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 165
B
Recommendations from the
National Research Council’s
Review of the Research Program of the
FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership:
Third Report
CHAPTER 2: MAJOR CROSSCUTTING ISSUES
Safety
Recommendation [2-1]. The Partnership should establish a program to address
all end-to-end safety aspects in addition to the existing codes and standards work.
This work should be based on the pathways work and should include production,
distribution, dispensing, and the vehicles. It should apply to all six alternative
fuels and their associated vehicle types, including the use of high-voltage electric-
ity on many of these vehicles. [NRC, 2010, p. 42.]
Recommendation [2-2]. The Partnership should generate and act on a failure
modes and effects analysis of the full pressure vessel assembly, which includes the
attached components and the human interface at the pump. Accelerated laboratory
tests need to be run to identify failure/degradation modes of the pressure vessel
and the mechanisms leading to failure. A nondestructive test program needs to be
developed to assess pressure vessel integrity, which should serve both as a tool for
quality control and as a means of checking for damage in service. The work on
the analysis of worldwide natural gas and hydrogen incidents should continue. An
R&D program should be established to develop a new generation of pressure-relief
devices that can protect the storage tank from localized fire. [NRC, 2010, p. 42.]
Recommendation [2-3]. The hydrogen compatibility (including embrittlement)
program should be continued. The Partnership should have experts in hydrogen
embrittlement review the operating conditions and materials in the high-pressure
delivery and refueling stations for potential problem areas, including welds and
nonmetallic materials. [NRC, 2010, p. 42.]
165
OCR for page 166
166 APPENDIX B
Recommendation [2-4]. The Partnership should establish an emergency response
R&D program with the involvement of emergency responders and research orga-
nizations to do fundamental work on the response to incidents involving alterna-
tive fuels. High-voltage batteries and electrical systems should also be included.
[NRC, 2010, p. 42.]
Recommendation [2-5]. The Partnership should fully integrate the DOT safety
efforts into the safety and the codes and standards aspects of the FreedomCAR
and Fuel Partnership. All relevant parts of the DOT should be included: those
involving passenger vehicles, trucks, the hydrogen bus program, pipelines and
hazardous materials, fuel delivery trailers, and others. Alternative fuels should be
included. The DOE and the Partnership’s Executive Steering Group should con-
sider adding a high-level DOT representative to the ESG. [NRC, 2010, pp. 42-43.]
Battery Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Electric
Vehicles and the U.S. Electric Grid
Recommendation [2-6]. The grid interaction technical team should work with
state utility regulatory authorities, perhaps through the National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners, to ensure that the incentives provided by state
regulations mesh well with the national interest in vehicle deployment, reduced
oil consumption, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. [NRC, 2010, p. 49.]
Recommendation [2-7]. The grid interaction technical team should continue to
encourage and, where appropriate, facilitate the ongoing development of open-
architecture standards for smart-vehicle/smart-grid interconnections currently
being developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and the
Society of Automotive Engineers. In doing so, the technical team should encour-
age participation from the purveyors of smart-grid systems and battery suppliers
as well as from the electric utility industry. [NRC, 2010, pp. 49-50.]
Recommendation [2-8]. Standards for the reuse of electric vehicle batteries
should be developed under leadership of the grid interaction technical team, and
training materials for the use of these standards should be developed in parallel.
[NRC, 2010, p. 50.]
Persisting Trends in Automotive Innovation:
Implications for the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership
Recommendation [2-9]. The Partnership should consider including manufactur-
ing processes among the precompetitive R&D programs. Because its funding
originates in the United States, the Partnership should emphasize the technologies
and methods most capable of realizing advanced vehicle production in the United
States, to the extent that this is feasible. [NRC, 2010, p. 51.]
OCR for page 167
APPENDIX B 167
Recommendation [2-10]. As the basic platform of the automobile becomes more
modular, interface standards will be required to enable greater competition among
technology alternatives. While specific interface standards have been discussed
elsewhere in this report, the Partnership should also consider conducting a more
general review of areas in which industry-wide standards could accelerate the
pace of innovation and lower its cost. [NRC, 2010, p. 51.]
Recommendation [2-11]. The Partnership should seek out and implement meth-
ods to allow new, nontraditional suppliers—especially, emerging entrepreneur-
ial companies—to participate in the innovation process. The Small Business
Innovation Research (SBIR) program can become a highly productive source of
innovation, and the Partnership should review its linkages with this program and
strengthen them where appropriate. [NRC, 2010, p. 52.]
Environmental Impacts of Alternative Pathways
Recommendation [2-12]. The Partnership should undertake a review of the state
of methods and case studies that have been carried out on environmental impacts
related to the technologies under development. This review would answer some
remaining open questions and help direct systems studies so as to maximize
their efforts to characterize the environmental impacts of different fuel pathways.
[NRC, 2010, p. 55.]
Recommendation [2-13]. The Partnership should strengthen the links between
the systems analysis teams and the technical teams. In particular, technological
goals and targets should include consideration of priorities established in systems
analysis, and systems analysis should be conducted on emerging technologies
identified by the technical teams. [NRC, 2010, p. 55.]
Recommendation [2-14]. The Partnership should consider incorporating the
broader scope of a “cradle-to-grave” analysis rather than a “source (well)-to-
wheels” approach in program planning from production to recycling in order
to better consider total energy consumption, total emissions, and the total envi-
ronmental impact of various energy/vehicle pathways and technologies. [NRC,
2010, p. 55.]
CHAPTER 3: VEHICLE SUBSYSTEMS
Advanced Combustion, Emissions Control,
and Hydrocarbon Fuels
Recommendation [3-1]. The DOE should continue to support financially, be
active in, and work to further enhance the collaborations among the national
laboratories, industry, and academia in order most effectively to direct research
OCR for page 168
168 APPENDIX B
efforts to areas where enhanced fundamental understanding is most needed to
improve internal combustion engine and aftertreatment power-train performance.
[NRC, 2010, p. 64.]
Recommendation [3-2]. The DOE should continue to support the development
and dissemination of the open-source-code computational fluid dynamics program
KIVA. This tool is critical to integrating the new understanding of combustion
and emission processes into a framework that allows it to be used to guide further
research and identify fuel and engine operating conditions that will maximize
reductions in fuel consumption over the entire operating range of the engine.
[NRC, 2010, p. 64.]
Recommendation [3-3]. The advanced combustion and emission control techni-
cal team should engage with the biofuels research community to ensure that the
biofuels research which the team is conducting is consistent with and leverages
the latest developments in the field of biofuels R&D. [NRC, 2010, p. 64.]
Recommendation [3-4]. As the vehicle mix within the on-the-road light-duty
vehicle fleet is likely to change with the implementation of the new fuel economy
standards, the advanced combustion and emission control technical team should
interface with the system modeling technical team to make sure that their research
programs are consistent with the changing demands for the optimal matching of
the engine operational regimes, power management, and emission control that
will be imposed on the internal combustion engine and hybrid power trains as
the vehicle characteristics evolve. [NRC, 2010, pp. 64-65.]
Fuel Cells
Recommendation [3-5]. As the auto companies begin to down-select tech-
nologies for fuel cell vehicles, they must focus their limited R&D resources on
development engineering for the platform selected and move into the competitive
(as distinct from precompetitive) arena. The only way that alternative fuel cell
systems and components can receive sufficient attention to mitigate the overall
program risk is for the precompetitive program, sponsored largely by the DOE,
to support them. Thus, the DOE should increase its focus on precompetitive R&D
related to both the fuel cell stack and the balance of plant—the other components
of the fuel cell system required for successful operation, such as controls, fuel
storage, instrumentation, and so forth—to develop alternatives to the down-
selected technologies. [NRC, 2010, p. 72.]
Recommendation [3-6]. The DOE should incorporate more of the advanced,
most recent, nonproprietary OEM system configuration specifications in the vari-
ous systems and cost models for fuel cell power plants. Systems configurations no
OCR for page 169
APPENDIX B 169
longer demonstrated to be optimal should be abandoned in favor of best proven
technology. [NRC, 2010, p. 72.]
Recommendation [3-7]. The DOE should establish backup technology paths,
in particular for stack operation modes and stack components, with the fuel cell
technical team to address the case of current technology selections determined
not likely to meet the targets. The DOE should assess which critical technology
development efforts are not yielding sufficient progress and ensure that adequate
levels of support for alternative pathways are in place. [NRC, 2010, p. 72.]
Recommendation [3-8]. The DOE, with input from the fuel cell technical team,
should evaluate, and in selected cases accelerate, the timing of the “go/no-go”
decisions when it is evident that significant technological progress has been made
and adopted by the OEMs. [NRC, 2010, p. 72.]
Onboard Hydrogen Storage
Recommendation [3-9]. The centers of excellence are well managed and have
provided an excellent approach for organizing and managing a large, diverse
research activity with many participants at various locations. Measures should
be taken to continue research on the most promising approaches for onboard
hydrogen storage materials. The complete documentation and communication
of findings should be undertaken for all materials examined for the completed
R&D. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the hydrogen storage program has
been in place for less than a decade, the Partnership should strongly support
continuing the funding of basic research activities. Public domain contractor
reports should be available through links on the DOE EERE Web site. [NRC,
2010, pp. 83-84.]
Recommendation [3-10]. Research on compressed-gas storage should be
expanded to include safety-related activities that determine cost and/or weight,
such as validation of the design point for burst pressure ratio at beginning of
life and end of life and evaluation of Type 3 versus Type 4 storage vessels. Fur-
thermore, finite-element modeling of stresses and heat flow in fires, investiga-
tive work on wraps (i.e., translation efficiency), and analysis of applicability
of compressed-gas storage to specific vehicle types would be beneficial. [NRC,
2010, p. 84.]
Recommendation [3-11]. The high cost of aerospace-quality carbon fiber is a
major impediment to achieving cost-effective compressed-hydrogen storage. The
reduction of fiber cost and the use of alternative fibers should be a major focus
for the future. Systems analysis methodology should be applied to needed critical
cost reductions. [NRC, 2010, p. 84.]
OCR for page 170
170 APPENDIX B
Recommendation [3-12]. The hydrogen storage program is one of the most criti-
cal parts of the hydrogen/fuel cell vehicle part of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Part-
nership—both for physical (compressed gas) and for materials storage. It should
continue to be funded, especially the systems-level work in the Hydrogen Storage
Engineering COE. Efforts should also be directed to compressed-gas storage to help
achieve weight and cost reduction while maintaining safety. [NRC, 2010, p. 84.]
Recommendation [3-13]. The time for charging the hydrogen storage material
with hydrogen (refueling time) is a program goal (3 minutes for a 5 kg charge).
Concepts beyond materials properties alone should be explored to meet this chal-
lenge for customer satisfaction, and will require coordination with the areas of
production, off-board storage, and dispensing. [NRC, 2010, p. 84.]
Recommendation [3-14]. There should be an effort to anticipate hydrogen stor-
age material property and performance requirements that will place demands on
developed systems—for example, purity and response to impurities, aging and
lifetime prediction, and safety in adverse environments. Linkage between the
hydrogen storage and production and delivery activities should receive attention.
[NRC, 2010, p. 84.]
Recommendation [3-15]. The search for suitable onboard hydrogen storage
materials has been broadly based, and significant progress is reported. Nonethe-
less the current materials are not close to the long-range goals of the Partnership.
Onboard hydrogen storage R&D risks losing out to near-term applications for
future emphasis and funding. The management of a long-term/short-term joint
portfolio should be given consideration. [NRC, 2010, pp. 84-85.]
Electrochemical Energy Storage
Recommendation [3-16]. The Partnership should revisit and modify, as neces-
sary, the goals and targets for battery electric vehicles in view of the changing
market conditions and improvements in technologies. [NRC, 2010, p. 93.]
Recommendation [3-17]. The Partnership should significantly intensify its efforts
to develop improved materials and systems for high-energy batteries for both
plug-in electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles. [NRC, 2010, p. 93.]
Recommendation [3-18]. The Partnership should conduct a study to determine
the cost of recycling batteries and the potential of savings from recycled materi-
als. A research program on improved processes for recycling advanced batteries
should be initiated in order to reduce the cost of the processes and recover useful
materials and to reduce potentially hazardous toxic waste and, if necessary, to
explore and develop new processes that preserve and recycle a much larger por-
tion of the battery values. [NRC, 2010, p. 93.]
OCR for page 171
APPENDIX B 171
Electric Propulsion and Electrical Systems
Recommendation [3-19]. The Partnership should continue to focus on activi-
ties to reduce the cost, size, and losses in the power electronics and electrical
machines. [NRC, 2010, p. 105.]
Recommendation [3-20]. The Partnership should conduct a project to evaluate
the effect of battery charging on lithium-ion battery packs as a function of the
cell chemistries, cell geometries, and configurations in the pack; battery string
voltages; and numbers of parallel strings. A standardized method for these evalu-
ations should be developed to ensure the safety of battery packs during vehicle
operation as well as during plug-in charging. [NRC, 2010, p. 105.]
Recommendation [3-21]. The Partnership should consider conducting a project
to investigate induction motors as replacements for the permanent magnet motors
now almost universally used for electric propulsion. [NRC, 2010, p. 105.]
Structural Materials
Recommendation [3-22]. The materials technical team should develop a sys-
tems-analysis methodology to determine the currently most cost-effective way
for achieving a 50 percent weight reduction for hybrid and fuel cell vehicles.
The materials team needs to evaluate how the cost penalty changes as a function
of the percent weight reduction, assuming that the most effective mix of mate-
rials is used at each step in the weight-reduction process. The analysis should
be updated on a regular basis as the cost structures change as a result of pro-
cess research breakthroughs and commercial developments. [NRC, 2010, p.
108.]
Recommendation [3-23]. The magnesium castings study is completed, and no
further technical effort is anticipated by the Partnership as recommended in the
Phase 2 report. However, magnesium castings should be considered in completing
the cost reduction recommendation listed above. [NRC, 2010, p. 109.]
Recommendation [3-24]. Methods for the recycling of carbon-reinforced com-
posites need to be developed. [NRC, 2010, p. 109.]
CHAPTER 4: HYDROGEN AND BIOFUELS
Hydrogen Fuel Pathways
Recommendation [4-1]. The DOE should broaden the role of the fuel pathways
integration technical team (FPITT) to include an investigation of the pathways
to provide energy for all three approaches currently included in the Partner-
OCR for page 172
172 APPENDIX B
ship. This broader role could include not only the current technical subgroups
for hydrogen, but also subgroups on biofuels utilization in advanced internal
combustion engines and electricity generation requirements for PHEVs and
BEVs, with appropriate industrial representation on each. The role of the parent
FPITT would be to integrate the efforts of these subgroups and to provide an
overall perspective of the issues associated with providing the required energy
in a variety of scenarios that meet future personal transportation needs. [NRC,
2010, p. 118.]
Hydrogen Production
Hydrogen Production from Coal and Biomass
Recommendation [4-2]. The DOE’s Fuel Cell Technologies program and the
Office of Fossil Energy should continue to emphasize the importance of dem-
onstrated CO2 disposal in enabling essential pathways for hydrogen production,
especially for coal. [NRC, 2010, pp. 120-121.]
Recommendation [4-3]. The Fuel Cell Technologies program should adjust its
Technology Roadmap to account for the possibility that CO2 sequestration will
not enable a midterm readiness for commercial hydrogen production from coal. It
should also consider the consequences to the program of apparent large increases
in U.S. natural gas reserves. [NRC, 2010, p. 121.]
Recommendation [4-4]. The EERE should continue to work closely with the
Office of Fossil Energy to vigorously pursue advanced chemical and biological
concepts for carbon disposal as a hedge against the inability of geological storage
to deliver a publicly acceptable and cost-effective solution in a timely manner.
The committee also notes that some of the technologies now being investigated
might offer benefits in the small-scale capture and sequestration of carbon from
distributed sources. [NRC, 2010, p. 121.]
Recommendation [4-5]. The DOE should continue to evaluate the availability
of biological feedstocks for hydrogen in light of the many other claims on this
resource—liquid fuels, chemical feedstocks, electricity, food, and others. [NRC,
2010, p. 121.]
Reforming of Bio-Derived Fuels
Recommendation [4-6]. The Partnership should prioritize the many biomass-to-
biofuel-to-hydrogen process pathways in order to bring further focus to develop-
ment in this very broad area. [NRC, 2010, p. 123.]
OCR for page 173
APPENDIX B 173
High-Temperature Thermochemical Splitting of Water
Recommendation [4-7]. The Partnership should consider conducting a workshop
to ensure that all potentially attractive high-temperature thermochemical cycles
have been identified, and it should carry out a systems analysis of candidate
systems to identify the most promising approaches, which can then be funded as
money becomes available. [NRC, 2010, p. 123.]
Recommendation [4-8]. The EERE funding for high-temperature thermochemi-
cal cycle projects has varied widely and is very low in FY 2009. The committee
believes that these centralized production techniques are important, and thus ade-
quate and stable funding for them should be considered. [NRC, 2010, pp. 123-124.]
Electrolytic Processes
Recommendation [4-9]. Water electrolysis should remain an integral part of the
future hydrogen infrastructure development. The DOE should continue to fund
novel water electrolysis materials and methods, including alternative membranes,
alternative catalysts, high-temperature and -pressure operation, advanced engi-
neering concepts, and systems analysis. Additional efforts should be placed on
advanced integration concepts in which the electrolyzer is co-engineered with
subsequent upstream and downstream unit operations to improve the overall
efficiency of a stand-alone system. [NRC, 2010, p. 126.]
Wind- and Solar-Driven Electrolysis
Recommendation [4-10]. Commercial demonstrations should be encouraged
for new designs based on established electrolytic processes. For newer concepts
such as high-temperature solid oxide systems, efforts should remain focused on
laboratory evaluations of the potential for lifetime and durability, as well as on
laboratory performance assessments. [NRC, 2010, p. 126.]
Recommendation [4-11]. Work on close coupling of wind and solar energy
with electrolysis should be continued with stable funding. Further improvements
in electrolyzers, including higher stack pressure, and in power electronics will
benefit this application. [NRC, 2010, p. 126.]
Photolytic Processes
Recommendation [4-12]. The Partnership should examine the goals for the pho-
tolytic approach to producing hydrogen using microorganisms and formulate a
vision with defined targets. Otherwise, this approach should be deemphasized as
an active research area for hydrogen production. [NRC, 2010, p. 128.]
OCR for page 174
174 APPENDIX B
Hydrogen Delivery, Dispensing, and Transition Supply
Recommendation [4-13]. Hydrogen delivery, storage, and dispensing should be
based on the program needed to achieve the cost goal for 2017. If it is not feasible
to achieve that cost goal, emphasis should be placed on those areas that would
most directly impact the 2015 decision regarding commercialization. In the view
of the committee, pipeline, liquefaction, and compression programs are likely to
have the greatest impact in the 2015 time frame. The cost target should be revised
to be consistent with the program that is carried out. [NRC, 2010, p. 129.]
Biofuels for Internal Combustion Engines
Recommendation [4-14]. A thorough systems analysis of the complete biofuel
distribution and end-use system should be done. This should include (1) an
analysis of the fuel- and engine-efficiency gains possible through ICE technology
development with likely particular biofuels or mixtures of biofuels and conven-
tional petroleum fuels, and (2) a thorough analysis of the biofuel distribution
system needed to deliver these possible fuels or mixtures to the end-use applica-
tion. [NRC, 2010, p. 132.]
REFERENCE
NRC (National Research Council). 2010. Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and
Fuel Partnership: Third Report. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
