Letter from PNGV

(NOVEMBER 8, 1999)

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

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 104
Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Sixth Report APPENDIX B Letter from PNGV (NOVEMBER 8, 1999)

OCR for page 104
Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Sixth Report November 8, 1999 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, DC 20418 Dear Trevor, We want to thank you and the other Standing Committee members for your insightful and productive review of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles. Attached are our comments on the major recommendations from the 5th report. We agreed with many of your recommendations and we will be ready to discuss these with you at the upcoming 6th 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 6th Review. Again we appreciate receiving your valuable analysis as we progress through the challenges of developing the PNGV technologies and advancing toward our goals. Sincerely, Vince Fazio PNGV Director Ford Ron York PNGV Director General Motors John Sargent Director PNGV Secretariat Steve Zimmer PNGV Director Daimler-Chrysler Attachment

OCR for page 104
Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Sixth Report Response to the NRC's 5th Peer Review Report Recommendations RECOMMENDATION: The PNGV four-stroke direct-injection technical team should develop projections of the performance of compression-ignition direct injection and gasoline direct injection power-train systems, especially comparisons of the estimated emission and fuel economy for each system. These projections would be a first step toward the quantification of trade-offs between emissions and fuel economy based on current and emerging state-of-the-art technologies. The 4SDI Technical Team agrees with the Peer Review Committee's recommendation and continues to quantitatively compare the projected performance (fuel consumption, emissions, cost, weight, performance, etc.) of various 4SDI powertrain alternatives with respect to the PNGV objectives. Some of these comparisons were made on a company proprietary basis, rather than collaboratively. The 4SDI Technical Team has been collaborating with the System Analysis Team on developing projections of the performance of compression-ignition direct-injection and gasoline direct injection power-train systems. Once the systems model has been validated, it would be an appropriate tool to use in quantifying the necessary trade-offs. The teams will present their results at the November 1999 Collaborative Peer Review. PNGV recognizes there are potential trade-offs between emission and fuel economy targets. We believe EPA's proposed Tier 2 standards presents increased technical challenges to achieving PNGV's fuel economy goal with four-stroke direct-injection technologies. We believe the PNGV program should give increased emphasis to demonstrating 4SDI engines that achieve both Tier 2 emissions levels and the PNGV fuel efficiency goal. RECOMMENDATION: The federal government agencies involved in the PNGV program should review how future emissions requirements (especially NOx and particulates), fuel economy, carbon dioxide emissions, as well as fuel quality, will affect the choice of the compression-ignition direct-injection engine as the most promising short-term combustion engine technology; a program plan that responds to that assessment should be developed. The PNGV, especially the U.S. Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, should work closely with the California Air Resources Board on these issues. In response to pending Tier 2 federal emissions regulations, the PNGV partners have adopted a more aggressive R&D program to reduce NOx and particulate emissions from the CIDI engine while maintaining its inherently high efficiency and low carbon emission. Within the Low Emissions Partnership (LEP) lean NOx catalyst and non-thermal plasma cooperative research efforts, a new goal of 90 percent or greater NOx conversion is being considered and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) is being added to the NOx reduction strategies. Fuels and aftertreatment programs continue to be more closely linked to minimize in-cylinder emissions while optimizing the performance of new clean fuels as emission control reductants. Two new three-year cooperative agreements to develop emission control systems for the Ford and DaimlerChrysler PNGV engines have brought the expertise of catalyst suppliers more directly into the program. In addition, the DOE has been working with EPA, Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) members and emission control manufacturers through the Diesel Emission Control Sulfur Effects (DECSE) project to determine the effects of sulfur in diesel on emission control devices,

OCR for page 104
Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles: Sixth Report RECOMMENDATION: A comprehensive mechanism should be established to help define feasible, timely, and compatible fuel and power-plant modifications to meet the PNGV goals. This mechanism will require extensive cooperation among not only automotive and fuel industry participants at all levels of responsibility, but also among technical and policy experts of the relevant government organizations. We agree with this recommendation and efforts at various levels of responsibility in the industries have been initiated. At the Deputy Secretary level, the Departments of Energy and Commerce have met with representatives from energy companies and the American Petroleum Institute (API) to discuss a mechanism that will help define compatible fuel, power-plant and emission control combinations to meet PNGV goals. Discussions are ongoing and anticipated input from the API will allow high level cooperation between automotive and fuels industries to move forward; these efforts, however, should be accelerated. At the technical level, the DOE has drafted a Multi-year Program Plan for Advanced Petroleum Based Fuels for CIDI engines. This plan has been discussed in detail with the energy, automotive, emission control and heavy vehicle industries. In addition, the Ad Hoc Auto/Energy Working Group continues to be an excellent forum to bring the automotive and energy industries together to work on technical issues. Testing of advanced fuels in advanced PNGV-type engines is continuing and new projects, which include the evaluation of additional oxygenates, lube oil contribution to PM emissions, and PM toxicity analysis, have been initiated through the Ad Hoc Auto/Energy Working Group. RECOMMENDATION: The PNGV should conduct life-cost and performance-cost trade-off studies, as well as materials and manufacturing cost analyses, to determine which battery technology offers the best prospects and most attractive compromises for meeting capital and life-cycle cost targets. PNGV agrees with the peer review's assessment. Life-cost and performance-cost trade-off studies are already included in the developers' existing statements of work. The Electrochemical Energy Storage Technical Team will collaborate with the Systems Analys Tech Team to analyze test data and will develop performance and business models based on the combined costs of the battery and associated power electronics. The Systems Analysis Tech Team will use these models to determine the most attractive battery technology, taking into account performance, life, and cost compromises. RECOMMENDATION: Without compromising proprietary information of the USCAR partners, the PNGV should conduct in-depth cost analyses and use the results to guide subsystem and vehicle affordability studies. PNGV agrees that it needs to conduct in-depth cost analyses. This necessarily occurs at the vehicle and subsystem levels. The vehicle-level analyses, completed in 1998, are company and configuration specific and thus can only be reviewed in the individual company proprietary sessions. The PNGV directors used the information from their proprietary analyses to jointly develop subsystem-level cost targets for generic fuel cell and hybrid-electric vehicles. Each technical team used the targets from these generic models to optimize their respective subsystems. An update of the subsystem cost analyses will be presented by the Technical Teams at the November 1999 Collaborative Peer Review.