US DOE awards nearly $7M for cost analyses to advance fuel cell and hydrogen storage systems research
09 August 2011
The US Department of Energy (DOE) will award nearly $7 million over five years for independent cost analyses that will support research and development efforts for fuel cells and hydrogen storage systems.
These projects will generate lifecycle cost analyses of existing and conceptual fuel cell systems for transportation and stationary applications. The projects will analyze a range of system sizes, manufacturing volumes, and applications, including transportation, backup power and material-handling equipment such as forklifts.
The projects are intended to provide data that will help DOE focus future research and development funding on the fuel cell components and manufacturing processes that can deliver the greatest gains in efficiency.
Cost analyses are conducted by designing the system and conceptualizing its manufacturing process, selecting manufacturing equipment, determining labor and energy, and obtaining prices for materials and manufacturing equipment. The design of systems and manufacturing process is guided and vetted through system models at National Laboratories, patent and literature research, presentation from developers, and peer review.
The four projects selected for award are:
Directed Technologies, Inc. – Arlington, VA – up to $3 million for two projects. Directed Technologies will conduct two cost analyses under these awards: one focused on transportation fuel cell systems; the other on hydrogen storage systems.
The transportation fuel cell systems project will analyze and estimate the cost of transportation fuel cell systems for use in vehicles including light-duty vehicles and buses. The cost analyses of hydrogen storage systems will also examine various cost parameters including capital equipment, raw materials, labor, and energy to gain an understanding of system cost drivers and future pathways to lower system costs.
The analyses will include rigorous annual cost estimates of fuel cell power systems or hydrogen storage systems that will help industry optimize the design of components and manufacturing processes at various rates of production. Sensitivity studies will examine how total manufacturing costs are affected by changes to the fuel cell system design and cost parameters such as platinum price, cell power density, operating pressure, operating temperature or the number of cells in the fuel cell stack.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory – Berkeley, CA – up to $1.9 million. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory will develop total cost models for low- and high-temperature stationary fuel cell systems up to 250 kilowatts (kW). This project will yield accurate projections of current system costs and assess the impacts of state-of-the-art manufacturing technologies, increases in production volume, and design changes on system and lifecycle costs for several near-term and emerging fuel cell markets.
Battelle Memorial Institute – Columbus, OH – up to $2 million. Over the course of this project, Battelle Memorial Institute will provide cost assessments for stationary fuel cell applications up to 25 kW, including forklifts, backup power units, primary power, and combined heat and power systems. The project will also provide cost analyses of large-scale fuel cell applications ranging from 100 to 250 kW, such as auxiliary power, primary power, and large-scale combined heat and power systems. The analyses conducted under this project will provide a better understanding of performance, design and manufacturing options, and life-cycle costs, which will help optimize fuel cell designs, manufacturing methods, and target applications.
Any cost analysis of fuel cell technologies should also include cost analysis of the infrastructure necessary to deliver the fuel. If the fuel is hydrogen, then an additional analysis to estimate the amount of hydrogen leakage and the leaked hydrogens affects on our environment should be considered. Hydrogen has a propensity to leak, even diffusing through metals.
Posted by: ChrisJ | 09 August 2011 at 12:00 PM
Borrow more money from China for (drumroll....) cost analyses to advance fuel cell and hydrogen storage systems research ?!
Posted by: ejj | 09 August 2011 at 02:41 PM
What could these studies possibly discover that would change any behaviour or effort. The technology paces the progress, not some carummy survey.
Well actually, it will shape the behaviour of Directed Tech, Berkeley and Batelle. They will absorb the money and provide what little info as they are inclined. They will be encourged in the ways of Govt bureaucracy.
Private enterprise will determine this for themselves for almost no money (actually NONE of our money) rather than believe a pack of surveyors with who knows what credibility or purpose.
But today administrations are judged on what the give ME.
Only $7M, of OPM (other peoples money).
Posted by: ToppaTom | 09 August 2011 at 07:25 PM
In case anyone is wondering what these research are for, I copied and pasted from the above article to the paragraph below:
"The projects are intended to provide data that will help DOE focus future research and development funding on the fuel cell components and manufacturing processes that can deliver the greatest gains in efficiency."
Government-funded research usually are disclosed publically that will benefit anyone looking for high-quality data, and not just internet opinions or gossips. This is in contrast to privately-funded research that tend to be kept out of reach of the public (that's you and me, ejj and ToppaTom).
These research data will be of great help for entrepreneurs, investigators and manufacturers to decide how to proceed and what to do. It's kinda like a roadmap for the H2 economy, similar to what Lewis and Clark have done in the frontier days.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 09 August 2011 at 10:42 PM
A very nebulous goal.
Maybe this whole article is a "leak" to wake us up.
Could you explain, or give an example of what "data" would or even might "help DOE focus future research and development funding"?
I expect it is quite obvious which "fuel cell components and manufacturing processes" need improvement.
Or, if not obvious, give me just $1M and I'll find it.
If they need to spend $7M to find out what Fuel cell technology is required, can we not conclude they do not know if fuel cells are even viable?
I don't think I want DOE to "focus future research and development funding" on ANYTHING if they need to spend $7M juast to decide where to put more millions of my money.
I suspect the DOE needs to expend a lot of money quickly, $7M at a time, before the tea party shuts it off.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 10 August 2011 at 05:37 AM
@ToppaTom,
This is like intelligence gathering activity for the future of fuel cell commercialization. Theoretical knowledge is one thing, commercialization requires another dimension of research. $7M over 5 years just ain't much, amounts to $1.2M a year. In 2010 alone, the US national intelligence budget was 53.1 billion USD.
Do you have to enough background in fuel cell technology to command $1M of research funding in this area? This level of funding usually goes to senior PhD's in the field, and those are the 3 prestigious firms that were awarded the funding.
The tea party's position is too radical or extremistic. The current tax rates are far too low than anytime in history. Instead of cutting the budget to the bone and impair government functioning and destroy the future of our country, they should have allowed the rich to pitch in a little bit more, in order that the rich can continue to make more wealth in the future.
Looting is happening in the UK now, and this is unheard of in the past. Wealthy shops and stores are looted and destroyed. Soon, there may be kidnapping of the rich people for ransom and extortion of wealthy businesses, when the gov. and law enforcement will be cut to the bone. This is already happening in Central and South America and in Africa. With this kind of situation happening, the rich people will no longer be able to create wealth easily, nor be able to enjoy their wealth in peace!
Do know why people go to the gym?
For the same reason, even in hard economic times, technology and research funding must continue to keep our experts employed and their skills sharp, unless we want to lower our technological base to third word ranking! I don't think the tea party think much about this.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 10 August 2011 at 03:23 PM
The fact is its well known if you try and tax people more then 2/10ths of thier income they start to hide it and you dont get it.
The ONLY way to get more money is to make the economy grow.. but you cant do that forever sooner or later it has to crash.. and that time is now.
Oboma and gang know they wont realy get much more out of people if they tax more they just use it as a tool to get us vs them going. Its just politics.
Neither side wants to admit the simple fact we wont have as much money any more for a decade or so.. not enough for our miltary.. not enough for forien aid.. not enough for all the stuff on all sides we hold stupidly dear.
We simply wont be this powerful again for a long time and its time to grow up shut up and cut down.. or fall crash and burn.. either way we are going down and with lcuk and the unlimited stupidity of man we will take everyone else with us.
The good news is that should fix our co2 problem or at least give us alot more time to fix it.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 10 August 2011 at 11:33 PM
Well, Wm2000, the statistic shows that the income gap of the rich and the poor are wider now than ever in history. This should serve as the basis to focus on higher revenue collection from the rich. Even the rich should be educated of the fact that if the US gov kept printing more and more unsupported paper money, the rich's net worth will be lower and lower...similar to a back door hidden tax. Either way, the rich will pay more taxes, whether they like it or not. Too late to invest in precious metals, their prices have skyrocketed already...besides you will be the target of robbers if they know you've been buying gold or silver...or extortionist, or kidnappers, or carjackers, etc...
Where are the modern-day equivalence of Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt? Why there aren't any more fireside chats? Well, at the wages that we are paying our elected officials, I can understand. You can't pay the prices of an Yugo or Tata cars and expect Cadillac, BMW, or Mercedes performances.
Read the pages of history again, WM2000, and see that prior to WWII, US war technology was inferior to the Axis...but due to the incredibly extensive war mobilization efforts and propaganda, US military technology caught-up to and rose above those of the Axis in those glory years of WWII...everyone sacrificed...they accept war rationing of vital resources...sorry no SUV's, folks, you weren't able to buy enough gasoline to drive even a car...put most women to work in assembly lines and men to military duties or support...propaganda everyday on all media networks...
Now is no different than back then, folks...The economic battles and environmental battles (climate change) are winnable. We need leaders to lead us to victory and to glory, once again. Rent and watch Alexander the Great movie again, and see how he mobilized his troops to great victories and conquests.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 11 August 2011 at 12:24 AM
Money always tends to pool into a tight wad at the top close to the time of a crash. Its all the rich people trying to either stay rich or make thier kids rich oir just buy that 5 billion buck solid gold yauht.
Doesnt change the fact we arnt likely to get more money out of them and that we arnt likely to avoid a big icky crash much longer.
Dont get me wrong.. I think a solid vat tax instead of income tax and going after yauhts and so on would be spiffy.. I just think current taxing methods wont net you much more then 2/10ths of income no matter what you do. Because it hasnt before.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 11 August 2011 at 02:38 AM
@WM2000,
Proportionally in relation to income, more taxes were collected per capita under FDR, JFK and Clinton, than now. Human nature has not changed in just under 75 years.
Interestingly, a parallelism happens now and in the Great Depression. Prior to the Great Depression, immigrants came to the North East by the boat loads, working hours were like 14-16 hours /day, and wages were real low...they produced a lot but have no time nor the money to spend...plus the dust bowl in the midwest plains...plus robber barrons controlled the government...(Hoover?)
Fast forward to the recent past: Globalism means dirt cheap labor elsewhere in the world producing goods very cheaply like in China, but their saving rates are so high and they don't spend...while the West consumes cheaply produced goods but can't sell other stuffs because China's labor force is paid dirt cheap and cannot afford to buy enough stuffs and services from the West to avoid the labor imbalance...results: massive unemployment in the West, debts, social unrest...and ...adding to this the severe droughts in the South and South West and we may have a condition approaching the Dust Bowl...See a second Great Depression coming?
What got us out of the Great Depression? New Deal, WWII (and FDR and Churchill). Massive mobilization of labor force for war production ended unemployment overnite. FDR's New Deal projects built great public infrastructure, even the great high school building that I attended many decades ago. We can't have WWIII, but we sure can build massive renewable energy infrastructures and projects, H2 economy, PHEV and eventually BEV economy, turn every existing cars into HEV, more building insulation and paint all roofs white...we can add tens of millions of jobs to the tax roll right NOW, and that will end the budget deficit that our gov. is at a lost not knowing what to do.
Learn lessons from History to avoid repeating them in the future!!!
Posted by: Roger Pham | 11 August 2011 at 01:56 PM
We are following Greece.
Too many entitlements – of ALL kinds.
As WM2000 sys - there is not much money to be had by taxing the "rich" but class warfare is a natural for this administration.
Close all the loophole? ABSOLUTELY, but we can't even eliminate earmarks.
Let's eliminate earmarks 1st - that SHOULD be easy.
Do everything we can with loophole - that's probably much harder.
Stop the countless agencies from spending on these BS studies that no one can justify except “keep our experts employed” doing cost analyses.
All should pay taxes – right now about 50% do not, guess what they vote and riot for – more entitlements.
Simple take more money from the people.
And do what with it?
Well, for starters, “Which groups will vote for me?”
“There, we’re done.”
“Don’t spend less – tax more.”
Sure just hand out billions for uneconomical green projects (as if entitlements are not sinking us fast enough) – we can surpass Greece – we can do it.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 12 August 2011 at 06:26 AM
@TT and WM,
Look up "Tax Brackets 2010-11" Median income $43,000 yearly pays 25% fed income tax. Top income $379,000 and above pays 35%.
Let say a wealthy professional household earns $400,000/yr, after income tax of 35%, they will still have $260,000 left to spend. A median household income of $43,000 will have only $32,000 left to spend. See the difference of how much more the rich can be taxed?
If the Fed now raise the top tax bracket to 50% while leave the median bracket the same: The rich household above will still have $200,000 of after-tax to spend, while the median bracket still is left with a meager $32,000 to spend.
The median income bracket spends proportionally more on food, housing and local services and utility, Ford and GM cars (made in USA).
The rich will spend on expensive luxury imports like a $150,000 AMG or BMW, or $300,000 Ferrari, and $30/bottle French Champagne, Caviar(Russian), Italian marbles, Private planes with fuel bill from $100/hr up to $400/hr (imported petroleum), and a lot of foreign travels to spend money abroad, plus maids imported overseas. I know very how the rich (top 1%) spend their money! Not good for the US economy.
Now, if the top bracket rate is raised to 50% + PLUS tax write off for investments made in the field of Green Economy to US companies with manufacturing and services here in the USA, then we will see that the top bracket will delay trade in their AMG or Lexus or their boat for another year or two, while invest their money in Green Economy Tax Shelter to create jobs here in the USA...
You see, the rich will not be deprived of their "hard-earned" income, since the investment in Green Economy will likely make 'em richer. The rich are simply being led by wise and patriotic leadership to park some of their money at home to help our country instead of throwing their money overseas! That's all.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 12 August 2011 at 09:09 PM
Let say a wealthy professional household earns $400,000/yr, with income tax of 35%, they pay $140,000. A median household income of $43,000 will pay only $11,000. See the difference ?
Does the professional get $140,000 worth of government?
Does the word EARN have any meaning?
It has no dignity, not like ENTITLEMENT.
"Workers" of the worl unite.
Replace WORKERS with those on welfare.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 13 August 2011 at 10:09 AM
The key problem is to the local and state and national government.. that 400k a year person is worth 14x as much.
Thats not good if they start moving around or worse.. leave the country or retire.
Anyhoo on the subject of h2... we should startn to see in the next 2-3 years if they realy have thier stuff in order.. and just how important h2 will be to cars by about anouther 4-5 years after that. I hope h2 does well same as I hope bev does well.. together they might eat up 20-30% of the market before 2030 if we are lucky.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 13 August 2011 at 10:34 AM
@TT,
I saw this message in front of a local church: "Those whom more are given to, more are expected from."
When crimes happened, the rich areas get police priority...they pay higher property taxes...The poor ghettos are usually ignored by police. When the economy is good and people have jobs, the rich will stand to earn more and have more quality of life, more so than the poor, so, in a sense, fairness is served.
@WM,
Agree with you that we need to keep those "well-heeled" top earners in our community and our country as much as possible. That's why we need to make our environment and our country as pleasant to live in as possible, with low crime rates and high degree of social stability and harmony. We need clean air and clean water, plenty of parks, decent laws and law enforcement, etc. Of course these don't come cheap, and we all have to foot the bills, according to our ability.
I have strong feeling that the H2 economy is promising and will be the key to our adaptation of renewable energy.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 13 August 2011 at 11:28 AM
The church is mixed up.
“Those whom more are given to, more are expected from.”
No – nothing is expected from those who are “given to”; they GET taxes, but pay no taxes.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 13 August 2011 at 10:45 PM
Beware: "The Lord giveth, but He can taketh it away!"
Posted by: Roger Pham | 14 August 2011 at 11:38 PM