1. Alternative Transportation Technologies: Hydrogen, Biofuels, Advanced ICEs, HEVs and PHEVs
Results of two Reports from the
National Research Council
National Petroleum Council
Michael Ramage 1

2. Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies
MICHAEL P. RAMAGE, NAE1, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired), Chair
RAKESH AGRAWAL, NAE, Purdue University
DAVID L. BODDE, Clemson University
DAVID FRIEDMAN, Union of Concerned Scientists
SUSAN FUHS, Conundrum Consulting
JUDI GREENWALD, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
ROBERT L. HIRSCH, Management Information Services, Inc.
JAMES R. KATZER, NAE, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
GENE NEMANICH, ChevronTexaco Technology Ventures (retired)
JOAN OGDEN, University of California, Davis
LAWRENCE T. PAPAY, NAE, Science Applications International Corporation (retired)
IAN W.H. PARRY, Resources for the Future
WILLIAM F. POWERS, NAE, Ford Motor Company (retired)
EDWARD S. RUBIN, Carnegie Mellon University
ROBERT W. SHAW, JR., Aretê Corporation
ARNOLD F. STANCELL, NAE, Georgia Institute of Technology
TONY WU, Southern Company
1NAE, National Academy of Engineering.

3. Major Options for Reducing Oil Use
Improved fuel economy; evolutionary.
Biofuels; some new infrastructure required.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles; major technical and infrastructure improvements needed.
Battery-powered vehicles; major technical and some infrastructure changes needed.

4. Evaluate technology status Determine potential oil and CO2 savings
Goals
Establish as a goal the maximum practicable number of alternative vehicles and fuels the can penetrate the market by 2020 ( and beyond to 2050)
Evaluate technology status
Determine potential oil and CO2 savings
Determine the funding, public and private, to reach that goal
Establish a budget roadmap to achieve the goal
Determine the government actions required to achieve the goal 4

5. Presentation Outline Scenarios Market Penetration Rates
Technology Status
FCV and PHEV Costs
Oil and CO2 Savings
Timing and Transition Costs to Achieve Market Competitiveness for FCVs and PHEVs
Infrastructure Issues
Conclusions 5

6. SCENARIOS
Case1) H2 SUCCESS H2 & fuel cells play a major role beyond 2025
Case 2) EFFICIENCY(ICEV) Potential improvements in gasoline ICE and HEV technologies successful
Case 3) BIOFUELS  Large scale use of biofuels, focus ethanol
Case 4) PLUG-IN HYBRID SUCCESS PHEVs play a major role beyond 2025
Case 5) PORTFOLIO APPROACH More efficient ICEVs + biofuels + FCVs or PHEVs introduced

7. Case 1-Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles

8. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles Hydrogen Production Routes
Coal
Reformer
Gasifier
Natural Gas
Electric Power Plant
Solar PV
Hydrogen
Primary Energy Resource
Nuclear
Hydro
Renewables
Wind
Biomass
Generator
Nuclear heat
Electrolyzer
Steam Electrolysis
CO2 Sequestration

9. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles Fuel Cell Progress
Cost:
$1000s/kW (1990s) → $300/kW(2000) →$100/kW (2007)
:Target $ 30/kW $70/kW(2010)
Durability:
1000 hr (2004) → 2000 hr(2007) hrs(2010)
:Target: 5000hr
Power Density:
440W/l (2004) → 580W/l (2006)
:Target 650W/l
On Board H2 Storage: Target 300 miles
- Promising but challenging solution: H2 sorption on solid
materials
- Auto companies poised to use 5-10kpsi onboard storage
Demonstration Vehicles: Growing number on the Road

10. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles Hydrogen Production & Delivery Progress
H2 from natural gas at station forecourts: $3.00/gal gasoline equivalent vs. target of $2.50/gge (2010) target reached at today’s natural gas prices
Longer-range H2 techs being pursued: Coal cost competitive if CCS viable
Better understanding of biomass potential

11. Maximum practical penetration rate estimated assuming:
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles
Maximum Practical Penetration Rate
Maximum practical penetration rate estimated assuming:
Technical goals are met
Consumers accept HFCVs
Oil prices remain high (EIA high oil price scenario used as reference case)
Policies are in effect to support HFCVs and hydrogen production.

12. CASE 1: H2 SUCCESS Scenario

14. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles Implementation Costs
The estimated government cost to support a transition to HFCVs is roughly $55 B from 2008 to 2023.
$40 B - the incremental cost of HFCV
$8 B - the initial deployment of H2 supply infrastructure
$5 B for R&D.
Industry cost for H2 infrastructure $400 B by 2050 *
-180,000 stations
- 210 central plants
- 80,000 miles of pipeline
* 220,000,000 HFCVs

15. Case 2 - Fuel Economy Improvement
add section title
Add picture of ICE and Hybrid vehicle picture use something from one of the auto presentations
Add slide as what we did ie did not look at costs, but tech = penetration potential

16. Fuel Economy Improvement
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 raises fuel economy standards to 35 mpg by 2020.
This study evaluated technologies to improve fuel economy but did not closely examine costs.
Gasoline HEVs dominate; no FCVs or PHEVs
Continued advancements in conventional vehicles offer significant potential
2.6%/year 2010 to 2025
1.7%/year 2026 to 2035
0.5%/year 2036 to 2050

17. Fuel Economy Improvement Technologies
FE Improvement
Engine/Transmission: % %
Variable valve timing & lift
Cylinder deactivation
Gasoline direct injection
Weight, drag, tires: % %
Accessories: % %
Idle Stop: % %

20. Fuel Economy Improvement Fuel Consumption

21. Case 3 -Biofuels
12 foot Switchgrass

22. Biofuels Study analyzed Potential amount of sustainable biomass
Technologies to convert biomass to fuels
Fuel products
Looked at technical potential but did not closely examine costs
Study focus was on US oil and CO2 reduction

23. BIOFUEL SUCCESS
Grain and Sugar based ethanol - maximum potential 12 billion gallons/year
Sustainable biomass (million dry tons per year)*
300 mtpy current, 500 mtpy 2030, 700 mtpy 2050
Cellulosic ethanol has significant potential, 10 billion gallons/year by 2020 and 45 billion(gas eq) by 2050 **
Large portion of biomass could be converted other advanced biofuels after 2020
*crop residues, energy crops, forest residues
** gasoline equilvalent
*** maximum practicable case

24. Biofuels Total Production

25. CASE 4 - PHEVS
Chevy VOLT

26. CASE 4: PHEVS 2 mid-size vehicle types: PHEV-10s, PHEV-40s
2 market penetration rates:
Maximum Practical (same as H2 FCVs but start earlier (2010)
Probable
2 electricity grid mixes (business as usual and EPRI/NRDC scenario for de-carbonized generation in a 2007 study)
PHEV gasoline and electricity use based on estimates by MIT, NREL, ANL
In future work
Strategic paths (PHEV-10->PHEV-30 ->pure batt. EV)
allow tech. change over time.

27. PHEV Cost Analysis: Batteries are Key Need acceptable cost for reasonable range, durability, and safety

28. Batteries Looked at 10 and 40 mile midsize cars
- PHEV-10s and PHEV-40s
Battery packs with 2 and 8 kWh useable
or 4 and 16kWh nameplate energy
Start of life, not after degradation
200 Wh/mile
50% State of Charge range (increases to compensate for degradation) 28

29. Current PHEV Battery Pack Cost* Estimates Compared ($/kWh nameplate)
$ /kWh (McKinsey Report)
$1000/kWh (Carnegie Mellon University)
$ /kWh (Pesaran et al)
$ /kWh (NRC: America’s Energy Future report)
$875/kWh (probable) NRC PHEV Report
$625/kWh (optimistic) NRC PHEV Report
$560/kWh (DOE, adjusted to same basis)
$500/kWh (ZEV report for California)
*Unsubsidized costs 29

30. Future Cost* Estimates Compared ($/kWh nameplate)
$600/kWh (Anderman)
$ /kWh in 2020 (NRC PHEV)
$ /kWh in 2030 (NRC PHEV)
$420/kWh in 2015 (McKinsey)
$350/kWh (Nelson)
$ /kWh by 2014 (DOE goals adj.)
NRC estimates higher than most but not all
Assumed packs must meet year lifetime
Dramatic cost reductions unlikely; Li-ion technology well developed and economies of scale limited
*Unsubsidized costs 30

31. Vehicle Costs PHEV-40 PHEV-10 Total Pack cost now $10,000 - $14,000
Total PHEV cost increment over current conventional (non-hybrid) car: $14,000 - $18,000
PHEV cost increment in 2030: $8,800 - $11,000
PHEV-10
Total Pack cost now $ $3,300
Total PHEV cost increment over current conventional (non-hybrid) car $5,500 - $6,300
PHEV cost increment in 2030: $3,700 - $4,100 31

32. Electric Infrastructure
No major problems are likely to be encountered for several decades in supplying the power to charge PHEVs, as long as most vehicles are charged at night.
May need smart meters with TOU billing and other incentives to charge off-peak.
Charging time could be 12 hours for PHEV-40s at 110-V and 2-3 hours at 220-V. Thus home upgrade might be needed.
If charged during hours when power demand is high, potential for significant issues with electric supply in some regions. 32

33. CASE 4: PHEV Market penetration
Maximum Practical (with optimistic tech development estimates): 4 million PHEVs in 2020 and 40 million in 2030
Probable (with probable technical development): 1.8 million PHEVs in 2020 and 13 million in 2030
Many uncertainties, especially willingness and ability of drivers to charge batteries almost every day. 33

34. CASE 4: PHEV Fuel Savings Relative to Efficiency Case34

35. Efficient ICEVs + Biofuels + Adv. FCV+PHEVs
CASE 5: PORTFOLIO APPROACH
Efficient ICEVs + Biofuels + Adv. FCV+PHEVs

36. CASE 5: PORTFOLIO APPROACH Efficient ICEVs + Biofuels + Adv. Veh.
FCV or PHEV
Same number of FCVs as in Case 1, but assume that gasoline ICEVs become more efficient and that hybrid vehicles take over (as in Case 2), while an increasing fraction of liquid fuel comes from biofuels (as in Case 3).
ICEVs assumed to
use advanced biofuels and
gasoline

37. Case 5:Portfolio Fuel Savings
Efficiency + Biofuels: ICEVs assumed to use advanced biofuels and gasoline 37

38. Case 5:Portfolio GHG Emissions BAU Electric Grid38

39. Case 5:Portfolio GHG Emissions De-carbonized Electric Grid(EPRI/NRDC)39

40. Potential Transition Costs for HFCV and PHEVs

41. PHEV-40 Sensitivity Cases
TRANSITION COSTS: PHEVs and H2 FCVS
PHEV-10
PHEV-40
PHEV-40 Sensitivity Cases
High Oil DOE Goal
HFCV
Success Partial
Success
Breakeven Year
2024
2040
2025
2023
2033
Cum. Cash flow to breakeven ($billion) 24
408 41 22 46
Cum. Vehicle Retail Price Diff to breakeven ($ billion) 82
1639
174 40
# Vehicles at breakeven (million) 10
132 13
5.6
Infrastructure Cost at breakeven ($ Billion)
(in-home
(H2 stations for first million FCVs)
(H2 stations for first million FCVs)
1-3 decade transition time; Transition cost $10s-100s Billions;
Results very sensitive to oil price and vehicle (battery& fcell) costs 41

42. Major Findings
Significant fuel and CO2 reductions can be achieved over next 20 years with efficient ICE/HEV technologies and biofuels.
PHEVs and HFCVs have greater long-term potential for fuel savings. HFCVs can greatly reduce CO2 emissions, but savings from PHEVs dependent on grid fuel source.
A portfolio of technologies has potential to eliminate oil and greatly reduce CO2 from US light duty transportation by 2050
The U.S. could have tens of millions of H2 FCVs and PHEVs on the road in several decades, but that would require tens or hundreds of billions in subsidies
Technology breakthroughs are essential for both fuel cells and batteries; cost reductions from manufacturing economies of scale will be much greater for fuel cells than batteries 42

43. Backup Slides

44. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles
Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell 80°C

45. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles
Infrastructure Cases

46. AEO 2008 High Oil Prices Case and EPRI/NRDC 2007
AEO 2008 High Oil Prices Case and EPRI/NRDC Environmental Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Volume 1: Nationwide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 46

47. PHEVS CONCLUSIONS
Lithium-ion battery technology has been developing rapidly, especially at the cell level, but costs are still high, and the potential for dramatic reductions appears limited.
Costs to a vehicle manufacturer for a PHEV-40 built in 2010 are likely to be about $18,000 more than an equivalent conventional vehicle, including a $14,000 battery pack. The incremental cost of a PHEV-10 would be about $6,300, including a $3,300 battery pack.
PHEV-40s are unlikely to achieve cost-effectiveness before 2040 at gasoline prices below $4.00 per gallon, but PHEV-10s may get there before Presently unpredictable battery breakthroughs may accelerate these schedules.
At the maximum practical rate, as many as 40 million PHEVs could be on the road by 2030, but various factors are likely to keep the number lower. A more plausible rate would result in 13 million PHEVs by 2030.

48. PHEVS CONCLUSIONS cont
PHEVs will have little impact on oil consumption before 2030 because there will not be enough of them in the fleet. More substantial reductions could be achieved by PHEV-10s will reduce oil consumption only slightly more than can be achieved by HEVs.
PHEV-10s will emit less carbon dioxide than nonhybrid vehicles, but show little advantage over HEVs after accounting for emissions from the electric power generation.
No major problems are likely to be encountered for several decades in supplying the power to charge PHEVs, as long as most vehicles are charged at night.
A portfolio approach to research, development, demonstration, and, perhaps, market transition support is essential.

49. Liquid Fuel Demand Global, United States, and U.S. Imports

50. Carbon Emissions

51. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles Policy
Policies designed to accelerate the penetration of HFCVs into the U.S. vehicle market must be durable over the transition time frame, but should be structured so that they are tied to technology and market progress, with any subsidies phased out over time.

52. Transportation Energy Policy
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and other emerging technologies collectively
- potential to eliminate oil demand from LDT 2050.
- reduce GHG emissions to less than 20% of current
Policies must support a portfolio of technologies to achieve these results and be durable and sustainable

53. Type of Hydrogen Supply over Time
Case 1 (Hydrogen Success)
2020
2035
2050
No. of cars served (percentage of total fleet)
1.8 million (0.7%)
61 million (18%)
219 million (60%)
Infrastructure capital cost
$2.6 billion
$139 billion
$415 billion
Total No. of stations
2,112 (all on-site SMR)
56,000 (40% on-site SMR)
180,000 (44% on-site SMR)
No. of central plants
113 (20 coal, 93 biomass)
210 (79 coal, 131 biomass)
Pipeline length (miles)
39,000
80,000
Hydrogen demand (tonnes per day)
1,410 (100% NG)
38,000 (22% NG, 42% biomass, 36% coal with CCS)
120,000 (31% NG, 25% biomass, 44% coal with CCS)
NOTE: NG = natural gas.