1
Introduction

BACKGROUND

The increased rate at which the world’s economies are becoming globalized has brought with it an increased demand for energy. Projections of growth in energy use for the next 30 years suggests that the United States, as well as the rest of the world, will be challenged to supply the energy demanded by these economies (NPC, 2007). All sectors of the economy will be affected. Mobility systems account for approximately 28 percent of the total U.S. energy use and approximately 67 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption (EIA, 2005). Consequently, diversifying the energy carriers used in mobility systems and developing new sources for them will be an important component of the U.S. energy situation and are important national issues. Furthermore, concerns about climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been receiving extensive attention from the Congress, the states, the Supreme Court (on the role of the Environmental Protection Agency in regulating greenhouse gas emissions), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The use of hydrogen in the transportation sector has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from that sector.

As President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address, hydrogen, as an energy carrier, would have many advantages if it could be developed for the mobility market. However, the challenges of doing so are great. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership was established to address these challenges and advance the technology enough so that a decision on the commercial viability of hydrogen vehicles can be made by 2015. This report reviews the status and progress of this Partnership.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has been involved for about 30 years



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 16
1 Introduction BacKGroUNd The increased rate at which the world’s economies are becoming globalized has brought with it an increased demand for energy. Projections of growth in energy use for the next 30 years suggests that the United States, as well as the rest of the world, will be challenged to supply the energy demanded by these economies (NPC, 2007). All sectors of the economy will be affected. Mobility systems account for approximately 28 percent of the total U.S. energy use and approximately 67 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption (EIA, 2005). Conse- quently, diversifying the energy carriers used in mobility systems and developing new sources for them will be an important component of the U.S. energy situation and are important national issues. Furthermore, concerns about climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions have been receiving extensive attention from the Congress, the states, the Supreme Court (on the role of the Environmental Protection Agency in regulating greenhouse gas emissions), and the Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change. The use of hydrogen in the transportation sector has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from that sector. As President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address, hydrogen, as an energy carrier, would have many advantages if it could be developed for the mobility market. However, the challenges of doing so are great. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership was established to address these challenges and advance the technology enough so that a decision on the commercial viability of hydrogen vehicles can be made by 2015. This report reviews the status and progress of this Partnership. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has been involved for about 30 years 

OCR for page 16
 iNTrODuCTiON in research and development (R&D) programs related to advanced vehicular technologies and alternative transportation fuels. During the 1990s, much of this R&D was conducted under the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program, which was formed between the federal government and the auto industry’s U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR).1 Building on the PNGV program, in January 2002, the Secretary of Energy and executives of DaimlerChrysler, Ford, and General Motors announced a new government- industry partnership between DOE and USCAR called FreedomCAR, with CAR standing for Cooperative Automotive Research. In September 2003, Freedom- CAR was expanded to also include five large energy companies—BP America, Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil Corporation, and Shell Hy- drogen (U.S.)—to address issues related to supporting the fuel infrastructure. The expanded partnership is called the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. 2 The long-term goal of the Partnership is to “enable the full spectrum of light-duty passenger vehicle classes to operate completely free of petroleum and free of harmful emissions while sustaining the driving public’s freedom of mobility and freedom of vehicle choice” (DOE, 2004a; DOE, 2004b, p. 1-6). The Partnership addresses the development of advanced technologies for all light-duty passenger vehicles: cars, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickups, and minivans. It also addresses technologies for hydrogen production, distribution, dispensing, and storage. The Partnership started with a presidential commitment to request $1.7 billion over 5 years (FY04 to FY08), with appropriations thus far of about $243 million, $307 million, and $339 million for FY04, FY05, and FY06, respectively. The FY07 Continuing Resolution resulted in funding of about $401 million. The FY08 presidential budget request is for about $436 million (see Chapter 5). Funding for research, development, and demonstration activities goes to universities, the national laboratories, and private companies. Especially in the 1USCAR, which predated PNGV, was established by Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation. Its purpose was to support intercompany, precompetitive coopera- tion so as to reduce the cost of redundant R&D, especially in areas mandated by government regula- tion, and to make the U.S. industry more competitive with foreign companies. Chrysler Corporation merged with Daimler Benz in 1998 to form DaimlerChrysler. In 2007, DaimlerChrysler divested itself of a major interest in the Chrysler Group, and Chrysler LLC was formed; DaimlerChrysler will be renamed Daimler AG. The PNGV sought to significantly improve the nation’s competitiveness in the manufacture of future generations of vehicles, to implement commercially viable innovations emanating from ongo- ing research on conventional vehicles, and to develop vehicles that achieve up to three times the fuel efficiency of comparable 1994 family sedans (NRC, 2001; PNGV, 1995; The White House, 1993). 2In February 2003, before the announcement of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, the President announced the FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to develop technologies for (1) fuel-efficient motor vehicles and light trucks, (2) cleaner fuels, (3) improved energy efficiency, and (4) hydrogen production and a nationwide distribution infrastructure for vehicle and stationary power plants, to fuel both hydrogen internal combustion engines (ICEs) and fuel cells (DOE, 2004a). The expansion of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership to include the energy sector after the announce- ment of the initiative also supports the goal of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.

OCR for page 16
 rEViEW Of ThE frEEDOMCAr AND fuEL PArTNErShiP case of development activities, projects are often cost shared between the private sector and the federal government (see Chapter 5 for further discussion). The Partnership plays an important role in the planning, pursuit, and assess- ment of high-risk, precompetitive R&D for many of the needed vehicle and fuel technologies. Federal funds enable this work to move forward. The Partnership also serves as a communication mechanism for the interested players, including government, the private sector, the national laboratories, universities, the public, and others. In late 2006 the National Research Council (NRC) formed the Committee on Review of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Research Program, Phase 2 (see Appendix B for biographical information on the members.) Its report represents the second review by the NRC of the research program of the Partnership. The first review was conducted during 2004 and 2005 and resulted in a report issued in the fall of 2005 (NRC, 2005). (The first review will be referred to as the Phase 1 review and/or report.) Goals aNd TarGeTs The long-term goal of the Partnership is to enable the transition to light-duty passenger vehicles that operate free of petroleum and free of harmful emissions (DOE, 2004b). Starting to reduce the nation’s dependence on imported petroleum is central to this goal. The current plan envisions a pathway starting with more fuel-efficient ICEs and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), including plug-in HEVs (PHEVs), potential use of all-electric-drive vehicles, and, ultimately, addition of an infrastructure for supplying hydrogen fuel for fuel-cell-powered vehicles (DOE, 2004b). To address the technical challenges associated with this envisioned pathway, the Partnership has established quantitative technology and cost goals for 2010 and 2015 in eight areas: • ICEs (both petroleum- and hydrogen-fueled), • Fuel cell power systems, • Fuel cells, • Hydrogen storage systems, • Energy storage systems for hybrid vehicles, • Hydrogen production and delivery systems, • Electric propulsion systems, and • Materials for lightweight vehicles. These goals and the research related to their attainment will be discussed later in this report. Technical teams, as noted in the next section, “Organization of the Partnership,” specify and manage technical and crosscutting needs of the Partnership.

OCR for page 16
 iNTrODuCTiON orGaNiZaTioN oF The ParTNershiP The Partnership consists of a number of oversight groups and technical teams that have participants from government and industry (see Figure 1-1). The Execu- tive Steering Group, which is responsible for the governance of the Partnership, is made up of the DOE assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy (EERE) and a vice-presidential-level executive from each of the Partner- ship companies. It meets as needed. The FreedomCAR Operations Group, made up of DOE program managers and directors from USCAR member companies, is responsible for directing the technical teams and prioritizing research issues. The Fuel Operations Group, made up of DOE program managers and energy company directors, is responsible for the direction of the fuel technical teams. Periodically, the FreedomCAR Operations Group and the Fuel Operations Group hold joint meetings to coordinate fuel and power plant issues and identify strategic or policy issues that warrant attention by the Executive Steering Group (DOE, 2004c). The Partnership has formed 11 industry-government technical teams respon- sible for R&D on the candidate subsystems (see Figure 1-1). Most of these techni- cal teams focus on specific technical areas, but some, such as codes and standards and vehicle systems analysis, focus on crosscutting issues. A technical team consists of scientists and engineers with technology-specific expertise from the USCAR member companies, energy partner companies, and national laboratories, Executive Steering Group Fuel Operations Group FreedomCAR Operations Group Joint Operations Energy Directors OEM Directors Group DOE Program Managers DOE Program Managers Fuel Cell & Vehicle Fuel Tech Teams Joint Tech Teams Tech Teams Hydrogen Production Fuel Cells Onboard Hydrogen Hydrogen Delivery Advanced Combustion- Storage Fuel Pathway Integration Emission Control Codes & Standards Electrochemical Energy Storage Vehicle Systems Analysis Materials Electrical & Electronics FIGURE 1-1 FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership organizational structure. SOURCE: E.J. Wall and J. Milliken, “Overview of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership,” Presentation to the committee on March 1, 2007. Figure 1-1

OCR for page 16
0 rEViEW Of ThE frEEDOMCAr AND fuEL PArTNErShiP as well as DOE technology development managers. They may come from other federal agencies if approved by the appropriate operations group(s). A technical team is responsible for developing R&D plans and roadmaps, reviewing research results, and evaluating technical progress toward meeting established research goals (DOE, 2004c). Its discussions are restricted to nonproprietary topics. Fuel cell and vehicle technical team members come from the USCAR partners and DOE. They handle fuel cells, advanced combustion and emissions control, systems engineering and analysis, electrochemical energy storage, materials, and electrical systems and power electronics. The three fuel technical teams address hydrogen production, hydrogen delivery, and fuel/vehicle pathway integration, each of which has members from the energy companies and DOE. There are two joint technical teams connecting the fuel teams and the vehicle teams: an onboard hydrogen storage team and a codes and standards team. At DOE, primary responsibility for the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership rests with EERE.3 The two main program offices within EERE that manage the Partnership are the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (FCVT) program and the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies (HFCIT) program. The FCVT program has the following specific goal: to support “R&D that will lead to new technologies that reduce our nation’s dependence on imported oil, further decrease vehicle emissions, and serve as a bridge from today’s con- ventional power trains and fuels to tomorrow’s hydrogen-powered hybrid fuel cell vehicles” (DOE, 2004b, p. ES-2). The FCVT also includes the 21st Century Truck Partnership.4 The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership activities in the FCVT program are organized into these areas: • Vehicle systems analysis and testing to provide an overarching vehicle systems perspective to the technology R&D subprograms and other activities in the FCVT and HFCIT programs; • Advanced energy-efficient, clean ICE power trains using various petro- leum and nonpetroleum-based fuels, including hydrogen; • Electric energy storage technologies (batteries and ultracapacitors); • Advanced power electronics and electric machines; 3EERE has a wide variety of technology R&D programs and activities related to renewable energy technologies, such as the production of electricity from solar energy or wind and the production of fuels from biomass, to the development of technology to enhance energy efficiency, whether for vehicles, appliances, buildings, or industrial processes. It also has programs on distributed energy systems (see Appendix A for an EERE organization chart). 4DOE supports several other programs related to the goal of reducing dependence on imported oil. The 21st Century Truck Partnership supports R&D on more efficient and lower emission commercial road vehicles. The NRC Committee on Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership Program is reviewing that program.

OCR for page 16
 iNTrODuCTiON • Materials technology for lightweight vehicle structures and for propul- sion system components, including power electronics and ICEs; and • Fuels technologies that enable current and emerging advanced ICEs and emission control systems to be as efficient as possible while meeting future emission standards and that reduce reliance on petroleum-based fuels. The HFCIT program directs activities in hydrogen production, storage, and delivery and integrates them with transportation and fuel cell development activi- ties. The proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell R&D is undertaken in the HFCIT program, which is focused on • Overcoming technical barriers through R&D on hydrogen production, delivery, and storage technologies, as well as fuel cell technologies for transportation, distributed stationary power, and portable power applications; • Addressing safety concerns and developing model codes and standards; • Validating and demonstrating hydrogen fuel cells in real-world condi- tions; and • Educating key stakeholders whose acceptance of these technologies is critical to their success in the marketplace (DOE, 2004a,b). The manager of HFCIT is the overall DOE hydrogen technology program manager. Some activities related to the HFCIT program focus are not within EERE. The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) supports the development of technologies to produce hydrogen from coal and to capture and sequester carbon. The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) supports research into the potential use of high-temperature nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen, while the Office of Science (SC) supports fundamental work on new materials to store hydrogen; catalysts; fundamental biological or molecular processes for hydrogen production; fuel cell membranes; and other related basic science areas (DOE, 2004d,e). Within EERE there is also an Office of Biomass Energy, which is not part of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. However, biomass is of interest to the Partnership both as one pos- sible source of hydrogen and as part of a strategy to diversify energy sources for the transportation sector, so there is cooperation between the Partnership and the biomass program. receNT iNiTiaTiVes Since the Phase 1 review by the NRC and the ensuing 2005 report, a num- ber of external developments have occurred that may affect the program (NRC,

OCR for page 16
 rEViEW Of ThE frEEDOMCAr AND fuEL PArTNErShiP 2005). There has been an increasing interest on the part of both the Congress and the administration in the security implications of U.S. dependence on imported energy, especially petroleum, as well as the issues of global warming and emis- sions of greenhouse gases. As a result, President Bush has called for reducing gasoline consumption by 20 percent in 10 years (by 2017) through a combination of alternative fuels and reform of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars. He has called for the production of 35 billion gallons of fuel from renewable sources and other alternative fuels as part of this effort to reduce gasoline consumption. Congress has supported expanded production of fuel ethanol, which increased rapidly during the past few years and reached about 5.4 billion gal/yr in 2006, and is providing incentives for much more expansion. 5 Although ethanol production in the United States is now mostly from corn, even- tually, ethanol is expected to be produced from cellulose (e.g., grasses, woody plants, and agricultural and wood wastes). Such processes still require substantial R&D to be successful. Other potential alternative fuels include gasoline or diesel liquids derived from coal or oil shale. Many alternatives are being explored, but which fuels and to what extent they will be able to enter the marketplace by 2017 remains very uncertain. In addition, there are numerous bills in Congress aimed at achieving signifi- cant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. If passed, these bills may create incentives to either improve the fuel economy of vehicles or stimulate the adoption of fuels that produce less greenhouse gases than do gasoline and diesel fuel. There has also been increasing interest in PHEVs, which would contain an energy conversion device, such as an ICE, and a battery that could be charged from the electric grid when not in use. Depending on the battery capacity and control logic, a version of this car could be driven between 20 to 40 miles on battery power alone, which is the distance many people drive to work every day. A cost-effective, durable battery of adequate capacity would enable the electric grid to supply a significant part of the energy for U.S. vehicles. Since virtually no petroleum is used to produce electricity in the United States, this would reduce demand for petroleum in the transportation sector. However, depending on the mix of fuels used to supply electricity for such vehicles, this could lead to increased natural gas imports and consumption of coal, with implications for greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 called for a research program on such vehicles as well as flexible-fuel vehicles (e.g., vehicles that can use gasoline or ethanol or a mixture of both). The President’s Advanced Energy Initiative6 called for the development of advanced battery technologies that would enable a plug-in hybrid vehicle to go 40 miles on battery power alone. The Phase 5See the Renewable Fuels Association Web site at . 6The Advanced Energy Initiative report can be found at .

OCR for page 16
 iNTrODuCTiON 1 review of the Partnership also called for increased research on such high-energy storage batteries. This increased interest on the part of the public, Congress, and the adminis- tration in reducing petroleum use, and hence energy imports and greenhouse gas emissions, could further stimulate interest in the development of hydrogen-fueled vehicles. But it could also shift funding to biofuels, alternative liquid fuels, and plug-in hybrids, creating competition for hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles. Vehicle aNd FUel TechNoloGies The Phase 1 review of the Partnership contains some general discussion of the importance of linking vehicles, fuels, and infrastructure to ensure that the impacts on the commercial market will be significant and widespread. (That discussion will not be repeated here, and the reader is referred to the Phase 1 report for that background [NRC, 2005, Chapter 1].) Successful examples of new fuels include the introduction of unleaded gasoline in 1971 and the introduction of reformulated gasoline in the 1990s. But efforts to introduce alternative fuels such as methanol, ethanol, and compressed natural gas on a wide scale have all foundered, in part owing to economics. Alcohol fuels, such as 85 percent methanol (M85) or 85 percent ethanol (E85), work well in vehicles designed to accept them, and al- though there are several million vehicles on the road that can use these fuels, no extensive fueling infrastructure has followed suit. Compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles have also enjoyed limited success. They are mainly found in fleets and in niche markets. This need for both the acceptance of new vehicle technology that relies on nontraditional fuel and the widespread availability of that fuel in the marketplace is why the Partnership supports R&D for both vehicles and fuels. The Partnership seeks ultimately to enable the widespread deployment of fuel cell vehicles fueled by convenient, competitively priced hydrogen, and it is structured to address the obvious barriers to achieving this goal for both the fuel cell vehicle and the fuel production and delivery systems. Hydrogen represents a totally new fuel for the transportation sector, and a to- tally new infrastructure will have to be put in place. This creates a chicken-and-egg situation. Even if successful and cost-competitive fuel cell vehicles are developed, they could not be sold in great numbers if there were no fuel infrastructure. Like- wise, an extensive hydrogen fuel infrastructure cannot be economically justified to service the first few fuel-cell-powered vehicles that might be built. The hydrogen Economy emphasized the importance of distributed production of hydrogen, e.g., using natural gas and the existing infrastructure to produce hydrogen at fueling stations, or using renewable energy—for example, wind to electric systems—to generate hydrogen through electrolysis at the fueling stations (NRC/NAE, 2004). Generating hydrogen at the fueling station would avoid the need to initially install a vast hydrogen distribution infrastructure. DOE has focused significant efforts on this transition concept, as discussed in Chapter 4.

OCR for page 16
 rEViEW Of ThE frEEDOMCAr AND fuEL PArTNErShiP Even in the most optimistic scenario postulated in The hydrogen Economy, only 10 percent of new vehicles and 6 percent of the total miles traveled in 2024 are accounted for by hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles (NRC/NAE, 2004). The remaining 90 percent of new vehicles are projected to be conventionally powered vehicles, either hybrid or nonhybrid. Consequently, by far the greatest contribu- tion to reduced energy use and emissions by and from the U.S. vehicle fleet over the next 20 years and beyond will come from continued improvement in ICEs, HEVs, and their fuels. To reduce transportation fuel use, current industry-wide efforts to improve the efficiency of ICEs and to further develop the corresponding fuels must continue or, better, accelerate. This is true regardless of the degree to which HEV power trains proliferate or whether advanced diesel engines achieve customer acceptance and meet emission standards. The urgency of this task is amplified by the reality that even with approximately 16 million new vehicles sold in the United States every year, it takes almost 15 years to turn over the national fleet of roughly 225 million vehicles. While much of the Partnership activity is devoted to fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fuel, further improvement in conventional ICEs and HEVs could con- tribute significantly to the goals of energy independence and reduced carbon emis- sions and should benefit from continued collaboration between industry engineers and the DOE national laboratories in this area. The status of Partnership efforts to develop ICEs and emission control technologies is discussed in Chapter 3. commiTTee aPProach aNd orGaNiZaTioN oF This rePorT The statement of task for this committee is as follows: • eview the challenging high-level technical goals and timetables for government and R industry R&D efforts, which address such areas as (1) integrated systems analysis; (2) fuel cell power systems; (3) hydrogen storage systems; (4) hydrogen production and distribution technologies necessary for the viability for hydrogen-fueled vehicles; (5) the technical basis for codes and standards; (6) electric propulsion systems; (7) electric energy storage technologies; (8) lightweight materials; and (9) advanced combustion and emission control systems for internal combustion engines (ICEs). • eview and evaluate progress and program directions since the Phase 1 review toward R meeting the Partnership's technical goals, and examine ongoing research activities and their relevance to meeting the goals of the Partnership. • xamine and comment on the overall balance and adequacy of the research and E development effort, and the rate of progress, in light of the technical objectives and schedules for each of the major technology areas. • xamine and comment, as necessary, on the appropriate role for federal involvement E in the various technical areas under development. • xamine and comment on the Partnership's strategy for accomplishing its goals, which E might include such issues as (1) program management and organization; (2) the pro- cess for setting milestones, research directions, and making go/no-go decisions; (3) collaborative activities needed to meet the program's goals (e.g., among the various offices and programs in DOE, DOT, USCAR, universities, the private sector, and oth-

OCR for page 16
 iNTrODuCTiON ers); and (4) other topics that the committee finds important to comment on related to the success of the program to meet its technical goals. • eview and assess the actions that have been taken in response to recommendations R from the Phase 1 review of the program. Write a report documenting its conclusions and recommendations. The committee met three times to hear presentations from DOE and industry people involved in the management of the Partnership and to discuss insights gained from both the presentations and written material gathered by the commit- tee and a fourth time to review drafts of the report sections (see Appendix C for a list of committee meetings). The committee established subgroups to investi- gate specific technical areas and formulate questions for the program leaders to answer. The subgroups also met with the Partnership technical team leaders to clarify answers to questions and better understand the team dynamics, and several committee members visited the General Motors Honeye facility in New York to view its fuel cell vehicle developments. Concurrently with this review, the NRC is engaged in another related study being undertaken by the Committee on Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydro- gen Technologies. That committee is charged with creating “. . . a budget roadmap of the resources required to realize a significant percentage of hydrogen-fueled vehicles sold by 2020” and will publish its report soon after this report has been published. Coordination between the efforts has been achieved by having two individuals become members of both committees, having members of both com- mittees attend meetings of the other committee, and having informal telephone conversations between the technical experts on this committee and group leaders on the other committee. The Summary presents the committee’s main conclusions and recommenda- tions. This chapter (Chapter 1) provides background on the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, on its organization, and on the dual nature—vehicle development and fuel development—of the program. Chapter 2 examines the important crosscutting issues that the program is facing. Chapter 3 looks more closely at R&D for vehicle technology, and Chapter 4 examines R&D for hydrogen production, distribution, and dispensing. Finally, Chapter 5 presents an overall assessment. reFereNces Department of Energy (DOE). 2004a. hydrogen, fuel Cells and infrastructure: Multi-Year research, Deelopment and Demonstration Plan. DOE/GO-102003-1741. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart- ment of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available on the Web at . DOE. 2004b. freedomCAr and Vehicle Technologies Multi-Year Program Plan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available on the Web at .

OCR for page 16
 rEViEW Of ThE frEEDOMCAr AND fuEL PArTNErShiP DOE. 2004c. Partnership Plan. freedomCAr & fuel Partnership. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart- ment of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available on the Web at . DOE. 2004d. basic research Needs for the hydrogen Economy: report of the basic Energy Sciences Workshop on hydrogen Production, Storage, and use, May 13-15, 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science. Available on the Web at . DOE. 2004e. hydrogen Posture Plan: An integrated research, Deelopment and Demonstration Plan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. Available on the Web at . Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2005. Annual Energy reiew 00, Washington, D.C. Available on the Web at . National Petroleum Council (NPC). 2007. Facing the hard truths about energy: A comprehensive view to 2030 of global oil and natural gas. Executive summary, July 18, 2007. Available on the Web at . National Research Council (NRC). 2001. reiew of the research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, Seenth report. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC. 2005. reiew of the research Program of the freedomCAr and fuel Partnership, first report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. National Research Council/National Academy of Engineering (NRC/NAE). 2004. The hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, barriers, and r&D Needs. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. PNGV (Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles). 1995. Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles Program Plan (draft). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, PNGV Secretariat. The White House. 1993. historic Partnership forged with Automakers Aims for Threefold increase in fuel Efficiency in as Soon as Ten Years. Washington, D.C.: The White House.