SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Learn what an electric vehicle (EV) could mean for you, including fuel economy, emission reductions, cost savings, and fueling flexibility. This fact sheet from Energy Saver includes information on types of electric vehicles, how an EV could save you on fuel and money, how to charge an EV, and EV safety standards.
Electric vehicles (EVs) use energy more efficiently than gasoline vehicles. This is one of their primary attributes, enabling other benefits such as improved torque and reduced operating costs and greenhouse gas emissions. An electric vehicle efficiency ratio (EVER) is therefore important when calculating the financial and environmental benefits of EVs, calculating the impact that EVs have on a manufacturer's Corporate Average Fuel Economy rating, calculating credits in trading schemes such as California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, fuel price leveling, designing electricity tariffs from utility-owned public charging infrastructure, creating EV alternatives to gasoline excise taxes, and more.
Ambitious federal clean goals, along with historic investment in American manufacturing, have put the United States on track to see 30-42 million light-duty electric vehicles (EVs) on the road by 2030. Now, a groundbreaking study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has estimated the EV charging infrastructure needed nationwide to support a sweeping transition to electrified transportation. The study, titled "The 2030 National Charging Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure," estimates the number, type, and location of the chargers needed to create a comprehensive network of EV charging infrastructure. Its use of proprietary NREL software tools and sophisticated analysis have resulted in a nationwide infrastructure needs assessment with a never-before-seen level of detail - one that takes into account the different ways Americans travel, from running errands to taking road trips, and can adjust to changing circumstances as EV adoption rates change over time.
Electric vehicles (EVs) use electricity as their primary fuel or to improve the efficiency of conventional vehicle designs. EVs include all-electric vehicles, also referred to as battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). In colloquial references, these vehicles are called electric cars, or simply EVs, even though some of these vehicles still use liquid fuels in conjunction with electricity. EVs are known for providing instant torque and a quiet driver experience. Other types of electric-drive vehicles not covered here include hybrid electric vehicles, which are powered by a conventional engine and an electric motor that uses energy stored in a battery that is charged by regenerative braking, not by plugging in, and fuel cell electric vehicles, which use a propulsion system similar to electric vehicles, where energy stored as hydrogen is converted to electricity by the fuel cell.
As large national investments in EV charging continue to be made, this project seeks to improve the state-of-the-art in EV infrastructure analysis. New and improved quantitative analysis capabilities will position VTO to support EERE Leadership, assist the DOT/DOE Joint Office through timely analysis, and provide a strategy for the deployment of the national charging network. This project supports on-going development of NREL's EVI-X Suite of charging infrastructure analysis tools, including tools supporting large-scale network planning, local site design decisions, and comprehensive financial analysis. EVI-X development complements and leverages other VTO-funded efforts to ensure inputs to EVI-X and output produced by EVI-X are consistent with and well-integrated into the VTO portfolio (e.g., EV adoption scenarios from TEMPO, charging infrastructure design provided to EVs@Scale, etc.).
Los vehiculos electricos (EV, por su sigla en ingles) usan la electricidad como combustible principal o para mejorar la eficiencia de los disenos de vehiculos convencionales. Los EV incluyen vehiculos todo electrico, tambien denominados vehiculos electricos de bateria (BEV, por su sigla en ingles), y vehiculos electricos hibridos enchufables (PHEV, por su sigla en ingles). Coloquialmente, a estos vehiculos se les conoce como autos electricos, o simplemente EV, aunque algunos de estos vehiculos todavia utilizan combustibles liquidos junto con la electricidad. Los EV son conocidos por brindar una aceleracion (torque, en ingles) rapida y una experiencia silenciosa al conducir. See DOE/GO-102023-6050 for the English translation of this fact sheet (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/87125.pdf).
Transportation electrification and power sector decarbonization - the convergence of these two trends present a complex planning problem requiring realistic, region-specific modeling and analysis to ensure that both can happen rapidly and cost effectively. This project, funded through the U.S. Department of Energy's Vehicle Technologies Office, models the evolution of the U.S. bulk power system (through 2050) in response to large-scale EV charging across all on-road vehicle segments. We will assess the opportunity and value of demand-side flexibility (i.e., "smart" charging) for reducing energy costs, increasing renewable generation shares, and managing future EV loads on the bulk power system. Overall, this study aims to provide an improved understanding of least-cost solutions for managing EV load growth on the grid and will make high-resolution EV load data sets publicly available for further analysis.
Electric vehicles (EVs) use electricity as their primary fuel or to improve the efficiency of conventional vehicle designs. EVs include all-electric vehicles, also referred to as battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). In colloquial references, these vehicles are called electric cars, or simply EVs, even though some of these vehicles still use liquid fuels in conjunction with electricity. EVs are known for providing instant torque and a quiet driver experience. Other types of electric-drive vehicles not covered here include hybrid electric vehicles, which are powered by a conventional engine and an electric motor that uses energy stored in a battery that is charged by regenerative braking, not by plugging in, and fuel cell electric vehicles, which use a propulsion system similar to electric vehicles, where energy stored as hydrogen is converted to electricity by the fuel cell. This is the French translation of NREL/FS-5400-87125.
Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2023 by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with a 2030 infrastructure requirement scenario. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the thirteenth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).
Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2023 by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with a 2030 infrastructure requirement scenario. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the fourteenth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).
The U.S. Department of Energy's Vehicle Technologies Office provides project assistance through Clean Cities, technical expertise, and funding to help stake-holders implement alternative fuels and electric vehicles (EVs). Fleet managers considering EVs can learn about the potential for EV fires and measures to help reduce fire risk.
Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2022 (Q3 2022) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the eleventh report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).
Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the fourth calendar quarter of 2022 (Q4 2022) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the twelfth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).
Increasing knowledge about electric vehicles (EVs) can increase Tribal member comfort level with the technology, leading to increased EV adoption. This fact sheet lists common EV and charging infrastructure concerns and provides information to help address these hurdles during engagement with Tribal communities.
2D hybrid perovskites are attractive for optoelectronic devices. In thin films, the color of optical emission and the texture of crystalline domains are often difficult to control. Here, a method for extinguishing or enhancing different emission features is demonstrated for the family of 2D Ruddlesden-Popper perovskites (EA(1-)(x)FA(x))(4)Pb3Br10 (EA = ethylammonium, FA = formamidinium). When grown from aqueous hydrobromic acid, crystals of (EA(1-)(x)FA(x))(4)Pb3Br10 retain all the emission features of their parent compound, (EA)(4)Pb3Br10. Surprisingly, when grown from dimethylformamide (DMF), an emission feature, likely self-trapped exciton (STE), near 2.7 eV is missing. Extinction of this feature is correlated with DMF being incorporated between the 2D Pb-Br sheets, forming (EA(1-)(x)FA(x))(4)Pb3Br10 center dot(DMF)(y). Without FA, films grown from DMF form (EA)(4)Pb3Br10, retain little solvent, and have strong emission near 2.7 eV. Slowing the kinetics of film growth strengthens a different emission feature, likely a different type of STE, which is much broader and present in all compositions. Films of (EA(1-)(x)FA(x))(4)Pb3Br10 center dot(DMF)(y) have large, micron-sized domains and homogeneous orientation of the semiconducting sheets, resulting in low electronic disorder near the absorption edge. The ability to selectively strengthen or extinguish different emission features in films of (EA(1-)(x)FA(x))(4)Pb3Br10 center dot(DMF)(y) reveals a pathway to tune the emission color in these compounds.
Abstract The thermal stability of different Schottky contacts (Au, Pt, and Ni) on (100) β ‐Ga 2 O 3 single crystals grown by the Czochralski method is investigated. Besides the examination of the Schottky barrier parameters, contact‐dependent defect levels are investigated by deep‐level transient spectroscopy (DLTS) in a 100–650 K (ramp‐up) and 650–100 K (ramp‐down) temperature cycle. Several defect levels are detected below the conduction band minimum at 0.41, 0.60, 0.77, 0.96, and 1.17 eV. In the temperature ramp‐down DLTS, the 1.17 eV level disappears, and the 0.60 eV level appears for all Schottky contacts. DFT calculations suggest that rearrangement and dissociation of a single hydrogen from a doubly‐hydrogenated Ga─O divacancy complex occurs during the temperature sweep under bias. The trap level at 0.96 eV only appears after the thermal load for the Ni contact, in contrast to Au and Pt, where it is present without a thermal budget. Temperature‐dependent leakage current (at −4 V) measurements indicate oxidation of Ni, and further thermodynamic analysis suggests alloying of Au‐Ga atoms at the Au/ β ‐Ga 2 O 3 interface. These studies provide insight into the behavior induced by these common Schottky contacts and the alteration associated with temperature cycling.
Abstract Li‐ion batteries (LIBs) can reduce carbon emissions by powering electric vehicles (EVs) and promoting renewable energy development with grid‐scale energy storage. However, LIB production and electricity generation still heavily rely on fossil fuels at present, resulting in major environmental concerns. Are LIBs as environmentally friendly and sustainable as expected at the current stage? In the past 5 years, a skyrocketing growth of the EV market has been witnessed. LIBs have garnered huge attention from academia, industry, government, non‐governmental organizations, investors, and the general public. Tremendous volumes of LIBs are already implemented in EVs today, with a continuing, exponential growth expected for the years to come. When LIBs reach their end‐of‐life in the next decades, what technologies can be in place to enable second‐life or recycling of batteries? Herein, life cycle assessment studies are examined to evaluate the environmental impact of LIBs, and EVs are compared with internal combustion engine vehicles regarding environmental sustainability. To provide a holistic view of the LIB development, this Perspective provides insights into materials development, manufacturing, recycling, legislation and policy, and beyond. Last but not least, the future development of LIBs and charging infrastructures in light of emerging technologies are envisioned.
Abstract Despite its sizable errors, density functional theory (DFT) is extensively used to evaluate thermochemical properties of gases, liquids and their interfaces with solids. As numerous halogen‐containing compounds appear as reactants, products and/or electrolytes in electrochemical reactions, and ionic effects are currently an active area of research, it is important to evaluate the accuracy of DFT for halogen thermochemistry. Herein, we assess the formation energies of interhalogens, hydrogen halides, diatomic and atomic halogens and their ions using six widespread functionals at the GGA, meta‐GGA and hybrid levels. We observe that DFT errors with respect to experiments are correlated with the electronegativity of the species and there are systematic trends across functionals, such that swift corrections were devised. Specifically, the average of the mean absolute errors for the six functionals decreased from 0.19 eV before the corrections to 0.08 eV after them. Besides, the overall maximum absolute error (MAX) decreased from 0.76 to 0.44 eV and the average of the MAXs decreased from 0.51 to 0.24 eV. Finally, we illustrate the qualitative and quantitative impact of gas‐phase errors on the predictions of surface Pourbaix diagrams.