Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 12
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report 1 Introduction BACKGROUND The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has been involved for almost 30 years in research and development (R&D) programs related to advanced vehicular technologies and alternative transportation fuels. In particular, in 1993, during the Clinton administration, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) was formed between the federal government and the auto industry’s U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR).1 The PNGV sought to significantly improve the nation’s competitiveness in the manufacture of future generations of vehicles, to implement commercially viable innovations emanating from ongoing research on conventional vehicles, and to develop vehicles that achieve up to three times the fuel efficiency of comparable 1994 family sedans (NRC, 2001; PNGV, 1995; The White House, 1993).2 The election of President Bush in 2000 resulted in changes in direction and organization of a number of DOE R&D programs and the creation of new, multiyear program plans for vehicle and fuel R&D efforts (DOE, 2004a,b). In January 2002, the Secretary of Energy and executives of DaimlerChrysler, Ford, 1 USCAR, which predated the formation of PNGV, was established by Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation. Its purpose was to support intercompany, precompetitive cooperation that would reduce the cost of redundant R&D in the face of international competition. Chrysler Corporation merged with Daimler Benz in 1998 to form DaimlerChrysler. USCAR currently supports a number of consortia (Appendix A). 2 The goal of PNGV that attracted the most attention from the news media was the development of a family sedan that would achieve a fuel economy of 80 miles per gallon (mpg) and cost the same as a comparable 1993 sedan. The media usually ignored the fact that the goal had been set as “up to 80 mpg,” not “80 mpg.”
OCR for page 13
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report and General Motors announced a new government-industry partnership between DOE and USCAR called FreedomCAR, with CAR standing for Cooperative Automotive Research. The new partnership supersedes and builds upon the PNGV program. In September 2003, FreedomCAR was expanded to include five large energy companies—BP America, Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil Corporation, and Shell Hydrogen (U.S.)—to address issues related to the supporting fuel infrastructure. The expanded scope of the partnership was acknowledged by changing the name to FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership.3 The long-term goal of the program is to “enable the full spectrum of light-duty passenger vehicle classes to operate completely free of petroleum and free of harmful emissions while sustaining the driving public’s freedom of mobility and freedom of vehicle choice” (DOE, 2004a). The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership differs in several ways from PNGV. PNGV focused on replacing the family sedan (that is, a midsize automobile such as the Concorde, Lumina, or Taurus) with a marketable, more fuel-efficient design. It included specific vehicle milestones—namely, a concept vehicle by 2000 and a preproduction prototype by 2004. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership addresses the development of advanced technologies for all light-duty passenger vehicles: cars, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), pickups, and minivans. It also addresses technologies for hydrogen production, distribution, dispensing, and storage, which were not a part of the PNGV program. It is a partnership between USCAR and one government agency, DOE, which collaborates with other agencies as needed. In PNGV, many agencies were involved and the lead agency was the Department of Commerce.4 No new government money was appropriated for PNGV. Each participating agency was expected to reprogram existing R&D funds to support PNGV goals. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership started with a presidential commitment to request $1.7 billion over 5 years (FY04 to FY08), with FY05 appropriations of about $310 million and an FY06 presidential budget request of about $360 million (Garman, 2005).5 Funding for research, development, and demonstration activities goes to universities, the national labo- 3 In February 2003, before the announcement of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, the President announced the FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to develop technologies for (1) fuel-efficient motor vehicles and light trucks, (2) cleaner fuels, (3) improved energy efficiency, and (4) hydrogen production and nationwide distribution infrastructure needed for vehicle and stationary power plants, to fuel both hydrogen internal combustion engines (ICEs) and fuel cells (DOE, 2004a). The expansion of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership to include the energy sector after the announcement of the initiative also supports the goal of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. 4 The federal agencies involved in PNGV included the Department of Commerce, DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Defense (DOD), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 5 The FY05 appropriation breaks down as follows: hydrogen technology, $120 million; fuel cells, $75 million; vehicle technologies, $85 million; Office of Science, $29 million; DOT, $0.55 million (Chapter 5, Tables 5-1 and 5-2).
OCR for page 14
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report ratories, and private companies. Especially in the case of development activities, projects are often cost shared between the private sector and the federal government (see Chapter 5 for further discussion). The Partnership plays an important role in the planning, pursuit, and assessment of high-risk R&D for many of the needed vehicle and fuel technologies. Federal funds enable much of this work to move forward. The Partnership also serves as a communication mechanism for the interested players, including government, the private sector, the national laboratories, universities, the public, and others. GOALS AND TARGETS The long-term goal of the FreedomCar and Fuel Partnership is to enable the transition to a transportation system “that uses sustainable energy resources and produces minimal criteria or net carbon emissions on a life cycle or well-to-wheel basis” (DOE, 2004b). Starting to reduce the nation’s dependence on imported petroleum is central to this goal. The current plan envisions a pathway initially involving more fuel-efficient internal combustion engines, followed by increasing use of hybrid electric vehicles and, ultimately, transition to an infrastructure for supplying hydrogen fuel to fuel-cell-powered vehicles (DOE, 2004b). To address the technical challenges associated with this envisioned pathway, the FreedomCar and Fuel Partnership has established specific, quantitative 2010 and 2015 technology and cost goals in eight areas: ICEs (both petroleum- and hydrogen-fueled), Fuel cell power systems, Fuel cells, Hydrogen storage systems, Energy storage systems for hybrid vehicles, Electric propulsion systems, Materials for lightweight vehicles, and Hydrogen production and delivery systems. These goals and the research related to their attainment will be discussed later in this report. Technical teams, as noted in the next section, “Organization of the Partnership,” have also been formed to deal with specific technical areas and other crosscutting needs in the program. ORGANIZATION OF THE PARTNERSHIP The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership consists of a number of oversight groups and technical teams that have participants from government and industry (see Figure 1-1). The Executive Steering Group, which is responsible for the governance of the Partnership, comprises the DOE assistant secretary for energy
OCR for page 15
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report FIGURE 1-1 FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership organizational structure. SOURCE: R.F. Moorer, “FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership peer review,” Presentation to the committee on November 17, 2004. efficiency and renewable energy (EERE) and a vice-presidential- or presidential-level executive from each of the Partnership companies. It meets as needed. The FreedomCAR Operations Group, made up of DOE program managers and USCAR member company directors, is responsible for direction of the technical teams and prioritization of research issues. The Fuel Operations Group, made up of DOE program managers and energy company directors, is responsible for the direction of the fuel technical teams. Periodically, the FreedomCAR Operations Group and the Fuel Operations Group hold joint meetings to coordinate fuel and power-plant issues and identify strategic or policy issues that warrant attention by the Executive Steering Group (DOE, 2004c). The Partnership has formed 11 industry-government technical teams responsible for R&D on the candidate subsystems (see Figure 1-1). Most of these technical teams focus on specific technical areas, but some, such as codes and standards and systems engineering and analysis, focus on crosscutting issues. A technical team consists of scientists and engineers with technology-specific expertise from the USCAR member companies, energy partner companies, and national laboratories, as well as DOE technology development managers. They may come from other federal agencies if approved by the appropriate operation group(s). A technical team is responsible for developing R&D plans and roadmaps, reviewing research results, and evaluating technical progress toward meeting established research goals (DOE, 2004c). Its discussions are restricted to nonproprietary topics. Fuel cell and vehicle technical team members come from
OCR for page 16
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report the USCAR partners and DOE. They address the same topics as they did under the PNGV—namely, fuel cells, advanced combustion and emissions control, systems engineering and analysis, electrochemical energy storage, materials, and electrical systems and power electronics. The three teams in the hydrogen fuel technical teams and the codes and standards technical team are new. In May 2003, the USCAR partners and DOE invited five energy companies to join the Partnership. In September 2003, the energy companies attended the joint meeting of the two operations groups and the meeting of the Executive Steering Group. Two Fuel Operations Group technical team reviews took place in 2004. Three teams—hydrogen production, hydrogen delivery, and fuel/ vehicle pathway integration—each have members from the energy companies and DOE, and there are two joint technical teams connecting the fuel teams and the vehicle teams: an onboard hydrogen storage team and a codes and standards team. At DOE, primary responsibility for the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership rests with EERE.6 The two main program offices within EERE that are involved in the activities of the Partnership are the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies (FCVT) program and the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies (HFCIT) program. The FCVT program has the following specific goal: to support “R&D that will lead to new technologies that reduce our nation’s dependence on imported oil, further decrease vehicle emissions, and serve as a bridge from today’s conventional power trains and fuels to tomorrow’s hydrogen-powered hybrid fuel cell vehicles” (DOE, 2004b). The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, the focus of this report, and the 21st Century Truck Partnership are both within FCVT.7 The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership activities in the FCVT program are organized into a number of areas: Vehicle systems analysis and testing to provide an overarching vehicle systems perspective to the technology R&D subprograms and activities in the FCVT and HFCIT programs; Hybrid propulsion systems for light-duty vehicles, which includes activities on advanced internal combustion engine (ICE) power trains and hydrogen ICE power trains as well as testing on various fuel and propulsion system combinations; Energy storage technologies (batteries and ultracapacitors); Advanced power electronics and electric machines; 6 EERE has a wide variety of technology R&D programs and activities related to renewable energy technologies, such as the production of electricity from solar energy or wind or the production of fuels from biomass, to the development of technology to enhance energy efficiency, whether for vehicles, appliances, buildings, or industrial processes. It also has programs on distributed energy systems (see Appendix B for an EERE organization chart). 7 DOE supports several other programs related to the goal of reducing dependence on imported oil. The 21st Century Truck Program supports R&D on more efficient and lower emission commercial road vehicles.
OCR for page 17
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report Advanced combustion engine R&D, which in concert with the work on light-duty hybrid propulsion systems focuses on enabling technologies for energy-efficient, clean vehicles powered by advanced ICEs using clean hydrocarbon-based and non-petroleum-based fuels and hydrogen; Materials technology for lightweight vehicle structures and for propulsion system materials, including power electronics and combustion engines; and Fuels technologies to allow current and emerging advanced ICEs and emission control systems to be as efficient as possible while meeting future emission standards and to reduce reliance on petroleum-based fuels. The HFCIT program directs activities in hydrogen production, storage, and delivery and integrates them with transportation and fuel cell development activities. The proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell R&D is undertaken in the HFCIT program. The program is focused on Overcoming technical barriers through R&D on hydrogen production, delivery, and storage technologies, as well as fuel cell technologies for transportation, distributed stationary power, and portable power applications; Addressing safety concerns and developing model codes and standards; Validating and demonstrating hydrogen fuel cells in real-world conditions; and Educating key stakeholders whose acceptance of these technologies is critical to their success in the marketplace (DOE, 2004a,b). The manager of HFCIT is the overall DOE hydrogen technology program manager. Some activities related to the HFCIT program focus are not within EERE. The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) supports the development of technologies to produce hydrogen from coal, as well as carbon capture and sequestration programs. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) supports research into the potential use of high-temperature nuclear reactors to produce hydrogen, while the Office of Science (SC) supports fundamental work on new materials to store hydrogen; catalysts; fundamental biological or molecular processes for hydrogen production; fuel cell membranes; and other basic science areas (DOE, 2004d,e). An overall evaluation and strategic review of these hydrogen technology R&D activities was undertaken by the NRC’s Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use, and the current study references the results of that study and its recommendations, which are contained in the report The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs (NRC/NAE, 2004), referred to as The Hydrogen Economy in the remainder of the present report.
OCR for page 18
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report INTERRELATIONSHIP OF VEHICLE AND FUEL TECHNOLOGIES Historical examples illustrate the importance of linking vehicles and fuels, not only for setting technical targets but also for addressing infrastructure barriers to widespread use. As noted in the preceding sections, the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership addresses R&D for both vehicles and fuels. The critical interrelationship between vehicles and fuels has been recognized for many years. This recognition led, for example, to the formation of the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) by the automobile companies and the major oil companies in 1942. CRC worked on technical issues at the vehicle/fuel interface and, during the two decades that followed, enabled the introduction of high-octane gasoline and higher compression engines with increased specific power and efficiency. NRC reviews of the PNGV program during the 1990s also called for cooperation between the PNGV program and the fuel industry. Examples of important advances brought about by technological change at this vehicle/fuel interface include the introduction of unleaded gasoline in 1971 and reformulated gasoline (RFG) in the early 1990s. Unleaded gasoline provided an immediate reduction in vehicle exhaust emissions and, more important, enabled the introduction of first-generation catalytic converters. Since these were essential to comply with the 1970 Clean Air Act, the phase-in of unleaded fuel was mandated by EPA. The Auto-Oil program, launched as a collaborative effort between the automotive and oil industries in the mid-1980s, led to RFG, adopted by EPA and mandated in the 1990s. Similarly, reduced sulfur in diesel fuel has been shown to reduce exhaust emissions significantly and also is essential for facilitating the introduction of advanced exhaust aftertreatment devices. Consequently, EPA has mandated the phase-in of low-sulfur diesel fuel commencing in 2006. Because infrastructure and availability are just as important as the technical specifications of the fuel and its compatibility with the power plant, EPA mandates the availability of unleaded gasoline and low-sulfur diesel fuel. Efforts to introduce on a wide scale alternative fuels such as methanol, ethanol, and compressed natural gas have all foundered, in part owing to unavailability. Apart from the incentive created by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 for fleets to use alternative fuels, there is no compelling reason for consumers to demand them. Indeed, there are disincentives, such as economics and/or inconvenience, that discourage their use. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that unless a fuel is widely available, easy to refuel, and competitively priced it will not enjoy widespread use as a replacement for gasoline. Fuels composed mainly of alcohol, such as 85 percent methanol (M85) and 85 percent ethanol (E85), work well in vehicles designed to accept them, and there are now well over 4 million vehicles in the United States equipped to operate on M85 or E85. However, despite their ease of use, there are fewer than 200 predominately alcohol filling stations nationwide, compared with about 168,000 retail gasoline stations (National Petroleum News, 2004). Since alcohol
OCR for page 19
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report fuels cost more than gasoline (on an equivalent-energy basis) and limit vehicle range, there is no incentive for customers to use them and hence no business case for producing the fuel or building refueling stations. Compressed natural gas (CNG) also performs well in CNG-compatible vehicles, especially dedicated CNG vehicles (more so than dual-fuel vehicles), but it also has enjoyed only limited success. CNG is mainly used in niche markets such as city buses, airport vans, some taxis, and other fleets. Again, limited availability and reduced vehicle range, combined with inconvenient refueling and lack of a secondary vehicle market, resulted in the absence of a positive business case for operators or energy producers. To overcome the challenges, whether they be technical, economic, or public policy, of vehicle/fuel compatibility and fuel availability, any attempt to introduce a radically different vehicle fuel, such as hydrogen in any form, must involve a dedicated effort by all interested parties, including vehicle manufacturers, the energy industry, and the government. While there is no guarantee that such collaboration will ultimately be successful, its absence will guarantee failure. One of the major strengths of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership is that its membership includes three of the essential stakeholders to identify, define, and oversee the needed research, as described in the previous sections in this chapter. ADVANCED INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES AND FUELS Even in the most optimistic scenario postulated in the National Academies report The Hydrogen Economy, only 10 percent of new vehicles and 6 percent of the total miles traveled in 2024 are projected to be hydrogen-fueled fuel cell vehicles (NRC/NAE, 2004). The remaining 90 percent of new vehicles are projected to be conventionally powered vehicles, either hybrid or nonhybrid. Consequently, by far the greatest contribution to reduced energy use and emissions by and from the U.S. vehicle fleet over the next 20 years and beyond will come from continued improvement in ICEs, hybrid electric vehicles, and their fuels. Despite increasingly stringent emissions requirements and the seemingly insatiable demand by vehicle customers for increased performance, the fuel efficiency of domestic cars and light trucks (pickups, SUVs, vans) has been increasing steadily at 1.5 percent per year for at least 20 years. Figure 1-2 shows fuel efficiency as ton-miles per gallon (mpg) for cars and trucks, respectively. This steady increase in fuel efficiency has been masked by increasing vehicle content, hence weight, acceleration performance, and a shift in the fleet mix from cars to light trucks. Consequently, overall U.S. fleet fuel economy (as indicated by the Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] measure) has remained relatively stable, or even declined, in recent years (Figure 1-3). To reduce transportation fuel use, current industry-wide efforts to improve ICE efficiency and further develop relevant fuels must continue or accelerate. This is true regardless of the degree to which hybrid electric vehicle power trains
OCR for page 20
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report FIGURE 1-2 Fuel efficiency for U.S. fleet by model year for cars and trucks, expressed as ton-mpg. The metric ton-mpg provides an indication of a vehicle’s ability to move weight. It is a measure of power train/driveline efficiency. SOURCE: EPA, 2004. proliferate or regardless of whether advanced diesel engines achieve customer acceptance and meet emission standards. The urgency of this task is amplified by the reality that with approximately 16 million new vehicles sold in the United States every year, it takes almost 15 years to turn over the national fleet of roughly 225 million vehicles. While much of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership activity is devoted to fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fuel, further improvement in conventional ICEs and hybrid electric vehicles can contribute significantly to the goals of energy independence and reduced carbon emissions and should benefit from continued collaboration between industry engineers and the national laboratories in this area. The four-stroke, direct-injection engine technical team accomplished a great deal in the PNGV program, especially in the diesel (compression ignition direct injection [CIDI] engines) and four-stroke gasoline direct injection (4SDI) areas, and it has continued many of the most promising concepts under the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership umbrella. In particular, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate emissions objectives in PNGV were far more stringent than those anywhere
OCR for page 21
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report FIGURE 1-3 Fuel economy of the U.S. automotive and light truck fleet for model years 1978 to 2002. The fuel economy curves are in miles per gallon (mpg) and the light truck share is in percent. SOURCE: NHTSA, 2003. else in the world, in anticipation of the upcoming EPA Tier 2 requirements. The PNGV partners drew on all of their global resources to develop candidate exhaust aftertreatment systems to address these goals, and the results of this development, which were shared with the entire OEM and supplier industry, are beginning to appear on production vehicles in Europe, Japan, and the United States, as increasingly stringent regulations require, and improved, low-sulfur fuels permit. Given the limits of aftertreatment, renewed emphasis is also being applied to reducing engine-out emissions, again building on work commenced within PNGV; in particular, the so-called homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) and low-temperature combustion (LTC) concepts are of great interest. The status of FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership efforts on ICE and emissions control development is discussed further in Chapter 3. ADVANCED FUEL CELL VEHICLES AND FUELS The basic concept of the fuel cell was invented in 1839, and attempts to apply it as a vehicle prime mover date back to the 1960s. However, serious development of the PEM fuel cell began worldwide only in the 1990s, with the growing awareness that a hydrogen-fueled fuel cell is one of the very few candidates capable of achieving the holy grail of zero vehicle emissions, high efficiency, reduced dependence on petroleum, and—potentially—zero (systemwide) carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
OCR for page 22
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report Successive generations of fuel cell vehicles have demonstrated increasingly compact systems and improved functionality. Various methods of providing on-board hydrogen, from the on-board reformation of hydrocarbon fuels (e.g., gasoline or methanol) to the storage of compressed or liquefied hydrogen gas, have been demonstrated, with most current demonstrations using compressed storage. The remaining vehicle issues are primarily on-board storage of sufficient hydrogen, system functionality, durability and reliability, and total system cost. Technical team activity in these areas is covered in detail in Chapter 3. While a major obstacle to the deployment of fuel cell vehicles is clearly the absence of a hydrogen fuel production and distribution infrastructure, work to address this has only recently begun. The primary issues here are how to produce hydrogen economically without exacerbating carbon dioxide emissions and how to deliver it safely and cost-effectively to the point of vehicle refueling. The enablers of hydrogen production and distribution were fully enunciated in The Hydrogen Economy (NRC/NAE, 2004). Chapter 4 describes progress in this area. The issue of safety pervades virtually every aspect of the pursuit of a hydrogen economy. The propensity of hydrogen to find even the most infinitesimal leak path, its low ignition energy, its flammability over a very wide range of concentrations, and the invisibility of its flame are well known. Less well understood are its behavior in the event of vehicle impact and the adequacy of emerging codes and standards. This important subject is discussed in Chapter 2. COMMITTEE APPROACH AND ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT The Hydrogen Economy discusses many of the R&D activities associated with the hydrogen technology parts of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, such as hydrogen production, distribution, dispensing, and storage, as well as the transition strategy for making hydrogen more widely available (NRC/NAE, 2004). It provides an excellent review of the challenges and potential benefits of using hydrogen as a transportation fuel and offers recommendations for the DOE R&D program, and the current committee has used its results and referred to its recommendations. The current report presents the committee’s evaluation of the DOE-sponsored research efforts to achieve the hydrogen economy through the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership and offers comments and suggestions on the technical directions, strategies, and funding and management of this very important program. Because The Hydrogen Economy had just been published as the current committee was being constituted, with regard to the hydrogen technology parts of the Partnership, the committee reviewed just the plans of the three new fuel-related technical teams. The statement of task for this committee is as follows: The National Academies’ National Research Council (NRC), through its Board on Energy & Environmental Systems and Transportation Research Board (TRB) established a committee to conduct an independent, credible and unbiased review of the research pro-
OCR for page 23
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report gram of the FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) & Fuel Partnership, a program undertaken by the U.S. government in collaboration with the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR) and five major energy companies. (See Appendix C for biographical information about the committee members.) The primary tasks of the committee were as follows, and are addressed in the committee’s report: (1) Review the challenging high-level technical goals and timetables for government and industry R&D efforts, which address such areas as electric propulsion systems, internal combustion engine (ICE) powertrain systems, electric drivetrain energy storage, material and manufacturing technologies, ICE powertrain systems operating on hydrogen (H), fuel cell power systems, fuel cell systems (with fuel reformer), H refueling systems, and H storage systems, as well as any safety issues that may arise from the use of new technologies. (2) Review and evaluate progress and program directions since the inception of the Partnership towards meeting the Partnership’s 2010 technical goals, and examine on-going research activities and their relevance to meeting the goals of the Partnership. (3) Examine and comment on the overall balance and adequacy of the FreedomCAR & Fuel research effort, and the rate of progress, in light of the technical objectives and schedules for each of the major technology areas. (4) Examine and comment, as necessary, on the appropriate role for federal involvement in the various technical areas under development. (5) Examine and comment on the Partnership’s strategy for accomplishing its goals, which might include such issues as (a) program management and organization; (b) the process for setting milestones, research directions, and making Go/No Go decisions; (c) collaborative activities needed to meet the FreedomCAR & Fuel’s goals (e.g., among the Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, the Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, and Infrastructure Technologies, the U.S. Department of Transportation, USCAR, universities, the private sector, and others); and (d) other topics that the committee finds important to comment on related to the success of the program to meet its technical goals. (6) Write a report documenting its conclusions and recommendations. The committee met three times to hear presentations from DOE and industry people involved in the management of the program and to discuss insights gained from both the presentations and written material gathered by the committee (see Appendix D for a list of committee meetings). The committee established subgroups to investigate specific technical areas and formulate questions for the program leaders to answer. The subgroups also held discussion sessions with the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership technical team leaders to clarify answers to questions and understand the team dynamics. The Executive Summary presents the committee’s main conclusions and recommendations. This chapter (Chapter 1) provides background on the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, its organization, and the dual nature—vehicle development and fuel development—of the program. Chapter 2 examines the important crosscutting issues that the program is facing. Chapter 3 looks more closely at R&D for vehicle technology, and Chapter 4 examines R&D for hydrogen production, distribution, and dispensing. Finally, Chapter 5 presents an overall assessment.
OCR for page 24
Review of the Research Program of the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership: First Report REFERENCES DOE. 2004a. Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure: Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan. DOE/GO-102003-1741. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available on the Web at <http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/>. DOE. 2004b. FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Multi-Year Program Plan). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available on the Web at <http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/fcvt_mypp.shtml>. DOE. 2004c. Partnership Plan. FreedomCAR & Fuel Partnership. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available on the Web at <http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/program/fc_fuel_partnership_plan.pdf>. DOE. 2004d. Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy: Report of the Basic Energy Sciences Workshop on Hydrogen Production, Storage, and Use, May 13-15, 2003. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science. Available on the Web at <http://www.er.doe.gov/production/bes/hydrogen.pdf>. DOE. 2004e. Hydrogen Posture Plan: An Integrated Research, Development and Demonstration Plan. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. Available on the Web at <http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/hydrogen_posture_plan.pdf>. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. Light Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends, 1975-2004. EPA420-R-04-001 (Appendix M). Washington, D.C. Available on the Web at <http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r04001.pdf>. Garman, D. 2005. The FY2006 Budget Request. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available on the Web at <http://www.eere.energy.gov/office_eere/pdfs/fy06_budget_request.pdf>. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2003. Automotive Fuel Economy Program, Annual Update Calendar Year 2002. DOT HS 809 512. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Available on the Web at <http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/FuelEconUpdates/2002/index.htm>. National Petroleum News. 2004. Market Facts 2004. Available on the Web at <www.npn-net.com>. NRC (National Research Council). 2001. Review of the Research Program of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, Seventh Report. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NRC/NAE (National Research Council/National Academy of Engineering). 2004. The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. PNGV (Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles). 1995. Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles Program Plan (draft). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, PNGV Secretariat. The White House. 1993. “Historic partnership forged with automakers aims for threefold increase in fuel efficiency in as soon as ten years.” Washington, D.C.: The White House.
Representative terms from entire chapter: