Comparison of Transportation Options in a Carbon-Constrained World: Hydrogen, Plug-in Hybrids and Biofuels Presented at the National Hydrogen Association Annual Hydrogen Conference Sacramento, California March 31, 2008 By C. E. (Sandy) Thomas, Ph.D., President H 2 Gen Innovations, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia

2 Advanced Vehicle Simulations Objectives: Compare the societal costs of advanced vehicle/fuel options over the 21 st century Estimate cost of a distributed hydrogen infrastructure Urban Air Pollution Greenhouse Gas Pollution Oil Import Costs

3 What is best for society? Hybrid electric vehicles? Plug-in hybrids? Biofuels? Fuel cell vehicles? …….or all of the above!

4 US Greenhouse Gas Sources

5 Alternative Vehicle/Fuel Combinations ICEV ICE HEV ICE PHEV FC HEV FC PHEV BPEV Fuel Economy Gasoline RefXX Diesel XX Ethanol XXX Hydrogen XXXX Electricity SSX X = primary fuel; S = secondary fuel; ICEV = internal combustion engine vehicle; HEV = hybrid electric vehicle; PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle; FC = fuel cell; BPEV = battery-powered electric vehicle

6 Alternative Vehicle/Fuel Combinations ICEV ICE HEV ICE PHEV FC HEV FC PHEV BPEV Fuel Economy Gasoline RefXX Diesel XX Ethanol XXX Hydrogen XXXX Electricity SSX X = primary fuel; S = secondary fuel; ICEV = internal combustion engine vehicle; HEV = hybrid electric vehicle; PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle; FC = fuel cell; BPEV = battery-powered electric vehicle

Baseline Transportation Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions 1 st Target: 60% Below 1990 Levels 2 nd Target: 80% Below 1990 Levels

8 GHG Reference Case: 100% Gasoline Cars Source: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a

9 GHG Base Case: Gasoline Hybrids Source: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a

10 GHG: Gasoline Plug-in Hybrids Source: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a

11 GHG: Ethanol Plug-In Hybrids (Cellulosic Ethanol) Source: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a

12 GHG: Fuel Cell Vehicles Source: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a

13 Oil Consumption (US) US 2030 oil production = 2.72 B bbl/yr (14.3 Quads); US 2006 non- transportation consumption = 2.25 B bbl/year (6.16 M bbl/day) [Ref: AEO 2008]

14 Urban Air Pollution Costs Source: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a

15 Monetized Externalities Societal Costs Calculated for: –Urban air pollution (average of six sources for costs)* –Greenhouse Gas emissions ($25/tonne to $50/tonne) –Oil/Balance of Trade/Military protection costs ($60/bbl) * VOC = $6.59/kg; CO = $1.28/kg; NOx = $13.84/kg; SOx = $29.74/kg; PM-10 = $53.74/kg; PM 2.5 = $134/kg.

16 Societal Cost Reduction Factors* *Reduction Factor defined as societal cost of gasoline ICEV/cost of alternative vehicle; Near-term = now to 2020; Mid-term = 2021 to 2050; Far-Term = 2051 to 2100

17 Key Assumptions Assume success for all options Assume stringent climate change constraints

18 Assume Success! Fuel Cell Vehicles: –FCVs are durable & cost competitive –Hydrogen infrastructure & cost are competitive & available –Hydrogen sources become green over time

19 Assume success! Plug-in Hybrids: –Deep discharge batteries allow up to 52 miles all electric range & 65% grid energy –75% of all vehicles have access to night- time charging outlets –The electric grid becomes green over time

20 Assume success! Ethanol Plug-in Hybrids: –Same as for gasoline PHEVs, plus –Ethanol is made from cellulose –Ethanol production capacity grows from 7 billion gallons per year from corn to 120 billion gallons per year from cellulose

21 Greening of the Grid

22 Grid GHGs Relative to 1990

23 Greening of Hydrogen Biofuels at Forecourt Central SMR + CCS

24 Gasoline Hybrid Scenario Market Shares (50% Market Share Potential by 2024)

25 Gasoline Plug-In Hybrid Scenario Market Shares (50% market share potential by 2031; 75% plug-in potential; 12 to 52 mile all-electric range; 18% to 65% energy from grid)

26 Ethanol Plug-In Hybrid Scenario Market Shares [50% market share potential by 2031, 75% plug-in potential, and 120 billion gallon/year ethanol production cap (vs. 7 B/yr now)]

27 Fuel Cell Vehicle Scenario Market Shares (50% Market Share Potential by 2035)

28 Hydrogen Infrastructure Costs (US) (Distributed Hydrogen Generators at Fueling Stations) Source: U.S. DOE H2A Model

29 Cost to Reduce Grid Carbon Footprint Source: EPRI for generator capital costs and capacity factors

30 Infrastructure Costs Compared to Gasoline & Diesel Infrastructure Source: Oil & Gas Journal

31 H 2 Costs & Societal Savings

32 H 2 Costs & Societal Savings (scale change)

33 DOE Hydrogen Program Spending Compared to Other Projects

34 DOE Hydrogen Program Spending Compared to Prior Projects

35 DOE Hydrogen Program Spending Compared to Prior Projects

36 DOE Hydrogen Program Spending Compared to Prior Projects DOE annual hydrogen program $ = 1.45 days of Iraq War $

37 Conclusions Hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles are the only option that can: –Reduce GHG ’ s to 60% below 1990 levels

38 GHG: Fuel Cell Vehicles Source: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a

39 Conclusions Hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles are the only option that can: –Reduce GHG ’ s to 60% below 1990 levels –Achieve petroleum energy independence* * Hydrogen ICE Vehicles could also achieve petroleum energy independence

40 Oil Consumption (US) US 2030 oil production = 2.72 B bbl/yr (14.3 Quads); US 2006 non- transportation consumption = 2.25 B bbl/year (6.16 M bbl/day) [Ref: AEO 2008]

41 Conclusions Hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles are the only option that can: –Reduce GHG ’ s to 60% below 1990 levels –Achieve petroleum energy independence* –Virtually eliminate urban air pollution * Hydrogen ICE Vehicles could also achieve petroleum energy independence

42 Urban Air Pollution Costs Source: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a

43 Acknowledgments Joan Ogden (1989 Solar Hydrogen Report) UC Davis (Mark Delucchi, et al.) US DOE (1994 Ford/DOE/DTI to present; H2A cost model, Steve Chalk, JoAnn Milliken, et al.) Argonne National Lab (Michael Wang & GREET model) NHA hydrogen story task force (Frank Novachek, leader, John Elter – Stationary applications) Barney Rush (CEO H 2 Gen)

44 Thank You Contact Information: C.E. (Sandy) Thomas H2Gen Innovations, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia , ext

45 To Plug or Not to Plug?

46 GHGs (Including H2 ICE PHEVs)

47 Urban Air Pollution (Including H2 ICE PHEVs)

48 GHGs (Including BPEVs)

49 Urban Air Pollution (Including BPEVs)

50 Why Not Battery-Electric Vehicles?

51 Storage Volume (Batteries vs. Hydrogen)

52 Vehicle Weight (Batteries vs. Hydrogen)

53 Natural Gas vs. Gasoline Prices $3.50/gallon = $28/MBTU Natural Gas Gasoline

54 Natural Gas use for FCVs

55 Impact of FCVs on Global Natural Gas Resources

56 NGV vs. FCV (Hydrogen from natural gas)

57

58 Plug-in Hybrid Assumptions Source: EPRI /NRDC report on PHEVs

59 Marginal Grid Mix Illustration Figure. Illustration of marginal grid loads for a typical US electric utility

60 HGM-2000 Field Units

61 Greenhouse Gases* (Batteries vs. Hydrogen) *Assumes hydrogen made on-site from natural gas, and average marginal US electrical grid mix for charging EV batteries

62 Early Hydrogen Infrastructure

63 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Factors

64 Urban Air Pollution Reduction Factors

65 Oil Consumption Reduction Factors

66 Alternative Vehicle Market Penetration Assumptions

67 GHGs vs. Fuel Cost H2-PV-Electrolysis (20 c/kWh for 7 hr/day) Gasoline:$2.50/gal. HEV H2-Grid-Electrolysis (6 c/kWh for 24 hr/day) H2 ICE HEV H2 FCV H2 HEV ICEV H2-Wind-Electrolysis (5 c/kWh for 8.4 hr/day [35%]) H2 FCV H2 = hydrogen; HEV = hybrid electric vehicle; FCV = fuel cell vehicle; ICEV = internal combustion engine vehicle; PV = photovoltaic (solar cells) EPRI: Wind = 7.5 cents/kWh by 2010; Wind = 5.2 cents/kWh by 2020 with 29% average capacity factor Plug-in HEV

68 GHG vs. Fuel Cost (Scale change) Gasoline ICEV HEV H2-Natural Gas ICE HEV H2-FCV H2-Corn Ethanol ICE HEV H2-Cellulosic Ethanol ICE HEV H2-Wind-Electrolysis (5 c/kWh for 8.4 hr/day [35%]) Plug-in HEV

69 Delivered Hydrogen Costs

70 Oil & Gas Recoverable Resources Oil Natural Gas

71 Manufacturing ramp up: ensuring on-time deliveries

72 GHG Reduction Targets California, Florida, S.309, etc. Illinois, S.280, etc. Lieberman-Warner target: 70% below 2005 by 2050