1. 07/26/2010 New Fuels Session Objective 1 Agree approach and definition of New Fuels Agree preliminary scope of New Fuels, recognizing that the scope will evolve as the sub groups further define their technical scope Agree boundary conditions with each sub groups

2. 07/26/2010 Proposed New Fuels Scope and Approach Scope Fuels Hydrogen Fuels from solar Photobacteria (ethanol or butanol) Artificial photosynthesis Advanced levitation Lithium-Air (500 mile) battery “Drop-In” biofuels (bio-gasoline, etc.) Application Fuel cells Free piston engines 2 Approach Not a traditional subgroup Led by research scientist (non- industry) Develop frame and scope Request white paper on technology by leading scientists currently undertaking research Facilitate scientific review of white paper Supply and infrastructure and “light touch” economic review of white paper Finalize position and implications for report Key question for new fuels (2050+) is whether the government should even consider investing in these technologies?

3. 07/26/2010 Suggestions Recognise numerous boundary issues Agree New Fuels could cover unusual pathways (vs. technology only) Hydrogen and fuel cells go to a supply and infrastructure sub group and get a full analysis Lithium chemistries stay w/ batteries and the battery evaluation sub group New fuels will pick other (non-lithium) chemistries/advanced batteries Solar, photobacteria and artificial photosynthesis will not be lumped together Drop-in biofuels goes to biofuels sub group New fuels will cover free piston engines CO2 Conversion to fuels added to list New Fuels Scope Fuels Fuels from solar Photobacteria (ethanol or butanol) Artificial photosynthesis Advanced levitation Non Lithium chemistries/advanced batteries CO2 conversion to fuel Application Free piston engines 3

4. 07/26/2010 Chevron Feedback on “New Fuels” Proposal Agree Technology TG takes “New Fuels.” –Not inbounds of sub teams. Suggestions based on internal review –Look beyond fuels. –Consider integrated value chains. Fuel  Conversion  Vehicle System Source  Conversion  Storage  Propulsion –Look at unusual pathways or combinations. Examples: –ICE plus Flywheel storage –Right of way solar

5. 07/26/2010 Exxon feedback We take no exception to the list, however the inclusion of biofuels in the list (Algae, drop-in biofuels) will create a boundary discussion with Biofuels team and this should be worked to avoid duplication and misalignment. Hydrogen likely will also have some boundary issues with the subgroups. (i.e. fossil liquids and natural gas) We have no additions to the list of "New Fuels" at this time from our internal review. Does the "New Fuel" application list apply only in the context of "New Fuels" or will there also be boundary issues with fossil liquids and natural gas as they may play a role? 5

6. 07/26/2010 GM feedback I don't understand the reference to 2050+ -- does this mean post-2050? If so, then hydrogen and fuel cells don’t belong on this list - it is very possible that automakers will begin deploying FCEVs around 2015. It is a very viable technology and has broader applications in the LDV market than batteries (which will likely always be limited to smaller, low-load vehicles, with shorter ranges, and longer refuel times). We definitely feel hydrogen and fuel cells belong in this study. In our opinion, fuels from solar, photobacteria, and artificial photosynthesis are all the same general idea (so lump together). And yes, the govt should be investing. Advanced levitation - I don't think this needs to be looked at Lithium-Air -- make this more general and call it high-energy batteries - and, yes, the govt should be investing. Yes, drop-in biofuels (especially bio-gasoline) should definitely be part of this study – also don’t understand the definition of 2050+ in this context. Yes, definitely fuel cells should be part of this effort (and govt investment) - and free piston engines as well 6

7. 07/26/2010 Toyota feedback I am somewhat perplexed that we don't see a way forward for many of these fuels even by 2050 and just dismiss them out of hand. Hydrogen is a good example. from an electro-chemical pov fuel cells are as advanced or perhaps more advanced than Li Ion batteries. 7

8. 07/26/2010 ADM feedback I share your concerns. I do think it is difficult to see the best path because so much is invested in the current infrastructure and therefore we expect any new fuel to seamlessly fit into this. Figuring out the best transitions states and the activation energy needed to get there are probably the best way to define the path forward and probably would be the best way to advise the government. I just hope we can figure out the lowest energy path and not the highest. Tom Binder 8