U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

22–549PS 2006

FUELING THE FUTURE: ON THE ROAD

TO THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 20, 2005

Serial No. 109–23

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

VACANCY

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

JIM COSTA, California

AL GREEN, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chair

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

JO BONNER, Alabama

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

VACANCY

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

JIM MATHESON, Utah

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

AL GREEN, Texas

BART GORDON, Tennessee

KEVIN CARROLL Subcommittee Staff Director

ELI HOPSON Republican Professional Staff Member

DAHLIA SOKOLOV Republican Professional Staff Member

CHARLES COOKE Democratic Professional Staff Member

COLIN HUBBELL Staff Assistant

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

VACANCY

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

VACANCY

VACANCY

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

DAN BYERS Subcommittee Staff Director

JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member

MELE ́ WILLIAMS Professional Staff Member/Chairman’s Designee

ELIZABETH GROSSMAN, KARA HAAS Professional Staff Members

RACHEL JAGODA BRUNETTE Staff Assistant

(V)

C O N T E N T S

July 20, 2005

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Judy Biggert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................... 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................ 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative Michael M. Honda, Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 11

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 12

Prepared Statement by Representative Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 12

Prepared Statement by Representative Russ Carnahan, Member, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ....................................................................................................................... 13

Witnesses:

Mr. Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of Energy

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15

Biography .......................................................................................................... 21

Dr. David L. Bodde, Director, Innovation and Public Policy, International

Center for Automotive Research, Clemson University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 22

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 24

Biography .......................................................................................................... 32

Mr. Mark Chernoby, Vice President, Advanced Vehicle Engineering,

DaimlerChrysler Corporation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 33

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 36

Biography .......................................................................................................... 44

Dr. George W. Crabtree, Director, Materials Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 44

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 45

Biography .......................................................................................................... 48

Dr. John B. Heywood, Director, Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 48

Page

VI

Dr. John B. Heywood, Director, Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology—Continued

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 50

Biography .......................................................................................................... 62

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 62

Appendix 1: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Mr. Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of Energy ........................................................ 92

Dr. David L. Bodde, Director, Innovation and Public Policy, International

Center for Automotive Research, Clemson University ..................................... 96

Mr. Mark Chernoby, Vice President, Advanced Vehicle Engineering,

DaimlerChrysler Corporation .............................................................................. 98

Dr. George W. Crabtree, Director, Materials Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory .................................................................................................. 99

Dr. John B. Heywood, Director, Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts

Institute of Technology ........................................................................................ 101

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation ...................... 103

Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record

Statement by Michelin North America .................................................................. 110

Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy, Report of the Basic Energy

Sciences Workshop on Hydrogen Production, Storage, and Use, May 13–

15, 2003 ................................................................................................................. 113

Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply, April 2005, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Department of Agriculture ...................................... 291

(1)

FUELING THE FUTURE: ON THE ROAD TO

THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2005

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, JOINT WITH

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Judy Biggert

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Energy] and Hon. Bob Inglis

[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Research] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY, JOINTLY WITH

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Fueling the Future: On the Road

to the Hydrogen Economy

WEDNESDAY, JULY 20, 2005

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M. 2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Wednesday, July 20, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., the Energy and Research Subcommittees of the House Science Committee will hold a joint hearing to examine the

progress that has been made in hydrogen research since the launch of the President’s Hydrogen Initiative and the next steps the Federal Government should take

to best advance a hydrogen economy.

2. Witnesses

Mr. Douglas Faulkner is the Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy (DOE).

Dr. David Bodde is the Director of Innovation and Public Policy at Clemson University’s International Center for Automotive Research (ICAR).

Mr. Mark Chernoby is Vice President for Advanced Vehicle Engineering at the

DaimlerChrysler Corporation.

Dr. George Crabtree is the Director of the Materials Science Division at Argonne

National Laboratory.

Dr. John Heywood is the Director of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

3. Overarching Questions

The hearing will focus on the following overarching questions:

1. What progress has been made toward addressing the principal technical barriers to a successful transition to the use of hydrogen as a primary transportation fuel since the Administration announced its hydrogen initiatives,

FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative? What are the remaining potential technical ‘‘showstoppers?’’

2. What are the research areas where breakthroughs are needed to advance a

hydrogen economy? How has DOE responded to the report by the National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) calling for an increased emphasis on basic research? How is DOE incorporating the results of the Basic Energy Sciences

workshop on basic research needs for a hydrogen economy into the research

agenda for the hydrogen initiative?

3. The NAS report suggested that the research agenda should be developed

with future policy decisions in mind. How has DOE increased its policy analysis capabilities as recommended by the NAS? How will the results of that

analysis be applied to the research agenda?

4. Overview

• In his 2003 State of the Union speech, President Bush announced the creation of a new Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which built on the FreedomCAR initiative announced in 2002. Together, the initiatives aim to provide the technology for a hydrogen-based transportation economy, including production of

hydrogen, transportation and distribution of hydrogen, and the vehicles that

will use the hydrogen. Fuel cell cars running on hydrogen would emit only

4

water vapor and, if domestic energy sources were used, would not be dependent on foreign fuels.

• Industry is participating in the hydrogen initiatives, and has invested heavily

in hydrogen technology, particularly the automobile manufacturers and oil

companies. The FreedomCAR program is a partnership between Ford, GM,

DaimlerChrysler, and the Federal Government, and the President’s Hydrogen

Fuel Initiative expanded that partnership to include major oil companies such

as Shell and BP, and merchant producers of hydrogen like Air Products and

Chemicals, Inc. Although exact amounts of industry investment are proprietary, GM alone is estimated to have spent over $1.5 billion, and other automakers have invested similar amounts.

• The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended changes to the hydrogen initiatives in its 2004 report, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities,

Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs. The report particularly stressed the need for

a greater emphasis on basic, exploratory research because of the significant

technical barriers that must be overcome. DOE has responded by expanding

the hydrogen program into the Office of Science, and has requested $33 million for fiscal year 2006 (FY06) to fund basic research efforts in DOE’s Office

of Science.

• In addition, the NAS report noted that DOE needs to think about policy questions as it develops its research and development (R&D) agenda: ‘‘Significant

industry investments in advance of market forces will not be made unless

government creates a business environment that reflects societal priorities

with respect to greenhouse gas emissions and oil imports.. . .The DOE should

estimate what levels of investment over time are required—and in which program and project areas—in order to achieve a significant reduction in carbon

dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles by mid-century.’’ DOE has expanded its hydrogen policy and analysis efforts to be able to answer questions

like those posed by the NAS, but the analytical work is still in progress, and

available results are still preliminary.

• Even with the most optimistic of assumptions, it will take some time for hydrogen vehicles to compose a significant part of the automobile fleet. The NAS

estimates that sales of hydrogen vehicles will not be significant enough for

the full benefits of a hydrogen economy to be realized at least until 2025.

• During the transition to a hydrogen economy, many of the technologies being

developed for hydrogen vehicles, such as hybrid systems technology and advanced lightweight materials could be deployed in conventional automobiles

to provide reduced oil dependence and emissions. Without the proper incentives, vehicle improvements are likely to continue to be used to increase performance, rather than improving fuel economy, as they have been for the past

twenty years. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if today’s

vehicles had the same weight and acceleration as cars did in 1987, they would

get 20 percent better gas mileage due to technology improvements.

5. Background

What are the technical challenges?

Major advances are needed across a wide range of technologies for hydrogen to

be affordable, safe, cleanly produced, and readily distributed. The production, storage and use of hydrogen all present significant technical challenges. While the research effort at DOE has produced promising results, the program is still a long way

from meeting its goals in any of these areas.

Hydrogen does not exist in a usable form in nature, and has to be produced from

something else, such as coal or natural gas. But one goal of using hydrogen is to

reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. If hydrogen is to be produced without emissions

of carbon dioxide, then the technology to capture and store carbon dioxide while

making hydrogen must improve significantly. The other main goal of using hydrogen

is to reduce the use of imported energy. Today most hydrogen is produced from natural gas, but in order to supply the entire transportation sector significant imports

of natural gas would be required. Other possible means of producing hydrogen, including nuclear energy and renewable energy sources, are inherently cleaner than

coal, but are far from affordable with existing technology.

Another major hurdle is finding ways to store hydrogen, particularly on board a

vehicle. Hydrogen is a small molecule with properties that make it difficult to store

in small volumes and in lightweight materials. The American Physical Society argued in its 2004 report on hydrogen, The Hydrogen Initiative, that a new material

would have to be discovered in order to meet the FreedomCAR goals.

5

The NAS estimated that fuel cells themselves would need a ten- to twenty-fold

improvement before fuel cell vehicles become competitive with conventional technology. Large improvements have been made since the report has been released, but

additional improvements are still needed. DOE estimates that roughly a five-fold decrease in cost will be required, while at the same time increasing performance and

durability. Current fuel cells wear out quickly, and lifetimes are far short of those

required to compete with a gasoline engine. Small-scale distributed hydrogen production also needs improvement, and the NAS report recommended increased focus

in that area because it may be among the first hydrogen-related technologies to be

deployed.

What are the non-technical challenges, in the policy and regulatory areas?

Since many of the benefits of a hydrogen economy, such as reduced greenhouse

gas emissions, are not currently accounted for in the marketplace, it will be difficult

for hydrogen vehicles to compete with conventional technology. Even if all the technical challenges are met, and industry has the capability to produce hydrogen vehicles that are competitive with conventional vehicles, a successful hydrogen economy

is not guaranteed. First, the transition to a hydrogen economy will require an enormous investment to create a new infrastructure. Changes in regulation, training

and public habits and attitudes will also be necessary. Estimates of the cost of creating a fueling infrastructure (replacing or altering gas stations and distribution

systems) alone are in the hundreds of billions of dollars. DOE is initiating an effort

to better understand the economics and influences of policy incentives on a possible

transition to hydrogen.

How are the Hydrogen Initiatives funded?

The FreedomCAR and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative are expected to cost $1.7 billion over five years from FY03 to FY08. The President called for $358 million across

DOE for these programs in the FY06 request, an increase of $48 million, 16 percent

over levels appropriated for the initiatives in FY05. However, this increase comes

at a time when R&D programs in the other energy efficiency and renewable energy

programs are seeing decreasing requests overall, by $74 million, 10 percent to $692

million. Unless additional funding is provided to renewable energy and energy efficiency programs at DOE in general, the projected further increases in the

FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative will likely result in more cuts to other

efficiency and renewable programs.

Technology Background

What is a Fuel Cell?

Central to the operation of the hydrogen-based economy is a device known as a

fuel cell that would convert hydrogen fuels to electricity. In cars, these devices

would be connected to electric motors that would provide the power now supplied

by gasoline engines. A fuel cell produces electricity by means of an electrochemical

reaction much like a battery. There is an important difference, however. Rather

than using up the chemicals inside the cells, a fuel cell uses hydrogen fuel, and oxyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Jan 27, 2006 Jkt 022549 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER05\072005\22549.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
6

gen extracted from the air, to produce electricity. As long as hydrogen fuel and oxygen are fed into the fuel cell, it will continue to generate electric power.

Different types of fuel cells work with different electrochemical reactions. Currently most automakers are considering Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel

cells for their vehicles.

Benefits of a Hydrogen-based Economy

A hydrogen-based economy could have two important benefits. First, hydrogen can

be manufactured from a variety of sources, including natural gas, biofuels, petroleum, coal, and even by passing electricity through water (electrolysis). Depending

on the choice of source, hydrogen could substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil and natural gas.

Second, the consumption of hydrogen through fuel cells yields water as its only

emission. Other considerations, such as the by-products of the hydrogen production

process, will also be important in choosing the source of the hydrogen. For example,

natural gas is the current feedstock for industrial hydrogen, but its production releases carbon dioxide; production from coal releases more carbon dioxide and other

emissions; and production from water means that pollution may be created by the

generation of electricity used in electrolysis. Production from solar electricity would

mean no pollution in the generation process or in consumption, but is currently

more expensive and less efficient than other methods.

6. Witnesses Questions

The witnesses have been asked to address the following questions in their testimony:

Mr. Douglas Faulkner:

• What progress has been made toward addressing the principal technical barriers to a successful transition to the use of hydrogen as a primary transportation fuel since the Administration announced its hydrogen initiatives,

FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative? What are the remaining potential technical ‘‘showstoppers?’’

• What are the research areas where breakthroughs are needed to advance a

hydrogen economy? How has DOE responded to the report by the National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) calling for an increased emphasis on basic research? How is DOE incorporating the results of the Basic Energy Sciences

workshop on basic research needs for a hydrogen economy into the research

agenda for the hydrogen initiative?

• The NAS report suggested that the research agenda should be developed with

future policy decisions in mind. How has DOE increased its policy analysis

capabilities as recommended by the NAS? How will the results of that analysis be applied to the research agenda?

• How is DOE conducting planning for, and analysis of, the policy changes

(such as incentives or regulation) that might be required to accelerate a transition to hydrogen? What other agencies are involved in planning for, or facilitating, such a transition?

Mr. Mark Chrenoby:

• What criteria does DaimlerChrysler consider when making investment decisions regarding its portfolio of advanced vehicle research and development

programs? What factors would induce DaimlerChrysler to invest more in the

development of hydrogen-fueled vehicles? What do you see as a probable

timeline for the commercialization of hydrogen-fueled vehicles? What about

the other advanced vehicle technologies DaimlerChrysler is currently developing, such as hybrid vehicles and advanced diesel engines?

• What do you see as the potential technology showstoppers for a hydrogen

economy? To what extent is Daimler relying on government programs to help

solve those technical challenges?

• How are automakers using, or how do they plan to use, the advanced vehicle

technology developed for hydrogen-fueled vehicles to improve the performance

of conventional vehicles?

Dr. David Bodde:

• What progress has been made toward addressing the principal technical barriers to a successful transition to the use of hydrogen as a primary transporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Jan 27, 2006 Jkt 022549 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER05\072005\22549.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
7

tation fuel since the Administration announced its hydrogen initiatives,

FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative? What are the remaining potential technical ‘‘showstoppers?’’

• What are the research areas where breakthroughs are needed to advance a

hydrogen economy? How has DOE responded to the report by the National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) calling for an increased emphasis on basic research? How is DOE incorporating the results of the Basic Energy Sciences

workshop on basic research needs for a hydrogen economy into the research

agenda for the hydrogen initiative?

• Is the current balance between funding of hydrogen-related research and research on advanced vehicle technologies that might be deployed in the interim

before a possible transition to hydrogen appropriate? What advanced vehicle

choices should the Federal Government be funding between now and when

the transition to a hydrogen economy occurs? How are automakers using, or

how do they plan to use, the advanced vehicle technology developed for hydrogen-fueled vehicles to improve the performance of conventional vehicles? Are

automakers likely to improve fuel economy and introduce advanced vehicles

without government support? How will ICAR encourage automakers to introduce technologies to improve fuel economy?

• What role do entrepreneurs, start-up companies, and venture capital investors have to play in accelerating the commercial introduction of advanced hydrogen-fueled vehicles?

Dr. George Crabtree:

• What progress has been made toward addressing the principal technical barriers to a successful transition to the use of hydrogen as a primary transportation fuel since the Administration announced its hydrogen initiatives,

FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative? What are the remaining potential technical ‘‘showstoppers?’’

• What are the research areas where breakthroughs are needed to advance a

hydrogen economy? How has DOE responded to the report by the National

Academy of Sciences (NAS) calling for an increased emphasis on basic research? How is DOE incorporating the results of the Basic Energy Sciences

workshop on basic research needs for a hydrogen economy into the research

agenda for the hydrogen initiative?

• The NAS report suggested that the research agenda should be developed with

future policy decisions in mind. How has DOE increased its policy analysis

capabilities as recommended by the NAS? How will the results of that analysis be applied to the research agenda?

• How is DOE conducting planning for, and analysis of, the policy changes

(such as incentives or regulation) that might be required to accelerate a transition to hydrogen? What other agencies are involved in planning for, or facilitating, such a transition?

Dr. John Heywood:

• How might the future regulatory environment, including possible incentives

for advances vehicles and regulations of safety and emissions, affect a transition to hydrogen-fueled motor vehicles? How could the Federal Government

most efficiently accelerate such a transition?

• Is the current balance between funding of hydrogen-related research and research on advanced vehicle technologies that might be deployed in the interim

before a possible transition to hydrogen appropriate? What advanced vehicle

choices should the Federal Government be funding between now and when

the transition to a hydrogen economy occurs? How are automakers using, or

how do they plan to use, the advanced vehicle technology developed for hydrogen-fueled vehicles to improve the performance of conventional vehicles? Are

automakers likely to improve fuel economy and introduce advanced vehicles

without government support?

• What role should the Federal Government play in the standardization of local

and international codes and standards that affect hydrogen-fueled vehicles,

such as building, safety, interconnection, and fire codes?

8

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Good morning. I want—the hearing will

come to order.

I want to welcome everyone to this joint hearing of the Energy

and Research Subcommittees of the House Science Committee.

Today, we are going to get a status report on the progress of federal research efforts driving the development of fuel cells and the

hydrogen to power them.

This hearing has become something of an annual tradition for

the Science Committee. We have had a Full—we have had Full

Committee hearings, field hearings, and Energy Subcommittee

hearings on this topic. This year, I am pleased that our colleagues

in the Research Subcommittee are joining us to examine the contributions of individual researchers and university research activities to the hydrogen and FreedomCAR initiatives.

At this time, it is a privilege for me to recognize my colleague

from South Carolina, the Chairman of the Research Subcommittee,

Mr. Inglis, for his opening statement.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

Good morning. And I am excited about convening this hearing.

It is the first on the hydrogen economy this Congress, I believe.

And this topic has the potential for being the next ‘‘giant leap for

mankind.’’ That is certainly our hope.

The way I see it, there are three keys necessary to unlock the

door to a full hydrogen economy. The first is commitment. The second is collaboration. And the third is discovery.

We need a commitment from the United States similar to the one

that President Kennedy made when he challenged Congress in

1961 to land a man on the Moon before the end of the decade. The

President’s hydrogen fuel initiative and FreedomCAR are steps in

the right direction, and I welcome the testimony on the progress

that has been made on these initiatives to date.

Strong public and private collaboration is the second imperative

if we are to see real and hopeful ahead-of-schedule success. And in

my District, Clemson University is building the International Center for Automotive Research, ICAR, funded in significant part by

BMW and Michelin. At ICAR, researchers will do what they do

best, industry will do what it does best, and markets will establish

the winners and losers. You will hear more about this collaborative

effort today from Dr. David Bodde, Director of Innovation and Public Policy at ICAR.

The third key, discovery, is where our greatest challenges lie.

That is why it is critically important that we fund basic research

supporting the production, storage, and distribution of hydrogen.

The development of a hydrogen economy depends on breakthroughs

in these areas. At the same time, we should also be pursuing other

advanced technologies, such as better batteries, photovoltaic cells

that may take us to a new plateau of energy independence.

One of these technologies may turn out to be the ‘‘8-track’’ of the

hydrogen economy. Another may be the ‘‘cassette player,’’ yet another unknown technology may prove to be the ‘‘CD’’ of automobiles, which, in turn, may be followed by the MP3.

Transition to a hydrogen economy holds great promise on many

levels. All along the way, the air will be getting cleaner, the oil

pressure could come off the Middle East, entrepreneurs will be

9

making money and employing people, and we will be winning our

energy independence.

Admittedly, there are technology and cost challenges ahead of us,

but I do not believe them to be insurmountable. In fact, I think we

are definitely up to the challenge.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on all of these

issues, and I thank you, Madame Chairman, for convening your

hearing.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BOB INGLIS

Good morning, and thank you Madam Chairman for bringing us together for our

first hearing on the hydrogen economy this Congress. I am pleased that we have

convened this joint hearing on an issue that I believe has the potential to be the

next ‘‘giant leap for mankind.’’

The way I see it, there are three keys necessary to unlock the door to a full hydrogen economy: (1) commitment, (2) collaboration and (3) discovery.

We need a commitment in the U.S. similar to the one we made when President

Kennedy challenged Congress in 1961 to land a man on the Moon before the end

of the decade. The President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and FreedomCAR are steps

in the right direction, and I welcome the testimony on the progress that has been

made on these initiatives to date.

Strong public and private collaboration is imperative if we are to see real and,

hopefully, ahead-of-schedule success. In my district, Clemson University is building

the International Center for Automotive Research (ICAR), funded in significant part

by BMW and Michelin. At ICAR, researchers will do what they do best; industry

will do what it does best; and the markets will establish winners and losers. You

will hear more about this collaborative effort today from Dr. David Bodde, Director

of Innovation and Public Policy at ICAR.

The third key, discovery, is where our greatest challenges lie. That is why it is

critically important that we fund basic research supporting the production, storage

and distribution of hydrogen. The development of a hydrogen economy depends on

breakthroughs in these areas. At the same time, we should also be pursuing other

advanced technologies such as better batteries and photovoltaic cells that may take

us to a new plateau of energy dependence. One of these technologies may turn out

to be the eight-track of the hydrogen economy. Another may be the cassette player.

Yet another yet-unknown technology may prove to be the CD of automobiles, which,

in turn, may be followed by the MP3.

The transition to a hydrogen economy holds great promise on many levels. All

along the way, the air will be getting cleaner, the oil pressure will be coming off

the Middle East, entrepreneurs will be making money and employing people, and

we will be winning our energy independence. Admittedly, there are technology and

cost challenges ahead of us, but I do not believe them to be insurmountable. In fact,

I think we’re definitely up to the challenge.

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses on all of these issues.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Well, thank you, Chairman Inglis.

At last year’s hearing on this topic, we closely examined two reports, one prepared by the National Academy of Sciences, the other

by the American Physical Society, both of which emphasized the

importance of basic research to the long-term success of the President’s hydrogen and FreedomCAR initiatives.

I am pleased that President Bush took these recommendations to

heart and increased funding in his fiscal year 2006 budget request

for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science to address some

of the fundamental obstacles to greater use of hydrogen and fuel

cells. I am anxious to hear how the results of this basic research

are being incorporated into the fuel cell and hydrogen technologies

under development and how they are shaping the research agenda

going forward.

10

I think that research designed to benefit the Nation significantly

in the long-term could benefit us marginally in the near-term, ultimately giving us the greater return on our investments in hydrogen and fuel cell research. We couldn’t ask for more in this era of

tight budgets. We have a diverse panel of witnesses today representing some exceptional institutions engaged in all kinds of hydrogen and fuel research.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Biggert follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JUDY BIGGERT

This hearing will give this committee another opportunity to get an update on the

work underway at the Department of Energy as part of the President’s Hydrogen

Fuel and FreedomCAR initiatives. I also want to thank the witnesses for being so

generous with their time, and for agreeing to share with us their insight and expertise on the topics of fuel cells and hydrogen.

I have a keen interest in both the fuel cell and hydrogen initiatives that the President announced in 2002 and 2003 respectively. My district is, of course, home to

Argonne National Laboratory, which has a strong fuel cell R&D program. My district also is home to small businesses like H2Fuels and various auto parts suppliers,

corporations like BP, and research organizations like the Gas Technology Institute.

In short, I have the privilege to represent a region that has much to contribute to

the continued development of fuel cells and the hydrogen needed to fuel them.

As I’ve said many times before, I do not believe that affordable energy and a clean

and safe environment are mutually exclusive. America has the ingenuity and the

expertise to meet our future energy demands and promote energy conservation, and

we can do so in environmentally responsible ways that set a standard for the world.

Most importantly, America now has the motivation perhaps like no other time since

the oil crisis of the ‘70’s - to find newer and better ways to meet our energy needs.

There clearly are many compelling reasons to work towards our shared vision of

a hydrogen economy. Today, we will hear testimony not only about the progress

DOE has made already in hydrogen research but also about those research questions—both basic and applied—that remain as questions yet to be solved. While we

want to know about any potential scientific or technical ‘‘showstoppers,’’ we also

want to know whether there are any new problems that have been identified as a

result of on-going research. We will hear testimony about how DOE is incorporating

the results of basic research needs for a hydrogen economy into the research agenda

for the hydrogen initiative. Finally, we will hear how the Department’s hydrogen

research agenda has been modified to account for anticipated future policy decisions,

as suggested by the National Academy of Sciences.

It is clear that the vision of a hydrogen economy is a tremendously challenging

endeavor. But, it is also clear that it will take us many years to reach our goal.

Once they become available, hydrogen vehicles will require a number of years until

they compose a significant part of the automobile fleet. The NAS estimates that

sales of hydrogen vehicles will not be significant enough for the full benefits of a

hydrogen economy to be realized at least until 2025. In light of that, we need to

next ask, ‘‘Are we working to meet our goals in the best way that we can?’’

I would also observe that during the transition to a hydrogen economy, many

technologies developed for hydrogen vehicles—such as hybrid systems technology

and advanced lightweight materials—could be deployed in conventional automobiles

to provide reduced oil dependence and emissions. Congress and the Administration

need to understand whether we can design proper incentives so that those technologies are deployed for improving the fuel economy of conventional automobiles,

rather than continuing an exclusive focus on ever increasing performance, as has

been the norm for the past twenty years. We need to next ask, ‘‘Are we getting all

the benefits we can from our investment in hydrogen research?’’

Our job at this hearing is to look at what we’ve learned in our initial research

efforts, and to gain insight into whether we have an appropriately balanced research

effort. I look forward to hearing more about how the DOE is moving the Nation

ever-closer to realizing the promise and potential of fuel cells and hydrogen.

Thank you.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. But before we hear from them, I want to

recognize the Ranking Member of the Energy Subcommittee, Mr.

Honda from California, for his opening statement.

11

Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Madame Chair, and I do appreciate the

Chair’s work in putting this hearing together.

At a Full Committee hearing held earlier this year, we heard

about two reports, which suggested that resources should be directed away from demonstration projects and towards more basic

R&D because there are significant technical barriers to overcome.

I agree that there are many technical barriers to be overcome,

but I also note that demonstration programs have served to help

us identify some of those technical barriers.

I hope that the witnesses can comment on the role that the—that

investments made in demonstration projects by other agencies can

play in helping the Department of Energy’s work to make hydrogen

feasible. For example, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation

Authority’s Zero-Emission Bus program is funded by a transit sales

tax, the Federal Transit Administration, the California Energy

Commission, and the Bay Air Quality Management District.

It will be useful to know whether DOE is able to work with programs like this to gain knowledge about the infrastructure needs

and identify potential technical obstacles that we will need to overcome.

Finally, we must remember that hydrogen is not an energy

source, it is an energy carrier. We cannot afford to look at only the

hydrogen piece of the puzzle. We must figure out where we are

going to get that hydrogen.

I hope that the witnesses will discuss whether we are doing the

necessary work to develop the electricity-generating infrastructure

that will clearly be necessary to provide the fuel for hydrogen vehicles.

I look forward to this hearing and hope that the witnesses can

address some of these concerns. And I yield back the balance of my

time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Honda follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAEL M. HONDA

Chairman Inglis, Chairwoman Biggert, Ranking Member Hooley, thank you all for

holding this hearing today to receive updates on the progress that is being made

in addressing technical barriers to the use of hydrogen in vehicles.

At a Full Committee hearing held earlier this year, we heard testimony about two

reports which suggested that resources should be directed away from demonstration

projects and towards more basic R&D because there are significant technical barriers to overcome.

I agree with the conclusion that there are many technical barriers to be overcome,

and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses their thoughts on the breakthroughs they believe will need to be made in order to overcome these barriers.

But I also note that prior demonstration programs have served to help to identify

some of the very technical barriers that an increased emphasis on research would

aim to overcome. I fear that we might miss more obstacles until after we have made

significant investments of time and resources if we stop working on demonstration

projects.

I hope that the witnesses can comment on the role that investments made in demonstration projects by other agencies can play in helping the Department of Energy’s work to make hydrogen feasible. For example, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority’s Zero Emission Bus program is funded by a transit sales tax, the

Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the California Energy Commission (CEC),

and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

It will be useful to know whether DOE is able to work with programs like this

to gain knowledge about infrastructure needs and identify potential technical obstacles that we will need to overcome.

12

Finally, we must remember that hydrogen is not an energy source, it is an energy

carrier. We cannot just look at the hydrogen piece of the equation, assuming that

an infinite supply of fuel will be available for vehicles if only we can make those

vehicles.

Where is the energy going to come from to produce hydrogen? Converting natural

gas is one option, but supplies of that fuel are already limited.

Barring that, a switch to hydrogen vehicles looks like it will also require a commensurate increase electricity generating capacity to supply the fuel. I hope the witnesses will discuss whether we are undertaking the necessary efforts to address this

critical piece of the puzzle.

I look forward to this hearing, and hope the witnesses can address some of these

concerns. I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you, Mr. Honda.

Any additional opening statement submitted by the Members

may be added to the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE JERRY F. COSTELLO

Good morning. I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before our committee

to examine the progress that has been made in hydrogen research since the launch

of the President’s Hydrogen Initiative. A greater reliance on hydrogen requires

modification of our existing energy infrastructure to ensure greater availability of

this new fuel source. Making the transition to a hydrogen economy will require an

enormous investment to create a new infrastructure. It is my understanding that

the Department of Energy is initiating an effort to better understand the economics

and influences of policy incentives on a possible transition to hydrogen. Since the

President’s Initiative has left many questions unanswered, I am hopeful our witnesses here today will provide more insight into the funding and technology challenges facing the Hydrogen Initiative.

I agree that a hydrogen-based economy could have important benefits that could

help relieve our dependence on foreign oil. First, hydrogen can be manufactured

from a variety of sources, such as coal. I strongly support the President’s Integrated

Sequestration and Hydrogen Research Initiative, entitled FutureGen, which is a

coal-fired electric and hydrogen production plant. The prototype plant will serve as

a large-scale engineering laboratory for testing and will expand the options for producing hydrogen from coal.

As the Administration begins to consider locations for the new plant, I would hope

they would consider Southern Illinois. I have led the effort to locate FutureGen in

Illinois, including leading a bipartisan effort in the House to secure funding for the

project. The region is rich in high-sulfur coal reserves and the Coal Center at Southern Illinois University Carbondale (SIU–C) has been doing extensive work with hydrogen and coal. The geology of the region is well suited to the carbon-trapping technology to be developed and Illinois is home to oil and gas reserves and deep saline

aquifers that can permanently sequester carbon dioxide.

I have been tracking this issue closely since its inception and I am anxious to see

the Department’s program plan. This Administration has touted FutureGen as one

of the most important climate change technologies at our disposal and heightened

its international visibility to extraordinary levels and I am committed to working

with my colleagues and the Administration to move forward on a path that is technically, financially, and politically viable.

I again thank the witnesses for being with us today and providing testimony to

our committee.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

Let me thank Chairwoman Biggert and Ranking Member Honda of the Energy

Subcommittee as well as Chairman Inglis and Ranking Member Holley of the Research Subcommittee for holding this joint hearing on the future of hydrogen energy. Clearly, hydrogen technologies hold great potential; however we do not know

how long it will be before hydrogen can represent a significant portion of our fuel

consumption. I hope this hearing will shed some light on the path that we must

take to make the potential of hydrogen into a reality.

In his 2003 State of the Union speech, President Bush announced the creation of

a new Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which built on the FreedomCAR initiative anVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Jan 27, 2006 Jkt 022549 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER05\072005\22549.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
13

nounced in 2002. Together, the initiatives aim to provide the technology for a hydrogen-based transportation economy, including production of hydrogen, transportation

and distribution of hydrogen, and the vehicles that will use the hydrogen. Fuel cell

cars running on hydrogen would emit only water vapor and provide environmental

benefits in addition to being an alternative source of energy.

However, as I stated we must make this potential in to a reality and we are not

yet at that point. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended changes

to the hydrogen initiatives in its 2004 report, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs. The report particularly stressed the need for

a greater emphasis on basic, exploratory research because of the significant technical barriers that must be overcome. The Department of Energy (DOE) has responded by expanding the hydrogen program into the Office of Science, and has requested $33 million for fiscal year 2006 (FY06) to fund basic research efforts in

DOE’s Office of Science.

The fact is that even with the most optimistic of assumptions, it will take some

time for hydrogen vehicles to compose a significant part of the automobile fleet. The

NAS estimates that sales of hydrogen vehicles will not be significant enough for the

full benefits of a hydrogen economy to be realized at least until 2025. But, this

should not be a deterrent to developing hydrogen technology, instead it should serve

as incentive for the scientific community to move towards this technology that holds

so much promise.

While in this transition to a hydrogen economy, many of the technologies being

developed for hydrogen vehicles, such as hybrid systems technology and advanced

lightweight materials could be deployed in conventional automobiles to provide reduced oil dependence and emissions. Without the proper incentives, vehicle improvements are likely to continue to be used to increase performance, rather than improving fuel economy, as they have been for the past twenty years. In fact the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if today’s vehicles had the same weight

and acceleration as cars did in 1987, they would get 20 percent better gas mileage

due to technology improvements. I sincerely hope that we use our resources to improve gas mileage and make hydrogen technology a reality for the American public.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carnahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RUSS CARNAHAN

I am pleased that we are holding this very important hearing this morning.

The U.S. Federal Government often serves the role of jump-starting research in

fields that cannot be immediately lucrative, yet provide American citizens the promise of improved health, efficiency, or lifestyle. We again find ourselves in this role,

and we must do our best to advance a hydrogen economy in this country.

I am particularly interested in the FreedomCAR program that partners with

DaimlerChrysler. As we recognize the potential of FreedomCAR and the hydrogen

initiative, I am excited about the promise that developments in this field may provide for many of my constituents who are employees of Chrysler.

Furthermore, I would like to recognize the good research being conducted at the

University of Missouri on the Plug-In Hybrid Power System Partnership for Innovation, a research project that will examine how regenerative fuel cell systems, which

produce high hydrogen and oxygen pressures, will be designed, fabricated and then

demonstrated in the laboratory.

Thank you for your willingness to join us, Mr. Faulkner, Dr. Bodde, Mr.

Chernoby, Dr. Crabtree and Dr. Heywood. I am eager to hear your testimony.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. And at this time, I would like to introduce

all of the witnesses and thank you for coming before us this morning.

First off, we have Mr. Douglas Faulkner. He is the Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the

Department of Energy. There is a lot of energy in there. Dr. David

Bodde, Director of Innovation and Public Policy at Clemson University’s International Center for Automotive Research. And thank

you. Mr. Mark Chernoby, Vice President for Advance Vehicle Engineering at the DaimlerChrysler Corporation. Thank you. And Dr.

George Crabtree, Director of the Materials Science Division at Argonne National Laboratory, a familiar place. And Dr. John HeyVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Jan 27, 2006 Jkt 022549 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ENER05\072005\22549.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
14

wood, Director of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Welcome.

As the witnesses probably know, spoken testimony will be limited to five minutes each, after which the Members will have five

minutes each to ask questions. This is Wednesday and one of, probably, our busiest days, so we are going to be pretty strict on the

time, if you can keep it to five minutes.

We will begin with Mr. Faulkner. And the fact that there are two

Committees here, we expect a lot of questions.

So we will begin with Mr. Faulkner.

STATEMENT OF MR. DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE

ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Mr. FAULKNER. Thank you.

Madame Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittees, I appreciate the opportunity today to testify on the Department’s hydrogen program.

Since President Bush launched the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative over

two years ago, we have made tremendous progress. We have implemented valuable feedback from the National Academy of Sciences

and the Department’s Basic Energy Sciences Workshop and are already seeing results. In fact, as we speak, the Academy is completing its biannual review of the program and will publish its findings in coming weeks.

The Academy called for us to improve integration and balance of

activities within the relevant offices of the Department of Energy’s

Renewables, Nuclear, Fossil, Science, prioritizing the efforts within

and across program areas, establishing milestones, and go/no-go directions. We have done this. In the Hydrogen Posture Plan, we

have identified strategies and milestones to enable a 2015 industry

commercialization decision on the viability of hydrogen and fuel

cell technologies. Each office has, in turn, developed a detailed research plan, which outlines how the high-level milestones will be

supported. We are now implementing these research plans, and we

are making tangible progress.

The Department competitively selected over $510 million in total

federal funding for projects to address critical challenges. Of these

projects, the Office of Science announced 70 new competitively selected projects, $64 million over three years. Topics include new

materials for hydrogen storage and development of catalysts at the

nanoscale, all recommended by the Basic Energy Sciences Workshop. Sixty-five projects were initiated on hydrogen production and

delivery, funded at $170 million over four years. And the results

here are already promising.

We believe we can meet our goal of $2 to $3 gallon of gasoline

equivalent, which is independent of the production pathway. The

basic research component of the program is especially valuable to

long-term concepts, such as photoelectrochemical hydrogen production. I would also like to underscore that our ultimate hydrogen

production strategy is carbon-neutral and emphasizes resource diversity.

We launched a Grand Challenge focusing on materials discovery

and development of hydrogen storage, one of the critical techVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Jan 27, 2006 Jkt 022549 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ENER05\072005\22549.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
15

nologies for the hydrogen economy. We established a National Hydrogen Storage project at over $150 million over five years, including three Centers of Excellence with multi-disciplinary teams of

university, industry, and federal laboratories.

Closely coordinated with the new Office of Science Research, our

activities address the Academy’s recommendation to shift toward

more exploratory work as well as to partner with a broader range

of academic and industrial organizations. We are already seeing results from this work, too.

Recent progress in materials discovery allows hydrogen to be

stored at low temperature—low pressures and modest temperatures. We need both fundamental understanding and engineering

solutions to address key issues, like charging and discharging hydrogen at practical temperatures and pressures.

To address fuel cell cost and durability, a new $75 million solicitation will soon be released, complementing the current $17.5 million solicitation on new membrane materials as well as existing efforts. Results are already being achieved.

As highlighted by Secretary Bodman in earlier Congressional testimony, this high-volume cost of automotive fuel cells was reduced

from $275 per kilowatt to $200 per kilowatt. And the Office of

Science has initiated new basic research projects on nanoscale catalysts and membrane materials for fuel cell design and applications.

Through better techniques for fabricating electrodes and new

strategies for improved durability, we believe the targets we have

set are achievable. We must keep sight of our ultimate goal to

transfer research to the real world, and we have complemented our

research efforts with a learning demonstration activity. We conduct

research on safety codes and standards working with the Department of Transportation, standards development organizations, and

other organizations. We are also creating a road map now with the

Department of Commerce and other federal agencies for developing

manufacturing technologies to bridge the continuum from basic research to commercialization. That effort will help attract new business investment, create new high-technology jobs, and build a competitive U.S. supply base.

The Academy also recommended a systems analysis and integration activity. We are developing that capability. Analysis of various

scenarios for hydrogen production delivery are underway. These efforts will be valuable in providing rigorous data and potential guidance for policy decisions in future years.

Madame Chairman, Mr. Chairman, the DOE hydrogen program

is committed to a balanced portfolio. We do not do stand-alone test

tube research, but rather we have an integrated effort of basic, applied, and engineering sciences. This Committee, in particular, has

been instrumental in providing valuable guidance to us.

This completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faulkner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER

Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the Department of Energy’s (DOE or Department) Hydrogen Program activities which support the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. Today I will

16

provide an overview and status update of the Hydrogen Program’s accomplishments

and plans.

Over two years ago, in his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush an- nounced a $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative over FY 2004—2008 to reverse

America’s growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the hydrogen technologies needed for commercially viable fuel cells—a way to power cars, trucks,

homes, and businesses that could also significantly reduce criteria pollutants and

greenhouse gas emissions. Since the launch of the Initiative, we have had many accomplishments on the path to taking hydrogen and fuel cell technologies from the

laboratory to the showroom in 2020, following an industry commercialization decision in 2015. The Department’s Program encompasses the research and development (R&D) activities necessary to achieve the President’s vision, including basic research, applied research and technology development, and learning demonstrations

that are an extension of our research. These activities benefit from detailed planning efforts conducted by the Department, and the National Academies study and

the Office of Science Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy workshop,

in which two other speakers today, Dr. Bodde and Dr. Crabtree, have made major

contributions. I will talk about progress in these areas as we continue on the road

to solving the technical barriers that stand between us and this vision of a new energy future.

Hydrogen Vision and Overview

As a nation, we must work to ensure that we have access to energy that does not

require us to compromise our security or our environment. Hydrogen offers the opportunity to end petroleum dependence and to virtually eliminate transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by addressing the root causes of these issues. Petroleum imports already supply more than 55 percent of U.S. domestic petroleum requirements, and those imports are projected to account for 68 percent by 2025 under

a business-as-usual scenario. Transportation accounts for more than two-thirds of

the oil use in the United States, and vehicles contribute to the Nation’s air quality

problems and greenhouse gas emissions because they release criteria pollutants and

carbon dioxide.

At the G8 Summit earlier this month, President Bush reiterated his policy of promoting technological innovation, like the development of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, to address climate change, reduce air pollution, and improve energy security in the United States and throughout the world. The Department’s R&D in advanced vehicle technologies, such as gasoline hybrid electric vehicles, will help improve energy efficiency and offset growth in the transportation fleet in the near- to

mid-term. But, for the long-term, we ultimately need a substitute to replace petroleum. Hydrogen and fuel cells, when combined, have the potential to provide carbonfree, pollution-free power for transportation.

Hydrogen will be produced from diverse domestic energy resources, which include

biomass, fossil fuels, nuclear energy, solar, wind, and other renewables. We have

planned and are executing a balanced research portfolio for developing hydrogen

production and delivery technologies. The Department’s hydrogen production strategy recognizes that most hydrogen will likely be produced by technologies that do

not require a new hydrogen delivery infrastructure in the transition to a hydrogen

economy, such as distributed reforming of natural gas and of renewable liquid fuels

like ethanol and methanol. As research, development, and demonstration efforts

progress along renewable, nuclear, and clean coal pathways, a suite of technologies

will become available to produce hydrogen from a diverse array of domestic resources. These technologies will be commercialized as market penetration grows and

demand for hydrogen increases.

The economic viability of these different production pathways will be strongly affected by regional factors, such as feedstock or energy source availability and cost,

delivery approaches, and the regulatory environment so that each region will tailor

its hydrogen infrastructure to take advantage of its particular resources. Our ultimate hydrogen production strategy is carbon-neutral and emphasizes diversity. During the transition, net carbon emissions on a well-to-wheels basis, from vehicles running on hydrogen produced from natural gas would be 25 percent less than gasoline

hybrid vehicles and 50 percent less than conventional internal combustion engine

vehicles. Natural gas is not a long-term strategy because of import concerns and the

demands of other economic sectors for natural gas. In the long-term, in a hydrogen

economy using renewables, nuclear, and coal with sequestration, near-zero carbon

light duty vehicles are our goal. I want to emphasize that hydrogen from coal will

be produced directly from gasification, not coal-based electricity. This is consistent

with technology currently under development for carbon capture and sequestration.

My testimony today will specifically address the Subcommittees’ questions:

17

1. What progress has been made toward addressing the principal technical

barriers to a successful transition to the use of hydrogen as a primary

transportation fuel since the Administration announced its hydrogen

initiatives, FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative?

What are the remaining potential technical ‘‘showstoppers?’’

Progress and Accomplishments

Since the President launched the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, we have made tremendous progress. The Department has developed a comprehensive technology development plan, the Hydrogen Posture Plan, fully integrating the hydrogen research of

the Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Science; Fossil Energy; and

Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology. This plan identifies technologies, strategies, and interim milestones to enable a 2015 industry commercialization decision

on the viability of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. Each Office has, in turn, developed a detailed research plan which outlines how the high-level milestones will

be supported.

We are now implementing these research, development, and demonstration plans:

— Using FY 2004 and FY 2005 appropriations and contingent upon future appropriations over the next three years, the Department competitively selected over $510 million in projects ($755 million with cost-share) to address

critical challenges such as fuel cell cost, hydrogen storage, hydrogen production and delivery cost, diverse ways of producing hydrogen, as well as research for hydrogen safety, codes and standards.

— Of this total, 65 projects are for hydrogen production and delivery, funded at $107 million over four years. These include hydrogen production from renewables, distributed natural gas, coal, and nuclear sources.

— We initiated three Centers of Excellence and 15 independent projects in Hy- drogen Storage at $150 million over five years. The Centers include 20 universities, nine federal laboratories and eight industry partners, representing

a concerted, multi-disciplinary effort to address on-board vehicular hydrogen

storage—one of the critical enabling technologies for a hydrogen economy.

These activities are closely coordinated with the Office of Science research

in hydrogen storage.

— To address fuel cell cost and durability, five new projects were initiated at $13 million over three years. A new $75 million solicitation will be released

this fall to address cost and durability of fuel cell systems. This is in conjunction with a $17.5 million solicitation currently open focusing on R&D addressing new membrane materials.

— We established a national vehicle and infrastructure ‘‘learning demonstra- tion’’ project at $170 million over six years, with an additional 50 percent

cost share by industry. This effort takes some of the research from the laboratory to the real world, and is critical to measuring progress and to providing feedback to our R&D efforts.

— Most recently, to address basic science for the hydrogen economy, 70 new projects were selected by the Office of Science at $64 million over three years

to address the fundamental science underpinning hydrogen production, delivery, storage, and use. Topics of this basic research include novel materials

for hydrogen storage, membranes for hydrogen separation and purification,

designs of catalysts at the nanoscale, solar hydrogen production, and bio-inspired materials and processes. Such research is important for exploring fundamental science that may be applicable in the long-term and is responsive

to the National Academies’ report recommending a shift to more exploratory

research.

With these new competitively selected awards, the best scientists and engineers

from around the Nation are actively engaged. The stage is now set for results.

Technical Progress

Ongoing research has already led to important technical progress.

— As highlighted by Secretary Bodman in earlier Congressional testimony, I

am pleased to report that our fuel cell activities recently achieved an important technology cost goal—the high-volume cost of automotive fuel cells was

reduced from $275 per kilowatt to $200 per kilowatt. This was accomplished

by using innovative processes developed by national labs and fuel cell developers for depositing platinum catalyst. This accomplishment is a major step

toward the Program’s goal of reducing the cost of transportation fuel cell

power systems to $45 per kilowatt by 2010.

18

— In hydrogen production, we have demonstrated our ability to produce hydrogen at a cost of $3.60 per gallon of gasoline equivalent at an integrated fueling station that generates both electricity and hydrogen. This is down from

about $5.00 per gallon of gasoline equivalent prior to the Initiative.

— To ensure a balanced portfolio, we must keep sight of our ultimate goal to

transfer research to the real world and we have complemented our research

efforts with a ‘learning demonstration’ activity. Most importantly, with the

‘learning demonstration’ activity we have the key industries that will ultimately have to invest in the hydrogen economy, the auto and energy companies, working together to ensure seamless integration of customer acceptable

technology. This activity will evaluate vehicle and refueling infrastructure

technologies under real-world conditions and is key to measuring progress

toward technical targets and to help focus R&D.

2. What are the research areas where breakthroughs are needed to advance a hydrogen economy? How has the Department of Energy (DOE)

responded to the report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) calling for an increased emphasis on basic research? How is DOE incorporating the results of the Basic Energy Sciences workshop on basic research needs for a hydrogen economy into the research agenda for the

hydrogen initiative?

Starting in FY 2005, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science has been

included in the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in order to focus basic research on overcoming key technology hurdles in hydrogen production, storage, and conversion. The

Office of Science-funded research seeks fundamental understanding in areas such

as non-precious-metal catalysts, membranes for fuel cells and hydrogen separation,

multi-functional nanoscale structures, biological and photoelectrochemical hydrogen

production, and modeling and analytical tools.

For example, basic research can help address the critical challenge of hydrogen

storage: How do you safely store hydrogen on board a vehicle to enable customer

expectations of greater than 300 mile driving range, without compromising passenger or cargo space? The National Academy of Sciences recommended ‘‘a

shift. . .away from some development areas towards more exploratory work’’ to address issues like storage, stating that ‘‘the probability of success is greatly increased

by partnering with a broader range of academic and industrial organizations. . .’’

Through the Department’s ‘‘Grand Challenge’’ solicitation, a ‘‘National Hydrogen

Storage Project’’ was established to broaden our scope. The new awards in basic research, with an additional $20 million for 17 projects over three years supported by

the Office of Science, are integrated into this national project and provide value in

developing a fundamental understanding of hydrogen interactions with materials.

These multi-disciplinary efforts focused on materials-based technology for hydrogen

storage, directly address the recommendations from the Basic Energy Sciences

workshop on basic research needs for a hydrogen economy. By implementing the

NAS recommendations, recent progress in materials discovery and technology allows

hydrogen to be stored at low pressures and modest temperatures. Further basic and

applied research will lead to better fundamental understanding and engineering solutions to address some of the key storage issues such as charging and discharging

hydrogen at practical temperatures and pressures. Rather than ‘stand alone’ test

tube research, we have an integrated effort to address basic, applied, and engineering sciences to develop materials and systems for storing hydrogen.

We face another set of challenges in hydrogen production. In this area, our research efforts are focused on reducing cost, improving energy efficiencies, and ensuring a diversity of pathways based on domestic resources for energy security that do

not result in greenhouse gas emissions. Some pathways are further along in development and will be commercially viable sooner than others. For the transition, we

envision producing hydrogen from natural gas or renewable liquids such as ethanol,

at the fueling point, thus eliminating the need for a dedicated hydrogen distribution

network. Centralized hydrogen production from coal with sequestration, biomass,

nuclear, and distribution networks can follow later once market penetration justifies

the capital investment required. Basic science is critical to understanding materials

performance, failure mechanisms, and theoretical technology limits. The basic research component of the program contributes to longer-term concepts such as

photocatalytic including biological hydrogen production and direct

photoelectrochemical conversion to produce hydrogen. In fact, we have nearly $20

million of federal funding in new projects selected by the Office of Science on solar

hydrogen production, membranes for separation and purification, and for bio-inspired materials and processes.

19

As for fuel cells, key issues are cost and durability. Significant progress has been

made by national laboratories as well as industry to reduce the amount of platinum,

and hence cost, within the fuel cell electrode. In addition to the targeted activities

in fuel cells previously mentioned, the Office of Science has initiated new basic research projects on the design of catalysts at the nanoscale and membrane materials

related to fuel cell applications. More effective catalysts, combined with better techniques for fabricating these membrane electrode assemblies and new strategies for

improved durability of fuel cells, will enable us to meet the aggressive cost and performance targets we have set for fuel cells. We are also expanding our activities to

include manufacturing issues that will help take these new technologies from the

laboratory to the marketplace.

3. The NAS report suggested that the research agenda should be developed

with future policy decisions in mind. How has DOE increased its policy

analysis capabilities as recommended by the NAS? How will the results

of that analysis be applied to the research agenda?

I would like to emphasize that this Program is a research effort. However, as stated earlier, in response to the National Academies’ recommendation, the Program

has established the Systems Analysis and Integration effort to provide a disciplined

approach to the research, design, development, and validation of complex systems.

A fact-based analytical approach will be used to develop a balanced portfolio of R&D

projects to support the development of production, delivery, storage, fuel cell, and

safety technologies. Through analysis, the impact of individual components on the

hydrogen energy system as a whole will be evaluated and the interaction of the components and their effects on the system will be assessed. Systems Analysis and Integration efforts will be available to examine and understand the cost implications of

policy and regulations on technology R&D direction. Analysis of various scenarios

for hydrogen production and delivery is critical to the transition plan for developing

the infrastructure and carbon-neutral hydrogen resources for a hydrogen economy.

The planned analysis efforts will be valuable in providing rigorous data and potential guidance for policy decisions in future years.

4. How is DOE conducting planning for, and analysis of, the policy changes

(such as incentives or regulation) that might be required to encourage

a transition to hydrogen? What other agencies are involved in planning

for, or facilitating, such a transition?

Currently, the focus of the DOE Hydrogen Program is research and development

to address key technical challenges. Research and development on the codes and

standards necessary to implementing hydrogen and fuel cell technologies will form

a scientific and technical basis for future regulations. We are actively working with

the Department of Transportation and interface with Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) and Codes Development Organizations (CDOs) on safety, codes

and standards.

As part of the Systems Analysis efforts, we have started to model and explore options and pathways to achieve a successful transition to hydrogen. This effort is in

collaboration with the Vehicle Technology Office and the overall Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy modeling efforts. The Energy Information Administration

(EIA) is also providing guidance. This work includes the incorporation of rigorous

hydrogen production, delivery, and vehicle technology components into the National

Energy Management System (NEMS) model architecture, as well development of a

more detailed transportation sector model that includes conventional, hybrid, and

alternative fuel options. These modeling efforts will also allow us to examine the

potential impacts of policy and regulations on the introduction and long-term use

of hydrogen.

Now I will talk about our partners and our future plans.

We are working with partners on all fronts to address the challenges to a hydrogen economy. Under the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, DOE is collaborating

with the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR) and five major energy companies to help identify and evaluate technologies that will meet customer requirements and establish the business case. Technical teams of research managers from

the automotive and energy industries and DOE are meeting regularly to establish

and update technology roadmaps in each technology area.

An Interagency Hydrogen R&D Task Force has been established by the White

House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to leverage resources and coordinate interrelated and complementary research across the entire Federal Government. In 2005, the Task Force has initiated a plan to coordinate a number of key

research activities among the eight major agencies that fund hydrogen and fuel cell

20

research. Coordination topics include novel materials for fuel cells and hydrogen

storage, inexpensive and durable catalysts, hydrogen production from alternative

sources, stationary fuel cells, and fuel-cell vehicle demonstrations. The Task Force

has also launched a website, Hydrogen.gov. In the coming year, the OSTP Task

Force plans to sponsor an expert panel on the contributions that nanoscale research

can make to realizing a Hydrogen Economy.

Last year, we announced the establishment of the International Partnership for

the Hydrogen Economy, or the IPHE. IPHE, which now includes 16 nations and the

European Commission, establishes world-wide collaboration on hydrogen technology.

The nations have agreed to work cooperatively toward a unifying goal: practical, affordable, competitively-priced hydrogen vehicles and refueling by 2020; and projects

involving collaboration between different countries are being proposed and reviewed

for selection.

Toward the Hydrogen Future

The Department is looking to the future as well. Just as we have made tremendous progress, we plan to have significant advances to report next year on the R&D

projects we have launched through the solicitations I mentioned. The progress will

be tracked using performance-based technical and cost milestones that provide clear

and quantifiable measures. We will report this progress next year to this Subcommittee, and annually to Congress and to the Office of Management and Budget.

In fact, as we speak, the NAS is completing its biennial review of the program. We

anticipate more valuable feedback and will have more details to report in the coming months.

For the critical targets, it is important that we verify our progress in a way that

is independent and transparent. In Fiscal Year 2006, the major technical milestones

will be assessed using a rigorous methodology established by the Hydrogen Program.

— First, in Hydrogen Storage, we will determine the maximum storage potential of cryogenic-compressed hydrogen tanks and the feasibility of this technology towards meeting DOE’s 2010 targets.

— Second, in Fuel Cells, we will evaluate fuel cell cost per kilowatt using cur- rent materials to determine if $110/kilowatt is feasible towards meeting the

2010 target of $45/kilowatt (assuming high volume manufacturing).

— And third, in Hydrogen Production, we will determine if the laboratory re- search will lead to $3 per gasoline gallon energy equivalent (gge) using a distributed natural gas reformer system.

In addition to measuring progress, we continue to develop and improve processes

to facilitate innovation and to accelerate R&D. For instance, we plan an annual solicitation, starting in 2006, in the critical area of hydrogen storage to complement

the Centers of Excellence. This will improve our flexibility to continuously evaluate

new ideas and rapidly fund competitively selected projects.

Validation of fuel cell vehicle and hydrogen infrastructure technologies under ‘real

world’ operating conditions is essential to track progress and to help guide research

priorities. Technology and infrastructure validation will provide essential statistical

data on the status of fuel cell vehicle and infrastructure technologies relative to targets in the areas of efficiency, durability, storage system range, and fuel cost. This

activity will also provide information to support the development of codes and standards for the commercial use of hydrogen, and feedback on vehicle and infrastructure

safety. Through cost-shared partnerships with the energy industry, Fiscal Year 2006

activities include opening eight hydrogen fueling stations, and validating performance, safety, and cost of hydrogen production and delivery technologies. By 2009, the

program is expected to validate fuel cell vehicle durability of 2,000 hours, a 250-

mile vehicle range, and full-scale hydrogen production cost of less than $3.00 gge.

In addition, a critical need for lowering the costs of hydrogen and fuel cells is high

volume manufacturing processes and techniques. Manufacturing R&D challenges for

a hydrogen economy include developing innovative, low-cost fabrication processes for

new materials and applications and adapting laboratory fabrication techniques to

enable high volume manufacturing. The Hydrogen Program is working with Department of Commerce and other federal agencies to create a roadmap for developing

manufacturing technologies for hydrogen and fuel cell systems as part of the President’s Manufacturing Initiative. The roadmap will help to guide budget requests in

Fiscal Year 2007 and beyond. This work is part of the Interagency Working Group

on Manufacturing R&D, which is chaired by OSTP and includes 14 federal agencies.

The working group has identified nanomanufacturing, manufacturing R&D for the

hydrogen economy, and intelligent and integrated manufacturing systems as three

focus areas for the future. Manufacturing R&D for the hydrogen economy will be

21

critical in formulating a strategy to transfer technology successes in the laboratory

to new jobs, new investments, and a competitive U.S. supplier base in a global economy.

Successful commercialization of hydrogen technologies requires a comprehensive

database on component reliability and safety, published performance-based domestic

standards, and international standards or regulations that will allow the technologies to compete in a global market. Initial codes and standards for the commercial use of hydrogen are only now starting to be published. Research will be conducted in Fiscal Year 2006 to determine flammability limits and the reactive and

depressive properties of hydrogen under various conditions, and also to quantify

risk. Through such efforts, critical data will be generated to help write and adopt

standards and to develop improved safety systems and criteria.

Conclusion

Madam Chairman, all the panelists here today will agree that achieving the vision of the hydrogen energy future is a great challenge. The DOE Hydrogen Program is committed to a balanced portfolio, conducting the basic and applied research

necessary to achieve this vision. It will require careful planning and coordination,

public education, technology development, and substantial public and private investments. It will require a broad political consensus and a bipartisan approach to

achieving the President’s vision. We appreciate the leadership taken by the Senate,

and most recently the House, in establishing Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Caucuses. By

being bold and innovative, we can change the way we do business here in America;

we can change our dependence upon foreign sources of energy; we can address the

root cause of greenhouse gas emissions; we can help with the quality of the air; and

we can make a fundamental difference for the future of our children. This committee in particular has been instrumental in providing that kind of leadership over

the years, and we look forward to continuing this dialogue in the months and years

ahead.

We at the Department of Energy welcome the challenge and opportunity to play

a vital role in this nation’s energy future and to help address our energy security

challenges in such a fundamental way. This completes my prepared statement. I

would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER

Douglas Faulkner was appointed by President George W. Bush on June 29, 2001,

to serve as the political deputy in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy (EERE). This $1.2 billion research and development organization has over

five hundred federal employees in Washington, D.C. and six regional offices, supported by thousands of contractors at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

and elsewhere.

Mr. Faulkner oversees all aspects of EERE’s operations in a close partnership

with the Office’s two career Deputy Assistant Secretaries. He has worked closely

with Assistant Secretary David K. Garman to reorganize EERE, replacing an outdated and fragmented organization with what arguably is the most innovative business model ever used in the Federal Government. This has resulted in fewer management layers, fewer but more productive staff, streamlined procedures, stronger

project management in the field and lower operating costs overall. These reforms

have been recognized as a success by the White House and the National Association

of Public Administration.

Mr. Faulkner organized and led an internal management board which completely

revamped EERE’s biomass programs. Many projects were ended and those funds

pooled for an unprecedented solicitation to refocus R&D for new bio-refineries.

Interviews of Mr. Faulkner about renewable energy and energy efficiency have appeared on television and radio and in the print media.

Before assuming his leadership post in EERE, Mr. Faulkner had progressed rapidly through the ranks of the civil service at the Central Intelligence Agency and

the Department of Energy. In his over-twenty year career he rose from junior China

intelligence analyst to a nationally-recognized leader in bio-based products and a

senior policy advisor to the Secretaries of Energy in both Bush Administrations.

Born and raised in central Illinois, Principal Deputy Faulkner received a Bachelor’s degree in Asian Studies from the University of Illinois and a Master’s degree

from the Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies. He

also attended the University of Singapore as a Rotary Scholar. At these institutions,

he studied French and Mandarin Chinese languages. Mr. Faulkner played intercollegiate basketball at home and abroad.

22

He is involved in his church and community as well as Boy Scouts and youth

baseball. Mr. Faulkner was appointed in the early 1990s to two Arlington County,

Virginia, economic commissions.

Mr. Faulkner lives in Arlington, Virginia, with his wife and son.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much.

And then, Dr. Bodde, you are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID L. BODDE, DIRECTOR, INNOVATION

AND PUBLIC POLICY, INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH, CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

Dr. BODDE. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

I would like to speak this morning to three basic ideas: first, the

importance of recognizing and focusing on the transition from the

current infrastructure to a hydrogen infrastructure; second, the

need for long-term, fundamental research to resolve five key questions in the hydrogen economy; and third, the importance of enabling entrepreneurs and innovators to take the results of this research and move them into the marketplace and move them into

commercial practice.

Let me take those ideas one at a time.

First, the transition is a competitive transition. I think it is helpful to think of three competing infrastructures: first, the internal

combustion engine, both spark ignition and compression ignition,

and the fuel industries that have built up around that, which are

perfectly satisfactory from a consumer point of view, offering mobility services that are reasonably priced and widely available; the

next competing infrastructure that is emerging into the market,

the hybrid electric vehicle that uses that same fuels infrastructure;

and then the third one, the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the ultimate

competitor that removes oil as the issue in our national life and removes carbon as an environmental issue.

Now if you look at the competitive battle amongst these three,

there are some lessons that come out of this look for market share.

First, it is a 50-year struggle. It takes a long time to change out

these infrastructures. Second, and equally important, that means

that all three infrastructures will co-exist during some period during the transition, and that means the hybrid electric vehicle will

also be an important contributor, both because of its fuel efficiency

and also because it will pioneer some key electric management

technologies later useful for the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle. Policies

that accelerate this transition will be helpful, will gain more traction, than those that are not cognizant of the transition.

Now what technologies would be useful? Well, one thing that

would would be a hydrogen appliance for service stations. This is

one of the recommendations that came out of the National Academy of Sciences’ report that—I served on that committee, also, advanced technology for hydrogen production with electrolysis, this is

for small-scale distributed manufacturing of hydrogen, breakthrough technologies for small-scale performing, and integrated

standard fueling station. All of these are needed for a distributed

hydrogen production economy that will be part of any transition to

hydrogen.

The second key idea is that fundamental research is needed to

answer five big questions. And these five questions are: one, can

23

we store hydrogen on board vehicles at near atmospheric pressures? I believe that if we cannot do this, if we have to rely on either cryogenic liquids or high-pressure gas, that this is—comes

about as near to be a showstopper for the hydrogen economy as

anything that I could think of. And basic research in a variety of

areas to accomplish this, I think, is of fundamental importance.

The second major question concerns carbon. Can we capture and

sequester the carbon dioxide from hydrogen manufacturing in a societally acceptable way? If the answer is yes, then coal as a feedstock offers a very large and very cost-effective pathway to the hydrogen economy. If the answer is no, then we have to be about very

quickly developing alternatives to coal.

And that is the third major question: can we sharply reduce the

cost of hydrogen from non-coal resources, in particular, from nuclear, nuclear electricity, both in terms of high-temperature electrolysis of steam and in terms of thermochemical cycles that would

chemically produce the hydrogen?

Fourth, fuel cells. We need to have improved fuel cells in order

to gain the efficiency on board the vehicle that offsets the inefficiencies from manufacturing hydrogen.

And finally, improved batteries.

Now all of these require broad-based programs, basic research, a

wide-scale search for ideas.

The third major idea is enabling entrepreneurship. This is particularly important when the locus of innovation in the motor industry is shifting from the OEM, that is the big three automakers,

down toward the suppliers, the tier one, the tier two, the tier three

suppliers, and it is becoming a networked pattern of innovation as

opposed to a linear pattern of innovation.

Now in many other industries, mature industries, from computers to aerospace, entrepreneurs have become the agents of

change and the most important agents of change. It is important

that entrepreneurs be enabled, and programs such as the SBIR,

STTR, the ATP, the various alphabet soup of technology and entrepreneur support, are quite important for that.

But in addition, the kind of commitment that Congressman Inglis talked about in terms of long-term stability of government policies is very important here, because entrepreneurs seek opportunity, and they seek opportunities that will be stable across the

tenure of time that it takes to launch and mature a high-growth,

high-technology kind of company.

States and universities have a strong role here, and we at

Clemson University are very pleased with our work at the International Center for Automotive Research, called the ICAR. We intend for this institution to be a major player and innovation laboratory in moving technology not only from our own laboratories and

the laboratories in South Carolina, but from any place in the world

into the entire automotive cluster, not only the major manufacturers but the suppliers as well.

That concludes my statement, Madame Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bodde follows:]

24

1 Another concept, the battery electric vehicle (BEV), offers an all-electric drive-train with all

on-board energy stored in batteries, which would be recharged from stationary sources when the

vehicle is not in operation. I have not included this among the competitors because battery technology has not advanced rapidly enough for it to compete in highway markets. In contrast, BEV

have proven quite successful in the personal transportation niche.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID L. BODDE

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity to discuss the Road to the

Hydrogen Economy, a road I believe we must travel if we are to ensure a world well

supplied with clean, affordable energy derived from secure sources. I will speak to

this from the perspective of motor vehicle transportation and address the questions

posed by the Committee within the framework of three basic ideas.

First, research policy should view the hydrogen transition as a marketplace competition. For the next several decades, three rival infrastructures will compete for

a share of the world auto market: (a) the current internal combustion engine and

associated fuels infrastructure; (b) the hybrid electric vehicles, now emerging on the

market; and (c) the hydrogen fueled vehicles, now in early demonstration. We can

judge policy alternatives and applied research investments by their ability to accelerate the shift in market share among these competing infrastructures.

Second, and in parallel with the marketplace transition, fundamental research

should focus on sustaining the hydrogen economy into the far future. Key issues include: (a) storing hydrogen on-board vehicles at near-atmospheric pressure; (b) sequestering the carbon-dioxide effluent from manufacturing hydrogen from coal; (c)

sharply reducing the cost of hydrogen produced from non-coal resources, especially

nuclear, photobiological, photoelectrochemical, and thin-film solar processes; (d) improving the performance and cost of fuel cells; and (e) storing electricity on-board

vehicles in batteries that provide both high energy performance and high power performance at reasonable cost.

And third, the results of this research must be brought swiftly and effectively to

the marketplace. This requires economic policies that encourage technology-based

innovation, both by independent entrepreneurs and those operating from the platform of established companies. Clemson University, through its International Center for Automotive Research and its Arthur M. Spiro Center for Entrepreneurial

Leadership, intends to become a major contributor to this goal.

In what follows, I will set out my reasoning and the evidence that supports these

three basic ideas.

THE HYDROGEN TRANSITION: A MARKETPLACE COMPETITION

Much thinking about the hydrogen economy concerns ‘‘what’’ issues, visionary descriptions of a national fuels infrastructure that would deliver a substantial fraction

of goods and services with hydrogen as the energy carrier. And yet, past visions of

energy futures, however desirable they might have seemed at the time, have not delivered sustained action, either from a public or private perspective. The national

experience with nuclear power, synthetic fuels, and renewable energy demonstrates

this well.

The difficulty arises from insufficient attention to the transition between the

present and the desired future—the balance between forces that lock the energy

economy in stasis and the entrepreneurial forces that could accelerate it toward a

more beneficial condition.

In effect, the present competes against the future, and the pace and direction of

any transition will be governed by the outcome. Viewing the transition to a hydrogen economy through the lens of a competitive transition can bring a set of ‘‘how’’

questions to the national policy debate—questions of how policy can rebalance the

competitive forces so that change prevails in the marketplace.

A Model of the Competitive Transition

The competitive battle will be fought over a half century among three competing

infrastructures:1

• The internal combustion engine (ICE), either in a spark-ignition or compression-ignition form, and its attendant motor fuels supply chain;

• The hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), now entering the market, which achieves

superior efficiency by supplementing an internal combustion engine with an

electric drive system and which uses the current supply chain for motor fuels;

and,

• The hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (HFCV), which requires radically distinct technologies for the vehicle, for fuel-production, and for fuel distribution.

25

2 Alternatively framed: ‘‘Which comes first, the vehicle or the fuel?’’

Figure 1 shows one scenario, based on the most optimistic assumptions, of how

market share could shift among the contending infrastructures (NRC 2004). Several

aspects of this scenario bear special mention. First, note the extended time required

for meaningful change: these are long-lived assets built around large, sunk investments. They cannot be quickly changed under the best of circumstances. Second, the

road to the hydrogen economy runs smoothest through the hybrid electric vehicle.

The HEV offers immediate gains in fuel economy and advances technologies that

will eventually prove useful for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, especially battery and

electric system management technologies. Although this scenario shows significant

market penetration for the HEV, its success cannot be assured. The HEV might remain a niche product, despite its current popularity if consumers conclude that the

value of the fuel savings does not compensate for the additional cost of the HEV.

Or, its gains in efficiency might be directed toward vehicle size and acceleration

rather than fuel economy. Either circumstance would make an early hydrogen transition even more desirable.

Any transition to a HFCV fleet, however, will require overcoming a key marketplace barrier that is unique to hydrogen—widely available supplies of fuel. And to

this we now turn.

The Chicken and the Egg2

Most analyses suggest that large-scale production plants in a mature hydrogen

economy can manufacture fuel at a cost that competes well with gasoline at current

prices (NRC 2004). However, investors will not build these plants and their supporting distribution infrastructure in the absence of large-scale demand. And, the

demand for hydrogen will not be forthcoming unless potential purchasers of hydrogen vehicles can be assured widely available sources of fuel. Variants of this ‘‘chicken and egg’’ problem have limited the market penetration of other fuels, such as

methanol and ethanol blends (M85 and E85) and compressed natural gas. This

issue—the simultaneous development of the supply side and demand sides of the

market—raises one of the highest barriers to a hydrogen transition.

Distributed Hydrogen Production for the Transition

To resolve this problem, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC

2004) recommended an emphasis on distributed production of hydrogen. In this

model, the hydrogen fuel would be manufactured at dispensing stations conveniently

located for consumers. Once the demand for hydrogen fuel grew sufficiently, then

26

larger manufacturing plants and logistic systems could be built to achieve scale

economies. However, distributed production of hydrogen offers two salient challenges.

The first challenge is cost. Figure 2, below, shows the delivered cost of molecular

hydrogen for a variety of production technologies. The ‘‘distributed’’ technologies, to

the right in Figure 2, offer hydrogen at a cost between two and five times the cost

of the large-scale, ‘‘central station’’ technologies, on the left in Figure 2. Technological advances can mitigate, but not remove entirely, this cost disadvantage.

The second challenge concerns the environment. Carbon capture and sequestration do not appear practical in distributed production. During the opening stage of

a hydrogen transition, we might simply have to accept some carbon releases in order

to achieve the later benefits.

Research to Accelerate a Transition by Distributed Hydrogen Production

A study panel convenienced by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently

recommended several research thrusts that could accelerate distributed production

for a transition to hydrogen (NRC 2004). These include:

• Development of hydrogen fueling ‘‘appliance’’ that can be manufactured economically and used in service stations reliably and safely by relatively unskilled persons—station attendants and consumers.

• Development of an integrated, standard fueling facility that includes the

above appliance as well as generation and storage equipment capable of meeting the sharply varying demands of a 24-hour business cycle.

• Advanced technologies for hydrogen production from electrolysis, essentially

a fuel cell operated in reverse, to include enabling operation from intermittent

energy sources, such as wind.

• Research on breakthrough technologies for small-scale reformers to produce

hydrogen from fossil feedstocks.

The Department of Energy has adopted the NAS recommendations and modified

its programs accordingly. It remains too early to judge progress, but in any case

these technologies should receive continued emphasis as the desired transition to

hydrogen nears. However, progress in research is notoriously difficult to forecast accurately. This suggests consideration be given to interim strategies that would work

on the demand side of the marketplace, either to subsidize the cost of distributed

hydrogen production while demand builds or to raise the cost of the competition,

gasoline and diesel fuels. Such actions would relieve the research program of the

entire burden for enabling the transition.

27

3 I do not include on-board reforming of fossil feedstocks, like gasoline, among these. These

systems offer little gain beyond that achievable with the HEV, and most industrial proponents

appear to have abandoned the idea.

FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH TO SUSTAIN A HYDROGEN ECONOMY

At the same time that the marketplace transition advances, several high-payoff

(but also high-risk) research campaigns should be waged. These include:

• Storing hydrogen on-board vehicles at near-atmospheric pressure;

• Sequestering the carbon-dioxide effluent from manufacturing hydrogen from

coal;

• Sharply reducing the cost of hydrogen produced from non-coal resources, especially nuclear, photobiological, photoelectrochemical, and thin-film solar processes;

• Improving the performance and cost of fuel cells; and,

• Storing electricity on-board vehicles in batteries that provide both high energy performance and high power performance at reasonable cost.

On-Vehicle Hydrogen Storage

The most important long-term research challenge is to provide a more effective

means of storing hydrogen on vehicles than the compressed gas or cryogenic liquid

now in use. In my judgment, failure to achieve this comes closer to a complete

‘‘show-stopper’’ than any other possibility. I believe this true for two reasons: hydrogen leakage as the vehicle fleet ages, and cost.

With regard to leakage, high pressure systems currently store molecular hydrogen

on demonstration vehicles safely and effectively. But these are new and speciallybuilt, and trained professionals operate and maintain. What can we expect of production run vehicles that receive the casual maintenance afforded most cars? A

glance at the oil-stained pavement of any parking lot offers evidence of the leakage

of heavy fluids stored in the current ICE fleet at atmospheric pressure. As high

pressure systems containing the lightest element in the universe age, we might find

even greater difficulties with containment. With regard to cost, the energy losses

from liquefaction and even compression severely penalize the use of hydrogen fuel,

especially when manufactured at distributed stations.

The NAS Committee, cited earlier (NRC 2004), strongly supported an increased

emphasis on game-changing approaches to on-vehicle hydrogen storage. One alternative could come from novel approaches to generating the hydrogen on board the

vehicle.3 Chemical hydrides, for example, might offer some promise here, such as

the sodium borohydride system demonstrated by DaimlerChrysler.

Carbon Sequestration

Domestic coal resources within the United States hold the potential to relieve the

security burdens arising from oil dependence—but only if the environmental consequences of their use can be overcome. Further, as shown in Figure 2, coal offers

the lowest cost pathway to a hydrogen-based energy economy, once the transient

conditions have passed. Thus, the conditions under which this resource can be used

should be established as soon as possible. The prevailing assumption holds that the

carbon effluent from hydrogen manufacturing can be stored as a gas (carbon dioxide,

or CO2) in deep underground formations. Yet how long it must be contained and

what leakage rates can be tolerated remain unresolved issues (Socolow 2005). Within the Department of Energy, the carbon sequestration program is managed separately from hydrogen and vehicles programs. The NAS committee recommended

closer coordination between the two as well as an ongoing emphasis on carbon capture and sequestration (NRC 2004).

Producing Hydrogen Without Coal

Manufacturing hydrogen from non-fossil resources stands as an important hedge

against future constraints on production from coal, or even from natural gas. And

under any circumstance, the hydrogen economy will be more robust if served by production from a variety of domestic sources.

The non-fossil resource most immediately available is nuclear. Hydrogen could be

produced with no CO2 emissions by using nuclear heat and electricity in the hightemperature electrolysis of steam. Here the technology issues include the durability

of the electrode and electrolyte materials, the effects of high pressure, and the scaleup of the electrolysis cell. Alternatively, a variety of thermochemical reactions could

produce hydrogen with great efficiency. Here the needed research concerns higher

operating temperatures (700°C to 1000°C) for the nuclear heat as well as research

28

4See the Appendix: The Process of Innovation and Implications for the Hydrogen Transition

for a more complete discussion.

into the chemical cycles themselves. In both cases, the safety issues that might arise

from coupling the nuclear island with a hydrogen production plant bear examination

(NRC 2004).

In addition, hydrogen production from renewable sources should be emphasized,

especially that avoiding the inefficiencies of the conventional chain of conversions:

(1) from primary energy into electricity; (2) from electricity to hydrogen; (3) from hydrogen to electricity on-board the vehicle; (4) from electricity to mobility, which is

what the customer wanted in the first place. Novel approaches to using renewable

energy, such as photobiological or photoelectrochemical, should be supported strongly (NRC 2004).

Improved Fuel Cells

The cost and performance of fuel cells must improve significantly for hydrogen to

achieve its full potential. To be sure, molecular hydrogen can be burned in specially

designed internal combustion engines. But doing so foregoes the efficiency gains obtainable from the fuel cell, and becomes a costly and (from an energy perspective)

inefficient process. The NAS Committee thought the fuel cell essential for a hydrogen economy to be worth the effort required to put it in place. They recommended

an emphasis on long-term, breakthrough research that would dramatically improve

cost, durability, cycling capacity, and useful life.

Improved Batteries

The battery is as important to a hydrogen vehicle as to a hybrid because it serves

as the central energy management device. For example, the energy regained from

regenerative braking must be stored in a battery for later reuse. Though energy

storage governs the overall operating characteristics of the battery, a high rate of

energy release (power) can enable the electric motor to assist the HEV in acceleration and relieve the requirements for fuel cells to immediately match their power

output with the needs of the vehicle. Thus, advanced battery research becomes a

key enabler for the hydrogen economy and might also expand the scope of the BEV.

ENTREPRENEURSHIP FOR THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY

For the results of DOE research to gain traction in a competitive economy, entrepreneurs and corporate innovators must succeed in bringing hydrogen-related innovations to the marketplace. In many cases, independent entrepreneurs provide the

path-breaking innovations that lead to radical improvements in performance, while

established companies provide continuous, accumulating improvement.4 The Federal

Government, in partnership with states and universities, can become an important

enabler of both pathways to a hydrogen economy.

Federal Policies Promoting Entrepreneurship

From the federal perspective, several policies could be considered to build an entrepreneurial climate on the ‘‘supply’’ side of the market. These include:

• Special tax consideration for investors in new ventures offering products relevant to fuel savings. The intent would be to increase the amount of venture

capital available to startup companies.

• Commercialization programs might enable more entrepreneurs to bring their

nascent technologies up to investment grade. For example, an enhanced and

focused Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program might increase

the number of participating entrepreneurs participating in fuel-relevant markets. A portion of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP) could be focused

in like manner.

• Outreach from the National Laboratories to entrepreneurs might be improved. Some laboratories, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(NREL) for example, offer small, but effective programs. But more systematic

outreach, not to business in general, but to entrepreneurial business, would

also increase the supply of market-ready innovations.

On the demand side, any policy that increases consumer incentives to purchase

fuel efficient vehicles will provide an incentive for ongoing innovation—provided

that the policy is perceived as permanent. Entrepreneurs and innovators respond

primarily to opportunity; but that opportunity must be durable for the 10-year cycle

required to establish a new, high-growth company.

29

5 BMW was the founding OEM and most significant supporter of the ICAR.

States and Universities as Agents of Innovation/Entrepreneurship

Innovation/entrepreneurship is a contact sport, and that contact occurs most frequently and most intensely within the context of specific laboratories and specific

relationships. I will use Clemson’s International Center for Automotive Research

(ICAR) to illustrate this principle. Most fundamentally, the ICAR is a partnership

among the State of South Carolina, major auto makers,5 and their Tier I, Tier II,

and Tier III suppliers. The inclusion of these suppliers will be essential for the success of ICAR or any similar research venture. This is because innovation in the auto

industry has evolved toward a global, networked process, much as it has in other

industries like microelectronics. The ‘‘supply chain’’ is more accurately described as

a network, and network innovation will replace the linear model.

For these reasons, the ICAR, when fully established, will serve as a channel for

research and innovation to flow into the entire cluster of auto-related companies in

the Southeast United States. We anticipate drawing together and integrating the

best technology from a variety of sources:

• Research performed at Clemson University and at the ICAR itself;

• Research performed at the Savannah River National Laboratory and the University of South Carolina; and,

• Relevant science and technology anywhere in the world.

Beyond research, the ICAR will include two other components of a complete innovation package: education, and entrepreneur support. With regard to education, the

Master of Science and Ph.D. degrees offered through the ICAR will emphasize the

integration of new technology into vehicle design, viewing the auto and its manufacturing plant as an integrated system. In addition, courses on entrepreneurship and

innovation, offered through Clemson’s Arthur M. Spiro Center for Entrepreneurial

Leadership, will equip students with the skills to become effective agents of change

within the specific context of the global motor vehicle industry.

With regard to entrepreneur support, the ICAR will host a state-sponsored innovation center to nurture startup companies that originate in the Southeast auto

cluster and to draw others from around the world into that cluster. In addition, the

ICAR innovation center will welcome teams from established companies seeking the

commercial development of their technologies. The State of South Carolina has provided significant support through four recent legislative initiatives. The Research

University Infrastructure and the Research Centers of Economic Excellence Acts

build the capabilities of the state’s universities; and the Venture Capital Act and

Innovation Centers Act provide support for entrepreneurs.

None of these elements can suffice by itself; but taken together they combine to

offer a package of technology, education, and innovation that can serve the hydrogen

transition extraordinarily well.

A CONCLUDING OBSERVATION

Revolutionary technological change of the kind contemplated here is rarely predictable and never containable. Every new technology from the computer to the airplane to the automobile carries with it a chain of social and economic consequences

that reach far beyond the technology itself. Some of these consequences turn out to

be benign; some pose challenges that must be overcome by future generations; but

none have proven foreseeable.

For example, a hydrogen transition might bring prolonged prosperity or economic

decline to the electric utility industry depending upon which path innovation takes.

A pathway that leads through plug-hybrids to home appliances that manufacture

hydrogen by electrolysis would reinforce the current utility business model. A pathway in which hydrogen fuel cell vehicles serve as generators for home electric energy would undermine that model. The same holds true for the coal industry. A future in which carbon sequestration succeeds will affect coal far differently from one

in which it cannot be accomplished.

The only certainty is that the energy economy will be vastly different from that

which we know today. It will have to be.

REFERENCES

Socolow, Robert H. ‘‘Can We Bury Global Warming?’’ Scientific American, July 2005,

pp. 49–55.

Sperling, Daniel and James D. Cannon, The Hydrogen Transition, Elsevier Academic Press, 2004.

30

U.S. National Research Council, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs, The National Academies Press, 2004.

31

6This Appendix draws heavily upon a previous statement prepared for the 9 February, 2005

hearing of the House Science Committee.

APPENDIX:6 THE PROCESS OF INNOVATION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR

THE HYDROGEN TRANSITION

At the beginning, it might be helpful to review some general principles regarding

technological innovation and how it advances performance throughout the economy.

We should begin by understanding technology from the customer perspective—not

as a ‘‘thing,’’ but as a service.

Technology Viewed as a Service

Fuels and vehicles have little value in themselves, but enormous utility as providers of mobility services. These valued services include performance vectors like:

• Time saving: will the vehicle travel far enough that the driver does not waste

time with frequent refueling?

• Safety: how well does the vehicle protect its occupants, both by its ability to

avoid accidents and by its ability to survive them?

• Comfort: can the vehicle mitigate the stress and hassles of road travel for the

driver and passengers?

• Image: what does driving this particular vehicle say about its occupants?

• Ancillary services: does the vehicle have enough generating capacity to meet

the growing demand for on-board, electricity-based services?

At any time, consumers emphasize some of these performance dimensions while

satisficing along others. Consider the consumer preferences revealed by an EPA

analysis of automobile performance from 1981 to 2003. Over this period, average

horsepower nearly doubled (from 102 to 197 horsepower), weight increased markedly (from 3,201 to 3,974 lbs), and the time required to accelerate from zero to 60

mph dropped by nearly 30 percent. An energy policy that added fuel security to the

competitive performance dimensions for road transportation would do much to promote the hydrogen transition.

Technology-based Innovation: Accumulating

Technological innovations can be grouped into two general classes: those that advance performance by accumulating incremental improvements, and those that offer

discontinuous leaps in performance. The term accumulating applies to technologies

that advance performance along dimensions already recognized and accepted by customers. Each improvement might be incremental, but the cumulative effect compounds to yield markedly improved performance—consider the improvements in

processor speed for computers, for example. Auto manufacturers are accustomed to

competing along these dimensions, and the cumulative effect can lead to important

advances—but only if the technology competition continues long enough for the

gains to accumulate. Most of the fuel saving technologies discussed at this hearing

are incremental in nature, and so nurturing this kind of innovation could become

an important policy goal.

Technology-based Innovation: Discontinuous

In contrast, discontinuous technologies introduce performance dimensions quite

distinct from what the mainstream customers have come to value, sometimes offering inferior performance along the accustomed dimensions. Because of their inferior

mainstream performance, these technologies initially gain traction only in niche

markets. With continued use and improvement, however, discontinuous technologies

gain adequacy along the original dimensions and then enter the mainstream markets.

Consider the battery electric vehicle (BEV), for example. Many analysts have written off electric vehicles because of their inferior performance in mainstream auto

markets—acceleration, range, and recharge time. Yet electric vehicle technologies

are emerging in an important niche: the market for personal transportation. This

includes golf carts, all-terrain vehicles, touring vehicles for resorts, transportation

within gated communities, and so forth. In that market, the chief performance dimensions are convenient access, economy, and ease of use—and style. The current

state of electric vehicle technology is adequate for the limited range and acceleration

requirements of this niche. But, could electric vehicle technology advance to the

point of entry into mainstream markets? Or, could it compete effectively in personal

transportation markets in developing countries—say Thailand or China? That is, of

course, unknowable. But, please recall that the personal computer was once considVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Jan 27, 2006 Jkt 022549 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER05\072005\22549.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
32

7 Consider, for example, Zap!, a company founded 10 years ago in response to the zero-emissions vehicle market emerging in California. A description can be found at: http://

www.zapworld.com/index.asp

ered a hobbyists toy, inherently without enough power to enter mainstream applications.

Discontinuous innovation tends to be the province of the entrepreneur, and the

companies that such persons found become platforms for the innovations that radically change all markets. Yet entrepreneurs often have low visibility relative to the

market incumbents in policy discussions, and their companies are far from household words.7 This is because the entrepreneurs’ story is about the future, not the

present; about what could be and not about what is. For that reason, policies that

encourage entrepreneurship in technologies relevant to the hydrogen transition

should become part of the energy policy conversation.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DAVID L. BODDE

Senior Fellow and Professor: Arthur M. Spiro Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership; Director, Innovation and Public Policy, International Center for Automotive Research, Clemson University. Research and teaching in:

• Intellectual property management

• Markets for new energy technology

• Corporate entrepreneurship

• Next-generation hybrid electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles

PREVIOUS PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

University of Missouri–Kansas City, July 1996 to September 2004

Charles N. Kimball Chair in Technology and Innovation at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. Joint appointment as Professor of Engineering and Business Administration.

Midwest Research Institute (MRI), January 1991 to July 1996

Corporate Vice President and President of MRI’s for-profit subsidiary, MRI Ventures. Responsible for new enterprise development through cooperative research,

new ventures, licenses, and international agreements. Managed technology development consortium of five private companies to commercialize technology from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Worked with Department of Energy

and senior NREL management on strategic initiatives for the laboratory.

National Academy of Sciences, April 1986 to January 1991

Executive Director, Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems. Directed

research and studies on public and private issues in science and technology.

U.S. Government, March 1978 to March 1986

Assistant Director, Congressional Budget Office, United States Congress. Directed

economic analyses of legislation affecting energy, industrial competitiveness, agribusiness, science, technology, and education.

Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Energy. Policy research regarding nuclear energy, coal, synthetic fuels, electric utilities, technology transfer and national

security. Emphasis on nuclear breeder reactors and nuclear non-proliferation. U.S.

delegate to International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation, which sought an international agreement on plutonium recycle and measures to slow the proliferation of

nuclear weapons.

TRW, Inc., January 1976 to March 1978

Manager, Engineering Analysis Office, Energy Systems Planning Division. Built

business using systems analysis and engineering studies. Emphasis on application

of aerospace technology to energy problems, especially radioactive waste disposal

and synthetic fuels.

U.S. Army, 1965 to 1970

Captain. Platoon leader, company commander, and battalion operations officer.

Airborne and Ranger qualified. Service as combat engineer in Vietnam (1968–69).

Bronze Star, Army Commendation Medals. Remained in the Army Reserve as an

R&D officer advising on the management of defense laboratories and nuclear research programs.

33

EDUCATION

Harvard University

Doctor of Business Administration, March 1976. Doctoral thesis on the influence

of regulation on the technical configuration of the commercial nuclear steam supply

system. Thesis research cited in subsequent books on nuclear energy. Harding Foundation Fellowship.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Master of Science degrees in Nuclear Engineering (1972) and Management (1973).

Atomic Energy Commission Fellowship. Experimental thesis on irradiation-induced

stress relaxation.

United States Military Academy

Bachelor of Science, 1965. Commissioned Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army.

CORPORATE BOARD MEMBERSHIPS

Great Plains Energy

Board member of electric energy company, 1994–present. Chair, Nuclear Committee; Chair, Governance Committee; Member, Audit Committee.

The Commerce Funds

Founding director of family of mutual funds, currently with $2.2 billion assets

under management. Growth and Bond Funds achieved Morningstar 5-Star ranking.

1995–present.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Grew up in Kansas City, Missouri. Married (since 1967) with four children. Enjoy

competitive athletics, especially racquetball and tennis. Frequent backpacker, amateur historian, bad poet, and worse musician. Publications in technology management, energy, and policy.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Bodde.

Mr. Chernoby.

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK CHERNOBY, VICE PRESIDENT, ADVANCED VEHICLE ENGINEERING, DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION

Mr. CHERNOBY. We are going to shift a little bit and use some

visual aids to support my conversation, so go ahead to the next

slide, please.

[Slide.]

I want to thank the Chairs and the distinguished Members of the

House Committee for this opportunity to appear before you today.

I am going to briefly describe DaimlerChrysler’s involvement in

the Administration’s hydrogen initiative, what we are trying to do

to advance the overall hydrogen economy, and then as well as some

of the specific questions raised today.

Mr. Chairman, you mentioned three keys. You mentioned commitment, collaboration, and discovery. And as I go through these

slides, I am going to try and point that out.

In the slide you see before you now, what I am trying to describe

is DaimlerChrysler, we have been working on fuel cell technology

for over 10 years. We have poured a billion dollars into different

technologies for fuel cells that run on different fuel sources. We are

committed. We have now centered, in the past few years, all of our

work on hydrogen as the base fuel for these fuel cell products. And

as you can see on the slide with the various pictures, we are attempting to look at products that could be attractive to a broad

range of the—of customers, be it heavy buses for certain types of

environments all of the way down to the small and compact car.

Next slide, please.

34

[Slide.]

One of the critical enablers is collaboration. We participate as a

member for the United States Council for Automotive Research

with our partners at Ford and General Motors. And then most recently, we think it is exceptional to have added partners from BP,

ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, and Shell, because we truly

think the march to a completely new technology, a different way

of life in the hydrogen economy is going to truly require collaboration in a pre-competitive environment across these multiple industries. We have got to bring together both vehicle and the infrastructure. And as you see in the center of this slide, the joint partnership and how we work together in certain task teams to understand how these infrastructures interface with the vehicle, what

about the fuel, fuel quality, how does that relate to the fuel cell,

it has all got to come together in order to realize a successful transition to the hydrogen economy.

Next slide, please.

[Slide.]

At DaimlerChrysler, as Mr. Honda mentioned, we are proud to

be a participant in the Department of Energy’s demonstration program. We have numerous vehicles that are on the road in the

United States already providing information to the Department of

Energy. We have also shared information off of these vehicles with

the Environmental Protection Agency. And really, there are several

key things we are trying to get out of the demonstration product.

We are moving from the lab to the road. That is critical. We have

already found failure modes and systems to components that we

had not seen in the lab environment. And as was mentioned, these

now become initiatives and challenges for us to work on both in the

research and the development environment as we move forward. So

it is critical, when you are moving from a technology, like the internal combustion engine that we have on the road for well more than

50 years, we understand how that affects the environment. With

the new technology, we have to develop that understanding. That

is why we are participating in three different environments. And

DaimlerChrysler, outside of this demonstration project, we have vehicles around the world in a multitude of environments. And as

you can see, our demonstration vehicles range from the small vehicle, the F-cell, up to the large sprinter, because these two types of

vehicles clearly operate in different environments between the commercial and more of the daily use. So we absolutely think the demonstration fleet is providing very valuable data to feed the codes

and standards efforts as well as helping us find new barriers and

challenges we need to overcome to bring this product to a reality.

Next slide, please.

[Slide.]

There was a question raised about, you know, what does

DaimlerChrysler do. What do we focus on in order to make decisions on where we put our research funds and how much research

funds get placed against a certain topic?

As you can see on the slide, we basically look at five key factors.

I would like to tell you there is a perfect math formula that with

algebra you can just plug in the numbers and say this is where you

put your money. Unfortunately, the world and life isn’t that easy.

35

We do look at probability of technical success, the probability of

commercial success in the market, the value from a customer perspective, how does it fit with our business strategy, and then what

strategic leverage does it provide the company. All of these factors,

any type of research that we do, are calibrated, assessed, and then

with that assessment, we look at, all right, how are we going to

prioritize our funding and our people resource over a said time period.

Next slide, please.

[Slide.]

There was a question raised about how do we see the fuel cell

vehicle, the infrastructure coming together in terms of time in

transitioning to truly the hydrogen-based economy for this transportation sector.

At DaimlerChrysler, we think we are—we project we are going

to go through four different phases. Right now, we have moved

from basically what we call market preparation. That is basically

setting up the infrastructure, setting up the vehicles in the lab environment, and getting ready to put some vehicles actually on the

road that are fit for daily use. Fit for daily use, I have to qualify,

only in certain environments. As an example, we have had severe

challenges with cold start, so you will find many of the vehicles

around the world aren’t necessarily in extremely cold environments.

We think we are going to go through two more stages before this

finally becomes the reality. We are going to head to a ramp-up

stage. That is where we think some of the technological barriers

that are facing us through all of this great pre-competitive research

are going to be overcome. And we will be able to put a larger fleet

in the field. This larger fleet is going to be limited by the growth

of the infrastructure. We have got to have both the infrastructure

there, the fueling, along with the vehicle to make it work. So we

project that will be the next stage.

And then the final stage will actually be commercialization. This

is where the—all of the major technical barriers, including cost and

value to the customer, and then broad-based movement of the infrastructure have to come together to make it viable to move to

large-scale production and then large-scale purchase and use by

the customer base.

Next slide, please.

[Slide.]

At DaimlerChrysler, though, we are absolutely convinced, both in

the short-term, the near-term, and potentially in the long-term,

there is going to be a wide range of technologies that are going to

be attractive to the marketplace. We are working on all of them at

once, because we believe there is a place for each one of these technologies in the market where they provide maximum value to the

customer. As an example, a hybrid provides maximum value to the

customer who operates in a city environment. The customer who

drives mostly on the highway may be more attracted to a diesel.

And so as we transition between now and the hydrogen economy,

we are going to keep working on trying to provide a broad-based

set of propulsion technologies for the market to enable them to implement them to benefit not only the environment, but energy secuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Jan 27, 2006 Jkt 022549 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ENER05\072005\22549.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
36

rity, because penetration is what is going to matter. We don’t get

a benefit from either one of those unless we get market penetration, and so we have got to provide maximum value to the customer.

Next slide, please.

[Slide.]

There are several key technology challenges in front of us to

transition to the hydrogen economy. We have—we would summarize them into the fuel cell system itself, durability, cost. We have

done some great work in terms of the pre-competitive environment,

between academia, government, and industry in overcoming a challenge such as cold start. So that is one behind us, but we have got

many more to go. The battery system, as was commented earlier,

is a significant challenge as well. And then finally, hydrogen storage, as Dr. Bodde mentioned, is a very significant challenge that

we absolutely must find a way to overcome if we expect to have

broad-based penetration of the market and not take space away

from the customer.

Next slide, please.

[Slide.]

So if we look at the—how we think we are going to transition,

obviously, we are very focused at DaimlerChrysler on the nearterm in providing both the advanced powertrains and hybrid technology. And then we, obviously, are very committed to a transition

to an H2 fuel cell vehicle and then the ultimate infrastructure and

economy that is going to come together with the broad-based focus

on zero emissions, ultimate low energy consumption for the environment, and then finally the concept of energy self-sufficiency and

energy security that comes along with it.

Next slide, please.

[Slide.]

I think that is it.

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you

may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chernoby follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK CHERNOBY

I want to thank the Chairs and distinguished Members of the House Committee

on Science for this opportunity to appear today.

I am coming before you today to describe our involvement in the Administration’s

Hydrogen Initiatives, and what DaimlerChrysler is doing to advance the overall hydrogen economy, as well as, address the questions presented to me by the Subcommittee on Research and the Subcommittee on Energy.

What is DaimlerChrysler doing to advance a hydrogen economy?

DaimlerChrysler has been working on fuel cell technology for transportation utilizing hydrogen for over ten years. We have invested over $1 Billion in R&D and

have developed five generations of vehicles (NECAR1, 2, 3, and 4, and the F–Cell).

Of all manufacturers, we have the largest world wide fleet of fuel cell cars and

buses (100 vehicles) participating in several international demonstration projects in

the United States, Europe, and Asia. (See Figure 1: DaimlerChrysler Fuel Cell History)

How does DaimlerChrysler participate in the Administration’s Hydrogen

Initiatives?

As a member of the United States Council for Automotive Research (USCAR),

DaimlerChrysler is a partner in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) FreedomCAR

and Fuel Partnership along with General Motors and Ford Motor Company, and BP

37

America, ChevronTexaco Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corporation, and

Shell Hydrogen. The recent addition of these five major energy providers has

strengthened the Partnership considerably, by providing expertise to solve the infrastructure challenges. DaimlerChrysler has also been working with the DOE since

1993 on advanced automotive technology research. We support the initiative as

members on technical teams related to advanced automotive technology, including:

— Energy Storage

— Light Weight Materials

— Advanced Combustion

— Hydrogen Storage

— Fuel Cell

— Codes & Standards

— Electrical and Electronics

— Vehicle Systems Analysis

Through these tech teams, we help develop priorities based on future needs and

manage a portfolio of research projects directed at a set of Research Goals and Objectives. (See Figure 2: FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership)

We also are one of four recipients to participate in the DOE Hydrogen and Fleet

Demonstration Project. By the end of 2005, we will have 30 vehicles located in three

ecosystems (Southern California, Northern California, and Southeastern Michigan)

and were the first OEM to provide valuable technical data to the DOE. (See Figure

3: DOE Hydrogen Fleet & Infrastructure Demonstration & Validation Project)

What criteria does DaimlerChrysler consider when making investment decisions regarding its portfolio of advanced vehicle research and development programs?

DaimlerChrysler uses five factors of measurement to determine investment priorities in our advance technology portfolio. They are:

— Probability of Technical Success

— Probability of Commercial Success

— Value

— Business Strategy Fit, and

— Strategic Leverage

(See Figure 4: Five Key Investment Factors)

What factors would induce DaimlerChrysler to invest more in the development of hydrogen-fueled vehicles?

Several factors could contribute to inducing DaimlerChrysler to invest more in the

development of hydrogen fueled vehicles. Key factors include:

— Significant technological advances in fuel cells and hydrogen storage/production

— Major governmental policy support such as incentives, regulatory shifts,

— Changes in consumer demand and competitive pressure

— Significant long-term increases in gasoline prices

What do you see as a probable timeline for the commercialization of hydrogen-fueled vehicles?

The current technology is being evaluated in several fleet demonstration projects

around the world. The largest is the DOE’s program in the United States. These

programs include a few hundred vehicles worldwide and several hydrogen fueling

stations.

DaimlerChrysler projects that the hydrogen fueled vehicle technologies will evolve

in discreet phases driven be the following cadence of events:

— Breakthrough in basic research

— Bench/laboratory development

— ‘‘On road’’ testing and development

— Parallel manufacturing process development

Within the next 4–6 years, we will enter another phase utilizing technologies that

address some of the current deficiencies including durability, range, and cold start,

38

as well as, lower cost. This phase will see vehicle numbers in the low thousands

and the beginning of a local infrastructure to support them.

The third phase will require significant vehicle technical breakthroughs in hydrogen storage, fuel cell cost, and a significantly expanded infrastructure. Technological

breakthroughs are required in hydrogen storage and fuel cell technology (focused on

cost & durability). DaimlerChrysler shares a commitment with our partners in

USCAR effort to achieve these gains. It is a challenge to predict a definitive timeline

for technological discovery. The vehicle fleet could grow to tens of thousands if significant shifts occur in the infrastructure and value to the consumer. The infrastructure must expand to a much larger scale beyond local support. This will be critical

to support the freedom to travel that consumers will demand when we move from

a market dominated by local ‘‘fleet’’ customers to the average consumer.

High volume commercialization will require a highly distributed infrastructure capable of delivering cost competitive hydrogen and fuel cell powered vehicles that can

compete with other fuel efficient technologies. It is likely that this will require continued government policy support for vehicle and fuel. (See Figure 5:

DaimlerChrysler Fuel Cell Strategy)

What about the other advanced vehicle technologies DaimlerChrysler is

currently developing, such as hybrid vehicles and advanced diesel engines?

DaimlerChrysler is engaged in a broad range of advanced propulsion technologies.

Fuel cell vehicles are a long-term focus of this technology portfolio, which also includes efficient gasoline engines, advanced diesels, and hybrid powertrain systems.

(See Figure 6: DaimlerChrysler’s Advanced Propulsion Technologies)

DaimlerChrysler is focused on providing the market with the ability to select the

advanced propulsion technology that best fits the needs of the individual customer.

Each of the short-term technologies optimizes its benefit to the consumer in specific

drive cycles (hybrid/city, diesel/highway) and hence its value to the customer.

DaimlerChrysler has developed and implemented technologies that improve the

efficiency of the current gasoline propulsion system. We must continue to enhance

the gasoline combustion propulsion system since it will be the dominant choice in

the market for many years to come. We offer the Multi-Displacement System (MDS)

available in the HEMI in seven Chrysler Group vehicles. MDS seamlessly alternates

between smooth, high fuel economy four-cylinder mode when less power is needed

and V–8 mode when more power from the 5.7L HEMI engine is in demand. The

system yields up to 20 percent improved fuel economy.

We are also working on further development of gasoline direct-injection which

considerably enhances fuel economy by closely monitoring fuel atomization.

DaimlerChrysler offers four different diesel powertrains in the United States, not

including heavy trucks. Advanced diesel technology offers up to 30 percent better

fuel economy and 20 percent less CO2 emissions when compared to equivalent gasoline engines. The diesel provides maximum benefit in highway driving which for

many customers is a daily occurrence. Advanced diesel is a technology that is available today and can help reduce our nation’s dependency on foreign oil.

Designing more engines to run on Biodiesel is a current objective at

DaimlerChrysler. Biodiesel fuel reduces emissions of diesel vehicles, including carbon dioxide, and lowers petroleum consumption. Each Jeep Liberty Common Rail

Diesel (CRD) built by DaimlerChrysler is delivered to customers running on B5 biodiesel fuel. Nationwide use of B2 fuel (two percent biodiesel) would replace 742 million gallons of gasoline per year, according to the National Biodiesel Board.

DaimlerChrysler and GM have recently combined efforts to develop a two-mode

hybrid drive system that surpasses the efficiency of today’s hybrids. The partnership

will cut development and system costs while giving customers an affordable hybrid

alternative that improves fuel economy. The first use of the system will be in early

2008 with the Dodge Durango.

What do you see as the potential technology showstoppers for a hydrogen

economy?

The most significant technology showstoppers that DaimlerChrysler recognizes as

challenging the viability of the hydrogen economy include fuel cell durability, onboard hydrogen storage and advanced battery durability performance. Though there

are major efforts and investment being put into fuel cell development, the current

systems have to make significant gains in life expectancy and extreme operating

conditions that the average consumer will demand.

No current on-board hydrogen storage system meets the FreedomCAR and Fuel

Partnership targets for cost and performance. To meet customer expectations for

driving range, a large amount of hydrogen is required to be stored on-board. Today’s

compressed hydrogen storage technology has limits in storage density which leads

39

to a compromise in passenger compartment space in order to provide the driving

range that consumer’s enjoy today. Additionally, the current level of technology for

high-pressure storage tanks that are available has associated manufacturing processes that take multiple days per tank. The on-board hydrogen storage tank industry currently does not have the capacity to support even low-volume production levels. Alternative and novel methods of storing hydrogen on-board are critical to the

hydrogen economy.

While several advancements have been made in battery technology in recent

years, the current level of technology does not support performance requirements for

power, energy and durability. (See Figure 7: Technology Showstoppers)

In addition to the technology challenges identified above, the cost challenges are

significant barriers. To realize large scale market penetration, we will have to approach the value that customers enjoy with current propulsion technologies.

Even with a viable vehicle, the hydrogen economy will not become a reality without a highly distributed infrastructure. Our Energy Partners in the FreedomCAR

and Fuel effort are committed to the research and technology development required

to realize this goal. Industry and government will need to work together to develop

an implementation plan with financial viability for all entities.

To what extent is DaimlerChrysler relying on government programs to

help solve those technical challenges?

DaimlerChrysler realizes that the technical challenges associated with moving towards the hydrogen economy are too great and too costly for any one company to

solve. Therefore, we see a benefit in multiple companies working together with government in pre-competitive technology development. Due to the enormity of this

transition, DaimlerChrysler actively participates in USCAR with Ford Motor Company and General Motors and in the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership along with

the other USCAR members as well as the U.S. Department of Energy, BP America,

ChevronTexaco Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Exxon Mobil Corporation and Shell Hydrogen. The research required to solve the technical challenges of the hydrogen

economy is universally viewed as ‘‘high risk’’ by industry. The research sponsored

by DOE through the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership provides a forum to pull

together some of the best minds and organizations involved in advancement of the

hydrogen economy to help address that risk. The development of the hydrogen infrastructure must progress in parallel with fuel cell vehicle technologies. (See Figure

8: Technology Relationship Strategy)

How are automakers using, or how do they plan to use, the advanced vehicle technology developed for hydrogen-fueled vehicles to improve the performance of conventional vehicles?

As stated earlier, DaimlerChrysler is working on a broad portfolio of technologies

to improve the efficiency and environmental impact of transportation. In the shortterm we continue to improve the internal combustion engine (ICE). In the mid-term

we are developing hybrid vehicles utilizing electric drive systems, integrated power

modules and advanced batteries. In the long-term fuel cell vehicles with on-board

hydrogen storage from a national hydrogen infrastructure will emerge.

The current portfolio of R&D within the DOE’s FreedomCAR and Fuel Initiative

is focused on the long-term hydrogen vision, but many of the technologies are useful

and will mature in the shorter-term as transition technologies. Cost effective, lightweight materials can be applied to vehicles in the short-term to improve fuel efficiency regardless of the propulsion technology. Advanced energy storage and motors

will benefit both hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Novel approaches to hydrogen storage

are uniquely required by hydrogen fueled vehicles, but can support stationary and

portable applications in the industrial and consumer markets.

It is important to advance and mature many of the aspects of the technology as

early as possible. There are many challenges and breakthroughs needed to realize

the President’s vision of a ‘‘Hydrogen Economy.’’

40

41

42

43

44

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARK CHERNOBY

Mark Chernoby is the Vice President of Advance Vehicle Engineering for the

Chrysler Group Business Unit at DaimlerChrysler. In this position, he is responsible for engineering Chrysler Group products in the early stages of the program

cycle, CAE, Crossfire programs, GEM operation and Government Collaborative Programs. He was promoted to this position in November, 2003.

During his 19 years at Chrysler & DaimlerChrysler, Mark has worked in component, system, and full vehicle engineering. He worked in powertrain component and

system engineering for the first nine years of his career. Mark then moved to full

vehicle engineering managing the NVH development for Chrysler’s products for a

period of five years. Mark then had a position responsible for managing all of the

functional requirements for a new line of large passenger cars. In has last position,

Mark was responsible for the NVH, Crash, and Core Vehicle Dynamics of Chrysler

Group Products.

Mark graduated from Michigan State University in 1983 with a B.S. in Engineering, University of Michigan–Dearborn in 1985 with a M.S. in Engineering, and from

the University of Michigan in 1990 with a MBA.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

Dr. Crabtree, you are recognized. Turn on your microphone,

please.

STATEMENT OF DR. GEORGE W. CRABTREE, DIRECTOR, MATERIALS SCIENCE DIVISION, ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

Dr. CRABTREE. Is it working?

Yes. Good. Thanks.

Chairman Biggert, Chairman Inglis, Members of the Energy and

Research Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to testify

today and share my thoughts on the hydrogen economy.

I will address the role of basic research in bringing the hydrogen

economy to fruition. As background for my testimony, I would like

to introduce into the record the report ‘‘Basic Research Needs for

the Hydrogen Economy’’ based on the workshop held by the Department of Energy Office of Basic Energy Sciences. This report

documents the vision of hydrogen as the fuel of the future and the

scientific challenges that must be met to realize a vibrant and competitive hydrogen economy. (This information appears in Appendix

2: Additional Material for the Record.)

The enormous appeal of hydrogen as a fuel is matched by an

equally enormous set of critical scientific and engineering challenges. Currently, nearly all of the hydrogen we use is produced by

reforming natural gas. In a mature hydrogen economy, this production route simply exchanges a dependence on foreign oil for a dependence on foreign gas, and it does not reduce the production of

environmental pollutants or greenhouse gases. We must find carbon-neutral production routes for hydrogen with the capacity to

displace a large percentage of our fossil fuel use.

The most appealing route is splitting water renewably, because

the supply of water is effectively inexhaustible, free of geopolitical

constraints, and splitting it produces no greenhouse gases or pollutants. Although some routes for splitting water renewably are

known, we do not know how to make them cost-effective, nor do we

understand how to adapt them to a diversity of renewable energy

sources. The onboard storage of hydrogen for transportation is the

second critical basic science challenge. To allow a 300-mile driving

range without compromising cargo and passenger space, we must

store hydrogen at high density and with fast release times.

45

Since the 1970s, over 2,000 hydrogen compounds have been examined for their storage capability. None have been found that

meet the storage demands. This critical storage challenge cannot be

met without significant basic research. We must better understand

the interaction of hydrogen with materials and exploit this knowledge to design effective storage media.

The critical challenges for fuel cells are cost, performance, and

reliability. High cost arises from expensive catalysts and membrane materials. Performance is limited by the low chemical activity of catalysts and the ionic conductivity of membranes.

Although catalysts have been known for centuries, we still do not

understand why or how they work. Our approach to catalysis is

largely empirical. We often find that the best catalysts are the

most expensive metals, like platinum. The challenge is to understand catalysis on the molecular level and use that understanding

to design low-cost, high-performance catalysts targeted for fuel

cells.

Membranes are another critical basic research challenge for fuel

cells. Currently, fuel cells for transportation depend almost exclusively on one membrane: a carbon-fluorine polymer with sulfonic

side chains. Our ability to design alternative membranes is limited

by our poor understanding of their ion conduction mechanisms. Significant basic materials research is needed before practical new

membrane materials can be found and developed.

These three challenges are critical for the long-term success of

the hydrogen economy: production of hydrogen by splitting water

renewably, storage of hydrogen at high density with fast release

times, and improved catalysts and membranes for fuel cells.

For each of these challenges, incremental improvements in the

present state-of-the-art will not produce a hydrogen economy that

is competitive with fossil fuels. Revolutionary breakthroughs are

needed of the kind that come only from high-risk, high-payoff basic

research.

The outlook for achieving such breakthroughs is promising. The

recent worldwide emphasis on nanoscience and nanotechnology

opens up many new directions for hydrogen materials research. All

of the critical challenges outlined above depend on understanding

and manipulating hydrogen at the nanoscale. Nanoscience has

given us new fabrication tools capable of creating molecular architectures of unprecedented complexity and functionality.

The explosion of experimental techniques to probe matter at

ever-smaller link scales and time scales brings new knowledge

within our reach. Numerical simulations running on computer clusters of hundreds of nodes can model the atomic processes of water

splitting, hydrogen storage and release, catalysis, and ion motion

in membranes. These recent scientific developments set the stage

for breakthroughs in hydrogen materials science needed for a mature, sustainable, and competitive hydrogen economy.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Crabtree follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. CRABTREE

Chairmen Biggert and Inglis, and Members of the Energy and Research Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to testify today and share my thoughts

on the hydrogen economy. I will address the role of basic research in bringing the

46

hydrogen economy to fruition. As background for my testimony, I would like to introduce into the record the report on ‘‘Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy’’ based on the Workshop held by the Department of Energy (DOE), Office of

Basic Energy Sciences. This report documents the vision of hydrogen as the fuel of

the future, and the scientific challenges that must be met to realize a vibrant and

competitive hydrogen economy.

Let me start my testimony by recalling the energy challenges that motivate the

transition to a hydrogen economy. Our dependence on fossil fuel requires that much

of our energy come from foreign sources; securing our energy supply for the future

demands that we develop domestic energy sources. Continued use of fossil fuels produces local and regional pollution that threatens the quality of our environment and

the health of our citizens. Finally, fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases like carbon

dioxide that threaten our climate with global warming.

Hydrogen as a fuel addresses all of these issues: it is found abundantly in compounds like water that are widely accessible without geopolitical constraints, it produces no pollutants or greenhouse gases as byproducts of its use, and it converts

readily to heat through combustion and to electricity through fuel cells that couple

seamlessly to our existing energy networks.

Critical Challenges: Production

The enormous appeal of hydrogen as a fuel is matched by an equally enormous

set of critical scientific and engineering challenges. Unlike fossil fuels, hydrogen

does not occur naturally in the environment. Instead, hydrogen must be produced

from natural resources like fossil fuels, biomass or water. Currently nearly all the

hydrogen we use is produced by reforming natural gas. To power cars and light

trucks in the coming decades we will need 10 to 15 times the amount of hydrogen

we now produce. This hydrogen cannot continue to come from natural gas, as that

production route simply exchanges a dependence on foreign oil for a dependence on

foreign gas, and it does not reduce the production of environmental pollutants or

greenhouse gases. We must find carbon-neutral production routes for hydrogen. The

most appealing route is splitting water renewably, because the supply of water is

effectively inexhaustible and splitting it produces no greenhouse gases or pollutants.

Although some routes for splitting water renewably are known, we do not know how

to make them cost-effective, nor do we know how to adapt them to a diversity of

renewable energy sources. Splitting water renewably is a critical basic science challenge that must be addressed if the hydrogen economy is to achieve its long-term

goals of replacing fossil fuels, reducing our dependence on foreign energy sources,

and eliminating the emission of pollution and greenhouse gases.

Critical Challenges: Storage

The on-board storage of hydrogen for transportation is a second critical basic

science challenge. To allow a 300-mile driving range without compromising cargo

and passenger space, we must store hydrogen at densities higher than that of liquid

hydrogen. This may seem a daunting task, but in fact there are a host of materials

where hydrogen combines with other elements at densities 50 percent to 100 percent

higher than that of liquid hydrogen. Since the 1970s over two thousand hydrogen

compounds have been examined for their storage capability; none has been found

that meet the storage demands. The challenge is to satisfy two conflicting requirements: high storage capacity and fast release times. High hydrogen capacity requires close packing and strong chemical bonding of hydrogen, while fast release requires loose packing and weak bonding for high hydrogen mobility. This critical

storage challenge cannot be met without significant basic research: we must better

understand the interaction of hydrogen with materials and exploit this knowledge

to design effective storage media.

Critical Challenges: Fuel Cells

The use of hydrogen in fuel cells presents a third critical scientific challenge. Fuel

cells are by far the most appealing energy conversion devices we know of. They convert the chemical energy of hydrogen or other fuels directly to electricity without

intermediate steps of combustion or mechanical rotation of a turbine. Their high efficiency, up to 60 percent or more, is a major advantage compared to traditional conversion routes like gasoline engines with about 25 percent efficiency. The combination of hydrogen, fuel cells, and electric motors has the potential to replace many

of our much less efficient energy conversion systems that are based on combustion

of fossil fuels driving heat engines for producing electricity or mechanical motion.

The critical challenges for fuel cells are cost, performance and reliability. High

cost arises from expensive catalysts and membrane materials; performance is limited by the low chemical activity of catalysts and ionic conductivity of membranes;

and reliability depends on effective design and integration of the component parts

47

of the fuel cell. Although catalysts have been known for centuries, we still do not

understand why or how they work. Our approach to catalysts is largely empirical;

we often find that the best catalysts are the most expensive metals like platinum.

Nature, by contrast, uses inexpensive manganese to split water in green plants and

abundant iron to create molecular hydrogen from protons and electrons in bacteria.

These natural examples show that cheaper, more effective catalysts can be found.

The challenge is to understand catalysis on the molecular level and use that understanding to design low cost, high performance catalysts targeted for fuel cells.

Membranes are another critical basic research challenge for fuel cells. Currently

fuel cells for transportation depend almost exclusively on one membrane, a carbonfluorine polymer with sulfonic side chains. While this membrane is an adequate ion

conductor, it requires a carefully managed water environment and it limits the operating temperature of the fuel cell to below the boiling point of water. We need new

classes of membrane materials that will outperform the one choice currently available. Our ability to design alternative membranes is limited by our poor understanding of their ion conduction mechanisms. Significant basic materials research

is needed before practical new membrane materials can be found and developed.

Meeting the Challenges: Basic Research

The three challenges outlined above are critical for the success of a hydrogen

economy:

• Production of hydrogen by splitting water renewably;

• Storage of hydrogen at high density with fast release times; and

• Improved catalysts and membranes for fuel cells.

For each of these challenges, incremental improvements in the present state-ofthe-art will not produce a hydrogen economy that is competitive with fossil fuels.

Revolutionary breakthroughs are needed, of the kind that come only from high-risk/

high-payoff basic research.

The outlook for achieving such breakthroughs is promising. The recent worldwide

emphasis on nanoscience and nanotechnology opens up many new directions for hydrogen materials research. All of the critical challenges outlined above depend on

understanding and manipulating hydrogen at the nanoscale. Nanoscience has given

us new fabrication tools, through top-down lithography and bottom-up self-assembly,

that can create molecular architectures of unprecedented complexity and

functionality. The explosion of bench-top scanning probes and the development of

high intensity sources of electrons, neutrons and x-rays for advanced materials research at DOE’s user facilities at Argonne and other national laboratories brings

new physical phenomena at ever smaller length and time scales within our reach.

Numerical simulations using density functional theory and running on computer

clusters of hundreds of nodes can now model the processes of water splitting, hydrogen storage and release, catalysis and ionic conduction in membranes. These scientific developments set the stage for the breakthroughs in hydrogen materials

science needed for a vibrant and competitive hydrogen economy.

Significant progress in basic research for the hydrogen economy is already occurring. Basic research on catalysis for fuel cells published in 2005 revealed that a single atomic layer of platinum on certain metal substrates has more catalytic power

than the best catalysts now in use; this discovery could significantly reduce the cost

and enhance the performance of fuel cells. A new route for splitting water using

sunlight was created with the self-assembly of porphyrin nanotubes decorated with

gold and platinum nanoparticles. These tiny nanoscale composites have already

demonstrated water splitting driven by solar radiation, and they minimize manufacturing cost through their ability to self-assemble. Models of hydrogen storage compounds using density functional theory now predict the density of hydrogen and

strength of its binding with unparalleled accuracy. This permits an extensive theoretical survey of potential storage materials, many more than could be practicably

fabricated and tested in the laboratory.

Conclusion

The vision of the hydrogen economy as a solution to foreign energy dependence,

environmental pollution and greenhouse gas emission is compelling. The enormous

challenges on the road to achieving this vision can be addressed with innovative

high-risk/high-payoff basic research. The great contribution of basic research to society is the discovery of entirely new approaches to our pressing needs. The phenomenal advances in personal computing enabled by semiconductor materials

science and their impact in every sphere of human activity illustrates the power of

basic science to drive technology and enhance our daily lives. The challenges for the

hydrogen economy in production, storage and use are known. Recent developments

48

in nanoscience, in high intensity sources for scattering of electrons, neutrons and

x-rays from materials at DOE’s user facilities, and in numerical simulation using

density functional theory open promising new directions for basic research to address the hydrogen challenges. The breakthroughs that basic research produces in

hydrogen materials science will enable the realization of a mature, sustainable, and

competitive hydrogen economy.

Thank you, and I will be happy to answer questions.

BIOGRAPHY FOR GEORGE W. CRABTREE

George Crabtree is a Senior Scientist at Argonne National Laboratory and Director of its Materials Science Division. He holds a Ph.D. in Condensed Matter Physics

from the University of Illinois at Chicago, specializing in the electronic properties

of metals. He has won numerous awards, most recently the Kammerlingh Onnes

Prize for his work on the properties of vortices in high temperature superconductors.

This prestigious prize is awarded only once every three years; Dr. Crabtree is its

second recipient. He has won the University of Chicago Award for Distinguished

Performance at Argonne twice, and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Award for Outstanding Scientific Accomplishment in Solid State Physics four times, a notable accomplishment. He has an R&D 100 Award for his pioneering development of Magnetic Flux Imaging Systems, is a Fellow of the American Physical Society, and is

a charter member of ISI’s compilation of Highly Cited Researchers in Physics.

Dr. Crabtree has served as Chairman of the Division of Condensed Matter of the

American Physical Society, as a Founding Editor of the scientific journal Physica C,

as a Divisional Associate Editor of Physical Review Letters, as Chair of the Advisory

Committee for the National Magnet Laboratory in Tallahassee, Florida, and as Editor of several review issues of Physica C devoted to superconductivity. He has published more than 400 papers in leading scientific journals, and given approximately

100 invited talks at national and international scientific conferences. His research

interests include materials science, nanoscale superconductors and magnets, vortex

matter in superconductors, and highly correlated electrons in metals. Most recently

he served as Associate Chair of the Workshop on Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy organized by the Department of Energy’s Office of Basic Energy

Sciences, which is the subject of this hearing.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Crabtree.

Dr. Heywood, you are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN B. HEYWOOD, DIRECTOR, SLOAN

AUTOMOTIVE LABORATORY, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE

OF TECHNOLOGY

Dr. HEYWOOD. It is a pleasure to be here to testify before you

this morning.

This hearing is focused on hydrogen. I want to spend a couple

of minutes developing my understanding of the context within

which we ought to think about hydrogen. And that—the critical

part of that context is that our U.S. transportation systems’ petroleum consumption, first of all, is so large that it is almost beyond

our comprehension, and that makes changing what we do extraordinarily difficult. And that consumption is growing at a significant

rate. The consumption is already large. Twenty-five years from

now, it is projected to be 60 percent higher. Fifty years from now,

it is expected to be twice what it is today.

What are our options for dealing with this in a broader way before we focus on hydrogen? And I find it useful to talk about this

in two ways, to say there are two pars that we should be pursuing

aggressively.

And the first of these is to improve the performance of our mainstream internal combustion engines, transmissions, other vehicle

components step by step, and there is a lot of potential for doing

that. The challenge is, it costs more, so the price goes up. It goes

49

up a bit if the improvement is small. It goes up more if the improvements are larger. Hybrid vehicle technology is a clear example of that. And to date, the response of the market to somewhat

higher cost but more efficient vehicles has not been to reduce fuel

consumption. It has largely been traded for higher vehicle—larger

vehicle size, higher vehicle weight, and better vehicle performance.

We need to do something with a sense of urgency to reduce our

petroleum consumption through these mainstream technology improvements, and we need to reinforce that more broadly within the

government by developing a combination of fiscal and regulatory

strategies to raise the importance of vehicle fuel consumption in

the marketplace so that vehicle buyers and vehicle users are much

more aware of their fuel consumption, what it costs them, and

what it costs the Nation more broadly.

Now the second path relates to the longer-term, because even

with improvements in mainstream technology, without drastic

changes in our technology and our vehicles, we will still be dependent on petroleum-like fuels, and the greenhouse gas emissions that

come from our transportation sector will still be significant. If we

want to get to much lower energy consumption, recognizing that

the availability of petroleum is going to decline as this century progresses, we need approaches like hydrogen and fuel cell technology

to make—to take the next step.

But our challenge is that big changes in technology, whether it

be to hydrogen and fuel cells or to advanced batteries and electricity as the energy carrier, take a long time to have an impact.

Yes, we have hydrogen vehicles out there, a limited number already driving around, they cost in the order of $1 million each. In

10 or 15 years, there will be trial fleets, prototypes of what these

technologies could be, but the costs will still be substantially above

what conventional vehicle costs are.

Our own estimates are that to look at when hydrogen and fuel

cells could have a noticeable impact on transportation’s energy consumption, we judge that to be at least 40 or 50 years away. That

is much longer than most people are willing to acknowledge. And

the reason is that most people leave out the time required to build

up production facilities for any new technology so that it is both

sold and then out there in the in-use vehicle fleet in sufficient

quantities driving around to have an impact on transportation’s energy consumption.

Let me comment more specifically for a couple of minutes on the

government programs that you are here reviewing today.

I think it is important that we have major programs developing

hydrogen technology and ideas and the technology needed for a hydrogen infrastructure. But there are alternatives. Hydrogen—success with hydrogen is not guaranteed, and there are alternatives

that we are investing in but not with the same sense of commitment and urgency. One is electric vehicles using electricity as the

energy carrier, and the critical technology there is advanced energy

storage batteries. Another is producing fuels from biomass in energy-efficient ways. Yes, we have programs designed to develop

those technologies, but that could be a very important contributor

on this longer-term time scale, and we don’t understand how we

50

can best do that yet nor what the environmental impacts could well

be.

And then we have to think seriously about very different vehicle

concepts. I think we have really got to give up on the ‘‘living room

on wheels’’ current American vehicle. It has got to be a lot smaller

‘‘living room’’ with much smaller ‘‘furniture’’ in it, because it has to

be much lighter, because we cannot continue on this transportation

energy growth path that we are now on. And that will take inventiveness in vehicle concepts as well as new materials and new fabrication and assembly processes.

All of these need strong emphasis. The future may not be hydrogen alone. It may be hydrogen plus electricity plus biofuels plus

very different vehicle concepts as we move into the middle of this

century. And it is our government’s responsibility to invest in the

R&D that examines these options and starts to pull them into real

life where they could make a contribution.

Let me end by saying that I think our Department of Energy hydrogen program is a substantial program. It is well organized. The

DOE people managing this program interact strongly with the auto

and energy industries. All of that is essential to producing a good

research and advanced development agenda. There is also a strong

strategic plan and vision behind that and a concrete set of milestones and deliverables that make this, I think, a very appropriate

program on hydrogen.

But our programs that are dealing with improving mainstream

technology, engines, transmissions, and other vehicle components,

new materials for vehicles, we have these programs, but they don’t

have the same scope and intensity, nor do our efforts on advanced

batteries. And I offer for your consideration the need to build these

other programs up to the point where they are much more aggressively pursuing these parallel opportunities to hydrogen.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Heywood follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN B. HEYWOOD

It is a pleasure to testify before your committee today on meeting the future energy needs of our U.S. transportation system. I have been working in this area at

MIT for the past 37 years doing technical research and broader strategic analysis

on how to reduce the environmental impacts and fuel consumption of our transportation vehicles. Summaries of our groups’ relevant recent studies are attached to

this testimony.

Our work, and that of others, looking ahead some 10–30 years underlines how important it is that we in the U.S. aggressively pursue two parallel paths related to

transportation energy and greenhouse gas emissions. By we, I mean the relevant

people in the government, the auto and petroleum industries, the R&D community,

and the broader car buying and car using public.

The two paths are:

1. Working effectively to improve current engine and drivetrain technologies,

reduce vehicle weight and drag so we significantly reduce vehicle fuel consumption, and to provide incentives to individual light-duty vehicle owners

and users to buy such improved technology vehicles and drive them less.

2. Developing the framework and knowledge base for an eventual transition to

transportation energy sources, vehicle technologies, and energy consumption

rates that offset the expected declining availability and rising cost of petroleum-based fuels, and which on a well-to-wheels and cradle-to-grave basis

have low greenhouse gas emissions. This future transportation energy carrier

could be hydrogen, it could include electricity, and in part it could be biomass

derived fuels.

51

It is very much in our national interest to pursue both these paths aggressively,

and with a real sense of urgency. The only feasible way to impact our steadily growing U.S. petroleum imports and consumption within the next twenty-five years is

through reducing the fuel consumption of our U.S. transportation fleet. There are

many ways to improve current vehicle technology to increase efficiency, but for most

of these, the initial vehicle cost goes up by more than past experience indicates this

consumer market will support. There is a strong need, therefore, for the U.S. Government to provide incentives to all the involved stakeholders (including consumers), as soon as possible, to ‘‘pull and push’’ this technology into the marketplace

and ensure it is used. I will discuss some of my MIT groups’ work on this shortly.

However, even these actions will not result in much lower petroleum consumption

and very low greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. light-duty fleet. The importance of these actions is that given the size of our vehicle fleet (some 230 million

light-duty vehicle), this is the only way to get off the projected growth from today’s

light-duty vehicle fleets consumption of 140 billion gallons of gasoline a year (an

enormous amount!) to some 1.6 times that (220 billion gallons per year) twenty-five

years from now. Whether petroleum resources are available to allow this growth is

unclear. While it is likely that ‘‘unconventional petroleum’’ such as gasoline and diesel like fuels made from tar sands, natural gas, and biomass, will increase their contribution, it will still be modest compared to this projected 25-year ahead total.

Thus the primary driver for this first path is to reduce the impact that higher

petroleum prices, petroleum availability concerns and shortages, and rising negative

balance of payment issues could have on our security, economy, and way of life.

In addition, however, success along this first path will have a significant enabling

impact on the second path. It is anticipated by many that by mid-century we will

need (in the U.S. and elsewhere) to be on a transition path to much lower vehicle

fleet greenhouse gas emissions. If the transportation energy demand in the U.S. at

mid-century is as large as many current projections now indicate, then that transition task due to its size, technological difficulty, and likely cost is unbelievably challenging. We are now starting to learn just how challenging that will be. If through

improved efficiency and conservation we in the U.S. have cut that energy transition

challenge in half, just think how large a difference that will make.

It will not be easy to ‘‘cut the challenge in half.’’ Over the last 20–30 years, consumers have bought larger and heavier vehicles, with higher performance, and have

thus negated the roughly 30 percent improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency that improvements in engine and transmission efficiencies, reduced drag, and materials

substitution have realized. A coordinated set of government actions will be needed

to provide the push and pull to realize in-use fuel consumption benefits from future

improvements. My group has been analyzing such a coordinated regulatory and fiscal approach. Our assessment is that an integrated multi-strategy approach has the

best chance of realizing our objectives, since it shares the responsibility even

handedly amongst the major stakeholders—industry and consumers, and each strategy reinforces the others. Gains only will come if we tackle all aspects of the problem simultaneously. Our proposal is to combine on improved version of CAFE regulations to push more fuel-efficient technology into new vehicles with a reinforcing

feebate system imposed at time of vehicle purchase (substantial fees for purchasers

who buy high fuel-consuming vehicles and rebates for those who buy low fuel consuming vehicles). Such a feebate system could be revenue neutral. To reinforce more

fuel-efficient choices at vehicle purchase, taxes on transportation fuels should be

steadily increased year by year for the next few decades by some 10 cents per gallon

per year. These additional fuel taxes could be used to expand the now depleted

Highway Trust Fund revenues to renovate our deteriorating highway systems and

provide adequate maintenance. On the fuel side, in parallel, targets and a schedule

could usefully be set for steadily increasing the amount of low greenhouse gas emitting biomass-based transportation fuels produced to augment our petroleum-based

fuel supply. This would draw the petroleum and alternative fuel industries fully into

our national effort. Details of our proposal area given in the attached MIT Energy

and Environment article, ‘‘A Multipronged Approach to Curbing Gasoline Use’’ June,

2004, and its Bandivadekar and Heywood reference. Such a multi-strategy approach

could also provide a transition period so major U.S. market suppliers with different

model lineups, and health care and pension legacy costs, would have time to respond appropriately.

Now let me say a few words about the second and longer-term path—working to

implement a low greenhouse gas emitting energy stream for transportation. It may

be that hydrogen will turn out to be the best of the low greenhouse gas emitting

choices we have identified to date. There are, however, other options that warrant

substantial federal and industry R&D. The time scales for radical changes in technology to be implemented and have impact are long, much longer than we realize.

52

My group at MIT is working hard to understand these important time scales better.

There are several sequential steps that a new automotive technology must go

through before that technology becomes a large enough fraction of the on-the-road

vehicle fleet to make a difference. The first step is developing the new technology

to the point where it is competitive in the marketplace with standard technology

vehicles. While more expensive new-technology more-efficient vehicles can be subsidized, this can only be done to push their introduction up to modest levels. Once

market competitive, the production volumes of the new technology components must

expand to a significant fraction of total new vehicle production. For engines, for example, this takes one to two decades. For fuel cell hybrid vehicles we estimate this

to be 20–30 years. Then the new technology must penetrate the in-use vehicle fleet

and be driven significant mileage, which takes almost as long as the production expansion step. Thus for internal combustion engine hybrids the total time to noticeable impact is expected to be some 30-plus years. For hydrogen and fuel-cell hybrids

it is likely to be more than 50 years. Hence my emphasis on the first path for nearer-term improvements, and my judgment that any transition to hydrogen on a large

scale is many decades away. (See MIT Energy & Environment article, ‘‘New Vehicle

Technologies: How Soon Can They Make a Difference,’’ March, 2005, attached).

Now, some comments on a transition to hydrogen-fueled vehicles. First, the rationale for attempting such a transition is to significantly reduce greenhouse gas

emissions from our transportation systems in the longer-term. Thus the source of

the energy used to produce hydrogen is critical. It would have to be either coal or

natural gas with effective carbon capture and sequestration, or nuclear power systems which generate both hydrogen and electricity. Electrolysis of water with ‘‘renewable electricity’’ from solar or wind energy does not appear a plausible way to

produce hydrogen; it makes much more sense to use renewable electricity to displace coal in the electric power generating sector. Thus not only are there major hydrogen fuel cell technology issues (including cost) to be resolved, there are also

major technical and cost challenges in the production, distribution and storage of

hydrogen to be resolved as well. Hydrogen produced directly from fossil fuels without carbon sequestration, or from the electric power grid via electrolysis, even when

used in fuel cell powered vehicles (which could be significantly more efficient than

internal combustion engine powered vehicles), will not save energy nor reduce

greenhouse gases.

Are there alternatives that warrant greater federal resources? The above discussion suggests that electric vehicles with advanced high-energy-density batteries recharged with electricity from renewable or low CO2 electric power systems is one

at least partial alternative. Such vehicles would be range limited, but if that range

is more than say 200 miles these could be a substantial fraction of the market. Efficiently produced biofuels can also be low net CO2 emitting and the extent these can

contribute is not yet clear. New, much lighter weight, vehicle concepts, may be significantly smaller in size, are also likely to be a significant and necessary long-term

option. All of these should be important parts of the U.S. Government’s R&D transportation energy initiatives. While they are part of the Government’s current portfolio, the level of funding, strategic planning, and industry and R&D community involvement should be increased.

Our longer-term list of plausible efficient vehicle technologies and the energy

sources that go with them is too short, and the difficulties in realizing these options

in the real world are so challenging, that a much larger federal effort on this second

path I have been discussing is warranted.

The above discussion broadly to addresses the first two questions asked in the

Committee’s letter requesting testimony. Let me now provide a more focused summary of my response.

Question 1: How might the future regulatory environment, including possible incentives for advanced vehicles and regulations of safety and emissions, affect a transition to hydrogen-fueled motor vehicles? How could the

Federal Government most efficiently accelerate such a transition?

I have explained how important it is for the U.S. Federal Government through

regulatory and fiscal policies to reduce the energy requirements of our total transportation system. Not only would this help reduce our petroleum consumption and

thus our oil imports in the nearer-term; it would also make the task of a future hydrogen transition (or more complex mix of low greenhouse gas emitting energy

sources and technologies) significantly less challenging.

Question 2: Is the current balance of funding between hydrogen-related research and research on advanced vehicle technologies that might be deployed in the interim before a possible transition to hydrogen appropriate?

53

What advanced vehicle choices should the Federal Government be funding

between now and when the transition to a hydrogen economy occurs? How

are automakers using, or how do they plan to use, the advanced vehicle

technology developed for hydrogen-fueled vehicles to improve the performance of conventional vehicles? Are automakers likely to improve fuel economy and introduce advanced vehicles without government support?

The government’s FreedomCAR and Fuels program is a thoughtfully structured

program of significant scale intended to advanced hydrogen fuel and vehicle technologies. It is a partnership between DOE, Ford, DaimlerChrysler, GM and several

petroleum companies. Its focus is on applied research with some pre-competitive advanced development. The program plan has had, and continues to have, substantial

industry input. DOE cost shares major advanced development projects with the auto

companies. The companies involved have substantial programs of their own in these

areas, though the details of these programs are largely proprietary. This program

approach in my judgment does a reasonable job of using federal funds to encourage

the necessary development of new and better ideas, and new knowledge related to

hydrogen and its use in transportation.

The FreedomCAR and Fuels Program also supports activities intended to improve

the efficiency of mainstream engine and propulsion system technologies. Given the

importance of the first pathway I have described, this federal effort should be expanded. Also, efforts on advanced battery research and development, and biofuels

should be expanded to better meet their potential importance in the longer-term.

The Federal Government must play the role of supporting a broad portfolio of research relevant to transportation energy and transportations greenhouse gas emissions and involve all sectors of the R&D community that can contribute. Our universities, the source of the technical leadership we will need over the next several decades, must be more actively involved.

Question 3: What role should the Federal Government play in the standardization of local and international codes and standards that affect hydrogenfueled vehicles, such as building, safety, interconnection, and fire codes?

I have not addressed this question directly. Due to the long time scales involved

in any transition to hydrogen or other new technologies, this is not as urgent a task

as is technology development. However, as is already happening in the FreedomCAR

and Fuels Program, work on these issues should be underway with the relevant

Standards and Codes organizations, and with the industries involved.

Attachments

Three articles from MIT’s Laboratory for Energy and the Environment publication

‘‘Energy & Environment’’:

1. ‘‘Vehicles and Fuels for 2020: Assessing the Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Vehicle,’’

March, 2003.

2. ‘‘A Multipronged Approach to Curbing Gasoline Use,’’ June, 2004.

3. ‘‘New Vehicle Technologies: How Soon Can They Make a Difference?’’ March,

2005.

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

BIOGRAPHY FOR JOHN B. HEYWOOD

Professor Heywood did his undergraduate work in Mechanical Engineering at

Cambridge University and his graduate work at MIT. He then worked for the British Central Electricity Generating Board on magnetohydrodynamic power generation. Since 1968 he has been on the faculty in Mechanical Engineering Department

at MIT, where is he now Director of the Sloan Automotive Laboratory and Sun Jae

Professor of Mechanical Engineering. His current research is focused on the operating, combustion and emissions characteristics of internal combustion engines and

their fuels requirements. He is involved in studies of automotive technology and the

impact of regulation. He has also worked on issues relating to engine design in

MIT’s Leaders for Manufacturing Program; he was Engineering Co-Director of the

Program from 1991–1993. He is currently involved in studies of future road transportation technology and fuels. He has published some 180 papers in the technical

literature and has won several awards for his research publications. He holds a

Sc.D. degree from Cambridge University for his published research contributions.

He is a author of a major text and professional reference ‘‘Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals,’’ and co-author with Professor Sher of ‘‘The Two-Stroke Cycle

Engine: Its Development, Operation, and Design.’’ From 1992–1997 he led MIT’s

Mechanical Engineering Department’s efforts to develop and introduce a new undergraduate curriculum. In 1982 he was elected a Fellow of the Society of Automotive

Engineers. He was honored by the 1996 U.S. Department of Transportation National Award for the Advancement of Motor Vehicle Research and Development. He

is a consultant to the U.S. Government and a number of industrial organizations.

He was elected to membership in the National Academy of Engineering in 1998. In

1999, Chalmers University of Technology awarded him the degree of Doctor of Technology honoris causa. He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and

Sciences in 2001. He is now directing MIT’s Mechanical Engineering Department’s

Center for 21s’ Century Energy which is developing a broader set of energy research

initiatives. In January 2003, Professor Heywood was appointed Co-Director of the

Ford-MIT Alliance. In 2004, City University, London, awarded him the degree of

Doctor of Science, honoris causa.

DISCUSSION

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you very much, Dr. Heywood. And

thank you to all of the panelists.

We will now move to Member questions.

And I will yield myself five minutes.

I had the opportunity to drive a hydrogen car about a month ago,

and we are going to have to change all our terminology. You don’t

have a gearshift. You just push a button for drive. You can’t step

on the gas. I don’t know how we are going to get used to saying

‘‘stepping on the hydrogen’’ or something. It just doesn’t seem to fit

as well. But it was quite an experience. And then opening the hood

and being able to put your hand on the engine and it is not hot,

it is cool. It is—it must be energy efficient. But I understand that

they are talking about it being within the next decade that this

might be coming out.

But my question really goes to the development of the fuel and

how that is going to be. And I think it was Dr. Bodde that mentioned that the type of hydrogen that would be used. I understood

from that that it was either—the car that I was driving was liquid

hydrogen, which was stored under the back seat. And then they—

but they haven’t decided whether compressed hydrogen or liquid

would be something that would be used. I—this was a GM car.

Sorry. But I know you are all working together. But—and then it

can be filled right from the—again, it couldn’t be called a gas

pump. We would have to change to the hydrogen pump or whatever. But are we really that close? It seemed that they hadn’t—at

least this—and I am—and from all of your testimony, I see that

63

there hasn’t been a decision yet, but it seemed to me between liquid and compressed or whatever we might find. It is kind of like

beta versus VHS. You know, which is going to be the way to go,

because will this be made, you know, on an industry-wide basis

with the research from—on the FreedomCAR? How are we—who is

making those decisions, and how is this all integrated with the Department of Energy and the basic research?

So whoever would like to answer that. Mr. Faulkner.

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, I could start, and some of my colleagues

can fill in.

I think the timeline that we are working on with our industry

partners is 2015 for a commercialization decision. The Department

of Energy, the government, doesn’t make these vehicles, doesn’t

make the fuels. We work on research and development to help

them, our private sector partners, make these decisions. So looking

at that time scale, roughly 2015, start to make the entry point in

the market about 2020. There are some cars on the road. You have

driven them, I have driven them. But they are not cost-effective

yet. There are technology issues we have to sort through, but that

is the time scale we are on, and every year, we are progressing

closer to that.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Any other comments?

Dr. CRABTREE. Yes.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Dr. Crabtree.

Dr. CRABTREE. You mentioned two alternatives: liquid or compressed gas. I think both of those have deficiencies that, in the

long-term, really won’t give us the driving range that we need.

What we need to do is find a way to store hydrogen as part of a

solid material as a hydrogen compound. And that is the thing that,

really, we can’t do yet. If you look at what we could do in the next

five years, we could do either liquid storage or gas storage, but we

really don’t know how to go solid-state storage, and that is the

one—that is the area that we need to do if we are going to have

a long-time, long-term impact.

So this really is a basic research issue.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Okay.

Dr. Bodde.

Dr. BODDE. Let me say that I concur with that completely.

We know perfectly well how to compress hydrogen now. The

issue, though, is what is going to become of an automobile that is

given the casual maintenance that our cars do and that is fueled

by a compressed gas at 10,000 p.s.i. for the lightest element on the

Earth? Now as we all sit here in this hearing room, if your car is

doing what my car is doing, it is out in the parking lot dripping

atmospheric pressure fluids onto the paving. Imagine what would

happen if it were a very high compressed tank of hydrogen.

So I think for demonstration fleets, that will work fine. In order

to pioneer the opening of the technology, it will work just fine. But

for the long-term effective hydrogen economy, I agree with Dr.

Crabtree. I think we have to have some form of solid-state storage

or some form of that near atmospheric pressure storage.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Dr. Heywood.

Dr. HEYWOOD. Let me broaden that and say that this is one of

many areas where we are learning that what we have today is fanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Jan 27, 2006 Jkt 022549 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\ENER05\072005\22549.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
64

tastic. Gasoline and diesel fuel have an extraordinarily high energy

density, lots of energy per unit volume, or mass, and they are liquids. And we are struggling mightily, and we will need new ideas

and research to explore those ideas before we can make gaseous

fuels, like hydrogen, manageable in anywhere near the same way.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chernoby.

Mr. CHERNOBY. Just in closing, I would agree with the comments

of all of my colleagues here.

At DaimlerChrysler, we do believe that compressed hydrogen is

probably the near-term alternative for limited fleet use, but in the

long-term, we absolutely must provide the customer with a range.

We absolutely must provide them with the space, as Dr. Heywood

said earlier, that they enjoy in their moving ‘‘living room,’’ and that

is going to require something different than compressed hydrogen,

and we do not think that liquid, at this point, from what we see,

is the answer. There has to be basic research to find something else

that is going to find something that is going to satisfy all of those

needs.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. So it really will be a conglomerate that

will make this—everyone will probably be on the same track because of the necessity when we find the right type of fuel?

Dr. CRABTREE. It is interesting, if you look at what is—what the

commercial options are now that—the demonstration fleets, some

are liquid, some are gas. Each one has their own proponents. Not

too many are solid-state. That is the one, I think, that has to come.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

Going back and forth, Mr. Carnahan, would you be ready, or

should we have one more question from the other side of the aisle?

[No response.]

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you. Chairman Inglis, you are recognized for five minutes.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

You know, when I was a kid, Alcoa Aluminum used to advertise

on ‘‘Meet the Press’’ with a very effective jingle that said, ‘‘Alcoa

can’t wait. We can’t wait for tomorrow.’’ And I wonder whether the

role that we have is to be saying to the academics, ‘‘We can’t wait.’’

And I wonder if the role of Mr. Chernoby and people in the private

sector is to say, ‘‘We have got to do it, because we want to make

some money at it.’’ But I wonder if our role is really to say, like

President Kennedy did in 1961, we have got to get to the Moon before the end of the decade.

So maybe you could comment on what is the role of the people

up here, the government folks. What should we be saying? It seems

to me that the statistics that you have cited are alarming. The—

two things are alarming. One is our use of fuel, as Dr. Heywood

talked about, and the other is the length of time that we are hearing. So these seem to be on a collision course. We have got this

enormous use, and we have got this time that is working against

us. And so one of my items here was talking about commitment,

which is a question for us in the government. What kind of commitments should we make to really moving this along? And anybody

want to comment on what should be the role of government in this

65

process to light the fire on all of the researchers and to really insist, like Alcoa, ‘‘We can’t wait until tomorrow’’?

Dr. HEYWOOD. And I am glad you said, ‘‘We can’t wait until tomorrow,’’ because that is absolutely the case. And in some areas,

we are getting a move on. We have got a sizable hydrogen program.

In other areas, we are not, particularly, in my view, in government

efforts to regulate through fiscal and regulations like CAFE, to

force movement. I think the government’s responsibility is to both

push and pull these technologies into the marketplace.

Research is another way of sort of smoothing, lubricating, seeding that process. And I think that is a very important thing for you

to think about as well. But I urge you to hang on to this. We can’t

wait. We have got to assess how this problem is developing and

getting worse and sort out what we, government and others, can

do collectively to get a move on in resolving these problems.

Chairman INGLIS. Yes, sir.

Dr. Crabtree.

Dr. CRABTREE. So you mentioned getting to the moon, which is

often applied to hydrogen and sometimes to the larger energy problem as well. I think there is one difference from the Apollo program. There, President Kennedy could say, ‘‘Let us do it,’’ and he

had the NASA do it. It was very well coordinated. In the case of

energy, cars, and hydrogen, it has to be sort of the economy. It is

a complex system. It is a lot of people interacting and making independent decisions, so you don’t get that direction from the top.

So I think what the government can do is incentivize that activity. And there are really two aspects to it. One is what we can do

now, sort of incremental hydrogen economy, and we have heard

some of the—my colleagues have talked about that. One is what we

would like to be able to do, the mature one that we need, let us

say, 20 or 30 years from now that would really have an energy impact. The first one is sort of a commercial demonstration stage

now. So you need one kind of incentive for that.

The second one is really basic research. You need a completely

different kind of incentive for that. You have to work on both levels, and soon these two, sort of—these two prongs will come together and we will get the result that we want.

Chairman INGLIS. Here is my idea. Somebody comment on this,

maybe Mr. Chernoby or Dr. Bodde might want to talk about this,

is that gas at $3 a gallon lights a fire in the consuming public.

When it gets to that level and you go to fill up your SUV and it

is $42, I think you say, ‘‘This can’t be.’’ I mean, ‘‘I can’t continue

to spend $42 per fill-up.’’ Right? I mean, does that light the—

DaimlerChrysler, does that get you going? Does that get you excited?

Mr. CHERNOBY. Well, a couple of things.

You talked about commitment of the researchers. I can just share

that the researchers we deal with, I can assure you, there is huge

commitment, huge tenacity and focus on trying to get these problems solved, so I am not worried, really, about the motivation of

the researchers. But similar to what Dr. Heywood said earlier and

what you just mentioned, I think the role of government is two critical areas.

66

Number one, it is obviously to help all of us in a pre-competitive

environment with basic research, because we have got to overcome

these challenges. But then you talked about the marketplace. That

is the key here. That is—for me, that is the big difference between

this challenge and the Apollo program. Without the marketplace in

poll, there is no penetration, and without product penetration,

there is no motivation to build an infrastructure.

So I would say, short-term, it is not just about seeing the research, but it is about sitting down with all of us, the energy industry, the auto industry, and other constituents, and we have got to

talk about how can we get that motivation in the marketplace. I

don’t personally—and this is not speaking for the company, personally, I don’t believe $3 is going to do it. I mean, you are—like Dr.

Heywood said, I mean, you look at the costs and the challenges we

have to overcome on some of these technologies today, there has

got to be a pretty big incentive or a reason for a customer to value

and move to that. That is why we think there is a lot of transition,

like Dr. Heywood said, that we are going to go through before we

ultimately get to the hydrogen economy. But working closely with

all of us on what is the business model going to be and how can

the government play a role in that business model to make it viable for not only an automotive company but an energy company as

well to make this a reality. But without the marketplace, it is not

going anywhere.

Dr. BODDE. My observation on federal policies, if you allow me.

If you look at the history of federal policy and energy, going back

to the first Arab oil embargo of October of 1973, the chief problem,

as I see it, has been consistency. We have gone from one thing to

another thing. When oil prices were high in the 1970s, there was

Project Independence. When oil prices fell in the 1980s, it was all,

‘‘Well, what the heck. Let the market reign here.’’ I think the chief

ingredient of any effective federal policy is going to be consistency.

Durability over the long-term. That allows entrepreneurs,

innovators, investors to plan on the economic regime that is going

to prevail over the time scale that it takes for them to bring technologies into the marketplace.

And so item one, I would say, is consistency.

Item two is attention to the demand side. All of this talk about

research, about CAFE standards, and so forth, all deals with the

supply side, that is the supply of vehicles, the supply of fuels.

There has to be a demand side pull from consumers as well.

Now it is interesting to observe, as Dr. Heywood has, the response to the more fuel-efficient vehicles that haven’t proven to be

the more fuel-economic vehicles. Fuel-efficiency, that is in the sense

of moving metal down the road, has improved consistently over the

last 20 years. Fuel economy has been flat. The reason is the increase efficiency was taken as greater weight, as greater acceleration, as greater vehicle performance, and this is what the marketplace is demanding.

My guess, also, is that at $3 a gallon, that might not change very

much, and I think serious consideration has to be given to other

demand-side policies that start to create a consumer interest in

translating greater efficiency into greater economy.

67

Mr. FAULKNER. Sir, your red light has been on for a while, but

you raise a really fascinating and philosophical question. Could I

respond for a minute?

Chairman INGLIS. If the Chair will allow it.

Mr. FAULKNER. Is that allowed?

You noted the alarming rise in the use of oil. That is true. That

has been going on for some time. Many are aware of that, and the

length of time we are talking about, 2015, 2020, full breakout in

the market 2030, 2040, 2050, and then you noted, we can’t wait.

But I think—it may be unpopular, but I think, in a sense, it is our

duty to say we have to wait, not that that is complacent but that

fundamental science doesn’t occur overnight. Some of these things

everyone has talked about, breakthroughs that are needed, and if

you are set on the right pace research and development. You talk

about commercialization of these technologies in the private sector.

It is going to take a while to affect those changes.

And I would note that the President sees the urgency of that,

that is why he set the vision. That is what he talked about this

fundamental issue we have to address. And for the government, the

federal role, the Department of Energy, we have to manage it.

There are several different programs. It is a difficult task to integrate the Office of Science’s fundamental research in our office and

other departments.

And Congress’s role is to hold our feet to the fire. Ask us for

metrics. Ask us to come in and justify what we are spending. And

I think, as the President has said, and the Secretary, pass an energy bill.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

The gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan, is recognized for

five minutes.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

Welcome to all of you, and this is a very timely and important

discussion that we are having here today. And I was fascinated just

recently reading the—if you haven’t seen it, look at the August

issue of National Geographic on things that are coming after petroleum, basically, and they highlight a lot of these new technologies.

But I want to particularly ask Mr. Chernoby, or anybody else on

the panel, about the FreedomCAR research and where you see that

going from here, and really give me a better idea of where that is

today.

Mr. CHERNOBY. I would summarize a few key points.

We have talked a lot about hydrogen and fuel cells and hydrogen

storage today. If you look at the FreedomCAR research portfolio,

we manage a portfolio that is even broader than that. Similar to

what Dr. Heywood said earlier, it is critical as well, as we research

things for the long-term, what can we be doing to implement things

we learn in the short-term? There is quite a bit of research going

on still in lightweight advanced materials, very important, and as

soon as something gets on the shelf that engineers can grab and

use and the supply base can figure out how to process, we will implement it, if it provides the right value to the customer: lighter

weight vehicles, more fuel efficiency. We don’t have to wait for a

hydrogen economy. There is basic battery research going on, another critical enabler.

68

We have several examples like that that we manage in this precompetitive environment at FreedomCAR. So we absolutely believe

that—DaimlerChrysler, and I think my compatriots and Ford and

GM would agree, this is absolutely the best way to make sure we

compile some of the brightest minds, not only in industry, but in

academia and the other research environments around the world.

And it is that combination of minds that is actually going to help

us get these breakthroughs to market, not just in the long-term for

the hydrogen, but feeding in all of the other things we are doing

in our portfolio to provide benefit in the near-term as well.

Mr. FAULKNER. Sir, if I could add, the Secretary——

Mr. CARNAHAN. Yes, please.

Mr. FAULKNER.The Secretary of Energy, Sam Bodman, was out

in Michigan recently where he did two events in one day. He cut

the ribbon, groundbreaking of the new solar factory, but he also

was with Mr. Chernoby and his colleagues to talk about renewing

two agreements with the U.S. Car Group. One of them was on batteries and one of them was on materials.

And I think that kind of success that we have in partnering together with the auto industry, if there wasn’t success, they

wouldn’t be wanting to sign up and renew these agreements. And

there are—am I correct that the batteries that we have pioneered

in that consortium are now on every hybrid in America?

Mr. CHERNOBY. Yeah, absolutely. Some of the very basic and preliminary work on what we call nickel metal hydride batteries was

done through that consortium, and that is what you will find in basically every hybrid vehicle on the road today.

Mr. CARNAHAN. We have also talked about several incentives

here today, and I have worked with some here in the Congress

about instituting a tax credit that would go partially to consumers

and partially to manufacturers to help in this transitional time period to these alternative fuel vehicles.

What kind of impact do you see that having? Some have argued

because the demand is growing and the technology is coming online

that those kinds of incentives aren’t necessary. And I would be interested in your comments about that.

Mr. CHERNOBY. Well, I would add, similar to what Dr. Heywood

said earlier, let the data speak for itself.

If you look at the penetration of these—some of these technologies, it has not been in astronomically large numbers. I mean,

they occupy a very, very small percentage of the annual vehicle

sales in, not only the United States, but around the world. So any

incentive that is going to help the customer find the right value

equation, and that is why I urge you to think about not only incentives—don’t pick a single technology. Think about the broad range

of technologies. One may be more attractive to one customer versus

another. And that is what we have got to focus on, providing the

ability for those technologies to penetrate across as broad of a

range of the market as we can. We, at DaimlerChrysler, feel we

very much ought to focus on today’s clean and advanced diesel to

augment the hybrid discussion, because there are a lot of customers who drive in a highway-driving environment.

69

So absolutely, we believe that we have to do something, as Dr.

Bodde said, on the demand side and continue to do so, not only in

the long-term hydrogen economy, but in the short-term as well.

Dr. BODDE. That said, however, perhaps we should not be too

pessimistic about reading the current data. It is characteristic of

any technology, if there is a long gestation period in which not

much seems to be happening in the marketplace in which market

share growth and market penetration doesn’t happen, then a tipping point is reached and the technology takes off.

I mean, you look at Internet use, Internet subscribers. The Internet has been around for a long time, and it is only in the last five

years that we get this vertical—near-vertical acceleration.

My guess is that the same thing is going to happen with the hybrid vehicles, perhaps hybrid diesel vehicles. The same thing is

going to happen with the hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

What we need to be about is to look at the conditions needed for

that marketplace takeoff to occur and to work specifically to put

those conditions in place so that the market itself will then take

it over.

Mr. FAULKNER. Just another comment.

I think it is important not to get too far ahead of the technology

in incentives. The President has proposed tax incentives for hybrids, but I think the fuel cell vehicles are still a ways down the

road, and you can consider those as that technology improves. Timing is very important.

Dr. CRABTREE. Briefly, that—we heard a lot about incentivizing

and getting the technology out there for the consumer and for the

manufacturer, but I think it is important to incentivize the research as well. The things we can do now and put out now or that

consumers can decide about now and make now are really not the

ones that we want to do 20 years from now to have a big impact

on energy.

So we shouldn’t leave that basic research component out of the

equation.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Timing is everything.

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, Madame Chair.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. And your time has expired.

And the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Bartlett, is recognized

for five minutes.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

I have many questions, but time will permit, perhaps, only three

quick ones.

I understand that if we were to wave a magic wand and every

American car could have a fuel cell in it with platinum as a catalyst that one generation—and it doesn’t last all that long, I understand, but one generation would use all of the platinum in all of

the world. Is that true?

Secondly, right now today, 85 percent of all of the energy we use

in this country comes from fossil fuels. Are you all familiar with

Hubbard’s Peak? Do you know what is meant by Hubbard’s Peak?

Okay. We now may be at Hubbard’s Peak in terms of oil. If that

is true, gas is not far behind.

70

And I would caution, don’t be sanguine about this enormous supply of coal. At current use rates, it will last 250 years. If you increased its use exponentially only two percent a year, and we will

have to do more than that if we run down Hubbard’s Peak with gas

and oil, it lasts 85 years. When you recognize that you probably are

not going to run your car by putting the trunk full of coal, you are

going to have to convert it to a gas or a liquid, now you have

shrunk it to 50 years. That is all that is out there at two percent

growth rate and converting it to some form we are going to use.

Only 15 percent of our energy today comes from renewables. I include in that the eight percent that comes from nuclear and only

seven percent from true renewables. Since hydrogen is not an energy source, you will always use more energy producing the hydrogen than you get out of it. Where are we going to get all of this

energy as we run down Hubbard’s Peak? Are we going to have a

really nuclear nation, because the effective growth in energy from

the renewables is really pretty darn limited?

And the third question deals with: all of you seem to agree that

if hydrogen—if we are going to move to a hydrogen economy, you

have got to have solid-state storage. Is there something in the

science that inherently makes hydrogen storage a higher density

than electron storage? What you are really talking about now is

just another battery, aren’t you, which is what hydrogen solid-state

storage is going to be? Another battery? In the science, is there

something inherently so superior about hydrogen storage that it is

going to be a better battery than storing electrons?

Is it true about platinum that one generation of American cars

lasting, what, 200 hours for each solar—for each fuel cell, we have

used all of the platinum in all of the world?

Dr. CRABTREE. Well, may I comment on that?

I really don’t—I have heard that statement as well, and I haven’t

tried to verify it.

Mr. BARTLETT. Could you, for the record, all of you, give us some

input on that? It is really nice to know that, because if that is the

path we are running down, it is not going to be a very fruitful one.

INSERT FOR THE RECORD BY DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER

A study by TIAX, LLC determined that there are sufficient platinum resources

in the ground to meet long-term projected platinum demand if the amount of platinum in fuel cell systems is reduced to the Department of Energy’s (DOE) target

level. The DOE-sponsored study shows that total world platinum demand (including

jewelry, fuel cell and industrial applications) by 2050 would be 20,000 metric tons

against a total projected resource of 76,000 metric tons. This study assumes that

fuel cell vehicles attain 80 percent market penetration by 2050 (from U.S., Western

Europe, China, India and Japan). The study shows that the limiting factor in keeping up with increased platinum demand is the ability of the industry to respond and

install additional production infrastructure. Since in the out-years, recycling would

provide almost 60 percent of the supply, the industry will have to be careful not to

overbuild production capacity in a more accelerated market demand scenario.

• Platinum availability is a strategic issue for the commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Platinum is expensive and is currently critical to

achieving the required levels of fuel cell power density and efficiency.

As such, the Department has been focused on reducing and substituting for

(with non-precious metal catalysts) the amount of platinum in fuel cell stacks

(while maintaining performance and durability) so that hydrogen fuel cells

can be cost competitive with gasoline internal combustion engines.

71

• Significant progress has been made and is still being made by national laboratories, universities and industry to reduce the amount of platinum needed

in a fuel cell stack by replacing platinum catalysts with platinum alloy catalysts or non-platinum catalysts, enhancing the specific activity of platinum

containing catalysts, and depositing these catalysts on electrodes using innovative processes. The Office of Science has recently initiated new basic research projects on the design of catalysts at the nanoscale that focus on continued reduction in the amount of platinum catalyst required in fuel cell

stacks.

• Typically, it takes three to five years to increase platinum production capacity

in response to an increase in demand. Fuel cell vehicle production may create

a brief platinum supply deficit, leading to short-term price increases.

• The TIAX study shows that platinum prices over the last one hundred years

fluctuated based on major world events (e.g., world war, etc.); however, the

mean price (adjusted for inflation) remained stable at $300 per troy ounce.

However, over the last couple of years platinum has been higher at $900 per

troy ounce.

Mr. BARTLETT. Secondly, where are you going to get all of this

energy, if we are at Hubbard’s Peak, and we probably are, with oil

at $60 a barrel and going nowhere but up, I think? Where are you

going to get this energy?

We have got to have a big culture change until we are using less

energy. We are like a young couple that just had a big inheritance

from their grandparents, and they have affected a lifestyle where

85 percent of the money they are spending comes from their grandparents’ inheritance, only 15 percent from their income. And their

grandparents’ inheritance is not going to last until they die. Now

they have got to somehow transition themselves from this lavish

lifestyle, living largely on the inheritance from their grandparents.

How are we going to do that, and where are you going to get the

energy from from this hydrogen economy?

You know, what we are really doing is nibbling at the margins.

We have got to face the fundamental problem that we are at Hubbard’s Peak and going to start down the other side shortly. Where

are you going to get the energy to come from? What are you telling

people?

Dr. HEYWOOD. May I respond to that one, please?

That is one reason I have talked about these two paths forward,

because to make the drastic changes that—in culture lifestyle

economies that you are really suggesting, which I think we will

have to consider, within this century most likely, have to make.

That is going to take time.

But in the nearer-term, there are things we can do that are better than nibbling at the edges. Yes, they have that characteristic,

but they will do more. We can—you know, we could half our transportation energy consumption with the sort of technologies that are

almost ready today, but we need to realize that that is what we

will have to do in some way to survive in the long-term. And I

think that discussion needs to be held much more publicly, and we

have all got to contribute to this and understand the dilemma that

we are facing.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

Before my time runs out, is there something scientifically, inherently so much better about a hydrogen battery than there is an

electron battery that we should be pouring these billions of research into that?

72

Dr. HEYWOOD. The recharge time is one big difference. You could

recharge a hydrogen tank relatively quickly compared to recharge

an energy storage battery.

Mr. BARTLETT. I sleep all night. My battery can charge while I

sleep.

Is there something inherently better about density?

Dr. CRABTREE. May I comment on that?

I think the energy density that you can store in hydrogen, as a

chemical fuel, is higher than you can get from electricity as an electrical fuel——

Mr. BARTLETT. But we are still working on that and don’t, in

fact, know, correct?

Dr. CRABTREE. If you look at some interesting charts in this report, you will see that hydrogen has the ability to replace your battery in your laptop and give you three times or four times the run

time for the same weight and the same volume.

Mr. BARTLETT. Good. We ought to be moving——

Dr. CRABTREE. As a matter of fact, it is better.

Mr. BARTLETT. We ought to be moving quickly then.

Thank you.

Dr. BODDE. One final comment, if I may, sir.

You asked the old what source of energy. Eventually, you get to

nuclear and renewables that eventually—this 85 percent inheritance is gone, no matter what scenario you are in, an environmentally limited one or other, and you are into nuclear for whatever supply you have.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you for helping to get that message out.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Sodrel,

is recognized for five minutes.

Mr. SODREL. Indiana.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Indiana.

Mr. SODREL. Yeah, Indiana.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Excuse me. There is a little difference.

Mr. SODREL. But—well, now we do say ‘‘you all’’ in southern Indiana, and I understand how you could make a mistake.

Going to the question that Mr. Bartlett framed about how we

produce hydrogen, I understand the Icelanders that—embarked on

a robust program trying to create hydrogen using geothermal energy. Are any of you familiar with what is going on there? It is

kind of a joint industry effort, is it not, where they are—they have

a lot of volcanoes and a lot of heat. And I understand they are trying to convert their entire country to hydrogen fuel. Given that

their country only has 300,000 population, it would be a little bit

like us converting a city to hydrogen fuel, but do you know how

that is coming along?

No?

Mr. FAULKNER. We can get you details for the record, though, sir,

if you wish.

Mr. SODREL. Yeah, I would appreciate it.

INSERT FOR THE RECORD BY DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER

Iceland’s goal is to become the first nation in the world to achieve the vision of

a hydrogen economy. The move to a hydrogen economy has significant government

support, and surveys conducted by Icelandic New Energy indicate significant public

73

support as well. With a population of less than 300,000 (the majority of which resides in the capital of Reykjavik), transforming the Icelandic transportation sector

to hydrogen will require far fewer hydrogen fueling stations than what will be required in the United States. Advances include:

• Iceland has an abundance of relatively inexpensive renewable energy that is

used for heating and provides 100 percent of the Nation’s electricity (80 percent from hydropower and 20 percent from geothermal).

• Currently, there is one hydrogen fueling station, located along a major highway in Reykjavik, which serves as a national demonstration project. Hydrogen is produced on site via renewable electrolysis. The station is a publicly

accessible retail fueling station that also offers gasoline and diesel and includes a convenience store. It supports the operation of three hydrogen fuel

cell buses that run regular routes around Reykjavik; there are no other hydrogen vehicles at this time.

• The next phase of the country’s hydrogen demonstration will involve the conversion of the entire Reykjavik bus fleet to hydrogen. Future phases will include promoting the integration of fuel cell powered vehicles for passenger use

and examining the possibility of replacing the fishing fleet with hydrogen

based vessels.

• Iceland collaborates with the United States through the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE), which was established in November 2003 to facilitate global collaboration on hydrogen and fuel cell research,

development, and demonstration (RD&D). With a membership including 16

countries and the European Commission, the IPHE provides a forum for

leveraging scarce RD&D funds, harmonizing codes and standards, and educating stakeholders and the general public on the benefits of and challenges

to the hydrogen economy.

Mr. SODREL. The second question relates to the FreedomCAR initiative.

We have a lot of foreign manufacturers of automobiles. I know

Toyota has an enormous plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. It is kind

of in my neighborhood. Honda, and other foreign automobile manufacturers have made significant investments in fuel cell. How do

you feel about greater involvement of foreign car makers that have

domestic plants in this FreedomCAR initiative? Would it help

shorten the time frame here or should we ask them to participate?

Dr. BODDE. Well, in my opinion, the world auto industry is truly

a global auto industry, and frankly, it makes little sense, in my

opinion, to distinguish between what is domestic and what is foreign. I mean, if you look at the research alliances that are now created, you see them between General Motors and Toyota. You see

them between Ford and other foreign companies. And so these

things all kind of fit together anyway as an international research

picture. And so I think almost whether you do or don’t include

them in the U.S. program, that technology is going to get to them

one way or another, because it is a worldwide technology institution.

Mr. CHERNOBY. Well, we have had some discussion in the U.S.

Car/FreedomCAR effort about including some of our compatriots

around the world. At this time, we haven’t made any final decisions

on whether we want to do that or not, but we absolutely, in the

pre-competitive environment, like Dr. Bodde had said, look at what

we are doing around the world. One of the challenges that we do

have, though, is there isn’t necessarily consensus in some of the

world governments on how we ought to approach this effort, and

the codes and standards, and the effect, eventually, on not only the

infrastructure of the vehicles that go along with it.

74

So worldwide harmonization is clearly one of the barriers that we

always work on in the auto industry and both jointly with government. And it is likely to be one here unless we figure out a way

to get it under control.

Mr. SODREL. Thank you. I don’t have any further questions.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.

The gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Gutknecht.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Ohio.

No, I am from Minnesota.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. It is nice that you care to admit it.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Listen. First of all, let me offer this disclaimer.

I am not a scientist. I don’t play one. And we are honored to have

you scientists here to talk to us.

Those of you who did not hear Roscoe Bartlett’s special order last

night, I hope you will all at least get a chance, and I hope Roscoe

will put together a ‘‘Dear Colleague’’ to share with the rest of us

some of the interesting information he has shared in his special

order last night on the House Floor. It was last night, wasn’t it,

Roscoe?

Mr. BARTLETT. Yes.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Okay. And what he really said, and I will just

extend his remarks a bit here, was he said that energy is so cheap

today, and he had some—in fact, I would yield to the gentleman

a minute, if he wants, to share some of the examples of just how

cheap energy really is.

Mr. BARTLETT. Oh, thank you very much. A barrel of oil is about $60 today. And you can buy the refined product of that for about $100 at the pump, 42 gallons of gas, $2

and something a gallon, right? That will buy you the work equivalent of 12 people working all year for you. That is the work output

you are buying from $100 worth of gasoline. If you go out this

weekend and work really hard all day, I will get more mechanical

work done with an electric motor with less than 25 cents worth of

electricity. That is what you are worth, in terms of mechanical

work: less than 25 cents a day.

This—these fossil fuels are so darn cheap. We are just as assuredly addicted to them as a cocaine addict is to his drug. It has

become a drug for us.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, reclaiming my time, and I—those were

just some of the remarks he made last night, and I thought it was

fascinating. And it really sort of underscores the importance of this

meeting, but it also—I think we need to look at this whole energy

thing in that context, that fossil fuel energy is incredibly cheap,

even at $60 a barrel. Somebody figured it out, we still pay four

times more for a gallon of water in a convenience store than we

pay for that gallon of gasoline, even at $60 a barrel. And I am not

defending the oil companies or the oil barons that have us ‘‘over

the barrel,’’ no pun intended.

I want to come back to—and I was particularly interested in

some of the comments by Dr. Heywood, because I think that, in

some respects, you nailed it, that—I am a believer in doing all we

can to advance the science relative to hydrogen power and some of

these other things, but I have come to the conclusion, at least,

again, as a layman, that hydrogen is, in some respects, a very, very

75

good battery, but I think we have to—we don’t want to oversell it

long-term, in terms of its value as an energy source. And I am interested in some of the other technology.

And maybe, Dr. Faulkner, you could comment on this, because

I know there are some people—there are people who have come in

to see me, and again, I am not a scientist. I don’t play one here

in the Congress, but I am just a curious guy. One of the technologies that people have talked to me about are super magnets.

Are any of you doing any work with super magnets? And do you

know what I am talking about?

All right. We will have them come and talk to you, because I

found it fascinating that we now have—well, I will go on to a different subject.

INSERT FOR THE RECORD BY DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER

The term ‘‘Super magnets’’ is a broad description for several families of rare Earth

magnets. I am not aware of any DOE work in the area of super magnets. Superconducting magnets, on the other hand, are electromagnets, which use an electric

current to generate a magnetic field, and the electricity runs through superconducting materials, such that very large magnetic fields can be generated without

electrical resistance creating large amounts of waste heat. The Department’s Office

of Science uses superconducting magnets in some of its particle accelerators.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. And that subject is really about renewable

fuels, because on the other Committee that I serve on, the House

Agriculture Committee, I chair a Subcommittee, and we have responsibility for some of the renewable fuel programs. And there

again, there are some amazing things happening, sometimes without any oversight responsibility or funding from the Federal Government in terms of producing this fuel even cheaper.

Just out of curiosity, how many of you know right now how much

it costs at a—one of our more advanced ethanol plants to produce

a gallon of ethanol? What would the cost be? What would you

guess?

Dr. Faulkner.

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, about $2.10.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Next?

Dr. BODDE. I would have to look that one up for you, but I go

with his number in the absence of anything else.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. All right.

Mr. CHERNOBY. I would have been more in the $3 realm.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Okay.

Dr. HEYWOOD. I would add that those costs depend on where you

draw your boundary and what costs that add up to that figure are

included. There is a lot of variability in studies of producing ethanol and the reality, and it depends how the numbers are worked

out.

Mr. GUTKNECHT. Well, let us do simple arithmetic. You have to buy the corn, right? It is about $2.20 a bushel right now. And you

have to amortize the cost of the plant, right? The biggest cost in

producing ethanol right now is in energy. I mean, you have to cook

the corn. But according to my most efficient plants in my District,

right now, at $2.20 a bushel of corn, and we have to assume the

cost of producing that corn, and believe it or not, maybe even a little profit for the guy who grows it is in that $2.20, the answer is,

and not only from my ethanol plants, but also according to the

76

Chief Economist at USDA, the answer is 95 cents a gallon. Does

that surprise you? It surprises most Americans. And I say that, because right now, in both the pure cost basis and in terms of BTUs,

ethanol is cheaper than gasoline.

I yield back my time.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

The gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much.

I am from California. I am very proud of being from California.

I would just like to get down to some fundamentals, and first of

all, let me suggest that Roscoe Bartlett adds a great deal to every

hearing that I go to, and I am happy to have him with us and making his contributions.

Let us—I would like to ask—go back to the cost of hydrogen.

From what I take it, after the exchange between you folks and Roscoe, is that there actually isn’t an energy savings reasons to go to

hydrogen as a fuel, because it actually would use more energy to

create it than what you get out of it once it is actually manufactured, is that correct? So we are actually—the hydrogen fuel angle

is that it will—it is a cleaner burning fuel for the air, is that why

we want to go in that direction?

Mr. BARTLETT. If the gentleman would yield for a quick moment.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes.

Mr. BARTLETT. It is true that it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than what you get out of it. When you use hydrogen, you

can conveniently use it in a fuel cell that gets at least twice the

efficiency of the reciprocating engine. So at the end of the day, you

may use less energy, in spite of the energy loss. We are not going

to suspend the second——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right.

Mr. BARTLETT.—law of thermodynamics. In spite of that loss, we

may end up using less energy with hydrogen.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So would it depend on, as Roscoe is suggesting, that we—that the development of fuel cell type engines

rather than the current type of engines that we have in automobiles?

Dr. BODDE. Well, both are certainly true. You do need a fuel cell,

of course, to offset the inefficiencies in producing the hydrogen. But

on the other hand, anything that you manufacture is subject to the

second law. And so there is always an increase in entropy or a degrading of the energy source, no matter—from any human activity.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, I have—actually, I have been told—we

just had a briefing the other day on biodiesel that suggested that

that is not the case with biodiesel, with canola oil, that actually

you get more BTUs out of—there are more BTUs left over by the

process by a three to one margin than it takes to actually produce

the biodiesel.

Dr. BODDE. As Dr. Heywood said, it depends where you draw the

boundaries around the system.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. But none of you have heard that that is—you

think that is an inaccurate statement if it is—when the boundaries

are drawn the same around hydrogen as around biodiesel?

77

Dr. BODDE. I don’t know the specifics of that particular one, sir,

but I would be suspicious of anything that appears to create energy

out of nothing. That energy always comes from some place.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yeah, well, we know that solar—as my colleague is suggesting, that the plants are actually taking in solar

energy, and that is part of the process that nature has provided us,

and that is the explanation of where extra energy could come from.

And do any of you have anything else to say about the—comparing

a biodiesel approach to a hydrogen approach in terms of the cost

of energy in creating your final product?

Dr. HEYWOOD. Let me comment on that.

One advantage of hydrogen, and I think it is real, is that it has

no carbon. So it is analogous to a gasoline or diesel fuel. You can

put it in the tank of a vehicle. And when it is used to drive the

vehicle, there is no carbon dioxide, no greenhouse gases, emitted,

so that is one of its important advantages.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. I think that is an advantage with the

biodiesel as well. Is—does biodiesel create greenhouse gases? I——

Dr. HEYWOOD. Well, that——

Mr. FAULKNER. It might be a net zero, but——

Dr. HEYWOOD. That depends on the details.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right, because the plants absorb a certain

amount of the——

Dr. HEYWOOD. And I would add that this may well not be an either or, because we talked primarily about passenger vehicles, but

the freight part of our transportation system is very significant in

terms of its energy consumption. And the big piece is the long-haul

trucks, which use diesel engines. They are very efficient engines,

and there is nothing on the horizon that looks like it could challenge them, in terms of efficiency.

So sources of fuel for diesel engines in—of the long-term future,

is something we should be looking at and——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right.

Dr. HEYWOOD.—exploring and developing, and biodiesel is one

option.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, it is—if you have to reconfigure the engine of every car that is manufactured in order to take hydrogen

in a way that is efficient, meaning you have to end up with a fuel

cell engine rather than the engines that we have, it is enormous

costs in terms of transition. So we would want to make sure the

end result was taking care of the fundamental problem, which is

running out of energy.

Let me ask you about the hydrogen engine.

Now someone told me that a byproduct of a hydrogen engine or

a fuel cell is water, and—pure water, but would this not be a problem in areas like in half of the United States where it freezes in

the wintertime? Would this not be a—some kind of a problem to

have water coming out of the engine?

Mr. CHERNOBY. Well, actually—I will comment.

That has been one of the challenges that we have been working

on, not just water coming out of the engine, but water within the

fuel cell itself. What you will find, during the process of converting

the hydrogen to electricity in the fuel cell, there is quite a bit of

heat that is generated to warm the water up. And the challenge we

78

have been working on, I think, we—not only DaimlerChrysler, but

other OEMs as well, have found ways to overcome is how do we

manage that water within the fuel cell during that initial start-up

stage when that heat is in there.

So clearly, you are absolutely right. The challenge of that water

being there in a cold environment is something that has to be managed.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. We have not—that particular hurdle has not

been jumped over yet.

Mr. CHERNOBY. We have made exceptional progress in the last

12 months. I won’t say we are done.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. Because I can’t imagine—I can—coming from California, as I do, we wouldn’t mind having, I guess,

more water on our roads, but if it froze, if we lived in Minnesota,

as my friend here does, I would imagine that a significant part of

the year, the last thing you want to have is water spread on the

road and having to drive your car or have to rely on the road for

transportation.

So this is a significant—it seems to me that that would be a significant problem.

Thank you very much, Madame Chairman.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

The gentleman yields back.

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul.

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Madame Chairman.

I am a member of the hydrogen fuel cell caucus, and we were introduced to a hydrogen fuel cell car, and I was able to drive it. And

it was a great experience, but I asked them how much it cost to

build them—and we obviously have the technology today to do it,

but I asked how much did it cost to build this, and the answer was

$1 million for the car.

That is obviously the issue here, bringing the cost down.

The energy companies in my district, when I talk to them about

this issue, and I am very interested in it, they tell me that the

timeline is 20 to 30 years out in the future. I don’t want to accept

that answer, and I wanted to get your response to that.

And in addition, I wanted to ask the question or possibly get a

comment on the energy bill that we hope is going to come out of

conference committee. There will be approximately $2 billion appropriated for alternative energy, including hydrogen. And where

would you think—where would you direct that money if you were

king for a day and could call the shots on that?

And then finally, the role of the universities, I have a university

in my District, and in my view, I think the universities have a role

to play with respect to developing these alternative energies.

I will just open it up to the panel.

Dr. HEYWOOD. Let me comment on the time scales.

It is important that we say—or sort out time scale to what. And

we have got fuel cell cars out already. There will be larger fleets

10 or 15 years from now. The DOE commercialization decision is

pitched for 2015, 10 years from now. Our judgment was that fuel

cells—we will know whether they are marketable within about 15

years. That is not all that different.

79

But then there is this time scale to build up production. And we

have never gone through a large-scale change in a propulsion system, except for the diesel transition in Europe. Diesels took over

from 10 percent of the market in Europe in 1980 to 50 percent now.

So it took 25 years. Diesels, a well-established technology, to go

from small scale to 50 percent of the market. How long will it take

fuel cells? That is where we get to 20, 30, 40 years before there are

enough fuel cells to have an impact on our energy consumption.

Mr. MCCAUL. So the energy companies are—they are accurate

when they say that?

Dr. HEYWOOD. They are right.

Mr. MCCAUL. Okay.

Dr. CRABTREE. May I comment?

The last two parts of your question about where should the funding go and what—and the role of universities.

I believe that there is an enormous amount of basic research that

needs to be done, and the best place—one of the best places to do

that is universities. Universities and national labs working together can actually accomplish that goal.

When you have $2 billion to spend, you—it actually isn’t a lot if

only a fraction of it goes to hydrogen. You have to be careful with

how you spend it, and I think there needs to be a balance. So there

should be a balance between helping industry do the research, as

many of the companies do, and universities and national labs. I

think these are the three places it should go——

Mr. MCCAUL. Good.

Dr. CRABTREE.—with very carefully targeted goals.

Dr. BODDE. Let me offer a comment, also, sir, if I may, on the

role of the universities.

I think it is important to recognize that universities are fundamentally ‘‘people factories.’’ That is, their basic product is people.

And turning out people who are not only capable in the technology,

but capable innovators is probably a very primary thing and probably one that may have been underappreciated in the university for

a number of years.

Beyond that, of course, is the basic research, the blue sky research. But I think there is an emerging role for universities, also,

as innovation centers, as centers not only for the creation of new

technology ideas, but the capturing of those—of the economic value

in those ideas, because as we look at competitive worldwide industries, we are beginning to see increasing pressures on the central

R&D functions in virtually every company. And if that is to happen, if that translating function is to happen, then it has got to go

someplace, and I believe the universities can emerge and play some

role, not the only role, of course, but an increasing role in that.

Mr. FAULKNER. A couple of comments, sir.

Universities are a key partner for my office across the board, and

they are for this hydrogen initiative. I mentioned in my oral testimony that we have three Centers of Excellence we have initiated.

They include 20 universities just in that alone.

On the cost, I think one thing to mention is, yes, there aren’t

that many cars on the road, so just like anything else, the prices

are high. The more you make, the more the costs come down.

80

One thing we have started to look at, and I mentioned this in

my oral testimony, I think this is an exciting field, is manufacturing R&D. I think we need to look more at this and other renewable areas, too, but to look at how to take things in the laboratory

out into the plant floor or the factory floor and move it on out into

commercialization. And we are going to be looking more and more

at that in the years ahead. This is a spin-off of the President’s

manufacturing initiative. And we are looking at things like highvolume manufacturing, standardizing components, developing an

infrastructure, developing a supplier base. And this is going to be

a critical factor in helping to bring those costs down as you manufacture the hydrogen initiative.

Mr. MCCAUL. If I could ask one more question, Madame Chair.

Twenty to thirty years to have market saturation, but when do

we think the first hydrogen cars will actually be out on the market?

Mr. CHERNOBY. Well, again, it gets back to your time question.

I don’t find it so easy to actually put a specific date on the invention of technology and research. If we had that kind of crystal ball,

I think we would be in a lot better shape. But we look forward to

vehicles, and then when you say ready, it depends upon, again, at

what value for the customer and what price point. But during

the—this next decade is when we would expect, at

DaimlerChrysler, we ought to have that commercial vehicle viable

for the marketplace, from a technical perspective.

But it is only as good as having available the infrastructure. I

thought the ethanol discussion was very interesting. We have built

millions of vehicles capable of running on ethanol, and they are out

there in the marketplace today. But yet it shows you that unless

you have got market pull and market incentive, it doesn’t all come

together to benefit either the environment or energy security.

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Madame Chair.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

I think we have time for a few more questions, if everybody is

very brief asking the question and answering the question.

So Chairman Inglis, would you like to go ahead for five minutes?

Thank you.

Chairman INGLIS. I thank you.

Mr. Chernoby, I understand that you have some dealings with

the—with codes and standards tech team. And one of the significant roles of the Federal Government or government somewhere

may be the setting of codes and standards, especially for the storage of hydrogen. Do you want to comment on any suggestions that

you have for us at the federal level or what should be our approach? It is a little bit early, I know, to—maybe to project those,

but suggestions from you about how to approach codes and standards.

Mr. CHERNOBY. I would give you three key suggestions.

Number one, don’t try to move to locking down a code or a standard too early while technology is still in the evolutionary stage.

When technology starts to settle down, then, in a pre-competitive

environment, we can all work together, both industry and government, to set the right standards.

So number one, don’t move too quickly.

81

Number two, as you already do in a very proactive mode, work

with us. We will all work together to try to find the right balance

to make sure that every standard we issue is going to be viable in

the marketplace and provide everything it has got to do, whether

it be safety for the consumer right on down to the various environmental benefits we might need.

And then finally, we have got to work together to keep an eye

on the global codes and standards. And I know the government is

already participating in some harmonization community—or collective efforts around the world. We have got to do our best, as we

try and develop these codes and standards, that they are very similar so that we can gain volumes of scale, bring the costs down, and

make the vehicles viable in the marketplace.

Chairman INGLIS. With these test vehicles that have been mentioned that we are driving around, have there been any local fire

chiefs in various cities that have said, ‘‘Not in our city,’’ or anything like that, I mean, such that we are already seeing some discrepancies in the standards?

Mr. CHERNOBY. I wouldn’t say in those terms, but there have

been local fire chiefs that have raised their hand and said, ‘‘Come

talk to me. We would like to have some input. We would like to

work with you.’’ And that is virtually in almost every state where

we are participating today. So we absolutely welcome and—that

type of conversation effort, so we are collectively working together

to find the rest—the best answer.

Chairman INGLIS. Anybody else want to comment on that? The

codes and standards?

Thank you, Madame Chair.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

We will—I think we will skip over, if you don’t mind, Dr. Bartlett, to Mr. Schwarz from Michigan, who just arrived for his first

round.

Mr. SCHWARZ. Thank you, but I have no questions.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Oh, well, then we won’t.

Mr. Bartlett is recognized.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you very much.

Let me take just a moment to define, for those who are listening

or those who may be reading this testimony, what we mean by

‘‘Hubbard’s Peak.’’ This resulted from the work of a geologist working for the Shell Oil Company back in the 1940s and 1950s who

noticed the exploitation and exhaustion of oil fields that tended to

follow a bell curve, increasing production to a peak and then falling

off as you pull the last oil out of the field. He—in estimating the

fields yet to be found and adding those to the fields he knew were

in existence for the United States, he predicted, in 1956, that the

United States would peak in oil production in about 1970. His prediction turned out to be exactly right. Every year since 1970, we

have not only found less oil, we have pumped less oil.

Using his analysis techniques, he predicted that the world would

peak at about 2000. That slipped a little because of the Arab oil

embargo, oil price spike hikes, and a worldwide recession. And

there are many insiders who believe that we are now at Hubbard’s

Peak.

82

And so Hubbard’s Peak represents the peak oil production in the

world, and it is only downhill after that. A plateau for a while, and

then downhill after that.

I would just like to caution and get your comment on it, that we

shouldn’t be too optimistic about the energy we are going to get

from agriculture. Tonight, 20 percent of the world will go to bed

hungry. Until we learned to do no-till cropping, we were losing the

battle with maintaining our topsoil. It was ending up in our bays,

and from the whole central part of our country, to the Mississippi

delta. If—to get a lot of energy from agriculture, we are either

going to have to eat the corn that we would have fed to the pig,

we are going to have to live lower on the food scale, because you

can’t feed the corn to the pig and then eat the pig, because there

is an awful—that is a very poor energy transfer, by the way, when

you are doing that.

Also, if we are going to take a lot of the biomass off, I have some

real concern about our ability to maintain topsoil. As I said, until

we learned to do no-till farming, we were losing that battle. We are

just now barely able to hold the quality of our topsoil with no-till

farming. If we are raping the soil of a lot of this organic material,

the tills will deteriorate, the soil will have no acceptable tills, and

we are—you know, it is going to become a mud pit when it is wet

and a brick when it is dry. That is how you make brick. You take

soil that has no humus in it and put it in an oven and bake it.

Do you share some concerns about the potential for getting energy from agriculture in the long haul?

Dr. HEYWOOD. Let me respond.

Yes, I do. There is a question what—how big a contribution we

think it might be able to make.

There are several questions. One is how big a contribution, and

the other is exactly what you have just talked about, what are the

long-term environmental impacts of monocultures grown on a large

scale to produce fuel.

And I have a Ph.D. student who is working on a project that is

focused exactly on that, because there is very—there is not a lot

of prior work that looks at these longer-term impacts. And what we

have found so far is that people’s predictions on these impacts vary

a lot. So there really is a need to dig into that question and understand it better.

But even if biofuels contribute five percent or 10 percent to our

liquid transportation fuel system, that is—it is not easy to find five

and 10 percent. So that might be an important five and 10 percent.

Mr. FAULKNER. I believe, sir, a quick answer for me is I am more

sanguine than you might be on that subject. I would note that the

Department of Energy and Agriculture just recently published a report that we internally call ‘‘The Billion Ton Study.’’ That is over

a billion tons of forest material and agricultural material, that is

not just the corn kernel. There is starch. It is also waste material,

like corn stalks and sugar cane gas, are available—or could be

available in the future to produce biofuels, products, and power,

and I think that is a study I would like to get to you, if that is

okay.

83

INSERT FOR THE RECORD BY DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER

In April 2005, the U.S. Departments of Energy and Agriculture published the following report assessing the potential of the land resources in the United States for

producing sustainable biomass: Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply. This study

indicates that a billion tons of biomass supply consisting of renewable resources

from both agricultural and forestry supplies could be utilized in an environmentally

and economically sustainable manner. According to the report, these resources are

capable of supplying more than 30 percent of the Nation’s present petroleum consumption and include agricultural residues such as corn stalks and sugarcane bagasse. Presently, the Department is supporting the Department of Agriculture in its

efforts to determine how much of the residue can be removed without reducing soil

fertility and depressing grain yields in subsequent years after residue removal.

[The report appears in Appendix 2: Additional Material for the Record.]

Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Secretary, I am not sure we—it is appropriate

to call these things ‘‘waste material.’’ Anything that goes back to

the soil to maintain the health of the soil, putting organic material

back into the soil, that is really not a ‘‘waste material.’’ For one

year, you may see it as ‘‘waste material,’’ but if you keep doing that

for a long time, I have some concern about what is going to happen

to our topsoil and our ability to grow these crops.

Dr. CRABTREE. May I make one comment on your question about

where the energy will come from after Hubbard’s Peak?

It is just one statistic, you might be interested, one fact. The sun

gives, in one hour, more energy to the Earth than we use in one

year, so there is an enormous resource in solar energy, if we knew

how to tap it, that would, indeed, supply our needs.

Mr. BARTLETT. Thank you. I am a big solar enthusiast. I have

a place in West Virginia off the grid, and we produce all of our electricity, so I will tell you that you have to be pretty sparing in your

use of electricity. And we have a number of panels. You are going

to have to have a very different lifestyle when you can’t use your

grandparents’ inheritance anymore, you have to live on your 15

percent income.

Dr. BODDE. With that said, sir, I think we are just beginning to

see the effects of energy conservation, or efficient energy use, I

guess I should say, and as energy prices rise, as engineers begin

to look at the services that energy provides, as opposed to the energy itself, I think there is huge potential for that to relieve some

of this problem already. Will it relieve the whole thing? No, of

course not. But as Dr. Heywood said, five or 10 percent is not bad.

Mr. BARTLETT. Just one comment, Madame Chairman. Thank

you for the time.

We better do that, sir, or we are going to have no energy to invest in the alternatives that we must transition to. Today, we are

using all of our energy, just barely able, at $60 a barrel, to produce

enough to keep our economies going. We have no energy to invest,

essentially none to invest. We have to make big investments of

time and energy if we are going to transition. And we will transition, by the way. We will either do it on our course or at nature’s

course. But we will transition from fossil fuels to renewables. The

question is, how bumpy will that ride be?

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

The gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Madame Chairperson.

This is a very important hearing.

84

While you gentlemen are sitting there, conferees are meeting on

the massive energy policy bill, and I would venture to say that although the Science Committee and the previous speaker and others

worked their heart out, the predominance of the bill obviously deal

with fossil fuel.

But the Science Committee did have its voice, and I am pleased

to note that there were a number of options and alternatives and

excellent additions to the legislation per this committee.

I am also pleased to note, as I understand it, Mr. Faulkner, that we have added $33 million in fiscal year 2006 regarding the hydrogen program. I hope that is accurate, and you might comment in

my questions.

Let me just say that I come from Texas, so I come from oil country. And in fact, one of my amendments in the bill spoke to determining the extent of deposits off the Gulf of Mexico so that we

could plan long range in a more organized manner what we had

at our access, if we will, particularly in light of the fact that the

greater exploration is probably more off the Louisiana and Texas

coasts than it might be off of Texas—off of California and Florida.

So there are some concerns about energy resources, particularly

oil and gas, even though there are those of us who live in that environment and certainly support that environment in a safe and

healthy way, we are also open-minded to recognize that the United

States has to have options.

And so I pose these questions with the backdrop of the development that is going on off the shores of Louisiana and Mexico and

also international oil development and the new findings on LNG.

There are options that I think that we should be involved in.

I will pose two questions, keeping that in mind, and a sub-question.

One, it may have been asked, but I am interested in the proposed

sources for hydrogen, particularly the options include nuclear and

natural gas, clean coal, wind, and renewables. And I would be interested from all of you as to what shows the most promise.

Then we have done some work in the Science Committee on fuel

cells. And in fact, we had some amendments along those lines in

the energy bill. Fuel cells and fuel production are experiencing

competitive pressures significant enough to affect pricing, is my

question, is the market in fuel cells, if that pressure is affecting

pricing? And if it is not, when will we see a truly competitive fuel

cell market? And what drives down prices and advances technology?

Mr. Chernoby, in your remarks, I would be interested in whether

you have hybrid cars already, using hydrogen or other alternatives.

And then for all of you to answer the question of the great need

to educate more scientists and engineers, which is an issue that I

have worked on on this committee. I am frightened by the prospect

that we may not have a farm team of physicists and chemists, engineers, and I have worked to help finance the historically black colleges and Hispanic-serving colleges and community colleges. But I

welcome your comments on what we could do on expanding that

area.

And I yield to the gentlemen.

I ask, also, that my remarks may be submitted into the record.

85

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Without objection.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Faulkner, would you start, please? And is

that $33 million accurate? Do you know? Or have we given you

more?

Mr. FAULKNER. Yes, ma’am. The President announced an initiative for $1.2 billion over five years. We are on track for that initiative. I was looking at the chart in front of me. Fiscal year 2005 appropriations for the whole initiative, which includes my office, the

Nuclear Office, Fossil Office, Science, and also the Department of

Transportation, appropriations for fiscal year 2005, was, roughly,

$225 million. Our presidential request for that same group is

roughly $260 million.

You mentioned——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you are getting more money for hydrogen? That is what I was asking. You don’t have that——

Mr. FAULKNER. Well, this is the hydrogen fuel initiative. It is

fuel cells, hydrogen production——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.

Mr. FAULKNER. You asked several other questions. I will provide

answers for a couple of those, and my colleagues will probably fill

in others.

You asked what shows the most promise for sources of hydrogen.

I think, right now, it is too early to say. We are pursuing several

different pathways. We are still early in this initiative, and I would

hate to cut off promising research and development by picking a

winner or a loser this early in the game.

You talked about scientists and engineers, and I would just note

that we have an initiative that I personally am very fond of in our

office with the National Association for State Universities and

Land Grant Colleges that we have been working on with them for

the last couple of years. It’s not directly related to the hydrogen initiative, but we think there is a lot of excitement here, and we share

your interest in building these—growing more scientists—the scientists and engineers in America. And if you would like, we could

give you more information on that, and that does include historically black colleges you mentioned.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would. Thank you.

INSERT FOR THE RECORD BY DOUGLAS L. FAULKNER

Since 2004, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and the National Association of State Universities and

Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC) have been building a partnership to improve communication between the two scientific communities, advance the development and

use of energy efficiency and renewable technologies, and educate the young scientists and engineers that America needs for securing our energy future.

For EERE, the 217 NASULGC institutions of higher education, which include 18

historically black institutions and 33 American Indian land-grant colleges, provide

an opportunity for focusing research, extension/outreach, and curriculum development activities on energy efficiency and renewable energy issues. EERE can use

NASULGC’s Cooperative Extension and Outreach networks to improve the dissemination of results coming from university researchers and DOE research laboratories,

and to spread the use and adoption of energy-saving and renewable energy technologies and products for residential, commercial, and other sectors.

For NASULGC affiliated institutions, the outcome is to develop relevant curriculum, research, and outreach programs with EERE’s latest technologies that will

assist their students and the citizens of their state. NASULGC can work with EERE

to help its member institutions increase their responsiveness to practical issues and

86

provide opportunities for faculty and students to gain access to research and cutting

edge knowledge.

EERE and NASULGC are working together to assist young people’s understanding and appreciation for math and science through a hands-on learning program with 4–H kids. Young participants apply physics, mathematics, and other disciplines to lighting and other energy technologies. Energy efficiency and renewable

education programs are also being delivered to youth and adults.

Dr. BODDE. One comment, if I may, on the colleges and colleges

as ‘‘people factories,’’ in particular.

I think that is very important to the economic growth and the

scientific growth of this country.

One of the things, though, that I think that research universities

have to do is learn to become more effective partners with technical

colleges to allow an effective transition and effective unified program between them. That is one of the things that we are trying

to put in place at the ICAR now is a partnership with a—the local

technical university so that we provide to the upstate coalition in—

or the upstate auto cluster, I should say, a completely unified educational program that ranges from the technical level to the graduate research level.

Dr. HEYWOOD. Could I comment on that question about education?

From our perspective, I think government graduate fellowships

focused on specific areas do several very useful things. They pull

young people into those areas, and they become—that becomes

their area of expertise. And also, fellowship students are extremely

useful, from a faculty member’s perspective, because they are, in a

sense, free labor to start on a new topic. And so they really have

an effect of allowing faculty members to branch out into new research areas, and that is exactly the sort of—pulling young people

into this—these areas that are going to be critical to us for the next

many, many decades, and also providing opportunities for starting

up new and, hopefully, interesting and promising research activities.

Back to the sources of hydrogen, I would like to add just one

comment.

I think it is—Mr. Faulkner is quite right. It is too early to start

to make choices, but I think it is worth saying something about

many people’s feeling that if we have got renewable electricity,

then we can make hydrogen with, sort of, no environmental impacts. Well, if we got renewable electricity, that is fantastic stuff,

and it will displace coal-generated electricity. And I sometimes feel

like, well, why would you take a really good wine and convert it

into a not so good wine. Electricity is a fantastic wine. Hydrogen

isn’t quite as good.

So I think that is a very good question. There are questions like

that that we need to dig into, but it is too early to say. But we are

going to have to be imaginative, because if we don’t produce the hydrogen without releasing greenhouse gases, we have really—we

have not moved forward very much at all.

Dr. CRABTREE. Yeah, may I comment on that, too?

I would like to reinforce what Dr. Heywood said that it is very

important to produce the hydrogen without carbon. And the one

way in which you can do that is to split water. There are many

ways to split water. You mentioned nuclear and electrolysis, but

87

there are other ways, too, notably solar energy. It would be wonderful to take a beaker of water, put it into a container that is

highly technological, set it in the sun, and simply produce hydrogen

with no other energy input. And in fact, that can be done in the

laboratory now with about 18 percent efficiency. Of course, it is

much too expensive to do commercially, but I think that is the challenge.

So if we can do that, we have solved lots of problems: we don’t

have any dependence on foreign energy sources, because the sun

falls on everyone’s head; we don’t produce any greenhouse gases;

we don’t produce any pollutants; and the supply is, effectively, inexhaustible.

So I think this is the route we should go. It is a question of

which renewable energy sources we use.

Dr. BODDE. One further comment on universities.

The American university has become truly an international,

multi-national enterprise. There are students coming to us preferentially from all over the world. We have attracted into our universities some extraordinary talent, the greatest talent that exists

in many countries. I think we need to find ways to retain that talent within this country, not only when they are graduate students,

but afterwards. And I think we should look again at our security

policies and ask if we are not straining out a whole lot of folks that

we really wish that we would have around here?

Mr. CHERNOBY. And just to close your question on the fuel cell

vehicles.

Yes, at DaimlerChrysler, we have approximately 100 different

fuel cell vehicles on the road around the world, many of those here

in the United States in the DOE demonstration project, gaining

valuable data to help us understand what are the new problems we

face when we move from the lab to the environment.

And I would add, on education, we don’t—we, at

DaimlerChrysler, also very—think it is very important to attract

young people to the technical arenas. We participate very strongly

in efforts at the elementary school level, the middle school level,

and through things like the first robotics competition at the high

school level. It is absolutely critical to attract them to the technical

fields in the first place before they get to the collegiate type of environment.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Just a quick couple of questions to—before we close.

Dr. Bodde, the first recommendation of the National Academy’s

report was for DOE to develop an increased ability to analyze the

impact of new technologies, such as hydrogen, on the entire energy

system so that the Department can wisely set priorities for energy

R&D. How would you rate the Department’s current systems analysis effort? And should it be changed, in your opinion, to improve

it?

Dr. BODDE. Well, it is certainly too early to judge, but I think the

response from the Department of Energy was quite immediate and

quite effective. The office was established, housed at the National

88

Renewable Energy Laboratory, and has begun to—a wide-scale set

of works.

But I think this modeling of the entire energy system is very important, because, in the end, it has got to function as an integrated

system where we have got to understand how it can function as an

integrated system. Further, we have to understand how that system is evolving. So it is one thing to create models for the system,

but it is another thing, also, to monitor progress as it goes along

to monitor where bets are being placed, say, in the private sector.

Where is private venture capital going in these things?

And I guess if I could offer one suggestion for a direction that

this systems integration or modeling effort would go, it is to add

to those capacities an ability to look at where the private sector is

going right now, the bets that private investors are placing in new

technologies.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

And then, Dr. Crabtree, the DOE is currently funding learning

demonstrations with the auto makers and energy companies. Is the

information that DOE is getting from the auto makers worth the

price of the demonstrations, given the technical challenges that remain?

Dr. CRABTREE. Well, that is a very difficult question to answer.

Let me say something generally, which may not be quite the specific answer you are looking for.

I think it is very important to have demonstration projects, because there you learn what the problems are, and you learn how

to innovate. And if you look at the history of energy, and let us say,

internal combustion engines, that is how the progress was made.

So we can’t discount that as a very important way to go forward.

I would balance that with the feeling that we need to put basic

research on the table as well. It is really both of those efforts that

are going to make the hydrogen economy vibrant, competitive, innovative, and lasting for 100 years, as the fossil fuel economy has

done.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Would you say that the money would be

better spent on basic research, or does there need to be a balance?

Dr. CRABTREE. I think there needs to be a balance. There absolutely needs to be a balance.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

And I have one more here, if I can find it.

Mr. Chernoby, what role do the entrepreneurs or start-up companies and venture capitalist investors have to play in helping

DaimlerChrysler accelerate the commercial introduction of the advanced hydrogen fuel cell vehicles?

Mr. CHERNOBY. Absolutely, they are going to play a critical role,

especially in those areas where we develop a new technological innovation that may not be of significant interest to a big company

at this point in time to invest. The entrepreneur may be our avenue to actually get that into the commercialization, as Dr. Bodde

mentioned earlier.

So we absolutely see that linkage as one that may be a very critical path in order to get this to a reality.

Dr. BODDE. Just a footnote on that, Madame Chairman.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Sure.

89

Dr. BODDE. When the laser was first invented at Bell Labs, the

inventors of it had a very hard time getting it patented.

And why did they have a hard time getting it patented? Well, it

turns out that, for the telephone, it was then understood there was

absolutely no use for this innovation. And so it was only by great

persuasion that Bell Labs actually managed to capture the patents

for this enormously useful, broadly applicable innovation.

Chairwoman BIGGERT. Thank you.

And with that note, we will—before we bring the hearing to a

close, I want to thank our panelists for testifying before the Subcommittee today. I think it was—you are just experts in your

fields, and it was very, very helpful to all of us.

And if there is no objection, the record will remain open for additional statements from the Members and for answers to any followup questions the Subcommittee may ask of the panelists. So without objection, so ordered.

The hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(91)

Appendix 1:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

92

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Douglas L. Faulkner, Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, Department of Energy

Questions submitted by Chairman Judy Biggert and Chairman Bob Inglis

Q1. Dr. Bodde recommended that the Department of Energy (DOE) keep track of the

efforts of auto suppliers and smaller private ventures that support the automotive industry. Has DOE taken any steps in this direction, and what else can

be done?

A1. We agree that it is important to stay abreast of commercial and technical developments of auto suppliers and smaller private ventures. A strong supplier base capable of providing parts for advanced vehicles is important to maintain the U.S.

auto industry’s competitiveness especially given auto manufacturers’ increased reliance in recent years on their first and second tier suppliers.

We monitor developments at supplier companies and smaller private ventures by

regularly attending technical conferences, sponsoring technology assessments, tracking the technical literature, visiting R&D facilities, and meeting with researchers.

Most importantly, we provide a substantial portion of our transportation-related

R&D funding to such companies. In FY05, the Department of Energy’s, Hydrogen,

Fuel Cell and Infrastructure Program spent approximately $72 million, or 32 percent of its budget and the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program spent approximately $35 million, or 40 percent of its light duty vehicles budget to fund research at such companies. In addition, many suppliers work directly with our national laboratories which provides further insights into the types of technology challenges arising and how they are being addressed.

Q2. How is DOE working to ensure that the technologies developed under the

FreedomCAR program that can be used in conventional vehicles are moved into

the marketplace, and that the efficiency gains from the technologies are used to

improve fuel economy?

A2. New vehicle technologies normally take about 15 years to reach maximum market penetration. Ultimately, companies must make independent decisions on which

combination of technologies makes sense for each to commercialize based upon the

establishment of viable business cases. Even if performance and cost targets are

met, other market factors (e.g., availability and price of gasoline, investment capital

conditions/risk, etc.) will influence industry’s decision to commercialize a particular

technology.

DOE works closely with industry through the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership

and our cost-shared R&D projects to help strengthen the business case for the adoption of technologies on which we work. Partnerships help facilitate technology transfer and information dissemination by creating a common understanding of technical

capabilities and barriers and by providing a forum in which to exchange ideas. In

addition, as technical progress is made, performance targets are met and validated,

and cost is reduced, the technologies become more attractive for industry to adopt

and commercialize.

Q3. What steps might the industry take to assure customers that hydrogen-powered

vehicles meet the same or higher standards of safety compared to current vehicles?

A3. Ultimately, customer assurance of safety will be accomplished by establishing

a safety record and experience base that demonstrates safe use of hydrogen by the

public. Since that experience base does not yet exist, it is critical that early hydrogen demonstrations operate with safety at the highest priority level. To accomplish

this, both DOE and industry are working together through the following activities

to ensure safety:

• Establishing codes and standards. All major domestic and international codes

and standards organizations are working with industry and other stakeholders to establish the initial safety standards and codes which will guide

the roll-out of hydrogen technology. A number of key codes and standards

have been completed and are in the process of being adopted. As the technology evolves over the next decade, these codes and standards will be revised. In addition, the Department of Transportation is performing their regulatory role of establishing vehicle standards, crash worthiness and pipeline

safety.

93

• Ensuring safety of demonstration vehicles and fueling. To ensure safety during hydrogen demonstrations, layers of safety systems are being employed.

For example: 1) Vehicles are equipped with a number of hydrogen leak detectors that trip below the concentration level of hydrogen that would support

combustion, 2) Accident sensors (similar to those used to deploy air bags) are

employed to prevent fuel flow following an accident, and 3) Service stations

are equipped with sensors and monitors, and refueling operations are conducted by trained personnel.

• Ensuring safety of DOE projects. DOE has implemented a series of measures

to ensure safe operation of our R&D program: A primary measure is the DOE

Hydrogen Safety Panel, an independent group which counsels DOE on safety

matters, performs reviews of project safety plans and conducts site audits of

facility conducting R&D.

• Training. DOE is working with government, industry and fire professionals

to develop and conduct training for first responders.

• Reporting incidents and lessons learned. DOE is in the process of establishing

an international hydrogen incident database so that information from hydrogen incidents or ‘‘near-misses’’ from around the world can be shared throughout the hydrogen community, helping to prevent future safety problems.

Q4. Professor Heywood argues that because of the high risk of failure of the hydrogen research initiative, DOE should increase funding for alternative vehicle technologies, such as electric vehicles and biomass fuels. What do you think the

chances are that technical barriers will cause the hydrogen initiative to fail? Is

DOE providing enough funding to alternatives?

A4. We believe the Administration’s requests have provided enough funding for

R&D in vehicles and biomass. We agree that their merits are significant. We also

believe the chance of achieving technical success in the development of hydrogen

technologies is very good, due to extensive program planning, management and review.

Question submitted by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett

Q1. In your opinion, is a limited world platinum supply likely to be a barrier to the

widespread adoption of fuel cells?

A1. No. A study by TIAX, LLC determined that there are sufficient platinum resources in the ground to meet long-term projected platinum demand if the amount

of platinum in fuel cell systems is reduced to the Department’s target level. The

DOE-sponsored study, shows that world platinum demand (including jewelry, fuel

cell and industrial applications) by 2050 would be 20,000 metric tons against a total

projected resource of 76,000 metric tons. This study assumes that fuel cell vehicles

attain 80 percent market penetration by 2050 (from U.S., Western Europe, China,

India and Japan). The study shows that the limiting factor in keeping up with increased platinum demand is the ability of the industry to respond and install additional production infrastructure. Since in the out-years, recycling would provide almost 60 percent of the supply, the industry will have to be careful not to overbuild

production capacity in a more accelerated market demand scenario.

• Platinum availability is a strategic issue for the commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Platinum is expensive and is currently critical to

achieving the required levels of fuel cell power density and efficiency. As

such, the Department has been focused on reducing and substituting for (with

non-precious metal catalysts) the amount of platinum in fuel cell stacks

(while maintaining performance and durability) so that hydrogen fuel cells

can be cost competitive with gasoline internal combustion engines.

• Significant progress has been made and is still being made by national laboratories, universities and industry to reduce the amount of platinum needed

in a fuel cell stack by replacing platinum catalysts with platinum alloy catalysts or non-platinum catalysts, enhancing the specific activity of platinum

containing catalysts, and depositing these catalysts on electrodes using innovative processes. The Office of Science has recently initiated new basic research projects on the design of catalysts at the nanoscale that focus on continued reduction in the amount of platinum catalyst required in fuel cell

stacks.

94

• Typically, it takes three to five years to increase platinum production capacity

in response to an increase in demand. Fuel cell vehicle production may create

a brief platinum supply deficit, leading to short-term price increases.

• The TIAX study shows that platinum prices over the last one hundred years

fluctuated based on major world events (e.g., world war, etc.), however, the

mean price (adjusted for inflation) remained stable at $300 per troy ounce.

However, over the last couple of years platinum has been higher at $900 per

troy ounce.

Question submitted by Representative Michael E. Sodrel

Q1. Please provide details of Iceland’s effort to convert entirely to a hydrogen economy. Is DOE working with Iceland on this effort? Have they made any advances,

including in geothermal energy, that will help to advance a hydrogen economy

in the U.S.?

A1. Iceland’s goal is to become the first nation in the world to achieve the vision

of a hydrogen economy. The move to a hydrogen economy has significant government support, and surveys conducted by Icelandic New Energy indicate significant

public support as well. With a population of less than 300,000 (the majority of which

resides in the capital of Reykjavik), transforming the Icelandic transportation sector

to hydrogen will require far fewer hydrogen fueling stations than what will be required in the United States. Advances include:

• Iceland has an abundance of relatively inexpensive renewable energy that is

used for heating and provides 100 percent of the Nation’s electricity (80 percent from hydropower and 20 percent from geothermal).

• Currently, there is one hydrogen fueling station, located along a major highway in Reykjavik, which serves as a national demonstration project. Hydrogen is produced on site via renewable electrolysis. The station is a publicly

accessible retail fueling station that also offers gasoline and diesel and includes a convenience store. It supports the operation of three hydrogen fuel

cell buses that run regular routes around Reykjavik; there are no other hydrogen vehicles at this time.

• The next phase of the country’s hydrogen demonstration will involve the conversion of the entire Reykjavik bus fleet to hydrogen. Future phases will include promoting the integration of fuel cell powered vehicles for passenger use

and examining the possibility of replacing the fishing fleet with hydrogen

based vessels.

• Iceland collaborates with the United States through the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE), which was established in November 2003 to facilitate global collaboration on hydrogen and fuel cell research,

development, and demonstration (RD&D). With a membership including 16

countries and the European Commission, the IPHE provides a forum for

leveraging scarce RD&D funds, harmonizing codes and standards, and educating stakeholders and the general public on the benefits of and challenges

to the hydrogen economy.

Question submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. Given the level of innovation in advanced vehicle technologies as demonstrated

by foreign-owned automobile manufacturers such as Toyota, Nissan and Honda,

would it benefit the U.S. to expand more of the cooperative research, development and demonstration programs (including FreedomCAR) to include foreignowned companies with domestic R&D and manufacturing facilities?

A1. The Department’s public/private partnership to develop hydrogen and hybridelectric vehicle technologies—the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership is not a partnership with individual auto companies, but is between DOE and the U.S. Council

for Automotive Research (USCAR). Under the USCAR umbrella, car companies are

able to engage in cooperative, pre-competitive research, and to coordinate the industry’s interaction with government research organizations. Auto companies that are

conducting substantial automotive research and development activities within the

U.S. are able to apply for membership in USCAR.

Even though many foreign companies have substantial production facilities within

the United States, they do not have staff in North America with the appropriate

R&D expertise or experience to qualify for participation in the development of technology goals and milestones for these programs.

95

Foreign car companies, however, have been and continue to be able to contribute

their ideas to the programs by meeting with DOE program managers and by participating in DOE workshops, stakeholder meetings, program reviews, and solicitations.

They also are able to provide input through public comments on pre-solicitation and

go/no-go decision notices. We also frequently visit their R&D facilities and monitor

technological developments outside of the United States.

96

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by David L. Bodde, Director, Innovation and Public Policy, International

Center for Automotive Research, Clemson University

Questions submitted by Chairman Judy Biggert and Chairman Bob Inglis

Q1. What steps might the industry take to assure customers that hydrogen-powered

vehicles meet the same or higher standards of safety compared to current vehicles?

A1. Years of experience with hydrogen production and use clearly demonstrate that

a high degree of safety can be achieved. But all this experience has been gained in

applications that are professionally managed and maintained. When hydrogen is introduced into the consumer economy, an entirely different set of issues arise, not

only for consumers but also for first-responders to emergencies.

Safety will be especially important during the transition period, as any hydrogenrelated accidents will draw intense public scrutiny. This applies to every part of the

hydrogen supply chain—production, logistics, dispensing, and on-vehicle use. Thus,

all parts of an emerging hydrogen industry, not just the vehicle makers, must move

aggressively to define and resolve potential safety issues. The Department of Energy

should take the lead here—for example, by raising the importance of safety in its

FreedomCAR program. This could be done by creating a ‘‘safety team’’ in addition

to the team developing codes and standards. Further, safety should be considered

a system-wide issue and integrated into all the technical teams.

Some specific issues pose special concerns. In my view, high pressure hydrogen

storage on-board vehicles poses the greatest single safety challenge, especially as

these vehicles age. Plainly, much design effort should be devoted to fail-safe systems, and manufacturers must build these vehicles for quality and durability. For

the longer-term, low-pressure, solid-state storage systems might offer relief, but for

now these remain research goals and far from marketplace reality.

Finally, all companies participating in the emerging hydrogen economy must

share safety-related information widely. This serves their self interest, as an accident anywhere is likely to impugn hydrogen activities everywhere.

Q2. What have you learned from your experience on the National Academies’ review

panel on FreedomCAR? What recommendations do you feel most important?

A2. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership takes on an extraordinary challenge:

to precipitate revolutionary change in a global vehicle and fuels infrastructure that

has served well for over 100 years and that continues to perform well from a consumer perspective. The challenge is in part technological, but in equal measure it

is social and economic—yet the chief policy instrument used by the Federal Government has been technology development. The technologists, however, cannot do it all,

and private businesses must respond to the marketplace. Therefore, success will require strong and consistent leadership from elected officials in order to supplement

technology as a pathway to change.

In my view, the most important recommendation from the National Academies’

review were:

• Hydrogen storage and fuel cell performance. Extraordinarily ambitious goals

have been set for the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, especially in the

crucial areas of on-vehicle hydrogen storage and fuel cell performance. Increased attention and support will be required, especially for membrane research, new catalyst systems, electrode design, and all aspects of energy storage.

• Risk hedging. As a hedge against delay in meeting these goals, the program

should emphasize:

Æ Advanced combustion engines and emissions controls;

Æ Battery storage of energy, a ‘‘no regrets’’ strategy that will also serve the

hybrid electric vehicles, plug-hybrids, and eventually the hydrogen fuel

cell vehicle; and,

Æ Management of electric energy systems, also serving all forms of electric

drive vehicles.

• Congressionally directed funding. The panel noted that diversion of resources

from critical technology areas increases the risk that the program will not

meet its goals in a timely manner.

97

Q3. Professor Heywood argues that because of the high risk of failure of the hydrogen research initiative, the Department of Energy (DOE) should increase funding for alternative vehicle technologies, such as electric motors and biomass

fuels. What do you think the chances are that technical barriers will cause the

hydrogen initiative to fail? Is DOE providing enough funding to alternatives?

A3. My own concern is not so much that the hydrogen initiative will fail by encountering some fundamental physical barrier. Rather, I fear that technical barriers and

parsimonious funding will delay deployment of a hydrogen economy well beyond the

goals set by the DOE.

In the meantime, this nation—and, indeed, the world—will continue to rely in the

internal combustion engine. Therefore, simple prudence would suggest we hedge our

bets (as above) both with improvements to the ICE and with alternative fuels that

could backstop a delayed hydrogen economy.

Question submitted by Representative W. Todd Akin

Q1. In your testimony, you stated that, ‘‘coal offers the lowest cost pathway to a hydrogen based energy economy.’’ However, within DOE, the carbon sequestration

program is managed separately from the hydrogen and vehicles programs. What

can we do as a Congress to encourage greater cooperation between these programs, and how does the current structure of DOE hinder efforts to use coal for

hydrogen fuel cells?

A1. This separation has concerned at least two National Academies’ committees as

well. The concern is to bring the several parts of this very complex set of programs

to fruition at the appropriate time. The systems analysis function was established

to provide the analytical means to accomplish this. However, implementation, as

you note, is in question.

Question submitted by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett

Q1. In your opinion, is the limited world platinum supply likely to be a barrier to

the widespread adoption of fuel cells?

A1. Yes, we plainly must develop alternative design approaches that avoid the use

of expensive materials like platinum. Otherwise, fuel cells will become too costly for

wide scale deployment. Membrane and catalyst research will be important here—

see response A2 to Chairman Biggert and Chairman Inglis, above.

Question submitted by Representative Michael M. Honda

Q1. Given the level of innovation in advanced vehicle technologies as demonstrated

by foreign-owned automobile manufacturers such as Toyota, Nissan, and Honda,

would it benefit the U.S. to expand more of the cooperative research, development, and demonstration programs (including FreedomCAR) to include foreignowned companies with domestic R&D and manufacturing facilities?

A1. Yes, I think there could be some value in that, though the information sharing

must be reciprocal. But more importantly, I believe the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership should make greater efforts to engage the entrepreneurial sector of the U.S.

economy. If we look at past technological revolutions, we observe that the industry

incumbents rarely led the change. The telegraph companies did not bring us the

telephone, the telephone companies did not bring us the Internet, and the electron

tube makers did not bring us solid state electronics. Thus, much evidence suggests

that encouraging entrepreneurship in road transportation might provide a powerful

pathway to a hydrogen economy.

98

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mark Chernoby, Vice President, Advanced Vehicle Engineering,

DaimlerChrysler Corporation

Questions submitted by Chairman Judy Biggert and Chairman Bob Inglis

Q1. What steps might the industry take to assure customers that hydrogen-powered

vehicles meet the same or higher standards of safety compared to current vehicles?

A1. Hydrogen-powered vehicles will be required to meet the same safety standards

as current vehicles. What government and industry can do together to prepare the

public for hydrogen vehicles is safety education. For example, first responders to a

hydrogen vehicle accident need to know proper procedures for ensuring safety of the

vehicle occupants just as they have been trained for current vehicles. A good first

step towards this end is the Department of Energy’s Hydrogen Vehicle Validation

program. Government and industry are working together to develop public education programs that include hydrogen safety.

Q2. Professor Heywood argues that because of the high risk of failure of the hydrogen research initiative, DOE should increase funding for alternative vehicle technologies, such as electric vehicles and biomass fuels. What do you think the

chances are that technical barriers will cause the hydrogen initiative to fail? Is

DOE providing enough funding to alternatives?

A2. As a partner of the FreedomCAR program we are satisfied with the diversity

of the Department of Energy’s alternative vehicle research programs.

DaimlerChrysler also believes as Professor Heywood in a broad research portfolio

approach to the future. Hydrogen storage is one of the high risk challenges for public acceptance of a hydrogen vehicle. The challenge is high but it is a risk we must

take as we pursue all alternatives to the current vehicle propulsion technologies.

Question submitted by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett

Q1. In your opinion, is a limited world platinum supply likely to be a barrier to the

widespread adoption of fuel cells?

A1. The current platinum loading of fuel cell electrodes is cost prohibitive for most

commercial applications. In order to gain consumer acceptance platinum in a fuel

cell must be reduced to a fraction of the current level. Therefore, the supply of platinum will be of less concern when fuel cells are ready for the mass market.

99

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by George W. Crabtree, Director, Materials Science Division, Argonne National Laboratory

Questions submitted by Chairman Judy Biggert and Chairman Bob Inglis

Q1. What steps might the industry take to assure customers that hydrogen-powered

vehicles meet the same or higher standards of safety compared to current vehicles?

A1. The public acceptance of hydrogen depends not only on its practical and commercial appeal, but also on its record of safety in widespread use. The special flammability, buoyancy, and permeability of hydrogen present challenges to its safe use

that are different, but not necessarily more difficult, than for other energy carriers.

One important step to insuring hydrogen safety is research to understand the combustibility of hydrogen in open spaces where it is naturally diluted and in closed

spaces where it may concentrate by accumulation. Additional areas of research

needed for hydrogen safety are the effect of mixing with volatile hydrocarbons like

gasoline or alchohol, on hydrogen ignition, the embrittlement of materials by exposure to hydrogen that may cause leaks, and the development of sensing techniques

selective for hydrogen.

A second key element is development of effective safety standards and practices

that are widely known and routinely used, like those for self-service gasoline stations or plug-in electrical appliances. Despite the danger of open exposure to gasoline and household electricity, the injury rate from these hazards has been minimized by thorough education to a few simple codes and standards. Similar codes

and standards need to be developed and widely disseminated for hydrogen.

Q2. In your testimony, you explain the challenge of hydrogen storage as follows: that

we are searching for a material that allows, at the same time, both close and

loose packing and weak and strong bonding of hydrogen molecules. Is there any

known precedent or parallel phenomenon that gives us some confidence that

such a material exists or can be created?

A2. The challenge of simultaneously satisfying the twin criteria of high storage capacity and fast charge/release rates is formidable. However advances in nanoscience

over the last five years open promising new horizons for satisfying the seemingly

conflicting requirements of strong bonding and close packing for high capacity and

weak bonding and loose packing for fast charge/release. A storage medium composed

of tiny nanoparticles, for example, can provide short diffusion lengths for hydrogen

within the nanoparticle leading to high charge/release rates, combined with dense

packing of hydrogen as a chemical compound with the host medium. Two promising

new materials have been developed in the last year: ammonium borane (NH3BH3)

and MgC12(NH3)6, each of which can be artificially nanostructured to enhance its

release rate while maintaining its high hydrogen storage capacity.

The search for new nanostructured storage materials is enormously streamlined

by theoretical modeling of their storage behavior using modern density functional

theory implemented on computer clusters containing hundreds of nodes. Such advanced modeling enables accurate simulation of the storage capacity and release

rate of hundreds of candidate materials without the expensive and time consuming

step of fabricating them in the laboratory. This efficient ‘‘virtual screening’’ dramatically increases the number of materials that can be searched, with only the most

promising candidates tested for physical performance in the laboratory. The formulation of density functional theory and powerful computer clusters enabling this efficient screening were not available even a few years ago.

Q3. Professor Heywood argues that because of the high risk of failure of the hydrogen research initiative, the Department of Energy (DOE) should increase funding for alternative vehicle technologies, such as electric vehicles and biomass

fuels. What do you think the chances are that technical barriers will cause the

hydrogen initiative to fail? Is DOE providing enough funding to alternatives?

A3. The demand for energy is projected to double by 2050 and triple by 2100. This

means that by 2050 we must create an energy supply chain and infrastructure that

duplicates today’s capacity. This challenge is beyond the reach of a single energy

source or energy carrier. To meet the challenge, we must develop a mix of energy

options and rely on each to shoulder a portion of the load. Like hydrogen, the alternatives suggested by Professor Heywood are worthy of serious consideration, but

they are not without their risks. Electric vehicles substitute electricity for fossil

100

fuels at the point of use, but the electricity they require must be generated, typically

from burning fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. Thus the pollution, greenhouse

gas emission, and fossil fuel consumption at the point of use is simply shifted to

the point of electricity production. This option has approximately neutral impact on

the national energy challenges of adequate supply, secure access, local pollution and

climate change.

Biomass fuels, while carbon neutral, are not plentiful enough to displace all the

gasoline used for transportation in the Nation. Even the most optimistic estimates

for biomass fuels claim only to be able to replace the foreign oil used for transportation, and this would occur only after a long development period graced by significant breakthroughs in genetic engineering that are presently beyond the reach of

science. Because significant breakthroughs are required, it is impossible to rank the

risk of failure of biomass fuels as greater or less than that of hydrogen.

Many energy options must be developed simultaneously, and each will require

breakthroughs that we do not know how to achieve at present. Hydrogen solves all

four national energy challenges: it is abundant, widely accessible, and free of pollution and greenhouse gas emission if produced by splitting water renewably. Other

energy options like electric cars and fuel from biomass address only some of the

challenges, and may require equally expensive and difficult breakthroughs. Without

the advantage of a crystal ball, it is prudent to invest in several of the most promising energy options. Hydrogen is among the most promising options, for its ability

to address, and perhaps solve, all four energy challenges. Alternatives should also

be funded, though electric cars themselves have little direct impact on the energy

challenges. Biomass addresses climate change much less effectively than hydrogen

(it is carbon-neutral, while hydrogen is carbon-free) and is only abundant enough,

even with massive planting of energy crops, to supply a fraction of our transportation fuel needs.

Question submitted by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett

Q1. In your opinion, is a limited world platinum supply likely to be a barrier to the

widespread adoption of fuel cells?

A1. There is consensus that if all the family cars and light trucks in the Nation

were converted to hydrogen fuel cell propulsion, there is not enough platinum in the

world to supply the catalysts needed for their operation. This is a clear barrier to

the immediate replacement of internal combustion engines with fuel cells using

present technology. However, many other factors, such as the lack of viable on board

hydrogen storage media, the short lifetime of fuel cell energy converters under normal automotive use, the poor starting performance of fuel cells in cold weather, and

the high expense of fuel cells compared to internal combustion engines, prevent significant penetration of fuel cell cars in the marketplace in the near future. Under

these conditions, the scarcity of platinum for catalysts is not the major factor limiting widespread use of fuel cell automobiles.

The replacement of platinum by less expensive and more active catalysts is a vibrant field of research with promise of significant progress before the other factors

limiting fuel cell penetration are resolved. We know that plentiful, less expensive

catalysts exist, because we see them every day in the biological world. Green plants

use abundant, inexpensive manganese as their catalyst for the water splitting step

in photosynthesis. The molecular configurations and reaction pathways for the catalysis of water splitting in plants, however, remains tantalizingly just beyond our scientific reach. Using powerful computer analysis and the world’s most intense x-ray

sources located at DOE national laboratories, scientists are now on the verge of solving the structures of the natural catalytic reactors that plants use in photosynthesis.

When these catalytic mechanisms are fully revealed in a few years, we will be able

to reproduce them, perhaps in improved form, for use in the artificial environment

of fuel cells. This breakthrough, which is now within sight, will open new horizons

for catalysis not only in fuel cells, but also in a host of other energy conversion applications. It’s achievement will require significant advances in several scientific

frontiers: high resolution structure determination, advanced density functional modeling of the structure and dynamics of the catalytic process, and nanoscale fabrication of artificial catalytic assemblies. Investments in these high risk-high payoff scientific advances will yield ample dividends in fundamental knowledge and control

of the natural catalytic mechanism of green plants.

101

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by John B. Heywood, Director, Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Questions submitted by Chairman Judy Biggert and Chairman Bob Inglis

Q1. What steps might the industry take to assure customers that hydrogen-powered

vehicles meet the same or higher standards of safety compared to current vehicles?

A1. Safety is a major concern in the FreedomCAR and Fuels Program. The

FreedomCAR and Fuels Program has a group within its management structure

which involves representatives from industry that is focused on safety. An understanding of the key safety issues and appropriate responses to those issues are

being developed. Existing vehicle and fuel safety regulations will apply to hydrogenfueled vehicles, and the need for new requirements and standards is being explored.

Dealing with hydrogen-related safety issues will be a significant challenge, but in

my judgment is unlikely to be a show-stopper. Those involved in the program are

well aware that major safety incidents would adversely affect the broader public’s

response to an evolving hydrogen-fueled vehicle program.

Q2. You make several recommendations for areas to receive increased funding, ranging from improved combustion engines to electric batteries. Unfortunately, we

are living in difficult budget times, and any increase must be accompanied by

a decrease, or an increase in revenues. Are there areas of research that you feel

the Federal Government should not be funding at current levels?

A2. We are living in difficult budget times because of the tax reductions the President and Congress have implemented over the past five years. Few of us have yet

realized just how serious our transportation energy predicament is, or that petroleum availability shortages could affect our transportation system within the next

decade or so. Failure of the supply of gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuel to grow to

meet the anticipated growth in demand for these fuels (both in the U.S. an elsewhere) would be expected to create major economic and social impacts. It would

take significant time before we would be able to respond effectively.

We need to recognize that substantial government R&D support for several potentially promising engine, fuel, and vehicle technology opportunities will be required

to move these technologies forward towards potential deployment. We need a broader and more balanced U.S. transportation energy technology R&D program; our current government efforts are too focused on hydrogen which, while promising, may

not in the end prove to be implementable. Our longer-term choices in the transportation energy area (hydrogen and fuel cells, electricity and battery powered vehicles,

much lighter and smaller vehicles, biomass-based fuels, liquid fuels from oil sands,

heavy oil, coal) are all extremely challenging ones to attempt to implement.

Are there areas where the federal R&D budget could be cut to provide resources

for a broader set of such initiatives? I do not have sufficient knowledge of our government’s R&D activities in an overview sense to attempt an answer to that question. One factor that makes that an especially difficult question, in my judgment,

is that our government lacks a coherent industrial and technology development policy. One consequence of that lack is that we risk losing our global leadership position in transportation energy technologies and the business opportunities that go

with that leadership role.

Question submitted by Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett

Q1. In your opinion, is a limited world platinum supply likely to be a barrier to the

widespread adoption of fuel cells?

A1. Platinum production capacity would have to expand substantially if current

technology fuel cells (which have a high platinum requirement) were produced in

large numbers. However, they will not be produced in large numbers because current technology fuel cells are too expensive to be commercially viable, and their

technology with its substantial platinum requirement will have to change significantly before fuel cells can become commercially viable. What is already happening

that will stress the platinum supply system is the growth in light-duty vehicles

worldwide (from 750 million today to an anticipated two billion in 2050), and the

expanding demand for automotive catalysts and their requirement for noble metals

like platinum that goes along with that worldwide vehicle growth. Thus, it is clear

that much improved automotive fuel cell technology, with much lower platinum

102

loadings, will need to be developed if fuel cells are to become a practical and marketable technology.

103

104

105

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation

Q1a. What progress has been made toward addressing the principal technical barriers to a successful transition to the use of hydrogen as a primary transportation fuel since the Administration announced its hydrogen initiatives,

FreedomCAR and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative?

A1a. The National Academies’ report, The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs,

Barriers, and R&D Needs (http//www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/), published in

2004, identifies the following principal technical barriers to a successful transition

to the use of hydrogen as a primary transportation fuel: 1) Development and introduction of cost-effective, durable, safe, and environmentally desirable fuel cell systems and hydrogen storage systems; 2) development of the infrastructure to provide

hydrogen for the light-duty-vehicle user; 3) sharp reduction in the costs of hydrogen

production from renewable energy sources over a time frame of decades; and 4) capture and storage (‘‘sequestering’’) of the carbon dioxide by-product of hydrogen production from coal.

The National Science Foundation, as part of the interagency Hydrogen R&D Task

Force, established and co-chaired by OSTP and DOE, participates in monthly meetings at the White House Conference Center in order to ensure coordination among

the agencies and to address relevant research related to potential technical barriers.

NSF-supported principal investigators (PIs) have contributed to important developments addressing hydrogen production and storage and fuel cell-related basic research. For production of hydrogen, a progression can be expected of using natural

gas, then coal, biomass, and ultimately water as feedstocks. One NSF PI is studying

improved production of hydrogen from methane (a principal component of natural

gas) and the oxygen in air using high pressures and reactor conditions that favor

so-called ‘‘cool flames.’’ Such systems hold promise for substantially improving the

ratio of hydrogen to water produced in the reaction and have the advantage that

catalysts are not needed (http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/

showAward.do?AwardNumber=0215756).

New reforming catalysts that produce hydrogen from hydrocarbons and steam and

that have increased activity and improved stability toward key catalyst poisons are

being identified through NSF awards. In addition, new catalytic routes to hydrogen

from renewable resources like plant byproducts have been developed for use in

water (http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr0369.htm) and could to used in fuel

cell applications. Some progress has been made in developing a new generation of

non-platinum-based fuel cell catalysts.

Advances in research related to formation of hydrogen from water are exemplified

by Science magazine’s having listed water as a Breakthrough of the Year for 2004.

NSF PIs are determining structural and dynamic properties of nanoscale clusters

of small numbers of water molecules and how they interact with the protons and

electrons that are intimately involved in charge transfer leading to hydrogen production. Their studies are also addressing the nature of bonds between water molecules and surfaces, information that will help us understand reactions at fuel cell

electrodes. Progress in catalyzed photo-induced electron transfer that is relevant to

production of hydrogen from renewable solar energy has been reported from work

conducted by NSF PIs and provides insight into the multiple electron transfer

events that characterize this process.

Materials for storing hydrogen are under active development by NSF PIs. ‘‘Molecular containers’’ that are porous on the nanoscale are being synthesized and their

hydrogen-storage properties characterized, as are various solid-state materials ranging from metal alloys to carbon nanotubes. These developments have been recently

summarized http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/83/i34/html/

8334altenergy.html. NSF PIs have also identified materials like palladium

nanowires that can detect hydrogen at extremely low concentrations. Such sensor

materials could serve as leak detectors for hydrogen and contribute to its safe use

in storage and transportation systems.

Fuel cell developments attributable to NSF support are exemplified by progress

in low-temperature versions of these devices. In particular, improved performance

has been seen with the introduction of fully fluorinated membranes and better electrode structures that increase catalyst utilization.

High temperature Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) have the potential to operate at

high efficiency without noble metal catalysts. Currently available oxide membranes,

which are critical for ionic transport in higher-temperature fuel cells, are inefficient

and fail to operate at the lower temperatures needed for use in transportation. Several NSF projects are focused on studying lover-temperature oxide-ion membranes

106

to minimize corrosion and differential thermal expansion, while maintaining selectivity and permeability.

Also noteworthy has been the success of NSF PIs in exploiting the exquisite machinery of microbes, which can utilize hydrogen without the elaborate storage and

pressure systems of conventional approaches. A single-chambered microbial fuel cell

(http://www.nsf.gov/news/news¥summ.jsp?cntn¥id=100337) has been shown recently to offer highly mobile and efficient energy production.

Q1b. What are the remaining potential technical ‘‘showstoppers?’’

A1b. The aforementioned National Academies’ report articulates several

‘‘showstoppers.’’ For example, at this time, capabilities of hydrogen storage materials are still inadequate. If catalysts for fuel cells are to he economically competitive, they would either need to be about an order of magnitude more active and have

high resistance to poisoning by carbon monoxide if they contain expensive platinum;

or alternative, efficient non-platinum-based catalysts would need to be found. There

are also challenges associated with developing manufacturing techniques that would

enable catalyst coatings to be deposited uniformly on surfaces of arbitrary shape.

Q2a. What are the research areas where breakthroughs are needed to advance a hydrogen economy?

A2a. Catalysis impacts many of the technical areas for which breakthroughs are

needed to drive a hydrogen economy. Ranging from fuel cell electrodes to photo-induced production of hydrogen, better catalysts will be critical for making progress.

In turn, catalyst improvement requires better understanding of a variety of technical issues. Membrane performance, for instance, demands excellent ionic conductivity along with physical and chemical durability. Such a combination of properties

poses a challenge due to the lack of fundamental knowledge of synthesis-structurefunction relationships in the polymers that are commonly employed as membranes.

Another example involves the use of platinum supported on carbon for electro-catalysis in low-temperature acid fuel cells. Reduction of loadings of platinum or other

precious metal in electrodes has been identified as essential in order to reduce system costs, but there are also problems with catalyst dissolution and corrosion of the

material that supports the catalyst.

Novel materials are needed for safe and reliable hydrogen production and storage,

as well as for developing infrastructure to distribute hydrogen. Failure mechanisms

due to materials degradation, such as hydrogen-induced embrittlement in pipelines,

need to be understood and controlled. As noted above, better membrane materials

for fuel cells and superior hydrogen storage materials are needed.

Most hydrogen is currently synthesized from natural gas. Other potential sources

of hydrogen include coal and biomass through gasification processes. Basic research

is needed to identify optimal hydrogen production strategies from these feedstocks

and, for biomass, to ensure effective gas cleanup. Carbon management must be addressed when using fossil fuels as a feedstock.

Splitting water through electrolysis and photolysis needs to be aggressively pursued. Fundamental questions about water’s properties at the molecular level still

exist and must be resolved if we are to design systems that can more efficiently split

water by photochemical or electrochemical means.

There are also basic questions about biological systems that use hydrogen that

hold promise for significant increases in energy efficiency if they could be used to

form the basis for hydrogen-fueled systems. Central to our understanding of biological systems is the enzyme hydrogenase, the catalyst for reversible hydrogen oxidation. Hydrogenases are components of chemically driven energy production in microbes in the absence of oxygen. Understanding them using physical, genomic and

biochemical methods could yield important information for design of systems that

mimic the efficiency of chemical and light energy transduction found in biological

systems. Guided by advances in theory, modeling and simulation, the synthesis of

‘‘model’’ systems that possess characteristics of hydrogenases represents a promising

complementary approach to this objective.

Q2b. How is NSF-funded research addressing those basic research questions?

A2b. The principal investments of NSF-funded research related to fuel cell and hydrogen themes are in the following areas: 1) mechanisms of hydrogen production

and utilization in microbes and cellular membranes (Biological Sciences and Geosciences directorates); 2) catalysis, hydrogen production, purification and storage of

hydrogen, fuel cell membrane characteristics, and fuel cell design (Engineering and

Mathematical and Physical Sciences directorates); 3) experimental and theoretical

studies of electrode reactions, water clusters, photo-induced electron transfer reactions, and model hydrogenase systems (Mathematical and Physical Sciences direcVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:02 Jan 27, 2006 Jkt 022549 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\ENER05\072005\22549.TXT SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
107

torate); and 4) materials, including preparation, processing, characterization and

properties for potential fuel cell applications and for sequestration of greenhouse

gases (Mathematical and Physical Sciences). Some representative projects illustrating how NSF PIs are addressing the research challenges outlined in section 2a

were given in section 1a.

It should be noted that many of NSF’s investments are made in response to unsolicited proposals. These may involve individual investigators or multi-investigator

teams. The level of investment in hydrogen- and fuel cell-related research, approximately $20 M annually, reflects the strong interest in the U.S. academic scientific

and engineering research community in the basic research issues associated with

these technologies.

It is also noteworthy that there has been considerable synergy with developments

arising from investments in nanotechnology. In addition to the examples of palladium nanowire hydrogen sensors and nanoporous solids that can store hydrogen,

membranes prepared from multiple nanostructured layers appear to have promising

characteristics with respect to fuel cell usage. Bacteria, which might be regarded as

‘‘nano-machines,’’ have recently been found to use hydrogen in extreme environments such as hot springs, (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub¥releases/2005-01/uocaymf012405.php. Learning how these organisms live on hydrogen and how they convert it to other forms of energy may have the potential for transformative discoveries upon which to build a hydrogen economy.

Q3a. What hydrogen research is NSF currently funding?

A3a. Areas of concentration are reflected in the interagency Hydrogen R&D Task

Force topic areas. NSF is represented on 14 teams focusing on catalysis; materials

for hydrogen storage; materials research; materials performance, measurement, and

analysis; biological and biomimetic hydrogen production; physical and chemical

interactions of materials and hydrogen; multi-functional materials and structures;

photo-electrochemical hydrogen production; characterization and new synthesis

tools; hydrogen internal combustion engines; hydrogen turbines; SBIR/STTR; and

workforce/education. Currently, NSF funds approximately 130 awards per year in

the areas listed above.

Q3b. How much of this research, if any, is collaborative with private industry?

A3b. The principal mechanisms that NSF uses to promote interactions with industry are the SBIR/STTR and Grant Opportunities for Academic Liaison with Industry

(GOALI) programs, although the latter is only a small fraction of the agency’s portfolio. Some individual investigator awards also have industrial collaborations. NSF

estimates a current investment of about $4 M in SBIR/STTR awards in hydrogenrelated technology. NSF and DOE established a Memorandum of Understanding

that offers NSF SBIR/STTR grantees with technology of interest to DOE additional

resources through DOE’s ‘‘Commercialization Assistance Program.’’

Q3c. How much, if any, is coordinated with the basic research effort at the Department of Energy (DOE)?

A3c. There is considerable coordination with DOE in areas of mutual interest. For

example, the two agencies co-chaired a session at the National Hydrogen Association (NHA) Annual National Hydrogen Conference this past April that focused on

funding opportunities across agencies for the SBIR/STTR community. For essentially all of the topic areas being coordinated by the interagency Hydrogen R&D

Task Force in which NSF participates (section 3a), DOE is also represented. Staff

members of these two agencies are collaborating in developing short white papers

describing the specific technical challenges associated with each topic area, along

with representatives from other agencies as appropriate. Informal relationships

have included extending invitations to workshops and contractors’ meetings, and

sharing information on program announcements, proposals, and awards. The information that is shared helps to ensure appropriate partitioning of investments between the targeted, often short-time-frame perspective of DOE and the high-risk,

often longer-term perspective of NSF.

Q4a. How does the NSF coordinate with the Office of Science and Technology Policy,

DOE and the other agencies involved with the Hydrogen Interagency Task

Force?

A4a. The interagency Hydrogen R&D Task Force holds monthly meetings at the

White House Conference Center. This provides an excellent opportunity to meet

with representatives from OSTP, DOE and the other agencies involved with the

Task Force. NSF currently has two representatives who regularly attend the meetings.

108

Q4b. How is this information exchanged between the agencies and to what extent is

it beneficial to NSF?

A4b. We have found that the topic areas have been effective in connecting staff

members across agencies that support research in areas of common interest. Additionally, the Task Force established a website, http://www.hydrogen.gov, that provides information from all of the participating agencies that is of value both to the

agencies and the external community.

Q4c. How does NSF ensure that its research results are available to other agencies?

A4c. Beyond the informal contacts of technical staff facilitated by the Task Force,

the NSF has a searchable award database and collects annual and final reports

from its PIs. All of this information is available to technical staff at other agencies.

NSF convenes workshops on topics related to the hydrogen initiative. The Task

Force meetings and contacts provide a mechanism for inviting representatives from

other agencies to participate in the workshops and learn about the latest results of

NSF’s PIs and their thoughts on promising future research and education directions.

Q4d. Is the Task Force successful in helping agencies understand what hydrogen

issues other agencies are working on, and to what degree?

A4d. Our experience has been that the Task Force has been quite successful thus

far in lowering barriers to interagency collaboration and providing broader perspectives for investments related to the hydrogen initiative. Most meetings include updates from agency representatives on the various topical areas, meetings, and workshops. In addition, there have been presentations on the International Partnership

for the Hydrogen Economy and on specific programs of participating agencies that

have provided useful information on the scope of the federal investment.

(109)

Appendix 2:

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD

110

STATEMENT BY MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to

present this testimony today on behalf of Michelin North America.

Since 1889, Michelin has been contributing to progress in the area of mobility,

through its expertise in the field of tires and suspension systems and the company’s

willingness to invest in innovation. In a number of instances, Michelin has been the

force behind technological breakthroughs, such as the radial tire, the ‘‘Green tire’’

and the X One single wide-based tire.

Michelin is the world leader in the tire industry. We manufacture and sell tires

for every type of vehicle, including airplanes, automobiles, bicycles, earthmovers,

farm equipment, heavy-duty trucks, motorcycles, and the Space Shuttle. The company also publishes travel guides, maps and atlases covering North America, Europe, Asia and Africa. In 2004 Michelin produced nearly 195 million tires and printed 19 million maps and guides. Our net sales totaled approximately $19 billion. Our

tire activities and support services account for 98 percent of our net sales. Suspension systems, mobility assistance services, travel publications and Michelin Lifestyle

products account for the remaining two percent of our total business.

Michelin sells its products in over 170 countries, operates 74 production manufacturing facilities in 19 countries and employs nearly 127,000 people around the

world. Michelin operates three technology centers on three continents, one of which

is located in Greenville, South Carolina. Greenville is the headquarters of Michelin

North America which employs over 23,000 people and operates 21 manufacturing

facilities in 17 locations.

Michelin is in the business of sustainable mobility. What does that mean? How

goods and services move has been a fundamental factor in the development of society, as a tool of discovery and a means of communication and interaction between

people.

Roads have played a key role in the phenomena of urbanization, globalization of

exchanges and, more generally, economic growth. Road mobility provides access to

the world and makes for a more fluid job market, by increasing travel opportunities

to and from our homes and places of work. Roads provide those located in areas

away from economic centers with a way of bringing products to the marketplace.

Furthermore, mobility is freedom, perhaps one of the most basic freedoms in any

country. To encourage mobility, to support the growth of infrastructure and ease of

travel is to encourage freedom itself. With freedom comes responsibility—to travel

safely, to conserve limited resources and to respect the environment.

Alongside these advantages, advances in modern modes of transport have often

involved significant social and environmental impacts. Transport worldwide, and

road transport in particular, is currently developing in a context of population

growth, urban development and an increasing awareness of the impact of human

activity on the environment. In light of these factors, a transition towards a new

attitude to mobility is clearly needed. Sustainable mobility takes into account the

necessity of providing satisfactory responses to travel requirements. It must also

move toward a reduction in the impact of mobility on the environment, become accessible to more people in as safe a manner as possible and be compatible with the

economic objectives and constraints of public authorities, private companies and

non-governmental organizations.

Michelin views this concept of sustainable mobility as being in concert with our

five core values: respect for customers, respect for facts, respect for people, respect

for shareholders and respect for the environment. These values, and how we concretely translate these values to executable actions, are articulated in Michelin’s

Performance and Responsibility Charter and subsequent Performance and Responsibility reports.

Why is the notion of sustainable mobility important? Between 1950 and 2003, the

number of vehicles on the roads throughout the world went from 50 million to more

than 830 million, including nearly 700 million cars. According to the projections of

the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), the number of

passenger vehicles on the roads throughout the world will reach 1.3 billion in 2030.

The distances traveled by people will increase by nearly 50 percent between 2000

and 2030. Over the same period of time, truck freight is forecast to increase by 75

percent.

As stated earlier, this increase in road traffic has an impact on the environment.

Transport represents 26 percent of carbon dioxide emission (17 percent for road

transport, nine percent for other modes of transport) according to the International

Energy Agency. In industrialized countries, transport consumes about 65 percent of

oil resources.

111

In 2000, as a way of responding to the consequences of increased mobility,

Michelin joined with 11 other corporate members of the WBCSD—BP,

DaimlerChrysler, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Nissan, Norsk Hydro, Renault,

Shell, Toyota and Volkswagen—to establish the Sustainable Mobility Project. The

goal of this group was to carry out an assessment of mobility throughout the world,

analyze the challenges facing the sector and identify the directions to take in order

to address these challenges.

Even before participating in the Sustainable Mobility Project, Michelin recognized

the necessity of addressing the impacts of rapidly increasing road transport. In

1998, for the celebration of the hundredth anniversary of Bibendum—Michelin’s corporate icon known around the world as the ‘‘Michelin Man’’—Michelin organized a

rally of advanced technology vehicles. Challenge Bibendum has won worldwide recognition as the premier clean and safe vehicle event in the world, where industry,

policy-makers and experts can review the latest technologies and share their visions. The event provides the opportunity to evaluate different technical options that

exist to tackle the energy, environmental and safety issues associated with freight

and individual mobility worldwide. This event has taken place in Europe, in North

America and, last year for the first time, in Asia.

Challenge Bibendum is a mechanism that assists in resolving questions associated

with emissions, oil consumption, urban congestion and road safety. It is a unique

event for several reasons:

• Challenge Bibendum is open to all energy sources and all powertrain options.

No other event is solution-neutral in both concept and competition.

• Vehicles are evaluated in real driving conditions, using precisely defined criteria relating to performance, safety and the environment.

• Advanced technology vehicles are tested using today’s on-road vehicles as a

point of reference.

• A ‘‘ride and drive’’ enables all participants to test and experience for themselves the various technologies.

• An educational information center and a symposium, all organized in partnership with the event’s participants, complete the technological competition.

• Challenge Bibendum is an open forum where all parties concerned from the

public and private sectors can freely exchange opinions.

Challenge Bibendum provides an international platform for road vehicle manufacturers to demonstrate state-of-the-art technologies and for participants to witness,

assess and document the progress which these advanced, real-world technologies

continue to make, as well as showcase the opportunities they represent.

This event, unlike any other in the world, serves as a testing ground and the only

one that showcases concept cars featuring technologies, often for the first time,

alongside production vehicles that have already made very significant progress. Furthermore, Challenge Bibendum serves as an exchange forum for industry leaders,

university researchers, public policy-makers and the media.

Representatives from numerous organizations from around the world, such as the

U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the World

Bank, the European Commission, Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and

Transport and the WBCSD attended the 2004 event in Shanghai, China. In all,

2,000 people, representing more than 200 organizations from 45 countries, gathered

at the 2004 Challenge Bibendum.

What conclusions could one draw from the 2004 Challenge Bibendum and the follow-on Bibendum Forum and Rally held in Japan just last month? First, there is

no single technology, device, or component that resolves the question of how to

achieve sustainable mobility within the parameters we have constructed. The fact

that Challenge Bibendum is an event that displays multiple technologies underscores the fact that many of those technologies will help us attain the goal of sustainable mobility. A more holistic view needs to be taken as we move forward. Likewise, when environmental impact issues are examined, it is appropriate to view the

consequences of transport from a ‘‘well to wheel’’ perspective. The environmental impact to gather, refine or otherwise provide the energy to the vehicle from its source

must be taken into consideration.

From the standpoint of technology, the 2004 Challenge Bibendum revealed the following:

• The future will include a variety of technologies and non-petroleum fuels.

• Advanced internal combustion engines, both diesel and gasoline, continue to

make outstanding progress in terms of cleaner combustion, more power density, less noise and less energy consumption.

112

• Urban pollution can be tackled through sulfur free fuels, particulate filters,

next-generation combustion engines and exhaust gas treatments, as well as

the progressive development of electric traction.

• Hybridization brings both great driving performance and environmental efficiency, especially for higher power and larger size vehicles; it opens a wide

array of technical solutions.

• Biofuels offer a very significant potential to help reduce CO2 emissions.

• New generation batteries offer much greater promise for electric traction of

two-wheelers, cars, taxis, buses, by providing higher power and energy densities—a range of more than 200 miles is now a reality.

• Fuel cell vehicle driving performances are improving rapidly; with a current

range of up to 250 miles.

• Active safety systems such as Electronic Stability Programs (ESP) have proven their efficiency, more systems are becoming widely available, and passive

safety is also improving greatly.

Some conclusions regarding policy were drawn, as well:

• In order to achieve improvements in air quality, energy supply and safety, it

is urgent to act now.

• Benefits will only be achieved when these advanced technologies achieve significant market share.

• Progress will be faster by quickly disseminating and implementing the advanced technologies already available while working on future technologies.

This has to happen in all countries, especially in emerging countries to enable

them to develop their transportation systems.

• Different solutions will be developed in different parts of the world depending

on energy resources, transportation requirements and existing infrastructures.

• Safer and cleaner vehicles go hand-in-hand.

• Cleaner fuels are on the critical path for many emerging countries in order

to enable the introduction of advanced technologies.

• Joint action between industries and governments is critical to achieve

progress towards sustainable mobility.

• Moving towards greater global regulatory harmonization is required to speed

up the adoption of cleaner, safer and more sustainable technologies.

Michelin looks forward to hosting the next Challenge Bibendum (June 2006) in

order to measure additional progress. Until then, Michelin remains committed to

improving mobility and reducing as much as possible the impact of its activities and

products on the environment.

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360