Hydrogen Storage for Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles: Expert Elicitation and a Levelized Cost of Driving Model.

A cost-effective and compact hydrogen storage system could advance fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). Today's commercial FCEVs incorporate storage that is projected to be heavier, larger, and costlier than targets set by the U.S. Driving Research and Innovation for Vehicle efficiency and Energy sustainability Partnership (U.S. DRIVE). To inform research and development (R&D), we elicited 31 experts' assessments of expected future costs and capacities of storage systems. Experts suggested that systems would approach U.S. DRIVE's ultimate capacity targets but fall short of cost targets at a high production volume. The 2035 and 2050 median costs anticipated by experts were $13.5 and $10.53/kWhH2, gravimetric capacities of 5.2 and 5.6 wt %, and volumetric capacities of 0.93 and 1.33 kWhH2/L, respectively. To meet U.S. DRIVE's targets, experts recommended allocating the majority of government hydrogen storage R&D funding to materials development. Furthermore, we incorporated experts' cost assessments into a levelized cost of driving model. Given technical and fuel price uncertainty, FCEV costs ranged from $0.38 to $0.45/mile ($0.24-$0.28/km) in 2020, $0.30 to $0.33/mile ($0.19-$0.21/km) in 2035-2050, and $0.27 to $0.31/mile ($0.17-$0.19/km) in 2050. Depending on fuel, electricity, and battery prices, our findings suggest that FCEVs could compete with conventional and alternative fuel vehicles by 2035.

Reducing U.S. residential energy use and CO2 emissions: how much, how soon, and at what cost?

There is growing interest in reducing energy use and emissions of carbon dioxide from the residential sector by deploying cost-effectiveness energy efficiency measures. However, there is still large uncertainty about the magnitude of the reductions that could be achieved by pursuing different energy efficiency measures across the nation. Using detailed estimates of the current inventory and performance of major appliances in U.S. homes, we model the cost, energy, and CO2 emissions reduction if they were replaced with alternatives that consume less energy or emit less CO2. We explore trade-offs between reducing CO2, reducing primary or final energy, or electricity consumption. We explore switching between electricity and direct fuel use, and among fuels. The trade-offs between different energy efficiency policy goals, as well as the environmental metrics used, are important but have been largely unexplored by previous energy modelers and policy-makers. We find that overnight replacement of the full stock of major residential appliances sets an upper bound of just over 710 × 10(6) tonnes/year of CO2 or a 56% reduction from baseline residential emissions. However, a policy designed instead to minimize primary energy consumption instead of CO2 emissions will achieve a 48% reduction in annual carbon dioxide emissions from the nine largest energy consuming residential end-uses. Thus, we explore the uncertainty regarding the main assumptions and different policy goals in a detailed sensitivity analysis.