07/26/2010

New Fuels Session Objective

1

• Agree approach and definition of New Fuels• Agree preliminary scope of New Fuels, recognizing that

the scope will evolve as the sub groups further define their technical scope

• Agree boundary conditions with each sub groups

07/26/2010

Proposed New Fuels Scope and Approach

Scope

Fuels• Hydrogen• Fuels from solar• Photobacteria (ethanol or butanol)• Artificial photosynthesis• Advanced levitation• Lithium-Air (500 mile) battery• “Drop-In” biofuels (bio-gasoline,

etc.)

Application• Fuel cells• Free piston engines

2

Approach

• Not a traditional subgroup• Led by research scientist (non-

industry)• Develop frame and scope• Request white paper on technology by

leading scientists currently undertaking research

• Facilitate scientific review of white paper

• Supply and infrastructure and “light touch” economic review of white paper

• Finalize position and implications for report

Key question for new fuels (2050+) is whether the government should even consider investing in these technologies?

07/26/2010

Suggestions

• Recognise numerous boundary issues • Agree New Fuels could cover unusual

pathways (vs. technology only)• Hydrogen and fuel cells go to a supply

and infrastructure sub group and get a full analysis

• Lithium chemistries stay w/ batteries and the battery evaluation sub group

• New fuels will pick other (non-lithium) chemistries/advanced batteries

• Solar, photobacteria and artificial photosynthesis will not be lumped together

• Drop-in biofuels goes to biofuels sub group

• New fuels will cover free piston engines• CO2 Conversion to fuels added to list

New Fuels Scope

Fuels• Fuels from solar• Photobacteria (ethanol or butanol)• Artificial photosynthesis• Advanced levitation• Non Lithium chemistries/advanced

batteries• CO2 conversion to fuel

Application• Free piston engines

3

07/26/2010

Chevron Feedback on “New Fuels” Proposal

• Agree Technology TG takes “New Fuels.”– Not inbounds of sub teams.

• Suggestions based on internal review– Look beyond fuels.– Consider integrated value chains.

• Fuel Conversion Vehicle System

• Source Conversion Storage Propulsion

– Look at unusual pathways or combinations.• Examples:

– ICE plus Flywheel storage– Right of way solar

07/26/2010

Exxon feedback

• We take no exception to the list, however the inclusion of biofuels in the list (Algae, drop-in biofuels) will create a boundary discussion with Biofuels team and this should be worked to avoid duplication and misalignment.

• Hydrogen likely will also have some boundary issues with the subgroups. (i.e. fossil liquids and natural gas)

• We have no additions to the list of "New Fuels" at this time from our internal review.

• Does the "New Fuel" application list apply only in the context of "New Fuels" or will there also be boundary issues with fossil liquids and natural gas as they may play a role?

5

07/26/2010

GM feedback

• I don't understand the reference to 2050+ -- does this mean post-2050?  

• If so, then hydrogen and fuel cells don’t belong on this list - it is very possible that automakers will begin deploying FCEVs around 2015.  It is a very viable technology and has broader applications in the LDV market than batteries (which will likely always be limited to smaller, low-load vehicles, with shorter ranges, and longer refuel times).  We definitely feel hydrogen and fuel cells belong in this study.

• In our opinion, fuels from solar, photobacteria, and artificial photosynthesis are all the same general idea (so lump together).  And yes, the govt should be investing.

• Advanced levitation - I don't think this needs to be looked at• Lithium-Air -- make this more general and call it high-energy batteries - and,

yes, the govt should be investing.• Yes, drop-in biofuels (especially bio-gasoline) should definitely be part of this

study – also don’t understand the definition of 2050+ in this context.• Yes, definitely fuel cells should be part of this effort (and govt investment) - and

free piston engines as well

6

07/26/2010

Toyota feedback

• I am somewhat perplexed that we don't see a way forward for many of these fuels even by 2050 and just dismiss them out of hand. Hydrogen is a good example. from an electro-chemical pov fuel cells are as advanced or perhaps more advanced than Li Ion batteries.

7

07/26/2010

ADM feedback

• I share your concerns. I do think it is difficult to see the best path because so much is invested in the current infrastructure and therefore we expect any new fuel to seamlessly fit into this. Figuring out the best transitions states and the activation energy needed to get there are probably the best way to define the path forward and probably would be the best way to advise the government. I just hope we can figure out the lowest energy path and not the highest. Tom Binder

8