Comparison of Plug-in Hybrids, Fuel Cell EVs and Battery EVs

Comparison of Plug-in Hybrids, Fuel Cell EVs and Battery EVs

Presented to the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Committee

Windsor, Connecticut

July 15, 2009

By C. E. (Sandy) Thomas, Ph.D., President H2Gen Innovations, Inc.

Alexandria, Virginia

www.h2gen.com

2

Topics

• Review National Hydrogen Association “Energy Evolution” Model

• Compare Fuel Cells with Batteries • Government Incentives Required to

Jump-Start FCEVs, PHEVs and BEVs

3

NHA “Energy Evolution” Task Force Participating Organizations

Task Leader: Frank Novachek (Xcel Energy)

• ARES Corp. • BP • Canadian Hydrogen Energy

Company • General Atomics • General Motors • H2Gen Innovations • ISE Corporation

• National Renewable Energy Laboratory

• Plug Power, LLC • Praxair • Sentech • University of Montana • Shell Hydrogen • Xcel Energy

“This consensus presentation does not necessarily represent the organizational views or individual commitments of all members of the National Hydrogen Association.”

NHA Disclaimer:

4

Key Assumptions

• Assume success for all options – Technical success – Vehicles are affordable

• Assume stringent climate change constraints – Hydrogen production becomes green over time – Electricity production becomes green over time

5

Greening of Electrical Grid

H2 Gen: GHG.XLS, Tab 'Climate Change Projections'; U419;5/13/2009

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095

West Coast (WECC) Electricity Consumption Scaled to US (Billion kWh/year)

Renewables

Nuclear

Coal

Coal with CCS

Carbon Constrained Case Added Capacity for

Gasoline Plug-in Hybrids

PHEV Off-Peak

Natural Gas Combined Cycle

Natural Gas Combustion Turbine

6

Greening of Hydrogen Production

CCS = carbon capture and storage

Summary Greet 1.8a.XLS; Tab 'Fuel TS'; N 97 3/1 /2009

Hydrogen Production Sources

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Central Electrolysis (Renewable & Nuclear)

Distributed Natural Gas Reforming

Coal Gasification + CCS

Biomass Gasification

Distributed Biofuels Reforming

2020 2030 2050 2070 2100 Natural Gas at Forecourt 75% 45% 20% 6% 2% Biofuels at Forecourt 20% 25% 15% 10% 6% Biomass Gasification 4% 18% 29% 37% 40% Renewable & Nuclear Electrolysis 1% 8% 20% 22% 22% Coal Gasification with CCS 0% 5% 16% 25% 29%

Summary Greet 1.8a.XLS; Tab 'Fuel TS'; H 120 3/1 /2009

Assumes that coal with CCS & biomass will dominate long-term central hydrogen production (Similar to NRC 2008)

7

w/r to ICV: 1.72w/r to HEV 1.19

25.0

36.25 mpgge1 Gallon of Ethanol Hybrid EV 36.25

(HEV)

HHV Efficiency = 76% 60 mpgge1 Gallon of Ethanol Steam Reformer H2 Fuel Cell HEV 45.6

(FCEV)0.48kg

FCEV GHG & Oil Reduction Factors

28.3

23.9

0 10 20 30

FCEVRange

HEVRange

Range (Miles)

ICV fuel economy 25 mpgge

HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 SMR HHV Efficiency 76%

25 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Conventional Car

(ICV)

Why hydrogen from ethanol.XLS; Tab 'Chart'; Q 31 2/24 /2009

16.5ICV Range

Why Hydrogen from Ethanol?

8


25.0

36.25

HHV Efficiency = 76% 60 mpgge1 Gallon of Ethanol Steam Reformer H2 Fuel Cell HEV 45.6

(FCEV)0.48kg


28.3

0 10 20 30

FCEVRange

Range (Miles)




(ICV)

36.25 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Hybrid EV

(HEV)


23.9

16.5

HEV Range

ICV Range


9


25.0

36.25

45.6

FCEV GHG & Oil Reduction FactorsICV fuel economy 25 mpgge



(ICV)


(HEV)

HHV Efficiency = 76% 60 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Steam Reformer H2 Fuel Cell HEV

(FCEV) 0.48 kg


28.3

23.9

16.5

0 10 20 30

FCEV Range

HEV Range

ICV Range

Range (Miles)


10

25.0

36.25

45.6


HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 w/r to ICV: 1.72 SMR HHV Efficiency 76% w/r to HEV 1.19


(ICV)


(HEV)

HHV Efficiency = 76% 60 mpgge 1 Gallon of Ethanol Steam Reformer H2 Fuel Cell HEV

(FCEV) 0.48 kg

Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab 'Chart'; Q 31 3/6 /2009

FCEV Range Increase Factors

28.3

23.9

16.5

0 10 20 30

FCEV Range

HEV Range

ICV Range

Range (Miles) + Zero Emissions


11


25.0

36.25

60 mpgge of biomass BCL* Indirect H2 Fuel Cell HEV #REF!

Gasifier (FCEV)0.77 kg

0.09 MBTU

BCL* = Battelle Columbus Laboratory Why hydrogen from ethanol.XLS; Tab 'Chart Biomass ; Q 32 2/24 /2009


45.4

0 10 20 30 40 50

FCEVRange

Range (Miles)

Consider Biomass Feedstock ICV fuel economy 25 mpgge

HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 Biomass Gasifier LHV Efficiency 49% Ethanol Plant Productivity 90 gal EtOH/ton biomass

25 mpgge 10 kg of biomass Ethanol Plant EtOH Conventional Car

(ICV) 0.99 gallons

0.08 MBTU

36.25 mpgge Hybrid EV

(HEV)

10 kg

'

23.7

16.3

HEV Range

ICV Range

12


25.0

36.25

#REF!


Better yet: Biomass Gasification ICV fuel economy 25 mpgge

HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 Biomass Gasifier LHV Efficiency 49% Ethanol Plant Productivity 90 gal EtOH/ton biomass


(ICV) 0.99 gallons

0.08 MBTU


(HEV)

60 mpgge 10 kg of biomass BCL* Indirect H2 Fuel Cell HEV

Gasifier (FCEV) 0.77 kg

0.09 MBTU

BCL* = Battelle Columbus Laboratory Why hydrogen from ethanol.XLS; Tab 'Chart Biomass'; Q 32 2/24 /2009

45.4

23.7

16.3

0 10 20 30 40 50

FCEV Range

HEV Range

ICV Range

Range (Miles)

13

25.0

36.25

#REF!

Biomass Gasification ICV fuel economy 25 mpgge

HEV mpg/ ICV mpg 1.45 FCEV mpg/ ICV mpg 2.4 w/r to ICV: 2.8 Biomass Gasifier LHV Efficiency 49% w/r to HEV 1.9 Ethanol Plant Productivity 90 gal EtOH/ton biomass


(ICV) 0.99 gallons

0.08 MBTU


(HEV)

60 mpgge 10 kg of biomass BCL* Indirect H2 Fuel Cell HEV

Gasifier (FCEV) 0.77 kg

0.09 MBTU

BCL* = Battelle Columbus Laboratory Why hydrogen from ethanol.XLS; Tab 'Chart Biomass'; Q 32 3/6 /2009

FCEV Range Increase Factors

45.4

23.7

16.3

0 10 20 30 40 50

FCEV Range

HEV Range

ICV Range

Range (Miles)

14

Renewable Fuels

What fuels?

• Gasoline?

• Biofuels*?

• Hydrogen?

• Diesel?

• Natural Gas?

• Electricity?

*Butanol, cellulosic ethanol, etc.

15

Four Major Scenarios • Gasoline ICE Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) Scenario • Gasoline ICE Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)

Scenario • (Cellulosic) Ethanol ICE PHEV Scenario • Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV)*

Scenario

& Two Secondary Scenarios: – Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) – Hydrogen ICE Hybrid Electric Vehicles (H2 ICE HEV)

* FCEV includes peak power augmentation with batteries or ultracapacitors

16

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (& BEV, H2 ICE HEV)

Scenario Market Shares

(50% Market Share Potential by 2035) Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; ED 30 7/2 /2009

Percentage of New Car Sales

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095

Gasoline ICVs

(Blended CD Mode for PHEVs)

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle

(FCEV)

Gasoline HEVs

Ethanol PHEVs

17

FCV Market Penetration Rates: (NRC & ORNL vs. NHA)

H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';IK 211 7/19 /2008

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

NRC Case 1a Accelerated FCV Oak Ridge FCV #3

Oak Ridge FCV #1

NRC Case 1 FCV

NHA H2 FCV

NRC Case 1b Partial Success FCV

Market Share of New Car Sales Primary NRC Case

NHACase

18

PHEV Charging Modes

Blended Charge-Depleting Mode:

On-board power source (ICE or FC) used for peak power boost during CD mode.

[Ref: Kromer & Heywood, MIT]

HEV Operation

19

Battery Power vs. Energy Trade-off

Ref: Kromer, Matthew & J.B. Heywood, “Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet,” Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Publication Number LFEE 2007-03 RP, May 2007

Assumed Li-Ion Battery

20

Battery Power vs. Energy Trade-off

Ref: Kromer, Matthew & J.B. Heywood, “Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet,” Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Publication Number LFEE 2007-03 RP, May 2007

PHEV-60

PHEV-30

PHEV-10

HEV

DOE PHEV-40 Goal

DOE PHEV-10 Goal

Current Li-Ion Status?

21

Utility Factor* [Charge depleting (CD) mode distance/ Total distance]

[Ref: Kromer & Heywood, MIT]

Distance Between Recharge (miles)

*Utility Factor = fraction of miles traveled in charge depleting (CD) mode

Util

ity F

acto

r

22

Plug-in Hybrid Assumptions

Source: EPRI /NRDC report on PHEVs & ANL SAE Paper

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 2120 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% All-Electric Range

Percent of VMT from the Electric Grid (100% grid charge

)

PHEV All-Electric Range (Miles)

% Energy or %VMT from Grid

ANL % of Energy from Grid in Blended CD Mode

—

—

—

—

Google Real-World Measurement of PHEV Fuel Economy*

Model

MPG

Wh/mile

CO2e lbs/mile2

CO2e emissions saved

Gallons of gasolinesaved per year6

Barrels of oil saved7

Percent of US fleet to halve CO2e emissions8

Cost savings indollars per year9

Toyota Prius Toyota US fleet Plugin Prius average

57.6 42.1 19.81

131.5 — —

0.474 0.5604 1.1923

60%

398

66%

83%

$1493

53%4

321

53%

94%

$1333

—

Current Payback

Period: 60 years

($10,000 Li-Ion Battery Pack)

*Based on Google fleet of 8 retrofitted Prius PHEVs; est. AER = 25 miles with 4.7 kWh battery & 70% SOC; http://www.google.org/recharge/dashboard/calculator#notes

23

24

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Plug-In Hybrid Hourly Charging Percentage

Figure 1. PHEV charging profile suggested by EPRI

25

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

1990 Vehicle GHG Level

Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)

1990 Baseline Transportation Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

1st Target: 60% Below 1990 Levels

2nd Target: 80% Below 1990 Levels

26

GHG Reference Case: 100% Gasoline Cars

Sources: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a & AEO 2009 Projections for VMT thru 2030

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion/ tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)

1990 LDV GHG

GHG Goal: 60% below 1990 Pollution


100% Gasoline ICEVs

27

GHG Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs)

Sources: Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1.8a, AEO 2009 & NHA models

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG



Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid (HEV) Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs

28

GHG: Gasoline Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)

(75% night-time charging access)


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG


Gasoline Plug-In Hybrid Scenario

Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid

Scenario

100% Gasoline ICVs


29

GHG: Biofuel Plug-In Hybrids (90 Billion gallons/year* Cellulosic Ethanol)

*Sandia-Livermore estimates 90 B gallons/yr potential; NRC uses 60 B gallons/yr maximum; current production of ethanol: 8 billion gallons/year; no limit on availability of night-time charging outlets

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG L l



Ethanol Plug-In Hybrid Scenario



Scenario

100% Gasoline ICVs

30

GHG: Fuel Cell Vehicles


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG



Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Scenario




Scenario

100% Gasoline ICVs

31

GHG: H2 ICE HEV & Battery EV


-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 GHG







Scenario

100% Gasoline Vehicles

Battery EV Scenario H2 ICE HEV

Scenario

32

PHEV GHGs (Kromer & Heywood, MIT, May 2007)

CoalNG

“Clean Grid” = 50% nuclear + renewables; 15% advanced NG CC & 35% advanced coal

33

To Plug or Not to Plug?

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Gasoline HEV Gasoline PHEV

FC HEV FC PHEV

Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Car (Grams of CO2-eq./mile)

West Coast Marginal Grid Mix with Carbon Constraints

34

Early (2020 to 2030) GHGs

Graphs for Simultaneous Story.XLS; P 37 7/1 /2009

1.30

1.35

1.40

1.45

1.50

1.55

2020 2025 2030



Scenario

Ethanol PHEV Scenario

Base Case: Gasoline HEV

Scenario

H2 ICE HEV Scenario

BEV Scenario

Gasoline PHEV Scenario

35

GHG Sensitivity to Market Share

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Greenhouse Gas Pollution in 2100 (Light duty vehicles only) (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)

Market Share in 2100


Scenario Gasoline PHEV

Scenario


(90 B gal/yr)


BEV Scenario


1990 GHG

36

GHG Sensitivity to Market Share & Ethanol Capacity

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Sensitivity'; AB 201 7/1 /2009

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%


Market Share in 2100


Scenario Gasoline PHEV

Scenario

Ethanol PHEV Scenarios


BEV Scenario


60 B gal/yr

90 B gal/yr

140 B gal/yr

1990 GHG

37

Oil Consumption


-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

Oil Consumption (Billion barrels/year)

FCEV, H2 ICE HEV & BEV Scenarios




Scenario

100% Gasoline Vehicles

Non-OPEC-only Oil

American-only Oil

38

Urban Air Pollution Costs (with H2 ICE HEVs and BEVs)


-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

FCEV Scenario




Scenario

100% Gasoline ICVs

US Urban Air Pollution Costs ($Billions/year)

H2 ICE HEV Scenario

BEV Scenario

PM Cost from Brake & Tire Wear

39

Primary Conclusion

• Achieving GHG and Oil reduction targets will require all-electric vehicles*

• Two choices: – Battery EVs – Fuel Cell EVs (with peak power battery)

• Next slides will compare: – Mass – Volume – Greenhouse Gases – Cost

* Or Hydrogen ICE HEVs

41

Specific Energy Comparison

H2Gen: Wt_Vol_Cost.XLS; Tab 'Battery'; S60 - 7 / 1 / 2009

0

100

200

300

400

500

Pb-A NiMH Lithium-Ion USABC Goal

35 MPa 70 MPa

Useful Specific Energy (Wh/kg)

H2 Tank, Battery & Fuel Cell System Batteries

Batteries Weigh More

(Effects of weight compounding)

BPEV.XLS; 'Compound' AS146 5/13 /2009

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Range (miles)

Vehicle Test Mass (kg)

PbA Battery EV

Li-Ion Battery EV

NiMH Battery EV


42

43

Useful Energy Density

H2Gen: Wt_Vol_Cost.XLS; Tab 'Battery'; S36 - 7 / 1 / 2009

0

100

200

300

Pb-A NiMH Lithium-Ion

USABC Goal

35 MPa 70 MPa

Useful Energy Density (Wh/liter)

H2 Tank, Battery & Fuel Cell System

Batteries

44

Batteries also take up more space:

BPEV.XLS; 'Compound' AS113 5/13 /2009

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Range (miles)

Energy Storage System Volume (liters)

PbA Battery

NiMH Battery Li-Ion Battery

Fuel Cell + Hydrogen Tanks

(35 MPa)

(70 Mpa)

45

BEVs will initially generate more Greenhouse Gases than FCEVs*

*Assumes hydrogen made on-site from natural gas, and average marginal US electrical grid mix for charging EV batteries

Grid Mix: US BPEV.XLS; 'Compound' AQ200 5/13 /2009

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Range (miles)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2 -equivalent grams/mile) PbA Battery EV

Li-Ion Battery

EV

NiMH Battery EV


Conventional Gasoline Vehicle

46

In California, GHGs for BEVs will initially be similar to FCEVs*

*Assumes hydrogen made on-site from natural gas, and average marginal California electrical grid mix for charging EV batteries

Grid Mix: California BPEV.XLS; 'Compound' AQ200 5/13 /2009

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Range (miles)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CO2 -equivalent grams/mile) PbA Battery EV

Li-Ion Battery

EV

NiMH Battery EV


Conventional Gasoline Vehicle

47Ref: Kromer & Heywood, "Electric Powertrains: Opportunities & Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet Report # LFEE 2007-03RP, MIT, May, 2007, Table 53 Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'AFV Cost'; N 26 3/15 /2009

$- $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000

BEV

PHEV-60

PHEV-30

FCEV

PHEV-10

HEV

Incremental Cost Compared to Advanced ICEV in 2030

...and BEVs are projected to cost more than FCEVs by MIT (2030)

Note: FCEV has 350 miles range; BEV has 200 miles range

48

BEV cost estimate for 300 miles range (FCEV still at 350 miles range)

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'AFV Cost'; N 51 3/15 /2009

$- $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000

BEV

PHEV-60

PHEV-30

FCEV

PHEV-10

HEV

Incremental Cost Compared to Advanced ICEV in 2030

BEV cost at 200 miles range

BEV cost at 300 miles range

MIT assumes $250/kWh battery cost for BEVs ($600/kWh for HEVs)

49

Comparison of MIT Cost Assumptions & DOE Goals

If DOE goals were met, then the incremental cost for fuel cell electric vehicles would decrease from $3,600 estimated by MIT down to $840.

DOE DOE MIT 2010 2015 2030

Fuel Cell System Cost $/kW 45 30 50 Hydrogen Storage Cost $/kWh 4 2 15 Hydrogen Storage Density kWh/L 0.9 1.3 0.8

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'AFV Cost'; E 33 3/19 /2009

50

Ratio Battery EV / Fuel Cell EV

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'AFV Cost'; Z 124 4/30 /2009

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Incremental Life Cycle Cost

Fuel Cost per mile

Fueling Infrastructure Cost per car

Vehicle Incremental Cost

Wind & Car Incremental Costs

Wind Energy Required

Biomass Energy Required

Natural Gas Energy Required

Initial Greenhouse Gases

Storage Volume

Vehicle Weight

200 Miles 300 Miles

Ratio Battery EV Fuel Cell EV

Fuel Cell EV Better BEV Better

51

Life Cycle Cost

2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100Greenhouse Gases 98.9% 83.6% 50.9% 66.7% 41.4% 19.0% 154.0% 89.3% 11.4% 61.2% 27.3% 6.4%

Oil Consumption 77.3% 61.9% 47.1% 20.6% 16.0% 12.2% 1.5% 1.3% 0.9% 1.4% 2.0% 1.9%

Urban Air Pollution 90.2% 77.4% 59.3% 78.9% 67.7% 53.7% 82.9% 54.5% 26.2% 65.1% 36.2% 22.4%

Societal Costs 82.3% 68.1% 50.0% 35.4% 28.3% 20.6% 35.4% 25.1% 7.4% 19.0% 11.6% 6.3%

83.1% 83.1% 100.8% 82.0%

Composite Comparison Chart (Normalized to Baseline Gasoline Hybrid Electric Vehicle)

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Gasoline PHEV Ethanol-PHEV

Vehicle Mass Production Cost

124.0% 124.0% 197.5% 118.0%

Annual Fuel Cost 49.0% 49.0% 20.3% 52.0%

Graphs for Simultaneous Story.XLS; Tab 'R-Y-G Chart'; N 117 7/2 /2009

52

2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100Greenhouse Gases 98.9% 83.6% 50.9% 66.7% 41.4% 19.0% 154.0% 89.3% 11.4% 61.2% 27.3% 6.4%

Oil Consumption 77.3% 61.9% 47.1% 20.6% 16.0% 12.2% 1.5% 1.3% 0.9% 1.4% 2.0% 1.9%


Societal Costs 82.3% 68.1% 50.0% 35.4% 28.3% 20.6% 35.4% 25.1% 7.4% 19.0% 11.6% 6.3%

Graphs for Simultaneous Story.XLS; Tab 'R Y G Chart ; N 117 7/2 /2009





124.0% 124.0% 197.5% 118.0%

Annual Fuel Cost 49.0% 49.0% 20.3% 52.0%

Life Cycle Cost 83.1% 83.1% 100.8% 82.0%

- - '

53

2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100 2050 2100

83.6% 50.9% 41.4% 19.0% 89.3% 11.4% 27.3% 6.4%

61.9% 47.1% 16.0% 12.2% 1.3% 0.9% 2.0% 1.9%

77.4% 59.3% 67.7% 53.7% 54.5% 26.2% 36.2% 22.4%

68.1% 50.0% 28.3% 20.6% 25.1% 7.4% 11.6% 6.3%





124.0% 124.0% 197.5% 118.0%

Annual Fuel Cost 49.0% 49.0% 20.3% 52.0%

Life Cycle Cost 83.1% 83.1% 100.8% 82.0%

2020 2020 2020 2020 Greenhouse Gases 98.9% 66.7% 154.0% 61.2%

Oil Consumption 77.3% 20.6% 1.5% 1.4%

Urban Air Pollution 90.2% 78.9% 82.9% 65.1%

Societal Costs 82.3% 35.4% 35.4% 19.0%


54

2100 2100 2100 2100

50.9% 19.0% 11.4% 6.4%

47.1% 12.2% 0.9% 1.9%

59.3% 53.7% 26.2% 22.4%

50.0% 20.6% 7.4% 6.3%





124.0% 124.0% 197.5% 118.0%

Annual Fuel Cost 49.0% 49.0% 20.3% 52.0%

Life Cycle Cost 83.1% 83.1% 100.8% 82.0%

2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 2020 2050 Greenhouse Gases 98.9% 83.6% 66.7% 41.4% 154.0% 89.3% 61.2% 27.3%

Oil Consumption 77.3% 61.9% 20.6% 16.0% 1.5% 1.3% 1.4% 2.0%

Urban Air Pollution 90.2% 77.4% 78.9% 67.7% 82.9% 54.5% 65.1% 36.2%

Societal Costs 82.3% 68.1% 35.4% 28.3% 35.4% 25.1% 19.0% 11.6%


55





124.0% 124.0% 197.5% 118.0%

Annual Fuel Cost 49.0% 49.0% 20.3% 52.0%

Life Cycle Cost 83.1% 83.1% 100.8% 82.0%

2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 2020 2050 2100 Greenhouse Gases 98.9% 83.6% 50.9% 66.7% 41.4% 19.0% 154.0% 89.3% 11.4% 61.2% 27.3% 6.4%

Oil Consumption 77.3% 61.9% 47.1% 20.6% 16.0% 12.2% 1.5% 1.3% 0.9% 1.4% 2.0% 1.9%


Societal Costs 82.3% 68.1% 50.0% 35.4% 28.3% 20.6% 35.4% 25.1% 7.4% 19.0% 11.6% 6.3%


56

Economic Projections

• Fueling infrastructure cost: – ICE PHEV fueling – FC HEV fueling

• Cash flow for hydrogen fueling industry • Cash flow for fuel cell vehicle owners

– Vehicle incremental cost – Hydrogen fuel savings

ICE PHEV “Fueling Infrastructure” Cost per Car

• Average residential electrical outlet cost: – $878 for Level I (120V, 20A, 1.9 kW) – $2,150 for Level II (240 V, 40 A, 7.9 kW)

• Commercial Level II outlet: $1,850 • Infrastructure cost per car: $900 to

$2,000 [paid up-front by driver for home refueling]

[Source: Morrow, Idaho National Laboratory, November 2008] 57

58

FC HEV Fueling Infrastructure Cost per Car

• NRC 1,500 kg/day fueling station cost in 500 quantity production: $2.2 million

• NHA estimate: $2.9 million • Serving 2,300 FCEVs* • Average cost per FCEV: $955 to $1,260 [paid by fuel provider]

*Assumes 4.5 kg to travel 350 miles, 70% average fueling station capacity factor, and 13,000 miles traveled per year

NRC Single Qty 500 Qty 500 Qty

100 kg/day 772,800 $ 535,000 $ 397,000 $ 500 kg/day 2,212,000 $ 1,534,000 $ 905,500 $ 1,500 kg/day 4,181,700 $ 2,900,000 $ 2,178,000 $

H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';EC 18 5/15 /2009

Fueling Station Costs Capacity

59

Hydrogen Fueling Industry

Hydrogen Price set at 55% of gasoline price per mile Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'H2 Cost';AG 82 5/15 /2009

-10

-5

0

5

2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038

Cash Flows for all Hydrogen Fueling Stations ($US Billions/year)

Total Hydrogen Fueling System Annual Costs

Net Annual Cash Flow

Hydrogen Anuual Sales Revenue

Net Cumulative Cash Flow

Fuel Cell Vehicle Owners Cash Flows for FCEV Owners (US$Millions) Annual Cash Flow

$10,000 Annual Fuel Savings

$5,000

$-

2010 2030

$(5,000)

$(10,000)

$(15,000)

$(20,000)

*(Fuel Savings - Incremental

(Gasoline - Hydrogen)

2015 2020 2025 Incremental

Vehicle Costs

Cumulat(Fuel Savin

ive Cash Flow gs - Vehicle Costs)

FCEV& BEV Premium Paid = $ 1,000 Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Driver'; K 24 5/15 /2009

Fuel Savings Derating Factor = 0.80 H2 Price as fraction of gasoline price: 55%

60

61

Incentives Required for Battery EVs and Fuel Cell EVs

Vehicle Premium: 1,000$ Off-Peak Electricity (% of On-Peak) = 55% Fuel Fraction 0.80 H2 Price (% of Gasoline per mile) = 55% taneous.XLS; Tab 'Driver'; BE 23 5/15 /2009

$(70,000)

$(60,000)

$(50,000)

$(40,000)

$(30,000)

$(20,000)

$(10,000)

$-

$10,000

$20,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Cumulative Cash Flows for FCEV and Battery EV Owners (US$Millions)

FCEV Cumulative Cash Flow (Fuel Savings - FCEV Vehicle Costs)

Battery EV Cumulative Cash

Flow (Electricity Savings - BEV

Vehicle Costs)

62

Vehicle Buy-Down Incentives Required

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Driver'; AW 25 5/15 /2009

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000

60% 80% 100%

Vehicle Price Preimum Absorbed by Driver

Total Government Vehicle Buy-Down Incentives ($US Millions) Fuel Savings

Multiplier:

Incentives Required Incentives Required (US$ Billions) 60

40

20

0

Total Incentives (FCEV & Station Owners)

Vehicle Incentives

H2 Station Incentives

40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80%

Hydrogen Selling Price (as a percentage of gasoline price per mile) 63

FCEV& BEV Premium Paid = $ 1,000 Fuel Savings Derating Factor = 0.80 Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'H2 Cost'; BT 126 5/15 /2009

64

Can fueling station owners profit from selling hydrogen at 55% discount?

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'H2 Cost';AP 55 5/15 /2009

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Hydrogen Fueling Industry 15-Year Return on Investment

Hydrogen Price Set at 45% of Gasoline price per mile

Hydrogen Price Set at 55% of Gasoline price per mile

65

Net Cumulative Incentives Required

• For hydrogen fueling industry: $9 billion • For fuel cell vehicle owners: $15 billion

• Total private and government investment required: $24 billion over 14 years (2010 through 2024)

66 H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';ID 146 5/13 /2009

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Annual US Fuel Infrastructure Capital Expenditures ($US Billions)

Current Energy Company Expenditures in US

H2 Infrastructure Costs & Required Incentives

(Compared to Gasoline & Diesel Infrastructure Costs)

Source: Oil & Gas Journal, April 2009

Estimated Annual Capital Expenditures on Gasoline & Diesel Fuel

Cumulative Incentives for Hydrogen Fueling and Fuel Cell Vehicles

Hydrogen Infrastructure

Capital Expenses

67

H2 Costs & Societal Savings

PM-10 PM-2.5 SOx VOC CO NOx CO2 Costs of Pollution: 1,608 134,041 29,743 6,592 1,276 13,844 25 to 50

($/metric tonne) Crude Oil Economic Cost $60/bbl H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';FL 26 2/18 /2009

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Total Societal Savings (relative to ICEVs)

Annual Costs & Savings ($US Billions/year)

Hydrogen Infrastructure Investments

Total Societal Savings (relative to HEVs & ICEVs)

Hydrogen FCEV Scenario

Saves $300 Billion per Year

68

Societal Cash Flow

* Costs and savings include those for the PHEVs Story Economics.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; Z 32 5/15 /2009

Total Subsidies 36.5$ Billion Total Societal Savings 15,863$ Billion Ratio NPV/ Subsidies: 18.33 Net Present Value 668.2$ Billion (at 6% Discount)

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030

Annual Cash Flow ($US Billions)

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Scenario* (Societal Savings - Government Subsidies)

Annual Societal Savings

Annual Subsidies

Annual Cash Flow

69

Net Present Value of Societal Costs & Benefits

Story Economics.XLS; Tab 'NPV'; K 49 5/15 /2009

$222

$33.6 $18.5 $6.5 $5.0

$589

$405

$668

11.8%

40.8%

87.1% 81.9%

$-

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

Gasoline ICE PHEV Scenario

Ethanol ICE PHEV Scenario

FCEV Scenario* BEV Scenario* 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

NPV of Subsidies @ 6% Discount NPV of Savings @ 6% Discount Greenhouse Gas % Below 1990

$US Billions

* FCEV & BEV scenario incentives include those for ICE PHEVs in each scenario

70

HGM 10000: Filling 100 cars or 15 busses/day

All-in life cycle costs today: Production: $3.26/kg*

* Natural gas = $8.00/MBTU

Production, compression & storage: $4.83/kg ($2.04/gallon-range equivalent basis)

71

…and we have the capacity to meet growing demand.

72

HGM-2000 Field Units

73

Conclusions • All-electric vehicles are required, in conjunction with ICE hybrids, plug-

in ICE hybrids and biofuels, to simultaneously:

– Reduce GHG’s to 80% below 1990 levels

– Achieve petroleum energy “quasi-independence”

– Nearly eliminate urban air pollution*

• Fuel cells have significant advantages over batteries for full-function, long-range all-electric vehicles.

• Government incentives are modest compared to the societal benefits and other past and present government projects

* With the exception of particulates from brake & tire wear

Key References 1. Ramage, M P, Chair, Committee on the Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and

Hydrogen Technologies, “Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies—A Focus on Hydrogen,” National Research Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC, 2008 http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12222#toc

2. Thomas, C.E, “Comparison of Transportation Options in a Carbon-Constrained World: Hydrogen, Plug-in Hybrids and Biofuels,” Proceedings of the National HydrogenAssociation Annual Meeting, Sacramento, California, March 31, 2008.

3. The National Hydrogen Association, “Energy Evolution: an analysis of alternative vehicles and fuels to 2100” http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/evolution.asp

4. Sinha, Jayanti, Stephen Lasher, Yong Yang and Peter Kopf, “Direct hydrogen PEMFC manufacturing cost estimation for automotive applications,” Fuel Cell Tech Team Review, September 24, 2008, Tiax LLC.

5. Wang, Michael Q., “Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation, the Argonne National Laboratory; Argonne has also released version 2.8a that includes the impact of vehicle manufacturing .http://www.transportation.anl.gov/software/GREET/

6. Dhameja S., Electric Vehicle Battery Systems, Newnes Press, Boston 2002 7. Wipke K, S.Sprik, J. Kurtz, and T. Ramsden, “Controlled hydrogen fleet and infrastructure

demonstration and validation protect,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report NREL/TR-560-45451, slide CDP#38, March 2009.

8. Morrow K, Karner D, Francfort J, “Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging infrastructure review,” Final Report INL/EXT-08-15058, Idaho National Laboratory, November 2008

9. Kromer M, Heywood J, “Electric Powertrains: Opportunities and Challenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet,” Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Publication No. LFEE 2007-03 RP, May 2007.

10. Duvall, M., Khipping, E., “Environmental assessment of PHEVs, Vol 1 – National greenhouse gas emissions,” Electric Power Research Institute/Natural Resources Defense Council Report # 1015325, July 2007

74

75

Thank You

• Contact Information: C.E. (Sandy) Thomas H2Gen Innovations, Inc. Alexandria, Virginia 22304 703-212-7444, ext. 222 [email protected] www.h2gen.com

76

Backup Slides

Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7%Eff. = 48% Eff. 92% Energy Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%

Natural Gas NG Combined Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 3001.18 Cycle Turbine 166.0 & Distribution 152.7 Energy to motor: Miles

MBTU kWh kWh 0.413 kWh/mile Range

BEV Weight = 2269 kg

Inverter/Motor 86.7%Eff. = 75% Eff. 93% Hydrogen Energy Eff.= 51.8% Gear Box = 91.5%

Natural Gas Steam Methane H2 Compression Required Fuel Cell Drive Train 3000.81 Reformer 178.2 165.7 Energy to motor: Miles

MBTU kWh kWh 0.2861 kWh/mile RangeFCEV Weight 1280 kg

Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab NG'; S 44 3/12 /2009

Battery Electric Vehicle


77

Natural Gas: Battery EVs via Electricity? Or Fuel Cell EVs via Hydrogen?

Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 32% Eff. = 92% Energy Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%

Natural Gas NG Turbine Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 300 1.77 166.0 & Distribution 152.7 Energy to motor: Miles

MBTU kWh kWh 0.413 kWh/mile Range BEV Weight = 2269 kg

=

= =

=


Inverter/Motor 86.7%Eff. = 75% Eff. 93% Hydrogen Energy Eff.= 51.8% Gear Box = 91.5%

Natural Gas Steam Methane H2 Compression Required Fuel Cell Drive Train 3000.81 Reformer 178.2 165.7 Energy to motor: Miles

MBTU kWh kWh 0.2861 kWh/mile RangeFCEV Weight 1280 kg



78






Natural Gas NG Combined Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 300 1.18 Cycle Turbine 166.0 & Distribution 152.7 Energy to motor: Miles



= =

=



79






Natural Gas NG Combined Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 300 1.18 Cycle Turbine 166.0 & Distribution 152.7 Energy to motor: Miles



Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 75% Eff. = 93% Hydrogen Energy Eff.= 51.8% Gear Box = 91.5%

Natural Gas Steam Methane H2 Compression Required Fuel Cell Drive Train 300 0.81 Reformer 178.2 165.7 Energy to motor: Miles

MBTU kWh kWh 0.2861 kWh/mile Range FCEV Weight = 1280 kg





80

Natural Gas Required for Electric Vehicles

Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab NG per mile'; AM 32 3/12 /2009

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

0 100 200 300 400

Natural Gas Required (MBTU)

Vehicle Range (Miles)

Battery Electric Vehicle (Natural Gas Combustion Turbine)

Battery Electric Vehicle (Natural Gas Combined Cycle)

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (Natural Gas Reformer)

81

Biomass Utilization: BEV or FCEV?

Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 28% AC Eff. = 92% Energy Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%

Biomass Combustion Electr. Transmission Req'd DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 250 1.48 Turbine 121.2 & Distribution 111.5 Energy to motor: Miles


Inverter/Motor = 86.7% Eff. = 49% Eff. = 93% Hydrogen Energy Eff.= 51.8% Gear Box = 91.5%

Biomass Biomass H2 Compression Required Fuel Cell Drive Train 250 1.03 Gasifier 147.6 137.3 Energy to motor: Miles

MBTU kWh kWh 0.2845 kWh/mile Range FCEV Weight = 1268 kg


Biomass to electricity reference: Duvall, M., Khipping, E., “Environmental assessment of PHEVs Vol 1 – National greenhouse gas emissions,” EPRI/NRDC Rept # 1015325, July 2007 Biomass to hydrogen: Spath, P, Aden A, Eggeman T, Ringer M, Wallace B, Jechura J, "Biomass to hydrogen production detailed design and economics," NREL/TP-510-37408, May 2005 Vehicle parameters: 2.13 m^2 area, 0.33 drag, 0.0092 rolling resistance & 0 to 60 mph acceleration in 10 seconds



82

Wind Electricity: BEV or FCEV?

Grid Charge eff = 94% Inverter/Motor = 86.7%

Wind AC Eff. = 92% Energy Eff. = 98% Eff. = 96% Discharge Eff.= 90% Gear Box = 91.5%

Turbine Electr. Transmission Req'd AC Outlet DC Rectifier Battery Bank Drive Train 250 CF =39% 123.7 & Distribution 113.8 Circuit 111.5 107.0 Energy to motor: Miles $2000/kW kWh kWh kWh $90/kW kWh 0.363 kWh/mile Range


Home Outlet 8 hrs charging time

(Level I) Extra BEV Cost Total Extra Cost + + =

H2 Inverter/Motor = 86.7%

Wind AC Eff. = 75% Energy Eff. = 95% Eff. = 93% Eff.= 51.8% Gear Box = 91.5%

Turbine Electr. Electrolyzer Req'd Compression Compression Fuel Cell Drive Train 250 CF =39% 207.2 155.4 & Pipeline 147.6 & Storage 137.3 Energy to motor: Miles $2000/kW kWh $1100/kW kWh $2/kg kWh $2190/kg/day kWh 0.284 kWh/mile Range

83.5 kWh FCEV Weight = 1266 kg

Extra Wind Cost Extra Pipeline Compression & Storage Cost Extra FCEV Cost + + $9 + + =


$14,359

$2,543 Electrolyzer Cost

$1,399 $978 $2,776

Extra Energy:

$900

$7,705


$16,539

Total Extra Cost


14.2kW Rectifier

$1,280

83

Incremental Cost: Vehicle + Fueling Costs

Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab NG per mile'; AM 41 4/30 /2009

$-

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

0 100 200 300 400

Battery EV & Fueling Costs

Battery EV

Fuel Cell EV & Fueling Costs

Fuel Cell EV

Vehicle Range (miles)

Incremental Cost (over conventional vehicle)

84

Cost to Reduce Grid Carbon Footprint

-

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2010 2025 2040 2055 2070 2085 2100

Annual Capital Expenditures on New Generation Capacity ($Billion/year)

Coal with CCS

Renewables

Added Grid Cost for Gasoline Plug-in Hybrids

Nuclear

Source: EPRI for generator capital costs and capacity factors

85

Greenhouse Gas Pollution Comparisons (2050 & 2100)

GHG = greenhouse gases

FCEV = fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle

HEV = hybrid electric vehicle

PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle

NG = natural gas

NGV = natural gas vehicle

ICV = internal combustion engine vehicle

Based on AEO 2009 data Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; BJ 464 5/15 /2009

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00

Gasoline ICV

NGV

Gasoline HEV

Diesel HEV

NG HEV

Gasoline PHEV

Diesel PHEV

NG PHEV

Ethanol PHEV

BEV

H2 ICE HEV

FCEV

2100 2050

Greenhouse Gas Pollution (Billion metric tonnes CO2-equivalent/year)

60% Below 1990 Level 80% Below 1990 Level

1990 GHG Level

86

Vehicle Costs vs. Production Volume

FCEV-350 300,000$ 26,600$ 3,600$ BEV -200 160,000$ 33,300$ 10,300$ PHEV 110,000$ 26,162$ 3,709$

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Progress Ratios'; AF 49 5 /15 /2009

Initial Cost Final Cost Incremental Cost (2030)

$-

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

1 10 100

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

FCEV-350

BEV-200

Gasoline PHEV

Vehicle Price (US$)

Vehicle Cumulative Production

87

DOE FY2010 Budget Request

($1,000's)

FY 2008 Appropriation

FY 2009 Current

Appropriation

FY 2009 Additional

Appropriation

FY 2010 Request

Decrease ('10-'09)

Fuel Cell Technologies Fuel Cell Systems R&D 54,201 75,700 63,213 (12,487) Hydrogen Production and Delivery R&D 38,607 10,000 0 (10,000) Hydrogen Storage R&D 42,371 59,200 0 (59,200) Fuel Cell Stack Component R&D - - - 0 -Technology Validation* 29,612 15,000 0 (15,000) Transportation Fuel Cell Systems 6,218 6,600 0 (6,600) Distributed Energy Fuel Cell Systems - - 13,400 0 -Fuel Processor R&D - - - 0 -Safety Codes and Standards* 15,442 12,500 - 0 (12,500) Education* 3,865 4,200 - 0 (4,200) Systems Analysis 11,099 7,713 5,000 (2,713) Market Transformation - 4,747 30,000 0 (4,747) Manufacturing R&D 4,826 5,000 0 (5,000)

Actual Total Fuel Cell Technologies 206,241 200,660 43,400 68,213 (132,447)

Total Fuel Cell Technologies reported in request: 206,241 168,960 43,400 68,213 (100,747)

Funding buried in footnotes for FY'09 (pg 62) 31,700 *These items were included in "Vehicle Technologies" for FY 2009 only (They were transferred back to FC Technologies for FY2010 at zero levels!)

89 H2Gen: NG-Price.XLS; Tab 'Gasoline-NG' T100- 9 / 13 / 2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan-99 Jan-00 Jan-01 Jan-02 Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08

Retail Gasoline (taxed) Wholesale Gasoline Industrial NG

US Energy Costs ($/MBTU-HHV)

Natural Gas vs. Gasoline Prices

$4.00/gallon = $32/MBTU

Natural Gas

Gasoline

Katrina

Natural Gas use for FCVs

H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'NG 2008'; U 76 3/21 /2008

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

Natural Gas Consumption (Quads) H2 NG %

AEO 2008 NG Projections

Natural Gas to Make Hydrogen

% NG to Make Hydrogen

90

91

Impact of FCVs on Global Natural Gas Resources

H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'NG-Oil Resources';BA141 - 2 / 28 / 2008

-4,000

-2,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

NG Baseline NG + Optimistic FCVs Oil + Optimistic FCVs Oil Baseline

FCVs Decrease Natural Gas

Resources 470 Quads

FCVs Increase Crude Oil

Resources by 900 Quads

Remaining Global Resources (Quads)

Marginal Grid Mix Illustration

US Generation Mix

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

0 0 H2Gen: CFCP models.XLS; Tab 'GHG';J53 - 9 / 12 / 2004

Hypothetical Load Profiles

NG Turbine

Incr

easi

ng M

argi

nal C

ost

NG Combined Cycle Turbine

Coal

Nuclear

Hydro & Renewables 1

12 24 Time (hours)

Hydro Nuclear Coal & Oil NG Combined Cycle NG Turbine

Figure . Illustration of marginal grid loads for a typical US electric utility

92

Societal Cost / Benefit Results

Gasoline ICE PHEV

Scenario

Ethanol ICE PHEV

Scenario

FCEV Scenario*

BEV Scenario*

Total Subsidies & Investments ($US Billions) 8.6 $ 12.4$ 36.5$ 79.2 $ Total Societal Savings ($US Billions) 5,635 $ 9,565$ 15,863$ 15,293$

Ratio of Savings / Subsidies 653 769 435 193

Discount Rate = 6% NPV of Subsidies & Investments ($ Billions) 5.0 $ 6.5$ $18.47 33.6$ NPV of Societal Savings ($US Billions) 221.6$ 404.7$ 668.2$ 588.5$

Ratio of NPV(Savings) / NPV (Subsidies) 44.3 62.6 36.2 17.5 Greenhouse Gas % Below 1990 Levels 11.8% 40.8% 87.1% 81.9% *Note: FCEV & BEV Scenarios include incentives for gasoline & ethanol PHEVs in those scenarios

Story Economics.XLS; Tab 'NPV'; K 18 5/15 /2009

* FCEV & BEV scenario incentives include those for ICE PHEVs in each scenario 93

94

Gasoline ICE Hybrid Scenario Market Shares


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095

Gasoline ICEVs

Gasoline HEVs

(50% Market Share Potential by 2024)

95

Gasoline (& Diesel) ICE Plug-In Hybrid Scenario Market Shares


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095

Gasoline ICEVs

Gasoline PHEV

Gasoline HEV

(50% market share potential by 2031; 75% plug-in potential limited by charging outlet availability; 12 to 52 mile all-electric range; 18% to 65% of VMT from grid)

Biofuel (eg. Ethanol) Plug-In

Hybrid Scenario Market Shares Percentage of New Car Sales (Blended CD Mode for PHEVs)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Biofuel Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)

Gasoline Gasoline Hybrid (HEV) ICVs

Gasoline PHEVs

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; ED 30 3/4 /2009

(50% market share potential by 2031; 75% plug-in potential limited by charging outlet availability; 12 to 52 mile all-electric range; 18% to 65% of VMT from grid; 90 billion gallon/year cellulosic ethanol production per Sandia/Livermore (vs. 9 B/yr now and 60 B gallons/yr limit used by NRC) 96

97

Annual Fuel Costs ($/car/year)

[ Based on EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2009 through 2030 for gasoline price, natural gas price, residential electricity price, and vehicle miles traveled, with linear extrapolation to 2100; hydrogen price set at 55% the price of gasoline per mile traveled; off-peak electricity set at 55% of residential electricity price]

Off-Peak Electricity = 55% of Residential Rate Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Driver'; BI 52 5/15 /2009

Hydrogen Price = 55% of gasoline price per mile

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

2010 2030 2050 2070 2090

Gasoline Cost

FCEV Hydrogen Cost

PHEV Fuel Cost

BEV Electricity cost

Annual Fuel Costs ($/vehicle/year)

Assumptions H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sa es ;HI 155 3/11 /2008

Alternative Vehicle Market Penetration

Market Share of New Car Sales l '

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Gasoline HEVs, & EtOH ICEVs & HEVs

H2 ICE HEVs & PHEVs

H2 FC HEVs, FC PHEVs & BPEVs

Diesel HEVs, Gasoline, Deisel &EtOH PHEVs

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';IK 182 3/11 /2008

98

99

Sensitivity Studies

• NRC comparisons

2008 National Research Council Report vs. NHA Report

NRC Assessment NHA Assessment Alternative Vehicles Compared: Gasoline ICEVs Yes Yes Advanced ICEVs Yes Not separately Gasoline HEVs Yes Yes Gasoline PHEVs NO Yes Ethanol HEVs Yes ? Yes Ethanol PHEVs NO Yes Diesel HEVs NO Yes Diesel PHEVs NO Yes NGVs NO Yes NG HEVs NO Yes NG PHEVs NO Yes H2 ICE HEVs NO Yes H2 ICE PHEVs NO Yes H2 FCV HEVs Yes ? Yes

BEVs NO Yes

Societal Attributes Compared: Oil Consumption Yes Yes Greenhouse Gases Yes Yes Urban Air Pollution NO Yes Total Societal Cost NO Yes

Time Horizon To 2050 To 2100 Cellulosic Ethanol Production

45 to 60 billion gallons/year

120 billion gallons/year 100

101

Fuel Economy (NRC vs. NHA)

H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Fuel Economy';AF 74 2/16 /2009

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

New Car Fuel Economy (mpgge)

NHA ICEV

NHA FCV

NRC ICEV

NRC Advanced

ICEV

NRC FCV

102

GHG: NHA Model with NRC Input Data

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'NRC Tables'; AJ 157 8/19 /2008

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG



FCV Scenario



NRC Case: Gasoline HEV

Scenario

100% Advanced Gasoline ICEVs

H2 ICE HEV Scenario

BEV Scenario

2008 NRC Advanced ICEV Case

103

GHG: NHA Model with NHA Input Data

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG



Fuel Cell Vehicle Scenario




Scenario

100% Gasoline ICVs

H2 ICE HEV Scenario

BEV Scenario

104

NRC 2008 GHG Results

Reference Case

Case 3 (biofuels)

Case 2 (ICEV Eff)

Case 1 (H2 Success)

105

Oil Consumption: NHA Model with NRC Input Data

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'NRC Tables'; W 158 8/19 /2008

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100


FCV Scenario



NRC Case: Gasoline HEV

Scenario

100% Advanced Gasoline ICEVs

Energy "Quasi-Independence"

H2 ICE HEV & BEV Scenarios

2008 NRC Advanced ICEV Case

106

NRC Oil Consumption

Reference Case

Case 3 (biofuels)

Case 2 (ICEV Eff)

Case 1 (H2 Success)

107

Oil Consumption: NHA Model with NHA Input Data

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100


FCEV, H2 ICE HEV & BEV Scenarios




Scenario

100% Gasoline ICVs

Non-OPEC-only Oil

American-only Oil

Iraq War todate

(3/2009)

FederalHighwaySystem

Ethanol16-YearSubsidy

ApolloMoon

Program

Hydrogen& FCEV

TotalIncentives

10X 5-YearHydrogenProgram 108

Hydrogen Infrastructure Costs Compared to Other Projects

H2G H2 ICE HEV XLS T b 'C t' J 29 3/6 /2009

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Stimulus Package

US$ Billions

FederalHighwaySystem


ApolloMoon

Program

Hydrogen& FCEV

TotalIncentives




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Stimulus Package

Iraq War to date

(3/2009)

US$ Billions


ApolloMoon

Program

Hydrogen& FCEV

TotalIncentives




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Stimulus Package

Iraq War to date

(3/2009)

Federal Highway System

US$ Billions

ApolloMoon

Program

Hydrogen& FCEV

TotalIncentives




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Stimulus Package

Iraq War to date

(3/2009)


Ethanol 16-Year Subsidy

US$ Billions

Hydrogen& FCEV

TotalIncentives




0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Stimulus Package

Iraq War to date

(3/2009)



Apollo Moon

Program

US$ Billions



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Stimulus Package

Iraq War to date

(3/2009)



Apollo Moon

Program

Hydrogen & FCEV

Total Incentives

US$ Billions


114


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Stimulus Package

Iraq War to date

(3/2009)



Apollo Moon

Program

Hydrogen & FCEV

Total Incentives

10X 5-Year Hydrogen Program

US$ Billions


115

Number of Vehicles on the road

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab '# Cars'; L 124 5/15 /2009

-2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000

10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000 16,000,000 18,000,000 20,000,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Gasoline PHEVs

FC HEVs

Number of Vehicles on the road

116

How best to use natural gas?

• To produce electricity for battery electric vehicles?

• Or to produce hydrogen for fuel cell electric vehicles?

117

• Backup Topics: – Urban air pollution & societal costs – Sensitivity studies – Natural gas & diesel vehicles

Financial & Performance Data used in Model

SMR HHV efficiency 78% SMR Electricity Price $0.095/kWh SMR Electricity Consumption 1.04 kWh/kg Compression electricity 2.16 kWh/kg H2 Price Discount 45% FCV f.e./ICEV f.e. 2.40 O&M annual Costs 7% Annual Taxes & Insurance 2% Marginal income tax (fed & state) 38.9% Real, after-tax rate of return 10.0% Inflation 1.9% Analysis Period/Equipment Life (years) 15 Depreciation period (years) 7 Depreciation Type* DB Annual Capital Recovery Factor 15.5%

118

119

Total Societal Costs

120

Societal Costs from Pollution & Oil Imports

-

100

200

300

400

500

600

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

Total Societal Costs ($Billion/year)

Fuel Cell Vehicle Scenario

Ethanol Plug-in Hybrid Scenario

Gasoline Plug-in Hybrid Scenario


Scenario

100% Gasoline ICVs

121

Sensitivity to Fuel Economy

122

Greenhouse Gas Sensitivity to Vehicle Fuel Economy

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Sensitivity'; M 51 6/8 /2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1 1.5 2 2.5 3


Fuel Economy Relative to Gasoline ICEV


Scenario



H2 ICE HEV Scenario

FCV Scenario

Based on old AEO 2008 data

123

Urban Air Pollution Sensitivity to Vehicle Fuel Economy

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Sensitivity'; W 51 6/8 /2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

Urban Air Pollution Costs in 2100 (US$Billion/year)



Scenario



H2 ICE HEV Scenario

FCV Scenario


124

Societal Cost Sensitivity to Vehicle Fuel Economy

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Sensitivity'; AG 51 6/8 /2008

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8

Total Societal Costs in 2100 (US$Billion/year)



Scenario



H2 ICE HEV Scenario

FCV Scenario


125

Sensitivity to FCEV Market Share & Carbon Footprints

126

Greenhouse Gases with 75% FCEV Market Limit

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; AN 34 2/16 /2009

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG Level



FCV Scenario




Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs

75% FCV Scenario

127

Greenhouse Gases with 75% FCEV Limit & DOE Carbon parameters

(Greener grid and less green hydrogen; all-electric CD mode for PHEVs)

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; AD 529 2/16 /2009

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG



FCEV Scenario (75% Sales)




Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs

H2 ICE HEV Scenario (75%)

BEV Scenario (75%)

128 Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; AD 561 2/16 /2009

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG



FCEV Scenario (75% Sales)




Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs

H2 ICE HEV Scenario (75%)

BEV Scenario (75%)

Blended CD mode for PHEVs

Greenhouse Gases with 75% FCEV Limit & DOE Carbon parameters

(Greener grid and less green hydrogen & Blended CD mode for PHEVs)

129

Oil Consumption with 75% FCEV Market Limit


-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100





Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs

Non-OPEC-only Oil

American-only

75% FCEV Scenario

100% FCEV Scenario

Gasoline PHEV

130

Oil Consumption with 75% FCEV Limit & DOE Carbon parameters

(Greener grid and less green hydrogen)


-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100





Scenario

100% Gasoline ICVs

Non-OPEC-only Oil

American-only 75% FCEV Scenario

(& H2 ICE HEV & BEV)

131

GHG Sensitivity to NG Fraction (electricity & hydrogen source)

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Sensitivity'; M 91 6/8 /2008

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%


Natural Gas Fraction in 2100 (for both hydrogen and electricity production)


Scenario



H2 ICE HEV Scenario

FCV Scenario

BPEV Scenario

Base Case


132

Sensitivity to Ethanol PHEV Market share

133

GHG Sensitivity to Ethanol Production Capacity & Plug-in Capacity

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; AN 405 5/25 /2008

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100



1990 LDV GHG



FCV Scenario

Ethanol 75% PHEV Scenario


Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs


Ethanol 100% PHEV (No EtOH Limit)


134

GHG Sensitivity to Hydrogen Source

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100



1990 LDV GHG



FCV Scenario



Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs

FCV (+10% NG On-site)

FCV (+20% NG On-site)


135

Oil Consumption Sensitivity to Ethanol Production & Plug-in Capacity


-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100


FCV, H2 ICE PHEV & BPEV

Scenarios




Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs



Ethanol 100% PHEV (No EtOH Limit)


136

Backup Slides

• Natural Gas Vehicles • Diesel CIDI Vehicles

137

Greenhouse Gases with Natural Gas Vehicles

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; BC 495 9/8 /2008

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG



FCV Scenario

NG PHEV Scenario



Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs

NG HEV Scenario

NGV Scenario


138

Urban Air Pollution with Natural Gas Vehicles

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; DF 102 9/8 /2008

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100 FCV Scenario



Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs

US Urban Air Pollution Costs ($Billions/year)

PM Cost from Brake & Tire Wear

NG PHEV Scenario

NG HEV Scenario

NGV Scenario

139

Diesel PHEV GHGs

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG


GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution FCV Scenario




Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs

Diesel PHEV Scenario


140

Diesel PHEV Oil Consumption

-

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100


FCV Scenario




Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs


H2 ICE HEV & BPEV Scenarios



141

Diesel PHEV Urban Air Pollution

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100

FCV Scenario




Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs

US Urban Air Pollution Costs ($Billion/year)

PM Cost from Brake& Tire Wear



142

NGV vs. FCV (Hydrogen from natural gas)

Natural Gas Hydrogen Reformer Compression & Storage Fuel Cell Vehicle

Natural Gas Efficiency H2 Efficiency Efficiency 75% 93.9% 20 X 2.45 = 48.9 mpg

(200psi to 6,250 psi)

Natural gas efficiency: 0.75 x 0.939 X 48.9 = 34.4

Natural Gas Compression & Storage ICE Vehicle

Natural Gas Efficiency Efficiency 96.4% 20 mpg

(15 psi to 3,600 psi)

Natural gas efficiency: 0.964 x 20 = 19.3

FCV Advantage: 1.79 FCV GHG / ICEV GHG 56% (44% GHG reduction)

143

Blended Charge Depleting Mode

Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Blended CD'; AE 61 2/17 /2009

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

All-electric CD %VMT on Grid

ACEEE Blended CD %VMT on Grid

ANL Blended CD %VMT on Grid

MIT Blended CD %Grid Energy

ANL Blended CD % Grid Energy

All-Electric Range (miles)

% PHEV Energy from Grid or % VMT

144

# of Hydrogen Stations

H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';CE 23 5/30 /2008

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

# of H2 Fueling Stations

# of H2 Stations

145

Cumulative Capital Expenditures on Hydrogen Fueling Equipment

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020

Cumulative Hydrogen Fueling System Capital Expenditures (US$ millions) & # of H2 Fueling Stations

Cumulative Capex

# of H2 Stations

Initial Hydrogen Fueling System Deployments

H2 Energy Story.XLS; Tab 'Annual Sales';DB 23 5/30 /2008

-

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Cumulative Hydrogen Fueling System Capital Expenditures (US$ millions) & # of H2 Fueling Stations

Average Capacity Factor

Cumulative Capex

Capacity Factor

# of H2 Stations

146

147

HGM 2000: Filling 20 cars or 3 busses / day

Natural Gas

Water

Instrument Air

Hydrogen, Up to 99.9999% pure

Electricity


[Production, compression & storage: $9.37/kg ($3.95/gge)] * Natural gas = $11.10/MBTU

CH4 + 2H2O = 4 H2 + CO2

148

The HGM 3000: Filling 30 cars or 4-5 busses / day


[Production, compression & storage: $7.29/kg ($3.08/gge)] * Natural gas = $11.10/MBTU

149

On-site Hydrogen is Competitive with Gasoline

Hydrogen Production Capacity

Equipment Production Quantities

Production Cost

Compression & Storage

Cost

Total Cost ($/kg)

HGM2k (20 cars/day) 115 kg/day > 10 5.95 3.42 9.37 $3.95/gge

HGM3k (30 cars/day) 172 kg/day > 10 4.77 2.53 7.29 $3.08/gge

HGM10k (100 cars/day) 575 kg/dy > 10 3.80 2.10 5.91 $2.49/gge

3 Years HGM10k (100 cars/day) 576 kg/dy >100 3.54 1.65 5.19 $2.19/gge

~6 Years (250 cars/day) 1,500 kg/day >500 2.76 1.11 3.87 $1.63/gge

NAS Assumptions: Annual Capital Recovery factor = 19.1%; Capacity Factor = 70%; FCV fuel economy = 2.4 X ICEV

Electricity = 8 cents/kWh; Natural Gas = $11.1/MBTU

H2Gen:Markets4.XLS, Tab'H2 Cost Table' V22;6/6/2008

Hydrogen Cost From On-Site Steam Methane Reformer System ($/kg)

Hydrogen Cost ($/gallon of gasoline

on a range-equivalent basis,

untaxed, relative to ICEV)

150

H2 Cost Comparisons (Industrial with HGM-2000)

H2Gen: markets4.XLS; Tab 'HGM Summary';U183 - 9 / 14 / 2008

On-Site Capital Natural gas Electricity Distance to Plant Cap. Recovery HGM-2000 409,643 $ $11.10/MBTU 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Liquid H2 272,924 $ $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 800 miles 13.9% Electrolyzer 415,310 $ - 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Electrolyzer-Off Peak 610,230 $ - 4.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Tube Trailer $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 150 miles 13.9% Production Quantity 10 Capacity Factor 95%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

HGM-2000 On-Site Production

Trucked-In Liquid H2 Electrolyzer Electrolyzer Off-Peak Tube Trailer (Compressed H2)

Central Plant CR @13.85% FCR On-Site Equipment CR @19.1% Delivery Truck CR O&M H2 Backup H2 Transportation Electricity Natural Gas

Hydrogen Cost ($/ccf)

CR = Capital Recovery Factor O&M = Operation & Maintenance 2,000 scfh (115 kg/day)

151

H2 Cost Comparisons (Industrial with HGM-10,000)

On-Site Capital Natural gas Electricity Distance to Plant Cap. Recovery HGM 1,077,019 $ $11.10/MBTU 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% H2Gen: markets4.XLS; Tab 'HGM Summary';AE185 - 9 / 14 / 2008

Liquid H2 582,578 $ $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 800 miles 13.9% Electrolyzer 2,298,569 $ - 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Electrolyzer-Off Peak 2,861,475 $ - 4.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Tube Trailer $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 150 miles 13.9% Production Quantity 10 Capacity Factor 95%

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

HGM-10,000 On-site Production

Trucked-In Liquid H2

Electrolyzer Electrolyzer Off-Peak 4c/kWh

Tube Trailer (Compressed H2)

Central Plant CR @13.85% FCR On-Site Equipment CR @19.1% Delivery Truck CR O&M H2 Transportation Electricity Natural Gas

Hydrogen Cost ($/ccf)

CR = Annual Capital Recovery Factor; O&M = Operation & Maintenance HGM-10,000 Capacity (10,000 scfh or 565 kg/day)

152

H2 Fuel Cost Comparisons (Hydrogen fuel including compression, storage & dispensing)

* FCV has 2.4 times higher fuel economy than a comparable ICEV On-Site Capital Natural gas Electricity Distance to Plant Cap. Recovery H2Gen: markets4.XLS; Tab 'HFA Summary';AC250 - 9 / 14 / 2008

HGM + CSM + dispenser 2,229,983 $ $11.10/MBTU 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Liquid H2 716,461 $ $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 800 miles 13.9% Electrolyzer 2,203,575 $ - 8.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Electrolyzer-Off Peak 2,885,660 $ - 4.0 cents/kWh 0 19.2% Tube Trailer 660,079 $ $10.00/MBTU 6.0 cents/kWh 150 miles 13.9% Plant Capacity Factor 70% Production Volume 10

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

HGM on-site Production Trucked-In Liquid H2 Electrolyzer 8c/kWh Electrolyzer Off-Peak 4c/kWh

Tube Trailer (Compressed H2)

Central Plant CR On-Site Equipment CR Delivery Truck CR O&M H2 Transportation Electricity Natural Gas

Hydrogen Cost ($/gallon of gasoline on a range-equivalent basis)*

CR = Capital Recovery; O&M = Operation & Maintenance HGM = hydrogen generation module

HGM-10,000 including compression to 7,000 psi, storage & dispensing

153

Acknowledgments • Joan Ogden (1989 Solar Hydrogen Report)

• Bob Rose, US FC Council (for many helpful comments & guidance over the years)

• UC Davis (Mark Delucchi, et al.)

• US DOE (1994 Ford/DOE/DTI to present; H2A cost model, Steve Chalk, JoAnn Milliken, et al.)

• Argonne National Lab (Michael Wang & GREET model)

• NHA hydrogen story task force (Frank Novachek, leader, John Elter – Stationary applications)

• Barney Rush (CEO H2Gen)

154

GHG: 75% Cap on PHEVs (Due to limited night-time access to outlets)


Story Simultaneous.XLS; Tab 'Graphs'; Q 494 3/4 /2009

-

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100


1990 LDV GHG


GHG Goal: 80% below 1990 Pollution Fuel Cell Electric

Vehicle (FCEV) Scenario

Base Case: Gasoline Hybrid (HEV) Scenario

100% Gasoline ICEVs

Biofuel PHEV Scenario

75% Biofuel PHEV

75% Gasoline PHEVs

Gasoline Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV)

Scenario

155

Grid GHGs Relative to 1990

GHG.XLS, Tab 'Climate Change Projections'; K422;5/13/2009

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

% of Utility GHG above 1990 Levels

Business-as-usual; Extension of AEO 2008

US Projection based on West Coast (WECC) Grid with Carbon Constraints

Business-as-usual; with PHEVs

WECC Grid with PHEVs

156

Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab 'GREET'; J 53 3/6 /2009

3,224

1,016

548

110

21

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Gasoline CV

Cellulosic E-90 CV

Cellulosic E-90 HEV

Hydrogen from Ethanol FCEV

Hydrogen from Biomass FCEV

Oil Consumption (Btu/mile)

Hydrogen from Ethanol & Biomass: Oil Consumption Comparison

157

Hydrogen from Ethanol & Biomass: Greenhouse Gas Comparisons

Hydrogen Production Efficiency.XLS; Tab 'GREET'; J 74 3/6 /2009

(1.1)

290

96

54

25

(50) - 50 100 150 200 250 300

Gasoline CV

Cellulosic E-90 CV

Cellulosic E-90 HEV

Hydrogen from Ethanol FCEV

Hydrogen from Biomass FCEV

Greenhouse Gas Pollution (grams/mile)

158

100% Gasoline Plug-In ICE Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) Scenario

Market Shares

(50% market share potential by 2031; 75% limit to night-time charging; 12 to 52 mile all-electric range; 18% to 65% of VMT from grid)



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095

Gasoline ICVs

(Blended CD Mode for PHEVs)

Gasoline Plug-in Hybrids (PHEVs)

Gasoline Hybrids (HEVs)

Biofuel Plug-In Hybrid

Scenario Market Shares (90 Billion gallons/year of biofuels)

Percentage of New Car Sales (Blended CD Mode for PHEVs)

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Biofuel Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)

Gasoline Gasoline Plug-in Hybrid ICVs Gasoline

HEVs 2005 2015 2025 2035 2045 2055 2065 2075 2085 2095


[50% market share potential by 2031, no limit on night-time charging outlets; 90 billion gallon/year cellulosic ethanol production per Sandia/Livermore (vs. 8 B/yr now and 60 B gallon/yr limit used by NRC)]

159

160

Alternative Vehicle/Fuel Combinations

XXXNatural Gas

2.452.451.391.391.0Fuel Economy

XSSElectricity

XXXXHydrogen

XXXEthanol

XXDiesel

XXRefGasoline

BEVFC PHEV

FC HEV

ICE PHEV

ICE HEVICEV

X = primary fuel; S = secondary fuel; ICEV = internal combustion engine vehicle; HEV = hybrid electric vehicle; PHEV = plug-in hybrid electric vehicle; FC = fuel cell; BEV = battery-powered electric vehicle

161

Four Main Vehicle/Fuel Combinations

XXXNatural Gas

2.452.451.391.391.0Fuel Economy

XSSElectricity

XXXXHydrogen

XXXEthanol

XXDiesel

XXRefGasoline

BEVFC PHEV

FC HEV

ICE PHEV

ICE HEVICEV


162

Two Reference Vehicle/Fuel Combinations

XXXNatural Gas

2.452.451.391.391.0Fuel Economy

XSSElectricity

XXXXHydrogen

XXXEthanol

XXDiesel

XXRefGasoline

BEVFC PHEV

FC HEV

ICE PHEV

ICE HEVICEV


163

Alternative Vehicle/Fuel Combinations

XXXNatural Gas

2.452.451.391.391.0Fuel Economy

XSSElectricity

XXXXHydrogen

XXXEthanol

XXDiesel

XXRefGasoline

BEVFC PHEV

FC HEV

ICE PHEV

ICE HEVICEV


164

Argonne Results [Amgad Elgowainy et al, Feb 2009]

165

National Hydrogen Association Alternative Vehicle Simulation Study Objectives:

• Compare alternative vehicles & fuels over 100 years with respect to: – Oil consumption – Greenhouse gas emissions – Urban air pollution

• Estimate cost of hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicle incentives

166

Framing the Issue

Not PHEVs vs. FCEVs…

…but ICE-PHEVs vs. Fuel Cell HEVs or Fuel Cell PHEVs

167

Current # of On-Road Vehicles made by auto companies

• ICE-PHEVs: 1 • FC-PHEVs: 1 • FC-HEVs: 318*

*140 FC HEVs under DOE learning demonstration evaluation program have logged over 1.9 million miles with over 16,000 refuelings in last four years with an average fueling time of 3.3 minutes (Ref: Wipke, NREL)

Ford Fuel Cell Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle

(25 miles AER)

Toyota ICE Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (7 miles AER)

168

Which vehicles are best for society?

• ICE hybrid electric vehicles? • ICE plug-in hybrids? • Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles? • Fuel cell plug-in hybrids?

…….or all of the above!

Comparison of Plug-in Hybrids, Fuel Cell EVs and Battery EVs

Documents

Transcript of Comparison of Plug-in Hybrids, Fuel Cell EVs and Battery EVs