EERE Hydrogen Program Issues RFI on Formation of New Centers of Excellence for R&D of Hydrogen-Storage Materials
20 January 2009
The US The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies Program issued a Request for Information (RFI) on the formation of new Centers of Excellence for the research and development of hydrogen storage materials. The on-board vehicle storage of hydrogen continues to be one of the most technically challenging barriers to the widespread commercialization of hydrogen-fueled light-duty vehicles.
The EERE hydrogen storage activity focuses primarily on the applied research and development (R&D) of low-pressure, materials-based technologies to allow for a driving range of more than 300 miles (500 km) while meeting packaging, cost, safety, and performance requirements to be competitive with current vehicles. While automakers have recently demonstrated progress with some prototype vehicles traveling more than 300 miles on a single fill, this driving range must be achievable across different vehicle models and without compromising space, performance or cost, the EERE says.
Since 2005, the DOE Hydrogen Program has funded cooperative research and development activities on hydrogen storage materials through three materials-focused Centers of Excellence (CoEs), one on each of on-board reversible metal hydrides, hydrogen adsorbents, and chemical hydrogen storage materials (which are, in general, regenerated off the vehicle). The current CoEs were originally planned as five-year efforts and are planned to end in 2010.
A new effort getting underway in FY 2009 is the Hydrogen Storage Engineering CoE that will provide a coordinated approach to the engineering R&D of on-board materials-based systems. The Engineering CoE is planned as a five-year effort and may produce up to three sub-scale prototype systems (based upon the most promising materials under consideration) as its final output (subject to go/no-go decision points).
DOE anticipates selecting one or more new materials-focused CoE(s) to start in FY 2010 as the current materials centers end, subject to appropriations. The new CoE(s) should be able to build upon the progress that has been made through the existing portfolio of projects, and the effort(s) should complement and coordinate with the Engineering CoE and program system analysis efforts.
The primary mission of the new CoE(s) will be to research and develop improved hydrogen storage materials that have the potential to meet DOE’s on-board hydrogen storage system targets: by 2015, systems achieving 3 kWh/kg (9 wt%), 2.7 kWh/L, and $2/kWh. The scope of the new CoE(s) may include consideration of scale-up of both material syntheses and off-board regeneration processes, and technologies enabling hydrogen storage for niche vehicles, stationary and portable power applications.
The purpose of the new RFI is to gather feedback from the research community and stakeholders prior to DOE issuing a new Center of Excellence Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). DOE will review and consider all responses to this RFI in its formulation of program strategies in the pursuant FOA.
The RFI is not an FOA. DOE will not reimburse costs associated with preparing any documents for this RFI, and there is no guarantee that an FOA will be issued subsequent to this RFI. DOE is not accepting applications at this time. DOE says it plans to issue an FOA in the future, and final details, including the anticipated award size, quantity, and timing of DOE-funded awards, will be subject to congressional appropriations and direction.
Comments on the RFI must be provided by no later than 11:59 p.m. EDT on 6 February 2009.
Resources
DOE RFI
Unfortunately, the RFI format does not seem to allow for thoughtful researcher to state "This is a really dumb idea; synthetic methane (or many other mature alternatives) would be much better, so stop wasting our country's funds and research talent on this stupid hydrogen quest".
I think it's notable that the initial development and push for plug-in hybrids came not from the DOE, but from private researchers and private companies.
We deserve better.
Posted by: Jim | 20 January 2009 at 10:08 AM
Jim: Wait a minute! "Private researchers and private companies?" Man don't you know the debil when you meet him? Anything "private" has got to be a elitist plot to destroy the working class! Over here in greenville we all hate private enterprise, schools, research and even that really stupid idea: a "right to privacy." Talk about dumb...
Posted by: Reel$$ | 20 January 2009 at 04:49 PM
How about if we form a company and spend a few billion dollars of taxpayer money to find a really cool way to store hydrogen economically in a small space. After 5 years of spending tax payer money on important research and fact finding trips to places like Hawaii, Brazil, Paris, London, Geneva, Tokyo and Shanghai, after 5 years of high tech research, spending, press releases about our progress and all the investors we line up...
we can ship them a gallon of methanol!
Geez, what a waste of time, resources and money.
Posted by: DaveD | 20 January 2009 at 05:39 PM
"Jim: Wait a minute!....."
WTF does this have to do with H2 or Jim's post?
Take your GOP talking point somewhere else.
Posted by: dursun | 20 January 2009 at 07:28 PM
Don't knock the DOE scientists and managers they have kids that they need to put through college.
This program schedule is beginning to sound like the one for the fusion reactor.
Posted by: Mannstein | 21 January 2009 at 05:46 PM
I see your clueless so ill smack you with the facts.
They are working on making a tank SYSTEM that can hold 30x what a battery can in FAR less space for 1/500th the cost.
Now the fuel cell itself is on target for a mass produced cost of just 30 bucks a kw.
So we have a cheap small light fuel cell combined with a small cheap tank and a fuel that costs only a few times more then electricity..as in very little per kwh....
Now imagine a city car made via fuel cell..
A 20 kw fuel cell the size of lunchbox costing just 600 to make mated to a small 1 kg fuel tank providing 21-22 kwh of total power for a range of say 150 miles... And a fill up costs only 5-6 bucks. Or just 2 and change at home from a steam reformer connected to nat gas supply. Heck you pay more then that for parking.
Or for the less thrifty.. a suv with a 12 kg tank holding 250 or so kwh of power and a 250 kw fuel cell stack costing just 7500 to make. The suv might have a range of say 400-500 miles. Cost to fill er up maybe 60-80 bucks a tank or about 30 ish from home reformer... if the suv fits in the garage that is;/
And the great thing is as the fuel cells get better your milage goes WAY up and costs go down even more.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 22 January 2009 at 06:01 PM
Wintermane,
It would be great if I was the clueless one, but your post has not convinced me.
Hydrogen does not need to compete with batteries. Almost anything is better than batteries for substantive energy storage. Hydrogen DOES need to compete with methane, or natural gas, or biomethane, or synthetic methane.
20 kw is not enough power for a car, even a small car. Peak power needs are much higher, 80-100 kw. 150 miles is not acceptable range, either.
The mileage (efficiency) advantage of fuel cells is better accomplished by devoting resources to plug-in hybrid technology instead, which can moderate energy flows (to some extent) and recover energy via regenerative braking.
An ordinary IC engine, burning methane and/or liquid fuel may not be too efficient, but is a very inexpensive way of providing high power peaks needed by the typical driver.
Most hydrogen tank storage technologies cite 10,000 psi figures when 5,000 psi compressors are what is most likely to be available to the consumer (if they are available at all). So from a practical viewpoint, the storage capabilities of the tanks are about half of what is cited.
The hydrogen economy suffers from a subtle problem in that each component in an of itself is quite attractive (fuel cells, no emission fuel, high efficiency, etc.) but the system as a whole can never be assembled together successfully. The overall system never seems to make sense.
Take your home steam reformer cited above. First, we will assume the CO2 byproduct is vented, as there is no mechanism to handle that waste product. The steam reformer is no more than 80% efficient, and probably much less so for a small unit. Compressing the H2 gas probably costs another 10% of the energy, albeit that's electrical power. So split the difference and call it 5%. So about 75% of the energy of the natural gas remains in the hydrogen in your tank. Let's call the nominal efficiency overall of the fuel cell 50%, which is probably generous because, as you know, efficiency of fuel cells goes down as you approach its power rating. That's a net efficiency of about 37.5% Not too bad. Except you need to pay for the home-based reformer, and the hydrogen infrastructure.
Compare this with an Atkinson cycle engine, which is about 30% efficient. The cost, power, and reliability issues are well-known for this mature technology. Add PHEV technology, and the overall efficiency of the vehicle is likely increased past the hydrogen fuel cell, due to regenerative breaking.
You haven't convinced me that hydrogen is not a highly problematic and impractical energy technology.
Posted by: Jim | 23 January 2009 at 09:10 AM
Jim I said CITY car as in one of those cheap little put put cars alot of people are using around the globe.
They dont need much power as they are tiny and not all that fast. They just need to be cheap and LIGHT.
As for steam reforming at home.. think again the cost to compress h2 has gone down alot and they arnt likely to need more then 5k psi as its only 1 kg they need to store.
As for the fuel cell itself the honda fuel cell is already 60% and has been that way for what.. 2 years now? By 2015 they will have already gotten much nearer 75-80%.
And my numbers were for 60% as I only realy needed 20 kwh of power to get my needed range.. city car 30 miles a day 5 days a week.
Its the suv where things realy look interesting as thats consuming far more energy then your gona fit in a battery and even a very good nat gas burning suv will have trouble with co2 limits.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 23 January 2009 at 10:15 AM
CO2 limits?
So there's no concern about the CO2 being emitted from your garage by your reformer? I'm sorry, but that's just crazy.
CO2 is not a contributor to smog, so no one should be concerned WHERE these emissions occur, only the net amount of these emissions. CO2 emissions from a reformer (or from a power plant, for that matter) are all part of the fuel mix (whatever it is) that is used in a vehicle. It's part of their emissions for their usage.
Methane vehicles are very low in other emissions (CO, NOx, SOX, etc.), so CO2 would be the only concern.
Posted by: Jim | 23 January 2009 at 12:10 PM
We are talking about politics remember.... making sense is an entirely different universe.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 23 January 2009 at 03:39 PM