R & D Programs for Hydrogen: US and EU

Abstract

The possibility of a future economy based on H2 and fuel cells is both promising and uncertain. As a consequence, in the US and in the EU significant actions, with similarities as well as differences, related to hydrogen RD if a fossil fuel is the energy source, it must be used with carbon sequestration to achieve significantly reduced CO2 emissions. Batteries offer similar options. Biofuels are more restrictive, and only advanced biofuels, such as cellulosic ethanol, would have a large impact on the emissions problem . Of course efficiency improvements to current internal combustion designs provide a partial forth alternative, although there are physical limits. The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies finds efficiency improvements more promising than Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (HFCVs) through about 2040. However, in combination with Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PEVs) the possibilities are striking. 1 For instance, General Motors is currently hoping to begin selling PEVs with a 40 mile range in 2010. A 40-mile range is sufficient to cover 75 percent of the light-vehicle driving in the United States. Because the PEV is a hybrid, it will have increased efficiency; and, if used with a diesel engine, a doubling of efficiency should be easily achievable with present technology. This would result in roughly Taking a longer view, the complete elimination of fossil fuel use is eventually inevitable. At that point, trucks and automobiles will be powered by electricity—from batteries or fuel cells—and by biofuels. Electricity will likely be produced by wind turbines, solar energy and nuclear power. HFCVs will then require the production of hydrogen by electrolysis, or a high-temperature process with advanced nuclear reactors. Assuming 70% efficiency for electrolysis or a high temperature process, and 70% efficiency for the fuel cell, the latter being a rather optimistic value, yields 49% efficiency for the conversion of bulk electricity to on-board electricity. Of course this ignores the need to pressurize and transport the hydrogen. By contrast, charging and discharging a battery is over 90% efficient. For this reason, the long-run dominance of HFCV technology over battery technology looks unlikely. However, this conclusion could be reversed by the development of cheap artificial photosynthesis for the production of hydrogen. In the medium term, say between 2050 and 2075, hydrogen could possibly, although by no means certainly, dominate a combination of batteries, efficiency and biofuels. It should, however, be remembered that, unlike cellulosic ethanol and engine efficiency improvements, HFCVs will not automatically do much to reduce CO2 emissions. There must be an additional policy requiring carbon capture when hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels. At present, there is no case for tipping the balance towards a hydrogen transition. As the NRC explains, there is a “downside risk of pushing HFCVs (or any other specific technologies) before they are really ready or if they turn out not to be the best option, which could be extremely expensive and disruptive.” There is also no proof that hydrogen is the most likely long-run solution. There exists, however, an excellent case for the present R&D effort in hydrogen technology. There is a modest chance that it could provide an enormous payoff. For example, it is possible that batteries and cellulosic ethanol will remain too expensive to be practical, and that breakthroughs in fuel-cell and hydrogen storage technologies will bring HFCVs to market sooner and more profitably than expected. And perhaps recent breakthroughs in artificial photosynthesis will eventually make solar-hydrogen the fuel of choice. Funding such high-risk advanced R&D is something the market does poorly. Because of this, the government should support hydrogen research, and quite likely at a higher level than the current one. That is the case for hydrogen. It is also the case for funding all of hydrogen’s competitors, or as the NRC (2008b) says, taking a “portfolio approach.” an 87% reduction in gasoline use. That is considerably better than what the NRC predicts could be achieved by HFCVs by 2050 under its optimistic Case 1. 2 The situation does not seem to be clearer in the short run, between now and 2050. For instance, the NRC’s (2008b) Conclusion 14 states that “advanced conventional vehicles and biofuels—have the potential to provide significant reductions in projected oil imports and CO2 emissions. ... [but] the deepest cuts in oil use and CO2 emissions after about 2040 would come from hydrogen.” But this conclusion has been weakened by assuming that the future will bring only advanced conventional vehicles or biofuels, but not both. In fact the NRC (2008b) reports (see Figures 6.29 and 6.30) what happens if both improvements are realized. In this case HFCVs do not provide deeper cuts in either oil or emissions until after 2050. This conclusion only includes on what the NRC considers “evolutionary” technology.