Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix H: Report of the Panel of Benefits of Fuel Cell R&D
Pages 102-119

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 102...
... logical and economic success of the various fuel cell projects · The panel reports were prepared for the sole purpose of under current funding projections. Insofar as possible, they developing the methodology.
From page 103...
... Further mittee, including economic, environmental, and national se- more, the subpanel believes that to compare the benefits with curity benefits. Environmental and national security benefits the costs of the program requires that all elements of the may be left in physical units (e.g., tons of emissions or bar- Hydrogen, Fuel Cell and Infrastructure Technologies rels of oil imported)
From page 104...
... Comment Energy efficiency at Percent 60 2010 80 H No This goal is too soft. An efficiency versus power curve is 25 percent of needed.
From page 105...
... Hydrogen fuel cells have undeniable environmental and security advantages if hydrogen can be produced from do- · CO2 sequestration was not included in the calculations of the benefits supplied to the subpanel by DOE. mestic sources of renewable energy or fossil energy with · Program costs through 2005 are those provided by DOE technologies that handle the carbon dioxide (CO2)
From page 106...
... Program (portion funded by Interior and Related Agencies appropriation) Program Goals: Cost, $30/kW; durability, 5,000 hours; efficiency, 60 percent; cold start at­20C°, 30 seconds.
From page 107...
... per year) and security benefits Probabilities Estimation (0.124 million bbl per day of oil [45 million bbl per year]
From page 108...
... However, unless the inputs to these models are transpar- conduct R&D on hydrogen only, without a parallel program ent, reasonable, and validated and have continuity with the in fuel cells, would ignore the interdependence of these proavailable experimental data and program goals, the use of grams and would deprive the government of firsthand inforthese complex models only hides overly optimistic or erro- mation about the mutual needs of the programs. The entire neous assumptions and yields results that have only the ap 7 Philip Patterson, U.S.
From page 109...
... As an example, this subpanel would fuel cell program independently of the HFCIT program is have identified the need to ask DOE about its assumptions inappropriate, as already discussed. Consequently, the ma- for calculating benefits, whether other scenarios had been trix is good only for illustrative purposes and not for evaluat- considered, and whether experimental data or program goals ing the benefits of the program, which was the subpanel's had been used in generating the inputs to the models.
From page 110...
... The subpanel used information provided on the DOE $12.9 million for fuel cell/turbine hybrids.10 Web site, including program descriptions, contractor presen Although there are many stationary fuel cell technolo- tations at program review meetings, and peer review sumgies,11 FE's current program focuses on solid oxide fuel cells maries of the DOE program. Other data sources included (SOFCs)
From page 111...
... Benefits Benefits Security Benefits Expected FIGURE H-2 Prospective benefits matrix for the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) program.
From page 112...
... Program for Three Global Scenarios Economic Benefits Global Scenario The subpanel employed two simplistic methods to com High Oil Carbon Constrainedc pute potential economic benefits of the SECA program. Reference and Gas These methods provide a quick check on the benefits de- Casea Pricesb Low High rived by DOE from runs made with the very sophisticated NEMS model.
From page 113...
... . SECA funding levels appear to be matched to the desired No NEMS projections are presented concerning SECA fuel program goals.
From page 114...
... . The common elements of these two matrixes TABLE H-6 Inputs and Assumptions Used in Method 1 are the economic, environmental, and national security benefits, realized either in retrospect or projected for the future.
From page 115...
... These considerations disappear systems. from the prospective benefits matrix.
From page 116...
... In any case, a careful con- · Describe the target market for the developed technoltinuing observation and study of the overall SECA program ogy, would be required in order to provide a meaningful estimate · Project cost data concerning R&D program funding, of the probability of achieving program goals. Such a study and would be greatly facilitated by the establishment of techni- · Describe the national security benefits.
From page 117...
... She has DOE SECA program, which are consistent with DOE's pre- been associate director for planning and development, dictions. This latter result is not unexpected, as the subpanel Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where she was reassumed that all program goals were achieved and used DOE sponsible for strategic planning for research and facilities, and NEMS data for inputs to its benefits calculations.
From page 118...
... He has researching fuel cell, battery electric, and hybrid electric served on a number of NRC committees, including the Com- vehicle technologies, as well as photovoltaics.
From page 119...
... Mr. Wolk manager of the Micro-Generation Technology Fund, LLC, served on the NRC Committee on R&D Opportunities for and the five Utech venture funds.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.