1. Status and Prospects for Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) Technologies Independent Expert Panel Michael P. Walsh, Chairman Dr. Fritz R. Kalhammer Bruce M. Kopf Dr. Vernon P. Roan Dr. David H. Swan

2. Overview Objectives and Work Process Status of Key Systems –Vehicle Energy Storage –Hydrogen Storage –Fuel Cells Status of Vehicle Integration –Full Performance Battery Electric Vehicles (FPBEVs) –Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) –Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) –Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCEVs) Vehicle Prospects

3. Objectives and Scope of Work Provide an assessment of the technical and cost status and prospects of Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) technologies and their integration into ZEVs and near ZEVs, including –Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) –Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCEV) –Hybrid Vehicles (HEV) –Plug In Hybrid Vehicles (PHEV) –Hydrogen Combustion Engine Vehicles (H2ICE) –Fuel Cell Auxiliary Power Units (FCAPU) Tasks –Acquisition of Information (Worldwide, Key Players) –Questionnaires, Visits and Follow Up Questions –Critical Assessment and Review of Information

4. Vehicle Energy Storage: Nickel Metal Hydride Batteries High Power (HEV) –Mature technology mass produced for HEVs –Cost remains challenge: $1300-$2000 for Compact, $2500-$4000 for Midsize HEV Medium Energy/Power (PHEV) –Reasonable technical prospects for PHEVS w/short electric range; $800-1200 cost Δ vs. HEV Battery –No major manufacturer interest in NiMH for PHEVs High Energy (FPBEV) –Energy density inadequate –Costs high (~same as in 2000) and unlikely to decline

5. Vehicle Energy Storage: Lithium Ion Batteries Receiving the most attention and making impressive technical progress worldwide –Calendar and cycle Life (conventional and newer materials) –Safety (materials; controls) –New materials and chemistries expanding capabilities High Power (HEV) –Variety of companies, materials, and manufacturing techniques competing –Close to commercialization (2008?) –Potentially lower cost than NiMH (reduced capacity and lower specific cost)

6. Vehicle Energy Storage: Lithium Ion Batteries (cont’d) Medium Energy/Power (PHEVs; small FPBEVs) –Meet performance requirements; cycle life adequate for FPBEVs, promising for PHEVs –Projected costs for shorter range PHEV batteries $3500-4000 (generally less than fuel cost savings) –Low volume cell production and prototype battery fabrication in Asia & Europe; limited fleet demonstrations underway or planned –GM’s commitment to PHEVs (tied to Li ion availability) stimulating battery manufacturer interest

7. Vehicle Energy Storage: Lithium Ion Batteries (cont’d) High Energy (FPBEV) –Potential for meeting energy density and power density goals for Midsize or Larger FPBEVs –Conventional large cells likely to meet life goals –Costs remain high (probably near year 2000 levels, even if mass-produced) –No major battery or automobile manufacturer interest in this application –Small-cell high energy batteries now being used in FPBEVs (and PHEVs) fabricated on small scale (issues: high costs, uncertain calendar and cycle life)

8. Hydrogen Storage Systems: Status Only compressed gas and liquid have fully defined, workable systems 700 bar compressed gas preferred –Range approaching 300 miles –Honda continues with 350 Bar BMW developing liquid storage Most visible activities on advanced hydrogen storage are sponsored by DOE (So far, relatively little progress due to relatively recent DOE emphasis on hydrogen fuel)

9. Hydrogen Storage Systems Challenges and Issues Storage cost, weight, volume remain major challenges –for minimum of 5 kg H 2, cost at least $1650; likely higher –tank Weight ~180lbs (83kg); likely more –containing 5 kg H2 in a 700 bar cylinder will require an internal volume of about 125 liters; in a 350 bar cylinder about 225 liter internal volume will be required Alternative approaches now getting substantial research funding Some promising pathways identified with inexpensive absorption materials but still too early to be optimistic Initial generations of hydrogen fueled FCEVs will utilize compressed hydrogen storage

10. Fuel Cell Systems Progress Significant technical progress and continued large efforts on the part of the auto companies and partners Focus is to lower cost ($/kW) and increase life/durability Most developers remain optimistic but estimated times to commercialization are different

11. Fuel Cell Systems Challenges and Issues Technology has not achieved the combination of performance, cost and life for commercialization –Innovation and invention needed Key Goals and Challenges: –Pt catalyst improvement - cost, utilization, and life –Higher operating temperature to increase system performance and reduce cost –Longer component life and better system durability –Higher net system efficiency in all operating modes

12. Full Performance Battery Electric Vehicles (FPBEVs) Prior efforts unsuccessful due to high cost and limited mass market customer acceptance – little progress since Battery larger than that required for average daily trip length (~ 35 miles), making customer fuel savings payback of initial cost difficult Fuel prices and driving conditions in Japan/Europe provide lower barriers to success – a few OEMs developing small vehicles with Li Ion batteries Panel’s consensus opinion – FPBEVs are not likely to become mass market ZEVs in the foreseeable future due to high cost for the battery and limited customer acceptance

13. Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) No customer compromises – HEVs appeal to mass market customer willing to pay a premium Costs of electric drive components and systems being driven down - but still an issue HEV volume is dependent on price of gasoline – making future growth uncertain Panel’s consensus opinion – HEVs are providing major support to future mass market ZEVs by continuing to advance electric drive and battery technologies and by increasing customer awareness of electric drive technology and the associated benefits

14. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) No expected customer compromises while promising several benefits to customer and society The relatively small battery capacity is fully used daily for substantial customer fuel savings payback of initial vehicle premium PHEV definitions and fuel economy/emissions testing standards do not yet exist and need to be agreed upon All Electric Range (AER) has major impact on cost – and imposition of large AER could have a significant negative impact on the early success of the technology Panel’s consensus opinion – PHEVs have the potential to provide significant direct benefits and to foster future mass market ZEVs by stimulating battery development and conditioning mass market customers to accept plugging in

15. Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) Considered the ultimate solution by several OEMs with massive R&D efforts underway Simultaneously achieving performance, durability and cost objectives continues to be very difficult Cost, weight, and volume of adequate vehicle hydrogen storage and availability of a hydrogen infrastructure are major issues Plug-in series hybrid FCEVs with fuel cells operating largely “steady state” have potential to simultaneously achieve performance, cost and durability objectives Panel’s consensus opinion – given the past rate of success, and with massive intellectual and financial resources continuing, FCEVs are promising candidates for future mass market true ZEVs

18. Additional Slides City Electric Vehicles Neighborhood Electric Vehicles Hydrogen Fueled Internal Combustion Vehicles Fuel Cell Powered Auxiliary Power Unit Vehicles

19. City Electric Vehicles (CEVs) Performance limitations (e.g., not freeway capable) allow a smaller battery and electric drive system – vehicle can be made more affordable Prior efforts unsuccessful due to high cost and limited mass market customer acceptance – little progress since A special CEV FMVSS similar in concept to FMVSS 500 may help stimulate development in U.S. Panel’s consensus opinion – CEVs are more likely to become future mass market ZEVs in Japan/Europe than in the U.S. due to performance limitations

21. Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) Technology appears to be commercially successful Low volume potential due to limited applicability Very simple technology – very little synergy with larger BEVs Panel’s consensus opinion – NEVs provide no significant benefits to future mass market ZEVs due to simple technology and performance limitations

22. Hydrogen Internal Combustion Vehicles (H2ICVs) Technology not widespread, being pursued by only two OEMs – BMW and Ford Simple conversions of conventional power trains but hydrogen issues are same or worse than FCEVs Very low emissions – but still not a true ZEV Panel’s consensus opinion – H2ICEVs provide minor benefits to future mass market ZEVs (FCEV)

23. Fuel Cell Auxiliary Power Unit Vehicles (FCAPUVs) Technology not widespread, being pursued by only one OEM – BMW Hydrogen Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) system in a H2ICV most likely application but operationally different from FCEVs Panel’s consensus opinion – FCAPUVs are unlikely to provide any significant benefits to future mass market ZEVs

24. Li Ion Battery Cost Projections

25. NiMH Battery Cost Projections

26. Li Ion Battery Cost Projections (for production rates in MWh/year) VehicleBattery MWh/y Battery MWh/y Battery Type (kWh) (20k/y) Cost($) (100k/y) Cost($) FPBEV 40 800 12,240 4000 8,395 Small EV 25 500 11,875 2500 8,150 PHEV-40 14 2808,350 1400 5,585 PHEV-20 7 140 5,190 700 4,025 PHEV-10 4 80 4,990 400 3,445 Full HEV 2 40 4,395 200 3,025

27. NiMH Battery Cost Projections (for production rates in MWh/year) VehicleBattery MWh/y Battery MWh/y Battery Type (kWh) (20k/y) Cost($) (100k/y) Cost($) FPBEV 40 800 14,285 4000 11,430 Small EV 25 500 13,440 2500 10,500 PHEV-40 14 2809,680 1400 6,980 PHEV-20 7 140 5,200 700 4,275 PHEV-10 4 80 4,990 400 3,830 Full HEV 2 40 4,395 200 3,090

28. Net Present Value of Fuel Cost Savings ($s) (P)ZEV Annual Mileage Gasoline Use Electricity Use FuelSavings Vehicle Gasol. Electric Cost Effic. Cost Effic. Net Pr.Val. Type (mi/yr) (mi/yr) ($/gal) (mpg) ($/kWh) (mi/kWh) Lifetime $ FPBEV 0 10k 2.50 30/n.a. 0.10 3.0 4,055 0 14k 4.00 33/n.a. 0.08 4.0 10,933 PHEV-40 5.5k 4.5k 2.50 30/40 0.10 3.0 2,690 7k 7k 4.00 33/50 0.08 4.0 8,029 PHEV-20 7k 3k 2.50 30/40 0.10 3.0 2,318 8.5k 5.5k 4.00 33/50 0.08 4.0 7,405 HEV 10k 0 2.50 30/40 n.a. n.a. 1,573 14k 0 4.00 33/50 n.a. n.a. 4,366