|
To reduce dependency on imported oil and increase national security, America
must reduce demand, increase supply and develop sustainable alternatives.
SunLine Transit Agency, Thousand Palms, CA, is committed to advancing the
commercialization of clean fuel and clean energy technologies. A valuable
national resource, SunLine is beginning its fourth year of producing hydrogen on
site and using it in prototype vehicles, and in its ninth year of operating
transit, paratransit and street sweeping fleets powered 100% by alternate fuels.
The agency has the most hydrogen experience of any transit property in the
country is actively working with fuel cell manufacturers, bus manufacturers,
system integrators, energy providers, the Federal Transit Administration, U.S.
Department of Defense, U. S. Department of Energy, State of California, California Fuel Cell Partnerships
and others to create and test the next generation of heavy-duty fuel cell engines and
vehicles, hydrogen generation, and distributed generation technologies.
In conjunction with its hydrogen test program and ongoing alternate fuels
projects, the agency established the SunLine Beta Test Center for Advanced
Energy Technologies at its Thousand Palms headquarters. There, hydrogen
generated on site from renewable solar power and reformed from natural gas is
used to fuel ultra-low and zero-emission vehicles and stationary fuel cells;
prototype advanced transportation/clean energy technologies are demonstrated;
and compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, Hythane® and hydrogen are available to the public 24
hours a day.
It's one of a kind in the world, and as such, has drawn top-level visitors from
30 countries during the past three years. Delegations have included foreign
energy ministers, ambassadors, energy department officials, regulators,
automakers, global energy providers and a dozen TV news crews from the U.S.,
Japan, Germany and Italy.
Since 1994, SunLine has logged 25 million clean air miles and displaced more
than 5.5 million gallons of imported fossil fuel. The agency has earned 24
local, state and national awards for environmental leadership and efforts to
advance clean fuels technology.
Summary of SunLine's Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Technologies
During the past three years, SunLine has demonstrated and/or performed hot
weather testing on a variety of prototype vehicles including: two Hythane®
buses (with two additional engines now on test stands at Westport); the Ballard
(XCELLSiS) P4 ZEbus; the Ballard P5 Citaro fuel cell bus; the ThunderPower LLC
hybrid fuel cell bus; the Georgetown University methanol fuel cell bus; SunBug,
the country's first street-legal neighborhood fuel cell vehicle; three hydrogen
fuel cell powered golf carts; a pickup powered by a hydrogen internal combustion
engine (ICE); five California Fuel Cell Partnership vehicles; and a Shelby Cobra
race car with a hydrogen ICE.
At the same time, SunLine demonstrated an HbT/Gaz de France natural gas
reformer; a Stuart Energy Systems P3 grid-powered electrolyzer; a Teledyne
Energy Systems Altus solar-powered electrolyzer; compression and storage
systems; hydrogen and Hythane® dispensers at 3,600 psi. The agency is currently
expanding its capabilities to add fueling at 5,000 psi, is awaiting delivery of
a new Hydradix natural gas reformer utilizing state of the art autothermal
recovery technology, and is a partner in a project to generate hydrogen from
wind power. Thanks to the support of Congressman Jerry Lewis and Congresswoman
Mary Bono, SunLine is likewise under contract by the National Automotive Center
to introduce fuel cells to a Class 8 tractor in a phased approach, with the
ultimate goal of demonstrating a diesel fuel reformer/fuel cell/hybrid electric
drive train. SunLine partnered with UC-Riverside and is now working with
Southwest Research Institute in Texas on this important project. The agency is
also under contract by South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) to
create station templates for multiple hydrogen infrastructure technologies, and
to outline considerations for building natural gas stations for future
compatibility with hydrogen; and to test insulated Type III tanks to store both
compressed gases and associated cyrogenic liquids.
As a result of our experience, we offer the following strategies/suggestions:
Heavy-Duty Sector Launches Transportation Transition
While we wholeheartedly endorse the President's FreedomCar program and Hydrogen
Fuel Inititative, we believe the heavy-duty sector is a more likely launch pad
for the transition to hydrogen in transportation applications. Though the sector
represents just 6% of the vehicles on the road today, heavy-duty vehicles
produce 60% of the NOx and more than 80% of the harmful PM emissions. By
starting the transition in the heavy-duty sector, greater gains can be made with
fewer vehicles; heavy-duty engines developed for transit applications can then
be used in heavy trucks.
Transit Leads Development, Demonstration and Deployment
Public transportation is perfectly positioned to lead the development and
testing of advanced fuels and drive trains, development of public access
hydrogen infrastructure, training and public education. Transit has historically
adopted advanced low emission technologies. Over the last decade, for example,
the market share for natural gas transit buses has increased from zero to 25%.
Today, over 6,000 natural gas transit buses and over 500 hybrid electric buses
have been deployed or are on order. No such parallel exists in the light-duty
sector. If however, the rest of the transportation sectors followed transit's
lead, according to information provided by CalStart/WestStart, one of nine
corsortia created by RSPA, dependence on OPEC oil would be reduced by half.
Transit districts are the ideal proving ground for new fuels as they operate the
buses on fixed routes, utilize centralized refueling facilities, have highly
trained mechanics, ongoing safety programs, and a subsidized purchasing system.
In addition, transit buses have fewer packaging and weight constraints than
passenger cars, and as the photo on Page 2 aptly displays, buses serve as mobile
billboards to familiarize huge numbers of people with clean fuels, thus paving
the way for acceptance of hydrogen-fueled consumer vehicles.
SunLine's tagline is "Today's Model for Tomorrow's World." When the
agency converted overnight to a fleet powered 100% by natural gas in 1994, it
created a model that can be used by public transit to speed the transition to
hydrogen. The agency worked with a private sector partner, ENRG, a Southern
California developer of natural gas fueling infrastructure, to build seven
public access refueling stations throughout the Coachella Valley. As a result,
natural gas fueling is available 24 hours a day, and no fleet operator is more
than a 10-12 minute drive from a station.
Having removed the barrier of lack of availability of fuel, SunLine took the
lead in the Coachella Valley's Department of Energy Clean Cities program, and
together with ENRG, worked to help public and private fleets access available
incentive and grant funds. There are now over 1,000 vehicles utilizing natural
gas stations in SunLine's service territory.
While we hear repeatedly the dilemma of "the chicken and the egg" --
that automakers can't sell cars until stations are built and no private sector
business can build infrastructure for which there is no use - this model, using
transit to develop public access infrastructure -- can help solve the stalemate.
Efforts Coordinated at Federal Level
A multi-year program with guaranteed funding coordinated by DOE, FTA and DOD
must be supported from the top down to ensure the speedy commercialization of
heavy-duty fuel cell engines, fuel cell buses and infrastructure technologies.
Legislation recently introduced by Congresswoman Mary Bono advances this goal by
directing the Department of Energy to provide a minimum of $10 million in
funding for six years to support the consortia-based Advanced Vehicle Program to
accelerate the commercialization of fuel cell bus technology. We strongly
support this legislation as well as the National Heavy-Duty Fuel Cell Bus
Initiative, which authorizes guaranteed funding at the level of $25 million per
year for fuel cell bus development and multi-year demonstration projects under
the Reauthorization of TEA 21. We do not advocate creating a new program.
Rather, we support modifying the Department of Transportation's existing
Advanced Vehicle Program to focus exclusively on the development of fuel cell
buses.
Both programs support our belief that field-testing of fuel buses is essential.
Both likewise recognize that because of the current state of technology and
expense to taxpayers, demonstrations need to be limited to a small number of
transit properties that are thoroughly committed to the success of such
programs. Rather than deploying large numbers of test buses, these programs
support using funds to improve and demonstrate multiple generations of the
technology at designated test sites with a goal of reaching commercialization at
the end of the six-year period.
Early Adapters Supported
As previously stated, to reach commercialization in the timeliest way, a limited
number of early adapters must be supported through the testing of multiple
generations of fuel cells and related technologies. However, most funding
mechanisms conflict with this approach. Grantors and appropriators
understandably seek to "spread funds around." Unfortunately, in this
particular situation, that approach does not best serve the country's
objectives.
What we see in the field and have experienced ourselves is that those who take
the risk and make the investment to purchase cleaner, new technologies that
improve our energy security and our air quality are generally left with the most
expensive version of the least reliable technology. As, regardless of its
benefit to the country, FTA capital and operating funds cannot be used to
support research and demonstration of fuel cell technology and infrastructure,
early adapters need ongoing support from some other source to upgrade when
improvements become available.
ICE's Play an Important Role
In the case of heavy-duty transit applications, to reach commercialization, the
cost of a fuel cell bus needs to be reduced from over $3 million per bus to
$300,000, and its life expectancy needs to increase from 1-2 years to 12.
Clearly, that is not going to happen overnight. Until such time as fuel cell
vehicles are commercially viable and available, those alternatives that reduce
our dependence on OPEC oil and improve air quality and public health should be
aggressively pursued and incentivized. Among them are vehicles with natural gas,
blends of hydrogen and natural gas, and hydrogen internal combustion engines.
We hear but don't understand arguments against continued support for natural gas
vehicles and infrastructure. Expanding the use of natural gas vehicles is a
logical and practical progression toward developing a hydrogen transportation
network. NGV deployment requires commercialization of systems for storing,
transporting and delivering gaseous vs. liquid vehicle fuel. Broader use of
natural gas requires expanded pipeline fuel delivery systems that, when adapted,
can supply the hydrogen needed to fuel the first generation of hydrogen-powered
consumer vehicles.
In addition, NGV standards serve as a valuable starting point for the
development of comparable codes and standards for hydrogen infrastructure and
vehicles, including fuel cell vehicles. There is also widespread agreement that
natural gas is the fossil fuel from which it is easiest and least expensive to
extract hydrogen and will remain so until renewable sources become economical.
There are currently more than 200 natural gas fueling stations in California and
several thousand worldwide. As natural gas infrastructure continues to develop,
it will be a simple matter to add equipment dispensers for blends of hydrogen
and natural gas (such as Hythane®). By co-developing natural gas, blended fuel,
and hydrogen infrastructure, customers are given a gaseous fueling option to
meet any specific engine and/or duty-cycle requirement.
Natural gas vehicles in the heavy-duty sector are meeting/surpassing the most
stringent emissions standards today. Heavy-duty ICEs burning hydrogen and
natural gas blends could have an immediate environmental impact while fostering
a better understanding of natural gas and hydrogen among commercial users.
SunLine has and continues to work with the natural gas vehicle industry to test
engines using fuel with increased hydrogen content by blending compressed
natural gas with variable amounts of hydrogen. Based on emissions tests, even
blends with relatively small amounts of hydrogen (20% by volume) have shown
dramatic reductions in engine emissions.
Vehicles with internal combustion engines burning hydrogen-natural gas blends
are practical, achievable and affordable with existing technology. Most
important, they create the only conceivable economic justification for building
hydrogen infrastructure in advance of the commercial availability of fuel cell
vehicles. This infrastructure growth will catalyze much needed development and
refinement of the necessary codes and standards for deploying hydrogen vehicles.
Lessons Learned
Since converting to alternate fuels in 1994, and since the Department of Energy
and other funders helped SunLine open its hydrogen facilities in 2000, the
agency has accomplished a number of goals and learned valuable lessons. Primary
among them are:
· Leadership by elected officials is the most important ingredient. Given clear
policy directives and support, implementation is achievable. But follow-through
is essential. EPAct is a case in point where policy goals were exemplary but
federal agencies didn't follow through. EPAct didn't fail. Those who served as
watchdogs failed.
· Training is key to success in any alternate fuel program. Before its natural
gas buses arrived, SunLine trained every employee on property to be familiar
with the properties and benefits of the new fuel. To train its mechanics and
operators, the agency partnered with College of the Desert, it's local community
college, to create the first training curriculum for alternate fuels
technicians. All mechanics and operators have completed the intensive course and
continue to attend regular training sessions. SunLine repeated the successful
model with hydrogen. The agency contracted the Schatz Energy Research Center at
Humboldt State University to teach a workshop on hydrogen to every employee and
board member. Working with private sector and education partners, with funding
from FTA, SunLine co-produced the first training manual on Heavy Duty Fuel Cell
Engines and Related Technologies. Posted on the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory's (NREL) Alternate Fuels Data Center website, within the first two
months of its appearance, the downloadable curriculum logged 132,000 hits - the
most ever recorded in that period of time by NREL.
· Public education is a must. To gain buy-in from your community, you must
bring the public along. SunLine conducts outreaches, participates in community
events, offers weekly public tours of its clean fuels facilities, operates a
speaker's bureau, hosts a website with a clean fuels section. The agency also
created an Education Collaborative with private sector partners and South Coast
Air Quality Management District to maximize the educational value of its
hydrogen facilities. Museum-style interpretive signage explains various
technologies; collateral brochures further define tour highlights. The interior
of the agency's Zweig Education Building, used for industry and community
events, is wrapped in an exhibit that invites those viewing it to be part of the
national security/clean air solution.
· Partners are essential. SunLine is a small agency with limited funds and
human resources. We could not have achieved all we have without many talented
and dedicated partners. Nor could we have achieved as much without the steadfast
support of our Congresswoman, Mary Bono, who has championed our clean fuels
efforts since taking office. Many of our important partners are listed below:
Education Partners
Advanced Transportation Technologies Initiative (ATTI), College of the Desert -
Energy Technology Training Center, Department of Environment /Urban Consortium
Energy Task Force, Georgetown University, Humboldt State University - Schatz
Energy Research Center, National Science Foundation, University of California -
Riverside, CE-CERT
Government Partners
California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, City of Palm
Desert
Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Federal Transit Administration,
Imperial Irrigation District, Palm Springs International Airport, South Coast
Air Quality Management District, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of
Energy
Technology Partners
Air Products, Allison Transmission, American Public Transportation Association,
Ballard (formerly XCELLSIS), California Fuel Cell Partnership, California
Hydrogen Business Council, California Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, California
Transit Association, Clean Air Now, Coachella Valley Economic Partnership,
Cummins Engine Company, DCH Technology, Detroit Diesel, Dynetek, Engelhard
Corp., ENRG, Federal Mogul, FIBA Technologies, Fueling Technologies, Gaz de
France, HbT, Hydrogen Components, Inc., ISE Research, John Deere, National
Hydrogen Association, Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, Orion Industries, Ltd.,
Quantum Technologies, QuestAir, Shell Hydrogen, Southern California Gas Co.,
Southwest Research Institute, Stuart Energy Systems, Teledyne Energy Systems,
Thunderpower LLC, TotalFinaElf, TIAX, UOP, UTC Fuel Cells, Wintec.
Challenges to Fuel Cell Commercialization
Among the impediments to commercialization SunLine has identified are:
-
Cost
-
Reliability of fuel cells
-
Availability/affordability of liability insurance
-
The lack of uniform/reasonable codes and standards
-
The need for comprehensive public education/outreach programs
-
The lack of coordinated programs with sustained funding at the federal level
-
The lack of consistency by the government. (For example, CAFÉ standards were
passed and rescinded; the Clean Cities Program, though very effective, is in
danger of having its budget slashed. Manufacturers and consumers are confused by
the changes and now wary of committing to any alternate fuel path.)
Prior Questions Posed by Senate Energy Committee Members
Richard Cromwell III, general manager/CEO of SunLine, participated in a hearing
held by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on April 25, 2003.
Following the hearing, we were asked to respond to a number of questions that
are likely salient. For that reason, we include them here as they were submitted
to the Senate committee.
Q. What are the advantages of using natural gas or another hydrogen carrier
fuel as the feedstock for hydrogen in the short term? How will this increased
demand for natural gas impact natural gas supply and prices?
A. No technology that exists today can compete on a cost basis with reforming
hydrogen from natural gas. Proven reforming technology exists, is
cost-effective, and when combined with carbon sequestration, begins to be
competitive with electrolysis from a greenhouse gas perspective. If we define
"short term" as present day - 2020 to 2030, there would be no negative
impact on natural gas supplies. Rather, as demand increased, it would become
economic to increase production. Beyond 2020-2030, it might be necessary to
supplement U.S. natural gas supplies with imported liquefied natural gas (LNG).
All that aside, every possible program should be put in place to make
renewables cost competitive for hydrogen production. SunLine has demonstrated
solar electrolysis since 2000. It works. We're about to demonstrate
wind-hydrogen production as well. But until demand is sufficiently high to lower
the cost of production, it will never be competitive. Another "chicken and
egg" scenario. The solar and wind industries need incentives and large
orders to increase production.
Q. Is it more likely that we will have hydrogen fueling stations, or we will
see hydrogen generated in our garages from distribute energy resources?
A. Based on what we're hearing today, it is unlikely home electrolysis units
would be cost competitive. However, a home reformer may be feasible. If
manufacturers solve the technology issues that currently exist and home
reformers become available, there could be a mix of home fueling and stations,
but the primary method of delivery will likely be fueling stations.
Q. Should the EPAct alternative fuel vehicle mandate program be continued? If
so, how should it be fixed? Should we offer credits toward compliance for
investments in fueling stations or use of fuel?
A. Yes, the EPAct mandate program should be continued. It could be improved as
follows: Include a study provision intended to promote trading of emissions
credits between mobile and stationary sources; provide double EPAct credits for
fleets acquiring dedicated heavy-duty alternative fueled vehicles; provide
credits for companies that make a significant contribution to the development of
alternative fuel infrastructure; and require the GSA to allocate the incremental
cost of an alternative fuel vehicle over the entire federal fleet. Currently,
GSA charges an agency the entire incremental cost of an NGV.
Substitute language, endorsed by our partners in the Natural Gas Vehicle
Coalition, follows:
"Sec. 13265. The Secretary shall establish an optional program under which
fleets subject to the requirements of sections 13251 or 13257(o) of this
subchapter may opt out of the requirements of those sections by making a
demonstration to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the fleet or covered
person is in good standing with the regulations issued pursuant to sections
13251 or 13257(o) and that the fleet will achieve reductions in the use of
petroleum fuels if it is permitted to opt-out of the requirements of these
sections. The program established by the Secretary shall by rule:
(a) Establish a measurable annual petroleum reduction requirement for a covered
fleet equal to the amount of alternative fuel the fleet would use if at least 60
percent of the annual amount of fuel used in all light duty motor vehicles owned
or otherwise controlled by the fleet was alternative fuel.
(b) Allow a fleet that opts into the program to achieve petroleum reduction in
any manner it chooses, except that reductions in the size of the fleet shall not
be considered in determining the total amount of petroleum reduction by the
fleet."
Q. If we are moving to a fuel-cell based transport fleet, should we still be
interested in ethanol, biodiesel, natural gas, etc., or should we just use them
to make hydrogen?
A. We should absolutely still be interested in and provide incentives for
purchase of alternative fueled vehicles (AFVs) powered by ethanol, biodiesel,
natural gas, and hydrogen-natural gas blends, as well as for hybrid vehicles
that dramatically increase fuel efficiency. As, if not more important, we should
provide incentives for purchase of alternative fuels at the pump. AFVs can't
reduce foreign oil and lower emissions unless they alternate fuels are consumed.
Unlike SunLine, which parked a fleet of diesel buses and went into service
overnight with a new fleet powered by natural gas, as a country, we will never
see a wholesale conversion at any point in time to a new fuel (hydrogen or
otherwise). What we've seen repeatedly this past 10 years is that different
clean fuels fit different circumstances and what works in one location/situation
may not in another. Options should never be limited. Our goals (displacing
imported petroleum and improving air quality) should be fuel neutral. What
should be mandated or regulated is the outcome - not the fuel type.
Q. Aside from new R&D funding, what can/should Congress do to hasten
development of hydrogen-fueled vehicles?
A. Revise DOE's timetable from 2020 back to 2010-2015; increase the purchase and
use of hydrogen vehicles by federal fleets; pass sustained, guaranteed funding
for research, development and demonstration of heavy duty fuel cell transit
buses; offer incentives for infrastructure development.
Q. Which policy actions are more important for deployment of advanced
technology vehicles - R&D, tax incentives, demonstration projects or
regulations?
A. No one action can be singled out. A coherent program is needed that addresses
all of the above. Transitioning to a hydrogen economy has been likened to
putting a man on the moon. Many in the industry think it will be more difficult!
We have to do everything possible as a concerted, coordinated effort to move the
technology forward.
Q. Give the focus on hydrogen as the transportation fuel of the future, how
much effort should we expend on using other alternative fuels? For example,
should we use natural gas directly for transport or convert it to hydrogen
first?
A. We will never see a wholesale conversion at any point in time to a new fuel
(hydrogen or otherwise). Use of all alternative fuels should be
encouraged/rewarded. Every gallon we use (or gas gallon equivalent) reduces our
dependency on imported oil, reduces airborne pollutants and reduces greenhouse
gases.
Q. Where is the U.S. compared to Europe and Japan in terms of competitiveness
for the emerging hydrogen market? Will this new initiative push the U.S. ahead
of its competition?
A. While this question was likely directed toward the passenger car market, my
answer addresses the heavy-duty transit bus market. There are currently seven
fuel cell transit buses on order in the U.S. compared to 30 buses that will be
delivered to 9 European cities and Australia through the EU's multi-national
CUTE program. Japan, Singapore, and a group of undeveloped nations working with
the World Bank and UNDP likewise have programs underway. Despite the fact that
transit buses are the most visible vehicles on the road, and that public transit
is the ideal launch pad for a fuel cell program (because of centralized fueling,
bus size/shape, and having trained mechanics and operators), the U.S. has no
committed, sustained funding for the ongoing development/refinement of
heavy-duty fuel cell buses. Through our experience, we've learned it will take
several generations of engines before a fuel cell can withstand the rigors of
the public transit environment. Without a multi-year commitment to technology
development and demonstration, the U.S. will absolutely not be competitive with
Europe or Japan in this market.
Q. What kind of coordination is occurring between the Department of
Transportation and Department of Energy regarding the demonstration fleet
vehicles including transit buses?
A. From our standpoint, in the past, there has been little coordination between
the two departments. We recently attended an industry meeting where a DOT rep
stated his department's role began at the point where new technologies were
ready for deployment. DOE, however, does not fund heavy-duty transit bus R&D
- which leaves transit operators in a crack in the system. We need a coordinated
program for research, development and demonstration of multiple generations of
fuel cell buses and corresponding funding for continuing hydrogen infrastructure
upgrades in order to have a success. We have the same problems with early
generations of hydrogen generating, storage and dispensing technologies as we do
with early generations of fuel cell bus engines. The early generations can't
withstand the daily rigors of the transit environment over a multi-year period.
We need continued funding for early adapters to upgrade to each next generation
to improve reliability, efficiency, and cost.
Q. What makes us think the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative will be any more
successful than programs in the past to deploy alternate fuels and displace
petroleum?
A. The U.S. government has the opportunity to correct all prior mistakes in
regard to transitioning to a new, cleaner fuel. For the first time, efforts
could truly be coordinated between the Departments of Defense, Energy, and
Transportation so each has a pre-planned role in reaching the same end point. In
addition, the government can look to successful models between government,
industry, energy providers, OEMs, and transit agencies such as the California
Fuel Cell Partnership to learn how to leverage the efforts of multiple
stakeholders. One final thought is that the RFP process and the earmark process
don't particularly support the advancement and deployment of emerging
technologies. The Consortia-based Advanced Vehicle Program was far more
successful in bringing new technologies to the marketplace than other government
programs.
Earmarks tend to fragment funds and no coordination between projects is
required. RFPs are very specific and exclude many very viable and necessary
projects (and in some cases, manufacturers) because of technicalities that often
contribute little to the outcome. A better system is to establish a pool for
projects of a certain type and rank them on what they add to the country's
objectives, which is how the Consortia-based program brought hybrid technologies
to the marketplace. While every consideration should of course be given to U.S.
technologies, it is self-defeating to exclude or penalize foreign automakers,
bus makers, and/or manufacturers whose products perform better than similar
American products. The goals are to reduce foreign oil imports and improve air
quality - not subsidize American industry.
Legislators at SunLine
Among our many recent visitors were Senator Barbara Boxer, who presented SunLine
with a Conservation Champion Award in February 2002, Congresswoman Mary Bono,
who attended the October 2002 launch of the ThunderPower hybrid fuel cell bus
into revenue service (and actually drove the bus!), and Senator Byron Dorgan,
who attended a hydrogen briefing conducted by CalStart/WestStart and SunLine
March 2003.
We extend the same invitation to all House Energy and Commerce Committee members
to visit "Today's Model for Tomorrow's World" -- SunLine Clean Fuels
Mall.
|
