Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 93
--> Appendix B Letter from PNGV (October 14, 1998)
OCR for page 94
This page in the original is blank.
OCR for page 95
--> October 14, 1998 Mr. Trevor Jones Chair, Standing Committee to Review the Research Program of PNGV National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue N.W. Room # HA 270 Washington, D.C. 20418 Dear Trevor, We want to thank you and the other Standing Committee members for your thoughtful and very helpful review of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. Attached are our comments on the major recommendations from the 4th report. We agree with many of your recommendations and we will be ready to discuss these with you at the upcoming 5th Review. You also made a number of recommendations concerning the individual technology areas. The PNGV Technical Teams will address each of your recommendations during their discussions with you at the upcoming 5th Review. Again we appreciate receiving your valuable input as we progress through the challenges of developing the PNGV technologies and advancing towards our goals. Sincerely, Vince Fazio PNGV Director Ford Ron York PNGV Director General Motors George Joy (DOC) PNGV Secretariat Steve Zimmer PNGV Director Chrysler Attachment
OCR for page 96
--> Peer Review 4 Recommendations and Response 1) RECOMMENDATION: In light of the published improvements in gasoline direct-injection (SIDI) engines, it would be prudent for the PNGV partners to continue to assess developments in this technology against PNGV targets and the CIDI engine, whether or not the gasoline direct-injection (SIDI) engine is chosen as a potential PNGV power plant. We agree and are continuing SIDI research. We would also like to point out that four-stroke direct injection engines, which include both the SIDI and CIDI engines were the engines chosen during the Technology Selection process. For example, it would be more appropriate for Table ES-1 to show four-stroke direct injection engines in place of only CIDI engines. The SIDI effort has been expanded under the ''1210" CRADA work at the National laboratories. The SIDI alternative continues to be pursued, although most of the work involves proprietary efforts by the companies. Finally, the proposed FY99 PNGV budget for the Department of Energy includes support for key research that would benefit the SIDI engines. It should be pointed out that lean SIDI has NOx and particulate challenges similar to CIDI. 2) RECOMMENDATION: The relationship between the criteria for technology selection and the critical requirements of Goal 3 should be made more explicit to facilitate the proper distribution of resources for an ongoing, well structured research and development program. We believe the relation between Technology Selection and Goal 3 criteria is explicit, as fuel economy, emissions, and performance were the key criteria used. However, as the acceptance criteria (such as emissions requirements) continue to be refined, some flexibility in technology options needs to be maintained. 3) RECOMMENDATION: The PNGV should continue to refine its detailed cost of ownership analyses of hybrid vs. non-hybrid vehicles. If the economic and performance benefits of the hybrid vehicle do not exceed or warrant its additional costs, the concept demonstration vehicle program should be expanded to include non-hybrid vehicles to accelerate the development and commercial introduction of economically viable technologies. We agree the hybrid technologies are one of the most challenging aspects of the PNGV effort, but probably essential to meeting the ultimate three-fold fuel economy stretch target. Most PNGV technologies (light-weight, efficient power sources, low rolling resistance and aero, new fuels, etc.) are applicable to both hybrid and non-hybrid vehicles. 4) RECOMMENDATION: The PNGV should devote considerably more effort and resources to the exhaust-gas after-treatment of oxides of nitrogen and particulates. PNGV should consider greatly expanding its efforts to involve catalyst manufacturers. We agree with your recommendation and resources are being expanded. The proposed FY99 Department of Energy budget includes significant new funding in this area. The DOE has initiated programs to help the supply industry fund development of large-scale devices for evaluation. The catalyst industry has been working on lean NOx and NOx trap technologies for years, and
OCR for page 97
--> PNGV is utilizing their efforts. The catalyst supply industry is being linked to the ongoing lean NOx catalyst effort at the National Laboratories. Progress is being made and we will report on the status of this work at the fifth PNGV Review. 5) RECOMMENDATION: The PNGV should propose ways to involve the transportation fuels industry in a partnership with the government to help achieve PNGV goals. We agree with your recommendation. Both the Government (DOE lead) and Auto Industry have initiated technical dialogue to engage the Fuels Industry. Work is underway jointly to evaluate new and reformulated fuels. We will report on the status of this work at the fifth PNGV Review. 6) RECOMMENDATION: PNGVs choices of energy conversion technologies should take full account of the implications for fuel development, supply, and distribution (infrastructure), as well as the economics and timing required to ensure the widespread availability of the fuel. We agree all the components of the system need to be considered. However, at this stage of program, given the very challenging fuel economy and emission goals of the program, it may be difficult to find the appropriate solution without considering new fuels. The current fuels infrastructure should not be a program constraint at this point in the program. 7) RECOMMENDATION: PNGV and the USCAR partners should continue to make safety a high priority as they move toward the realization of the concept vehicles. Safety continues to be a high priority and was a consideration during the Technology Selection process. Meeting all applicable safety standards is a requirement for any production program. For example, we recognize and are working on the challenges of crashworthiness, high voltage, new fuels, and battery safety. 8) RECOMMENDATION: Systems analysis and computer modeling are essential tools for making system trade-offs and optimizing performance. The PNGV should create detailed, rigorous cost and design reliability models as soon as possible to support ongoing technology selection. These models should be continuously upgraded as new information becomes available. As the PNGV program progresses, the focus is evolving from a technology/performance priority toward a greater emphasis on cost, reliability and manufacturing in addition to performance. We agree that many of the technology programs have now reached the point where "affordability" will be given greater priority. Each of the Technical Teams has been assigned cost targets and is addressing the "affordability" challenges. We will report on the status of this work at the fifth PNGV Review. PNGVSAT includes both a design reliability model and cost trade-off model that will be exercised more fully as the designs mature. Warranty and reliability continue to be major automotive industry focuses. 9) RECOMMENDATION: Because of their high efficiency and low emission potential, fuel-cell systems for transportation could become vitally important to the United States. U.S. government and industry investments in research and development should, therefore, be continued at current levels or even be increased for an extended period.
OCR for page 98
--> We agree. The anticipated FY99 Department of Energy budget includes a $10 million increase for fuel cell R&D for a total of $34 million. 10) RECOMMENDATION: Because cost is a significant challenge to PNGV, the USCAR partners should continue to conduct in-depth cost analyses and to use the results to guide new development initiatives on components and subsystems. We agree. This is being done on both a collaborative basis through the Tech Teams and proprietary basis at the companies. 11) RECOMMENDATION: Government and industry policy makers should review the benefits and implications of PNGV pursuing a parallel strategy to achieve a 60+ MPG non-hybrid vehicle at an early date and should establish goals, schedules, and resource requirements for a coordinated development program. The PNGV collaborative research and development efforts are targeting technologies that can be applied broadly across the light-duty vehicles. The automotive industry partners are evaluating the opportunities for the PNGV technologies in a variety of configurations in their light-duty vehicle designs. At present, the only known near-term non-hybrid solution in the 60-mpg range requires a CIDI engine. As discussed above, the evolving future emission requirements and the availability of new fuels are issues that may present challenges to the viability of this as a near-term solution. The SIDI engine alternative probably can not meet a 60-mpg fuel economy target without hybridization, and also has emission challenges. 12) RECOMMENDATION: The PNGV should assess the implications of the growing vehicle population of light trucks in the U.S. market in terms of overall fuel economy, emissions, and safety. Wherever possible, the PNGV should develop strategies for transferring technical advances to light trucks. The PNGV collaborative research and development efforts are targeting technologies that can be applied broadly across the light-duty vehicles. The automotive industry partners are evaluating the opportunities for the PNGV technologies in a variety of configurations in their light-duty vehicle designs. The PNGV technologies, in general, can be applied to light trucks for significant fuel economy improvements. Some of the ongoing efforts have addressed issues specifically related to light truck needs. For example, the Automotive Composite Consortium (ACC) is developing a composite pickup box. The utility and performance requirements of light trucks and SUV's will probably limit the extent of benefits. For example, it may not be possible to downsize the engines as much as is the case for passenger cars. PNGV is determining whether any unique technologies are required for SUVs and light trucks. 13) RECOMMENDATION: The government should significantly expand its support for the development of long-term PNGV technologies that have the potential to improve fuel economy, lower emissions, and be commercially viable. Fundamental work at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense and Department of Energy is addressing long-term PNGV technical needs.
OCR for page 99
--> 14) RECOMMENDATION: The PNGV should expand its liaison role for the exchange of technological information among federal research programs that are relevant to automotive technologies and should accelerate the sharing of results among the participants in the PNGV on long-term, high-payoff technologies applicable to automobiles. We agree and progress is being made to strength the program links. The Department of Energy and the National Laboratories continue to be the major sources of program funding and technology input for the core portion of the PNGV program. In the future, the focus will be on strengthening the involvement of the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Department of Transportation and the National Science Foundation.
Representative terms from entire chapter: