Hydrogen and Public Policy

Federal Hydrogen Policy

In the last two years, hydrogen has moved to the forefront of the U.S. energy policy debate. This was fueled by President Bush’s National Energy Policy (NEP) released in May 2001 that named hydrogen as a key component of the future energy economy. Hydrogen is briefl y mentioned in Chapter 6 of the NEP, Nature’s Power: Increasing America’s Use of Renewable and Alternative Energy,
under potential future energy sources.

Hydrogen is described in the NEP as a long-term alternative energy technology
that is compatible with existing technologies and traditional fuels as well as renewable energy sources. It recognizes the potential for hydrogen to enhance distributed generation systems. The NEP identifi es significant challenges to hydrogen as the current high costs of technology, and the ability of vehicles to accommodate the size and weight of current fuel systems. But the biggest obstacle to hydrogen, the NEP concluded, is the cost of production, storage and distribution. Despite these challenges, the NEP recognizes that signifi cant progress is being made on each of these issues and that in the distributed energy market, a first generation of hydrogen fuel cell products are already being deployed.

In February 2002, expanding upon the NEP, the US DOE released a report – A National Vision of America’s Transition to a Hydrogen Economy (Hydrogen Vision) – based on a series of workshop meetings in late 2001. In its Hydrogen
Vision, the US DOE laid out its view of the potential hydrogen economy and the benefi ts that could be gained. Its major findings were that hydrogen could potentially meet the two greatest challenges in energy policy – reducing reliance on foreign oil and eliminating the generation of pollutants. The report recognized that a transition to hydrogen could take several decades and identified the need to speed up the readiness of hydrogen technology in production, storage and fuel cells. Another transition challenge is the “chicken and egg” issue on infrastructure deployment, whereby consumers demand the same easy accessto their energy as they do enjoy today with gasoline, electricity and natural gas, but the required investment will not occur until the demand is suffi cient to justify such a ubiquitous build-out. The US DOE’s Hydrogen Vision concluded that the federal government and the states must create and maintain energy policies that make hydrogen a priority. Public-private partnerships would be required to develop and transition to a hydrogen economy. Finally, the Hydrogen Vision called for the creation of a roadmap to coordinate the important facets of a hydrogen economy – research,
development and demonstration, as well as education, outreach, standards and codes in hydrogen production, distribution and application.

In November 2002, the US DOE released its National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap (Roadmap), which was written with input from prominent representatives of public and private sector entities already working in the area of hydrogen. Building on the Hydrogen Vision report, the Roadmap examined the steps the United States should take to make hydrogen the foundation for the future U.S. energy economy. It
also discussed the main obstacles to reaching that future. Like the Hydrogen Vision, it called for strong government-industry partnerships and significant,
long-term investment to achieve the goals of the hydrogen economy. The Roadmap had more specific recommendations in seven areas – production, delivery, storage, conversion, end-use applications, education and outreach, and codes and standards.

• Production – existing commercial processes should be built on and adapted to work within a hydrogen economy as a practical start to the transition. Processes such as steam methane reformation, multi-fuel gasifi cation and electrolysis would be able to make this switch. Additional development is also encouraged for
nuclear and solar powered thermo-chemical hydrogen production.

• Delivery – demonstration projects are recommended to examine various centralized and distributed infrastructure solutions and their compatibility with end-use applications.

• Storage – greater research and development is required to meet commercial application needs, both in existing compression and liquefaction technologies and in newer, advanced hydrides and nano-technologies.

• Conversions – the report focused on fuel cell technology and the need to reduce costs and advance research into advanced materials. Further development in reciprocating engines, turbine and process heaters is also encouraged.

In order to advance hydrogen applications, the Roadmap sees initial uses in distributed generation, combined heat and power and vehicle fleets. Ultimately, applications should expand into diverse transportation, stationary power and portable uses.

• End-Use Applications – the report foresees the use of hydrogen in all spheres of transportation, electricity generation and mobile applications. The main drivers will be cost competitiveness and capacity to meet consumer demands for safe, easy to use, affordable and environmentally friendly products and services. The Report
recommends that in developing new energy applications, attention be paid to these drivers from the start to minimize the need to redevelop beyond demonstration and into production. Applications that are initially promising are again suggested in the areas of distributed generation, combined heat and power, and fleet vehicles.

• Education and Outreach and Codes and Standards – these areas are presented as cross-cutting issues that touch on all aspects of the hydrogen economy. Education and outreach are important to inform consumers about energy choices, safety and environmental impacts. Codes and standards are needed to speed development of design, manufacture and operation of hydrogen technologies. Based on these recommendations, the Hydrogen Roadmap envisions a hydrogen economy that can improve energy supply, security, air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions – all based on domestic hydrogen energy resources.On January 8, 2002, U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced for the Bush administration a new partnership between the federal government and the U.S. automotive industry to improve fuel effi ciency in consumer vehicles. The program would essentially replace the Clinton administration’s Partnership for a
New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), whose goal was to triple the fuel economy of passenger vehicles through hybrid vehicle technology. The new program was called FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) and also had the goal of improving fuel effi ciency; but the program’s focus was on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

FreedomCAR extended the goal of fuel efficiency targets by 10 years and encouraged research that would result in technology breakthroughs while reducing the cost of fuel cell technology to be used in future Ford, GM and Chrysler vehicles. In 2003, President Bush announced his Hydrogen Fuel Initiative calling for an investment from Congress of $1.2 billion for hydrogen development and
deployment in transportation and refueling. Under the president’s initiative, $720 million in new funding over five years would be dedicated to develop technologies and infrastructure to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation. This would be in addition to the president’s earlier investments proposed under FreedomCAR. If fully funded by Congress, FreedomCAR and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative together would produce a total of $1.7 billion over fi ve years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen infrastructure and advanced automotive technologies.