DOE's FreedomCAR: Hurdles, Benchmarks for Progress, and Role in Energy Policy

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
June 6, 2002
09:30 AM
2123 Rayburn House Office Building 

The Honorable David K. Garman
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
US Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 6C-016
Washington, DC, 20585

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss FreedomCAR - our flagship research and development initiative to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil by dramatically changing how we power our cars and light trucks. 

By way of background, the most striking feature of our transportation system is its nearly complete dependence on petroleum as an energy source.  Petroleum is used to satisfy 95% of America's transportation energy needs, consuming two-thirds of all the petroleum we use.  Since roughly 55% of our petroleum is imported from abroad, the implications of this dependency on our energy security are well understood by the members of this Committee, and I need not dwell on them here. 

The "Gap" is Growing

This slide illustrates the expanding gap between declining domestic oil production and our increasing demand.  As you can see, opening the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration would clearly help, but that alone would not close the gap.  The R&D approach we were previously embarked on would have also helped. but would not have closed the gap either.  Indeed, both taken together would not have closed the gap. 

Mindful of these realities, Secretary Abraham challenged the Department of Energy to take a bolder approach to our work. He directed us to focus our efforts on programs that "revolutionize how we approach conservation and energy efficiency."  He challenged us to "leapfrog the status quo" and to pursue "dramatic environmental benefits."   

FreedomCAR is a Partnership

On January 9, 2002, Secretary Abraham, joined by top leadership from General Motors, Daimler Chrysler, and Ford, announced FreedomCAR at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.  

The CAR in FreedomCAR stands for Cooperative Automotive Research.  And the "Freedom" concept represents our fundamental, long-term goals for this program:

• Freedom from petroleum dependence;

•  Freedom from pollutant emissions;

• Freedom for Americans to choose the kind of vehicle they want to drive, and to drive where they want, when they want; and

•  Freedom to obtain fuel affordably and conveniently. 

We are seeking to develop cars and trucks that are free of foreign oil and harmful emissions, without sacrificing safety, freedom of mobility and freedom of vehicle choice.  We are looking to eventually remove the automobile as a factor in the environmental equation, and as a factor that drives our dependency on foreign petroleum.  

This is a dramatic, far reaching vision. one that requires new technology.  We cannot break the bonds of oil dependency by continuing with the status quo.  Given the low gasoline and diesel prices we enjoy today, we can reasonably expect consumers to continue demanding larger, heavier, more powerful vehicles, and vehicle manufacturers to continue using internal combustion engines to satisfy that demand. We clearly see this in the marketplace today.  The majority of the new passenger vehicles sold in 2001 were, for the very first time in automotive history, light trucks in the form of sport utility vehicles, vans and pickups. 

Strategic Approach

How is it possible to offer performance, convenience and functionality in a range of vehicles that can meet the needs of a diverse population without using petroleum?  We believe the most promising long-term approach is to employ hydrogen fuel cells combined with electric drive.

Therefore, the first element of our strategic approach is to develop technologies to enable mass production of affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles and assure the hydrogen infrastructure to support them. 

 Fuel cells, of course, can be thought of as batteries that are continuously replenished by a constant supply of hydrogen.  And hydrogen, the most plentiful element in the universe and the third most plentiful on earth, can be derived from a variety of sources including petroleum, natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water. 

But there are significant technical and infrastructure barriers that must be overcome, including fuel cell cost and durability; electric drive performance and cost; hydrogen production, storage, cost and distribution challenges; and many others.  Neither industry nor government, working alone, is likely to overcome these barriers in any reasonable timeframe.  Therefore, we must work in partnership.  

The partnership we have enjoyed in the past, the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PGNV), has had some successes, and we are certainly not abandoning those successes or the collaborations it fostered.  Indeed, many of the research elements of PNGV are embodied in the second element of our approach:  Namely, to continue support for hybrid technologies and advanced materials that can dramatically reduce oil consumption and environmental impacts in the nearer term. 

But one of the problems of PNGV was its focus on a production prototype of a family sedan.  Therefore, the third element of our strategic approach is to develop technologies applicable across a wide range of passenger vehicles. 

National Academy of Sciences Observations and Recommendations 

In its most recent peer review of the PNGV program, the National Academy of Sciences made a number of observations and recommendations, a few of which I will list here: 

• "[T]he priorities and specific goals of the PNGV program should be reexamined.  There is a need to update the program goals and technical targets in the context of current and prospective markets ... government and industry participants should refine the PNGV charter and goals." 

•  "[T]he demand for sport utility vehicles, vans, and pickup trucks in the United States has drastically increased ... This has increased the importance of reducing the fuel consumption of these vehicles compared to the typical family sedan." 

• "If the program goal (sic) were refocused on reducing total new light duty vehicle petroleum consumption, this would encourage the emphasis to be placed on those vehicles that offer the greatest potential for achieving this societal goal." 

• "...it is inappropriate to include the process of building production prototypes in a precompetitive, cooperative industry-government program." 

FreedomCAR differs from PNGV

We have accordingly made changes responsive to the observations and recommendations of the peer review panel.  With respect to key goals:  FreedomCAR is focused on petroleum free, emissions free transportation, with emphasis on hydrogen fuel cells.  PNGV was focused on building a production prototype 80 mile-per-gallon family sedan. 

With respect to timeframe:  FreedomCAR has a long-term vision with 2010 component technology goals to gauge progress. PNGV was a 10-year program focused on 2004. 

With respect to government leadership and focus:  FreedomCAR is a partnership solely between DOE and USCAR.

PNGV was a collaboration between USCAR and seven government agencies led by the Department of Commerce. 

With respect to technology emphasis: FreedomCAR is focused on hydrogen and fuel cells, with transitional efficiency gains from advanced combustion and fuel processors.  PNGV emphasized compression ignition direct injection (diesel) hybrids 

With respect to vehicle focus:  FreedomCAR's focus is R&D at the component level with equal emphasis on light trucks and cars.  PNGV emphasized development and demonstration of pre-production mid-sized family sedans. 

FreedomCAR and Hybrids share technology

Let me again emphasize that we are not abandoning the good work that has emerged from PNGV.  There are many shared components between an advanced hybrid electric vehicle and a fuel cell vehicle, including lightweight materials, power electronics, electric motors, and batteries.  Breakthroughs we make in these components need not wait for fuel cells or hydrogen infrastructure to reach the market, as they can be employed as soon as they are ready.   

We will also be continuing our work in alternative fuels and advanced combustion engines (including emissions controls R&D) that are needed to support the development of advanced hybrid electric vehicles. 

 Fuel Cell Vehicle Components

Of course, new areas of emphasis aboard the vehicle include hydrogen storage, on-board reformation, and fuel cell stack development. 

But we are also beginning to address the technologies necessary to make a transition to a hydrogen-based transportation economy.  Principal among these efforts will be solving the problems associated with producing and making hydrogen fuel widely available.  To that end, elements of the hydrogen program in the Office of Power Technologies (OPT) are being integrated into the FreedomCAR effort.  Efforts by DOE's Fossil Energy office on deriving hydrogen from coal (with sequestered carbon) are also being reviewed.  In addition, a related effort in OPT on hydrogen-fueled internal combustion engines is under consideration for inclusion.  

In November of 2001 my office convened senior executives representing energy industries, environmental organizations and government officials to discuss the role for hydrogen systems in America's energy future. This group addressed a common vision for the hydrogen economy, the time frame for the vision and the key milestones needed to get there. There was general agreement that hydrogen can be America's clean energy choice, and that the transition to a hydrogen future has already begun but could well take 40-50 years to fully unfold.  We are working on a specific technology roadmap covering production, storage, conversion and infrastructure that leads us to that vision, and we are continuing that work as a part of the FreedomCAR program plan.  

FreedomCAR Research Components and Spending Levels

My next slide shows our budget crosscut for FreedomCAR.  We are proposing to spend $150.3 million on this initiative in FY 2003.   The most notable changes in the FY 2003 budget are: 1) increased funding for vehicle fuel cell R&D of $8.075 million, to a level of $50 million, and 2) increased funding for hydrogen generation, transport and fueling infrastructure by $9.659 million relative to FY 2002 appropriation levels.

 Whereas PNGV was a multi-agency partnership, the only Federal partner in FreedomCAR is the Department of Energy.  Since the inception of PNGV, DOE has accounted for most of the government's contributions.  In FY 2001, we provided 86 percent of the funding that was directly relevant to the PNGV goals, and that was linked with the plans developed by the PNGV government-industry technical teams.  While other agencies are not formally involved as FreedomCAR partners, we intend to coordinate our work with the appropriate technology research, development and demonstration programs managed by other Federal agencies, and by State governments as well.  The mechanisms by which coordination is accomplished will be worked out during the next few months. 

Specific Technological Goals and Timetables

The transition to a hydrogen-based transportation system is a long-range vision.  To assure progress, nearer-term goals are necessary so that accomplishments can be measured and recognized.  Therefore, the Partnership has identified the following 2010 technology-specific goals.¹ 

2010 Technology Goals: Fuel Cell Powertrains

• To ensure reliable systems for future fuel cell powertrains with costs comparable to conventional internal combustion engine/automatic transmission systems, the goals are:  

  • Electric Propulsion System with a 15-year life capable of delivering at least 55kW for 18 seconds, and 30kW continuous at a system cost of $12/kW peak. 

  • 60% peak energy-efficient, durable fuel cell power system (including hydrogen storage) that achieves a 325 W/kg power density and 220 W/L operating on hydrogen.  Cost targets are at $45/kW by 2010 ($30/kW by 2015).² 

2010 Technology Goals: Hydrocarbon Fuel Platform

• To enable clean, energy-efficient vehicles operating on clean, hydrocarbon-based fuels powered by either internal combustion powertrains or fuel cells, the goals are:

  • Internal combustion engine powertrain systems costing $30/kW, having a peak brake engine efficiency of 45%, and that meet or exceed emissions standards. 

  • Fuel cell systems, including a fuel reformer, having a peak brake engine efficiency of 45%, and that meet or exceed emissions standards with a cost target of $45/kW by 2010 and $30/kW in 2015.^2,3

2010 Technology Goal: Hybrid Systems

• To enable reliable hybrid electric vehicles that are durable and affordable, the goal is: 

  • Electric drivetrain energy storage with 15-year life at 300 Wh with discharge power of 25 kW for 18 seconds and $20/kW.

2010 Technology Goals: Hydrogen Transition

• To enable the transition to a hydrogen economy, ensure widespread availability of hydrogen fuels, and retain the functional characteristics of current vehicles, the goals are:  

  • Demonstrated hydrogen refueling with developed commercial codes and standards and diverse renewable and non-renewable energy sources.  Targets: 70% energy efficiency well-to-pump; cost of energy from hydrogen equivalent to gasoline at market price, assumed to be $1.25 per gallon (2001 dollars).⁴ 

  • Hydrogen storage systems demonstrating an available capacity of 6 weight percent hydrogen, specific energy of 2000 W-h/kg, energy density of 1100 W-h/liter at a cost of $5/kWh.⁵ 

  • Internal combustion engine powertrain systems operating on hydrogen with a cost target of $45/kW by 2010 and $30/kW in 2015, having a peak brake engine efficiency of 45%, and that meet or exceed emissions standards. 

2010 Technology Goals: Manufacturing Base

• To improve the manufacturing base, the goal is: 

  • Material and manufacturing technologies for high volume production vehicles which enable/support the simultaneous attainment of:

    • 50% reduction in the weight of vehicle structure & subsystems,

    • affordability, and

    • Increased use of recyclable/renewable materials. 

Performance Based Management

• Key metrics to be tracked annually

  • 2010 goals supported by targets and milestones detailed in EERE's Budget Request

  • All FreedomCAR work to be assessed annually against the R&D investment criteria developed as part of the President's Management Agenda

I understand that these goals are highly technical, and they all have a target year of 2010.  I also understand that the NAS criticized PNGV for not developing interim milestones for its ten-year "stretch" goals.  Therefore, we are developing a suite of easily understandable key metrics that can be presented graphically and will be tracked annually so that we can measure our progress. 

We have also developed numerous supporting objectives for the various sub-programs that will contribute to the FreedomCAR goals.  We have identified an easily quantifiable performance indicator for each of these objectives to ensure that all of the sub-programs are making progress. 

In addition, as with all DOE applied R&D programs, FreedomCAR R&D will be assessed annually against the R&D investment criteria developed as part of the President's Management Agenda to ensure that the R&D: 

• Does not drift into areas that are inappropriate for Federal investment

• Will maintain strong merit and is well planned

• Is producing beneficial results  

Furthermore, FreedomCAR R&D will strictly follow the cost-sharing guidelines developed with the Administration's R&D investment criteria. 

Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, our vision for FreedomCAR is a bold one, in response to Secretary Abraham's challenge that we act boldly to "revolutionize how we approach conservation and energy efficiency."  

FreedomCAR is clearly a long-term effort beyond any near-term political horizon.  But even as we pursue our ultimate vision of emissions-free, petroleum-free, safe and affordable transportation, we have developed near-term goals to ensure that we make measurable, demonstrable progress toward that vision in the coming decade.  

And again, while we do face significant technology and infrastructure risks, the exceptional rewards and national benefits we could achieve justifies the effort. 

I welcome your questions.

1.        Cost references based on CY 2001 dollar values.   Where power (kW) targets are specified, those targets are to ensure that technology challenges that would occur in a range of light-duty vehicle types would have to be addressed.

2.        Does not include vehicle traction electronics.

3.        Includes fuel cell stack subsystem, fuel processor subsystem and auxiliaries; does not include fuel tank.

4.        Targets are for hydrogen dispensed to a vehicle assuming a reforming, compressing and dispensing system capable of dispensing 150 kilograms per day (assuming 60,000 SCF per day of NG is fed for reforming at the retail dispensing station) and servicing a fleet of 300 vehicles per day (assuming 0.5 kgs used in each vehicle per day).  Targets are also based on several thousand stations, and possibly demonstrated on several hundred stations.  Technologies may also include chemical hydrides such as sodium boro-hydride.

5.        Based on lower heating value of hydrogen; allows over 300-mile range.

Related Documents

Printer Friendly

Comment On This Page

Related Documents