Please keep following our blog on our new website, www.einow.org, or using an RSS feed.

Thanks, we hope to see you there.

Sincerely,

The Energy Independence Now Team

The on-going BP Oil Spill tragedy has exposed the public to the tremendous risk our existing energy system poses to the waters, land, and air we depend on for our survival, well-being, and way of life.  The majority of voters now support legislation to limit greenhouse gas pollution, as well as policies to reduce oil consumption and greatly increase fuel economy standards.  Perhaps most importantly, we have technologies available to both decrease the consumption of oil and transition to clean energy.  We just need policies, investment, and consumer choice to drive the deployment of those technologies.

Let’s start with petroleum powered engines technology.  Interestingly, six of the top ten most fuel efficient vehicles produced since 1984 were in customers hands by the year 2000.  The 1986 Chevrolet Sprint ER got 48 miles per gallon (mpg), just under the 2010 Toyota Prius Hybrid, which gets 50 mpg.  Twenty four years later, the best we have offers a two mpg improvement.  Does this mean we haven’t made progress?  No.  It means we have not directed progress towards increasing the efficiency of the vehicles we depend on.  We have not had national policies in place to do so.

Significant gains can be made using existing technologies; automakers just need to be put up to the challenge.  This is why the May 19th, 2009 Rose Garden agreement announced by President Obama and the May 21st, 2010 presidential memorandum signed by the President are so important. By 2016, light duty fuel economy standards will be raised to an industry average of 35.5 mpg, saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of vehicles sold in the next five years, while mid and heavy duty truck standards will save an additional 500 million barrels of oil over the life of the trucks.  This is the equivalent of more oil than we imported last year from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, Kuwait, Nigeria, Brazil, Iraq, and Angola combined.

These savings in oil consumption can be achieved using technologies and infrastructure available today.  Tomorrow can provide an even better story, one without oil.

Nissan’s battery-electric, zero tailpipe emissions Leaf is sold out for the year. Tesla already has more than 2,000 orders for its 2012 7-seater, all-electric, 300 mile range Model S.  Hydrogen Fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEV) are already on the road, and based on auto industry projections, ten of thousands of FCEVs are expected on the road by 2016.  Progress continues to be made toward high-efficiency biofuels made from algae, prairie grass, and ivy.

Both battery and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles consume no oil,  emit zero tailpipe emissions, and run on energy collected domestically.  Assuming we aggressively de-carbonize our electric grid (using solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal energy sources), future travel can and should produce close to zero emissions and avoid the potential for any oil spills.

We cannot get to this zero emissions future without enacting strong policies that give companies the incentive to develop and implement these zero and low carbon technologies.

The upcoming White House Energy Summit can be an important step towards in this direction.  With strong legislative action, we can set the nation on path to energy self-sufficiency.  As we’ve seen from the past, presidential proclamations do not get us off oil.  It will take a nation devoted to the cause, refusing to let established industry interests dictate our future by demanding a sustainable path forward.

The time for change is now.  Let’s demand it so that our next president will no longer only be talking about getting us off of oil, but reporting the tremendous progress we’ve made toward breaking our oil addiction.  Our waters, land, air, and the people whose livelihoods depend on them will thank us for it.

An important aspect of this project is an innovative technology introduced by Linde at the two refueling stations. According to Linde, the refueling stations will feature a technology called Ionic Compression, which uses less electricity to compress the hydrogen and deliver it to vehicles than other hydrogen fueling stations, and requires less maintenance, by eliminating certain mechanical processes in conventional systems. The technology will be introduced in North America for the first time at the Oakland station and will showcase important performance characteristics such as the ability to refill one of AC Transit’s FCBs in just six minutes.  The stations will also be available to refill hydrogen fuel cell vehicles being produced by automakers such as Honda, GM, Daimler, Hyundai, and Toyota.

This project highlights some critical components of a transitioning transportation sector. First, many alternative technologies, such as fuel cell electric and battery electric vehicles, initially come with costly premiums that an average person simply cannot afford. Along the same lines, many of the most polluting mobile sources (i.e. dirty diesel buses and trucks) that impact air quality and public health are found in economically disadvantaged communities. Fuel cell buses can offer affordable access to clean transportation in all communities, spreading the public health benefit of initially expensive alternative technologies to traditionally disadvantaged communities (through reduced local emissions).

Secondly, a common misconception of alternative vehicle technology is that a sacrifice must be made in an aspect of performance: range, refueling time, or another characteristic. With advancements in refueling technology such as Linde’s, and continuous advancements in vehicle technology, consumers no longer have to sacrifice performance for environmental benefit. As Steven Eckhardt, Linde’s west coast head of Alternative Energy Business Development, said,  “Our fueling system can fill an automobile in three minutes for 300-400 miles of operation.”—Surpassing performance characteristics of most internal combustion engine vehicles.

This is not the first time a major oil spill has occurred.  The New York Times put together a History of Major Oil Spills, started with the 1969 leak of 4.2 million gallons off the shore of Santa Barbara, California.  Is the risk of having these spills, and the countless other small ones, worth it?  On the backdrop of this spill, and the potential for future ones, it should be difficult for anyone to argue that we should continue down the path of oil dependence, especially when viable alternatives exist and/or are being developed. We need to end our dependence on oil.  Period.

We cannot expect to stop global oil consumption in one, five, or even ten years. We can, however, push alternative low carbon fuels and platforms to commercial levels that can ultimately replace oil.  With strong state and federal policy, and enlightened consumer decisions, there is no reason the next generation should have to ever drive a petroleum powered vehicle.  Instead, their first driving experience should be with an electric drive vehicle (either hydrogen fuel cell or battery electric), or biofuel powered combustion engine with state of the art emissions control equipment.

To be clear, these technologies are ready today.  Nissan expects to deploy its 100% Battery Electric Leaf to consumers by December 2010.  According to numbers aggregated by the California Fuel Cell Partnership, 45o Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCV) from various companies will be in customer hands by the end of 2012, with 4,200 FCVs on the road by 2015.  Tesla is already leasing its high performance Battery Electric Roadster, and expects to have its seven seat Model S deployed in 2012.  And these are just examples of what is coming down the road.

Energy Independence Now continues to work with the State of California to ensure that these technologies continue to move forward toward replacing oil.  The implementation of state policies such as the Zero-Emissions Vehicle Mandate, Low Emissions Vehicle Program, the Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, AB 32, Clean Fuels Outlet Regulation, and the Alternative Fuel and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program remains critical to the move to use less oil and transition to new, spill-free (and climate friendly) fuel sources.  Successful development and implementation of these policies is ultimately contingent on public support for ending our addiction to petroleum.  Given the visibility of this recent oil related catastrophe, it is hard to imagine this support waning.

This new facility will demonstrate an important component of the development of the hydrogen infrastructure in California. While hydrogen production from other sources (i.e. steam methane reforming of natural gas) shows a significant savings in GHG emissions on a well-to-wheel basis, hydrogen production sourced from a renewable feedstock is significantly better, and one of the only pathways currently available to curb almost all GHG emissions. This project will demonstrate that such renewable hydrogen can be made in centralized facilities together with electricity generation, an especially attractive option while there are still few fuel cell vehicles around.

If we are to achieve California’s aggressive climate change goals, then renewable hydrogen combined with fuel cell vehicles must be included as part of the solution. The hydrogen fuel produced from this facility will also count towards meeting the goals of SB 1505 legislation, which requires that, in the aggregate, 33% of hydrogen fuel will need to be produced from renewable sources. The legislation will play a vital role in ensuring that renewable hydrogen pathways are included in the roll out of California’s emerging hydrogen infrastructure.

For the official press release from FuelCell Energy please go to:

http://www.globenewswire.com/news.html?d=186376

According to the report press release, “a portfolio approach toward reducing U.S. dependence on oil is necessary for long-term success.  This should include increasing the fuel efficiency of conventional vehicles and pursuing research, development, and demonstration into alternative strategies, including the use of biofuels, electric vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.” Plug-in hybrids are an important bridging technology that will help facilitate the transition to broad adoption of 100% pure electric vehicles.  But we cannot expect them to save the day alone.  We need to pursue every potential non-petroleum solution we have.

This sounds great at face value.  If the general market demands more efficient technology, we can expect the producers to respond.  However, we cannot stop pursuing and developing the technologies that will get us off oil: hydrogen fuel cells, battery electric technology, and sustainable biofuels.  Taxing gasoline, or having consumers pay for the real cost of oil, will almost certainly lead to efficiency gains within the the internal combustion engine.  The fact that auto executives are calling for it is an incredibly positive step.  We, as a society, need to make sure that such a step would lead us away from oil altogether.

Check out this video showing how the hydrogen fueling process works.  Whole Foods estimates that this process will save 3,750 hours per year when compared to their old lead acid batteries.

Whole Foods would not have been able to proceed with this project without money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to bring down the cost of the fuel cells. These types of public investments are necessary to get new, environmentally beneficial, technologies off of the ground.  They should be leveraged to the maximum extent possible.  In this case, Whole Foods could not have justified the fork lift transition without ARRA funds.  These funds helped not only pay for hydrogen fuel cell forklifts, they justified the installation of hydrogen fueling infrastructure (without ARRA funds).  If designed with the future in mind, these types of infrastructure investments can be used to help fuel the early adoption of hydrogen fuel cell cars.

In terms of climate change, our transportation system is a major problem.  In California, 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the state come from the transportation sector, more than any other sector.  In the United States as a whole, the transportation sector is second only to power generation.  The majority of transportation emissions are generated by personal vehicles; our society depends on the automobile to move around.  We need significant, perhaps even total, reductions in emissions from the transportation sector to stabilize the atmosphere at 350 ppm CO2.

To get us moving in the right direction, in 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger set a target to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. We cannot reach this target in the transportation sector by simply increasing the efficiency of fossil fuel based engines and reducing our driving miles.  We need game changing, zero-emissions personal transportation options.

So far, only two zero-emissions vehicle platforms exist:  battery-electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles (assuming we employ renewable electricity and hydrogen generated from renewable resources).  We need them both.  Despite tremendous progress made by vehicle manufacturers, hydrogen has come under political fire as a transportation fuel.  In this year alone, the Department of Energy proposed a $100 million cut in the hydrogen program and the California State Legislature deleted funding for hydrogen infrastructure, before Gov. Schwarzenegger restored it.  These maneuvers threatened a fledgling industry that needs public support to survive into commercial viability.

Why do we need hydrogen?  Why not just use batteries?  The figure below, prepared by General Motors, holds the answer.  While batteries represents the most efficient transfer of stored energy to the road, battery weight limits potential car size and the ability to haul heavy goods.  As shown in the figure, battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) and range extended BEVs (think Chevy Volt) are very effective for light load, city driving.  Hydrogen fuel-cells are the only zero-emissions platform able to perform in long-distance or heavy load scenarios.

From GM Presentation to House of Reps 6-12-09

Based on our existing technologies, we need both battery electric and hydrogen fuel cell technologies to reach a truly zero-emissions transportation economy.  Barring technological breakthroughs, we cannot afford to give up on either if we hope to return our atmospheric CO2 concentration to 350 ppm.  We need to encourage California and the U.S. to pursue both platforms with vigor; we have no time to lose.

Unfortunately, based on testimony presented at the September 29, 2009 AB 118 Alternative Fuels Investment Plan workshop for Hydrogen-based transportation, the business case for installing hydrogen fueling in a traditional gas station model does not yet exist.  At demonstration fleet levels, the expected break-even price of hydrogen is too high to justify 100-percent privately funded stations.  The assumption remains that public funding can and should be used to bridge this infrastructure development gap until hydrogen can be sold at volumes high enough to warrant 100-percent private development.

While public funding is an important component to establishing a hydrogen transportation economy, it remains politically tenuous, especially in the face of recent government funding shortfalls.  For hydrogen to have the greatest chance for success, the business case needs to be developed as soon as possible.  This is where heavy duty trucks and box stores come in.

From an operations standpoint, at least one company says that it already makes economic sense to operate heavy duty trucks with hydrogen as the primary fuel source.  According to Vision Industries Corporation, their hydrogen powered heavy-duty Class-8 truck is 35-percent cheaper to operate than a similar diesel and 50-percent cheaper than a natural gas truck.  Government subsidies have been applied to get the trucks off the ground, and as more trucks are produced the per unit cost drops, leading affordable trucks that could be purchased without subsidy.

Why is this significant?  It takes a lot of hydrogen fuel to operate a heavy duty truck.  Over the course of a year, one of these trucks demands a volume of hydrogen fuel equivalent to 60 to 65 cars.  This demand, and the fuel payment associated with it, improves the economics of hydrogen fuel production and delivery.  In other words, high demand volume can help fuel providers achieve the economies of scale necessary to reduce hydrogen distribution costs.  Conveniently, the first deployments of these trucks will be made in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, in the primary early market hydrogen passenger car target area.3 Passenger car fueling infrastructure can and should take advantage of the heavy duty hydrogen demand.

So what about box stores?  Currently, their are over 50,000 electric lift trucks operating in large fleets in California warehouses and stores.  According to Plug Power these electric units suffer from downtime when charging and/or swapping out batteries.  They claim that work efficiencies can be improved using fuel cell powered lifts, primarily based on quick refueling times, and that operation can be cheaper. A number of stores, including Wal Mart, FedEx, and CocaCola appear to agree, at least in specific locations (refer to the Plug Power presentation stored here for specifics).

According to Plug Power, individual warehouses represent a commercial scale demand (up to 300 kg per day, equivalent to fueling 76 Honda Clarities).  Box stores and warehouses increase the volume of hydrogen demanded in the same way heavy duty trucks do. However, box stores are located conveniently next to major population centers.  It takes little imagination to picture hydrogen production dedicated to the consistent lift truck operation and an increasing population of light duty vehicles.  Walmart, Costco, Home Depot, etc. could use their hydrogen production to both fuel their internal goods movement and their customers.  This would leverage the base-load demand for hydrogen in the warehouses to build infrastructure for passenger vehicles.

Public funding is an important component in hydrogen fuel infrastructure development.  But, cross sector interests need to by synergized to leverage the maximum power of the  private sector.  We, as a society, need to do everything we can to make sure we take advantage of every case where hydrogen makes economic sense in the early market.  The more systems we deploy now, the more likely we will be able to meet our 2050 GHG emissions reductions targets.  That, is in everyone’s interest.

1. The Toyota Highlander FCV-adv traveled 431 miles on a single tank, Hyuandai-Kia went 396 miles in an unpublished test, Honda achieves 240 miles with its lower pressure hydrogen tank.

2. Honda and Toyota have been able to operate their FCV in temperatures as cold as -30 deg C; Hyundai-Kia has verified up to -20 deg C

3. Medium and heavy duty trucks account for approximately 20-percent of California’s transportation related emissions (transportation in total accounts for 40-percent of annual California emissions).