REVIEW OF THE
RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE
U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP
Fifth Report
Committee on the Review of the Research Program of
the U.S. DRIVE Partnership, Phase 5
Board on Energy and Environmental Systems
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
A Consensus Study Report of
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, DC
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by Grant No. DE-EE0002931 with the U.S. Department of Energy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-0-45687-6
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-45687-8
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/24717
Additional copies of this publication are available for sale from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu/.
Copyright 2017 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership: Fifth Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.17226/24717.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
COMMITTEE ON THE REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM OF THE U.S. DRIVE PARTNERSHIP, PHASE 5
JOHN H. JOHNSON, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Chair
ALEXIS T. BELL, NAS1/NAE,2 University of California, Berkeley
DAVID BODDE, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina
NADY BOULES, NB Motors, LLC, Troy, Michigan
GLENN EISMAN, Eisman Technology Consultants, Bailey Island, Maine
DAVID E. FOSTER, University of Wisconsin, Madison
MATT FRONK, Matt Fronk & Associates, Honeoye Falls, New York
ROBERT NOWAK, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (retired), Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
VERNON P. ROAN, University of Florida, Gainesville3
BERNARD ROBERTSON, NAE, Daimler Chrysler Corporation (retired), Bloomfield Hills, Michigan
JAMES A. SPEAROT, Mountain Ridgeline Consulting, LLC, Breckenridge, Colorado
SATISH TAMHANKAR, Linde, LLC (retired), Scotch Plains, New Jersey
ALAN TAUB, NAE, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
KATHLEEN C. TAYLOR, NAE, General Motors Corporation (retired), Fort Myers, Florida
BRIJESH VYAS, Bell Laboratories (retired), Warren, New Jersey
Staff
JAMES J. ZUCCHETTO, Senior Board/Program Director,4 Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, Study Director
DANA CAINES, Financial Manager
LINDA CASOLA, Senior Program Assistant
LANITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator
E. JONATHAN YANGER, Research Associate
___________________
1 NAS, National Academy of Sciences.
2 NAE, National Academy of Engineering.
3 Resigned April 11, 2016.
4 Retired as Senior Board/Program Director in February 2017.
BOARD ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
JARED COHON, NAE,1 Carnegie Mellon University, Chair
DAVID ALLEN, NAE, University of Texas, Austin
W. TERRY BOSTON, NAE, GridLiance GP, LLC and Grid Protection Alliance, Audubon, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM BRINKMAN, NAS,2 Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
EMILY A. CARTER, NAS/NAE, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
BARBARA KATES-GARNICK, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts
JoANN MILLIKEN, Independent Consultant, Alexandria, Virginia
MARGO OGE, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, McLean, Virginia
JACKALYNE PFANNENSTIEL3, Independent Consultant, Piedmont, California
MICHAEL RAMAGE, NAE, ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company (retired), New York City
DOROTHY ROBYN, Consultant, Washington, D.C.
GARY ROGERS, Roush Industries, Livonia, Michigan
KELLY SIMS-GALLAGHER, The Fletcher School, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
MARK THIEMENS, NAS, University of California, San Diego
JOHN WALL, NAE, Cummins Engine Company (retired), Belvedere, California
ROBERT WEISENMILLER, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, California
Staff
K. JOHN HOLMES, Acting Director/Scholar
JAMES ZUCCHETTO, Senior Scientist
DANA CAINES, Financial Associate
LANITA JONES, Administrative Coordinator
JANKI PATEL, Program Assistant
MARTIN OFFUTT, Senior Program Officer
BEN WENDER, Program Officer
___________________
1 NAE, National Academy of Engineering.
2 NAS, National Academy of Sciences.
3 Deceased on April 26, 2017.
Preface
This report contains the results of a review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership, Phase 5 (see Appendix A for biographical information on the committee members). The government/industry partnership known as U.S. DRIVE (Driving Research and Innovation for Vehicle Efficiency and Energy Sustainability) was formed in 2011. It is very much in line with the partnerships that preceded it—namely, the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership and, prior to that, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
The U.S. DRIVE vision is that “American consumers have a broad range of affordable personal transportation choices that reduce petroleum consumption and significantly reduce harmful emissions from the transportation sector.” Its mission is to “accelerate the development of precompetitive and innovative technologies to enable a full range of efficient and clean advanced light-duty vehicles, as well as related energy infrastructure.” The Partnership is focused on advanced technologies for all light-duty passenger vehicles: cars, sport utility vehicles, crossover vehicles, pickups, and minivans. It also addresses technologies for hydrogen production, distribution, dispensing, and storage, and the interface and infrastructure issues associated with the electric utility industry for the support of battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
The National Academies Committee on Review of the Research Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership, Phase 5, reviewed the activities since the fourth review of the Partnership. The report provides an overview of the structure and management of the Partnership as well as the major achievements associated with the goals of the Partnership. Since the previous review Toyota, Hyundai, and Honda have made available within the United States a limited number of fuel
cell vehicle sales or leases to the general public. General Motors, a U.S. DRIVE Partnership member, has reported plans for a 2020 rollout of its latest fuel cell vehicle. The development and deployment of roadworthy fuel cell vehicles is a major accomplishment and one that will help to identify remaining technical, cost, manufacturing, and infrastructure challenges. Though the cars are still in the late stages of development, the fact that the cars have advanced to this point is due in part to research and development coordination by the Partnership and its prior organizations, as well as from decades of funding of pertinent research projects by the Department of Energy (DOE) and Partnership members.
The committee appreciates the effort by the personnel from DOE, U.S. Council for Automotive Research, and all the companies and national laboratories that prepared presentations and hosted our visits. The help of these members of the Partnership enabled us to get the latest data and information, which was very important for the committee’s preparation of this report.
John H. Johnson, Chair
Committee on Review of the Research
Program of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership, Phase 5
Acknowledgments
The Committee on the Review of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership, Phase 5, is grateful to the representatives of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership, including the Department of Energy (DOE), and to the representatives of the companies and national laboratories who contributed a significant amount of their time and effort to this National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine study by giving presentations at meetings or responding to committee requests for information, as well as hosting members of the committee at site visits. The committee also acknowledges the valuable contributions of other individuals who provided information and presentations at the committee’s open meetings. Appendix C lists all of those presentations.
The committee offers its special appreciation to Christy Cooper, Director, U.S. DRIVE Partnership, Office of Vehicle Technologies, DOE, for her significant contributions in coordinating responses to the questions and in making presentations to the committee. Finally, the chair wishes to recognize the committee members and the staff of the Board on Energy and Environmental Systems for organizing and planning the committee meetings, gathering information, and drafting sections of the report. Jim Zucchetto in particular has done an outstanding job of facilitating the work of the committee and helping it to write a focused and timely report. Linda Casola provided efficient and very helpful support to its meetings and the report production and LaNita Jones provided capable support to help finish the project and this report.
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each
published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
Katherine Ayers, Proton OnSite,
Jay Baron, Center for Automotive Research,
R. Stephen Berry, NAS, University of Chicago,
Paul N. Blumberg, NAE, Ford Motor Co. (retired),
Dennis A. Corrigan, DC Energy Consulting, LLC,
John M. German, International Council for Clean Transportation,
Linos J. Jacovides, NAE, Michigan State University,
Trevor O. Jones, NAE, International Development Corporation,
JoAnn Milliken, Department of Energy (retired),
John S. Newman, NAE, University of California-Berkeley,
William F. Powers, NAE, Ford Motor Co. (retired), and
Mahdi Shahbakhti, Michigan Technological University.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by Douglas M. Chapin, NAE, MPR Associates, Inc., and Chris T. Hendrickson, NAE, Carnegie Mellon University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
Contents
Recent Changes since the Phase 4 Review
Committee Approach and Organization of This Report
2 MANAGEMENT, STRATEGY, AND PRIORITY SETTING
Organization of the Partnership
The Role of the Federal Government
Response to NRC Phase 4 Recommendations
3 LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES AND FUELS
Hydrogen Production, Delivery, and Dispensing
Electric Drive Systems and Power Electronics
Electrochemical Energy Storage
Electricity as an Energy Source and the Grid
Cradle-to-Grave Analysis and Implications
Major Achievements, Progress, and Barriers
Adequacy, Balance, and Funding
Strategic Issues Looking Forward
A Biographic Sketches of Committee Members
B U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Organization Chart
Figures and Tables
FIGURES
1-1 Levels of automation for on-road vehicles
2-1 Organizational structure of the U.S. DRIVE Partnership
3-1 ACECTT emission research targets
3-2 Schematic of the organizational structure of CLEERS
3-6 DOE spider chart of fuel cell targets
3-7 Estimates of fuel cell system cost
3-8 Fuel cell cost as a function of production volume
3-9 Sensitivity analysis of components that affect fuel cell cost
3-10 Fuel cell stack durability
3-11 Analysis showing the impact of cryo-compressed hydrogen storage
3-12 Schematic of production and delivery of hydrogen to a fueling station
3-13 Components of cost for a hydrogen system
3-15 Estimates of cost of hydrogen production for different technologies
3-17 Energy density increase and resultant cost reduction for the PHEV40 lithium-ion battery
3-19 Significant MTT target setting (2016-2020)
3-20 Schematic description of the full fuel cycle analysis of the ANL GREET model
4-1 DOE EERE’s hydrogen and fuel cell budgets
4-2 DOE EERE’s Vehicle Technologies Office budgets for FY 2012 to 2016
B-1 Organizational Chart of DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
TABLES
3-2 List of DOE Projects Addressing U.S. DRIVE Goals
3-3 DOE Vehicle Technologies Office U.S. DRIVE-Related Fuel and Lubricant Projects List
3-4 Summary of ACECTT Recommendations for Future SI Fuels
3-5 List of Selected DOE-Funded Fuel Cell-Related Projects
3-6 Fuel Cell System and Component Status and Targets
3-7 DOE Reported MEA Performance and Durability Metrics
3-8 Current Status of Hydrogen Storage Technologies
3-11 H2 Production High-Volume Cost Projections for PEM Electrolysis Cases
3-12 DOE Projects on Hydrogen Related to U.S. DRIVE Goals
3-13 DOE Projects Related to Hydrogen Pathway Issues Relevant to U.S. DRIVE Goals
3-16 U.S. DRIVE Electric Drive Targets
3-17 DOE Electric Drive Projects Related to U.S. DRIVE Goals and Targets
3-18 DOE Energy Storage Projects Supporting the U.S. DRIVE Mission
3-19 Summary of PHEV Performance Status
3-20 Summary of BEV Battery Performance Status
3-21 Selections of Recent and Ongoing EERE Projects Related to Carbon Fiber and Composites
3-22 Annual Merit Review (AMR) Project List: Vehicle Technologies Office, Lightweight Materials
This page intentionally left blank.