 Well, it's my great pleasure to introduce today Dr. Joe Nogden. Now imagine if you will the following. You drive your car up to a fuel station and fill up the tank. As you drive away, the exhaust coming from the electric car is not filled with pollutants and carbon dioxide. Instead, it's clean, pure water vapor. The fuel for your car engine isn't an ordinary fossil fuel with a dwindling supply, but it's hydrogen made from ordinary water. This possibility of a hydrogen-based transportation system may sound too good to be true. Our speaker this afternoon, Dr. Joe Nogden, is one of the world's leading investigators in investigating this possibility. I remember when I was in junior high, my physical science teacher made hydrogen and oxygen using electrolysis. Then he stuck a match in and it exploded. For me, that was just so cool that you could get so much energy out of water. Of course, the technology for using hydrogen for energy has been around for a long time. For decades, the electricity and drinking water used for the space shuttle and for the Apollo missions has been produced by hydrogen fuel cells. However, there's an immense challenge in scaling up from those type of processes to a hydrogen infrastructure to run our entire transportation system. This requires methods to efficiently produce hydrogen, transport it where it's needed, and low-cost fuel cells to convert hydrogen to electricity. There are numerous technical, economic, and political challenge that need to be addressed before this could become a reality. As Dr. Ogden states in a recent Scientific American article, building a hydrogen economy will be costly, but so is business as usual. Dr. Ogden is professor of environmental science and policy in the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis. She is also co-director of their hydrogen pathways program. She received her bachelor's degree in mathematics with minors in philosophy and physics from the University of Illinois in 1970. One of the things that persuaded her to focus on physics instead of mathematics was a summer internship that she took during her senior year of college. She was doing programming for NASA in Huntsville, Alabama. She, with some of the other students, went to see the launch of Apollo 11 in July 1969. As with many of us, the Apollo program captured her imagination and convinced her to focus on physics. She went to the University of Maryland for graduate studies and received a PhD in 1977 in theoretical plasma physics doing computer simulations related to nuclear fusion reactors. After two years as a postdoc at Princeton physics labs, she started her own consulting company, working on a variety of applied physics problems. In 1982, she joined the Advanced Image Processing Research Group at RCA Labs, where she worked on image processing and image compression techniques. However, of an interest in energy brought her back to Princeton, where she was a research scientist at the Princeton Environmental Institute Center for Energy and Environmental Studies from 1985 to 2003. She went to UC Davis in 2003 to become co-director of the Hydrogen Pathways Program. The Hydrogen Pathways Program is a multidisciplinary team of about 40 faculty and graduate students who are studying a wide variety of topics related to the potential use of hydrogen as a transportation fuel. Her work centers on energy conservation, hydrogen infrastructure strategies, and applications of fuel cell technology in transportation and stationary power production. In addition to her teaching and research, she has been an influential member on many important government panels. She participated in the Department of Energy's hydrogen vision and roadmap process and headed the system integration team. In 2004, she served on the Governor of California's advisory panel, developing a plan for the proposed California Hydrogen Highway Network. Dr. Ogden has published over 100 technical articles in a variety of areas from plasma physics, image processing, energy topics, as well as a book, Solar Hydrogen Moving Beyond Fossil Fuels. Please welcome her today to speak on prospects for hydrogen energy. Well, thanks for that kind introduction, Tom. It's been really a lot of fun being here. And one of the nice things about going later in the program is all the great speakers have gone before me who have laid some groundwork. So I will go right on and start talking about hydrogen energy. I'm going to start with two pictures that I always like to show when I talk about energy problems. The first one is global population density, so the darker areas there where a lot of people live. Take a look at North America. Take a look at China, India, and some other parts of the developed world. Second picture is a picture of cities of Earth at night. And again, take a look at light, which is a marker for where energy is used. I'll just toggle back and forth between those two. And we see, as several other people have pointed out, one of the big challenges we face is not only growing demand or energy, but the industrialization and development of the developing world and a really rapidly growing thirst for energy there. We've heard about some of the major challenges facing the future energy system, climate change from greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution problems, which are a terrible problem in many urban areas throughout the world, and diversity of supply and security and competition for resources. Transportation sector is particularly problematic in these regards. The number of vehicles is projected to triple worldwide by 2050, perhaps exceeding 2 billion vehicles at that time. The world's transportation sector at present is 97% dependent on oil. In the near term, improving energy efficiency is key. However, even if we manage to triple fuel economy, reduce travel somewhat through smart growth, the explosive growth projected in the number of vehicles and their use will limit the amount of reductions you can make in oil use and greenhouse gas emissions, especially if you rely on more carbon-intensive versions of fossil fuels in the future. So to reach the deep reductions we're talking about, things like 80% reduction from current levels to get on a 450 stabilization path, we need to couple efficiency with decarbonization of fuels. So there'll be a quiz on this slide at the end of the period, so if you all memorize this. Well, what we have here is a number of possibilities for the future for different fuel and vehicle pathways. And by a fuel and vehicle pathway, I mean making fuel from a certain primary energy source that's shown in black up there on the top right hand side. And the green ones there are renewable. We show fossil and black and nuclear and blue there. And you can make a lot of different energy carriers or ways of things that can be used on a vehicle to provide energy. At present, almost our entire 97% of what we do goes from oil to gasoline, diesel, and then down to ICE. That's an internal combustion engine. That's what we use in our cars today. Hardly anything else is really used. A few, a little bit of by-master-rived alcohols. But there are quite a variety of options here. And when you look at, two of them really stand out to me as potentially quite important for a couple of reasons. One is you can make them from lots of different things. And the other is they have zero emissions at the point of use and enable very high efficiency within the vehicle. And those two are hydrogen and electricity. And as we see here, you can use hydrogen either in fuel cells or in internal combustion engines. Electricity can be in battery cars. And there's some chance with those two, with some of the other fuels as well, but especially with hydrogen or electricity. If you start with a hydrocarbon, you can actually send the hydrogen off to do work and make electricity and capture the carbon and sequester it underground. So this could even give you the possibility of if you started with biomass of having a negative carbon producing cycle. So I'm gonna talk about one of these options today, hydrogen. And I'm gonna try to give an overview of why people are interested in this and where it stands now, where it might go. So first reason people are interested in hydrogen is you can make it from lots of different things. And like electricity, hydrogen is an energy called so-called energy carrier. You can produce it from lots of widely available resources. These include wind and solar and biomass for renewable resources. Also includes fossil resources like coal and natural gas. And the coal case is shown with carbon capture and sequestration. You take coal, which is a hydrocarbon, add some steam, send the hydrogen off to do work and capture the CO2. Natural gas, which is the way that we make a lot of hydrogen today, as I'll discuss in a minute, and nuclear power as well. And you can make hydrogen from nuclear either by making electricity first to split water or by using high temperature heat to run the reactions as well. Just a comparison here, thinking in the context of wanting to reduce emissions by 80%, this is just a shows some of the emissions associated with gasoline, fuels we're familiar with in hydrogen. By full fuel cycle greenhouse gas emissions, I mean counting up all the emissions, starting with extracting the feedstock, something like natural gas or biomass, if you have to drive tractors around, count all the CO2 emissions involved with that with converting the fuel and transporting it to a user and then using it in a vehicle. And I've normalized everything to a future lightweight advanced gasoline car, 46 miles per gallon. Moving from the left-hand side, we have the conventional gasoline car. Well, we're at something like an average of 22 miles per gallon today. We can do a lot better than that, that's the second one. With hybrid internal combustion engines, we can do even better. And we see we cut down by maybe 20 to 30%, even from an advanced gasoline car. With fuel cell vehicles shown on the right, we can do even better than that. The first bar there is hydrogen from natural gas. You get about a 40% reduction even from this advanced gasoline car, even though you're making hydrogen from a fossil fuel. And the main reason is that fuel cells are very efficient vehicles, as we'll see in a moment. If you take this to coal with carbon capture or wind, you can take that down very close to zero. So that's one of the reasons, thinking in this future world with steep cuts that we wanna look at hydrogen. The other reason, of course, is that you can reduce oil use. This is some results from a recent study by the National Academies. And they looked at the prospects for hydrogen. It's very interesting studies available free online. People wanna look at it. They show three cases here. The top case, and this goes from 2000 to 2050, shows what the oil use would be under business as usual. That assumes we don't improve efficiency in vehicles very much. And we have a growth in population and a growth in vehicle miles travel. And that's the top red line, and we see oil use going up. The second line is what happens if you started to phase in hybrid vehicles, which are more efficient gasoline vehicles. And you could sort of stabilize that emissions level, but it would start to go up again eventually because of the number of people. The third one is what would happen if you had gasoline hybrids and then introduced hydrogen later on. Hydrogen from a low carb or a low oil, it doesn't use any oil essentially, so you could take that down very close to zero over a period of time. This sort of shows two things. One is that it's important to do more efficient technologies now. Hydrogen won't come in for a little while, but when it does, you can really get those deep cuts. Similar kind of picture, a little more complicated, thinking about well-to-wheels greenhouse gas emissions, and well-to-wheels just means all the emissions from the well, thinking of a gasoline car from the oil well, to the wheels of the car, so all the emissions in producing the fuel, converting it, getting it to the vehicle, and using it. And again, those top two bars of what would happen with just gasoline cars with no real efficiency improvements. The second is more efficient gasoline cars. And the two other bands are what you might achieve with hydrogen. And you'll see that it depends on how you make hydrogen as to what kind of greenhouse gas benefit you get. If you make it from fossil fuels, depending on the fossil fuel, that blue band shows, well, natural gas is lower carbon fossil fuel, so you'd have some reductions compared to business as usual. With coal, maybe not so much, unless you sequester. And the green band there is what you would get with renewables or coal with carbon capture and sequestration. So with hydrogen, as with electricity, you can use them very cleanly in a vehicle, zero tailpipe emissions, but the overall picture, you have to look at how you make the fuel and even how you distribute it and so on as to look at this. But again, big potential long-term to have deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. Another reason people are interested in hydrogen, and by people, I'll lump all the major auto manufacturers in that camp, is because many people have seen it as a possibly a better route to an electric car. There's been a lot of work on batteries in the mid-90s. It was thought that batteries would come on really strong. There've been some technical hurdles. Batteries are coming back in the form of plug-in hybrid vehicles, and they're certainly an important technology. But many people also got interested in hydrogen and fuel cells, because it has some different attributes than battery cars. For one thing, like battery cars, you have zero tailpipe emissions, and you have high efficiency. A hydrogen car, a fuel cell car, typically somewhere between two and 2.8 times as efficient as a comparable gasoline internal combustion engine car. So it would not be unusual to have a car if you had something like a 27-mile-per-gallon gasoline car, a fuel cell version of that might get something like 60 miles per gallon. Also, you have good performance with these cars and fast refueling time, unlike with charging a battery, which can take overnight if you do it with a fairly low power installation like you might have in your home. You can refuel in a couple of minutes with a hydrogen car. And another thing, too, is that you have the possibility for longer range with hydrogen. It's not as good an energy storage medium as gasoline, but it is still better than batteries. So as a result of this, pretty much all the major auto manufacturers have developed experimental hydrogen vehicles, and some of them are shown up here, and they vary as to type. Some of them are smaller, sleeker cars like the Daimler Chrysler and Honda versions there, but you even have larger SUV-type cars that have been built that do have hydrogen fuel cells in them. There are only a couple hundred of these worldwide, maybe about 600. Within the next year or two, they're probably going to be a couple of thousand. Automakers are testing these in small fleets that's going on in the US and Europe. Most of them see commercial readiness in the 2015 to 2020 timeframe. And by commercial readiness, I mean the technology would be ready to, if you wanted to make a mass production decision to go ahead with it, you'd be ready to go at that point. GM says they can be there a little bit sooner, but I think maybe 2015 to 2020 is a number I like. I might say I've driven a couple of these cars. The Honda FCX is a wonderful piece of engineering, lots of fun to drive, and pure water coming out of the tailpipe. So just want to take a minute and review, or say for the first time for some of you, what is a fuel cell? Probably heard this term. Well, it's basically an energy conversion device. It's electrochemical, similar to battery. It combines hydrogen and oxygen in the presence of an electrolyte and a catalyst to produce electricity, heat, and water. Does this without combustion. So you put in hydrogen and oxygen, you get out electricity, which can turn a motor, and heat and water. And here's a little cartoon of how it works. Here's some hydrogen comes in, hits a catalyst, here's the oxygen coming in, there's the water going out. Let's watch it again. Here comes the hydrogen, hits the catalyst, goes down and lights up the light, comes around and recombines at the other anode there with the oxygen. So this is how it works. It's quite different than a combustion process. It's quite efficient and low polluting, and can take place at a relatively low temperature unlike combustion. So you don't get NOx, you don't get some of the other pollutants you might get with a combustion engine. Here's another picture. Fuel cells also are a different sort of animal than engines. They're more modular. GM has done a couple of concept cars where they really redesigned things. They thought about putting the fuel cell under the floor of the vehicle, opening it up, having a different kind of control system instead of hydraulic stuff, more drive by wire. And for those of you who are young in the audience, if you get one of these cars someday, you probably don't want to let your parents drive it because it's a lot more like a game thing and they might not be able to figure this out. Here's another GM concept, so-called skateboard in the bottom part of this holds the fuel cell and hydrogen storage and the idea is you could put any top on this you wanted. So many people see this as potentially really innovative technology and along with other electric vehicle technologies, it opens up the possibility of interactions between the transportation section and the electric grid in ways that haven't happened before. How about the idea of being able to plug your car in when you go home, you have a pollution-free device, or maybe even plug it in when you go to work. Interesting fact, there's more power capacity under the hoods of cars in America than there is but in the power plants by quite a lot. We don't use our cars for that, but you might be able to think about that, about different interactions, mobile power. Interesting things to think about. Well, this all sounds great, but there are a lot of challenges before you could use hydrogen in transportation. I'm gonna talk about a couple of them. First is the question of resources. Hydrogen has to be made from something else. It doesn't occur naturally, so how are you gonna make it? Where will it come from? Technology, hydrogen storage on vehicles is an ongoing area of research. Fuel cells right now, they're pretty expensive and the lifetime needs to come up. And zero carbon hydrogen production. I'll talk about all those things a little bit. And then there are also logistical or transition problems. Currently, there's not a widespread hydrogen infrastructure in place. That's different than, for example, gasoline, natural gas, or even electricity. And so there's what's called a chicken and egg problem, which comes first, the chicken and the egg. Do you put out all the refueling stations and the cars will come? Do you build all the cars and hope the refueling stations will be there? How do you build this thing up together? And of course, this was an issue that was faced by gasoline 100 years ago and faced by hydrogen now. Let me just talk a little about hydrogen, how it's made and where it might come from. A little-known fact, we make a lot of hydrogen today and use it a large amount in the refining industry, also chemical industries. Something like 2% of global primary energy goes to make hydrogen. And 95% of this comes from fossil resources like natural gas, oil, and even coal. If you, just a word too, if you took all of that hydrogen, you could fuel about 150 million cars or roughly 20% of the current car parks out there. So this is a lot of hydrogen. In the United States, this shows hydrogen production facilities, and it looks like there are a few in Minnesota here. These are used for making fertilizer, they're used in refineries, a number of different applications. Something like 1% of US primary energy, 5% of natural gas goes to make hydrogen. Most of it's used right where you need it in a big refinery, but some of it's trucked around and distributed. If you took just that part that's trucked around and distributed and instead of using it in small chemical applications and other things it's used for, if you put that into cars, you could fuel about 1% of the fleet. So we have almost a 1% scale distribution system. Point of this, we know how to make hydrogen at large scale. We know how to distribute it in pipelines and trucks. None of that stuff really has to be invented. We know how to do it. Of course, we are based on fossil fuel to hydrogen at the moment. So, but let's talk about where hydrogen might come from over the next 20 years. This shows natural gas use by sector for industry, for electric generation, commercial, residential, and so on. And these are not additive bar on top of another. These are just for each one. Sometimes people ask the question, well, if we start developing hydrogen, isn't this gonna put a lot of stress on our natural gas system? Since that's the way it would be made to start with. And you do get some environmental benefits for that that's a likely place to start. Well, this is how much natural gas we use for hydrogen production today in industry. That's projected to grow, by the way, because oil is getting heavier, the crude oil that we bring in is heavier, and you need hydrogen to turn that to gasoline. Here's the most aggressive scenario that the DOE came out with recently for introducing hydrogen vehicles. 10 million by 2025, that's pretty optimistic. The red bar is how much natural gas that would take. So, bottom line is hydrogen vehicles, because there won't be a huge number of them out there for a while, are not gonna have a big impact on primary energy use or prices over the near term. But this kind of begs the question, well, eventually we're gonna have to get off of fossil fuels and use something else. Where could hydrogen come from in the long term? So, I'll spend a minute on this rather complicated graph, and excuse me for not having a pointer here, but let's look at the left-hand axis. That's how much energy, primary energy gets used. And the blue bar there on the left, the tall one, is today's energy use for gasoline. If we doubled the efficiency of gasoline cars, that's the next bar, that's future gasoline car. And then the rest are various hydrogen options, how much energy you'd use for making hydrogen from natural gas, coal. This is the resources needed to fuel 100 million cars. We have somewhat over 200 million in the United States today. Let's look at some of the ones like coal, assuming you can get carbon capture and sequestration, biomass, and wind power, all of which could be done very low emissions. The red axis there, y-axis, on the right-hand side, shows the fraction of either the current use of that resource in the case of something like coal, or the fraction of the total resource base, which in the case of biomass, I've taken to be 800 million tons a year, and in the case of wind, I think it's 11,000 billion kilowatt hours. And then you can look at how much of that resource you'd need to fuel 100 million cars. So for coal, for example, you'd need to increase by about 25%. For wind power, something like maybe approaching 15%. So if you, and you're probably going to have several different kinds of, many different kinds of primary resources that you use to make hydrogen. Hydrogen's really a good deal more like electricity in some ways than it is like gasoline. You can make it from lots of things, and probably in the future we will. Bottom line from this graph is primary energy use for hydrogen is less than or equal to for gasoline cars. Again, unlike some things you may have read in the press, and more, and there are many zero carbon or very low carbon resources available. So I think in terms of the resource base, it's there to do this. Let's talk about some of the technology challenges with hydrogen. Fuel cells, current automotive fuel cells are very expensive. They're made in batches of maybe tens to maybe 50 of a given kind. And so of course these cars are quite expensive prototypes today. Hundreds of thousands of dollars probably would be a guess, although they're not really commercial products, they're development products. If you took that technology and mass produced a fuel cell engine, the best estimate at present is that it would cost about four times as much as a gasoline engine. That would translate into perhaps a cost premium for the overall car of somewhere between $2,000 and $4,000 a car. Some people, GM for example, think that fuel cell cars might even be cheaper than hydrogen cars if you work the design of the entire car. But probably to get to lower costs, you'd need either advanced materials for the fuel cell, probably coupled with innovative design of the car. Durability, lifetime of fuel cells is now probably about 2,000 hours. This would need to go to 5,000. There are a lot of promising laboratory results people have found between eight and 10,000 hours that are probably gonna be translated into the next generation of prototype cars. So I think this one will be solved as well. Heat and water management, one of the issues with fuel cells is so-called cold start issue. Fuel cells have water in them. How are you gonna operate this in Minnesota in the winter time? So they've come up with various fixes for that problem as well. So I'm optimistic that these technical challenges we met, I think it's likely that a fuel cell car will probably cost a few thousand dollars more than an internal combustion engine car. We have gasoline today, but there are those who would say maybe by working the rest of the design you could bring that cost down. I might say with fuel cells as with electricity, you wanna make the rest of the car as efficient as possible. Streamline it, lightweight it, do all those things. If you have a heavier bulkier thing to carry around, hydrogen or battery, that helps the overall design. Okay, this just shows fuel economy and it's improving for fuel cell cars. This is several different kinds of engines put in the same basic platform behind a Civic. I drive one of these too, not the fuel cell one unfortunately. But behind the Civic with a gasoline Civic, about 30 miles a gallon, a hybrid 49, fuel cell current one about 62 and I think even the newer one is about 68. So these are more efficient roughly twice as gasoline cars or maybe a little more. One of the other big challenges for hydrogen vehicles is storing hydrogen onboard a vehicle. There are several ways to do this. Hydrogen is a very lightest gas known, so to store it, you have to either compress it to very high pressure or liquefy it, in which case it's held at a very low temperature, 20 degrees Kelvin. Or there are various other either liquid or metal hydrides that can be used to store hydrogen. All of these are bulkier by quite a bit than gasoline and they're more expensive. So reducing the amount of hydrogen storage you want on board and trying to get these systems down to a reasonable cost and performance is a large area of research. Pretty much all of the hydrogen prototypes except the BMW which uses liquid hydrogen, the rest use compressed gas. And this gas is stored at somewhere like 5,000 PSI and some prototypes are going to 10,000. So this is, most people regard this as kind of clunky but acceptable and most of the car manufacturers you talk to, this is going to be what they'll are thinking about rolling out with. Love to find something better to store hydrogen. There's a good problem for the science students in the audience. Vehicle range, that's related to hydrogen storage because this is heavy and bulky. You want to be able to store at least five kilograms of hydrogen on board. A kilogram, fortunately enough for doing analysis has about the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline and we have a 60 mile per gallon car. So for 300 mile range you want to store about five kilograms. And over time the range has been improving. The pink dots there and the blue diamonds are compressed gas systems. That's what's in most cars today. And if you follow those up in time you'll see the range has been improving and it's now approaching 500 kilometers or about 300 miles which most people think is an acceptable range. The Honda car here that I mentioned the FCX has about a 270 mile range on 5,000 PSI hydrogen. And the bottles are held in the trunk. They don't actually, well actually they don't even pinch on the trunk space. They're kind of under the trunk and behind the back seat. They're separated from the passenger space so you wouldn't have the possibility of a leak there. And actually when you see movies of hydrogen safety seen movies of people shooting bullets that compress gas tanks, dropping them from 100 feet. They actually hold up quite well compared to the sheet metal tanks we have gasoline in today. But this range is certainly a consideration. That problem is getting solved as well. Okay, some more technical challenges. Hydrogen production systems. We know how to make hydrogen today at large scale and low cost from fossil fuels. This is commercial technology, well established, something called steam methane reformation and so you make it from natural gas. And currently the price is about equivalent to a dollar and a half per gallon gasoline on an energy basis to make it from large scale. But the trick really is getting zero carbon, zero emission and low cost all at the same time for hydrogen supply. So let's look at a couple of things. This is a schematic from the recent Scientific American article that I wrote about hydrogen. And it shows a near term supply option. Notice there's a little picture there, little words there that say carbon dioxide and it shows it being vented from these systems. The top system makes hydrogen from natural gas, either makes it right at the refueling station or else distributes it. The bottom system you have hydrogen from electricity and you make electrolysis. In both those cases today the carbon is not captured. In the future we'd like to go to something that would get us close to zero carbon. And so here are some visions from the future. The top one you have an advanced power plant, you make hydrogen at the same time, you're bringing in coal or it could be even biomass and capturing that carbon and putting it underground. The hydrogen then goes out in those blue kind of branching lines and is distributed to a network of stations. Another option is to use something like wind power to power electrolyzers, distribute the hydrogen or nuclear power. And you could be co-producing electricity, probably would be at the same time to have multiple products helps the economics of this. Each of these faces some challenges to bring about the low carbon, long term zero emissions. In terms of hydrogen from renewables, wind or solar electrolysis, also biomass gasification, the issue is primarily cost rather than technical feasibility or resources to do this. We really do pretty much know how to do these things. There are certainly inventions that could make them better. Nuclear hydrogen, cost issues for electrolytic hydrogen, technical feasibility, there are systems that are being developed to take high temperature nuclear heat and use that with coupled chemical reactions to accomplish water splitting. And then there are waste issues and possible proliferation issues similar to other nuclear power. Fossil hydrogen with CO2 capture and sequestration, nearly zero emissions, relatively low cost add-on to a coal plant, assuming you have suitable CO2 disposal sites nearby and that you make this, do this at large scale. As mentioned with biomass, you could actually maybe have a negative carbon system then. But there's still a fair amount that's unknown about the potential environmental impacts and feasibility of CO2 sequestration. This is being tried at large scale on a number of demonstration projects around the world. And I would say it's a very, very high priority activity if we're going to go on with coal. And I've supported a couple of people had mentioned high priority is to stop building uncontrolled coal plants, only build them with carbon capture and sequestration. We've got to make sure it works though, high priority to check that out over the next five years. So none of these are right on, but let's talk about economics now a little bit and you'll have to excuse me, real economists in the audience, I've come from a physics background but learned enough to be dangerous maybe, but this is pretty basic. Let's talk about fuel costs. As I mentioned before, the energy content of one kilogram of hydrogen is about the same as one gallon of gasoline. So when we talk about costs in terms of dollars per kilogram of hydrogen, that's about the same on an energy basis as one gallon of gasoline, okay? The other thing though that you need to consider is the fuel economy. And fuel cell vehicles are somewhere between 1.5 to 2.5 times as efficient as gasoline cars. The 1.5 would be for gasoline hybrid. Let's give gasoline its best shot, hybridize it. The other 2.5 is more like a typical car. So what that means is, if we talk about fuel costs per mile, which I would argue is a very important metric to most people, most people really care about how much does it cost when I go to fill it up. You could tolerate because of the fuel cost per mile, you can say fuel costs per gallon, divide that by the number of miles per gallon and that'll give you dollars per mile. Because hydrogen is 1.5 to 2.5 times more fuel efficient, you can tolerate a cost on an energy basis that's 1.5 to 2.5 times as much, and you'll get the same cost per mile. So that's something to keep in mind when I go through some numbers in a minute here too. So how much would this cost? Spend a minute on this kind of complicated slide. This is also from the National Academy's study. We showed two different ways of making hydrogen in big plants or distributed, that's in refueling stations. The red band there is what you would need to compete with gasoline used in a very efficient gasoline hybrid car. And we see that anything below that red band is lower cost to deliver hydrogen to the pump. Anything above that band is higher cost. So we see that there are a number of options and then the high bar is current technology, lower bar right next to it is future technology. We see there are a number of options, the central plant that could compete, including biomass hydrogen with future technology, and this was a rather pessimistic study on biomass hydrogen. I think the picture's a little better for that. And in the longer term, even things like wind, electrolysis, on-site natural gas are all roughly competitive. So this says that if you can get these systems to a large enough scale, because these all assume they're large scale, and if you meet the goals, you can be competitive. And even in the near term, things like natural gas could be competitive pretty much now to deliver hydrogen. So let's talk about making a transition. Those costs, we're talking about the system, a mature system already built, but how could you change from something to something so different? How long would it take? How would you produce hydrogen during this transition? How much would it cost? And how might this happen? So I'll just give some comments on that, speculation on that. This shows refueling stations for gasoline and alternative fuels. And each gasoline dot is 10 stations. The other dots are other fuels. And as we can see, there are lots more gasoline stations out there, about 170,000 than there are for all fuels. There are about 100 plus hydrogen refueling stations worldwide, maybe 60 or 90, something like that in the U.S., depending on what estimate you look at. So we have a long way to go until we have a gas station on our hydrogen station every corner. Historical data, it takes a while to make major changes in the energy system. This is some data on the building of some major U.S. transportation infrastructures. We have here things like canals, rail, roads, and so on. And the time constant is something like 30 to 70 years, depending on which one. So it takes at least a couple of decades to put new infrastructure in place, historically speaking. Innovations in vehicles can also take a while. And this shows from about 1975 to the present time, the introduction of two innovations in vehicles. One is automatic transmissions. That was largely consumer driven. And you can see that went up really pretty quickly because people wanted that. The lower one there, which is diesels, which was partly driven by regulation in Europe, was slower. But when you think about it, cars last on average 15 years, even if we had some new kind of car, all the vehicles sold tomorrow were some new kind of car. It would take about 15 years to completely take over the fleet. And in fact, it takes a little longer than that. These are some curves that were put together by the national academies. This was sort of the fastest rate they saw hydrogen ramping up. And we see that we're starting to show a signal around 2020 and it takes until about 2050 to completely convert the green line being the fuel cell vehicles and the red being conventional and the blue there being hybrids, which they show sort of coming in and going out. I don't know if I quite believe that. But the point is it'll take some time for these to take over a major fraction of the fleet. Just looking at gasoline hybrid sales, that's another basis for trying to put forth these kinds of scenarios. We've taken a curve here, the DOE did this analysis. They took historical data for when hybrids entered the market and just slid it forward about 12 years in this case and said, okay, what if fuel cells are behind the development curve for hybrids? Let's say they come in same kind of profile starting about 12 years later, would look something like this. The endpoint here is roughly 3% of the market for new cars. This shows some more results than the DOE's strategies for introducing hydrogen. Their thought is to cluster early hydrogen development in a couple of key cities and shown here in LA and New York City. The idea being that when you build this infrastructure up, one of the issues is getting the cost of cars down by mass production. Another is getting the cost of hydrogen down by building enough stations in an area that they'll get well utilized. So put the first cars in the first stations in a couple of places where there are policy and other drivers to do this. The next step here might be adding some more cities about five years later. Next step they, and here's Minneapolis is coming in here about 10 years into this transition which might start let's say 2015 to 2020. Well, how many cars do you really need, how many stations do you need to get started? One of the things that this is the chicken and egg problem. If you're buying a new hydrogen car, well, I wanna be able to refuel this thing. How many stations do you really need to give your confidence as a consumer that you can refuel? One of my students, Mike Nicholas, did an analysis here of this. This is a picture of Sacramento. There are 300 gas stations in Sacramento and there's a lot of traffic flow data and so he estimated let's pick a certain number of stations to offer hydrogen and then calculate the actual travel time along real streets based on real traffic flows and see what the average travel time is. Now there's a little box down there in the corner and the sort of bottom left-hand side with a red box around it. That's the average travel time from putting in just two stations in this city of a million people. Average travel time about nine minutes. Now some people would travel more and some less of course but that was a surprisingly low number to us because two stations out of 300 isn't very much. So Mike said what if you put in four? Goes down to about seven minutes and I'm gonna run a simulation now. Watch the little box there and we'll see what happens and here come more stations and the numbers go down. They're reaching about four minutes. We stopped this at roughly 10% of the stations and it's down to about a three minute average travel time. He carried this out all the way and found something interesting. This is the average travel time plotted versus the number of stations. The total's around about 300. After about 10% of stations you really get to a point of diminishing returns and that's because our gasoline infrastructure is really quite overbuilt in terms of availability. When you think about four gas stations on the same corner, lots of them down, in this sense you probably could get away with a pretty small fraction of stations offering hydrogen initially and still beat the chicken and egg. So this is important. You don't need hydrogen at every gas station and you need it at some but it may, you may end up with a very different kind of design than the way gasoline evolved. You may have a much sparser network to start with but still be able to get started. More on how much it would cost. Shell made an estimate a few years ago that they would need 11,000 stations nationwide including some in cities and some along interstates to connect them to serve an early market for the first million vehicles about 12 billion dollars. For a mature system several hundred to several thousand dollars per vehicle depending on what kind of supply it is. Full implementation in the US probably a couple hundred billion dollars to build all those stations. That sounds like a lot of money. Of course you'll be making that back because you'll sell it fuel too. But it turns out the cost to maintain and expand conventional transport fuel infrastructure is also fairly large. I'll talk about that in a minute. And as we saw before the delivered cost range for hydrogen is quite competitive for a range of technologies and supply including low carbon ones. This shows some numbers from the World Energy Conference here. I guess this was actually put together I guess from people at Argonne National Lab. And this shows investment in oil and gas, cumulative investment by year here between 1973 and 1999. It's about a trillion dollars. The part that's just due to transporting, having pipelines for the oil and refining is about 300 billion dollars. Spent over a little bit less than 30 years. So that doesn't even include refueling stations and trucks to distribute it to refueling stations and so on. And the exploration of production is a growing fraction of this as well. That's shown in the green bar there. So the point really is that it costs a lot to maintain and expand our fossil fuel infrastructure. But the hydrogen, rough estimates for how much it would cost to build hydrogen are somewhere in this ballpark too. Just a couple of speculations here on when does hydrogen transition become a self-sustaining business? How do you get through the so-called innovators valley of death? You start out with vehicles that cost a lot more than gasoline cars. So initially, to bring down the cost, you have to go to mass production, hundreds of thousands of cars. But those first cars are gonna be quite expensive. The infrastructure buildup is important for fuel availability, so consumers buy these cars. But hydrogen actually reaches enough of a scale so that it's cost competitive on a cent per mile basis when you have something like 1% or above of hydrogen vehicles. So to actually getting the cost of the vehicles down is perhaps the major cost that would have to be born either by industry, forward pricing, as they did with gasoline hybrids, they put those out and sold them for probably less than they cost for a while. And it's a larger part of the cost really by quite a bit than building the infrastructure. So who's gonna buy the first hundreds of thousands and how should the support be provided? And a couple of people have tried to make estimates of this myself, folks at Oak Ridge National Lab, probably tens of billions of dollars to get to the point where the hydrogen vehicle would compete with a gasoline vehicle on a life cycle cost basis. In other words, a consumer looking at this would say, it's gonna cost me as much to own and operate a hydrogen car as a gasoline car. But there'll be some initial money that'll have to be put forward. Past that point, you'll be making money. And the economy would come out ahead, I would say, because the overall cost of owning and operating a hydrogen car could end up to being less than a gasoline car simply because it's so efficient and with the hydrogen costs there, the fuel cost would be less even if the car cost more. What might hydrogen systems look like in the far future? This is a sketch of one based on using rice straw in Northern California, and the green is the rice straw, the red are the areas where there's demand, and one of my students looked at doing biomass to hydrogen plants. That might be one way of getting started and it's actually a fairly low cost resource. This is a sketch of a coal-based hydrogen economy in Ohio with carbon capture and sequestration. Numbers there, 3.4 to 2.4, think dollars per gallon gasoline, but then cut that about in half because of the more efficient vehicle you're talking about. So anyway, the point of those two slides really is that like with the electricity system today, we probably are gonna use different primary resources depending on where we are in the country and in the world. And hydrogen gives you that flexibility, which is an interesting thing. And also the flexibility to interact with the electric system. Couple of words on things that are going on now. There are a number of fuel cell and hydrogen demonstration projects. There's shown a little dots here around the world, probably about 100 plus refueling demos underway and plans for probably about 600, 700 hydrogen cars at the moment, plans for a few thousand over the next couple of years. Initiatives in 30 states, including here in the upper Midwest and one of the leaders of that effort was in the audience here, I was chatting with him on the break. California, New York, lots of places. The California hydrogen highway, the idea would be to provide hydrogen fuel to vehicles statewide by 2010, not to every vehicle, but to make it available, especially in the urban areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco Bay Area. Some cost share out there for stations and vehicles. And a goal also of reducing greenhouse gas emissions at least 30% relative to gasoline cars. And this is important because with hydrogen, as with electricity, the greenhouse gas emissions depend on how you make it and encouraging use of renewables. Well, how soon could hydrogen make a major difference? The time to really make major changes like this in the energy system is decades. And with hydrogen, we're talking about a couple of transitions at once. We're talking about new vehicles, new fuel infrastructure and new primary supply. I think all of the options we've talked about with low carbon, we're talking about new primary supply. Some of them could build, though more easily on the existing fuel distribution infrastructure than hydrogen. Hydrogen vehicles need more development and time to penetrate markets. I would say that probably the first vehicles would be ready somewhere between 8, 10, 12 years in the showrooms when you might see them. But once they're there, even if they're adopted very popular, it'll take a while before they start to penetrate the fleet in large numbers and make a difference in cutting greenhouse gas emissions. So on a global scale, it may be a while, local impact sooner. But beyond 2025, the potential for large impact of hydrogen technologies is really quite enormous. It's a long-term, perhaps high risk, but potentially very high payoff technology and enabling triple play greenhouse gas emission reduction, air pollution reduction and diverse supply. And there aren't that many things out there that can get us all of it. So we need all the arrows and the quivers to preach to the choir and to echo many of my colleagues' comments there. There's no silver bullet. This is an intriguing one. And really it could have the potential to transform the way we do things, especially in regard to how the electric sector plays in the transportation world. So what should we do now about this rather long-term thing? As well, some people say the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. Even if we don't see a signal for a while, as with a number of technologies that could be really high payoff, we need to support these now. And I would say ramp up R&D significantly in the energy area from where it's been. R&D in energy is much lower than in most other high-tech industries. And we should be thinking of energy as a high-tech industry. R&D on a variety of technologies, fuel cells, hydrogen storage, small-scale production and zero emission hydrogen. I think it's important to demonstrate hydrogen infrastructure. Now I have to go out and build the whole thing today with technology, but to do some networked demos so that we know how this thing works as a system. And there are things like that going forward. The learning from those is significant. Not only demonstrate the technology, but work out things like codes and standards, which are very important. Try to address transition barriers, see how that might happen, and think about strategies. And then finally, maybe most important, we need broad policies reflecting the external costs of energy. And we need both near-term and long-term strategies. This is one of the arrows in the long-term quiver, okay. So thinking about choices, very often in the op-eds, it's sort of portrayed as we have to do something right now. I think the first thing to do right now is maybe to not drive such big cars or not have such a big print, but I don't think we have to make a choice right there right now. I think we should be supporting actually very broadly in future transportation fuels. The technology paths may have a lot of interaction. Electric sector between biofuels and hydrogen, but carbon capture and sequestration. The first steps are the same, I would say in terms of energy efficiency and in terms of broad research support, no matter what we ultimately use. And I think we'll find a lot of synergy that may happen as we get into this new world for transportation. So anyway, thank you very much for your attention. Let's begin by giving our panel an opportunity to ask Dr. Ogbins some questions or make some observations. Dr. Hanson. Yeah, this Valley of Death is not called the Valley of Death for nothing. It's because most of the good ideas don't get through it. And it seems like you've got a lot of difficulties that make it difficult to get through that. I'm a little surprised, not so much about your talk, but about why the conference didn't consider plug-in hybrids, which avoid some of the difficulties because they're compatible with the existing infrastructure and they give you the path. If you think about where you're going to want to be 50 or 75 years from now, you're going to want some vehicles which are really zero emission. And electric vehicles are, although you've got to get the energy someplace, but plugging into the electrical network is one way to do it. So if you get your power stations right, then you can do it that way. And plug-in hybrids get you halfway there and they encourage the battery development. You've got to continually improve batteries so you get more miles out of the batteries. And they encourage making the vehicles smaller and stronger so that they're still safe. So, you know, I wonder, I mean, if Joe Rahm was here, what would he say about it? I'm not an expert on that myself, but I know that he would disagree that that was a likely path. I've actually shared many podiums or a few with Joe Rahm and had that debate, but I think in terms of plug-in hybrids and battery vehicles generally, the key technology there is the battery itself. And right now, although there's a lot of interest in plug-in hybrids, and I find it a very interesting technology as well, the batteries are not quite ready for prime time, despite what you might read. And there does need to be more development. The main issues are the lifetime and the cost of the batteries. If the batteries work, then that would be a really excellent approach. There are several manufacturers who are working on plug-in hybrids, but they're sort of backpedaling away from saying how long the range on the initial offer will be. And if you talk to Toyota, they're looking at maybe 2012, maybe if I'm remembering the number right, and something like a five to 10-mile all-electric range, which could get you around town if for some reason you couldn't get gasoline. But the question too is whether that'll be enough to draw. In the longer term, though, I think it's a very promising technology with some uncertainties that needs to be pursued. Fuel cells, the infrastructure is more complicated, but if batteries don't work out, it's another option that brings those resources and electrification of vehicles. I think in terms of the car makers, that's one reason why it was maybe frustration with batteries in the mid-'90s that led to a lot of the car makers putting literally hundreds of millions, billions of dollars in their own money into developing fuel cell cars. Roughly five times as much a private sector investment has gone into developing fuel cells as government by some estimates. And so the car makers saw this as another route to the electric car. They also are pursuing plug-in hybrids. I'm glad they're going after all of them. You could have a fuel cell plug-in too, by the way. Dr. Chu. First, let me say, just as my crystal ball would say that if hydrogen has a significant part of the energy supply in the outstates or energy transfer technology in the outstates, it would probably be a stationary hydrogen and next to a nuclear power plant at night where it's looking for sellers of electricity at very high temperatures, as you pointed out. You can get the electrolysis more efficient. You store the hydrogen on site, and then during peak times, you convert that back to electricity. It avoids the infrastructure problem, the distribution problem. It avoids a lot of the safety issues because it's a secure site. It's stationary. The storage problem is avoided. All these things are avoided, and it's closer to economic feasibility because of you have all these things as you very well described have to work. There's about four technology breakthroughs. But so I think hydrogen as a fixed storage would probably be better. In terms of looking at the future, all sorts of predictions by all sorts of companies, and so you're trying to figure out how do you figure this out? So let's use GM as the predictor. They announced that they're going to deliver a plug-in hybrid in two or three years. They are backpedaling, but I'm going to be a little cynical here. I would say to GM two or three years means they might have to deliver 15 years. It means, hey, it's okay. So I think, again, it's further off in the future. If we can get all those things, that would be wonderful. There's no dispute there. But I guess I'm being a little bit concerned about the next 20 years, what's really going to happen. I think in the next 20 years, you're going to see essentially very, you're going to see the development of this technology, of a point where you can make a decision and hopefully a lot of progress in the future. Dr. Lind? Well, having taken up your time, I hope, productively speaking about some of the possibilities that biofuels might offer, I would like to echo a point that Joan made. The quiver of arrows is not particularly full when looking at either the broad problem of the sustainable resource transition or sustainable transportation in particular. And I've heard reasons that all of those arrows ought to be thrown out of the quiver. And if that happens, we have an empty quiver, which is certainly not where we want to be. So my personal view is until, if or until, we have options that are really humming much more so than they are now at actually addressing these issues. We still have 97, 98% petroleum dependence in the transportation sector that we need to not have the idea of thinking really hard and picking one thing, but we need to move a suite of them along. That said, there are people over the years who have essentially acted as if or stated that hydrogen is sort of, you know, inevitably inevitable ultimate solution. And I don't think its merits are sufficiently clear to make that statement. I can imagine hydrogen would make a big contribution. I could imagine it might be the leading contributor, but it's not clear to me it will eventually get there ever. So my sense is it's worth working at, but I don't take it as kind of the ultimate end result. I'd love to. Yeah, let me expand a little bit on that. I think all of us believe we should really push the pedal to the floor and all these opportunities and scientific research in this, but I was telling my colleague that, for example, there's a new type of fuel cell we don't really know if it's gonna work yet. It's in a company being tested. If you can put hydrogen or natural gas into it and you get about the same amount of electricity out, poor unit of energy that you put into it. Now just suppose this type of fuel cell works. All of a sudden, voila, you can store natural gas in your car at much higher density. You have a distribution mechanism already in the outsides for distributing natural gas. It's a bit safer, they both have dangers just as gasoline has dangers. And all of a sudden, so one has to separate and say fuel cells are different than hydrogen. And so if you get a breakthrough in a fuel cell of either hydrogen or natural gas, that will help a lot of things. It will also help stationary power plants immensely. And so a lot of these things, that's why I'm all in favor of all the areas of research you're talking about because you can take and mix and match as things progress. But I would agree with you, if we bank on hydrogen as the solution and let's wait for it, that's not good. I would agree with that too. I think about five years ago, there was maybe a lot of talk about this was the end game. And I think people have become a lot more sophisticated about that and hopefully policy makers are as well. And I'm very encouraged by how many times I've heard people say there's no silver bullet in the last year. One particularly articulate statement of that was once made to me by a high ranking person from an environmental advocacy organization and I quote word for word, we know that hydrogen is the answer and as far as we're concerned anything else is a distraction. I think most people have come away since then. Many people say there's no silver bullet, there's not even a six sure of full of bullets. We gotta look for all the BBs we can find. But I think an important question that hasn't been addressed is the government's resources for R&D and energy are finite and limited. And we need to have some way of understanding and applying principles for how those resources are allocated to developing different technologies. And I think one of the things that has been interesting about some of the presentations and some of the technologies is the private sector is putting money in, which suggests that they see something that's profitable. And on its own the government actually has a pretty bad record of picking winners, the Clinch River breeder reactor, the North Dakota coal gasification plant. So I think a good topic for further discussion, not today, but is how can we allocate the government's scarce R&D resources more effectively to keep the quiver full but also to get a reasonably high rate of return on those investments. If I might comment briefly, I don't think we're anywhere near close to the government's limitations on this. I don't know if it's still true, but recently it was true that we spent, the government spent more money on energy R&D in 1973 than it does now. And that's even not allowing for the growth in the economy and inflation. So. The peak year was 1982. Well, I think when you look at, there's some interesting papers by Dan Camendot, UC Berkeley that look at R&D expenditures in various industries. And he finds in things like the pharmaceutical industry, the information technology industry, nine or 10% of the profits go back into R&D in energy. It's less than 1%. And I would say that's a situation that we could change. I'm also aware of some studies that have been done by the DOE, by the energy efficiency and renewables part, looking at a portfolio approach of their technologies over a long period of time and finding a very high rate of return on a variety of renewable and energy efficient technologies not everything the portfolio hit, but some of them did. And, you know, I think about this the same way I would buy stocks. I wouldn't put all my money on one high risk, high payoff stock, even if it was my favorite one, you know? So. The question from the audience. Could the existing natural gas distribution system be used for distributing hydrogen? I wouldn't do it myself. I think there are a number of issues. People have looked at this unless you were very, very sure what was in that set of pipes. I wouldn't do it. Some steels are compatible with hydrogen, others are not. When you pipe, do things with a pipe line, you pressurize and depressurize that stress going back and forth and cause crack. I wouldn't do it. So I think also natural gas, if hydrogen takes off, it'll probably build a natural gas system. You might make it from natural gas at a point where you need it as you do today. And those natural gas users won't go away. So I don't, probably not. I could expand on what John just said. Hydrogen in metal makes it brittle, and this is a real issue. Containment is also more difficult than seals and all that stuff. Yeah, although people know how to do that. If you design a system like this from the get-go, there are hundreds of miles of hydrogen pipeline within the United States. I didn't mean to say it couldn't be done, but the natural gas lines. It's not gonna have seals for hydrogen. Absolutely right, so I wouldn't do it. Here's another question that sort of builds off of what we were saying before here. We're talking about University of Minnesota's Lanny Schmidt. He's done work on ethanol as the hydrogen carrier for fuel cells, and so can you comment on the opportunity to use biofuels to transition to fuel cells for the whole fleet? Well that's an interesting possibility and several people have looked at that. I think what you'd have to compare there was you'd have several transformations of energy you'd be taking take place when you would say reform ethanol to make hydrogen. There's energy lost in that transformation. Decreases the overall well, the wheels energy. You'd have to compare whether that would be better than using ethanol in an efficient ethanol hybrid vehicle, for example. And I suspect that perhaps the hybrid vehicle would be a lower cost and a very attractive option. Leah, I don't know if you wanna add anything on that too. Just historically, I co-led this role of biomass in America's Energy Future Project and I went into it all excited about this idea of basically reforming ethanol on board to make hydrogen and the environmental advocates that were knowledgeable and part of the thing basically kinda said what you said, Joan. They said, it's very likely you can get all the mileage benefits that you're gonna be able to get by reforming ethanol to hydrogen on board the vehicle with an efficient hybrid. There's an awful lot less uncertainty. We can buy those hybrids now and at least for the purpose of that exercise, they just felt that it would make the whole thing be seen much less certain and so reached a similar conclusion. Okay, Dr. Criatt, a little bit more science aspect. When you take one form of energy and wanna transform to another form of energy, if it's perfect, you can get all the energy from one form to the other, but nothing in life is perfect, so you're gonna lose a little bit. So whenever you think of transforming one form of energy like ethanol into another form like hydrogen and say it's gonna be better, what you're really banking on is that the eventual thing that propels you, the fuel cell, is gonna be better than internal combustion and so then you actually have to widen the scope a little bit and say, well, how much better can you make internal combustion? Are there different types of devices? But every time you make that transition from one form of energy to another, you lose. You go to cold hydrogen, naturally as hydrogen, you lose. And so you always have to always step backward and say, overall, don't fix on a single thing, that the overall system should always be visible. Okay, another one, is it feasible to use wind to generate electricity and make hydrogen and use the hydrogen as energy storage and generate electricity when the wind isn't blowing? Yes, it's certainly technically feasible to do that and that's an interesting sort of idea, especially if you have demand for electricity that isn't exactly coincident with wind or if you're in a remote site and you have wind power and you want to store it and you want to store it for a few days. With storing intermittent electricity, like wind or solar, you have a couple of options you could use, you could use batteries, you could use compressed air, various things, but in some cases, hydrogen electrolysis is an attractive proposition. I've seen some demonstrations of this in areas of rural India where they have no access to the electric grid and they have small windmills that are used for electrolysis. They produce hydrogen and they can then use the hydrogen in small fuel cells anytime they want and it's a night, for example, for lighting and it's more effective than batteries. Yeah, it can be. Yeah, but remember, the reason that works is because it's stranded, you don't have a grid. Yes, absolutely. When you take electricity and do electrolysis in water and turn it to hydrogen, you lose about 30% of the energy and then when you put it in our dream fuel cell, which would be 50, 60% efficient, you lose another 40% of the energy. So it's like 0.75 or 0.7 times 0.6, you're down to half. And so all of a sudden you've lost half the energy of the wind and it makes the cost of electricity generation. Okay, so when you're stranded, it works. And again, it drives home. I think the point is when you go from one form of energy back to the other and back again, you're always losing, losing, losing and then it costs more. Yep. As a freshman in college, I'm interested in entering the hydrogen energy field. What courses should I take? What would be the appropriate major? Come see me when you're ready at graduate school. Physics isn't, yeah. I was gonna say that anyway. I would say physics, depending on what you wanna do, possibly chemistry or chemical engineering are also good fields as a background for that kind of work. I would say material science, maybe undergraduate physics and then concentration on that because of, as I see it, a lot of the issues with developing better technologies for producing and using hydrogen-centered materials. Well, I think the hour is getting late here and so I think we will conclude. I'd like to conclude with just a couple of comments here. I see Bill Harvey in the audience here. Bill was one of these people who has attended every one of these conferences. And I hate to admit it, but I can remember attending the first one. And when I came back to the faculty, the first year I was on the faculty, I had the privilege of hosting the member of a panel that we did on creativity. And one of the things that I will always remember from that event was the discussion between the historian of science, who was Jacob Bernowski, who was just doing this, a center of man series on television at the time and the humanist William Aerosmith. They were debating the relative merits of creativity in the fields of science and the humanities. I've never heard two people use the English language any better. I was absolutely fascinated. And I just have to say that the discussion that we've had here for the past two days reminds me of why I was interested in these Nobel conferences and have maintained my interest over the years. And so I do thank you so very much. The wonderful talks that you've given and the wonderful conversations that we've had. And we're looking forward to capping the evening here to hear from our explorer, Will Stieger, here later on. Thank you very much for coming.