D
Recommendations from National Research Council Review of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Research Program, Phase 1

CHAPTER 2:
MAJOR CROSSCUTTING ISSUES

Determining Priorities, Milestones, and Go/No-Go Decisions

Recommendation 2-1. An ongoing, integrated well-to-wheels assessment should be made of the Partnership’s progress toward its overall objectives of reducing the nation’s oil dependence and introducing hydrogen as a transportation fuel, if appropriate. This assessment should examine possible trade-offs between the individual goals of the fuel program and the vehicle program, as well as between short-term goals and long-term goals, and between energy sources, to guide future research priorities and, ultimately, national transportation energy policy.

Systems Analysis and Simulation

Recommendation 2-2. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership should use its systems analysis capability routinely in the program management process, establishing goals, evaluating trade-offs, setting priorities, and making go/no-go decisions.

NOTE: Recommendations set entirely in bold are contained in the executive summary of the Phase 1 Report.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 137
D Recommendations from National Research Council Review of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Research Program, Phase 1 chaPTer 2: maJor crosscUTTiNG issUes determining Priorities, milestones, and Go/No-Go decisions recommendation 2-1. an ongoing, integrated well-to-wheels assessment should be made of the Partnership’s progress toward its overall objectives of reducing the nation’s oil dependence and introducing hydrogen as a transportation fuel, if appropriate. This assessment should examine possible trade-offs between the individual goals of the fuel program and the vehicle program, as well as between short-term goals and long-term goals, and between energy sources, to guide future research priorities and, ultimately, national transportation energy policy. systems analysis and simulation recommendation 2-2. The Freedomcar and Fuel Partnership should use its systems analysis capability routinely in the program management pro- cess, establishing goals, evaluating trade-offs, setting priorities, and making go/no-go decisions. NOTE: Recommendations set entirely in bold are contained in the executive summary of the Phase 1 Report. 

OCR for page 137
 APPENDiX D recommendation 2-3. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership should develop and refine its models for consumer behavior during a market transition to radi- cally different vehicles and should also explore ways to enhance the effectiveness of its cost models. recommendation 2-4. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership should assign responsibility for overall program management and for the complex analyses to support program management, such as technology assessments, goal checking, evaluating the broader impacts of the technologies on the major problems, com- mercialization assessment, and decisionmaking, among others. safety Technical Teams recommendation 2-5. doe should form a new crosscutting safety technical team with a mission that includes broad hydrogen-related safety issues not only for hFciT but for the other doe offices as well. The new team should incorporate the existing codes and standards technical team as a subteam. The other offices should assign a person to be responsible for safety and to interface with the safety technical team. The safety, codes and standards ef- fort needs adequate resources so that it can accomplish the goals identified in its roadmap. Vehicle Standards and NhTSA recommendation 2-6. NHTSA should begin its hydrogen R&D program in FY05 by focusing on the effects of hydrogen releases and other potential hazards with hydrogen-fueled vehicles as well as analyses and research to determine the right mix of system-level and component-level standards. NHTSA should also work with other U.S. and international safety groups to establish global standards for hydrogen-fueled vehicles. Publication, Openness, and Safety Documents recommendation 2-7. DOE, USCAR, and NHTSA should prepare and main- tain a bibliography of hydrogen-safety-related reports and papers and make that information available on their Web sites in a user-friendly manner. NHTSA and DOE should develop investigation protocols and have investigation teams ready to visit serious incidents anywhere.

OCR for page 137
 APPENDiX D budget and Schedule recommendation 2-8. DOE should examine the budget and schedule estimates for each of the codes and standards deliverables and also for the other safety ac- tivities of the Safety, Codes and Standards program. To the extent that the budget and schedule are incompatible, changes should be reflected in the next update of the roadmap. learning demonstrations recommendation 2-9. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership should continue to develop prompt and effective channels of communication among its members to disseminate the learning from the demonstrations. The results should also be dis- seminated to supporting organizations outside the Partnership in order to promote widespread innovation and competition. But once the learning demonstration for a project has been carried out, the project should be reassessed to see whether further operation is warranted. recommendation 2-10. DOE management should keep the demonstration proj- ects focused on their primary purpose—the accumulation, analysis, and dis- semination of experience from the field. Safety should be stressed throughout the learning demonstration program, because an accident early on could attract publicity out of proportion to its true consequences. recommendation 2-11. Among the high priorities for feedback, DOE should identify precursor incidents that point to incipient safety problems and should develop appropriate methods for training first responders to deal with hydrogen- related emergencies. recommendation 2-12. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership should develop effective channels of communication among its members to disseminate lessons learned and communicate to appropriate organizations outside the Partnership to promote in them a culture of innovation and competition within the developing support structure. Goals and Targets recommendation 2-13. The program should perform high-level systems analy- ses that identify the potential, the challenges, and the specific research break- throughs for alternatives that could achieve the program vision without requiring a hydrogen infrastructure, and it should use these results to help define R&D efforts and allocate funds within DOE.

OCR for page 137
0 APPENDiX D roles of the Federal Government and industry recommendation 2-14. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership and USCAR leadership should examine the effectiveness of the current process for transferring technology from DOE projects to within-the-industry activities and develop and implement procedures that will make such transfer as effective as possible. Freedomcar in the Policy context recommendation 2-15. DOE should analyze the implications of alternative mar- ket interventions for the technical goals of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. These implications then could be included in DOE’s policy deliberations. environmental impacts recommendation 2-16. The doe, in collaboration with the environmental Protection agency, should systematically identify and examine possible long- term ecological and environmental effects of the large-scale use and produc- tion of hydrogen from various energy sources. chaPTer 3: Vehicle sUBsYsTems advanced combustion engines and emission controls recommendation 3-1. DOE should encourage the energy industry to become involved in establishing research parameters for the work on pure fuels that will be most relevant to real-world fuels expected in the marketplace. recommendation 3-2. DOE and the energy industry should develop refinery models for making tailored fuel blends. recommendation 3-3. Increased emphasis should be placed on novel emission control technologies, and the advanced combustion and emissions control tech- nical team should plan for, analyze, and seek solutions for emission problems associated with emerging fuels, fuel infrastructure, and propulsion systems. Fuel cells recommendation 3-4. DOE should broaden its collaboration with industry, academia, and other government agencies on precompetitive, industry-wide tech- nical issues and solutions. Stationary fuel cell developers should be included as well. For example, DOE could sponsor one or more conferences, workshops, debates, or forums to facilitate in-depth interactions or it could set aside some

OCR for page 137
 APPENDiX D discretionary funds that would allow program managers to accelerate progress on promising new ideas. recommendation 3-5. To promote new fuel cell water and hardware imaging techniques that could address technical barriers, DOE should enhance its existing collaboration with the NIST Neutron Research Center. DOE should also determine whether similar capabilities exist at the national laboratories and related academic centers so it could capitalize on this significant analytical advancement. recommendation 3-6. doe should expand activity and place a higher prior- ity on membrane r&d, new catalyst systems, and electrode design (with the Bes program). in particular, the national laboratories and other appropriate scientific centers should be focused on the fundamental failure mechanisms, including a better understanding of the chemistry, physics, and materials involved. hydrogen storage recommendation 3-7. In view of the exploratory nature of the work and the need to take technical risk and thereby foster discovery, DOE should check progress at appropriate times with go/no-go decisions. In this way, new ideas are able to emerge and the most promising approaches are adequately supported. recommendation 3-8. The center of excellence research model should be care- fully evaluated in parallel with peer review of the research. The committee believes centers of excellence are a good concept, but DOE should wait for an evaluation of the three centers’ performance before expanding the concept to other areas of research. recommendation 3-9. in view of the risk posed to the entire hydrogen pro- gram by the need for a viable hydrogen storage system, the hydrogen storage technical team and the Freedomcar and Fuel Partnership leadership team should report annually to all program participants, doe, and congress on the state of hydrogen storage technology worldwide relative to the goals and targets of the program. electrochemical energy storage for electric Vehicles recommendation 3-10. DOE should direct more of its effort and funding for high-power batteries for HEVs to applied and long-term exploratory research rather than battery development.

OCR for page 137
 APPENDiX D recommendation 3-11. a significantly larger effort and higher priority should be placed on searching for breakthrough technology in the area of high-energy batteries for electric vehicles. recommendation 3-12. In view of the potential benefits of a high-energy-den- sity DLC in hybrid vehicles, the energy storage technical team, in conjunction with the electrical and electronics system technical team, should maintain an activity that explicitly monitors progress of international DLC research programs and should consider funding research in advanced DLC technologies. electrical systems and electronics recommendation 3-13. The EE technical team should play a leading role in coordinating the specifications for the interfaces among the many vehicle subsys- tems, using established standards where they exist and accelerating the develop- ment of new ones where they are needed. recommendation 3-14. The EE technical team should identify the R&D path leading to the motor cost goal, or it should reassess that goal. recommendation 3-15. The EE technical team should use its evaluation of the state of the art of HEV technology to update and establish the team’s future research agenda and goals. recommendation 3-16. The ee technical team should develop a process for coordinating the diverse activities it is overseeing. recommendation 3-17. integrating the electronics with the motor may well provide significant cost advantages. The ee technical team should consider these potential advantages and extend Table 3-6 to include aggressive targets for an integrated system in 2010 and 2015. recommendation 3-18. high-temperature power electronics and advanced thermal management systems will significantly impact the size, weight, cost, and reliability of the ee subsystems. Freedomcar work in this area appears to be limited to the application of sic devices to the semikron inverter. The ee technical team should be aware of and leverage the work on high-tem- perature semiconductors, packaging, and thermal management being funded by government agencies at universities, commercial organizations, and the national laboratories.

OCR for page 137
 APPENDiX D structural materials recommendation 3-19. The only FreedomCAR effort on HSS should be careful monitoring of outside programs with the objective of adopting novel manufactur- ing and assembly methods to aluminum structures. This recommendation mirrors the previous NRC recommendation on the PNGV program. recommendation 3-20. The most important aspect of the stamped aluminum program is cost reduction, particularly for the feedstock material. Efforts in manu- facturing should be limited until progress in the cost area has been achieved. recommendation 3-21. more extensive research programs on cFrPs, com- bined with the direct cooperation of the large fiber manufacturers, appears mandatory for any hope of success within the program time frame. mean- while, r&d for manufacturing of structures should continue. recommendation 3-22. Longer-term research programs in magnesium alloys should be funded because of the weight savings these materials could offer. Cast materials should be the primary emphasis, with limited exploratory work on wrought materials. Increased activity in this area is highly recommended. recommendation 3-23. The materials technical team should provide technical materials input to other technical teams—for example, electronics, the hydrogen on-board supply system, magnets, motors, fuel cell structural issues—where such input would be useful. The team has never been asked to do this, but it could be extremely useful to the overall program. recommendation 3-24. The materials technical team should provide models of weight reduction/cost trade-offs to the systems analysis and engineering team. This would help define the singular objectives for individual systems and allow some flexibility in the focus of cost reduction efforts. recommendation 3-25. Overall, since cost reduction is the main need in many of the materials programs, the committee suspects that research activities are of somewhat limited benefit. Thus, much of this research funding might better be expended on other more challenging research areas, such as hydrogen storage materials, batteries, fuel cells, and the infrastructure. chaPTer 4: hYdroGeN FUel ProdUcTioN aNd disTriBUTioN recommendation 4-1. The committee strongly recommends that the Hydrogen Technology R&D be fully funded at the $99 million level for the areas indicated in the FY06 Presidential budget request to Congress.

OCR for page 137
 APPENDiX D recommendation 4-2. doe should pay special attention to the transition from the current ice fuels infrastructure to a nascent hydrogen economy. as part of this attention, the doe should further focus the achievements of the fuel/vehicle pathway integration technical team by placing greater emphasis on the transition to hydrogen in its systems analysis work and should apply its systems capabilities to analyzing whether the cost goals for hydrogen production, established for a mature hydrogen economy, are appropriate for the transition. specifically, this analysis should examine whether setting a hydrogen cost goal during the transition that is higher than the cost goal for a mature hydrogen economy would speed or impede the introduction of fuel-cell-powered vehicles. recommendation 4-3. The committee believes that significant development efforts should be directed to distributed hydrogen production, including natural gas reforming and electrolysis as well as exploratory work on other distributed generation options. recommendation 4-4. Even closer coordination with other DOE programs would be beneficial, including programs in the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) and the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE). Representatives from FE and NE should be added to the fuel/vehicle pathway integration and hydrogen production technical teams, and FE and NE should be linked closely with systems analysis efforts in the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technology program. recommendation 4-5. doe should create a carbon capture and stor- age (ccs) system subteam (under the hydrogen production team) in the Freedomcar and Fuel Partnership and make it part of the overall hydrogen Fuel initiative. recommendation 4-6. The goal of ±30 percent precision in estimating CO2 capacity should be focused on geological storage. recommendation 4-7. DOE should strengthen the ties between managers of the CCS effort at HFCIT and managers at FE by developing a specific CCS program for hydrogen within FE. In addition, DOE should increase the shared management responsibility of the CCS program between EERE and FE. recommendation 4-8. The technical teams working on hydrogen production, delivery, dispensing, and storage should identify the unique R&D needs for hy- drogen storage for production, as well as for delivery and dispensing, that are not being adequately addressed by the current project portfolio.