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 14
1
Introduction
BACKGROUND
During the past few decades, the U.S. government, either through the admin-
istration or the Congress, has generally addressed the supply of energy and its
use to meet national goals of energy independence, national security, minimizing
environmental impact, and, more recently, minimizing greenhouse gases (GHGs)
and enhancing sustainability (NAS/NAE/NRC, 2009b). The emphasis on one or
another of these goals changes depending on the Congress and/or the administra-
tion, but in recent years all have been of interest.
The transportation sector and the use of light-duty vehicles (automobiles and
light trucks) are almost completely dependent on petroleum, a significant fraction
of which is imported; this dependence presents energy and economic security
issues (EIA, 2012). Further, the combustion of petroleum-derived fuels, mostly
gasoline and diesel, in transportation produces a significant fraction of the nation’s
greenhouse gases, as well as such criteria pollutants as oxides of nitrogen, non-
methane hydrocarbons, and particulate matter that affect local air quality (EIA,
2012). And in recent years, the price volatility of gasoline and diesel fuel has had
significant economic impacts on the transportation sector, the automotive industry,
the economy, and vehicle owners.
The U.S. government during the past few decades has enacted legislation and
policies to help achieve its national goals in the transportation sector. For example,
the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations have increased and
are projected to further increase the average miles per gallon (mpg) for light-
duty vehicles, while federal emissions standards have led to a dramatic decrease
14
OCR for page 15
INTRODUCTION 15
in criteria vehicle emissions per mile traveled.1 The increasing levels of CAFE
standards will create a market pull for advanced technologies that will increase
the relevance of technology development in the U.S. DRIVE (Driving Research
and Innovation for Vehicle Efficiency and Energy Sustainability) Partnership.
Other legislation seeks to promote the replacement of petroleum-based fuels with
alternative fuels, such as those derived from biomass (NRC, 2011a). The federal
government also invests in research and development (R&D) to help enable
advanced vehicle and fuel technologies to emerge in the commercial market-
place (NRC, 2011b), which could help to address the nation’s energy security,
economic, and environmental challenges. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) developed a broad set of strategies in its Quadrennial Technology Review
(QTR) to address the nation’s energy challenges, including electrifying the vehicle
fleet and increasing vehicle efficiency (DOE, 2011). However, the challenges of
doing so are great.
In addition to the federal legislation noted above, California has programs
to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from vehicles, one of which
is the Zero Emission Vehicle Program. The state is promoting the adoption of
zero-mission vehicles (ZEVs)—for example, electric vehicles and fuel cell
e
v
ehicles—by setting benchmarks for 2020 and 2025 for infrastructure to sup-
port such vehicles as well as for the adoption of such vehicles. The governor of
California announced in Executive Order B-16-2012 that the aim is for there to
be 1.5 million ZEVs in California by 2025, with supporting infrastructure and a
growing market.2 This program is also stimulating development of the advanced
vehicle technologies that are under development in the U.S. DRIVE Partnership.
U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
This report contains the results of a review by the National Research Coun-
cil’s (NRC’s) Committee on Review of the U.S. DRIVE Research Program, Phase
4. Although the government/industry partnership known as U.S. DRIVE was
formed in 2011 as the committee was just beginning its review, the Partnership is
very much in line with the partnerships that preceded it, namely, the FreedomCAR
and Fuel Partnership and, prior to that, the Partnership for a New Generation
of Vehicles (PNGV). The NRC reviewed the PNGV seven times, from 1993 to
2001, and the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership three times, between 2004 and
2010. (See previous NRC reports for background on the partnerships, the various
1 In 2010, CAFE standards were enacted requiring light-duty vehicles (passenger cars and light
trucks) to meet 35.5 mpg by model year (MY) 2016. In 2012 a proposed CAFE rule was issued
requiring 56 mpg for passenger cars and 40.3 for light trucks by MY 2025. The average combined
fuel economy for light-duty vehicles in 2011 was 27.3 mpg. See http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy.
2 For more information, see the California Air Resources Board ZEV Program at http://www.arb.
ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/zevprog.htm.
OCR for page 16
16 REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
technical areas, and issues that those partnerships, similar to U.S. DRIVE, have
addressed [NRC, 2001, 2005, 2008a, 2009, 2010a].)
The DOE has been involved for more than three decades in R&D programs
related to advanced vehicular technologies and alternative transportation fuels.
Under the Clinton administration during the 1990s, much of this R&D was con-
ducted under the PNGV program. This initial peacetime government/auto industry
partnership was formed between the federal government and the auto industry’s
U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR).3 The PNGV sought to improve
the nation’s competitiveness significantly in the manufacture of future genera-
tions of vehicles, to implement commercially viable innovations emanating from
ongoing research on conventional vehicles, and to develop vehicles that achieve
up to three times the fuel efficiency of comparable 1994 family sedans (DOE,
2004a,b; NRC, 2001; PNGV, 1995; The White House, 1993).
Although the PNGV focused on achieving a significant increase in fuel
economy for a family sedan and resulted in three concept vehicles unveiled at
the end of that program, under President George W. Bush a shift in the program
took place toward addressing the challenges of using hydrogen fuel and fuel cell
vehicles. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership4 was established to address
these challenges and to advance the technology enough so that a decision on
the commercial viability of hydrogen vehicles could be made by 2015. As the
Obama administration took office in early 2009, a redirection began to take
place, with reduced R&D on hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles and increased
attention directed toward technologies for the use of electricity to power light-
duty vehicles, with emphasis on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and
all-electric vehicles (or battery electric vehicles [BEVs]). The Obama admin-
istration views BEVs and PHEVs as a nearer-term technology and has a goal
of enabling the deployment of 1 million electric drive vehicles on the road by
3 USCAR, which predated PNGV, was established by Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company,
and General Motors Corporation. Its purpose was to support intercompany precompetitive cooperation
so as to reduce the cost of redundant R&D, especially in areas mandated by government reguation, l
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, which is now Chrysler
Group LLC.
4 In February 2003, before the announcement of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, President
Bush 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 and fuel cells (DOE, 2004a). The expansion
of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership to include the energy sector after the announcement of the
initiative also supports the goal of the FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. The partners in the
program included DOE, USCAR, BP America, Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil
Corporation, and Shell Hydrogen (U.S.). During 2008, with increased interest in plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles, the electric utilities DTE Energy (Detroit) and Southern
California Edison were added.
OCR for page 17
INTRODUCTION 17
2015. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the present report, the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-5) provided significant funding
outside of U.S. DRIVE to stimulate investment in the electrification of vehicles.
The DOE also turned to nearer-term applications, such as forklifts, for fuel cells.
In 2011, the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership morphed into U.S. DRIVE, and
a U.S. DRIVE Partnership Plan was formally released in February 2012 (U.S.
DRIVE, 2012).
Building on the participation in the previous partnerships, currently U.S.
DRIVE includes the following partners:
• Automobile industry: U.S. Council for Automotive Research LLC
(USCAR, the cooperative research organization for Chrysler Group
LLC, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Company) and Tesla
Motors;
• Electric utility industry: DTE Energy Company, Southern California
Edison Company, and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI);
• Federal government: U.S. Department of Energy; and
• Fuel industry: BP America, Chevron Corporation, Phillips 66 Company,
ExxonMobil Corporation, and Shell Oil Products US.
According to U.S. DRIVE (2012), the Partnership is a nonbinding, non-
legal, voluntary government/industry partnership. It does not itself conduct or
fund R&D, but each partner makes its own decisions regarding the funding and
management of its projects. By bringing together technical experts and provid-
ing a framework for frequent and regular interaction, the Partnership provides a
forum for discussing precompetitive, technology-specific R&D needs, identifies
possible solutions, and evaluates progress toward jointly developed technical
goals. Its frequent communication among partners also helps to avoid duplication
of efforts and increases the chances of successful commercialization of publicly
funded R&D.
The U.S. DRIVE (2012) vision is that
American consumers have a broad range of affordable personal transportation choices
that reduce petroleum consumption and significantly reduce harmful emissions from the
transportation sector.
Its mission is to
Accelerate the development of pre-competitive and innovative technologies to enable a
full range of efficient and clean advanced light-duty vehicles, as well as related energy
infrastructure.
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,
OCR for page 18
18 REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
dispensing, and storage, and the interface and infrastructure issues associated with
the electric utility industry for the support of BEVs and PHEVs. Furthermore, as
noted in the NRC’s Phase 3 report, the activities and success of the Partnership
“can serve as an inspiration and motivation for the next generation of scientists
and engineers, and thus contribute to restoring American leadership in research
and its application for the public good” (NRC, 2010a, p. 18).
In late 2011 the NRC appointed the Committee on Review of the U.S. DRIVE
Research Program, Phase 4 (see Appendix A for biographical information on the
committee members). Its report represents a continuing review by the NRC of the
research programs of the partnerships that have been formed to address advanced
light-duty vehicle and associated infrastructure challenges. The main charge to
the committee for this report is to review activities since the third review of the
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership (NRC, 2010a). (The full statement of task for
the committee is provided below in this chapter.) The first review was conducted
during 2004-2005 and the second review during 2007-2008, resulting in the Phase
1 and Phase 2 reports (NRC, 2005, 2008a). (These previous NRC reviews of the
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership will be referred to here as the Phase 1, 2, or
3 reviews or reports.)
SCOPE, GOALS, AND TARGETS
The long-term vision of the Partnership is to enable the emergence in the mar-
ketplace of light-duty passenger vehicles that will significantly reduce petroleum
consumption and harmful emissions. One can envision, if technology develop-
ment is successfully introduced into commercially viable light-duty vehicles, a
pathway starting with more fuel-efficient internal combustion engines (ICEs) and
hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), including PHEVs, use of all-electric-drive vehi-
cles, the deployment of biofueled ICE vehicles, and the deployment of fuel cell
vehicles with onboard hydrogen storage as well as the addition of an infrastructure
for supplying hydrogen to these vehicles (see Figure 1-1).5 The Partnership works
on issues at the vehicle/electric grid interface but is not directly involved with
electricity production technologies. The Partnership also works toward ensuring
an adequate electricity infrastructure to provide recharging energy for PHEVs
and BEVs; such an infrastructure would clearly be essential, for example, if a
major shift in PHEV and/or BEV vehicle sales were to take place. To this end, the
Partnership works with other DOE offices that sponsor some research to ensure
that such an infrastructure is in place when needed, or to learn what it will take
to ensure that it can be in place when needed.
If biofuels are to supply a significant portion of the U.S. transportation
fuel needs, the infrastructure for the harvesting of biomass, its conversion, and
5 William Peirce, General Motors, “Vehicle Operations Group Perspective on U.S. DRIVE,” pre-
sentation to the committee, December 5, 2011, Washington, D.C.
OCR for page 19
INTRODUCTION 19
Hydrogen Fuel
Reduce the Displace Cell Vehicles
Environmental Petroleum
Footprint of Battery Electric
Vehicles Vehicles
(Incl. Range Extension)
Hybrid Electric
Vehicles
(Incl. Plug-In HEV)
IC Engine and
Transmission
Advancements
Vehicle Lightweighting
Petroleum (Conventional & Alternative Sources)
Alternative Fuels (Ethanol, Biodiesel, CNG, LNG)
Electricity (Conventional & Renewable Sources)
Hydrogen (Conventional & Non-Carbon)
FIGURE 1-1 A technology vision of how vehicles and fuels may evolve over time, lead-
ing to reduced petroleum consumption and emissions. SOURCE: William Peirce, General
Motors, “Vehicle Operations Group Perspective on U.S. DRIVE,” presentation to the com-
mittee, December 5, 2011, Washington, D.C.
its wide-scale distribution, probably by pipelines, will have to be put in place
(NAS/NAE/NRC, 2009a,b; NRC, 2008b, 2011a). However, the Partnership is
not directly involved in the production or feedstock issues for biomass-based
fuels, which are addressed by DOE’s Biomass Program. The Partnership has
been more directly involved in hydrogen production technologies needed for fuel
cell vehicles, but in this case as well, many such technologies at large scale have
been under the guidance of programs that are not part of the Partnership, such
as DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) or its Office of Fossil Energy (FE).
Thus hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles, plug-in or all-electric vehicles, and bio
fueled vehicles all will have to face infrastructure issues and hurdles to varying
degrees. The initial costs of new technologies, which are much higher than the
high-volume costs, are an impediment to commercialization, and the timing of
the deployment of vehicles and the supporting infrastructure are important issues.
These are especially important given that companies must show a profit within a
reasonable time. The government can work with the private sector to help reduce
these barriers to commercialization.
The Partnership examines a portfolio of pathways and precompetitive tech-
nologies in four broad categories, all of which include potential issues related to
the technologies and/or fuels (U.S. DRIVE, 2012):
1. Vehicles:
• Advanced combustion and emissions control,
• Fuel cells,
OCR for page 20
20 REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
• Electrochemical energy storage (e.g., batteries),
• Electric drive and power electronics,
• Lightweight materials, and
• Vehicle systems and analysis.
2. Fuels:
• Hydrogen production,
• Hydrogen delivery,
• Fuel pathway integration, or
• Other sustainable mobility fuels as agreed to by the Partnership.
3. Joint vehicles/fuels:
• Hydrogen codes and standards, and
• Hydrogen storage.
4. Joint vehicles/electric utility:
• Electric grid interaction.
To address the technical challenges associated with the envisioned pathways,
the Partnership has established quantitative performance and cost targets 6,7 for
precompetitive technologies. These targets and the research related to their attain-
ment are discussed later in this report. Given some of the changes in focus of the
U.S. DRIVE Partnership as compared with some of its predecessors, some targets
for individual technologies are being reevaluated by the Partnership. Technical
teams, as noted in the next section, “Organization of the Partnership,” specify
and manage technical and crosscutting needs of the program.
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 1-2). The Execu-
tive Steering Group, which is not a federal advisory committee, is responsible for
the governance of the Partnership and is made up of the DOE Assistant Secretary
for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and a vice-
presidential-level executive from each of the Partnership companies. Each of the
three industry-related operations groups—the Vehicle Operations Group, the Fuel
Operations Group, and the Electric Utility Operations Group—meets regularly on
a schedule to suit the group’s own needs. The Joint Operations Group meets on a
regular basis to bring together the participants of the three operations groups for
exchanges of information and discussion of issues. This structure is very much
the same as existed in the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership (DOE, 2004c, 2009;
6 DOE defines “goals” as desired qualitative results that collectively signify Partnership mission
accomplishments. It defines “targets” as tangible quantitative metrics to measure progress toward goals.
7 All references to cost imply estimated variable cost (or investment, as appropriate) based on high
volume (500,000 annual volume) unless otherwise stated. “Cost” refers to the cost of producing an
item, whereas “price” refers to what the consumer would pay.
OCR for page 21
INTRODUCTION 21
NRC, 2008a, 2010a; U.S. DRIVE, 2012; also see Chapter 2 for further discussion
of the organization and of Partnership decision making).
As with previous partnerships, the U.S. DRIVE Partnership also has industry/
government technical teams (see Figure 1-2) responsible for setting technical and
cost targets as well as focusing appropriate R&D on the candidate subsystems.
Most of these technical teams focus on specific technical areas, but some, such
as the hydrogen codes and standards technical team and the vehicle and systems
analysis technical team, focus on crosscutting issues. A technical team consists of
scientists and engineers with technology-specific expertise from the automotive
companies, energy partner companies, utility industry companies, and national
laboratories, as well as DOE technology development managers. Team members
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 road-
maps, reviewing research results, and evaluating technical progress toward meet-
ing established research goals (U.S. DRIVE, 2012). Its discussions are restricted
to nonproprietary topics.
The U.S. DRIVE Partnership has also expanded its outreach compared
with the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership by including associate members
representing nonpartner organizations. All but three technical teams have at least
one associate member. These associate members will bring additional technical
FIGURE 1-2 The organizational structure of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership. NOTE: OEM,
original equipment manufacturer. SOURCE: C. Cooper, Department of Energy, “U.S.
DRIVE Overview Presentation,” presentation to the committee, December 5, 2011, Wash-
ington, D.C.
OCR for page 22
22 REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
expertise and knowledge to the technical teams. (See Chapter 2 for a discussion
of which associate members have been included.)
The various vehicle technical teams focus on fuel cells, advanced combustion
and emissions control, systems engineering and analysis, electrochemical energy
storage, materials (especially on lightweight materials), and electrical systems and
power electronics. The three fuel technical teams address hydrogen production,
hydrogen delivery, and fuel/vehicle pathway integration. There are two joint tech-
nical teams connecting the fuel teams and the vehicle teams: an onboard hydrogen
storage team and a codes and standards team. The utility interface issues have
resulted in a relatively new technical team related to electricity, namely, the grid
interaction technical team.
At the DOE, primary responsibility for the U.S. DRIVE Partnership rests
with the EERE.8 The two main program offices within EERE that manage the
Partnership are the Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP) and the Hydrogen and
Fuel Cell Technologies Program (HFCTP).
The VTP mission is “to develop and promote energy-efficient and envi-
ronmentally friendly transportation technologies that will enable America to
use significantly less petroleum and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
while meeting or exceeding drivers’ performance expectations and environmental
requirements” (DOE, 2012). In addition to R&D for light-duty vehicle technolo-
gies, the VTP also works with technologies applicable to medium- and heavy-duty
vehicles through the 21st Century Truck Partnership.9 The VTP addresses such
areas as (1) vehicle and systems simulation and testing, (2) advanced combustion
engine R&D, (3) batteries and electric drive technology, (4) materials technology,
and (5) fuels technology.
The HFCTP’s mission is “to enable the widespread commercialization of
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, which would reduce petroleum use, GHG
emissions, and criteria air pollutants and contribute to a more diverse energy sup-
ply and more efficient energy use” (DOE, 2012). It directs R&D activities on fuel
cells, hydrogen fuel, manufacturing and distribution, and technology validation.
Some activities that are not part of U.S. DRIVE but that are related to the
HFCTP focus are not within the EERE. The Office of Fossil Energy has sup-
ported the development of technologies to produce hydrogen from coal and to
capture and sequester carbon. The Office of Nuclear Energy has in previous years
supported research into the potential use of high-temperature nuclear reactors
8 The EERE has a wide variety of technology R&D programs and activities related to renewable
energy technologies, ranging from the production of electricity from solar energy or wind and the
production of fuels from biomass, to the development of technologies to enhance energy efficiency,
whether for vehicles, appliances, buildings, or industrial processes. It also has programs on distributed
energy systems (see Appendix C for an EERE organizational chart).
9 The DOE 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 com-
mercial road vehicles. The NRC has conducted two reviews of that program (NRC, 2008c, 2012).
OCR for page 23
INTRODUCTION 23
to produce hydrogen, while the Office of Science (SC) supports fundamental
work on new materials for storing hydrogen, catalysts, fundamental biological
or molecular processes for hydrogen production, fuel cell membranes, and other
related basic science areas (DOE, 2004d,e). Within the EERE there also is a
Biomass Program, which is not part of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership. However,
biomass is of interest to the Partnership, both as one possible source of hydrogen
as well as of biomass-based liquid transportation fuels (e.g., ethanol or gasoline or
diesel derived from biomass) and as part of a strategy to diversify energy sources
for the transportation sector; thus there is cooperation between the Partnership and
the Biomass Program. The committee believes, as discussed in this report and as
mentioned in the Phase 3 report (NRC, 2010a), that improving ICE vehicles using
biomass-based fuels is an important part of the portfolio of vehicle technologies
that needs to be addressed. And now, the increased emphasis on vehicle electrifica-
tion suggests that understanding the interface between electric vehicle technology
and the electric utility sector is of even greater importance. The DOE’s Office of
Electricity Delivery and Reliability, which focuses on the U.S. electric transmis-
sion and distribution system, is therefore another office that needs to interface
with the Partnership’s efforts. This office is a separate office, as is the EERE,
within the Office of the Under Secretary of Energy.
A PORTFOLIO OF VEHICLE AND FUEL TECHNOLOGIES
A long-term goal of the Obama administration and of the DOE’s Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy is to “cut the Nation’s greenhouse gas
emissions in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and 83 percent
by 2050” (DOE, 2012). This includes all sectors of the economy, but to achieve
such a goal will require that light-duty vehicles achieve significant reductions in
petroleum use and corresponding GHG emissions. Other goals directly related to
the technologies under development in U.S. DRIVE are these: “Invest in develop-
ing electric vehicles technologies enabling one million electric drive vehicles on
the road by 2015” and “reduce oil imports by 1/3 by 2025” (DOE, 2012). Another
EERE goal, although not directly related to technologies under development in
U.S. DRIVE, is to “generate 80 percent of the Nation’s electricity from a diverse
set of clean energy sources by 2035” (DOE, 2012). If a large-scale penetration
of BEVs or PHEVs takes place, then the goal of reducing GHGs significantly by
2050 will require an electricity production system that reduces such emissions
significantly compared to the current U.S. electric power system.
The main technology pathway options for reducing petroleum use and GHG
emissions from light-duty vehicles are the following:
• Reduce Vehicle Fuel Consumption: Improve the fuel economy of light-
duty vehicles through improved technologies, hybridization, light-
weighting, and other vehicle design approaches in order to reduce both
OCR for page 24
24 REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
the amount of petroleum used per mile of travel and the associated GHG
emissions.
• Use Non-Petroleum-Based Liquid Fuels in Internal Combustion Engines
(ICEs): Use alternatives to petroleum-derived gasoline and diesel fuels in
ICE-powered vehicles. Such fuels could include various alcohols (such
as ethanol, methanol, or butanol) derived either from such non-petroleum
feedstocks as coal, natural gas, biomass, or garbage, or “synthetic” gaso-
line or diesel fuel derived from these feedstocks. The particular feedstocks
and technologies used for the fuel production will determine the extent
to which GHG emissions are reduced throughout the full fuel cycle.
• Use Natural Gas in ICEs: Use natural gas in ICE-powered vehicles. This
reduces GHGs as compared to those from petroleum-based fuels, but
the reduction in GHGs achieved will be less than for fuels that could be
derived from non-carbon-based feedstocks or carbon-neutral biomass.
• Use Hydrogen in ICEs or Fuel Cells: Hydrogen can be used in either
an ICE or a fuel cell. Much of the work by DOE in the partnerships has
focused on developing better fuel cells and technologies for hydrogen
production. If hydrogen is produced with low GHG emissions, then the
full fuel cycle can have a low GHG footprint.
• Use Electricity in BEVs or PHEVs: A BEV would use no other energy
source onboard the vehicle except for electricity from a battery, and a
PHEV would travel some distance on electricity but would also have an
ICE that would burn fuel. Both types of vehicles would obtain the elec-
tricity from the electric power system, and their GHG emissions would
depend on the extent to which the electric power grid is de-carbonized,
the number of miles that the vehicles could travel on electricity alone,
the feedstock used for the production of the fuel used in the ICE on the
PHEV, and the overall design of the vehicle for energy-efficient operation.
It is likely that in the coming decades there will be a diversity of vehicles
and fuels that are commercialized. Some options are lower risk and nearer term
than others, and they all face different technical, cost, and market risks. These
issues have been explored in depth in other reports and will not be repeated here
(see, for example, NAS/NAE/NRC, 2009a,b; NRC, 2008a,b; NRC, 2009; NRC,
2010a,b; NRC, 2011a,b; NRC/NAE, 2004). These studies have concluded that,
given the high-risk and uncertain nature of many of these technologies and the
immense challenge of achieving deep reductions in GHGs and petroleum use, an
R&D insurance strategy pursuing a portfolio of possible technological options is
the most prudent approach.
ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
As noted in the recent NRC (2012) report on a review of the 21st Century
Truck Partnership, the role of the federal government in R&D varies depending
OCR for page 25
INTRODUCTION 25
on the administration and the Congress and the issues that they deem important
for the nation to address. An extensive economics literature on the subject points
to the importance of R&D to promote technical innovation, especially for research
for which the private sector finds it difficult to capture the returns on its invest-
ment; this is especially true for basic research, the results of which can be broadly
used. Such innovation, if successful, can foster economic growth and productivity,
with improvements in the standard of living (Bernanke, 2011). Furthermore, in the
energy area, the government generally has to confront issues of national security,
environmental quality, or energy affordability. Many of these issues are addressed
through policy initiatives or regulations, which place a burden on private firms
to achieve. Thus there is a role for the federal government in supporting R&D,
not only to help the private sector achieve these policy goals but also to help U.S.
firms remain competitive in the face of international competition.
The committee believes that the federal government plays an important role
in the development of technologies that can help to address government policies
and regulations aimed at reducing emissions and fuel consumption from light-duty
vehicles. Such efforts as the U.S. DRIVE Partnership and the 21st Century Truck
Partnership are examples of public-private efforts to support R&D and to develop
advanced technologies for vehicles. As noted by the NRC (2012), public-private
partnerships generally include a variety of efforts (fundamental research, develop-
ment, demonstration, and in some cases deployment). The federal government can
support fundamental research through the national laboratories and universities,
and industry can focus on development. The importance of having government/
industry collaboration is that the private sector can help to transform improve-
ments from research into cost-effective and marketable products. Generally, the
contracting that is engaged in with the private sector is cost-shared, and research
contracts more closely associated with fundamental or basic research will have
a majority of federal funding, whereas contracts with a strong development or
product component will have significant support from the private sector. In its
recommendations in each of the technical areas, the committee has considered
what activities are precompetitive and are most appropriate for U.S. DRIVE and
federal government support. Implicit in all of the recommendations that relate to
the support of additional research, the committee believes that the federal govern-
ment has a role in the R&D.
COMMITTEE APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
The statement of task for this committee is as follows:
The National Academies’ National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Review of
the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership [U.S. DRIVE Partner-
ship], Phase 4, will address the following tasks:
1.
Review the challenging high-level technical goals and timetables for government and
industry R&D efforts, which address such areas as (a) integrated systems analysis; (b)
fuel cell power systems; (c) hydrogen storage systems; (d) hydrogen production and
OCR for page 26
26 REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
distribution technologies necessary for the viability of hydrogen-fueled vehicles; (e) the
technical basis for codes and standards; (f) electric propulsion systems; (g) lightweight
materials; (h) electric energy storage systems; (i) vehicle-to-grid interaction; and (j)
advanced combustion and emission control systems for internal combustion engines.
2. Review and evaluate progress and program directions since the NRC’s Phase 1, 2, and
3 reviews towards meeting the Partnership’s technical goals, and examine ongoing
research activities and their relevance to meeting the goals of the Partnership.
3. Examine and comment on the overall balance and adequacy of the research and
development effort, and the rate of progress, in light of the technical objectives and
schedules for each of the major technology areas.
4. Examine and comment, as necessary, on the appropriate role for federal involvement in
the various technical areas under development, especially in light of activities ongoing
in the private sector or in the states.
5. Examine and comment on the Partnership’s strategy for accomplishing its goals, espe-
cially in the context of ongoing developments across the portfolio of advanced vehicle
technologies (e.g, biofuels, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles), the recent
enactment of legislation on corporate average fuel economy standards for light-duty
vehicles, and possible legislation on carbon emissions. Other issues that the committee
might address include: (a) program management and organization; (b) the process for
setting milestones, research directions, and making go/no-go decisions; (c) collaborative
activities needed to meet the Partnership’s goals (e.g., among the various offices and
programs in DOE, the U.S. Department of Transportation, USCAR, the fuels industry,
electric power sector, universities, and other parts of the private sector [such as venture
capitalists], and others); and (d) other topics that the committee finds important to com-
ment on related to the success of the Partnership to meet its technical goals.
6. Review and assess the actions that have been taken in response to recommendations
from the NRC’s previous reviews of the Partnership.
7. Write a report documenting its conclusions and recommendations.
The committee met four times to hear presentations from DOE and industry
representatives involved in the management of the program and to discuss insights
gained from the presentations and the written material gathered by the commit-
tee, and to work on drafts of its report (see Appendix D for a list of committee
meetings and presentations). The committee established subgroups to investigate
specific technical areas and formulate questions for the U.S. DRIVE program
leaders to answer. These subgroups were organized as follows:
Subgroup on Program Decision Making:
Bernard Robertson, Lead
R. Stephen Berry
David L. Bodde
David E. Foster
Linos Jacovides
Constantine Samaras
Subgroup on Advanced Combustion Engines
and Emissions Control:
David E. Foster, Lead
OCR for page 27
INTRODUCTION 27
Harold H. Kung
Bernard Robertson
Kathleen C. Taylor
Subgroup on Electrochemical Energy Storage:
Dennis A. Corrigan, Lead
Kathryn Bullock
Gerald Gabrielse
Linos Jacovides
Harold H. Kung
Robert J. Nowak
Brijesh Vyas
Subgroup on Fuel Cells:
Glenn A. Eisman, Lead
Dennis A. Corrigan
Gene Nemanich
Robert J. Nowak
R. Rhoads Stephenson
Kathleen C. Taylor
Brijesh Vyas
Subgroup on Electric Propulsion, Electrical
Systems, and Power Electronics:
Linos Jacovides, Lead
Kathryn Bullock
Dennis A. Corrigan
Constantine Samaras
R. Rhoads Stephenson
Brijesh Vyas
Subgroup on Materials and Supplier Issues:
Bernard Robertson, Lead
Dennis A. Corrigan
Glenn A. Eisman
W. Robert Epperly
Kathleen Taylor
Subgroup on Hydrogen Production and Delivery
(including Off-Board Storage):
W. Robert Epperly, Lead
R. Stephen Berry
David L. Bodde
OCR for page 28
28 REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
Glenn A. Eisman
Harold H. Kung
Gene Nemanich
Subgroup on Onboard Hydrogen Storage:
Kathleen C. Taylor, Lead
R. Stephen Berry
Dennis A. Corrigan
Gene Nemanich
R. Rhoads Stephenson
Subgroup on Biofuel and Natural Gas Issues:
Gene Nemanich, Lead
David L. Bodde
David E. Foster
Gerald Gabrielse
Gene Nemanich
Constantine Samaras
Subgroup on Electric Grid/Vehicle Charging Issues:
David L. Bodde and Kathryn Bullock, Leads
Linos Jacovides
Constantine Samaras
Brijesh Vyas
Subgroup on Safety, Codes and Standards:
R. Rhoads Stephenson
Subgroup on Environmental Impacts:
Constantine Samaras, Lead
R. Rhoads Stephenson
The committee subgroups also held several conference calls and site visits
to collect information on technology development and other program issues. The
subgroups also met with the Partnership technical team leaders to clarify answers
to questions and better understand the team dynamics, and several committee
subgroups visited different companies to gain insight on the status of various
technologies (see Appendix D). The Partnership also provided responses to the
recommendations from the Phase 3 report, and these are included in the National
Academies public access file. Budget information included in this report was col-
lected from presentations made to the committee as well as from information pro-
vided by the Partnership to committee questions. The information gathered enabled
the committee to compose its report and reach consensus on its entire report.
OCR for page 29
INTRODUCTION 29
The Summary presents the committee’s main conclusions and recommenda-
tions. This chapter (Chapter 1) provides background on the Partnership and on
its organization. Chapter 2 examines the important crosscutting issues that the
program is facing. Chapter 3 looks more closely at R&D for the various vehicle
technologies, and Chapter 4 examines R&D for hydrogen production, distribution,
and dispensing, as well as issues related to the use of biofuels and electricity for
use in vehicles. Finally, Chapter 5 discusses the adequacy and balance of program
efforts in the Partnership.
The structure of the chapters varies because of their different respective areas
of focus. Chapter 2 addresses crosscutting issues, and those subjects do not have
a technology development focus with specific milestones against which to assess
progress, but the sections do address the importance of these issues to the suc-
cess of the Partnership in meeting its goals, as well as discussing how well the
Partnership has responded to the Phase 3 report recommendations.
The sections in Chapter 3 follow, for the most part, a structure that addresses,
consistent with the statement of task, the following: (1) brief background on
activities, budgets, and discussion of the technology and its importance to the
goals of the program; ���������������������������������������������������������������
(2) the current status of technologies vis-à-vis goals and tar-
gets; (3) an assessment of progress and key achievements; (4) significant barriers
and issues that need to be addressed; (5) the response to recommendations from
the Phase 3 review; (6) the appropriate federal role; and (7) recommendations.
Chapter 4 addresses the energy carriers for advanced vehicles, some of which,
like hydrogen, are within the purview of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership and others,
such as natural gas and biofuels, which are not. The chapter comments on status,
progress, and response to Phase 3 recommendations for those areas that are part
of the Partnership and makes recommendations for future efforts. Chapter 5 is a
short chapter that comments, as in previous reports and as required by the state-
ment of task, on the overall adequacy and balance of the program.
In addition to the appendixes referred to above (committee biographical
information, the EERE organizational chart, and the list of meetings and presen-
tations), Appendix B reprints the recommendations from the Phase 3 report, and
Appendix E defines the report’s acronyms and abbreviations.
REFERENCES
Bernanke, B.S. 2011. Promoting research and development: The government’s role. Issues in Science
and Technology. A publication of the National Academies and the University of Texas-Dallas.
Summer. Available at http://www.Issues.org/27.4/bernanke.html.
DOE (Department of Energy). 2004a. Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure: Multi-Year Research,
Development and Demonstration Plan. DOE/GO-102003-1741. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available at http://www.
eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/.
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 at
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/fcvt_mypp.html.
OCR for page 30
30 REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
DOE. 2004c. Partnership Plan: FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available at http://www.
eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/fc_fuel_partnership_plan.pdf.
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 at http://www.er.doe.gov/production/
bes/hydrogen.pdf.
DOE. 2004e. Hydrogen Posture Plan: An Integrated Research, Development and Demonstration
Plan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. Available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/
hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/hydrogen_posture_plan.pdf.
DOE. 2009. “Addendum to the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Plan to Integrate Electric Utility
Industry Representatives.” February. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. Available
at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/fc_fuel_addendum_2-09.pdf.
DOE. 2011. Report on the First Quadrennial Technology Review. September 27. DOE/S-0001. Avail-
able at http://energy.gov/downloads/report-first-quadrennial-technology-review.
DOE. 2012. Department of Energy FY2013 Congressional Budget Request. Vol. 3. February. DOE/
CF-0073. Washington, D.C.: DOE Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2012. Annual Energy Outlook 2012: Early Release Over-
view. Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_fuel.cfm.
NAS/NAE/NRC (National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering/National Re-
search Council). 2009a. Liquid Transportation Fuels from Coal and Biomass: Technological
Status, Costs, and Environmental Impacts. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NAS/NAE/NRC. 2009b. America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation. Washington,
D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for
a New Generation of Vehicles: Seventh Report. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NRC. 2005. Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report.
Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2008a. Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: Second
Report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2008b. Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies—A Focus on Hydrogen. Wash-
ington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2008c. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership. Washington, D.C.: The National Acad-
emies Press.
NRC. 2009. Letter Report on Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partner-
ship, Phase 3. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2010a. Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: Third
Report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2010b. Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies—Plug-in Hybrid Electric Ve-
hicles. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2011a. Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S.
Biofuel Policy. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2011b. Assessment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, D.C.:
The National Academies Press.
NRC. 2012. Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership: Second Report. Washington, D.C.: The
National Academies Press.
NRC/NAE (National Research Council/National Academy of Engineering). 2004. The Hydrogen
Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs. Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press.
OCR for page 31
INTRODUCTION 31
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.
U.S. DRIVE. 2012. US DRIVE, Driving Research and Innovation for Vehicle Efficiency and Energy
Sustainability. Partnership Plan. February. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.
