US to Partner With Portugal On Wave Energy
US Vehicle Miles Travelled Dropping

US DOE Seeks to Invest up to $130 Million in Advanced Fuel Cell Technology

The US Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for up to $130 million over three years, subject to Congressional appropriations, to advance the development and use of fuel cells for automotive, stationary, and portable power applications.

In addition to seeking proposals for R&D projects in the areas of transportation, stationary, and portable power, DOE is also seeking proposals to demonstrate fuel cells in distributed energy systems and to support market transformation that provide real-world operation data.

The FOA is requesting applications for hydrogen fuel cell systems in seven topic areas:

Technical Targets for Electrocatalysts for Transportation Applications
Characteristic Units Stack targets
2010 2015
Platinum group metal total content (both electrodes) G/kW (rated) 0.3 0.2
Platinum group metal (PGM) total loading mg PGM/cm2 electrode area 0.3 0.2
Cost $/kW 5 3
Durability with cycling
Operating temp ≤80°C
Operating temp >80°C
hours 5,000
2,000
5,000
5,000
Electrochemical area loss % <40 <40
Electrocatalyst support loss mV after 100 hours @ 1.2V <30 <30
Mass activity A/mg Pt @ 900 mViR-free 0.44 0.44
Specific Activity µA/cm2 @ 900 mViR-free 720 720
Non-Pt catalyst activity per volume of supported catalyst A/cm3 @ 800 mViR-free >130 300
  1. Catalyst Studies, including ultra-low PGM (platinum group metals) cathode catalysts; non-PGM catalysts; and durable anode catalysts;
  2. Innovative Concepts for fuel cell and system materials and component structures;
  3. Fuel Cell Degradation Studies, including accelerated testing validation and system and air impurities effects;
  4. Transport within the PEM Stack, including both transport studies and freeze effects;
  5. Portable Power, including improved materials for portable power and portable electronics balance of plant and packaging;
  6. Fuel Cell System Demonstrations, including stationary PEM power systems and solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) power systems; and
  7. Market Transformation Activities, including emergency backup power systems and fuel cell powered material handling equipment.

The DOE anticipates making up to 50 awards through this competitive funding opportunity, which is open to industry, universities, and national laboratories. With a minimum 20% private sector cost share for the R&D projects and a minimum 50% applicant cost share for the demonstration projects, the total DOE and private sector investment in advanced hydrogen fuel cell technologies under this funding opportunity may exceed $170 million.

The DOE strongly encourages teaming arrangements among industry (such as fuel cell developers, catalyst/membrane suppliers, and component developers), federal laboratories, and universities to take advantage of the best complementary expertise and technologies available from the different organizations.

A separate National Laboratory Call (DE-PS36-08GO98010), titled “Laboratory Call for Research, Development, and Demonstration of Fuel Cell Technologies for Automotive, Stationary, and Portable Power Applications,” offers opportunities for National Laboratories to submit applications as primary applicants.

The two announcements are parallel to each other and projects will be evaluated and selected using the same criteria. The total DOE funding available for all new awards selected from both announcements is estimated to be $130,500,000 over 2-4 years, with no predetermined division of funding between the two announcements.

Applications for the fuel cell funding opportunity are due on or before August 27, 2008, with funding subject to appropriations from Congress.

In addition to the FOA opportunity, the DOE expanded its own fleet of alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles with the addition of a GM Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell electric vehicle.

DOE’s new Chevrolet Equinox fuel cell electric vehicle is a zero emissions vehicle powered by hydrogen and will be used to transport DOE employees to official events and meetings in the Washington, DC area.

Resources

Comments

A big problem with the hydrogen economy is that it depends on the successful development/improvement of not just one but several issues that each are enough to prevent it from happening in the first place. The issues are:

1) Low cost fuel cells.

2) Low cost and compact hydrogen storage.

3) Low cost hydrogen generation. It must be made from electrolysis of water with renewable electricity, because fossil fuels will be prohibitively expensive (price change) and unacceptable polluting (CO2 attitude change) within the next 6 years.

Now assign a 50% chance that each of these three issues can be solved within the next 10 years that is Y2018 and you get 0.5^3 = 12.5% chance that in 2018 we will be ready to begin a massive construction of a hydrogen infrastructure that in it selves will take decades to build.

Let’s continue to research hydrogen but while we wait for results lest expand the fueling infrastructure for E85 and compressed natural gas. With some rather modest subsidies it should be possible to upgrade 10-20% of all gas stations to carry these fuels as well within 6 years. Pipelines to distribute the ethanol cost effectively should also be built now.

Global peak oil with declining oil supplies is coming within 10 years from now most think and we should prepare for it now so that it does not create a major global and multiyear recession.

Henrik

my post above

DS

This could be better spent if they took 130 million singles $ and tossed it out airplanes.

It seems like a lot of money has been spent on hydrogen with such a poor chance of return.. but hydrogen is popular with greenies, and it can be made with nuclear power.

Jer

I am surprised that many think that there will be this easily definable point where people can say: 'look, now we have a hydrogen economy".
I think it is more likely that hydrogen will be part of a grand collection of localized alternative fuel sources- including bio, full electro, etc.
Infrastructure will more likely based on fueling stations out of people's own homes - i.e. reforming natural gas and/or electrolysis from solar panels/wind on property and/or electrolysis off grid and/or some on-property bio-conversion-type set-up. All of these exist in residential single-family home configurations elsewhere in the world such as Japan and Scandinavia. A hydrogen infrastructure will likely be limited to a few scattered stations mostly at malls and the sides of the Interstate. There will be no need to hook-up every gas station with a hydrogen line.
Also, I believe take-up in the high-tech corridors will be much more rapid than in the centre or south of the country (i.e. california to washington state and north-east states). Other areas will likely state with low-tech solutions such as 2nd gen bio-fuels. I predict 20% of all passenger vehicles take-up of H2 within these high-tech corridors by 2015, 40% by 2025, and topping out at 60% after 2030. Other areas of the US will have take-ups half of this. And it will be so gradual that it will be as anti-climactic and behind-the-scenes as the Y2K thing.
Cost affordability will be solved by a leasing program where you will not own your own car.
All of these ideas are based on extrapolation from the wealth of technological news out there.
The only thing that I have not heard about conclusively is the actual fuel price - whether we can get a 300mile trip for $30 or not. I am confident that hydrogen will be a significant but not overwhelming part of our infrastructure within the next 25 years.

John Taylor

Another $130 million poured down the hydrogen highway.

We know that hydrogen is dangerous, inefficient because it involves several energy transfers, and has severe issues with delivery and filling systems. The best fuel cell has a severely limited life, and uses heavy metals (especially platinum) which get spread out across the environment over its lifetime.

We can calculate the world platinum reserves and see how few cars could run on fuel cells and for how few miles. The limited total is pitiful and inadequate for a robust economy. Also, no studies are available considering the effect of distributing platinum into the environment.

There are obvious and better ways to invest 130 million.
1 ) Invest in wind power generation. A small (5 to 10 kW) wind generator on each street lamp post and home would go a long way to providing the worlds energy needs.

2 ) Invest in solar power generation. The sun is shining bright during times of 'peak power usage' and is a great way to power our world.

3 ) Invest in improved BATTERY technology. Storing power for grid peaks, and for transportation is a job batteries and ultra capacitors do well. The field is growing and we see new discoveries being made regularly. The batteries available NOW will drive cars 300 km per charge, and are a very viable transportation option. Economies of scale will soon bring prices down.

4 ) Invest in electric drive system technology, and electric car design.

I'm sure others can come up with even better ways to invest the public funds.
One thing is sure, we need an “off-oil-highway” not a “hydrogen-only-highway” to meet tomorrow's needs.

wintermane

Where in gods flaming nutbunnies did you get such silly info?

1 as far as I know guel cells dont leak platinum... mainly because there is no way in heck the platinum is going anywhere...

2 Fuel cells now can last 4 to 10000 operating jours... a LONG time and that still leaves the buggers with most of thier ability to power things...
The costs have dropped like a rock as both series production and new membranes have reduced cost a ton.

As for the fuel tank.. honda has a 4 jg 5 k psi tank... thats 80 jwh of energy storage gm has 3kg 10j tanks.. the ind has standard 5kpsi 50hg tanks... thats 1 Mwh of energy.

As for making h2... unless you have been living in a cave you may have notice fuels are now going higher and will pass h2 and already have in many markets...

Why do you think soo many companies and soo many countries many having no love of big oil are going big on h2?

Because just as one misses the potential of batteries by not knowing where they are headed you jabe no clue how fuel cells are going unless you know where they will be 5-10 years out and only industry inmsiders and gov bigwigs get told that sort of info.

ACAGal

I agree with half of Mr Taylor, comments.

I believe that if you have a PHEV with a fuel generation system onboard, the fuel could be a flex fuel system: Hydrogen, bio-diesel, gas as options to extend the battery range beyond the home to work commute.

I agree with the following of Mr Taylor's comments:
"1 ) Invest in wind power generation. A small (5 to 10 kW) wind generator on each street lamp post and home would go a long way to providing the worlds energy needs.

I not only agree with this, I have solar.
2 ) Invest in solar power generation. The sun is shining bright during times of 'peak power usage' and is a great way to power our world.

3 ) Invest in improved BATTERY technology. Storing power for grid peaks, and for transportation is a job batteries and ultra capacitors do well. The field is growing and we see new discoveries being made regularly. The batteries available NOW will drive cars 300 km per charge, and are a very viable transportation option. Economies of scale will soon bring prices down.

With #4 I agree, but the range is so limited with battery only, that an additional generation system makes sense too. http://www.brightcove.tv/title.jsp?title=340392531&channel=212469179&lineup=340109412

4 ) Invest in electric drive system technology, and electric car design."

Engineer-Poet

Jer writes:

Infrastructure will more likely based on fueling stations out of people's own homes - i.e. reforming natural gas and/or electrolysis from solar panels/wind on property and/or electrolysis off grid and/or some on-property bio-conversion-type set-up.
Just a few problems with those concepts.
  1. The USA uses about 28 quads/year of motor fuel, but only has about 19 quads of natural gas.  If hydrogen is supplied by reforming natural gas, where's the extra natural gas going to come from?
  2. Electrolytic hydrogen has a throughput efficiency of about 25%, per Dr. Ulf Bossel (I got similar results).  Battery-electric is over 75% efficient.  Who can afford to more than triple their RE system size to deal with the losses of a hydrogen system?
  3. Don't forget, high-pressure tanks are expensive, and PEM fuel cells are both expensive and short-lived.
If we create energy as electricity, we are best served by keeping it as electricity.  If we need renewable, storable chemical fuels, we can make alcohols or the like from biomass and use them in e.g. solid-oxide fuel cells.  Hydrogen is just a waste of energy, in several senses.

wintermane

It must drive you nuts as each project pops up. Ah well im glad im not you this if going to be one interesting decafe comming up and soo many on all sides upset at battery worl fuel cell work ethanol nuke fusion blah blah blah.. will be so wonderfully unhappy.

And people like me just enjoy what comes. And watching others climb the walls.

Jer

@Engineer-Poet:

The point of
"...i.e. reforming natural gas and/or electrolysis from solar panels/wind on property and/or electrolysis off grid and/or some on-property bio-conversion-type set-up..."
is the flexibility of the input source and somewhat durable nature of retaining the energy during non-peak periods. This is crucial. Far more important than many other 'buyability' points.

I don't debate your numbers or any of the concepts you list. All very logical and rational - but that's the problem. The world doesn't run on logical and rational - regular people don't buy/invest/use things that are logical and rational. People buy cars because it fits their specific purpose - cost per trip occasionally, driveability often (acceleration, etc.), styling occasionally, load-carry ability often, etc. (Witness SUV and sports car purchases as a percentage of overall sales upto 2 years ago) Very few battery-centric auto systems at the current and foreseeable future have the technology to address these issues (especially distance and recharge times) acceptably. This is why engineers (and their obsession with logic) seldom run anything, never sell anything, and are generally not involved in delivering-the-product finished to the customer/public; only solving specific problems. I am not biased -> I am an Engineer - though young and not in mech or elec. Should we be dis-spirited by the irrationality of people? - of course.

I think the key and defining issues for reasonable uptake of a fuel-system are: cost of a 300-mile trip and availabiilty of fuel sources. I have not read 'compelling' literature that states these two issues are 'far from being solved' in regards to hydrogen.

Engineer-Poet
The point ... is the flexibility of the input source and somewhat durable nature of retaining the energy during non-peak periods. This is crucial.
You are making two claims here:
  1. The input source for hydrogen is flexible (implication:  more flexible than alternatives)
  2. The energy of hydrogen can be retained (implication:  more easily retained than other media)
But to make a case for hydrogen as the preferred option, you have to show that it is superior to the alternatives.  In fact, it is quite inferior on those very criteria:
  1. Hydrogen made from wind, solar, hydro and conventional nuclear power is at a severe efficiency disadvantage to hydrogen made from coal and natural gas (thermochemical processes may remove that disadvantage for very high temperature nuclear reactors, but none are even in the demonstration stage yet).
  2. Hydrogen isn't as easily stored as solids (e.g. bio-char), liquids (e.g. bio-oil and alcohols) or even compressed air.
Let's look at one of the cheapest and most readily available media, compressed air.  If we store e.g. wind energy as compressed air at 50% efficiency and use it in EV's at 86% efficiency, the net at the wheels is 43%.  Per Bossel's analysis, the equivalent throughput for hydrogen via electrolyzers and fuel cells is ~25%; the compressed-air system yields 72% more energy out for the same input.  It accomplishes this without a new fuel infrastructure, explosive gases or precious metals.  Finally, it can not only back up the vehicular energy supply, but anything that runs off the electric grid.  Hydrogen is clearly the inferior choice.
The world doesn't run on logical and rational - regular people don't buy/invest/use things that are logical and rational.
They don't?  When there's a 3x cost difference for no advantage, everyone I know takes notice.
This is why engineers (and their obsession with logic) seldom run anything, never sell anything, and are generally not involved in delivering-the-product finished to the customer/public; only solving specific problems.
You forget that engineers provide the raw material for marketers, and a 3.4x cost advantage gives marketers a heck of a lot to work with.  Ponder the simple example of the fractional-horsepower induction motor.  There are entire classes of products which simply would not exist without it, from phonograph turntables to desktop electric fans to the hermetically sealed vapor-compression refrigeration system and everything which depends on it.  This was the product of one engineer solving one specific problem.  The engineer's name was Tesla, true, but we are talking about a similar difference of effectiveness.

Not much good for fuel.
Centaur boosters, chemicals
Are its best uses.

I think the key and defining issues for reasonable uptake of a fuel-system are: cost of a 300-mile trip and availabiilty of fuel sources.
Who drives mainly 300-mile trips?  The majority of drivers cover less than 40 miles on a typical workday.  If we can cut our liquid fuel needs by 80% using PHEV-40's, we can manage the rest using bio-ethanol.  The claimed production cost of bio-ethanol is under $2/gallon, while the cost of "green gasoline" using the GreenFreedom process is $4.60/gallon.  Replace enough chemical fuel with electricity and the problem solves itself; hydrogen doesn't solve anything, it just creates more problems, of which a new $1 trillion infrastructure is just the beginning.  The only way it can be sold to the public is by refusing to say what it's going to cost, and there are too many truth-tellers out there.  Forget hydrogen.

wintermane

Well no wonder you scrwqws up EP that data is old.

They now have 85% eff cheap room temp electrolysis systems as has been reported several times on this site and hondas fuel cell stack is 60% efficient as also reported on this site and the sompressors now used.. require only a small amount of power to run.. 6% of the energy conyained in the h2.

Thats far far faaar better then 25% overall. And thats with a fuel cell of this gen already nearly 2 years old the target for 2012 is 75.

I could go on and on about all the changes since that report but realy why bother.. its a different world now get off your ass and read .

Engineer-Poet
They now have 85% eff cheap room temp electrolysis systems as has been reported several times on this site and hondas fuel cell stack is 60% efficient as also reported on this site and the sompressors now used.. require only a small amount of power to run.. 6% of the energy conyained in the h2.
Oh, how nice.  Given the compression energy, we're down to 78% * 60% or a whole 47%.  This is roughly equal to the efficiency of the EV using 100% compressed-air energy storage... but you have to pay the efficiency penalty all the time.  When the EV is charging using electricity at the time of production, it runs at ~86% efficiency.

How are the hydrogen folks doing on getting rid of precious metals?

And thats with a fuel cell of this gen already nearly 2 years old the target for 2012 is 75.
Whereas we can produce batteries with 95% efficiency and 10-minute charging time today, and they're much cheaper than hydrogen systems.

wintermane

Made a math error there ep its 80 not 78 as the 6% is of the energy IN the h2 not in making it. So it winds up at 49% vs 85% for bev as you just stated.. so thats only a 60^ premeium.. and when the new fuel cells hit..

And the range is important so is the fact most places gas is now more spendy or near the cost of h2.

On precious metals yes they have made great strides on that specialy this last year but as always they keep mum about the exact figures.

Oh and rp rvrn got yjr next 15 years unless china starts belting out cheap little fuel cells I expect the systems to mainly pop into trucks and suvs where they need 2-400 kwh or total storage.. a place even you must agree we dont want batteries wasted filling.

Engineer-Poet

I don't want SUVs at all, at least not until they are required to have their bumpers go down far enough that they don't ride over cars.

MekhongKurt

Since I'm not a scientist or engineer, I'm poorly qualified to assess the possibilities of any energy sources, whether currently available ones, ones under development, or one still only dreamed of or unknown.

But as a greatly interested lay consumer who does try to follow the entire field of environmental-energy issues and developments, I am for exploring all possible alternatives, including hydrogen, despite the difficulties it poses, which even a layman can understand in broad outline.

I personally think solar, wind, and water energy (as in wave motion, etc.) hold great promise. I grew up on a small ranch in Texas, and next to a barn was an old-fashioned windmill like those we used to see all over the Great Plains and elsewhere that not only pumped water out of the ground but kept a simple car battery charged enough to power a bright light (though not one burning 24/7, necessarily), even when the wind wasn't blowing, and even power an electric hand tool for awhile. And that was a very primitive system Dad set up initially because there were no power lines to that part of the farm. As he often had to be in the barn at night, having a reliable light source was a real help.

As for water, some months ago I read about a family in some Colorado town who wanted to build a small weekend cabin a few miles outside the small city in which the parents lived and worked. When they look for a plot of land to buy for the cabin, they happened to find one just the right size for a full-blown home on a moderately steep mountainside adjacent to a paved (and well-maintained) state road -- with a nice mountain stream flowing smack dab through the middle of it, at a reasonably swift rate.

They changed their plan, and instead built a two-storey residence in a square arch shape, one leg on one side of the stream, the other on the other side.

In the gap beneath the second floor spanning the stream, they put a waterwheel -- nothing fancy, a plain, old, boring waterwheel the man built from trash parts he salvaged from the local garbage dump, for the most part. They also decided to replace their remaining energy-wasting household goods with green ones, something they were already doing anyway.

They did install batteries and a couple solar panels as back-ups in case the stream ran really low (which it had never been known to do) or, more likely, the water wheel needed to be repaired or replaced.

They were able to generate enough electricity to power their entire home, keep the batteries charged, and even to make a buck or two -- the local power company asked them to plug into the public grid and sell excess energy to the system.

Between doing everything on the cheap where possible, using energy-efficient appliances, having a zero electricity bill each month, and selling excess power, their payback time was something like only 4-5 years (as I recall).

It's clear something needs to be done, sooner or later, whatever the true date is we recover the last drop of oil possible, whether that's in a few decades or a thousand years from now. And now's a very good time to kick research and development into ever-higher gear.

Just two cents' worth from a keen observer.

hydrogen alternative fuel

wow cool really good stuff

The comments to this entry are closed.