Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alan Millner, Nicholas Judson, Bobby Ren, Ellen Johnson, William Ross
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory. 244 Wood St. Lexington, MA 02420
{amillner, judson, bobby.ren, ejohnson, bross}@ll.mit.edu
Abstract—Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) have By shifting our least efficient energy conversion step from
the potential to reduce fossil fuel use, decrease pollution, inefficient small engines to central power plants, the total
and allow renewable energy sources for transportation, but well to wheel efficiency of our transportation sector can be
their lithium ion battery subsystems are presently too greatly improved. Also, use of electric power transmission
expensive. Three enhancements to PHEVs are proposed and distribution allows the source of transport energy to be
here that can improve the economics. First, the renewable sources, nuclear, or natural gas, with far greater
incorporation of location information into the car’s energy long term supplies and lower carbon footprint. If half the
management algorithm allows predictive control to reduce passenger vehicle fleet of the US were replaced by 100 mile
fuel consumption through prior knowledge of the upcoming per gallon (mpg) plug-in hybrids, the petroleum use of the
route and energy required. Second, the use of the vehicle US would be reduced by approximately the amount now
battery while parked, offsetting the short peaks in imported from the Mideast. Our CO2 emissions would be
commercial-scale facility electrical demand to reduce reduced by 0.5 billion tons per year, or 8%. Use of plug-in
demand charges, can provide additional revenue to pay for hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) allows the limited use of
the battery. Third, the battery cycle life must be maximized liquid fuels to extend range when that is needed for
to avoid high replacement costs; a model of battery wear convenience, taking advantage of their very high energy
out for lithium ion batteries is presented and is used to density, while addressing the need for fuel conservation
confirm that the above strategies are compatible with long during the typical shorter commuting trips that dominate
battery life. usage.
Inverter Charger
Max
predictive control strategies and comparison with
Gas
conventional strategies, to determine quantitative benefits in Target
terms of improved fuel consumption. Optimum
Regen Variable Electric
Gas
Charging + Optimum Gas
Charging
Min
G tric
um
er
d
um
tri
in
an
w
O ect
ec
ak
ax c
as
im
im
Po
em
M Ele
as El
El
Br
pt
ro
D
O
G x
ax
ax
ax
+ Ma
Ze
ax
as
M
M
M
G
0.7
Gradual Depletion
Power Demand (MW)
$15 - $20 / kW /
month
SOC
11
0.4
Conventional Control
0.1
0 600 1200 1800 10
Time (seconds) 12AM 6AM 12PM 6PM 12AM
Time of Day
Figure 3. Vehicle control strategies with and without
knowledge of trip length: battery SOC vs. time. Figure 4. Electric power demand at MIT Lincoln
Laboratory for days in July 2008. Each day is shown as a
Use of more information about the trip in advance, available different series of 15 minute power consumption points (the
at the vehicle via GPS, the web, real-time traffic updates, or graph is truncated below demands of 10 MW). The
vehicle to vehicle communication, might include elevation difference in power demand for three peaks that could be
changes, speed variation over the trip, traffic patterns, road shaved with a V2B approach is shown.
surfaces and conditions, weather, air temperature, and
individual driver driving habits. It remains to be seen which These peaks are due to heating, ventilation, and air
of these are worthwhile to include in the energy conditioning system transients, and are typical for many
management algorithms. months of the year. Their duration of fewer than 30 minutes
is a good match to the capabilities of PHEV batteries. As
demand charges in the summer and winter are on the order control safe charging. This charger can serve as a building
of $20 and $14 per kW respectively, reduction in these control interface to the vehicle and request V2B services
peaks offers significant savings. Initial calculations showed when it senses the building demand is rising.
that if a V2B system could identify and reduce these peaks
in real-time, the resulting savings were over $100 per month The algorithm for controlling such a charger would make
per car. This could go far to offset the high cost of the use of rapidly sampled (1 or 5 minute) building demand.
battery subsystem in the vehicle. Given the building load, the number of cars, the available
energy storage and V2B power level per car, there are two
Subsequent analyses varying the number of vehicles parameters to adjust. ΔP represents the rate of change of
available for V2B, the power capability of their bi- building power demand representing a peak worth leveling.
directional chargers, and the size of their batteries led to the P represents the difference in power level below the
THRESHOLD
emergence of several patterns (Figure 5). current monthly maximum below which peaks will be
ignored. The algorithm would turn on the V2B when the
600
building demand is rapidly ramping up (successive samples
13.3kWh battery, 3C discharge rate (40kW charger)
of demand differ by more than ΔP), and is near the
5kWh battery, 4C rate (20kW charger)
13.3kWh battery, 1.13C (15kW charger)
maximum power demand level to date in the billing period
5kWh battery, 3C (15kW charger) (demand greater than maximum - P ). The algorithm
THRESHOLD
must also turn off the peak shaving pulses if they continue
Monthly Savings ($)
One challenge is that bidirection chargers appropriate for a 3 Pulse #. The results for a day in May 2010 are shown in
phase power interface in the 10 to 30 kW range do not at Figure 7. The algorithm was optimized with a total of 20
present exist as commercial products, but it is well within cars having 9 kWh batteries discharged to up to 80% depth
technical possibility. It could be beneficial to have the of discharge (DOD) per peak shaved. The algorithm
chargers in the building rather to avoid the weight penalty in required an average of 7 peak shaving pulses per month per
the vehicle. The charger might have a DC interface to the car of 15 kW for 20 minutes. This provided 300 kW of peak
vehicle and allow the vehicle battery management system to power capacity; for these months in 2010 this produced a
mean value of peak shaving per month of $3160 total or convenience would probably dictate more like an 80% DOD
$158 per car. to keep this from reducing battery life significantly more
than the pure driving cycle effect. It was noted that 2009, an
unusually cool summer, worked well with lower values of
13 Actual maximum
Shaved maximum ΔP. These parameters will need to be adjusted to the
particular building and climate for best results.
Power Demand (MW)
Power Demand
4. BATTERY MODELING
600
1000000 Rosenkranz linear model
Peterson data
400 Peterson linear model
Cycles (log #)
10000
0
25
50
75 300 1000
200 1 10 100
100 150
PTHRESHOLD (kW)
125 100 Depth of Discharge (log %)
200 75
50 ΔP (kW)
25 Figure 9. Mismatch of linear models to battery aging data.
Data shown in the figure comes from Rosenkranz [12],
Figure 8. Performance of the peak detection algorithm with
which refers to a battery produced by Varta, Inc., and from
power demand data from MIT Lincoln Laboratory for
Peterson [13], which refers to a battery produced by A123
January - May 2010. The total demand power shaved from
Systems, Inc.
the peak of the electric bill is shown as it varies with a
changing P and ΔP. THRESHOLD
In searching for a theoretical basis for an exponential model,
the physical nature of cell degradation, as previously
The parameters in the algorithm showed a sharp optimum at described in the literature [11], is based on crack
ΔP = 150 kW (Figure 8), and a weak optimum at P = THRESHOLD propagation phenomena. Battery cells degrade as lithium
50 kW. This compares with a battery aging cost of ions form a precipitate in cracks in the carbon anode
approximately $7 per car per month for a battery electrode. This low conductivity insoluble precipitate
replacement cost of $5000, or $1 per Wh. Therefore, over a removes lithium ions from active electrolyte chemistry,
wide range of assumed parameters, the peak shaving of the reducing the cell capacity and increasing cell resistance.
building looks worthwhile. Depth of discharge for the V2B Another crack propagation mechanism, less important in
function is financially optimized at full discharge, but owner low resistance cells, interrupts the electrical connection
between the electrode materials and the metal current Los Angeles, and $0.11/ kWh for Dallas). Total costs were
collectors. calculated for a baseline condition of 80% discharge of a
5 kWh vehicle battery, full recharge each evening at 8 PM
Crack propagation is a thermal mechanism activated by at a 5 hour rate, and keeping the battery at 100% charge
stress [15], which suggests an exponential dependence for before driving the same 24 mile commute as described
battery degradation. The model therefore uses exponential above. Average daytime battery SOC was set at 80%.
dependence of aging rate for all stress mechanisms. The
resulting life prediction, when applied to lithium ion battery As shown in Figures 11, 12, and 13, the effect of climate
life, fits well to test data [12-14]. and local electric rates causes only slight differences from
one US city to another. Los Angeles and Dallas have higher
summer temperatures than Boston, increasing the general
Rosenkranz original data
Rosenkranz exponential
degradation of the battery in a PHEV, but both cities have
Peterson original data lower electricity rates, decreasing costs to recharge the
Peterson exp. model battery. There effects tend to cancel each other. Each effect
1000000 Peterson data adjusted individually tends to tip the curves so that only the most
to 50% SOC
Peterson adjusted to extreme battery prices give a curve with an optimum DOD
between the extremes. High temperatures encourage
Cycles (log #)
$5000
replacement cost of the battery, ranging from a typical cost
$4000
today of $5000 for a 5 kWh battery [17] to $2000. (A $2500
$3000
battery ($500/ kWh) would be an aggressive US Advanced $2000
800
Battery Consortium (USABC) target for future cost
reductions [18].)
$5000
night being half as much as during the day. The effects are
$4000
additive.
$3000
800 $2000 800 day
both
700
0 20 40 60 80 100
DOD Centered on a 60% mean SOC (%)
$5000
1200 the inexpensive electric utility energy without giving up
$4000
battery capacity. Depending on climate and driver
$3000
preferences, this would be easy to implement with the same
$2000
smart controller used for battery charging.
1100
6. CONCLUSIONS
1000
0 20 40 60 80 100
DOD Centered on a 60% mean SOC (%)
Models were developed for plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
Figure 14. Annual cost due to degradation of vehicle operation, both on the road, and used while parked as a
batteries using Boston climate and electric rates ($0.163/ vehicle to building peak leveling system. A battery life
kWh) and $5 per gallon gasoline, as it varies with battery model was used to evaluate the cost of battery aging during
replacement cost. these activities. Total subsystem costs including battery,
electricity, and gasoline were compared for a baseline
However, the effect of the price of gasoline is dramatic. If vehicle in Boston, Los Angeles, and Dallas using the
gasoline increases from $3 per gallon to $5 per gallon, the weather and electric rate data for each location.
Boston graph changes to the one shown in Figure 14. In this
case it is most cost effective to discharge the battery fully If the battery replacement cost is close to the USABC goal
while driving. levels, the economics of driving the PHEV show an
optimum for all locations with a depth of discharge of 60%.
Economics are enhanced if the battery SOC during long [9] J. Gondor, et al., "Using global positioning system travel
parked periods, such as during the work day and overnight, data to assess real-world energy use of plug-in hybrid
are maintained at 80% rather than full charge. Battery electric vehicles," Transportation Research Record: Journal
thermal management to keep batteries close to ambient air of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 2017, pp. 26-32,
temperature is important. 2007.
[10] A. Millner, "Modeling lithium ion battery degradation
Vehicle to building peak leveling has attractive economics in electric vehicles," presented at the 2010 IEEE Conference
and can be realized with a simple practical algorithm for on Innovative Technologies for an Efficient and Reliable
peak selection. The aging model predicts that the cost of up Energy Supply, Waltham, MA, 2010.
to 7 V2B cycles a month on the vehicle battery will be less [11] G. Ning, et al., "A generalized cycle life model of
than $7 per month of added battery replacement cost; rechargeable Li-ion batteries," Electrochimica Acta, vol. 51,
comfortably less than the projected $158 per month of pp. 2012-2022, 2006.
potential revenue from V2B operations. Therefore, V2B has [12] C. Rosenkranz, "Plug in hybrid batteries," presented at
the potential to provide far more value than the battery the EVS20: The 20th International Electric Vehicle
aging will cost. Symposium and Exhibition, Long Beach, CA, 2003.
[13] S. B. Peterson, et al., "Lithium-ion battery cell
degradation resulting from realistic vehicle and vehicle-to-
REFERENCES grid utilization," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 195, pp.
2385-2392, 2010.
[14] A123 Systems, Inc. ANR26650M1A. 2009. Available:
[1] Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy
http://www.a123systems.com/cms/product/pdf/1/_ANR266
Review 2008. US DOE/EIA-0384 (2008), 2009. Available:
50M1A.pdf
http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer
[15] S. Zhurkov, "Kinetic concept of the strength of solids,"
[2] R. Bentley, "Global oil and gas depletion: an overview,"
International Journal of Fracture Mechanics, vol. 1, pp.
Energy Policy, vol. 30, pp. 189-205, 2002.
311-323, 1965.
[3] FuelEconomy.gov. (Accessed June 22, 2010). Available:
[16] B. Liaw, et al., "Modeling capacity fade in lithium-ion
www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
cells," Journal of Power Sources, vol. 140, pp. 157-161,
[4] B. Tryon, "Hybrid Electric Vehicle Energy Management
2005.
System," US Patent 2005/0228553, 2005.
[17] American Physical Society. Energy Future: Think
[5] J. De La Torre-bueno, "Inputs for optimizing
Efficiency. How America can look within to acheive energy
performance in hybrid vehicles," US Patent 2006/0278449,
security and reduce global warming, 2008. Available:
2006.
http://www,aos.org/energyefficiencyreport/
[6] J. Gondor and T. Markel, "Energy management
[18] K. Smith, et al., "PHEV battery trade-off study and
strategies for hybrid electric vehicles," presented at the 2007
standby thermal control," in 26th International Battery
SAE World Congress, Detroit, MI, 2007.
Seminar and Exhibit, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 2009.
[7] The MathWorks, Inc, "MATLAB," 7.8.0.347 (R2009a)
[19] rssWeather.com. (Accessed June 22, 2010). Available:
ed. Natick, MA 01760, 2009.
http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Massachusetts/Boston/
[8] Code of Federal Regulations, "EPA US06 Driving
Schedule," 40CFR86 Appendix I (g), Washington, DC, pp.
592-597, 2009.