[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FUELING THE FUTURE: ON THE ROAD
TO THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 20, 2005
__________
Serial No. 109-23
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
22-549 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
______
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman
RALPH M. HALL, Texas BART GORDON, Tennessee
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANA ROHRABACHER, California LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
KEN CALVERT, California DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland MARK UDALL, Colorado
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan DAVID WU, Oregon
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia BRAD SHERMAN, California
JO BONNER, Alabama BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
TOM FEENEY, Florida JIM MATHESON, Utah
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina JIM COSTA, California
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington AL GREEN, Texas
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan DENNIS MOORE, Kansas
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
VACANCY
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy
JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chair
RALPH M. HALL, Texas MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JO BONNER, Alabama DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina JIM MATHESON, Utah
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana BRAD SHERMAN, California
JOHN J.H. ``JOE'' SCHWARZ, Michigan AL GREEN, Texas
VACANCY
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York BART GORDON, Tennessee
KEVIN CARROLL Subcommittee Staff Director
ELI HOPSON Republican Professional Staff Member
DAHLIA SOKOLOV Republican Professional Staff Member
CHARLES COOKE Democratic Professional Staff Member
COLIN HUBBELL Staff Assistant
------
Subcommittee on Research
BOB INGLIS, South Carolina, Chairman
LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington VACANCY
MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana VACANCY
MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas VACANCY
VACANCY
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York BART GORDON, Tennessee
DAN BYERS Subcommittee Staff Director
JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member
MELE WILLIAMS Professional Staff Member/Chairman's Designee
ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members
RACHEL JAGODA BRUNETTE Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
July 20, 2005
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Judy Biggert, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives. 8
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives.. 8
Written Statement............................................ 9
Statement by Representative Michael M. Honda, Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S.
House of Representatives....................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 11
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 13
Witnesses:
Mr. Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 15
Biography.................................................... 21
Dr. David L. Bodde, Director, Innovation and Public Policy,
International Center for Automotive Research, Clemson
University
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 24
Biography.................................................... 32
Mr. Mark Chernoby, Vice President, Advanced Vehicle Engineering,
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 36
Biography.................................................... 44
Dr. George W. Crabtree, Director, Materials Science Division,
Argonne National Laboratory
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 45
Biography.................................................... 48
Dr. John B. Heywood, Director, Sloan Automotive Laboratory,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Written Statement............................................ 50
Biography.................................................... 62
Discussion....................................................... 62
Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.......... 92
Dr. David L. Bodde, Director, Innovation and Public Policy,
International Center for Automotive Research, Clemson
University..................................................... 96
Mr. Mark Chernoby, Vice President, Advanced Vehicle Engineering,
DaimlerChrysler Corporation.................................... 98
Dr. George W. Crabtree, Director, Materials Science Division,
Argonne National Laboratory.................................... 99
Dr. John B. Heywood, Director, Sloan Automotive Laboratory,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.......................... 101
Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation.. 103
Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record
Statement by Michelin North America.............................. 110
Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy, Report of the
Basic Energy Sciences Workshop on Hydrogen Production, Storage,
and Use, May 13-15, 2003....................................... 113
Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry:
The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply, April
2005, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Department of
Agriculture.................................................... 291
FUELING THE FUTURE: ON THE ROAD TO THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY
WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2005
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy, joint with
the Subcommittee on Research,
Committee on Science,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Judy
Biggert [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Energy] and Hon. Bob
Inglis [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, JOINTLY WITH
THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fueling the Future: On the Road
to the Hydrogen Economy
wednesday, july 20, 2005
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
1. Purpose
On Wednesday, July 20, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., the Energy and Research
Subcommittees of the House Science Committee will hold a joint hearing
to examine the progress that has been made in hydrogen research since
the launch of the President's Hydrogen Initiative and the next steps
the Federal Government should take to best advance a hydrogen economy.
2. Witnesses
Mr. Douglas Faulkner is the Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy (DOE).
Dr. David Bodde is the Director of Innovation and Public Policy at
Clemson University's International Center for Automotive Research
(ICAR).
Mr. Mark Chernoby is Vice President for Advanced Vehicle Engineering at
the DaimlerChrysler Corporation.
Dr. George Crabtree is the Director of the Materials Science Division
at Argonne National Laboratory.
Dr. John Heywood is the Director of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
3. Overarching Questions
The hearing will focus on the following overarching questions:
1. What progress has been made toward addressing the principal
technical barriers to a successful transition to the use of
hydrogen as a primary transportation fuel since the
Administration announced its hydrogen initiatives, FreedomCAR
and the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative? What are the
remaining potential technical ``showstoppers?''
2. What are the research areas where breakthroughs are needed
to advance a hydrogen economy? How has DOE responded to the
report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) calling for an
increased emphasis on basic research? How is DOE incorporating
the results of the Basic Energy Sciences workshop on basic
research needs for a hydrogen economy into the research agenda
for the hydrogen initiative?
3. The NAS report suggested that the research agenda should be
developed with future policy decisions in mind. How has DOE
increased its policy analysis capabilities as recommended by
the NAS? How will the results of that analysis be applied to
the research agenda?
4. Overview
In his 2003 State of the Union speech, President Bush
announced the creation of a new Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which
built on the FreedomCAR initiative announced in 2002. Together,
the initiatives aim to provide the technology for a hydrogen-
based transportation economy, including production of hydrogen,
transportation and distribution of hydrogen, and the vehicles
that will use the hydrogen. Fuel cell cars running on hydrogen
would emit only water vapor and, if domestic energy sources
were used, would not be dependent on foreign fuels.
Industry is participating in the hydrogen
initiatives, and has invested heavily in hydrogen technology,
particularly the automobile manufacturers and oil companies.
The FreedomCAR program is a partnership between Ford, GM,
DaimlerChrysler, and the Federal Government, and the
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative expanded that partnership
to include major oil companies such as Shell and BP, and
merchant producers of hydrogen like Air Products and Chemicals,
Inc. Although exact amounts of industry investment are
proprietary, GM alone is estimated to have spent over $1.5
billion, and other automakers have invested similar amounts.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended
changes to the hydrogen initiatives in its 2004 report, The
Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D
Needs. The report particularly stressed the need for a greater
emphasis on basic, exploratory research because of the
significant technical barriers that must be overcome. DOE has
responded by expanding the hydrogen program into the Office of
Science, and has requested $33 million for fiscal year 2006
(FY06) to fund basic research efforts in DOE's Office of
Science.
In addition, the NAS report noted that DOE needs to
think about policy questions as it develops its research and
development (R&D) agenda: ``Significant industry investments in
advance of market forces will not be made unless government
creates a business environment that reflects societal
priorities with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and oil
imports.. . .The DOE should estimate what levels of investment
over time are required--and in which program and project
areas--in order to achieve a significant reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles by mid-century.'' DOE
has expanded its hydrogen policy and analysis efforts to be
able to answer questions like those posed by the NAS, but the
analytical work is still in progress, and available results are
still preliminary.
Even with the most optimistic of assumptions, it will
take some time for hydrogen vehicles to compose a significant
part of the automobile fleet. The NAS estimates that sales of
hydrogen vehicles will not be significant enough for the full
benefits of a hydrogen economy to be realized at least until
2025.
During the transition to a hydrogen economy, many of
the technologies being developed for hydrogen vehicles, such as
hybrid systems technology and advanced lightweight materials
could be deployed in conventional automobiles to provide
reduced oil dependence and emissions. Without the proper
incentives, vehicle improvements are likely to continue to be
used to increase performance, rather than improving fuel
economy, as they have been for the past twenty years. The
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if today's
vehicles had the same weight and acceleration as cars did in
1987, they would get 20 percent better gas mileage due to
technology improvements.
5. Background
What are the technical challenges?
Major advances are needed across a wide range of technologies for
hydrogen to be affordable, safe, cleanly produced, and readily
distributed. The production, storage and use of hydrogen all present
significant technical challenges. While the research effort at DOE has
produced promising results, the program is still a long way from
meeting its goals in any of these areas.
Hydrogen does not exist in a usable form in nature, and has to be
produced from something else, such as coal or natural gas. But one goal
of using hydrogen is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. If hydrogen
is to be produced without emissions of carbon dioxide, then the
technology to capture and store carbon dioxide while making hydrogen
must improve significantly. The other main goal of using hydrogen is to
reduce the use of imported energy. Today most hydrogen is produced from
natural gas, but in order to supply the entire transportation sector
significant imports of natural gas would be required. Other possible
means of producing hydrogen, including nuclear energy and renewable
energy sources, are inherently cleaner than coal, but are far from
affordable with existing technology.
Another major hurdle is finding ways to store hydrogen,
particularly on board a vehicle. Hydrogen is a small molecule with
properties that make it difficult to store in small volumes and in
lightweight materials. The American Physical Society argued in its 2004
report on hydrogen, The Hydrogen Initiative, that a new material would
have to be discovered in order to meet the FreedomCAR goals.
The NAS estimated that fuel cells themselves would need a ten- to
twenty-fold improvement before fuel cell vehicles become competitive
with conventional technology. Large improvements have been made since
the report has been released, but additional improvements are still
needed. DOE estimates that roughly a five-fold decrease in cost will be
required, while at the same time increasing performance and durability.
Current fuel cells wear out quickly, and lifetimes are far short of
those required to compete with a gasoline engine. Small-scale
distributed hydrogen production also needs improvement, and the NAS
report recommended increased focus in that area because it may be among
the first hydrogen-related technologies to be deployed.
What are the non-technical challenges, in the policy and regulatory
areas?
Since many of the benefits of a hydrogen economy, such as reduced
greenhouse gas emissions, are not currently accounted for in the
marketplace, it will be difficult for hydrogen vehicles to compete with
conventional technology. Even if all the technical challenges are met,
and industry has the capability to produce hydrogen vehicles that are
competitive with conventional vehicles, a successful hydrogen economy
is not guaranteed. First, the transition to a hydrogen economy will
require an enormous investment to create a new infrastructure. Changes
in regulation, training and public habits and attitudes will also be
necessary. Estimates of the cost of creating a fueling infrastructure
(replacing or altering gas stations and distribution systems) alone are
in the hundreds of billions of dollars. DOE is initiating an effort to
better understand the economics and influences of policy incentives on
a possible transition to hydrogen.
How are the Hydrogen Initiatives funded?
The FreedomCAR and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative are expected to
cost $1.7 billion over five years from FY03 to FY08. The President
called for $358 million across DOE for these programs in the FY06
request, an increase of $48 million, 16 percent over levels
appropriated for the initiatives in FY05. However, this increase comes
at a time when R&D programs in the other energy efficiency and
renewable energy programs are seeing decreasing requests overall, by
$74 million, 10 percent to $692 million. Unless additional funding is
provided to renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at DOE in
general, the projected further increases in the FreedomCAR and Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative will likely result in more cuts to other efficiency and
renewable programs.
Technology Background
What is a Fuel Cell?
Central to the operation of the hydrogen-based economy is a device
known as a fuel cell that would convert hydrogen fuels to electricity.
In cars, these devices would be connected to electric motors that would
provide the power now supplied by gasoline engines. A fuel cell
produces electricity by means of an electrochemical reaction much like
a battery. There is an important difference, however. Rather than using
up the chemicals inside the cells, a fuel cell uses hydrogen fuel, and
oxygen extracted from the air, to produce electricity. As long as
hydrogen fuel and oxygen are fed into the fuel cell, it will continue
to generate electric power.
Different types of fuel cells work with different electrochemical
reactions. Currently most automakers are considering Proton Exchange
Membrane (PEM) fuel cells for their vehicles.
Benefits of a Hydrogen-based Economy
A hydrogen-based economy could have two important benefits. First,
hydrogen can be manufactured from a variety of sources, including
natural gas, biofuels, petroleum, coal, and even by passing electricity
through water (electrolysis). Depending on the choice of source,
hydrogen could substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil and
natural gas.
Second, the consumption of hydrogen through fuel cells yields water
as its only emission. Other considerations, such as the by-products of
the hydrogen production process, will also be important in choosing the
source of the hydrogen. For example, natural gas is the current
feedstock for industrial hydrogen, but its production releases carbon
dioxide; production from coal releases more carbon dioxide and other
emissions; and production from water means that pollution may be
created by the generation of electricity used in electrolysis.
Production from solar electricity would mean no pollution in the
generation process or in consumption, but is currently more expensive
and less efficient than other methods.
6. Witnesses Questions
The witnesses have been asked to address the following questions in
their testimony:
Mr. Douglas Faulkner:
What progress has been made toward addressing the
principal technical barriers to a successful transition to the
use of hydrogen as a primary transportation fuel since the
Administration announced its hydrogen initiatives, FreedomCAR
and the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative? What are the
remaining potential technical ``showstoppers?''
What are the research areas where breakthroughs are
needed to advance a hydrogen economy? How has DOE responded to
the report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) calling
for an increased emphasis on basic research? How is DOE
incorporating the results of the Basic Energy Sciences workshop
on basic research needs for a hydrogen economy into the
research agenda for the hydrogen initiative?
The NAS report suggested that the research agenda
should be developed with future policy decisions in mind. How
has DOE increased its policy analysis capabilities as
recommended by the NAS? How will the results of that analysis
be applied to the research agenda?
How is DOE conducting planning for, and analysis of,
the policy changes (such as incentives or regulation) that
might be required to accelerate a transition to hydrogen? What
other agencies are involved in planning for, or facilitating,
such a transition?
Mr. Mark Chrenoby:
What criteria does DaimlerChrysler consider when
making investment decisions regarding its portfolio of advanced
vehicle research and development programs? What factors would
induce DaimlerChrysler to invest more in the development of
hydrogen-fueled vehicles? What do you see as a probable
timeline for the commercialization of hydrogen-fueled vehicles?
What about the other advanced vehicle technologies
DaimlerChrysler is currently developing, such as hybrid
vehicles and advanced diesel engines?
What do you see as the potential technology
showstoppers for a hydrogen economy? To what extent is Daimler
relying on government programs to help solve those technical
challenges?
How are automakers using, or how do they plan to use,
the advanced vehicle technology developed for hydrogen-fueled
vehicles to improve the performance of conventional vehicles?
Dr. David Bodde:
What progress has been made toward addressing the
principal technical barriers to a successful transition to the
use of hydrogen as a primary transportation fuel since the
Administration announced its hydrogen initiatives, FreedomCAR
and the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative? What are the
remaining potential technical ``showstoppers?''
What are the research areas where breakthroughs are
needed to advance a hydrogen economy? How has DOE responded to
the report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) calling
for an increased emphasis on basic research? How is DOE
incorporating the results of the Basic Energy Sciences workshop
on basic research needs for a hydrogen economy into the
research agenda for the hydrogen initiative?
Is the current balance between funding of hydrogen-
related research and research on advanced vehicle technologies
that might be deployed in the interim before a possible
transition to hydrogen appropriate? What advanced vehicle
choices should the Federal Government be funding between now
and when the transition to a hydrogen economy occurs? How are
automakers using, or how do they plan to use, the advanced
vehicle technology developed for hydrogen-fueled vehicles to
improve the performance of conventional vehicles? Are
automakers likely to improve fuel economy and introduce
advanced vehicles without government support? How will ICAR
encourage automakers to introduce technologies to improve fuel
economy?
What role do entrepreneurs, start-up companies, and
venture capital investors have to play in accelerating the
commercial introduction of advanced hydrogen-fueled vehicles?
Dr. George Crabtree:
What progress has been made toward addressing the
principal technical barriers to a successful transition to the
use of hydrogen as a primary transportation fuel since the
Administration announced its hydrogen initiatives, FreedomCAR
and the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative? What are the
remaining potential technical ``showstoppers?''
What are the research areas where breakthroughs are
needed to advance a hydrogen economy? How has DOE responded to
the report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) calling
for an increased emphasis on basic research? How is DOE
incorporating the results of the Basic Energy Sciences workshop
on basic research needs for a hydrogen economy into the
research agenda for the hydrogen initiative?
The NAS report suggested that the research agenda
should be developed with future policy decisions in mind. How
has DOE increased its policy analysis capabilities as
recommended by the NAS? How will the results of that analysis
be applied to the research agenda?
How is DOE conducting planning for, and analysis of,
the policy changes (such as incentives or regulation) that
might be required to accelerate a transition to hydrogen? What
other agencies are involved in planning for, or facilitating,
such a transition?
Dr. John Heywood:
How might the future regulatory environment,
including possible incentives for advances vehicles and
regulations of safety and emissions, affect a transition to
hydrogen-fueled motor vehicles? How could the Federal
Government most efficiently accelerate such a transition?
Is the current balance between funding of hydrogen-
related research and research on advanced vehicle technologies
that might be deployed in the interim before a possible
transition to hydrogen appropriate? What advanced vehicle
choices should the Federal Government be funding between now
and when the transition to a hydrogen economy occurs? How are
automakers using, or how do they plan to use, the advanced
vehicle technology developed for hydrogen-fueled vehicles to
improve the performance of conventional vehicles? Are
automakers likely to improve fuel economy and introduce
advanced vehicles without government support?
What role should the Federal Government play in the
standardization of local and international codes and standards
that affect hydrogen-fueled vehicles, such as building, safety,
interconnection, and fire codes?
Chairwoman Biggert. Good morning. I want--the hearing will
come to order.
I want to welcome everyone to this joint hearing of the
Energy and Research Subcommittees of the House Science
Committee. Today, we are going to get a status report on the
progress of federal research efforts driving the development of
fuel cells and the hydrogen to power them.
This hearing has become something of an annual tradition
for the Science Committee. We have had a Full--we have had Full
Committee hearings, field hearings, and Energy Subcommittee
hearings on this topic. This year, I am pleased that our
colleagues in the Research Subcommittee are joining us to
examine the contributions of individual researchers and
university research activities to the hydrogen and FreedomCAR
initiatives.
At this time, it is a privilege for me to recognize my
colleague from South Carolina, the Chairman of the Research
Subcommittee, Mr. Inglis, for his opening statement.
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Good morning. And I am excited about convening this
hearing. It is the first on the hydrogen economy this Congress,
I believe. And this topic has the potential for being the next
``giant leap for mankind.'' That is certainly our hope.
The way I see it, there are three keys necessary to unlock
the door to a full hydrogen economy. The first is commitment.
The second is collaboration. And the third is discovery.
We need a commitment from the United States similar to the
one that President Kennedy made when he challenged Congress in
1961 to land a man on the Moon before the end of the decade.
The President's hydrogen fuel initiative and FreedomCAR are
steps in the right direction, and I welcome the testimony on
the progress that has been made on these initiatives to date.
Strong public and private collaboration is the second
imperative if we are to see real and hopeful ahead-of-schedule
success. And in my District, Clemson University is building the
International Center for Automotive Research, ICAR, funded in
significant part by BMW and Michelin. At ICAR, researchers will
do what they do best, industry will do what it does best, and
markets will establish the winners and losers. You will hear
more about this collaborative effort today from Dr. David
Bodde, Director of Innovation and Public Policy at ICAR.
The third key, discovery, is where our greatest challenges
lie. That is why it is critically important that we fund basic
research supporting the production, storage, and distribution
of hydrogen. The development of a hydrogen economy depends on
breakthroughs in these areas. At the same time, we should also
be pursuing other advanced technologies, such as better
batteries, photovoltaic cells that may take us to a new plateau
of energy independence.
One of these technologies may turn out to be the ``8-
track'' of the hydrogen economy. Another may be the ``cassette
player,'' yet another unknown technology may prove to be the
``CD'' of automobiles, which, in turn, may be followed by the
MP3.
Transition to a hydrogen economy holds great promise on
many levels. All along the way, the air will be getting
cleaner, the oil pressure could come off the Middle East,
entrepreneurs will be making money and employing people, and we
will be winning our energy independence.
Admittedly, there are technology and cost challenges ahead
of us, but I do not believe them to be insurmountable. In fact,
I think we are definitely up to the challenge.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on all of
these issues, and I thank you, Madame Chairman, for convening
your hearing.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Bob Inglis
Good morning, and thank you Madam Chairman for bringing us together
for our first hearing on the hydrogen economy this Congress. I am
pleased that we have convened this joint hearing on an issue that I
believe has the potential to be the next ``giant leap for mankind.''
The way I see it, there are three keys necessary to unlock the door
to a full hydrogen economy: (1) commitment, (2) collaboration and (3)
discovery.
We need a commitment in the U.S. similar to the one we made when
President Kennedy challenged Congress in 1961 to land a man on the Moon
before the end of the decade. The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
and FreedomCAR are steps in the right direction, and I welcome the
testimony on the progress that has been made on these initiatives to
date.
Strong public and private collaboration is imperative if we are to
see real and, hopefully, ahead-of-schedule success. In my district,
Clemson University is building the International Center for Automotive
Research (ICAR), funded in significant part by BMW and Michelin. At
ICAR, researchers will do what they do best; industry will do what it
does best; and the markets will establish winners and losers. You will
hear more about this collaborative effort today from Dr. David Bodde,
Director of Innovation and Public Policy at ICAR.
The third key, discovery, is where our greatest challenges lie.
That is why it is critically important that we fund basic research
supporting the production, storage and distribution of hydrogen. The
development of a hydrogen economy depends on breakthroughs in these
areas. At the same time, we should also be pursuing other advanced
technologies such as better batteries and photovoltaic cells that may
take us to a new plateau of energy dependence. One of these
technologies may turn out to be the eight-track of the hydrogen
economy. Another may be the cassette player. Yet another yet-unknown
technology may prove to be the CD of automobiles, which, in turn, may
be followed by the MP3.
The transition to a hydrogen economy holds great promise on many
levels. All along the way, the air will be getting cleaner, the oil
pressure will be coming off the Middle East, entrepreneurs will be
making money and employing people, and we will be winning our energy
independence. Admittedly, there are technology and cost challenges
ahead of us, but I do not believe them to be insurmountable. In fact, I
think we're definitely up to the challenge.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on all of these
issues.
Chairwoman Biggert. Well, thank you, Chairman Inglis.
At last year's hearing on this topic, we closely examined
two reports, one prepared by the National Academy of Sciences,
the other by the American Physical Society, both of which
emphasized the importance of basic research to the long-term
success of the President's hydrogen and FreedomCAR initiatives.
I am pleased that President Bush took these recommendations
to heart and increased funding in his fiscal year 2006 budget
request for the Department of Energy's Office of Science to
address some of the fundamental obstacles to greater use of
hydrogen and fuel cells. I am anxious to hear how the results
of this basic research are being incorporated into the fuel
cell and hydrogen technologies under development and how they
are shaping the research agenda going forward.
I think that research designed to benefit the Nation
significantly in the long-term could benefit us marginally in
the near-term, ultimately giving us the greater return on our
investments in hydrogen and fuel cell research. We couldn't ask
for more in this era of tight budgets. We have a diverse panel
of witnesses today representing some exceptional institutions
engaged in all kinds of hydrogen and fuel research.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggert follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Judy Biggert
This hearing will give this committee another opportunity to get an
update on the work underway at the Department of Energy as part of the
President's Hydrogen Fuel and FreedomCAR initiatives. I also want to
thank the witnesses for being so generous with their time, and for
agreeing to share with us their insight and expertise on the topics of
fuel cells and hydrogen.
I have a keen interest in both the fuel cell and hydrogen
initiatives that the President announced in 2002 and 2003 respectively.
My district is, of course, home to Argonne National Laboratory, which
has a strong fuel cell R&D program. My district also is home to small
businesses like H2Fuels and various auto parts suppliers, corporations
like BP, and research organizations like the Gas Technology Institute.
In short, I have the privilege to represent a region that has much to
contribute to the continued development of fuel cells and the hydrogen
needed to fuel them.
As I've said many times before, I do not believe that affordable
energy and a clean and safe environment are mutually exclusive. America
has the ingenuity and the expertise to meet our future energy demands
and promote energy conservation, and we can do so in environmentally
responsible ways that set a standard for the world. Most importantly,
America now has the motivation perhaps like no other time since the oil
crisis of the `70's - to find newer and better ways to meet our energy
needs.
There clearly are many compelling reasons to work towards our
shared vision of a hydrogen economy. Today, we will hear testimony not
only about the progress DOE has made already in hydrogen research but
also about those research questions--both basic and applied--that
remain as questions yet to be solved. While we want to know about any
potential scientific or technical ``showstoppers,'' we also want to
know whether there are any new problems that have been identified as a
result of on-going research. We will hear testimony about how DOE is
incorporating the results of basic research needs for a hydrogen
economy into the research agenda for the hydrogen initiative. Finally,
we will hear how the Department's hydrogen research agenda has been
modified to account for anticipated future policy decisions, as
suggested by the National Academy of Sciences.
It is clear that the vision of a hydrogen economy is a tremendously
challenging endeavor. But, it is also clear that it will take us many
years to reach our goal. Once they become available, hydrogen vehicles
will require a number of years until they compose a significant part of
the automobile fleet. The NAS estimates that sales of hydrogen vehicles
will not be significant enough for the full benefits of a hydrogen
economy to be realized at least until 2025. In light of that, we need
to next ask, ``Are we working to meet our goals in the best way that we
can?''
I would also observe that during the transition to a hydrogen
economy, many technologies developed for hydrogen vehicles--such as
hybrid systems technology and advanced lightweight materials--could be
deployed in conventional automobiles to provide reduced oil dependence
and emissions. Congress and the Administration need to understand
whether we can design proper incentives so that those technologies are
deployed for improving the fuel economy of conventional automobiles,
rather than continuing an exclusive focus on ever increasing
performance, as has been the norm for the past twenty years. We need to
next ask, ``Are we getting all the benefits we can from our investment
in hydrogen research?''
Our job at this hearing is to look at what we've learned in our
initial research efforts, and to gain insight into whether we have an
appropriately balanced research effort. I look forward to hearing more
about how the DOE is moving the Nation ever-closer to realizing the
promise and potential of fuel cells and hydrogen.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Biggert. But before we hear from them, I want to
recognize the Ranking Member of the Energy Subcommittee, Mr.
Honda from California, for his opening statement.
Mr. Honda. Thank you, Madame Chair, and I do appreciate the
Chair's work in putting this hearing together.
At a Full Committee hearing held earlier this year, we
heard about two reports, which suggested that resources should
be directed away from demonstration projects and towards more
basic R&D because there are significant technical barriers to
overcome.
I agree that there are many technical barriers to be
overcome, but I also note that demonstration programs have
served to help us identify some of those technical barriers.
I hope that the witnesses can comment on the role that
the--that investments made in demonstration projects by other
agencies can play in helping the Department of Energy's work to
make hydrogen feasible. For example, the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority's Zero-Emission Bus program is funded
by a transit sales tax, the Federal Transit Administration, the
California Energy Commission, and the Bay Air Quality
Management District.
It will be useful to know whether DOE is able to work with
programs like this to gain knowledge about the infrastructure
needs and identify potential technical obstacles that we will
need to overcome.
Finally, we must remember that hydrogen is not an energy
source, it is an energy carrier. We cannot afford to look at
only the hydrogen piece of the puzzle. We must figure out where
we are going to get that hydrogen.
I hope that the witnesses will discuss whether we are doing
the necessary work to develop the electricity-generating
infrastructure that will clearly be necessary to provide the
fuel for hydrogen vehicles.
I look forward to this hearing and hope that the witnesses
can address some of these concerns. And I yield back the
balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Michael M. Honda
Chairman Inglis, Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member Hooley, thank
you all for holding this hearing today to receive updates on the
progress that is being made in addressing technical barriers to the use
of hydrogen in vehicles.
At a Full Committee hearing held earlier this year, we heard
testimony about two reports which suggested that resources should be
directed away from demonstration projects and towards more basic R&D
because there are significant technical barriers to overcome.
I agree with the conclusion that there are many technical barriers
to be overcome, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses their
thoughts on the breakthroughs they believe will need to be made in
order to overcome these barriers.
But I also note that prior demonstration programs have served to
help to identify some of the very technical barriers that an increased
emphasis on research would aim to overcome. I fear that we might miss
more obstacles until after we have made significant investments of time
and resources if we stop working on demonstration projects.
I hope that the witnesses can comment on the role that investments
made in demonstration projects by other agencies can play in helping
the Department of Energy's work to make hydrogen feasible. For example,
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority's Zero Emission Bus
program is funded by a transit sales tax, the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA), the California Energy Commission (CEC), and the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
It will be useful to know whether DOE is able to work with programs
like this to gain knowledge about infrastructure needs and identify
potential technical obstacles that we will need to overcome.
Finally, we must remember that hydrogen is not an energy source, it
is an energy carrier. We cannot just look at the hydrogen piece of the
equation, assuming that an infinite supply of fuel will be available
for vehicles if only we can make those vehicles.
Where is the energy going to come from to produce hydrogen?
Converting natural gas is one option, but supplies of that fuel are
already limited.
Barring that, a switch to hydrogen vehicles looks like it will also
require a commensurate increase electricity generating capacity to
supply the fuel. I hope the witnesses will discuss whether we are
undertaking the necessary efforts to address this critical piece of the
puzzle.
I look forward to this hearing, and hope the witnesses can address
some of these concerns. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you, Mr. Honda.
Any additional opening statement submitted by the Members
may be added to the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before
our committee to examine the progress that has been made in hydrogen
research since the launch of the President's Hydrogen Initiative. A
greater reliance on hydrogen requires modification of our existing
energy infrastructure to ensure greater availability of this new fuel
source. Making the transition to a hydrogen economy will require an
enormous investment to create a new infrastructure. It is my
understanding that the Department of Energy is initiating an effort to
better understand the economics and influences of policy incentives on
a possible transition to hydrogen. Since the President's Initiative has
left many questions unanswered, I am hopeful our witnesses here today
will provide more insight into the funding and technology challenges
facing the Hydrogen Initiative.
I agree that a hydrogen-based economy could have important benefits
that could help relieve our dependence on foreign oil. First, hydrogen
can be manufactured from a variety of sources, such as coal. I strongly
support the President's Integrated Sequestration and Hydrogen Research
Initiative, entitled FutureGen, which is a coal-fired electric and
hydrogen production plant. The prototype plant will serve as a large-
scale engineering laboratory for testing and will expand the options
for producing hydrogen from coal.
As the Administration begins to consider locations for the new
plant, I would hope they would consider Southern Illinois. I have led
the effort to locate FutureGen in Illinois, including leading a
bipartisan effort in the House to secure funding for the project. The
region is rich in high-sulfur coal reserves and the Coal Center at
Southern Illinois University Carbondale (SIU-C) has been doing
extensive work with hydrogen and coal. The geology of the region is
well suited to the carbon-trapping technology to be developed and
Illinois is home to oil and gas reserves and deep saline aquifers that
can permanently sequester carbon dioxide.
I have been tracking this issue closely since its inception and I
am anxious to see the Department's program plan. This Administration
has touted FutureGen as one of the most important climate change
technologies at our disposal and heightened its international
visibility to extraordinary levels and I am committed to working with
my colleagues and the Administration to move forward on a path that is
technically, financially, and politically viable.
I again thank the witnesses for being with us today and providing
testimony to our committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee
Let me thank Chairwoman Biggert and Ranking Member Honda of the
Energy Subcommittee as well as Chairman Inglis and Ranking Member
Holley of the Research Subcommittee for holding this joint hearing on
the future of hydrogen energy. Clearly, hydrogen technologies hold
great potential; however we do not know how long it will be before
hydrogen can represent a significant portion of our fuel consumption. I
hope this hearing will shed some light on the path that we must take to
make the potential of hydrogen into a reality.
In his 2003 State of the Union speech, President Bush announced the
creation of a new Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which built on the
FreedomCAR initiative announced in 2002. Together, the initiatives aim
to provide the technology for a hydrogen-based transportation economy,
including production of hydrogen, transportation and distribution of
hydrogen, and the vehicles that will use the hydrogen. Fuel cell cars
running on hydrogen would emit only water vapor and provide
environmental benefits in addition to being an alternative source of
energy.
However, as I stated we must make this potential in to a reality
and we are not yet at that point. The National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) recommended changes to the hydrogen initiatives in its 2004
report, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D
Needs. The report particularly stressed the need for a greater emphasis
on basic, exploratory research because of the significant technical
barriers that must be overcome. The Department of Energy (DOE) has
responded by expanding the hydrogen program into the Office of Science,
and has requested $33 million for fiscal year 2006 (FY06) to fund basic
research efforts in DOE's Office of Science.
The fact is that even with the most optimistic of assumptions, it
will take some time for hydrogen vehicles to compose a significant part
of the automobile fleet. The NAS estimates that sales of hydrogen
vehicles will not be significant enough for the full benefits of a
hydrogen economy to be realized at least until 2025. But, this should
not be a deterrent to developing hydrogen technology, instead it should
serve as incentive for the scientific community to move towards this
technology that holds so much promise.
While in this transition to a hydrogen economy, many of the
technologies being developed for hydrogen vehicles, such as hybrid
systems technology and advanced lightweight materials could be deployed
in conventional automobiles to provide reduced oil dependence and
emissions. Without the proper incentives, vehicle improvements are
likely to continue to be used to increase performance, rather than
improving fuel economy, as they have been for the past twenty years. In
fact the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if today's
vehicles had the same weight and acceleration as cars did in 1987, they
would get 20 percent better gas mileage due to technology improvements.
I sincerely hope that we use our resources to improve gas mileage and
make hydrogen technology a reality for the American public.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Russ Carnahan
I am pleased that we are holding this very important hearing this
morning.
The U.S. Federal Government often serves the role of jump-starting
research in fields that cannot be immediately lucrative, yet provide
American citizens the promise of improved health, efficiency, or
lifestyle. We again find ourselves in this role, and we must do our
best to advance a hydrogen economy in this country.
I am particularly interested in the FreedomCAR program that
partners with DaimlerChrysler. As we recognize the potential of
FreedomCAR and the hydrogen initiative, I am excited about the promise
that developments in this field may provide for many of my constituents
who are employees of Chrysler.
Furthermore, I would like to recognize the good research being
conducted at the University of Missouri on the Plug-In Hybrid Power
System Partnership for Innovation, a research project that will examine
how regenerative fuel cell systems, which produce high hydrogen and
oxygen pressures, will be designed, fabricated and then demonstrated in
the laboratory.
Thank you for your willingness to join us, Mr. Faulkner, Dr. Bodde,
Mr. Chernoby, Dr. Crabtree and Dr. Heywood. I am eager to hear your
testimony.
Chairwoman Biggert. And at this time, I would like to
introduce all of the witnesses and thank you for coming before
us this morning.
First off, we have Mr. Douglas Faulkner. He is the Acting
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
at the Department of Energy. There is a lot of energy in there.
Dr. David Bodde, Director of Innovation and Public Policy at
Clemson University's International Center for Automotive
Research. And thank you. Mr. Mark Chernoby, Vice President for
Advance Vehicle Engineering at the DaimlerChrysler Corporation.
Thank you. And Dr. George Crabtree, Director of the Materials
Science Division at Argonne National Laboratory, a familiar
place. And Dr. John Heywood, Director of the Sloan Automotive
Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Welcome.
As the witnesses probably know, spoken testimony will be
limited to five minutes each, after which the Members will have
five minutes each to ask questions. This is Wednesday and one
of, probably, our busiest days, so we are going to be pretty
strict on the time, if you can keep it to five minutes.
We will begin with Mr. Faulkner. And the fact that there
are two Committees here, we expect a lot of questions.
So we will begin with Mr. Faulkner.
STATEMENT OF MR. DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER, ACTING ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
Mr. Faulkner. Thank you.
Madame Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittees, I appreciate the opportunity today to testify on
the Department's hydrogen program.
Since President Bush launched the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
over two years ago, we have made tremendous progress. We have
implemented valuable feedback from the National Academy of
Sciences and the Department's Basic Energy Sciences Workshop
and are already seeing results. In fact, as we speak, the
Academy is completing its biannual review of the program and
will publish its findings in coming weeks.
The Academy called for us to improve integration and
balance of activities within the relevant offices of the
Department of Energy's Renewables, Nuclear, Fossil, Science,
prioritizing the efforts within and across program areas,
establishing milestones, and go/no-go directions. We have done
this. In the Hydrogen Posture Plan, we have identified
strategies and milestones to enable a 2015 industry
commercialization decision on the viability of hydrogen and
fuel cell technologies. Each office has, in turn, developed a
detailed research plan, which outlines how the high-level
milestones will be supported. We are now implementing these
research plans, and we are making tangible progress.
The Department competitively selected over $510 million in
total federal funding for projects to address critical
challenges. Of these projects, the Office of Science announced
70 new competitively selected projects, $64 million over three
years. Topics include new materials for hydrogen storage and
development of catalysts at the nanoscale, all recommended by
the Basic Energy Sciences Workshop. Sixty-five projects were
initiated on hydrogen production and delivery, funded at $170
million over four years. And the results here are already
promising.
We believe we can meet our goal of $2 to $3 gallon of
gasoline equivalent, which is independent of the production
pathway. The basic research component of the program is
especially valuable to long-term concepts, such as
photoelectrochemical hydrogen production. I would also like to
underscore that our ultimate hydrogen production strategy is
carbon-neutral and emphasizes resource diversity.
We launched a Grand Challenge focusing on materials
discovery and development of hydrogen storage, one of the
critical technologies for the hydrogen economy. We established
a National Hydrogen Storage project at over $150 million over
five years, including three Centers of Excellence with multi-
disciplinary teams of university, industry, and federal
laboratories.
Closely coordinated with the new Office of Science
Research, our activities address the Academy's recommendation
to shift toward more exploratory work as well as to partner
with a broader range of academic and industrial organizations.
We are already seeing results from this work, too.
Recent progress in materials discovery allows hydrogen to
be stored at low temperature--low pressures and modest
temperatures. We need both fundamental understanding and
engineering solutions to address key issues, like charging and
discharging hydrogen at practical temperatures and pressures.
To address fuel cell cost and durability, a new $75 million
solicitation will soon be released, complementing the current
$17.5 million solicitation on new membrane materials as well as
existing efforts. Results are already being achieved.
As highlighted by Secretary Bodman in earlier Congressional
testimony, this high-volume cost of automotive fuel cells was
reduced from $275 per kilowatt to $200 per kilowatt. And the
Office of Science has initiated new basic research projects on
nanoscale catalysts and membrane materials for fuel cell design
and applications.
Through better techniques for fabricating electrodes and
new strategies for improved durability, we believe the targets
we have set are achievable. We must keep sight of our ultimate
goal to transfer research to the real world, and we have
complemented our research efforts with a learning demonstration
activity. We conduct research on safety codes and standards
working with the Department of Transportation, standards
development organizations, and other organizations. We are also
creating a road map now with the Department of Commerce and
other federal agencies for developing manufacturing
technologies to bridge the continuum from basic research to
commercialization. That effort will help attract new business
investment, create new high-technology jobs, and build a
competitive U.S. supply base.
The Academy also recommended a systems analysis and
integration activity. We are developing that capability.
Analysis of various scenarios for hydrogen production delivery
are underway. These efforts will be valuable in providing
rigorous data and potential guidance for policy decisions in
future years.
Madame Chairman, Mr. Chairman, the DOE hydrogen program is
committed to a balanced portfolio. We do not do stand-alone
test tube research, but rather we have an integrated effort of
basic, applied, and engineering sciences. This Committee, in
particular, has been instrumental in providing valuable
guidance to us.
This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faulkner follows:]
Prepared Statement of Douglas L. Faulkner
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on the Department of Energy's (DOE or
Department) Hydrogen Program activities which support the President's
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Today I will provide an overview and status
update of the Hydrogen Program's accomplishments and plans.
Over two years ago, in his 2003 State of the Union address,
President Bush announced a $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative over
FY 2004--2008 to reverse America's growing dependence on foreign oil by
developing the hydrogen technologies needed for commercially viable
fuel cells--a way to power cars, trucks, homes, and businesses that
could also significantly reduce criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas
emissions. Since the launch of the Initiative, we have had many
accomplishments on the path to taking hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies from the laboratory to the showroom in 2020, following an
industry commercialization decision in 2015. The Department's Program
encompasses the research and development (R&D) activities necessary to
achieve the President's vision, including basic research, applied
research and technology development, and learning demonstrations that
are an extension of our research. These activities benefit from
detailed planning efforts conducted by the Department, and the National
Academies study and the Office of Science Basic Research Needs for the
Hydrogen Economy workshop, in which two other speakers today, Dr. Bodde
and Dr. Crabtree, have made major contributions. I will talk about
progress in these areas as we continue on the road to solving the
technical barriers that stand between us and this vision of a new
energy future.
Hydrogen Vision and Overview
As a nation, we must work to ensure that we have access to energy
that does not require us to compromise our security or our environment.
Hydrogen offers the opportunity to end petroleum dependence and to
virtually eliminate transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by
addressing the root causes of these issues. Petroleum imports already
supply more than 55 percent of U.S. domestic petroleum requirements,
and those imports are projected to account for 68 percent by 2025 under
a business-as-usual scenario. Transportation accounts for more than
two-thirds of the oil use in the United States, and vehicles contribute
to the Nation's air quality problems and greenhouse gas emissions
because they release criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide.
At the G8 Summit earlier this month, President Bush reiterated his
policy of promoting technological innovation, like the development of
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, to address climate change, reduce
air pollution, and improve energy security in the United States and
throughout the world. The Department's R&D in advanced vehicle
technologies, such as gasoline hybrid electric vehicles, will help
improve energy efficiency and offset growth in the transportation fleet
in the near- to mid-term. But, for the long-term, we ultimately need a
substitute to replace petroleum. Hydrogen and fuel cells, when
combined, have the potential to provide carbon-free, pollution-free
power for transportation.
Hydrogen will be produced from diverse domestic energy resources,
which include biomass, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, solar, wind, and
other renewables. We have planned and are executing a balanced research
portfolio for developing hydrogen production and delivery technologies.
The Department's hydrogen production strategy recognizes that most
hydrogen will likely be produced by technologies that do not require a
new hydrogen delivery infrastructure in the transition to a hydrogen
economy, such as distributed reforming of natural gas and of renewable
liquid fuels like ethanol and methanol. As research, development, and
demonstration efforts progress along renewable, nuclear, and clean coal
pathways, a suite of technologies will become available to produce
hydrogen from a diverse array of domestic resources. These technologies
will be commercialized as market penetration grows and demand for
hydrogen increases.
The economic viability of these different production pathways will
be strongly affected by regional factors, such as feedstock or energy
source availability and cost, delivery approaches, and the regulatory
environment so that each region will tailor its hydrogen infrastructure
to take advantage of its particular resources. Our ultimate hydrogen
production strategy is carbon-neutral and emphasizes diversity. During
the transition, net carbon emissions on a well-to-wheels basis, from
vehicles running on hydrogen produced from natural gas would be 25
percent less than gasoline hybrid vehicles and 50 percent less than
conventional internal combustion engine vehicles. Natural gas is not a
long-term strategy because of import concerns and the demands of other
economic sectors for natural gas. In the long-term, in a hydrogen
economy using renewables, nuclear, and coal with sequestration, near-
zero carbon light duty vehicles are our goal. I want to emphasize that
hydrogen from coal will be produced directly from gasification, not
coal-based electricity. This is consistent with technology currently
under development for carbon capture and sequestration.
My testimony today will specifically address the Subcommittees'
questions:
1. What progress has been made toward addressing the principal
technical barriers to a successful transition to the use of hydrogen as
a primary transportation fuel since the Administration announced its
hydrogen initiatives, FreedomCAR and the President's Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative? What are the remaining potential technical
``showstoppers?''
Progress and Accomplishments
Since the President launched the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, we have
made tremendous progress. The Department has developed a comprehensive
technology development plan, the Hydrogen Posture Plan, fully
integrating the hydrogen research of the Offices of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy; Science; Fossil Energy; and Nuclear Energy,
Science, and Technology. This plan identifies technologies, strategies,
and interim milestones to enable a 2015 industry commercialization
decision on the viability of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. Each
Office has, in turn, developed a detailed research plan which outlines
how the high-level milestones will be supported.
We are now implementing these research, development, and
demonstration plans:
-- Using FY 2004 and FY 2005 appropriations and contingent
upon future appropriations over the next three years, the
Department competitively selected over $510 million in projects
($755 million with cost-share) to address critical challenges
such as fuel cell cost, hydrogen storage, hydrogen production
and delivery cost, diverse ways of producing hydrogen, as well
as research for hydrogen safety, codes and standards.
-- Of this total, 65 projects are for hydrogen production and
delivery, funded at $107 million over four years. These include
hydrogen production from renewables, distributed natural gas,
coal, and nuclear sources.
-- We initiated three Centers of Excellence and 15 independent
projects in Hydrogen Storage at $150 million over five years.
The Centers include 20 universities, nine federal laboratories
and eight industry partners, representing a concerted, multi-
disciplinary effort to address on-board vehicular hydrogen
storage--one of the critical enabling technologies for a
hydrogen economy. These activities are closely coordinated with
the Office of Science research in hydrogen storage.
-- To address fuel cell cost and durability, five new projects
were initiated at $13 million over three years. A new $75
million solicitation will be released this fall to address cost
and durability of fuel cell systems. This is in conjunction
with a $17.5 million solicitation currently open focusing on
R&D addressing new membrane materials.
-- We established a national vehicle and infrastructure
``learning demonstration'' project at $170 million over six
years, with an additional 50 percent cost share by industry.
This effort takes some of the research from the laboratory to
the real world, and is critical to measuring progress and to
providing feedback to our R&D efforts.
-- Most recently, to address basic science for the hydrogen
economy, 70 new projects were selected by the Office of Science
at $64 million over three years to address the fundamental
science underpinning hydrogen production, delivery, storage,
and use. Topics of this basic research include novel materials
for hydrogen storage, membranes for hydrogen separation and
purification, designs of catalysts at the nanoscale, solar
hydrogen production, and bio-inspired materials and processes.
Such research is important for exploring fundamental science
that may be applicable in the long-term and is responsive to
the National Academies' report recommending a shift to more
exploratory research.
With these new competitively selected awards, the best scientists
and engineers from around the Nation are actively engaged. The stage is
now set for results.
Technical Progress
Ongoing research has already led to important technical progress.
-- As highlighted by Secretary Bodman in earlier Congressional
testimony, I am pleased to report that our fuel cell activities
recently achieved an important technology cost goal--the high-
volume cost of automotive fuel cells was reduced from $275 per
kilowatt to $200 per kilowatt. This was accomplished by using
innovative processes developed by national labs and fuel cell
developers for depositing platinum catalyst. This
accomplishment is a major step toward the Program's goal of
reducing the cost of transportation fuel cell power systems to
$45 per kilowatt by 2010.
-- In hydrogen production, we have demonstrated our ability to
produce hydrogen at a cost of $3.60 per gallon of gasoline
equivalent at an integrated fueling station that generates both
electricity and hydrogen. This is down from about $5.00 per
gallon of gasoline equivalent prior to the Initiative.
-- To ensure a balanced portfolio, we must keep sight of our
ultimate goal to transfer research to the real world and we
have complemented our research efforts with a `learning
demonstration' activity. Most importantly, with the `learning
demonstration' activity we have the key industries that will
ultimately have to invest in the hydrogen economy, the auto and
energy companies, working together to ensure seamless
integration of customer acceptable technology. This activity
will evaluate vehicle and refueling infrastructure technologies
under real-world conditions and is key to measuring progress
toward technical targets and to help focus R&D.
2. What are the research areas where breakthroughs are needed to
advance a hydrogen economy? How has the Department of Energy (DOE)
responded to the report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
calling for an increased emphasis on basic research? How is DOE
incorporating the results of the Basic Energy Sciences workshop on
basic research needs for a hydrogen economy into the research agenda
for the hydrogen initiative?
Starting in FY 2005, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of
Science has been included in the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in order to
focus basic research on overcoming key technology hurdles in hydrogen
production, storage, and conversion. The Office of Science-funded
research seeks fundamental understanding in areas such as non-precious-
metal catalysts, membranes for fuel cells and hydrogen separation,
multi-functional nanoscale structures, biological and
photoelectrochemical hydrogen production, and modeling and analytical
tools.
For example, basic research can help address the critical challenge
of hydrogen storage: How do you safely store hydrogen on board a
vehicle to enable customer expectations of greater than 300 mile
driving range, without compromising passenger or cargo space? The
National Academy of Sciences recommended ``a shift. . .away from some
development areas towards more exploratory work'' to address issues
like storage, stating that ``the probability of success is greatly
increased by partnering with a broader range of academic and industrial
organizations. . .'' Through the Department's ``Grand Challenge''
solicitation, a ``National Hydrogen Storage Project'' was established
to broaden our scope. The new awards in basic research, with an
additional $20 million for 17 projects over three years supported by
the Office of Science, are integrated into this national project and
provide value in developing a fundamental understanding of hydrogen
interactions with materials. These multi-disciplinary efforts focused
on materials-based technology for hydrogen storage, directly address
the recommendations from the Basic Energy Sciences workshop on basic
research needs for a hydrogen economy. By implementing the NAS
recommendations, recent progress in materials discovery and technology
allows hydrogen to be stored at low pressures and modest temperatures.
Further basic and applied research will lead to better fundamental
understanding and engineering solutions to address some of the key
storage issues such as charging and discharging hydrogen at practical
temperatures and pressures. Rather than `stand alone' test tube
research, we have an integrated effort to address basic, applied, and
engineering sciences to develop materials and systems for storing
hydrogen.
We face another set of challenges in hydrogen production. In this
area, our research efforts are focused on reducing cost, improving
energy efficiencies, and ensuring a diversity of pathways based on
domestic resources for energy security that do not result in greenhouse
gas emissions. Some pathways are further along in development and will
be commercially viable sooner than others. For the transition, we
envision producing hydrogen from natural gas or renewable liquids such
as ethanol, at the fueling point, thus eliminating the need for a
dedicated hydrogen distribution network. Centralized hydrogen
production from coal with sequestration, biomass, nuclear, and
distribution networks can follow later once market penetration
justifies the capital investment required. Basic science is critical to
understanding materials performance, failure mechanisms, and
theoretical technology limits. The basic research component of the
program contributes to longer-term concepts such as photocatalytic
including biological hydrogen production and direct
photoelectrochemical conversion to produce hydrogen. In fact, we have
nearly $20 million of federal funding in new projects selected by the
Office of Science on solar hydrogen production, membranes for
separation and purification, and for bio-inspired materials and
processes.
As for fuel cells, key issues are cost and durability. Significant
progress has been made by national laboratories as well as industry to
reduce the amount of platinum, and hence cost, within the fuel cell
electrode. In addition to the targeted activities in fuel cells
previously mentioned, the Office of Science has initiated new basic
research projects on the design of catalysts at the nanoscale and
membrane materials related to fuel cell applications. More effective
catalysts, combined with better techniques for fabricating these
membrane electrode assemblies and new strategies for improved
durability of fuel cells, will enable us to meet the aggressive cost
and performance targets we have set for fuel cells. We are also
expanding our activities to include manufacturing issues that will help
take these new technologies from the laboratory to the marketplace.
3. The NAS report suggested that the research agenda should be
developed with future policy decisions in mind. How has DOE increased
its policy analysis capabilities as recommended by the NAS? How will
the results of that analysis be applied to the research agenda?
I would like to emphasize that this Program is a research effort.
However, as stated earlier, in response to the National Academies'
recommendation, the Program has established the Systems Analysis and
Integration effort to provide a disciplined approach to the research,
design, development, and validation of complex systems. A fact-based
analytical approach will be used to develop a balanced portfolio of R&D
projects to support the development of production, delivery, storage,
fuel cell, and safety technologies. Through analysis, the impact of
individual components on the hydrogen energy system as a whole will be
evaluated and the interaction of the components and their effects on
the system will be assessed. Systems Analysis and Integration efforts
will be available to examine and understand the cost implications of
policy and regulations on technology R&D direction. Analysis of various
scenarios for hydrogen production and delivery is critical to the
transition plan for developing the infrastructure and carbon-neutral
hydrogen resources for a hydrogen economy. The planned analysis efforts
will be valuable in providing rigorous data and potential guidance for
policy decisions in future years.
4. How is DOE conducting planning for, and analysis of, the policy
changes (such as incentives or regulation) that might be required to
encourage a transition to hydrogen? What other agencies are involved in
planning for, or facilitating, such a transition?
Currently, the focus of the DOE Hydrogen Program is research and
development to address key technical challenges. Research and
development on the codes and standards necessary to implementing
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies will form a scientific and
technical basis for future regulations. We are actively working with
the Department of Transportation and interface with Standards
Development Organizations (SDOs) and Codes Development Organizations
(CDOs) on safety, codes and standards.
As part of the Systems Analysis efforts, we have started to model
and explore options and pathways to achieve a successful transition to
hydrogen. This effort is in collaboration with the Vehicle Technology
Office and the overall Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy modeling
efforts. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is also providing
guidance. This work includes the incorporation of rigorous hydrogen
production, delivery, and vehicle technology components into the
National Energy Management System (NEMS) model architecture, as well
development of a more detailed transportation sector model that
includes conventional, hybrid, and alternative fuel options. These
modeling efforts will also allow us to examine the potential impacts of
policy and regulations on the introduction and long-term use of
hydrogen.
Now I will talk about our partners and our future plans.
We are working with partners on all fronts to address the
challenges to a hydrogen economy. Under the FreedomCAR and Fuel
Partnership, DOE is collaborating with the U.S. Council for Automotive
Research (USCAR) and five major energy companies to help identify and
evaluate technologies that will meet customer requirements and
establish the business case. Technical teams of research managers from
the automotive and energy industries and DOE are meeting regularly to
establish and update technology roadmaps in each technology area.
An Interagency Hydrogen R&D Task Force has been established by the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to leverage
resources and coordinate interrelated and complementary research across
the entire Federal Government. In 2005, the Task Force has initiated a
plan to coordinate a number of key research activities among the eight
major agencies that fund hydrogen and fuel cell research. Coordination
topics include novel materials for fuel cells and hydrogen storage,
inexpensive and durable catalysts, hydrogen production from alternative
sources, stationary fuel cells, and fuel-cell vehicle demonstrations.
The Task Force has also launched a website, Hydrogen.gov. In the coming
year, the OSTP Task Force plans to sponsor an expert panel on the
contributions that nanoscale research can make to realizing a Hydrogen
Economy.
Last year, we announced the establishment of the International
Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy, or the IPHE. IPHE, which now
includes 16 nations and the European Commission, establishes world-wide
collaboration on hydrogen technology. The nations have agreed to work
cooperatively toward a unifying goal: practical, affordable,
competitively-priced hydrogen vehicles and refueling by 2020; and
projects involving collaboration between different countries are being
proposed and reviewed for selection.
Toward the Hydrogen Future
The Department is looking to the future as well. Just as we have
made tremendous progress, we plan to have significant advances to
report next year on the R&D projects we have launched through the
solicitations I mentioned. The progress will be tracked using
performance-based technical and cost milestones that provide clear and
quantifiable measures. We will report this progress next year to this
Subcommittee, and annually to Congress and to the Office of Management
and Budget. In fact, as we speak, the NAS is completing its biennial
review of the program. We anticipate more valuable feedback and will
have more details to report in the coming months.
For the critical targets, it is important that we verify our
progress in a way that is independent and transparent. In Fiscal Year
2006, the major technical milestones will be assessed using a rigorous
methodology established by the Hydrogen Program.
-- First, in Hydrogen Storage, we will determine the maximum
storage potential of cryogenic-compressed hydrogen tanks and
the feasibility of this technology towards meeting DOE's 2010
targets.
-- Second, in Fuel Cells, we will evaluate fuel cell cost per
kilowatt using current materials to determine if $110/kilowatt
is feasible towards meeting the 2010 target of $45/kilowatt
(assuming high volume manufacturing).
-- And third, in Hydrogen Production, we will determine if the
laboratory research will lead to $3 per gasoline gallon energy
equivalent (gge) using a distributed natural gas reformer
system.
In addition to measuring progress, we continue to develop and
improve processes to facilitate innovation and to accelerate R&D. For
instance, we plan an annual solicitation, starting in 2006, in the
critical area of hydrogen storage to complement the Centers of
Excellence. This will improve our flexibility to continuously evaluate
new ideas and rapidly fund competitively selected projects.
Validation of fuel cell vehicle and hydrogen infrastructure
technologies under `real world' operating conditions is essential to
track progress and to help guide research priorities. Technology and
infrastructure validation will provide essential statistical data on
the status of fuel cell vehicle and infrastructure technologies
relative to targets in the areas of efficiency, durability, storage
system range, and fuel cost. This activity will also provide
information to support the development of codes and standards for the
commercial use of hydrogen, and feedback on vehicle and infrastructure
safety. Through cost-shared partnerships with the energy industry,
Fiscal Year 2006 activities include opening eight hydrogen fueling
stations, and validating performance, safety, and cost of hydrogen
production and delivery technologies. By 2009, the program is expected
to validate fuel cell vehicle durability of 2,000 hours, a 250-mile
vehicle range, and full-scale hydrogen production cost of less than
$3.00 gge.
In addition, a critical need for lowering the costs of hydrogen and
fuel cells is high volume manufacturing processes and techniques.
Manufacturing R&D challenges for a hydrogen economy include developing
innovative, low-cost fabrication processes for new materials and
applications and adapting laboratory fabrication techniques to enable
high volume manufacturing. The Hydrogen Program is working with
Department of Commerce and other federal agencies to create a roadmap
for developing manufacturing technologies for hydrogen and fuel cell
systems as part of the President's Manufacturing Initiative. The
roadmap will help to guide budget requests in Fiscal Year 2007 and
beyond. This work is part of the Interagency Working Group on
Manufacturing R&D, which is chaired by OSTP and includes 14 federal
agencies. The working group has identified nanomanufacturing,
manufacturing R&D for the hydrogen economy, and intelligent and
integrated manufacturing systems as three focus areas for the future.
Manufacturing R&D for the hydrogen economy will be critical in
formulating a strategy to transfer technology successes in the
laboratory to new jobs, new investments, and a competitive U.S.
supplier base in a global economy.
Successful commercialization of hydrogen technologies requires a
comprehensive database on component reliability and safety, published
performance-based domestic standards, and international standards or
regulations that will allow the technologies to compete in a global
market. Initial codes and standards for the commercial use of hydrogen
are only now starting to be published. Research will be conducted in
Fiscal Year 2006 to determine flammability limits and the reactive and
depressive properties of hydrogen under various conditions, and also to
quantify risk. Through such efforts, critical data will be generated to
help write and adopt standards and to develop improved safety systems
and criteria.
Conclusion
Madam Chairman, all the panelists here today will agree that
achieving the vision of the hydrogen energy future is a great
challenge. The DOE Hydrogen Program is committed to a balanced
portfolio, conducting the basic and applied research necessary to
achieve this vision. It will require careful planning and coordination,
public education, technology development, and substantial public and
private investments. It will require a broad political consensus and a
bipartisan approach to achieving the President's vision. We appreciate
the leadership taken by the Senate, and most recently the House, in
establishing Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucuses. By being bold and
innovative, we can change the way we do business here in America; we
can change our dependence upon foreign sources of energy; we can
address the root cause of greenhouse gas emissions; we can help with
the quality of the air; and we can make a fundamental difference for
the future of our children. This committee in particular has been
instrumental in providing that kind of leadership over the years, and
we look forward to continuing this dialogue in the months and years
ahead.
We at the Department of Energy welcome the challenge and
opportunity to play a vital role in this nation's energy future and to
help address our energy security challenges in such a fundamental way.
This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Biography for Douglas L. Faulkner
Douglas Faulkner was appointed by President George W. Bush on June
29, 2001, to serve as the political deputy in the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). This $1.2 billion research and
development organization has over five hundred federal employees in
Washington, D.C. and six regional offices, supported by thousands of
contractors at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and elsewhere.
Mr. Faulkner oversees all aspects of EERE's operations in a close
partnership with the Office's two career Deputy Assistant Secretaries.
He has worked closely with Assistant Secretary David K. Garman to
reorganize EERE, replacing an outdated and fragmented organization with
what arguably is the most innovative business model ever used in the
Federal Government. This has resulted in fewer management layers, fewer
but more productive staff, streamlined procedures, stronger project
management in the field and lower operating costs overall. These
reforms have been recognized as a success by the White House and the
National Association of Public Administration.
Mr. Faulkner organized and led an internal management board which
completely revamped EERE's biomass programs. Many projects were ended
and those funds pooled for an unprecedented solicitation to refocus R&D
for new bio-refineries.
Interviews of Mr. Faulkner about renewable energy and energy
efficiency have appeared on television and radio and in the print
media.
Before assuming his leadership post in EERE, Mr. Faulkner had
progressed rapidly through the ranks of the civil service at the
Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Energy. In his over-
twenty year career he rose from junior China intelligence analyst to a
nationally-recognized leader in bio-based products and a senior policy
advisor to the Secretaries of Energy in both Bush Administrations.
Born and raised in central Illinois, Principal Deputy Faulkner
received a Bachelor's degree in Asian Studies from the University of
Illinois and a Master's degree from the Johns Hopkins University,
School of Advanced International Studies. He also attended the
University of Singapore as a Rotary Scholar. At these institutions, he
studied French and Mandarin Chinese languages. Mr. Faulkner played
intercollegiate basketball at home and abroad.
He is involved in his church and community as well as Boy Scouts
and youth baseball. Mr. Faulkner was appointed in the early 1990s to
two Arlington County, Virginia, economic commissions.
Mr. Faulkner lives in Arlington, Virginia, with his wife and son.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you very much.
And then, Dr. Bodde, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID L. BODDE, DIRECTOR, INNOVATION AND
PUBLIC POLICY, INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH,
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
Dr. Bodde. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
I would like to speak this morning to three basic ideas:
first, the importance of recognizing and focusing on the
transition from the current infrastructure to a hydrogen
infrastructure; second, the need for long-term, fundamental
research to resolve five key questions in the hydrogen economy;
and third, the importance of enabling entrepreneurs and
innovators to take the results of this research and move them
into the marketplace and move them into commercial practice.
Let me take those ideas one at a time.
First, the transition is a competitive transition. I think
it is helpful to think of three competing infrastructures:
first, the internal combustion engine, both spark ignition and
compression ignition, and the fuel industries that have built
up around that, which are perfectly satisfactory from a
consumer point of view, offering mobility services that are
reasonably priced and widely available; the next competing
infrastructure that is emerging into the market, the hybrid
electric vehicle that uses that same fuels infrastructure; and
then the third one, the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the
ultimate competitor that removes oil as the issue in our
national life and removes carbon as an environmental issue.
Now if you look at the competitive battle amongst these
three, there are some lessons that come out of this look for
market share. First, it is a 50-year struggle. It takes a long
time to change out these infrastructures. Second, and equally
important, that means that all three infrastructures will co-
exist during some period during the transition, and that means
the hybrid electric vehicle will also be an important
contributor, both because of its fuel efficiency and also
because it will pioneer some key electric management
technologies later useful for the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle.
Policies that accelerate this transition will be helpful, will
gain more traction, than those that are not cognizant of the
transition.
Now what technologies would be useful? Well, one thing that
would would be a hydrogen appliance for service stations. This
is one of the recommendations that came out of the National
Academy of Sciences' report that--I served on that committee,
also, advanced technology for hydrogen production with
electrolysis, this is for small-scale distributed manufacturing
of hydrogen, breakthrough technologies for small-scale
performing, and integrated standard fueling station. All of
these are needed for a distributed hydrogen production economy
that will be part of any transition to hydrogen.
The second key idea is that fundamental research is needed
to answer five big questions. And these five questions are:
one, can we store hydrogen on board vehicles at near
atmospheric pressures? I believe that if we cannot do this, if
we have to rely on either cryogenic liquids or high-pressure
gas, that this is--comes about as near to be a showstopper for
the hydrogen economy as anything that I could think of. And
basic research in a variety of areas to accomplish this, I
think, is of fundamental importance.
The second major question concerns carbon. Can we capture
and sequester the carbon dioxide from hydrogen manufacturing in
a societally acceptable way? If the answer is yes, then coal as
a feedstock offers a very large and very cost-effective pathway
to the hydrogen economy. If the answer is no, then we have to
be about very quickly developing alternatives to coal.
And that is the third major question: can we sharply reduce
the cost of hydrogen from non-coal resources, in particular,
from nuclear, nuclear electricity, both in terms of high-
temperature electrolysis of steam and in terms of
thermochemical cycles that would chemically produce the
hydrogen?
Fourth, fuel cells. We need to have improved fuel cells in
order to gain the efficiency on board the vehicle that offsets
the inefficiencies from manufacturing hydrogen.
And finally, improved batteries.
Now all of these require broad-based programs, basic
research, a wide-scale search for ideas.
The third major idea is enabling entrepreneurship. This is
particularly important when the locus of innovation in the
motor industry is shifting from the OEM, that is the big three
automakers, down toward the suppliers, the tier one, the tier
two, the tier three suppliers, and it is becoming a networked
pattern of innovation as opposed to a linear pattern of
innovation.
Now in many other industries, mature industries, from
computers to aerospace, entrepreneurs have become the agents of
change and the most important agents of change. It is important
that entrepreneurs be enabled, and programs such as the SBIR,
STTR, the ATP, the various alphabet soup of technology and
entrepreneur support, are quite important for that.
But in addition, the kind of commitment that Congressman
Inglis talked about in terms of long-term stability of
government policies is very important here, because
entrepreneurs seek opportunity, and they seek opportunities
that will be stable across the tenure of time that it takes to
launch and mature a high-growth, high-technology kind of
company.
States and universities have a strong role here, and we at
Clemson University are very pleased with our work at the
International Center for Automotive Research, called the ICAR.
We intend for this institution to be a major player and
innovation laboratory in moving technology not only from our
own laboratories and the laboratories in South Carolina, but
from any place in the world into the entire automotive cluster,
not only the major manufacturers but the suppliers as well.
That concludes my statement, Madame Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bodde follows:]
Prepared Statement of David L. Bodde
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity to discuss
the Road to the Hydrogen Economy, a road I believe we must travel if we
are to ensure a world well supplied with clean, affordable energy
derived from secure sources. I will speak to this from the perspective
of motor vehicle transportation and address the questions posed by the
Committee within the framework of three basic ideas.
First, research policy should view the hydrogen transition as a
marketplace competition. For the next several decades, three rival
infrastructures will compete for a share of the world auto market: (a)
the current internal combustion engine and associated fuels
infrastructure; (b) the hybrid electric vehicles, now emerging on the
market; and (c) the hydrogen fueled vehicles, now in early
demonstration. We can judge policy alternatives and applied research
investments by their ability to accelerate the shift in market share
among these competing infrastructures.
Second, and in parallel with the marketplace transition,
fundamental research should focus on sustaining the hydrogen economy
into the far future. Key issues include: (a) storing hydrogen on-board
vehicles at near-atmospheric pressure; (b) sequestering the carbon-
dioxide effluent from manufacturing hydrogen from coal; (c) sharply
reducing the cost of hydrogen produced from non-coal resources,
especially nuclear, photobiological, photoelectrochemical, and thin-
film solar processes; (d) improving the performance and cost of fuel
cells; and (e) storing electricity on-board vehicles in batteries that
provide both high energy performance and high power performance at
reasonable cost.
And third, the results of this research must be brought swiftly and
effectively to the marketplace. This requires economic policies that
encourage technology-based innovation, both by independent
entrepreneurs and those operating from the platform of established
companies. Clemson University, through its International Center for
Automotive Research and its Arthur M. Spiro Center for Entrepreneurial
Leadership, intends to become a major contributor to this goal.
In what follows, I will set out my reasoning and the evidence that
supports these three basic ideas.
THE HYDROGEN TRANSITION: A MARKETPLACE COMPETITION
Much thinking about the hydrogen economy concerns ``what'' issues,
visionary descriptions of a national fuels infrastructure that would
deliver a substantial fraction of goods and services with hydrogen as
the energy carrier. And yet, past visions of energy futures, however
desirable they might have seemed at the time, have not delivered
sustained action, either from a public or private perspective. The
national experience with nuclear power, synthetic fuels, and renewable
energy demonstrates this well.
The difficulty arises from insufficient attention to the transition
between the present and the desired future--the balance between forces
that lock the energy economy in stasis and the entrepreneurial forces
that could accelerate it toward a more beneficial condition.
In effect, the present competes against the future, and the pace
and direction of any transition will be governed by the outcome.
Viewing the transition to a hydrogen economy through the lens of a
competitive transition can bring a set of ``how'' questions to the
national policy debate--questions of how policy can rebalance the
competitive forces so that change prevails in the marketplace.
A Model of the Competitive Transition
The competitive battle will be fought over a half century among
three competing infrastructures:\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Another concept, the battery electric vehicle (BEV), offers an
all-electric drive-train with all on-board energy stored in batteries,
which would be recharged from stationary sources when the vehicle is
not in operation. I have not included this among the competitors
because battery technology has not advanced rapidly enough for it to
compete in highway markets. In contrast, BEV have proven quite
successful in the personal transportation niche.
The internal combustion engine (ICE), either in a
spark-ignition or compression-ignition form, and its attendant
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
motor fuels supply chain;
The hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), now entering the
market, which achieves superior efficiency by supplementing an
internal combustion engine with an electric drive system and
which uses the current supply chain for motor fuels; and,
The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (HFCV), which requires
radically distinct technologies for the vehicle, for fuel-
production, and for fuel distribution.
Figure 1 shows one scenario, based on the most optimistic
assumptions, of how market share could shift among the contending
infrastructures (NRC 2004). Several aspects of this scenario bear
special mention. First, note the extended time required for meaningful
change: these are long-lived assets built around large, sunk
investments. They cannot be quickly changed under the best of
circumstances. Second, the road to the hydrogen economy runs smoothest
through the hybrid electric vehicle. The HEV offers immediate gains in
fuel economy and advances technologies that will eventually prove
useful for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, especially battery and electric
system management technologies. Although this scenario shows
significant market penetration for the HEV, its success cannot be
assured. The HEV might remain a niche product, despite its current
popularity if consumers conclude that the value of the fuel savings
does not compensate for the additional cost of the HEV. Or, its gains
in efficiency might be directed toward vehicle size and acceleration
rather than fuel economy. Either circumstance would make an early
hydrogen transition even more desirable.
Any transition to a HFCV fleet, however, will require overcoming a
key marketplace barrier that is unique to hydrogen--widely available
supplies of fuel. And to this we now turn.
The Chicken and the Egg\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Alternatively framed: ``Which comes first, the vehicle or the
fuel?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most analyses suggest that large-scale production plants in a
mature hydrogen economy can manufacture fuel at a cost that competes
well with gasoline at current prices (NRC 2004). However, investors
will not build these plants and their supporting distribution
infrastructure in the absence of large-scale demand. And, the demand
for hydrogen will not be forthcoming unless potential purchasers of
hydrogen vehicles can be assured widely available sources of fuel.
Variants of this ``chicken and egg'' problem have limited the market
penetration of other fuels, such as methanol and ethanol blends (M85
and E85) and compressed natural gas. This issue--the simultaneous
development of the supply side and demand sides of the market--raises
one of the highest barriers to a hydrogen transition.
Distributed Hydrogen Production for the Transition
To resolve this problem, a committee of the National Academy of
Sciences (NRC 2004) recommended an emphasis on distributed production
of hydrogen. In this model, the hydrogen fuel would be manufactured at
dispensing stations conveniently located for consumers. Once the demand
for hydrogen fuel grew sufficiently, then larger manufacturing plants
and logistic systems could be built to achieve scale economies.
However, distributed production of hydrogen offers two salient
challenges.
The first challenge is cost. Figure 2, below, shows the delivered
cost of molecular hydrogen for a variety of production technologies.
The ``distributed'' technologies, to the right in Figure 2, offer
hydrogen at a cost between two and five times the cost of the large-
scale, ``central station'' technologies, on the left in Figure 2.
Technological advances can mitigate, but not remove entirely, this cost
disadvantage.
The second challenge concerns the environment. Carbon capture and
sequestration do not appear practical in distributed production. During
the opening stage of a hydrogen transition, we might simply have to
accept some carbon releases in order to achieve the later benefits.
Research to Accelerate a Transition by Distributed Hydrogen Production
A study panel convenienced by the National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) recently recommended several research thrusts that could
accelerate distributed production for a transition to hydrogen (NRC
2004). These include:
Development of hydrogen fueling ``appliance'' that
can be manufactured economically and used in service stations
reliably and safely by relatively unskilled persons--station
attendants and consumers.
Development of an integrated, standard fueling
facility that includes the above appliance as well as
generation and storage equipment capable of meeting the sharply
varying demands of a 24-hour business cycle.
Advanced technologies for hydrogen production from
electrolysis, essentially a fuel cell operated in reverse, to
include enabling operation from intermittent energy sources,
such as wind.
Research on breakthrough technologies for small-scale
reformers to produce hydrogen from fossil feedstocks.
The Department of Energy has adopted the NAS recommendations and
modified its programs accordingly. It remains too early to judge
progress, but in any case these technologies should receive continued
emphasis as the desired transition to hydrogen nears. However, progress
in research is notoriously difficult to forecast accurately. This
suggests consideration be given to interim strategies that would work
on the demand side of the marketplace, either to subsidize the cost of
distributed hydrogen production while demand builds or to raise the
cost of the competition, gasoline and diesel fuels. Such actions would
relieve the research program of the entire burden for enabling the
transition.
FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH TO SUSTAIN A HYDROGEN ECONOMY
At the same time that the marketplace transition advances, several
high-payoff (but also high-risk) research campaigns should be waged.
These include:
Storing hydrogen on-board vehicles at near-
atmospheric pressure;
Sequestering the carbon-dioxide effluent from
manufacturing hydrogen from coal;
Sharply reducing the cost of hydrogen produced from
non-coal resources, especially nuclear, photobiological,
photoelectrochemical, and thin-film solar processes;
Improving the performance and cost of fuel cells;
and,
Storing electricity on-board vehicles in batteries
that provide both high energy performance and high power
performance at reasonable cost.
On-Vehicle Hydrogen Storage
The most important long-term research challenge is to provide a
more effective means of storing hydrogen on vehicles than the
compressed gas or cryogenic liquid now in use. In my judgment, failure
to achieve this comes closer to a complete ``show-stopper'' than any
other possibility. I believe this true for two reasons: hydrogen
leakage as the vehicle fleet ages, and cost.
With regard to leakage, high pressure systems currently store
molecular hydrogen on demonstration vehicles safely and effectively.
But these are new and specially-built, and trained professionals
operate and maintain. What can we expect of production run vehicles
that receive the casual maintenance afforded most cars? A glance at the
oil-stained pavement of any parking lot offers evidence of the leakage
of heavy fluids stored in the current ICE fleet at atmospheric
pressure. As high pressure systems containing the lightest element in
the universe age, we might find even greater difficulties with
containment. With regard to cost, the energy losses from liquefaction
and even compression severely penalize the use of hydrogen fuel,
especially when manufactured at distributed stations.
The NAS Committee, cited earlier (NRC 2004), strongly supported an
increased emphasis on game-changing approaches to on-vehicle hydrogen
storage. One alternative could come from novel approaches to generating
the hydrogen on board the vehicle.\3\ Chemical hydrides, for example,
might offer some promise here, such as the sodium borohydride system
demonstrated by DaimlerChrysler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ I do not include on-board reforming of fossil feedstocks, like
gasoline, among these. These systems offer little gain beyond that
achievable with the HEV, and most industrial proponents appear to have
abandoned the idea.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Sequestration
Domestic coal resources within the United States hold the potential
to relieve the security burdens arising from oil dependence--but only
if the environmental consequences of their use can be overcome.
Further, as shown in Figure 2, coal offers the lowest cost pathway to a
hydrogen-based energy economy, once the transient conditions have
passed. Thus, the conditions under which this resource can be used
should be established as soon as possible. The prevailing assumption
holds that the carbon effluent from hydrogen manufacturing can be
stored as a gas (carbon dioxide, or CO2) in deep underground
formations. Yet how long it must be contained and what leakage rates
can be tolerated remain unresolved issues (Socolow 2005). Within the
Department of Energy, the carbon sequestration program is managed
separately from hydrogen and vehicles programs. The NAS committee
recommended closer coordination between the two as well as an ongoing
emphasis on carbon capture and sequestration (NRC 2004).
Producing Hydrogen Without Coal
Manufacturing hydrogen from non-fossil resources stands as an
important hedge against future constraints on production from coal, or
even from natural gas. And under any circumstance, the hydrogen economy
will be more robust if served by production from a variety of domestic
sources.
The non-fossil resource most immediately available is nuclear.
Hydrogen could be produced with no CO2 emissions by using
nuclear heat and electricity in the high-temperature electrolysis of
steam. Here the technology issues include the durability of the
electrode and electrolyte materials, the effects of high pressure, and
the scale-up of the electrolysis cell. Alternatively, a variety of
thermochemical reactions could produce hydrogen with great efficiency.
Here the needed research concerns higher operating temperatures
(700+C to 1000+C) for the nuclear heat as well as
research into the chemical cycles themselves. In both cases, the safety
issues that might arise from coupling the nuclear island with a
hydrogen production plant bear examination (NRC 2004).
In addition, hydrogen production from renewable sources should be
emphasized, especially that avoiding the inefficiencies of the
conventional chain of conversions: (1) from primary energy into
electricity; (2) from electricity to hydrogen; (3) from hydrogen to
electricity on-board the vehicle; (4) from electricity to mobility,
which is what the customer wanted in the first place. Novel approaches
to using renewable energy, such as photobiological or
photoelectrochemical, should be supported strongly (NRC 2004).
Improved Fuel Cells
The cost and performance of fuel cells must improve significantly
for hydrogen to achieve its full potential. To be sure, molecular
hydrogen can be burned in specially designed internal combustion
engines. But doing so foregoes the efficiency gains obtainable from the
fuel cell, and becomes a costly and (from an energy perspective)
inefficient process. The NAS Committee thought the fuel cell essential
for a hydrogen economy to be worth the effort required to put it in
place. They recommended an emphasis on long-term, breakthrough research
that would dramatically improve cost, durability, cycling capacity, and
useful life.
Improved Batteries
The battery is as important to a hydrogen vehicle as to a hybrid
because it serves as the central energy management device. For example,
the energy regained from regenerative braking must be stored in a
battery for later reuse. Though energy storage governs the overall
operating characteristics of the battery, a high rate of energy release
(power) can enable the electric motor to assist the HEV in acceleration
and relieve the requirements for fuel cells to immediately match their
power output with the needs of the vehicle. Thus, advanced battery
research becomes a key enabler for the hydrogen economy and might also
expand the scope of the BEV.
ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOR THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY
For the results of DOE research to gain traction in a competitive
economy, entrepreneurs and corporate innovators must succeed in
bringing hydrogen-related innovations to the marketplace. In many
cases, independent entrepreneurs provide the path-breaking innovations
that lead to radical improvements in performance, while established
companies provide continuous, accumulating improvement.\4\ The Federal
Government, in partnership with states and universities, can become an
important enabler of both pathways to a hydrogen economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the Appendix: The Process of Innovation and Implications
for the Hydrogen Transition for a more complete discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Policies Promoting Entrepreneurship
From the federal perspective, several policies could be considered
to build an entrepreneurial climate on the ``supply'' side of the
market. These include:
Special tax consideration for investors in new
ventures offering products relevant to fuel savings. The intent
would be to increase the amount of venture capital available to
startup companies.
Commercialization programs might enable more
entrepreneurs to bring their nascent technologies up to
investment grade. For example, an enhanced and focused Small
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program might increase the
number of participating entrepreneurs participating in fuel-
relevant markets. A portion of the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP) could be focused in like manner.
Outreach from the National Laboratories to
entrepreneurs might be improved. Some laboratories, the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for example, offer
small, but effective programs. But more systematic outreach,
not to business in general, but to entrepreneurial business,
would also increase the supply of market-ready innovations.
On the demand side, any policy that increases consumer incentives
to purchase fuel efficient vehicles will provide an incentive for
ongoing innovation--provided that the policy is perceived as permanent.
Entrepreneurs and innovators respond primarily to opportunity; but that
opportunity must be durable for the 10-year cycle required to establish
a new, high-growth company.
States and Universities as Agents of Innovation/Entrepreneurship
Innovation/entrepreneurship is a contact sport, and that contact
occurs most frequently and most intensely within the context of
specific laboratories and specific relationships. I will use Clemson's
International Center for Automotive Research (ICAR) to illustrate this
principle. Most fundamentally, the ICAR is a partnership among the
State of South Carolina, major auto makers,\5\ and their Tier I, Tier
II, and Tier III suppliers. The inclusion of these suppliers will be
essential for the success of ICAR or any similar research venture. This
is because innovation in the auto industry has evolved toward a global,
networked process, much as it has in other industries like
microelectronics. The ``supply chain'' is more accurately described as
a network, and network innovation will replace the linear model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ BMW was the founding OEM and most significant supporter of the
ICAR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For these reasons, the ICAR, when fully established, will serve as
a channel for research and innovation to flow into the entire cluster
of auto-related companies in the Southeast United States. We anticipate
drawing together and integrating the best technology from a variety of
sources:
Research performed at Clemson University and at the
ICAR itself;
Research performed at the Savannah River National
Laboratory and the University of South Carolina; and,
Relevant science and technology anywhere in the
world.
Beyond research, the ICAR will include two other components of a
complete innovation package: education, and entrepreneur support. With
regard to education, the Master of Science and Ph.D. degrees offered
through the ICAR will emphasize the integration of new technology into
vehicle design, viewing the auto and its manufacturing plant as an
integrated system. In addition, courses on entrepreneurship and
innovation, offered through Clemson's Arthur M. Spiro Center for
Entrepreneurial Leadership, will equip students with the skills to
become effective agents of change within the specific context of the
global motor vehicle industry.
With regard to entrepreneur support, the ICAR will host a state-
sponsored innovation center to nurture startup companies that originate
in the Southeast auto cluster and to draw others from around the world
into that cluster. In addition, the ICAR innovation center will welcome
teams from established companies seeking the commercial development of
their technologies. The State of South Carolina has provided
significant support through four recent legislative initiatives. The
Research University Infrastructure and the Research Centers of Economic
Excellence Acts build the capabilities of the state's universities; and
the Venture Capital Act and Innovation Centers Act provide support for
entrepreneurs.
None of these elements can suffice by itself; but taken together
they combine to offer a package of technology, education, and
innovation that can serve the hydrogen transition extraordinarily well.
A CONCLUDING OBSERVATION
Revolutionary technological change of the kind contemplated here is
rarely predictable and never containable. Every new technology from the
computer to the airplane to the automobile carries with it a chain of
social and economic consequences that reach far beyond the technology
itself. Some of these consequences turn out to be benign; some pose
challenges that must be overcome by future generations; but none have
proven foreseeable.
For example, a hydrogen transition might bring prolonged prosperity
or economic decline to the electric utility industry depending upon
which path innovation takes. A pathway that leads through plug-hybrids
to home appliances that manufacture hydrogen by electrolysis would
reinforce the current utility business model. A pathway in which
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles serve as generators for home electric
energy would undermine that model. The same holds true for the coal
industry. A future in which carbon sequestration succeeds will affect
coal far differently from one in which it cannot be accomplished.
The only certainty is that the energy economy will be vastly
different from that which we know today. It will have to be.
REFERENCES
Socolow, Robert H. ``Can We Bury Global Warming?'' Scientific American,
July 2005, pp. 49-55.
Sperling, Daniel and James D. Cannon, The Hydrogen Transition, Elsevier
Academic Press, 2004.
U.S. National Research Council, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities,
Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs, The National Academies Press,
2004.
APPENDIX:\6\ THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE
HYDROGEN TRANSITION
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This Appendix draws heavily upon a previous statement prepared
for the 9 February, 2005 hearing of the House Science Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the beginning, it might be helpful to review some general
principles regarding technological innovation and how it advances
performance throughout the economy. We should begin by understanding
technology from the customer perspective--not as a ``thing,'' but as a
service.
Technology Viewed as a Service
Fuels and vehicles have little value in themselves, but enormous
utility as providers of mobility services. These valued services
include performance vectors like:
Time saving: will the vehicle travel far enough that
the driver does not waste time with frequent refueling?
Safety: how well does the vehicle protect its
occupants, both by its ability to avoid accidents and by its
ability to survive them?
Comfort: can the vehicle mitigate the stress and
hassles of road travel for the driver and passengers?
Image: what does driving this particular vehicle say
about its occupants?
Ancillary services: does the vehicle have enough
generating capacity to meet the growing demand for on-board,
electricity-based services?
At any time, consumers emphasize some of these performance
dimensions while satisficing along others. Consider the consumer
preferences revealed by an EPA analysis of automobile performance from
1981 to 2003. Over this period, average horsepower nearly doubled (from
102 to 197 horsepower), weight increased markedly (from 3,201 to 3,974
lbs), and the time required to accelerate from zero to 60 mph dropped
by nearly 30 percent. An energy policy that added fuel security to the
competitive performance dimensions for road transportation would do
much to promote the hydrogen transition.
Technology-based Innovation: Accumulating
Technological innovations can be grouped into two general classes:
those that advance performance by accumulating incremental
improvements, and those that offer discontinuous leaps in performance.
The term accumulating applies to technologies that advance performance
along dimensions already recognized and accepted by customers. Each
improvement might be incremental, but the cumulative effect compounds
to yield markedly improved performance--consider the improvements in
processor speed for computers, for example. Auto manufacturers are
accustomed to competing along these dimensions, and the cumulative
effect can lead to important advances--but only if the technology
competition continues long enough for the gains to accumulate. Most of
the fuel saving technologies discussed at this hearing are incremental
in nature, and so nurturing this kind of innovation could become an
important policy goal.
Technology-based Innovation: Discontinuous
In contrast, discontinuous technologies introduce performance
dimensions quite distinct from what the mainstream customers have come
to value, sometimes offering inferior performance along the accustomed
dimensions. Because of their inferior mainstream performance, these
technologies initially gain traction only in niche markets. With
continued use and improvement, however, discontinuous technologies gain
adequacy along the original dimensions and then enter the mainstream
markets.
Consider the battery electric vehicle (BEV), for example. Many
analysts have written off electric vehicles because of their inferior
performance in mainstream auto markets--acceleration, range, and
recharge time. Yet electric vehicle technologies are emerging in an
important niche: the market for personal transportation. This includes
golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, touring vehicles for resorts,
transportation within gated communities, and so forth. In that market,
the chief performance dimensions are convenient access, economy, and
ease of use--and style. The current state of electric vehicle
technology is adequate for the limited range and acceleration
requirements of this niche. But, could electric vehicle technology
advance to the point of entry into mainstream markets? Or, could it
compete effectively in personal transportation markets in developing
countries--say Thailand or China? That is, of course, unknowable. But,
please recall that the personal computer was once considered a
hobbyists toy, inherently without enough power to enter mainstream
applications.
Discontinuous innovation tends to be the province of the
entrepreneur, and the companies that such persons found become
platforms for the innovations that radically change all markets. Yet
entrepreneurs often have low visibility relative to the market
incumbents in policy discussions, and their companies are far from
household words.\7\ This is because the entrepreneurs' story is about
the future, not the present; about what could be and not about what is.
For that reason, policies that encourage entrepreneurship in
technologies relevant to the hydrogen transition should become part of
the energy policy conversation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Consider, for example, Zap!, a company founded 10 years ago in
response to the zero-emissions vehicle market emerging in California. A
description can be found at: http://www.zapworld.com/index.asp
Biography for David L. Bodde
Senior Fellow and Professor: Arthur M. Spiro Center for Entrepreneurial
Leadership; Director, Innovation and Public Policy,
International Center for Automotive Research, Clemson
University. Research and teaching in:
Intellectual property management
Markets for new energy technology
Corporate entrepreneurship
Next-generation hybrid electric and hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles
PREVIOUS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
University of Missouri-Kansas City, July 1996 to September 2004
Charles N. Kimball Chair in Technology and Innovation at the
University of Missouri, Kansas City. Joint appointment as Professor of
Engineering and Business Administration.
Midwest Research Institute (MRI), January 1991 to July 1996
Corporate Vice President and President of MRI's for-profit
subsidiary, MRI Ventures. Responsible for new enterprise development
through cooperative research, new ventures, licenses, and international
agreements. Managed technology development consortium of five private
companies to commercialize technology from the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL). Worked with Department of Energy and senior
NREL management on strategic initiatives for the laboratory.
National Academy of Sciences, April 1986 to January 1991
Executive Director, Commission on Engineering and Technical
Systems. Directed research and studies on public and private issues in
science and technology.
U.S. Government, March 1978 to March 1986
Assistant Director, Congressional Budget Office, United States
Congress. Directed economic analyses of legislation affecting energy,
industrial competitiveness, agribusiness, science, technology, and
education.
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Energy. Policy research
regarding nuclear energy, coal, synthetic fuels, electric utilities,
technology transfer and national security. Emphasis on nuclear breeder
reactors and nuclear non-proliferation. U.S. delegate to International
Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation, which sought an international agreement
on plutonium recycle and measures to slow the proliferation of nuclear
weapons.
TRW, Inc., January 1976 to March 1978
Manager, Engineering Analysis Office, Energy Systems Planning
Division. Built business using systems analysis and engineering
studies. Emphasis on application of aerospace technology to energy
problems, especially radioactive waste disposal and synthetic fuels.
U.S. Army, 1965 to 1970
Captain. Platoon leader, company commander, and battalion
operations officer. Airborne and Ranger qualified. Service as combat
engineer in Vietnam (1968-69). Bronze Star, Army Commendation Medals.
Remained in the Army Reserve as an R&D officer advising on the
management of defense laboratories and nuclear research programs.
EDUCATION
Harvard University
Doctor of Business Administration, March 1976. Doctoral thesis on
the influence of regulation on the technical configuration of the
commercial nuclear steam supply system. Thesis research cited in
subsequent books on nuclear energy. Harding Foundation Fellowship.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Master of Science degrees in Nuclear Engineering (1972) and
Management (1973). Atomic Energy Commission Fellowship. Experimental
thesis on irradiation-induced stress relaxation.
United States Military Academy
Bachelor of Science, 1965. Commissioned Second Lieutenant, U.S.
Army.
CORPORATE BOARD MEMBERSHIPS
Great Plains Energy
Board member of electric energy company, 1994-present. Chair,
Nuclear Committee; Chair, Governance Committee; Member, Audit
Committee.
The Commerce Funds
Founding director of family of mutual funds, currently with $2.2
billion assets under management. Growth and Bond Funds achieved
Morningstar 5-Star ranking. 1995-present.
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Grew up in Kansas City, Missouri. Married (since 1967) with four
children. Enjoy competitive athletics, especially racquetball and
tennis. Frequent backpacker, amateur historian, bad poet, and worse
musician. Publications in technology management, energy, and policy.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you very much, Dr. Bodde.
Mr. Chernoby.
STATEMENT OF MR. MARK CHERNOBY, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVANCED
VEHICLE ENGINEERING, DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION
Mr. Chernoby. We are going to shift a little bit and use
some visual aids to support my conversation, so go ahead to the
next slide, please.
[Slide.]
I want to thank the Chairs and the distinguished Members of
the House Committee for this opportunity to appear before you
today.
I am going to briefly describe DaimlerChrysler's
involvement in the Administration's hydrogen initiative, what
we are trying to do to advance the overall hydrogen economy,
and then as well as some of the specific questions raised
today.
Mr. Chairman, you mentioned three keys. You mentioned
commitment, collaboration, and discovery. And as I go through
these slides, I am going to try and point that out.
In the slide you see before you now, what I am trying to
describe is DaimlerChrysler, we have been working on fuel cell
technology for over 10 years. We have poured a billion dollars
into different technologies for fuel cells that run on
different fuel sources. We are committed. We have now centered,
in the past few years, all of our work on hydrogen as the base
fuel for these fuel cell products. And as you can see on the
slide with the various pictures, we are attempting to look at
products that could be attractive to a broad range of the--of
customers, be it heavy buses for certain types of environments
all of the way down to the small and compact car.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
One of the critical enablers is collaboration. We
participate as a member for the United States Council for
Automotive Research with our partners at Ford and General
Motors. And then most recently, we think it is exceptional to
have added partners from BP, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips,
Exxon, and Shell, because we truly think the march to a
completely new technology, a different way of life in the
hydrogen economy is going to truly require collaboration in a
pre-competitive environment across these multiple industries.
We have got to bring together both vehicle and the
infrastructure. And as you see in the center of this slide, the
joint partnership and how we work together in certain task
teams to understand how these infrastructures interface with
the vehicle, what about the fuel, fuel quality, how does that
relate to the fuel cell, it has all got to come together in
order to realize a successful transition to the hydrogen
economy.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
At DaimlerChrysler, as Mr. Honda mentioned, we are proud to
be a participant in the Department of Energy's demonstration
program. We have numerous vehicles that are on the road in the
United States already providing information to the Department
of Energy. We have also shared information off of these
vehicles with the Environmental Protection Agency. And really,
there are several key things we are trying to get out of the
demonstration product. We are moving from the lab to the road.
That is critical. We have already found failure modes and
systems to components that we had not seen in the lab
environment. And as was mentioned, these now become initiatives
and challenges for us to work on both in the research and the
development environment as we move forward. So it is critical,
when you are moving from a technology, like the internal
combustion engine that we have on the road for well more than
50 years, we understand how that affects the environment. With
the new technology, we have to develop that understanding. That
is why we are participating in three different environments.
And DaimlerChrysler, outside of this demonstration project, we
have vehicles around the world in a multitude of environments.
And as you can see, our demonstration vehicles range from the
small vehicle, the F-cell, up to the large sprinter, because
these two types of vehicles clearly operate in different
environments between the commercial and more of the daily use.
So we absolutely think the demonstration fleet is providing
very valuable data to feed the codes and standards efforts as
well as helping us find new barriers and challenges we need to
overcome to bring this product to a reality.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
There was a question raised about, you know, what does
DaimlerChrysler do. What do we focus on in order to make
decisions on where we put our research funds and how much
research funds get placed against a certain topic?
As you can see on the slide, we basically look at five key
factors. I would like to tell you there is a perfect math
formula that with algebra you can just plug in the numbers and
say this is where you put your money. Unfortunately, the world
and life isn't that easy. We do look at probability of
technical success, the probability of commercial success in the
market, the value from a customer perspective, how does it fit
with our business strategy, and then what strategic leverage
does it provide the company. All of these factors, any type of
research that we do, are calibrated, assessed, and then with
that assessment, we look at, all right, how are we going to
prioritize our funding and our people resource over a said time
period.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
There was a question raised about how do we see the fuel
cell vehicle, the infrastructure coming together in terms of
time in transitioning to truly the hydrogen-based economy for
this transportation sector.
At DaimlerChrysler, we think we are--we project we are
going to go through four different phases. Right now, we have
moved from basically what we call market preparation. That is
basically setting up the infrastructure, setting up the
vehicles in the lab environment, and getting ready to put some
vehicles actually on the road that are fit for daily use. Fit
for daily use, I have to qualify, only in certain environments.
As an example, we have had severe challenges with cold start,
so you will find many of the vehicles around the world aren't
necessarily in extremely cold environments.
We think we are going to go through two more stages before
this finally becomes the reality. We are going to head to a
ramp-up stage. That is where we think some of the technological
barriers that are facing us through all of this great pre-
competitive research are going to be overcome. And we will be
able to put a larger fleet in the field. This larger fleet is
going to be limited by the growth of the infrastructure. We
have got to have both the infrastructure there, the fueling,
along with the vehicle to make it work. So we project that will
be the next stage.
And then the final stage will actually be
commercialization. This is where the--all of the major
technical barriers, including cost and value to the customer,
and then broad-based movement of the infrastructure have to
come together to make it viable to move to large-scale
production and then large-scale purchase and use by the
customer base.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
At DaimlerChrysler, though, we are absolutely convinced,
both in the short-term, the near-term, and potentially in the
long-term, there is going to be a wide range of technologies
that are going to be attractive to the marketplace. We are
working on all of them at once, because we believe there is a
place for each one of these technologies in the market where
they provide maximum value to the customer. As an example, a
hybrid provides maximum value to the customer who operates in a
city environment. The customer who drives mostly on the highway
may be more attracted to a diesel. And so as we transition
between now and the hydrogen economy, we are going to keep
working on trying to provide a broad-based set of propulsion
technologies for the market to enable them to implement them to
benefit not only the environment, but energy security, because
penetration is what is going to matter. We don't get a benefit
from either one of those unless we get market penetration, and
so we have got to provide maximum value to the customer.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
There are several key technology challenges in front of us
to transition to the hydrogen economy. We have--we would
summarize them into the fuel cell system itself, durability,
cost. We have done some great work in terms of the pre-
competitive environment, between academia, government, and
industry in overcoming a challenge such as cold start. So that
is one behind us, but we have got many more to go. The battery
system, as was commented earlier, is a significant challenge as
well. And then finally, hydrogen storage, as Dr. Bodde
mentioned, is a very significant challenge that we absolutely
must find a way to overcome if we expect to have broad-based
penetration of the market and not take space away from the
customer.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
So if we look at the--how we think we are going to
transition, obviously, we are very focused at DaimlerChrysler
on the near-term in providing both the advanced powertrains and
hybrid technology. And then we, obviously, are very committed
to a transition to an H2 fuel cell vehicle and then the
ultimate infrastructure and economy that is going to come
together with the broad-based focus on zero emissions, ultimate
low energy consumption for the environment, and then finally
the concept of energy self-sufficiency and energy security that
comes along with it.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
I think that is it.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chernoby follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Chernoby
I want to thank the Chairs and distinguished Members of the House
Committee on Science for this opportunity to appear today.
I am coming before you today to describe our involvement in the
Administration's Hydrogen Initiatives, and what DaimlerChrysler is
doing to advance the overall hydrogen economy, as well as, address the
questions presented to me by the Subcommittee on Research and the
Subcommittee on Energy.
What is DaimlerChrysler doing to advance a hydrogen economy?
DaimlerChrysler has been working on fuel cell technology for
transportation utilizing hydrogen for over ten years. We have invested
over $1 Billion in R&D and have developed five generations of vehicles
(NECAR1, 2, 3, and 4, and the F-Cell). Of all manufacturers, we have
the largest world wide fleet of fuel cell cars and buses (100 vehicles)
participating in several international demonstration projects in the
United States, Europe, and Asia. (See Figure 1: DaimlerChrysler Fuel
Cell History)
How does DaimlerChrysler participate in the Administration's Hydrogen
Initiatives?
As a member of the United States Council for Automotive Research
(USCAR), DaimlerChrysler is a partner in the Department of Energy's
(DOE) FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership along with General Motors and
Ford Motor Company, and BP America, ChevronTexaco Corporation,
ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Shell Hydrogen. The recent
addition of these five major energy providers has strengthened the
Partnership considerably, by providing expertise to solve the
infrastructure challenges. DaimlerChrysler has also been working with
the DOE since 1993 on advanced automotive technology research. We
support the initiative as members on technical teams related to
advanced automotive technology, including:
-- Energy Storage
-- Light Weight Materials
-- Advanced Combustion
-- Hydrogen Storage
-- Fuel Cell
-- Codes & Standards
-- Electrical and Electronics
-- Vehicle Systems Analysis
Through these tech teams, we help develop priorities based on
future needs and manage a portfolio of research projects directed at a
set of Research Goals and Objectives. (See Figure 2: FreedomCAR and
Fuel Partnership)
We also are one of four recipients to participate in the DOE
Hydrogen and Fleet Demonstration Project. By the end of 2005, we will
have 30 vehicles located in three ecosystems (Southern California,
Northern California, and Southeastern Michigan) and were the first OEM
to provide valuable technical data to the DOE. (See Figure 3: DOE
Hydrogen Fleet & Infrastructure Demonstration & Validation Project)
What criteria does DaimlerChrysler consider when making investment
decisions regarding its portfolio of advanced vehicle research and
development programs?
DaimlerChrysler uses five factors of measurement to determine
investment priorities in our advance technology portfolio. They are:
-- Probability of Technical Success
-- Probability of Commercial Success
-- Value
-- Business Strategy Fit, and
-- Strategic Leverage
(See Figure 4: Five Key Investment Factors)
What factors would induce DaimlerChrysler to invest more in the
development of hydrogen-fueled vehicles?
Several factors could contribute to inducing DaimlerChrysler to
invest more in the development of hydrogen fueled vehicles. Key factors
include:
-- Significant technological advances in fuel cells and
hydrogen storage/production
-- Major governmental policy support such as incentives,
regulatory shifts,
-- Changes in consumer demand and competitive pressure
-- Significant long-term increases in gasoline prices
What do you see as a probable timeline for the commercialization of
hydrogen-fueled vehicles?
The current technology is being evaluated in several fleet
demonstration projects around the world. The largest is the DOE's
program in the United States. These programs include a few hundred
vehicles worldwide and several hydrogen fueling stations.
DaimlerChrysler projects that the hydrogen fueled vehicle
technologies will evolve in discreet phases driven be the following
cadence of events:
-- Breakthrough in basic research
-- Bench/laboratory development
-- ``On road'' testing and development
-- Parallel manufacturing process development
Within the next 4-6 years, we will enter another phase utilizing
technologies that address some of the current deficiencies including
durability, range, and cold start, as well as, lower cost. This phase
will see vehicle numbers in the low thousands and the beginning of a
local infrastructure to support them.
The third phase will require significant vehicle technical
breakthroughs in hydrogen storage, fuel cell cost, and a significantly
expanded infrastructure. Technological breakthroughs are required in
hydrogen storage and fuel cell technology (focused on cost &
durability). DaimlerChrysler shares a commitment with our partners in
USCAR effort to achieve these gains. It is a challenge to predict a
definitive timeline for technological discovery. The vehicle fleet
could grow to tens of thousands if significant shifts occur in the
infrastructure and value to the consumer. The infrastructure must
expand to a much larger scale beyond local support. This will be
critical to support the freedom to travel that consumers will demand
when we move from a market dominated by local ``fleet'' customers to
the average consumer.
High volume commercialization will require a highly distributed
infrastructure capable of delivering cost competitive hydrogen and fuel
cell powered vehicles that can compete with other fuel efficient
technologies. It is likely that this will require continued government
policy support for vehicle and fuel. (See Figure 5: DaimlerChrysler
Fuel Cell Strategy)
What about the other advanced vehicle technologies DaimlerChrysler is
currently developing, such as hybrid vehicles and advanced diesel
engines?
DaimlerChrysler is engaged in a broad range of advanced propulsion
technologies. Fuel cell vehicles are a long-term focus of this
technology portfolio, which also includes efficient gasoline engines,
advanced diesels, and hybrid powertrain systems. (See Figure 6:
DaimlerChrysler's Advanced Propulsion Technologies)
DaimlerChrysler is focused on providing the market with the ability
to select the advanced propulsion technology that best fits the needs
of the individual customer. Each of the short-term technologies
optimizes its benefit to the consumer in specific drive cycles (hybrid/
city, diesel/highway) and hence its value to the customer.
DaimlerChrysler has developed and implemented technologies that
improve the efficiency of the current gasoline propulsion system. We
must continue to enhance the gasoline combustion propulsion system
since it will be the dominant choice in the market for many years to
come. We offer the Multi-Displacement System (MDS) available in the
HEMI in seven Chrysler Group vehicles. MDS seamlessly alternates
between smooth, high fuel economy four-cylinder mode when less power is
needed and V-8 mode when more power from the 5.7L HEMI engine is in
demand. The system yields up to 20 percent improved fuel economy.
We are also working on further development of gasoline direct-
injection which considerably enhances fuel economy by closely
monitoring fuel atomization.
DaimlerChrysler offers four different diesel powertrains in the
United States, not including heavy trucks. Advanced diesel technology
offers up to 30 percent better fuel economy and 20 percent less
CO2 emissions when compared to equivalent gasoline engines.
The diesel provides maximum benefit in highway driving which for many
customers is a daily occurrence. Advanced diesel is a technology that
is available today and can help reduce our nation's dependency on
foreign oil.
Designing more engines to run on Biodiesel is a current objective
at DaimlerChrysler. Biodiesel fuel reduces emissions of diesel
vehicles, including carbon dioxide, and lowers petroleum consumption.
Each Jeep Liberty Common Rail Diesel (CRD) built by DaimlerChrysler is
delivered to customers running on B5 biodiesel fuel. Nationwide use of
B2 fuel (two percent biodiesel) would replace 742 million gallons of
gasoline per year, according to the National Biodiesel Board.
DaimlerChrysler and GM have recently combined efforts to develop a
two-mode hybrid drive system that surpasses the efficiency of today's
hybrids. The partnership will cut development and system costs while
giving customers an affordable hybrid alternative that improves fuel
economy. The first use of the system will be in early 2008 with the
Dodge Durango.
What do you see as the potential technology showstoppers for a hydrogen
economy?
The most significant technology showstoppers that DaimlerChrysler
recognizes as challenging the viability of the hydrogen economy include
fuel cell durability, on-board hydrogen storage and advanced battery
durability performance. Though there are major efforts and investment
being put into fuel cell development, the current systems have to make
significant gains in life expectancy and extreme operating conditions
that the average consumer will demand.
No current on-board hydrogen storage system meets the FreedomCAR
and Fuel Partnership targets for cost and performance. To meet customer
expectations for driving range, a large amount of hydrogen is required
to be stored on-board. Today's compressed hydrogen storage technology
has limits in storage density which leads to a compromise in passenger
compartment space in order to provide the driving range that consumer's
enjoy today. Additionally, the current level of technology for high-
pressure storage tanks that are available has associated manufacturing
processes that take multiple days per tank. The on-board hydrogen
storage tank industry currently does not have the capacity to support
even low-volume production levels. Alternative and novel methods of
storing hydrogen on-board are critical to the hydrogen economy.
While several advancements have been made in battery technology in
recent years, the current level of technology does not support
performance requirements for power, energy and durability. (See Figure
7: Technology Showstoppers)
In addition to the technology challenges identified above, the cost
challenges are significant barriers. To realize large scale market
penetration, we will have to approach the value that customers enjoy
with current propulsion technologies.
Even with a viable vehicle, the hydrogen economy will not become a
reality without a highly distributed infrastructure. Our Energy
Partners in the FreedomCAR and Fuel effort are committed to the
research and technology development required to realize this goal.
Industry and government will need to work together to develop an
implementation plan with financial viability for all entities.
To what extent is DaimlerChrysler relying on government programs to
help solve those technical challenges?
DaimlerChrysler realizes that the technical challenges associated
with moving towards the hydrogen economy are too great and too costly
for any one company to solve. Therefore, we see a benefit in multiple
companies working together with government in pre-competitive
technology development. Due to the enormity of this transition,
DaimlerChrysler actively participates in USCAR with Ford Motor Company
and General Motors and in the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership along
with the other USCAR members as well as the U.S. Department of Energy,
BP America, ChevronTexaco Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil
Corporation and Shell Hydrogen. The research required to solve the
technical challenges of the hydrogen economy is universally viewed as
``high risk'' by industry. The research sponsored by DOE through the
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership provides a forum to pull together some
of the best minds and organizations involved in advancement of the
hydrogen economy to help address that risk. The development of the
hydrogen infrastructure must progress in parallel with fuel cell
vehicle technologies. (See Figure 8: Technology Relationship Strategy)
How are automakers using, or how do they plan to use, the advanced
vehicle technology developed for hydrogen-fueled vehicles to improve
the performance of conventional vehicles?
As stated earlier, DaimlerChrysler is working on a broad portfolio
of technologies to improve the efficiency and environmental impact of
transportation. In the short-term we continue to improve the internal
combustion engine (ICE). In the mid-term we are developing hybrid
vehicles utilizing electric drive systems, integrated power modules and
advanced batteries. In the long-term fuel cell vehicles with on-board
hydrogen storage from a national hydrogen infrastructure will emerge.
The current portfolio of R&D within the DOE's FreedomCAR and Fuel
Initiative is focused on the long-term hydrogen vision, but many of the
technologies are useful and will mature in the shorter-term as
transition technologies. Cost effective, light-weight materials can be
applied to vehicles in the short-term to improve fuel efficiency
regardless of the propulsion technology. Advanced energy storage and
motors will benefit both hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Novel
approaches to hydrogen storage are uniquely required by hydrogen fueled
vehicles, but can support stationary and portable applications in the
industrial and consumer markets.
It is important to advance and mature many of the aspects of the
technology as early as possible. There are many challenges and
breakthroughs needed to realize the President's vision of a ``Hydrogen
Economy.''
Biography for Mark Chernoby
Mark Chernoby is the Vice President of Advance Vehicle Engineering
for the Chrysler Group Business Unit at DaimlerChrysler. In this
position, he is responsible for engineering Chrysler Group products in
the early stages of the program cycle, CAE, Crossfire programs, GEM
operation and Government Collaborative Programs. He was promoted to
this position in November, 2003.
During his 19 years at Chrysler & DaimlerChrysler, Mark has worked
in component, system, and full vehicle engineering. He worked in
powertrain component and system engineering for the first nine years of
his career. Mark then moved to full vehicle engineering managing the
NVH development for Chrysler's products for a period of five years.
Mark then had a position responsible for managing all of the functional
requirements for a new line of large passenger cars. In has last
position, Mark was responsible for the NVH, Crash, and Core Vehicle
Dynamics of Chrysler Group Products.
Mark graduated from Michigan State University in 1983 with a B.S.
in Engineering, University of Michigan-Dearborn in 1985 with a M.S. in
Engineering, and from the University of Michigan in 1990 with a MBA.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Dr. Crabtree, you are recognized. Turn on your microphone,
please.
STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE W. CRABTREE, DIRECTOR, MATERIALS
SCIENCE DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Dr. Crabtree. Is it working?
Yes. Good. Thanks.
Chairman Biggert, Chairman Inglis, Members of the Energy
and Research Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to
testify today and share my thoughts on the hydrogen economy.
I will address the role of basic research in bringing the
hydrogen economy to fruition. As background for my testimony, I
would like to introduce into the record the report ``Basic
Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy'' based on the workshop
held by the Department of Energy Office of Basic Energy
Sciences. This report documents the vision of hydrogen as the
fuel of the future and the scientific challenges that must be
met to realize a vibrant and competitive hydrogen economy.
(This information appears in Appendix 2: Additional Material
for the Record.)
The enormous appeal of hydrogen as a fuel is matched by an
equally enormous set of critical scientific and engineering
challenges. Currently, nearly all of the hydrogen we use is
produced by reforming natural gas. In a mature hydrogen
economy, this production route simply exchanges a dependence on
foreign oil for a dependence on foreign gas, and it does not
reduce the production of environmental pollutants or greenhouse
gases. We must find carbon-neutral production routes for
hydrogen with the capacity to displace a large percentage of
our fossil fuel use.
The most appealing route is splitting water renewably,
because the supply of water is effectively inexhaustible, free
of geopolitical constraints, and splitting it produces no
greenhouse gases or pollutants. Although some routes for
splitting water renewably are known, we do not know how to make
them cost-effective, nor do we understand how to adapt them to
a diversity of renewable energy sources. The onboard storage of
hydrogen for transportation is the second critical basic
science challenge. To allow a 300-mile driving range without
compromising cargo and passenger space, we must store hydrogen
at high density and with fast release times.
Since the 1970s, over 2,000 hydrogen compounds have been
examined for their storage capability. None have been found
that meet the storage demands. This critical storage challenge
cannot be met without significant basic research. We must
better understand the interaction of hydrogen with materials
and exploit this knowledge to design effective storage media.
The critical challenges for fuel cells are cost,
performance, and reliability. High cost arises from expensive
catalysts and membrane materials. Performance is limited by the
low chemical activity of catalysts and the ionic conductivity
of membranes.
Although catalysts have been known for centuries, we still
do not understand why or how they work. Our approach to
catalysis is largely empirical. We often find that the best
catalysts are the most expensive metals, like platinum. The
challenge is to understand catalysis on the molecular level and
use that understanding to design low-cost, high-performance
catalysts targeted for fuel cells.
Membranes are another critical basic research challenge for
fuel cells. Currently, fuel cells for transportation depend
almost exclusively on one membrane: a carbon-fluorine polymer
with sulfonic side chains. Our ability to design alternative
membranes is limited by our poor understanding of their ion
conduction mechanisms. Significant basic materials research is
needed before practical new membrane materials can be found and
developed.
These three challenges are critical for the long-term
success of the hydrogen economy: production of hydrogen by
splitting water renewably, storage of hydrogen at high density
with fast release times, and improved catalysts and membranes
for fuel cells.
For each of these challenges, incremental improvements in
the present state-of-the-art will not produce a hydrogen
economy that is competitive with fossil fuels. Revolutionary
breakthroughs are needed of the kind that come only from high-
risk, high-payoff basic research.
The outlook for achieving such breakthroughs is promising.
The recent worldwide emphasis on nanoscience and nanotechnology
opens up many new directions for hydrogen materials research.
All of the critical challenges outlined above depend on
understanding and manipulating hydrogen at the nanoscale.
Nanoscience has given us new fabrication tools capable of
creating molecular architectures of unprecedented complexity
and functionality.
The explosion of experimental techniques to probe matter at
ever-smaller link scales and time scales brings new knowledge
within our reach. Numerical simulations running on computer
clusters of hundreds of nodes can model the atomic processes of
water splitting, hydrogen storage and release, catalysis, and
ion motion in membranes. These recent scientific developments
set the stage for breakthroughs in hydrogen materials science
needed for a mature, sustainable, and competitive hydrogen
economy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Crabtree follows:]
Prepared Statement of George W. Crabtree
Chairmen Biggert and Inglis, and Members of the Energy and Research
Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and share
my thoughts on the hydrogen economy. I will address the role of basic
research in bringing the hydrogen economy to fruition. As background
for my testimony, I would like to introduce into the record the report
on ``Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy'' based on the
Workshop held by the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Basic Energy
Sciences. This report documents the vision of hydrogen as the fuel of
the future, and the scientific challenges that must be met to realize a
vibrant and competitive hydrogen economy.
Let me start my testimony by recalling the energy challenges that
motivate the transition to a hydrogen economy. Our dependence on fossil
fuel requires that much of our energy come from foreign sources;
securing our energy supply for the future demands that we develop
domestic energy sources. Continued use of fossil fuels produces local
and regional pollution that threatens the quality of our environment
and the health of our citizens. Finally, fossil fuels produce
greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that threaten our climate with
global warming.
Hydrogen as a fuel addresses all of these issues: it is found
abundantly in compounds like water that are widely accessible without
geopolitical constraints, it produces no pollutants or greenhouse gases
as byproducts of its use, and it converts readily to heat through
combustion and to electricity through fuel cells that couple seamlessly
to our existing energy networks.
Critical Challenges: Production
The enormous appeal of hydrogen as a fuel is matched by an equally
enormous set of critical scientific and engineering challenges. Unlike
fossil fuels, hydrogen does not occur naturally in the environment.
Instead, hydrogen must be produced from natural resources like fossil
fuels, biomass or water. Currently nearly all the hydrogen we use is
produced by reforming natural gas. To power cars and light trucks in
the coming decades we will need 10 to 15 times the amount of hydrogen
we now produce. This hydrogen cannot continue to come from natural gas,
as that production route simply exchanges a dependence on foreign oil
for a dependence on foreign gas, and it does not reduce the production
of environmental pollutants or greenhouse gases. We must find carbon-
neutral production routes for hydrogen. The most appealing route is
splitting water renewably, because the supply of water is effectively
inexhaustible and splitting it produces no greenhouse gases or
pollutants. Although some routes for splitting water renewably are
known, we do not know how to make them cost-effective, nor do we know
how to adapt them to a diversity of renewable energy sources. Splitting
water renewably is a critical basic science challenge that must be
addressed if the hydrogen economy is to achieve its long-term goals of
replacing fossil fuels, reducing our dependence on foreign energy
sources, and eliminating the emission of pollution and greenhouse
gases.
Critical Challenges: Storage
The on-board storage of hydrogen for transportation is a second
critical basic science challenge. To allow a 300-mile driving range
without compromising cargo and passenger space, we must store hydrogen
at densities higher than that of liquid hydrogen. This may seem a
daunting task, but in fact there are a host of materials where hydrogen
combines with other elements at densities 50 percent to 100 percent
higher than that of liquid hydrogen. Since the 1970s over two thousand
hydrogen compounds have been examined for their storage capability;
none has been found that meet the storage demands. The challenge is to
satisfy two conflicting requirements: high storage capacity and fast
release times. High hydrogen capacity requires close packing and strong
chemical bonding of hydrogen, while fast release requires loose packing
and weak bonding for high hydrogen mobility. This critical storage
challenge cannot be met without significant basic research: we must
better understand the interaction of hydrogen with materials and
exploit this knowledge to design effective storage media.
Critical Challenges: Fuel Cells
The use of hydrogen in fuel cells presents a third critical
scientific challenge. Fuel cells are by far the most appealing energy
conversion devices we know of. They convert the chemical energy of
hydrogen or other fuels directly to electricity without intermediate
steps of combustion or mechanical rotation of a turbine. Their high
efficiency, up to 60 percent or more, is a major advantage compared to
traditional conversion routes like gasoline engines with about 25
percent efficiency. The combination of hydrogen, fuel cells, and
electric motors has the potential to replace many of our much less
efficient energy conversion systems that are based on combustion of
fossil fuels driving heat engines for producing electricity or
mechanical motion.
The critical challenges for fuel cells are cost, performance and
reliability. High cost arises from expensive catalysts and membrane
materials; performance is limited by the low chemical activity of
catalysts and ionic conductivity of membranes; and reliability depends
on effective design and integration of the component parts of the fuel
cell. Although catalysts have been known for centuries, we still do not
understand why or how they work. Our approach to catalysts is largely
empirical; we often find that the best catalysts are the most expensive
metals like platinum. Nature, by contrast, uses inexpensive manganese
to split water in green plants and abundant iron to create molecular
hydrogen from protons and electrons in bacteria. These natural examples
show that cheaper, more effective catalysts can be found. The challenge
is to understand catalysis on the molecular level and use that
understanding to design low cost, high performance catalysts targeted
for fuel cells.
Membranes are another critical basic research challenge for fuel
cells. Currently fuel cells for transportation depend almost
exclusively on one membrane, a carbon-fluorine polymer with sulfonic
side chains. While this membrane is an adequate ion conductor, it
requires a carefully managed water environment and it limits the
operating temperature of the fuel cell to below the boiling point of
water. We need new classes of membrane materials that will outperform
the one choice currently available. Our ability to design alternative
membranes is limited by our poor understanding of their ion conduction
mechanisms. Significant basic materials research is needed before
practical new membrane materials can be found and developed.
Meeting the Challenges: Basic Research
The three challenges outlined above are critical for the success of
a hydrogen economy:
Production of hydrogen by splitting water renewably;
Storage of hydrogen at high density with fast release
times; and
Improved catalysts and membranes for fuel cells.
For each of these challenges, incremental improvements in the
present state-of-the-art will not produce a hydrogen economy that is
competitive with fossil fuels. Revolutionary breakthroughs are needed,
of the kind that come only from high-risk/high-payoff basic research.
The outlook for achieving such breakthroughs is promising. The
recent worldwide emphasis on nanoscience and nanotechnology opens up
many new directions for hydrogen materials research. All of the
critical challenges outlined above depend on understanding and
manipulating hydrogen at the nanoscale. Nanoscience has given us new
fabrication tools, through top-down lithography and bottom-up self-
assembly, that can create molecular architectures of unprecedented
complexity and functionality. The explosion of bench-top scanning
probes and the development of high intensity sources of electrons,
neutrons and x-rays for advanced materials research at DOE's user
facilities at Argonne and other national laboratories brings new
physical phenomena at ever smaller length and time scales within our
reach. Numerical simulations using density functional theory and
running on computer clusters of hundreds of nodes can now model the
processes of water splitting, hydrogen storage and release, catalysis
and ionic conduction in membranes. These scientific developments set
the stage for the breakthroughs in hydrogen materials science needed
for a vibrant and competitive hydrogen economy.
Significant progress in basic research for the hydrogen economy is
already occurring. Basic research on catalysis for fuel cells published
in 2005 revealed that a single atomic layer of platinum on certain
metal substrates has more catalytic power than the best catalysts now
in use; this discovery could significantly reduce the cost and enhance
the performance of fuel cells. A new route for splitting water using
sunlight was created with the self-assembly of porphyrin nanotubes
decorated with gold and platinum nanoparticles. These tiny nanoscale
composites have already demonstrated water splitting driven by solar
radiation, and they minimize manufacturing cost through their ability
to self-assemble. Models of hydrogen storage compounds using density
functional theory now predict the density of hydrogen and strength of
its binding with unparalleled accuracy. This permits an extensive
theoretical survey of potential storage materials, many more than could
be practicably fabricated and tested in the laboratory.
Conclusion
The vision of the hydrogen economy as a solution to foreign energy
dependence, environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emission is
compelling. The enormous challenges on the road to achieving this
vision can be addressed with innovative high-risk/high-payoff basic
research. The great contribution of basic research to society is the
discovery of entirely new approaches to our pressing needs. The
phenomenal advances in personal computing enabled by semiconductor
materials science and their impact in every sphere of human activity
illustrates the power of basic science to drive technology and enhance
our daily lives. The challenges for the hydrogen economy in production,
storage and use are known. Recent developments in nanoscience, in high
intensity sources for scattering of electrons, neutrons and x-rays from
materials at DOE's user facilities, and in numerical simulation using
density functional theory open promising new directions for basic
research to address the hydrogen challenges. The breakthroughs that
basic research produces in hydrogen materials science will enable the
realization of a mature, sustainable, and competitive hydrogen economy.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer questions.
Biography for George W. Crabtree
George Crabtree is a Senior Scientist at Argonne National
Laboratory and Director of its Materials Science Division. He holds a
Ph.D. in Condensed Matter Physics from the University of Illinois at
Chicago, specializing in the electronic properties of metals. He has
won numerous awards, most recently the Kammerlingh Onnes Prize for his
work on the properties of vortices in high temperature superconductors.
This prestigious prize is awarded only once every three years; Dr.
Crabtree is its second recipient. He has won the University of Chicago
Award for Distinguished Performance at Argonne twice, and the U.S.
Department of Energy's Award for Outstanding Scientific Accomplishment
in Solid State Physics four times, a notable accomplishment. He has an
R&D 100 Award for his pioneering development of Magnetic Flux Imaging
Systems, is a Fellow of the American Physical Society, and is a charter
member of ISI's compilation of Highly Cited Researchers in Physics.
Dr. Crabtree has served as Chairman of the Division of Condensed
Matter of the American Physical Society, as a Founding Editor of the
scientific journal Physica C, as a Divisional Associate Editor of
Physical Review Letters, as Chair of the Advisory Committee for the
National Magnet Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida, and as Editor of
several review issues of Physica C devoted to superconductivity. He has
published more than 400 papers in leading scientific journals, and
given approximately 100 invited talks at national and international
scientific conferences. His research interests include materials
science, nanoscale superconductors and magnets, vortex matter in
superconductors, and highly correlated electrons in metals. Most
recently he served as Associate Chair of the Workshop on Basic Research
Needs for the Hydrogen Economy organized by the Department of Energy's
Office of Basic Energy Sciences, which is the subject of this hearing.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you very much, Dr. Crabtree.
Dr. Heywood, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN B. HEYWOOD, DIRECTOR, SLOAN AUTOMOTIVE
LABORATORY, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Heywood. It is a pleasure to be here to testify before
you this morning.
This hearing is focused on hydrogen. I want to spend a
couple of minutes developing my understanding of the context
within which we ought to think about hydrogen. And that--the
critical part of that context is that our U.S. transportation
systems' petroleum consumption, first of all, is so large that
it is almost beyond our comprehension, and that makes changing
what we do extraordinarily difficult. And that consumption is
growing at a significant rate. The consumption is already
large. Twenty-five years from now, it is projected to be 60
percent higher. Fifty years from now, it is expected to be
twice what it is today.
What are our options for dealing with this in a broader way
before we focus on hydrogen? And I find it useful to talk about
this in two ways, to say there are two pars that we should be
pursuing aggressively.
And the first of these is to improve the performance of our
mainstream internal combustion engines, transmissions, other
vehicle components step by step, and there is a lot of
potential for doing that. The challenge is, it costs more, so
the price goes up. It goes up a bit if the improvement is
small. It goes up more if the improvements are larger. Hybrid
vehicle technology is a clear example of that. And to date, the
response of the market to somewhat higher cost but more
efficient vehicles has not been to reduce fuel consumption. It
has largely been traded for higher vehicle--larger vehicle
size, higher vehicle weight, and better vehicle performance.
We need to do something with a sense of urgency to reduce
our petroleum consumption through these mainstream technology
improvements, and we need to reinforce that more broadly within
the government by developing a combination of fiscal and
regulatory strategies to raise the importance of vehicle fuel
consumption in the marketplace so that vehicle buyers and
vehicle users are much more aware of their fuel consumption,
what it costs them, and what it costs the Nation more broadly.
Now the second path relates to the longer-term, because
even with improvements in mainstream technology, without
drastic changes in our technology and our vehicles, we will
still be dependent on petroleum-like fuels, and the greenhouse
gas emissions that come from our transportation sector will
still be significant. If we want to get to much lower energy
consumption, recognizing that the availability of petroleum is
going to decline as this century progresses, we need approaches
like hydrogen and fuel cell technology to make--to take the
next step.
But our challenge is that big changes in technology,
whether it be to hydrogen and fuel cells or to advanced
batteries and electricity as the energy carrier, take a long
time to have an impact. Yes, we have hydrogen vehicles out
there, a limited number already driving around, they cost in
the order of $1 million each. In 10 or 15 years, there will be
trial fleets, prototypes of what these technologies could be,
but the costs will still be substantially above what
conventional vehicle costs are.
Our own estimates are that to look at when hydrogen and
fuel cells could have a noticeable impact on transportation's
energy consumption, we judge that to be at least 40 or 50 years
away. That is much longer than most people are willing to
acknowledge. And the reason is that most people leave out the
time required to build up production facilities for any new
technology so that it is both sold and then out there in the
in-use vehicle fleet in sufficient quantities driving around to
have an impact on transportation's energy consumption.
Let me comment more specifically for a couple of minutes on
the government programs that you are here reviewing today.
I think it is important that we have major programs
developing hydrogen technology and ideas and the technology
needed for a hydrogen infrastructure. But there are
alternatives. Hydrogen--success with hydrogen is not
guaranteed, and there are alternatives that we are investing in
but not with the same sense of commitment and urgency. One is
electric vehicles using electricity as the energy carrier, and
the critical technology there is advanced energy storage
batteries. Another is producing fuels from biomass in energy-
efficient ways. Yes, we have programs designed to develop those
technologies, but that could be a very important contributor on
this longer-term time scale, and we don't understand how we can
best do that yet nor what the environmental impacts could well
be.
And then we have to think seriously about very different
vehicle concepts. I think we have really got to give up on the
``living room on wheels'' current American vehicle. It has got
to be a lot smaller ``living room'' with much smaller
``furniture'' in it, because it has to be much lighter, because
we cannot continue on this transportation energy growth path
that we are now on. And that will take inventiveness in vehicle
concepts as well as new materials and new fabrication and
assembly processes.
All of these need strong emphasis. The future may not be
hydrogen alone. It may be hydrogen plus electricity plus
biofuels plus very different vehicle concepts as we move into
the middle of this century. And it is our government's
responsibility to invest in the R&D that examines these options
and starts to pull them into real life where they could make a
contribution.
Let me end by saying that I think our Department of Energy
hydrogen program is a substantial program. It is well
organized. The DOE people managing this program interact
strongly with the auto and energy industries. All of that is
essential to producing a good research and advanced development
agenda. There is also a strong strategic plan and vision behind
that and a concrete set of milestones and deliverables that
make this, I think, a very appropriate program on hydrogen.
But our programs that are dealing with improving mainstream
technology, engines, transmissions, and other vehicle
components, new materials for vehicles, we have these programs,
but they don't have the same scope and intensity, nor do our
efforts on advanced batteries. And I offer for your
consideration the need to build these other programs up to the
point where they are much more aggressively pursuing these
parallel opportunities to hydrogen.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Heywood follows:]
Prepared Statement of John B. Heywood
It is a pleasure to testify before your committee today on meeting
the future energy needs of our U.S. transportation system. I have been
working in this area at MIT for the past 37 years doing technical
research and broader strategic analysis on how to reduce the
environmental impacts and fuel consumption of our transportation
vehicles. Summaries of our groups' relevant recent studies are attached
to this testimony.
Our work, and that of others, looking ahead some 10-30 years
underlines how important it is that we in the U.S. aggressively pursue
two parallel paths related to transportation energy and greenhouse gas
emissions. By we, I mean the relevant people in the government, the
auto and petroleum industries, the R&D community, and the broader car
buying and car using public.
The two paths are:
1. Working effectively to improve current engine and
drivetrain technologies, reduce vehicle weight and drag so we
significantly reduce vehicle fuel consumption, and to provide
incentives to individual light-duty vehicle owners and users to
buy such improved technology vehicles and drive them less.
2. Developing the framework and knowledge base for an eventual
transition to transportation energy sources, vehicle
technologies, and energy consumption rates that offset the
expected declining availability and rising cost of petroleum-
based fuels, and which on a well-to-wheels and cradle-to-grave
basis have low greenhouse gas emissions. This future
transportation energy carrier could be hydrogen, it could
include electricity, and in part it could be biomass derived
fuels.
It is very much in our national interest to pursue both these paths
aggressively, and with a real sense of urgency. The only feasible way
to impact our steadily growing U.S. petroleum imports and consumption
within the next twenty-five years is through reducing the fuel
consumption of our U.S. transportation fleet. There are many ways to
improve current vehicle technology to increase efficiency, but for most
of these, the initial vehicle cost goes up by more than past experience
indicates this consumer market will support. There is a strong need,
therefore, for the U.S. Government to provide incentives to all the
involved stakeholders (including consumers), as soon as possible, to
``pull and push'' this technology into the marketplace and ensure it is
used. I will discuss some of my MIT groups' work on this shortly.
However, even these actions will not result in much lower petroleum
consumption and very low greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. light-
duty fleet. The importance of these actions is that given the size of
our vehicle fleet (some 230 million light-duty vehicle), this is the
only way to get off the projected growth from today's light-duty
vehicle fleets consumption of 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year
(an enormous amount!) to some 1.6 times that (220 billion gallons per
year) twenty-five years from now. Whether petroleum resources are
available to allow this growth is unclear. While it is likely that
``unconventional petroleum'' such as gasoline and diesel like fuels
made from tar sands, natural gas, and biomass, will increase their
contribution, it will still be modest compared to this projected 25-
year ahead total.
Thus the primary driver for this first path is to reduce the impact
that higher petroleum prices, petroleum availability concerns and
shortages, and rising negative balance of payment issues could have on
our security, economy, and way of life.
In addition, however, success along this first path will have a
significant enabling impact on the second path. It is anticipated by
many that by mid-century we will need (in the U.S. and elsewhere) to be
on a transition path to much lower vehicle fleet greenhouse gas
emissions. If the transportation energy demand in the U.S. at mid-
century is as large as many current projections now indicate, then that
transition task due to its size, technological difficulty, and likely
cost is unbelievably challenging. We are now starting to learn just how
challenging that will be. If through improved efficiency and
conservation we in the U.S. have cut that energy transition challenge
in half, just think how large a difference that will make.
It will not be easy to ``cut the challenge in half.'' Over the last
20-30 years, consumers have bought larger and heavier vehicles, with
higher performance, and have thus negated the roughly 30 percent
improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency that improvements in engine and
transmission efficiencies, reduced drag, and materials substitution
have realized. A coordinated set of government actions will be needed
to provide the push and pull to realize in-use fuel consumption
benefits from future improvements. My group has been analyzing such a
coordinated regulatory and fiscal approach. Our assessment is that an
integrated multi-strategy approach has the best chance of realizing our
objectives, since it shares the responsibility even handedly amongst
the major stakeholders--industry and consumers, and each strategy
reinforces the others. Gains only will come if we tackle all aspects of
the problem simultaneously. Our proposal is to combine on improved
version of CAFE regulations to push more fuel-efficient technology into
new vehicles with a reinforcing feebate system imposed at time of
vehicle purchase (substantial fees for purchasers who buy high fuel-
consuming vehicles and rebates for those who buy low fuel consuming
vehicles). Such a feebate system could be revenue neutral. To reinforce
more fuel-efficient choices at vehicle purchase, taxes on
transportation fuels should be steadily increased year by year for the
next few decades by some 10 cents per gallon per year. These additional
fuel taxes could be used to expand the now depleted Highway Trust Fund
revenues to renovate our deteriorating highway systems and provide
adequate maintenance. On the fuel side, in parallel, targets and a
schedule could usefully be set for steadily increasing the amount of
low greenhouse gas emitting biomass-based transportation fuels produced
to augment our petroleum-based fuel supply. This would draw the
petroleum and alternative fuel industries fully into our national
effort. Details of our proposal area given in the attached MIT Energy
and Environment article, ``A Multipronged Approach to Curbing Gasoline
Use'' June, 2004, and its Bandivadekar and Heywood reference. Such a
multi-strategy approach could also provide a transition period so major
U.S. market suppliers with different model lineups, and health care and
pension legacy costs, would have time to respond appropriately.
Now let me say a few words about the second and longer-term path--
working to implement a low greenhouse gas emitting energy stream for
transportation. It may be that hydrogen will turn out to be the best of
the low greenhouse gas emitting choices we have identified to date.
There are, however, other options that warrant substantial federal and
industry R&D. The time scales for radical changes in technology to be
implemented and have impact are long, much longer than we realize. My
group at MIT is working hard to understand these important time scales
better. There are several sequential steps that a new automotive
technology must go through before that technology becomes a large
enough fraction of the on-the-road vehicle fleet to make a difference.
The first step is developing the new technology to the point where it
is competitive in the marketplace with standard technology vehicles.
While more expensive new-technology more-efficient vehicles can be
subsidized, this can only be done to push their introduction up to
modest levels. Once market competitive, the production volumes of the
new technology components must expand to a significant fraction of
total new vehicle production. For engines, for example, this takes one
to two decades. For fuel cell hybrid vehicles we estimate this to be
20-30 years. Then the new technology must penetrate the in-use vehicle
fleet and be driven significant mileage, which takes almost as long as
the production expansion step. Thus for internal combustion engine
hybrids the total time to noticeable impact is expected to be some 30-
plus years. For hydrogen and fuel-cell hybrids it is likely to be more
than 50 years. Hence my emphasis on the first path for nearer-term
improvements, and my judgment that any transition to hydrogen on a
large scale is many decades away. (See MIT Energy & Environment
article, ``New Vehicle Technologies: How Soon Can They Make a
Difference,'' March, 2005, attached).
Now, some comments on a transition to hydrogen-fueled vehicles.
First, the rationale for attempting such a transition is to
significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our transportation
systems in the longer-term. Thus the source of the energy used to
produce hydrogen is critical. It would have to be either coal or
natural gas with effective carbon capture and sequestration, or nuclear
power systems which generate both hydrogen and electricity.
Electrolysis of water with ``renewable electricity'' from solar or wind
energy does not appear a plausible way to produce hydrogen; it makes
much more sense to use renewable electricity to displace coal in the
electric power generating sector. Thus not only are there major
hydrogen fuel cell technology issues (including cost) to be resolved,
there are also major technical and cost challenges in the production,
distribution and storage of hydrogen to be resolved as well. Hydrogen
produced directly from fossil fuels without carbon sequestration, or
from the electric power grid via electrolysis, even when used in fuel
cell powered vehicles (which could be significantly more efficient than
internal combustion engine powered vehicles), will not save energy nor
reduce greenhouse gases.
Are there alternatives that warrant greater federal resources? The
above discussion suggests that electric vehicles with advanced high-
energy-density batteries recharged with electricity from renewable or
low CO2 electric power systems is one at least partial
alternative. Such vehicles would be range limited, but if that range is
more than say 200 miles these could be a substantial fraction of the
market. Efficiently produced biofuels can also be low net CO2
emitting and the extent these can contribute is not yet clear. New,
much lighter weight, vehicle concepts, may be significantly smaller in
size, are also likely to be a significant and necessary long-term
option. All of these should be important parts of the U.S. Government's
R&D transportation energy initiatives. While they are part of the
Government's current portfolio, the level of funding, strategic
planning, and industry and R&D community involvement should be
increased.
Our longer-term list of plausible efficient vehicle technologies
and the energy sources that go with them is too short, and the
difficulties in realizing these options in the real world are so
challenging, that a much larger federal effort on this second path I
have been discussing is warranted.
The above discussion broadly to addresses the first two questions
asked in the Committee's letter requesting testimony. Let me now
provide a more focused summary of my response.
Question 1: How might the future regulatory environment, including
possible incentives for advanced vehicles and regulations of safety and
emissions, affect a transition to hydrogen-fueled motor vehicles? How
could the Federal Government most efficiently accelerate such a
transition?
I have explained how important it is for the U.S. Federal
Government through regulatory and fiscal policies to reduce the energy
requirements of our total transportation system. Not only would this
help reduce our petroleum consumption and thus our oil imports in the
nearer-term; it would also make the task of a future hydrogen
transition (or more complex mix of low greenhouse gas emitting energy
sources and technologies) significantly less challenging.
Question 2: Is the current balance of funding between hydrogen-related
research and research on advanced vehicle technologies that might be
deployed in the interim before a possible transition to hydrogen
appropriate? What advanced vehicle choices should the Federal
Government be funding between now and when the transition to a hydrogen
economy occurs? How are automakers using, or how do they plan to use,
the advanced vehicle technology developed for hydrogen-fueled vehicles
to improve the performance of conventional vehicles? Are automakers
likely to improve fuel economy and introduce advanced vehicles without
government support?
The government's FreedomCAR and Fuels program is a thoughtfully
structured program of significant scale intended to advanced hydrogen
fuel and vehicle technologies. It is a partnership between DOE, Ford,
DaimlerChrysler, GM and several petroleum companies. Its focus is on
applied research with some pre-competitive advanced development. The
program plan has had, and continues to have, substantial industry
input. DOE cost shares major advanced development projects with the
auto companies. The companies involved have substantial programs of
their own in these areas, though the details of these programs are
largely proprietary. This program approach in my judgment does a
reasonable job of using federal funds to encourage the necessary
development of new and better ideas, and new knowledge related to
hydrogen and its use in transportation.
The FreedomCAR and Fuels Program also supports activities intended
to improve the efficiency of mainstream engine and propulsion system
technologies. Given the importance of the first pathway I have
described, this federal effort should be expanded. Also, efforts on
advanced battery research and development, and biofuels should be
expanded to better meet their potential importance in the longer-term.
The Federal Government must play the role of supporting a broad
portfolio of research relevant to transportation energy and
transportations greenhouse gas emissions and involve all sectors of the
R&D community that can contribute. Our universities, the source of the
technical leadership we will need over the next several decades, must
be more actively involved.
Question 3: What role should the Federal Government play in the
standardization of local and international codes and standards that
affect hydrogen-fueled vehicles, such as building, safety,
interconnection, and fire codes?
I have not addressed this question directly. Due to the long time
scales involved in any transition to hydrogen or other new
technologies, this is not as urgent a task as is technology
development. However, as is already happening in the FreedomCAR and
Fuels Program, work on these issues should be underway with the
relevant Standards and Codes organizations, and with the industries
involved.
Attachments
Three articles from MIT's Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
publication ``Energy & Environment'':
1. ``Vehicles and Fuels for 2020: Assessing the Hydrogen Fuel-
Cell Vehicle,'' March, 2003.
2. ``A Multipronged Approach to Curbing Gasoline Use,'' June,
2004.
3. ``New Vehicle Technologies: How Soon Can They Make a
Difference?'' March, 2005.
Biography for John B. Heywood
Professor Heywood did his undergraduate work in Mechanical
Engineering at Cambridge University and his graduate work at MIT. He
then worked for the British Central Electricity Generating Board on
magnetohydrodynamic power generation. Since 1968 he has been on the
faculty in Mechanical Engineering Department at MIT, where is he now
Director of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory and Sun Jae Professor of
Mechanical Engineering. His current research is focused on the
operating, combustion and emissions characteristics of internal
combustion engines and their fuels requirements. He is involved in
studies of automotive technology and the impact of regulation. He has
also worked on issues relating to engine design in MIT's Leaders for
Manufacturing Program; he was Engineering Co-Director of the Program
from 1991-1993. He is currently involved in studies of future road
transportation technology and fuels. He has published some 180 papers
in the technical literature and has won several awards for his research
publications. He holds a Sc.D. degree from Cambridge University for his
published research contributions. He is a author of a major text and
professional reference ``Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals,'' and
co-author with Professor Sher of ``The Two-Stroke Cycle Engine: Its
Development, Operation, and Design.'' From 1992-1997 he led MIT's
Mechanical Engineering Department's efforts to develop and introduce a
new undergraduate curriculum. In 1982 he was elected a Fellow of the
Society of Automotive Engineers. He was honored by the 1996 U.S.
Department of Transportation National Award for the Advancement of
Motor Vehicle Research and Development. He is a consultant to the U.S.
Government and a number of industrial organizations. He was elected to
membership in the National Academy of Engineering in 1998. In 1999,
Chalmers University of Technology awarded him the degree of Doctor of
Technology honoris causa. He was elected a Fellow of the American
Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2001. He is now directing MIT's
Mechanical Engineering Department's Center for 21s' Century Energy
which is developing a broader set of energy research initiatives. In
January 2003, Professor Heywood was appointed Co-Director of the Ford-
MIT Alliance. In 2004, City University, London, awarded him the degree
of Doctor of Science, honoris causa.
Discussion
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you very much, Dr. Heywood. And
thank you to all of the panelists.
We will now move to Member questions.
And I will yield myself five minutes.
I had the opportunity to drive a hydrogen car about a month
ago, and we are going to have to change all our terminology.
You don't have a gearshift. You just push a button for drive.
You can't step on the gas. I don't know how we are going to get
used to saying ``stepping on the hydrogen'' or something. It
just doesn't seem to fit as well. But it was quite an
experience. And then opening the hood and being able to put
your hand on the engine and it is not hot, it is cool. It is--
it must be energy efficient. But I understand that they are
talking about it being within the next decade that this might
be coming out.
But my question really goes to the development of the fuel
and how that is going to be. And I think it was Dr. Bodde that
mentioned that the type of hydrogen that would be used. I
understood from that that it was either--the car that I was
driving was liquid hydrogen, which was stored under the back
seat. And then they--but they haven't decided whether
compressed hydrogen or liquid would be something that would be
used. I--this was a GM car. Sorry. But I know you are all
working together. But--and then it can be filled right from
the--again, it couldn't be called a gas pump. We would have to
change to the hydrogen pump or whatever. But are we really that
close? It seemed that they hadn't--at least this--and I am--and
from all of your testimony, I see that there hasn't been a
decision yet, but it seemed to me between liquid and compressed
or whatever we might find. It is kind of like beta versus VHS.
You know, which is going to be the way to go, because will this
be made, you know, on an industry-wide basis with the research
from--on the FreedomCAR? How are we--who is making those
decisions, and how is this all integrated with the Department
of Energy and the basic research?
So whoever would like to answer that. Mr. Faulkner.
Mr. Faulkner. Well, I could start, and some of my
colleagues can fill in.
I think the timeline that we are working on with our
industry partners is 2015 for a commercialization decision. The
Department of Energy, the government, doesn't make these
vehicles, doesn't make the fuels. We work on research and
development to help them, our private sector partners, make
these decisions. So looking at that time scale, roughly 2015,
start to make the entry point in the market about 2020. There
are some cars on the road. You have driven them, I have driven
them. But they are not cost-effective yet. There are technology
issues we have to sort through, but that is the time scale we
are on, and every year, we are progressing closer to that.
Chairwoman Biggert. Any other comments?
Dr. Crabtree. Yes.
Chairwoman Biggert. Dr. Crabtree.
Dr. Crabtree. You mentioned two alternatives: liquid or
compressed gas. I think both of those have deficiencies that,
in the long-term, really won't give us the driving range that
we need. What we need to do is find a way to store hydrogen as
part of a solid material as a hydrogen compound. And that is
the thing that, really, we can't do yet. If you look at what we
could do in the next five years, we could do either liquid
storage or gas storage, but we really don't know how to go
solid-state storage, and that is the one--that is the area that
we need to do if we are going to have a long-time, long-term
impact.
So this really is a basic research issue.
Chairwoman Biggert. Okay.
Dr. Bodde.
Dr. Bodde. Let me say that I concur with that completely.
We know perfectly well how to compress hydrogen now. The
issue, though, is what is going to become of an automobile that
is given the casual maintenance that our cars do and that is
fueled by a compressed gas at 10,000 p.s.i. for the lightest
element on the Earth? Now as we all sit here in this hearing
room, if your car is doing what my car is doing, it is out in
the parking lot dripping atmospheric pressure fluids onto the
paving. Imagine what would happen if it were a very high
compressed tank of hydrogen.
So I think for demonstration fleets, that will work fine.
In order to pioneer the opening of the technology, it will work
just fine. But for the long-term effective hydrogen economy, I
agree with Dr. Crabtree. I think we have to have some form of
solid-state storage or some form of that near atmospheric
pressure storage.
Chairwoman Biggert. Dr. Heywood.
Dr. Heywood. Let me broaden that and say that this is one
of many areas where we are learning that what we have today is
fantastic. Gasoline and diesel fuel have an extraordinarily
high energy density, lots of energy per unit volume, or mass,
and they are liquids. And we are struggling mightily, and we
will need new ideas and research to explore those ideas before
we can make gaseous fuels, like hydrogen, manageable in
anywhere near the same way.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Chernoby.
Mr. Chernoby. Just in closing, I would agree with the
comments of all of my colleagues here.
At DaimlerChrysler, we do believe that compressed hydrogen
is probably the near-term alternative for limited fleet use,
but in the long-term, we absolutely must provide the customer
with a range. We absolutely must provide them with the space,
as Dr. Heywood said earlier, that they enjoy in their moving
``living room,'' and that is going to require something
different than compressed hydrogen, and we do not think that
liquid, at this point, from what we see, is the answer. There
has to be basic research to find something else that is going
to find something that is going to satisfy all of those needs.
Chairwoman Biggert. So it really will be a conglomerate
that will make this--everyone will probably be on the same
track because of the necessity when we find the right type of
fuel?
Dr. Crabtree. It is interesting, if you look at what is--
what the commercial options are now that--the demonstration
fleets, some are liquid, some are gas. Each one has their own
proponents. Not too many are solid-state. That is the one, I
think, that has to come.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
Going back and forth, Mr. Carnahan, would you be ready, or
should we have one more question from the other side of the
aisle?
[No response.]
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you. Chairman Inglis, you are
recognized for five minutes.
Chairman Inglis. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
You know, when I was a kid, Alcoa Aluminum used to
advertise on ``Meet the Press'' with a very effective jingle
that said, ``Alcoa can't wait. We can't wait for tomorrow.''
And I wonder whether the role that we have is to be saying to
the academics, ``We can't wait.'' And I wonder if the role of
Mr. Chernoby and people in the private sector is to say, ``We
have got to do it, because we want to make some money at it.''
But I wonder if our role is really to say, like President
Kennedy did in 1961, we have got to get to the Moon before the
end of the decade.
So maybe you could comment on what is the role of the
people up here, the government folks. What should we be saying?
It seems to me that the statistics that you have cited are
alarming. The--two things are alarming. One is our use of fuel,
as Dr. Heywood talked about, and the other is the length of
time that we are hearing. So these seem to be on a collision
course. We have got this enormous use, and we have got this
time that is working against us. And so one of my items here
was talking about commitment, which is a question for us in the
government. What kind of commitments should we make to really
moving this along? And anybody want to comment on what should
be the role of government in this process to light the fire on
all of the researchers and to really insist, like Alcoa, ``We
can't wait until tomorrow''?
Dr. Heywood. And I am glad you said, ``We can't wait until
tomorrow,'' because that is absolutely the case. And in some
areas, we are getting a move on. We have got a sizable hydrogen
program. In other areas, we are not, particularly, in my view,
in government efforts to regulate through fiscal and
regulations like CAFE, to force movement. I think the
government's responsibility is to both push and pull these
technologies into the marketplace.
Research is another way of sort of smoothing, lubricating,
seeding that process. And I think that is a very important
thing for you to think about as well. But I urge you to hang on
to this. We can't wait. We have got to assess how this problem
is developing and getting worse and sort out what we,
government and others, can do collectively to get a move on in
resolving these problems.
Chairman Inglis. Yes, sir.
Dr. Crabtree.
Dr. Crabtree. So you mentioned getting to the moon, which
is often applied to hydrogen and sometimes to the larger energy
problem as well. I think there is one difference from the
Apollo program. There, President Kennedy could say, ``Let us do
it,'' and he had the NASA do it. It was very well coordinated.
In the case of energy, cars, and hydrogen, it has to be sort of
the economy. It is a complex system. It is a lot of people
interacting and making independent decisions, so you don't get
that direction from the top.
So I think what the government can do is incentivize that
activity. And there are really two aspects to it. One is what
we can do now, sort of incremental hydrogen economy, and we
have heard some of the--my colleagues have talked about that.
One is what we would like to be able to do, the mature one that
we need, let us say, 20 or 30 years from now that would really
have an energy impact. The first one is sort of a commercial
demonstration stage now. So you need one kind of incentive for
that.
The second one is really basic research. You need a
completely different kind of incentive for that. You have to
work on both levels, and soon these two, sort of--these two
prongs will come together and we will get the result that we
want.
Chairman Inglis. Here is my idea. Somebody comment on this,
maybe Mr. Chernoby or Dr. Bodde might want to talk about this,
is that gas at $3 a gallon lights a fire in the consuming
public. When it gets to that level and you go to fill up your
SUV and it is $42, I think you say, ``This can't be.'' I mean,
``I can't continue to spend $42 per fill-up.'' Right? I mean,
does that light the--DaimlerChrysler, does that get you going?
Does that get you excited?
Mr. Chernoby. Well, a couple of things.
You talked about commitment of the researchers. I can just
share that the researchers we deal with, I can assure you,
there is huge commitment, huge tenacity and focus on trying to
get these problems solved, so I am not worried, really, about
the motivation of the researchers. But similar to what Dr.
Heywood said earlier and what you just mentioned, I think the
role of government is two critical areas.
Number one, it is obviously to help all of us in a pre-
competitive environment with basic research, because we have
got to overcome these challenges. But then you talked about the
marketplace. That is the key here. That is--for me, that is the
big difference between this challenge and the Apollo program.
Without the marketplace in poll, there is no penetration, and
without product penetration, there is no motivation to build an
infrastructure.
So I would say, short-term, it is not just about seeing the
research, but it is about sitting down with all of us, the
energy industry, the auto industry, and other constituents, and
we have got to talk about how can we get that motivation in the
marketplace. I don't personally--and this is not speaking for
the company, personally, I don't believe $3 is going to do it.
I mean, you are--like Dr. Heywood said, I mean, you look at the
costs and the challenges we have to overcome on some of these
technologies today, there has got to be a pretty big incentive
or a reason for a customer to value and move to that. That is
why we think there is a lot of transition, like Dr. Heywood
said, that we are going to go through before we ultimately get
to the hydrogen economy. But working closely with all of us on
what is the business model going to be and how can the
government play a role in that business model to make it viable
for not only an automotive company but an energy company as
well to make this a reality. But without the marketplace, it is
not going anywhere.
Dr. Bodde. My observation on federal policies, if you allow
me.
If you look at the history of federal policy and energy,
going back to the first Arab oil embargo of October of 1973,
the chief problem, as I see it, has been consistency. We have
gone from one thing to another thing. When oil prices were high
in the 1970s, there was Project Independence. When oil prices
fell in the 1980s, it was all, ``Well, what the heck. Let the
market reign here.'' I think the chief ingredient of any
effective federal policy is going to be consistency. Durability
over the long-term. That allows entrepreneurs, innovators,
investors to plan on the economic regime that is going to
prevail over the time scale that it takes for them to bring
technologies into the marketplace.
And so item one, I would say, is consistency.
Item two is attention to the demand side. All of this talk
about research, about CAFE standards, and so forth, all deals
with the supply side, that is the supply of vehicles, the
supply of fuels. There has to be a demand side pull from
consumers as well.
Now it is interesting to observe, as Dr. Heywood has, the
response to the more fuel-efficient vehicles that haven't
proven to be the more fuel-economic vehicles. Fuel-efficiency,
that is in the sense of moving metal down the road, has
improved consistently over the last 20 years. Fuel economy has
been flat. The reason is the increase efficiency was taken as
greater weight, as greater acceleration, as greater vehicle
performance, and this is what the marketplace is demanding.
My guess, also, is that at $3 a gallon, that might not
change very much, and I think serious consideration has to be
given to other demand-side policies that start to create a
consumer interest in translating greater efficiency into
greater economy.
Mr. Faulkner. Sir, your red light has been on for a while,
but you raise a really fascinating and philosophical question.
Could I respond for a minute?
Chairman Inglis. If the Chair will allow it.
Mr. Faulkner. Is that allowed?
You noted the alarming rise in the use of oil. That is
true. That has been going on for some time. Many are aware of
that, and the length of time we are talking about, 2015, 2020,
full breakout in the market 2030, 2040, 2050, and then you
noted, we can't wait. But I think--it may be unpopular, but I
think, in a sense, it is our duty to say we have to wait, not
that that is complacent but that fundamental science doesn't
occur overnight. Some of these things everyone has talked
about, breakthroughs that are needed, and if you are set on the
right pace research and development. You talk about
commercialization of these technologies in the private sector.
It is going to take a while to affect those changes.
And I would note that the President sees the urgency of
that, that is why he set the vision. That is what he talked
about this fundamental issue we have to address. And for the
government, the federal role, the Department of Energy, we have
to manage it. There are several different programs. It is a
difficult task to integrate the Office of Science's fundamental
research in our office and other departments.
And Congress's role is to hold our feet to the fire. Ask us
for metrics. Ask us to come in and justify what we are
spending. And I think, as the President has said, and the
Secretary, pass an energy bill.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan, is recognized
for five minutes.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
Welcome to all of you, and this is a very timely and
important discussion that we are having here today. And I was
fascinated just recently reading the--if you haven't seen it,
look at the August issue of National Geographic on things that
are coming after petroleum, basically, and they highlight a lot
of these new technologies.
But I want to particularly ask Mr. Chernoby, or anybody
else on the panel, about the FreedomCAR research and where you
see that going from here, and really give me a better idea of
where that is today.
Mr. Chernoby. I would summarize a few key points.
We have talked a lot about hydrogen and fuel cells and
hydrogen storage today. If you look at the FreedomCAR research
portfolio, we manage a portfolio that is even broader than
that. Similar to what Dr. Heywood said earlier, it is critical
as well, as we research things for the long-term, what can we
be doing to implement things we learn in the short-term? There
is quite a bit of research going on still in lightweight
advanced materials, very important, and as soon as something
gets on the shelf that engineers can grab and use and the
supply base can figure out how to process, we will implement
it, if it provides the right value to the customer: lighter
weight vehicles, more fuel efficiency. We don't have to wait
for a hydrogen economy. There is basic battery research going
on, another critical enabler.
We have several examples like that that we manage in this
pre-competitive environment at FreedomCAR. So we absolutely
believe that--DaimlerChrysler, and I think my compatriots and
Ford and GM would agree, this is absolutely the best way to
make sure we compile some of the brightest minds, not only in
industry, but in academia and the other research environments
around the world. And it is that combination of minds that is
actually going to help us get these breakthroughs to market,
not just in the long-term for the hydrogen, but feeding in all
of the other things we are doing in our portfolio to provide
benefit in the near-term as well.
Mr. Faulkner. Sir, if I could add, the Secretary----
Mr. Carnahan. Yes, please.
Mr. Faulkner.The Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman, was out
in Michigan recently where he did two events in one day. He cut
the ribbon, groundbreaking of the new solar factory, but he
also was with Mr. Chernoby and his colleagues to talk about
renewing two agreements with the U.S. Car Group. One of them
was on batteries and one of them was on materials.
And I think that kind of success that we have in partnering
together with the auto industry, if there wasn't success, they
wouldn't be wanting to sign up and renew these agreements. And
there are--am I correct that the batteries that we have
pioneered in that consortium are now on every hybrid in
America?
Mr. Chernoby. Yeah, absolutely. Some of the very basic and
preliminary work on what we call nickel metal hydride batteries
was done through that consortium, and that is what you will
find in basically every hybrid vehicle on the road today.
Mr. Carnahan. We have also talked about several incentives
here today, and I have worked with some here in the Congress
about instituting a tax credit that would go partially to
consumers and partially to manufacturers to help in this
transitional time period to these alternative fuel vehicles.
What kind of impact do you see that having? Some have
argued because the demand is growing and the technology is
coming online that those kinds of incentives aren't necessary.
And I would be interested in your comments about that.
Mr. Chernoby. Well, I would add, similar to what Dr.
Heywood said earlier, let the data speak for itself.
If you look at the penetration of these--some of these
technologies, it has not been in astronomically large numbers.
I mean, they occupy a very, very small percentage of the annual
vehicle sales in, not only the United States, but around the
world. So any incentive that is going to help the customer find
the right value equation, and that is why I urge you to think
about not only incentives--don't pick a single technology.
Think about the broad range of technologies. One may be more
attractive to one customer versus another. And that is what we
have got to focus on, providing the ability for those
technologies to penetrate across as broad of a range of the
market as we can. We, at DaimlerChrysler, feel we very much
ought to focus on today's clean and advanced diesel to augment
the hybrid discussion, because there are a lot of customers who
drive in a highway-driving environment.
So absolutely, we believe that we have to do something, as
Dr. Bodde said, on the demand side and continue to do so, not
only in the long-term hydrogen economy, but in the short-term
as well.
Dr. Bodde. That said, however, perhaps we should not be too
pessimistic about reading the current data. It is
characteristic of any technology, if there is a long gestation
period in which not much seems to be happening in the
marketplace in which market share growth and market penetration
doesn't happen, then a tipping point is reached and the
technology takes off.
I mean, you look at Internet use, Internet subscribers. The
Internet has been around for a long time, and it is only in the
last five years that we get this vertical--near-vertical
acceleration.
My guess is that the same thing is going to happen with the
hybrid vehicles, perhaps hybrid diesel vehicles. The same thing
is going to happen with the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
What we need to be about is to look at the conditions
needed for that marketplace takeoff to occur and to work
specifically to put those conditions in place so that the
market itself will then take it over.
Mr. Faulkner. Just another comment.
I think it is important not to get too far ahead of the
technology in incentives. The President has proposed tax
incentives for hybrids, but I think the fuel cell vehicles are
still a ways down the road, and you can consider those as that
technology improves. Timing is very important.
Dr. Crabtree. Briefly, that--we heard a lot about
incentivizing and getting the technology out there for the
consumer and for the manufacturer, but I think it is important
to incentivize the research as well. The things we can do now
and put out now or that consumers can decide about now and make
now are really not the ones that we want to do 20 years from
now to have a big impact on energy.
So we shouldn't leave that basic research component out of
the equation.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you.
Chairwoman Biggert. Timing is everything.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Chairwoman Biggert. And your time has expired.
And the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bartlett, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
I have many questions, but time will permit, perhaps, only
three quick ones.
I understand that if we were to wave a magic wand and every
American car could have a fuel cell in it with platinum as a
catalyst that one generation--and it doesn't last all that
long, I understand, but one generation would use all of the
platinum in all of the world. Is that true?
Secondly, right now today, 85 percent of all of the energy
we use in this country comes from fossil fuels. Are you all
familiar with Hubbard's Peak? Do you know what is meant by
Hubbard's Peak? Okay. We now may be at Hubbard's Peak in terms
of oil. If that is true, gas is not far behind.
And I would caution, don't be sanguine about this enormous
supply of coal. At current use rates, it will last 250 years.
If you increased its use exponentially only two percent a year,
and we will have to do more than that if we run down Hubbard's
Peak with gas and oil, it lasts 85 years. When you recognize
that you probably are not going to run your car by putting the
trunk full of coal, you are going to have to convert it to a
gas or a liquid, now you have shrunk it to 50 years. That is
all that is out there at two percent growth rate and converting
it to some form we are going to use.
Only 15 percent of our energy today comes from renewables.
I include in that the eight percent that comes from nuclear and
only seven percent from true renewables. Since hydrogen is not
an energy source, you will always use more energy producing the
hydrogen than you get out of it. Where are we going to get all
of this energy as we run down Hubbard's Peak? Are we going to
have a really nuclear nation, because the effective growth in
energy from the renewables is really pretty darn limited?
And the third question deals with: all of you seem to agree
that if hydrogen--if we are going to move to a hydrogen
economy, you have got to have solid-state storage. Is there
something in the science that inherently makes hydrogen storage
a higher density than electron storage? What you are really
talking about now is just another battery, aren't you, which is
what hydrogen solid-state storage is going to be? Another
battery? In the science, is there something inherently so
superior about hydrogen storage that it is going to be a better
battery than storing electrons?
Is it true about platinum that one generation of American
cars lasting, what, 200 hours for each solar--for each fuel
cell, we have used all of the platinum in all of the world?
Dr. Crabtree. Well, may I comment on that?
I really don't--I have heard that statement as well, and I
haven't tried to verify it.
Mr. Bartlett. Could you, for the record, all of you, give
us some input on that? It is really nice to know that, because
if that is the path we are running down, it is not going to be
a very fruitful one.
Insert for the Record by Douglas L. Faulkner
A study by TIAX, LLC determined that there are sufficient platinum
resources in the ground to meet long-term projected platinum demand if
the amount of platinum in fuel cell systems is reduced to the
Department of Energy's (DOE) target level. The DOE-sponsored study
shows that total world platinum demand (including jewelry, fuel cell
and industrial applications) by 2050 would be 20,000 metric tons
against a total projected resource of 76,000 metric tons. This study
assumes that fuel cell vehicles attain 80 percent market penetration by
2050 (from U.S., Western Europe, China, India and Japan). The study
shows that the limiting factor in keeping up with increased platinum
demand is the ability of the industry to respond and install additional
production infrastructure. Since in the out-years, recycling would
provide almost 60 percent of the supply, the industry will have to be
careful not to overbuild production capacity in a more accelerated
market demand scenario.
Platinum availability is a strategic issue for the
commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Platinum is
expensive and is currently critical to achieving the required
levels of fuel cell power density and efficiency.
As such, the Department has been focused on reducing and
substituting for (with non-precious metal catalysts) the amount
of platinum in fuel cell stacks (while maintaining performance
and durability) so that hydrogen fuel cells can be cost
competitive with gasoline internal combustion engines.
Significant progress has been made and is still being
made by national laboratories, universities and industry to
reduce the amount of platinum needed in a fuel cell stack by
replacing platinum catalysts with platinum alloy catalysts or
non-platinum catalysts, enhancing the specific activity of
platinum containing catalysts, and depositing these catalysts
on electrodes using innovative processes. The Office of Science
has recently initiated new basic research projects on the
design of catalysts at the nanoscale that focus on continued
reduction in the amount of platinum catalyst required in fuel
cell stacks.
Typically, it takes three to five years to increase
platinum production capacity in response to an increase in
demand. Fuel cell vehicle production may create a brief
platinum supply deficit, leading to short-term price increases.
The TIAX study shows that platinum prices over the
last one hundred years fluctuated based on major world events
(e.g., world war, etc.); however, the mean price (adjusted for
inflation) remained stable at $300 per troy ounce. However,
over the last couple of years platinum has been higher at $900
per troy ounce.
Mr. Bartlett. Secondly, where are you going to get all of
this energy, if we are at Hubbard's Peak, and we probably are,
with oil at $60 a barrel and going nowhere but up, I think?
Where are you going to get this energy?
We have got to have a big culture change until we are using
less energy. We are like a young couple that just had a big
inheritance from their grandparents, and they have affected a
lifestyle where 85 percent of the money they are spending comes
from their grandparents' inheritance, only 15 percent from
their income. And their grandparents' inheritance is not going
to last until they die. Now they have got to somehow transition
themselves from this lavish lifestyle, living largely on the
inheritance from their grandparents. How are we going to do
that, and where are you going to get the energy from from this
hydrogen economy?
You know, what we are really doing is nibbling at the
margins. We have got to face the fundamental problem that we
are at Hubbard's Peak and going to start down the other side
shortly. Where are you going to get the energy to come from?
What are you telling people?
Dr. Heywood. May I respond to that one, please?
That is one reason I have talked about these two paths
forward, because to make the drastic changes that--in culture
lifestyle economies that you are really suggesting, which I
think we will have to consider, within this century most
likely, have to make. That is going to take time.
But in the nearer-term, there are things we can do that are
better than nibbling at the edges. Yes, they have that
characteristic, but they will do more. We can--you know, we
could half our transportation energy consumption with the sort
of technologies that are almost ready today, but we need to
realize that that is what we will have to do in some way to
survive in the long-term. And I think that discussion needs to
be held much more publicly, and we have all got to contribute
to this and understand the dilemma that we are facing.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
Before my time runs out, is there something scientifically,
inherently so much better about a hydrogen battery than there
is an electron battery that we should be pouring these billions
of research into that?
Dr. Heywood. The recharge time is one big difference. You
could recharge a hydrogen tank relatively quickly compared to
recharge an energy storage battery.
Mr. Bartlett. I sleep all night. My battery can charge
while I sleep.
Is there something inherently better about density?
Dr. Crabtree. May I comment on that?
I think the energy density that you can store in hydrogen,
as a chemical fuel, is higher than you can get from electricity
as an electrical fuel----
Mr. Bartlett. But we are still working on that and don't,
in fact, know, correct?
Dr. Crabtree. If you look at some interesting charts in
this report, you will see that hydrogen has the ability to
replace your battery in your laptop and give you three times or
four times the run time for the same weight and the same
volume.
Mr. Bartlett. Good. We ought to be moving----
Dr. Crabtree. As a matter of fact, it is better.
Mr. Bartlett. We ought to be moving quickly then.
Thank you.
Dr. Bodde. One final comment, if I may, sir.
You asked the old what source of energy. Eventually, you
get to nuclear and renewables that eventually--this 85 percent
inheritance is gone, no matter what scenario you are in, an
environmentally limited one or other, and you are into nuclear
for whatever supply you have.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you for helping to get that message
out.
Chairwoman Biggert. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Sodrel,
is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Sodrel. Indiana.
Chairwoman Biggert. Indiana.
Mr. Sodrel. Yeah, Indiana.
Chairwoman Biggert. Excuse me. There is a little
difference.
Mr. Sodrel. But--well, now we do say ``you all'' in
southern Indiana, and I understand how you could make a
mistake.
Going to the question that Mr. Bartlett framed about how we
produce hydrogen, I understand the Icelanders that--embarked on
a robust program trying to create hydrogen using geothermal
energy. Are any of you familiar with what is going on there? It
is kind of a joint industry effort, is it not, where they are--
they have a lot of volcanoes and a lot of heat. And I
understand they are trying to convert their entire country to
hydrogen fuel. Given that their country only has 300,000
population, it would be a little bit like us converting a city
to hydrogen fuel, but do you know how that is coming along?
No?
Mr. Faulkner. We can get you details for the record,
though, sir, if you wish.
Mr. Sodrel. Yeah, I would appreciate it.
Insert for the Record by Douglas L. Faulkner
Iceland's goal is to become the first nation in the world to
achieve the vision of a hydrogen economy. The move to a hydrogen
economy has significant government support, and surveys conducted by
Icelandic New Energy indicate significant public support as well. With
a population of less than 300,000 (the majority of which resides in the
capital of Reykjavik), transforming the Icelandic transportation sector
to hydrogen will require far fewer hydrogen fueling stations than what
will be required in the United States. Advances include:
Iceland has an abundance of relatively inexpensive
renewable energy that is used for heating and provides 100
percent of the Nation's electricity (80 percent from hydropower
and 20 percent from geothermal).
Currently, there is one hydrogen fueling station,
located along a major highway in Reykjavik, which serves as a
national demonstration project. Hydrogen is produced on site
via renewable electrolysis. The station is a publicly
accessible retail fueling station that also offers gasoline and
diesel and includes a convenience store. It supports the
operation of three hydrogen fuel cell buses that run regular
routes around Reykjavik; there are no other hydrogen vehicles
at this time.
The next phase of the country's hydrogen
demonstration will involve the conversion of the entire
Reykjavik bus fleet to hydrogen. Future phases will include
promoting the integration of fuel cell powered vehicles for
passenger use and examining the possibility of replacing the
fishing fleet with hydrogen based vessels.
Iceland collaborates with the United States through
the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE),
which was established in November 2003 to facilitate global
collaboration on hydrogen and fuel cell research, development,
and demonstration (RD&D). With a membership including 16
countries and the European Commission, the IPHE provides a
forum for leveraging scarce RD&D funds, harmonizing codes and
standards, and educating stakeholders and the general public on
the benefits of and challenges to the hydrogen economy.
Mr. Sodrel. The second question relates to the FreedomCAR
initiative.
We have a lot of foreign manufacturers of automobiles. I
know Toyota has an enormous plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. It
is kind of in my neighborhood. Honda, and other foreign
automobile manufacturers have made significant investments in
fuel cell. How do you feel about greater involvement of foreign
car makers that have domestic plants in this FreedomCAR
initiative? Would it help shorten the time frame here or should
we ask them to participate?
Dr. Bodde. Well, in my opinion, the world auto industry is
truly a global auto industry, and frankly, it makes little
sense, in my opinion, to distinguish between what is domestic
and what is foreign. I mean, if you look at the research
alliances that are now created, you see them between General
Motors and Toyota. You see them between Ford and other foreign
companies. And so these things all kind of fit together anyway
as an international research picture. And so I think almost
whether you do or don't include them in the U.S. program, that
technology is going to get to them one way or another, because
it is a worldwide technology institution.
Mr. Chernoby. Well, we have had some discussion in the U.S.
Car/FreedomCAR effort about including some of our compatriots
around the world. At this time, we haven't made any final
decisions on whether we want to do that or not, but we
absolutely, in the pre-competitive environment, like Dr. Bodde
had said, look at what we are doing around the world. One of
the challenges that we do have, though, is there isn't
necessarily consensus in some of the world governments on how
we ought to approach this effort, and the codes and standards,
and the effect, eventually, on not only the infrastructure of
the vehicles that go along with it.
So worldwide harmonization is clearly one of the barriers
that we always work on in the auto industry and both jointly
with government. And it is likely to be one here unless we
figure out a way to get it under control.
Mr. Sodrel. Thank you. I don't have any further questions.
Chairwoman Biggert. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Gutknecht.
Mr. Gutknecht. Ohio.
No, I am from Minnesota.
Chairwoman Biggert. It is nice that you care to admit it.
Mr. Gutknecht. Listen. First of all, let me offer this
disclaimer. I am not a scientist. I don't play one. And we are
honored to have you scientists here to talk to us.
Those of you who did not hear Roscoe Bartlett's special
order last night, I hope you will all at least get a chance,
and I hope Roscoe will put together a ``Dear Colleague'' to
share with the rest of us some of the interesting information
he has shared in his special order last night on the House
Floor. It was last night, wasn't it, Roscoe?
Mr. Bartlett. Yes.
Mr. Gutknecht. Okay. And what he really said, and I will
just extend his remarks a bit here, was he said that energy is
so cheap today, and he had some--in fact, I would yield to the
gentleman a minute, if he wants, to share some of the examples
of just how cheap energy really is.
Mr. Bartlett. Oh, thank you very much.
A barrel of oil is about $60 today. And you can buy the
refined product of that for about $100 at the pump, 42 gallons
of gas, $2 and something a gallon, right? That will buy you the
work equivalent of 12 people working all year for you. That is
the work output you are buying from $100 worth of gasoline. If
you go out this weekend and work really hard all day, I will
get more mechanical work done with an electric motor with less
than 25 cents worth of electricity. That is what you are worth,
in terms of mechanical work: less than 25 cents a day.
This--these fossil fuels are so darn cheap. We are just as
assuredly addicted to them as a cocaine addict is to his drug.
It has become a drug for us.
Mr. Gutknecht. Well, reclaiming my time, and I--those were
just some of the remarks he made last night, and I thought it
was fascinating. And it really sort of underscores the
importance of this meeting, but it also--I think we need to
look at this whole energy thing in that context, that fossil
fuel energy is incredibly cheap, even at $60 a barrel. Somebody
figured it out, we still pay four times more for a gallon of
water in a convenience store than we pay for that gallon of
gasoline, even at $60 a barrel. And I am not defending the oil
companies or the oil barons that have us ``over the barrel,''
no pun intended.
I want to come back to--and I was particularly interested
in some of the comments by Dr. Heywood, because I think that,
in some respects, you nailed it, that--I am a believer in doing
all we can to advance the science relative to hydrogen power
and some of these other things, but I have come to the
conclusion, at least, again, as a layman, that hydrogen is, in
some respects, a very, very good battery, but I think we have
to--we don't want to oversell it long-term, in terms of its
value as an energy source. And I am interested in some of the
other technology.
And maybe, Dr. Faulkner, you could comment on this, because
I know there are some people--there are people who have come in
to see me, and again, I am not a scientist. I don't play one
here in the Congress, but I am just a curious guy. One of the
technologies that people have talked to me about are super
magnets. Are any of you doing any work with super magnets? And
do you know what I am talking about?
All right. We will have them come and talk to you, because
I found it fascinating that we now have--well, I will go on to
a different subject.
Insert for the Record by Douglas L. Faulkner
The term ``Super magnets'' is a broad description for several
families of rare Earth magnets. I am not aware of any DOE work in the
area of super magnets. Superconducting magnets, on the other hand, are
electromagnets, which use an electric current to generate a magnetic
field, and the electricity runs through superconducting materials, such
that very large magnetic fields can be generated without electrical
resistance creating large amounts of waste heat. The Department's
Office of Science uses superconducting magnets in some of its particle
accelerators.
Mr. Gutknecht. And that subject is really about renewable
fuels, because on the other Committee that I serve on, the
House Agriculture Committee, I chair a Subcommittee, and we
have responsibility for some of the renewable fuel programs.
And there again, there are some amazing things happening,
sometimes without any oversight responsibility or funding from
the Federal Government in terms of producing this fuel even
cheaper.
Just out of curiosity, how many of you know right now how
much it costs at a--one of our more advanced ethanol plants to
produce a gallon of ethanol? What would the cost be? What would
you guess?
Dr. Faulkner.
Mr. Faulkner. Well, about $2.10.
Mr. Gutknecht. Next?
Dr. Bodde. I would have to look that one up for you, but I
go with his number in the absence of anything else.
Mr. Gutknecht. All right.
Mr. Chernoby. I would have been more in the $3 realm.
Mr. Gutknecht. Okay.
Dr. Heywood. I would add that those costs depend on where
you draw your boundary and what costs that add up to that
figure are included. There is a lot of variability in studies
of producing ethanol and the reality, and it depends how the
numbers are worked out.
Mr. Gutknecht. Well, let us do simple arithmetic. You have
to buy the corn, right? It is about $2.20 a bushel right now.
And you have to amortize the cost of the plant, right? The
biggest cost in producing ethanol right now is in energy. I
mean, you have to cook the corn. But according to my most
efficient plants in my District, right now, at $2.20 a bushel
of corn, and we have to assume the cost of producing that corn,
and believe it or not, maybe even a little profit for the guy
who grows it is in that $2.20, the answer is, and not only from
my ethanol plants, but also according to the Chief Economist at
USDA, the answer is 95 cents a gallon. Does that surprise you?
It surprises most Americans. And I say that, because right now,
in both the pure cost basis and in terms of BTUs, ethanol is
cheaper than gasoline.
I yield back my time.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
I am from California. I am very proud of being from
California.
I would just like to get down to some fundamentals, and
first of all, let me suggest that Roscoe Bartlett adds a great
deal to every hearing that I go to, and I am happy to have him
with us and making his contributions.
Let us--I would like to ask--go back to the cost of
hydrogen. From what I take it, after the exchange between you
folks and Roscoe, is that there actually isn't an energy
savings reasons to go to hydrogen as a fuel, because it
actually would use more energy to create it than what you get
out of it once it is actually manufactured, is that correct? So
we are actually--the hydrogen fuel angle is that it will--it is
a cleaner burning fuel for the air, is that why we want to go
in that direction?
Mr. Bartlett. If the gentleman would yield for a quick
moment.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes.
Mr. Bartlett. It is true that it takes more energy to
produce hydrogen than what you get out of it. When you use
hydrogen, you can conveniently use it in a fuel cell that gets
at least twice the efficiency of the reciprocating engine. So
at the end of the day, you may use less energy, in spite of the
energy loss. We are not going to suspend the second----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Bartlett.--law of thermodynamics. In spite of that
loss, we may end up using less energy with hydrogen.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So would it depend on, as Roscoe is
suggesting, that we--that the development of fuel cell type
engines rather than the current type of engines that we have in
automobiles?
Dr. Bodde. Well, both are certainly true. You do need a
fuel cell, of course, to offset the inefficiencies in producing
the hydrogen. But on the other hand, anything that you
manufacture is subject to the second law. And so there is
always an increase in entropy or a degrading of the energy
source, no matter--from any human activity.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, I have--actually, I have been told--
we just had a briefing the other day on biodiesel that
suggested that that is not the case with biodiesel, with canola
oil, that actually you get more BTUs out of--there are more
BTUs left over by the process by a three to one margin than it
takes to actually produce the biodiesel.
Dr. Bodde. As Dr. Heywood said, it depends where you draw
the boundaries around the system.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But none of you have heard that that is--
you think that is an inaccurate statement if it is--when the
boundaries are drawn the same around hydrogen as around
biodiesel?
Dr. Bodde. I don't know the specifics of that particular
one, sir, but I would be suspicious of anything that appears to
create energy out of nothing. That energy always comes from
some place.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yeah, well, we know that solar--as my
colleague is suggesting, that the plants are actually taking in
solar energy, and that is part of the process that nature has
provided us, and that is the explanation of where extra energy
could come from. And do any of you have anything else to say
about the--comparing a biodiesel approach to a hydrogen
approach in terms of the cost of energy in creating your final
product?
Dr. Heywood. Let me comment on that.
One advantage of hydrogen, and I think it is real, is that
it has no carbon. So it is analogous to a gasoline or diesel
fuel. You can put it in the tank of a vehicle. And when it is
used to drive the vehicle, there is no carbon dioxide, no
greenhouse gases, emitted, so that is one of its important
advantages.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right. I think that is an advantage with
the biodiesel as well. Is--does biodiesel create greenhouse
gases? I----
Dr. Heywood. Well, that----
Mr. Faulkner. It might be a net zero, but----
Dr. Heywood. That depends on the details.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right, because the plants absorb a certain
amount of the----
Dr. Heywood. And I would add that this may well not be an
either or, because we talked primarily about passenger
vehicles, but the freight part of our transportation system is
very significant in terms of its energy consumption. And the
big piece is the long-haul trucks, which use diesel engines.
They are very efficient engines, and there is nothing on the
horizon that looks like it could challenge them, in terms of
efficiency.
So sources of fuel for diesel engines in--of the long-term
future, is something we should be looking at and----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Dr. Heywood.--exploring and developing, and biodiesel is
one option.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Well, it is--if you have to reconfigure
the engine of every car that is manufactured in order to take
hydrogen in a way that is efficient, meaning you have to end up
with a fuel cell engine rather than the engines that we have,
it is enormous costs in terms of transition. So we would want
to make sure the end result was taking care of the fundamental
problem, which is running out of energy.
Let me ask you about the hydrogen engine.
Now someone told me that a byproduct of a hydrogen engine
or a fuel cell is water, and--pure water, but would this not be
a problem in areas like in half of the United States where it
freezes in the wintertime? Would this not be a--some kind of a
problem to have water coming out of the engine?
Mr. Chernoby. Well, actually--I will comment.
That has been one of the challenges that we have been
working on, not just water coming out of the engine, but water
within the fuel cell itself. What you will find, during the
process of converting the hydrogen to electricity in the fuel
cell, there is quite a bit of heat that is generated to warm
the water up. And the challenge we have been working on, I
think, we--not only DaimlerChrysler, but other OEMs as well,
have found ways to overcome is how do we manage that water
within the fuel cell during that initial start-up stage when
that heat is in there.
So clearly, you are absolutely right. The challenge of that
water being there in a cold environment is something that has
to be managed.
Mr. Rohrabacher. We have not--that particular hurdle has
not been jumped over yet.
Mr. Chernoby. We have made exceptional progress in the last
12 months. I won't say we are done.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Okay. Because I can't imagine--I can--
coming from California, as I do, we wouldn't mind having, I
guess, more water on our roads, but if it froze, if we lived in
Minnesota, as my friend here does, I would imagine that a
significant part of the year, the last thing you want to have
is water spread on the road and having to drive your car or
have to rely on the road for transportation.
So this is a significant--it seems to me that that would be
a significant problem.
Thank you very much, Madame Chairman.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madame Chairman.
I am a member of the hydrogen fuel cell caucus, and we were
introduced to a hydrogen fuel cell car, and I was able to drive
it. And it was a great experience, but I asked them how much it
cost to build them--and we obviously have the technology today
to do it, but I asked how much did it cost to build this, and
the answer was $1 million for the car.
That is obviously the issue here, bringing the cost down.
The energy companies in my district, when I talk to them
about this issue, and I am very interested in it, they tell me
that the timeline is 20 to 30 years out in the future. I don't
want to accept that answer, and I wanted to get your response
to that.
And in addition, I wanted to ask the question or possibly
get a comment on the energy bill that we hope is going to come
out of conference committee. There will be approximately $2
billion appropriated for alternative energy, including
hydrogen. And where would you think--where would you direct
that money if you were king for a day and could call the shots
on that?
And then finally, the role of the universities, I have a
university in my District, and in my view, I think the
universities have a role to play with respect to developing
these alternative energies.
I will just open it up to the panel.
Dr. Heywood. Let me comment on the time scales.
It is important that we say--or sort out time scale to
what. And we have got fuel cell cars out already. There will be
larger fleets 10 or 15 years from now. The DOE
commercialization decision is pitched for 2015, 10 years from
now. Our judgment was that fuel cells--we will know whether
they are marketable within about 15 years. That is not all that
different.
But then there is this time scale to build up production.
And we have never gone through a large-scale change in a
propulsion system, except for the diesel transition in Europe.
Diesels took over from 10 percent of the market in Europe in
1980 to 50 percent now. So it took 25 years. Diesels, a well-
established technology, to go from small scale to 50 percent of
the market. How long will it take fuel cells? That is where we
get to 20, 30, 40 years before there are enough fuel cells to
have an impact on our energy consumption.
Mr. McCaul. So the energy companies are--they are accurate
when they say that?
Dr. Heywood. They are right.
Mr. McCaul. Okay.
Dr. Crabtree. May I comment?
The last two parts of your question about where should the
funding go and what--and the role of universities.
I believe that there is an enormous amount of basic
research that needs to be done, and the best place--one of the
best places to do that is universities. Universities and
national labs working together can actually accomplish that
goal.
When you have $2 billion to spend, you--it actually isn't a
lot if only a fraction of it goes to hydrogen. You have to be
careful with how you spend it, and I think there needs to be a
balance. So there should be a balance between helping industry
do the research, as many of the companies do, and universities
and national labs. I think these are the three places it should
go----
Mr. McCaul. Good.
Dr. Crabtree.--with very carefully targeted goals.
Dr. Bodde. Let me offer a comment, also, sir, if I may, on
the role of the universities.
I think it is important to recognize that universities are
fundamentally ``people factories.'' That is, their basic
product is people. And turning out people who are not only
capable in the technology, but capable innovators is probably a
very primary thing and probably one that may have been
underappreciated in the university for a number of years.
Beyond that, of course, is the basic research, the blue sky
research. But I think there is an emerging role for
universities, also, as innovation centers, as centers not only
for the creation of new technology ideas, but the capturing of
those--of the economic value in those ideas, because as we look
at competitive worldwide industries, we are beginning to see
increasing pressures on the central R&D functions in virtually
every company. And if that is to happen, if that translating
function is to happen, then it has got to go someplace, and I
believe the universities can emerge and play some role, not the
only role, of course, but an increasing role in that.
Mr. Faulkner. A couple of comments, sir.
Universities are a key partner for my office across the
board, and they are for this hydrogen initiative. I mentioned
in my oral testimony that we have three Centers of Excellence
we have initiated. They include 20 universities just in that
alone.
On the cost, I think one thing to mention is, yes, there
aren't that many cars on the road, so just like anything else,
the prices are high. The more you make, the more the costs come
down.
One thing we have started to look at, and I mentioned this
in my oral testimony, I think this is an exciting field, is
manufacturing R&D. I think we need to look more at this and
other renewable areas, too, but to look at how to take things
in the laboratory out into the plant floor or the factory floor
and move it on out into commercialization. And we are going to
be looking more and more at that in the years ahead. This is a
spin-off of the President's manufacturing initiative. And we
are looking at things like high-volume manufacturing,
standardizing components, developing an infrastructure,
developing a supplier base. And this is going to be a critical
factor in helping to bring those costs down as you manufacture
the hydrogen initiative.
Mr. McCaul. If I could ask one more question, Madame Chair.
Twenty to thirty years to have market saturation, but when
do we think the first hydrogen cars will actually be out on the
market?
Mr. Chernoby. Well, again, it gets back to your time
question. I don't find it so easy to actually put a specific
date on the invention of technology and research. If we had
that kind of crystal ball, I think we would be in a lot better
shape. But we look forward to vehicles, and then when you say
ready, it depends upon, again, at what value for the customer
and what price point. But during the--this next decade is when
we would expect, at DaimlerChrysler, we ought to have that
commercial vehicle viable for the marketplace, from a technical
perspective.
But it is only as good as having available the
infrastructure. I thought the ethanol discussion was very
interesting. We have built millions of vehicles capable of
running on ethanol, and they are out there in the marketplace
today. But yet it shows you that unless you have got market
pull and market incentive, it doesn't all come together to
benefit either the environment or energy security.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
I think we have time for a few more questions, if everybody
is very brief asking the question and answering the question.
So Chairman Inglis, would you like to go ahead for five
minutes?
Thank you.
Chairman Inglis. I thank you.
Mr. Chernoby, I understand that you have some dealings with
the--with codes and standards tech team. And one of the
significant roles of the Federal Government or government
somewhere may be the setting of codes and standards, especially
for the storage of hydrogen. Do you want to comment on any
suggestions that you have for us at the federal level or what
should be our approach? It is a little bit early, I know, to--
maybe to project those, but suggestions from you about how to
approach codes and standards.
Mr. Chernoby. I would give you three key suggestions.
Number one, don't try to move to locking down a code or a
standard too early while technology is still in the
evolutionary stage. When technology starts to settle down,
then, in a pre-competitive environment, we can all work
together, both industry and government, to set the right
standards.
So number one, don't move too quickly.
Number two, as you already do in a very proactive mode,
work with us. We will all work together to try to find the
right balance to make sure that every standard we issue is
going to be viable in the marketplace and provide everything it
has got to do, whether it be safety for the consumer right on
down to the various environmental benefits we might need.
And then finally, we have got to work together to keep an
eye on the global codes and standards. And I know the
government is already participating in some harmonization
community--or collective efforts around the world. We have got
to do our best, as we try and develop these codes and
standards, that they are very similar so that we can gain
volumes of scale, bring the costs down, and make the vehicles
viable in the marketplace.
Chairman Inglis. With these test vehicles that have been
mentioned that we are driving around, have there been any local
fire chiefs in various cities that have said, ``Not in our
city,'' or anything like that, I mean, such that we are already
seeing some discrepancies in the standards?
Mr. Chernoby. I wouldn't say in those terms, but there have
been local fire chiefs that have raised their hand and said,
``Come talk to me. We would like to have some input. We would
like to work with you.'' And that is virtually in almost every
state where we are participating today. So we absolutely
welcome and--that type of conversation effort, so we are
collectively working together to find the rest--the best
answer.
Chairman Inglis. Anybody else want to comment on that? The
codes and standards?
Thank you, Madame Chair.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
We will--I think we will skip over, if you don't mind, Dr.
Bartlett, to Mr. Schwarz from Michigan, who just arrived for
his first round.
Mr. Schwarz. Thank you, but I have no questions.
Chairwoman Biggert. Oh, well, then we won't.
Mr. Bartlett is recognized.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
Let me take just a moment to define, for those who are
listening or those who may be reading this testimony, what we
mean by ``Hubbard's Peak.'' This resulted from the work of a
geologist working for the Shell Oil Company back in the 1940s
and 1950s who noticed the exploitation and exhaustion of oil
fields that tended to follow a bell curve, increasing
production to a peak and then falling off as you pull the last
oil out of the field. He--in estimating the fields yet to be
found and adding those to the fields he knew were in existence
for the United States, he predicted, in 1956, that the United
States would peak in oil production in about 1970. His
prediction turned out to be exactly right. Every year since
1970, we have not only found less oil, we have pumped less oil.
Using his analysis techniques, he predicted that the world
would peak at about 2000. That slipped a little because of the
Arab oil embargo, oil price spike hikes, and a worldwide
recession. And there are many insiders who believe that we are
now at Hubbard's Peak.
And so Hubbard's Peak represents the peak oil production in
the world, and it is only downhill after that. A plateau for a
while, and then downhill after that.
I would just like to caution and get your comment on it,
that we shouldn't be too optimistic about the energy we are
going to get from agriculture. Tonight, 20 percent of the world
will go to bed hungry. Until we learned to do no-till cropping,
we were losing the battle with maintaining our topsoil. It was
ending up in our bays, and from the whole central part of our
country, to the Mississippi delta. If--to get a lot of energy
from agriculture, we are either going to have to eat the corn
that we would have fed to the pig, we are going to have to live
lower on the food scale, because you can't feed the corn to the
pig and then eat the pig, because there is an awful--that is a
very poor energy transfer, by the way, when you are doing that.
Also, if we are going to take a lot of the biomass off, I
have some real concern about our ability to maintain topsoil.
As I said, until we learned to do no-till farming, we were
losing that battle. We are just now barely able to hold the
quality of our topsoil with no-till farming. If we are raping
the soil of a lot of this organic material, the tills will
deteriorate, the soil will have no acceptable tills, and we
are--you know, it is going to become a mud pit when it is wet
and a brick when it is dry. That is how you make brick. You
take soil that has no humus in it and put it in an oven and
bake it.
Do you share some concerns about the potential for getting
energy from agriculture in the long haul?
Dr. Heywood. Let me respond.
Yes, I do. There is a question what--how big a contribution
we think it might be able to make.
There are several questions. One is how big a contribution,
and the other is exactly what you have just talked about, what
are the long-term environmental impacts of monocultures grown
on a large scale to produce fuel.
And I have a Ph.D. student who is working on a project that
is focused exactly on that, because there is very--there is not
a lot of prior work that looks at these longer-term impacts.
And what we have found so far is that people's predictions on
these impacts vary a lot. So there really is a need to dig into
that question and understand it better.
But even if biofuels contribute five percent or 10 percent
to our liquid transportation fuel system, that is--it is not
easy to find five and 10 percent. So that might be an important
five and 10 percent.
Mr. Faulkner. I believe, sir, a quick answer for me is I am
more sanguine than you might be on that subject. I would note
that the Department of Energy and Agriculture just recently
published a report that we internally call ``The Billion Ton
Study.'' That is over a billion tons of forest material and
agricultural material, that is not just the corn kernel. There
is starch. It is also waste material, like corn stalks and
sugar cane gas, are available--or could be available in the
future to produce biofuels, products, and power, and I think
that is a study I would like to get to you, if that is okay.
Insert for the Record by Douglas L. Faulkner
In April 2005, the U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture
published the following report assessing the potential of the land
resources in the United States for producing sustainable biomass:
Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The
Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. This study
indicates that a billion tons of biomass supply consisting of renewable
resources from both agricultural and forestry supplies could be
utilized in an environmentally and economically sustainable manner.
According to the report, these resources are capable of supplying more
than 30 percent of the Nation's present petroleum consumption and
include agricultural residues such as corn stalks and sugarcane
bagasse. Presently, the Department is supporting the Department of
Agriculture in its efforts to determine how much of the residue can be
removed without reducing soil fertility and depressing grain yields in
subsequent years after residue removal.
[The report appears in Appendix 2: Additional Material for the
Record.]
Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Secretary, I am not sure we--it is
appropriate to call these things ``waste material.'' Anything
that goes back to the soil to maintain the health of the soil,
putting organic material back into the soil, that is really not
a ``waste material.'' For one year, you may see it as ``waste
material,'' but if you keep doing that for a long time, I have
some concern about what is going to happen to our topsoil and
our ability to grow these crops.
Dr. Crabtree. May I make one comment on your question about
where the energy will come from after Hubbard's Peak?
It is just one statistic, you might be interested, one
fact. The sun gives, in one hour, more energy to the Earth than
we use in one year, so there is an enormous resource in solar
energy, if we knew how to tap it, that would, indeed, supply
our needs.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you. I am a big solar enthusiast. I
have a place in West Virginia off the grid, and we produce all
of our electricity, so I will tell you that you have to be
pretty sparing in your use of electricity. And we have a number
of panels. You are going to have to have a very different
lifestyle when you can't use your grandparents' inheritance
anymore, you have to live on your 15 percent income.
Dr. Bodde. With that said, sir, I think we are just
beginning to see the effects of energy conservation, or
efficient energy use, I guess I should say, and as energy
prices rise, as engineers begin to look at the services that
energy provides, as opposed to the energy itself, I think there
is huge potential for that to relieve some of this problem
already. Will it relieve the whole thing? No, of course not.
But as Dr. Heywood said, five or 10 percent is not bad.
Mr. Bartlett. Just one comment, Madame Chairman. Thank you
for the time.
We better do that, sir, or we are going to have no energy
to invest in the alternatives that we must transition to.
Today, we are using all of our energy, just barely able, at $60
a barrel, to produce enough to keep our economies going. We
have no energy to invest, essentially none to invest. We have
to make big investments of time and energy if we are going to
transition. And we will transition, by the way. We will either
do it on our course or at nature's course. But we will
transition from fossil fuels to renewables. The question is,
how bumpy will that ride be?
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Madame Chairperson.
This is a very important hearing.
While you gentlemen are sitting there, conferees are
meeting on the massive energy policy bill, and I would venture
to say that although the Science Committee and the previous
speaker and others worked their heart out, the predominance of
the bill obviously deal with fossil fuel.
But the Science Committee did have its voice, and I am
pleased to note that there were a number of options and
alternatives and excellent additions to the legislation per
this committee.
I am also pleased to note, as I understand it, Mr.
Faulkner, that we have added $33 million in fiscal year 2006
regarding the hydrogen program. I hope that is accurate, and
you might comment in my questions.
Let me just say that I come from Texas, so I come from oil
country. And in fact, one of my amendments in the bill spoke to
determining the extent of deposits off the Gulf of Mexico so
that we could plan long range in a more organized manner what
we had at our access, if we will, particularly in light of the
fact that the greater exploration is probably more off the
Louisiana and Texas coasts than it might be off of Texas--off
of California and Florida.
So there are some concerns about energy resources,
particularly oil and gas, even though there are those of us who
live in that environment and certainly support that environment
in a safe and healthy way, we are also open-minded to recognize
that the United States has to have options.
And so I pose these questions with the backdrop of the
development that is going on off the shores of Louisiana and
Mexico and also international oil development and the new
findings on LNG. There are options that I think that we should
be involved in.
I will pose two questions, keeping that in mind, and a sub-
question.
One, it may have been asked, but I am interested in the
proposed sources for hydrogen, particularly the options include
nuclear and natural gas, clean coal, wind, and renewables. And
I would be interested from all of you as to what shows the most
promise.
Then we have done some work in the Science Committee on
fuel cells. And in fact, we had some amendments along those
lines in the energy bill. Fuel cells and fuel production are
experiencing competitive pressures significant enough to affect
pricing, is my question, is the market in fuel cells, if that
pressure is affecting pricing? And if it is not, when will we
see a truly competitive fuel cell market? And what drives down
prices and advances technology?
Mr. Chernoby, in your remarks, I would be interested in
whether you have hybrid cars already, using hydrogen or other
alternatives.
And then for all of you to answer the question of the great
need to educate more scientists and engineers, which is an
issue that I have worked on on this committee. I am frightened
by the prospect that we may not have a farm team of physicists
and chemists, engineers, and I have worked to help finance the
historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving colleges and
community colleges. But I welcome your comments on what we
could do on expanding that area.
And I yield to the gentlemen.
I ask, also, that my remarks may be submitted into the
record.
Chairwoman Biggert. Without objection.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Faulkner, would you start, please? And
is that $33 million accurate? Do you know? Or have we given you
more?
Mr. Faulkner. Yes, ma'am. The President announced an
initiative for $1.2 billion over five years. We are on track
for that initiative. I was looking at the chart in front of me.
Fiscal year 2005 appropriations for the whole initiative, which
includes my office, the Nuclear Office, Fossil Office, Science,
and also the Department of Transportation, appropriations for
fiscal year 2005, was, roughly, $225 million. Our presidential
request for that same group is roughly $260 million.
You mentioned----
Ms. Jackson Lee. And you are getting more money for
hydrogen? That is what I was asking. You don't have that----
Mr. Faulkner. Well, this is the hydrogen fuel initiative.
It is fuel cells, hydrogen production----
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Faulkner. You asked several other questions. I will
provide answers for a couple of those, and my colleagues will
probably fill in others.
You asked what shows the most promise for sources of
hydrogen. I think, right now, it is too early to say. We are
pursuing several different pathways. We are still early in this
initiative, and I would hate to cut off promising research and
development by picking a winner or a loser this early in the
game.
You talked about scientists and engineers, and I would just
note that we have an initiative that I personally am very fond
of in our office with the National Association for State
Universities and Land Grant Colleges that we have been working
on with them for the last couple of years. It's not directly
related to the hydrogen initiative, but we think there is a lot
of excitement here, and we share your interest in building
these--growing more scientists--the scientists and engineers in
America. And if you would like, we could give you more
information on that, and that does include historically black
colleges you mentioned.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would. Thank you.
Insert for the Record by Douglas L. Faulkner
Since 2004, the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) have been building
a partnership to improve communication between the two scientific
communities, advance the development and use of energy efficiency and
renewable technologies, and educate the young scientists and engineers
that America needs for securing our energy future.
For EERE, the 217 NASULGC institutions of higher education, which
include 18 historically black institutions and 33 American Indian land-
grant colleges, provide an opportunity for focusing research,
extension/outreach, and curriculum development activities on energy
efficiency and renewable energy issues. EERE can use NASULGC's
Cooperative Extension and Outreach networks to improve the
dissemination of results coming from university researchers and DOE
research laboratories, and to spread the use and adoption of energy-
saving and renewable energy technologies and products for residential,
commercial, and other sectors.
For NASULGC affiliated institutions, the outcome is to develop
relevant curriculum, research, and outreach programs with EERE's latest
technologies that will assist their students and the citizens of their
state. NASULGC can work with EERE to help its member institutions
increase their responsiveness to practical issues and provide
opportunities for faculty and students to gain access to research and
cutting edge knowledge.
EERE and NASULGC are working together to assist young people's
understanding and appreciation for math and science through a hands-on
learning program with 4-H kids. Young participants apply physics,
mathematics, and other disciplines to lighting and other energy
technologies. Energy efficiency and renewable education programs are
also being delivered to youth and adults.
Dr. Bodde. One comment, if I may, on the colleges and
colleges as ``people factories,'' in particular.
I think that is very important to the economic growth and
the scientific growth of this country.
One of the things, though, that I think that research
universities have to do is learn to become more effective
partners with technical colleges to allow an effective
transition and effective unified program between them. That is
one of the things that we are trying to put in place at the
ICAR now is a partnership with a--the local technical
university so that we provide to the upstate coalition in--or
the upstate auto cluster, I should say, a completely unified
educational program that ranges from the technical level to the
graduate research level.
Dr. Heywood. Could I comment on that question about
education?
From our perspective, I think government graduate
fellowships focused on specific areas do several very useful
things. They pull young people into those areas, and they
become--that becomes their area of expertise. And also,
fellowship students are extremely useful, from a faculty
member's perspective, because they are, in a sense, free labor
to start on a new topic. And so they really have an effect of
allowing faculty members to branch out into new research areas,
and that is exactly the sort of--pulling young people into
this--these areas that are going to be critical to us for the
next many, many decades, and also providing opportunities for
starting up new and, hopefully, interesting and promising
research activities.
Back to the sources of hydrogen, I would like to add just
one comment.
I think it is--Mr. Faulkner is quite right. It is too early
to start to make choices, but I think it is worth saying
something about many people's feeling that if we have got
renewable electricity, then we can make hydrogen with, sort of,
no environmental impacts. Well, if we got renewable
electricity, that is fantastic stuff, and it will displace
coal-generated electricity. And I sometimes feel like, well,
why would you take a really good wine and convert it into a not
so good wine. Electricity is a fantastic wine. Hydrogen isn't
quite as good.
So I think that is a very good question. There are
questions like that that we need to dig into, but it is too
early to say. But we are going to have to be imaginative,
because if we don't produce the hydrogen without releasing
greenhouse gases, we have really--we have not moved forward
very much at all.
Dr. Crabtree. Yeah, may I comment on that, too?
I would like to reinforce what Dr. Heywood said that it is
very important to produce the hydrogen without carbon. And the
one way in which you can do that is to split water. There are
many ways to split water. You mentioned nuclear and
electrolysis, but there are other ways, too, notably solar
energy. It would be wonderful to take a beaker of water, put it
into a container that is highly technological, set it in the
sun, and simply produce hydrogen with no other energy input.
And in fact, that can be done in the laboratory now with about
18 percent efficiency. Of course, it is much too expensive to
do commercially, but I think that is the challenge.
So if we can do that, we have solved lots of problems: we
don't have any dependence on foreign energy sources, because
the sun falls on everyone's head; we don't produce any
greenhouse gases; we don't produce any pollutants; and the
supply is, effectively, inexhaustible.
So I think this is the route we should go. It is a question
of which renewable energy sources we use.
Dr. Bodde. One further comment on universities.
The American university has become truly an international,
multi-national enterprise. There are students coming to us
preferentially from all over the world. We have attracted into
our universities some extraordinary talent, the greatest talent
that exists in many countries. I think we need to find ways to
retain that talent within this country, not only when they are
graduate students, but afterwards. And I think we should look
again at our security policies and ask if we are not straining
out a whole lot of folks that we really wish that we would have
around here?
Mr. Chernoby. And just to close your question on the fuel
cell vehicles.
Yes, at DaimlerChrysler, we have approximately 100
different fuel cell vehicles on the road around the world, many
of those here in the United States in the DOE demonstration
project, gaining valuable data to help us understand what are
the new problems we face when we move from the lab to the
environment.
And I would add, on education, we don't--we, at
DaimlerChrysler, also very--think it is very important to
attract young people to the technical arenas. We participate
very strongly in efforts at the elementary school level, the
middle school level, and through things like the first robotics
competition at the high school level. It is absolutely critical
to attract them to the technical fields in the first place
before they get to the collegiate type of environment.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Chairwoman Biggert. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Biggert. Just a quick couple of questions to--
before we close.
Dr. Bodde, the first recommendation of the National
Academy's report was for DOE to develop an increased ability to
analyze the impact of new technologies, such as hydrogen, on
the entire energy system so that the Department can wisely set
priorities for energy R&D. How would you rate the Department's
current systems analysis effort? And should it be changed, in
your opinion, to improve it?
Dr. Bodde. Well, it is certainly too early to judge, but I
think the response from the Department of Energy was quite
immediate and quite effective. The office was established,
housed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and has
begun to--a wide-scale set of works.
But I think this modeling of the entire energy system is
very important, because, in the end, it has got to function as
an integrated system where we have got to understand how it can
function as an integrated system. Further, we have to
understand how that system is evolving. So it is one thing to
create models for the system, but it is another thing, also, to
monitor progress as it goes along to monitor where bets are
being placed, say, in the private sector. Where is private
venture capital going in these things?
And I guess if I could offer one suggestion for a direction
that this systems integration or modeling effort would go, it
is to add to those capacities an ability to look at where the
private sector is going right now, the bets that private
investors are placing in new technologies.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
And then, Dr. Crabtree, the DOE is currently funding
learning demonstrations with the auto makers and energy
companies. Is the information that DOE is getting from the auto
makers worth the price of the demonstrations, given the
technical challenges that remain?
Dr. Crabtree. Well, that is a very difficult question to
answer. Let me say something generally, which may not be quite
the specific answer you are looking for.
I think it is very important to have demonstration
projects, because there you learn what the problems are, and
you learn how to innovate. And if you look at the history of
energy, and let us say, internal combustion engines, that is
how the progress was made. So we can't discount that as a very
important way to go forward.
I would balance that with the feeling that we need to put
basic research on the table as well. It is really both of those
efforts that are going to make the hydrogen economy vibrant,
competitive, innovative, and lasting for 100 years, as the
fossil fuel economy has done.
Chairwoman Biggert. Would you say that the money would be
better spent on basic research, or does there need to be a
balance?
Dr. Crabtree. I think there needs to be a balance. There
absolutely needs to be a balance.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
And I have one more here, if I can find it.
Mr. Chernoby, what role do the entrepreneurs or start-up
companies and venture capitalist investors have to play in
helping DaimlerChrysler accelerate the commercial introduction
of the advanced hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?
Mr. Chernoby. Absolutely, they are going to play a critical
role, especially in those areas where we develop a new
technological innovation that may not be of significant
interest to a big company at this point in time to invest. The
entrepreneur may be our avenue to actually get that into the
commercialization, as Dr. Bodde mentioned earlier.
So we absolutely see that linkage as one that may be a very
critical path in order to get this to a reality.
Dr. Bodde. Just a footnote on that, Madame Chairman.
Chairwoman Biggert. Sure.
Dr. Bodde. When the laser was first invented at Bell Labs,
the inventors of it had a very hard time getting it patented.
And why did they have a hard time getting it patented?
Well, it turns out that, for the telephone, it was then
understood there was absolutely no use for this innovation. And
so it was only by great persuasion that Bell Labs actually
managed to capture the patents for this enormously useful,
broadly applicable innovation.
Chairwoman Biggert. Thank you.
And with that note, we will--before we bring the hearing to
a close, I want to thank our panelists for testifying before
the Subcommittee today. I think it was--you are just experts in
your fields, and it was very, very helpful to all of us.
And if there is no objection, the record will remain open
for additional statements from the Members and for answers to
any follow-up questions the Subcommittee may ask of the
panelists. So without objection, so ordered.
The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix 1:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
Questions submitted by Chairman Judy Biggert and Chairman Bob Inglis
Q1. Dr. Bodde recommended that the Department of Energy (DOE) keep
track of the efforts of auto suppliers and smaller private ventures
that support the automotive industry. Has DOE taken any steps in this
direction, and what else can be done?
A1. We agree that it is important to stay abreast of commercial and
technical developments of auto suppliers and smaller private ventures.
A strong supplier base capable of providing parts for advanced vehicles
is important to maintain the U.S. auto industry's competitiveness
especially given auto manufacturers' increased reliance in recent years
on their first and second tier suppliers.
We monitor developments at supplier companies and smaller private
ventures by regularly attending technical conferences, sponsoring
technology assessments, tracking the technical literature, visiting R&D
facilities, and meeting with researchers. Most importantly, we provide
a substantial portion of our transportation-related R&D funding to such
companies. In FY05, the Department of Energy's, Hydrogen, Fuel Cell and
Infrastructure Program spent approximately $72 million, or 32 percent
of its budget and the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program spent
approximately $35 million, or 40 percent of its light duty vehicles
budget to fund research at such companies. In addition, many suppliers
work directly with our national laboratories which provides further
insights into the types of technology challenges arising and how they
are being addressed.
Q2. How is DOE working to ensure that the technologies developed under
the FreedomCAR program that can be used in conventional vehicles are
moved into the marketplace, and that the efficiency gains from the
technologies are used to improve fuel economy?
A2. New vehicle technologies normally take about 15 years to reach
maximum market penetration. Ultimately, companies must make independent
decisions on which combination of technologies makes sense for each to
commercialize based upon the establishment of viable business cases.
Even if performance and cost targets are met, other market factors
(e.g., availability and price of gasoline, investment capital
conditions/risk, etc.) will influence industry's decision to
commercialize a particular technology.
DOE works closely with industry through the FreedomCAR and Fuel
Partnership and our cost-shared R&D projects to help strengthen the
business case for the adoption of technologies on which we work.
Partnerships help facilitate technology transfer and information
dissemination by creating a common understanding of technical
capabilities and barriers and by providing a forum in which to exchange
ideas. In addition, as technical progress is made, performance targets
are met and validated, and cost is reduced, the technologies become
more attractive for industry to adopt and commercialize.
Q3. What steps might the industry take to assure customers that
hydrogen-powered vehicles meet the same or higher standards of safety
compared to current vehicles?
A3. Ultimately, customer assurance of safety will be accomplished by
establishing a safety record and experience base that demonstrates safe
use of hydrogen by the public. Since that experience base does not yet
exist, it is critical that early hydrogen demonstrations operate with
safety at the highest priority level. To accomplish this, both DOE and
industry are working together through the following activities to
ensure safety:
Establishing codes and standards. All major domestic
and international codes and standards organizations are working
with industry and other stakeholders to establish the initial
safety standards and codes which will guide the roll-out of
hydrogen technology. A number of key codes and standards have
been completed and are in the process of being adopted. As the
technology evolves over the next decade, these codes and
standards will be revised. In addition, the Department of
Transportation is performing their regulatory role of
establishing vehicle standards, crash worthiness and pipeline
safety.
Ensuring safety of demonstration vehicles and
fueling. To ensure safety during hydrogen demonstrations,
layers of safety systems are being employed. For example: 1)
Vehicles are equipped with a number of hydrogen leak detectors
that trip below the concentration level of hydrogen that would
support combustion, 2) Accident sensors (similar to those used
to deploy air bags) are employed to prevent fuel flow following
an accident, and 3) Service stations are equipped with sensors
and monitors, and refueling operations are conducted by trained
personnel.
Ensuring safety of DOE projects. DOE has implemented
a series of measures to ensure safe operation of our R&D
program: A primary measure is the DOE Hydrogen Safety Panel, an
independent group which counsels DOE on safety matters,
performs reviews of project safety plans and conducts site
audits of facility conducting R&D.
Training. DOE is working with government, industry
and fire professionals to develop and conduct training for
first responders.
Reporting incidents and lessons learned. DOE is in
the process of establishing an international hydrogen incident
database so that information from hydrogen incidents or ``near-
misses'' from around the world can be shared throughout the
hydrogen community, helping to prevent future safety problems.
Q4. Professor Heywood argues that because of the high risk of failure
of the hydrogen research initiative, DOE should increase funding for
alternative vehicle technologies, such as electric vehicles and biomass
fuels. What do you think the chances are that technical barriers will
cause the hydrogen initiative to fail? Is DOE providing enough funding
to alternatives?
A4. We believe the Administration's requests have provided enough
funding for R&D in vehicles and biomass. We agree that their merits are
significant. We also believe the chance of achieving technical success
in the development of hydrogen technologies is very good, due to
extensive program planning, management and review.
Question submitted by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett
Q1. In your opinion, is a limited world platinum supply likely to be a
barrier to the widespread adoption of fuel cells?
A1. No. A study by TIAX, LLC determined that there are sufficient
platinum resources in the ground to meet long-term projected platinum
demand if the amount of platinum in fuel cell systems is reduced to the
Department's target level. The DOE-sponsored study, shows that world
platinum demand (including jewelry, fuel cell and industrial
applications) by 2050 would be 20,000 metric tons against a total
projected resource of 76,000 metric tons. This study assumes that fuel
cell vehicles attain 80 percent market penetration by 2050 (from U.S.,
Western Europe, China, India and Japan). The study shows that the
limiting factor in keeping up with increased platinum demand is the
ability of the industry to respond and install additional production
infrastructure. Since in the out-years, recycling would provide almost
60 percent of the supply, the industry will have to be careful not to
overbuild production capacity in a more accelerated market demand
scenario.
Platinum availability is a strategic issue for the
commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Platinum is
expensive and is currently critical to achieving the required
levels of fuel cell power density and efficiency. As such, the
Department has been focused on reducing and substituting for
(with non-precious metal catalysts) the amount of platinum in
fuel cell stacks (while maintaining performance and durability)
so that hydrogen fuel cells can be cost competitive with
gasoline internal combustion engines.
Significant progress has been made and is still being
made by national laboratories, universities and industry to
reduce the amount of platinum needed in a fuel cell stack by
replacing platinum catalysts with platinum alloy catalysts or
non-platinum catalysts, enhancing the specific activity of
platinum containing catalysts, and depositing these catalysts
on electrodes using innovative processes. The Office of Science
has recently initiated new basic research projects on the
design of catalysts at the nanoscale that focus on continued
reduction in the amount of platinum catalyst required in fuel
cell stacks.
Typically, it takes three to five years to increase
platinum production capacity in response to an increase in
demand. Fuel cell vehicle production may create a brief
platinum supply deficit, leading to short-term price increases.
The TIAX study shows that platinum prices over the
last one hundred years fluctuated based on major world events
(e.g., world war, etc.), however, the mean price (adjusted for
inflation) remained stable at $300 per troy ounce. However,
over the last couple of years platinum has been higher at $900
per troy ounce.
Question submitted by Representative Michael E. Sodrel
Q1. Please provide details of Iceland's effort to convert entirely to
a hydrogen economy. Is DOE working with Iceland on this effort? Have
they made any advances, including in geothermal energy, that will help
to advance a hydrogen economy in the U.S.?
A1. Iceland's goal is to become the first nation in the world to
achieve the vision of a hydrogen economy. The move to a hydrogen
economy has significant government support, and surveys conducted by
Icelandic New Energy indicate significant public support as well. With
a population of less than 300,000 (the majority of which resides in the
capital of Reykjavik), transforming the Icelandic transportation sector
to hydrogen will require far fewer hydrogen fueling stations than what
will be required in the United States. Advances include:
Iceland has an abundance of relatively inexpensive
renewable energy that is used for heating and provides 100
percent of the Nation's electricity (80 percent from hydropower
and 20 percent from geothermal).
Currently, there is one hydrogen fueling station,
located along a major highway in Reykjavik, which serves as a
national demonstration project. Hydrogen is produced on site
via renewable electrolysis. The station is a publicly
accessible retail fueling station that also offers gasoline and
diesel and includes a convenience store. It supports the
operation of three hydrogen fuel cell buses that run regular
routes around Reykjavik; there are no other hydrogen vehicles
at this time.
The next phase of the country's hydrogen
demonstration will involve the conversion of the entire
Reykjavik bus fleet to hydrogen. Future phases will include
promoting the integration of fuel cell powered vehicles for
passenger use and examining the possibility of replacing the
fishing fleet with hydrogen based vessels.
Iceland collaborates with the United States through
the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE),
which was established in November 2003 to facilitate global
collaboration on hydrogen and fuel cell research, development,
and demonstration (RD&D). With a membership including 16
countries and the European Commission, the IPHE provides a
forum for leveraging scarce RD&D funds, harmonizing codes and
standards, and educating stakeholders and the general public on
the benefits of and challenges to the hydrogen economy.
Question submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. Given the level of innovation in advanced vehicle technologies as
demonstrated by foreign-owned automobile manufacturers such as Toyota,
Nissan and Honda, would it benefit the U.S. to expand more of the
cooperative research, development and demonstration programs (including
FreedomCAR) to include foreign-owned companies with domestic R&D and
manufacturing facilities?
A1. The Department's public/private partnership to develop hydrogen and
hybrid-electric vehicle technologies--the FreedomCAR and Fuel
Partnership is not a partnership with individual auto companies, but is
between DOE and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR). Under
the USCAR umbrella, car companies are able to engage in cooperative,
pre-competitive research, and to coordinate the industry's interaction
with government research organizations. Auto companies that are
conducting substantial automotive research and development activities
within the U.S. are able to apply for membership in USCAR.
Even though many foreign companies have substantial production
facilities within the United States, they do not have staff in North
America with the appropriate R&D expertise or experience to qualify for
participation in the development of technology goals and milestones for
these programs.
Foreign car companies, however, have been and continue to be able
to contribute their ideas to the programs by meeting with DOE program
managers and by participating in DOE workshops, stakeholder meetings,
program reviews, and solicitations. They also are able to provide input
through public comments on pre-solicitation and go/no-go decision
notices. We also frequently visit their R&D facilities and monitor
technological developments outside of the United States.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by David L. Bodde, Director, Innovation and Public Policy,
International Center for Automotive Research, Clemson
University
Questions submitted by Chairman Judy Biggert and Chairman Bob Inglis
Q1. What steps might the industry take to assure customers that
hydrogen-powered vehicles meet the same or higher standards of safety
compared to current vehicles?
A1. Years of experience with hydrogen production and use clearly
demonstrate that a high degree of safety can be achieved. But all this
experience has been gained in applications that are professionally
managed and maintained. When hydrogen is introduced into the consumer
economy, an entirely different set of issues arise, not only for
consumers but also for first-responders to emergencies.
Safety will be especially important during the transition period,
as any hydrogen-related accidents will draw intense public scrutiny.
This applies to every part of the hydrogen supply chain--production,
logistics, dispensing, and on-vehicle use. Thus, all parts of an
emerging hydrogen industry, not just the vehicle makers, must move
aggressively to define and resolve potential safety issues. The
Department of Energy should take the lead here--for example, by raising
the importance of safety in its FreedomCAR program. This could be done
by creating a ``safety team'' in addition to the team developing codes
and standards. Further, safety should be considered a system-wide issue
and integrated into all the technical teams.
Some specific issues pose special concerns. In my view, high
pressure hydrogen storage on-board vehicles poses the greatest single
safety challenge, especially as these vehicles age. Plainly, much
design effort should be devoted to fail-safe systems, and manufacturers
must build these vehicles for quality and durability. For the longer-
term, low-pressure, solid-state storage systems might offer relief, but
for now these remain research goals and far from marketplace reality.
Finally, all companies participating in the emerging hydrogen
economy must share safety-related information widely. This serves their
self interest, as an accident anywhere is likely to impugn hydrogen
activities everywhere.
Q2. What have you learned from your experience on the National
Academies' review panel on FreedomCAR? What recommendations do you feel
most important?
A2. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership takes on an extraordinary
challenge: to precipitate revolutionary change in a global vehicle and
fuels infrastructure that has served well for over 100 years and that
continues to perform well from a consumer perspective. The challenge is
in part technological, but in equal measure it is social and economic--
yet the chief policy instrument used by the Federal Government has been
technology development. The technologists, however, cannot do it all,
and private businesses must respond to the marketplace. Therefore,
success will require strong and consistent leadership from elected
officials in order to supplement technology as a pathway to change.
In my view, the most important recommendation from the National
Academies' review were:
Hydrogen storage and fuel cell performance.
Extraordinarily ambitious goals have been set for the
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, especially in the crucial
areas of on-vehicle hydrogen storage and fuel cell performance.
Increased attention and support will be required, especially
for membrane research, new catalyst systems, electrode design,
and all aspects of energy storage.
Risk hedging. As a hedge against delay in meeting
these goals, the program should emphasize:
Advanced combustion engines and emissions controls;
Battery storage of energy, a ``no regrets'' strategy
that will also serve the hybrid electric vehicles,
plug-hybrids, and eventually the hydrogen fuel cell
vehicle; and,
Management of electric energy systems, also serving
all forms of electric drive vehicles.
Congressionally directed funding. The panel noted
that diversion of resources from critical technology areas
increases the risk that the program will not meet its goals in
a timely manner.
Q3. Professor Heywood argues that because of the high risk of failure
of the hydrogen research initiative, the Department of Energy (DOE)
should increase funding for alternative vehicle technologies, such as
electric motors and biomass fuels. What do you think the chances are
that technical barriers will cause the hydrogen initiative to fail? Is
DOE providing enough funding to alternatives?
A3. My own concern is not so much that the hydrogen initiative will
fail by encountering some fundamental physical barrier. Rather, I fear
that technical barriers and parsimonious funding will delay deployment
of a hydrogen economy well beyond the goals set by the DOE.
In the meantime, this nation--and, indeed, the world--will continue
to rely in the internal combustion engine. Therefore, simple prudence
would suggest we hedge our bets (as above) both with improvements to
the ICE and with alternative fuels that could backstop a delayed
hydrogen economy.
Question submitted by Representative W. Todd Akin
Q1. In your testimony, you stated that, ``coal offers the lowest cost
pathway to a hydrogen based energy economy.'' However, within DOE, the
carbon sequestration program is managed separately from the hydrogen
and vehicles programs. What can we do as a Congress to encourage
greater cooperation between these programs, and how does the current
structure of DOE hinder efforts to use coal for hydrogen fuel cells?
A1. This separation has concerned at least two National Academies'
committees as well. The concern is to bring the several parts of this
very complex set of programs to fruition at the appropriate time. The
systems analysis function was established to provide the analytical
means to accomplish this. However, implementation, as you note, is in
question.
Question submitted by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett
Q1. In your opinion, is the limited world platinum supply likely to be
a barrier to the widespread adoption of fuel cells?
A1. Yes, we plainly must develop alternative design approaches that
avoid the use of expensive materials like platinum. Otherwise, fuel
cells will become too costly for wide scale deployment. Membrane and
catalyst research will be important here--see response A2 to Chairman
Biggert and Chairman Inglis, above.
Question submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda
Q1. Given the level of innovation in advanced vehicle technologies as
demonstrated by foreign-owned automobile manufacturers such as Toyota,
Nissan, and Honda, would it benefit the U.S. to expand more of the
cooperative research, development, and demonstration programs
(including FreedomCAR) to include foreign-owned companies with domestic
R&D and manufacturing facilities?
A1. Yes, I think there could be some value in that, though the
information sharing must be reciprocal. But more importantly, I believe
the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership should make greater efforts to
engage the entrepreneurial sector of the U.S. economy. If we look at
past technological revolutions, we observe that the industry incumbents
rarely led the change. The telegraph companies did not bring us the
telephone, the telephone companies did not bring us the Internet, and
the electron tube makers did not bring us solid state electronics.
Thus, much evidence suggests that encouraging entrepreneurship in road
transportation might provide a powerful pathway to a hydrogen economy.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Mark Chernoby, Vice President, Advanced Vehicle
Engineering, DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Questions submitted by Chairman Judy Biggert and Chairman Bob Inglis
Q1. What steps might the industry take to assure customers that
hydrogen-powered vehicles meet the same or higher standards of safety
compared to current vehicles?
A1. Hydrogen-powered vehicles will be required to meet the same safety
standards as current vehicles. What government and industry can do
together to prepare the public for hydrogen vehicles is safety
education. For example, first responders to a hydrogen vehicle accident
need to know proper procedures for ensuring safety of the vehicle
occupants just as they have been trained for current vehicles. A good
first step towards this end is the Department of Energy's Hydrogen
Vehicle Validation program. Government and industry are working
together to develop public education programs that include hydrogen
safety.
Q2. Professor Heywood argues that because of the high risk of failure
of the hydrogen research initiative, DOE should increase funding for
alternative vehicle technologies, such as electric vehicles and biomass
fuels. What do you think the chances are that technical barriers will
cause the hydrogen initiative to fail? Is DOE providing enough funding
to alternatives?
A2. As a partner of the FreedomCAR program we are satisfied with the
diversity of the Department of Energy's alternative vehicle research
programs. DaimlerChrysler also believes as Professor Heywood in a broad
research portfolio approach to the future. Hydrogen storage is one of
the high risk challenges for public acceptance of a hydrogen vehicle.
The challenge is high but it is a risk we must take as we pursue all
alternatives to the current vehicle propulsion technologies.
Question submitted by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett
Q1. In your opinion, is a limited world platinum supply likely to be a
barrier to the widespread adoption of fuel cells?
A1. The current platinum loading of fuel cell electrodes is cost
prohibitive for most commercial applications. In order to gain consumer
acceptance platinum in a fuel cell must be reduced to a fraction of the
current level. Therefore, the supply of platinum will be of less
concern when fuel cells are ready for the mass market.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by George W. Crabtree, Director, Materials Science Division,
Argonne National Laboratory
Questions submitted by Chairman Judy Biggert and Chairman Bob Inglis
Q1. What steps might the industry take to assure customers that
hydrogen-powered vehicles meet the same or higher standards of safety
compared to current vehicles?
A1. The public acceptance of hydrogen depends not only on its practical
and commercial appeal, but also on its record of safety in widespread
use. The special flammability, buoyancy, and permeability of hydrogen
present challenges to its safe use that are different, but not
necessarily more difficult, than for other energy carriers. One
important step to insuring hydrogen safety is research to understand
the combustibility of hydrogen in open spaces where it is naturally
diluted and in closed spaces where it may concentrate by accumulation.
Additional areas of research needed for hydrogen safety are the effect
of mixing with volatile hydrocarbons like gasoline or alchohol, on
hydrogen ignition, the embrittlement of materials by exposure to
hydrogen that may cause leaks, and the development of sensing
techniques selective for hydrogen.
A second key element is development of effective safety standards
and practices that are widely known and routinely used, like those for
self-service gasoline stations or plug-in electrical appliances.
Despite the danger of open exposure to gasoline and household
electricity, the injury rate from these hazards has been minimized by
thorough education to a few simple codes and standards. Similar codes
and standards need to be developed and widely disseminated for
hydrogen.
Q2. In your testimony, you explain the challenge of hydrogen storage
as follows: that we are searching for a material that allows, at the
same time, both close and loose packing and weak and strong bonding of
hydrogen molecules. Is there any known precedent or parallel phenomenon
that gives us some confidence that such a material exists or can be
created?
A2. The challenge of simultaneously satisfying the twin criteria of
high storage capacity and fast charge/release rates is formidable.
However advances in nanoscience over the last five years open promising
new horizons for satisfying the seemingly conflicting requirements of
strong bonding and close packing for high capacity and weak bonding and
loose packing for fast charge/release. A storage medium composed of
tiny nanoparticles, for example, can provide short diffusion lengths
for hydrogen within the nanoparticle leading to high charge/release
rates, combined with dense packing of hydrogen as a chemical compound
with the host medium. Two promising new materials have been developed
in the last year: ammonium borane (NH3BH3) and
MgC12(NH3)6, each of which can be
artificially nanostructured to enhance its release rate while
maintaining its high hydrogen storage capacity.
The search for new nanostructured storage materials is enormously
streamlined by theoretical modeling of their storage behavior using
modern density functional theory implemented on computer clusters
containing hundreds of nodes. Such advanced modeling enables accurate
simulation of the storage capacity and release rate of hundreds of
candidate materials without the expensive and time consuming step of
fabricating them in the laboratory. This efficient ``virtual
screening'' dramatically increases the number of materials that can be
searched, with only the most promising candidates tested for physical
performance in the laboratory. The formulation of density functional
theory and powerful computer clusters enabling this efficient screening
were not available even a few years ago.
Q3. Professor Heywood argues that because of the high risk of failure
of the hydrogen research initiative, the Department of Energy (DOE)
should increase funding for alternative vehicle technologies, such as
electric vehicles and biomass fuels. What do you think the chances are
that technical barriers will cause the hydrogen initiative to fail? Is
DOE providing enough funding to alternatives?
A3. The demand for energy is projected to double by 2050 and triple by
2100. This means that by 2050 we must create an energy supply chain and
infrastructure that duplicates today's capacity. This challenge is
beyond the reach of a single energy source or energy carrier. To meet
the challenge, we must develop a mix of energy options and rely on each
to shoulder a portion of the load. Like hydrogen, the alternatives
suggested by Professor Heywood are worthy of serious consideration, but
they are not without their risks. Electric vehicles substitute
electricity for fossil fuels at the point of use, but the electricity
they require must be generated, typically from burning fossil fuels
like coal and natural gas. Thus the pollution, greenhouse gas emission,
and fossil fuel consumption at the point of use is simply shifted to
the point of electricity production. This option has approximately
neutral impact on the national energy challenges of adequate supply,
secure access, local pollution and climate change.
Biomass fuels, while carbon neutral, are not plentiful enough to
displace all the gasoline used for transportation in the Nation. Even
the most optimistic estimates for biomass fuels claim only to be able
to replace the foreign oil used for transportation, and this would
occur only after a long development period graced by significant
breakthroughs in genetic engineering that are presently beyond the
reach of science. Because significant breakthroughs are required, it is
impossible to rank the risk of failure of biomass fuels as greater or
less than that of hydrogen.
Many energy options must be developed simultaneously, and each will
require breakthroughs that we do not know how to achieve at present.
Hydrogen solves all four national energy challenges: it is abundant,
widely accessible, and free of pollution and greenhouse gas emission if
produced by splitting water renewably. Other energy options like
electric cars and fuel from biomass address only some of the
challenges, and may require equally expensive and difficult
breakthroughs. Without the advantage of a crystal ball, it is prudent
to invest in several of the most promising energy options. Hydrogen is
among the most promising options, for its ability to address, and
perhaps solve, all four energy challenges. Alternatives should also be
funded, though electric cars themselves have little direct impact on
the energy challenges. Biomass addresses climate change much less
effectively than hydrogen (it is carbon-neutral, while hydrogen is
carbon-free) and is only abundant enough, even with massive planting of
energy crops, to supply a fraction of our transportation fuel needs.
Question submitted by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett
Q1. In your opinion, is a limited world platinum supply likely to be a
barrier to the widespread adoption of fuel cells?
A1. There is consensus that if all the family cars and light trucks in
the Nation were converted to hydrogen fuel cell propulsion, there is
not enough platinum in the world to supply the catalysts needed for
their operation. This is a clear barrier to the immediate replacement
of internal combustion engines with fuel cells using present
technology. However, many other factors, such as the lack of viable on
board hydrogen storage media, the short lifetime of fuel cell energy
converters under normal automotive use, the poor starting performance
of fuel cells in cold weather, and the high expense of fuel cells
compared to internal combustion engines, prevent significant
penetration of fuel cell cars in the marketplace in the near future.
Under these conditions, the scarcity of platinum for catalysts is not
the major factor limiting widespread use of fuel cell automobiles.
The replacement of platinum by less expensive and more active
catalysts is a vibrant field of research with promise of significant
progress before the other factors limiting fuel cell penetration are
resolved. We know that plentiful, less expensive catalysts exist,
because we see them every day in the biological world. Green plants use
abundant, inexpensive manganese as their catalyst for the water
splitting step in photosynthesis. The molecular configurations and
reaction pathways for the catalysis of water splitting in plants,
however, remains tantalizingly just beyond our scientific reach. Using
powerful computer analysis and the world's most intense x-ray sources
located at DOE national laboratories, scientists are now on the verge
of solving the structures of the natural catalytic reactors that plants
use in photosynthesis. When these catalytic mechanisms are fully
revealed in a few years, we will be able to reproduce them, perhaps in
improved form, for use in the artificial environment of fuel cells.
This breakthrough, which is now within sight, will open new horizons
for catalysis not only in fuel cells, but also in a host of other
energy conversion applications. It's achievement will require
significant advances in several scientific frontiers: high resolution
structure determination, advanced density functional modeling of the
structure and dynamics of the catalytic process, and nanoscale
fabrication of artificial catalytic assemblies. Investments in these
high risk-high payoff scientific advances will yield ample dividends in
fundamental knowledge and control of the natural catalytic mechanism of
green plants.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by John B. Heywood, Director, Sloan Automotive Laboratory,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Questions submitted by Chairman Judy Biggert and Chairman Bob Inglis
Q1. What steps might the industry take to assure customers that
hydrogen-powered vehicles meet the same or higher standards of safety
compared to current vehicles?
A1. Safety is a major concern in the FreedomCAR and Fuels Program. The
FreedomCAR and Fuels Program has a group within its management
structure which involves representatives from industry that is focused
on safety. An understanding of the key safety issues and appropriate
responses to those issues are being developed. Existing vehicle and
fuel safety regulations will apply to hydrogen-fueled vehicles, and the
need for new requirements and standards is being explored. Dealing with
hydrogen-related safety issues will be a significant challenge, but in
my judgment is unlikely to be a show-stopper. Those involved in the
program are well aware that major safety incidents would adversely
affect the broader public's response to an evolving hydrogen-fueled
vehicle program.
Q2. You make several recommendations for areas to receive increased
funding, ranging from improved combustion engines to electric
batteries. Unfortunately, we are living in difficult budget times, and
any increase must be accompanied by a decrease, or an increase in
revenues. Are there areas of research that you feel the Federal
Government should not be funding at current levels?
A2. We are living in difficult budget times because of the tax
reductions the President and Congress have implemented over the past
five years. Few of us have yet realized just how serious our
transportation energy predicament is, or that petroleum availability
shortages could affect our transportation system within the next decade
or so. Failure of the supply of gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel to
grow to meet the anticipated growth in demand for these fuels (both in
the U.S. an elsewhere) would be expected to create major economic and
social impacts. It would take significant time before we would be able
to respond effectively.
We need to recognize that substantial government R&D support for
several potentially promising engine, fuel, and vehicle technology
opportunities will be required to move these technologies forward
towards potential deployment. We need a broader and more balanced U.S.
transportation energy technology R&D program; our current government
efforts are too focused on hydrogen which, while promising, may not in
the end prove to be implementable. Our longer-term choices in the
transportation energy area (hydrogen and fuel cells, electricity and
battery powered vehicles, much lighter and smaller vehicles, biomass-
based fuels, liquid fuels from oil sands, heavy oil, coal) are all
extremely challenging ones to attempt to implement.
Are there areas where the federal R&D budget could be cut to
provide resources for a broader set of such initiatives? I do not have
sufficient knowledge of our government's R&D activities in an overview
sense to attempt an answer to that question. One factor that makes that
an especially difficult question, in my judgment, is that our
government lacks a coherent industrial and technology development
policy. One consequence of that lack is that we risk losing our global
leadership position in transportation energy technologies and the
business opportunities that go with that leadership role.
Question submitted by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett
Q1. In your opinion, is a limited world platinum supply likely to be a
barrier to the widespread adoption of fuel cells?
A1. Platinum production capacity would have to expand substantially if
current technology fuel cells (which have a high platinum requirement)
were produced in large numbers. However, they will not be produced in
large numbers because current technology fuel cells are too expensive
to be commercially viable, and their technology with its substantial
platinum requirement will have to change significantly before fuel
cells can become commercially viable. What is already happening that
will stress the platinum supply system is the growth in light-duty
vehicles worldwide (from 750 million today to an anticipated two
billion in 2050), and the expanding demand for automotive catalysts and
their requirement for noble metals like platinum that goes along with
that worldwide vehicle growth. Thus, it is clear that much improved
automotive fuel cell technology, with much lower platinum loadings,
will need to be developed if fuel cells are to become a practical and
marketable technology.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science
Foundation
Q1a. What progress has been made toward addressing the principal
technical barriers to a successful transition to the use of hydrogen as
a primary transportation fuel since the Administration announced its
hydrogen initiatives, FreedomCAR and the President's Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative?
A1a. The National Academies' report, The Hydrogen Economy:
Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs (http//www.nap.edu/books/
0309091632/html/), published in 2004, identifies the following
principal technical barriers to a successful transition to the use of
hydrogen as a primary transportation fuel: 1) Development and
introduction of cost-effective, durable, safe, and environmentally
desirable fuel cell systems and hydrogen storage systems; 2)
development of the infrastructure to provide hydrogen for the light-
duty-vehicle user; 3) sharp reduction in the costs of hydrogen
production from renewable energy sources over a time frame of decades;
and 4) capture and storage (``sequestering'') of the carbon dioxide by-
product of hydrogen production from coal.
The National Science Foundation, as part of the interagency
Hydrogen R&D Task Force, established and co-chaired by OSTP and DOE,
participates in monthly meetings at the White House Conference Center
in order to ensure coordination among the agencies and to address
relevant research related to potential technical barriers. NSF-
supported principal investigators (PIs) have contributed to important
developments addressing hydrogen production and storage and fuel cell-
related basic research. For production of hydrogen, a progression can
be expected of using natural gas, then coal, biomass, and ultimately
water as feedstocks. One NSF PI is studying improved production of
hydrogen from methane (a principal component of natural gas) and the
oxygen in air using high pressures and reactor conditions that favor
so-called ``cool flames.'' Such systems hold promise for substantially
improving the ratio of hydrogen to water produced in the reaction and
have the advantage that catalysts are not needed (http://www.nsf.gov/
awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0215756).
New reforming catalysts that produce hydrogen from hydrocarbons and
steam and that have increased activity and improved stability toward
key catalyst poisons are being identified through NSF awards. In
addition, new catalytic routes to hydrogen from renewable resources
like plant byproducts have been developed for use in water (http://
www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr0369.htm) and could to used in fuel cell
applications. Some progress has been made in developing a new
generation of non-platinum-based fuel cell catalysts.
Advances in research related to formation of hydrogen from water
are exemplified by Science magazine's having listed water as a
Breakthrough of the Year for 2004. NSF PIs are determining structural
and dynamic properties of nanoscale clusters of small numbers of water
molecules and how they interact with the protons and electrons that are
intimately involved in charge transfer leading to hydrogen production.
Their studies are also addressing the nature of bonds between water
molecules and surfaces, information that will help us understand
reactions at fuel cell electrodes. Progress in catalyzed photo-induced
electron transfer that is relevant to production of hydrogen from
renewable solar energy has been reported from work conducted by NSF PIs
and provides insight into the multiple electron transfer events that
characterize this process.
Materials for storing hydrogen are under active development by NSF
PIs. ``Molecular containers'' that are porous on the nanoscale are
being synthesized and their hydrogen-storage properties characterized,
as are various solid-state materials ranging from metal alloys to
carbon nanotubes. These developments have been recently summarized
http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/83/i34/html/
8334altenergy.html. NSF PIs have also identified materials like
palladium nanowires that can detect hydrogen at extremely low
concentrations. Such sensor materials could serve as leak detectors for
hydrogen and contribute to its safe use in storage and transportation
systems.
Fuel cell developments attributable to NSF support are exemplified
by progress in low-temperature versions of these devices. In
particular, improved performance has been seen with the introduction of
fully fluorinated membranes and better electrode structures that
increase catalyst utilization.
High temperature Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) have the potential
to operate at high efficiency without noble metal catalysts. Currently
available oxide membranes, which are critical for ionic transport in
higher-temperature fuel cells, are inefficient and fail to operate at
the lower temperatures needed for use in transportation. Several NSF
projects are focused on studying lover-temperature oxide-ion membranes
to minimize corrosion and differential thermal expansion, while
maintaining selectivity and permeability.
Also noteworthy has been the success of NSF PIs in exploiting the
exquisite machinery of microbes, which can utilize hydrogen without the
elaborate storage and pressure systems of conventional approaches. A
single-chambered microbial fuel cell (http://www.nsf.gov/news/
news-summ.jsp?cntn-id=100337) has been shown
recently to offer highly mobile and efficient energy production.
Q1b. What are the remaining potential technical ``showstoppers?''
A1b. The aforementioned National Academies' report articulates several
``showstoppers.'' For example, at this time, capabilities of hydrogen
storage materials are still inadequate. If catalysts for fuel cells are
to he economically competitive, they would either need to be about an
order of magnitude more active and have high resistance to poisoning by
carbon monoxide if they contain expensive platinum; or alternative,
efficient non-platinum-based catalysts would need to be found. There
are also challenges associated with developing manufacturing techniques
that would enable catalyst coatings to be deposited uniformly on
surfaces of arbitrary shape.
Q2a. What are the research areas where breakthroughs are needed to
advance a hydrogen economy?
A2a. Catalysis impacts many of the technical areas for which
breakthroughs are needed to drive a hydrogen economy. Ranging from fuel
cell electrodes to photo-induced production of hydrogen, better
catalysts will be critical for making progress. In turn, catalyst
improvement requires better understanding of a variety of technical
issues. Membrane performance, for instance, demands excellent ionic
conductivity along with physical and chemical durability. Such a
combination of properties poses a challenge due to the lack of
fundamental knowledge of synthesis-structure-function relationships in
the polymers that are commonly employed as membranes. Another example
involves the use of platinum supported on carbon for electro-catalysis
in low-temperature acid fuel cells. Reduction of loadings of platinum
or other precious metal in electrodes has been identified as essential
in order to reduce system costs, but there are also problems with
catalyst dissolution and corrosion of the material that supports the
catalyst.
Novel materials are needed for safe and reliable hydrogen
production and storage, as well as for developing infrastructure to
distribute hydrogen. Failure mechanisms due to materials degradation,
such as hydrogen-induced embrittlement in pipelines, need to be
understood and controlled. As noted above, better membrane materials
for fuel cells and superior hydrogen storage materials are needed.
Most hydrogen is currently synthesized from natural gas. Other
potential sources of hydrogen include coal and biomass through
gasification processes. Basic research is needed to identify optimal
hydrogen production strategies from these feedstocks and, for biomass,
to ensure effective gas cleanup. Carbon management must be addressed
when using fossil fuels as a feedstock.
Splitting water through electrolysis and photolysis needs to be
aggressively pursued. Fundamental questions about water's properties at
the molecular level still exist and must be resolved if we are to
design systems that can more efficiently split water by photochemical
or electrochemical means.
There are also basic questions about biological systems that use
hydrogen that hold promise for significant increases in energy
efficiency if they could be used to form the basis for hydrogen-fueled
systems. Central to our understanding of biological systems is the
enzyme hydrogenase, the catalyst for reversible hydrogen oxidation.
Hydrogenases are components of chemically driven energy production in
microbes in the absence of oxygen. Understanding them using physical,
genomic and biochemical methods could yield important information for
design of systems that mimic the efficiency of chemical and light
energy transduction found in biological systems. Guided by advances in
theory, modeling and simulation, the synthesis of ``model'' systems
that possess characteristics of hydrogenases represents a promising
complementary approach to this objective.
Q2b. How is NSF-funded research addressing those basic research
questions?
A2b. The principal investments of NSF-funded research related to fuel
cell and hydrogen themes are in the following areas: 1) mechanisms of
hydrogen production and utilization in microbes and cellular membranes
(Biological Sciences and Geosciences directorates); 2) catalysis,
hydrogen production, purification and storage of hydrogen, fuel cell
membrane characteristics, and fuel cell design (Engineering and
Mathematical and Physical Sciences directorates); 3) experimental and
theoretical studies of electrode reactions, water clusters, photo-
induced electron transfer reactions, and model hydrogenase systems
(Mathematical and Physical Sciences directorate); and 4) materials,
including preparation, processing, characterization and properties for
potential fuel cell applications and for sequestration of greenhouse
gases (Mathematical and Physical Sciences). Some representative
projects illustrating how NSF PIs are addressing the research
challenges outlined in section 2a were given in section 1a.
It should be noted that many of NSF's investments are made in
response to unsolicited proposals. These may involve individual
investigators or multi-investigator teams. The level of investment in
hydrogen- and fuel cell-related research, approximately $20 M annually,
reflects the strong interest in the U.S. academic scientific and
engineering research community in the basic research issues associated
with these technologies.
It is also noteworthy that there has been considerable synergy with
developments arising from investments in nanotechnology. In addition to
the examples of palladium nanowire hydrogen sensors and nanoporous
solids that can store hydrogen, membranes prepared from multiple
nanostructured layers appear to have promising characteristics with
respect to fuel cell usage. Bacteria, which might be regarded as
``nano-machines,'' have recently been found to use hydrogen in extreme
environments such as hot springs, (http://www.eurekalert.org/
pub-releases/2005-01/uoca-ymf012405.php. Learning how these
organisms live on hydrogen and how they convert it to other forms of
energy may have the potential for transformative discoveries upon which
to build a hydrogen economy.
Q3a. What hydrogen research is NSF currently funding?
A3a. Areas of concentration are reflected in the interagency Hydrogen
R&D Task Force topic areas. NSF is represented on 14 teams focusing on
catalysis; materials for hydrogen storage; materials research;
materials performance, measurement, and analysis; biological and
biomimetic hydrogen production; physical and chemical interactions of
materials and hydrogen; multi-functional materials and structures;
photo-electrochemical hydrogen production; characterization and new
synthesis tools; hydrogen internal combustion engines; hydrogen
turbines; SBIR/STTR; and workforce/education. Currently, NSF funds
approximately 130 awards per year in the areas listed above.
Q3b. How much of this research, if any, is collaborative with private
industry?
A3b. The principal mechanisms that NSF uses to promote interactions
with industry are the SBIR/STTR and Grant Opportunities for Academic
Liaison with Industry (GOALI) programs, although the latter is only a
small fraction of the agency's portfolio. Some individual investigator
awards also have industrial collaborations. NSF estimates a current
investment of about $4 M in SBIR/STTR awards in hydrogen-related
technology. NSF and DOE established a Memorandum of Understanding that
offers NSF SBIR/STTR grantees with technology of interest to DOE
additional resources through DOE's ``Commercialization Assistance
Program.''
Q3c. How much, if any, is coordinated with the basic research effort
at the Department of Energy (DOE)?
A3c. There is considerable coordination with DOE in areas of mutual
interest. For example, the two agencies co-chaired a session at the
National Hydrogen Association (NHA) Annual National Hydrogen Conference
this past April that focused on funding opportunities across agencies
for the SBIR/STTR community. For essentially all of the topic areas
being coordinated by the interagency Hydrogen R&D Task Force in which
NSF participates (section 3a), DOE is also represented. Staff members
of these two agencies are collaborating in developing short white
papers describing the specific technical challenges associated with
each topic area, along with representatives from other agencies as
appropriate. Informal relationships have included extending invitations
to workshops and contractors' meetings, and sharing information on
program announcements, proposals, and awards. The information that is
shared helps to ensure appropriate partitioning of investments between
the targeted, often short-time-frame perspective of DOE and the high-
risk, often longer-term perspective of NSF.
Q4a. How does the NSF coordinate with the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, DOE and the other agencies involved with the
Hydrogen Interagency Task Force?
A4a. The interagency Hydrogen R&D Task Force holds monthly meetings at
the White House Conference Center. This provides an excellent
opportunity to meet with representatives from OSTP, DOE and the other
agencies involved with the Task Force. NSF currently has two
representatives who regularly attend the meetings.
Q4b. How is this information exchanged between the agencies and to
what extent is it beneficial to NSF?
A4b. We have found that the topic areas have been effective in
connecting staff members across agencies that support research in areas
of common interest. Additionally, the Task Force established a website,
http://www.hydrogen.gov, that provides information from all of the
participating agencies that is of value both to the agencies and the
external community.
Q4c. How does NSF ensure that its research results are available to
other agencies?
A4c. Beyond the informal contacts of technical staff facilitated by the
Task Force, the NSF has a searchable award database and collects annual
and final reports from its PIs. All of this information is available to
technical staff at other agencies. NSF convenes workshops on topics
related to the hydrogen initiative. The Task Force meetings and
contacts provide a mechanism for inviting representatives from other
agencies to participate in the workshops and learn about the latest
results of NSF's PIs and their thoughts on promising future research
and education directions.
Q4d. Is the Task Force successful in helping agencies understand what
hydrogen issues other agencies are working on, and to what degree?
A4d. Our experience has been that the Task Force has been quite
successful thus far in lowering barriers to interagency collaboration
and providing broader perspectives for investments related to the
hydrogen initiative. Most meetings include updates from agency
representatives on the various topical areas, meetings, and workshops.
In addition, there have been presentations on the International
Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy and on specific programs of
participating agencies that have provided useful information on the
scope of the federal investment.
Appendix 2:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement by Michelin North America
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present this testimony today on behalf of Michelin North
America.
Since 1889, Michelin has been contributing to progress in the area
of mobility, through its expertise in the field of tires and suspension
systems and the company's willingness to invest in innovation. In a
number of instances, Michelin has been the force behind technological
breakthroughs, such as the radial tire, the ``Green tire'' and the X
One single wide-based tire.
Michelin is the world leader in the tire industry. We manufacture
and sell tires for every type of vehicle, including airplanes,
automobiles, bicycles, earthmovers, farm equipment, heavy-duty trucks,
motorcycles, and the Space Shuttle. The company also publishes travel
guides, maps and atlases covering North America, Europe, Asia and
Africa. In 2004 Michelin produced nearly 195 million tires and printed
19 million maps and guides. Our net sales totaled approximately $19
billion. Our tire activities and support services account for 98
percent of our net sales. Suspension systems, mobility assistance
services, travel publications and Michelin Lifestyle products account
for the remaining two percent of our total business.
Michelin sells its products in over 170 countries, operates 74
production manufacturing facilities in 19 countries and employs nearly
127,000 people around the world. Michelin operates three technology
centers on three continents, one of which is located in Greenville,
South Carolina. Greenville is the headquarters of Michelin North
America which employs over 23,000 people and operates 21 manufacturing
facilities in 17 locations.
Michelin is in the business of sustainable mobility. What does that
mean? How goods and services move has been a fundamental factor in the
development of society, as a tool of discovery and a means of
communication and interaction between people.
Roads have played a key role in the phenomena of urbanization,
globalization of exchanges and, more generally, economic growth. Road
mobility provides access to the world and makes for a more fluid job
market, by increasing travel opportunities to and from our homes and
places of work. Roads provide those located in areas away from economic
centers with a way of bringing products to the marketplace.
Furthermore, mobility is freedom, perhaps one of the most basic
freedoms in any country. To encourage mobility, to support the growth
of infrastructure and ease of travel is to encourage freedom itself.
With freedom comes responsibility--to travel safely, to conserve
limited resources and to respect the environment.
Alongside these advantages, advances in modern modes of transport
have often involved significant social and environmental impacts.
Transport worldwide, and road transport in particular, is currently
developing in a context of population growth, urban development and an
increasing awareness of the impact of human activity on the
environment. In light of these factors, a transition towards a new
attitude to mobility is clearly needed. Sustainable mobility takes into
account the necessity of providing satisfactory responses to travel
requirements. It must also move toward a reduction in the impact of
mobility on the environment, become accessible to more people in as
safe a manner as possible and be compatible with the economic
objectives and constraints of public authorities, private companies and
non-governmental organizations.
Michelin views this concept of sustainable mobility as being in
concert with our five core values: respect for customers, respect for
facts, respect for people, respect for shareholders and respect for the
environment. These values, and how we concretely translate these values
to executable actions, are articulated in Michelin's Performance and
Responsibility Charter and subsequent Performance and Responsibility
reports.
Why is the notion of sustainable mobility important? Between 1950
and 2003, the number of vehicles on the roads throughout the world went
from 50 million to more than 830 million, including nearly 700 million
cars. According to the projections of the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the number of passenger vehicles on
the roads throughout the world will reach 1.3 billion in 2030. The
distances traveled by people will increase by nearly 50 percent between
2000 and 2030. Over the same period of time, truck freight is forecast
to increase by 75 percent.
As stated earlier, this increase in road traffic has an impact on
the environment. Transport represents 26 percent of carbon dioxide
emission (17 percent for road transport, nine percent for other modes
of transport) according to the International Energy Agency. In
industrialized countries, transport consumes about 65 percent of oil
resources.
In 2000, as a way of responding to the consequences of increased
mobility, Michelin joined with 11 other corporate members of the
WBCSD--BP, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, Norsk
Hydro, Renault, Shell, Toyota and Volkswagen--to establish the
Sustainable Mobility Project. The goal of this group was to carry out
an assessment of mobility throughout the world, analyze the challenges
facing the sector and identify the directions to take in order to
address these challenges.
Even before participating in the Sustainable Mobility Project,
Michelin recognized the necessity of addressing the impacts of rapidly
increasing road transport. In 1998, for the celebration of the
hundredth anniversary of Bibendum--Michelin's corporate icon known
around the world as the ``Michelin Man''--Michelin organized a rally of
advanced technology vehicles. Challenge Bibendum has won worldwide
recognition as the premier clean and safe vehicle event in the world,
where industry, policy-makers and experts can review the latest
technologies and share their visions. The event provides the
opportunity to evaluate different technical options that exist to
tackle the energy, environmental and safety issues associated with
freight and individual mobility worldwide. This event has taken place
in Europe, in North America and, last year for the first time, in Asia.
Challenge Bibendum is a mechanism that assists in resolving
questions associated with emissions, oil consumption, urban congestion
and road safety. It is a unique event for several reasons:
Challenge Bibendum is open to all energy sources and
all powertrain options. No other event is solution-neutral in
both concept and competition.
Vehicles are evaluated in real driving conditions,
using precisely defined criteria relating to performance,
safety and the environment.
Advanced technology vehicles are tested using today's
on-road vehicles as a point of reference.
A ``ride and drive'' enables all participants to test
and experience for themselves the various technologies.
An educational information center and a symposium,
all organized in partnership with the event's participants,
complete the technological competition.
Challenge Bibendum is an open forum where all parties
concerned from the public and private sectors can freely
exchange opinions.
Challenge Bibendum provides an international platform for road
vehicle manufacturers to demonstrate state-of-the-art technologies and
for participants to witness, assess and document the progress which
these advanced, real-world technologies continue to make, as well as
showcase the opportunities they represent.
This event, unlike any other in the world, serves as a testing
ground and the only one that showcases concept cars featuring
technologies, often for the first time, alongside production vehicles
that have already made very significant progress. Furthermore,
Challenge Bibendum serves as an exchange forum for industry leaders,
university researchers, public policy-makers and the media.
Representatives from numerous organizations from around the world,
such as the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the World Bank, the European Commission, Japan's
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and the WBCSD attended
the 2004 event in Shanghai, China. In all, 2,000 people, representing
more than 200 organizations from 45 countries, gathered at the 2004
Challenge Bibendum.
What conclusions could one draw from the 2004 Challenge Bibendum
and the follow-on Bibendum Forum and Rally held in Japan just last
month? First, there is no single technology, device, or component that
resolves the question of how to achieve sustainable mobility within the
parameters we have constructed. The fact that Challenge Bibendum is an
event that displays multiple technologies underscores the fact that
many of those technologies will help us attain the goal of sustainable
mobility. A more holistic view needs to be taken as we move forward.
Likewise, when environmental impact issues are examined, it is
appropriate to view the consequences of transport from a ``well to
wheel'' perspective. The environmental impact to gather, refine or
otherwise provide the energy to the vehicle from its source must be
taken into consideration.
From the standpoint of technology, the 2004 Challenge Bibendum
revealed the following:
The future will include a variety of technologies and
non-petroleum fuels.
Advanced internal combustion engines, both diesel and
gasoline, continue to make outstanding progress in terms of
cleaner combustion, more power density, less noise and less
energy consumption.
Urban pollution can be tackled through sulfur free
fuels, particulate filters, next-generation combustion engines
and exhaust gas treatments, as well as the progressive
development of electric traction.
Hybridization brings both great driving performance
and environmental efficiency, especially for higher power and
larger size vehicles; it opens a wide array of technical
solutions.
Biofuels offer a very significant potential to help
reduce CO2 emissions.
New generation batteries offer much greater promise
for electric traction of two-wheelers, cars, taxis, buses, by
providing higher power and energy densities--a range of more
than 200 miles is now a reality.
Fuel cell vehicle driving performances are improving
rapidly; with a current range of up to 250 miles.
Active safety systems such as Electronic Stability
Programs (ESP) have proven their efficiency, more systems are
becoming widely available, and passive safety is also improving
greatly.
Some conclusions regarding policy were drawn, as well:
In order to achieve improvements in air quality,
energy supply and safety, it is urgent to act now.
Benefits will only be achieved when these advanced
technologies achieve significant market share.
Progress will be faster by quickly disseminating and
implementing the advanced technologies already available while
working on future technologies. This has to happen in all
countries, especially in emerging countries to enable them to
develop their transportation systems.
Different solutions will be developed in different
parts of the world depending on energy resources,
transportation requirements and existing infrastructures.
Safer and cleaner vehicles go hand-in-hand.
Cleaner fuels are on the critical path for many
emerging countries in order to enable the introduction of
advanced technologies.
Joint action between industries and governments is
critical to achieve progress towards sustainable mobility.
Moving towards greater global regulatory
harmonization is required to speed up the adoption of cleaner,
safer and more sustainable technologies.
Michelin looks forward to hosting the next Challenge Bibendum (June
2006) in order to measure additional progress. Until then, Michelin
remains committed to improving mobility and reducing as much as
possible the impact of its activities and products on the environment.