Technical Seminar Report

on
HYDROGEN ENGINE
Submitted in partial fulfillment for the award of the degree
of
BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
in
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
by
GURRAM VAMSHI KRISHNA
Roll No.: 16J41A03E4
Coordinator:
Dr. R. SEETHARAM

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Malla Reddy Engineering College (Autonomous)
Hyderabad (TS)
April – 2019

CONTENTS
1.Introduction 2

2.Hydrogen in internal combustion Eingines 3

2.1 Properties of Hydrogen 4

2.2 Relevant Trade-offs 5

3.Comparison of Vechile Technologies 6

4.Economics of a Hydrogen ICE Policy 9

4.1Senarious of Vehile Technology Adoption 10

4.2Fuel use 11

4.3 Corbon Dioxide Emissions 11

4.4 Net Benefits 13

5. Conclusions 15

References 25
 ABSTRACT

HYDROGEN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE (ICE) VEHICLES PRESENT MUCH OF THE SAME
PROMISE AS HYDROGEN FUEL CELL VEHICLES (FCV S): REDUCED RELIANCE ON IMPORTED OIL
AND REDUCED CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS. PROPONENTS ENVISION HYDROGEN ICE AS A
BRIDGING TECHNOLOGY FROM GASOLINE VEHICLES TO HYDROGEN FCV S. THIS PAPER
EXAMINES THE HYDROGEN ICE TECHNOLOGY , FOCUSING ON RELEVANT ASPECTS SUCH AS
POWER, FUEL ECONOMY , TANK SIZE, AND THE STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY . AN ECONOMIC
ANALYSIS IS THEN PERFORMED TO EXAMINE THE POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS OF WIDESPREAD
ADOPTION OF HYDROGEN ICE VEHICLES IN THE UNITED STATES. THE CASE FOR HYDROGEN
ICE DEPENDS MOST ON KEY UNCERTAINTIES IN THE EVOLUTION OF VEHICLE AND
PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY , THE COST OF CRUDE OIL, AND THE VALUATION OF CARBON
DIOXIDE EMISSION REDUCTIONS . T HIS ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT PROMOTING HYDROGEN
ICE VEHICLES MAY BE A SENSIBLE POLICY GOAL AS A TRANSITION STRATEGY TO HYDROGEN
FCVS, BUT A MORE PRUDENT POLICY WOULD FIRST PROMOTE GASOLINE-ELECTRIC HYBRIDS.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am thankful for the guidance and technical assistance received internally from,
Dr. R. Seetharam, Assistant Profesor, Mechanical Engineering Department.

I wish my gratefulness to professor Dr. YPGESH KUMAR MADARIA, Head Of The

Department of Mechanical Engineering. For the providing his guidance for the completion of
the technical seminar report.

I wish the gratitude to our principal Dr. S. SUDHAKARA REDDY, Malla Reddy Engineering
college (MREC), for providing with the environment and motivating and help us realize our full
potential.

Finally, I thank all the members of esteemed staff 0f our department, who helped me directly or
indirectly in completing my technical seminar

GURRAM VAMSHI KRISHNA

Roll No.: 16J41A03E4
Hydrogen Internal Combustion Engine
Vechicles
INTRODUCTION

At the center of on-going debates regarding energy security and global climate change
issues lie the difficult issues inherent in the sizable light duty vehicle transportation sector. In
contrast to most other sectors, in the light duty vehicle sector there are exceedingly few
economically viable substitutes to the dominant energy source: gasoline. Concerns over reliance
on gasoline imports from unstable regions of the world, as well as the potential negative
consequences of global climate change from gasoline’s carbon dioxide emissions have motivated
a vigorous policy debate on alternative pathways for the light duty vehicle transportation sector.
The advent of hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles leaves considerable opportunity for
improving the fuel economy of the light duty vehicle fleet without a switch to a radical new
technology. However, several technologies hold promise for powering vehicles with lower
carbon feedstocks. In particular, both hydrogen and electricity (e.g., in electric battery vehicles)
can be used as energy carriers, in which energy can be generated from a variety of sources,
including low-carbon sources, and stored as electricity or hydrogen for eventual use in powering
the vehicle. For example, hydrogen can be produced through feedstocks as varied as coal
gasification, natural gas steam reforming, electrolysis using solar or wind generated electricity,
or direct dissociation in nuclear power production. Powering a vehicle using one of these energy
carriers produces little or no tail-pipe carbon dioxide emissions (e.g., the product of hydrogen
combustion with oxygen is water). This opens the possibility of running much of the
transportation sector on energy derived from low-carbon sources, alleviating one of the major
stumbling blocks in the way of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and oil imports.

2. HYDROGEN IN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES

Hydrogen-burning internal combustion engines trace their roots back to some of the very
earliest developments in internal combustion engine development. Initially, gaseous fuels like
hydrogen were preferred to liquid fuels like gasoline because they were considered safer to work
with, due to the low pressures used for the gaseous fuels and the quick dissipation of the gases in
the event of a leak. In 1807 Issac de Rivas built the first hydrogen internal combustion engine,
and although the design had serious flaws, it was a more than 50 years ahead of the development
of gasoline internal combustion engines (Taylor 1985). Technological advances in gasoline
engines, such as the development of the carburetor (which allowed air and gasoline to be
consistently mixed), eventually led to other fuels being largely passed over in favor of gasoline.
Until recently, hydrogen has been relegated to niche uses, such as in experimental vehicles or in
the space program.

2.1 Properties Of Hydrogen

There are several important characteristics of hydrogen that greatly influence the
technological development of hydrogen ICE and FCVs.
Wide Range of Flammability. Compared to nearly all other fuels, hydrogen has a wide
flammability range (4-74% versus 1.4-7.6% volume in air for gasoline). This first leads to
obvious concerns over the safe handling of hydrogen. But, it also implies that a wide range of
fuel-air mixtures, including a lean mix of fuel to air, or, in other words, a fuel-air mix in which
the amount of fuel is less than the stoichiometric, or chemically ideal, amount. Running an
engine on a lean mix generally allows for greater fuel economy due to a more complete
combustion of the fuel. In addition, it also allows for a lower combustion temperature, lowering
emissions of criteria pollutants such as nitrous oxides (NOX).1
Low Ignition Energy. The amount of energy needed to ignite hydrogen is on the order of
a magnitude lower than that needed to ignite gasoline (0.02 MJ for hydrogen versus 0.2 MJ for
gasoline). On the upside, this ensures ignition of lean mixtures and allows for prompt ignition.
On the downside, it implies that there is the danger of hot gases or hot spots on the cylinder
igniting the fuel, leading to issues with premature ignition and flashback (i.e., ignition after the
vehicle is turned off).
Small Quenching Distance. Hydrogen has a small quenching distance (0.6mm for
hydrogen versus 2.0mm for gasoline), which refers to the distance from the internal cylinder
wall
where the combustion flame extinguishes. This implies that it is more difficult to quench a
hydrogen flame than the flame of most other fuels, which can increase backfire (i.e., ignition of
the engine’s exhaust).
High Flame Speed. Hydrogen burns with a high flame speed, allowing for hydrogen
engines to more closely approach the thermodynamically ideal engine cycle (most efficient fuel
power ratio) when the stoichiometric fuel mix is used. However, when the engine is running
lean to improve fuel economy, flame speed slows significantly.
High Diffusivity. Hydrogen disperses quickly into air, allowing for a more uniform fuel
air mixture, and a decreased likelihood of major safety issues from hydrogen leaks.
Low Density. The most important implication of hydrogen’s low density is that without
significant compression or conversion of hydrogen to a liquid, a very large volume may be
necessary to store enough hydrogen to provide an adequate driving range. Low density also
implies that the fuel-air mixture has low energy density, which tends to reduce the power output
of the engine. Thus when a hydrogen engine is run lean, issues with inadequate power may arise
(College of the Desert 2001).

2.2 Relevant Trade-offs

Based on the above unique properties of hydrogen, there are several relevant tradeoffs
pertinent to the use of hydrogen in ICEs.
The first relates to a decision that for the most part has already been made: whether to use
a spark-ignition engine design (e.g., most gasoline vehicles), or a compression-ignition (CI)
engine design (e.g., diesel vehicles). CI engines work by compressing air in the combustion
chamber, increasing its temperature above the autoignition temperature of the fuel, such that
injected fuel ignites immediately and burns rapidly. This small explosion causes the gas to
expand and forces the piston down, creating mechanical energy that is be used to power the
vehicle. Spark-ignited engines begin combustion at a much lower temperature and pressure
through the use of an ignition system that sends a high-voltage spark through a sparkplug to
ignite the fuel-air mixture.

Spark-ignition engines tend to be less expensive and have lower emissions of criteria
pollutants (e.g., NOx and particular matter)2, but have lower power at low engine speeds and a
lower theoretical efficiency than CI engines. Due to hydrogen’s wide range of flammability and
low density, nearly all recent designs for hydrogen ICE vehicles call for CI engines (Ford 2007).3
A second relevant tradeoff is the type of transmission to use. Using hydrogen in a CI
engine will most likely require the use of a continuous-variable transmission (CVT), as is
commonly used in hybrid gasoline vehicles. The CVT may or may not be designed to be
coupled with an electric battery and a separate electric motor that runs off recaptured energy
from breaking. Here the tradeoff is between additional cost and improved fuel economy –
although most recent hydrogen ICE designs include the battery and separate electric motor.
A third tradeoff is between power and fuel economy or emissions. Running a hydrogen
engine lean reduces criteria pollutants and can improve fuel economy, but it comes at the cost of
power due to the lower energy content of the fuel-air mixture. To ensure adequate power, turbo
charging, super-charging, or not running the engine lean can all be used, but are likely to come
at
a cost of fuel economy and possibly criteria air pollutant emissions.
A final key tradeoff is between vehicle range and the hydrogen fuel tank size. Efforts are
underway to improve storage of hydrogen in fuel tanks through compression or liquification of
hydrogen, but the low density of hydrogen poses challenges to engineers attempting to decrease
the tank size, yet ensure adequate range for hydrogen vehicles. Moreover, the hydrogen storage
systems are likely to be heavier than standard gasoline tanks, increasing vehicle weight, which
can decrease fuel economy.

3. Comparision of vechicle Technologies

Table 1 presents estimates of some of the most important characteristics of the four most
relevant types of vehicles: gasoline ICE, gasoline hybrids, hydrogen ICE, and hydrogen FCVs.
It must be emphasized at this point that many of these estimates, particularly on hydrogen FCVs
are highly speculative due to the uncertainty in technology development, and the characteristics
(e.g., size and weight) of vehicles that will be rolled out with each technology.
Hydrogen ICE vehicles tend to fall in a middle ground between the higher efficiency
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the standard gasoline ICE vehicles. In many respects, hydrogen
ICE vehicles can be thought of as diesel fuel hybrid vehicles that run off of hydrogen, rather
than
diesel fuel. Thus a critical difference between gasoline hybrids and hydrogen ICE vehicles is
that the use of a CI engine design allows for greater engine efficiency: on the order of one third
greater. Moreover, how engine efficiency varies with load and power differs between the engine
types. Figure 1 provides a rough sketch of the relationship between engine efficiency and
percent load for spark-ignition, compression-ignition (CI), and a single fuel cell (with equivalent
output to the other engine types).
Spark-ignition engines have a maximum efficiency of 32.5% under normal conditions
and at low loads have a much lower efficiency than this. Note that the additional electric engine
in gasoline hybrid vehicles is highly efficient at very low percent loads, and is primarily used at
low load levels, so gasoline hybrids do not suffer from this loss in efficiency at low loads as
much. Compression-ignition engines tend to have a maximum efficiency rough in the range of
40%, and quickly reach efficiency levels close to the maximum efficiency at low percent loads.
The greater maximum engine efficiency is in large part the reason why diesel vehicles have
better fuel economy than conventional vehicles.4
A typical fuel cell stack can reach much higher efficiencies than either spark-ignition and
CI engines, but it is important to note that as the fuel cell stack reaches maximum load, the
efficiency drops precipitously, in contrast to the other engine types. The exact shape of this
curve, and any quantitative estimates of fuel cell efficiency are highly speculative due to the
many recent developments in fuel cell technology, but the general shape is robust ed
This relationship has important implications for the power delivered to fuel cell vehicles,
for additional fuel cells must be added to provide adequate power for some high-intensity uses –
and the fuel cell stacks are one of the most expensive components of a fuel cell vehicle. Figure 2
indicates the relationship between power train efficiency and power in one particular study. As
each of the fuel cell stacks incrementally reach 100% load, efficiency begins to drop.
This relationship may reduce the possibility of fuel cell heavy duty vehicles, which need
to be able to provide sufficient power at high loads. Hydrogen ICE vehicles may be more
economically attractive in these markets, since to the high cost of adding more fuel cells may
make fuel cell vehicles prohibitively expensive. Of course, the exact relationship between power
and efficiency depends on many factors relating to the specific application.
The rough estimates of the average and maximum engine efficiency in Table 1 follow
from the discussion above. Equally important as engine efficiency is the efficiency of the
transmission in converting the energy generated by the engine to propulsion. Gasoline hybrids,
hydrogen ICE vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are all assumed to use CVT and hybrid
transmission technology, which has approximately 60% efficiency, as opposed to a standard
transmission, which has only around a 40% efficiency. Given these estimates and an estimate of
the current average fleet-wide fuel economy of standard gasoline light duty vehicles, the fuel
economy of each of the vehicle types is computed.5 These computed estimates for gasoline
hybrids and hydrogen fuel cells match closely with those in NRC (2004).
Table 1 also highlights differences in engine sizeability, fuel tank size, cost of fuel, and
emissions. All of these have either direct or indirect importance to the market feasibility of each
vehicle type. The cost of hydrogen depends on the feedstock, as will be discussed in section 4,
but there may even be a minor difference between the cost of hydrogen in ICE vehicles and fuel
cell vehicles. Nearly all hydrogen fuel cells under development require very pure hydrogen to
Specifically, the total vehicle efficiency for each type is first computed by multiplying the engine
efficiency by the transmission efficiency. Then, for gasoline hybrids, hydrogen ICE vehicles, and
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the current gasoline ICE fuel economy is multiplied by the ratio of
each vehicle type’s efficiency to the gasoline ICE vehicle efficiency. This methodology assumes
that unobserved determinants of fuel economy change proportionally with vehicle efficiency.
run effectively,6 while a hydrogen ICE vehicle would likely work with a cheaper, less pure grade
of hydrogen.
Finally, Table 1 describes the current state of the technology. Gasoline hybrids have
already been developed and are in the rapid market diffusion stage. On the other hand,
hydrogen

4.Economics Of a Hydrogen ICE Policy

There is enormous uncertainty surrounding the advance of the hydrogen ICE technology
to commercialization stage. Choices made by manufacturers about where to allocate R&D
funds
and how to deal with the tradeoffs inherent in hydrogen ICE vehicles will determine the final
characteristics of a hydrogen ICE vehicle. Consumer preferences about the desirability of
hydrogen ICE vehicles and the acceptability of hydrogen as a fuel will play an important role in
the economic feasibility of the vehicles. And most importantly, the rate at which technological
barriers are overcome, both on the vehicle and on the hydrogen production side, will dictate just
how quickly costs drop, and thus how quickly hydrogen ICE vehicles could be economically
marketable.
In light of these uncertainties, this paper follows NRC (2004) in developing four
scenarios of vehicle technology adoption in order to examine the implications of policies to
promote the adoption of hydrogen ICE vehicles relative to conventional gasoline vehicles,
gasoline hybrid vehicles, and fuel cell vehicles. As the emphasis is on hydrogen ICE, the
interested reader should be referred to NRC (2004) for more details on the implications of
widespread adoption of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. The following sections adapt the NRC
(2004) economic model for analysis of hydrogen ICE vehicles

4.1 Senarious of Vechiles Technology Adoption

The four scenarios are as follows: a no policy baseline scenario of gasoline hybrid
adoption, a policy scenario promoting of gasoline hybrid-electric vehicles (HEVs), a policy
scenario promoting hydrogen FCVs, and a policy scenario promoting hydrogen ICE vehicles.
These scenarios are given in Figure 3.
In no policy scenario, conventional vehicles begin to be more rapidly replaced by hybrids
after 2018, and by 2050 90% of new vehicles in the market are hybrids. No hydrogen vehicles
enter the market by 2050. When a policy is implemented to promote hybrids, conventional
vehicles are replaced much faster, such that by 2026, the entire vehicle fleet is hybrid. In
addition, the improvements in battery technology are assumed to spill over to hydrogen FCVs,
leading to a limited diffusion of FCVs starting in 2030.
When a policy is implemented to promote hydrogen FCVs, FCVs are assumed to begin
entering the market in 2015, cannibalizing the market for hybrids, and not changing the market
for conventional vehicles. This is consistent with the idea that FCVs will first primarily be small
cars, with many of the same intangible benefits that appeal to buyers of hybrids (e.g., new
technology, quiet ride, “green”). By 2050, FCVs are assumed to have 100% of the market for
new vehicles. This can be considered an optimistic scenario for FCV market diffusion, and
would only be possible with major policy effort and technological breakthroughs.
With a policy to promote hydrogen ICE vehicles (dotted lines in Figure 3), hydrogen ICE
vehicles begin to enter the market in 2010, consistent with the potential for rapid
commercialization of the technology. Since hydrogen ICE vehicles could easily be scaled to be
larger vehicles, it is assumed that they take market share from hybrids and conventional vehicles
equally. By 2034, they reach nearly 50% of the market. Since hydrogen ICE vehicles are
intended as a transition step FCVs, the hydrogen ICE policy scenario also assumes the same
vehicle adoption of FCVs as in the FCV policy scenario. After 2034, the continued increase in
FCVs begins to cut into the hydrogen ICE market, such that by 2050, there are no new hydrogen
ICE vehicles on the market. This policy scenario can also be considered an optimistic scenario
of hydrogen vehicle adoption

4.2 Fuel Use

Two additional assumptions are relevant to examine the fuel use in each of these
scenarios. First, Figure 4 presents the assumed new vehicle fuel economy over time for each
vehicle type in the four scenarios, with the initial estimates based on those in Table 1. Second,
vehicle miles traveled is assumed to continue to grow at 2.3% per year, following the NRC
(2004) study.
Figure 5 presents the total gasoline and hydrogen consumption by light duty vehicles in
the four scenarios. The increased efficiency of HEV in the hybrid policy scenario serves to
reduce the use of gasoline relative to no policy, with about a 27% decrease in total gasoline use
by 2050. In the hydrogen ICE policy scenario, the earlier adoption of hydrogen vehicles leads to
large decreases in gasoline use significantly earlier than in the hydrogen FCV policy scenario
and no gasoline consumption by 2050. Correspondingly, there is a greater consumption of
hydrogen in the ICE scenario than the FCV scenario (18% more in 2050), due to both the earlier
adoption of hydrogen vehicles and to the lower fuel economy of ICE vehicles

4.3 Carbon Dioxide Emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions from hydrogen are determined by the fuel use and the
type of hydrogen feedstock. An in-depth discussion of hydrogen feedstocks can be
found in NRC (2004), and this paper uses the assumptions from the NRC analysis.
The following ten types of
hydrogen feedstocks are examined:
• Central station generation natural gas (CS-NG)
• Central station generation natural gas with carbon sequestration (CS-NG Seq)
• Central station generation coal (CS-Coal)
• Central station generation coal with sequestration (CS-Coal Seq)
• Distributed generation natural gas (Dist-NG)
• Mid-size generation biomass (MS-Bio)
• Mid-size generation biomass with sequestration (MS-Bio S• Distributed
generation electrolysis (direct generation using electricity) (Dist-Elec)
• Distributed generation wind turbine-based electrolysis (Dist WT-Elec)
• Distributed generation solar photovoltaic-based electrolysis (Dist PV-Elec)

Each of these feedstocks has unique costs and carbon dioxide emissions, and NRC
further divides each of these technologies into “current” (C) and “future” (F)
versions of the technology. The attributes of the future technologies are the best
estimates from the research of the NRC panel. Figure 6 presents these cost
estimates for current and future technologies. Figure 7 illustrates the carbon
dioxide emissions when hydrogen is produced by various feedstocks to support the
hydrogen FCV policy scenario. Figure 8 presents the same graphs for
the hydrogen ICE scenario. The plots for each hydrogen feedstock are calculated
as if all hydrogen were produced by each type, but any mix of different types of
feedstocks can be estimated by averaging the different plots.
One message to take from Figures 7 and 8 is that a hydrogen policy is not
guaranteed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions over the hybrid policy scenario. If
the chosen feedstocks are distributed electric or central station coal (without
sequestration), then carbon emissions would be no better with a hydrogen policy
than a hybrid policy. Also important is that the reductions in carbon emissions are
greater for all feedstocks in the hydrogen ICE scenario than the hydrogen
FCV scenario, largely because with an ICE policy more vehicles are switched to
hydrogen, and at an earlier date.
One of the more likely feedstocks, at least in the beginning, is distributed
generation natural gas, and it provides significant carbon dioxide reductions (e.g.,
approximately 45% in 2050). However, distributed generation natural gas is one
of the more expensive feedstocks, with a unit cost of the future technology around
50% greater than the unit cost of any of the centrally generated fossil fuel
feedstocks. Not surprisingly, the greatest carbon dioxide reduction
benefits come with the renewable feedstocks and central generation fossil fuels
with
sequestration. All of these fuels provide the possibility of eliminating the vast
majority of the carbon dioxide emissions from the light duty vehicle sector, but
these are also all more expensive feedstocks than the fossil fuel based feedstocks
without sequestration, such as central-generation natural gas.
Figures 7 and 8 are based on estimates of future technologies that have not been
developed yet, and most certainly would not be commercialized as quickly as
hydrogen ICE vehicles are assumed to be. Using the current technologies instead
of the future technologies

4.2 Net Benefits

The costs of each of the policy scenarios include: the additional cost of the vehicles
over the baseline vehicle cost, the cost of additional hydrogen research and
development, and the cost of developing a hydrogen infrastructure in the hydrogen
scenarios. The benefits of each of the policies are the value of the reduced carbon
dioxide emissions the value of fuel savings due to improved fuel economy. To
complete the calculation of the net benefits, several additional
assumptions must be made about highly uncertain parameters: the price or
valuation of carbon is assumed to be $50/ton in 2005 and rising at the rate of
interest (3%), the price of a barrel of oil is assumed to be $50/barrel, and the
additional vehicle costs are $2,000, $2,750, and $4,000 for hybrids, hydrogen ICE
vehicles, and hydrogen FCVs respectively. The vehicle cost assumptions are based
roughly on the technical details of the three technologies, while the other
assumptions are just best estimates. The baseline assumed social discount rate is
3%. To calculate the net benefits, the present discounted value (PDV) out to 2050
of the vehicle, fuel, and carbon costs are first calculated for each policy and then
compared to the no policy scenario to analyze the effect of the policy in each of
these categories. These policy
impacts are then summed to yield the net benefits of the policy without the
R&Dand infrastructure costs. The PDV of the different costs out to 2050 are
shown in Table 2 for a sample of some of the most relevant hydrogen feedstocks.7
The fuel costs reflect the higher fuel economy of hydrogen ICE vehicles, and the
even high fuel economy of the hydrogen FCVs. The relative carbon costs
mirrorthe relative paths of carbon dioxide emissions shown in Figures 7 and 8.
Table 3 computes the difference between costs in the policy and no policy
scenarios, providing a measure of the net benefits of the policy before R&D and
infrastructure costs are included. A first point from Table 3 is that the earlier
market penetration of hydrogen vehicles increases the fuel savings and carbon
savings in the hydrogen ICE scenario over the hydrogen

FCV scenario when feedstocks such as central station natural gas and coal with
sequestration are used. Thus, the total net benefits for the policy are positive in
the hydrogen ICE scenario for those fossil fuel feedstocks, when they are negative
in the FCV scenario. However, the size of
these net benefits with current technologies is not large ($45 billion for CS-NG and
$89 billion for CS-Coal with sequestration) when compared with possible R&D
and infrastructure costs. With future technologies the net benefits of the ICE
policy are larger: $312 billion and $478 billion. However, it is more likely that the
earlier market entry of hydrogen ICE vehicles will come before the future
technologies are developed. The cost of a hydrogen infrastructure is uncertain, but
a quick back of the envelope calculation provides some insight. There were
120,902 existing gasoline retail stations in the United States in 2002 (US DOC
2002). A study for the California Fuel Cell Partnership estimates the cost of a
refurbishing a station for hydrogen will be $450,000, which is a
reasonable mid-point between estimates in other studies (CA FCP 2001).
Assuming all 120,902
stations are replaced, this indicates the cost of a hydrogen infrastructure is in the
range of $54 billion, an estimate quite close the net benefit of the ICE policy with
the current fossil technologies.
Table 3 also indicates that the hybrid policy scenario brings in larger total net
benefits than either of the hydrogen scenarios. This is notable because the hybrid
policy scenario would likely have much lower R&D costs (and no infrastructure
costs). Finally, Table 3 shows that distributed natural gas and the renewable
feedstocks have significantly negative net benefits even before the additional
infrastructure and R&D costs are accounted for – a result that emphasizes
the importance of using the lowest cost feedstock for hydrogen production.
The results in Table 3 use reasonable baseline assumptions, but prove surprisingly
robust in a sensitivity analysis. The results are most sensitive to the assumed oil
price, for higher oil prices will increase the fuel cost of the baseline and hybrid
scenarios, and increase the net benefits of the hydrogen scenarios (e.g., an
$80/barrel oil price implies the net benefits of the ICE policy with a CS-NG-C
feedstock would be $853 billion). Increasing the carbon price
changes the carbon cost, but it has a much smaller effect, but it again increases the
net benefits of the hydrogen scenarios, and particularly the hydrogen ICE scenario
(e.g., a carbon price starting t $75 in 2002 implies net benefits of the ICE policy
with a CS-NG-C feedstock of $162 billion

5.Conclusions
Much like hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen ICE vehicles present a
considerable promise: the chance to improve energy security and reduce
carbon dioxide emissions by weaning the light duty vehicle sector off of
gasoline. And much like hydrogen FCVs, there are significant
barriers to the adoption of hydrogen ICE vehicles, involving both
technological improvements so it is competitive with gasoline-based
alternatives as well as implementing a hydrogen fueling
infrastructure. Looking beyond those similarities, distinctions quickly
arise due to the nature of the hydrogen ICE technology that
differentiate it from fuel cell and gasoline vehicles.
The most critical differences are the power produced by the engine, the
fuel economy, the fuel tank size, and the state of development of the
technology. Complicating any comparison is the vast uncertainty
inherent in future vehicle technologies, hydrogen ICE included. If the
fuel cell technology is developed to its potential, the fuel economy
advantage it has over the
hydrogen ICE technology appears to present a compelling case for
FCVs in the long-term. This is particularly true because the higher fuel
economy allows for a smaller fuel tank size for the same range, and fuel
tank size is almost certain to be a key limitation for hydrogen vehicles.
However, the issue of power may prove to be a thorn in the side of
FCVs, particularly for \vehicles that need the capacity to perform at
high loads, since adding more fuel cell stacks can
add significantly to cost of the vehicle. Buses and trucks clearly fall into
this category, and light duty vehicles such as light trucks and sport-
utility vehicles may also fall into it, depending on the eventual cost of
fuel cells. This leaves a quandary for the design of public policy: does a
policy to promote hydrogen
ICE vehicles as a transition strategy make sense? This analysis reveals
four underlying points: (1) the PDV of a hybrid policy far exceeds that
of a hydrogen ICE or FCV policy up to 2050, (2) if policymakers decide
to invest in hydrogen anyway for the long-run benefits past 2050, then
there may be a place for hydrogen ICE vehicles in the eventual fleet mix
due to their lower cost and greater power, (3) if we are to promote
hydrogen, the fuel savings and carbon benefits from earlier introduction
of hydrogen ICE vehicles may provide large enough benefits to pay for
the
infrastructure and R&D costs of a hydrogen ICE policy, and (4) these benefits are
contingent on the use of hydrogen generated by central station generation fossil
fuels (natural gas or coal with sequestration). These conclusions must be
understood in the context of the assumptions that generated them, especially given
the considerable uncertainties surrounding key components of the analysis. The
four most important premises that this analysis rests on are, in order: the assumed
evolution and diffusion of new vehicle technologies, the assumed decrease in cost of
production of feedstock technologies (current versus future), the assumed price of
crude oil, and the assumed value of carbon dioxide emission reductions.
Sensitivity analyses indicate that the above conclusions are relatively robust to
many other parameter combinations. Given the scenarios of vehicle adoption, the
conclusions are most sensitive to oil prices and carbon benefits. Major changes in
the vehicle adoption scenarios would also change the quantitative results, but
cursory analysis indicates that changes within a defensible range are not likely to
change the qualitative results. Thus, if the policy goal is a long-term shift to
hydrogen and the hydrogen infrastructure could be brought online quickly
enough, hydrogen ICE vehicles may provide sufficient early
term fuel savings and carbon dioxide emission reductions that they may be worth
promoting as a transition strategy.

REFERENCES

California Fuel Cell Partnership (2001). Bringing Fuel Cell Vehicles to Market: Scenarios and
Challenges with Fuel Alternatives, October 2001. Bevilacqua Knight, Inc.
College of the Desert (2001). Module 3: Hydrogen Use in Internal Combustion Engines. Center
for Advanced Transportation Technologies.
Department of Energy (2007). President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presidents_initiative.html.
Edwards, Christopher (2006). Personal Communication.
Ford (2007). Hydrogen Internal Combustion.
http://www.ford.com/en/innovation/technology/hydrogenTransport/hydrogenInternalCom
bustion.htm.
Kliesch, James and Therese Langer (2003). Deliberating Diesel: Environmental, Technical, and
Social Factors Affecting Diesel Passenger Vehicle Prospects in the United States.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Report T032.
National Research Council (2004). The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and
R&D Needs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Schipper, L., C. Marie-Lilliu, and L. Fulton. (2002). Diesels in Europe. Journal of Transport
Economics and Policy. 36(2).
Schwarzenegger, Arnold (2004). Executive Order S-7-04: California Hydrogen Highway
Network, April 20, 2004.
Taylor, C.F. (1985). The Internal Combustion Engine in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: MIT
Press.
US Department of Commerce (2002). Gasoline Stations: 2002; 2002 US Economic Census.
Report EC-02-441-14. US Census Bureau.
Wengel, J. and E. Schirrmeister, eds. (2000). The Innovation Process from the Internal
Combustion Engine to Fuel Cells. Karlsruhe, Germany: Fraunhofer-Institute.