Automated Electronic Transportation Transforming America's Transportation Future

1. Automated Electronic TransportationTransforming America's Transportation Future 8.25.2008

2. AET Collaboration Contributing Organizations Oak Ridge National Laboratory Utah State University Texas A&M University National Renewable Energy Laboratory California Energy Commission Energy Intersection Inc. Argonne National Laboratory Austin Energy University of California PATH Program John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

3. AET Vision We envision a systematic transition to a national automated electric transportation system that dramatically improves America’s mobility and energy security. The system will: • provide energy directly to vehicles from electrified highways—dramatically reducing their use of petroleum and the emission of CO2, and • automate control of the vehicles while on the highways, reducing congestion, improving safety, freeing the driver’s time, and providing new in-vehicle services. The system will extend, not replace, our current highway system—vehicles capable of traveling on electrified automated highways will also be able to drive as conventional vehicles on conventional roadways.

4. Transportation Issues Addressed by AET • Oil invulnerability • Usedomestic energy sources for transportation • Imported oil competes with other options • Oil dependence • 2/3 oil consumed for transportation • 60% of oil is imported • Vehicle emissions • 66% of all Carbon Monoxide • 38% of all Nitrogen Oxides • 26% of all Volatile Organic Compounds • 30% of all Carbon Dioxide • No vehicle emissions • Point source emissions only • Far fewer to manage • Easier to manage than moving sources • Congestion – Expected capacity per lane from 2 to 4 times that of conventional highways • Congestion – estimated annual cost of $64 billion • Safety • Over 40,000 traffic fatalities per year • Over 3 million injured • Annual cost more than $200 billion • Safety through automation • Driver and environmental problems cause 95% of the crashes • Automation can eliminate human driver problems of inattentiveness, impairment, misperception and misjudgement that lead to most crashes • Automation can see through all weather conditions

5. Two Key AET Elements • Energy carrier switch from oil to electricity from the vehicle to the road • Control switch from humans to automated systems Simultaneously address 4 transportation issues.

6. Possible Transition Path to AET

7. Implementation Plan • Development of consensus roadmap (2009-10) • First seed funding for architecture definition and enabling research (2010) • National commitment of substantial research funding to: • Resolve key technical obstacles • Address institutional and political challenges • Define staged deployment strategy • Design system and national network • Implement first specialized, limited-scale applications (goods movement) • National decision on large-scale deployment

8. Identified Challenges • Technical feasibility • Wireless power transfer to moving vehicles • Automated driving technology (fault handling) • Public and private sector roles in funding, development and operation of system • Public and industry acceptance of such a large change and its associated up-front costs • Network effects (large scale needed to gain large benefits) • Liability • Electric utility questions: • How will they serve and price the new loads? • Dynamics of power flows (bidirectional)

9. Roadmap Outline • Goals • Critical System Requirements • Major Challenges • RDD&D Pathways • Financial, Policy, and Organizational Pathways • Timeline • Resource Needs

10. Desired Roadmap Outcomes • Concise, cohesive report • Describing vision and pathways to get there • Consensus-oriented • Inclusive of technology, deployment, regional options • Delineating initial technology, financial, policy, and organizational paths forward • Aggressive but realistic goals / timeline • Industry / Government / University Participation • National RDD&D program plan

11. Potential Stakeholders • Industry (must eventually adopt ownership role) • Utilities • Infrastructure providers • System Integrators • Component and technology providers including vehicle OEM’s • Investors • Government • DOE EERE; DOT FHWA; EPA; DOC; DOI; DOD; DHS • State Agencies • National Labs (DOE; DOT; DOD; etc.) • Research Universities • Transportation and environmental interest groups

12. For More Information • See our report at: http://energylab.usu.edu

13. Next Steps • Contact: Jeff Muhs Jeff.muhs@usu.edu Ted Fox foxec@ornl.gov Christine Ehlig-Economides caee@tamu.edu

14. The Federal Transportation Landscape • Interdependent, but jurisdictionally-separated policies and R&D pathways • R&D pathways stove-piped • No current pathway attempts to address all challenges simultaneously…..AET does EPA DOE DOT DHS Air Quality & other environ-mental residuals DOA DOI Safety & Congestion Energy Efficiency DOD DOC Federal Government

15. The fundamental paradigm hasn’t changed appreciably for a century. Paradigm: Self-propelled vehicles driven on conventional roadways by humans will be the primary method of land transportation for the next 50 years. Question: Is this “systems-level” paradigm, from which all major transportation R&D pathways are derived, still valid?

16. Electrification problematic in self-propelled vehicles • Batteries • Limited range and excessive weight • may be looking for “unobtainium” because it requires less institutional risk than transformational systems-level change • Hydrogen • Losses incurred during catalytic cracking of hydrocarbons are not offset by efficiency of H2 fuel cells • Electrolysis, distribution, storage and conversion of H2 incurs heavy energy losses relative to using electricity directly • On-board storage highly problematic (-423ºF liquid; 90,000 psi gas; 100 kilos/gal equivalent w/ metal hydride • Does not leverage electricity’s value as energy carrier • Electricity 100 X more efficient as energy carrier than vehicles • Revisiting in-motion energy transfer a viable option

17. The technical challenges are considerable but dramatic advancements have been made in recent years: • Electricity distribution / delivery • - smart grid • Safe and reliable power transfer • - near-field inductive, resonance, & direct • Vehicle power electronics • Control systems & automation

18. Example: Preliminary Results of ORNL Evanescent Power Transfer • Initial examination of evanescent wave power transfer (loosely coupled magnetic resonance) funded by lab “seed money” • Demonstrated 300W power transfer with 82% efficiency • Analysis indicates efficiencies in low to mid-90% range at distances of 1 ft. • Efficiency is fairly constant over frequency; power transfer very peaked