Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective
Mario Valentino Romeri
Abstract. Copenhagen Accord’s general perspective does not include any low-carbon technologies
consideration. Hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles (FCV) are still not considered as a relevant solution
in the debate regarding the instruments to be considered in the Post Kyoto Perspective. In my
opinion the US and EU energy and transport policies support the FCV introduction into the market
in the 2015-2020 timeframe. Based on the analysis of these policies initiatives the paper argued
about the possibility that hydrogen and FCV should be a possible Post Kyoto instruments also in the
2020 perspective and suggest a positive answer.
Summary. In the first paragraph an overview is given about the energy debate and the climate
change concern, with details regarding the Kyoto Protocol, G8, IEA and G20 role toward the
Copenhagen Accord and the Post Kyoto Agreement. Second paragraph depicted the transport
sector. Third paragraph described the hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles situation in the US and EU.
In fourth paragraph the role of hydrogen and FCV as possible Copenhagen Accord instruments are
analysed. In fifth paragraph the conclusion is given: hydrogen and FCV are possible Post Kyoto
instruments by 2020.
1 – Energy Debate and Climate Change Concern
The global energy demand growth, the environmental conservation, the fight against climate change
and the global financial crisis have taken on increasing importance in the international policy debate
over recent years. The relevance of these challenges is clear in this President Obama words: “I
know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I
know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate
change. But here's the thing –even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energyefficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future– because the nation that leads
the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.”1
1.1 Kyoto Protocol. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change2 [UNFCCC]
adopted at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Conference the chief international negotiating forum regarding
the fight against climate change. The Kyoto Protocol3 is an international agreement linked to the
UNFCCC4, adopted in Kyoto in 1997 and entered into force in 2005. The major feature of the
Protocol is that it sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the EU to reduce
greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions. This amount to an average of 5% against 1990 levels over the
five-year period 2008-2012. Recognizing that developed countries are principally responsible for
the current high levels of GHG emissions in the atmosphere, the Protocol places a heavier burden
on developed nations under the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.”5 The
Protocol is seen as an important step towards a global emission reduction regime that will stabilize
GHG emissions and, by the end of the first commitment period in 2012, a new international
framework needs to be negotiated and
ratified.
In 2007, “the Fourth Assessment
Report
[AR4]
of
the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change6 [IPCC] has had a major
impact in creating public awareness
on various aspects of climate change,
and the three Working Group reports
as part of this assessment represent a major advance in scientific knowledge.”7 The IPCC AR4 has
analyzed different scenarios of stabilization of the concentration of GHG and associated average
global temperature increases at equilibrium (Figure 1, IPCC - AR48). “The IPCC has concluded

IAEE, AIAF and IAHE member, Italy. Email: valentino.romeri@alice.it
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
1
that emissions must be reduced by 50% to 85% by 2050 (445-490 ppm CO2 eq.) if global warming
is to be confined to between 2 and 2.4°C.” 9
1.2 G8 and IEA. At 2005 G8 Gleneagles (UK) summit, in response to threats posed to the future
supply of energy and to the environment, the G8 Leaders issued the Gleneagles Plan of Action10
setting out the common purpose in tackling climate change, promoting clean energy and achieving
sustainable development. The International Energy Agency [IEA] was advised11 on alternative
energy scenarios and strategies aimed at a clean clever and competitive energy future. G8
Governments recognized that a business-as-usual pathway for the global energy system is
unsustainable.
At 2007 G8 Heiligendamm (Germany) summit, G8 Leaders agreed to seriously consider a global
50% CO2 reduction target.12 At 2008 G8 Hokkaido Toyako (Japan) meeting, Leaders announced
their intention to consider and adopt the goal of at least a 50% reduction of global emissions by
2050.13 Also, G8 Leaders: added that making progress towards the shared vision, and a long-term
global goal will require mid-term goals and national plans to achieve them; stressed that this global
challenge can only be met by a global response and this will require both accelerating the
deployment of existing technologies and the development and deployment of new low-carbon
technologies; agreed that “sectoral approaches” can be useful tools to improve energy efficiency
and reduce GHG emissions through dissemination of existing and new technologies 14; asked IEA to
develop global technology roadmaps to support low-carbon technologies introduction.15 To
examine what this would mean in practice, in 2008 IEA has developed16 the so-called “BLUE Map
scenario, which targets a CO2 emissions reduction of 50% from current levels by 2050. The
analysis for this scenario shows that such a target will require nothing less than an energy
technology revolution, with very rapid development and deployment of a wide range of existing and
new low-carbon technologies. This change will be difficult, but it is possible if implementation
starts now.”17
1.3 The Global Financial Crisis. From 2007 the global financial crisis caused the collapse of large
financial institutions, the bailout of banks by national governments and rapid downturns in stock
markets. The housing market suffered evictions and foreclosures. The crisis contributed to the
failure of key businesses, the declines in consumer wealth and a significant decline in economic
activity. Also, it has sharply reduced energy investment all the way along the supply chain. In this
context central banks around the world quickly have taken initiatives to avoid the risk of a
deflationary spiral with a self-reinforcing decline in global consumption and governments have
enacted large fiscal stimulus packages to offset the reduction in private demand. In this difficult
framework IEA suggested the necessity to “view the financial crisis as an opportunity – rather
than a challenge - to move toward a cleaner, more secure energy future. This can be done by
ensuring that sound energy investment strategies are at the heart of every economic stimulus
package; by embracing a Clean Energy New Deal.” 18
1.4 G8, G20, MEF and IEA in 2009. In April 2009, at the G20 London (UK) summit, Leaders
“agreed to make the best possible use of investment funded by fiscal stimulus programs towards the
goal of building a resilient, sustainable, and green recovery. They will make the transition towards
clean, innovative, resource efficient, low carbon technologies and infrastructure. (…) They
reaffirm their commitment to address the threat of irreversible climate change, based on the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.”19
In July 2009, at the G8 L’Aquila (Italy) summit, Leaders “reaffirm the importance of the work of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and notably of its Fourth Assessment Report,
which constitutes the most comprehensive assessment of the science. They recognized the broad
scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not
to exceed 2° C. Because this global challenge can only be met by a global response, they reiterate
their willingness to share with all countries the goal of achieving at least a 50% reduction of global
emissions by 2050 (…). As part of this, they also support a goal of developed countries reducing
emissions of greenhouse gases in aggregate by 80% or more by 2050.”20
At the Major Economies Forum [MEF] on Energy and Climate (L’Aquila - Italy), Leaders
underlined that “Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time”. And “as leaders of
the world’s major economies, both developed and developing, they intend to respond vigorously to
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
2
this challenge, being convinced that climate change poses a clear danger requiring an
extraordinary global response, that the response should respect the priority of economic and social
development of developing countries, that moving to a low-carbon economy is an opportunity to
promote continued economic growth and sustainable development, that the need for and
deployment of transformational clean energy technologies at lowest possible cost are urgent, and
that the response must involve balanced attention to mitigation and adaptation. (…) They
recognized the scientific view that the increase in global average temperature above preindustrial levels ought not to exceed 2° C.”21
In World Energy Outlook 200922 [WEO 2009] IEA observe that the global financial crisis and
ensuing recession have had a dramatic impact on the outlook for energy markets. But the recession,
by curbing the growth in GHG emissions, has made the task of transforming the energy sector
easier by giving us an unprecedented, yet relatively narrow, window of opportunity to take action to
concentrate investment on low-carbon technology. Accordingly, the WEO 2009 presents the results
of two scenarios: the Reference and the 450 Scenario, which depicts a world in which collective
policy action, is taken to limit the long-term concentration of GHG to 450 ppm of CO2-equivalent.
Households and businesses are largely responsible for making the required investments, but
governments hold the key to changing the mix of energy investment towards low-carbon options.
1.5 Copenhagen Accord. In December 2009 the UN Copenhagen climate change summit produced
no international agreement but it is clear that it was no failure. In fact the Conference of the Parties
takes note of the Copenhagen Accord23, a political, and not legally-binding, agreement in which the
Leaders of delegations present24:
- “agree that climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time” and “emphasises the
strong political will to urgently combat climate change in accordance with the principle of common
but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.”
- “agree that deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented
by the IPCC AR4 with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global
temperature below 2° C, and take action to meet this objective consistent with science and on the
basis of equity.” Underwriters: “should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national
emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in
developing countries; recognize the crucial role of reducing emission from deforestation and forest
degradation; call for an assessment of the implementation of this Accord to be completed by 2015,
including in light of the Convention’s ultimate objective. This would include consideration of
strengthening the long-term goal referencing various matters presented by the science, including
in relation to temperature rises of 1.5° C.”
- Underlining that “Adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change and the potential impacts of
response measures is a challenge faced by all countries.” Underwriters: “agree that developed
countries shall provide adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources, technology and
capacity-building to support the implementation of adaptation action in developing countries;
decide to pursue various approaches, including opportunities to use markets, to enhance the costeffectiveness of, and to promote mitigation actions; decide to establish a Technology Mechanism
to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and
mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national
circumstances and priorities. (…) The collective commitment by developed countries is to provide
new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international
institutions, approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012 with balanced allocation
between adaptation and mitigation. (…) Developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly
USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.”
- “Annex I Parties commit to implement individually or jointly the quantified economy wide
emissions targets for 2020” and “Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention will implement
mitigation actions (…) in the context of sustainable development. Least developed countries and
Small Island developing States may undertake actions voluntarily and on the basis of support.”
International community welcomes the Copenhagen Accord that was operational immediately,
and provides guidance on the next steps towards a legally-binding agreement on climate change,
hopeful that could be reached in Cancun (Mexico), but more is needed. In fact, most authoritative
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
3
analysts observed that with the actual Copenhagen Accord pledges, the global temperature increase
is estimated around or above 3° C in long term.25
2 - Transport Sector
Economic history suggests that as people get richer, they increase their use of private
transportation.26 Today, transport sector is responsible for nearly 60% of world oil demand and road
transport accounts for nearly 80% of the total transport energy demand. Transport accounts for
around 25% of energy-related CO2 emissions.27 In the developed world, transport energy use
continues to increase at slightly more than 1% per year; passenger transport currently consumes 60–
75% of total transport energy there. In developing countries, transport energy use is rising faster (3
to 5% per year) and is projected to grow from 31% in 2002 to 43% of world transport energy use by
2025.28 If car ownership continues to increase at the current rate, two billion cars could be on roads
around the globe by about 2030.29
2.1 Kyoto Protocol. Transport sector is regulated by Kyoto Protocol in Article 2.2 “The Parties
included in Annex I shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not
controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation and marine bunker fuels, working through the
International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization,
respectively.”30 Perhaps today terrestrial transports were not subject to emission cut targets. A
formal commitment to promote and cooperate in the development, application and diffusion of new
technologies that will be needed to reduce emissions (also in the transport sector) is included in the
UNFCCC Article 4.1(c)31 but specific measures to enhance such development are not yet defined.
The IPCC AR432 has suggested key mitigation options for the transport sector and explored both
those that are commercially available and those that are yet to be commercialized but that are
expected to be before 2030. “Many technologies and strategies are at hand to reduce the growth or
even, eventually, reverse transport GHG emissions. (…) The most promising strategy for the near
term is incremental improvements in current vehicle technologies. Advanced technologies that
provide great promise include greater use of electric-drive technologies, including hybrid-electric
power trains, fuel cells and battery electric vehicles. The use of alternative fuels such as natural
gas, biofuels, electricity and hydrogen, in combination with improved conventional and advanced
technologies; provide the potential for even larger reductions.”33
2.2 Mitigation Potential for a Rapid Changing Technology Sector. Recent analyses indicate that
ambitious and challenging technology and policy pathways could cut transport GHG emissions
below current levels by 2050. In effect, vehicle technology is changing rapidly and more costeffective technologies are likely to emerge in coming years, increasing the potential and/or
lowering costs further. Vehicle hybridization has attracted most investment and, in spite of high
costs, has proved commercial successful. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles [PHEV], in which the
electric battery is recharged of the grid as well as through the vehicle’s internal recharging system,
combine the efficiency advantages of using an electric motor for short distances with the
convenience and longer range of an internal combustion engine. The prospects Electric Vehicles
[EV] are less certain, as battery capacity needs to be even greater than for hybrids (and
consequently the cost of the powertrain). PHEV, hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles [FCV] and EV, is
expected to become increasingly available in the near-to-medium term given recent
improvements.
According to IEA WEO 2009 the “450 Scenario entails $10.5 trillion more investment in energy
infrastructure and energy-related capital stock globally than in the Reference Scenario through to
the end of the projection period. Around 45% of incremental investment needs, or $4.7 trillion, are
in transport. Measures in the transport sector to improve fuel economy expand biofuels and
promote the uptake of new vehicle technologies — notably hybrid and electric vehicles — lead to a
big reduction in oil demand. Fuel-cost savings in the transport sector amount to $6.2 trillion over
the projection period.”34Also, in 2009 IEA has updated35 his BLUE Map scenarios. The revised
BLUE Map scenarios includes strong technology advances in energy efficiency and increased use
of renewable and lower-carbon fuels, and the new BLUE Shifts scenario focuses on the potential of
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
4
behavioral shifts in choice of travel mode
to cut energy use and GHG emissions.
The projected GHG emissions for these
new scenarios show that different
technologies, such PHEV, EV, and FCV,
if developed to the point of market
feasibility, may take up to 30 years to
exert a significant impact (blue bar
segments in Figure 2, IEA36).
In the recent years the US and EU proposed new and more stringent fuel efficiency standard
with relevant impact on CO2 emission reduction.
2.2.1 US. The Energy Independence and Security Act37 (2007) sets a new national fuel economy
standard of 35 miles per gallon [mpg] by 2020, which will increase fuel economy standards by
40%. In May 2009, President Obama38 announces National Fuel Efficiency Policy, which
adopts uniform federal standards to regulate both fuel economy and GHG emissions. In September
2009, the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the Department of Transportation [DOT]
issued a joint proposal to establish a National Program consisting of new standards for model year
2012 through 2016 light-duty vehicles [LDV] that will reduce GHG emissions and improve fuel
economy. The new standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average
emissions level of 250 grams of CO2 per mile which would be equivalent to an average fuel
economy standard of 35.5 mpg in 2016 (39 mpg for automakers’ passenger car and a 30 mpg for
light trucks).39 Over the lifetime of the vehicles sold during 2012–2016, this program is projected to
reduce US CO2 emissions by 950 million tons and save 1.8 billion barrels of oil. EPA estimates that
2012–2016 model year lifetime costs of the national program are less than USD 60 billion, well
below the expected benefits, which are expected to exceed USD 250 billion.40 In April 2010, EPA
and DOT issued the Final Rule to establish a National Program of new standards for LDV.41
The American Clean Energy and Security Act42, approved by the House in June 2009 and is still
in consideration in the Senate, would establish a variant of a cap-and-trade plan for GHG to address
climate change. In particular, Sec. 311 require the EPA Administrator to promulgate
regulations to cap and reduce GHG emissions, annually, so that GHG emissions from capped
sources are reduced to 97% of 2005 levels by 2012, 83% by 2020, 58% by 2030, and 17% by
2050. And also, Sec. 121 requires each electric utility to develop a plan to support the use of plugin electric drive vehicles. Sec. 130A requires the EPA Administrator to report to Congress on the
contribution that L&HD natural gas vehicles. Sec. 221 requires the EPA Administrator, to
promulgate standards applicable to GHG emissions from new heavy-duty motor vehicles or
engines, and to report to Congress on the projected amount of GHGs from the transportation
sector for the years 2030 and 2050.43
2.2.2 EU. In December 2008, after the European Council agreement, the European Parliament
approved and in April 2009 the European Council adopted44 the Europe's climate and energy
package (also called 20-20-20) that will help Europe transform into a low-carbon economy and
increase energy security. An agreement has been reached on legally binding targets, by 2020, to cut
GHG emissions by 20%, to establish a 20% share for renewable energy, and to improve energy
efficiency by 20%.45 In this framework an agreement was reached on the proposal to set
emissions standards for new passenger cars which is an important tool to assist Member States in
meeting their emissions targets in the non-ETS sectors.46 Voluntary commitments by industry
failed. The new legislation set binding emissions targets to be phased-in by 2015 to ensure that
emissions from the new car fleet are reduced to an average of 120g CO 2/km.47 The new regulation
makes these objectives binding for the average fleet of a given car manufacturer with a phasing-in
of the targets over the period 2012 to 201548 and a penalties-incentives mechanism is provided.49 To
send a signal to industry for further production cycles it was introduced in addition an objective of
95gr CO2 / km for 2020.50 This proposal will on average contribute about one third of the reductions
required from the non-ETS sectors.
2.3 The Global Financial Crisis Impact. The global financial crisis has had important effect in the
global automotive sector.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
5
2.3.1 US. The US’s car and light truck market dropped in 2009 to around 10.451 million units, down
by about 2.8 million from 2008 (by 5.7 million from 2007).
In September 2008 GM, Ford and Chrysler (the “Big Three”) asked for USD 50 billion to pay for
health care expenses and avoid bankruptcy and in November Congress worked out a USD 25 billion
loan. In December, President Bush had agreed to an emergency bailout of USD 17.4 billion to be
distributed by the next Administration. In 2009 President Obama established the Auto Task Force
and required GM and Chrysler to submit viability plans and credible strategies to implement it.
Facing new information about the scale of the 2008 losses and the fact that GM and Chrysler’s
plans was judged not viable, the Administration decided for a more fundamental restructuring phase
and forced Chrysler and GM into a structured bankruptcy process. Chrysler filed for chapter 11
bankruptcy protection at the end of April52, followed by GM53 a month later. Both companies exit to
the bankruptcy procedure few months later in 2009.
2.3.2 EU. According to ACEA54, in EU, the 2009 total vehicle production (cars, trucks, buses)
decreased by 17.3% compared to 2008 and by 23% compared to the pre-crisis level of 2007.
Passenger car sales fell by 1.3% in 2009 (9.3% lower than before the crisis in 2007) with demand
supported by fleet renewal schemes in 13 EU countries. In this context, the market share of vehicles
emitting less than 120g CO2/km rose to 25%, or 3.2 million cars.
3 – Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicles in US and EU.
Fuel cells convert hydrogen and air directly to electricity, heat and water in an
electrochemical process, consequently a Fuel Cell Vehicle is an Electric Vehicle.
This evidence is clearly stated in the US 2007 “Energy Independence and Security Act” when
defines the “electric transportation technology”: “it means technology used in vehicles that use an
electric motor for all or part of the motive power of the vehicles, including battery electric, hybrid
electric, plug-in hybrid electric, fuel cell, and plug-in fuel cell vehicles.” 55
In the EU official document this evidence is still not so clear.56
3.1 Preamble: Global Financial Crisis and Electric Vehicles. The global financial crisis has had
another important effect, more than a dozen countries have announced programs and goals for the
introduction of the PHEV and EV, but, generally, these programs didn’t mention directly hydrogen
and FCV. The IEA57 has taken these announcements and projected them through 2020 and
estimated a market potential to be as high as 4 million vehicles per year.58 Also, IEA59 underline
that, as of July 2009, all of the checked battery manufacturers plan to start production and should
eventually announce targets, only a few manufacturers had announced production targets for EVs or
PHEVs (with a far less than 1 million units per year by 2020). So, for this reason going forward, it
will be important to track manufacturer plans for vehicle production60 against the production targets
announced by governments.
As mentioned, the high battery cost today appears as major barrier. In this sense, according to
December 2009 US National Academies61 report “Transitions to Alternative Technologies – Plug-in
Hybrid Electric Vehicles”: “Lithium-ion [Li-ion] battery technology has been developing rapidly,
especially at the cell level, but costs are still high, and the potential for dramatic reductions
appears limited. Costs are expected to decline by about 35% by 2020 more slowly thereafter.62
Costs to a vehicle manufacturer for a PHEV-40 mile built in 2010 are likely to be about $18,000
more than an equivalent conventional vehicle, including a $14,000 battery pack.”63 More optimistic
scenarios was provided both in the joint report by the EU Technology Platforms ERTRAC, EPoSS
and SmartGrids “European Roadmap - Electrification of Road Transport”64 and in the IEA report
“Transport, Energy and CO2: Moving Toward Sustainability”.65
In this framework, many carmakers around the world have announced their intention to start the
hybrid vehicles, PHEV or EV production and introduction in their product line66 before 2015.
3.1.1 US. Federal government and several States combined will spend USD 7.2 billion on
supporting manufacturing, providing federal tax credits (introduced in 200867 and up to USD 7,500
per each EV purchase), and encouraging demonstrations of EV and charging infrastructure.
In January 2009 the Obama Administration has set a goal of one million plug-in hybrids on the
road by 2015. The US government has provided more than USD 8.5 billion to help automakers
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
6
retool their factories to produce EV. In June 2009, the Advanced Technology Vehicles
Manufacturing Program will provide about USD 2 billion in federal grants and private fund to the
production of 170,000 EV and an additional 10,000 battery packs. In August 2009, the US
Department of Energy [DOE] announced an additional USD 2.4 billion in grants under the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.68 These grants will provide USD 1.5 billion for
manufacturing of batteries, components, and recycling, and USD 500 million for electric-drive
components. An additional USD 400 million will be provided for electrification, primarily
demonstration of vehicles, and infrastructure. In November 2009, President Obama and President
Hu Jintao announced the launch of a US-China Electric Vehicles Initiative.69
3.1.2 EU. The IEA 2009 review70 of recently announced targets in EV/PHEV sales included 771of
the 27 EU Member States, and, as of April 2010, 15 of the 27 EU Member States provide tax
incentives for EV-PHEV.72 At the European level, in October 2009, was published the “European
Roadmap Electrification of Road Transport.”73 In 2010 the Spanish Presidency promoted a
European Strategy on EV led by EU institutions.74 On April 28, 2010, European Commission
[EC] released the “Communication on EU strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles”75 for
encouraging, in a coordinate framework, the development and uptake of green vehicles (including
electricity, hydrogen fuel cell, biogas and biofuels). The Communication does not make any
technological choices, but recognized that the European framework has been mostly lacking on
electric mobility. With EV (and hybrids) currently viewed as ready for the mass market and several
Member States promoting electromobility, a number of actions were announced focused on
enabling electric mobility.76 In the Communication, EC observes that: “Electrifying transport is
expected to lead to an increase in overall electricity demand, albeit not sudden given that the
market introduction of electric vehicles will be gradual. However, especially if vehicles are charged
at peak times, additional demand could lead to a need to install additional, potentially carbonintensive power generation capacity. The risk can be mitigated if rechargeable vehicles are fully
integrated into the electricity grid towards the implementation of smart grids, smart metering and
appropriate consumer incentives as well as with other business models, such as exchange of
batteries.”77
3.2 Overview of Hydrogen and FCV initiatives. Coming back to hydrogen and FCV, in this
subparagraph it is given an overview of the initiatives started in the US and EU.
3.2.1 Hydrogen and FCV in the US. In 2003 President Bush announced the Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative [HFI]78, a USD 1.2 billion commitment over 5 years to accelerate hydrogen related
research to overcome obstacles in taking hydrogen FCV from the laboratory to the market.
The US Federal strategy on hydrogen and fuel cell is based on the Energy Policy Act of 2005
[EPACT].79 EPACT (Title VIII) promoted an integrated approach to move these technologies from
the labs to the market in which the Research and Development phase financing are strictly linked to
the Deployment phase and the Industrial Development.80 EPACT fixed only 2 simple goals
regarding hydrogen vehicles penetration in the market. The DOE’s Secretary shall submit to
Congress reports describing progress made towards achieving the goal of producing and deploying
not less than 100,000 hydrogen-fuelled vehicles in the US by 2010; and 2,500,000 hydrogen-fuelled
vehicles by 2020. In order to meet these goals it identified research and development programs and
demonstration projects and provided consistent funds appropriations.81 Thanks to EPACT the DOE
has all the necessary elements to define an effective FCV introduction into the US market phase
program in the 2010-2015 period, led by public institutions.82
In recent years DOE has published different documents, also in reply to the specific EPACT
requests. The “Hydrogen Goal-Setting Methodologies Report to Congress”83 (2006) summarizes
the processes used to set Hydrogen Program goals and milestones. The “Hydrogen Posture
Plan”84 (2006) outlines a coordinated plan for activities under the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI).
This document serves as an update of the previous plan (2004) to integrate ongoing and future
hydrogen research, development, and demonstration activities into a focused Hydrogen Program.
The “Hydrogen, Fuel Cell and Infrastructure Technologies Program: Multi-Year Research,
Development and Demonstration Program Plan”85 (2007 new edition) reflects the technical
progress made since inception (2005) and the improved forecasts that come from actual experience
(in 2009 the 2007 edition was partially revisited). The “Effects of Transition to a Hydrogen
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
7
Economy on Employment in the United States Report to Congress” 86 (2008) well depicted the
relevance of these technologies in the future US economy.
The “Report to Congress Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Activities, Progress, and Plans”87 (January
2009) described the HFI Program progress. In particular:
the reduction of the projected cost of hydrogen production
from distributed natural gas from USD 5 to USD 3 per gge
(achieved upper range of the Program’s 2015 hydrogen
production cost target: USD 2-3/gge); the reduction of the
projected, high-volume manufacturing cost of automotive
FC systems from USD 275/kW in 2002 to USD 73/kW in
2008 (adjourned at $61/kW in 200988; see Figure 3,
DOE89) and improving the durability of FC systems from
950 hours in 2006 to 1900 hours in 2008 (the Program’s
2015 targets are USD 30/kW and 5000 hour durability,
which will enable FC to be competitive with current
gasoline ICE systems). This progress has kept the Program on track to meet critical path technology
goals by 2015 and will enable industry to make decisions regarding commercialization of FCV and
fueling infrastructure in the 2020 timeframe. However, in DOE’s assessment90 fuel cell cost is still
too high and durability still too low to enable industry to meet the deployment goal of 100,000
Hydrogen-Fueled Vehicles [HFV] by 2010, as specified in EPACT sec. 811. Furthermore, while FC
technology development is currently on track to meet the Program’s 2015 technology-readiness
targets, it is too early to determine whether industry can achieve the 2020 vehicle deployment goal
of 2.5 million HFV identified in EPACT sec. 811.
The “Annual Progress Report”91 (2009) underlined that, during 2009, the Program increased its
focus on a new activity “market transformation” to help promote the widespread commercialization
of fuel cell power systems. 92
In February 2009 the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act93, a USD 787 billion economic
stimulus package, provided a temporary increase in credit for FCV refueling property, and new
credit for investment in qualifying advanced energy manufacturing facility (also for production of
fuel cell)94 and financed new project for USD 41,9 million.95
In March 2009, President Obama described the hydrogen (FCV) car as “a whole new level of
technology. That's what's going to create the auto industry of the future.”96
In May 2009, DOE proposed a cut of 2010 Hydrogen Program budget by around 60% and the
Secretary of Energy explained that FCV "will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years".97 In
September 2009, Congress has expressly rejected the DOE’s proposal, passing a FY2010
spending bill that provided USD 174 million for hydrogen and fuel cells (more than twice as
requests for DOE). In February 2010, DOE proposed to reduce funding for hydrogen and fuel
cell programs also in FY2011 (proposed USD 137 million budget), without provision for new
vehicle deployment under the Technology Validation program.98
As announced99, early in 2010, DOE will release the “Fuel Cell Program Plan” in replacement of
current “Posture Plan”.
3.2.2 Hydrogen and FCV in EU. The potential of hydrogen as a transport fuel for the future was
acknowledged in the Green Paper: Toward a European strategy for the security of energy
supply100 (2000) that underlined the European energy import growing dependence. In 2002, the EC
announced ambitious plans to promote hydrogen and launch the High Level Group on Hydrogen
and Fuel Cells advice.101 In 2004, the European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Platform
[HFP] that involves the key European industrial partners and other stakeholders was launched. The
platform contributed to the development of a European strategy for R&D of hydrogen and fuel cells
technologies and stimulated the development of public-private partnership to implement its research
agenda and deployment strategy. During 2005 HFP published the “Strategic Research Agenda”102
[SRA], the “Deployment Strategy”103 [DS] and the “Deployment Strategy Progress Report
2005”104. The “Implementation Plan – Status 2006”105 (2007) report defines an Implementation
Plan for a European Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Program from 2007-2015.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
8
The European Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan106 [SET Plan], has identified fuel cells
and hydrogen among the technologies needed for EU to achieve the 20-20-20 targets as well as to
achieve the long-term vision for 2050 towards decarbonisation. In July 2008 SET Plan proposed six
European Industrial Initiatives107 for the most promising technologies. In October 2008 the EC,
the European Industry and the European Research Community, announced a public-private Fuel
Cell and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative, that will invest together nearly EUR 1 billion in
the 2008-2013 timeframe in fuel cells and hydrogen research, technological development and
demonstration. The Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking108 [FCH JU] will implement an
integrated research and demonstration program, based on the SRA and DS of the HFP, with the aim
of accelerating the emergence of a hydrogen-oriented energy economy in Europe. For transport
applications FCH JU will deliver robust hydrogen and fuel cell technologies developed to the point
of commercial takeoff in 2015, with a view to large-scale mass market roll-out by 2020. In May
2009, the FCH JU “Multi-Annual Implementation Plan 2008–2013”109 shows the 2015 EU
target. For transport they are: 500 Light Duty Vehicles (mainly cars) at 3 additional sites with 3 new
stations; 500 buses at 10 EU sites (of which at least 7 new ones) with refueling stations; FC system
cost of approx. EUR 100/kW and 5000 hours of durability in FC powertrain.110
In December 2008 the European Council approved a EUR 200 billion European Economic
Recovery Plan111 [EERP] to drive Europe's recovery from the economic crisis. To support
innovation in manufacturing, in particular in the construction industry and the automobile sector,
the EERP proposed to launch 3 major public-private partnerships. In the automobile sector, a
European Green Cars Initiative [EGCI] was proposed, involving research on a broad range of
technologies and smart energy infrastructures essential to achieve a breakthrough in the use of
renewable and non-polluting energy sources. The partnership would be funded by the Community,
the European Investment Bank [EIB], industry and Member States' contributions with a combined
envelope of at least EUR 5 billion.112 A first round of calls for the EGCI with a total budget of EUR
108 million was launched in July 2009.
In October 2009 in the Communication "Investing in the development of low-carbon energy
technologies"113, EC estimates that an additional investment of EUR 50 billion114 in energy
technology research will be needed over the next 10 years in the SET Plan framework. For
hydrogen and fuel cell, the additional public and private funding needed was estimated in
EUR 5 billion for the period 2013-2020.115 In March 2010, the European Parliament adopt a
resolution116 on investing in the development of low carbon technologies (SET Plan) that
incorporates all the necessary funding already identified by EC for hydrogen and fuel cell.
On April 28, 2010, the EC “Communication on EU strategy on clean and energy efficient
vehicles”117 underlined that global trend towards sustainable transport shows that the EU
automotive industry can only remain competitive by leading in green technologies and this requires
a progressive shift from today's situation.118 Two tracks are followed simultaneously by this
strategy: promoting clean and energy efficient vehicles based on conventional internal
combustion engines and facilitating the deployment of breakthrough technologies in ultralow-carbon vehicles (electric and hydrogen fuel cell). An EC Action Plan was announced, that
also includes: measures for continue the legislative programme on vehicle emission reduction
including its mid-term review; initiatives supporting research and innovation in green
technologies119 and market uptake120; specific actions relative to global issues121 and electric
vehicles. Finally, EC proposes: to re-launch the CARS 21 High Level Group, to implement the
strategy to reduce CO2 emissions from road vehicles under the European Climate Change
Programme (ECCP) and to ensure the integration of this strategy into the overall EU transport
policy with the forthcoming “White Paper on the Future of Transport”.
3.3 Carmakers Initiatives. On September 9, 2010, Daimler AG announced that the leading
vehicle manufacturers in fuel cell technology –Daimler, Ford Motor, General Motors/Opel,
Honda, Hyundai, Kia, the alliance Renault-Nissan and Toyota– gave a joint statement to the
development and market introduction of electric vehicles with fuel cells with a Letter of
Understanding [LoU].122 This initiative marks a major step towards the serial production of such
emission-free vehicles. The signing carmakers strongly anticipate that from 2015 onwards a quite
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
9
significant number of electric vehicles with fuel cell could be commercialised. This number is
aimed at a few hundred thousand units over life cycle on a worldwide basis. As every carmaker
will implement its own specific production and commercial strategies as well as timelines,
commercialisation of electric vehicles with fuel cells may occur earlier than in the 2015. In order to
ensure a successful market introduction of electric vehicles with fuel cells, a hydrogen infrastructure
has to be built up with sufficient density. The signing manufacturers strongly support the idea of
building-up a hydrogen infrastructure in Europe, with Germany as regional starting point and at the
same time developing similar concepts for the market penetration of hydrogen infrastructure in
other regions of the world, including the USA, Japan and Korea as further starting points.123
On September 10, 2010, in Berlin leading industrial companies signed a Memorandum of
Understanding [MoU], chaired by the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban
Development, and finalized to the evaluation of the setup of a hydrogen infrastructure in
Germany and to promote serial production of electric vehicles with fuel-cell. The partners of the
initiative “H2 Mobility”124 are Daimler, EnBW, Linde, OMV, Shell, Total, Vattenfall and the
NOW GmbH. The MoU comprises two phases. Phase One includes the evaluation of options for
an area-wide roll-out of hydrogen fuelling stations in Germany by 2011. Subject to the positive and
satisfactory outcome of such a business case agreement the partners will implement the
corresponding action plan in Phase Two. The nation-wide roll-out of hydrogen fuelling stations will
be continued; supporting the introduction of series produced hydrogen powered vehicles in
Germany around 2015.
4. Hydrogen and FCV, Possible Copenhagen Accord Instruments?
In long-term perspective hydrogen and FCV are part of the low-carbon technologies present in the
current debate about the goal to achieve 80% or more reduction in GHG by 2050.
But today hydrogen and FCV are not sufficiently considered as a relevant solution in the debate
regarding the 2020 Copenhagen Accord timeline. Is this a correct perspective?
The US the EPACT paves the way for the 2015 FCV market feasibility, the recent EC
“Communication strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles” in EU and the carmakers LoU
globally, give new real perspective to FCV.
But, in order to answer the question if hydrogen and FCV should be considered as possible
Copenhagen Accord instruments, it is necessary to evaluate the relevance of FCV in the road
transport. For this proposal it is necessary to quantify the number of FCV on the road in the US and
EU by 2020.
4.1 The FCV data. In this analysis I use only different public scenarios data elaborated and/or fixed
by policy-makers (or requested by).
4.1.1 US data. The “Energy Policy Act” of 2005125 fixed the goals of producing and deploying not
less than 100,000 hydrogen-fuelled vehicles in the US by 2010 and 2.5 million hydrogen-fuelled
vehicles by 2020.
The ORNL-DOE “Analysis of the Transition to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles and the Potential
Hydrogen Energy Infrastructure Requirements”126 (March 2008) examined three FCV
penetration scenarios.127
The National Research Council “Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies: A
Focus on Hydrogen”128 (July 2008) concluded that the maximum practical number of HFCVs that
could be operating in 2020 would be approximately 2 million in a fleet of 280 million light-duty
vehicles. The number of HFCVs could grow rapidly thereafter to about 25 million by 2030.
The DOE “Report to Congress Effects of Transition to a Hydrogen Economy on Employment
in the United States”129 (October 2008) depicted the relevance of these technologies in the future
US economy and give two FCV penetration scenarios in the US market.130
4.1.2 EU data. The HFP “Implementation Plan – Status 2006”131 report (March 2007) accepted
as a reference market scenario the “Snapshot 2020” data (as depicted in the “Deployment Strategy”
- August 2005132): a maximum penetration target for hydrogen and fuel cell passenger cars by 2020
in the range of 1– 3% of the total passenger car fleet (a minimum of 1 million FCV and a maximum
of 5 million), corresponding to sales of 0.4 – 1.8 million FCV per year range.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
10
The HyWays “The European Hydrogen Roadmap”133 (February 2008) created a roadmap based
on country-specific analysis134, together with an Action Plan detailing the steps necessary to move
towards greater use of hydrogen.135 The “Summary of the deployment phases’ targets and main
actions outlined in the Roadmap and Action Plan” showed that 2.5 million FCV will be on the
European roads by 2020 and 25 million by 2030.136
4.2 FCV Relevance on Road Transport by 2020. The US and EU scenarios data collection and
analysis show that:
 In the US, the average value of FCV on the road by 2020 in the above seven scenarios is
2.54 million or around 0.9% of the 2020 cars and light truck fleets137 and, by 2025, the
average value in the above three scenarios is 5.54 million;
 In EU27, the average value of FCV on the road by 2020 in the above three scenarios is
2.83 million or around 1.08% of the EU27 cars and light truck 2006 fleets.138
FCV car fleet penetration remains at a low level by 2020: around 1% of the total, in each
area. Also considering that FCV were zero emission vehicles [ZEV] that have a direct and positive
impact in road transport CO2 emission reduction, the relevance is limited (in the US, using green
hydrogen, around 13 million ton/year). So, it seems correct to consider hydrogen and FCV only in
long-term perspective and not as one possible solution also in the 2020 time-frame.139 But, in my
opinion, this is not completely correct because the impact in road transport is only a part of the
possible FCV contributes against the climate change concern.
4.3 FCV Parked in Vehicle-to-Grid Mode: a Bridge Between Mobility and Distributed
Generation. Currently more than 90% of vehicles are parked, even during peak traffic hours. In this
situation the vehicle power generation system fuel cell based (FC powertrain), if properly equipped,
could become a new power generation source, supplying electricity to homes and to the grid like a
new type of distributed generation: Vehicle-to-Grid [V2G].
Academics, public and private operators well know the V2G concept.140 V2G could be realized
indifferently with EV141 and FCV, but only in the case of FCV we are in presence of a real new
power generation capacity GHG emission free: the FC powertrains.142
FCV in a V2G mode may profitably provide power to the grid when they are parked and connected
to an electrical outlet. In this perspective literature analyzed also the economic aspects.143 FCV have
significant potential revenue streams from V2G, on peak power production, but it is possible to
obtain higher return offering a series of high-value ancillary services to the grid. If well
implemented, the FCV potential revenue streams from V2G could help to reduce the initial high
FCV costs, reducing in this way also the amount of public subsidy and incentives that all the
analyzed scenarios needed in order to support the introduction of this low-carbon transport
technology by 2020.
4.4 FCV (Parked in V2G Mode) Relevance on Power Sector by 2020. If FCV, properly
equipped and parked in V2G mode, become a new power generation source supplying electricity to
homes and to the grid, it is necessary also to evaluate the relevance of FCV compared to the power
sector.
Considering an 80 kW FC powertrain144, the US and EU scenarios data collection shows that:
 In the US, 200 GW of new V2G power generation capacity will be installed on 2.5
million FCV on the road by 2020 (according to EPACT 2020 goal);
 In EU27, 227 GW of new V2G power generation capacity will be installed on 2.8
million FCV on the road by 2020 (according to scenarios average).
According to EIA-AEO (2009, reference case145) in the US power sector the installed generation
capacity will increase from 968 GW in 2007 to 1,165 GW in 2030. As over 60 GW of existing
plants will be retired before 2030, a total of some 259 GW of generating capacity needs to be built.
According to EC DG-TREN (2008, baseline scenario146) in EU27 power sector the installed
generation capacity will increase from 739 GW in 2005 to 966 GW in 2030. 666 GW of new power
plants will be commissioned before 2030 (of which around 130 GW are under construction).
Almost half of the installed capacity in 2005 is expected to be decommissioned (394 GW).
 In the US, the 200 GW of new V2G power generation capacity is equal to 20.4% of the
2008147 power sector capacity or 77.8% of the US new generating capacity forecasted
to be installed in the period 2007-2030.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
11
 In EU27, the 227 GW of new V2G power generation capacity is equal to 29.7% of the
2006148 power sector capacity or 34.0% of the EU27 new generating capacity
forecasted to be installed in the period 2006-2030 (or 42.3% of capacity needs to be built
net of plant under construction).
By 2020, the relevance of FCV in V2G perspective is considerable if compared to the power
sector dimension.
5 Conclusion: Hydrogen and FCV, Possible Copenhagen Accord Instruments
By 2020 FCV car fleet penetration remains at low level, around 1% of the total in US and EU, and
the relevance in road transport sector CO2 emission reduction is limited. Based only on these
results, and in a perspective of road transport sectoral approach, it is correct to consider hydrogen
and FCV as a possible solution against the climate change concern only in long-term perspective.
But, if FCV, properly equipped and parked in V2G mode, become a new power generation source
supplying electricity to homes and to the grid, it is necessary to evaluate the FCV relevance also
with regard to the power sector. Based on the above analysis the new V2G power generation
capacity installed on FCV on the road by 2020 in the US and EU is in a range between 20.4% and
29.7% of the present installed generation capacity, or in a range between 34.0% and 77.8% of the
new generating capacity foreseen to be installed until 2030. By 2020, the relevance of FCV
compared to the power sector is considerable.
In conclusion, considering the FCV relevance on the road transport and, when parked in V2G
mode, also on the power sector, it is correct to consider hydrogen and FCV as one of the
feasible and possible solutions not only in a long-term perspective, but also a in the Post Kyoto
Perspective and in the 2020 Copenhagen Accord timeline.
In order to support an effective deployment of hydrogen and FCV by 2020, it seems to be necessary
to rapidly make aware about these considerations all properly subjects interested.
1 - Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address < http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address >
January 2010.
2 - United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: < http://unfccc.int/essential_background/feeling_the_heat/items/2916.php >.
3 - Kyoto Protocol: < http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php >.
4 - Idem. The major distinction between the Protocol and the Convention is that while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize
GHG emissions in the atmosphere as a result of more than 150 years of industrial activity, the Protocol commits them to do so.
5 - Idem. Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures. However, it offers them an additional means of
meeting their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms: Emissions Trading (known as “the carbon market"); Clean Development
Mechanism; Joint implementation. The mechanisms help stimulate green investment and help Parties meet their emission targets in a cost-effective
way. Under the Protocol, countries’ actual emissions have to be monitored and precise records have to be kept of the trades carried out.
6 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: < http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.html > IPCC, “Fourth Assessment Report” (AR4), 2007. <
http://www.ipcc.ch/# >.
7 - R K Pachauri, IPCC, “Acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the IPCC”. Oslo 10 December 2007.
< http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/speeches/nobel-peace-prize-oslo-10-december-2007.pdf > and
< http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/index.html >.
8 - IPCC “AR4 2007”, “Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report - Summary for Policymakers” p. 21: < http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf >.
9 - IEA, “Energy Technology Perspectives 2008” [ETP 2008], p. 38: < http://www.iea.org/w/bookshop/add.aspx?id=330 >.
10 - 2005 G8 Gleneagles (UK), “The Gleneagles Communiqué”
< http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20080205132101/www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_Communique,0.pdf >.
11 - Idem, n. 11 a.
12 - 2007 G8 Heiligendamm (Germany), “Chairs Summary”, n. I: < http://www.g-8.de/Content/EN/Artikel/__g8-summit/anlagen/chairssummary,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/chairs-summary.pdf >.
13 - 2008 G8 Hokkaido Toyako (Japan), “G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit - Leaders Declaration” n. 23 < http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/
economy/summit/2008/doc/doc080714__en.html >. In 2009, at G20 London (UK) summit and at G8-Energy Rome (Italy) meetings, these
commitments were reaffirmed. 2009 G20 London (UK), “London Summit – Leaders’ Statement”, n. 27 and 28: <
http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/resources/en/news/15766232/communique-020409 >. 2009 G8-Energy Rome (Italy), “Joint Statement by the G8
Energy Ministers and the European Energy Commissioner”, n. 1 and 2: < http://www.g8energy2009.it/pdf/G8+EC.pdf >.
14 - 2008 G8 Hokkaido Toyako (Japan), “G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit - Leaders Declaration”, cit. n. 25.
15 - N. Tanaka, IEA, “Energy and Climate Policy” presentation. 2009 G8-Energy Rome (Italy). IEA identified 19 roadmaps. “Supply side: CCS
power generation; Coal – IGCC; Coal – USCSC; Nuclear III + IV; Solar – PV; Solar – CSP; Wind; Biomass – IGCC & co-combustion; Electricity
networks; 2nd generation biofuels. Demand side: Energy efficiency in buildings; Energy efficient motor systems; Efficient ICEs; Heat pumps; Plugins and electric vehicles; Fuel cell vehicles; Industrial CCS; Solar heating; Efficient industry processes (starting with Cement).” <
http://www.g8energy2009.it/pdf/27.05/Mr_Tanaka_Climate_Change_G8_Energy_May_2009_NN.pdf >.
16 - See: IEA, “ETP 2008”, cit. - In the IEA’s ETP 2008, FCV account for 33% to 50% of total car sales in the OECD and half those in the rest of the
world by 2050 in BLUE scenarios that assume a significant increase in research spending over the next decade and rapid reductions in unit costs. See:
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
12
IEA, “World Energy Outlook 2008” [WEO 2008], p. 101 <
http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2008/weo2008.pdf > and <
http://www.iea.org/w/bookshop/add.aspx?id=353 >.
17 - IEA, “Ensuring Green Growth in a Time of Economic Crisis: The Role of Energy Technology”. 2009 G8-Environment Siracusa (Italy), p. 5 <
http://www.g8ambiente.it/public/images/20090422/docita/IEA%20-%20Ensuring%20Green%20Growth%20.pdf >.
18 - 2009 G8-Energy Rome (Italy), N. Tanaka, IEA, “The Impact of the Financial and Economic Crisis on Global Energy Investment”, cit.
“Fortunately, many countries recognize this and around USD $100 billion or 5% of the total $2.6 trillion of public spending in short-term economic
stimulus packages announced to date has been directed at energy efficiency and clean energy.” The largest share of green packages was found in
China. “Press conference by head of UNFCCC to update status of negotiations (New York (USA) May 2009 - <
http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs//2009/090514_Climate_Change.doc.htm >).
19 - 2009 G20 London (UK) Summit, Official communiqué < http://www.londonsummit.gov.uk/resources/en/PDF/final-communique >.
20 - 2009 G8 L'Aquila (Italy) Leaders Declaration: “Responsible Leadership for a Sustainable Future”
< http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/G8_Declaration_08_07_09_final,0.pdf >.
21 - 2009 MEF - Major Economies Forum L’Aquila (Italy) Meeting, “Declaration of the Leaders the Major Economies Forum on Energy and
Climate” < http://www.g8italia2009.it/static/G8_Allegato/MEF_Declarationl.pdf >.
22 - IEA, “World Energy Outlook 2009” < http://www.iea.org/W/bookshop/add.aspx?id=388 >.
23 - The Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009 < http://unfccc.int/home/items/5262.php > and
< http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/11a01.pdf#page=4 >.
24 - Idem. Point 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12.
25 - See: IEA: ”Responding to Climate Change: A Brief Comment on International Emissions Reduction Pledges” April 2010 <
http://www.iea.org/journalists/docs/pledges.pdf >; Climate Action Tracker (developed by Ecofys, Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for
Climate Impact Research - PIK): Press release “Ambition of Only 2 Developed Countries Sufficient for Copenhagen Accord Meeting 2°C Target”
February < http://www.climateactiontracker.org/pr_2010_02_02.pdf >; Project Catalyst: (an initiative of the ClimateWorks Foundation): “Taking
stock – the emission levels implied by the pledges to the Copenhagen Accord” February 2010 < http://projectcatalyst.info/images/publications/project_catalyst_taking_stock_february22_2010.pdf >; Climate Interactive (researchers from Sustainability
Institute, the MIT Sloan School of Management, Ventana Systems): “Copenhagen Accord Pledges Do Not Meet Climate Goals” February 2010 <
http://climateinteractive.org/scoreboard/press/copenhagen-cop15-analysis-and-pressreleases/Copenhagen%20Accord%20Submissions%20Press%20Release%204%20February%202010.pdf >.
26 - IMF, “World Economic Outlook. Housing and the Business Cycle” 2008: < http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/pdf/text.pdf >.
27 - IEA, “Review of International Policies for Vehicle Fuel Efficiency”, 2008. P. 12 < http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2008/Vehicle_Fuel.pdf >.
28 - IPCC: "Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” [IPCC AR4 WGIII], 2007,
<
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg3_report_mitigation_of_climate_change.htm
>.
Technical Summary, < http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-ts.pdf >.
29 - If this category is extended to include motor scooters and three-wheelers, two billion private motor vehicles may be on the roads as early as 2020.
MEF - Major Economies Forum, “Advanced Vehicles – Technology Action Plan” 2009
< http://www.majoreconomiesforum.org/images/stories/documents/MEF%20Advanced%20Vehicles%20TAP%2013Dec2009.pdf >.
30 - UNFCCC Kyoto Protocol: < http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf >.
31 - UNFCCC, Article 4.1(c): < http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf >.
32 - IPCC AR4 WG3, Chapter 5 < http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter5.pdf >.
33 - Idem.
34 - IEA, “World Energy Outlook 2009” cit.
35 - IEA 2009 “Transport, Energy and CO2: Moving Toward Sustainability” < http://www.iea.org/w/bookshop/add.aspx?id=365 >.
36 - Idem. Executive Summary < http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/transport2009SUM.pdf >.
37 - US “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” [EISA]
< http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/12/print/20071219-6.html >. Text:
< http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf >.
38 - President Obama Announces National Fuel Efficiency Policy < http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-AnnouncesNational-Fuel-Efficiency-Policy/ >.
39 - That’s four years earlier than required under the current standards, established by EISA 2007 and with a current miles average equal to 27.5 mpg
for cars and 23.1 mpg for trucks. < http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&sid=aKUXiuTCkyhw >
40 - MEF, “Advanced Vehicles – Technology Action Plan” 2009, cit.
41 - EPA <http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/562b44f2588b871a852576f800544e01!OpenDocument>.
42 - H.R.2454 - American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (bill also known as Waxman-Markey) < http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111h2454/show >, text: < http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/text >.
43 - H.R. 2454 Summary < http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02454:@@@D&summ2=m& >.
44 - Climate change: Commission welcomes final adoption of Europe's climate and energy package, December 2008 <
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1998 >. European Council: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council setting emission performance standards for new passenger cars as part of the Community's integrated approach to reduce CO2 emissions
from light-duty vehicles < register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st03/st03741.en08.pdf >.
45 - Idem. Deals were hammered out on revisions to the emissions trading system, the distribution of the reduction effort outside of the emissions
trading system, a legal framework for environmentally safe carbon capture and storage as well as on the related proposals on CO2 emissions from
cars and on fuel quality.
46 - Idem. Passenger cars account for about 12% of all Community CO2 emissions and are a key contributor to GHG emissions in the non-ETS
sector.
47 - This is to be achieved in two ways: A reduction to 130gr CO2 / km through engine technology plus an additional cut of 10gr CO2 / km through
more efficient vehicle features, for instance air-conditioning systems or tyres. See: Council of the European Union “Council adopts climate-energy
legislative package” < http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ueDocs/newsWord/en/misc/107136.doc >.
48 - Idem. In 2012, 65 % of their car fleet must meet the target, in 2013 75 % and in 2014 80 %. From 2015, the whole fleet needs to comply with the
CO2 emissions objective.
49 - Penalties mechanism: until 2018 penalties of EUR 5 per gram for the first 1 gram of excess, EUR 15 for the second gram of excess, EUR 25 for
the third gram of excess and EUR 95 for all subsequent excess emissions; after 2018, all excess emissions would be charged at EUR 95 per gram.
Incentive mechanism: Eco-innovations: The CO2 emissions benefits of some automotive technologies cannot currently be measured under the EU's
regulatory test procedures which underpin the Regulation. Until the review of the test procedure (due by 2014), each manufacturer will be able to
discount up to 7g/km from its fleet average emissions due to such eco-innovations. Flex-fuel vehicles: An additional incentive for flex-fuel vehicles is
included for those vehicles that are capable of running on E85 (a mixture of petrol with 85% ethanol). Ultra-low carbon vehicles: Each registered
vehicle that emits below 50 grams per km of CO2 will obtain supercredits, i.e. it will be treated as if it were more than one vehicle for the purpose of
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
13
calculating a manufacturer's average CO2 level. The multiplier is 3.5 for the years 2012 and 2013, 2.5 in ’14, 1.5 in ‘15 and no multiplier from 2016
onwards. < http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/08/799&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en >.
50 - Idem. By 2013, the Commission has to review the modalities for reaching this target.
51 - Of which about 0.7 million of those sales were made with the public stimulus of a “cash for clunkers” program.
52 - And announced a plan for a strategic partnership with Fiat Group. Fiat hold a 20% stake in the new company, with an option to increase this to
35%.
53 - GM is now temporarily majority owned by the United States Treasury and, to a smaller extent, the Canada Development Investment Corporation
and the Ontario government, with the US government investing a total of USD 57.6 billion under the Troubled Asset Relief Program.
54 - ACEA European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association:
< http://www.acea.be/index.php/news/news_detail/car_production_in_2009_at_lowest_level_since_1996/ >.
55 - US EISA 2007 cit., Sec. 131.
56 - In this sense see: EC Communication “A European strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles”, 28 April 2010 (infra); or “European Strategy
on Clean and Energy-Efficient Vehicles Public Hearing”, 2010, Question n. 4:
< http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/pagesbackground/competitiveness/public_hearing_questions_en.pdf >.
A correct indication is provided by “A sustainable future for transport Towards an integrated, technology-led and user-friendly system”, 2009, p. 23:
“The 21st century will most likely see the replacement of vehicles relying on the internal combustion engine by electric vehicles, including fuel-cell
vehicles which belong to this family. Fuel-cell vehicles are electric vehicles which are capable of producing their own electricity out of hydrogen.”
< http://ec.europa.eu/transport/publications/doc/2009_future_of_transport_en.pdf >.
57 - See: MEF, “Advanced Vehicles – Technology Action Plan” 2009, cit.
58 - Idem. If all announced targets were achieved, about 2 million EVs/PHEVs would be sold by 2015 and about 4 million by 2020.
59 - IEA 2009, Technology Roadmaps Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles < http://www.iea.org/Papers/2009/EV_PHEV_Roadmap.pdf >.
60 - In 2010, see: Nissan - February 2010, Secretary Chu Announces Closing of $1.4 Billion Loan to Nissan <
http://www.energy.gov/news/print/8581.htm
>;
March
2010,
Nissan
roadmap:
500,000
electric
cars
by
2012
<
http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/chi-nissan-leaf-031610,0,6036507,print.story >; Fisker - April 2010, Department of Energy
Announces Closing of $529 Million Loan to Fisker Automotive < http://www.energy.gov/news/print/8890.htm >; Tesla - January 2010, Secretary
Chu Announces Closing of $465 Million Loan to Tesla Motors < http://www.energy.gov/news/print/8538.htm >; BYD - March 2010, BYD to
assemble cars in America < http://www.examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner~y2010m3d10-BYD-to-assemble-cars-in-America >.
61 - Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies; National Research Council 2009, “Transitions to
Alternative Transportation Technologies--Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles”, December 2009, < http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12826 >.
62 - Idem. Assembled battery packs currently cost about $1,700/kWh of usable energy. A PHEV-10 mile will require about 2.0 kWh and a PHEV-40
mile about 8 kWh. Costs are expected to decline by about 35% by 2020 but more slowly thereafter. Projections of future battery pack costs are
uncertain, as they depend on the rate of improvements in battery technology and manufacturing techniques, potential breakthroughs in new
technology, possible relaxation of battery protection parameters as experience is gained, and the level of production, among other factors. Further
research is needed to reduce costs and achieve breakthroughs in battery technology.
63 - Idem. The incremental cost of a PHEV-10 would be about $6,300, including a $3,300 battery pack. In addition, some homes will require
electrical system upgrades, which might cost more than $1,000.
64 - Joint report by the European Technology Platforms ERTRAC, EPoSS and SmartGrids “Roadmap Electrification of Road Transport”, version 3.5
October 2009, < http://www.green-cars-initiative.eu/documents/Roadmap%20Electrification.pdf/at_download/file >, “The cost and supply
constraints of the battery pack are acknowledged to be the most limiting factors for the wide scale introduction of electric vehicles. Making a detailed
analysis of the raw materials used in the current state of the art Li-ion technology their selling price may be expected to reach affordable values at
below 200€/kWh in the mid-term.”
65 - IEA October 2009 “Transport, Energy and CO2: Moving Toward Sustainability” cit. p 147, “Li-ion batteries costs are expected to decline over
time, once the demand for such batteries reaches a critical mass. (…) With high-volume production, beyond 100000 units (and up to millions,
eventually), Li-ion batteries designed for EVs with a 150 km range appear likely to cost in the order of USD 500/kWh. With learning and
optimisation, this is expected to drop to below USD 400 by 2015 or 2020, depending on the cumulative number of EVs produced over this time
period. Costs of Li-ion batteries for PHEV will be higher per kWh, as these will need to be designed with greater power density, and battery costs rise
with power density. For conventional hybrids, the cost per kWh will likely be higher still.
A Li-ion battery suitable for a conventional hybrid vehicle is expected to cost in the order of USD 900/kWh in the near term, dropping over time
(and once production volumes increase to about 100000 packs) to less than USD 700/kWh and eventually reaching USD 460 for very large
production volumes. With vehicles needing about 1 kWh of storage capacity, total battery costs for conventional hybrid vehicles are likely to be close
to USD 1000 at present.
For PHEVs, batteries are estimated to cost up to USD 6000 in the near term for battery packs of 8 kWh, sufficient for a range of 30 km to 40 km on
electricity alone. Significant increases of production volumes and improved battery characteristics are expected to bring costs down to about USD
420/kWh. In this case, the total cost of a set of battery packs could drop to USD 3000 or less.
EVs, with a higher energy-to-power ratio, will need much larger battery capacities. Battery costs per kWh will likely be around 25% to 35% lower
than those for conventional hybrids and about 15% to 30% lower of those for PHEVs. A mass-produced Li-ion battery pack sized to deliver about 30
kWh, giving a driving range of around 150 km, is expected to cost around USD 500/kWh to USD 600/kWh in the near term, equivalent to a total cost
of USD 16000 to USD 20000 per vehicle. As volumes increase and with learning, a more fully optimised battery will eventually cost less, maybe
USD 400/kWh to USD 500/kWh by 2015-2020. In the longer term (i.e. 2020 and beyond), a high-volume cost target of USD 350/kWh seems
reasonable for a 150 km EV. Larger battery packs, suitable for EVs with longer ranges (e.g. 400 km), could cost even less per kWh, but given the
capacity of the battery packs that would be needed in such vehicles; these would still be large, heavy and expensive.
66 - See: IEA 2009, Technology Roadmaps Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles, cit. and European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change
EIONET, 2009 Technical Paper “Environmental impacts and impact on the electricity market of a large scale introduction of electric cars in Europe Critical Review of Literature” < http://air-climate.eionet.europa.eu/docs/ETCACC_TP_2009_4_electromobility.pdf >.
67 - By the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008. See: < http://www.irs.gov/irb/2009-48_IRB/ar09.html >. The new qualified plug-in
electric drive motor vehicle credit phases out for a manufacturer’s vehicles over the one-year period beginning with the second calendar quarter after
the calendar quarter in which at least 200,000 qualifying vehicles manufactured by that manufacturer have been sold for use in the United States
(determined on a cumulative basis for sales after December 31, 2009) (“phase-out period”).
68
The
“American
Recovery
and
Reinvestment
Act
of
2009”,
Text:
<
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.pdf >.
69 - The US-China Clean Energy Announcements < http://www.energy.gov/news/documents/US-China_Fact_Sheet_Electric_Vehicles.pdf >.
70 - IEA 2009, Technology Roadmaps Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles, cit.
71 - Idem. Including Germany, Denmark, France, Spain and Portugal.
72 - See ACEA: < http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20100420_EV_tax_overview.pdf >.
73 - Joint report by the European Technology Platforms ERTRAC, EPoSS and SmartGrids “Roadmap Electrification of Road Transport” cit. It is
based on the consensus of major companies and organizations from the European Technology Platforms ERTRAC (European Road Transport
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
14
Research Advisory Council), EPoSS (European Technology Platform on Smart Systems Integration), and SmartGrids. And it argued about the
potential benefits of the electric vehicle and defines milestones for the next ten years about action to be taken with the aims to stimulate the debate
about the European Green Cars Initiative multi-annual implementation.
74 - Electric vehicle was prospected as one of the most interesting opportunities EU industry has and this in four essential areas: industrial,
technological, environmental and energy. But, in this perspective, it seems to be necessary to work hard to make Europe a world leader in electric car
sector.
See:
<
http://www.eu2010.es/en/documentosynoticias/entrevistas/feb08_entrevistasebastian.html
>
and
<
http://issuu.com/publishgold/docs/en_rim-s_sebastixn-nota_prensa >.
75 - 28 April 2010, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social
Committee: “A European strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles”
< http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/pagesbackground/competitiveness/com-2010-186_en.pdf >.
76 - Idem. Specific actions for electric vehicles: Placing on the market (Electric safety requirements, Crash Safety requirements); Standardisation
(Charging interface; Implementation of the standard; Global standards); Charging and re-fuelling Infrastructure; Energy, power generation and
distribution (Life-Cycle Approach; Low carbon energy sources; Load Management); Batteries (Research; Recycling and transportation).
Also, see: HIS – Global Insight “Battery Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles: The Definitive Assessment of the Business Case." <
http://www.ihsglobalinsight.com/Highlight/HighlightDetail17605.htm > “for battery electric vehicles studies forecast a market share in new car sales
of 1 to 2 % in 2020 rising to 11 to 30 % in 2030. For plug-in hybrid vehicles a share of 2 % is forecast in 2020, and 5 to 20 % by 2030”.
77 - 28 April 2010, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social
Committee: “A European strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles”, cit.
78 - 2003 State of the Union Address: < http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/01/print/20030128-19.html >.
79 - “U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005” < http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050808-6.html >, text of “U.S.
Energy Policy Act of 2005” : < http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/epact_05.pdf >.
80 - Idem. EPACT in Titles VIII and VII, promoted an integrated approach to move these technologies from the labs to the market in which the
financing of the Research and Development phase is strictly linked to the Demonstration and Commercialization phases. In this new comprehensive
approach that aims to support completely the new technologies from the labs to the market phase, the public financial institution activities should be
carried out in a harmonized way which differs from one stage to another. In the crucial pre-commercialization phase, all the public institutions, and in
particular all the Federal Agency, could play a fundamental role and have a tremendous and positive effect especially under the risk-financing profile
as defined by the EPACT Title VII Section 782: Federal and State procurement of Fuel Cell Vehicles and hydrogen energy systems. In this sense see
also: M. V. Romeri 2008, Paper “The Effects of the US Energy Policy Act 2005 (EPACT05) Over the Risk-Financing Spectrum in the Fuel Cell
Vehicle (FCV) Sector”. NHA XIX Hydrogen Conference 2008, Sacramento CA < http://www.hydrogenconference.org/08/content.asp?program >.
81 - EPACT cit. Globally it defines funding and appropriation for hydrogen and fuel cell Research & Development & Demonstration (R,D&D)
activities for more than USD 3.4 billion for the 2006-2010 period and such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2011 through 2020. Today,
USD 746 million for 2009, USD 900 million for 2010 and such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal year 2011 through 2020 were still authorized
to be appropriated by EPACT (sec. 782, 805, 808, 809 and 811) for HFI purposes.
82 - Idem. In this way the EPACT will be able to finance the pre-commercial financial gap and the US FCV sector should be able to bridge the
classic valley of death phase. In this sense see also: M. V. Romeri 2008 cit.
83 - August 2006, DOE “Hydrogen Goal-Setting Methodologies Report to Congress” < http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/goal_setting_report_
congress.pdf >.
84 - December 2006, DOE and DOT “Hydrogen Posture Plan” < http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/hydrogen_posture_plan_dec06.pdf >.
85 - October 2007, DOE “Hydrogen, Fuel Cell and Infrastructure Technologies Program: Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration
Program Plan” < http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp/ >.
86 - October 2008, DOE “Effects of Transition to a Hydrogen Economy on Employment in the United States Report to Congress” <
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/epact1820_employment_study.pdf >.
87 - January 2009, DOE “Report to Congress Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Activities, Progress, and Plans”, p. 2 and 3
< http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/epact_report_sec811.pdf >.
88 - DOE “2009 Annual Progress Report” < http://hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress09.html >.
89 - S. Satyapal “Overview of United States Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Activities” US DOE, Joint 12th IPHE Meeting, December 2009 <
http://www.iphe.net/docs/Meetings/USA_12-09/Country_Presentations/DOE%20Overview%20IPHE%202009%20Satyapal.pdf >.
90 - Largely based on HFCV first-generation technology (from 2003-2004 period). DOE “Report to Congress Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Activities,
Progress, and Plans”, January 2009, cit.
91 - DOE “2009 Annual Progress Report” cit.
92 - Idem. The goals of this effort are to increase opportunities for market expansion, gather valuable data from the operation of fuel cells in
integrated systems in real-world conditions, eliminate non-technical barriers such as codes and standards, accelerate user acceptance, help companies
bridge the “valley of death” between development and commercialization, and enable agencies to meet energy efficiency goals. The Program actively
collaborates with other agencies to facilitate federal deployment of fuel cells in key early markets, as well as integrated renewable hydrogen
production projects. By purchasing fuel cells to meet their energy needs, federal agencies can play a role in reducing technology cost, developing and
sustaining a domestic supplier base and in increasing public awareness of the technologies. The Program continues to collaborate with federal
agencies to deploy fuel cells at federal sites across the country. The Program initiated projects to install 43 emergency backup power systems at the
Federal Aviation Administration and Department of Defense (DOD) sites, and collaborated with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to deploy 40
material handling units. Plans are in place for DLA’s installment of 60 more units at three additional sites across the country. The Program is also
planning to deploy up to 75 emergency backup power units in collaboration with the Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, the
National Park Service, the Ohio National Guard, and several other DOD sites. In addition, the DOE National Laboratories are performing feasibility
studies examining the installation of stationary fuel cell systems at their facilities.
93 - The “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”, cit.
94 - Idem. Sec. 1123. Refueling: from 31/12/08 – 1/1/11 the credit is equal to USD 200.000 (instead USD 30.000). Sec 1302. Facility.
95 - Twelve projects ($41.9M over two years; $114.3M with cost share) to support the deployment of nearly 1,000 fuel cell systems for emergency
backup power and material handling applications (e.g., forklifts), as well as the demonstration of fuel cells for residential combined heat and power,
auxiliary power units, and portable applications. These projects were funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. DOE
“2009 Annual Progress Report” cit.
96 - Interview of the President by Jay Leno, “Tonight Show” < http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/interview-president-jay-leno-tonightshow-3-19-09 >.
97 - May 2009, U.S. Drops Research Into Fuel Cells for Cars < http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/science/earth/08energy.html >.
98 - See USFCC: < http://www.usfcc.com/resources/DOE_FY2011_Budget_Summary_2.1.10.pdf >.
99 - See: S. Satyapal “Overview of United States Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Activities” US DOE, Joint 12th IPHE Meeting, December 2009, cit.
100 - EC “Green Paper: Toward a European strategy for the security of energy supply” 2000
< http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52000DC0769:EN:HTML >.
101 - 2003 High Level Group for Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Technologies Report: “Hydrogen Energy and Fuel Cells - A Vision for Our Future”,
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
15
< http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/pdf/hlg_vision_report_en.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none >.
102 - European Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Technology Platform, “Strategic Research Agenda”, July 2005 < http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/pdf/hfpsra004_v9-2004_sra-report-final_22jul2005.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none >.
103 - European Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Technology Platform, “Deployment Strategy”, August 2005
< http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/pdf/hfp_ds_report_aug2005.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none >.
104 - European Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Technology Platform, “Deployment Strategy Progress Report 2005”, October 2005
< http://iea-hia-annex18.sharepointsite.net/Public/National%20Documents/Europe/Europe-E-HFP_DS_Progress_Report_2005_final.pdf >.
105 - European Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Technology Platform, “Implementation Plan – Status 2006”, March 2007. The Implementation Plan required
investment quantified at EUR 7.4 billion levels. < http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/pdf/hfp_ip06_final_20apr2007.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none >.
106 - Strategic Energy Technology (SET) Plan: < http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/07/1750&format
=HTML&aged=0&language=EN >.
107 - Idem. Wind, solar, bio-energy, CO2 capture, transport and storage (CCS), electricity grids and nuclear fission.
108 - Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking < http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/index_en.cfm > . The FCH JU is the legal entity, in which the
partners come together to implement activities.
109 - 2009 FCH JU “Multi-Annual Implementation Plan 2008–2013” < http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/pdf/fch_ju_multi_annual_implement
_plan.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none >.
110 - Idem, p.7 Table 1.
111 - “European Economic Recovery Plan” 2008. The EERP is based on two mutually reinforcing main elements: short-term measures to boost
demand, save jobs and help restore confidence; "smart investment" to yield higher growth and sustainable prosperity in the longer-term. Text: <
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0800:FIN:EN:PDF
>
Press
release:
<
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/1771&format=HTML >.
112 - Idem. In this context, the EIB would provide cost-based loans to car producers and suppliers to finance innovation, in particular in technologies
improving the safety and the environmental performance of cars, e.g. electric vehicles. < http://www.environmentalexpert.com/resultEachPressRelease.aspx?cid=27540&codi=50101&lr=1 > “Funding will be spread over four years. EUR 1 billion will come from the
existing EU 7th Framework Programme for R&D funding and includes EUR 500 million to be financed by the industry. The remaining EUR 4 billion
will become available in EIB loans to individual projects from manufacturers and suppliers. These loans usually cover 50% of the total investment”.
113 - COM(2009) 519 final. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Region - Investing in the Development of Low Carbon Technologies (SET-Plan) <
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/technology/set_plan/doc/2009_comm_investing_development_low_carbon_technologies_en.pdf >.
114 - Idem. This means almost tripling the annual investment in the European Union, from €3 to €8 billion.
115 - Idem. The Joint Technology Initiative [JTI] on fuel cells and hydrogen was established for 2008-2013 with a budget of 470 M€ of Community
funding to be at least matched by industry. The JTI has the minimum critical mass needed to develop and validate efficient and cost competitive
technologies for the various applications. However, meeting the market entry targets set by industry will require substantial additional effort. In
particular, more and larger scale demonstrations and pre-commercial deployment activities for portable, stationary, transport applications will be
required, as will long-term research and technology development to build up a competitive fuel cell chain and a sustainable hydrogen infrastructure
across the EU.
116 - European Parliament resolution of 11 March 2010 on investing in the development of low carbon technologies (SET-Plan) <
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2010-0064+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=IT >.
117 - 28 April 2010, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social
Committee: “A European strategy on clean and energy efficient vehicles” cit.
118 - Idem. The new industrial approach based on clean and energy efficient vehicles will boost the competitiveness of all the EU industry.
119 - Idem. With specific action regarding Research and Development: European research should continue to target low carbon fuels and clean and
energy efficient transport, including the improvement of conventional engines, electric drive-trains including alternative battery technologies and
hydrogen technologies with grants focusing on topics with clear added value at EU level; Research Strategy: In 2011 the long term strategy on
research should be outlined in the Strategic Transport Technology Plan and in the Communication on Clean Transport Systems.
120 - Idem. By - Guidelines on financial incentives: Coordination of demand-side measures adopted in Member States for the purchase of green
vehicles needs to be encouraged by the end of 2010. Benefits accruing to industry should be in line with existing State Aid rules; Revision of the
energy taxation directive: Better incentives need to be created for the efficient use of conventional fuels and the gradual uptake of alternative lowcarbon emitting fuels; Vehicle Taxation: More coordination is needed for an overall improvement of the effectiveness of measures taken by Member
States on taxation in order to promote green vehicles.
121 - Idem. Like the Raw Materials Initiative. Focused on the fact that large-scale production of electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will require
the use of raw materials different from those of conventional vehicles. Some of those materials are in short supply and concentrated in very few
geographical areas, such as rare earth elements for batteries and noble metals for fuel cells. And a fair and open access to these materials should be
ensured.
122 - Daimler AG < http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-921-941776-1-1235424-1-0-0-0-0-1-13471-614316-0-1-0-0-0-0-0.html >.
123 - Idem.
124 - Daimler AG < http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-658451-1-1236356-1-0-0-0-0-0-13-7165-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html >. Federal Ministry of
Transport, Building and Urban Development < http://www.bmvbs.de/Anlage/original_1096793/Memorandum-of-Understanding-mehrInformationen.pdf: >.
125 - EPACT cit.
126 - Oak Ridge National Laboratory ORNL - DOE “Analysis of the Transition to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles and the Potential Hydrogen Energy
Infrastructure Requirements”, March 2008, < http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/Publications/Reports/ORNL_TM_2008_30.pdf >.
127 - Idem. Scenario 1 – Production of thousands of FCV per year by 2015 and hundreds of thousands per year by 2019. This option is expected to
lead to a market penetration of 2.0 million FCV by 2025 (0.3 million by 2020). Scenario 2 – Production of thousands of FCVs by 2013 and hundreds
of thousands by 2018. This option is expected to lead to a market penetration of 5.0 million FCVs by 2025 (1.1 million by 2020). Scenario 3 –
Production of thousands of FCVs by 2013, hundreds of thousands by 2018, and millions by 2021 such that market penetration is 10 million by 2025
(1.7 million by 2020).
128 - National Research Council, Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies “Transitions to Alternative
Transportation Technologies: A Focus on Hydrogen”, July 2008, p. Abs-1 < http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12222&utm_medium
=etmail&utm_sourc >.
129 - DOE “Report to Congress Effects of Transition to a Hydrogen Economy on Employment in the United States”, 2008, cit. p. 19 and 20.
130 - Idem. The more rapid transformation scenario assumes the success of the President’s HFI and the less rapid scenario follows DOE’s analysis
supporting its 2007 program benefits estimation. The HFI Scenario assumes rapid market penetration of hydrogen vehicles. The first sales occur in
2018. By 2020, 27% of new vehicle sales are hydrogen vehicles; by 2035, 89%; and 100% by 2050. This results in stocks of light duty hydrogen
vehicles in use, respectively, of 3%, 60%, and 96% of the total in use in those years. By 2020, 8.8 million FCV will be on the US road. Under Less
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
16
Aggressive Scenario, market penetration of FCV is slower, reaching approximately 1% of new sales in 2020, 20% in 2035 and 63% in 2050,
resulting in hydrogen vehicle stocks of 0.5%, 7% and 38%, respectively. 1.4 million FCV will be on the road by 2020.
131 - European Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Technology Platform, “Implementation Plan – Status 2006”, cit.
132 - European Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Technology Platform, “Deployment Strategy”, cit.
133 - HyWays, “The European Hydrogen Roadmap”, February 2008, < http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/nn/hyways-roadmap_en.pdf >
Press release: < http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/299&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en >.
134 - Idem. Regarding: Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain and the UK.
135 - Idem, p. 23. “The regional demand development and infrastructure build-up for road transport is classified into three phases: Infrastructure
Phase I: early start-up phase with very low hydrogen penetration (demonstration phase). A few large-scale first user centers are situated across
Europe. Infrastructure Phase II: early commercialization phase with three to six early user centers per country (10,000 – 500,000 hydrogen vehicles
EU-wide). Infrastructure Phase III: full commercialization phase characterized by the extension of existing user centers, the development of new
hydrogen regions and the installation of a dense local and long-distance road network until 2030. These phases are defined by the number of hydrogen
cars on European roads rather than by calendar years. A connection to the calendar year’s wad also established. For the demand development and
infrastructure build-up, HyWays focused on Phases II (10,000 vehicles, 2010 – 2015) and III (3 sub-phases: 500,000 vehicles, 2015 – 2020, 4 million
vehicles 2020 – 2030 and 16 million vehicles, 2025 – 2035)”.
136 - Idem, p. 3.
137 - DOE “Report to Congress Effects of Transition to a Hydrogen Economy on Employment in the United States”, cit. p. 14.
138 - Eurostat, “Panorama of Transport”, 2009 < http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DA-09-001/EN/KS-DA-09-001-EN.PDF
>.
139 - Reference data for the Copenhagen Accord reduction targets and mitigation actions. See: The Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009, cit.
140 - The concept of ‘Vehicle-to-Grid’ was first proposed in 1997 by W. Kempton in his article “Electric vehicles as a new power source for electric
utilities”, Transportation Research Part D 2 (3), 1997, p157–175 < http://www.udel.edu/V2G/docs/Kempton-Letendre-97.pdf >. Institute of
Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis “Vehicle-to-Grid Power: Battery, Hybrid, and Fuel Cell Vehicles as Resources for Distributed
Electric Power in California”, 2001 < http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.php?id=360 >. W. Kempton, J. Tomić "Vehicle to Grid
Implementation: from stabilizing the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy", Journal of Power Sources Volume 144, 2005 <
http://www.spinnovation.com/sn/Articles_on_V2G/Vehicle-to-grid_power_implementation_From_stabilizing_the.pdf >.
141 - The V2G concept was recently presented to the participants of the expert workshop. The increasing integration of volatile renewable energy in
the energy mix requires matching storage solutions and batteries on board of an EV that is connected to the power grid are one option. There are two
concepts: plug-in-cars with unidirectional charge flow where the batteries are charged in times of peak supply, and V2G, with bidirectional charge
flow, where the battery also is discharged at times when there is a need to balance grid instabilities or to cover of peak demand. V2G implies specific
requirements for the battery, among other, costs below 200 EUR/kWh. The experts expressed the opinion that V2G is one concept among others (e.g.
stationary storage) for covering peak demand. They considered it questionable whether utility providers will prefer to use and pay for the combination
of hundreds or thousands of vehicle batteries or will rather install Li-ion batteries for reliable, stationary energy storage. Moreover, the experts agreed
that more research is required to assess the potentials of batteries for the stability of the grid at integration of renewable energy in general. See: Report
on the Joint EC/EPoSS/ERTRAC Expert Workshop Brussels June 2009 “Batteries and Storage Systems for the Fully Electric Vehicle”, September
2009, < http://www.green-cars-initiative.eu/documents/Report_WS_Batteries.pdf/view >.
142 - In fact, in the case of PHEV or EV, we are only in presence of a new, and useful, energy storage capacity.
143 - See: Lipman, J. Edwards, D. Kammen, “Economic Implications of Net Metering for Stationary and Motor Vehicle Fuel Cell Systems in
California”, 2002 < http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/pwp092.pdf >. W. Kempton, J. Tomić, “Vehicle-to-grid power fundamentals: Calculating
capacity and net revenue”, Journal of Power Sources, Volume 144, 2005 < http://www.spinnovation.com/sn/Articles_on_V2G/Vehicle-togrid_power_fundamentals_Calculating_capacity.pdf >.
144 - T. Lipman J. Edwards D. Kammen, “Economic Implications of Net Metering for Stationary and Motor Vehicle Fuel Cell Systems in
California”, cit. observed: “Non-hybrid fuel cell systems with 75 to 100 kW peak power will likely be power limited to 30 or 40 kW for continuous
operation while the vehicle is at a standstill due to thermal management issues”. In this case, assuming 40 kW FC powertrain output power, all the
values were halved.
145 - EIA-DOE, “Annual Energy Outlook 2009”, March 2009, p. 45 and 128 < http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2009).pdf >.
146- European Commission DG Energy and Transport “European Energy and Transport - Trends to 2030 — Update 2007”, 2008, p. 62 and 97 <
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/figures/trends_2030_update_2007/energy_transport_trends_2030_update_2007_en.pdf >.
147 - EIA-DOE, “Annual Energy Outlook 2010 Early Release Overview”, December 2009, Summary Reference Case Tables, p. 20 <
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/appa.pdf >.
148 - EU energy and transport in figures 2009, p. 39 < http://ec.europa.eu/transport/publications/statistics/doc/2009_energy_transport_figures.pdf >.
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Vehicles in the Post Kyoto Perspective - Mario Valentino Romeri
May 8, 2010.
17