National Hydrogen Learning Demonstration Status (Presentation) - - PDF document

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254995491

National Hydrogen Learning Demonstration Status (Presentation)

Article

CITATIONS READS

23

6 authors, including: Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: National FCEV Learning Demonstration View project Keith Wipke

99 PUBLICATIONS 2,241 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

• J. Kurtz

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

66 PUBLICATIONS 211 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Keith Wipke on 20 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Keith Wipke, Sam Sprik, Jennifer Kurtz, Todd Ramsden, Chris Ainscough, Genevieve Saur February 6, 2012 DOE’s Informational Webinar Series

NREL/PR-5600-54244

National Hydrogen Learning Demonstration Status

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

v8

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Outline

• U.S. DOE Learning Demonstration Project Goals
• Fuel Cell Vehicle and H2 Station Deployment

Status

• Technical Highlights of Vehicle and Infrastructure

Analysis Results and Progress

• Next Steps and Project Wrap-up

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 3 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Learning Demo Project Objectives, Relevance, and Targets

• Objectives

– Validate H2 FC Vehicles and Infrastructure in Real-World Setting – Identify Current Status and Evolution of the Technology

• Relevance

– Objectively Assess Progress Toward Targets and Market Needs – Provide Feedback to H2 Research and Development – Publish Results for Key Stakeholder Use and Investment Decisions

Burbank, CA station. Photo: NREL

Performance Measure Interim (2009)* Ultimate (2020) Fuel Cell Stack Durability 2000 hours 5000 hours Vehicle Range 250+ miles 300+ miles Hydrogen Cost at Station $3/gge $2-4/gge**

Key Targets

*Project extended 2 years through 2011; **Previously $2-3/gge for 2015

Outside review panel

Details of each of these 3 results shown later

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 4 Innovation for Our Energy Future

History: 4 OEM/Energy Teams Selected Competitively through FOA in 2004

*** * **

* now ** now *** now

DOE funding: $170M Industry cost share: $189M Total: $359M

NREL received $6.6M from DOE for analysis and support of this project since FY03

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 5 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Involvement of Industry Teams Over 7 Years

RFP Startup Operation, Data Collection, and Analysis

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

TODAY

Gen 1 Gen 2 Gen 2 Gen 1

Daimler, GM, and Air Products (CHIP) Demonstrated Vehicles/Stations within Project through CY2011

(CHIP)

Gen 1 & 2 Gen 1 Gen 2

Ford/BP and Chevron/Hyundai-Kia Concluded in 2009

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 6 Innovation for Our Energy Future

What is NREL’s Role? Project Approach

Supporting Both DOE/Public as Well as Fuel Cell Developers

Bundled data (operation & maintenance/safety) delivered to NREL quarterly

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 7 Innovation for Our Energy Future

What is NREL’s Role? Project Approach

Supporting Both DOE/Public as Well as Fuel Cell Developers

Internal analysis completed quarterly Bundled data (operation & maintenance/safety) delivered to NREL quarterly

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 8 Innovation for Our Energy Future

CDPs DDPs Composite Data Products (CDPs)

• Aggregated data across multiple systems,

sites, and teams

• Publish analysis results every six months

without revealing proprietary data2 Detailed Data Products (DDPs)

• Individual data analyses
• Identify individual contribution to CDPs
• Shared every six months only with the

partner who supplied the data1

1) Data exchange may happen more frequently based on data, analysis, & collaboration 2) Results published via NREL Tech Val website, conferences, and reports (http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_learning_demo.html)

What is NREL’s Role? Project Approach

Supporting Both DOE/Public as Well as Fuel Cell Developers

Results Internal analysis completed quarterly Bundled data (operation & maintenance/safety) delivered to NREL quarterly

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 9 Innovation for Our Energy Future

This Project Analyzed Massive Amounts of Data: 3.5 M miles and >500,000 vehicle trips (second-by-second)

122429 508441 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 25000 50000 75000 100000 125000

# Trips Size of Data (MB)

Cumulative On-Road Data Received for Fuel Cell Vehicle Learning Demonstration

MB of data # trips

~420 million seconds of data

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 10 Innovation for Our Energy Future

99 CDPs in Total (40 Winter 2011 CDPs)

Hence, we’ll just cover some highlights today

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 11 Innovation for Our Energy Future

4 83 45 51

• 20

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Cumulative Vehicles Deployed/Retired1 Vehicle Deployment by On-Board Hydrogen Storage Type

700 bar on-road 350 bar on-road Liquid H2 on-road 700 bar retired 350 bar retired Liquid H2 retired

(1) Retired vehicles have left DOE fleet and are no longer providing data to NREL (2) Two project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009

Created Dec-13-11 3:12 PM

183

NREL cdp_fcev_25

(2)

Current Vehicle Deployment Status at End of Evaluation Period (9/30/11)

51 vehicles on road 132 retired Large # vehicles required for statistical significance

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 12 Innovation for Our Energy Future

2nd Generation Vehicles Demonstrated Technology Improvements Over Gen 1

Generation 1 Vehicles

• FC not freeze-capable
• ~2003 stack technology
• Storage: liquid H2 & 350

and 700 bar

• Range: 100-200 miles
• Efficiency: 51-58% at ¼

power Generation 2 Vehicles

• FC freeze-capable
• ~2007-2009 stack tech.
• Storage: All 700 bar
• Range: 200-250 miles
• Efficiency: 53-59% at ¼

power

• Longer FC durability

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 13 Innovation for Our Energy Future

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Compressed Liquid Pipeline Reforming Electrolysis

Number of Stations

Learning Demonstration Hydrogen Stations by Type

Operating Outside of Project Operating Within Project Historical 2005-2009*

NREL cdp_fcev_32

Created Dec-9-11 9:15 AM

Delivered On-Site Production

*Some project teams concluded Fall/Winter 2009. Markers show the cumulative stations operated during the 2005-2009 period

Current Infrastructure Status: Demonstration Station Testing Successfully Completed as Planned

Note: Many demonstration stations were taken offline as planned at conclusion of demo. Some stayed open and/or received upgrades (CA and NY).

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 14 Innovation for Our Energy Future

5 10 15 20 25

Number of Stations Reporting Period Cumulative Stations

Continuing Outside of Project Retired Stations Current Project Stations

Infrastructure Status: Out of 25 Project Stations, 13 Are Still Operational* (~1/2 outside of DOE project)

Jan-31-2012

2 Online 3 Future

54 Online 15 Future

6 Online

SF Bay Area DC to New York

3 Online

Detroit Area Los Angeles Area

16 Online 11 Future

3 mile radius 6 mile radius

12 7 6

**

** Funded by state of CA or others,

• utside of this project

* CDP station status is as of 9/30/11

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 15 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Project Achieved Both Technical Goals; Outside Analysis Used for Cost Evaluation

Vehicle Performance Metrics Gen 1 Vehicle Gen 2 Vehicle 2009 Target

Fuel Cell Stack Durability

2000 hours

Max Team Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation

1807 hours 2521 hours

Average Fuel Cell Durability Projection

821 hours 1062 hours

Max Hours of Operation by a Single FC Stack to Date

2375 hours 1261 hours

Driving Range

103-190 miles 196-254 miles 250 miles Fuel Economy (Window Sticker) 42 – 57 mi/kg 43 – 58 mi/kg no target Fuel Cell Efficiency at ¼ Power 51 - 58% 53 - 59% 60% Fuel Cell Efficiency at Full Power 30 - 54% 42 - 53% 50% Infrastructure Performance Metrics 2009 Target

H2 Cost at Station (early market)

On-site natural gas reformation $7.70 - $10.30 On-site Electrolysis $10.00 - $12.90 $3/gge Average H2 Fueling Rate 0.77 kg/min 1.0 kg/min

Outside of this project, DOE independent panels concluded at 500 replicate stations/year: Distributed natural gas reformation at 1500 kg/day: $2.75-$3.50/kg (2006) Distributed electrolysis at 1500kg/day: $4.90-$5.70 (2009)

Outside review panel

1) 2) 3)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 16 Innovation for Our Energy Future

1) FC Durability Target of 2000 Hours Met By Gen 2 Projections

Gen1 Gen2 Gen1 Gen2 Gen1 Gen2 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800

2006 Target 2009 Target

Actual Operating Hours Accumulated To-Date Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation Time (Hours) DOE Learning Demonstration Fuel Cell Stack Durability: Based on Data Through 2009 Q2

Max Hrs Accumulated1,2 Avg Hrs Accumulated1,3 Projection to 10% Voltage Degradation4,5,6

Max Projection Avg Projection

NREL CDP01 Created: Mar-23-10 10:39 AM

(1) Range bars created using one data point for each OEM. Some stacks have accumulated hours beyond 10% voltage degradation. (2) Range (highest and lowest) of the maximum operating hours accumulated to-date of any OEM's individual stack in "real-world" operation. (3) Range (highest and lowest) of the average operating hours accumulated to-date of all stacks in each OEM's fleet. (4) Projection using on-road data -- degradation calculated at high stack current. This criterion is used for assessing progress against DOE targets, may differ from OEM's end-of-life criterion, and does not address "catastrophic" failure modes, such as membrane failure. (5) Using one nominal projection per OEM: "Max Projection" = highest nominal projection, "Avg Projection" = average nominal projection. The shaded projection bars represents an engineering judgment of the uncertainty on the "Avg Projection" due to data and methodology limitations. Projections will change as additional data are accumulated. (6) Projection method was modified beginning with 2009 Q2 data, includes an upper projection limit based on demonstrated op hours.

*

Durability is defined by DOE as projected hours to 10% voltage degradation

*

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 17 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Dyno Range (2) Window-Sticker Range (3) On-Road Range (4)(5) 50 100 150 200 250 300 Vehicle Range (miles) Vehicle Range1 2015 Target 2009 Target Gen 1 Gen 2

NREL CDP02 Created: Mar-10-10 1:18 PM

(1) Range is based on fuel economy and usable hydrogen on-board the vehicle. One data point for each make/model. (2) Fuel economy from unadjusted combined City/Hwy per DRAFT SAE J2572. (3) Fuel economy from EPA Adjusted combined City/Hwy (0.78 x Hwy, 0.9 x City). (4) Excludes trips < 1 mile. One data point for on-road fleet average of each make/model. (5) Fuel economy calculated from on-road fuel cell stack current or mass flow readings.

2) Vehicle Range Achieved 2009 Target of 250 Miles with Gen 2 Adjusted Fuel Economy

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 18 Innovation for Our Energy Future

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Projected Early Market 1500 kg/day Hydrogen Cost1

$/kg Natural Gas Reforming2 Electrolysis2

2015 DOE Hydrogen Program Goal Range3 Median 25th & 75th Percentile 10th & 90th Percentile

Created: Jan-19-10 11:08 AM

(1) Reported hydrogen costs are based on estimates of key cost elements from Learning Demonstration energy company partners and represent the cost of producing hydrogen on-site at the fueling station, using either natural gas reformation or water electrolysis, dispensed to the vehicle. Costs reflect an assessment of hydrogen production technologies, not an assessment of hydrogen market demand. (2) Hydrogen production costs for 1500 kg/day stations developed using DOE’s H2A Production model, version 2.1. Cost modeling represents the lifetime cost of producing hydrogen at fueling stations installed during an early market rollout of hydrogen infrastructure and are not reflective of the costs that might be seen in a fully mature market for hydrogen installations. Modeling uses default H2A Production model inputs supplemented with feedback from Learning Demonstration energy company partners, based on their experience operating on-site hydrogen production stations. H2A-based Monte Carlo simulations (2,000 trials) were completed for both natural gas reforming and electrolysis stations using default H2A values and 10th percentile to 90th percentile estimated ranges for key cost parameters as shown in the table. Capacity utilization range is based on the capabilities

• f the production technologies and could be significantly lower if there is inadequate demand for hydrogen.

(3) DOE has a hydrogen cost goal of $2-$3/kg for future (2015) 1500 kg/day hydrogen production stations installed at a rate of 500 stations per year.

Key H2 Cost Elements and Ranges

Input Parameter Minimum (P10) Maximum (P90)

Facility Direct Capital Cost $10M $25M Facility Capacity Utilization 85% 95% Annual Maintenance & Repairs $150K $600K Annual Other O&M $100K $200K Annual Facility Land Rent $50K $200K Natural Gas Prod. Efficiency (LHV) 65% 75% Electrolysis Prod. Efficiency (LHV) 35% 62%

NREL CDP15

3) Projected Early Market H2 Production Cost from Learning Demo Energy Partners’ Inputs * *

This project provides an excellent learning opportunity, but stations are not meant to emulate high volume replicate stations of the future. Permitting was in transition. Outside of this project, DOE independent panels concluded at 500 replicate stations/year: Distributed natural gas reformation at 1500 kg/day: $2.75-$3.50/kg (2006) Distributed electrolysis at 1500kg/day: $4.90-$5.70 (2009)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 19 Innovation for Our Energy Future

EFFICIENCY: Verified High Gen 2 Fuel Cell System Efficiency Maintained (Compared to Gen 1)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 10 20 30 40 50 60 Net System Power [%] Efficiency [%] Fuel Cell System1 Efficiency2

• Eff. at 25% Pwr Eff. at 100% Pwr
• ------------------ -------------------

Gen1 51 - 58% 30 - 54% Gen2 53 - 59% 42 - 53%

DOE Target at 25% Power DOE Target at 100% Power Gen 1 Efficiency Range Gen 2 Efficiency Range

NREL CDP08 NREL CDP08 Created: Sep-02-09 11:27 AM

1 Gross stack power minus fuel cell system auxiliaries, per DRAFT SAE J2615. Excludes power electronics and electric drive. 2 Ratio of DC output energy to the lower heating value of the input fuel (hydrogen). 3 Individual test data linearly interpolated at 5,10,15,25,50,75,and 100% of max net power. Values at high power linearly extrapolated

due to steady state dynamometer cooling limitations.

Critical result: Efficiency not sacrificed in order to achieve improved durability and freeze capability

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 20 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Dyno (1) Window-Sticker (2) On-Road (3)(4) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Fuel Economy (miles/kg H2) Fuel Economy Gen 1 Gen 2

NREL CDP06 Created: Mar-10-10 1:18 PM

(1) One data point for each make/model. Combined City/Hwy fuel economy per DRAFT SAE J2572. (2) Adjusted combined City/Hwy fuel economy (0.78 x Hwy, 0.9 x City). (3) Excludes trips < 1 mile. One data point for on-road fleet average of each make/model. (4) Calculated from on-road fuel cell stack current or mass flow readings.

FUEL ECONOMY: Ranges of Fuel Economy from

Dynamometer and On-Road Data Similar for Gen 1 & 2

Gen 2 on-road fuel economy more robust to different driving

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 21 Innovation for Our Energy Future

50 100 150 200 250 300 5 10 Percentage of Refuelings Distance between refuelings [Miles]2 Distance Driven Between Refuelings: All OEMs

Gen1 Gen2 After 2009Q4

NREL cdp_fcev_80

• 1. Some refueling events are not detected/reported due to data noise or incompleteness.
• 2. Distance driven between refuelings is indicative of driver behavior and does not represent the full range of the vehicle.

Gen1 Refuelings1 = 18941 Median distance between refuelings = 56 Miles Gen2 Refuelings1 = 6870 Median distance between refuelings = 81 Miles

Created: Dec-13-11 3:57 PM

Refuelings after 2009Q41 = 9937 Median distance between refuelings = 98 Miles

RANGE: Results Show Significant Improvement in Real-

World Driving Range Between 3 Sets of Vehicles

+45% improvement Gen 1 to Gen 2 +71% improvement in real-world driving range with latest

• adv. tech. vehicles

Note: Actual range possible >200 miles

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 22 Innovation for Our Energy Future

RANGE: NREL/SRNL Experiment Verified Toyota FCHV-adv Capable of

up to 430-Mile Driving Range Without Refueling on June 30, 2009

Average trip distance (miles) H2 consumed (kg) Remaining usable H2 (kg) Calculated remaining range (miles) (miles) (miles) Vehicle #1 331.50 4.8255 1.4854 102.04 433.55

431

Vehicle #2 331.45 4.8751 1.4328 97.41 428.87

0 MPG 30 MPG 60 MPG 90 MPG

Report: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/toyota_fchv-adv_range_verification.pdf Toyota video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz0vD5E7glA

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 23 Innovation for Our Energy Future

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 >2000 5 10 15 20 25 Fuel Cell Stack4 Operation Hours FC Stacks [%] Operation Hours 25% of FC Stacks > 937 hours Median (620 hours) In Service1 Retired2 Not in Service3

NREL cdp_fcev_86 Created: Dec-15-11 12:32 PM

1) Stacks that are in service and accumulating operation hours. 2) Stacks retired due to low-performance or catastrophic failure. 3) Indicates stacks that are no longer accumulating hours either a) temporarily or b) have been retired for non- stack performance related issues or c)removed from DOE program. 4) Only includes systems operating after 2009Q4.

DURABILITY: Data from FCEVs After 2009 Q4

Fuel Cell Stack Operation Hours

Some stacks

• perated up over

1,400 hours, but half still below 600 hours

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 24 Innovation for Our Energy Future

20 40 60 80 100 120 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10001100120013001400150016001700180019002000 Stack Op Hour Segments2 % Power1 Max Fuel Cell Stack3 Power Degradation Over Operation

1) Normalized by fleet median value at 200 hours. 2) Each segment point is median FC power (+-50 hrs). Box not drawn if fewer than 3 points in segment. 3) Only includes systems operated after 2009Q4.

Data Range 25th & 75th Percentiles Group Median Outlier

NREL cdp_fcev_90 Created: Jan-10-12 10:29 AM

Median power difference from 0 hour segment to 1300 hour segment = -18.2%

DURABILITY: What Does the Stack Aging Look

Like? Max FC Power Degradation Rate Drops with Aging

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 25 Innovation for Our Energy Future

300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 >3000 10 20 30 40 50 60 Fuel Cell Stacks4 Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation

1,748

FC Stacks [%] Time 0 Fit (In Service) Time 0 Fit (Retired or Not in Service)2 Weighted Average (Fleet) 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 >3000 10 20 30 40 50 60

2,261

Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation 1,3 FC Stacks [%] Steady Operation Fit (In Service)5 Steady Operation Fit (Retired or Not in Service)2, 5 Weighted Average (Fleet)

NREL cdp_fcev_87 Created: Jan-10-12 10:28 AM

1) Projection using field data, calculated at high stack current, from operation hour 0 or a steady operation period. Projected hours may differ from an OEM's end-of-life criterion and does not address "catastrophic" failure modes. 2) Indicates stacks that are no longer accumulating hours either a) temporarily or b) have been retired for non- stack performance related issues

• r c) removed from DOE program.

3) Projected hours limited based on demonstrated hours. 4) Only includes systems operating after 2009Q4. 5) Not all stacks have a steady operation fit which is calculated from data after 200 hr break-in period. The steady operation starting hour is an approximation of the period after initial break-in where degradation levels to a more steady rate.

DURABILITY: Fuel Cell Stacks Projected Hours to

10% Voltage Degradation; Two Fits

Using All Data from t0 Fitting After First 200 Hours

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 26 Innovation for Our Energy Future

500 1000 1500 2000 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Comparison of Operation Hours and Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation5

Projected Hours1,2,4 Operation Hours

p r

• j

e c t e d h r s =

• p

e r a t i

• n

h r s FC System FC System (Limited)2 FC System (Retired)3 Unity Line

NREL cdp_fcev_88 Created: Jan-10-12 10:29 AM

25% of stacks are below the unity line and have operated past 10% voltage degradation. On average, these stacks have

• perated for 990

hours. Stacks above the unity line have not

• perated past 10%

voltage degradation.

1) Indicates the projected hours to a 10% voltage degradation based upon curve fitting data from operation hour 0. 2) Projected hours limited based on demonstrated hours. 3) Stacks retired due to low-performance or catastrophic failure. 4) Each projection has uncertainty based on the confidence intervals of the fit. 5) Only includes systems operated after 2009Q4.

DURABILITY: Comparison of Fuel Cell Operation Hours

and Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation

Many stacks have projections that we limit to 2X due to minimize extrapolation Stacks consistently

• perating past 10%

voltage degradation

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 27 Innovation for Our Energy Future

INFRASTRUCTURE: Evaluated On-Site Hydrogen Production Efficiency

On-Site Natural Gas Reforming On-Site Electrolysis 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

2010 MYPP Target 2015 MYPP Target 2012 MYPP Target 2017 MYPP Target

Production Efficiency (LHV %) Hydrogen Production Conversion Efficiency1

Average Station Efficiency Quarterly Efficiency Data Highest Quarterly Efficiency Efficiency Probability Distribution2

NREL CDP13 Created: Mar-09-10 3:16 PM

1Production conversion efficiency is defined as the energy of the hydrogen out of the process (on an LHV basis) divided by the sum of

the energy into the production process from the feedstock and all other energy as needed. Conversion efficiency does not include energy used for compression, storage, and dispensing.

2The efficiency probability distribution represents the range and likelihood of hydrogen production conversion efficiency based on

monthly conversion efficiency data from the Learning Demonstration.

Highest Quarterly Efficiencies Approach DOE Targets

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 28 Innovation for Our Energy Future

GHG: Learning Demonstration Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions (WTW)

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 WTW GHG Emissions (g CO2-eq/mi) Learning Demonstration Fuel Cycle Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions1

Baseline Conventional Mid-Size Passenger Car2 Baseline Conventional Mid-Size SUV2 Average WTW GHG Emissions (Learning Demo) Minimum WTW GHG Emissions (Learning Demo) WTW GHG Emissions (100% Renewable Electricity) WTW GHG Probability Based on Learning Demo3

NREL CDP62 Created: Mar-08-10 4:16 PM

On-Site Natural Gas Reforming On-Site Electrolysis(4)

• 1. Well-to-Wheels greenhouse gas emissions based on DOE's GREET model, version 1.8b. Analysis uses default GREET values except for FCV fuel economy, hydrogen

production conversion efficiency, and electricity grid mix. Fuel economy values are the Gen 1 and Gen 2 window-sticker fuel economy data for all teams (as used in CDP #6); conversion efficiency values are the production efficiency data used in CDP #13.

• 2. Baseline conventional passenger car and light duty truck GHG emissions are determined by GREET 1.8b, based on the EPA window-sticker fuel economy of a conventional

gasoline mid-size passenger car and mid-size SUV, respectively. The Learning Demonstration fleet includes both passenger cars and SUVs.

• 3. The Well-to-Wheels GHG probability distribution represents the range and likelihood of GHG emissions resulting from the hydrogen FCV fleet based on window-sticker fuel

economy data and monthly conversion efficiency data from the Learning Demonstration.

• 4. On-site electrolysis GHG emissions are based on the average mix of electricity production used by the Learning Demonstration production sites, which includes both

grid-based electricity and renewable on-site solar electricity. GHG emissions associated with on-site production of hydrogen from electrolysis are highly dependent on electricity source. GHG emissions from a 100% renewable electricity mix would be zero, as shown. If electricity were supplied from the U.S. average grid mix, average GHG emissions would be 1330 g/mile.

Even with demonstration systems, FCEVs show significant GHG reduction potential

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 29 Innovation for Our Energy Future

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 50 100 150 200 250 Station (Sorted By Increasing Station Capacity) Capacity Utilization 1 [%] Demonstration Station Capacity Utilization 58.9% Maximum Daily Utilization Maximum Quarterly Utilization2 Average Daily Utilization2

NREL cdp_fcev_91 Created: Jan-10-12 11:38 AM

Note: Learning Demonstration priority was for good station coverage not high station utilization

1Station nameplate capacity reflects a variety of system design consderations including system capacity, throughput,

system reliability and durability, and maintenance. Actual daily usage may exceed nameplate capacity.

2Maximum quarterly utilization considers all days; average daily utilization considers only days when at least one filling occurred

INFRASTRUCTURE: Station Capacity Utilization

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 30 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 Dispensed Hydrogen [% of total] Day of Week Dispensed Hydrogen per Day of Week 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 Daily Average [kg] 27 kg/day avg All Stations Individual Stations

NREL cdp_fcev_83 Created: Dec-15-11 1:20 PM

INFRASTRUCTURE: Some CDPs Are Now Looking at the Transition

from Demo to Early Market – Utilization is Important

Several stations are serving >5 vehicles/day on average Some stations still significantly under- utilized but helping provide coverage

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 31 Innovation for Our Energy Future

INFRASTRUCTURE: Infrastructure Reliability

Growth

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Shape Parameter (β)1 Overall Site Reliability Growth: Infrastructure3 Site: 1 Site: 2 Site: 3 Site: 4 Site: 5 Site: 6 Site: 7

• 1. IEC 61164:2004(E)., Reliability Growth - Statistical Test and Evaluation Methods, IEC. 2004.

2.% change in instantaneous MTBF

• 3. Includes data from stations operating after 2009 Q4.

Entire history Last 20% of events First 120 Days

NREL cdp_fcev_97 Created: Jan-09-12 4:23 PM

Sites Sorted by Increasing Age (Calendar Days)

Failure Rate Increasing Failure Rate Decreasing

Instantaneous MTBF improved for 5 of 7 sites for the last 20% of events. 12%2 522%2 43%2 127%2

• 64%2
• 20%2

379%2

Most stations have shown improved reliability recently

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 32 Innovation for Our Energy Future

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min) Number of Fueling Events Histogram of Fueling Rates All Light Duty by Year

5 minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar 3 minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar

Year Avg (kg/min) %>1

• ------ ----------------- -------

2005 0.66 16% 2006 0.74 21% 2007 0.81 26% 2008 0.77 23% 2009 0.77 22% 2010 0.63 2% 2011 0.68 12%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

NREL cdp_fcev_52 Created: Jan-10-12 11:49 AM

FUELING: Tracking Fueling Rates by Year

Average fueling rate rose, up until 2009 when some of the higher throughput stations closed down

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 33 Innovation for Our Energy Future

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min) Number of Fueling Events Histogram of Fueling Rates Vehicle and Infrastructure

5 kg in 5 minutes 5 kg in 3 minutes

25464 Events Average = 0.77 kg/min 23% >1 kg/min

8,050 Events Average = 0.65 kg/min 7% >1 kg/min

2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone Through 2009Q4 After 2009Q4

NREL cdp_fcev_18 Created: Dec-07-11 11:08 AM

FUELING: Changes in Refueling Rate Trends – Average

Refueling Rate Decreased 16%

Decrease is result of average H2 per fill increasing 25%, but average fueling time increasing by 37%

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 34 Innovation for Our Energy Future

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min) Histogram of Fueling Rates 350 vs 700 bar Fills

5 minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar 3 minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar

Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 Count

• ------------ ------------------ ------- --------

Through 2009Q4 350 bar 0.82 29% 19659 700 bar 0.63 4% 5590

• ------------ ------------------ ------- --------

After 2009Q4 350 bar 0.70 8% 2594 700 bar 0.64 7% 5208

Number of Fueling Events (Through 2009Q4)

350 bar (Through 2009Q4) 700 bar (Through 2009Q4) 700 bar (After 2009Q4) 350 bar (After 2009Q4) 2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Number of Fueling Events (After 2009Q4)

FUELING: Fueling Rates by Fill Pressure and Communication vs. Non-

communication – Fueling infrastructure in transition

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min) Histogram of Fueling Rates Comm vs Non-Comm Fills

5 minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar 3 minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar

Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1

• ------------ ------------------ -------

Through 2009Q4 Comm 0.86 30% Non-Comm 0.66 12%

• ------------ ------------------ -------

After 2009Q4 Comm 0.58 3% Non-Comm 0.81 16%

Number of Fueling Events (Through 2009Q4)

Comm (Through 2009Q4) Non-Comm (Through 2009Q4) Non-Comm (After 2009Q4) Comm (After 2009Q4) 2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Number of Fueling Events (After 2009Q4)

700 bar fueling rates holding constant at ~0.63 kg/min 350 bar fueling rates dropped from 0.82 to 0.70 kg/min

• Comm. fill rates dropped while

non-comm. fill rates increased

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 35 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Analysis at NREL Leveraged Across Applications; Being Applied to Compare Similarities/Differences

Other data sources: FC bus, forklift, lab data, and backup power

Fueling rates vary by application, driven by constraints on nominal pressure, volume, tank materials

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 36 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Example of Analysis Results Informing R&D Activities and Codes and Standards Development

• 20

20 40 60

• 20
• 10

10 20 30 40 50 60 Ambient Air Temperature [deg C] Tank Temperature [deg C] Tank vs. Ambient Air Temps Prior to Refueling Frequency 50 100 150 200 250 300

• 40
• 20

20 40 500 1000 1500 2000 Delta Temperature [deg C] Count Delta Temperature: Tank minus Ambient Delta Temp Histogram Normal Distribution Fit

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

Density

Mean= -3.751 Std Dev= 6.129

NREL CDP72 Created: Mar-11-10 10:24 AM

• This CDP created in support of SAE J2601 related to refueling
• Temperatures are prior to refueling and exclude data within 4 hours of a previous fill
• The plot to the left excludes ambient temperatures less than -5 deg C

FCEVs arrive at station with a tank temperature that is 3.8 degrees C colder than ambient temp

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 37 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Technical Summary

• Project has completed ~7 years of real-world validation
• Vehicle operation: 183 vehicles, 154,000 hours, 3.5 million

miles, 500,000 trips

• H2 station operation: 25 stations, 151,000 kg produced or

dispensed, 33,000 fuelings

• DOE Key Technical Targets Validated and Met:
• FC Durability >2,000 hours and Range >250 miles

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 38 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Learning Demo Project Wrap-Up

• Winter 2011 CDPs just posted on NREL web site
• Draft final report in March 2012, to be published in April
• Continuing to receive data on H2 infrastructure with

support from DOE (primarily in CA: stations funded by CEC and ARB). New results to follow.

• In discussions with how to continue to assess FCEV

progress in the coming years

• This project is the 1st time such comprehensive data was

collected by an independent 3rd-party and consolidated for public dissemination

• Successful framework being used for other projects

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 39 Innovation for Our Energy Future

NREL Has Built the Infrastructure and Framework for Other Projects to Follow

Final Public Report Learning Demo Conclusion Spring 2006 CDPs Fall 2006 CDPs Spring 2007 CDPs Fall 2007 CDPs Spring 2008 CDPs Fall 2008 CDPs Spring 2009 CDPs Fall 2009 CDPs Spring 2010 CDPs Fall 2010 CDPs Spring 2011 CDPs Fall 2011 CDPs Winter 2011 CDPs

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 40 Innovation for Our Energy Future

To Learn More on Your Own… It’s All Online on NREL’s web site

Web link

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 41 Innovation for Our Energy Future

New Graphical Way of Viewing Results Will Soon Be Online

Web demo Sunburst temporarily located at http://nreldev.nrel.gov/hydrogen/_noctp/demo/source/sunburst.html

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 42 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Online Questions and Discussion

All public Learning Demo papers and presentations are available

• nline at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_validation.html

Project Contact: Keith Wipke, National Renewable Energy Lab 303.275.4451 keith.wipke nrel.gov

@

DOE FCT Program website: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/index.html

View publication stats View publication stats