Committee on Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Phase 3, Technology Summary Chair – Vernon P. Roan October 21, 2010.

Committee on Review of the Research Program of the

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Phase 3, Technology Summary

Chair – Vernon P. RoanOctober 21, 2010

The Partnership

• U.S. Government – Primarily DOE, EERE• USCAR GM, Ford, Chrysler

• Energy Companies BP America, Chevron Corp., Conoco Phillips, ExxonMobil Corp., Shell Hydrogen (U.S.)

● Utility Companies Southern California Edison, DTE Energy (Detroit)

The Initial Primary Goals

• “ … a full spectrum of vehicles that can operate free of petroleum and harmful emissions while sustaining the driving public’s freedom of mobility and freedom of vehicle choice.”

• The long-term emphasis until now has been on research activities which would lead to enabling technologies for hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles. The research activities were guided and targets set by a series of “tech teams.”

• Transition technologies included advanced ICEs, hybrid vehicles, and hydrogen produced from natural gas.

Three Review Reports Issued

• Phase 1 – 2005 Phase 2 – 2008 Major problem areas for hydrogen/fuel cells were, and are: Fuel cell cost and durability Lack of hydrogen production capability and infrastructure No suitable technology for onboard hydrogen storage

• Phase 3 – July 2009 – Letter Report Request made by DOE for interim letter report to make suggestions

related to expected redirection of Partnership by New Administration. Report was issued as requested.

New Administration and New Priorities

• Priorities on nearer-term technologies

-Plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs)

-Battery electric vehicles (BEVs)

-Biofuels

• Zero budget request for longer-term hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles (subsequently mostly restored by Congress)

A Brief Summary of FreedomCAR Technologies, Targets, and Status

• Advanced combustion ,emissions control, and hydrocarbon fuels

• Fuel cell subsystems• Onboard hydrogen storage• Electrochemical energy storage• Electric propulsion and electric systems• Structural materials

Advanced Combustion, Emissions Control, and Hydrocarbon Fuels

• 2010 targets:– Engine peak thermal brake efficiency ~ 45%– Nox and particulates ~ tier 2, bin 5*– Powertrain cost ~ $30/kW

– Focus has been on lean burn and direct injection, with emphasis on low temp combustion, aftertreatment, and modeling.

* Recently changed to tier 2, bin 2 (new stds)

Advanced Combustion, etc… continued

• Status:– 44% peak BTE reached with conventional fuel– 45% peak BTE reached with hydrogen

Primary barrier felt to be inadequate knowledge base .

Fuel Cell Subsystem

Targets

• Life ~ 5000 hrs (2015)

• Catalyst loading ~ 0.3 mg/cm2 (2010)

~ 0.1 mg/cm2 (2015)

• Efficiency (25% rated) ~ 60% (2010 and 2015)

• Cost (500,000 units/yr) ~ $45/kW (2010)

~ $30/kW (2015)

• Power density ~ 325 W/L (2015)

• Specific power ~ 325 W/kg (2015)

Fuel Cell Subsystems…continued

• Status:– Life ~ 2000 hrs demonstrated in full stack

~7200 hours in single cell and short stacks– Catalyst loading ~ 0.15 mg/cm2

– Efficiency ~ 59%– Cost ~ $60 to $70 per kW– Power density ~ 224 W/L– Specific power ~ 406 W/kg

Onboard Hydrogen Storage

• Targets:– Weight fraction of H2 ~ 6% (old 2010)

~ 4.5% (new 2010)

~ 9% (old 2015)

~ 5.5% (new 2015) – Cost ~ $4/kWh (2010), ~ $2/kWh (2015)– Vehicle range ~ 300 mi – Refill ~ 3 min or less

Onboard Hydrogen Storage…continued

• Of special note, 4 Centers of Excellence (COEs) were established by DOE for the purpose of finding materials and systems to better store hydrogen onboard vehicles. Three are being phased out in 2010.

• Status: No satisfactory materials or systems yet.• Compressed hydrogen gas is currently being used

by essentially all developers, mostly 10,000 psi (700 bar) but a few at 5,000 psi (350 bar).

Onboard Hydrogen Storage…continued

• Modeling: A study* by TIAX made projected cost estimates for both compressed H2 and an Air Products liquid carrier system (based on N-ethylcarbazole) for 5.6 kg of useable H2. This system uses offboard reprocessing of the carrier.

• Results: Tech. Proj. cost ($/kWh) H2 weight fraction

carrier 15.4 2.2%

5,000 psi gas 15.6 5.9%

10,000 psi gas 23 4.6%

* DOE Annual Merit Review, May 19, 2009

Electrochemical Energy Storage

• Emphasis on Batteries and Ultracapacitors• Critical for HEVs, PHEVs, and BEVs• HEVs were included in the original FreedomCAR

activities but not PHEVs and BEVs

Electrical Chemical Storage… continued

• Targets (2010) and status for HEV batteries:

Characteristic Status Min Goal Max Goal

• Av. Energy (Wh) 780 300 500

• Cycle life 200,000 300,000 300,000

• Calendar life (yrs) 15 15 15

• Syst. Cost ($) 1035 500 800

• Max wt. (kg) 36.5 40 60

• 10 Sec. power (kW)

– Discharge 29.5 25 40

– Charge 35.3 20 35

PHEV Electrochemical Storage Targets

Characteristic 2012 (high P/E) 2014 (high E/P)• El. Range (mi) 10 40• Energy (KWh)• BEV mode 3.4 11.6• HEV mode 0.5 0.3• Cycle life 5,000 5,000• Calendar life (yrs) 10 10• System weight (kg) 60 120• System cost ($) 1700 3400• cost $/kWh) 500 300

Electric Propulsion and Electric Systems

• Few Targets for PHEVs or BEVs• Primary needs in electronics:

Reduce losses

Reduce size

Reduce costs• Thrust areas: scalable inverters, SiC devices, high

temp capacitors, packaging and integration.

Electric Propulsion and Electric Systems, continued

• Electrical Machines• P-M motors used almost exclusively

high efficiency but costly

possible safety problem

uses rare-earth materials from few locations

use more complex inverters than induction• Thrust Areas: high performance inverters, interior

P-M machines, battery chargers, controllers, and compressor-expander-motor (CEMs) for FCVs

Structural Materials

• Primary Target: 50% weight reduction with no cost penalty. Concluded to be not feasible. Better bet, optimize for min cost increase.

• Reduced weight ~ better fuel mileage (~6% mileage inc/10% of weight reduction)

• Primary weight reduction results in further secondary wt. reduction (~1 to 1.5 lb sec/lb of pri.)

• Magnesium replacement of Al component resulted in 15% wt savings at a cost inc. of less than $2/lb

Fuel Cells

• Demonstrated durability up from 1250 to ~ 2000 hrs

• Projected costs down (500k units) from 107 to ~ $70/kW

• Cost now split almost evenly between stack and BOP

• Good progress but both cost and durability need to improve by more than a factor of 2.

Recommended to establish backup technology paths in the event that current technology paths are determined to not likely meet targets.

Internal Combustion Engines

• ICEs will be the dominant prime mover for decades.

• Combustion R&D is needed to improve efficiency and reduce criteria emissions as well as GHGs.

• R&D is also needed to better understand best utilization of biofuels.

Recommended that Partnership engage with biofuels community for latest developments in biofuels.

Onboard Hydrogen Storage

• Onboard storage is a key enabler for FCVs

• The COEs have made good progress in identifying (and eliminating) potential storage materials … but no “winners”… yet.

• Compressed gas is likely for early FCV introductions but is performance limiting and too costly for some vehicles.

Recommend not to let storage R&D lose out to near-term emphasis and funding. Consider management of a long-term/short-term joint portfolio.

Electrochemical Energy Storage

• Critical to advancement of long-term and short-term goals

• Especially important for Administration goal of one million PHEVs on the road by 2015

• Li-Ion has promise for performance goals but no significant reduction in projected costs

Recommend intensified efforts for improved materials and systems for high-energy batteries. Also perform battery recycling studies.

Electric Propulsion and Electrical Systems

• Electric Propulsion is needed for HEVs, PHEVs, FCVs and BEVs.

• Devices which operate at higher temperatures (such as SiC) can have higher power densities and lower costs.

• Most electric propulsion systems use P-M motors with rare-earth materials which could become scarce and expensive.

Recommend evaluate Li-Ion battery charging as function of cell chemistry, string voltages, geometries, etc. Also consider investigation of possible use of induction motors instead of P-M Motors.

Structural Materials

• It is likely possible to achieve a 50% weight reduction goal.

• This magnitude of weight reduction seems essential for fuel consumption and emission goals.

• Achieving this with no cost penalty is unrealistic.

Recommend developing systems-analysis methodology to find most cost-effective way to achieve 50% weight reduction. Also investigate methods of recycling carbon-reinforced composites

Hydrogen and Biofuels

FreedomCAR originally focused on hydrogen and fuel cells. Now:

• Hydrogen/fuel cell vehicles ~ longer term and require the most production/infrastructure development.

• Electrification/PHEVs and BEVs ~ need power train/battery development and additional infrastructure.

• Biofuels/ICEs ~ need little power train development but there are significant fuels issues.

Hydrogen IssuesUnder EERE

Production, delivery, and dispensing are under DOE’s EERE Fuel Cell Technologies (FCT) program.

Three technical teams provide direction:

• Fuel pathway integration

• Hydrogen production

• Hydrogen delivery

Hydrogen IssuesUnder other DOE Offices

• The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) ~ supports technologies to produce hydrogen from coal (and related carbon-sequestration efforts).

• The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) ~ supports work using nuclear heat to produce hydrogen.

• The Office of Science (SC) ~ supports fundamental work on materials and biological or molecular processes.

Hydrogen Fuel Pathways

Tech Team (DOE, Industry, & NREL reps) supports analyses of issues associated with production, distribution, and dispensing.

• Coordinates fuel activities• Recommends additional pathway analyses• Provides input from industry on practicality• Acts as a honest broker for other tech team info

Research efforts focused on further efforts that• Reduce cost• Reduce dependence on imported petroleum• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

Hydrogen Production Issues

• Efforts to pursue a variety of energy sources as well as feedstock options.

• Potential energy sources include:• Natural gas• Coal• Biological systems• Nuclear heat• Wind• Solar (including biological and photoelectrochemical)• Grid-based electricity

Hydrogen Production Issues …continued

• Potential Feedstocks include:• Natural gas (transition), coal (with CSS), biomass

(directly using syngas or indirectly using steam reformation of a liquid fuel), and water (using conventional or high temperature electrolysis, photoelectrochemical, or biological processes).

• With many of these, storage is essential due, for example, to wind variability and diurnal light cycle.

Hydrogen Delivery and Dispensing

• It has been estimated (NRC/NAE, 2004) that for high- pressure hydrogen gas, the post-production supply system will likely add as much cost and energy as production. Current delivery and dispensing costs are $3 to $5/kg (low volume) and $2 to $3/kg (high volume). Goal is to reduce to cost targets as shown:

2010 2012 2015 2017

From plant to refuel site < 0.90 <0.60

Dispensing at refuel site <0.80 <0.40

Biofuels for Internal Combustion Engines

About 8 billion gallons of biofuels produced in the U.S. in 2008, about 4% of total fuel energy.

• About 90% of the biofuel was ethanol from corn.• Less than 10% was biodiesel, mostly from soy beans.• Total biofuel is to increase to 36 BGY by 2022 (as per

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007), with only about 12 BGY coming from corn. The rest will come from non-grain-based sources.

• ICEs can (and should) be designed to take advantage of biofuels.

Hydrogen and Other Fuel/Vehicle Pathways

• Important progress being made towards understanding and preparing for transition to H2

• Technology is available to produce and distribute H2 commercially but it is not yet optimized or cost-effective for local fueling stations.

• Previous focus on H2 now includes more emphasis on biofuels and electrification.

• Most critical challenges of H2 from coal or biomass are the capital cost of gasification and cost and the availability of carbon sequestration.

Biofuels and the Partnership

• Even though the Biomass Program has the responsibility for most aspects of biofuels, a thorough systems analysis could help identify priority areas.

Recommended that such systems analysis be performed and include 1) Analysis of fuel and engine efficiency gains through ICE developments with likely biofuels or biofuel/conventional fuel mixtures and 2) Analysis of the biofuel distribution system needed to deliver these fuels for end-use applications.

Some Remaining Barriers

Fuel cells• Demonstrated durability needs to increase from ~

2000 to 5000 hours.• Cost reductions from ~ $70 to $30/kW are

needed and will require both BOP and stack cost reductions.

ICEs• A better understanding of combustion

is needed.

Barriers…continued• Projected costs of ICEs with technology

improvements are still too high.

Electrochemical Energy Storage

• Projected battery costs still too high.

• No single chemistry meets performance, life, or cost goals for 2012.

Barriers…continued

Electric Propulsion and Electrical Systems

• Possible shortages and costs for rare-earth P-M motor materials

• No affordable options yet for higher temperature and/or faster electronics

Onboard Hydrogen Storage

• No successful system in operation except compressed H2 (and some liquid H2)

Barriers…continued

• No acceptable storage materials yet identified

• Codes and standards

Materials

• Alternative lightweight materials still significantly more expensive than conventional

Hydrogen Production

• For long-term, H2 cost still a major issue

• Delivery has many issues to be resolved

• Need comprehensive codes and standards

Barriers…continued

Biofuels

• Using food crops for biofuels apparently results in many concerns and subsequent quantity limitations.

• Many promising non-food-crop technologies are still not fully developed.

• Many of the relevant activities are not under EERE and are not part of the FreedomCAR partnership. This is not a barrier to progress but these activities are not part of the FreedomCAR review process and, as such, have not been reviewed in depth by this committee.

Committee on Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel

Partnership, Phase 3 • VERNON ROAN, Chair, University of Florida, Director, Center for

Advanced Studies in Engineering and Professor of Mechanical Engineering (retired), Gainesville

• DEBORAH LYNN BLEVISS, Independent Consultant, Falls Church, Virginia

• DAVID BODDE, Senior Fellow and Professor, Clemson University, South Carolina

• KATHRYN BULLOCK, President and Owner, Coolohm, Inc., Blue Bell, Pennsylvania

• HARRY COOK, NAE,1 Professor Emeritus, University of Illinois (retired)

• GLENN EISMAN, Principal Partner, Eisman Technology Consultants, LLC, Niskayuna, New York

• W. ROBERT EPPERLY, Consultant, Mountain View, California

• WILLIAM ERNST, Owner, EnerSysCon, Troy, New York

Committee, Continued

• DAVID FOSTER, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Engine Research Center

• GERALD GABRIELSE, NAS,2 Leverett Professor of Physics, Harvard University

• LINOS JACOVIDES, Director, Delphi Research Labs (retired), Grosse Point Farms, Michigan

• HAROLD H.C. KUNG, Professor of Chemical Engineering, and Director, Northwestern University Center for Catalysis and Surface Science, Evanston, Illinois

• CHRISTOPHER MAGEE, NAE, Professor, Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

• CRAIG MARKS, NAE, Vice President, Technology and Productivity, AlliedSignal, Inc. (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

• GENE NEMANICH, Vice President, Chevron Hydrogen Systems (retired)

Committee, Continued

• BERNARD ROBERTSON, NAE, Senior Vice President, Engineering Technologies and Regulatory Affairs; and General Manager-Truck Operations, Chrysler LLC (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

• R. RHOADS STEPHENSON, Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired), La Cañada, California

• KATHLEEN TAYLOR, NAE, Director, Materials and Processes Laboratory, General Motors Corporation (retired), Fort Myers, Florida

• BRIJESH VYAS, Distinguished Member of Technical Staff, LGS Innovations, Warren, New Jersey

• National Research Council Staff

• JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Director, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems (BEES)

• LANITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator, BEES

• DANA CAINES, Financial Associate, BEES