Our company has a patent for the production of high purity hydrogen and aluminum oxide. Our reactor produces one kilo of hydrogen in 30 min. I can see our reactor as a backup support system for a hydrogen gas station that uses on site electrolysis apparatus as the main stream of hydrogen production. Since electrolysis takes 24 hours to produce hydrogen, in case that a sudden need or demand on site is needed, our system could be used as a backup system for immediate production. Under what topic of this Funding Opportunity would this type of application be acceptable?
DOE will not advise applicants as to whether or not they should apply, or as to which of the four topics listed in the FOA would be most appropriate for their application. In accordance with Section V.A.1 of the FOA (page 33), DOE will perform an initial review to determine whether or not a proposed project is responsive to the objectives of the FOA. This initial review will happen after the application due date. In addition, in accordance with various parts of Section IV of the FOA, applicants must state the specific topic addressed by their application in the Public Abstract and on the cover page of the Project Narrative.
Language pertaining to providing fuel cell range extenders for medium-duty trucks (Topic 1) states that the project is envisioned as a retrofit of battery electric trucks. However, there are thousands of diesel delivery trucks in fleets today that are not performing acceptably enough for service, and are therefore not being used. Given this opportunity to repurpose underperforming diesel engine delivery trucks, which represent a significant liability for large fleet operators, would converting them to all-electric trucks equipped with fuel cell range extenders qualify for funding?
Diesel trucks that are first converted to all-electric drivetrains would be considered appropriate base vehicles for Topic 1 projects. However, the diesel-to-electric conversion work itself would be out of scope. The addition of a fuel cell range extender to the previously converted truck would be in scope. In accordance with Section I.C of the FOA (page 5), DOE will not fund the cost of the base MD etruck and it cannot be used as cost share. This prohibition would apply as well to the cost of converting a base diesel truck to an electric drivetrain.
My thesis subject was designing and manufacturing of portable remover and biomass briquetting machine from argo and animal wastes which is a Combine harvester type. I am looking forward to conduct some research about optimization of briquette and energy consumption of the machine by mixing row material with oil and etc. I would really like to cooperate with your institution in this field if possible. Thanks for your time.
Questions submitted for this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) must be directly related to the subject of the announcement. DOE will not answer solicitations for information.
I am requesting a two-week extension to this opportunity’s submission due date, from July 11, 2013 to July 25, 2013. This proposal’s current due date of July 11, 2013 does not allow sufficient time to find and develop third-party partners to participate in the proposal to provide funding and cost share support. In many cases, state and municipal partners will be sought to provide cost share, and their availability during the July Fourth week is drastically limited. Similarly, commercial partners will also have limited availability in the crucial July Fourth week prior to the current submission due date. While larger businesses may be able to provide DOE’s required cost share with their own resources, smaller businesses that are trying to obtain third-party support for their proposed projects will be constrained by the current submission schedule. Therefore by providing additional time, DOE will obtain better-supported proposals from more small businesses and will see a broader scope of technologies in response to this announcement.
DOE cannot grant extensions for individual applicants. If an application deadline extension is deemed necessary, an amendment to the FOA will be posted in Exchange prior to the current deadline.
On page 19 of the FOA-828, it says “applicants are requested to submit a Letter of Intent”, however, “failure to submit such letters will not negatively affect a responsive application submitted in a timely fashion”. I am wondering if the Letter of Intent is mandatory or not.
The purpose of the Letter of Intent is to allow DOE to gauge the response to the FOA and aid in planning the review of the full applications. The Letter of intent is requested, but not mandatory. Additionally, no feedback from DOE will be provided regarding the Letter of Intent.
I am requesting an application deadline extension amendment to the FOA for all applicants. Question 4, my previous extension request, was submitted because all applicants are adversely affected by the application due date immediately following the Fourth of July holiday.
If DOE decides to issue an application deadline extension, an amendment to the FOA will be posted in Exchange prior to the current deadline. Thank you for your concern and attention to this matter.
The FOA states that “forecourt stations or dispensing sites selected for integration of a refueling component technology must provide both 350 and 700 bar dispensing pressures.” Would a response to the solicitation proposing funding for the development of compression technology that demonstrates both 350 and 700 bar dispensing capability, but was integrated into a station that provided only 700 bar dispensing for the demonstration phase, be considered a qualified application?
DOE will consider a host site refueling station for component validation under Topic 2 that only offers 700 bar refueling. The FOA will be amended with minor language changes to effect this decision.
Will the Department of Energy consider hydrogen fuel cells which are supplied gaseous hydrogen by reforming a methanol water blended fuel for inclusion in this demonstration and case study or is gaseous hydrogen fuel the only allowed or otherwise preferred choice?
For Topic 3, the case study and demonstration must focus on gaseous hydrogen solutions only. Solutions involving other fuels, including onsite reforming of hydrocarbons to hydrogen, are not sought at this time.
Would we qualify for this grant to install a solar-hydrogen electrolyzer system that would self-fuel the fuel cells (versus filling hydrogen tanks from trucks on the ground)? Our organization specializes in renewable hydrogen generation by electrolysis from Solar and Wind power. We have partnerships with solar companies and have extensive experience in rooftop solar installation. We could develop a system that self-fuels the hydrogen generators on the roof.
For Topic 3, solutions involving onsite electrolysis are not sought at this time. In addition, in accordance with Section I.C of the FOA (page 9), the goal of Topic 3 is to develop a case study for roof-top installations of hydrogen fuel cell backup power systems that refuel from the ground.
Can you advise me on the issue concerning the deadline for FOA 828 and the significant time period required to register our company as directed in the FOA instructions?
All registration and submission date information is included in the FOA document posted on the EERE Exchange website. Please review the FOA document, which was amended on 6/25/2013, for extension information.
Much of the cost-share for this project can be achieved through operation and administration of the vehicles in Phase 2 – Deployment. However, there is a substantial upfront cost for vehicle development and one-off build in Phase 1 – Demonstration. Does the 50% cost-share requirement apply to each phase individually or can it apply to the overall project costs (Phase 1 and Phase 2)?
Topic areas 1-3 require 50% cost share and Topic area 4 requires 20% cost share. The cost share applies to overall project costs, however recipients may not fall below the required cost share percentage at any time during the project. Thus projects may cost share above the required percentage in earlier phases and below in later phases, as long as the overall cost share meets the required percentage at all times during the project. Projects may not cost share below the required cost share percentage in earlier phases.