Escape plug-in hybrid electric vehicle • eFlexFuel conversion kit immediately installed at Univ. of Nebraska • Tested tailpipe emissions on E10, E85, splash-blended E30 at Univ. of California-Riverside Center for Environmental Research & Technology • NOx, PM, CO, THC, NMHC, CH4, etc. • Conducted lifecycle GHG analysis by Univ. of Illinois-Chicago and Life Cycle Associates (full WTW lifecycle) • Tracking lifecycle cost of operation and owner convenience analyses
fuels in combination with hybrid technology can deliver superior environmental performance at a low cost to the consumer • Show that consumers don’t need to sacrifice optionality, convenience, or affordability for superior environmental performance • Refueling times; refueling locations; vehicle range; vehicle purchase price; cost of operation; etc. • Demonstrate synergies between low-carbon ethanol and electricity • Ethanol and electricity can be complementary decarbonization solutions • Show that combining two low-carbon technologies provides greater flexibility, reliability, and security for American consumers
charging • Electric motor powers the vehicle independently from ICE • When EV battery is drained, ICE is activated • Hybrid drive uses regenerative braking and deacceleration to extend electric miles • 11-gallon liquid fuel tank • 420-440 miles range on full tank and full charge • 30-40 miles on electricity first • 390-400 miles on E85 + regen • Recharge times • 10-11 hours on 110v • 3-4 hours on Level 2
fuel resulted in a 48% reduction in weighted NOx emissions compared to E10, at a statistically significant level. 0.014 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.002 0.002 0.003 0.005 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 Cold-start Hot-running Hot-start Weighted NOx emissions, g/mile E10 E30 E83 NOx emissions by phase and the weighted FTP cycle *The FTP-75 (Federal Test Procedure) has been used for emission certification and fuel economy testing of light-duty vehicles in the United States [2656]. The test is often referred to as simply ‘FTP’ (this should not be confused with the FTP test for heavy-duty engines).
a marginally statistically significant reduction of 79% compared to E10. “Our results indicate that higher ethanol blends will not adversely affect NOx emissions, but rather demonstrate strong reductions.” Average NOx emissions for the US06 cycle *US06 Cycle is representation of aggressive, high speed and/or high acceleration driving behavior, rapid speed fluctuations, and driving behavior following startup. Since model year 2008, the US06 results are also used for the determination of the EPA on-road fuel economy ratings using the EPA 5-cycle method. 0.004 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 NOx (g/mile) E10 E30 E83
FTP cycle For the FTP cycle, PM mass emissions were found below the optional California PM mass standard (1 mg/mile) for light- duty gasoline vehicles and trended lower with higher ethanol blending. The use of E83 showed a statistically significant reduction of 76% in the weighted PM mass emissions relative to E10.
For the US06 cycle, E30 showed a marginally statistically significant decrease in PM mass of 50% compared to E10. E83 showed a statistically significant decrease of 70% in PM mass emissions compared to E10.
carbon balance method versus an actual calculation with fuel consumption and miles travels. • RFA tracked fuel economy during UCR dyno testing with OBD and FordPass Connect app. • E85 typically showed a 3-4% fuel economy loss vs. E10. • E30 typically showed 0-1% fuel economy gain vs. E10. • The Escape has a 2.5L iVCT Atkinson Cycle I-4 engine with 13:1 compression ratio. • E30 octane = ~98 RON • E85 octane = 102-105 RON 0.000 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 3.5-Mile Test 15.9-Mile Test 7.3-Mile Test Weighted Average mpg E10, E30, E85 Fuel Economy (miles per gallon) E10 E30 E85 (83%)
driving miles as of February 20, 2024. • 7,880 miles (25%) powered by electric motor. • 22,290 miles (72%) powered by E85. • 825 miles (3%) powered by E10/E15. • Vehicle fuel economy rated at 40.0 mpg on E10 (combined city/highway) by EPA/NHTSA. • Actual fuel economy average has been 39.5 mpg! Vehicle dashboard display on February 20, 2024
Vehicle • The Ford Escape PHEV is a very low emitting car with emissions on standard corn ethanol E10 less than 300 gCO2 e/mile on US average E10. For comparison, the US Environmental Protection Agency states that the average passenger vehicle emits about 400 grams of CO2 e/mile. • All ethanol blended fuels provide significant GHG savings relative to the vehicle charged on a selective coal-only grid. In countries with coal fired electricity generation, therefore, utilizing hybrid vehicles with ethanol blends can significantly reduce the PHEV vehicle’s emissions profile. • Mid-level ethanol blends (E30) where the ethanol is produced with CCS&CSA in an optimized engine provide at least 25% GHG savings relative to E0. • The Ford Escape PHEV when operated on E85 provides 38% emissions savings relative to E0. • E85 ethanol blends in an optimized engine provide approximately the same GHG savings as an EV charged on the Midwest electricity grid. • E85 in an optimized engine where the ethanol is produced with CCS&CSA provides significant lower emissions than a similar EV vehicle charged on the US average electricity grid. That vehicle achieves GHG emissions savings of 77% relative to E0.
California marketplace TODAY that is: • 83% corn kernel fiber (cellulose) ethanol = 22 g CO2e/MJ • 2% denaturant (natural gasoline, etc.) = 95 g CO2e/MJ • 15% renewable naphtha from UCO = 18 g CO2e/MJ • Aggregate carbon intensity = 23 g CO2e/MJ • 78% CI reduction vs. CARBOB • Same CI as CA grid mix electricity (24 g CO2e/MJ) • 98% renewable content (vs. 57% renewable for CA electricity) • Addition of CCUS at ethanol biorefinery would result in CKF E85 with net zero or negative CI value
avoid any range anxiety, it is important to note that convenience increases with flex fuel option partnered with electric. • Consumers are faced with low and erratic charging speeds, rates based on time or kWh and inoperable charging stations. • According to JD Power, charge failures range from 12% to 35% depending on the location. The question, will power be there when I need it? • Next, what power is really there? Charging rates vary tremendously by charging station. Levels vary from 1kWh to 250kWh and may charge the same amount for all charging rates.
sold or resold by charging station owners. Consumers are being forced to “rent” the parking space as they charge. These locations vary in price but are usually more expensive than a charge per kWh station and then have a post-charge rate to get you to move your vehicle. • What do consumers encounter? A blank screen, a broken plug, a credit card payment that fails, sessions that abort without warning, electric current that flows fast this moment and slowly the next (imagine if renting the space). • The next factor rarely discussed is range variance given the environment. The most influential is temperature. RFA’s Flex Fuel PHEV at a full charge has created as low as 19 miles of range in winter to 42 miles of range in summer. The loss is substantially greater than any gain for a vehicle rated at 37 miles of range per charge.
cost of operation for this vehicle. • Utilizing the plug-in option at home nets the lowest cost of ownership, but barely and under perfect conditions. It would limit you to only ~37 miles of travel. • Cost of operation on E85 is within two cents per mile! • But, when vehicle is on the road, there is no comparison. • Cost to charge at home using Ford’s estimated miles (KS – Evergy): $.051/mile • Range of cost to charge in varying weather: $.045/mile to $0.090/mile • Cost to charge on the road is unpredictable (average observed since Jan 2, 2023): $.36/mile – also includes some free charging locations! Without free charging, jumps to over $.50/mile! • Cost to operate on E85 (average utilized since Jan 2, 2023): $.068/mile • Cost to operate on E10 (average witnessed since Jan 2, 2023): $.093/mile
deliver superior environmental performance at a low cost to the consumer • With a PHEFFV, consumers don’t need to sacrifice optionality, convenience, or affordability for superior environmental performance • Better refueling times; more refueling locations; more vehicle range; lower purchase price; lower fueling price, same or better GHG emissions • A PHEFFV combines the best of both worlds • Ethanol and electricity can be complementary decarbonization solutions • A PHEFFV combining two low-carbon technologies provides greater flexibility, reliability, and security for American consumers
rfanec
dougneiner
brianwarren
rocio
marcduiker
irinanazarova
erikaheidi
brettharned
michaelherold
marcelosomers
lauravandoore
thekraken
phodgson
