Fuel Cell Technology: Policy, Features, and Applications – A Mini-review

  • Sajid Bashir
  • Nancy KingSanders
  • Jingbo Louise LiuEmail author


When Dwight D. Eisenhower became the 34th president of the United States, he was the first incumbent of the office that did not hold any political office within state government or within the US Congress, excluding military service, since Ulysses Grant. No president prior to or since has crafted and influenced energy policy to the degree of President Eisenhower. As the first officeholder without a past “congressional” career, he was viewed as pro-business and pro-military, and the expectations of his government were that nuclear energy would provide cheaper electricity. The challenges during his administration enabled him to adopt a more orthodox policy stance, and the nuclear energy policies did not proceed as anticipated or planned. The 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, is the only individual since Eisenhower without a prior congressional-type political career. Since he has a foundation in real estate business, like Eisenhower, he is perceived as “pro-business,” and it is pertinent to compare similar energy policies under the current administration. Although the current administration is only 100 days old, statements during the primaries, general election, and first 100 days in office and first proposed federal budget suggest that tax credits for electric vehicles and other tax assistance credits will be discontinued and that certain brackets of taxes will be eliminated or greatly reduced. And many federal policies enacted under the Obama administration related to environment and energy will be rolled back, favoring coal, drilling, and Keystone XL and the Dakota Access Pipelines. Whether these policies will promote domestic energy production, reduce the import-to-export gap, or lower the “energy deficiency” is too early to gauge. The introduction of potential import fees or border taxes may promote coal extraction at the expense of natural gas exploration. This may also impact gasoline prices at the pump since crude oil imported from other countries would have taxes or fees levied on it. Coupled with limiting environmental regulations and capping liabilities, lower corporate tax rates for oil exploration companies may promote domestic energy production, because of lower operating costs and liabilities, and may increase corporate profits, although these trends may not be observable within the lifetime of the first term of President Trump. In addition, the projected 3% growth in employment over the current 1.7% is again too early to discern, although most economist’s opinions are that these targets will not be met since these currently are proposals and not implemented policy.



The College of Arts and Sciences (CoA&S, Dr. Bashir, 160336-00002), American Chemical Society, Petroleum Research Funds (Dr. Liu, 53827-UR10), Summer Faculty Fellowship Program (Dr. Bashir), Welch Departmental Grant (AC-0006), and Department of Education (Dr. KingSanders, P031S150096 – I-CARE) at Texas A&M University-Kingsville (TAMUK) were duly acknowledged for their funding and student support. The Microscopy and Imaging Center (MIC) at TAMU and the Department of Chemistry at TAMUK were also duly acknowledged for their technical support and nanostructure characterization.

Dedication This chapter is dedicated to Professor Peter J. Derrick who passed away on February 6, 2017, during the preparation of this manuscript. Dr. Derrick was a Ph.D. advisor of SB at the University of Warwick. Dr. Derrick was someone who expected not only high academic rigor but also high ethical and professional standards. We deeply mourn the loss of this chemistry hero. We also celebrate his life and profession through the publication of peer-reviewed research.

SB also mourns the loss of his best friend Rakesh Prajapat with whom they shared their childhood until both were admitted by the universities. It seems incredible someone so young who is no longer present. SB deeply misses his loving company and excellent counsel, forever. SB would be delighted to pass his deepest condolences to Miss Sophie Prajapat, who will carry out her father’s legacy of being the utmost professional, a best friend, a reliable neighbor, and a decent person. SB is proud and privileged to call Mr. Rakesh Prajapat a “friend” in deed.


  1. 1.
    IEO, US Department of Energy and International Energy Outlook 2009 and technical report DOE/EIA-0484 (2009),
  2. 2.
    M. Roser, Energy production & changing energy sources. I: empirical view (2010),
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    J.P. Tomain, The dominant model of United States energy policy. U. Colo. L. Rev. 61, 355–358 (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    J.A. Hausman, Project independence report: an appraisal of US energy needs up to 1985. Bell J. Econ. 6, 517–551 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    S. Shafiee, E. Topal, When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? Energ. Policy 37(1), 181–189 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    D.D. Eisenhower, Atoms for peace. IAEA Bull. 45(2), 62–67 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. Chow, R.J. Kopp, P.R. Portney, Energy resources and global development. Science 302(5650), 1528–1531 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R.G. Hewlett, J.M. Holl, Atoms for Peace and War, 1953–1961: Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission, vol. 3 (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1989),
  15. 15.
    A. Chandra, E. Thompson, Does public infrastructure affect economic activity?: evidence from the rural interstate highway system. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 30(4), 457–490 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.E. Phelps, R.T. Smith, Petroleum Regulation: The False Dilemma of Decontrol (vol. 1951, No. RC) (Rand Corp, Santa Monica, 1977),
  17. 17.
    R.S. Pindyck, The optimal exploration and production of nonrenewable resources. J. Polit. Econ. 86(5), 841–861 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    W.J. Mead, The performance of government in energy regulations. Am. Econ. Rev. 69(2), 352–356 (1979)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. Hannon, R.A. Herendeen, P. Penner, Energy Conservation Tax: Impacts and Policy Implications (No. NP-2900771; ERG-267). (Illinois University Office of Vice Chancellor for Research, Urbana, 1979),
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    A.M. Weinberg, Nuclear energy: salvaging the atomic age. Wilson Q. 3(3), 88–112 (1979)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J.V. Kennedy, The sources and uses of US science funding. New Atlantis 36, 3–22 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    V. Bush, As we may think. Atlantic Month. 176(1), 101–108 (1945)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    G.T. Shen, Resource 2. Federal R&D funding: quick agency profiles (2017),
  25. 25.
    G.F. Nemet, D.M. Kammen, US energy research and development: declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion. Energ. Policy 35(1), 746–755 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. Simons, C. Bauer, A life-cycle perspective on automotive fuel cells. Appl. Energy 157, 884–896 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    N.S. Lewis, Research opportunities to advance solar energy utilization. Science 351(6271), AAD1920-4 (2016),
  28. 28.
    R. Boswell, Is gas hydrate energy within reach? Science 325(5943), 957–958 (2009), Scholar
  29. 29.
    J.D. Figueroa, T. Fout, S. Plasynski, H. McIlvried, R.D. Srivastava, Advances in CO2 capture technology – the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Program. Int. J. Greenhouse Gas Control 2(1), 9–20 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    H. Tabuchi, What’s at stake in Trump’s proposed E.P.A. cuts (2017),
  31. 31.
    D.C. Crawford, D.L. Porter, S.L. Hayes, Fuels for sodium-cooled fast reactors: US perspective. J. Nucl. Mater. 371(1), 202–231 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    J. Worland, President Trump’s energy policy remains a work in progress (2017),
  33. 33.
    J.H. Gibbons, Report to the president on federal energy research and development for the challenges of the twenty-first century. President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President of the United States of America (1997),
  34. 34.
    F.J. Sissine, Renewable energy R&D funding history: a comparison with funding for nuclear energy, fossil energy, and energy efficiency R&D. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress (2008),
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    S.H. Schurr, B.C. Netschert, Energy in the American economy, 1850–1975. Challenge 10(9), 41–44 (1960),
  37. 37.
    O. Hohmeyer, The social costs of electricity-renewables versus fossil and nuclear energy. Int. J. Sol. Energy 11(3–4), 231–250 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    D. Kearney, Energy information administration. Department of Energy, 92010(9), 1–15 (2010), AEO 2010.pdf
  39. 39.
    P. Jaramillo, W.M. Griffin, H.S. Matthews, Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41(17), 6290–6296 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    R.S. Pindyck, The long-run evolution of energy prices. Energy J. 20(2), 1–27 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    S.P. Brown, M.K. Yücel, What drives natural gas prices? Energy J. 29(2), 45–60 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    E. Worrell, C. Galitsky, Energy efficiency improvement and cost saving opportunities for petroleum refineries, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (2005),
  43. 43.
    G.L. Kyriakopoulos, G. Arabatzis, Electrical energy storage systems in electricity generation: energy policies, innovative technologies, and regulatory regimes. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 56, 1044–1067 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
  45. 45.
    M. Kovacevic, M. Lambic, L. Radovanovic, I. Kucora, M. Ristic, Measures for increasing consumption of natural gas. Energ. Source. B. Econ. Plann. Policy 12(5), 443–451 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    M.Z. Jacobson, M.A. Delucchi, G. Bazouin, Z.A. Bauer, C.C. Heavey, E. Fisher, T.W. Yeskoo, 100% Clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States. Energ. Environ. Sci. 8(7), 2093–2117 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    V. Devabhaktuni, M. Alam, S.S.S.R. Depuru, R.C. Green, D. Nims, C. Near, Solar energy: trends and enabling technologies. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 19, 555–564 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    S.C. Mayotte, V. Rao, C.E. Lindhjem, M.S. Sklar, Reformulated gasoline effects on exhaust emissions: phase II: continued investigation of the effects of fuel oxygenate content, oxygenate type, volatility, sulfur, olefins and distillation parameters (no. 941974). SAE technical paper (1994),
  49. 49.
    A.A. Keller, L.F. Fernandez, S. Hitz, H. Kun, A. Peterson, B. Smith, M. Yoshioka, An integral cost-benefit analysis of gasoline formulations meeting California phase II reformulated gasoline requirements. UC TSR&TP Report to the Governor of California (1998),
  50. 50.
    F.E. Ahmed, Toxicology and human health effects following exposure to oxygenated or reformulated gasoline. Toxicol. Lett. 123(2), 89–113 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    R.E. Morris, Y. Jia, The impact of biodiesel fuels on air quality and human health: task 4 report (2003),
  52. 52.
    M. Strum, R. Scheffe, A national review of ambient air toxics observations. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 66(2), 120–133 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    W.R. Hartley, A.J. Englande, D.J. Harrington, Health risk assessment of groundwater contaminated with methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Water Sci. Technol. 39(10–11), 305–310 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    A.A. Meharg, in Ecological Impact of Major Industrial Chemical Accidents, ed. by G.W. Ware. Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology (Springer, New York, 1994), pp. 21–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    P. Brimblecombe, The clean air act after 50 years. Weather 61(11), 311–314 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    T.R. Fanshawe, P.J. Diggle, S. Rushton, R. Sanderson, P.W.W. Lurz, S.V. Glinianaia, T. Pless-Mulloli, Modeling spatiotemporal variation in exposure to particulate matter: a two-stage approach. Environmetrics 19(6), 549–566 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    S.M. Bernard, J.M. Samet, A. Grambsch, K.L. Ebi, I. Romieu, The potential impacts of climate variability and change on air pollution-related health effects in the United States. Environ. Health Perspect. 109(Suppl 2), 199–205 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    K. Ito, G.D. Thurston, C. Hayes, M. Lippmann, Associations of London, England, daily mortality with particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and acidic aerosol pollution. Arch. Environ. Health 48(4), 213–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    C. Ji, S. Wang, Combustion and emissions performance of a hybrid hydrogen–gasoline engine at idle and lean conditions. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 35(1), 346–355 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    T. Johnson, Diesel engine emissions and their control. Platin. Met. Rev. 52(1), 23–37 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    IEA, CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2012 (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2012),
  62. 62.
    J. Conti, P. Holtberg, International energy outlook 2011. US energy information administration, (EIA) (2011),
  63. 63.
    Global Energy Statistical Yearbook, (2016),
  64. 64.
    M. Asif, T. Muneer, Energy supply, its demand and security issues for developed and emerging economies. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 11(7), 1388–1413 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    M.A. Delucchi, J.J. Murphy, US military expenditures to protect the use of Persian Gulf oil for motor vehicles. Energ. Policy 36(6), 2253–2264 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    The Economist, The Trump administration’s trade strategy is dangerously outdated (2017),
  67. 67.
    D.J. Hirschfeld, Trump sends NAFTA renegotiation notice to congress (2017),
  68. 68.
    A. Heshmati, Demand, customer baseline and demand response in the electricity market: a survey. J. Econ. Surv. 28(5), 862–888 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    IEA, Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2012)
  70. 70.
    E. Martinot, J. Sawin, Renewables global status report. Renewables 2012 Global Status Report, REN21 (2012),
  71. 71.
    S. Ölz, Renewable energy policy considerations for deploying renewables (2011),
  72. 72.
    L. Wu, S. Liu, D. Liu, Z. Fang, H. Xu, Modeling and forecasting CO2 emissions in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries using a novel multi-variable gray model. Energy 79, 489–495 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    V. Bosetti, J. Frankel, Politically feasible emissions targets to attain 460 ppm CO2 concentrations. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 6(1), 86–109 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    K.S. Lackner, A guide to CO2 sequestration. Science 300(5626), 1677–1678 (2003), Scholar
  75. 75.
    F.T. Bacon, T.M. Fry, Review lecture: the development and practical application of fuel cells. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 334(1599), 427–452 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    M. Warshay, P.R. Prokopius, The fuel cell in space: yesterday, today and tomorrow. J. Power Sources 29(1–2), 193–200 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    K.V. Kordesch, 25 Years of fuel cell development/1951–1976. J. Electrochem. Soc. 125, 77 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    K.C. Tangri, U.S. Patent No. 4,085,709, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC (1978),
  79. 79.
    W. Surdoval, US DOE fossil energy fuel cell program. ECS Trans. 7(1), 11–15 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    M.C. Williams, J.P. Strakey, W.A. Surdoval, The US Department of Energy, the office of fossil energy stationary fuel cell program. J. Power Sources 143(1), 191–196 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    S. Gottesfeld, T.A. Zawodzinski, Polymer electrolyte fuel cells. Adv. Electrochem. Sci. Eng. 5, 195–302 (1997)Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    D.E. Curtin, R.D. Lousenberg, T.J. Henry, P.C. Tangeman, M.E. Tisack, Advanced materials for improved PEMFC performance and life. J. Power Sources 131(1), 41–48 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
  84. 84.
    J. Rodriguez, P.X. Thivel, E. Puzenat, Photocatalytic hydrogen production for PEMFC supply: a new issue. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 38(15), 6344–6348 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    S. Satyapal, J. Petrovic, C. Read, G. Thomas, G. Ordaz, The US Department of Energy’s National Hydrogen Storage Project: progress towards meeting hydrogen-powered vehicle requirements. Catal. Today 120(3), 246–256 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    J.J. Winebrake, B.P. Creswick, The future of hydrogen fueling systems for transportation: an application of perspective-based scenario analysis using the analytic hierarchy process. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 70(4), 359–384 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    D. Garraín, Y. Lechón, C. de la Rúa, Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFC) in automotive applications: environmental relevance of the manufacturing stage. Smart Grid Renew. Energy 2(2), 68–72 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    B. Ibeh, C. Gardner, M. Ternan, Separation of hydrogen from a hydrogen/methane mixture using a PEM fuel cell. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 32(7), 908–914 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    A. Emadi, K. Rajashekara, S.S. Williamson, S.M. Lukic, Topological overview of hybrid electric and fuel cell vehicular power system architectures and configurations. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol. 54(3), 763–770 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    S. Kawasaki, M. Ogura, T. Ono, Y. Kami, Development of the HONDA FCX fuel cell vehicle. Honda R&D Tech. Rev. 15(1), 1–6 (2003)Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    B.C. Steele, A. Heinzel, Materials for fuel-cell technologies. Nature 414(6861), 345–352 (2001), Scholar
  92. 92.
    D. Chu, R. Jiang, Performance of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC) stacks: part I. Evaluation and simulation of an air-breathing PEMFC stack. J. Power Sources 83(1), 128–133 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    L. Nguyen, F. Mighri, Y. Deyrail, S. Elkoun, Conductive materials for proton exchange membrane fuel cell bipolar plates made from PVDF, PET and co-continuous PVDF/PET filled with carbon additives. Fuel Cells 10(6), 938–948 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    V. Mehta, J.S. Cooper, Review and analysis of PEM fuel cell design and manufacturing. J. Power Sources 114(1), 32–53 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    H. Zhang, P.K. Shen, The recent development of polymer electrolyte membranes for fuel cells. Chem. Rev. 112(5), 2780–2832 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    S. Zhang, X. Yuan, H. Wang, W. Mérida, H. Zhu, J. Shen, J. Zhang, A review of accelerated stress tests of MEA durability in PEM fuel cells. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 34(1), 388–404 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    J.P. Breen, J.R. Ross, Methanol reforming for fuel cell applications: development of zirconia-containing Cu–Zn–Al catalysts. Catal. Today 51(3), 521–533 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    S. Velu, K. Suzuki, M. Okazaki, M.P. Kapoor, T. Osaki, F. Ohashi, Oxidative steam reforming of methanol over CuZnAl (Zr)-oxide catalysts for the selective production of hydrogen for fuel cells: catalyst characterization and performance evaluation. J. Catal. 194(2), 373–384 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    S. Zhang, Y. Shao, G. Yin, Y. Lin, Recent progress in nanostructured electrocatalysts for PEM fuel cells. J. Mater. Chem. A 1(15), 4631–4641 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Y. Yuan, J.A. Smith, G. Goenaga, D.J. Liu, Z. Luo, J. Liu, Platinum-decorated aligned carbon nanotubes: electrocatalyst for improved performance of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. J. Power Sources 196(15), 6160–6167 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    S. Shimpalee, U. Beuscher, J.W. Van Zee, Analysis of GDL flooding effects on PEMFC performance. Electrochim. Acta 52(24), 6748–6754 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    K. Goto, I. Rozhanskii, Y. Yamakawa, T. Otsuki, Y. Naito, Development of aromatic polymer electrolyte membrane with high conductivity and durability for the fuel cell. Polym. J. 41(2), 95–102 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Honda R&D Technical Review provided by Honda Patents & Technologies North America, LLC.3, 1–10 (2009)Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    M. Matsunaga, T. Fukushima, K. Ojima, Powertrain system of Honda FCX Clarity fuel cell vehicle. World Electr. Veh. J. 3, 1–10 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    B.D. James, A.B.. Spisak, Mass production cost estimation of direct H2 PEM fuel cell systems for transportation applications: 2012 update. Report by Strategic Analysis, Inc., under award number DEEE0005236 for the US Department of Energy, vol. 18 (2012), pp. 1–186,
  106. 106.
    Y. Orbach, G.E. Fruchter, Forecasting sales and product evolution: the case of the hybrid/electric car. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 78(7), 1210–1226 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    B. Nykvist, M. Nilsson, Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5(4), 329–332 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    J.B. Stronberg, Renewable Energy Tax Credits in the Age of Trump (Civil Notion, 2017).
  109. 109.
    A. Walker, M. Galea, C. Gerada, A. Mebarki, D. Gerada. A topology selection consideration of electrical machines for traction applications: towards the FreedomCar 2020 targets. In Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER), 2015 Tenth International Conference on IEEE (2015), pp. 1–10,

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sajid Bashir
    • 1
  • Nancy KingSanders
    • 2
  • Jingbo Louise Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of ChemistryTexas A&M University-KingsvilleKingsvilleUSA
  2. 2.Texas A&M University-KingsvilleKingsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations