Progressive Automotive X PRIZE

Videos, videos, videos!

Some wonderful and informative video footage was prepared before and after our March 20th announcement of the Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE. John shared the great Jay Leno video statement of support in his lastest post and I linked to the video of our NBC Today Show appearance two posts ago. But there is lots more exciting video to watch, so I thought I'd embed the rest of the clips here for your viewing enjoyment!

March 20th Press Event Highlights

Progressive Insurance Joins Forces with X PRIZE Foundation

Progressive CEO Glenn Renwick

March 20th Press Event - Part 1 of 3

Part 2 of 3 | Part 3 of 3

Peter Diamandis: Why an X PRIZE for Automotive?

X PRIZE Foundation Vision

Jay Leno on the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE (PAXP)

We're big fans of Jay Leno.  He's well known and respected as an authentic car guy, but perhaps it's not so well known that Jay's Garage is a Green Garage - complete with solar power, wind power, eco-friendly chemicals and processes, etc. 

Thanks to PAXP Advisor Gale Banks, I spent an evening at Jay's garage about a year ago (understatement: fun).  Gale has kept Jay up to date on the development of PAXP, and recently asked him to speak on camera about the importance of PAXP.  Jay was kind enough to do so, and we used his video statement as a dramatic opening of last Thursday's formal launch of the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE at the New York International Auto Show. Jay's video is cool - check it out here.

The video led into the event's highlight: our announcement that Progressive Insurance has become the title sponsor of the Automotive X PRIZE.  We also announced that the Department of Energy is providing a $3.5M award to sponsor the PAXP Education Program.  Additionally, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that New York City will host the first stage of the 2008 Qualifying Race.  You can see excerpts from the launch event here.  For more details, see Cristin's post.   All-in-all a good day (another understatement). 

Introducing the Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE!

We are thrilled to introduce the Title Sponsor of the Automotive X PRIZE – Progressive Insurance!  The newly renamed Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE was announced yesterday at the New York International Auto Show, and we could not be more proud to partner with Progressive.  This is about two organizations that support innovation coming together in a way that can make a real difference in the world.

Cars from Letter of Intent teams at Rockefeller Plaza for NBC's Today show

Yesterday started off with a great segment about the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE on NBC's Today show:

Later that afternoon, Progressive CEO Glenn Renwick and X PRIZE Chairman and CEO Peter Diamandis announced the partnership to a crowd of automotive press, industry influencers, and notable guests in the public and private sectors.

X PRIZE Chairman & CEO Peter Diamandis Greets Progressive CEO Glenn Renwick

“The Progressive Automotive X PRIZE is a call to action to promote and inspire innovation,” said Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, Chairman and CEO of the X PRIZE Foundation. “The environmentally friendly cars created as a result of this competition will affect everyone who drives in ways we can’t even imagine today. Let the race begin!”

“We’ve been working hard to make a difference in car insurance for 70 years,” said Progressive’s CEO, Glenn Renwick. “Now we have a chance to make a difference by supporting the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE. This competition will result in more choices of more fuel-efficient vehicles for drivers and will be a catalyst for moving this technology forward, faster.”

“This competition represents what we’re all about in name and spirit—new ideas, competition and always working to do better,” added Renwick. “Being a part of this gives us a chance to make a real difference.”

Watch Part One of the announcement press conference:


Watch Part Two; Part Three.

In the run up to the official launch of the prize, it’s been clear that we were on the brink of something huge.  Our list of supporters is growing very long, and in the past few weeks we’ve received statements of support from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, Jay Leno, and resolutions of support and praise from both houses of Congress.

On hand for the announcement at the Jacob Javits Center in Manhattan was New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who shared the news that NYC will host the official start of the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE races in 2009.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg at Progressive Automotive X PRIZE press conference

"The Progressive Automotive X PRIZE is an excellent example of how the private sector can spur solutions to our most complex challenges," said Mayor Bloomberg. "Here in New York City, we are also stepping up to the plate on energy conservation, by transforming our taxi fleet into hybrids and cutting the City's energy use by 30% over the next ten years. It's all part of PlaNYC, our plan to create a greener, greater New York. Development of a super-efficient car would be a major step forward in the fight against global warming - and it would help us reach our goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in New York City by 30% by 2030. To maximize national and international awareness of the X PRIZE, I am pleased to announce that New York will be the starting point for the race next year."

Progressive CEO Glenn Renwick, X PRIZE Chairman & CEO Peter Diamandis, and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg

Additionally, the U.S. Department of Energy announced it plans to make up to a $3.5 million USD grant to the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE (subject to appropriation from Congress) for a national education program that will encourage young people to pursue careers in energy-efficient sciences and technology. The education program will engage students through a comprehensive online knowledge center and national contests that ask them to imagine what the role of transportation will be in their future world.  The program will be designed to build excitement among students, engaging them in a competitive and creative process while conveying the X PRIZE approach to fostering breakthroughs that benefit humanity through competition.

This is a very exciting day for us, but it’s only the beginning.  We believe momentum will continue to build, and innovations that come from the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE will not just be on the road, they’ll be in our driveways.  Start your environmentally friendly, fuel-efficient engines!

Computing MPGe for Electric Hybrids

As Dan Reicher (Director, Climate Change and Energy Initiatives, Google.org) summarized in testimony early this year to the Senate Finance Committee, many people see energy efficiency as the 

“fastest, cheapest and cleanest opportunity to address our energy challenges….Duke Energy CEO James Rogers has termed energy efficiency our ‘fifth fuel’ and energy efficiency guru Amory Lovins measures it in ‘Negawatts’.”

In a nutshell, that’s why a main AXP figure of merit is miles-per-gallon equivalent (MPGe), a measure that expresses fuel economy in terms of the energy content of a gallon of petroleum-based gasoline. 

Basically we ask: how much energy was delivered to the vehicle, and how far did it go? We convert the energy to the number of gallons of gasoline containing equivalent energy, and we express the result as miles per gallon. 

Different fuels have different pros-and-cons, but in all cases it’s valuable to increase efficiency (increase MPGe), which conserves energy. This is even true, for example, if the fuel is electricity generated from alternative energy sources. Alternative energy is not infinite energy. Increasing electric vehicle efficiency will result in more energy available for other purposes. 

MPGe is an attractive figure of merit because it’s a direct measure of overall “pump-to-wheels” efficiency, because it’s technology-neutral, and because it relates nicely to consumer intuition – i.e., it reduces to the familiar MPG if the fuel is in fact gasoline. 

MPGe is also attractive because it applies if a vehicle is powered by more than one fuel, such as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), which typically use electricity plus a liquid fuel (often, but not necessarily, gasoline). Here’s how to compute MPGe for this important case: 

MPGe = EG / (g*EF + e*EW)

where 

m = miles per gallon of liquid fuel used (MPG)

g = 1/m = gallons of liquid fuel used per mile (GPM)

e = plug-to-wheels electrical energy used per mile (Wh/mi)

EF = BTU per gallon of liquid fuel used (not necessarily gasoline)

EG = BTU per gallon of gasoline = 116,090

EW = BTU per Watt-hour (Wh) of electricity = 3.412

The formula above can also be used for pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and for pure liquid fuel vehicle – for BEVs, set g =0, and for pure liquid fuel vehicles, set e = 0. 

Informal published values for BEV and PHEV fuel economy abound, but they can be inadvertently misleading. For example, some results report gasoline usage but not electricity usage (electricity usage is harder to measure). Also, not all results are well-documented, so accurate comparisons can be difficult. 

One problem in applying the MPGe conversion formula above is that by definition MPGe is “pump/plug to wheels”, whereas the electricity usage (Wh/mi) data reported may be battery-to-wheels, which ignores the conversion loss that results from charging the battery via an AC (grid-connected) outlet. It’s not always obvious from test results whether or not the Wh/mi are measured from the plug or from the battery. 

Bearing these issues in mind, I have computed MPGe for some real examples based on published data. I include example results below. You can see the details and other examples in the spreadsheet available here, which can also be used to explore additional examples. To account for cases where the Wh/mi measurement is battery-to-wheels, the spreadsheet includes an option for applying a plug-to-battery conversion factor. 

Of the PHEV results, the main thing that stands out is that the Google.org data yield a significantly lower MPGe than other test data. This likely reflects the fact that the Google.org data are collected from actual daily driving by multiple drivers, whereas the other data are from fixed test cycles. Also noteworthy is the significant variation in the MPGe results from fixed test cycles, even for the same PHEV conversion tested over a similar range. 

Overall, the results reflect a basic underlying problem – the difficulty of establishing test procedures that are not only well-documented and repeatable, but that reliably predict the fuel economy that consumers would experience. Indeed, that’s why DOE and EPA are intensively developing next-generation test procedures. 

I welcome comments on these examples as well as pointers to other well-documented data. If appropriate, I will republish the spreadsheet and this blog post (note that the table below includes a publication date). Here are the examples:

 

Vehicle	Type of Test	Source	Range (miles)	Miles-per-gallon of Gasoline used (MPG)	Plug-to-Wheels electricity used (Wh/mi)	MPGe
Prius PHEV conversion	Real-world driving	Google.org Recharge-IT (1/11/2008)	N.A.	66.2	110.6	54.5
Prius PHEV Conversion (Energy CS)	UDDS Charge-Depleting	DOE ANL	50	212	160.3	106
Prius PHEV Conversion (Energy CS)	UDDS Charge-Depleting (California Mode)	DOE ANL	90	113.9	86	88.4
Prius PHEV Conversion (Hymotion)	UDDS	DOE INL	100	83.7	35.8	76.9
Prius PHEV Conversion (Hymotion)	HWVET	DOE INL	100	67.4	39.2	62.5
Prius PHEV Conversion (Energy CS)	UDDS	DOE INL	100	89.2	56.5	77.7
Prius PHEV Conversion (Energy CS)	HWVET	DOE INL	100	75.2	59.3	66.5
Tesla Roadster EV	EPA Recharge	Tesla	245	0	310	109.8
2000 Nissan Altra EV (Li-Ion)	EPA Recharge	DOE	129	0	276.5	123.1
2003 Toyota RAV-4 EV (NiMH)	EPA Recharge	DOE	136	0	301.5	112.8

 

[Table Date: 30 January, 2008]

Spotlight on AXP Letter of Intent Teams

On the Automotive X PRIZE website, we report frequently on the coverage that the prize is getting in the global media.

We have also been watching the growing media coverage of the teams that have signed a Letter of Intent to compete in the Automotive X PRIZE (AXP). We salute these first brave teams (currently 43 teams from 6 countries) and we are excited when we see these teams get recognition in the press.

One of the biggest benefits offered to teams that enter the AXP is the press and media coverage they can expect to receive. Even before the AXP has been officially launched, we have seen interest in our Letter of Intent teams ranging from articles and blog posts to radio and television interviews.

Here is just a small sample of the hundreds of recent articles about our teams:

• Aptera Motors: StartUp Beat, 8/2007
• Cornell University: PopularMechanics, 8/2007
• FuelVapor Technologies: gizmag, 7/2007
• Loremo: AutoblogGreen, 8/2007
• Michigan Vision: Ann Arbor Business Review, 9/2007
• Phoenix Motorcars: Fast Company, 11/2007
• Porteon Electric Vehicles, Inc.: CNET, 10/2007
• Society for Sustainable Mobility: Red Hat Magazine, 8/2007
• Tesla Motors: Newsweek,  10/2007
• Velozzi: engadget, 4/2007
• Visionary Vehicles: Washington Post, 9/2007

We expect to see much more coverage of the important work being done by AXP teams in the coming months and years as the AXP is launched and more teams join the competition. It is going to be quite a ride!

Feel free to comment and add links to other interesting articles you have read about AXP teams.

The Car Equation

The physics of automotive motion is complicated, but the basics are clear from a relatively simple equation. It’s worth posting, as it illustrates some of the main challenges faced by design engineers and drivers who aim to increase fuel economy. 

So, ignoring secondary effects, here is what might be termed the fundamental equation of automotive force: 

F = mgC_rr + ½ρC_DAv² + ma + mgsin(θ)

where 

F = force required at the wheels of the vehicle
m = mass of the vehicle
C_rr = coefficient of rolling resistance between tires and road surface
ρ = density of the ambient air
C_D = coefficient of drag of the vehicle in the direction of travel
A = cross-sectional area of the vehicle
v = speed in the direction of travel
a = acceleration of the vehicle
g = local acceleration of gravity
θ = angle (relative to horizontal) of the road surface

To increase fuel economy, engineers work to increase the efficiency of the drive train that delivers the force that’s required at the wheels. This is complicated work, and they have been at it for decades. But only recently has attention focused on the capture, storage, and re-use of kinetic energy that is normally lost when vehicles slow down. Electric hybrids are just the beginning. 

On the other side of the equation, engineers work to decrease the amount of force that’s required. From that side, you can see why they try to do three things based on variables that are primarily under their control (vs. the driver’s control): 

• reduce the vehicle mass (particularly important, since there are three terms in the force equation that are proportional to the mass, and because vehicles today are made from heavy materials) 
• reduce the rolling resistance (tires) 
• improve the aerodynamics (reduce cross section, reduce coefficient of drag)

Of course, there are economic and other tradeoffs involved. Reduce mass, but don’t give up too much safety; reduce rolling resistance, but don’t give up too much wear or grip; improve aerodynamics, but don’t give up too much comfort, convenience, and carrying capacity (and don’t make it ugly!). 

While these variables are primarily under the design engineer’s control, the driver has some control as well. If you load up the car, the mass increases. If you put stuff on the roof, the aerodynamic drag increases (likewise if you open all the windows). If you choose the wrong replacement tires or don’t keep the tires properly inflated, the rolling resistance increases. 

On the other hand, the equation shows the importance of variables that are primarily under the driver’s control: 

• acceleration - how often and how strongly you accelerate 
• speed - particularly important given that the second term is proportional to the square of your speed (drive a little faster, and there’s considerably more drag) 
• road surface – where you drive affects rolling resistance 
• hills - how often you go up them and how steep they are; (the sign of the last term becomes negative when you go back down, but you never get back all you lose going up. Although there are many variables involved - speed, cornering, braking, regeneration, etc. – at best you can recover most of the potential energy gained by climbing the hill. However, the energy spent going uphill is considerably greater than that potential energy gain since engines and drivetrains are not 100% efficient. The difference is lost forever.)

As mentioned, these variables are primarily under the driver’s control; but they are also affected by vehicle design. For example, drive trains may be most efficient at a particular speed (so driving very slowly may not yield the best fuel economy). And, obviously, you can’t accelerate or drive faster than the vehicle’s capabilities (which may be electronically limited). Similarly, unless you’re an off-roader, your choices of road surface and terrain are limited strongly by those in charge of road construction and maintenance.

Finally, note that there’s an important effect that’s beyond the scope of the equation above, namely that fuel economy is reduced by diverting energy for purposes other than forward motion – in particular for comfort and convenience features, including climate control, on-board electronics, etc. Here, the engineer is responsible for how energy-efficiency the features are, while the driver is responsible for how much they are used.

Note: post revised on 12 November, 2007; see comments; js

Not All That Guzzles is Olds

With apologies to Bill Shakespeare for mangling his prose, we'd like to point out to our readers that, just as not all that glitters is gold, not all that is Detroit guzzles gas.  Perhaps unduly dismayed by that icon of fuel profligacy, the Hummer, or perhaps too easily seduced by diesel-sipping Bluetecs from Europe, the greener portion of the American public seems to assume that Detroit must (almost by definition) be the biggest villain in the MPG saga.  Not quite so!  As shown in a recently released GAO report on fuel economy standards, most European OEMs who export to these shores regularly violate CAFE targets, choosing instead to ante up the civil penalties that result.  In fact, the Europeans have enriched the US Treasury by some $115 million between 2001 and 2005 (which are the newest figures GAO has), with BMW leading the way, at over $50 million in fines.  Even the People's Car maker, VW, ponies up a few million bucks every few years to cover its fuel-thirsty Audis (and of course those products of another VW subsidiary, Lamborghini).  One cannot tie the numbers easily to a given model or even to a given year, as Uncle Sam allows all sorts of averaging and carry-forwards and -backs, but over the long haul the biggest offender is Mercedes.  And these numbers don't even count the gas-guzzler tax tacked on at the point of sale: these are civil penalties paid by the OEM for violating the CAFE standards.  The Japanese and Koreans are notably absent from the list, as you might expect, but perhaps as you might not expect, so are the Detroit 3: GM, Ford, and Chrysler have never yet had to pay a CAFE fine.  (They may start having to, according to rumors that they have recently strayed out of compliance, but with the lags in these numbers it is hard to tell.)  So, while the Detroit side may be not be as green as we would like, at least the home team is not just paying off the referees.  As German diesels hit these shores the situation may change, but for now remember that while the Big Three may be making too many V-8s, for a big thirsty V-12 you have to go to Europe...

Thoughts on the Third Rail

In a recent posting Glenn Mercer took the courageous step of touching the "third rail."  He wrote:

We need to ask or compel vehicle manufacturers to make more efficient and cleaner vehicles.  We need to ask or compel fuel suppliers to provide the fuels that will enable supply of such vehicles (e.g. ethanol, electricity, hydrogen...).  And we need to ask or compel drivers to consume less vehicle miles. 

The "third rail," fatal to touch (like social security or seat belt interlock) purports to reduce VMT - vehicle miles traveled.  It is true that VMT has been increasing faster than population and faster than GNP.  We
need to seriously ask ourselves what it takes to reduce VMT.   Some high percentage (I seem to remember 80%) of VMT are due to work commute.

Many times it is not a matter of choice.   People cannot afford housing nearer their work place - lack of urban planning!  Sure, in the end we do it to ourselves, but land use (mis)planning should be mentioned along with (as Glenn puts it), "evil Detroit and evil Big Oil."   We require an environmental impact statement for any major project.   We should also require a transportation energy use impact statement whenever a new subdivision is built or a suburb stretches out far beyond places of work.

It is not so much as "we need to ask or compel drivers to consume less vehicle miles," as we need NOT to compel drivers to have to drive such long distances to work.   Incidentally it is one of the worst health hazards too and not just due its effect on air quality.