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.
Previous studies have shown that low-energy ion heating occurs in the magnetosphere due to strong equatorial noise emission. Observations from the Van Allen Probes Helium Oxygen Proton Electron (HOPE) instrument recently determined that there was a depletion in the 1–10 eV ion population in the postmidnight sector of Earth during quiet times at L < 3. The diurnal variation of equatorially mirroring 1–10 eV H + ions at 2 < L < 3 is connected with similar diurnal variation in the electric field component of plasma waves ranging between 150 and 600 Hz. Measurements from the Van Allen Probes Electric and Magnetic Field Instrument Suite and Integrated Science (EMFISIS) data set are used here to analyze waves of this frequency in near-Earth space. However, when we examine the polarization of the waves in the 150 to 600 Hz range in the equatorial plane, the majority are right-hand polarized plasmaspheric hiss waves. The 1–10 eV H + equatorially mirroring population does not interact with right-hand waves, despite a strong statistical relationship suggesting that the two are linked. We present evidence supporting the relationship, both in our own work and the literature, but we ultimately conclude that the 1–10 eV H + heating is not related to the strong enhancement of 150 to 600 Hz waves.
We demonstrate that the different surface terminations exhibited by α-Fe2O3 (hematite) and α-Cr2O3 (eskolaite) in superlattices (SL) of these materials, synthesized with exquisite control by molecular beam epitaxy, determine the heterojunction interface structure and result in controllable, non-commutative band offset values. Precise atomic control of the interface structure allowed us to vary the valence band offset from 0.35 eV to 0.79 eV. This controllable band alignment can be harnessed to generate a built-in potential in Fe2O3-Cr2O3 SLs. For instance, in a 2.5-period SL, a built-in potential of 0.8 eV was realized as measured by x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy of Ti dopants as probe species. The high quality of the SL structure was confirmed by atom probe tomography and scanning transmission electron microscopy. Enhanced photocurrents were measured for a thick Fe2O3 epitaxial film capped with an (Fe2O3)3-(Cr2O3)3 SL; this enhancement was attributed to efficient electron-hole separation in the SL as a result of the band alignment. The Fe-O-Cr bonds at the SL interfaces also red-shifted the onset of photoconductivity to ~1.6 eV. Exploiting the band alignment and photoabsorption properties of Fe2O3-Cr2O3 SLs has the potential to increase the efficiency of hematite-based photoelectrochemical water splitting.
A side‐chain conjugation strategy in the design of nonfullerene electron acceptors is proposed, with the design and synthesis of a side‐chain‐conjugated acceptor (ITIC2) based on a 4,8‐bis(5‐(2‐ethylhexyl)thiophen‐2‐yl)benzo[1,2‐ b :4,5‐ b′ ]di(cyclopenta‐dithiophene) electron‐donating core and 1,1‐dicyanomethylene‐3‐indanone electron‐withdrawing end groups. ITIC2 with the conjugated side chains exhibits an absorption peak at 714 nm, which redshifts 12 nm relative to ITIC1. The absorption extinction coefficient of ITIC2 is 2.7 × 10 5 m −1 cm −1 , higher than that of ITIC1 (1.5 × 10 5 m −1 cm −1 ). ITIC2 exhibits slightly higher highest occupied molecular orbital (HOMO) (−5.43 eV) and lowest unoccupied molecular orbital (LUMO) (−3.80 eV) energy levels relative to ITIC1 (HOMO: −5.48 eV; LUMO: −3.84 eV), and higher electron mobility (1.3 × 10 −3 cm 2 V −1 s −1 ) than that of ITIC1 (9.6 × 10 −4 cm 2 V −1 s −1 ). The power conversion efficiency of ITIC2‐based organic solar cells is 11.0%, much higher than that of ITIC1‐based control devices (8.54%). Our results demonstrate that side‐chain conjugation can tune energy levels, enhance absorption, and electron mobility, and finally enhance photovoltaic performance of nonfullerene acceptors.
Abstract Naphtho[1,2‐ b :5,6‐ b′ ]dithiophene is extended to a fused octacyclic building block, which is end capped by strong electron‐withdrawing 2‐(5,6‐difluoro‐3‐oxo‐2,3‐dihydro‐1H‐inden‐1‐ylidene)malononitrile to yield a fused‐ring electron acceptor (IOIC2) for organic solar cells (OSCs). Relative to naphthalene‐based IHIC2, naphthodithiophene‐based IOIC2 with a larger π‐conjugation and a stronger electron‐donating core shows a higher lowest unoccupied molecular orbital energy level (IOIC2: −3.78 eV vs IHIC2: −3.86 eV), broader absorption with a smaller optical bandgap (IOIC2: 1.55 eV vs IHIC2: 1.66 eV), and a higher electron mobility (IOIC2: 1.0 × 10 −3 cm 2 V −1 s −1 vs IHIC2: 5.0 × 10 −4 cm 2 V −1 s −1 ). Thus, IOIC2‐based OSCs show higher values in open‐circuit voltage, short‐circuit current density, fill factor, and thereby much higher power conversion efficiency (PCE) values than those of the IHIC2‐based counterpart. In particular, as‐cast OSCs based on FTAZ: IOIC2 yield PCEs of up to 11.2%, higher than that of the control devices based on FTAZ: IHIC2 (7.45%). Furthermore, by using 0.2% 1,8‐diiodooctane as the processing additive, a PCE of 12.3% is achieved from the FTAZ:IOIC2 ‐ based devices, higher than that of the FTAZ:IHIC2 ‐ based devices (7.31%). These results indicate that incorporating extended conjugation into the electron‐donating fused‐ring units in nonfullerene acceptors is a promising strategy for designing high‐performance electron acceptors.