Hydrogen always seems to be the Bridesmaid never the Bride technology

Over the 17 years this column has existed, few subjects, if any, have been its focus more often than hydrogen (H2) as an automotive fuel, either for use electrochemically in a fuel cell or burned directly in an internal combustion engine (ICE).

As the most abundant element in the universe, there is no shortage of hydrogen supply (in theory if not in practice) and whether it is used in a fuel cell or an ICE, it generates no greenhouse gases. Consequently, it has long been considered the holy grail of fuels.

During the first decade of this century, it seemed almost certain that hydrogen fuel cells would be not just the powerplants of the future but of the very near future.

They were not.

Due largely to the high costs associated with fuel cells, combined with rapid improvements in competing lithium-ion battery technology and the cult-like success of Tesla’s pioneering battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), it is they that have claimed the popular mantle as heir apparent to the ICE age — at least for now.

Once again, however, there are rumblings of hydrogen’s re-emergence as the fuel of the future. That those rumblings are coming primarily from the world’s biggest automaker by volume — Toyota — and the world’s third-ranked auto group by sales — Hyundai — lends them credence that cannot be ignored.

Both already have hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) on the market, albeit with relatively low sales volumes. But both are also developing hydrogen-fuelled ICEs with near-term production feasibility. It is the potential for those vehicles that is particularly attractive to legacy automakers and has many auto enthusiasts excited.

The attractions to OEMs are obvious. Modifying existing IC engine designs to run on hydrogen rather than fossil fuels would save them countless billions of investment dollars in the new ground-up vehicle designs that BEVs demand. And billions more for new motor and battery manufacturing facilities.

Plus, they would be dealing with mostly known and proven technologies with predictable risks. How many new BEVs have already been the subject of massive recalls?

There is, of course, the matter of ensuring that the engine runs and performs acceptably using hydrogen as fuel. It’s a much tougher challenge than using gasoline, amplified by hydrogen’s gaseous nature and its ability to leak through the most minute openings.

A highly publicized fire in a Toyota race car running on liquid hydrogen fuel quite literally backfired, potentially setting back public opinion on the concept.

Assuming such engineering challenges can be overcome, however, H2 has much to recommend it as a fuel for ICEs.

On the environmental front, hydrogen ICE (HICE?) vehicles would not need lithium, nickel, or cobalt, which are critical battery materials. Consequently, fewer new mines and refining facilities would be required for those minerals, with all their attendant environmental consequences.

The additional hydrogen needed could and should be produced by electrolysis using carbon-free, non-nuclear electricity. Win-win-win!

From the consumer perspective, HICE vehicles should be dramatically lower priced than BEVs. Their only significant added cost would come from the high-pressure fuel tanks required.

They could also be hybridized, of course, adding further to their bonafides.

Best of all, HICE vehicles would require no significant change in driver behaviour from today’s conventional vehicles. Their driving characteristics would be identical and they could be refuelled the same way and in about the same time as refuelling with gasoline. The only difference would be the high-pressure connection from the fuel dispenser to the fuel filler.

That is, IF there were a refuelling infrastructure. It’s a very big IF!

Outside of California, there is virtually no retail hydrogen supply infrastructure in North America now. And even there, the outlets are few and scattered.

The big challenge on that front is that massive new investment would be needed to develop the H2 distribution infrastructure. And we would be back to a chicken-and-egg situation, as we were initially with BEV charging stations. Who will invest in the infrastructure before there are enough HICE or FCEV vehicles on the road to make it financially worthwhile?

If only the same effort and investment that has fuelled the BEV juggernaut, both technically and regulatory, had gone into hydrogen a decade ago, we might have been looking at a very different and potentially better future now.

Realistically, however, the massive investments that already have been made in BEVs and the regulatory fences protecting them are now all but irreversible, severely limiting the prospects for hydrogen to play more than a fringe role in our future transportation equation.

If only…

The post The future of hydrogen revisited — again! appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Battery chemistries will replace engine specs in your new vocabulary

By 2035, if today’s plans and edicts are all realized, 100 per cent of the new cars and light trucks on sale to the public will be battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Not just here in North America, but throughout most of the developed world.

The batteries used in those vehicles, however, will likely be very different from the ones that power today’s BEVs.

Why? Because the lithium-ion batteries that are now the basis for most BEV powertrains are far from ideally suited to their purpose. They’re just the best available alternatives right now.

Compared to traditional vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICEs), they take too long to charge, they don’t provide enough driving range, and both those deficiencies are amplified in cold weather—all functions of their battery characteristics.

In addition, they are very heavy, adding as much as 450 kg (1,000 lb) to a typical vehicle’s mass, further compounding those problems.

They are also very expensive, often adding $10,000 or more, sometimes much more, to the price of a comparable ICE model.

Given those realities, if BEVs are going to achieve the public acceptance needed to realize the lofty sales goals being mandated for 2030 and 2035, battery performance must be improved dramatically.

Automakers are well aware of those challenges and are investing huge sums in battery production plants, raw material supply agreements, and battery R&D.

Some variations in the batteries’ physical structure have already been realized as various BEVs use lithium-ion cells in cylindrical, pouch or prismatic form.

Perhaps even more important, automakers, and ultimately your customers, now have a choice of two different lithium-ion chemistries—NMC and LFP—at least in some vehicles. And that chemical bifurcation is certain to accelerate.

What do those acronyms mean? They identify the chemical materials in a battery’s cathode (positive electrode).

NMC stands for nickel-manganese-cobalt, which has been the dominant type of lithium-ion battery used up to now.

LFP stands for lithium-iron-phosphate, a chemical variation from the predominant form that is now being offered in several BEVs, with many more set to adopt.

The chemical compounds of those cathodes and their differences have a major impact on both the batteries’ performance and their costs. LFP batteries offer several distinct advantages relative to their NMC counterparts, according to market intelligence form, Guidehouse Insights.

For one thing, iron is much more readily available than either nickel or cobalt and its sources of supply are less geopolitically sensitive than those of the latter, which results in both more stable supply lines and significant cost savings—as much as 30-to-40 per cent.

LFP batteries themselves are also more thermally stable, with a thermal runaway temperature of 270°C ( 518°F), compared to  210°C (410°F) for NMC variants. That differential makes a big difference with respect to heat management requirements for the battery.

They can also withstand greater depths of discharge (80-90 per cent of total capacity), higher charge and discharge rates, and thousands of charge and discharge cycles—significantly more than most NMC chemistries—with minimal degradation. Chinese battery maker CATL claims its LFP cells can last 1.6-million km (1.0-million miles).

Plus, the materials in LFP batteries are less toxic than those in NMC batteries, making them easier to recycle at the end of their life.

So, with all those advantages—lower cost, more-readily-available materials, lower potential for thermal runaway, less degradation at higher charge/discharge rates, longer life, and easier recycling—the choice of LFP over NMC batteries should be a slam-dunk, right?

Not quite. For LFP batteries have two big negatives that work against them.

Their energy density is about 30 per cent less than that of NMCs, which means their energy output is 30 per cent less for a battery of an equal mass. And that translates to reduced range for a given weight.

In addition, LFPs reportedly take longer to charge at temperatures below freezing. Vehicle engineers are attempting to address that issue via the battery’s thermal management system, but it’s not a good omen for use in most of Canada.

Some automakers, including Ford and Tesla, are already offering both alternatives and others, including General Motors, are expected to do the same.

Typically they use LFP in their lower-priced models to keep costs down and NMC in their more upscale versions.

If the brand you sell offers that choice, which battery type should you recommend to your customers? If driving range is their most important consideration, NMC is best. But if they are able to recharge frequently and range is not the dominant factor, NFP is probably the better choice.

The post NMC vs LFP EV batteries: what you need to know appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Conventional heating systems don’t exist in electric vehicles

Most new car shoppers probably don’t show a lot of interest in a vehicle’s heating system before buying. It is just something that’s there, expected to be serviceable, and not seen as a point of differentiation.

With the increasing popularity of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), however, that situation could change, for the conventional heating system, as we have come to know it, no longer exists in BEVs. And what does exist may have a much greater effect on the buyer’s overall level of satisfaction than they expect.

Why the difference? Because the source of heat in a conventional vehicle—waste heat from the engine—simply doesn’t exist in a BEV.

With a conventional heating system, which has been in use since introduced by Cadillac in 1926, heat is transferred from the engine to a liquid (water/antifreeze). That liquid circulates through a closed system that includes a heater core (small radiator), through which air is routed into the passenger compartment, gaining heat from the core.

A fan helps force the warmed air into and around the interior to warm the occupants, as well as defog/defrost the windows. 

The key point is, without an engine, a BEV simply doesn’t have that big source of “free” heat available. 

There is some heat generated by the batteries, plus some from the power electronics, and a few automakers are transferring that heat into the airstream—every little bit helps. But it is not nearly enough to replace what would normally be available from an engine.

The obvious solution adopted by many is to replace the heater core with a resistive electrical heating element, like the one in an old electric heater. 

Rather than just a coil of resistive wire, however, the modern system uses a self-regulating, PTC (Positive Temperature Coefficient) heating element with inherent protection against overheating.

The rest of the heater system can remain much the same and the instantaneous heat from the electric heating element means the interior may warm up even more quickly than with the gradual warmup of an engine.

The problem with that solution is that the only power source for the electric heater is the same one used to drive the vehicle—its battery pack. So every watt of power used for heating is one that is not available for driving. Which is one reason BEV driving range tends to be dramatically reduced at low ambient temperatures.

Another alternative, introduced by Nissan in the 2012 Leaf and now employed in several BEVs and PHEVs, is the use of a reversible heat pump—effectively an air-conditioning system that can be operated in reverse. 

In simple terms, a heat pump transfers energy from the outside air into a refrigerant via an external evaporator—even when it is cold outside—then compresses the refrigerant, which heats it up, and releases that heat into the passenger compartment via an internal condenser.

The complexities of making an HVAC system reversible to act as both AC and heat pump are considerable, and consequently expensive. But a multitude of published tests confirm that it is at least as effective as resistive heating and it reduces the negative impact on driving range.

There is a limitation, however. The efficiency of a heat pump diminishes as outside temperature drops. While it can be highly effective at 0oC, it is significantly less so at -20oC and reaches its practical limit about -30oC. Which, unfortunately, is a temperature not uncommon in much of Canada. So even a heat pump needs some additional heat source in the extreme.

Whatever core system is used, the ultimate goal of achieving passenger comfort can be assisted by alternative means such as focusing heat on specific body areas. To that end, heated seats and steering wheels are already in widespread use.

Going a step further, Toyota is the first automaker to employ radiant heating in a production vehicle, directed at the driver’s and front passenger’s lower leg and foot areas in up-level bZ4x models.

General Motors, in conjunction with a thermal management company called Gentherm, plans to expand on that approach with an individualized four-zone microclimate control system on the upcoming ultra-luxe Cadillac Celestiq.

That system, called ClimateSense®, is said to employ 33 unique microclimate devices, including a neck scarf and heated armrests, that allow each occupant to personalize their desired level of seat heating and cooling while significantly reducing total energy consumption.

Expect some combination of these various technologies to become the ultimate heating solution in a case where necessity really does spur invention.

The post The challenges of heating a BEV appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

The Ford Mustang Mach-E on display at the Houston Auto Show, January, 2020.

What BEV buyers need to know about EV-specific tires

With sales of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) rapidly increasing in Canada, it is important that customers, especially first-time BEV buyers, are well tutored in what to expect from their new vehicles to avoid unpleasant surprises.

As we discussed in the last issue of Canadian auto dealer, one of those potential surprises is the impact of winter weather on driving range and charging time. 

Another is that BEVs require different tires than those used on comparable ICE vehicles—a key point drivers may not realize until the tires have to be replaced or swapped out for winter driving.

Why do they need different tires? One main reason is that BEVs are much heavier than their conventional counterparts. Their battery packs typically add as much as 450 kg (~1,000 lbs) of total mass—much more in the case of pickup trucks—necessitating tires with significantly higher load ratings. 

Using “regular” tires on these vehicles would dramatically compromise the vehicle’s handling characteristics, tire life and occupants’ safety.

In recognition of that point, a new High Load (HL) tire load rating that can carry a greater load than the previous XL heavy-duty tires at the same pressure has been adopted to accommodate the increased weight of vehicles with heavy batteries. 

To support that added load, especially when cornering and braking, tires for EVs typically have sturdier sidewall and tread construction, which may come at the expense of a smooth ride. 

It is also important for EV tires to minimize rolling resistance, to help extend precious EV driving range as much as possible. But changes in tire construction, tread design and tread compound that result in reduced rolling resistance typically result in reduced traction as well. 

Combine all those factors with the instantaneous peak torque produced by electric motors at startup, which increases tire slippage, and tread life tends to be reduced too—typically by 20 to 30 per cent, based on multiple reports.

Designing an EV tire, then, becomes a matter of balancing the three major tire characteristics: traction (or grip); rolling resistance; and treadwear. How each vehicle and tire manufacturer prioritizes those often competing qualities substantially defines the character of the vehicle.

Another key factor that must be considered is noise—to a much greater degree than is necessary on tires for a typical ICE-powered vehicle, where tire noise tends to be substantially obscured by engine noise at highway speeds. 

There is no engine noise in a BEV and the noise from the motor(s) and electronics is of a much different quality, so noise from the tire/road interaction takes on greater priority. Not only must the tire noise be reduced, but what is generated must not be unpleasant to the vehicle’s occupants.

Beyond the usual approach of optimizing tread designs to reduce noise, some tire manufacturers are fitting special acoustic foam liners to the inner surface of the tread to act as sound absorbers within the tire cavity.

All of these aspects make the ideal EV tire significantly different from one optimized for an ICE-powered vehicle. Significantly more expensive, too!

Most major tire companies now offer a range of EV-specific aftermarket tires to choose from when it is time for replacement. 

It should be noted that it is not necessary to use a tire that is designated as EV-specific. But it will be difficult to find a “regular” tire that satisfies all the dimensional and load requirements for most BEVs, as well as providing a satisfactory noise signature.

Then, of course, here in Canada there is the matter of winter tires. To the obvious question, “Do BEVs need Winter tires?”, the answer in most of the country is, “Absolutely!” 

Perhaps even more so than for comparable conventional vehicles, given the instant torque delivery from the electric motors, which makes wheelspin control a greater challenge.

For those BEVs with multiple-motor AWD systems and owners who think they will satisfy all tractive needs, the answer is: “It doesn’t matter how many wheels are driven if none of them have traction!”

Finding EV-specific winter tires still presents more of a challenge than for their fair-weather equivalents. But most majors now offer at least some availability in select sizes. Manufacturers of the original-equipment tires for a given brand may be the most likely sources for early winter tire availability.

Tires are probably the furthest thing from a customer’s mind when they are shopping for a BEV. But it’s important that they be apprised of what to expect down the road when taking delivery, to avoid a potentially unwelcome surprise later.

The post Electric vehicles are different where the rubber hits the road appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Educating electric vehicle buyers about winter performance can help avoid negative feedback

This being the December issue of Canadian auto dealer means that we’re on the cusp of, if not already well into the grips of, another Canadian winter.

It also means that many of your customers will be facing winter for the first time with a battery electric vehicle (BEV). Which raises the question: “How well have they been prepared for the new challenges they are about to face?”

If the answer to that question is, “not well,” then you may encounter some unhappy feedback as they encounter a variety of unpleasant surprises.

What kind of surprises? The big one is that winter weather, in particular sub-zero temperatures, may dramatically affect both their BEV’s driving range and its charging time.

That realization shouldn’t come as a surprise. It should be apparent to most that batteries lose capability in the cold, based on their own winter experience with cell phones and cameras and the batteries used to start their conventional internal-combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.

The same laws of physics apply to the batteries in electric vehicles. Colder temperatures reduce their ability to store and release energy and the colder it gets the greater that impact.

The most significant result of that impediment is a reduction in driving range in the cold, which probably won’t surprise most customers as they will have experienced some reduction in winter-time fuel-efficiency in their previous ICE-powered vehicles.

On average, BEV range decreases from its rated peak by more than 20 per cent at just 0°C. And it falls off by 50 per cent at -20°C!

Just how great that range reduction could be in their BEV may be the big surprise.

There are countless anecdotal reports of everything from minimal to very dramatic BEV range reductions in real-world winter experience, which make it difficult to know just what to expect.

To provide a more definitive answer, a Canadian company called Geotab, which specializes in web-based analytics, undertook a study to determine the impact temperature has on range, and whether all EV models were impacted equally.

To that end, Geotab reviewed anonymized data from 5.2-million trips taken by 4,200 EVs representing 102 different make/model/year combinations and analyzed the average vehicle trip efficiency by temperature.

Their analyses showed that, regardless of make or model, most EVs follow a similar range/temperature curve, with range decreasing as temperature falls below or rises above 21.5°C.

Not surprisingly, the rate of decline is much greater with falling than with increasing temperature.

On average, BEV range decreases from its rated peak by more than 20 per cent at just 0°C. And it falls off by 50 per cent at -20°C!

Of course, there are variations from that average among individual vehicles, but the trend is consistent. And it is significantly more concerning than the reduction in efficiency typically experienced in ICE-powered vehicles in winter, which tends to be closer to half that rate of decline, based on data published by Natural Resources Canada.

Even at the same rate of decline, that reduction would be far more impactful in a BEV with a typical driving range of 500 km or less, and a recharging time that may range from a half-hour to several hours, than in an ICE-powered vehicle with a typical range of 600 km or more, often much more, and the ability to refuel in five minutes.

It should be noted, as well, that the ability for a battery to accept a charge, and consequently the time to recharge, is also diminished as the temperature drops.

It is not just the direct effect of temperature on the battery that reduces range, however. It’s the fact that power to generate all the heat needed both to keep the windows clear of fog and frost and to create a comfortable environment for the occupants, as well as to heat the batteries themselves, has to come from the batteries.

In an ICE-powered vehicle, most of those needs are accommodated by waste heat from the engine.

Ideally, BEV customers should be made aware of these realities before they are surprised by them. They should also be made aware of means for minimizing their impact.

Keeping BEVs in a heated garage, when not in use, and charging them indoors is the ideal way to combat winter. But home-charging, even outdoors, has advantages.

Most BEV automakers provide a means of preprogramming charging times, as well as pre-heating the occupant space using external charging current. Scheduling charging and preheating to be completed just before the vehicle is needed will help warm both, reducing battery load once underway, thus extending range.

Given time and education, BEV customers will adapt to these new realities. Ideally, they won’t have to learn about them by unpleasant surprise.

The post Avoiding a winter of BEV discontent appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Could a revolution in automotive braking be on the horizon?

Almost 100 years ago, Walter Chrysler triggered a revolution in automotive braking by fitting the new car bearing his name with standard four-wheel hydraulic brakes—a feature that would become ubiquitous throughout the industry and survive to this day with little deviation in principle.

That situation may be about to change, however.

The 1924 Chrysler was not the first production car with hydraulic brakes. That distinction belongs to the 1921 Duesenberg, a high-priced, low-volume vehicle that employed a troublesome hydraulic system designed by one Malcolm Lougheed. 

It was Chrysler’s engineers, however, who developed that system to production readiness, registering multiple patents in the process. In exchange for usage rights, Chrysler assigned the patents back to Lougheed, who proceeded to license the technology to the rest of the industry via his company—Lockheed!

Just as the Lockheed name became synonymous with brakes in those early automotive days, the Brembo name enjoys a similar association today, having established its bona fides on the race tracks of the world, including on Formula 1 cars. Brembo brakes are now de rigeur features on a multitude of different vehicles with high-performance aspirations.

Beyond its racing and high-performance applications, Brembo is also a major supplier of brake components for more mass-market vehicles and it is that broader market that is the focus of its latest braking innovations, collectively labeled Sensify (a combination of the words sense and simplify).

In the company’s words, “Sensify takes you from a system that for decades has applied the same braking pressure on all four wheels at the same time to one that independently can manage the braking forces on each wheel, according to driver needs, vehicle dynamics, road conditions.”

Doesn’t ABS (Anti-lock Brake System) already do that, you might ask? It does, to a degree. ABS effectively allows a series of quick lockups and releases to keep the tire rotating at the limit of adhesion. 

Sensify goes a big step further, using predictive software and artificial intelligence (AI) to individually control each brake even more precisely, keeping the tire right at the threshold of lockup rather than locking up and releasing.

The result is a smoother and more controlled stop, with the same ability to steer while braking that ABS offers but without the brake pedal pulsation and noise that can be so disconcerting to drivers who may be startled by the occurrence.

There is much more to Sensify however. At its core is what has become known as “brake-by-wire” technology. Rather than applying pressure directly on a hydraulic cylinder, as is the norm, brake-by-wire uses the brake pedal as a variable electronic switch, controlling the signal to an electric motor that in turn applies pressure to the hydraulic cylinder. 

It’s not a new concept. It has long been used in aircraft. Toyota’s Prius was the first automobile to employ it and various Lexus, Mercedes-Benz and Alfa Romeo models, as well as Chevrolet’s Corvette C8 also use it. Sensify takes it a step further by sending electronic signals not to a central hydraulic cylinder but to individual cylinders at each wheel. 

Alternatively, Brembo also offers Sensify variations with electric motors, rather than hydraulic cylinders, to clamp the calipers at each wheel. 

Importantly, the Sensify system also employs a new spring design that pulls the pads completely off the rotor when not in use. Doing so effectively eliminates rolling resistance from brake drag, helping reduce fuel consumption in ICE vehicles and increase range in EVs.

Brembo fitted a Tesla Model 3 with Sensify hydraulic brakes on the front wheels and electro-mechanical calipers on the rears for a media event held recently at Michelin’s North American proving ground in Laurens, South Carolina. Comparison tests with a corresponding current production Tesla, braking in a variety of different circumstances on both wet and dry surfaces, earned broad praise for the Sensify system, including the descriptor, “game changing.”

Will it be? Quite possibly. The prospect of eliminating metres of hydraulic tubing throughout the vehicle alone could make it highly attractive to automakers. The ability to electronically tailor the braking performance, as well as the pedal feel, to suit different circumstances and customers should also be an attraction.

The downsides? Not many. Cost is always a factor and that is unknown at this point. Motors at the wheels for the electro-mechanical system will add unsprung weight, which can affect ride and handling.

When will we see it? Brembo says Sensify is scheduled for production in 2024, leaving unanswered, for now, who will be the first to adopt it.

The post Give us a (new) brake appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

It is not an overstatement to suggest that today’s electric vehicle renaissance owes its existence to the development of the Lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery for use in portable consumer electronics devices. Its first commercial application was in a Sony camcorder in 1991.  Tesla was the first to use Li-ion batteries in a production electric vehicle, with its Lotus Elise-based Roadster in 2008.

Now, Li-ion is the de facto standard energy storage technology for virtually all battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in commercial production worldwide, superseding the Nickel-Metal Hydride (Ni-MH) batteries that preceded it in hybrid vehicles, although some are still employed in that application.

Consequently, the Li-ion battery is now the one with the target on its back, as the race is on to find a better alternative to it for BEV usage. Why? Because, although it serves the function better than Ni-MH or any other current competitors, it is still far from an ideal solution.

It is heavy, it is complex to manufacture, it uses a variety of relatively rare minerals sourced substantially from countries with less than stellar democratic and human rights records, the mining and processing of those materials can be environmentally devastating, and it is very expensive. 

And – oh yes! – it has a tendency toward “spontaneous thermal events” if everything about it is not just right. (Which is why General Motors advised its early Bolt customers not to park their cars indoors and NHTSA has done the same for some other BEVs).

For all those reasons, automotive OEMS, battery manufacturers and countless R&D labs the world over are hard at work trying to find the next big battery breakthrough.

Before addressing specific avenues being pursued, let’s review just how a Li-ion battery cell is constructed.  A conventional Li-ion battery call comprises a positive cathode (typically a lithium/nickel/cobalt/manganese (NCM) oxide), and a negative anode (typically graphite), separated by a liquid electrolyte (typically a lithium salt solution) through which lithium ions are transferred.

As this is written, Ford, Tesla and some other automakers have confirmed their recent adoption of Li-ion batteries with lithium/iron/phosphate cathodes for use in certain models, to reduce the need for cobalt, and thus the cost—albeit with some sacrifice in energy density.

Toyota, too, is heavily invested in solid state battery development. According to a Nikkei study, the Japanese automaker holds almost three times as many patents on the technology as any other company.v

But there are bigger battery changes on the horizon, including the much-heralded solid-state battery—a term you’ve probably already heard.

In a solid state battery (SSB), the electrolyte is not a liquid but a solid—typically some form of ceramic. That is a much bigger deal than it may sound, because it is the liquid in conventional Li-ion cells that makes them so thermally “sensitive”.

Solid electrolytes tend to be more resistant to changes in temperature, as well as to physical damage during usage, which means they can potentially be made thinner and lighter, providing greater energy density with respect to both volume and mass. 

According to Samsung SDI, which is one of the many companies working on SSBs, “It doesn’t have a risk of explosion or fire, so there is no need to have (as many) components for safety, thus saving more space. Then we have more space to put more active materials which increase capacity in the battery.” 

Improved thermal stability also creates the potential for faster charging and greater energy capacity compared to liquid-electrolyte lithium-ion batteries. 

Toyota, too, is heavily invested in solid state battery development. According to a Nikkei study, the Japanese automaker holds almost three times as many patents on the technology as any other company.

In a January, 2022 interview with Autoline, Gill Pratt, head of the Toyota Research Institute, said that Toyota is aiming to “commercialize” its solid-state batteries in the first half of this decade—initially in hybrids rather than BEVs. 

Earlier this year, China’s Donfeng Motor reportedly launched a demo program of 50 EVs with solid-state technology in conjunction with Ganfeng Lithium.

In North America, Colorado-based Solid Power is at the commercial prototype stage of development, with investment from both BMW and Ford. Volkswagen has invested in California’s QuantumScape, which was an early leader in the space but now seems to have fallen behind.

Many others are also engaged in solid state battery development and there seems a high probability that they will be commercially feasible within the next five years, offering significant advantages in terms of safety, energy density and recharging capability.

By then, however, automakers and battery manufacturers will have invested multiple billions in plants to build conventional Li-ion batteries. Will they be ready to obsolete them so quickly?

The post The quest for the next big thing in batteries appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Electric car lithium battery pack and power connections

Will BEVs be just a short-term solution?

After more than 135 years, the “ICE-Age” of automobiles—the Internal Combustion Engine age—will come to an end by 2035, if currently proposed regulations in Canada, and much of the developed world, all take effect. Based on what we know now, it will be replaced by the BEV age—that of Battery Electric Vehicles.

 But how long is that BEV era likely to last?

Not nearly as long as the ICE-Age, if another disruptive technology now under development fulfils its promise. In fact, today’s BEV technology could itself be on its way to obsolescence by 2035. 

Flash back 65 years, to 1957, and a Ford concept model called the Nucleon, which envisioned a future in which cars, like newly-launched submarines of that time, would be powered by nuclear energy. It is an idea long-since dismissed as a space-age flight of fancy. But what if it wasn’t?

What if the lithium-ion batteries at the heart of today’s BEV disruption were themselves replaced with some new form of battery that harnessed nuclear energy? It just might happen, for a new technology now under development does just that, and it could be the next big disruptor.

It’s called NDB, which stands for Nuclear Diamond Battery—or Nano Diamond Battery, as defined by the California company of the same acronym that is developing and promoting it. 

(Presumably “nano” is a more palatable term than “nuclear” in a commercial environment.) In scientific circles, it is called a Diamond Nuclear Voltaic (DNV) battery, but whatever it is called, it’s an intriguing idea. 

The BEVs already on the market have proven that they are competitive with conventional ICE-vehicles in almost every operational respect. So simply changing to a different type of battery would present little challenge. 

The basic concept, initially espoused by University of Bristol (UK) engineering professor Tom Scott in 2017, proposed converting a specific component of nuclear waste into a radioactive synthetic diamond, which could then be used as a source of energy. 

Specifically, some of the graphite used as a protective liner in containers for nuclear fuel in power plants itself becomes radioactive, emitting low-level beta radiation as it decays. Beta radiation is relatively benign compared to other forms of radiation.

If harnessed, in the form of a “betavoltaic” cell, that energy can generate an electric current.  It’s a technology said to be proven and used in biomedical prosthetic devices as well as military intelligence applications.

What NDB (the company) is trying to do is commercialize the idea by “growing” synthetic diamonds at the nano level from the irradiated graphite material and sandwiching them between layers of non-radioactive synthetic diamonds as a protective casing, in thin film sheets. 

It’s a far more complex process than it sounds and it is, at best, still in very early stages of development. While the science is valid at a theoretical level, it may or may not be amenable to commercialization and mass production at a level that is economically feasible. There are a lot of questionable, if not absurdist, claims being made about the technology on social media channels and some have suggested that the whole prospect is a hoax. 

And it may be. But what if it’s not? 

Apart from manufacture of the NDBs themselves, adopting them would be a relatively simple transition for automakers to make. The BEVs already on the market have proven that they are competitive with conventional ICE-vehicles in almost every operational respect. So simply changing to a different type of battery would present little challenge. The rest of the vehicles could remain essentially unchanged.

That simple change of battery type would truly be a game changer, however, for it would wholly eliminate the two greatest problems of BEVs (apart from cost)—driving range and charging time.

That is because an NDB is not just a battery. It does store energy, as a battery does, but it is also its own source of energy. Nuclear energy, that takes thousands of years to fully dissipate.

It would never have to be recharged or refilled with fuel within the lifetime of the rest of the vehicle.

Imagine it. The need for all the charging stations we are collectively spending billions of dollars creating would diminish and disappear as BEV sales themselves diminished and disappeared, just like ICE-vehicles and gasoline stations before them. 

Vehicle operating costs for consumers would all but disappear, too—along with much of the need for servicing the vehicles. And the businesses that provide those services! It would truly change our world, for better and for worse, depending on one’s perspective, and ability to adapt.

It all may be just a flight of fancy, like the Ford Nucleon. But indeed, what if it’s not?

The post A possible nano revolution appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Is there any hope of EVs achieving price parity with ICE vehicles?

Read any article or survey on why customers are reluctant to buy electric vehicles, and three primary reasons will almost certainly top the list: driving range, charging time and up-front purchase cost.

While some progress has been made with respect to driving range and charging time, there has not been any improvement in their up-front cost. The lowest-priced sub-compact EV in Canada is the Nissan Leaf with a starting MSRP of $37,498, while most compact EVs have starting prices closer to $45,000.

EV advocates have long predicted that they will reach price parity with conventional internal-combustion engine (ICE) vehicles once higher production levels are achieved and ongoing technical advances reduce battery prices. But is that a realistic expectation?

Maybe not.

In fact, the opposite seems to be happening. Tesla, for example—the poster-child for EVs and the one with the most vehicles produced over which to amortize R&D and startup costs—has been progressively increasing prices for all its vehicles. The lowest-priced, entry-level Tesla Model 3 now costs $60,000 in Canada. The same car was advertised at $35,000 in 2019.

The fact is, EVs typically have a cost penalty in the order of $15,000 or more, relative to otherwise comparable ICE vehicles, and that price differential is showing no signs of shrinkage.

Across the market, EVs typically cost many thousands of dollars more than directly comparable ICE vehicles. So much so that the federal government’s nationwide incentive program of up to $5,000/vehicle still doesn’t make them price competitive.

The only provinces where EVs are really selling well are those with their own subsidies topping up the federal funds—by up to $3,000 in British Columbia, and $6,000 in Quebec.

The fact is, EVs typically have a cost penalty in the order of $15,000 or more, relative to otherwise comparable ICE vehicles, and that price differential is showing no signs of shrinkage.

The staggering cost of batteries is the major reason why this is, amplified by the fact that vehicles are being fitted with ever-larger battery packs to achieve the range level the public seems to demand—something comparable to the lowest levels achievable between gasoline fill-ups. A driving range in the region of 400 kilometres or more now seems to be the price of entry.

As for battery prices, they have been coming down in terms of cost per unit of energy, which was about (US) $1,100/kWh in 2010. Some wag at the time predicted that battery costs would have to fall below (US) $100/kWh for EVs to become price competitive, so that figure became the industry’s Holy Grail and has been the target ever since.

The cost of lithium-ion battery cells, the gold standard for current EVs, had fallen to (US)$132/kWh by the middle of 2021, according to BloombergNEF. But then it started going up again. BNEF predicted a (US)$135/kWh average pack price for 2022 and suggested the point when prices drop below the crucial (US)$100/kWh milestone will be delayed by two years.

Maybe.

Since last November, the price of lithium carbonate, a key ingredient in Li-ion batteries, has increased by 2.5 times, according to tradingeconomics.com, which monitors global prices daily. It is a rare material for which demand is quickly skyrocketing. If I learned anything in economics class, it is that those factors do not typically result in falling prices. The fact that the primary producers are in Australia, Chile and China, and the current state of global shipping, suggests that future price reductions are even less probable.

Cobalt is a key ingredient in Li-ion batteries as well, and its price has increased by 45 per cent since November.

Cobalt is a key ingredient in Li-ion batteries as well, and its price has increased by 45 per cent since November, per tradingeconomics.com. As much as 80 per cent of the world’s supply comes from the Congo and four per cent comes from Russia. Neither source suggests long-term supply stability or corresponding price stability.

One more thing. There are two types of cathodes in the Li-ion batteries typically used in EVs—Nickel Manganese Cobalt (NMC) and Nickel Cobalt Aluminum (NCA). Nickel is the most important metal by mass in both types, comprising 33 per cent of the NMC and 80 per cent of the NCA. According to tradingeconomics.com, “breakneck volatility has returned to nickel markets,” with prices spiking to 2.4 times their November value in March before settling down to a 65 per cent increase since then.

One might suspect there could be some relationship between all those price fluctuations and the recent flurry of battery manufacturing plant announcements by automakers and related suppliers all over the globe. And one might hope that those material prices will return to more normal levels once the excitement settles down.

But I wouldn’t count on it. Or on EV prices ever achieving parity with those of ICE vehicles.

The post Innovative, environmentally friendly… and expensive appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

It will be even more important as consumers get behind the wheel of their first electric vehicle.

An image of a VHS tape player with a digital clock flashing zeroes might not have much significance for many of today’s car buyers. But for those of us in a slightly older demographic it is an iconic message: the value of a technology is only as great as a customer’s ability, and willingness, to use it.

The example may be dated but the principle remains valid.

The modern equivalent is the surfeit of digital features in new vehicles, which now account for the majority of “problems” reported by owners in J.D. Power’s annual Initial Quality Study (IQS).

In the J.D. Power 2021 Tech Experience Index (TXI) Study published last fall, which focused more precisely on this subject, 61 per cent of respondents said they don’t use their in-vehicle digital market tech.

Some of their “problems” are real malfunctions or design flaws, responsibility for which lies solely with the manufacturer. Others relate to ill-conceived features that answer questions nobody asked. Is there really a valid need for gesture control—the feature with the lowest overall satisfaction score in the study for the past two years?

Many of the problems, however, simply reflect customers’ inability or unwillingness to use the features, which raises the question, “Why?”

One must wonder if it is simply a case of not being adequately tutored on the technologies’ features and operations by their dealer at time of delivery.

According to the Power study, when a dealer demonstrated trailer assistance technology, as an example, customer satisfaction rated 8.69 (on a 10-point scale), compared with 7.83 for learning from an outside source.

Could that high percentage of non-users have been reduced if a dealer rep had sat in a seat beside them and patiently gone through all the system’s details with them?

According to the Power study, when a dealer demonstrated trailer assistance technology, as an example, customer satisfaction rated 8.69 (on a 10-point scale), compared with 7.83 for learning from an outside source. However, owners were more than twice as likely to learn about the technology from an outside source (71 per cent) than from a dealer (30 per cent).

Almost certainly, there is room for improvement in that respect going forward, as vehicles become ever more replete with digital technologies.

Proper tutoring is particularly important with respect to ADAS technologies, given their significant safety implications. It is essential that customers understand how to use them, if any driver action is required, as well as what they can and cannot do.

It’s a virtual certainty that they won’t consult their Owner’s Manuals to learn those details. And if they did, they’d likely become overwhelmed by the legal exclusions that tend to overpower the technical instruction therein.

Online video instructions produced by many automakers for their vehicles’ high-tech systems are an excellent backup. But nothing is quite as effective as an expert on the topic sitting in the seat beside a new customer and patiently talking them through each system’s operation—not just in the showroom or shop but out on the road, when applicable to do so.

Ensuring the availability of expert tutelage for that purpose should be a dealership priority.

The transition to Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) that is already underway is a parallel situation, and the same lessons can be applied.

For a customer, switching from a conventional ICE-powered vehicle to a BEV entails far more than just adapting to a new vehicle. It means adapting to a whole new lifestyle.

The dealer’s role in facilitating that adaptation will be key to the customer’s ultimate satisfaction. And that responsibility begins before the sale, not just at time of delivery.

It’s a case where the skills needed truly may be more advisory in nature than those of salesmanship. Of course, the objective remains to sell a vehicle. But more specifically, it is to ensure that the customer will be satisfied with the vehicle they buy.

While some customers will be well-versed in all matters related to BEVs—perhaps even more so than dealer personnel—many more will not. They’ll need to be educated in the new language of kilowatts and kilowatt-hours and voltage and charge rates and why and how they matter.

They’ll need to understand that, as much as BEVs drive essentially the same as ICE-powered vehicles, there are some real differences that can and will be felt behind the wheel and, in particular, beneath their feet. In some cases, perhaps, they will need to be introduced to concepts such as one-pedal driving that have to be experienced, not just described.

If they don’t understand the new technology and all its ramifications before they purchase, there is a good chance they will be dissatisfied after they do. The dealer’s role is critical in making the difference.

The post Dealers’ role is critical in technology acceptance appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Battery is the future, but there is still room for more innovation

We’ve all heard the mantra. The future of the automobile is electric!

But what of the venerable internal combustion engine (ICE) and its 160 years of development? Will it simply be relegated to history, along with all the knowledge and achievement it has engendered?

The answer from some automakers, it seems, is “yes!” A few have already stopped further development of ICEs, they say. Others have set a deadline for doing so that is no more than a few years off.

That decision may (or may not) be in the best interest of their shareholders. But is it also in the best interest of the global climate?

Not necessarily.

Why? Because, barring some draconian legislative action (beyond just banning new ICE-vehicle sales beyond 2035), the ICE will still be a significant part of our vehicle population for at least the next 25 years.

Take Canada for example. Our federal government has set tentative targets of 100 per cent zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) sales by 2035, and 50 per cent by 2030.

Let’s assume average new-vehicle sales of 1.7-million new vehicles a year going forward—a conservative estimate—and progressive annual increases in EV sales to meet those established 2030 and 2035 targets.

On that basis, between now and 2035, we will sell 10.6-million ZEVs—and 13.2-million new ICEs.

Considering North America as a whole, and assuming the U.S. is as aggressive as Canada in ZEV adoption, the same math reveals that more than 155-million new ICEs will be built and sold between now and 2035.

That is a lot of engines on which to essentially abdicate further development in terms of emissions and efficiency.

By 2035, even if those optimistic ZEV adoption rates are realized, ICEs will still account for 54 per cent of all light-duty vehicles on our roads, at current scrappage rates.

At least some of those vehicles will still be around until at least 2050, unless they are barred from the roads by legislation.

Reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) output by a further 10 per cent, for example, would have the same effect as replacing an additional 15.5-million ICE vehicles with ZEVs, on the same schedule.

That is good news for dealers in one sense. While capital investments to adapt to the sales and servicing of ZEVs will be high, the decline in revenue from ICE-related repair work will have a long and gradual down-ramp.

Those ICE numbers could be even greater if the eventual ZEV definitions continue to accommodate some level of plug-in hybrids, as is the case with California’s regulations, which tend to be the gold standard for other constituencies.

All of which seems like sufficient justification for continued development of ICEs, to further improve the efficiency and reduce the carbon emissions of those 155-million engines still to be sold here in North America.

Reducing their greenhouse gas (GHG) output by a further 10 per cent, for example, would have the same effect as replacing an additional 15.5-million ICE vehicles with ZEVs, on the same schedule.

Not everyone has abandoned ICE development. And it is not just existing automakers that are advancing their technology—some in dramatic new directions.

As we have discussed previously in this column, rotary engines promise to be well suited as drivers of range-extending generators for PHEVs. And it is not just Mazda that is pursuing that potential.

Hydrogen is not limited to use in fuel cells. It can also be used as fuel for ICEs, with near-zero carbon emissions, and it seems particularly well suited to use in rotary engines.

While it presents some challenges not yet wholly overcome, Mazda, Kawasaki, Subaru, Yamaha and Toyota are all known to be working on various hydrogen-fueled ICEs, including at least one V-8.

Mazda’s Skyactiv-X technology, already in production and available outside of North America, makes use of what the company calls spark-controlled compression ignition (SCCI).

It combines a supercharger, ultra-high-pressure fuel injection, and aspects of both diesel and conventional gasoline engine combustion processes, operating on gasoline, to increase thermal efficiency and reduce emissions.

Mazda also recently filed a patent application for a supercharged, two-stroke engine incorporating similar technologies.

Even further out there, a startup firm called Astron Aerospace has revealed an all-new rotary engine design that it says will achieve greater than 60 per cent thermal efficiency—twice that of a typical piston engine—and 90 per cent mechanical efficiency. It is said to produce 160 horsepower, with a mass of just 15.9 kg (35 lb).

These technologies may or may not prove feasible. But it is encouraging that there are still explorations into alternative means of maintaining our mobility, while satisfying our environmental imperatives.

Just in case our big bet on batteries and electricity isn’t the best one.

The post What is the future for IC engines? appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.

Without the early hype and fanfare the technology is moving ahead

A couple of years ago, vehicle electrification and autonomous, self-driving capabilities were the two hottest topics in the field of automotive technology.

Since then, the trend toward electrification has achieved even greater prominence, driven in part by promised regulatory mandates and automakers’ production commitments, while the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and related supply-line constraints have dominated much of the rest of the automotive news cycle.

Among that chaos, autonomous driving technology seems to have been relegated to the back burner, making the headlines only when another Tesla on “Autopilot” crashes.

Behind the scenes, however, progress on self-driving technologies has been continuing apace—perhaps even more quickly than was widely expected.

SAE Level 2 technology—adaptive cruise control, stop and go traffic-following features, lane-centering and lane-keeping, automatic lane changing, automatic emergency braking and other advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS)— have become widely available throughout the industry.

Several automakers, as well as some regulatory bodies, are now ready to take the next step, to Level 3 or even Level 4 automation.

While Level 2 systems can control both steering and acceleration/deceleration they require that a driver constantly monitors the situation and is always prepared to take control.

Going a step farther, Level 3—conditional driving automation—can make decisions based on changing driving situations and does not require constant supervision within defined areas and circumstances, although a driver must still be present, alert, and able to take control in case of emergency due to system failure.

Mercedes-Benz has gained Level 3 approval, per UN Regulation 157, for its new “Drive Pilot” system, which means it can offer the system internationally, provided individual countries allow it. Germany has already approved use of the system, which will be offered this year in the S-Class and EQS.

Level 4 is all but full autonomy, requiring no human intervention but still limited to operation within defined conditions or geofenced areas.

Japan has also opened the door for Level 3 use, specifically for 100 Honda Legend models (similar to North America’s former Acura RLX) equipped with that company’s “Traffic Jam Pilot” system.

BMW is expected to offer similar technology with the introduction of its next-generation 7 Series, while Audi had developed its own Level 3 “Traffic Jam Pilot” system but decided to hold it back from production until it can produce a Level 4 system.

Level 4 is all but full autonomy, requiring no human intervention but still limited to operation within defined conditions or geofenced areas. As such, while it is technically more challenging, it is legally far simpler as there is no thorny question of potentially shared liability with a driver; it is all on the automaker.

Noticeably absent from this list is GM’s “SuperCruise”—one of the highest-ranked Level 2 systems currently available—which will evolve to “UltraCruise” in 2023, but forego the Level 3 classification, in spite of offering most of its features.

Also absent is Tesla’s “Autopilot,” which is arguably the best known Level 2 system, although it claims to be much more—especially in its “Full Self-Driving” guise.

“Autopilot” may be credited with popularizing the concept of autonomous driving, for it was Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s exaggerated claims for the feature, as far back 2014 that cast the technology into the public eye.

It may also be responsible for breeding public distrust about the technology, based on a combination of highly publicized crashes involving its use and failures to achieve numerous promised introductions of “full self-driving” capability—in spite of marketing and selling a very expensive option with that misleading name.

Edward Niedermeyer, author of the recently published book “Ludicrous: The Unvarnished Story of Tesla Motors” (a must-read for anyone in the automobile business), goes so far as to label Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s overly-optimistic pronouncements on the technology as fraud—a charge to which Musk is no stranger.

Whatever the ethics or legalities of Musk’s practices, they have increased the burden of responsibility for other automakers to both get the technology right and to be very clear in its marketing as to its capabilities and limitations.

That responsibility extends to the dealer level. As increasingly complex and capable levels of ADAS and autonomous technologies become available, it is essential that customers be adequately tutored in how the systems should be used and what they can and can’t do.

While multiple authorized Level 3 and Level 4 vehicle test programs are now in progress on public roads throughout North America, no vehicles with such systems have yet been approved for sale in the U.S. or Canada.

But don’t be surprised if the timeline for that occurrence is much shorter than previously expected.

The post Autonomous self-driving capability becoming a more realistic goal appeared first on Canadian Auto Dealer.