1

Supporting Online Material

Cleaning the Air and Improving Health With

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles
1
M. Z. Jacobson, 1W.G. Colella, and 2D.M. Golden
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford,
California 94305-4020, USA. Email: jacobson@stanford.edu
2
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California
94305-3032, USA.

Science, June 24, 2005

Introduction
This Online Supplementary Information (OSI) describes the model used for this study in
more detail (Section 1), discusses the setup of simulations for the study (Section 2),
discusses additional difference plots from the four cases examined (Section 3), provides
details on the estimated cost analysis of hydrogen from wind power, discussed in the
main text (Section 4), and provides estimates of the 100-year global warming potential of
black carbon plus organic matter and of sulfur oxides (Section 5). The companion paper
(S1) discusses the emission cases in detail and shows paired-in-time-and-space
comparisons of baseline model predictions with data.

1. Description of the model.

The model used for this study was GATOR-GCMOM, a parallelized and one-way-nested
global-through-micro-γ-scale Gas, Aerosol, Transport, Radiation, General Circulation,
Mesoscale, and Ocean Model. The model treated time-dependent gas, aerosol, cloud,
radiative, dynamical, ocean, and transport processes. Aerosol processes in each grid cell
were treated among a single aerosol size distribution with 17 size bins and 13
components per bin. Cloud processes in each cell were treated among three hydrometeor
distributions (liquid, ice, and graupel), each with 30 size bins and all the aerosol
components plus liquid, ice, or graupel, in each bin. All processes described were solved
in all grid cells in the stratosphere and troposphere. The model was parallelized with
Message Passing Interface (MPI). All physical, chemical, and cloud, and radiative
algorithms were parallelized by column. The model as a whole has been tested against
meteorological, chemical, and radiative field data without nesting on urban scales (S2-
S5), with nesting from the global-through-urban scale (S6-S7), with nesting from the
global-through-regional scale (S8), without nesting on the freeway scale (S9), and on the
global scale (S10-S13).

1.A. Atmospheric Dynamical and Transport Processes

On the global scale, the model solved the equations for momentum (under the hydrostatic
assumption), thermodynamic energy, and total water with the potential-enstrophy, mass,
and energy-conserving scheme of (S14). In nested regional grids, it solved with an
enstrophy-, mass-, and kinetic-energy-conserving scheme (S15). Both modules used
spherical and sigma-pressure coordinates in the horizontal and vertical, respectively.
Transport of gases and aerosols is solved with the scheme of (S16) using online winds
and vertical diffusion coefficients.
 2
1.B. Gas Processes
Gas processes included emission, photochemistry, advection, turbulence, cloud
convection of gases, nucleation, condensation onto and dissolution into aerosols, clouds,
and precipitation, washout, and dry deposition. Gases affected solar and thermal-IR
radiation, aerosol formation, and cloud evolution, all of which fed back to meteorology.
Gas photochemistry was solved with SMVGEAR II (S17). The chemical mechanism
included over 300 reactions relevant to urban, free tropospheric, and stratospheric
chemistry. The mechanism is listed in (S18, Appendix Table B.4), but with some
modified reaction rate coefficients from (S19).

1.C. Aerosol Processes

Aerosol processes were treated among 17 size bins and multiple aerosol components per
bin. (S20) describes the numerical techniques for solving aerosol processes in the model.
(S21) describes the techniques for solving interactions of aerosol particles with size-
resolved hydrometeor distributions. Size- and distribution-dependent aerosol processes
included emission, homogeneous nucleation, condensation, dissolution, aerosol-aerosol
coagulation, aerosol-cloud/ice/graupel coagulation, equilibrium hydration of liquid water,
internal-particle chemical equilibrium, irreversible aqueous chemistry, evaporation of
cloud drops back to aerosol-particles, transport, sedimentation, dry deposition, rainout,
and washout. Aerosols in the model affected solar and thermal-IR radiation, cloud
evolution, gas concentrations, and surface albedo, all of which feed back to meteorology.
The number concentration of particles and the mole concentrations of each component in
each size distribution were prognostic variables. H2SO4-H2O homogenous nucleation
rates were calculated with the parameterization of (S22). Homogeneous nucleation was
solved simultaneously with condensation of H2SO4-H2O between the gas and all size bins
of all distributions with a mass-conserving, noniterative, and unconditionally stable
scheme (S20). The scheme was also used for condensation of organic gases onto size-
resolved aerosols. The model also treated nonequilibrium dissolutional growth of
inorganics (e.g., NH3, HNO3, HCl, H2CO3) and soluble organics to all size bins with a
new mass-conserving nonequilibrium growth solver, PNG-EQUISOLV II (S23), where
PNG is Predictor of Nonequilibrium Growth. EQUISOLV II (S24) is a chemical
equilibrium solver that determines aerosol liquid water content, pH, and ion distributions
following nonequilibrium growth. Aerosol-aerosol coagulation is solved among all
distributions and components and among total particles in each bin with a volume-
conserving, noniterative, algorithm (S20).

1.D. Gas-Aerosol-Cloud-Turbulence Interactions

The numerical techniques for cloud thermodynamics and microphysics are described
predominantly in (S21). Cumulus and stratus clouds formed in the model by water growth
onto 17 aerosol size bins to form liquid water drops or ice crystals or both. Following the
growth calculation, the liquid drops and crystals were repartitioned from the 17-bin
aerosol distribution into separate 30-bin liquid and ice hydrometeor distributions, where
each bin contained all the chemical components of the underlying CCN aerosol particles.
A third 30-bin hydrometeor distribution, graupel, was also tracked. This distribution
formed upon heterocoagulation of the liquid water and ice hydrometeor distributions,
contact freezing of aerosol particles with the liquid distribution, the heterogeneous-
homogeneous freezing of the liquid distribution, and the evaporative freezing of the
liquid distribution.

The water available for the original condensational/depositional growth

calculation was determined with stratus and cumulus parameterizations. The stratus cloud
scheme is from (S25) and was coupled with the calculation of turbulence (order 2.5). The
stratus scheme predicted cloud fraction and cloud water content in each layer given
turbulence terms and vertical gradients in potential temperature and moisture. Turbulence
parameters affected clouds, momentum, energy, and tracers, particularly in the boundary
 3
layer, which was resolved. Cumulus clouds were predicted with a modified Arakawa-
Schubert algorithm (S26). In each column, nearly 500 subgrid cumulus clouds could form
(and 1-10 typically formed), each defined by a unique cloud base and top (when 23 layers
existed below the tropopause, 22 bases and 22 tops are possible). For each subgrid cloud,
water and energy transport were solved with a mass-flux convection scheme; gas and
size-resolved aerosol component transport were solved with a positive-definite, stable
convective plume transport scheme. For each subgrid cloud, the model also generated
adjustments to large-scale potential temperature, momentum, and water vapor.

Following cumulus-parameterization convection, the bulk water predicted in each

layer from the cumulus and stratus parameterizations was evaporated/sublimated then
regrown (simultaneously for liquid and ice) onto the size-resolved aerosol distributions
transported to that layer. Because aerosols were transported vertically with cloud water in
all cases, aerosol activation was consistent with that in a rising plume. The critical radius
for liquid growth accounted for Raoult’s law and the Kelvin effect and that for ice growth
accounted for the Kelvin effect. In each size bin of each hydrometeor distribution, both
effects were calculated based on the composition of the underlying aerosol material in the
size bin, since such material was tracked. As such, changes in, for example, surface
tension due to organics and inorganics were calculated based on the modeled composition
of organics and inorganics in each cloud drop and ice crystal size bin.

Following growth, size-resolved processes treated were hydrometeor-

hydrometeor coagulation (liquid-liquid, liquid-ice, liquid-graupel, ice-ice, ice-graupel,
and graupel-graupel), aerosol-hydrometeor coagulation, large liquid drop breakup,
settling, evaporative cooling during drop settling, evaporative freezing (freezing during
drop cooling), heterogeneous-homogeneous freezing, contact freezing, melting,
evaporation, sublimation release of aerosol cores upon evaporation/sublimation,
coagulation of hydrometeors with interstitial aerosols, irreversible aqueous chemistry, gas
washout, and lightning generation from size-resolved coagulation among ice
hydrometeors. The coagulation kernel for all cloud interactions and aerosol-cloud
interactions included a coalescence efficiency and collision kernels for Brownian motion,
Brownian diffusion enhancement, turbulent inertial motion, turbulent shear, settling,
thermophoresis, diffusiophoresis, and charge.

Aerosol particles of different size were removed by size-resolved clouds and

precipitation through two mechanisms: nucleation scavenging and aerosol-hydrometeor
coagulation. Both processes were size-resolved with respect to both aerosol particles and
hydrometeor particles.

1.E. Radiative Processes

Radiation processes include UV, visible, solar-IR, and thermal-IR interactions with gases,
size/composition-resolved aerosols, and size/composition-resolved hydrometeor particles.
Radiative transfer is solved with the scheme of (S27). Calculations were performed over
>600 wavelengths/probability intervals and affected photolysis and heating (S28). Gas
absorption coefficients in the solar-IR and thermal-IR were calculated for H2O, CO2,
CH4, CO, O3, O2, N2O, CH3Cl, CFCl3, CF2Cl2, and CCl4, from HITRAN data (S28).
Aerosol-particle optical properties were calculated assuming that BC (if present)
comprised a particle's core and all other material coated the core. Shell real and
imaginary refractive indices for a given particle size and wavelength were obtained by
calculating the solution-phase refractive index, calculating refractive indices of non-
solution, non-BC species, and volume averaging solution and nonsolution refractive
indices. Core and shell refractive indices were used in a core-shell Mie-theory calculation
(S29). Cloud liquid, ice, and graupel optical properties for each hydrometeor size and
radiation wavelength were also determined from Mie calculations that accounted for
absorbing inclusions. For such a calculation, nonspherical ice crystals were assumed to be
 4
a collection of spheres of the same total volume to area ratio and total volume (S30). The
surface albedos of snow, sea ice, and water (ocean and lake) were wavelength-dependent
and predicted by (rather than specified in) the model (S13). Column calculations treat
shading by structures (e.g., buildings) and topography.

1.F. Subgrid Surfaces and Oceans

The model treated ground temperatures over subgrid surfaces (up to 12 soil classes and
roads over soil, roofs over air, and water in each cell). It also treated vegetation over soil,
snow over bare soil, snow over vegetation over soil, sea-ice over water, and snow over
sea-ice over water (S6). For all surfaces except sea ice and water, surface and subsurface
temperatures and liquid water were found with a time-dependent 10-layer module. Ocean
mixed-layer velocities, energy transport, and mass transport were calculated with a
gridded 2-D potential-enstrophy, energy, and mass-conserving shallow-water equation
module, forced by wind stress (S31), based on the shallow-water scheme of (S14). The
actual depth at each location was a prognostic variable, but because the module
conserved volume exactly, the average mixing depth over the global ocean was constant
(80 m). For lake water, a fixed 80 m mixing depth was assumed. Water (ocean and lake)
temperatures were also affected by sensible, latent, and radiative fluxes. Nine additional
layers existed below each ocean mixed-layer grid cell to treat energy diffusion from the
mixed layer to the deep ocean and ocean chemistry. Dissolution of gases to the ocean and
ocean chemistry were calculated with a new scheme, OPD-EQUISOLV O (S32), where
OPD is solver of nonequilibrium transport between the ocean and atmosphere and
EQUISOLV O solves chemical equilibrium in the ocean. Both schemes are mass
conserving and unconditionally stable.

2. Discussion of the Simulations

For the present study, the model was run for August 1999. 1999 was chosen for the
baseline because a detailed inventory was available for that year. August was chosen
since it is a month of typical smog events. Two one-way nested grids were used: a global
grid (4o-SN x 5 o-WE resolution), and a U.S. grid (0.5oS-N x 0.75 oW-E or about 55 km S-
N x 68 km W-E resolution). The global grid treated 39 sigma-pressure layers between the
surface and 0.425 hPa. The regional grid included 26 layers between the surface and
103.5 hPa, matching the 26 bottom layers of the global grid. Each grid included five
layers in the bottom 1 km. The nesting time interval for passing meteorological and
chemical variables was one hour. Variables passed at the horizontal boundaries included
temperature, specific humidity, wind velocity, gas concentrations, and size- and
composition-resolved aerosol concentrations.

U.S. emission data for the baseline case were obtained from the U.S. National
Emission Inventory (S33), which treats 370,000 stack and fugitive sources, 250,000 area
sources, and 1700 categories of onroad and nonroad vehicular sources (including
motorcycles, passenger vehicles, trucks, recreational vehicles, construction vehicles, farm
vehicles, industrial vehicles, etc.). Pollutants emitted hourly included CO, CO2, H 2, H 2O,
CH4, speciated NMOGs (paraffins, olefins, formaldehyde, higher aldehydes, toluene,
xylene, isoprene, monoterpenes), NO, NO2, HONO, NH 3, SO2, SO 3, H 2SO4 and speciated
particulate black carbon, organic carbon, sulfate, nitrate, and other. Emission inventories
for each of three hydrogen cases (steam-reforming of natural gas, wind, and coal
gasification) and a hybrid case were prepared following a life cycle assessment (LCA)
that accounted for energy inputs and pollution outputs during all stages of hydrogen and
fossil-fuel production, distribution, storage, and end-use, as described in (S1). Table S1,
below, shows the summed yearly-averaged baseline emission and the differences in
emission from the baseline case for each of the four cases, as described in the Table
caption. The changes in Table S1 represent changes to vehicle, power plant, and other
emission due to changes to a hydrogen- or hybrid-based economy. For example,
emissions due to power for compressing hydrogen in all HFCV cases and for gasifying
 5
coal in the coal case were added proportionally to the power plant emission mix in the
inventory without changing the number of power plants or their control technologies. The
main text summarizes the changes descriptively. (S1) details them quantitatively with
equations and explanations of the underlying assumptions.

Table S1. Speciated yearly-averaged baseline (1999) emission (metric tonnes/yr) from all U.S.
anthropogenic sources, obtained from the U.S. National Emission Inventory, and the emission differences
between the inventories derived for each model sensitivity experiment (Tables 5-8 of (S1)). and the
baseline inventory.
Species Baseline Hybrid Natural gas Wind Coal
emission -baseline -baseline -baseline -baseline
(tonnes/yr) (tonnes/yr) (tonnes/yr) (tonnes/yr) (tonnes/yr)
Gases
Carbon monoxide (CO) 1.12x108 -1.92x107 -6.18x107 -6.18x107 -5.82x107
Nitrogen oxides as NO2 2.19x107 -2.35x106 -7.27x106 -7.28x106 -7.12x106
Organics (NMOC+CH4)
Paraffins 1.40x107 -1.09x106 -3.80x106 -3.80x106 -3.80x106
Olefins 5.21x105 -4.98x104 -1.69x105 -1.69x105 -1.69x105
Ethene 9.12x105 -7.05x104 -2.27x105 -2.27x105 -2.27x105
Formaldehyde 2.23x105 -1.38x104 -4.38x104 -4.39x104 -4.37x104
Higher aldehydes 3.39x105 -5.34x104 -1.76x105 -1.76x105 -1.76x105
Toluene 2.60x106 -1.02x105 -4.35x105 -4.35x105 -4.34x105
Xylene 2.25x106 -1.45x105 -6.22x105 -6.22x105 -6.22x105
Isoprene 9.92x103 -1.51x103 -4.91x103 -4.91x103 -4.91x103
Total NMOC 2.09x107 -4.36x105 -1.68x106 -1.68x106 -1.68x106
Methane (CH4) 6.31x106 -2.45x105 1.32x106 -8.05x105 -8.04x105
Sulfur oxides as SO2 1.81x107 -8.67x104 3.70x105 3.70x105 9.70x105
Ammonia 4.53x106 -7.39x104 -2.38x105 -2.38x105 -2.38x105
Hydrogen 3.18x106 -5.44x105 4.55x106 4.55x106 4.65x106
Carbon dioxide (CO2) 5.30x109 -3.16x108 -7.96x108 -1.24x109 -6.20x107
Water vapor 1.99x109 -1.20x1048 4.00x107 4.00x107 4.00x107

PM2.5
Organic matter 2.64x106 -1.55x104 -4.70x104 -4.70x104 -4.60x104
Black carbon 5.92x105 -2.82x104 -8.92x104 -8.92x104 -8.87x104
Sulfate 3.10x105 -6.02x102 -1.00x103 -1.00x103 -7.00x102
Nitrate 2.67x104 -7.13x101 -2.20x102 -2.20x102 -2.10x102
Other 8.26x106 -7.90x103 -1.20x104 -1.20x104 -7.00x103
Total PM2.5 1.18x107 -5.23x104 -1.49x105 -1.49x105 -1.43x105

PM10
Organic matter 5.77x106 -2.29x104 -6.80x104 -6.80x104 -6.60x104
4
Black carbon 9.62x10 5
-3.32x10 -1.05x105 -1.05x10 5
-1.04x105
2
Sulfate 4.91x10 5
-9.24x10 -1.70x103 -1.70x10 3
-1.20x103
2
Nitrate 7.10x10 4
-1.01x10 -2.70x102 -2.70x10 2
-2.60x102
3
Other 3.75x10 7
-9.16x10 -1.00x104 -1.00x10 4
0.00x100
4
Total PM10 4.48x10 7
-6.63x10 -1.84x105 -1.84x10 5
-1.71x105
NMOC is nonmethane organic carbon. PM2.5 and PM 10 are particulate matter smaller than 2.5 µm and 10
µm in diameter, respectively.

Biogenic emission of biogenic isoprene, monoterpenes, other VOCs, and NO for

North America were derived from 1-km vegetation and land-use data from the third
generation Biogenic Emissions Landuse Database (BELD3) (S34) and for the rest of the
world from USGS 1-km landuse/landcover data (S35). A program was written to produce
 6
normalized (at a specific temperature and radiation level) inventories of biogenic
isoprene, monoterpenes, other VOCs, and NO emission from these data (which include
vegetation categories and emission factors for each landuse type) for any spatial and
temporal grid. Normalized data were combined in the model with temperature- and
radiation-dependent correction factors from (S36) to derive emission rates affected by the
current temperature and radiation fields.

Emission of anthropogenic black carbon (BC) and organic matter outside the U.S.
were obtained from (S37). Emission of biomass burning, sea spray, soil dust, lightning
NO, ocean DMS, volcanic SOx, and other global sources of NOx, SOx, NH3, CH4, CO,
N2O, organics, and CO2 are described in (S12,S13).

Initial meteorological fields for both domains were obtained from National Center
for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis fields for August 1, 1999, at 12 GMT
(S38). No data assimilation, nudging, or model spinup was performed during any
simulation. Aerosol and gas fields in both domains were first initialized from background
data, then overridden over the U.S. for O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10 using U.S.
EPA ambient air quality data (S39), interpolated from over 1650 stations to model grid
cell at the time corresponding to initialization.

3. Simulation Results
Five numerical simulations were run for the month of August 1999: a baseline
simulation, a simulation in which fossil-fuel onroad vehicles were converted to gasoline-
electric hybrid vehicles, and three simulations in which fossil-fuel vehicles were switched
to HFCV where the hydrogen was produced from (a) steam-reforming of natural gas, (b)
wind energy, and (c) coal gasification. Emission changes for each scenario are detailed in
(S1).

Figure S1a-q shows modeled differences, averaged over the month of August
(day and night) in the mixing ratio or concentration of several gas and particle
components, for each of the four cases (natural gas, wind, coal, hybrid). The figures were
obtained by taking the difference between the baseline-case results, averaged every hour
over a month, and the results from each of the respective cases, averaged every hour over
a month.

Of the species plotted carbon monoxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, toluene,
sulfur dioxide, black carbon, nitrate, sulfate, water vapor, methane, carbon dioxide, and
molecular hydrogen had emission sources and were affected by chemistry and/or other
atmospheric processes. Nitric acid, ozone, PAN, the hydroxyl radical had no emission
sources, but were produced and destroyed chemically.

Figure S1a shows that carbon monoxide reductions occurred in all four cases. The
reductions were least in the hybrid case. About 55 percent of all CO emission in 1999
was due to onroad vehicles, so the elimination of gasoline/diesel combustion from such
vehicles was expected to cause a larger reduction, regardless of the method of producing
hydrogen, than a switch to hybrids.

Figures S1b and S1c show that nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide reductions,
respectively, were similarly greater in all HFCV cases than in the hybrid case. About 34
percent of all NOx emission in 1999 was due to onroad vehicles. Of all NOx emission,
about 90 percent was NO and 10 percent was NO 2. The additional electric power required
to compress hydrogen and gasify coal resulted in a relatively small increase in power-
plant NOx emission, but the increase was much smaller than the decrease due to the
reduction due to eliminating onroad-vehicle NOx (S1).
 7
Figure S1d shows that nitric acid mixing ratios decreased in all four cases.
Decreases were greatest in Southern California, where significant nitric acid usually
forms due to high NOx emission there.

Figure S1e shows that switching to HFCV decreased toluene significantly but
switching to hybrids had a smaller effect. In Colorado, toluene emitted from a large non-
vehicle source slightly increased because OH (Fig. S1j), the main toluene oxidant,
decreased there.

Figure S1f shows the greater loss (and also greater gains) in near-surface ozone (a
secondary pollutant) due to switching to HFCV relative to switching to hybrid vehicles.
Figure S1g shows that the zonally-averaged near-surface ozone in the U.S. decreased
significantly upon a switch to HFCV relative to hybrid vehicles.

PAN, a secondary pollutant, decreased to a greater extent in all HFCV cases than
in the hybrid case (Fig. S1h), as discussed in the main text.

Sulfur dioxide (Fig. S1i) decreased in some locations due to lower vehicle
emission of SO2 or higher hydroxyl radical (OH) mixing ratios, but it increased in other
locations due to higher power plant emission or lower hydroxyl radical (OH) mixing
ratios. The hydroxyl radical (Fig. S1j) generally decreased in locations where SO2
increased and vice versa.

Figures S1k-m show changes in near-surface particulate black carbon (BC),

particulate nitrate, and particulate sulfate, respectively. All have primary emission
sources. Nitrate and sulfate also have gas-to-particle conversion sources. Nitrate forms
from oxidation of NO and NO2. Sulfate forms from oxidation of SO2. Converting to
HFCV or hybrids reduced BC and nitrate significantly (less so for hybrids), but increased
particulate sulfate in all cases, even in the hybrid case. In the case of HFCV, sulfate
increased due to higher SO2 emission from power plants that resulted from increased
energy needed to compress hydrogen and/or gasify coal. SO2 also increased in the
northeastern U.S. in all cases due to the faster oxidation of SO2 there (Fig. S1i).
Oxidation in the model was calculated in both the gas and aqueous phase (in size-
resolved aerosol particles and cloud drops). Faster oxidation occurred because OH was
higher in the northeast in the HFCV and hybrid cases (Fig. S1j). Much of the higher
particulate sulfate corresponded to a decrease in SO2.

Figure S1n shows differences in ambient water vapor from the cases. Ambient
water vapor is controlled primarily by natural sources and sinks (e.g., cloud formation,
ocean/lake evaporation, transport). Because (1) the natural sources and sinks of water
vapor are several orders of magnitude greater than are the vehicle sources of water vapor,
(2) switching from FFOV to HFCV or hybrids resulted in almost no change in water
vapor emission (main text), and (3) changes shown in Fig. S1n are not in urban areas
where one might expect to see water vapor differences, the differences in Fig. S1n were
due to feedbacks of changes in all pollutants to large-scale meteorology, including
feedbacks to clouds, atmospheric stability, and pressure gradients.

Figure S1o shows differences in near-surface methane. Methane increased in the

natural gas-HFCV case by up to 40 ppbv but decreased in the other HFCV cases by up to
25 ppbv. It decreased to a lesser extent in the hybrid case. Methane is a combustion
product of petroleum, so it was expected to decrease in the wind- and coal-HFCV and
hybrid cases. The current background mixing ratio of methane is about 1700 ppbv in
1999, about 900 ppbv of which is anthropogenic. Because of the long lifetime of methane
(about 10 years), ambient methane changes are expected to increase over simulations
longer than the present one (one month).
 8

Figure S1p shows baseline and differences in near-surface carbon dioxide. The
globally- and yearly-averaged background CO2 in 1999 was about 367 ppmv, with an
August value of around 365 ppmv. CO2’s overall lifetime is about 30-95 years, so its
ambient mixing ratios are expected to change to a greater extent over a simulation period
longer than the one month period simulated here. CO2 decreased to the greatest extent in
the wind case, followed by the natural gas, coal, and hybrid cases, respectively.

Figure S1q shows the change in ambient molecular hydrogen due to the four
cases. Hydrogen increased in all HFCV cases (due to the assumed hydrogen leakage that
exceeded the reduction in hydrogen from reduced fossil-fuel combustion) and decreased
in the hybrid case (due to reduced fossil-fuel combustion). The fossil-fuel hydrogen
emission rate was assumed to be 0.0285 kg-H2 per kg-CO emitted (S40). The baseline
hydrogen shows elevated values mostly in the eastern U.S. and Los Angeles due to
hydrogen emission from fossil fuel vehicles. (S40) shows measurements in Harvard
Forest, where microbial degradation of H2 is likely high, of of up to 900 ppbv H2.

Figure S1. Modeled baseline case and differences, averaged over all day and night hours of the month of
August 1999, of several near surface parameters (except for one zonally-averaged figure). For each
parameter, five panels are shown, representing the baseline case and differences between the baseline and
(i) natural gas, (ii) wind, (iii) coal, and (iv) hybrid cases.

(a) Near-surface carbon monoxide

45
Latitude (degrees)

40

35

30
25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

0 500 1000 1500

Baseline near-surface carbon monoxide (ppbv)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30
25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
Near-surface carbon monoxide dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface carbon monoxide dif. (ppbv) wind minus base
 9

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30
25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0
Near-surface carbon monoxide dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface carbon monoxide dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

(b) Near-surface nitric oxide

45
Latitude (degrees)

40

35

30
25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

0 10 20 30 40 50
Baseline near-surface nitric oxide (ppbv)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

Near-surface nitric oxide dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface nitric oxide dif. (ppbv) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-40 -30 -20 -10 0 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

Near-surface nitric oxide dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface nitric oxide dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

(c) Near-surface nitrogen dioxide

 10

45
Latitude (degrees)
40

35

30
25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Baseline near-surface nitrogen dioxide (ppbv)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-30 -20 -10 0 -30 -20 -10 0

Near-surface nitrogen dioxide dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface nitrogen dioxide dif. (ppbv) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-30 -20 -10 0 -30 -20 -10 0

Near-surface nitrogen dioxide dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface nitrogen dioxide dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

(d) Near-surface nitric acid

45
Latitude (degrees)

40

35

30

25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Baseline near-surface nitric acid (ppbv)
 11

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Near-surface nitric acid dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface nitric acid dif. (ppbv) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
Near-surface nitric acid dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface nitric acid dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

(e) Near-surface toluene

45
Latitude (degrees)

40

35

30

25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees)

0 5 10 15
Baseline near-surface toluene (ppbv)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Near-surface toluene dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface toluene dif. (ppbv) wind minus base
 12

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-2 -2 -1 -1 -0 0 1 1 2 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Near-surface toluene dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface toluene dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

(f) Near-surface ozone

45
Latitude (degrees)

40

35

30
25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Baseline near-surface ozone (ppbv)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Near-surface ozone dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface ozone dif. (ppbv) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20

Near-surface ozone dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface ozone dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base
 13
(g) Zonal ozone
10
8
Altitude (km)
6

4
2
0
25 30 35 40 45
Latitude (degrees)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Baseline zonal ozone (ppbv)
10 10

8 8
Altitude (km)

Altitude (km)
5 5

2 2

0 0
25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45
Latitude (degrees) Latitude (degrees)

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Zonal ozone dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Zonal ozone dif. (ppbv) wind minus base
10 10

8
8
Altitude (km)

Altitude (km)

6
5
4
2
2

0 0
25 30 35 40 45 25 30 35 40 45
Latitude (degrees) Latitude (degrees)

-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Zonal ozone dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Zonal ozone dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

(h) Near-surface PAN

 14

45
Latitude (degrees)
40
35

30

25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Baseline near-surface PAN (ppbv)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Near-surface PAN dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface PAN dif. (ppbv) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Near-surface PAN dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface PAN dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

(i) Near-surface sulfur dioxide

45
Latitude (degrees)

40

35

30
25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

0 10 20 30
Baseline near-surface sulfur dioxide (ppbv)
 15

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Near-surface sulfur dioxide dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface sulfur dioxide dif. (ppbv) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Near-surface sulfur dioxide dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface sulfur dioxide dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

(j) Near-surface hydroxyl radical

45
Latitude (degrees)

40

35

30

25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees)

0.000e+00 5.000e-05 1.000e-04 1.500e-04

Baseline near-surface OH (ppbv)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-3.0e-05 0.0e+00 3.0e-05 -3.0e-05 0.0e+00 3.0e-05

Near-surface OH dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface OH dif. (ppbv) wind minus base
 16

45 45

Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-3.0e-05 0.0e+00 3.0e-05 -3.0e-05 0.0e+00 3.0e-05

Near-surface OH dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface OH dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

(k) Near-surface black carbon

45
Latitude (degrees)

40
35

30

25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

0 5 10
Baseline near-surface black carbon (ug/m3)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0
Near-surface black carbon dif. (ug/m3) nat. gas minus base Near-surface black carbon dif. (ug/m3) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0
Near-surface black carbon dif. (ug/m3) coal minus base Near-surface black carbon dif. (ug/m3) hybrid minus base
 17

(l) Near-surface particulate nitrate

45
Latitude (degrees)

40

35

30
25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

0 1 2 3
Baseline near-surface nitrate (ug/m3)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0

Near-surface nitrate dif. (ug/m3) nat. gas minus base Near-surface nitrate dif. (ug/m3) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-1.0 -0.5 0.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0

Near-surface nitrate dif. (ug/m3) coal minus base Near-surface nitrate dif. (ug/m3) hybrid minus base

(m) Near-surface particulate sulfate

 18

45
Latitude (degrees)
40

35

30
25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Baseline near-surface S(VI) (ug/m3)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Near-surface S(VI) dif. nat. gas minus base Near-surface S(VI) dif. (ug/m3) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Near-surface S(VI) dif. (ug/m3) coal minus base Near-surface sulfate dif. (ug/m3) hybrid minus base

(n) Near-surface water vapor

45
Latitude (degrees)

40
35

30

25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

1.0e+07 2.0e+07 3.0e+07

Baseline near-surface water vapor (ppbv)
 19

45 45

Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-3.0e+06 -2.0e+06 -1.0e+06 0.0e+00 1.0e+06 2.0e+06 -3.0e+06 -2.0e+06 -1.0e+06 0.0e+00 1.0e+06 2.0e+06
Near-surface water vapor dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface water vapor dif. (ppbv) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-3.0e+06 -2.0e+06 -1.0e+06 0.0e+00 1.0e+06 2.0e+06 -3.0e+06 -2.0e+06 -1.0e+06 0.0e+00 1.0e+06 2.0e+06
Near-surface water vapor dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface water vapor dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

(o) Near-surface methane

45
Latitude (degrees)

40

35

30

25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

1600 1700 1800 1900

Baseline near-surface methane (ppbv)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)
Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-10 0 10 20 30 40 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Near-surface methane dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface methane dif. (ppbv) wind minus base
 20

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

Near-surface methane dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface methane dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

(p) Near-surface carbon dioxide

45
Latitude (degrees)

40

35

30

25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72

Longitude (degrees)

3.7e+05 3.8e+05 3.9e+05 4.0e+05

August baseline carbon dioxide (ppbv)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-10000 -5000 0 -10000 -5000 0

Near-surface carbon dioxide dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface carbon dioxide dif. (ppbv) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

-10000 -5000 0 -10000 -5000 0

Near-surface carbon dioxide dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface carbon dioxide dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base
 21
(q) Near-surface molecular hydrogen

45
Latitude (degrees)

40

35

30

25
-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees)

500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200

Baseline near-surface molecular hydrogen (ppbv)

45 45
Latitude (degrees)

Latitude (degrees)
40 40

35 35

30 30
25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Near-surface molecular hydrogen dif. (ppbv) nat. gas minus base Near-surface molecular hydrogen dif. (ppbv) wind minus base

45 45
Latitude (degrees)
Latitude (degrees)

40 40

35 35

30 30

25 25

-120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72 -120 -112 -104 -96 -88 -80 -72
Longitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 -150 -100 -50 0

Near-surface molecular hydrogen dif. (ppbv) coal minus base Near-surface molecular hydrogen dif. (ppbv) hybrid minus base

4. Cost analysis of hydrogen generation by wind-electrolysis

Table S2 provides a spreadsheet calculation of low and high estimated near-term (<10 yr)
costs of hydrogen from electrolysis, where the electricity is generated by wind. The costs
include those for electricity generation, transmission, the electrolyzer, water for the
electrolyzer, hydrogen compression, and hydrogen storage. The case assumes that
electricity travels by transmission line to filling stations, where electrolyzers produce
hydrogen locally, so no transport cost of hydrogen via gas pipeline or truck is necessary.

The wind-electricity costs include the direct cost of wind (turbine, local grid
connection, foundation, land, electrical installation, financing, roads, and consultancy)
and the long-distance transmission of electricity. The range of $0.03-0.05/kWh in direct
wind cost assumes, at the low end, the use of modern turbines in the presence of
 22
sufficiently fast winds. Specifically, the use of a 1.5 MW turbine with a 77-m blade in the
presence of 7-7.5 m/s mean annual winds at hub height (80 m) is estimated to give a
direct cost of wind electricity (excluding long-distance transmission) of $0.03-0.04/kWh
(S41). This cost is supported by an analysis of the 25-year real costs of 17 wind farm
proposals in California determined as $0.032-$0.037/kWh, with a weighted average of
$0.036/kWh (S42). The transmission cost of wind is estimated to range from
$0.00000345-0.0000138/kWh/km (S43), where the high value was derived therein from
information in (S44). The average distance of transmission lines in the U.S. is assumed to
range from 20-1500 km, which should cover all possible average distances.

Electrolyzer costs include the costs of purchasing and maintaining the

electrolyzer. It is assumed that electricity from wind energy is supplied to each
electrolyzer between 50 and 95 percent of the hours of a year. The high end of this range
assumes that wind farms are linked together, thereby reducing intermittency and
increasing the regularity of wind output (S45). The high end also assumes that, at peak
wind capacity, more than enough wind-electricity is available for each electrolyzer, with
the difference going to the electric grid. Since excess wind-electricity is diverted to the
general electric power grid, the extra electric power is not wasted. The lifetime of an
electrolyzer is assumed to equal 10 years.

The cost of water for the electrolyzer is assumed to equal $2-$4 per 1000 gallons.
The compression estimate includes the cost of electricity for compression. The
compression cost estimate appears conservative since the amortized cost of an actual
compressor quoted was about $0.45-$0.71/kg-H2). Storage costs of hydrogen are taken
from the literature.

Table S2. Spreadsheet calculation of the estimated low and high cost of producing hydrogen by
electrolysis, where the electricity derives from windpower. Values not referenced are either common
constants, calculated with the equation given in the first column, or assumed here.
Equation Parameter (Units) Low Value High Value
Energy required to produce hydrogen from 1999 U.S. onroad vehicles
Ai 1999 onroad U.S. vehicle miles traveled (mi/yr) 2.68E+12 2.68E+12
Bi Vehicle fleet mileage (mpg) 17.11 17.11
C=A/B Gallons of fuel (gas+diesel) used (gal/yr) 1.57E+11 1.57E+11
D Lower heating value gasoline (MJ/kg) 44 44
E Gasoline density (kg/m3) 750 750
F Gallons per cubic meter (gal/m3) 264.17287 264.17287
G=D*E/F Energy stored in gasoline (MJ/gal) 124.9182022 124.918202
Energy required to power gasoline vehicles
H=C*G (MJ/yr) 1.96E+13 1.96E+13
Ii Gasoline vehicle efficiency (fraction) 0.16 0.16
J=H*I Actual energy required for vehicles (MJ/yr) 3.14E+12 3.14E+12
Ki HFCV efficiency (fraction) 0.46 0.43
L=J/K Energy required for HFCV (MJ/yr) 6.82E+12 7.29E+12
M Lower heating value of hydrogen (MJ/kg-H2) 119.96 119.96
N=L/M Mass of H2 required for fuel (kg-H2/yr) 5.68E+10 6.08E+10
O Leakage rate of hydrogen (fraction) 0.03 0.1
P=N/(1-O) Mass of H2 required with max leakage (kg-H2/yr) 58582623448 6.7544E+10
Q Higher heating value of hydrogen (MJ/kg-H2) 141.8 141.8
R=P*Q Energy to produce HFCV+leaked H2 (MJ/yr) 8.30702E+12 9.5778E+12
S=R/3.6 Energy to produce HFCV+leaked H2 (kWh/yr) 2.3075E+12 2.6605E+12

Cost of electricity from wind for electrolysis

Tii Direct, unsubsidized wind electricity cost ($/kWh) 0.03 0.05
 23
iii
U Transmission cost of wind ($/kWh/km) 0.00000345 0.0000138
V Length of average transmission line (km) 20 1500
W=U*V Transmission cost of wind ($/kWh) 0.000069 0.0207
X=T+W Direct+transmission cost of wind ($/kWh) 0.030069 0.0707
Yvii Electrolyzer efficiency for producing hydrogen 0.738 0.738
Z=S*X/Y Cost of electricity to generate H2 ($/yr) 94016736018 2.5487E+11
a=Z/P Cost of electricity per mass of H2 ($/kg-H2) 1.604857046 3.77343421

Cost of electrolyzer
biv Electrolyzer cost (including installation) ($/kW) 400 1000
cv Fraction of time electrolyzer used 0.95 0.5
d=10yrvi Electrolyzer lifetime (yr) 10 10
e Interest rate 0.06 0.08
f=e/(1-1/(1+e)^d) Annual payment factor 0.135867958 0.14902949
g=b*f Annual cost of purchasing electrolyzer ($/kW/yr) 54.34718329 149.029489
h=b*0.015vi Annual O&M (1.5% of purchase cost) ($/kW/yr) 6 15
i=g+h Total annual cost of electrolyzer ($/kW/yr) 60.34718329 164.029489
Actual electrolyzer energy requirement (kWh/kg-
jvii H2) 53.4 53.4
k kWh/yr per kW 8760 8760
l=k*c kWh/yr actually used per rated kW 8322 4380
m=I*j/k Cost of electrolysis for producing H2 ($/kg-H2) 0.387231385 1.99981157

Cost of water for electrolysis

n H2 molecular weight (g/mol) 2.0158 2.0158
o H2O molecular weight (g/mol) 18.015 18.015
p=o/n Water required for electrolyzer (kg-H2O/kg-H2) 8.936898502 8.9368985
q Density of liquid water (kg/m3) 1000 1000
r=p*F/q Water required for electrolyzer (gal-H2O/kg-H2) 2.360886126 2.36088613
s Cost of water per gallon ($/gal-H2O) 0.002 0.004
t=r*s Cost of water per kg-H2 ($/kg-H2) 0.004721772 0.00944354

Cost of compressor
uvi,viii Cost of H2 compression ($/kg-H2) 0.7 1.34

Cost of storage
vvi Cost of H2 storage ($/kg-H2) 0.31 0.31

Total cost
w=a+m+t+u+v Total cost ($/kg-H2) 3.00681009 7.4326891
x=w*P/C Total cost per displaced gallon ($/gal) 1.12E+00 3.20E+00
Sources: (i) (S1) and references therein; (ii) (S41), (S42); (iii) (S43); (iv) (S46); (v) the high estimate
assumes that multiple connected wind farms reduce intermittency (S45), and a larger wind capacity than
necessary is assigned to each electrolyzer, with the remainder going to electricity, (vi) (S47); (vii) (S48);
(viii) (S49).

5. Estimate of the Global Warming Potential of BC+OM and of SOx.

The 100-year climate response ratio, defined here as the climate response per unit
anthropogenic emission of a substance relative to that of anthropogenic CO2 is a
parameter analogous to a global warming potential, GWP, but calculated in terms of
globally-averaged temperature change rather than radiative forcing. The 100-yr climate
response ratio of fossil-fuel black carbon plus organic matter (BC+OM) is calculated here
as follows. The modeled temperature change resulting from eliminating anthropogenic
CO2, assuming a yearly fossil-fuel plus net anthropogenic biomass-burning emission rate
 24
of 8100 Tg-C/yr in Figure 10 of (S13) was -1 K for a CO 2 lifetime of 30 yr and -2 K for a
lifetime of 95 yr. The 100-yr temperature change due to eliminating a yearly emission of
4.9 Tg-C/yr BC plus 8.7 Tg-C/yr OM (S13, paragraph 19] for a total of 13.6 Tg-C/yr
BC+OM was -0.32 K (S13, Figure 10). The calculations for those studies accounted for
many feedbacks of gases and aerosol particles to climate. Dividing the temperature
change per unit emission of BC+OM to that of CO2 gives a climate response ratio for
BC+OM of 95 to 191.

The 100-year climate response ratio of SOx is estimated as follows. The climate response
of eliminating 145 Tg-SO2/yr (anthropogenic) from paragraph 63 of (S11) was +0.7 K.
Dividing the climate response per unit emission of SO2 to that of CO2 from the previous
paragraph gives a climate response ratio for SOx of -19.5 to –39.

Acknowledgments
Support for researchers on and equipment for this project came from Stanford University’s Global Climate
and Energy Project and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We would like to thank Jon
Koomey and Mark Delucchi for helpful comments.

References
S1. Colella, W.G., M.Z. Jacobson, and D.M. Golden, Switching to a U.S. hydrogen fuel cell vehicle fleet:
The resultant change in emissions, energy use, and global warming gases, Journal of Power Sources,
in press, 2005.
S2. Jacobson, M. Z., Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system. Part II: Aerosol
module structure and design, Atmos. Environ., 31A, 131-144, 1997.
S3. Jacobson, M. Z., Development and application of a new air pollution modeling system. Part III:
Aerosol-phase simulations, Atmos. Environ., 31A, 587-608, 1997.
S4. Jacobson, M. Z., Studying the effects of aerosols on vertical photolysis rate coefficient and temperature
profiles over an urban airshed, J. Geophys. Res., 103, 10,593-10,604, 1998.
S5. Jacobson, M. Z., Isolating nitrated and aromatic aerosols and nitrated aromatic gases as sources of
ultraviolet light absorption, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 3527-3542, 1999.
S6. Jacobson, M. Z., GATOR-GCMM: A global through urban scale air pollution and weather forecast
model. 1. Model design and treatment of subgrid soil, vegetation, roads, rooftops, water, sea ice, and
snow., J. Geophys. Res., 106, 5385-5402, 2001.
S7. Jacobson, M. Z., GATOR-GCMM: 2. A study of day- and nighttime ozone layers aloft, ozone in
national parks, and weather during the SARMAP Field Campaign, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 5403-5420,
2001.
S8. Jacobson, M. Z., J. H. Seinfeld, G. R. Carmichael, and D.G. Streets, The effect on photochemical smog
of converting the U.S. fleet of gasoline vehicles to modern diesel vehicles, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31,
L02116, doi:10.1029/2003GL018448, 2004.
S9. Jacobson, M.Z., and J.H. Seinfeld, Evolution of nanoparticle size and mixing state near the point of
emission, Atmos. Environ., 38, 1839-1850, 2004.
S10. Jacobson, M. Z., Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric
aerosols, Nature, 409, 695-697, 2001.
S11. Jacobson, M. Z., Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon plus organic matter, possibly the most
effective method of slowing global warming, J. Geophys. Res., 107, (D19), 4410, doi:10.1029/
2001JD001376, 2002.
S12. Jacobson, M. Z., The short-term cooling but long-term global warming due to biomass burning, J.
Clim., 17 (15), 2909-2926, 2004.
S13. Jacobson, M.Z., The climate response of fossil-fuel and biofuel soot, accounting for soot’s feedback to
snow and sea ice albedo and emissivity, J. Geophys. Res., 109, doi:10.1029/2004JD004945, 2004b.
S14. Arakawa, A., and V. R. Lamb, A potential enstrophy and energy conserving scheme for the shallow
water equations, Mon. Wea. Rev., 109, 18-36, 1981.
S15. Lu, R., and R. P. Turco, Air pollutant transport in a coastal environment, II, Three-dimensional
simulations over Los Angeles basin, Atmos. Environ., 29, 1499-1518, 1995.
 25
S16. Walcek, C. J., and N. M. Aleksic, A simple but accurate mass conservative, peak-preserving, mixing
ratio bounded advection algorithm with fortran code, Atmos. Environ., 32, 3863-3880, 1998.
S17. Jacobson, M. Z., Improvement of SMVGEAR II on vector and scalar machines through absolute error
tolerance control. Atmos. Environ., 32, 791–796, 1998.
S18. Jacobson, M. Z., Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling. Cambridge University Press, New York,
656 pp., 1999.
S19. Sander, S.P., R.R. Friedl, WB. DeMore, DM. Golden, M.J. Kurylo, R.F. Hampson, R.E. Huie, G.K.
Moortgat, A.R. Ravishankara, C.E. Kolb, and M.J. Molina, Chemical kinetics and photochemical data
for use in stratospheric modeling. Supplement to Evaluation 12, JPL Publ. 00-3, Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, 2000.
S20. Jacobson, M. Z., Analysis of aerosol interactions with numerical techniques for solving coagulation,
nucleation, condensation, dissolution, and reversible chemistry among multiple size distributions, J.
Geophys. Res., 107 (D19), 4366, doi:10.1029/ 2001JD002044, 2002.
S21. Jacobson, M. Z., Development of mixed-phase clouds from multiple aerosol size distributions and the
effect of the clouds on aerosol removal, J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D8), 4245, doi:10.1029/2002JD002691,
2003.
S22. Vehkamaki, H., M. Kulmala, I. Napari, K.E.J. Lehtinen, C. Timmreck, M. Noppel, and A. Laaksonen,
An improved parameterization for sulfuric acid-water nucleation rates for tropospheric and
stratospheric conditions, J. Geophys. Res., 107 (D22), 4622, doi:10.1029/2002JD002184, 2002.
S23. Jacobson, M.Z., A solution to the problem of nonequilibrium acid/base gas-particle transfer at long
time step, Aerosol Sci. Technol, 39, 92-103, 2005.
S24. Jacobson, M. Z., Studying The effects of calcium and magnesium on size-distributed nitrate and
ammonium with EQUISOLV II, Atmos. Environ., 33, 3635-3649, 1999.
S25. Mellor, G. L., and T. Yamada, Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid
problems, Revs. of Geophys. and Space Phys., 20, 851-875, 1982.
S26. Ding, P., and D. A. Randall, A cumulus parameterization with multiple cloud-base levels, J. Geophys.
Res., 103, 11,341-11,353, 1998.
S27. Toon, O. B., C. P. McKay, T. P. Ackerman, and K. Santhanam, Rapid calculation of radiative heating
rates and photodissociation rates in inhomogeneous multiple scattering atmospheres, J. Geophys. Res.,
94, 16,287-16,301, 1989.
S28. Jacobson, M.Z., A refined method of parameterizing absorption coefficients among multiple gases
simultaneously from line-by-line data, J. Atmos. Sci., 62, 506-517, 2005.
S29. Toon, O. B., and T. P. Ackerman, Algorithms for the calculation of scattering by stratified spheres,
Appl. Opt., 20, 3657-3660, 1981.
S30. Grenfell, T.C., and S.G. Warren, Representation of a nonspherical ice particle by a collection of
independent spheres for scattering and absorption of radiation, J. Geophys. Res., 104, 31,697-31,709,
1999.
S31. Ketefian, G., and M. Z. Jacobson, Development and application of a 2-D potential-enstrophy-, energy-
, and mass-conserving mixed-layer ocean model with arbitrary boundaries, in review, 2005.
S32. Jacobson, M.Z., Studying ocean acidification with conservative, stable numerical schemes for
nonequilibrium air-ocean exchange and ocean equilibrium chemistry, J. Geophys. Res., 110,
doi:10.1029/2004JD005220, 2005c, www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/oceanAcidif.html.
S33. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Clearinghouse for Inventories and
Emission Factors, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/, 2003.
S34. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Improvements in Vegetation Cover Data,
http://www.epa.gov/AMD/beld3.html, 2003.
S35. United States Geological Survey (USGS) / U. Nebraska, Lincoln / European Commission's Joint
Research Center. 1-km resolution global landcover characteristics data base, derived from Advanced
Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) data from the period April 1992 to March 1993, 1999.
S36. Guenther, A., et al., A global model of natural volatile organic compound emissions, J. Geophys. Res.,
100, 8873-8892, 1995.
S37. Bond, T.C., Streets, D.G., Yarber, K.F., Nelson, S.M., Woo, J.-H. & Klimont, Z., A technology-based
global inventory of black and organic carbon emissions from combustion, J. Geophys. Res., 109,
D14203, doi: 10.1029/2003JD003697, 2004.
 26
S38. National Center for Environmental Prediction (NCEP), 2.5 degree global final analyses, distributed by
the Data Support Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, 2003.
S39. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). AIR Data, http://www.epa.gov/air/data/,
2003.
S40. Barnes, D.H., S.C. Wofsy, B.P. Fehlau, E.W. Gottlieb, J.W. Elkins, G.S. Dutton, and P.C. Novelli,
Hydrogen in the atmosphere: Observations above a forest canopy in a polluted environment, J.
Geophys. Res., 108 (D6), 4197, doi:10.1029/2001JD001199, 2003.
S41. Jacobson, M.Z., and G.M. Masters, Exploiting wind versus coal, Science, 293, 1438, 2001a.
S42. Bolinger, M., and R. Wiser, Summary of Power Authority Letters of Intent for Renewable Energy,
Memorandum, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oct. 30, 2001, 2001.
S43. Jacobson, M.Z., and G.M. Masters, dEbate Response to Alfred Cavallo letter of November 21, 2004,”
Science, www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/294/5544/1000, 2001.
S44. Cavallo, A.J., High-capacity factor wind energy systems, JSEE 117, 137, 1995.
S45. Archer, C. L., and M. Z. Jacobson, Spatial and temporal distributions of U.S. winds and wind power at
80 m derived from measurements, J. Geophys. Res., 108 (D9) 4289, doi:10.1029/2002JD002076,
2003.
S46. National Academy of Science (NAS), The hydrogen economy: opportunities, costs, barriers, and R&D
needs, National Academies Press, Washington D.C., p. 3-3, 2004.
S47. Lee, K., Economic feasibility of producing hydrogen using excess electricity from wind turbines on
the Big Island of Hawaii, World Renewable Energy Cong. VIII, Denver, Colo., Sept. 3, 2004,
www.sentech.org/Lee,%20K_Economic%20Feasibility%20Hawaii.pdf, 2004.
S48. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Technology Brief: Analysis of current-day
commercial electrolyzers, NREL/FS-560-36705, Sept. 2004, 2004.
S49. Myers, D.B., G.D. Ariff, R.C. Kuhn, and B.D. James, Hydrogen from renewable energy sources:
Pathway to 10 quads for transportation uses in 2030 to 2050., FY 2003 Progress Report,
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells, 2003.