Extreme Fast Charging: Technical Gap Assessment

Christopher J. Michelbacher

International Battery Seminar

March 23, 2017

STI Number: INL/CON-17-41474

• XFC Report Background

• Problem Statement and Introduction

• Battery, Vehicle, Economic, & Infrastructure Overview

• Grid Impacts

• Next Steps

Outline

Objective• Leverage National Lab expertise integrated industry guidance and

findings to produce a strategic research document examining the technical gaps for extreme fast charging (XFC)

Charter• Multi-Lab collaboration project tasked by DOE to investigate the

technical challenges associated with XFC

National Laboratory points of contact• Christopher Michelbacher, INL (at DOE)• Ira Bloom, ANL• Eric Dufek, INL• Andrew Meintz, NREL• Tom Stephens, ANL

XFC Report Background

Industry Participation• Auto Manufacturers

– BMW, Daimler, FCA, Ford, GM, Nissan, Porsche• EVSE Manufacturers & Network Operators

– ABB, AeroViornment, ChargePoint, Efacec USA, EVGO, GreenLots, Recargo/PlugShare

• Battery Manufacturers– Farasis, JCI

• Utility Suppliers– Black & Vaetch, BTC Power, EPRI, PG&E, Rock Mountain

Power, SMUD, SCE

XFC Report Background

EV Refueling Experience• Charge time is a barrier to

broader technology adoption• Larger batteries take longer

to fully charge

The Problem

Extreme Fast DC Charging• Supplements home and workplace charging• Facilitates longer distance all electric motoring • Mechanism to place EVs in near parity with ICEVs

Source: "DC Fast Charger Usage in the Pacific Northwest," Idaho National Laboratory, 2015.

GAS

The Solution

Target: XFC adds 150-190 miles of range in ~10 minutes or ~80% charge replacement for a 200-250 mile range BEV

Introduction

350

• Consider the charging network as a whole. • Urban/Rural siting challenges (50 kW DCFC

installations)• Historically, DCFC primarily used to extend travel

R&D & Cost• BatPac cost analysis

– Thinner active materials require more layers

• Drive up costs for inactive components

• Increase mass & volume– Impacts to energy density and specific

energy– Thermal management robustness

Battery Overview

R&D Increased Wh/kg

Thicker Electrodes

Material Limitations• Current state-of-the-art material evaluation for XFC

– Lithium plating occurring during XFC? – How to mitigate its effects?

• Cell & electrode development and design– Anode, aspect ratio,

Battery Overview

6C

4C

2C

0.7C

Pack Design• Thermal management

– Temperature gradient, heat transfer/rejection• Electrical safety

– Surface conductivity, insulators, stranded energy extraction

• Modeling– BMS, sensors & controls

Battery Overview

Vehicle Findings• Vehicle/EVSE interoperability• High voltage impacts to vehicle level power

electronics– Volume, weight, cost, efficiency

• Thermal management– Design, volume, weight, cost

• Cybersecurity– Vehicle to EVSE communications security

• Safety– CCS connector evaluation for XFC suitability

Charging connector voltage and current range for new and existing vehicles

Vehicle Overview

Economic Findings• How might XFC impact BEV adoption?

– Private, commercial, government, CAVs• XFC vehicle and infrastructure deployment analysis

– Operating & maintenance costs, station utilization, market penetration of XFC vehicles, technology costs

• Investigate influence of incentives and other policies as they relate to XFC capable BEV adoption– Station installation cost subsidies, vehicle OEM

role, government role, utility role• Cost models for XFC stations

– Leverage lessons learned from existing DCFC installations, station design, site location

Economic Overview

$0.00

$0.20

$0.40

$0.60

$0.80

$1.00

$1.20

$1.40

$1.60

$1.80

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Tota

l Ele

ctric

ty C

ost (

$/kW

h)

Station Utilization (charges/day)

Impact of Utilization on XFC Electricity Breakeven Cost

EVSE Cost Amortization

Base Electricity Rate

Infrastructure Findings• Compatibility & Standardization• Codes & Standards Unification• Ergonomics & Safety• Station Siting & Corridors• Integrated Communication & Controls• Human Factors & Consumer Usage• Managing Power & Energy Needs

– Energy charge ($/kWh) – Red = Green– Demand charge ($/kW) – Red = 3.5*

Green• Integrated Communication & Controls• Co-located Energy Storage or Generation

Time

Grid

Pow

er U

se, k

W

Infrastructure Overview

Grid Impact of 350 kW Station

14

NREL-developed load profile data for DOE commercial reference buildings in Baltimore area. From OpenEI.org.

One day of data collected from a single fast charger in The EV Project. 92% charger efficiency assumed to determine AC load

15

NREL-developed load profile data for DOE commercial reference buildings in Baltimore area. From OpenEI.org.

One day of data collected from a single fast charger in The EV Project, scaled to approximate 350 kW. 92% charger efficiency assumed to determine AC load.

Grid Impact of 350 kW Station

This power is comparable to

NREL-developed load profile data for DOE commercial reference buildings in Baltimore area. From OpenEI.org.

Maximum possible power level

x 750

x 35

x 17

Grid Impact of 350 kW Station

The Plan• Finalize technical gap assessment report• Develop a strategic R&D program plan• Coordinate research and deployment activities

with industry and other government agency stakeholders

• Continue to engage all stakeholders early and often as technology matures

Discussion Table

Auto OEMs

Utility Suppliers

EVSE Manufacturers

& Network Operators

Battery Manufacturers

Codes & Standards

Bodies

Policy Makers

Next Steps