<DOC>
[108th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:87487.wais]
THE HYDROGEN ENERGY ECONOMY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
of the
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 20, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-21
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
__________
87-487 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART GORDON, Tennessee
Vice Chairman PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona GENE GREEN, Texas
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
Mississippi TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
VITO FOSSELLA, New York DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROY BLUNT, Missouri LOIS CAPPS, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire TOM ALLEN, Maine
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania JIM DAVIS, Florida
MARY BONO, California JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREG WALDEN, Oregon HILDA L. SOLIS, California
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
DARRELL E. ISSA, California
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
David V. Marventano, Staff Director
James D. Barnette, General Counsel
Reid P.F. Stuntz, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER COX, California RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina (Ranking Member)
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Vice Chairman EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
Mississippi BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
VITO FOSSELLA, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
STEVE BUYER, Indiana TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California LOIS CAPPS, California
MARY BONO, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
DARRELL ISSA, California (Ex Officio)
C.L. ``BUTCH'' OTTER, Idaho
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
__________
Page
Testimony of:
Garman, David K., Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy............ 8
McCormick, J. Byron, Executive Director, Fuel Cell
Activities, General Motors Research and Development........ 39
Preli, Francis R., Jr., Vice President, Engineering, UTC Fuel
Cells...................................................... 55
Rips, Catherine, Director of Hydrogen Programs, Sunline...... 46
Samuelsen, Scott, University of California at Irvine,
Mechanical, Aerospace, and Environmental Engineering....... 65
Schwank, Johannes, Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Michigan..................................... 70
Vesey, Gregory M., President, Technology Ventures,
ChevronTexaco Corporation.................................. 59
Additional material submitted for the record:
Americam Petroleum Institute, prepared statement of.......... 85
Samuelsen, Scott, University of California at Irvine,
Mechanical, Aerospace, and Environmental Engineering,
letter dated July 7, 2003, enclosing response for the
record..................................................... 89
Schwank, Johannes, Department of Chemical Engineering,
University of Michigan, letter dated July 5, 2003,
enclosing response for the record.......................... 88
(iii)
THE HYDROGEN ENERGY ECONOMY
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2003
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Barton
(chairman) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Barton, Shimkus, Buyer,
Bono, Otter, Wynn, Allen, Rush, and John.
Staff present: Bob Meyers, majority counsel; Kelly Zerzan,
majority counsel; Andy Black, policy coordinator; Peter Kielty,
legislative clerk; Bruce Harris, minority counsel; Jonathan J.
Cordone, minority counsel; and Sue Sheridan, minority counsel.
Mr. Barton. The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality is
holding a hearing today on hydrogen and the potential for a
hydrogen economy.
Without objection, we are going to proceed pursuant to
Committee Rule 4E, which governs opening statements by members
and the opportunity to defer them for extra questioning.
Hearing no objection, prior to the recognition of the first
witness for testimony, any member who, when recognized for an
opening statement may defer his or her 3-minute opening
statement and instead use those 3 minutes during the initial
round of witness questioning.
Looks like we are going to be swamped with opening
statements this morning. So the Chair is now going to recognize
himself for an opening statement.
Today we are going to turn our attention to the future of
hydrogen fuel cells, vehicles powered by hydrogen, and the
hydrogen fueling infrastructure necessary to make it work. I
want to thank my colleague, the Congressman from Maryland, the
Honorable Albert Wynn, for encouraging a closer look at this
topic. We have the same purpose of doing everything Congress
can do to give hydrogen powered vehicles a chance to succeed.
It is amazing to contemplate the potential of millions of
vehicles no longer needing conventional gasoline with emissions
consistently near zero. H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003,
provides for a collaborative process between the Federal
Government and the private sector. H.R. 6 foresees a
fundamental decision by fueling companies and vehicle
manufacturers by the year 2015 regarding having on-road
vehicles and a fueling infrastructure deployed by 2020.
The 2020 deadline calls for cars to be acceptable to
consumers in terms of price, performance, and safety. As we
have learned with natural gas vehicles, a hydrogen fueling
infrastructure must be pervasive and widespread in order for
mass acceptance by consumers.
In his State of the Union address, President Bush
envisioned a child born today having their first vehicle
powered by hydrogen. I might say as an aside that since in
Texas it is a Texas constitutional right that you get your
first car at age 16, that we are going to have to move that up
for children that are actually born today.
It may take that long because of the many technology
improvements and cost reductions that must occur in addition to
the development of thousands of new codes and standards. It
may, indeed, take lessons from many years of stationary fuel
cell applications before vehicles can succeed, and it may be
that you cannot rush technology.
However, we do not want to delay the project until 2020 if
it can be completed sooner than that. In fact, one of our
witnesses, a gentleman from General Motors, may say that
consumers could see this new product well before then if
everything goes right.
During the subcommittee consideration of H.R. 6,
Congressman Wynn offered an amendment to speed up the time
table, require a Federal fleet mandate, and to authorize
additional funding for stationary fuel cell demonstrations. I
asked Congressman Wynn to withdraw his amendment, so that this
subcommittee could more fully review the issues in the Wynn
amendment. Today we are having that opportunity. I want to
thank Congressman Wynn for working with us on this issue.
As we move toward the expected conference on energy with
the other body, the lessons that we learn today will help us
craft a hydrogen title that can achieve the vision that we all
share.
We have before us witnesses from many of the different
sectors that will play a role in the future of hydrogen fuel
cells and energy infrastructure. Two of our witnesses can
comment on barriers that this growing technology application
will face in the real world. I want to welcome all of our
witnesses today for their testimony.
At another hearing later in the summer, we are going to
consider the broader issues relating to the future of energy
production, where we will cover the potential for coal
gasification, which could allow coal to produce electricity
with fewer emissions and the possibility of carbon
sequestration. We will also explore the administration's new
future generation proposal, which could greatly improve our
ability to produce hydrogen.
A decade or two from now, Americans may look back to this
Congress as the time that we inspired a new generation of
vehicles, a reduced reliance on imported oil, and a broad
transition on a voluntary basis to produce the energy much more
cleanly. When I fully retire from use my 1981 Buick Century
station wagon, which I hope lasts at least half a century, you
will know we, as a Nation, are headed in the right direction.
Now I would like to recognize Congressman Wynn for an
opening statement.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I
begin, let me request that all members on the minority side be
allowed to insert statements in the record by unanimous
consent.
Mr. Barton. Is that all members or just statements of the
minority?
Mr. Wynn. Well----
Mr. Barton. I think you said of the minority. Do you
broaden that to say all members?
Mr. Wynn. I am happy to say that, to all members.
Mr. Barton. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Wynn. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me say very sincerely that
I thank you for calling this hearing. As you indicated when we
were discussing H.R. 6, the issue of hydrogen fuel cells came
up, and we talked about whether we were doing enough. You liked
what we were doing, but you certainly wanted to hear more about
it. I was very pleased at that, and I am even more excited and
enthused that you have, in fact, called this hearing. I thank
you for that.
I also want to note that there is a great deal of
bipartisan support for the development of fuel cell technology.
And if there are any partisan differences, it probably has to
do with degree and certainly not purpose or intent of the
initiative. The President's fuel car initiative provides $1.73
billion for the development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
His initiative, which would provide money for research and
development and demonstration projects, is a step in the right
direction toward the development of commercially viable
hydrogen fuel cell cars. Unfortunately, this plan would put
hydrogen fuel cells on the road between 2020 and 2025 when the
U.S. is over 70 percent dependent on foreign oil for its
domestic oil consumption needs. I believe that we should make
the vehicles commercially viable by 2015.
Today, stationary hydrogen fuel cells are a reality,
providing backup electricity in some skyscrapers.
Interestingly, the New York Police Department, Central Park
Station, is powered by hydrogen fuel cells independent of the
grid. In order to advance this technology, I believe that
Congress should adopt a significant increase in Federal funding
for the advancement of hydrogen fuel cell technology and the
production and the fueling infrastructure needed to support the
initiative.
I look forward to hearing from our industry witnesses who
can talk about the challenges in developing affordable fuel
cell vehicles and fuels.
As you mentioned, in April, I offered an amendment to
provide $5.3 billion over 10 years for the advancement of
hydrogen fuel technology. This program, like the FreedomCAR,
would provide grants for research and development and allow
corporations to apply for funding and demonstration programs.
By increasing funding and providing benchmarks for the
rollout of the technology, the amendment would help make
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles commercially viable around 2015.
The things that I believe ought to be included would be
elements such as research and development funds for hydrogen
production, storage, and transport activities, as well as
research and development funds for fuel cell technologies to
develop more economically and environmentally sound fuel cells.
Also, we need a Department of Energy cost-sharing vehicle
demonstration program to show the viability of fuel cell
vehicles and widespread commercial use as well as cooperative
agreements with the private sector to demonstrate fuel cell
powered buses and trucks. The amendment that I offered would
also include a demonstration project for stationary hydrogen
fuel cells.
We would also require Federal Government agencies with
motor vehicle fleets to collectively purchase 100,000 vehicles
powered by fuel cells--the first phase of developing a
commercially viable vehicle fuel cell program. In order to
bring hydrogen fuel cells online in a way that makes the U.S.
less dependent on the volatile world oil market, we must move
forward with the fortitude of a Marshall Plan to bring hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles online by 2015.
This not only requires additional funding but clear
benchmarks as laid out in the amendment that I introduced for
the technology to transition from stationary fuel cells to
commercially viable vehicles within 15 years.
Let me conclude by saying again, thank you for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses this
morning.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Congressman.
Seeing no other witnesses, we are going to start our
hearing.
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mary Bono, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today.
I am very grateful that you invited Catherine Rips from Sunline
Transit Agency to testify. As you know, Sunline is located in
California's 45th Congressional District and is a leader in this field.
President Bush has challenged Congress to move ahead with
groundbreaking initiatives in hydrogen fuel cell technology. In this
year's comprehensive energy bill, the House took the first steps in
this direction by authorizing the President's FreedomCAR program and
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.
But we also need to work on refining other proposals. For instance,
I understand the Administration has requested a total of $100 million
for the Multi-Modal Research Program. However, these monies could thin
out as they are split between fuel cells, the 21st Century Truck
project as well as other programs. I would like to learn more from Ms.
Rips, and other panelists, about suggestions on improving this program
structure.
Another issue we must address is something that all alternative
fuel initiatives must face, and that is building a reliable
infrastructure. If we are to ever move from taking this technology
beyond the public sector and into the garage of the average American,
we must prepare to face this question now.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing and I look
forward to hearing today's testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Idaho
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Whether through the threats of rogue nations in the middle-east,
the unreliability of OPEC, or the strikes of Venezuela, Americans have
been all too often reminded of the threat our growing reliance on
foreign oil poses to our economy and way of life.
Sadly, as the Clinton Administration sat by and watched, our
nation's reliance on foreign oil grew steadily throughout the 1990's
peaking at nearly 60 percent. Today, our nation's economy is a virtual
hostage to the political and economic whims of the nation's that supply
our oil. Hydrogen, however, offers us a promising domestic alternative
to the uncertainty and manipulation of OPEC.
I am particularly interested in the idea of producing an abundant
supply of hydrogen through the next generation of nuclear power
reactors in our nation. I firmly believe that if our nation is going to
meet its growing need for base-load electricity in the future, it will
have to turn to nuclear power for the answer--and in that answer we
will also find a source for hydrogen.
My home state is home to the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory West. These
two facilities are on the cutting edge of nuclear power research and
development and are poised to lead our nation's efforts to produce
hydrogen from nuclear power. I've met with the engineers and scientists
who work at these two world-class facilities, listened to their ideas
and enthusiasm, and am convinced they're vision of combining nuclear
reactors with hydrogen production makes undeniable sense.
Mr. Chairman, it's time our nation harnesses the intellectual
strength and boundless ingenuity it possesses and ends its reliance on
foreign oil. In doing so, we can look forward to a day when the power
of OPEC and its oil is replaced by the security of a domestically-
produced energy source like Hydrogen.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding today's hearing and I
look forward to the testimony of the witnesses.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman, Committee
on Energy and Commerce
Last year, the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, under the
leadership of Chairman Greenwood, examined several issues regarding the
Department of Energy's ``FreedomCar'' program, which was first
announced on January 9, 2002. That hearing examined several issues
concerning the respective roles of the Department and the private
sector in this new endeavor as well as its relationship to the previous
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, or PNGV program.
Today, the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee expands the focus of
this committee's review by looking not only at FreedomCar, but other
efforts in the public and private sectors. As our first witness,
Assistant Secretary David Garman, will testify, since the release of
the Administration's National Energy Plan in May of 2001, three
separate but related efforts have been announced: FreedomCar, the
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and, most recently, FutureGen, a
program to develop a zero-emission coal-fired powerplant.
We cannot possibly address all issues and every aspect of these
programs at this hearing. Instead, today we will focus on FreedomCar
and the related Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. As our audience should know,
both programs were authorized in H.R. 6, the comprehensive energy bill
that was approved by the full House of Representatives on April 11th.
Very broadly, this legislation provides for a set of twin commitments
to occur in 2015 that will lead to the deployment of hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles and the necessary hydrogen infrastructure in the year 2020.
I think it is important to understand, however, that a hydrogen
energy economy is not limited to a fuel cell minivan pulling up to a
hydrogen filling station in 2020, driven by a 16 year old (born today)
who somehow managed to get the keys from mom and dad and who may have
no intention of driving to the library like he promised. Instead, this
new energy economy contains a massive set of interrelated efforts,
which will extend throughout the fuel production, storage and
distribution system and which will require a massive downstream
retooling of industry and commitment of vast sums of private capital.
I think we all realize that this cannot occur in the blink of an
eye. We cannot instantly change the course of industrial and
transportation history that began roughly one hundred and forty-four
years ago in Pennsylvania when the first commercial oil wells were
drilled. Nor can we determine today how market forces will respond and
shape the hydrogen energy economy in its real staging ground, the
private marketplace.
But I think we can agree that there are important, vital questions
concerning hydrogen energy for our country and for this Congress. And I
look forward to our committee's continued examination and legislative
work in this effort.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tom Allen, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maine
I would first like to thank the Chairman and our distinguished
panelists for this important hearing. Mr. Garman, it is nice to see you
again.
Hydrogen and fuel cell technology presents a potentially
revolutionary technology for our nation, and we need to understand it
here in Washington. This hearing will inform members about the policy
choices presented by the current hydrogen debate.
Last month this committee passed a new energy bill that funded
research and development of a fuel cell vehicle. It also created an
incentive payment program in support of stationary advanced fuel cell
distributed electricity generation. I hope our speakers will address
this new legislation, whether it does enough to promote this
technology, and whether it will lead to a commercial hydrogen vehicle
market and a broader hydrogen based energy system.
I have supported hydrogen fuel cell development since I joined
Congress. There is significant bipartisan support for this research.
But the current bill allows industry to decide in 2015 whether or not
to produce a fuel cell product. I am concerned that we will spend
nearly $2 billion and end up with nothing to show for it.
Thank you all for coming. As this committee continues to consider
energy policy, Members must be well informed about the real potential
of a hydrogen economy.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sherrod Brown, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Ohio
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing, and thanks to
our witnesses for what I expect will be informative testimony.
Thanks are also due our colleague, Mr. Wynn, for raising the issue
of hydrogen technology commercialization during this committee's energy
bill debate. As Mr. Wynn's amendment illustrated, it is well worth
exploring whether and how we might bring hydrogen energy technology to
the mass marketplace more quickly than the bill envisioned.
I would add that it is equally important to make sure that when we
do bring this potentially revolutionary technology to market, we do it
right. If we roll out vehicles and infrastructure that consumers cannot
use or will not buy, we risk consigning a promising technology to the
back bench. If we do not ensure that fuel production and use are
environmentally sound, the new hydrogen economy will simply trade one
set of problems for another. And if we focus exclusively on the
development of hydrogen technology for only one mode of transportation,
we risk undermining the transit systems upon which many of our
constituents depend.
I am pleased to know that today's witnesses will discuss all of
those important issues. Several witnesses will stress how indispensable
it is to ensure that refueling options are widely available by the time
hydrogen-powered vehicles hit the showrooms. As Mr. Garman and several
of our stakeholder witnesses will also discuss, it is essential to
ensure that the development and marketing of carbon sequestration
technology is timed to dovetail with the vehicle and infrastructure
technologies to ensure that fossil sources remain ecologically viable
as sources of hydrogen. And as we will hear, public transit systems
offer a number of advantages as laboratories for the commercialization
of hydrogen energy technologies.
Let me take a moment to add my voice to the recommendation by Dr.
Schwank for active university-based involvement in this effort. Fuel
cell membrane research is one of several groundbreaking technology
initiatives under development at the University of Akron's Polymer
Center. That institution and other university-based programs offer not
only technical expertise but also an independent perspective that will
be invaluable as we work to ensure that hydrogen research is put to the
best possible use.
I would also suggest that we consider an addition to the hydrogen
provision included in the energy bill. Many of the research initiatives
envisioned by that legislation would likely have applications for
improved motor fuel economy in traditional gasoline-fueled vehicles. It
may be worth doing more to promote the sharing of materials research
and other technologies that could make a difference in environmental
stewardship and energy security right now.
The notion of a federal leadership role in developing a hydrogen
economy is rooted in the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles,
established during the1990s. That program provided the foundation for
substantial government investments in fuel cell research, as part of a
broader effort to improve the energy efficiency of motor vehicles and
the sustainability of America's transportation systems.
The challenge now is to build on that foundation, and today's
hearing is an important step in that process. Additional hearings are
necessary to ensure that the development and commercialization of
hydrogen technology are advanced as quickly and effectively as
possible.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing on the
promising future of hydrogen energy and technology. Though the 108th
Congress has legislatively addressed this issue in H.R. 6, the Energy
Policy Act of 2003--by way of authorizing the FreedomCAR and Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative programs--I believe it is useful for this subcommittee
to follow-up and further deliberate on the prospects of a hydrogen-
based economy; and to discern the obstacles to a full-fledged
transformation down the road. The benefits of hydrogen energy are
almost too good to be true: it is an abundant, efficient source of
energy that has virtually no adverse environmental impact.
Having said that, and while I share my colleagues' optimism and
enthusiasm on the benefits of hydrogen fuel technology, I also
acknowledge the obvious fact that we are many, many years away from any
sort of viable and commercial application of hydrogen energy. First,
our nation lacks the fundamental infrastructure to produce, store and
regulate hydrogen. Second, the commercial feasibility of hydrogen based
products--such as hydrogen fuel cells--is still riddled with
substantial cost-of-production and technological glitches.
I point out these obvious obstacles not to be a pessimist or cynic,
but only to put things in perspective. While the Energy Policy Act is a
solid attempt to speed along the transformation process, hydrogen
energy remains a long-term solution to our energy needs. We can
envision and boldly articulate a promising and distant future, but we
mustn't lose track of our immediate problems in the present day. As
such, Congress must continue to encourage the development of productive
interim strategies and technologies that will serve as a bridge between
our present fossil-fuel based economy and our future hydrogen-based
economy. That is, in our enthusiasm to embrace the long-term, we must
not lose sight of the short-term.
So thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this oversight hearing on an
exciting subject-matter, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of
our panelists. I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on a very
important topic for the future of automobiles and American energy
supplies. Hydrogen fuel cells will someday provide Americans with cars
and trucks that produce few emissions and consume less fuel. As we will
hear from our witnesses today, there is still much work to be done.
It is, however, an exciting time for the development of this
technology. Earlier this month, the Chairman and CEO of General Motors
brought a variety of impressive hydrogen powered vehicles to
Washington. And just yesterday I was in Ann Arbor for the announcement
of a new program sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), United Parcel Service (UPS), and Chrysler. The automaker will
provide hydrogen powered delivery vehicles to UPS, and the EPA and
Chrysler will monitor the real world issues that these vehicles will
face, such as varying weather conditions and stop-and-go traffic. We
must continue to encourage public-private partnerships that will lead
to the widespread commercialization of this technology, making it
available to all Americans.
While we continue to develop fuel cell technologies for the long-
term, we must not forget the advanced vehicles we can produce in the
near-term. With a little help, clean diesel vehicles and hybrid-
electric vehicles can be widely available to consumers sooner than you
may think. In particular, I want to help diesel technology along by
improving the quality of diesel fuel and providing consumer incentives
that will increase understanding and acceptance of this new technology.
By significantly improving the fuel economy of the least efficient
vehicles, clean diesel holds great promise for reducing our dependence
on foreign oil in the near-term.
As we further the development of all advanced vehicles, we must
make sure that American researchers, American manufacturers, and
American workers are well equipped to produce these vehicles for the
entire world. We must bring our universities into this collaborative
process early and often. I note the attendance today of Dr. Schwank
from the University of Michigan and Dr. Samuelsen from the University
of California. They will have valuable insights into how we can use the
resources of our academic institutions to develop this technology and
produce the next generation of hydrogen scientists.
In addition to public-private partnerships, we must encourage our
manufacturers to produce these advanced technologies here in the United
States. We will not benefit if we shift from a dependence on foreign
oil to a dependence on foreign technology and manufacturing. Grant
programs and tax incentives should be provided to convert existing
manufacturing facilities into advanced technology facilities.
Encouraging the domestic development and production of hydrogen fuel
cells and other advanced technologies will bring us one step closer to
true energy independence.
Mr. Barton. Our first witness representing the
administration is the Honorable David Garman, who is the
Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
in the Department of Energy. You have testified before this
subcommittee before. We are glad to have you again. We are
going to recognize you for such time as you may consume.
Welcome to the subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID K. GARMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
Mr. Garman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I appreciate this opportunity. And in keeping with
the committee's letter of invitation, I will focus on
FreedomCAR and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.
As the chart to your right shows, there is an imbalance
between domestic oil production and transportation's demand for
petroleum. This imbalance, now around 11 million barrels a day,
is projected to keep growing. And we will not close this
imbalance with regulation, new domestic production, or even
both.
Although promoting efficiency in the use of oil and finding
new domestic sources of oil are important short-term
undertakings, over the long term, over the very long term, a
petroleum-free option is eventually required. We ultimately
want a transportation system that is free of dependence on
foreign energy supplies and free of all harmful emissions.
But we also have to maintain and preserve the freedom of
consumers to purchase the kind of vehicles they want to drive.
That is the concept behind the FreedomCAR partnership and the
President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which are designed to
develop the technologies necessary for hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles and the infrastructure needed to support them.
A transportation system based on hydrogen provides several
advantages. First, hydrogen can be produced from diverse
domestic resources, freeing us from a reliance on foreign
imports. And, second, when hydrogen is used to power fuel cell
vehicles, the combination results in more than twice the
efficiency of today's gasoline engines, with none of the
harmful air emissions. In fact, the only byproducts of the
operation of fuel cells are pure water and waste heat.
But to bring about the mass market penetration of hydrogen
vehicles, government needs to partner with the private sector
to conduct the research and development needed to advance
investment in a hydrogen fuel infrastructure that performs as
well as the petroleum-based infrastructure that we have today,
and that is going to be a difficult task.
Our current gasoline infrastructure has been forged over
the last 100 years in a competitive market. It is remarkably
efficient. It can deliver refined petroleum products that began
as crude oil a half a world away to your neighborhood for less
than the cost of milk, drinking water, or most other liquid
products that you can buy at the supermarket.
We are currently bound to a petroleum infrastructure, and
before drivers will purchase a fuel cell vehicle they have to
have confidence in a hydrogen refueling infrastructure. That is
why the President, in his State of the Union address, made a
new national commitment backed over the next 5 years by $1.7
billion for the FreedomCAR partnership and Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative.
Government is not going to build the hydrogen
infrastructure. The private sector will do that as the business
case becomes clear. But as we develop the technologies needed
by the vehicles, we will also develop the technologies required
by the infrastructure.
Some of the technology challenges we face are significant.
For example, we must lower by a factor of four the cost of
producing and delivering hydrogen. We also have to develop more
compact, lightweight, lower-cost hydrogen storage systems. And
we also have to lower by a factor of at least 10 the cost of
materials for fuel cells themselves.
Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. Beginning
back in November 2001, DOE began working with industry,
academia, the stakeholders on a comprehensive technology
roadmap, and we have achieved a remarkable level of consensus
on what needs to be done.
As important as hydrogen is for the long term, we have
maintained a robust research and development program in non-
hydrogen transportation technologies as well. Under the
FreedomCAR partnership, we have proposed a funding increase in
fiscal year 2004 for our hybrid technology as well as increases
in materials technologies.
Many of these technologies will deliver fuel savings, both
prior to and after the introduction of fuel cell vehicles,
since lightweight materials and hybrid technologies will be
incorporated into fuel cell vehicle designs as well as the
conventional and hybrid models that precede them.
Auto makers are introducing the technologies that have
resulted in part from DOE's work in this area in the past. At
the recent Detroit auto show, the major U.S. auto makers
announced that they would have a variety of new, hybrid
gasoline electric models entering the market in the 2004 to
2008 timeframe.
Of course, hybrid vehicles are more expensive compared to
conventional vehicles, which is why the President proposed a
tax credit for hybrid vehicles in his national energy plan and
in subsequent budget submissions, and we urge that Congress
adopt this important incentive for more efficient vehicles.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I would like to end and ask that
the rest of my testimony be entered into the record as if read,
and would be pleased to answer any questions the committee may
have, either now or in the future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. David K. Garman follows:]
Prepared Statement of David K. Garman, Assistant Secretary, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to testify today.
The President's National Energy Plan, entitled ``Reliable,
Affordable and Environmentally Sound Energy for America's Future,'' is
the blueprint for the energy future we seek, and it makes several
recommendations with regard to hydrogen.
Specifically, it directs the Secretary to develop next generation
energy technology, including hydrogen; it recommends that our research
and development (R&D) programs related to hydrogen and fuel cells be
integrated; and it recommends that legislation reauthorizing the
Hydrogen Energy Act enjoy the support of the Administration.
Since the release of the President's energy plan in May 2001, the
President and Secretary Abraham have unveiled several exciting new
initiatives related to hydrogen. Most notable are:
<bullet> The FreedomCAR partnership announced in January 2002;
<bullet> The President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative announced during the
State of the Union address in January 2003; and
<bullet> The ``FutureGEN'' zero-emission coal-fired electricity and
hydrogen power plant initiative announced in February 2003.
Each of these initiatives plays a particularly important role in a
hydrogen energy future. Each will help make possible a future in which
the principal ``energy carriers'' are hydrogen and electricity,
eventually generated using technologies that do not emit any pollutants
or carbon dioxide.
Today, we are highly dependent on coal, natural gas and nuclear
energy for the majority of our electricity. We depend on oil, a growing
percentage of which is imported, to power our transportation needs.
Through the FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative we can eventually
build a light duty transportation system that requires no petroleum,
and is comprised of vehicles that emit nothing other than water vapor.
As illustrated in my first chart (Figure One) the ``gap'' between
domestic production and transportation demand is growing--and is
projected to keep growing. The current gap between total U.S.
consumption and net production of oil is roughly 11 million barrels per
day. Promoting efficiency in the use of oil, and finding new domestic
sources of oil, are both important short-term undertakings. But over
the long-term, a petroleum-free option is eventually required.
Our energy challenge is further complicated by another important
factor--the pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions resulting from our
use of energy. We have made tremendous progress in reducing pollutant
emissions from our cars and trucks as well as our stationary power
sources, and we will continue to make incremental gains through
regulatory approaches such as the Tier II standards. But for true
efficiency gains, we must reach to develop a wholly new approach to
energy.
In his recent State of the Union address, President Bush announced
a groundbreaking plan to transform our Nation's energy future from one
dependent on foreign petroleum, to one that utilizes the most abundant
element in the universe--hydrogen.
Hydrogen can be produced from diverse domestic sources, freeing us
from a reliance on foreign imports for the energy we use at home.
Hydrogen can fuel ultra-clean internal combustion engines, which would
reduce auto emissions by more than 99 percent. And when hydrogen is
used to power fuel cell vehicles, it will do so with more than twice
the efficiency of today's gasoline engines--and with none of the
harmful air emissions. In fact, fuel cells' only byproducts are pure
water and some waste heat.
But ultimate success in the mass-market penetration of hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles requires a hydrogen-based infrastructure that
performs as well as the petroleum-based infrastructure we now have.
Our current gasoline/hydrocarbon infrastructure has been forged in
a competitive market. It is ubiquitous and remarkably efficient. It can
deliver refined petroleum products that began as crude oil half a world
away to your neighborhood for less than the cost of milk, drinking
water, or many other liquid products you can buy at the supermarket. We
are currently bound to that infrastructure. Eventually replacing it
with something different will be extremely challenging. But that is
what we must do if we expect to achieve success with the FreedomCAR
partnership. Drivers must be able to go anywhere in America and to
refuel their hydrogen-powered vehicle before they will be comfortable
purchasing one.
That is why the President, in his State of the Union address,
proposed that we in the federal government significantly increase our
spending on hydrogen infrastructure R&D, including hydrogen production,
storage, and delivery technologies, as well as fuel cells. Over the
next five years, we plan to spend an estimated $1.7 billion on the
FreedomCAR partnership and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, $1.2 billion of
which is for the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which includes resources for
work on hydrogen and fuel cells. Of the $1.2 billion figure, $720
million is ``new money.''
We will not build the infrastructure. The private sector will do
that as the business case becomes clear. But as we develop the
technologies needed by the vehicles, we will also develop the
technologies required by the infrastructure. In cooperation with the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), we will convene the parties
needed for technology partnerships, we will collaborate on the needed
codes and standards, and we will promote international cooperation in
this effort. On April 28, during a presentation to the International
Energy Agency, Secretary Abraham called for an ``International
Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy'' to collaborate on research and
deployment of hydrogen technologies.
BENEFITS
Energy Diversity
Hydrogen can be supplied in large quantities from domestic fossil,
nuclear and renewable resources. This mix of currently available and
developing technology could provide a transition from traditional to
next generation energy technologies benefiting society with reliable
and affordable energy in the near and long terms. Hydrogen and fuel
cells can catalyze the establishment and utilization of a viable
transportation market for nuclear energy, domestic coal supplies, and
renewables. Carbon capture and sequestration will be needed, however,
for all carbon-based sources of hydrogen such as coal. The fact
remains, though, that our Nation possesses the necessary resources to
produce large quantities of hydrogen.
Transportation
Every day, eight million barrels of oil are required to fuel the
over 200 million vehicles that constitute our light duty transportation
fleet. By 2025, the Nation's light vehicle energy consumption is
projected to grow to as much as 14 million barrels per day of petroleum
or its energy equivalent. Fuel cell vehicles could provide more than
twice the efficiency of conventional vehicles. Hydrogen fueled fuel
cell vehicles could make dramatic reductions in petroleum use possibly
resulting in 11 million barrels per day savings by 2040.
I would like to point out that the government does not have vehicle
market penetration goals. The manufacture and marketing of hybrid, fuel
cell or other advanced vehicles will be industry's responsibility.
Instead, our plan lays out the activities that will accelerate hydrogen
and fuel cell development to enable industry to make a
commercialization decision by 2015. The government's role, however, can
be broader than the removal of technical barriers and the reduction of
technology costs. The government can also contribute to the pace of
both industry and market acceptance by overcoming institutional
barriers, such as those associated with achieving common codes and
standards necessary for safe use of hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies.
Fuel Cells for Stationary Power
Hydrogen can also be used in stationary fuel cells, engines and
turbines to produce power and heat. In order to meet our growing
electrical demands, it is estimated that electricity generation will
have to increase by two percent per year (reference: DOE, Energy
Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2002). At this rate,
1.5 trillion kWh of additional electricity generation capacity will be
needed by 2020. Along with aging infrastructure, requirements for
reliable premium power, and market deregulation, this increasing demand
opens the door for hydrogen power systems and potential societal
benefits. For example, using ten million tons of hydrogen per year to
provide 150 billion kWh of the Nation's electricity (just ten percent
of the added generation) could avoid 20 million tons per year of carbon
dioxide emissions. DOE will also support work in the area of fuel cells
for portable power. While not important to overall petroleum reduction,
these units will provide early operating and manufacturing experience,
and should contribute to the reduction of fuel cell cost for polymer
electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells.
TECHNOLOGY CHALLENGES
Achieving the Hydrogen Economy will require a combination of
technological breakthroughs, market acceptance, and large investments
in a national hydrogen energy infrastructure. Success will not happen
overnight, or even over years, but rather over decades; it will require
an evolutionary process that phases hydrogen in as the technologies and
their markets are ready. Success will also require that the
technologies to utilize hydrogen fuel and the availability of hydrogen
occur simultaneously.
Some of the significant hurdles to be cleared include:
<bullet> Lower by a factor of four the cost of producing and delivering
hydrogen;
<bullet> Develop more compact, light weight, lower cost, safe, and
efficient hydrogen storage systems that will enable a greater
than 300 mile vehicle range;
<bullet> Lower by a factor of ten the cost of materials for advanced
conversion technologies, especially fuel cells;
<bullet> More effective and lower cost (by a factor of at least ten)
carbon-capture and sequestration processes (a separate program
critical to fossil-based production of hydrogen);
<bullet> Designs and materials that maximize the safety of hydrogen
use; and,
<bullet> Finally, we must solve the overarching infrastructure
challenges to develop a hydrogen-based delivery and refueling
infrastructure comparable to the petroleum-based one we have
today. The development of needed codes and standards as well as
the education of consumers relative to the use of hydrogen can
help safely establish this hydrogen infrastructure.
The Department has drafted a work breakdown structure associated
with each of the critical areas (production, delivery, storage,
conversion, and end-use) identified in the National Hydrogen Energy
Roadmap unveiled by the Secretary last November. We have developed
critical milestones and decision points that will help us gauge
technology progress. Examples of key program milestones that support
FreedomCAR and achievement of a hydrogen economy include the following:
<bullet> On-board hydrogen storage systems with a six percent capacity
by weight by 2010; more aggressive goals are being established
for 2015;
<bullet> Hydrogen production at an untaxed price equivalent to $1.50
per gallon of gasoline at the pump by 2010; and
<bullet> Polymer electrolyte-membrane automotive fuel cells that cost
$45 per kilowatt by 2010 and $30 per kilowatt by 2015 and meet
100,000 miles of service life.
We are beginning to partner with energy companies to establish more
specific goals related to technology and components needed to produce
and distribute hydrogen using various fossil, nuclear and renewable
pathways. In this exercise, we will be looking at the full range of
hydrogen technology areas covered in the Roadmap.
In the near- to mid-term, most hydrogen will likely be produced by
technologies that do not require a complete hydrogen distribution
infrastructure (i.e., using existing distributed natural gas
infrastructure). As RD&D progresses along renewable, nuclear, and clean
coal and natural gas production pathways (including techniques for
carbon sequestration) a suite of technologies will become available in
the mid- and long-term to produce hydrogen from a diverse array of
domestic resources. The economic viability of these different
production pathways will be strongly affected by regional factors, such
as feedstock availability and cost, delivery approaches, and regulatory
environment.
Detailed analysis of life-cycle costs and benefits for alternative
hydrogen production pathways, carbon sequestration, and other elements
will continue. ``Well-to-Wheels'' analyses conclude that the energy and
environmental benefits depend greatly on how hydrogen is manufactured,
delivered and stored, and on the economic feasibility of sequestration
for fossil feed stocks. The results of these studies will help in
making down-select decisions and to ensure that the relative merits of
specific hydrogen pathways are evaluated properly and in comparison
with other energy alternatives. In fact, we are now following up on a
National Academy of Sciences recommendation to establish a more robust
systems analyses effort so that we can optimally prioritize areas for
R&D, as well as understand the ramifications of future R&D successes
and disappointments. Out-year planning will identify needs for RD&D on
production and storage technologies, delivery infrastructure, and
education and safety/codes and standards. Public education of consumers
and local code officials must also be pursued concurrently with the
RD&D.
Finally, industry must develop and construct the infrastructure to
deliver hydrogen where it is needed. We will work with the DOT to help
industry develop a safe, efficient, nation-wide hydrogen
infrastructure. The hydrogen distribution infrastructure can evolve
along with the conversion and production technologies, since much of
the infrastructure that is developed for fossil-based hydrogen will
also be applicable to renewable- and nuclear-based hydrogen. We will
partner with industry to develop infrastructure in pilot projects, and
industry will expand locally, regionally, and ultimately nationally.
INTERIM STRATEGIES
As important as we believe hydrogen is for the long term, we are
still working, in cooperation with other federal agencies, to maintain
a robust, and in some areas growing, research and development program
in non-hydrogen transportation technologies.
Under the FreedomCAR partnership we have proposed a funding
increase in fiscal year 2004 for our hybrid technology, as well as
increases in materials technology. We believe many of these
technologies will deliver fuel savings both prior to and after the
introduction of fuel cell vehicles, since lightweight materials and
hybrid technologies are expected to be incorporated into fuel cell
vehicle designs. Therefore, these investments are expected to pay off
in the interim, as well as over the long term.
In addition, we had a number of interim strategies in mind as we
established specific, measurable performance goals for our program. And
our FY 2004 budget is aligned with these goals. For example:
<bullet> We are working to develop technologies for heavy vehicles by
2006 that will enable reduction of parasitic energy losses,
including losses from aerodynamic drag, from 39 percent of
total engine output in 1998 to 24 percent;
<bullet> The 2006 goal for Transportation Materials Technologies R&D
activities is to reduce the production cost of carbon fiber
from $12 per pound in 1998, to $3 per pound; and,
<bullet> The 2010 goal for Hybrid and Electric Propulsion R&D
activities is to reduce the production cost of a high power
25kW battery for use in light vehicles from $3,000 in 1998 to
$500, with an intermediate goal of $750 in 2006, enabling more
cost competitive market penetration of hybrid vehicles.
Automakers are introducing technologies that have resulted in part
from DOE's work in this area. At the recent North American
International Auto Show in Detroit, the major U.S. automakers announced
that they will have a variety of new hybrid gasoline-electric models
entering the market in the 2004-2008 timeframe.
Of course, hybrid vehicles are more expensive compared to
conventional vehicles, which is why the President proposed a tax credit
for hybrid vehicles in his National Energy Plan, and subsequent to that
in his 2004 budget submission. We urge that Congress adopt this
important incentive for more efficient vehicles.
And we will continue support for our Clean Cities program, a
unique, voluntary approach supporting more than eighty local coalitions
that deploy alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and promote supporting
infrastructure.
The Administration strongly supports a renewable fuels standard
(RFS) that will increase the use of clean, domestically produced
renewable fuels, especially ethanol, which will improve the Nation's
energy security, farm economy, and environment.
As important as the RFS and the Clean Cities program are, their
goals illustrate the daunting challenges we face. Taken together, the
RFS and Clean Cities are expected to offset about four billion gallons
of petroleum use per year by 2010. That sounds impressive until it is
compared to the demand for petroleum for transportation uses. In the
year 2000, we used approximately 130 billion gallons of gasoline and
over 33 billion gallons of diesel (highway use only). With that
realization, the critical importance of the FreedomCAR partnership and
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative as a long-term strategy becomes clear.
And, if we are to achieve real progress in the near term and our
ultimate vision in the long term, we must continue to nurture
productive partnerships with the private sector. It is the private
sector that will make the major investments necessary for the
transition to a radically different transportation future. Those
investments will not be made in the absence of a clear-cut business
case.
TRANSITION TO A HYDROGEN ECONOMY
We consider the transition to the hydrogen economy as occurring in
four phases, each of which requires and builds on the success of its
predecessor, as depicted in Chart 2. The transition to a hydrogen-based
energy system is expected to take several decades, and to require
strong public and private partnership. In Phase I, government and
private organizations will research, develop, and demonstrate
``critical path'' technologies and safety assurance prior to investing
heavily in infrastructure. This Phase is now underway and will enable
industry to make a decision on commercialization in 2015.
The FY 2004 budget currently before Congress is consistent with
completion of the technology RD&D phase by 2015.
Phase II, Transition to the Marketplace, could begin as early as
2010 for applications such as portable power and some stationary
applications, and as hydrogen-related technologies meet or exceed
customer requirements. If an industry decision to commercialize
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is made in 2015, mass-market penetration
can begin to occur around 2020. Consumers need compelling reasons to
purchase new products; public benefits such as high fuel use efficiency
and low emissions are not enough to overcome the market advantages of
the incumbent technology and infrastructure. The all-electronic car
powered by hydrogen fuel cells is one example of an approach to greater
value delivery; it could offer the consumer greater amenities, improved
performance through elimination of mechanical parts and greater design
flexibility.
As these markets become established, government can foster their
further growth by playing the role of ``early adopter,'' and by
creating policies that stimulate the market. As markets are established
this leads to Phase III, Expansion of Markets and Infrastructure. The
start of Phase III is consistent with a positive commercial decision
for vehicles in 2015. A positive decision will attract investment in
infrastructure for fuel cell manufacturing, and for hydrogen production
and delivery. Government policies still may be required to nurture this
infrastructure expansion phase.
Phase IV, which should begin about 2025, is Realization of the
Hydrogen Vision, when consumer requirements will be met or exceeded;
national benefits in terms of energy security and improved
environmental quality are being achieved; and industry can receive
adequate return on investment and compete globally. Phase IV provides
the transition to a full hydrogen economy by 2040.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, it will take a great deal to achieve this vision of a
hydrogen energy future we are all talking about this morning. 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. Most of
all, it will take leadership and resolve.
The President has demonstrated his leadership and resolve. ``With a
new national commitment,'' said the President during his State of the
Union address, ``our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles
to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car
driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen and pollution
free.''
A few days later at an event on energy independence featuring new
uses for fuel cells including automobiles, the President reiterated his
commitment to his new Hydrogen Fuel Initiative stating, ``The
technology we have just seen is going to be seen on the roads of
America. And it's important for our country to understand that 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 help with the quality of the air; and we can make a fundamental
difference for the future of our children.''
We believe that the benefits the President envisions are attainable
within our lifetimes and will accrue to posterity, but they will
require sustained work and investment of public and private financial
resources. We at the Department of Energy welcome the challenge and
opportunity to play a vital role in this Nation's energy future and to
support our national security in such a fundamental way.
This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer
any questions you may have, either now or in the future.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7487.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7487.002
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chair would recognize himself for the first 5 minutes,
so we are going to use the clock for this. The first thing is,
is the Department of Energy, under the President's hydrogen
initiative, the lead agency in the administration?
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. Which other cabinet agencies are involved in
the initiative?
Mr. Garman. We will work very closely with the Department
of Transportation, as they play a very critical role in terms
of safety of vehicles, and certification of vehicles. We will
work very closely with the Environmental Protection Agency. We
will work with the Department of Commerce. There is a role for
the NIST on standards and technology. And we think that all of
this is going to be coordinated through our work and the work
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White
House.
Mr. Barton. What about the Environmental Protection Agency?
Mr. Garman. Absolutely. If I failed to mention them, they
are a part of this effort as well.
Mr. Barton. And the Department of Defense?
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir. Actually, I think both in stationary
and transportation applications, as well as work in the heavy
truck technologies. We have been a partner in the past with the
Department of Defense, and we will continue to be a partner
with DOD in the future.
Mr. Barton. Within the Department of Energy, which
Assistant Secretary has primary responsibility? I know that you
kind of coordinate it, but which of the assistant secretaries
is involved? Or if there is more than one, which ones?
Mr. Garman. Absolutely. We actually have a draft
departmental posture plan under the guidance of the
Undersecretary, Robert Card, for Energy, Science, and
Environment. Under Mr. Card, the assistant secretaries or
office directors that are involved in the hydrogen initiative
include myself, the Office of Science, the Office of Nuclear
Energy, the Office of Fossil Energy.
We are all working closely together on a coordinated plan,
because, just as an example, the value of hydrogen is that it
can be produced from diverse resources. And we want to make
sure that we are leveraging our fossil resources, and our
nuclear resources. We also have a great deal of synergy with
the Office of Science doing basic research in such areas as
microbes that actually produce hydrogen, or different types of
material science that can really pay benefits in the work we
are trying to do.
Mr. Barton. How many different working group levels are
there? Is there a senior policy level that you would
participate in with the other cabinet agencies? And then, are
there working groups at the professional SES staff level? And,
you know, how often do they meet?
Mr. Garman. There is a couple of different working groups.
The primary working group is run out of the White House and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. They have been meeting
at least once a month, sometimes more frequently. I or members
of my staff participate in that working group.
We also have, as an example, weekly meetings on
international collaborations on hydrogen that occur in my
office. Undersecretary Card has at least a quarterly review,
and quite often more often than that.
Mr. Barton. Do you feel that there is adequate coordination
and organization within the Bush administration for this
initiative? I mean, the President listed it as one of his
priorities. Is it being given that type of preferential
importance/emphasis in the administration, given the high
priority the President gave it in his State of the Union
address?
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir. I think that it has the almost-daily
attention of the Secretary. We have worked very closely with
Dr. Marburger at the White House, with the Council on
Environmental Quality, Mr. Conniton, the Chairman of CEQ, on
the policy coordination activities that usually the White House
leads. We have not been lacking for resources or high-level
attention to this at all.
Mr. Barton. I have got time for probably one more question.
The hydrogen that is produced today is primarily produced from
natural gas using a steam reforming technology. Does the Bush
administration have a preference on the source of hydrogen, or
are you open to all kinds of sources?
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir. As you mentioned, virtually all of
the hydrogen that we produce today is produced from natural
gas. And the value of hydrogen, the fundamental value that we
see, is that it can be produced from a variety of resources.
That is what is so compelling about the hydrogen vision.
We would like to have a future where we have a multitude of
resources and processes available to us that produce hydrogen.
This can include renewables, of course. It can include nuclear
energy. It can include fossil energy. It is--we have a vast
supply of coal in this country. It is possible to do integrated
combined cycle coal gasification.
Mr. Barton. My time has expired.
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. I don't want to cut you off, but my time has
expired. But the basic position of the Bush administration on
fuel source for hydrogen is open.
Mr. Garman. We are looking at all sources.
Mr. Barton. Okay. My time has expired. I would recognize
the gentleman from Maryland for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Garman. I really appreciated your testimony.
A couple of questions. You state on page 4 that only $720
million is actually new money. Is that correct?
Mr. Garman. That is correct.
Mr. Wynn. Okay. I don't want to appear adversarial, but
after all of the ballyhooing between the State of the Union and
other speeches, are we really down to $720 million, this fuel
cell initiative and FreedomCAR, beyond what we were going to do
anyway?
Mr. Garman. The $720 million is above and beyond what we
had planned to do in these programs anyway.
Mr. Wynn. Okay.
Mr. Garman. This is truly new money. And that is just over
a 5-year commitment. We anticipate there will be a funding
beyond that timeframe. We are just talking about the 5-year
timeframe.
Mr. Wynn. At the risk of putting you on the spot, is it
fair to say you could use more money?
Mr. Garman. The question is----
Mr. Wynn. If you answer no, I am going to be incredulous.
Mr. Garman. Well, actually, this is a question we are asked
a lot. And the question is: Could you accelerate the timeframe
if you were provided more money? And the answer is perhaps, but
we would also increase the risk. There is a value of time in
the discovery process and of research and demonstration that
feeds back into the R&D.
Mr. Wynn. What is the risk?
Mr. Garman. For instance, if we were to have to actually
field vehicles in the 2010 or 2015 timeframe, we would have to
settle on some technologies very early that might not turn out
to be the correct technologies.
Mr. Wynn. So your proposal would be to experiment with
technologies over a period of time. Let me ask you a second
question. Could you chart out a timeline for us? You've
introduced a very interesting argument, which is we are going
to have to have an experimental phase regarding the
technologies. Could you chart out a timeline? How long is that
phase likely to take?
Mr. Garman. Actually, I do have a chart. Jodi, if you could
just flip that chart. This gives a notional timeline of--and
you probably can't see that from there, but it----
Mr. Barton. Do we have that on the big screen? Can we get
it up on video? Because if we can, it is bigger.
Mr. Wynn. Since my time is running pretty rapidly, just
give me a date. About how many years are we going to use to
experiment with technologies?
Mr. Garman. Well, we expect to be in a position so that
automakers and energy companies can make business decisions in
2015 to commercialize a vehicle. That means we are going to be
trying demonstrations and activities prior to that time.
We actually have a 2010 goal for most of our key component
technologies. We would like to be able to say that by 2010 we
will have, if you will, broken the code on the key fundamental
technologies that we have got in terms of the cost of fuel
cells, hydrogen storage, and some of the other technology
challenges we face.
Mr. Wynn. Okay.
Mr. Garman. Now, the business case sometimes takes a little
longer.
Mr. Wynn. Okay. Let me move on. Between vehicle development
and infrastructure development, can you tell us how these
issues are prioritized, and what role will the Federal funding
play in each? What role will Federal funding play, for example,
in reducing the storage capacity requirements, lowering the
cost factor for production, versus what contribution Federal
funding will make toward infrastructure development? I guess
which really is, storage is more infrastructure, and related
infrastructure needs.
Mr. Garman. You have touched on a number of very important
needs in all of these areas. I mean, I can give you some
examples. For example, in storage the technical challenge is
storing enough hydrogen onboard the vehicle that gives the
vehicle the kind of range that a consumer will require between
refuelings.
And right now we don't have a technology that will enable
enough hydrogen to be stored onboard the vehicle to deliver
that kind of range. You want 300 to 350 miles before you need
to refuel the vehicle.
For some technologies on solid metal hydride storage,
chemical hydride storage, and other methods of storing
hydrogen, including high pressure storage, more work needs to
be done on materials to do that. Hydrogen is a very tricky
material. You just can't put 10,000 psi in a metal cylinder,
for instance, because the tiny size of the hydrogen will
actually start migrating into the matrix of the metal. So you
have some special challenges with hydrogen.
Mr. Wynn. About how long do you think it will take us to
work through some of these infrastructure challenges?
Mr. Garman. It is difficult to foresee. We are certain--we
think that in terms of the cost of fuel cells we see a path
forward that doesn't require a big technology breakthrough. It
just takes time.
On the issue of storage, we think we are probably going to
need a technology breakthrough. There is going to have to be a
discovery in a lab where somebody finds a hydride or another
material that will store hydrogen, hopefully at ambient
temperatures and pressures, and we don't have that today. And
it is hard to put a timeline on a scientific discovery.
What we do want to do is to put the Federal funding out
there, get the national labs involved, and make sure that
different pathways are being explored fully.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you very much.
Mr. Barton. We are going to do two rounds of questions for
the administration witness, so the gentleman will have plenty
of time to get in more questions.
The gentleman from Idaho is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Otter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I had an
opening statement, which I realize I--without objection, I
would like that to be submitted into the record.
Mr. Barton. It is already not objected to being put in the
record.
Mr. Otter. Assistant Secretary Garman, can you tell me how
the hydrogen program is being coordinated between all of the
various agencies that are going to be dealing with ``energy and
energy production''? For instance, the Office of Energy
Efficiency, the Department of Energy. And, in particular, how
the hydrogen budget is going to be handled by all of these
varying agencies?
Mr. Garman. Let me start with the Department of Energy, and
then I will move up. At the Department of Energy, we have a
coordinated plan between my office, the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Office of Science, the
Office of Fossil Energy, and the Office of Nuclear Energy. We
all report to Undersecretary Card, who is playing the
coordinating role in our hydrogen posture activities.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is
sort of the subleader of this. We have the most money involved,
and we do most of the work on both hydrogen production and the
vehicle technology work. But we are very well coordinated. We
have a posture group that meets frequently.
Above the Department of Energy in ensuring coordination
with other Federal agencies, of course, are the White House
groups, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the
Council on Environmental Quality. They are both exercising a
policy coordinating role, as is the Council of Economic
Advisors out of which a lot of domestic policy derives from the
White House.
We have a very tight and close group. We are in nearly
constant communication, and that is how the general policy
effort is coordinated.
Mr. Otter. Mr. Secretary, who is the boss? Where does the
buck stop?
Mr. Garman. I think the buck stops primarily with Secretary
Abraham. Secretary Abraham looks to me and Undersecretary Card,
because the way this initiative was developed included a lot of
policy time with the President. And the Secretary laid this out
for the President, and I think the President looks to the
Secretary to deliver on the promises and the assurances that
the President was given.
Mr. Otter. Well, you know, I appreciate the high level of
folks that are involved in this. But as you know, the grunts
are the ones that are going to do the work, and they are the
ones that are also going to come up with the problems, and the
resolution of those problems has got to be fairly fast in order
for a program that is this important and holds this much
promise for us to be able to go forward.
And has there been any scheme or any notion presented where
that is all coordinated in just one office and put in one
office, and all of the answers come from that office, and all
of the coordination comes from that office?
So many times I have found--and I appreciate the fact that
I have only been here for 3 years now, or less than 3 years--
but so many times it seems to me when you go to one agency that
is supposed to have the responsibility for coordination between
some government program you end up with, ``Well, that is not in
our pay grade, and that is not our responsibility.''
I think that this is way too important to us for energy
self-sufficiency and also for energy independence for us to
scatter amongst the many bureaus and departments and not have
one place that we can go to and say, ``You are simply not doing
the job. You are going to be replaced.''
Now, I have met with Secretary Card, and I think he is
doing a tremendous job. And I love his enthusiasm for the hope
and for where he wants to go, and especially, of course, for my
part being from Idaho where the Argonne National Laboratory is,
I hope, going to play, could play, will play a major role in
this.
But on the other hand, I have seen so many times where we
spend a lot of money, we get a lot of motion, and precious
little progress. And I would just hate to see it scattered so
far and wide that nobody knows where the hell to go to
surrender when they have got a problem.
Mr. Garman. I think there is a couple of things that we
have working for us in this regard. First of all, and this is
part of the President's management agenda and the importance
that he places on linking budget and performance, we have set
very specific technology goals that are measurable and for the
achievement of which we are accountable.
These technology goals for FreedomCAR can be understood,
they can be measured, and our performance against those goals--
these are expressed in terms of 2010, what we want to achieve
between now and 2010--can be evaluated on how well we are
doing, where we are falling behind, and where we are ahead.
We expect, because this is a high level Presidential
initiative, we expect to be subjected to scrutiny, not only by
the White House but the Congress on a regular basis on how we
are achieving these goals. And we welcome that scrutiny, and we
think we are up to the task.
Mr. Otter. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton. Thank you.
The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. John. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. And I want to thank the Assistant Secretary for coming
and starting off a debate on an issue that is really going to
be critical to the future of America.
I want to follow up on a line of questioning from the
chairman as it relates to the feedstock issue. You had
mentioned in your last remarks to the chairman, that the Bush
administration is open, because it is intriguing, in your own
words, to the variety of options that we have to produce
hydrogen.
And as I look down, there are several things that I notice.
First of all, I am a firm believer that money follows
priorities in this body in Congress and really everywhere we
go. And if you look at the fiscal year 2004 and the
administration request, I think it itemizes and prioritizes the
different types of feedstock by placing dollars in different
kinds of feedstock.
If you look at them, of course, nuclear is $4 million, coal
is $5 million, natural gas is $2.2 million, and, of course,
renewables is $17.3-.
Mr. Garman. Actually, $12.2. If----
Mr. John. $12.2. What did I say? I am sorry.
Mr. Garman. $2.2. I am sorry.
Mr. John. I am sorry. Yes, I have it written. I just didn't
say it correctly. So I think that that kind of gives us an
indication of where we want to put our emphasis on technologies
on research.
What I would like for you to do is to talk to me a little
bit about the economies of each one of those, and then we will
talk about the challenges of each one of those, and then try to
end in my 5 minutes about, why you believe that, over $10
million was put in renewables as opposed to nuclear, coal, or
something else.
Mr. Garman. Part of the reason that you see that split is
in part because government likes to--and it is more appropriate
that we engage in very long-term R&D. If you want a fully
sustainable energy system, you would like over the long term to
be able to depend on renewables and have renewables the basis
of your hydrogen production.
Mr. John. And I agree with that. And while we are there,
help educate me on the renewables. What is the renewable
feedstock of choice for a variety of reasons?
Mr. Garman. One method is simply using electrolysis from a
renewable produced electricity--for instance, wind power--
producing electricity from which you use electrolysis to split
the water. That is one process. You can use any form of
electricity to do advanced electrolysis.
Another is gasifying biomass. Were we to have, for
instance, 600 million metric tons a year of biomass, that could
take the form of corn stove or wheat straw, different kinds of
things that farmers generally leave in the field today.
Mr. John. Rice hulls?
Mr. Garman. Rice hulls, you name it. And we can convert
that, gasify that. That is also a hydrogen source. We are
hoping that we can, for instance, get the price of biomass down
to around $2.60 a kilogram in terms of the cost of the hydrogen
produced from the biomass. That will depend on a number of
things, but that is, for instance, a kind of notional 2010
target that we have in mind.
We have to do a lot better than that. A kilogram of
hydrogen is roughly equivalent to a gallon of gasoline. So
$2.60 gasoline doesn't quite cut it for us.
Mr. John. Okay. We only have about a minute. Talk to me
about the economies of each one of those.
Mr. Garman. Sure.
Mr. John. I mean, good, bad, challenging, not there?
Mr. Garman. As I said, biomass via gasification we think we
can get by 2010 in for $2.60 per kilogram. Advanced
electrolysis, we think by 2010 maybe we can get close to $2.50
a kilogram. Solar high temperature thermochemical cycles, that
is where we use very high temperatures, on the order of 1,000
degrees Centigrade, using high temperature and a chemical cycle
to split water. That is relatively expensive. We think that is
probably around $4 a kilogram.
In theory, if we have a high temperature gas reactor, which
we do not have in this country, you could use that same heat
offput from a high temperature gas reactor to do the same
thing--thermochemical water-splitting. Theoretically, we think
we can get around $2 a kilogram with that approach.
There are other approaches, including something we call
photolytic. It is very long term. It uses photons directly from
the sun, kind of like a solar cell, but instead of converting
the photons to electricity and then using the electricity to
make hydrogen, the conversion is direct. We think we are
probably above $20 a kilogram in that area. But it still is a
long-term play, if you will.
Natural gas, we think we can get natural gas derived
hydrogen down to $1.50 per kilogram in 2010. It is currently
around $5 or $6.
Mr. John. If you could--Mr. Chairman, I would like to maybe
ask for an additional minute, so we can get through this, or
should we wait until the next round?
Mr. Barton. No, go ahead.
Mr. John. Okay. I would like to ask for another minute and
a half.
Mr. Barton. Without objection, let us give you 2 more
minutes.
Mr. John. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Barton. When the clock gets to----
Mr. John. This is very----
Mr. Barton. When the clock gets to three. How about that?
Mr. John. That is fine.
Mr. Barton. All right.
Mr. John. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garman. Natural gas we think is the near-term supplier
for a couple of reasons. First of all, we make around 9 million
metric tons of hydrogen each year today for a variety of
purposes. We need 40 million metric tons to fuel a fleet of
about 100 million vehicles, and we are already making 9 million
metric tons.
Natural gas has an advantage in that we already have a
distribution system in place that is delivering the natural gas
to fueling stations and locations all over the country. We have
already demonstrated the fact that we can take natural gas at a
fueling station, convert it to hydrogen, run a stationary fuel
cell, and store the hydrogen to fuel vehicles. We have such a
station in Las Vegas.
We have other stations in California and elsewhere, where
we are demonstrating this technology today. So we know that
works, and we know that that is one pathway for a near-term
hydrogen infrastructure that won't depend on large central
manufacture of hydrogen and dedicated hydrogen pipelines.
Over the long term, we will probably want to achieve the
economies of scale possible from central large manufacture and
production of hydrogen and the use of hydrogen pipelines. So
that is the thinking--near term, natural gas; long term,
diverse resources.
Mr. John. Okay. We are out of time. I would like to
continue this maybe in the next round of questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton. Thank you.
Does the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Buyer, wish to ask
questions?
Mr. Buyer. I have one I was thinking about on a safety--
from the safety standpoint. Some years back, there were some
workers in the shuttle program--when the shuttle had returned,
they went in and they were doing an inspection. The worker
collapses. The second worker goes in really concerned, and then
he collapses. They both died. And as it turns out, it was a
hydrogen--some leakage.
I have always remembered that, because how awful that must
have been if it was a small quantity, and they didn't know,
and, bang, it got them. So from a safety standpoint, could you
talk about that, if you have leakage and at what quantities? If
that is part of the considerations? Obviously, it should be.
Mr. Garman. Absolutely. And the real safety concern with
hydrogen is not toxicity. It is flammability. But there is also
an advantage of hydrogen, which makes this not a great concern.
I think those NASA workers that you spoke of probably
encountered this hydrogen in a very enclosed space where it was
highly concentrated, and the real danger to them is it
displaced the oxygen that they would normally have available.
Hydrogen is the lightest element on the periodic table,
and, as a consequence, you will not find free hydrogen on the
planet anywhere. It is always bound up in a compound, such as
water or coal or some hydrocarbon or some other chemical. And
the reason is, it is so lightweight it can actually escape the
gravitational pull of the earth.
So when you do have a release of hydrogen, it dissipates
very quickly and disperses, and that minimizes any problem you
would have such as the NASA workers, and it also minimizes the
problem inherent of its flammability. Like any fuel, hydrogen
has a high energy content. It is flammable, but----
Mr. Buyer. Well, let us break it down to--I am Bubba, okay?
I don't work with this compound. So with NASA workers obviously
going into a tank that is a closed, confined area, leakage--you
can understand perhaps why they died.
Now we are advanced in the future, and I have got my fuel
cell automobile, and we go in to have it refueled. Is that
something that you envision somebody else doing?
Mr. Garman. No, sir.
Mr. Buyer. Or is that something that I could do on my own?
Mr. Garman. You would do it on your own.
Mr. Buyer. And if there were some kind of leakage or if--or
even from--say you had an auto accident, and it began to leak.
You don't anticipate any problems?
Mr. Garman. Not from a toxicity standpoint. In fact,
because we are so attuned to safety and ensuring that there is
no leakage of hydrogen, either on board the vehicle or during
the refueling process, every hydrogen vehicle you see today has
a very sensitive and redundant system to detect hydrogen leaks
and alert the driver if they do exist. And, again, your concern
is not so much toxicity but flammability.
Mr. Buyer. All right.
Mr. Garman. And in that, were you to have an accident in a
hydrogen vehicle, I think you actually have an advantage over a
gasoline vehicle, and here is why. Should you have a breach in
the hydrogen container, the hydrogen being far lighter than air
is going to move up and away from the vehicle.
Contrast that with the situation you have when you have an
accident in a gasoline vehicle. If you have a breach in the
tank, the gasoline spreads below the vehicle. And, of course,
if it engulfs, it engulfs the vehicle and its occupants. So I
think I would rather drive my family in a hydrogen vehicle than
a gasoline vehicle, and the safety issues are--while very
serious, something that we and the Department of Transportation
will be taking a close look at.
Mr. Buyer. Let me ask this, switching gears. When you close
your eyes and you try to envision what the future may be, how
do we here in Congress ensure that the marketplace is open,
fair, and competitive, when we try to eliminate these vertical
integrations that could possibly occur? How do you envision the
marketplace?
Mr. Garman. I think we have to look----
Mr. Buyer. And when I say that, competitively in
infrastructure as well as others.
Mr. Garman. We are in the process right now of inviting
major vertically integrated oil companies, if you will. They
usually don't refer to themselves that way anymore. They start
to refer to themselves as energy companies now, because they
realize the hydrogen age is coming, and they want to be in a
position not only to sell you the gasoline you buy in your
vehicle, or the Slurpee that you go in and get when you go in
and buy your gas, but they also want to be the ones to provide
you with the hydrogen or whatever it is going to take to fuel
your vehicle.
That is the business they are in, so they are engaged with
us. They are working with us. They are excited about this
possibility. And if we don't use market forces to help make
this transition, then we are really missing out on the greatest
force for change that we have available to us.
The reason that I think the hydrogen economy and hydrogen
vehicles are going to come about is not only because of the
commitment the President made, it is because it is going to
make available to consumers a better car than the kind of car
they can buy today, which has advantages that the car today
that they have can't provide.
That is going to be an intriguing market driver, and I
think that is what we want to take advantage of. It is a little
bit like the government's involvement in the creation of the
internet. We created the basic technology, and we developed
standards and protocols, but it was the market that built the
internet, driven by consumer demand and consumer dollars. And I
see the hydrogen infrastructure operating very similarly to
that.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes for questions.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Garman, for being here. This is an
interesting and important subject.
I wanted to come back to, you know, where the fuel comes
from. Is there something called the national hydrogen energy
roadmap?
Mr. Garman. Yes, there is.
Mr. Allen. Yes. And is that prepared by the administration?
Mr. Garman. This is a copy of the roadmap, and I will be
happy to provide it to you or for the staff for the record,
however you want it. It was prepared, actually, by a couple
hundred folks. The administration convened it, but we invited
everyone from Exxon Mobil to the National Resources Defense
Council to come and gather in a room and start to think about
the technology challenges and the technology roadmap we needed
to develop.
Mr. Allen. I haven't seen the whole thing, but I was told
that in the roadmap 90 percent--the plan is, at least in that
document, for 90 percent of all the hydrogen for this program
to be refined from oil, natural gas, and other fossil fuels,
with the remaining 10 percent cracked from water using nuclear
energy. Is that an inaccurate statement or----
Mr. Garman. The reason that that would be a difficult
statement is it depends on the timeframe.
Mr. Allen. Yes. Well, the near term--I take what you say
and accept what you say about the near term, that natural gas
is the only logical place to get hydrogen. But one of my
questions is--the long term is harder to predict. And in
particular, natural gas is now the fuel of choice for our
electric utilities.
And when I talk to people in the energy industry, at least
some of them, you know, are concerned about the long-term
supply. If basically both our electric generation and our
automobiles are going to be--ultimately go back to, you know,
another fossil fuel to be sure of the cleanest fossil fuel,
natural gas, but that has--there is a question about, you know,
how much of it is there over the long term, and also what the
price will be, because part of the goal here to make a hydrogen
car affordable has a lot to do with whatever the market price
happens to be.
Would you mind making just a couple of comments on that
pricing issue and how we can--and just if you could add in one
thing. As I understand the program that we passed, there is
really no requirement that Detroit ever put a vehicle on the
road. I mean, this is all a research project essentially.
Mr. Garman. Okay. First of all, with respect to
availability, we believe that there are a variety of methods
that we have available to us to make sufficient amounts of
hydrogen. And I will just give you an example. If, as a Nation,
we made a determination that we wanted to make 40 million
metric tons of hydrogen, enough to fuel a fleet of 100 million
vehicles, and we wanted to make it solely from wind power, we
could do it with the wind capacity of the State of North Dakota
alone.
That is a possibility. I am not sure that the market would
evolve that way, but that is a possibility, and it illustrates
the fact that we have a diverse amount of resources that can
produce the necessary hydrogen that we need.
So availability we think is there. If we can get the
technologies to produce wind power at an affordable price, we
would have very affordable power, and wind power has been
getting more and more and more competitive. And so I am
bullish, as a long-term play, on hydrogen from wind-generated
electrolysis. I think there is something in that, and I think
we can do it, and I think we as a Nation have the capacity to
do it.
On the question of price--price is, of course, a driver. I
went through some of the numbers a little bit earlier. The
thing you do have to remember is that because a fuel cell
vehicle is 2 to 3 times more efficient than a gasoline vehicle,
you will get more work out of an equivalent amount of hydrogen
than you do gasoline.
Mr. Allen. If I could just follow that--relate that to the
car I drove to New York this weekend. I drove to New York from
Portland, Maine, and back this weekend, 550 miles. I got 48
miles to the gallon. I was in a Toyota Prius that I own that I
bought because I couldn't buy a hybrid from Detroit.
And I know that the emissions from that car are about 10
percent, I think, of the emissions from the, you know, ordinary
new car on the road. How does that hybrid technology, which is
already there for people who want to buy it in this country,
relate to this hydrogen project? And if you can, say why the
administration didn't do more. I know there are incentives, but
why not do more to encourage hybrid technology?
Mr. Garman. That is a terrific question, and I want to
start, as a Prius owner myself--point out that I am a huge
believer, and we are a huge believer in hybrid technology. That
is why the President asked for a tax credit for purchasers of
hybrid vehicles, in order to help promote that technology. And
it is a great near-term technology.
Over the long term, the total system efficiency of a fuel
cell vehicle is much, much greater than that of even a gasoline
hybrid electric vehicle, even when you take into account the
energy inputs you have to make to make the hydrogen, and
compress the hydrogen. I am talking about a total well-to-
wheels efficiency number.
A gasoline hybrid electric vehicle, on a well-to-wheels
basis, is 15 percent efficient. That includes the efficiency of
the fuel chain and the vehicle itself.
A fuel cell vehicle fueled with hydrogen produced from
natural gas is 22 percent efficient, and that includes the
energy inputs you need to create the hydrogen, compress it, and
the rest. So that is a huge efficiency increase that can't be
denied.
And the great thing about hybrid technology is that it is a
pretty good bet that you will employ hybrid technology in a
future fuel cell vehicle as well, so that you will hybridize
that vehicle. And most of the fuel cell vehicles we drive today
are hybridized to give the drivability that you want.
Mr. Allen. Thank you very much.
Mr. Barton. The gentlelady from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I actually have no
questions at this time. I just want to thank the Secretary for
all of your hard work, and your staff as well, and I look
forward to working with you. And I yield back.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garman, this question might have been asked and
answered in my absence, but I want to try to get to it again if
it has been. Implicit in any government subsidy is the
assumption that unfettered market forces alone is inadequate--
they cannot inadequately achieve public good or outcome.
In other words, by investing $1.7 billion over 5 years for
FreedomCAR and for hydrogen fuel initiative programs, we in the
Congress assume that the private sector alone was incapable of
developing a hydrogen-based fuel economy. Can you tell us
exactly how DOE will use these funds, this $1.7 billion, over
the next 5 years to overcome natural private sector market
barriers that exist to developing hydrogen energy?
Mr. Garman. Yes. And we will be doing work on--in a variety
of different areas, including production and delivery of
hydrogen. Let me back up a little bit. Right now, as you point
out, there is not a financial incentive for General Motors, for
instance, to build a fuel cell car, or Exxon Mobil, for
instance, to put hydrogen in at the corner filling station.
There are some terrific public benefits that could be
garnered--lower dependence on petroleum, cleaner air, but those
benefits are not monetized in the marketplace, such that
consumers would pay for them or that people would make money
delivering that benefit.
As a consequence, we believe that we can apply R&D
activities in a few key areas, including production and
delivery, storage, safety codes, standards, utilizations,
technology validation. We are going to have to do some
demonstrations to demonstrate the technology. Some of these
demonstrations are occurring today at small levels, such as, in
California, SunLine Transit.
What we need to do is to scale these up a bit, put more
cars on the road, understand what the shortcomings are, feed
back into the R&D activity to address those shortcomings, and
get the confidence that we need that the fuel cell vehicle can
be as good as, and, in fact, better, than the vehicles that
consumers can choose and drive today, because ultimately, you
know, we are focused like a laser beam on that consumer choice
test that will confront all of us in the 2015/2020 timeframe.
We have tried different mandates and formulas and
incentives in the past, but at the end of the day if you really
want this technology to succeed, you have to offer the consumer
something better than they can drive today. And that is part of
our thinking. We think that there is a benefit for automakers
with this technology, and there are benefits for consumers that
will drive both automakers and consumers in this direction.
Mr. Rush. It seems as though this--and a hydrogen-based
economy is at least some decades away. And in the meantime, we
have to face pragmatically our various energy needs, and we
have to face them in an innovative and creative way. And what
is DOE doing in the interim to bridge the gap between the
fossil fuel-based economy and the hydrogen-based economy?
Mr. Garman. Well, the most inexpensive way of reducing
energy use is to make current energy use more efficient. And
that is the primary goal, if you will, of my office in DOE, and
we spend more money on enhancing energy efficiency, through the
weatherization program, through vehicle technologies programs,
through partnerships with industries, and a whole host of other
programs, than we do on anything else in my office, because
efficiency--improving the efficiency of current use is job one.
And I think that is reflected in the work of this committee
in the energy bill. So I think in the short term the answer is
efficiency. That is your quickest and cheapest way to reduce
the demands of energy use on the environment and our
pocketbooks.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Barton. Thank you. The other gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Shimkus, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I apologize for
being late. But this is a great hearing, and, of course, this
is something my friend from Maine and I have discussed ad
nauseam at different forums. But I think the thing--even though
there are sometimes things that separate us, I think what
unites us is this is exciting, and we--the sooner we can get
here, the better.
I would also be interested in getting a copy of the
national hydrogen energy roadmap, because a lot of discussion
will be about, you know, the fuel. Since I am a conservative,
market-driven individual, instead of the government eventually
trying to pick winners and losers on the fuel, what we--I think
what would be best to do is to set the standards and allow the
different--the market force to then move to produce the best
competitive fuel for the particular use.
I always talk about natural gas quite a bit, because
natural gas, I don't think, is a choice for most electricity
generators. It is a higher cost, and we use it for peaking. We
use--for the most part in this country use coal. We use
nuclear. We use a lot of options. In the midwest, natural gas
is best used for home heating. That is not true in the
northeast, but it is probably the most efficient way to use
natural gas.
When we, as a government, try to distill policies to pick
winners and losers on the commodity end, we, in essence,
disenfranchise all of the other folks out there. So that is why
I am interested in the energy roadmap and what has been
discussed about the possible input fuel.
I know there is great research going on at Southern
Illinois University at Carbondale with coal and the production
of hydrogen from that fossil fuel, which we find is exciting. I
will be also interested in biomass issues with--of course, with
my focus on corn and soybeans, which is no surprise of my
chairman here.
But we want to make sure that as we move to this that all
of the input, the commodities, are given a goal, and then we
allow technology to flow in that direction to let the market
choose the best fuel for the best use, which will also allow us
to--for the best fuel for the best use in other arenas, whether
that is home heating or whether that is electricity generation.
That is this whole reason why we have the big energy debate
that we have to some extent. So I just wanted to get that on
the record.
We also are excited about--and I know we have got panelists
in the next group with what will be planned here with the cars
and the fueling station with the Shell consortium and GM, which
has a real world application upfront, close and personal.
I don't think my three boys who are growing and our luggage
will fit in the Prius on a drive from Maine to Washington, DC.
But I think there are some hydrogen vans that I observed that
might be able to fit us all in there, which, again, just lends
itself to the great opportunities for the future.
I guess the biggest hurdle and the question I have had is
the--and you have probably addressed it, and I apologize if you
have--but obviously, for that fueling station to be placed on
the hill, there is going to be concern--first of all, there
would be the concern of the cost for the individual, and you
had mentioned that a little bit also. It was in the tail end on
the security issues from my colleague from Indiana.
How do we go about alleviating those fears and concerns?
And how do we incentivize the placement of infrastructure to
provide the fueling stations for this new technology?
Mr. Garman. The cost and the safety and the security
aspects are part of our research, development, and
demonstration activities now. We actually just put a
competitive solicitation on the street offering up to $150
million in cost-shared activities related to demonstration and
technology validation, to actually get cars and stations on the
road in prototype, in different geographical areas, so that we
can see what works, what doesn't work, how to drive the costs
down.
We have already done a little bit of work. We probably
have, what, 10 or 15 hydrogen refueling stations in the country
now. In each one we make more and more improvement in lowering
the cost. That is indeed very important.
In terms of incentives, I think it is too early to talk
about incentivizing the placement of fueling stations in a
market setting, because, frankly, we want to make some progress
on the technology.
But Congress, in its wisdom at some point, says, ``Well,
let us do a production tax incentive, or a tax credit to
incentivize.'' But we are not there yet on the hydrogen
vehicles or the infrastructure. When the technology and the
costs get in the ballpark, then I think it is ripe to start
talking about how we incentivize the placement.
Mr. Barton. The gentleman's time has expired.
We are going to start our second and last round of
questions for the administration witness, and the Chair is
going to recognize himself.
I am going to feed on what--a little bit what Congressman
John was asking and Congressman Allen, and also Congressman
Shimkus. I want to try to get some definition on the base case
model or the base case goals for the efficiency or the cost of
hydrogen.
In my congressional district, my town meeting reference
case for cost of gasoline is somewhere between $1 a gallon and
$1.25 a gallon. When gasoline is at that price level, I don't
have too many complaints. But when it gets above it, you know,
my town meeting reference model people start, ``Congressman,
what are you doing about the cost of gasoline?''
So is there a goal for the reference case of what the
equivalent cost per whatever of hydrogen should be to make it
accepted in the marketplace as you were talking to Congressman
Allen? And what is the unit of measure? Is it--you said
kilogram. Is it kilogram? Is it MM BTU? Is it--you know, who
knows? What are we--if the Congress set a target to the
administration, ``We want fuel cells, hydrogen mobile source
fuel cells for cars and trucks, to cost no more than the
equivalent cost of, say, $1.50 a gallon gasoline,'' what would
that be?
Mr. Garman. You have just expressed our 2010 R&D goal for
the cost of hydrogen from natural gas. Our published FreedomCar
goal is $1.50 per gallon of gas equivalent.
Mr. Barton. And what is that in hydrogen?
Mr. Garman. It is roughly a kilogram.
Mr. Barton. So you want hydrogen to be no more than $1.50
per kilogram.
Mr. Garman. Roughly. And that is untaxed. We haven't talked
about taxing.
Mr. Barton. We don't allow any talk about taxing in this
subcommittee.
Mr. Garman. Very good, sir. I won't get into that, then.
Mr. Barton. This is not the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. Garman. But our R&D goal for 2010 is $1.50 per gallon
of gas equivalent from natural gas.
Mr. Barton. And is there--again, when you were referring to
Congressman John, he kind of led you through the different
sources and their costs. Is there any reason to believe that
some of the non-conventional sources of hydrogen, i.e., you
know, some of the renewables and perhaps even nuclear, can they
get to that level? Is there any reason to believe they can't
with enough technology research?
Mr. Garman. I don't think they can get to that level by
2010.
Mr. Barton. But at some point in time.
Mr. Garman. At some point, breakthroughs make a multitude
of things possible.
Mr. Barton. So you see a transition starting with natural
gas as the choice of fuel to get to hydrogen.
Mr. Garman. Yes.
Mr. Barton. But over time some of these more non-
conventional renewable sources kicking in----
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. [continuing] if we invest in them.
Mr. Garman. If we make hydrogen from coal, we want to be
careful to also be able to develop the carbon capture and
sequestration technology that makes that possible, because we
don't want to taint hydrogen as a clean energy carrier with a
dirty method of production. We do not want to do that, despite
what some I think of the administration's critics have said.
But it is possible, if we are making hydrogen from coal,
and we have sequestration technologies that are $15 per ton of
carbon emissions avoided, we might be able to get the price of
hydrogen down below $1 from coal. And, of course, that is a
very big ``if,'' being successful on the sequestration side,
and that is a very important part of this equation over the
long term.
Mr. Barton. But if we could do that, that would be a good
thing, since we have----
Mr. Garman. That would be a----
Mr. Barton. [continuing] a lot of coal resources in this
country.
Mr. Garman. Your constituents would be happy about the
price.
Mr. Barton. We all want happy constituents.
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Barton. That is a non-partisan goal is happy
constituents on both sides of the aisle. Talk a little bit
about the government role in infrastructure investment. I used
to have a natural gas-powered vehicle, and I finally gave up on
it, because it was a real pain in the bottom to fuel it.
Mr. Garman. That is right.
Mr. Barton. I had to get the post office to put in a
fueling station in Ennis, Texas, because there were no
commercial gas--natural gas stations. And then, TXU put in
fueling stations in the Dallas Metroplex, but you couldn't go
up and use your Visa card. You had to get a special natural gas
credit card from TXU, and they didn't really know how much you
were using.
You had to estimate each month how much you used, and it
was just an accounting nightmare, because I couldn't have a
corporate--I couldn't allow a corporation to subsidize the cost
of the fuel or I would break the ethics rules. I mean, it was
just--so I finally said the heck with it. Plus, I didn't have a
trunk in the car because of the tank.
Mr. Garman. Right. It is full of the tank, yes.
Mr. Barton. So is there a Federal Government role in the
infrastructure side of the hydrogen issue?
Mr. Garman. There is, not only in developing the
technologies, but we will see over time what kind of incentives
might be necessary for that. We have had a lot of experience
through the Energy Policy Act goals related to natural gas
vehicles.
Fundamentally and honestly speaking, I think the real issue
with natural gas vehicles, and the reason I don't think they
are going to catch on is because they don't offer a consumer
something markedly different than the car they are driving
today.
You purchase a natural gas vehicle, you are going to
probably pay a little bit more up front, you are going to have
a more difficult time refueling it, as you have experienced,
and you are probably going to get a little less money for it
when you sell it. And it is going to drive very similarly,
almost precisely like your current car.
So what is really in it for you? Why would you, as a
consumer, do that? Natural gas vehicles have superb
applications in fleets, which is terrific. But this is not the
case for personally owned, light-duty vehicles. And the reason
I think that hydrogen is different is some of the concepts that
some of the automakers are unveiling on hydrogen vehicles.
It is truly something revolutionary and remarkable that
gives you a different kind of driving experience and a
different kind of opportunity than anything you can have today.
And a case in point is the General Motors vehicle that they
call the autonomy or the hy-wire. You can think of it as a
vehicle on a 6-inch chassis with all of the electromechanical
components you need for the vehicle in this chassis with a very
low center of gravity, and on top of that vehicle you can put
any variety of body styles you want--SUV, roadster, sports car,
it doesn't matter.
And not only does that make it easier for the automaker,
because instead of having to have a variety of platforms to
offer a variety of models, the automaker can just have one or
two platforms to offer a variety of different models for
different niches of the market.
And you can even have one chassis with two different bodies
if that is what you want, depending on what you want you drive
on a given day. And that is something----
Mr. Barton. Have one for the wife, one for you, and one for
the teenage son and daughter.
Mr. Garman. Or maybe you want to keep the chassis for 20
years and get a new body every 2 or 3 years. This is the
concept that GM has unveiled as just one example, and there are
others as well.
Mr. Barton. My time is way over, so I am going to have to
cut it off. But we appreciate the answer to that, and we look
forward to working with you.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Garman, I take it that there will be multiple sources
of generation of hydrogen, based on the President's allocation
of resources that Mr. John has indicated. Now, there is $5
million in for coal in 2004. Is that restricted to clean coal
technology?
Mr. Garman. Yes. It would be restricted, really, to
gasification technologies, which lend themselves to a good
cleanup and----
Mr. Wynn. Clean coal.
Mr. Garman. [continuing] sequestration, yes.
Mr. Wynn. Is there any prioritization? Is natural gas No.
1? Followed by coal? Followed by alternatives? Or is it some
other order?
Mr. Garman. I don't believe there is.
Mr. Wynn. Okay.
Mr. Garman. I think it is a question of timing.
Mr. Wynn. Okay.
Mr. Garman. The near-term priority is natural gas, just
because that is what we will need----
Mr. Wynn. Okay. The government contribution to the
sequestration process, is that where we really come in with
Federal grants?
Mr. Garman. I understand that is a topic of a later hearing
in this committee, but sequestration technology is very
important if you want to use coal to make hydrogen.
Mr. Wynn. So that is another step that would be required.
Mr. Garman. If you want to make hydrogen without emitting
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, that is what you need to
do.
Mr. Wynn. Do you have a recommended figure for the
government's contribution to that process?
Mr. Garman. The FutureGen project, which my colleague in
fossil energy who is not here today, is more----
Mr. Wynn. Just a ballpark. I am not trying to pin you down.
Mr. Garman. What the President is trying to do is he has
announced a billion dollar initiative called FutureGen, and----
Mr. Wynn. Is that all sequestration and recapture?
Mr. Garman. That is focused on both electricity generation
and hydrogen generation on a net zero emissions basis,
meaning----
Mr. Wynn. Is that above the $5 million for coal that is
provided in the 2004 budget?
Mr. Garman. That is right.
Mr. Wynn. Okay. Do you believe that as part of the phase-
one government investment that there ought to be a commitment
to a government fleet of hydrogen vehicles when they are not
commercially available but when the technology makes them
available?
Mr. Garman. I think that government, at the appropriate
time--and I can't tell you when I think that appropriate time
will be--but I think it is very important for government to be
a good first customer of this technology.
Mr. Wynn. What would be the size of the vehicle fleet you
would envision for the government commitment?
Mr. Garman. I can't make that estimation. And if you would
like, I might want to take that question for the record and do
some thinking about that.
Mr. Wynn. Okay. You make a comment that the
administration's plan to accelerate hydrogen and fuel cell
development will enable industry to make a commercialization
decision by 2015. What does the government have to do in order
for the industry to make that decision by 2015?
Mr. Garman. Well, I think we have to, again, in a
partnership, in a cost-shared basis with industry, we have to
achieve all of our technology goals that we have set forth. And
we hope to achieve all of these technology goals by 2010.
Mr. Wynn. So if we do that by 2010, are we then in a
position for the industry to start making its commercialization
goals?
Mr. Garman. If we achieve all of the technology goals by
2010, I think that industry would be hard-pressed to say they
can't make the car unless there was some kind of problem with
the hydrogen infrastructure.
Mr. Wynn. Okay. In the next panel, both the University of
Michigan and the University of California testify that current
hydrogen fuel cell programs are not adequately utilizing our
universities to the fullest extent. They also talk about the
loss of young talent from the schools to industry. Is this an
area that you believe the government has a role?
Mr. Garman. We just put $150 million on the table last week
on inviting universities to partner with other partners to help
move some of this dollar into research labs, not only in
universities but in national labs, the private sector, and
elsewhere. We think universities----
Mr. Wynn. So it is not solely universities. They are
competing against private labs again. I am speaking
specifically of universities.
Mr. Garman. Right.
Mr. Wynn. How much for just universities?
Mr. Garman. I will have to provide that for the record.
Mr. Wynn. Would you----
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wynn. [continuing] provide that information?
Mr. Garman. But in general, we like to offer research on a
competitive basis.
Mr. Wynn. Okay. Finally, looking at your map there, the
government's role is infrastructure support. What do you
envision us doing in terms of infrastructure support to address
the concern the chairman raised about how you fuel up your new
hydrogen car?
Mr. Garman. Part of that is in the technology validation or
demonstration activities for which we just put $150 million on
the table. We think that there is a lot of learning that needs
to be done, and we have already done a lot of work.
For instance, we have safe hydrogen refueling available
today at several locations around the country. We are still
working on what is the right kind of vehicle fueling
infrastructure interlock that makes sure that no hydrogen
escapes when you are refueling the vehicle. We are still making
sure that we have a totally safe and convenient refueling
experience for a customer when they go to refuel a hydrogen
vehicle.
And, of course, we are still working on bringing down the
costs of compressors, storage technology, and other things that
would be associated with a hydrogen infrastructure. Cost and
reliability are some of our major drivers in this R&D work.
Mr. Wynn. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. Garman. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Shimkus [presiding]. The Chair recognizes the
gentlewoman from California. Mary, do you seek time to----
Ms. Bono. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shimkus. Then, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Maine, Mr. Allen, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief.
Mr. Garman, I think this is a good project. I mean, there
are benefits from a hydrogen-based economy and a hydrogen-based
vehicle fleet that are obvious--cleaner air, emission from
auto--from vehicle emissions is the most obvious. I have a
couple of concerns.
No. 1, there is the concern we have already talked about,
which is how much emissions, particularly how much in the way
of carbon emissions, come from creating the hydrogen itself.
And I am also wondering about the arguments you make to--the
arguments you make for--not you, but anyone might make for a
hydrogen-based economy.
So I have two questions there. One is, can you say whether
or not the kind of conversion to a hydrogen-based vehicle,
fleet of vehicles that you are anticipating, would that reduce
our dependence on fossil fuels? And, two, would it reduce our
dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels? I mean, those
are the two questions that remain in my mind.
Thank you.
Mr. Garman. If we look back on this first chart, you see
that what we portray there is the entire amount of oil demanded
by transportation. And if you look at automobiles and light
trucks specifically, this is our target. This is the market for
which we think fuel cells are most suited. Heavy trucks, rail,
shipping, air--these are not a fuel cell market, except in some
niche applications.
So you can see the petroleum reduction benefit that would
accrue were you to change the entire light-duty fleet over to
hydrogen fuel cells.
Mr. Allen. Mr. Garman, I missed your comment when this
chart went up at the beginning of the hearing. Could you
explain that to me?
Mr. Garman. Sure.
Mr. Allen. How do I see that?
Mr. Garman. That chart basically portrays declining
domestic production of petroleum against the ever-increasing
demand for petroleum in the transportation sector. And that is
projected out to 2020. And were I to have a bigger chart, you
just see that there is really no end to the growth that is
projected.
So what this tells you--if we are fully successful, we
believe that by--and I have to caveat this heavily, because
when you are talking about predicting the future there is a
wrath of uncertainty.
Mr. Allen. I am with you on that.
Mr. Garman. But we think that it is possible that by 2040
light-duty vehicle oil consumption could be reduced by 11
million barrels per day. And we predict that by 2040 light-duty
vehicle carbon emissions are reduced by more than 500 million
metric tons of carbon equivalent. So this is the brass ring,
Congressman. This is the method.
We have done some other analyses where we try to map the
impact of increased CAFE or drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge. And while we think both of these things are
important, they don't change the game. This is the only
technology we know of that can change the game and still make
available to individual consumers and Americans this freedom of
personal mobility that they have come to expect.
Mr. Allen. One quick question. The line for domestic
production, that is the domestic production for oil?
Mr. Garman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Allen. And is the assumption in drawing the line that
that is the trend that you expect? I mean, that is not a line
that is affected by decisions about hybrids or hydrogen
vehicles, or anything like that.
Mr. Garman. No.
Mr. Allen. That is just the line you expect for----
Mr. Garman. Domestic production is on a downward trend, and
we have a relatively mature petroleum province here in the
United States where a lot of the petroleum that is available
has been explored.
Mr. Allen. Okay. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And I am going to just follow up
with a couple questions. On the chart there, domestic
production, does that refer to the crude storage of reserves in
the United States? Or does that include imported crude? And
does that include refinery? What does that tell me?
Mr. Garman. That is just simply domestic crude oil
production in million barrels per day.
Mr. Shimkus. Domestic, not----
Mr. Garman. Domestic.
Mr. Shimkus. So you are not addressing imported.
Mr. Garman. No, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Okay. And I am glad to see you have got your
able assistant Jodi Hansen working. We are know her well, and
that is good.
The last question is: the future gen project--you should be
receiving a letter--DOE should be receiving a letter from
Congressman Costello, my colleague, with an invitation to visit
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale to go over all of
the stakeholders in our desire to obviously promote, we think,
a very suitable location for the DOE to look at.
That has my full support, and I am using this opportunity
to formally lobby you in front of millions of Americans that we
have a good place for that to be located, and that is in
Southern Illinois. So if you would follow up on that.
And with that, having no other individuals here, we would
like to thank you for your time, and then we will call the
second panel.
Thank you, Mr. Garman.
Mr. Garman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton. The second panel can be seated. We want to
welcome our second panel from the private sector. The Chair is
going to recognize Congresswoman Bono to make a personal
introduction of one of her constituents.
Ms. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to welcome
Catherine Rips today. She is from my district, California's
45th Congressional District, and she is a leader in the field
of alternative fuel research and development. She is
representing SunLine Agency, and she has been with them since
1997. In her current capacity, she is responsible for hydrogen
advocacy, public education, and project development.
Welcome to Washington, DC. I hope you enjoyed the commute.
I do it every week, so hopefully you will have some sympathy
for me now. Glad to have you here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And you very much for inviting
her.
Mr. Barton. Thank you.
The Chair also wants to briefly, on behalf of Congressman
Chris Cox, recognize Dr. Scott Samuelsen. Congressman Cox had
hoped to be here to introduce you to the panel, but he is
Chairman of the Homeland Security Select Committee and he is
involved in a hearing with that committee.
But I asked his staff to put together a small introduction,
and they gave us a page of single-spaced comments. Professor
Scott is from the University of California at Irvine. He
directs various research projects on clean and renewable energy
sources, including hydrogen refueling research for the South
Coast Air Quality Management District and hydrogen-fueled
vehicle market research with the University of California
Institute for Transportation Studies.
He has just recently directed the introduction of the first
commercial hydrogen fuel cell vehicle into the United States.
Over the next 6 months, he is going to oversee the installation
of two public refueling stations in Orange County. So he has
got a distinguished career in the issue before us, and we are
very happy on behalf of Congressman Cox to welcome you to the
subcommittee.
We also have Mr. Byron McCormick, who is the Executive
Director of Fuel Cell Activities for a small company called
General Motors. We are glad to have you.
We have introduced Ms. Rips. We have Dr. Francis Preli--is
that----
Mr. Preli. Preli.
Mr. Barton. Preli. Who is Vice President of Engineering for
UTC Fuel Cells. We have Mr. Greg Vesey.
Mr. Vesey. Vesey.
Mr. Barton. Vesey. See, my staff told me how to pronounce
these, and I have already botched two of them. So I apologize.
The staff got it right. I can't read their hieroglyphics here.
He is President for Technology Ventures for the ChevronTexaco
Corporation.
We have introduced Dr. Samuelsen, and we have Dr. Johannes
Schwank. Did I get that right? One out of three is not too bad.
Dr. Schwank is with the University of Michigan, the Department
of Chemical Engineering.
Lady and gentlemen, we are going to recognize each of you,
and we are going to start with Mr. McCormick. We are going to
ask that you try to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. And
if you go a little bit over, you know, that is acceptable. So
welcome to the subcommittee.
STATEMENTS OF J. BYRON McCORMICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FUEL CELL
ACTIVITIES, GENERAL MOTORS RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT; CATHERINE
RIPS, DIRECTOR OF HYDROGEN PROGRAMS, SUNLINE; FRANCIS R. PRELI,
JR., VICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING, UTC FUEL CELLS; GREGORY M.
VESEY, PRESIDENT, TECHNOLOGY VENTURES, CHEVRON
TEXACO CORPORATION; SCOTT SAMUELSEN, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
AT IRVINE, MECHANICAL, AEROSPACE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING; AND JOHANNES SCHWANK, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Mr. McCormick. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to be here to testify on behalf
of General Motors. I am Byron McCormick, the Executive Director
of General Motors, Fuel Cell Activities. And I guess put
simply, I head the team that is developing both our hydrogen
and fuel cells, as well as the vehicles that use them.
Fuel cells and hydrogen are the core of GM's advanced
propulsion strategy. We are improving fuel economy and
emissions of our vehicles by executing a comprehensive, three-
phase strategy, including advanced internal combustion engines,
new transmissions, as well as hybrid vehicles.
But the ultimate and most important initiative we have is
to establish leadership in hydrogen and fuel cells. And so
today I would like to tell you why General Motors believes
hydrogen and fuel cells are so critically important.
I think as Secretary Garman said, fuel cells running on
hydrogen fuels are ultimately the most environmentally friendly
vehicles, because their emission is only water. Fuel cell
vehicles are on the order of twice as efficiency as the
internal combustion engine, have no pollution, have no
pollutant emissions, and are quiet.
The fuel cell vehicles enable, very importantly, energy
feedstock diversity, which will increase energy independence
and introduce competition in energy pricing. And so to some of
the questions we heard earlier, once you get that competition
and some of the volatility that we think about in the petroleum
markets certainly has dissipated, and then hydrogen fuel cells
also can substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Fuel cell vehicles, on a well-to-wheel basis, using current
technology demonstrate the potential to greatly reduce the
greenhouse emissions, and over time we think we can really
drive that down to a very low number.
Fuel cells also enable innovative vehicle designs that show
promise of being more compelling, affordable, and, in the end,
sustainable than today's vehicles. I think the important point
that I want to make around this subject is that for all the
technology we talk about, it doesn't do any good if the
consumers don't buy it. And so this notion of the compelling
vehicle is absolutely critical to this transition we are
talking about.
Finally, fuel cells are potentially not only the source of
transportation power but electric power, and I want to expand
on that a bit in several dimensions. The development of this
technology will create more environmentally compatible
distributed electric power generation possibilities.
And, in fact, an extension of that is that the automobile
could provide electric power for some homes and work sites,
particularly during peak times. For example, if only 1 of 25
cars in California today were a fuel cell vehicle, their
generating capacity would exceed that of the electric utility
grid, because a typical car has maybe 50 to 75 kilowatts of
electrical power, where a typical house uses 7 to 10 kilowatts
at peak load.
GM's commitment to fuel cells is clear. We have spent more
than $1 billion to date, and the number is growing.
The investment in our fuel cell program has yielded
outstanding results. In the last 4 years, we have decreased the
size and weight of our fuel cell stack for a given power by a
factor of 10. With each new generation of technology, we have
also greatly reduced the cost and complexity of our stacks, and
we are now able to start fuel cells in freezing conditions,
down to minus 40 Celsius, in less than a minute, which is, of
course, one of those critical parameters if you are going to
have cars out there on the road.
We have also created the autonomy fuel cell concept, which
Secretary Garman referred to, and a drivable version of that
called the hy-wire. These vehicles combine fuel cells and what
we call by-wire electronics--that is, sort of aerospace
technology--in a revolutionary way that genuinely reinvents the
automobile.
These designs could make vehicles both more affordable and
more compatible for our customers, because they enable
substantially enhance functionality with fewer vehicle
components, a longer life chassis, and a smaller number of
vehicle architectures. And all of that actually leads to a
better business proposition for us in terms of the capital
intensity of our business.
As several people have noted, we are also testing fuel cell
vehicles in the real world. Over the next few years, we will be
fielding several small--and I want to emphasize small--
demonstration fleets, because while the technology is immature,
I don't think you want to put too many out there.
And, of course, as somebody noted earlier, GM and Shell
recently began a joint demonstration program here in
Washington, DC to test fuel cell vehicles and the hydrogen
fueling technology. This is a 2-year program, which began
earlier this month, and it will give government officials like
yourselves and your staffs the chance to experience first hand
not only driving fuel cell vehicles but, in fact, fueling them.
These milestones represent remarkable progress. In fact, we
believe our rate of progress will allow us to market stationary
fuel cells mid-decade, and we have already started to do that,
and introduce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2010.
Now let us talk about the challenges, and I guess there are
three in general--hydrogen storage, cost, and the fuel
infrastructure. Relative to hydrogen storage--this is really an
important issue--GM has demonstrated both cryogenic liquid and
compressed hydrogen storage tanks in our prototype vehicles,
and, in fact, here in Washington you will be able to experience
both.
While these methods will definitely suffice for early
market introduction and early volumes, over the long term we
should seek solid storage technology, such as chemical or metal
hydrides, which will more efficiently and cost effectively
store progressively more hydrogen on board the vehicle.
Relative to cost, inside General Motors are key challenges
costs. Our goal is to attain a cost target of $50 per kilowatt
for our fuel cell propulsion system That is not just the fuel
cell; that is hydrogen in to torque at the wheels by 2010. And
this equates to the cost of a conventional internal combustion
engine.
As we reduce the cost, you get automotive scale
applications. Many attractive business opportunities for
stationary fuel cells are, in fact, developed. In fact, we see
distributed electric generation as a key stepping stone to the
introduction of fuel cell vehicles.
Working with our strategic partner, we have developed
several fuel cell generators using the same fuel cell
technology we are using in our vehicles. Earlier this month--
again, here in Washington, DC--we announced an agreement by
which Dow Chemical will purchase 35 megawatts of fuel cell
power from General Motors.
Under the 7-year agreement, 500 fuel cell units will
convert--and this is one of those cases, where does the
hydrogen come from? This is a co-product of their chemical
industry, and we will convert that directly into electricity in
Freeport, Texas.
Real-time power markets and common interconnection
standards, therefore, are really key for these small-scale fuel
cell power units to roll out of the lab, and, by extension,
help us with the fuel cell vehicles. And I think it should be
really emphasized here as we talk about the infrastructure that
a hydrogen fuel cell distributed electric generator is a
potential hydrogen filling station, since hydrogen, by
definition, is available at that location, which means that the
distributed electric generation grid is a critical stepping
stone to creating the hydrogen infrastructure.
The third challenge we have to overcome is developing and
implementing business models for the deployment of the hydrogen
infrastructure. We talk about central manufacture and
distribution, but I think we should emphasize that hydrogen can
as well be generated at local filling stations from gasoline,
natural gas, using an appliance-like device called a reformer.
Hydrogen also offers the potential for home refueling using
either an electrolyzer or natural gas at home, and this takes
advantage of the fact that water, electricity, and natural gas
are readily available at our homes and businesses.
Relative to natural gas, there should be sufficient
supplies of natural gas to produce hydrogen in the early years
of fuel cell introduction. We estimate that if we had 1 million
fuel cell cars on the road, and all of the hydrogen of those
cars came from reformed natural gas, it would demand above our
current usage of natural gas two-tenths of 1 percent.
If you had 10 million fuel cell vehicles, it would increase
the current demand by about 2 percent. And I might note that
the desulfurization of gasoline that is used in our cars uses a
lot of hydrogen generated from natural gas. That is the way you
actually get the desulfurization. If you use that, it turns out
you could power 10 percent of the fleet just by converting the
hydrogen that is used to desulfurize today to hydrogen that you
could power vehicles with.
So where is General Motors? We recognize that to make this
transition is going to require a three-way partnership
involving certainly the auto industry, certainly energy
companies, or people who may become energy companies--I don't
want to restrict it to just the folks that are there--and
government certainly to successfully commercialize hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles, and, importantly, stationary applications.
There are a number of areas where the government could have
an immediate impact. We would welcome an extension of the
national R&D initiative on hydrogen storage, and, again,
leverage government labs, universities, and industrial research
organizations.
We would like to see an aggressive similar R&D program
focused on breakthrough fuel cell materials, but those beyond
the 2010/2015 timeframe that we are commercializing. We also
believe that Department of Transportation should undeclare
hydrogen as a hydrogen material and treat it as a fuel.
And since the Federal and State agencies will have a role
in transition to the hydrogen economy, they should begin that
process by evaluating the use and impact of hydrogen fuel cell
technologies on their operation.
And finally, and perhaps most importantly, the government
should take a lead in developing national templates of code
standards that will be required for hydrogen fuel cells and,
again, importantly, electric distributed generation.
To summarize, we see that fuel cells are the long-term
power source. We see hydrogen is the long-term fuel. With
continued progress in the technology, we think fuel cell
vehicles will be cost competitive by the end of this decade. We
think stationary fuel cells will pave the way for fuel cell
vehicles. We think that the hydrogen--when we think of the
hydrogen infrastructure, we think of appliances, not just
pipeline.
We are focusing on small demonstration projects for the
next 3 to 5 years. And in the 5- to 10-year timeframe, we see
industry cooperating with government on larger scale, rail
commercial projects as opposed to demonstrations, that will
lead the legacy of an infrastructure.
In closing, hydrogen and fuel cell based transportation is
the future. The pace of technical progress is accelerating. The
U.S. cannot be left behind or sitting on the sidelines. It is
clear that we have intense global competition for leadership in
this race to establish and commercial hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies, and we think now is the time for the government,
U.S. industry, U.S. universities, to create the partnership
that will lead the world in the change.
General Motors and our partners are driving to bring first
generation fuel cell technology to market as quickly as
possible.
I thank you, and I look forward to responding to your
questions.
I might also add that a more expansive view of what I have
just talked about was published in Scientific American October
2002. And if you would like, we could enter it into the record.
[The prepared statement of J. Byron McCormick follows:]
Prepared Statement of J. Byron McCormick, Executive Director, Fuel Cell
Activities, General Motors Corporation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to be here today to testify on behalf of General Motors. I
am Byron McCormick, Executive Director of GM's Global Fuel Cell
Activities, and I head the team that is developing our hydrogen-powered
fuel cell vehicles.
THE PROMISE OF HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS
Fuel cells and hydrogen are core to GM's advanced propulsion
strategy. We are committed to improving the fuel economy and emissions
performance of our vehicles by executing a comprehensive three-phase
technology plan that includes advanced internal combustion engines and
new transmissions in the near term, followed by hybrid vehicles . . .
but our ultimate vision is to establish leadership in hydrogen fuel
cells.
Today, I would like to tell you why General Motors believes
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are so important.
<bullet> Fuel cell vehicles running on hydrogen fuel are the ultimate
environmentally friendly vehicles because their only emission
is water. The fuel cell supplies electricity to an electric
motor that powers the wheels. The fuel cell produces
electricity by stripping electrons from hydrogen that travels
through a membrane to combine with oxygen to form water.
<bullet> Fuel cell vehicles are on the order of twice as energy
efficient as the internal combustion engine, have no pollutant
emissions, and are quiet.
<bullet> Fuel cell vehicles enable energy feedstock diversity, which
will increase energy independence and introduce competition
into energy pricing--potentially bringing down fuel and energy
costs in the long term and making prices more stable.
<bullet> Hydrogen fuel cells can substantially reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. When we look at fuel cell vehicles on a ``well-to-
wheel'' basis, they demonstrate outstanding potential to reduce
or eliminate well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions and improve
overall energy efficiency, even taking into consideration how
we make hydrogen today. In the future, we can do even better,
producing hydrogen using methods that are renewable and have no
adverse environmental impact.
<bullet> Fuel cells also enable innovative vehicle designs that show
promise of being more compelling, affordable, and sustainable
than today's vehicles. Today, there are over six billion people
in the world. By the end of this century, that number will
approach 10 billion. Most of these people will reside in
emerging economies where the demand for personal transportation
is expected to escalate rapidly. Since only 12 percent of the
world's population currently own automobiles, if we are to
fulfill the aspirations of the remaining 88 percent for the
personal freedom that the automobile provides, we must find the
means to make our vehicles sustainable, more functional, and
more affordable.
<bullet> Finally, fuel cells are a potential source not only of
transportation power, but also of electrical power. The
development of this technology will create new, more
environmentally compatible distributed electric power-
generation possibilities. The automobile could provide
electrical power to homes and worksites. Power on today's
electrical grid could be supplemented by the generating
capacity of cars in every driveway. For example, if only one
out of every 25 cars in California today was a fuel cell
vehicle, their generating capacity would exceed that of the
utility grid. A typical midsize fuel cell vehicle would produce
50 to 75 kilowatts of electrical power, where a typical
household may use 7 to 10 kilowatts at peak load.
GENERAL MOTORS' FUEL CELL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Recognizing the potential of fuel cell technology, approximately
six years ago General Motor consolidated and accelerated its fuel cell
activities. The GM fuel cell team was given an important directive by
management: Take the automobile out of the environmental debate.
Regardless of whether the environmental debate is focused on air
quality, climate, or overall sustainability, GM leadership recognized
that global conditions must inspire bold, thoughtful actions. Our
commitment to fuel cells is clear in the significance of our
investment--we have spent more than a billion dollars to date, and
growing.
This investment in our fuel cell program has yielded outstanding
results:
<bullet> In the last four years, we have decreased the size and weight
of our fuel cell stack for a given power by a factor of ten.
<bullet> With each new generation of technology, we have also reduced
the cost and complexity of our stack.
<bullet> We also are now able to start fuel cells from freezing--minus-
40 deg. Celsius (minus-40 deg. Fahrenheit)--in substantially
less than a minute.
<bullet> We have developed a series of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles,
which demonstrate how fuel cell propulsion can be optimized for
the existing automobile. Our HydroGen1 prototype holds 15 fuel
cell vehicle performance records and has been demonstrated
around the world. HydroGen3 is our first fuel cell vehicle able
to dispense with a buffer battery, needed in previous
generations to meet performance peaks. With an improved
electric drive and optimized fuel cell system architecture,
HydroGen3 has outstanding acceleration and is capable of easily
cruising at 100 miles per hour.
<bullet> We also have created the AUTOnomy fuel cell concept and a
drivable prototype called Hy-wire. These vehicles combine fuel
cells with by-wire electronics and other advanced technologies
in a revolutionary design that ``reinvents'' the automobile.
These designs could make vehicles both more affordable and more
compelling for our customers because they enable substantially
enhanced functionality with fewer vehicle components, a longer-
life chassis, and a smaller number of vehicle architectures--
all of which have the potential to reduce manufacturing costs.
<bullet> We also are testing our fuel cell vehicles in the real world.
Over the next few years, we will be fielding several small
demonstration fleets. GM and Shell Oil recently began a joint
demonstration program here in Washington, D.C. to test fuel
cell vehicles and hydrogen fueling technology. The two-year
program, which began earlier this month, will give government
officials--like you and your staffs--the chance to experience
firsthand what driving a fuel cell vehicle is like. Next month,
in partnership with FedEx, we will begin our first commercial
trial of a fuel cell vehicle. This program, which will take
place in Japan, will run for one year. Our HydroGen3 vehicle is
being used in both demonstration programs.
These milestones represent remarkable progress. In fact, we believe
our rate of progress will allow us to market stationary fuel cell units
by mid-decade and to introduce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2010. But
even as we are encouraged by our progress to date, it is crucial to
recognize that the race for fuel cell development is a marathon, not a
sprint. No one should overlook that major economic and technical
obstacles must be conquered before these vehicles can be brought to
market and can become commercially successful.
FUEL CELL COMMERCIALIZATION CHALLENGES
Hydrogen storage, cost, and fuel infrastructure are the major
barriers to commercialization.
Hydrogen Storage: With respect to the vehicle, hydrogen storage is
the toughest hurdle. GM has demonstrated both cryogenic liquid and
compressed hydrogen storage tanks in our prototype vehicles. While
these methods will suffice for early market introduction, over the long
term, we should seek ``solid'' storage techniques such as chemical or
metal hydrides, which will more efficiently and cost-effectively store
significant amounts of hydrogen on board the vehicle.
Cost: The key economic challenge over the coming years is to reduce
cost. Our goal is to attain a cost target of $50 per kilowatt for our
fuel cell propulsion system (from stored hydrogen to torque at the
wheels) by 2010. This equates to the cost of a conventional internal
combustion engine. To this end, we have achieved a cost improvement
with each new generation of fuel cell stack technology, and we have a
good understanding of the additional progress we must make in reducing
the cost of each subsystem to achieve total system affordability.
As we reduce cost to get to automobile-scale applications, many
attractive business applications for stationary fuel cells are
developing. In fact, we see distributed generation as a key
steppingstone to the introduction of fuel cell vehicles. Working with
our strategic partners, we have developed several fuel cell power
generators using the same fuel cell stack technology as we are
developing for our fuel cell vehicles. Earlier this month, here in
Washington, we announced an agreement by Dow Chemical to purchase 35
megawatts of fuel cell power from GM. This is the largest contract to
date in the fuel cell industry. Under the seven-year agreement, 500 GM
fuel cell units will convert co-product hydrogen from Dow's chemical
manufacturing processes into electricity and heat for its facility in
Freeport, Texas. Dow is also considering using fuel cell power at
several of its other plants worldwide.
We also recently announced that we will conduct a demonstration of
a 75-kilowatt direct-hydrogen unit in both the U.S. and Japan. We
expect to be able to market these units in the 2005 timeframe. Early
units are intended to provide backup electricity for uninterruptible
power supply systems, such as hospitals and high-reliability data
communications networks, and to handle peak power demands. Real-time
power markets and common interconnection standards for small-scale fuel
cell power units could be a key enabler to the early roll out of
stationary applications of our fuel cell technology and, by extension,
the early rollout of fuel cell vehicles. It should be emphasized that
every hydrogen-fuel cell distributed electric generator is a potential
vehicle filling station, since the hydrogen is by definition available
at that location--which means that distributed electric generation is a
critical steppingstone to the hydrogen refueling infrastructure.
Fueling Infrastructure: The third challenge we have to overcome is
developing business models for the deployment of a hydrogen
infrastructure and piloting technologies to support it.
One of the more exciting aspects of hydrogen is that there are many
scenarios for producing and delivering it. Hydrogen could be generated
at local filling stations from gasoline or natural gas, using an
appliance-like devise called a ``reformer.'' Hydrogen also offers the
potential for refueling at home using an electrolyzer or natural gas
reformer. This takes advantage of the fact that water, electricity, and
natural gas are already available in our homes and businesses.
Initially, hydrogen will likely be produced from many sources.
Steam reforming of natural gas will probably be the first source
because industry already uses this technique to produce large amounts
of hydrogen--nine million tons per year. This process does produce
carbon dioxide--about half as much as gasoline on a well-to-wheel
basis. The cost of natural gas would presumably go up due to limited
supply. However, it is doubtful that hydrogen demand will increase so
rapidly as to adversely affect the supply of natural gas. There should
be sufficient supplies to produce hydrogen for the early years of fuel
cell introduction. We estimate that if we had one million fuel cell
cars on the road and all of the hydrogen for those cars came from
reformed natural gas, it would increase the current demand for hydrogen
by 0.2 percent. If you had ten million fuel cell vehicles, it would
increase current demand by 2 percent.
Petroleum companies have said that hydrogen can be generated from
natural gas today at approximately the same cost as conventional fuel.
A key issue will be implementation of an efficient new hydrogen
distribution system. Implementation would include ``on site'' creation
of hydrogen from various feedstocks via electrolysis and reformer
technologies. Again, a key ingredient will be nationally uniform codes
and standards to ensure rapid implementation.
CALL TO ACTION
GM has always believed that it will take a three-way partnership
involving the auto industry, energy companies, and government to
successfully commercialize hydrogen fuel cells for vehicles and
stationary applications. There are a number of areas where government
could have an immediate impact:
We would welcome a major new national R&D initiative on hydrogen
storage and production that would leverage the creative capabilities of
our government labs, universities, and industrial research facilities.
We would also like to see a similar aggressive R&D program focused
on breakthrough fuel cell materials.
We believe the Department of Transportation should ``undeclare''
hydrogen as a hazardous material and treat it as a fuel.
And since federal and state agencies will have a role in the
transition to the hydrogen economy and they should begin that process
today by evaluating the use and impact of hydrogen and fuel cell
technologies in their operations.
Finally, the government should take the lead on development of a
national template for the codes and standards that will be required for
hydrogen, fuel cells, and distributed electric generation.
SUMMARY
To summarize GM's position on the emerging hydrogen economy:
1. We see fuel cells as the long-term power source. GM's global fuel
cell program seeks to create affordable, full-performance,
exciting fuel cell vehicles that meet or exceed customer
expectations and emit only water vapor from their tailpipes. We
believe that customers will want to buy these vehicles.
2. We see hydrogen as the long-term fuel.
3. With continued progress on technology, we think fuel cell vehicles
could be cost competitive by the beginning of the next decade.
4. We think stationary fuel cells will pave the way for fuel cell
vehicles. By taking our vehicle fuel cell technology to the
stationary power market, we are learning how to improve fuel
cell reliability and durability, move further down the cost
curve, build the required manufacturing and supply base, and
accelerate infrastructure development.
5. When we think of hydrogen infrastructure, we think of appliances not
just pipelines. Traditional infrastructure such as pipelines
and centralized plants is not the only means to provide
hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles, although it will be part of
the solution. If hydrogen is made from natural gas at fueling
stations or homes, it will not be necessary to transport
hydrogen. We will need cost-effective and efficient reformer
appliances. Similarly, if hydrogen is made via electrolysis, we
will need practical and affordable electrolyzer appliances.
This is an area ripe for entrepreneurial exploration and rapid
implementation. For this reason, we are stressing the need for
governmental action on nationally uniform standards for
distributed electric generation, hydrogen storage, and safety
codes.
6. We are focusing on small demonstration projects for the next 3-5
years, to gain engineering knowledge that we will apply to
technology development still needed for the vehicle and to
increase our cycles of learning with respect to infrastructure
requirements and the codes and standards that need to be
addressed to enable the use of hydrogen as our future
automotive fuel. I would just caution that demonstration
projects are costly and require many of the same resources we
are using to refine fuel cell technology, particularly on the
vehicle side. In the next couple of years, the goal should be
to have a limited number of small-scale--but integrated--
demonstration projects and then expand those projects later in
this decade.
7. In the 5-10 year timeframe, we see industry cooperating with
government on larger-scale, real commercial projects that leave
a legacy of infrastructure.
In closing, I believe hydrogen and fuel cell-based transportation
are the future. The pace of technical progress is accelerating. The
U.S. cannot be left behind or sitting on the sidelines. It is clear
that we are in an intense global competition for leadership in this
race to establish and commercialize fuel cell technologies. In Japan,
the kyogikai (which are companies operating under government auspices)
are developing a program for the implementation of fuel cell
technology. Now is the time for the U.S. government, U.S. industry, and
U.S. universities to create a partnership that can lead the world in
the charge to achieve this vision.
General Motors and our partners are driving to bring first-
generation fuel cell technology to market as rapidly as possible.
Thank you.
I look forward to responding to your questions.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, sir. We are going to give you the Ed
Markey Award. It took you 11 minutes and 16 seconds. Somebody
once said what is good for General Motors is good for the
country.
So we are going to give the rest of the panelists the same
amount of time if they wish. Hopefully, they will give a little
of that back. So we will see if the rest of them can summarize
their testimony in less than 11 minutes. And let us start as a
goal around 5 minutes. But, again, we want to hear what you
folks have to say, so--and General Motors has set the standard.
And if Congressman Markey were here, he would be very proud
of you. You have doubled the time that we allotted.
So, Ms. Rips, we welcome you, and we hope that you can
summarize your testimony in 5 or 6 minutes. But, again, we want
to hear what you have to say.
STATEMENT OF CATHERINE RIPS
Ms. Rips. Thank you. If I could have 6, I will be happy.
Mr. Barton. You have 6.
Ms. Rips. Okay. Well, thank you very much for that. I
greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today.
The use of hydrogen in transportation applications is a subject
near and dear to my heart. It is something that we live and
breathe on a daily basis.
I represent SunLine Transit Agency, the only public transit
agency in the country to generate hydrogen onsite and use it in
both fuel cell and hythane buses. Hythane, in case you are not
familiar with the term, is an ultra-clean blend of hydrogen and
natural gas that can be used in natural gas engines that are
commercial available today.
For the past 3 years, we have tested natural gas reformers,
operated electrolyzers off of grid and renewable solar power,
demonstrated storage and dispensing systems. We have also
actively participated in the California fuel cell partnership,
since its inception in 1999.
Ours is a relatively small transit property located in
Coachella Valley or the Palm Springs area. You may know it as
the ``Playground of Presidents'' or the ``Golf Capital of the
World.'' Those tag lines have a great deal to do with why we
became clean air champions.
Eleven years ago, our board of directors--all elected
officials--passed a resolution mandating our wholesale
conversion to alternate fuels. Their decision was motivated by
a commitment to clean air, public health, and a desire to
reduce oil imports. Since 1994, we have operated our public
transit, paratransit, and regional streetsweeping fleets 100
percent on clean fuels. We currently operate over 150 vehicles
on natural gas, hydrogen, and hythane.
We established the Nation's first clean fuels mall, where
all of our fuels are available to the public 24 hours a day. We
also established the SunLine Beta Test Center for Advanced
Energy Technologies, where in partnership with industry,
government, and academia, we test and demonstrate prototype
vehicles, distributed generation, and infrastructure
technologies to help advance their commercialization.
We have well over 25 million miles of experience on
alternate fuels, mostly on natural gas. We have created what we
consider a highly replicable model where public transit becomes
a regional clean air catalyst.
By launching a public-private partnership with Entergy, a
builder and operator of natural gas stations, we were able to
build seven public-access natural gas stations. Then, having
made fuel available in our area, we took the lead in the DOE's
Clean Cities Program and helped local fleet operators take
advantage of incentives.
As a result, over 1,000 alternate fuel vehicles now use the
CNG stations we developed. We have every reason to believe the
same model will work with the transition to hydrogen.
Our approach since day one has been to remove barriers. We
stress training, public education, and a top-down commitment.
Because of our expertise, we have hosted visitors from 30
countries, including foreign energy ministers and Ambassadors
and dozens of transit properties worldwide.
And while, fortunately, we have experienced no significant
problems of our own, we truly believe most can be avoided
through proper training.
We wholeheartedly support the President's commitment to
hydrogen. However, we respectfully request your help with a few
problematic issues. First, we see the lion's share of emphasis
being placed on light-duty vehicles. But based on past
experience, we know it is the heavy-duty sector, and transit in
particular, that is most successfully adapted to advance
natural gas and hybrid technologies.
We believe transit is the key place to begin the transition
to hydrogen. That said, we know that it will take multiple
generations before a fuel cell engine can withstand the rigors
of 19-hour a day transit service. To achieve commercialization,
we need committed, long-term funding for the continued
development of a limited number of multi-year demonstration
projects.
Without top-down commitment to what we call the path of
continuous improvement, the United States will lose this
important industry to an international market that appears more
ready to support it. Japan, Europe, Singapore, Korea, China,
and others are currently outspending us by hundreds of millions
of dollars.
Second, because fuel cell technology is not ready for
immediate commercialization, we urge you to endorse the Clear
Act incentives for natural gas vehicles and infrastructure, and
to extend those benefits to blends of natural gas and hydrogen.
We can't ignore the present in favor of an uncertain future.
We also enthusiastically support incentives for fuel
efficiency and the use of other alternate fuels. We believe
there are many paths to reduced consumption of oil, and America
needs to ambitiously pursue them all. This is not the time to
limit options. It is the time to open doors to innovation.
Last, and critical from our standpoint, we urge you to
support early adapters of new advanced vehicle technologies,
regardless of whether they are natural gas hybrid or hydrogen.
Those of us who take the risk and make the investment to
purchase cleaner, new technologies, and improve our energy
security and our air quality, have a way of being left with the
most expensive version of the least-reliable technology. We
need ongoing support to upgrade when improvements become
available.
So I would like to leave you with these thoughts. To best
support the President's plan, we need to build a program under
the FTA with committed funding for fuel cell bus development
that runs concurrent with the DOE and DOD program that
recognizes R&D for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles and
infrastructure.
We need to address and remove barriers to utilizing
hydrogen such as clarifying codes and standards, and we need to
improve opportunities for public education, technician
training, and technology transfer.
Finally, the private sector has invested billions of
dollars in hydrogen vehicle and related technologies. At
present time, none of those efforts have generated a profit. We
feel incentives are needed to motivate consumers to buy the
clean vehicles that are already on the market and encourage
infrastructure developers to keep building stations.
While we have all the faith in the world that our
technology partners will be successful in bringing down costs
and improving reliability, we believe government must ensure
its sustained support to encourage the private sector to
continue investing.
And last, any time you are near Palm Springs please visit
us in Thousand Palms. We will be delighted to give you a tour
and show you how these exciting technologies work in a real
environment.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Catherine Rips follows:]
Prepared Statement of Catherine Rips, SunLine Transit Agency
To reduce dependency on imported oil and increase national
security, America must reduce demand, increase supply and develop
sustainable alternative. SunLine Transit Agency, Thousand Palms, CA, is
committed to advancing the commercialization of clean fuel and clean
energy technologies. A valuable national resource, SunLine is beginning
its fourth year of producing hydrogen on site and using it in prototype
vehicles, and in its ninth year of operating transit, paratransit and
street sweeping fleets powered 100% by alternate fuels.
The agency has the most hydrogen experience of any transit property
in the country is actively working with fuel cell manufacturers, bus
manufacturers, system integrators, energy providers, the Federal
Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of
Energy, State of California, California Fuel Cell Partnerships and
others to create and test the next generation of heavy-duty fuel cell
engines and vehicles, hydrogen generation, and distributed generation
technologies.
In conjunction with its hydrogen test program and ongoing alternate
fuels projects, the agency established the SunLine Beta Test Center for
Advanced Energy Technologies at its Thousand Palms headquarters. There,
hydrogen generated on site from renewable solar power and reformed from
natural gas is used to fuel ultra-low and zero-emission vehicles and
stationary fuel cells; prototype advanced transportation/clean energy
technologies are demonstrated; and compressed natural gas, liquefied
natural gas, Hythane <SUP>'</SUP> and hydrogen are available to the
public 24 hours a day.
It's one of a kind in the world, and as such, has drawn top-level
visitors from 30 countries during the past three years. Delegations
have included foreign energy ministers, ambassadors, energy department
officials, regulators, automakers, global energy providers and a dozen
TV news crews from the U.S., Japan, Germany and Italy.
Since 1994, SunLine has logged 25 million clean air miles and
displaced more than 5.5 million gallons of imported fossil fuel. The
agency has earned 24 local, state and national awards for environmental
leadership and efforts to advance clean fuels technology.
Summary of SunLine's Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Technologies
During the past three years, SunLine has demonstrated and/or
performed hot weather testing on a variety of prototype vehicles
including: two Hythane <SUP>'</SUP> buses (with two additional engines
now on test stands at Westport); the Ballard (XCELLSiS) P4 ZEbus; the
Ballard P5 Citaro fuel cell bus; the ThunderPower LLC hybrid fuel cell
bus; the Georgetown University methanol fuel cell bus; SunBug, the
country's first street-legal neighborhood fuel cell vehicle; three
hydrogen fuel cell powered golf carts; a pickup powered by a hydrogen
internal combustion engine (ICE); five California Fuel Cell Partnership
vehicles; and a Shelby Cobra race car with a hydrogen ICE.
At the same time, SunLine demonstrated an HbT/Gaz de France natural
gas reformer; a Stuart Energy Systems P3 grid-powered electrolyzer; a
Teledyne Energy Systems Altus solar-powered electrolyzer; compression
and storage systems; hydrogen and Hythane <SUP>'</SUP> dispensers at
3,600 psi. The agency is currently expanding its capabilities to add
fueling at 5,000 psi, is awaiting delivery of a new Hydradix natural
gas reformer utilizing state of the art autothermal recovery
technology, and is a partner in a project to generate hydrogen from
wind power. Thanks to the support of Congressman Jerry Lewis and
Congresswoman Mary Bono, SunLine is likewise under contract by the
National Automotive Center to introduce fuel cells to a Class 8 tractor
in a phased approach, with the ultimate goal of demonstrating a diesel
fuel reformer/fuel cell/hybrid electric drive train. SunLine partnered
with UC-Riverside and is now working with Southwest Research Institute
in Texas on this important project. The agency is also under contract
by South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to create station
templates for multiple hydrogen infrastructure technologies, and to
outline considerations for building natural gas stations for future
compatibility with hydrogen; and to test insulated Type III tanks to
store both compressed gases and associated cyrogenic liquids.
As a result of our experience, we offer the following strategies/
suggestions:
Heavy-Duty Sector Launches Transportation Transition
While we wholeheartedly endorse the President's FreedomCar program
and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, we believe the heavy-duty sector is a
more likely launch pad for the transition to hydrogen in transportation
applications. Though the sector represents just 6% of the vehicles on
the road today, heavy-duty vehicles produce 60% of the NO<INF>X</INF>
and more than 80% of the harmful PM emissions. By starting the
transition in the heavy-duty sector, greater gains can be made with
fewer vehicles; heavy-duty engines developed for transit applications
can then be used in heavy trucks.
Transit Leads Development, Demonstration and Deployment
Public transportation is perfectly positioned to lead the
development and testing of advanced fuels and drive trains, development
of public access hydrogen infrastructure, training and public
education. Transit has historically adopted advanced low emission
technologies. Over the last decade, for example, the market share for
natural gas transit buses has increased from zero to 25%. Today, over
6,000 natural gas transit buses and over 500 hybrid electric buses have
been deployed or are on order. No such parallel exists in the light-
duty sector. If however, the rest of the transportation sectors
followed transit's lead, according to information provided by CalStart/
WestStart, one of nine corsortia created by RSPA, dependence on OPEC
oil would be reduced by half.
Transit districts are the ideal proving ground for new fuels as
they operate the buses on fixed routes, utilize centralized refueling
facilities, have highly trained mechanics, ongoing safety programs, and
a subsidized purchasing system. In addition, transit buses have fewer
packaging and weight constraints than passenger cars, and as the photo
on Page 2 aptly displays, buses serve as mobile billboards to
familiarize huge numbers of people with clean fuels, thus paving the
way for acceptance of hydrogen-fueled consumer vehicles.
SunLine's tagline is ``Today's Model for Tomorrow's World.'' When
the agency converted overnight to a fleet powered 100% by natural gas
in 1994, it created a model that can be used by public transit to speed
the transition to hydrogen. The agency worked with a private sector
partner, ENRG, a Southern California developer of natural gas fueling
infrastructure, to build seven public access refueling stations
throughout the Coachella Valley. As a result, natural gas fueling is
available 24 hours a day, and no fleet operator is more than a 10-12
minute drive from a station.
Having removed the barrier of lack of availability of fuel, SunLine
took the lead in the Coachella Valley's Department of Energy Clean
Cities program, and together with ENRG, worked to help public and
private fleets access available incentive and grant funds. There are
now over 1,000 vehicles utilizing natural gas stations in SunLine's
service territory.
While we hear repeatedly the dilemma of ``the chicken and the
egg''--that automakers can't sell cars until stations are built and no
private sector business can build infrastructure for which there is no
use--this model, using transit to develop public access
infrastructure--can help solve the stalemate.
Efforts Coordinated at Federal Level
A multi-year program with guaranteed funding coordinated by DOE,
FTA and DOD must be supported from the top down to ensure the speedy
commercialization of heavy-duty fuel cell engines, fuel cell buses and
infrastructure technologies. Legislation recently introduced by
Congresswoman Mary Bono advances this goal by directing the Department
of Energy to provide a minimum of $10 million in funding for six years
to support the consortia-based Advanced Vehicle Program to accelerate
the commercialization of fuel cell bus technology. We strongly support
this legislation as well as the National Heavy-Duty Fuel Cell Bus
Initiative, which authorizes guaranteed funding at the level of $25
million per year for fuel cell bus development and multi-year
demonstration projects under the Reauthorization of TEA 21. We do not
advocate creating a new program. Rather, we support modifying the
Department of Transportation's existing Advanced Vehicle Program to
focus exclusively on the development of fuel cell buses.
Both programs support our belief that field-testing of fuel buses
is essential. Both likewise recognize that because of the current state
of technology and expense to taxpayers, demonstrations need to be
limited to a small number of transit properties that are thoroughly
committed to the success of such programs. Rather than deploying large
numbers of test buses, these programs support using funds to improve
and demonstrate multiple generations of the technology at designated
test sites with a goal of reaching commercialization at the end of the
six-year period.
Early Adapters Supported
As previously stated, to reach commercialization in the timeliest
way, a limited number of early adapters must be supported through the
testing of multiple generations of fuel cells and related technologies.
However, most funding mechanisms conflict with this approach. Grantors
and appropriators understandably seek to ``spread funds around.''
Unfortunately, in this particular situation, that approach does not
best serve the country's objectives.
What we see in the field and have experienced ourselves is that
those who take the risk and make the investment to purchase cleaner,
new technologies that improve our energy security and our air quality
are generally left with the most expensive version of the least
reliable technology. As, regardless of its benefit to the country, FTA
capital and operating funds cannot be used to support research and
demonstration of fuel cell technology and infrastructure, early
adapters need ongoing support from some other source to upgrade when
improvements become available.
ICE's Play an Important Role
In the case of heavy-duty transit applications, to reach
commercialization, the cost of a fuel cell bus needs to be reduced from
over $3 million per bus to $300,000, and its life expectancy needs to
increase from 1-2 years to 12. Clearly, that is not going to happen
overnight. Until such time as fuel cell vehicles are commercially
viable and available, those alternatives that reduce our dependence on
OPEC oil and improve air quality and public health should be
aggressively pursued and incentivized. Among them are vehicles with
natural gas, blends of hydrogen and natural gas, and hydrogen internal
combustion engines.
We hear but don't understand arguments against continued support
for natural gas vehicles and infrastructure. Expanding the use of
natural gas vehicles is a logical and practical progression toward
developing a hydrogen transportation network. NGV deployment requires
commercialization of systems for storing, transporting and delivering
gaseous vs. liquid vehicle fuel. Broader use of natural gas requires
expanded pipeline fuel delivery systems that, when adapted, can supply
the hydrogen needed to fuel the first generation of hydrogen-powered
consumer vehicles.
In addition, NGV standards serve as a valuable starting point for
the development of comparable codes and standards for hydrogen
infrastructure and vehicles, including fuel cell vehicles. There is
also widespread agreement that natural gas is the fossil fuel from
which it is easiest and least expensive to extract hydrogen and will
remain so until renewable sources become economical.
There are currently more than 200 natural gas fueling stations in
California and several thousand worldwide. As natural gas
infrastructure continues to develop, it will be a simple matter to add
equipment dispensers for blends of hydrogen and natural gas (such as
Hythane <SUP>'</SUP>). By co-developing natural gas, blended fuel, and
hydrogen infrastructure, customers are given a gaseous fueling option
to meet any specific engine and/or duty-cycle requirement.
Natural gas vehicles in the heavy-duty sector are meeting/
surpassing the most stringent emissions standards today. Heavy-duty
ICEs burning hydrogen and natural gas blends could have an immediate
environmental impact while fostering a better understanding of natural
gas and hydrogen among commercial users.
SunLine has and continues to work with the natural gas vehicle
industry to test engines using fuel with increased hydrogen content by
blending compressed natural gas with variable amounts of hydrogen.
Based on emissions tests, even blends with relatively small amounts of
hydrogen (20% by volume) have shown dramatic reductions in engine
emissions.
Vehicles with internal combustion engines burning hydrogen-natural
gas blends are practical, achievable and affordable with existing
technology. Most important, they create the only conceivable economic
justification for building hydrogen infrastructure in advance of the
commercial availability of fuel cell vehicles. This infrastructure
growth will catalyze much needed development and refinement of the
necessary codes and standards for deploying hydrogen vehicles.
Lessons Learned
Since converting to alternate fuels in 1994, and since the
Department of Energy and other funders helped SunLine open its hydrogen
facilities in 2000, the agency has accomplished a number of goals and
learned valuable lessons. Primary among them are:
<bullet> Leadership by elected officials is the most important
ingredient. Given clear policy directives and support,
implementation is achievable. But follow-through is essential.
EPAct is a case in point where policy goals were exemplary but
federal agencies didn't follow through. EPAct didn't fail.
Those who served as watchdogs failed.
<bullet> Training is key to success in any alternate fuel program.
Before its natural gas buses arrived, SunLine trained every
employee on property to be familiar with the properties and
benefits of the new fuel. To train its mechanics and operators,
the agency partnered with College of the Desert, it's local
community college, to create the first training curriculum for
alternate fuels technicians. All mechanics and operators have
completed the intensive course and continue to attend regular
training sessions. SunLine repeated the successful model with
hydrogen. The agency contracted the Schatz Energy Research
Center at Humboldt State University to teach a workshop on
hydrogen to every employee and board member. Working with
private sector and education partners, with funding from FTA,
SunLine co-produced the first training manual on Heavy Duty
Fuel Cell Engines and Related Technologies. Posted on the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) Alternate Fuels
Data Center website, within the first two months of its
appearance, the downloadable curriculum logged 132,000 hits--
the most ever recorded in that period of time by NREL.
<bullet> Public education is a must. To gain buy-in from your
community, you must bring the public along. SunLine conducts
outreaches, participates in community events, offers weekly
public tours of its clean fuels facilities, operates a
speaker's bureau, hosts a website with a clean fuels section.
The agency also created an Education Collaborative with private
sector partners and South Coast Air Quality Management District
to maximize the educational value of its hydrogen facilities.
Museum-style interpretive signage explains various
technologies; collateral brochures further define tour
highlights. The interior of the agency's Zweig Education
Building, used for industry and community events, is wrapped in
an exhibit that invites those viewing it to be part of the
national security/clean air solution.
<bullet> Partners are essential. SunLine is a small agency with limited
funds and human resources. We could not have achieved all we
have without many talented and dedicated partners. Nor could we
have achieved as much without the steadfast support of our
Congresswoman, Mary Bono, who has championed our clean fuels
efforts since taking office. Many of our important partners are
listed below:
Education Partners
Advanced Transportation Technologies Initiative (ATTI), College of
the Desert--Energy Technology Training Center, Department of
Environment /Urban Consortium Energy Task Force, Georgetown University,
Humboldt State University--Schatz Energy Research Center, National
Science Foundation, University of California--Riverside, CE-CERT
Government Partners
California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, City
of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Federal
Transit Administration, Imperial Irrigation District, Palm Springs
International Airport, South Coast Air Quality Management District,
U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy
Technology Partners
Air Products, Allison Transmission, American Public Transportation
Association, Ballard (formerly XCELLSIS), California Fuel Cell
Partnership, California Hydrogen Business Council, California Natural
Gas Vehicle Coalition, California Transit Association, Clean Air Now,
Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, Cummins Engine Company, DCH
Technology, Detroit Diesel, Dynetek, Engelhard Corp., ENRG, Federal
Mogul, FIBA Technologies, Fueling Technologies, Gaz de France, HbT,
Hydrogen Components, Inc., ISE Research, John Deere, National Hydrogen
Association, Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, Orion Industries, Ltd.,
Quantum Technologies, QuestAir, Shell Hydrogen, Southern California Gas
Co., Southwest Research Institute, Stuart Energy Systems, Teledyne
Energy Systems, Thunderpower LLC, TotalFinaElf, TIAX, UOP, UTC Fuel
Cells, Wintec.
Challenges to Fuel Cell Commercialization
Among the impediments to commercialization SunLine has identified
are:
<bullet> Cost
<bullet> Reliability of fuel cells
<bullet> Availability/affordability of liability insurance
<bullet> The lack of uniform/reasonable codes and standards
<bullet> The need for comprehensive public education/outreach programs
<bullet> The lack of coordinated programs with sustained funding at the
federal level
<bullet> The lack of consistency by the government. (For example, CAFE
standards were passed and rescinded; the Clean Cities Program,
though very effective, is in danger of having its budget
slashed. Manufacturers and consumers are confused by the
changes and now wary of committing to any alternate fuel path.)
Prior Questions Posed by Senate Energy Committee Members
Richard Cromwell III, general manager/CEO of SunLine, participated
in a hearing held by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
on April 25, 2003. Following the hearing, we were asked to respond to a
number of questions that are likely salient. For that reason, we
include them here as they were submitted to the Senate committee.
Q. What are the advantages of using natural gas or another hydrogen
carrier fuel as the feedstock for hydrogen in the short term? How will
this increased demand for natural gas impact natural gas supply and
prices?
A. No technology that exists today can compete on a cost basis with
reforming hydrogen from natural gas. Proven reforming technology
exists, is cost-effective, and when combined with carbon sequestration,
begins to be competitive with electrolysis from a greenhouse gas
perspective. If we define ``short term'' as present day--2020 to 2030,
there would be no negative impact on natural gas supplies. Rather, as
demand increased, it would become economic to increase production.
Beyond 2020-2030, it might be necessary to supplement U.S. natural gas
supplies with imported liquefied natural gas (LNG).
All that aside, every possible program should be put in place to
make renewables cost competitive for hydrogen production. SunLine has
demonstrated solar electrolysis since 2000. It works. We're about to
demonstrate wind-hydrogen production as well. But until demand is
sufficiently high to lower the cost of production, it will never be
competitive. Another ``chicken and egg'' scenario. The solar and wind
industries need incentives and large orders to increase production.
Q. Is it more likely that we will have hydrogen fueling stations,
or we will see hydrogen generated in our garages from distribute energy
resources?
A. Based on what we're hearing today, it is unlikely home
electrolysis units would be cost competitive. However, a home reformer
may be feasible. If manufacturers solve the technology issues that
currently exist and home reformers become available, there could be a
mix of home fueling and stations, but the primary method of delivery
will likely be fueling stations.
Q. Should the EPAct alternative fuel vehicle mandate program be
continued? If so, how should it be fixed? Should we offer credits
toward compliance for investments in fueling stations or use of fuel?
A. Yes, the EPAct mandate program should be continued. It could be
improved as follows: Include a study provision intended to promote
trading of emissions credits between mobile and stationary sources;
provide double EPAct credits for fleets acquiring dedicated heavy-duty
alternative fueled vehicles; provide credits for companies that make a
significant contribution to the development of alternative fuel
infrastructure; and require the GSA to allocate the incremental cost of
an alternative fuel vehicle over the entire federal fleet. Currently,
GSA charges an agency the entire incremental cost of an NGV.
Substitute language, endorsed by our partners in the Natural Gas
Vehicle Coalition, follows:
``Sec. 13265. The Secretary shall establish an optional program
under which fleets subject to the requirements of sections 13251 or
13257(o) of this subchapter may opt out of the requirements of those
sections by making a demonstration to the satisfaction of the Secretary
that the fleet or covered person is in good standing with the
regulations issued pursuant to sections 13251 or 13257(o) and that the
fleet will achieve reductions in the use of petroleum fuels if it is
permitted to opt-out of the requirements of these sections. The program
established by the Secretary shall by rule:
(a) Establish a measurable annual petroleum reduction requirement for a
covered fleet equal to the amount of alternative fuel the fleet
would use if at least 60 percent of the annual amount of fuel
used in all light duty motor vehicles owned or otherwise
controlled by the fleet was alternative fuel.
(b) Allow a fleet that opts into the program to achieve petroleum
reduction in any manner it chooses, except that reductions in
the size of the fleet shall not be considered in determining
the total amount of petroleum reduction by the fleet.''
Q. If we are moving to a fuel-cell based transport fleet, should we
still be interested in ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas, etc., or should
we just use them to make hydrogen?
A. We should absolutely still be interested in and provide
incentives for purchase of alternative fueled vehicles (AFVs) powered
by ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas, and hydrogen-natural gas blends, as
well as for hybrid vehicles that dramatically increase fuel efficiency.
As, if not more important, we should provide incentives for purchase of
alternative fuels at the pump. AFVs can't reduce foreign oil and lower
emissions unless they alternate fuels are consumed.
Unlike SunLine, which parked a fleet of diesel buses and went into
service overnight with a new fleet powered by natural gas, as a
country, we will never see a wholesale conversion at any point in time
to a new fuel (hydrogen or otherwise). What we've seen repeatedly this
past 10 years is that different clean fuels fit different circumstances
and what works in one location/situation may not in another. Options
should never be limited. Our goals (displacing imported petroleum and
improving air quality) should be fuel neutral. What should be mandated
or regulated is the outcome--not the fuel type.
Q. Aside from new R&D funding, what can/should Congress do to
hasten development of hydrogen-fueled vehicles?
A. Revise DOE's timetable from 2020 back to 2010-2015; increase the
purchase and use of hydrogen vehicles by federal fleets; pass
sustained, guaranteed funding for research, development and
demonstration of heavy duty fuel cell transit buses; offer incentives
for infrastructure development.
Q. Which policy actions are more important for deployment of
advanced technology vehicles--R&D, tax incentives, demonstration
projects or regulations?
A. No one action can be singled out. A coherent program is needed
that addresses all of the above. Transitioning to a hydrogen economy
has been likened to putting a man on the moon. Many in the industry
think it will be more difficult! We have to do everything possible as a
concerted, coordinated effort to move the technology forward.
Q. Give the focus on hydrogen as the transportation fuel of the
future, how much effort should we expend on using other alternative
fuels? For example, should we use natural gas directly for transport or
convert it to hydrogen first?
A. We will never see a wholesale conversion at any point in time to
a new fuel (hydrogen or otherwise). Use of all alternative fuels should
be encouraged/rewarded. Every gallon we use (or gas gallon equivalent)
reduces our dependency on imported oil, reduces airborne pollutants and
reduces greenhouse gases.
Q. Where is the U.S. compared to Europe and Japan in terms of
competitiveness for the emerging hydrogen market? Will this new
initiative push the U.S. ahead of its competition?
A. While this question was likely directed toward the passenger car
market, my answer addresses the heavy-duty transit bus market. There
are currently seven fuel cell transit buses on order in the U.S.
compared to 30 buses that will be delivered to 9 European cities and
Australia through the EU's multi-national CUTE program. Japan,
Singapore, and a group of undeveloped nations working with the World
Bank and UNDP likewise have programs underway. Despite the fact that
transit buses are the most visible vehicles on the road, and that
public transit is the ideal launch pad for a fuel cell program (because
of centralized fueling, bus size/shape, and having trained mechanics
and operators), the U.S. has no committed, sustained funding for the
ongoing development/refinement of heavy-duty fuel cell buses. Through
our experience, we've learned it will take several generations of
engines before a fuel cell can withstand the rigors of the public
transit environment. Without a multi-year commitment to technology
development and demonstration, the U.S. will absolutely not be
competitive with Europe or Japan in this market.
Q. What kind of coordination is occurring between the Department of
Transportation and Department of Energy regarding the demonstration
fleet vehicles including transit buses?
A. From our standpoint, in the past, there has been little
coordination between the two departments. We recently attended an
industry meeting where a DOT rep stated his department's role began at
the point where new technologies were ready for deployment. DOE,
however, does not fund heavy-duty transit bus R&D--which leaves transit
operators in a crack in the system. We need a coordinated program for
research, development and demonstration of multiple generations of fuel
cell buses and corresponding funding for continuing hydrogen
infrastructure upgrades in order to have a success. We have the same
problems with early generations of hydrogen generating, storage and
dispensing technologies as we do with early generations of fuel cell
bus engines. The early generations can't withstand the daily rigors of
the transit environment over a multi-year period. We need continued
funding for early adapters to upgrade to each next generation to
improve reliability, efficiency, and cost.
Q. What makes us think the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative will be any
more successful than programs in the past to deploy alternate fuels and
displace petroleum?
A. The U.S. government has the opportunity to correct all prior
mistakes in regard to transitioning to a new, cleaner fuel. For the
first time, efforts could truly be coordinated between the Departments
of Defense, Energy, and Transportation so each has a pre-planned role
in reaching the same end point. In addition, the government can look to
successful models between government, industry, energy providers, OEMs,
and transit agencies such as the California Fuel Cell Partnership to
learn how to leverage the efforts of multiple stakeholders. One final
thought is that the RFP process and the earmark process don't
particularly support the advancement and deployment of emerging
technologies. The Consortia-based Advanced Vehicle Program was far more
successful in bringing new technologies to the marketplace than other
government programs.
Earmarks tend to fragment funds and no coordination between
projects is required. RFPs are very specific and exclude many very
viable and necessary projects (and in some cases, manufacturers)
because of technicalities that often contribute little to the outcome.
A better system is to establish a pool for projects of a certain type
and rank them on what they add to the country's objectives, which is
how the Consortia-based program brought hybrid technologies to the
marketplace. While every consideration should of course be given to
U.S. technologies, it is self-defeating to exclude or penalize foreign
automakers, bus makers, and/or manufacturers whose products perform
better than similar American products. The goals are to reduce foreign
oil imports and improve air quality--not subsidize American industry.
Legislators at SunLine
Among our many recent visitors were Senator Barbara Boxer, who
presented SunLine with a Conservation Champion Award in February 2002,
Congresswoman Mary Bono, who attended the October 2002 launch of the
ThunderPower hybrid fuel cell bus into revenue service (and actually
drove the bus!), and Senator Byron Dorgan, who attended a hydrogen
briefing conducted by CalStart/WestStart and SunLine March 2003.
We extend the same invitation to all House Energy and Commerce
Committee members to visit ``Today's Model for Tomorrow's World''--
SunLine Clean Fuels Mall.
Mr. Barton. Thank you.
Mr. Preli, you are recognized for 5 minutes plus.
STATEMENT OF FRANCIS R. PRELI, JR.
Mr. Preli. Thank you, and good morning. My name is Frank
Preli. I am Vice President of Engineering for UTC Fuel Cells, a
business of UTC Power, which is a unit of United Technologies
Corporation.
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's
hearing. UTC Fuel Cells is one of the largest and most
experienced fuel cell companies in the U.S. and the world. We
are the only company addressing space, stationary, and
transportation markets. UTC Fuel Cells employs a total of 850
individuals with a team of 350 engineers and scientists focused
solely on fuel cell research and technology development. Over
the years, our employees have amassed more than 550 U.S.
patents relating to fuel cell technology.
UTC Fuel Cells produced its first fuel cell in 1961 for
space application, and then we have supplied all of the fuel
cells for the U.S. manned space missions. UTC Fuel Cells has
also led the way with terrestrial fuel cell applications. We
have sold 255 stationary 200-kilowatt size units, known as the
PC25, to customers in 25 States, 19 countries, 5 continents.
This also includes the powerplant that Congressman Wynn
referred to, the police station in New York City.
Our installed base of PC25's has generated over 6 million
hours of clean energy. We are also a leader in the development
of fuel cell systems for the transportation market. We count
Nissan, Hyundai, and BMW among our transportation fuel cell
partners. In addition, California's only hydrogen fuel cell
transit bus and revenue service, operated by SunLine Transit,
is powered by one of our powerplants.
Great progress has been made in fuel cell technology. For
example, in the past 5 years, the life of the PEM-type fuel
cell stacks has been extended from 100 hours to 1,000 hours,
and recent laboratory testing has demonstrated lives of 10,000
hours. Costs have also come down dramatically, albeit from a
very lofty starting point of $600,000 per kilowatt for space
applications to $4,500 per kilowatt for our current stationary
products introduced in 1992.
Our next generation stationary product is targeted at an
initial cost of around $2,000 per kilowatt, and we have also
achieved 50 percent reductions in size since 1997, and the
weight has decreased by approximately the same amount. But we
still have a very long way to go.
The automotive application is the most challenging based on
cost, durability, and performance requirements. The internal
combustion has a 100-year head start and benefits from the huge
volumes produced today. Therefore, it will take longer for fuel
cells to successfully compete in this market, but the auto
market also offers the largest payoff in terms of environmental
benefits and our ability to reduce the Nation's dependence on
foreign oil.
We believe fuel cells will be deployed first in stationary
devices, and then fleet vehicles such as transit buses, and
only later in the personal auto market. Transit buses are a
strategic enabler on the path to autos powered by fuel cells.
Hydrogen fueling stations can be made available, given the
relatively small number of inner city bus stations, and the
powerplant size and weight requirements are less demanding than
those associated with automobiles.
We need to walk before we run and gain experience in real-
world operating conditions. Fleet vehicles represent a perfect
candidate for this type of practical experience. As the
industry gains experience in deploying fuel cells for
stationary, inner city buses, and fleet applications, these
successes can pave the way for zero emission fuel cell cars and
serve as benchmarks to measure progress.
A team effort that involves original equipment
manufacturers, powerplant component and raw material suppliers,
energy companies, and governments, will be required, with
substantial, sustained global investment by public and private
partners.
Our recipe for successful fuel cell commercialization is
included in my written statement, but the top ingredients here
are: 1) development of a comprehensive long-term national
strategy with sustained national commitment and leadership; 2)
robust investment by the private and public sector focused on
research, development, and demonstration programs for both fuel
cells and hydrogen infrastructure, with an emphasis on
renewable sources of hydrogen; 3) financial incentives and
government purchases; 4) elimination of regulatory barriers;
and 5) harmonized codes and standards that permit global
involvement with open access to markets.
We have covered a lot of distance in the past few years,
but we engaged in a marathon, not a 100-yard dash. If the
technical challenges are met, the private and public sector
make robust investments, suppliers perform as predicted,
customer acceptance is won, and the necessary infrastructure
develops as required, we anticipate the earlier adopter vehicle
fleets will result in significant fuel cell cars, trucks, and
buses on the road by 2010, and a substantial amount of
stationary fuel cell generation capacity deployed. Mass
production of fuel cell vehicles could then begin starting in
the 2012/2015 timeframe.
UTC Fuel Cells believes that in order to meet the
automotive challenge a national strategy for fuel cell
commercialization must focus on stationary and fleet vehicles
to ensure our success in the automotive market and get us there
sooner. At UTC Fuel Cells, we are proud of our past
accomplishments and excited about meeting the challenges and
opportunities that lie ahead, so that many benefits of fuel
cells can be enjoyed not just by the lucky few but on a global
scale.
We look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and
other Members of Congress to ensure the fuel cell agenda noted
above becomes a reality, and the fuel cell promise of fuel cell
technology is realized.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Francis R. Preli, Jr. follows:]
Prepared Statement of Francis R. Preli, Jr., Vice President
Engineering, UTC Fuel Cells
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Frank Preli. I am Vice
President of Engineering for UTC Fuel Cells (UTCFC), a business of UTC
Power, which is a unit of United Technologies Corporation (UTC). UTC is
based in Hartford, Connecticut, and provides a broad range of high
technology products and support services to the building systems and
aerospace industries. UTC Power is focused on the growing market for
distributed energy generation to provide clean, efficient and reliable
power. One of UTC Power's businesses is UTC Fuel Cells, a world leader
in the production of fuel cells for commercial, space and
transportation applications. I appreciate the opportunity to
participate in today's hearing on ``The Hydrogen Energy Economy''.
UTC Fuel Cells is one of the largest and most experienced fuel cell
companies in the US and the world. We're the only company addressing
the space, stationary and transportation markets. UTC Fuel Cells
employs a total of 850 individuals and I lead a team of 350 engineers
and scientists focused solely on fuel cell research and technology
development. Over the years our employees have amassed an impressive
list of more than 550 US patents related to fuel cell technology.
UTC Fuel Cells produced its first fuel cell in 1961 for the space
application and since then we've supplied all the fuel cells for every
US manned space mission. UTC Fuel Cells has also led the way with
terrestrial fuel cell applications. We've sold 255 stationary 200-
kilowatt size units known as the PC25( to customers in 25 states and 19
countries on five continents. Our installed base of PC25s has generated
six million hours of clean energy.
We're also a leader in the development of fuel cell systems for the
transportation market. We count Nissan, Hyundai and BMW among our
transportation fuel cell partners. In addition, California's only
hydrogen fuel cell transit bus in revenue service today is operated by
SunLine Transit and is powered by one of our power plants.
In 1839 Sir William Grove discovered that combining hydrogen and
oxygen in the presence of a catalyst could generate electricity. For
many years the potential of fuel cells was untapped. Its use in the
space program to generate electricity and provide drinking water for
the astronauts represented its first practical application.
More recent technical advances plus the growing appreciation of the
benefits of fuel cells including their clean, efficient, quiet
operation and ability to reduce our dependence on foreign oil have
captured the interest of not just the President of the United States,
but also auto manufacturers, Fortune 500 companies, small business
entrepreneurs, Wall Street, Congress, foreign governments and the
general public.
The automotive application is the most daunting challenge and
therefore it will take longer for fuel cells to successfully compete in
this market. It's the most demanding in terms of cost, durability and
performance. On the other hand, the auto market offers the largest
payoff in terms of reducing toxic air emissions and greenhouse gas
emissions related to global warming, achieving oil import independence
and providing incentives for supplier investment due to the huge volume
of cars produced each year.
The vision of an economy fueled by hydrogen generated from
renewable energy sources is a revolutionary concept that will require
evolutionary, incremental progress. We believe fuel cells will be
deployed first in stationary devices and fleet vehicles such as transit
buses and only later in the personal auto market. Transit buses are a
strategic enabler on the pathway to autos powered by fuel cells.
Hydrogen-fueling stations can be made available more readily given the
relatively small number of inner city bus stations and the power plant
size and weight requirements are less demanding than those associated
with autos.
We need to walk before we run and gain experience in real world
operating conditions. Fleet vehicles represent a perfect candidate for
this type of practical experience since they offer an opportunity to
enhance the range of operation for the vehicle, gain experience with
heavy-duty cycles and train a core group of technicians.
As the industry gains experience in deploying fuel cells for
stationary, inner city buses and fleet applications, these successes
can pave the way for zero emission fuel cell cars and serve as
benchmarks to measure progress towards the goals of the
Administration's FreedomCAR and Fuel initiative. Similarly, we believe
it is wise to continue the investments being made in electric drive
train technology for hybrid cars and buses since fuel cell vehicles
will incorporate this same technology and benefit from the technical
advances and experience gained from these earlier vehicles.
Fuel cells must meet certain technical and performance criteria if
they are going to be commercially viable and accepted in the
marketplace. These metrics vary depending on the application, but
automobiles represent the most daunting challenge. We believe consumers
will demand that fuel cell power plants deliver cost, durability and
performance equivalent to the internal combustion engine.
From a technical perspective, we've made tremendous strides in
reducing the cost, size, and weight of fuel cells while increasing
efficiency, and substantially improving durability. But we still have a
long way to go.
For example, in the past five years we've seen extraordinary
improvements in the life of the fuel cell stack, which is where the
electricity is produced and represents the heart of the power plant. In
1998, proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell stacks had a life of 100
hours. By 2001, our fuel cell stacks experienced a tenfold improvement
to 1,000 hours and just recently UTC Fuel Cells demonstrated close to
10,000 hours of durability in laboratory tests.
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this significant progress is
that it's been accomplished not in decades, but in a matter of years.
Building on fuel cell experience from the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the use
of sophisticated computer simulations, custom designed testing
equipment and the extraordinary talent of dedicated and experienced
engineers has made this possible. We're very optimistic that with
continued investment in public private partnerships and focused
demonstration programs to verify and validate our laboratory findings,
we'll meet our durability target by 2010.
Fuel cell costs have also seen a dramatic decline. Fuel cells used
in the space application cost $600,000 per kW; our 200 kW PC25
stationary unit introduced in 1992 costs $4,500 per kW; and our next
generation stationary product that will be introduced next year is
targeted at an initial cost of around $2,000 per kW. We've achieved
similar dramatic reductions in size and weight that also have
contributed to the reduction in costs. For example, fuel cell stack
size has been reduced by 50 percent since 1997 and weight has decreased
by approximately the same.
So while we've made substantial progress, we still have some
challenges ahead if we are going to be competitive with the one hundred
year old internal combustion engine technology that is produced in high
volume. The cost improvements made to date have been achieved through a
variety of strategies including improved use and performance of exotic
materials, reduced number of parts, and enhanced manufacturing
processes, but further development is required. Ultimately, we need to
couple these technical successes with higher volumes to reduce unit
costs.
At UTC Fuel Cells we're confident about meeting the technical
challenges that lie ahead. Our forty years of experience in this
business has taught us that there will be surprises (both good and bad)
along the way and that the best way to learn is by doing. We're
encouraged by progress to date, but we also know that the last
percentage points of improvement are sometimes the most difficult to
achieve and the most costly.
But there are other factors beyond our control that can influence
the future of the hydrogen fuel cell. For example, we must ensure that
similar progress is made in the development of the necessary hydrogen
infrastructure including hydrogen production, storage and distribution.
Codes and standards and safety procedures must be developed and
uniformly adopted. Consumer confidence and acceptance must be won. The
supplier base must be developed and must meet demanding specifications.
A team effort that involves original equipment manufacturers,
component and raw material suppliers, energy companies and governments
will be required with substantial, sustained global investment by
public and private partners. Our recipe for successful fuel cell
commercialization includes the following key ingredients:
1. Articulation of a comprehensive, long term national strategy that
addresses stationary, portable and transportation applications;
2. Sustained national commitment and leadership;
3. Robust investment by the private and public sector;
4. Public private partnerships for research, development and
demonstration programs for both fuel cells and hydrogen
infrastructure with a focus on renewable sources of hydrogen;
5. Development and deployment of hydrogen production, storage and
distribution infrastructure;
6. Financial incentives and government purchases;
7. Elimination of regulatory barriers;
8. Harmonized codes and standards in the US and globally;
9. Global involvement with open access to markets; and
10. Education and outreach to ensure consumer acceptance.
We've covered a lot of distance in the past few years, but we are
engaged in a marathon not a 100-yard dash. Fuel cell technology has
experienced a long gestation period and will not reach its full
maturity for some time. We anticipate the early adopter vehicle fleets
will result in at least 10,000 fuel cell cars, trucks and buses on the
road by 2010 and a substantial amount of stationary fuel cell
generation capacity deployed.
This assumes that the technical challenges are met, the private and
public sector make robust investments, suppliers perform as predicted,
consumer acceptance is won and the necessary infrastructure develops as
required. If all these efforts come together successfully, we can see
mass production of fuel cell vehicles starting in the 2012-2015
timeframe. We envision a bright future for fuel cells, but recognize
the challenges and uncertainties that we must address collectively.
My testimony today has focused on the progress made to date and the
challenges facing the automotive market since this is both the most
challenging and rewarding application. But UTC Fuel Cells believes that
in order to meet the automotive challenge, a national strategy for fuel
cell commercialization must focus on stationary and fleet vehicles to
ensure our success in the automotive market and get us there sooner.
At UTC Fuel Cells we're proud of our past accomplishments and
excited about meeting the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead
so the many benefits of fuel cells can be enjoyed not just by a lucky
few, but on a global scale. We look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman and other Members of Congress, to ensure the fuel cell agenda
noted above becomes a reality and the full promise of fuel cell
technology is realized.
Thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, sir.
Now we want to hear from Mr. Vesey.
STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. VESEY
Mr. Vesey. Thank you, Chairman Barton, Congressman Wynn,
and members of the subcommittee. ChevronTexaco is pleased to
have the opportunity to testify before the Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
My name is Greg Vesey, and, as President of ChevronTexaco's
Technology Ventures, I oversee many facets of our company's
advanced energy and technology development and
commercialization, including hydrogen generation and hydrogen
infrastructure, and can share our experience as well as our
views regarding the critical steps required in the development
of this technology.
Just by way of background, ChevronTexaco is an integrated
global energy company that produces oil, natural gas,
transportation fuels, and other energy products. We operate----
Mr. Barton. We have heard of ChevronTexaco.
Mr. Vesey. We operate in 180 countries and employ more than
53,000 people worldwide. We consider ourselves to be an
environmentally responsible company. In addition to supplying
global energy, we are also involved in a whole host of advanced
clean energy and fuel technologies.
With regards to fuel cell technology, we believe that fuel
cell technology will continue to evolve. Stationary fuel cells
to generate high-quality power are commercially available in
selected operations today, and there are transportation
demonstrations underway. We, in fact, have two stationary fuel
cells, one powering a data center in our California office and
one powering laboratories in Houston, Texas.
To meet the challenges involved with this new technology,
we are involved in partnerships, participating in government
and private workshops, and privately fund basic and applied
research for hydrogen fuels, storage, and refueling sites.
These efforts were underway prior to President Bush's
announcement of the hydrogen initiative in this year's State of
the Union address, and, subsequently, DOE's solicitation on
infrastructure.
The administration's actions provide an impetus for the
private sector to focus more attention on the development of
this technology. We view new DOE programs as an excellent
opportunity to work in partnership with auto companies and the
U.S. Government, especially with regard to fuel production and
distribution infrastructure.
Developing a hydrogen infrastructure requires the
cooperative efforts of government, auto manufacturers, major
energy companies, and others. Hydrogen is a fuel, not a natural
resource. As you may be aware, oil refineries are the largest
current producers and users of hydrogen. We are leveraging
long-standing core competencies in fuels, catalysis,
proprietary gasification, and process engineering technology,
to explore the development of fuel processing business.
The current level of discretionary capital spending on the
refining business segment by integrated oil companies has been
close to zero, and investments are being minimized. Integrated
energy companies have generally been reducing their exposure to
this business because of our inability to achieve an adequate
return on capital.
It is unlikely that U.S. refiners and marketers would
create a substantial new infrastructure investment without
believing that they could obtain a satisfactory economic return
for this risk.
The introduction of fuel cell cars must be coordinated with
the introduction of infrastructure. We know that the
infrastructure must be in place before customers buy these
cars. We also know that this will require significant
investment, and to be successful the auto companies and energy
companies must work together to co-develop solutions and
support government in private-public partnerships.
Hydrogen must be available when and where it will be
needed. We understand that customers must be confident that
hydrogen be available before they will buy cars that are
powered by hydrogen. It is a significant task to develop
technology, to produce the hydrogen at a reasonable cost, to
make it available on a broad geographic area, to store it at
the sales point, to fuel the cars. And, in addition, the
technology must be employed in a safe manner to achieve total
consumer confidence, much as we have discussed today.
There are 9 million tons per year of hydrogen produced and
used in the United States. This is equivalent to only 1 percent
of the crude oil produced in America. Worldwide production is
40 million tons per year. Most of this hydrogen is used in
refineries, chemical plants, metals processing, and the
electronics industry. Hydrogen right now is a specialty
chemical, and it must be transformed into a broader energy fuel
if it is to be used for transportation.
New codes and standards need to be developed that permit
the development of the infrastructure. Existing building codes
and hydrogen system design standards were not developed with
consumer applications in mind. Codes and standards will need to
be updated to reflect the developments in safer hydrogen
technologies arising from the new storage and control system
technologies.
Cost of hydrogen to consumers needs to be competitive in
the market with other energy fuels. We need to be convinced
that hydrogen can compete with other fuels in the market. This
may be achievable once the demand for hydrogen is substantial.
But as of yet, this has not been demonstrated. The ability to
economically supply hydrogen to the market while the demand is
low is difficult. One opportunity in this area would be for the
use of the technology by the military.
In addition, applications such as airport ground equipment
vehicles and fleets of industrial vehicles with centralized and
stationary refueling need to be successful before consumers
become a significant user of this technology.
A few public policy recommendations--we believe that there
are several areas that are critical to the development of this
technology and recommend the following. Support the technology
development and validation for hydrogen infrastructure. We see
the DOE-sponsored controlled hydrogen fleet and infrastructure
demonstration and validation project as a positive step that
will create opportunities to move the technology forward.
Public education. It is important that the public
understand the market drivers, environmental benefits, costs,
and challenges associated with each stage of transition. We
must leverage private industry stakeholders. We believe that
this will help make the technology commercial, and also focus
government priorities on areas where there is most need. The
only way to accelerate efforts toward commercialization of this
market is for the private industry and government to share the
development costs.
And we must monitor market signals. Often we see that
factors can change the need for a particular technology, either
increasing or decreasing demand. To embark on a long-term major
government initiative without doing mid-course reviews would be
a mistake. Periodic reviews will be necessary to assess
progress and steer or change policy as needed and implement
appropriate mid-course corrections.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
questions.
[The prepared statement of Gregory M. Vesey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gregory M. Vesey, President, Technology Ventures,
ChevronTexaco
Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Boucher, and Members of the
Subcommittee: ChevronTexaco is pleased to have the opportunity to
testify before the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air
Quality on DOE's hydrogen programs and the future of advanced energy
technologies.
As ChevronTexaco's President of Technology Ventures, I oversee many
facets of our company's new energy technology development and
commercialization, including hydrogen generation and hydrogen
infrastructure, and can share our experience as well as our views
regarding the critical steps required in the development of this
technology.
By way of background, ChevronTexaco is an integrated, global energy
company that produces oil, natural gas, transportation fuels and other
energy products. We operate in 180 countries and employ more than 53,
000 people worldwide. ChevronTexaco is the second-largest U.S.-based
energy company and the fifth largest in the world, based on market
capitalization. We consider ourselves to be an environmentally
responsible company. In addition to supplying global energy, we are
also involved in a whole host of advanced clean energy and fuel
technologies. We believe that ChevronTexaco's Worldwide Power and
Gasification business unit is a world leader in gasification technology
which is a reliable, efficient, and clean technology that converts
hydrocarbons, such as coal, for the production of power, fuels,
chemicals and industrial gases, such as hydrogen. Commercial examples
of the use of our technology include Tampa Electric Power Company's
Polk facility that produces electricity and Eastman Chemical Company's
Kingsport, Tennessee facility that produces chemicals.
With regards to fuel cell technology, we believe that fuel -cell
technology will continue to evolve. Stationary fuel cells to generate
high quality power are commercially available in selected operations
today and there are transportation demonstrations underway.
ChevronTexaco has installed two stationary fuel cells at our
facilities in San Ramon, California and Houston, Texas. These fuel
cells convert hydrogen from natural gas into electricity, clean water
and usable heat, and provide secure digital-grade power to select
information technology systems and laboratories. We undertook these
projects to gain experience with designing and installing stationary
fuel-cell systems, and to help us translate this experience into other
types of fuel cell projects. We are working on hydrogen infrastructure
development issues, including production, storage, and distribution.
CHEVRONTEXACO'S RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
We continue to support development of hydrogen generation and
hydrogen storage systems. We are active in research and development to
create safe methods for storing and delivering hydrogen. New
opportunities to develop the technology may be presented through
demonstrations, including the DOE's recently announced ``Controlled
Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation
Project.'' To meet the challenges involved with this new technology, we
are involved in partnerships, participate in government and private
workshops, and privately fund basic and applied research for hydrogen
fuels, storage, and refueling sites. These efforts were underway prior
to President Bush's announcement of the Hydrogen Initiative in this
year's State of the Union address and subsequently, DOE's solicitation
on infrastructure. The Administration's actions provide an impetus for
the private sector to focus more attention on the development of this
technology. We view new DOE programs as an excellent opportunity to
work in partnership with the auto companies, States, the U.S.
government and other critical parties, especially with regard to fuel
production and distribution infrastructure. Developing a hydrogen
infrastructure requires the cooperative efforts of the government, auto
manufacturers, major energy companies, and others.
An example of the type of activity that we are involved in
includes:
California Fuel Cell Partnership: We continue to work with auto
companies, other energy partners and government agencies, to provide
hydrogen to operate a project facility that safely delivers high-
pressure hydrogen to demonstration vehicles.
In addition, as part of this effort ChevronTexaco engages and
supports important R&D initiatives including:
Hydrogen Production: Hydrogen is a fuel--not a natural resource. It
must be manufactured from other sources, so how the supply system is
developed is critical. The two primary sources of hydrogen are water
and hydrocarbons. For the past 50 years, we have been engaged in the
conversion of hydrocarbons to hydrogen through refinery and
gasification processes. As you may be aware, oil refineries are the
largest current producers and users of hydrogen. We are leveraging
long-standing core competencies in fuels, catalysis, proprietary
gasification and process engineering technology to explore the
development of a fuel-processing business. This includes understanding
the total environmental consequences and costs of making hydrogen from
many different sources. Though many fuel cell systems include reformers
that convert natural gas or other fuels to hydrogen at the site, cost
effective hydrogen production and distribution technologies will enable
a wider range of fuel-cell systems to operate. We are also looking at
electrolysis to produce hydrogen from water, however as we focus on the
transition to a hydrogen based market it is clear that making hydrogen
from readily available hydrocarbon fuels is currently far more cost
competitive with today's fuels. We have developed relationships with
leading fuel-cell developers, utilities and technology companies in an
effort to introduce competitive fuel-cell systems into the market. We
have hydrogen generators in long term testing that will convert a
hydrocarbon feedstock, such as natural gas or liquid hydrocarbons, into
hydrogen.
Delivery of Hydrogen: One other challenge is how hydrogen would be
distributed in a decentralized manner. We are working to design a
delivery infrastructure that is economic and safe. We are developing
infrastructure systems to incorporate and integrate a range of new
technologies including hydrogen extraction from natural gas, safe-site
storage technologies, and advanced hydrogen detection and control
systems to ensure safe handling and use. This is an array of technical
challenges that will require involvement of many industry technology
providers as well as public and government agencies.
Hydrogen Storage: Hydrogen storage is a critical part of the
infrastructure development. Distribution of fuels for commercial use
must provide for hydrogen storage. We are currently engaged in the R&D
and commercialization of new hydrogen storage technology through
partnerships and internal efforts. Our objective is to provide safe
reliable products capable of meeting a wide range of applications
including small portable, automotive, and bulk storage applications.
COMMERCIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGES
We have operated in the refining and marketing business segment for
over 100 years. The financial investment has been very large. The
current level of discretionary capital spending on the refining
business segment by integrated oil companies has been close to zero and
investments are being minimized. Integrated energy companies have
generally been reducing their exposure to this business because of our
inability to achieve an adequate return on capital. This has created an
environment where refining assets have been sold for about 20% to 40%
of replacement cost. It is estimated that six to nine refineries may be
up for sale in the U.S. within the next 12 months either because of
weak business conditions or Federal Trade Commission mandates. It is
unlikely that U.S. refiners and marketers would create a substantial
new infrastructure investment without believing that they could obtain
a satisfactory economic return to compensate for this risk.
The introduction of fuel-cell cars must be coordinated with the
introduction of the infrastructure. We know that the infrastructure
must be in place before customers buy these cars. We also know that
this will require significant investment and that to be successful the
auto companies and energy companies must work together to co-develop
solutions with support of government in private/public partnerships.
Hydrogen must be available when and where it will be needed. We
understand that customers must be confident that hydrogen will be
available before they will buy cars powered by hydrogen. It is a
significant task to develop technology to:
1. produce the hydrogen at a reasonable cost;
2. make it available over a broad geographic area;
3. store it at the sales point;
4. fuel the cars; and
5. in addition, the technology must be employed in a safe manner to
achieve total consumer confidence.
There are 9 million tons per year of hydrogen produced and used in
the United States. This is equivalent to only 1% of the crude oil
produced in America. Worldwide production is 40 million tons per year.
Most of this hydrogen is used in refineries, chemical plants, metals
processing and the electronics industry. Hydrogen right now is a
specialty chemical, and it must be transformed into a broader energy
fuel if it is to be used for transportation.
Storing hydrogen in the car, at the refueling station and
throughout the delivery infrastructure is a sizable challenge that is
unmet thus far. The problems are different at each location, and they
each deserve the attention of industry, national labs and the DOE. Much
attention is given to storing hydrogen on board the car, and rightly
so, but similar attention is needed in the other places that hydrogen
needs to be stored. We are working to develop this technology, but
there is still more work to be done before a standard is embraced.
Eventually the hydrogen market may be big enough that we can make
hydrogen in large centralized plants, similar to refineries today. But
then the hydrogen still needs to be distributed across the country.
Once large centralized plants are built, it will be possible to capture
a significant portion of the carbon dioxide made as a by product.
Capturing, inertly storing or sequestering large volumes of
CO<INF>2</INF> are two distinct challenges yet to be overcome.
New codes and standards need to be developed that permit the
development of the infrastructure. Existing building codes and hydrogen
system design standards were not developed with consumer applications
in mind. Today's codes provide large distance ``setbacks'' from other
facilities that limit the locations where hydrogen can be manufactured,
stored and dispensed. This was appropriate for the technology and
hydrogen applications of the 20th century, but they make retrofits of
existing sites with limited area for expansion impractical for future
hydrogen facilities.
Codes and standards will need to be updated to reflect the
developments in safer hydrogen technologies arising from the new
storage and control system technologies. In some cases, building codes
will need to be strengthened to ensure safe maintenance facilities.
Through research and demonstration of hydrogen generation and storage
technology we will be able to gain the necessary safety knowledge which
will lead to data driven codes and standards that do not currently
exist.
The cost of hydrogen to consumers needs to be competitive in the
market with other energy fuels. We need to be convinced that hydrogen
can compete with other fuels in the market. This may be achievable once
the demand for hydrogen is substantial, but as of yet this has not been
demonstrated. The ability to economically supply hydrogen to the market
while the demand is low is difficult.
Coordination between the auto companies and energy companies for
decisions on optimal geographic demonstration fleets of fuel-cell cars
and buses will be important to get the infrastructure started and to
prove the value and functionality of the fuel-cell vehicle and
infrastructure. Specialty applications and niche markets that use much
of the same technology but in different products are going to be
important and will be a signpost along the path. One opportunity in
this area would be for use of the technology by the military. In
addition, applications, such as airport ground equipment vehicles and
fleets of industrial vehicles with centralized and stationary
refueling, need to be successful before consumers become a significant
user of this technology.
PUBLIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
We believe that there are several areas that are critical to the
development of this technology. We recommend the following:
1. Support the Technology Development and Validation For Hydrogen
Infrastructure: We see DOE's sponsored ``Controlled Hydrogen
Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project''
as a positive step that will create opportunities to move the
technology forward. It is essential that DOE integrate the
infrastructure issues simultaneously with fuel cell vehicle
development. Major energy companies that already support this
nation's fuel infrastructure have a key role to play in the
development of hydrogen based energy. ChevronTexaco is
committed to helping the U.S. move towards safe and cost
competitive solutions. This should be a high priority in terms
of DOE and other government R&D support.
2. Public Education: When new technologies are on the horizon, there is
a lot of fanfare and media attention surrounding the
development of the technology. Unfortunately, this leads to
unrealistic public expectations. As the hydrogen market evolves
over the next few decades, technology breakthroughs will change
the way hydrogen is made and supplied to the consumer. It is
important that the public understand the market drivers,
environmental benefits, costs and challenges associated with
each stage of the transition.
3. Leverage Private Industry Stakeholders: We believe that this will
help make the technology commercial, and also focus government
priorities on areas where there is the most need. ChevronTexaco
has already invested in R&D efforts in the areas of hydrogen
generation and storage, however the private sector alone can
not provide the resources and capital necessary in a technology
that may not see any sort of return for decades. The only way
to accelerate efforts towards commercialization of this market
is for private industry and government to share the development
costs.
4. Monitor Market Signals: Often we see that factors can change the
need for a particular technology--either increasing or
decreasing demand. Some of these factors may include competing
technologies, availability of resources and public opinion. To
embark on a long-term major government initiative without doing
mid-course reviews would be a mistake. Periodic reviews will be
necessary to assess progress and steer or change policy as
needed and implement appropriate mid-course corrections.
I should note that this year's energy bill, H.R. 6, passed by this
Committee and the House does include several provisions to address
infrastructure issues with this energy technology as well as other
advanced energy technologies.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to
answer any questions.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, sir.
We now want to hear from Dr. Samuelsen.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT SAMUELSEN
Mr. Samuelsen. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today on the
hydrogen energy economy. I direct the National Fuel Cell
Research Center and serve as a Professor of Mechanical,
Aerospace, and Environmental Engineering, at the University of
California at Irvine.
The National Fuel Cell Research Center is deeply engaged in
the hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicle. Last
December, for example, the Center deployed the first commercial
hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicle into the marketplace and
commissioned a hydrogen fueling station. In the next 6 months,
working with the South Coast Air Quality Management District,
the Center will deploy in two cities in Southern California
additional hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
The frenzy generated by the President's State of the Union
address has dramatically accelerated the otherwise controlled
and competitive emergence of the hydrogen future. While
exciting, this acceleration demands of Congress leadership, I
believe, in order to assure a safe, sensible, and successful
evolution of the new paradigm.
If you will allow, let me identify 5 examples of
congressional leadership opportunity. The first is
congressional leadership to assure university research programs
that both advance the technologies and basic understanding
needed for both hydrogen and fuel cells, but also train
undergraduate and graduate students to meet the demands of the
emerging industries, some of whom you are hearing from today.
A second area of leadership is needed to prioritize the
renewable technologies that will be needed for large volume
hydrogen generation. I commend the Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewables, and the leadership of David Garman as we
witnessed this morning, for providing the early planning and
initial studies and research demonstrations in this area.
Third, recognizing that renewable energy is not sufficient,
the congressional leadership needs to facilitate a 20-year
roadmap for the development and deployment of fossil fuel-based
hydrogen generation technologies that are both energy efficient
and environmentally responsible.
The President Future Gen Program is a hallmark step in this
roadmap, undoubtedly. Also, the Vision 21 Program that has been
successfully initiated by the Department of Energy.
The fourth example is especially profound and may catch you
a bit off guard. It is the assurance of the development and
deployment of stationary hybrid fuel cell gas turbine
combinations. This hybrid--stationary hybrid now--is a
synergism that is showing a performance not before seen in
engineering of ultra high conversion efficiencies. Fueled
electrical conversion efficiencies, for example, of over 75
percent on natural gas.
The leadership of the Department of Energy, Office of
Fossil Energy, under the direction of Assistant Secretary
Michael Smith, for the development and deployment of such
systems will undoubtedly change the manner by which electricity
is generated in the future and how hydrogen is generated
throughout the world.
Fifth, congressional leadership is needed to provide a path
to national standardized codes and standards. We have
outstanding codes and standards for industrial use of hydrogen,
such as generation and distribution, but not for the public
use, such as dispensing and utilization.
The industry and technical societies have done a remarkable
job in developing the industrial standards, but this frenzy and
acceleration of the hydrogen future creates a responsibility, I
believe, for congressional leadership to assure a coordinated
evolution of national-based standards that is also integrated
into the international community, which is also, of course, not
only within the market base but developing standards as we
speak.
In conclusion, I thank the committee for the opportunity to
comment. The President's leadership has opened a window of
opportunity for the hydrogen initiative as outlined in the 2004
budget. But the time to act is limited, and the opportunity for
congressional leadership will rapidly close.
I look forward to the questions. Thank you for this
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Scott Samuelsen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Samuelsen, Director, National Fuel Cell
Center, University of California
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to provide testimony on hydrogen, hydrogen-fueled
combustion and fuel cell vehicles, and regulatory encouragement for
incorporating hydrogen fuel into the consumer-based energy economy. I
direct the National Fuel Cell Research Center at the University of
California, Irvine, and serve as a Professor of Mechanical, Aerospace,
and Environmental Engineering.
The National Fuel Cell Research Center was established by the U.S.
Department of Energy and the California Energy Commission in 1998,
along with a strategic alliance of industry, to accelerate the growth
of fuel cell deployment in the nation and around the world. The
principal focus of the Center is the development and deployment of
stationary fuel cells systems for home, commercial, and industrial
power, and for the fueling infrastructure in support of hydrogen
powered vehicles. The stationary fuel cell represents a major role in
the hydrogen fuel economy of the future.
To investigate the future, the National Fuel Cell Research Center
last December deployed the first commercial hydrogen-fueled fuel cell
vehicle into the United States, and commissioned a hydrogen refueling
station. Over the next six months, the Center will deploy two addition
hydrogen refueling stations in Orange County. The Center conducts the
anchor research for the U.S. Department of Energy for the design of
stationary fuel cell systems in order to provide energy efficient and
environmentally responsible co-production of electricity and hydrogen
as a vehicle fuel.
Until a few months ago, the hydrogen future was emerging at a
controlled pace with international competitive forces creating both
hydrogen-fueled vehicles, and a hydrogen fueling infrastructure. Both
are remarkable in their own right as they represent dramatic paradigm
shifts for the public: the power plant under the hood on the one hand,
and the fuel to power the vehicular population on the other. We are
witnessing and experiencing both in parallel.
The gasoline engine has evolved over ninety years to become a
reliable, safe, and inexpensive power plant. The gasoline fueling
refining and distribution infrastructure has also experienced nearly a
century of development to where we today park a vehicle with 20 gallons
of liquid fuel in our home garage, often in the presence of natural gas
flames that heat water, furnaces, and clothes dryers. We are in the
1920's of the hydrogen fueling infrastructure and fuel cell engine.
The frenzy generated since the State of the Union address has
dramatically accelerated the otherwise controlled and competitive
emergence of the hydrogen future. While exciting, this acceleration
demands a parallel commitment on the part of Congress to provide key
leadership and thereby assure a successful, sensible, and safe
evolution of these two new paradigms. Allow me to identify five
examples of Congressional Leadership Opportunities:
1. Assure a robust and active university research program that both
advances the state-of-the-art in fuel cell research and trains
the undergraduate and graduate students necessary to the meet
the demands of a growing hydrogen and fuel cell industry.
2. Prioritize the evolution of environmentally sensitive and efficient
renewable technologies for large scale hydrogen generation.
3. Recognizing that renewable energy will not be sufficient, facilitate
a twenty-year technology development and deployment roadmap for
energy efficient and environmentally responsible fossil fuel
based technologies for hydrogen production.
4. Assure U.S. leadership in the development and deployment of
stationary fuel cell/gas turbine hybrid technology that can co-
produce electricity and hydrogen at efficiencies exceeding 70
percent, operating on either natural gas or coal.
5. Establish a path to establish national standardized codes and
standards for the public utilization of hydrogen.
(1) University Programs.
The National Fuel Cell Research Center has over twenty graduate
students, a staff of twelve, and over fifteen faculty. Through its
outreach, over one hundred faculty from around the country participate
in the ``Universities for Fuel Cells'' program sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of Defense.The fuel cell
was invented in 1839, over one hundred and fifty years ago. The first
significant use of fuel cell technology was lead by NASA in the 1960's
to power space vehicles. Similar to a car battery, fuel cells are fed a
continuous flow of hydrogen fuel and oxygen. As a result, they produce
a continuous and efficient flow of electricity with virtually no noise
and near zero emission of criteria pollutants.
Due to the investment of Congress and industry in fuel cell
technology, we are now witnessing the emergence of commercial
stationary fuel cells to power homes, commercial buildings, and
industry, and the introduction of commercially designed automobiles. We
also see the emergence of fuel cells for laptops and bio fuel cells for
implantation in the body. The future is, indeed, remarkable and
exciting.
The irony is that, while the fuel cell is emerging to become
pervasive throughout society over the next two decades, little
attention is given to the fuel cell in today's engineering curriculum,
and in today's university research. It is tantamount to the emergence
of the transistor in the early 1960's. As a result, our graduate
students are peeled out of our program by industry before they can
conclude their theses and dissertations.
The ``Universities for Fuel Cells'' program is designed to bring
together key researchers from Universities and National Laboratories in
order to focus on critical technology areas that are in need of
research and development in order to hasten the advancement of fuel
cells. The specific focus areas are: (1) materials, (2) systems and
controls, (3) power electronics, (4) fuel processing, (5)
manufacturing, and (6) simulation. Among its activities, Universities
for Fuel Cells hosts workshops to prioritize needed R&D topics for the
U.S. DOE, NSF and other state and federal agencies, and to establish
collaborative R&D efforts between universities, national labs, industry
and agencies. A long-term goal of this effort is to strengthen the
university research community so that it may play a role as a full
partner with industry and provide attractive career options for our
most talented graduate students.
If the national effort to capitalize on the full potential of
hydrogen economy is to be successful, a leadership opportunity for
Congress is to assure that federal mandates incorporate university
contributions. University research not only brings fundamental research
advances in engineering, the physical and biological sciences, social
and business sciences in supporting the fuel cell and hydrogen future,
but also assures that an educated workforce is developed to fill the
requirements of industry and assure a strong U.S. presence in national
and international fuel cell and hydrogen markets. The current
solicitations in support of the hydrogen future do not include
substantial university research opportunities. An example and model of
a successful engagement of universities in support of a national
mission is the recent Department of Energy Advanced Turbine Systems
Program. [Congressional Leadership Opportunity #1]
(2) Hydrogen Production From Renewables
The hydrogen future portends an opportunity use a fuel that
produces only water as a by-product.
This is the public perception by many and reflects a vision
conveyed by the President in the 2003 State of the Union.
In reality, water is not the only by-product. For fuel cells
(either mobile or stationary) directly fueled by hydrogen, this
statement is almost true. In addition to water, a small amount of
nitric oxide (a criteria pollutant associated with the formation of
photochemical oxidant in urban air sheds) is emitted. Emissions may
also include degradation products of the fuel cell stack.
For hydrogen used in combustion engines, the nitric oxide emission
will be an order of magnitude higher and comparable to the best engines
operating today on conventional natural gas and liquid fuels.
In addition to these by-products that some might argue are minor,
there is no argument that major pollutant and greenhouse gas by-
products can be emitted in the generation of hydrogen.
While abundant, hydrogen is not available for use without a process
to extract and transport the hydrogen from the point of generation to
the point of use. If not addressed by Congress, the hydrogen generation
to meet future demands will dramatically reduce U.S. energy efficiency,
increase fuel dependence, and dramatically increase U.S. environmental
impacts. No one of these outcomes is desirable. Congress has the
opportunity to assure that a more desirable route emerges.
For example, the most energy and environmentally benign generation
of hydrogen is the electrolysis of water using electricity from
renewable sources such as wind, sun, and water, captured by wind
turbines, photovoltaic cells, and hydroelectric turbines. For these
technologies, air pollutant emissions will be associated only with the
transport of the hydrogen to the point of use. For transport by diesel
truck, emissions will include NO, carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons
(HC), and particulate (PM). For transport by pipeline, emissions will
be associated with the electricity needed to power compression of the
hydrogen to elevated pressures.
I commend the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewables and the
direction of Assistant Secretary David Garman on the planning and early
initiatives in this area. Technology and policy to incentivize and
sustain a major deployment of renewable energy for the production of
hydrogen, and the use of pipelines to transport the hydrogen to the
point of use should serve as a major focus for Congressional leadership
to assure an environmentally responsible hydrogen future.
[Congressional Leadership Opportunity #2]
(3) Hydrogen Production From Fossil Fuels
The most optimistic projections of renewable energy technologies,
however, will not produce the hydrogen demanded by societal demand. The
rule of thumb for a most optimistic projection is \1/3\ of the total
hydrogen by renewable sources, and \2/3\ from non-renewable sources
such as natural gas, petroleum, coal, and nuclear.
The principal non-renewable source for hydrogen today is the
reformation of natural gas. In well-designed systems, the by-product
emission will be limited to carbon dioxide (CO<INF>2</INF>). While not
a criteria pollutant species, CO<INF>2</INF> is a greenhouse gas and
most closely aligned to global climate change. In reforming natural gas
for the generation of hydrogen, care is required to assure that the
overall emission of CO<INF>2</INF> (gm/kw-hr) is equal to or preferably
less than the direct fueling of a combustion engine. The goal should be
a substantial reduction. But in the absence of Congressional
leadership, the reality may well be a substantial increase.
To assure fuel independence and to tap a major source of hydrogen,
coal is the principal candidate. Today, the use of coal as a source of
hydrogen would substantially degrade the environment. Technologies are
under development to reverse this consequence, and the recently
announced $1B program by the President to produce an environmentally
sensitive coal plant for the co-production of electricity and hydrogen
is one example. Under the Department of Energy ``Vision 21'' program,
remarkably energy-efficient and environmentally responsible designs for
the co-production of electricity and hydrogen have been established for
both natural gas and coal. Leadership from Congress is required to
assure that these early Congressional investments in Vision 21 are
nurtured and sustained to assure the development of natural gas and
coal technologies that are both energy-efficient and environmentally
responsible in the co-production of both electricity and hydrogen.
[Congressional Leadership Opportunity #3]
(4) Stationary Fuel Cell/Gas Turbine Hybrid Technology
To maximize the energy efficiency promise of a hydrogen fuel
economy, we must foster a key technology: the hybrid marriage of a
stationary fuel cell and a gas turbine engine. The fuel cell produces
electricity directly and also emits, as a byproduct, a high-pressure
and high-temperature stream of water vapor and air which is used to
turn a turbine generator, producing still more electricity. This so-
called ``hybrid'' technology has a synergism of performance never
before witnessed in engineering. Rather than the 30 to 40% conversion
of fuel energy-to-electricity (to which we are accustomed with
conventional combustion technologies), conversion efficiencies
approaching 80% appear possible. In addition to the high-electrical
conversion efficiency, co-production of hydrogen is a major attribute
of hybrid technology. The leadership of the Department of Energy Office
of Fossil Energy, under the direction of Assistant Secretary Carl
Michael Smith, to develop and demonstrate this technology will likely
change the manner by which electricity is generated in the future, and
the manner by which hydrogen is produced.
Stationary fuel cell/gas turbine hybrid technology is a major key
to:
U.S. Fuel Independence. Hybrids provide a unique opportunity to
generate electricity at remarkably high efficiencies, co-produce
hydrogen, and utilize either natural gas or coal with zero emission of
criteria pollutants and the production of a pure CO<INF>2</INF>-
sequesting ready stream. The range of application extends from
distributed generation (up to 50 megawatts) to the Vision 21 Central
Power (exceeding 300 megawatts).
U.S. International Product Dominance in Future Energy Markets.
Recent U.S. demonstrations with 200kW class units have confirmed the
credibility of such systems. Based on these successful U.S. Department
of Energy initiatives, three countries (three in the Pacific Rim alone)
have been inspired to initiate multi-year development projects for
hybrid technology. The United States has not established a hybrid
technology road map.
Capturing the U.S. leadership in hybrid technology will require
Congressional leadership. [Congressional Leadership Opportunity #4]
(5) Codes and Regulations.
Codes and standards for hydrogen have been developed for industrial
applications of hydrogen, but not for public use of hydrogen. With the
emergence of hydrogen into the public domain, attention is required to
assure that codes and standards evolve in a timely fashion to assure
public safety.
To place this into perspective, the public use of hydrogen divides
into four principal areas: generation, distribution, dispensing, and
utilization.
Generation. In the hydrogen consumer economy, hydrogen generation
will occur at the site of dispensing (``on-site generation'') or at
large sites in remote locations (e.g., coal fired power plants, wind-
farms) and the hydrogen transported by truck or by pipeline to the
point of use.
For large generation sites, the hydrogen generation will occur in
classical industrial zoned locations and be operated as classical
industrial plants. As a result, current industrial codes and standards
are likely sufficient.
For the on-site generation sites such as hydrogen fueling stations
(and perhaps even home garages some day), safety codes and standards do
not today exist.
Distribution. Distribution is the transport of hydrogen from the
point of generation to the point of use. In the case of automobile
refueling, the point of use would be the dispensing station. On-site
generation, by definition, does not require distribution. As a result,
no additional codes or regulations are required.
For large generation sites, transport of the hydrogen by truck or
pipeline will be necessary. In both cases, codes and standards have
been established. Due to the substantial expansion of the trucking
(number of trucks, frequency of use) and pipelines (expanding from an
existing 17 miles, for example, in southern California to hundreds of
miles) associated with the hydrogen future, expanded codes and
regulations will undoubtedly be appropriate
Dispensing. Dispensing (``automobile refueling'') is a very public-
intensive activity, particularly with the evolution of the ``self-
serve'' era. Codes and regulations are in an embryonic stage, and
requirements for standardization (for example, one ``nozzle'' for all
vehicles; one hydrogen fuel state for all vehicles), while critical to
the success of hydrogen deployment, are also in an embryonic state.
``Dispensing'' is the first of two areas in which Congressional
leadership is immediately required to assure (1) an efficient evolution
of a robust market, (2) the evolution of a safe market that is accident
scarce versus accident prone, and (3) the evolution of an
internationally competitive market.
Utilization. Utilization is the second of the two areas in which
national leadership is immediately required for the same reasons noted
above. Utilization encompasses the use by the public of vehicles fueled
with hydrogen, and during many years of transition (ca. two decades)
the interaction of the public driving conventional gasoline powered
vehicles alongside hydrogen-fueled vehicles, and the parking of
hydrogen-fueled vehicles in home garages, public parking spaces and
parking structures.
Up until January 28, the codes and standards for the public
hydrogen economy were emerging following the traditionally successful
process of industrial working groups and professional societies. While
this continues, the State of the Union acceleration of the hydrogen
future creates a need for Congressional Leadership to assure that the
acceleration of the otherwise multi-year process does not compromise
the final product, and the engagement of individual states in the
creation of codes and standards does not adversely complicate the
market or place the public at risk. The President's leadership has
opened the window of opportunity with the Hydrogen Initiative as
outlined in the 2004 budget, but the time to act is limited and the
opportunity will rapidly erode. Already, states are introducing
legislation. [Congressional Leadership Opportunity #5]
In conclusion, I thank the committee for the opportunity to comment
and to state my sincere encouragement of the committee in this
important work. Regulations are often perceived as obstacles. However,
a consistent, rational regulatory structure, which is predictable for
industry and consumers, serves not as an obstacle but rather a well-
lighted pathway to our shared energy future. Thank you for listening to
my testimony today and I welcome the opportunity to respond to your
questions.
Mr. Barton. Thank you, Dr. Samuelsen.
Last, but certainly not least, we want to hear from Dr.
Schwank.
STATEMENT OF JOHANNES SCHWANK
Mr. Schwank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Johannes Schwank. I am a Professor of
Chemical Engineering at the University of Michigan, and I
coordinate the hydrogen-related energy activities there.
Today I would like to address the research challenges that
we must overcome as we move to a hydrogen-based energy economy
and touch on some of the ongoing activities at the University
of Michigan. And, finally, I would like to propose a plan for
better leveraging of our Nation's research universities to
address this challenging problem.
Today, we are at the key formative stage of the hydrogen
economy. It is important to lay a sound scientific foundation
that covers a broad spectrum of hydrogen-related research
issues. We must better understand the pros and cons of all our
technology options before deciding on winning technologies.
This can best be accomplished by more effectively engaging the
Nation's research university system.
Current federally sponsored research efforts are a
patchwork at best. While there have been a number of effective
workshops and roadmap exercises like this hydrogen roadmap,
there is no coordinated research program presently in place.
While some universities, including the University of
Michigan, have received Federal support for hydrogen-related
research projects, the scope and scale of these academic
programs is inadequate. If we as a Nation are going to succeed
in leading the transition to a hydrogen economy, then we must
create a more comprehensive and coordinated university-based
research initiative.
The magnitude of such a program should be on par with
national science and technology initiatives like the
information technology research initiative or the national
nanotechnology initiative.
Three of the most important research challenges in front of
us are hydrogen generation, hydrogen storage, and hydrogen
utilization. I have summarized some of the major research
issues for each of these three areas in my written testimony.
The first question is: where do we get our hydrogen? From
fossil fuels or from water? Just like it takes money to make
money, in the case of hydrogen energy it takes energy to make
energy. This energy can come from a number of possible sources,
such as fossil fuels, hydroelectric, nuclear energy, or solar.
I submit that the jury is still out on which of these energy
sources will dominate future hydrogen production.
For the next couple of decades, we can still count on our
supply of fossil fuel to make hydrogen. The U.S. has an
enormous infrastructure investment from oil refineries to local
gas stations. We must find a way to use this existing
infrastructure to make hydrogen.
At the University of Michigan, we have a DOE-funded
research program to turn gasoline into hydrogen. For the long
term, however, we have to turn to water as our hydrogen source.
We must have a university-based research program on fossil fuel
and on water-based hydrogen generation.
The second question is: how do we store hydrogen? Finding
safe and economical ways to store hydrogen is critical for fuel
cell powered cars. At the University of Michigan, we are
working on promising new storage materials. However, we have a
long way to go. We must have a university-based research
program to bring the storage capacity of materials to
technically acceptable levels.
The third question is: how do we make the best use of
hydrogen? One of the reasons for making and storing hydrogen in
large quantities is that we want to use it to power fuel cell
stacks. A reasonable characterization of hydrogen fuel cell
technology is that many of the engineering issues have already
been solved.
We have been hearing about practical applications in this
hearing. However, major obstacles remain. Current fuel cells
are still very expensive and have problems with durability.
Most of today's fuel cell stacks do not even come close to the
reliability we expect from household appliances or car engines.
At the University of Michigan, we are working on these
reliability problems.
I note that hydrogen can also be burned in internal
combustion engines. This lowers the emissions and gives better
fuel efficiency. But further research is needed to better
understand how hydrogen behaves under normal engine operating
conditions.
The University of Michigan has a large automotive research
center working on the utilization of hydrogen. We must have a
university-based research program on fuel cells and hydrogen-
powered combustion engines.
We believe that today we have a tremendous opportunity,
even a responsibility, to leverage the country's research
universities in partnership with industry and government to
build a robust and sustainable hydrogen economy. I propose that
a university-based hydrogen energy research initiative, ERI for
short, be established at either the National Science Foundation
or the Department of Energy.
This initiative would competitively select a group of 6 to
10 universities to undertake an integrated set of basic
research and education projects. Each center would work in
partnership with industry and government, and more details
about this are in the written testimony.
For our Nation, it is of critical strategic and economic
importance that the academic, industrial, and government
sectors work together to assure that we lay a strong research
foundation, permitting us to select the best pathways and
technologies leading to our hydrogen-based energy future.
I thank you, and I am looking forward to questions.
[The prepared statement of Johannes Schwank follows:]
Prepared Statement of Johannes Schwank, Professor of Chemical
Engineering, University of Michigan
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Good morning. My name
is Johannes Schwank. I am a Professor of Chemical Engineering at the
University of Michigan, and coordinate the hydrogen research activities
within the College of Engineering. I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today to provide a perspective from
the University of Michigan concerning the importance of hydrogen--based
energy technologies and the important role the academic community can
play in their development.
Let me begin by commending the Congress and particularly the House
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality for its efforts to facilitate
the better understanding of the science and technology challenges posed
as we move to a hydrogen-based energy future.
Today, I would like to address the significant research challenges
that we must overcome if we are going to see a hydrogen-based economy.
I will describe some of the ongoing activities at the University of
Michigan. And finally, I will propose a plan for better leveraging the
capabilities of our research universities in solving the Nation's
energy and environmental problems.
We find ourselves at the threshold of a worldwide shift from a
fossil fuel economy to a hydrogen economy. Hydrogen-based energy, its
supply and its use, will be a critical factor in economic growth,
political stability, and the protection of our environment. This may be
one of the greatest scientific, technical, and economic challenges our
society faces in the coming decades. To bring this transition about
will require significant technical advances and enormous investments in
new materials, processes, and infrastructure. The consensus in the
industrial and academic sector is that we must find economically and
technically sound ways to produce, store, distribute, and utilize
hydrogen.
At this formative stage of the hydrogen energy economy, it is
important to lay a sound scientific and technical foundation,
encompassing a wide spectrum of hydrogen-related fundamental and
applied research issues. We must better understand the pros and cons of
all our technology options, before deciding on winning technologies. A
broader approach placed at the beginning of the product/process
development spectrum is required. This can best be accomplished by
using the Nation's research university system. It is critically
important that the Nation invest in a basic energy research program at
the university level to address the inherent fundamental research
challenges. Current federally sponsored research efforts are a
patchwork at best. There is no coordinated research program presently
in place. Although some universities, including the University of
Michigan, receive federal support for research projects that address
some aspects of hydrogen-based energy research, the scope and scale of
the federal effort to overcome the important technical challenges is
sorely inadequate. If we as a Nation are going to see the transition to
a hydrogen economy as envisioned by this hearing, securing our
technical leadership position in the world, then we must create a more
comprehensive and coordinated program. The magnitude of such a program
should be on par with national science and technology initiatives like
the Information Technology Research initiative or the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. I will briefly illustrate three of the key
research challenges in front of us: hydrogen generation, hydrogen
storage, and hydrogen utilization.
RESEARCH CHALLENGES
Hydrogen Generation
The first question is: how do we secure an adequate hydrogen
supply? Pure hydrogen does not occur naturally, and must be generated
from other substances, for example coal, petroleum, natural gas,
biomass, or water. This costs us some energy upfront that can come from
a menu of possible sources: fossil fuel, hydroelectric or nuclear
energy, solar, wind power, geothermal, or tidal energy. I submit that
the jury is still out on which of these energy sources will dominate
future hydrogen production.
Let's look at our options for generating hydrogen. In the near term
(perhaps for the next 20 years), much of the hydrogen will be generated
from fuels like natural gas and gasoline. To convert natural gas or
gasoline into hydrogen pure enough for fuel cells requires rather
elaborate chemical processes involving catalysts. (A catalyst is a
material that by its presence helps chemical reactions to proceed more
easily.) To deal with different fuel qualities and compositions
available in different parts of the country, better and more durable
catalysts are needed than are presently available. The discovery of
these new catalysts will require major advances in materials synthesis,
surface science, computational chemistry, and reactor engineering. At
the University of Michigan, we have a Department of Energy-funded
research program to develop better performing gasoline fuel processors
to make pure hydrogen for fuel cells. We are working to find ways to
decrease the size and weight of the fuel processor system by more than
half to make it small enough to fit into fuel cell powered passenger
cars. This goal can only be reached by developing new catalysts that
are at least twice as good as the best catalysts available today, and
coming up with innovative system designs. (A list of energy-related
research going on at the University of Michigan is provided in the
appendix.)
The alternative to processing fuels is making hydrogen from water,
which is in abundant supply on the planet. You may remember your high
school teacher doing an experiment called ``electrolysis'', where
electricity is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Lighting
the gas bubbles coming out of the water produced a nice bang. In the
long-term future, when our oil supplies start to dwindle, splitting of
water may become important. To split water requires the expenditure of
energy upfront and, currently, is not economical on a large scale.
Major advances in technology may make this process economically more
attractive. We need to work on more efficient methods to harness solar,
wind, tidal, nuclear, and geothermal energy, new photocatalytic and
photovoltaic materials, and improved thermochemical or biological
processes. Thermochemical water splitting can be achieved using the
heat from advanced nuclear reactors, but more research will be needed
to fully develop these methods. It seems prudent to start now, while we
can still count on fossil fuel supplies, on a coordinated research and
development program in water-based hydrogen generation. Water, most
likely, will become our long-term source for clean, large-scale
hydrogen production.
Further, while these and other technical issues need to be
addressed, one must also take into consideration the existing economic
infrastructure. The U.S. has an enormous investment in hydrocarbon
infrastructure, from oil refineries to local gas stations. We must find
a way to use the existing hydrocarbon-based infrastructure to
transition within the next couple of decades to a hydrogen economy.
However, as long as we produce hydrogen from fossil fuels, we are still
emitting carbon dioxide into the environment. In essence, we would
simply shift the environmental pollution problem to a different
location, without really solving it. One possible solution to this
problem could come from research into carbon dioxide capture and
sequestration, which becomes a more realistic option in larger-scale,
centralized fuel processing and hydrogen production facilities.
Hydrogen storage
Once we have figured out how to make hydrogen in an efficient and
economical way, the next question is how do we store and distribute it?
Finding safe and economical ways to store hydrogen is arguably the key
to the commercialization of fuel cell powered cars. Hydrogen can be
stored as compressed gas, or as cryogenic liquid. It can also be stored
or adsorbed in solid materials, such as carbon or hydride materials.
However, none of the currently available methods is adequate for our
technical needs. While some progress has been made over the last
decade, the best hydrogen storage materials known today weigh at least
twenty times more than the hydrogen they are storing. In contrast, a
typical gasoline tank in a car weighs only a fraction of the weight of
the gasoline inside. There is tremendous opportunity in developing new
materials with larger hydrogen storage capacities. For example, at the
University of Michigan, carbon nanotubes, graphite nanofibers, and new
metal-organic framework (MOF) materials which show promise for hydrogen
storage are under development. However, to bring the storage capacity
to technically acceptable levels will require a great deal of
fundamental research. To develop practical solid-state hydrogen storage
materials requires a much better fundamental understanding of the
storage mechanisms, materials properties, and synthesis and
manufacturing methods.
Hydrogen utilization
Hydrogen is attractive, since it can be efficiently and cleanly
converted to electrical and thermal energy. One of the reasons for
making and storing hydrogen in large quantities is that we want to use
it to power fuel cell stacks. A reasonable characterization of hydrogen
fuel cell technology is that many of the engineering issues have
already been solved. There are several different types of fuel cells in
existence, classified according to the type of membrane material used.
The operational temperature range of each of the fuel cell types is
limited by the type of material used in the membrane. You are hearing
about practical applications in this hearing. However, major obstacles
remain. Many unsolved fundamental research problems are in front of us,
falling into the broad range of materials science, electrochemistry,
and electrode catalysis. Current fuel cells are very expensive, but
have problems with durability. For example, we expect a typical
household appliance to last for many years without maintenance.
Unfortunately, most of today's fuel cell stacks do not even come close
to this expectation of reliability, primarily due to materials
limitations. The catalysts on the electrodes are very sensitive to
impurities in the hydrogen. The fuel cell membranes, depending on type,
have their own, inherent weaknesses limiting their useful life. Fuel
cell stacks pose challenging sealing problems. Hydrogen has a tendency
to leak through most materials. These challenges represent a
significant opportunity for materials and catalysis research. At the
University of Michigan, we are working on several of these materials
challenges, to develop a better understanding of failure mechanisms,
and to come up with better membrane materials and electrode catalysts.
Besides use in fuel cells, hydrogen can be burnt in internal
combustion engines. However, since hydrogen has properties quite
different from gasoline or diesel fuel, more research is needed to
better understand how hydrogen behaves under engine operating
conditions. The University of Michigan has one of the largest
automotive engineering research centers in the country and is
conducting research on the utilization of hydrogen in combustion
engines. Laying the research foundation for using hydrogen in today's
transportation systems is extremely important because so many jobs and
industries are dependent upon these systems. Use of hydrogen in
internal combustion engines may, in my opinion, facilitate the
evolution to a hydrogen economy.
Given these formidable research challenges, I submit that the
verdict is still out which of the many energy utilization technologies
(internal combustion, fuel cells, batteries, or hybrids) will power
stationary or mobile systems in the future.
A PROPOSED UNIVERSITY-BASED ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE
We believe that today we have a tremendous opportunity, even a
responsibility, to leverage the country's research universities in
partnership with industry and government to overcome the obstacles to
achieving a robust and sustainable hydrogen economy. What is needed is
a university energy research initiative specifically created to
capitalize on the energy research expertise residing in our Nation's
universities. This initiative should be on par with such national
science and technology initiatives as the National Nanotechnology
Initiative and Information Technology Research Initiative. It is easily
as important as these initiatives and, I would argue, more important.
While the DOE, the DOD and the NSF all have some programs to support
individual or groups of university investigators, there is no
strategically coordinated national initiative in place that engages the
country's research universities in the transition to a hydrogen energy
economy.
I propose that a university-based Energy Research Initiative (ERI)
be established at either the National Science Foundation or the
Department of Energy. The primary focus of the ERI would be hydrogen-
based energy systems. Regardless of the federal agency home, basic
research funds from all of the federal agencies promoting energy
research should be used to supplement the program. The Energy Research
Initiative would competitively select a group of 6-10 universities
across the country to undertake an integrated set of basic research and
education projects focusing on energy issues. Each center would work in
partnership with industry and government.
It is extremely important that promising developments and
technologies move quickly to implementation. To promote this, we
propose that ERI basic research activity be supplemented by
``technology accelerator'' seed funding to encourage small businesses,
in partnership with universities, to further develop promising
technologies. Large companies could also play a role in this but would
be asked to cost share their role in the activity.
Finally, states can play a role as well by augmenting the federal
funding for the ERI with a state-funded economic development program
that would support the development of small energy-focused businesses
and facilitate their linkage to larger companies within the state.
I would recommend that $10M in federal funding be allocated to
support each of the centers on an annual basis. Approximate breakdown
would be: $8M for basic research and education, $2M for technology
accelerator projects (not including any state contributions). Taking an
approach similar to the National Science Foundation Engineering
Research Center program, each Center could be funded for a five-year
period with an additional five-year renewal based upon performance.
I strongly believe that a university-based Energy Research
Initiative that broadly focuses on the Nation's energy research and
education needs will provide significant leveraging of federal research
dollars. Basic research carried out in research universities provides
the foundation for the research, development, and engineering
continuum. Importantly, it facilitates technology transfer by moving
new discoveries and innovations from the laboratory to the market
place, and encouraging industry partnerships to develop promising
technologies. For our Nation, it is of critical strategic and economic
importance that the academic, industrial, and government sector work
together to assure that we lay a strong research foundation, permitting
us to select the best pathways and technologies leading to our
hydrogen-based energy future.
Appendix
selected energy-related research programs at the university of michigan
1. FUEL PROCESSORS FOR PROTON EXCHANGE MEMBRANE FUEL CELLS
2. ADVANCED CATALYSTS FOR HYDROGEN GENERATION
3. THERMAL TRANSIENT RESPONSE OF PROTON EXCHANGE MEMBRANE FUEL
CELLS
4. MICRO-FUEL CELLS AND NOVEL ELECTROCATALYSTS
5. COORDINATION OF HYDROGEN AND AIR FLOW FOR TRANSIENT CELL LOADING
6. SYSTEMATIC DESIGN OF PORE SIZE & FUNCTIONALITY FOR METHANE AND
HYDROGEN STORAGE APPLICATIONS IN FUEL CELLS
7. DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FUEL CELL VEHICLES
8. MICROELECTRONIC GAS SENSORS AND GAS STORAGE MICRO-RESERVOIRS
9. HYDROGEN STORAGE IN CARBON NANOTUBES AND CARBON NANOFIBERS
10. HOMOGENEOUS CHARGE COMPRESSION IGNITION (HCCI) ENGINE RESEARCH
CONSORTIUM
11. SIMULATION-BASED DESIGN AND DEMONSTRATION OF NEXT GENERATION,
ADVANCED DIESEL TECHNOLOGY
12. ADVANCED HYBRID PROPULSION SYSTEM COMPONENT MODELING AND
POWERTRAIN INTEGRATION
13. DEVELOPMENT OF A PRESSURE REACTIVE PISTON FOR IMPROVED FUEL
EFFICIENCY AND REDUCED EMISSIONS IN SI AND CIDI ENGINES
14. ADVANCED BATTERY SYSTEMS AND MODELING FOR HYBRID ELECTRIC
VEHICLES
15. HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE SYSTEM DESIGN OPTIMIZATION
16. POROUS NANO- AND MICRO-ARCHITECTURED MATERIALS: BATTERY
APPLICATIONS
17. SAFETY ISSUES FOR HIGH POWER LI ION BATTERY ANODES
18. THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN CENTER FOR INDUSTRIAL ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
19. IMPROVING PLATE GLASS QUENCHING TECHNOLOGY TO SAVE ENERGY
20. DEVELOPMENT OF A HIGHLY PREHEATED COMBUSTION AIR SYSTEM WITH-
WITHOUT OXYGEN ENRICHMENT FOR METAL PROCESSING FURNACES TO
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND REDUCE EMISSIONS
Mr. Barton. Thank you, sir. And I want to thank the
panelists for your excellent testimony. This really gives us
kind of a breadth of analysis about where the research is and
where the industry is.
The Chair is going to recognize himself for the first 5-
minute questions.
I want to go to you, Dr. Samuelsen. You mentioned that your
fourth point was somewhat revolutionary, some sort of a hybrid
hydrogen turbine that had efficiencies, if I understood
correctly, of about 75 percent. Can you compare that to a
combined cycle natural gas turbine today, what the efficiencies
are?
Mr. Samuelsen. Mr. Chairman, the combined cycle would be
approaching 50, 55 percent. So it is a jump of 20 percentage
points, 20, 25 percentage points.
Mr. Barton. And would that be the same application that
this research turbine that you have talked about would compete
in the large base station powerplant generation sector?
Mr. Samuelsen. It would be the same application in the
center power. But in addition to that, it also has a very
substantial application in the distributed generation market,
the 100 kilowatts to 50 megawatt arena as well--a broader
application.
Mr. Barton. Okay. Mr. McCormick and Mr. Preli, you all were
pretty optimistic. You all were kind of ``pedal to the medal,
gung-ho, let us go for it.'' But Mr. Vesey was a little more
``we ain't making any money, and we don't think we are going to
get into this if we can't make some money.'' So what do you two
guys need to do to Mr. Vesey to get him to show a little more
enthusiasm for this program?
Mr. Preli. I think maybe our enthusiasm stems from the fact
that we have been working on this for 40 years, many times
alone. And now there is a much larger effort--in fact, much of
it is outside of the United States, and perhaps now is the
timing between the technology that is being pulled by the
automotive industry that also has applicability in other areas
like stationary and fleet applications.
So I think we are optimistic, because with so many people
working on it, and so much investment going into it, progress
will be made. Key issues, however, remain I think as we both
pointed out. And that is, if you are moving toward a hydrogen
economy, you need to have the hydrogen. And perhaps that is
where some of this optimism needs to be tempered, because even
if the technology is there, and even if the cost comes down, if
you need to operate on hydrogen, then you still need to
stimulate that and have hydrogen in your economy.
What I will add, though, is that the first applications
using stationary powerplants, which have been in service now
for over 10 years, run directly on natural gas. You get around
that infrastructure problem. You trade some of the powerplant
efficiency, but you don't need the hydrogen. You can run them
right on natural gas. You convert it right inside the fuel cell
powerplant.
Mr. Barton. Mr. McCormick, what do we need to do to make it
possible for Mr. Vesey to make some money so that they will
make the investments to create the hydrogen?
Mr. McCormick. Well, a couple of general comments. As I
mentioned, the progress on the fuel cell and propulsion
technology is extraordinary. But very importantly, this notion
that we can build vehicles that consumers will want to buy. And
I think any prudent car company or any prudent fuel company
ought to pay attention to the consumers, No. 1. And I think we
are convinced that we will be able to do that.
But the second thing--and I don't want to speak for
ChevronTexaco or the energy companies--but there is a huge
amount of capital that has to be mobilized in order to make
this transition. We are faced between us with this chicken and
egg issue that if we put the vehicles out there, is there an
infrastructure? Or, conversely, if the infrastructure is there,
will the vehicles be there?
Particularly in the infrastructure issue, a lot of the cost
of hydrogen that you have heard described today is attributable
to return on capital. And so the issue of how actually capital
is made available and how there is taxation or policies around
that will be crucial, I think, to this transition.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Vesey, do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Vesey. Well, I didn't mean to come across as not
optimistic on this, Mr. Chairman. What we have done is, in
focusing on the business aspects of this, we have looked at
alternative business models that might make this space
attractive.
So I think one of the ones you have heard some reference to
here that we are very supportive of is a dual use, so to speak,
of the hydrogen, where you have either a fleet, that you are
also powering a fleet as well as filling some vehicles on the
side, or whether you are providing distributed generated power,
and then also fueling vehicles at the same location.
So we are very excited about the space, but are very
focused on proper business models for that.
Mr. Barton. Okay. Dr. Preli, who else is involved in this
technology in terms of creating and manufacturing the fuel
cells? Who is our international competition?
Mr. Preli. I think internationally it depends upon what
market you are talking about. But in the small residential
size, I think the major competition is coming from Japanese
companies. There is a large effort in Japan to develop small
systems. I think in fleet applications our No. 1 competition
may be from Europe where they have a very large demonstration
program looking at 30 buses in the near term in European
cities.
And then, in automotive, Japanese car companies like Toyota
are developing their own technology. In the United States, GM
and ourselves are developing technology for automotive. In
Europe, DaimlerChrylser is one of the leaders.
Mr. Barton. Okay. My time has expired.
The gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Wynn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There seems to be a consensus that one of the first stops
along this pathway is stationary fuel cells. Is that the
consensus? What does the government need to do to facilitate
the expansion of stationary fuel cells?
Mr. McCormick. One of the issues with stationary fuel cells
is they are, by and large, not big multi-megawatt baseload
machines. They don't replace a nuclear powerplant, for example.
And so when we go to place those distributed generation units,
we have to start thinking about interconnection standards.
And one of the issues is: how do you get the distributed
generation systems put on the grid in various locations? And it
turns out that the decisions around that are all local with
public utility commissions and things. And so as we talk about
rolling this technology out, we face an uncertain market, at
least in the United States, because we are at the whims of each
local community. That is not necessarily true in Japan where
they are actually uniform in those codes.
Mr. Wynn. Could you send me something on that? Just a brief
statement of that particular issue----
Mr. McCormick. Absolutely.
Mr. Wynn. [continuing] to help us with it. Now, there
seemed to be less agreement about whether the next step should
be fleet vehicles in terms of buses, if I am understanding you
right, versus light trucks. Is there a difference of opinion on
that subject? I don't want to create one if it doesn't exist,
but I have heard some people talking about buses.
I know Ms. Rips was very interested in bus development, but
I also heard maybe light trucks would be better. Mr. Vesey?
Mr. Vesey. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. I really don't
think so. I think it is that you have enough vehicles that when
you are generating the supply of hydrogen there is adequate
use. So the term ``fleet'' could be buses, it could be light-
duty vehicles. From our standpoint, it is that there is enough
to use the hydrogen on a daily basis.
Mr. Wynn. To what extent would a government fleet
commitment, either trucks or buses or vehicles, passenger
vehicles, facilitate the commercial growth? Mr. McCormick?
Mr. McCormick. I think it is very, very important. What we
don't want is demonstrations that leave no legacy. What we want
are real commercial transactions where, in fact, we sell
something. And most importantly, when we prepare those fleets,
pick it in places where the infrastructure grows naturally. So
some of the post office kinds of initiatives, the right
selection of some DOD initiatives, would be very good, but
there may well be others.
What we want to do is pick the application to make sure
that there is public refueling involved in that application,
and then you get the dual leverage. The people can invest in
the fueling station knowing that there is going to be usage.
Mr. Wynn. So the public refueling would be the key there?
Mr. McCormick. Yes.
Mr. Wynn. Okay. Now, I was looking at a piece from
something called India Car that said that Ford is getting ready
to sell 50,000 units of passenger vehicles to Germany by the
year 2010. Could anyone respond to that? Is that likely to
happen, or is that specious?
Fleet News reports that Ford is planning to sell a mass-
produced hydrogen fuel cell vehicle in the German fleet market.
The reports says that from 2010 Ford believes it will be
manufacturing at least 50,000 units of the vehicle per annum.
Dr. Franz Martin Dubbell, Ford's Vehicle Alternative Power
Trains Market Manager, told Fleet News at a media briefing and
auction that Ford is planning to run its first vehicles with
small fleets in Germany and California in 2004, with full
launch slated for 2010.
Is this smoke, or is this real? Coming from the
competitors.
Mr. McCormick. Well, I certainly wouldn't want to speak for
Ford, but I think those are not unrealistic kinds of numbers.
One of the things when we think about where vehicles are
launched worldwide, and I think this is very important to the
discussion, we have to think about----
Mr. Barton. Look around at the audience. They are smiling
right now.
Mr. McCormick. We really have to think about where
internationally are the codes and standards and the
infrastructure going to happen. And so it may well be Europe,
it may well be Japan, it may well be the United States. And I
think we have to see how that develops.
Mr. Wynn. With respect to codes and standards, because
several witnesses mentioned it as well as Dr. Garman, can the
industry help us--well, I know there is a self-regulation
concept that is sometimes called into question. But can they at
least get us started on the format or the template, if you
will, rough template or draft template or something relative to
codes and standards, so that the committee could begin to look
at that issue in more detail and provide us with the input?
Mr. Vesey. Yes, sir. I think the hydrogen roadmap that Mr.
Garman referred to, codes and standards was a big piece of
that, and the industry is working very closely with the DOE to
get the proper codes and standards started.
Mr. Wynn. Okay. Would you submit that to this committee as
well?
Mr. Vesey. Certainly.
Mr. Wynn. Okay. Thank you.
My time is up. Thank you.
Mr. Barton. The gentlelady from California.
Ms. Bono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I actually
had the opportunity to drive a fuel cell bus, and it was a
scary moment, not for me as much as for everybody else on the
road I think at that time. But I want to thank, again, SunLine
for being such a leader in all of these future technologies.
But my questions for Catherine really comes--or Ms. Rips,
excuse me--I have known her way too long. People think of the
desert, they think of all of our windmills and our solar
capabilities. Can you explain a little bit how much solar and
wind you are currently using in the production of your
hydrogen?
Ms. Rips. Yes. Thank you for the question. We have been
generating hydrogen using solar power for the last 3 years at
SunLine. We are currently using it to power an electrolyzer. I
know Mr. Garman was talking about that as an option earlier,
and I think that probably the biggest deterrent to the use of
that technology is just the cost of it.
And so, you know, there is a school of thought that if
there was simply more orders placed for those kinds of systems
that the cost would come down. So I know you had asked what the
government could do to help, and perhaps being a purchaser of
those systems might be something that would work.
We are also involved in a wind project. The desert does
have a lot of wind generation. The wind belt is the Banning
Pass there. And we are working with South Coast Air Quality
Management District and some other partners to do a project
that should come online in a couple of months where we will be
using power directly off of a wind turbine to generate hydrogen
from an electrolyzer.
So we will have a much better idea of what the relative
costs are once that project is operating. But that, of course,
would be the end goal.
Ms. Bono. Thank you. When I drove the bus, I had an
interesting question, too, and perhaps it is an offshoot of the
direct hydrogen question. But when you deploy a bus that is a
million dollar bus or so, how does the public feel about these
buses being on the street? What has their reaction been, other
than my driving?
And is the insurance--I mean, how does the insurance model
work when suddenly there is a liability factor? And if somebody
were to take out one of these million dollar buses, can you
explain to me how I guess the integration with the public is
going to run with that on the street?
Ms. Rips. Okay. Well, we think that it is very important to
bring the public along in any conversion to an alternate fuel.
So we really stress education and outreach and do activities
that put our vehicles out into the community, so that people
can get used to them. And we did definitely publicize the fuel
cell bus and let people know that it was going to be out on the
street.
Prior to it actually going into revenue service, we had a
different fuel bus out there just for a short time. And when we
advertised it, people literally lined up to ride it. They were
so excited about it. And we had comments constantly from our
riders. We put the thunder power bus that Congresswoman Bono is
referring to in revenue service for over 3 months, and
passengers would call us and talk to the drivers about it and
actual call the switchboard. And they are very impressed with
it.
We used the opportunity to educate them about the benefits
of it, because we feel that, you know, one of the things that
transit does is give you basically a mobile billboard for the
technology. And by using the outside of the bus, and also by
using the inside panels on it, you have an opportunity to
educate a captive audience and let them know what the benefits
of hydrogen fuel cell technology are.
And what we have found is that the more you educate them,
the more they appreciate what you are doing for the environment
and also for their health. So it is a great vehicle to educate
while it is actually transporting people.
Ms. Bono. Thank you.
Dr. Samuelsen, also, can you explain a little bit--again,
the safety factor still I think rides on people's minds when
you talk about hydrogen. But are hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
able to drive through tunnels currently?
Mr. Samuelsen. They are indeed able to drive through the
tunnels currently. But it is in the absence of any regulation
to prohibit them from doing that.
The area where perhaps there is the largest challenge in
the safety aspect--I think Assistant Secretary Garman addressed
the safety aspects very well in terms of the diffusivity of the
hydrogen relative to gasoline and the relative more safe
conditions of being able to operate a hydrogen car compared to
a gasoline car. But he also----
Ms. Bono. So the garaging of this vehicle is going to be
the same as we have today?
Mr. Samuelsen. Well, that is the point I wanted to get to.
There was a Congressman who referred to the NASA incident, and
Assistant Secretary Garman referred to it probably being an
enclosed space. And we do have, with public use, enclosed
spaces--our garage, public parking structures, and other
private parking structures.
How those are established with appropriate sensing, if that
is what is needed, appropriate ventilation, if that is what is
needed, has not been addressed and will need to be because
certainly we want to be able to garage our car as we do today
with our gasoline car.
Today we put a car into the garage with 20 gallons of
gasoline, have natural gas flames about with the clothes dryer,
the water heater as examples, and we need to evolve from that
experience and confidence in safety with the current
infrastructure to one that equals that with hydrogen as well.
Ms. Bono. Thank you. I asked that question the other day. I
was at a parking structure over by the Pentagon, and there was
a car fire two levels down. And so you kind of really have to
ask the question.
But I know that my time has expired. So thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Keep going?
Mr. Barton. You can keep going. You didn't questions the
first round, so----
Ms. Bono. Well, thank you. I have got to go through my
list.
Back to Ms. Rips, then, you were among the first public
transit agencies to convert your fleet entirely to natural gas.
Do you see the conversion of other agencies going as smoothly
as yours did and as timely?
Ms. Rips. I am sorry. Could you say the last part of that
again?
Ms. Bono. You see, say when we do move to fuel cell
entirely to your bus fleet--in the future, obviously--do you
see the conversion going as well as other companies have
followed with natural gas?
Ms. Rips. Well, that is a very good question. And, you
know, as I mentioned in my statement, we think that training
has everything to do with how the conversion process goes. So
when we converted to natural gas, we had actually trained every
person on our staff, including the receptionist, I mean
everybody, as far as the properties of natural gas and the
benefits of it and the different things that they had to be
aware of.
We have done the same thing with hydrogen. We actually had
the Schatz Energy Research Center at Humboldt State University
come down and put on a series of seminars for everybody at our
transit agency and our board members to educate them. We have
worked with a number of partners, including a university system
and our community college, to create the first curriculum for
hydrogen fuel cells and related technologies.
And we think that if people are properly trained and make a
commitment to training and participate in the education
process, we would like to see this ideally start at the high
school level and go through community college and college-level
courses, so that technicians are trained, that there is a
skilled workforce in place. We don't think that there will be
any problems that are not fairly easily solved.
And I am sorry, I didn't answer your question about
insurance. Liability insurance is definitely an issue that
needs to be resolved. Like the codes and standards, it is
different everywhere. And we were able to cover you on our
policy, so you were safe driving. But it is definitely an issue
that needs to be looked at.
Ms. Bono. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton. We are now going to just have some wrap-up
questions. And all members that wish to--we are not going to
put the clock on. I have got two or three questions, and I
think Congressman Wynn may, and Congresswoman Bono.
Ms. Rips, you obviously--your community has put a lot into
this program. But when Congresswoman Bono was talking about the
million dollar bus, there are not many communities that would
have public transit that could afford to put into service
million dollar buses if they have to even come close to
breaking even.
So, I mean, again, your community is to be commended for
taking the lead, but I would think that you are a fairly
affluent community, somewhat above the national average in
income levels, and probably above the national average in
willingness to bear an extra burden to show progress on the
environmental front. Is that correct or incorrect?
Ms. Rips. Well, actually, it is an interesting community.
There are nine cities in the Coachella Valley and several
unincorporated areas. And while we do have a couple of cities
that among the wealthiest in the United States, we also have
several communities that are among the poorest.
We have really an inordinate number of very poor residents,
unfortunately. So it is true, and it is not true. I think that
what you are seeing in the Coachella Valley is really
commendable political leadership, and it is nothing but the
leadership of our elected officials that caused our transition.
And it was their commitment to the program and their desire
to see a clean environment----
Mr. Barton. Well, what kind of, in the best case, profit do
you make? Or, in the worst case, how deep is the deficit?
Ms. Rips. Well, let us say that we look forward to the day
when the buses only cost a million dollars. That was really--
that is low for what they are costing these days. But, you
know, as UTC pointed out, the cost of that technology is coming
down. And we realize that--we are working with the FTA on some
things, and their goal is to see--because of the increased
efficiency in a fuel cell bus, their definition of
commercialization is when a fuel cell bus costs twice what, for
instance, a natural gas bus would cost. That would bring the
cost down to about--or to a diesel bus. That would bring it
down to about $600,000. So----
Mr. Barton. And compare that to--what does a natural gas
bus or a diesel bus cost today?
Ms. Rips. About $300,000. So they are saying if a fuel cell
bus costs $600,000 that--because of the increased efficiency it
would be considered equal.
The community has put a lot into it. We think that there
are a couple of more generations of technology, of R&D on the
technology, needed to get it down to the point where it is
compatible on a cost basis. And that is the reason why we
advocate a limited number of demonstration projects with
multiple generations, because----
Mr. Barton. I am very positive I don't want----
Ms. Rips. [continuing] we clearly believe that we will get
there.
Mr. Barton. I am very positive on which you are doing. I
just--I am not sure that my community of Ennis, Texas, would be
willing to take the intangible satisfaction as opposed to the
less intangible but more taxpayer-friendly existing technology
that is available today. So----
Ms. Rips. Well, and I think that is exactly the point, that
the technology is not suited for every application at this
point in time. And what we are trying to do is help it get to
the point where it is. If we are successful in our efforts and
working with our partners, you know, in perhaps 10 years it
will be affordable for Ennis, Texas.
Mr. Barton. Yes. Thank you.
Dr. Samuelsen? And then I have a question for Dr. Schwank.
Mr. Samuelsen. I just wanted to comment that I think one
looks to mass volume production to bring down the price at some
point in time. But what is not fully appreciated is the
strategy among many manufacturers--and Mr. McCormick alluded to
this with respect to using automobile technology and
distributed generation--but it is also to use automobile
technology in the outfitting of the bus with the fuel cell
stack.
So you will see fuel cell buses evolving that basically are
operating on two automobile fuel cell stacks benefiting on the
mass production that will eventually result and have this
commonality between the automobile application and the bus
application, rather than thinking of them as separate, distinct
applications.
Mr. Barton. Okay. And, Dr. Schwank, you talked about a
university-based research component, 6 to 10 universities
around the country. Is there any formal organization that has
been developed among the universities, the research
universities, to do that, or is that just a concept that you
wanted to put on the table?
Mr. Schwank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our proposal
recognizes that the task before us is enormous. I would compare
it in terms of technological challenge almost to the moon
shots. We have an incredible talent pool in our universities,
but universities--the university research is not coordinated so
that you can bring the powerful synergism together.
The coordination of this has to be done by bringing
together a partnership of the industrial sector, the government
sector, and the academic community. We would be happy to
provide an initial blueprint, some first draft, for further
discussion, and then invite industry and government into--work
on this and shape it. I think the task is too big for one
individual constituency to do it all by themselves.
Mr. Barton. Well, we would appreciate that. Just be sure
that University of Maryland and Texas A&M University and
University of California at Palm Springs are included in the
discussion phase.
Mr. Schwank. We will certainly take it into advisement.
Mr. Barton. This is my last question, and then if any other
members have a question.
Mr. McCormick, what is the best case timeline--the Ford
Motor Company people apparently have issued a press release
that they are going to sell 50,000 hydrogen cars in Europe by
the year 2010. I have been out to Detroit. I have been to your
test facility several years ago with the Vice President.
If everything that could go right did go right, you know,
how soon does General Motors see a retail vehicle, a consumer
vehicle, that is available in the showrooms around the country?
Mr. McCormick. Well, I think we in Ford, and actually most
of the auto companies, are looking at that 2010 date. A
combination of a couple of reasons. We think the technology is
moving at that kind of a rate that justifies looking at that
date. And quite honestly, if we are not talking about a date
like that, then probably as a business I am spending too much
money on it.
So we have to see it getting into the field in that 2010 to
2015 timeframe to sustain the kind of investment that we are
putting into it.
Mr. Barton. So we are talking about let us get moving right
now. And finally--I said that was the last question--but, Mr.
Vesey, when you were in my office you talked about the need to
develop a technology for onboard storage of hydrogen that
wasn't yet in existence. And you talked about your best case
was some sort of, if I understood you correctly, a solid-state
storage model. Could you very briefly elaborate on that?
Mr. Vesey. Yes. All it was referring to--the current
technologies are high compressed gas form or liquid, which is
at a very cold temperature. And there are experiments going
away with metal hydrides, which if you can get the weight
percent up to where it will give the vehicle a proper range it
is not high pressure and it is ambient temperature. So it is a
little more palatable from a consumer standpoint.
Mr. Barton. And is that something that we need to encourage
the Federal Government to invest more research dollars in,
perhaps through Dr. Schwank's university-based research
program?
Mr. Vesey. I think we would all agree that storage is the
key issue here, and any recommendations in helping those
technologies would be good.
Mr. Barton. Okay. Congresswoman Bono or Congressman Wynn,
any final comments? Either one of you?
Ms. Bono. Just one, Mr. Chairman, just to help my friend
out. When you mentioned the wealthy, affluent Palm Springs
area, our No. 1 industry is actually agriculture, and people
believe it is a much different district than it is. And I know
you have talked about coming out to visit, and I want to
reextend my invitation for you to come out and----
Mr. Barton. We are working on that.
Ms. Bono. Thank you. I know that you are.
Mr. Barton. I am looking forward to it, actually.
Ms. Bono. I look forward to your visit. And with that, I
yield back my time. Thank you.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Wynn?
Mr. Wynn. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you again for
putting this hearing together. I learned a great deal. I also
want to thank you for your support for the University of
Maryland. That is duly noted.
Thank all of the members of the panel. I will be contacting
you individually, because I do have a couple other questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barton. We, again, appreciate this panel. There may be
written questions for the record. We hope that you will reply
expeditiously. We appreciate your time and testimony and look
forward to working with you.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Prepared Statement of the American Petroleum Institute
The U.S. oil and natural gas industry is committed to meeting the
nation's future transportation fuel needs. Since its beginning, the
industry has been in a constant state of change, working to better
serve its customers and a growing nation. Relying heavily on advanced
technology, the industry has provided improved products to Americans
with a steadily reduced impact on the environment, and we will maintain
this commitment in the future.
We believe that competition and the resulting push to innovate will
mean that our children and grandchildren will be driving vehicles using
fuels that, together, are safer, cleaner, and more efficient than ever.
These improved cars and trucks may well be propelled by something other
than today's internal combustion engine, whether it is an advanced
version of that engine or electric hybrids or fuel cell vehicles. We
believe the 21st century will be an exciting new era for personal
transportation.
While we expect conventional hydrocarbon fuels will remain the
dominant energy source, at least through the mid-century, the oil and
natural gas industry is committed to providing the fuels for the
nation's transportation needs regardless of the fuel type. Future
automobiles may be based on a variety of advanced technology engine-
fuel systems, including hydrogen-powered fuel cells. At least
initially, all of these systems will likely rely heavily on hydrocarbon
fuels either directly or indirectly. These advanced fuel/vehicle
systems should be allowed to compete with each other in the marketplace
and on a level playing field.
The Role of Hydrogen in Meeting Transportation Needs
The American Petroleum Institute appreciates this opportunity to
present the views of its member companies on the role of hydrogen in
meeting the transportation needs of American consumers.
In his State of the Union Address, President Bush announced a
Hydrogen Initiative to hasten the development of hydrogen-powered fuel
cells in motor vehicles. API believes that fuel cell vehicles are an
exciting new technology that could figure prominently in America's
transportation and energy future.
As we understand the program, the Hydrogen Initiative will focus on
pre-competitive research aimed at advancing the technology to produce,
store, distribute, and deliver hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles
and electricity generation. The Administration has indicated that the
Hydrogen Initiative will complement the FreedomCAR initiative, which
supports pre-competitive research in advanced automotive technologies
for the mass production of a full range of affordable vehicles,
including fuel cell vehicles.
At the outset, we must all recognize that development of hydrogen
as a viable transportation fuel source will take time. The U.S.
Department of Energy's National Hydrogen Energy Vision and Roadmap
reports envision a path for hydrogen development that would span
between three and four decades. It is important to keep this timeframe
in mind and recognize that hydrogen research will require a long-term
commitment. We should also recognize that major technological
breakthroughs are required before hydrogen can become a viable fuel
source.
The increased national interest in hydrogen as a transportation
fuel is understandable. Hydrogen exists in nearly unlimited abundance
and, when used in a fuel cell vehicle, generates zero emissions.
However, it should be noted that hydrogen only exists in combination
with other chemical elements, and significant energy and costs are
required to produce, store, distribute and deliver hydrogen for use in
fuel-cell vehicles.
API believes that, in evaluating the pros and cons of any fuel/
vehicle system, it is vital to undertake a ``well-to-wheels'' analysis
of the entire system. The ``well-to-wheels'' approach considers energy
use and emissions for both ``well-to-tank'' (i.e., production and
distribution of the fuel) and ``tank-to-wheels'' (i.e., use of the fuel
in the vehicle). When using this approach, different fuel/vehicle
systems can be analyzed on a comparable basis. The internal combustion
engine is the benchmark against which the progress of emerging advanced
fuel/vehicle systems should be measured.
In considering future transportation fuel needs, there are near-
and mid-term options for increasing fuel use efficiency and reducing
emissions. Alternatives include hybrid engine systems--a combination of
an electric motor and gasoline or diesel engine--and advanced gasoline
and diesel engine technologies. The rate of market penetration for
hybrids will likely depend upon price and performance; however, it
should be recognized that gasoline hybrids are currently in the
marketplace and numerous auto manufacturers have announced plans to
introduce a variety of additional hybrid models over the next few
years. Ongoing research and development continues to focus on reducing
the component cost of hybrids. All of this suggests that there is
substantial promise for hybrid technology playing an important role in
improving efficiency and lowering emissions.
When comparing greenhouse gas emissions on a well-to-wheels basis,
a number of advanced vehicle and fuel options compare favorably with
today's gasoline internal combustion engine. Diesel engines, gasoline
and diesel hybrids, on-board gasoline reformer based fuel cells (i.e.,
systems where hydrogen is produced on-board the vehicle via extraction
from gasoline-like fuels), and fuel cell vehicles powered by hydrogen
produced from natural gas all have lower greenhouse gas emissions. In
contrast, hydrogen produced via electrolysis of water using electricity
from typical U.S. sources has very high greenhouse gas emissions. Thus,
there are a variety of advanced systems that have the potential to
lower greenhouse gas emissions, but none of these systems result in
'zero' greenhouse gas emissions.
To address the areas mentioned above, API member companies have
undertaken substantial research activity in advanced technologies such
as hydrogen production and storage, combustion fundamentals, exhaust
aftertreatment, and improved hydrocarbon-based fuels that enable lower
emissions and higher efficiency. Much of this work is done in close
collaboration with automobile and engine manufacturers, the government
and other partners.
Technological Breakthroughs Needed for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles
to be Viable
Technological breakthroughs are required to reduce fuel cell
vehicle costs and to reduce production, distribution, delivery and
storage costs of hydrogen for the system to be competitive against the
ever-improving performance of advanced internal combustion engine and
hybrid vehicle systems. Moreover, increased use of hydrogen as a
transportation fuel involves other challenges, including safety, the
potential need for a new distribution infrastructure, and a need for
approaches that address potentially increased emissions due to hydrogen
production.
Cost Reduction and CO<INF>2</INF> Emissions Need To Be Addressed
Breakthroughs are needed to lower the cost of fuel cells and fuel
cell vehicles. For example, the cost of the fuel cell stack needs to be
reduced substantially to compete with a conventional powertrain. The
cost of fuel cells has dropped by about a factor of 100 over the last
10 years, but automakers say that costs must still be reduced by more
than a factor of 10 for the technology to become competitive.
Like electricity, hydrogen is an energy carrier, not an energy
source. To succeed in the market, hydrogen will need to be produced in
large volumes at reasonable cost. But, without a major breakthrough in
production technologies, most hydrogen would likely continue to be
produced from natural gas, the most affordable source of hydrogen with
current technologies. However, the United States is short of indigenous
natural gas and, in order to provide large amounts of hydrogen, access
to the potentially large natural gas reserves on government lands and/
or imported LNG will be needed. Hydrogen production is, therefore, an
important research area.
If hydrogen were made from natural gas or other fossil fuel
sources, then CO<INF>2</INF> would also be generated as a by-product.
If low greenhouse gas emissions are to be achieved in that scenario, it
would be necessary to separate, capture and store the CO<INF>2</INF>
generated (i.e., CO<INF>2</INF> sequestration). Thus, breakthrough
research focusing on CO<INF>2</INF> separation, capture and storage
methods is also important. If, on the other hand, sufficient
electricity could be generated by renewable or nuclear technologies to
make hydrogen from water, then CO<INF>2</INF> sequestration
technologies would be less important. However, cost reduction
breakthroughs in renewable and nuclear technologies would then be
needed.
Distribution Infrastructure Issues Need To Be Addressed
Hydrogen distribution could take one of two forms: pipelines or
specially designed, very-low temperature tankers. Currently, high-
pressure tankers are limited in their energy-transporting volume.
Because hydrogen has a much lower energy density than gasoline, it
would require 19 hydrogen tankers to carry the energy value of one
gasoline tanker assuming the hydrogen and gasoline tankers were of
similar size. On the other hand, pipelines could move much greater
volumes, but existing natural gas pipelines are not suited for hydrogen
and new ones would be required. Regardless of whether hydrogen is
distributed via retrofitted pipelines or new dedicated pipelines,
technological issues need to be addressed. For example, leak detection
technology is needed which requires research in the sensors and
odorants areas. Breakthroughs in new materials and improvements in
automated welding techniques are needed to lower pipeline costs.
Improvements in compressor technology including seals are needed to
improve compression efficiency and reduce costs. Improvements in
hydrogen liquefaction technology are also needed to lower costs and
increase energy efficiency.
Developing a distribution infrastructure for hydrogen for direct
fuel use would be costly. However, there are alternatives such as using
the existing hydrocarbon fuels infrastructure and extracting the
hydrogen with an on-board reforming system or producing the hydrogen at
the retail station. These alternatives would help resolve safety and
infrastructure issues needed for the initial introduction of fuel cell
vehicles, provide time to advance breakthrough research, and provide a
'bridge' to hydrogen should breakthrough research be successful. The
on-board gasoline reformer faces a number of challenges that must be
overcome as well. Reducing reformer start-up time and energy losses are
key areas of improvement where R&D is and needs to be focused.
Safety and Storage Issues Need To Be Addressed
Issues related to hydrogen production and distribution, retail
delivery, storage and vehicle safety must all be addressed and the
unique safety challenges should be addressed through the development of
data-based codes and standards. Hydrogen storage will be needed
throughout the entire infrastructure spanning from the production site
through the distribution system to the fueling station. Providing
sufficient cost effective, bulk storage, which is a method to address
supply-demand balance, will require new technology. Hydrogen storage on
board vehicles is an area requiring new materials breakthroughs. Areas
of focus include advanced materials for low-pressure storage,
technologies to extend driving ranges and reducing storage costs.
Looking Ahead
As we move into this new century, the U.S. oil and natural gas
industry will continue working with the automotive industry and
government to keep improving our fuels and vehicles. Working together,
we have made tremendous progress since the 1970s in reducing emissions
and improving fuel economy while maintaining consumer satisfaction.
Reduced auto emissions have contributed heavily to the dramatic
reductions in overall emissions of major pollutants. Despite a 41
percent increase in energy consumption in that time period, ambient
levels of carbon monoxide have been reduced by 28 percent, sulfur
dioxide by 39 percent, volatile organic compounds by 42 percent, and
particulate matter by 75 percent. We will accomplish a great deal more
this decade under existing standards of the Clean Air Act as well as
new national vehicle emission and fuel standards that come into effect
in 2004 and 2006.
The auto and oil industries have made tremendous progress together
over the years, introducing a range of improved vehicles and enabling
fuels to reduce emissions, and increase fuel economy, and performance.
We fully expect this trend to continue and strongly support R&D focused
on achieving the full potential of advanced internal combustion
engines, hybrids, and advanced fuels. We also recognize the long-term
commitment required for R&D focused on the breakthroughs necessary to
enable fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fuel opportunities.
Moreover, whatever role government plays in fuel cell development,
it should be a broad one. Government should encourage a multi-faceted
approach. We believe that government's research role should be focused
on pre-competitive, breakthrough research, leaving it to the private
sector to build on this research and move the outcomes into the
commercial development phase. The government should not prematurely
focus on one approach while discouraging other approaches that may have
high potential. Advanced technologies should compete on a level playing
field with the American consumer ultimately making the choice of which
technologies will be successful.
Our industry wants to work with government and others in the
private sector to evaluate fuel cells and other advanced vehicle fuel
systems from a well-to-wheels perspective. We believe that fuel cells
may have an important role to play in the nation's transportation fuels
future. We also believe that the fuel cell and hydrogen challenge
should be viewed as a system. Each piece of the system, including the
primary source of hydrogen, the production, distribution, retail
delivery, and storage of hydrogen and the fuel cell vehicle itself, has
challenges that must be overcome with innovative breakthroughs in order
for the system to become competitive. We should take advantage of, and
capture, the benefits of advanced gasoline and diesel technologies,
including hybrid technology, in the near- and mid-term while the
challenges of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies are being researched.
The U.S. oil and natural gas industry is committed to playing a leading
role in this important national effort.
______
University of Michigan
College of Engineering
July 5, 2003
The Honorable Joe Barton
Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Barton: Thank you for the opportunity to appear
before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality on May 20, 2003 to
testify regarding the hydrogen energy economy.
Enclosed are my responses to questions from the Honorable
Christopher Cox. The basic research initiative blueprint is also
submitted in response to a request by the Committee during Question and
Answers to provide a blueprint for a basic research initiative.
Sincerely,
Johannes Schwank
Professor of Chemical Engineering
RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM CONGRESSMAN CHRISTOPHER COX
Question 1. If I wanted to start a commercial hydrogen fueling
station, what regulatory obstacles might prevent me from opening it?
Question 2. Are hydrogen fuel cell vehicles allowed to drive
through tunnels? What about trucks carrying compressed or liquid
hydrogen cargo?
Question 3. Can we trust ordinary people to fuel their own cars at
a hydrogen pump, or do we need specially-trained technicians?
Question 4. Is it safe to park a fuel cell vehicle inside a garage?
Why or why not? What needs to change to make it safe?
Response: The four questions address issues that are related to
regulation of hydrogen transport and dispensing as fuel for fuel cell
vehicles. The regulation of the transportation of hydrogen is not my
particular area of expertise. I believe that the definition of
standards and regulations is best left to the federal and state
agencies enforcing them and industries most affected by them.
I note that there are still many open questions regarding whether
hydrogen should be generated centrally or on-site, and how to best
store hydrogen (e.g. as compressed gas, liquid, or in solid-state
storage materials). There are a number of possible alternatives for
hydrogen generation, storage, and distribution that need to be
researched and further developed before major decisions on
infrastructure deployment can be made. Depending on the chosen hydrogen
generation, storage, and distribution infrastructure, appropriate
standards and regulations will then need to be developed. Therefore, it
is essential that we not choose winning and losing technologies now. It
is too early in the development process to assume that the best
alternatives are to use liquid hydrogen centrally produced. Instead, we
should focus our national efforts on exploring the vast array of
alternatives.
Thus, a great deal of basic research is still needed to insure that
hydrogen energy can be efficiently used in a safe cost effective
manner. This is why there is a pressing need for a national hydrogen
energy basic research initiative. One possible approach for initiating
and carrying this out is attached.
______
A University-Based Hydrogen Energy Research Initiative
Tapping the Nation's Research Universities to Achieve the Hydrogen
Economy
Johannes Schwank, Levi Thompson, Dennis Assanis, and James MacBain,
University of Michigan College of Engineering, Ann Arbor, Michigan
June 24, 2003
Introduction and Overview
During 2002, the six billion people of the world used 13 trillion
watts (13 terawatts) of energy. The major portion of this energy came
from fossil fuels. By 2050, an estimated 8-10 billion people in the
world will require 30 to 50 terawatts of power to sustain their homes,
industries, and transportation systems. Over the last decades, we have
seen a clear trend showing a transition from carbon-rich fossil fuels
such as coal and petroleum to fuels containing less carbon and more
hydrogen, such as natural gas. One of the major drivers for this trend
has been the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the
atmosphere. This trend will culminate in eliminating carbon altogether,
and building an economy based on hydrogen as the primary energy
carrier.
The world is on the threshold of entry into a hydrogen economy. To
bring this transition about will require significant technical advances
in new materials, processes, and infrastructure. It will also require a
significant investment on the part of government and industry. The
consensus in the industrial and academic sectors is that we must find
economically and technically sound ways to produce, store, distribute,
and utilize hydrogen. It is critical for the Nation's economy and its
security that it be the global leader in developing the core
technologies to accomplish this.
It is important that we develop a sound scientific and technical
foundation, encompassing a wide spectrum of hydrogen-related
fundamental and applied research issues. We must better understand the
advantages and disadvantages of all our technology options before
selecting specific technologies. The Nation's research university
system is ideally suited to the task of establishing a sound scientific
basis for developing hydrogen technology. Unfortunately, current
federally sponsored research efforts are a patchwork at best. There is
no coordinated federal research program in place that engages U.S.
universities to address hydrogen energy issues. Although some
universities receive federal support for research projects that address
some aspects of hydrogen-based energy research, the scope and scale of
the federal effort to tackle the important technical challenges is
sorely inadequate. If we as a Nation are going to secure our technical
leadership position in the world by leading the transition to a
hydrogen economy, we must create a more comprehensive and coordinated
program.
We propose that a Hydrogen Energy Research Initiative be
established that effectively engages the intellectual capabilities of
the Nation's universities. The magnitude of such a program should be on
par with national science and technology initiatives like the
Information Technology Research Initiative or the National
Nanotechnology Initiative. The framework of such an initiative, its
organization and research objectives, are described in the following
sections.
The University-based Hydrogen Energy Research Initiative
Approach
We, at the University of Michigan, propose that a university-based
Hydrogen Energy Research Initiative or HERI be established at either
the National Science Foundation or the Department of Energy. In either
case, basic research funds from all of the federal agencies promoting
energy research should be used to supplement the program. Using a
competitive peer-review process, a group of 8-10 university-based
consortia, in partnership with industry and government, would be
selected to undertake an integrated set of basic research and education
projects focusing on the various components of hydrogen as an energy
carrier. Each university center would execute basic research projects
and develop undergraduate and graduate educational programs focusing on
hydrogen-based energy technologies. In addition to scientific and
engineering analyses of promising candidate systems, economic, social
and environmental issues would be investigated. This will facilitate
benchmarking of candidate systems and multidisciplinary synergy.
To facilitate the development and adoption of promising
technologies, the HERI would provide supplemental ``technology
accelerator'' seed funding to encourage technology development by
businesses, in partnership with universities. States should be
encouraged to augment technology accelerator programs with state-funded
economic development programs that would further the development of
small energy-focused businesses and facilitate their linkage to larger
companies within the state.
Payoff
A university-based center of excellence program that broadly
focuses on the Nation's energy research and education needs will
provide significant leveraging of federal research dollars. Because it
is located at the beginning of the research, development and
engineering continuum, it avoids the risky practice of picking
``winners and losers.'' Importantly, it facilitates technology transfer
by encouraging industry partnerships to develop promising technologies.
Funding
Annual funding of at least of $11M per center would be necessary.
An approximate breakdown would be: $8M for basic research and
education, $2M for technology accelerator projects, and $1M (nominal
state funding) for economic development facilitation. Each Center
should receive federal funding for a 5-year period with an additional
5-year renewal based upon performance. Ideally, the HERI would support
8-10 such centers, requiring total federal funding of $80-100 million/
yr.
HERI Center Activities and Operation
The HERI would provide an ideal platform to bring together
academia, industry, and government to address hydrogen energy basic
research issues. The participation of engineers and scientists from
member companies and government agencies on specific research projects
would be strongly encouraged. In brief, each university center would:
<bullet> Focus on precompetitive fundamental hydrogen energy research
<bullet> Educate and train students and industry practitioners about
hydrogen-related technologies.
<bullet> Foster technology transfer and economic development by
selecting projects based on technical merit and commercial
potential.
<bullet> Carry out joint research projects in collaboration with
industry and government partners.
<bullet> Facilitate technology transfer to industry partners.
<bullet> Provide a forum for engineers, scientists, and business
leaders to share ideas and develop collaboration.
HERI Basic Research Program
Universities would carry out precompetitive fundamental research in
areas that limit the use and adaptation of hydrogen energy
technologies. Most projects would be done in partnership with industry.
Hydrogen-based energy systems would be the primary focus of the
research program. Research would be conducted in the general areas of:
<bullet> Hydrogen Generation
<bullet> Hydrogen Storage
<bullet> Hydrogen Distribution
<bullet> Hydrogen Utilization (stationary, mobile, micro)
<bullet> Business, Market and Economic Issues
Hydrogen is the ideal future energy and power storage/transport
medium for the nation and world. It has high energy density, the
ability to be converted to electrical, and thermal energy via highly
efficient, non-polluting processes, and the potential of being produced
from water, an abundant, renewable natural resource. The transition
from the present hydrocarbon economy to a hydrogen economy is one of
the great challenges of this century and will require significant
advances in a number of technical and business areas. In 2002, the
National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap Workshop, a meeting of more than 200
representatives from hydrogen energy industries, academia,
environmental organizations, federal and state government agencies, and
national laboratories, identified hydrogen production, delivery,
storage, energy conversion, applications, and public education and
outreach as the most important barriers and needs to be addressed in
this quest.
Hydrogen Generation. In the near term (perhaps for the next 20
years), hydrogen will most likely be generated from natural gas or
liquid fuels. To convert these fuels into hydrogen requires elaborate
chemical processes carried out in a reactor system called a ``fuel
processor''. Processing of hydrocarbon fuels inevitably leads to carbon
dioxide as byproduct, in essence only shifting the point where carbon
dioxide emission occurs without solving the environmental problem.
Nevertheless, given the massive existing infrastructure for fossil
fuels, we need to utilize this infrastructure to facilitate the gradual
transition to a hydrogen economy. The large-scale, industrial
production of hydrogen from natural gas or liquid fuels is a
technically mature process, however this process does not properly
scale for smaller-scale, distributed on-site hydrogen generation in gas
stations or homes. To realize local hydrogen generation, new types of
fuel processors with better catalysts need to be developed. Recent
advances in the field of catalysis, leveraged by novel tools including
combinatorial catalyst synthesis, high-throughput screening, and
computational chemistry, promise to accelerate the discovery process.
An alternative to fossil fuels is the use of renewable sources such
as biomass. The foremost difficulty in utilizing biomass is its sheer
bulk. Transportation to a central processing facility is prohibitively
expensive and limits its use. Finding ways to reduce the size of
process equipment would permit its use in mobile systems that could
convert biomass directly in the field to a liquid bio-fuel. Liquid fuel
is easy to transport to a central facility where it can then be
processed to generate hydrogen. Currently, we lack the scientific basis
for efficient, small-scale biomass conversion to hydrogen.
Both biomass and fossil fuel-derived hydrogen causes carbon dioxide
emissions into the atmosphere, unless we find efficient and economic
methods for carbon sequestration. To avoid the carbon dioxide emission
altogether, and free the Nation from the need to import oil, our
ultimate goal has to be production of hydrogen from water, an abundant
carbon-free source of hydrogen, relying on solar or nuclear energy to
split water into hydrogen and oxygen. There are many existing methods
to generate hydrogen from water, but at present, they are not
economical on a large scale. There is tremendous opportunity for
innovative basic research. For example, imagine the discovery of a new
photocatalytic material that can efficiently split water and generate
pure hydrogen, relying on ``free'' solar energy. The economic and
strategic impact of such a discovery would be staggering! We have the
finest academic research infrastructure in the world that can be
engaged in this type of high risk/high reward research challenge.
Storage. Hydrogen storage is arguably the key to the
commercialization of fuel cell powered automobiles and light trucks.
While some progress has been made over the last decade, the present
practical storage limits of approximately 5 wt% are nearly a factor of
two lower than targets established by the automobile industry.
Materials that appear to hold promise for achieving hydrogen storage
capacities near 10 wt% include carbon nanotubes, graphite nanofibers
and metal-organic framework materials. Exploiting the potential of
these materials will require a fundamental understanding of the
hydrogen storage mechanisms.
Fuel Cells. Most of the engineering challenges for fuel cells
including the design of electrode assemblies, and fuel-oxidizer-water-
waste flows have been met. The major challenges that remain, including
durability, efficiency, and tolerance to impurities, can only be
addressed by discovering and developing new and better performing
materials. These challenges represent a significant opportunity for
catalyst and materials research. This research would benefit from the
use of surface science and computational chemistry methods. Specific
hydrogen fuel cell research challenges include the discovery and
development of better performing, low cost cathode catalysts to reduce
the over-potential at practical operating currents, and membranes with
higher proton conductivities, better mechanical strength and longer
life that do not require high pressures to maintain hydration above
80 deg.C. It is also important to develop anode catalysts that have
significantly reduced Pt loadings and are more tolerant to impurities
in the hydrogen gas.
Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engines. Hydrogen has great potential
as an alternative fuel for internal combustion engines (ICE) operating
either in the conventional, spark-ignition (SI) or compression ignition
modes. Published results have shown that hydrogen burning ICEs can
accomplish thermal efficiencies in the range of 45-50% with virtually
no emissions other than NO<INF>X</INF>. With its extreme lean
flammability and low ignition energy, H<INF>2</INF> allows ultra lean
combustion to be realized in SI engines at the low temperatures needed
to minimize NO<INF>X</INF> production. In addition, engine load can be
controlled by changing the charge quality thus removing throttling and
significantly improving the part load efficiency. The very high octane
value of hydrogen can be used to realize a higher compression ratio for
high thermal efficiency without knocking. However, hydrogen's
combustion properties also pose some significant challenges for
utilization in ICEs. In particular, due to its low ignition
temperature, hydrogen can lead to pre-ignition and backflash,
especially as a lean fuel/air mixture approaches stoichiometric levels,
thus limiting the output from hydrogen burning ICEs. The power density
of a hydrogen ICE is also limited by volumetric efficiency
considerations. Fundamental research is needed to demonstrate the
improvement in thermal efficiency and reduction in pollutant formation
as a result of hydrogen combustion in ICEs, and to address the
associated scientific and engineering challenges through well
coordinated experimental and modeling efforts. New technologies such as
hydrogen direct injection, supercharging and hybridization also need to
be investigated. In parallel, the potential for utilizing hydrogen-
augmented hydrocarbon fuels in compression ignition ICEs, and also
hydrogen's role in reducing cold start emissions and enhancing the
performance of after-treatment devices should be investigated.
Center Educational Program on Hydrogen Energy Technologies
Each center would bring together faculty from multiple disciplines,
including chemical engineering, materials science, mechanical
engineering, chemistry, natural resources, business, and public policy.
These disciplines would be the basis for a rich crosscutting
educational program addressing energy-related issues. In addition, the
joint research projects with industry will make them an ideal tool for
exploring innovative approaches to engineering and business education,
including electives that cut across traditional disciplinary
boundaries. The ability to mix students with different backgrounds in
team-oriented research is critical in educating future engineers,
scientists, and business managers in the fast-breaking and rapidly
changing area of alternative energy.
Further, in both undergraduate and graduate programs, multi-
university multi-disciplinary distance learning and virtual-laboratory
experiences should be employed in the development of special course
sequences addressing alternative energy systems.
Industry and Government Outreach and Collaboration
Strong industry and government involvement in the Centers is
critical in terms of research relevancy and to facilitate technology
transfer. Two key objectives of each center's industrial and government
program will be a), to facilitate the timely transfer of promising
research developments to industry and government and b), to support an
active collaboration in each Center's research and education programs.
Industry membership in the center implies an active working
partnership in the research and development of the key technologies and
major research issues that will enable the development of alternative
energy technologies. In a typical center, members would be entitled to
the following benefits:
<bullet> Early awareness of new developments in alternative energy
research
<bullet> Preferential access to center-generated intellectual property
<bullet> Facilitated access to students
<bullet> Web access to the Center's alternative energy information
clearinghouse
<bullet> Priority access to Center research facilities and personnel
<bullet> Potential membership on the Center Executive Committee
<bullet> Preferential access to distance learning and educational
programs
<bullet> Participation in a neutral forum for researchers, designers,
builders, suppliers, and end-users
<bullet> Significant leveraging of company R&D through federally funded
research programs
<bullet> Participation is topical technology workshops, seminars, and
conferences.
Technology Transfer. When at all possible, Center research projects
would be carried out with industry in order to accelerate the
development and broad dissemination of challenging, high-risk
alternative energy technologies that offer the potential for
significant commercial payoffs and widespread benefits for the Nation.
Where state support of research projects is available, ``technology
accelerator'' grants could also be awarded to university-industry teams
for the purpose of accelerating the development and implementation of
emerging or enabling technologies within the given state. Thus, they
would not only further the research but would promote economic
development as well.
To facilitate the transfer of center technology to industry and
government application, all center research projects will be strongly
encouraged to organize on a ``Quad'' concept. Essentially, this means
that any individual research project undertaken by the Center at any of
the participating universities shall require the active participation
of four entities: faculty, students (graduate or undergraduate),
industry engineers or scientists, and government engineers or
scientists as depicted in Figure 1. The basic rationale for using the
Quad is that technology is much more effectively transferred if all
parties are involved in its development from inception to
implementation.
Conclusion
A university-based Hydrogen Energy Research Initiative that broadly
focuses on the Nation's energy research and education needs will
provide a significant intellectual impetus and capital to the country's
pressing energy needs. It will also significantly leverage federal
research dollars. Basic research carried out in research universities
provides the foundation for the research, development, and
commercialization continuum. Importantly, it facilitates technology
transfer by moving new discoveries and innovations from the laboratory
to the market place, and encouraging industry partnerships to develop
promising technologies. For our Nation, it is of critical strategic and
economic importance that the academic, industrial, and government
sector work together to assure that we lay a strong research
foundation, permitting us to select the best pathways and technologies
leading to our hydrogen-based energy future.
______
National Fuel Research Center
University of California, Irvine
July 7, 2003
The Honorable Joe Barton
Chairman
Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515-6115
Dear Representative Barton: In response to your letter dated June
16, 2003, attached please find my response to the questions presented.
Please advise me should you desire additional assistance.
Sincerely,
Scott Samuelsen, Director
Professor of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Environmental Engineering
Question 1: If one wanted to start a commercial hydrogen fueling
station, what regulatory obstacles might prevent one from opening it?
Response: While hydrogen filling stations have been established and
are operating,<SUP>1</SUP> use is restricted and not available to the
general public. Commercial stations will emerge with conditional use
this calendar year. The National Fuel Cell Research Center (NFCRC), for
example, is under contract from the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (AQMD) to establish two such stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For Example, (1) City of Las Vegas Public Works; (2) California
Fuel Cell Partnership, Sacramento, California; (3) Sunline Transit
District, Palm Springs, California; (4) Toyota Motor Sales, Torrance,
California; (5) National Fuel Cell Research Center, University of
California, Irvine, California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The regulatory obstacles that dissuade opening a commercial station
are (1) the lack of codes and standards for public use of hydrogen
dispensing, and (2) the lack of national coordination to assure
standardization across the country of applicable codes. There are
approximately 44,000 code jurisdictions within the United States.
Today, local regulatory bodies, unfamiliar with a product or
technology, request substantial and unique documentation which
substantially delays approvals and affects competitive positions in the
market.
As a result, there is a strong need for nationally standardized
codes and standards for public use of hydrogen dispensing that are
coordinated on an international basis. The U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) has contracted with the National Hydrogen Association (NHA) to
work on this process with its members from industry and government.
Hydrogen has been safely generated, distributed, and utilized in
industrial applications for decades. The challenge now is to establish
codes and standards designed for public use of hydrogen.
The NHA Hydrogen Codes and Standards Coordinating Committee was
established to coordinate the diverse activities by the large number of
organizations involved in developing and adopting codes for hydrogen
technologies. In addition, The International Standards Organization
Technical Committee 197 has been working to adopt international
standards for hydrogen technologies. Ongoing efforts to establish
standards are focusing on establishing safe handling practices,
facilitating standard interfaces, eliminating barriers to international
trade, and developing quality criteria and testing methods.
The NFCRC supports these efforts but encourages Congress to
establish a path that will assure hydrogen codes and standards for
public use are deployed and standardized as a national initiative.
Question 2: Are hydrogen fuel cell vehicles allowed to drive
through tunnels?
Response: The NFCRC is not aware of travel restrictions for driving
hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles through tunnels at the current time.
The reasons are two-fold. There are neither restrictions nor permits
for such travel due to the novelty of hydrogen-fueled vehicles. A
similar question is raised with regard to parking hydrogen fuel
vehicles in public structures or in residential garages. Such
considerations are integral to the development of codes and standards
for the public use of hydrogen, in this case the ``utilization'' of
hydrogen versus the ``dispensing'' of hydrogen raised by Question 1.
We expect the codes and regulations for hydrogen-fueled vehicles in
tunnels to mirror the codes and regulations established for compressed
natural gas (CNG) vehicles.
Question 3: What about trucks carrying compressed or liquid
hydrogen cargo?
Response: There are restrictions on the transportation of hydrogen
that vary from state to state. The Department of Transportation (DOT)
standards are in place for transporting various gases and chemicals and
can be superceded by local agencies such as the California Highway
Patrol at their discretion.
Question 4: Can we trust ordinary people to fuel their own car at a
hydrogen pump, or do we need specially trained technicians?
Response: Today, ordinary people with proper training refuel their
vehicles with Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). The procedure is expected
to be similar for hydrogen refueling. In the early stages, steps must
be taken to educate the public on the procedures for compressed-gas
refueling. While this is accomplished today for CNG refueling, CNG
vehicles (with few exceptions) are operated within fleets and the
training is thereby facilitated. As hydrogen-fueled vehicles become
ubiquitous in society, special procedures will be required to assure
public safety. For example, in licensing a hydrogen-fueled vehicle, the
owner may be required to complete refueling training. In addition,
professional staff may be necessary at hydrogen refueling stations for
the first decade in order to assure a robust public education process.
Question 5: Is it safe to park a fuel cell vehicle inside a garage?
Response: With reasonable safety measures, such as adequate roof
top ventilation, yes. However, codes and standards must be established
to specify the ventilation required and assure that building codes
accommodate the appropriate specifications.
Question 6: Why or why not? What needs to change to make it safe?
Response: Hydrogen has a long history of safe usage in the chemical
and aerospace industries. As with any fuel (e.g., gasoline, natural
gas, propane), an understanding of the properties, proper safety
precautions and established rules are key to its successful safety
track record.
By their nature, all fuels have some degree of danger associated
with them. The safe use of any fuel focuses on preventing situations
where the four combustion factors--ignition source (spark or heat),
oxidant (air) fuel, and confinement are present.
Hydrogen has properties that make it safer to handle and use in
many regards than the fuels commonly used today. For example, hydrogen
is non-toxic. In addition, because hydrogen is much lighter than air,
it dissipates rapidly should it be released, allowing for relatively
rapid dispersal of the fuel in case of a leak. The properties of
hydrogen that do require additional engineering and controls include
its wide range of flammable concentrations in air and lower ignition
energy than gasoline or natural gas, which means hydrogen can ignite
more easily in the absence of appropriate ventilation. As a result,
adequate ventilation and leak detection are important elements in the
design of safe hydrogen vehicles and vehicle storage facilities. The
unusually high fuel pressures associated with the early deployment of
hydrogen-fueled vehicles will require aggressive codes and standards
for the fuel tanks to assure controlled rupture in the case of an
unscheduled penetration. Other commonly practiced safety issues, such
as those associated with fuels used today would also apply, such as
avoiding ignition sources.