National Academies Press: OpenBook

Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report (2013)

Chapter: 5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership

« Previous: 4 Hydrogen, Alternative Fuels, and Electricity
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×

5

Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership

Included in the previous chapters is an assessment of the status, progress, and barriers facing the various technologies that are under development by the U.S. DRIVE Partnership, which has evolved from its predecessor, the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. Overall, technical progress has been steady and, in some cases, impressive. This chapter focuses on the adequacy and balance of the Partnership, including a review of and comments on budgetary resources and levels of effort expended toward each of the major budget line items.

In the three previous National Research Council (NRC) reports (NRC, 2005, 2008, 2010), the NRC reviewed the funding for the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership and the allocation related to that funding between hydrogen-related and non-hydrogen-related activities. Generally speaking, those earlier reviews concluded that the balance between technologies was largely appropriate. However, in the NRC (2010) Phase 3 report, it was noted that major shifts in emphasis and funding had occurred in the most recent 12 months. Those shifts and their continuation are explored in this chapter.

Since the beginning of the Partnership (U.S. DRIVE and its predecessor) and even earlier during the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program, the NRC reviews have recommended government support emphasizing long-term, high-risk, high-payoff technologies. It was and is the view of the committee that this is an appropriate expenditure of government resources. However, recent economic conditions, including the need for government support to prevent the collapse of two major automobile manufacturers, influence what the committee and the government consider “appropriate.” It is still believed by the committee that support for precompetitive research on long-term technologies

Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×

such as the enablers for hydrogen to become a viable transportation fuel and the fuel cell research and development (R&D) leading to affordable hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) is important and should be continued. At the same time, the committee continues to agree that government support for technologies that have impact both in nearer and longer terms, especially those that could transfer some of the required transportation energy from petroleum to biofuels or to the electric grid, is also appropriate.

Historically, hydrogen-related activities represented approximately 70 percent of the DOE funding supporting technology development. This emphasis was consistent with the recommendations of prior NRC reports (e.g., The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs [NRC/NAE, 2004]) and the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Hydrogen Posture Plan: An Integrated Research, Development and Demonstration Plan (DOE, 2004). It was also consistent with continuation of President George W. Bush’s commitment to the funding of the first 5 years of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. However, as discussed in the NRC (2010) Phase 3 report, early in 2010 all initial funding requests for hydrogen-related activities for vehicles were withdrawn (although subsequently reinstated). The reasons given for this were that four major breakthroughs were required to achieve commercialization of HFCVs, and it was deemed highly unlikely that all four could be simultaneously achieved. The four major hurdles cited were the sustainable production of hydrogen, effective distribution, onboard hydrogen storage, and reliable low-cost fuel cells.

The NRC (2010) Phase 3 report noted that these four challenges are indeed huge, but also stated the belief that the other two possible pathways to achieving the ultimate Partnership goals of significant reduction of petroleum use and of emissions—namely, vehicles using biofueled internal combustion engines (ICEs) and highly electrified vehicles (e.g., plug-in hybrid electric vehicles [PHEVs] and battery electric vehicles [BEVs])—also face major challenges. The NRC Phase 3 review concluded that research on all three pathways deserved continued funding for the immediate future (see NRC, 2010, Appendix B, the Phase 3 interim letter report).

Since that time, the pattern of rebalancing the funding portfolio has continued. The share of DOE funding devoted to hydrogen activities has dropped from an FY 2009 total of $200 million to the FY 2012 total of $104 million, as shown in Table 5-1. Over the same period, battery R&D funding in the Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP) related to U.S. DRIVE Partnership efforts rose from $69 million to $90 million and from $23 million to $31 million for advanced combustion R&D (see Table 5-2). The relevant VTP budget has been steadily increasing, as shown in Table 5-2, growing from $174 million in FY 2009 to $238 million in FY 2012. As noted in the NRC (2010) Phase 3 report, other vehicle technologies receiving significant funding, such as more efficient electrical components

Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×

TABLE 5-1 Fuel Cell Technologies Program Funding Distribution, FY 2009 Through FY 2012

FY 2009 (&) FY 2010 (&) FY 2011 (&) FY 2012 (&)
Fuel Cell R&D   80,067,500   75,608,830   41,916,000   43,622,000
    Rescission                   0                   0                   0        188,000
    SBIR and STTR     2,232,500     1,873,170     1,084,000     1,190,000
TOTAL FUEL CELL R&D   82,300,000   77,482,000   43,000,000   45,000,000
Production and Delivery R&D   10,000,000   14,601,000   17,521,000   16,918,000
    Rescission                   0                   0                   0          94,000
    SBIR and STTR                   0        399,000        479,000        488,000
TOTAL PRODUCTION AND DELIVERY   10,000,000   15,000,000   18,000,000   17,500,000
Hydrogen Storage R&D   57,823,000   31,149,000   14,601,000   16,918,000
    Rescission                   0                   0          94,000
    SBIR and STTR     1,377,000        851,000        399,000        488,000
TOTAL HYDROGEN STORAGE R&D   59,200,000   32,000,000   15,000,000   17,500,000
Technology Validation   14,789,000   13,005,000     8,988,000     8,986,000
    SBIR and STTR        211,000          92,000          12,000          14,000
TOTAL TECHNOLOGY VALIDATION   15,000,000   13,097,000     9,000,000     9,000,000
Safety, Codes and Standards   12,237,500     8,653,000     6,790,000     6,938,000
    SBIR and STTR        262,500        186,000        210,000          62,000
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
TOTAL SAFETY, CODES AND STANDARDS   12,500,000     8,839,000     7,000,000     7,000,000
    Systems Analysis     7,520,000     5,408,000     3,000,000     3,000,000
    SBIR and STTR        192,825        148,000                   0                   0
TOTAL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS     7,712,825     5,556,000     3,000,000     3,000,000
    Manufacturing R&D     4,480,000     4,867,000     2,920,000     1,944,000
    SBIR and STTR        519,675        133,000          80,000          56,000
TOTAL MANUFACTURING R&D     4,999,675     5,000,000     3,000,000     2,000,000
    Market Transformation     4,747,000   15,005,000                   0     3,000,000
    SBIR and STTR                   0          21,000                   0                   0
TOTAL MARKET TRANSFORMATION     4,747,000   15,026,000                   0     3,000,000
    Education     4,200,000     2,000,000                   0                   0
    SBIR and STTR                   0                   0                   0                   0
TOTAL EDUCATION     4,200,000     2,000,000                   0                   0
FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES TOTAL 200,659,500 174,000,000   98,000,000 104,000,000

NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix E.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×

TABLE 5-2 FY 2009 Through FY 2012 DOE Vehicle Technologies Program Budget Distribution and Estimated Funds for Projects Related to U.S. DRIVE (or FreedomCAR) and 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP) Goals (New Structure-Prior Years Comparable) ($ thousands)

FY 2011 DOE Budget Structure FY 2009 Comparable Approp. with SBIR FY 2009 Freedom CAR FY 2009 21CTP FY 2009 Other FY 2010 Comparable Approp. wilh SBIR FY 2010 Freedom CAR FY 2010 21-CTP FY 2010 Other
Batteries and elec. drive technol. Tech Val            0            0            0            0
Energy Storage R&D   69,425   69,425            0            0   76,271   76,271            0            0
APEEM   17,358   17,358            0            0   22,295   22,295            0            0
SBIR/STTR     2,713     2,713     2,839            0     2,839
B&EDT Total   89,496   86,783            0     2,713 101,405   98,566            0     2,839
Vehicle sys, simula. & testing (VSST)   21,126   18,210     2,916            0   43,732   38,232     5,500            0
SBIR/STTR        298        298        596        596
VSST Total Adv. combiis. eng. R&D   21,424   18,210     2,916        298   44,328   38,232     5,500        596
Combus. and Emission Control   35,089   22,647   12,442            0   47,239   28,817   18,422            0
SS Energy Conversion (formerly Waste Heat Recovery)     4,568     2,780     1,788            0     8,748     6,221     2,527            0
SBIR/STTR     1,143            0            0     1,143     1,613            0            0     1,613
Adv. Combus. Eng. R&D Total
Materials technol.   40,800   25,427   14,230     1,143   57,600   35,038   20,949     1,613
Propulsion Materials Tech.   10,742     5,882     4,860            0   12,989     7,344     5,645            0
Lightweight Materials Technol.   22,374   22,374            0            0   30,652   30,652            0            0
HTML     5,670            0            0     5,670     5,662            0            0     5,662
SBIR/STTR     1,117            0            0     1,117     1,420            0            0     1,420
Materials Technol. Total Fuels technol   39,903   28,256     4,860     6,787   50,723   37,996     5,645     7,082
Adv. Petrol.-Based Fuels     5,808     3,475     2,333            0     6,780     3,961     2,819            0
Non-Petrol.-Based Fuels & Lubes   13,751     9,720     4,031            0   16,641   11,463     5,178            0
SBIR/STTR        563        563        674        674
Fuels Technol. Total   20,122   13,195     6,364        563   24,095   15,424     7,997        674
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Preliminary FY 2012 Plan—Subject to Change
FY 2011 Congress Request with SBIR FY 2011 U.S. DRIVE FY 2011 21CTP FY 2011 Other FY 2012 Final Approp. with SBIR FY 2012 Planned U.S. DRIVE FY 2012 Planned 21CTP FY 2012 Planned Other
           0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
  81,549   81,549            0            0   89,934   89,934            0            0
  21,614   21,614            0            0   27,806   27,806            0            0
    2,972            0     2,972     3,579            0     3,579
106,135 103,163            0     2,972 121,319 117,740            0     3,579
  42,647   30,047   12,600            0   47,198   34,598   12,600            0
       581            0            0        581        635        635
  43,228   30,047   12,600        581   47,833   34,598   12,600        635
  47,239   29,500   17,739            0   49,320   30,799   18,521            0
    8,748     8,000        748            0     8,707     8,000        707            0
    1,613            0            0     1,613     1,764     1,764
  57,600   37,500   18,487     1,613   59,791   38,799   19,228     1,764
  12,989     6,108     6,881            0   12,576     5,914     6,662          $0
  29,097   26,977     2,120            0   27,284   25,164     2,120          $0
    5,662            0            0     5,662        970            0            0        970
    1,375            0            0     1,375     1,241            0            0     1,241
  49,123   33,085     9,001     7,037   42,071   31,078     8,782     2,211
           0            0            0            0            0
  10,692     5,835     4,857            0   17,904     9,771     8,133            0
       308            0            0        308        544        544
  11,000     5,835     4,857        308   18,448     9,771     8,133        544
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
FY 2011 DOE Budget Structure FY 2009 Comparable Approp. with SBIR FY 2009 Freedom CAR FY 2009 21CTP FY 2009 Other FY 2010 Comparable Approp. wilh SBIR FY 2010 Freedom CAR FY 2010 21-CTP FY 2010 Other
Outreach, deploy. & analysis (OD&A)        950        950            0            0     1,000     1,000            0            0
Adv. Vehicle Competitions     1,750     1,750            0            0     2,000     2,000            0            0
Education            0            0            0            0
Safety, Codes and Standards            0            0            0            0
Legislative and Rulemaking     1,804            0            0     1,804     2,004            0            0     2,004
VT Deployment   25,000            0            0   25,000   25,510            0            0   25,510
Biennial Peer Reviews        500            0        500            0     2,700        500            0     2,200
VMT Reduction & Legacy Fleet Improvement            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
SBIR/STTR        262            0            0        262            0            0            0            0
OD&A Total   30,266     2,700        500   27,066   33,214     3,500            0   29,714
Vehicle Technol. Tolal 242,011 174,571   28,870   38,570 311,365 228,756   40,091   42,518

NOTE: The following Fuel Cell line items were part of the Vehicle Technology Program (VTP) in FY 2009 but were transferred back to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technologies (HFCT) in FY 2010: Technology Validation, $14,789; Safety, Codes and Standards, $12,238; Education, $4,200, Shaded areas indicate a name or structure change that began with the 2011 budget request. All budgets are shown in the 2011 structure. Acronyms are defined in Appendix E. Estimated budgets were received by the committee from DOE in early 2012 and may have changed since that time.

and lighter-weight materials, would all potentially benefit all future propulsion systems and are therefore judged worthwhile.

The recipients of DOE’s FY 2012 funds by sector (national laboratories, industry, academia, etc.) are shown in Figure 5-1. The pattern is broadly similar to that in prior years (see NRC, 2010, Figures 5-1 and 5-2).

The trend continues in the FY 2013 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) budget request illustrated in Table 5-3, with hydrogen activities (Fuel Cell Technologies Program [FCTP]) allocated $80 million (a reduction of 23 percent), while the VTP overall is allocated $420 million (an increase of almost 28 percent over the equivalent FY 2012 total of $329 million), including a 75 percent increase for battery R&D.

Toward the end of the period covered by the NRC Phase 3 report, another major initiative related to U.S. DRIVE Partnership goals emerged. That was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and its massive funding of advanced technologies under the umbrella of economic stimulus. This

Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Preliminary FY 2012 Plan—Subject to Change
FY 2011 Congress Request with SBIR FY 2011 U.S. DRIVE FY 2011 21CTP FY 2011 Other FY 2012 Final Approp. with SBIR FY 2012 Planned U.S. DRIVE FY 2012 Planned 21CTP FY 2012 Planned Other
    1,000     1,000            0            0        995        995            0            0
    2,000     2,000            0            0     1,991     1,991            0            0
           0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
           0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
    2,004            0            0     2,004     1,992            0            0     1,992
  27,410            0            0   27,410   27,876            0            0   27,876
       500        500            0            0     3,500        500            0     3,000
           0            0            0            0     2,912     2,912
           0            0            0            0          79            0            0          79
  32,914     3,500            0   29,414   39,345     6,398            0   32,947
300,000 213,130   44,945   41,925 328,807 238,384   48,743   41,680

expenditure is entirely separate from the U.S. DRIVE Partnership funding, but many of its initiatives are directly relevant to technology development activities within the Partnership. Of the ARRA funds assigned to DOE, $2.4 billion was allocated to vehicle electrification, including $1.4 billion for lithium-ion battery manufacture (and $100 million for other battery technologies), $500 million for electric drive component manufacturing, and $400 million for transportation electrification. (A modest share [1.5 percent] of the DOE ARRA funds was also allocated to support fuel cell purchases for non-automotive use, and this could have an indirect benefit to the U.S. DRIVE goals.)

As noted above, the ARRA-funded activities are beyond the purview of Partnership leadership or this committee, and DOE biofuel activity is also outside the Partnership, but it is nonetheless clear that taken together, VTP and ARRA funding represent a substantial emphasis on hybrid and battery electric vehicles, without concomitant emphases on the other two potential pathways to achieving Partnership and national transportation energy goals referenced above.

Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×

img

FIGURE 5-1 Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy planned program funding, by organization, FY 2012 (estimated). NOTE: IAA, Interagency Agreement; FOA (TBD), Funding Opportunity Announcement (to be determined). SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Adequacy and balance of the program depend on what the program intends to achieve and when. Reducing dependence on petroleum and reducing emissions are goals that are broad and nonspecific and not readily amenable to the setting of priorities. In that regard, engaging the Partnership’s Executive Steering Group to set clearer targets would be desirable in order to provide a framework for ranking technology readiness and for assessing the seriousness of hurdles and evaluating them against potential societal benefits over time. As an example, the National Academies’ report America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation (NAS/NAE/NRC, 2009) laid out a scenario of 2 to 4 percent electrified vehicles (PHEVs and BEVs) and 0 to 1 percent HFCVs by 2020, and 10 to 25 percent and 3 to 6 percent, respectively, by 2035. In order to achieve the projected volumes by 2035, significant improvements in battery performance are needed to make the vehicles attractive to the consumer. Extrapolating from current technologies without successful development of new chemistry, electric drive vehicles are more attractive than fuel cell vehicles for short-range usage, but less so for long-range travel. Thus, a large-scale replacement of petroleum usage by these alternate fuels will potentially rely on both technologies to satisfy consumer needs. It is appropriate to continue investing resources on the most impactful research in order to achieve these targets, and it is important to focus resources within each technology area on the greatest technical challenges (as discussed in Chapter 3), and also not to let the resource dwindle so far as to be unable to sustain a critical mass required to support a robust decision on any technology.

Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×

TABLE 5-3 Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Budget Summary, FY 2011 Through FY 2013 (Request)

FY 2013 vs FY 2012
Programs FY 2011 Current ($ thousands) FY 2012 Enacted ($ thousands) FY 2013 Request ($ thousands) ($ Change) (% Change)
Renewable Energy
     Biomass and Biorefinery R&D      179,979      199,276      270,000        70,724   35.49
     Geothermal Technology        36,992        37,862        65,000        27,138   71.68
     Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies        95,847      103,624        80,000       (23,624) -22.80
     Solar Energy      259,556      288,951      310,000        21,049    7.28
     Water Power        29,201        58,787        20,000       (38,787) -65.98
     Wind Energy        78,834        93,254        95,000          1,746    1.87
Energy Efficiency
     Advanced Manufacturing      105,899      115,580      290,000      174,420 150.91
     Building Technologies      207,310      219,204      310,000        90,796   41.42
     Federal Energy Management Program        30,402        29,891        32,000          2,109    7.06
     Vehicle Technologies      293,151      328,807      420,000        91,193   27.73
     Weatherization and Intergovernmental      231,300      128,000      195,000        67,000   52.34
Corporate
     Facilities and Infrastructure        51,000        26,311        26,400               89    0.34
     Program Direction      170,000      165,000      164,700            (300)   -0.18
     Strategic Programs        32,000        25,000        58,900        33,900 135.60
Subtotal, EERE   1,801,471   1,819,547   2,337,000
Use of Prior-Year Balances       (29,750)       (9,909)                 0
Cancellation of Prior-Year Balances                 0                 0       (69,667)
TOTAL. EERE   1,771,721   1,809,638   2,267,333

NOTE: Numbers in parentheses signify the amount by which funding was reduced. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×

RECOMMENDATION

Recommendation 5-1. The Executive Steering Group should be engaged to set targets for the U.S. DRIVE Partnership that are consistent with the objectives of reduced petroleum consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and U.S. DRIVE should conduct an overall review of the Partnership portfolio, both for the adequacy of the R&D effort to achieve the targets and for focus on the mission of supporting longer-term, higher-risk precompetitive activities in all three potential primary pathways.

REFERENCES

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 2004. 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.

NAS/NAE/NRC (National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering/National Research Council). 2009. America’s Energy Future: Technology and Transformation. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2005. Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report.

Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2008. Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: Second Report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

NRC. 2010. Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: Third 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.

Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"5 Adequacy and Balance of the Partnership." National Research Council. 2013. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18262.
×
Page 154
Next: Appendixes »
Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $48.00 Buy Ebook | $38.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fourth Report follows on three previous NRC reviews of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, which was the predecessor of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership (NRC, 2005, 2008a, 2010). The U.S. DRIVE (Driving Research and Innovation for Vehicle Efficiency and Energy Sustainability) vision, according to the charter of the Partnership, is this: 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 as follows: accelerate the development of pre-competitive and innovative technologies to enable a full range of efficient and clean advanced light-duty vehicles (LDVs), as well as related energy infrastructure. The Partnership focuses on precompetitive research and development (R&D) that can help to accelerate the emergence of advanced technologies to be commercialization-feasible.

The guidance for the work of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership as well as the priority setting and targets for needed research are provided by joint industry/government technical teams. This structure has been demonstrated to be an effective means of identifying high-priority, long-term precompetitive research needs for each technology with which the Partnership is involved. Technical areas in which research and development as well as technology validation programs have been pursued include the following: internal combustion engines (ICEs) potentially operating on conventional and various alternative fuels, automotive fuel cell power systems, hydrogen storage systems (especially onboard vehicles), batteries and other forms of electrochemical energy storage, electric propulsion systems, hydrogen production and delivery, and materials leading to vehicle weight reductions.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!