THE ICELANDIC EXAMPLE: PLANNING FOR HYDROGEN FUELED
TRANSPORTATION IN OREGON
by
JEFFREY DEAN FISHER
A THESIS
Presented to the Department of Planning,
Public Policy and Management
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Community and Regional Planning
June 2009
"The Icelandic Example: Planning for Hydrogen Fueled Transportation in Oregon," a
thesis prepared by Jeffrey Dean Fisher in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Community and Regional Planning degree in the Department of Planning,
Public Policy and Management. This thesis has been approved and accepted by:
11
Committee in Charge:
Accepted by:
Dr. Robert Young, Chairrl
Dr. Greg Bothun
Mr. Roger Ebbage, Director Energy Programs, Lane
Community College; Northwest Energy Education
Institute
Dean of the Graduate School
© 2009 Jeffrey Dean Fisher
iii
IV
An Abstract of the Thesis of
Jeffrey Dean Fisher for the degree of
Master of Community and Regional Planning
in the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management
to be taken June 2009
Title: THE ICELANDIC EXAMPLE: PLANNING FOR HYDROGEN FUELED
TRANSPORTATION IN OREGON
Approved:
The ability to provide an adequate supply ofrenewable energy necessary to offset
the emissions of"zero emission" vehicles is of importance for Oregon's planners and
policy makers. An increase in electricity generation caused by the electricity required for
zero-emissions hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will result in an increase in greenhouse gas
emissions if renewable energy is not installed to meet hydrogen fuel cell needs. What are
the renewable energy implications for Oregon planners to consider for meeting future fuel
cell zero emission vehicle (ZEV) needs?
Work done in Iceland can serve as an example for Oregon's need for renewable
energy to meet ZEV needs. Icelandic data about hydrogen generation and the renewable
energy requirements necessary for ZEVs at the Gtj6thaIs hydrogen fueling station set a
benchmark for Oregon planners to consider when figuring the impact of ZEVs.
vCURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Jeffrey Dean Fisher
PLACE OF BIRTH: Salem, Oregon
DATE OF BIRTH: November 30, 1966
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University ofOregon, Eugene
Lane Community College, Eugene, Oregon
DEGREES AWARDED:
Master ofCommunity and Regional Planning, 2009, University ofOregon
Bachelor of Science in Environmental Studies, 2007, University ofOregon
Associate ofApplied Science, Energy Management Technician: Renewable
Energy Option, 2005, Lane Community College
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Renewable Energy
Climate Change Planning
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Board Member of the University ofOregon Energy Conservation and Alternative
Futures Fund (ECAFF), 2005~07.
Event Organizer and Planner, Renewable Energy Conference, Breitenbush
Conference Center, 2005-06.
Contributor to the University ofOregon Emergency Operations Plan, 2008.
Vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to extend my sincerest appreciation to my committee members: Dr.
Robert Young, Dr. Greg Bothun, and Mr. Roger Ebbage. Their guidance and support have
been instrumental in the successful completion ofthis thesis. In particular, I wish to thank
Dr. Robert Young who devoted a tremendous amount oftime to this project. His expertise,
encouragement, and honest feedback assisted me and helped with all facets ofthis thesis.
Dr. Greg Bothun contributed immeasurably towards solidifying the methodology and
findings sections ofthis study. Without his guidance and ability to help me sort out the
details of this study, I would still be struggling with the methodology. It was Greg who
initially challenged me to attend graduate school in order to help develop energy plans that
ameliorate and mitigate the effects of a changing climate. I would like to thank Mr. Roger
Ebbage for his educational vision and programs, constant encouragement, help, and wealth
ofknowledge regarding energy generation and management. It was Roger and his
programs that led me down the path of energy planning. Each of my committee members
has challenged me to think about planning issues in different ways.
I would also like to thank my wife, Kate, for her encouragement to further my
education, for the opportunity she gave me to attend graduate school, and for the sacrifices
she made while I was in school. It was her unwavering support and encouragement that
made this thesis possible. Thanks also to my children and family, who have been
supportive in my desire to help others with the skills I have acquired while in school.
Vll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
Background 2
Methodology 6
Purpose of This Study 8
Organization of This Thesis................................................................................... 9
II. LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................ 10
Emissions and Vehicles 10
Emissions and Health......................... 11
Hydrogen Fuel Cell ZEVs 16
Emissions Reductions in a Regional Context........................................................ 18
Regional Solutions to Emissions Reductions...... 19
Iceland's Implementation of Hydrogen and Renewable Energy........................... 20
Summary 23
III. REGIONAL PROFILES........................................................................................ 25
Settlement and Growth...................................................................... 26
Energy Use............................................................................................................. 28
Energy Portfolios 30
Summary 40
IV. METHODOLOGY 41
Conversion of Gtj6thaIs Data 42
Solar Assumptions................................................................................................. 44
Wind Assumptions................................................................................................. 46
Oregon Renewable Energy Analysis 47
Scaling Gtj6thaIs Data to Oregon.......................................................................... 51
Scaling Gtj6thaIs Data to Oregon's Electricity Distributers.................................. 52
Chapter
Vlll
Page
V. FINDINGS.............................................................................................................. 54
Hydrogen Fueling Station Needs 55
Evaluation of Renewable Energy Needs................................................................ 62
Renewable Energy Requirements 65
Electricity Distribution Requirements 66
Individual Requirements 67
Scaling to One Million Vehicles 68
VI. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS.................................................................... 70
Introduction............................................................................................................ 70
Summary of Findings.................................................... 73
Case Study Findings 73
Methodological Findings 75
Implications of This Study 77
Future Research 78
APPENDIX: CORRESPONDENCE WITH JON BJORN SKULASON 81
BIBLIOGRAPHY 85
IX
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3-1. Installed Capacity in Iceland, 2006 31
3-2. Installed Capacity in Iceland, 2006. 31
3-3. Installed Capacity in Iceland, 2005 32
3-4. Installed Capacity in Iceland, 2005 32
3-5. Electricity Generation in Iceland, 2006 33
3-6 Electricity Generation in Iceland, 2006................................................................. 33
3-7. Electricity Generation in Iceland, 2005 34
3-8. Electricity Generation in Iceland, 2005 34
3-9. New Electricity Generation in Iceland 35
3-10. Oregon Electricity Consumption, 2005 36
3-11. Oregon Electricity Consumption, 2005 36
3-12. Electricity Generation in Oregon, 2006.............................................................. 37
3-13. Electricity Generation in Oregon, 2005.............................................................. 37
3-14. Sixteen-Year Oregon Hydroelectric Generation 38
3-15. Sixteen-Year Oregon Trend in Coal, Natural Gas, and Non-Hydroelectric
Renewable Energy Generation 38
3-16. Sixteen-Year Oregon Trend in Natural Gas and Hydroelectric Energy
Generation.............................................................................................................. 39
xFigure Page
3-17.2008 Active Oregon Geothermal Projects....................................................... 39
4-1. Energy Conversion for Zero-Emissions Fueling Station.................................... 43
4-2. Oregon's daily VMT assumptions 43
4-3. Number of Vehicles Served Based on Oregon Average VMT........................... 44
4-4. Energy Conversion to PV Requirement 45
4-5. Sizing ofRequired PV Array............................................................................ 45
4-6. Sizing ofRequired 1.5 MW Wind Turbines...................................................... 46
4-7. Comparison of 2005 Oregon Electricity Consumption and Hydroelectric
Generation. . . 50
Xl
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
4-1. Solar and Wind Generation in Oregon.............................................................. 48
4-2. Oregon's Electric Utilities 53
5-1. Number ofModel Hydrogen Fueling Stations Required Following the
Icelandic Example in Oregon by Electricity Provider......................................... 55
5-2. Locations ofHydrogen Fueling Stations 58
5-3. PV and Wind Requirements by Electric Utility................................................. 67
xu
LIST OF MAPS
Map Page
5-1. Locations ofHydrogen Fueling Station Cities................................................... 59
5-2. Pacific Power's Oregon Service Territory......................................................... 60
5-3. PGE Service Territory 61
5-4. Pacific Northwest PUDs, Municipally Owned Utilities and Electric
Cooperatives...................................................................................................... 62
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The need to reduce emissions from vehicles has been recognized in Oregon for
some time. At present, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are proposed as one way to reduce
vehicle emissions. If renewable energy is not available to generate the hydrogen
necessary for these vehicles, the stations generating the hydrogen will use whatever
electricity is available. In Oregon, a fraction ofgenerated electricity comes from sources
that produce emissions. Thus, providing adequate emissions-free energy to operate
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is necessary for such vehicles to be zero-emissions vehicles
(ZEV) and is important for Oregon's planners and policy-makers.
On a regional scale, ZEVs throughout a metropolitan area could have a direct
effect on the area's emissions. However, an area's electricity needs frequently extend
beyond its metropolitan area, and much of this generation in non-renewably produced.
While the potential exists for ZEVs to reduce one particular area's emissions, these
emissions are only being externalized to somewhere else if non-renewable energy is
1
2being used. In other words, residents' energy generation needs and the resulting
emissions produced are not confined to the city in which the residents live.
As the process of introducing ZEVs into the market continues, it has become
imperative that planners and policy-makers address ZEVs from a regional perspective.
Expanded renewable energy installations throughout a region will result in more true
ZEVs and not just externalize the emissions to someplace else. Because of the growing
concern over greenhouse gas emissions, their global climatic effect, and proposed
emissions standards it is in a region's best interest to meet the requirements necessary for
future ZEVs in order to reduce overall emissions and to promote greater regional equity
by assuming responsibility for the emissions- free electricity required for ZEVs.
Background
There are many vehicles currently on the market or soon to be on the market (e.g.
electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell) that will require electricity to operate. Fuel cell cars
are targeted to be available for mass-market sales within the next ten years. These cars
are being promoted as being zero-emissions, and as emitting only water. For the purposes
of the fuel cell ZEV, electricity is required to extract the hydrogen from the elements with
which it is combined because Hydrogen as a gas (Hz) on earth essentially is always
combined with other elements. Currently, most hydrogen in the United States, and about
halfof the world's hydrogen supply, is produced through the steam reforming ofnatural
gas. In total, about 95 % of U.S. hydrogen production is produced from natural gas using
steam reforming technology (U.S. Department ofEnergy [USDOE], 2006). Steam
3reformation of natural gas represents only a modest reduction in vehicle emissions as
compared to emissions from current hybrid vehicles, and ultimately only exchanges oil
imports for natural gas imports (Turner, 2004). Oil production peaked in the United
States in 1970 (Duncan & Youngquist, 1999). Natural gas production in the U.S. peaked
in 1971 (Youngquist & Duncan, 2003). The fuel cell ZEV has the potential to not
produce emissions and to not require fossil fuels if the process uses electrolysis to make
hydrogen, the hydrogen is electrolyzed from water with renewable energy, and the
supplemental energy inputs for reformulation, transportation or compressing the fuel for
on-board storage are met with renewable energy.
Fossil fuel use for transportation is not sustainable. Indeed, The Oregon
Department of Transportation recognizes "Oil-based transportation is not sustainable
environmentally or economically. Our dependency on increasingly scarce fossil fuels, the
potential impacts ofglobal warming, and the introduction of new carbon emission
standards have pushed both automakers and consumers to find alternative solutions"
(Oregon Department of Transportation [ODOT], 2009). The U.S. Department ofEnergy
and other market developers see a hydrogen infrastructure based on natural gas steam
reformation at the service station. However, the Oregon Department ofEnergy
recognizes "manufacturing hydrogen fuel from renewable feedstocks, with the
supplemental energy from renewable resources, will prove to be the most sustainable
approach" (Oregon Department ofEnergy [ODOE], 2009).
The State ofOregon also recognizes the importance of planning for renewable
energy and fuel cells in Oregon's Renewable Energy Action Plan (ODOE, 2005):
4Fuel cell technology can play an important role in Oregon's renewable
energy future. Oregon commercial and industrial sectors use
approximately 30 million cubic feet of hydrogen per year. All hydrogen is
imported since there are no commercial hydrogen generation plants in
Oregon. If hydrogen used in Oregon were generated in Oregon using
renewable resources, new jobs could be created. In the short run, most fuel
cells are expected to use non-renewable fuels. However, a goal of this Plan
is to foster increasing use of renewable fuels as technologies become
feasible.
Furthermore, in recognition of the need for renewable energy, Oregon and 23 other states
plus the District of Columbia have enacted policies that require electricity providers to
obtain a minimum percentage of their power from renewable energy resources by a
certain date (DSDOE, 2008). Transportation (34 %) and electricity (32 %) dominate
Oregon's greenhouse gas footprint (State of Oregon, 2008). Installing renewable energy
to offset emissions from hydrogen generation would lower both footprints for a ZEY. In
essence, if a fuel cell vehicle requires only renewable energy it is contributing to neither
vehicle nor power plant emissions.
The Oregon Office ofEnergy predicts that carbon dioxide emissions in the state
will increase by 33 % from 2000 to 2025, mainly because of increased driving (ODOT,
2006). The Oregon Transportation Plan's 2006 executive summary recognizes the
implications of population growth, oil supplies, and global warming as being a challenge
when it states that, "Encouraging the use of hybrid, electric and other alternative-fuel
engines, increasing public transit, and guiding land use and transportation choices could
reduce greenhouse gas emissions" (ODOT, 2006). In 1973, Oregon established nineteen
statewide planning goals as part of legislation that created a statewide land use planning
system. Statewide Goals 6 (Air, Water and Land Resources Quality), 12 (Transportation),
5and 13 (Energy Conservation) identify the interconnected nature ofOregon's property
and transportation, energy, and the environment. ZEVs in Oregon will, at the very least,
have an impact on all three of these statewide goals.
Planning needs to be done for the introduction of fuel cell ZEVs in Oregon, and
planners benefit from having an example to set a baseline, or a line serving as a basis for
measurement and calculation to be used for comparison. In this case, the baseline is the
renewable energy requirements necessary for the beginnings of fuel cell ZEVs. This
baseline is necessary for Oregon's planners to map the transition to factual ZEVs. For the
purposes of this thesis, a factual ZEV is defined as a situation where there is no carbon
produced during the generation, transmission, or distribution of the hydrogen necessary
to power the fuel cell vehicle.
There is an example for Oregon to look toward when planning to meet its future
hydrogen-powered transportation needs. Iceland is an international leader in the use of
hydrogen (Amason & Sigfusson, 2000) and is the first country in the world to commit to
replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen. Furthermore, Iceland uses electrolysis to make
hydrogen and the hydrogen is electrolyzed from water with renewable energy
(hydroelectric power) (Maack & Skulason, 2006). More specifically, Icelandic New
Energy (INE), a promoter for using hydrogen as a fuel in the transportation sector in
Iceland that also is responsible for the practical research on hydrogen in Iceland, has
determined the hydrogen output and the renewable energy requirements necessary to
power three fuel cell buses at its GIj6tmJs hydrogen fueling station.
6The work ofIce1and and INE on the beginnings of hydrogen-powered
transportation can serve as a model for Oregon by examining what it would take for
Oregon to imitate Iceland's current example ofusing renewable energy for zero
emissions hydrogen generation at its Grj6thaJs hydrogen fueling station. Through the
evaluation of the Grj6thals hydrogen renewable energy requirements, a baseline can be
set for Oregon's renewable energy needs. The primary question for this thesis is the
following: Can Oregon generate the hydrogen necessary to follow the Icelandic example
ofusing renewable energy to generate sufficient hydrogen for zero-emission vehicles
using solar and wind energies? The following sub-questions will inform the analysis:
• How much installed capacities will Oregon need to follow the Icelandic
example?
• How can Iceland's information on the renewable energy requirements
necessary for hydrogen ZEVs be scaled to Oregon?
• What are the suitable energy requirements of hydrogen ZEVs for solar and
wind energies?
• How many units would need to be installed, and what is the area required
for the installation ofwind and solar energies?
Methodology
While past studies of transportation and energy issues in Oregon have evaluated
various impacts, this study will evaluate the extent to which fuel cell ZEVs in the
transportation sector will effectively impact the renewable energy requirements of
Oregon's energy sector. The primary data sources for this study derive from Iceland and
INE and by analysis of The US Department ofEnergy's Energy Information
Administration (EIA) and The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) data
7on Oregon's energy portfolio, its energy generation, and its energy use. Through this
analysis, Oregon's renewable energy is separated from hydropower, and its energy use is
compared with its energy generation. The EIA data for renewable energy (excluding
hydropower) is not broken down by type. Therefore, this data is inclusive of all types of
renewable energy generation in Oregon, which the NPCC lists as being biomass, solar,
and wind. Use ofthe NPCC data allows for the filtering ofbiomass from solar and wind
data.
Iceland uses hydropower and geothermal energy to electrolyze and compress the
hydrogen from water because Iceland has vast amounts of geothermal and hydropower
available. Analysis of Oregon's hydropower and geothermal data shows its limitations
for generating hydrogen. According to the Oregon Department ofEnergy, Oregon's
energy portfolio is 44 % hydropower (ODOE, 2008). The actual amount of Oregon's
hydropower available to generate hydrogen through electrolysis depends on myriad
factors including precipitation, demand, and exports out of state, but mostly from policy
that directs its electricity be delivered to Oregon customers at reasonable rates. Oregon's
hydroelectric availability has been impacted by the long term drought ofthe Western
United States. This study has sized the renewable energy systems necessary to make
hydrogen ZEVs from solar and wind energies and not from surplus hydropower and
geothermal to best reflect local availability ofgeneration potential and because these are
two popular and familiar renewable energy sources with the potential for local
involvement in the installations. Solar and wind installations also satisfy state mandated
renewable resource portfolio requirements (ODOE 2005). Because the vehicles will be
8charged during different times during the calendar day, and the intermittent nature of
solar and wind, hydropower involvement is inevitable. With this in mind, this study used
historic data on hydropower generation to show how hydroelectric demand is greater than
its generating capability in the context that allocating any surplus that could be used
purely for hydrogen generation would result in a rate increase and not be allowed. For
solar, this study used research data from a solar energy research institute at the University
of Central Florida (Florida Solar Energy Center, 2007) and scaled the results up to meet
the megawatt needs of the Grj6tha1s hydrogen fueling station. For wind, this study used
the past performance data of Oregon's average output from a 1.5 megawatt wind farm
turbine (ODOE, 2007).
Purpose of This Study
The purpose of this thesis is two-fold: (1) to evaluate the supply of renewable
energy necessary for zero-emissions fuel cell vehicles; and (2) to provide a baseline for
planners to consider when preparing for zero-emissions fuel cell vehicles.
The rationale for this study is based on the normative planning theory and the
American Institute of Certified Planners (AlCP) Code ofEthics and Professional
Conduct. The Code ofEthics explicitly states that planners "[s]hall always be conscious
of the rights ofothers, [s]hall have special concern for the long-range consequences of
present actions, and [s]hall promote excellence of design and endeavor to conserve and
preserve the integrity and heritage of the natural and built environment" (American
Planning Association, 200S). Furthermore, normative planning theory argues that
planners should be concerned with how society's limited resources are distributed.
Organization of This Thesis
The thesis is organized into six chapters. Following this introductory chapter, the
second chapter will discuss a review of relevant literature including emissions and
vehicles, emissions and health, hydrogen fuel cell zero-emissions vehicles, regional
solutions to emission reductions, emissions reductions in a regional context, and
Iceland's implementation of hydrogen and renewable energy. Chapter Three will profile
the two study regions: Oregon and Iceland. Chapter Four will describe the methodology
used in this study, and Chapter Five will discuss the data analysis and findings. Finally,
Chapter Six will provide a summary of key fmdings, and discuss the implications of this
study and ideas for further research.
9
10
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Across the United States, jurisdictions of all levels, from city to county to state,
are experiencing the need to provide community and regional planning in the context of a
changing climate, emissions reductions, population growth, and energy and transportation
needs. The following review of literature addresses the role of zero-emissions vehicles
(ZEV) in planning for emissions reductions, and presents information on how fuel cells
can be ZEVs. This chapter also reviews Oregon's plans for climate change, energy and
emissions, and ZEVs. This is followed by an extended discussion on how energy and
transportation emissions reductions improve the public good. This chapter concludes with
an exploration of utilizing Iceland as an example for Oregon's ZEV aspirations.
Emissions and Vehicles
In Oregon, fossil fuel use for energy needs affects our percentage of greenhouse
gas emissions. Transportation (34 %) and electricity (32 %) dominate Oregon's
greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint (State of Oregon, 2008). Nationally, by sector and fuel
11
type, electricity generation (41 %) and transportation (29 %) are the largest sources
carbon dioxide emissions (United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2009).
For many currently proposed ZEVs, transportation and electricity become interconnected
because ofa dependency on electricity generation. When a vehicle requires electricity
generation as part of its design, the tailpipe emissions costs have been shifted upstream to
whatever emissions come from non-renewable energy generation. These externalized
costs are still borne by the environment and thus, society. The combustion of fossil fuels
in both the transportation and electricity sectors also creates many unhealthy emissions in
addition to carbon dioxide (Chu & Porcella 1995; Westerholm & Egeback 1994).
Emissions and Health
We live on a human-dominated planet that is in the midst of an ecological crisis
(Vitousek, 1997). Climate change is affecting the earth and its living systems (Parmesan
& Yohe, 2003). The burning of fossil fuels contributes to climate change by increasing
the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas (Karl & Trenberth, 2003).
Increasing power generation by conventional fossil-fuel combustion further threatens
human health and welfare by increasing air pollution (Cifuentes, Borja-Aburto, Gouveia,
Thurston, & Davis, 2001).
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA found that the Clean
Air Act authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate tailpipe GHG
emissions if the EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may
reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare (EPA, 2008). Global
12
changes in atmospheric composition occur from anthropogenic emissions ofgreenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide that result from burning fossil fuels (Karl & Trenberth,
2003). Greenhouse gases trap outgoing radiation from the Earth to space, creating a
warming of the planet. These gases remain in the atmosphere for a long time. Carbon
dioxide's residence time in the atmosphere is 200 years. This results in an accumulation
in the atmosphere, and a buildup in concentrations ofgreenhouse gases. Evidence for this
increase in greenhouse gases can be found in instrumental observations ofair samples
and in bubbles of air trapped in ice cores that show carbon dioxide increasing 31 % since
preindustrial times, from 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to more than 370 ppmv
by 2003 (Karl & Trenberth, 2003). Today it continues its increase, and is now at 388
ppmv and rising. Articles, reports and recommendations on the subject of climate change
have drawn a "2 degree line" (no more than a 2°C (3.6°P) increase in global mean surface
temperature above preindustrial levels). Many scientists believe that anything beyond 2°C
could result in a dangerous climate change with the potential to become a full-blown
ecological crisis (Baer & Athanasiou, 2004), which has been defined as "a situation in
which human-induced ecological disorder leads to the destruction of ecological
conditions on this planet to such an extent that human life, at least, will be seriously
impaired for generations, if not destroyed" (Ecological Crisis, 2008).
James Hansen, climate expert and Director ofNASA's Goddard Space Science
Center, sets a goal ofno more than 1°C above present temperatures to avoid the melting
of the Greenland ice sheet and he sets no more than 350 parts per million (ppm) of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere as the level necessary to avoid an ice-free planet. In 2007 we
13
were at 383 ppmv (McKibben, 2007). As you can see, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
continues to increase from 280 ppmv in preindustrial times to 370 ppmv by 2003,383
ppmv in 2007, and 388 ppmv today. While Hanson's work and his specifying an exact
number of "allowable" carbon dioxide is contentious to many, it is a fact that the world's
glaciers continue to melt while polar and sea temperatures have been increasing. Perhaps
the specific number is not as consequential as the general concept discovered by Svante
Arrhenius in 1896 that if you halve the amount ofcarbon dioxide in the atmosphere an
ice age would occur and conversely, if you increase the level of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere it will raise the Earth's temperature.
Prior to the emphasis on GHG reductions to address planning for climate change,
vehicle emissions reductions were desired for health benefits. Vehicle emissions are
usually divided into categories of regulated and unregulated pollutants. Regulated
pollutants consist of carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides (mainly nitrogen monoxide and
nitrogen dioxide), unburned fuel, or partly oxidized hydrocarbons, and particulates. These
pollutants are specified by law. Unregulated pollutants are defined as compounds that are
not specified by law. However, these unregulated pollutants may well belong to the group
ofunburned hydrocarbons, but not as individual compounds. Several of the compounds
present in diesel and gasoline engine exhaust are known to be carcinogenic and/or
mutagenic (Westerholm & Egeback, 1994). Exposure to carcinogenic and/or mutagenic
vehicle emissions is not limited to those produced during the combustion of fossil fuels,
but also to environmental contamination of land and water due to accidental spills and
releases.
14
Utility emissions vary by source. Of special concern for fossil fuel electricity
generation is mercury (hg) emissions. The Clean Air Act regulates 188 air toxics, also
known as "hazardous air pollutants." Mercury is one of these air toxics. The Clean Air
Act directs the EPA to establish standards for certain sources that emit these air toxics.
Those sources also are required to obtain Clean Air Act operating permits and to comply
with all applicable emission standards. The law includes special provisions for dealing
with air toxics emitted from utilities, giving EPA the authority to regulate power plant
mercury emissions. On March 15,2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule, which
creates performance standards and establishes permanent, declining caps on mercury
emissions. The Clean Air Mercury Rule marks the first time EPA has ever regulated
mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants (EPA, 2009). Many smokestack
emissions eventually end up in the water. Under the Clean Water Act, states adopt water
quality standards for their rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands. These standards identify
levels for pollutants, including mercury, which must be met in order to protect human
health, fish, and wildlife. The EPA and various states issue information to the public on
waters contaminated with mercury and on the harmful effects of mercury, identify the
mercury sources and reductions needed to achieve water quality standards, and warn
people about eating fish containing high levels of methylmercury (EPA, 2009).
According to the EPA, the primary health effect of methylmercury on fetuses, infants,
and children is impaired neurological development. Methylmercury exposure in the
womb can adversely affect a baby's growing brain and nervous system. Impacts on
cognitive thinking, memory, attention, language, and fine motor and visual spatial skills
15
have been seen in children exposed to methylmercury in the womb. In addition,
symptoms of methylmercury poisoning may include impairment ofthe peripheral vision,
disturbances in sensations, lack of coordination of movements, impairment of speech,
hearing, walking, and muscle weakness (EPA, 2009). While some studies conclude that
mercury emissions are lower than previously thought (Chu & Porcella, 1995), it is a fact
that mercury emissions are produced in coal-burning power plants, and burning more
coal in these same plants will produce more mercury emissions.
Numerous studies have been done that document the relationship between clean
air and health. A recent study says cleaner air lengthens lives. The federally funded study
concluded that cleaner air over the past two decades has added nearly five months to
average life expectancy in the United States. Communities that had larger reductions in
air pollution on average had larger increases in life expectancies (Pope, Ezzati, &
Dockery, 2009).
Scientists have long known that particulates in the air can lodge in the lungs and
raise the risk oflung disease, heart attacks and strokes. The composition of these
particulates is generally dust, soot, and various chemicals that come from factories,
power plants and vehicles. Deaths from air pollution, including indoor and outdoor
sources, have been ranked as one of the top 10 causes of disability by the World Health
Organization (WHO) (Murray & Lopez, 1998). In 1995, WHO estimated that 460,000
avoidable deaths globally occur each year as a result of suspended particulate matter,
largely from outdoor urban exposures (World Health Organization [WHO], 1997). Urban
exposure to particulates is amplified by motor vehicles that emit particulate matter along
16
with a variety ofother pollutants. Studies in urban areas suggest that motor vehicles
contribute from 25 % to 35 % of direct particulate matter emissions, and concentrations
near busy roads can be 30 % higher than background levels (Buckeridge, Glazier,
Harvey, Escobar, & Frank, 2002). Living in residences near busy streets results in an
increased exposure to particulates and other pollutants which contribute to poorer
respiratory health.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell ZEVs
One strategy for reducing greenhouse gas and air pollution emissions is to use
renewable energy to meet energy needs and to support the use of hydrogen to meet future
zero-emissions transportation needs (Clark et at, 2005). Currently, the United States
Department ofEnergy Hydrogen Program is focused on advancing cost-effective,
efficient production of hydrogen from renewable, fossil and nuclear energy resources
(USDOE, 2009).
Hydrogen as a gas (H2) does not exist on earth. It always is combined with other
elements. Because hydrogen does not exist on earth as a gas, energy must be used to
extract the hydrogen from the elements with which it is combined. Currently, most
hydrogen in the United States, and about half of the world's hydrogen supply, is produced
through the steam reforming of natural gas. In total, about 95 % ofUS. hydrogen
production is produced from natural gas using steam reforming technology (USDQE,
2008). All ofOregon's approximately 30 million cubic feet of hydrogen used each year is
imported because there are no commercial hydrogen generation plants in Oregon (ODOE,
17
2005) and Oregon imports 100 % of its natural gas, mainly from Canada and the Rocky
Mountain states (ODOE, 2008). Steam reformation of natural gas represents only a
modest reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions as compared to emissions from
current hybrid vehicles, and ultimately only exchanges oil imports for natural gas imports
(Turner 2004). A dependence on imported natural gas for hydrogen generation would
leave hydrogen-powered transportation vulnerable to the same price and supply issues as
imported oil (Karimi, 2008). Furthermore, it does not decrease our reliance on fossil fuels
to meet our energy needs, nor does a dependence on fossil fuels make hydrogen
sustainable. Finally, such dependence does not produce a ZEV.
Hydrogen derived from the electrolysis ofwater is extremely pure hydrogen, and
the production of hydrogen from renewable energy sources will free the energy system
from carbon (Dunn 2002). With this form ofpure hydrogen derived from electrolysis via
renewable energy, a fuel cell vehicle is a true zero-emission vehicle, producing only
water as byproduct. This means that no greenhouse gases are emitted in the hydrogen
generation and use.
Studies have shown that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles may improve air quality,
health, and climate significantly, whether the hydrogen is produced by steam reforming
of natural gas, wind electrolysis, or coal gasification (Jacobson, 2005). However,
generating hydrogen by any method aside from renewable energy creates emission
changes upstream ofvehicles. The use of coal gasification in particular would damage the
climate more than current fossil/electric hybrids (Jacobson, 2005). The overall emissions
costs of these upstream non-renewable sources do not outweigh their localized benefits
18
because the emissions are only externalized to some other place and will ultimately
further contribute to GHG increases and downstream water and environmental issues.
Moreover, there are equity issues involved when one region lowers its emissions by
increasing the emissions of another area.
Emissions Reductions in a Regional Context
Emissions do not stay within a region's boundaries and they can adversely impact
some people more so than others (Maantay 2002). Since a spatial relationship exists
between pollution and health, what are some benefits of regional involvement in
emissions reductions?
According to a recent report by Portland based Clean-edge Inc. and Climate
Solutions, the Northwest can generate more than 63,000 new family supporting jobs by
focusing on five clean technology areas: solar PV manufacturing, green building design,
sustainable bioenergy, wind power, and "smart grid" technologies. Furthermore, the
Pacific Northwest can seize a leadership role in the clean-tech economy by taking
advantage of our already high percentage of renewable energy and make Oregon and
Washington world-class leaders in carbon-free electricity (Wilder & Gauntlett, 2008). In
a future where a competitive advantage may exist to those with the most carbon-free
electricity generation, a proverbial "win-win" situation where the economy, the
environment, and equity prosper because of a regional involvement in emissions
reductions appears to be not only possible in the Pacific Northwest but more feasible than
in most other regions in the U.S.
19
Regional Solutions to Emissions Reductions
The State of Oregon's"A Framework for Addressing Rapid Climate Change"
(State of Oregon, 2008) embraces regional involvement in emissions reductions:
The earth's climate is undergoing unprecedented change as a result of
human activity, and this change will have significant effects on all
Oregonians, their families, their communities, and their workplaces. A
broad scientific consensus tells us that climate change is accelerating, and
that it is happening at a speed that was unanticipated even recently. It is
urgent that we act now, both to reduce the cause of this earth-transforming
crisis by rapidly driving towards a low-carbon economy, and to begin to
prepare for and adapt to the changes that mitigation cannot prevent. Ifwe
as Oregonians rise to this challenge and make intelligent and well-
informed choices, we can minimize the most adverse impacts ofchanging
weather patterns on our lives while producing many benefits - including
economic opportunities - by leading the world to an environmentally
sustainable and globally competitive state economy.
The multidisciplinary group that drafted Oregon's Renewable Action Plan (ODOE 2005),
the precursor to Oregon's Renewable Energy Portfolio, concluded:
Oregon is already making use of renewable technologies including hydro,
wind, direct use ofgeothermal, biomass, and solar. But it can and must do
better. By building on these achievements with the actions as outlined in
this Renewable Energy Action Plan (the Plan), Oregon will continue to be
a leader on renewable energy policy and will meet a large fraction of its
energy needs with new renewables by the year 2025. The Plan also will
playa central role in furthering the Governor's initiatives on sustainability
and global warming. The Plan complements the state's energy efficiency
programs.
Oregon has recognized a relationship between emissions reduction, technology, and gains
in the economy, the environment, and equity (the triple bottom line). Oregon's
greenhouse gas emissions have grown by 22 % from 1990 levels, and Oregon emissions
20
growth has been greater than the U. S. as a whole (State of Oregon, 2008). Oregon's
leaders and planners are actively seeking ways to reduce regional emissions for the public
good.
Iceland's Implementation ofHydrogen and Renewable Energy
Iceland is an international leader in the use ofhydrogen (Amason & Sigfusson,
2000). Iceland is the first country in the world to commit to replacing fossil fuels with
hydrogen. Since World War II, Iceland has made a rapid change from relying on
imported fossil fuels to its present situation of meeting more than 70 % of its energy
needs with renewable energy (Sverrisd6ttir, 2006). Among the countries of the world,
Iceland has the highest proportion ofrenewable energy in any energy portfolio
(University of Iceland, 2007). Iceland lies on top of the Mid-Atlantic ridge and therefore
has natural access to the magma heated steam necessary for the wide-scale development
ofgeothermal electricity. Iceland's unique geographic location also allows for abundant
hydropower. This, along with their low population makes it possible for them to have the
highest proportion of renewable energy. The Icelandic research community is working
hard to improve this ratio of renewable energy generation, as well as considering ways to
sequester the greenhouse gases emitted from fossil fuel sources. Iceland uses electrolysis
to make hydrogen and the hydrogen is electrolyzed from water with renewable energy
(Maack & Skulason 2006).
Iceland recognized the need for the development of a common vision toward a
transformation of the Icelandic economy into one based on hydrogen when the
21
government of Iceland officially declared this as its goal in a statement by the Minister of
Environmental Affairs, founding The Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Company on February 17,
1999 (Amason & Sigfusson, 2000). The purpose of this company was to set up a joint
venture to investigate the potential for eventually replacing the use of fossil fuels in
Iceland with hydrogen. This would allow Iceland could become a pilot country for
demonstration of the hydrogen economy (Amason & Sigfusson, 2000) The Hydrogen and
Fuel Cell Company soon changed its name to Icelandic New Energy (INE).
INE is the promoter for using hydrogen as a fuel in the transportation sector in
Iceland and is responsible for all major practical research on hydrogen in Iceland.
INE was in charge ofECTOS, the Ecological City Transport System. This 4lh-year
project started on March 1,2001 and ended August 30,2005. The overall objective of the
ECTOS project was to tackle the problem oflocal urban pollution by using hydrogen for
powering part of the transport sector with hydrogen fuel cell buses. The purpose of the
ECTOS project was to demonstrate and evaluate a hydrogen-based infrastructure for
public transport vehicles and the operation of pollution-free hydrogen buses in a carbon
dioxide free environment in Reykjavik, Iceland (Skulason, 2005). INE and Iceland
demonstrated that three fuel cell buses could transport in a carbon dioxide free nature, i.e.
the production of hydrogen and the running ofthe fuel cell buses add no greenhouse
gases to the environment. Furthermore, through their work, INE has demonstrated the
integration of the infrastructure at a conventional gasoline station.
The infrastructure preparation involved building a hydrogen refueling station
integrated into a Shell facility on the outskirts ofReykjavik (Sigfusson, 2007). According
22
to INE, this station, the Gtj6thals station, has a total production capacity of 125 kg a day.
"The station produces 60Nm3 every hour during operation. It was scaled to be able to fill
3 hydrogen buses daily, so that they could keep up their 150 - 200km schedule on the
filling. Another way to describe the scale ofthe station is that it could produce enough H2
to satisfy up to 600 personal cars in general operation. During the bus testing about 25 kg
of hydrogen were filled onto the bus cylinders before they went into service. The cars that
now drive in Reykjavik take about 2-4 kg of hydrogen each time" (Icelandic New
Energy, 2008). "During the operation of the station in the ECTOS project the station
provided the buses with 17.342 kg of hydrogen and in that sense saved the use of almost
50 tons of diesel fuel. In general the project partners are satisfied with this outcome and
the valuable learning from operating the world's first commercial hydrogen station"
(Skulason, 2005). Since 125 kg of hydrogen a day being dispersed in 3 kg allotments to
cars would only meet the needs of40 or so cars a day, this study assume INE is figuring
on each car only needing to fill up every two weeks or so.
Jon Bjorn Skulason, Icelandic New Energy, concludes in his, "ECTOS,
Ecological City Transport System," final public report (Skulason, 2005):
Setting out goals and objectives of a project of this size and nature was a
difficult thing 4l!z years ago. However the project partners agree that a
successful demonstration has taken place, proving that the current stage of
technology can be integrated into the modern society of today. In Iceland
it has also been demonstrated that this has been done in a CO2free nature,
Le. the production ofhydrogen and the running of the fuel cell buses add
no greenhouse gases to the environment. Integrating the infrastructure has
also been successfully proven at a conventional gasoline station, in a pre-
commercial way. The strategic goal was also to show in what way the
future society might benefit in social, economic and environmental terms
by using hydrogen as a fuel instead of conventional fossil fuels.
23
Throughout the project it has been shown that social and environmental
benefits are very visible. However, the current stage of technology does
not yet make it commercially economical. Indications are though that the
cost of the new technology will come down in the near future and
therefore not far into the future the city of tomorrow will benefit in social,
economical and environmental way by using hydrogen instead of fossil
fuels.
At the moment, Iceland is reeling from its economic collapse which began in 2008. It is
quite possible this collapse will delay Iceland from meeting its immediate energy goals of
replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen. It is unclear at this time how Iceland's ultimate goal
of replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen around the year 2050 (Sigfusson, 2007) will be
affected by their recent economic problems.
Summary
Seventeen years ago the Union ofConcerned Scientists issued a statement that put
us all on notice (Union ofConcerned Scientists, 1992):
We the undersigned, senior members of the world's scientific community,
hereby warn all humanity ofwhat lies ahead. A great change in our
stewardship of the earth and the life on it is required if vast human misery
is to be avoided and our global home on this planet is not to be
irretrievably mutilated.
Today, environmental issues as they relate to GHG emissions and climate change are
even more pressing. For planners, ZEVs pose a wicked problem with no definitive
formulation. Every problem can be considered a symptom of another problem and can be
explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the
problem's resolution and this study has attempted to explain this problem in terms of
using technology for overall emissions reductions because of the potential of future
24
transportation to impact future electricity generation and its accompanying emissions.
The consensus of scientists about the ramifications ofa continued increase in GHG
emissions and the accompanying changes in the global climate creates a situation where
the planner has no right to be wrong (Rittel & Webber, 1984). This literature review has
listed many ofthe dangers involved with increased vehicle emissions while showing an
alternative for planners to consider when implementing future transportation plans. If
zero emissions are the desired end goal of the planner, then the Icelandic example of the
Grj6thals station and its renewable electricity needs for the generation of 125 kg of
hydrogen a day is a good model for Oregon's transportation and energy planners.
25
CHAPTER III
REGIONAL PROFILES
Comparison of Oregon and Iceland
In evaluating the renewable energy needs of the Gtj6thals hydrogen fueling
station in Reykjavik, Iceland, this thesis refers to the "Icelandic Example." Briefly stated,
this example is to use renewable energy to generate and compress the hydrogen necessary
for the Gtj6thals hydrogen fueling station in Reykj avik, and to do so onsite to avoid
transmitting the hydrogen from its generating facility to its distribution facility. If the
hydrogen is made on site, then transmission (pipeline, trucking) is not necessary. What is
necessary is renewable electricity for electrolysis being fed into the grid upstream ofthe
fueling station. As long as the necessary amount ofrenewable energy generation is
ending up at the proper distributor, then onsite hydrogen through electrolysis (in that
distributor's region) is zero-emissions hydrogen. Under this scenario, the cost of
hydrogen is determined by the cost ofelectricity and not the cost ofgeneration plus the
pipelines and/or trucking. Since this study used Iceland's Grj6thals hydrogen fueling
station as a model for Oregon, it was important to first understand some ofthe similarities
26
and differences between the two regions. The comparison between Iceland's and
Oregon's renewable energy potential is not novel. Ormat Technologies, Inc, a company
active in the design, engineering, supply, installation, support and operation of renewable
and sustainable energy products, in a July 23,2007 presentation in Portland, Oregon on
Getting Geothermal Electricity PrC?jects On Line, which is posted on the State of
Oregon's website, 1 assessed Oregon's geothermal potential. During their presentation, the
spokesman for Ormat wondered, "Could Oregon become another Iceland? Could
Oregon's existing resources, wind, tidal, biomass, solar, and geothermal resources make
Oregon perhaps the most sustainable/carbon neutral state in the US." (Fleishman, 2007)?
External factors related to historical, demographic, and energy portfolio
characteristics presented in this chapter assist in revealing the potential for Oregon to
follow the Icelandic example of hydrogen generation at its Grj6thilJs hydrogen fueling
station. This chapter summarizes both key similarities and differences relevant to this
study.
Settlement and Growth
A geographical context of Iceland and Oregon shows Iceland as having an area of
39,756 square miles and an estimated population of 276,365 in 2000. The Icelandic
government reports that 99 % of the population lives in urban areas and 60 % ofthe
people reside in the republic's capital, Reykjavik, or in suburban areas directly outside of
the city (Icelandic Foreign Service, 2008). While Oregon has an area of 97,074 square
1 http://www.oregon.govIENERGYIRENEW/Geothennalldocs/OGWG8_0RMAT
27
miles and a 2000 census estimated population of3,421,399, 70 % of Oregon's population
lives in the Willamette Valley (Kline, Azuma, & Alig, 2004) and 54 % ofthe population
resides in the greater Portland area.2 Iceland's 2008 estimated population growth rate is
0.783 % and its net migration rate is 1.13 migrants per 1000 population (Central
Intelligence Agency [CIA], 2008). Oregon's population growth rate is currently
declining, possibly due to economic conditions. Its 2006-07 population growth rate was
1.5 % (down from 1.6 % the previous fiscal year) (Oregon Labor Market Information
System, 2008) and its 2007-08 population growth rate is 1.2 % (portland State University
Population Research Center [PSU], 2008). According to Portland State University,
"Between April 1, 2000 and July 1,2007, net migration (people moving into Oregon
minus people leaving) is estimated to be 212,062 and accounts for 65 % ofthe total
population growth. Between 1990 and 2000 that percentage was 73 %, but in the early
2000s, it dropped to 56 %. Migration primarily is driven by the state of the economy.
When Oregon's economy is strong, net migration increases as people move here to take
advantage of employment opportunities. When the economy goes into recession, in-
migration flows slow down (pSU, 2009). Oregon's 2007 net migration rate is 3 migrants
per 1000 population?
While Iceland and Oregon are both experiencing a slowdown in their economies,
Iceland is an island nation and Oregon is not. This has a profound effect on the ability of
2 Assumption: Metropolitan Area Residents (PMSA) 2000: 1,874,449 divided by Oregon's 2000 census
population
3Assumptions based on PSU 2007 Oregon population report statistics and a 2007 Oregon population of
3,745,455 with a net migration of 37,752
28
people to move into and out of Iceland in comparison to the ability of people to move
into and out of Oregon from other states in the U.S.
Energy Use
Iceland has the highest electricity consumption, per capita, of any country in the
world with 31,147.292 kWh (NationMaster, 2009).4 The United States has the ninth
highest electricity consumption, per capita, of any country in the world with 12,924.224
kWh per capita (NationMaster, 2009). Aluminum smelters require vast amounts of
electricity. There are currently three aluminum smelters in Iceland, with a fourth under
construction and others planned. Because of this, electricity consumption has more than
doubled in recent years creating the situation where Iceland now uses more power per
person than any other country in the world (Economist, 2008).
Residential Electricity Consumption Per Capita in Oregon's homes has stayed
relatively flat since 1981. Its 2005 per capita consumption of electricity in Oregon homes
was 5,052 kWh, ranking it 25 out of the 50 U.S. states (USDOE, 2008). During the
1990s, industrial per capita use declined 24 %. This was largely due to plant closures or
reduced output from mills and aluminum smelters. By the end of2002, both of Oregon's
aluminum smelters were closed, one permanently (ODOE, 2007). Affordable and
available electricity is a need for aluminum smelters. Hydropower is, and has been, a
source of such electricity. Oregon purchases the electricity from the aluminum companies
who have long-term contracts from the Bonneville Power Administration because this is
4 NationMaster is a vast compilation of data from such sources as the CIA World Factbook, UN, and
DECO.
29
cheaper than building new generation facilities. The smelters sell their electricity rights
because they make a profit in doing so without the need for production of aluminum and
they can foresee future need and rate increases. Smelters have relocated to Iceland to
capitalize off of Iceland's low-priced and abundant hydropower. This process has
lowered Oregon's per capita energy consumption while raising Iceland's per capita
energy consumption.
Iceland has seven energy companies, Akureyri Municipal Water and Power
Company (Nor5urorka), Hitaveita Su5umesja, Husavik Energy (Orkuveita Husavikur),
Iceland State Electricity (RARIK), Landsvirkjun, Westfjord Power Company (Orkubu
Vestfjar5a), and Reykjavik Energy (Orkuveita Reykjavikur) (Orkustofnun - National
Energy Authority ofIceland [NEAl], 2007). Reykjavik Energy is Iceland's largest
utility, providing almost 70 % ofthe country's population with electric power (ABB
Group, 2008).
The three main providers ofelectricity in Oregon are the investor-owned utilities
Portland General Electric (PGE) and Pacific Power (a PacifiCorp company), and the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), a federal power marketing agency. Pacific
Power serves 31 % of Oregon's electric utility load, providing power to more than
486,000 customers. PGE serves 40 % ofOregon's electric utility load, providing power
to about 733,000 customers. Idaho Power, another investor-owned utility, serves about 1
% of Oregon's electric load (OnOE, 2007). Together, these three investor-owned utilities
account for almost three-quarters of Oregon's electricity supply. The Bonneville Power
Administration provides power to Oregon's 36 consumer-owned utilities as well as to
30
direct-service industrial customers, such as aluminum smelters. Consumer-owned utilities
include people's utility districts, municipally owned utilities and electric cooperatives
(ODOE, 2007).
Energy Portfolios
According to Orkustofnun, the National Energy Authority ofIceland, "only 20 to 25 % of
the technically and environmentally feasible hydropower, and only 20 % ofthe
conventional geothermal potential available for electricity production in Iceland, have
been harnessed" (NEAl, 2007). This leaves Iceland with considerable room to develop
renewable energy sources for end use. Iceland's aluminum industry uses more Gigawatt
Hours5 each year then all of Iceland's other electricity consumers combined (NEAl,
2007). In sum, Iceland's installed capacity and generation ofgeothermal and hydropower
electricity continues to rise to meet an increasing demand, while fossil fuel for electricity
generation continues to diminish. Data from Orkustofnun, the National Energy Authority
ofIceland on Iceland's Energy Portfolios for the years 2005 and 2006 is used in Figures
3-1 through 3-9 to illustrate this trend.
5 A unit of electrical energy equal to one billion watt hours.
31
Figure 3-1. Installed Co pacity in Iceland, 2006
Total installed capacity of Iceland's
power plants 2006, by percentage
7%
2. %
68%
HydropolNer
G othermal
Fuel
Figure 3-__ Installed ap city in iceland, 006
Total installed capacity of Iceland's
power plants 2006, in MW
Fuel
Geotherrna I
Hydropower
a 200 400 600 300 1,000 1,200 1,400
T tal installed capacity of
power plan s 2006 MW
Hydropower
1,162
Geothermal
422
Fuel
113
32
Figure 3-3. Installed Capacity i Icela <.1,200
Total installed capacity of Iceland's
power plants 2005, by percentage
8%
Hydropower
Geothermal
Fuel
77%
Figure 3-4. Install d Ca acity in I eland, 2005
Total installed capacity of Iceland's
power plants 2005, in MW
Fuel
Geothermal
Hydropower
o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Total installed capacity of
power plants 005 MW
Hydropower
1159
Geothermal
232
Fuel
115
33
Figure 3-5. Electricity Generation in Iceland, 2006
Icelandic electricity generation
2006, by percentage
0%
7%
Hydropower
Geoth rrnal
Fuel
73%
Fig Ire -6 ~l tricity Gene ation in Iceland, 2006
Elect icity generation 2006, in GWh
Fuel
Geothermal
Hydropower
a 1000 20 0 . 000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Electricity generation
2006 GWh
Hydropower
7289
Geothermal
2631
Fuel
5
34
Pi ure 3-7. Electricity Genera i n in Iceland, 200
Icelandic elect icity generation
2005, by percentage
0%
L %
Hydropower
Geothermal
Fuel
83.%
fig re 3-8. Electricity Generatio in Iceland, 2005
Electricity generation 2005, in GWh
Fuel
Geothermal
Hydropower
a 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Electricity generation
2005 GWh
Hydropower
7014
Geothermal
1658
Fuel
8
35
Figure 3-9. New Electricity Generation in Iceland
Icelandic Energy Sources that have
come online since 2006
800
700
III 600
:t 500III
~ 400III
till 300(II~ 200
100
a
eothermal-
Hellisheidi II
MW 34
Geothermal-
Hellisheidi Iii
90
Hydropower-
Karahnjukar
690
Hydropower-
Lagarfoss II
19
Energy conservati n is th fOLmdation of Oregon's energy policy (ODOE, 2008).
Because of energy conservation and th electricity made available due to pIa t closures
o reduced output from ills and alu inurn smelters, Or Jon's energy P0l1folios have
not experienced the rapid change that Iceland's hav the last 2 years. The average
annual increas in Oregon electricity consumptior 1980-2005 was only 0.8 % (USDOE,
2008). Oregon's hydroelectric system is considered to be built, meaning the addition of
more dams in Oregon is 110t consid"red to be feasible. There is variability in any dam's
electricity generation depending un the hyd 'ology, and other factors, during the year. The
mean average for the 16 year period 1990-2006 is 39,709,412 MWh.6 This creates the
need fo Oregon to install other means of generation to meet the energy requirements
ab v and b yond con ervation and redistTibution, and to compensate for the fluctuations
inherent in Ore on's hydrolo ',Or g n currently CJenerates 110 geothermal electricity. It
ha' about a dozen areas that are known to be able t produce eothermal electricity.
Oregon's high-temperature geothermal areas hav the potential for about 2,200 MW of
electric power (USDOE, 2005). Ore on's only nuclear power plant w nt offline in 1993
6 A unit of electrical energy eqlla to one million "vall hours.
36
an natural gas, coal, and renewable energies have increased to compensate LOr this an
to meet an incr se i demand due to p puI- tion growth. Data fron the US Depart lent
of Energy's EneI' y Information Admi istration on Oregon'.' energy ort lios is used in
Figures 3-] 0 throuh 3-15 to illustrate Oregon' , ene gy consumption and en ration.
figure 3-10. Oregon Llectricity onslUnption, 200
Oregon Electricity Consumption by
Sector 200
0%
33%
4 %
27
Figure 3-11. Oregon Electricity Consumption, 2005
Commercial
Industrial
Residentia I
Transportation
Oregon Electricity Consumption by
Sector 2005, in MWh
18338000
15379000
12683000
54000
Commercial Industrial Residential Transportation
Oregon Electricity Consumption by Sector 2005 MWh
37
Figure 3-12. Electricity Generation in Oregon, 2006
Electricity Generation 2006, in GWh (rounded)
Other
Other Renewables
Hydroelectric
Nuclear
Natural Gas
Petroleum
Coal
o 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000
Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Nuclear OtherHydroelectric Renewables Other
GWh 2371 12 11193 o 37850 1870 40
Figure 3-1 . EI ctricity Gen ration in Oregon, 2005
Electricity Generation 2005, in GWh (rounded)
Other
Other Renewables
Hyd roelectric
Nuclear
Natural Gas
Petroleum
al
o 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000
Coal Petroleum Natural Gas Nuclear
Other
Hydroelectric Renewables Other
GWh 3467 78 13150 o 30948 1642 40
38
foigure -14. Sixteen-Year Oregon H droelectric Generation
Hydroelectric generation 1990-2006
50,000,000
45,000,000
40,000,000
35,000,000
30,000,000
MWh 25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000
°
Year
Hydroelectric
Fig re 3-15. Si teel-Y ar Oregon Trend in Coal, Natural Gas, and Not -Hydroelectric
Renewable Energy Oeneratio
Oregon Coal, Natural Gas, and Renewable
Energy Generation, 1990-2006
16,000,000
14,000,000
12,000,000
10,000,000
MWh 8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
° 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
Year
Coal
Natural s
Non-Hydro
Renewables
39
Figur 3-16. Sixt en-Year Oregon Trend i N' tural Gas and IJydroclec ric Energy
Generation
Natural Gas and Hydroelectric
Generation in Oregon J 1990-2006
50000000
40000000
MW
30000000
20000000
10000000
o
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 IS 17
Year
Natural Gas
Hydroelectric
Figu e 3-17. 2008 A ,tive Oregon Geolhelmal Projects
Phase I: Identifying site, secured rights to resource, initial exploration drilling
• City of Klamath Falls - 1 W (Distributed Generation Project) - City of Klamath Falls
• Ge heat Center at the Oreg n Institute of Technology (01 ) - 1.2 MW - OfT
o Liskey Greenhouse .. 10 MW .. Raser Technologies
o Hood River County .. 20 MW (Pending Action of Volume /I of the PElS) - PGE
• Willamette .. 20 MW (P nding Action of Volume II of the PElS) .. Estate of Max Millis
• Hood River County .. 30 MW (Pending Action of Volume II of he PElS) - PGE
• Willamette .. 30 MW (Pending Action of Volume II of the PElS) - Estate of Max Millis
Phase II: Exploratory drilling and confirmation underway; PPA not secured
• Neal Hot Springs - 25-30 MW .. U.s. Geothermal
Phase III: Securing PPA and final permits
• Ge heat Center at the Oregon Institut of TechnoJogy (01 ) .. 0.2 MW ( istributed
Gene ation Project) - orr
• Crump Geyser .. 40-60 MW .. Nevada Geothe mal Power
• Newberry Geothermal-120 MW·· Davenport Power, U.S. Renewables Group, Riverstone
Phase IV: Production drilling underway; facility under construction
• None as of August 2008
Source: Geothennal Energy Associatio (Geothermal Energy Association. 2008).
40
Summary
Oregon's population, population growth rate, and net migration rate are
substantially higher than Iceland's. Both Oregon and Iceland generate the majority of
their electricity using hydropower. Oregon's hydroelectric system is essentially
developed, while Iceland's hydroelectric system has ample room to grow. Oregon's
geothermal potential could feasibly grow to 2,200 MW which is less than Iceland had in
2006, and Iceland's geothermal generation has the potential to grow by another 80 %.
Oregon is able to export hydroelectricity to neighboring states. Iceland, as an island
nation, is unable to export its excess generated electricity. Because of this, Iceland uses
its abundance of electricity as a natural resource to lure industries that require large
amounts of energy, like aluminum smelters. Historically, Oregon used its abundance of
affordable hydroelectric power as a natural resource to lure industries that required large
amounts of energy, like aluminum smelters. Recently, Oregon has increasingly used
conservation and imported natural gas to meet its generation needs. Iceland imports all of
its fossil fuels and has placed an emphasis on using renewable energy to meet its energy
needs instead of importing fossil fuels to meet its energy needs.
41
CHAPTER IV
METHODOLOGY
Given the significance of the zero-emissions renewable energy generation
necessary for ZEVs in both Iceland and Oregon, information from the Grj6thaIs fueling
station provides an opportunity to examine the effects on Oregon's renewable energy
installation needs. The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the supply of renewable
energy necessary for zero-emissions fuel cell vehicles in Oregon. Specifically, Oregon, in
contrast to Iceland, has a developed hydroelectric system and increasingly has been using
imported natural gas to meet its energy requirements. This situation, along with a desire
for lower emissions, encourages the development of renewable energy in Oregon.
The following questions guided this research: (1) What are the energy
requirements for Iceland's zero-emissions hydrogen fueling station; (2) How many
vehicles can such a station serve; and (3) How much installed solar and wind capacities
will Oregon need to follow Iceland's Grj6thals example? In order to answer these
questions, energy data was used to systematically evaluate the research questions. The
following key steps represent the basic methodological approach:
42
1. Convert the Grj6thals data into kWh7 required.
2. Size the appropriate photovoltaic array based on the Grj6thals data.
3. Size the appropriate amount ofwind turbines based on the GIj6thals data.
4. Analyze Oregon's energy generation, energy use, and renewable energy portfolio.
5. Scale the Grj6thals data from Iceland to Oregon.
6. Scale the Grj6thals data to Oregon's electricity providers.
Conversion ofGrj6thals Data
The initial step in this study was to define a unit of measurement that would be
consistent throughout the study and all of its necessary conversions. Kilowatt hours
(kWh) are the standard unit of energy for both gas and electricity consumption and
generation. Since this study needed to convert the Grj6thals data and make it applicable
to Oregon's renewable energy needs, it was imperative to choose the proper unit of
measurement so the data could easily be tied to vehicle and energy needs.
Ofthe available Grj6thals data given by Jon Bjorn Skulason ofIcelandic New
Energy, this study focuses on the amount ofhydrogen the station could produce each day.
According to Jon Bjorn, "We spend 5.2 kWh to produce 1 Nm3 8 and we need roughly 11
Nm3 for 1 kg9 hydrogen." This amount of electricity used includes compression of the
hydrogen. Jon Bjorn also stated the Grj6thals hydrogen fueling station uses an
electrolyzer with an efficiency of75 % (Electrolyzers make hydrogen by passing an
7 A standard unit of electricity or consumption equal to 1000 watts over one hour.
g A normal cubic meter is a unit of mass for gases equal to the mass of 1 cubic meter at a pressure of 1
atmosphere and at a standard temperature.
9 A kilogram is the base unit of mass in the International System, equal to 1,000 grams (2.2046 pounds).
43
electric current through water containing an electrolyte.), and this is included in the
amount ofelectricity used. With this data, this study was able to ascertain the electricity
requirements necessary to make 125 kg of hydrogen at the Grj6thals station.
Figure 4-1. Energy Conversion for Zero-Emissions Fueling Station
• 5.2 kWh to produce 1 Nm3 of hydrogen
• 57.2 kWh to produce 1 kg of hydrogen
• 57.2 kWh multiplied by 125 kg = 7150 kWh to make 125 kg
hydrogen
For the next step of the conversion process this study needed to convert the needs
ofthree fuel cell buses at the Grj6tbals hydrogen fueling station into the number of fuel
cell ZEVs in Oregon. By taking the ODOT year 2000 total vehicle miles travelled (VMT)
and dividing them by Oregon's 2000 census population, this study defined the average
VMT each year by an Oregonian. This number was divided by 365 to get the average
VMT a day. This number was verified through research, and found to be consistent with
multiple sources that listed Oregon's daily average VMT as being 16 miles.
Figure 4-2. Oregon's daily VMT assumptions
• Vehicle Miles Traveled year 2000 (ODOT, 2007) =
20,450,700,000
• Oregon's 2000 census population = 3,421,399
• 20,450,700,000/3,421,399 =5,977
• 5,977/365 =16 average Oregon VMT per day
44
To merge the VMT data into the number of cars the model Grj6tha1s hydrogen
fueling station could meet the daily needs of, this study based its assumption ofthe
average mileage per gallon on an evaluation done by Popular Mechanics. Popular
Mechanics evaluated the Chevy fuel cell vehicle over 3 months and 35 fill-ups and
determined that the Equinox averaged more than 41 miles per gallon. 10
Figure 4-3. Number ofVehicles Served Based on Oregon Average VMT
• 125 kg a day = approximate energy equivalent of 100 gallons
ofgasoline
• Average VMT/day in Oregon = 16 miles
• Average mpg for fuel cell = 41
• 100 Gals ofgas/day times 41 mpg/day = 4100 miles/day
• 4100 miles/day / 16 miles/day = 256 average vehicles
In conclusion, to drive 4100 miles a day (256 vehicles) requires 7150 kWh/day of
electric generation.
Solar Assumptions
Research data from Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC), a research institute of
the University ofCentral Florida (FSEC, 2007), allows for 1 kg of hydrogen to require 51
kWh ofphotovoltaic (PV) electricity, assuming 10 % PV efficiency, 5 hours ofPV
generation a day, and electrolyzer efficiency (Be) of65 %.
10 Chevy Equinox evaluation done by Popular Mechanics: over 41 average mpg over 3 months and 35 fill-
ups. Retrieved on March 16,2009, from
http://www·poPularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4276771.html
45
Figure 4-4. Energy Conversion to PV Requirement
• 1 kg of hydrogen = 51 kWh using an Ee of 65 %
• 51 kWh * 125/day = 6375 kWh/day
• 6375 kWh/day /5 hours/day = 1275 kWp
Assuming 1 kWpll requires approximately 10 square meters in area for PV at 10
% efficiency, the resulting PV array would need to cover an area an area roughly 375 feet
by 370 feet (an American football field, including end zones, is a 160 feet wide by 360
feet long).
Table 4-5. Sizing ofRequired PV Array
• 1 kWp requires approximately 10 square meters in area for
PV at 10 % efficiency.
• 12750 square meters necessary for installation
• 12750 m2 = 137,241 square feet, or an area roughly 375
feet by 370 feet.
In conclusion, to drive 4100 miles a day (256 vehicles) requires 1275 kWp or
1.275 MW ofPV generation and 137,241 square feet of space.
11 A kilowatt peak is the PV generator's peak power at maximum solar radiation under Standard Test
Conditions.
46
Wind Assumptions
Assuming 1 kg of hydrogen equals 60 kWh ofwind generation, 12 including
electrolysis and compression efficiency (Bartholomy' 2004),13 the needs for 125 kg of
hydrogen a day would be 7500 kWh/day or 7.5 MW.
According to the Oregon Department ofEnergy, the average output from a 1.5
MW wind farm turbine in Oregon is 4 million kWh/year, and a 1.5 MW wind turbine in a
wind farm requires half of an acre (ODOE, 2007).
Figure 4-6. Sizing ofRequired 1.5 MW Wind Turbines
• 1 kg ofhydrogen = 60 kWh (includes electrolysis and
compression efficiency)
• 60 kWh * 125/day = 7500 kWh/day or 7.5 MW
• Average output from a 1.5 MW wind farm turbine in Oregon
= 4 million kWh/year or 10,959 kWh/day
• 11 MW/day = 7 (1.5 MW) turbines
• A 1.5 MW wind turbine in a wind farm takes. 5 acres.
• 7 wind turbines require 3.5 acres
In conclusion, to drive 4100 miles a day (256 vehicles) requires seven 1.5 MW
wind turbines and 3.5 acres in one ofOregon's existing wind farms.
12 Assumption based on infonnation from the Basin Electric Power Cooperative as provided to the
Legislative Committee of North Dakota, the American Hydrogen Association, and the Electric Power
Research Institute. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-2007/docsipdf/edt030508appendixf.pdf
http://www.hydrogenassociation.orglgenerallepriHugl16_Rebenitsch.pdf
13 Assumption based on hydrogen potential in kg/day assuming electrolysis and compression efficiency 60
kWhlkgH2 by wind generation in California, and in consideration of the above assumption.
47
Oregon Renewable Energy Analysis
Analysis of The U.S. Department ofEnergy's Energy Information Administration
(EIA) and The Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC) data on Oregon's
energy portfolio, its energy generation, and its energy use does allow for the separation of
Oregon's renewable energy from hydropower, and its energy use from its energy
generation. The EIA data for renewable energy (excluding hydropower) is not broken
down by type. Therefore, this data is inclusive of all types of renewable energy
generation in Oregon, which the NPCC lists as being biomass, solar, and wind. Use ofthe
NPCC allowed for the filtering of biomass from solar and wind data. Biomass has the
potential to reduce air pollution by being a part of the carbon cycle, potentially reducing
carbon dioxide emissions by 90 % compared with fossil fuels. However, it still produces
emissions, including sulfur dioxide (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2009). Because of
this fact, this study has not used biomass energy generation in its ZEV methodology.
NPCC data shows Oregon's installed MW capacity of biomass energy generation as
being 225 MW (Northwest Power and Conservation Council [NPCC], 2009). Oregon's
installed MW capacity of solar and wind energy generation is 1211.2 MW (NPCC,
2009).Table 4-7 lists Oregon's solar and wind generation.
48
Table 4-1. Solar and Wind Generation in Oregon
Oregon Solar and Wind Generation, 500 kW capacity or greater (Megawatts)
Installed Average
Capacity Energy Status Resource
MW MWal~ (Oct. 2008) Type
Kettle Foods , 0.1 , 0.0 Operating , Solar, ,, ,
Pepsi Solar , 0.2 , Operating , Solar,,
Portland Habilitation Center , 0.9 , : Construction : Solar,,
Biglow Canyon Ph I , 125.4 , Operating , WindI ,,
Combine Hills I , 41.0 14.0 , Operating , Wind
·
,
,
Condon 49.8 , 12.0 Operating , Wind, ,, , ,
Elkhorn 100.0 Operating
,
Wind,, , , ,
Klondike I , 24.0 7.4 , Operating , Wind
·
, I
, , , I
Klondike II · 75.0 , 23.1
,
Operating Wind, ,, ,
Klondike III
,
221.0 , 74.0 , Operating
,
Wind,, ,
Klondike IlIA · 76.5
,
25.0 Operating
,
Wind,, ,
Leaning Juniper 100.5
,
34.0 Operating
,
Wind,, , , ,
Pebble Springs
,
99.0
,
31.5 : Construction: Wind, ,,
Rattlesnake Road
,
102.9 . : Construction : Wind,,
Vansycle Wind Energy
,
25.0
,
8.5 . Operating I Wind, ,, ,
, ,
Proiect , ,, , ,, , ,
Wheat Field 96.6 , 28.0 : Construction : Wind,,
Whiskey Run , 1.3 , 0 , Retired Wind, ,I , ,
Willow Creek , 72.0 22.8 : Construction : Wind
·
,
Source: Northwest Power and Conservation Council
Oregon's renewable energy generation, transmission, and distribution extends
beyond our state lines, and thus is difficult to isolate. This applies to hydroelectric as well
as other renewable energy sources. For instance, a company like PacificCorp, the parent
company ofPacific Power, moves electricity into, and out of, the state to meet its
14 An average megawatt is the average number of megawatt-hours, not megawatts, over a specified time
period. In this example, it is the average number of megawatt-hours the PVarrays and wind turbines
produced over the course of one year. The extreme difference between the installed capacity and the MWa
is reflective of the intermittent nature of wind, and to a lesser degree, solar.
49
customers' needs, which span many states. The low-cost hydropower they generate or
purchase from an Oregon hydroelectric source is used to serve retail loads first. To divert
this low-cost hydropower to another area would result in raising the rates charged to
Oregon's retail customers, and this is not allowed by the Oregon Public Utility
Commission. 15
The Bonneville Power Administration does sell surplus electricity, when
available, to other areas (frequently California), which it lists as secondary revenues. It
uses assumptions based on these revenues, which are sold on the spot-marketI6 for a
higher rate, when planning to keep its customers rates low. In essence, using occasionally
available surplus electricity to generate hydrogen would result in an increase in rates, and
would not be allowed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 17
Oregon's hydroelectric loads18 are greater than their generation capability. Figure
4-1 uses 2005 data from the EIA to illustrate an example of a yearly hydroelectric load
exceeding its generation capability.
15 The Public Utility Commission of Oregon (PUC) regulates customer rates and services of the state's
investor-owned electric, natural gas and telephone utilities; and certain water companies. The PUC is
tasked with ensuring consumers receive utility service at fair and reasonable rates.
16 There is a North American market for buying and selling electricity and natural gas. It's essentially a
commodity market that trades electricity and natural gas like other commodities. The price is set based on
supply and demand for immediate requirements. The spot price is the price of electricity at one point in
time on that market. The price varies extensively in times of extreme heat or cold. In effect, when there is a
strong demand for electricity and/or gas, they are worth more and can be sold on the spot market for a
higher spot price.
1
7 The Federal Power Act of 1935created the Federal Power Commission, now the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (PERC). PERC carries out the principal ftmctions for the interstate economic
regulation of investor-owned electric utilities under a mandate to ensure that wholesale rates are just and
reasonable.
18 In this case, the electric load (or demand) is the power requirement ofOregon's electricity consumers. In
electricity generation terminology, a Base load is the minimum amount of electric power delivered or
50
Fi ure 4-7. Comparison 0[200 Oregon Electricity Consumption and Hydroelec ic
Gene 'ation
Oregon Electricity Consumption and
Hydroelectric Generation, 2005
Oregon hydroelectric g neration in
2005 ( IVIWh)
Oregon electricity consumption in
2005 (MWh)
20,000,000
MW
40,000,000
In conclusion, analysis of Oregon's hydroelectric, solar, and wind data
demonst ales insuft1cient generation to meet demand. Ore 'on does not have at y
hydroelectric power available to allocate to hydrogen generation, and its installed win·
and solar projects are just a small portio of what is needed to meet the base load demand
above what Ore lon's lydroelectric generation is able to provide. Orcgo 's geothermal
ene gy has no eneration facilities being built, and its planned .feneration of 297.4-322.4
MW (see Table 3-1.) will be needed [or base load demand (GeothermaJ Energy
.
Association, 2008). Any renewable energy devoted specifically to hydrogen production
in Or go for ZEVs will need to be instalk:d.
requir d over a given period of rime. A Peak load is the maximum load delivered or required during a
specified peri d oftirne, Oregon's ele r ic load lluctuates between base loads and peak loads.
51
Scaling Grj6thaJs Data to Oregon
According to the 2008 World Factbook (CIA, 2008), Iceland has an estimated
population of304,367. Oregon's estimated population for 2008 is 3,791,060 (pSU,
2008). This means that Oregon has about 12 citizens for every 1 Icelander. Another way
of looking at population is in a geographical context. Iceland has an area 39,756 square
miles and an estimated 2008 population of304,367. This gives Iceland an average of
approximately 7 people per square mile. Oregon has an area of97,074 square miles and a
2008 estimated population of3,791,060 giving it an average of approximately 39 people
per square mile. The concentration ofurban population constitutes the majority ofboth
Iceland and Oregon populations. The Grj6thals Hydrogen fueling station "could produce
enough H2 to satisfy up to 600 personal cars in general operation" (INE, 2008). Whereas
this study has assigned a similar station in Oregon as being able to meet the needs of 256
fuel cell vehicles each day.
In consideration of this varied information, this study has decided on an
assumption that is a factor of 10 difference between Iceland and Oregon. This was done
to reflect the overall population difference, the larger urban population of Oregon versus
Iceland, and the difference in Iceland's daily personal vehicle hydrogen requirements
versus Oregon's daily VMT.
In conclusion, Oregon's needs to have ZEVs based on the Icelandic example of
the GIj6thais Hydrogen fueling station, with the differences in Oregon's population,
population concentration, and daily mileage are scaled to meet the needs of 2,560 fuel
cell vehicles each day.
52
Scaling Grj6tMIs Data to Oregon's Electricity Distributers
The three main providers of electricity in Oregon are the investor·owned utilities
Portland General Electric (PGE) and Pacific Power (a PacifiCorp company), and the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Pacific Power serves 31 % of Oregon's electric
utility load, providing power to more than 486,000 customers. PGE serves 40 % of
Oregon's electric utility load, providing power to about 733,000 customers. The BPA
provides power to Oregon's 36 consumer-owned utilities which include people's utility
districts (PUDs), municipally owned utilities and electric cooperatives (ODOE, 2009). A
majority ofthese PUDs, municipally owned utilities and electric cooperatives are BPA
full requirements customers, meaning they purchase all their power from BPA. Some
PUDs and electric cooperatives have small generation capabilities. Eugene's utility
provider, Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB), is an exception to the full
requirements customers because it has substantial generation assets (Public Power
Council, 2002). Idaho Power, another investor-owned utility, serves about 1 % of
Oregon's electric load (ODOE, 2007). With this in mind, this study is operating under the
assumption that the BPA serves 25 % full requirement load. Thus, Oregon's 2,560 fuel
cell vehicles are broken down as Pacific Power (2560 x .31) 794 ZEVs, PGE (2560 x .4)
1024 ZEVs, and BPA (2560 x .25) 640 ZEVs. The remaining 154 ZEVs are assigned to
EWEB and not Idaho Power based solely on the urban status ofEugene as Oregon's third
largest city. Table 4-2 lists Oregon's electricity providers.
Table 4-2. Oregon's Electric Utilities
Oregon Electricity Providers
Investor-Owned Cooperative Electric Peoples Utility Municipal Electric
Electric Utilities Utilities Districts (PUDs) Utilities
Idaho Power Central Lincoln
Company Blachly-Lane Electric Co-op. PUD Canby Utility Board
Pacific Power City ofAshland Electric
(PacifiCorp) Central Electric Co-op. Clatskanie PUD Dept
Portland General Columbia River
Electric (PGE) Consumers Power PUD City of Bandon
Coos-Curry Electric Co-op. EmeraldPUD City of Cascade Locks
Northern Wasco
Douglas Electric Co-op. PUD City of Forest Grove
Lane Electric Co-op. Tillamook PUD City of Drain
Midstate Electric Co-op. Inc. City of Monmouth
Eugene Water & Electric
Salem Electric Board
Forest Grove Light &
Umatilla Electric Co-op. Power
Hermiston Energy
Columbia Basin Co-op. Services
McMinnville Water &
Columbia Power Co-op. Light
Milton-Freewater Light
Columbia Rural Electric & Power
Harney Electric Co-op. Springfield Utility Board
Hood River Electric Co-op.
Oregon Trail Electric Co-op.
Surprise Valley Electric
Corp.
Umpqua Indian Utility Co-op
Wasco Electric Co-op.
West Oregon Electric Co-op.
Source: Oregon Department ofEnergy
53
54
CHAPTER V
FINDINGS
This study evaluated the renewable energy needs ofthe Grj6thaIs Hydrogen
fueling station to determine the renewable energy installation requirements necessary
within Oregon for fuel cell ZEVs at the electric utility provider level. Using the
methodology outlined in the previous chapter, the information presented in this chapter
reveals the number of model hydrogen fueling stations required, the renewable energy
necessary for the model hydrogen fueling stations, as well as the location and integration
of these model hydrogen fueling stations throughout Oregon's electricity distribution
regions.
Hydrogen Fueling Station Needs
The model Grj6thaJs Hydrogen fueling station has the ability to produce and
distribute 125 kg of zero emissions hydrogen a day. This amount will provide the
hydrogen necessary for Oregonians to drive 4100 miles a day, which can be further
defined as meeting the needs of256 vehicles, based on Oregon's daily average VMT.
55
Oregon's 2,560 fuel cell vehicles, which are broken down in the previous chapter as
Pacific Power 794 ZEVs, PGE 1,024 ZEVs, BPA 640 ZEVs and EWEB 154 ZEVs, will
thus require 10 model hydrogen fueling stations to follow the Icelandic example. Since
the model Grj6thals Hydrogen fueling station was the designed to produce and distribute
125 kg ofzero emissions hydrogen a day, this study has assigned a value of I model
hydrogen fueling station per 256 cars. This study chose to round the number ofrequired
model fueling stations up rather than not run a model station at its designed capacity.
Table 5-1 lists the scaled number ofmodel hydrogen fueling stations required to emulate
the Icelandic example in Oregon.
Table 5-1. Number ofModel Hydrogen Fueling Stations Required Following the
Icelandic Example in Oregon by Electricity Provider
Number of model Number of model
Number hydrogen fueling hydrogen fueling
ofZEVs stations stations (rounded)
Pacific Power 794 3.1 4
PGE 1024 4 4
BPA 640 2.5 3
EWEB 154 .6 1
Total 2560 10.2 12
Iceland located its model zero emissions hydrogen fueling station (the Grj6thals
station) in its most populated city. With this in mind, this study has placed its zero
emissions hydrogen fueling stations accordingly.
56
EWEB's hydrogen fueling station was rather straightforward since EWEB is a
municipal consumer~owned utility and serves only Eugene. This study proposes a model
hydrogen fueling station be placed in Eugene to reflect the Icelandic example ofa zero
emissions hydrogen fueling station in Oregon. Eugene, with a 2008 US Census Bureau
estimated population of 149,004, is Oregon's third-largest city.
Pacific Power requires four model hydrogen fueling stations. Pacific Power's
service territory in Oregon spans portions of the entire state with the exception of
Oregon's southeast corner, which also happens to be the state's least populated region.
Pacific Power's Portland service territory includes portions ofdowntown Portland
between 1-405 and 1-5, as well as the entire northeast area that lies within the area
bordered by 1-5 on the south, 1-205 on the east, and 1-84 on the south. This study
proposes a model hydrogen fueling station in each ofthese highly populated areas.
Portland, with a 2007 US Census Bureau estimated population of 550,396, is Oregon's
largest city. Pacific Power's service territory covers most of southwestern Oregon,
including Medford. Medford, with a 2007 US Census Bureau estimated population of
72,186, is Oregon's eighth-largest city. This study has suggested this area for a model
hydrogen fueling station. Pacific Power's service territory covers part of central Oregon,
including Bend. Bend, with a 2007 US Census Bureau estimated population of74,563, is
Oregon's seventh-largest city and this study suggests this area for a model hydrogen
fueling station. This study views the placement ofmodel hydrogen fueling stations in
these areas as meeting the requirements necessary to follow the Icelandic example as
scaled to Oregon and its needs.
57
PGE also requires four model hydrogen fueling stations. PGE's service territory
in Oregon covers more than 4,000 square miles including practically all of southeast
Portland, all of southwest Portland with the exception of a few downtown areas, the
majority of the Salem area, and Gresham. Salem, with a 2007 US Census Bureau
estimated population of 151,913, is Oregon's second-largest city. Gresham with a 2007
US Census Bureau estimated population of99,721, is Oregon's fourth-largest city. This
study proposes these areas for the necessary model hydrogen fueling stations to follow
the Icelandic example as scaled to Oregon and its needs.
The BPA 25 % full requirement load for the PUDs, municipally owned utilities
and electric cooperatives is three model hydrogen fueling stations. The City ofForest
Grove has a municipal electric utility. Forest Grove's 2007 US Census Bureau estimated
population was 20,402. Forest Grove is adjacent to The City ofHillsboro, which is
Oregon's fifth-largest city. The City ofLa Grande, in the northeastern comer of the state,
is served by the Oregon Trail Electric Cooperative. La Grande's 2000 US Census Bureau
estimated population was 12,327. This does not rank it among Oregon's more populated
cities, but its location along 1-84 in northeastern Oregon approximately 60 miles from
Pendleton (US Census Bureau 2007 estimated population 16,477) is an area ofOregon
that would serve a fueling need for ZEVs travelling to and from Oregon. Newport, (US
Census Bureau 2007 estimated population 9,852) is served by Central Lincoln PUD.
Similar to La Grande, its strategic location at the junction ofUS-101 and US-20 would
serve a fueling need for ZEVs travelling to and from the Oregon coast. This study
proposes these areas for the necessary model hydrogen fueling stations to follow the
58
Icelandic example as scaled to Oregon and its needs. Table 5-2 lists the recommended
locations of this study.
Table 5-2. Locations ofHydrogen Fueling Stations
Number of
hydrogen fueling Location of
Number stations hydrogen fueling
ofZEVs (rounded) stations
Downtown
Pacific 794 4 Portland
Power N.E. Portland
Medford
Bend
PGE 1024 4 S.E. Portland
S.W. Portland
Salem
Gresham
BPA 640 3 Forest Grove
La Grande
Newport
EWEB 154 1 Eugene
In conclusion, this section of the study has located the model hydrogen fueling
stations necessary to follow Iceland example throughout Oregon in a way that reflects
population density, as well as geographic convenience for the population centers. The
Willamette Valley, where 70 % of Oregon's population lives has almost 70 % (;:::,.67 %)
of the model hydrogen fueling stations. The other four locations (Ashland, Bend, La
Grande, and Newport) are popular destinations for Oregon's Willamette Valley denizens.
59
This was a major factor in their choice as hydrogen fueling station locations for this
study. Map 5-1 shows Oregon and the location ofthe towns mentioned in this study.
Map 5-1. Locations of Hydrogen Fueling Station Cities
Smittt-Ttave er.lf1 o® Road Mil 0 Ore on
201
II
II
.Onh·rio
• La Gl'bnda.
.",.
Baker Cit\, •
lit.. I I l~' ,. II
J.97. ·97·
.97
. UJ·
Redmond 0 IZl. ·Plifl~Vil!e.
• BendEuy"ne ,2<
> '0" .. Sprln,n.ltI
Flo;.,;);:\?
2>
J.CQ.
J..o1 .
• M(Qlla
•S.wde. . ~, CO~l.mblll R.
;:1). 5t, Helens.
PAUf1
, ".EAN
38
• Cottal~1(t Grove
'i'f:': 97·
aJ·
Noll!> Bllnd .1.0).. ,,,
.. 5uthenin
Co",lI.\y U".P'1''' f.
Ro:s:e.burg •
. 0
I tit ~ t I ,/.'
M.. JA I,
II to.V I
.till. 62
IE.~ .97 .
1Ill,
·97.
,1.99· ., 'I
Granb PolUlj lot,)
Ja,honville>. Mdfor<l
• ;"hl."d
111'1" I",,, I, L.
'<0
00 KL~nHth Falls
·395·
L
. 9~·
1.+0
o 10 20 :10 ·10
Source: Slllart-Travder
Irld, I!!, I
"" Mil.,
© r.:~orl.d S:te.s Atlas (siles;atl"s .com) ,
Oregon's el ctricity utilities are scattered throughout the state in an almost
patchwork quilt sort of pattern. Map 5-2 shows Pacific Power's service tenitory in
Oregon, Map 5-3 shows POEs service territory, Map 5-4 shows Oregon's PLJDs,
municipally owned utili ies and electric cooperativ s.
Map 5-2. Pacific Powe 's Oregon Service Territory
~.; I, P'·....-I
I~: It:: '_ II
:';;""1" : ... TI..·IH:)l~~
A. "j
I,
•
CJ
PACIFI(ORP
,':j. i'.,' (,d."" 01 ,,~., •. l, .,
Source: Pac'lcCorp
61
a 5-3, PGE Service Territory
(
.j.
t ~
, • I
G SERVI ET RRI ORY
SUBSTATIONS
SOlJiHrRIII{f:{i;O:'{;\! SFRVIC[ ,IR[A
Por~ \'1 STtR~J I~,CIO~H\I SI J{VICI /11« II
. , ", 'I,"..
. ' ..
. ....
.\
'.
, .
.
I "
.. ' t'
. , .
"
, .
...
,
.
•I
.
"
....
.\ " "
t~ ...
",
.' ~
SaJCl~
",
I
I '
Source: POE
'" ,"
62
Map 5-4. Pacilc Northwest PUDs, Municipa Iy Owned Utilities and Elec lC
Cooperatives?-=-~OP~l}NG .!'UDUC AGENCI£S AND COOPERAT)V ~s _
~~ .. -1- \ -
\\ . I
\ ~ .
~ ...
' .
'\JT,,~. '- ~ -,-1... . f
f
\
t .."C-"'--~r- .. )II !/IIt'
)
_. --- -- - --- -,--,
i
Source: POE
Evaluation ofRe ewable Energy Needs
11('I\.1l
-,.
- ~
-...-,
\--
\
I
I
I
I
i
\
The pI' vious chapter posited any renewable energy devoted specifically to
hydrogen production in Oregon for ZEVs will need to be i stalled. This is because of two
factors: ) demand exceeds enerati n~ and 2) policy rohibits decisions that would
increase Oregon electdcity customer's rates.
Tbere are two separate governing authorities that help set the rates Oregon's
electricity provide s aTe able to charg , PERC and Oregon's PUC. The policies hat give
63
these regulators their authority have roots derived from the time the hydroelectric dams
of the region were first constructed.
Section 4 of the 1937 Bonneville Project Act says:
In order to insure that the facilities for the generation of electric energy at
the Bonneville project shall be operated for the benefit of the general
public, and particularly of domestic and rural consumers, the [BPA]
administrator shall at all times, in disposing of electric energy generated at
said project, give preference and priority to public bodies and
cooperatives... (public Power Council, 2002).
Section 2 of the 1964 Pacific Northwest Preference Act says:
... the sale, delivery, and exchange of electric energy generated at, and
peaking capacity of, Federal hydroelectric plants in the Pacific Northwest
for use outside the Pacific Northwest shall be limited to surplus energy
and surplus peaking capacity (Public Power Council, 2002).
This principle is known as public preference. "Congress granted preference for several
reasons. One was to ensure that the benefits of federal power were passed through to the
public at the lowest possible cost" (Public Power Council, 2002). BPA is committed to
cost-based rates and public and regional preference in its marketing of power because the
Federal Power Act of 1935 created the Federal Power Commission, now the FERC.
FERC "carries out the principal functions for the interstate economic regulation of
investor-owned electric utilities, including financial transactions, wholesale rate
regulation, interconnection, transmission ofwholesale electricity, and ensuring adequate
and reliable service. It also gives FERC a mandate to ensure that wholesale rates are just
and reasonable" (public Power Council, 2002). Because BPA markets energy and
transmission at cost, rather than at market prices, it has traditionally provided some of the
64
lowest cost electricity in the nation. Oregon customers have a preference to purchase this
low-cost electricity. Sales of surplus energy and surplus peaking capacity on the spot
market help to ensure BPA customer's rates are just, reasonable, and among the lowest
cost electricity in the nation. Redirection of this surplus energy and surplus peaking
capacity to generate hydrogen would result in a rate increase that would most probably be
considered by FERC to not be just and reasonable.
The Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA) of 1935 is aimed at
controlling the corporate abuses and misconduct of private power's public utility holding
companies. Under PlJHCA, "state operated public utility commissions (PUCs) have
jurisdiction over the interstate operations of investor-owned utilities (lOUs), retail
ratemaking and retail bundled electricity service. Retail prices are set through an
adversarial hearing process where the issues are the revenue requirement (total amount of
money that the utility will be permitted to collect) and how the burden will be recovered
from customers in the customer classes (residential, commercial, and industrial)" (Public
Power Council, 2002). Oregon's PUC ensures consumers receive utility service at fair
and reasonable rates, while allowing regulated companies the opportunity to earn an
adequate return on their investment. The Utility Program of Oregon's PUC uses research,
analysis and technical support to make sure regulated companies provide safe, reliable
and high-quality service at reasonable rates. Their efforts also promote effective
competition in those industries. Oregon's lOUs are required to compete with each other
and with the BPA. This helps to ensure the low-cost hydropower that is generated in
Oregon stays in Oregon. It also helps to ensure any redirection of hydroelectric energy
65
and surplus to generate hydrogen would result in a rate increase that would most probably
be considered by Oregon's PUC to not be fair and reasonable.
Thus, policy prohibits the use of Oregon's hydroelectric electricity to generate
hydrogen. Even if this were not the case, Oregon's electricity consumption is greater than
its hydroelectric and other renewable energy generation abilities. Any renewable energy
devoted specifically to hydrogen production in Oregon for ZEVs will need to be installed.
Renewable Energy Requirements
With the need for necessary renewable energy to be installed to make the
hydrogen for Oregon's ZEVs clearly defined, an overall assessment of required
installations was able to be accomplished.
The previous chapter's methodology showed the model Grj6th81s Hydrogen
fueling station as requiring7150 kWh/day of electric generation. Thus, 12 stations would
require 85,800 kWh/day of electric generation.
This equates to a PV Requirement of 15,300 kWp, or an array that is 1,646,892
square feet. Such an array would require the equivalent ofalmost 38 acres (:::;37.8).
The wind turbine requirement would be 84 1.5MW wind turbines. Such a wind
farm would require the equivalent of42 acres of land.
Electricity Distribution Requirements
The renewable energy installation requirements for Oregon's electricity providers
have been allocated according to the number of model hydrogen fueling stations
proposed to each electric utility in this study.
66
EWEB with one model hydrogen fueling station would require a PV array capable
of 1275 kWp or 1.275 MW ofPV generation and 137,241 square feet of space. Such an
array would require the equivalent of roughly 3 acres (~3 .15). The model station would
require seven 1.5MW wind turbines. A wind farm ofthis size would require 3.5 acres.
BPA with three model hydrogen fueling stations would require a PV array
capable of 3825 kWp or 3.825 MW ofPV generation and 411,723 square feet of space.
Such an array would require the equivalent of roughly 9.5 acres (~9.45). The model
stations would require a total of 21 1.5MW wind turbines. A wind farm of this size would
require 10.5 acres.
Pacific Power and PGE with four model hydrogen fueling stations each would
require PV arrays capable of 5100 kWp or 5.1 MW ofPV generation and 548,964 square
feet of space. Such arrays would require the equivalent of roughly 12.6 acres (~12.6025).
The model stations would require a total of28 1.5MW wind turbines for each utility.
Wind farms of this size would each require 14 acres. Table 5-3 lists the required MW of
the PV arrays, the required acres for the PV arrays, the required number of 1.5MW wind
turbines, and the acreage required for the wind farms for each electric utility provider.
67
Table 5-3. PV and Wind Requirements by Electric Utility
Required Acres Required Acres
PV required number of 1.5 required
generation forPV MWwind for wind
[inMW) array turbines farm
Pacific
Power 5.1 12.6 28 14
PGE 5.1 12.6 28 14
BPA 3.825 9.5 21 10.5
EWEB 1.275 3.15 7 3.5
Individual Requirements
Breaking down the energy requirements from the electric utility providers to the
individual customers allows for personal involvement. Furthermore, this may provide to
be useful for future policy.
Individual PV requirements per vehicle and based on 16 daily VMT, results in an
array that is approximately 644 square feet (:::0643.32). Such an array would require an
area of space with full access to the sun that roughly measures 25 feet by 26 feet. Two
hundred fifty six such arrays would equal the electricity needs of one model hydrogen
fueling station.
l.5MW wind turbines are problematic to scale individually because very few
individuals would be able to erect these turbines. Assuming some form of program
allowed an individual to purchase a portion of a wind turbine, the individual requirements
would be roughly 31 individuals per wind turbine (:::030.47 people per wind turbine).
68
Scaling to One Million Vehicles
Breaking down the energy requirements necessary for one million ZEVs allows
for a way to envision the renewable energy implications on a larger scale and in a future
context.
Assuming that it takes 50 kWh on average to make 1 kg of hydrogen gas, and that it
takes 70 kWh to make 1 kg ofliquid hydrogen, 8750 kWh will make 125 kg ofliquid
hydrogen to meet the equivalent of 100 gallons ofgas. This is an approximate scale of90
kWh to make 1 gallon ofgas, which can then be simplified to a round number scale of
100 kWh per gallon.
To meet the needs ofone million vehicles driving an average of 10,000 miles a year
each, and assuming an average of25 miles per gallon for these vehicles, a total of250
million needed gallons a day are required.
Since the scenario of one million vehicles is a futuristic scenario, the scaling
assumptions for both wind and solar can be based on futuristic assumptions that reflect
optimal locations.
Wind turbines located off of Oregon's coast offer the ability for a better capacity
factor19 because off-shore wind is more reliable than on-shore wind. Thus, a large 7.5
MW wind turbine with a 40 % capacity factor could feasibly have a net power capacity of
3 MW. This would mean an annual total output of approximately 25,000 MWh (3 MW x
19 A capacity factor is the ratio of the electrical energy produced by a generating unit for the period of time
considered to the electrical energy that could have been produced at continuous full power operation during
the same period. In this context, it is the amount of energy produced when the wind blows versus the
amount of energy produced if the wind blew continuously.
69
8760 hours in a year = 26,280 MWh or rounded down to 25,000 MWh). Under such a
scenario, 1000 7.5MW turbines could meet the needs of one million vehicles.
Similarly, solar sites in Central and Eastern Oregon offer better solar potential.
Assuming a site in Eastern Oregon averages 1000 watts per square meter over 6 hours a
day, and a PV efficiency of 10 %, the resulting energy per day per square meter is 600
Watt hours (1000 * 6 * 0.1 == 600 Watt hours). Thus, with an annual energy per square
meter of 0.2 MWh, a one square kilometer array would produce 200,000 MWh.
Accordingly; an array sized to meet the needs of25 million MWh would require a 125
square km PV array, or one that is 11 x 11 km (:::::6.84 x 6.84 miles).
70
CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS
Introduction
Emissions reductions for air quality improvement have been desired in Oregon for
at least the last quarter century. Lately, emissions reductions in the context of addressing
climate change have gained an equal importance that is being reflected in Oregon's
current planning and policy decisions. Studies have shown a need to reduce emissions to
improve air quality and to mitigate their effects on climate change. Population growth
and its effect on Oregon's energy needs have created a situation where more vehicles are
being driven and more emissions-producing electricity generating sources are being used
to meet demands. To reduce the vehicle and electricity generation emissions, fuel cell
ZEVs offer the potential to meet Oregon' vehicle needs in a way that produces only water
as a byproduct if renewable energy is exclusively used at the hydrogen fueling stations.
Vehicles that require electricity as part of their operations are currently being
marketed. Since Oregon's renewable energy demand is greater than its generating
capability, electricity-dependent vehicles will result in an increase in power plant
71
emissions. Furthermore, these non-renewable power plant emissions are externalized to
areas far removed from Oregon's cities, and these power plants require natural gas and
coal fossil fuels to generate electricity. Under such conditions, electricity-dependent
vehicles will not be sustainable.
Thus, Oregon's ability to address the supply of renewable energy necessary for
ZEVs has a direct effect on the quality of life for its residents. The Pacific Northwest in
general and Oregon specifically, already have a high percentage of their electricity
generation needs met by hydroelectricity. Because of this fact, and their relatively low
populations in comparison to other states in the U.S., the renewable energy infrastructure
investment necessary for ZEVs is much lower than it is for the majority of the states in
the U. S. The expansion of renewable energy in Oregon may translate into job
opportunities, competitive advantage, and other ancillary economic effects. A shift to
ZEVs and an energy portfolio that does not produce emissions will result better health for
both people and the environment. It is in a region's best interest to coordinate efforts that
promote a healthy economy and environment while advancing greater social and regional
equity. One method for achieving this goal is for a region to be self sufficient for its own
energy needs through the implementation ofZEVs into the region. Iceland recognized
these very same issues more than a decade ago and acted upon them. Today, their
Grj6thals hydrogen fueling station produces zero emissions hydrogen.
This context formed the basis for the primary thesis question: Can Oregon
generate the hydrogen necessary to follow the Icelandic example ofusing renewable
energy to generate sufficient hydrogen for zero-emissions vehicles using solar and wind
72
energies? This study used Iceland's Grj6thfLis hydrogen fueling station as a model for the
beginnings ofhydrogen-powered transportation in Oregon. Through the evaluation of the
Grj6thfLis hydrogen renewable energy requirements, a baseline can be set for Oregon's
renewable energy needs.
Iceland has ample renewable energy to electrolyze hydrogen from water and
Oregon does not. Iceland has developed a considerable amount ofgeothermal energy as a
part of its energy portfolio. Oregon does not have any geothermal energy in its energy
portfolio, but it does have emissions free wind and solar in its energy portfolio.
To help answer the primary question, the following secondary questions also
informed the analysis: (1) How much installed capacities will Oregon need to follow the
Icelandic example?; (2) How can Iceland's information on the renewable energy
requirements necessary for hydrogen ZEVs be scaled to Oregon?; (3) What are the
suitable energy requirements of hydrogen ZEVs for solar and wind energies?; and (4)
How many units would need to be installed, and what is the area required for the
installation ofwind and solar energies?
The remainder of this chapter will present the specific findings of the primary and
secondary research questions, the implications of these findings, and ideas for further
research.
73
Summary ofFindings
Case Study Findings
Iceland continues to decrease its percentage of fossil fuel electricity generation. It
has installed 833MW ofgeothermal and hydroelectric energy sources since 2006. Since
"only 20 to 25 % ofthe technically and environmentally feasible hydropower, and only
20 % ofthe conventional geothermal potential available for electricity production in
Iceland, have been harnessed" (NEAl, 2007), Iceland has considerable room to develop
renewable energy sources for end use. The continued development of renewable energy
and its effect on decreasing fossil fuel electricity generation is evident in Iceland's total
installed capacities. In 2005 Iceland's total installed capacity of fossil fuel generated
electricity was 115MW; by 2006 it had decreased to 113MW. During this same time
Iceland's population grew by almost 0.8 %.
The allure of such abundant and affordable hydroelectricity has attracted
aluminum smelters to Iceland. There are currently three aluminum smelters in Iceland,
with a fourth under construction and others planned. Aluminum smelters require vast
amounts ofelectricity. Because of this, electricity consumption has more than doubled in
recent years creating the situation where Iceland now uses more power per person than
any other country in the world (Economist, 2008). Iceland's aluminum industry uses
more Gigawatt Hours each year then all of its other electricity consumers combined
(NEAl, 2007).
74
Iceland is an island nation with no fossil fuel reserves. As an island nation, it is
unable to export surplus electricity through conventional means such as high-voltage
transmission lines and pipelines. It uses its inexpensive renewable energy to attract
energy intensive industries, like the aluminum industry. The abundance ofaffordable
renewable energy and lack of fossil fuels has influenced Iceland to be the first country in
the world to commit to replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen.
Based on the data from INE, the model Grj6thil.1s hydrogen fueling station which
produced Iceland's ZEVs has the ability to produce and distribute 125 kg ofzero
emissions hydrogen a day, which meets the need of 600 personal cars in Reykjavik. The
electricity requirements for this station are 5.2 kWh to produce 1 Nm3. This study is
assuming that such a station being able to meet the needs of so many personal cars means
a low (2-4) daily average vehicle miles travelled.
Oregon has no commercial hydrogen fuelling stations. Oregon's technically and
environmentally feasible hydropower has all been developed and it continues to increase
the amount of fossil fuel (natural gas) electricity generation to meet its growing energy
needs. Steam reformation of natural gas is the principal form of making hydrogen in U.S.
Oregon currently imports all of its natural gas and its hydrogen. The continued
development of renewable energy (wind, solar, and biomass) has not had the effect of
decreasing fossil fuel generated electricity. This is evident in Oregon's increase in natural
gas for electric power generation from 1,636,828 MWh in 1996 to 2,988,707 MWh in
2006.
75
During the last 25 years, Oregon's population growth rate has averaged better
than 1 % while its average annual increase in electricity consumption was only 0.8 %.
This is reflective of Oregon's energy conservation efforts and the electricity made
available due to plant closures or reduced output from mills and aluminum smelters. The
United States has the ninth highest electricity consumption, per capita, of any country in
the world and Oregon's 2005 per capita consumption of electricity in Oregon homes
ranked it 25 out of the 50 U.S. states. Oregon's energy needs and generation extend
beyond its state lines, and it is able to import and export electricity to and from
neighboring states. However, Oregon's demand for affordable hydroelectric generation
exceeds its generating capacity. Because of this fact, Oregon needs to install emissions
free electricity generation to have true ZEVs in the state. Of the current emissions free
electricity generation options in Oregon being planned and built, geothermal and wave
energy are not producing commercially available electricity, which leaves wind and solar
as the only present alternatives.
Methodological Findings
The answer to the primary question of this thesis is; yes, Oregon can generate the
hydrogen necessary to follow the Icelandic example ofusing renewable energy to
generate sufficient hydrogen for zero-emission vehicles using solar and wind energies.
The methodological findings ofthe secondary questions of this study solidify the primary
questions answer.
The answers to the secondary questions are as follows: (1) How much installed
capacities will Oregon need to follow the Icelandic example? Each model Grj6thals
76
hydrogen fueling station in Oregon will require 7150 kWh/day of electric generation to
meet the driving needs of 256 vehicles based on Oregon's 16 miles per day average
VMT. This equates to 4100 miles a day. This study assigned a value of 12 stations as
being necessary to follow the Icelandic example in Oregon. Twelve stations modeled
after the G1j6thals hydrogen fueling station would require 85,800 kWh/day of electric
generation.; (2) How can Iceland's information on the renewable energy requirements
necessary for hydrogen ZEVs be scaled to Oregon?; Oregon's population is 12 times
Iceland's population, and the distribution of people in urban and rural areas is different.
Iceland's Grj6thals hydrogen fueling station could serve the estimated daily needs of at
least 3 buses, or possibly even 600 personal cars in Reykjavik, while a similar station in
Oregon would only serve the estimated needs of 256 personal cars. Oregon has roughly
two and a halftimes (;=:;2.44) the land area ofIceland. In consideration of the population
difference, the larger urban population of Oregon, the difference in daily personal vehicle
hydrogen requirements, and the larger land area of Oregon, this study chose a scale that
differed by a factor of 10. This study took into consideration the need to locate model
hydrogen fuelling stations near Oregon's most populated cities based on Iceland's choice
of locating the Grj6thals hydrogen fueling station in Reykjavik, an urban area that
accounts for approximately two~thirds ofIceland's total population, when scaling the
renewable energy requirements necessary for hydrogen ZEVs. The four main providers
of electricity in Oregon are PGE, Pacific Power, the BPA, and EWEB, which serve the
majority of Oregon's population. This study allocated the distribution of model hydrogen
fueling stations in Oregon based on the percentage of electricity customers served and the
77
populations within the electric utility provider's service area.; (3) What are the suitable
energy requirements of hydrogen ZEVs for solar and wind energies?; The energy
requirements, as scaled to Oregon, are a PV Requirement of 15,300 kWp, and a wind
turbine requirement of l32MW a day.; and (4) How many units would need to be
installed, and what is the area required for the installation of wind and solar energies?
Solar panels (PV) vary in size and efficiency. This study assumed a PV panel efficiency
of 10 %. Assuming a PV panel size of 4 feet by 2 feet (8 ft2) in an array that is 1,646,892
square feet, it would require more than 200,000 (::::;205,862) panels. Such an array would
require the equivalent of almost 38 acres (::::;37.8). The wind turbine requirement would
be 84 l.5MW wind turbines. Such a wind farm would require the equivalent of 42 acres
ofland.
Implications of This Study
The wind and solar infrastructure investments necessary to follow the Icelandic
example are substantial. The accompanying costs of such investments also will prove to
be substantial. Recently (April, 2009) both POE and PacifiCorp filed requests with the
Oregon Public Utility Commission to raise rates for their customers starting in early
2010. POE and PacificCorp are seeking to increase their rates to offset the costs of
renewable energy sources which are being installed to meet Oregon's renewable portfolio
standard, among other reasons. Pacific Power has requested a 9.1 % increase in rates and
POE has requested a 2.3 % increase in rates (Sabatier, 2009). This study has shown
Oregon can follow the Icelandic example of generating zero emissions hydrogen. In the
78
context of a changing climate, future carbon penalties, "green" jobs, and a potential for
urban air quality improvement and the accompanying health improvements, traditional
costlbenefit analysis is problematic at this point in time.
Oregon is going to need to install electricity generating facilities to meet future
needs. Oregon, due to its location, is fortunate to have an energy portfolio that has a high
percentage of renewable energy (hydropower). IfOregon decides to install renewable
energy to meet future needs, certain ancillary effects will occur. One such effect is the
option ofhaving true zero-emissions vehicles. For zero-emissions hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles the baseline number for planners to consider is 7150 kWh/day ofemissions-free
electricity generation to meet the driving needs of256 vehicles based on Oregon's 16
miles per day average VMT, or 7150 kWh/day of emissions-free electricity to drive 4100
total miles a day.
Future Research
This study represents the very beginning ofzero-emissions hydrogen fueled
transportation planning, and it does not take into account electricity transmission
challenges. Studies that take into account the locations of renewable energy generating
plants with electricity transmission taken into account are needed avenues for future
research. A similar study that would look at the imminent needs ofzero-emissions plug in
electric vehicles is an obvious opportunity for research in the very near future. As
geothermal and wave energy options come online and their electricity generation outputs
become documented and available, a similar study with these technologies also would be
helpful to planners. As efficiencies and technologies change, new studies can offer
79
costlbenefit analysis among the renewable options for generating zero emissions
hydrogen. As Iceland progresses toward its goal of eliminating fossil fuels in its
transportation sector, certain milestones will be passed and certain lessons will be learned
that will offer opportunities for future research, one ofwhich will be Iceland's and INE's
example ofusing a fuel cell in a marine application to power a boat.
Fuel cell vehicles themselves offer opportunities to merge into a carbon
constrained future of electricity generation. Fuel cells are reversible, they can make
electricity efficiently or they can be a source of hydrogen when supplied with electricity.
By using the ability of fuel cell vehicles to store energy, the possibility exists of fuel cell
vehicle owners filling up with hydrogen during times of low demand on the grid with
accompanying lower costs for fuel, and plugging into the grid to generate and sell
electricity during times ofhigh demand and higher costs for electricity. This could lower
the costs ofVMT for the fuel cell vehicle owners. This also could mitigate the problem of
what to do with excess wind generation during times it is not needed. Future studies
could take into account the opportunities available for using fuel cell vehicles as a part of
Oregon's energy planning to meet peak demands in ways that could produce fewer
emissions.
Finally, the implementation ofZEVs will offer many opportunities to research
their effects on the economy, health, and the environment. Should Oregon install the
renewable energy necessary for ZEVs, the opportunities to study the impacts on each of
the constituents of the triple bottom line individually, together, or in totality, will allow
for studies that take into account costs to the environment and social equity as they relate
80
to traditional economic costs. If fuel cells are introduced without the renewable energy
necessary to qualify them as ZEVs, research can be done on the increase in externalized
emissions to power plants and the increase in greenhouse gas emissions along with the
downwind and downstream costs of such emissions versus the immediate urban air
quality gains (if any).
81
APPENDIX
CORRESPONDENCE WITH JON BJORN SKULASON
Jon Bjorn SkUlason
to me 11/3/08
Dear Dean,
See my answers below.
Jon Bjorn
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Fisher [mailto:fisherjdean@gmail.com]
Sent: 2. november 2008 16:21
To: Jon Bjorn Skulason
Subject: Data for my Thesis on "The Icelandic Example: Planning for Hydrogen Fueled
Transportation in Oregon"
Dear Jon Bjorn,
I am working on gathering the necessary data to finalize my thesis
proposal. I am really excited to apply your model (the Icelandic model)
of using renewable energy and electrolysis to generate the hydrogen
necessary in Oregon, and perhaps elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest, or
even the other regions of the U.S.
My thesis adviser has asked me to come up with the following data before
the end of the term:
* the amount of hydrogen produced and distributed;
82
1m not sure what you mean by this. We can produce 60Nm3 an hour which is 125 kg a
day. In total we have dispensed over 30 tons of hydrogen over the last 4 years for
vehicles. The hydrogen is all produced on site.
* the energy required producing this amount;
You need 5,2 kWh for the production of INm3 hydrogen - that includes compression.
* the source ofthe hydrogen;
All the hydrogen is produced from water, i.e. via electrolysers
* the source of the energy;
Hydro and geothermal energy - we still have vast amount of renewable energy available.
* and the types and numbers of transportation that were using
hydrogen in Iceland for the last two years (2007-2008), although I
could potentially use any combination of recent years data
(2006-2007, 2005-2008, or ?).
Currently there are 15 hydrogen vehicles in operation in Iceland. There were 3 fuel cell
buses until end of January 2007.
Jon Bjorn Skulason
to me 3/17/09
Dear Dean,
I have no other calculations methods. We spend 5,2 kWh to produce 1 Nm3 and we need
roughly 11 Nm3 for 1 kg hydrogen so you can multiply.
Isnt your miscaluculations because there is difference in efficiency?
Jon Bjorn Skulason
General Manager
Icelandic New Energy Ltd
Orkugar5ur, Grensasvegi 9
P.O. Box 8192
128 Reykjavik
Phone / fax / mobile: (354) 588 0310/ (354) 588 0315/ (354) 863 6510
www.newenergy-is
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Fisher [mailto:fisherjdean@gmail.com]
Sent: 17. mars 2009 07:44
To: J6n Bjorn SkUlason
Subject: Re: Data for my Thesis on tiThe Icelandic Example: Planning for Hydrogen
Fueled Transportation in Oregontl
Dear J6n Bjorn,
I am struggling with something about my data. The physicist I have on
my thesis committee has recommended I use the 125 kg a day number
because 125 kg a day == approximate energy equivalent of 125 gallons
ofgas/day and I can easily take this to the necessary kWh a day. e.g.
125 kg a day = approximate energy equivalent of 125 gallons ofgas/day
o 125 gallons of gas/day = 4575 kWh/day or 4.5 MW/day
o .75 % Ee times 4575 kWh/day = 6100 kWh/day
But something about this troubles me.
When I compare your 5.2 kWh for the production of 1 Nm3 hydrogen with
an estimate derived from NREL work that lists for an Avalence:
Hydrofiller 175 as the system requiring 5.4 kWh/Nm3 or 60.5 kWh/kg,
and I multiply the 125 kg a day Grj6thals total capacity with 60.5 (or
even 58) I come up with a much larger number. e.g. 60.5 kWh/kg * 125
kg= 7562 kWh
I would like to have a number I feel comfortable using, and I seem to
get different answers when I seek assistance in converting 5.2 kWh for
the production of 1 Nm3 hydrogen into kWh a day necessary for 125 kg
of hydrogen.
Would you be willing help me come up with the correct kWh a day
requirement for 125 kg ofhydrogen?
I know you are very busy and (as always) I really appreciate your help,
My Best Regards,
Dean
J6n Bjorn SkUlason
to me 3/18/09
Ofcourse not. This is the actual figures. If the electrolyser would be woring at 100%
efficiency we would only need like ~ 4 kWh per Nm3
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Fisher [mailto:fisherjdean@gmai1.com]
83
Sent: 17. mars 2009 15:44
To: Jon Bjorn SkUlason
Subject: Re: Data for my Thesis on "The Icelandic Example: Planning for Hydrogen
Fueled Transportation in Oregon"
Thank you Jon Bjorn,
It has been many years since I took "intro to Physics," so I
frequently doubt myselfwhen I am converting data. I believe the issue
is that the direct conversion my Physicist committee member
recommended (125 kg a day == approximate energy equivalent of 125
gallons) is the chemical energy contained in fuel. I was looking for
the electricity required to make the fuel. Thus, I can now multiply
5.2 kWh by 11 to get 1 kg of hydrogen and then multiply this by 125 to
get my desired answer (it takes 7150 kWh to make 125 kg hydrogen). Do
I still need to factor in the electrolyzer efficiency to the 7150 kWh?
As always, best regards and thank you so much,
Dean
84
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABB Group. (2008). Integrating Iceland's utilities into a single automation system.
Retrieved February 27,2009, from
http://www.abb.comlcawp/seitp202/12fdac99654dc76dcI2574dOOO4dab63.aspx
American Planning Association. (2005). AICP code ofethics andprofessional conduct.
Retrieved January 23,2009, from http://www.planning.orglethics/ethicscode.htm
Anonymous. (2008, September 29). Aluminium smelting in Iceland: Testing metal.
Economist. com. September 29,2008. Retrieved March 17,2009, from
http://www.economist.comlworld/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12323257
Amason, B., & Sigfusson, T. 1. (2000). Iceland-a future hydrogen economy.
International Journal ofHydrogen Energy 25(5),389-394.
doi: 1O.1016/S0360-3199(99)00077-4
Baer, P., & Athanasiou, T. (2004). Honesty about dangerous climate change.
Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.ecoequity.orglceo/ceo_8_2.htm
Bartholomy, O. (2004). Analysis ofavailable wind resources and their suitabilityfor
hydrogen production in the Sacramento area. Retrieved March 18, 2009, from
http://hydrogen. its.ucdavis. edu/publications/pubpres/2004presentations/bartholomy04b
Buckeridge, D. L., Glazier, R., Harvey, B. 1., Escobar, M., Frank, 1. (2002). Effect of
motor vehicle emissions on respiratory health in an urban area. Environmental Health
Perspectives 110(3),293-300.
doi: PMC1240770
Central Intelligence Agency. (2008). The worldfactbook, Iceland.
Retrieved February 27, 2009, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/ic.html
85
86
Chu, P., & Porcella, D. B. (1995). Mercury stack emissions from U.S. electric utility
power plants. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 80(1), 135~144.
doi: 1O.1007/BFOl189662
Cifuentes, L., Borja-Aburto, V. H., Gouveia, N., Thurston, G., Davis, D. L. (2001).
Climate change: Hidden health benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. Science 293(5533)l
1257~1259.
doi: 10.1126/science.1 063357
Clark, W. W. et aI. (2005). Hydrogen energy stations: Along the roadside to the hydrogen
economy. Utilities Policy 13(1), 41-50.
doi: 1O.1016/j.jup.2004.07.005
Duncan, R. c., & Youngquist, W. (1999). Encircling the peak ofworld oil production.
Natural Resources Research, 8(3),219-232.
doi: 1O.1023/A:l021646131122
Dunn, S. (2002). Hydrogen futures: Toward a sustainable energy system. International
Journal ofHydrogen Energy 27(3), 235~264.
doi: 1O.1016/S0360-3199(01)00131-8
Ecological Crisis. (2008). Answers. com geography dictionary.
Retrieved November 19, 2008, from http://www.answers.comltopic/ecological-crisis
Energy Information Administration. (2009). State energy profiles, Oregon.
Retrieved March 20, 2009 from
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energyyrofiles.cfm?sid=OR
Energy Information Administration. (2009). State energy data systems, Oregon, 1990-
2006. [statistics]. Available from EIA Data database. Retrieved March 20,2009 from
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energyyrofiles.cfm?sid=OR
Fleischmann, D. 1. (2007). Getting geothermal electricityprojects on line. ORMAT
Presentation. July 23,2007. Portland, OR. Retrieved February 27,2009l from
http://www.oregon.govIENERGYIRENEW/GeothermalldocslOGWG8_0RMAT.
Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC). (2007). Hydrogen basics - solar production.
Retrieved February 18, 2009, from
http://csws.fsec.ucf.edu/en!consumer/hydrogen!basics/production-solar.htm
Geothermal Energy Association. (2008). u.s. geothermalpower production and
development update. Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http://www.geo-
energy.org/publications/reports/Geothermal_Update_August_7_2008_FINAL.pdf
87
Icelandic Foreign Service. Ministry for Foreign Mfairs. (2008). Icelandfor Kids.
Retrieved November 6,2008, from http://www.iceland.orglca/the-embassy/iceland-for-
kids/#Population
Icelandic New Energy. (2008). Grj6thals station. Retrieved February 20,2009, from
http://www.newenergy.is/en!h2_stations/grjothals_station!
Jacobson, M. Z., Colella, W. G., & Golden, D. M. (2005).Cleaning the air and improving
health with hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. Science 308(5730), 1901-1905.
doi: 1O.1126/science.1109157
Karimi, N. (2008, October 21). Russia, Iran, Qatar discuss OPEC-style gas cartel. The
Guardian. pp. AI, A12.
Karl, T. R., & Trenberth, K. E. (2003). Modem global climate change. Science
302(5651),1719-1723.
doi: 10. 1126/science. 1090228
Kline, J. D., Azuma, D. L., & Alig, R. 1. (2004, February). Population growth, urban
expansion, and private forestry in western Oregon. Forest Science 50(1), 33-43.
Retrieved from Society of American Foresters, IngentaConnect.
Maack, M. H., & Skulason, J. B. (2006). Implementing the hydrogen economy. Journal
ofCleaner Production 14(1), 52-64.
doi: 1O.1016/j.jclepro.2005.05.027
Maantay, 1. (2002). Mapping environmental injustices: Pitfalls and potential of
geographic information systems in assessing environmental health and equity.
Environmental Health Perspectives 110(2), 161-171.
doi: PMC1241160
McKibben, B. (2007, December 28). Remember this: 350 parts per million.
The Washington Post, A21.
Murray, C. 1. L., & Lopez, A. D. (1998). The global burden ofdisease, 1990-2020.
Nature Medicine 4, 1241- 1243.
doi: 10.1038/3218
NationMaster. (2009). Electricity consumption, per capita, by country.
Retrieved February 27,2009, from
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_ele_conyercap-energy-electricity-
consumption-per-capita
88
Northwest Power and Conservation Council. (2009). Existing generating projects.
[statistics]. Available from NPCC Data database. Retrieved January 5,2009 from
http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/powersupplylDefault.htm
Oregon Department ofEnergy. (2005). Oregon's Renewable Energy Action Plan.
Retrieved October 30, 2008, from
http://www.oregon.govIENERGY/RENEW/docs/FinalREAP.pdf
Oregon Department ofEnergy. (2007). Electricity supply and Oregon.
Retrieved February 27, 2009, from http://www.oregon.govIENERGY/supply.shtml
Oregon Department ofEnergy. (2007). Frequently asked questions about windpower.
Retrieved February 18, 2009, from
http://www.oregon.govIENERGY/RENEWlWindIFAQ_Wind.shtml
Oregon Department ofEnergy. (2008). 2007-2009 State ofOregon energy plan.
Retrieved March 8, 2009, from http://www.oregon.govIENERGY/docslEnergyPlan07.
09.pdf
Oregon Department ofEnergy. (2008). Response to Governor Kulongoski 's request for
LNG and natural gas review. Retrieved March 8, 2009, from
http://www.oregon.govIENERGY/SITING/docs/LNG/LNG-Final_Report-May07_08.pdf
Oregon Department ofEnergy. (2009). Alternative fuel descriptions-hydrogen.
Retrieved January 19, 2009, from
http://www.oregon.govIENERGY/TRANS/fueldes.shtml
Oregon Department of Transportation Planning Section. (2006). Oregon transportation
plan. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/ortransplanupdatelExecutiveSummary.pdf
Oregon Department of Transportation. (2007). Oregon vehicle miles oftravelfor state
owned highways within each county. [statistics]. Available from ODOT Data database.
Retrieved January 19,2009, from http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TDATNtsmlvmt
page. shtml#Oregon_VMT_by_County
Oregon Labor Market Information System. (2008). Oregon population growth slows with
economy. Retrieved February 27,2009, from
http://www.qualityinfo.org/olmisj/ArticleReader?itemid=00005899
Oregon Department of Transportation. (2009).Oregon's electric vehicle charging station
network. Retrieved January 21, 2009, from
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOTIHWY/OIPP/inn_ev-charging.shtml
89
Orkustofnun - National Energy Authority ofIceland (2007). Orkustofnun - national
energy authority ofIceland Retrieved February 27,2009, from
http://www.os.is/page/english/
Parmesan, C., & Yohe, G. (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change
impacts across natural systems. Nature 421(6918), 37-42.
doi: 10.1038/natureO1286
Pope, C. A, Ezzati, M., & Dockery, D. W. (2009). Fine-particulate air pollution and life
expectancy in the United States," New England Journal ofMedicine 360(4),376-386,
doi: 1O.10561NEJMsa0805646
Portland State University Population Research Center. (2008). Certifiedpopulation
estimatesfor Oregon and its counties. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from
http://www.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.prc/files/media_assets/2008CertPopEstStateCo_
web.pdf
Portland State University Population Research Center. (2009). 2007 Oregon population
report. Retrieved February 27,2009, from
http://www.pdx.edu/sites/www.pdx.edu.pre/files/media_assetslPRC_2007_Population_R
eport2Jev.pdf
Public Power Chronicle's A guide to public power in the Pacific Northwest for the 21 sf
century. (2002). Portland, OR: Public Power Chronicle.
Rittel, H. W. 1., & Webber, M. M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. In N.
Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 135-144). Chichester: John Wiley
& Sons.
Sabatier, 1. (2009). Renewable rates. Oregon Public Broadcasting. Retrieved April 10,
2009, from http://www.opb.orglthinkoutloud/shows/renewable-rates/
Sigfusson, T. I. (2007) Hydrogen island: the story and motivations behind the
Icelandic hydrogen society experiment. Mitigation andAdaptation Strategies for Global
Change 12(3),407-418.
doi: 10.1007/s11027-006-9075-0
Skulason, 1. B. (2005). ECTOS, Ecological city transport system (EVK-CT-2000-00033)
deliverable number 19, final public report. Icelandic New Energy. Reykjavik, Iceland.
Retrieved November 6, 2008, from
http://www.ectos.is/newenergy/upload/files/utgefid_efni/ectos_19-_finaIJeport.pdf
90
State of Oregon. (2008). Aframeworkfor addressing rapid climate change.
Retrieved October 30, 2008, from
http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/GBLWRMIdocs/CCIGReport08Web.pdf
Sverrisd6ttir, V. (2006) International seminar on hydrogen economyfor sustainable
development. Opening Address to the United Nations Security Council. New York, N.Y.
Retrieved September 28, 2006, from
http://www.iceland.org!securitycouncillNews/nr/3238
Turner, 1. A. (2004). Sustainable hydrogen production. Science, 305(5686),972-974.
doi: 10.1l26/science.ll03197
Union of Concerned Scientists. (1992). World scientists' warning to humanity.
Retrieved March 18, 2009, from
http://www.actionbioscience.org!environmentlworldscientists.html.
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2009). How biomass energy works.
Retrieved March 20,2009, from
http://www.ucsusa.org!clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/how-
biomass-energy-works.html#Environmental_Benefits
University ofIceland. (2007). Education. Retrieved August 4,2007, from
http://www2.hi.is/page/education
U.S. Department ofEnergy. Hydrogen Production. (USDOE Hydrogen Production Fact
Sheet). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/doe_h2yroduction.pdf
U.S Department ofEnergy. (2005). Geothermal technologies program, Oregon.
Retrieved March 16, 2009, from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy050sti/36550.pdf
U.S Department ofEnergy. (2008). EERE State Activities and Partnerships.
Retrieved October 24,2008, from
http://appsI.eere.energy.gov/states/maps/renewableyortfolio_states.cfm
U.S Department ofEnergy. (2008). Electric power and renewable energy in Oregon.
Retrieved March 8,2009, from
http://appsI.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/state=OR#fuel
U.S. Department ofEnergy. (2008). Energy consumption in Oregon homes.
Retrieved February 27,2009, from
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/residential. cfm/state=OR
91
US. Department ofEnergy. (2009). Hydrogen production.
Retrieved May 7,2008, from http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/production.html
US. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Advance notice ojproposed rulemaking:
Regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the clean air act.
Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://epa.gov/climatechange/anpr.html
US. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Health Effects.
Retrieved February 1, 2009, from http://www.epa.gov/mercury/effects.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Human-related sources and sinks oj
carbon dioxide. Retrieved November 19,2008, from
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/c02_human.html
US. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009). Laws and Regulations.
Retrieved February 1,2009, from http://www.epa.gov/mercury/regs.htm
Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, 1., & Melillo, 1. M. (1997). Human
domination of earth's ecosystems. Science 277(5325), 494-499.
doi: 10.1126/science.277.5325.494
Westerholm, R, & Egeback, K. E. (1994). Exhaust emissions from light- and heavy-duty
vehicles: Chemical composition, impact of exhaust after treatment, and fuel parameters.
Environ Health Perspective. 102(4), 13-23.
doi: PMC1566929
Wilder, P. R, & Gauntlett, C. D. (2008). Carbon-free prosPerity 2025: How the
northwest can create green jobs, deliver energy security, and thrive in the global clean-
tech marketplace. Portland, OR: Clean Edge, Inc. and Climate Solutions.
Retrieved October 30, 2008, from
http://www.cleanedge.comlreports/pdf7CarbonFreeProsperity2025.pdf
World Health Organization. (1997). Health and environment in sustainable development:
five years qfter the earth summit. Retrieved March 19,2009, from
http://blogs.unige.ch/isdd/IMG/pdCWHO_EHG_97.12_eng.pdf
Youngquist, W., & Duncan, R (2003). North American natural gas: Data show supply
problems. Natural Resources Research, 12(4), 229-240.
doi: 1O.10231B:NARR0000007803.89812.06