – October 2008End – July 200975% Complete
2
BudgetTotal Project Funding
FY08 $ 300kFY09 $ 400k
BarriersAssess benefits of entire FreedomCAR patnershipProvide guidance on R&D strategies
PartnersAll FreedomCAR members
Technical TeamsNational Laboratories
Additional expertsAcademiaPSAT users…
Main Objectives
3
Mandated by
Congress
CAFÉ Fuel Economy Standards
Baseline AdditionalImprovements
■ What are the benefits of the FreedomCAR & Fuel Partnership in terms of petroleum displacement?■ How much additional petroleum could be displaced with additional funding?■ Assess technology potential to guide future research and development
Milestones
4
Q1 Q2 Q3List of technologiesGather dataEnhance process
Define vehiclesRun Simulations
Provide ResultsWrite report
Verify Low Case vs. EIA
Current Status
Q4
EIA = Energy Information Administration
Approach
5
Component & Vehicle Assumptions
Vehicle Definition & Simulation
Results Analysis & Validation
Veh Classes Timeframe2010202020302045
FuelsGasolineDieselEthanolHydrogen
Uncertainties
10%
50%
90%
Vehicle Technical Specifications
Sizing Simulation
Results
Powertrain
Validation
6
Reference Vehicles Fuel Economy Compared to Entire Class
Small SUV
Midsize SUV Pickup Truck
EPA 2008 Adjusted Values – Including Cold Start Penalty
Midsize Car
GPRA/PDS 2008 Results
= Ref. Vehicle
7
HEVs Fuel Consumption Remains Fairly Constant Compared to Conventional
GPRA/PDS 2008 Results
Ratio = HEV
Conv SI
VariableHEV fuel
Pickup Truck
Input Split Configuration Used
H2 ICE only technology to show significant changes
8
FC-HEVs Fuel Consumption Compared to ICE-HEVs Shows Largest Uncertainties
GPRA/PDS 2008 Results
Ratio = FC HEV
ICEHEV
VariableHEV fuel
Midsize Car
Input Split Configuration Used
Early years difference explained by different range assumptions (190 mi for FC)
Later, with same range, FC maintains benefits due to storage improvements
9
Hybridization Benefits Based on Ratio Reduced with Larger Vehicle Class
GPRA/PDS 2008 Results
Ratio = SI HEV
Conv SI
VariableVehicle Class
Input Split Configuration Used
10
Trade-off Between Cost & Fuel EfficiencyAll Vehicles
Incr
emen
tal C
ost (
$) C
ompa
red
to
Ref
eren
ce C
onve
ntio
nal G
asol
ine
GPRA/PDS 2008 Results
Lower fuel consumption leads to increased cost
Bet
ter
BetterFuel Consumption (gal/100mile)
11
Trade-off Between Cost & Fuel EfficiencyConventional Vehicles
GasolineDieselHydrogenEthanolIn
crem
enta
l Cos
t ($)
Com
pare
d to
R
efer
ence
Con
vent
iona
l Gas
olin
e
GPRA/PDS 2008 ResultsFuel Consumption (gal/100mile)
Diesel remains more expensive with benefits decreasing compared to other fuels over time
Each ICE technology has different impact
12
GasolineDieselHydrogenEthanol
Trade-off Between Cost & Fuel EfficiencyICE-HEV Vehicles
Incr
emen
tal C
ost (
$) C
ompa
red
to
Ref
eren
ce C
onve
ntio
nal G
asol
ine
GPRA/PDS 2008 ResultsFuel Consumption (gal/100mile)
HEVs follow similar trends independently of ICE technology
13
Trade-off Between Cost & Fuel EfficiencyICE-PHEV Vehicles
GasolineDieselHydrogenEthanol
Incr
emen
tal C
ost (
$) C
ompa
red
to
Ref
eren
ce C
onve
ntio
nal G
asol
ine
Incr
emen
tal C
ost (
$) C
ompa
red
to
Ref
eren
ce C
onve
ntio
nal G
asol
ine
GPRA/PDS 2008 Results
Higher efficiency ICEs offer less benefits than for HEVs and Conventional
14
Trade-off Between Cost & Fuel EfficiencyFC-HEV Vehicles
HEV
PHEV30 PHEV40
Incr
emen
tal C
ost (
$) C
ompa
red
to
Ref
eren
ce C
onve
ntio
nal G
asol
ine
GPRA/PDS 2008 ResultsFuel Consumption (gal/100mile)
PHEV10
PHEV20Based on the test procedure used, advanced powertrain do not benefit as much of high battery energy as current technologies
15
In Addition to GPRA/PDS, the Results Are Used to Support Other Studies
Component requirement uncertaintiesFuel efficiency improvement of different– Fuels– Configurations
Cost benefit analysis of each technologyProvide inputs to – GREET (i.e., PHEV effort funded by Fred Joseck)– HyTrans Model– …
GPRA/PDS 2008 Results
16
MonteCarlo Analysis Implemented and Evaluated on a Single Vehicle■ Uncertainty is modeled by a probability density function (pdf)■ How is the uncertainty propagated?
■ PHEV 10 miles All Electric Range (AER) midsize used as reference caseInputs
Monte Carlo (MC), Latin hypercube (LHS),Median Latin hypercube (MLHS)Quasi Monte-Carlo
Sampling ResultsCd
FA
Crr
Weight
17
Future ActivitiesGPRA/PDS Studies Will Require Increased Complexity
New Fuels
New Vehicle Classes
New Vehicle Test Procedures
Use of optimization tool for component sizing and control strategy tuning
New Powertrain Configurations
Monte-Carlo
Risk Analysis
Detailed models required to represent future technologies
18
Summary■ GPRA/PDS study evaluates the benefits of the entire FreedomCAR and
Fuels partnership in terms of petroleum displacement.■ The study assesses technology potential to guide future research and
development by evaluating the benefits of the latest technologies both from a component and a control point of view.
■ More than 600 vehicles were simulated for different timeframes (up to 2045), powertrain configurations, and component technologies.
■ Both their fuel economy and cost were assessed to estimate the potential of each technology. Each vehicle was associated with a triangular uncertainty.
■ The results of the study are used to support numerous studies within DOE.
19
ReferencesG. Faron, S. Pagerit, A. Rousseau, “ Evaluation of PHEVs fuel efficiency and cost Using Monte Carlo Analysis”, EVS 24, Norway, May 2009A. Delorme, S. Pagerit, P. Sharer, A. Rousseau, “ Cost benefit analysis of advanced powertrain from 2010 to 2045, EVS 24, Norway, May 2009A. Elgowainy & Co, “Well-To-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles”, SAE 2009-01-1309, World Congress, April 2009A. Rousseau, “ Evolution of Hydrogen Fueled Vehicles Compared to Conventional Vehicles from 2010 to 2045”, SAE 2009-01-1008, World Congress, April 2009 A. Delorme, A. Rousseau, S. Pagerit, “ Fuel Economy Potential of Advanced Configurations from 2010 to 2045 “, IFP HEV Conference, Paris, Nov 2008