TRANSITIONS TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES — A FOCUS ON HYDROGEN

Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies

Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu



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 R1
TRANSITIONS TO ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES — A FOCUS ON HYDROGEN Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies Board on Energy and Environmental Systems Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
The NaTioNal academies Press • 500 Fifth street, N.W. • Washington, dc 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Contract DE-AT01-06EE11206, TO#18, Subtask 3 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Cover: Photos of a fuel cell vehicle and hydrogen fueling station courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies. Transitions to alternative transportation technologies : a focus on hydrogen / Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-309-12100-2 (pbk.) — ISBN 978-0-309-12101-9 (pdf) 1. Fuel cell vehicles— Research—Government policy—United States. 2. Hydrogen as fuel—Research—Government policy—United States. I. Title. TL221.13.N38 2008 629.22′9—dc22 2008036579 Available in limited supply from: Additional copies for sale from: Board on Energy and Environmental Systems The National Academies Press National Research Council 500 Fifth Street, N.W. 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Lockbox 285 Keck W934 Washington, DC 20055 Washington, DC 20001 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (202) 334-3344 (in the Washington metropolitan area) Internet: http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2008 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
commiTTee oN assessmeNT oF resoUrce Needs For FUel cell aNd hYdroGeN TechNoloGies MICHAEL P. RAMAGE, NAE,1 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (re- tired), 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 Staff Board on Energy and Environmental Systems ALAN CRANE, Study Director MATT BOWEN, Senior Program Associate DUNCAN BROWN, Senior Program Officer JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director, BEES National Academy of Engineering Program Office PENELOPE GIBBS, Senior Program Associate 1NAE, National Academy of Engineering. v

OCR for page R1
Board oN eNerGY aNd eNViroNmeNTal sYsTems DOUGLAS M. CHAPIN, Chair, NAE,1 MPR Associates, Inc., Alexandria, Virginia ROBERT W. FRI, Vice Chair, Resources for the Future (senior fellow emeritus), Washington, D.C. RAKESH AGRAWAL, NAE, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana ALLEN J. BARD, NAS,2 University of Texas, Austin ANDREW BROWN, JR., NAE, Delphi Corporation, Troy, Michigan MARILYN BROWN, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta PHILIP R. CLARK, NAE, GPU Nuclear Corporation (retired), Boonton, New Jersey (term ended July 31, 2007) MICHAEL L. CORRADINI, NAE, University of Wisconsin, Madison PAUL DECOTIS, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Albany E. LINN DRAPER, JR., NAE, American Electric Power, Inc. (emeritus), Austin, Texas CHARLES H. GOODMAN, Southern Company (retired), Birmingham, Alabama DAVID G. HAWKINS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C. NARAIN G. HINGORANI, NAE, Consultant, Los Altos Hills, California JAMES J. MARKOWSKY, NAE, Consultant, North Falmouth, Massachusetts DAVID K. OWENS, Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C. WILLIAM F. POWERS, NAE, Ford Motor Company (retired), Ann Arbor, Michigan TONY PROPHET, Carrier Corporation, Farmington, Connecticut (term ended July 31, 2007) MICHAEL P. RAMAGE, NAE, ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Company (retired), Moorestown, New Jersey DAN REICHER, Google.org, San Francisco, California MAXINE SAVITZ, NAE, Honeywell, Inc. (retired), Los Angeles, California PHILIP R. SHARP, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. (term ended July 31, 2007) SCOTT W. TINKER, University of Texas, Austin Staff JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director KATHERINE BITTNER, Senior Project Assistant MATT BOWEN, Senior Program Associate (until November 2007) DUNCAN BROWN, Senior Program Officer JENNIFER BUTLER, Financial Assistant (until December 2007) DANA CAINES, Financial Associate SARAH CASE, Associate Program Officer ALAN CRANE, Senior Program Officer PANOLA GOLSON, Program Associate (until May 2007) JOHN HOLMES, Senior Program Officer LANITA JONES, Program Associate MARTIN OFFUTT, Senior Program Officer (until April 2007) MADELINE WOODRUFF, Senior Program Officer JONATHAN YANGER, Senior Project Assistant 1NAE, National Academy of Engineering. 2NAS, National Academy of Sciences. vi

OCR for page R1
Preface Hydrogen is a potential replacement fuel for gasoline in This report estimates the resources that will be needed to light-duty vehicles. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles could allevi- bring hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to the point of competitive ate the nation’s dependence on oil and reduce U.S. emissions self-sustainability in the marketplace. It also estimates the of carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas. impact on oil consumption and carbon dioxide emissions as Industry- and government-sponsored research programs fuel cell vehicles become a large fraction of the light-duty have made very impressive technical progress over the past vehicle fleet. The study was requested by the U.S. Congress several years, and several companies are currently introduc- in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and contracted for by the ing pre-commercial vehicles and hydrogen fueling stations U.S. Department of Energy. in limited markets. The introduction of fuel cell vehicles I greatly appreciate the efforts made by the many highly into the light-duty vehicle fleet is much closer to reality than qualified experts on the committee. The committee operated when the National Research Council (NRC) last examined under the auspices of the NRC Board on Energy and Envi- the technology in 2004. ronmental Systems and is grateful for the able assistance However, to achieve wide hydrogen vehicle penetration, of James Zucchetto, Alan Crane, and Duncan Brown of the further technological advances are required for commercial NRC staff, and of Penelope Gibbs of the National Academy viability, and vehicle manufacturer and hydrogen supplier of Engineering Program Office staff. activities must be coordinated. In particular, costs must be reduced, new automotive manufacturing technologies com- mercialized, and adequate supplies of hydrogen produced Michael P. Ramage, Chair and made available to motorists. These efforts will require Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs considerable resources, especially federal and private sector for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies funding. vii

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
acknowledgments The Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for This report was reviewed in draft form by individuals Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies is grateful to the chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical exper- many individuals who contributed their time and efforts tise, in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s to this National Academies’ National Research Council Report Review Committee. The purpose of the independent (NRC) study. The presentations at committee meetings pro- review is to provide candid and critical comments that will vided valuable information and insights that enhanced the assist the institution in making its published report as sound committee’s understanding of the technologies and barriers as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional involved. The committee thanks the following individuals standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the who provided briefings: study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative Phillip Baxley, Shell Hydrogen LLC process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their Jon Bereisa, General Motors Corporation review of this report: K.G. Duleep, ICF Catherine Dunwoody, California Fuel Cell Partnership Allen J. Bard (NAS), University of Texas, Austin Kelly Fletcher, GE Research Phillip Baxley, Shell Hydrogen LLC David Greene, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Deborah Bleviss, Consultant Sig Gronich, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Andrew Brown, Jr. (NAE), Delphi Corporation Knut Harg, Norsk-Hydro Douglas Chapin (NAE), MPR Associates, Inc. Richard Hess, Idaho National Laboratory Robert Epperly, Consultant Brian James, Directed Technologies, Inc. Paul Gilbert (NAE), Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. (retired) Bryan Jenkins, University of California, Davis Trevor Jones (NAE), ElectroSonics Medical, Inc. Timothy Johnson, Environmental Protection Agency Vernon P. Roan, University of Florida (emeritus) Fred Joseck, U.S. DOE James Sweeney, Stanford University Arthur Katsaros, Air Products G. David Tilman (NAS), University of Minnesota. Taiyo Kawai, Toyota Motor Company Ben Knight, Honda Motor Corporation Although the reviewers listed above have provided many Johanna Levene, National Renewable Energy Laboratory constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked Margaret Mann, National Renewable Energy Laboratory to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they Fred Maples, Energy Information Administration see the final draft of the report before its release. The review Lowell Miller, U.S. DOE of this report was overseen by Elisabeth M. Drake, Massa- JoAnn Milliken, U.S. DOE chusetts Institute of Technology, and Maxine L. Savitz, Hon- Joan Ogden, University of California, Davis eywell, Inc. (retired). Appointed by the National Research Mark Paster, U.S. DOE Council, they were responsible for making certain that an Steve Plotkin, Argonne National Laboratory independent examination of this report was carried out in Dan Rastler, Electric Power Research Institute accordance with institutional procedures and that all review Bill Reinert, Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc. comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the Robert Rose, U.S. Fuel Cell Council final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring Robert W. Shaw, Aretê Corporation committee and the institution. Frances Wood, On Location, Inc. ix

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
contents ABSTRACT 1 SUMMARY 3 1 INTRODUCTION 19 References, 21 2 TOWARD A SUBSTANTIAL AND DURABLE COMMITMENT: 22 THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY Energy Security, 23 Climate Change, 23 Motivating the Private Sector to Make the Energy Transition, 24 Principles for Effective Transition Policy, 25 Entrepreneurship as a Force for Change, 27 Conclusion, 30 References, 30 3 HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY 31 Hydrogen Production and Delivery, 31 Hydrogen Feedstocks and Technologies, 35 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Technologies, 38 Conclusions, 42 Bibliography, 42 4 ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES 44 Evolutionary Vehicle Technologies, 44 Impact of Biofuels, 51 Overall Conclusion, 63 Bibliography, 63 5 ROLE OF THE STATIONARY ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR IN A HYDROGEN FUEL 65 CELL VEHICLE SCENARIO Technological Readiness, 66 Incentives for the Electric Power Sector, 71 Conclusions, 72 References, 72 xi

OCR for page R1
xii CONTENTS 6 HYDROGEN AND ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR REDUCTION OF 73 U.S. OIL USE AND CO2 EMISSIONS Scenarios and Analysis, 73 Hydrogen Scenario Analysis, 76 Results: Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Oil Displacement for Scenarios, 82 Combined Approaches to Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Oil Use, 89 Conclusions, 91 Bibliography, 92 7 A BUDGET ROADMAP 93 Research, Development, and Demonstration Costs, 93 Infrastructure and Vehicle Costs, 95 Overall Budget Roadmap, 99 Skills Availability, 101 Conclusion, 102 References, 102 8 ACTIONS TO PROMOTE HYDROGEN VEHICLES 103 General Policy Approaches, 103 Policies Specific to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, 103 Pros and Cons of Subsidies and Quotas, 104 Broad Policies to Reduce Oil Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 106 Conclusions, 106 9 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF A TRANSITION TO HYDROGEN VEHICLES IN 108 ACCORDANCE WITH THE TIME LINES ESTABLISHED BY THE BUDGET ROADMAP Anticipated Benefits and Costs of the Transition, 108 Other Potential Benefits, 111 Other Potential Risks, 111 Conclusion, 111 References, 112 APPENDIXES A Committee Biographical Information 115 B Presentations at Committee Meetings 120 C Modeling a Hydrogen Transition 121 D Acronyms and Abbreviations 125

OCR for page R1
Tables, Figures, and Boxes TaBles S.1 Summary of Cumulative Budget Roadmap Costs for Transition to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, 11 2.1 Legislation of Production Tax Credits for Wind Energy in the United States, 27 2.2 Capital Invested in Selected Small Public Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Companies Listed on the NASDAQ, 28 2.3 Capital Invested in Selected Small Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Companies Listed on the AIM Market in the United Kingdom, 28 2.4 Capital Raised by Private Sector Entrepreneurial Companies for Hydrogen Technologies, 29 3.1 Dispensed Hydrogen Costs for Distributed Generation, 34 3.2 Centralized Plant Gate Hydrogen Production Costs, 34 4.1 Potential Percentage Reductions in Fuel Consumption for Spark-ignition Vehicles Expected from Advances in Conventional Vehicle Technology by Category, Projected to 2025, 48 4.2 Comparison of Projected Improvements in Vehicle Fuel Consumption from Advances in Conventional Vehicle Technology, 50 4.3 Estimated Primary Solid Biomass Components Available in the United States in the Near Term and 2030 for Less Than About $65 per Ton, 53 4.4 CO2 Emissions from Today’s Conventional Light-Duty Gasoline and Diesel Engines in a Typical Family Sedan and from Fuels from Less Conventional Sources, 60 4.5 Key Assumptions and Parameters Used in Biomass-to-Biofuels Scenarios, 61 6.1 Assumed Cost and Performance of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles and Gasoline Reference Vehicles, 74 6.2 Hydrogen Supply Pathways Considered in This Analysis, 75 6.3 Assumptions in Reference Case, 76 6.4 Assumed Capital Costs for Hydrogen Production Systems, 80 6.5 Type of Hydrogen Supply over Time, 81 6.6 Transition Costs and Timing for Hydrogen Cases, 82 6.7 Assumed Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Unit of Fuel Consumed, 83 6.8 Assumed Biofuel Use in Case 3, 87 6.9 Gasoline Displacement for Cases 1-4 Compared to Reference Case, 90 6.10 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions for Cases 1-4 Compared to Reference Case, 91 6.1.1 Range over Which Parameter Values Can Vary for Case 1, 84 7.1 Recent R&D Funding by the U.S. Department of Energy for Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Production, 94 7.2 Estimated Future Government Funding for RD&D, 94 7.3 Major Cost Elements in a Budget Roadmap, 96 xiii

OCR for page R1
xiv TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 7.4 Projected Cumulative Infrastructure Requirements in 2020, 2035, and 2050 for the Hydrogen Success (Case 1) Sce- nario, 96 7.5 Quantities Related to Infrastructure Estimates for the Hydrogen Success (Case 1) Scenario, 97 7.6 Summary of Cumulative Budget Roadmap Costs for Transition to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles, 100 FiGUres S.1 (Left) Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the U.S. light-duty fleet and (right) fraction of new hydrogen vehicles sold each year for the Hydrogen Success case, 8 S.2 (Left) Annual gasoline consumption, and (right) annual well-to-wheels greenhouse gas emissions for the Hydrogen Success Case relative to a reference case with no hydrogen vehicles, 8 S.3 Total annual expenditures for vehicles and hydrogen supply for transition to the breakeven year for the Hydrogen Success case, 10 S.4 Annual government expenditures through the transition to 2023, 12 S.5 Comparison of (left) annual gasoline use and (right) annual greenhouse gas emissions, 16 S.6 Impact of combined cases: (Left) annual gasoline use and (right) annual greenhouse gas emissions, 17 2.1 U.S. wind power capacity additions, 1999-2006, 27 3.1 ZEV panel vehicle market penetration estimates, 40 3.2 BMW assessment of on-board liquid hydrogen storage, 41 4.1 U.S. light-duty vehicle fuel efficiency and performance trends from 1975 to 2005, 45 4.2 U.S. hybrid electric vehicle sales through 2006, 46 4.3 Fuel consumption of light-duty vehicles with different power trains using projected 2030 technology compared to a typical 2005 gasoline-powered vehicle, 48 4.4 Projected sustainable biomass technically available in the United States by 2050, with aggressive energy crops, 53 4.5 Transesterification of vegetable oils, 57 4.6 Published estimates of range of impacts on net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and oil inputs for grain-based ethanol, 60 4.7 Primary energy inputs and net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for gasoline and ethanol, 60 4.8 Growth in production of corn-based ethanol in the United States, 61 5.1 Stationary power and the transportation system, 65 5.2 Energy source consumption for electricity generation, 66 5.3 Nationwide NOx and SO2 emissions from the power sector, 66 5.4 FutureGen concept for co-production of power and hydrogen, 68 5.5 Schematic of high-temperature fuel cell hybrid system, 70 5.6 Fueling capacity for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) in the U.S. power sector, 71 5.7 Advanced vehicle market penetration, 71 6.1 Hydrogen cases: Number of gasoline and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in the fleet over time for three hydrogen cases, 74 6.2 Hydrogen cases: Fraction of new gasoline and hydrogen vehicles sold each year, 74 6.3 Reference case: Number of light-duty vehicles in the fleet, 77 6.4 Reference case: Assumed fuel economies for gasoline ICEVs and gasoline hybrid vehicles (HEVs), 77 6.5 Reference case: Assumed biofuel use, 77 6.6 Assumed retail prices for hydrogen and gasoline vehicles over time for Cases 1 and 1a (left) and Case 1b (right), 78 6.7 DOE plan for introduction of light-duty hydrogen vehicles into 27 “lighthouse” cities, 79 6.8 Fraction of gasoline stations offering hydrogen, 2000-2050, 79 6.9 Capacity of new hydrogen stations by year, 2000-2050, 79 6.10 Early infrastructure capital costs for Case 1, 80 6.11 Capital costs for hydrogen infrastructure, 80 6.12 Estimated average cost of delivered hydrogen in the United States and the assumed gasoline price, 80

OCR for page R1
xv TABLES, FIGURES, AND BOXES 6.13 Cash flows for Case 1, 81 6.14 Greenhouse gas emissions from hydrogen supply over time, 83 6.15 Case 1 gasoline consumption relative to the reference case, 83 6.16 Case 1 greenhouse gas emissions relative to the reference case, 83 6.17 Case 2 assumed market penetration for gasoline ICEVs and advanced gasoline HEVs, 86 6.18 Case 2 assumed on-road fuel economy for new gasoline ICEVs and gasoline hybrid ICEVs over time, 86 6.19 Gasoline consumption for Case 2 and for the reference case, 87 6.20 Greenhouse gas emissions for Case 2 and for the reference case, 87 6.21 Annual production of biofuels assumed for Case 3, 88 6.22 Case 3: Added biofuel production relative to the reference case, 88 6.23 Case 3: Oil displacement relative to the reference case, 88 6.24 Case 3: Greenhouse gas emission reductions relative to the reference case, 88 6.25 Oil consumption for Cases 1-3 compared, 89 6.26 Greenhouse gas emissions for Cases 1-3 compared, 89 6.27 Oil use for Cases 1 and 2 combined, 89 6.28 Greenhouse gas emissions with HFCVs for Cases 1 and 2 combined, 89 6.29 Oil use for Cases 2 and 3 combined, 90 6.30 Greenhouse gas emission reductions for Cases 2 and 3 combined, 90 6.31 Assumed number of vehicles in the fleet for Case 4, 90 6.32 Oil use in million gallons per year for Case 4, 90 6.33 Greenhouse gas emissions for Case 4, 91 6.34 Cumulative reduction of greenhouse gas emissions for Case 2, Case 3 plus Case 2, and Case 4, 91 6.1.1 Sensitivity of breakeven year to changes in HCFV fuel economy, HFCV price, H 2 cost, and gasoline price, 85 6.1.2 Sensitivity of buydown cost (billion dollars) to changes in HFCV fuel economy, HFCV price, H 2 cost, and gasoline price, 85 6.1.3 Sensitivity of capital investment to breakeven year (incremental price of HFCVs + H 2 infrastructure capital, billion dollars), 85 7.1 Total annual expenditures for vehicles and hydrogen supply for transition to the breakeven year for the Hydrogen Success case, excluding RD&D costs, 97 7.2 Annual government expenditures through the transition to 2023, 98 7.3 Total annual costs of transition to the breakeven year for the Case 1 scenario, including RD&D costs plus total vehicle and hydrogen supply costs, 99 7.4 Total annual costs of RD&D plus incremental costs of HFCVs over conventional vehicles up to the breakeven year for the Case 1 scenario, 100 7.5 Diagram of the early structure of the hydrogen and fuel cell industries, identifying areas where skilled people will be needed, 101 8.1 Illustrative example of a price-based policy approach, indicating the per-vehicle subsidy from government for each fuel cell vehicle sold in a particular year for the Hydrogen Success (Case 1) scenario, 105 8.2 Illustrative example of a quantity-based policy approach, indicating the required fraction (quota) of all new vehicles sold in a particular year that must be fuel cell vehicles for the Hydrogen Success (Case 1) scenario, 105 C.1(a) Flow diagram of simple transition model (STM) (part 1), 122 C.1(b) Flow diagram of simple transition model (STM) (part 2), oil and greenhouse gas emissions saved, 123 C.2 Delivered hydrogen costs in selected cities, 123 C.3 Oil saved per year with different scenarios compared to the reference case, 124 C.4 Greenhouse gas emissions avoided compared to the reference case, 124 BoXes 3.1 The Hydrogen-powered ICEV, 33 3.2 Auto Dealers Selling HFCVs and Hydrogen, 33 6.1 Sensitivity of Breakeven Analysis Results to Changes in Assumptions, 84-85