Trade-offs between automation and light vehicle electrification
Source abstract
Abstract
Weight, computing load, sensor load and possibly higher drag may increase the energy use of automated electric vehicles relative to human-driven electric vehicles, although this increase may be offset by smoother driving. Here, we use a vehicle dynamics model to evaluate the trade-off between automation and electric vehicle range and battery longevity. We find that automation will likely reduce electric vehicle range by 5–10% for suburban driving and by 10–15% for city driving. The effect on range is strongly influenced by sensor drag for suburban driving and computing loads for city driving. The impact of automation on battery longevity is negligible. While some commentators have suggested that the power and energy requirements of automation mean that the first automated vehicles will be gas–electric hybrids, our results suggest that this need not be the case if automakers can implement energy-efficient computing and aerodynamic sensor stacks. Autonomous driving is being implemented in electric vehicles, but its energy impact is unclear. Here the authors build physics models to analyse the energy demand of autonomous electric vehicles and suggest that the influences of automation on vehicle range and battery longevity are small.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies · Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure · Vehicle emissions and performance
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. Taiebat, M., Brown, A. L., Safford, H. R., Qu, S. & Xu, M. A review on energy, environmental, and sustainability implications of connected and automated vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 11449–11465 (2018).
2. Stephens, T. et al. Estimated Bounds and Important Factors for Fuel Use and Consumer Costs of Connected and Automated Vehicles (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2016).10.2172/1334242 ↗
3. Study of the Potential Energy Consumption Impacts of Connected and Automated Vehicles (US Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, 2017).
4. Offer, G. J. Automated vehicles and electrification of transport. Environ. Sci. Technol. 8, 26–30 (2015).
5. Hawkins, A. J. Not all of our self-driving cars will be electrically powered—here’s why. The Verge https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/12/16748024/self-driving-electric-hybrid-ev-av-gm-ford/ (2017).
6. Sripad, S. & Viswanathan, V. Evaluation of current, future, and beyond Li-ion batteries for the electrification of light commercial vehicles: challenges and opportunities. J. Electrochem. Soc. 164, E3635–E3646 (2017).10.1149/2.0671711jes ↗
7. Ouster. OS1 Datasheet http://data.ouster.io/downloads/OS1-lidar-sensor-datasheet.pdf (2019).
8. Chassis Systems Control: Mid-range Radar Sensor (MRR) for Front and Rear Applications (Robert Bosch, 2015).
9. Point Grey Dragonfly2 0.8 MP Mono FireWire 1394a Board Level (Sony ICX204) (Point Grey, 2018).
10. Velodyne HDL-64E (Velodyne, 2019).
11. Carroll, A. et al. An analysis of power consumption in a smartphone. In Proceedings of the 2010 USENIX Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference Vol. 14, 21–21 (USENIX Association, 2010).
12. Sepulcre, M., Gozalvez, J. & Hernandez, J. Cooperative vehicle-to-vehicle active safety testingunder challenging conditions. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 26, 233–255 (2013).10.1016/j.trc.2012.10.003 ↗
13. Gawron, J. H., Keoleian, G. A., de Kleine, R. D., Wallington, T. J. & Kim, H. C. Life cycle assessment of connected and automated vehicles: sensing and computing subsystem and vehicle level effects. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 3249–3256 (2018).10.1021/acs.est.7b04576 ↗
14. Liu, S., Tang, J., Zhang, Z. & Gaudiot, J.-L. Computer architecture for autonomous driving. Computer 50, 18–25 (2017).10.1109/MC.2017.3001256 ↗
15. Lin, S.-C. et al. The architectural implications of autonomous driving: constraints and acceleration. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating Systems 751–766 (ACM, 2018).10.1145/3173162.3173191 ↗
16. Nvidia Drive AGX Pegasus (Nvidia, 2018).
17. Walz, E. Tesla shares details of its new self-driving chipset at ‘Autonomy Investor Day’. FutureCar https://www.futurecar.com/3153/Tesla-Shares-Details-of-its-New-Self-Driving-Chipset-at-Autonomy-Investo (2019).
18. Chowdhury, H., Alam, F., Khan, I., Djamovski, V. & Watkins, S. Impact of vehicle add-ons on energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Procedia Eng. 49, 294–302 (2012).10.1016/j.proeng.2012.10.140 ↗
19. Chen, Y. & Meier, A. Fuel consumption impacts of auto roof racks. Energy Policy 92, 325–333 (2016).10.1016/j.enpol.2016.02.031 ↗
20. Liu, J., Kockelman, K. M. & Nichols, A. Anticipating the emissions impacts of smoother driving by connected and autonomous vehicles, using the MOVES model. In Transportation Research Board 96th Annual Meeting (2016).
21. Prakash, N., Cimini, G., Stefanopoulou, A. G. & Brusstar, M. J. Assessing fuel economy from automated driving: influence of preview and velocity constraints. In ASME 2016 Dynamic Systems and Control Conference (American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2016).10.1115/DSCC2016-9780 ↗
22. Mersky, A. C. & Samaras, C. Fuel economy testing of autonomous vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 65, 31–48 (2016).10.1016/j.trc.2016.01.001 ↗
23. Gao, Z. et al. Evaluation of electric vehicle component performance over eco-driving cycles. Energy 172, 823–839 (2019).10.1016/j.energy.2019.02.017 ↗
24. Certificate Summary Information Report, Tesla Motors: Model 3 Long Range, 02/28/2019 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2019).
25. Templeton, B. Elon Musk’s war on LIDAR: who is right and why do they think that? Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2019/05/06/elon-musks-war-on-lidar-who-is-right-and-why-do-they-think-that/7fe42c4f2a3b (2019).
26. Morgan, M. G., Henrion, M. & Small, M. Uncertainty: a Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis (Cambridge University Press, 1992).
27. Harlow, J. E. et al. A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies. J. Electrochem. Soc. 166, A3031–A3044 (2019).10.1149/2.0981913jes ↗
28. Srinivasan, V. & Wang, C.-Y. Analysis of electrochemical and thermal behavior of Li-ion cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 150, A98–A106 (2003).10.1149/1.1526512 ↗
29. Fang, W., Kwon, O. J. & Wang, C.-Y. Electrochemical–thermal modeling of automotive Li ion batteries and experimental validation using a three-electrode cell. Int. J. Energy Res. 34, 107–115 (2010).10.1002/er.1652 ↗
30. Smith, K. & Wang, C.-Y. Power and thermal characterization of a lithium-ion battery pack for hybrid-electric vehicles. J. Power Sources 160, 662–673 (2006).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2006.01.038 ↗
31. Anderson, J. M. et al. Autonomous Vehicle Technology: a Guide for Policymakers (Rand, 2014).
32. Tesla Model 3. Tesla https://www.tesla.com/model3 (2019).
33. Yang, X.-G., Leng, Y., Zhang, G., Ge, S. & Wang, C.-Y. Modeling of lithium plating induced aging of lithium-ion batteries: transition from linear to nonlinear aging. J. Power Sources 360, 28–40 (2017).10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.05.110 ↗
34. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. American driving survey: methodology and year 1 results, May 2013–May 2014. AAA https://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/FACT_SHEET_American_Driving_Survey_Methodology_and_year_1_results_May_2013_to_May_2014.pdf (2015).
35. Annual vehicle distance traveled in miles and related data – 2017(1). Federal Highway Administration https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2017/pdf/vm1.pdf (2017).