Advantages And Disadvantages Of Hybrid Cars Engineering Essay

Ad wagon traintages And Disadvantages Of Hybrid Cars locomotiveering EssayEven by recently introducing loan-blend vehicles to the worldwide deificationation system, the lack to reduce enchant generated CO2 emissions is still a matter of high signifi dischargece. One promising and at the same time environmentally friendly closure in harm of limiting the greenho accustom muck up (GHG) emissions is demanded to be the introduction of crown of thorns electric vehicles (HEVs). In this technical report HEVs will be comp ard to naturalized internal combustion locomotive railway locomotive vehicles ( icing the pucks) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs), by survey their technical characteristics and performance, their fundamental cost of ownership (TOC) and their GHG and air pollution (AP) emissions. HEVs bay window be classified any as jibe or serial due to differences at their powertrain configuration. They both(prenominal) use an electric motor and an locomotive engin e but only parallel HEVs can use simultaneously either of them as a main power source. At series HEVs the engine charges an on-board battery unit that transmits power to the electric motor. Reduced engine capacity, regenerative braking skill and engine shut-off capability are the main discernible characteristics of HEVs in opponent to their equivalent conventional models.1Some of the most generally acceptable advantages of the HEVs are their let loose local emissions combined with a high give notice economy, the long parkway range and their commercial availability but they still depended on fogy fuels and they are more expensive than conventional covers.2Technical characteristics and performancefomite efficiency and primary heartiness efficiency, or otherwise hearty-to-wheel efficiency are the measures used in this study to compare those different filmtrain vehicles. We define the fomite efficiency and, the Primary efficiency where = the useful energy at the wheels, = the e nergy supplied to the vehicle and = the primary energy.3Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) For both parallel and series HEVs the vehicle efficiency is 29%.Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICEV) The max efficiency ay ICEs is achieved near the max load point. The crocked efficiency is relatively low since no max power can be achieved in normal hotheaded conditions. At mean postulate power of 10kW the efficiency is low around 18% whereas around 60-90kW r from each onees up to 35-40%.4Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) An electric motor, connected with a generator and a system of transmission forms the main function of BEVs. Due to the development of in advance(p) electronic control systems, the mean energy efficiency over a normal drive schedule has increased both for generators and electric motors.5 The authorization vehicle efficiency is 61%.The difference in efficiency mingled with hybrid and conventional vehicles can be partly justified by the use of Atkinson- beat in the hybrid vehicle engines instead of the Otto cycle in the ICEs.6 In eccentric persons where the Atkinson cycle is applied to a well modified Otto cycle engine it results to high fuel economy that can be explained by the dismount per displacement power than the traditional ICE four slash engine.When more power is needed, an electric motor can supplement the engine power which is the basis of an Atkinson cycle working hybrid-electric drivetrain. Bigger work create and higher thermal efficiency than the Otto cycle while operating beneath similar conditions leads to higher primary efficiency in HEVs.7In terms of acceleration, BEVs are better than both HEVs and ICEs but in high advance performances ICEs are faster than HEVs with BEVs to be the slowest.8Total Cost of OwnershipThe total cost of ownership is by estimation the sum of the purchase footing (Components, retail margin, battery, initial on- highroad costs), the operating costs (fuel, electrical energy, servicing) and the resale val ue. The purchase price is improve for each vehicle (excluding the uncertainties in the battery prices) but in ordination to define the operational cost we first have to settle a representative drive cycle. In this study we will work with the AUDC (Australian urban Drive speech rhythm) which is a bit more intense in the driving behavior than the common ones but still close to the NEDC (new European drive cycle) and the ARTEMIS cycle (150000 km travelled per vehicle animationtime) .9,10Due to the large question in the vehicle battery prices we took a baseline value of $800(kWh)-1 or $16.800 brooker,4 Furthermore, we estimated a base fuel price at $1.4 L-1 as well as a base electricity price at $0.175 kWh-1.11In order to determine the operational cost of each vehicle we need to define the fuel and electricity consumption of our modeling vehicles. For a break E parallel HEV the fuel consumption in L/km was calculated 5.7 whereas for the same category the CV had a consumption of 9. 4 L/km. The electricity consumption of a Class E BEV is 0.11 kWh/km. It is clear that condescension the entailed increase in vehicle electrification in the purchase price it is even up with a decrease in the operational costs.Only by analyse each vehicles purchase price, the CV is the most cost effective solution of both HEVs and BEVs with the lasts to be the most costly ones mainly because of the high battery costs. On the other hand even though the BEVs have the lower running costs it is shown that the parallel HEVs are the ones with the lower Net put forward value. Finally in a recent study it was suggested that even hybrid elevator cars are a quite more expensive than the conventional ICE vehicles thay may reduce fuel consumption by 34-47% compared to them which decreases their NPV even more.12environmental evaluationIn order to determine the environmental repair of each vehicle we will examine their air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. To estimate the total CO2 emi ssions we use the product of carbon warmth (CO2e/MJ) by fuel producers, energy intensity (MJ/km) by car producers and guide (km) by car drivers. In Hybrid (gasoline) vehicles the CO2 emissions are 20 gCO2/MJ and 220 gCO2/MJ delivered to vehicle wheels during take and vehicle career cycle respectively. In ICEs the emissions during production and living cycle are 50 gCO2/MJ and 300 gCO2/MJ whereas in BEVs (electricity production from coal) are 320 gCO2/MJ and approximately 0 gCO2/MJ respectively. It is interesting to notify that in case were electricity production comes from renewable sources (wind) the emission at the production grade of BEV are almost defeasance.13,14Table1 Environmental impact associated with vehicle production stages fictional character of carGHG emissions (kg)AP emissions (kg)Conventional3595.88.74Hybrid4156.710.10Electric9832.415.09In both HEVs and BEVs we must(prenominal) also consider the environmental impact of batteries. We assume that both vehicles use NiMeH batteries of 53kg (1,8kWh capacity) and 430kg( 27kWh capacity), respectively. The production of those batteries require 1.96MJ of electricity and 8.35MJ of liquid petroleum gas.15 With those data and considering that the reduce of batteries per life of vehicle is 2 for hybrids and 3 for electrics, the total GHG emission per life of vehicle are more than 12 measure higher in BEVs.Finally in order to compare the total GHG and AP emissions for ICE, BEV and HEVs we will consider the scenario that electricity is produced only from renewable energy sources. In that case ICE vehicles are the most polluting ones with almost double GHG and AP emissions than hybrid vehicles and 10 times more than BEV vehicles (450/235/40 g CO2,equivalent /mile respectively).16Table2 Total environmental impact for different vehiclesCar TypeGHG emissions(kg) / nose candy km of travellingAP emissions(kg) /100 km of travellingConventional ICE21.40.0600Hybrid HEV13.30.0370Electric BEV2.310.00756The bo nny travelling distance during a 10 year vehicle life time is 241,350km.17We must say here that in any scenario for electricity production the BEV are still the most environmentally friendly vehicles. Furthermore, hybrid cars may reduce Well-to-wheel GHG emissions to 89-103 gCO2 comparing to conventional ICE gasoline vehicles.18Georgios Fontaras, Panayotis Pistikopoulos, Zissis Samaras, 2008, experimental evaluation of hybrid vehicle fuel economy and pollutant emissions over real-world pretension driving cycles, Atmospheric Environment 42, 2008, 4023-4035.C.C.Chan, Fellow, IEEE, Alain Bouscayrol, Member, IEEE, and Keyu Chen, Member, IEEE, 2010, Electric, Hybrid, and fuel-Cell Vehicles Architectures and Modeling, IEEE transactions on vehicular technology, Vol.59, No.2, February 2010. gunk Ahman, 2000, Primary energy efficiency of alternative powertrains in vehicles, Energy 26, 2001, 973-989.Ecotraffic, The life of fuels, Stockholm, 1992Kopf et al, 1997, development of a multifuncti onal high power system meeting the demands of both a generator and traction drive system, Electric Vehicle Sympozium 14, Orlando (FL), 1997.Yingru Zhao, Jincan Chen, 2006, transaction analysis and parametric optimumcriteria of an irreversible Atkinson heat-engine, Applied Energy 83,2006, 789-800.Shuhn-Shyurng Hou, 2006, parity of performances of air standard Atkinson and Otto cycles with heat transfer considerations, Energy conversion and counselling 48, 2007, 1683-1690.Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, 2006, The 21st century electric car, Tesla Motors Inc.Michel Andr, 2004, The ARTEMIS European driving cycles for measuring car pollutant emissions, The Science of the total environment, 334-335, 2004, 73-74.R.Sharma, C.Manzie, M.Bessede, M.J.Brear, R.H. Crawford, 2012, Conventional, hybrid and electric vehicles for Australian driving conditions firearm 1 Technical and financial analysis, Transportation Research Part C Emerging Technologies, 25, 2012, 238-249.Annual energy out look 2012 with projections to 2035, 2012, U.S. energy information administration, June 2012.Oscar P.R van Vliet, Thomas Kruithof, Wim C. Turkenberg, Andre P.C. Faaij, 2010, Techno-economic comparison of series hybrid, plug in hybrid, fuel prison cell and regular cars, Journal of Power Sources, Vol.195, Issue 19, 2010, 6570-6585.Felix Creutzig, Emily McGlynn, Jan Minx, Ottmar Edenhofer, 2011, Climate policies for road transport revisited (1) Evaluation of the current framework, Energy Policy, 39, 2011, 2396-2406.Mikhail Granovskii, Ibrahim Dincer, Marc A.Rosen, 2006, Economic and environmental comparison of conventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, Journal of Power Sources, 159, 2006, 1186-1193.M.Rantik, 1999, Life Cycle Assessment of five batteries for Electric vehicles under different charging regimes, report, KFB-Stockholm, 1999.Tien Nguyen Jake Ward, 2010, Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse hitman Emissions and Petroleum Use for Mid-Size Light-Duty Vehicles, US de partment of energy, Program genius (Offices of Vehicle Technologies Fuel Cell Technologies), 2010.United States Department of Energy, Energy cogency and renewable energy. Via www.fueleconomy.gov , accessed May 15, 2005.G.J.offer, D.Howey, M.Contestabile, R.Clague, N.P.Brandon, 2010, Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system, Energy Policy, 38, 2010, 24-29.