[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING FEDERAL VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 24, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
48-005PS WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL D. TONKO, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH STACK Republican Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
STACEY STEEP Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
March 24, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chair, Subcommittee on
Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 6
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 8
Written Statement............................................ 8
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Witnesses:
Mr. Steven Chalk, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of
Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Written Statement............................................ 12
Biography.................................................... 16
Dr. Kathryn Clay, Director of Research, Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers
Oral Statement............................................... 17
Written Statement............................................ 18
Biography.................................................... 20
Mr. Thomas C. Baloga, Vice President of Engineering-US, BMW of
North America, LLC
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Biography.................................................... 26
Dr. John H. Johnson, Presidential Professor of Mechanical
Engineering, Michigan Technological University
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Written Statement............................................ 28
Biography.................................................... 33
Mr. Anthony Greszler, Vice President of Government and Industry
Relations, Volvo Powertrain North America
Oral Statement............................................... 34
Written Statement............................................ 35
Biography.................................................... 37
Discussion
DOE's Response to Recommendations.............................. 38
Funding From the Recovery Act and Private Partnerships......... 39
Innovation and Job Creation.................................... 41
Avoiding Picking Winners and Losers............................ 42
Industry Funding Levels and Viability.......................... 43
Batteries...................................................... 44
The Relative Merits of Various Transportation Innovations...... 45
Domestic Jobs.................................................. 47
Other Promising Technologies................................... 48
Ethanol and Fuel Efficiency Standards.......................... 49
Innovations in Fuel Efficiency................................. 51
The Need for Flex Fuel Vehicles................................ 54
Hydrogen Fuel.................................................. 56
Funding Levels and Sources..................................... 59
European Innovations........................................... 61
Closing........................................................ 62
Appendix: Additional Material for the Record
Letters to Chairman Brian Baird from John Boesel, President and
CEO of CALSTART, dated March 23, 2009.......................... 66
HTUF Partners.................................................... 70
Joint Statement of CNH America LLC, Caterpillar, Inc., and Deere
& Company...................................................... 77
EXAMINING FEDERAL VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Examining Federal Vehicle Technology
Research and Development Programs
tuesday, march 24, 2009
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Tuesday, March 24, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
will hold a hearing to receive testimony on the Department of Energy's
(DOE) Vehicle Technologies research and development programs. Witnesses
will discuss the role of federal research programs in light- and heavy-
duty vehicle technology development, as well as future directions for
FreedomCAR and 21st Century Truck Partnerships at DOE, specifically,
and proposals for programmatic changes to meet ever-changing market and
public needs.
WITNESSES
Mr. Steven Chalk--Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy
Dr. Kathryn Clay--Director of Research, Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers
Mr. Anthony Greszler--Vice President of Government
and Industry Relations, Volvo Powertrain North America; Member,
21st Century Truck Partnership Executive Committee
Dr. John H. Johnson--Presidential Professor of
Mechanical Engineering, Michigan Technological University;
Chair, National Academies Committee to Review the 21st Century
Truck Partnership
Mr. Thomas C. Baloga--Vice President of Engineering
U.S., BMW of North America
BACKGROUND
For over two decades the Department of Energy has funded a wide
range of research activities on passenger vehicles and heavy-duty
trucks through its Vehicle Technologies program. The program's mission
is to ``Develop `leap frog' technologies that will provide Americans
with greater freedom of mobility and energy security, while lowering
costs and reducing impacts on the environment.'' Most recently DOE has
addressed these research needs through two public-private research
programs: The 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP), which conducts
R&D through collaborations with the heavy-duty trucking industry; and
the FreedomCAR and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative programs which examine
the pre-competitive, high-risk research needed to develop technologies
that will apply to a range of affordable cars and light trucks.
Over the last decade federal research priorities have shifted
between passenger and heavy-duty vehicles, as well as diesel-hybrids,
hydrogen-fueled, and battery-powered drive systems. While the programs
have had some notable successes in transferring technologies to the
marketplace, critics contend that previous administrations have adopted
an inconsistent winner-take-all approach to vehicle research where one
technology or platform receives the large bulk of funding, only to have
funding cut before the programs can reasonably be expected to develop
commercially viable technologies. They will argue that what is needed
is long-term sustained funding on a broad range of areas from near-
commercial technologies to exploratory research on systems with the
potential to revolutionize transportation in the U.S. Striking the
appropriate research balance and strengthening the federal commitment
in this area is especially critical at a time when both the automotive
and trucking industries have very limited resources for research and
development.
Light-Duty Vehicles and the FreedomCAR Partnership
FreedomCAR has been focused primarily on R&D for hydrogen-powered
passenger vehicles. Launched in 2003, the initiative aims to help
industry make mass-market fuel cell and hydrogen combustion vehicles
available at an affordable cost within 10 to 15 years. The program
replaced the Clinton Administration initiative, the Partnership for a
New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV), which was funded for 10 years with
the goal of developing ultra-efficient diesel hybrid passenger vehicles
with fuel mileage up to 80 miles per gallon. PNGV resulted in prototype
vehicles that met the criteria, but was ultimately canceled in 2001 at
the request of the industry partners represented as U.S. Council for
Automotive Research (USCAR--Daimler Chrysler, Ford, and General
Motors).
The FreedomCAR program was then established as a collaborative
effort between DOE, energy companies and the USCAR partners, and the
focus was shifted to longer-term research on hydrogen vehicles. While
simultaneously pursuing their own proprietary research, the partners
work together to develop hydrogen technology roadmaps, determine
technical requirements and goals, and suggest R&D priorities for the
federal program. Efforts are divided among six technical teams: fuel
cells, advanced combustion and emissions control, systems engineering
and analysis, electrochemical energy storage, material, and electrical
and electronics. Generally, the partners aim to have reliable systems
for future fuel cell power trains with costs comparable to conventional
internal combustion engines and automatic transmission systems. If
successful, advances in hydrogen technologies could ultimately mean
significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, reduced fuel costs
for consumers, and greatly decreased imports of foreign oil.
However, FreedomCAR has raised public debate over several issues
including the proper role of the government in R&D with ultimate market
applications, as well as the appropriate level of funding for such
long-term research when there are more immediate needs in the vehicle
sector. The Congressional Research Service found that some critics of
the program believe that there are too many technical and economic
hurdles to the development of affordable, practical hydrogen and fuel
cell technology for automobiles, and that federal research should focus
on more realistic goals. Proponents of hydrogen research contend that
it will require many years of sustained funding to realize its
potential for revolutionizing the transportation sector, and
withdrawing support now would amount to the squandering of several
years and billions of dollars in government and private research.
Between 2003 and 2008 the FreedomCAR and the hydrogen related
research at DOE saw a steady increase in funding from $184.6 million to
$338.5 million. However, for FY09, the Bush Administration's request
for hydrogen related research within the Vehicle Technologies program
dropped 30 percent below the FY08 appropriation, indicating that the
program's focus would shift towards plug-in hybrid and alternative fuel
vehicles technologies.
Medium- to Heavy-Duty Trucks, and the 21st Century Truck Partnership at
DOE
Launched in 2000, the 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP)
explores technology improvements in commercial and military trucks and
buses. The aim of the program is to support R&D in five key areas:
engine systems, heavy-duty hybrids, parasitic losses, idle reduction
and safety. Other federal agencies in the 21st Century Truck
Partnership include the Department of Defense, Department of
Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The goal of
21CTP is to combine federal and industry resources to develop a
balanced portfolio of heavy-duty truck research activities, coordinate
their research activities where appropriate, and make effective use of
the Nation's research universities and national laboratories. In
addition to funding specific research projects, 21CTP also serves as a
forum for information exchange across all government and industrial
sectors related to heavy truck research.
Funding for the Partnership steadily increased from $45.6 million
in FY99 to $86.6 million in FY02. However, despite the potential
economic and environmental benefits of improvements in trucks and the
considerable technical hurdles that remain, the 21st Century Truck
Partnership started to see a decrease in it's funding in FY03 and hit a
low of $29 million in FY08. Stakeholders in 21CTP contend that the Bush
Administration's decision to shift the focus of federal research to the
passenger vehicle market came at the expense of truck related research.
Since 2000 there have been a number of suggestions on how to
improve the 21CTP. In 2008, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) at
the request of DOE released a report entitled, ``Review of the 21st
Century Truck Partnership.'' In this report the Academies panel
examined the overall adequacy and balance of the program, and made
recommendations to improve the likelihood of 21CTP meeting its goals.
There are a variety of recommendations related to the five main
research areas and additional recommendations on the structure and
management of the program. The Chair of this review panel will testify
on the panel's findings and recommendations at the hearing.
Electric hybridization is one area of focus for 21CTP. The power
demands on trucks are as varied as the applications, and significant
technical hurdles remain in hybridization. There is no one-size-fits-
all solution for the entire sector. For example, through the course of
an average drive cycle the charging and discharging of a hybrid system
on a refuse truck, with its frequent starts and stops, dumpster
lifting, and trash compaction, will be considerably different than that
of a utility truck which may sit idling in one place for several hours
in order to operate the bucket lifting boom and other equipment.
Hybridization of long-haul tractor trailer rigs (Class 8) may prove
even more challenging since they seldom brake during a drive cycle,
providing few opportunities for battery systems to recharge through
regenerative braking.
While the total number of heavy trucks is small compared to
passenger vehicles, their fuel consumption and emissions justifies the
high costs of development of hybrid models and other advanced truck
technologies. According to figures by the Oshkosh Truck Corporation
there are approximately 90,000 refuse collection trucks in the U.S. but
their collective fuel consumption is roughly equivalent to 2.5 million
passenger vehicles (based on 10,000 gallons/year per truck). Estimates
done by the Eaton Corporation show that as little as 10,000 hybrid
electric trucks could reduce diesel fuel usage by 7.2 million gallons/
year (approx. one million barrels of oil), reduce NOX emissions by the
amount equivalent to removing New York City's passenger cars for 25
days, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 83,000 tons.
Given the additional funding for vehicle technologies under the
American Recovery and Investment Act, and growing public awareness of
the need for new vehicle technologies, it is important that DOE
programs be continually assessed for their ability to meet the changing
needs of the transportation sector. Witnesses at the hearing will
address both the strengths and weaknesses of the public-private
research programs, as well as provide suggestions for how the programs
can be enhanced to ensure the most appropriate use of taxpayer funds in
this sector.
Chair Baird. Well, welcome to our hearing today. I am very
grateful for our distinguished panel of witnesses, for those in
the audience, and my good friends and colleagues on the panel.
This is a topic I find incredibly fascinating and
absolutely essential to solving our energy consumption and
global overheating and ocean acidification problems. We are
always going to be in some fashion moving ourselves about the
planet in vehicles, and the question is how can we do this in
the most energy-efficient and environmentally-responsible way.
And our panelists today can enlighten us on this.
I will start with a brief editorial observation that maybe
not everyone will agree with, but I find it compelling, and it
is that some years ago the United States, I think, had made
some important strides on energy efficient vehicles,
particularly the Chevy Corvair, and it was a front-wheel-drive,
high-mileage vehicle, and rather ironically it was killed by
Ralph Nader. And the damage that did to fuel efficiency in this
country is immeasurable, and hence the damage it did to the
environment because we labeled small cars, fuel-efficient cars
unsafe at any speed, and that has left a legacy of, I think,
inefficient vehicles that has contributed to global warming and
overheating. And hopefully we can move forward with more
responsible efforts to change how we drive and what we drive
and what our mileage is.
Our hearing today deals with DOE's program, and DOE has
supported a diverse portfolio of research in vehicle
technologies for many years. The goal of the programs is to
develop technologies that will maintain the freedom of mobility
that vehicles provide while improving our energy security and
reducing impacts on the environment. The program sponsors
collaborative research on passenger vehicles through the
FreedomCAR Partnership, and on heavy-duty trucks through the
21st Century Truck Partnership.
While these partnerships have had a number of successes, it
is important to recognize when a shift in priorities needs to
take place. As stewards of the taxpayers' dollars it is our
responsibility to continually assess these programs and ensure
that research activities are relevant to the industry's needs
for commercially-viable technologies and appropriate to the
government's role in exploratory research in areas that
industry partners would not be able to pursue on their own.
This hearing today should shed light on some of these
confusing and sometimes conflicting priorities. Many
stakeholders argue that the Vehicle Technology Program at DOE
has been a victim of drastic swings in priority between
Administrations. The Clinton Administration sought to develop
highly-efficient diesel hybrid passenger cars along with
technologies for cleaner and more efficient trucks. The Bush
Administration chose to focus instead on long-term research on
hydrogen passenger vehicles and infrastructure and to reduce
the funding for the heavy-duty truck research. Now as the new
Administration develops its own policies, I hope we will avoid
again putting all our eggs in one technology basket.
While we must be targeted in our federal R&D programs, a
single-minded approach can ignore the importance of balancing a
diverse portfolio with sustained funding for long-term
research. Last year the National Academies of Science reviewed
both the FreedomCAR and the 21st Century Truck Programs and
made a number of recommendations for programmatic changes, some
of which we will hear today.
Given the recommendations of these two reports and the
constantly changing landscape in the vehicle sector, the
Committee is interested in hearing the witnesses' views on what
the near-term priorities and future direction should be for the
Vehicle Technologies Program at DOE.
With that I look forward to working with you all in
exploring ways in which federal programs can be improved to
support a robust vehicle manufacturing industry and to better
serve public needs in advanced passenger vehicles and heavy-
duty truck technology development.
I now would recognize my distinguished colleague and friend
from South Carolina, our Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis, for his
opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chair Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chair Brian Baird
I want to welcome Members of the Subcommittee and our distinguished
panelists to today's hearing examining the vehicle technology research
and development programs at the Department of Energy (DOE).
With concerns about our over-reliance on foreign oil, the
fluctuating costs of fuels, and the impact of the transportation sector
on air quality and carbon emissions, it is imperative that we
continually push the envelope in passenger and commercial vehicle
technologies.
DOE has supported a diverse portfolio of research in vehicle
technologies for many years. The goal of these programs is to develop
technologies that will maintain the freedom of mobility that vehicles
provide, while improving our energy security and reducing their impacts
on the environment. The program sponsors collaborative research on
passenger vehicles through the FreedomCAR Partnership, and on heavy-
duty trucks through the 21st Century Truck Partnership.
While these partnerships have had a number of successes, it is
important to recognize when a shift in priorities needs to take place.
As stewards of the taxpayers' dollars it is our responsibility to
continually assess these programs and ensure that research activities
are both relevant to the industry's needs for commercially-viable
technologies, and appropriate to the government's role in exploratory
research in areas that industry partners would not be able to pursue on
their own. This hearing today should shed some light on these often
confusing, and sometimes conflicting, priorities.
Many stakeholders argue that the Vehicle Technologies program at
DOE has been a victim of drastic swings in priority between
Administrations. The Clinton Administration sought to develop highly
efficient diesel hybrid passenger cars, along with technologies for
cleaner and more efficient trucks. The Bush Administration chose to
focus instead on longer-term research in hydrogen passenger vehicles
and infrastructure, and to reduce the funding for heavy-duty truck
research.
Now, as the new administration develops its own policies, I hope
that we will avoid again putting all of our eggs in one technology
basket. While we must be targeted in our federal R&D programs, this
single-minded approach ignores the importance of balancing a diverse
portfolio with sustained funding for longer-term research.
Last year the National Academies of Science reviewed both the
FreedomCAR and 21st Century Truck programs, and made a number of
recommendations for programmatic changes, some of which we will hear
today. Given the recommendations of these two reports, and the
constantly changing landscape in the vehicles sector, the Committee is
interested in hearing the witnesses' views on what the near-term
priorities and future directions should be for the Vehicle Technologies
Program at DOE.
With that, I look forward to working with you all in exploring ways
in which federal programs can be improved to support a robust vehicle
manufacturing industry and to better serve public needs in advanced
passenger vehicle and heavy-duty truck technology development.
I now yield to my distinguished colleague from South Carolina, our
Ranking Member, Mr. Inglis for his opening statement.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Transportation clearly needs innovation. The transportation
sector is our primary consumer of oil and is the second largest
emitter of carbon dioxide in the country. So the Federal
Government should continue its efforts to provide vehicle
technology research and development. Transitioning from today's
dependence on oil to tomorrow's clean energy economy holds
enormous potential for our economy, environment, and national
security.
I am particularly excited about having our friend, Thomas
Baloga, from--Vice President of Engineering from BMW North
America. Mr. Chair, I have got to point out that that is big
for us in South Carolina, the fact that we have BMW there. In
the upstate of South Carolina, BMW and the International Center
for Automotive Research are working together to reinvent the
car with innovation in various things like hydrogen combustion,
battery research and development, and it is particularly
exciting for us.
I should also point out that were it not really for BMW
South Carolina would not have a claim on the transportation
innovation future. We are immensely grateful for the $6 billion
that BMW has invested in South Carolina, 750 million of which
is coming out of the ground right now in an expansion to
produce, bring the production of the X-3 to Greer, South
Carolina, along with the X-5 and the brand new X-6.
So because we have this wonderful blessing of BMW in the
upstate of South Carolina, we have a claim to part of the
innovation future, and we are particularly excited about
partnering in any way we can with the Federal Government and
agencies and others interested in this process to find ways to
break this addiction to oil, to truly innovate our way out of
our current fix.
So, thank you, again, Mr. Chair, for holding this hearing.
I look forward to hearing our witnesses and how we can continue
to develop and encourage the partnership between federal R&D
support and the vehicle industry.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Transportation needs innovation. The transportation sector is our
primary consumer of oil, and is the second largest emitter of carbon
dioxide in the country. The Federal Government must continue to support
efforts in vehicle technology research and development. Transitioning
from today's dependence on oil to tomorrow's clean energy economy holds
enormous potential to for our economy, environment, and national
security.
I'm delighted to have Mr. Thomas Baloga here this morning, Vice
President of Engineering at BMW North America, located in the Fourth
District of South Carolina. In the Upstate, BMW and the International
Center for Automotive Research are working together to reinvent the car
with innovation in hydrogen combustion and battery research and
development.
Meanwhile, in the present, BMW employs about 5,000 at the plant and
its suppliers employ over 17,000 in our region. Without BMW, we
wouldn't have a claim on the transportation innovation future in South
Carolina, and we are immensely grateful for the $6.0 billion they have
invested in SC--$750 million of which is coming out of the ground new
in an expansion to produce the new X-3 alongside the X-5 and X-6.
Thank you again for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses about how we can continue to
encourage the partnership between federal R&D support and the vehicle
industry.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. I appreciate your good
words, and we also have with us Mr. Tonko and Dr. Ehlers. I
also want to acknowledge the presence of former Member of
Congress, Dave McCurdy. Dave, good to see you again, and thank
you for being here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing
to discuss the role of federal research programs in light- and heavy-
duty vehicle technology development.
As a supporter of advanced energy research and a senior Member of
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I applaud the
Department of Energy for their far-reaching efforts to promote the
development of new, clean, cost-efficient vehicle technologies for
passenger cars and for medium- to heavy-duty trucks. FreedomCAR and the
21st Century Truck Partnership are innovative public-private
partnerships that focus on creating a roadmap for the expansion of
hydrogen and hybrid vehicles of any size. They provide unique forums
for the public sector and the private sector to come together, share
ideas, and discuss emerging technologies. Many of the new vehicle
technologies are in their earliest stages, and the long-term focus of
these partnerships will ensure that the best new ideas move from the
drafting board to our garages, lowering our energy costs and protecting
our environment.
I am interested to hear from our witnesses about the challenges and
opportunities facing development of both light-duty vehicle and medium-
to heavy-duty truck research. Over the past fiscal years, funding for
vehicular research and development has favored light-duty vehicles and
passenger cars. However, some research suggests that investment in the
development of more efficient medium- to heavy-duty vehicles could have
a larger impact on the environment. I support the development of new
technologies in both fields, and I am interested to hear how the
Department of Energy and industry representatives view the funding
division and how the Science and Technology Committee can work with
both industries to meet the changing needs of the transportation
sector.
The Obama Administration has made it clear that science and
technological advancement will be a top priority for the United States.
I can think of no better place to begin our renewed focus on energy
efficiency than on our roadways and in our cars.
I welcome our panel of witnesses, and I look forward to their
testimony.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Today's Energy Subcommittee hearing on vehicle technology research
will be beneficial for developing forward-thinking science policy.
As a Member of the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, I have a keen interest in any policies affecting
vehicles.
My home State of Texas, the second largest state in the Union, has
the most State highway miles in the country. There are more than 79,000
miles of highways in Texas.
Improvements in fuel efficiency for cars and trucks will have a
major impact there.
It is my hope that today's witnesses will discuss, in greater
detail, the role of federal research programs in light- and heavy-duty
vehicle technology development.
The Department of Energy will play a major role in funding research
to develop cars and trucks that are more fuel efficient.
While market prices for oil and gas may change, one thing is
certain: there is a limited world supply of these items.
We, as a nation, must invest in fuel technology innovation. The
President has signaled a strong interest in energy research.
I thank the Chairman for inviting industry leaders to testify on
the potential impacts of various policy scenarios.
It is certainly our intention to help, not hinder, vehicle
manufacturers to innovate to meet future demands.
Heavy load-bearing trucks demand lots of power to transport freight
across the country. I see this as a significant challenge to the truck
industry, especially as fuel prices have been volatile.
Considering the additional funding for vehicle technologies under
the American Recovery and Investment Act, it is important that
Department of Energy programs be continually assessed for their ability
to meet the changing needs of the transportation sector.
Mr. Chairman, support for fuel efficiency technology is support for
a more fuel-independent nation.
This committee has tremendous potential to blaze a trail. We must
lead the way to incentivize innovation in vehicle research.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chair Baird. With that I will introduce the witnesses. Your
seating arrangement is slightly different than the order you
will speak, and so I will introduce you in the order you will
speak and then we will proceed.
Mr. Steven Chalk is the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the
U.S. Department of Energy. Mr. Chalk, glad you are here. I
understand you are in some pain from a back injury, so we will
be as accommodating as we possibly can be, and we appreciate
very much your being with us.
Dr. Kathryn Clay, Director of Research at the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers and a former staff member for this
committee. Dr. Clay, it is great to see you again. Thank you
for being here.
Dr. John Johnson is President and Professor, Presidential
Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Michigan Technological
University. Dr. Johnson also chaired the National Academy's
panel reviewing the 21st Century Truck Partnership. Dr. Ehlers
has some affection for Michigan. If he wishes to add any
comments, I would welcome that at this point. Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very pleased that
Dr. Johnson is able to be here.
Many people in the lower 48 don't know a great deal about
Michigan Technological University, but it is an outstanding
university located in the frozen north of Michigan, and I think
that you are down to about four feet of snow now apparently.
But it is a great advantage. After they snowshoe to the
university in the morning, they are pretty well locked in all
day doing research, and they have produced some really
tremendous results there. It is an outstanding university, and
we are very blessed to have Dr. Johnson with us today. And
thank you for being here.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. Anthony Greszler is the Vice President of Government
and Industry Relations at Volvo Powertrain North America. He
also serves on the Executive Committee, the 21st Century Truck
Partnership.
And last but by no means least, Mr. Thomas Baloga, who is
Vice President of Engineering for BMW, which my friend Mr.
Inglis already acknowledged.
As our witnesses know, you will each have five minutes for
your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be included
in the record for the hearing. When you all have completed your
spoken testimony, we will begin with questions with each Member
having five minutes to question the panel, and, again, any
colleagues who want to offer comments for the record, those
will be accepted.
We will start with Mr. Chalk. Mr. Chalk, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF MR. STEVEN CHALK, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Mr. Chalk. Thank you, Chair Baird and Ranking Member
Inglis, Members of the Committee. Thanks for the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the Department of Energy's
Vehicle Technologies Program activities.
Vehicles are pivotal in meeting some of the most
significant challenges our nation faces today: dependence on
foreign oil and climate change. The transportation sector
counts for more than two-thirds of our U.S. oil usage, so
advances in transportation technology must play a major role in
reducing our oil dependence and improving energy security.
It is also central to combating global warming, as
improvements in efficiency of vehicles and advances in
alternative fuels will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Additionally, vehicle technologies affect consumer
pocketbooks. For every one percent improvement we have in fuel
economy across the Nation's fleet, consumers can save more than
two billion gallons of fuel annually.
DOE's Vehicle Technology Program addresses the Nation's
petroleum dependency on two fronts: improved efficiency of the
vehicles we drive and through fuel substitution, including
biofuels, electricity, and hydrogen. The Department leads a
cooperative effort among energy companies, utilities, and
vehicle manufacturers to develop the next generation of
automotive technology. Our entire program is reviewed every
other year by the National Academy, the National Research
Foundation, who give us the recommendations. We work those into
the program to improve the program.
We have historically had a robust light-duty vehicle
program and are evaluating options for innovative programs that
recognize the growing importance of heavy-duty vehicles within
our budget. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles warrant increased
attention because of their growing fuel use, and it is pivotal
to the Nation's economy.
The EIA projects that heavy-truck consumption is going to
increase 23 percent between today and 2020, while overall
transportation use is forecasted to stay relatively flat. So
the influence of heavy-duty vehicles on oil dependence and
greenhouse gas emissions is, therefore, likely to play a
greater and greater role.
So heavy-duty vehicles are essential also to the well-being
of the business community, with 70 percent of freight tonnage
transported by truck. So when diesel prices go up, the trucking
industry, many businesses struggle. The additional cost is then
passed on to the consumer, since everything we buy from
groceries to appliances to clothing comes to the store in a
truck.
So, fortunately, the heavy-duty vehicle industry adapts to
technological advances relatively quickly. While it might take
15 years for technology to reach a maximum penetration in new
cars and light trucks, and you mentioned front-wheel drive took
about that long to penetrate the market, the timetable is
closer to about three years for the heavy-duty fleet.
So this quick adoption of technology of heavy-duty vehicle
fleet operators means rapid opportunities for job creation,
improved energy security, and lower carbon emissions. Some of
the Department's successes in the light-duty vehicles can
migrate up or over to the heavy-duty sector, such as the
batteries we are developing, the power electronics, or
hybridization of heavy trucks.
In the future there is a lot of potential for light-duty,
plug-in hybrid vehicles, or PHEVs as we might call them. They
can stretch a passenger vehicle mileage up to over 100 miles
per gallon on a gasoline basis and displace petroleum by
substituting electricity from the grid for gasoline. And since
PHEV owners might typically charge their vehicles at night,
this would limit the impact to the electrical grid and allow
consumers to take advantage of off-peak electricity rates. In a
study done by the Pacific Northwest Lab showed that over or
about 70 percent of our current light-duty vehicle fleet could
be replaced with PHEDs without significant impact to the
electrical grid.
The Department's heavy-duty vehicle R&D focuses on advanced
combustion and increased engine efficiency, including waste
heat recovery, optimizing engines for urban and highway hybrid
applications, encouraging the use of renewable diesel fuel, and
reducing powertrain loses. The DOE has contributed to important
advances in heavy-duty engine efficiency. The program had a
goal of 42 percent or the baseline efficiency, I should say,
was about 42 percent for heavy trucks. We had a stretch goal of
50 percent, and two of the partners we worked with demonstrated
over 47 percent. So I think there was some success there,
although we do recognize the Academy's recommendation to
demonstrate that in a full heavy-duty vehicle.
When the NRC reviewed the partnership last year, they
recommended that we do a more systems-designed approach, and we
are taking that under consideration as we re-plan the program.
The next steps towards making significant technological
advances will be to look at the system as a whole. So in the
heavy-duty vehicle we will look at the powertrain, the fuels,
materials, aerodynamics, hybridization, idle reduction. All
these capabilities must be engineered together to reach the
most efficient vehicle energy balance.
So during this period of economic challenge it is critical
that we forge an even stronger R&D alliance with industry to
develop the next generation of world class, clean, efficient
vehicles for both personal and commercial transportation.
So thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you
all may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chalk follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven Chalk
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Vehicle Technologies Program
activities. Reducing U.S. dependence on oil is one of the most
significant ways in which our Nation can improve energy security and
address global climate change.
The mission of the Vehicle Technologies Program is to develop more
energy-efficient and environmentally friendly highway transportation
technologies for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles that meet
emissions regulations and reduce petroleum dependence without
sacrificing performance or passenger safety. Accomplishing the mission
will contribute to climate change mitigation, energy and economic
security, and enable more productive use of the Nation's total energy
resources. The FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act provides over $273
million for the Vehicle Technologies Program, compared to $213 million
in FY 2008.
As the sector responsible for more than two-thirds of U.S. oil
usage, advances in transportation technology can have a major impact on
reducing oil dependence.\1\ Additionally, according to one study, for
every one percent improvement in vehicle fuel efficiency across the
Nation's fleet, consumers could save more than two billion gallons of
fuel annually.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 27, Table 1.13.
\2\ ``Tires and Passenger Vehicle Fuel Economy,'' NRC, http://
books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record-id=11620&page=4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our research agenda is guided by an extensive analysis, test and
evaluation effort, as well as stakeholder involvement. Typically,
projects undergo independent peer evaluation every year. This
evaluation helps inform future direction and project close-out.
The Department leads a cooperative effort among energy companies,
utilities and vehicle manufacturers to develop the next generation of
personal transportation. Our entire program is reviewed every other
year by the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council
(NRC). NRC findings are evaluated and recommendations implemented to
improve the effort's effectiveness.
In the area of personal transportation, the Department's Vehicle
Technologies Program addresses the Nation's petroleum dependency on two
fronts--improving efficiency of the vehicles we drive, and substituting
to new fuels, including biofuels and electricity. The Program Research
and Development (R&D) portfolio includes:
Hybrid and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles (PHEV)--R&D for
battery, electrical machines, electric motors and battery
systems research for hybrid, and PHEVs
Fuels--Improved utilization of petroleum and non-
petroleum fuels, addressing light-, medium-, and heavy-duty
vehicles
Materials--Advanced material development and
manufacturing, e.g., carbon fiber and thermoelectric materials
Internal Combustion Engines (ICE)--Efficiency
improvements for conventional ICEs
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Systems and Components
Development of PHEVs can provide significant improvements in fuel
economy and petroleum displacement by using electricity from the grid
at off-peak hours. PHEVs are similar to the current generation of
hybrid vehicles, except that the battery is significantly larger,
providing a range of up to 40 miles in an all-electric mode and
allowing the battery to be charged by ``plugging in'' to a standard
wall socket.\3\ Forty miles in an all-electric mode is more than
adequate for the typical urban commuter, but not all U.S. drivers are
typical; after 40 miles, the engine takes over and the vehicle operates
similar to today's hybrids, achieving excellent fuel economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``PHEV Batteries,'' Transportation Technology Research and
Development Center, Argonne National Laboratory, http://
www.transportation.anl.gov/batteries/phev-batteries.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHEVs displace petroleum by substituting electricity from the grid
for gasoline. A PHEV stretches a vehicle's mileage up to 100 mpg on a
gasoline basis.\4\ Since PHEV owners would typically charge their
vehicles at night, this would limit the impact to the electric grid and
allow consumers to take advantage of off-peak electricity rates, in
states where time-of-day pricing is in effect. A study by the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory has shown that 70 percent of the current
vehicle fleet could be replaced with PHEVs without significant impact
to the electric power grid.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``All About Plug-In Hybrids (PHEVs),'' http://www.calcars.org/
vehicles.html
\5\ ``U-M, PNNL study: Are plug-ins the next wave of hybrid
vehicles?'' Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, http://www.pnl.gov/
news/release.asp?id=272
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A key component of the emergence of PHEVs is a new generation of
lithium-ion batteries. The success of the lithium-ion battery is
imperative for PHEV deployment and commercial acceptance. However,
these batteries are still too expensive and require further
technological improvements for widespread consumer acceptance.
Continued development of battery and electric motor technologies will
allow future generations of hybrids and PHEVs to compete with
conventional ICE vehicles on a cost competitive basis.
While the U.S. has a robust industry base in certain types of
conventional batteries like alkaline ``flashlight'' batteries and lead-
acid ``starter'' batteries, we have very little manufacturing
capability for new generation batteries like lithium-ion, for which
more than 95 percent of the world's production is located in Asia.\6\
Because the vehicle fleet of tomorrow will include more and more
hybrids, PHEVs, and even all-electric vehicles, there is a pressing
need to establish the facilities to manufacture those batteries in the
United States. The President made the first step towards doing just
that last week when he announced the release of a $2 billion Advanced
Battery Manufacturing solicitation funded by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). The solicitation includes up to $1.5
billion to establish battery manufacturing facilities, representing an
important step forward for vehicle technology. Making batteries in the
United States will facilitate the Administration's goal of putting one
million PHEVs on the road by 2015. In addition, these battery
manufacturing facilities can supply advanced batteries for defense
applications, consumer electronics, power tools, utility voltage
regulation, and truck idling mitigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ ``Sourcing Report: Lithium Batteries,'' http://
www.chinasourcingreports.com/csr/Electronic-Components/Lithium-
Batteries/p/CSRLIT/Industry-Overview.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Along with increased battery and PHEV development, deployment of
alternative fuels can reduce transportation oil consumption. DOE is a
leader in facilitating the deployment of alternative fuels, including
ethanol blends, biodiesel, hydrogen, and electricity while developing
fuel infrastructures through partnerships with State and local
governments, universities, and industry. The fuels effort supports R&D
directed towards providing consumers with fuel options that are cost-
competitive, enable higher fuel economy, deliver lower emissions, and
reduce the use of oil. One specific activity is the evaluation of the
impact intermediate blends of ethanol, such as E15 and E20 (15 percent
and 20 percent ethanol mixed with gasoline), have on performance,
emissions and durability of the existing vehicle fleet and on small,
non-road engines. While alternative fuels can reduce dependence on oil
imports, DOE recognizes that careful analysis is needed to assess the
effects of such fuels on emissions.
Reducing vehicle weight and energy loss during vehicle operation
directly improves vehicle fuel economy. The introduction of cost-
effective, high-strength materials and thermoelectric\7\ materials can
significantly reduce vehicle weight without compromising safety while
improving efficiency. The use of lightweight, high-performance
materials such as carbon fiber, polymers, and metal alloys will
contribute to the development of vehicles that provide better fuel
economy, yet are comparable in size and comfort to today's vehicles.
The goal is to develop and validate cost-effective high strength
material technologies that could significantly reduce vehicle weight
without compromising cost, performance, safety, or recyclability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Thermoelectric'' refers to the conversion of heat directly to
electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved combustion technologies and optimized fuel systems can
provide near- and mid-term fuel efficiency gains. The goal here is to
achieve engine efficiency for passenger vehicles of 45 percent, a
substantial increase from the current average of 30 percent.\8\ DOE's
Vehicle Technologies Program focuses much of its effort on improving
vehicle fuel economy while meeting increasingly stringent emissions
standards. Achieving these goals requires a comprehensive understanding
of relationships among fuel economy, emissions, and engine and hybrid
system control strategies, in order to minimize the fuel economy
penalty associated with emission controls. Researchers at universities,
private industry and DOE's National Laboratories are working to
identify technologies and engine control strategies that achieve the
best combination of high fuel economy and low emissions for advanced
diesel, gasoline, and hydrogen internal combustion engines for
application in conventional and hybrid-electric drives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Summary of Fuel Economy Performance'' (Washington, DC: Annual
Issues), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, available at http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.43ac99aefa80569eea57529cdba046a0/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the future, we see a continuing trend toward electrification of
vehicle drivetrains and ancillary components, as well as light-
weighting and widespread deployment of biofuels for use in the light-
duty vehicle sector.
Highway vehicles account for 80 percent of the transportation
sector with heavy-duty vehicles consuming approximately 25 percent of
the fuel.\9\ Trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles are of the utmost
importance to the business community, with 69 percent of freight
tonnage transported by truck.\10\ When diesel prices go up, the
trucking industry and many businesses struggle. The Energy Information
Administration's 2008 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) predicts that U.S.
heavy truck fuel consumption will increase 23 percent between 2009 and
2020.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Transportation Energy Data Book Edition 27, Table 2.5, page 2-
1.
\10\ American Trucking Trends 2008-2009, p. 5.
\11\ ``Annual Energy Outlook 2008,'' Energy Information
Administration, Table A7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technological advancements are adopted by the heavy-duty vehicle
industry more quickly than the light-duty sector due to several
factors, including the willingness to be early-adopters and the
immediate payoff and high return on investment that the industry sees
upon implementation. It takes approximately 15 years for a technology
to reach maximum penetration in sales of new cars and light trucks.\12\
For the heavy-duty fleet, the timetable is closer to three years.\13\
The quick adoption of technology by heavy-duty vehicle fleet operators
may enable more rapid realization of job creation, improved energy
security, and carbon mitigation benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends:
1975 through 2006,'' EPA420-R-011, July 2006, p. 62.
\13\ ``Heavy Truck Research, Development, & Demonstration: Looking
for Return on Investment,'' 2009 SAE Government-Industry Meeting
Presentation, U.S. DOE, slide 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department leads the 21st Century Truck Partnership, a
cooperative effort between the commercial vehicle (truck and bus)
industry and major federal agencies to develop technologies that will
make our nation's commercial vehicles more efficient, clean, and safe.
Specifically, Vehicle Technologies Program R&D aims to increase engine
efficiency, develop hybrid powertrain technologies, reduce parasitic
and idling losses, and validate and demonstrate these technologies. As
noted above, NRC reviews the Partnership's progress every other year
and provides findings and recommendations which are evaluated and
implemented to improve overall effectiveness.
Heavy-duty vehicle R&D focuses on advanced combustion and increased
engine efficiency, including utilizing waste heat recovery; optimizing
engines for urban and highway hybrid applications; encouraging the use
of renewable diesel fuel; and reducing power-train losses. One research
goal is to develop and demonstrate an emissions-compliant engine system
for a typical tractor trailer or ``Class 8 trucks'' with 20 percent
greater engine system fuel efficiency by 2014. NRC recommended that DOE
complete a demonstration of improved engine thermal efficiency. DOE
will consider this recommendation as part of a future heavy-duty
vehicle solicitation.
Medium-duty trucks such as buses, delivery vehicles, and waste
hauling trucks are important because they normally operate under city
driving conditions and often in air quality non-attainment areas.
Medium-duty applications are also an excellent way to transition light-
duty technology into the heavy-duty sector. R&D accomplishments in this
area include the dual mode hybrid technology co-developed with a
transmission manufacturer. This technology was first developed for
hybrid transit buses, with the goal of attaining higher power density
and lower component cost for the electric drive motor and power
electronics. Since October 2003, more than 500 hybrid buses have been
deployed in 44 U.S. cities, a deployment that was supported by the
Federal Transit Administration.\14\ Converting transit bus fleets to
hybrids in the nine largest U.S. cities would impact 18 thousand buses,
equivalent to replacing 720 thousand conventional vehicles with hybrid
cars.\15\ The success with hybrid transit buses has not only
capitalized on an opportunity to penetrate the mass transit market, but
has also opened the technology pathway for the next generation of
commercially viable advanced heavy- and light-duty hybrid vehicles. NRC
recommended that the potential benefits of hybrid Class 8 trucks be
evaluated and that if benefits appeared promising, this activity should
accelerate development of the necessary hybrid technology and
demonstrate it in prototype vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Motor & Power Electronics Development, Arthur McGrew, Allison
Transmission, General Motors Corporation, February 8, 2007.
\15\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electrification of heavy-duty vehicles and idle reduction measures
can yield major fuel savings in the trucking industry, as truckers
often idle their vehicles at truck stops for hours at a time to provide
sleeper compartments with electricity for heat, air conditioning, and
small appliances. Truck stop electrification allows truckers to operate
necessary systems without idling the engine, reducing diesel fuel
emissions and saving trucking companies the cost of that fuel. The
Department's Vehicle Technologies Program has also investigated ways to
electrify mechanical engine accessories to achieve greater efficiency
and is developing thermoelectric devices to convert exhaust heat energy
to electricity to provide on-board power. The NRC committee recommended
continued R&D of the system components that will provide additional
improvements in idle reduction and parasitic losses. DOE agrees with
this recommendation.
The next step toward making significant technological advancements
will be to look at the vehicle system as a whole. In a heavy-duty
vehicle, the powertrain, fuels, materials, aerodynamics, hybridization,
and idle reduction capabilities must be engineered together to reach
the most efficient vehicle energy balance.
The goal with this systems approach is to improve Class 8 freight
efficiency in ``ton-miles per gallon'' \16\ by 50 percent through
accelerated R&D by industry teams led by truck manufacturers. This
would involve developing and integrating a unique combination of
technologies which may include engine efficiency, light-weighting,
hybridization, and parasitic load reduction. Each of these radically
redesigned tractor trailer systems would then be evaluated in
controlled engineering tests followed by rigorous in-service use by
fleet operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Since a fully-loaded Class 8 tractor trailer combination
weighs 80 thousand pounds, the term ``freight efficiency'' in ton-miles
per gallon is a more accurate characterization of this vehicle's
efficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits of mitigating the Nation's addiction to oil through
diverse research, development, deployment, and demonstration activities
include energy security and greenhouse gas reduction. During this
period of economic challenge, it is critical that we forge an even
stronger R&D alliance with industry to develop the next generation of
world-class clean, efficient vehicles for both personal and commercial
transportation.
The Department's focus on hybrid and PHEV R&D for battery,
electrical machines, electric motors and battery systems research;
improved utilization of petroleum and non-petroleum fuels; advanced
material development and manufacturing; efficiency improvements for
conventional ICEs; and heavy-duty vehicle systems and components will
help mitigate the security, environmental and economic challenge the
Nation faces today.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you today to
discuss these important issues. I am happy to answer any questions.
Biography for Steven Chalk
Steven Chalk is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) at the U.S.
Department of Energy. In this capacity, Mr. Chalk is responsible for
managing the programs, staff and policies of EERE and interfacing with
constituent groups in the efficiency and renewable energy sectors.
Mr. Chalk recently held the position of EERE's Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Renewable Energy, where he was responsible for the
management of the government's research, development, and
commercialization efforts in solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, and
hydrogen technologies. Mr. Chalk also previously managed EERE's
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Program, the Solar Energy
Technologies Program and Buildings Technologies Program.
In September 2008, Steve was honored with a Service to America
Medal in the Science and Environment category. This award recognized
his management of several innovative clean energy projects, as well as
his leadership in the Federal Government's efforts to expand the use of
renewable energy and energy efficiency, particularly in the communities
of New Orleans and Greensburg, Kansas.
While leading the Solar Energy Technologies Program, Mr. Chalk was
responsible for planning and implementing the Solar America Initiative,
which aims to make solar technologies cost competitive by 2015. In the
building technologies area, Mr. Chalk led DOE's efforts toward net zero
energy homes and buildings. The portfolio includes component research
such as solid state lighting, market transformation activities such as
EnergyStar, and appliance standards regulations. Before this, Mr. Chalk
led the President's Hydrogen Fuel Initiative where he oversaw
development of a five-year, $1.2 billion research investment in
hydrogen production, delivery, storage, and fuel cells. This portfolio
also includes hydrogen safety, codes and standards, and education
activities.
In his early career at DOE, Mr. Chalk managed technology
development programs in fuel cells, diesel emissions control, and
materials for DOE's advanced automotive technology office. Steve also
worked in the nuclear energy field where he oversaw DOE test programs
for tritium production. Steve started his career with the Navy
developing propellants and explosives for conventional weapons.
Mr. Chalk holds a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from
the University of Maryland and a Master of Science in Mechanical
Engineering from the George Washington University.
Chair Baird. Dr. Clay.
STATEMENT OF DR. KATHRYN CLAY, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, ALLIANCE
OF AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS
Dr. Clay. Thank you. Mr. Chair, good morning. My name is
Kathryn Clay, and I am the Director of Research for the
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The Alliance is a trade
association made up of 11 car and light truck manufacturers,
including BMW group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General
Motors, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes Benz USA, Mitsubishi
Motors, Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen. On behalf of the
member companies of the Alliance, I would like to thank you for
giving me the opportunity to speak with you about vehicle
technology research supported by the Department of Energy and
for opportunities for this work to serve both public and
industry interests in reinventing the automobile.
Meeting our national goals of reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and reducing our reliance on foreign oil will require
the development of a suite of technologies. Responding to this
challenge, automakers are leaders in research and development
investment. Total R&D investment by the industry was $79
billion in 2007, up eight percent from the previous year.
Automakers invest in a diverse array of vehicle
technologies. There is no silver bullet or one right answer to
what the autos of the future should look like. In the coming
decades the vehicle fleet will likely be much more diverse
technologically, with the growing proportions, flex fuel, clean
diesel, fuel cell, hydrogen, internal combustion engine, hybrid
electric, and pure electric vehicles coming into the fleet.
Continued improvements to the efficiency of the internal
combustion engine will also play a significant role for
gasoline vehicles.
I would like to begin by identifying general principles
that should guide the Department of Energy Vehicle Technology
Program to maximize its effectiveness and then provide
recommendations for work on two particular technologies.
First, the Department of Energy Program should aim to
promote technological diversity to the maximum extent feasible,
including the vehicle technologies I have mentioned previously.
Second, recognizing that each alternative vehicle technology
will depend on a well-functioning and available infrastructure.
The Vehicle Technology Program should work collaboratively with
other departmental divisions on alternative fuels
infrastructure challenges.
For example, the Transportation Electrification
Infrastructure Program recently included in the Recovery Act
has the potential to significantly advance vehicles like plug-
in hybrids.
Third, the program should support work that spans the full
range of the R&D spectrum, all the way from basic research to
commercial deployment. Getting the balance right will be
challenging, but no part of the spectrum can be neglected if
new technologies are to be brought from the laboratory bench
all the way through to the marketplace.
Fourth, the Department should consider linkages between the
Vehicle Technologies Program and government purchasing
programs. Acting as early adopters, government fleets can help
lead the way to bringing new automotive technologies to market.
And finally, the Department should develop metrics of
success that promote innovative, high-risk, high-reward
research. This committee originated the legislation that
authorized the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy or
ARPA-E, and well knows the importance of emphasizing this type
of research. There is an opportunity for the new ARPA-E to
cross pollinate other programs and to encourage the inclusion
of more forward-leaning research, despite sometimes lower
certainty in their ultimate outcomes.
Next, let me highlight two areas of critical importance:
the ongoing Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Learning Demonstration
Program, and the recently-established Advanced Battery
Manufacturing Program. The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Learning
Demonstration Program has included 140 fuel cell vehicles and
20 hydrogen stations and has worked with automotive and energy
company teams including GM and Shell, Chrysler, Daymore, and
BPE and Ford and BPE. Under this program vehicles have traveled
nearly two million miles and the second-generation vehicles
have achieved ranges of up to 254 miles with fuel economies
from 43 to 58 miles per kilogram of hydrogen.
This program has demonstrated success both in terms of
hydrogen technology advancements and also for the learning
demonstration model itself and should continue to receive
support.
Last week President Obama announced up to 1.5 billion in
grants to establish a domestic manufacturing base for advanced
batteries. A strong, diverse supplier base for advanced
batteries will help all automakers move forward to bringing
electric powertrain vehicles to market.
It is essential that the recipients of this funding have
the knowledge and expertise needed to establish battery
production at scale. Opportunities for technology transfer
through joint ventures with other manufacturers could help
establish a domestic advanced battery manufacturing base more
quickly. These awards also should emphasize not only the
battery manufacturing construction but also a strong commitment
to manufacturing R&D. Without such a strong program element,
the manufacturing capacity that we buy with our investment will
become outmoded soon after it enters production.
We look forward to working with the Department of Energy,
and we hope to continue this work to position our industry to
be at the cutting edge of the new clean energy economy.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Clay follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathryn Clay
Good morning, my name is Kathryn Clay and I am the Director of
Research for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The Alliance is
a trade association made up of eleven car and light truck manufacturers
including BMW Group, Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors,
Jaguar/Land Rover, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz USA, Mitsubishi Motors,
Porsche, Toyota, and Volkswagen. On behalf of the member companies of
the Alliance I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to
speak with you about vehicle technology research supported by the
Department of Energy and opportunities for this work to serve both
public and industry interests in reinventing the automobile.
Meeting our national goals of reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions and reducing our reliance on foreign oil will require the
development of a suite of technologies. Responding to this challenge,
automakers are leaders in research and development investment--total
R&D investment by the industry was $79 billion in 2007, up eight
percent from the previous year.
Automakers invest in a diverse array of vehicle technologies. There
is no ``silver bullet,'' or one right answer, to what the autos of the
future should look like. In the coming decades, the vehicle fleet will
likely be much more diverse technologically, with growing proportions
of flex fuel, clean diesel, fuel cell, hydrogen internal combustion
engine, hybrid electric and pure electric vehicles. Continued
improvements to the efficiency of the internal combustion engine will
also play a significant role.
I would like to begin by identifying general principles that should
guide the Department of Energy vehicles technology program to maximize
its effectiveness, and then provide recommendations for work on two
particular technologies.
First, the DOE program should aim to promote technological
diversity to the maximum extent feasible, including a wide range of
alternative vehicle technologies.
Second, recognizing that each alternative vehicle technology will
depend on a well-functioning infrastructure, the vehicle technology
program should work collaboratively with other divisions within the
department that are addressing alternative fuels infrastructure
challenges. For example, the transportation electrification
infrastructure program, included in the Recovery Act at a funding level
of up to $400 million, has the potential to significantly advance
vehicles like plug-in hybrids.
Third, the program should support work that spans the full range of
the R&D spectrum, including basic research, applied research,
manufacturing R&D, and deployment and commercialization activities.
Getting the balance right will be challenging, but no part of the
spectrum can be neglected if new technologies are to be brought from
the laboratory bench all the way through to the marketplace.
Fourth, the Department should consider linkages between the vehicle
technologies program and government purchasing programs. Acting as
early adopters, government fleets can help lead the way to bringing new
automotive technology to market. The government should continue to
purchase flex fuel vehicles; demand maximum utilization of E-85 in the
government flex fuel fleets; use federal fueling to stimulate publicly
accessible pumps; and provide funding technology is available.
Finally, the Department should develop metrics of success that
promote innovative, high-risk/high-reward research. This committee
originated the legislation that authorized the Advanced Research
Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), and well knows the importance of
emphasizing this type of research. The recent stimulus package included
$400 million to set-up ARPA-E. It would be unfortunate if a newly
created ARPA-E had the unintended effect of decreasing investment in
high-risk research in other DOE programs like the vehicles technology
program. There is an opportunity for the new ARPA-E to ``cross
pollinate'' other programs and encourage the inclusion of more forward-
leaning research despite lower certainty in their outcomes.
Next, let me highlight two specific research areas that are of
critical importance: the ongoing hydrogen and fuel cell learning
demonstration program, and the recently established advanced battery
manufacturing program.
The DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Learning demonstration started in
2004. There have been 140 fuel cell vehicles introduced into the
program, with 119 currently operating. There are 20 hydrogen stations
in the project, located in Northern and Southern California, Detroit
Michigan area, Orlando Florida, the New York City area and in
Washington DC. The automotive and energy company teams include GM and
Shell; Chrysler, Daimler, and BP; and Ford and BP.
Under the program, vehicles have traveled nearly two million miles
in the project and there has been 88,000 kg of hydrogen produced or
dispensed at the 20 hydrogen stations. The fuel cell vehicles have a
projected durability of 1,977 hours. Testing has shown that second
generation vehicles have a range of up to 254 miles with a fuel economy
from 43 to 58 miles/kg. Phase two of the program is now in planning.
This program has demonstrated success both in terms of hydrogen
technology advancements and also for the learning demonstration model,
and should continue to receive support.
Last week, President Obama announced that the Department of Energy
would begin soliciting proposals for up to $1.5 billion in grants
included in the stimulus to establish a domestic manufacturing base for
advanced batteries. A strong, diverse supplier base for advanced
batteries will help all automakers move forward to bringing electric
powertrain vehicles to market. To maximize the benefit of this funding,
the DOE should consider the following two elements:
First, it is essential that the recipients of this funding have the
knowledge and experience needed to establish battery production at
scale. Opportunities for technology transfer through joint ventures
with other manufacturers could help establish a domestic advanced
battery manufacturing base more quickly.
Second, the awards should require not only the construction of a
battery manufacturing facility, but a strong commitment to
manufacturing R&D. An emphasis on manufacturing R&D will enable the
nascent advanced battery manufacturing industry to be innovative and
globally competitive. Without this as a strong program element, the
manufacturing capacity we buy with our investment will become outmoded
soon after it enters production.
We look forward to working with the Department of Energy to advance
a diverse array of vehicle technologies. In doing so, we will position
our industry to be at the cutting edge of the new clean energy economy.
Biography for Kathryn Clay
Current Positions
Energy Scholar
Adjunct Professor of Physics
Director of Research, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Areas of Concentration
Energy, Science Workforce & Education
Education
Ph.D. in Physics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
M.S. in Electrical Engineering, University of Michigan Ann Arbor
Commentary
Dr. Kathryn Clay is the Director of Research for the Alliance of
Automobile Manufacturers. Previously, she served as a member of the
professional staff of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee. While on the Committee, Dr. Clay worked to develop the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. She was also centrally involved in the development and passage
of legislation (the America COMPETES Act of 2007) to promote federal
investment in science and the development of innovative technologies.
Dr. Clay has also served in positions with the staff of the Energy
Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science,
at the Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources, and as a research
fellow in the Alternate Fuels Vehicle Division of Ford Motor Company.
Chair Baird. Mr. Baloga.
STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS C. BALOGA, VICE PRESIDENT OF
ENGINEERING-US, BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC
Mr. Baloga. Chair Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide
testimony before your subcommittee. It is a privilege to be
here.
My key messages for the Subcommittee are, number one,
please don't pick vehicle technology winners or losers yet. We
need an effective pallet of solutions that should include an
appropriate mix of vehicles powered by highly-efficient
internal combustion engines, powered by batteries, and powered
by hydrogen.
Number two, research on batteries for vehicles is a high-
priority issue.
Number three, funding for vehicle on-board storage of
hydrogen should continue.
Number four, without a developing infrastructure for
hydrogen refueling, companies like ours are severely challenged
to continue investments into hydrogen-powered vehicles.
And lastly, number five, to the extent possible, please
allow research funding support for companies like ours that
have made huge investments in manufacturing and jobs in the
U.S., even though our global headquarters is not located in
America.
The BMW group is comprised of Rolls Royce cars, BMW cars
and motorcycles, MINI cars, and Hosmarna motorcycles, and we
are the world's largest manufacturer of premium automobiles. In
the United States about 8,000 people work directly for us in
our offices, research facilities, and manufacturing plant. We
have been a manufacturer in the USA since 1992, and our
Spartanburg, South Carolina, plant has produced more than
170,000 vehicles in 2008, and we exported about 70 percent of
the total production around the world. And this makes BMW the
largest vehicle exporter in the United States.
In the year 2000, before many were taking CO2
emissions seriously, BMW management conceived and implemented a
company program called Efficient Dynamics to reduce CO2
emissions and improve fuel economy, while at the same time
preserving the ultimate driving machine performance our owners
have come to expect. So far we have invested about $1 billion
in this Efficient Dynamics Program and equipped well over one
million vehicles worldwide with this technology.
A main principle of Efficient Dynamics is that we develop
and equip the entire vehicle fleet with improvements as quickly
as possible. Rather than focus on one or two models for big
improvements, we aim for step-by-step, fleet-wide improvements.
Our innovations are time consuming and costly, but they deliver
reliable benefits, and they trickle down into vehicles that
everyone drives.
The point I would like to make here is that BMW as a
premium auto manufacturer, as well as other premium auto
manufacturers, have invested heavily in technology to improve
fuel economy and reduce CO2 and that the low-hanging
fruit to get these improvements are gone. Research is vital to
advance technology, and working with our suppliers and partners
we develop systems that eventually make their way down to
lower-priced cars and light trucks.
While the DOE has been a very good stimulator for
innovation as far as we are concerned, it would be helpful to
us as a heavy investor in the U.S. to be able to apply for and
win DOE contracts on our own. Let me give some examples of
technology that we are working on with partners to show the
positive effect of DOE funding.
In a modern internal combustion engine only about one-third
of the fossil fuel energy is used to drive the engine
crankshaft. That means about two-thirds of the fuel's energy is
lost by friction and heat in the exhaust and coolant. Now,
hybrid vehicles use methods to recharge the battery when the
vehicle is braking or coasting but not under acceleration.
Since BMW is known as the ultimate driving machine, we are also
focused on improving efficiency when the vehicle is
accelerating and typically wasting significant heat energy from
the exhaust.
So to recover some of this exhaust heat, BMW has been
leading a pioneering effort to bring a thermo-electric
generator to market. Now, this system is connected to the
vehicle exhaust and uses the difference in temperature of the
exhaust and air to create electric current to recharge the
battery. So the waste heat is converted into electricity, and
this could save perhaps up to 10 percent in fuel economy.
We also have a system called the turbo-steamer concept that
also can extricate heat from the exhaust. This is more
complicated and costly. However, the potential benefits are
even greater than the thermal electric generator. So it would
be very helpful, for example, if we could get DOE funding for
this turbo-steamer project as well.
When comparing the technology of hydrogen power versus
battery power, the similarities and differences must be
considered. A similarity, for example, is that hydrogen is an
energy carrier just like a battery. A battery is charged to
store energy while water is split to make energy available as
free hydrogen. A major difference is that hydrogen refueling
can be performed in a few minutes, while a battery fast charge
today takes several hours. While the electric grid provides
limited infrastructure for charging a battery-electric vehicle,
a far greater infrastructure is needed. Likewise, there is a
very limited hydrogen refueling infrastructure, and a far-
greater hydrogen refueling infrastructure is likewise needed.
Today's battery electric vehicle batteries are too large,
too heavy, too limited in range, and far too expensive. There
can be no debate on the merits of battery research, and we
fully support efforts by the DOE to fund battery research. But
doing this should not lead to the complete elimination of
hydrogen storage funding. That would be very unfortunate. We
need both.
BMW has partnered with U.S. companies to collaborate on
projects involving storage of hydrogen for on-board vehicles,
and we see hydrogen as playing an important role in the future
as a means to become independent from fossil fuels.
And lastly, despite our 30 years of hydrogen-powered
vehicle experience, we have an increasingly difficult challenge
to justify further investments in hydrogen power without
evidence that a hydrogen infrastructure is being developed.
And in conclusion, I would like to repeat the main points
of my testimony. Please don't pick vehicle technology winners
and losers yet. It is too early for that. We need a diversity.
Research on batteries for vehicles is certainly a very high-
priority issue. Funding for on-board storage of hydrogen should
continue, and without a developing infrastructure of hydrogen
for refueling, we have a difficult time continuing our
investment in hydrogen-powered vehicles. And lastly, to the
extent possible, please allow research funding for companies
like ours that have made investments in manufacturing and jobs
in the U.S., even though our global headquarters is not located
in America.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baloga follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas C. Baloga
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony before
your subcommittee on near-term priorities and future directions for the
Vehicle Technologies Program within the US Department of Energy. It is
a privilege to be here. My name is Tom Baloga and I am the Vice
President, Engineering-US for BMW of North America, LLC. My key
messages for the Subcommittee are:
1. Please don't pick technology winners or losers yet; we need
an effective palette of solutions that should include an
appropriate mix of vehicles powered by highly efficient
internal combustion engines, powered by batteries, and powered
by hydrogen.
2. Research on batteries for vehicles is a high priority
issue.
3. Funding for vehicle on-board storage of hydrogen should
continue.
4. Without a developing infrastructure for hydrogen refueling,
companies like ours are severely challenged to continue
investments into hydrogen-powered vehicles.
5. To the extent possible, please allow research funding
support for companies like ours that have made investments in
manufacturing and jobs in the U.S. even though our global
headquarters is not located in America.
BMW Presence in America
The BMW Group, comprised of Rolls Royce cars, BMW cars and
motorcycles, MINI, and Husqvarna motorcycles, is the world's largest
manufacturer of premium automobiles. In the United States, about 8,000
people work directly for us in our offices, research facilities, and
manufacturing plant. We have been a manufacturer in the USA since 1992.
Our Spartanburg, SC plant produced more than 170,000 vehicles in 2008
and we exported about 70 percent of the total production around the
world. This makes BMW the largest vehicle exporter in the United
States.
We are investing $1 billion to further our commitment to America by
building an all-new assembly facility and thereby expanding the
capacity at our Spartanburg plant by 50 percent. We've doubled the size
of our NJ Headquarters by adding a state-of-the-art Engineering Center,
Technical Training facility, and a new home for our Eastern Region. An
independent study reported that our plant has already provided an
additional 23,000 jobs in the US. When you combine all this with our
distribution and dealer network, we are directly or indirectly
responsible for close to 50,000 jobs in America. The United States is
our largest market, and we are very happy to play a role in creating
new jobs here and leading the global auto industry to innovate and
promote sustainability.
Leadership in Sustainability Technology
Sustainability is the degree to which natural resources are
conserved and environmental impact minimized. BMW has been a leader in
sustainability technology for many years. This means that as a company,
we have not only achieved continuous improvements in fleet fuel economy
and CO2 reductions, but we have also achieved significant
improvements to minimize our impact on the environment. For example:
The U.S. EPA awarded BMW's plant in Spartanburg, SC
``Energy Partner of the Year in 2007'' in recognition of BMW's
implementation of one of the most ambitious landfill gas-to-
energy projects in North America. The Spartanburg plant pipes
in methane gas from a landfill ten miles away to supply about
two thirds of its power needs. The amount of recovered energy
could heat about 15,000 homes per year. Furthermore, methane is
a ``greenhouse gas'' and removal of this emission from the
landfill is a further benefit.
The BMW Group has been named ``the world's most
sustainable automotive manufacturer'' for four years in a row
by the Dow Jones Sustainability World Index (DJSI World).
Leadership in Fuel Economy Improvement and CO2 Reduction
In its 2007 report for 1990-2005 results entitled
``Automakers' Corporate Carbon Burdens'' the Environmental
Defense Fund identified BMW as the company that improved its
U.S. average fleet fuel consumption by more than any other
firm, reducing CO2 emissions by 12.3 percent and
improving fuel economy by 14 percent.
In its August 2008 report for EU countries entitled
``Reducing CO2 Emissions from New Cars: A Study of
Major Car Manufacturers' Progress in 2007'' the European
Federation for Transport and Environment concluded that ``BMW
is the carmaker that made by far the greatest year-on-year
CO2 and fuel efficiency improvement in 2007.'' Fleet
CO2 was reduced by 7.3 percent.
The Five Elements of BMW EfficientDynamics
In 2000, before many were taking CO2 emissions
seriously, BMW management conceived and implemented a company program
called ``EfficientDynamics'' to reduce CO2 emissions and
improve fuel economy, while at the same time preserving the Ultimate
Driving Machine performance our owners have come to expect. So far, we
have invested about $1 billion in this program and equipped well over
one million vehicles worldwide with this technology. The results of
this EfficientDynamics program can be directly correlated to the
industry-leading reports from EDF and the European Federation mentioned
previously. The five elements of the BMW EfficientDynamics program are:
Powertrain Optimization
Energy Management with Hybridization
Weight Reduction
Aerodynamic Improvements
Hydrogen Power
The multitude of leading-edge technologies that are part of the BMW
EfficientDynamics philosophy are as diverse as they are innovative.
From new fuel combustion technologies to lighter construction
materials, low-friction components and improved aerodynamics all the
way to comprehensive and highly sophisticated energy management.
However, the aim of each of these innovations is the same: to deliver
maximum driving pleasure from a minimum of fuel.
To achieve this aim, new engines have been developed: gasoline
engines with lean-burn technology and High Precision Injection. Diesel
engines with third-generation common rail injection and light-weight
materials.
An Auto Start Stop function and Brake Energy Regeneration make more
of every drop of fuel. Improved aerodynamics--such as an innovative air
vent control--together with tires with reduced rolling resistance and a
range of efficiency-enhancing modifications to the drivetrain all lead
to the same result: more dynamic performance from less fuel.
To assist the Subcommittee with near-term priorities and future
directions for the Vehicle Technologies Program within the U.S. DOE, I
would like to briefly focus on Powertrain Optimization, Energy
Management with Hybridization, and Hydrogen vs. Battery Electric Power,
followed by a recommendation for expanding research collaboration to
companies based outside of the USA.
Powertrain Optimization
This past December, BMW launched two new vehicle models equipped
with clean diesel engines. The X5 diesel built in America and the 335d
are available in all 50 States and use the latest clean diesel engine
technology to meet even California's stringent emission requirements.
In a modern internal combustion engine, only about one third of the
fossil fuel energy is used to drive the engine crankshaft. This means
that approximately two thirds of the fuel's energy is lost via friction
plus engine heat into the exhaust and coolant. More efficient use of
this lost energy is a high priority at BMW; we already use
sophisticated engine management technology and turbo charging to
extract as much energy as possible from the burned fuel, but we just
recently announced something new at the Geneva Auto Show.
We will be launching a full hybrid X6 model built in the USA later
this year so we are far along with hybrid technology. Hybrids use
methods to recharge a battery when the vehicle is braking or coasting,
but not under acceleration. Since BMW is known as the ``Ultimate
Driving Machine'' we are also focused on EfficientDynamics when the
vehicle is accelerating and typically wasting significant heat energy
from the exhaust. To recover some of this exhaust heat, BMW has been
leading a pioneering effort to bring a ``thermoelectric generator'' to
market. The system is connected to the vehicle exhaust and using a
material called Bismuth Telluride (plus other materials under
investigation), the difference in temperature of the exhaust and
ambient air can generate an electrical current to recharge the battery.
We have reason to believe that under certain conditions of using this
``Seebeck Effect'' more than 10 percent savings in fuel use could be
realized. Waste heat is converted into electricity stored in the
battery that relieves the normal charging system and reduces fuel
consumption. In operation, the exhaust gas is being further cooled as
heat energy is extracted and, as expected, the higher the exhaust
temperature such as in acceleration, the more electricity is produced.
We hope to be able to bring this system to market in perhaps five
years. This research was made possible through financial support of the
DOE which we acknowledge and appreciate. We had been working on a
``turbo-steamer'' project to evaluate the potential for converting
exhaust heat into steam to power a turbine and supply additional
propulsion to the vehicle, and these concepts are mutually
complementary. The turbo steamer concept is more complicated, but still
worthwhile to investigate because the potential benefits in recaptured
energy look significant and very promising.
It's important to note that we see the internal combustion engine
itself available for high single digit percentage increases in
efficiency, and we continue to actively research further improvements.
Furthermore, extraction of exhaust heat is only one of many projects in
process for powertrain optimization.
Energy Management with Hybridization
Hybridization means converting and storing some of the ``moving''
(kinetic) energy of the vehicle to electrical energy that can be used
to charge the battery, power accessories or power the vehicle. Later
this year, we will launch a full hybrid X6 model Sports Activity
Vehicle built at our plant in South Carolina, then followed by a 7
Series mild hybrid sedan. For better understanding, a ``full hybrid''
can operate using only battery power; a ``mild hybrid'' uses a battery
to provide a boost to save fuel, but cannot use a battery alone for
propulsion. These models use hybrid technology that came from a
consortium of partners working together in Troy, Michigan. The three
partners BMW, Daimler, and GM collaborated, on the one hand, to
developing a common shared technology, and on the other hand, to
develop a unique application and integration of the technology into our
own company vehicles based on our individual philosophies and technical
needs. The partnership worked very well, and we are grateful to our
partners.
Even before we launch our hybrid vehicles, BMW is using one hybrid
principle, brake energy regeneration, to improve fuel economy and
reduce CO2 emissions. Today's vehicles require much more
electrical energy than older models, due to the much wider array of
electric and electronic on-board comfort and safety systems. This
energy is created by the alternator which converts the engine's power
output into electricity. In conventional systems, the alternator is
permanently driven by a belt connected to the engine. A system we call
BMW's Brake Energy Regeneration operates differently: the alternator is
activated only when you take your foot from the accelerator or apply
the brake. The kinetic energy that would otherwise go to waste is now
used efficiently, converted into electricity by the alternator and
stored in the battery. Producing electricity in this highly efficient
way delivers an additional advantage: when you apply the accelerator,
the alternator is deactivated--so the full power of the engine can be
directed to the drive wheels. Brake Energy Regeneration thus increases
fuel efficiency while simultaneously enhancing driving dynamics. As an
extra precaution, the Brake Energy Regeneration system monitors the
level of battery charge and will, if necessary, continue to charge the
battery even during acceleration to prevent a complete discharging of
the battery.
We have many other technologies for saving fuel and reducing
CO2 and I would be pleased to forward this information to
Members of the Subcommittee.
Hydrogen vs. Battery Electric Power
Hydrogen has no carbon so hydrogen by itself will not
generate air pollution.
Hydrogen can be generated using clean and sustainable
sources like hydro, wind, solar, and biomass sources.
Hydrogen can be produced in this country and other
locations away from troubled parts of the world.
Based on the above listed circumstances, BMW has worked to gain
more than thirty years of experience with hydrogen powered automobiles.
We have just completed a successful global ``Hydrogen 7'' Program in
which 100 hydrogen powered BMW 7 Series cars were equipped to run on
either gasoline or hydrogen. (A few cars equipped to run exclusively on
hydrogen were also built in order to explore the state-of-the-art in
emission reductions and exhaust measurements.)
These ``bi-fuel'' hydrogen/gasoline cars were very successful to
demonstrate that a hydrogen-powered internal combustion engine can
operate today, and in the bi-fuel configuration, can help bridge the
gap until a hydrogen refueling infrastructure is available.
To expand on our battery powered vehicle knowledge, the BMW group
has just launched a battery electric vehicle (BEV) program with
approximately 500 battery electric ``MINI E'' cars. These cars are
being deployed in the US (about 480) and in Germany to gain insight
into this unique technology.
When comparing the technology of hydrogen power versus battery
power, the similarities and differences must be considered. A
similarity is for example that hydrogen is an energy carrier just like
a battery. A battery is charged to store energy, while water is split
to make energy available as free hydrogen. A major difference is that
hydrogen refueling can be performed in a few minutes, while a battery
``fast charge'' today takes several hours.
While the current electric grid provides a limited infrastructure
for charging a BEV, a far greater infrastructure is needed. Likewise,
there is a very limited hydrogen refueling infrastructure, and a far
greater hydrogen refueling infrastructure is needed.
While expanded infrastructures are needed, the critical challenge
for the auto industry with both BEVs and hydrogen powered vehicles is
in energy storage. Furthermore, an infrastructure of BEV charging
stations and hydrogen refueling are necessary if the auto industry is
expected to continue to invest in these technologies.
Today's BEV batteries are too large, too heavy, too limited in
range, and far too expensive. Our MINI E BEVs were changed from four-
seaters to two-seaters because of the battery size and weight, and the
effective range of the vehicles is relatively good, but only equivalent
to approximately two gallons of diesel fuel. There can be no debate on
the merits of battery research and we fully support efforts by the DOE
to fund battery research, but doing this with the complete elimination
of hydrogen storage funding would be very unfortunate. BMW has
partnered with U.S. companies to collaborate on projects involving
storage of hydrogen for use on-board vehicles and we see hydrogen as
playing an important role in the future as a means to become
independent from fossil fuels.
1. Hydrogen powered internal combustion engine vehicles
consume air with nitrogen and thus are not 100 percent zero
emissions vehicles, but they are virtually emissions-free.
2. Hydrogen powered internal combustion engine vehicles
consume the surrounding air including methane, hydrocarbons,
and other pollutants and exhaust water vapor you can drink and
cleaner air than the air we breathe.
3. Hydrogen powered bi-fuel internal combustion engine
vehicles can provide a critical bridge solution to getting a
hydrogen infrastructure in place. Drivers can seamlessly select
between super clean hydrogen power or fossil fuels as necessary
to reach available gasoline or hydrogen refueling stations.
4. Hydrogen storage on-board is a critically important element
for the success of hydrogen, and it is prudent to continue to
invest in this technology for the future.
Despite our thirty years plus of hydrogen-powered vehicle
experience, we have an increasingly difficult challenge to justify
investments in hydrogen power without evidence that a hydrogen
infrastructure is being developed.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on Science and Technology,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.
Biography for Thomas C. Baloga
Tom is responsible for U.S. engineering involving Environmental,
Safety, Intelligent Transportation Systems, Product Development, and
Product Analysis activities of the BMW Group. The BMW Group includes
BMW, MINI, and Rolls Royce.
Prior to BMW, Tom was the owner and principal of INIT LLC, an
innovation consulting firm, President of Britax Child Safety, Inc.,
Manager of Safety Engineering for Mercedes-Benz USA, and a Senior Test
Engineer for Mack Trucks, Inc. He is the primary inventor on multiple
U.S. and foreign patents.
Tom served on the Board of Directors for Public Safety Equipment,
Code 3, and Kustom Signals.
Tom has degrees in Automotive Technology from The Pennsylvania
College of Technology, and Mechanical Engineering from The Pennsylvania
State University.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Mr. Baloga.
Dr. Johnson.
STATEMENT OF DR. JOHN H. JOHNSON, PRESIDENTIAL PROFESSOR OF
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
Dr. Johnson. Chair Baird and Ranking Member Inglis, my name
is John Johnson. I am a Presidential Professor of Mechanical
Engineering at Michigan Technological University. My expertise
is in diesel engines, including R&D management. After
completing my Ph.D. degree I spent two years as a first
lieutenant in the United States Army at the Tank Automotive
Center in Warren, Michigan, managing engine research projects.
I then worked as a chief engineer of an applied engine research
at International Harvester, which is now Navistar. In 1970, I
came to Michigan Tech. I was chair of the committee that wrote
this report in June, 2008, on the review of the 21st Century
Truck Partnership.
The opinions I will give today are my personal ones,
although they draw on the findings and recommendations in the
report. I am also a member of the Academy's Committee on Light-
Duty Fuel Economy and the Committee on Medium and Heavy-Duty
Vehicle Fuel Economy.
The Committee on Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Economy was
formed based on a mandate that NHTSA, under Section 108 of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, entered into an
agreement with the National Academies to evaluate medium- and
heavy-duty truck fuel economy. The Academy report must be
completed by March of 2010. The legislation under Section 102
also mandates that NHTSA itself conduct a study on the fuel
efficiency of commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
vehicles and work trucks, and two, mandates that NITSA then
conduct a rule-making to implement a commercial medium- and
heavy-duty on-highway and work truck fuel efficiency
improvement program.
Despite the many benefits of the partnership, including
helping the engine industry meet the EPA 2007 particulate and
2010. NOX standards, the program suffered from dwindling
resources devoted to the program by DOE. Funds were about 87
million in fiscal year 2002, and decreased to 30 million in
fiscal year 2008. This funding pattern does not reflect the
number of productive R&D opportunities. It also does not
reflect the economic weight of the industry.
In the 2002 economic census the truck transportation
industry consisted of more than 112,698 separate
establishments, with total revenues of 165 billion. These
establishments employ 1,437,259 workers, who take home an
annual payroll of 47 billion. This industry is made up of 10
major truck manufacturers, 10 trailer manufacturers, 18 refuge
truck and five bus manufacturers and six major engine
suppliers, along with over 20 major supplier companies that
supply transmissions, cooling system components, turbochargers,
brakes, tires, electrical and electronic components, hybrid
systems, emission after-treatment systems, and other parts.
Because of the low-level of funding from DOE, the 21st
Century Truck Partnership chose to focus its R&D effort on the
Class 8, long-haul type of vehicle, which consumes 75 percent
of the petroleum in the heavy- and medium-truck sector. It was
forced to cancel many projects originally in the 21st Century
Truck roadmap.
Federal, State, and local governments and commercial
trucking firms such as utility and delivery operations that use
medium-duty trucks are also interested in fuel economy of their
vehicles since it also affects their operating costs. They want
advanced technologies such as hybrid vehicles.
In light of the potential fuel economy regulations by NHTSA
as required by Section 102 of the Energy Act, it is important
that the Federal Government fund the DOE program at levels such
as $200 million per year with $90 million per year for engine,
emission control systems, and biodiesel fuels research. The
program should be funded for five to ten years at this level so
that the industry will have the technology in the 2015 to 2020
timeframe to meet potential fuel economy regulations.
Safety is an important part of the program with support in
the past from DOE and DOT, with DOT providing the majority of
the budget. As crash protection measures have not substantially
reduced truck-related highway fatalities during the past
decade, the main objective going forward will be to prevent
crashes using crash avoidance technologies and in-vehicle
communication systems. There is a need for 25 million per year
for safety-related research, which should be designated for DOT
by line item for the 21st Century Truck Partnership.
The next decade needs R&D programs to decrease medium- and
heavy-duty truck petroleum fuel consumption by the use of
advanced diesel engine and after-treatment technologies,
advanced truck and trailer aerodynamic designs, and low-
rolling-resistant tires. The use of hybrid systems for
applications that have duty cycles that can reduce the fuel
consumption, including advanced cooling systems and engine
components that use less energy, light weighting of the
vehicles and trailers so that more payload can be carried which
reduces the fuel consumption in gallons per ton payload miles
needed.
A major effort must be carried out to develop biodiesel
fuels that meet ASTM specifications, are energy and greenhouse
gas efficient in the production of the bio-component, and make
good use of the land without compromising the food supply and
the price of the fuel.
One of our findings on the management strategy and priority
setting pointed out that the program operated as a virtual
network of agencies and government labs with an unwieldy
structure and budget process. This would be significantly
improved if heavy-truck funds for EPA, DOE, and DOT were
designated by line items that are directed at this program. I
know that this is very difficult because each of these agencies
go to different Congressional committees for their funds.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss with you
the 21st Century Truck Partnership, and I also think the
partnership would benefit in the future from an external,
independent review as was done by the National Academies in
their review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of John H. Johnson
My name is John Johnson; I am a Presidential Professor of
Mechanical Engineering at Michigan Technological University. My
expertise is in diesel engines, including R&D management. After
completing my Ph.D. degree, I spent two years as a 1st Lieutenant in
the U.S. Army at the Tank-Automotive Center in Warren, Michigan
managing engine research projects. I then worked as Chief Engineer of
Applied Engine Research at International Harvester which is now
Navistar. In 1970, I came to Michigan Technological University. I have
participated in 12 different National Academies Committees since 1980.
I was the Chair of the Committee that wrote the report published in
June 2008 entitled ``Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership.''
The opinions I will give today are my personal ones although they draw
on the findings and recommendations in the report. The first part of my
testimony will give a brief review of the 21st Century Truck
Partnership including the members of the Partnership and the approach
used in our review--these figures came directly from the report. I am
also a member of the Academies Committee on Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel
Economy and the Committee on Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel
Economy.
The Committee on Medium- and Heavy-Duty Fuel Economy was formed
based on the mandate that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA), an agency of the U.S. Department of
Transportation, under Section 108 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act (EISA) of 2007, enter into an agreement with the National
Academies to evaluate medium- and heavy-duty truck fuel economy. The
Academy report must be completed by March 2010. The legislation, under
Section 102, also (1) mandates that NHTSA itself conduct a study on the
fuel efficiency of commercial medium- and heavy-duty on highway
vehicles and work trucks and (2) mandates that NHTSA then conduct a
rule-making to implement a commercial medium- and heavy-duty on-highway
and work-truck fuel efficiency improvement program.
Figure 1 reviews some important facts about the Partnership. It
shows the history of the program, including Federal Agency, National
laboratory, and industrial partner participants.
The staff members from the various committees dealing with energy
in the House and Senate have copies of the report. I came to Congress
in June 2008 to meet with several staff members of the Subcommittee and
again March 5, 2009 to meet with a broader group of staff members from
the various House and Senate committees.
Despite the many benefits of the Partnership, including helping the
engine industry meet the EPA 2007 particulate and 2010 NOX standards,
the program suffered from the dwindling resources devoted to the
program by DOE. Funds were about $87 million in FY 2002 and decreased
to $30 million in FY 2008. This funding pattern does not reflect the
number of productive R&D opportunities.
It also does not reflect the economic weight of the industry.
According to the report: In the 2002 Economic Census, ``The truck
transportation industry consisted of more than 112,698 separate
establishments, with total revenues of $165 billion. These
establishments employ 1,437,259 workers, who take home an annual
payroll of $47 billion. Truck and bus manufacturing also account for a
significant share of national income. According to the same census,
light-truck and utility-vehicle manufacturers have total shipments of
$137 billion. Heavy-duty-truck manufacturing had sales of $16 billion.
Another way to look at the trucking industry's economic contribution is
to compare the revenue from trucks with other sectors in the
transportation industry, in which case trucks account for about one-
fourth of the industry's total revenues.''
This industry is made up of 10 major truck manufacturers, 10
trailer manufacturers, 18 refuse truck and five bus manufacturers, and
six major engine suppliers along with over 20 major supplier companies
that supply transmissions, cooling system components, turbochargers,
brakes, tires, electrical and electronic components, hybrid systems,
emission after-treatment systems, and other parts.
Because of the low level of funding from DOE, the 21st Century
Truck Partnership chose to focus its R&D effort on the Class 8 long-
haul type of vehicle, which consumes 75 percent of the petroleum in the
heavy- and medium-truck sector. It was forced to cancel many projects
originally in the 21CTP roadmap, including light-weighing vehicles,
all-electric components on vehicles, aerodynamic modeling and design,
and low rolling resistance tires. Federal, State, and local governments
and commercial trucking firms, such as utility and delivery operations
that use medium-duty trucks, are also interested in the fuel economy of
their vehicles since it also affects their operating costs--they want
advanced technology such as hybrid vehicles.
In light of the potential fuel economy regulations by NHTSA as
required by Section 102 of EISA, it is important that the Federal
Government fund the DOE program at levels such as $200 million/year
with $90 million/year for engine, emission control systems, and
biodiesel fuels research. The program should be funded for five to ten
years at this level so that the industry will have the technology in
the 2015-2020 timeframe to meet potential fuel economy regulations.
Safety is an important part of the program with support in the past
from DOE and DOT, with DOT providing the majority of the budget. As
crash protection measures have not substantially reduced highway
fatalities during the past decade, the main objective going forward
will be to prevent crashes using crash avoidance technologies and in-
vehicle communications systems. There is need for $25 million per year
for safety related research which should be designated for DOT by line
item for the 21st Century Truck Partnership.
The next decade needs R&D programs to decrease medium- and heavy-
duty truck petroleum fuel consumption by the use of advanced diesel
engine and after-treatment technologies, advanced truck and trailer
aerodynamic designs, and low rolling resistance tires. The use of
hybrid systems in applications that have duty cycles that can reduce
the fuel consumption, including advanced cooling systems and engine
components that use less energy, light weighing of vehicles and
trailers so that more payload can be carried which reduces the fuel
consumption in gallons/ton of payload-miles are needed. A major effort
must be carried out to develop biodiesel fuels that meet ASTM
specifications, are energy and greenhouse gas efficient in the
production of the bio component and make good use of the land without
compromising the food supply and the price of food. It is important
that the price differential between gasoline and diesel fuel does not
increase more than the 60-70 cents per gallon that has existed in the
past few years. Decreasing the truck petroleum fuel consumption with
lower fuel consumption vehicles should help this diesel fuel market
demand condition that now exists. More biodiesel fuel use should help
decrease the demand for the petroleum fuel if the research program is
aggressive.
One of our findings on the management strategy and priority setting
pointed out that the program operated as a virtual network of agencies
and government labs with an unwieldy structure and budget process. This
would be significantly improved if heavy truck funds for EPA, DOE and
DOT were designated by line items that are directed at this program. I
know that this is very difficult because each of these agencies go to
different Congressional committees for their funds. Our findings and
recommendations also stated that there is a need for an Executive that
crosses agencies to manage this program.
I am very supportive of a bill that commits the United States
Government to a research program that results in the development of
fuel efficient and safe heavy-duty trucks. The U.S. has always been a
world leader in developing advanced trucks--the heavy-duty diesel
engine has always been cutting edge technology in durability,
reliability, low fuel consumption, and now in 2010 low in emissions.
This product development and manufacturing base in the U.S. must be
maintained if we as a country are to be strong in the global economy.
This industrial base is also important to the military, particularly to
the Army and Marines since diesel powered vehicles and diesel fuels are
critical elements of our ground forces. We must maintain this base
which will happen with an aggressive R&D program in the commercial
sector that includes maintaining National Laboratories and Universities
as strong components in the program.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to discuss with you the
21st Century Truck Partnership Program including my personal opinions
of what is needed to maintain the United States as a world leader. I
also think the Partnership would benefit in the future from an
external, independent review, as was done by the National Academies in
their Review of the 21st Century Truck Partnership in 2007-2008.
I would be happy to answer your questions.
Biography for John H. Johnson
John H. Johnson is a presidential professor, Department of
Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics, Michigan Technological
University (MTU). He is a fellow of the Society of Automotive Engineers
and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. His experience spans
a wide range of analysis and experimental work related to advanced
engine concepts, emissions studies, fuel systems, and engine
simulation. Prior to joining the MTU Department of Mechanical
Engineering-Engineering Mechanics, he was a project engineer for U.S.
Army Tank Automotive Center, and Chief Engineer, Applied Engine
Research, International Harvester Co. John served as Chair of the MTU
Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics Department from 1986-93.
He has served on many committees related to engine technology, engine
emissions, and health effects with the Society of Automotive Engineers,
the National Research Council (NRC), the Combustion Institute, the
Health Effects Institute, and the Environmental Protection Agency. He
consults to a number of government and private sector institutions. In
particular, he served on the NRC Committee on Fuel Economy of
Automobiles and Light Trucks, the Committee on the Effectiveness and
Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, the
Committee on Advanced Automotive Technologies Plan, and was Chair,
Committee on Review of DOE's Office of Heavy Vehicle Technologies. He
received his Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the University of
Wisconsin.
Dr. Johnson served on the SAE Board of Directors from 1982-85. He
was the editor of seven Progress in Technology books on emissions. Over
100 SAE papers have been authored by Dr. Johnson. He received the SAE
Arch T. Colwell Merit Award (outstanding paper--emphasis on the
originality of the contribution as well as the excellence of the
presentation) in 1983 and 1994. In 1993, he and his research colleagues
received the SAE Horning Memorial Award, which was given in recognition
of distinguished active research in diesel emissions to the better
mutual adaptation of fuels and engines. In 1998, he and his doctoral
student received the SAE Myers Awards for Outstanding Student paper.
Dr. Johnson has been a member of the SAE Engineering Activity Board-
Publications Advisory Committee (PAC) from 1975-1987 and the Chair from
1982-87. He was a member of the SAE Technical Communications Committee,
which replaced the PAC, from 1987 to 2004. In 1988, he received the SAE
Forest R. McFarland Award in recognition of serving with dedication as
Chair of the PAC. From 1990-2000 he was Editor-in-Chief of the SAE
Transactions Editors Committee and in 2000 he received the SAE
Certificate of Appreciation for this leadership effort.
In 2002, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' honored Dr.
Johnson with the Soichiro Honda Medal. He was recognized with this
medal for advancing the understanding of vehicle cooling problems and
research investigations into the origin of diesel exhaust pollutants
and their impact on human health. Dr. Johnson has authored over 200
papers and reports and holds one patent.
Chair Baird. Dr. Johnson, thanks for your testimony, and
thanks for your role on producing that report. We too rarely
thank people who devote so much time to such things, and they
are very, very helpful to us. Thank you.
And we understand--I am not sure we all do understand that.
We are grateful on this committee and thank you very much. And
sometimes they aren't even paid for travel. When the
Transportation Commission after the last Transportation Bill
ran out of funds, they did it on their own money.
Mr. Greszler.
STATEMENT OF MR. ANTHONY GRESZLER, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT
AND INDUSTRY RELATIONS, VOLVO POWERTRAIN NORTH AMERICA
Mr. Greszler. Thanks, Chair Baird, Ranking Member Inglis,
thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I am Vice
President for Government and Industry Relations with Volvo
Powertrain North America in Hagerstown, Maryland, in
Congressman Bartlett's district, and we are part of Volvo Group
North America, which is not cars. Our divisions are truck
divisions here include Mack Truck, Volvo Trucks, and Nissan
Diesel truck brands here in the United States. I am speaking to
you today on behalf of the industry representatives of the 21st
Century Truck Partnership.
Twenty-one CTP is uniquely structured to coordinate efforts
to improve the efficiency, emissions, and safety of Class 3 to
8 commercial trucks and buses. Our members include original
equipment manufacturers, diesel engine manufacturers, major
component suppliers, and a number of U.S. Government agencies.
Member companies are all multi-national with major U.S.-
based research and development activities. Products from this
group of companies consume over 30 percent of U.S. motor fuel
and heavily influence global motor fuel consumption as well.
Smaller suppliers can gain access to the 21 CTP Programs by
working through any of the partner companies.
Our objective is to assure sustainable, cost-effective
freight transport in an environment of limited petroleum supply
and carbon emissions constraint. This means we need technology
development plus related infrastructure and policy enablers to
greatly improve vehicle and freight system efficiency and to
develop low carbon fuel sources.
Requirements for heavy-duty vehicles are markedly different
from light duty, and they require unique solutions.
Furthermore, the demand for freight movement is directly tied
to our economic growth, and it is projected to grow at two to
two and a half percent over the next 20 years per year. In
fact, recent DOE projections show that if light-duty fuel use
targets are met and heavy-duty trends continue, that heavy-duty
fuel use would actually exceed light duty by 2040. These facts
demand a major focus on efficient freight movement combining
strong government and industry efforts.
Federal support for commercial truck technology during the
past few years has focused mainly on vehicle components and
subsystems. This has generated encouraging results in
laboratory demonstrations; however, development should now
focus on technology that can be effectively deployed in real
vehicle applications. We propose a strong emphasis on design
for vehicle integration and in-use demonstration.
At 42 percent peak thermal efficiency, heavy-duty diesel
engines are already the most efficient mobile energy converters
in common use. Through joint R&D programs with the Department
of Energy, the industry has already demonstrated a capability
of an additional eight points of improvement in peak thermal
efficiency in lab testing. The real challenge, however, is to
accomplish this in a truck with the emissions, operational, and
vehicle constraints and in a fully-representative drive cycle.
We strongly support public and private partnership for such a
demonstration program.
We also need to find ways to achieve 2010, emissions at
lower cost and with improved fuel efficiency, requiring a
continuing focus on in-cylinder emissions and on exhaust after
treatment.
Hybrid powertrains can offer fuel savings in stop-and-go
applications in the range 30 to 50 percent. However, the
primary reasons to hybridize the Class A long-haul vehicles are
to reduce idle time by using hybrid energy, reduce fuel use
through electrification of components, and energy management
during traffic-induced speed variation and in rolling terrain.
Research and development is required to fully realize the
potential of an integrated electric hybrid powertrain. Longer
life and less expensive energy storage systems are required.
Working with organizations like the Hybrid Truck Users Forum
can accelerate technology development, and in fact, discussions
are already underway with HTUF regarding future industry
forums.
At 65 miles per hour, aerodynamic drag is typically more
than 50 percent of the total road load on a heavy truck. Heavy
vehicle aerodynamic development has been focused on the
tractor, where manufacturers compete vigorously on aerodynamic
performance and fuel economy. However, enormous opportunities
exist in improving trailer aerodynamics and further
opportunities exist through optimization of the aero
performance of the tractor and trailer together, offering up to
12 percent improvement in aerodynamic losses, and further
benefits can be realized by aerodynamic trailer treatments if
these designs can overcome the issues of durability, costs, and
operability.
Cost-effective low carbon fuels and compatible engines will
be necessary building on work already done in biofuels.
In conclusion, the heavy-duty vehicle industry is a small
base of companies with a huge impact on petroleum consumption
and our economic growth. Despite this, there has been minimal
federal investment to address these many opportunities. We
believe that $200 million annually in federal funding is
required to support these initiatives. The 21st Century Truck
Partnership is the only forum in which the relevant companies
come together, and we recommend that 21 CTP serve as the focal
point to create a long-term vision for the future of commercial
vehicle technology.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greszler follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony Greszler
Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, thank you for the
opportunity to appear today. My name is Anthony Greszler. I am the Vice
President for Government and Industry Relations with Volvo Powertrain
North America in Hagerstown, Maryland, a part of Volvo Group North
America, including Mack, Volvo, and Nissan Diesel Truck brands in the
U.S. I am currently serving on the NAS ``Committee for a Study of
Potential Energy Savings and Greenhouse Gas Reductions from
Transportation'' and on the Transportation Research Board Special Task
Force on Climate Change & Energy. I am speaking to you today on behalf
of the industry representatives of the 21st Century Truck Partnership.
Background and Purpose
The 21st Century Truck Program (21CTP) is uniquely structured to
coordinate efforts to improve the efficiency, emissions, and safety of
Class 3 to 8 commercial trucks and buses. 21CTP members include
original equipment manufacturers, diesel engine manufacturers, major
component suppliers and a number of U.S. Government agencies. 21CTP
member companies are all multi-national with major U.S.-based research
and development activities. Products from this group of companies are
widely used and not only consume over 30 percent of the U.S. motor
fuel, but also heavily influence global motor fuel consumption. 21CTP
also provides a forum for small suppliers to gain access to major R&D
programs by working through any of the partner companies.
As heavy vehicle and component suppliers our objective is to assure
sustainable, cost effective freight transport in an environment of
limited petroleum supply and carbon emissions constraint. This means we
need technology development plus related infrastructure and policy
enablers to greatly improve vehicle and freight system efficiency while
also developing low-carbon, non-petroleum fuel sources.
Requirements for heavy duty vehicles are markedly different from
light duty, and require unique solutions. Furthermore, the demand for
freight movement is directly tied to economic growth and is projected
to grow at two to two and a half percent for the next 20 years. Recent
DOE projections show that, if light duty fuel use targets are met and
heavy duty trends continue, HD fuel use will exceed LD by 2040. These
facts demand a major focus on efficient freight movement--combining
strong government and industry efforts--comparable to the effort on
light duty over the past decades.
Heavy Truck Technology Development Needs
1. Vehicle Integration and Demonstration
The small amount of federal support for commercial truck technology
during the past few years has been focused on vehicle components and
sub-systems. While this has generated encouraging results in laboratory
demonstrations, the next development should focus on technology that
can be effectively deployed in real vehicle applications. Going
forward, we propose a strong emphasis on initial design for vehicle
integration and final in-use demonstration which meets emissions,
safety, and operational requirements.
2. Engine Technology
At 42 percent peak thermal efficiency, heavy-duty diesel engines
are already the most efficient mobile energy converters in common use.
In addition, through joint R&D programs with the Department of Energy,
the industry has already demonstrated the capability for an additional
eight (8) percentage points of improvement in peak thermal efficiency
in lab testing. The real challenge however, is to accomplish this in a
truck within the emissions, operational, and vehicle constraints in a
fully representative drive cycle. We strongly support public--private
partnership for a demonstration program to support such an initiative.
Current public-private partnership was instrumental in the
successful launch of 2007 emissions-compliant Heavy-Duty Engines while
maintaining fuel efficiency. Those engines are the basis for upcoming
2010 emissions products which will deliver near zero emissions.
Although we do not envision further tightening of criteria emissions,
we do need to find ways to achieve 2010 emission levels at lower cost
and with improved fuel efficiency. This requires a continuing focus on
both in-cylinder emissions reduction and on exhaust after-treatment to
reduce back pressure, size, weight, and cost.
3. Heavy-Duty Hybrid, Electrification & Reduced Idle Solutions
Hybrid Powertrains can offer significant fuel savings in stop-and-
go applications. In fact, several medium- and heavy-duty ``Stop-and-
Go'' vocations have reported fuel savings in the range of 30-50 percent
with both electric and hydraulic hybrid powertrains. The primary
reasons to hybridize a Class 8 on-highway powertrain are three-fold: 1)
reduced idle time through the hybrid energy storage and use of electric
auxiliaries; 2) reduced fuel use through electrification of
components--thereby, improving efficiency; and 3) reduced fuel usage
during cruise through energy management with traffic induced speed
variation and in rolling terrain. Research and development is required
to fully realize the potential of an integrated Electric Hybrid
Powertrain with Electrified Auxiliaries. In addition, longer life and
less expensive energy storage systems are also required to complete
this package. Working with industry organizations like the Hybrid Truck
Users Forum (HTUF) can accelerate technology development, provided
adequate funding is achieved. In fact, discussions are already underway
with HTUF regarding future industry forums.
4. Truck and Trailer Aerodynamics
At 65 mph, aerodynamic drag is typically more than 50 percent of
the total road load on a heavy truck. The tractor and trailer operate
as an aerodynamic system with strong interactions between the front
(tractor) and rear (trailer) parts of the system. Heavy vehicle
aerodynamic development has focused on the front of the system where
tractor manufacturers compete vigorously on aerodynamic performance and
fuel economy. However, enormous opportunity exists in improving trailer
aerodynamics and further opportunity exists through optimization of the
aero performance of the tractor and trailer together because the
quality of the airflow delivered from the tractor to the trailer has a
significant performance impact on trailer aerodynamic devices offering
up to 12 percent improvement in aerodynamic losses. Further benefits of
another 10-15 percent can be realized by aerodynamic trailer
treatments, if the designs can overcome issues of durability, cost and
operability.
5. Fuels
Vehicular improvements alone will not achieve the full potential
for fuel and greenhouse gas savings. Cost-effective changes to fuels
and to vehicle usage need to be considered. Vehicle research and
development will be necessary to take full advantage of some
improvements. Investigations need to be conducted that build upon work
already done in biofuels, natural gas, hydrogen and other alternative
fuels. This is only possible if we: (1) Ensure that fuel standards are
written to support optimal engine performance; (2) Ensure that fuels
meets the appropriate standards; and (3) Provide the necessary fuel
infrastructure.
Fuel Efficiency Assessment
There will be a need for vehicle fuel efficiency assessment and
accounting as we seek to minimize fuel use and CO2
emissions. With the tremendous variation in vehicle specifications,
this will require a fuel efficiency model accepted by industry, end-
users, and government agencies. The model should be verified by testing
on typical vehicles while allowing for simulated results for
variations.
In Conclusion:
The heavy-duty vehicle industry is comprised of a small base of
companies with a huge impact on current and future petroleum
consumption as well as our nation's economic growth. Despite the
critical need to deal with trucking industry challenges, there has been
minimal federal investment to address many untapped opportunities. We
believe that $200 million annually in federal funding is required to
support these initiatives. The 21st Century Truck Partnership is the
only forum in which the relevant companies come together. Given the
significant technical challenges in developing a fully integrated truck
that optimizes all of the aforementioned characteristics, it is
essential that the industry has strong strategic alliances and
significant resource support from the appropriate federal agencies. To
accomplish these objectives, we recommend that 21CTP serve as a focal
point to create a longer-term vision for the future of commercial
vehicle technology.
21st Century Truck Partnership member companies
Allison Transmission, Inc.
BAE Systems
Caterpillar Inc.
Cummins Inc.
Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Detroit Diesel Corporation
Eaton Corporation
Freightliner Trucks
Mack Trucks, Inc.
Navistar, Inc.
PACCAR Inc.
Volvo Trucks North America
Biography for Anthony Greszler
Vice President Government and Industry Relations
Volvo Powertrain North America
Education
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
BS, Mechanical Engr, 1972
MS, Mechanical Engr, 1976
Background and experience
Mr. Greszler has been involved with diesel engine design and
development since 1977, with experience in diesel mechanical systems,
cooling, lubrication, performance development, emissions, controls,
complete vehicle powertrains, and advanced concepts. He has also been
involved with heavy-duty natural gas engines and other alternative
fuels, particularly DME.
From 1977-2001 he was with Cummins Engine Co. responsible for
design and development of heavy-duty diesel engines, including two
years in Europe on N14 and L10 engines and eight years as L10 & M11
Chief Engineer, including on-highway and off-highway applications.
In 2001, he became Vice President, Engineering for Volvo
Powertrain, North America with responsibility for engine development
for Mack Trucks and Volvo Trucks North America, including Mack ETECH,
ASET, and E7 natural gas engine, support for Volvo D12 in North
America, and development for future North American engines including
U.S. 2007 and 2010 emissions. In 2005, he took responsibility for
Advanced Engineering for Engines and Vehicle Propulsion with focus on
diesel combustion/emissions, hybrid propulsion, advanced transmissions,
and alternative fuels. Currently, he is focusing on CO2
mitigation from road freight transport. Other activities include
serving as an officer of the Engine Manufacturers Association, member-
Transportation Research Board Special Task Force on Climate Change and
Energy, and National Academy of Science ``Committee for Potential
Energy Savings and Green House Gas Reduction from Transportation.''
Volvo Powertrain, a division of Volvo AB, is responsible to supply
engine, transmission, and drivetrain components to all Volvo divisions
including Volvo Trucks, Mack Trucks, Renault VI, Nissan Diesel, Volvo
Construction, Volvo Penta, and Volvo Bus. Volvo Powertrain is one of
the world's largest suppliers of 9-16 liter diesel engines.
Discussion
Chair Baird. Thank you all for fascinating testimony, and a
number of issues come to mind.
I will recognize myself for five minutes first, and then we
will proceed in alternative order as is our custom here.
DOE's Response to Recommendations
Mr. Chalk, there is a number of--as we listen to the
recommendations of the folks from industry, they offer a number
of recommendations and observations. I want to ask you first,
what are you doing to take into account, what is the agency
doing to take into account the kind of recommendations we have
just heard?
And then I will reverse that a little bit and ask the
industry, how well do you think that is working, and how can it
be made better?
Mr. Chalk. Thank you. A lot of the recommendations you
heard this morning came directly from the National Research
Council report, which the Department of Energy asked for, and
we do this on the automotive and the truck side so that we can
make our program better. So in general we concur with all the
recommendations in the report.
There is some tension in some areas. When we have a small
amount of money to work with, you know, we do a top-down
systems approach. That really cuts down on or possibly defrays
some of the component-level work that we could do that is more
the traditional role of the government to enable any long-term
research. So we try to balance that, but we will incorporate
the recommendation to do a system demonstration of the 50
percent that includes, you know, the after treatment and
penalties associated with regenerating the after treatment, if
it is a particular filter, all the other system recommendations
that were incorporated and try to do that demonstration and
prove that that is, in fact, possible, which is a significant
accomplishment of the program to go from 42 to 50 percent.
We are also reconsidering the budget there. We have
opportunity on the Recovery Act. DOE has discretionary funding,
so we will re-look at the heavy duty to make sure that our
budget is commensurate with the problems to be solved in terms
of oil dependence and climate change, and that can be done in a
timeframe that matters in terms of addressing those issues. And
we have opportunity, of course, now in formulating our fiscal
year 2010 budget to make those adjustments as well and consider
the NRC recommendations.
The swing has been there because as mentioned, you know,
light-duty, highway vehicles are three times heavy duty. So we
really focus on the lion's share of the problem so to speak,
but as I said in my testimony, the trends are, and it has been
mentioned here, that while light duty is flat and we can maybe
decrease that a lot if we make good gains there, the heavy duty
is actually increasing. So we have to look at that and see what
gains could be made, and I think that systems analysis will
help us do that. We will know how much more we can get out of
thermal efficiency, the engine, how much more we can get
aerodynamics.
Funding From the Recovery Act and Private Partnerships
Chair Baird. Let me--okay. Thank you.
A couple of issues I heard that I want to make sure we have
a chance to elaborate on, I appreciate the input. One is this
issue of private partnership. Mr. Baloga, you mentioned it. I
think Dr. Clay and others may have mentioned it. The ability of
private entities--Mr. Baloga, talk to us a little bit about
that. It sounded like you were saying you would like the
ability, you have got some expertise in your firm, you would
like the ability to compete for some grants. Is it your
experience that that is precluded or basically is all the
research being done in-house and not as collaborative as you
would like to see it or----
Mr. Baloga. Well, what we would like to be able to do is
bid on contracts for cooperative research on our own. Right now
we do that with partners, and the DOE has been very
accommodating to different projects; however, we need to
partner with someone who is themselves able to apply for the
contract. And that puts limitations----
Chair Baird. Is that because of domestic versus
international ownership?
Mr. Baloga. Yes.
Chair Baird. That is the issue? Okay.
Mr. Baloga. Yes.
Chair Baird. And I think Mr. Inglis is going to follow up
on that a little bit----
Mr. Baloga. Right.
Chair Baird.--so there is going to be a fair bit of money
in the stimulus package, and I am going to ask each of you if
you could invest that money, how would you invest it?
Dr. Johnson. I will just work my way--I mean, and I am
going to ask you to do this in, not just in the interest of
your own industry but in the interest of the country. So if
you--looking objectively what would you do?
Dr. Johnson. The truck component is extremely important,
and as I mentioned in my testimony, the industry is very
diverse, and they are not as politically visible as the
automotive industry or the car and light truck. And diesel
engine technology is really important. It is the heart of the
truck. Diesel engines are most efficient as Tony mentioned, and
hybrids are very important, too, and I think they need further
stimulus. There is a lot of difficulty with the batteries and
storage as Tony talked about because of these larger vehicles,
and they need more, different storage capacity maybe than a
plug-in hybrid. So----
Chair Baird. Mr. Greszler.
Mr. Greszler. Yeah. Thank you. First of all, we strongly
support the idea of integrating technologies. We think that is
one of the core things that has been lacking in the previous
programs, to make sure the whole technology package works
together in a vehicle and meets emissions as well as the
operational requirements in a real duty cycle. And we greatly
appreciate the new emphasis the DOE is now placing on that.
As far as specific technologies, there continue to be a
need for more in-cylinder combustion work, certainly waste heat
recovery, which Mr. Baloga mentioned, but that is--we are well
on the way with waste heat recovery evaluations in heavy duty,
but, again, it is difficult to integrate that into a truck with
a cooling requirement. So we have to be careful.
Hybridization and in particular, long-haul hybridization,
which will be a different kind of a technology than what you
see in light duty because it is not so much stop and go. It is
more dealing with managing the duty cycle and the energy use in
the vehicle, and we need different kinds of batteries, we need
particularly high-energy capability because we have to restore
and utilize energy at a very high rate.
So that is one of the big factors that we deal with. So
there are specific areas that we think make a lot of sense,
sir. Thank you.
Chair Baird. Dr. Clay.
Dr. Clay. I would like to speak to the portion of the
stimulus that recognizes the importance of science investment.
There is tremendous funding provided in the Recovery Act for
increases in science investment, and I think there are
opportunities for powerful breakthroughs that we can direct
some of that science funding to the so-called Pasteur's
quadrant, where we are looking at use-driven science.
So I think in this particular area with vehicle
technologies there are tremendous opportunities and very
exciting ways we could apply that. So potential breakthrough
game changers that we could use that kind of science funding
and linkages between the science and the applied energy
programs like the Vehicle Technologies Program could include
things like combustion research, where we would be able to use
our tremendous user facilities at our national laboratories for
breakthroughs in optimizing combustion research. And also
things like the advances in material science and nanotechnology
to revisit some of the battery technologies that the Department
of Energy previously supported in past decades but hit
roadblocks. And with 20 years of advances in material science
and nanotechnology, I think it would be very exciting to use
some of that funding to revisit those chemistries and to see if
some of those roadblocks might not be able to be overcome.
Chair Baird. Thank you. My time has expired now. I will
recognize my colleague. I want to also acknowledge the presence
of Mr. Davis, Ms. Edwards, and Ms. Woolsey who have joined us
as well. And I see Mr. Bilbray is here and Mr. Bartlett. Dr.
Bartlett, good to see you as well.
Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Innovation and Job Creation
Mr. Baloga, it is impressive that I learned this morning
that 70 percent of the production from the Spartanburg facility
is export bound. It is also tremendously impressive that there
are 5,000 employees, about 5,000 at the Spartanburg plant,
17,000 employees in the supplier network and the region. So it
is consistent with what you were saying about the importance of
not disfavoring an international company in research projects.
Might you describe some of those impediments so that we
could understand better what we could do to remove those
impediments? Because obviously for South Carolina, which is now
the number two unemployment state in the country, and the place
where your plant is actually higher unemployment than the State
average. Were it not for BMW we would be in a world of hurt
more than we are hurting now.
Mr. Baloga. Well, thank you, Mr. Inglis.
We certainly have a lot of innovation to offer, and as a
premium manufacturer obviously we can charge a higher price for
technology, and that is really where breakthroughs take place.
If you look at going all the way back in safety technology or
emissions technology, the premium segment of the auto industry
is where the major breakthroughs occur because of the funding
aspect of it to pay for this technology.
So we really have a lot to offer. If we develop it on our
own, then we put it in our vehicles, and it eventually trickles
down into the mainstream. Whereas by partnering with companies
in the U.S., we are able to get DOE funding and other
government funding contracts for this technology, and
eventually it makes its way into production and is widespread
throughout the industry.
But if we could get the funding directly, we would be able
to more quickly get this innovation into the mainstream and
into production. What happens is there is actually a delay. We
have to pick an appropriate partner, we have to go through the
process, make sure the partner's correct, make sure we have all
of the I's dotted and T's crossed. And this investment of
resources really slows down the whole project. So if there was
a way that we could directly bid for contracts and so forth,
now, of course, the innovation that comes out of that is
property of the contract, and it is available. There are no
secrets when it is a government contract. So this information
gets shared very quickly.
So I would say that this: by enabling this to happen with a
company like ours that has made a huge investment and just so
happens to have a global headquarters outside the U.S., this
would actually bring the technology faster to the forefront,
bring it faster into the mainstream vehicles, and that is
something we would like to happen.
Mr. Inglis. You know, it is interesting. You mentioned that
the premium vehicles have been the ones that have caused the
breakthroughs, which makes sense. I hadn't thought about it
until you said it, but it makes sense because there is some
opportunity to improve and a customer who is made willing to
pay for that improvement.
Mr. Baloga. Exactly.
Mr. Inglis. By analogy, something this committee is getting
used to hearing from me is, you know, as long as the
externalities aren't attached to the price of gasoline, it is
the same thing. Right? I mean, if we are right on this margin
with unrecognized externalities associated with gasoline, if
you recognized them and attached those--internalized those
externals, then suddenly the economics change, and everybody
sort of becomes more of a premium manufacturer at that point
because then you are saying, oh, this stuff is pretty
expensive, this gasoline, when you attach the national security
cost, for example, to it. Then suddenly all kinds of innovation
starts becoming possible. A little bit like the premium brand.
I hadn't really thought about that. So that is a helpful thing
this morning.
Avoiding Picking Winners and Losers
How--somebody tell me how you, how we avoid picking winners
and losers. Anytime we fund something, we are sort of picking a
winner. So, for example, Dr. Clay didn't like it very much, but
the H Prize we tried to do, that was an attempt to--for us to
fund something. It favors hydrogen over something else.
How do you avoid doing that? Anybody got any suggestion
about how to avoid winners and losers? Dr. Clay.
Dr. Clay. Thank you, Congressman. I wanted to say thank you
for mentioning the H Prize. I wanted to say, you know, the
Alliance supports a diversity of technologies, and I think it
is to the interest of the country and the industry to have as
many innovative tools in the toolbox as we can to try to get
that kind of research. And the beauty of the Prize Authority as
a general tool is that it is able to leverage a tremendous
amount of private investment, and it allows a breadth of
entrance and ideas that you can't get through a formal RFP
process.
So I do want to say that I, you know, personally and in my
former capacity, supported the goal of the H Prize and
supported the idea of hydrogen technology. Our fear at the time
was that by making it so specific to hydrogen that we might
actually inadvertently discourage using that Prize Authority
for other programs. I think that with the new Administration
and the comments that Secretary Chu made before this committee,
that that is no longer a concern, the idea of using innovative
ideas like Prize Authority is something that will become
internalized to the Department of Energy going forward.
And so just hopeful that we will see a successful H Prize
going forward.
Mr. Inglis. And maybe later in another round we can talk
about just how do you avoid this winners and losers thing. I
don't know how you do it other than an elegant price signal. If
you send a price signal through the economy, then you don't
have to worry about picking winners and losers.
We will come back to that, Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. I would just say I
think based on what we know about global overheating and ocean
acidification, I think we have to pick some losers. The losers
are those that pollute the planet. The winners are those that
pollute less, and we do need to pick some losers at the very
least, and I would say fossil fuel-based consumption at some
point has to be a loser in favor of things that don't create
climate overheating and acidify the ocean and kill this planet.
So Mr. Tonko.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Industry Funding Levels and Viability
Ms. Clay, Dr. Clay, the investment in R&D that you cited
was, I think, the year 2006 to '07 was an increase of eight
percent. Can you chart that since '07, forward? Is it as strong
an increase?
Dr. Clay. Those--Congressman, those numbers are reported to
the National Science Foundation that does a compilation. I
believe the numbers for 2008, are not yet compiled.
I think it is difficult to say given the economic downturn
whether the industry is. I simply don't know the answer to
whether the industry maintained that funding level. I can say
that the industry is as committed philosophically going forward
as to developing advanced technologies, and so given the
availability of resources but that you will see that level or
that level of commitment going forward from the industry.
Mr. Tonko. And can we track it backward from '06, to '96?
Was there a steep curve of R&D investment?
Dr. Clay. Congressman, I am actually, I am not certain what
the trend is. I would be happy to find out and give you that
information.
Mr. Tonko. It seems to me that the secret here to get an
energy efficient vehicle, be it our cars or our trucking
industry in sync with what consumers now want, we need to ramp
up significantly the R&D investment.
And I would ask is your interpretations of where the
weakness might lie, is it with industry or government infusion
of R&D investment?
Dr. Clay. I think actually this ties nicely back to,
unfortunately Congressman Inglis had to step out, but I think
that this ties nicely back into his point about market signals.
I think that one of the main drivers for investment in advanced
technology is a certainty that that technology has a reasonable
chance of competing with the entrenched technologies. So with
the volatility of gas prices that we have seen, it is
difficulty for investors or would-be investors in things like
advanced biofuels or in battery technology, it is difficult for
them to run the numbers forward and know whether their
investments are likely to pay off with marketable vehicles.
If we had greater certainty in gasoline prices, if we knew
that they were to stay let us say above the $4 mark that we hit
last summer, that would send a very strong signal to the
investment community that the alternative fuel vehicle
technologies would find acceptance in the marketplace.
And so one policy option for driving technologies into the
marketplace is to provide those strong market signals.
Mr. Tonko. Is it just a function, though, of gasoline
prices, or is it a function of cleaning the environment?
Dr. Clay. Well, I believe that the way that you can get to
that goal of cleaning the environment is by driving the market
signals, because anything that you do to drive the market
signals for petroleum will encourage consumers to buy more
fuel-efficient vehicles. And so as a secondary effect you will
inextricably be able to deliver better greenhouse gas profiles
per mile and also other associated emissions would also go
down.
Mr. Tonko. It seems to me with some of the investments made
in foreign produced, it would trigger some sort of indicator to
the investor market. It seems like we are falling behind as an
industry because we haven't kept pace with the sort of vehicle
that Americans would love to purchase.
Batteries
And if I could just flip to the battery discussion for both
you and Mr. Chalk, how important is it for us to create
diversity within that focus?
Mr. Chalk. You say diversity within the focus. Do you mean
within the lithium ion family?
Mr. Tonko. Well----
Mr. Chalk. Or----
Mr. Tonko.--within the battery discussion itself. Should we
put all our eggs in that one technology basket as I heard
mention of earlier, you know, as an expression, or should we
look at other forms of battery technology that might be more
suitable to bigger vehicles or to the car fleets, the auto
fleets? Should there be something beyond lithium ion that we
look at?
Mr. Chalk. Well, I would say yes, and we always survey the
latest chemistries in batteries, but I would say within the
lithium ion family there is a bunch of diverse electrolytes and
cathodes and things like that, so it is not just, you know, one
manufacturer will have a totally different chemistry than
another manufacturer, even though they both may be classified
as lithium ion. So there are lots of different types within the
lithium ion family. In general, though, whether we are talking
about power generation or vehicles, we have a very diverse
portfolio that, you know, the magnitude of the problem is such
that we have to have hydrogen and biofuels and electricity
and--go ahead, sir.
Mr. Tonko. If I might just ask--my time is running short.
With the stimulus money, with the Recovery Act money, are we
going to look beyond lithium ion? Are we going to look at
battery technology that takes us beyond that?
Mr. Chalk. What we are saying is the--and the President
last week announced the $2 billion that was in the Recovery Act
for manufacturing batteries, and basically what we are saying
is those batteries coming off of those lines have to be
compatible with a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. The
chemistries and things like that are up to the proposer if they
can meet those requirements.
Mr. Tonko. Dr. Clay, any comments on the battery?
Dr. Clay. Yes. I think one important point is that when we
speak about hybrid vehicles that the realization should be
first that hybrid vehicles are, in fact, a suite of
technologies themselves. So a lot of our discussion tends to
focus on plug-in hybrids, and that is a very exciting
technology and should receive discussion.
There are a range, though, of possible hybrid
configurations going from vehicles like the Toyota Prius that
is a full hybrid but has a smaller battery pack than something
like the GM Volt that has been announced, and then pushing
further back you can have an even smaller battery pack where
you have what is called a stop-start hybrid with very small
battery that is able to reclaim preventative braking and
deliver significant fuel economy benefits. So because there is
a range of hybridization possible, that hybrids themselves are
not a single technology, we need to be thinking about a range
of battery chemistries that are suited to each of those niches
along the way.
And so I think if we start conceptualizing hybrids as a
continuum, then we will naturally start looking at investments
and battery technologies along a continuum, and that will
naturally bring us to looking at a diversity of battery
chemistries.
Mr. Tonko. Okay. So can we hope that the Recovery Act
stimulus money can accomplish that broader view?
Mr. Chalk. We are looking at it. I would, I want to
emphasize, though, that there is nothing that has the power
density and the energy density of the lithium ion. So, you
know, one point we want diversity, but we also want critical
mass because if we are going to address these problems, we
eventually have to build something so that we do have to down
select and pick some winners, so to speak, and go with our best
shot. But all the time we are looking at what is the latest
coming out of small innovative companies or out of our national
laboratories to see if something better is coming along that
can meet those requirements.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Chair Baird. Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Ehlers.
The Relative Merits of Various Transportation Innovations
Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank the guests for
their testimony. It is very stimulating and very useful. That
is not always true around here, but I do appreciate it.
The--just a couple minor comments first. I appreciate Mr.
Greszler bringing up the issue of trailer design. I have often
wondered why no one has worked on aerodynamic trailers. I have
a personal interest in this. I used to drive a truck, a semi-
trailer and tractor, and it was pretty primitive back then. No
consideration. I was pleased to see the cabs at least showing
some improvement, but there is so much more that could be done
there in a lot of ways.
The--in all the discussion about batteries, first of all,
batteries have been the problem for at least 50 years. I have a
good friend who is a physical chemist who has been working on
batteries for at least that long. A very, very complex issue
and not easily resolved. It is not just a matter of saying,
well, we are going to do some research, and we are going to
have wonderful batteries. It is far more complex than that, and
we should all recognize that.
One interesting sidelight since I enjoy flying, there is a
lot of discussion now of electric airplanes, which would be
used only for recreational purposes, but this in itself would
be very helpful in terms of petroleum use, air cleanliness, and
so forth. And so there is a lot of other uses for good
batteries than in automobiles.
The--in terms of the hydrogen, I have been skeptical about
that for a considerable amount of time. There--and the
infrastructure problem as far as I can tell not being
addressed. Every time I raise the issue everyone says, yes,
yeah, that has to be addressed, and we will do it, but they all
have different ideas. Absolutely, all the infrastructure
involved is incredibly complex. You will need new means of
carrying the fuel, transporting the fuel to distribution
centers, getting it into the vehicles. It is not an easy
problem at all. And I am not opposed to the use of hydrogen
fuel cells. I think it would be wonderful, but we have immense
problems to overcome there if we are really going to do that
large scale. And the infrastructure, I think, is going to be
very difficult.
One quick comment about federal investment. Roughly a
decade ago the Department of Energy cooperated with the three,
the Big Three, on a research project. I don't remember the name
of it. It was under the Clinton Administration. We were going
to produce a vehicle that would do 100 miles on a gallon, and
many of my colleagues were very skeptical about it and didn't
support it. I was skeptical, but I thought, let us give it a
try. As far as I know nothing ever came out of that, and that
has increased my skepticism of the Federal Government working
with the automobile companies. Can they, in fact, put aside
their own personal interests and work in a cooperative way on
research with the Federal Government? I don't know. I hope so,
but the evidence hasn't been there so far.
I appreciate Mr. Baloga's comments about the heat recovery.
Immense amounts of heat lost, generated by automobiles, and
anything you can do to recover that is bound to be good. And I
certainly encourage further investigation of that. That is a
wide-open field with lots of possibilities. And once again, not
easy but it can be done and easier than many of the other
alternatives.
I don't have any particular questions, because you have
been, all been so thorough in your comments, but I am pleased
to see the Department of Energy taking a substantial interest
in this issue, and I hope that we can develop good cooperative
working relationships. The--it is just from every aspect you
look at the environmental, the foreign policy issues of our
dependence on oil, everywhere you look this is one of our
biggest problems today, and we really have to address it in a
very strong uniform fashion, and I think this hearing is
helping us see that and also bringing out the ideas you have of
doing that.
So I just want to thank you very much for your comments and
the ideas you have presented. Thank you.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Dr. Ehlers.
Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
witnesses.
Domestic Jobs
Mr. Baloga, you in your testimony say that to any extent
possible research funding to support companies come, go to
global industries not located in the United States. Tell me,
and this is in total innocence that I ask this. I have no, I
have nothing here that is trying to set you up or anything.
Tell me how in Great Britain with BMW, how does--how would
those investments come to the United States? I mean, where is
the real partnership here? I mean, is there one? How do we
ensure that if the United States invests in partnership with
BMW that the jobs stay in the United States? I mean, we are
hurting for jobs, so is there, I mean, the subsidies that BMW
gets from Europe or the European Union or from Great Britain,
do those come to the United States? Can we bid for them over
there?
Mr. Baloga. Well, I guess let me answer the question like
this.
Ms. Woolsey. Okay.
Mr. Baloga. The technology that is developed as a result of
these cooperative packages and contracts makes its way into the
hands of the American public in the way of better-performing
vehicles on the road----
Ms. Woolsey. I understand that, and I believe in that
totally. I am talking about jobs. I mean, we won't have people
that can afford to buy the cars that--if we don't have people
working here in our country.
Mr. Baloga. Right.
Ms. Woolsey. So how do we keep that money, if BMW benefits,
yes, we will benefit in the big picture. How do we keep--is
there a way to bring, ensure that money stays in the United
States for jobs?
Mr. Baloga. Well, the research on the projects would be for
the cars, the vehicles built in this country and of course, if
the research project is for something that would be making more
efficient manufacturing, certainly that would be directly
resulting in jobs in the U.S., and that would be tied to our
plant, for example, Spartanburg, that we are expanding by 50
percent.
The--I think to answer your question, perhaps the best way
to go about it would be to think of it in terms of an
investment in a company that is going to be favorable to the
market that is being its friend. We all tend to be more
amenable to friends. There is a saying that says, ``Keep your
friends close and your enemies closer.'' There is a good reason
for that, not that we want to speak about this in terms of
friends and enemies, but when there is an investment in this
country by our company, there is a certain closeness, a rapport
that is established. The great people of South Carolina have
made the success down there with the plant. That is the reason
we stay here and expand because it has been so successful.
So I think the success----
Ms. Woolsey. Well, thank you. Okay. I get all that. I just
want to make sure the jobs stay here, too, so----
Mr. Baloga. Thank you.
Ms. Woolsey.--I appreciate that. I do have an open question
for anybody on the panel.
Other Promising Technologies
Are there promising technologies that aren't as far along
as plug-in hybrids and hydrogen that with a big push may be
more promising in the long run? Any--yes, Mr. Greszler.
Mr. Greszler. Yeah. I would say absolutely there are, and
we mentioned one, which is waste heat recovery. There are
multiple techniques for waste heat recovery. We looked at, we
are looking at rank and basically steam-type cycle, which Mr.
Baloga mentioned. We are also looking at thermal electrics.
There are some advanced work with things like thermal
acoustics. All of these techniques have some promise of taking
energy used or wasted in the exhaust stream and recovering it
to produce useful energy, for example.
None of them are really at a point where they are truly
effective in a vehicle, and there are a variety of reasons for
that: efficiencies in some cases of the materials, the cooling
system requirements, how we package it within a vehicle, the
heat exchangers and the efficiencies all need to be worked on
to make them truly effective.
But there are a lot of opportunities there as far as
something that is really not, you know, closely available but
something that could be made available in the near future with
the right focus.
Ms. Woolsey. Well, should we be focusing on those
technologies along with, I mean, you know, side by side, or do
we have to give up--should we only be investing in the more,
the further-along technologies and let the others come along as
they can?
Mr. Greszler. Personally I think we need to do some of
both, but we certainly need to be moving technologies into
production and into the marketplace, or we accomplish nothing.
But if we don't keep a focus on advanced technologies that
require more research, then we have nothing in the future. So
somehow we have to manage both of those.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird. Ms. Woolsey, thank you. I very much appreciate
your line of questioning about American jobs, because it is so
central to all of our districts. Before you arrived Mr. Inglis
commented, as representative of the great State of South
Carolina, the impact of BMW. I am going to recognize him for
about 20 seconds before I turn to Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Inglis. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Woolsey, you might have missed earlier that BMW, a
German company, has invested $6 billion in South Carolina, and
the numbers I gave earlier of about 5,000 jobs in South
Carolina, 17,000 in the region actually are low when you
consider the U.S. The total U.S. number is apparently about
50,000 jobs because BMW is here making and selling cars. It is
an incredible benefit of international trade.
Thank you.
Chair Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Bilbray.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will also point
out that American car manufacturers produce jobs overseas;
Canada, Mexico, Australia, so there is no guarantees.
Ethanol and Fuel Efficiency Standards
Mr. Chair, I apologize first. I want to point out, make
sure we remember the context in which we are discussing here.
We are talking mobile sources, and we are talking about total
emissions in this country is 28 percent. And so as we think
about this, we think about plug-ins. We are thinking about the
creation of hydrogen. We also have got to remember that 35
percent of the emissions total in this country are from one
source, and that is electric generation.
So we are talking about 28 today. But we have got 35
percent out there that is going to be related to this
addressing the 28, and remember that electric generation is the
most clean--the biggest user of zero emission generation. They
produce power, I think it is 22 percent of all electric
generation is done with technology that has zero emissions.
So I bring this up because it is important as we talk about
the line that if we do not address that 35 percent, which
actually historically has used the cleanest, the most zero
emission generation, we are never going to get a climate change
strategy that works. And so as we talk about mobile, remember,
this is a smaller version. It is not going to be the major. We
need to still address that, and so as we talk about plugging in
our hybrids, when we talk about generating hydrogen, we have
got to remember we still come back to the elephant in the
closet, and that is the fact that if we don't go to zero
emission generation for our electricity, everything we are
doing in mobile is a lost leader.
Speaking of that, and, oh, by the way, if you want to talk
about mileage and fuel consumption, if we eliminated all of the
obstruction that local government does with inappropriate
traffic control, we could probably do more savings and more
reduction. It was estimated that 95 percent of all stop signs
could be yield signs. Stop signs are five times more polluting
than not having any and use up more fuel. But that is for
another hearing.
I think the one thing I would like to say here is we talk
about different strategies, and I guess it is Mr. Chalk, the
issue of the CAFE standard, I have got a question here.
Historically our CAFE standards have always been based on a 100
percent gasoline mixture. Right?
Mr. Chalk. With biofuels credits and things like that. Yes.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, and I am talking about the standard
itself. Now, do we include the reduction in mileage because of
the 30 percent less fuel efficiency of something like alcohol
ethanol when we are reformulating this fuel efficiency
standards? (Because the old standards that we developed in the
'70s and the '80s, which I strongly supported extending over a
period of time, have we modified now what those standards are,
considering the fact that now it is mandated that we use 10
percent alcohol in all fuels sold in the United States, and
thus the mileage, the practical mileage has dropped?) What are
we using? Are we using a new formula based on the fact that
ethanol is there, or are we still operating off the concept, at
least the standard, of 100 percent gasoline?
Mr. Chalk. I don't know the answer to that question. It
is--the Department of Transportation issues the rules, you
know. The CAFE is to increase fuel economy by 35 percent by
2020. I don't know if they made that adjustment for what we
would call gasoline equivalent, but that seems like the right
thing to do.
Mr. Bilbray. I think we darn well ought to have it
somewhere, because we either have to understand that we can't
increase the mileage as we are mandating that the fuel mixture
have less energy capabilities in it, and we have got to reflect
that, and I know it is a catch-22. I come from the Air
Resources Board in California, and these catch-22s show up all
the time, but here is the thing. What are we doing in
government on this?
Mr. Chalk. Well, I just add that there are so many other
factors that would affect those miles per gallon rather than
the fuel use, so it may, in the wash it may come out not to be
a relatively minor affect, even though 10 percent of that fuel
might have 30 percent less energy in it.
Mr. Bilbray. And, you know, especially at a time that the
ethanol industry is pressuring EPA to allow more fuel into the
mixture, even though we know there are environmental and
technical problems there.
Mr. Chalk. Well, the renewable fuel standard would actually
add a lot. It would add 36 billion by 2022.
Mr. Bilbray. I am not talking about that. I am talking
about the percentage of mandated, percentage of ethanol inside
the gasoline we are required to buy in this country.
Mr. Chalk. Right. But to get the 36 billion gallons we
would have to have probably a higher blend than 10 percent to
get there. That--the best way to get that 36 billion gallons
out in the infrastructure would likely be by increasing the
content of the alternative fuel in a gallon of gasoline rather
than have pure ethanol or something like that at the pump.
Mr. Bilbray. But it can't be ethanol unless we have a major
modification in the vehicles themselves, because we already, we
knew this in '92, that ethanol was going to create destruction
of the equipment, the seals, and cause emissions problems, and
now we can't put more ethanol in the fuel, so we have to go on
another kind of renewable to be able to increase the standard.
Mr. Chalk. Well, actually, we can. We know how to do it. It
is relatively minor cost to the vehicle, less than $200 by most
studies. We can make things compatible, and there is fuel
flexors, there are many fuel flex vehicles out there. So it is
an adjustment that can be made. We have the know how, the car
companies know how to do that to go to higher blends of
ethanol.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, I would appreciate looking at that
because----
Mr. Chalk. Okay.
Mr. Bilbray.--at ARB they are still very concerned. In
fact, let me point out, Mr. Chair, ARB just this month came out
with a study showing that ethanol has the air emissions benefit
of regular gasoline. It is no more than we have had before.
Mr. Chalk. Let me try to enlighten you a little bit on
that. We can do it in terms of capability. The car companies
know how to tune the engines. There is an evaporative emissions
issue in California----
Mr. Bilbray. Big issue.
Mr. Chalk.--and that is really--there is not--it has to be
re-engineered around so that when you put more and more
ethanol, you get higher vapor pressures in a gallon of
gasoline, you have to make sure that that evaporative emission
is captured.
Mr. Bilbray. Well, Mr. Chalk, why is ethanol given a dollar
tax credit by--that other biofuels are not allowed? Why is
ethanol specifically chosen as a winner in our tax cuts?
Mr. Chalk. Congress has decided it. It is not a dollar. It
may be changed, but it was 54 cents. I don't know if the latest
Farm Bill changed it or not. I possibly could be wrong there,
but so it is a policy, I think, driven from the farm subsidies.
Mr. Bilbray. So in other words we have chosen a winner
here, and that is ethanol gets a subsidy, but other biofuels
like algae fuel does not get the same subsidy?
Mr. Chalk. If it was turned into ethanol, it would.
Mr. Bilbray. You know, Mr. Chair, let me just tell you
something. That is exactly the problem. Ethanol is--I will
still go on with the fact that it is a lost leader. We are
putting massive amounts of money thinking some day a better
fuel will show up. At the same time we are not giving the same
benefits to alternatives, and that is the kind of thing of
picking winners and losers, and obviously it is--I understand
this when the farm lobby shows up, when people come over and
start talking, but I think that when we talk about fuel
efficiency and we are talking about the big picture, here is a
place where we pick winners and losers and----
Chair Baird. Mr. Bilbray, I----
Mr. Bilbray.--I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird.--concur with you. I think, however, the best
witness for this would be POGO, not our colleagues here,
because we have seen the enemy and he is us, and I think it may
have something, the answer to your question may have something
to do with the primary structure of Presidential races more
than energy efficiency.
I would be--Mr. Davis.
Innovations in Fuel Efficiency
Mr. Davis. Mr. Chair, thank you very much, and Ranking
Member, for having this hearing this morning. I live in rural
America. I have a Congressional District that has 10,000 square
miles, 63 people for each square mile lives in that
Congressional District. We have very low-income individuals. We
are excited about the fact that maybe we can have an automobile
that will go someplace as quick as a combustion engine, much
cheaper, and less polluting. We hope that is in the future. We
really want to see that happen.
As a young fellow I bought a '77 model diesel automobile. I
won't mention the name of it, but it got 50 miles to the gallon
in 1977. If I am not wrong, that is about 30 some years ago. I
doubt that you can find an automobile that is built in America
today, and that one was, that will get 50 miles per gallon.
What has happened?
And so I ask that question for a reason. I know as we
engage in lessening our carbon footprint, we have to look at
new technology as well as old technology. I am not sure what
happened to those automobiles, and I am not sure that one is
still around, but I am not sure why we are not able, 30 some
years later with all the money we have spent on being able to
find energy efficiency automobiles, with the effort that we
have had for many, many years to look at--as we do research on
the South Pole and we see the carbon content continue to
escalate, as our climate starts changing.
Now, I have heard on this committee some folks say climate
change is not happening. That it is just a natural phenomena,
and that global warming is not happening. That it is just
something that normally happens throughout the eons. It
reminded me when I heard someone say that today there was a
fellow that was working with Galileo, and he said, why do we
study the stars? They all look the same to me.
So I guess in my, not necessarily a question but a
statement I want to make, I know as we go through this research
of trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels or at least to
be able if we are going to use fossil fuels to make those
automobiles more efficient, maybe we should go back to some of
the old technology we have already had. Maybe we ought to start
renewing some of those.
So my challenge to you as we spend taxpayer dollars on
research and development, for goodness sakes let us not see
huge vacated industrial science like some in my district that
was an ethanol plant that is rusting down that was built in the
late '70s and early '80s that is no longer being used. You are
the scientists. You are the ones who are asking for the
dollars. We are the ones who are giving you the dollars and
demanding that you do some research, some research to give our
planet and the American consumer and the world some relief.
I look at Europe who has been charging over $5 a gallon for
gasoline for the last two decades, and if the cost requires you
to find more efficiency, obviously they have got a smaller car
and a smaller horsepower, smaller engines, I don't know how
much better mileage they get than we do here. When I look at
the population in Europe and the population in America, they
use about three-fourths as much fossil fuels as we do. Of
course, they got a little bit harsher climate, so maybe they
use that for heating.
So as we engage, Dr. Clay and Dr.--Mr. Chalk, I--you folks
are kind of overseeing these dollars, I guess, that we are kind
of shoveling out there with a scoop, like a barn scoop. Let us
be sure that we are getting our money's worth. If we look at
technology and it is going to be battery driven, if it is going
to be driven by hydrogen automobiles, whatever it may be,
utilize America's taxpayers' dollars wisely this time.
And I do believe that research and development makes a
difference. My father told me 50 years ago, maybe longer than
that, some day there will be a small pill that you will put
inside a reactor in an automobile that will be a nuclear, a
little nuclear energy that you can put--and it will drive you
for the entire life of that automobile. Maybe that is possible.
I don't know, but some folks on this committee probably
wouldn't agree that ought to be used, or some environmental
group may not.
But I just think as we look at research it all needs to be
included and not just a part of it. That is basically a comment
from me. Help us. That is what you are here for. Asking you to
help us is why I am here.
Chair Baird. Anyone wish to comment on the comment?
Mr. Chalk. Well, I would just say that we have a diversity
of portfolios, and we are very serious about making progress in
this area. You know, of course, we lose our grip sometimes when
energy prices go back down, and I think history has shown that,
and I think what we have to do is maintain the focus even
though compared to last year when gasoline was four bucks a
gallon and people were really worried, now that it has gone
down a little bit, there might be a tendency to relax. We have
got to stay focused on what we are doing and make this work.
Chair Baird. Dr. Johnson.
Dr. Johnson. Let me try to answer your question. The
diesels today produce much lower emissions, significantly more,
and there is a significant cost with these after treatment
systems. And the people like BMW and VW, because they have
developed diesel engines in Europe in the light duty, they are
starting to bring them over to the United States.
One of the problems in the last few years has been that
diesel fuel is 60 to 70 cents a gallon more because of the
market demand. And so the whole problem that we have been
discussing here is the price of fuel fluctuates, and I really
didn't come to testify about that, but I think we need a tax on
fuel so that we get a floor of about $2 over five years, and
then be neutral and give this tax back to individuals and back
to industry so it is neutral, not just a tax. That will help
drive the market, and that is what is true in Europe. They have
a fuel tax. They have had it. They have got about 50 percent
diesels. They have got smaller vehicles, and it is a natural
market phenomena, and the problem with CAFE is that the market
price of fuel goes up to $4 and then back down to $1.80 or
$1.90, and it just changes the whole thing. And you cannot
change the manufacturing plants and the product development
schedules to meet that, you know, and that is really the
problem, you know.
Mr. Davis. I know I am imposing on the timeframe we have
here, and I, Mr. Chair, I thank you for allowing me. I have
also heard that through integrating into the actual structure
of an automobile natural gas, a capacity where you could get at
least 250, maybe 300 miles on a compressed natural gas
capacity, if it is integrated into the system of the
automobile. Eighty percent less carbon emissions supposedly
with natural gas.
Why are we not looking at that until we at least find that
bridge, until we bridge to that next energy source, whether it
be batteries or whether it be hydrogen or whatever it may be?
Is there research on that now, and is that possible even to
convert automobiles today to a natural gas system, which is
more clean, efficient burning?
Dr. Johnson. I am really not an expert in that, but the
people are working on--but, again, one of the problems are that
cars live for 15 years, diesel vehicles live for 30 years, and
the infrastructure for the fuel and the distribution is always
a problem. Just like the flex fuel vehicles. There just isn't
any fuel out there that has been given a credit for the 85
percent----
Mr. Davis. But every home has natural gas just about and
very easy to hook up to it, and almost every service station in
America has a natural gas heating system. I think that is--we
have to look at least as a bridge fuel until we get to that new
source or whatever it may be.
Dr. Johnson. Honda has looked at that and are looking at it
and other companies probably will.
Mr. Chalk. You can buy a Honda vehicle in the 170-mile
range with natural gas.
Chair Baird. Dr. Bartlett.
Mr. Bartlett. Thank you very much.
In Armed Services we don't have earmarks. We have plus-ups,
and they are fundamentally different.
Mr. Greszler, it has been my privilege for the past several
years to be the proud author of a multi-year series of plus-ups
for Volvo Powertrain, Mack Truck in my district, and I want to
thank you very much for your aggressiveness in developing a
really good hybrid truck for the Air Force.
The Need for Flex Fuel Vehicles
There are three reasons for looking at alternatives to oil.
One of those is the possibility that the release of the
sequestered carbon and fossil fuels is increasing the CO2
in the atmosphere and causing climate changes.
A second reason for moving to these alternatives is that we
have only two percent of the world's oil in this country. We
use 25 percent of the world's oil, and we import about two-
thirds of what we use. That clearly, clearly presents a huge
national security risk, and we need to move to alternatives to
free ourselves from so much dependence on foreign oil.
And a third reason and perhaps the best reason of all is
that the fossil fuels and the quantities we would like to use
just aren't going to be there in the future. For a
prognostication of this I would suggest you do a Google search.
It is on our website, too, but do a Google search for Rickover
and energy speech. The father of our nuclear submarine gave
what I think is the most insightful speech of the last century
52 years ago the 14th day of this May, and he predicted quite
precisely where we would be today.
In our desire to find these alternative fuels we have
already had two bubbles that have broken. By the way, the
future for electricity is pretty secure. We have lots of ways
of producing electricity, nuclear, wind, solar, microhydro,
true geothermal tapping the molten core of the earth. There is
no silver bullet out there for liquid fuels.
And I look for those two bubbles, big bubbles that have
already broken. The first was the hydrogen bubble. Finally they
figured out hydrogen is not an energy source, and you almost
never hear anybody talking about hydrogen today. It is a great
candidate for a fuel cell, of course, which is always about 20
years away.
The second bubble that broke was the corn ethanol bubble.
National Academy of Sciences, and we did in our office some
back-of-the-envelope computations that came to essentially the
same conclusion before their report, they said if we converted
all of our corn into ethanol, every bit of it, and discounted
for fossil fuel for which you ought to do, it is just silly to
burn fossil fuels in another way and pretend that you are
displacing them, that that would displace 2.4 percent of our
gasoline. They said that we would save more gasoline if we
tuned up our car and put air in the tires.
So these two bubbles have now broken, and there is a third
bubble out there with a lot of irrational exuberance attending
it, and that is the cellulosic ethanol bubble. Well, the point
is that we really aren't sure what the alternative fuels of the
future are going to be.
Mr. Chalk, doesn't it make sense that if we don't really
know what the alternative fuels of the future are going to be
but we know that they are going to have to be there for one of
these three reasons, perhaps all three of the reasons I
mentioned previously, that we ought to be developing flex fuel
vehicles? The average cars in the fleet, what? Fifteen, 16
years? I have no idea what the alternative fuels are going to
be 16 years from now. Doesn't that make some sense to be
producing these flex fuel vehicles so we will be ready no
matter what?
Mr. Chalk. Well, I think a little bit of the dilemma there,
if you don't know what fuel you have got to design for, it is
hard to make the vehicle fuel flexible if you don't know what
the fuel is. But for what we do know we can do that. In terms
of ethanol we can go from, you know, E-15 all the way to E-85
with these fuel flex vehicles.
Mr. Bartlett. Won't they burn methanol, too? Can't we make
them to burn ethanol? I mean, methanol.
Mr. Chalk. I think they would have to be tuned differently
but the same technology would be suitable.
Mr. Bartlett. Detroit said that they could make half of all
the cars flex fuel by 2012, and 80 percent of them by 2015. Is
this a course that you would, you could support?
Mr. Chalk. Not commenting specifically on your proposal
because we don't have an Administration position on it yet, but
I would talk about a little bit the attributes as, you know, we
have the renewable fuel standard. We have a law there on how
much corn ethanol, for instance, is topped at 15 billion
gallons. We have cellulosic targets, and that provides assurity
to the market. I think what you are proposing would also
provide assurity to the market. If there was a regulation or a
law that said X number of fuel flexible vehicles had to be
made, that provides a level playing field for everybody. It is
fairly cost effective, and we are going to need it if we are
going to increase the amount of ethanol or whatever carrier we
use in the gallon of gasoline. We are going to need fuel flex
vehicles.
There are issues that we talked about with the California
standards and very tight evaporative emissions. We have to work
on that issue so mandating fuel flex vehicles might include
things that have evaporative emissions like alcohols could be
an issue.
I would say we are testing right now. We have a blends
testing where we are trying to see if we can go above 10
percent in a gallon of gasoline, and the preliminary results
are very good for most highway vehicles. There are issues with
smaller engines that are used for lawn and gardening and things
like that, but I think, you know, those issues can be addressed
over time with phase-in and all.
So having the assurity of that is what the market requires
I think is very helpful.
Mr. Bartlett. Mr. Chair, if you would permit me one more
brief question.
The renewable fuels standard anticipates a really pretty
aggressive introduction of alternative fuels in the future, and
we are now looking at cellulosic ethanol. About almost half of
that billion tons that they propose to make ethanol comes from
corn stover. The report says that 75, we can harvest 75 percent
of the corn stover from the fields, and the Secretary of
Energy, Dr. Chu in his testimony said that we could harvest 50
percent of it and be sustainable. I am told by the Department
of Agriculture that for every bushel of corn we produce in
Iowa, three bushels of top soil go down the Mississippi River.
Now, top soils are deep in the midwest, and it will take
awhile, but if that is true, that is not really for the long-
term, sustainable, even with our present-day agriculture, is
it?
Representative Woolsey and I in the '07 Act introduced
legislation that would require sustainability studies. I am
enormously concerned about the sustainability. We drive along
the road and look enviously at all of that biomass. Now, for
sure, for a year or two we could rape the landscape and make
some ethanol out of that, but what is the sustainability?
Is your department going to focus on sustainability?
Because to be realistic we really need to know what----
Chair Baird. Mr. Bartlett, I am going to preempt the
question because we are well over your time at this point.
Mr. Bartlett. Oh. Thank you.
Chair Baird. That--I share the concern profoundly, but I
think I want--respect for other Members recognize Ms. Edwards
at this point.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
panel.
Hydrogen Fuel
I have some questions about hydrogen. A few years ago I was
greatly enamored, you know, about the prospects for hydrogen. I
had read Jeremy Rifkin's book, I was excited about that, about,
you know, the idea that somehow we could make a huge investment
into hydrogen technologies, and that would be the way to really
jumpstart us in this, what he described as a new revolution,
you know, equivalent to the revolution, the industrial
revolution in the 19th and 20th century.
Since that time then I think, Dr. Clay, you sort of spoke
to this, you know, we--I don't know how much real headway we
have made really with hydrogen. The storage problems, the
distribution problems, safety issues, et cetera, and so it
makes me wonder in the FreedomCAR Program whether we have
placed so much emphasis on hydrogen at the expense of other
technologies related to vehicles.
Now, there might be another question, I think, about
whether we need to make investment in hydrogen technology,
bringing down the costs of production at fixed sites for other
kinds of power distribution but not necessarily for vehicle
use.
And so I wonder if you all would be able to speak to that
and particularly as it relates to the production. I mean, I
think, currently now with the hydrogen production technology it
is so reliant on fossil fuels that it makes me wonder what we
get for it even if we are increasing the amounts of hydrogen
that we are producing that is usable.
Dr. Clay. Thank you. Yes, I think you are bringing up some
really critical points, and I think there are some interesting
parallels between your question, Congresswoman, and Congressman
Bartlett's questions, because it goes to this issue of the
vehicle and the fuels being seen as a unit. So we need to think
in the systems way about the vehicles and the fuels.
So the challenges that you cite on the vehicle side, on
storage, et cetera, and the resources that we have invested in
trying to overcome those technologies, even if we were to solve
all of those problems and break through those barriers, there
are significant challenges that remain on the infrastructure
side, and how we actually, even if we were to bring hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles to consumers, how those consumers would be
able to access convenient refueling.
This is a very parallel--we can learn something from our
experience with flex fuel vehicles as Congressman Bartlett
brought out, that flex fuel vehicles are now on the roadways,
over seven million on the roadways today, but there are fewer
than 2,000 fueling stations available where there are on the
order of I believe 130 or 140,000 service stations for gasoline
available. So we clearly have a long way to go on providing the
infrastructure on the flex fuel side to make the most of that
investment we have made in bringing flex fuel vehicles to the
market.
I think that that is a cautionary tale to our continued
work on hydrogen, that as we continue to invest in hydrogen
technologies on the vehicle side, that we need to working in
tandem with the infrastructure side, and those two really have
to be seen as a partnership.
Ms. Edwards. Could I just ask you then on the production
side in terms of the relative gain around CO2
emissions, currently are we really making gains on decreasing
carbon emissions with the existing technology?
Dr. Clay. On hydrogen in particular?
Ms. Edwards. On hydrogen in particular.
Dr. Clay. And this came out earlier in an earlier question.
If we talk about electrifying or electrifying transport or
whether that is through batteries or fuel cells, which are
still electric vehicles, we are not answering all of the
challenges before us if we don't also think of decarbonizing
the fuel.
Ms. Edwards. The process.
Dr. Clay. The process of creating that biofuel and the life
cycle implications for greenhouse gases for biofuels and the
life cycle implications for producing that hydrogen. So most of
the hydrogen that is produced today is reformed from natural
gas. But the beauty of hydrogen as an energy carrier is that
just like electricity it is an energy carrier that can use a
multiple number of primary fuels in its development. So right
away you have got energy diversity because you can be doing,
you can be using both fossil fuel sources, nuclear, renewable
energy, et cetera to both provide the electricity for plug-in
hybrids, but also for the electrolysis to produce the hydrogen.
Ms. Edwards. Right. But our goal would be to reduce the use
of the fossil fuel part of the production process, which we
really haven't quite figured out yet.
Dr. Clay. Exactly right. And I think we are at the
beginning of a new era where we no longer can think about the
transportation and electrical generation systems as separate,
that if we think about decarbonizing, that everything that we
do to decarbonize transportation has to be linked with our
efforts to decarbonize electrical generation.
Ms. Edwards. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird. Thank you for a very interesting line of
questioning, and there has been a real apparent shift in DOE's
emphasis on hydrogen, and Mr. Baloga talked about this a little
bit.
What I would like to do is we are approaching noon, maybe a
couple more questions from myself and maybe Mr. Inglis if he
wants. Can you talk a little bit, Mr. Chalk, about that shift,
about the apparent shift from hydrogen focus, why it happened,
what the implications are, to somewhat follow up with Ms.
Edwards.
Mr. Chalk. Yeah. Our hydrogen program is still robustly
funded. There has been more emphasis on the plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle because we feel like we can get there sooner
with that technology and make a difference in terms of
decreasing our dependence on oil, and obviously as Dr. Clay
just mentioned, it depends on how you get that electricity or
how you get that hydrogen, whether you have a net benefit.
But I would say diversity of resources is critical, and we
can use fossil fuels like coal if we sequester the
CO2, and that can work, and provide----
Chair Baird. Well, let me stay on hydrogen for a second.
When you say it is robustly funded, give us a trend pattern in
terms of funding levels.
Mr. Chalk. Right now it is funded at about $146 million if
you look at the line item, but some of our activities have
actually moved into our vehicle area. So in a way that is mass,
and what we have done is, from a systems standpoint, moved our
technology validation, safety, and code standards all in our
vehicle programs and be technology neutral so to speak. But
that is what pays for the hydrogen demonstration.
Chair Baird. I haven't a clue what you just said.
Mr. Chalk. Okay. Well, the funding has been steady, and
there has been more emphasis on the plug-in----
Chair Baird. The funding for the hydrogen portion, and it
sounded to me like you had a whole bunch of camouflage in there
that I couldn't sort out. Funding for hydrogen research per se
has been steady over time.
Mr. Chalk. Yes, and the budget is camouflaged a little bit
because we moved some activities, and that is what I was trying
to explain, but in essence it has been fairly steady. It may
have decreased a little bit but not much.
Chair Baird. What would your signal be to Mr. Baloga or
others who have spent a great deal of investment in hydrogen
research and possibly developing a hydrogen car? Do you plan to
do that? I know the Administration hasn't necessarily set its
policy yet but----
Mr. Chalk. Well, Mr. Baloga's technology is hydrogen
combustion. That is fairly well known. There is some research
we could do there, but that is essentially commercial
technology. The real long pole in the tent has been mentioned
and it is hydrogen storage and fuel cell costs, and with the
investment made, we have made a lot of progress, and those
budgets have maintained steady and actually have gone up.
So we are maintaining the focus on the longer-term pathway
of hydrogen, but there has been a lot more emphasis on what we
can do in the next five years in terms of making a difference
on imported oil, getting jobs out in the economy, and
addressing climate change.
Funding Levels and Sources
Chair Baird. I have been handed a note that Ms. Edwards has
a question about--what I will do is just yield some time so you
can phrase the question yourself.
Ms. Edwards. Just very quickly, do you have an idea of the
amount of, comparable amount of money that the European union
has invested in hydrogen technology? Because my recollection it
is between two to $4 billion. And so when you look at the
investment that we have made in comparison, I mean, are we
really getting our bang for our buck?
Mr. Chalk. The European investment, at least government
investment, would not be nearly that high. It would be on par
with what we are spending. I don't have the exact numbers. I
can get back with you on the record for that.
INSERT FOR THE RECORD
The global government investment for hydrogen and fuel cell
research, development and demonstration is estimated to be $1 billion
annually.\1\ The Department's budget for hydrogen and fuel cell
research in fiscal year 2009 is approximately $266 million. The
European Commission,\2\ Germany,\3\ Norway,\4\ and the United
Kingdom\5\ have a combined 2009 budget of approximately $157 million
for hydrogen and fuel cell research. The European Commission plans to
invest approximately $625 million over the next five years and Germany
plans to invest approximately $744 million over the next eight years in
this area. This is in comparison to the U.S. investment of $1.2 billion
over five years during fiscal years 2004 to 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FuelCellToday Market Study, ``Fuel Cells:
Commercialization,''January 2008, available at http://
www.fuelcelltoday.com/online/news/articles/2008-01/Fuel-Cell-
Commercialisation
\2\ P. Vannson, ``EU R&D for Green Road Transport: Fuel Cells,
Hydrogen and Vehicle Technology Programmes,'' 2009 DOE Hydrogen Program
& Vehicle Technologies Program Annual Merit Review, May 18, 2009,
available at http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review09/
5-vannson-2009-amr.pdf
\3\ K. Bonhoff, ``Electrification of Future Mobility--National
Programs and Activities in Germany,'' 2009 DOE Hydrogen Program &
Vehicle Technologies Program Annual Merit Review, May 18, 2009,
available at http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review09/
6-bonhoff-2009-amr.pdf
\4\ S. Moller, ``Norwegian National Hydrogen Strategy,'' 11th IPHE
ILC Meeting, March 11, 2009, available at http://iphe.net/docs/
Meetings/Norway-3-09/
Norway-H2-Strategy.pdf
\5\ Technology Strategy Board (UK), ``Fuel Cells and Hydrogen
Technologies: March 2009 Competition for Funding,'' available at http:/
/www.innovateuk.org/-assets/pdf/competition-documents/
fuel%20cells%20and%20hydrogen%20technologies-071008.pdf
Chair Baird. One other question I have and then I will
recognize Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Greszler and Dr. Johnson, you talked about the need for
a higher level and a sustainable level of funding, and I think
obviously you are interested in the light and heavy-duty
trucks, and I share your concern. If the amount of freight that
we haul in this country, I think tends to get short-shrifted, I
think, when we talk about a host of funding mechanisms. We tend
to, we focus on how much the weight of the truck impacts the
highway maintenance side, but we seem to forget that we all eat
what comes in those trucks or use it in some other fashion.
What about the idea of including--we were about to look. I
serve also on the Transportation Committee, and I don't know
off the top of my head, I perhaps should, but to what extent
highway and transit funds fund DOE's truck and car research
programs. And would that be a good use of federal highway
funds.
Mr. Greszler. I don't know the answer to how funds would
transfer between highways and DOE. I suspect that Mr. Chalk
could talk more about that. What I could say is that highway
infrastructure is critical to efficient freight movement and
particularly, unlike light-duty vehicles where you get better
MPG with downsizing, with heavy-duty vehicles you get better
freight efficiency. You move more freight with less fuel by
upsizing so that the longer, heavier the trucks are, the more
efficient we actually can be in moving freight. And to the
extent that we can facilitate that with infrastructure, we can
greatly improve. There are many studies showing 30, 40 percent
improvement in freight movement efficiency with longer, heavier
trucks that are allowed in some states today but not allowed in
all states, for example.
Things like truck stop electrification, smart highways
where were can have vehicles communicating and knowing, for
example, if there are traffic jams to be avoided or to time
entry into a city such as to avoid a traffic jam, knowing where
truck stops are available, smart navigation systems all can
substantially improve the efficiency of freight movement. And
those things do get into the highway infrastructure in a
significant way.
Chair Baird. The 30 to 40 percent figure is pretty
remarkable in light of the comments earlier about some of the
research work, trying to move from 41 percent to 47. If I get
the numbers wrong--a small percentage, fairly technical
research apparently, trying to move the efficiency of the
engine, but if you just add a little bit of weight to the
vehicle you can get a 30 percent improvement in efficiency.
That is an interesting question that ought to be explored.
Dr. Johnson, did you care to comment on that?
Dr. Johnson. Well, I think that efficiency--my testimony
talked about gallons per payload ton mile. Okay. That is why it
does. If you can carry more payload, you reduce that, and it is
just like trains. They are very efficient, and I don't have any
information about the taxes and the funds, you know, between
the highway and DOE, but it is a good idea. There needs to be
some way to get more funds because this sector is using a lot
of energy, and we need--and it is tough to reduce truck, the
basic efficiency of the truck. This carrying more freight is,
then becomes a question of safety and all kinds of other issues
that are in the states and locally about these long, double-
bottom trucks, as we know from your committee.
Chair Baird. You talked earlier about the need for a steady
and predictable pricing----
Dr. Johnson. Right.
Chair Baird.--and I think there is a need for that. I think
both for global overheating and ocean acidification issues but
also you then make the incentive, economic incentive to do
something different. I would like to see a portion of that
possibly dedicated to what you are talking about here. It would
make sense to me that we might want to do something like that
and possibly in the process address some of Mr. Baloga's
concerns as well.
Mr. Inglis.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chair. By the way, that earlier
reference to the elegant price signal I was talking about is
something I am working on fast and furious is how do you, how
do we internalize the externals associated with our use of
fossil fuels in--for transportation needs and for electrical
generation? If you do that, then all kinds of competing
technologies become possible because then you got a fair fight
between the economics of the incumbent technology, which is
gasoline and coal, compared to the economics of the, of
nuclear, which is a fabulous way to make electricity in my
view, and wind and all kinds of other things. Then you are on
a--then the market can make a decision between competitors.
Right now one competitor, fossil fuels, are getting a freebie,
freebie in the air, freebie in national security, and that is
not a fair fight.
So as a conservative I insist on accountability, and that
means coal be accountable for all the health consequences of
what you do, and be accountable for the CO2
emissions. Liquid transportation fuels, be accountable for the
national security risks we run, being dependent on regions of
the world that really don't like us, and for all the climate
issues associated with it.
Then if you internalize those externals now, compare apples
to apples and suddenly all kinds of things become possible, and
it is back to that very helpful point for Mr. Baloga about the
premium brands suddenly become the innovation engines.
European Innovations
So but speaking of those innovation engines, Mr. Baloga,
the many diesels that you sell in Europe, if I understand it,
that get what, 63 miles to a gallon. Why isn't that here? There
was a question earlier, and maybe you could elaborate on why it
is not here, why it isn't in the U.S.
Mr. Baloga. Well, California has the most stringent
emission control regulations of any entity in the world. One of
the things that enabled us to build these whole engines that
would meet the California stringent requirements was low sulfur
diesel fuel, which the EPA implemented and fortunately now we
have, which allowed us to have ultra low emissions, clean
diesels we call them, on the roads.
The problem that we have today with the mini diesel is a
problem of getting that particular engine as clean as necessary
for California. Our company has a philosophy we don't sell only
cars that meet California standards and then have dirtier cars
for the rest of the country. We have only 50 State vehicles
that meet California and sell them all over.
So the answer to the question is because that engine family
right now has to wait for the next evolution of that engine
family that we are working on to get it as clean as necessary
for the California requirements.
Mr. Inglis. I wonder if it is a little bit like what the
Chair mentioned earlier about the Corvair? I mean, it is--in
other words, the perfect is becoming the enemy of the good
maybe.
Mr. Baloga. Perhaps but we have to comply with the
requirements, and we will certainly do so.
Mr. Inglis. Well, it is sort of--I would think that, there
are no Californians here, but I would think--on the panel, but
I would think that it would be an unintended consequence. It is
sort of interesting that we are passing up an opportunity right
now to be driving 63 mile per gallon minis that are being sold
in Europe. We are not driving because of that. It is sort of--
--
Mr. Baloga. Yes.
Mr. Inglis.--an interesting, unintended consequence I would
think.
Mr. Baloga. Our fleet average in Europe of the BMW cars on
the road in Europe is 158 grams per kilometer, which translated
into mile per gallon is about 35 miles per gallon, and we
attain that with about a 68 percent fleet of diesel cars in
Europe. Now, of course, 68 percent or 70 percent of diesel cars
in this country is impossible to imagine, although there are
some good signs we are seeing that for the first time diesel
fuel is actually less than regular gasoline in terms of cost.
So maybe we will make some progress with diesel cars.
Chair Baird. Would you yield, Mr. Inglis?
Do you have a calculation on the per mile CO2
emissions? In other words, so you are getting 67 miles to the
gallon of diesel, but what is the net--in the end are you
getting a greater or lesser per mile CO2 emission?
Mr. Baloga. The CO2 is reduced. Yes, it is. The
CO2 is reduced because although there is more carbon
in diesel fuel, you get an inherently better, approximately 30
percent better fuel economy. So even if----
Chair Baird. That is my question.
Mr. Baloga.--you get a 15 to 18 percent rise in carbon for
the fuel, you get a 30 percent improvement in fuel economy, so
the net is an improvement. Yes.
Closing
Mr. Inglis. And Mr. Chair, your indulgence because the time
is up. I just think it is interesting that Mr. Baloga just said
that the next generation may be, may get you there on the mini,
and it is just interesting to note that BMW put in an assembly
line, I think opened in 1994, in Spartanburg, and in 2006, BMW
closed at Thanksgiving, paid everybody through New Year's, and
ripped out a 12-year-old assembly line to replace it with a
brand new one. Out with the old, in with the new. I mean, that
is the kind of insistence it seems to me that we need in public
policy for getting there.
You know what I mean? If you think about it, BMW likes to
say they are an engineering company that happens to make cars.
Well, I would just hope that Mr. Chalk takes back to the
Department of Energy this kind of inspiration that says, get
with it. I mean, we are in a race for the future here, and we
need to have that kind of insistence. Just rip out a 12-year-
old assembly line. Spend hundreds, millions of dollars to make
it better. Wow. What a concept and what an exciting inspiration
really that I am inspired by being with and representing
companies like that.
So thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chair Baird. And we are a legislative branch that happens
to impact engineering.
I thank our witnesses very much for your insightful
testimony and your expertise, and I thank my colleagues on the
panel, and with that then unless anyone has any burning desires
that we can't take up afterwards, this hearing will stand
adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Additional Material for the Record
21st Century Truck Partnership
An Industry Perspective for Future
Technology Development and Deployment
Background and Purpose
The 21st Century Truck Partnership (21CTP) is uniquely structured
to coordinate efforts to improve the efficiency, emissions, and safety
of Class 3 to 8 commercial trucks and buses. Members include original
equipment manufacturers and, unique to a public-private partnership,
also includes key suppliers including heavy-duty diesel engine
manufacturers and major component suppliers. Member companies are all
multinational with major U.S.-based research and development activities
as well as domestic manufacturing capabilities.
The industry objective is to assure sustainable, cost-effective
freight transport in an environment of limited petroleum supply and
carbon emissions constraints. This means we need technology development
plus related infrastructure and policy enablers to greatly improve
vehicle and freight system efficiency and to develop low-carbon fuel
sources.
To carry out this objective the industry members are also joined by
relevant federal agencies; the Department of Energy, the Department of
Transportation, the Department of Defense and the Environmental
Protection Agency. The Partnership has strategic alliances with the
Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) and the Truck Manufacturers
Association (TMA), who serve on the industry's federal policy group,
and the Hybrid Truck Users Forum (HTUF) with whom we share five mutual
industry partners (Eaton, Daimler Trucks, Navistar, PACCAR, and Volvo).
In addition, fleet customers and small suppliers gain access to
21CTP programs by working through any of the partner companies. As a
recent example, suppliers shared in an award given to Navistar. The
National Laboratories also play a key role in working within 21CTP
programs.
Technology development needs exist in several key areas:
Requirements for heavy duty vehicles are markedly different from
those of light duty, and unique solutions are required. Furthermore,
the demand for freight movement is directly tied to economic growth
which is expected to grow at two to two and a half percent for the next
20 years. Recent DOE projections show that, if light duty fuel use
targets are met and heavy duty trends continue, HD fuel use will exceed
LD by 2040 (Ref. Chart 1). These facts demand a major focus on
efficient freight movement, combining strong government and industry
efforts.
Overarching Approach--Vehicle Integration and Demonstration
Federal support for commercial truck technology during the past few
years has focused on vehicle components and sub-systems. While this has
generated encouraging results in laboratory demonstrations, it is
essential that we now focus on technology that can be effectively
deployed in real vehicle applications. Therefore, we propose a strong
emphasis on initial design for vehicle integration and in-use
demonstration. Further we propose that this demonstration program begin
with Class 8 vehicles since they are the greatest consumers of
petroleum among commercial trucks by virtue of the amount of work these
vehicles accomplish, and an essential objective is to reduce our
nation's dependence on foreign oil.
In his testimony before the Committee on Science and Technology
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the U.S. House of
Representatives, Steven Chalk, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy, supported this concept. We applaud this effort by the
Department to significantly move the 21st Century Truck Program
forward.
To accomplish this overarching objective, research and development
is required in the following areas:
1. Engine Technology
At 42 percent peak thermal efficiency, heavy-duty diesel engines
are already the most efficient mobile energy converters in common use.
Through joint R&D programs with the Department of Energy, the industry
has already demonstrated the capability for an additional eight (8)
percentage points of improvement in peak thermal efficiency in lab
testing. The real challenge however, is to accomplish this in a truck
within the emissions, operational, and vehicle constraints in a fully
representative drive cycle. We strongly support the public-private
partnership for such a demonstration program.
Engine technology opportunities include improved fuel injection at
pressures exceeding 30,000 psi, in-cylinder combustion optimization,
efficient intake and exhaust gas management using advanced
turbochargers (variable geometry and multistage), superchargers,
variable valve timing, and low temperature cooling of charge gases (air
and recirculation). Energy losses due to engine friction, coolant/oil
pumping, and other vehicle auxiliaries (such as air compressor or air
conditioning) can be further minimized by using improved bearings, low-
friction lubricants, and electric drive or mechanically variable pumps.
Additional recovery of currently wasted exhaust gas energy can be
accomplished using turbo-compounding, secondary Rankine cycle systems
to generate either mechanical (torque) or electrical energy, or even
direct thermo-electric conversion. Subsystem technologies, including
materials, controls, and durability also need to be improved for a
practical complete system.
Engine efficiency, over a real drive cycle, is enhanced by
increasing the fraction of time that the engine actually runs in its
most efficient speed and load region (the ``sweet spot'') and by
minimizing drivetrain losses. Transmissions can be further developed to
better maintain engine operation in the sweet spot, even as the vehicle
load demand varies due to speed, load, terrain, and other factors. This
effect can be further enhanced by fully integrating the engine,
transmission, driveline, and ultimately hybrid systems. Low friction
transmissions and rear axles may reduce vehicle energy demand by one to
two percent. Powertrain integration work is necessary to translate the
peak engine efficiency improvement into comparable complete vehicle
fuel savings.
We also need to find ways to achieve 2010 emission levels at lower
cost and with improved fuel efficiency, requiring a continuing focus on
both in-cylinder emissions reduction and on exhaust after-treatment.
2. Medium- and Heavy-Duty Hybrids and Reduced Idle Solutions
Hybrid powertrains can offer significant fuel savings in stop-and-
go applications. In fact, several fleets in heavy stop and go vocations
have reported fuel savings in the range of 30-50 percent with both
electric and hydraulic hybrid powertrains.
However, the bulk of Class 8 trucks are utilized in long-haul
operations with much less cyclic duty-cycle. None-the-less, there are
significant benefits to hybridize a Class 8 highway vehicle:
1) Reduced idle time utilizing the hybrid energy storage
system
2) Reduced fuel use through electrification of components
3) Energy management during traffic induced speed variation
and in rolling terrain.
It is estimated that truck idling uses close to two billion gallons
of fuel per year for both overnight idling and workday idling. A
reduction in idling has obvious benefits not only in reduced fuel usage
but also from reduced emissions. There are many idle reduction
strategies under tests by fleets today. However, few are integrated
into the vehicle powertrain and consequently, results are less than
optimal. Furthermore, an integrated hybrid system could reduce
inefficient operation of the diesel at slow speed and light load.
Research and development is required to fully realize the potential for
an integrated electric hybrid powertrain with electrified auxiliaries
(fan drive, coolant pump, air compressor, air conditioning and power
steering). In addition, longer life and less expensive energy storage
systems (batteries, ultra capacitors and hydraulic tanks) are required
to complete this package.
3. Truck and Trailer Aerodynamics
Aerodynamic drag is the dominant force acting to impede the motion
of a Class 8 tractor trailer operating on the highway. On level ground
at 65 mph, aero drag is typically more than 50 percent of the total
road load, thus yielding a one percent highway fuel economy improvement
for each two percent of aero improvement.
The tractor and trailer operate as an aerodynamic system with
strong interactions between the front (tractor) and rear (trailer)
parts of the system. Traditional heavy vehicle aerodynamics development
has focused on the front part of the system where tractor manufacturers
compete vigorously on aerodynamic development and fuel economy.
However, enormous opportunities exist in improving trailer aerodynamics
and further opportunity exists through optimization of the airflow
delivered from the tractor to the trailer.
There are two key areas of opportunity in tractor aerodynamics:
1. Improve sub-optimal parts of today's vehicles: chassis aero
(including underbody) and tractor-trailer gap (transition of
airflow from tractor to trailer)--five percent to ten percent
aero improvement possible.
2. Develop improved tractor shapes that are optimized with
aero-improved trailers, not current trailer shapes--seven
percent to twelve percent aero improvement possible.
There is a broad consensus today that the greatest opportunity for
aerodynamic improvement in the tractor trailer system is in improving
trailer aerodynamic performance. There are a number of aerodynamic
devices for trailers on the market today and a mounting body of
performance data suggesting that many of these devices do, in fact,
deliver significant aerodynamic improvement. Several individual devices
have demonstrated on-highway fuel economy improvements of five percent
or greater, and combinations of devices have demonstrated highway fuel
economy improvements of 10 percent to 15 percent.
However, none of these devices appear to be achieving high rates of
adoption into trucking fleets today, strongly indicating that more work
needs to be done to improve performance, durability, operation, vehicle
integration, or economic aspects of the design, and to better
communicate known benefits of proven devices. The expertise of the
industry partners should be brought to bear to help understand and
overcome the objections to the current devices.
4. Fuels
Vehicular improvements alone will not achieve the full potential
for petroleum and greenhouse gas savings. Cost-effective changes to
fuels need to be considered. Low carbon fuels and compatible engines
will be necessary, building upon work already done in biofuels.
5. Infrastructure and Logistics
The full range of opportunities to reduce fuel use and carbon
emissions of MD and HD trucks must also include operational issues,
such as congestion mitigation (e.g., truck lanes, smart highways, smart
vehicle technologies), regulatory changes (e.g., road-speed governing,
heavier and longer vehicles), truck stops (e.g., electrification for
idle reduction), and logistic improvements (e.g., improved or adaptive
route planning, load management, driver training). These infrastructure
improvements can dramatically reduce fuel consumption per vehicle and
per freight volume-mile or ton-mile (perhaps up to 30 percent), with
little cost to implement. However, each of these improvements will
require a coordinated effort with vehicle manufacturers, suppliers, the
Department of Transportation, and other agencies.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) can contribute to
congestion mitigation, efficiency, safety, and security for commercial
vehicles. Traffic congestion, crash avoidance, credentialing, weighing
and inspection processes, transportation security and other commercial
vehicle requirements can all be improved via the effective development
of ITS through programs like Commercial Vehicle Infrastructure
Integration (CVII or, more recently, IntelliDrive). 21CTP is willing to
work with DOT to explore ways by which the new IntelliDrive program
might be patterned after the voluntary and proven EPA SmartWay program.
6. Fuel Efficiency Assessment
With the tremendous variation in vehicle specifications and duty
cycles, 21CTP should develop a fuel efficiency assessment method
comprising a model, verified by testing on typical vehicles and
accepted by industry, end-users, and government agencies. Consideration
of both ``ton miles per gallon'' and ``cubic feet miles per gallon'' is
necessary to cover the range of freight hauled.
7. SmartWay Program
The trucking industry has shown great support for the voluntary EPA
SmartWay program, generating savings of some 700 million gallons of
diesel fuel. 21CTP supports continuing SmartWay and seeks to find ways
to gain additional fuel savings and environmental benefits by further
development of the program.
Resource Requirements:
The Charter for the March 24th, 2009 hearing held by the Committee
on Science and Technology's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of
the U.S. House of Representatives notes that: ``Funding for the
Partnership steadily increased from $45.6 million in FY99 to $86.6
million in FY02. However, despite the potential economic and
environmental benefits of improvement in trucks and the considerable
technical hurdles that remain, the 21st Century Truck Partnership
started to see a decrease in its funding in FY03 and hit a low of $29
million in FY09.''
Dr. John H. Johnson, Presidential Professor at Michigan
Technological University, participant in 12 different National
Academy's Committees, the Chair of the committee that reviewed the 21st
Century truck Partnership in 2008, and a member of the Academy's
Committee on Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy and the Committee on
Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel Economy, noted that ``. . . it is
important that the Federal Government fund the DOE program at levels
such as $200 million/year with $90 million/year for engine emission
control systems and biodiesel fuels research. The program should be
funded for five to ten years at this level so that the industry will
have the technology in the 2015-2020 timeframe to meet potential fuel
economy.'' Further, Dr. Johnson notes: ``. . . there is need for $25
million per year for safety related research which should be designated
for DOT by line item for the 21st Century Truck Partnership.''
The Partnership agrees fully with the aforementioned
recommendations, but also suggests strongly that there is another
critical issue--the Federal Government must remove conditions imposed
by the traditional contracts awarding process that impede access to
federal research funding in today's economic times.
Virtually all of the partners, like many other American companies,
are suffering through dire business conditions. They, along with small
businesses, may be critically limited from participating because of a
50-50 cost share requirement. The Partnership thus recommends
reconsideration of this traditional stipulation that should not apply
in the current economy.
In Conclusion:
The heavy-duty vehicle industry is a small base of companies with a
huge impact on petroleum consumption and our economic growth. Despite
this, there has been minimal federal investment to address these many
opportunities. We believe that funding of $200 million annually in the
Department of Energy, $25 million in the Department of Transportation,
and $25 million in the Environmental Protection Agency is required to
support these initiatives. The commercial vehicle industry comes
together with governmental agencies within the 21st Century Truck
Partnership, and we recommend that 21CTP serve as a focal point to
create a longer-term vision for the future of commercial vehicle
technology.
21st Century Truck Partnership Members
Allison Transmission, Inc.
BAE Systems
Caterpillar Inc.
Cummins Inc.
Daimler Trucks North America LLC
Detroit Diesel Corporation
Eaton Corporation
Mack Trucks, Inc.
Navistar, Inc.
Nova Bus
PACCAR Inc.
Volvo Trucks North America
Joint Statement of CNH America LLC,
Caterpillar, Inc.,
and Deere & Company
We applaud the Subcommittee for holding this important hearing to
examine vehicle technology research and development programs. The U.S.
Department of Energy's (DOE) Vehicle Technologies Program (VTP) is
designed to strengthen our nation's energy security, economic vitality,
and environmental quality through public private partnerships. These
public private partnerships have enhanced vehicle productivity and
efficiency through the development and deployment of advanced
technologies. Program activities have included research, development,
demonstration, testing, and education.
As successful as the VTP has been at improving productivity and
efficiency in on-highway applications, it has not thus far supported
advancements in the important non-road market segments of construction,
agriculture, forestry, mining, and lawn/turf care. Overall, relatively
scant DOE resources have been devoted to funding non-road engine and
equipment research and development aimed at improving productivity and
decreasing fuel consumption. We believe the creation of a new non-road
program focused on these areas within the DOE VTP would help spur
investments in, and the development and deployment of, new advanced
technologies to improve total machine and job site, or `operational,'
productivity and efficiency.
On May 11, 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
finalized a comprehensive rule to reduce emissions from non-road diesel
engines by integrating new engine and fuel controls as a system to
achieve significant emissions reductions. Accordingly, we have been
required to design, produce and use non-road engines with advanced
emission-control technologies similar to those used for new on-highway
trucks. The new emissions standards apply to diesel engines used in
construction, mining, industrial, agricultural, forestry, and lawn and
turf care equipment. The standards took effect for new engines
beginning in 2008 and will be phased in through 2015.
Applying on-highway emissions reductions technologies to non-road
engines, and engineering these engines into non-road equipment, is
proving to be a significant engineering challenge, and is requiring an
enormous investment. Complicating matters is the fact these
technologies must be installed in equipment subject to exceptionally
harsh operating environments where space is often very limited and
where the installation must be done in a manner that will not interfere
with the functionality of the equipment. This is resulting in the need
for costly and complex equipment redesign. We and other non-road engine
and equipment manufacturers are investing millions of dollars daily to
meet EPA emissions standards.
Furthermore, while global harmonization in emission standards was
largely achieved through EPA's leadership in the Tier 4 development,
significant lack of global alignment in non-road emission regulation
implementation remains. As a result of different regulatory timelines
between the U.S., Europe, and Japan for non-road emissions regulations,
we are facing additional complexity and cost.
The lack of alignment between these key regulated markets is
exacerbated by the international nature of the non-road segments
extending into far less regulated markets. This results in a grossly
uneven playing field in the world marketplace and increases the
complexity of manufacturing, marketing, distribution and servicing of
products. As manufacturers compete in highly regulated markets, we must
invest in the technology required for these markets, while our
competitors serving less regulated markets focus their development
spending on product features that contribute to direct customer buying
motivations, thereby disadvantaging manufacturers serving highly
regulated markets. Aggravating this challenge is the reality that the
strongest growth and the greatest export opportunities lie in less
regulated markets where competition is becoming more intense and the
global playing field is becoming more divided.
The research and development dollars, along with other major
investments, being dedicated in these difficult economic times to meet
the Tier 4 standards significantly reduces our ability to robustly fund
the development of new breakthrough technologies that would improve
overall non-road machine and job site productivity and efficiency. It
is this type of machine and operational technology research and
development that would fit well within the existing VTP.
Diesel engines and equipment are the backbone of the American
economy, contributing billions of dollars each year to our domestic
growth. Their importance will surely expand, as they are an important
tool used to accomplish the massive national efforts critical to the
future success of our economy. Rebuilding a safe and efficient
infrastructure upon which we can all rely; producing affordable and
sustainable food, fiber, and fuel; and otherwise protecting and
improving the world around us requires diesel engines and equipment.
And, while criteria pollutant emission levels from diesel engines used
in non-road equipment are approaching near zero levels, it is likely
that peak thermal efficiency will not significantly exceed 50 percent
in the next twenty years. Accordingly, there are other components
within non-road equipment systems that can yield greater overall
efficiency benefits in performing these critical tasks at a much better
cost-to-benefit ratio.
There are a number of non-road engine, machine component, and
system areas where technology research and development through a new
program within the VTP could yield promising results. Candidates
include:
Engine Prime Power and Hybridization
Absence of ram air-cooling, combustion, fuel injection, charge air
handling, heat recovery, materials, optimized operation regimes, and
hydraulic and electric hybrids;
Aftertreatment Systems and Control
NOX, Particulate matter, hydrocarbons, materials, subsystems and
integration, and alternatives to SCR;
Power Electronics
Lightweight, reliability, durability, and control capability;
standard for Class B voltage systems on non-road machines;
Energy Storage
Battery and ultra-capacitor technologies that can meet requirements
for use in non-road applications;
Prime Power Energy Transmission
Transmission technologies for hybridization, electric drive,
continuously variable transmission, and controls;
Fuels
Ultra-low sulphur diesel, low carbon, alternative, biomass derived,
and renewable fuel performance and technological compatibility;
Analytical Modeling
Computer analysis for component and powertrain system optimization,
application specific off-road conditions, climate and weather
conditions;
Advanced Materials
Recyclability, durability, and life cycle analysis;
Fluid and Thermal Management
Friction, parasitics, advanced waste heat recovery, cooling system
optimization, and system energy management;
Systems Integration
Fuel efficiency, productivity, and metrics harmonization;
Automation/Autonomy
Site/Fleet efficiencies, operator productivity, safety,
utilization, information management, and GPS, remote sensing, and other
telematics;
Energy Conversion
Auxiliary power and thermoelectrics.
In addition to research and technology development into various
components and systems within the non-road machine, there are also
promising opportunities to gain further efficiencies by improving the
way these machines fit and work within the overall job/work site. There
are numerous and significant efficiency gains to be had through further
development of new breakthrough technologies that seek to garner
reduced fuel consumption and minimize machine wear and tear by
improving overall machine and operational efficiencies.
A total systems approach to productivity and efficiency is focused
on the integration of the machine with the operations. In the case of
non-road machines, research and development partnerships to deliver the
best overall machine system solution will significantly reduce fuel
consumption, as well as improve overall job site efficiency.
Again, thank you for holding this hearing to examine this important
program. Although gains have been made through this program in the on-
highway market segment, there are significant opportunities in the non-
road markets. These untapped market segments would significantly
benefit from a new non-road program within the VTP, and the goals of
the program would be more fully realized. We look forward to working
with the Subcommittee on this important matter.