Page 1
Comparison of Plug-in Hybrids, Fuel Cell EVs and Battery EVs
Presented to the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Committee
Windsor, Connecticut
July 15, 2009
By C. E. (Sandy) Thomas, Ph.D., President H2Gen Innovations, Inc.
Alexandria, Virginia
www.h2gen.com
Page 2
2
Topics
• Review National Hydrogen Association “Energy Evolution” Model
• Compare Fuel Cells with Batteries • Government Incentives Required to
Jump-Start FCEVs, PHEVs and BEVs
Page 3
3
NHA “Energy Evolution” Task Force Participating Organizations
Task Leader: Frank Novachek (Xcel Energy)
• ARES Corp. • BP • Canadian Hydrogen Energy
Company • General Atomics • General Motors • H2Gen Innovations • ISE Corporation
• National Renewable Energy Laboratory
• Plug Power, LLC • Praxair • Sentech • University of Montana • Shell Hydrogen • Xcel Energy
“This consensus presentation does not necessarily represent the organizational views or individual commitments of all members of the National Hydrogen Association.”
NHA Disclaimer:
Page 4
4
Key Assumptions
• Assume success for all options – Technical success – Vehicles are affordable
• Assume stringent climate change constraints – Hydrogen production becomes green over time – Electricity production becomes green over time
Page 5
5
Greening of Electrical Grid
H2 Gen: GHG.XLS, Tab 'Climate Change Projections'; U419;5/13/2009
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
West Coast (WECC) Electricity Consumption Scaled to US (Billion kWh/year)
Renewables
Nuclear
Coal
Coal with CCS
Carbon Constrained Case Added Capacity for
Gasoline Plug-in Hybrids
PHEV Off-Peak
Natural Gas Combined Cycle
Natural Gas Combustion Turbine
Page 6
6
Greening of Hydrogen Production
CCS = carbon capture and storage
Summary Greet 1.8a.XLS; Tab 'Fuel TS'; N 97 3/1 /2009
Hydrogen Production Sources
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Central Electrolysis (Renewable & Nuclear)
Distributed Natural Gas Reforming
Coal Gasification + CCS
Biomass Gasification
Distributed Biofuels Reforming
2020 2030 2050 2070 2100 Natural Gas at Forecourt 75% 45% 20% 6% 2% Biofuels at Forecourt 20% 25% 15% 10% 6% Biomass Gasification 4% 18% 29% 37% 40% Renewable & Nuclear Electrolysis 1% 8% 20% 22% 22% Coal Gasification with CCS 0% 5% 16% 25% 29%
Summary Greet 1.8a.XLS; Tab 'Fuel TS'; H 120 3/1 /2009
Assumes that coal with CCS & biomass will dominate long-term central hydrogen production (Similar to NRC 2008)
Page 7
7
w/r to ICV: 1.72w/r to HEV 1.19
25.0
36.25 mpgge1 Gallon of Ethanol Hybrid EV 36.25
(HEV)
HHV Efficiency = 76% 60 mpgge1 Gallon of Ethanol Steam Reformer H2 Fuel Cell HEV 45.6
(FCEV)0.48kg
FCEV GHG & Oil Reduction Factors
28.3
23.9
0 10 20 30
FCEVRange
HEVRange
Range (Miles)
ICV fuel economy 25 mpgge
HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 SMR HHV Efficiency 76%
25 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Conventional Car
(ICV)
Why hydrogen from ethanol.XLS; Tab 'Chart'; Q 31 2/24 /2009
16.5ICV Range
Why Hydrogen from Ethanol?
Page 8
8
w/r to ICV: 1.72w/r to HEV 1.19
25.0
36.25
HHV Efficiency = 76% 60 mpgge1 Gallon of Ethanol Steam Reformer H2 Fuel Cell HEV 45.6
(FCEV)0.48kg
FCEV GHG & Oil Reduction Factors
28.3
0 10 20 30
FCEVRange
Range (Miles)
ICV fuel economy 25 mpgge
HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 SMR HHV Efficiency 76%
25 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Conventional Car
(ICV)
36.25 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Hybrid EV
(HEV)
Why hydrogen from ethanol.XLS; Tab 'Chart'; Q 31 2/24 /2009
23.9
16.5
HEV Range
ICV Range
Why Hydrogen from Ethanol?
Page 9
9
w/r to ICV: 1.72w/r to HEV 1.19
25.0
36.25
45.6
FCEV GHG & Oil Reduction FactorsICV fuel economy 25 mpgge
HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 SMR HHV Efficiency 76%
25 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Conventional Car
(ICV)
36.25 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Hybrid EV
(HEV)
HHV Efficiency = 76% 60 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Steam Reformer H2 Fuel Cell HEV
(FCEV) 0.48 kg
Why hydrogen from ethanol.XLS; Tab 'Chart'; Q 31 2/24 /2009
28.3
23.9
16.5
0 10 20 30
FCEV Range
HEV Range
ICV Range
Range (Miles)
Why Hydrogen from Ethanol?
Page 10
10
25.0
36.25
45.6
ICV fuel economy 25 mpgge
HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 w/r to ICV: 1.72 SMR HHV Efficiency 76% w/r to HEV 1.19
25 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Conventional Car
(ICV)
36.25 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Hybrid EV
(HEV)
HHV Efficiency = 76% 60 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Steam Reformer H2 Fuel Cell HEV
(FCEV) 0.48 kg
Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab 'Chart'; Q 31 3/6 /2009
FCEV Range Increase Factors
28.3
23.9
16.5
0 10 20 30
FCEV Range
HEV Range
ICV Range
Range (Miles) + Zero Emissions
Why Hydrogen from Ethanol?
Page 11
11
w/r to ICV: 2.8w/r to HEV 1.9
25.0
36.25
60 mpgge of biomass BCL* Indirect H2 Fuel Cell HEV #REF!
Gasifier (FCEV)0.77 kg
0.09 MBTU
BCL* = Battelle Columbus Laboratory Why hydrogen from ethanol.XLS; Tab 'Chart Biomass ; Q 32 2/24 /2009
FCEV GHG & Oil Reduction Factors
45.4
0 10 20 30 40 50
FCEVRange
Range (Miles)
Consider Biomass Feedstock ICV fuel economy 25 mpgge
HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 Biomass Gasifier LHV Efficiency 49% Ethanol Plant Productivity 90 gal EtOH/ton biomass
25 mpgge 10 kg of biomass Ethanol Plant EtOH Conventional Car
(ICV) 0.99 gallons
0.08 MBTU
36.25 mpgge Hybrid EV
(HEV)
10 kg
'
23.7
16.3
HEV Range
ICV Range
Page 12
12
w/r to ICV: 2.8w/r to HEV 1.9
25.0
36.25
#REF!
FCEV GHG & Oil Reduction Factors
Better yet: Biomass Gasification ICV fuel economy 25 mpgge
HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 Biomass Gasifier LHV Efficiency 49% Ethanol Plant Productivity 90 gal EtOH/ton biomass
25 mpgge 10 kg of biomass Ethanol Plant EtOH Conventional Car
(ICV) 0.99 gallons
0.08 MBTU
36.25 mpgge Hybrid EV
(HEV)
60 mpgge 10 kg of biomass BCL* Indirect H2 Fuel Cell HEV
Gasifier (FCEV) 0.77 kg
0.09 MBTU
BCL* = Battelle Columbus Laboratory Why hydrogen from ethanol.XLS; Tab 'Chart Biomass'; Q 32 2/24 /2009
45.4
23.7
16.3
0 10 20 30 40 50
FCEV Range
HEV Range
ICV Range
Range (Miles)
Page 13
13
25.0
36.25
#REF!
Biomass Gasification ICV fuel economy 25 mpgge
HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 w/r to ICV: 2.8 Biomass Gasifier LHV Efficiency 49% w/r to HEV 1.9 Ethanol Plant Productivity 90 gal EtOH/ton biomass
25 mpgge 10 kg of biomass Ethanol Plant EtOH Conventional Car
(ICV) 0.99 gallons
0.08 MBTU
36.25 mpgge Hybrid EV
(HEV)
60 mpgge 10 kg of biomass BCL* Indirect H2 Fuel Cell HEV
Gasifier (FCEV) 0.77 kg
0.09 MBTU
BCL* = Battelle Columbus Laboratory Why hydrogen from ethanol.XLS; Tab 'Chart Biomass'; Q 32 3/6 /2009
FCEV Range Increase Factors
45.4
23.7
16.3
0 10 20 30 40 50
FCEV Range
HEV Range
ICV Range
Range (Miles)
Page 14
14
Renewable Fuels
What fuels?
• Gasoline?
• Biofuels*?
• Hydrogen?
• Diesel?
• Natural Gas?
• Electricity?
*Butanol, cellulosic ethanol, etc.
Page 15
15
Four Major Scenarios • Gasoline ICE Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) Scenario • Gasoline ICE Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)
Scenario • (Cellulosic) Ethanol ICE PHEV Scenario • Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV)*
Scenario
& Two Secondary Scenarios: – Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) – Hydrogen ICE Hybrid Electric Vehicles (H2 ICE HEV)
* FCEV includes peak power augmentation with batteries or ultracapacitors
Page 16
16
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (& BEV, H2 ICE HEV)
Scenario Market Shares
(50% Market Share Potential by 2035) Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; ED 30 7/2 /2009
Percentage of New Car Sales
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
Gasoline ICVs
(Blended CD Mode for PHEVs)
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
(FCEV)
Gasoline HEVs
Ethanol PHEVs
Page 17
17
FCV Market Penetration Rates: (NRC & ORNL vs. NHA)
H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';IK 211 7/19 /2008
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
NRC Case 1a Accelerated FCV Oak Ridge FCV #3
Oak Ridge FCV #1
NRC Case 1 FCV
NHA H2 FCV
NRC Case 1b Partial Success FCV
Market Share of New Car Sales Primary NRC Case
NHACase
Page 18
18
PHEV Charging Modes
Blended Charge-Depleting Mode:
On-board power source (ICE or FC) used for peak power boost during CD mode.
[Ref: Kromer & Heywood, MIT]
HEV Operation
Page 19
19
Battery Power vs. Energy Trade-off
Ref: Kromer, Matthew & J.B. Heywood, “Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet,” Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Publication Number LFEE 2007-03 RP, May 2007
Assumed Li-Ion Battery
Page 20
20
Battery Power vs. Energy Trade-off
Ref: Kromer, Matthew & J.B. Heywood, “Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet,” Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Publication Number LFEE 2007-03 RP, May 2007
PHEV-60
PHEV-30
PHEV-10
HEV
DOE PHEV-40 Goal
DOE PHEV-10 Goal
Current Li-Ion Status?
Page 21
21
Utility Factor* [Charge depleting (CD) mode distance/ Total distance]
[Ref: Kromer & Heywood, MIT]
Distance Between Recharge (miles)
*Utility Factor = fraction of miles traveled in charge depleting (CD) mode
Util
ity F
acto
r
Page 22
22
Plug-in Hybrid Assumptions
Source: EPRI /NRDC report on PHEVs & ANL SAE Paper
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70% All-Electric Range
Percent of VMT from the Electric Grid (100% grid charge
)
PHEV All-Electric Range (Miles)
% Energy or %VMT from Grid
ANL % of Energy from Grid in Blended CD Mode
Page 23
—
—
—
—
Google Real-World Measurement of PHEV Fuel Economy*
Model
MPG
Wh/mile
CO2e lbs/mile2
CO2e emissions saved
Gallons of gasolinesaved per year6
Barrels of oil saved7
Percent of US fleet to halve CO2e emissions8
Cost savings indollars per year9
Toyota Prius Toyota US fleet Plugin Prius average
57.6 42.1 19.81
131.5 — —
0.474 0.5604 1.1923
60%
398
66%
83%
$1493
53%4
321
53%
94%
$1333
—
Current Payback
Period: 60 years
($10,000 Li-Ion Battery Pack)
*Based on Google fleet of 8 retrofitted Prius PHEVs; est. AER = 25 miles with 4.7 kWh battery & 70% SOC; http://www.google.org/recharge/dashboard/calculator#notes
23
Page 24
24
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Plug-In Hybrid Hourly Charging Percentage
Figure 1. PHEV charging profile suggested by EPRI
Page 25
25
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
1990 Vehicle GHG Level
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 Baseline Transportation Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
1st Target: 60% Below 1990 Levels
2nd Target: 80% Below 1990 Levels
Page 26
26
GHG Reference Case: 100% Gasoline Cars
Sources: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a & AEO 2009 Projections for VMT thru 2030
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
100% Gasoline ICEVs
Page 27
27
GHG Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs)
Sources: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a, AEO 2009 & NHA models
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid (HEV) Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
Page 28
28
GHG: Gasoline Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)
(75% night-time charging access)
Sources: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a, AEO 2009 & NHA models
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
Gasoline Plug-In Hybrid Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICVs
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
Page 29
29
GHG: Biofuel Plug-In Hybrids (90 Billion gallons/year* Cellulosic Ethanol)
*Sandia-Livermore estimates 90 B gallons/yr potential; NRC uses 60 B gallons/yr maximum; current production of ethanol: 8 billion gallons/year; no limit on availability of night-time charging outlets
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG L l
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
Ethanol Plug-In Hybrid Scenario
Gasoline Plug-In Hybrid Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICVs
Page 30
30
GHG: Fuel Cell Vehicles
Sources: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a, AEO 2009 & NHA models
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Scenario
Ethanol Plug-In Hybrid Scenario
Gasoline Plug-In Hybrid Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICVs
Page 31
31
GHG: H2 ICE HEV & Battery EV
Sources: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a, AEO 2009 & NHA models
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Scenario
Ethanol Plug-In Hybrid Scenario
Gasoline Plug-In Hybrid Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid
Scenario
100% Gasoline Vehicles
Battery EV Scenario H2 ICE HEV
Scenario
Page 32
32
PHEV GHGs (Kromer & Heywood, MIT, May 2007)
CoalNG
“Clean Grid” = 50% nuclear + renewables; 15% advanced NG CC & 35% advanced coal
Page 33
33
To Plug or Not to Plug?
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Gasoline HEV Gasoline PHEV
FC HEV FC PHEV
Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Car (Grams of CO2-eq./mile)
West Coast Marginal Grid Mix with Carbon Constraints
Page 34
34
Early (2020 to 2030) GHGs
Graphs for Simultaneous Story.XLS; P 37 7/1 /2009
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.45
1.50
1.55
2020 2025 2030
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
H2 ICE HEV Scenario
BEV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Page 35
35
GHG Sensitivity to Market Share
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Greenhouse Gas Pollution in 2100 (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
Market Share in 2100
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario Gasoline PHEV
Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
(90 B gal/yr)
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Scenario
BEV Scenario
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
1990 GHG
Page 36
36
GHG Sensitivity to Market Share & Ethanol Capacity
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Sensitivity'; AB 201 7/1 /2009
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
Greenhouse Gas Pollution in 2100 (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
Market Share in 2100
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario Gasoline PHEV
Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenarios
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Scenario
BEV Scenario
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
60 B gal/yr
90 B gal/yr
140 B gal/yr
1990 GHG
Page 37
37
Oil Consumption
Sources: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a, AEO 2009 & NHA models
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Oil Consumption (Billion barrels/year)
FCEV, H2 ICE HEV & BEV Scenarios
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline Vehicles
Non-OPEC-only Oil
American-only Oil
Page 38
38
Urban Air Pollution Costs (with H2 ICE HEVs and BEVs)
Sources: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a, AEO 2009 & NHA models
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
FCEV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICVs
US Urban Air Pollution Costs ($Billions/year)
H2 ICE HEV Scenario
BEV Scenario
PM Cost from Brake & Tire Wear
Page 39
39
Primary Conclusion
• Achieving GHG and Oil reduction targets will require all-electric vehicles*
• Two choices: – Battery EVs – Fuel Cell EVs (with peak power battery)
• Next slides will compare: – Mass – Volume – Greenhouse Gases – Cost
* Or Hydrogen ICE HEVs
Page 41
41
Specific Energy Comparison
H2Gen: Wt_Vol_Cost.XLS; Tab 'Battery'; S60 - 7 / 1 / 2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
Pb-A NiMH Lithium-Ion USABC Goal
35 MPa 70 MPa
Useful Specific Energy (Wh/kg)
H2 Tank, Battery & Fuel Cell System Batteries
Page 42
Batteries Weigh More
(Effects of weight compounding)
BPEV.XLS; 'Compound' AS146 5/13 /2009
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Range (miles)
Vehicle Test Mass (kg)
PbA Battery EV
Li-Ion Battery EV
NiMH Battery EV
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
42
Page 43
43
Useful Energy Density
H2Gen: Wt_Vol_Cost.XLS; Tab 'Battery'; S36 - 7 / 1 / 2009
0
100
200
300
Pb-A NiMH Lithium-Ion
USABC Goal
35 MPa 70 MPa
Useful Energy Density (Wh/liter)
H2 Tank, Battery & Fuel Cell System
Batteries
Page 44
44
Batteries also take up more space:
BPEV.XLS; 'Compound' AS113 5/13 /2009
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Range (miles)
Energy Storage System Volume (liters)
PbA Battery
NiMH Battery Li-Ion Battery
Fuel Cell + Hydrogen Tanks
(35 MPa)
(70 Mpa)
Page 45
45
BEVs will initially generate more Greenhouse Gases than FCEVs*
*Assumes hydrogen made on-site from natural gas, and average marginal US electrical grid mix for charging EV batteries
Grid Mix: US BPEV.XLS; 'Compound' AQ200 5/13 /2009
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Range (miles)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2 -equivalent grams/mile) PbA Battery EV
Li-Ion Battery
EV
NiMH Battery EV
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
Conventional Gasoline Vehicle
Page 46
46
In California, GHGs for BEVs will initially be similar to FCEVs*
*Assumes hydrogen made on-site from natural gas, and average marginal California electrical grid mix for charging EV batteries
Grid Mix: California BPEV.XLS; 'Compound' AQ200 5/13 /2009
-
200
400
600
800
1,000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Range (miles)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2 -equivalent grams/mile) PbA Battery EV
Li-Ion Battery
EV
NiMH Battery EV
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
Conventional Gasoline Vehicle
Page 47
47Ref: Kromer & Heywood, "Electric Powertrains: Opportunities & Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet Report # LFEE 2007-03RP, MIT, May, 2007, Table 53 Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'AFV Cost'; N 26 3/15 /2009
$- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000
BEV
PHEV-60
PHEV-30
FCEV
PHEV-10
HEV
Incremental Cost Compared to Advanced ICEV in 2030
...and BEVs are projected to cost more than FCEVs by MIT (2030)
Note: FCEV has 350 miles range; BEV has 200 miles range
Page 48
48
BEV cost estimate for 300 miles range (FCEV still at 350 miles range)
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'AFV Cost'; N 51 3/15 /2009
$- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000
BEV
PHEV-60
PHEV-30
FCEV
PHEV-10
HEV
Incremental Cost Compared to Advanced ICEV in 2030
BEV cost at 200 miles range
BEV cost at 300 miles range
MIT assumes $250/kWh battery cost for BEVs ($600/kWh for HEVs)
Page 49
49
Comparison of MIT Cost Assumptions & DOE Goals
If DOE goals were met, then the incremental cost for fuel cell electric vehicles would decrease from $3,600 estimated by MIT down to $840.
DOE DOE MIT 2010 2015 2030
Fuel Cell System Cost $/kW 45 30 50 Hydrogen Storage Cost $/kWh 4 2 15 Hydrogen Storage Density kWh/L 0.9 1.3 0.8
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'AFV Cost'; E 33 3/19 /2009
Page 50
50
Ratio Battery EV / Fuel Cell EV
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'AFV Cost'; Z 124 4/30 /2009
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Incremental Life Cycle Cost
Fuel Cost per mile
Fueling Infrastructure Cost per car
Vehicle Incremental Cost
Wind & Car Incremental Costs
Wind Energy Required
Biomass Energy Required
Natural Gas Energy Required
Initial Greenhouse Gases
Storage Volume
Vehicle Weight
200 Miles 300 Miles
Ratio Battery EV Fuel Cell EV
Fuel Cell EV Better BEV Better
Page 51
51
Life Cycle Cost
2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100Greenhouse Gases 98.9% 83.6% 50.9% 66.7% 41.4% 19.0% 154.0% 89.3% 11.4% 61.2% 27.3% 6.4%
Oil Consumption 77.3% 61.9% 47.1% 20.6% 16.0% 12.2% 1.5% 1.3% 0.9% 1.4% 2.0% 1.9%
Urban Air Pollution 90.2% 77.4% 59.3% 78.9% 67.7% 53.7% 82.9% 54.5% 26.2% 65.1% 36.2% 22.4%
Societal Costs 82.3% 68.1% 50.0% 35.4% 28.3% 20.6% 35.4% 25.1% 7.4% 19.0% 11.6% 6.3%
83.1% 83.1% 100.8% 82.0%
Composite Comparison Chart (Normalized to Baseline Gasoline Hybrid Electric Vehicle)
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Gasoline PHEV Ethanol-PHEV
Vehicle Mass Production Cost
124.0% 124.0% 197.5% 118.0%
Annual Fuel Cost 49.0% 49.0% 20.3% 52.0%
Graphs for Simultaneous Story.XLS; Tab 'R-Y-G Chart'; N 117 7/2 /2009
Page 52
52
2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100Greenhouse Gases 98.9% 83.6% 50.9% 66.7% 41.4% 19.0% 154.0% 89.3% 11.4% 61.2% 27.3% 6.4%
Oil Consumption 77.3% 61.9% 47.1% 20.6% 16.0% 12.2% 1.5% 1.3% 0.9% 1.4% 2.0% 1.9%
Urban Air Pollution 90.2% 77.4% 59.3% 78.9% 67.7% 53.7% 82.9% 54.5% 26.2% 65.1% 36.2% 22.4%
Societal Costs 82.3% 68.1% 50.0% 35.4% 28.3% 20.6% 35.4% 25.1% 7.4% 19.0% 11.6% 6.3%
Graphs for Simultaneous Story.XLS; Tab 'R Y G Chart ; N 117 7/2 /2009
Composite Comparison Chart (Normalized to Baseline Gasoline Hybrid Electric Vehicle)
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Gasoline PHEV Ethanol-PHEV
Vehicle Mass Production Cost
124.0% 124.0% 197.5% 118.0%
Annual Fuel Cost 49.0% 49.0% 20.3% 52.0%
Life Cycle Cost 83.1% 83.1% 100.8% 82.0%
- - '
Page 53
53
2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100
83.6% 50.9% 41.4% 19.0% 89.3% 11.4% 27.3% 6.4%
61.9% 47.1% 16.0% 12.2% 1.3% 0.9% 2.0% 1.9%
77.4% 59.3% 67.7% 53.7% 54.5% 26.2% 36.2% 22.4%
68.1% 50.0% 28.3% 20.6% 25.1% 7.4% 11.6% 6.3%
Composite Comparison Chart (Normalized to Baseline Gasoline Hybrid Electric Vehicle)
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Gasoline PHEV Ethanol-PHEV
Vehicle Mass Production Cost
124.0% 124.0% 197.5% 118.0%
Annual Fuel Cost 49.0% 49.0% 20.3% 52.0%
Life Cycle Cost 83.1% 83.1% 100.8% 82.0%
2020 2020 2020 2020 Greenhouse Gases 98.9% 66.7% 154.0% 61.2%
Oil Consumption 77.3% 20.6% 1.5% 1.4%
Urban Air Pollution 90.2% 78.9% 82.9% 65.1%
Societal Costs 82.3% 35.4% 35.4% 19.0%
Graphs for Simultaneous Story.XLS; Tab 'R-Y-G Chart'; N 117 7/2 /2009
Page 54
54
2100 2100 2100 2100
50.9% 19.0% 11.4% 6.4%
47.1% 12.2% 0.9% 1.9%
59.3% 53.7% 26.2% 22.4%
50.0% 20.6% 7.4% 6.3%
Composite Comparison Chart (Normalized to Baseline Gasoline Hybrid Electric Vehicle)
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Gasoline PHEV Ethanol-PHEV
Vehicle Mass Production Cost
124.0% 124.0% 197.5% 118.0%
Annual Fuel Cost 49.0% 49.0% 20.3% 52.0%
Life Cycle Cost 83.1% 83.1% 100.8% 82.0%
2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 Greenhouse Gases 98.9% 83.6% 66.7% 41.4% 154.0% 89.3% 61.2% 27.3%
Oil Consumption 77.3% 61.9% 20.6% 16.0% 1.5% 1.3% 1.4% 2.0%
Urban Air Pollution 90.2% 77.4% 78.9% 67.7% 82.9% 54.5% 65.1% 36.2%
Societal Costs 82.3% 68.1% 35.4% 28.3% 35.4% 25.1% 19.0% 11.6%
Graphs for Simultaneous Story.XLS; Tab 'R-Y-G Chart'; N 117 7/2 /2009
Page 55
55
Composite Comparison Chart (Normalized to Baseline Gasoline Hybrid Electric Vehicle)
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Gasoline PHEV Ethanol-PHEV
Vehicle Mass Production Cost
124.0% 124.0% 197.5% 118.0%
Annual Fuel Cost 49.0% 49.0% 20.3% 52.0%
Life Cycle Cost 83.1% 83.1% 100.8% 82.0%
2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 Greenhouse Gases 98.9% 83.6% 50.9% 66.7% 41.4% 19.0% 154.0% 89.3% 11.4% 61.2% 27.3% 6.4%
Oil Consumption 77.3% 61.9% 47.1% 20.6% 16.0% 12.2% 1.5% 1.3% 0.9% 1.4% 2.0% 1.9%
Urban Air Pollution 90.2% 77.4% 59.3% 78.9% 67.7% 53.7% 82.9% 54.5% 26.2% 65.1% 36.2% 22.4%
Societal Costs 82.3% 68.1% 50.0% 35.4% 28.3% 20.6% 35.4% 25.1% 7.4% 19.0% 11.6% 6.3%
Graphs for Simultaneous Story.XLS; Tab 'R-Y-G Chart'; N 117 7/2 /2009
Page 56
56
Economic Projections
• Fueling infrastructure cost: – ICE PHEV fueling – FC HEV fueling
• Cash flow for hydrogen fueling industry • Cash flow for fuel cell vehicle owners
– Vehicle incremental cost – Hydrogen fuel savings
Page 57
ICE PHEV “Fueling Infrastructure” Cost per Car
• Average residential electrical outlet cost: – $878 for Level I (120V, 20A, 1.9 kW) – $2,150 for Level II (240 V, 40 A, 7.9 kW)
• Commercial Level II outlet: $1,850 • Infrastructure cost per car: $900 to
$2,000 [paid up-front by driver for home refueling]
[Source: Morrow, Idaho National Laboratory, November 2008] 57
Page 58
58
FC HEV Fueling Infrastructure Cost per Car
• NRC 1,500 kg/day fueling station cost in 500 quantity production: $2.2 million
• NHA estimate: $2.9 million • Serving 2,300 FCEVs* • Average cost per FCEV: $955 to $1,260 [paid by fuel provider]
*Assumes 4.5 kg to travel 350 miles, 70% average fueling station capacity factor, and 13,000 miles traveled per year
NRC Single Qty 500 Qty 500 Qty
100 kg/day 772,800 $ 535,000 $ 397,000 $ 500 kg/day 2,212,000 $ 1,534,000 $ 905,500 $ 1,500 kg/day 4,181,700 $ 2,900,000 $ 2,178,000 $
H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';EC 18 5/15 /2009
Fueling Station Costs Capacity
Page 59
59
Hydrogen Fueling Industry
Hydrogen Price set at 55% of gasoline price per mile Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'H2 Cost';AG 82 5/15 /2009
-10
-5
0
5
2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038
Cash Flows for all Hydrogen Fueling Stations ($US Billions/year)
Total Hydrogen Fueling System Annual Costs
Net Annual Cash Flow
Hydrogen Anuual Sales Revenue
Net Cumulative Cash Flow
Page 60
Fuel Cell Vehicle Owners Cash Flows for FCEV Owners (US$Millions) Annual Cash Flow
$10,000 Annual Fuel Savings
$5,000
$-
2010 2030
$(5,000)
$(10,000)
$(15,000)
$(20,000)
*(Fuel Savings - Incremental
(Gasoline - Hydrogen)
2015 2020 2025 Incremental
Vehicle Costs
Cumulat(Fuel Savin
ive Cash Flow gs - Vehicle Costs)
FCEV& BEV Premium Paid = $ 1,000 Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Driver'; K 24 5/15 /2009
Fuel Savings Derating Factor = 0.80 H2 Price as fraction of gasoline price: 55%
60
Page 61
61
Incentives Required for Battery EVs and Fuel Cell EVs
Vehicle Premium: 1,000$ Off-Peak Electricity (% of On-Peak) = 55% Fuel Fraction 0.80 H2 Price (% of Gasoline per mile) = 55% taneous.XLS; Tab 'Driver'; BE 23 5/15 /2009
$(70,000)
$(60,000)
$(50,000)
$(40,000)
$(30,000)
$(20,000)
$(10,000)
$-
$10,000
$20,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Cumulative Cash Flows for FCEV and Battery EV Owners (US$Millions)
FCEV Cumulative Cash Flow (Fuel Savings - FCEV Vehicle Costs)
Battery EV Cumulative Cash
Flow (Electricity Savings - BEV
Vehicle Costs)
Page 62
62
Vehicle Buy-Down Incentives Required
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Driver'; AW 25 5/15 /2009
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000
60% 80% 100%
Vehicle Price Preimum Absorbed by Driver
Total Government Vehicle Buy-Down Incentives ($US Millions) Fuel Savings
Multiplier:
Page 63
Incentives Required Incentives Required (US$ Billions) 60
40
20
0
Total Incentives (FCEV & Station Owners)
Vehicle Incentives
H2 Station Incentives
40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80%
Hydrogen Selling Price (as a percentage of gasoline price per mile) 63
FCEV& BEV Premium Paid = $ 1,000 Fuel Savings Derating Factor = 0.80 Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'H2 Cost'; BT 126 5/15 /2009
Page 64
64
Can fueling station owners profit from selling hydrogen at 55% discount?
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'H2 Cost';AP 55 5/15 /2009
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Hydrogen Fueling Industry 15-Year Return on Investment
Hydrogen Price Set at 45% of Gasoline price per mile
Hydrogen Price Set at 55% of Gasoline price per mile
Page 65
65
Net Cumulative Incentives Required
• For hydrogen fueling industry: $9 billion • For fuel cell vehicle owners: $15 billion
• Total private and government investment required: $24 billion over 14 years (2010 through 2024)
Page 66
66 H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';ID 146 5/13 /2009
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Annual US Fuel Infrastructure Capital Expenditures ($US Billions)
Current Energy Company Expenditures in US
H2 Infrastructure Costs & Required Incentives
(Compared to Gasoline & Diesel Infrastructure Costs)
Source: Oil & Gas Journal, April 2009
Estimated Annual Capital Expenditures on Gasoline & Diesel Fuel
Cumulative Incentives for Hydrogen Fueling and Fuel Cell Vehicles
Hydrogen Infrastructure
Capital Expenses
Page 67
67
H2 Costs & Societal Savings
PM-10 PM-2.5 SOx VOC CO NOx CO2 Costs of Pollution: 1,608 134,041 29,743 6,592 1,276 13,844 25 to 50
($/metric tonne) Crude Oil Economic Cost $60/bbl H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';FL 26 2/18 /2009
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Total Societal Savings (relative to ICEVs)
Annual Costs & Savings ($US Billions/year)
Hydrogen Infrastructure Investments
Total Societal Savings (relative to HEVs & ICEVs)
Hydrogen FCEV Scenario
Saves $300 Billion per Year
Page 68
68
Societal Cash Flow
* Costs and savings include those for the PHEVs Story Economics.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; Z 32 5/15 /2009
Total Subsidies 36.5$ Billion Total Societal Savings 15,863$ Billion Ratio NPV/ Subsidies: 18.33 Net Present Value 668.2$ Billion (at 6% Discount)
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
Annual Cash Flow ($US Billions)
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Scenario* (Societal Savings - Government Subsidies)
Annual Societal Savings
Annual Subsidies
Annual Cash Flow
Page 69
69
Net Present Value of Societal Costs & Benefits
Story Economics.XLS; Tab 'NPV'; K 49 5/15 /2009
$222
$33.6 $18.5 $6.5 $5.0
$589
$405
$668
11.8%
40.8%
87.1% 81.9%
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Gasoline ICE PHEV Scenario
Ethanol ICE PHEV Scenario
FCEV Scenario* BEV Scenario* 0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
NPV of Subsidies @ 6% Discount NPV of Savings @ 6% Discount Greenhouse Gas % Below 1990
$US Billions
* FCEV & BEV scenario incentives include those for ICE PHEVs in each scenario
Page 70
70
HGM 10000: Filling 100 cars or 15 busses/day
All-in life cycle costs today: Production: $3.26/kg*
* Natural gas = $8.00/MBTU
Production, compression & storage: $4.83/kg ($2.04/gallon-range equivalent basis)
Page 71
71
…and we have the capacity to meet growing demand.
Page 72
72
HGM-2000 Field Units
Page 73
73
Conclusions • All-electric vehicles are required, in conjunction with ICE hybrids, plug-
in ICE hybrids and biofuels, to simultaneously:
– Reduce GHG’s to 80% below 1990 levels
– Achieve petroleum energy “quasi-independence”
– Nearly eliminate urban air pollution*
• Fuel cells have significant advantages over batteries for full-function, long-range all-electric vehicles.
• Government incentives are modest compared to the societal benefits and other past and present government projects
* With the exception of particulates from brake & tire wear
Page 74
Key References 1. Ramage, M P, Chair, Committee on the Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and
Hydrogen Technologies, “Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies—A Focus on Hydrogen,” National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2008 http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12222#toc
2. Thomas, C.E, “Comparison of Transportation Options in a Carbon-Constrained World: Hydrogen, Plug-in Hybrids and Biofuels,” Proceedings of the National HydrogenAssociation Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, March 31, 2008.
3. The National Hydrogen Association, “Energy Evolution: an analysis of alternative vehicles and fuels to 2100” http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/evolution.asp
4. Sinha, Jayanti, Stephen Lasher, Yong Yang and Peter Kopf, “Direct hydrogen PEMFC manufacturing cost estimation for automotive applications,” Fuel Cell Tech Team Review, September 24, 2008, Tiax LLC.
5. Wang, Michael Q., “Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation, the Argonne National Laboratory; Argonne has also released version 2.8a that includes the impact of vehicle manufacturing .http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/
6. Dhameja S., Electric Vehicle Battery Systems, Newnes Press, Boston 2002 7. Wipke K, S.Sprik, J. Kurtz, and T. Ramsden, “Controlled hydrogen fleet and infrastructure
demonstration and validation protect,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report NREL/TR-560-45451, slide CDP#38, March 2009.
8. Morrow K, Karner D, Francfort J, “Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging infrastructure review,” Final Report INL/EXT-08-15058, Idaho National Laboratory, November 2008
9. Kromer M, Heywood J, “Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet,” Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Publication No. LFEE 2007-03 RP, May 2007.
10. Duvall, M., Khipping, E., “Environmental assessment of PHEVs, Vol 1 – National greenhouse gas emissions,” Electric Power Research Institute/Natural Resources Defense Council Report # 1015325, July 2007
74
Page 75
75
Thank You
• Contact Information: C.E. (Sandy) Thomas H2Gen Innovations, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia 22304 703-212-7444, ext. 222 [email protected] www.h2gen.com
Page 77
Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7%Eff. = 48% Eff. 92% Energy Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%
Natural Gas NG Combined Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 3001.18 Cycle Turbine 166.0 & Distribution 152.7 Energy to motor: Miles
MBTU kWh kWh 0.413 kWh/mile Range
BEV Weight = 2269 kg
Inverter/Motor 86.7%Eff. = 75% Eff. 93% Hydrogen Energy Eff.= 51.8% Gear Box = 91.5%
Natural Gas Steam Methane H2 Compression Required Fuel Cell Drive Train 3000.81 Reformer 178.2 165.7 Energy to motor: Miles
MBTU kWh kWh 0.2861 kWh/mile RangeFCEV Weight 1280 kg
Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab NG'; S 44 3/12 /2009
Battery Electric Vehicle
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
77
Natural Gas: Battery EVs via Electricity? Or Fuel Cell EVs via Hydrogen?
Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 32% Eff. = 92% Energy Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%
Natural Gas NG Turbine Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 300 1.77 166.0 & Distribution 152.7 Energy to motor: Miles
MBTU kWh kWh 0.413 kWh/mile Range BEV Weight = 2269 kg
=
= =
=
Battery Electric Vehicle
Page 78
Inverter/Motor 86.7%Eff. = 75% Eff. 93% Hydrogen Energy Eff.= 51.8% Gear Box = 91.5%
Natural Gas Steam Methane H2 Compression Required Fuel Cell Drive Train 3000.81 Reformer 178.2 165.7 Energy to motor: Miles
MBTU kWh kWh 0.2861 kWh/mile RangeFCEV Weight 1280 kg
Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab NG'; S 44 3/12 /2009
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
78
Natural Gas: Battery EVs via Electricity? Or Fuel Cell EVs via Hydrogen?
Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 32% Eff. = 92% Energy Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%
Natural Gas NG Turbine Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 300 1.77 166.0 & Distribution 152.7 Energy to motor: Miles
MBTU kWh kWh 0.413 kWh/mile Range BEV Weight = 2269 kg
Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 48% Eff. = 92% Energy Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%
Natural Gas NG Combined Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 300 1.18 Cycle Turbine 166.0 & Distribution 152.7 Energy to motor: Miles
MBTU kWh kWh 0.413 kWh/mile Range
BEV Weight = 2269 kg
= =
=
Battery Electric Vehicle
Battery Electric Vehicle
Page 79
79
Natural Gas: Battery EVs via Electricity? Or Fuel Cell EVs via Hydrogen?
Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 32% Eff. = 92% Energy Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%
Natural Gas NG Turbine Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 300 1.77 166.0 & Distribution 152.7 Energy to motor: Miles
MBTU kWh kWh 0.413 kWh/mile Range BEV Weight = 2269 kg
Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 48% Eff. = 92% Energy Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%
Natural Gas NG Combined Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 300 1.18 Cycle Turbine 166.0 & Distribution 152.7 Energy to motor: Miles
MBTU kWh kWh 0.413 kWh/mile Range
BEV Weight = 2269 kg
Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 75% Eff. = 93% Hydrogen Energy Eff.= 51.8% Gear Box = 91.5%
Natural Gas Steam Methane H2 Compression Required Fuel Cell Drive Train 300 0.81 Reformer 178.2 165.7 Energy to motor: Miles
MBTU kWh kWh 0.2861 kWh/mile Range FCEV Weight = 1280 kg
Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab NG'; S 44 3/12 /2009
Battery Electric Vehicle
Battery Electric Vehicle
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
Page 80
80
Natural Gas Required for Electric Vehicles
Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab NG per mile'; AM 32 3/12 /2009
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 100 200 300 400
Natural Gas Required (MBTU)
Vehicle Range (Miles)
Battery Electric Vehicle (Natural Gas Combustion Turbine)
Battery Electric Vehicle (Natural Gas Combined Cycle)
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (Natural Gas Reformer)
Page 81
81
Biomass Utilization: BEV or FCEV?
Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 28% AC Eff. = 92% Energy Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%
Biomass Combustion Electr. Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 250 1.48 Turbine 121.2 & Distribution 111.5 Energy to motor: Miles
MBTU kWh kWh 0.363 kWh/mile Range BEV Weight = 1899 kg
Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 49% Eff. = 93% Hydrogen Energy Eff.= 51.8% Gear Box = 91.5%
Biomass Biomass H2 Compression Required Fuel Cell Drive Train 250 1.03 Gasifier 147.6 137.3 Energy to motor: Miles
MBTU kWh kWh 0.2845 kWh/mile Range FCEV Weight = 1268 kg
Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab NG'; S 32 4/28 /2009
Biomass to electricity reference: Duvall, M., Khipping, E., “Environmental assessment of PHEVs Vol 1 – National greenhouse gas emissions,” EPRI/NRDC Rept # 1015325, July 2007 Biomass to hydrogen: Spath, P, Aden A, Eggeman T, Ringer M, Wallace B, Jechura J, "Biomass to hydrogen production detailed design and economics," NREL/TP-510-37408, May 2005 Vehicle parameters: 2.13 m^2 area, 0.33 drag, 0.0092 rolling resistance & 0 to 60 mph acceleration in 10 seconds
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
Battery Electric Vehicle
Page 82
82
Wind Electricity: BEV or FCEV?
Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7%
Wind AC Eff. = 92% Energy Eff. = 98% Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%
Turbine Electr. Transmission Req'd AC Outlet DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 250 CF =39% 123.7 & Distribution 113.8 Circuit 111.5 107.0 Energy to motor: Miles $2000/kW kWh kWh kWh $90/kW kWh 0.363 kWh/mile Range
BEV Weight = 1899 kg
Home Outlet 8 hrs charging time
(Level I) Extra BEV Cost Total Extra Cost + + =
H2 Inverter/Motor = 86.7%
Wind AC Eff. = 75% Energy Eff. = 95% Eff. = 93% Eff.= 51.8% Gear Box = 91.5%
Turbine Electr. Electrolyzer Req'd Compression Compression Fuel Cell Drive Train 250 CF =39% 207.2 155.4 & Pipeline 147.6 & Storage 137.3 Energy to motor: Miles $2000/kW kWh $1100/kW kWh $2/kg kWh $2190/kg/day kWh 0.284 kWh/mile Range
83.5 kWh FCEV Weight = 1266 kg
Extra Wind Cost Extra Pipeline Compression & Storage Cost Extra FCEV Cost + + $9 + + =
Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab NG'; S 50 4/30 /2009
$14,359
$2,543 Electrolyzer Cost
$1,399 $978 $2,776
Extra Energy:
$900
$7,705
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
$16,539
Total Extra Cost
Battery Electric Vehicle
14.2kW Rectifier
$1,280
Page 83
83
Incremental Cost: Vehicle + Fueling Costs
Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab NG per mile'; AM 41 4/30 /2009
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
0 100 200 300 400
Battery EV & Fueling Costs
Battery EV
Fuel Cell EV & Fueling Costs
Fuel Cell EV
Vehicle Range (miles)
Incremental Cost (over conventional vehicle)
Page 84
84
Cost to Reduce Grid Carbon Footprint
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2010 2025 2040 2055 2070 2085 2100
Annual Capital Expenditures on New Generation Capacity ($Billion/year)
Coal with CCS
Renewables
Added Grid Cost for Gasoline Plug-in Hybrids
Nuclear
Source: EPRI for generator capital costs and capacity factors
Page 85
85
Greenhouse Gas Pollution Comparisons (2050 & 2100)
GHG = greenhouse gases
FCEV = fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle
HEV = hybrid electric vehicle
PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
NG = natural gas
NGV = natural gas vehicle
ICV = internal combustion engine vehicle
Based on AEO 2009 data Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; BJ 464 5/15 /2009
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00
Gasoline ICV
NGV
Gasoline HEV
Diesel HEV
NG HEV
Gasoline PHEV
Diesel PHEV
NG PHEV
Ethanol PHEV
BEV
H2 ICE HEV
FCEV
2100 2050
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
60% Below 1990 Level 80% Below 1990 Level
1990 GHG Level
Page 86
86
Vehicle Costs vs. Production Volume
FCEV-350 300,000$ 26,600$ 3,600$ BEV -200 160,000$ 33,300$ 10,300$ PHEV 110,000$ 26,162$ 3,709$
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Progress Ratios'; AF 49 5 /15 /2009
Initial Cost Final Cost Incremental Cost (2030)
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
1 10 100
1,000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000
10,000,000
FCEV-350
BEV-200
Gasoline PHEV
Vehicle Price (US$)
Vehicle Cumulative Production
Page 87
87
DOE FY2010 Budget Request
($1,000's)
FY 2008 Appropriation
FY 2009 Current
Appropriation
FY 2009 Additional
Appropriation
FY 2010 Request
Decrease ('10-'09)
Fuel Cell Technologies Fuel Cell Systems R&D 54,201 75,700 63,213 (12,487) Hydrogen Production and Delivery R&D 38,607 10,000 0 (10,000) Hydrogen Storage R&D 42,371 59,200 0 (59,200) Fuel Cell Stack Component R&D - - - 0 -Technology Validation* 29,612 15,000 0 (15,000) Transportation Fuel Cell Systems 6,218 6,600 0 (6,600) Distributed Energy Fuel Cell Systems - - 13,400 0 -Fuel Processor R&D - - - 0 -Safety Codes and Standards* 15,442 12,500 - 0 (12,500) Education* 3,865 4,200 - 0 (4,200) Systems Analysis 11,099 7,713 5,000 (2,713) Market Transformation - 4,747 30,000 0 (4,747) Manufacturing R&D 4,826 5,000 0 (5,000)
Actual Total Fuel Cell Technologies 206,241 200,660 43,400 68,213 (132,447)
Total Fuel Cell Technologies reported in request: 206,241 168,960 43,400 68,213 (100,747)
Funding buried in footnotes for FY'09 (pg 62) 31,700 *These items were included in "Vehicle Technologies" for FY 2009 only (They were transferred back to FC Technologies for FY2010 at zero levels!)
Page 89
89 H2Gen: NG-Price.XLS; Tab 'Gasoline-NG' T100- 9 / 13 / 2008
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08
Retail Gasoline (taxed) Wholesale Gasoline Industrial NG
US Energy Costs ($/MBTU-HHV)
Natural Gas vs. Gasoline Prices
$4.00/gallon = $32/MBTU
Natural Gas
Gasoline
Katrina
Page 90
Natural Gas use for FCVs
H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'NG 2008'; U 76 3/21 /2008
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
Natural Gas Consumption (Quads) H2 NG %
AEO 2008 NG Projections
Natural Gas to Make Hydrogen
% NG to Make Hydrogen
90
Page 91
91
Impact of FCVs on Global Natural Gas Resources
H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'NG-Oil Resources';BA141 - 2 / 28 / 2008
-4,000
-2,000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
NG Baseline NG + Optimistic FCVs Oil + Optimistic FCVs Oil Baseline
FCVs Decrease Natural Gas
Resources 470 Quads
FCVs Increase Crude Oil
Resources by 900 Quads
Remaining Global Resources (Quads)
Page 92
Marginal Grid Mix Illustration
US Generation Mix
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1
0 0 H2Gen: CFCP models.XLS; Tab 'GHG';J53 - 9 / 12 / 2004
Hypothetical Load Profiles
NG Turbine
Incr
easi
ng M
argi
nal C
ost
NG Combined Cycle Turbine
Coal
Nuclear
Hydro & Renewables 1
12 24 Time (hours)
Hydro Nuclear Coal & Oil NG Combined Cycle NG Turbine
Figure . Illustration of marginal grid loads for a typical US electric utility
92
Page 93
Societal Cost / Benefit Results
Gasoline ICE PHEV
Scenario
Ethanol ICE PHEV
Scenario
FCEV Scenario*
BEV Scenario*
Total Subsidies & Investments ($US Billions) 8.6 $ 12.4$ 36.5$ 79.2 $ Total Societal Savings ($US Billions) 5,635 $ 9,565$ 15,863$ 15,293$
Ratio of Savings / Subsidies 653 769 435 193
Discount Rate = 6% NPV of Subsidies & Investments ($ Billions) 5.0 $ 6.5$ $18.47 33.6$ NPV of Societal Savings ($US Billions) 221.6$ 404.7$ 668.2$ 588.5$
Ratio of NPV(Savings) / NPV (Subsidies) 44.3 62.6 36.2 17.5 Greenhouse Gas % Below 1990 Levels 11.8% 40.8% 87.1% 81.9% *Note: FCEV & BEV Scenarios include incentives for gasoline & ethanol PHEVs in those scenarios
Story Economics.XLS; Tab 'NPV'; K 18 5/15 /2009
* FCEV & BEV scenario incentives include those for ICE PHEVs in each scenario 93
Page 94
94
Gasoline ICE Hybrid Scenario Market Shares
Percentage of New Car Sales
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
Gasoline ICEVs
Gasoline HEVs
(50% Market Share Potential by 2024)
Page 95
95
Gasoline (& Diesel) ICE Plug-In Hybrid Scenario Market Shares
Percentage of New Car Sales
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
Gasoline ICEVs
Gasoline PHEV
Gasoline HEV
(50% market share potential by 2031; 75% plug-in potential limited by charging outlet availability; 12 to 52 mile all-electric range; 18% to 65% of VMT from grid)
Page 96
Biofuel (eg. Ethanol) Plug-In
Hybrid Scenario Market Shares Percentage of New Car Sales (Blended CD Mode for PHEVs)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Biofuel Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)
Gasoline Gasoline Hybrid (HEV) ICVs
Gasoline PHEVs
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; ED 30 3/4 /2009
(50% market share potential by 2031; 75% plug-in potential limited by charging outlet availability; 12 to 52 mile all-electric range; 18% to 65% of VMT from grid; 90 billion gallon/year cellulosic ethanol production per Sandia/Livermore (vs. 9 B/yr now and 60 B gallons/yr limit used by NRC) 96
Page 97
97
Annual Fuel Costs ($/car/year)
[ Based on EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2009 through 2030 for gasoline price, natural gas price, residential electricity price, and vehicle miles traveled, with linear extrapolation to 2100; hydrogen price set at 55% the price of gasoline per mile traveled; off-peak electricity set at 55% of residential electricity price]
Off-Peak Electricity = 55% of Residential Rate Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Driver'; BI 52 5/15 /2009
Hydrogen Price = 55% of gasoline price per mile
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2010 2030 2050 2070 2090
Gasoline Cost
FCEV Hydrogen Cost
PHEV Fuel Cost
BEV Electricity cost
Annual Fuel Costs ($/vehicle/year)
Page 98
Assumptions H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sa es ;HI 155 3/11 /2008
Alternative Vehicle Market Penetration
Market Share of New Car Sales l '
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Gasoline HEVs, & EtOH ICEVs & HEVs
H2 ICE HEVs & PHEVs
H2 FC HEVs, FC PHEVs & BPEVs
Diesel HEVs, Gasoline, Deisel &EtOH PHEVs
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';IK 182 3/11 /2008
98
Page 99
99
Sensitivity Studies
• NRC comparisons
Page 100
2008 National Research Council Report vs. NHA Report
NRC Assessment NHA Assessment Alternative Vehicles Compared: Gasoline ICEVs Yes Yes Advanced ICEVs Yes Not separately Gasoline HEVs Yes Yes Gasoline PHEVs NO Yes Ethanol HEVs Yes ? Yes Ethanol PHEVs NO Yes Diesel HEVs NO Yes Diesel PHEVs NO Yes NGVs NO Yes NG HEVs NO Yes NG PHEVs NO Yes H2 ICE HEVs NO Yes H2 ICE PHEVs NO Yes H2 FCV HEVs Yes ? Yes
BEVs NO Yes
Societal Attributes Compared: Oil Consumption Yes Yes Greenhouse Gases Yes Yes Urban Air Pollution NO Yes Total Societal Cost NO Yes
Time Horizon To 2050 To 2100 Cellulosic Ethanol Production
45 to 60 billion gallons/year
120 billion gallons/year 100
Page 101
101
Fuel Economy (NRC vs. NHA)
H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Fuel Economy';AF 74 2/16 /2009
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
New Car Fuel Economy (mpgge)
NHA ICEV
NHA FCV
NRC ICEV
NRC Advanced
ICEV
NRC FCV
Page 102
102
GHG: NHA Model with NRC Input Data
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'NRC Tables'; AJ 157 8/19 /2008
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
FCV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
NRC Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Advanced Gasoline ICEVs
H2 ICE HEV Scenario
BEV Scenario
2008 NRC Advanced ICEV Case
Page 103
103
GHG: NHA Model with NHA Input Data
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
Fuel Cell Vehicle Scenario
Ethanol Plug-In Hybrid Scenario
Gasoline Plug-In Hybrid Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICVs
H2 ICE HEV Scenario
BEV Scenario
Page 104
104
NRC 2008 GHG Results
Reference Case
Case 3 (biofuels)
Case 2 (ICEV Eff)
Case 1 (H2 Success)
Page 105
105
Oil Consumption: NHA Model with NRC Input Data
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'NRC Tables'; W 158 8/19 /2008
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Oil Consumption (Billion barrels/year)
FCV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
NRC Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Advanced Gasoline ICEVs
Energy "Quasi-Independence"
H2 ICE HEV & BEV Scenarios
2008 NRC Advanced ICEV Case
Page 106
106
NRC Oil Consumption
Reference Case
Case 3 (biofuels)
Case 2 (ICEV Eff)
Case 1 (H2 Success)
Page 107
107
Oil Consumption: NHA Model with NHA Input Data
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Oil Consumption (Billion barrels/year)
FCEV, H2 ICE HEV & BEV Scenarios
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICVs
Non-OPEC-only Oil
American-only Oil
Page 108
Iraq War todate
(3/2009)
FederalHighwaySystem
Ethanol16-YearSubsidy
ApolloMoon
Program
Hydrogen& FCEV
TotalIncentives
10X 5-YearHydrogenProgram 108
Hydrogen Infrastructure Costs Compared to Other Projects
H2G H2 ICE HEV XLS T b 'C t' J 29 3/6 /2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Stimulus Package
US$ Billions
Page 109
FederalHighwaySystem
Ethanol16-YearSubsidy
ApolloMoon
Program
Hydrogen& FCEV
TotalIncentives
10X 5-YearHydrogenProgram 109
Hydrogen Infrastructure Costs Compared to Other Projects
H2G H2 ICE HEV XLS T b 'C t' J 29 3/6 /2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Stimulus Package
Iraq War to date
(3/2009)
US$ Billions
Page 110
Ethanol16-YearSubsidy
ApolloMoon
Program
Hydrogen& FCEV
TotalIncentives
10X 5-YearHydrogenProgram 110
Hydrogen Infrastructure Costs Compared to Other Projects
H2G H2 ICE HEV XLS T b 'C t' J 29 3/6 /2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Stimulus Package
Iraq War to date
(3/2009)
Federal Highway System
US$ Billions
Page 111
ApolloMoon
Program
Hydrogen& FCEV
TotalIncentives
10X 5-YearHydrogenProgram 111
Hydrogen Infrastructure Costs Compared to Other Projects
H2G H2 ICE HEV XLS T b 'C t' J 29 3/6 /2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Stimulus Package
Iraq War to date
(3/2009)
Federal Highway System
Ethanol 16-Year Subsidy
US$ Billions
Page 112
Hydrogen& FCEV
TotalIncentives
10X 5-YearHydrogenProgram 112
Hydrogen Infrastructure Costs Compared to Other Projects
H2G H2 ICE HEV XLS T b 'C t' J 29 3/6 /2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Stimulus Package
Iraq War to date
(3/2009)
Federal Highway System
Ethanol 16-Year Subsidy
Apollo Moon
Program
US$ Billions
Page 113
10X 5-YearHydrogenProgram 113
H2G H2 ICE HEV XLS T b 'C t' J 29 3/6 /2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Stimulus Package
Iraq War to date
(3/2009)
Federal Highway System
Ethanol 16-Year Subsidy
Apollo Moon
Program
Hydrogen & FCEV
Total Incentives
US$ Billions
Hydrogen Infrastructure Costs Compared to Other Projects
Page 114
114
H2G H2 ICE HEV XLS T b 'C t' J 29 3/6 /2009
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Stimulus Package
Iraq War to date
(3/2009)
Federal Highway System
Ethanol 16-Year Subsidy
Apollo Moon
Program
Hydrogen & FCEV
Total Incentives
10X 5-Year Hydrogen Program
US$ Billions
Hydrogen Infrastructure Costs Compared to Other Projects
Page 115
115
Number of Vehicles on the road
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab '# Cars'; L 124 5/15 /2009
-2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000
10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000 16,000,000 18,000,000 20,000,000
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Gasoline PHEVs
FC HEVs
Number of Vehicles on the road
Page 116
116
How best to use natural gas?
• To produce electricity for battery electric vehicles?
• Or to produce hydrogen for fuel cell electric vehicles?
Page 117
117
• Backup Topics: – Urban air pollution & societal costs – Sensitivity studies – Natural gas & diesel vehicles
Page 118
Financial & Performance Data used in Model
SMR HHV efficiency 78% SMR Electricity Price $0.095/kWh SMR Electricity Consumption 1.04 kWh/kg Compression electricity 2.16 kWh/kg H2 Price Discount 45% FCV f.e./ICEV f.e. 2.40 O&M annual Costs 7% Annual Taxes & Insurance 2% Marginal income tax (fed & state) 38.9% Real, after-tax rate of return 10.0% Inflation 1.9% Analysis Period/Equipment Life (years) 15 Depreciation period (years) 7 Depreciation Type* DB Annual Capital Recovery Factor 15.5%
118
Page 119
119
Total Societal Costs
Page 120
120
Societal Costs from Pollution & Oil Imports
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Total Societal Costs ($Billion/year)
Fuel Cell Vehicle Scenario
Ethanol Plug-in Hybrid Scenario
Gasoline Plug-in Hybrid Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICVs
Page 121
121
Sensitivity to Fuel Economy
Page 122
122
Greenhouse Gas Sensitivity to Vehicle Fuel Economy
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Sensitivity'; M 51 6/8 /2008
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Greenhouse Gas Pollution in 2100 (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
Fuel Economy Relative to Gasoline ICEV
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
H2 ICE HEV Scenario
FCV Scenario
Based on old AEO 2008 data
Page 123
123
Urban Air Pollution Sensitivity to Vehicle Fuel Economy
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Sensitivity'; W 51 6/8 /2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Urban Air Pollution Costs in 2100 (US$Billion/year)
Fuel Economy Relative to Gasoline ICEV
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
H2 ICE HEV Scenario
FCV Scenario
Based on old AEO 2008 data
Page 124
124
Societal Cost Sensitivity to Vehicle Fuel Economy
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Sensitivity'; AG 51 6/8 /2008
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Total Societal Costs in 2100 (US$Billion/year)
Fuel Economy Relative to Gasoline ICEV
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
H2 ICE HEV Scenario
FCV Scenario
Based on old AEO 2008 data
Page 125
125
Sensitivity to FCEV Market Share & Carbon Footprints
Page 126
126
Greenhouse Gases with 75% FCEV Market Limit
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; AN 34 2/16 /2009
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG Level
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
FCV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
75% FCV Scenario
Page 127
127
Greenhouse Gases with 75% FCEV Limit & DOE Carbon parameters
(Greener grid and less green hydrogen; all-electric CD mode for PHEVs)
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; AD 529 2/16 /2009
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
FCEV Scenario (75% Sales)
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
H2 ICE HEV Scenario (75%)
BEV Scenario (75%)
Page 128
128 Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; AD 561 2/16 /2009
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
FCEV Scenario (75% Sales)
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
H2 ICE HEV Scenario (75%)
BEV Scenario (75%)
Blended CD mode for PHEVs
Greenhouse Gases with 75% FCEV Limit & DOE Carbon parameters
(Greener grid and less green hydrogen & Blended CD mode for PHEVs)
Page 129
129
Oil Consumption with 75% FCEV Market Limit
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; AD 180 2/16 /2009
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Oil Consumption (Billion barrels/year)
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
Non-OPEC-only Oil
American-only
75% FCEV Scenario
100% FCEV Scenario
Page 130
Gasoline PHEV
130
Oil Consumption with 75% FCEV Limit & DOE Carbon parameters
(Greener grid and less green hydrogen)
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; AD 235 2/16 /2009
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Oil Consumption (Billion barrels/year)
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICVs
Non-OPEC-only Oil
American-only 75% FCEV Scenario
(& H2 ICE HEV & BEV)
Page 131
131
GHG Sensitivity to NG Fraction (electricity & hydrogen source)
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Sensitivity'; M 91 6/8 /2008
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Greenhouse Gas Pollution in 2100 (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
Natural Gas Fraction in 2100 (for both hydrogen and electricity production)
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
H2 ICE HEV Scenario
FCV Scenario
BPEV Scenario
Base Case
Based on old AEO 2008 data
Page 132
132
Sensitivity to Ethanol PHEV Market share
Page 133
133
GHG Sensitivity to Ethanol Production Capacity & Plug-in Capacity
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; AN 405 5/25 /2008
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
FCV Scenario
Ethanol 75% PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
Ethanol 100% PHEV Scenario
Ethanol 100% PHEV (No EtOH Limit)
Based on old AEO 2008 data
Page 134
134
GHG Sensitivity to Hydrogen Source
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
FCV Scenario
Ethanol 75% PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
FCV (+10% NG On-site)
FCV (+20% NG On-site)
Based on old AEO 2008 data
Page 135
135
Oil Consumption Sensitivity to Ethanol Production & Plug-in Capacity
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; AD 122 5/25 /2008
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Oil Consumption (Billion barrels/year)
FCV, H2 ICE PHEV & BPEV
Scenarios
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Ethanol 75% PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
Energy "Quasi-Independence"
Ethanol 100% PHEV Scenario
Ethanol 100% PHEV (No EtOH Limit)
Based on old AEO 2008 data
Page 136
136
Backup Slides
• Natural Gas Vehicles • Diesel CIDI Vehicles
Page 137
137
Greenhouse Gases with Natural Gas Vehicles
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; BC 495 9/8 /2008
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution
FCV Scenario
NG PHEV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
NG HEV Scenario
NGV Scenario
Based on old AEO 2008 data
Page 138
138
Urban Air Pollution with Natural Gas Vehicles
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; DF 102 9/8 /2008
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 FCV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
US Urban Air Pollution Costs ($Billions/year)
PM Cost from Brake & Tire Wear
NG PHEV Scenario
NG HEV Scenario
NGV Scenario
Page 139
139
Diesel PHEV GHGs
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution FCV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
Diesel PHEV Scenario
Based on old AEO 2008 data
Page 140
140
Diesel PHEV Oil Consumption
-
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
Oil Consumption (Billion barrels/year)
FCV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
Energy "Quasi-Independence"
H2 ICE HEV & BPEV Scenarios
Diesel PHEV Scenario
Based on old AEO 2008 data
Page 141
141
Diesel PHEV Urban Air Pollution
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100
FCV Scenario
Ethanol PHEV Scenario
Gasoline PHEV Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline HEV
Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
US Urban Air Pollution Costs ($Billion/year)
PM Cost from Brake& Tire Wear
Diesel PHEV Scenario
Based on old AEO 2008 data
Page 142
142
NGV vs. FCV (Hydrogen from natural gas)
Natural Gas Hydrogen Reformer Compression & Storage Fuel Cell Vehicle
Natural Gas Efficiency H2 Efficiency Efficiency 75% 93.9% 20 X 2.45 = 48.9 mpg
(200psi to 6,250 psi)
Natural gas efficiency: 0.75 x 0.939 X 48.9 = 34.4
Natural Gas Compression & Storage ICE Vehicle
Natural Gas Efficiency Efficiency 96.4% 20 mpg
(15 psi to 3,600 psi)
Natural gas efficiency: 0.964 x 20 = 19.3
FCV Advantage: 1.79 FCV GHG / ICEV GHG 56% (44% GHG reduction)
Page 143
143
Blended Charge Depleting Mode
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Blended CD'; AE 61 2/17 /2009
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
All-electric CD %VMT on Grid
ACEEE Blended CD %VMT on Grid
ANL Blended CD %VMT on Grid
MIT Blended CD %Grid Energy
ANL Blended CD % Grid Energy
All-Electric Range (miles)
% PHEV Energy from Grid or % VMT
Page 144
144
# of Hydrogen Stations
H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';CE 23 5/30 /2008
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
# of H2 Fueling Stations
# of H2 Stations
Page 145
145
Cumulative Capital Expenditures on Hydrogen Fueling Equipment
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020
Cumulative Hydrogen Fueling System Capital Expenditures (US$ millions) & # of H2 Fueling Stations
Cumulative Capex
# of H2 Stations
Page 146
Initial Hydrogen Fueling System Deployments
H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';DB 23 5/30 /2008
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Cumulative Hydrogen Fueling System Capital Expenditures (US$ millions) & # of H2 Fueling Stations
Average Capacity Factor
Cumulative Capex
Capacity Factor
# of H2 Stations
146
Page 147
147
HGM 2000: Filling 20 cars or 3 busses / day
Natural Gas
Water
Instrument Air
Hydrogen, Up to 99.9999% pure
Electricity
All-in life cycle costs today: Production: $5.35/kg*
[Production, compression & storage: $9.37/kg ($3.95/gge)] * Natural gas = $11.10/MBTU
CH4 + 2H2O = 4 H2 + CO2
Page 148
148
The HGM 3000: Filling 30 cars or 4-5 busses / day
All-in life cycle costs today: Production: $4.33/kg*
[Production, compression & storage: $7.29/kg ($3.08/gge)] * Natural gas = $11.10/MBTU
Page 149
149
On-site Hydrogen is Competitive with Gasoline
Hydrogen Production Capacity
Equipment Production Quantities
Production Cost
Compression & Storage
Cost
Total Cost ($/kg)
HGM2k (20 cars/day) 115 kg/day > 10 5.95 3.42 9.37 $3.95/gge
HGM3k (30 cars/day) 172 kg/day > 10 4.77 2.53 7.29 $3.08/gge
HGM10k (100 cars/day) 575 kg/dy > 10 3.80 2.10 5.91 $2.49/gge
3 Years HGM10k (100 cars/day) 576 kg/dy >100 3.54 1.65 5.19 $2.19/gge
~6 Years (250 cars/day) 1,500 kg/day >500 2.76 1.11 3.87 $1.63/gge
NAS Assumptions: Annual Capital Recovery factor = 19.1%; Capacity Factor = 70%; FCV fuel economy = 2.4 X ICEV
Electricity = 8 cents/kWh; Natural Gas = $11.1/MBTU
H2Gen:Markets4.XLS, Tab'H2 Cost Table' V22;6/6/2008
Hydrogen Cost From On-Site Steam Methane Reformer System ($/kg)
Hydrogen Cost ($/gallon of gasoline
on a range-equivalent basis,
untaxed, relative to ICEV)
Page 150
150
H2 Cost Comparisons (Industrial with HGM-2000)
H2Gen: markets4.XLS; Tab 'HGM Summary';U183 - 9 / 14 / 2008
On-Site Capital Natural gas Electricity Distance to Plant Cap. Recovery HGM-2000 409,643 $ $11.10/MBTU 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Liquid H2 272,924 $ $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 800 miles 13.9% Electrolyzer 415,310 $ - 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Electrolyzer-Off Peak 610,230 $ - 4.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Tube Trailer $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 150 miles 13.9% Production Quantity 10 Capacity Factor 95%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
HGM-2000 On-Site Production
Trucked-In Liquid H2 Electrolyzer Electrolyzer Off-Peak Tube Trailer (Compressed H2)
Central Plant CR @13.85% FCR On-Site Equipment CR @19.1% Delivery Truck CR O&M H2 Backup H2 Transportation Electricity Natural Gas
Hydrogen Cost ($/ccf)
CR = Capital Recovery Factor O&M = Operation & Maintenance 2,000 scfh (115 kg/day)
Page 151
151
H2 Cost Comparisons (Industrial with HGM-10,000)
On-Site Capital Natural gas Electricity Distance to Plant Cap. Recovery HGM 1,077,019 $ $11.10/MBTU 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% H2Gen: markets4.XLS; Tab 'HGM Summary';AE185 - 9 / 14 / 2008
Liquid H2 582,578 $ $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 800 miles 13.9% Electrolyzer 2,298,569 $ - 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Electrolyzer-Off Peak 2,861,475 $ - 4.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Tube Trailer $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 150 miles 13.9% Production Quantity 10 Capacity Factor 95%
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
HGM-10,000 On-site Production
Trucked-In Liquid H2
Electrolyzer Electrolyzer Off-Peak 4c/kWh
Tube Trailer (Compressed H2)
Central Plant CR @13.85% FCR On-Site Equipment CR @19.1% Delivery Truck CR O&M H2 Transportation Electricity Natural Gas
Hydrogen Cost ($/ccf)
CR = Annual Capital Recovery Factor; O&M = Operation & Maintenance HGM-10,000 Capacity (10,000 scfh or 565 kg/day)
Page 152
152
H2 Fuel Cost Comparisons (Hydrogen fuel including compression, storage & dispensing)
* FCV has 2.4 times higher fuel economy than a comparable ICEV On-Site Capital Natural gas Electricity Distance to Plant Cap. Recovery H2Gen: markets4.XLS; Tab 'HFA Summary';AC250 - 9 / 14 / 2008
HGM + CSM + dispenser 2,229,983 $ $11.10/MBTU 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Liquid H2 716,461 $ $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 800 miles 13.9% Electrolyzer 2,203,575 $ - 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Electrolyzer-Off Peak 2,885,660 $ - 4.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Tube Trailer 660,079 $ $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 150 miles 13.9% Plant Capacity Factor 70% Production Volume 10
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
HGM on-site Production Trucked-In Liquid H2 Electrolyzer 8c/kWh Electrolyzer Off-Peak 4c/kWh
Tube Trailer (Compressed H2)
Central Plant CR On-Site Equipment CR Delivery Truck CR O&M H2 Transportation Electricity Natural Gas
Hydrogen Cost ($/gallon of gasoline on a range-equivalent basis)*
CR = Capital Recovery; O&M = Operation & Maintenance HGM = hydrogen generation module
HGM-10,000 including compression to 7,000 psi, storage & dispensing
Page 153
153
Acknowledgments • Joan Ogden (1989 Solar Hydrogen Report)
• Bob Rose, US FC Council (for many helpful comments & guidance over the years)
• UC Davis (Mark Delucchi, et al.)
• US DOE (1994 Ford/DOE/DTI to present; H2A cost model, Steve Chalk, JoAnn Milliken, et al.)
• Argonne National Lab (Michael Wang & GREET model)
• NHA hydrogen story task force (Frank Novachek, leader, John Elter – Stationary applications)
• Barney Rush (CEO H2Gen)
Page 154
154
GHG: 75% Cap on PHEVs (Due to limited night-time access to outlets)
Sources: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a, AEO 2009 & NHA models
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; Q 494 3/4 /2009
-
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)
1990 LDV GHG
GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution
GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution Fuel Cell Electric
Vehicle (FCEV) Scenario
Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid (HEV) Scenario
100% Gasoline ICEVs
Biofuel PHEV Scenario
75% Biofuel PHEV
75% Gasoline PHEVs
Gasoline Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV)
Scenario
Page 155
155
Grid GHGs Relative to 1990
GHG.XLS, Tab 'Climate Change Projections'; K422;5/13/2009
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
% of Utility GHG above 1990 Levels
Business-as-usual; Extension of AEO 2008
US Projection based on West Coast (WECC) Grid with Carbon Constraints
Business-as-usual; with PHEVs
WECC Grid with PHEVs
Page 156
156
Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab 'GREET'; J 53 3/6 /2009
3,224
1,016
548
110
21
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Gasoline CV
Cellulosic E-90 CV
Cellulosic E-90 HEV
Hydrogen from Ethanol FCEV
Hydrogen from Biomass FCEV
Oil Consumption (Btu/mile)
Hydrogen from Ethanol & Biomass: Oil Consumption Comparison
Page 157
157
Hydrogen from Ethanol & Biomass: Greenhouse Gas Comparisons
Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab 'GREET'; J 74 3/6 /2009
(1.1)
290
96
54
25
(50) - 50 100 150 200 250 300
Gasoline CV
Cellulosic E-90 CV
Cellulosic E-90 HEV
Hydrogen from Ethanol FCEV
Hydrogen from Biomass FCEV
Greenhouse Gas Pollution (grams/mile)
Page 158
158
100% Gasoline Plug-In ICE Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Scenario
Market Shares
(50% market share potential by 2031; 75% limit to night-time charging; 12 to 52 mile all-electric range; 18% to 65% of VMT from grid)
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; ED 30 3/1 /2009
Percentage of New Car Sales
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
Gasoline ICVs
(Blended CD Mode for PHEVs)
Gasoline Plug-in Hybrids (PHEVs)
Gasoline Hybrids (HEVs)
Page 159
Biofuel Plug-In Hybrid
Scenario Market Shares (90 Billion gallons/year of biofuels)
Percentage of New Car Sales (Blended CD Mode for PHEVs)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Biofuel Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)
Gasoline Gasoline Plug-in Hybrid ICVs Gasoline
HEVs 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095
Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; ED 30 3/4 /2009
[50% market share potential by 2031, no limit on night-time charging outlets; 90 billion gallon/year cellulosic ethanol production per Sandia/Livermore (vs. 8 B/yr now and 60 B gallon/yr limit used by NRC)]
159
Page 160
160
Alternative Vehicle/Fuel Combinations
XXXNatural Gas
2.452.451.391.391.0Fuel Economy
XSSElectricity
XXXXHydrogen
XXXEthanol
XXDiesel
XXRefGasoline
BEVFC PHEV
FC HEV
ICE PHEV
ICE HEVICEV
X = primary fuel; S = secondary fuel; ICEV = internal combustion engine vehicle; HEV = hybrid electric vehicle; PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle; FC = fuel cell; BEV = battery-powered electric vehicle
Page 161
161
Four Main Vehicle/Fuel Combinations
XXXNatural Gas
2.452.451.391.391.0Fuel Economy
XSSElectricity
XXXXHydrogen
XXXEthanol
XXDiesel
XXRefGasoline
BEVFC PHEV
FC HEV
ICE PHEV
ICE HEVICEV
X = primary fuel; S = secondary fuel; ICEV = internal combustion engine vehicle; HEV = hybrid electric vehicle; PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle; FC = fuel cell; BEV = battery-powered electric vehicle
Page 162
162
Two Reference Vehicle/Fuel Combinations
XXXNatural Gas
2.452.451.391.391.0Fuel Economy
XSSElectricity
XXXXHydrogen
XXXEthanol
XXDiesel
XXRefGasoline
BEVFC PHEV
FC HEV
ICE PHEV
ICE HEVICEV
X = primary fuel; S = secondary fuel; ICEV = internal combustion engine vehicle; HEV = hybrid electric vehicle; PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle; FC = fuel cell; BEV = battery-powered electric vehicle
Page 163
163
Alternative Vehicle/Fuel Combinations
XXXNatural Gas
2.452.451.391.391.0Fuel Economy
XSSElectricity
XXXXHydrogen
XXXEthanol
XXDiesel
XXRefGasoline
BEVFC PHEV
FC HEV
ICE PHEV
ICE HEVICEV
X = primary fuel; S = secondary fuel; ICEV = internal combustion engine vehicle; HEV = hybrid electric vehicle; PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle; FC = fuel cell; BEV = battery-powered electric vehicle
Page 164
164
Argonne Results [Amgad Elgowainy et al, Feb 2009]
Page 165
165
National Hydrogen Association Alternative Vehicle Simulation Study Objectives:
• Compare alternative vehicles & fuels over 100 years with respect to: – Oil consumption – Greenhouse gas emissions – Urban air pollution
• Estimate cost of hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicle incentives
Page 166
166
Framing the Issue
Not PHEVs vs. FCEVs…
…but ICE-PHEVs vs. Fuel Cell HEVs or Fuel Cell PHEVs
Page 167
167
Current # of On-Road Vehicles made by auto companies
• ICE-PHEVs: 1 • FC-PHEVs: 1 • FC-HEVs: 318*
*140 FC HEVs under DOE learning demonstration evaluation program have logged over 1.9 million miles with over 16,000 refuelings in last four years with an average fueling time of 3.3 minutes (Ref: Wipke, NREL)
Ford Fuel Cell Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
(25 miles AER)
Toyota ICE Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (7 miles AER)
Page 168
168
Which vehicles are best for society?
• ICE hybrid electric vehicles? • ICE plug-in hybrids? • Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles? • Fuel cell plug-in hybrids?
…….or all of the above!