Full text of "Fuel cell research and development, and utilization policy, and hydrogen research and development : hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One Hundredth Congress, first session on S. 1294 ... S. 1295 ... S. 1296 ... September 23, 1987"

See other formats

S. Hrg. 100-501

FUEL CELL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND
UTILIZATION POLICY, AND HYDROGEN RE-
SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

S. 1294

TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES WHICH WILL

ENABLE FUEL CELLS TO USE ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES

S. 1295
TO DEVELOP A NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE UTILIZATION OF FUEL

CELL TECHNOLOGY

S. 1296

TO ESTABLISH A HYDROGEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

SEPTEMBER 23, 1987

f\ \

^u-p

GOV DOCS Printed for the use of the

J^JT Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

.E554 US- GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1987f l64 WASHINGTON : 1988

Ufl***

Research

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

S. Hrg. 100-501

FUEL CELL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND
UTILIZATION POLICY, AND HYDROGEN RE-
SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

S. 1294

TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES WHICH WILL

ENABLE FUEL CELLS TO USE ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES

S. 1295
TO DEVELOP A NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE UTILIZATION OF FUEL

CELL TECHNOLOGY

S. 1296
TO ESTABLISH A HYDROGEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

SEPTEMBER 23, 1987

GOV DOCS Printed for the use of the

J^f Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

26 tinV\P^N

.E554 US- GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE *ll\ %Y\w*

1987f l64 WASHINGTON : 1988

m , A For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office

rvGSG3rCn US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

Librar

Soste Pufe!
Boston, M

<*<**s

brary
116

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana, Chairman

DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas
WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky
HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio
JOHN MELCHER, Montana
BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado
WYCHE FOWLER, Jr., Georgia
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho
MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon
LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming
FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
CHIC HECHT, Nevada

Daryl H. Owen, Staff Director

D. Michael Harvey, Chief Counsel

Frank M. Cushing, Staff Director for the Minority

Gary G. Ellsworth, Chief Counsel for the Minority

Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development

WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky, Chairman
WYCHE FOWLER, Jr., Georgia, Vice Chairman
DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio DANIEL J. EVANS, Washington

JOHN MELCHER, Montana LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut

CHIC HECHT, Nevada
J. Bennett Johnston and James A. McClure are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

Cheryl Moss, Professional Staff Member

(ID

I *

W/H

CONTENTS

Page

S. 1294 3

S. 1295 6

S. 1296 9

STATEMENTS

Appleby, Dr. A. John, director, Center for Electrochemical Systems and Hy-
drogen Research, Texas A&M University 120

Batta, Louis B., business manager, Contractual Research and Development of
the Linde Division, Union Carbide Corp 184

Fitzpatrick, Donna R., Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable
Energy, Department of Energy, accompanied by Robert L. San Martin,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy 45

Ford, Hon. Wendell H., a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky 1

Langhoff, Dr. Peter W., vice president for research and development, Solar
Reactor Technologies, Inc., accompanied by Robin Z. Parker, president 154

Marshall, Richard L., chief, combustion fuels & emissions, commercial en-
gines, Engineering Division, Pratt & Whitney Group, United Technologies
Corp 167

Matsunaga, Hon. Spark M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii 35

Reck, Gregory M., Acting Director, Propulsion, Power and Energy Division,
Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration 80

Spillers, Frank W., president, Industrial Fuel Cell Association 101

Sturgeon, Eugene, director of external relations, Northeast Utilities, on
behalf of the Fuel Cell Users Group of the Electric Utility Industry, Inc.,
accompanied by Jeff Serfass, executive director, Fuel Cell Users Group of
the Electric Utility Industry, Inc 104

Takahashi, Dr. Patrick K., director, Hawaii Natural Energy Institute 134

Veziroglu, Dr. T. Nejat, president, International Association for Hydrogen
Energy, and director, Clean Energy Research Institute, University of
Miami 145

Weicker, Hon. Lowell P., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut 30

APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions 189

(in)

FUEL CELL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
AND UTILIZATION POLICY, AND HYDROGEN
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1987

U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development,

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Wendell H. Ford,
presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WENDELL H. FORD, A U.S.
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY

Senator Ford. The committee will come to order.

I am pleased to be here today to chair the hearing on S. 1294, to
promote the development of technologies which will enable fuel
cells to use alternative fuel sources; S. 1295, to develop a national
policy for the utilization of fuel cell technology; and S. 1296, to es-
tablish the hydrogen research and development program.

This country has been concerned about our dependence on for-
eign sources of energy since the early 1970s. We wanted to insulate
ourselves from the disastrous effects of all supply disruptions. So,
we began researching all sorts of alternative energy sources, in-
cluding fuel cells and hydrogen. We were looking and we are still
looking for better and cheaper ways of using our own resources, in-
stead of to imported oil.

The price of oil has declined since then tremendously, and unfor-
tunately so has the interest and the funding for research into alter-
native energy sources. These bills are important and timely in that
they reaffirm our commitment of development of alternative
energy resources.

Fuel cells, which are like batteries with a continuous source of
energy, can be run with renewable resources. Fuel cells are highly
energy efficient and modular. There is a short lead time for con-
struction of fuel cells, and they don't pollute the environment.

Hydrogen is produced from the earth's most abundant resource,
water. Scientists say that hydrogen has the potential to be an in-
creasingly important source of energy for the future.

There was an interesting article on this subject in the Outlook
section of the Washington Post a few weeks back. The newspaper
said that the Outlook section "examines contemporary ideas that
are changing our lives and expanding our intellectual frontiers.

(1)

Many of the prominent researchers that are interviewed in this ar-
ticle will appear today as witnesses. We look forward to having
them expand our intellectual frontiers through their testimony.

I would like to thank my distinguished colleague from Hawaii,
Senator Sparky Matsunaga, for his leadership in promoting alter-
native energy resources. And Sparky, we are looking forward to
hearing your testimony today. And if you wish, I invite you to join
the subcommittee for the remainder, if you wish to, listen to the
testimony and ask any questions from our distinguished visitors.
So, the welcome mat is out to you. And we are delighted that you
are here and welcome your testimony this afternoon.

[The texts of S. 1294, S. 1295, and S. 1296, a statement from Sen-
ator Weicker and the article from the Washington Post follow:]

100th congress
1st Session

S. 1294

To promote the development of technologies which will enable fuel cells to use

alternative fuel sources.

LN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 28, 1987

Mr. Matsunaga (for himself, Mr. Weickeb, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Muekowski, Mr.
Bingaman, and Mr. Hecht) introduced the following bill; which was read
twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To promote the development of technologies which will enable
fuel cells to use alternative fuel sources.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the "Renewable Energy/Fuel

5 Cell Systems Integration Act of 1987".

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

7 (a) Findings. — The Congress finds that while the Fed-

8 eral Government has invested heavily in fuel cell technology

9 over the past 10 years ($334,700,000 in research and devel-
10 opment on fuel cells for electric power production), research

1 on technologies that enable fuel cells to use alternative fuel

2 sources needs to be undertaken in order to fulfill the conser-

3 vation promise of fuel cells as an energy source.

4 (b) Purpose. — The purpose of this Act is to provide

5 funds for research on technologies that will enable fuel cells

6 to use alternative fuel sources.

7 SEC. 3. RESEARCH PROGRAM.

8 (a) Peogeam Authoeization. — The Secretary of

9 Energy shall implement and carry out a research program for

10 the purpose of —

11 (1) exploring the operation of fuel cells employing

12 methane gas generated from various forms of biomass;

13 (2) developing technologies to use renewable

14 energy sources, including wind and solar energy, to

15 produce hydrogen for use in fuel cells; and

16 (3) determining the technical requirements for em-

17 ploying fuel cells for electric power production as

18 backup spinning reserve components to renewable

19 power systems in rural and isolated areas.

20 (b) Geants. — In carrying out the research program au-

21 thorized in subsection (a), the Secretary of Energy may make

22 grants to, or enter into contracts with, private research lab-

23 oratories.

»S 1294 IS

1 SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

2 The Secretary of Energy shall transmit to the Congress

3 on or before September 30, 1989, a comprehensive report on

4 research carried out pursuant to this Act.

5 SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION.

6 There are hereby authorized to be appropriated

7 $5,000,000 for fiscal year 1988 to the Secretary of Energy

8 to be used to conduct research as provided in this Act.

• S 1294 IS

100th congress
1st Session

S.1295

To develop a national policy for the utilization of fuel cell technology.

LN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 28, 1987

Mr. Matsunaga (for himself, Mr. Weickeb, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Muekowski, and
Mr. Bingaman) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and re-
ferred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To develop a national policy for the utilization of fuel cell

technology.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and Horse of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the "Fuel Cells Energy

5 Utilization Act of 1987".

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 The Congress finds that —

8 (1) while the Federal Government has invested

9 substantially in fuel cell technology through research
10 and development during the past 10 years, there is no

1 national policy for acting upon the findings of this re-

2 search and development; and

3 (2) if such a national policy were developed, the

4 public investment in fuel cell technology would be real-

5 ized through reduced dependency on imported oil for

6 energy and the consequent improvement in the interna-

7 tional trade accounts of the United States.

8 SEC. 3. INCLUSION OF FUEL CELLS AS A FUEL CONSERVA-

9 TION TECHNOLOGY UNDER REIDA.

10 Section 256 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

11 is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following:

12 "(e) For purposes of this section, the term 'domestic re-

13 newable energy industry' shall include industries using fuel

14 cell technology.".

15 SEC. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GUIDELINES

16 FOR USE OF FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES.

17 Within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act,

18 the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency

19 shall prepare Federal guidelines for cities and municipalities

20 specifying environmental and safety standards for the use of

21 fuel cell technology. In the preparation of the guidelines, the

22 Administrator shall utilize the successful experience of the

23 New York City Fire Department in the use of fuel cell tech-

24 nologies.

• S 1295 IS

1 SEC. 5. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INVESTIGATION OF

2 EXPORT MARKET POTENTIAL FOR INTEGRAT-

3 ED FUEL CELL SYSTEMS.

4 Within 180 days of the date of enactment of this Act,

5 the Secretary of Commerce shall assess and report to Con-

6 gress concerning the export market potential for integrated

7 systems of fuel cells with renewable power technologies.

>S 1295 IS

100th congress
1st Session

S. 1296

To establish a hydrogen research and development program.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 28, 1987

Mr. Matsunaga (for himself, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Inouye) introduced the fol-
lowing bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources

A BILL

To establish a hydrogen research and development program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That this Act may be cited as the "Hydrogen Research and

4 Development Act".

5 TITLE I— HYDROGEN PRODUCTION AND USE

6 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE

7 Sec. 101. (a) The Congress finds that —

8 (1) due to the limited quantities of naturally oc-

9 curring petroleum-based fuels, viable alternative fuels
10 and feedstocks must be developed;

1 (2) priority should be given to the development of

2 alternative fuels with universal availability;

3 (3) hydrogen is one of the most abundant elements

4 in the Universe, with water, a primary source of hy-

5 drogen, covering three-fourths of the Earth;

6 (4) hydrogen appears promising as an alternative

7 to environmentally damaging fossil fuels;

8 (5) hydrogen can be transported more efficiently

9 and at less cost than electricity over long distances;

10 (6) renewable energy resources are potential

11 energy sources that can be used to convert hydrogen

12 from its naturally occurring states into high quality

13 fuel, feedstock, and energy storage media; and

14 (7) it is in the national interest to accelerate ef-

15 forts to develop a domestic capability to economically

16 produce hydrogen in quantities which will make a sig-

17 nificant contribution toward reducing the Nation's de-

18 pendence on conventional fuels.

19 (b) The purpose of this title is to —

20 (1) direct the Secretary of Energy to prepare and

21 implement a comprehensive 5-year plan and program

22 to accelerate research and development activities lead-

23 ing to the realization of a domestic capability to

24 produce, distribute, and use hydrogen economically

25 within the shortest time practicable; and

•S 1296 IS

1 (2) develop renewable energy resources as pri-

2 mary energy sources to be used in the production of

3 hydrogen.

4 COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

5 Sec. 102. (a) the Secretary shall prepare a comprehen-

6 sive 5-year program management plan for research and de-

7 velopment activities which shall be conducted over a period

8 of no less than 5 years and shall be consistent with the provi-

9 sions of sections 103 and 104. In the preparation of such

10 plan, the Secretary shall consult with the Administrator of

1 1 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Sec-

12 retary of Transportation, the Hydrogen Technical Advisory

13 Panel established under section 106, and the heads of such

14 other Federal agencies and such public and private organiza-

15 tions as he deems appropriate. Such plan shall be structured

16 to permit the realization of a domestic hydrogen production

17 capability within the shortest time practicable.

18 (b) The Secretary shall transmit the comprehensive pro-

19 gram management plan to the Committee on Science, Space,

20 and Technology of the House of Representatives and the

21 Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate

22 within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

23 The plan shall include (but not necessarily be limited to) —

24 (1) the research and development priorities and

25 goals to be achieved by the program;

•S 1296 IS

1 (2) the program elements, management structure,

2 and activities, including program responsibilities of in-

3 dividual agencies and individual institutional elements;

4 (3) the program strategies including technical

5 milestones to be achieved toward specific goals during

6 each fiscal year for all major activities and projects;

7 (4) the estimated costs of individual program

8 items, including current as well as proposed funding

9 levels for each of the 5 years of the plan for each of

10 the participating agencies;

11 (5) a description of the methodology of coordina-

12 tion and technology transfer; and

13 (6) the proposed participation by industry and aca-

14 demia in the planning and implementation of the pro-

15 gram.

16 (c) Concurrently with the submission of the President's

17 annual budget to the Congress for each year after the year in

18 which the comprehensive 5-year plan is initially transmitted

19 under subsection (b), the Secretary shall transmit to the Con-

20 gress a detailed description of the current comprehensive

21 plan, setting forth appropriate modifications which may be

22 necessary to revise the plan as well as comments on and

23 recommendations for improvements in the comprehensive

24 program management plan made by the Hydrogen Technical

25 Advisory Panel established under section 106.

•S 1296 IS

1 RESEAECH AND DEVELOPMENT

2 Sec. 103. (a) The Secretary shall establish, within the

3 Department of Energy, a research and development program,

4 consistent with the comprehensive 5-year program manage-

5 ment plan under section 102, to ensure the development of a

6 domestic hydrogen fuel production capability within the

7 shortest time practicable.

8 (b)(1) The Secretary shall initiate research or accelerate

9 existing research in areas which may contribute to the devel-

10 opment of hydrogen production and use.

11 (2) Areas researched shall include production, liquefac-

12 tion, transmission, distribution, storage, and use. Particular

13 attention shall be given to developing an understanding and

14 resolution of all potential problems of introducing hydrogen

15 production and use into the marketplace.

16 (c) The Secretary shall give priority to those production

17 techniques that use renewable energy resources as their pri-

18 mary energy source.

19 (d) The Secretary shall, for the purpose of performing

20 his responsibilities pursuant to this title, solicit proposals for

21 and evaluate any reasonable new or improved technology, a

22 description of which is submitted to the Secretary in writing,

23 which could lead or contribute to the development of hydro-

24 gen production technology.

•S 1296 IS

1 (e) The Secretary shall conduct evaluations, arrange for

2 tests and demonstrations, and disseminate to developers in-

3 formation, data, and materials necessary to support efforts

4 undertaken pursuant to this section.

5 DEMONSTEATIONS AND PLAN

6 Sec. 104. (a)(1) The Secretary shall conduct demonstra-

7 tions of hydrogen technology, preferably in self-contained lo-

8 cations, so that technical and nontechnical parameters can be

9 evaluated to best determine commercial applicability of the

10 technology.

11 (2) Concurrently with activities conducted pursuant to

12 section 103, the Secretary shall conduct small-scale demon-

13 strations of hyrdogen technology at self-contained sites.

14 (b) The Secretary shall, in consultation with the Secre-

15 tary of Transportation, the Administrator of the National

16 Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Hydrogen

17 Technical Advisory Panel established under section 106, pre-

18 pare a comprehensive large-scale hydrogen demonstration

19 plan with respect to demonstrations carried out pursuant to

20 subsection (a)(1). Such plan shall include —

21 (1) a description of the necessary research and de-

22 velopment activities that must be completed before ini-

23 tiation of a large-scale hydrogen production demonstra-

24 tion program;

25 (2) an assessment of the appropriateness of a

26 large-scale demonstration immediately upon completion

•S 1296 IS

1 of the necessary research and development activities;

2 and

3 (3) an implementation schedule with associated

4 budget and program management resource require-

5 ments.

6 COOBDINATION AND CONSULTATION

7 Sec. 105. (a) The Secretary shall have overall manage-

8 ment responsibility for carrying out the program under this

9 title. In carrying out such program, the Secretary, consistent

10 with such overall management responsibility —

11 (1) shall use the expertise of the National Aero-

12 nautics and Space Administration and the Department

13 of Transportation; and

14 (2) may use the expertise of any other Federal

15 agency in accordance with subsection (b) in carrying

16 out any activities under this title, to the extent that the

17 Secretary determines that any such agency has capa-

18 bilities which would allow such agency to contribute to

19 the purpose of this title.

20 (b) The Secretary may, in accordance with subsection

21 (a), obtain the assistance of any department, agency, or in-

22 strumentality of the Executive branch of the Federal Govern-

23 ment upon written request, on a reimbursable basis or other-

24 wise and with the consent of such department, agency, or

25 instrumentality. Each such request shall identify the assist-

•S 1296 IS

1 ance the Secretary deems necessary to carry out any duty

2 under this title.

3 (c) The Secretary shall consult with the Administrator

4 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the

5 Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the

6 Secretary of Transportation, and the Hydrogen Technical

7 Advisory Panel established under section 106 in carrying out

8 his authorities pursuant to this title.

9 TECHNICAL PANEL

10 Sec. 106. (a) There is hereby established a technical

11 panel of the Energy Research Advisory Board, to be known

12 as the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel, to advise the

13 Secretary on the program under this title.

14 (b)(1) The technical panel shall be appointed by the Sec-

15 retary and shall be comprised of such representatives from

16 domestic industry, universities, professional societies, Gov-

17 ernment laboratories, financial, environmental, and other or-

18 ganizations as the Secretary, in consultation with the Chair-

19 man of the Energy Research Advisory Board, deems appro-

20 priate based on his assessment of the technical and other

21 qualifications of such representatives. Appointments to the

22 technical panel shall be made within 90 days after the enact-

23 ment of this Act. The technical panel shall have a chairman,

24 who shall be elected by the members from among their

25 number.

•S 1296 IS

1 (2) Members of the technical panel need not be members

2 of the full Energy Research Advisory Board.

3 (c) The activities of the technical panel shall be in com-

4 pliance with any laws and regulations guiding the activities

5 of technical and fact-finding groups reporting to the Energy

6 Research Advisory Board.

7 (d) The heads of the departments, agencies, and instru-

8 mentalities of the Executive branch of the Federal Govern-

9 ment shall cooperate with the technical panel in carrying out

10 the requirements of this section and shall furnish to the tech-

11 nical panel such information as the technical panel deems

12 necessary to carry out this section.

13 (e) The technical panel shall review and make any nec-

14 essary recommendations on the following items, among

15 others —

16 (1) the implementation and conduct of the pro-

17 gram under this title; and

18 (2) the economic, technological, and environmen-

19 tal consequences of the deployment of hydrogen pro-

20 duction and use systems.

21 (0 The technical panel shall prepare and submit annual-

22 ly to the Energy Research Advisory Board a written report

23 of its findings and recommendations with regard to the pro-

24 gram under this title. The report shall include —

1 (1) a summary of the technical panel's activities

2 for the preceding year;

3 (2) an assessment and evaluation of the status of

4 the program; and

5 (3) comments on and recommendations for im-

6 provements in the comprehensive 5-year program man-

7 agement plan required under section 102.

8 (g) After consideration of the technical panel report and

9 within 30 days after its receipt, the Energy Research Adviso-

10 ry Board shall submit the report, together with any com-

11 ments which the Board deems appropriate, to the Secretary.

12 (h) The Secretary shall provide such staff, funds, and

13 other support as may be necessary to enable the technical

14 panel to carry out the functions described in this section.

15 DEFINITIONS

16 Sec. 107. As used in this title —

17 (1) the term "Secretary" means the Secretary of

18 Energy; and

19 . (2) the term "capability" means proven technical

20 ability.

21 AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

22 Sec. 108. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated

23 to carry out the purpose of this title (in addition to any

24 amounts made available for such purpose pursuant to other

25 Acts)—

•S 1296 IS

1 (1) $10,000,000 for the fiscal year beginning Oc-

2 tober 1, 1987;

3 (2) $15,000,000 for the fiscal year beginning Oc-

4 tober 1, 1988;

5 (3) $20,000,000 for the fiscal year beginning Oc-

6 tober 1, 1989;

7 (4) $25,000,000 for the fiscal year beginning Oc-

8 tober 1, 1990; and

9 (5) $30,000,000 for the fiscal year beginning Oc-

10 tober 1, 1991.

11 TITLE H— HYDROGEN-FUELED AIRCRAFT

12 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

13 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE

14 Sec. 201. (a) The Congress finds that—

15 (1) long-term future decreases in petroleum-base

16 fuel availability will seriously impair the operation of

17 the world's air transport fleets;

18 (2) hydrogen appears to be an attractive alterna-

19 tive to petroleum in the long term to fuel commercial

20 aircraft;

21 (3) it is therefore in the national interest to accel-

22 erate efforts to develop a domestic hydrogen-fueled

23 supersonic and subsonic aircraft capability; and

24 (4) the use of liquid hydrogen as a commercial air

25 transport fuel has sufficient long-term promise to justify

•S 1296 IS

1 a substantial research, development, and demonstration

2 program.

3 (b) The purpose of this title is to —

4 (1) direct the Administrator of the National Aero-

5 nautics and Space Administration to prepare and im-

6 plement a comprehensive 5-year plan and program for

7 the conduct of research, development, and demonstra-

8 tion activities leading to the realization of a domestic

9 hydrogen-fueled aircraft capability within the shortest

10 time practicable;

11 (2) establish as a goal broad multinational partici-

12 pation in the program; and

13 (3) provide a basis for public, industry, and certi-

14 fying agency acceptance of hydrogen-fueled aircraft as

15 a mode of commercial air transport.

16 COMPREHENSIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

17 Sec. 202. (a) The Administrator shall prepare a com-

18 prehensive 5-year program management plan for research,

19 development, and demonstration activities consistent with the

20 provisions of sections 203, 204, and 205. In the preparation

21 of such plan, the Administrator shall consult with the Secre-

22 tary of Energy, the Secretary of Transportation, and the

23 heads of such other Federal agencies and such public and

24 private organizations as he deems appropriate. Such plan

25 shall be structured to permit the realization of a domestic

•S 1296 IS

1 hydrogen-fueled aircraft capability within the shortest time

2 practicable.

3 (b) The Administrator shall transmit the comprehensive

4 5-year program management plan to the Committee on Sci-

5 ence, Space, and Technology of the House of Representa-

6 tives and the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Trans-

7 portation and Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate

8 within 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

9 The plan shall include (but not necessarily be limited to) —

10 (1) the research and development priorities and

1 1 goals to be achieved by the program;

12 (2) the program elements, management structure,

13 and activities, including program responsibilities of in-

14 dividual agencies and individual institutional elements;

15 (3) the program strategies including detailed tech-

16 nical milestones to be achieved toward specific goals

17 during each fiscal year for all major activities and

18 projects;

19 (4) the estimated costs of individual program

20 items, including current as well as proposed funding

21 levels for each of the 5 years of the plan for each of

22 the participating agencies;

23 (5) a description of the methodology of coordina-

24 tion and technology transfer; and

»S 1296 IS

1 (6) the proposed participation by industry and

2 academia in the planning and implementation of the

3 program.

4 (c) Concurrently with the submission of the President's

5 annual budget to the Congress for each year after the year in

6 which the comprehensive 5-year plan is initially transmitted

7 under subsection (b), the Administrator shall transmit to the

8 Congress a detailed description of the current comprehensive

9 plan, setting forth appropriate modifications which may be

10 necessary to revise the plan as well as comments on and

11 recommendations for improvements in the comprehensive

12 program management plan made by the Hydrogen-Fueled

13 Aircraft Advisory Committee established under section 207.

14 EESEAECH AND DEVELOPMENT

15 Sec. 203. (a) The Administrator shall establish, within

16 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, a re-

17 search and development program consistent with the compre-

18 hensive 5-year program management plan under section 202

19 to ensure the development of a domestic hydrogen-fueled air-

20 craft capability within the shortest time practicable.

21 (b) The Administrator shall initiate research or acceler-

22 ate existing research in areas which may contribute to the

23 development of a hydrogen-fueled aircraft capability.

24 (c) In conducting the program pursuant to this section,

25 the Administrator shall encourage the establishment of do-

ss 1296 IS

1 mestic industrial capabilities to supply hydrogen-fueled air-

2 craft systems or subsystems to the commercial marketplace.

3 (d) The Administrator shall, for the purpose of perform-

4 ing his responsibilities pursuant to this Act, solicit proposals

5 for and evaluate any reasonable new or improved technology,

6 a description of which is submitted to the Administrator in

7 writing, which could lead or contribute to the development of

8 hydrogen-fueled aircraft technology.

9 (e) The Administrator shall conduct evaluations, arrange

10 for tests and demonstrations and disseminate to developers

11 information, data, and materials necessary to support efforts

12 undertaken pursuant to this section.

13 FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION

14 Sec. 204. (a) Concurrent with the activities carried out

15 pursuant to section 203, the Administrator shall, in consulta-

16 tion with the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of

17 Energy, and the Hydrogen-Fueled Aircraft Advisory Com-

18 mittee established under section 207, prepare a comprehen-

19 sive flight demonstration plan, the implementation of which

20 shall provide confirmation of the technical feasibility, eco-

21 nomic viability, and safety of liquid hydrogen as a fuel for

22 commercial transport aircraft. The comprehensive flight plan

23 shall include —

24 (1) a description of the necessary research and de-

25 velopment activities that must be completed before ini-

26 tiation of a flight demonstration program;

•S 1296 IS

1 (2) the selection of a domestic site where demon-

2 stration activities can lead to early commercialization

3 of the concept;

4 (3) an assessment of a preliminary flight demon-

5 stration to occur concurrently with the later stages of

6 research and development activities; and

7 (4) an implementation schedule with associated

8 budget and program management resource require-

9 ments.

10 (b) The Administrator shall transmit such comprehen-

1 1 sive flight demonstration plan to the Congress within 2 years

12 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

13 HYDROGEN PRODUCTION AND GROUND FACILITIES

14 Sec. 205. (a) The Administrator, in consultation with

15 the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of Energy,

16 shall define the systems, subsystems, or components associat-

17 ed with the production, transportation, storage, and handling

18 of liquid hydrogen that are specifically required for and

19 unique to the use of such fuel for commercial aircraft appli-

20 cation.

21 (b) The Administrator shall structure the research and

22 development program pursuant to section 203 to allow the

23 development of the systems, subsystems, or components de-

24 fined pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.

25 (c) The research and development program for hydrogen

26 production, transportation, and storage systems, subsystems,

•S 1296 IS

1 and components which are suitable for inclusion as part of a

2 fully integrated hydrogen-fueled aircraft system, but which

3 are not being specifically developed for such application shall

4 be the responsibility of the Secretary of Energy. Such activi-

5 ties shall be included as part of the program established pur-

6 suant to title I of this Act, and shall be so conducted as to

7 ensure compliance with hydrogen-fueled aircraft system con-

8 straints.

9 COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION

10 Sec. 206. (a) The Administrator shall have overall

11 management responsibility for carrying out the program

12 under this title. In carrying out such program, the Adminis-

13 trator, consistent with such overall management responsibil-

14 ity-

15 (1) shall utilize the expertise of the Departments

16 of Transportation and Energy to the extent deemed

17 appropriate by the Administrator, and

18 (2) may utilize the expertise of any other Federal

19 agency in accordance with subsection (b) in carrying

20 out any activities under this title, to the extent that the

21 Administrator determines that any such agency has ca-

22 pabilities which would allow such agency to contribute

23 to the purposes of this title.

24 (b) The Administrator may, in accordance with subsec-

25 tion (a), obtain the assistance of any department, agency, or

26 instrumentality of the Executive branch of the Federal Gov-

•S 1296 IS

1 eminent upon written request, on a reimbursable basis or

2 otherwise and with the consent of such department, agency,

3 or instrumentality. Each such request shall identify the as-

4 sistance the Administrator deems necessary to carry out any

5 duty under this title.

6 (c) The Administrator shall consult with the Secretary

7 of Energy, the Administrator of the Environmental Protec-

8 tion Agency, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Hy-

9 drogen-Fueled Aircraft Advisory Committee established

10 under section 207 in carrying out his authorities pursuant to

11 this title.

12 ADVISORY COMMITTEE

13 Sec. 207. (a) there is hereby established a Hydrogen-

14 Fueled Aircraft Advisory Committee, which shall advise the

15 Administrator on the program under this title.

16 (b) The Committee shall be appointed by the Adminis-

17 trator and shall be comprised of at least 7 members from

18 industrial, academic, financial, environmental, and legal orga-

19 nizations and such other entities as the Administrator deems

20 appropriate. Appointments to the Committee shall be made

21 within 90 days after the enactment of this Act. The Commit-

22 tee shall have a chairman, who shall be elected by the mem-

23 bers from among their number.

24 (c) the heads of the departments, agencies, and instru-

25 mentalities of the Executive branch of the Federal Govern-

26 ment shall cooperate with the Committee in carrying out the

•S 1296 IS

1 requirements of this section and shall furnish to the Cominit-

2 tee such information as the Committee deems necessary to

3 carry out this section.

4 (d) The Committee shall meet at least 4 times annually,

5 notwithstanding subsections (e) and (f) of section 10 of Public

6 Law 92-463.

7 (e) The Committee shall review and make any necessary

8 recommendations on the following items, among others —

9 (1) the implementation and conduct of the pro-

10 gram under this title; and

11 (2) the economic, technological, and environmen-

12 tal consequences of developing a hydrogen-fueled air-

13 craft capability.

14 (f) The Committee shall prepare and submit annually to

15 the Administrator a written report of its findings and recom-

16 mendations with regard to the program under this title. The

17 report shall include —

18 (1) a summary of the Committee's activities for

19 the preceding year;

20 (2) an assessment and evaluation of the status of

21 the program; and

22 (3) comments on and recommendations for im-

23 provements in the comprehensive 5-year program man-

24 agement plan required under section 202.

IS 1296 IS

1 (g) The Administrator shall provide such staff, funds,

2 and other support as may be necessary to enable the Com-

3 mittee to carry out the functions described in this section.

4 DEFINITIONS

5 Sec. 208. As used in this title —

6 (1) the term "Administrator" means the Adminis-

7 trator of the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-

8 tration;

9 (2) the term "capability" means proven technical

10 ability; and

11 (3) the term "certifying agency" means any gov-

12 eminent entity with direct responsibility for assuring

13 public safety in the operation of the air transport

14 system.

15 AUTHOBIZATION OF APPEOPRIATIONS

16 Sec. 209. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated

17 to carry out the purpose of this title —

18 (1) $10,000,000 for the fiscal year beginning Oc-

19 tober 1, 1987;

20 (2) $15,000,000 for the fiscal year beginning Oc-

21 tober 1, 1988;

22 (3) $20,000,000 for the fiscal year beginning Oc-

23 tober 1, 1989;

24 (4) $25,000,000 for the fiscal year beginning Oc-

25 tober 1, 1990; and

•S 1296 IS

1 (5) $30,000,000 for the fiscal year beginning Oc-

2 tober 1, 1991.

IS 1296 IS

R9-/.A/, n _ qq

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LOWELL WEICKER, JR
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
U.S. SENATE COMMITTEE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

SEPTEMBER 23, 1987

MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING
TODAY TO CONSIDER THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGY, THE
FUEL CELL. AS INTRODUCED WITH MY COLLEAGUE, SENATOR MATSUNAGA,
AND OTHERS, THE CONTINUED RESEARCH TO DEVELOP AND COMMERCIALIZE
FUEL CELLS REPRESENTS OUR COMMITTMENT TO THE FUTURE OF NEW POWER
GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES. AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE IS A
CRITICAL NEED TO DESIGN AND BUILD MORE EFFICIENT AND LESS
ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING POWER GENERATION PLANTS THAT CAN UTILIZE
A VARIETY OF FUEL SOURCES. I KNOW THAT THIS COMMITTEE CONSIDERS
THE POTENTIAL OF ANOTHER ENERGY CRISIS TO BE ONE THE LARGEST
THREATS TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

MR. CHAIRMAN, TWO OF THE BILLS BEFORE US TODAY DEAL WITH THE
FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE FUEL CELL. THE "RENEWABLE ENERGY/FUEL
CELLS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION ACT" SUPPORTS RESEARCH FOR THE
PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN, AND OTHER FUELS, THROUGH THE USE OF
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND FROM BIOMASS IN ORDER TO OPERATE FUEL CELLS.
THE SECOND BILL, THE "FUEL CELL ENERGY UTILIZATION ACT" WILL
CLASSIFY THE USE OF FUEL CELLS AS A DOMESTIC RENEWABLE ENERGY
INDUSTRY, REQUIRE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO PREPARE
FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF FUEL CELLS, AND WILL REQUIRE
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE TO ASSESS AND REPORT TO CONGRESS THE
EXPORT POTENTIAL FOR FUEL CELLS AND FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGIES. THIS
LAST BILL WAS REPORTED FAVORABLY OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE IN THE
99TH CONGRESS.

MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH THIS HEARING IT IS MY HOPE THAT THE FUEL CELL
LEGISLATION BEFORE US, ALONG WITH THE HYDROGEN RESEARCH BILL,
WILL BE MOVED EXPEDITIOUSLY THROUGH THE COMMITTEE FOR
CONSIDERATION BY THE FULL SENATE LATER THIS YEAR. AGAIN MR.
CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING TODAY.

Sfrc too^ingtrm post

MfPttJES

SEP 6 1987

L very "«* in "Outposts. " Outiook examines contemporary ideas

that arc changing our lives and expanding our intellectual frontiers. This

tteek, Peter Hoffmann examines hydrogen 's potential as an energy

source. Hoffmann, a correspondent for McGraw-Hill Worid

News and editor of The Hydrogen Letter, is the author of

"The Forever Fuel: The Story of Hydrogen. "

ENERGY

Fueling the Future with Hydrogen

By Peter Hoffmann fo ^

YDROGEN— the simpl-
est asd most common el-
ement in the universe —
may also prove to be the
simplest solution to
America's long-term energy needs.
Alternative fuels and energy
sources have been dormant issues
since the days of the oil embargo.
But as concern rises over tbe se-
curity of Mideast oil and natural-gas
supplies, as well as air pollution,
aod rain and the greenhouse effect,
those topics are gaining renewed
urgency.

As a result, attention is being
focused on the promise of methanol
(wood alcohol) as an alternative
fuel. In recent congressional hear-
ings, American automakers have
come out enthusiastically in favor of
its development; and the General
Services Administration wants to
buy 5,000 methanol cars for the
government by 1990.
• However, methanol or other al'
cohols derived from coal, grain or
bicunass, cannot contribute much
toward solving the air -pollution
problem. It contains only about half
as »uch carbon as the same volume
of gasoline or diesel fuel; but it
ttkes about twice as much to do the
same job. Thus "the carbon content
is the same as gasoline's for the
swne energy content," says John
Appleby, director of Texas A&M's
sew Center for Electrochemical
Sysiems and Hydrogen Research.
So even with widespread use of
methanol, carbon-dioxide emiv

stons, a principal contributor to the
greenhouse effect, would remain
essentially unchanged.
. Hydrogen, on the other hand,
doesn't pollute at all. Burned in in-
ternal-combustion engines, diesels.
jets or fuel cell>. it produces no car-
bon monoxide.-- or dioxides, no un-

burned hydrocarbons, no stench, no
smoke, no sulfur-derived com-
pounds to cause acid rain — none of
the noxious discharges we suffer
today.

And which we pay for unwitting-
ly: In a study published earlier this
year, T. Nejat Veziroglu, a re-
searcher at the University of Miami
and head of the International Asso-

That is, why Rep. George Brown
(D-Calif.) and Sen. Spark Mat-
sunaga (D-Hawaii) are backing hy-
drogen as the best choice for the
post-fossil fuel era. Both have in-
troduced identical bills this session
to provide some $200 million in hy-
drogen-related funding over five
years — half devoted to-, re>ean"h
and development, half to aerospace
applications. Subcommittees in the
House and Senate have tentatively
scheduled hearings on the subject
for later this month.

The idea of exploiting hydrogen
as a power source is by no niean>

new. As early as 1820 an Oxford
don. Rev. William Cecil, regaled

ciation for Hydrogen Energy, cal- .

culated the hidden costs of fossil ellow *"d™'" at Magdalen Col-
fuels in terms of human health ex- le«e w,lh his ,deas of a ™cn,ne

with his ideas ot a
powered by hydrogen explosions.
And the grandfather of science fic-
tion, Jules Verne, talked about hy-
drogen power in remarkably pro-
phetic terms in his 1874 novel,
The Invisible Island." Verne fore-
saw the use of "water as a fuel for
steamers and engines" after it was
"decomposed into its primitive el-
ements ... by electricity."

, . , Hydrogen is a chemical energy-

ydrogen-denved energy. Mrrier_ nol a primary soune Ql en.

however, has none of those ergy. That is it has t0 ^ manufac.

environmental costs. In com- tured— through electrolysis or oth-
bust.on, its only byproduct is steam. er „^n%_m as electricity has to
(Plus some nitrogen oxide, unavoid- ^ generated in ^^ lants. But
able owing to the fact that air is 80 ,ike eiectncity. it is easily con-
percent rutrogen-a problem that verted jnt0 other forms o( e
can be minimized with better com- an(j tnus a{n

penses. deleterious effects on fresh
water, farm produce and buildings,
and a half dozen other categories.
His estimate came to more than $8
per gigajoule of fossil-based ener-
gy— approximately the equivalent
of. 10 gallons of gasoline.

Low Costs i*d Tw« Bills

bustion technology). And it can be
derived from the planet's most
ubiquitous resource, water, through
the process of electrolysis or other
water-splitting methods. |See box.|

serve as a fungible

currency.

CONTINUED

£l)c toosfjinglmt J3ost

SEP 6 1987

It was this aspect of hy3rogen
that appealed to a y6ung Scottish
scientist named J.B.S. Haldane. In
1923, he entertained members of a
Cambridge University society
known as the Heretics with his
ideas of an alternative energy sys-
tem that would store energy gen-
erated by wind power as liquid hy-
drogen. He called hydrogen "weight
(or weight the most efficient known
method of storing energy as it gives
about three times as much heat per
pound as petrol. On the other hand,
it is very light, and bulk for bulk has
one one-third the efficiency of pet-
rol. This will not, however, detract
from its use in aeroplanes where
weight is more important than
bulk."

llaldane's prophecy came true in
the 1960s when a B-57 jet partially
powered on hydrogen flew over
Lake Erie. In the '70s, Lockheed
conducted studies on liquid-
hydrogen-powered subsonic and
supersonic jets for NASA and pre-
dicted that such planes would be

more efficient than their kerosene-
powered counterparts. And the Na-
tional Aerospace Plane project (the
hybrid rocket/hypersonic jet en-
dorsed by President Reagan) could
only operate on liquid hydrogen.

In the first energy trauma of the
early 1970s, amid mounting envi-
ronmental fears, many hydrogen-
based research programs were
launched. Conferences were held in
the United States, Europe and Ja-
pan. Jules Verne's script for clean
and limitless energy seemed to be
around the corner.

Short Memories, Long-Term Gain

Hydrogen seemed the ideal i
quick-fix miracle fuel, offer-
ing an easy way to twist out of
OPEC's stranglehold. Already widely
used in industry' (petroleum refining,
chemical manufacture, electronics,
glass production and hardening of
fats), it could be used to power in-
ternal-combustion engines, diesels,
jets and fuel cells.

But developing the necessary
technology and energy efficiency,
even when oil was up to $30-40 a
barrel, turned out to be more com-
plex, time-consuming and expensive
than anticipated. And as energy

prices dropped to near pre-embargo
levels in the late 1970s and environ-
mental issues shrank into the back-
ground, interest m hydrogen evap-
orated.

Now interest in alternative energy
sources is reviving — especially in
import-leery Japan and in Europe,
which has been shocked into new
alternative-energy awareness by the
Chernobyl disaster.

Matsunaga fears that other coun-
tries are embarking on hydrogen
programs in preparation for the next
century that once more may leave
the United States in the dust a la
steel, microchips, cameras, cars and
VCRs: "In this 100th CongTess—
with its focus on America's standing
in the global marketplace — the ur-
gency of establishing a national effort
to advance the use of hydrogen en-
ergy is more clearly evident than
ever," he said in introducing his pro-
gram. This is because of the priority
given to hydrogen R&D activity by
such industrial nations as West Ger-
many and Japan as well as Canada,
the Netherlands and Brazil."

The $200-million. five-year plan
outlined in the Matsunaga/Brown
bills would be a substantial increase
over current spending levels, which
have averaged $18 million per year:
FY 1988 budget requests include
about $1 million for administering
the Departme nl of Energy; $2.4 mil-
lion lor lour hydrogen research in-
stitutions in Texas, Hawaii and Flor-
ida; and funding for a number of ba-
sic research programs throughout
DOE.

Getting on Board

By contrast, Canada — which for
five years has had a Hydrogen
Industry Council (H1C) made
up of some 50 companies plus the
national and several provincial gov-
ernments— spent almost $15 million
on hydrogen research and develop-
ment in 1986, most of that from in-
dustry, according to Matsunaga.

Germany and Japan have made
major commitments. And various
companies and government-sup-
ported institutions are doing hydro-
gen-related work in China, Switzer-
land, Belgium, Holland, Italy and
Brazil. France is building a large 2
MW electrolyzer to make hydrogen

for the Ariane space program Even
the Saudis, anxious to remain a sup-
plier of chemical fuels in a post-fossil-
fuel world, are laying plans for tap-
ping solar energy to make hydrogen:
They have signed an agreement with
West Germany's aerospace agency
DFVLR to build "Hysolar," a 100
KW prototype solar plant to produce
hydrogen near Riyadh.
Today, the outlines of a triangular
international hydrogen "consortium"
involving West Germany, Japan and
Canada is beginning to lay the foun-
dations for the next century's non-
polluting, regenerative global energy
system.

Consider these recent develop-
ments:

■ A Canadian government-spon-
sored study calls for the country to
make hydrogen technology a "nation-
al mission." And the HIC is looking at
the idea of experimentally "electri-
fying" railroad diesel engines with
liquid hydrogen; using hydrogen-
powered underground mining vehi-
cles (of special concern because of
underground . environmental con-
straints); and exporting cheap elec-
tricity in the form of hydrogen to
Europe and to Japan as rocket fuel
for that country's space program.

■ A German chemical-industry
group. DECHEMA. under com ran
to the European Community. ha>
completed a year-long pre-feasibility
study of the idea of buying low-cost
Canadian electricity, converting it in
a 100 megawatt electrolyzer into
hydrogen and shipping it as liquid
hydrogen or in some other chemical
compound in converted tankers to
Europe for use in natural gas enrich-
ment, making electricity and other
applications.

■ Two new solar-hydrogen research
centers are being planned at Stutt-
gart and Ulm Universities, the latter
in conjunction with carmaker Daim-

CONTINUED

£<K toosfjington post

SEP 6 1987

Jer-Beru. Daimler-Benz, as part of a
major corporate overhaul, has added
hydrogen to its energy research
agenda and is currently operating JO
hydrogen-powered -station wagons
and vans in an around-the-ckick fleet
test in West Berlin.
■ Mercedes' arch-rival, BMW, has
helped convert several cars to bquid
hydrogen in a project started several
years ago by the West German »ero-
space research agency. And the com-
pany is expected to become a part-
ner in a project to build the world's
first experimental solar-hydrogen
plant in Bavaria.

■ In Japan, researchers at the
Musashi Institute of Technology in
Tokyo over several years have de-
veloped liquid-hydrogen-powered
diesel-type engines that are re-
garded the best appbcations yet
available.

In the United States, some hydro-
gen work is going on al Texas A&M.
(with seed money from the National
Science Foundation), the universities
of Hawaii and Florida, Brookhaven
National Laboratory and (due to start
at some point in the future) the Solar
Energy Research Institute in Color-
ado. What more the United States will
do remains to be seen.

But "this country is on a collision
course with another energy crisis."
says Brown, "that could compare with
the oil embargo of the 1970s." And
hydrogen "may be the answer to our
future energy needs."

JtVMSTX qu***— n< ■*S«<n> POST

EJjc tOosljingtim post

Water to Burn 63

TODAY, HYDROGEN is made industrially— for such uses
as petroleum refining, silicon crystal formation and fer-
tilizer— chiefly by extracting it from natural gas in a pro-
cess called steam-reforming, the most economical method so far.

But hydrogen can also be produced without the use of dwin-
dling, polluting fossil fuels. The most common way is by electrol-
ysis, which splits the water molecule into its component parts.
When the elements combine, they release energy. Hydrogen and
oxygen bum together, forming water and producing heat. Con-
versely, energy — in the form of electricity — must be applied to
break up the molecule. Hydrogen bubbles up at the negatively
charged cathode and oxygen at the positive anode. {See illustra-
tion above.) The quantity of water electrolyzed is proportional to
the amount of current employed.

(If the process is reversed, the combination of hydrogen and
oxygen produces a current, plus water. This is the principle of
the fuel cell, which can function as a sort of battery. Used now io
space vehicles, it may eventually power automobiles and trains.)

At present, hydrogen is relatively expensive to produce be-
cause of the energy costs involved. One method under develop-
ment is electrolysis of steam at around 1,000° C, which requires
less voltage than processing liquid water. But if the steam were
produced by, say, concentrated energy from sunlight in a "solar
tower" (see illustration) or other source, the price would fall.

Japanese and American laboratories have been looking for
years for semiconducting materials that can use sunlight to make
electricity which would in turn be used for electrolysis. Some
designs use photovoltaic cells submerged in water in such a way
that oxygen evolves on top, and hydrogen on the bottom. Other
scientists are looking at hydrogen-producing photosynthetic bac-
teria common in tropical oceans.

Texas A&M's John Appleby thinks the way into a' hydrogen
economy is by extracting it from coal, but without the attendant
carbon-dioxide pollution problems — perhaps through a modifi-
cation of an existing California gasification system which is al-
ready being used to make clean (sulfur-free) hydrogen-nch gas.
^ Part of the overall economics include selling or burying the un-
avoidable carbon dioxide byproduct so that it does not contribute
to the greenhouse effect. "Based on what we know today," he
says, 2t would be cheaper than hydrogen produced via sqlar pow-
er." , - -

In any event, hydrogen is not going to be cheap. But then no
alternative fuels will be inexpensive in the post-fossil world. Ap-
pleby cites projections for hydrogen in the range of £45 per mil-
lion BTUs (British thermal units, a measure of heat) in'ihe mid-
1990s— the equivalent of $6-per-gallon gasoline. But be also be-
lieves the California approach could produce hydrogen at about
$9 per million BTUs, roughly equivalent to $1.35 gasoline, a
price that does not include credits for the sale of carbon dioxide
and electricity.

In fact, assuming more efficient fuel-ceD cars in the future, the
costs per mile might not exceed today's: Appleby says such a
vehicle might operate at four times the efficiency erf internal-
combustion engines in urban use: It has all the advantages of the
electric car without the disadvantages of having to recharge the
batteries."

—Peter Hoffmann

SEP 6 1987

STATEMENT OF HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII

Senator Matsunaga. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
wish, first of all, to thank you for scheduling these hearings on
three energy bills I have introduced in this 100th Congress and for
inviting me to join with you after my testimony. And I do accept.

Senator Ford. Thank you.

Senator Matsunaga. The first two bills, Mr. Chairman, S. 1294
and S. 1295, both relating to fuel cell energy technology, were the
subject of a full hearing before this subcommittee last year in Feb-
ruary during the 99th Congress when I first introduced them. S.
1295, a bill to develop a national policy for the utilization of fuel
cells, is identical to S. 1687 of the 99th Congress in the form. The
measure was amended and reported favorably by the full Energy
and Natural Resources Committee last year. Unfortunately, this
bill was still on the Senate calendar at the time of adjournment.

Now, the third bill, S. 1296, to establish a national program of
research, development and demonstration in the field of hydrogen,
is a major piece of legislation which I have urged in the last three
Congresses, and should be the primary focus of your hearing today
as it is the first time that the measure has been the subject of
hearing in the Senate.

Now, I have a separate statement to offer in this regard, Mr.
Chairman, but first let me refresh the memory of senior members
and acquaint new members of the subcommittee about my bills in
support of fuel cell energy technology.

At the outset let me call your attention to the fact that these
measures are cosponsored by Senator Weicker of the subcommittee,
as well as by Senators Murkowski and Bingaman of the full com-
mittee, and by Senator Inouye, my colleague from Hawaii; and in
the case of S. 1295, by Senator Hecht of your subcommittee.

Now, this is a technology pioneered in America. Although first
constructed as an electrochemical device by Sir William Growe in
1839, the fuel cell had its initial practical application in the Gemini
V flight of August 1965 where it proved to be an efficient, reliable
power generator with very high energy density.

The device converts chemical energy derived from hydrogen rich
gas combined with air into electricity without any intermediate
combustion step. A typical cell produces high, direct current in a
low voltage. Practical voltages are obtained by connecting many in-
dividual cells into what is referred to as a cell stack. The result has
been hailed as the most efficient electrical generation device in ex-
istence.

Besides their high efficiencies, fuel cells offer a number of other
advantages, including economy and size. They can be factory as-
sembled, leading to short construction lead times, put on line in
comparatively short periods. The capital outlay and interests costs
can be expected to compare favorably. Output can be increased mo-
dularly as demand rises. The impact design means small, discrete
increments of capacity allowing a better match of capacity to an-
ticipated growth. Hence, this energy technology holds promise for
both centralized and decentralized power systems.

Much effort has been expended in fuel cell research and develop-
ment since the Gemini flight on the part of both the Federal Gov-
ernment and industry. This work has centered around various
types of hydrogen fuel and cellular construction, as well as energy
applications, including the use in electric hybrid vehicles.

The Federal R&D stake has grown to $335 million during the
past 12 years according to the Congressional Research Service, and
the investment of the Nation's gas utilities industries has been
placed at another $100 million. The electric utilities and manufac-
turers, both large and small, have invested heavily also in this
emerging technology which has gained increasing world attention.
A successful 4 and a half megawatt fuel cell demonstration power
plant to supply Tokyo Electric Power Plant has been constructed at
Goyi, Japan by United Technologies Corporation, which completed
trial testing of the plant at the end of 1985.

Now, this undertaking, in turn, was built upon an earlier proto-
type in New York City under the auspices of Consolidated Edison
Company and the U.S. Department of Energy. It has led to the cre-
ation of a joint venture between United Technologies and the To-
shiba Corporation entitled "International Fuel Cells," which has
plans to commercialize an 11 megawatt fuel cell generator by late
1989.

The point of commercial payoff for the large investment, both
public and private, in this technology, appears to be fast approach-
ing. And my two measures are based upon a 1985 CRS survey of
fuel cell developments which carried recommendations on bringing
this public investment to fruition. The CRS report explained that
the goal of Federal research in fuel cells since the mid-1970s has
been to develop a highly energy efficient technology with some es-
pecially desirable characteristics for electric power planning,
namely, low environmental impact, fuel flexibility, high perform-
ance, small size and spinning reserve capability.

The primary national gains expected from this research are in-
creased fuel use efficiency, substitution of alternate fuels for con-
ventional fuels, and development of a potential for improving our
national balance of trade through the export of the technology.

The report noted that the Federal program had been built large-
ly upon congressional initiatives, but has lacked a strategy for
acting on the research findings. These two bills are designed to fill
this gap.

Now, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as these two bills have been the
subject of hearings before this committee in the previous Congress,
I would ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my testimo-
ny on these two measures be included in the hearing record as if
presented in full.

Senator Ford. They will be included in full, Senator.

Senator Matsunaga. And of course, for the reasons I have
stated, I urge your favorable report on S. 1294 and S. 1295 to expe-
dite the advancement of this technology.

And now, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would like to
testify upon my third bill, S. 1296, which is a bill to establish a na-
tional program of hydrogen research and development, a measure
which Senator Evans of your subcommittee and I introduced in

both the 98th and 99th Congresses. And in this, the 100th Congress,
the two of us have been joined by Senator Inouye.

When I first introduced this bill in the 97th Congress, I had no
other cosponsors. So, I feel my efforts in its behalf are now gaining
momentum especially in light of the fact that there is now a com-
panion bill in the House with four sponsors. And incidentally, hear-
ings were held this morning over in the House, and I testified
before that House committee.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I might say that this momentum comes
none too soon with our preoccupation in this Congress regarding
the Nation's competitive standing in the global marketplace. The
urgency of establishing a national effort to advance the use of hy-
drogen energy is more clearly evident than ever before. This is be-
cause of the priority given to hydrogen R&D activity by such indus-
trial nations as West German and Japan, as well as Canada, the
Netherlands and Brazil. Canada has recently forged ahead in this
field by emphasizing hydrogen production from water by electroly-
sis using electricity from nuclear, as well as hydropower plants.
Yet here again, as with fuel cells, hydrogen energy represents a
technology that was pioneered here in our own country, yet taken
up by other countries.

Canadian industry and government support for hydrogen R&D
totaled nearly $15 million last year. In Japan, the Ministry of
International Trade is active in supporting hydrogen research, as
well as related development work in photovoltaics and fuel cells.
West Germany has a 15 year program which began in 1974 and
runs through 1989 involving an annual investment of nearly $2
million in hydrogen research. The Netherlands, with its work in
metal hydrides, and Brazil, where a 50-50 mixture of hydrogen and
carbon monoxide is used as a substitute for natural gas, have ambi-
tious programs, along with Austria, Sweden and Switzerland.

Hydrogen research is also being done in Egypt, Israel, Iran, the
United Arab Emirates, Belgium, France, Italy, Denmark, and of
course the Soviet Union.

Chinese scientists from the People's Republic have developed a
type of multi-metal alloy capable of storing hydrogen gas as hy-
dride that is said to be better and less expensive than comparable
materials in the west.

The time for the United States to reassert its leadership role in
the hydrogen field is now, Mr. Chairman. There should be no fur-
ther delay. Too much is at stake. S. 1296 is designed to reclaim for
the United States its original, preeminent position.

Hydrogen has long been hailed as the energy of the future, as
the universal fuel, and the ultimate fuel which has the promise of
creating a new economy. While this rhetoric may strike some as
somewhat overblown, if not premature, there is increasing evidence
that the present day applications of hydrogen as an energy storage
medium and as a standby fuel in gas turbines suggest an energy
source for the here and now, but one whose potential has yet to be
realized. Certainly its advantages for aviation and space fuel are
gaining increasing recognition on the part of both industry and
government, especially in the development of trans-atmospheric
aircraft as a priority of the Air Force and the Reagan Administra-
tion.

S. 1296, the Matsunaga-Evans-Inouye hydrogen R&D bill, is pre-
mised on carrying out the recommendations of various government
reports on hydrogen as a fuel and energy source prepared by the
National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Energy, and the
General Accounting Office. A theme among these recommenda-
tions has been the necessity to have hydrogen production employ
renewable or long-term primary energy sources. Their overriding
conclusion, however, is that despite hydrogen's manifold advan-
tages and benefits, it cannot be regarded as an energy option until
the techniques of its generation, transmission and storage are ex-
plored to their full potential.

Now, this legislation addresses both concerns and would move us
toward the use of hydrogen as an alternate fuel source through
programs of accelerated research at the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration and the Department of Energy. It is divided
into two major titles, one having to do with hydrogen production
and use, and the other focusing on hydrogen as a transportation
fuel and specifically a fuel for aircraft and spacecraft.

Title I calls for a five year program management plan to be de-
veloped by the Secretary of Energy to include research priorities,
technology strategies, cost estimates, and description of technology
transfers in industry and academic participation. The bill contem-
plates R&D programs and hydrogen production, liquefaction, trans-
mission, distribution, storage and use with priority given to tech-
niques using renewables as the primary energy source. Small scale
demonstration projects would be authorized, as well as plans for a
large scale project complete with a feasibility assessment and im-
plementation schedule.

The overall coordination for this program would be placed with
the Energy Secretary aided by the technical support of NASA and
the Department of Transportation. The Secretary would be re-
quired to consult with NASA, DOT and the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, as well as the Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel
representing industry, academia and professional and scientific
groups. Now, this panel would review the preparation and imple-
mentation of the program management plan, as well as the impact
of any hydrogen systems deployment and report annually to the
Energy Research Advisory Board on its findings.

The aggregate authorized funding during the five year period
would be $100 million.

Title II would support consideration of so-called trans-atmospher-
ic vehicles, or TAVs, such as the proposed Orient Express passen-
ger plane. And I would observe in this connection, Mr. Chairman,
that without a fuel possessing hydrogen's safety and power fea-
tures, hypersonic aerospacecraft would be impossible to operate.

Under Title II, NASA's Administrator would be charged with de-
veloping a five year plan similar to that called for in Title I, but
devoted to R&D and flight demonstration of a hydrogen-fueled air-
craft. With the plan in hand, NASA would be required to report to
Congress annually providing information on the necessary fuel pro-
duction and ground support facilities for carrying it out. Partici-
pants would include DOT, DOE, EPA and a broadly represented
Hydrogen- Fueled Aircraft Advisory Committee.

Authorizations for the five year plan under this title would also
aggregate $100 million.

In connection with this title, Mr. Chairman, let me offer an aside
in regard to hydrogen's safety properties. Although the Hinden-
burg dirigible disaster led to doubts on this score, experimental evi-
dence indicates that there may be less hazard if liquid or hydrided
hydrogen is used instead of jet fuel, gasoline, propane, kerosene or
liquid methane. A tankful of jet fuel shot with a high-powered rifle
would explode into flame, while a similar direct hit on a tankful of
liquid hydrogen will only cause leakage. Now, this was amply dem-
onstrated on 60 Minutes by the executive vice president of Lock-
heed several years ago. The properties of hydrogen which lead to
this contradiction of popular expectation are at its low density, its
high diffusion velocity in air and its emissivity.

In introducing this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I have stressed
that this a bill which should draw support from all quarters, nucle-
ar advocates and those concerned with the interests of both coal
and natural gas, just as much as solar and renewable proponents,
such as myself.

For those interested in advancing nuclear power, hydrogen can
be seen as a vehicle for hurdling the safety barrier. Because energy
is cheap to transport long distances with hydrogen as the storage
medium and after 300 to 400 miles, increasingly cheaper than to
transmit through electric wires, nuclear reactors could be located
at greater distances from populated areas, even mounted on sea-
borne rigs. Injected into declining natural gas fields, hydrogen can
serve as an enhancer stretching out the life of dwindling supplies

For those concerned with the interests of the coal industry, hy-
drogen also figures in an attractive scenario. If coal-gassed reactors
were to be built at the seashore, they could eject carbon dioxide
into the sea instead of into the air, and transmit energy in the
form of hydrogen from coal. Now, this could give us perhaps an-
other half century of coal availability without adding anything to
the world greenhouse effect.

Now, hydrogen's appeal to solar proponents is apparent since it
is environmentally benign. The main combustion product of hydro-
gen is water rather than carbon dioxide. Furthermore, the renew-
ables represent the most promising sources for its production in
terms of energy expended in the process. Finally, hydrogen is key
to assuring continuity of supply for solar power by providing a
ready storage medium whether overnight or until the clouds scat-
ter in the sky.

With all these advantages for so many different energy quarters,
this legislation should gain widespread support from the farsight-
ed — like yourself, Mr. Chairman — of all camps.

Now, Mr. Chairman, for the reasons stated, I would strongly
urge a favorable report on S. 1296. And I ask that the remainder of
my statement be included in the hearing record as though present-
ed in full.

Senator Ford. It, Senator, will be included in the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Matsunaga follows:]

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE SPARK M. MATSUNAGA
A U. S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII
BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
IN REGARD TO S. 1296, A BILL FOR A HYDROGEN R&D PROGRAM
Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 366
Wednesday, September 23, 1987 - 2:00 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, my third bill on the subcommittee agenda
here this afternoon is S. 1296, a bill to establish a national
program of hydrogen research and development, a measure which
Senator Evans of your subcommittee and I introduced in both
the 98th and 99th Congresses. In this, the 100th Congress the
two of us have been joined by Senator Inouye. When I first
introduced this bill in the 97th Congress I had no other
co-sponsors so I feel my efforts in its behalf are now gaining
momentum, especially in light of the fact that there is now a
companion bill in the House with four sponsors and it received
a hearing this morning.

This momentum comes none too soon, Mr. Chairman. With
our preoccupation in this Congress regarding the nation's
competitive standing in the global marketplace, the urgency of
establishing a national effort to advance the use of hydrogen
energy is more clearly evident than ever before. This is
because of the priority given to hydrogen R&D activity by such
industrial nations as West Germany and Japan, as well as
Canada, the Netherlands and Brazil. Canada has recently
forged ahead in this field by emphasizing hydrogen production
from water by electrolysis, using electricity from nuclear as
well as hydro power plants. Yet here again, as with fuel
cells, hydrogen energy represents a technology that was
pioneered here in our own country.

Canadian industry and government support for hydrogen
R&D totalled nearly $15 million last year. In Japan the
Ministry of International Trade is active in supporting
hydrogen research as well as related development work in
photovoltaics and fuel cells. West Germany has a 15 year
program which began in 1974 and runs through 1989 involving an
annual investment of nearly $2 million in hydrogen research.
The Netherlands, with its work in metal hydrides, and Brazil,
where a 50-50 mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide is used
as a substitute for natural gas, have ambitious programs,
along with Austria, Sweden and Switzerland. Hydrogen research
is also being done in Egypt, Israel, Iraq, the United Arab
Emirates, Belgium, France, Italy, Denmark, and of course the
Soviet Union. Chinese scientists from the Peoples Republic
have developed a type of multi-metal alloy capable of storing
hydrogen gas as hydride that is said to be better and less
expensive than comparable materials in the West.

The time for the United States to reassert its
leadership role in the hydrogen field is now, Mr. Chairman.
There should be no further delay; too much is at stake.
S. 1296 is designed to reclaim for the United States its
original, preeminent position.

Hydrogen has long been hailed as the "energy of the
future," as the "universal fuel" and the "ultimate fuel" which
has the promise of creating a "new economy." While this
rhetoric may strike some as somewhat overblown if not
premature, there is increasing evidence that the present-day
applications of hydrogen — as an energy storage medium and as
as a standby fuel in gas turbines — suggest an energy source
for the here-and-now, but one whose potential has yet to be
realized. Certainly, its advantages for aviation and space
fuel are gaining increasing recognition on the part of both
industry and government, especially in the development of
"trans-atmospheric aircraft" as a priority of the Air Force
and the Reagan Administration.

S. 1296, the Matsunaga-Evans-Inouye hydrogen R&D bill,
is premised on carrying out the recommendations of various
government reports on hydrogen as a fuel and energy source
prepared by the National Academy of Sciences, the Department
of Energy, and the General Accounting Office. A theme among
these recommendations has been the necessity to have hydrogen
production employ renewable or long-term primary energy
sources. Their over-riding conclusion, however, is that
despite hydrogen's manifold advantages and benefits, it cannot
be regarded as an energy option until the techniques of its
generation, transmission, and storage are explored to their
full potential.

This legislation addresses both concerns and would move
us toward the use of hydrogen as an alternate fuel source
through programs of accelerated research at the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Department
of Energy (DOE). It is divided into two major titles, one
having to do with hydrogen production and use and the other
focusing on hydrogen as a transportation fuel and,
specifically, a fuel for aircraft and spacecraft.

Title One calls for a five year program management plan
to be developed by the Secretary of Energy to include research
priorities, technology strategies, cost estimates and
descriptions of technology transfer and industry and academic
participation. The bill contemplates R&D programs on hydrogen
production, liquefaction, transmission, distribution, storage
and use — with priority given to techniques using renewables
as the primary energy source. Small scale demonstration
projects would be authorized, as well as plans for a large
scale project complete with a feasibility assessment and
implementation schedule. The overall coordination for this
program would be placed with the Energy Secretary aided by the

technical support of NASA and the Department of Transportation
(DOT). The Secretary would be required to consult with NASA,
DOT, and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as a
Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel representing industry,
academia, and professional and scientific groups. This panel
would review the preparation and implementation of the program
management plan as well as the impact of any hydrogen systems
deployment and report annually to the Energy Research Advisory
Board on its findings. The aggregate authorized funding
during the five year period would be $100 million.

Title Two would support consideration of so-called
"trans-atmospheric vehicles" or TAVs, such as the proposed
"Orient Express" passenger plane, and I would observe in this
connection, Mr. Chairman, that without a fuel possessing
hydrogen's safety and power features, hypersonic
aerospacecraf t will be impossible to operate. Under Title
Two, NASA's Administrator would be charged with developing a
five year plan similar to that called for in Title One but
devoted to R&D and flight demonstration of a hydrogen-fueled
aircraft. With the plan in hand, NASA would be required to
report to Congress annually, providing information on the
necessary fuel production and ground support facilities for
carrying it out. Participants would include DOT, DOE, EPA and
a broadly representative Hydrogen-Fueled Aircraft Advisory
Committee. Authorizations for the five year period under this
title would also aggregate $100 million.

In connection with this title, Mr. Chairman, let me
offer an aside in regard to hydrogen's safety properties.
Although the Hindenburg dirigible disaster led to doubts on
this score, experimental evidence indicates that there may be
less exposure to hazard if liquid or hydrided hydrogen is used
instead of jet fuel, gasoline, propane, kerosene, or liquid
methane. A tankful of jet fuel shot with a high-powered rifle
will explode into flame, while a similar direct hit on a
tankful of liquid hydrogen will only cause leakage. The
properties of hydrogen which lead to this contradiction of
popular expectation are its low density, its high diffusion
velocity in air, and its emissivity.

In introducing this legislation, I have stressed that
this is a bill which should draw support from all quarters:
nuclear advocates and those concerned with the interests of
both coal and natural gas just as much as solar and renewable
proponents such as myself. For those interested in advancing
nuclear power, hydrogen can be seen as a vehicle for hurdling
the safety barrier. Because energy is cheap to transport long
distances with hydrogen as a storage medium, and, after 300 to
400 miles, increasingly cheaper than to transmit through
electric wires, nuclear reactors could be located at greater
distances from populated areas -- even mounted on seaborne
rigs. Injected into declining natural gas fields, hydrogen can

serve as an "enhancer," stretching out the life of dwindling
supplies.

For those concerned with the interests of the coal
industry, hydrogen also figures in an attractive scenario. If
coal-based reactors were to be built at the seashore, they
could eject carbon dioxide into the sea, instead of into the
air, and transmit energy in the form of hydrogen from coal.
This could give us perhaps another half century of coal
availability, without adding anything to the world greenhouse
effect.

Hydrogen's appeal to solar proponents is apparent,
since it is environmentally benign. The main combustion
product of hydrogen is water, rather than carbon dioxide.
Furthermore, the renewables represent the most promising
sources for its production in terms of energy expended in the
process. Finally, hydrogen is the key to assuring continuity
of supply for solar power by providing a ready storage medium,
whether overnight or until the clouds scatter in the sky.

With all these advantages for so many different energy
guarters, this legislation should gain wide-spread support
from the far-sighted of all camps. Indeed, hydrogen is hailed
by environmental scientists as a "clean energy" solution to
the problem of acid rain as well as the "greenhouse" impact on
the earth's atmosphere. The Clean Energy Research Institute
of the University of Miami recently issued a report which
suggests that hydrogen fuel offers the key to resolving
differences between the United States and Canada regarding the
acid rain issue.

Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, my home State of Hawaii,
which is highly dependent upon imported oil but which enjoys
an abundance of sunlight, seawater and geothermal power that
can be applied to hydrogen production through solar and ocean
thermal conversion technigues, has a great stake in the
development of hydrogen as an energy source and an energy
storage medium.

But hydrogen's advantages are universal in their
application, as a replacement for both electricity and
conventional fuels. Combined in a fuel cell with the
atmosphere, electricity is produced; burned in a stove or
engine, heat or mechanical motion can be extracted; stored in
hydride form, a vehicle can be powered; and cooled into a
liquid state, it is the safest, ideal transportation fuel
which produces much higher energy per unit of weight than
conventional jet fuel. Hydrogen's advantages over electricity
are many in terms of storage applications and ease of
transmission. Experimental evidence attests to the comparative
safety of hydrogen in liquid or hydride form, as I have
mentioned. Indisputably, it has clear-cut environmental
advantages.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, not the least of hydrogen's many
advantages is the abundance of its primary feedstock. In
recent months we have witnessed world tensions in the Persian
Gulf over access to crude oil. It is difficult to imagine
similar tensions over access to such "free goods" as seawater
and sunlight. In this light, hydrogen can be seen not as a
"free good," but a most precious resource for us all: a
universal fuel for the promotion of peace on our planet.

Some years ago we heard much about a pervasive future
"hydrogen economy." At that time, it was observed that
hydrogen fuel is virtually inexhaustible as well as clean
burning, convenient, versatile — and free of foreign control.
This reasoning has lost none of its cogency since then. I
submit, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
expeditious action on S. 1296 to accelerate the
commercialization of hydrogen will be a big step toward
forestalling future energy crises.

Thank you.

###

Senator Ford. Senator, I think you explained your position on all
three pieces of legislation. We have discussed those, and I would
have no questions for you at this time.

Senator Matsunaga. Thank you.

Senator Ford. If you wish to join me here, it would be fine.

The first panel of witnesses today will be the Assistant Secretary
for Conservation and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy, Donna R. Fitzpatrick. She will be accompanied by Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy, Robert L. San Martin;
and the Acting Director, Propulsion, Power and Energy Division,
NASA Headquarters, Mr. Gregory M. Reck.

And Madam Secretary, we will ask that you go first. Will Mr.
San Martin be making any kind of a statement?
Miss Fitzpatrick. No.
Senator Ford. Fine.
Miss Fitzpatrick.

STATEMENT OF DONNA R. FITZPATRICK, ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR CONSERVATION AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT L. SAN MARTIN,
DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY

Miss Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a full statement which I would like inserted in the record,
if I may.

Senator Ford. You certainly may, and highlight your statement.
It would be just find.

Miss Fitzpatrick. Thank you. I am accompanied by Dr. Robert
San Martin, who is Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable
Energy.

We appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommit-
tee today to discuss the Department of Energy's hydrogen and fuel
cell programs and the proposed legislation relating to them. I will
begin with our hydrogen program.

At the present time hydrogen is used almost entirely as a unique
industrial chemical in petroleum processing and in the synthesis of
ammonia and methanol. This represents about 90 percent of its in-
dustrial use. Other uses of hydrogen range from the production of
foodstuffs, such as margarine, to its use as a high energy rocket
fuel.

Hydrogen is certainly an abundant element, but it does not occur
in nature in the free elemental state. Therefore, it is not a primary
energy source and must always be manufactured. It must be recog-
nized that as a secondary energy form, the energy to be derived
from hydrogen will always be less than the energy which was re-
quired to produce it. This energy consumption is quite substantial.
It currently requires from 4 to 15 units of raw energy to manufac-
ture 1 unit of hydrogen energy. Today hydrogen is produced in a
variety of processes, but it must be remembered that the resulting
hydrogen comes from the consumption of some fuel, such as coal or
natural gas and, therefore, the hydrogen which results cannot be
as energy efficient as using the primary fuel. Therefore, if hydro-
gen as an energy carrier is to be used in other than specialty appli-
cations, we need significant technology improvements in a number

of areas, and the Department is carrying out and plans to continue
to carry out a research program to address the technical issues in
those areas.

On the subject of fuel cells, these are energy conversion devices
that convert chemical energy directly to electrical energy without
the inherent inefficiencies of going through a thermal cycle. They
are powered by the electrical-chemical combination of hydrogen
and oxygen.

The advantages of fuel cells include their high efficiencies as
compared to internal combustion engines, their ability to use non-
petroleum fuels, and improved environmental effects. Fuel cells
have potential applications in transportation, in residential and
commercial buildings, industry, and utilities. The most efficient
type of fuel cell for these uses would be one that would oxidize or-
ganic fuels rather than process these to hydrogen which would
then be oxidized in the electrochemical cell.

The real bottom line with respect to the economics of fuel cells
for terrestrial versus space applications is going to be the cost of
electricity generated which, in turn, will depend on the capital
costs of the equipment, on the efficiencies of the equipment, and on
their lifetime and reliability.

The factors that impede the commercialization of fuel cells are
that we still need to see improvements in the areas of initial cost,
lifetime and efficiency of performance. By addressing these issues,
the DOE research programs will improve the base technology to
the point where industry can develop commercial prototypes.

Our current hydrogen research and fuel cell programs have been
carefully fashioned, and we believe that they, along with our other
research efforts, will carry out the intent of the proposed legisla-
tion and will continue to expand the range of technical options
available to the market to improve our Nation's energy future.

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the advice we have received from
the Congress and, in particular, this subcommittee, and we thank
you for the opportunity to appear today.

[The prepared statement of Miss Fitzpatrick follows:]

Statement of

Donna R. Fitzpatrick
Assistant Secretary
for
Conservation and Renewable Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

to the

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development

September 23, 1967

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss the Department of Energy's hydrogen and advanced
fuel cell programs, and the Senate bills S. 1294 and S. 1296
relating to hydrogen and fuel cells.

OVERVIEW ON HYDROGEN

Hydrogen is an abundant element but it does not occur in
Nature in the pure state. It has been known to man for about two
centuries. It was initially used as a buoyant gas, then as a
synthetic-fuel constituent. At present, hydrogen is used almost
entirely as a unique industrial chemical in petroleum processing
and in synthesis of ammonia and methanol.

In addition to the dominating applications in petroleum
refining, ammonia synthesis for fertilizer production, and methanol
manufacturing, hydrogen as a chemical has a range of miscellaneous
and special uses. Hydrogen is used in the production of
foodstuffs, including margarines and cooking fats, and in the
manufacture of soap. It serves in the refining of certain metals,
in semiconductor manufacture, and for the annealing of metals. It
is employed in uranium extraction and processing and for corrosion
control in nuclear reactors. Hydrogen also cools electrical
generators in utility power stations and is a feedstock in organic

chemical synthesis leading to production of nylon and polyurethane.
It is a high energy rocket fuel and an experimental aviation and
automotive fuel. The use of hydrogen in each of these applications
is quite specialized, but they illustrate the range of industrial
uses that already exist.

Hydrogen is not, however, a primary energy source--it must be
manufactured. Practically all the hydrogen now produced in this
country is manufactured from natural gas and light oils. It must
be recognized that as a secondary energy form, the energy to be
derived from hydrogen will always be less than the energy required
to produce it.

Since hydrogen does not exist on earth in its elemental form,
to obtain hydrogen requires conversion of compounds containing
hydrogen. This conversion requires energy sources such as coal,
solar, or nuclear to be consumed to be able to produce hydrogen.
This energy consumption is substantial, currently requiring from 4
to 15 units of raw energy to manufacture 1 unit of hydrogen energy,
depending on whether the product is gaseous, liquid, or "slush".
Therefore, hydrogen technology represents only a potential bridge
between energy sources such as solar, nuclear, and coal and energy
consumers such as the various applications mentioned earlier. This
1s similar to the existing electric power grid or the battery

technologies under development. To determine whether widespread
use of hydrogen should take place, the complexities, energy cost,
and dollar cost associated with changing our energy production and
distribution network must be addressed.

From an energy perspective, the question is not whether the
Nation can use hydrogen for many applications now served by
electricity or other energy carriers, but shoul d we use it in this
way. It is technically possible to connect almost any source to
any energy use by means of hydrogen. Our judgment on whether to
use this bridge should be governed by the total cost to society.
When it becomes more convenient and more economical, it will be
used.

RATIONALE FOR HYDROGEN RESEARCH

Today hydrogen can be produced via a number of processes, but
it must be remembered that the resulting hydrogen comes from the
consumption of other fuel sources and, therefore, cannot be as
energy efficient as using the primary fuel. Therefore, if hydrogen
is to be used in a greater variety of applications, improvements
will be required in several areas to improve the efficiency of
hydrogen production. Also, more effective storage systems for both
bulk and mobile will be required.

For the production of hydrogen, water electrolysis
is the most mature of the water-splitting technologies in use by
industry. In DOE sponsored work, advances have been made in
electrocatalysis, electrode materials, separators, and
electrolytes. Research is still needed to reduce capital cost and
maximize reliability for large-scale systems. New developments in
water vapor electrolysis conducted at temperatures up to 100 C^
promise overall efficiency improvements of 30%-50% over lower
temperature water electrolysis technology. Other techniques of
water splitting, such as photochemical or biological processes, are
infant technologies that show promise for the long term.

Hydrogen can also be produced from coal, natural gas, or
renewable sources (wind, ocean). Production from natural gas is
the least expensive; costs for other sources can be three to 30
times higher, largely because of the energy consumed by the
production process. Therefore, an inexpensive renewable energy
source could be the key to the economically competitive production
of hydrogen. This suggests that continued research to improve the
technology base of renewable energy conversion systems is itself an
important step in promoting increased hydrogen use.

Hydrogen storage continues to be a problem. It has been
suggested that long-term bulk storage of hydrogen can take place in
depleted oil wells and caverns but extensive testing has not been
conducted. For mobile applications, metal hydrides -- where
hydrogen is temporarily chemically bound to a porous metal matrix
-- have been investigated but this form of storage today is an
expensive alternative to compressed gas and liquefied hydrogen'.

Hydrogen embri ttl ement of conventional pipeline steels is
recognized as a primary deterrent to hydrogen transport at high
pressures. Fundamental investigations have verified the
embri ttl ement phenomena and studies have been extended toward
identification of embri ttl ement suppression techniques. Recent
investigations have shown that introduction of oxidants as
low-concentration additives to hydrogen streams may offer means for
suppressing embri ttl ement.

S. 1296

Let me turn first to specific comments on the Senate bill on
hydrogen, specifically Title 1 of S. 1296, pertaining to the
Department of Energy.

The intentions of the bill are good. To prepare for the
future is both wise and prudent. This is also the goal of the
Department in carrying out its research into ways to produce and

store hydrogen, along with other energy technologies that may serve
the same purpose.

As stated, considerable progress has been made in
understanding just what is needed to have hydrogen as an
alternative energy carrier in the future. Our research is
continuing to find improvements in producing, storing, and
transporting hydrogen for transportation, process heating, fuel
cells, and other applications.

The DOE plans to continue its research and development in
hydrogen and believes that the spirit of the proposed legislation
can be carried out through its existing program. New legislation
is, therefore, not required to accomplish the intent of S. 1296,
Particularly in a time of tight budgets, we believe taxpayer
dollars are best spent on longer range, more generic research that
benefits all areas of hydrogen production, storage, and
transportation. Until these fundamental issues are resolved,
demonstration and commercialization activities (which are more
appropriately the province of the private sector) will not
efficiently provide significant progress toward achievement of the
objective of S. 1296. Clearly, the Government can provide the most
effective contribution by establishing a technology base on which
industry can build. Our current hydrogen research has been
carefully fashioned to ensure that tax dollars are not supplanting

private sector funding. We will continue to make available to the
private sector the results of our technology base research and we
will encourage them to exploit this knowledge. The Department of
Energy is continuing to expand the range of technical options
available to the private sector, including the use of hydrogen,
that will improve our Nation's energy future. For these reasons, we
do not support this legislation.

I have included in my testimony two attachments, one which
further describes the Department of Energy's hydrogen-related
research in the Office of Basic Energy Sciences and a second one
which elaborates on the Chemical /Hydrogen Energy Storage project in
the Office of Energy Storage and Distribution.

Let me turn now to the area of advanced fuel cells, and Senate
bill S. 1294 which relates to fuel cells.

OVERVIEW OF ADVANCED FUEL CELLS

The DOE fuel cell program can trace its origins to work that
began more than two decades ago in laboratory and special
applications research. Today this effort has evolved into a
mul ti -faceted research program. The Office of Conservation and
Renewable Energy currently oversees research on Phosphoric Acid
fuel cells for transportation applications and manages research on
Solid Polymer Electrolyte fuel cells - also known as Proton

Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells. The future application for the
latter technology will be predominantly for mobile, and remote.

This multi-pronged effort is internally coordinated, with all
elements of the Department exchanging results and future plans on a
regular basis.

Technology Descriptions

Fuel cells are energy conversion devices that convert chemical
energy directly into electric energy without the inherent
efficiency limits of heat engine cycles. A complete fuel cell
power plant would typically include a fuel processing section (such
as a reformer or a coal gasifier section with gas cleanup), a power
producing section (often referred to as the fuel cell stack), and a
power processing section with a direct-current-to-alternating
current invertor.

Fuel cells are powered by the electrochemical combination of
hydrogen and oxygen. The source of hydrogen can vary considerably;
virtually any hydrocarbon fuel can be a potential feedstock for a
fuel cell power plant, although for economic reasons, coal, natural
gas, other sources of methane and methanol will likely be the
principal fuels.

Higher operating temperatures may provide significant
efficiency and capital cost advantages; however, elevated
temperatures are not suitable for all potential fuel cell
applications. In particular, the choice of a fuel cell for some
mobile applications may be dictated, in large part, by the need for
a system capable of operating at reduced temperatures, i.e., the
phosphoric acid or proton-exchange-membrane technology. Other
concepts in the very early development phases (such as the
monolithic solid-oxide concept) may offer low-weight and low-volume
systems compatible with some mobile applications.

Applications and Research Emphasis

Programs are in progress at Brookhaven National Laboratory and
at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LAND for the investigation of
fuel cells for vehicular propulsion. Some of the above advantages
of fuel cell power plants over thermal ones for electric and gas
utility power generation apply equally well for vehicular power
plants. The significant one is that the projected efficiencies for
fuel cells are at least twice as high as those for internal
combustion and diesel engines.

Transportation's share of petroleum use in the United States
reached 64% in 1986. This figure represents 108% of domestic
production and indicates the impact that changes in the
transportation area can have on petroleum needs. The objective of
the fuel cell work at LANL is to help reduce U.S. dependency on
petroleum resources and to provide full performance vehicles. Fuel
cells possess a number of attributes that make them very attractive
for transportation applications. Their high efficiency and ability
to use non-petroleum fuels address the petroleum dependency
problem. Their operational simplicity, safety, and low pollution
are features that make them desirable for use in cars and trucks.
The fuel cell system chosen for a given application must be
selected on the basis of performance and of type of fuel required.
Based on the state-of-devel opment , fuel considerations, and the
inherent restrictions imposed by vehicular applications, only acid
fuel cells, phosphoric acid (PA) and proton exchange membrane
(PEM), operating on reformed methanol and air are being considered
at the present time. The PA fuel cell is the choice for near-term
use, because it represents the only technology that has
demonstrated full-stack operation on reformed fuel. The potential
of the PEM fuel cell in terms of high power density,
low-temperature operation, rigid and contained electrolyte, and
cold start capability dictated its consideration, even though the
system technology development is immature for terrestrial operation
on reformed fuel .

In summary, simulation studies indicate that it is feasible to
use fuel cell or .fuel cell/battery hybrids in city buses and in
passenger cars. Improvements in technology should enhance this
feasibility of using fuel cells in transportation. Fuel cell use
in the transportation sector will depend upon the success of
ongoing research efforts to overcome constraints on cost, size, and
operating conditions.

Another area of fuel cell application, sponsored by the
American Gas Association, is the residential and commercial
buildings sector. Strong interest by the gas utilities is
evidenced by the recently completed field test of nearly fifty
40-kilowatt power plants producing electricity and cogenerated
heat. Introduction of commercial gas-using fuel cells in this
sector is expected in the 1990s. Due to the smaller size
required of fuel cell power plants for the residential sector,
(several kW), and also because of competitive economic constraints,
fuel cells are unlikely to find application in the residential
sector in the immediate future. Use of feedstocks such as coal or
blomass in these applications will likely depend upon the economic
competitiveness of processes to convert these fuels into pumpable
gaseous or liquid products and the existence of suitable delivery
systems.

Fuel cell use in the industrial sector could follow
Introduction in the electric utility sector and basically rely on
modules similar to those being developed for electric utility
pi ants.

Renewable Fuel Cell Program

Solid Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell Systems: This system is
being considered for transportation applications. Because the
system operates at less than 100 C, methanol is the most
appropriate liquid fuel to be reformed and used in this fuel cell
system. Progress had been made at Los Alamos National Laboratory
to reduce the noble metal, e.g., platinum, loading to one-tenth
that of the previous state-of-the-art system. This is done by
incorporating a proton conductor into the electrode structure to
extend the three-dimensional reactor zone. Water management can be
achieved by optimum humi di f icati on of the system. Prospects are
good for attaining high power densities (those over 500 mW/cm ).

Direct Methanol Fuel Cell: A fuel cell researcher's dream is
to oxidize organic fuels (preferably methanol, which can be
produced from biomass or coal) rather than to process these to
hydrogen, which is, in turn, oxidized in the electrochemical cell.
Methanol is the most active electro-organic fuel, but its activity
is 3 orders-of-magnitude less than that of hydrogen. Thus, under
these conditions, current-densities of about 50 mA/cm are obtained
at cell potentials of 0.4 V, somewhat lower than desired. Even at
these current densities, there is a performance degradation with
time. The main cause for the degradation is that the intermediates
formed during methanol oxidation poison the platinum
electrocatalyst. The poisoning effects are less with some alloy
electrocatalysts (e.g., Pt-Ru, Pt-Sn) and with platinum
electrocatalysts with additional atoms such as Bi , Pb, Sn, Ge.

Prognosis of Economics and Applications of Fuel Cell Systems

The applications of fuel cell systems have been
wel 1 -demonstrated in space vehicles. Capital costs are not such an
overriding factor for space applications as they are for
terrestrial applications. The alkaline, and possibly the solid
polymer electrolyte fuel cell, systems will continue to be the
auxiliary power sources for space vehicles. The present price of
crude oil makes it more difficult to introduce fuel cell systems

into the terrestrial arena. On the other hand, environmental
constraints can aTso accelerate the entry of fuel cell
technol ogies.

The bottom line with respect to economics of fuel cells for
terrestrial applications will be the cost of electricity generated,
which, in turn, will depend on capital costs, efficiency, and
life-time. Taking into consideration the performances of fuel
cells for terrestrial applications, the major factors to be
overcome are: (1) development of automated techniques to reduce
the capital costs of the system; (2) achievement of reliability of
performance over the required lifetimes; (3) demonstration of
economic, technical, and environmental advantages of dispersed,
on-site integrated energy and cogeneration power plants; and (4)
development of a niche for electric vehicles - in plants, military
uses, buses, trucks, and automobiles.

The factors that impede the commercialization of fuel cells
are that improvements are needed in the areas of initial cost,
lifetime and performance. More specific barriers are the high cost
of electrocatalysts and porous electrodes; the corrosion of active
and passive cell components; instabilities of porous electrode

82-464 0-88—3

structure under long-term cycling; loss of el ectrocatalytic
activity with time and use; inadequate conductivity of electrolytes
for high-performance (power) application and lack of advanced
electrodes and cell-designs for high-performance applications. By
addressing these issues the DOE programs will improve the base
technology to the point where industry can develop commercial
prototypes.

S. 1294

The purpose of the bill, stated as "exploring the operation of
fuel cells employing methane gas generated from various forms of
biomass", will be a good match with the type of fuel cell and fuel
processor being developed. The focus is on solid polymer
electrolyte fuel cells, because they offer the potential for higher
power density fuel cells; they tolerate carbon dioxide in the fuel
streams, and therefore can use reformed methane, methanol, or

hydrogen; and they operate below one-hundred degrees centigrade,
allowing low temperature startup and use of low-cost structural
material. The operation of cells on reformed methanol and hydrogen
is currently being investigated and the prototype fuel cells will
also be tested with reformed methane.

As I have explained, production of hydrogen by water
electrolysis and photoel ectrochemi cal methods are part of the
hydrogen program. Hydrogen is currently used as a fuel cell fuel.
Currently there are no activities related to the third purpose of
the bill, "determining the technical requirements for employing
fuel cells for power production as backup spinning reserve
components to renewable power systems in rural and isolated areas."
This is an area that should be carried out in the future but
currently has a low priority because of the immaturity of the
technol ogy .

Where government can provide the most effective contribution
to fuel cell technology is in building a solid base of
technological information which industry can use to make
market-oriented, developmental decisions.

Our current fuel cell program, particularly as it is presented
within the President's Fiscal Year 1988 budget request, has been
carefully fashioned to ensure that tax dollars are not supplanting
private sector funding. We will continue to make available to the
private sector the results of our technology base research and will
encourage them to implement this research when market forces
dictate.

The Department of Energy is committed to expanding the range
of technical options available to the private sector that will
improve our Nation's energy future; fuel cells are a sound prospect
for this future. Current programs are adequately funded to address
the intent of these bills. Any future activities will be
considered as part of the budget process. For this reason, we do
not think this legislation is necessary. As I indicted previously,
the remaining pages of our testimony provide more details on the
ongoing fuel cell efforts with the Department of Energy.

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss this area of research
with you today.

ATTACHMENT 1

HYDROGEN-RELATED RESEARCH

The Office of Basic Energy Sciences (BES) supports long-range
basic energy-related research and is charged with providing the
fundamental scientific foundation for the Nation's future ener-gy
options. Accordingly, some of the 1400 individual research
projects in the areas of physical and biological sciences,
engineering, and geosciences are related to DOE's interests in
hydrogen. The hydrogen-related research supported by BES is found
largely in the divisions of Chemical Sciences, Materials Sciences,
and Energy Biosciences. In almost all cases, the research is long
range and generic with very little research being focused directly
on a specific energy technology.

The Chemical Sciences research includes basic solar
photochemistry, biomass chemistry related to dissociation of water,
and hydride research for the storage of hydrogen. The focus of the
Chemical Sciences programs as it relates to hydrogen is on the
fundamental understanding of the chemistry involved in production
and storage concepts at the most basic level.

In our fundamental research program in solar photochemistry
energy conversion", fundamental processes are being explored which
can be applied to hydrogen production by splitting the water
molecule Into Its components, hydrogen and oxygen, to methanol
production from carbon dioxide, ammonia synthesis from atmospheric
nitrogen, or to production of other needed chemicals at lower
energy cost by using sunlight. The research 1s expected to provide
the basis for new solar chemical technologies in the distant
future.

Solar photochemistry research is proceeding on several fronts.
In plant and bacterial photosynthesis research, the emphasis is on
understanding how sunlight initiates the primary steps of
photosynthesis at the molecular level. This insight is being used
to design simple molecules which can absorb light and use its
energy to separate charges long enough to drive useful chemical
reactions. Other research involves photocatalytic chemical
reactions in homogeneous and heteorogeneous systems. Particularly
noteworthy in this area are metal catalyst-coated semiconductor
colloidal particles in solution, where product separation may be
achieved by vesicles or bilayer membranes. Other reaction systems
Involve photosensitlzation by porphyrins or other visible
light-absorbing chromophores. The key to success 1n the design of
these systems is more efficient electron transfer in the forward
direction than the reverse, which necessitates careful mechanistic
and kinetic experiments. Photoel ectrochemi stry is perhaps the most

advanced area of solar photochemistry research, although no known
semiconductor is the perfect candidate. Semiconductor electrodes
which absorb 1n the visible region must be protected from
photocorrosion in aqueous solution, which is being achieved by
coatings of transparent conducting polymers. Other semiconductors
which are photostable in water but absorb outside the visible
region are being modified with pendant chromophores photocatalysts
to drive the chemical reactions of interest.

Other efforts in chemical sciences include the study of
photosynthetic evolution of hydrogen from biomass systems using
enzyme catalytic processes and the chemical aspects of hydrogen
storage in hydride systems. The latter includes the determination
of thermochemical properties and structural parameters to
understand their behavior on hydriding characteristics.

The Materials Sciences programs related to hydrogen are
focused on obtaining a fundamental understanding of the
interactions of hydrogen with materials. These programs are,
therefore, necessarily basic or generic in character and do not
directly engage in the development of specific technologies for a
hydrogen economy. They do, however, provide fundamental
understanding necessary for the development of these and other
related technologies; for example, technologies related to hydrogen
storage, end-use, and synfuel production. Specifically, research
is underway on diffusion of hydrogen in rare earth, on refractory

metal alloys, on the uptake and the thermodynamics and kinetics of
hydrogen in noble. metal s , on behavior of hydrogen on metal
surfaces, on a theoretical understanding of the effects of hydrogen
on bonding in metals, on hydrogen attack, on a phenomenon that
occurs in some steels subjected to high-temperature, high-pressure
hydrogen as a coal gasification process, and on protonic conduction
in solid electrolytes as might be encountered in batteries or fuel
eel 1 s .

The Division of Energy Biosciences supports research aimed at
understanding the mechanisms involved in the biological production
and utilization of molecular hydrogen. The long-term objective of
the program is to provide the requisite scientific foundation for
the development of novel biotechnologies based on hydrogen as an
energy resource or ones in which hydrogen plays an integral role in
the production of other products such as methane. The emphasis of
the research supported is on the bioenergetics of hydrogen
production and the enzymes, the hydrogenases , responsible for the
production of hydrogen driven by light energy directly or
indirectly through renewable plant resources. The related
hydrogenases responsible for the transfer of hydrogen between
species of anaerobic bacteria is also a research area supported.
Effort also focuses on understanding the group of enzymes which are
responsible for hydrogen production, hydrogen transfer, or hydrogen

utilization. Their molecular structure, genetic and metabolic
regulation mechanism of action, oxygen liability, and involvement
of metals are all subjects of investigation.

ATTACHMENT 2

CHEMICAL/HYDROGEN ENERGY STORAGE PROGRAM
Background

For the past decade, DOE has pursued mission-oriented hydrogen
technology development. These programs concentrate on long-term
technology-base developments geared to conversion, storage, and
transport.
PROGRAM RATIONALE AND STRATEGY

Chemical /hydrogen energy systems (C/HES) are identified as a
candidate link between renewable primary resources and energy
demand sectors. Current economics and the availability of
conventional energy resources place the exercise of the C/HES
option well into the far term. Therefore, a long-range program has
been structured to develop a technology base across the full
spectrum of conversion/production, storage, and transport
technologies. The R&D investment is viewed as increasing the
flexibility to accommodate a different mix of energy supply sources
in the future.
Cost Performance Objectives

The versatility of hydrogen as a fuel and chemical commodity
and its environmentally benign characteristics have been well
documented. It remains for a technology base to be developed which

will effectively establish cost effective benefits. Conversion of
various resources' to a secondary chemical energy form, such as
hydrogen, calls for achieving high conversion efficiencies at
minimal capital outlay. Effective storage of this chemical energy
in bulk and mobile systems is required to offset energy
supply-demand mismatches and to provide on-board energy storage
options for vehicular transport.

The conversion, storage, and transport requirements have been
translated to specific cost and performance objectives for each
element of the program.

o Hydrogen Production Cost -- $10/MMBtu (1980 dollars)
o Storage Cost - $l-3/MMBtu (1980 dollars)

o Storage Density Greater than 4% by weight for

metal hydrides or 2500 BTU's per
lb.

o Transport - -- Long-Term Stability (conventional

pipeline)

Technology State-of-the-Art

Hydrogen Production - Historically, this segment of the program
has been concerned with developing alternatives to steam reforming
of natural gas for the production of hydrogen, with emphasis placed

mainly on the dissociation of water via electrolysis. Energy used
for dissociating water can be in the form of heat or electricity.
Since Carnot limitations of steam cycles used to produce
electricity imply an efficiency ceiling, it would appear prudent to
pursue the direct utilization of heat in water-splitting processes.
Thermal decomposition processes operating 1n the extreme
temperature regimes (greater than 3000 C) do not bode well with
regard to materials availability and process simplicity.
Substantial efforts in the past have been directed toward
identifying thermochemical cycles which could alleviate some of the
process engineering difficulties; however, materials handling,
corrosion, and process complexity remain major problems.

Technical judgments suggest that a combination of thermal and
electrochemical processes can be optimized via development of
high-temperature (300C-1000C) water vapor dissociation. Such
systems can result in overall energy efficiencies approaching 50%.

Determining the cost of producing this hydrogen is not a
simple matter. This cost depends upon the cost of electricity
(peak or offpeak), capital cost, and utilization factor. As a rule
of thumb, hydrogen can be produced from natural gas for about
$6-9/MMBtu. Electrolytic hydrogen can be produced for about
$15-25/MMBtu. Due to the uncertainties in electricity cost,
utilization factor, and capital costs, it is difficult to project
future markets for hydrogen.

Hydrogen Storage - Current practice relies on compressed gas
or liquefied hydrogen as the primary storage options. These
storage systems do not lend themselves to bulk long-term or mobile
short-term storage applications necessary if hydrogen is to assume
an expanded role in the future U.S. energy infrastructure.

Substantial efforts in the U.S. and abroad toward advancing
hydrogen storage technology have been only moderately successful.
Various metal hydrides based typically on iron-titanium and
magnesium alloys have been characterized and found wanting with
regard to cost, weight/volume storage density, or required
operating temperature/pressure regimes. Cryoadsorpti on of hydrogen
in carbon at liquid nitrogen temperatures has been explored to some
extent in Europe. DOE has supported R4D in advanced hydrides and
in microcavi ties as hydrogen storage media.

Hydrogen Transport - Supplementation of natural gas with
hydrogen is one option under consideration for future energy
systems. Assuming efficient conversion of a given primary resource
to hydrogen, some savings over electric energy transmission
potentially could be realized if this energy were transported by
pipeline. These are: reduced transmission losses limited to
pressure drop and leakage compared to impedance losses, reduced
capital cost of pipe compared to power transmission lines, reduced
costs of right-of-way. To use this option, it is necessary to
establish the compatibility of hydrogen with conventional pipeline

steels. Protective measures for ensuring the safe and effective
transport of hydrogen via available pipelines would require
research.

HYDROGEN ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND FUTURE NEEDS

Accomplishments over the past decade derived from the hydrogen
component of the C/HES program are summarized:

o Solid Polymer Electrolyte (SPE) Water Electrolysis

System — General Electric - Comprehensive R&D program
culminated in the fabrication and test of a 200-kW system
which approached high efficiency and cost goals. Another
smaller 20-kW unit demonstrated reliable on-site
production of hydrogen which was used for utility
electric generator cooling. Technology subsequently sold
to Hamilton-Standard which is currently pursuing
commercial prospects.

o Static Feed Water Electrolysi s--Li fe Systems, Inc. -
Multicell (1 ft ) module designed, fabricated, and
tested, demonstrates the ability to electrolyze brackish
water and sea water. The system eliminates need for
electrolyte circulating pump as well as water treatment
subsystem, thus maximizing reliability and permitting
low-cost manufacturing of molded parts. Technology was

transferred to NASA-supported programs in Orbital Space
Station Storage systems.

Advanced Alkaline Water El ectrolysi s--Tel edyne Energy
Systems - Modest R&D program was able to demonstrate
substantial improvements in electrolyzer elements
(electrodes, catalysts, structural components). Limited
success in separator development which would have
permitted higher temperature (125-150C) operation.

Underground Storage--IGT - Comprehensive engineering
analyses show feasibility and problems of long-term
storage in depleted wells and in caverns.

Metal Hydride Storage - A wide range of alloys prepared
and tested to show a safe alternative to compressed gas
and liquefied hydrogen storage. Studies have shown,
however, that low-cost, high-storage-density materials
require high temperature for hydrogen release. On the
other hand, low-temperature materials exhibit low
storage densities and high cost.

Rapid Cycling Applications (Metal Hydrides) - Chemical
compressors in early states of commercialization. Metal
hydride pair chemical heat pump proved viable for
heating and cooling. Hydrogen separation/purification

shown to be an alternative to pressure-swing adsorption
and cryogenic separation.

Hydrogen Transport/Transmission - Long-term program
initiated by Sandia and completed by Battelle
Laboratories fully characterized key problems of
hydrogen embri ttl ement in pipeline steels. Battelle
also demonstrated that additive gases (inhibitors)
eliminate a number of the embri ttl ement problems.

Hydrogen Technology Evaluation Center (HTEC) -
Brookhaven National Laboratory facility was used to
demonstrate the characteristics of interfacing an
advanced technology electrolyzer with a photovoltaic
system for hydrogen production, with coupling to
electric grid. The facility was also used to conduct a
performance mapping of a metal hydride compressor
operating in both the closed and open loop modes. Test
programs provided an opportunity for training/technology
transfer involving representatives from MIT, Florida
Solar Energy Center, EPR1, Public Service Electric and
Gas Company of New Jersey, and the University of Hawaii.

Ongoing R&D activities are briefly described:

A study examining the potential of hydrogen derived from
renewable energy sources is continuing. In this effort,
the status of current renewable hydrogen technology will
be compared with conventional hydrogen production and
areas where additional research might result in
significant improvements will be identified. The
ability of an energy infrastructure to assimilate
greater hydrogen usage will be addressed, using Hawaii
as the model. A major hydrogen application derives from
benefits in increasing the hydrogen/carbon ratio of
biomass to produce liquid fuels, e.g., methanol.

A major program is being conducted by Westinghouse
developing their thin film solid oxide technology for
high- temperature water vapor electrolysis applications.
Cell testing has shown performance in the 1.3 V range
at current densities of 300 A/ft2, and also conversion
of up to 90% of steam to hydrogen and oxygen. A
comprehensive theoretical model of vapor electrolysis is
being developed which will provide information to
improve performance.

Several activities are underway investigating
medium-temperature electrolysis in the 300-600 C
temperature range. Brookhaven National Laboratory and
Politecnico di Milano have recently completed
characterization of aluminum phosphate and barium
sulfate as "unsuccessful" candidate materials. In a
parallel investigation the University of Pennsylvania
has examined the use of beta alumina as a
proton-conducting material suitable for
medium-temperature electrolysis. Data have been
obtained on thermal stability and conductivity as a
function of water vapor pressure. Subsequent to a
competitive procurement, Stanford University has
identified a novel hydrogen ion conducting electrolyte
which may provide a basis for a successful intermediate
temperature range water vapor electrolysis system.
Further, this electrolyte may serve to enhance prospects
for using low cost hydrides as hydrogen storage media
via the el ectrochemi cal ly - assisted dehydriding
reaction.

Battelle Columbus is addressing a novel approach to
photolytic hydrogen production making use of
plasma/polymer-coated semiconductor electrodes.
Progress has been made in optimizing stability, optical
transparency, and electrochemical cell characteristics.

A key program in hydrogen storage 1s going on at
Syracuse University attempting to make use of catalyzed,
activated carbon to store hydrogen at low temperatures
suitable for use in mobile/stationary applications.
Adequate storage has been demonstrated on the macro
scale but only at very low liquid nitrogen temperatures.
Current work is investigating higher pressure, higher
temperature operation, and alternate carbon materials.
A class of super-activated carbons treated to provide
high surface acidity has been found to satisfy 4% by
weight system requirements at temperatures of 150 K
(liquid freon temperatures).

Senator Ford. Thank you very much.

Mr. Reck, do you want to proceed with yours? Then we will have
some questions.

STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. RECK, ACTING DIRECTOR, PROPUL-
SION, POWER AND ENERGY DIVISION, OFFICE OF AERONAU-
TICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Reck. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to be here this afternoon to discuss NASA's re-
search activities associated with hydrogen utilization. I have a pre-
pared statement which I would also like to submit for the record.

NASA is one of the largest users of hydrogen in the United
States. We have learned to work with it. We use it in our launch
operations and our test facilities. And we have recognized its at-
tributes for a number of years.

Our experience base with hydrogen dates back to the 1950s when
we first began studying the use of hydrogen, and our interest at
that point was in high altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Hydrogen
has very promising characteristics for that mission. It has excellent
combustion characteristics, high volatility, wide range of flamma-
bility, low ignition energy, all of which make it very attractive in
extending the range of jet engines to high altitudes.

To demonstrate that capability, the NASA Lewis Research
Center conducted a series of flight tests of a B-57 aircraft in which
one engine was modified to operate on hydrogen fuel. The liquid
hydrogen fuel was carried on board. It was pressurized with gase-
ous helium, forced into the engine, passed through a heat exchang-
er on the way which converted it to a gas, which was then injected
in the modified J-65 engine. A number of test flights were conduct-
ed. They were quite successful, demonstrated the feasibility of oper-
ating an aircraft on hydrogen fuel at high altitude although the
modifications that we made to the aircraft really were not repre-
sentative of the kind of changes that you would make in a commer-
cial transport aircraft.

Following these tests, throughout the 1960s we focused most of
our attention on space applications and looking at hydrogen for
power systems and rocket systems for space propulsion. However,
in the 1970s we again returned to the aircraft related issues, and
from 1974 to 1980 we studied a number of issues that really needed
to be addressed for consideration of hydrogen as an aircraft fuel for
commercial subsonic jet aircraft.

The principal contractor for us in most of these activities was
Lockheed California. And in most of the studies, we examined sev-
eral alternate fuels, liquid hydrogen as well as liquid methane, and
made comparisons with kerosene based commercial transport fuels,
typically Jet-A.

Lockheed studied aircraft performance for several missions,
short-haul missions as well as long-haul missions. In the short-haul
missions, they looked at carrying 130 passengers up to 1500 nauti-
cal miles, and for the long-haul mission, we looked an aircraft to
carry up to 400 passengers 5500 nautical miles. In the studies we
tried to optimize the vehicle for the mission and the fuel combina-

tion. So, what we determined was the empty weight of the aircraft,
the gross takeoff weight of the aircraft and the energy efficiency of
the aircraft.

It turned out that for the missions that we examined in general
the hydrogen-fueled aircraft showed a significant advantage over
the Jet-A aircraft especially for the long-haul missions. And in fact,
we found that with hydrogen fuel, the gross takeoff weight was on
the order of 25 percent less than a similar aircraft that was carry-
ing Jet-A fuel. The energy efficiency was on the order of 10 to 13
percent less, but that was strictly looking at the energy consumed
on board the aircraft and did not take into account any energy effi-
ciencies associated with the production of the hydrogen before it
was loaded on board.

Lockheed also looked at the overall aircraft design, tried to iden-
tify the best location for the fuel tanks on the aircraft. And instead
of wing tanks located in the wings as on current aircraft flying
today subsonically, the preferred location that Lockheed identified
was in the fuselage. And it would be in pressurized tanks located
both forward and aft of the passenger compartment.

A number of other aspects of the on-board systems were studied.
This included insulation techniques. They identified preferred insu-
lations. Closed-cell foam appeared to be the most attractive. They
looked at other features of the delivery system on board the air-
craft. They identified problems in the pumps that might be used
for the hydrogen fuel and also identified potential solutions. And in
fact, some of the technology that we have identified associated with
turbo pumps and bearings in the rocket research programs we
have will likely pay off in identifying alternatives for some of the
problems in the hydrogen pumps for aircraft.

Lockheed and Boeing also looked at airport logistics associated
with trying to handle hydrogen fuels within the airport. They iden-
tified a concept that they felt would work at two major internation-
al airports which they studied.

In this concept hydrogen is brought into the airport as a gas
through a pipeline. There is a liquefaction plant and storage facili-
ties located inside the airport. And the hydrogen is distributed
then from the storage facility to the aircraft via a closed-loop
system that circulates liquid hydrogen. At the aircraft location a
hydrant truck then transfers the liquid hydrogen to the aircraft,
captures any boil-off gases, which typically can be up to 15 percent
for a transfer operation, and returns these back to the liquefaction
plant for recycling. So, none of the hydrogen would be lost in this
process.

They also examined safety as part of these studies, and investi-
gated some of the post-crash characteristics and hazards associated
with hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen has a number of very positive as-
pects from the safety standpoint. It has a low flame emissivity.
This means it radiates very little heat. It is not likely to combust
the materials that are located nearby. It doesn't create smoke
when it burns, and it is also very light and buoyant as a vapor. So,
if a hydrogen spill occurs from the tanks, the hydrogen will vapor-
ize quickly, and the hydrogen cloud is likely to float or move away
from the area very rapidly. If the hydrogen cloud were ignited, we
would expect the same behavior.

There are also negative aspects though associated with hydrogen.
It is very volatile, so any spill is going to vaporize quickly, mix
with air. And since hydrogen has such a wide flammability range,
even very low concentrations are going to be combustible.

Also, if the hydrogen-air mixture is trapped or confined in any
volumes, it has a potential hazard of detonation, which is a very
explosive combustion process.

To address some of these concerns and to demonstrate some of
the positive aspects associated with hydrogen, we conducted tests
at the White Sands Test Facility where we spilled liquid hydro-
gen— 1500 gallons — out on the ground and observed the diffusion
and propagation of the hydrogen cloud that was generated. We con-
ducted about a half dozen tests. In none of the tests the hydrogen
cloud was ignited. But we did observe the buoyancy effect. The
cloud moved up and moved away from the spill site. And we also
observed an increased level of turbulence within the cloud over
what we expected which tended to accelerate the mixing process so
that the diffusion of hydrogen happened more rapidly than we ex-
pected, down to concentrations that would likely not be flammable.

We also looked at hydrogen production associated with the air-
craft studies. Work was done by the Institute of Gas Technology
and the LINI Division of Union Carbide. In these studies, again, we
tried to compare liquid hydrogen and liquid methane, and in this
case a synthetic jet fuel that would be produced from either coal
liquids or shale oil. We looked at a number of processes. We looked
at several feed stocks for the liquid hydrogen.

In general, the thermal efficiencies associated with producing the
hydrogen were considerably less than producing the jet fuels, for
example, from shale oil. And in fact, the predicted costs from the
studies indicated that the cost of producing hydrogen would be at
least twice or more from the coal liquids than it would be to
produce more conventional jet fuel from these liquids.

I think that the results of most of these studies certainly indicate
that it is feasible to operate subsonic aircraft on liquid hydrogen
fuels but that the real investment in terms of research needs to be
made in advance production technologies. It is certainly feasible
aviation fuel, but the pacing item is cost, at this point.

I would like to talk for just a couple of minutes about the aero-
space plane. This, of course, is a joint Department of Defense and
NASA activity. Our objective is to develop the technologies associ-
ated with hypersonic, very high speed flight in the atmosphere,
and then acceleration of that vehicle to orbit. And for this system
hydrogen plays a very crucial role. And in fact, it is enabling for
orbital missions. Above Mach 5 to 7, above that range, hydrogen is
essential for cooling parts of the aircraft and parts of the engine.
And in fact, hydrogen also is necessary to sustain the supersonic
combustion process that is very critical to the propulsion system
for these aircraft.

We have research activities under way jointly, again, with the
Defense Department agencies that are participating with us in the
program looking at the propulsion system, the processes inside the
systems on board the aircraft that support the engines. And we are
also looking at lightweight hydrogen cooled structures and materi-
als as a part of that study.

In the area of rocket propulsion, of course, we have extensive ex-
perience with hydrogen dating back into the 1950s. The ongoing re-
search here is focused on durability and life issues associated with
hydrogen systems and hydrogen rockets, as well as performance.

And at some point in the future we anticipate space-basing our
transportation vehicles on hydrogen. In this concept, we would
locate a hydrogen storage system in low earth orbit. We would use
space-based, hydrogen-powered orbit transfer vehicles to carry pay-
loads to higher altitude orbits, then return to the depot that would
be in low earth orbit, and refuel.

We are conducting a ground-based program currently looking at
the technologies associated with handling, storing and transferring
liquid hydrogen in space. And we hope to fly a flight experiment to
verify those technologies in the early 1990s.

In the space station program we intend to use hydrogen fuel to
maintain the space station attitude and position. The hydrogen will
fuel with the auxiliary propulsion system on board.

And certainly hydrogen fuel cells have been a part of our space
power program for a number of years. They currently supply the
power for the space shuttle. And we are examining regenerative
fuel cells that would operate on water. During periods when there
is excess power available, the excess power would be applied to the
fuel cell. It would dissociate the hydrogen and oxygen. We would
store the gases. And at other periods of time when there was
higher level of demand than available power, we would recombine
the gases in the fuel cell to generate the electricity. So, in this case
it is an energy storage system.

In conclusion, I think we have in the past and will continue to
use hydrogen when it is the correct fuel of choice. It will be used
on the aerospace plane as the only fuel for orbital capability. It is
very essential in space propulsion, and we are moving toward
space-basing these systems. For aircraft our research has indicated
that it is feasible to use hydrogen on aircraft. And we are confident
that we can solve the remaining technical issues.

We are certainly interested and pleased that you are moving for-
ward with research on hydrogen utilization. And we do believe that
priority should be given to the issues that are associated with the
production and manufacture and distribution and liquification of
hydrogen.

This completes my statement. I'd be glad to take any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reck follows:]

STATEMENT

Gregory M. Reck

Acting Director, Propulsion, Power and Energy Division

Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

before the

Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss with you
NASA's research activities in the area of hydrogen utilization. For
many years now, this agency has recognized the potential benefits
inherent in hydrogen use for aerospace propulsion and energy storage
and has an ongoing research effort that began in the 1950 's. I will
describe the research that we have done in aeronautics, touch briefly
on our current space applications using hydrogen and discuss the major
issue which we believe is preventing its widespread use as an aircraft
fuel.

In the mid-to-late 1950' s, the National Advisory Committee for
Aeronautics (NACA) investigated and successfully demonstrated liquid
hydrogen as an aircraft fuel. This was accomplished by flying a B-57
with one engine modified to burn hydrogen fuel during cruise. The
hydrogen system addition (Fig. 1) included a stainless steel wing-tip
liquid hydrogen tank, a ram air heat exchanger to vaporize the liquid
hydrogen, and a regulator to control the flow of fuel to the engine.
The J-65 turbojet engine was modified by the addition of a hydrogen
manifold and injection tubes. The aircraft utilized conventional
military kerosene (JP-4) to power both engines for takeoff and climb
to cruise altitude. One engine was then switched to hydrogen.
Several flights were accomplished,, with hydrogen operation occurring
for approximately 20 minutes per flight.

With this as a base, from 1974 through 1980, NASA performed an
assessment of the prospects for liquid hydrogen as a fuel for
commercial subsonic jet aircraft. The program, whose funding averaged
around one-half million dollars per year, addressed aircraft fuel
containment, the performance potential, fuel- related subsystems,

interface with airports, safety aspects, and fuel production
efficiency and economics. It is generally recognized that liquid
hydrogen is a clean-burning fuel which, because its energy content per
mass is two and three-quarters times that of conventional jet fuel, is
an attractive alternate fuel for aircraft. The NASA approach to the
1974-1980 studies was to consider liquid hydrogen as one of several
candidate alternate fuels. Liquid methane and synthetic aviation
kerosene were also considered as alternative fuels for various studies
within that timeframe.

Studies conducted for NASA by the Lockheed California Company
indicated (Fig. 2) that the best place to house the cryogenic hydrogen
and methane was within insulated tanks located both fore and aft of
the passenger compartment. It was found to be impractical to house
the hydrogen or methane within the aircraft wing as is the current
practice with kerosene fuels. This is because the volumes available
are insufficient and tend to have a large ratio of surface area to
storage volume, making insulation difficult. Wing-mounted tanks were
considered but the drag penalties associated with such tanks were
excessive.

The next figure (Fig. 3) shows some salient characteristics of
hydrogen and methane-fueled aircraft compared to aircraft fueled with
Jet-A, the commercial aviation kerosene. Two aircraft are considered,
one designed to carry 130 passengers 1500 nautical miles and one
designed to carry 400 passengers 5500 nautical miles. Their operating
empty weights, gross weights, and onboard energy consumption per seat
nautical mile have been referenced to those of Jet-A fueled aircraft
designed to do the same job. Noteworthy advantages occur only for the
400 passenger, 5500 nautical mile range hydrogen- fueled aircraft,
whose gross weight is 75 percent and whose onboard energy consumption
(BTU per seat n.mi.) is 87 percent of its Jet-A counterpart. It is
important to note that in this chart the BTU per seat nautical mile
includes only the heating value of the fuel used in the mission and
does not include the energy required to produce the particular fuels.

Fuel system definition studies were conducted by the Lockheed
California Company aided by appropriate subcontractors. These studies
addressed the systems and subsystems required to house the fuel on
board the aircraft and deliver it to the engines. A variety of
cryogenic insulation schemes were evaluated for application to both
hydrogen and methane fuel tanks. Two-layer external closed-cell foam
insulation and a microsphere system were found to be the two most
attractive candidates. Concepts for pumps, lines, and purge systems
were identified. Trade-off studies were conducted to evaluate the
various concepts from the standpoint of cost, fuel consumption,
reliability, maintainability, and safety.

A number of subsystem studies were conducted to give depth to
the fuel system analyses. For instance, 2219 aluminum was selected as
the preferred construction material for the liquid hydrogen tanks. A
data search was conducted by General Dynamics to determine whether
sufficient data were available to assure the successful long life
operation of such a tank. Data gaps were identified, supplemental
tests were conducted, and recommendations were made regarding
additional testing.

Both experimental and analytical studies were conducted by Bell
Aerospace and the A.D. Little Company to gain insight into the more
promising closed-cell foam insulation systems for liquid hydrogen
tanks. Dual layers of foam, each of which was covered by a
mylar-aluminum vapor barrier, was found to be the more promising
concept.

Conventional hydrocarbon lubricants cannot be used in the
bearings of liquid hydrogen fuel pumps because of the extremely low
temperature. Liquid hydrogen is used instead but because of its very
low viscosity, making it a poor lubricant, pump bearings were thought
to be a potential problem. One possible solution to long life,
reliable bearings is the compliant foil bearing, a concept currently
utilized in the environmental control system of commercial aircraft.
Another is the hybrid bearing being developed at the Lewis Research
Center under the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology (OAST)
space technology program.

Airport accommodations required to provide service of
hydrogen-fueled aircraft were investigated in dual studies by Boeing
and Lockheed. Both studies concluded that for major airports such as
Chicago O'Hare and San Francisco International, the preferred concept
would include (Fig. 4) pipelining hydrogen gas to the airport,
construction of a hydrogen liquefaction plant and storage facilities
at the airport, and the construction of a closed-loop liquid hydrogen
circulation system delivering the hydrogen to hydrants. The hydrogen
vapors produced during refueling of the aircraft would be returned to
the hydrogen liquefaction plant for reliquefaction and then sent to
the storage tanks. The preferred concept for aircraft fueling (Fig.
5) is that of a hydrant truck which connects the hydrant to the
aircraft via helium purged lines. A second line captures boiloff
gases. These studies showed that there were no technical problems
associated with such airport facilities which did not lend themselves
to rather straightforward engineering solutions.

Safety was also considered. Lockheed California and the A.D.
Little Company assessed the relative post-crash fire safety of
hydrogen, methane, and synthetic Jet-A fuel and identified key
technical issues. Potentially positive safety aspects of hydrogen
include: (1) its low flame emissivity; (2) the lack of smoke in a

hydrogen fire which may aid passenger egress to safety; and (3) the
buoyancy of hydrogen and its fireball that may reduce the damage from
an engulfing flame. Potentially negative safety aspects include: (1)
its high volatility; (2) its wide flammability limits; (3) its low
ignition energy requirements; and (4) the potential for detonation of
a confined or partially confined hydrogen-air mixture if ignited.

The behavior of flammable clouds resulting from large scale
spills of liquid hydrogen was investigated by NASA and Ergo-Tech. In
1980, a series of 1,500-gallon liquid hydrogen spill experiments were
conducted at NASA's White Sands Test Facility. Those efforts
determined that dispersion of vapor clouds formed by rapid spills is
accelerated to nonflammable concentration by turbulence generated from
the evaporation and large temperature gradients. It was also observed
that the cloud remained positively buoyant during this process.

Fuel production became an important part of the NASA
investigations. Efforts conducted by the Institute of Gas Technology
and the Linde Division of Union Carbide assessed the cost and thermal
efficiency of producing liquid hydrogen, methane, and synthetic Jet-A
fuel. The studies assumed that all three fuels would be produced from
one of the U.S.'s most plentiful energy resources, coal. Later work
included results of similar studies conducted for and by Boeing, which
included synthetic Jet-A produced from oil shale. The studies showed
that the thermal efficiencies of liquid hydrogen production processes
were generally less than those for producing liquid methane or
synthetic Jet-A. The relative cost of the various fuels delivered to
the aircraft are shown (Fig. 6). The particular fuel production
processes are identified as are the energy source. The chart is
broken down into basic fuel production, pipelining the product 500
miles, and liquefaction, storage, and distribution at the airport.
Also reflected are current and advanced liquefaction technologies and
the sale of a heavy water by-product. These study results, done in
1979, are shown in 1980 dollars and are based on $16 per ton coal and
electric power costing 3 cents per kilowatt hour. The results
indicate that liquid hydrogen should cost roughly twice as much as
synthetic Jet-A from either oil shale or coal. ' It should be noted
that the purpose of the study was not to provide the definitive work
on the subject but to guide our technology development effort. A more
in-depth investigation of potential production technology improvements
and their economic inpact by the appropriate parties is recommended.

The feasibility of using liquid hydrogen as an aviation fuel was
demonstrated in the late-1950's and these additional studies support
its utilization. The pacing item regarding hydrogen appears to be the
cost of fuel production relative to other available choices. The
aircraft-related technologies have been put in abeyance by NASA until
such time as there is evidence that fuel production economics have
changed sufficiently to warrant a resurgence of those activities.

Any current discussion of hydrogen utilization would not be complete
without mention of the National Aero-Space Plane program. In this
program, which is being jointly conducted by NASA and DOD, hydrogen
plays such a key role that here its use is enabling. It is clearly
the fuel of choice at Mach numbers above seven because of its
flammability characteristics, its energy content, and its heat
capacity and heat transfer characteristics. Hydrogen-related research
is being conducted in the areas of propulsion and structures. As part
of the planned program, the hydrogen-fueled engine systems will be
matured to full-scale, flight-weight devices capable of effective
operation over the entire Mach number range of 0 to 25 required to
reach orbit. The high stagnation temperatures expected during flight
will require active cooling. Thus, research is being conducted which
will provide an integrated structure, cooling system and fuel storage
system. Unlike the earlier discussion of use in the subsonic regime,
performance, not economic trades, is the key issue here.

Hydrogen is an important fuel for rocket propulsion and
considerable research is being conducted in support of this
application. Fundamental experimental data is being obtained from a
Space Shuttle Main Engine, in a testbed facility, to better understand
and define internal engine environments and to verify design
methodology needed for the next-generation reusable earth-to-orbit
engines. A technical foundation is also being developed for a very
high performance hydrogen-fueled propulsion system designed for use in
a space-based orbital transfer vehicle, an essential future addition
to our space transportation system which is needed to extend space
operations from low-earth-orbit to geosynchronous orbit and beyond.
To support refueling operation in space, an experimental program is
underway to learn how to handle and transfer liquid hydrogen in space.
The first flight of the Cryogenic Fluid Management Facility
Experiments is currently scheduled for 1994. Smaller hydrogen-oxygen
auxiliary propulsion thrusters are being developed because of their
high performance, clean plumes, and for Space Station availability of
propel lants.

In the area of space power technology, hydrogen is being used in
the study of hydrogen-oxygen regenerative fuel cells for potential
surface power application which may be required for future space
missions. In addition to a projected weight advantage, the
regenerative fuel cell possesses a significant advantage relative to
battery storage systems in its flexibility to increase capacity by
increasing the size of the storage tanks.

In summary, NASA has and will continue to use hydrogen when it
is the correct fuel choice. It will be used extensively in hypersonic
flight research and is the only fuel for an aerospace plane with

orbital capability. It is an essential part of NASA's space
propulsion program and new technologies are being developed which will
extend its application in both space propulsion and space power. For
commercial aircraft application, however, the picture is not so
bright. As a result of our research, we feel confident that we can
solve the few remaining technical issues. But the economic aspects of
manufacture, liquefaction, storage, and handling are the key issues
and they must be addressed if hydrogen-fueled air transportation is to
be considered for use in the future. As progress is made toward
resolution of the economic issues by the appropriate parties, NASA
will address the remaining technical issues for hydrogen-fueled
commercial aircraft.

a.
az

w
■

CC
O

LU
h-
CO
>
CO

LU
CD

> °

cc<
P <

I-

2
O

<
a

o
o

x
o

o
o
in co
w

Q <

J1"

UJ -3

£o

DC
UJ

i H

o o o
O i-; q

O en LO

o en r*

o en r*.
o en co

zyj

< >

o
o
in
Lo

r- O O

<- o o

X 1-

h- <

LU J

2 UJ

AND
ICS,

LU
CO

2
2

o o eo

O r- q

q co <sr
q q en

o r>» co
q en en

o
o

*™ *~ *~

«- «- o

^ d d

z fc

UJ co

o cc

O LU

QC !^

x cc

U- X

51 "* M

to 5

h-
I

-t- CN

•" M I

LU O _,

T ^

•- M X
UJ U j

o o

LU
5

2
<

~~i — '

>- H

LU
CO

CC LL

>-
cc

cc
a

1-
co

sp;

2 °

^ DC

CO <

111

H
CO

2
O

H
O
<

LL
111

d =

111
H
CO
>
CO

2 S
in |

O CO

§5

a
o

>
I

a
a

82-464 0-88—4

0. O

a
o

C/3

</)

C/>

E
a.

Li.

uj o
CO Q

G tt

uj a

<
Z
CC
UJ

moo L

"• CM

Senator Ford. Thank you, Mr. Reck.

Madam Secretary, let me ask you a few questions, and then I
will ask Mr. Reck, and kind of keep it in DOE and NASA.

Madam Secretary, you talk of hydrogen as a — and I quote from
your statement — "secondary energy form." Does the use of renew-
ables make hydrogen use more attractive?

Miss Fitzpatrick. Mr. Chairman, if we could find an abundant
and fairly low-cost energy source to drive the production of hydro-
gen, then it would certainly be more attractive. And that, in fact, is
the purpose of part of our research program. We are looking to hy-
drogen produced from renewable materials, such as biomass, plant
material, and also we are studying how the process itself could be
powered by solar energy, either directly or thermally through solar
heat or through photovoltaics.

Senator Ford. Your main objection then is the cost of energy to
produce the hydrogen. Did you say four times?

Miss Fitzpatrick. Four to fifteen times

Senator Ford. Four to fifteen times.

Miss Fitzpatrick [continuing]. The energy must be invested in
the process versus the energy you get out

Senator Ford. One unit out of it.

Miss Fitzpatrick. Right.

Senator Ford. Your testimony promotes "continued research to
improve the technology base of renewal energy conversion of
system." Is this consistent with research advocated both in 1294
and 1296?

Miss Fitzpatrick. I think generally it would be, Mr. Chairman.
The purposes of the Department's ongoing program, and I think
the overall purposes of the legislation, as I understand it, are
roughly consistent.

Senator Ford. Let me read a little bit then from your statement
and ask you a fairly telling question. In your testimony you state
that there are no activities at DOE which are related to the third
purpose of S. 1294 "determining the technical requirements for em-
ploying fuel cells for power production as backup spinning reserve
components to renewable power systems in rural and isolated
areas."

And further you state this is a "low priority" because of the im-
maturity of the technology.

Later in your testimony you state "current programs are ade-
quately funding to address the intent of these bills."

If the purposes of the bill, particularly S. 1294, are adequately
addressed, why are there no activities in the Department for the
third purpose just outlined?

Miss Fitzpatrick. I think the third purpose is a specific use of
hydrogen or of fuel cells which is not among the major uses that
we might look for in the uses of hydrogen as a fuel and of fuel cells
as a power source. The program generally addresses the first two
uses which are to produce hydrogen from renewable energy sources
or using solar energy, which is the much broader, I think, primary
purpose. So, number three is a particular application of the tech-
nology.

Senator Ford. Let me ask you this then in closing. Wouldn't S.
1294 help bring the state of the technology to maturity and to pro-
ductive use?

Miss Fitzpatrick. Well, I think certainly if we can bring the
technologies to maturity and have economical and energy efficient
hydrogen production and fuel cells to use the hydrogen, then rural
applications would certainly be one of the possibilities and backups
to spinning reserves might be another. But all of that would have
to be driven by what the available alternatives are and what the
economic factors are.

Senator Ford. Mr. Reck, you discussed the pacing item for hydro-
gen, the cost of fuel production. What can the Federal Government
do to accelerate research on hydrogen production and bring down
the cost of that production?

Mr. Reck. I suspect that some of the research activities suggested
by the bill would be very worthwhile.

From the perspective of NASA, we have not been directly in-
volved with hydrogen production to any extent other than through
the studies that I've described that our contractors have pursued.
As part of that study, they did not get into any of the production
technologies that they felt should be addressed and exactly the de-
tails of what should be done there, simply that they felt that trying
to improve the efficiency of the liquefaction process, which takes
up a considerable portion of the energy that is used in producing
liquid hydrogen, would be one area that could be tackled. And they
did not specifically identify any of the areas associated with pro-
ducing the hydrogen itself.

So, I guess I am not really in a position to answer which technol-
ogy should be dealt with there. But we certainly feel that it is criti-
cal to try to tackle the cost issue.

I suspect the one thing that we are trying to support with some
small funding in the agency is trying to improve the efficiency of
transport. The transfer that I mentioned, the storage are issues
that in the end tend to raise the overall cost of hydrogen. It is very
difficult to store liquid hydrogen for a very long period of time
without any losses. And when transfers are made from one vessel
to another, you can lose 15 to 25 percent of the liquid hydrogen in
the process. And that is very expensive, and it costs us a great deal
to make those transfers. Anything that we could do to improve
that efficiency would help.

Senator Ford. What role do you see for renewables, solar, wind,
biomass, in hydrogen production?

Mr. Reck. As I understand the technology, those would be
sources of energy that would be used I think most effectively in
supplying power to fuel cell systems to generate hydrogen and
transport that hydrogen to other user sectors.

We have been involved with the Department of Energy in joint
activities developing those renewable technologies, wind energy,
photovoltaics, and so forth. And I think we have participated in
demonstration projects along those lines. So, we have offered the
technology and the capability that we have within NASA to par-
ticipate in those programs.

Senator Ford. S. 1296 establishes the Hydrogen Fuel Aircraft Ad-
visory Committee. What do you think about the potential effective-
ness of such a committee?

Mr. Reck. We have within the agency now a system of advisory
committees that we use in helping us direct and guide the research
activities that we conduct both in space and aeronautics. Those
committees have been very effective in helping us identify new
technologies that should be incorporated. We try to draw from the
various sectors and cover a number of the sectors that are identi-
fied in the bill, including private industry, the academic communi-
ty. We use these groups, as I say, to review the ongoing activities
that we have and to help guide us in terms of what we should be
doing. And they also provide a very effective means of transferring
the technology that we generate out to those communities, helping
us advise on the best means of doing that.

I feel the system that we have now works very effectively, and
we are working with people within the aviation industry that un-
derstand the economic issues, understand the market issues and so
forth associated with that. I think it would be very important to be
sure that any panel that were established under the auspices of the
legislation would also serve those purposes to be sure there are in-
dividuals who are familiar with the organization.

I would also submit that perhaps the advisory groups that we al-
ready have established within the agency might be able to satisfy
the same purposes.

Senator Ford. As long as you are doing it, it is fine. And when
you fail to do it, there ought to be some carrot or stick there I
think. So, maybe we might try to accommodate each other as it re-
lates to that particular phase.

What is your comment on the $100 million funding that is pro-
vided for hydrogen-fueled aircraft research?

Mr. Reck. I think it certainly would be valuable in terms of de-
veloping the technology at a fairly small scale level. Any large
scale demonstration program, as suggested in the legislation, I
think would require funding that would be substantially in excess
of that.

For example, the first program that we have experience with
now in terms of a hydrogen-fueled vehicle is the aerospace plane.
Now, the technologies there are much more sophisticated in many
cases than what would be required. The research and technology
program, the three year research and technology program, for that
activity is approaching $700 million. And we anticipate the first
several vehicles for research flight test purposes will require about
$3 billion.

Senator Ford. That's $3 billion?

Mr. Reck. Yes, $3 billion. That is the run-out budget for phase
three which would carry it through the flight test program. At
least a good part of that is associated with the hydrogen — support-
ing the hydrogen on the aircraft. Another part of that, obviously, is
developing the technologies for the high speed flight.

But I feel that the levels of resources suggested here at best
would conduct smaller scale, perhaps ground test programs or
flight demonstrations in which only portions of the aircraft systems
might be modified to operate on hydrogen. I am not sure exactly

how valuable a demonstration like that would be if it wasn't direct-
ed at a mission and didn't have the ability to redesign the aircraft
to take advantage of all the benefits that are associated with liquid
hydrogen. The aircraft designs that Lockheed generated as part of
our studies in the 1970s merely started with a clean sheet of paper.

By locating the fuel inside the fuselage, for example, rather than
the wings, they changed the load distribution on the air frame.
There are economies associated with that. There are economies as-
sociated with the engines, for example, in using the heat sink avail-
able in the hydrogen to help reduce the temperature of the turbine
cooling air which can improve the efficiency of the engines.

I think some of those could be studied on the ground, and we cer-
tainly, prior to the B-57 test that I described, ran an extensive
wind tunnel test program of the complete system.

So, those are the kind of things that probably could be done with
the level of funding that would be available as currently proposed
in the legislation. It would be difficult I think to conduct a mean-
ingful large scale demonstration with these resources.

Senator Ford. I have no further questions.

Senator Matsunaga, do you have any questions?

Senator Matsunaga. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Now, Secretary Fitzpatrick, the White House issued a White
Paper in February of this year entitled "National Aeronautical
R&D Goals," which says in part, "The dearth of foreign aeronauti-
cal resolve and the concerted national effort required to preserve
American competitiveness are still largely underestimated. Sus-
tained U.S. leadership will require greater achievement by all sec-
tors, government, industry and academia. Both the opportunity and
challenge are unprecedented."

Now, if this is the administration view — and I certainly share
it — why aren't you, as the ranking administration spokesman here
this afternoon, more enthusiastic about the hydrogen bills? They
certainly will permit greater achievement in aeronautical resolve
on the part of all three sectors, would they not?

Miss Fitzpatrick. Senator, I certainly am not going to gainsay
the Administration White Paper. But I don't think that I am the
person to talk to about aeronautical goals. Certainly Dr. Reck is
fully qualified to do that.

Our job at the Department is to study hydrogen as an energy
source. One of the energy applications would be in aeronautics.
And we are certainly working very hard and closely with NASA
and with DARPA on what the requirements will be for the aero-
space plane. We have had meetings with them, and we are working
on a joint research plan. So, we are fully prepared to do our part to
see that those goals are achieved.

Senator Matsunaga. Are you satisfied that with your present re-
sources and organizational structure with regard to hydrogen you
can meet the White House challenge?

Miss Fritzpatrick. Well, that was the purpose of having some
meetings. Some of them have gone on very recently within the last
month. And if the experts coming out of those discussions want to
recommend further changes in our research program, then I am
certainly prepared to listen to them.

100

Senator Matsunaga. Well, one of the objections you raised, if
you can call it an objection, to the three bills in your testimony
which you presented is that the hydrogen will become feasible only
when its production costs come down. Now, isn't the bringing down
of the production costs one of the objectives of any research and
development program?

Miss Fritzpatrick. Certainly. It is a primary objective of our pro-
gram.

Senator Matsunaga. So, you are not then opposed to any project
which would go into that aspect of alternative energy development,
namely, hydrogen.

Miss Fritzpatrick. If that project fits within a rational frame-
work of approaching all of the problems with hydrogen, cost being
one of them, certainly we support those, and that is what our cur-
rent research program attempts to do.

Senator Matsunaga. Well, in your testimony you also mention
the fact that hydrogen is not a primary energy source and must be
manufactured. And of course, the Chairman raised this question
also. But isn't it true that principal fuels, such as petroleum for ex-
ample, also take other forms of energy in order to be produced in
the first instance?

Miss Fitzpatrick. Certainly. The petroleum comes out crude, and
we refine it — that's true — into separate fractions.

Senator Matsunaga. So that if we can find through research
some cheaper means of producing hydrogen, wouldn't that be
taking advantage of a vast natural resource in which initially we
had assumed the world leadership, and we seem to be falling
behind?

Miss Fitzpatrick. That's true. If we can find an economically
and energetically efficient means of producing, storing, transport-
ing and using hydrogen, it is certainly a worthwhile goal, which is
why we do have a research program in that area.

Senator Matsunaga. Well, I do hope then that your Department
will fall in line and push these energy programs and help to get
these bills passed so that we can work together and assume the
common objectives.

Miss Fitzpatrick. Well, we certainly have common objectives,
Senator, yes.

Senator Matsunaga. Of course, Mr. Gregory Peck — I mean, Mr.
Reck — I take it from your testimony that

Senator Ford. Gregory is on TV against Mr. Bork. Be careful.
[Laughter.]

Senator Matsunaga. I take it, Mr. Reck, that NASA is some-
what more enthusiastic about the hydrogen bills, which are the
subject of these hearings, than the Department of Energy is, and I
thank you for that. Of course, perhaps the application of the form
of energy is much more in line with NASA's programs.

But I was very much interested in learning of your work with
Lockheed because, as you probably know, Lockheed had intended
to build a 1,000 megawatt OTEC plant, the ocean thermal energy
conversion plant, in Hawaii on the big island for the purpose of
producing liquid hydrogen. And it had been estimated that it would
take about 400 megawatts to produce all the transportation fuel
needs of the State, both ground and air, and 600 megawatts addi-

101

tional being produced by the OTEC plant planned would produce
enough to produce liquid hydrogen for export. And this would have
been a great thing for Hawaii. Unfortunately, because of the posi-
tion taken by the present administration, Lockheed decided to drop
the project. As a matter of fact, if you come to my office, I will
show you a big photograph of the prototype, LH-2, the plane, a
liquid hydrogen plane, which Lockheed on the planning board.

And I do hope that with the passage of this bill, you will work
with Lockheed or any other plane manufacturing firm to develop
hydrogen-fueled aircrafts.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Reck. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Ford. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony today.
There may be some questions that will be submitted to you in writ-
ing by other members of the subcommittee. I hope that you will
accept those and reply in a timely fashion. Thank you both very
much.

The next panel is the President of Industrial Fuel Cell Associa-
tion, Frank W. Spillers; the Director of External Relations, North-
east Utilities Company, Fuel Cell Users Group for the Electric Util-
ity Industry, Mr. Eugene Sturgeon.

Mr. Spillers, since I called you first, I'd allow you to go first. And
we will accept your testimony in full. If you want to highlight it, it
would be fine.

Mr. Spillers. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ford. We never know when we might have a roll call,
and so we may have to jump and run. Hopefully we can get
through this hearing this afternoon without too much disruption.

STATEMENT OF FRANK W. SPILLERS, PRESIDENT, INDUSTRIAL

FUEL CELL ASSOCIATION

Mr. Spillers. I think it will just take a few minutes.

My name is Frank Spillers. I am President of the Industrial Fuel
Cell Association. I am a 27 year employee of Dow Chemical where I
am presently Director of Discovery Development for our Texas re-
search organization. My interest and involvement in electrochemis-
try, including fuel cells, dates back to 1973.

Our organization, the Industrial Fuel Cell Association, is a not-
for-profit organization. It is composed of members from the oil in-
dustry, chemical manufacturers, auto industry, minerals, utilities,
auto industry and other potential users of fuel cells. Other mem-
bers are corporations involved in the development and potentially
the manufacture of fuel cells and fuel cell components.

We are very pleased to have the opportunity to testify before you
today on Senate Bills 1294, 1295 and 1296. We wholeheartedly sup-
port the general thrust of these bills, but we do have some areas of
concern which I will address later.

Taking a broad view, we believe you are on the right track in
trying to encourage alternate energy technology for the future of
our country. This is great and should be applauded by all citizens.
Unfortunately, I think you may have to wait a while for the ap-
plause. Right now we receive electricity at the flip of a switch, and
we don't wait in line, as we did during the 1973 oil embargo, to fuel

102

our automobiles. Our general population probably won't get con-
cerned until the lights go out and the pumps go by.

But as Llewellyn King, publisher of The Energy Daily, recently
told a gathering of the Southern Governors Association, the United
States can no longer be complacent about our future fuel supplies.
Further, King said we better start worrying again that there will
be insoluble problems within a decade and perhaps problems with
electricity supply before then.

Expanding on Mr. King's electrical supply concern, it is well
known that there are not any new central power stations on the
drawing board today. It is also generally accepted that there will
be power shortages starting in the mid-1990s.

Fuel cells, which of course require hydrogen for fuel, may be
called on to fill the gap. They appear to be well-suited for the task
due to modular construction which gives you short delivery lead
time and the ability to be fitted to dispersed sites.

Our country has many problems to face here at home and
abroad, but I believe the safety of our future energy base should be
near the top of this list. As recently pointed out in the Congression-
al Record, the U.S. has only enough proven petroleum reserves to
last nine years if the circumstance ever arises. With world tension
as it is, one must wonder not if circumstances arise, but when.

Again, we support the general thrust of the proposed legislation
to lead the way in developing a secure domestic source of alternate
energy. Our association stands ready to assist in any way we can.

With your indulgence, I would now like to make some comments
and address some concerns on the legislation under consideration
today.

Senate Bill 1294 is welcomed by our association. It addresses the
opportunity of producing hydrogen from renewable energy sources
and using this hydrogen in fuel cells to produce electricity. The
energy sources named in this bill will be available to our country
forever, and we need to learn to use them for efficiently. The only
concern we have is that this bill calls for only one year of funding.
We believe it will probably need to run for a longer term.

Going on to Senate Bill 1295, we believe this bill is needed, and
we support it almost as written. We welcome the call for the EPA
to prepare Federal environmental and safety guidelines for cities'
and municipalities' use of fuel cell technology.

In addition, we would suggest that the Industrial Fuel Cell Asso-
ciation could take an active role in helping to prepare these guide-
lines. Later we would be pleased to offer our Association's help pre-
paring fuel cell performance and manufacturing standards. The
setting of guidelines and standards is one of many points that
needs to be addressed, and there is no need for delay.

This bill also calls for the Secretary of Commerce to assess the
export market potential for fuel cell systems with renewable tech-
nologies. We welcome the probable confirmation of the market by
the Secretary.

We also support the inclusion of fuel cells as a fuel conservation
technology under REIDA, as called for in this bill.

The section of Senate Bill 1296 calling for research and develop-
ment on hydrogen-fueled aircraft is a step in the right direction of
addressing our fuel needs for transportation.

103

In addition, we would suggest a similar approach to our land-
based transportation. DOE/EIA report 0214 shows the 1985 U.S.
motor vehicle consumption was nearly 3 billion barrels. A national
energy use of this magnitude would be a very worthwhile target for
fuel cell use.

Most people who have pondered the question of fuel cell automo-
biles have concluded that the hydrogen fuel would best be arrived
at by reforming methanol. Methanol can be derived from coal, of
which our country is blessed with a very adequate supply.

In addition to the potential fuel savings by the use of alternate
fuel sources, transportation fuel cells would greatly reduce pollut-
ant emissions, which is already becoming a major problem in some
of our larger cities.

Federal R&D emphasis over the past 10 years has been aimed
primarily at the gas and electric utility industry. This effort is to
be applauded since utility fuel cells are now near the point of com-
mercialization. Similar emphasis for transportation should now re-
ceive Federal attention.

In addition to the enormous opportunities for alternate energy
for transportation, our association would like to encourage Con-
gress to consider the industrial applications of fuel cells which
have the potential to improve our energy cost and therefore the
global competitiveness of our industrial base.

Much of the past effort and expenditure on utility applications of
fuel cells could be readily adapted to industrial use. A series of on-
site, industry cost-shared experiments could probably give the
added impetus to get the industrial applications moving. A logical
first target could be the chlor-alkali industry which produces hy-
drogen and uses DC power.

In closing today, I would like to say that the Industrial Fuel Cell
Association commends the foresight of Senator Matsunaga in intro-
ducing the legislation that we are considering today. The handwrit-
ing is on the wall. We are driving our energy economy with a de-
pleting resource and are relying on a foreign fuel source of a most
unstable nature. Our country must unshackle itself by becoming
energy independent through the use of our renewable resources.

Further, we agree that the ultimate answer will include the pro-
duction and use of hydrogen from these resources. We also believe
that fuel cells with their high energy efficiency and very low air
pollution emissions will become one of the ultimate prime movers
of our country.

Today I have made some specific comments that we believe can
strengthen the legislation before you. I hope they are of value to
you and worth your consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the chance to testify today.

Senator Ford. Thank you, Mr. Spillers.

Mr. Sturgeon.

104

STATEMENT OF EUGENE STURGEON, DIRECTOR OF EXTERNAL
RELATIONS, NORTHEAST UTILITIES, ON BEHALF OF THE FUEL
CELL USERS GROUP OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY,
INC., ACCOMPANIED BY JEFF SERFASS, EXECUTIVE DIREC-
TOR, FUEL CELL USERS GROUP OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY IN-
DUSTRY, INC.

Mr. Sturgeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your indulgence,
I have asked Jeff Serfass, who is Executive Director of the Fuel
Cell Users Group, one of the organizations that I am representing
today, to sit with me.

Senator Ford. That is perfectly all right, and I am glad you iden-
tified him for the record.

Mr. Sturgeon. Thank you.

I am Gene Sturgeon, Director of External Affairs for Northeast
Utilities. Northeast Utilities is an electric and gas utility holding
company under the 1935 Holding Company Act. We have proper-
ties in Connecticut and in the western part of Massachusetts.

I am here in support particularly of Senate Bills 1294 and 1295,
and I don't mean to exclude Senator Matsunaga, but our comments
are directed toward those two bills, although we commend you,
Senator, for your initiative in introducing S. 1296 as well.

I would like to speak briefly as well about the status of fuel cell
technology development from the standpoint of a users' group and
the opportunity for its commercialization.

Northeast Utilities has been supporting the development of fuel
cell technology for nearly 20 years. My company was one of nine
electric utilities who joined with the United Technologies Corpora-
tion in the early 1970s to develop a multi-megawatt fuel cell power
plant and to test a one megawatt demonstration unit. Northeast
Utilities has continued to support the development of fuel cells
since that time with both financial and manpower resources with
the objective of ultimate commercial application of our system.

I am also here to speak on behalf, as I mentioned, of the Fuel
Cell Users Group of the Electric Utility Industry. A list of the
members of that group is attached as attachment 1 to my submit-
ted testimony.

The Fuel Cell Users Group is an organization of 45 electric utili-
ties and the national trade associations of the electric power indus-
try, the Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Asso-
ciation, and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
The Users Group was established in 1980 to assist, promote and ac-
celerate the development and electric utility application of phos-
phoric acid fuel cell technology.

The Fuel Cell Users Group and my remarks today will focus on
that development and the application of phosphoric acid, multi-
megawatt fuel cell technology.

As an aside, Northeast Utilities has also been an active partici-
pant in the gas industry's on-site 40 kilowatt program, including
testing one of the 46 40 kilowatt units operated throughout the
country. Additionally, we are presently investigating participation
in the 200 kilowatt demonstration program. We also have a con-
tinuing interest in the long-term potential of molten carbonate and
solid oxide technologies. However, it is the multi-megawatt, phos-

105

phoric acid technology that we believe offers electric utilities the
early promise of a clean, modular, efficient electrochemical genera-
tion technology for siting and operation in both urban and remote
locations.

The Users Group Management Committee, of which I am a
member, has periodically reviewed in depth the development pro-
grams and commercialization plans of both International Fuel Cell
Corporation and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The potential
value of fuel cell technology is growing in appreciation by utilities
as the urban system of investor-owned utilities particularly and
some of the public's make financial commitments to demonstration
and long-term testing of 11 megawatt fuel cell power plants in a
program structured by the Electric Power Research Institute.
Whether or not sufficient private risk capital exists to complete
formation of this demonstration program is a question yet to be
fully answered.

The demonstration initiative to which I just referred is an effort
to deploy several 11 megawatt power plants to be tested over a
number of years in several different applications in order to obtain
the longer term operating, reliability and cost data necessary for
utilities to evaluate the competitive fit of this technology on their
systems.

One public power system, the City of Palo Alto, California, has
already approved formation of one test project. That project will in-
clude the support of a number of municipally owned systems
throughout the country.

Several northeastern utilities are considering forming a similar
consortium.

The price tag is expected to be high for these 11 megawatt units
initially. The risks commensurately are also high. However, we be-
lieve the promise of their successful commercialization is great.

Senate Bills 1294 and 1295 demonstrate the continuing leader-
ship of Congress in recognizing the potential of this technology.
Congress has consistently funded fuel cell development over the
years, fostering its evolution from one that can provide small but
reliable generation packages for on-board spacecraft to one that is
now nearly ready for electric utility application.

Unfortunately, support from DOE has not been as consistent.
Delays in implementing funded programs to develop the advanced
international fuel cell configuration B fuel cell stacks for electric
utility size plants have resulted in an inability to incorporate this
advancement in the current demonstration effort.

Further, the entire development program will not be completed
for several more years due to contracting delays and a stretched-
out and less than ambitious schedule for completion of the work.
The capital cost of the mature power plant remains the chief obsta-
cle to commercial application, and advanced stack technology is
crucial to meeting this competitive goal.

Implementation of this fuel cell demonstration effort has also
been hindered by ideological opposition to Federal support of the
actual demonstrations. The cost of these several demonstrations, as
I mentioned, is high, as high perhaps as $120 million. And many
electric utilities are not in a position to accept the risks that this
investment requires. The risk-sharing value of Federal participa-

106

tion as the private industry investment in these demonstration
projects increases, therefore, is very important.

The program's progress to date is the result of about a half a bil-
lion dollars in private and public funding to develop the technology
to the point that it is now ready for demonstration. The absence of
DOE funding at this critical stage will make it nearly impossible
for the United States to remain in its leadership position world-
wide.

In today's regulatory climate, the utility may not always be re-
warded for taking on the risks of a new technology. In tomorrow's
regulatory climate when this technology will be commercially
useful, the utility's role in building new generation has not yet
been clearly defined. I believe that the investments being made by
the manufacturers and the utilities must be complemented by
public support if significant technological breakthroughs are to be
achieved. Continued cost sharing of a large demonstration program
is in my opinion not only necessary but the only realistic way to
achieve commercialization in any reasonable time frame.

The Fuel Cell Users Group, therefore, supports Senate bills 1294,
which proposes research and development that will broaden the ap-
plication of this technology. We also support Senate Bill 1295 and
the actions it proposes that will facilitate its commercial applica-
tion.

Electric utilities nationwide are undergoing some dramatic
changes as the industry moves into an era of deregulation of gen-
eration and transmission in a competitive environment afflicted
with the uncertainties of ever-changing State and Federal regula-
tion. FERC, State regulators and many electric utilities are ques-
tioning whether it is prudent to invest utility capital in risking
new generation technologies. Despite the present uncertainties, I
believe commercialization of this technology can be successful be-
cause of its importance to the many utilities and to their applica-
tions in the United States.

Let me conclude by reemphasizing that the Fuel Cell Users
Group supports legislation which seeks to improve fuel cell technol-
ogy and to widen its application. We find these elements in our
support of Senate Bill 1294 and 1295. I urge your support for these
bills and for adequate funding for continued technology develop-
ment in the energy and water appropriations bills presently wan-
dering through Congress.

This concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly
would be happy to respond to any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sturgeon follows:]

107

STATEMENT ON SENATE BILLS

S. 1294 and S. 1295, and

FUEL CELL RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT

AND COMMERCIALIZATION

Presented to the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

of the

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

Eugene Sturgeon

Director of External Relations

Northeast Utilities

Hartford, Connecticut

on behalf of the

FUEL CELL USERS GROUP OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY, INC.

September 23, 1987

108

Mr. Chairman, I am Gene Sturgeon, Director of External
Affairs for Northeast Utilities (NU) of Hartford, Connecticut.
With me today is Jeff Serfass, Executive Director of the Fuel
Cell Users Group of the Electric Utility Industry, Inc.1 I am
here in support of Senate Bills 1294 and 1295 and to speak about
the status of fuel cell technology development and the
opportunity for its commercialization.

NU has been supporting the development of fuel cell
technology for nearly 20 years. Our company was one of nine
electric utilities who joined with United Technologies
Corporation in the early 1970s to develop multimegawatt fuel cell
power plants and to test a one megawatt demonstration unit. Our
company has continued to support the development of fuel cells,
with both financial and manpower resources, with the objective of
ultimate commercial application of this energy generation
technology.

I am also here to speak on behalf of the Fuel Cell Users
Group of the Electric Utility Industry, Inc. The Fuel Cell Users
Group is an organization of 42 electric utilities and the
national trade associations of the electric power industry: The
Edison Electric Institute, the American Public Power Association,

1 The Fuel Cell Users Group of the Electric Utility Industry,
Inc., is a seven-year old organization with a membership of 45
utilities (and 11 associate members) spanning the privately,
publicly, and cooperatively owned electric utility industry. A
list of the membership is included as Attachment 1 . The members
of the Users Group represent about a third of the U.S. generating
capacity. The Group is united in the interest of encouraging and
supporting research, development, demonstration, and
commercialization of phosphoric acid fuel cell power plants.

109

and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. The
Users Group was established in 1980 to assist, promote and
accelerate the development and electric utility application of
phosphoric acid fuel cell technology.

The Fuel Cell Users Group, and my remarks today, are focused
on the development and application of phosphoric acid, multi-
megawatt fuel cell technology. NU has also been an active
participant in the gas industry's on-site, 40-KW program
including testing of one of the 46 40-KW units operated
throughout the country. Additionally, we are presently
investigating participation in the 200-KW demonstration program.
We also have an interest in the long term potential of molten
carbonate and solid oxide fuel cell technologies. It is the
multi-megawatt phosphoric acid technology, however, that offers
electric utilities the early promise of a clean, modular,
efficient electrochemical generation technology, for siting and
operation in both urban and remote locations.

The Users Group's Management Committee, on which I sit, has
periodically reviewed, in depth, the development programs and
commercialization plans of both International Fuel Cell
Corporation and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. Before I
offer our comments on Senate Bills 1294 and 1295, I would like to
discuss the status of commercialization of this technology, the
importance of the federal role today and the harm that deferrals
and other discontinuities in federal support mean to this
important development effort.

110

For many years, the manufacturers, the electric utility
industry and the federal government have been promising that fuel
cell technology will soon be commercial. The electric utility
industry continues to be interested in this technology because it
offers a uniquely clean and efficient power generation option in
a time of limited technology choices. The value of fuel cell
technology is being appreciated by utilities as urban systems
make financial commitments to demonstration and long term testing
of 1 1 -MW fuel cell power plants in a program structured by the
Electric Power Research Institute. Whether or not sufficient
risk capital exists to complete formation of this demonstration
program remains to be seen.

The demonstration initiative of which I speak is an effort
to deploy several 1 1 -MW power plants to be tested over several
years, in several different applications, to obtain the longer
term operating, reliability and cost data necessary for utilities
to evaluate the competitive fit of this technology on their
systems. One public power system, the City of Palo Alto,
California, has already approved formation of one test project,
with the support of numerous municipally-owned utilities
throughout the country. Several other northeastern utilities are
considering forming a similar consortium. The price tag is
expected to be high for the 11 megawatt units. The risks are
high, but the promise is great.

Senate Bills 1294 and 1295 demonstrate the continuing
leadership of Congress in recognizing the potential of fuel cell

Ill

technology. Congress has consistently funded fuel cell
technology development over the years, fostering the evolution of
the technology from one that can provide small but reliable
generation packages for on-board space craft to one that is now
nearly ready for large electric utility application.

Unfortunately, support of the effort by the U.S. Department
of Energy has not been as consistent. Delays in implementing
funded programs to develop the advanced International Fuel Cell
Configuration B fuel cell stacks for electric utility-size plants
have resulted in an inability to incorporate this advancement in
the current demonstration effort. The entire development program
will not be completed for several more years due to the
contracting delays and a stretched-out, unambitious schedule for
completion of the work. The capital cost of the mature power
plant remains the chief obstacle to commercial application of
fuel cells and advanced stack technology is crucial to meeting
cost goals.

Implementation of this fuel cell demonstration effort has
also been hindered by the ideological opposition to federal
support of the actual demonstrations. The cost of these several
1 1 -MW demonstrations is high (about $120 million) and many
electric utilities cannot accept the risks that this investment
presents. The risk-sharing value of federal participation, as
the private industry's investment in demonstration projects
becomes large, is very important. Not all electric utilities are
in a position to accept this extraordinary risk today.

112

The program to-date is the result of 500 million dollars in
private and public funding to develop the fuel cell technology to
the point that it is now ready for demonstration. The absence of
DOE funding at this critical stage makes it nearly impossible for
the U.S. to remain in its fuel cell leadership position.

The advantages of this technology primarily accrue to the
public, not the electric utilities themselves. The benefits of
this improved technology will ultimately accrue to the utility
ratepayers and the beneficiaries of environmental improvement.
In today's regulatory climate, the utility may not be rewarded
for taking on the risks of new technology - in fact, in many
instances they are more likely to be penalized. In tomorrow's
regulatory climate, when the technology will be commercially-
useful, the utility's role in building new generation has not yet
been clearly defined.

We believe, therefore, that the investments being made by
the manufacturers and the utilities must be complemented by
public support if we are to achieve significant technological
breakthroughs. Continued cost-sharing of a large demonstration
program is in my opinion not only necessary, but the only
realistic way to achieve commercialization in any reasonable time
frame.

The Fuel Cell Users Group, therefore, supports Senate Bill
1294, the "Renewable Energy/Fuel Cell System Integration Act of
1987," which proposes research and development that will broaden
the application of this technology. We also support Senate Bill

113

1295, the "Fuel Cells Energy Utilization Act of 1987," and the
actions it proposes that will facilitate commercial application
of this technology.

Electric utilities nation wide are undergoing dramatic
changes as the industry moves into an era of deregulation of
generation and transmission in a competitive environment
afflicted with the uncertainties of ever changing state and
federal regulation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
state regulators and many electric utilities are questioning
whether it is prudent to invest utility capital in risky new
generation technologies. Despite the present uncertainties, we
believe commercialization of this technology can be successful
because of its importance to many utilities in the United States.

Let me summarize by re-emphasizing that the Fuel Cell Users
Group supports legislation which seeks to improve fuel cell
technology and to widen its application. We support S.1294 and
S.1295. We further urge your support for continued technology
development through the 1988 Appropriations Bill.

Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before
the Subcommittee in support of fuel cell technology. I will be
happy to respond to any questions or comments on my remarks.

114

ATTACHMENT 1
FUEL CELL USERS GROUP MEMBERS

Federal Government Utilities

Tennessee Valley Authority

Cooperatives

Adams Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Buckeye Power, Inc.

Colorado-Ute Electric Association, Inc.

Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

Southern Maryland Electric Cooperative

United Power Association

Municipals

American Public Power Association

Austin Electric Department

The Easton Utilities Commission

Jacksonville Electric Authority

Lincoln Electric System

Los Angeles Department of Water & Power

Missouri Basin Municipal Power Agency

Omaha Public Power District

Palo Alto Electric Utility

Provo City Power Department of Utilities

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District

Santa Clara Electric Department

Taunton Municipal Lighting Plant

Investor Owned Utilities

Boston Edison Company

Carolina Power & Light Company

Centerior Energy Corporation

Consolidated Edison Company of New York

The Dayton Power & Light Company

Delmarva Power & Light Company

115

Investor Owned Utilities (cont.)

Edison Electric Institute

Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc.

Idaho Power Company

Northeast Utilities Service Company

Northern States Power Company

Ohio Edison Company

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Philadelphia Electric Company

Public Service Company of Colorado

Public Service Company of Oklahoma

Public Service Electric & Gas Company

San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Southern Company Services, Inc.

Tampa Electric Company

Utah Power & Light Company

Virginia Power Company

Foreign

Sydkraft, Ltd.

Associate Members

Bechtel Group, Inc.

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

Ebasco Services, Inc.

The National Commission for Research & Development of Nuclear

Energy & Renewable Energy Sources

Gilbert/Commonwealth, Inc.

Hydrogen Industry Council

Johnson Matthey Research Centre

Kinetics Technology International Corporation

New Energy Development Organization

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation

August 11 , 1987

116

Senator Ford. Thank you very much. Let me ask questions of
both of you, and you can respond either agreeing with the other
one or having a somewhat different opinion.

What are the benefits to be gained from a federally sponsored
fuel cell research program, and is $5 million provided in S. 1294 an
adequate amount? Mr. Spillers, do you want to start first?

Mr. Spillers. What would be gained? I still feel like there is new
fuel cell technology that is out there today that offers the hope —
well, I keep going back to the transportation industry. I keep
saying that is a major fuel user in this country. And I see the re-
newable energy called for in Senate Bill 1294 as a way to produce
hydrogen for fuel cells for transportation, for instance.

A lot of the renewable power systems, such as solar power, will
not generate electricity around the clock. They are going to have to
store backup power some way. You can store them in batteries
which are hard to transport. The other way I would think of would
be to store it in hydrogen. And that's my interest in 1294.

I don't know that the one year, $5 million funding called for is
adequate for that. That is my opinion on that one.

Senator Ford. Mr. Sturgeon.

Mr. Sturgeon. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you'll find that most
of us feel that no amount of funding is adequate to do the job that
we want to do. But if you look at the breakdown where that fund-
ing is going and you specifically apply a portion of it in a partner-
ship between the Federal Government and the utility industry,
both the private and the public sector, in a commercial application
of a demonstration project that will lead us ultimately to commer-
cialization, I think that money will be well-spent.

Senator Ford. Well, both of you apparently represent the private
industry group. And what do you all see as the role of private in-
dustry in fuel cell research and development?

Mr. Spillers. I might speak to that first.

One of the problems — and I am going back again to the transpor-
tation thing because I keep seeing that as a major user of hydro-
gen. It is already a major user of fuel, of course. And the problem I
see is that there are things happening in the transportation indus-
try. It is moving very slow. Things, of course, are all market
driven. There is no screaming cry for fuel for our automobiles now.
Gasoline is relatively cheap now. Tomorrow morning when we
wake up, it may be relatively expensive. We never know. We have
to watch that every day.

So, I don't see, for instance, the automotive industry moving fast
enough to meet the probable deadline for coming up with non-im-
ported fuels. So, I see the government, for instance — just an idea is
to have an incentive reward out there even where you could chal-
lenge the automotive industry. Hey, you come up with a prototype
automobile within a certain period of time that meets certain speci-
fications, and you win this gold ring. You see?

But I am worried about the transportation moving fast enough, I
guess, is the bottom line. The market forces are not there. Gasoline
is not expensive enough. When it becomes expensive enough, as I
said, possibly overnight, it will be too late. And I see the Federal
Government as representing all the people in this country as a way

117

to get this thing going. And it will not go until the last minute, I'm
afraid to say.

Senator Ford. Mr. Sturgeon, do you have any comment?

Mr. Sturgeon. Yes, I would like to from the utility industry
standpoint.

I think that if you look at what has transpired historically in the
utility industry with respect to research and development into
emerging technologies— and I think the best example probably is
the history of the development of nuclear energy— the electric utili-
ty industry has always been interested in alternative sources of
electric power generation to meet our country's needs and our own
customers' needs regionally and locally.

While we all have our own agenda — that is, the 180 odd investor-
owned utilities and the many publics in this country — nevertheless,
the end objective is to provide an adequate, reliable, cost efficient
source of energy.

When we look at the fuel cells in today's climate — and remember
now, as I said in my prepared remarks, we have been looking at
this program and its various components for more than 20 years.
We feel that we need the diversity that this option can offer to us
if it is brought to commercialization. We need to develop this diver-
sity in the best climate that we can develop it. And that involves
both the private and the public sector at this stage of development.

What it is going to give us is another tool, another source of elec-
tric power generation that adds to the flexibility of many of the
utility systems in this country. And I would conclude that state-
ment by saying — and I am sure, Senator Ford, having sat in on
many, many energy committee meetings, you know that the utility
industry today is struggling with the problem of whether or not to
build any more large base load generating facilities, and if so, what
kind of facilities those may be.

This particular R&D program and demonstration program fits
right into the middle of that jigsaw puzzle at this time.

Senator Ford. Mr. Spillers, I might tell you that— you were talk-
ing about methanol, for instance, use as fuel for automobiles. Ford
Motor Company came down with an Escort with a sensor. And they
could tell the engine what is in the tank since we do not have the
ability to go by and pick up methanol just anyplace. Methanol
doesn't have the distribution system.

The only thing they ask is that the applied miles per gallon for
their fleet— give them a better average maybe. If they were work-
ing with this model, it might ease up some on some of their larger
models. And that didn't fly very well with the Commerce Commit-
tee.

Of course, I was very anxious to see that move coming from the
largest coal producing State in the Nation. I was interested in
seeing the carrot there. And they asked for it. They said if you will
help us here, we will expedite it here. But we couldn't get the
energy committee interested in that.

Let me ask another question about S. 1295. It directs the Interna-
tional Trade Administration to examine the export potential of fuel
cells. What do you believe the prospects are for export of these
technologies?

118

Senator Matsunaga. Well, I think the prospects will be good for
the winner in this race. I just so happen to have a little book here I
think in my briefcase. For instance, it shows fuel cell R&D in
Japan. We don't even have anything like this in the U.S. There is
no publication like this in the U.S. You go through here and, as we
know, there is much activity, as Senator Matsunaga said earlier, in
all the countries. So, I think the ones that develop the technology
first will be the ones that get the export market.

And again, back to transportation, the airplane, the automo-
bile— it's a way to have competitive technology in our country that
we can throw back overseas. I am especially interested in the auto-
mobile industry. I think it is a way to regain our leadership in
automotive technology by offering something that is better, non-
polluting, more energy efficient. And someone is going to take it,
and I would like to see it be the U.S.

Mr. Sturgeon. I would like to just add a comment, if I might.

Senator Ford. Yes, sir.

Mr. Sturgeon. I would not like to see this country become or the
utilities of this country become a net importer of a technology that
we fathered. And I think we have the potential to avoid that.

Senator Ford. Well, let me just tell you this Senator went to Illi-
nois to the lab there that had developed the superconductor/super-
collider, a great basic breakthrough. And I was interested in the
funding and who was in on it. And they said, well, there it is. And
I think there were six or seven groups from Japan that had been in
it all along. They had put millions of dollars into it, and they have
now taken that research. We are sitting here patting ourselves on
the back wondering what we are going to do to get the rest of the
money to move on. And we are going to have a big competition and
that sort of thing. And the Japanese are moving the heaven and
earth day and night to move on with the superconductor. So, it in-
dicates where we are going with all of this.

Mr. Spillers, you said that we will have an energy shortage be-
ginning when?

Mr. Spillers. I think I was quoting the Congressional Record

Senator Ford. Okay.

Mr. Spillers [continuing]. As saying that we have enough proven
reserves to last nine years. That is proven reserves as of about
right now. Now, we may find more reserves, but right now we have
nine years of proven reserves.

Senator Ford. In what now?

Mr. Spillers. In petroleum

Senator Ford. Petroleum.

Mr. Spillers [continuing]. In this country.

Senator Ford. Well, we are importing — I think several times in
the last 30 days we have imported more than 50 percent per day.

Mr. Spillers. Excuse me, sir. The imports — my understanding —
are down over a few years back, but they are projected to grow
right back where they were.

Senator Ford. I think imports were 30 percent when they had
the embargo in 1973, and they are now nearing 50 percent now in
1987. So, if they turn the spigot off — everybody has flutters over
the Persian Gulf, you know. We have 26 Iranians, and we can't call
them prisoners of war. They are detainees. And we are trying to

119

find out some way that somebody will take them back. We want to
give them back today very badly. That's just a side comment.

You commented, Mr. Spillers, that coal — we had a long term.
There's a false impression about coal also. There are the known re-
serves, but there are also the retrievables. And when you begin to
subtract the coal that is not retrievable, you get down really to our
basic reserve. And that is reduced somewhat close to I think 51
percent of the reserve. That becomes then the reserve. So, we
really don't have all of that ability as it relates to coal.

Of course, if we are getting clean coal technologies, we can take
some coal under the circumstances. That would increase our re-
serve some. But if you pass a .6 emission standard, you have 1 per-
cent of the known reserves of coal in eastern Kentucky that could
be burned directly. So, you have eliminated that resource over-
night.

Mr. Spillers. Right.

Senator Ford. So, we have more problems than people want to
admit I think. And some of us will want to go back and say I told
you so. I don't want to ever do that. I would like to see us in a
position where it would never happen to us.

Mr. Sturgeon, you said something that bothered me just a little
bit since this is the energy committee. "Industry moves into an era
of deregulation of generation and transmission." That indicates
that you have got some interest in FERC's position as it is travel-
ing down the deregulation pike. I think there is going to be one
hellacious fight over that. I just wanted to indicate that to you
now.

Do you have any reason to believe that there will not be some
concern by your public service commissions in the States and that
sort of thing where FERC is going to usurp their rights?

Mr. Sturgeon. In areas where FERC is moving in that direction,
I know that the State commissions individually and collectively at
the NARUC level are very much concerned, as are we. Our busi-
ness, while we are a registered holding company, is only about —
well, I guess it is less than 10 percent of our business is done with
FERC. The balance is done with two State commissions. And even
though two State commissions have some different views.

We are concerned, however with the speed with which they move
down this path. We, as I indicated, are in business in the State of
Massachusetts, and the State of Massachusetts has pioneered in
the competitive bidding process for qualifying facilities under
PURPA. As far as Connecticut goes, they are moving a little more
deliberately at this point in time. And of course, we are watching
not only that at FERC, but we are watching how they intend to
treat independent power producers and whether, in fact, we as a
utility company operating in either one of those two jurisdictions
will be a player in our own ball field in providing electric genera-
tion for our customers in the future.

It is of serious concern to us. In fact, our estimates are that we
have a potential for losing somewhat on the order of 20 percent of
our total industrial customers' generation needs in the next few
years if we are not out in front with some competitive relationship
to what is going on at the Federal and State level.

120

Senator Ford. That's all the questions I have. I got off the sub-
ject maybe just a little bit, but it is still all related I think.

Senator Matsunaga, do you have any questions?

Senator Matsunaga. No questions, Mr. Chairman. You asked
them all.

Senator Ford. I took your list and went down it very well, didn't
I?

Thank you very much, gentlemen. It was a pleasure to have you
as witnesses today.

It always happen to a southern boy. He has to pronounce some of
these names. I may have to call on you, Senator Matsunaga.

The Director of the Center for Electrochemical Systems and Hy-
drogen Research, Texas A&M University, A. John Appleby; and Di-
rector, Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, Dr. Patrick Takahashi.
And now we come to the one that bothers me considerably, Direc-
tor of Clean Energy Research Institute, University of Miami, Vezir-
oglu.

Dr. Veziroglu. Veziroglu. That's right.

Senator Ford. Well, I am doing better. It's beyond four letters,
too.

So, Dr. Appleby, we will have you go first, and then we will go to
Dr. T. How's that? [Laughter.]

Dr. Appleby, please.

STATEMENT OF DR. A. JOHN APPLEBY, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR
ELECTROCHEMICAL SYSTEMS AND HYDROGEN RESEARCH,
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY

Dr. Appleby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Matsunaga, I am delighted to be here
today to testify before this subcommittee on S. 1294, 1295 and 1296,
which we

Senator Ford. Just a minute please. We don't have a large
crowd, but most of the Federal witnesses are leaving. Therefore,
they take all their bureaucrats with them.

Go ahead, Dr. Appleby.

Dr. Appleby. Thank you, sir.

Which we heartily endorse. I would like to start out by saying
that, first of all, I have a complete written testimony for the
record.

Senator Ford. That will be included in the record in total,
Doctor.

Dr. Appleby. Thank you, sir.

And today what I will try to do is to make some comments in
regard to some of the statements that Secretary Fitzpatrick made,
and also to try to summarize my written testimony in as short a
way as I possibly can.

Well, as Miss Fitzpatrick did point out, hydrogen is already a
very important industrial chemical. And it is, in fact, quite a bit
more important than she indicated. In fact, it is on a weight basis,
the third most important chemical compound produced in larger
quantities than anything.

Senator Ford. Just a minute, Doctor. We have got a vote.

Dr. Appleby. Yes.

121

Senator Ford. We have a vote on and so one of us will be here
and we won't have a disruption. He is going to run over and run
back. I am going to walk over and walk back. See, he's a lot young-
er than I am.

Pardon me, Doctor. Go ahead.

Dr. Appleby. Yes, sir, that's fine.

I was saying that hydrogen is produced in larger quantities, in
fact, than any other industrial chemical. In fact, it is only exceeded
on a weight basis by steel and sulphuric acid. This is something a
lot of people do not realize.

And we also have to bear in mind that hydrogen is the lightest
element. And therefore, on an atomic basis more hydrogen atoms
or molecules are produced than any other industrial chemical
today. However, it is not normally seen because it is all used inter-
nally, inside industry particularly, for instance, in petroleum refin-
ing.

Another point that she made, which I found very confusing — in
fact, I think members of the academic and engineering community
here found rather confusing — is her statement that it takes 4 to 15
times as much energy to produce hydrogen from some primary
energy source. Well, I'm afraid I don't really understand that at
all.

When one considers an energy source, one has to remember that
it has to be transformed into something useful, and something
useful means work. And work ultimately means really electricity.

Now, if one converts coal directly into electricity in the tradition-
al manner, one does it at an efficiency of about 38 percent. Howev-
er, using known technology, which I will describe very briefly later,
if one converts coal into hydrogen, one can do it at 65 percent effi-
ciency. And with waste heat recovery, that hydrogen can be con-
verted into electricity overall at 45 to 50 percent efficiency from
coal. In other words, conversion of coal into hydrogen as an inter-
mediary can produce electricity at a higher efficiency than coal di-
rectly.

Similarly, coal can be converted into gasoline at a similar effi-
ciency to hydrogen, say, 65 percent. But gasoline used in an IC
engine is converted into work at only an efficiency of perhaps 15
percent; whereas hydrogen can be converted into a fuel cell direct-
ly at up to 60 percent efficiency.

And this is really what I am trying to stress here. Hydrogen is a
very interesting fuel, a very advantageous fuel from the energetic
viewpoint.

But I think we are here today to emphasize another aspect of hy-
drogen which is the fact that it has tremendous advantages from
the environmental point of view over today's fuels. And I am not
talking about the microenvironment. I am talking about the global
environment.

On July 16, Dr. Frank Press, the President of the National Acad-
emy of Sciences, testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Sci-
ence, Technology and Space concerning the greenhouse effect. And
his studies at the National Academy have come to the conclusion
that sometime toward the year 2000, we will have to stop burning
fossil fuels altogether. And hydrogen will then be the only suitable

122

fuel because it will be the only material that will not put CO2 into
the atmosphere.

Well, what I am going to say today is that I agree with that in
principle. However, I would like to point out that there are ways of
using our available fossil fuels, particularly coal, in such a way
that CO2 is not put into the atmosphere; and in other words, we
can avoid the greenhouse effect until such time that we have a suf-
ficient number of new inventions and research developments to
allow us to produce hydrogen from either solar sources or from
something not invented yet, for instance, perhaps nuclear fusion. I
do not know.

However, there is no question about the fact that the greenhouse
effect will have to be taken seriously in the future even though we
do not presently know what the ultimate results will be. There will
be a change in the world's climate. That we do know. There will be
some changes in the ocean levels. And once CO2 is in the atmos-
phere, no artificial means can remove it. The only way will be to
wait for the natural processes to take place of absorption of CO2
into the oceans, which we know take about 10 centuries. And we
cannot afford to wait that long.

So, I do believe strongly that research on hydrogen production,
storage and its efficient use will be necessary throughout the
world, not just in the United States, as if you like, an insurance
policy to preserve the historically accumulated capital in civiliza-
tion for future generations. It will also in the, perhaps, shorter
term give the U.S. the possibility of creating new jobs and have
new equipment available for export. And that is certainly the atti-
tude in Canada, as we have already heard, in Japan, in West Ger-
many, France, the Netherlands, et cetera.

France is now, for instance, involved in the building of a 20
megawatt advanced electrolyzer using nuclear electricity as the
power source to produce liquid hydrogen for the Ariane space pro-
gram. Already the 2.4 megawatt prototype advanced electrolyzer
using this power source is in operation.

Society requires two energy sources, one that can be used in-
stantly, and that is electricity and the most convenient energy
source of all; and it needs a storable fuel for convenience for the
utilities for peaking purposes and also, of course, for applications
where electricity is not appropriate, such as in traditional transpor-
tation and automobiles. Now, hydrogen will have to be the latter
fuel in the future.

Objections are often raised to the high cost of hydrogen. And if
one looks at renewable hydrogen, as Mrs. Fitzpatrick indicated,
based on present technology and present extrapolations I will have
to admit the cost is too high, many times higher than the cost of
traditional fuels, natural gas for instance.

However, at Texas A&M University and elsewhere research is
being done on ways of producing hydrogen using solar energy
which should be infinitely cheaper than anything we have today.
Some of these involve genetic engineering. They would, indeed, in-
volve the attempts to genetically engineer the chloroplasts that are
present in living plant matter which would directly produce hydro-
gen from sunlight without any capital investment at all. And this
sort of thing is presently a dream, but it is certainly something

123

which will probably become reality sometime in the early 21st Cen-
tury.

However, in the meantime, I would like to talk about fossil hy-
drogen or rather hydrogen produced from fossil energy such as coal
without any pollution whatever at the source. And already we have
an operating plant in Southern California, the cool water combined
gasifier, combined cycle system, which provides a sort of prototype
for this. In it coal, of course, is gasified to produce a hydrogen rich
gas which is burned in a gas turbine with heat recovery to raise
steam, and overall electricity can thereby be produced at an effi-
ciency of about 45 percent.

The Electric Power Research Institute has examined various ad-
vanced plants of this type, along with Fluor Corporation, to see if it
is possible to have a system which would be more economically at-
tractive in the future. And this is based on the fact that, as we all
know, electricity demand is cyclical, whereas the gasifier, a chemi-
cal factory, would like to work all the time at full output. And in
this case the best thing to do is to co-produce electricity and hydro-
gen, or electricity and some other fuel. In the first examination
here, the fuel was methanol, and that methanol could be stored
and used for peaking purposes, made at times when electricity
demand was low.

Well, in the second iteration of this system, it is possible to
produce CO2 from the coal gas hydrogen and electricity simulta-
neously according to the required demand. And the hydrogen can
be used as a fuel, and the C02 will be a valuable byproduct which
will be initially used for enhanced oil recovery. When that infra-
structure is no longer needed — that is to say, when the oil has run
out — the CO2 can then quite simply be disposed of by pipelines that
are already in place in the depleted oil wells. And this we see as a
way of producing hydrogen without any pollution at source what-
ever, burying the CO2 underground, ultimately perhaps getting rid
of it in the oceans. That is certainly a long-term alternative.

The interesting thing about this is the C02 that is produced is
worth something like $5 or $6 per million Btu of hydrogen pro-
duced. The electricity, of course, is also a subsidizing byproduct.
And the total cost of that hydrogen without the subsidies is about
$7 per million Btu. And this would compare with hydrogen pro-
duced these days from natural gas at, say, $10 per million Btu, or
the cost of gasoline without tax, which is perhaps $5 per million
Btu at the moment. So, hydrogen, contrary to what Secretary Fitz-
patrick indicated, is not necessarily going to be a very expensive
fuel.

Now, what I would also like to point out here is that

Senator Matsunaga. Please.

Dr. Appleby. Yes, Senator Matsunaga.

I had just summarized some of the methods of producing hydro-
gen without polluting the atmosphere with CO2, which you alluded
to in your remarks, for instance, disposing of the CO2 in the oceans,
which might be appropriate in certain locations, and in an exten-
sion of the cool water plant in Southern California, using that CO2
initially as a chemical for enhanced oil recovery, and then eventu-
ally disposing of it down depleted oil wells. And this is certainly an

124

option for the future. All of these, indeed, put no CO2 into the at-
mosphere.

Now, the point I am now going to make is the fact that whereas
hydrogen produced by these methods using the subsidizing effect of
electricity and CO2, will be reasonably competitive with gasoline
and will certainly be competitive with natural gas extrapolated in
cost by the Electric Power Research Institute beyond the year 2000
when it is expected that natural gas will be on the order of $10 to
$15 per million Btu, we also have to take into account the efficien-
cy of use of hydrogen. Hydrogen in fuel cells — and hydrogen fuel
cells are extremely simple compared with today's fuel cells since
they require no fuel processor, costing 80 percent of the total cost
of the unit, which turns essentially the fuel into hydrogen. Such
units can consume hydrogen at up to 60 percent efficiency com-
pared with, say, IC engines producing energy at only 15 percent ef-
ficiency from gasoline.

And this to the consumer will mean that hydrogen will be a
cheaper fuel than today's fuels, and certainly very much cheaper
than the fuels available after the year 2000.

And in addition, since its end use efficiency is very high, the cap-
ital investment required for the infrastructure will be correspond-
ingly lower. And this is going to be extremely important for the
very capital intensive energy economy that we will expect in the
future.

Now, I would like to very, very rapidly add a future dream here.
Since the beginning of the year, we have heard a great deal about
the new so-called hot superconductors, which can operate at tem-
peratures of liquid nitrogen or even beyond towards room tempera-
ture. However, under those conditions, they operate at very low
currents and require large diameter cables which you could never
afford.

To compensate for this high cost, we would have to use currents
at least 100 times those available on copper conductors, and this
requires, interestingly enough, because of the physics of the situa-
tion, going down to even lower temperatures. And in this case we
can envisage the possibility of having a superconducting pipeline
with electricity and hydrogen co-produced from cool water type
plants or, indeed, from solar energy in which the hydrogen serves
as a refrigerant and is tapped off, where required, as a fuel as will
be the electricity. And this joint subsidy of one energy form re-
quired for one purpose with another form required for another
strikes me as being a very interesting way of integrating our
energy future.

Finally, I would like to make a point which I think will be reiter-
ated by Dr. Veziroglu, and this is the fact that clean energy, such
as hydrogen, cuts hidden costs, a sort of tax on society, which cur-
rently occurs due to the use of fossil fuels. This can be interpreted
as such things as health costs, days off work, even reduced lifespan
in the human terms, and in addition to that, of course, all the
other environmental costs which Dr. Veziroglu estimates at $400
billion a year and rising.

The human costs appear to be about 6 percent of the present
GNP. Currently fuel costs — that is to say, primary energy costs —
are about 5 percent of the GNP. So, it is very interesting that these

125

costs are even higher than the costs of the use of the fossil fuel
alone, the production costs of the fossil fuel.

And to put that into another perspective, total health costs are
about 11 percent of the GNP at the moment, and there are some
thoughts that as much as 6 percent of the GNP consists of human
costs which are partly health costs and partly lost productivity
costs which result from the burning of fossil fuel.

Well, this just shows, as you said this morning, sir, just how pre-
cious hydrogen might be in the future.

I have already mentioned fuel cells. And I truly believe, as some
of the other earlier witnesses stated, that fuel cells in vehicles
using hydrogen will be the way to go. With an efficiency at least
twice as high as present systems with no requirements for fuel con-
version on board, compact units, in fact, based on the United Tech-
nologies SDIF or fuel cell system in a terrestrialized form, should
be capable of producing the kind of power densities that we would
require for vehicles in the future. And I would strongly recommend
that this be looked at in terms of the hydrogen program or the pro-
posed hydrogen program.

I think overall hydrogen has opportunities that cannot possibly
be ignored. However, there is no doubt that it is being neglected.
And as a very small example, Senator Matsunaga, we at Texas
A&M University Hydrogen NSF Center, which was founded 5
years ago, and at the University of Miami Clean Energy Institute,
which has been active for about 15 years in hydrogen research and
information, were very disappointed to find ourselves left out of the
Senate version of the energy and water development appropriation
bill, H.R. 2700, although the Hydrogen Natural Energy Institute
and the Florida Solar Energy Center were included in both ver-
sions. We were in the House version, but unfortunately, we seemed
to have slipped out of the Senate version. And we would like to
bring that to your attention.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Appleby follows:]

82-464 0-88

126

A. J. Applebv: Testimony Before the Senate Committee on

Energy and Natural Resources. Subcommittee on Energy Research

and Development. Chairman. Wendell Ford (D-Kentuckyl.

September 23. 1987

I wish to thank the Chairman and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to be
able to testify today on the future use of hydrogen fuel, with its conversion to work in fuel cells, in
the future world energy economy. My name is Dr. John Appleby, Professor of Applied
Electrochemistry and Director of the Center for Electrochemical Systems and Hydrogen Research,
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843. We are constantly being informed of the
future importance of the "Greenhouse Effect" on the global environment. This will result from the
build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) due to the man-made emissions, which result from
burning fossil fuels in increasing amounts as world economic activity continues to grow. The
balance between the CO2 level in the atmosphere, in the biosphere, and in its ultimate sink, the
oceans, is very delicate and is still not well understood. However, it is undeniable that the
preindustrial level of CO2 was about 280 parts per million (ppm), whereas in 1960 it was 315 ppm
(with seasonal variations), in 1970 325 ppm, and about 345 ppm today. Assuming a continuation
of today's scenario, it will reach 500 ppm by the-middle of the next century.

Since CO2 absorbs the long wave-length infra-red rays emitted from the earth's surface,
while allowing sunlight to pass, an increase in CO2 level will be expected to increase the average
temperature of the atmosphere. This effect should be enhanced as the level of other "greenhouse"
gases, such as that of methane from biological sources, particularly those associated with improved
farming techniques required to feed the increasing world population, also go up from their
preindustrial levels. All the above is summarized in Ref. 1.

An increase in atmospheric temperature may drastically alter climate and ultimately change the
world as we have known it in historic times. This change will be much more rapid than has
previously been the case in prehistoric or historic climatic cycles. While some geographic regions
may profit, others may suffer severely. As an ultimate example, melting of the Antarctic ice-cap
could raise ocean levels by 200 feet, which would drown many of the earth's most heavily
populated land areas.

127

I attempted to discuss the above in more detail in my testimony before the House
Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development on July 9, 1987 [2]. On July 16, 1987, Dr.
Frank Press, President of the National Academy of Sciences, expressed similar opinions before the
Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space and the National Ocean Policy Study of
the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. His testimony included a detailed
account of the research the National Academy of Sciences is supporting on studies of the earth's
atmosphere, climate, and the "Greenhouse Effect." In oral testimony, Dr. Press stated that we
should be prepared to cease burning fossil fuels in the near future, to preserve the earth's general
environment in something like its present form for future generations. In my July 9 testimony, I
stressed the fact that maintenance of a reasonable atmospheric CO2 level lying somewhere between
today's value and some (to-be -determined) future limit requires either the use of a future fuel that
does not contain carbon at all, or one that uses recycled atmospheric CO2. Since all fossil fuels
(coal, lignite, oil, natural gas) contain carbon, and a fuel using recycled atmospheric CO2 (e.g.,
biomass fuels such as wood or agricultural waste and their products) is by definition non-fossil, the
implication is that all future fuels should be non-fossil if the atmospheric CO2 burden is to be
maintained.

This is the basis of Dr. Press' argument: the only possible future fuels should use biomass
products or should be derived from non-fossil sources that do not use geological carbon as a
chemical building-block. While this approach is highly desirable in principal, in practice (at least
based on present knowledge) it would be disadvantageous in many respects. For example,
biomass derivatives as a universal fuel would require a substantial increase in farming effort and a
huge and very capital-intensive transformation industry. This is not to suggest that
biomass-derived fuels have no place: indeed, they can be of considerable local importance, for
example in Hawaii, as is suggested by the research and development effort at the Hawaii Solar
Energy Institute (University of Hawaii). However, on a national scale, biomass is likely to only
make a small (though important) contribution to the energy economy, as was suggested by the
testimony of Dr. D. Klass before the House Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development
on July 9, 1987.

Of more importance in the ultimate 21st century energy future will be a non-fossil
non-carboniferous fuel. The only real possibility is hydrogen produced by the splitting of water
into its elements by the use of energy. The combustion of this hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen,
the only product being steam or pure water, will provide the energy for future society for the
applications where liquid or gaseous fossil fuels are used today. The use of hydrogen fuel will be

128

entirely non-polluting if it is combusted in the correct manner, and its use will therefore completely
eliminate acid rain (sulfur compounds and nitrogen oxides), the depletion of the ozone layer, and of
course the build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Last but not least hydrogen fuel will eliminate
the "social costs" of burning fossil fuels, described below. This later 21st-century dream has been
termed the "Hydrogen Economy" [3], and it may be regarded as the ultimate energy economy for
mankind. It is ecologically sound because hydrogen, the storable fuel, is produced by splitting
water where energy is available, and the only product of hydrogen is water, which is recycled via
the natural process of the atmosphere.

Reference has been made in the last paragraph to the "social costs" of burning fossil fuels.
These represent the hidden costs of the impairment to society as a whole as a result of using these
fuels. Simple examples are the damage resulting from pollution and acid rain on structures
(corrosion, erosion) and to natural resources (forests, etc.). Less obvious, since they are thought
of as everyday hazards, are the insidious effects on health, including respiratory disease, lung
damage and possibly cancer caused by particulates, days lost from work due to health problems,
and shortened life-spans in the population as a whole. These health costs represent a "tax" on the
GNP, which has been estimated as being as much as 6% of the GNP, or equivalent to about $3.67
(1986) per million Btu of fossil fuel consumed [4], based largely upon U. S. Government statistics
[5]. To put this in perspective, total health costs are about 1 1% of the GNP. While the figure of
6% may be high, it is clear that the pollutional costs of fossil fuel use represent a considerable "tax"
or loss to the GNP as a whole, probably exceeding the original market cost of the fuel (about 5% of
the GNP). Other social costs of fossil fuel, principally their known environment impact, seem to
be about as high as the human costs [4].

The above social costs may amount to a total of 15% of GNP, so that total fuel costs are
effectively 20% of total economic activity, whether expressed as direct costs or loss of output.
However, if the "Greenhouse Effect" due to CO2 buildup is taken into account, then the total
effective cost will be much higher. At present, it is impossible to give a reasonable figure for this,
but it could be immense, since it would involve a total reconstruction of the civilization we have
today, which represents the cumulative effort of many human generations.

Before discussing the production and ultimate direct cost of hydrogen fuel, we might
consider the possiblity of controlling the "Greenhouse Effect" by artificially removing CO2 from
the atmosphere, rather than waiting for centuries for it to reequilibrate with the oceans, via the
natural cycle. Cost of gas clean-up increases with dilution, however. As an example, the cost of

129

removing CO2 from rich gas derived from coal, where it is present in up to 20 volume % (after
chemical transformation of carbon monoxide) is estimated to be about $0.65/MSCF (thousand
standard cubic feet). In contrast, removal of CO2 from stack gas in a coal-burning power plant
(about 10-12 volume % CO2) will cost $2.50/MSCF [6, 7]. Its removal from the atmosphere at
say, an ultimate level of 500 ppm (0.05%) would be an impossibly costly task with any known
technology, as would attempts to control CO2 emissions by the use of individual chemical
adsorbers on, say, vehicle exhausts. Finally, the use of control via biomass will not reduce the
atmospheric CO2 level: while an increase in CO2 accelerates plant growth, respiratory and decay
rates result in a natural equilibrium.

Accordingly, at some point in the early 21st century we will be forced to stop adding to the
atmospheric CO2 burden. This effort must be on a world-wide scale, which will require
cooperation between all industrial nations. Such an effort may have very positive effects on
geopolitics as a whole. Society requires two energy vectors, electricity, for immediate use at high
efficiency, and storable fuels for use in peaking and mobile applications. Fossil fuels are largely
used for both applications now. Future electricity production if it is from classical non-fossil
sources (e.g. hydro, nuclear) will avoid the CO2 problem, but hydro resources are limited and the
total social costs of nuclear power are likely to be high. Fusion may be no better from the ultimate
cost viewpoint than fission, and besides it is still very early in the development cycle. An
all-nuclear economy, producing electricity as required, which was originally the basis of the
proposed hydrogen economy [3] is therefore improbable.

The ultimate dream is an energy economy based on solar energy, producing electricity and
hydrogen via photovoltaic processes [8]. However, for a long time to come, the capital costs of
solar systems, and their low annual utilization will make them unattractive. For example, Baltimore
Gas and Electric, in a recent study, have concluded that by 1995 solar photovoltaic panel costs may
be about $1000 per peak kilowatt, but balance-of-plant and construction costs may total $1300/kW,
yielding electricity at about 250/kWh, or three times today's costs. If this electricity were used to
produce hydrogen from water via electrolysis, its cost would be over $80 per million Btu, or many
times that of today's fuels. The capital requirements for such an economy would be unsustainable
as Ref. 2 (and references therein) points out. This is not to say that economic solar hydrogen and
photovoltaic plants are impossible: we are still early in the R&D stage for these technologies, and
costs will be reduced and new inventions discovered with further research. Solar hydrogen must
be supported by research funding: the ultimate dream, based on what we know today, would
consist of an array of oriented, microscopic thin-layer solar cells of tandem multifunction type,

130

efficiently absorbing several photons of different energies in series from sunlight so that enough
voltage can be developed across their opposite catalyzed and protected faces to decompose water.
Such cells, mounted in anionically conducting water-saturated thin plastic membranes, could
produce hydrogen for use on one face and reject oxygen on the other, all at an overall efficiency of
perhaps 20%. Such a system could be ultimately very inexpensive from the materials and
production viewpoint. It is presently being examined at the Center for Electrochemical Systems
and Hydrogen Research at Texas A&M University, with other supporting work elsewhere,
unfortunately on limited funding.

While we have kept stressing hydrogen as a fuel from the environmental viewpoint, it also
has an enormous advantage over fossil fuels in that it can be turned into useful work very
efficiently via fuel cells. The latter can only use fossil fuels if they are first converted into
hydrogen-containing mixed gases by fuel processors, which represent a major part of the capital
cost of fuel cells being offered commercially today. Fuel cells with bulky fuel processors are
unsuitable for transportation use, so fossil fuels must be burned in heat engines (e.g. internal
combustion engines in vehicles) at low efficiency (typically about 15% in real use). Hydrogen, in
contrast, can be directly used in fuel cells, particularly inexpensive alkaline-electrolyte systems
requiring no rare catalysts, at 55% efficiency using today's technology. Hydrogen and fuel cells
are synonymous, and federally-supported research and development is required on both if we are to
avoid the environmental and economic consequences of the "Greenhouse Effect."

Finally, we have stated that solar hydrogen and electricity, while desirable, will be too
expensive for wide use for some decades to come. The recommendation of Dr. Press is therefore
not an economic reality today. However, we can avoid introducing CO"2 into the atmosphere not
by eliminating the use of fossil fuels (particularly coal) totally, but by using them more intelligently.
Coal from domestic sources can be the solution to the "Greenhouse Effect," and to ultimate energy
independence. The Electric Power Research Institute has studied the coproduction of electricity and
fuel from coal using an integrated gasifier combined cycle plant with low SOx and NOx emissions
similar to the experimental Cool Water plant in Southern California [9]. Electricity demand is
cyclic, whereas the gasifier operates at constant load, so the fuel (methanol in the initial study) can
be stored for peaking operation. In this way, the plant operates with built-in subsidies. In a
second variation of this system, the fuel could be hydrogen, CO"2 being removed from the gas.
CO2 is a valuable chemical for enhanced oil recovery, and can be piped to oilfields at a cost of
about $0.08 - 0.16/MSCF (equal to $0.18 - $0.40 per million Btu of hydrogen) per hundred miles
of pipeline distance [10]. The selling price of the CO2 can be up to $5.60 per million Btu of

131

hydrogen at the oilfield [2, 6]. Further details are given in Ref. 2. The ultimate result is that both
the hydrogen and the electricity are highly subsidized and will be relatively inexpensive.

The above concept, using domestic coal and coproduced hydrogen, electricity and CO2, all
subsidizing each other, can provide an enormous chance for the U. S. to develop hydrogen
production and utilization technology in advance of Germany and Japan, presently front-runners in
hydrogen research, but who lack the great U. S. fossil energy resource in the form of coal. This
development will have great export potential and represents an "insurance policy" for future
generations. The U. S. Government, via the fossil division of the Department of Energy, should
strongly back this coal-hydrogen energy route, which will provide the basis for a future hydrogen
economy, first in regions with high NOx and hydrocarbon pollution such as Southern California,
as Rep. George Brown will recognize.

The coal-hydrogen-electricity installations will be subsidized by the need for CO2 for tertiary
oil recovery. Later, when the oil runs out and CO2 requirements for this application diminish,
perhaps towards the year 2015, the "grenhouse effect" can be totally avoided by burying the CO2
in capped empty oil or gas wells at little extra cost to the national energy system as a whole.
Enough empty permian strata with the right qualities exist in the U. S. to serve as a permanent
innocuous depository until well into the 21st century. If necessary, the deep oceans can also
eventually be used as a CO2 burial ground. Pressurized liquid CO2 can be injected into the deep
oceans, where it will first form a stable layer and eventually a hydrate. Ultimately, it will end up as
carbonate, completing the natural CO2 cycle much more rapidly than would have been the case if
the natural flux between the atmosphere and the oceans had been relied on. In fact, if all the earth's
natural fossil resources were converted into CO2 and then disposed of in the oceans, the
concentration of CO2 would only rise by a miniscule amount, about one part per million by weight.
This tiny concentration change, which would have absolutely no natural effects, simply shows the
immensity of the oceans as a CO2 sink.

Finally, the discovery of the new "hot" superconductors opens new vistas for the
coproduction of hydrogen and electricity, first during the period where it is economically necessary
to manufacture electricity and hydrogen from coal, and then when this technology is eventually
overtaken by solar hydrogen/electricity. Superconductivity by materials such as polycrystalline
thin-film barium-doped yttrium or rare-earth copper oxide perovskites at temperatures of 77K
Giquid nitrogen) or higher, while remarkable, is not necessarily very practical, since experiments
show that the sustainable superconducting maximum current density (amperes per square cm of

132

cross-section) is quite small compared with that of classical liquid helium superconductors.
However, the values increase by orders of magnitude as the conductor is further cooled, thus
correspondingly reducing the cost of the cable. If liquid hydrogen is coproduced with electricity, it
can serve as a refrigerant and can be tapped off where needed as a fuel, thus serving a dual purpose
and reducing the cost of the superconducting cable substantially. The necessary fuel (for
transportation and other uses, using advanced high-efficiency fuel cells) and electricity for on-site
use will thereby subsidize each other in the most economic manner. In summary, the U. S. cannot
afford to ignore the potentialities of the above exciting prospects, and should strongly support
studies and research on hydrogen derived from coal and solar energy, and on its storage and
end-use, particularly with fuel cells, including those for transportation.

Thank you.

Addendum. Testimony before House Subcommittee on Energy Research and Technology, dated
July 9, 1987 (for information only, not part of record).

133

References

1. "Global Tropospheric Chemistry: Plans for the U. S. Research Effort," Executive
Summary, Office for Interdisciplinary Earth Studies, P. O. Box 3000, Boulder, CO 80307,
December 1986.

2. A. J. Appleby, Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Energy Research and
Development, July 9, 1987.

3. J. O'M. Bockris and A. J. Appleby, "The Hydrogen Economy: An Ultimate Economy."
Environment This Month No. 1. (1972).

4. T. N. Veziroglu, "Hydrogen Technology for Energy Needs of Human Settlements,"
J. Hydrogen Energy 12. 99 (1987).

5. (a) Money income of households -- aggregate and mean income, by race and Spanish origin
of householder: 1979. In T. N. Veziroglu, W. D. Van Vorst and J. H. Kelley
(eds.), "Hydrogen Energy Progress IV," Proc. 4th WHEC, Vol. 4, p. 433, Pergamon
Press, New York (1982); (b) "Agricultural Statistics" (1981), U. S. Government Printing
Office, Washington (1981); (c) National health expenditures, by object: 1960 to 1980,
"Statistical Abstract of the United States" (2nd edn), p. 100. U. S. Dept. Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, Washington (1981).

6. "Coproduction of Carbon Dioxide (COo) and Electricity, AP-4827; see also AP-3486, "Cost
and Performance for Commercial Applications of Texaco-Based Gasification
Combined Cycle Plants," EPRI, Palo Alto, CA (1986).

7. H. C. Cheng and M. Steinberg, "A Study on the Systematic Control of CO-> Emissions from
Fossil-Fuel Power Plants in the U.S.," Environmental Progress 5, 345 (1986).

8. J. O'M. Bockris, "Energy Options," Australia and New Zealand Book Company, Sydney
(1980).

9. "Coproduction of Methanol and Electricity," AP3749, EPRI, Palo Alto, CA (1984).

10. Lewin and Associates, Inc., "Economics of Enhanced Oil Recovery." Final Rep.
(DOE/ET- 12072-2), p. 74. U. S. Dept. of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. U.S.A. (1981). M. Hare. "Sources and Delivery of C02 for Enhanced
Oil Recovery," U.S. Dept. of Energy Contractor's Rep. (FE-25 15-24). U.S. Dept. of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. U.S.A. (1978).

134

Senator Matsunaga. Thank you, Dr. Appleby.

We would like to hear now from that great Director of the
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, a former staff member of mine,
Dr. Patrick Takahashi.

STATEMENT OF DR. PATRICK K. TAKAHASHI, DIRECTOR, HAWAII

NATURAL ENERGY INSTITUTE

Dr. Takahashi. Thank you, Senator Matsunaga. It is nice to be
back in this room. It seemed like I spent a good portion of my adult
life listening to statements like this a few years ago.

Let me enter the full statement for the record. I will focus on
two or three things which have not been mentioned in any great
detail. Everything else in our statement has been mentioned al-
ready.

I might add that this testimony was prepared jointly with Dr.
David Block, who is the Director of the Florida Solar Energy
Center. And he was sitting in the audience until a few minutes
ago, but had to go on to another meeting.

Senator Ford. Your written statement will appear in full in the
record.

Dr. Takahashi. Thank you very much.

Dr. Block's institute and the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute
completed for the Department of Energy earlier this year a tech-
nology status assessment of hydrogen from renewable energy. And
one of the questions asked earlier was what are the priorities in
research, and in this report — it's a full volume treatise — we, after
scouring the country and incorporating the views of much of the
world, presented a series of research priorities. I would like to send
in to this committee the full report for your files. You can use por-
tions for the record as you can see fit.

This report very quickly emphasized that where biomass is plen-
tiful, gasification offers the earliest economical route to producing
hydrogen, as well as methanol.

Two, research on photovoltaics will enhance the already consid-
erable attractiveness of electrolyzing water which produces very
pure hydrogen, as well as useful oxygen.

Three, direct conversion of solar energy through photo process-
es— and these are photobiological, photoelectrochemical, and hybrid
concepts — is an area of long-term research and should receive a
substantial level of support.

Four, significant demand for hydrogen can be expected to devel-
op in parallel with increased space vehicle launch activity and with
development of transatmospheric vehicles after the mid-1990s. I
might add as an aside that if Hawaii becomes an international
space port center, the hydrogen will have to be produced locally.
And the only real option we have is to use our indigenous renew-
able options.

Finally, five, research to develop commercial applications must
be conducted in parallel with hydrogen production innovations.

So, the report can be boiled down to these high priority research
areas.

I might note a second point that if you consider all of the re-
search conducted by the Department of Energy and my institute,

135

for example, since 1973, almost all of the technologies seem to in-
volve electricity, whether it is OTEC, wind power, geothermal, pho-
tovoltaics. You can go right down the line.

Our energy problem is much more closely related to transporta-
tion fuel. And over the past few years in Hawaii, we have begun to
focus a lot more on the medium term for methanol and the longer
term for hydrogen. And these bills that are before this committee
are excellent to shift some of the focus to look at what is our real
problem. In 1973 and in 1979 these were transportation fuel crises.
In the future we can expect the same thing. And David Block and I
endorse the three of your bills. And certainly in the case of S. 1296,
it is the only real alternative to a future aviation economy.

Finally, the various hydrogen bills that you have been introduc-
ing have been around for 6, 8, maybe 10 years now. And it gets so
far, and it doesn't quite make it. Today it is sort of an extraordi-
nary one in the sense that both the House and the Senate are hear-
ing the same bill. And the support in the House was very strong. I
would hope that the Senate support is similarly strong, and I
would like to highly encourage the Congress to pass a bill such as
this that can send a signal to the Department of Energy— really to
the White House — that this is, indeed, a point of great concern.

Many people tend to blame the Department of Energy for being
somewhat slow in reacting to this area, but I would suspicion that
the lack of motivation really derives from outside the Department
of Energy. And I think a bill of this sort can go a long ways into
improving our national security over time.

Another matter that has come up as a negative factor of the bill
perhaps is that $200 million seems like a whole lot of money.
Spread out over five years, taking a page from your analogy, Sena-
tor Matsunaga, if the Nation were to build only 99 F-14s, F-15s or
F-16s, as opposed to 100, just one less, that money can be used to
support this $200 million program that is written up in your bills.

So, in a nutshell we are very supportive of the three bills. We
would very highly encourage the Congress to make them into law.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Takahashi follows:]

136

TESTIMONY ON S. 1296: TO ESTABLISH A HYDROGEN RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

David L. Block, Director

Florida Solar Energy Center

300 State Road 401

Cape Canaveral , Florida 32920

and

Patrick K. Takahashi , Director

Hawaii Natural Energy Institute

2540 Dole Street

Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

given before

U.S. Senate

Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

September 23, 1987

137

Dr. David Block and I very enthusiastically support your bill to
establish a more coherent and expanded hydrogen R&D program. We want to
begin by thanking the subcommittee for this opportunity to state our views
on the use of hydrogen energy and on the possibilities for producing
hydrogen from renewable resources. Our comments today will point out that
hydrogen has real potential to fuel our nation's energy future.

I. Potential of Hydrogen

Hydrogen may well be the best energy option for sustaining and
supporting human society. It is the ideal replacement for fossil fuels, the
most abundant element in the Universe, can be produced from renewable
resources, and does not pollute the environment. Hydrogen is also an
important feedstock for the production of various synfuels, including
methanol .

In the past few years, national attention on hydrogen has increased for
several reasons:

o NASA is rebuilding the space shuttle program, which remains the
world's largest consumer of hydrogen.

o The Department of Defense has begun to develop transatmospheric
military vehicles that, because of certain technical performance
advantages, could be powered by hydrogen. In any case, expanded
space program requirements perhaps at future island sites, will
require indigenous production of hydrogen.

-1

138

o The national and international scientific communities have
raised well-founded alarms about acid rain and the "greenhouse
effect," both of which will be alleviated by use of hydrogen
rather than fossil-based energy forms.

o Alternative fuels production processes can be developed to

maximize the energy stored in the available carbon substrate and
minimize the discharge of CO- to the atmosphere. The
development of a renewable hydrogen production technology will
have major beneficial impacts on all alternative fuels
production scenarios.

o In the transportation sector — the largest consumer of oil —
hydrogen offers a clean alternative and the fuel choice of the
future.

o World oil supply locations and shipments have raised concerns
about national security, which point to the importance of
indigenous energy resources such as hydrogen. We won't be
blackmailed by any capricious Middle East potentate if we can
produce our own energy needs.

While these points are only fuzzily defined in our own national
consciousness, they are quickly crystallizing in the collective thinking of
other governments. R&D on hydrogen energy is a classic example of a
technological area where the U.S. is again watching its once firmly anchored
position of leadership drift overseas.

-2-

139

II. National and International Hydrogen Programs

At a March conference on hydrogen energy, Germany's State Economy
Minister Martin Herzog delivered the welcoming address, in which he
officially announced his government's intention to create a new center for
solar and hydrogen energy research in Stuttgart, West Germany. He told the
audience of international scientists that the center's purpose will be to
"assure a base for medium- and long-term R&D in the area of regenerative
energy." Further, Herzog announced, the center will initially receive seed
funding of $6 million to ensure that it becomes "a crystallization point"
for solar and hydrogen energy research.

It's obvious that Germany is willing to expend considerable financial
resources to ensure development of indigenous, renewable energy resources.
There can be no doubt that this German initiative was spurred, in part, by
the nuclear accident at Chernobyl. There can also be no doubt that Germany
intends this initiative to result in a university-centered "Hydrogen Valley"
at Stuttgart much like our own "Silicon Valley" in California.

The German hydrogen energy initiative illustrates how easily the U.S.
ignores the very lesson it taught the rest of the world so well: define a
problem, reconstruct it as an opportunity, and act on it.

The Japanese have also given us an example of how this lesson can be
applied. While U.S. efforts are directed toward retrofit of diesel engines
to use hydrogen fuel, Japan virtually leap-frogged the problem by designing
a new combustion chamber and valving process specifically for hydrogen fuel.

-3-

140

The U.S. must commit to its own hydrogen energy initiative with the
consistent, sustained support necessary for a productive, long-term R&D
effort. This is, after all, the role the federal government fills in energy
R&D — addressing high-potential technologies faced with high investment
risks. Hydrogen production is just such a high-potential technology option.

The hydrogen question that must be answered immediately is this: which
technology for hydrogen production will evolve as the best commercial
option, and in what time frame? Only a substantial R&D effort will reveal
the answer.

III. State Projects and Congressional Initiative

The states of Florida and Hawaii have already begun to address the
hydrogen question. Convinced of hydrogen energy's potential, our states
have undertaken a joint R&D program, initially supported by state funds.
But Congress has recognized that two states alone cannot uncover the
hydrogen solution, especially given their limited funding potential. Your
bill to upgrade the national hydrogen program can be the solution to our
long-term energy problem.

The United States' current program began through Congressional
initiative in 1985, when the Department of Energy commissioned our Florida
and Hawaii institutes to assess the status of hydrogen technology and to
determine research priorities. The broader objective was to launch a
vigorous research program that would put hydrogen energy to commercial use
in the shortest possible time frame.

141

The Florida Solar Energy Center and Hawaii Natural Energy Institute
reported in December 1986 the following conclusions on the state of the
technology:

1. Where biomass is plentiful, gasification offers the earliest
economical route to producing hydrogen as well as methanol and
ammonia.

2. Research on photovoltaics will enhance the already considerable
attractiveness of electrolyzing water, which produces very pure
hydrogen as well as useful oxygen.

3. Direct conversion of solar energy through photoprocesses is an
area of long-term research and should receive a substantial
level of support.

4. Significant demand for hydrogen can be expected to develop in
parallel with increased space vehicle launch activity and with
development of transatmospheric vehicles after the mid-1990s.

5. Research to develop commercial applications must be conducted in
parallel with hydrogen production innovations.

Congress provided $1.2 million in this fiscal year to follow-up on these
research priorities. Our research institutes are working closely with the
Solar Energy Research Institute on this continuing program. The House

-5-

142

appropriations process doubled the budget to $2.4 million for fiscal '88.
The Senate is appearing to recommend level funding. A far more vigorous
national effort is recommended, which is provided for in your bill.

IV. Future Hydrogen Program

Given Congressional support, DOD interest, NASA reconstruction, DOE
direction, SERI and other national laboratory leadership, and expansion of
the program initiated by the Florida/Hawaii team, our country can regain
control over our energy future.

As currently outlined, the first-year national R&D program will address
the promising alternatives delineated in the Florida/Hawaii study. Florida
will take the lead in investigating power applications, while Hawaii will
assume responsibility for research on renewable fuels. Expansion of
research activities is anticipated with increased funding in fiscal year
1988.

The focus of our work will not shift; it will remain targeted on
hydrogen production areas that show the greatest promise for cost-effective
commercialization. General priority issues that must be addressed by
research include total systems analysis of processes and economics,
development of continuous processes, and engineering analysis to determine
fundamental limits of performance and production processes.

-6-

143

With respect to the photo-production processes, research in the
photoelectrochemical area must identify new electrode materials and
catalysts, determine system stability, and solve photo-corrosion and
regeneration issues. In the photobiological area, research must address
issues of system stability, production in aerobic and marine environments,
genetic engineering innovations and system analyses. Both whole cell and
cell free systems can ultimately produce hydrogen efficiencies up to 25%,
which are significantly greater than other bioconversion processes.
Photoelectrolysi s has an even higher theoretical limit and needs to be
investigated.

We recommend, further, that the best minds from throughout the world be
asked to form a network to share ideas and together attempt to engineer
technical breakthroughs. The Pacific International Center for High
Technology Research has initiated such a program.

Finally, it is very highly recommended for the Department of Energy to
work closer with the Department of Defense and NASA to assure for a more
competitive hydrogen fuel source in the future. A few percent of the
expenditure for the National Aerospace Plane should be set aside for
hydrogen production R&D.

V. Conclusion

We continue to fear that the federal government's attitude and energy
policies are counterproductive to our national well being. During the past
few years of reprieve, we have virtually eliminated alternative

144

transportation fuels development, reduced the renewable energy R&D budget by
an order of magnitude, and increased our importation of oil to the 1973
level. Chevron USA only this past month reported that the United States

will be importing more oil in the year 2000 than we are today with the

warning that much of this supply to our country and allies will need to come
from the Middle East. Common sense screams for the need to develop
alternatives to imported oil. Your Committee has the demonstrated
leadership necessary to bring sense and order to our national energy
program. We urge you to take another giant step toward ensuring the
nation's energy future by placing major emphasis on hydrogen energy from
renewable resources.

145

Senator Matsunaga. Thank you very much, Dr. Takahashi. We
would be happy now to hear from you, Dr. Veziroglu.

STATEMENT OF DR. T. NEJAT VEZIROGLU, PRESIDENT, INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR HYDROGEN ENERGY AND DIREC-
TOR, CLEAN ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF
MIAMI

Dr. Veziroglu. Thank you, Mr! Chairman, and the staff of the
committee.

We at the Clean Energy Research Institute of the University of
Miami and the International Association for Hydrogen Energy
strongly support all the three bills. They are the right step for the
introduction of the universal, clean hydrogen energy system which
is inevitable.

Now, we have given our written statement. I understand it will
be in the committee records. So, therefore, I will only concentrate
in the conclusions of our statement. But before getting into that, I
would like to mention some of the exceptions I am taking to Ms.
Fitzpatrick's statements, which are not correct scientifically —
which are not correct.

She mentioned that you need 4 to 15 times more energy to
produce hydrogen. Now, for example, if you produce hydrogen from
hydropower, you can convert 80 percent of the energy in it to hy-
drogen. If you produce hydrogen from coal, you can convert 65 per-
cent of it to hydrogen. From solar energy today technology is avail-
able for production of 10 percent of the solar energy to hydrogen,
the same as the electricity. But in the laboratories, 20 to 25 percent
efficiencies have been obtained.

Coming back to our conclusions, now, the hydrogen in that
system will reduce pollution, carbon dioxide emission and acid
rains and, hence, the environmental damage; provide a permanent
energy infrastructure based on a clean, efficient and economical
carrier, hydrogen; provide the aerospace sector with the best possi-
ble fuel; eliminate the United States dependence on imported oil;
eliminate or reduce the trade deficit; provide new jobs for establish-
ing and servicing the new energy system; make the United States a
leader in future energy technology; assure low cost fossil fuel sup-
plies to be available for non-energy applications, such as fertilizers,
synthetic fibers, lubricants.

Now, when its utilization efficiency and environmental compat-
ibility are taken into account, hydrogen becomes the cheapest fuel.
Again, this is contrary to Mrs. Fitzpatrick's statement.

And this calculation, which I presented to the committee, does
not take into account the cost of military operations in the Persian
Gulf. If those costs are added to the side of the petroleum, then hy-
drogen becomes much, much, much cheaper.

Now, the United States has large deposits of coal. And during
the changeover period from fossil fuels to hydrogen, they could be
used for the production of hydrogen. For example, near the coal
mines, hydrogen could be produced. In Alaska there is a large po-
tential of hydropower. There hydrogen could be produced using hy-
dropower. And these will both result in low cost hydrogen with the
present technology. And this hydrogen could be transported by

146

pipelines to consumption centers and utilized in the space pro-
grams, fuel cells and other devices.

Now, the above approach will result in many economical and en-
vironmental benefits. The cost of energy transportation will be
much lower than transporting coal in the case of coal hydrogen,
and much lower than transporting electric power transmission in
the case of hydropower hydrogen.

Also, it would be much easier to contain the pollutants in a large
central plant, coal hydrogen producing plants, as mentioned earlier
by Dr. Appleby. For example, C02 produced could be used for the
in-house production of petroleum.

According to our calculations at the University of Miami, envi-
ronmental damage resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels has
reached staggering proportions. In the United States it is now $400
billion per year and is growing. Last year the United States-
Canada Commission recommended that the two countries spend $5
billion over the next five years to reduce S02 emission from coal
burning plants by 50 percent.

These remedies will not solve the problem but will only delay the
consequences. First of all acid rains are not produced by SO2 alone.
Emissions, such as CO2, the main combustion product of fossil
fuels, also produce acids. And there is no way to reduce CO2 if we
burn fossil fuels. Even if halving the SO2 emission could reduce the
acid rains by 50 percent, it would only double the time it would
take to destroy lakes and forests in particular and our biosphere in
general.

Initially the hydrogen needed could be produced from coal and
hydropower. And eventually the solar hydrogen will replace the
coal hydrogen. Hydrogen could also be produced by wind power,
geothermal energy, and even by nuclear energy.

The space program runs on hydrogen. There are fuel cells, cars,
buses and homes running on hydrogen. Presently it is not being
used on a large scale because its production costs are in general
higher than those of fossil fuels. However, our studies show that if
the cost of environmental damage and the higher efficiency of hy-
drogen are included in comparisons, then hydrogen becomes cheap-
er.

The Federal Government should not be spending money on half-
way solutions, such as spending $5 billion for reducing SO2 emis-
sion by 50 percent, but should concentrate on permanent solutions.
They should use those funds on research for the production and
utilization of hydrogen to replace the fossil fuels. This would help
solve the interrelated global problems of our times, the energy and
environmental problems, and does lay the foundations for a clean
and permanent energy system, the hydrogen energy system.

We would like to urge the Congress to make the policy of the
United States to convert from the present fossil fuel system to the
clean and renewable hydrogen energy system in a planned way to

147

be completed over the next 50 to 60 years to coincide with the an-
ticipated depletion of petroleum and natural gas. Japan, the Soviet
Union and the Europeans are working on this concept. We must
not be the followers, but take the lead.

Now, in conclusion, I would like to mention a related subject, as
mentioned by Dr. Appleby earlier, that we would like to request
that in the House version of the energy and water development ap-
propriation bill, H.R. 2700, be included an item for $2.4 million to
support hydrogen research in the four institutions around the
country. In the Senate version the item was reduced to $1.2 mil-
lion, and the Clean Energy Research Institute and the Texas A&M
Hydrogen Energy Research Institute were left out of the bill. We
would like to request that, being the leading hydrogen energy re-
search institutes in the United States and perhaps in the world,
the support for these institutes in addition to others, the Hawaii
Natural Energy Research Institute and Florida Energy Center, be
included in the Senate bill as well.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Veziroglu follows:]

148

STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF S.1294, S.1295 & S.1296

HYDROGEN FUEL CELL RESEARCH, HYDROGEN FUEL CELL UTILIZATION

AND HYDROGEN RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BILLS

T. Nejat Veziroglu

President, International Association for Hydrogen Energy

Director, Clean Energy Research Institute

University of Miami

Coral Gables, Florida 33124

A. Energy/Environmental issues Facing U.S.A.:

1. Fossil fuels (Petroleum, natural gas and coal), which meet
most of the energy needs- today, are finite in amount and
will eventually be depleted, with the decrease in pro-
duction expected to start at the end of this century or
the early part of the next century (see Fig. 1).

2. The combustion products of fossil fuels are causing
in-creasing damage to our Biosphere (the only known domain
in the universe to be supportive of life), and especially
to its living components, through pollution, acid rain,
CO- emission and carcinogens. Our studies at the
University of Miami indicate that this damage in 1986 was
$8.26 per GJ of fossil energy consumed (see Table I).

3. For about one-half of its petroleum requirements, the U.S.
depends on imported oil, mostly from unstable regions of
the world. This is also the number one culprit for the
large trade deficit.

4. There exists a need for a high energy content and low
weight fuel to satisfy the requirements of the growing and
important space programs (e.g., rockets, shuttle, aero-
space planes ) .

B. U.S.A. Non-Fossil Energy Resources;

1. The United States possesses large non-fossil energy re-
sources, such as nuclear, direct solar, hydro, wind and
geothermal, all of which can be converted to heat and/or
electricity with the existing technology.

2. These energy sources are much cleaner than fossil fuels,
and will last much longer. Some of them are renewable (so-
lar, hydro, wind), and others could meet the demand for
several decades (nuclear fission).

-1-

149

3. However, these energy resources have some shortcomings.
Some of them are intermittently available (e.g., solar,
wind); others are available too far away from the con-
sumption centers (e.g., Alaskan hydro potential); and it
would be better to locate nuclear power plants away from
the population centers in order to diminish potential dam-
age from accidental release of radioactivity.

Requirements for an Energy Carrier (Synthetic Fuel):

The shortcomings of the renewable energy resources point out
the need for an intermediary energy system (or an energy
carrier) to form the link between the non-fossil energy
resources and the user. The intermediary system must satisfy
the following criteria:

1. It must be storable.

2. It must be transportable.

3. It must be fuel for transportation.

4. It must be efficient.

5. It must be environmentally compatible.

6. It must be economical.

7. It must be recyclable, if possible.

Hydrogen Energy System:

All the synthetic fuels are candidates for the intermediary
system. Amongst them, hydrogen meets the above stated criteria
better than any other, as stated herebelow:

1. It is storable and transportable.

2. It is recyclable.

3. It is environmentally the most compatible fuel.

4. It is the lightest fuel - three times lighter than petrol-
eum or natural gas for a given amount of energy. Hence, it
is the ideal fuel for the aerospace programs.

5. Hydrogen is the most efficient fuel. It can be converted
to electricity, mechanical power and heat more efficiently
than fossil fuels or other synthetic fuels. (See Table
II) .

•2-

150

6. When its high utilization efficiency and environmental
compatibility are taken into account, hydrogen becomes the
cheapest fuel (see Table III).

E. Benefits of the Hydrogen Energy System:

1. Reduce pollution, C02 emission and acid rains, and hence
environmental damage.

2. Provide a permanent energy infrastructure based on a
clean, efficient and economical energy carrier, H_ .

3. Provide the aerospace sector with the best possible fuel.

4. Eliminate U.S. dependence on imported oil.

5. Eliminate or reduce the trade deficit.

6. Provide new jobs for establishing and servicing the new
energy system.

7. Make the United States a leader in future energy
technology.

8. Assure low cost fossil fuel supplies to be available for
non-energy applications (e.g., fertilizers, synthetic
fibers, lubricants).

F. Changeover Period:

The United States possesses large deposits of coal - much more
than fluid fossil fuels (i.e., petroleum and natural gas).
Also, it so happens that from the production cost point of
view, the cheapest hydrogen can be produced from coal (See
Table III). Coal produced hydrogen is even cheaper than coal
produced S.N.G. When the effective costs are compared, coal
produced hydrogen effective cost is very close (within 3%) to
that of hydropower hydrogen.

In addition to having large deposits of coal, the United States
also has a large potential of hydropower in Alaska.

It then becomes prudent to do the following during the
changeover period:

1. Produce hydrogen from coal near the coal mines.

2. Produce hydrogen from hydrogen near the hydroelectric power
sources .

3. Transport energy as hydrogen by pipelines to consumption
centers.

4. Utilize hydrogen in space program, fuel cells and other
devices .

151

The above stated approach would result in many economical and
environmental benefits: The cost of energy transportation will
be much lower than transporting coal in the case of coal
hydrogen, and much lower than electric power transmission in
the case of hydropower hydrogen. Also, it would be much easier
to contain the pollutants in large central plants (coal
hydrogen producing plants) than several smaller plants
(factories, thermal power plants, etc.).

G. What other Countries are Doing:

1. The Soviet Union has an annual conference on Hydrogen
Energy. We are told that it is attended by 1,000
scientists and engineers from U.S.S.R. and other socialist
countries. A similar conference in the United States draws
300 to 500 participants.

2. Canada spends $20,000,000 a year on hydrogen energy
research, which is about the same as the present DoE
budget on hydrogen. On a per capita basis, the Canadian
effort is ten times greater than that of the United
States.

3. Japan and the E.E.C. also have large hydrogen energy pro-
jects. We do not have the figures; however, we believe
their per capita effort is more in line with that of
Canada than the United States.

H. Recommendation for Funding:

Environmental damage resulting from the combustion of fossil
fuel has reached staggering proportions. In the United States,
it it is now 400 billion dollars per year and is growing. Last
year the U.S. -Canada Commission recommended that the two
countries spend $5,000,000,000 over the next five years to
reduce SO- emission from coal burning plants by 50 percent.
These remedies will not solve the problem, but will only delay
the consequences. First of all, acid rains are not produced by
SO- emissions alone; CO-, the main combustion product of fossil
fuels, is also a culprit, and there is no way to reduce it if
we burn fossil fuels. Even if halving the SO- emissions could
reduce the acid rains by 50 percent, it would only double the
time it would take to destroy the lakes and forests in
particular, and our Biosphere in general.

However, there is a permanent solution. If we use hydrogen in
place of fossil fuels in our power plants, industry,
transportation and homes, there would be no pollution and acid
rains; and as a bonus, we would also get rid of another
environmental hazard caused by fossil fuels: the greenhouse
effect. It is a clean and efficient fuel. Initially, the
hydrogen needed could be produced from coal and hydropower, and
eventually solar hydrogen would replace the coal hydrogen.
Hydrogen could also be produced by wind power, geothermal

-4-

152

power, and even by nuclear energy.

The space program runs on hydrogen. There are fuel cells, cars,
buses and homes running on hydrogen. Presently, it is not being
used on a large scale, because its production costs are in
general higher than those of fossil fuels. However, our studies
at the University of Miami show that if the cost of
environmental damage and the higher efficiency of hydrogen are
included in comparisons, then hydrogen becomes cheaper.

The Federal Government should not be spending money on half-way
solutions, but should concentrate on permanent solutions. They
should use those funds on research for the production and
utilization of hydrogen to replace the fossil fuels. This would
help solve the interrelated global problems of our times, the
energy and environmental problems, and thus lay the foundations
for a clean and permanent energy system — the Hydrogen Energy
System.

We would like to urge the Congress to make it the policy of the
United States to convert from the present fossil fuel system to
the clean and renewable Hydrogen Energy System in a planned way
to be completed over the next 50-60 years - to coincide with
the anticipated depletion of petroleum and natural gas. Japan,
the Soviet Union and the Europeans are working on this concept.
We must not be the followers, but take the lead.

CALENOAB YEARS

Fig. 1 Projected rates of production of world fossil fuels.

153

Tabic I Estimates of fossil-fuel damage

Type of damage

References

Damage per unit of

fossil-fuel energy

(1986JGJ-1)

(86-88]

3.86

[22. 89|

1 93

[HI
[15.21.89]

0.06
0.57

[89]

[18]

[12|
[89|
[28]

0.49
0.83
009
031
0.12
1986 $8.26

1. Effect on humans (loss of working time, medical expenses.
deaths)

2. Effect on fresh water resources/sources (loss of fish, damage
to drinking water)

3. Treatment of lakes (treatment by powdered lime)

4 Effect on farm produce, plants and forests (acid rains.

ozone)
5. Effect on animals (domesticated or wildlife)
6- Effect on buildings ( historical, commercial and residential)

7. Effect on coasts and beaches (oil-spills, ballast discharge)

8. Effect of ocean nse (coastal protection)

9. Effect of stnp-mining [land reclamation)

Total damage:

Table UXltilization efficiency comparison between fossil fuels and hydrogen

Fossi! energy

Fossil energy

H: energy

H-. energy

consumption

H: efficiency

consumption

by sector

End-use

bv end-use

advantage

by end-use

bv sector

Energy

(Arbitrary

energy form/

(Arbitrary

I00(n,-n,)/nf

(Arbitrary

sector

units)

sub-sector

units)

(Percentage)

Reference

units)

f Road

(IC engine)

120

[811

Road

(fuel cell)

133

[60|

Rail

Transport

250 «

(fuel cell)
Sea

[60]

>. 186

(IC engine)

[81|

Sea

(fuel cell)

[60]

Air (subsonic)

[76]

*- Air (supersonic)

[771

18 -

f Heat

250

(S3|

145 1

Industrial

300 -<

Electncitv

> 210

[_ (fuel cells I

[60|

65 J

f Heat

110

[83|

89 "]

Commercial

150 J

Electricity

> 111

„ (fuel cells)

[60]

22 J

f Heat

250

[83 1

202 1

Residential

300 <

Electncitv

> ->->(j

I. (fuel cells)

[60|

27 J

World totals:

1000

736

TableUlEffective cost of svmhetic fuels

Production

Environmental

Utilization

Effective

cost

damage

efficiency

cost

Fuel

(1986 SGJ-')

(1986 5 GJ"')

ratio /)(/",

(1986 SGJ-')

SNG

7.42

5.51

1.00

12.93

f Coal

7.19

2.75

0.74

736

GH, .<

Hydropower

9.65

—

0.74

7.14

k Other

18.13

—

074

13.42

SynGas

14.47

8.26

100

22.73

f Coal

8.99

2.75

0.74

869

LH, -

Hvdropower

12.06

—

0.74

8.92

I. Other

22.66

—

0.74

16.77

154

Senator Ford. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I have no ques-
tions of any of the three.

Senator Matsunaga, do you have any questions?

Senator Matsunaga. I just wish to commend all three witnesses
for their excellent presentations, and as the introducer of the bills,
I certainly appreciate the support that you have shown not only
today, but in the past.

And with all the strong points you have raised, Dr. Appleby, for
example, I often wonder why the coal state Senators aren't cospon-
soring my bill. And with that remark, I would say thank you again.

Senator Ford. And I say to you, Senator, we have got more on
our plate than we can say grace over, if you understand that.

Thank you, gentlemen.

The next panel of witnesses, the Vice President for Research,
Solar Reactor Technologies, Dr. Peter Langhoff; Chief, Combustion
Analysis and Technology, Pratt & Whitney, Mr. Richard Marshall.

Gentlemen, I don't mean to cut you off. The last panel was a
little bit long. If you could highlight your statements, your full
statement will be included in the record. And we will let Mr.
Langhoff — is that the way it is pronounced?

Mr. Langhoff. That's correct, sir.

Senator Ford. Close for a southern boy.

STATEMENT OF DR. PETER W. LANGHOFF, VICE PRESIDENT FOR
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, SOLAR REACTOR TECHNOL-
OGIES, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY ROBIN Z. PARKER, PRESIDENT

Dr. Langhoff. Mr. Chairman, Senator, ladies and gentlemen, we
are pleased to provide testimony on behalf of these three bills with
particular reference to S. 1296.

We speak from the perspective of the small business, high tech-
nology research and development community, and a community
long-regarded, I believe correctly, as an objective source of innova-
tive technology. We follow very closely the science developments in
energy and we try to move that science forward into technology.
And yet, at the same time we are not wed to any particular proc-
esses or feed-stream materials.

I am going to ask that a statement on behalf of our chairman,
Mr. Robin Parker, who sits to my left, be submitted for the record.
It's an introductory statement.

Senator Ford. It will be included in the record in total.

Dr. Langhoff. Thank you, sir.

Senator Ford. Let me ask the Clerk. Do you have a copy of that?
Okay, fine.

Dr. Langhoff. And similarly for my technical remarks.

Senator Ford. They will be included in the record in full.

Dr. Langhoff. Thank you, sir.

This bill recognizes correctly that continued research and devel-
opment of hydrogen fuel technology as a viable alternative to the
combustion of our rapidly depleting fossil fuel reserves is of vital
importance to the Nation's economy and our environmental wellbe-
ing.

I am going to emphasize in my remarks here the urgency and
the immediacy of this possibility, and I am going to indicate that a

155

number of factors augur very well for the development of efficient,
large scale hydrogen production facilities consequent of sufficient
funding levels for this purpose.

These factors are simply that, one, water, the very product of
combustion is plentiful and widely available as a feed-stream mate-
rial.

There are now a great variety of chemical and physical processes
involving hydrogen release that have been studied to date under
laboratory conditions with extremely promising efficiencies. This is
the type of research that the Department of Energy has sponsored
through the years, and we applaud them in that connection.

And finally, three, solar energy devices presently under develop-
ment, some of which are in existence right now, provide environ-
mentally satisfactory energy for driving the release of hydrogen.

It is on this score that the Department of Energy and I differ.
Our company differs. We do not at present in our view have an ap-
propriate program for bringing to the fore solar energy as the driv-
ing force for hydrogen technology.

And I am going to now make one or two extemporaneous re-
marks in response to some of the discussion that has taken place
here with your kind permission, and then I'll close by describing
very briefly one or two aspects of the things that SRT as an indi-
vidual company has been involved in. Again, I present these as rep-
resentative of the small business community.

I would first draw attention to the use of the word "primary" in
connection with energy and fuel. There is only one primary energy
source and that is solar energy. All other energy sources ultimately
derive from that source, as the Assistant Secretary and enlightened
members of the committee and the panel certainly know.

I am very pleased to see the Secretary cite the energy efficiency
factors ranging from 4 to 15 percent. These relate to energy of con-
version efficiencies of 25 percent to 75 percent or so.

I'll describe very briefly in a moment a system that can turn
solar photons, solar energy, directly into hydrogen or into electrici-
ty running at the 25 percent level. This technology is here today. It
is being developed by our company and other companies as well.
We are presently under contract to the Air Force to provide 50
kilowatts of space power to a station that will operate only with
solar photons. It gets very expensive to bring the methane that
some people regard as very cost efficient. It gets very expensive to
bring that fuel to near space. Solar photons are certainly available
there.

The earth is very much in a similar situation. It only takes a
little bit of thought to realize that.

The main objection I have to the DOE present funding level is
the scope. And I think this bill starts to move in the right direc-
tion.

If we were to replace all our energy usage today with hydrogen,
if that could be possible, this would take an increase in our current
hydrogen production of about a factor of 2,000. This is a significant
order of magnitude. These figures are based on some numbers I
was calculating while listening to the very enlightening testimony
that has gone before. It would take, if you wanted to make that
much hydrogen, to derive hydrogen of 2,000 times what we are pro-

156

ducing now, we would have to have a cubic mile of water release
its hydrogen to us. This is the scope of the problem that we have in
mind here.

These things, however, are possible when one recognizes that at
a 25 percent efficiency you would only need the sunlight falling of
the area the size of Long Island running out from Manhattan
Island a few hundred square miles. And even if we needed 500
square miles, since solar photoenergy comes down to us continually
during an eight hour period in many parts of the country, a 25 per-
cent conversion factor is an extremely efficient, extremely useful
and a beneficial operating factor.

And so now let me describe very briefly, having made those — let
me make one last remark. The word "cost" has been used here.
There is a significant difference between price and cost, and this
bill has a provision for setting up a technical advisory panel. That
panel is well advised itself to distinguish very carefully between
cost and price. And I am sure the people appointed to that panel
will be quite able to do so.

And now, in conclusion — I have taken perhaps much more of
your time than is necessary — let me simply describe very briefly a
system that we have devised recently that is presently under devel-
opment by our company SRT, which employs water as a feed-
stream material, electrolysis and photochemistry, coming from the
type of research that DOE has supported through the years. And
we applaud them in that effort. This provides the essential hydro-
gen release process. And third, our process employs sunlight only
as the driving force to run photolysis and to provide the electricity
needed to do the electrolysis.

This system deals with splitting not of water, but of hydrogen
chloride which is prepared in aqueous form. I won't go into all the
details, the technology here. There are technical advantages for the
electrolysis of hydrochloric acid as opposed to other commercially
available procedures. We have worked long and hard to maximize
the efficiency of this process.

The hydrogen is captured from this release process. The chlorine
gas that is captured is recycled back to make more hydrochloric
acid. And the cycle then continues. The electrical energy put into
this system derives from the type of system that I indicated earlier
in which electricity is made directly out of solar energy using the
technologies that SRT has devised.

These two systems that we have been working on are only two
examples of a number of systems that have been devised in the
small business community and elsewhere. And in view of the effi-
ciencies that are now available, we consequently support and ap-
plaud the allocation of resources for the development of an effi-
cient and environmentally satisfactory thermal energy source in
the form of a national hydrogen fuel technology.

Thank you very much for your attention.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Parker and Dr. Langhoff
follow:]

157

OTSOLAR* REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES

r ^™ 2666 Tigertail Avenue • Suite 115 • Miami. FL 33133 (305) 854 2668 • FAX (305) 854 2739

INTRODUCTION TO TESTIMONY ON

PHOTOELECTROCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY FOR HYDROGEN

PRODUCTION CONCERNING BILLS S.1294, S.1295, S.1296

23rd September 1987

Mr. Chairman, Senators, Ladies and Gentlemen:

On behalf of Solar Reactor Technologies (SRT) , I would like
to express our appreciation to the Senate Subcommittee on Energy
Research and Development for inviting us to come here today and
give testimony on this important legislation.

Prior to introducing my colleague, Dr. Peter Langhoff, who
will describe Solar Reactor Technologies' innovative approach to
solar hydrogen production, I felt that a brief description of our
company's past and current activities would be appropriate.

Solar Reactor Technologies is a small business dedicated to
research and development of propulsion systems, power generation
and hydrogen production utilizing the thermal-photochemical
synergy available in hydrogen, oxygen and halogens.

In February 1986, SRT was awarded an Air Force contract for
just under a half million dollars to investigate a "Survivable 50
kw Solar Space Power System Using Radiation Augmented Fluid
Technology" as a Strategic Defense Initiative Organization or
SDIO asset. This program may lead to a solar power generation
system that may provide a five-fold increase in power output
without increasing the concentration ratio and collector size of
known solar power generation systems. It is our belief that this
technology will have significant impact on NASA and DOE solar
energy programs.

82-464 0 - RR — fi

RT~-

Concurrently, with our SDIO program, SRT has dedicated a
considerable amount of resources to researching alternative
methods of producing hydrogen using solar energy. These methods,
which we collectively call Radition Augmented Electrolysis, or
RAYS, may present an economically viable method of producing
hydrogen with solar energy.

To apply RAYS, SRT is now developing a pilot plant
demonstration of the approach for future operation at the Kennedy
Space Center. This demonstration would also support an SRT
proposal to NASA-Kennedy Space Center, for the on-site production
of liquid hydrogen propellant. This SRT effort, includes
TRW, Space and Technology Group, the West German industrial group
of UHDE GmbH and possible Israeli participation.

Over the last week I have travelled to West Germany and
Israel to assemble the team members with appropriate commercially
available hardware for the demonstration of RAYS. In Dortmund, I
met with UHDE GmbH, who agreed to participate in the project.
Later, I attended the SOLAR WORLD CONGRESS in Hamburg and met
with Interatom, a subsidiary of Siemens AG, which is evaluating
our technology as an alternate to nuclear power. I also learned
that West German government and industries are developing a
cooperative three year, one billion D-mark or $625 million,
hydrogen research program.

In Israel I met with Luz International, which is completing
a 90 megawatt solar thermal power plant. I also met with Ormat
Turbines which has completed a 24 megawatt geothermal power
plant. Both plants are in California and sell power to Southern
California Edison. Luz and Ormat agreed to participate and
contribute their technology in the proposed Kennedy project.

2 -

RT~''

Also, in Israel I met with representatives from the Ministry of
Energy and Ministry of Finance, who assured support including
possible Israeli financial participation.

Hopefully, this brief introduction of SRT and my latest
experience in West Germany and Israel, can provide you with a
better perspective of SRT and foreign activities regarding solar
hydrogen production.

In closing, my recommendation to the Senate is to enact the
proposed legislation for hydrogen research programs or provide
legislation that encourages private investment in approved
programs with appropriate tax incentives. Ideally the government
would see its way to implement both approaches to ensure American
support of hydrogen research programs.

We hope that in your consideration of this legislation that
you bear in mind the substantial contribution that small business
entities, such as, our own company, have made to the advancement
of U.S. technology.

I would like to now introduce Dr. Peter Langhoff, Vice
President of Research, for a brief description of SRT's
technological approach.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Robin Z. Parker

Solar Reactor Technologies, Inc.

3 -

160

solar" reactor technologies

2666 Tigerloil Avenue • Suite 115 • Miami. FL 33133 (305) 854-2668 • FAX (305) 854-2739

A WRITTEN RECORD OF TESTIMONY ON

PHOTOELECTROCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY FOR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION

CONCERNING BILLS S.1294, S.1295, S.1296

23rd September 1987

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT, UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Presented by:

Mr. Robin Z. Parker , President

Dr. Peter W. Langhoff, V.P., R&D

SOLAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

161

PHOTOELECTROCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY
FOR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION

Hydrogen, long recognized as a ubiquitous, clean-
burning, efficient fuel is presently underutilized on a na-
tional scale as a significant thermal energy source. Con-
tinued research on and development of hydrogen fuel technol-
ogy as a viable alternative to the combustion of our rapidly
depleting fossil fuel reserves is of vital importance to the
nation's economy and to our environmental well-being.

I. PRESENT HYDROGEN PRODUCTION METHODS AND PROBLEMS

Although small quantities of hydrogen can be produced
with relative ease in a laboratory environment, large scale
production methods are currently less cost-effective than is
acceptable and rely heavily on fossil fuels for feedstream
source materials and for the thermal energy needed to drive
the relevant release processes. The primary large scale
methods currently employed for releasing hydrogen include
methane cracking, methanol dissociation, and electrolysis of
aqueous solutions .

The problems to be addressed in these and other methods
for hydrogen production for use as a fuel are, simply
stated ;

1) Identification of inexpensive, plen'.iful
feedstream materials from whi':n hydrogen can be
released in appropriate form;

2) Refinement of efficient physical and chemical
processes that will accomplish the release and
storage of hydrogen;

3) Identification of inexpensive energy sources with
which to drive the processes for the desired
release of hydrogen.

Methane cracking requires fossil fuels both for the
feedstream source of hydrogen and for the thermal energy to
drive its release. Methanol dissociation, used to a lesser
extent in large scale hydrogen production is subject to the
same requirements. Thus, in the release of hydrogen for use
as a fuel by methane cracking or methanol dissociation, the

162

23rd September 1987
Page Two

costs, when computed in a sensible fashion, significantly

exceed the benefits for most applications. Exceptions are

certain special uses, as in the liquid-phase combustion of
hydrogen employed in our space program.

Electrochemical processes, while promisi
cost effective on a large scale when sensible
cost estimates are made. These processes in
tion of either acid or alkaline aqueous so
taking water and adding an acid or a base)
energy source, usually provided in the form
Although electrical energy may be obtained
any source, present reliance on fossil-fue
large-scale power generation makes the
hydrogen for use as a fuel by electrochemical
cally undesirable.

ng , are not yet

, comprehensive

volve dissocia-

lutions (i.e. ,

and require an

of electricity.

ultimately from

1 burning for

production of

means economi-

In summary, economical large-scale
hydrogen for use as a fuel on a national 1
a dedicated research and development effort
cost factors that presently mitigate agains
Potential advantages offered by hydroge
wide-spread energy source justify the inves
implement this program. All sectors of th
technical research communities can con
endeavor. The following testimony on hydro
made from the particular perspective of the
privately-owned, small-business community,
an important source of innovation in techno

production of

evel will require

to overcome the

t such a program.

n combustion as a

tment required to

e scientific and

tribute to this

gen production is

high technology,

long regarded as

logical problems.

II . SOLAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. PHOTOELECTROCHEMICAL
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Sol
technolo
Florida .
focused
space
ref erenc
producti
patents
f ollowin
of the h
course o

ar Reacto
gy, privat
As have
some of it
and terr
e to cost
on techniq
relating t
g testimo
ydrogen-pr
f a contin

r Technol
ely-owned

other sma
s attentio
estrial
effective ,
ues . As
o hydrogen
ny a brief
oduction t
uing resea

ogies , Inc . ,
small business
11 businesses ,
n on advanced e
applications ,

environmental

a consequence,

production tec

descriptive ac

echniques devis

rch and develop

(SRT) is
located in

the Compa
nergy syst

with par
ly-sound h

SRT now h
hnology .
count is p
ed by SRT
ment effor

a high
Miami ,
ny has
ems for
ticular
ydrogen
olds 10
In the
rovided
in the
t.

163

fU —

23rd September 1987
Page Three

SRT'S RADIATION AUGUMENTED ELECTROLYSIS (RAYS)

One of the methods for large scale production of
hydrogen under development by SRT which shows particular
promise employs; 1) water as a feedstream material, 2)
electrolysis and photochemistry in the essential hydrogen
release process, and 3) sunlight as the energy source to
drive the overall cycle.

The
electrolys
laboratory
tractive o
production
separation
water ,
into hydro
the chlor
tion with
all steps
of hydrog
cycle re la

separati
is of a

ex ere is
n a larg

of hydr
, in whi
(ii) th
gen and
ine gas
steam, a
in the r
en and o
tive to

on o
curr
e , al
e-sca
ogen
ch ;
e res
chlor
is co
lso r
eacti
xygen
alter

f hydro
ent-carr
though i
le. The
employs
( i ) hydr
ulting h
ine gas
nverted
eleasing
on, res
from wa
native m

gen fro
ying solu
t is not

SRT tech
an indire
ogen chlo
ydrochlor
by electr
to hydrog

oxygen .
ulting in
ter. Th
ethods ar

m water
tion is a
yet commer
nique for
ct approac
ride is di
ic acid is
olysis, a
en chlorid
Solar ene
the net
e advantag
e signific

by the
well-known
cially at-
commercial
h to this
ssolved in
separated
nd , ( i i i )
e by reac-
rgy drives
production
es of this
ant .

aqueo

than

requi

direc

obser

SRT,

using

other

acid,

elect

Firs

the

reme

tly

ved

tha

hyd

roly

solu
so-c
nt ,

int
in e
t s
roch
lute
ich
sis .

it must be
tion by e
ailed theo

referred
o wasted
arlier stu
ignif icant
loric acid
s , partic
are presen

rec
lect
reti
to a
ener
dies

ular
tly

ogni zed
ro lysis
cal mini
s an
gy and h
, and c
lower o
an elec
ly sodi
employed

that
requ
mum .
over
ighe
onf i
verv
trol
urn h
in

decompo
ires a 1
This h
voltage"
r cost .
rmed by
oltages
yte, as
ydroxide
large s

sition of an

arger voltage

igher voltage

, translates

It has been

research at

are achieved

opposed to

and sulfuric

cale aqueous

Second, a considerable portion of the ene
to electrolyze a hydrochloric acid solution can
directly from sunlight. It is known that the
has a strong tendency to form moderately complex
in the presence of certain metal ions dissolve
solutions. It is characteristic of such specie
ciently absorb visible light. Complex ions als
show unusual electrochemical behavior. Earlier
demonstrated that certain complexes of iridium i
ample with chloride can form gaseous hydrogen
directly when exposed to deep ultraviolet radiat

rgy required
be obtained
chloride ion
structures
d in aqueous
s to effi-
o frequently
studies have
on, for ex-
and chlorine
ion .

164

RT"

23rd September 1987
Page Four

In the SRT process this solar energy is employed to augument
the electrolysis of hydrochloric acid solution. This
process still requires application of electrical energy, but
the energy requirement in the presence of sunlight is con-
siderably lower than the dark.

Third, the chlorine gas produced along with hydrogen in
the SRT electrolysis process is back-converted into hydroch-
loric acid to be used over again in a closed cycle. In-
dustrial methods of back-converting to form hydrogen
chloride react chlorine with hydrogen. This method would
consume all of the hydrogen formed in the decomposition of
hydrochloric acid. Instead, SRT has developed a method in-
volving the direct reaction of chlorine gas with steam at
moderately high temperatures, in the range of 600 °C to
800 o C (1100 °F to 1500 °F). Laboratory investigations
SRT indicate that the chlorine and steam react in a
phase thermochemical process to form hydrogen chloride
oxygen. Consequently, the combined SRT process
photoelectrochemical and gas phase thermal reaction results
in the net production of hydrogen and oxygen from water
employing a cyclic process. This technology is termed
Radiation Augmented Electrolysis (RAYS).

by
gas
and

A special aspect of the SRT-RAYS photoelectrolysis
process observed in the laboratory involves the photochemi-
cal changes produced when light falls on the iridium/
chloride complex, which appear to persist for one to two
minutes after the light has been turned off. - This suggests
electrolysis of the hydrochloric acid solution containing
the iridium chloride complex can be carried out in
electrolysis cells of conventional industrial design,
readily available at the present time. The photolysis would
be carried out separately in external vessels, optimized for
that purpose. The solutions would be rapidly pumped between
the photolysis and electrolysis cells, so that residence
time in each would be of the order of one to two minutes.
This approach will greatly facilitate incorporation of the
RAYS photoelectrochemical method into conventional large-
scale electrolysis technology.

Another special aspect of SRT-RAYS technology compared
with other photoelectrochemical methods is that light is ab-
sorbed by the solution and not by special electrodes. Pre-
vious studies have described solar assisted electrolysis

165

23rd September 1987
Page Five

processes in which specially prepared electrodes are the ac-
tive elements. Unfortunately, the electrodes employed are
generally expensive, delicate and short-lived, lasting only
a few hours or a few days. By using photolysis of the solu-
tion rather than of the electrodes, SRT is able to achieve
an economical process that is practical on a large in-
dustrial scale.

The SRT-RAYS process shows considerable promise of
providing a cost-efficient, large-scale method for produc-
tion of hydrogen as a national fuel. Continuing research
and development is needed to bring this process, as well as
others presently under study in the research and development
community at large, forward to fruition on a national scale.

SRT's RADIATION AUGUMENTED FLUID TECHNOLOGY (RAFT)

The SRT-RAYS process

requires

only water, solar energy,

and electrical energy for

production of hydrogen an

d oxygen.

It is highly desirable to

explore

the use of solar

energy as

a direct source of the electrical

power required in

the RAYS

process. Accordingly,

SRT is

conducting research on and

development of solar energ

y power

systems which can

serve as

the prime energy source for a RAYS

facility. These

methods ,

generically designated as

RAFT (R

adiation Augment

ed Fluid

Technology) utilize the

light-ab

sorbing character

istics of

halogen fluids to drive

physical and chemical

energy

production-processes .

As ill

ustrative examples of this

technology, two promising

versions of SRT-RAFT dev

ices are

described briefly in the f

ollowing

testimony .

One of the SRT-RAFT methods currently under development
is based on a solar-powered closed-cycle gas turbine, driven
with a light-absorbing halogen fluid. Such a system can
operate at significantly higher working fluid temperatures
than is possible with conventional black-body solar
receivers, consequently, providing greater overall system
efficiencies. Although this SRT-RAFT system is particularly
advantageous in a space-power setting, for which it is
presently designed, terrestrial applications are presently
under study, including operation of the SRT-RAYS facility.

166

23rd September 1987
Page Six

second

solar ac

tivatio

energy-

release

reaction

energy

energy a

dded to

bine is

driven

back-conversion

chlorine

, whici

apparatus . A

employed

for

chloride

SRT-RAFT apparatus under development employs

n of halogen gas reacted with hydrogen. The

d by this method is the sum of the chemical

of making hydrogen chloride , and the solar

the halogen gas. In this case, a gas tur-

by hot hydrogen chloride gas, with subsequent

of the hydrogen chloride into hydrogen and

h can be continuously recycled through the

proprietary solar-photochemical method is

carrying out back-conversion of hydrogen

The SRT-RAFT processes show considerable promise of
providing efficient solar-energy power sources for driving
the large-scale SRT-RAYS production of hydrogen fuel.

III. SUMMARY

The development of
as a viable alternative
sources must rate high
tion of funding resour
for the development
production facilities
levels; 1) Water, the
provides a plentiful fe
can be released; 2) A
processes involving hyd
date under labora
efficiencies; 3) Solar
development which can
energy for driving the

a national hydrogen fuel technology

to currently employed thermal energy

on the list of priorities for alloca-

ces. A number of factors auger well

of efficient, large-scale hydrogen

consequent of sufficient funding

very product of hydrogen combustion,
edstream material from which hydrogen

great array of chemical and physical
rogen release have been studied to
tory conditions with promising
-energy devices under presently under

provide environmentally satisfactory
large-scale release of hydrogen.

The SRT
for hydroge
driving ener
large class
nologies ca
levels of fu
communities
plementing
plaud the al
efficient a
source in th

RAYS an
n produ
gy from
of devel
n be b
nding .
at large
this pr
location
nd envi
e form o

d SRT-
ction ,
solar
opment
rought
The sc

stand
ogram .

of re
ronmen
f a na

RAFT

and

sourc

al st

on-

ienti

read

sourc

tal

tiona

tech
fo
es ,
udie
line
fie

y t

con
es f

sati
1 hy

nologi
r prov

are r
s. Th

quick
and te
o mov
sequen
or the
sf acto
drogen

es de
iding
eprese
ese pr
1 y wit
chnica
e for
tly su

devel
ry th

fuel

scrib

the n

ntati

omisi

h app

1 dev

ward

pport

opmen

ermal

techn

ed here
ecessary
ve of a
ng tech-
ropriate
elopment
in inl-
and ap-
t of an
energy
ology .

167

Senator Ford. Thank you very much.
Mr. Marshall.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD L. MARSHALL, CHIEF, COMBUSTION
FUELS AND EMISSIONS, COMMERCIAL ENGINES, ENGINEERING
DIVISION, PRATT & WHITNEY GROUP, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORP.

Mr. Marshall. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of United Technologies
and Pratt & Whitney Group, I would like to take the opportunity
to discuss aspects of S. 1296, a bill to establish the hydrogen re-
search and development program.

At Pratt & Whitney we design, develop, manufacture, market
and support commercial and military aircraft gas turbine engines
on a worldwide basis. We also are the designers of the RL-10 liquid
hydrogen-liquid oxygen rocket for the U.S. space program. Because
of our experience with hydrogen as a propulsive fuel, I will briefly
review some of the history using hydrogen and address some re-
marks to potential research and development work.

During the 1950s, Pratt & Whitney pioneered in the experimen-
tal use of hydrogen fuel in a conventional J-57 jet engine and in
the preliminary development of an advanced hydrogen-fueled
engine, the 304, for supersonic military reconnaissance aircraft.
The work we did on component engine tests did demonstrate the
ease of burning hydrogen fuel in a jet engine.

Following the earlier experiments with hydrogen in jet engines,
Pratt & Whitney developed the first hydrogen-fueled rocket en-
gines, the RL-10, which powers the upper stage of the Atlas/Cen-
taur vehicle. This engine continues to enjoy a flawless record in
this country's space program. To date there have been 282 firings
in space, all without malfunction.

Currently Pratt & Whitney is working on propulsion technology
required to power the proposed national aerospace plane, the
NASP. This program is sponsored jointly by DOD and NASA. The
NASP, designated the X-30, will utilize a conventional takeoff, a
single stage propulsor and hydrogen fuel. It will be capable of hy-
personic cruise, orbital insertion, conventional landing. The ulti-
mate goal is achieving a Mach number of 25.

If we are to move toward a hydrogen-fueled aircraft or indeed
toward a broad, hydrogen-energy based society, there are essential-
ly three hurdles to overcome. First, we have to be able to produce
hydrogen economically from renewable energy sources. Second, we
must be able to distribute it. And third, we have to be able to store
it.

We believe that hydrogen-fueled aircraft technology, while not
developed, is significantly ahead of the technologies needed to
produce, distribute and store hydrogen. The cost of producing hy-
drogen now makes it noncompetitive with other fuels for propul-
sion below hypersonic speeds.

With respect to title II of this bill, a very realistic question
arises. Why would anyone want an aircraft powered by an engine
burning liquid fuel?

First, liquid hydrogen provides more heating value per pound
than any other fuel. This means that a given amount of hydrogen

168

fuel should be able to propel an airplane faster and further than
the same amount from any other fuel.

Second, liquid hydrogen provides far more cooling capacity than
any other fuel, some 20 times that of regular jet fuel. Hydrogen
cooling of the aircraft will be required to withstand the intense aer-
odynamic heating associated with very high speed flight.

Finally, we can improve existing jet engine cycles if they are de-
signed to use the unique properties of hydrogen. Studies show that
turbojet engines are attractive to about Mach 3, ramjets to about
Mach 7, and Scramjets — that is, supersonic combustion ramjets — to
Mach 20, and rockets above that.

The use of hydrogen is not without its engineering challenges.
Liquid hydrogen must be stored at about minus 425 degrees Fahr-
enheit. It is an extreme cryogenic. Before it can be pumped, the
pump and the lines to the pump must be cooled to this tempera-
ture. The tank, the inlet lines and the pump must be well insulated
to prevent buildup of ice on the outside due to condensation of both
air and water from the atmosphere.

Because of the cryogenic nature of the fuel, elastomers don't
work as seals for joints, so new sealing techniques must be devel-
oped. Also thermal expansion and contraction in the fuel system is
unusually large, so special designs are required to keep the joints
tight and avoid over-stress.

Some metals become embrittled when subjected to hydrogen at
certain pressures and temperatures. Some metals become embrit-
tled due to low temperatures alone. Tests are necessary to charac-
terize each of these materials used and to assure compatibility.

Like just about any fuel, liquid hydrogen is a safe fuel if properly
handled. Hydrogen is very predictable. One has to design specifical-
ly with its unique properties and, anticipating failures, design in a
failsafe manner. Safety rules must be followed.

Our test facilities all provide plentiful ventilation, especially
around the top of the test stands, to allow rapid dissipation of leak-
ing fuel and to prevent confinement of burning, expanding gases,
thereby preventing detonations. At Pratt & Whitney we have been
working successfully with hydrogen for years, first in the Suntan
project, the 304, then with the RL-10 engine, and now with the
NASP. The 282 firings of the RL-10 in space and the literally thou-
sands of test firings on the ground are testament to this success.

The future of hydrogen aircraft of, indeed, a hydrogen-based
economy is really based on the cost of delivered hydrogen.

We need to support work that leads to the economic production
of hydrogen and to work out the problems of distribution and stor-
age as called for in title I of this bill.

Research and development for aircraft and engines must focus on
achieving the long durability and safety now associated with com-
mercial and military aircraft flying today.

Liquid hydrogen is an excellent fuel, but considerable work must
be done before this highly efficient fuel will be in widespread use.

169

When hydrogen is economically available and there are systems
for its safe distribution storage and use, you can be sure that Pratt
& Whitney will be there to build dependable, high performance air-
craft engines.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]

170

S.1296, A BILL TO ESTABLISH A HYDROGEN RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Statement of

United Technologies Corporation

Pratt & Whitney

September 23, 1987

Richard L. Marshall
Chief, Combustion Fuels & Emissions
Commercial Engines
Engineering Division, Pratt & Whitney

Prepared for

Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources

Subcommittee on Energy, Research and Development

Honorable Wendell Ford, Chairman

171

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee :

On behalf of United Technologies Corporation and its Pratt & Whitney Group,
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss aspects of S.1296, a
Bill to establish a hydrogen research and development program.

At Pratt & Whitney, we design, develop, manufacture, market and support
commercial and military aircraft gas turbine engines on a worldwide basis.
We are also the designers and producers of the KL-10 liquid hydrogen - liquid
oxygen rocket for the U.S. space program. Because of our experience with
hydrogen as a propulsive fuel, I'll focus my remarks on S.1296 Title II -
Hydrogen-Fueled Aircraft Research and Development.

During the 1950s, Pratt & Whitney pioneered in the experimental use of
hydrogen fuel in a conventional jet engine and in the preliminary
development of an advanced hydrogen-fueled engine for a supersonic military
reconnaissance aircraft. We first began our work in 1955 under Air Force
Sponsorship. The program was terminated by the Government before the engines
were fully developed. The work we did, however, on component and engine
tests did demonstrate the ease of burning hydrogen fuel in jet engines.

Following the early experiments with hydgrogen in jet engines, Pratt &
Whitney developed the first hydrogen- fueled rocket engine, the KL-10, which
powers the upper stage of the Atlas-Centaur vehicle. This engine continues
to enjoy a flawless record in this country's space program. To date, there
have been 282 firings in space, all without a malfunction.

172

-3-

Currently Pratt & Whitney is working on propulsion technologies required to
power the proposed National Aerospace Plane, the NASP. This program is
sponsored jointly by DOD and NASA. The NASP, designated X-30, will utilize a
conventional takeoff, a single stage propulsor, and hydrogen fuel. It will
be capable of hypersonic cruise, orbital insertion and conventional landing.
The ultimate goal is achieving a Mach number of 25. Much will be learned
from the NASP program which will be directly applicable to your Bill, S.1296,
in particular Title II - Hydrogen-Fueled Aircraft Research and Development.

If we're to move toward a hydrogen- fueled aircraft or, indeed, toward a
broad, hydrogen-energy based society, there essentially are three hurdles to
overcome: First, we have to be able to produce hydrogen economically from
renewable energy sources. Second, we have to be able to distribute it; and
third, we have to be able to store it. These factors are relevant to S.1296
Title I - Hydrogen Production and Use. We believe that hydrogen- fueled
aircraft technology, while not developed, is significantly ahead of the
technologies needed to produce, distribute and store hydrogen. The cost
of producing hydrogen now makes it non-competitive with other fuels for
propulsion below hypersonic speed.

In the 1950s project, it was Pratt & Whitney's job to develop a hydrogen
engine for what then was called the "Suntan" project, a high altitude,
supersonic surveillance aircraft. We purchased a 500-pound per day capacity
hydrogen liquefaction plant and installed it in a remote area of our plant in
East Hartford, Connecticut.

173

-4-

We converted one of our J-57 turbojet engines to operate on liquid hydrogen
fuel, and we began testing in 1956. Meanwhile, we designed a new engine,
which we called the "304", which could take advantage of the unique
properties of hydrogen.

I won't go into many engineering details of the 304 engine, but I should
mention that we used liquid hydrogen at high pressure. The hydrogen drove a
multistage turbine which powered a multistage fan which in turn compressed
incoming air. Part of the hydrogen discharged from the turbine was injected
and burned in the air-stream behind the fan. The remaining hydrogen was
injected and burned in an afterburner, and the hot gases and air expanded
through the nozzle to produce propulsive thrust.

For security reasons, we transferred hydrogen- fueled engine testing to our
then new Development Center in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Air Force
established a large hydrogen liquefaction plant nearby on a tract of land
which we deeded to the government. The plant was able to produce 7000 pounds
of hydrogen a day from liquid petroleum in a chemical process. The hydrogen
was stored in a 100,000 gallon tank farm which was connected to our test
cells.

Even before this plant was completed, the Air Force planned a much larger
hydrogen liquefaction plant to meet the anticipated testing needs for
developing the 304 engine. The second plant was built a few hundred yards

174

-5-

away fran the original installation and went into operation in 1959 with a
capacity of 60,000 pounds per day. It was then the largest facility of its
kind in the world. Natural gas was used as the feed stock to make hydrogen.
This plant came too late for the "Suntan" program but turned out to be very
useful in the space program that was to follow.

The first 304 engine tests began in September, 1957. We eventually built
five 304 engines and ran them on liquid hydrogen fuel. From a technical
standpoint, the program was very successful, and we learned a lot about the
use of liquid hydrogen fuel. Although we had our share of development
problems, none appeared to be insurmountable.

The engines were intended for the Lockheed CL-400, an airplane capable of
Mach 2.5, which was being designed by Clarence "Kelly" Johnson at the
Lockheed "skunk works." The "Suntan" Program continued until mid 1958 when
it became apparent that, with the development of titanium aircraft structures
to replace aluminum, and with advanced state-of-art engine cycles, the
mission could be performed at lower cost with an aircraft that burned more
conventional jet fuel.

So much for historical experience with hydrogen engines. Now let me address
current day hydrogen engine activities.

As noted in National Aeronautical R&D Goals, February, 1987, Executive Office
of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy "... key
technologies for advancing supersonic cruise capabilities have not been
aggressively pursued by the U.S. since 1971 termination of the U.S.

175

-6-

Supersonic Transport program. However, the NASA- funded Supersonic Cruise
Research program, which ended in 1981, established a constructive base for
further advancement. Operational experience with the Concorde and SR-71 also
provides a stepping stone for a second-generation supersonic transport."
The Aeronautical Policy Review Ccmmittee believes that "the depth of foreign
aeronautical resolve and the concerted national effort required to preserve
American competitiveness are still largely underestimated. Sustained U.S.
leadership will require greater achievement by all sectors — government,
industry, and academia. Both the opportunity and challenge are unprecedented.
Accordingly, the Ccmnittee believes that this challenge to our
competitiveness is so important — not just to the nation's diverse aeronautics
industry, but to the nation as a whole — that it now issues this call to
action. ... A decision to go forward with research on an aerospace plane was
announced by President Reagan in his State of the Union address on
February 4, 1986. The National Aero-Space Plane program, a bold new
technology initiative to carry out the decision, is being conducted jointly
by DOD and NASA. By the turn of the century, an air-breathing vehicle could
take off from an airport runway and fly between 5 and 25 times the speed of
sound to the edge of the earth's atmosphere and into low earth orbit. The
plane would return to a conventional runway."

Pratt & Whitney has been and is eagerly and fully involved in all of these
activities .

A very realistic question arises, "why would anyone want to have an aircraft
powered by an engine burning liquid hydrogen?"

176

-7-

First, liquid hydrogen provides more heating value per pound than any other
fuel. This means that a given amount of hydrogen fuel should be able to
propel an airplane faster or farther than the same amount of any other fuel.
Hydrogen, though, is the least dense of all fuels, and an aircraft would need
relatively large fuel tanks. The theoretical performance advantage of
hydrogen, therefore, can be obtained only if there are sufficiently light
fuel tanks, and there is an airplane with low aerodynamic drag.

Second, liquid hydrogen provides far more cooling capacity than any other
fuel — some 20 times that of regular jet fuel. This is an important factor
for very high speed aircraft. Hydrogen cooling of the aircraft will be
required to withstand the intense aerodynamic heating associated with very
high speed flight in the upper atmosphere.

Finally, we can improve existing jet engine cycles if they are designed to
use the unique properties of hydrogen. Studies show that specific impulse, a
measure of propulsion effectiveness, favors air-breathing, hydrogen- fueled
engines; air-breathing so that the oxidizer needn't be carried along, and
hydrogen because of its high heating value and excellent cooling capacity.
Turbojet engines are attractive to about Mach 3, ramjets to Mach 7, Scramjets
(supersonic combustion ramjets) to Mach 20 and rockets above that.

The use of hydrogen is not without its engineering challenges. Liquid
hydrogen must be stored at about -425 °F; it is an extreme cryogenic. Before
it can be pumped, the pump and the lines to the pump must be cooled to this
temperature. Once the engine is started, the continuing flow keeps the lines
and pump cool. The tank, inlet lines, and pump must be well insulated to
prevent the buildup of ice on the outside due to condensation of air and
water from the atmosphere.

177

-8-

Because of the cryogenic nature of the fuel, elastomers don't work as seals
for joints, so new sealing techniques must be developed. Also, thermal
expansion and contraction in the fuel system is unusually large, so special
designs are required to keep joints tight and avoid overstress.

Some metals become embrittled when subjected to hydrogen at certain pressures
and temperatures, and some metals become embrittled due to low temperature
alone. Other metals have improved properties at low temperatures. Tests are
necessary to characterize each of the materials used.

Like just about any fuel, liquid hydrogen is a safe fuel if properly handled.
Hydrogen is very predictable. One has to design specifically for hydrogen
with its unique properties, and, anticipating failures, design in a fail-safe
manner. Safety rules must be followed.

Liquid hydrogen within a tank is completely inert unless mixed with air, and
normally the gas above the liquid is gaseous hydrogen. As long as proper
tank pressure is maintained, no air can get in. If heat leaks into liquid
hydrogen tanks, hydrogen boils off, and the pressure must be relieved.

If liquid hydrogen is spilled on the ground, it boils as it cools the ground,
and generates cold hydrogen vapor. When first evaporated, it has about the
same density as air and stays near the ground. As soon as the gas is warmed
a little, it becomes enormously buoyant. It rises quickly and dissipates
rapidly. Thus, while spilled liquid at first produces a hazardous fuel-air
mixture, it dissipates rapidly.

Gaseous hydrogen does not ignite spontaneously when mixed with air unless the
mixture is heated to 1,000°F. It can, however, be ignited by a spark.

178

-9-

Our test facilities all provide plentiful ventilation, especially around the
top of the test stands, to allow rapid dissipation of leaking fuel and to
prevent confinement of burning, expanding gases, thereby preventing
detonations. At Pratt & Whitney, we've been working successfully with
hydrogen for years — first in the "Suntan" project, then with the RL-10
engine, and now with NASP. The 282 firings of the RL-10 in space and the
literally thousands of test firings on the ground are testament to that
success .

It's too early to tell just how important a fuel hydrogen will be in the
future. But it holds great potential if it can be made economically from
renewable energy sources, as called for in this bill.

The future of a hydrogen aircraft or, indeed, a hydrogen based economy is
really based on two factors.

As long as petroleum or natural gas is generally available, hydrogen will be
too expensive. Second, when hydrocarbons are not plentiful, then the cost of
producing hydrogen and the infrastructure required to support it must be
looked at in relation to other forms of energy, such as coal. We believe,
though, that while we're not in an energy crisis, it's a good time to begin
to work on some of the major questions that must be answered if hydrogen is
to realize its promise. We must learn how to make it cheaper!

We need to support work that leads to the economic production of hydrogen,
and to work out problems of distribution and storage — as called for in
Title I of this bill. And we must consider the total energy consumed and the
effect of hydrogen production on the environment.

179

-10-

Research and development for aircraft and engines must focus on achieving the
long durability and safety now associated with commercial and military
aircraft flying today. We believe hydrogen fuel will be required for
hypersonic flight vehicles. Yet what is learned from application in
hypersonic vehicles also will be useful for subsonic and supersonic aircraft
designs, especially in the study of materials compatibility with cryogenic
hydrogen.

Liquid hydrogen is an excellent fuel, yet we must assure safety in
distribution and in use. They say engine designers love hydrogen. We do.
But considerable work must be done before this highly efficient fuel will be
in widespread use.

When hydrogen is economically available and there are systems for its safe
distribution, storage, and use, you can be sure we'll be there to build
dependable, high performance aircraft engines.

Thank you.

180

Senator Ford. Thank you very much, Mr. Marshall.

Both of you indicated some problem with storage. Mr. Langhoff,
how do we store solar energy?

Dr. Langhoff. We store solar energy in the form of hydrogen,
sir, in my view.

Senator Ford. There wouldn't be any direct generation. You
could collect it, transmit it to Earth, but solar energy would have
to be used as a renewable to get hydrogen.

You indicated 100 square miles of ocean water — 500 square miles
if you needed it — deriving from that what now?

Dr. Langhoff. That derives from the energy and the incident
light flux in an average day on that area. We get about a kilowatt
per square meter of power in solar energy coming down. So, it is a
simple exercise if you know how much the national economy uses
in a year's time.

Senator Ford. The general public — when you talk about energy,
it comes through a line, and you flip a switch, and that's basically
all. They see the space ship or rockets, and they understand the
propulsion that is there.

How do we describe this and the use of this in general terms that
the general public would understand?

Dr. Langhoff. The general public and, indeed, all of us need to
know that if you take the national power usage and attribute it to
individual — that is to say, to ask what is the power utilization per
individual — it comes to 10 kilowatts approximately. If each individ-
ual had to pay out of his own pocket directly — he does pay for it. If
he had to pay that for one day, that would be $25 a day approxi-
mately. We are each paying $25 a day not directly to our light bill,
but in the goods — the energy content in the goods and services that
we make use of. The public I think can understand that number. It
is $12,000 a year per person. Each one of us has made the commit-
ment— we have authorized someone by circumstance to expend
that amount of dollars.

Another way to understand it is if you look at the nonrenewables
that we are using up in meeting that energy need. If you need that
much, 10 kilowatts per person, you have to burn at least 100
pounds of wood a day per person. You have personally authorized,
through going along with the way our economy is set up, the burn-
ing of 100 pounds of wood. Or 70 pounds of coal would be the equiv-
alent amount, or coming down into natural gas, 40 or so pounds of
natural gas per person per day.

I think at that level the average person can understand what is
involved in the way we live and the amount of thermal energy we
need to heat this cavernous room or to drive the lights that are on
us.

If we continue to use this — and I perhaps don't need to tell this
to this committee. If we continue to use this energy at that rate, we
will soon come to the end of it.

Solar energy continues to come down to us, and it is dissipated in
driving our atmosphere, driving the air and making the winds that
we are familiar with. If we take only a very tiny, small fraction of
that energy, we can very easily meet our total energy needs. And if
25 percent is the conversion factor, as it is and as the Assistant
Secretary has indicated to us in her testimony, it seems to me we

181

need an all-out effort to take that very small fraction of the total
solar input and turn it into satisfying our energy need rather than
burning that methane, that natural gas, which we may need for
something later on downstream. That is a gift that has been given
to us by photosynthesis and by geological time, the long time in
which it has been laid down. We may very much need those re-
serves for special application later on. We can take our energies
from the solar energy that comes down.

And indeed, our company is very much engaged, as are other
companies, in maximizing these conversion efficiencies.

Senator Ford. Mr. Marshall, you talked about the storage of
liquid hydrogen and the problem that might — you said it was safe
if it was handled right. Most of the problem is when things are
handled wrong.

Do you have the storage of liquid hydrogen worked out with no
problem? Say, aircraft whatever other use for it might be — has
that storage been worked out? We heard earlier where there were
tanks on the plane, then it was included inside I think, or normally
where jet fuel A type I guess is being used today.

Mr. Marshall. I think there is a good understanding of those
problems, but no, I don't think they have been worked out. Storage
is a real technical concern.

The concern that I would have is — let's say, at airport sites one
has to have liquid hydrogen available for the many planes that are
coming in and out and anticipate more usage than perhaps is actu-
ally used. So, there is excess hydrogen available. At those tempera-
tures of minus 425 degrees Fahrenheit, there is a tremendous heat
loss. There would be tremendous heat loss even in those tanks in
the airplane or very special requirements to insulate those tanks.
So, my concern was from a technical viewpoint. There is a lot of
energy consumed in getting hydrogen to that liquid state, and if
you have to keep it for long periods of time, you are using a lot of
energy to do so.

Senator Ford. We heard some testimony earlier today about the
funds that were necessary, or at least some of the funds that were
necessary, by the Federal Government. Do you all have any figure?
Of course, the more money, the more you get to do. But there is a
limit for efficiency and the cooperation of industrial cooperation.
Do you all have any magic figure in your mind that we ought to be
looking toward as we discuss these three pieces of legislation?

I don't want to put you on the spot, but we need your input be-
cause you know what it takes to keep the research and develop-
ment moving forward at a good pace. We hope that the money we
spend will be used efficiently, that we don't throw a lot of money at
any one thing. I don't want to nickel and dime it to death either.
So, is there some mean that we could go by?

Dr. Langhoff. If I may take the extreme case

Senator Ford. Sure.

Dr. Langhoff [continuing]. Some years ago I worked for U.S.
Army Missile Command at the time that the NASA program to
reach the moon was in full scale. At that point the NASA budget
was some $6 billion a year or so.

It seems to me the problem that we are facing here, in terms of
constructing a national hydrogen fuel technology, certainly should

182

carry the same weight as the program to reach the moon. And so,
ultimately we are talking — in terms of scale now, we are talking
about government expenditures in that range to bring these tech-
nologies

Senator Ford. Are you talking about annually or over a period?

Dr. Langhoff. I am talking about an annual budget, sir, yes.

Senator Ford. You have gone to the ridiculous at $6 billion here.
How about the sublime? Can you come down to the bottom of that?

Dr. Langhoff. Yes. I have thrown that on the table certainly as
something to

Senator Ford. I understood you gave the extreme.

Dr. Langhoff. Yes.

Senator Ford. Do you have any down side, what would be the
least amount that otherwise we could just forget it because there
wouldn't be sufficient funds in there for us

Dr. Langhoff. No, no. I think what is very much needed is a
program that carries forward the DOE sort of funding that has
been carried on now. DOE is supporting science in my view. And
so, a factor of 10 over the annual budget that is now allocated for
energy related research by DOE certainly is an appropriate level to
make a meaningful impact. To moving the science into the technol-
ogy, a factor of 10 is a usual figure of merit.

Senator Ford. Yes.

Dr. Langhoff. And it would be very useful.

Senator Ford. Mr. Marshall, do you have any figure or anything
that you

Mr. Marshall. I don't have any numerical figure in mind. And
relative to title I, I think it is very significant that monies of the
order that are mentioned in title I be seed money to get something
significantly started in the hydrogen production, storage and distri-
bution research.

With respect to title II, I agree with the gentleman from NASA.
I think a meaningful airplane demonstration, the $100 million
would probably be woefully low for such a thing. Some meaningful
ground demonstrations and partial flight operational characteris-
tics certainly could be demonstrated.

Mr. Parker. Mr. Chairman?

Senator Ford. Yes.

Mr. Parker. If I may make just one comment regarding the
budget items regarding hydrogen production. In light of not having
sufficient funding from the government for hydrogen research, per-
haps if the government would provide tax incentives for the pri-
vate sector to do research, this could supplement government fund-
ing.

Senator Ford. I found in the last six years that we have seen a
gradual and sometimes not so gradual decline in research and de-
velopment in all arenas. I find that when oil prices come down, we
stop buying oil for SPR, you know — all these things. And even
though the funding is off budget and we will make a profit off of it
at some point where we begin to sell it, it doesn't make a lot of
sense to this Senator. And we keep trust funds on budget so you
can spend for other things, such as foreign aid and social programs.

183

We all have our own way. And if you get 51 votes, you win; if
you don't, you lose. So, I have adjusted to that reasonably well be-
cause I'm a very poor loser.

If we could have a combination of Federal funding and tax
breaks as it relates to research, it would get industry and govern-
ment working closer together. And technology transfer is a very
sensitive issue. And we got into that in hearings the other day. So,
technology transfer and how you do it — the best method to be sure
that that is accommodated. There are too many things going on out
there and too many smart people that are not being used. They are
not given the opportunity to be the nut that walks down the street
that has the biggest invention. You know what I am talking about.
He is way out there and he is working on these things. And I am
delighted to see him.

And somehow or another we need to enthuse and encourage
those people, and particularly industry has some interest in keep-
ing us ahead. Progress is our most important product. You have
heard that advertised for a long time. And our progress hasn't been
moving very fast.

I guess you all heard me say about the superconductor/supercol-
lider basic breakthrough. It is ours. We are three to five years
ahead of anyone else. And we will sit around while other countries
go ahead and work at it. And we allowed it to get away from us.

Mr. Parker. And one other point I might make. I just returned
from West Germany. And the West German government and West
German industries are working in a group effort. They are ready to
allocate one billion Deutschmarks, or approximately $625 million
for hydrogen research.

Senator Ford. We almost lost a war over the ability to put things
together and derive gas from coal and that sort of thing.

You gentlemen are mighty interesting and whet the appetite
some. So, what we will do is try to take your testimony now, and
begin to look at it, and see how we can apply that to the three
pieces of legislation.

There may be some questions. This has been one of those days
where we have the debt ceiling up and a Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
fix on the floor, and a few things like that. It has been difficult to
get many of the members here. So, there may be questions in writ-
ing, and I hope that you will accept those and respond in a timely
fashion — probably within the next two weeks. Outside of that, we
will be then going to markup on these bills.

So, thank you all very much, and this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:46 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[Union Carbide Corp. submitted the following statement for the
record:]

184

Statement of Union Carbide Corporation

submitted to the

Subcommittee on Energy, Research and Development

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U. S. Senate

September 23, 1987

The Federal Role in Hydrogen R5D

My name is Louis B. Batta, and I am the Business Manager,
Contractual Research and Development for the Linde Division of Union
Carbide Corporation.

The Linde Division of Union Carbide is an industrial gas company
with significant involvement in the production and distribution of
gaseous and liquid hydrogen. Linde is a large producer and it
supplies hydrogen to a variety of customers in the electronics, metal,
food, chemical, oil refining, and aerospace industries. However, in
terms of the total industrial production of hydrogen, the largest
producers are the ammonia and methanol producers and oil refiners who
produce gaseous hydrogen for captive uses in their own processes. We
continually monitor conditions that could affect the merchant market
for hydrogen, including such factors as the availability and cost of
feedstocks and electric power, the demand for hydrogen, and the
research advances that may effect the supplies, distribution and
markets for hydrogen.

185

Today, the primary source of hydrogen is natural gas. The amount
used tor hydrogen production is a very small traction of the total
natural gas consumed by the residential, commercial, and industrial
sectors. Natural gas currently is abundant and available at
reasonable prices; however, the potential for a sustained energy
supply interruption in the short term, and the expected depletion of
conventional fossil energy resources over the long term, may
ultimately require the development of new commercial sources for
hydrogen. These sources could include coal, tar sand, and the
electrolytic dissociation of water using electric power generated by
hydro, solar, and in the even longer range, nuclear fusion.

Hydrogen has several properties—long distance transportability,
ease of storage, and enviromental acceptability-that make it
attractive for use as a fuel. It cannot, however, be viewed as an
energy resource because it requires more energy to produce hydrogen
than it provides as a useful energy source. This is particularly true
of liquid hydrogen since the liquefaction process is also highly
energy intensive. We do not believe that hydrogen will ever come to
be regarded as a reasonable or satisfactory solution to the decline in
conventional energy resources. In fact, the potential for the
development of materials which are super -conducting at relatively high
temperatures could provide the technology for the transmission of
electricty at much higher efficiencies. This would certainly reduce
the attractivness of using electric power to produce hydrogen for
basic energy purposes.

186

-3-

We believe that liquid hydrogen will continue to have an important
role as a transportation fuel in applications where there is no
possibility for substitution. Ihese applications include space
transport such as the shuttle and the proposed heavy-lift vehicle, and
high-performance hypersonic aircraft such as the national aerospace
plane. In contrast, a recent NASA-sponsored study dealing with the
next generation of high-speed civil air transport vehicles concluded
that the very property of liquid hydrogen-- its low density-- that
makes it the premier fuel for space transport, makes it unattractive
for civil air transport. Hydrogen fuel would take up too much
passenger space and, hence, its use would not be economical.

Union Carbide, and others in the industrial gases industry, have
the technologies and the facilities necessary to serve the existing
hydrogen markets, including the resources for production,
liquefaction, transport, storage, and safe use. We can predict market
growth reliably and, because of this confidence, are willing and able
to make the necessary investments in applied research, technology,
production plants, and equipment required for the commercial market as
it is projected to grow. In our view, Federal incentives in this area
are neither needed nor warranted.

Government incentives, however, may be required to stimulate the
development of new, non-commercial hydrogen applications that
represent a high risk for private investment because of technical or
market uncertanties. Government support may also be required to

187

-4-

reduce the risks associated with building the production capabilities
necessary to supply a rapid growth in demand for liquid hydrogen for
space applications.

In summary, Union Carbide's views regarding the need for
developing technology pertaining to new uses for hydrogen and new
production processes are:

o The industrial gas industry can continue to provide the
technology and financial resources necessary to serve the
merchant hydrogen market so long as conventional feedstocks
such as natural gas or natural gas condensates are available.

o Development of new technologies for producing hydrogen from
non -conventional sources such as renewable resources may
ultimately require Government incentives and/or sponsorship.

o The demand for liquid hydrogen for space transport and
hypersonic vehicle use is not completely defined. It is
potentially huge, but somewhat uncertain. This poses a high
risk for the private investment necessary to develop the
specialized technologies and facilities that may be required
to satisfy this unique market. Some form of government
support may be necessary to mitigate the technical and
financial risks.

188

-5-

In the immediate future, Federal research and development on
hydrogen should be tailored to and carefully focused on the
specific mission or project, and undertaken as part of the
overall project development.

APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions

Questions to DOE
9/23/87 Hearing on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Research

1) How much money was appropriated to fuel cells and to hydrogen
research in FY87? How much has been spent? Has DOE proposed
any deferrals or recissions of moneys in either of these
areas? If there are deferrals, does DOE intend to spend the
left-over money in these areas during the next fiscal year?
What are the budget requests in these areas for FY88? How
much money has been spent _to date on fuel cells and hydrogen
research?

2) How does DOE coordinate and integrate the various elements of

its research efforts in hydrogen and fuel cells, especially
in view of the fact that much of the research is spread among
several departmental divisions?

3) How does DOE coordinate its research in fuel cells and
hydrogen with NASA, DOT, Commerce Department and other
Federal agencies?

4) The Department's effectiveness in pursuing basic, long-term,
high-risk research and development depends largely on
technology transfer. Could you provide specific examples of
where this has taken place? How successful would you rate
your technology transfer programs? How do you coordinate
with the private sector on other matters, such as program
planning and priorities?

5) Do you think that, 5 or 10 years from now, we will be buying
fuel cells from Germany or Japan, or do you think we'll have
our own commercial product by then? I ask this question
because I am concerned about a statement made by the Office

(189)
82-464 0-88—7

190

of Technology Assessment in their report on new Electric
Power Technologies (July 1985) that European and Japanese
vendors, assisted by their respective governments, have been
more successful than U.S. vendors in developing new energy
technologies. Why do you think this is the case?

6) Do we participate in any joint ventures with foreign

countries on fuel cell or hydrogen research? Who owns the
patents in these instances? Is it possible that we may be
exporting our patents to the detriment of our own commercial
interests? What should be done about technology transfer to
our foreign competitors?

191

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585
January 26, 1988

Honorable James A. McClure
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator McClure:

On September 23, 1987, Donna R. Fitzpatrick, Assistant Secretary for
Conservation and Renewable Energy, appeared before the Energy and Natural
Resources Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development to discuss S. 1294,
S. 1295, and S. 1296, bills relating to the Department's hydrogen research and
fuel cell programs. Ms. Fitzpatrick was accompanied by Robert L. San Martin,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy.

Following the hearing, vou submitted written questions through Chairman Ford
for our response. Enclosed are the answers to those questions, which also
have been sent to the Committee staff.

If you have any questions, please have your staff call Michael Gilmore on
586-4277. He will be happy to assist.

Sincerely,

r^^ Robert G. Rabben
sjf Assistant General Counsel
£s for Legislation

Enclosures

''ci-n*-*' Celebrating the US Constitution Bicentennial — 1787-1987

192

Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585
January 26, 193 8

Honorable Wendell H. Ford

Chairman

Subcommittee on Energy Research and

Development
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

On September 23, 1987, Donna R. Fitzpatrick, Assistant Secretary for
Conservation and Renewable Energy, appeared before your subcommittee to
discuss S. 1294, S. 1295, and S. 1296, bills relating to the Department's
hydrogen research and fuel cell programs. Ms. Fitzpatrick was accompanied
by Robert L. San Martin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy.

Following that hearing, Senator James A. McClure submitted through you written
questions for our response to supplement the record. Enclosed are the answers
to those questions which have also been sent to Senator McClure and to the
Committee staff

If you have any questions, please have your staff call Michael Gilmore on
586-4277. He will be happy to assist.

Sincerely,

_-#?3g£.

X Robert G. Rabben
^f Assistant General Counsel
for Legislation

Enclosures

*'<*.„— "' Celebrating the U.S. Constitution Bicentennial — 1787-1987

193

QUESTION 1:

How much money was appropriated to fuel cells and
to hydrogen research in FY87? How much has been
spent? Has DOE proposed any deferrals or
rescissions of moneys in either of these areas?
If there are deferrals, does DOE intend to spend
the left-over money in these areas during the
next fiscal year? What are the budget requests
in these areas for FY88? How much money has
been spent t^o date on fuel cells and hydrogen
research?

ANSWER: DOE has been appropriated a total of $30. OM for fuel
cell research and $30. 2M for hydrogen research in FY
1987. The fuel cell program consists of $28. 1M for
fuel cell development for electric power generation
as part of DOE's Fossil Energy Program; $1.0M to
conduct research and development on fuel cells for
transportation systems including phosphoric acid and
Solid Polymer Electrolyte (also known as Proton
Exchange Membrane) fuel cells; and $0.8M for
fundamental research on fuel cells. The hydrogen
program consists of $27. 2M for non-mission-related
research and $3.0M for mission-related research. All
of these funds have been spent with the exception of
$8.9M in the Fossil Energy fuel cell program for
which agreements involving their expenditure are
currently under negotiation. There are no plans for
deferral or rescission of these funds.

194

The FY 1988 budget request included $5.2M for the
Fossil Energy fuel cell program and $0.4M for the
fuel cells for transportation effort. The hydrogen
research budget request for FY 1988 is approximately
the same as the FY 1987 appropriation.

The Department of Energy has spent $246. 4M on fossil-
energy-related fuel cell research and $9.6M for
transportation fuel cell research since 1980.
DOE has spent approximately $313M on hydrogen-
technology-related research since 1976.

195

QUESTION 2: How does DOE coordinate and integrate the various

elements of its research efforts in hydrogen and fuel
cells, especially in view of the fact that much of
the research is spread among several departmental
divisions?

ANSWER:

The hydrogen activities within DOE continue to be
coordinated through the Hydrogen Energy Coordinating
Committee (HECC) . This committee functions to
improve communications between various groups
performing research related to hydrogen. The HECC
holds meetings at which recent progress is reviewed,
and a formal talk on a current topic of interest to
hydrogen researchers is presented. Minutes are
prepared and distributed to attendees and other
interested persons. In addition, HECC publishes an
annual summary of hydrogen projects. A copy of the
most recent summary is attached.

The fuel cell programs are coordinated by various
means. Internal DOE coordination is accomplished by
quarterly meetings between the Fossil Energy,
Transportation, and Energy Storage staffs at which
program plans, proposals, and project status are
reviewed and discussed.

♦Committee Note. --The summary has been retained in Subcommittee files.

196

A National Fuel Cell Coordinating Group exists to share
information and coordinate programs among government
institutions and the private sector interests.
Participants in this effort include DOE project managers,
in addition to National Laboratory staffs, the Electric
Power Research Institute, the Gas Research Institute, and
private sector fuel cell developers. The DOE Energy
Materials Coordinating Committee is another forum for
coordination through its subcommittee on electrochemical
technology which reviews and coordinates materials-related
research within DOE, including research related to fuel
cells.

Finally, special activities are conducted as needed by DOE
or through professional societies such as the
Electrochemical Society. An example of such an activity is
the task force meeting on the role of "Interfaces in fuel
cell and metal-air battery electrochemical reactions" in
September 1987. The purpose of this meeting was to
consider problem areas in electrochemical science which
would benefit from new theoretical treatments and
experimental techniques and initiate dialogue between
individuals performing the fundamental research and those
concerned with electrochemical processes in energy
technologies .

197

QUESTION 3: How does DOE coordinate its research in fuel cells

and hydrogen with NASA, DOT, Commerce Department and
other Federal agencies?

ANSWER: Fuel cell research at other Federal agencies is

primarily coordinated through the National Fuel Cell
Coordinating Group (NFCCG) and the Interagency
Advanced Power Group (IAPG). The NFCCG, which
includes DOE, DOD, NASA, EPRI , and AGA, coordinates
programs and research projects among the various
public and private entities conducting fuel cell
research. The IAPG coordinates all projects in
power-related research and conducts meetings,
publishes project summaries, and establishes data
bases so that each agency can be apprised of the
research being conducted by others. Additional
coordination is achieved via an International Fuel
Cell meeting held annually; professional society
interactions through the Electrochemical Society,
such as special symposia; and direct interaction with
industry and universities.

DOE has held discussions with or visited project
offices at NASA, DARPA, the Air Force, and the Army
for the purpose of improving coordination of hydrogen
research programs. A five-year plan for hydrogen
activities is currently being developed with NASA and
other agencies, including DOD.

198

QUESTION 4: The Department's effectiveness in pursuing basic,

long-term, high-risk research and development depends
largely on technology transfer. Could you provide
specific examples of where this has taken place? How
successful would you rate your technology transfer
programs? How do you coordinate with the private
sector on other matters, such as program planning and
priorities?

ANSWER: The technology transfer programs for both fuel cells
and hydrogen activities are carefully planned and
integrated with input from the private sector and
have been successful. Examples of successful
technology transfer in these areas are discussed
below.

Currently, phosphoric acid fuel cells are being
offered by the International Fuel Cells Corporation
in two sizes, 11MW for electric utility power
generation and 200kW for on-site commercial and
industrial applications. Additionally, Westinghouse
is developing technology for a 1 . 5MW demonstration
power plant. The technology base for these
applications was established through cooperative
research within the Department. Molten carbonate,
solid oxide, and proton exchange membrane systems are
farther from commercialization, but private sector
developers are planning market entry in the future.

Our research on membranes and catalysts for proton
exchange membrane fuel cells has attracted

199

considerable industrial interest. This interest has
resulted in several agreements which are either in
place or are in the final stages of negotiation.
Both Dupont and Dow Chemical have supplied membranes
and are working closely with DOE researchers in
investigating proton exchange membrane technology
fuel cells for transportation. Additionally, General
Motors has been interested in the DOE fuel cell
program since its inception and has contracted with
the Los Alamos National Laboratory to conduct
research into methanol fuel processing technologies.

Several spin-off technologies resulting from DOE
hydrogen research have resulted in commercial
products including metal hydride thermally driven
compressors, static feed water electrolyzers for
regenerative electric energy storage, solid polymer
electrolyte electrolysis technology for generator
cooling, and extraterrestrial liquefaction of
hydrogen via metal hydrides for component cooling.

200

QUESTION 5: Do you think that, 5 or 10 years from now, we will be
buying fuel cells from Germany or Japan, or do you
think we'll have our own commercial product by then?
I ask this question because I am concerned about a
statement made by the Office of Technology Assessment
in their report on new Electric Power Technologies
(July 1985) that European and Japanese vendors,
assisted by their respective governments, have been
more successful than U.S. vendors in developing new
energy technologies. Why do you think this is the
case?

ANSWER: The United States currently leads the world in fuel
cell technology, with some products in the early
stages of market entry. While it is difficult to
predict the future, we believe that several
other U.S. fuel cell products could well be on the
market in five to ten years, in addition to products
manufactured in Europe and Japan.

Multi-national efforts by industry make it difficult
to differentiate the progress of individual country
activities. However, we expect the U.S. to remain
very competitive in this international market.

201

QUESTION 6: Do we participate in any joint ventures with foreign
countries on fuel cell or hydrogen research? Who
owns the patents in these instances? Is it possible
that we may be exporting our patents to the detriment
of our own commercial interests? What should be done
about technology transfer to our foreign competitors?

ANSWER:

The Department of Energy does not participate in any
joint ventures with specific individual foreign
countries on fuel cell or hydrogen research.
However, we do participate in International Energy
Agency (IEA) agreements on some activities. For
example, in hydrogen research, DOE participates in
task share agreements through the IEA. In these
commitments, DOE agrees to share research information
with the participating countries in exchange for in-
kind information on other hydrogen research projects.
In all cases, the U.S. has protected patent rights to
all technology developed in this country, and
participation through such agreements is viewed as a
way to leverage R&D funds during these difficult
fiscal times.

The Office of Fossil Energy also has some
international cooperative agreements in these areas,
but they mainly involve the exchange of information
at this time. The U.S. retains all of its rights in

82-464 0-88—8

202

these activities as well. U.S. companies, on their
own, have been pursuing the development of ties with
foreign companies. Wherever possible, patent rights
to technology developed in this country should be
protected.

203

POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
Hearing on S. 1294, S. 1295 and S. 1296
September 23, 1987

Questions from Senator Spark Matsunaga

For Mr. Frank Spillers, President, Industrial Fuel Cell Association

1. In your testimony, you suggested that the time may be approaching
to formulate performance and manufacturing standards for fuel cells.

(a) Please clarify whether this recommendation is confined to
phosphoric acid fuel cells, as distinguished fron molten carbonate or
solid electrolyte types still under development?

(b) Do you suggest that the Industrial Fuel Cell Association
serve in an advisory capacity to the Bureau of Standards as these
performance and manufacturing standards are being formulated?

204

Questions to Outside Witnesses
9/23/87 Hearing on Fuel Colls and Hydrogen Research

1) Do you feel that the Department of Energy is effective in
coordinating its research (in fuel cells and hydrogen) to be
responsive to commercial interests?

2) Do you feel that DOE's programs advance the research and
development to a sufficient degree of maturity to enable the
private sector to make use of DOE's work? Or would you
rather see DOE take the work into a more advanced stage?

3) Do you feel that DOE is doing a good job in transferring
these technologies to the private sector? What improvements
would you suggest in the area of technology transfer?

4) Is there any sentiment out in the private sector that,
because DOE focuses primarily on long-term, high-risk
research and development, that most of DOE's work is useless'
Or do you feel that their work is meaningful and beneficial
to the overall advancement of fuel cell and hydrogen
technolog ies?

205

* % INDUSTRIAL FUEL CELL ASSOCIATION

,- IFCA > Suite 200

"o £ 1627 K Street, NW

oN 0q* Washington, D.C. 20006

November 16, 1987

The Honorable Wendell H. Ford

Cha i rman

Subcommittee on Energy Research

and Development
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 80510-6150

Dear Senator Ford:

Enclosed you will find my answers to the
follow-up questions posed by the members of your
Subcommittee, Senators Matsunaga and McClure,
regarding my recent testimony on September 23, 1987
on S. 189-4, S. 1895, and S. 1896. These proposed
bills related to fuel cell and hydrogen research
and development.

I wish to express my thanks to you and the
other members of the Subcommittee for having
allowed me the opportunity to present my testimony
last September and to respond to the follow-up
questions. I would be pleased to reply to any
additional questions regarding my testimony, the
status of fuel cell technology, or the needs of the
fuel cell community that your Subcommittee may wish
to have answered.

Frank W. Spiller;
President

206

MR. FRANK SPILLERS' ANSUERS TO QUESTIONS FROM THE SENATE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

QUESTION NUMBER 1 : In your testimony, you suggested that the
time may be approaching to formulate performance and
manufacturing standards for fuel cells. (a) Please clarify
whether this recommendation is confined to phosphoric acid
fuel cells* as distinguished from molten carbonate or solid
electrolyte types still under development? (b) Do you
suggest that the Industrial Fuel Cell Association serve in an
advisory capacity to the Bureau of Standards as these
performance and manufacturing standards are being formulated?

rhis

inererore, i urge uongress to nelp initiate the process o
developing fuel cell standards as soon as possible. Thi
•lork should be initiated soon, if we as a nation want t
sncourage the domestic use and manufacture of fuel cells.

As a first step, I urge that a joint Federa 1 -i ndustr y
study be started that deals with the applicability to PAFC
(and other fuel cell technologies in the future) of existing
standards, (such as for piping, electrical, construction,
environmental, etc.). Such a study would quickly identify
acceptable standards that would not have to be created from

scratch ,

ANSUIER TO PART b: In my testimony to the Subcommittee on
September 23, 1987, I strongly recommended that a start be
made on fuel cell performance and manufacturing standards.
Although not explicitly stated in my testimony, I do
recommend that, during the initial phases, the leadership of
this activity reside with the Federal government, in
particular, with the National Bureau of Standards, working in
concert with the private sector.

207

The Industrial Fuel Cell Association (IFCA) would
welcome the opportunity to work with the Bureau of Standards
in an advisory capacity to initiate the process of
identifying and formulating standards for the fuel cell
community. Since the membership of our Association includes
potential users from a variety of industries as well as
suppliers of fuel cells, it can make immediate and
significant contributions to the preparation of needed
standards .

In addition to IFCA, we would recommend inviting other
non-governmental institutions and groups, such as the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, that have a strong
interest in fuel cell technologies and standards, to
contribute their expertise and talents. We also recommend
that other elements of the Executive Branch, (specifically,
the Fossil and Conservation elements of the Department of
Energy, U.S. AID, etc.), be invited to play a role in this
ac t i vi ty .

208

QUESTION NUMBER 1 : Do you feel that the Department of Energy
is effective in coordinating its research (in fuel cell and
hydrogen) to be responsive to commercial interests?

ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER 1: In the past, the Industrial Fuel
Cell Association has taken the position that coordination
among the programs within the Department of Energy (DOE)
having responsibility for fuel cell R&.D has been inadequate.
We see no reason to change our view of this issue. The
Association sees even less coordination taking place between
the fuel cell and hydrogen R&.D groups.

Frankly, we are concerned that the DOE Fossil program,
sponsor of the largest fuel cell R&.D program within the
Department, may be overstepping its role. For example, the
Fossil program is undertaking transportation-related fuel
cell R&.D which, in our opinion, is best conducted under the
aegis of DOE-Conservat ion ' s Transportation program.
Likewise, industrial applications of fuel cells are better
served by the Office of Industrial Programs under
Conservation. IFCA is concerned that the appropriateness of
this research and its value and timeliness to the private
sector will be in jeopardy because of Fossil's failure to
adequately coordinate its work.

209

QUESTION NUMBER 5: Do you feel that DOE ' s programs advance

the research and development to a sufficient degree of

maturity to enable the private sector to make use of DOE ' s

work? Or would you rather see DOE take the work into a more
advanced stage?

ANSUER TO QUESTION 2: IFCA believes that the DOE program in
fuel cells is too narrowly focused on meeting the needs of
the electric and gas utility industries. DOE should be
supporting fuel cell research for other applications and
markets, particularly, for transportation and industrial
uses, in addition to the utility-oriented R&-D .

In the recent past, IFCA offered to cost-share with
DOE/Fossil studies of industrial applications for fuel cells.
The Association was turned down! Subseguent 1 y , we offered to
cost-share a program to test fuel cell systems at industrial
sites, such as in chlor-alkali plants and steel mills.
Again, we were turned down by DOE Fossil.

industrial users obtain hands-on operational experience .
fuel cells in their own factory environment, an opportunity
IFCA was attempting to provide, and one that DOE has
rejected. Congress can play a crucial role in the future of

without such

advocate the following

«. w. . .«ww w. w ww...w w » ■ .w ww w. wv«ww7 w..w w..w w..w~ ww._ ..w

rejected. Congress can play a crucial role in the future o
this technology by changing DOE ' s attitude; without sucl
intervention, the use and production of fuel cell systems ii
this country may be seriously delayed. Specifically, wi

aHunratp +: h es f nl Inuinn!

-DOE's Conservation programs, with the assistance of the
Fossil Energy program and industry, should be asked to
analyze the potential for fuel cells in the industrial
and transportation applications. If warranted, these
program offices should then define and initiate fuel
cell R&D to encompass these applications.

-As a crucial step in the process of enabling private
sector suppliers to bring fuel cell technology to the
market place, DOE-Conservat ion ' s Office of Industrial
Programs should be asked to define a program of cost-
shared, on-site testing of fuel cells in industrial
sett i ngs .

210

QUESTION NUMBER 3: Do you feel that DOE is doing a good job

in transferring these technologies to the private sector?
What improvements would you suggest in the areas of
technology transfer?

ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER 3; The Association believes that

the DOE Fossil program office is performing an inadequate job
in transferring fuel cell technology to the private sector.
This is because its primary focus is on long-term research,
rather than on a balanced R&D program. In our opinion, a
balanced fuel cell R&D program would comprise:

-Development and testing of fuel cells in user
env i ronments

-R&D aimed at a broader range of applications and
markets, as well as the electric and gas utilities

-Greatly strengthened efforts in applied fuel cell and
electrochemical research, especially that being
conducted under Renewable Energy's Energy Storage
program

-Initiation of an effective technical information
dissemination (TID) activity. (DOE conducts essentially
no fuel cell TID program today!)

-Increased involvement in DOE ' s fuel cell R&D efforts of
small, high-technology businesses interested in
commercializing the technology as rapidly as possible.

211

QUESTION NUMBER ^; Is there any sentiment out in the private
sector that, because DOE focuses primarily on long-term,
high-risk research and development, that most of DOE ' s work
is useless? Or do you feel that their work is meaningful and
beneficial to the overall advancement of fuel cell and
hydrogen technologies?

ANSWER TO QUESTION NUMBER <* : We believe that the DOE fuel
cell program is not useless — far from it. However, we are
concerned that it is not as cost-effective as it can and
should be. Let me explain as follows:

The Association and its members would like to see an end
to the Federal role in fuel cell R&D as soon as possible. By
arbitrarily continuing its emphasis on long-term R&.D for
applications that are likely to develop and mature some time
well into the next century, if at all, DOE-Fossil's fuel cell
program promises to be around for a long time. By contrast,
a balanced R&.D effort, of the type conducted by many other
research programs within the Department of Energy and
recommended by IFCA, would support the private sector's
efforts to commercialize the technology in this country as
soon as possible. Consequently, federal R&.D support would be
provided over a much shorter period of time. Moreover,
because commercialization of fuel cells would take place at
an earlier time than under the current R&.D program, the
balanced R&.D program will also result in bringing funds back
into the Treasury in the form of tax revenues.

Overall, the balanced approach is likely to be less of a
burden to the American taxpayer and will enable the federal
government to phase out its fuel cell R&.D involvement at an
ear 1 ier date.

212

Questions to Outside Witnesses
9/23/87 Hearing on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Research

1) Do you feel that the Department of Energy is effective in
coordinating its research (in fuel cells and hydrogen) to be
responsive to commercial interests?

2) Do you feel that DOE ' s programs advance the research and
development to a sufficient degree of maturity to enable the
private sector to make use of DOE's work? Or would you
rather see DOE take the work into a more advanced stage?

3) Do you feel that DOE is doing a good job in transferring
these technologies to the private sector? What improvements
would you suggest in the area of technology transfer?

4) Is there any sentiment out in the private sector that,
because DOE focuses primarily on long-term, high-risk
research and development, that most of DOE's work is useless?
Or do you feel that their work is meaningful and beneficial
to the overall advancement of fuel cell and hydrogen
technolog ies?

213

THEFUELC6LL

USERS GROUP

Oh THE ELECTRIC I THJTY 1N1X STKY , lr>

1101 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 700

Washington, DC 20036
202/4570868

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Stephen J Sweeney
Chairman. President & CEO
Boston Edison Company
Chairman

Walter E Canney
Administrator
Lincoln Electric System
Vice Chairman

Bob Bergland

Executive Vice President & General Manager

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association

James E Bruce
Chairman of the Board
Idaho Power Company

William B Ellis
Chairman. President & CEO
Northeast Utilities

William B Harmon
Senior Vice President
Southern Company Services. Inc

Arthur Hauspurg

Chairman. President & CEO

Consol idated Edison Company of New York . Inc

Lawrence S Hobart
Executive Director
American Public Power Association

Stephen A Mallard

Senior Vice President

Public Service Electric & Gas Company

William McCollam, Jr.

President

Edison Electric Institute

Lcroy Michael. Jr
Associate General Manager
Salt River Project

Norman E Nichols

Assistant General Manager, Power

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Antone ) Rude

Assistant General Manager. Electrical Operations

United Power Association

Lars Sjunnesson

Director. Research & Development

Sydkrafl. AB

Cameron H Daley
Vice President
Boston Edison Company
President

Jeffrey A Serfass
Technology Transitu:
Executive Director

133? ;:J7 i\ am 8 35

November 20, 1987

Senator Wendell H. Ford
Chairman, Subcommittee on

Energy Research and Development
Senate Committee on Energy and

Natural Resources
Washington, DC 20510-6150

Dear Senator Ford:

On behalf of the Fuel Cell Users Group of the
Electric Utility Industry, Inc., I am responding to
your letter and questions of November 2, 1987.

We appreciate the Subcommittee's interest in
fuel cell research and development and urge your
continued support.

Sincerely,

& M^a^

turgeon /)
Director, Externa!!/ Relations

ES:lda
enc.

214

Questions to Outside Witnesses
9/23/87 Hearing on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Research

1 ) Do you feel that the Department of Energy is effective in
coordinating its research (in fuel cells and hydrogen) to be
responsive to commercial interests?

The Fuel Cell Users Group of the Electric Utility Industry,
Inc. is very familiar with the Department of Energy's fuel
cell program, but is less familiar with hydrogen activities
and any attempt to coordinate them. From our point of view,
the combined interests of fuel cells and hydrogen can only
be successfully addressed if the phosphoric acid fuel cell
powerplant becomes a commercial option, preferably sooner
rather than later. Our answers to the next two questions
address the remaining obstacles to fuel cell
commercialization.

2 ) Do you feel that DOE ' s programs advance the research and

development to a sufficient degree of maturity to enable the

private sector to make use of DOE ' s work? Or would you
rather see DOE take the work into a more advanced stage?

DOE's funding of fuel cell research, in combination with
privately funded research, is responsible for bringing fuel
cell development to the point where commercial application
can be considered. However, fuel cell powerplants will not
be commercially utilized by the private sector until (1)
their costs are competitive with alternative ways of
generating electricity and (2) until there is an acceptable
reliability record, beginning with a multiple-year
demonstration. DOE's research program addresses the first
of these requirements.

DOE has tried in its recent proposed budgets to convince
Congress that DOE's technology development is complete and
the ability to build a fuel cell powerplant has been proven.
Unfortunately, as many utilities have indicated by their
reactions over the last two years to attempts to market
current technology, the technology is not yet cost
competitive, and it won't be until identified component
advances can be completed through a significant development
effort.

Unfortunately, funds Congress has appropriated for
technology development have a tortuous path before they
reach the developer who will advance the technology.
Contracting for technology development efforts, notably the
International Fuel Cells configuration B advanced phosphoric
acid stack, has taken much longer than we would have liked
or than may have been necessary. As a result, this stack

215

technology will not be available for early demonstrations
needed by the electric utility industry beginning in 1989.
The Department of Energy has not been responsive to these
commercial interests.

3 ) Do you feel that DOE is doing a good job in transferring
these technologies to the private sector? What improvements
would you suggest in the area of technology transfer?

DOE usually falls short of completing technology transfer
activities because its support stops at the proof -of -concept
stage. The highest cost and risk in the development process
occurs beyond this stage, beginning with major demonstration
projects needed to prove system capability and attain
operating experience on commercial-like equipment. In some
cases, the cost and the risk of the demonstration projects
are too much for industry to accept on its own.

DOE's technology development programs are often built upon a
relationship of mutual support and interest between the
federal government and private industry. If this
relationship is abandoned by the federal government before
the technology is proven, future efforts to establish such
joint efforts are jeopardized. Under these circumstances,
both the private sector and the public fail to realize the
potential benefits of the entire development effort.

We suggest a DOE policy and budget that includes such
technology transfer support when the private sector cannot
justify bearing the entire costs alone.

4 ) Is there any sentiment out in the private sector that,
because DOE focuses primarily on long-term, high-risk
research and development, that most of DOE's work is
useless? Or do you feel that their work is meaningful and
beneficial to the overall advancement of fuel cell and
hydrogen technologies?

We certainly do not feel that DOE's long term focus is
useless. High risk long term research is of great interest
to public and private utilities alike. Hydrogen research is
a good example of this. We would merely add that where
success in nearer term research, such as phosphoric acid
fuel cell efforts, will have a tremendous impact on the
application of longer term technology development efforts,
such as hydrogen utilization, that a coordinated strategy be
developed to help all efforts be productively channelled.
We are unaware of any such coordination in this arena.

216

[.Center for
Electrochemical Systems and Hydrogen Research

238 Wisenbaker Engineering Research Center
Texas Engineering Experiment Station
The Texas A&M University System
College Station, Texas 77843-3577
(409) 845-8281

November 23, 1987

Senator Wendell H. Ford
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy

Research and Development
United States Senate
Room 173A, Russell Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-6150

Dear Senator:

Please find enclosed responses to the questions of Senator McClure sent with
your letter of November 2, 1987.

It was a privilege to be able to participate in the hearings.

Sincerely,

A. John Appleby
Professor and Director
Center for Electrochemical Systems
and Hydrogen Research

AJArja
Enclosure

TELEFAX 4098459287 • TELEX 5108927689 TXCM COSN

217

Replies to Senator McClure's Questions to Outside Witnesses,

9/23/87 hearing on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Research

(S. 1294, 1295 and 1296)

1. There is no coordination in research at DOE between fuel cells and hydrogen at the
present time. Hydrogen research is entirely administered from the Office of Conservation and
Renewable Energy, and is a small (and unimportant) program of about $1.5 M/yr. The Office of
Energy Storage and Distribution (under Conservation and Renewable Energy) is supporting a small
fuel cell program for use in transportation applications (via Lawrence Berkeley and Los Alamos
National Laboratory), as is the Office of Transportation along with the Department of
Transportation in a parallel program. Both these are aimed at the use of stream-reformed methanol
in the fuel cell. In this connection, we must stress that all fuel cells as presently conceived can
only consume hydrogen, and that all fuels for fuel cells must be transformed into hydrogen. For
example, if a fossil or synthetic fuel such as coal, natural gas or methanol is used, it must be first
converted into a suitable mixture of hydrogen and carbon oxides. For coal, this is effected by
reaction with steam and oxygen. For methane and methanol, steam alone suffices.

In the interests of energy conservation and maintenance of the CO2 level in the atmosphere,
hydrogen is the inevitable future fuel. However, hydrogen and fuel cells will be natural partners:
hydrogen can be used in fuel cells at 55% efficiency, whereas if burned in internal combustion
engines it is no more efficient than gasoline. In this repect, the hydrogen-fuel cell combination is a
high-quality energy vector. Methanol converted and used in the fuel cell will lead to growth of
atmospheric CO2, whereas, as I pointed out in my testimony, hydrogen can be made from coal
without increasing the atmospheric CO2 burden.

In the long term, fuel cells and hydrogen must be linked. However, the major U.S. fuel cell
program is under the Office of Fossil Energy. Fossil is not interested in synthetic hydrogen from
coal, and hence the important hydrogen-fuel cell tie is not being made. The cheapest source of
hydrogen will be coal, not solar energy. Hence, the Office of Fossil Energy must be made to take
hydrogen seriously. This policy should be of prime long-term importance.

2. DOE support is still needed in the fuel cell area, especially for the more advanced
technologies which will become available commercially only after the year 2000. Even though the
principals are now known, detailed design and long-term testing is required before the designs
become commercially and economically credible. For hydrogen, see above: strong support on
fossil-origin hydrogen is required since nothing is being done today.

218

3. DOE's transfer of fuel cell technology, via funded developers such as International Fuel
Cells, the Institute of Gas Technology and its collaborators, and Energy Research Corporation, as
well as to (and via) the Electric Power Research Institute, has been effective. So indeed has
technology transfer to Japanese developers. For hydrogen, however, much needs to be done, as
indicated under (2) and 3).

4. No. Certainly not for fuel cell technology. DOE has proved to be extremely valuable in
maintaining research and development programs. We should realize that the Japanese national fuel
cell program is as large as that in the U.S., and it includes 50% cost-share from the large
corporations. That is not happening in the United States. For hydrogen, our program is woefully
inadequate. West Germany plans to spend $650 M over four years on renewable resources, of
which hydrogen is a large part. We need to spend money on the development of coal-based (fossil)
hydrogen, and integrate DOE's fuel cell and hydrogen programs.

219

University p£ Hawaii at Manoa

Hawaii Natural Energy Institute

Holmes Hall 246 • 2540 Dole Street • Honolulu, Hawaii 96822

November 13, 1987

The Honorable Wendell H. Ford
United States Senate
Chairman, Subcommittee on

Energy Research and Development
SH-312 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20510-6150

Dear Senator Ford:

I am pleased to respond to Senator James McClure's questions in
follow-up to your hearing on S. 1294/5/6. We appreciate your interest and
support on these bills of great importance to our nation's future.

Aloha,

PKT:sy
Ends:

Response to questions
HNEI brochure

cc: S. Matsunaga
J. McClure

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

220

1. Do you feel that the Department of Energy is effective in coordinating
its research (in fuel cells and hydrogen) to be responsive to commercial
interests?

The Department of Defense and NASA have significantly expanded their
hydrogen programs over the past few years. The USDOE does support some
fundamental work in these areas and has initiated a commendable program
in hydrogen from renewable energy. However, a far more comprehensive
program as outlined in S. 1294/5/6 can materially enhance our strategic
capability over time.

2. Do you feel that DOE's programs advance the research and development to
a sufficient degree of maturity to enable the private sector to make use
of DOE's work? Or would you rather see DOE take the work into a more
advanced stage?

The USDOE needs to take a much more vigorous and comprehensive approach
to advancing R&D in these fields.

3. Do you feel that DOE is doing a good job in transferring these
technologies to the private sector? What improvements would you suggest
in the area of technology transfer?

No. We lost our lead in fuel cells to Japan a few years ago, and might
well fall behind to Japan, West Germany, Canada and the USSR if we don't
pick up the effort in hydrogen systems. While DOD and NASA will be
spending $3 billion to develop the National Aerospace plane, and have
testified before various congressional panels about their concern about
the prospects of being able to obtain cost effective hydrogen, the
USDOE, for reasons that mystify me, does not seem to care. However, for
technology transfer to occur, there needs to be a critical mass of
transferable technoogies. This is one area where a major upgrade can be
instituted to prepare for tech transfer as the turn of the century
approaches.

4. Is there any sentiment out in the private sector that, because DOE
focuses primarily on long-term, high-risk research and development, that
most of DOE's work is useless? Or do you feel that their work is
meaningful and beneficial to the overall adavancement of fuel cell and
hydrogen technologies?

There is this general sentiment, but much of this feeling derives from
an overall dissatisfaction with regards to the administration's attitude
about the non-importance of non-nuclear energy as a research
responsibility of the Federal government. The officials in the
Renewable Energy and Conservation assistant secretariat care and would
like to be able to do a lot more. However, the White House and OMR have
methodically and tragically emasculated our world leadership
capability. The core of expertise and fundamental zeal, however,
remains within the USDOE and can be re-activated should there be a
switch in philosophy of the administration, another energy crisis or a
strong show of support from Congress.

221

-m jfUNIVERSITYOF

Miami

November 9, 1987

Honorable Wendell H. Ford
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Energy Research and Development
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6150

Dear Mr. Ford:

Thank you very much for your letter on November 1987, in connection with my
testimony on 23 September 1987 on S. 1294, S. 1295, and S. 1296, regarding
fuel cell research and development, fuel cell utilization policy, and
hydrogen research and development. Please find enclosed my answers
questions submitted by Senator McClure.

With best regards I am,

to the

Sincerely

T. Nejat Veziroglu
Director

Enclosure

TNV/as

Clean Energy Research Institute

College of Engineering

RO. Box 248294

Coral Gables, Florida 33124

(305)284-4666

222

9/23/87 Hearing on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Research

Answers to Questions Submitted by Senator McClure

T. Nejat Veziroglu

Director, Clean Energy Research Institute

University of Miami

Question 1: Do you feel that the Department of Energy is effective in
coordinating its research (in fuel cells and hydrogen) to be responsive to
commercial interests?

Answer 1: I do not feel that the Department of Energy DOE is effective in
coordinating its research in fuel cells and hydrogen energy to be responsive
to commercial interests. It must establish a separate division on the
hydrogen energy system, and increase its budget substantially for research
and development in the hydrogen energy area, including fuel cells.

Question 2: Do you feel that DOE's programs advance the research and
development to a sufficient degree of maturity to enable the private sector
to make use of DOE's work? Or would you rather see DOE take the work into a
more advanced state?

Answer 2: I feel that DOE should work together and in harmony with the
private sector in order to bring to a sufficient degree of maturity of the
research and development of fuel cells and hydrogen energy. The R&D work
funded presently is not of sufficient magnitude to meet the needs of the
industry and the nation.

Question 3: Do you feel that DOE is doing a good job in transferring these
technologies to the private sector? What improvements would you suggest in
the area of technology transfer?

Answer 3: Before DOE can transfer technologies to the private sectors, it
must initiate research and development work covering many aspects of fuel
cells and hydrogen energy. It is therefore essential that they should
increase funding of research and development work in fuel cells and hydrogen
energy.

Question 4: Is there any sentiment out in the private sector that, because
DOE focuses primarily on long-term, high-risk research and development, that
most of DOE's work is useless? Or do you feel that their work is meaningful
and beneficial to the overall advancement of fuel cell and hydrogen
technologies?

223

(Cont. 3rd page)

Answer 4: I feel that DOE is spending too much money on fusion research and
coal research. Fusion research budget could be cut in half and the coal
research should be terminated. Technology for coal gasification and
liquefaction is mature. Germans and South Africans have been using it since
the Second World War. Part of the funding saved in this way could be used
for fuel cell and hydrogen R&D work, and the rest should be eliminated to
reduce the total DOE budget.

224

■■•■••a

SOLAR REACTOR TECHNOLOGIES , . . ..,

2666 Tigertall Awnue • Suite 115 • Miami. Ft 33133 *.;'.' ..'■■ ~ - (305| 854-2668 • FAX (305) 854 2739

10 December 1987
The Honorable Wendell H. Ford
U.S. Senator and Chairman,

Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510-6150

Dear Senator Ford:

I enclose herewith replies to the four questions you sent me in your
correspondence of 2 November 1987, provided by Senator McClure
pursuant to my testimony of 23 September 1987 before your Senate
Subcommittee in reference to S. 1294, S. 12395, and S. 1296.

I was very pleased and gratified to be included in the very
distinguished panel convened at your hearing, and would be glad to
provide additional testimony in future on these and other energy-
related matters should you require it of me.

Sincerely,

Peter W. Langhoff

Vice President of Research
Solar Reactor Technologies, Inc.

Professor of Chemistry

Indiana University, Bloomington

225

Reply of Peter W. Langhoff, Solar Reactor Technologies, Inc.,

to " Questions to Outside Witnesses"

9/23/87 Hearing on Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Research

1. DoE supports fuel cell technology development under the auspices
of Fossil Fuel, Conservation and Renewable Energy, with a budget of
approximately S40,000,000/year. The goal of this program is the high-
efficiency (>50Jf) utilization of fossil reserves (coal and natural
gas) employing fuel cells for the direct generation of electricity as
an alternative to indirect generation of electricity using combustion-
driven turbines or related mechanical devices. DoE response to
commercial interests - the fossil -fuel community in this case - is
satisfactory. DoE basic research in fuel cells unrelated to fossil-
fuel interests is carried out under the auspices of Energy Storage and
Distribution, Conservation and Renewable Energy, with a FY 86 budget
of approximately $670,000. Although there is some response to the
commercial interests of a small number of corporate players (G.E, Dow,
G.M.) directly engaged in such research, the budget is so small that
the question is really moot. It seems, therefore, that DoE fuel-cell
research and development is highly focused on fossil-fuel interests,
or Conservation, in which area the Department is generally responsive
to commercial interests. There is, however, virtually no meaningful
DoE program presently in place on fuel-cells research and development
that would qualify under the heading of Renewable Energy which could
be configured in some way to be responsive to commercial interests.

DoE research and development on Hydrogen Energy is coordinated by the
DoE Hydrogen Energy Coordinating Committee, with an overall program
budget in FY 86 of $21,200,000. Of this amount $3,300,000 is expended
on Mission Related projects, such as economical production, storage
and distribution of hydrogen, with the rest expended on peripheral
Nonmission Related research. The major program in the latter category
is largely Basis Energy Science research in photochemistry and
electrochemistry, with a FY 87 budget of $14,200,000. Although the
latter program supports generally high-quality basic research, no
attempt is made to be responsive to any commercial interests
whatsoever. Of the Mission Related programs, there is modest response
to commercial interests (Westi nghouse, Battel I e) directly involved in
the research programs.

In summary of my answer to this first question, DoE expends
approximately $60,000,000/year on fuel-cell and hydrogen-energy
research, with the major share in support of efficient fossil-fuel
utilization. Response to commercial fossil -fuel interests is
generally good. Conspicuously absent, however, is any meaningful DoE
Renewable Energy program on fuel cells and hydrogen energy, involving
solar energy, for example, that could be responsive to commercial
interests in the near term.

226

2. Much of the research and development DoE supports on fuel cell and
hydrogen energy is of significant benefit to particular segments of
the private sector. I would be glad to provide a detail review of
this aspect of their programs, if requested, from the perspective of
my own interests or from that of the small and large business
communities more generally. Only a limited number of DoE programs in
fuel cell and hydrogen energy research and development should be taken
forward by DoE to more advanced stages, however, as indicated in the
fol lowing remarks.

3. It is in my view highly appropriate for DoE to attempt technology
transfer into the private sector when acting in close collaboration
with private and other public players, such as small and large
technology companies, public utilities, and possibly academia. An
excellent example of the benefits of such collaborative ventures are
the solar energy electrical power generating facilities presently
operating in California, Georgia, and elsewhere which have been
brought on line though cooperative ventures including DoE in various
ways. The National Science Foundation is presently considering the
establishment of Science and Technology Centers involving such
cooperative ventures in the hopes of aiding technology transfer to the
private sector. Such DoE ventures should be highly mission oriented
in order to provide a suitable technical focus for such an
arrangement. The materials laboratories and other facilities now in
place largely in academia, and some of the national laboratories, are
so oriented as to have little relevance to technology transfer.

4. DoE sponsored research on fuel cells and hydrogen energy is
certainly meaningful and beneficial to these technologies,
particularly as relates to efficient use of fossil fuels. There is a
large and important research and technology development component
missing, however, in the specific area of Renewable Energy. As
indicated in my remarks under (1) above, DoE presently has no
meaningful program in fuel cells and hydrogen energy that involves
renewable energy sources. Particularly conspicuous is the absence of
DoE support of solar energy programs that would have near-term benefit
to the private sector and to the country in general. It is my
understanding and hope that S. 1293, 1294, and 1295 will address this
particular omission.

Material in the foregoing remarks has been adopted from (i) Hydrogen
Energy Coordinating Committee Annual Report-Summary of DoE Hydrogen
Programs for FY "l98tT| January, 1987, U.S. DoE, Conservation and
Renewable Energy ; (i i) DoE Fuel Cel I Program Annual Report for FY 1986
1987, U.S. DoE, Conservation ana1 Renewab I e Energy ; ( i i i )~Techno I ogy
Base Research Project for Electrochemical Energy Storage, July 1987,
Lawrence Berkeley Labo r a to ry, LBL-23495

227

UNITED 1825 Eye St NW.. Suite 700

TECHNOLOGIES ^"'"T' D c 20006

PRATT&WHITNEY 202/785-7432

Mel Goodweather

Director. Government Relations

19 November 1987

The Honorable Wendell H. Ford
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development
317 Dlrksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-6150

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Pratt & Whitney would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity
of testifying before your Subcommittee on the issue of hydrogen
research and development during the hearing on this subject on
September 23 of this year, and we were pleased to receive the
follow-up questions from Senator McClure, dated November 2, which were
sent to our witness Mr. Richard Marshall.

After making a careful review of the questions and circulating them
within Pratt & Whitney, we find that our company has had only minor
contact with the Department of Energy and therefore we do not feel
qualified to respond to Senator McClure's questions. However, we also
circulated the questions to some of the other companies within United
Technologies Corporation (UTC) to see whether other areas within UTC
were in a better position to respond to the issues raised.

In this regard Mr. W. Podolny, President of United Technologies1
International Fuel Cells Corporation (IFC), has indicated that IFC
would be pleased to address the issues raised by Senator McClure and I
have been informed that a letter to that effect has been sent under
separate cover to the Subcommittee.

Once again I would like to thank you for the concern you and your
Subcommittee have shown In an area which remains of interest to Pratt
& Whitney and we remain available to respond to additional questions
if we are in a position to make a meaningful addition to the record.

Sincerely,

cc: Richard Marshall

228

International Fuel Celts

195 Governors Highway
PO Box 739
South Windsor
Connecticut 06074

C'-l It! 23 AM 3 i!j

November 17, 1987

The Honorable Wendell H. Ford
Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources

Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development
Dirksen Senate Office Building - Room 317
Washington, DC 20510-6150

Dear Mr. Chairman:

We at International Fuel Cells Corporation (IFC), a subsidiary of United
Technologies Corporation, welcome the opportunity to respond to the
questions posed by Senator McClure and to go on record in support of
legislation regarding fuel cell and hydrogen research and development.

IFC appreciates the support the Congress has provided fuel cell research
and development over the years. It has been the Congress, and not the
Administration, that has initiated the federal role in fuel cells. This
Administration has consistently requested inadequate levels of funding --
if any request was made at all — for work in phosphoric acid, molten
carbonate or advanced concepts.

We do not believe DOE's fuel cell program advances the research and
development to a sufficient degree of maturity to enable the private
sector to make use of DOE's work. Present Administration policy does not
account for the reality of the utility marketplace.

The reality is that the national benefits of new power generation tech-
nologies (the fuel cell being one) are not perceived as being critically
important by utility regulators. They discourage utilities from purchasing
equipment embodying new technologies by stipulating the utility's customers
should not have to bear any part of the economic risk of introduction of
new technology. In other words, the regulator will gladly accept the
national benefit of new technology to lower energy consumption and im-
prove the quality of the environment but only if the "new technology"
equipment is certified and warranted by the manufacturer to have the
same reliability, availability, maintainability, capital cost, and
durability as equipment embodying proven technology matured over 30 to
50 years.

Because utilities are permitted to purchase new equipment only if it is
of equivalent cost and maturity as current equipment, significant new
technology (such as the fuel cell) can not be commercialized without
strong active federal government help. Private investors find the very
large cost of maturing equipment to such a high level of acceptability,
especially when there is no strong enunciated market "pull" by the
utilities or regulators.

Facsimile: (203) 727-2319 TWX: 710-425-0137 Telex: 681-3166

229

International Fuel Cells

The Honorable Wendell H. Ford

November 17, 1987

Unfortunately, the policy espoused by the present Administration ensures
little or no technology will be commercialized. It is their stated
policy to not participate at all in the maturing of technology and
in fact, to stop all support of a technology as soon as "proof of
principle" is established.

Future funding requests for fuel cell research and development must
reflect a realization that the highest risk is at the post-proof of
concept stage. Budget requests of $5 million for all fuel cell
activities will not provide the country with what the Congress and
the Administration has indicated it wants -- a viable, competitive
fuel cell manufacturing capability.

Very truly yours,

IN;rERNATK>NAL/?UEL CELLS CORPORATION

Sm $■ /t*4S

William H.
Chairman

Podolny

/dd

82-464 (236)

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 05995 574 8

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

See other formats