Hydrogen Posture Plan

1. Introduction.............................................................................................1

2. Key Drivers for Developing Hydrogen as an Energy Carrier. .................5 Energy Security.................................................................................5 Environmental Quality.......................................................................6 Economic Competitiveness...............................................................7

3. Development of Hydrogen as an Energy Carrier....................................9 Status of Hydrogen Today.................................................................9 Technology Development and Market Transformation. .....................9

4. Hydrogen Program................................................................................13 Program Mission.............................................................................13 Program Strategy............................................................................13 Program Activities and Highlights...................................................14 Program Milestones........................................................................26 Integrated Program Management and Coordination.......................27

5. Next Steps............................................................................................33 Notes ........................................................................................................35 Appendices.................................................................................................39 Appendix A. Sample Scenario for Domestic Hydrogen Production Options and Resource Needs................ A-1 Appendix B. Hydrogen Production and Delivery Pathways..........B-1 Appendix C. Hydrogen Fuel Initiative Budget: FY 04-07.............C-1 Appendix D. Glossary/Acronyms. ...............................................D-1 Appendix E. Contacts, Resources, and Weblinks......................... E-1 xi Hydrogen Posture Plan Hydrogen Posture Plan xii

1. Introduction Today, America is confronted by several major energy challenges: ✦ Attaining greater energy and economic security by reducing dependence on foreign energy supplies ✦ Increasing affordable domestic energy supplies to meet anticipated demand ✦ Reducing air pollution and addressing concerns about climate change The President’s National Energy Policy (NEP), the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Strategic Plan call for reducing U.S. reliance on imported oil. The NEP also acknowledges the need to increase energy supplies and use more energy-efficient technologies and practices. As highlighted Positive Attributes of Hydrogen in the NEP, energy-related activities are the primary source of air pollution and greenhouse as an Energy Carrier gas emissions. The need for clean, abundant, ✦ Can be derived from diverse domestic affordable, domestically produced energy has resources (fossil, nuclear, renewable) never been greater. ✦ Is compatible with high-efficiency As President Bush acknowledged in his January fuel cells, combustion turbines and 2003 State of the Union address,23 hydrogen has reciprocating engines to produce power the potential to play a major role in America’s future energy system. Hydrogen can be derived with near-zero emissions of criteria from a variety of domestically available energy pollutants sources (see several example pathways in ✦ Produces near-zero emissions of Appendix B). It has a wide variety of applications, greenhouse gases from renewable including fuel for automobiles and distributed and and nuclear sources and from fossil central electricity and thermal energy generation. fuel-based systems with carbon DOE recognizes that the development of this abundant element as an “energy carrier,” along sequestration with other alternative fuel options such as ethanol ✦ Can serve all sectors of the economy and efficient energy technologies such as plug- (transportation, power, industrial, and in hybrid vehicles, will help address national buildings) concerns about energy supply, security, and environmental protection. Congress expressed its support for the research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) of these technologies in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The DOE also recognizes that developing a hydrogen infrastructure will require a coordinated national effort and sustained activities by diverse public and private stakeholders. Today, hydrogen is commonly used in refineries and industrial applications to manufacture petrochemicals and fertilizers. The existing hydrogen production and distribution infrastructure is insufficient, however, to support widespread use of hydrogen as a transportation fuel. With the exception of pilot-scale research and development (R&D) projects and aerospace and rocket propulsion applications, the current hydrogen industry does not produce and distribute hydrogen as an energy carrier for transportation energy. Taking this step will require R&D to improve performance and lower costs for hydrogen production, delivery, and storage. R&D will also be required to develop low-cost, safe, technically viable fuel cell technologies that can be offered in consumer markets for automotive vehicles; commercial, residential, and industrial electric power generation; and portable power devices. Technology validation activities will be needed to measure  Hydrogen Posture Plan progress and provide hands-on experience to safety and code officials. The President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative accelerates funding in each of these areas. As a first step, the DOE facilitated a National “Critical Path” Technologies Hydrogen Vision and Roadmap process and Necessary for Developing a incorporated the opinions and viewpoints of a broad cross-section of stakeholders in two key Hydrogen Infrastructure documents: A National Vision of America’s ✦ More compact, lighter weight, lower Transition to a Hydrogen Economy—to 2030 cost, safe, and efficient storage systems and Beyond, and the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap. ✦ Lower cost, more durable materials for advanced conversion technologies, The Hydrogen Posture Plan outlines the activities, milestones, and deliverables that DOE especially fuel cells and DOT must pursue to develop hydrogen ✦ Lower cost methods for producing and energy systems, the key elements of which are delivering hydrogen shown in Figure 1. Among the topics addressed are the schedules for developing and evaluating ✦ Technologies for low cost carbon capture technologies to: and containment for fossil-based ✦ Produce and deliver hydrogen using various hydrogen production (a separate DOE domestic resources (e.g., distributed natural program coordinated with the Hydrogen gas; coal using capture and sequestration of Program) carbon dioxide; renewables including wind, ✦ Designs and materials that maximize the solar, biomass, geothermal, and hydropower; safety of hydrogen use and nuclear energy) ✦ Store hydrogen ✦ Convert hydrogen to useful energy through advanced fuel cells and other devices ✦ Continue developing advanced hybrid components and electric powertrain technologies for use in hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicles ✦ Conduct “learning” demonstrations to provide feedback to research programs, measure technology progress, and incorporate integrated system solutions Education needs, safety, codes and standards, and systems analysis and integration are also major program elements. The Posture Plan also addresses the critical role of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, a government/ industry partnership for the advancement of high-efficiency hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles and the infrastructure to support them, and the important role of future government policies in overcoming economic and institutional barriers to the development of a hydrogen infrastructure. The Posture Plan serves as the overarching guidance document for the Hydrogen Program. Hydrogen Posture Plan  Figure 1. Elements of a Hydrogen Energy Infrastructure Delivery Production Conversion Applications Storage Production Conversion  The production of hydrogen from fossil, nuclear,  The use of hydrogen to generate electricity and/or and renewable resources thermal energy  Involves thermal, electrolytic, and photolytic processes  Involves combustion turbines, reciprocating engines, and fuel cells Delivery End-Use Energy Applications  The distribution of hydrogen from production and storage sites  The use of hydrogen for transportation systems  Involves pipelines, trucks, rail, and barges such as fuel cell vehicles, internal combustion  Involves efficient reversible solid or liquid carrier systems engines, and for auxiliary and portable power Storage devices  The use of hydrogen for stationary energy  The containment of hydrogen for delivery, conversion, and use generation systems, including distributed energy  Involves tanks for both compressed gases and liquids systems, central generating stations, and combined  Involves reversible and regenerable solid- and liquid-state heat and power applications systems, including metal and chemical hydrides  Involves performance and safety evaluations and development of codes/standards  Hydrogen Posture Plan Hydrogen Posture Plan 

2. Key Drivers for Developing Hydrogen as an Energy Carrier Three major factors compel us to consider new approaches to the way the United States produces, delivers, and uses energy. These drivers are: ✦ Energy security ✦ Environmental quality Fuel Cells Offer Significant ✦ Economic competitiveness Improvements in Energy Energy Security Efficiency and Emissions Fuel cells represent a radically different Over one-half of the petroleum consumed in the approach to energy conversion, one United States is imported, and that percentage that could replace conventional power is expected to rise to 60% by 2025.24 America’s generators like engines, turbines, transportation sector relies almost exclusively and batteries in applications such as on refined petroleum products, accounting for automobiles, power plants, and consumer over two-thirds of the oil used.25 Each day, over electronics. Fuel cells, like batteries, eight million barrels of oil26 are required to fuel directly convert chemical energy into over 225 million vehicles27 that constitute the electric power. But unlike batteries, fuel U.S. light-duty transportation fleet. As shown in cells do not need recharging; instead Figure 2, the gap between U.S. oil production and they use fuel to produce power as long transportation oil needs is projected to grow, and as the fuel is supplied. Fuel cells operate the increase in the number of light-duty vehicles quietly and are relatively modular. will account for most of that growth. On a global Largely because of these characteristics, scale, petroleum supplies will be in increasingly hydrogen-powered fuel cells promise: higher demand as highly-populated developing countries expand their economies and become ✦ For vehicles, over 50% reduction more energy intensive. in fuel consumption compared to a conventional vehicle with a gasoline Hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles would not internal combustion engine30 be dependent on foreign oil, because hydrogen can be produced almost entirely from diverse ✦ Increased reliability of the electric domestic sources of fossil, renewable and power transmission grid by reducing nuclear energy (see Appendix A for an example system loads and bottlenecks of domestic hydrogen production options and associated resource needs). Fuel cell vehicles ✦ Increased co-generation of energy in (FCVs) could provide more than twice the combined heat and power applications efficiency of conventional vehicles and have the for buildings potential to reduce our dependence on oil while substantially reducing emissions of air pollutants ✦ Zero to near-zero levels of harmful and greenhouse gases. Analysis conducted for 28 emissions from vehicles and power the Government Performance and Results Act plants (GPRA) projects that oil savings could be 5.3 ✦ High energy density in a compact mbpd (million barrels per day) by 2050 assuming package for portable power a 37% market penetration of light duty fuel cell vehicles.29 Hydrogen’s use as a major energy applications carrier, in addition to the introduction of other fuels, would also provide the United States with a more efficient and diversified energy infrastructure, with a variety of options for central and distributed fuel production and electric power generation.  Hydrogen Posture Plan Figure 2. Growing U.S. Transportation Oil Gap Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 24, (December 2004), ORNL-6973, http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ TEDB_Edition24_ORNL_6973.pdf and U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2005: With Projections to 2025, (February 2005), EIA- 0383(2005), http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/forecasting/0383(2005).pdf Environmental Quality Air quality is a major national concern. It has been estimated that about 50% of Americans live in areas where levels of one or more air pollutants are high enough to affect public health and/or the environment.31 As shown in Figure 3, personal vehicles and electric power plants are significant contributors to the nation’s air quality problems. Most states are now developing strategies for reaching national air quality goals and bringing their major metropolitan areas into alignment with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. The introduction of Figure 3. Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion MMT Per Year MMT Per Year Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 25, (2006), ORNL-6974, http://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedb25/Edition25_Full_Doc.pdf. Hydrogen Posture Plan  hydrogen-based commercial bus fleets is one of the approaches that states are considering to improve air quality. The combustion of fossil fuels accounts for the majority of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (chiefly carbon dioxide, CO2) released into the atmosphere. The largest sources of CO2 emissions are the electric utility and transportation sectors, as shown in Figure 3. To meet our growing electrical demands, it is estimated that electricity generation will increase by 1.5% per year between now and 2030.32 Hydrogen used in stationary fuel cells offers an opportunity to contribute to this growing electrical demand, and to decouple carbon dioxide emissions from power generation and use. For example, if 175 billion kWh of grid electricity (10% of the growth of the electric generation market in 2025) is replaced by fuel cells operating on hydrogen at 50% LHV efficiency, about 10.5 million tons of hydrogen would be needed. If this hydrogen were made from a non-carbon (e.g., solar or nuclear) or net-zero carbon (e.g., biomass or coal with carbon sequestration) source, then it could potentially displace about 27.5 million tons of carbon.33 Economic Competitiveness It is clear that there is growing worldwide interest in hydrogen and fuel cell technology, as reflected in the dramatic increase in public and private spending since the mid-1990s in the U.S. and other countries. The U.S. government spends about $400 million annually34 on hydrogen and fuel cell related programs. A subset of these programs — those that International Partnership for the can directly contribute to the development Hydrogen Economy: Membership of commercially-viable hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and associated infrastructure Australia India — comprise the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Brazil Italy These programs have already begun to see Canada Japan significant funding increases as part of the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Other China New Zealand countries are increasing investment as well. European Norway The Japanese government is also investing Commission Republic of Korea heavily: the Ministry of Economy, Trade France and Industry (METI) budget for fuel cell Russian Federation and hydrogen RD&D has grown from $107 Germany United Kingdom million in 2001 to $324 million in 2005.35 Iceland United States Japan has launched a joint government/ industry demonstration of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and stationary power generation facilities as well as ten hydrogen refueling stations with different hydrogen sources. Governments and industry in Canada, Europe, and Asia are also investing heavily in hydrogen research, development and demonstration. The United States is striving to continue to be a global leader in hydrogen and fuel cell technology development and commercialization. To foster cooperation, the DOE and DOT facilitated the formation of the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE), which held its inaugural IPHE Ministerial meeting in Washington, D.C. in November 2003. The IPHE, which includes 17 partners, provides a mechanism to organize, evaluate, and coordinate multinational research, development, and deployment programs that will advance the introduction of hydrogen infrastructure at a global scale. In the months since the Ministerial meeting, the IPHE Steering Committee has established an active IPHE Secretariat to address stakeholder  Hydrogen Posture Plan involvement, policy coordination, project and event guidelines, technology collaboration, and market development issues. Initial meetings of the IPHE Implementation-Liaison Committee (ILC) focused on identifying the current hydrogen technology research, development, and demonstration activities of the IPHE partners and on examining approaches for focusing these activities with collaborative efforts. In 2005, collaborative projects were selected and prioritized. The ILC has also conducted a series of international research and development workshops, including a hydrogen storage workshop in Italy in June 2005, a hydrogen safety workshop in Italy in September 2005, and a renewable hydrogen production workshop in Spain in October 2005. More information on the IPHE can be found at http://www.iphe.net. Hydrogen Posture Plan 

3. Development of Hydrogen as an Energy Carrier Hydrogen technology development is one of the Department’s top priorities. The President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative calls for an increasing Federal commitment to R&D that will accelerate technology development, and thus industry’s ability to make commercialization decisions on hydrogen- based transportation technologies. It is important to note that technology development is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for commercialization. The National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap and the supporting hydrogen Vision provide a guide for the Department’s hydrogen technology development efforts. The sections below summarize some of the highlights of the Vision and Roadmap and describe key elements of the technology development process. Status of Hydrogen Today Although hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it does not naturally exist in its elemental form on Earth. Pure hydrogen must be produced from other hydrogen-containing compounds such as fossil fuels, biomass, or water. Each method of production requires a source of energy, i.e., thermal (heat), electrolytic (electricity), or photolytic (light) energy. Hydrogen is either consumed on site or distributed to end users via pipelines, trucks, or other means. Hydrogen can be stored as a liquid, gas, or chemical compound and is converted into usable energy through fuel cells or by combustion in turbines and engines. Fuel cells now in development will not only provide a new way to produce power, but will also significantly improve energy conversion efficiency, especially in transportation applications. The U.S. chemical and refining industries have a limited number of commercial facilities in place for the production and delivery of hydrogen. About nine million tons are manufactured annually for use in these industries.36 Those operations are localized, and cannot provide the technology advances and carbon management required for widespread use of hydrogen in the energy sector (i.e., large-scale, low-cost, high-efficiency production methods, and storage and delivery infrastructures compatible with automotive and distributed generation applications). As shown in Figure 4, there are a number of technical hurdles centered around cost, performance, and safety, that must be overcome in each area of the hydrogen energy infrastructure. Addressing these challenges will require a coordinated, multi-agency effort. More detailed information on the status of hydrogen technology today and the associated challenges is provided in the National Hydrogen Vision and Roadmap documents. Technology Development and Market Transformation Developing hydrogen as a major energy carrier will require a combination of technological breakthroughs, market acceptance, and large investments in infrastructure. Success will not happen overnight, or even over years, but rather over decades; it will require an evolutionary process that phases hydrogen in as the technologies and their markets are ready. Figure 5 presents one way in which this process might occur.  Hydrogen Posture Plan Figure 4. Hydrogen Energy System Elements and Challenges As described in the National Academies’ report on the hydrogen economy, in the near- to mid-term most hydrogen would likely be produced by technologies that do not require a new hydrogen delivery infrastructure (e.g., distributed reforming of natural gas and/or renewable liquid fuels such as ethanol, and electrolysis of water using electricity). As vehicle market penetration increases and research targets for the diverse hydrogen production and delivery technologies are met, these could help strengthen the business case for industry investment in large-scale centralized hydrogen production and delivery infrastructure. The economic viability of these different production pathways (examples of which are shown in Appendix B) will likely be affected by regional factors, such as feedstock availability and cost, delivery approaches, and regulatory environment. For hydrogen to become a viable fuel source, advanced hydrogen storage technologies will also be required, especially for automotive applications. Current storage systems are too heavy, too large, and too costly to provide adequate vehicle range. Technologies to convert hydrogen into useful energy — fuel cells and combustion technologies — must be further improved to lower cost and improve performance. Finally, the infrastructure to deliver hydrogen where it is needed must be developed and constructed. The hydrogen delivery infrastructure can evolve along with the production and conversion technologies. The same infrastructure can be used for fossil- based, renewable- and nuclear-based hydrogen. Infrastructure may begin in small clusters and expand to regional, and ultimately national and international Hydrogen Posture Plan 10 Figure 5. Possible Evolution of Hydrogen Technologies Security Public Policy Public confidence in Air Quality hydrogen as an energy Framework Outreach and acceptance Climate carrier H2 safety Gasification of biomass and coal Photolytic water splitting Distributed reforming Electrolysis Electrolysis with renewable and nuclear power Production of natural gas Distributed reforming of renewable liquid fuels Biological processes Carbon sequestration Nuclear thermochemical water splitting On-site distributed production Delivery Gaseous tube trailers Cryogenic liquid trucks Novel carriers Pipeline transmission Pipeline distribution Pressurized tanks Solid state Chemical hydrogen storage Storage (gaseous and cryogenic) (hydrides) Advanced solid state or chemical storage Fuel cells Conversion Combustion Advanced Mature technologies for mass production combustion Fuel refining Stationary distributed Commercial fleets Utility systems Space shuttle power Distributed CHP Integrated Portable power Bus fleets Market introduction fuel/power Validation/ systems Government Vehicle fleets of personal vehicles Applications Military stationary and fleet systems applications. More detailed economic analyses of the different production, distribution, storage, and conversion options will be essential. As shown in Figure 6, a hydrogen-based energy system will take significant time to develop and will require strong public and private partnerships. Currently, government and private organizations are researching, developing, and validating critical path technologies to meet customer requirements, ensure safety, and help establish a business case. Public education and codes and standards are being addressed concurrently with the research to overcome institutional barriers. This approach is designed to meet critical cost and performance goals, and enable industry commercialization decisions. Research would continue beyond this point to further support basic science and advanced hydrogen infrastructure technologies, especially for centralized, carbon-neutral hydrogen production pathways. Many market factors could influence industry commercialization decisions. Although it is impossible to predict exactly how the market will evolve, it is likely that early applications for fuel cells will include niche markets with less sensitive price points, a high value proposition, and fewer technical barriers than fuel cells for passenger vehicles. Examples include fuel cells for portable consumer electronic devices, back-up power, small stationary power generation, and forklifts. These systems are less complicated, can have smaller power requirements, and do not face the same requirements for on- board hydrogen storage. Utilization of fuel cells in these types of applications may help resolve technical and institutional barriers, boost production volumes, and lower costs, which could help the technology evolve to a level of readiness adequate for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and fueling infrastructure. Initial market penetration might also include larger vehicle and infrastructure validation where the government can foster further growth by playing the role 11 Hydrogen Posture Plan of “early adopter” and by creating policies and incentives that further stimulate the market. During market expansion, hydrogen could be produced by technologies that do not require an up-front investment in hydrogen delivery infrastructure. Instead, hydrogen might be produced in a “distributed” fashion at the refueling station (via on-site reforming of natural gas or renewable liquid fuels like ethanol or by distributed water electrolysis), or at nearby existing large hydrogen production plants and trucked to refueling sites. A fuel cell vehicle running on hydrogen produced from natural gas would produce 42% less net carbon emissions than a gasoline hybrid electric vehicle and 60% less than conventional internal combustion engine vehicles on a well-to-wheels basis.37 However, the use of natural gas for production of hydrogen is not a viable long-term strategy because of concerns of limited supply and the demands of other sectors. As vehicle market penetration expands, greater industry investment could lead to development of large-scale centralized hydrogen production and delivery infrastructure. Government policies may be required to stimulate industry investment and market acceptance. In a carbon-neutral energy future, hydrogen may offer one of a number of alternative fuel options to eliminate oil consumption in the transportation sector. When significant market penetration of these technologies is achieved, major national benefits in terms of energy security and improved environmental quality will result. Figure 6. Possible Scenarios for Hydrogen Technology Development and Market Transformation Hydrogen Posture Plan 12

4. Hydrogen Program Program Mission The central mission of the Hydrogen Program is to research, develop, and validate hydrogen production, delivery, storage and fuel cell technologies. Development of hydrogen energy from diverse domestic resources will ensure that the United States has an abundant, reliable, and affordable supply of clean energy to maintain the nation’s prosperity throughout the 21st century. Program Strategy The Hydrogen Program supports RD&D of hydrogen fuel cell technologies in parallel with technologies for hydrogen production and delivery infrastructure. The current focus is on addressing key technical challenges (for fuel cells and hydrogen production, delivery, and storage) and institutional barriers (such as hydrogen codes and standards to maximize safety, and training and public awareness). The Program is currently conducting basic and applied research, technology development and learning demonstrations, underlying safety research, systems analysis, and public outreach and education activities. These activities include cost-shared, public-private partnerships to address the high-risk, critical technology barriers preventing widespread use of hydrogen as an energy carrier. Public and private partners include automotive and power equipment manufacturers, energy and chemical companies, electric and natural gas utilities, building designers, standards development organizations, other Federal agencies, state government agencies, universities, national laboratories and other national and international stakeholder organizations. The Hydrogen Program encourages the formation of collaborative partnerships to conduct RD&D and other activities that support Program goals. Figure 7 shows the types of entities that carry out activities under the Hydrogen Program and the non-Federal cost share required. These activities address the development of hydrogen energy systems for transportation, stationary power, and portable power applications. Transportation applications include fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen refueling infrastructure. Stationary power applications include use of hydrogen for back-up emergency power and residential electric power generation. Portable power applications include consumer electronics such as cellular phones, hand-held computers, radios, and laptop computers. DOE is funding RD&D efforts that will provide the basis for the near-, mid-, and long-term production, delivery, storage, and use of hydrogen derived from diverse energy sources, including fossil fuel, nuclear energy, and renewable sources. Distributed reforming of natural gas and renewable liquid fuels (e.g., ethanol) is likely to be the most efficient and economical way to produce hydrogen in the near term. As reflected in the Administration’s FutureGen project, technologies will continue to be evaluated and developed to produce low-cost hydrogen from domestic and secure sources of coal with the capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide. With the implementation of carbon management strategies, coal could play a key role in the long term because of its abundance and low cost. Hydrogen from renewable biomass feedstocks can benefit from gasification, reforming, and separation technologies developed for fossil resources. The production of hydrogen from non-conventional sources such as biological materials will be explored mainly through basic science. 13 Hydrogen Posture Plan Figure 7. Types of Entities Involved in the DOE Hydrogen Program and Their Roles To address the need for diversified energy supplies, DOE is also investigating advanced methods of hydrogen production from renewable and nuclear resources, and more advanced systems for storing and delivering hydrogen in an expanded hydrogen market. The Program will focus on methods to produce affordable supplies of hydrogen from water using renewable electricity (e.g., solar, wind) and nuclear sources of energy, and using direct solar conversion. In a recent report to Congress (prepared in response to Section 812(e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005), the Program describes options, progress, and plans for developing and demonstrating solar- and wind-based hydrogen production technologies.38 A mix of diverse energy feedstocks to produce hydrogen is needed for a secure, affordable, and environmentally safe hydrogen energy system. Program Activities and Highlights The $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative proposed by President Bush for FY 2004 through FY 2008 includes $720 million in new R&D funding over FY 2004 DOE baseline budgeting assumptions.39 The Initiative reflects an enhanced hydrogen and fuel cell program to accelerate technology development and validation activities. The Executive Summary describes the Initiative’s fiscal year (FY) 2004 and FY 2005 accomplishments. The FY 2006 appropriation includes funding for efforts in the following areas, which support the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, the National Hydrogen Energy Vision and Roadmap, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005: ✦ Basic Research ✦ Production and Delivery ✦ Storage ✦ Conversion (Fuel Cells) ✦ Technology Validation ✦ Safety, Codes and Standards ✦ Education ✦ Systems Analysis and Integration Hydrogen Posture Plan 14 These areas are necessarily interrelated, with developments in one segment relying on corresponding developments in other segments. An integrated approach to RD&D within the Program will ensure that, regardless of the pathway, common challenges are efficiently addressed. Figure 8 shows how the Initiative budget request for FY 2007 breaks out into these program areas, and the addition of a proposed new area in manufacturing R&D. Figure 8. Hydrogen Fuel Initiative Budget Request (FY 2007)40 Production & Delivery 27% Safety, Codes & Standards (includes DOT) 5% Systems Analysis/ Integration 3% Storage Education 12% 0.7% Manufacturing Basic Research* 0.7% 17% * Basic research is Infrastructure & focused on hydrogen Technology Validation production, storage, 14% and fuel cells Conversion (Fuel Cells) 20% TOTAL: $289.49 Million The FY 2007 budget request distributes the funding for hydrogen production and delivery research as follows:41 ✦ Distributed Natural Gas ($4.2 million) ✦ Coal-based ($23.6 million) ✦ Nuclear-based ($18.7 million) ✦ Renewable-based ($27.6 million) ✦ Hydrogen Delivery ($7 million) Related research conducted within other DOE programs will also contribute to achieving Hydrogen Program goals. These RD&D efforts are necessary to achieve a hydrogen energy pathway, but would likely be funded for other purposes even if there were no Hydrogen Program. The FY 2007 budget requests for related RD&D42 include: ✦ Hybrid electric vehicle research ($109.8 million) ✦ Carbon sequestration and carbon management (applied R&D: $73.9 million; basic research: $5.9 million) ✦ Biomass and biorefinery systems (applied R&D: $150 million; basic research: $15.4 million) ✦ Wind energy (applied R&D: $43.8 million; basic research: $260 thousand) ✦ Solar energy (applied R&D: $148.4 million; basic research: $62.3 million) ✦ High-temperature stationary fuel cells ($63.3 million) 15 Hydrogen Posture Plan ✦ Basic research on biological hydrogen Basic Research Will Target production ($50.6 million) Breakthroughs in Key Areas ✦ DOT fuel cell bus RD&D, infrastructure development, and SAFETEA-LU activities Recent advances in nanoscience, ($28 million) catalysis, modeling, simulation, and bio- inspired approaches offer exciting new The following sections provide an overview of research opportunities for addressing key ongoing and planned hydrogen activities in both short-term showstoppers and long- basic research, production, delivery, storage, term challenges to hydrogen and fuel conversion (fuel cells), technology validation, cell technologies. The DOE Office of safety, codes and standards, education, and Science seeks to foster fundamental systems analysis and integration. Out-year understanding and revolutionary advances planning may identify needs for additional in hydrogen production, delivery, storage, RD&D to support and expand this portfolio of and conversion technologies in the activities. following five critical basic research areas: Novel Materials for Hydrogen Storage; Hydrogen Production Membranes for Separation, Purification, and Ion Transport; Design of Catalysts Lowering hydrogen production cost is a critical at the Nanoscale; Bio-Inspired Materials need. The National Academies’ study20 and Processes; and Solar Hydrogen. The requested by DOE and completed in 2004 basic hydrogen research program will be provides insight into a hydrogen feedstock coordinated with the needs of applied strategy for the near and long term. The study research and development, and will employ has helped DOE set priorities for hydrogen coupled experimental and theoretical production research needs. Ongoing and components for maximum impact. The planned activities include the following: integration will ensure that discoveries and ✦ ­Conduct research to develop small- related conceptual breakthroughs achieved scale, distributed natural gas, liquid in basic research programs will provide reformer, reforming, and electrolysis a foundation for the innovative design of technologies (needed for the near term) materials and processes that will produce that can operate reliably, safely, and cost- improvements in the performance, cost, and reliability of hydrogen production, effectively in a typical fueling station using storage, and use. For more information various feedstocks including natural gas, on how basic research can help overcome coal-derived carriers, or renewable liquids technical challenges to a hydrogen such as ethanol or other sugar derivatives. economy, see the recent Basic Energy R&D activities include: Sciences report at http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/ • Improved reformer technologies NHE_rpt.pdf using partial oxidation (or autothermal reforming) and steam reforming processes achieving higher energy efficiency and lower capital cost • Electrolysis technologies with reduced capital costs, enhanced system efficiency, and improved durability for distributed- scale hydrogen production from electricity and water • Lower-cost membranes and catalysts that can operate at higher temperatures and pressures, as well as improved system integration to lower the cost of manufacturing ✦ Conduct research to develop large-scale, centralized, efficient hydrogen production from coal with carbon sequestration, including: • Computational methods and advanced technologies to reform high hydrogen content coal-derived carriers Hydrogen Posture Plan 16 • Advanced water-gas shift, separation, cleanup, and process intensification Fossil Energy Focuses on technologies to produce lower-cost Hydrogen From Coal hydrogen The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) will build • Technologies to integrate carbon upon ongoing RD&D activities within sequestration (capture and containment) FE to demonstrate low-cost, novel, and with fossil-based production systems advanced hydrogen production from coal, including delivery, and utilization • Multi-fueled, oxygen-blown gasification technologies where appropriate. These system for co-producing hydrogen and technologies include advanced water- electric power gas shift reactors; and separation technologies, including membranes to ✦ Accelerate and expand research on the low- separate hydrogen and/or carbon dioxide cost production of hydrogen from renewable (for carbon capture and sequestration) resources, including: from coal-derived synthesis gas. • Component development and systems integration efforts that will enable electrolyzers to operate from inherently intermittent and variable-quality power derived from wind and solar sources • Solar-driven high-temperature chemical cycle water splitting • Photoelectrochemical systems FutureGen: Coal-Fired • Thermochemical conversion of biomass Electricity and Hydrogen • Photolytic and fermentative micro-organism Production with Near-Zero systems Atmospheric Emissions ✦ Accelerate and expand research on centralized, low cost production of hydrogen using nuclear On February 27, 2003, President Bush energy, including high-temperature electrolysis announced that the United States would sponsor a $1 billion, 10-year initiative to and sulfur-based thermochemical cycles. create the world’s first coal-based, near- This activity could lead to the construction zero atmospheric emissions power plant of an advanced nuclear demonstration plant to produce electricity and hydrogen.43 with electricity and hydrogen co-production This DOE effort, while not part of the capabilities. Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, supports program goals through its objective to establish ✦ Conduct supporting basic research for hydrogen the technical and economic feasibility of production to enable breakthroughs in catalysis, producing electricity and hydrogen from separations, and fundamental processes coal while capturing and sequestering including: the carbon dioxide generated in the • Design of catalysts at the nanoscale with process. These advanced technologies offer the promise of dramatically reduced the main emphasis on nanoscale atmospheric emissions at a competitive phenomena; innovative synthesis and cost with increased reliability. screening techniques; novel characterization techniques; and theory, modeling, and simulation of catalytic pathways • Improved understanding of light-induced dynamic processes in molecules, polymers, and semiconductor nanoparticles to support the development of low-cost solar cells and photocatalysts • Investigation of new semiconductors, polymers, supramolecular assemblies, and catalysts (including biological or bio-inspired materials) to enable the synthesis of two- and three-dimensional chemical systems for efficient lightharvesting, charge separation, and fuel formation 17 Hydrogen Posture Plan • Improved understanding of the pathways Nuclear Hydrogen Activities Will by which hydrogen is made and Harness Heat to Produce Hydrogen processed in living organisms to From Water enable breakthroughs in feasible photobiological and biological reactor The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science & Technology technologies (NE) will work with its partners to demonstrate the commercial-scale production of hydrogen from • Investigation of membrane materials water using heat from a nuclear energy system. In for separation, purification, and ion addition to the emission-free electricity currently produced by nuclear reactors, some advanced nuclear transport including integrated nanoscale reactor designs operate at very high temperatures, architectures; fuel cell membranes; and making them well-suited to drive highly efficient theory, modeling, and simulation of thermochemical and electrolytic hydrogen production separation processes and mechanisms processes. NE’s Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative (NHI) will conduct RD&D to develop hydrogen production Hydrogen Delivery technologies that can be coupled to next generation nuclear reactors. The major program elements of Delivery technologies and economics will the NHI include the candidate production processes heavily influence the level of infrastructure and high temperature interface technologies that are involved in coupling a thermochemical or high- investment and safety assurance required. temperature electrolysis plant to an advanced high- New concepts will be needed to reduce delivery temperature reactor. costs from the point of hydrogen production to the point of use at refueling stations and distributed power facilities. Systems analysis The Solid State Energy Conversion of delivery alternatives will show the lifecycle cost advantages and disadvantages of the Alliance (SECA) Will Fast-Track alternative approaches for transporting Commercialization of Solid Oxide hydrogen over long distances and will identify Fuel Cells and Develop Fuel Cell areas in which R&D could provide the greatest cost reductions and the greatest value. Ongoing Technology for FutureGen and planned R&D activities include the While not part of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, SECA is following: a parallel effort to reduce cost and achieve technology ✦ Conduct research to lower the cost of the breakthroughs in solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs). The hydrogen delivery infrastructure, including materials and engineering developments achieved the development of: through SECA may also have applications in other fuel cell technologies. The goal of this joint government- • More reliable lower-cost compression industry effort is to develop 3-10kW SOFCs by 2010 technology that can be mass-produced in modular form, and to scale-up the technology to serve as building blocks for • Lower cost gaseous hydrogen tank FutureGen type plants. SECA fuel cells will be used technology and systems for stationary for a broad array of applications, including auxiliary storage and tube trailers power and combined heat and power. A ten-fold cost reduction over existing technology is required to • More energy efficient and lower cost reach the goal of producing SOFCs at $400/kW. Key liquefaction technology milestones include: • Improved pipeline materials to resolve By 2010, develop modular and scalable 3-10kW distributed generation fuel cell designs at $400/kW hydrogen embrittlement concerns and to and 40-60% LHV efficiency. reduce capital costs By 2015, demonstrate MW-class coal and carbon • New liquid or solid hydrogen carriers sequestration ready fuel cell or fuel cell/turbine hybrid (e.g., metal or chemical hydrides, carbon- systems at $400/kW, 50% HHV efficiency (75% with natural gas) and 90% CO2 capture. based materials, etc.) that can increase the energy density of hydrogen transport By 2020, demonstrate 100 MW–class fuel cell/turbine hybrid system fueled by coal gasification. ✦ In coordination with the DOT, develop More information on the SECA Program can be found technologies (e.g., seals, valves, sensors at http://www.seca.doe.gov/. and controls) to ensure the safety of the hydrogen delivery system Hydrogen Posture Plan 18 The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Seeks a Clean and Sustainable Transportation Energy Future The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership is a government-industry partnership including the U.S. DOE, the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (members include Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, and DaimlerChrysler Corporation), and five major energy companies (BP America, Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil Corporation, and Shell). The collaboration was formed to examine the pre-competitive, high-risk research needed to develop the component and infrastructure technologies necessary to enable a full range of affordable cars and light trucks, including the fueling infrastructure. These new technologies will reduce the dependence of the nation’s personal transportation system on imported oil and minimize harmful vehicle emissions, without sacrificing freedom of mobility and freedom of vehicle choice. The C-A-R in FreedomCAR stands for Cooperative The goals of this program are extremely Automotive Research. challenging and success is uncertain, but it could have an enormous beneficial The long-term vision of the Partnership is a impact on energy security and the U.S. clean and sustainable transportation energy economy. Although it is still too early future. A major thrust of the Partnership to speculate whether the program will is to identify and address the technologies achieve its long-term vision, it is making necessary to enable high volume production significant headway. of affordable hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and fuels, and the national infrastructure necessary — Craig Marks, Chair of the NRC to support them. Additionally, the Partnership Committee on Review of the FreedomCAR addresses technology needs to enable mass and Fuel Research Program, NAS Press penetration of hybrid electric and advanced Release, combustion vehicles that also offer the August 2, 200544 potential to significantly reduce the nation’s dependence upon imported oil. The Partnership Plan identifies technology-specific goals for 2010 and 2015 to promote R&D innovation (the plan can be downloaded from www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/). In addition to the hydrogen and fuel cell technology goals described in this Posture Plan, the key FreedomCAR partnership goals for advanced hybrid vehicle technologies include: ✦ Electric propulsion system with a 15-year life capable of delivering at least 55 kW for 18 seconds, and 30 kW continuously at a system cost of $125/kW peak ✦ Internal combustion engine powertrain systems costing $30/kW, having a peak brake engine efficiency of 45%, and meeting or exceeding emission standards ✦ Electric drivetrain energy storage with a 15-year life at 300 Wh and with a discharge power of 25 kW for 18 seconds at a cost of $20/kW ✦ Material and manufacturing technologies for high-volume production vehicles that enable/ support the simultaneous attainment of affordability, increased use of recyclable/renewable materials, and a 50% reduction in the weight of the vehicle structure and subsystems The detailed R&D plan for advanced vehicle technologies can be found at www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/fcvt_mypp.shtml. DaimlerChrysler F-Cell GM Sequel Ford Focus 19 Hydrogen Posture Plan ✦ ­ Supporting basic research needs include: • Improved understanding of how hydrogen reacts and interacts with the surface, interface, grain boundaries, and bulk defects of particular materials to clarify the mechanisms of hydrogen embrittlement and help guide proper selection of existing materials or discovery/design of suitable new materials (e.g., nanostructured composites, advanced polymers) • Design/development of novel new materials for off-board (bulk) hydrogen storage or as hydrogen carriers Hydrogen Storage Lower-cost, lighter-weight, and higher-density hydrogen storage is one of the key technologies needed for the introduction of hydrogen-based systems. Advanced storage materials that show promise include complex metal hydrides, chemical hydrides, carbon structures, and metal organic frameworks. Understanding how to produce and contain these advanced materials will be required as well as how to fill and discharge hydrogen, manage pressure and thermal properties, and integrate the materials into practical systems for stationary and mobile applications. The DOE’s “Grand Challenge” solicitation for Hydrogen Storage formed the basis for the National Hydrogen Storage Project (depicted in Figure 9), which involves approximately 40 universities, 15 companies, and 10 Federal laboratories in conducting R&D to address these challenges.12 Ongoing and planned hydrogen storage R&D includes the following activities: ✦ Complete research, including materials work, to validate high-pressure and cryogenic tanks as near-term approaches ✦ ­Develop and evaluate innovative storage approaches including reversible storage materials, such as carbon nanotubes and metal hydrides, regeneration issues related to chemical hydrides, and other novel materials and concepts ✦ ­ Downselect pure, undoped, single-walled carbon nanotube technology based on material capacity of six wt % hydrogen15 ✦ ­ Conduct collaborative research on complex metal hydrides, chemical hydrides, and carbon-based materials at the Centers of Excellence through the National Hydrogen Storage Project ✦ ­ Conduct basic research, with an emphasis on understanding the chemical and physical processes governing materials-hydrogen interactions to enable the design and discovery of new, higher-capacity hydrogen storage materials, including: • Investigation of new properties and capabilities offered by nanostructures to further enhance storage capacity and to improve uptake/release kinetics • Design of two- and three-dimensional nanoarchitectures to improve the capabilities of today’s metal and complex hydrides • Theory, modeling, and simulation approaches • Novel analytical and characterization tools Hydrogen Posture Plan 20 Figure 9. Organization of the National Hydrogen Storage Project a National Hydrogen Storage Project Centers of Excellence Independent Projects Testing & Analysis Cross Cutting New materials/processes Metal Hydrides for on-board storage Basic Compressed/cryogenic Chemical Hydrogen Storage b Science & hybrid tanks Off-board Carbon-Based Materials c storage systems a Coordinated by DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies b Basic science for hydrogen storage conducted through DOE Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences c Coordinated with Delivery Program element Conversion (Fuel Cells) Reducing fuel cell cost (by a factor of approximately 4)45 and improving durability and reliability will be required to ensure the commercial viability of fuel cells in both mobile and stationary applications. Fuel cell research will continue on high-efficiency polymer electrolyte membranes (PEMs) and other stack components and systems to meet cost, durability, power density, heat utilization, cycling, load-following, operation and start-up in cold weather, and other key performance targets. In 2004, DOE conducted a go/no-go review of on-board fuel processing activities. The review resulted in a no- go decision, concluding that on-board fuel processing would not improve sufficiently from its current status to compete effectively with gasoline hybrid vehicles or to support a hydrogen infrastructure. Projects that focus on on- board fuel processing have therefore been terminated or redirected to support development of fuel processors for stationary applications or development of catalysts suitable for a variety of fuel processing applications (e.g., auxiliary power units). Ongoing and planned fuel cell R&D includes the following activities: ✦ ­Focus on overcoming critical technical hurdles at the component level to improve overall polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell performance and durability while lowering costs, including: • Proton-conducting membranes that operate at 120ºC46 (maximum) for transportation applications and greater than 120ºC47 for stationary applications • Membranes that can operate at low relative humidity • Cathodes with decreased precious metal loading • Non-precious metal cathode catalysts • Bipolar plate materials and coatings with improved corrosion resistance 21 Hydrogen Posture Plan ✦ Continue the development of auxiliary power unit systems for heavy vehicle application and the feasibility assessment of fuel cells for portable power applications ✦ Evaluate the impact of hydrogen quality (i.e., tolerance to impurities) on fuel cell performance and durability ­✦ Independently review the status of progress toward critical targets, such as cost ­✦ Conduct research to address technology shortfalls associated with cold- weather start-up and operations ✦ Conduct basic research to: • Better characterize the mechanisms of ionic (including protonic) transport in fuel cell materials (including dependence on relative humidity, temperature, acidity, etc.) • Improve understanding of the relationship between precious metal catalytic behavior (catalytic activity, selectivity, deactivation, etc.) and catalyst composition, crystal structure, and morphology to guide design of new, non-precious metal catalysts • Improve understanding and ability to control the electrochemical processes at the electrodes and membrane electrolyte interfaces Manufacturing R&D is needed to reduce manufacturing cost of evolving hydrogen technologies and develop a domestic supplier base. In support of the President’s Manufacturing Initiative and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, the manufacturing R&D effort will enable the mass production of both supply and end-use technologies – in parallel with technology development – and will foster a strong domestic supplier capability. Activities will address the challenges of moving today’s laboratory produced technologies to high-volume, pre-commercial manufacturing thereby driving down the cost of hydrogen and fuel cell systems. Research will be conducted in coordination with the Department of Commerce and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s Interagency Working Group on Manufacturing R&D. A research and development technology roadmap has been developed with industry to identify critical technology development needs for high volume manufacturing of fuel cell and hydrogen systems. Planned activities include: ✦ Conduct research to design innovative and cost-effective manufacturing processes and technologies for PEM fuel cells, potentially including: • Investigation of an array of fabrication and process techniques amenable to high volume production of fuel cells, hydrogen production, delivery, and storage components and systems • Research on manufacturing of technologies critical to near-term technology deployment, such as 1) membrane electrode assemblies and bipolar plates for fuel cells, 2) distributed reforming and electrolysis systems and components for producing hydrogen, and 3) vessels, valves, and regulators for hydrogen storage and dispensing ✦ Support technical, market, economic, and other analyses to address manufacturability and cost reduction in critical technology areas, i.e., hydrogen production and delivery, hydrogen storage, and fuel cells Hydrogen Posture Plan 22 Figure 10. National Hydrogen Learning Demonstration Project DTE/BP Power Park, Southfield, MI Shell hydrogen station and GM BP hydrogen station, Los Angeles, CA fuel cell vehicle, Washington, D.C. DaimlerChrysler fuel cell vehicle Chevron hydrogen station and Ford fuel cell vehicle Hyundai fuel cell vehicle, Chino, CA The National Hydrogen Learning Demonstration includes four industry teams that are working towards meeting the 2009 targets listed below. Performance Measure 2009* 2015** Fuel Cell Stack Durability 2000 hours 5000 hours Vehicle Range 250+ miles 300+ miles Hydrogen Cost at Station $3.00/gge $2.00 - $3.00/gge * To verify progress toward 2015 targets ** Subsequent projects to validate 2015 target Technology Validation Efforts are needed to validate hydrogen energy systems (including fuel cells, engines, and turbines) in mobile and stationary applications. “Learning demonstrations” provide technical data on operation in a real world environment to measure progress and to help guide the research program as well as financial data for determining market and investment risks. The National Hydrogen Learning Demonstration Project (see Figure 10) will support a statistically significant number of hydrogen vehicle and refueling station demonstrations in several locations to: ✦ Validate technology status and develop data to guide R&D addressing: • Hydrogen fueling station safety, operations, and reliability; vehicle fueling interface; and hydrogen production efficiency and cost • Vehicle performance and reliability under real operating and climate conditions ✦ Validate safety and performance data from power park systems to coproduce hydrogen and electricity for vehicles and grid, respectively Demonstration projects will also be conducted through DOT and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users or SAFETEA-LU (see box on page 24). Safety, Codes and Standards Commercialization of hydrogen technologies cannot proceed unless effective domestic and international codes and standards are in place. DOE and DOT, in collaboration with Environmental Protection Agency, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and other agencies, can play a role in fostering 23 Hydrogen Posture Plan codes and standards development. Ongoing and Department of Transportation planned efforts include the following: Demonstrations Focus on ✦ Conduct top-down safety analysis of hydrogen-related processes and equipment Fuel Cell Buses and Related for transportation and stationary applications Infrastructure and begin identifying design requirements The Department of Transportation (DOT) ✦ Assist national and international code established the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell developers in developing and disseminating Bus Initiative to help pave the way for new building codes and equipment standards, successful commercialization of fuel cells including: in other transportation applications. These activities do not fall within the scope • Model building, fire, and safety codes of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, but are closely related as transit buses will likely • Codes and standards for the hydrogen be one of the early markets for hydrogen delivery infrastructure and fuel cell technologies based on the • Utility interconnection and safety fundamental characteristics of transit standards for hydrogen-fueled bus operations. The Safe, Accountable, distributed energy devices Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA- • Product safety and performance LU)48 supports DOT’s fuel cell bus standards and design requirements activities. SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59) for vehicles, fuel cells, storage tanks, was enacted on August 10, 2005, and and other products and equipment that authorizes programs through FY 2009 for handle hydrogen or hydrogen-carrier fuels highways, highway safety, transit, and other transportation purposes. Section ­✦ Develop best safety practices, including 3045 of the law directs the Secretary publication of a Best Practices Manual in of Transportation to establish a national 2007 fuel cell bus program to aid development of commercially viable fuel cell bus ✦ Document and disseminate safety “learning” technology and related infrastructure. on a national basis Education and Outreach The President’s National Energy Policy and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 recommend education activities to communicate the benefits of alternative energy, including hydrogen. Effective education is critical to enabling the successful implementation of near-term hydrogen demonstration projects and early market fuel cell installations, as well as the longer-term market adoption and acceptance that is required to realize the benefits of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. Key audiences include state and local governments (including safety, code, and zoning officials), educators, professional and trade organizations, real estate developers and building owners and operators, public and private fleet operators, and the general public. Ongoing and planned education efforts include the following: ✦ ­ Develop educational materials for state and local government officials and potential end users to help ensure an understanding of state-of-the- art hydrogen technologies, hydrogen safety, opportunities, and timing for facilitating the introduction of fuel cell vehicles and supporting hydrogen infrastructure ✦ ­ Develop and implement training modules for safety and code officials Hydrogen Posture Plan 24 ✦ ­ Conduct activities to educate the public and key target audiences in communities where new hydrogen fueling stations will be implemented as part of technology validation ✦ ­ Facilitate the expansion of hydrogen and fuel cell programs and learning modules at educational institutions, including: • Trade schools, colleges, and universities, for use in training a workforce of engineers and technicians and to engage students in a variety of disciplines in resolving the challenges to hydrogen technologies and infrastructure • Elementary and secondary schools, to engage younger students in the study of science and technology and to ensure an informed first- generation of hydrogen technology users Systems Analysis Systems analysis, aided by various modeling tools, will be used in the program management process to establish goals, evaluate tradeoffs, set priorities, and make technology down-selects and go/no-go decisions. Analysis will be required to assess the challenges, evaluate the contribution and interaction of the individual components, and support R&D efforts to resolve the technical barriers. The conversion from carbon-based to carbon-neutral energy technologies will require well-to-wheels analysis of cost, greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency, distribution, and analysis of nontechnical issues such as policy requirements and consumer preference. Analysis and modeling of components, pathways, and development scenarios will be a continual process that is directly linked to the Technology Validation activity. Ongoing and planned activities include the following: ✦ Conduct well-to-wheels analysis of production, delivery, and storage pathways to enable informed tradeoff decisions ✦ Conduct analysis to predict vehicle and component characteristics to evaluate technology options and tradeoffs ✦ Conduct analysis to examine infrastructure development, resource availability, and cost goals ­✦ Develop a comprehensive macro-system model to analyze options and tradeoffs and better understand infrastructure constraints and barriers to the use of hydrogen as an energy carrier ✦ Validate the models and evaluations using the results of the learning demonstration efforts ✦ Compare the analysis of hydrogen fuel cell pathways to other technologies and fuels such as hybrid vehicles (gasoline, plug-in hybrid), all-electric vehicles, or vehicles that run on alternative fuels such as ethanol Systems Integration The breadth and complexity of the overall RD&D effort, as well as the interaction of program elements, requires an integrated Program approach to reduce risk and maximize the potential for technology readiness. Systems Integration will ensure all requirements are being addressed; track and measure the progress of projects; conduct independent analysis to aid the multiple programmatic decisions that need to be made over the course of the program; 25 Hydrogen Posture Plan support a performance-based management approach; and identify and quantify programmatic and technical risks to ensure the program is proactive in response to issues and challenges. Ongoing and planned activities include: ­✦ Develop and maintain an Integrated Baseline for the DOE Hydrogen Program that links technology requirements, current status, costs, and schedule ✦ ­ Provide independent analysis supporting key Hydrogen Cost Goal program milestones and decisions, including In 2005, the DOE developed a new an effort to evaluate the potential of hydrogen cost goal.4 The hydrogen cryogenic compressed hydrogen tanks to cost goal, which is independent of the meet DOE’s 2010 storage targets19 production pathway, was adjusted from ✦ ­ Verify performance of RD&D efforts and $1.50 to $2.00-$3.00 per gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge) based on the Energy progress toward meeting the program’s Information Administration’s forecast of technical targets gasoline cost in 2015, and the relative fuel ✦ ­ Provide hydrogen infrastructure modeling economy of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to and simulation capabilities in support of advanced vehicle technology in 2015. The systems analysis methodology used ensures that consumers’ operating cost ($/mile) in a hydrogen fuel ✦ ­ Facilitate the implementation of risk cell vehicle will be equal to or less than the management and configuration competitive gasoline vehicle in 2015. management/change control processes to enhance Program effectiveness Program Milestones The milestone chart shown in Figure 11 (see pages 28-29) presents the key activities of the Hydrogen Program through completion of critical path technology development. The Program is projected to continue beyond this point to support basic science and RD&D on advanced technologies and longer- term, centralized hydrogen production alternatives that are carbon-neutral. The milestones are organized according to the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap’s key elements. Milestones for each of the timelines specify a delivery date for the given technology development, improvement or validation effort. Some milestones have slipped due to shortfalls in appropriations or changes in program planning. The values given are compiled mainly from the EE, FE, and NE RD&D Plans, but include other sources such as DOE analysis, the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Plan, the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, DOT, and ongoing Federal laboratory research. As technologies evolve and economic and systems analyses progress, these targets will be refined. The milestones listed in Figure 11 describe DOE hydrogen RD&D activities at a high level of aggregation and do not articulate all component activities represented by the milestone. The timelines do not list all of the interim milestones for each pathway, nor do they include every critical go/no-go decision point and technology option downselect point integral to each activity at the sub-program and project level. (See office-level multi-year plans, listed in Appendix E, for a more detailed description of milestones and activities.) Some production technologies, such as photoelectrochemical, will require development beyond this time frame to be cost-competitive with other hydrogen production methods. Hydrogen Posture Plan 26 For each milestone, the most appropriate measurement units are provided in the legend. For some technologies, costs are primarily associated with scale (e.g., dollars per megawatt of capacity); for others, costs are associated with delivered hydrogen (e.g., dollars per gallon of gasoline equivalent, or gge). The term “project to” means that the technology demonstrated at the indicated time point would meet the specified cost target if that technology were in full commercial-scale (i.e., high-volume) production. As described in the text box, a new hydrogen cost target and methodology was recently developed by DOE. The new cost target of $2.00-$3.00 per gallon of gasoline equivalent (delivered, untaxed, 2005$) is independent of the pathway or feedstock cost used to produce and deliver the hydrogen, and provides a range reflecting variability in The effective management of the future fuel efficiency improvement factors. The cost Department of Energy hydrogen target will be used to guide the Department’s hydrogen program will be far more challenging and fuel cell research and development activities. than any activity previously under-taken As technical milestones are achieved, market or end- on the civilian energy side of the DOE. user incentives may be needed to overcome additional — The Hydrogen Economy: barriers to commercialization and infrastructure Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, development. An increased focus on educating and R&D Needs, National consumers about the safe use of hydrogen and its Academy of Sciences, benefits will be essential to enhance awareness February 2004 and widespread acceptance of the technology. Detailed analysis of life-cycle costs and benefits and environmental impacts will continue to inform decisions regarding future hydrogen research. Integrated Program Management and Coordination The Hydrogen Program currently includes participation from the DOE Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE); Fossil Energy (FE); Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE); and Science (SC); and the DOT. Each office manages activities addressing hydrogen technologies that are consistent with their respective missions and objectives, in accordance with the guiding documents shown in Figure 12. As the Nation focuses more attention and resources on exploring the potential for a hydrogen energy future, close coordination among these offices becomes critical. One benefit of hydrogen is the ability to use a diverse set of energy resources for supply. The program’s research activities will provide the U.S. with a variety of options for producing cost-competitive hydrogen. However, technical challenges associated with hydrogen storage, delivery, conversion, and end- use applications are the same regardless of whether the hydrogen is derived from a renewable, fossil, or nuclear pathway. Fuel cells are being designed to meet the unique needs of particular end-use applications (e.g., transportation systems, stationary power generation stations, and portable power devices), but these will ultimately be fueled with hydrogen from the energy feedstock mix that makes the most sense, both economically and environmentally, for a particular region. A program management and operations plan has been developed to provide more detail on how DOE hydrogen activities will be integrated and managed within the Department. The Interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Task Force meets regularly to share information and coordinate Federal government activities. The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC) has been chartered in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to advise the Secretary of Energy on the Hydrogen Program. External evaluation is 27 Hydrogen Posture Plan Figure 11. Technology Development Timeline: Milestones and Decision Pointsa Technologies for distributed hydrogen production from natural gas and water electrolysis developed 1 2 2 Centralized hydrogen production from coal demonstrated with zero emissions using carbon capture and sequestration Production 3 4 Technologies for renewable hydrogen production developed 5,6 7 High and ultra-high temperature thermochemical hydrogen production demonstrated 8 8 9 11 11 10 10 Centralized Technologies for centralized and distributed hydrogen delivery developed Delivery 1 2 3 Storage On-board storage system technology developed 1 2 3 PEM distributed generation and automotive fuel cells developed Conversion 1 3 2 4 (Fuel Cells) Distributed generation and fuel cell/turbine hybrid operating on coal developed 5 Distributed stationary fuel cell power generated Technology 1 3 Validation Direct hydrogen PEM fuel cell vehicles and infrastructure demonstrated 2 4, 5 Education, Codes and standards in place to support Safety, and transportation and stationary applications milestones Codes and Standards 3 4 1 2 Analytical tools and assessments Systems in place to support decisionmaking Analysis 1 2 3 4 4 3 2005 2010 2015 2020 Establish Technology Readiness Based on meeting the program’s technology performance and cost targets Hydrogen Posture Plan 28 Figure 11 (cont'd). Legend for Technology Development Timelinea b Production Milestones b Storage Milestones Conversion Milestones e e Distributed Natural Gas and Electrolysis 1. 2007: Downselect hydrogen 1. 2004: Decision to discontinue 1. 2010: Develop technology to produce hydrogen from natural storage options with potential to on-board fuel processing R&D gas at a refueling station that projects to a cost of meet 2010 targets based on inability to achieve 78% $2.50/gge for hydrogen. [At the pump, untaxed, at 5,000 efficiency and <0.5 minute psig] 2. 2010: Develop and verify on- start time board storage systems achieving: 2. 2015 2017: Develop technology to produce hydrogen 6% by weight capacity and 1,500 2. 2010 2011: Distributed utilizing distributed electrolysis that projects to a cost of watt hours/liter energy density at stationary generation natural <$3.00/gge. [At the pump, untaxed, at 10,000 psig] a cost of $4.00/kWh of stored gas/propane 5-250 kW fuel cell energy go/no-go decision based on ability c, d to achieve: 40% electrical Central Coal 3. 2015: Develop and verify on- efficiency, 40,000 hours durability 3. 2010 2011: Develop pre-engineering membrane board storage systems achieving: (equivalent to service life between separation modules and reactors for hydrogen production 2 9% by weight capacity, 2,700 watt major overhauls), at a cost of less that meet membrane cost target of $150-200/ft hours/ liter, and $2.00/kWh than $400-$750/kW (depending on 4. 2015: Demonstrate a near-zero atmospheric emission coal application) plant producing hydrogen and power with carbon capture and sequestration at a 25% cost reduction that projects to 3. 2010: Develop direct hydrogen $0.80/gge at the plant gate (ultimate target: $1.80/gge Validation Milestones polymer electrolyte membrane delivered) automotive fuel cell operating at e 1. 2008: Validate stationary fuel 60% peak efficiency, 220 W/L Renewable Resources cell system that co-produces density, 325 W/kg specific power 5. 2015 2017: Develop technology to produce hydrogen hydrogen and electricity at at a cost of $45/kW (automotive through distributed reforming of renewable liquid fuels at a 20,000 hours durability with 40% production quantity) refueling station that projects to a cost of <$3.00/gge for efficiency at a cost of $1500/kW hydrogen [At the pump, untaxed, at 10,000 psig] or less 4. 2015: Polymer electrolyte membrane automotive fuel cell 6. 2015 2017: Develop technology for central hydrogen 2. 2009: Validate polymer meets cost of $30/kW production integrating wind electricity production and electrolyte membrane fuel cell electrolysis that projects to a cost of <$2.00/gge at the vehicles at multiple sites, 5. 2015: Fuel cell/turbine hybrid plant gate (<$3.00/gge delivered) achieving 2,000 hours durability, operating on coal developed at a 250-mile range, and $3.00/gge a cost of $400/kW with a HHV 7. 2015 2018: Demonstrate laboratory-scale efficiency of 50% with carbon photobiological water splitting system to produce hydrogen of hydrogen sequestration at an energy efficiency of 5% (solar-to-hydrogen). 3. 2014: Validate stationary fuel Demonstrate laboratory-scale photoelectrochemical water cell system that co-produces splitting system to produce hydrogen at an energy efficiency hydrogen and electricity at of 10% (solar-to-hydrogen) 40,000 hours durability with 40% f High-Temperature Thermochemical efficiency at a cost of $750/kW Education, Safety, and Codes e 8. 2007 2008: Operate laboratory-scale thermochemical or less and Standards Milestones and electrolytic processes to determine the feasibility of 1. 2006 2007: Facilitate publishing 4. 2015: Validate PEM fuel cells on coupling them with a nuclear reactor domestic and international hydrogen operational vehicles in different quality standards and publish initial set 9. 2010 2012: Laboratory-scale demonstration of solar- climatic conditions that can be of basic safety training materials driven high-temperature thermochemical hydrogen produced for $45/kW when pro- production that projects to a cost $6.00/gge (ultimate duced in quantities of 500,000 2. 2007 2008: Publish initial Best Practices manual for hydrogen safety target: $7.00/gge delivered) 5. 2015: Validate polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell 3. 2007 2009: Education program for 10. 2011 2014: Pilot-scale demonstration of safety and code officials in place vehicles achieving 5,000 hours thermochemical hydrogen production system for use with durability (service life of vehicle) nuclear reactors that projects to a cost of $2.50/gge 4. 2010 2012: Initial set of technical and a 300-mile range codes and standards in place to support (ultimate target: $3.50/gge delivered) demonstrations, commercialization decisions and regulatory standards 11. 2017 2020: Engineering-scale demonstration of thermochemical hydrogen production system for use with nuclear reactors that projects to a cost less than $2.00/gge ($3.00/gge delivered) e e Centralized Delivery Milestones e Systems Analysis Milestones e 1. 2007: Define the criteria for a cost-effective hydrogen fuel delivery 1. 2007: Complete technoeconomic analysis of current infrastructure for supporting the introduction and long-term use of production technologies hydrogen for transportation and stationary power 2. 2008: Develop a macro-system model of the hydrogen fuel 2. 2010 2012: Develop technologies to reduce the cost of infrastructure to support the transportation system hydrogen fuel delivery from the point of production to the point of use in vehicles or stationary power units to <$1.70/gge of hydrogen 3. 2009 2010: Complete assessment of hydrogen quality requirements for production, delivery, storage and fuel cell 3. 2015 2017: Develop technologies to reduce the cost of pathway hydrogen fuel delivery from the point of production to the point of use in vehicles or stationary power units to <$1.00/gge of hydrogen 4. 2010 2011: Develop electricity infrastructure module for the macro-system model a Achieving the milestones is dependent on requesting and receiving funding at the Hydrogen Program planning levels for each office. b The hydrogen cost milestones are not yet normalized across the Hydrogen Program. The Program is in the process of normalizing the criteria used to determine the Hydrogen Program cost goals using the recently- developed “H2A” modeling tool. c The assumed feedstock cost for coal is $29.00/short ton. d Milestone delay due to changes in Fossil Energy program planning. e Milestone delays are due to shortfalls in appropriations. f Milestone delays are due to changes in the DOE budget planning profile. 29 Hydrogen Posture Plan also provided through a quadrennial review of the Program by the National Academy of Sciences in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The DOE Hydrogen Program Manager, responsible for coordinating all the Department’s hydrogen activities, is located within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the lead organization for the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. An internal Hydrogen Program Coordination Group has been established (comprised of representatives of DOT and the DOE Offices of EE, FE, NE, SC, PI, and CFO) to: ✦ Evaluate the progress of the Department’s hydrogen and related activities with regard to milestones and performance goals ✦ Strengthen information exchange on programmatic and technical developments ✦ Ensure that the various program activities (e.g., budgeting, execution, reporting, and evaluation) remain well-coordinated ✦ Provide suggestions for management improvements and enhanced technical performance Figure 12. Program Document Hierarchy Hydrogen Posture Plan 30 ✦ Collaborate on systems analysis to understand the economic, energy, and environmental impacts of alternative technology pathways International cooperation and collaboration will also be important to efficiently achieve national hydrogen and fuel cell technology goals. The DOE has led the creation of the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy, which facilitates global cooperative R&D efforts, common codes and standards, and sharing of information necessary to develop a hydrogen fuel infrastructure. 31 Hydrogen Posture Plan Hydrogen Posture Plan 32

5. Next Steps ✦ Assess, through independent review, the potential of cryogenic- compressed hydrogen tanks to meet DOE’s 2010 targets15 ✦ Continue to coordinate the detailed multi-year RD&D plans and priorities for hydrogen and related technology development efforts within DOE and DOT to make them consistent with this planning document, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and the recommendations of the National Academies’ studies of the Hydrogen Economy20 and the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership.21 ✦ Strengthen coordination by continuing to utilize the Hydrogen Program Coordination Group composed of representatives from the DOE Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE); Fossil Energy (FE); Nuclear Energy (NE); Science (SC); Policy and International Affairs (PI); and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO); and the DOT. ✦ Complete and publish the DOE Hydrogen Program Safety Plan and the DOE Hydrogen Program Risk Management Plan. ✦ Promote the sharing of safety-related information and maintain a database of safety “learnings.” ✦ Conduct the fourth annual integrated Hydrogen Program Merit Review and Peer Evaluation. ✦ Reflect the importance of the following activities in the Department’s out- year planning and budgeting: • Basic and applied research in hydrogen storage, production and delivery, and fuel cell cost and durability • Hydrogen delivery and analysis of infrastructure development (these activities will be closely coordinated with the DOT, which is responsible for efforts to ensure the safety of the hydrogen delivery system) • Economic and systems analyses for determining and mitigating investment risks associated with hydrogen infrastructure and related technologies (e.g., fuel cell systems engineering and manufacturing plants) • Education activities focused on the key target audiences directly involved in near-term hydrogen technology validation ✦ Strengthen existing interagency coordination efforts to ensure that Federal investments in hydrogen and fuel cell technology development are leveraged to the maximum extent. The Interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Task Force, in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, will work toward a safe, economical, and environmentally sound hydrogen fuel infrastructure by coordinating the efforts of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; the Departments of Energy, Transportation, Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture; the Office of Management and Budget; National Science Foundation; Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and other agencies as appropriate. In 2005, the task force created a website at www.hydrogen.gov to provide information on all Federal hydrogen and fuel cell activities. 33 Hydrogen Posture Plan ✦ Increase awareness of the nation’s regulatory framework of energy, economic, and environmental policies at the Federal, state, and local levels, and work with the appropriate agencies to coordinate the timing of policy instruments and regulatory actions to allow technology to meet market requirements. ✦ Continue DOT and DOE participation in the development of Global Technical Regulations for fuel cell light duty vehicles. ✦ Identify opportunities to work more closely with emerging state-led initiatives to advance hydrogen infrastructure development. ✦ Strengthen international cooperation on hydrogen-related research, development, and demonstration programs and on the development of interoperable codes and standards through the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy and the International Energy Agency. ✦ Continue to implement relevant provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (see box on page xi) as appropriate. In summary, a great deal of progress has been made since 2003 in planning and carrying out the research, development, and demonstrations. The Department of Energy expects significant results to be achieved through the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in FY 2006 and beyond. Hydrogen Posture Plan 34 Notes 1 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5025: Advanced Energy Initiative,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_ records.html. 2 U.S. Department of Energy, A National Vision of America’s Transition to a Hydrogen Economy—to 2030 and Beyond (February 2002), retrieved January 20, 2006 from http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/vision_ doc.pdf. 3 U.S. Department of Energy, National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap (November 2002), retrieved January 20, 2006 from http://www. hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/national_h2_roadmap.pdf. 4 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5013: Hydrogen Cost Goal,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_ records.html. 5 FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, Hydrogen Storage Technologies Roadmap (November 2005), retrieved October 6, 2006, from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/ hydrogen_storage_roadmap.pdf. The 300 mile driving range for hydrogen powered vehicles was set to be comparable to the 370 mile driving range of a weighted average corporate vehicle, the presumed preference of the average U.S. consumer, p. 7. 6 U.S. Department of Energy, HFCIT Multi-Year Plan, 3.4-1. 7 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5030: Hydrogen Baseline Cost of $5 per gge in 2003,” http://www.hydrogen. energy.gov/program_records.html. 8 U.S. Department of Energy, Hydrogen Program 2004 Annual Progress Report (December 2004), “Research and Development of a PEM Fuel Cell, Hydrogen Reformer, and Vehicle Refueling Facility” (Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.), 701, retrieved January 20, 2006 from http://www. hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/progress04/vd5_wait.pdf. 9 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5038: Hydrogen Cost Competitive on a Cents per Mile Basis – 2006,” http:// www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records.html. 10 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5005: Fuel Cell System Cost – 2002 vs 2005,” http://www.energy.gov/program_records. html. 11 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Fuel Cell System for Transportation -- 2005 Cost Estimate Independent Review (October 2006), 5, retrieved October 5, 2006, from http://www.hydrogen.energy. gov/pdfs/40160.pdf. 12 U.S. Department of Energy, FY 2006 DOE Budget Request to Congress for Interior and Related Agencies: Energy Conservation, (February 2005), 316, retrieved January 20,2006, from http://www.mbe.doe.gov/ budget/06budget/Content/Volumes/Vol_7_INT.pdf. 35 Hydrogen Posture Plan 13 U.S. Department of Energy, HFCIT Multi-Year Plan, 3.4-1. 14 National Renewable Energy Laboratory Distributed Hydrogen Production from Natural Gas Independent Review (October 2006), 4, retrieved October 5, 2006, from http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/bk40382. pdf. 15 More information on the H2A model can be found at http://www. hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html. 16 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), "Record 5002: DOE Hydrogen Program Solicitation Awardee Announcements," http://www. hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records.html. 17 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5032: Overview of IPHE,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records.html. 18 U.S. Department of Energy, Draft Roadmap on Manufacturing R&D for the Hydrogen Economy (December 2005), retrieved February 4, 2006, from http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/roadmap_manufacturing_ hydrogen_economy.pdf. 19 U.S. Government Printing Office, Federal Register: August 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 164, page 50052-50054), U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Carbon Nanotubes for On-Board Hydrogen Storage Go/No-Go Decision, retrieved October 4, 2006, from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index. html. 20 National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004), http://www.nap.edu/books/030909/632/html. 21 National Research Council, Committee on Review of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Research Program, Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005), http://www.nap.edu/ books/0309097304/html.11.html. 22 U .S. House, 109th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 6, Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law No: 109-058), retrieved September 15, 2005, from http://thomas.loc.gov. 23 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5028: State of the Union 2003,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records. html. 24 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2006: With Projections to 2030, (February 2006), DOE/ EIA-0383(2006), 8, retrieved September 13, 2006, from http://www.eia. doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2006).pdf. 25 Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 25, (2006), “Table 1.13 Consumption of Petroleum by End-Use Sector, 1973-2005,” 1-17, retrieved August 16, 2006, from http://cta.ornl.gov/ data/tedb25/Edition25_Full_Doc.pdf. Hydrogen Posture Plan 36 26 Ibid., "Table 2.5 Transportation Energy Use by Mode, 2002-2003,” (2-7). 27 Ibid., "Table 3.3 U.S. Automobiles and Trucks in Use, 1970-2003,” (3-5). 28 Singh M., A. Vyas and E. Steiner, Argonne National Laboratory, VISION Model: Description of Model Used to Estimate the Impact of Highway Technologies and Fuels on Energy Use and Carbon Emissions to 2050, (December 2003), ANL/ESD/04-1, retrieved September 27, 2005, from http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/299.pdf. The energy efficiency assumed for FCVs relative to conventional vehicles is 2.25 in 2018 and 2020, 2.5 in 2030 and 2040 and 3.0 beginning in 2050 with linear interpolation used for intervening years (assumes average new light duty vehicle fuel economy of 24.3 mpg for baseline vehicles). 29 U.S. Department of Energy, Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs, FY 2007 Budget Request, NREL/TP-620-39684, (March 2006), Table 3-10 Light-Duty Vehicle Market Shares for the Hydrogen Case, p. 3-10, and Table 3-11 Calculation of Petroleum Savings, p. 3-11, retrieved July 26, 2006, from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ba/pba/gpra_estimates_fy07.html. 30 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5018: Reduction in Fuel Consumption with FCVs,” http://www.hydrogen. energy.gov/program_records.html. 31 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5017: Air Quality and Population,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_ records.html. 32 U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (see note 24), "Table A8: Electricity Supply, Disposition, Prices, and Emissions,” (147). 33 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5003: Carbon Displacement Using Net-Zero Carbon Sources” http://www.hydrogen. energy.gov/program_records.html. 34 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5001: Federal Funding of Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Related Programs,” http://www. hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records.html. 35 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5019: Japan Government Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Budget,” http://www.hydrogen. energy.gov/program_records.html. 36 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5022: Current U.S. Hydrogen Production,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_ records.html. 37 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5020: Vehicle Carbon Emission Comparisons,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/ program_records.html. 38 U.S. Department of Energy, Solar and Wind Technologies for Hydrogen Production: Report to Congress, ESECS EE-3060, December 2005, retrieved February 3, 2006 from http://www.eere.energy.gov/ hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/solar_wind_for_hydrogen_dec2005.pdf. 37 Hydrogen Posture Plan 39 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5027: Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (White House Press Release),” http://www. hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records.html. 40 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), "Record 5010: HFI Budget FY 2004-2007,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_ records.html. 41 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5004: HFI FY2007 Budget Request for H2 Production,” http://www.hydrogen. energy.gov/program_records.html. 42 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), "Record 5007: Hydrogen-Related Research at DOE," http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/ program_records.html. 43 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5016: FutureGen Press Release,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_ records.html. 44 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5029: National Academies Press Release,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_ records.html. 45 U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program, "Record 5021: Fuel Cell System 2005 Cost vs Goal," http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_ records.html. 46 U.S. Department of Energy, HFCIT Multi-Year Plan, 3.4-21. 47 U.S. Department of Energy, HFCIT Multi-Year Plan, 3.4-2. 48 U.S. House, 109th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 3, Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users or SAFETEA-LU (P.L. 109-59), retrieved January 20, 2006, from http:// www.thomas.loc.gov. 49 U.S. Department of Energy Hydrogen Program, "Record 5008: FCV Hydrogen Demand in 2040," http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_ records.html. 50 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5009: Hydrogen Production from Geothermal,” http://www.hydrogen.energy. gov/program_records.html. 51 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5024: Hydrogen Production from Hydropower,” http://www.hydrogen.energy. gov/program_records.html. 52 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5026: Uranium Production and Consumption,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/ program_records.html. 53 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5031: World Nuclear Association,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_ records.html. Hydrogen Posture Plan 38 Appendices A. Sample Scenario for Domestic Hydrogen Production Options and Resource Needs B. Hydrogen Production and Delivery Pathways C. Hydrogen Fuel Initiative Budget: FY 04-FY 07 D. Glossary/Acronyms E. Contacts, Resources, and Weblinks 39 Hydrogen Posture Plan Hydrogen Posture Plan 40 Appendix A: Sample Scenario for Domestic Hydrogen Production Options and Resource Needs The long-term strategy is to produce hydrogen from a diverse array of carbon-neutral domestic resources, including biomass, coal (with sequestration) wind, solar, and nuclear. The table below provides perspective on the availability of these domestic resources for hydrogen production compared with the amount of hydrogen that may be needed to meet future demand. The total future hydrogen demand used in this example is 64 million metric tons, which represents the amount of hydrogen needed for 300 million fuel cell vehicles.49 This aggressive scenario is employed here to illustrate how domestic resources could be utilized to provide a large amount of hydrogen. DOE is pursuing other options for replacing oil in the transportation sector, including biofuels and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, so this level of hydrogen demand for fuel cell vehicles is speculative. In addition, advances in hydrogen production technologies that make the processes more efficient could further reduce the future resource needs. In the table below, each resource is assumed to provide 20% of the total future hydrogen demand (i.e., almost 13 million tons of hydrogen each), just as an example. The amount of the resource needed to provide this much hydrogen is shown in column 2 (“Needed for Hydrogen”) and is compared with estimated resource availability and current consumption. This analysis does not include demand increases for these resources from other sectors (e.g., stationary power, industry, buildings, etc.). Hydrogen production from natural gas is not included in the table to convey that it is not a viable long-term strategy due to concerns of limited supply, volatility, and the demands of other sectors. However, distributed production of hydrogen from natural gas provides a potential near term strategy, and market conditions will determine whether this option is implemented during the initial market penetration of fuel cell vehicles. a Shows the amount of each resource needed to produce 20% of the total hydrogen demand of 64 million metric tons/yr (13 million metric tons) in this potential hydrogen fuel cell vehicle scenario. (See note 49—Record 5008—for calculation of 64 million metric tons.) b The National Renewable Energy Laboratory H2A Production Model, version 1.0.9, was used to determine the amount of hydrogen needed for each advanced technology (see note 11). A-1 Hydrogen Posture Plan c Calculations were made for the exclusive production of the amount of hydrogen requested. However, these systems can be configured to capture heat and generate both heat and electricity in combined heat and power (CHP) systems. d Walsh, M.E. et al., Biomass Feedstock Availability in the United States: 1999 State Level Analysis, (2000), retrieved September 29, 2005, from http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/resourcedata/index.html. e Includes only biomass not currently used for food, feed and fiber products. f Perlack, R. D. et al., Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply, (April 2005), performed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy, ORNL/TM-2005/66, DOE/GO- 102995-2135, retrieved September 29, 2005, from http://feedstockreview.ornl.gov/pdf/billion_ton_ vision.pdf. g U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Coal Report – 2004, (November 2005), DOE/EIA-0584(2004), Table 15: “Recoverable Coal Reserves at Producing Mines, Estimated Recoverable Reserves, and Demonstrated Reserve Base by Mining Method, 2004,” 31, retrieved January 23, 2006 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/acr/table15.html h U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Quarterly Coal Report: July – September 2005, (December 2005), DOE/EIA-0121(2005/03Q), Table 28: “U.S. Coal Consumption by End-Use Sector 1999-2005, 32, retrieved January 23, 2006 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/ quarterly/html/t28p01p1.html. i Other renewable power generation technologies can also serve as a resource for water electrolysis. For example, geothermal could provide 11 million tons of hydrogen per year or up to 68 million tons of hydrogen if estimates of undiscovered accessible resources are considered (see note 50—Record 5009). Undeveloped hydropower resources and upgrades to existing hydroelectric plants could supply an additional 15 million tons of hydrogen per year (see note 51—Record 5024). j Elliott, D.L. and M.N. Schwartz., Wind Energy Potential in the United States, (Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, September 1993), PNL-SA-23109, retrieved September 29, 2005, from http://www.nrel.gov/wind/wind_potential.html. k U.S. Department of Energy and National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “United States 2005 Installed Wind Power Capacity,” (as of June 30, 2006), retrieved October 23, 2006 from http://www.eere. energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/wind_installed_capacity.asp. l U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5006: Solar Resources in the U.S.,” http:// www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records.html. m Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, Renewable Energy Atlas of the West, (Boulder, CO: July 2002), 10, retrieved September 29, 2005, from http://www.energyatlas.org. n Uranium is sold on a very open, competitive market. Annual U.S. production provides less than 4-5% of U.S. needs under the current once-through fuel cycle approach (see note 52—Record 5026). However, nuclear systems can be configured for greater fuel use efficiency, even to the point of extending a known supply by a factor of 50 (see note 53—Record 5031). In the extremely unlikely event that U.S. uranium resources became the sole supply for U.S. reactors, they could be extended to last for over a thousand years. o Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2005-2006 Edition Information Digest, NUREG-1350, Volume 17, (July 2005), 23, retrieved January 24, 2006 from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/ nuregs/staff/sr1350/v17/sr1350v17.pdf. p The nuclear thermo-chemical route to hydrogen production is based on the use of high-temperature reactor technology which is under development to generate the higher temperatures needed (800- 1000°C). The 310 GWth is the amount of thermal energy equivalent currently generated by today’s conventional nuclear energy that is in service for electricity production (100 GWe divided by 32% thermal efficiency). Hydrogen Posture Plan A-2 Appendix B. Hydrogen Production and Delivery Pathways* The ultimate goal is for hydrogen to be produced and delivered utilizing several feedstocks, processing methods, and delivery options at a variety of scales ranging from large central production to very small local production, depending on what makes the most economic and logistical sense for that location. One of the tasks at hand is to develop a better understanding of the options available, the current and potential costs and energy efficiencies of these options, and the tradeoffs each offer. From this understanding, we will continue to refine the DOE research and development plan for hydrogen production and delivery to ensure that viable, cost-effective options become available for both the short term and long term. This Appendix contains well-to-wheels (WTW) analysis results comparing current (2005) gasoline internal combustion engine (ICE) and hybrid vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). It includes several potential options for hydrogen production and delivery. Two time frames are examined for the hydrogen cases. The “current” cases represent 2005 technology in the laboratory; however, this technology has not been validated at full scale. The “future” cases examine 2015 potential technology for distributed production of hydrogen at refueling stations and 2030 for central hydrogen production options. Projected costs are also presented for the hydrogen FCV cases. The hydrogen production and delivery analyses presented here utilize the H2A Production and Delivery model approach and tools (which can be accessed at www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_analysis.html). The assumptions for each production technology-specific case are provided to clarify the basis for and data used in the analyses. For the central hydrogen production cases, two delivery technologies are analyzed. For the current cases it is assumed that the hydrogen is liquefied and transported by cryogenic liquid trucks to the forecourt station where it is stored, and then vaporized under pressure and dispensed as a high pressure gas to the FCV. For the 2030 future cases, it is assumed that a hydrogen pipeline infrastructure is available to transport the hydrogen to the forecourt. The hydrogen is first compressed from its assumed production pressure of 300 psi to a pipeline pressure of 1,000 psi. At the forecourt it is further compressed, stored, and charged as a high pressure gas to the FCV at a 5,000 psi fill. The cost of hydrogen delivery used for the current central hydrogen production cases is $3.50/gge of hydrogen. This includes liquefaction, truck transport, and forecourt operations. This is based on the H2A Delivery Scenario model under development. This model is available at www.hydrogen. energy.gov. The cost of hydrogen delivery used for the future central hydrogen production cases is $1.00/gge of hydrogen. This includes compression, pipeline transport, and forecourt operations of compression, storage, and dispensing. This is based on the Program’s targeted cost for hydrogen delivery technology. Note that all costs are expressed in real 2005 dollars. * For additional information, see Chapter 5 and Appendix E of the National Research Council report The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2004). B-1 Hydrogen Posture Plan Figure B-1. Distributed Hydrogen Production via Steam Methane Reforming Distributed production of hydrogen from natural gas utilizes small scale steam methane reforming technology. The advantages of distributed hydrogen production are the production unit can be located at the consumer refueling site, the unit capacity can be tailored to the site’s fueling requirements, and this approach eliminates the need for an extensive hydrogen delivery infrastructure. This process may be the most viable for introducing hydrogen as an energy carrier since it requires less capital investment for the smaller hydrogen volumes that are needed in the early stages of hydrogen technology adoption. This analysis is based on the best available technology in the laboratory. Currently, it has not been validated through demonstration. Notes: Distributed Hydrogen Production via Steam Methane Reforming

1. Source: Well-to-wheels energy, petroleum, and greenhouse gas emissions information from the Argonne National Laboratory GREET model, Version 1.7. Well-to-wheels values represent primary fuel production, electricity production, hydrogen production, hydrogen compression, and hydrogen dispensing. Fossil resource exploration and equipment manufacture are not included.

2. Source: Cost, resource requirements, energy requirements, all fuel and feedstock energy contents, and efficiency values for the current (2005) case are from the H2A model cases (Version 1.0.9) modified to reflect the Hydrogen Program 2005 cost goals as of November 2005. Capacity of plant represented here is 1,500 kg/day.

3. Source: Cost, resource requirements, energy requirements, all fuel and feedstock energy contents, and efficiency values for the future (2015) case are from the H2A model cases modified to reflect the Hydrogen Program 2015 cost goals as of November 2005.

4. Basis is 1 kg of hydrogen, dispensed from filling station for 5,000 psi fills. A kg of hydrogen contains approximately the same amount of energy as one gallon of gasoline, or one gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge).

5. Diagram is for future (2015) case, showing feedstock and energy consumption levels required to meet technology cost goals. Flows in diagram represent direct energy and emissions between production and dispensing, and are not based on well-to-wheels calculations.

6. Costs include hydrogen production, compression, storage, and dispensing to vehicle. Cost assumes that small-scale steam methane reforming technology is added to an existing fueling station. Hydrogen Posture Plan B-2 7. Efficiency results are presented in terms of lower heating value (LHV) of hydrogen.

8. The efficiency of the electric forecourt compressor, which raises the pressure of gaseous hydrogen for 5,000 psi fills, is 94%.

9. The operating capacity factor of the forecourt station is 70%. This value accounts for on-stream availability as well as consumer demand variations between week days/weekends and winter/summer.

10. Natural gas feedstock prices are based on the 2015 projections for industrial natural gas by the DOE Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2005 High A case. Prices shown in table are in 2005 $. Feedstock is inflated at 1.9%/year for the 20-year operating life of the plant.

11. Electricity is consumed by the process for production and compression operations. Electricity prices are based on the 2015 projections for commercial-rate electricity by the DOE Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2005 High A case. Prices shown in table are in 2005 $. Electricity is inflated at 1.9%/year for the 20-year operating life of the plant.

12. Capital cost of current (2005) and future (2015) cases are $1.40/kg hydrogen and $0.60/kg hydrogen, respectively.

13. Cost of hydrogen is the minimum required to obtain a 10% internal rate of return after taxes on the capital investment.

14. The data relevant to the Distributed SMR technology diagram above are provided in the table below. B-3 Hydrogen Posture Plan Understanding Effects of Feedstock Volatility Distributed natural gas/renewable liquid reforming and on-site electrolysis (promoting renewable electricity) strategies provide advantages as potential near-term hydrogen production options because they obviate the need for a new delivery infrastructure. Current delivery methods (high pressure tube trailers and “liquid” trucks) are very energy intensive and not cost effective for distances over 100 miles. The distributed reforming approach is an enabling technology to produce hydrogen not only from natural gas, but from a portfolio of options such as methanol, ethanol and other renewable liquids. In the longer term, when diverse domestic resources are used, volatility of hydrogen price should not be an issue. However, natural gas prices are known to be volatile and this is an important consideration for planning. The chart below shows this sensitivity. Hydrogen Production Cost from Distributed Natural Gas Versus Sensitivity to Natural Gas Price (HHV) 6 5 Hydrogen Cost, $/gge 4 November05 November 05Price Price ~$12.5/MM ˜ $12.5/MM BtuBtu 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Natural Gas Price, $/MM Btu (HHV) For example, using a November 2005 data point for industrial natural gas price ($12.50 per million Btu), hydrogen would currently cost $4.50 per gallon-gasoline-equivalent (gge). This cost is calculated using the H2A financial model which calculates hydrogen costs based on the current technology development status. The H2A model is a cash flow model that allows us to understand the cost of various hydrogen production and delivery pathways on a consistent basis. This portfolio analysis tool provides a levelized cost of hydrogen for a given rate of return (input) and accounts for capital costs, construction time, taxes, depreciation, O&M, inflation, and feedstock prices. See http://www.hydrogen.energy. gov/h2a_anaylsis.html. As shown in the chart below, hydrogen at $4.50/gge would make hydrogen fuel cell vehicles competitive on a cents per mile basis with gasoline vehicles (ICE) at gasoline prices of $1.90/gge (untaxed) and gasoline hybrid-electric vehicles at gasoline prices of $2.70/gge (untaxed). Model for Hydrogen Cost Goal (Yielding Equivalent $/ml. for the Consumer ($2.00-$3.00/gge)) $10.00 $9.00 EIA projected gasoline $8.00 price in 2015 is $1.29/gal. FCV fuel economy relative to the gasoline ICE (2.4) Hydrogen Cost, $/gge (2005$). Based on EIA hi “A” World Oil $7.00 Prices from the EIA AEO 2005 used to calculate the hydrogen cost goal. $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 FCV FCVfuel fueleconomy economyrelative relativetotothe gasoline hybrid the gasoline hybrid (1.66) (1.66) $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 1.29 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Gasoline Price (untaxed), $/gal Note: The FCV fuel economy ratios relative to the gasoline ICE and hybrid were obtained from the NRC report: The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs, p.66. Hydrogen Posture Plan B-4 The impact of the volatility of natural gas prices will continue to be evaluated to ensure the viability of this hydrogen production pathway. Feedstock price volatility will significantly influence investment decisions. The chart below shows the major variables that influence natural gas-based hydrogen costs. Sensitivity Analyses for Distributed Hydrogen Production from Natural Gas (current estimate is $3.10/gge with 2005 EIA High A estimate) 2.8 Total Direct Cap. Investment 2.0 5.0 (deprec.) Million $ 5.0 Natural Gas Price $/MMBTU (HHV) 3.0 12.0 35 H2 Storage 25 100 Quantity % 70 Production Capacity 90 60 Factor % 69 Production 71 65 Efficiency 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8 Hydrogen Cost, $/gge Note: Base Hydrogen Cost = $3.10/gge The pie chart below shows the composition of costs contributing to the current estimate of producing hydrogen from distributed natural gas. This estimate is based on the best available research, projected to high volume, but not yet validated under real-world operating conditions by the Program’s Technology Validation Sub-Program. This estimate is based on the 2005 EIA High A estimate for natural gas in 2015. Cost Breakdown of Hydrogen from Distributed Natural Gas ($3.10/gge) NG Feedstock 30% Capital Cost 44% Other Variables 8% Fixed O&M 18% B-5 Hydrogen Posture Plan Figure B-2. Distributed Hydrogen Production from Wind Wind power is currently utilized as a renewable power technology for generating electricity. Combining this electricity with water electrolysis, wind can provide hydrogen with few emissions and with very low consumption of petroleum. Wind-generated electricity can be sent to distributed electrolyzers via the electric grid. The petroleum energy use and resultant CO2 emissions from this process are associated with hydrogen compression at the forecourt, as well as the use of grid electricity. Grid electricity supplements the electricity from wind to increase the capacity factor on the electrolyzer. This analysis is based on the best available technology in the laboratory. Currently, it has not been validated through demonstration. Notes: Distributed Hydrogen Production from Wind

1. Source: Well-to-wheels energy, petroleum, and greenhouse gas emissions information from the Argonne National Laboratory GREET model, Version 1.7. Well-to-wheels values represent primary fuel production, electricity production, hydrogen production, hydrogen compression, and hydrogen dispensing. Fossil resource exploration and equipment manufacture are not included.

2. Source: Cost, resource requirements, energy requirements, all fuel and feedstock energy contents, and efficiency values for the current (2005) case are from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the H2A model, Version 1.0.9 for a forecourt electrolysis facility. Capacity of plant represented here is 1,500 kg/day.

3. Source: Cost, resource requirements, energy requirements, all fuel and feedstock energy contents, and efficiency values for the future (2015) case are from the H2A advanced forecourt case modified to include a $250/kW installed capital cost for the electrolyzer and $0.038/kWh electricity price.

4. Basis is 1 kg of hydrogen, dispensed from filling station for 5,000 psi fills. A kg of hydrogen contains approximately the same amount of energy as one gallon of gasoline, or one gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge).

5. Diagram is for future (2015) case, showing feedstock and energy consumption levels required to meet technology cost goals. Flows in diagram represent direct energy and emissions between production and dispensing, and are not based on well-to-wheels calculations.

6. The petroleum use and resultant GHG emissions are associated with the grid electricity for compression, and to supplement the wind-based electricity for electrolysis. Hydrogen Posture Plan B-6

7. Energy from incoming wind is not included in the overall energy balance, although the wind-generated electricity is. Grid efficiency loss = 7.3% as per assumption in ANL GREET model.

8. Diagram is for future (2015) case. Cost of future (2015) case assumes electricity assistance provided by grid to maintain capacity factor at 70%; the electricity to the electrolyzer is assumed to be 50% wind, 50% grid. Cost of current (2005) case also assumes electricity assistance provided by grid to maintain capacity factor at 70%; the electricity to the electrolyzer is assumed to be 30% wind, 70% grid. Wind energy is assumed to be transported via the electrical grid to the distributed electrolyzer.

9. Current (2005) electrolyzer uses 53.4 kWh of electricity per kg of hydrogen generated. Future (2015) electrolyzer uses 44.5 kWh/kg. The LHV electrolyzer efficiencies for the current (2005) and future (2015) cases are 64% and 76%, respectively.

10. Installed electrolyzer capital cost for 2005 and 2015 cases is $730/kW and $250/kW, respectively. 11. Efficiency results are presented in terms of lower heating value (LHV) of hydrogen.

12. The efficiency of the electric forecourt compressor, which raises pressure of the gaseous hydrogen for 5,000 psi fills, is 94%.

13. The operating capacity factor of the production unit is 70%.

14. Electricity is consumed by the process for compression and electrolyzer operations. Electricity prices for the current (2005) case is based on the 2005 projection for industrial-rate electricity by the DOE Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2005 High A case. Electricity price for the future (2015) case is $0.038/kWh. Prices shown in table are in 2005 $. Electricity is inflated at 1.9%/year for the 20-year operating life of the plant. It is assumed that both grid electricity and wind electricity is available at the same price.

15. Cost of hydrogen is the minimum required to obtain a 10% internal rate of return after taxes on the capital investment.

16. The data relevant to the Distributed Hydrogen Production from Wind technology diagram above are provided in the table below. B-7 Hydrogen Posture Plan Figure B-3. Centralized Hydrogen Production from Wind Wind power is currently utilized as a renewable power technology for generating electricity. Combining this electricity with water electrolysis, wind can provide hydrogen with few emissions and with very low consumption of petroleum. Grid electricity supplements the electricity from wind to increase the capacity factor of the electrolyzer for the future case. The petroleum energy use and resultant CO2 emissions from this process are associated with hydrogen delivery, as well as the use of grid electricity for the future case. This analysis is based on the best available technology in the laboratory. Currently, it has not been validated through demonstration. Notes: Centralized Hydrogen Production from Wind

1. Source: Well-to-wheels energy, petroleum, and greenhouse gas emissions information from the Argonne National Laboratory GREET model, Version 1.7. Well-to-wheels values represent primary fuel production, electricity production, hydrogen production, and hydrogen delivery. Fossil resource exploration and equipment manufacture is not included.

2. Source: Cost, resource requirements, energy requirements, all fuel and feedstock energy contents, and efficiency values for the current (2005) cases are from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the H2A model, Version 1.0.9 for a 125,000 kg/day capacity wind electrolysis facility.

3. Source: Cost, resource requirements, energy requirements, all fuel and feedstock energy contents, and efficiency values for the future (2030) case is from the H2A model cases modified to reflect the Hydrogen Program 2015 cost goals as of November 2005.

4. Basis is 1 kg of hydrogen, dispensed from filling station for 5,000 psi fills. A kg of hydrogen contains approximately the same amount of energy as one gallon of gasoline, or one gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge).

5. Diagram is for future (2030) case, showing feedstock and energy consumption levels required to meet technology cost goals. Flows in diagram represent direct energy and emissions between production and dispensing, and are not based on well-to-wheels calculations. Hydrogen Posture Plan B-8

6. Cost of 2030 case assumes electricity assistance provided by grid to maintain capacity factor at 97%; the electricity to the electrolyzer is assumed to be 50% wind, 50% grid. Current (2005) case uses only wind-generated electricity, with an electrolyzer capacity factor of 41%. While the higher capacity factor is required for an economic future (2030) case, it results in higher well-to- wheels total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. The greehouse gas emissions are slightly higher for the future (2030) case, although rounding to significant figures hides this effect. In the future (2030) case, grid electricity is purchased at the avoided price of $0.03/kWh. Avoided cost estimates the incremental cost of fuel and capacity displaced by a unit of the specified resource and more accurately reflects the as-dispatched energy value than comparison to the levelized cost of other individual technologies. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html for more details.

7. The price of electricity produced from wind in the current (2005) case was calculated from the current (2005) central wind electrolysis H2A case and assumed to be the price at which wind electricity was produced in the model. In the future case (2030) it was assumed the grid and wind electricity prices were the same (at $0.03/kWh).

8. The petroleum use and resultant GHG emissions are associated with the grid electricity for delivery, as well as for grid assistance in the future (2030) case. Fossil-based power plants generating grid electricity for the future (2030) case are assumed to sequester carbon emissions at a rate of 85%.

9. Energy from incoming wind was not included in the overall energy balance, although the wind-generated electricity is.

10. The hydrogen delivery in the current (2005) case assumes liquid hydrogen delivery by truck from a central plant located 76 miles from the forecourt station. Liquefier efficiency is 77.4%. Truck fuel consumption is 6 mi/gallon. Data was obtained from the H2A Delivery Scenario Model and GREET. The future (2030) case assumes hydrogen pipeline delivery over 76 miles. Delivery costs include necessary compression and/or liquefaction equipment.

11. Cost of hydrogen delivery for the current (2005) and future (2030) cases is assumed to be $3.50/kg and $1.00/kg, respectively. 12. Future (2030) case assumes pipeline compressed gas delivery to the forecourt station. Pipeline energy use calculated using the H2A Scenario Model. 13. The efficiency of the electric forecourt compressor, which raises the pressure of the gaseous hydrogen for 5,000 psi fills, is 94%.

14. For the current (2005) case, hydrogen is assumed to be received at the forecourt as a liquid and dispensed as a gas for 5,000 psi fills. For the future (2030) case, hydrogen is assumed to be received at the forecourt as gaseous hydrogen at 250 psi by pipeline and dispensed for 5,000 psi fills. The cost of dispensing is included in the delivery cost.

15. Current (2005) electrolyzer uses 53.4 kWh of electricity per kg of hydrogen generated. Future (2030) electrolyzer uses 44.5 kWh/ kg. The LHV electrolyzer efficiencies for the current (2005) and future (2030) cases are 64% and 76%, respectively.

16. Installed electrolyzer capital cost for 2005 and 2030 cases is $800/kW and $180/kW, respectively.

17. Efficiency results are presented in terms of lower heating value (LHV) of hydrogen.

18. Cost of hydrogen is the minimum required to obtain a 10% internal rate of return after taxes on the capital investment.

19. The data relevant to the Centralized Hydrogen Production from Wind technology diagram above are provided in the table below. B-9 Hydrogen Posture Plan Figure B-4. Centralized Hydrogen Production from Biomass Gasification Biomass-derived hydrogen is another low-CO2 impact process for the production of hydrogen. Biomass (wood, agricultural residues, or energy crops) absorbs as much CO2 from the atmosphere during growth as is released during the conversion to hydrogen. In this diagram, we show the CO2 being recycled by photosynthesis into additional biomass. It would be possible to capture and sequester the CO2 from the PSA unit resulting in a hydrogen process with net negative CO2 emissions. The petroleum energy use and the CO2 emissions from this process are associated with operations related to growing the biomass and making it available to the hydrogen process, production electricity use, and hydrogen delivery. This analysis is based on the best available technology in the laboratory. Currently, it has not been validated through demonstration. Notes: Centralized Hydrogen Production from Biomass Gasification

1. Source: Well-to-wheels energy, petroleum, and greenhouse gas emissions information from the Argonne National Laboratory GREET model, Version 1.7. Well-to-wheels values represent primary fuel production, electricity production, hydrogen production, and hydrogen delivery. Fossil resource exploration and equipment manufacture are not included.

2. Source: Cost, resource requirements, energy requirements, all fuel and feedstock energy contents, and efficiency values for the current (2005) case are from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the H2A model, Version 1.0.9, for a Central Biomass production facility with a capacity of 155,000 kg/day.

3. Source: Cost, resource requirements, energy requirements, all fuel and feedstock energy contents, and efficiency values for the future (2030) case are from the H2A model cases modified to reflect the Hydrogen Program 2015 cost goals as of November 2005.

4. Basis is 1 kg of hydrogen, dispensed from filling station for 5,000 psi fills. A kg of hydrogen contains approximately the same amount of energy as one gallon of gasoline, or one gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge). Hydrogen Posture Plan B-10

5. Diagram is for future (2030) case, showing feedstock and energy consumption levels required to meet technology cost goals. Flows in diagram represent direct energy and emissions between production and dispensing, and are not based on well-to-wheels calculations.

6. The petroleum use and resultant GHG emissions are associated with growing the biomass, and the grid electricity for delivery. Fossil-based power plants generating grid electricity for the future (2030) case are assumed to sequester carbon emissions at a rate of 85%.

7. Biomass is assumed to be woody biomass, most likely obtained from a residue source (e.g., urban trimmings) or energy crops.

8. The hydrogen delivery in the current (2005) case assumes liquid hydrogen delivery by truck from a central plant located 76 miles from the forecourt station. Liquefier efficiency is 77.4%. Truck fuel consumption is 6 mi/gallon. Data were obtained from the H2A Delivery Scenario Model and GREET. The future (2030) case assumes hydrogen pipeline delivery over 76 miles. Delivery costs include necessary compression and/or liquefaction equipment.

9. Cost of hydrogen delivery for the current (2005) and future (2030) cases is assumed to be $3.50/kg and $1.00/kg, respectively.

10. For the current (2005) case, hydrogen is assumed to be received at the forecourt as a liquid and dispensed as a gas for 5,000 psi fills. For the future (2030) case, hydrogen is assumed to be received at the forecourt as gaseous hydrogen at 250 psi by pipeline and dispensed for 5,000 psi fills. The cost of these forecourt operations is included in the delivery cost.

11. Efficiency results are presented in terms of lower heating value (LHV) of hydrogen.

12. Future (2030) case assumes pipeline compressed gas delivery to the forecourt station. Pipeline energy use calculated using the H2A Delivery Models.

13. The efficiency of the electric forecourt compressor, which raises the pressure of the gaseous hydrogen for 5,000 psi fills, is 94%.

14. The operating capacity factor of the production plant is 90%.

15. Electricity is consumed by the process for plant operations and delivery. Electricity prices are based on the 2015 projections for industrial-rate electricity by the DOE Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2005 High A case. Prices shown in table are in 2005 $. Electricity is inflated at 1.9%/year for the 40-year operating life of the plant.

16. The levelized capital cost for the current (2005) and future (2030) cases are $0.49/kg hydrogen and $0.47/kg of hydrogen; capital cost estimate increases because of increased contingency to account for uncertainty in project projections and technology in the 2030 timeframe.

17. Cost of hydrogen is the minimum required to obtain a 10% internal rate of return after taxes on the capital investment.

18. The data relevant to the Centralized Hydrogen Production from Biomass Gasification technology diagram above are provided in the table below. B-11 Hydrogen Posture Plan Figure B-5. Centralized Hydrogen Production from Coal Gasification with Sequestration The figure below represents a process for hydrogen production from coal that uses gasification/reforming technology with hot-gas cleanup, a water-gas shift process, and carbon dioxide sequestration. The hydrogen produced is separated at low pressure (~300 psi) and compressed before delivery to the hydrogen distribution system. Oxygen is used so that a concentrated stream of carbon dioxide is produced for sequestration. The petroleum energy use and the CO2 emissions from this process are associated with the inability to sequester all of the CO2 produced in the gasification process, the inefficiency of the sequestration process, and the energy needed for hydrogen liquefaction/pipeline compression, delivery, and compression of the hydrogen at the forecourt. This analysis is based on the best available technology in the laboratory. Currently, it has not been validated through demonstration. Notes: Centralized Hydrogen Production from Coal Gasification with Sequestration

1. Source: Well-to-wheels energy, petroleum, and greenhouse gas emissions information from the Argonne National Laboratory GREET model, Version 1.7. Well-to-wheels values represent primary fuel production, electricity production, hydrogen production, and hydrogen delivery. Fossil resource exploration and equipment manufacture are not included.

2. Source: Cost, resource requirements, energy requirements, all fuel and feedstock energy contents, and efficiency values for the current (2005) case are from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the H2A model, Version 1.0.9, Central Coal Gasification plant with a capacity of 308,000 kg/day.

3. Source: Cost, resource requirements, energy requirements, all fuel and feedstock energy contents, and efficiency values for the future (2030) case are from the Central Coal Gasification H2A model case, Version 1.0.9. Hydrogen Posture Plan B-12

4. Basis is 1 kg of hydrogen, dispensed from filling station for 5,000 psi fills. A kg of hydrogen contains approximately the same amount of energy as one gallon of gasoline, or one gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge).

5. Diagram is for future (2030) case, showing feedstock and energy consumption levels required to meet technology cost goals. Flows in diagram represent direct energy and emissions between production and dispensing, and are not based on well-to-wheels calculations.

6. The petroleum use and resultant GHG emissions are associated with the grid electricity for delivery, as well as CO2 that could not be captured and sequestered. 85% of the plant CO2 is assumed to be captured and sequestered. CO2 separation and sequestration costs are $15/metric tonne of carbon.

7. Fossil-based power plants generating grid electricity for the future (2030) case are assumed to sequester carbon emissions at a rate of 85%.

8. Production plant electricity requirements for the future (2030) case are met through internally-generated power.

9. The hydrogen delivery in the current (2005) case assumes liquid hydrogen delivery by truck from a central plant located 76 miles from the forecourt station. Liquefier efficiency is 77.4%. Truck fuel consumption is 6 mi/gallon. Data were obtained from the H2A Delivery Scenario Model and GREET. The future (2030) case assumes hydrogen pipeline delivery over 76 miles. Delivery costs include necessary compression and/or liquefaction equipment.

10. Cost of hydrogen delivery for the current (2005) and future (2030) cases is assumed to be $3.50/kg and $1.00/kg, respectively.

11. For the current (2005) case, hydrogen is assumed to be received at the forecourt as a liquid and dispensed as a gas for 5,000 psi fills. For the future (2030) case, hydrogen is assumed to be received at the forecourt as gaseous hydrogen at 250 psi by pipeline and dispensed for 5,000 psi fills. The cost of the forecourt operations is included in the delivery cost.

12. Efficiency results are presented in terms of lower heating value (LHV) of hydrogen.

13. Future (2030) case assumes pipeline compressed gas delivery to the forecourt station. Pipeline energy use calculated using the H2A Delivery Models.

14. The efficiency of the electric forecourt compressor, which raises the pressure of the gaseous hydrogen for 5,000 psi fills, is 94%.

15. The operating capacity factor of the production plant is 90%.

16. Coal feedstock prices are based on the 2015 projections for electric utility steam coal by the DOE Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2005 High A case. Prices shown in table are in 2005 $. Feedstock is inflated at 1.9%/year for the 40-year operating life of the plant.

17. Electricity is consumed by the process for compression and plant operations. Electricity prices are based on the 2015 projections for industrial-rate electricity by the DOE Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2005 High A case. Prices shown in table are in 2005 $. Electricity is inflated at 1.9%/year for the 40-year operating life of the plant.

18. The levelized capital costs for the current (2005) and future (2030) cases are $1.00/kg hydrogen and $0.67/kg of hydrogen, respectively.

19. Cost of hydrogen is the minimum required to obtain a 10% internal rate of return after taxes on the capital investment.

20. The data relevant to the Centralized Hydrogen Production from Coal Gasification with Sequestration technology diagram above are provided in the table below. B-13 Hydrogen Posture Plan Figure B-6. Centralized Hydrogen Production from Nuclear Sulfur-Iodine Process The figure below represents a process for hydrogen production from nuclear energy that utilizes the sulfur-iodine thermochemical water splitting process. In this configuration, the high temperature heat from the advanced nuclear reactors is used as the energy source for the sulfur-iodine thermochemical process to produce hydrogen from water. The produced hydrogen is scrubbed of impurities at low pressure and is compressed to deliver the hydrogen to the distribution system. The petroleum energy use and CO2 emissions from this process are associated with the electricity needed to operate the process as well as the energy needed for hydrogen delivery. Only a future case is shown because this technology is in a relatively early stage of development. This analysis is based on the best available technology in the laboratory. Currently, it has not been validated through demonstration. Notes: Centralized Hydrogen Production from Nuclear Sulfur-Iodine Process

1. Source: Well-to-wheels energy, petroleum, and greenhouse gas emissions information from the Argonne National Laboratory GREET model, Version 1.7. Well-to-wheels values represent primary fuel production, electricity production, hydrogen production, and hydrogen delivery. Fossil resource exploration and equipment manufacture are not included.

2. Source: Cost, resource requirements, energy requirements, all fuel and feedstock energy contents, and efficiency values from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the H2A model, Version 1.0.9 for a Central Nuclear Sulfur-Iodine Thermo-chemical plant with the capacity of 768,000 kg/day.

3. Basis is 1 kg of hydrogen, dispensed from filling station for 5,000 psi fills. A kg of hydrogen contains approximately the same amount of energy as one gallon of gasoline, or one gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge).

4. Diagram is for future (2030) case. Flows in diagram represent direct energy and emissions between production and dispensing, and are not based on well-to-wheels calculations.

5. The petroleum use and resultant GHG emissions are associated with the grid electricity for the production process and hydrogen delivery. Hydrogen Posture Plan B-14

6. Cost of hydrogen delivery is assumed to be $1.00/kg. Hydrogen is assumed to be received at the forecourt as gaseous hydrogen at 250 psi by pipeline and dispensed for 5,000 psi fills. The cost of the forecourt operations is included in the delivery cost.

7. Efficiency results are presented in terms of lower heating value (LHV) of hydrogen.

8. Nuclear Fuel Cycle Cost of $9.3/MWh - based on U3O8 @ $38/lb, enriched @ $55/SWU (separative work unit). SWU and uranium prices are the levelized prices over 40 years assuming a 10% discount rate and a 10.2% capital recovery factor applied to data from EIA and extrapolated in the PNNL Mini-Cam model. See www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/forecast/projection.html for more information.

9. Future (2030) case assumes pipeline compressed gas delivery to the forecourt station. Pipeline energy use calculated using the H2A Delivery Models.

10. The efficiency of the electric forecourt compressor, which raises the pressure of the gaseous hydrogen for 5,000 psi fills, is 94%.

11. The operating capacity factor of the production plant is 90%.

12. Electricity is consumed by the process for compression and plant operations. Electricity price is based on the 2015 projection for industrial-rate electricity by the DOE Energy Information Administration Annual Energy Outlook 2005 High A case. Price shown in the table is in 2005 $. Electricity is inflated at 1.9%/year for the 40-year operating life of the plant.

13. The levelized capital cost $1.30/kg hydrogen. B-15 Hydrogen Posture Plan Hydrogen Posture Plan B-16 Appendix C. Hydrogen Fuel Initiative Budget: FY 04-FY 071 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Appropriation2 Appropriation3 Appropriation4 Request5 ($ 00 0) ($ 00 0) ($ 00 0) ($ 00 0) Basic Research $0 $29,183 $32,500 $50,000 Production and Delivery $19,163 $31,503 $48,534 $79,120 Storage $13,628 $22,418 $26,040 $34,620 Conversion (Fuel Cells) $53,954 $55,759 $33,336 $57,075 Technology Validation $15,648 $26,098 $33,301 $39,566 Manufacturing R&D $0 $0 $0 $1,978 6 Safety, Codes and Standards $6,310 $6,350 $6,006 $15,268 Education $2,417 $0 $481 $1,978 Systems Analysis $1,429 $3,157 $4,787 $9,892 Congressionally $43, 967 $47,236 $47,470 $0 Directed Funds TOTAL $156,516 $221,704 $232,455 $289,497 1 U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen Program), “Record 5010: HFI Budget FY 2004-2007,” http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/ program_records.html. 2 U.S. House, 108th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 2754, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108- 137), retrieved February 3, 2006, from http://thomas.loc.gov; U.S. House, 108th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 2691, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-108), retrieved February 3, 2006, from http://thomas. loc.gov; U.S. House, 108th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 2673, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-199), re- trieved April 6, 2006, from http://thomas.loc.gov. Numbers include a 2.8% reduction of the R&D budget, to be used for SBIR/STRR. This funding is managed separately, but remains focused on hydrogen activities consistent with the original appropriation. 3 U.S. House, 108th Congress, 2nd Session, H.R. 4614, Committee Approval Report Making Appropriations for Energy and Water Development for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, and for Other Purposes, http://thomas.loc.gov; U.S. House, 108th Congress, 2nd Session, H.R. 4568, Committee Approval Report Making Appropriations for the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2005, and for Other Purposes, http://thomas.loc.gov; U.S. House, 108th Congress, 2nd Session, H.R. 4818, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-447), retrieved April 6, 2006, from http://thomas.loc.gov; U.S. House, 109th Congress, 1st Session, House Report 1268, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13), retrieved April 6, 2006, from http://thomas. loc.gov. Numbers include a 2.8% reduction of the R&D budget, to be used for SBIR/STRR. This funding is managed separately, but remains focused on hydrogen activities consistent with the original appropriation. 4 U.S. House, 109th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. 2419, Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2006 (Public Law 109- 103), retrieved April 6, 2006, from http://thomas.loc.gov. Numbers include a 2.8% reduction of the R&D budget, to be used for SBIR/STRR. This funding is managed separately, but remains focused on hydrogen activities consistent with the original appropriation. 5 U.S. DOE, Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation, http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget. 6 Includes funding for Department of Transportation. C-1 Hydrogen Posture Plan Hydrogen Posture Plan C-2 Appendix D. Glossary/Acronyms Btu British thermal unit CFO DOE Office of the Chief Financial Officer CO2 Carbon dioxide DOE U.S. Department of Energy DOT U.S. Department of Transportation EE DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy EIA Energy Information Administration FCV Fuel cell vehicle FE DOE Office of Fossil Energy FY Fiscal year gge Gallons of gasoline equivalent gCO2e Grams of carbon dioxide equivalent GHG Greenhouse gas GPRA Government Performance and Results Act GWe Gigawatt-Electric GWth Gigawatt-Thermal HTAC Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee ICE Internal combustion engine ILC Implementation Liaison Committee (IPHE) IPHE International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy JPY Japanese yen kg Kilogram kgCO2e Kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt hour l Liter lb Pound LDV Light-duty vehicle LHV Lower heating value m Meter mbpd Million barrels per day METI Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (Japan) MMT Million metric tons MMTCE Million metric tons of carbon equivalent NAS National Academy of Sciences NE DOE Office of Nuclear Energy NEP National Energy Policy NHI Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative NOx Nitrogen oxides NRC National Research Council NSF National Science Foundation PEM Polymer electrolyte membrane PI DOE Office of Policy and International Affairs PSA Pressure swing absorption psi Pounds per square inch psig Pounds per square inch gauge R&D Research and development D-1 Hydrogen Posture Plan RD&D Research, development, and demonstration SC DOE Office of Science SECA Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance SMR Steam methane reformer SOFC Solid oxide fuel cell SOx Sulfur oxide V Volt VHTR Very high temperature reactor VOC Volatile organic compound W Watt wt Weight WTW Well-to-wheels Hydrogen Posture Plan D-2 Appendix E. Contacts, Resources, and Weblinks Hydrogen Coordination Group: Core Members JoAnn Milliken, Acting DOE Hydrogen Program Manager and Chief Engineer Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Email: joann.milliken@ee.doe.gov Phone: 202-586-2480 C. Lowell Miller, Director Office of Sequestration, Hydrogen & Clean Coal Fuels DOE Office of Fossil Energy Email: lowell.miller@hq.doe.gov Phone: 301-903-9451 Carl Sink Office of Advanced Nuclear Research DOE Office of Nuclear Energy Email: carl.sink@nuclear.energy.gov Phone: 301-903-5131 Harriet Kung, Director Materials Sciences and Engineering Division Office of Basic Energy Sciences DOE Office of Science Email: harriet.kung@science.doe.gov Phone: 301-903-1330 Patricia Breed, Program Analyst Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation DOE Office of Management, Budget, and Evaluation/CFO Email: patricia.breed@hq.doe.gov Phone: 202-586-2510 Linda Lawson, Director Office of Safety, Energy, and Environment DOT Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy Email: Linda.Lawson@dot.gov Phone: 202-366-4835 Carmen Difiglio, Director Office of Electricity Policy Analysis DOE Office of Policy and International Affairs Email: carmen.difiglio@hq.doe.gov Phone: 202-586-8436 Michael Mills IPHE Representative - EERE Board of Directors DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Email: michael.mills@ee.doe.gov Phone: 202-586-6653 E-1 Hydrogen Posture Plan Hydrogen Coordination Group: Alternates Frederick Joseck, Technology Analyst Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Email: fred.joseck@ee.doe.gov Phone: 202-586-7932 William Fernald, General Engineer Office of Sequestration, Hydrogen & Clean Coal Fuels DOE Office of Fossil Energy Email: William.Fernald@hq.doe.gov Phone: 301-903-9448 Jane Zhu, Program Manager Office of Basic Energy Sciences DOE Office of Science Email: jane.zhu@science.doe.gov Phone: 301-903-3811 William Chernicoff Service and Operations Assessment Division DOT Research and Innovative Technology Administration Email: William.Chernicoff@dot.gov Phone: 202 366-4999 Document Citations The DOE Hydrogen Program draws guidance and direction from a number of different policy and program planning instruments, as shown in Figure E-1. Citations for these documents are provided below. National Energy Policy May 2001 www.whitehouse.gov/energy Energy Policy Act of 2005 http://thomas.loc.gov The Department of Energy Strategic Plan: Protecting National, Energy, and Economic Security with Advanced Science and Technology and Ensuring Environmental Cleanup September 2003 http://strategicplan.doe.gov/full.pdf Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Strategic Plan October 2002 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/pdfs/fy02_strategic_plan.pdf A National Vision of America’s Transition to a Hydrogen Economy: To 2030 and Beyond February 2002 www.hydrogen.energy.gov National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap November 2002 www.hydrogen.energy.gov Hydrogen Posture Plan E-2 Figure E-1. Hydrogen Fuel Initiative: Policy and RD&D Planning Documents Fuel Cell Report to Congress February 2003 http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/fc_report_congress_ feb2003.pdf Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan (Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy) February 2005 www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/ Hydrogen from Coal Program Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan (Office of Fossil Energy) June 2004 (Draft) www.fe.doe.gov/programs/fuels/publications/programplans/2004/hydrogen_ external_061004.pdf Nuclear Hydrogen R&D Plan (Office of Nuclear Energy, Science & Technology) March 2004 www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/nuclear_energy_h2_plan.pdf Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy (Office of Science) May 2003 www.sc.doe.gov/bes/hydrogen.pdf E-3 Hydrogen Posture Plan Department of Energy FY 2006 Budget Request www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/06budget/start.htm FY2006 Energy and Water Appropriation http://thomas.loc.gov Web Sites of Relevant Organizations Office of Science and Technology Policy, Interagency Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Task Force www.hydrogen.gov DOE Hydrogen Program www.hydrogen.energy.gov Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy www.eere.energy.gov Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies Program www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels Office of Fossil Energy www.fe.doe.gov Office of Nuclear Energy www.nuclear.gov Office of Science www.science.doe.gov Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance www.seca.doe.gov Department of Transportation www.dot.gov Hydrogen Posture Plan E-4