Grab our RSS Feed
Follow us on:
   AND    

    

Audio Interview: Donald Hillebrand, Director of Center For Transportation Research, Argonne National Lab, Part I

November 2nd, 2007 | Posted in: Electric Motor, Engineering, Environment, Original GM-Volt Interviews, PHEV, Research

hill.jpg

Dr. Donald Hillebrand is the director for transportation research at the Argonne National Lab, a pivotal government organization involved in testing and deployment of plug-in cars. He is also a very intelligent and highly insightful man. We had an extensive and interesting discussion which can be heard in the player below the post. The file also be downloaded here or found on iTunes as a podcast.

Argonne lab grew out of the Manhattan Project, portions eventually looking at the peaceful uses of the atom. Then the mission became to look at things that are threats to competitiveness of the U.S. economy. The biggest threat right now is recognized as the importation of and dependence on petroleum, with the biggest use being transportation. So Dr. Hillebrand’s lab looks at technology that will enhance displacement of the use of petroleum, and this represents about 10% of Argonne’s overall activity.

His lab is 80% funded by DOE, and 20% through contracts with individual companies. His lab relates to the big three automakers though FreedomCAR, a consortium working to coordinate government and industry resources and efforts. Ideas and challenges, data and information are shared. Some competitive things are not shared, but may be for some individual entities through confidential contracts. In some cases they work with foreign companies as exceptions if they have a technology that will benefit the U.S.

The lab enables the car companies by relating to groups the companies cannot, such as in making fuel economy standards, or giving them access to U.S. grid data. He significantly notes that people should not charge electric cars during the day, that it should not even “enter people’s minds” to top off the battery during the day. He tells us that charging the Volt will have the same current draw as running two plasma TVs for 6 hours. He cautions about maintaining a “slow slide” to the electric car to not overwhelm the grid.

He thinks it could take about 15 years to get to a 5% penetration of the auto fleet by plug-ins.

We talked about GM and the Volt, the idea began 2 years ago. Like everyone else who is very knowledgeable, he is convinced about how real and realistic the program is, and how committed engineers are truly involved.

We also discussed an interesting method Mike Duoba in his lab developed to calculate fuel economy in electric range extended cars like the Volt. In this method the car is driven repeatedly through federal city cycles (6 miles) until the ICE kicks in, then it is driven one more. The fuel economy would then be calculated as the amount of gas used divided by the miles and controlling for electric consumption.

ANL’s site: (LINK)

Part 2 of the interview will be forthcoming

Posted by: Lyle

25 Responses to “Audio Interview: Donald Hillebrand, Director of Center For Transportation Research, Argonne National Lab, Part I”


  1. Andy
    Vote -1 Vote +1Andy     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 10:48 am

    “He thinks it could take about 15 years to get to a 5% penetration of the auto fleet by plug-ins.”

    Oh gosh, I hope not! But I guess hybrids have been out for almost 10 years and they only represent 2% of the market.  

    (Quote)


  2. omegaman66
    Vote -1 Vote +1omegaman66     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 11:50 am

    My opinion is the PUBLIC is receptive to electric due to the hybrids on the market now. The only holdup is the production. Not many people are going to avoid a plugin.

    If the car manufacturers would just start converting ALL of thier vehicles to serial hybrids they would sale as fast or faster than their current cars.

    The only hold outs would be the big trucks buyers that want megahorse power to pull big boats and stuff. But they will all be converted when they see that electric is actually stronger than ICE!  

    (Quote)


  3. Dave G
    Vote -1 Vote +1Dave G     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    Conventional hybrids still run on gas. Electric vehicles with range extenders (EVRXs) run mostly on electricity. I think that difference will cause significantly better market penetration than we’ve seen with conventional hybrids.

    From a marketing perspective, here’s what you get with an EVRX that you don’t get with conventional hybrids:

    – A chance to flip the bird to the oil companies

    – Avoid weekly trips to the gas station

    – The 40-mile all-electric ride is much quieter than a hybrid

    – Dramatically reduced oil consumption

    Anyone else care to add to the list?  

    (Quote)


  4. Mark Bartosik
    Vote -1 Vote +1Mark Bartosik     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    Unfortunately that sounds quite reasonable.

    Key to this is the fact that, the average US car has an on-road lifetime of 17 years. So each year you only get to change 6% of the fleet.

    Take up starts slowly. For next two years effectively 0%. Even if Volt got 8% of all US sales, which won’t be possible since they won’t be making nearly that amount in the first year(s). 8% of 6% is only 0.5%. 0.5% over 10 years is 5% (but that’s plus a 2 year lag at 0%). So even with hugely optimistic values we get 5% penetration in 12 years.

    Extreme pain (like $250 barrel oil) could bring the 17 year lifetime of car down.

    That’s one reason why I won’t buy another car until I can plug it in. I see buying another car between now and when Volt arrives as bad, because it puts another gas drinking beast on the road for 17 years.

    ——

    There are several factors that could make it adopted faster than hybrids:

    1) Cafe standards could mean manufactures rationing non hybrids by increasing the price and cross subsidizing hybrids.

    2) The idea of no or nearly no gas required is very different to less gas. Just like free is very different to cheap.

    3) Gas prices.

    4) An open conflict (with Iran), and restricted oil availability, with sky high prices like $200 or $250 a barrel. At time of this posting we’ve already reached $96 for a short time.

    When cost over a short write off period becomes same or less tipping point arrives. This is the same with all renewable energy. Few people are of a mind set that they will pay more for the common good, it is like paying extra taxes, or lawyers working pro-bono ( (free) for good of people). Of those that are of that mind set, few can actually afford to do it. The break even point on solar power is currently about 10 years (after rebates). But still only few install it. When the break even point is down to 3 to 5 years the tipping point is reached.  

    (Quote)


  5. Tom M
    Vote -1 Vote +1Tom M     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 12:31 pm

    Dave G.

    How about:
    5. Cleaner air
    6. Stop supporting the terrorists
    7. keep our mone @ home, buy America.
    I’m sure there is much more. Come on gang, lets hear it.  

    (Quote)


  6. Dave B
    Vote -1 Vote +1Dave B     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 1:39 pm

    They want to sell a lot of these? Time to ask Congress for some tax credits for buying PHEVs or RxEVs only!  

    (Quote)


  7. noel park
    Vote -1 Vote +1noel park     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 2:09 pm

    Don’t top off the battery during the day? That doesn’t sound good.  

    (Quote)


  8. Van
    Vote -1 Vote +1Van     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 2:30 pm

    A rule of thumb is that people generally overestimate what can be done in 3 years and underestimate what can be done in 10 years. If we start the clock when the first OEM Plug in appears in the showroom, say 2010 for the Volt, Nissan, and others, and add 10 years, we will have more than 5% penetration of the automobile fleet.

    Picture gas price continuing to rise at a 50 cents per gallon per year rate, so $4.50 in 2010 and continuing to rise. Couple that with incentives from power providers to help offset the hybrid premium and voila, perhaps 50% of the cars bought by 2015 will be PHEVs.  

    (Quote)


  9. Rashiid Amul
    Vote -1 Vote +1Rashiid Amul     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 3:38 pm

    This was great. But I agree with Noel #7.
    I have to charge twice a day. When I get to work at 6:00 AM, I will have to plug-in for the ride home. If they control the charging by only allowing it to be charged at night, that doesn’t really work for me. My 101 mile round trip will always use the ICE. I want my usage of that to be as minimal as possible. I hate supporting those muslim governments.
    They are far from peaceful. The more money we give them, the farther from peace they go.  

    (Quote)


  10. kent beuchert
    Vote -1 Vote +1kent beuchert     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 4:00 pm

    The idea of not charging during the day is just goofy – of course people are going to charge during the day. If he envisions the slight market penetration he is talking about, it makes no sense for him to worry about grid capacity.
    As for cars living for 17 years, you must be talking about someplace I’m not familiar with. Last I heard, people trade in around every 7 years or so. But even if that 17 year figure were true, it wouldn’t mean anything if a revolution in auto technology were to occur because of $4 and $5 gasoline, or what would be worse – gasoline supply disruptions and shortages. That would drive people into plug-ins almost exclusively. Notice what happened to all those well-entrenched electrics in 1906 when the Model T came out – they disappeared almost overnight. Or what happened to gas guzzlers during the 1973 gas crisis – you couldn’t give away a big block Corvette (or V-8 anything). Their market value dropped like a rock almost immediately.  

    (Quote)


  11. OhmExcited
    Vote -1 Vote +1OhmExcited     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 4:02 pm

    Using Argonne’s own software (GREET) I calculated that using electricity from the average of the California grid, and using electricity from the average gas-fired plant is still much better (ultimate CO2 per mile) than any regular car.

    http://ohmexcited.googlepages.com/CO2.htm

    In fact, there is not a huge difference between the average of the Cal grid and natural gas. Natural gas would likely provide any peak demand during the day. So I don’t see the big deal environmental-wise.

    The bid deal could be that charging during the day might cause energy companies to build more plants. They would like us to charge at night to help with load balancing.

    The appropriate model would be covered parking lots at work with solar panels.  

    (Quote)


  12. Oil Jihadi
    Vote -1 Vote +1Oil Jihadi     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 5:08 pm

    Add this to the list:

    8. Fulfillment of Allah’s wish for his Arab and Persian peoples to return to a traditional muslim lifestyle. No modern medicine (can’t afford it), no air conditioning, a return to riding camels, chopping each others heads off, and starving when there’s not enough food.

    9. Saudi Arabia to become the next Africa: overpopulated, dirt poor, lazy, and uneducated.

    10. Iran to be too poor to build the nuclear weapons.

    11. Venezuela to enjoy their socialist programs, without the use of oil.

    12. The Russians to be put in their place.

    12. Oh, a reduction in global warming, global cooling, whatever-you-want-to-call-it. Think of the children! Yeah, that’s it.

    Dr. Hillebrand is hereby invited to join the jihad against oil.

    http://www.oiljihad.org – death to oil  

    (Quote)


  13. gtalias
    Vote -1 Vote +1gtalias     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 8:29 pm

    Plugging in during the day should not be an option. Already fossil fuels are used as emergency generators on high use days. It would defeat the purpose of an electric vehicle to top off during these times. Also if you are driving more than 40 miles a day, the volt really wasn’t designed for this type of use, though on rare occations it can meet this need.

    A full electric car with 100+ mile range would be a better use for you Rashiid.  

    (Quote)


  14. LyleL
    Vote -1 Vote +1LyleL     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    The answer again, as others have suggested is to start now with incentivising through federal credits (or through other devices) the installation of photovoltaics. Check out what Germany is doing, not planing, but doing right now.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/wm/3406_04_220.html

    During daytime hours of peak demand there’s generally plenty of sunshine. Photovoltaics could be used to mitigate those peak daytime power spikes.  

    (Quote)


  15. mykallb
    Vote -1 Vote +1mykallb     Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 11:08 pm

    Thanks for posting that Lyle, very interesting. I love the way that analyst in the end raises doubts about the system w/o giving any details or examples. When you hear things like that you almost want to ask if he’s advocating that Germany would be better off continuing to consume fossil fuels. ??

    M.  

    (Quote)


  16. Mike G.
    Vote -1 Vote +1Mike G.     Says:
    November 3rd, 2007 at 12:46 am

    Charging during the day isn’t going to be a problem that issue has already been looked at.  

    (Quote)


  17. Rashiid Amul
    Vote -1 Vote +1Rashiid Amul     Says:
    November 3rd, 2007 at 10:36 am

    “A full electric car with 100+ mile range would be a better use for you Rashiid.”

    Perhaps this is true, however I would still be able to purchase way less gas than usual. If it turns out not to work well for me, I will give the car to my wife and buy another Elantra.  

    (Quote)


  18. noel park
    Vote -1 Vote +1noel park     Says:
    November 3rd, 2007 at 11:28 am

    Lyle, #14:

    Right, and wasn’t part of the rationale of the connecting all of the plug in hybrids to the grid that all of the bateries could feed power back when sources like solar and wind were not contributing because of weather? Thus you get to take better advantage of them when they are available?

    As I commented this morning on your post about the battery research bill, I see your solar idea as another legitimate national “defense” expenditure. For the price of the Iraq war, we could install enough solar generating capacity that we probably wouldn’t need any oil from the Mideast. Maybe the Pentagon could pay for it.  

    (Quote)


  19. Steven B
    Vote -1 Vote +1Steven B     Says:
    November 3rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    The point of moving towards plug-in vehicles, as I understand it, is mostly about petroleum displacement. Reduced environmental impact is a side benefit of the technology, as is the move towards renewable energy enabled by the increased electrical demand justifying the new capital expenses and the capacity provided by energy storage in the car to provide V2G. But the thing that I really want to hear about are the prospects of V2G, and the changing economics of driving.

    I really think that there are more benefits to driving PHEVs and RxEVs (better overall efficiency and torque, for example) than those already listed: Economic, political, and environmental reasons listed in #4 and #5, as well as the perverse, and somewhat disturbing, ethno-centric reasons listed in #8. I really want to hear more about the prospects of a better electrical grid that plug-ins can enable. But I’m afraid that Donald Hillebrand and others at the DOE are not yet up to speed about the concept and are unintentionally delaying development and deployment of the technologies. Honestly, I’m afraid that Google may be making more advancements on that end than the Feds.

    To make my point more concisely: I don’t think that we should just be looking at the promises of plug-in technology from the 20th century perspective of oil economics, a long tail-pipe, and a dumb grid. But we should be looking instead at a 21st century new economics of driving where we are supposed to keep our cars plugged in all day, because we have a smart grid and grid-tied cars that enable us to optimize the entire system to have the best economics and ecology possible.

    Please, Lyle, bring this up in your future interviews. I really appreciate everything you’re doing here, and I follow this site regularly, but I’m concerned that this is an important aspect of the technology that is going largely unmentioned by the specialists.  

    (Quote)


  20. Drake
    Vote -1 Vote +1Drake     Says:
    November 3rd, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    Great interview Lyle- I look forward to listening to part 2.

    I was a little surprised to hear that Dr. Hillebrand’s lab only makes up 10% of Argonne. I can not think of a more pressing issue in our time than energy independence. Hopefully, the next administration will change this.

    Concerning not charging during the day- I think this statement is a little ridiculous. If PHEVs will tax the grid that much, then we need to build more power plants. There is no shortage of uranium, wind, or coal in this country. The more energy we consume that is produced domestically, the better off we will be. I mean how many days worth of funding the Iraq war would it cost to build a new reactor? seven? eight? This is a no-brainer. While most PHEV owners will only charge during the night time, making a statement like that (that charging during the day will somehow damage the grid and should be avoided) hurts the PHEV cause and will scare away some would-be PHEV owners. Statements like this hurt our cause and I was a little shocked to hear a person responsible for helping to advance PHEV technology say this.

    Concerning the MPG standard, I really think we have to move to a two-number system. The first number would include the number of miles the vehicle can drive on electrical power under average circumstances (please take into consideration air conditioning). The second number would give the MPG the vehicle gets after the battery is discharged and the ICE kicks in, again under average circumstances. This system would easily allow the average commuter to calculate how much gas they will actually use each day, when comparing vehicles. (EX: a 50-mile commute would consume all of the Volt’s electricity and then rely on the ICE for the extra 10 miles).

    Concering PHEV adoption, I have to agree with Van #8 on this topic- oil could easily skyrocket in the future and at $5.00/gallon gas, people would be retiring their Excursions to the junkyard. This brings up a pretty scary economic issue: overnight people’s expensive SUVs would drop in value exponentially due to lack of demand for large SUVs powered by old ICE technology. A 2005 Navigator might be worth $500 after such a skyrocket- who knows. Either way, PHEV adoption could occur a LOT faster, depending on future world events.

    Dave, here’s my list: http://www.thecaseforpluginhybrids.com  

    (Quote)


  21. Neutron Flux
    Vote -1 Vote +1Neutron Flux     Says:
    November 5th, 2007 at 12:04 pm

    Two absolute conditions I require to buy a Volt:1) Do not prohibit me from charging during the day ( to appease big oil or Utilities). 2)Do not make leasing the battery, the only way to buy a Volt so they can kill the lease & kill the car(Who killed the Electric car). With that said I understand the reason for charging at night. Power plants cost money whether or not they are selling electricity so selling more juice at night makes them more cost effective (more revenue same plant)& should reduce daytime electricity cost (If the PUC is doing its job). With SCE implementing a SMART grid to be in place be introduction of the Volt we should be able to charge at day & pay more/KWH than charging at night (supply & demand) the cost will be the incentive. And as stated it would be better for the environment to pop up a few more coal fire plants than to burn gas as per mile, coal fire plants produce less pounds of pollution as compared to petroleum fuels & the USA has over 100 years supply. They should not fear the collapse of the grid due to over loading in the first year or two & it should give power companies time to implement SMART meters to encourage cost based on demand. I say don’t handicap my Volt! GM are you listening? You can give me an option so my car will only start charging at 6:00 PM-7 AM but that will be my choice & not the default. I plug in when I park & the charger will kick in based on my preference not the utilities or big oil. My car, My choice! Let the market figure out the rest.  

    (Quote)


  22. Nick
    Vote -1 Vote +1Nick     Says:
    November 5th, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    5% market penetration in 15 years?? He’s really not being serious.

    First, hybrids are growing fast, and are likely to be 5% of the market in 5 years. 2nd, surely in 5 years most hybrids will be plugged in – this suggests that plug-ins will be 5% just a year or two after that. 3rd, light vehicles less than 6 years old account for 50% of miles travelled. 4th, gas prices are likely to continue to rise quickly, and awareness of climate change has reached critical mass, so demand will be there.

    I expect plug-in’s to account for 75% of new light vehicle sales in 15 years, and 50% of miles travelled.  

    (Quote)


  23. Chris Hurst
    Vote -1 Vote +1Chris Hurst     Says:
    April 1st, 2008 at 11:13 pm

    We need to change the grid system so small producers have an incentive to build their own power plants[ie.your home]This has been done in Europe as Lyle has pointed out in Germany and is the driving factor in the explosion in PV and renewable energy there.Come on people,the USA is the frontier and if there were the incentives to have every farmer,inventor and homeowner-joe six pack and tech nerd American to do this it is done and fast!The Buildings are then the power plants,and then the smart grid takes over and does the rest!The big money utilities are going to be pissed off and it will take a Teddy Rosevelt president to do this but once the tipping point is achieved it will happen.The technology is there and we invented most of it.GM is really doing the right thing with the Volt,and this takes guts.  

    (Quote)


  24. dorceachano
    Vote -1 Vote +1dorceachano     Says:
    November 8th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

  25. Misearterry
    Vote -1 Vote +1Misearterry     Says:
    December 13th, 2008 at 7:55 am

    Walgreens is recalling 173 teddy bears with chocofresh bars sold in stores to purchase cealis amex since past due September 2008. investigation by the U.S. nourishment and anaesthetize regulation originate that sure samples of the chocofresh provided with the teddy bears were contaminated with melamine. Customers who purchased any of the 173 teddy bears should resurface them instantly to buy tadalafil line the Walgreens stores where they were purchased for a occupied refund.  

    (Quote)

Leave a Reply

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.

RSS Recent Posts

RSS Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts