The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Summary
Pages 3-18

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 3... ... for 2050 time frame. Rather than a prediction of the future, the the development of fuel cell technologies and the transition committee developed a scenario based on its estimate of the from petroleum to hydrogen in a significant percentage of maximum practicable penetration rate, assuming that technithe vehicles sold by 2020." cal goals are met, that consumers readily accept HFCVs, and In 2007, the NRC formed the Committee on Assessment that policy instruments are in place to drive the introduction of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technolo of hydrogen fuel and fuel cell vehicles through the market gies. Read the entire page →
From page 4... ... However, these vehicles are unlikely to be tions will be needed to ensure marketplace success for cost-competitive until several years after 2020 even if the oil-saving and greenhouse-gas-reducing technologies, maximum practicable number is reached. It will thus require including hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Read the entire page →
From page 5... ... Based on its technical assessment, the committee concluded that under the maximum practicable • DSMR technology can be commercially available in number of vehicles scenario, a significant market transition sufficient quantities to fuel HFCVs at the DOE-FCFP cost to HFCVs could start around 2015 if supported by strong goal of $3.00/kg hydrogen in 2015, when a transition to fuel government policies to drive early growth, even if DOE cell vehicles might begin. Because a kilogram of hydrogen technology targets are not fully realized. Read the entire page →
From page 6... ... , but they have not yet been integrated with carbon sequestration. Nor has deep maximum practicable deployment of fuel geological sequestration of CO2 yet been demonstrated in cell vehicles the United States at the scale envisioned for a commercial hydrogen plant. Read the entire page →
From page 7... ... Oil Use and CO2 Emissions Achieving the Hydrogen Success case, however, would be challenging -- requiring significant continued technical Another objective of this study was to assess the potential progress, consumer acceptance, and policies to achieve mar- of HFCVs to achieve significant reductions in oil imports ket penetration of HFCVs during the early transition period. and CO2 emissions. Read the entire page →
From page 8... ... Annual gasoline consumption and (right) annual well-to-wheels greenhouse gas emissions for the Hydrogen Success 1800 case relative to a reference case with no hydrogen vehicles. Read the entire page →
From page 9... ... . These rough estimates of annual government CONCLUSION 7: The unit costs of fuel cell vehicles and RD&D funding were projected to 2023, the breakeven year hydrogen in the Hydrogen Success scenario -- the maxi- for HFCVs in the Hydrogen Success case (see Chapter 7) Read the entire page →
From page 10... ... 45 40 35 H2 supply operating Billions $2005 per year H2 supply capital cost 30 Fuel cell vehicle cost 25 20 15 10 5 0 08 09 22 20 23 21 10 16 18 19 12 13 15 14 17 11 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Year FIGURE S.3 Total annual expenditures for vehicles and hydrogen supply for transition to the breakeven year for the Hydrogen Success FigureSum-3.eps case, excluding RD&D costs. The cumulative cost, shared by government and industry, totals $184 billion, of which 91 percent is the cost of fuel cell vehicles and 9 percent is the cost of hydrogen supply (about half for infrastructure costs and half for additional operating costs, mainly natural gas feedstock) Read the entire page →
From page 11... ... Hydrogen Success scenario) would be the incremental cost of energy bill. purchasing HFCVs, plus about half the total cost of building and operating the infrastructure needed to supply hydrogen during the transition period. Read the entire page →
From page 12... ... Similarly, to the extent that HFCV imports from the funding required to launch the maximum practicable sce non-U.S. automakers contribute to the hydrogen transition, nario for fuel cell vehicles, it is unlikely that federal funding the magnitude of U.S. Read the entire page →
From page 13... ... and fuel. As noted above, policy measures that significantly limit CO2 emissions also will be required to ensure that CONCLUSION 9: The estimated government cost to sup- hydrogen is produced in ways that do not add to the burden port a transition to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is roughly of greenhouse gas emissions. Read the entire page →
From page 14... ... of central hydrogen production with CCS in the 2025 time frame, as assumed in the Hydrogen Success scenario. Again, Advanced Conventional Vehicles utilities and other companies, working with their regulatory commissions, could be given incentives to pursue the large- Conventional power trains and vehicles have continued scale demonstration of these technologies more rapidly. Read the entire page →
From page 15... ... The committee estimated CONCLUSION 12: Continued advancements in conven- that domestic resources for cellulosic biomass would allow tional vehicles offer significant potential to reduce oil use production of about 45 billion to 60 billion gallons of celluand CO2 emissions through improved fuel economy, but losic ethanol by 2050, potentially displacing about 20 percent policy measures and/or significant long-term increases of the baseline gasoline demand estimate for that year. in fuel cost probably will be required to realize these Biodiesel, a fuel produced from animal or plant oils such potential fuel economy gains in a significant number of as soy, would reduce oil use and greenhouse gas emissions on-road vehicles. Read the entire page →
From page 16... ... conventional light-duty and hybrid vehicles follow the refer Toward this end, the committee developed and analyzed ence case, which includes the 2007 CAFE standards through additional scenarios for the two selected alternative tech- 2020, but then could potentially deliver greater reductions in nologies with technological optimism and aggressive imple- U.S. oil demand and CO2 emissions compared to the Hydro mentation similar to those for the Hydrogen Success case gen Success scenario, through about 2040. Read the entire page →
From page 17... ... 100,000 Case 4 is likely Benefits of a Portfolio Approach to require a portfolio approach that takes advantage of the 80,000 Reference Based on a comparison of the three scenarios in Figure 60,000 synergies among these technologies. For example, many of S.5, the committee concluded that no single approach is the 40,000 technologies needed to improve the fuel economy of 20,000 likely to deliver both significant midterm and long-term conventional vehicles, including weight reduction, improved 0 reductions in oil demand and greenhouse gas emissions. Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... : A portfolio of technologies including hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, EIA (Energy Information Administration) Read the entire page →

From page 3...

... for 2050 time frame. Rather than a prediction of the future, the the development of fuel cell technologies and the transition committee developed a scenario based on its estimate of the from petroleum to hydrogen in a significant percentage of maximum practicable penetration rate, assuming that technithe vehicles sold by 2020." cal goals are met, that consumers readily accept HFCVs, and In 2007, the NRC formed the Committee on Assessment that policy instruments are in place to drive the introduction of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technolo of hydrogen fuel and fuel cell vehicles through the market gies.

Summary Pages 3-18

Summary
Pages 3-18