DOE seeking input on proposed automotive fuel cell cost and durability targets
03 February 2013
The US Department of Energy (DOE) is issuing a Request for Information (RFI) (DE-FOA-0000855) seeking input from stakeholders on proposed cost targets for fuel cells designed for automotive applications. The purpose of this RFI is to solicit feedback from developers, manufacturers, end users, and other stakeholders on proposed cost and durability targets for automotive fuel cell systems.
The proposed targets are $40/kW in 2020 and $30/kW for the ultimate target (2030) for automotive fuel cell system cost, and 5000 hrs or 150,000 miles for durability. This RFI is not and will not lead directly to a Funding Opportunity Announcement, DOE said.
DOE is in the process of updating the fuel cell technologies Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan (MYRDDP) and determining technology requirements for widespread commercialization of fuel cells.
As part of this effort, DOE is seeking general comments on its cost and durability targets for fuel cells for automotive applications. The targets are intended to meet end user expectations, and are not driven by the operating parameters or constraints of specific technologies.
The proposed targets included in this RFI were developed with input from the IS DRIVE Partnership (a public-private partnership includes automotive and energy companies), specifically the Fuel Cell Technical Team. DOE is requesting further stakeholder general comments are requested to refine the targets.
|
|
| Click to enlarge. |
Comments to the RFI should address one or more of the following:
Appropriateness of target values
Comparison of targets to baseline and competing technologies (both gasoline internal combustion engine and hybrid or other advanced systems)
Status of fuel cell technologies in comparison to targets
Recommendations for testing conditions and protocols
Assumptions used for targets and status (e.g., platinum loading and platinum price)
Comments must be provided by no later than 11:59 PM EDT on 1 April 2013.
Great to see the ball rolling on this. Toyota, Hyundai and a few others are aiming 2015 for the release of their FCVs.
How about the plan to increase the hydrogen stations?
Posted by: usbseawolf2000 | 04 February 2013 at 06:53 AM
decoupling the fuel cell from the fuel cost, infrastructure costs, and fuel handling issues is dishonest.
Posted by: Brotherkenny4 | 04 February 2013 at 10:33 AM
If H2 is $5 kg and gasoline is $4 per gallon, the assumption is price reflects cost. If I have to drill, pump, transport and refine oil, then transport thr gasoline to a station, it costs. If I reform natural gas into H2 at the station..not so much.
Posted by: SJC | 04 February 2013 at 12:16 PM
Gee Whiz. They are aiming to target the powerplant portion of an FCEV auto mobile to just $40k dollars in 2020. That means a whole FCEV might only cost $80 K and MSRP for $100K or more.
I predict that they will sell millions. Fer shure!!
FCEVS are a technology that has already lost the race... But we can't stop feeding the PIG. What would all the EPA and CARB bureaucrats do???
Posted by: D | 04 February 2013 at 06:06 PM
D your math skills are in serious need of smacking with a wet noodle. Thats 4k for a normal car fuel cell not 40.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 04 February 2013 at 09:45 PM
SJC says: If I reform natural gas into H2 at the station..not so much.
If you could put that H2 reforming station near a large building then they could reuse the excess heat for other things.. but I doubt they would want a high pressure H2 bomb near a building. I'm sure H2 will be delivered by truck tankers burning diesel. We need a home H2 reforming/compressor station with built-in co-generation, and low cost and low maintenance obviously.
Posted by: Herm | 05 February 2013 at 04:10 AM
I think the 'F-word' should be banned on GCC.
We've wasted too much breath on this already.
Posted by: clett | 05 February 2013 at 04:15 AM
Making hydrogen is endothermic, it takes heat energy to turn natural gas into hydrogen, it does not generate heat, so there is no cogeneration.
Posted by: SJC | 06 February 2013 at 07:29 PM
@Herm,
Good point mentioning the use of waste heat from NG reforming locally for H2 production, or the use of waste heat from local electrolysis of water using excess grid electricity. These will allow the H2 economy to be much more efficient, and can approach or even exceed the efficiency of battery electricity for energy storage, when H2FC is used locally for both heat and electricity co-generation.
H2 bomb? How about the gasoline bomb that you carry in your car everyday?
H2 delivered by a truck tankers will be another potential H2 bomb. So are all gasoline tankers running around. A stationary H2 tank near a building can be built stronger than a mobile H2 tank in a truck tanker.
@SJC,
NG reformation to H2 is a 70-80%-efficient process, depending on the size of the reformer. This means that there will be heat generated for co-generation.
@Clett,
H2FC and electrolyzers with utilization of waste heat are important to make efficient use of intermittent sources of renewable energy like solar and wind. These will allow humanity to completely phase out fossil-fuel energy and allow sustainability. Current use of fossil fuel is not sustainable.
Posted by: Roger Pham | 07 February 2013 at 12:15 AM
Good ideas RP. FCs durability would have to be increased to about 20,000+ hours for use in long range trucks, locomotive and buses?
Posted by: HarveyD | 12 February 2013 at 09:04 AM