Hpep Report 2013

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert
Panel: A Subcommittee of the Hydrogen &

Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee
May 2013*
*includes supplemental information added after discussions with the U.S Department of Energy’s
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Program on the original draft submitted in October 2012
United States Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585
Department of Energy | May 2013
Acknowledgements
The Steering Committee would like to thank the Department of Energy (DOE) and
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee for supporting the workshop.
The time and effort contributed by the expert presenters and workshop participants is
also acknowledged. The presentations provided valuable information that enabled the
committee to develop findings and make recommendations regarding hydrogen
production. Finally, the committee wishes to express its gratitude for the special efforts
by several individuals, including Sunita Satyapal (DOE), Eric Miller (DOE), and Melissa
Laffen (Alliance Technical Services).
Special thanks to the guest speakers for their insightful comments:
Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of the United States Department of Energy

Mr. Steven Chalk, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy
Dr. Richard Greene, Photochemistry and Biochemistry Team Lead, Office of Basic Energy
Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy
Dr. Levi Thompson, Hydrogen Production Expert Panel Chair, Director of the Hydrogen
Energy Technology Laboratory and the Richard E. Balzhiser Collegiate Professor of
Chemical Engineering at the University of Michigan
Dr. Robert Shaw, Chair, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee
Dr. Larry Burns, Director of the Roundtable on Sustainable Mobility at The Earth
Institute of Columbia University and Professor of Engineering Practice at the University
of Michigan
Dr. Mark Cardillo, Executive Director, Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation
Dr. Sunita Satyapal, Office Director, Fuel Cell Technologies Office, U.S. Department of
Energy
Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 2

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 2
Abstract ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Summary of Recommendations to the U.S. Department of Energy ....................................... 5
Introduction and Overview .................................................................................................................. 6
Key Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 9
I. Near-Term Technology Opportunities and Challenges ...................................................... 9
II. Longer-Term Technology Opportunities and Challenges ............................................... 14
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Hydrogen Production Expert Panel Workshop Agenda
Appendix B: Biographies of Hydrogen Production Expert Panel Members
Appendix C: Invitation Letter from Sec. Steven Chu to Dr. Levi Thompson
Appendix D: A Perspective on Hydrogen Production, Dr. Larry D. Burns
Appendix E: Hydrogen Production Expert Panel Presentations

Abstract
The Steering Committee for the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel was charged with
providing recommendations to enable the widespread production of affordable, low
carbon hydrogen. The Steering Committee was provided input by experts from industry,
academia, and national laboratories via a workshop that was held on May 10-12, 2012.
This report summarizes major findings from the workshop and recommendations from
the Steering Committee to the Department of Energy. Key recommendations included:
1) providing incentives to accelerate the production of hydrogen for transportation
applications with a particular focus on the steam reforming of natural gas, leveraging
this abundant and low cost domestic resource; 2) considering significant investments in
hydrogen production and storage analyses and demonstrations; 3) developing a
cohesive plan for all pertinent research and development programs to provide
consistent and long-term guidance; and 4) establishing public-private partnerships
and/or clusters to create well-defined plans for infrastructure roll-out, establishing
appropriate incentives, and promoting uniform codes, standards, and safety regulations.

Summary of Recommendations to the U.S. Department of Energy

After considering presentations by the expert panel as well as the findings from the
working groups, the Steering Committee offers the following overall recommendations
to enable the widespread production of affordable, low carbon hydrogen:
 Incentives should be established to provide consistent and longer-term

accelerate the production of (10-15 years) guidance and support
hydrogen from all resources for for: 1) interdisciplinary research
transportation applications. Given and development of hydrogen
the availability of large and production from renewable
accessible natural gas resources in resources, 2) detailed analyses of
the United States at historically low hydrogen production systems, and
prices, hydrogen production using 3) demonstrations of electrical
steam methane reforming energy storage from intermittent
technology represents an attractive renewable resources via hydrogen
near-term transitional approach. production.
 Hydrogen is an excellent medium  Communications between EERE,

for energy storage and could enable BES, and ARPA-E, as well as other
greater penetration of renewables DOE Offices (such as FE and NE) and
and enhanced grid stabilization. non-DOE agencies (such as NSF)
Consequently, the DOE should should be strategically enhanced to
consider significant investments in foster scientific and technology
both the analysis and advances.
demonstration of various hydrogen
production and storage  Public-private partnerships and/or
technologies. clusters should be established to
create well-defined plans for
 The DOE should establish and infrastructure roll out, establish
leverage existing technology appropriate incentives, and
working groups to clearly define the promote uniform safety regulations,
specific research advances needed codes, and standards.
for each technology in order to
drive funding strategies and  Metrics should be defined to
competitive solicitations, similar to characterize progress of these
the pathway followed for proton efforts towards established goals
exchange membrane (PEM) fuel and objectives.
cells.
 The government and industry
 All pertinent offices and programs should work together to inform the
within the DOE (including Basic public and financial communities of
Energy Sciences [BES], Energy the benefits of hydrogen as an
Efficiency and Renewable Energy energy carrier, thereby dispelling
[EERE], and Advanced Research widely held misperceptions
Projects Agency-Energy [ARPA-E]), regarding near-term
should develop a cohesive plan to commercialization prospects.

Introduction and Overview
With more than 50 million tons produced globally each year, hydrogen is a critical
feedstock for the production of clean-burning transportation fuels, fertilizers, and
chemicals. Hydrogen also holds great promise as a fuel in high efficiency fuel cells for
transportation, back-up power, and grid stabilization applications. Currently, most
hydrogen is derived from the steam reforming (SMR) of natural gas; however, hydrogen
can also be produced from a variety of renewable resources, including biomass and
water. If produced from renewable indigenous feedstocks, the use of hydrogen can
significantly reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign energy sources and fossil fuels.
Hydrogen can also be used to store energy from intermittent renewable sources (e.g.,
solar and wind). Projected energy storage densities for hydrogen-based systems exceed
those of lithium ion batteries, redox flow batteries, and compressed air energy storage.
Since hydrogen for transportation was moved to the forefront of the U.S. energy
debate a decade ago, there has been substantial progress towards the use of hydrogen
as an energy carrier. For example, the estimated cost of hydrogen fuel cells produced in
high-volume has decreased by a factor of six (from $275/kW in 2002 to $49/kW in 2011)
and durability in excess of 2,500 hour (or 75,000 miles) has been achieved in vehicle
demonstrations. With regard to hydrogen storage, new materials and systems have
resulted in an approximately 50% increase in the gravimetric and volumetric capacities
since 2007. Progress in the area of hydrogen production has not, however, kept pace
with progress in fuel cells and hydrogen storage. This is particularly true for the
production of hydrogen from renewable resources.
Within this context, the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee
(HTAC) charged the Steering Committee of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel
(HPEP) with providing recommendations to enable the widespread production of
affordable, low-carbon hydrogen (see Appendix C). The committee was asked to
consider market and business forces (i.e., cost, infrastructure, dispensing, etc.),
technology barriers (i.e., scientific, engineering, device-level performance and durability,
manufacturing, etc.), and policy barriers, as well as the impact of safety, codes, and
standards in formulating recommendations to the Department of Energy (DOE)
regarding both policy and investments in research and development for hydrogen
production.

Members of the Steering Committee were selected by the HTAC to represent

industrial and academic perspectives of hydrogen production. The HPEP Steering
Committee consisted of:
Dr. Levi Thompson (Chair) Mr. Edward Kiczek

University of Michigan Air Products
Dr. Françoise Barbier Dr. Arthur Nozik

Air Liquide University of Colorado
Dr. Lawrence Burns Dr. Geraldine Richmond

University of Michigan & Columbia University of Oregon
University
Dr. Robert Shaw, Jr.
Mr. Robert Friedland Aretê Corporation
Proton OnSite
Mr. Daryl Wilson
Hydrogenics
The Steering Committee organized the HPEP workshop with support from the DOE
Fuel Cell Technologies Program and Alliance Technical Services. Objectives for the
workshop were to:
 Evaluate status and prospects of near- and longer-term hydrogen production

technologies
 Identify key technologies and critical challenges
 Prioritize research and development
 Strategize on how to leverage effort among DOE offices
Prior to the formal start of the workshop, key participants, including the Steering
Committee and expert presenters, participated in an event during which the Secretary
of Energy, The Honorable Dr. Steven Chu, described his view of the strategic importance
of hydrogen. Dr. Larry Burns then provided a perspective regarding hydrogen
production based on the drivers of transformational change and how hydrogen might
create value in the future economy (see Appendix D).

The HPEP workshop took place on May 10-12, 2012 in the Washington, D.C. area.
Experts in the field of hydrogen production were invited to give concise presentations
describing the current technology status, challenges to near-term implementation, and
opportunities for advancements for hydrogen production technologies. Additionally, the
experts were asked to make formal recommendations to the Steering Committee. The
expert presenters included:
Near-Term Technologies Longer-Term Technologies
Dr. Katherine Ayers Dr. Thomas Jarvi

Proton OnSite Sun Catalytix
Mr. Brian Bonner Dr. Nate Lewis

Air Products California Institute of Technology
Mr. Joseph Cargnelli Dr. Bruce Logan

Hydrogenics Pennsylvania State University
Mr. Udo Dengel Dr. John Turner

Air Liquide National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Mr. Pinakin Patel Dr. Yong Wang

FuelCell Energy Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Dr. Prabhu Rao Dr. Alan Weimer

Nuvera Fuel Cells University of Colorado
Biographical sketches of the presenters are provided in Appendix B. Following the

presentations, the workshop participants separated into break-out groups where they
discussed findings and formulated recommendations for consideration by the Steering
Committee. The complete workshop agenda, including break-out group discussion
topics, is included in Appendix A.

Key Findings and Recommendations
I. Near-Term Technology Opportunities and Challenges
The expert presenters provided a comprehensive overview of the various hydrogen

production technologies now in the market or on the threshold of market entry (see
Appendix E for presentation slides). The nominal time window was the next 2-5 years.
The following are the key findings that emerged from the various break-out group
discussions led by Steering Committee members:
 Hydrogen is already a major commodity in the U.S. economy and production

could readily be expanded to serve new markets.
o More than 50 million metric tons are produced annually worldwide (11
million metric tons in the United States), principally from SMR of natural gas.
Much of this hydrogen is used in petroleum refineries, in the production of
ammonia for fertilizers and other chemicals, and in food processing.
o Current hydrogen output is sufficient to provide fuel for 250 million fuel cell
vehicles worldwide (55 million in the United States).
o Given the emergence of large and accessible natural gas resources in the
United States at historically low prices, hydrogen production using traditional
central SMR technology could increase substantially to serve new fuel cell
vehicle markets without straining the natural gas supply system and at the
same time reduce petroleum imports.
 Large- and small-scale hydrogen production technologies are already

commercially available.
o Central SMR is a mature technology and produces low cost hydrogen in the
range of $1.50/kilogram (kg) at plant gate at current (mid-2012) natural gas
prices. The cost reduction experience curve indicates a steady but modest
0.5% annual cost decrease over the past 20 years.
o Hydrogen gas and liquid produced centrally are typically delivered to
customer sites by tube trailer or liquid tanker truck. The carriage cost varies
with distance traveled but is nominally $1.25/kg.
o Hydrogen produced in large-scale SMR facilities that is delivered, compressed,
and dispensed at a typical station is actually less expensive than gasoline on a
miles traveled basis when used in fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). It is likely
that a substantial portion of the early hydrogen infrastructure will use this
supply mode.
o Alkaline and proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzers are
manufactured by several companies internationally and are currently capable
of producing up to 1,000 kg/day with concepts for as much as 50,000 kg/day.

These products have been available in the market for many years. The cost
per kg varies with the electrolyzer size from approximately $6/kg to $15/kg
and is heavily dependent on the cost of electricity. At the lower end of this
range, the cost of electrolytically produced hydrogen at a typical station is
equivalent to gasoline on a miles basis (approximately $3-$5/gallon of
gasoline equivalent) if used in a FCEV.
o Small-scale SMR units are also available commercially and can be
economically attractive for industrial applications requiring 1,000 kg/day or
greater when the customer site is a significant distance from a central SMR
plant. At modest production rates (500 units/year) it is estimated that these
units can produce hydrogen at approximately $3-$6/kg.
o Industrial applications for distributed hydrogen production include food
processing, metals, glass, fertilizer production, electric power plant generator
cooling, semiconductor manufacturing, analytic laboratory instrumentation,
and various meteorological applications.
o Vehicle fuelling stations (of which there are 60 in the United States and over
200 worldwide) have used all of the technologies mentioned above.
 The principal barrier to cost reduction of distributed hydrogen production

systems for vehicle applications is achieving manufacturing scale.
o Although markets exist for distributed applications, they are relatively small
at present and are most attractive for base load and consistent demand
requirements. However, the current FCEV fleets are too small and do not
meet these demand requirements. For these existing markets, the payback
time for investments in product cost reduction is too long to be commercially
attractive.
o Manufacturers generally agree that they face a classic “crossing the chasm”
dilemma, even when they can demonstrate cost effectiveness against
current fueling options as well as other benefits (e.g. less carbon dioxide on a
miles basis).
 Two large-market opportunities could offer the level of manufacturing volume

that would allow substantial reductions in the cost of distributed hydrogen
production.
o The FCEV market is the one most discussed and seems to be on the verge of
emerging around 2013-2016, particularly in Europe, Japan, and South Korea.
o The use of hydrogen production as a way to enable renewables by making
them dispatchable is a market opportunity of substantial scale that has until
recently received less attention than the vehicle opportunity. In this second
large application, intermittent (and sometimes stranded) renewable
electricity generation is used to produce hydrogen via electrolysis. The
hydrogen is stored—for example, in large underground caverns or somewhat
smaller above ground tanks—and later used for power generation.
Alternatively, the hydrogen produced by renewables could be injected into

gas pipelines for storage as well as transport to load centers (a concept

referred to by some manufacturers as “power-to-gas”).
 In the very near term, two currently-served markets are providing valuable
learning and initial scale.
o The use of fuel cells in forklifts employed in various industrial and warehouse
applications has been an early market for hydrogen. This market could be
substantial if all forklifts and similar products (e.g. airport ground equipment)
were to switch to fuel cell power. Most customers to date have opted for
delivered hydrogen rather than investing in on-site production.
o Back-up power at remote sites, such as cell towers, has also offered an early
market for distributed hydrogen. In virtually all cases to date the required
hydrogen has been delivered rather than produced on-site.
Recommendations from the breakout group are clustered into four areas: 1)
transportation applications, 2) production and storage applications to enable
renewables, 3) education, and 4) research and development (R&D) for cost reduction
and performance enhancement.
 Transportation Applications
o Some form of incentive is required to help encourage owners and operators
to proceed with early installation of fueling facilities that may not be
economical until the fleet sizes of FCEVs have increased.
o Suggested incentives include investment tax credits, fuel cost buy-downs,
loan guarantees to station owners, fuel tax abatements, operations cost
subsidies, and partial grants. Whatever form these incentives take, they
need to limit the downside risk that can result from slower than expected
demand growth and shorter than anticipated operating times.
o One novel idea was the suggestion that an agency similar to the Rural
Electrification Administration (REA) be created to insure that hydrogen
production facilities in remote areas—where natural gas is not available and
delivery costs from central facilities are high—be offered economic support
in the form of low- or no-cost loans of long duration.
o Incentives should be designed so that they do not favor any one approach to
hydrogen production and should be available to all levels of the supply chain.
o The cluster approach for early roll-out of hydrogen fueling infrastructure is
widely supported. For example, the California Fuel Cell Partnership's latest
action plan focuses deployment within five clusters throughout California to
support the first large-scale deployment of vehicles in the 2015 time-frame.
Research suggests that this strategy can provide adequate coverage and
capacity for early markets and improves the business case for station
operators.
o A public-private partnership (preferably on an equity basis) with all critical
stakeholders should be considered to create a concrete plan for

infrastructure roll-out, establish appropriate incentives, and promote

uniform safety regulations, codes, and standards.
 Hydrogen Production and Storage to Enable Renewables

o The principal applications in this area being pursued in North America and
Europe are focused on addressing the intermittency of solar and wind power
generation using electrolysis technologies. There is also ongoing work in
biomass reforming and related approaches to hydrogen production. It is
recommended that:
Detailed system studies should be conducted with utility partners to
understand the dynamics of the interaction of the grid with large-scale
renewable generation accompanied by hydrogen production and storage.
At least two demonstrations at modest scale (at least 10 megawatts)
should be funded, one with solar and the other with wind, to analyze
with hard data the performance and ancillary benefits of various storage
systems. These demonstrations should be cost-shared with industry.
o Programs should also be established to gather real world data on:
The economic value of injecting renewably-generated hydrogen into the
natural gas pipeline system as a storage and energy transportation
approach.
The economics and performance of alternative separation technologies
to extract hydrogen from the natural gas stream at sufficient purity for
various applications.
o Continued effort should be devoted to establishing the economic value and
improving the performance and reliability of tri-generation systems
producing power, heat, and hydrogen from biogas and waste streams.
 Education
o The panel felt that substantially enhanced efforts by government and
industry to inform the public on the benefits of producing hydrogen as an
energy carrier, whether from natural gas or renewables, should be initiated
with the highest sense of urgency.
There is a widely held public perception that hydrogen is an energy
option for the distant future and that there are unresolved safety issues.
The panel has demonstrated conclusively that there are plentiful
technology options available in the market now and that the safety track
record is excellent.
o There is an equally important need to work with codes and standards
officials, as well as fire marshals and other public safety officials, to ensure
that commercialization barriers resulting from lack of knowledge are
removed.
o The sense in the financial community is that for the past several years,
hydrogen and fuel cell technology has not been accepted as an energy option

by the DOE. As a far more supportive perspective is emerging due to the

types of success in the near term described above, it is important to send a
favorable signal widely and publicly.
o Finally, it would be desirable to develop a consensus among government and
industry participants on a pathway for the roll-out of a hydrogen supply
infrastructure concurrent with the introduction of FCEVs and then publicize
the economic, environmental, and security benefits of implementing this
plan.
 Research and Development

o While the corporate participants in the hydrogen production arena
undertake continuous efforts to improve the performance and cost
effectiveness of their products, there are some areas of R&D that cut across
all participants where government support would be helpful.
o With regard to PEM electrolyzers, there is need for improved materials to
address membrane permeation, strength, and ductility issues, especially at
elevated temperatures. Research to develop entirely new membrane
technology that is much lower cost and can tolerate higher temperatures and
pressures than membranes currently used is also recommended. Additionally,
there is need for an improved basic understanding of coating technologies to
enable less expensive cell components without sacrificing durability. To the
maximum extent possible the major advancements in the fuel cell area,
particularly in catalyst composition and loading, membrane performance,
and cell stack hardware, should be leveraged for use in PEM electrolysis.
o The main areas for future cost reduction in all the approaches for distributed
hydrogen production have to do with balance of plant, including:
Reduction of the energy used for “hotel load” – pumps, controls, etc.
Efficient and cost effective power electronics
Drying of the hydrogen stream produced by electrolysis and optimization
of electrochemical vs. mechanical compression
Gas clean-up technologies (e.g. pressure swing absorption units) for use
in SMRs
System adaptation to variable demand
Storage systems
o As noted earlier, there is need for R&D on gas separation technologies to
extract pure hydrogen (perhaps up to 99.999%) from natural gas pipelines
having hydrogen concentrations up to 5%, and from gas streams having
hazardous components.

II. Longer-Term Technology Opportunities and Challenges
While there are “longer-term” opportunities for efficiency and cost advancements in
technologies that are commercial today, discussion of those opportunities was included
in the previous section of this report. For the purposes of this section, “longer-term”
technologies are defined as those that may have shown feasibility at a lab-scale but are
at least five years from commercialization at any scale. Presentations were given at the
workshop on a number of early-stage hydrogen production R&D activities, including
advanced bioelectrochemical, solar thermal, photoelectrochemical, microbial, and
biomass production techniques. These presentations were not intended to be all-
inclusive, but illustrate the type of research efforts being supported by the DOE Basic
Energy Sciences Program (BES), the DOE Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy
(ARPA-E), the National Science Foundation, and other agencies. The key findings
reported in this section are not intended to duplicate what has been described in other
reports such as “Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy,” the report from the
Basic Energy Sciences Workshop on Hydrogen Production, Storage, and Use held May
13-15, 2003.
The following key findings emerged from the various breakout group discussions
focused on longer-term issues:
 The time required to take a hydrogen production technology from the R&D stage
to the commercial market is very long (often 20-30 years) and the cost of
completing the full development cycle can be very high.
o To develop to the point where they can be considered by investors and
industry, longer-term technologies typically require a long-term commitment
with a consistent funding base.
o Even when proof of principle has been demonstrated, it can take 10-15 years
to convert bench-scale results, or even early prototype products, into a
commercial product that is cost effective and has demonstrated
performance over commercially acceptable time periods.
o In some cases, concepts that appear interesting at the lab-scale cannot be
developed into products that are competitive commercially.
o The resources required to make the transition from R&D to commercial
product can often be in excess of $100 million for a single technology.
 The objective of DOE’s hydrogen production R&D program should be to explore

as many novel concepts as possible at the early stage.
o This strategy could eliminate work on approaches that do not seem to have a
reasonable chance of commercial success.
o Provide funding opportunities for new R&D efforts as fresh ideas are
generated.

 Successful commercial R&D-oriented institutions (e.g., Bell Labs, GE Research)

have developed effective management approaches that link basic and applied
research with commercial product development. Efforts at DOE to emulate
these approaches should be maintained and strengthened.
o There is a good portfolio of basic research projects sponsored by DOE (e.g.,
at BES and BER), many of which are being carried out by university teams.
The processes that DOE uses for selecting these projects and developing
research plans appears to be working well.
o While efforts within DOE’s basic research programs have not been
specifically targeted at hydrogen production, some have been of direct
scientific relevance. It is important to support formal mechanisms that allow
effective communications between the applied hydrogen production
programs (e.g., EERE Fuel Cell Technologies) and these basic programs to
ensure that the R&D needs of both near- and longer-term hydrogen
production approaches are being addressed.
o Communications between EERE, BES, and ARPA-E, as well as other DOE
Offices (such as FE and NE) and non-DOE agencies (such as NSF) should be
strategically enhanced to accelerate scientific and technological advances.
Assessing the promise and capabilities of these advanced concepts was not a
straight-forward task. However, in the context of providing industry with innovative
concepts that are relevant to their markets, the following recommendations are
offered:
 DOE is encouraged to strengthen cross-cutting teams, emulating for example

networking/linking pin teams (The Tipping Point, by Malcolm Gladwell [2000]), to
promote effective communication and scientific exchange between the basic and
applied programs.
o Members of such teams should be excellent communicators and should have
sufficient technical and personal skills, and experience to interact effectively
with each other and with the R&D community.
o Regular meetings and workshops led by this networking team should be
encouraged to discuss successes and explore ways to make the interaction
process ever more successful.
o Team activities and performance should be evaluated jointly by all groups
with whom they interact on a regular basis with a goal of continued process
improvements and refinements.
 Cross-cutting research can shorten the timeline for discovery and problem
solving. DOE should continue existing initiatives and support new initiatives for
assembling diverse groups of disciplines to attack specific technical roadblocks to
the different renewable hydrogen production pathways

o Interdisciplinary scientific teams (biologists, computer scientists, physicists,

chemists, and engineers) can often be a powerful tool to solve complex
problems related to renewable hydrogen production.
As an example, the development of more efficient solar absorber
materials for photoelectrochemical hydrogen production (as well as for
photovoltaics) could be facilitated by the integration of computational
science with state-of-the-art materials discovery and with experimental
synthesis and characterization techniques.
As a further example, solar-energy based water-splitting systems will
produce hydrogen over large areas, creating challenges for water
management and gas collection. This represents a significant engineering
challenge that should be addressed early by the scientists and engineers
alike.
 Basic science research is an important part of the overall DOE portfolio, but
stronger links between scientific discovery and potential applications are needed
in order to leverage advancements in fundamental and applied research that
could assist both near- and longer-term technologies.
o DOE should continue developing stronger links to industry to help in
identifying R&D initiatives that industry experts feel have commercial
promise.
o Refinement of hydrogen production pathways/roadmaps that further
integrate near-term with longer-term pathways rather than separating them
would encourage the bridging of technologies across applications.
 In all fundamental and applied R&D initiatives, clear and meaningful metrics are
critical for gauging programmatic success and for measuring progress toward
clearly established goals.
o DOE should continue to evaluate, refine and strengthen its metrics-based
assessment approaches for managing all projects including those at
universities and national laboratories as well as the large collaborative
initiatives such as the Energy Frontier Research Centers and the Energy
Innovation Hubs.
o R&D for hydrogen production technologies should include programmatic
goals and metrics that include scalability of the technology to facilitate large-
scale and distributed production.
o Specific quantitative metrics are essential to drive technology advances in
the near-term hydrogen production pathways. While metrics may not be as
quantitative for the longer-term hydrogen production pathways, a cohesive
set of meaningful scientific metrics needs to be defined and refined through
consensus among the fundamental and applied researchers. This is
important to the overall vision of the hydrogen production programs at DOE,
allowing for the assessment of forward progress in a consensus framework.

 As the applied R&D and technology validation programs for hydrogen production
proceed they should be required to prepare high-fidelity estimates of anticipated
product costs and physical sizes per unit output so that assessments of relative
merit can be conducted.
o Technoeconomic analysis can be a powerful tool in identifying research areas
with the maximum impact on the final product costs, and DOE should be
encouraged to strengthen its core capabilities in technoeconomic analysis of
all energy technologies.
As one example, technoeconomic analysis of photoelectrochemical
hydrogen production showed that the solar-to-hydrogen conversion
efficiency had the largest impact on hydrogen production costs (greater,
for example, than panel costs and system durability); in turn facilitating
the establishment of meaningful metrics and targets for cost-effective
hydrogen production.
 Meeting the hydrogen supply needs requires an accurate and realistic

understanding of the available biomass feedstock resource. This is critical
knowledge which will enable DOE to effectively plan its biomass-to-hydrogen
production scenarios.
o Biomass waste streams from bio-refineries and municipal solid waste
represent a near-term, low-cost feedstock for hydrogen production, but they
are poorly characterized as to organic species, impurities, and their potential
for hydrogen production from these waste streams.
o A realistic assessment of the hydrogen production efficiencies and loss
mechanisms for these varied waste streams can help in maximizing the value
of these resources.
 DOE should continue/expand R&D funding of different renewable hydrogen

production technologies which leverage the scientific focus areas currently being
funded by the fundamental research programs. For example:
o Explore the hydrogen production potential of advances in genomics and in
synthetic biology.
o Expand exploration of photoelectrochemical water splitting technologies that
are based on two optimized semiconductor photoelectrodes, including the
use of buried photovoltaic junctions
o Expand exploration of advanced electrolyzer technologies, such as anion-
exchange-membranes (AEM) to reduce materials cost and high-temperature
electrolysis to reduce cost through efficiency enhancements.
o Explore synergies between high-temperature solar-fuels processes and
thermochemical cycles for solar/nuclear hydrogen production.

 Policies that encourage longer-term R&D should be considered.

o Hydrogen production could be used as an example to re-establish the
importance of science and technology in the public eye.
o Assure that the nation maintains a leadership position not only in energy
research, but in all fields.

Department of Energy | DĂǇϮϬϭϯ
Appendix A
Hydrogen Production Expert Panel

Workshop Agenda
Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC
A-1
Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee:
Hydrogen Production Expert Panel Subcommittee
Marriott Crystal Gateway, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202
May 10th – 12th, 2012
Panel Objectives
 Provide recommendations to the Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Technical
Advisory Committee (HTAC) to enable a path forward for the
widespread production of affordable low carbon hydrogen.
─ Evaluate current status of hydrogen production technologies
─ Identify remaining challenges
─ Prioritize R&D needs
─ Strategize how to best leverage R&D among U.S. Department
of Energy Offices and with other agencies
THURSDAY EVENING, MAY 10TH KICK-OFF

Kick-Off Session: Vision and Goals
Location: Salon H
6:00–6:10 PM HTAC Chair Welcome
 Dr. Robert Shaw, Chair, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee
(HTAC)
6:10–6:20 PM U.S. Department of Energy Welcome
 The Honorable Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy
6:20–6:35 PM A Vision for Hydrogen’s Role in the Energy Portfolio
 Dr. Larry Burns, Director of the Roundtable on Sustainable Mobility, The Earth
Institute, Columbia University
6:35–6:45 PM Panel Overview and Workshop Agenda
 Dr. Levi Thompson, Panel Chair and Director, Hydrogen Energy Technology
Laboratory, University of Michigan
7:00–8:30 PM Follow-on Discussion / Working Dinner
8:30–8:45 PM Steering Committee Briefing Session
A-2
FRIDAY, MAY 11TH WORKSHOP
Session 1: Near-Term Technology Opportunities and Challenges
Location: Salons J & K
8:00–8:30 AM Meet and Greet over Coffee
8:30–8:45 AM U.S. Department of Energy Welcome: Importance of Panel Workshop
Mr. Steven Chalk, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy
8:45–9:00 AM Success Stories and Near-Term Opportunities

Dr. Larry Burns, The Earth Institute, Columbia University
9:00–9:10 AM Panel Welcome and Steering Committee Introductions

Dr. Levi Thompson, Panel Chair and Director, Hydrogen Energy Technology
Laboratory, University of Michigan
Steering Committee:
 Dr. Françoise Barbier, Air Liquide
 Dr. Lawrence Burns, The Earth Institute, Columbia University
 Robert Friedland, Proton Onsite
 Edward Kiczek, Air Products
 Dr. Arthur Nozik, University of Colorado
 Dr. Geraldine Richmond, University of Oregon
 Dr. Robert Shaw, Aretê Corporation
 Daryl Wilson, Hydrogenics
9:10–10:40 AM Near-Term Technology Opportunities & Challenges
Technical Expert Presentations:
 Udo Dengel, Air Liquide
 Brian Bonner, Air Products
 Dr. Prabhu Rao, Nuvera Fuel Cells
 Pinakin Patel, FuelCell Energy
 Dr. Katherine Ayers, Proton Onsite
 Joseph Cargnelli, Hydrogenics
10:40–10:50 AM Break
10:50–12:20 PM Break-Out Sessions topics subject to change by panel.
Locations: Jefferson, Lee, Salon D, and Salon E
A. Scientific/Engineering Challenges
B. Commercialization Challenges; Cost Reductions Needs & Strategies
C. Competitive Landscape; Impact of Natural Gas on Hydrogen Market
D. Bridging from Fossil-based Reforming to Renewable Production
12:20–1:30 PM Working Lunch: Report-out and Discussion

Locations: Salons J & K
A-3
FRIDAY, MAY 11TH WORKSHOP
Session 2: Longer-Term Technology Opportunities and Challenges

1:30–1:45 PM Scientific Challenges and Innovative Approaches in Renewable Energy

and Hydrogen Research
Dr. Richard Greene, Photochemistry and Biochemistry Team Lead, Office of
Basic Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy
1:45–2:00 PM Examples of Lab to Markets- New Advances & Technological
Opportunities
Dr. Mark Cardillo, Executive Director, Camille & Henry Dreyfus Foundation
2:00–3:30 PM Longer-Term Technology Opportunities & Challenges
Technical Expert Presentations:
 Dr. John Turner, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
 Dr. Thomas Jarvi, Sun Catalytix
 Dr. Bruce Logan, Pennsylvania State University
 Dr. Alan Weimer, University of Colorado
 Dr. Yong Wang, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
 Dr. Nathan Lewis, California Institute of Technology
3:30–3:45 PM Break
3:45–5:15 PM Break-Out Sessions topics subject to change by panel
Locations: Jefferson, Lee, Salon D, and Salon E
E. Scientific/Engineering Challenges to Renewable Integration
F. Direct Renewable Production Using Photolytic and Thermolytic Processes
G. Bio-resources, including Biomass, Biogas, and Biological Processes
H. Best Leveraging of Latest Scientific Developments
5:15–6:15 PM Report-out and Discussion

6:15–7:00 PM Break / Ad Hoc Break-Outs

7:00–8:30 PM Working Dinner and Discussion for Steering Committee and Expert
Panelists
Location: Salons H
A-4
SATURDAY, MAY 12TH REPORT SESSION
Session 3: Panel Findings and Recommendations
8:30–8:45 AM Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program at the U.S. Department of Energy
 Dr. Sunita Satyapal, Program Manager, Fuel Cell Technologies Program, U.S.
Department of Energy
8:45–10:15am Major Findings from Near-Term Technology Session

Dr. Robert Shaw, coordinator:
 Reforming Technologies: Status, Challenges, Opportunities, and
Recommendations
 Electrolytic Technologies: Status, Challenges, Opportunities, and
Recommendations
 Identifying Synergies and Cross-cutting Issues
 Key Recommendations to U.S. Department of Energy
 Next Steps
10:15–10:30 AM Break
10:30–11:45 AM Major Findings from Longer-Term Technology Session

Dr. Levi Thompson, coordinator:
 Renewable Water-splitting Pathways (including Advanced Electrolysis,
Photolysis, Thermolysis): Status, Challenges, Opportunities, and
Recommendations
 Bio-resource Pathways (including Biomass, Biogas, and Biological processes):
Status, challenges, opportunities and recommendations
 Identifying Synergies and Cross-cutting Issues
 Key recommendations to U.S. Department of Energy
 Next Steps
Session 6: Prepare Report Draft (Working Lunch)
11:45–2:45 PM  Refine and Integrate Recommendations
 Outline Report
 Prepare Initial Draft
 Make Final Writing Assignments
 Adjourn
A-5
Appendix B
Biographies of Hydrogen Production Expert

Panelists
B-1
BIOGRAPHIES
Hydrogen Production Expert Panel:
A Subcommittee of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee (HTAC)
Dr. Katherine Ayers, Director of Research, Proton OnSite

Dr. Ayers is the Director of Research at Proton OnSite, a company specializing in the design and
manufacture of PEM electrochemical systems for hydrogen production, with over 8MW installed in
more than 70 countries, exceeding 1,800 fielded systems. She is responsible for developing the long-
term research direction for improvements in performance, reliability, and cost of Proton’s electrolyzer
cell stack as well as overseeing Proton’s military and aerospace programs. Prior to joining Proton
Energy Systems, Dr. Ayers served as a Staff Electrochemist and project team leader at Energizer Battery
Company. She has served as Principal Investigator on multiple contract research projects from the U.S.
DOE, Office of Naval Research, and National Science Foundation, and was recently awarded an ARPA-
E grant to develop a novel, low cost regenerative fuel cell system. Dr. Ayers earned her Ph.D. in
Electrochemistry from the California Institute of Technology and is the author of several peer-reviewed
journal publications and two U.S. patents.
Dr. Françoise Barbier, Program Director, Hydrogen Energy Research and Development, Air
Liquide
Dr. Barbier is the Program Director of the Hydrogen Energy Research and Development program at Air
Liquide, where she also serves as the International Senior Expert in the field of energy. She is
responsible for technology development in areas including renewable hydrogen production, storage,
distribution, fuel cells, materials compatibility and safety. Dr. Barbier earned her doctorate degree in
Materials Science from the University of Orsay - Paris Sud, and started her career as a researcher at the
National Center of Scientific Research in France. Starting in 1992, she worked at the French Atomic
Energy Commission, offering expertise in materials for nuclear reactors and in hydrogen and fuel cells.
Since joining Air Liquide in 2007, her responsibilities have also included the coordination of the French
Fuel Cell Research Network (PACo) set up by the Ministry of Research. Dr. Barbier is the co-author of
more than 100 scientific publications.
Brian Bonner, Global Product Manager, Hydrogen Energy Systems, Air Products
As Global Product Manager of Hydrogen Energy Systems, Mr. Bonner leads the development of Air
Products’ hydrogen supply chain strategies to support product development, market positioning, and
introduction of hydrogen-based fueling systems for the emerging hydrogen and alternative energy
economy. Air Products is a leading world supplier of merchant hydrogen from more than 60 production
sites, and delivers hydrogen through over 700 miles of pipeline and via one of the world’s largest liquid
and gas tank truck fleets. They have experience providing hydrogen at more than 140 hydrogen fueling
stations in 19 countries around the world and are approaching 1 million hydrogen vehicle refuelings. Mr.
Bonner also works with industry stakeholders in assessing new technology, economics, and
environmental legislation for the early-stage, transitional, and long-term hydrogen economy. He holds a
degree in Operations Research and Management Science from Penn State University and has post-
graduate development and training at the Institute for the Study of Business Markets at Penn State and
the Metals Engineering Institute. Mr. Bonner has authored and published a number of technical papers
and has 16 U.S. and international patents.
B-2
Dr. Lawrence Burns, Director, Program on Sustainable Mobility, The Earth Institute, Columbia
University
Dr. Burns currently serves as the Director of the Program on Sustainable Mobility with The Earth
Institute at Columbia University. Additionally, he is a Professor of Engineering Practice at the
University of Michigan, and serves as Senior Advisor to the Chairman of Hess Corporation, a consultant
to Google Inc., Vice Chairman of the Midwest Research Institute, a member of the CleanTech Advisory
Council with Vantage Point Capital Partners, and an Advisory Council Member of Greentech Capital
Advisors Securities, LLC. Dr. Burns completed a distinguished career with General Motors, after
serving as Corporate Vice President of R&D and Strategic Planning from 1998-2009. In this role, he
oversaw GM’s advanced technology and innovation programs for all of GM’s powertrain platforms and
reported directly to its CEO/President. In addition, he led GM’s development of new automotive “DNA”
that married electrically driven and “connected vehicle” technologies in pursuit of affordable,
sustainable, and personal smart vehicles. From 1988-1997, he held a wide range of leadership positions
at GM, including industrial engineering, quality, production control, product/manufacturing/business
planning, and product program management. Dr. Burns holds a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the
University of California at Berkeley, where he is a member for the Advisory Council for its Institute of
Transportation Studies. He earned his master’s degree in engineering and public policy from the
University of Michigan and his bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering from General Motors
Institute (now Kettering University). He was elected into the National Academy of Engineering in 2011.
Joseph Cargnelli, Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Hydrogenics

In addition to Mr. Cargnelli’s role as CTO for Hydrogenics, he has also served as the Vice President of
Technology since 1995. Hydrogenics is a Canadian company with over 60 years of experience
designing, manufacturing, building, and installing industrial and commercial hydrogen systems around
the world, with over 1,800 units installed in over 100 countries. Mr. Cargnelli is also the Director of
Stuart Energy, a Hydrogenics subsidiary. In 2002 Mr. Cargnelli was selected as one of the world’s top
100 young innovators by Technology Review, MIT’s magazine of innovation. He previously worked as a
Research Engineer with the Laboratory of Advanced Concepts in Energy Conversion Inc., a laboratory
engaged in the research, development, and demonstration of alkaline fuel cells and hydrogen storage
methods. His professional affiliations include the Professional Engineers of Ontario, Canada. Mr.
Cargnelli holds an M.S. and B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Toronto.
Udo Dengel, Sales Manager of Onsite Hydrogen, Air Liquide

Mr. Dengel is Sales Manager of Onsite Hydrogen at Air Liquide’s HYOS team in Washington DC. Air
Liquide produces over seven billion cubic meters of hydrogen annually, with revenues exceeding 1,200
million euros per year. In his current capacity, Mr. Dengel is responsible for business development and
the sale of onsite hydrogen plants based on technology acquired by Air Liquide from H2Gen
Innovations. Before joining Air Liquide, he was the International Sales Director at H2Gen where he
successfully launched their onsite hydrogen generation and gas purification technologies in international
markets. Prior to his work in the hydrogen technology sector, Mr. Dengel worked as Controller and Key
Account Manager at MTS GmbH in Munich, Commercial Director at Southside Thermal Sciences Ltd.
in London, and Project Manager at ZF Friedrichshafen AG. He holds an M.B.A. and a B.S. in Industrial
Engineering, and attended the Imperial College London, the Fachhochschule Esslingen - Hochschule für
Technik, and the Université de Technologie de Compiègne, France.
B-3
Robert Friedland, Co-Founder, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Proton OnSite
Proton OnSite was founded in 1996 and specializes in the design and manufacture of proton exchange
membrane (PEM) electrochemical systems for hydrogen production, with over 8MW installed in more
than 70 countries, exceeding 1,800 fielded systems. Before being appointed President and CEO, Mr.
Friedland held various positions of increasing responsibility at Proton including Chief Operating Officer
and Senior Vice President of Products and Manufacturing. Mr. Friedland is an internationally-
recognized expert in the hydrogen energy and fuel cell industry, and has over 23 years of experience that
span engineering, manufacturing, finance and operations. Prior to 1996, Mr. Friedland spent nine years
at Hamilton Sundstrand, a division of United Technologies, where he was the Program Operations
Manager of Navy and Electrochemical Systems. He has delivered numerous papers and presentations on
current and future uses of hydrogen. Mr. Friedland earned his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from
Syracuse University and his M.B.A. from Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Dr. Thomas Jarvi, Chief Technology Officer, Sun Catalytix

Sun Catalytix is an energy storage and renewable fuels technology company founded to commercialize
groundbreaking science from the research laboratory of Professor Daniel Nocera at MIT. Prior to joining
Sun Catalytix as the Chief Technology Officer in 2010, Dr. Jarvi was the Director of Cell Stack
Engineering at UTC Power Corporation, a United Technologies Company that has established itself as a
world leader in fuel cell technology and deployment. He also served as Director of Technology
Development for UTC Power, with responsibility for overall technology planning and program
execution. Dr. Jarvi started his industrial career at United Technologies Research Center in 1998, where
he focused on research into fundamental degradation mechanisms of fuel cells. He has published over a
dozen papers in electrochemistry and fuel cells, and is co-inventor on ten issued or pending patents. He
received his Ph.D. from the University of Washington in 1998 and his B.S. from the University of
Illinois in 1993, both in Chemical Engineering.
Edward Kiczek, Global Business Director, Hydrogen Energy Systems, Air Products
Mr. Kiczek has been employed with Air Products for 25 years and currently serves as the Global
Business Director for Hydrogen Energy Systems. Air Products is a leading world supplier of merchant
hydrogen from more than 60 production sites, and delivers hydrogen through over 700 miles of pipeline
and via one of the world’s largest liquid and gas tank truck fleets. They have experience providing
hydrogen at more than 140 hydrogen fueling stations in 19 countries around the world and are
approaching 1 million hydrogen vehicle refuelings. Mr. Kiczek’s responsibilities include strategic
alliances, joint ventures, and equity investment opportunities related to alternative fuels and
complementary offerings to Air Products’ core hydrogen business to position the company to serve
evolving alternative energy markets, including personal vehicles, fleet vehicles, stationary power and
auxiliary power applications. His efforts include worldwide legislative positioning of the groups’ efforts
to obtain federal support. Mr. Kiczek has participated on the Boards of several start-up companies and
sits on the Board of the Center for Transportation Excellence. Under Mr. Kiczek’s leadership the
group’s commercial revenues have doubled over the last 3 years in which he has taken the group to
profitability. Mr. Kiczek has been awarded 18 patents in various areas, and has an M.S. in Mechanical
Engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology and an M.B.A. from Fairleigh Dickinson University.
B-4
Dr. Nathan Lewis, George L. Argyros Professor of Chemistry, California Institute of Technology
Dr. Lewis has been on the faculty at the California Institute of Technology since 1988 and is the George
L. Argyros Professor of Chemistry. He specializes in functionalization of silicon and other
semiconductor surfaces, as well as chemical sensing using chemiresistive sensor arrays. Dr. Lewis has
served as the Principal Investigator of the Beckman Institute Molecular Materials Resource Center at
Caltech since 1992, and is the director of the Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis, DOE’s Energy
Innovation Hub on Fuels from Sunlight. He was on the faculty of Stanford from 1981 to 1986, as an
assistant professor and as a tenured Associate Professor. Dr. Lewis has been an Alfred P. Sloan Fellow,
a Camille and Henry Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar, and a Presidential Young Investigator. He received the
Fresenius Award in 1990, the ACS Award in Pure Chemistry in 1991, the Orton Memorial Lecture
award in 2003, the Princeton Environmental Award in 2003 and the Michael Faraday Medal of the
Royal Society of Electrochemistry in 2008. He has published over 300 papers and has supervised
approximately 60 graduate students and postdoctoral associates. Dr. Lewis was named the 17th greatest
effector of change by Rolling Stone magazine, and has been appointed chair of the Editorial Board for
the Royal Society of Science journal Energy and Environmental Science. He obtained his B.S. and M.S.
degrees at Caltech under Harry B. Gray in 1977 studying the redox reactions of inorganic rhodium
complexes. He received a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1981 for his work
under Mark S. Wrighton studying semiconductor electrochemistry.
Dr. Bruce Logan, Kappe Professor of Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State University
In addition to being an endowed Professor of Environmental Engineering at Penn State University, Dr.
Logan serves as Director of both Penn State’s Hydrogen Energy Center and College of Engineering
Environmental Institute. He has published over 200 journal articles and numerous books in research
areas that include bioenergy production, bioremediation, environmental transport processes, colloidal
dynamics, and microbial adhesion. Dr. Logan is a visiting professor at Newcastle University in England
and Harbin Institute of Technology in China, and an investigator with the King Abdullah University of
Science and Technology in Saudi Arabia. Prior to joining the faculty at Penn State in 1997, he was on
the faculty at the University of Arizona in the Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering.
He received his M.S. in Environmental Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and his Ph.D.
in Environmental Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley.
Dr. Arthur Nozik, Senior Research Fellow Emeritus, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Dr. Nozik is a Senior Research Fellow Emeritus at the U.S. DOE National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) and Professor Adjoint in the Chemistry Department at the University of Colorado,
Boulder. Before joining NREL in 1978, he conducted research at the Allied Chemical Corporation and
American Cyanamid Corporation. Dr. Nozik’s research interests include size quantization effects in
semiconductor quantum dots and quantum wells (and the applications of these nanostructures to solar
photon conversion), photogenerated carrier relaxation dynamics in semiconductor structures,
photoelectrochemistry of semiconductor-molecule interfaces, photoelectrochemical energy conversion,
and photocatalysis. He holds 11 U.S. patents and has published over 250 papers and book chapters in
these fields. He has served on numerous scientific review and advisory panels and received several
awards in solar energy research. Dr. Nozik has been a Senior Editor of The Journal of Physical
Chemistry since 1993, and serves on the Editorial Boards of the journals Energy and Environmental
Science, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, and NanoEnergy. He is also a Fellow of the American
B-5
Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He received his BChE
from Cornell University in 1959 and his Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Yale University in 1967.
Pinakin Patel, Director of Special Systems and Research, FuelCell Energy

As the Director of Special Systems and Research at FuelCell Energy, Mr. Patel is responsible for
development of innovative fuel cell applications using high temperature fuel cells including carbonate,
solid oxide and PEM. He is responsible for the research and development of low-cost solutions for
hydrogen infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles, particularly using renewable fuels such as ethanol, bio-
diesel, glycerol, and waste-derived biogas. Mr. Patel has led collaborative research, development and
demonstration efforts with international companies, such as Sanyo and Mitsubishi in Japan, Haldor
Topsoe and Elkraft Power Co. in Denmark, Daimler-Chrysler (MTU division) in Germany, and
Hydrogen companies such as Air Products, Linde-BOC, and Air Liquide. He has authored or co-
authored over 100 publications and seminar presentations, and holds 15 patents. Mr. Patel holds an M.S.
in Chemistry from Illinois Institute of Technology, and a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from M.S.
University of Baroda, India.
Dr. Prabhu Rao, Vice President of Commercial Operations, Nuvera Fuel Cells
Nuvera Fuel Cells is a leading company in the development and advancement of multi-fuel processing
and fuel cell technology, including natural gas reformers. In his current position as Vice President of
Commercial Operations, Dr. Rao oversees the company’s distributed generation and hydrogen
production product lines. He has been instrumental in the successful implementation of the ISO quality
system at Nuvera. Dr. Rao has also served as Nuvera’s Vice President of Product Development and
Manufacturing activities, where he facilitated the development of the company’s stationary and
industrial products. Previously, he was a Co-Founder of Epyx Inc. which later merged with DeNora Fuel
Cells to become Nuvera. At Epyx, he led the automotive business team and launched successful joint
development activities with companies such as Renault and Peugeot. Dr. Rao is currently the Co-Chair
of The Indus Entrepreneurs’ CleanTech & Energy SIG. He holds a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and
an M.S. in Mechanical Engineering and Environmental Engineering from Drexel University, and earned
his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.
Dr. Geraldine Richmond, Richard M. and Patricia H. Noyes Professor, Department of Chemistry,
University of Oregon
Dr. Richmond is the Richard M. and Patricia H. Noyes Professor in the Department of Chemistry at the
University of Oregon. She has distinguished herself in research using nonlinear optical spectroscopy and
computational methods applied to understanding the chemistry that occurs at complex surfaces and
interfaces that have relevance to important problems in energy production, environmental remediation,
atmospheric chemistry and biomolecular surfaces. Over 160 publications have resulted from this
research. Dr. Richmond has also played an important role in setting the national scientific agenda
through her service on many science boards and advisory panels. Most recent appointments include
Associate Editor of Annual Reviews of Physical Chemistry (2006-2008), Chair of the Science Advisory
Committee of the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (2006-2008), and Chair of the Chemistry
Section, Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2009-2010). She is the founder and chair
of the Committee on the Advancement of Women Chemists, an organization assisting in the
advancement of women faculty in the sciences, for which she was awarded the Presidential Award for
Excellence in Science and Engineering Mentoring (1997). Dr. Richmond received her Ph.D. in
B-6
Chemical Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, where she worked under the mentorship of
Prof. George Pimentel.
Dr. Robert W. Shaw, Jr., President and founder, Aretê Corporation

Dr. Shaw is President and founder of Aretê Corporation, a venture capital firm focused on alternative
energy technologies. He founded Aretê in 1983 and led the Utech and Micro-Generation Technology
Fund investment teams. Prior to forming Aretê, Dr. Shaw was Senior Vice President of Booz, Allen &
Hamilton's Energy Division and a member of the firm's Board of Directors. He has served as Chairman
and Director of Evergreen Solar, Inc. (ESLR), Distributed Energy Systems Corporation (DESC), CTP
Hydrogen Corporation, and Superconductivity, Inc. (sold to American Superconductor Corporation,
AMSC) and as a Director of H2Gen Innovations, Inc. He has also held advisory positions on numerous
venture and private equity firms. Earlier in his career, Dr. Shaw conducted materials and electronics
research at Bell Laboratories and the Cavendish Laboratory in the U.K. He holds a Ph.D. in Applied
Physics from Stanford University, an M.P.A. in Organization Design and Development from American
University, and an M.S. in Electrical Engineering and a B.E.P. from Cornell University. Dr. Shaw is
also a member of the Cornell University Engineering College Council and a trustee of the Society for
Science and the Public.
Dr. Levi Thompson, Director, Hydrogen Energy Technology Laboratory, University of Michigan
Dr. Thompson is the Richard E. Balzhiser Collegiate Professor of Chemical Engineering and Director of
the Hydrogen Energy Technology Laboratory at the University of Michigan. He also holds appointments
in the University’s Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Physics Programs. Dr.
Thompson has distinguished himself in research in the areas of novel catalytic, electrocatalytic, and
adsorbent materials. He is co-founder of T/J Technologies, a developer of nanomaterials for advanced
batteries that was acquired by A123Systems in 2006, and more recently founded Inmatech to
commercialize catalytic materials and processes discovered and developed in his University of Michigan
laboratories. He is the Director of the Michigan-Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation, a
National Science Foundation funded program that teams the University of Michigan with other
Michigan universities in an effort to significantly increase the number of minority students earning
science, technology, engineering and mathematics baccalaureate degrees. He serves as Consulting Editor
for the AIChe Journal and is a member of numerous technology committees and roundtables. Professor
Thompson has authored more than 200 publications and has been awarded ten patents. He received his
Ph.D. and M.S.E. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Michigan, and his B.ChE from the
University of Delaware.
Dr. John Turner, Research Fellow, National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Dr. Turner is an internationally recognized expert in the field of hydrogen production via
photoelectrochemical splitting of water, and has also made important contributions in the development
of novel fuel cell components. His monolithic photovoltaic-photoelectrochemical device continues to
hold the world-record efficiency for solar water splitting (>12% direct solar to hydrogen conversion
efficiency). Other work involves the study of electrode materials for high energy density lithium
batteries and fundamental processes of charge transfer at semiconductor electrodes. He has authored or
co-authored more than 140 technical publications, He received the Hydrogen Technical Advisory
Committee (HTAC) award for Research Excellence in 1999, twice received the Midwestern Research
Institute President's Award for Exceptional Performance in Research, the Idaho State University
Outstanding Achievement Award and received the U.S. DOE Office of Science Outstanding Mentor
B-7
Award in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. He is the Editor of the Journal of Renewable and
Sustainable Energy (an AIP journal), and a Fellow at the Renewable and Sustainable Energy Institute.
He received his B.S. from Idaho State University, his Ph.D. from Colorado State University, and
completed a postdoctoral appointment at the California Institute of Technology before joining NREL in
1979.
Dr. Yong Wang, Laboratory Fellow, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Dr. Wang has served as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s (PNNL) Associate Director of the
Institute for Integrated Catalysis since 2008, and led the Catalysis and Reaction Engineering Team from
2000 to 2007. Concurrent with his position at PNNL, he holds a joint appointment at Washington State
University, where he is the Voiland Distinguished Professor in Chemical Engineering. Dr. Wang is an
internationally-recognized leader in the development of novel catalytic materials and reaction
engineering for the conversion of fossil and biomass feedstocks to fuels and chemicals. He has authored
more than 130 peer reviewed publications and is the inventor numerous catalytic technologies, resulting
in more than 150 patents. He received a Ph.D. and M.S. in Chemical Engineering from Washington
State University and an M.S. and B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the Chengdu University of Science
and Technology, China.
Dr. Alan Weimer, H.T. Sears Professor, Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering,
University of Colorado
In addition to being an endowed Professor in the University of Colorado at Boulder’s (CU) Department
of Chemical & Biological Engineering, Dr. Weimer is also the Executive Director of the Colorado
Center for Biorefining and Biofuels located at CU. Previously he worked as a research scientist for over
15 years at the Dow Chemical Company in Midland, Michigan. Dr. Weimer’s numerous awards include
the Excellence in Bio-Derived Technology Commercialization Award from the Colorado Cleantech
Industry Association in 2010, the AIChE Excellence in Process Development Research Award in 2010,
the University of Colorado Physical Science Company of the Year Award (Sundrop Fuels) in 2009, and
the Dow Chemical Company Research Inventor of the Year Award in 1993. He received his Ph.D. and
M.S. in Chemical Engineering at the University of Colorado and his B.S. at University of Cincinnati.
Daryl Wilson, Chief Executive Officer and President, Hydrogenics

Mr. Wilson has been the Chief Executive Officer and President of Hydrogenics since December 2006,
and has served as the Director of ATS Automation Tooling Systems Inc. since February 2009.
Hydrogenics is a Canadian company with over 60 years of experience designing, manufacturing,
building, and installing industrial and commercial hydrogen systems around the world, with over 1,800
units installed in over 100 countries. His 25-year background in technology and industrial management
has included experience in operations, manufacturing, human resources, product research and
development, and organizational change and turn-around. Prior to joining Hydrogenics, Mr. Wilson held
numerous senior leadership positions, including Senior Vice President of Manufacturing, Engineering
and Development Divisions of Royal Group, Inc.; Vice President of Manufacturing Operations
Divisions of ZENON; and Vice President of Manufacturing at Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada,
Inc. He holds a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Toronto and earned an M.B.A. in
Operations Management/ Management Science from McMaster University.
B-8
Appendix C
An Invitation Letter from U.S. Secretary of

Energy Dr. Steven Chu to Dr. Levi Thompson,
Chair of the Hydrogen Production Expert
Panel
C-1
C-2
Appendix D
A Perspective on Hydrogen Production
Presented to the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel

May 10, 2012
Dr. Lawrence D. Burns
Professor of Engineering Practice

University of Michigan
Director of the Program on Sustainable Mobility

Columbia University
D-1
ABSTRACT
This paper provides a perspective on hydrogen production based on the drivers of transformational
change and how hydrogen might create value in the future economy. While we are swimming in a sea
of creative disruption, our energy and transportation systems have changed only incrementally over the
last century despite promising technology and troubling side effects. Necessary conditions for
transformational change in these sectors are identified and recommendations for near and long term
hydrogen production are provided based on these conditions. Specifically, the future of hydrogen
production should
Be framed in the context of value creation and integrated energy systems, not on a stand-
alone basis
Be judged in terms of system metrics and targets focused on how value is derived from
hydrogen, not simply in terms of the cost, efficiency and CO2 emissions of different supply
chains
Encompass fossil and renewable feed-stocks for hydrogen jointly and avoid prematurely
dismissing options
Recognize the interdependence of hydrogen demand and the devices that use hydrogen to
create value (e.g., more fuel cell electric vehicles leads to more hydrogen demand which
leads to more hydrogen supply which leads to more fuel cell electric vehicles)
Realize that hydrogen from natural gas in the near term will help establish a market demand
for hydrogen from renewable sources in the long term
Comprehend market “tipping points” as a necessary condition for large scale market
penetration and target them with fast, efficient learning cycles (markets tip when consumer
value > market price > supplier cost)
View hydrogen and its uses as one of many promising opportunities, not as the sole answer
for the future, or simply a competitive alternative to other energy carriers
D-2
INTRODUCTION
This paper shares my perspective on hydrogen production and its importance to the future of energy
and transportation in the United States. It emerged from a request by Levi Thompson, Bob Shaw and
Eric Miller to help motivate and frame the work of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel organized by
the Federal Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Advisory Committee (HTAC).
Hydrogen plays an important role in the world’s economy today and appears destined to play an even
more important role. Momentum is building worldwide for broader uses of hydrogen on a larger scale.
For example,
Hydrogen is essential to convert tar sands and heavy hydrocarbons into modern and cleaner
fuels
Hydrogen is being produced from surplus wind energy and stored in salt caverns for future use
Combined heat, hydrogen and power systems (CHHP) are being developed to make more
efficient use of natural gas
Hydrogen is being distributed and stored in natural gas pipelines
Several automakers (e.g., Daimler, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota) have signaled their
intentions to market commercial fuel cell electric vehicles in 2013 to 2016 and Germany, Korea,
the United Kingdom and Japan have committed to deploying hydrogen stations for these
vehicles
Japan is exploring the use of bi-product hydrogen from steel manufacturing for a variety of
purposes
These examples are in addition to today’s already important uses of hydrogen in refineries, chemical
plants and ammonia/fertilizer production.
Because of its geographic size, the inertia of its installed energy and transportation systems, and strong
vested interests in these systems, the US faces significant challenges transitioning to an economy that is
increasingly dependent on hydrogen. At the same time, the U.S. has much to lose in terms of energy
economics, national security, geo-political leverage, and economic growth by falling behind. There is
significant first-mover advantage in owning transformational technologies, in gaining real world know-
how and in developing an experienced workforce. We witnessed this during the industrial revolution
and we see it today in the enormous success of companies like Apple, Google, Microsoft and Intel.
Clearly, the contributions of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel will prove timely for the U.S. and I
am pleased to have an opportunity to help frame this initiative.
We tend to view things through lenses shaped by our experiences and interpret what we see in a
context based on our knowledge and beliefs. This means several people can view the same things and
reach different conclusions. Such diversity can be useful in preparing for the future.
How I see and interpret the world is influenced by my past experiences as General Motors Vice
President of Research & Development and Planning from 1998-2009, and my ongoing experiences as
D-3
Professor of Engineering Practice, College of Engineering, University of Michigan
Director, Program on Sustainable Mobility, The Earth Institute, Columbia University
Senior Advisor to the Chairman, Hess Corporation
Consultant, Google Inc.
Vice Chairman, MRIGlobal (a not-for-profit company responsible for co-managing the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Member, Advisory Council, VantagePoint Capital Partners
Member, Advisory Council, GreenTech Capital Advisors
Member, Advisory Board, Kitson & Partners (an innovative real estate developer)
Taken together, my GM and “encore” careers have provided both a wide-angle lens and a microscope
for viewing what is occurring on several fronts. This paper shares what I see related to
Transformational change
Energy and transportation
Hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell electric vehicles
Hydrogen production
It then interprets what I see to help frame the important work of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel.
TRANSFORMATIONAL CHANGE
Transformational change fundamentally alters an entire system and redefines how it behaves. It creates
a new future that has never existed before and results in new assumptions, beliefs, principles, patterns,
and rules for understanding system behavior and dynamics. In contrast to incremental change, which
occurs within the confines of past experience and can often be modeled and predicted, transformational
change is typically disruptive and hard to forecast.
From my vantage point, I see the following
1. Transformational change has already disrupted several industries and is in the process of
disrupting many more
2. Transformational change is often due to a combination of technology and business model
innovation
3. Value creation is being transformed by design and process innovation focused on delivering
compelling consumer experiences
4. Incumbents are inherently at a disadvantage and typically do poorly when confronted with
transformational change
5. Today’s “grand challenges” are rooted in systems-of-systems with huge inertia (i.e., they are
“wicked” problems)
6. New commercial “eco-systems” are often needed before markets adopt new technology
7. Communities have the opportunity to redefine public goods using technology and
governance/business models that simultaneously offer better services at lower cost
D-4
While each snapshot is interesting to reflect on alone, when viewed as a photo album they suggest
something significant might be taking place. Moreover, when combined to form a collage, a profound
picture emerges that should not be ignored.
One’s interpretation of this picture depends on one’s perspective. When I “connect the dots,” I see a
world characterized by rapid and disruptive change that is transforming how people lead their everyday
lives and how enterprises and individuals create value. Whether one calls this “Disruptive Innovation,”
“Creative Disruption,” the “Innovation Economy” or the “Experience Economy,” it is clear that the world
is not flat! Instead, our future is being defined by change that is non-linear, dynamic and uncertain.
Preparing for this future requires more than continuous improvement. It also calls for bold initiatives
that create the future, not just respond to it.
The future of energy and transportation is being defined within this setting of widespread
transformational change. This is one reason why the work of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel is
important. Hydrogen production is an essential part of a larger system that promises to transform how
we interact economically and socially. We must understand hydrogen production in the context of how
hydrogen will help create value in the future economy.
By examining several examples of transformational change, I have concluded the following are
necessary to make it happen
The total system must be comprehended

Commercial eco-systems encompassing several industries must be changed together
Market tipping points must be reached wherein consumer value > market price > supplier cost
Focus must be placed on enhancing consumer experiences (to increase value) and supplier
processes (to reduce cost and improve quality)
Fast and efficient learning cycles with real products and real consumers must be pursued at the
right scale
Applying these conditions to energy and transportation in general, and hydrogen infrastructure and fuel
cell electric vehicles specifically, helps frame how we should approach the future of hydrogen
production.
ENERGY AND TRANSPORTATION
For the most part, the U.S. energy and transportation (excluding air) systems have had the same
fundamental “DNA” for over a century. While they have continuously improved incrementally, they
have not fundamentally transformed the way several other industries have (for example, the
information, communications, publishing, media, pharmaceutical and photography industries).
Globalization, negative side effects and maturing new technology all suggest energy and transportation
are ripe for transformational change. Why hasn’t it occurred? I believe the answer is because these
systems
1. Are highly complex with extensive interdependencies among their components

2. Depend on each other to deliver consumer value
D-5
3. Have huge inertia
4. Are driven by multiple objectives (economic growth, jobs growth, national security,
sustainability, freedom, …)
5. Have strong vested interests that either resist change or seek to bias change
6. Have been steered with inconsistent purpose
7. Are addressed with individual technologies and by individual sectors when
the value of one technology often depends on other technologies (we get trapped into
arguing technology A is better than technology B when A and B together generally
trump A or B alone)
our daily lives seamlessly touch many sectors interdependently
Based on a campus-wide energy systems and policy seminar I co-led at University of Michigan last year, I
have concluded that our energy challenge is not due to a lack of resources or knowledge. Plenty of raw
energy exists to grow the world’s economies and plenty of technology exists to do so sustainably.
Instead, our energy challenge is due to
A lack of integrated systems

The enormous inertia of the installed base
Leadership that is driven by vested interests
By combining our abundant fossil and renewable energy resources with a broad portfolio of promising
technology, integrated system opportunities surface with the potential to excite consumers, reward
investors and enable sustainable development.
Transformational change is within reach for energy and transportation. But, we must pursue it in the
context of
How we live our daily lives

Integrated systems
Creating compelling customer experiences based on new technology
Focusing on market tipping points by learning fast, efficiently and robustly
Thinking and acting holistically with a common understanding and collective will
HYDROGEN AND FUEL CELLS
Fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) using hydrogen from a variety of sources are among the maturing
technology promising to transform transportation and energy. There are a wide range of views on the
ultimate potential, timetable and importance of FCEVs and the viability of a hydrogen infrastructure to
enable them.
Based on my hands-on experience leading GM’s fuel cell program for over a decade and my continued
involvement with this technology since leaving GM, FCEVs are real! Compelling evidence suggests
others share my view. For example, why would Daimler, GM, Honda, Hyundai and Toyota all continue
D-6
costly FCEV development programs over the past four years, amidst a severe auto industry recession
and the launch of highly incentivized plug-in electric vehicles, if they did not feel this technology holds
real promise? The answer is because they believe they can ultimately supply FCEVs that are marketable,
affordable, durable, sustainable and profitable. For consumers, FCEVs will be
Safe
Family-sized
Refuel fast (5 to 10 minutes)
Have acceptable range (>300 miles)
Have pleasing electric drive attributes
Cost no more than vehicles with other technologies meeting future regulations
Several OEMS are indicating they have advanced to the point where the remaining challenges can only
be addressed through market-based learning cycles with real customers using commercially designed
and engineered FCEVs. In fact, Hyundai stated they will start this dynamic in 2013.
These auto companies can’t take this step alone. To create value with FCEVs, hydrogen must be safely,
conveniently and affordably available. Just like today’s roadway transportation system, auto companies
must co-exist with energy companies in a commercial eco-system for consumers to realize value from
fuel cells and hydrogen. The good news is that it appears the required hydrogen infrastructure for
FCEVs is also real! Hydrogen produced from natural gas (either at a station or delivered to a station) is
cost competitive on a “gasoline gallon equivalence” (gge) basis given today’s oil and natural prices. And,
my “farmer’s math” suggests the U.S. can get off imported OPEC oil with just over a 10% increase in
natural gas demand if this natural gas is reformed to make hydrogen for FCEVs. The issue is not the
availability of alternatives to oil for transportation in the U.S. Instead, it is the lack of vehicles that can
use these alternatives.
So, we have reached a critical juncture, which is not surprising given the necessary conditions for
transforming complex systems with co-dependence. For FCEVs to realize their full potential, hydrogen
must be available to customers. And, for hydrogen to become available, FCEVs must exist to use it. But,
this will only happen if commercial learning cycles are enabled for both the vehicles and the
infrastructure. Clearly, we must transition both the auto industry and energy industry together and this
is hard to do in light of the strong vested interests that exist in the current system.
To break this log-jam, auto companies, energy companies and governments must work together to
efficiently and quickly reach the market tipping point for FCEVs using hydrogen. In essence, to create
value, we must deploy a customer-centric commercial system based on FCEVs and hydrogen. Germany
is providing a good example of how this can be done. Hopefully, the U.S. will muster the collective will
to follow Germany’s lead.
My ”farmer’s math” also suggests that the hydrogen infrastructure investment to support first
generation commercial FCEVs is on the order of 1/50th the investment already made by auto
companies. Together, auto companies will likely have invested on the order of $10B to position to
deploy commercial FCEVs. The first 50,000 FCEVs will use about 50,000 kg of H2 per day. This is 200
stations at 250 kg per day. At $1M per station, this is $200M, a relatively small investment to take the
required learning to the next level.
D-7
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
A lot of hydrogen is already being produced today in a variety of ways (steam/methane reforming,
electrolysis, bio-hydrogen) and for many value adding uses (e.g., oil refining, fertilizer, chemicals, forklift
trucks). Based on its attributes and where the world appears headed, we will very likely need
significantly more hydrogen in the future for a wider variety of purposes. Many supply chains will
compete to produce hydrogen from a variety of feed-stocks in a variety of ways at a variety of scales for
a variety of purposes and a variety of consumers. Such competition is healthy. The Hydrogen
Production Expert Panel will help us prepare for this future by enabling a common understanding of the
future of hydrogen production.
As the panel goes about its work, I recommend we ask
 What is the system within which hydrogen production exists and what value does hydrogen
provide in this system?
 How does this system impact hydrogen production and how does hydrogen production
impact the system?
 How should we judge the value of hydrogen (metrics and targets)?
I also suggest that we don’t just scientifically explore ways to produce hydrogen. While this is
important, we also need to innovate in the context of the entire required commercial eco-system.
Hydrogen needs to be produced, stored, distributed and converted to create value, and how it is
produced should comprehend the other steps in this value supply chain. For example, because
hydrogen is difficult to distribute, there are advantages to producing at smaller scale and close to points
of use.
I also recommend that we be careful to not prematurely dismiss options for producing hydrogen. You
never know where an option might lead, especially in a system context. For example, producing
hydrogen from surplus wind electricity via electrolysis and distributing/storing it in natural gas pipelines
may prove to be of value. This option should not be dismissed solely on an efficiency basis.
We must also recognize that it is going to be very difficult to realize significant CO2 reduction in road
transportation without electrically driven vehicles. We will need to transition the U.S. car fleet to have a
significant mix of these vehicles and natural gas appears to be a good source of hydrogen (and
electricity) to stimulate this mix. Therefore, we should not dismiss natural gas as a source of hydrogen
simply because it is a fossil fuel and results in CO2 (albeit much less per mile when used for hydrogen in
FCEVs or electricity in plug-in EVs). Instead we need to create an upward growth spiral for hydrogen by
combining fossil and renewable energy sources systematically and synergistically.
The panel should focus on producing hydrogen in a system context to meet today’s needs and to reach
market tipping points. It should also focus on innovation to enable more applications and greater supply
more sustainably.
D-8
I specifically recommend the future of hydrogen production should
Be framed in the context of integrated energy systems, not on a stand-alone basis

Be judged in terms of system metrics and targets focused on how value is derived from
hydrogen, not simply in terms of the cost, efficiency and CO2 emissions of different supply
chains
Encompass fossil and renewable feed-stocks for hydrogen together and avoid prematurely
dismissing options
Recognize the interdependence of hydrogen demand and the devices that use hydrogen to
create value (e.g., more fuel cell electric vehicles leads to more hydrogen demand which
leads to more hydrogen supply which leads to more fuel cell electric vehicles)
Realize that hydrogen from natural gas in the near term will help establish a market demand
for hydrogen from renewable sources in the long term
Comprehend market “tipping points” as a necessary condition for large scale market
penetration and target them with fast, efficient learning cycles (markets tip when consumer
value > market price > supplier cost)
View hydrogen and its uses as one of many promising opportunities, not as the sole answer
for the future
CLOSING
In the near-term, let’s deploy an initial hydrogen infrastructure in sync with auto company plans to
deploy commercial FCEVs. First generation commercialization is essential to begin creating consumer
value that will lead to the required commercial eco-system needed to reach a market tipping point.
In the mid-term, let’s be sure we reach a market tipping point based on the value sweet spots for
hydrogen in a system context.
In the long-term, let’s pursue new ideas in anticipation of a much larger future market for hydrogen as a
key component of the energy, transportation and economic systems defining how we will live our daily
lives.
For sure, hydrogen is not the sole answer and offers little value on a stand-alone basis. Therefore, we
should avoid frictional losses by debating whether hydrogen is a better energy carrier than electricity.
Both are important and the fact that hydrogen can produce electricity and electricity can produce
hydrogen makes their value synergistic and their uses complementary.
Hydrogen’s value is realized in terms of the role it plays in a broader system. It is not a source of energy.
It is an energy carrier that must be produced, distributed, stored, and converted to deliver energy for
power and heat. The fact that hydrogen can be produced from fossil, renewable and nuclear sources is
an “and” synergy not an “or” trade-off.
D-9
For hydrogen to prove valuable, we need “apps” that use hydrogen. For such “apps” to exist, hydrogen
must be available. To resolve this “chicken and egg” dilemma, we must collaborate and we must also
have a rooster! Relative to hydrogen production, the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel has the
opportunity to be the rooster.
Some say we cannot afford to do everything and that we must place our bets and try to pick winners.
The Clinton/Gore Administration bet on hybrids. The Bush/Cheney Administration bet on hydrogen and
fuel cell EVs. And, now the Obama/Biden Administration is betting on batteries and plug-in EVs.
The bottom-line is that we need all three and even more. The key is to learn fast and efficiently. The
key is to focus initially on market tipping points to get to the ultimate end goal. The key is to view
technologies as part of an integrated system, not on a stand-alone basis. This means it is best to bet on
what I call the Power of “And” which is the sustainable energy and mobility future that results from
thinking and acting holistically.
While there are no “silver bullet” solutions to the future of energy and transportation, it does appear
hydrogen will play a bigger role in helping create value in the future economy. This means hydrogen
production will be increasingly important. Germany, Korea, the UK and Japan have decided to pursue
this opportunity more aggressively than the U.S. to improve the lives of their citizens through enhanced
industrial competitiveness and energy security. They have clearly learned from the U.S. led industrial
revolution regarding the importance of positioning for leadership.
I will end by sharing one last thing I am seeing that is very troubling to me and I am sure you. It is the
lack of common understanding and collective will we have among our elected and appointed leaders on
these subjects. I encourage all of us to keep asking “how can we work together to enable all promising
technologies to quickly and efficiently realize their interdependent market “tipping points?” The
Hydrogen Production Expert Panel has an important role to play here by providing a definitive
statement on hydrogen production. Hopefully, our government leaders will listen to your findings and
act on them accordingly.
D-10
Appendix E
Hydrogen Production Expert Panel Presentations
Expert Panel Vision & Process ________________________________________________ E-2
Dr. Levi Thompson, Chair, Hydrogen Production Expert Panel
Addressing the Hydrogen Production Challenges _________________________________ E-3
Udo Dengel, Air Liquide
Hydrogen Production & Supply _______________________________________________ E-7
Brian Bonner, Air Products
Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee _____________________________ E-12
Prabhu Rao, Nuvera Fuel Cells
Near-Term Opportunities for CHHP Technology _________________________________ E-16
Pinakin Patel, FuelCell Energy
PEM Electrolysis Summary __________________________________________________ E-21
Dr. Katherine Ayers, Proton OnSite
Large Scale Electrolytic Hydrogen ____________________________________________ E-30
Joseph Cargnelli, Hydrogenics
Hydrogen Production from Photoelectrochemical Systems ________________________ E-33
Dr. John A. Turner, National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Pathways to Renewable Hydrogen ___________________________________________ E-40
Dr. Thomas Jarvi, Sun Catalytix
Microbial Electrochemical Technologies and Osmotic Power for Bioelectrochemical
Hydrogen Gas Production___________________________________________________ E-46
Dr. Bruce Logan, Penn State University
Solar Thermochemical _____________________________________________________ E-52
Dr. A.W. Weimer, University of Colorado
Hydrogen Production from Biomass __________________________________________ E-55
Dr. Yong Wang, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Production of Hydrogen Through Artificial Photosynthesis ________________________ E-64
Dr. Nathan S. Lewis, Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis
High Temerpature Electrolysis for Efficiency Hydrogen Production from Nuclear
Energy (supplemental information) ___________________________________________ E-68
Jim O’Brien, Idaho National Laboratory
Scientific Challenges and Innovative Aproaches in Renewable Energy and
Hydrogen Research ________________________________________________________ E-72
Richard V. Greene, Office of Basic Energy Sciences
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program ____________________________________________ E-80
Dr. Sunita Satyapal & Dr. Eric Miller, U.S. Department of Energy
E-1
HPEP Vision & Process:
Dr. Levi Thompson, Chair, Hydrogen Production Expert Panel
H2 Production Expert Panel Workshop

(QDEOLQJDSDWKIRUZDUGIRUWKHZLGHVSUHDGSURGXFWLRQRIDIIRUGDEOH
UHQHZDEOHK\GURJHQIRUIXWXUHHQHUJ\VFHQDULRV
EXPERT PANEL GOALS WORKSHOP PROCESS
(9$/8$7(WKHVWDWXVDQGSURVSHFWVIRUK\GURJHQ Panel Steering Committee with
SURGXFWLRQTXDQWLI\LQJVXSSO\DQGGHPDQGLQFXUUHQW broad spectrum of expertise
PDUNHWVDQGLQSRVVLEOHIXWXUHVFHQDULRVHQHUJ\ oversees workshop flow and
WUDQVSRUWDWLRQFKHPLFDOVDQGIXHOVHWF report generation
,'(17,)<WKHNH\WHFKQRORJLHVDQGFULWLFDOFKDOOHQJHV
LQSURGXFLQJK\GURJHQIRUWRGD\¶VPDUNHWVDQGIRU Panel Technical
cal Experts
Exper present
ODUJHVFDOHFHQWUDODQGGLVWULEXWHGUHQHZDEOH on opportunities and challenges
SURGXFWLRQ in near-term to long-term H2
production technologies
g
35,25,7,=(UHVHDUFKDQGGHYHORSPHQWQHHGVWR
DGYDQFHSURPLVLQJK\GURJHQSURGXFWLRQWHFKQRORJLHV
Breakout sessions
ssions of Panelists
675$7(*,=(RQKRZWREHVWOHYHUDJH5 'HIIRUWVLQ and invited stakeholders identify
K\GURJHQSURGXFWLRQDPRQJ'2(2IILFHVDQG key challenges and research
3URJUDPVLQFOXGLQJ((5()&76&$53$(DQGWKH priorities in near- and long-term
,QQRYDWLRQ+XEVDQGZLWKRWKHUDJHQFLHV technologies
WORKSHOP PRODUCT: Report draft- published online for public feedback db k before
incorporation into final version for HTAC approval, and submission to DOE
_)XHO&HOO7HFKQRORJLHV3URJUDP6RXUFH86'2(
_ )X
)XHOO &HO
HOOOO 7H
7HFK
FKQR
KQR
QROOR
ORJL
JLHV
LHV 3UR
URJU
JUDP
JU DP 6RX
RXUF
RXUF
UFHH 86 '2
H '2((

HHUHHQHUJ\JRY
HHUH
HHUHHQH
HQH
QHUJ
UJ\\J
UJ JR
JR
H2 Production Expert Panelist Roles

³6WHHULQJ&RPPLWWHH´DQG³7HFKQLFDO([SHUWV´ZRUNWRJHWKHUWRPHHWJRDOV
PANEL STEERING COMMITTEE offers leadership and experience, overseeing workshop flow and report
generation, including Q&A with Technical Expert Presenters, and information exchange at breakout sessions.
PANEL TECHNICAL EXPERTS offer specialized expertise, presenting on status, challenges, opportunities and
recommendations in a spectrum of near-term to long-term H2 production technologies.
Q&A DISCUSSIONS EXPECTED TO COVER A BROAD SPECTRUM OF CRITICAL ISSUES:

Technology Status
Overview and major embodiments of hydrogen production technologies (reforming, thermolytic, eletrolytic, phototytic, etc.)
Challenges
Market and business forces: including costs of production, infrastructure, dispensing, etc., and energy and materials resources and feedstocks
Technology barriers: manufacturing, engineering; device level performance and durability , fundamental science barriers.
Policy barriers and impact of codes and standards
Opportunities
Investment Resources: Industry and venture capitalists; Federal , State , International resources and investments
Policy Resources: government commissions (HTAC, USDRIVE, CEC, etc.); lobbying agencies, Industry boards and consortia, etc.
R&D Resources: Internal industry R&D , national / international laboratories; universities and academia; Research consortia, etc.
Leveraging common interests and progress in chemicals /fuels production, transportation technologies, stationary power, energy storage, etc.
Leveraging market needs and resource trends: hydro-cracking needs in fuels processing, natural gas boom, etc.
Insights and Recommendations.
Leaders from industry, academia and the national laboratories sharing their unique perspectives on hydrogen production technologies
_ )XHO &HOO 7HFKQRORJLHV 3URJUDP 6RXUFH 86 '2( HHUHHQHUJ\JRY
HHUH HQHUJ\ JRY
E-2
$GGUHVVLQJWKH+3URGXFWLRQ&KDOOHQJHV
'LVWULEXWHG1DWXUDO*DV5HIRUPLQJ
'R(+\GURJHQ3URGXFWLRQ([SHUW3DQHO
Arlington, VA, 05/12/2012 l Dengel, Udo l Air Liquide Global E&C Solutions
7HFKQRORJ\6WDWXV±GLVWULEXWHG1DWXUDO*DV5HIRUPLQJ
Ŷ )LUVW³RQVLWH´605LQVWDOODWLRQVDWEHJLQQLQJRIODVWGHFDGH
Ŷ 7RGD\WHFKQRORJ\LVFRPPHUFLDOO\DYDLODEOHUDQJHNJRI+GD\
Ŷ 0DMRULW\RILQVWDOODWLRQVDUHLQGXVWULDOXVHUVPHWDOVHOHFWURQLFVJODVVFKHPLFDOV
Ŷ :KHUH1DWXUDO*DVLVDYDLODEOHRQVLWH605FRPSHWHVZLWKJDVHRXVRUOLTXLG+
E\WUXFN

$LU/LTXLGH¶V+<265NNJGD\RI+
$/'2(+3(3 Air Liquide, world leader in gases for industry, health and the environment
E-3
&KDOOHQJHV±GLVWULEXWHG1DWXUDO*DV5HIRUPLQJ±RI
Ŷ +LJKFDSLWDOFRVWV
UHGXFHFRVWVWKURXJKKLJKHUSURGXFWLRQYROXPHVHFRQRPLHVRIVFDOH
IRUPDUNHWWRGHPDQGODUJHQXPEHURIRQVLWH605XQLWVZLOOWDNHWLPH
LQGHYHORSHGHFRQRPLHVFRPSHWLWLRQDJDLQVWHVWDEOLVKHGGLVWULEXWLRQLVFKDOOHQJLQJ
HVSHFLDOO\LIORFDWLRQLVFORVHWRFHQWUDO+VRXUFH !OLPLWVRSSRUWXQLWLHVWRWKHIULQJHV
RIWKHGLVWULEXWLRQQHWZRUN
LQ86FXUUHQWO\DORWRILGOHOLTXLG+JHQHUDWLRQFDSDFLW\PDNHVRQVLWH+OHVV
FRPSHWLWLYH

Ŷ )HHGVWRFNYDULDELOLW\
1DWXUDO*DVDQG/3*DUHSURYHQIHHGVWRFNV
$OWHUQDWLYHIHHGVWRFNVELRJDVVWLOOQHHGZRUN

Ŷ )RUYHKLFOHIXHOLQJVWDWLRQVGHPDQGLVDWORZHQGRIFDSDFLW\UDQJHNJGD\
0HDQVKLJK&DSH[UDWLRDQGIHZHURQVLWH605IRUYHKLFOHIXHOLQJDSSOLFDWLRQV
1RVWDQGDUGPHWKRGRORJ\WRPHDVXUH+SXULW\IRUIXHOFHOODSSOLFDWLRQV-
9DULDELOLW\RI+GHPDQGUHTXLUHVHLWKHUVWRUDJHRUWXUQGRZQ !KLJK&DSH[

&KDOOHQJHV±GLVWULEXWHG1DWXUDO*DV5HIRUPLQJ±RI
Ŷ 7HFKQLFDOFRPSOH[LW\RIRSHUDWLQJPDLQWDLQLQJWKH605HTXLSPHQWVWLOOKLJK
FRPSDUHGWRRWKHUHTXLSPHQWXVHGLQDWUDGLWLRQDOIXHOLQJVWDWLRQ
'HDOLQJZLWKSUHVVXUHKHDWFKHPLFDOSURFHVVLQJHTXLSPHQWDQGFRGHVUHJXODWLRQ
UHTXLUHTXDOLILHGSHUVRQQHOWRPRQLWRU PDLQWDLQ

Ŷ ³&KLFNHQDQG(JJ´LVVXHHYHQLIZHVROYH+SURGXFWLRQWKHODFNRI+
YHKLFOHVDQGGLVSHQVLQJLQIUDVWUXFWXUHZLOOOLPLWJURZWKRI+(QHUJ\VHFWRU
+SURGXFWLRQUHSUHVHQWVRQO\DVKDUHRIRYHUDOOFRVW
/RQJWHUPFRKHVLYHJRYHUQPHQWVWUDWHJ\ZRXOGKHOS
E-4
2SSRUWXQLWLHV±GLVWULEXWHG1DWXUDO*DV5HIRUPLQJ
Ŷ 'HYHORSLQJHFRQRPLHVZLOOGULYHGHPDQGIRURQVLWH605VIRULQGXVWULDOXVH
:LOOKHOSWRLQFUHDVHSURGXFWLRQYROXPHHFRQRPLHVRIVFDOH

Ŷ ,QGHYHORSHGHFRQRPLHV³WULJHQHUDWLRQ´FRXOGOHDGWRDGGLWLRQDOGHPDQG
&RPELQLQJVWDWLRQDU\SRZHU+KHDWLQJRUFRROLQJFDQLQFUHDVHQXPEHURI
LQVWDOODWLRQVSURGXFWLRQYROXPH

Ŷ ,PSURYHPHQWVLQFRVWVDQGRSHUDELOLW\ZLOOFRQWLQXHDVWHFKQRORJ\PDWXUHVDQG
QXPEHURILQVWDOODWLRQVJURZV

Ŷ /RZ1DWXUDO*DVLQSULFHVLQ86JDVZLOOFRQWULEXWHWRORZHU2SH[

Ŷ $V&1*XVHIRUYHKLFOHDSSOLFDWLRQVVSUHDGVLWFDQVHUYHDVEXLOGLQJEORFNIRU
+LQIUDVWUXFWXUH
IXHOLQJVWDWLRQVZLOOKDYH1*FRQQHFWLRQDQGKDQGOHFRPSUHVVHGJDV

5HFRPPHQGDWLRQVGLVWULEXWHG1DWXUDO*DV5HIRUPLQJ
Ŷ 5 '
,PSURYHGHVLJQWRLQFUHDVHHQHUJ\HIILFLHQF\
/RZHUIHHGVWRFNYDULDELOLW\
&RQWLQXHWRLQYHVWLQPDWHULDOGHYHORSPHQWFDWDO\VWFRQVWUXFWLRQPDWHULDOVWR
LPSURYHSHUIRUPDQFHDQGUHGXFHFRVW

Ŷ 2SHUDWLRQV EXVLQHVVFDVH
&RQWLQXHWRLQFUHDVHUHOLDELOLW\DQGRSHUDELOLW\RIV\VWHP
$GDSWV\VWHPWRYDULDEOHGHPDQG±RSWLPL]HFRPELQDWLRQRIUHIRUPHUDQGVWRUDJH
6XSSRUWGHYHORSPHQWRI³WULJHQHUDWLRQ´DSSOLFDWLRQV

Ŷ 3ROLF\
+DUPRQL]HFRGHV VWDQGDUGVIRU+IXHOLQJVWDWLRQVWRVLPSOLI\LQVWDOODWLRQDQG
ORZHUSURMHFWH[HFXWLRQFRVWV
7RVXSSRUWELRJDVXVHIRU+IXHOLQJHQVXUHGHFRXSOLQJRIELRJDVORFDWLRQIURP+
XVHORFDWLRQWKURXJKELRJDVFUHGLWVDSSOLHGWRXVHRISLSHOLQH1*IRURQVLWH605
'HYHORSORQJWHUPVWUDWHJ\IURPJRYHUQPHQWIRUSDWKZD\WR+LQIUDVWUXFWXUH

E-5
7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUDWWHQWLRQ
E-6
HYDROGEN PRODUCTION & SUPPLY
MANAGING THROUGH THE
TRANSPORTATION MARKET TRANSITION
Department of Energy (DOE)

Hydrogen Production Expert Panel (HPEP)
Brian Bonner
May 11, 2012
Infrastructure Transition
TODAY PATHWAY FUTURE
Hydrocarbon sourced Revise energy portfolio

infrastructure exists
•US production: 11 million
tons/yr of H2 Renewables, coal, nuclear,
sourced H2 for transportation
•Industrial sector
applications 5%
•Refinery/chemical
applications 95%
•US needs ~70 MM
tons/yr to support
300MM vehicles
E-7
Hydrogen Supply Pathway Options
H2 Stations
Pipeline Distribution
LH2
H2 Compression Dual-Phase GH2 Distribution
Distribution
Central SMR H2 LH2 Distribution LH2 Storage

Liquefaction
Feedstock
Natural Gas
Bio-methane
Distributed H2
Production
CHP + Hydrogen
Energy Station
Solar or Wind
Electrolyses
Large Central SMR Plant Efficiency Continues to Improve
1.00
0.98
>10%
Plant Efficiency Index
Savings
6
0.96
0.94
0.92
0.90
0.88
1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015
Evolution of the Hydrogen SMR flowsheet towards:

¾ Increased Efficiency
¾ Customers evolving needs for power (cogen) and steam
¾ Multiple feedstock's RFG, ROG, propane, butane, and naphtha
E-8
Integrated Pipeline Drives Efficiency and Reliability
>1 billion SCFD of capacity

>20 operating plants
>600 miles of pipeline driving
On-stream 2012
Major Delivery and Station Breakthrough

High Pressure Composite Bulk Storage. Multi-capable Liquid trailer
z Enables step-change in payload capacities,
3-4X via 7500psi delivered hydrogen.
z Enables distribution of hydrogen from all
forms of distributed and renewable sources
with minimum GHG emissions
z Promotes modular and expandable stations
on existing gasoline forecourt.
z ELIMINATES ONSITE COMPRESSION for
VS. 350Bar. Minor compression for 700Bar.
z Technology extendable to 450/500bar.
z First deployed with DOD at DDWG.
Operating in the U.S. for cell towers.
z Dual-Phase Hydrogen Delivery Trailer

capable of delivering liquid and high
pressure hydrogen up to 10,000 psi to a
station.
z Enables step-change in liquid delivery to
numerous applications.
z On the road in the U.S. and Europe.
E-9
Harbor City H2 Station
H2 Equipment
Small footprint (~800 ft2)

Minimal site cost <$1MM
Expandable 100-1000kg/day
H2 dispenser
Commercial Hydrogen Refueling

Cost Breakdown
200-300kg/day
15
10
H2 ($/kg)
4
Operations
5
3 $7/kg
Refueling Station
2
Distribution
1
Production
0
1- NREL, Ruth et al 2009. Central SMR production

2- US DOE 10/2010. Infrastructure (Station with Tube Trailer Delivery)
3- APCI 2011 ($1.0 million hydrogen refueling station)
4- APCI/UCD 2011 ($250k/year.; Land rent, Operations & Maintenance, Insurance, Excise Tax)
E-10
Lessons Learned and Challenges
• Lessons Learned –DRIVE TO THE GASOLINE MODEL !
– Use existing H2 and gasoline infrastructure
– Traditional industrial gas technologies fall short
– Improve delivery technologies
– Reduced forecourt maintenance costs. Eliminate Compression!
– Simple, modular, expandable stations
• Challenges
– Prove the business case will incent private investment
– Manage the customer/market through the growth cycle.
– Renewable hydrogen supply slows down early market
development and adds cost
– Further drive down cost and expand supply base for
technologies that can serve the market today !
– The market is expecting 2015 commercialization of fuel cell
vehicles. This may be our last chance!
Thank You
E-11
Hydrogen and fuel cell technical advisory
committee meeting
May 11, 2012
Presented by: Prabhu Rao, VP Commercial Operations
Nuvera Fuel Cells

129 Concord Rd. Bldg 1
Billerica, MA 01821
Product Evolution
Nuvera has exploited engineering and manufacturing know-how to convert
core hydrogen technologies into advanced energy products.
Forza C/A plant Fiat FC Engine

1st FC Stack (1993)
PowerEdge
Core Integrated Sustainable

Enabling System Mobility
Technologies Solutions Products
Avanti (world class effy)

Gasoline demo (1997)
1st FP Module (1994)
PowerTap
H2 Generator (1998) NG FPS GASOLINE FPS

Nuvera Fuel Cells, Billerica, USA is ISO 9001: 2008 certified
E-12
Nuvera - Market applications
Light Duty EV & Range Extenderr Fuel

el Cell Forklift
Forklifts Ground Support Equipment
G
Truck APU & Reefer

Fuel Cell Tractors
Fuel Cell Bus

Fuel Cell Vehicle Aerospace APU
Hydrogen cost roadmap

PowerTap provides a low cost & greener solution
Comparison of Customer All-in H2 Costs, 350Bar Dispensed On-Site. Comparison of Well-to-wheel

Ground storage and dispenser costs included. PowerTap assumes $0.06/kWh & $6/MMBtu NG, service and GHG Emission Pathways.
ROIC Included. Liquid H2 source from central plant and trucked to site, using existing LH2 equipment Source: ANL, M. Wang, 2002
(sources: multiple gas producers)

E-13
Relative Scaling (Material Handling vs. Automotive)
PowerTap Product Suite

2010
PTG-50
(12’ L x 4’ W x 9’ H)
PT-50
2014
PT-500
PTG-250
(12’ L x 6’ W x 9’ H)
Site layout courtesy of Hess Safety Harbor, FL

E-14
How can we Help the infrastructure rollout?
Current Products/Technologies – Onsite Generation (50-500 kg/day)
Challenge: Capacity Underutilization
Opportunities:
1. Promote multi application hydrogen use – material handling,
vehicles, fleet refueling (GSE, Buses and refers) and merchant
applications
2. Devise a financial vehicle to ‘insure’ against under utilization –
ensure accountability of all stakeholders
3. Seek some alignment with NG infrastructure roll out
Future Products/Technologies – Onsite Generation (500-1500 kg/day)
Challenge: Capacity Underutilization + Footprint
Opportunities:
1. Fund development of compact SMR’s, PSA’s and Electrochemical
Compressors – needed to ensure footprint
E-15
Near-term Opportunities for
CHHP Technology
Pinakin Patel
Presentation for HTAC Meeting, Washington, DC
May 11, 2012
Co-production of Renewable
Hydrogen and Power
DFC Fuel Cell
Power Plant
Renewable
Fuel Source
Renewable Power Users
Power + Heat
P
Buildings
Smart Grid
(Waste Water Treatment- Hydrogen
Anaerobic Digester Gas,
VOC, Biodiesel, Waste-Glycerol)
H2 Purification Industrial Users
Low Pressure H2 Users
Hydrogen Energy Station
Hydrogen Vehicles
NOx Materials
Handling Peak Load MO3208B
Reduction Response 120908
Equipment Industrial Users,
Bio-refinery
• Co-production of Power and Hydrogen improves the Value Proposition

• Multiple hydrogen uses avoid stranded H2 infrastructure assets
E-16
What Can We Do With
By-Product Hydrogen?
DFC300 DFC1500 DFC3000
Co-product
Power, kW 250 1,150 2,300
Hydrogen, kg/day 125 700 1,400
Heat, mmBtu/hr 0.5 2.0 4.0
Refueling Capacity
Cars, 4.2 kg/day 30 140 280
Buses, 25 kg/day 5 24 48
Fork Lifts, 2.1 kg/day 60 280 560
Plug- in Battery Hybrid, 500 2,400 4,800

12 kWh/day
MO3256A
Hydrogen Energy Station

Fountain Valley, California
Over 1 million kWh

+ 10,000 lb H2
produced
E-17
Co-Production of Renewable
Hydrogen in California
• Site load ~ 6 MW; up to 300 kW provided from fuel cell

• Engines on biogas reduced from 13 MW to <4 MW
– due to NOx constraints
• Potential using biogas fuel cell: 20 MW + 20 MW of peak
power and kVAR support
11.2 MW DFC® Power Plant –

Largest in the World
• This unit has a potential to co-produce over 5 tons/day H2

• Hydrogen can be used to provide additional 11 MW of
peak power for 8 hours per day
E-18
Connecting Pieces of Energy Goals
Green and Clean

Smart Waste to • Maximize Renewable Energy
Grid Power • Grid Stability
• Efficient Use of Fossil Fuels
• Clean Energy
Load • 11,000 GW Total 400 GW
Following Liquid ave
Storage BioFuels
• National Security – reduce
imports
• Gasoline Ethanol
BioButanol
E ff • Diesel BioDiesel
h
Transportation Hig HP • Algae Waste Biomass
CH
H2
• Crude BioOil Needs H2
7
CHHP Scale-up and

Cost Reduction Needed
Product cost per kW
$10,000
$8,000
Product costs reduced >60% since
$6,000
first commercial installation in 2003 $4,000
$2,000
$-
. 2003 2007 2011 mid-term
Price per kWh
$0.25
• DFC cost per kWh decreasing
$0.20
• Grid costs increasing (i.e.
$0.15 investment in new capacity
and transmission grid)
$0.10
• Renewable biogas price per
$0.05
kW lower
2003 2007 2011 mid-term
Unsubsidized DFC Power Cost w $8/MMBtu fuel
Grid Power Costs (Average Commercial rate, CA and NE States)
DFC Power Cost with Federal ITC
DFC Power Cost with Federal ITC and State Grant of $1,000/kw
Goal is to price below the grid, without incentives

8
E-19
Advanced Hydrogen Co-
production Technology
Fuel Cell Cars
H2
Materials Handling
Equipment
DFC® Power Plant

Solid State Hydrogen Solid State Hydrogen
(Electricity + Separator (EHS) Compressor (EHC) Liquid Biofuels
Hydrogen)
MO3145
Peak and Back-

up Power
100-cell baseline stack tested Developing

1 yr Factory Test at FCE
Advanced CO-tolerant cell Single cell operated Strategic Alliance
>1.5 yr Site Demo at OCSD to 12,000 psi with Hydrogen
technology scaled up to
(DFC-H2-PSA) 1000 cm2 short stack Users
Thank you
Questions?
Pinakin Patel
Director of Special Systems and Research
ppatel@fce.com
203-825-6072
E-20
PEM Electrolysis Summary
Dr. Katherine Ayers, Director of Research
3URWRQ2Q6LWH:RUOGOHDGHULQK\GURJHQJHQHUDWLRQYLDSURWRQH[FKDQJH
PHPEUDQH3(0HOHFWURO\VLV!0:LQVWDOOHGEDVHZRUOGZLGH
&RVWFRPSHWLWLYHLQWRGD\¶VFRPPHUFLDOPDUNHWVIRUILQDQFLDOVWDELOLW\
6LJQLILFDQWRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUFRVWDQGHIILFLHQF\LPSURYHPHQWVWKURXJKIXHO
FHOOVXSSO\FKDLQDQGWHFKQLFDOSURJUHVV
7UHPHQGRXVSURJUHVVPDGHLQODVW\HDUVGHVSLWHSROLF\REVWDFOHVIRFXV
QHHGHGLQWKHQHDUWHUPWRFRPPHUFLDOL]HGHPRQVWUDWHGDGYDQFHPHQWV

Commercial Status
)LUPO\HVWDEOLVKHGSURGXFWVPDUNHWVDQGDSSOLFDWLRQV
± !ILHOGHGV\VWHPV
± &RVWFRPSHWLWLYHWRGD\
LQFRPPHUFLDOPDUNHWV +HDW7UHDWLQJ
+HDW7
7UHDWLQJ /DERUDWRULHV
/D
/ DERUDWRULHV
± %DGGUHVVDEOHSRZHU
SODQWPDUNHWDORQH
3RZHU3ODQWV
3 RZHU3
3ODQWV 6HPLFRQGXFWRUV
6HPLFRQGXFWRUV *RYHUQPHQW
* RYHUQPHQW
'HPRQVWUDWHGUHOLDELOLW\DQGVFDODELOLW\
)XOOVROXWLRQSURYLGHULQWHJUDWLRQDQGFRQWDLQHUL]DWLRQ
)XOO\GHYHORSHGPDQXIDFWXULQJFDSDELOLW\

E-21
Technology Status
&RQWLQXLQJWRVFDOHLQSUHVVXUHDQGFDSDFLW\

1P
FP
KU

FP
1PKU FP1PKU FP1PKU FP1PKU
&RPPHUFLDO &RPPHUFLDO &RPPHUFLDO 3UH3URGXFWLRQ &RQFHSW
0DQ\SDWKZD\VIRUODUJHFRVWDQGHIILFLHQF\LPSDFW
± 3RWHQWLDOIRUWR!UHGXFWLRQLQKLJKHVWFRVW
FRPSRQHQWVHYHQDWORZSURGXFWLRQYROXPHV
± 0XOWLSOHFRQILJXUDWLRQVGHPRQVWUDWH/+9HIILFLHQF\DW
$FP/+9HIILFLHQF\DW$FP
Challenges
*RYHUQPHQWSRVLWLRQLPSDFWRQLQYHVWPHQWFDSLWDO
8QFOHDUUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUHQHUJ\PDUNHWV
,QFRQVLVWHQWIXQGLQJVWUHDPLPSDFWRQ5 'HIILFLHQF\
/DFNRIFRRUGLQDWLRQZLWKIXQGDPHQWDOVFLHQFH
± 3HUFHSWLRQRI3(0HOHFWURO\VLVDV³ROG´WHFKQRORJ\
± *DSEHWZHHQVFLHQWLILF³VROXWLRQV´DQGUHDOZRUOGLVVXHV
/DFNRIVXIILFLHQWIXQGVIRUWKRURXJKH[SHULPHQWDOVWXG\
± 3UHPDWXUHGRZQVHOHFWPD\PLVVEHVWRSWLRQV
/DFNRIIXQGLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRUV\VWHPOHYHO5 '

E-22
Opportunities
+LJKSRWHQWLDOIRUFRQWLQXLQJDGYDQFHPHQWV
± 1HHGWRPRYHGHPRQVWUDWHGFRQFHSWVWRSURGXFWLRQ
$ELOLW\WROHYHUDJHIXHOFHOO5 'DQGVXSSO\FKDLQ
± 6PDOODGGLWLRQDOLQYHVWPHQWVKDYHKLJKSD\RII
5HVHDUFKWRROVDQGPDWHULDOVIURPRWKHUILHOGV
$ELOLW\WRLPSOHPHQWSURFHVVDXWRPDWLRQDQG
ODERUUHGXFWLRQVIRUKLJKYROXPHFRVWVDYLQJV
Recommendations
&RQWLQXHWRFRPPXQLFDWHQHHGVDQGGLVFXVV
VWUDWHJ\ZLWK'2(DQGRWKHUDJHQFLHV
± 3(0HOHFWURO\VLVVWDFNDQGV\VWHPURDGPDSVGHILQHG
&RPPLWWRFRQFHUWHGDQGIRFXVHGSURJUDPLQ
K\GURJHQSURGXFWLRQWHFKQRORJLHV
(QFRXUDJHXQLYHUVLW\DQGODEFROODERUDWLRQV
&RRUGLQDWHZLWK'R'DVHDUO\DGRSWHUV
%DODQFHVWDFNDQGV\VWHPIXQGLQJIRUFULWLFDO
DGYDQFHPHQWVDQGFRPPHUFLDOYDOLGDWLRQ
E-23
Back up slides
P. I./Presenter Name: Dr. Katherine Ayers

Organization: Proton OnSite
Date: May 11, 2012
Established PEM Stack Durability

3.0
Proton Energy Systems

In-House Cell Stack Endurance Testing
2.6
~60,000 hours of
Average Cell Potential
operation demonstrated in
(Volts, 50o C)
4 µV/cell hr Decay Rate
2.2
commercial stack
1.8
25-cell stack
200 psig (13 barg)
1200 ASF (1.3 A/cm2)
1.4
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Operating Time (Hours)
20,000 hours of operation

demonstrated at 2400 psi
E-24
Current Cost and Efficiency Limitations
• Flow field, membrane electrode assembly, and labor
are high impact cost areas
• Efficiency losses dominated by membrane ionic
resistance and O2 reaction overpotential
Near Term Cost Reduction

• Combined labor and material advancements result in
19% production cell stack cost reduction
• Project additional step change in Phase 2
Baseline Phase 1A Phase 1B
E-25
Stack Scale Up/H2A Impact
Based on H2A model V2.1,

Includes cost over system life
• Large active area stack:

• Reduced labor vs. 2009 baseline stack cost
• Stack designed for minimization of scrap for major materials
• FEA and CFD modeling in progress
Long Term Material Cost Reduction

Catalyst
Implemented
Qualified
Feasibility
Demonstrated
Flow fields
Implemented
Feasibility
Demonstrated
E-26
Impact of Scale Up on Balance of Plant Cost
BoP represents ~2/3 of

product cost at 12
kg/day
Catalyst Improvements
• Many samples improved vs. baseline

• Stability to 500 hours without voltage degradation
E-27
Membrane Improvements
• Multiple pathways showing promise
2.4
2.3 Baseline, 50C
2.2 Reinforced membrane, 80C
High Tg membrane, 80C
2.1 Hydrocarbon membrane, 80C
Potential (Volts)
2 >350 mV improvement
1.9 at 2 A/cm2
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5 Validated >1000 hours at 80C, 435 psi
1.4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Current Density (A/cm2)
Development Successes, 2008-11

• Typical timeline of 12-18 months
5000 psi
cell stack
0.23 ft2 cell stack

65 kg/day system
10,000 psi fueler
DOE bipolar CERL RFC

plate 0.6 ft2 cell stack 2400 psi System
E-28
Proton Fueling Station
• H2 from electrolysis test area, >65 kg/day generation

capacity, power supplemented with 75 kW solar
• 700 bar fast fill capable, 90 kg storage
• Qualified for Toyota, GM, and Daimler vehicles
More than 1000 H2 fills / 3,000 kg / 150,000 miles to date
E-29

Path Forward for Widespread Production of Affordable

Renewable Hydrogen for Future Energy Scenarios
Large Scale Electrolytic Hydrogen

-RVHSK&DUJQHOOL

MFDUJQHOOL#K\GURJHQLFVFRP

&KLHI7HFKQRORJ\2IILFHU

0D\WK

:RUNVKRSDW&U\VWDO&LW\*DWHZD\0DUULRWW$UOLQJWRQ9$

&XUUHQW6LWXDWLRQ
(QHUJ\VWRUDJHLVQRWDQHZUHTXLUHPHQWEXWWKHVFDOHRIHQHUJ\VWRUDJHUHTXLUHGZLWKWKHLQFUHDVHG
SHQHWUDWLRQRIUHQHZDEOHVLQWKHJHQHUDWLRQPL[KDVFKDQJHG²¶VRI0:KLQDQ\JLYHQKRXU
7KHUHDUHGLIIHUHQWZD\VRIWDFNOLQJSUREOHPRIXWLOLW\VFDOHHQHUJ\VWRUDJH+RZWRFKRRVH"'HPRQVWUDWLRQ
SURMHFWV«
Power-to-GasLVDK\EULGXWLOLW\VFDOHHQHUJ\VWRUDJHVROXWLRQZKLFKEULGJHVWKHJDVDQGHOHFWULFV\VWHPV
8VHVH[LVWLQJQDWXUDOJDVLQIUDVWUXFWXUHWREDQNHQHUJ\DQGWKHH[LVWLQJSRZHUDVVHWVRIWKLUGSDUWLHV
(QHUJ\VWRUHGFDQEHYLUWXDOO\GLVFKDUJHGDWDQ\WLPHDQGSODFHRQWKHSRZHURUJDVV\VWHP²SRZHUKHDWRU&1*
IXHO
Hydrogenics and EnbridgeDOHDGLQJJDVGLVWULEXWLRQFRPSDQ\VLJQHGDQDJUHHPHQWLQ$SULOWRMRLQWO\
GHYHORSXWLOLW\VFDOH3RZHUWR*DVSURMHFWVLQ1RUWK$PHULFD
Power-to-Gas Solution
A A
Energy Energy
Energy Capture Energy Discharge
Storage Transport
,QWHJUDWHVVXUSOXVUHQHZDEOH &RQYHUWVSRZHU 'LVWULEXWHG,QWKH (QHUJ\GLVFKDUJHGLQIXWXUHZKHUH

JHQHUDWLRQZKLOHSURYLGLQJ WRK\GURJHQDQG H[LVWLQJQDWXUDO QHHGHGDVFOHDQSRZHUORZ
DQFLOODU\VHUYLFHVIRU,62 EDQNVWKHHQHUJ\ JDVLQIUDVWUXFWXUH FDUERQKHDWRU&1*WUDQVSRUWIXHO
Many commercialization challenges remain:

Scaling PEM Electrolyzer capacity
Gas inter-operability codes and standards for injecting hydrogen into natural gas system in each jurisdiction;
(Hawaii is a leading model)
Ability to monetize a sufficient portion of the system-wide benefits of Power-to-Gas to secure capital
investments

E-30
(OHFWURO\]HU7HFKQRORJ\6WDWXVDQG2SSRUWXQLWLHV
Stack Parameter 2011 PEMWE 2013-2015 PEMWE 2011 AWE 2013-2015 AWE
±++9 ±++9 ±++9 ±++9
(IILFLHQF\
±/+9 ±/+9 ±/+9 ±/+9
>$FPKDVEHHQ
2YHUORDG&DSDELOLW\ >$FP@ >$FP@ >$FP@
GHPRQVWUDWHG@
'XUDELOLW\ KU KU KU KU
3URGXFWLRQ&DSDFLW\ NJGD\ NJGD\ NJGD\ NJGD\
*ULG&\FOLQJ&DSDELOLW\ 9 9 9 9
3ULFHQRUPDOL]HG
&HOO$FWLYH$UHD FP FP FP FP
,QSXW3RZHU N: N: N: N:
*DV'HOLYHU\3UHVVXUH EDU EDU ±EDU EDU

2.4
7HFKQRORJ\/LPLW
2.2
,PSURYHPHQW
HySTATTM-PEMWE
2SSRUWXQLW\ HySTATTM-AWE
2.0 Commercial Alkaline
Mean cell voltage [V]
6WDWXV
1.8
1.6
Next
(IIRUW 1.4 Generation
+RZPXFKLPSURYHPHQWUHPDLQV PEMWE
WREHPDGH" 1.2
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 +\67$770$:(HOHFWURO\VHUSURYLGHGIUHTXHQF\
Current density [A/cm2] UHJXODWLRQE\UHVSRQGLQJWRUHDOWLPHIUHTXHQF\UHJXODWLRQ
VLJQDOVIURPWKH,(62RQDVHFRQGE\VHFRQGEDVLV
0:3(0:(&KDOOHQJHV
Technology Area Driver Importance Understanding Opportunity Classification
Reduce membrane thickness 9 High High High Priority Research
Membrane mechanical reinforcement 5 Medium Medium High Priority Research
Membrane Membrane edge protection 7 High Medium Engineering
Improve membrane dimensional stability 9 High High High Priority Research
Lower cost membrane material 5 Medium Medium Medium Priority Research
Catalyst loading reduction (O2) 5 Medium Medium Medium Priority Research
Catalyst Catalyst loading reduction (H2) 3 Medium Medium Medium Priority Research
Non-precious metal catalyst 3 Low Low Mature Technology
Optimize GDL thickness & porosity 3 Low Low Mature Technology
Improved GDL support to membrane 9 High Low Mature Technology
GDL
GDL thickness tolerance 3 Medium Low Mature Technology
Carbon GDL mechanical strength 3 Medium Medium Engineering
Plate material compatibility 9 High Low Mature Technology
Bipolar Plate
Low cost large active area plate 5 High Medium Engineering
Alternate lower cost coating materials 9 Medium High High Priority Research
Protection Coating
Existing coating cost reduction 7 High Medium Engineering
High precision seal manufacturing 9 High High Engineering
Cell Design
Reduce pressure drop 3 High Low Low Priority Research
Commercialization
Policy barriers; Gas inter-operability codes and
9 Low High High Priority
standards for H2 injection into natural gas system
Deployment/Field Trials Contracting to ensure a sufficient portion of the system
9 Medium High High Priority
wide benefits can be monetized for the developer
10 MW plant design and optimization 7 High Medium High Priority
E-31
2SSRUWXQLWLHV
The Big Picture:
7KHEULGJLQJRIWKHHOHFWULFDOSRZHUDQGJDVJULGVHQDEOHVWKH
LQWHJUDWLRQRILQFUHDVHGUHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\JHQHUDWLRQ
7KHUHLVDQLPPHGLDWHQHHGIRUXWLOLW\VFDOHHQHUJ\VWRUDJHVROXWLRQV
±WKLVZLOOGULYH0:VFDOHHOHFWURO\VLVWRGD\(not contingent on FC
vehicle deployments tomorrow); IDVWJURZWKSRVVLEOH
+DZDLLLVDSHUIHFWFDQGLGDWHIRUWKHILUVW0:GHPRQVWUDWLRQSODQW
H[LVWLQJPL[HGJDVQHWZRUNDQGVLJQLILFDQW5(SHQHWUDWLRQ
6LJQLILFDQWFRVWUHGXFWLRQVSRVVLEOHZLWKGHYHORSPHQWRIODUJHVFDOH
3(0:(

The Plan:
/HYHUDJH3(0IXHOFHOOGHVLJQ

/HYHUDJH3(0IXHOFHOOVXSSO\FKDLQ

,QFUHDVHVWDFNHIILFLHQF\
6FDOHXSFHOODFWLYHDUHDDQGVWDFNVL]H
%236LPSOLILFDWLRQ
0:SLORWSODQWGHPRQVWUDWLRQ 0:3(0:(GHYHORSPHQW
LQSURJUHVV
.H\3RLQWV 5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV
+\GURJHQLFVDQGLWVSDUWQHUVDUHFRPPLWWHGLQWKHGHYHORSPHQWDQG
FRPPHUFLDOL]DWLRQRI3RZHUWR*DV
/DUJHVFDOH3(0:(LVHQWHULQJDSKDVHZKHUHHQJLQHHULQJDQGPDQXIDFWXULQJ
ZLOOEHFRPHDVLPSRUWDQWDVWHFKQLFDOOHDGHUVKLS
&RVWDQG(IILFLHQF\WDUJHWVZLOOEHDFKLHYHGE\OHYHUDJLQJRI3(0IXHOFHOO
SURJUHVVZLWKRXWUHTXLULQJPDMRUQHZ5 'LQYHVWPHQWV)RFXVVKRXOGEHRQ
FRVWUHGXFWLRQHQJLQHHULQJVFDOHXSDQGPDUNHWGHYHORSPHQW
+\GURJHQLFVLVGHYHORSLQJD0:3(0:(VWDFNEXLOGLQJEORFN0:VFDOH
3(0:(ZLOORIIHUDPDMRUVWHSWRZDUGDIIRUGDEOHODUJHVFDOHUHQHZDEOHK\GURJHQ
*RYHUQPHQW,QGXVWU\LQYHVWPHQWUHTXLUHGWRGHPRQVWUDWHFRVWDQGHIILFLHQF\RID
0:'HPRQVWUDWLRQ3ODQW7KHVHUHVXOWVZLOOEHXVHGWRUHILQHWKHGHVLJQDQG
FRVWHVWLPDWHVIRUDFHQWUDOL]HGK\GURJHQSODQW!NJGD\

$UHZHQRWEHWWHURIIFKDQQHOLQJVRPHRIWKHPRQH\JRLQJLQWR&$(6

DQGEDWWHULHVLQWRWKHGHVLJQGHYHORSPHQWFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGRSHUDWLRQ

RI1RUWK$PHULFD¶VILUVW3RZHUWR*DV0:GHPRQVWUDWLRQIDFLOLW\"

E-32
+\GURJHQ3URGXFWLRQIURP

3KRWRHOHFWURFKHPLFDO6\VWHPV

+\GURJHQ
3URGXFWLRQ
([SHUW3DQHO
:RUNVKRS

-RKQ$7XUQHU
jturner@nrel.gov
May 10, 2012
15(/LVDQDWLRQDOODERUDWRU\RIWKH86'HSDUWPHQWRI(QHUJ\2IILFHRI(QHUJ\(IILFLHQF\DQG5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\RSHUDWHGE\WKH$OOLDQFHIRU6XVWDLQDEOH(QHUJ\//&
'LUHFW&RQYHUVLRQ6\VWHPV
9LVLEOHOLJKWKDVVXIILFLHQWHQHUJ\WRVSOLWZDWHU+2
LQWR+\GURJHQDQG2[\JHQ
Requires the combination of a Light Harvesting System and a Water
Splitting System
9 6HPLFRQGXFWRUSKRWRHOHFWURO\VLV
9 3KRWRELRORJLFDO6\VWHPV
9 +RPRJHQHRXVZDWHUVSOLWWLQJ
9 +HWHURJHQHRXVZDWHUVSOLWWLQJ
(Sunlight and Water to Hydrogen

with No External Electron Flow)
E-33
6WDWXV+LJK(IILFLHQF\3KRWRHOHFWURO\VLV'HYLFH
6FLHQFH$SULO
'LUHFWZDWHUHOHFWURO\VLV
7DQGHP393(&GHVLJQ
6RODUWRK\GURJHQ
&RUURVLRQOLPLWHGOLIHWLPH
Experimental
Cell
&KDOOHQJHV3KRWRHOHFWURFKHPLFDO3(&6\VWHPV
*HQHULF3(&'HYLFH ,GHDO&KDUDFWHULVWLFV
3KRWRDEVRUEHU
+LJKSKRWRFRQYHUVLRQHIILFLHQF\
3URSHUHQHUJHWLFV

&DWDO\VLV
(IILFLHQWVHOHFWLYHFDWDO\VWVZLWK
ORZORVVHV
&KDUJHVZHOOFRXSOHGWR
FDWDO\WLFUHDFWLRQV

6WDELOLW\XQGHUSKRWRO\VLV
VHSDUDWRU 6HPLFRQGXFWRU
(ULF0LOOHU &DWDO\VWHOHFWURO\WHLQWHUIDFH
Fundamental and exploratory science to address these

challenges for commercializable PEC systems for hydrogen
E-34
&KDOOHQJHV7HFKQRHFRQRPLF$QDO\VLVRIWKHFRVWV
IRU3(&+\GURJHQ
3(&V\VWHPVKDYHDQLQQRYDWLYHDSSURDFKDQGRIIHUVLJQLILFDQWFRVW
UHGXFWLRQVIRUVRODUK\GURJHQSURGXFWLRQ
7UDFNLQJ
FRQFHQWUDWRU
V\VWHP
%'-DPHV*1%DXP-3HUH].1%DXP³7HFKQRHFRQRPLF$QDO\VLVRI3KRWRHOHFWURFKHPLFDO3(&+\GURJHQ3URGXFWLRQ´'2(5HSRUW

KWWSZZZHHUHHQHUJ\JRYK\GURJHQDQGIXHOFHOOVSGIVSHFBWHFKQRHFRQRPLFBDQDO\VLVSGI
1DWLRQDO5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\/DERUDWRU\,QQRYDWLRQIRU2XU(QHUJ\)XWXUH
2SSRUWXQLW\'LVFRYHULQJ1HZ3(&6HPLFRQGXFWRUV
8WLOL]HDGYDQFHGWKHRU\WRSURYLGHGLUHFWLRQDQG
IRFXVWKHHIIRUW
%DQGVWUXFWXUHFDOFXODWLRQVXVLQJ'HQVLW\)XQFWLRQDO7KHRU\
FDQJLYH\RXVSHFWUDQDWXUHRIWKHWUDQVLWLRQGLUHFWLQGLUHFW
ODWWLFHFRQVWDQWVDQGEDQGJDSHQHUJ\WUHQGV
7KHDFWXDOEDQGVWUXFWXUHGHSHQGVRQ
6\PPHWU\FRPSRVLWLRQERQGOHQJWK
DQGUHTXLUHV
6RSKLVWLFDWHG')7FDOFXODWLRQV
A collaboration of theory, synthesis, and characterization
groups along with mathematicians is necessary to achieve
fundamental PEC goals.
E-35
2SSRUWXQLW\PL[HGPHWDOR[LGHV
9 Calculated electronic and optical
properties of Co based spinel oxide
CoX2O4 (X=Al, Ga, In) with DFT
9 Can tune band gap, absorption
strength, carrier effective masses by
controlling alloy composition
Calculated band gap, lattice constant as a

function of Al:Ga:In. Shaded area best for PEC
Appl. Phys. Lett. 100, 023901 (2012)
&RQFOXVLRQV5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV
3(&0DWHULDO&ULWHULD 3DWK)RUZDUG
$EDQGJDSLQWKHUDQJHH9 9 Photoelectrochemical water
(JH9 splitting needs new materials, our
+LJKFDUULHUPRELOLW\ORZ first silicon.
UHVLVWLYLW\ 9 This material may or may not be
useful for PV, but still must have
+LJKTXDQWXP\LHOG!
the same solid-state internal
&RQWUROOHGSQGRSLQJ efficiency as commercial PV
/RZFRVWDQGKLJKYROXPH devices.
V\QWKHVLV 9 A collaboration of theory,
synthesis, and characterization
6WDEOHLQDQDTXHRXV groups is necessary to achieve
HOHFWURO\WH fundamental PEC goals.
%DQGHGJHSRVLWLRQVIRUGULYLQJ 9 Once you have a good
UHGR[KDOIUHDFWLRQV semiconducting (PV) material,
catalysis is everything

A search for PEC materials is
fundamentally a search for PV materials

E-36
6833/E0(17$/
1DWLRQDO5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\/DERUDWRU\,QQRYDWLRQIRU2XU(QHUJ\)XWXUH
6XVWDLQDEOH3DWKVWR+\GURJHQ
6RODU(QHUJ\
+HDW %LRPDVV
0HFKDQLFDO(QHUJ\
(OHFWULFLW\ &RQYHUVLRQ
7KHUPRO\VLV (OHFWURO\VLV 3KRWRO\VLV
+\GURJHQ
E-37
+LVWRULFDO3HUVSHFWLYH2EMHFWLYHV
³+RO\*UDLOVRI&KHPLVWU\´Accounts of Chemical Research,
YRO
$OOHQ-%DUG 0DU\H$QQH)R[³$UWLILFLDO3KRWRV\QWKHVLV
6RODU6SOLWWLQJRI:DWHUWR+\GURJHQDQG2[\JHQ´
Water splitting “Holy Grail” definition: “We want an

efficient and long-lived system for splitting water to H2
andO2 with light in the terrestrial (AM1.5) solar
spectrum at an intensity of one sun. For a practical
system, an energy efficiency of at least 10% appears to
be necessary. This means that the H2 and O2 produced
in the system have a fuel value of at least 10% of the
solar energy incident on the system….and will not be
consumed or degraded under irradiation for at least 10
years.”

3(&PDWHULDOFULWHULDLQFOXGHV39PDWHULDO
$EDQGJDSLQWKHUDQJHH9(JH9
+LJKFDUULHUPRELOLW\ORZUHVLVWLYLW\
+LJKTXDQWXP\LHOG!
&RQWUROOHGSQGRSLQJ
/RZFRVWDQGKLJKYROXPHV\QWKHVLV
6WDEOHLQDQDTXHRXVHOHFWURO\WH
%DQGHGJHSRVLWLRQVIRUGULYLQJUHGR[KDOIUHDFWLRQV
A search for PEC materials is

fundamentally a search for PV materials
E-38
+\GURJHQ(FRQRP\(1975)
&RQFOXVLRQV
+\GURJHQLVFOHDQEXUQLQJWKHPDLQ
FRPEXVWLRQSURGXFWLVFOHDQZDWHU
,WPD\EHVXEVWLWXWHGIRUQHDUO\DOOIXHO
XVHV
,WFDQEHSURGXFHGIURPGRPHVWLF
UHVRXUFHV
,WLVDYDLODEOHIURPDUHQHZDEOHDQG
XQLYHUVDOUHVRXUFH²ZDWHU
1HDUO\DOOSULPDU\HQHUJ\VRXUFHV
QXFOHDUVRODUHWFFDQEHXVHGLQLWV
SURGXFWLRQ
³,QWKHORQJWHUPWKHSDQHOHQYLVLRQVDQHQHUJ\HFRQRP\EDVHGRQQRQIRVVLOVRXUFHV
ZLWKHOHFWULFLW\DQGK\GURJHQEHLQJWKHVWDSOHIRUPVRIHQHUJ\GLVWULEXWHGWRFLWLHVDQG
LQGXVWULHV7KHWUDQVLWLRQIURPIRVVLOIXHOVWRV\QWKHWLFIXHOVZLOORFFXUZKHQWKHWRWDO
FRVWRISURGXFLQJDQGXVLQJIXHOVIURPQRQIRVVLOHQHUJ\VRXUFHVLQWHUVHFWVWKHULVLQJ
FRVWVLQFOXGLQJHQYLURQPHQWDOHIIHFWVRIFRDODQGLPSRUWHGRLODQGJDV´
E-39
Pathways to Renewable Hydrogen
Tom Jarvi
Sun Catalytix
Renewable Hydrogen
Conventional pathways to renewable hydrogen establish economic benchmark

Electrolysis
Renewable power
E-40
Solar Hydrogen
Several ways exist to generate solar hydrogen
Conventional light collection Low cost light absorbing materials

dominates cost offer low-cost potential
Example Result: Panel-Based PEC Performance
1L0R=Q H±
&DWKRGH
0HVK
VXQOLJKW
6WHHO
,72
&R2(&
MQ6L
4.7 % Efficiency achieved with the best solar cell samples (~8% PV efficiency).
Observed improved stability in borate electrolyte vs. KOH.
*triple-junction cells provided by Xunlight/Midwest Optoelectronics
6WHYHQ<5HHFHet. al.Science
E-41
Challenge: Cost of Hydrogen from PEC, PV + Electrolyzer
Panel PEC
39EDVHG3(&3DQHO
+2 %DODQFH
39
&DWKRGH
39
RI3ODQW +\GURJHQ
$QRGH
%23
PV + Electrolyzer
39 H± H± +2

3RZHU (OHFWURO %23 +\GURJHQ
&RQG 6WDFN
Notes:
Output was 2 kg/day hydrogen in each case
Hydrogen produced at low pressure (<100 psi) in both cases
PV performance is maximized at all light levels by the power conditioning
Challenge: PEC Comparable to PV Plus Electrolyzer
8.0
7.0
2 0
6.0 2 0
(OHFWURO\]HU
$/kg Hydrogen
5.0 39WR3(& 3RZHUFRQ

&RQYHUVLRQ
4.0 ,QVWDOODWLRQ
,QVWDOODWLRQ
3.0
2.0
39 39
1.0
0.0
F6LEDVHG3(&
PV-based PEC F6L39(OHFWURO\]HU
PV + Electrolyzer
N&$3(; N&$3(;
Installation and PV module costs dominate and are comparable for the PV +
electrolyzer and PEC cases
Difference between PV + electrolyzer and PEC is invariant to PV material.
O&M calculated for a 20-yr life – is this viable for PEC?
E-42
Opportunities for Low-Cost Light Harvesting Systems
$GKHVLYH
(QFDSVXODQW Silicon photo-voltaics are

/DPLQDWH
engineered to protect high-cost
light absorber.
&RQGXFWRUV
-XQFWLRQ%R[
:LUHV
0DUNLQJ
,'/DEHOV
6RXUFHZZZKLVFRLQFFRP
Algae bioreactors are engineered

for simplicity to drive down costs.
&UHGLW6HDPELRWLF
Opportunities for Low-Cost Light Harvesting Materials

Low-cost Particulate Simple, Low-Cost Plastic
Photocatalysts Containers
+2
3ODVWLF
$UHG + 2

$R[
E-43
Example of Particle-Based Photocatalysis
Light
S2-
S
H 2O
&G6SDUWLFOH
H2
H2 catalyst
2 H2O
H2 + 2OH- Sun Catalytix

Photocatalyst
Light
Light can be used to generate hydrogen from solutions of sulfide.
Current research efforts aimed towards generation of hydrogen and oxygen.
Hydrogen Cost by Different PEC Approaches
/LJKWDEVRUEHU 3DUWLFOHV 3DUWLFOHV 3DQHO 3DQHO 1RWHV

&RQFHQWUDWRU +SURGXFWLRQPHWULFWRQSHU
GD\ZLWKWHQWRQGD\XQLWV
5HDFWRU*DV2XWSXW 0L[HG + + + &RVWVLQFOXGHHVWLPDWHVIRU
+2 VHSDUDWLRQ

DOE-funded analysis suggests particle based systems offer lowest cost

10
%'-DPHV*1%DXP-3HUH].1%DXP86'HSDUWPHQWRI(QHUJ\'HF
$YDLODEOHRQOLQHDWKWWSZZZHHUHHQHUJ\JRYK\GURJHQDQGIXHOFHOOVSGIVSHFBWHFKQRHFRQRPLFBDQDO\VLVSGI
E-44
Summary & Recommendations
• Long-term hydrogen generation approaches need to offer

significant benefit compared to lower-risk approaches
• Cost of panels and installation dominates the cost of hydrogen
for approaches that rely on PV style light collection. Little
competitive advantage for panel-style PEC vs. PV + electrolyzer.
• Technical hurdles remain for PEC development
– Materials activity and stability
– Fluid and gas management over a field of panels
• Lower-cost light absorption approaches with direct chemical
coupling appears to be a promising approach
– Recommend increased research on systems that project low cost
E-45
Microbial Electrochemical Technologies and Osmotic
Power for Bioelectrochemical H2 Gas Production
Bruce E. Logan
Penn State University
New paradigm for H2 Production:

Run a Hydrogen Economy (transportation)
using water
There are vast resources of untapped energy/
power sources within our communities and
industries that we currently do not use
± Wastewater, cellulosic biomass, freshwater, heat
New Energy Sources Based on METs

Energy use in the USA
± 3.3 TW total; 500 GW electricity produced
Wastewater organic matter (WW)

± Consume 15 GW for our water infrastructure (5%)
± Could produce 17 GW from WW (Savings 3x15 + 17 = 62 GW net)
Cellulose Biomass Energy
± 600 GW available (based on 1.34 billion tons/yr of lignocellulose)
Salinity Gradient Energy- Natural Waters (global values)
± 980 GW (from the 1900 GW available from river/ocean water)
± 20 GW available where WW flows into the ocean
Waste Heat Energy
± 200 – 500 TW, industrial waste heat
± 1000 GW, power production (33% efficient power plants)
(Does not include solar and geothermal energy sources)
Logan and Rabaey (submitted, Science; invited)

Logan and Elimelech (submitted, Nature; invited)

E-46
Electrical power generation in a microbial fuel
cell (MFC) using exoelectrogenic
microorganisms
ORDG
Anode e- e- Cathode
Fuel
(wastes) Oxidant
(O2)
H+
Oxidation
products Reduced
(CO2) oxidant
(H2O)
Bacteria that make

electrical current
Liu et al. (2004) Environ. Sci. Technol.
Bioelectrochemical H2 Production Using Microbial

Electrolysis Cells (MECs)
36
CO2
e- e-
H2
>0.25 V needed
(vs 1.8 V for water
electrolysis)
Anode Cathode
H+
Bacteria
No oxygen in No oxygen in
anode chamber cathode chamber
(Membrane is optional in MEC) O2
Liu, Grot and Logan (2005) Environ. Sci. Technol.

E-47
Cellulosic biomass Æ H2
Hydrogen Consumption per year for US LDV Transportation
0HWULFWRQQHV\HDU

Need 1011 kg/yr H2 ELOOLRQWRQVRIFHOOXORVH\U

for transportation [NJ\U+

(light duty vehicles) PHHWVILQDOJRDO

6DOLQLW\*UDGLHQW(QHUJ\
+ =
270 m of
Hydraulic Head
2FHDQVLGH::73VDQG
5LYHUVFRXOGSURGXFH
*:
E-48
Reverse electrodialysis (RED) &O
&O 1D
stack produces electrical 1D

&O
current & H2 1D
&O 1D
&O
$(0 &(0
3HUPVHOHFWLYH 0HPEUDQH
6DOLQH+&6ROXWLRQ
$QRGH &DWKRGH
1D
1D
&O
H H
1D
H2
O2 + 4H+ &O
1D
&O
2[LGDWLRQ 5HGXFWLRQ
2H2O & $ & $ & $ & 2H+

/&6ROXWLRQ
Each pair of high salt (HC) + low salt (LC) cells = ~0.1 – 0.2 V
lt (HC)
Logan and Elimelech (submitted)
Capturing waste heat as energy

Ammonium Bicarbonate (NH4HCO3)
NH3 CO2 P
1++&2
P
Low concentration 1D&O
NHof4HCO
(LC) NH4HCO33
High concentration
(HC) of NH4HCO3
)UHVKZDWHU
Cusick, Kim & Logan (2012) Science
E-49
RED Stack (abiotic) with NH4HCO3
Abiotic anode Biotic anode (wastewater or

biomass)
Water splitting
No water splitting
Many membranes
Few membranes
CONCLUSIONS
Energy for H2 production can be obtained from

many new sources: biomass, wastewater, and
salinity gradients (seawater-freshwater, and heat)
Energy efficiencies can be very high
System Energy Recovery Energy Efficiency

MRFC– NaCl Æ Electricity 10% 42%
MRFC– AmB Æ Electricity 30% 34%
MREC– NaClÆ H2 36% 65%

MREC – AmB Æ H2 18% 35%

E-50
Challenges & Opportunities
Challenges: Big picture
± Renewable H2 production needs to be emphasized
± Better recognition/funding needed for NEW types of renewable H2 production
with near-term impact (microbial electrolysis cells “fall between the cracks”
program)
Challenges-Technical: Bio/osmotic/heat systems
± Reactions at electrodes/materials/kinetics need to be improved (but with no or
minimal precious metals)
± Cost of membranes is a key factor in overall economics (new materials needed)
± Full energy/feasibility analysis needed for MRCs
± Europe is leading in osmotic energy systems development (we are behind)
Opportunities
± Advances in PEM systems will help MRC abiotic electrode system design,
fabrication and implementation.
± Incentives for “green” H2 production could speed applications.

E-51
Solar Thermochemical
A.W. Weimer, University of Colorado
Workshop at Crystal City Gateway Marriott, Arlington VA

May 10-12, 2012
_)XHO&HOO7HFKQRORJLHV3URJUDP6RXUFH86'2( HHUHHQHJ\JRY
Technology Status/Challenges
!XQLTXHF\FOHVKDYHEHHQGLVFRYHUHGDQGVFRUHG
RIWKRVHDUHFXUUHQWO\XQGHUDFWLYHVWXG\E\6+*5
9RODWLOH0HWDO2[LGHV 2WKHU
=LQFR[LGH +\EULGFRSSHUFKORULGHVWHSV
+\EULG&DGPLXP +\EULGVXOIXUDPPRQLDVWHSV
&DGPLXP&DUERQDWH Challenges-numerous unit operations,
Challenge-avoiding recombination corrosive fluids, solids separation
between steps; require electrolysis
1RQYRODWLOH0HWDO2[LGHV
,URQR[LGH 0HWDO6XOIDWHV
6RGLXPPDQJDQHVH &DGPLXPVXOIDWH
1LFNHOPDQJDQHVHIHUULWH %DULXP0RO\EGHQXPVXOIDWH
=LQFPDQJDQHVHIHUULWH 0DQJDQHVHVXOIDWH
0IHUULWH Challenge-side reactions more favorable
0IHUULWHDOXPLQD³KHUF\QLWH´VWHSV
&HULDVWHSV 6XOIXULF$FLG
Challenges-active materials robustness, +\EULGVXOIXU
scalable & efficient solar thermochemical 6XOIXULRGLQH
redox reactor 0XOWLYDOHQWVXOIXU
)RFXVLV6LPSOH7ZRVWHS1RQ
Challenge-requires 900oC integrated
solar/chemical plant
YRODWLOH0HWDO2[LGH5HGR[
E-52
Materials Challenges
%DVLFFRQVLGHUDWLRQV
± &KHPLFDOFRPSRVLWLRQ
± 0DFURVFRSLFVWUXFWXUH
7KHUPDO7UDQVSRUW6XQOLJKW
SHQHWUDWLRQ
*DVWUDQVSRUW
± 0LFURVWUXFWXUH
5HDFWLYHVXUIDFHDUHD
7KLQDFWLYHILOPVWROLPLWGLIIXVLRQDO
UHVLVWDQFHV
± 6WUXFWXUDOVWDELOLW\DQGORDGLQJ
8QGHUVWDQGFRPSOH[EHKDYLRU
± 6XUIDFHEXONUHDFWLRQ
± 6ROLGSKDVHWUDQVSRUW
,RQLFVSHFLHV 3UREOHPDWLF)HUULWH5REXVWQHVV
± (IIHFWVRIGRSDQWVDQGVXSSRUWV
5HDFWLYLW\FRPSDWLELOLW\
_)XH
)XH
)XHOO&
&HHOOOO7
7HHFFK
KQ
KQR
QR
RORJL
J HV
V3
3UUR
RJ
RJJUUDP
D 6
6
6RXUF
RX
R XUUFFH8
H8
H 86'
'22(
(

HHUHHQHJ\JRY
Nano-engineered Materials
Opportunity
No slag phase
³+HUF\QLWH&\FOH´
Raman spectroscopy verified cycle chemistry
HHUHHQHJ\JR
E-53
Technology Recommendations
'LUHFWLQJ(QHUJ\ 0DWWHU
)L[HG0XOWLWXEH
Surround6XQ
5HDFWRU
H2O Î H2 + 1/2O2
(no bugs, no wires &
no membranes;
unfavorable reaction
divided into two 0RYLQJ3DUWLFOH%HG
favorable reactions)
_)XHO&HOO7HFKQRORJLHV3URJUDP6RXUFH86'2( 5HDFWRU HHUHHQHJ\JRY
Insights and Recommendations

(YDOXDWH³,VRWKHUPDO5HGR[´
,QWHJUDWH:DWHU
'HVDOLQDWLRQZLWK
5HGR[+HDW,QWHJUDWLRQ
(YDOXDWH3HURYVNLWH5HGR[
6RXUFH 86 '2( HHUHHQHJ\JRY
HHUHHQHJ\JR
E-54
Hydrogen Production from Biomass
Yong Wang

,QVWLWXWHIRU,QWHJUDWHG&DWDO\VLV
3DFLILF1RUWKZHVW1DWLRQDO/DERUDWRU\

:DVKLQJWRQ6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\

'2(+3URGXFWLRQ([SHUW3DQHO:RUNVKRS
0D\

Hydrogen Demand vs Biomass Availability

+SURGXFWLRQLVa007SHU\HDULQWKH86LVH[SHFWHG
WRJURZE\\HDU
5HILQHULHV
1+DQGPHWKDQROV\QWKHVLV
a007RI+\HDUO\WRJHQHUDWHWKHHQHUJ\WKDWRLO
FXUUHQWO\SURYLGHVWKH86
$YDLODELOLW\RIELRPDVVLQWKH86
ELOOLRQWRQV\URIQRQIRRGGU\ELRPDVVDYDLODEOH
ĺ a007\HDUO\
ELOOLRQWRQV\UVXVWDLQDEO\DYDLODEOHE\
ĺ a007\HDUO\

* NRC report: Liquid transportation fuels from coal and biomass(2009)

E-55
Biomass Conversion Routes to Hydrogen
Biomass Conversions
Hemi- Fermentation Ethanol

Agriculture cellulose C5, C6 sugars:
Hydrolysis:
Reforming
Rotational crops Xylose, Arabinose
Energy crops Acid or Glucose
(switch grass, poplar, etc) Enzymatic Or sugar alcohols
Oil crops
Aq. reforming
Rotational crop residue
(stover, wheat & rice straws, etc)
Cellulose
Pyrolysis Pyrolysis
Oils Reforming
H2
Forest residue Lignin Gasification Syngas
WGS
CO + H2
Aqueous, high pH
H2 + K2CO3
KOH
MSW Animal waste

Challenges with Gasification

Biomass Conversions
Hemi- &HQWUDOL]DWLRQRIIHHGVWRFN
Agriculture
Rotational crops
cellulose 0RLVWXUHFRQWHQW
Energy crops
(switch grass, poplar, etc) 7DUIRUPDWLRQ
Oil crops
Rotational crop residue
(stover, wheat & rice straws, etc)
$VKIRUPDWLRQ
Cellulose
Forest residue Lignin Gasification Syngas

CO + H2
WGS
H2
MSW Animal waste

E-56
Bio-derived Liquids
EthanoOSURGXFWLRQYLDIHUPHQWDWLRQLVHIIHFWLYHLQ
UHWDLQLQJK\GURJHQFRQWHQWZKLOHHMHFWLQJ&2DQGLV
DOUHDG\HVWDEOLVKHGDVVLJQLILFDQWOLTXLGIXHO
Glycerol:E\SURGXFWSURGXFWLRQRIJO\FHUROIURPELRGLHVHO
SURGXFWLRQLVGULYLQJJO\FHUROSULFHGRZQEXWDYDLODELOLW\LQ
WKH86LVOLPLWHG
Sorbitol:SULFHSULPDULO\GULYHQE\PDUNHWIRUKLJK
IUXFWRVHFRUQV\UXSEXWFDQEHSURGXFHGIURPDQ\VRXUFH
RIJOXFRVH
Pyrolysis oil: ZDWHUVROXEOHSRUWLRQPDLQO\DFHWLFDFLG
K\GUR[\ODFHWRQHLVQRWGHVLUDEOHIRUIXHOSURGXFWLRQ

EISA Mandated U.S. Biofuels Production Targets

Billion Gallons

~ Equivalent to National E20



%*<FDSRQ
FRQYHQWLRQDOHWKDQRO

$FWXDO3URGXFWLRQ 5HQHZDEOH)XHOV6WDQGDUG5)67DUJHWV
Conventional (Starch) Ethanol Biodiesel Cellulosic Ethanol Other Advanced Biofuels

E-57
Highly Active and Selective Co-based
Catalysts with Low CH4 Selectivity
Co2+ Co0
*+69 K6& (W2+

Conversion to C1 products (%)

Co 2p3/2 +LJKHU&R
1RUPDOL]HG,QWHQVLW\

Co 2p1/2

+LJKHU&R
+LJKHUFRQYHUVLRQ
&R=Q2

&R=Q=U2

&R=U2
&R=U2 &R=Q=U2 &R=Q2

%LQGLQJ(QHUJ\H9
&RQYHUVLRQ 6& (W2+
CH4 selectivity (%)

Challenge: ethanol feedstock

accounts for ~70% hydrogen
+LJKHU&R
production cost
+LJKHU&+ VHOHFWLYLW\

$0.DULP<6X0+(QJHOKDUG'/.LQJ<:DQJ

ACS Catalysis, G[GRLRUJFVM

9/HEDUELHU$0.DULP0+(QJHOKDUG<:X%;X
(3HWHUVHQ$.'DW\H<:DQJChemSusChem &R=U2 &R=Q=U2 &R=Q2
'2,FVVF
Status and Challenges of H2 Production from

Bio-derived Liquids
%LRGHULYHGOLTXLGVDUHDPHQDEOHIRUDTXHRXVSKDVH
UHIRUPLQJGXHWRKLJKZDWHUFRQWHQWDQGSRRUWKHUPDO
VWDELOLW\
+\GURWKHUPDOVWDELOLW\RIFDWDO\VWVLQFOXGLQJPHWDOOHDFKLQJ
LVDPDMRUFRQFHUQRIFDWDO\VWOLIH
0HWDOVXUIDFHDFLGLW\GHULYHGXQGHUDTXHRXVSKDVH
SURFHVVLQJOHDGVWRSRRUVHOHFWLYLW\DQGFDWDO\VWOLIH

E-58
Facilitating C-C Bond Breaking is Key to Hydrogen
Production From Glycerol (Surrogate for Poly-oxygenates)
1HHGVWREHPLQLPL]HG
/=KDQJ$0.DULP=:HL'/.LQJ<:DQJ. J. Catal
Facilitating C-C Bond Breaking is Key to Hydrogen

Production From Glycerol (Surrogate for Poly-oxygenates)
1.6
C-O/C-C or H2 Selectivity
1HHGVWREHPLQLPL]HG
C-O/C-C
1.2
0.8
0.4
H2 Selectivity
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Conversion
/=KDQJ$0.DULP=:HL'/.LQJ<:DQJ. J. Catal
E-59
Bio-derived Liquids
VWDELOLW\
$FWLYHFDWDO\VWVDUHSUHFLRXVPHWDOEDVHG

APR of Glycerol on ZrO2 Supported Catalysts
E-60
Bio-derived Liquids
VWDELOLW\
$FWLYHFDWDO\VWVDUHSUHFLRXVPHWDOEDVHG
6HQVLWLYLW\DQDO\VLVRIDTXHRXVSKDVHUHIRUPLQJRIS\URO\VLV
RLOLQGLFDWHVWKDWK\GURJHQSURGXFWLRQFRVWLVPDLQO\
DIIHFWHGE\IHHGVWRFNFRVWDQGFDWDO\VWHIILFLHQF\
DFWLYLW\VHOHFWLYLW\

Sensitivity Analysis: Cost of Hydrogen From

Aqueous Bio-oil APR Under Different Scenarios
$40
$37.58
$35
$31.84
$30
Price of H2 [$/kg delivered]
$25
$20 $18.33
$17.06 $17.60
$15
$10.27 $10.81
$10
$5.53 $5.33
$5 $4.00
$0
Goal 2011 Half bio-oil Diluted 4:1 Double H2 Double H2 Double Double Full reaction Full
Experimental cost instead of 1:1 yield yield and half residence residence of readily conversion of
Data bio-oil cost time, double time, H2 yield, reactable all
H2 yield half bio-oil components components
cost
Capital Costs Catalyst Cost Decommissioning Costs
Fixed O&M Feedstock Costs Other Raw Material Costs
Byproduct Credits Other Variable Costs (including utilities) Compression, Storage, and Dispensing
E-61
Recommendations
3URGXFWLRQRIK\GURJHQIURPORZFRVWDQGORZYDOXH
IHHGVWRFN
'LUHFWO\IURPFHOOXORVH
8VLQJZDWHUVROXEOHSRUWLRQRIS\URO\VLVRLOV

Preliminary H2A Analysis Shows Promising Cost

Advantage in H2 Production Directly from Cellulose
$TXHRXVSKDVHFRQYHUVLRQRIFHOOXORVHWRHWK\OHQHJO\FRO\LHOGRQVXSSRUWHG
:2FDWDO\VW+/LXHWDOAngew.Chem.Int.Ed'2,DQLH
$VVXPLQJFHOOXORVHSULFHRIWRQDQGRQO\WDNLQJWKHFUHGLWRI+SURGXFWLRQIURP
HWK\OHQHJO\FRO
E-62
Preliminary H2A Analysis Shows Promising Cost
Advantage in H2 Production Directly from Cellulose
$TXHRXVSKDVHFRQYHUVLRQRIFHOOXORVHWRHWK\OHQHJO\FRO\LHOGRQVXSSRUWHG
:2FDWDO\VW+/LXHWDOAngew.Chem.Int.Ed'2,DQLH
$VVXPLQJFHOOXORVHSULFHRIWRQDQGRQO\WDNLQJWKHFUHGLWRI+SURGXFWLRQIURP
HWK\OHQHJO\FRO
Total Cost of
Specific Item Cost Calculation $12.04
Delivered Hydrogen
Compression, Storage,
Hydrogen Production Cost
Cost Component and Dispensing Cost Percentage of H2 Cost
Contribution ($/kg)
Contribution ($/kg)*
&DSLWDO&RVWV
'HFRPPLVVLRQLQJ&RVWV
)L[HG2 0
)HHGVWRFN&RVWV

6RUELWRO
2WKHU5DZ0DWHULDO&RVWV
%\SURGXFW&UHGLWV
2WKHU9DULDEOH&RVWVLQFOXGLQJ

XWLOLWLHV
Total $10.16 $1.88
Total Cost of
Specific Item Cost Calculation $4.13
Delivered Hydrogen
Compression, Storage,
Hydrogen Production Cost
Cost Component and Dispensing Cost Percentage of H2 Cost
Contribution ($/kg)
Contribution ($/kg)*
&DSLWDO&RVWV &HOOXORVH
'HFRPPLVVLRQLQJ&RVWV
)L[HG2 0
)HHGVWRFN&RVWV
2WKHU5DZ0DWHULDO&RVWV
%\SURGXFW&UHGLWV
2WKHU9DULDEOH&RVWVLQFOXGLQJ

XWLOLWLHV
Total $2.24 $1.88
Recommendations
3URGXFWLRQRIK\GURJHQIURPORZFRVWDQGORZYDOXH
IHHGVWRFN
'LUHFWO\IURPFHOOXORVH
8VLQJZDWHUVROXEOHSRUWLRQRIS\URO\VLVRLOV
,QH[SHQVLYHFDWDO\VWVZLWKKLJKDFWLYLW\DQGVHOHFWLYLW\
6WDEOHFDWDO\VWVXQGHUDTXHRXVSKDVH
5HVLVWDQFHWRPHWDOOHDFKLQJ
+\GURWKHUPDOO\VWDEOHVXSSRUWV
8WLOL]DWLRQRIK\GURJHQJHQHUDWHGin situ
,QWHJUDWLRQZLWK1*WRFRQWULEXWHWRWKHSURGXFWLRQ
FDSDFLW\ZLWKORZHURUQRJUHHQKRXVHJDVHPLVVLRQV
ZLWKRXWFDUERQVHTXHVWUDWLRQWHFKQRORJLHV

E-63
PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN THROUGH
ARTIFICIAL PHOTOSYNTHESIS
NATHAN S. LEWIS
Blue Ribbon Panel on Hydrogen Production

May 11, 2012
JOINT CENTER FOR ARTIFICIAL PHOTOSYNTHESIS
JCAP Mission
JCAP’s Mission is to demonstrate a manufacturable, scalable solar-fuels generator using Earth-

abundant elements that, with no wires, robustly produces fuel from the Sun ten times more
efficiently than (current) crops.
Photosynthesis Artificial Photosynthesis
“It is time to build an actual artificial photosynthetic system, to

learn what works and what does not work, and thereby set the
stage for making it work better”
Melvin Calvin (1961 Nobel Prize Laureate)

E-64
JCAP Vision
JCAP research spans

efforts from fundamental
discoveries of catalysts
and semiconductors on
the molecular or
nanoscale to design and
fabrication of solar-fuels
generator modules that
will cover kilometer-scale
areas
Efforts on these scales are

performed in parallel
because performance of
the system on one scale
affects the design
choices, research thrusts,
and performance targets
on the other scales
JCAP Vision – Parallel R&TD
Scale-up from
Mesoscale to
Macroscale
Scalability and
Sustainability
Analysis Emergent
Phenomena on
Mesoscale
Solar-Fuel
Generator Interface of
Prototyping Components
Earth-Abundant
Membranes Light Capture
Earth-Abundant, Materials
Low-Overpotential
Catalysts

E-65
JCAP Organizational Chart
Organization

E-66
The Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis (JCAP) is the nation’s largest research program dedicated to the development of an
artificial solar-fuel generation technology. Established in 2010 as a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Innovation Hub, JCAP aims
to find a cost-effective method to produce fuels using only sunlight, water, and carbon-dioxide as inputs. JCAP is led by a team from
the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and brings together more than 120 world-class scientists and engineers from Caltech
and its lead partner, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. JCAP also draws on the expertise and capabilities of key partners from
Stanford University, the University of California campuses at Berkeley (UCB), Santa Barbara (UCSB), Irvine (UCI), and San Diego (UCSD),
and the Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC). In addition, JCAP serves as a central hub for other solar fuels research teams across the
United States, including 20 DOE Energy Frontier Research Center.
For more information, visit http://www.solarfuelshub.org.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does
not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.
E-67
High
Hi h Temperature
T t Electrolysis
El t l i for f
Efficient Hydrogen Production from
Nuclear Energy – INL Accomplishments
andd a Look
L k tto th
the F
Future
t
Jim O’Brien
Idaho National Laboratory
Prepared in May 2013 by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office

gov
of Nuclear Energy to provide supplemental information to the

www.inl.g
HTAC/HPEP Report regarding recent activities in the DOE Hydrogen

and Fuel Cell Technologies Program (HFCTP). The HFCTP is
comprised of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s
Fuel Cell Technologies Office as well as hydrogen and fuel cell related
w
programs in the Offices of Fossil Energy

Energy, Nuclear Energy and Basic
Energy Sciences. After receiving the initial report submission in October
2012, the DOE disseminated the original draft to all HFCTP participants
(as well as ARPA-A) requesting feedback and supplemental information
that might be of technical interest to the “Hydrogen Production Expert
P
Panel”,
l” ffor ffuture
t consideration.
id ti Th
The Offi
Office off N
Nuclear
l E
Energy provided
id d
this supplemental information in response.
Supplemental information not included at the HPEP Workshop
Technical Concept
Large-Scale Centralized Carbon-Free Nuclear Hydrogen Production
based on High-Temperature Steam Electrolysis
• Directly coupled to high-temperature gas-cooled reactor for electrical power and
process heat
• 600 MWth reactor could produce ~85 85 million SCFD hydrogen (similar to a large steam
methane reforming plant) and 42 million SCFD oxygen
• Potential applications include petroleum refining, ammonia production, synthetic liquid
fuels, hydrogen as a direct vehicle fuel
• During FY09
FY09, HTSE was selected by DOE as the primary nuclear hydrogen production
technology for continued development toward early deployment (based on the
recommendation of an external independent review team)
Supplemental information not included at the HPEP Workshop E-68

Status
Large-Scale HTSE Demonstration 4 kW Advanced Technology HTSE test
(2012)
15 kW Integrated Laboratory Scale test at INL
(
(2009)
)
• Initial hydrogen production rate > 5000 NL/hr

• Demonstrated heat recuperation and hydrogen • Stable performance (<3%/khr degradation)
recycle
y for more than 800 hours
• High degradation rate • Constant-current operation with a H2
production rate of 1500 L/hr (135 gm/hr)
Challenges
• Fundamentals
• Performance Degradation
• CFD Simulation
Small stack for
• System Modeling and
pressurized test
p Optimization
Atomistic modeling
• Technology Demonstration
Aspen/HYSYS model In-stack temperature

di ib i
distribution
INL HTSE Laboratory Pressurized Test

Opportunities
Advantages of High Temperature Operation
• Overall Thermal-to-hydrogen efficiency >50% (based on HHV)
• Electrical power requirements
– HTE: ~ 34 kW-hr/kg g
– Conventional ~ 50 kW-hr/kg
Overall thermal-to-hydrogen production Standard-state ideal energy

efficiencies based on HHV for several requirements for electrolysis as a
reactor/process
/ concepts, as a function
f off f
function
ti off temperature
t t
reactor outlet temperature
16 3.5
MJ/kg H2O P=1 atm 3
60 H o , To tal Energy Demand kWh/m H 2
14 R
Overall thermal to hydrogen efficiency ((%)
Energy Demand pe r unit mass of steam

m
G , Electrical Energy Deman d
o
50 12 R
2.5
40 10
2
8 liquid steam
30
15
1.5
65% of max possible 6
INL, HTE / He Recup Brayton
20 INL, LTE / He Recup Brayton
INL, HTE / Na-cooled Rankine 1
INL, LTE / Na-cooled Rankine 4
INL, HTE / Sprcrt CO2 TS o , H eat Demand
10 INL, LTE / Sprcrt CO2 R
SI Process (GA) 0.5
MIT - GT-MHR/HTE 2
MIT AGR -SCO2/HTE
0
0 0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
T (C)
T (°C)
Opportunities
Distributed Hydrogen Production Plants
Plants, Based on HTE
Economic Analysis at Forecourt-scale and Intermediate-scale

H2A Results Summary
(production only, not including
compression, storage, and dispensing)
$/kg production INL HTSE INL (with low NREL, conventional
cost baseline installed cost electrolysis (low
multiplier) installed cost
multiplier)
forecourt scale 3.12 2.71 4.23
(
(1500 kg/day)
g y)
intermediate- 2.68 2.49 4.71
scale
(50000 kg/day)
NGNP-coupled
NGNP coupled 3.23
plant
(200,000 kg/day)
Note: with current low prices for natural gas,

production cost for Steam
Steam-methane
methane
reforming-based production is ~$1.50/kg

Conclusions
• Development of carbon-free methods for hydrogen production will be
needed to meet energy security demands, especially in the transportation
sector
• INL has demonstrated the feasibility of HTE for efficient hydrogen
production from steam; degradation remains an issue, but significant
improvements have been noted in recent tests
• FY12 pressurized testing and 4 kW demonstration advanced the
technology to TRL5
• Hydrogen production costs by HTSE is almost competitive with liquid
fuels, but much more expensive than SMR at present
Project Legacy
6 Book Chapters
29 J
Journall Articles
A ti l
105 Conference papers
40 External Reports
3 US P
Patents
t t
E-71
Scientific Challenges and Innovative
Approaches in Renewable Energy and
Hydrogen Research
May 11,
11 2012
Richard V. Greene, Lead

Photochemistry and Biochemistry Team
Office of Basic Energy Sciences
Office of Science
U. S. Department of Energy
Secretary
Steven Chu Advanced Research
Projects Agency – Energy
Deputy Secretary Arun Majumdar
Daniel B. Poneman
Under Secretary for Nuclear

Security/Administrator for Under Secretary
Under Secretary
National Nuclear Security for Science
Administration Arun Majumdar (A)
Thomas P. D’Agostino Vacant
Defense Nuclear Office of Science

Nonproliferation
William Brinkman
Patricia Dehmer Energy Efficiency &
Defense Programs Renewable Energy
David Danielson
Basic Energy Sciences High Energy Physics
Naval Reactors James Siegrist Fossil Energy
H i t Kung
Harriet K
Charles McConnell
(A)
Counter-terrorism Advanced Scientific Nuclear Physics
Computing Research
Tim Hallman Nuclear Energy
Dan Hitchcock
Defense Nuclear Pete Lyons
Security
Biological & Fusion Energy Sciences
Environmental Electricity Delivery
Emergency Research Ed Synakowski & Energy Reliability
Operations Sharlene Weatherwax Pat Hoffman
Workforce Develop. for

SBIR/STTR T
Teachers
h & Scientists
S i ti t
Manny Oliver Pat Dehmer (A)
E-72
Continuum of Research, Development, and Deployment
Technology
Discovery Use-Inspired Applied
Maturation
Research Basic Research Research
& Deployment
Basic Energy Sciences ARPA-E* Applied Programs
Goal: new knowledge

g / understanding
g Goal: practical targets
g
Focus: phenomena Focus: performance
Metric: knowledge generation Metric: milestone achievement
 Basic research to  Basic research for  Basic research for  Proof of new,  Research with the  Scale-up research
address
dd f d
fundamentalt l new f d
fundamentalt l new hi h i k concepts
higher-risk t goall off meeting
ti  Small-scale and at-
fundamental understanding on understanding,  Prototyping of new technical milestones, scale demonstration
BESofCore
limitations current Research
materials or Programs usually with the goal with emphasis on
technology concepts  Cost reduction
theories and systems that may of addressing the development,
descriptions of revolutionize or scientific  Explore feasibility of performance, cost  Manufacturing R&D
matter in the energy transform today
today’ss showstoppers on scale-upp of reduction, and
Energy Frontier
range important to Research
energy technologies Centers
real-world demonstrated durability of  Deployment
D l t
everyday life – applications in the technology concepts materials and support, leading to
typically energies up energy technologies in a “quick-hit” components or on market adoption
to those required to fashion. efficient processes  High cost-sharing
break chemical Energy Innovation Hubs with industry
b d
bonds. partners
t
* ARPA-E: targets technology gaps, high-risk concepts, aggressive delivery times
Platinum Monolayer Electro-Catalysts:

Stationary and Automotive Fuel Cells
Manufacturing/
Basic Science Applied R&D Commercialization
BES BES  EERE CRADA with Industry
Two research advances Scale up synthesis: Pt-ML/Pd
Scale-up Pt ML/Pd9Au1/C
Pt core-shell nano-catalysts: high
Core-Shell Nanocatalysts Excellent fuel Cell durability 200,000 cycles
activity with ultralow Pt mass Active Pt ML shell – Metal/alloy core
Core tunes activity & durability of shell
Core-shell catalyst
Pt
Model and Pd
actual image of
a Pt Monolayer Standard catalyst
on Pd
nanoparticle Pt
Membrane
M b Electrode
El t d Assembly
A bl >200K cycles l
Pd Very small Pt diffusion & small Pd diffusion
1.2
Pt AuNi 5/ C
Pt-mass
0.9
Pt stabilized against corrosion in
@0.9V
voltage
g cycling
y g by
y Au clusters weighted
-1
mg
0.6
jk / A.m
Pt AuNi 5/C
Au 0.67ML /Pt 10/C 0.3

activity
enhanced
1
50mV/s, 0.1M HClO 4
Pt/ C Pt/C
20x
0.0
Pt mass activity Noble metal mass activity
-2
j / mAcm
i iti l
initial
-1
30,000 cycles Angewandte Chemie 49, 8602 (2010)
3000 hr Fuel
-2
2nm
Cell Fuel Cell Catalyst readied for
Durability
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
E / V RHE automotive application
Science 315, 220 (2007) Performance
E-73
Basic Energy Sciences Strategic Planning Exercise
Utilizing scientific expertise

developed over a quarter century
through basic research on
problems in hydrogen and fuel
cells, BES convened a panel of
experts in 2003 to identify and
outline areas of basic research
critical to the development off
hydrogen as an energy source for
the U.S. economy.
In this Basic Research Needs

Workshop the topics of Hydrogen
Production, Storage, Transport,
andd Use
U were discussed
di d and
d
explored.
High
g Priorityy Research Directions
were identified and defined.
BES Priority Hydrogen Research Directions
Low Cost and Efficient Solar Energy Production of Hydrogen Nanoscale Catalyst Design
Low-Cost
Biological, Biomimetic, and Bio-inspired Materials and Processes
Complex Hydride Materials for Hydrogen Storage
Nanostructured and Other Novel Hydrogen Storage Materials
Theory Modeling
Theory, Modeling, and Simulation of Materials and Molecular Processes
Low-Cost, Highly Active, Durable Cathodes for Low-Temperature Fuel Cells
Membranes and Separation Processes for Hydrogen Production and Fuel Cells
Analytical and Measurement Technologies
Impact of the Hydrogen Economy on the Environment
Safety in the Hydrogen Economy
Hydrogen production-related topics
E-74
Fuels from Sunlight
Storage / Grid
Electricity
 Feasible Today  Feasible Today
 Expensive  Expensive
CS/et Cat
h
h Slow
PC/ET CS/et Cat Fuel (H2, CH3OH
from H2O & CO2)
Photocatalysis
Key
Photon capture and energy transfer
Charge separation and electron transport
PC/ET
CS/et
 Work in Progress
 Economically Attractive
Catalysis and fuel formation Cat
Fuels from Sunlight
More Energy
M E from
f S
Sunlight
li ht
Strikes the Earth in an Hour
than All the Energy Consumed
on the Planet in a Year!!!
E-75
BES Biological Hydrogen Production Research
Current areas of supported research include:
 Investigating cell metabolism and regulatory

networks in pphotosynthetic
y and heterotrophic
p
bacteria, algae and Archaea for improved hydrogen
production
 Understanding assembly, structure and function of
hydrogenase and nitrogenase enzymes
 Developing photobiohybrid structures based on
natural biological systems and enzymes
Photo-driven hydrogen production via a noncovalent

biohybrid protein complex
• U
Using
i BES ffunding,
di researchers
h
developed a Photosystem I (PSI) -
platinum (Pt) nanoparticle hybrid
system
y that p
photocatalytically
y y
generated hydrogen at a rate five times
greater than the previous record-setting
system.
• The study demonstrates that highly
efficient photocatalysis of hydrogen can
be obtained for a self-assembled,
noncovalent complex between one of
Nature’s specialized energy converters,
PSI, and Pt nanoparticles.
• The results suggest a new strategy for
linking molecular catalysts to PSI that
Lisa Utschig, Argonne National Laboratory
takes advantage of electrostatic-
J. Phys. Chem. Letts. (2011) 2: 236 directed assembly to mimic acceptor
C&E News January 31, 2011 protein binding.
Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division

E-76
BES Non-Biological Hydrogen Production Research
Current
Cu e t areas
a eas include:
c ude
 Low-Cost and Efficient Production of Hydrogen through Nanoscale Catalyst
Design, using both electrochemical and photochemical systems
 Biomimetic and Bio-inspired Materials and Processes
 Theory, Modeling and Simulation of Materials and Molecular Processes
Fundamental knowledge from DOE-supported studies addresses:

 Structure: How can molecular structure and nanostructures be
manipulated to optimize water splitting for hydrogen production?
 Energetics: How can we produce excited states in molecular and solid

catalysts with the energetics to reduce hydrogen?
 Dynamics: What are the physical models that connect the kinetics of a
catalyst with its structure and energetics?
 Theory: How can research and discovery be accelerated through theory

and computational modeling?
Core research in hydrogen production is bolstered by several
EFRCs and the Fuels from Sunlight Hub
Photoinitiated Electron Collection in Mixed-Metal

Supramolecular Complexes
Scientific Goal
Scientific Goal
Development of photocatalysts for hydrogen production by design and study of supra‐
molecular complexes to produce hydrogen from H2O using molecular devices for
photoinitiated electron collection
Significance and Impact
Hydrogen evolution from water requires multiple electrons to be photogenerated and
transported; these studies lead to an understanding of processes which can accomplish
the multielectron reduction of chemical species to produce fuel.
p p
Research Details
• Probe the role of sub‐unit variation on the functioning of supramolecular H2 production
photocatalysts to explore the impact of modulation of orbital energetics and excited state
dynamics on this complicated photochemistry
dynamics on this complicated photochemistry
• Develop a fundamental understanding of the rates and mechanisms of multielectron
photochemistry and photocatalysis in supramolecular complexes.
1MLCT kisc
3MLCT
ket
3MMCT
kr
h knr krxn
E
knr'
1GS
TT. A. White, B. N. Whitaker and K. J. Brewer,
A White B N Whitaker and K J Brewer
J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2011, 133(39) 15332‐15334.
12
E-77
New Catalyst Speeds Conversion of Electricity to Hydrogen Fuel
Scientific Achievement
A newly synthesized Nickel complex speeds the production of hydrogen ten
times faster than a natural hydrogenase enzyme at room temperature.
Significance
Si ifi and
d Impact
I t
Opens a new research path to develop long-lived catalysts using inexpensive,
earth-abundant metals to convert electrical energy to chemical energy.
Research Details
– In this process, water molecules are split to produce
hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel.
– Usingg the natural hydrogenase
y g enzyme
y as a model,, a
synthetic catalyst using Nickel was developed. The metal
atom gets its reactive properties from the groups of atoms
containing phosphorous and nitrogen that surround it.
– By splitting water, hydrogen gas is formed by combining
the H+ on the nitrogen with the H- on the nickel center.
– Adding an acid or water increased the rate of hydrogen
produced from the newly-designed synthetic catalyst.
ML Helm, MP Stewart, RM Bullock, MR DuBois, DL DuBois Science 12 August
2011: 863. Work was supported by the Center for Molecular Electrocatalysis, an 2 e- + 2 H+ → H2
EFRC led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Schematic showing catalyst operation
Fuels from Sunlight Hub

(Joint Center for Artificial Photosynthesis)
The objective
Th bj ti off the
th Fuels
F l
from Sunlight Hub is to
develop an effective solar
energy to chemical fuel
conversion system. The
system should operate at an
overall efficiency and
produce fuel of sufficient
energy content to enable
transition from bench-topp
discovery to proof-of-
concept prototyping.
JCAP Mission: To demonstrate a scalable, manufacturable solar-fuels generator

using Earth-abundant elements, that, with no wires, robustly produces fuel from
the sun ten times more efficiently than (current) crops.
JCAP Director is Professor Nate Lewis. Funding is approximately

$120M over five years. Centered at CalTech and LBNL
E-78
Fuels
Fuelsfrom
fromSunlight:
Sunlight: Critical
CriticalIssues
IssuesininResearch
Research
fs ps ns
ps-ns s-ms
Photon absorption and Charge separation and Photocatalysis
harvesting
g transport
p
How do we produce fuels with
How do we control light How do we avoid the energy provided by visible
harvesting to utilize all of the recombination of photo- light absorption?
photons? generated charge carriers?
-Need hetero/homo -geneous
-Need to know how to design -Need to overcome geminate catalytic systems for water
and control exciton transfer in recombination in organic splitting
molecular systems systems
-Need to couple light
-Need red absorbers to -Need to design transport to absorption to catalytic
harvest the bulk of the solar reduce non
non-geminate
geminate processes for C-C bond
spectrum recombination in all systems formation
Challenges of this magnitude require a long-term commitment to

fundamental research
E-79
Fuel Cell Technologies Program
+\GURJHQ3URGXFWLRQ([SHUW3DQHO:RUNVKRS 6XQLWD6DW\DSDO (ULF0LOOHU

DVXEFRPPLWWHHRIWKH)HGHUDO+\GURJHQ$QG)XHO )XHO&HOO7HFKQRORJLHV3URJUDP
&HOO7HFKQLFDO$GYLVRU\&RPPLWWHH+7$& (QHUJ\(IILFLHQF\DQG5HQHZDEOH(QHUJ\
0D\ 86'HSDUWPHQWRI(QHUJ\

_)XHO&HOO7HFKQRORJLHV3URJUDP6RXUFH86'2( HHUHHQHUJ\JRY
Hydrogen: Sources & Applications

Key Benefits
!HOHFWULFDO
9HU\+LJK !HOHFWULFDOK\EULGIXHO
(IILFLHQF\ FHOOWXUELQH
!ZLWK&+3
5HGXFHG ±UHGXFWLRQVIRU&+3
&2 V\VWHPV!ZLWKELRJDV
(PLVVLRQV ±UHGXFWLRQVIRUOLJKW
GXW\YHKLFOHV
!UHGXFWLRQIRU)&(9VYV
5HGXFHG WRGD\¶VJDVROLQH,&(9V
2LO8VH !UHGXFWLRQIRU)&(9VYV
DGYDQFHG3+(9V
XSWRUHGXFWLRQLQFULWHULD
5HGXFHG SROOXWDQWVIRU&+3V\VWHPV
$LU
3ROOXWLRQ
&OHDQIXHOV²LQFOXGLQJ
)XHO ELRJDVPHWKDQRO+
)OH[LELOLW\ +\GURJHQ²FDQEHSURGXFHG
FOHDQO\XVLQJVXQOLJKWRU
ELRPDVVGLUHFWO\RUWKURXJK
HOHFWURO\VLVXVLQJUHQHZDEOH
HOHFWULFLW\
&RQYHQWLRQDOIXHOV²
LQFOXGLQJQDWXUDOJDVSURSDQH
GLHVHO
+\GURJHQFDQSOD\LPSRUWDQWUROHLQWKHWUDQVSRUWVWRUDJHDQGHIILFLHQWFRQYHUVLRQRI
UHQHZDEOHHQHUJ\LQWKH3UHVLGHQW
VDOORIWKHDERYHHQHUJ\VWUDWHJ\

E-80
Emerging Fuel Cell Industries Further Increase
the Demand for Hydrogen
)XHO&HOO3DWHQWV*HRJUDSKLF
'LVWULEXWLRQ
'LVWULEXWLRQ
-DSDQ
-DSDQ

8QLWHG
6WDWHV
6WDWHV

2WKHU
2WKHU

)UDQFH
)UDQFH

.RUHD
.RUHD
*UHDW
*UHDW
7RSFRPSDQLHV+RQGD*07R\RWD87&3RZHU %ULWDLQ 7DLZDQ
%ULWDLQ 7DLZDQ

6DPVXQJ%DOODUG1LVVDQ3OXJ3RZHU'HOSKL

&DQDGD
&DQDGD *HUPDQ\
*HUPDQ\
7HFKQRORJLHV0DWVXVKLWD(OHFWULF,QGXVWULDO

Clean Energy Patent Growth Index[1] shows that fuel cell patents lead in the clean energy field with nearly 1,000 fuel cell patents issued
worldwide in 2010, 3x more than the second place holder (solar); Number of fuel cell patents grew > 57% in 2010.
The growing demand, along with increasing economic and environmental pressures,
necessitate the development and adoption of new technologies for the affordable large-scale
production of low-carbon hydrogen
[1] http://cepgi
http://cepgi.typepad.com/heslin_rothenberg_farley_/
typepad com/heslin rothenberg farley /
Worldwide Commitment to FCEVs

7KHZRUOG¶VOHDGLQJDXWRPDNHUVKDYHFRPPLWWHGWRGHYHORS)&(9V*HUPDQ\DQG
-DSDQKDYHDQQRXQFHGSODQVWRH[SDQGWKHK\GURJHQLQIUDVWUXFWXUH
H2Mobility - evaluate the commercialization of H2
Major Auto Manufacturers’ Activities and infrastructure and FCEVs
Plans for FCEVs Public-private partnership between NOW and
Toyota 86GHPRIOHHWRIYHKLFOHV
9 industry stakeholders including:
7DUJHWIRUODUJHVFDOHFRPPHUFLDOL]DWLRQ Daimler, Linde, OMV, Shell, Total,
³)&+9DGY´FDQDFKLHYHPLOHUDQJHDQGPSJJH
Vattenfall, EnBW, Air Liquide, Air Products

Honda &ODULW\)&;QDPHG³:RUOG*UHHQ&DURIWKH<HDU´(3$ FCEV commercialization by 2015.
FHUWLILHGPSJJHOHDVLQJXSWRYHKLFOHV
7DUJHWIRUODUJHVFDOHFRPPHUFLDOL]DWLRQ
UKH2Mobility will evaluate anticipated FCEV
Daimler 6PDOOVHULHVSURGXFWLRQRI)&(9VEHJDQLQ roll-out in 2014/2015
3ODQVIRUWHQVRIWKRXVDQGVRI)&(9VSHU\HDULQ±
DQGKXQGUHGVRIWKRXVDQGVDIHZ\HDUVDIWHU 13 industry partners including:
,QSDUWQHUVKLSZLWK/LQGHWRGHYHORSIXHOLQJVWDWLRQV Air Liquide, Air Products, Daimler,
5HFHQWO\PRYHGXSFRPPHUFLDOL]DWLRQSODQVWR
Hyundai, ITM Power , Johnson Matthew,
General YHKLFOHVLQGHPRQVWUDWLRQIOHHW
Motors 7HFKQRORJ\UHDGLQHVVJRDOIRU)&SRZHUWUDLQ
Nissan, Scottish & Southern Energy, Tata
7DUJHWIRUFRPPHUFLDOL]DWLRQ Motors, The BOC Group, Toyota,
Vauxhall Motors
Hyundai- )&(9V\HDU
Kia )&(9V\HDU 3 UK government departments
³%RUUHJR´)&(9KDVDFKLHYHG!PLOHUDQJH
Government investment of £400 million to
Volkswagen ([SDQGHGGHPRIOHHWWR)&(9VLQ&$ support development, demonstration, and
5HFHQWO\UHFRQILUPHGFRPPLWPHQWWR)&(9V
deployment.
SAIC (China) 3DUWQHULQJZLWK*0WREXLOGIXHOFHOOYHKLFOHVLQ
13 companies and Ministry of Transport
Ford $ODQ0XODOO\&(2VHHVDVWKHGDWHWKDWIXHOFHOO announce plan to commercialize FCEVs by 2015
FDUVZLOOJRRQVDOH
100 refueling stations in 4 metropolitan areas
BMW %0:DQG*0SODQWRFROODERUDWHRQWKHGHYHORSPHQW
RIIXHOFHOOWHFKQRORJ\ and connecting highways planned, 1,000
station in 2020, and 5,000 stations in 2030.
Based on publicly available information during 2011
E-81
Hydrogen Production & Applications
+\GURJHQLVSURGXFHGWKURXJKDYDULHW\RI
WHFKQRORJLHVWKRXJKaRI86
K\GURJHQSURGXFWLRQFRPHVIURP605

+\GURJHQLVXVHGLQDEURDGUDQJHRI
DSSOLFDWLRQVLQFOXGLQJHOHFWURQLFVDQG
PHWDOSURGXFWLRQDQGIDEULFDWLRQLQ
DGGLWLRQWRLWVWUDGLWLRQDOUROHLQUHILQHU\
RSHUDWLRQVDQGDPPRQLDSURGXFWLRQ
Major merchant suppliers

$LU3URGXFWVDQG&KHPLFDOV,QF
$LUJDV,QF
$LU/LTXLGH
%2&,QGLD/LPLWHG
/LQGH$*
3UD[DLU,QF
7DL\R1LSSRQ6DQVR&RUS

Hydrogen Production Markets
Hydrogen production markets both in

the U.S. and worldwide are expected to
increase in the next 5 years, with a
~30% growth estimated for global
production.
The expected global hydrogen
production market revenue in 2016 is
$118 billion.

E-82
DOE R&D in Hydrogen and Fuel Cells
7KH3URJUDPLVDQLQWHJUDWHGHIIRUWVWUXFWXUHGWRDGGUHVVDOOWKHNH\FKDOOHQJHV
D QGR
REVWDFOHVIDFLQJZLGHVSUHDGF FRPPHUFLDOL]DWLRQ
DQGREVWDFOHVIDFLQJZLGHVSUHDGFRPPHUFLDOL]DWLRQ
1HDUO\SURMHFWVFXUUHQWO\IXQGHG
DWFRPSDQLHVQDWLRQDOODEVDQGXQLYHUVLWLHVLQVWLWXWHV
)<((5(+DQG)XHO&HOOV%XGJHW0

Federal Role in Fuel Cells:

RD&D to Deployments
DOE R&D DOE Demonstrations Deployments

& Technology Validation
5HGXFHVFRVWDQGLPSURYHV 0DUNHW7UDQVIRUPDWLRQ
SHUIRUPDQFH 9DOLGDWHDGYDQFHG '2(5HFRYHU\$FW
WHFKQRORJLHVXQGHUUHDO 3URMHFWV
Examples: ZRUOGFRQGLWLRQV *RYHUQPHQW(DUO\
Transportation Fuel Cell System Cost )HHGEDFNJXLGHV5 ' $GRSWLRQ'R')$$
&DOLIRUQLDHWF
- projected to high-volume (500,000 units per year) -
6WDWXV

N: ,',4
KLJKYRO 7D[&UHGLWV&
7D
7DUJHW

N:
5HFRYHU\$FW 0DUNHW

7UDQVIRUPDWLRQ'HSOR\PHQWV

Æ5HGXFHGFRVWRIIXHOFHOOV
VLQFHVLQFH
Examples—validated:
HIILFLHQF\
PLOHUDQJH
LQGHSHQGHQWO\YDOLGDWHG
PLOHUDQJH ¾ IXHOFHOOGHSOR\PHQWV
PLGXUDELOLW\ LQa\HDUV
Æ5HGXFHGFRVWRIHOHFWURO\]HU 3URJUDPDOVRLQFOXGHVHQDEOLQJDFWLYLWLHV ¾ PLOOLRQKRXUVRIRSHUDWLRQ
VWDFNVVLQFH VXFKDVFRGHV VWDQGDUGVDQDO\VLVDQG
*IDIQ = indefinite delivery/indefinite quality
HGXFDWLRQ
E-83
Fuel Cell Technologies Program Plan
Fuel Cell Technologies (FCT) Program R&D has led to significant progress in early-markets
Continued R&D focus on low-carbon H2 production for near- to long-term markets is needed
KWWSZZZHHUHHQHUJ\JRYK\GURJHQDQGIXHOFHOOVSGIVSURJUDPBSODQSGI
H2 production R&D 8SGDWHWRWKH

+\GURJHQ3RVWXUH
Source: DOE 2011 3ODQ
3URJUDPHIIRUWVDUHSODQQHGWRWUDQVLWLRQWRLQGXVWU\
5HOHDVHG6HSWHPEHU
DVWHFKQRORJLHVUHDFKFRPPHUFLDOUHDGLQHVV

DOE Portfolio of H2 Production Technologies
7KH((5()XHO&HOO7HFKQRORJLHV)&73URJUDPXVHVLQGHSHQGHQWDQDO\VHVDQGSDWKZD\FDVH

VWXGLHVWRSULRULWL]H5 'LQDUDQJHRIFHQWUDODQGGLVWULEXWHGK\GURJHQSURGXFWLRQSDWKZD\VDQG
WRVWULYHVWRLGHQWLI\V\QHUJLHVZLWK'2(2IILFHVRI1XFOHDU(QHUJ\1()RVVLO(QHUJ\)(DQG
6FLHQFH6&2IILFHVHJ()5&VDQG6RODU)XHOV+XEDQGFROODERUDWLRQVZLWKLQGXVWU\
DFDGHPLDDQGWKHQDWLRQDOODERUDWRULHV
E-84
Production Cost Challenge
Projected
j High-Volume
g y g Production with Feedstock Sensitivities1
Cost of Hydrogen
$10
$9 Distributed Production (not dispensed) $PRQJFXUUHQWO\DYDLODEOH
$8 (OHFWURO\VLV
SDWKZD\VRQO\QDWXUDOJDV
($/gallon gasoline equivalent [gge], untaxed)
$7 )HHGVWRFNYDULDELOLW\ SHUN:K
$6 %LR'HULYHG/LTXLGV UHIRUPLQJPHHWV+FRVWWKUHVKROG
$5 )HHGVWRFNYDULDELOLW\ SHUJDOORQHWKDQRO
1DWXUDO*DV5HIRUPLQJ
RYHUDEURDGUDQJHRIIHHGVWRFN
$4
$3 )HHGVWRFNYDULDELOLW\ SHU00%WX FRVWVDWKLJKYROXPHV
$2
+ 3URGXFWLRQ3RUWLRQRI7KUHVKROG&RVW
$1 JJH
Notes:
$0 >@&RVWUDQJHVIRUHDFKSDWKZD\DUHVKRZQLQ
2010
2005 2015
2020 GROODUVEDVHGRQSURMHFWLRQVIURP+$DQDO\VHV
UHIOHFWLQJYDULDELOLW\LQPDMRUIHHGVWRFNSULFLQJDQGD

ERXQGHGUDQJHIRUFDSLWDOFRVWHVWLPDWHV&RVWVVKRZQ
Central Production (plant gate)
GRQRWLQFOXGHGHOLYHU\DQGGLVSHQVLQJFRVWV
(OHFWURO\VLV
3URMHFWLRQVRIFRVWVDVVXPH1WKSODQWFRQVWUXFWLRQ
)HHGVWRFNYDULDELOLW\ SHUN:K
GLVWULEXWHGVWDWLRQFDSDFLWLHVRINJGD\DQG
%LRPDVV*DVLILFDWLRQ
FHQWUDOL]HGVWDWLRQFDSDFLWLHVRINJGD\
)HHGVWRFNYDULDELOLW\ SHUGU\VKRUWWRQ
>@7KH+\GURJHQ3URGXFWLRQ7KUHVKROG&RVWRI

JJHUHIOHFWVWKH3URGXFWLRQDSSRUWLRQPHQW
5HFRUGLQSUHSDUDWLRQRIWKHUHYLVHG
+\GURJHQ3URGXFWLRQDQG'HOLYHU\&RVW7KUHVKROGRI
+ 3URGXFWLRQ3RUWLRQRI7KUHVKROG&RVW
JJH5HFRUG+\GURJHQ7KUHVKROG&RVW
JJH
&DOFXODWLRQ

1DWXUDOJDVUHIRUPLQJFDQERRWVWUDSKLJKYROXPHSURGXFWLRQIRUH[SDQGLQJQHDUWHUPHQHUJ\
DSSOLFDWLRQVDQGEULGJHWRORQJHUWHUPORZFDUERQDOWHUQDWLYHSDWKZD\V
&RQWLQXHGFRRUGLQDWLRQRIIXQGDPHQWDODQGDSSOLHG5 'ZLWKLQGXVWU\QHHGVLVHVVHQWLDOWR
GHYHORSLQJQHZDIIRUGDEOHSDWKZD\VIRUSURGXFLQJORZFDUERQK\GURJHQIRUODUJHVFDOHHQHUJ\
PDUNHWV
Spark-Spread Determines Regional

Opportunities for DG from Natural Gas
2007 2010
6SDUNVSUHDGGHWHUPLQHVUHJLRQVIRUIDYRUDEOH
XVHRIQDWXUDOJDV
5HGRUDQJHUHJLRQV+LJKHOHFWULFLW\FRVWORZ
QDWXUDOJDVFRVWIDYRUDEOHIRU'*
/RZHUQDWXUDOJDVSULFHVRIIHULQFUHDVHGRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRU
&+3DQGGLVWULEXWHGJHQHUDWLRQFXUUHQWYV
Source: NREL
E-85
Tri-Generation of Heat, Hydrogen, and
Power
3RWHQWLDO2SSRUWXQLW\
'RHVDV\QHUJ\H[LVWEHWZHHQVWDWLRQDU\DQGWUDQVSRUWDWLRQVHFWRUV"

Demonstrated ,VWULJHQHUDWLRQDYLDEOHRSWLRQ
world’s first Tri- IRU+SURGXFWLRQ
generation station &RSURGXFH+SRZHUDQGKHDWIRU
(54% efficiency – PXOWLSOHDSSOLFDWLRQV"
H2 and power) 0RUHHIILFLHQWXVHRIQDWXUDOJDV"
$QDHURELFGLJHVWLRQRI 8VHDUHQHZDEOHUHVRXUFHLQ
PXQLFLSDOZDVWHZDWHU DQDHURELFGLJHVWHUJDV"
8VHRIIJDVIURPRWKHUZDVWH
Gas or Biogas H2 is produced PDWHULDOSURFHVVLQJHJJDVLILHUV"
at anode (VWDEOLVKDQHDUO\PDUNHW
LQIUDVWUXFWXUH"
Fountain Valley, CA
~ 250 kW of electricity
~ 100 kg/day H2

H2 for Energy Storage

9DOXH$GGHG
$SSOLFDWLRQV
1DWXUDO*DV
,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
Generator 9HKLFOH
)XHO
Fuel Cell,
Internal Combustion,
:LQG Steam Turbine 2[\JHQ +\GURJHQ )HUWLOL]HU
6WRUDJH 6WRUDJH 1+
(OHFWULFLW\*ULG
(PHUJHQF\
%X3)&
6RODU Electrolyzer
Ramp–up &
Ramp-down
capability for
Grid stabilization
0:IRUV
*HRWKHUPDO RI+VWRUDJH
1R+
VWRUDJH
E-86
Methodology – Includes competitive review
processes, peer reviews & risk analyses
Topic Selection ([DPSOH)XHO&HOO0HPEUDQH7DUJHWV

5LVN$QDO\VLV
7HFKQRORJ\
6WDNHKROGHUV
6WDNHKROGHUV 5HYLHZV
íHJ5),V
HJ5),V+7$&
7DUJHWV
LQGXVWU\HWF
)UHHGRP&$5
86'5,9( ³&ULWLFDO 5' '3ODQDQG

)XHO3DUWQHUVKLS
3HHU5HYLHZV 3DWK´ QHHGV 6ROLFLWDWLRQ
3HHU5HYLHZV 7RSLFV
7HFKQRORJ\
í 1$6
1$6
*DSV
í *$2
*$2
í 2WKHUV
2WKHUV
Project & Program Review Processes

$QQXDO0HULW5HYLHZ 3HHU(YDOXDWLRQPHHWLQJV((1()(6&
7HFK7HDPUHYLHZVPRQWKO\
2WKHUSHHUUHYLHZV1DWLRQDO$FDGHPLHV*$2HWF
7HFKQLFDOWDUJHWVKHOSJXLGHJRQRJRGHFLVLRQV
'2(TXDUWHUO\UHYLHZVDQGSURJUHVVUHSRUWV
'LVFRQWLQXH
)LQDO6FRUH
&RQWLQXH
3URMHFW7LWOH
2WKHU
3URMHFW
1XPEHU
3,1DPH
2UJDQL]DWLRQ
6XPPDU\&RPPHQW 2YHU0
VDYHGLQWKHODVW
Fluoroalkyl-Phosphonic- Progress was made in molecular dynamics modeling \HDUVWKURXJK
Acid-Based Proton
Conductors
of model compounds, but the membranes synthesized
failed in testing and did not meet the conductivity
JRQRJR
GHFLVLRQV
123 ;
Xxx University targets.The project will not be continued.
5HYLHZHUFRPPHQWVIRUSURMHFWVSRVWHGRQOLQHDQQXDOO\3URMHFWVGLVFRQWLQXHGZRUNVFRSHDOWHUHGEDVHGRQ
SHUIRUPDQFH OLNHOLKRRGRIPHHWLQJJRDOV
Go / No-go Decisions & Independent

Assessments
³*R1RJR´GHFLVLRQVDUHXVHGLQGRZQVHOHFWLQJFHUWDLQUHVHDUFKSDWKZD\VWRIRFXVRQWKHPRVW
SURPLVLQJDUHDV7KH\DUHGHILQHGE\SHUIRUPDQFHEDVHGWHFKQLFDOPLOHVWRQHVDQGTXDQWLWDWLYH
PHWULFV([SHUW3DQHOVDUHFRQYHQHGIRULQGHSHQGHQWDVVHVVPHQWV
A “no-go” decision
0D\LQGLFDWHWKDWIXUWKHUDGYDQFHVLQEDVLFVFLHQFHDUHQHHGHG
0D\HOLPLQDWHDQHQWLUHWHFKQRORJ\SDWKZD\

Key examples
6LQJOHZDOOHG&DUERQ1DQRWXEHV²³QRJR´
7KHUPRFKHPLFDO+\GURJHQ3URGXFWLRQ²WKUHHF\FOHVVHOHFWHGRXWRI
6RGLXP%RURK\GULGHIRU2Q%RDUG9HKLFXODU+\GURJHQ6WRUDJH²³QRJR´
2QERDUG)XHO3URFHVVLQJ²³QRJR´
7KHGHFLVLRQWUHHXVHGE\WKH
3URJUDPLQWKHSURFHVVRIGRZQ
VHOHFWLQJSXUHFDUERQVLQJOHZDOOHG
QDQRWXEHV6:17VIRUK\GURJHQ
VWRUDJH

$VDUHVXOWRIWKHILUVWQRJRGHFLVLRQ
VKRZQRQWKHOHIWVLGHRIWKHILJXUH
IXQGLQJZDVUHGLUHFWHGWRWKHDUHDV
VKRZQRQWKHULJKWVLGHRIWKHILJXUH

³*R1R*R'HFLVLRQ3XUH8QGRSHG6LQJOH:DOOHG
&DUERQ1DQRWXEHVIRU9HKLFXODU+\GURJHQ6WRUDJH´
86'HSDUWPHQWRI(QHUJ\2FWREHU
ZZZK\GURJHQHQHUJ\JRYSGIVJRBQRBJRBQDQRWXEHV
SGI

E-87
The HTAC Charter
HTAC was established under Section

807 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to
provide technical and programmatic
advice to the Energy Secretary on DOE's
hydrogen research, development, and
demonstration efforts.
Committee's scope is to review and
make recommendations to the
Secretary on:
± Implementation of programs and
activities under Title VIII of EPACT;
± Safety, economical, and environmental
consequences of technologies for the
production, distribution, delivery,
storage, or use of hydrogen energy and
fuel cells; and
± Plan under section 804 of EPACT.

2012 H2 Production Expert Panel

$6XEFRPPLWWHHRI+7$& IRUPHGZLWK'2(((5()&76XSSRUWEULQJLQJWRJHWKHU
YLVLRQDU\OHDGHUVIURPLQGXVWU\DFDGHPLDDQGWKHQDWLRQDOODERUDWRULHVWR
Evaluate current status of hydrogen production EERE/EFRC Collaboration on PEC
technologies
%DQGJDS
Identify remaining challenges in near- and long- term WDLORULQJ
production pathways, and prioritize R&D needs
Strategize how to best leverage R&D among DOE
1DQRFDWDO\VWVXSSRUWVFDIIROG
Offices and with other agencies 6WDQIRUG
Provide recommendations to HTAC to enable a path 0HFKDQLVWLF Pt monolayer
Pd core
forward for the widespread production of affordable low XQGHUVWDQGLQJRI
FDWDO\VWV
carbon hydrogen.
* “Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee”, DOE federal advisory committee
tteee per
per the
the Energy
Energy Policy
Policy Act
Ac of 2005
i
- Expert Panel being held as subcommittee of HTAC with strict adherence to all FACA requirements t
E-88
%$&.83
Well-to-Wheels Petroleum Analysis

$QDO\VLVE\$UJRQQH1DWLRQDO/DE'2(9HKLFOH7HFKQRORJLHV3URJUDPDQG)&7
3URJUDPVKRZVEHQHILWVIURPDSRUWIROLRRIRSWLRQV
Well-to-Wheels Petroleum Energy Use H2 from Natural Gas
)&(9VIXHOHGE\+IURP
GLVWULEXWHGQDWXUDOJDV
FDQDOPRVWFRPSOHWHO\
HOLPLQDWHSHWUROHXPXVH

Btu of petroleum per mile
Notes:
)RUDSURMHFWHGVWDWHRIWHFKQRORJLHVLQ8OWUDORZFDUERQUHQHZDEOHHOHFWULFLW\LQFOXGHVZLQGVRODUHWF'RHVQRWLQFOXGHWKHOLIHF\FOH
HIIHFWVRIYHKLFOHPDQXIDFWXULQJDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUHFRQVWUXFWLRQGHFRPPLVVLRQLQJ
$QDO\VLV $VVXPSWLRQVDWKWWSK\GURJHQHQHUJ\JRYSGIVBZHOOBWRBZKHHOVBJJHBSHWUROHXPBXVHSGI
E-89
EERE Budget Appropriations and Request
)XQGLQJLQWKRXVDQGV
)< )< )< )<
((5(3URJUDP $SSURSULDWLRQ $OORFDWLRQ $SSURSULDWLRQ 5HTXHVW
+\GURJHQ )XHO&HOO7HFKQRORJLHV

%LRPDVV %LRUHILQHU\6\VWHPV5 '

6RODU(QHUJ\

)<
:LQG(QHUJ\ +RXVH
*HRWKHUPDO7HFKQRORJLHV 0DUN
+)&7
:DWHU3RZHU
0
9HKLFOH7HFKQRORJLHV
%XLOGLQJ7HFKQRORJLHV )<

$GYDQFHG0DQXIDFWXULQJ 6HQDWH
0DUN
)HGHUDO(QHUJ\0DQDJHPHQW3URJUDP
+)&7
)DFLOLWLHV ,QIUDVWUXFWXUH
0
:HDWKHUL]DWLRQDQG,QWHUJRYHUQPHQWDO
3URJUDP'LUHFWLRQ
6WUDWHJLF3URJUDPV
$GMXVWPHQWV
7RWDO
'2(+\GURJHQ%XGJHW
)XQGLQJLQWKRXVDQGV
((5()<
)< )< )< )< )< )< )< +RXVH0DUN
$SSURS $SSURS $SSURS $SSURS $OORFDWLRQ $SSURS 5HTXHVW 0
((5(
+\GURJHQ
((5()<
)XHO&HOOV
6HQDWH0DUN
)RVVLO(QHUJ\ 0

)(
6(&$+RXVH
1XFOHDU
6HQDWH0DUN
(QHUJ\1(
0
6FLHQFH6& a 7%'
'2(727$/ a 7%'
Notes
1XFOHDU(QHUJ\,QDQGGHYHORSPHQWRI+76(DWWKH,GDKR1DWLRQDO/DERUDWRU\,1/FRQWLQXHGZLWKIXQGLQJIURPWKH
1*13SURMHFW6HYHUDOLQGXVWU\SDUWQHUVQRZKDYHVWDFNWHFKQRORJLHVIRUKLJKWHPSHUDWXUHVWHDPHOHFWURO\VLVLQGHYHORSPHQW$IWHU
GHPRQVWUDWLRQRISUHVVXUL]HG+76(VWDFNRSHUDWLRQLQ)<E\,1/WKHWHFKQRORJ\UHDGLQHVVLVH[SHFWHGWREHVXIILFLHQWO\
DGYDQFHG75/WRDOORZIRUIXUWKHUGHYHORSPHQWE\LQGXVWU\
((5()<DSSURSULDWLRQDQG)<UHTXHVWH[FOXGHWKHHVWLPDWHG6%,56775IXQGLQJ
E-90
EERE H2 & Fuel Cells Budgets
$SSURSULDWLRQV)<±)<DQG%XGJHW5HTXHVW)<
+\GURJHQDQG)XHO&HOO7HFKQRORJLHV
)XQGLQJLQWKRXVDQGV
)< )< )< )<
.H\$FWLYLW\ $SSURSULDWLRQ $OORFDWLRQ $SSURSULDWLRQ 5HTXHVW

)<
)XHO&HOO6\VWHPV5 '
+RXVH
+\GURJHQ)XHO5 ' 0DUN
0
7HFKQRORJ\9DOLGDWLRQ
0DUNHW7UDQVIRUPDWLRQ
)<
6DIHW\&RGHV 6HQDWH
6WDQGDUGV 0DUN
(GXFDWLRQ 0
6\VWHPV$QDO\VLV
0DQXIDFWXULQJ5 '
7RWDO
Notes: Hydrogen Fuel R&D includes Hydrogen Production & Delivery R&D and Hydrogen Storage R&D. FY11, FY12 include 6%,56775 funds to be transferred to the Science
Appropriation; prior years exclude this funding
Subprogram Milestones and Targets -

Examples
Example- Target Table for Electrocatalysts

(DFKVXESURJUDPKDVGHWDLOHG (OHFWURFDWDO\VWV 6WDWXVD 7DUJHWVE
PLOHVWRQHVLQSXWVRXWSXWVJR IRU7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
QRJRGHFLVLRQSRLQWVDQG $SSOLFDWLRQV
WHFKQLFDOWDUJHWV
3ODWLQXPJURXSPHWDO
3*0WRWDOFRQWHQW JN: JN:
ERWKHOHFWURGHV
3*07RWDO/RDGLQJ PJFP PJFP
/RVVLQFDWDO\WLFPDVV ORVVRI

LQLWLDO
DFWLYLW\F
&DWDO\VWVXSSRUWORVVG PDVVORVV PDVVORVV
$PJ3WLQ
0($
0DVVDFWLYLW\H $PJ3*0
!$PJ3WQHZ
DOOR\LQ5'(
$FWLYLW\SHUYROXPHRI $FP
PHDVXUHG !$FP
VXSSRUWHGFDWDO\VWQRQ $FP
3*0I H[WUDSRODWHG
DVLQJOHFHOOVWDWXV±ZLOOUHTXLUHVFDOHXS
+ +LJKVLJQLILFDQW 0 0HGLXP
ESUHOLPLQDU\WDUJHWV±DSSURYDOSHQGLQJ
FKDOOHQJH
FDIWHUF\FOHVIURP±9
DIWHUKRXUVDW9
GDIWHUKRXUVDW9 0+ 0HGLXP+LJK / /RZPLQLPDO
/RZPLQLPDO
8SGDWHRI0XOWL\HDU5' '3ODQLQSURFHVV HEDVHOLQH#P9
,5IUHH
FKDOOHQJH
IEDVHOLQH#P9
,5IUHH
E-91
$
+\GURJHQKDVWKHSRWHQWLDOWRUHGXFH&2DQG Preliminary Capital and Operating Cost

SURGXFHUHQHZDEOHOLTXLGIXHOLISURFHVVFRVW
FDQEHUHGXFHG
*
Excess Renewable H2
CO2 *
FT
Liquid
CO2 CO to Fuels
Refining
*
Flue Gas
or Air
with CO2
H2O
1RWHV 3RWHQWLDODUHDVIRUFRVWUHGXFWLRQ
$VVXPSWLRQV
6RXUFH'U5REHUW(8KULJ³,PSOHPHQWLQJWKH³+\GURJHQ(FRQRP\ 3ODQWFDSDFLW\LVa%3'
ZLWK6\QIXHOV 3RZHULVDVVXPHGWREH]HUREHFDXVHVXSSOLHG
IURPFXUWDLOHGZLQG
25
%LRJDVDVDQ(DUO\6RXUFHRI5HQHZDEOH
+\GURJHQDQG3RZHU
7KHPDMRULW\RIELRJDVUHVRXUFHVDUHVLWXDWHGQHDUODUJHXUEDQFHQWHUV²LGHDOO\ORFDWHGQHDUWKH
PDMRUGHPDQGFHQWHUVIRUK\GURJHQJHQHUDWLRQIRUK\GURJHQIXHOFHOOYHKLFOHV)&(9VDQGSRZHU
JHQHUDWLRQIURPVWDWLRQDU\IXHOFHOOV
+\GURJHQFDQEHSURGXFHGIURPWKLVUHQHZDEOHUHVRXUFHXVLQJH[LVWLQJVWHDPPHWKDQHUHIRUPLQJ
WHFKQRORJ\
U.S. biogas resource has capacity to produce ~5 GW of power at 50% electrical efficiency.
Hydrogen generated from biogas can fuel ~8-13M FCEVs/day.

07SHU\HDURIPHWKDQHLVDYDLODEOHIURP
ZDVWHZDWHUWUHDWPHQWSODQWVLQWKH86 PLOOLRQ07SHU\HDURIPHWKDQHLVDYDLODEOHIURP
ODQGILOOVLQWKH86
aRIWKLVUHVRXUFHFRXOGSURYLGHaNJGD\RI aRIWKLVUHVRXUFHFRXOGSURYLGHaPLOOLRQNJGD\RI
K\GURJHQ
K\GURJHQ
HHUH HQHUJ\ JRY
E-92
Hydrogen Requirements for Carbon
Feedstocks also Adds to Demand
+\GURJHQUHTXLUHPHQWVIRUSURFHVVLQJRI +\GURJHQ'HPDQGIRU
FDUERQIHHGVWRFNVWRSURGXFHOLTXLGVIXHOV %LRPDVV8SJUDGLQJ
45 3URGXFWLRQRIS\URO\VLVRLOIURPFRUQ
VWRYHU
40
$QQXDOFRUQVWRYHUSURGXFWLRQLV
35 aPLOOLRQWRQVDQGUHSUHVHQWV
aRIWKHELRPDVVUHVRXUFHLQ
kg of H2 per barrel
30
WKH86
25
7KHUPDOFRQYHUVLRQRIaPHWULF
20 WRQVGRIFRUQVWRYHU\LHOGVa
15
EEOVGD\RIS\URO\VLVRLO
8SJUDGLQJDQGVWDELOL]DWLRQRI
10 S\URO\VLVRLOWRQDSKWKDDQGGLHVHO
5 SURGXFWVUHTXLUHVaNJGa
PLOOLRQNJ\URIK\GURJHQ
0
7KHUPDOFRQYHUVLRQRIWKHFRUQ
light
sweet
heavy oil
or
oil shale Biomass
(woody)
coal Fisher-
Tropsch
H2
VWRYHUELRPDVVWRXSJUDGHG
crude bitumen S\URO\VLVRLOZRXOGUHTXLUHa
Carbon Feedstock PLOOLRQPHWULFWRQV\U
³5HYLHZRIWKH3RWHQWLDORI1XFOHDU+\GURJHQIRU$GGUHVVLQJ(QHUJ\6HFXULW\DQG 1RWHV
$PRXQWRIFRUQVWRYHUZDVREWDLQHGIURPVHFRQG%LOOLRQ7RQ6WXG\
&OLPDWH&KDQJH´-DPHV(2¶%ULHQ1XFOHDU7HFKQRORJ\92/QUSS 6RXUFHIRUWKHK\GURJHQGHPDQGZDVDQ15(/VWXG\7HFKQR
$SULO
(FRQRPLF$QDO\VLVRI%LRPDVV)DVW3\URO\VLVWR7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
)XHOVE\0DUN0:ULJKW-XVWLQXV$6DWULRDQG5REHUW&%URZQ
,RZD6WDWH8QLYHUVLW\'DUHQ('DXJDDUG&RQRFR3KLOOLSV'DYLG'
+VX15(/

NG and Hydrogen Cost Analysis

1DWXUDOJDVSULFHSURMHFWLRQVKDYHGHFOLQHGLQUHFHQW\HDUVDQGWKHFRUUHVSRQGLQJFRVW
RIK\GURJHQ DOVRGHFOLQHV
'LVWULEXWHG+\GURJHQ
3URGXFWLRQIURP1*605

7RWDOK\GURJHQFRVW
SURGXFWLRQSOXVVWDWLRQ
FRPSUHVVLRQVWRUDJHDQG
FRPSUHVVLRQ>&6'@DQG
SURGXFWLRQFRVWIRU&XUUHQWDQG

)XWXUHIRUHFRXUW605VWDWLRQV

&XUUHQW&DVH6WDUWXS\HDULV

6WDWLRQOLIHLV

)XWXUH&DVH6WDUWXS\HDULV
6WDWLRQOLIHLV )
)ODW

)ODW

7KHFRVWRIQDWXUDOJDV )
)ODW

00%WXLVRQO\DIUDFWLRQRI
WKHWRWDOFRVWRIK\GURJHQ
)ODW

'LIIHUHQFHEHWZHHQWKHWZR
FKDUWVLVWKHFRVWRI&6' *Based on +$Y&DVH6WXGLHV#KWWSZZZK\GURJHQHQHUJ\JRYKDBSURGXFWLRQKWPO
$(2DYJ1*SULFHV++900EWX&XUUHQW)XWXUH
$(2DYJ1*SULFHV++900%WX&XUUHQW)XWXUH

E-93
Accomplishments & Innovations
7KHSURMHFWHGKLJKYROXPHFRVWRIIXHOFHOOVLVQRZHVWLPDWHGDWN:LQDPRUHWKDQ
UHGXFWLRQVLQFHDQG!UHGXFWLRQVLQFH.H\DFFRPSOLVKPHQWVLQFOXGH
UHGXFLQJSODWLQXPJURXSPHWDOFRQWHQWIURP!JN:WRJN:GHPRQVWUDWLQJD![
LPSURYHPHQWLQSRZHUSHUJUDPRI3WDQGPRUHWKDQGRXEOHGWKHGXUDELOLW\WRKRXUVRU
aPLOHVRIWUDQVSRUWDWLRQIXHOFHOOVVLQFH
5HVHDUFKLQERWKGLVWULEXWHGDQGFHQWUDOSURGXFWLRQKDYHUHVXOWHGLQFRQWLQXHGSURJUHVVLQDOO
SDWKZD\VLQFOXGLQJHOHFWURO\VLVELRGHULYHGOLTXLGVQDWXUDOJDVUHIRUPLQJDQGELRPDVV
JDVLILFDWLRQZLWKVRPHSDWKZD\VDOUHDG\ZLWKLQWKHUHFHQWO\FRPSOHWHGK\GURJHQWKUHVKROGFRVW
WDUJHWRIJJH
7KH7HFKQRORJ\9DOLGDWLRQ/HDUQLQJ'HPRQVWUDWLRQLVFRPLQJWRDFORVHLQ7KLVSURMHFW
KDVSURYLGHGYDOXDEOHGDWDRQK\GURJHQIXHOFHOOHOHFWULFYHKLFOHVDQGLQIUDVWUXFWXUH2YHU
IXHOFHOOHOHFWULFYHKLFOHVDQGVWDWLRQVZHUHGHPRQVWUDWHGDQGaPLOOLRQPLOHVWUDYHOHG7KH
YHKLFOHVZHUHGULYHQ!KRXUVaKRXUVQHDUO\.PLOHVGXUDELOLW\ZDV
GHPRQVWUDWHGDORQJZLWKaPLQXWHUHIXHOLQJWLPHIRUNJRIK\GURJHQ
+\GURJHQIXHOFHOOEXVHVKDYHGHPRQVWUDWHGDWREHWWHUIXHOHFRQRP\FRPSDUHGWR
GLHVHO &1*EXVHV
+\GURJHQVWRUDJHWDQNVFDQDFKLHYH!PLOHUDQJHDQGDPLOHUDQJHKDVEHHQYDOLGDWHGRQ
)&(9V

DOE Investments have Resulted in

Commercial Progress
DOE programs have reduced cost of commercial H2 production technologies
5HGXFHGHOHFWURO\]HUVWDFNFRVWVE\JUHDWHUWKDQVLQFHWKURXJKFRPSRQHQWRSWLPL]DWLRQDQG
PDQXIDFWXULQJLQQRYDWLRQV3URWRQ2QVLWH*LQHU,QF

)XQGDPHQWDODQGDSSOLHG5 'KDYHEHHQVXFFHVVIXOO\OHYHUDJHGE\LQGXVWU\
WRDGYDQFHK\GURJHQDQGIXHOFHOOWHFKQRORJLHV
─)RUH[DPSOHIXQGDPHQWDOQDQRVWUXFWXUHGFDWDO\VWZRUNKDVKHOSHGOHDGWR
VLJQLILFDQWFRVWUHGXFWLRQVLQ3(0IXHOFHOOVDQG3(0HOHFWURO\HUVIRU
K\GURJHQSURGXFWLRQ$1/0

E-94
Pt/Pd Core-Shell Catalysts
)XQGDPHQWDOUHVHDUFKKDVGHPRQVWUDWHGKLJKDFWLYLW\RI3WPRQROD\HUFDWDO\VWV
OHDGLQJWRGHYHORSPHQWRISUDFWLFDOFRUHVKHOOFDWDO\VWVWKURXJKDSSOLHG5 '
)XQGDPHQWDO6FLHQFH $SSOLHG5 '

$GGLWLRQRIRWKHUPHWDOVWR
FRUHDORQJZLWKLQWHUOD\HUV
EHWZHHQVKHOODQGFRUH
IXUWKHUHQKDQFHFRUHVKHOO
DFWLYLW\DQGGXUDELOLW\
+LJKDFWLYLW\RI3WPRQROD\HU
VXUIDFHVZDVGHPRQVWUDWHG
RQPRGHOVLQJOHFU\VWDO Pt monolayer
VXUIDFHV6XEVWUDWHPHWDO
PRGLILHV3WHOHFWURQLF Pd core
VWUXFWXUHDOORZLQJWXQLQJRI
FDWDO\WLFDFWLYLW\DQGGXUDELOLW\
'HPRQVWUDWLRQRI3WPRQROD\HURQD3G 6FDOHXSWRJUDPOHYHOTXDQWLWLHVRIFRUH
FRUH±DSURPLVLQJKLJKDFWLYLW\KLJK VKHOOFDWDO\VWVLQ((5(IXQGHGSDUWQHUVKLS
$G]LFHWDO%1/ GXUDELOLW\ORZORDGLQJ3*0FDWDO\VW ZLWK&DERWDVZHOODVH[WHUQDO&5$'$V
Advancements in Biological Hydrogen Production

National Renewable Energy Laboratories

2VHQVLWLYLW\RIWKHK\GURJHQDVH+DVHFDWDO\VWSUHYHQWVVXVWDLQHG+SKRWR
SURGXFWLRQDQGUHVXOWVLQORZOLJKWFRQYHUVLRQHIILFLHQFLHVXQGHUDQDHURELFFRQGLWLRQV
2IILFHRI6FLHQFHIXQGHGUHVHDUFK%DVLF((5(IXQGHGUHVHDUFK$SSOLHG5 '

Goal: understand the growth factors and signal Goal:expressa moreO2-tolerantbacterialH2asein

transduction pathways that regulate transcription of oxygenic photosynthetic organisms (algae or
the H2ase genes in green algae cyanobacteria)tofunctionunderaerobicconditions
HYDEF mutant in C. reinhardtii cannot O2inactivation of a bacterial
assemble [FeFe]-H2ase catalytic site [NiFe] hydrogenase

+\GURJHQDVH$FWLYLW\
+ +
1L)H
bacterial
&RR8
&RR/
&RR0
&RR+
H
&RR; &RR.
&HOO PHPEUDQHV

algal

+RXUVVWLUUHGLQ2

Time, sec
Over-expression of maturases HydE, F and G and structural protein Goal: optimize sustained anaerobic H2 production
HydA to produce active [FeFe]-H2ases in the bacterium, E. coli anduseittoexamineotherlimitingfactorstoguide
Goal: understand molecular assembly and function development aerobicH2 Production to meet targets
of H 2ases in artificial photosynthetic systems for Yields H2with a
light-driven H2 production conversion efficiency
of ~1% under aerobic
conditions and low
fluorescent light
intensity
NREL

E-95
Novel Nano-Catalyst System for Solar Hydrogen Production
Coordinated SC-EFRC and EE-FCT work at Stanford/U-Louisville/NREL
'LVFRYHULQJQHZ0R6QDQRFDWDO\VWVDQGGHYHORSLQJQRYHOPDFURVWUXFWXUHVIRU
LQWHJUDWLRQLQWRSUDFWLFDOSKRWRHOHFWURFKHPLFDO3(&K\GURJHQSURGXFWLRQGHYLFHV
)XQGDPHQWDO6FLHQFH $SSOLHG5 '
%DVHGRQIXQGDPHQWDOSULQFLSOHVRITXDQWXPFRQILQHPHQW $PDFURSRURXVVFDIIROGFRQVLVWLQJRIDWUDQVSDUHQW
QDQRSDUWLFOH0R6FDWDO\VWVH[KLELWEDQGJDSHQODUJHPHQWIURP FRQGXFWLQJR[LGH7&2LVEHLQJGHYHORSHGXSRQZKLFK
H9EXONWR~H9ZKHQGLDPHWHULVUHGXFHGWR~QP WKH0R6QDQRSDUWLFOHVFDQEHYHUWLFDOO\LQWHJUDWHGIRU
VXSSRUWFRQILQHPHQWDQGHOHFWURQLFFRQWDFW
EDQGJDSGHWHUPLQDWLRQ
7&2VFDIIROG
Kν(eV)
0R60R6
QDQRSDUWLFOHVGRZQWRQP
QDQRSDUWLFOHVWRQP
50 μm
Courtesy of Yen-Chu Yang
%DQGJDSEOXHVKLIWLQQP0R6QDQRSDUWLFOHVVHQVLWL]HV 6FDIIROGLVHQDEOLQJWHFKQRORJ\IRUGHYHORSPHQWRI
FDWDO\VWWRHIILFLHQWO\DEVRUEOLJKWLQWKHVRODUVSHFWUXP 0R6SKRWRHOHFWURGHVIRUHIIHFWLYHVRODU+SURGXFWLRQ
6RXUFH7-DUDPLOORHWDO6FLHQFH<$RNL-+XDQJ7.XQLWDNH-0DWHU&KHP

Cost Reduction Roadmap for H2 Production

Example — Photoelectrochemical Production
Potential areas for cost reduction guide R&D activities

Photoelectrochemical Cost Reduction Pathways
0$7(5,$/()),&,(1&<,QFUHDVH3(&HIILFLHQF\IURP
EDVHOLQHWR

)RFXVRQQRYHOLQWHJUDWHGWKLQILOPGHYLFH
VWUXFWXUHVHJZLWKPHWDOR[LGHVZLWKPXOWL
MXQFWLRQDEVRUEHUOD\HUVIRU9DQG
HQKDQFHGVXUIDFHFDWDO\VLVIRUHIILFLHQF\
HQKDQFHPHQWVWRZDUGWKHWDUJHW
0$7(5,$/&267'HFUHDVH3(&SDQHOPDWHULDOFRVW
IURPPWRP

Cost Status using PEC EFICIENCY PEC PANEL PEC MATERIAL Cost Target
)RFXVRQPDWHULDODQGSURFHVVLQJIDEULFDWLRQ
2010 Material IMPROVEMENT MATERIAL COST LIFE FRVWUHGXFWLRQVHJEUHDNWKURXJKVHOI
Properties and
Costs
FROM 4% TO
25% STH
REDUCTION
FROM $900 TO
ENHANCEMENT
FROM 1 TO 20
DVVHPEOLQJVHPLFRQGXFWRUV\QWKHVLV
$200/m2 YEARS DSSURDFKHVLQVWHDGRIYDSRUGHSRVLWLRQHWF
0$7(5,$//,)(7,0(,QFUHDVHOLIHIURPWR\UV
Cost Sensitivity for Photoelectrochemical Production
)RFXVRQDGYDQFHGVXUIDFHPRGLILFDWLRQ
VWUDWHJLHVWRHQKDQFHFDWDO\VLVDQGPLWLJDWH
efficiency %
[25,15,4] FRUURVLRQRIWKHFU\VWDOOLQHPDWHULDOV\VWHPV
FXUUHQWO\FDSDEOHRI!VRODUWRK\GURJHQ
cost $/m2
[200,315,900]
FRQYHUVLRQ

lifetime yr 1(:,'($6'LVUXSWLYHWHFKQRORJLHVLQFRUSRUDWLQJQDQR
[20,10,1] VWUXFWXUHGVHPLFRQGXFWRUFDWDO\VWDQGPHPEUDQH
FRPSRQHQWVZLWKWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUKLJKHIILFLHQF\DQG
$2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 $9.00 GXUDELOLW\XVLQJORZFRVWV\QWKHVLVURXWHVHJZRUNZLWK
NJ+FRVWVHQVLWLYLWLHVIRU>ORQJPLGQHDUWHUP@PDWHULDOVWDUJHWVEDVHG ()5&6RODU+XERQDSSURDFKHVVXFKDVQDQRSDUWLFOH0R6LQ
RQ'7,3(&7HFKQRHFRQRPLF%RXQGDU\/HYHO$QDO\VLV7\SH6\VWHP SRURXVVFDIIROG
E-96

Hpep Report 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hpep Report 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hpep Report 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert

Panel: A Subcommittee of the Hydrogen &

United States Department of Energy

Special thanks to the guest speakers for their insightful comments:

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of the United States Department of Energy

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 2

Summary of Recommendations to the U.S. Department of Energy ....................................... 5

Introduction and Overview .................................................................................................................. 6

Key Findings and Recommendations ................................................................................................ 9

I. Near-Term Technology Opportunities and Challenges ...................................................... 9

II. Longer-Term Technology Opportunities and Challenges ............................................... 14

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 3

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 4

Summary of Recommendations to the U.S. Department of Energy

 Incentives should be established to provide consistent and longer-term

 Hydrogen is an excellent medium  Communications between EERE,

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 5

Introduction and Overview

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 6

Members of the Steering Committee were selected by the HTAC to represent

Dr. Levi Thompson (Chair) Mr. Edward Kiczek

Dr. Françoise Barbier Dr. Arthur Nozik

Dr. Lawrence Burns Dr. Geraldine Richmond

 Evaluate status and prospects of near- and longer-term hydrogen production

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 7

Near-Term Technologies Longer-Term Technologies

Dr. Katherine Ayers Dr. Thomas Jarvi

Mr. Brian Bonner Dr. Nate Lewis

Mr. Joseph Cargnelli Dr. Bruce Logan

Mr. Udo Dengel Dr. John Turner

Mr. Pinakin Patel Dr. Yong Wang

Dr. Prabhu Rao Dr. Alan Weimer

Biographical sketches of the presenters are provided in Appendix B. Following the

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 8

Key Findings and Recommendations

I. Near-Term Technology Opportunities and Challenges

The expert presenters provided a comprehensive overview of the various hydrogen

 Hydrogen is already a major commodity in the U.S. economy and production

 Large- and small-scale hydrogen production technologies are already

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 9

 The principal barrier to cost reduction of distributed hydrogen production

 Two large-market opportunities could offer the level of manufacturing volume

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 10

gas pipelines for storage as well as transport to load centers (a concept

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 11

infrastructure roll-out, establish appropriate incentives, and promote

 Hydrogen Production and Storage to Enable Renewables

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 12

by the DOE. As a far more supportive perspective is emerging due to the

 Research and Development

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 13

II. Longer-Term Technology Opportunities and Challenges

 The objective of DOE’s hydrogen production R&D program should be to explore

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 14

 Successful commercial R&D-oriented institutions (e.g., Bell Labs, GE Research)

 DOE is encouraged to strengthen cross-cutting teams, emulating for example

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 15

o Interdisciplinary scientific teams (biologists, computer scientists, physicists,

Report of the Hydrogen Production Expert Panel to HTAC | 16

 Meeting the hydrogen supply needs requires an accurate and realistic