Periodic Updates

We will be adding new analyses and links to new data and reports periodically.  Click here if you would like to receive notices of updates. (promise: no more than once or twice a month!)

  Key Results

To skip all the gory details, click on these links to see the results for:

• Greenhouse gases
• Oil consumption
• Urban air pollution
• Societal costs

Or use these links to see detailed comparisons of batteries and fuel cells in terms of:

• Vehicle Cost
• Life Cycle Cost
• Energy Efficiency
• Weight
• Volume
• Fueling Time
• Fuel Infrastructure Cost

  What’s new?

616/2010 DOE National Laboratory (Argonne) report repudiates any justification for DOE’s attempts to kill the hydrogen and fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) program in favor of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).  The Argonne National Laboratory released a new report on PHEVs that undermines DOE Secretary Chu’s hasty and ill-conceived decision to downgrade or eliminate the hydrogen and FCEV program (Dr. Chu’s first budget request to Congress eliminated all funding for hydrogen and FCEVs; although Congress restored most of the funds, the Obama administration continues to pump billions of dollars into battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and PHEVs while cutting back hydrogen and FCEV programs. Dr. Chu’s latest request for hydrogen & FCEVs for FY 2011 represents a 21.6% cut from this year’s budget (from $174 million to $137 million) He also slashed the very successful Technology validation project that is demonstrating on-road performance of FCEVs from $13 million to $11 million, which will jeopardize our nation’s ability to remain a leader in zero emission hydrogen and FCEV technology.

The new Argonne report shows that:

1. Hydrogen is the best motor fuel to simultaneously cut greenhouse gases (GHG) and oil consumption, better than ethanol and gasoline
2. In all parts of the US, a fuel cell PHEV running on hydrogen made from natural gas will generate less GHG than a gasoline PHEV with the same all-electric range (AER)
3. In most parts of the US, a series hybrid PHEV with 40 miles all-electric range (AER) like the proposed Chevy Volt will increase GHGs compared to a gasoline hybrid electric vehicle like the Toyota Prius. thus Argonne estimates that a series PHEV-40 will generate approximately 310 g/mile of CO2-equivalent GHGs running on the average US grid mix, while a gasoline HEV will generate only 270 g/mile.
4. In states like Illinois with mostly coal-generated electricity, a PHEV-40 like the Volt would actually produce approximately 10% more GHGs than a conventional (non-hybrid) gasoline car.
5. A FCEV running on hydrogen from biomass will generate less GHGs than a PHEV running on E-85 (85% cellulosic ethanol and 15% gasoline) made from biomass
6. Even in California with its lower carbon grid mix (less coal than the average US) a FCEV running on hydrogen from biomass will produce lower GHGs than a BEV.
7. WIth the average US grid mix, plugging in any HEV will always increase GHGs.  For example, a (non-plug-in) HEV generates about 270 g/mile GHGs.  A PHEV-10 produces 275 g/mile; a PHEV-20 about 280 g/mile; a PHV-30 305 g/mile and a PHEV-40 baout 205 g/mile (numbers are approximate since they were read off Argonne graphs). So plugging in an HEV will not help to reduce GHGs in most parts of the country.
8. Even in California, the GHG reductions are small due to plugging in an HEV: the HEV generates about 270 g/mile in California; the PHEV-10 produces about 250 g/mile; a PHEV-20 about 245 g/mile; a PHEV-30 produces about 255 g/mile and a PHEV-40 about 245 g/mile.

6/6/2010 Government vehicle subsidies; the 2008 National Research Council report on hydrogen estimated that the government would have to invest $40 billion to subsidize 100% of the cost differential between FCEVs and conventional cars. These costs can be reduced by assuming a) that consumers will pay extra for a true zero emission vehicle and b) some consumers, and particularly companies with large vehicle fleets, will take into account future fuel savings when making their purchase decisions.  With the assumption that drivers will pay a preimum of $3,000 for zero emission vehicles and that businesses will account for ten years of fuel savings, then the government subisidies for FCEV buy-down costs would be reduced to $27 billion. For comparison, applying these same critiera ($3,000 premium and 10 years of fuel savings) to battery electric vehicles (BEVs) still requires government subsidies of $761 billion!!

6/6/2010. German FCEV deployment goal. A public/private consortium in Germany has signed a memorandum of understanding, committing to deploy 600,000 FCEVs by 2020.  Scaled to the much larger US vehicle fleet, this would correspond to 1.973 million FCEVs in the US.  This German plan is more aggressive than the FCEV market introduction rate assumed in this model and also more rapid than the rate of introduction assumed by the US NRC report. 

5/13/2010 NGV’s: discoveries of large quantities of natural gas in shale formations have suggested that natural gas vehicles (NGVs) may be a good alternative fueled vehicle for the 21st century. However, as shown here, converting that natural gas to hydrogen for use in a fuel cell electric vehicle makes much better use of the (still finite) natural gas, and cuts greenhouse gases at least 2.1  more than burning that natural gas in a conventional internal combustion engine car in the next decade or two; in the longer run, FCEVs can cut GHGs by 89% below1990 levels, while NGVs would increase GHGs by 41% above 1990 levels with the increased VMT assumed in this model. Natural gas PHEVs could cut GHGs by 47% below 1990 levels, which fails to meet the goal of an 80% reduction below 1990 levels.

2/17/2010; fueling time analogy: to better grasp the difficulty of rapidly charging batteries, consider the power transferred when you fill your car tank with gasoline: tranfering 14 gallons of gasoline in 3 minutes is equivalent to 10 megawatts (10 MW) of electrical power flowing through that gasoline hose.  A typical home outlet (120 Volts/20 Amps) has a maximum power capacity of 1.9 kW, or more than 5,000 times slower than pumping gasoline.

2/21/2010; Hydrogen-powered FCEVs will cut GHGS 3 times aster than PHEVs and will cut oil consumption 2.7 time faster than PHEVs by 2030.  Proponents of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) state that we need to rapidly deploy PHEVs to cut GHGs and Oil use in the 2020 to 2030 time period; our detailed computer modeling shows, however, that even thought PHEVs enter the marketplace 5 years sooner than hydrogen-powered FCEVs, FCEVs still provide 3 times more reductions in GHGs by 2030Greenhouse than PHEVs and also 2.7 times more reductions in oil consumption by 2030

The government incentives required to help industry install hydrogen fueling systems ($29.3 bi;;ion over 58 years)will be less than the government incentives for adding public charging stations for PHEVs and BEVs($42 billion)

Therefore if our goal is to begin cutting GHGs and oil consumption during the 2020 to 2030 decade, then pursuing the hydrogen-powered FCEV makes more sense and will cost less in government subsidies required than plug-in hybrids.

COming Soon

The current estimate of government subsidies to jump-start the hydrogen fueling infrastructure and the battery electric vehicle public outlets assume that fueling station providers obtain a 10-year, 8% loan to pay for their 70% cost share of that fueling infrastructure, with the government paying 30%; the fueling industry then pays back the 10-year loan, which is assumed to be a commercial bank; However, if the government issued these loans and collected the resulting interest and principal payments under something like the proposed Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) in pending Congressional energy bills, then government incentives would be reduced substantially.