Towards a National Policy Dialogue on Hydrogen in the USA

1. Towards a National Policy Dialogue on Hydrogen in the USA Presentation on “Science, Society and Sustainability” Conference, Santorini, June 18-21, 2006 Prof. Philip J. Vergragt Ph.D. Visiting Scholar, MIT Senior Associate, Tellus Institute, Boston Former Professor of Technology Assessment, TU Delft

2. My background • Chemistry and Society (1970s) • Technological Innovation studies (1980s) • Sustainable Technology Development (1990s); visioning and backcasting • Consumption: the Sustainable Household (end 1990s) • Energy, Transportation, Hydrogen, Buildings, Social Learning (2000s) • Sustainability scenarios; Great Transition (2000s)

3. Towards a National Policy Dialogue on Hydrogen in the USA • Introduction; context; challenge • Visioning, scenario development, backcasting and socio-technical experiments • A methodology for stakeholder dialogue • Hydrogen scenarios • A stakeholder dialogue • Conclusions

4. 1. Introduction • Hydrogen is touted as ‘fuel of the future’ • In the far future, transportation will be either by hydrogen fuel cells, or battery-electric, or by biofuels • Although hydrogen is attractive for transportation, there is also a number of problems • Hydrogen is an energy carrier, and needs to be generated sustainably on a large scale • Is hydrogen a ‘hype’? Is the hype over? • Arguments for a structured dialogue

5. World Petroleum Use for Transportation and Other Purposes, 1980 – 2020 Source: EIA, International Energy Outlook 1999

6. Context: Sustainability; climate change, innovation, life styles • Sustainable energy generation (including conservation) is crucial in all sectors • Transportation is special: mobile energy source needed • Transportation dominated by private car: highly inefficient in many aspects: energy, space use, suburbization • Private car/ SUV has become the symbol of freedom, success, prosperity, the ultimate lifestyle symbol (but, NYC….)

8. How does a fuel cell work?

9. How does it work? (2) • It is the reversal of electrolysis: 2 H20 + electricity---2 H2 + O2 • It is invented in 1843 by Robert Groves • It has been applied in Apollo and Gemini space programs (1960 and 70-ies) • The reaction works only in the presence of a catalyst: Platinum • Hydrogen needs to be stored, which is quite difficult

10. 3. How does it work? (3) • Hydrogen needs to be generated (it does not exist in nature) • The generation of hydrogen costs a lot of (fossil) fuel • There are two main routes: electrolysis and steam conversion of hydrocarbons • Steam conversion is a reaction where a hydrocarbon plus water yields CO2 and H2. CO2 could be captured and stored, but the technology is far from proven

11. Arguments for a structured dialogue • Technical experts strongly disagree about hydrogen as a solution (CEN Aug 2005) • The debate is not only about technological options; normative issues play a role • The problem is complex (energy security, climate change) • Man-made climate change is still disputed • Nuclear energy dispute back on the agenda • Other options (renewables, energy conservation) are part of the debate.

12. 2. Visioning, Scenario development, Backcasting, and Socio-technical experiments • Visions are powerful devices that can orient and structure actions and behaviors • Scenarios can either be trend-following or trend-breaching (normative) • A scenario combines a future vision and a pathway how to get there • Backcasting is looking back from a desired future vision and develop a pathway

13. Backcasting • Backcasting is “creating a robust picture of the future, and start to think about which (technical and other) means are necessary to reach this state of affairs” (Vergragt and Jansen, 1993) • Backcasting implies an operational plan for the present that is designed to move forward towards anticipate future states …Such a plan should be built around processes characterized as interactive and iterative” (Vergragt and Van der Wel, 1998)

14. Bounded Socio-Technical Experiments (BSTE) • In a recent paper, Halina Brown et al. coined the term ‘BSTE’ • A BSTE is ,…an attempt to introduce a new technology on a scale bounded in space and time…’ • ‘…carried out by a coalition of actors…’ • …It is recognizable as an experiment • …It encompasses learning by doing, doing by learning, trying out new strategies, and continuous course correction • ….It is driven by a long-term vision

15. Learning We define learning as three interrelated shifts: • A shift in the framing of the problem and the solution directions • A shift the principal approaches to solving the problem • A shift in the relationships between the participants in the experiment, including convergence of goals and problem definitions

16. Learning (2) Learning is derived from organizational and policy-oriented learning Two types of learning: • ‘technical’, ‘adaptive’, ‘single-loop’ searching for new (policy) instruments in the context of fixed policies • ‘Higher order’, ‘generative’, ‘double-loop’ learning involves a change in norms, values, goals and operating procedures

17. 3. A methodology for stakeholder dialogue • A stakeholder dialogue process has been successfully applied in the “National Energy Policy Initiative (NEPI) in 2002 by the Consensus Building Institute • The process consisted of stakeholder interviews, expert workshop, briefings to Congress committees, and wider dissemination • The results were: a diagnosis, a long-term vision, a set of top priority areas, and policy strategies • The final outcome was disappointing because the White House was not participating

18. Methodology (2) • Higher-order learning processes should become central in the stakeholder dialogue. • In order to facilitate learning, a shared vision should be developed about sustainable transportation • Hydrogen could act as a ‘catalyst’ in such a process

19. In a stakeholder dialogue process, facts could be separated from fiction and political bias…. • …..interests could be mapped and identified….. • Short-term and long-term arguments could be separated • Visioning and backcasting could be the basis of dialogue and learning • Tellus scenario study could form a useful input for such a process

20. 4. Hydrogen scenarios: Tellus study • Tellus Institute, Boston, has developed scenarios for a transition to 95% hydrogen fuel cell cars in 2050 • They investigated all possible routes for hydrogen generation (centrally and decentrally; transportation, and delivery, and looked at the costs • They found that energy efficiency saves more greenhouse gas emissions than hydrogen

21. Table 2‑1 Scenarios explored in this study

22. Figure 5‑1 Fuel cell vehicle stock turnover levels

23. Figure 6‑2 Crude oil demand, USA

24. Figure 6‑3 Carbon emissions - hydrogen-consuming end uses, USA

25. Figure 6‑4 Carbon emissions - all end uses, USA

26. Conclusions from the Tellus study • Strong political will is necessary for a transition to a hydrogen society • A clear strategy including experiments, demo’s, transitional technologies, risk-reducing incentives is also necessary • However, energy efficiency and renewable energy do better for GHG reduction than BAU+ hydrogen for transportation • Electricity and biofuels are strong contenders • Short-term focus on hydrogen may have negative benefits for near-term CO2 emissions

27. Adding to the conclusions • Hydrogen is no panacea or ‘silver bullet’ • Technological breakthroughs are necessary, in fuel cells and H-storage • Chicken-egg problem of infrastructure needs to be solved • There are strong alternatives: biomass and battery-electric, and also hybrids • Generation of enough sustainable energy is a major bottleneck • Carbon capture and storage is possible, but still unproven • Probably life-style changes are unavoidable

28. 5. Policy stakeholder dialogue Two main questions are proposed: • “How much could hydrogen contribute to solve energy security and climate change problems in the long run for the USA? • Under which conditions should a hydrogen infrastructure for the USA be developed?”

29. Some discussion points…. • Long term benefits vs. short-term urgency • Renewable energy for the electricity grid rather than for hydrogen production • R&D policy: How much for energy conservation and how much for hydrogen? • Keep many options open vs. pick a winner • Pave the way to hydrogen by other applications (laptops, mobile phones)? • Public awareness should be driving force • Investigate the negative aspects upfront

30. 6. Conclusions • A stakeholder dialogue could be the basis for a strong strategic policy package, endorsed by all stakeholders • However, differences between protagonists and adversaries run deep (‘wicked problem’) • Protagonists argue that in the long run hydrogen is the only viable zero emission solution • Antagonists argue on various levels: other options are more attractive (biomass, electric), hydrogen is not cost-effective, and/or ultimately we need life-style changes

31. Thank you for your interest… • …Questions? • www.tellus.org • Pvergragt@tellus.org • vergragt&@mit.edu