The hydrogen economy's nitty-gritty details explained by the DOE
Filed under: Hydrogen, AutoblogGreen Exclusive, Legislation and Policy

Sigmund Gronich scoffed at me. I'd just told him that I write for AutoblogGreen and wanted to get his name right for the post about the presentation he and others had just given at the 2006 Fuel Cell Seminar in Honolulu. He chuckled to himself – and to the surrounding delegates from the fuel cell industry – and rolled his eyes. I asked him what he was worried about. He said, "Who knows what you guys write on your blogs." Well, Siggy – can I call you Siggy? – what I wanted to share the information that you and your co-presenters gave with a wider audience. Would that be all right with you? I hope so, because here it is.
Gronich is technology validation manager at the U.S. Department of Energy – Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies. He led a group of researchers – including Julie Perez, project engineer at Directed Technologies Incorporated, Paul Leiby, senior scientist-environmental sciences division at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Margo Melendez, senior project Leader at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory – in a presentation called U.S. DOE Scenario Analyses of a Nascent National Hydrogen Transportation System. This presentation was a snapshot of what the DOE understands right now about how the upcoming hydrogen economy might be installed. The scenarios (described below) the teams are looking at are at the recommendation of the National Research Council, and Gronich's team will present their final report to the NRC in March 2007. As if this needs to be said considering the topic, but the hydrogen economy is a work in progress.
(read the rest after the jump)

Gronich gave the opening and closing remarks in Honolulu, but the bulk of the information came from Leiby, Melendez and Perez. If you want to know what the DOE is saying publicly about the upcoming hydrogen economy today, there the ones to break it down. The real short version of what they said is that, yes, the hydrogen transportation economy is nascent in all possible ways. We can expect clusters of hydrogen fueling stations to be installed and in use for the general public in the New York City and Los Angeles areas first, followed by broader dispersion along the West Coast and the Northeast. We're talking 2015 before anything resembling an infrastructure is even a possibility, and 2025 is a more likely date for these areas to be running a lot of hydrogen cars.
How many? This is obviously unknown. The DOE's analyses used three different scenarios of hydrogen acceptance in America suggested by the NRC to try and understand how best to implement the hydrogen economy. As explained by Gronich, the three scenarios for America are:
- Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs) are introduced widely in 2015, with government support for hundreds or thousands of vehicles a year by 2012 and tens of thousands by 2018. This will result in 2 million HFCVs by 2025.
- The government supports thousands of HFCVs by 2012, tens of thousands by 2015 and hundreds of thousands by 2018. This gives 5 million HFCVs by 2025.
- Lastly, the government supports thousands a year by 2012 and millions a year by 2021, giving 10 million by 2025. The HFCVs come from multiple companies and in lots of model choices.

Since it is very likely that NYC and LA will get hydrogen first, they can be considered "lighthouses" for hydrogen, Gronich said. How the hydrogen for vehicles there will be produced is not yet decided. Gronich admitted it would be extremely difficult for electrolysis to cost-effectively compete with coal or natural gas hydrogen production, but the team looked at all these possibilities. Where to make the hydrogen is also a question. Do you make hydrogen at the fueling stations (forecourt production), clustered within 30 miles of the fueling stations, or further away and truck or pipe it in? Yes, building expensive hydrogen pipelines throughout Los Angeles is being considered in these scenarios. Pretty much everything is a possibility at this point. In fact, according to Julie Perez' presentation on the HyPro (hydrogen production) system, in order to figure out potential costs of a kilogram of hydrogen at the pump, the team looked at 116 different ways to maneuver hydrogen along the network. Different sources of hydrogen include coal gasification, biomass, the existing hydrogen supply, nuclear sources, and steam methane reforming. Transportation methods include pipelines and four types of delivery trucks: cold compressed gas truck, high-pressure gas truck, multi-stop liquid gas truck, and low-pressure gas truck (Perez made the assumptions that cold compressed gas trucks will be available in 2020, and that the pipeline through LA wouldn't be ready until 2025).
Figuring all of this together, it turns out that the cheapest path through the decision tree starts by making hydrogen using coal gasification and sequestering the CO2, then transporting the H2 through pipelines to fueling stations. Perez admitted that there are a lot of factors not yet in the data set (most important in my mind being the environmental and health effects, but also things like exactly where the CO2 would be sequestered). Changes in the capital cost of forecourt stations, the feasibility of building pipelines in the future, government CO2 policy (i.e., being required to sequester all CO2), and ethanol feedstock price can all affect the cost of hydrogen for consumers. Still, taking the information they have now, the HyPro model estimates the profited cost (what a consumer will pay) for a kilogram of hydrogen will range from a low of $2.50 to a high of $6, with the cost of most methods averaging between $3 and $4 starting in 2020 in Los Angeles.
Los Angeles and NYC are just the first places where hydrogen will likely be part of the transportation economy. The DOE's best guess at this point is that there will be 40 stations in the LA area by 2015, all in busy areas. The 2015, 40-station scenario for NYC has none in the city proper, but lots in Jersey and Long Island and other surrounding areas. Four years later (between 2016-19), San Francisco, Boston, Dallas, Detroit, and Chicago would tap into the hydrogen scene. More cities would follow every about four years, with the connecting areas fleshed out to create hydrogen corridors.
Initially, hydrogen stations would be built in areas close to airports, near roads that get more than 200,000 vehicles a day, within two miles of a retail center, and in a census tract with more than 3,000 vehicle registrations (which is higher than average). While converting existing gasoline stations to hydrogen centers may sound like the most sensible idea it may not be possible, because Steam Methane Reformers take up space, there are storage and compression issues, and local ordinances for things like setbacks may prevent hydrogen installation. The logic of centering hydrogen stations around company or municipal fleets will be put into the data set later this year.

All right then, who will buy hydrogen vehicles? Marga Melendez thinks she knows. She said the most likely candidates are people or families who: have a higher than average income, a higher education level, at least two cars in the family, and live in an area where there are poor air quality, state incentives for HFCVs, or mandates for zero emission vehicles. Guess where a lot of people like this live? In Los Angeles and New York City.
Ok, so we've figured out where the stations will be, and who will buy the cars, but doesn't that leave out one major component? It certainly does, and Paul Leiby has been looking a some of the largest roadblocks in the way of the hydrogen economy: vehicle availability and hydrogen model diversity (there needs to be trucks and small cars and minivans so everyone can drive the type of vehicle that suits their needs). One of Leiby's slides read, "A sustainable transition to hydrogen powered light duty vehicles is possible by 2050 (or so) at reasonable cost." But, he said, this will require a major government and business transition policy through at least 2025 to overcome market barriers. Two factors will influence fuel cell success by 2050: first, meeting the DOE's 2010 goals for HFCVs, with "average progress for other technologies" also occurring. Second, a price of oil that sits at about $90 a barrel in 2030. If these two things happen, Leiby said, there may not be any need for government policies (like a motor fuel tax exemptions or $1,000 per vehicle subsidy for hydrogen vehicles) much after 2025.

Gronich told me that the data presented in Honolulu was very similar to what was explained at the 2010-2025 Scenario Analysis for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles and Infrastructure Meeting in Washington, DC back in August. You can read more about that meeting and download some of the presentation PDFs here. There was also an earlier meeting, back in January.
As should be obvious from these PDFs and the links in the text above, a lot of the information delivered in Honolulu is available around the Internet. Still, digging through government websites is very few people's idea of fun and having the current state of thought in the DOE delivered in person allows us to better understand all of the uncertainty and possibility of the hydrogen economy that exists. As Gronich said in closing this a first glimpse of what might be, of what's possible. I trusted a lot of what was said, but I remain skeptical. I mean, the presentation was scheduled to run for four hours but only took two. Can we really trust these folks to look 45 years into the future?













Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
11-16-2006 @ 8:57PM
Tim said...
The “Hydrogen Economy” is D.O.A. It’s a diversion. It’s a way for our dollars to be funneled to the current energy monopolies. Don’t let them sucker us yet again like they did when we went form battery cars to gasoline. Energy storage by hydrogen is only 25 % efficient at best. The remaining 75% or more are lost in electrolysis, compression or liquefaction, transportation and fuel cell and we have no hydrogen infrastructure for this BOMB. They are wasting their time and stealing our money! Producing and storing electricity in batteries is over 85% efficient and the infrastructure has been here for many years. See Comparison. We can use off-peak grid or make our own electricity with solar & wind etc. A Series Plug-n Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV-60) with a Bio-diesel or VegOil (we can make that too) micro-turbine auxiliary power unit (APU) will give us the range, power and quick refuel capability of liquid fuel and average well over 100 miles/gal. Bio-Diesel PHEVs are far more efficient than hydrogen fuel cells will ever be and they’re carbon neutral to boot. Heck, even methanol is a superior energy carrier to Hydrogen. Bio-Diesel PHEVs were ready years ago. http://www.autoworld.com/news/GMC/Series_Hybrid.htm. http://ev1-club.power.net/newsltr/vol2_1.htm. The new NanoSafe quick charge L-Ion battery and Supercapacitor technology only makes them better. Unfortunately, the Funds that own 59% of GM also own at least 10 times that much in oil company stocks. http://www.ev1.org/gmoil.htm. Who killed the electric…..? If you own any of these funds, you did. Most people simply want to reduce their monthly fuel bill! Hydrogen Barons... NOT AGAIN!
Reply
11-16-2006 @ 10:20PM
Howard Lee Harkness said...
I'd be willing to bet money that NONE of the target dates mentioned by Gronich will be met.
And he's off on just about every other number, too, and not by just a small amount. Oil would have to be close to $400/bbl (in today's dollars) before hydrogen looks the least little bit attractive. And at that price point for dinosaur juice, the biodiesel producers will be coining money as fast as they can pump pond scum -- provided, of course, that it isn't made illegal. Even ethanol starts to look good then, although not nearly as good as straight EV. And as for the various roadblocks to hydrogen use he mentioned, he left out the parts where several laws of physics have to be repealed.
This guy is obviously not a scientist or an engineer. I'm guessing from his general cluelessness that he's a political appointee.
"All right then, who will buy hydrogen vehicles?"
Marga Melendez' answer is dead wrong. The market will be limited to people with more money than sense -- unless government coercion is used. The people in the demographics mentioned by Melendez will be driving EVs if they have any sense at all.
Using hydrogen to power cars is insanely stupid, and Politically Correct Wishful Thinking by a government bureaucrat doesn't change that.
Reply
11-16-2006 @ 10:48PM
KC said...
45 years before hydrogen makes a significant impact? What? If it is going to really take that long then Hydrogen really is D.O.A.
The things they describe would have to happen in less then half that time to make hydrogen a good replacement for gasoline.
Did anyone mention at home hydrogen production?
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 12:44AM
pkuhl said...
Not for the last time, but to repeat:
Hydrogen must be synthesized by reforming natural gas, or electrolysis of water. Both cost energy. Then you have to liquify and store it. More energy wasted. Then you have to convert it to electricity in the fuel cell... you get the picture.
Just put your electricity straight into your batteries and drive.
Non-hydrogen fuel cells work directly from natural gas. To my knowledge these all run at high temperatures making them not useful for cars. So while those may yet be pursued, the hydrogen variety is USELESS, regardless of how long it takes to setup the wasteful fueling station.
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 7:17AM
CLIVE RICHARDSIN said...
There is an ample sufficiency of good quality science available illustrating the pluses and minuses of Hydrogen energy. When it is economically feasible the oil, gas and energy companes will deliver the required solutions and develop the complimentary market features to ensure economic viability. While the DOE needs to play a role, facilitating policy and supporting research, it does not need to spend the tax payers money advertising the credentials of Hydrogen or banging the drum on a GHG or alternative energy solutions platform. Other fuels other solutions must take higher priority in the DOE's hand book and research programs. Gronich and his team might get us excited if they were to talk about anti-gravity technology and the development of a transport infrastucture designed (nation wide) to accommodate vehicles (small and large)that could operate without wheels.
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 8:30AM
Tony Belding said...
What I see here is an argument being made that hydrogen-fueled cars are possible. What I don't see is what I've been looking for -- an argument being made that hydrogen is a better answer than grid electricity or biofuels (or both, as in biofuel PHEVs). Why are the hydrogen advocates so reluctant to compare hydrogen with other alternatives?
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 9:05AM
Tim said...
Why do you think JP Morgan pulled Tesla's financing? Follow the (Oil) Money!!! US DOE and their energy monopoly owners do not want us to be able to make and use our own electricity or biofuels locally... Why, MONEY and POWER (control)(1) They can't tax power we make. (2) They can't control us with it. (3) Their buddies in the oil (drug) cartels can't profit from it or keep us addicted to it. They will do anything to stall, kill true efficiency to increase their profits and keep us addicted to their black death.
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 10:32AM
Howard Lee Harkness said...
"Why do you think JP Morgan pulled Tesla's financing?" --Tim
This appears to be an obscure reference to Nicola Tesla's 1900 Wardenclyffe Tower project, which is not connected to Tesla Motors.
Tesla Motors is reported to be doing quite well, with its 2007 model pre-subscription completely sold out. Tesla Motors financing reports do not include any mention of JP Morgan.
From WikiPedia: "Initial investment came from PayPal co-founder Elon Musk, who became Tesla's Chairman of the Board, leading Tesla's first two rounds and co-leading the third together with VantagePoint Venture Partners. Tesla's third round also included investment from prominent investors, such as Google co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page, and former eBay president, Jeff Skoll."
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 10:48AM
Howard Lee Harkness said...
Just for the record, Nicola Tesla was a brilliant scientist, but a few bricks shy of a load when it came to business and economics. JP Morgan pulled the plug on the Wardenclyffe Tower project because Tesla had no plans for making any money off of it -- he expected all those financial backers to put their money in, and get nothing back at all.
JP Morgan's reaction had nothing to do with Big Oil, and everything to do with Tesla's case of Terminal Dumbass.
Tim, strident and poorly-researched arguments do little for making any headway again hydrogen zealots. In fact, it plays into their hands. There is plenty of well-documented science to show that hydrogen is a bad idea, without resorting to half-baked conspiracy theories.
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 11:25AM
Tim said...
Howard, I think Tesla's $100K electric car will be well accepted by the general public. It will, in fact help to break our addiction to oil and the other energy (power) monopolies... Yea, Right! (I hope my sarcasm is not lost) When I spoke of real power, I spoke of wealth redistribution, monopolies and addiction. Tesla Motor's $100K “toy” for the wealthy did not even come to mind in my earlier post. Sorry for the confusion. I’ll try to be clearer. Nicola Tesla (the one Tesla that matters here) wanted cheap, clean electrical power for ALL. Morgan pulled the funding because he knew that there was no profit in it and if Nicola Tesla succeeded he and his buddies would lose all control over their new energy addicts. Abundant, clean, cheap, power that anyone can make at home (solar, wind etc. electricity or locally grown bio-fuels) is the Jeannie that they fear most. We must never be allowed to uncork that bottle. The US Gov’t (tax revenue) and the auto monopolies owned by the oil cartels will see to that. . http://www.ev1.org/gmoil.htm. Tesla Motors little toy only serves to demonstrate to average people that decent electric cars are unaffordable and that they must continue to use energy cartel’s drug. Follow the money and power. (that’s not a pun). Hydrogen Economy… BULL. They’re counting on the fact that the average person will never electrolyze water into hydrogen, compress it, and transfer it to their car at home! The Hydrogen Economy is a LIE! Think man, think.
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 11:33AM
david said...
Talk to anyone in engineering or the sciences and they'll pretty much tell you that H2 isn't going to work. Popuar Mechanics also had a good little overview on hydrogen and how it would work.
I don't see it happening. I see biofuels as the answer. Grow crops domestically, use in existing cars. My car runs biodiesel fine. When people buy a new car, they could be buying a flex or diesel car. No need for new infrastructure.
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 12:58PM
Howard Lee Harkness said...
"Morgan pulled the funding because he knew that there was no profit in it and if Nicola Tesla succeeded he and his buddies would lose all control over their new energy addicts." --Tim
Good grief. The first half of that quote is true. The last half is pure unsupportable conspirator-behind-every-bush nonsense.
JP was intensely interested (from an investment viewpoint) in Tesla's project right up until he discovered that there was no design for any usage metering that could be used to bill customers.
The "energy addicts" (mass-produced consumer cars) didn't come along until about a decade after the Wardenclyffe Tower project. Around 1900, there was no "big oil", but a lot of fairly small companies struggling to establish the industry, mostly selling kerosene and lubricants (with a major fallout around that time due to several of them going out of business, or merging with other companies to stave off bankruptcy). "Big oil" came into financial prominence after 1908, when the middle-class got a car it could actually afford, which ran on gasoline.
I don't know about *your* investment strategy, but *I* would not have invested in a million-dollar+ Wardenclyffe Tower project that was a money-loser by design. If your idea of a viable business strategy is to generate a bunch of power and GIVE IT AWAY, I'll be happy to sign up as one of your customers, but I doubt that you would last even as long as Tesla did in that business.
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 1:20PM
Tim said...
Howard - Why not "give it away?" The US Gov't takes my money and they "give it away" all the time. Last time I looked, the're still in business. In fact, they give lots of it directly to the Energy Cartels. Hey, they get my gas money and lots of my tax money too... WHAT A DEAL! Energy should belong to everyone, not just the rich and powerful. But then again, energy is power, isn't it! It all comes from the sun right? Who owns that? Heck, I can take some of that power anytime I want... It's FREE! I just can't use it to power my car.
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 1:24PM
Tim said...
Our gov't (We the People) is so busy doing what they should not be doing, that they don't have the time and resources to do what they should be doing. Watch what the do, not what they say.
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 2:36PM
Tony Belding said...
Tim, I don't understand your dismissive attitude toward Tesla Motors. Here's a company putting a real electric car on the market and proving the concept viable -- and all you can do is deride it as a "toy" for rich people? Let me remind you, there was a time when TV (and later color TV) was a toy for rich people. Home air conditioning was a toy for rich people. Computers. . . portable phones. . . yes, even automobiles if you go back a ways. That's how new technologies often get their toehold in the marketplace.
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 5:04PM
JDstudent said...
Exxon is just going to let this happen? Yeah, the same way electric cars were mandated in California and the automakers just got the federal government to get that knocked off the books.
Hydrogen Economy is a freaking joke, a waste of money and resources. Gas is simply better than hydrogen overall. maybe it does pollute more, but with some fancy filters maybe that can be cut down.
What they need to do is make biodiesel more available. Diesel engines in trucks, ships, and trains pollute more than all the cars combined in the USA. Start there DOE.
What about smart diesel? wasnt that some coal mixed in to actually make it burn cleaner?
Coal to gas is a better idea if you can capture the co2, feed it to algea and then make biodiesel from the algea. Then there would be no loss in co2.
Reply
11-17-2006 @ 5:20PM
Tim said...
Tony- Don't get me wrong, I really admire Tesla Motors. They have courage and I want one of their cars too! It's simply David vs. Goliath. We need massive change NOW! We have lots of gas guzzlers to get rid of. You just can't play poker with the Auto monopolies without a $ Billion liquid capital. It's a big boy’s game. Try and you’ll get squashed like a bug. Just ask Tucker! GM had it right years go. They made a series Hybrid using an electric motor charged by the world's most efficient gas-turbine generator system http://ev1-club.power.net/newsltr/vol2_1.htm. They could use the same Auxiliary Power Units, Motors, Controllers, Batteries and more throughout all of their lines. Heck, they could use the "skateboard" tech they were talking about years ago and just re-tune the motor controller and change the sheet metal for each vehicle type. We’re talk millions of cars, light trucks & SUVs here. That’s economy of scale! With far fewer parts to produce, inventory & distribute, these things should be less expensive to make than what they are making now. Any mechanic that can work on one can work on them all. Unfortunately, it will probably take the legislature and/or war (not market forces) to affect this kind of change. I can’t recall the last time the gov’t bludgeon was used properly. That scares me too.
Reply
12-22-2006 @ 8:26PM
Hal Green said...
I'm confused about hydrogen, maybe someone here can help me understand it better. When I was working on rockets, we used hydrogen and oxygen as a propellant in some of our rocket engines. I was under the impression at the time, that hydrogen was the fuel and oxygen was the oxidizer. Now I'm told that hydrogen is really not a fuel (technically) but rather an "energy carrier". Therefore, it seems to me we combined an energy carrier with oxygen to propel our rockets, right? Where did the energy that was carried come from then? We also used RP1 and oxygen as a propellant in some other rocket engines. Does that imply the RP1 is technically an energy carrier also?
If RP1 is an energy carrier, is gasoline also an energy carrier. Where does this all stop at? Is a gas station really an energy carrier station? Or is this all an exercise in PC?
Reply
12-23-2006 @ 2:27PM
Tim said...
Hal- Here is you answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#Hydrogen_as_an_energy_carrier
Reply
12-28-2006 @ 12:54PM
Derek said...
Yay, H2 from coal. *hack* *wheeze* Besides the environmental mess that coal mining is, just where the heck do they expect to put all the CO2? Maybe we can spray it on the crops to help them grow faster when everyone realises that H2 was a bad idea and we switch to biofuel!
So, everyone saying how "H2 isn't a fossil fuel" just got blown away by the DOE when they admit that in order to get a practical supply of H2, we have to again go to fossil sources! Sorry folks, for the long run it's gotta be bio-derived.
Reply