Fuel cells, of
course, can be thought of as batteries that are continuously replenished by a
constant supply of hydrogen. And
hydrogen, the most plentiful element in the universe and the third most
plentiful on earth, can be derived from a variety of sources including
petroleum, natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water.
But there are
significant technical and infrastructure barriers that must be overcome,
including fuel cell cost and durability; electric drive performance and cost;
hydrogen production, storage, cost and distribution challenges; and many
others. Neither industry nor
government, working alone, is likely to overcome these barriers in any
reasonable timeframe. Therefore, we
must work in partnership.
The partnership we
have enjoyed in the past, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
(PGNV), has had some successes, and we are certainly not abandoning those
successes or the collaborations it fostered.
Indeed, many of the research elements of PNGV are embodied in the second
element of our approach: Namely, to
continue support for hybrid technologies and advanced materials that can
dramatically reduce oil consumption and environmental impacts in the nearer
term.
But one of the
problems of PNGV was its focus on a production prototype of a family
sedan. Therefore, the third element of
our strategic approach is to develop technologies applicable across a wide
range of passenger vehicles.
[Slide 6]
In its
most recent peer review of the PNGV program, the National Academy of Sciences
made a number of observations and recommendations, a few of which I will list
here:
_ “[T]he priorities and specific
goals of the PNGV program should be reexamined. There is a need to update the program goals and technical targets
in the context of current and prospective markets ... government and industry
participants should refine the PNGV charter and goals.”
_ “[T]he demand for sport utility
vehicles, vans, and pickup trucks in the United States has drastically
increased ... This has increased the importance of reducing the fuel
consumption of these vehicles compared to the typical family sedan.”
[Slide
7]
_ “If the program goal(sic) were
refocused on reducing total new light duty vehicle petroleum consumption, this
would encourage the emphasis to be placed on those vehicles that offer the
greatest potential for achieving this societal goal.”
_ “...it is inappropriate to
include the process of building production prototypes in a precompetitive,
cooperative industry-government program.”
[Slide
8]
We have accordingly made changes responsive to the observations and recommendations of the peer review panel. With respect to key goals: FreedomCAR is focused on petroleum free, emissions free transportation, with emphasis on hydrogen fuel cells
. PNGV was focused on building a production prototype 80
mile-per-gallon family sedan.
[Slide
9]
With
respect to timeframe: FreedomCAR has a
long-term vision with 2010 component technology goals to gauge progress. PNGV
was a 10-year program focused on 2004.
[Slide
10]
With respect to government leadership and focus: FreedomCAR is a partnership solely between DOE and USCAR.
PNGV was
a collaboration between USCAR and seven government agencies led by the
Department of Commerce.
[Slide 11]
With respect to technology emphasis: FreedomCAR is focused on hydrogen and fuel cells, with transitional efficiency gains from advanced combustion and fuel processors. PNGV emphasized compression ignition direct injection (diesel) hybrids
.
[Slide
12]
With
respect to vehicle focus: FreedomCAR’s
focus is R&D at the component level with equal emphasis on light trucks and
cars. PNGV emphasized development and
demonstration of pre-production mid-sized family sedans.
[Slide
13]
Let me
again emphasize that we are not abandoning the good work that has emerged from
PNGV. There are many shared components
between an advanced hybrid electric vehicle and a fuel cell vehicle, including
lightweight materials, power electronics, electric motors, and batteries. Breakthroughs we make in these components
need not wait for fuel cells or hydrogen infrastructure to reach the market, as
they can be employed as soon as they are ready.
We will
also be continuing our work in alternative fuels and advanced combustion engines
(including emissions controls R&D) that are needed to support the
development of advanced hybrid electric vehicles.
[Slide
14]
Of
course, new areas of emphasis aboard the vehicle include hydrogen storage,
on-board reformation, and fuel cell stack development.
But we
are also beginning to address the technologies necessary to make a transition
to a hydrogen-based transportation economy.
Principal among these efforts will be solving the problems associated
with producing and making hydrogen fuel widely available. To that end, elements of the hydrogen
program in the Office of Power Technologies (OPT) are being integrated into the
FreedomCAR effort. Efforts by DOE’s
Fossil Energy office on deriving hydrogen from coal (with sequestered carbon)
are also being reviewed. In addition, a
related effort in OPT on hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines is under
consideration for inclusion.
In
November of 2001 my office convened senior executives representing energy
industries, environmental organizations and government officials to discuss the
role for hydrogen systems in America’s energy future. This group addressed a
common vision for the hydrogen economy, the time frame for the vision and the
key milestones needed to get there. There was general agreement that hydrogen
can be America’s clean energy choice, and that the transition to a hydrogen
future has already begun but could well take 40-50 years to fully unfold. We are working on a specific technology roadmap
covering production, storage, conversion and infrastructure that leads us to
that vision, and we are continuing that work as a part of the FreedomCAR
program plan.
FreedomCAR
Research Components and Spending Levels
[Slide
15]
My next
slide shows our budget crosscut for FreedomCAR. We are proposing to spend $150.3 million on this initiative in FY
2003. The most notable changes in the
FY 2003 budget are: 1) increased
funding for vehicle fuel cell R&D of $8.075 million, to a level of $50
million, and 2) increased funding for hydrogen generation, transport and
fueling infrastructure by $9.659 million relative to FY 2002 appropriation
levels.
Whereas
PNGV was a multi-agency partnership, the only Federal partner in FreedomCAR is
the Department of Energy. Since the
inception of PNGV, DOE has accounted for most of the government’s
contributions. In FY 2001, we provided
86 percent of the funding that was directly relevant to the PNGV goals, and
that was linked with the plans developed by the PNGV government-industry
technical teams. While other agencies
are not formally involved as FreedomCAR partners, we intend to coordinate our
work with the appropriate technology research, development and demonstration
programs managed by other Federal agencies, and by State governments as well. The mechanisms by which coordination is
accomplished will be worked out during the next few months.
Specific
Technological Goals and Timetables
The
transition to a hydrogen-based transportation system is a long-range
vision. To assure progress, nearer-term
goals are necessary so that accomplishments can be measured and
recognized. Therefore, the Partnership
has identified the following 2010 technology-specific goals.1
[Slide
16]
_ To ensure reliable systems for
future fuel cell powertrains with costs comparable to conventional internal
combustion engine/automatic transmission systems, the goals are:
q Electric Propulsion System with
a 15-year life capable of delivering at least 55kW for 18 seconds, and 30kW
continuous at a system cost of $12/kW peak.
q 60% peak energy-efficient,
durable fuel cell power system (including hydrogen storage) that achieves a 325
W/kg power density and 220 W/L operating on hydrogen. Cost targets are at $45/kW by 2010 ($30/kW by 2015).2
[Slide
17]
_ To enable clean,
energy-efficient vehicles operating on clean, hydrocarbon-based fuels powered
by either internal combustion powertrains or fuel cells, the goals are:
q Internal combustion engine
powertrain systems costing $30/kW, having a peak brake engine efficiency of
45%, and that meet or exceed emissions standards.
q Fuel cell systems, including a
fuel reformer, having a peak brake engine efficiency of 45%, and that meet or
exceed emissions standards with a cost target of $45/kW by 2010
and $30/kW in 2015.2,3
[Slide
18]
_ To enable reliable hybrid
electric vehicles that are durable and affordable, the goal is:
q Electric drivetrain energy
storage with 15-year life at 300 Wh with discharge power of 25 kW for 18
seconds and $20/kW.
[Slide
19]
_ To enable the transition to a
hydrogen economy, ensure widespread availability of hydrogen fuels, and retain
the functional characteristics of current vehicles, the goals are:
q Demonstrated hydrogen refueling
with developed commercial codes and standards and diverse renewable and
non-renewable energy sources. Targets:
70% energy efficiency well-to-pump; cost of energy from hydrogen equivalent to
gasoline at market price, assumed to be $1.25 per gallon (2001 dollars).4
[Slide
20]
q Hydrogen storage systems
demonstrating an available capacity of 6 weight percent hydrogen, specific
energy of 2000 W-h/kg, energy density of 1100 W-h/liter at a cost of $5/kWh.5
q Internal combustion engine
powertrain systems operating on hydrogen with a cost target of $45/kW by
2010 and $30/kW in 2015, having a peak brake engine efficiency of 45%,
and that meet or exceed emissions standards.
[Slide
21]
_ To improve the manufacturing
base, the goal is:
q Material and manufacturing
technologies for high volume production vehicles which enable/support the
simultaneous attainment of:
_ 50% reduction in the weight of
vehicle structure & subsystems,
_ affordability, and
_ increased use of
recyclable/renewable materials.
[Slide
22]
Performance
Based Management:
_ Key metrics to be tracked
annually.
_ 2010 goals supported by targets
and milestones detailed in EERE’s Budget Request.
_ All FreedomCAR work to be
assessed annually against the R&D investment criteria developed as part of
the President’s Management Agenda.
[Slide
23]
Conclusion
Mr.
Chairman, our vision for FreedomCAR is a bold one, in response to Secretary
Abraham’s challenge that we act boldly to “revolutionize how we approach
conservation and energy efficiency.”
FreedomCAR
is clearly a long-term effort beyond any near-term political horizon. But even as we pursue our ultimate vision of
emissions-free, petroleum-free, safe and affordable transportation, we have
developed near-term goals to ensure that we make measurable, demonstrable
progress toward that vision in the coming decade.
And
again, while we do face significant technology and infrastructure risks, the
exceptional rewards and national benefits we could achieve justifies the
effort.
I
welcome your questions.
|
|
1. Cost references based on CY 2001 dollar
values. Where power (kW) targets are
specified, those targets are to ensure that technology challenges that would
occur in a range of light-duty vehicle types would have to be addressed.
2. Does not include vehicle traction
electronics.
3. Includes fuel cell stack subsystem, fuel
processor subsystem and auxiliaries; does not include fuel tank.
4. Targets are for hydrogen dispensed to a
vehicle assuming a reforming, compressing and dispensing system capable of
dispensing 150 kilograms per day (assuming 60,000 SCF per day of NG is fed for
reforming at the retail dispensing station) and servicing a fleet of 300
vehicles per day (assuming 0.5 kgs used in each vehicle per day). Targets are also based on several thousand
stations, and possibly demonstrated on several hundred stations. Technologies may also include chemical
hydrides such as sodium boro-hydride.
5. Based on lower heating value of hydrogen;
allows over 300-mile range.