The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
the models used for fuel cells are overly simplistic for steady-state simulations and cannot be used to evaluate transient response and behavior. The electrical and electronics power conversion devices team has made considerable progress in interfacing with the systems analysis team, but it must provide some models necessary for analysis, such as models for motor/generators, power electronic converters, and control algorithms for series and parallel hybrid drive configurations.
In response to recommendations on fuel cells in the third report, realistic projections of energy efficiency (as compared to an advanced spark-ignition or CIDI engine utilizing the same amount of petroleum in both hybrid and nonhybrid modes) have still not been made. Attempts to find lower cost alternatives for high catalyst loadings, low-cost bipolar plates, and low-cost membrane and electrode assembly designs appear to have been minimal. The committee is encouraged that PNGV has initiated a rigorous cost analysis that could help identify approaches to reducing costs.
Since the third report was published, the PNGV has decided not to pursue the gas turbine as a power plant for the Goal 3 vehicle. Therefore, the committee's recommendations on R&D on gas turbines were not followed. The committee believes limited work on enabling technologies, especially on the development of ceramic components, should be continued.
In the battery technology area, the committee believes PNGV should make more detailed assessments of the safety of the battery systems being developed. The PNGV has not addressed the issue of battery control requirements, and models to simulate cost were not reported to the committee.
The committee recommended in the first and second reports that program management and technical leadership of both government and industry activities be made more effective. This issue was not revisited in the third report or in this report because the committee's viewpoint has not been embraced by the PNGV or USCAR. However, the committee continues to have this concern.
The committee also noted in past reports the importance of obtaining and reallocating federal and industry funds to activities with promising technological potential in the time horizon and needs of the program. In the third report, the committee made the following recommendations:
Recommendation. The PNGV partners (USCAR and the federal government) should immediately develop a schedule of resource and funding requirements for each major technical task. This schedule should show current resources and funding for each major technical task and current shortfalls. Upon completion of this schedule, the PNGV partners should provide a strategy to obtain the necessary resources and funding.
Recommendation. In the event that the PNGV (industry and government) does not obtain or chooses not to increase the resource levels and thereby accelerate the pace of development, the PNGV should reconsider the viability of current PNGV program objectives with regard to performance, schedule, and cost.