The PNGV programme: impetus for change

On 29 September 1993, the Clinton Administration and the US Council for Automotive Research (USCAR), a consortium of the three largest US automobile manufacturers, formed a cooperative research and development partnership aimed at technological breakthroughs to produce a prototype

‘super-efficient’ car. The ‘Big Three’ (Chrysler, Ford, and General Motors), eight federal agencies, and several government national defence, energy, and weapons laboratories have joined in this Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV). It is intended to strengthen US auto industry competitiveness and develop technologies that provide cleaner and more efficient cars. The 1994 PNGV Program Plan called for a ‘concept vehicle’ to be ready in about six years, and a ‘production prototype’ to be ready in about 10 years. Research and development goals included production prototypes of vehicles capable of up to 80 miles per gallon – three times greater fuel efficiency than the average car of 1994.

Background drivers of the initiative include a combination of high gasoline prices, and government fuel economy regulation caused new car fuel efficiency to double since 1972. However, fuel economy standards for new cars peaked at 27.5 miles per gallon (mpg) in 1989 and the average fuel efficiency of all on-road (new and old) cars peaked at 21.69 mpg in 1991, then dropped slightly in 1992 and again in 1993. Further, the large drop in real gasoline prices since 1981 and the increasing number of cars on the road are eroding the energy and environmental benefits of past gains in auto fuel efficiency. The public benefits that could derive from further improvements in auto fuel efficiency include health benefits from reduced urban ozone, ‘insurance’

against sudden oil price shocks, reduced military costs of maintaining energy security, and potential savings from reduced oil prices.

The Declaration of Intent for PNGV emphasizes that the programme represents a fundamental change in the way government and industry interact. The agreement is seen as marking a shift to a new era of progress through partnership and cooperation to address the nation’s goals, rather than through the confrontational and adversarial relationship of the past. Its intent is to combine public and private resources in programmes designed to achieve major technological breakthroughs that can make regulatory interventions unnecessary. The partnership agreement is a declaration by USCAR and the government of their separate, but coordinated, plans to achieve goals for clean and efficient cars. A further objective is to curb gasoline use by 7 billion gallons per year in 2010 and 96 billion gallons per year in 2020, while creating 200 000 to 600 000 new jobs by 2010.

At the time the agreement was struck, the president and executives from the Big Three said they hoped that PNGV research breakthroughs would ultimately make auto emissions and mileage regulations unnecessary. Chrysler’s former PNGV director, Tim Adams, noted that the partnership represents the opportunity to address more efficiently fundamental national objectives than the regulatory mandate approach. Further, car-makers say the Supercar’s advanced technologies are outside their short-term research focus, and unjustified by fuel costs or market demand for fuel efficiency. They argue that the North American market forces alone would not drive them to create an 80 mile per gallon mid-sized sedan.

Examples of applied technology would be the development of lightweight, recyclable materials, and catalysts for reducing exhaust pollution; research that could lead to production prototypes of vehicles capable of up to three times greater fuel efficiency. Examples would be lightweight materials for body parts and the use of fuel cells and advanced energy storage systems such as ultracapacitors. Using these new power sources would produce more fuel-efficient cars. Further initiatives included lightweight, high-strength structural composite plastics that are recyclable, that can be produced economically in high volume, and that can be repaired. Hybrid drive control electronics and hardware were also cited alongside regenerative braking systems to store braking energy instead of losing it through heat dissipation; also fuel cells to convert liquid fuel energy directly into electricity with little pollution.

Such advances are aimed at more efficient energy conversion power sources, viable hybrid concepts as well as lighter weight and more efficient vehicle designs. The contributions of US government agencies include the following: at its ten National Laboratories, the Department of Energy has technical expertise, facilities, and resources that can help achieve the goals of the partnership. Examples include research programmes in advanced engine technologies such as gas turbines, hybrid vehicles, alternative fuels, fuel cells, advanced energy storage, and lightweight materials. The DOE’s efforts are implemented through cost-shared contracts and cooperative agreements with the auto industry, suppliers, and others. Technologies covered include fuel cells, hybrid vehicles, gas turbines, energy storage materials and others. The Department of Defense’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) is focused on medium-duty and heavy-duty drivetrains for military vehicles which could, in the future, be scaled down to light-duty vehicles.

ARPA funds research on electric and hybrid vehicles through the Electric/Hybrid Vehicle and Infrastructure (EHV) Program and the Technology Reinvestment Project (TRP). EHV is a major source of funding for small companies interested in conducting advanced vehicle research that is not channelled through the Big Three auto-makers. NASA will apply its expertise to PNGV in three ways: by applying existing space technologies such as advanced lightweight, high strength materials; by developing dual-use technologies such as advanced batteries and fuel cells to support both the automotive industry and aerospace programmes; and by developing technologies specifically for the PNGV such as advanced power management and distribution technology. The Department of Interior involvement in PNGV-related research includes research to improve manufacturing processes for lightweight composite materials and recycling strategies for nickel–

metal hydride batteries. The DOI’s Bureau of Mines has developed a system for tracking materials and energy flows through product life cycles. Life-cycle assessment of advanced vehicles and components can help to anticipate problems with raw materials availability, environmental impacts, and recyclability. This includes the worldwide availability of raw materials, environmental impacts of industrial processes, and strategies for recycling of materials.

The US OTA considers that the most likely configuration of a PNGV prototype would be a hybrid vehicle, powered in the near term by a piston engine, and in the longer term perhaps by a fuel cell. It notes that there is no battery technology that can presently achieve the equivalent of 80 mpg. Thus, the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell is seen as the more likely candidate.

The DOE further stresses that meeting the fuel economy goal will require new technologies for energy conversion, energy storage, hybrid propulsion, and lightweight materials.

4.9.1 PARALLEL EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPANESE INITIATIVES CITED BY THE US GOVERNMENT

According to TASC, the European Union (EU) has formed the European Council for Automotive Research and Development (EUCAR) in response to both the US PNGV programme and

accelerated vehicle development in Japan. EUCAR’s objectives are technology leadership, increased competitiveness of the European automotive industry and environmental improvements.

With a leader appointed from industry, EUCAR has requested a budget of over $2.3 billion from the EU over 5 years, representing a 50% EU government cost share. This includes $866 million for vehicle technology, $400 million for materials R&D, $400 million for advanced internal combustion engine (ICE), $333 million for electric/hybrid propulsion, and $333 million for manufacturing technology and processes. An additional $638 million is targeted for control and traffic management, and $267 million is targeted for management and organization structures.

The annual EU budget is expected to include $173 million for vehicle technology, $80 million for advanced ICE, $80 million for materials, $67 million for manufacturing, and $67 million for electric and hybrid vehicles. Member companies of the EUCAR cooperative R&D partnership include BMW, Daimler-Benz AG and Mercedes-Benz AG, Fiat SpA, Ford Europe, Adam Opel AG, PSA Peugeot-Citroen, Renault SA, Rover, Volkswagen AG, and Volvo AB. National initiatives include fleet purchases and demonstrations, subsidies and cooperative R&D.

OTA notes that about $700 million of the EUCAR programme is focused specifically on automotive projects. The EUCAR programme is similar in some ways to PNGV, but the research proposed in its Master Plan is broader in scope, encompassing sustainability concerns in the longer term, though with no mention of a timetable for a prototype vehicle. The Master Plan proposes work focused on product-related research on advanced powertrains and materials, manufacturing technologies to match new vehicle concepts, and the total transport system, including vehicle integration into a multimodal transport system. The primary source of funding will be the EU’s 5-year Framework IV programme. Also, in 1995, to stimulate R&D on advanced vehicles using traction batteries, the EU initiated a task force named ‘Car of Tomorrow’ that will collaborate with industry, ensure R&D coordination with other EU and national initiatives, and encourage the use of other funding such as venture capital. OTA also notes that some European nations, such as France, may be a more promising market for advanced vehicles, especially EVs, since it has more compact urban areas with shorter commute distances. France, Germany and Sweden have significant EV and other advanced vehicle programmes under way.

TASC reports that Japan has utilized the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) as the focus of industry–government cooperation to execute a similar activity with funding expected to reach $250 million per year. Its strategy is focused on market share and electric/

hybrid vehicles for the California market. Reduction of nitrous oxide emissions is also an environmental goal of the programme. The annual government share of budget is expected to include $29 million or more for vehicle technology, $40 million for advanced ICE, $20 million for materials, $5 million or more for manufacturing, and $57 million for electric and hybrid vehicles. An infrastructure project is under way at nine major sites located close to industry and covering a wide range of climates. Industry manufacturers gearing up for the 1998 California zero emission vehicle (ZEV) programme include Honda, Mazda, Nissan, and Toyota. Other Japanese manufacturers participating in the cooperative activity include Daihatsu, Mitsubishi, Isuzu, and Suzuki.

OTA notes that the Japanese programme to develop PEM fuel cells began slowly under the MITI’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, but it is rapidly catching up with US programmes. PEM fuel cells are being actively developed and tested by some of the most powerful companies in Japan. Japanese auto manufacturers have performed research on EVs for more than 20 years, but the effort was given low priority due to problems with traction battery performance and doubts about EV consumer appeal. However, California’s adoption of the ZEV regulations raised this priority.

References

1. Appleby and Foulkes, Fuel cell handbook, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1989 2. Blomen and Mugwera, Fuel cell systems, Plenum Press, 1993

3. Hart and Bauen, Fuel cells: clean power, clean transport, clean future, Financial Times Energy, 1998.

4. Prentice, Electrochemical engineering principles, Prentice-Hall Inc., 1991

5. Fuel cells, a handbook, US Dept of Energy 1988, DOE/METC-88/6096 (DE88010252) 6. Platinum 1991, Johnson Matthey

7. Appleby, Journal of Power Sources, 29, pp. 3–11, 1990 8. Dicks, J. L., Journal of Power Sources, 61, pp. 113–124, 1996 9. Prater, Journal of Power Sources, 61, pp. 105–109, 1996

10. Ledjeff and Heinzel, Journal of Power Sources, 61, pp. 125–127, 1996 11. Acres and Hards, Phil Trans R. Soc. Lond. A, pp. 1671–1680, 1996

12. Blomen or Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, Sixth Edition, pp. 3–150 13. Shibata, Journal of Power Sources, 37, pp. 81–99, 1992

Further reading

Maggetto et al. (eds), Advanced electric drive systems for buses, vans and passenger cars to reduce pollution, EVS Publication, 1990