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.