Learning Demonstration Interim Progress Report - NREL

Learning Demonstration Interim Progress Report – July 2010 K. Wipke, S. Sprik, J. Kurtz, and T. Ramsden

Technical Report NREL/TP-560-49129 September 2010

Learning Demonstration Interim Progress Report – July 2010 K. Wipke, S. Sprik, J. Kurtz, and T. Ramsden Prepared under Task No. H270.8100

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

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 Contract No. DE-AC36-08-GO28308

Technical Report

NREL/ TP-560-49129 September 2010

NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof. Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 phone: 865.576.8401 fax: 865.576.5728 email: mailto:[email protected] Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 phone: 800.553.6847 fax: 703.605.6900 email: [email protected] online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste

Executive Summary This report documents and discusses key results based on data through December 2009 from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Validation and Demonstration Project, also referred to as the National Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Learning Demonstration. This report serves as one of many mechanisms to help transfer knowledge and lessons learned within various parts of DOE’s Fuel Cell Technologies program, as well as externally to other stakeholders. It is the fourth such report in a series, with previous reports being published in July 2007 [1], November 2007 [2], and April 2008 [3]. This report also marks a transition with the makeup of the industry participants who initiated the project in 2004. The projects started with four automotive OEM & energy partner teams. Since that time, DOE’s California Hydrogen Infrastructure Project began providing data, and additional hydrogen fueling infrastructure is being installed in California under state and local funding that will also soon be providing data to DOE’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). We have also seen the completion of the project for two of the four original OEM and energy partner teams, who provided their last data by early 2010. New analytical results generated after this report will need to be approached differently, given the fact that there are only two automotive companies now providing data, and their sensitive data still needs to be protected from competitors. Therefore, while this report is not a final report from the project, it is potentially the last comprehensive report to provide new commentary on the data involving all four original automotive OEM teams up to December 2009. NREL has now analyzed data from almost five years of the seven-year project. During this time, 144 vehicles were deployed, 23 project refueling stations were placed in use, and no fundamental safety barriers were identified. We have analyzed data from over 436,000 individual vehicle trips covering 2,500,000 miles traveled and over 130,000 kg hydrogen produced or dispensed. Key objectives of the project are to evaluate fuel cell durability, vehicle driving range, and onsite hydrogen production cost. Progress towards these objectives will be briefly highlighted. Fuel Cell Stack Durability: Many improvements have been made in NREL’s fuel cell durability analysis methodology, including using a two-segment linear fit and using a weighting algorithm to come up with a more robust and automatic fleet average. Now that the data submissions are complete on first-generation stacks (no new first-generation stack data is being received), we can make some final conclusions about that generation of technology. The maximum number of hours a first-generation stack accumulated without repair is 2,375, which is the longest stack durability from a light-duty vehicle FCEV in normal use published to date that we are aware of. On average, the slope of the initial power degradation is steeper in the first 200 hours and becomes more gradual after that. We also found that around 1,000 hours of data were required to reliably determine the slope of the more gradual secondary degradation. Finally, with significant drops in power observed at 1,900–2,000 hours, it appears as though this is a solid upper bound on first-generation stack durability (characterizing 2003–2005 technology). For second-generation fuel cell stacks (2005–2007 technology), the range of maximum hours accumulated from the four teams is now approximately 800 to over 1,200 hours, with the range of team average hours accumulated of approximately 300 to 1,100 hours. Relative to projected durability, the Spring 2010 results indicate that the highest average projected team time to 10% i

voltage degradation for second-generation systems was 2,521 hours, with a multi-team average projection of 1,062 hours. Therefore, the 2,000-hour target for durability has been validated. Vehicle Driving Range: In FY 2008, the driving range of the project’s FCEVs was evaluated based on fuel economy from dynamometer testing (EPA adjusted) and on-board hydrogen storage amounts and compared to the 250-mile target. The resulting second-generation vehicle driving range was between 196 – 254 miles from the four teams, and met the 250-mile range objective. In June 2009, an on-road driving range evaluation was performed in collaboration with Toyota and Savannah River National Laboratory. The results indicated a 431-mile on-road range was possible in southern California using Toyota’s FCHV-adv fuel cell vehicle [4]. More recently, the significant on-road data that have been obtained from second- and first-generation vehicles allowed a comparison of the real-world driving ranges of all the vehicles in the project. The data show that there has been a 45% improvement in the median real-world driving range of second-generation vehicles (81 miles) as compared to first-generation (56 miles), based on actual distances driven between over 25,000 refueling events. Obviously the vehicles are capable of two to three times greater range than this, but the median distance travelled between refuelings is one way to measure the improvement in the vehicles’ capability and the way in which they are actually being driven. On-Site Hydrogen Production Cost: Cost estimates from the Learning Demonstration energy company partners were used as input to an H2A analysis to project the hydrogen cost for 1,500 kg/day early market fueling stations (H2A is DOE’s suite of hydrogen analysis tools, with the H2A Production model focused on calculating the costs of producing hydrogen). Results indicate that on-site natural gas reformation could lead to a range of $8-$10/kg and on-site electrolysis could lead to $10-$13/kg hydrogen cost. While these results do not achieve the $3/gge cost target, two external independent review panels commissioned by DOE concluded that distributed natural gas reformation could lead to $2.75-$3.50/kg [5] and distributed electrolysis could lead to $4.90-$5.70 [6]. Therefore, this objective was met outside of the Learning Demonstration project. We have summarized the previously discussed key performance numbers, along with other metrics of interest such as fuel economy and fuel cell efficiency, and compared them to DOE targets in Table 1. The table shows that this project has exceeded the expectations established in 2003 by DOE, with all of the key targets being achieved except for on-site hydrogen production cost, which would have been difficult to demonstrate through this project. Additional data accumulated and analyzed in 2010 – 2012 will assess the latest generations of FCEV technology, which include improvements over the second-generation systems included in the results to date. Future assessments will also include data analysis from many new hydrogen stations being commissioned in California, all of which will have 700-bar fueling capability. All 80 composite data products (CDPs) published to date are included in this report as well as directly accessible from our Hydrogen Technology Validation Web site.

ii

Table 1: Learning Demonstration key performance metrics summary Vehicle Performance Metrics

Gen 1 Vehicle

Gen 2 Vehicle

2,000 hours

Fuel Cell Stack Durability Max Team Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation

2009 Target

1,807 hours

2,521 hours

821 hours

1,062 hours

2,375 hours

1,261 hours

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%

Average Fuel Cell Durability Projection Max Hours of Operation by a Single FC Stack to Date

Driving Range

Infrastructure Performance Metrics H2 Cost at Station (early market)*

2009 Target On-site natural gas reformation $7.70 - $10.30

On-site Electrolysis $10.00 - $12.90

0.77 kg/min

Average H2 Fueling Rate

*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)

iii

$3/gge 1.0 kg/min

Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... i 1 Project Background and Current Status ....................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Approach........................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Status................................................................................................................................. 5 1.4 Key NREL Analysis Accomplishments in FY 2010 ........................................................ 8 2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 10 2.1 Vehicle Results ............................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Infrastructure Results ...................................................................................................... 22 2.3 Conclusions and Future Directions ................................................................................. 27 2.4 Recent Publications/Presentations .................................................................................. 28 2.5 References....................................................................................................................... 29 2.6 Composite Data Products Referenced in Previous Discussion....................................... 30 Figures Figure 1: Photographs of the industry partners providing data to NREL on hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles and fueling infrastructure included in this report (Photo credit: Keith Wipke) .............................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Four examples of hydrogen production and refueling facilities (Photo credit: Keith Wipke) .............................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 3: Data flow for Hydrogen Secure Data Center (HSDC) analysis and results, overlaid on top of quantity of data received at HSDC ........................................................................ 4 Figure 4: Introductory screen of NREL’s Fleet Analysis Toolkit. .................................................. 5 Figure 5: Cumulative number of vehicles deployed, by hydrogen storage type and status ............ 6 Figure 6: Cumulative stations commissioned with current status ................................................... 7 Figure 7: Type and number of hydrogen stations with current status ............................................. 7 Figure 8: Current location of hydrogen stations in the United States as of August 2010. .............. 8 Figure 9: Thumbnail images of the 80 CDPs published in spring 2010 ......................................... 9 Figure 10: Screen capture from NREL's composite data product Web site .................................. 10 Figure 11: Approach for characterizing voltage transient cycles .................................................. 18 Figure 12: Fuel cell system efficiency (CDP08) ........................................................................... 30 Figure 13: Fuel cell system operating power (CDP46) ................................................................. 30 Figure 14: Fuel cell system energy within power levels (CDP53)................................................ 31 Figure 15: Trip length (CDP47) .................................................................................................... 31 Figure 16: Fuel cell electric vehicle with comparison to standard drive cycles (CDP66) ............ 32 Figure 17: Percent idle in trip with comparison to standard drive cycles (CDP65) ...................... 32 Figure 18: Fuel cell system energy in trips (CDP55) .................................................................... 33 Figure 19: Daily driving distance (CDP56) .................................................................................. 33 Figure 20: Time between trips (CDP54) ....................................................................................... 34 Figure 21: Fuel economy (CDP06) ............................................................................................... 34 Figure 22: Vehicle driving range (CDP02) ................................................................................... 35 Figure 23: Miles between refuelings (CDP80).............................................................................. 35 Figure 24: Percentage of theoretical range traveled between refuelings (CDP33) ....................... 36 Figure 25: Effective vehicle driving range (CDP34) .................................................................... 36 Figure 26: Storage weight % hydrogen (CDP10) ......................................................................... 37 iv

Figure 27: Volumetric capacity of hydrogen storage (CDP11) .................................................... 37 Figure 28: Hydrogen storage system mass and volume breakdown (CDP57) .............................. 38 Figure 29: Vehicle hydrogen tank cycle life (CDP12) .................................................................. 38 Figure 30: Fuel cell system specific power (CDP59).................................................................... 39 Figure 31: Fuel cell system power density (CDP58) .................................................................... 39 Figure 32: Fuel cell system specific power, including hydrogen storage (CDP04) ...................... 40 Figure 33: Fuel cell system power density, including hydrogen storage (CDP03) ....................... 40 Figure 34: Hours accumulated and projected hours to 10% stack voltage degradation (CDP01) 41 Figure 35: Maximum fuel cell power degradation—Gen 1 (CDP69) ........................................... 41 Figure 36: Maximum fuel cell power degradation—Gen 2 (CDP70) ........................................... 42 Figure 37: Fuel cell stack projected hours as a function of voltage drop (CDP73) ...................... 42 Figure 38: Power drop during fuel cell stack operating period (CDP68) ..................................... 43 Figure 39: Projected hours to OEM low power operation limit (CDP71) .................................... 43 Figure 40: Fuel cell stack operation hours (CDP67) ..................................................................... 44 Figure 41: Fuel cell stack trips per hour histogram (CDP16) ....................................................... 44 Figure 42: Statistics of trips/hour vs. operating hour (CDP17) ..................................................... 45 Figure 43: Primary factors affecting learning demonstration fleet fuel cell degradation (CDP48) ........................................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 44: Primary factors affecting learning demonstration team fuel cell degradation (CDP49) ........................................................................................................................................ 46 Figure 45: Fuel cell voltage (CDP07) ........................................................................................... 46 Figure 46: Fuel cell transient voltage and time change (CDP75) ................................................. 47 Figure 47: Fuel cell transient cycles by mile and by minute (CDP74) ......................................... 47 Figure 48: Fuel cell transient rate by cycle category (CDP76) ..................................................... 48 Figure 49: Fuel cell transient voltage changes by cycle category (CDP77) ................................. 48 Figure 50: Percentage of trip time at steady state (CDP79) .......................................................... 49 Figure 51: Fuel cell transient cycles outside of specified voltage levels (CDP78) ....................... 49 Figure 52: Fuel cell electric vehicle maintenance by system (CDP64) ........................................ 50 Figure 53: Driving start time – day (CDP44) ................................................................................ 50 Figure 54: Driving start time – night (CDP51) ............................................................................. 51 Figure 55: Driving by day of week (CDP45) ................................................................................ 51 Figure 56: Safety reports – vehicles (CDP09)............................................................................... 52 Figure 57: Range of ambient temperature during vehicle operation (CDP21) ............................. 52 Figure 58: Fuel cell start times from sub-freezing soak conditions (CDP05) ............................... 53 Figure 59: Time between trips & ambient temperature (CDP19) ................................................. 53 Figure 60: Difference between tank and ambient temperature prior to refueling (CDP72).......... 54 Figure 61: Vehicle operating hours (CDP22)................................................................................ 54 Figure 62: Vehicles vs. miles traveled (CDP23) ........................................................................... 55 Figure 63: Cumulative vehicle miles traveled (CDP24) ............................................................... 55 Figure 64: Onsite hydrogen production efficiency (CDP13) ........................................................ 56 Figure 65: Onsite hydrogen production efficiency vs. capacity utilization (CDP60) ................... 56 Figure 66: Learning Demonstration vehicle greenhouse gas emissions (CDP62) ........................ 57 Figure 67: Refueling station compressor efficiency (CDP61) ...................................................... 57 Figure 68: Hydrogen production cost vs. process (CDP15) .......................................................... 58 Figure 69: Hydrogen quality index (CDP27) ................................................................................ 58 Figure 70: Hydrogen fuel constituents – all (CDP28) ................................................................... 59 v

Figure 71: Hydrogen fuel constituents – sulfur (CDP28) ............................................................. 59 Figure 72: Hydrogen fuel constituents – total hydrocarbons (CDP28) ......................................... 60 Figure 73: Hydrogen fuel constituents – total halogenates (CDP28) ............................................ 60 Figure 74: Hydrogen fuel constituents – particulate concentration (CDP28) ............................... 61 Figure 75: Hydrogen fuel constituents – oxygen (CDP28) ........................................................... 61 Figure 76: Hydrogen fuel constituents – nitrogen (CDP28) ......................................................... 62 Figure 77: Hydrogen fuel constituents – nitrogen + helium + argon (CDP28) ............................. 62 Figure 78: Hydrogen fuel constituents – particulate size (CDP28)............................................... 63 Figure 79: Hydrogen fuel constituents – helium (CDP28)............................................................ 63 Figure 80: Hydrogen fuel constituents – water (CDP28) .............................................................. 64 Figure 81: Hydrogen fuel constituents – formic acid (CDP28) .................................................... 64 Figure 82: Hydrogen fuel constituents – formaldehyde (CDP28) ................................................ 65 Figure 83: Hydrogen fuel constituents – CO (CDP28) ................................................................. 65 Figure 84: Hydrogen fuel constituents – CO2 (CDP28) ................................................................ 66 Figure 85: Hydrogen fuel constituents – total (CDP28)................................................................ 66 Figure 86: Hydrogen fuel constituents – argon + nitrogen (CDP28) ............................................ 67 Figure 87: Hydrogen fuel constituents – argon (CDP28).............................................................. 67 Figure 88: Hydrogen fuel constituents – ammonia (CDP28) ........................................................ 68 Figure 89: Infrastructure maintenance (CDP30) ........................................................................... 68 Figure 90: Hydrogen fueling station maintenance by system (CDP63) ........................................ 69 Figure 91: Safety reports – infrastructure (CDP20) ...................................................................... 69 Figure 92: Primary factors of infrastructure reports (CDP37) ...................................................... 70 Figure 93: Average refuelings between infrastructure safety reports (CDP35) ............................ 70 Figure 94: Type of infrastructure safety report by quarter (CDP36) ............................................ 71 Figure 95: Refueling times (CDP38)............................................................................................. 71 Figure 96: Refueling amounts (CDP39) ........................................................................................ 72 Figure 97: Refueling rates (CDP18) .............................................................................................. 72 Figure 98: Fueling rates – communication and non-communication fills (CDP29) ..................... 73 Figure 99: Fueling rates – 350 and 700 bar (CDP14) ................................................................... 73 Figure 100: Refueling data by year (CDP52) ................................................................................ 74 Figure 101: Hydrogen tank level at refueling (CDP40) ................................................................ 74 Figure 102: Refueling tank levels – medians (CDP41) ................................................................. 75 Figure 103: Refueling by time of day (CDP42) ............................................................................ 75 Figure 104: Refueling by time of night (CDP50).......................................................................... 76 Figure 105: Refueling by day of week (CDP43) ........................................................................... 76 Figure 106: Cumulative hydrogen produced or dispensed (CDP26) ............................................ 77

vi

1 Project Background and Current Status 1.1 Introduction This report documents and discusses key results based on data through December 2009 from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Validation and Demonstration Project, also referred to as the National Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Learning Demonstration. This report serves as one of many mechanisms to help transfer knowledge and lessons learned within various parts of DOE’s hydrogen program as well as externally to other stakeholders. It is the fourth such report in a series, with previous reports being published in July 2007 [1], November 2007 [2], and April 2008 [3]. Other mechanisms have included: briefings to FreedomCAR and Fuels technical teams, detailed data and methodology discussions with our industry partners, presentations at technical conferences, postings of individual results on the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL’s) Web site, presentations at DOE’s Annual Merit Review, and participation in groups such as the California Hydrogen Business Council, the California Fuel Cell Partnership, and various U.S. Fuel Cell Council working groups. NREL has now analyzed data from almost five years of the seven-year project. During this time, 144 vehicles have been deployed, 23 project refueling stations were placed in use, and no fundamental safety barriers have been identified. We have analyzed data from over 436,000 individual vehicle trips covering 2,500,000 miles traveled and over 130,000 kg hydrogen produced or dispensed. Key objectives of the project are to evaluate fuel cell durability, vehicle driving range, and on-site hydrogen production cost. This evaluation is performed through validating the use of FCEVs and hydrogen refueling infrastructure under real-world conditions using multiple sites, various climates, and a variety of hydrogen sources. See Figure 1 for photographs of the first- and second-generation vehicles and structure of the industry teams providing NREL data and Figure 2 for examples of the four types of hydrogen refueling stations used in the project. This report also marks a transition with the makeup of the industry participants who initiated the project in 2004. The projects started with four automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEM) and energy partner teams. Since that time, DOE’s California Hydrogen Infrastructure Project executed by Air Products began providing data, and additional hydrogen fueling infrastructure is being installed in California under state and local funding that will also be providing data to NREL. We have also seen the completion of the project for two of the four original OEM and energy partner teams, who provided their last data by early 2010. New analytical results generated after this report will need to be different, given the fact that there are only two automotive companies now providing data, and their sensitive data still need to be protected. Therefore, while this report is not a final report for the project, it is potentially the last comprehensive report to provide new commentary on the data involving all four automotive OEM teams up to December 2009.

1

Gen 1 Gen 1 Gen 2

Gen 2 Daimler, BP Chevron, UTC Power, Hyundai-Kia

GM, Shell

Gen 1 & 2 Air Products (CHIP)

Ford, BP

Gen 2

Gen 1

Figure 1: Photographs of the industry partners providing data to NREL on hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles and fueling infrastructure included in this report (Photo credit: Keith Wipke)

2

Mobile Refueler Sacramento, CA

Delivered Compressed H 2

Delivered Liquid H2

Natural Gas Onsite Reforming

Delivered Liquid Hydrogen Irvine, CA

Electrolysis

Steam Methane Reforming Oakland, CA

Onsite Electrolysis West Los Angeles, CA

Figure 2: Four examples of hydrogen production and refueling facilities (Photo credit: Keith Wipke) The three high-level objectives of this project are to validate hydrogen FCEVs and infrastructure against the following targets: •

250-mile range

•

2,000-hour fuel cell durability

•

$3/gge hydrogen production cost (based on volume production).

NREL works to provide DOE and industry with maximum value from the data produced by this “learning demonstration.” We seek to understand the progress toward the technical targets, and provide that information to the Fuel Cell Technologies (FCT) program research and development (R&D) activities. This information will allow the program to move more quickly toward costeffective, reliable hydrogen FCEVs and the supporting fueling infrastructure. 1.2 Approach NREL’s approach to accomplishing the project’s objectives is structured around a highly collaborative relationship with each of the industry teams: Chevron/Hyundai-Kia, Daimler/BP, Ford/BP, GM/Shell, and Air Products. We are receiving raw technical data on both the hydrogen vehicles and the fueling infrastructure that allows us to perform unique and valuable analyses across all teams. Our primary objectives are to feed the current technical challenges and opportunities back into the DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Program and assess the current status and progress toward targets. To protect the commercial value of these data for each company, we established the Hydrogen Secure Data Center (HSDC) at NREL to house the data and perform our analysis. Figure 3 shows the flow of data and results, overlaid on top of the quantity of data received at the HSDC. 3

To ensure value is fed back to the hydrogen community, we publish composite data products (CDPs) twice a year at technical conferences. These data products report on the progress of the technology and the project, focusing on the most significant results. Additional CDPs are conceived as additional trends and results of interest are identified. We also provide our detailed analytical results from each individual company’s data back to them to maximize the industry benefit from NREL’s analytical work and obtain feedback on our methodologies. These individual company results are not made available to the public.

Cumulative On-Road Data Received for Fuel Cell Vehicle Learning Demonstration 100000

Size of Data (MB)

80000 70000 60000

NREL HSDC

500000 450000

Composite Data Products

436315

400000 350000

Detailed Data Products

300000

# Trips

90000

98657

50000

250000

40000

200000

MB of data

30000

# trips

150000

20000

100000

10000

50000

0

0

Through June 2010: 436,000 individual vehicle trips 98 GB of on-road data Figure 3: Data flow for Hydrogen Secure Data Center (HSDC) analysis and results, overlaid on top of quantity of data received at HSDC In order to be able to evaluate such a large data set, NREL developed an in-house tool called the Fleet Analysis Toolkit (NRELFAT), which helped organize and automate the various analyses being performed on both the vehicles and the infrastructure. Figure 4 shows a screen capture of the initial screen. The tool has recently undergone a major rework to allow the analysis functions to be applied not only to FCEVs, but also to fuel cell buses, fuel cell forklifts, laboratory fuel cell data, backup fuel cells, stationary fuel cells, and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The overall functionality of the NRELFAT has been covered in previous publications, so it will not 4

be discussed in detail here. Having such a sophisticated tool in-house allowed us to rapidly respond to DOE’s and the Department of Defense’s needs for evaluation of early market fuel cell applications.

Figure 4: Introductory screen of NREL’s Fleet Analysis Toolkit. 1.3 Status Industry teams were selected by DOE for this project in April 2004. The first data started flowing to NREL in September 2004 after DOE had signed cooperative agreements with the industry partners. Since that time, as shown in Figure 3, data has been flowing continuously to NREL on a monthly or quarterly basis from the teams. The project was originally scheduled to be completed in September 2008, but was extended through September 2009. Two of the teams, Ford/BP and Chevron/Hyundai-Kia, completed their projects as scheduled in September 2009, while two other teams led by Daimler and GM continued beyond that time with a new scheduled completion date of September 2011. There will be 40 vehicles evaluated in the final portion of this project to track performance improvements from the latest technology. By the end of the project, it is anticipated a cumulative total of 170 vehicles will have been evaluated. This transition is reflected in some of the CDPs, which show the number and status of FCEVs (Figure 5) and hydrogen fueling stations (Figure 6 and Figure 7). As shown in Figure 5, there were a gradual number of vehicles retired through 2008 (approximately 20 vehicles), with a 5

much larger number retired by the fourth quarter of 2009, when the two teams completed their projects. Notice that all of the first-generation vehicles utilizing 350-bar pressurized hydrogen storage or liquid hydrogen have now been retired with only 700-bar storage vehicles continuing to operate.

Cumulative Vehicles Deployed/Retired1

Vehicle Deployment by On-Board Hydrogen Storage Type 160 140 120 100

17 vehicles on road 127 retired

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

144 17

40 40

80 60 83 83

40 20

4

-

NREL CDP25 Created Mar-09-2010 8:34 AM

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

Figure 5: Cumulative number of vehicles deployed, by hydrogen storage type and status Figure 6 shows the cumulative number of stations deployed as 23. Of those 23, as of December 2009, 8 have been decommissioned, 10 are continuing operation outside of the project, and 5 are continuing within the project. However, several of the 10 that are shown as continuing outside of the project are expected to be decommissioned in 2010. Figure 7 shows the type of production or delivery technology demonstrated by each station. The highest number of stations used delivered compressed hydrogen, followed by on-site electrolysis. Over half of the electrolysis stations have been retired, whereas only one of the five on-site natural gas reformation stations has been retired. While many of the project stations may come to the end of their useful demonstration life in the next few years, many new or upgraded stations are being opened in California as a result of the combined efforts of the California Air Resources Board, the California Energy Commission, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. These new stations are helping provide a bridge from the early demonstration stations (from the Learning Demonstration and other demonstrations) to a point in the future when the number of FCEVs is large enough to create a market pull for private sector investment. 6

Cumulative Stations 25

Existing Stations Continuing Outside of Project

Number of Stations

20

5

5

10

10

8

8

Retired Stations

15

10

5

0

Reporting Period

NREL CDP31

Created Mar-19-10 9:05am

Figure 6: Cumulative stations commissioned with current status

Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods 9

Existing Stations Continuing Outside of Project Retired Stations

8 7

# of Stations

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Delivered Compressed H2 NREL CDP32

Created Mar-19-10 9:05am

Natural Gas On-site Reforming

Electrolysis

Production Technology

Figure 7: Type and number of hydrogen stations with current status

7

Delivered Liquid H2

In order to obtain a variety of data, the project included geographically diverse locations for demonstration of the vehicles and infrastructure. Initially, there were five regions of the country involved, including the San Francisco Bay area, the Los Angeles area, the Detroit area, Orlando, and a corridor from Washington, DC, to New York. In the last year, as two of the teams completed their portions of the project, some of the stations have been decommissioned, including all of the stations in Florida. The current project (and other) stations in the United States are shown in Figure 8. SF Bay Area

Detroit Area

5 3 DC to New York

Los Angeles Area

58 8

15 Aug-10-2010

Figure 8: Current location of hydrogen stations in the United States as of August 2010. 1.4 Key NREL Analysis Accomplishments in FY 2010 • Created and published 80 CDPs (the ninth and largest set of public results) representing results from analyzing almost five years of Learning Demonstration data. See Figure 9 for thumbnail images of all 80 results. •

Received and processed data from a total of 436,000 individual vehicle trips, amounting to over 98 GB of on-road data, since inception of the project.

•

Documented and archived each quarter’s analysis results in the NRELFAT GUI.

•

Executed NRELFAT to produce detailed data results and CDPs in parallel for easier industry and internal review.

8

•

Presented project results publicly at the Fuel Cell Seminar, the California ZEV Technology Forum, the National Hydrogen Association conference, the World Hydrogen Energy Conference, and the 2010 DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Program Merit Review meeting.

•

Maintained NREL’s Web page at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/cdp_topic.html to allow direct public access to the latest CDPs organized by topic, date, and CDP number.

•

Provided presentations of results to key stakeholders, including two FreedomCAR and Fuel technical teams (storage and fuel cells).

•

Leveraged NREL tools and capabilities to enable analytical results to be generated from fuel cell forklifts and other early-market fuel cell applications.

Figure 9: Thumbnail images of the 80 CDPs published in spring 2010

9

2 Results The results discussed in this report came from analyzing almost five years of vehicle and infrastructure data (through December 2009). This resulted in a total of 80 new or updated CDPs that were published and could be presented publicly. To accomplish the analysis, we continued to improve and revise our in-house fleet analysis tool, NRELFAT. Since there are so many technical results from the project, they cannot all be discussed during 15-20 minute conference presentations. Therefore, in January 2007 NREL launched a Web page at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/cdp_topic.html to provide the public with direct access to the results (see Figure 10 for a screen capture of this Web page). The Web site makes current and archived CDPs available to the public. Highlights from the most recent CDPs were presented publicly at the National Hydrogen Association conference and the DOE Annual Hydrogen Program Merit Review as the Spring 2010 Results. In order to focus on high-level results, conclusions, and trends, this report will discuss the results in bullet form, organized by technical topic. The last section includes all of the CDPs in the order they are referenced.

Figure 10: Screen capture from NREL's composite data product Web site

10

2.1 Vehicle Results • Fuel Cell System Efficiency: Researchers from the car companies measured fuel cell system efficiency from select vehicles on a vehicle chassis dynamometer at several steady-state points of operation. NREL worked with the data and the companies to ensure that appropriate balance-of-plant electrical loads were included. This ensured that the results were comparable to the target and based on the entire system rather than just the stack. DOE’s technical target for net system efficiency at quarter-power is 60%. Baseline data from the four Learning Demonstration teams several years ago showed a range of net system efficiency from 51% to 58% for first-generation systems, which was very close to the target. As second-generation vehicles were introduced, the companies also performed baseline dynamometer testing that revealed an efficiency of 53% to 59% at quarter-power, within one percentage point of the target. Since the last progress report was published, we have also expanded this CDP to include a comparison of the efficiency at full power, where DOE’s target was 50% net system efficiency (Figure 12). The data show first-generation systems as having 30% to 54% efficiency full power while secondgeneration systems have 42% to 53 % efficiency, exceeding the 50% target. Additionally, we published the ranges of efficiency data from the four teams with the two shaded green sections, showing that Gen 2 data are more closely clustered than Gen 1 data. •

Fuel Cell Operating Points: Since a fuel cell system’s peak efficiency is normally at low powers (typically 10% to 25%), we evaluated the fuel cell system operation from a number of different perspectives to better understand whether the unique performance characteristics of the fuel cell system were being maximized. As reported in the last progress report [3], a significant amount of time is being spent at low fuel cell system power (Figure 13). In fact, the teams’ average amount of time spent at = 10% Nom Stack V dTss >= 10 sec dVss 1 00 %

10

NREL CDP46 Created: Mar-09-10 4:21 PM

100

% Max Fuel Cell Power (Gross)

Figure 13: Fuel cell system operating power (CDP46) 30

FC Energy by Power Levels: DOE Fleet

6

60

4

40

2

20

0

0

Cumulative %

80

510 % 10 -1 5% 15 -2 0% 20 -2 5% 25 -3 0% 30 -3 5% 35 -4 0% 40 -4 5% 45 -5 0% 50 -5 5% 55 -6 0% 60 -6 5% 65 -7 0% 70 -7 5% 75 -8 0% 80 -8 5% 85 -9 0% 90 -9 5% 95 -1 00 % >1 00 %

NREL CDP53 Created: Mar-11-10 9:13 AM

100

8

05%

FC Energy [%]

10

% Fuel Cell Power (Gross) of Max

Figure 14: Fuel cell system energy within power levels (CDP53) Trip Length: DOE Fleet

45 40 35

Trip Frequency [%]

30 DOE Fleet NHTS

25 20 15 10 5 0 0

5


10

15 Trip Length [miles]

Figure 15: Trip length (CDP47)

31

20

25

2001 NHTS Data Includes Car, Truck, Van, & SUV day trips ASCII.csv Source: http://nhts.ornl.gov/download.shtml#2001

Fuel Cell Vehicle Speed

40

DOE Fleet Speed DOE Fleet Idle 1015 Cycle (14.1 mph avg) UDDS Cycle (19.6 mph avg) HWFET Cycle (48.0 mph avg) US06 Cycle (48.2 mph avg)

35

Operation Time [%]

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30 35 40 Speed [mph]


45

50

55

60

65

70

Figure 16: Fuel cell electric vehicle with comparison to standard drive cycles (CDP66) Percent Idle in Trip

14

12

Trip Frequency [%]

10

8

6

0 0 NREL CDP65 Created: Mar-09-10 4:17 PM

5

10

15

20

1015 Cycle

UDDS Cycle

US06 Cycle

2

HWFET Cycle

4

25

30

35

40

45

50 55 % Idle

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Figure 17: Percent idle in trip with comparison to standard drive cycles (CDP65)

32

100

Energy in Trip: DOE Fleet

60

50

Trip Frequency [%]

40 Battery Vehicle Motor FC 30 Net battery charge in trip

20

10

0

5

Figure 18: Fuel cell system energy in trips (CDP55) Daily Distance: DOE Fleet 20 18 16 DOE Fleet NHTS

Trip Frequency [%]

14 12 10 8

Cumulative Frequency @ 40 miles DOE Fleet: 67.2% NHTS: 52.9%

Cumulative Frequency @ 20 miles DOE Fleet: 47.4% NHTS: 27.2%

6 4 2 0 0 NREL CDP56 Created: Mar-09-10 4:17 PM

5

10

15

20 25 Daily Distance [miles]

Figure 19: Daily driving distance (CDP56)

33

30

35

40

2001 NHTS Data Includes Car, Truck, Van, & SUV day trips ASCII.csv Source: http://nhts.ornl.gov/download.shtml#2001

Time between Trips: DOE Fleet

60

0-60 min Breakdown: DOE Fleet 50

50

% Trips

40

Trip Frequency [%]

40

30

20

10

30 0

0-10 min

10-20 min

20-30 min

30-40 min

40-50 min

50-60 min

Time

20

10

0

0-1 hr

1-6 hr

6-12 hr

12-18hr 18-24hr Time


1-7days

7-30days

>30days

Figure 20: Time between trips (CDP54) Fuel Economy 80

Gen 1 Gen 2

2

Fuel Economy (miles/kg H )

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0


Dyno (1)

Window-Sticker (2)

(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.

Figure 21: Fuel economy (CDP06)

34

On-Road (3)(4)

Vehicle Range1 2015 Target 2009 Target Gen 1 Gen 2

Vehicle Range (miles)

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Dyno Range (2)

Window-Sticker Range (3)

On-Road Range (4)(5)

(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.


Figure 22: Vehicle driving range (CDP02)

Distance Driven Between Refuelings: All OEMs Gen1 Gen2

Percentage of Refuelings

1

Total Refuelings = 25811 Gen1 Refuelings = 18941 Median distance between refuelings = 56 Miles Gen2 Refuelings = 6870 Median distance between refuelings = 81 Miles

10

5

0 0


50

100 150 200 2 Distance between refuelings [Miles]

250

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.

Figure 23: Miles between refuelings (CDP80)

35

300

Range Histogram: All OEMs

13

100

12 11 75

2

9

Total refuelings = 25811

8 7

50

6 5 4

25

3 2 1 0 0

10

20

30 40 50 60 70 80 1 Percentage of chassis dyno range between refuelings

90

0 100

1. Range calculated using the combined City/Hwy fuel economy from dyno testing (not EPA adjusted) and usable fuel on board. 2. Some refueling events are not detected/reported due to data noise or incompleteness.


Figure 24: Percentage of theoretical range traveled between refuelings (CDP33)

On-Road

3

Window-Sticker

2

Dyno

All OEMs

Gen2

1

On-Road

3

Window-Sticker

2

Vehicle Range Factors

Gen1

0


10

20

30

40 50 60 70 1 Percentage of chassis dyno range .

1. Calculated using the combined City/Hwy fuel economy from dyno testing (non-adjusted) and usable fuel on board. 2. Applying window-sticker correction factors for fuel economy: 0.78 x Hwy and 0.9 x City. 3. Using fuel economy from on-road data (excluding trips < 1 mile, consistent with other data products).

Figure 25: Effective vehicle driving range (CDP34)

36

80

90

100

Cumulative Percentage

Percentage of Refuelings

10

Weight Percent Hydrogen

9

Weight Percent Hydrogen (%)

8 7

2015 DOE MYPP Target

1


1


1

6 5 4 3 2 1 0

350bar

700bar

1

NREL CDP10 Created: Aug-19-08 11:39 AM

Targets are set for advanced materials-based hydrogen storage technologies.

Figure 26: Storage weight % hydrogen (CDP10) Mass of Hydrogen Per Liter 0.1 0.09


1


1


1

Mass H2 per Liter (kg/L)

0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 NREL CDP11 Created: Aug-19-08 11:39 AM

350bar

700bar

1

Targets are set for advanced materials-based hydrogen storage technologies.

Figure 27: Volumetric capacity of hydrogen storage (CDP11)

37

Average Breakout of H2 Storage System Mass

Average Breakout of H2 Storage System Volume

3.26%

3%

23%

24%

350 bar 73%

73%

3.33% 9% 24%

700 bar

35%

56%

72%

NREL CDP57

Created: Aug-19-08 9:14 AM

H2 Volume (%) Pressure Vessel Volume (%) Balance of Plant Volume (%)

H2 Mass (%) Pressure Vessel Mass (%) Balance of Plant Mass (%)

Figure 28: Hydrogen storage system mass and volume breakdown (CDP57) Hydrogen Tank Cycle Life1

Number of cycles

18000

2015 DOE MYPP Target2

16000

2010 DOE MYPP Target2

14000

2007 DOE MYPP Target2 Gen 1 Gen 2

12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0

All OEMs 1

NREL CDP12 Created: Sep-17-08 10:29 AM

Data reported reference NGV2, HGV2, or EIHP standards. Some near-term targets have been achieved with compressed and liquid tanks. Emphasis is on advanced materials-based technologies.

2

Figure 29: Vehicle hydrogen tank cycle life (CDP12) 38

FC System Specific Power (W/kg) 700 2010 and 2015 DOE MYPP Target

Gen 1 Gen 2

1

Specific Power (W/kg)

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 NREL CDP59 Created: Sep-17-08 10:30 AM

(1) Fuel cell system includes fuel cell stack and BOP but excludes H2 storage, power electronics, and electric drive.

Figure 30: Fuel cell system specific power (CDP59) FC System Power Density (W/L) 700 2010 and 2015 DOE MYPP Target

Gen 1 Gen 2

1

Power Density (W/L)

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 NREL CDP58 Created: Sep-17-08 10:29 AM

(1) Fuel cell system includes fuel cell stack and BOP but excludes H2 storage, power electronics, and electric drive.

Figure 31: Fuel cell system power density (CDP58)

39

FC System (Including Hydrogen Storage) Specific Power (W/kg) 400

Gen 1 Gen 2

350

Specific Power (W/kg)

2010 and 2015 FreedomCAR Research Goal

1

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

NREL CDP04 Created: Aug-28-09 8:42 AM

(1) Fuel cell system includes fuel cell stack, BOP and H2 storage, but excludes power electronics, battery storage, and electric drive.

Figure 32: Fuel cell system specific power, including hydrogen storage (CDP04) FC System (Including Hydrogen Storage) Power Density (W/L) 400

Gen 1 Gen 2

350

Power Density (W/L)

300 250 2010 and 2015 FreedomCAR Research Goal

1

200 150 100 50 0

NREL CDP03 Created: Sep-08-09 10:32 AM

(1) Fuel cell system includes fuel cell stack, BOP and H2 storage, but excludes power electronics, battery storage, and electric drive.

Figure 33: Fuel cell system power density, including hydrogen storage (CDP03)

40

Time (Hours)

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

2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000

2009 Target

2006 Target

800 600 400 200

Max Projection Avg Projection

0

Gen1

Gen2

Max Hrs Accumulated1,2


Gen1

Gen2

Avg Hrs Accumulated1,3

Gen1

Gen2

Projection to 10% Voltage Degradation4,5,6

(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.

Figure 34: Hours accumulated and projected hours to 10% stack voltage degradation (CDP01) Max Fuel Cell Power Loss vs Op Hours: Gen1 130 120

Gen1

110

Data Range 25th & 75th Percentiles Group Median Outlier

% Power(1)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000110012001300140015001600 1700180019002000 Stack Op Hour Segments(2) 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.

Figure 35: Maximum fuel cell power degradation—Gen 1 (CDP69)

41

Max Fuel Cell Power Loss vs Op Hours: Gen2 130


Gen2

120 110

% Power(1)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000110012001300140015001600 1700180019002000 Stack Op Hour Segments(2) 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.


Figure 36: Maximum fuel cell power degradation—Gen 2 (CDP70)

2000 1800

Projected Hours

2,3

1600

Fuel Cell Stack Projected Hours as a Function of Voltage Drop Gen 1 Average Projections Gen 1 Average Projection to 10% Voltage Degradation1 Gen 2 Average Projections Gen 2 Average Projection to 10% Voltage Degradation1

1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0


10

15

20 % Voltage Drop

25

30

(1) 10% Voltage degradation is a DOE metric for assessing fuel cell performance. (2) Projections using on-road data -- degradation calculated at high stack current. (3) Curves generated using the Learning Demonstration average of each individual fleet average at various voltage degradation levels. (4) The projection curves display the sensitivity to percentage of voltage degradation, but the projections do not imply that all stacks will (or do) operate at these voltage degradation levels. (5) The voltage degradation levels are not an indication of an OEM's end-of-life criteria and do not address catastrophic stack failures such as membrane failure. (6) All OEM Gen 2 average fleet projections are higher than Gen1 projections, however due to less operation data for Gen 2, these projections are limited by demonstrated operation hours to minimize extrapolations.

Figure 37: Fuel cell stack projected hours as a function of voltage drop (CDP73)

42

FC Power Drop During Operation Period: Gen1 30 1 In Op

Gen1

Gen2

2

3

25

Other

Stack Count

10

5

5

5

10

85% of In Op stacks have > 10% power drop

15

10

0 0

2

Other

20

15

Retired 3

25

60% of In Op stacks have > 10% power drop

20 Stack Count

Retired

FC Power Drop During Operation Period: Gen2 30 1 In Op

0 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 % FC Power Drop % FC Power Drop 1) Stack currently accumulating hours

40

2) Stack removed for low performance 3) Stack not currently accumulating hours, but not removed because of low performance. Some project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009


Figure 38: Power drop during fuel cell stack operating period (CDP68) Durability: Projected Hours to Low Fuel Cell Power Limit

30

Gen1 (> 200 operation hrs) Gen1 (< 200 operation hrs) Gen2 (> 200 operation hrs) Gen2 (< 200 operation hrs)

25

% Stacks

20

27% Gen1 > 2000 projected hrs 17% Gen2 > 2000 projected hrs

15

10

5

0


0-200

400

600

800

1000 1200 1400 Projected Hours

1600

1800

2000

>2000

1. Low fuel cell power limit is dependent on the fuel cell vehicle system and is unique to each company in this Learning Demonstration. 2. Acceptable low vehicle performance limit will be determined by retail customer expectations. 3. Power projection method based on the voltage degradation techniques, but uses max fuel cell power instead of voltage at a specific high current. 4. Stacks with less than 200 operation hours are in separate groups because the projection is based on operation data and with operation hours greater than 200 the degradation rate tends to flatten out.

Figure 39: Projected hours to OEM low power operation limit (CDP71)

43

Fuel Cell Stack Operation Hours: Gen1 40 In Op

Gen1

35

Fuel Cell Stack Operation Hours: Gen2 40

1

Retired

2

Gen2

35

3

1

Retired

2

3

Other

Other

30

30 24% of stacks in operation

34% of stacks in operation 25

20 15

20 15 10

5

5

0

0 Gen1 Hours


0 40 0

0 20

0 20

0 40 0

60 0 80 0 10 00 12 00 14 00 16 00 18 00 20 00

10

60 0 80 0 10 00 12 00 14 00 16 00 18 00 20 00

Stack Count

25 Stack Count

In Op

1) Stack currently accumulating hours Gen2 Hours 2) Stack removed for low performance 3) Stack not currently accumulating hours, but not removed because of low performance. Some project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009

Figure 40: Fuel cell stack operation hours (CDP67) Segmented Trips/Hour Histogram: DOE Fleet

30

25

Frequency [%]

20

15

10

5

0 NREL CDP16 Created: Mar-09-10 4:13 PM

0-1

1-2

2-3

3-4

4-5 Trips/Hour*

5-6

6-7

Figure 41: Fuel cell stack trips per hour histogram (CDP16)

44

7-8

>8

*Trips/Hour based on 50 hour segments spanning stack operating period

Statistics of Trips/Hour vs Operating Hour: DOE Fleet

10


9 8

Trips/Hour*

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

0-250

250-500

500-750

750-1000 1000-1250 Stack Op Hour Groups


1250-1500

1500-1750

1750-2000

*Trips/Hour based on 50 hour segments spanning stack operating period

Figure 42: Statistics of trips/hour vs. operating hour (CDP17) H*

DOE Fleet High Current Time Hot Starts Starts/hour

H*

Low Voltage Time High Voltage Time Cold Starts Short Trips 0 Speed Trips Hot Ambient Temp

Due to differences among teams, the DOE Fleet Analysis results are spread out and concrete conclusions are difficult to draw. Individual team analyses (CDP#49) focused on patterns within a fleet.

1) 2)

On-going fuel cell degradation study using Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression model for combined Learning Demonstration Fleet. DOE Fleet model has a low percentage of explained decay rate variance.

H*: Factor group associated with high decay rate fuel cell stacks L**: Factor group associated with low decay rate fuel cell stacks

NREL CDP48 Created: Feb-21-08 9:32 AM

Figure 43: Primary factors affecting learning demonstration fleet fuel cell degradation (CDP48) 45

H*

Team 4

High Voltage Time Low Current Time Short Trips Low Speed Current Transients

Low Current Time Long Trips Warm Ambient Temp Zero Speed Current Transients

H*

Team 2 H*

Team 3 1) 2) 3)

Low Voltage Time High Current Time Current Transients Cold Starts Hot Ambient Temp High Speed

H*

High Voltage Time Low Current Time Short Trips Low Speed

Starts/Hour Zero Speed Short Trips

H*

Team 1

On-going fuel cell degradation study using Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression model for each team’s Gen 1 fleet. Teams’ PLS models have a high percentage of explained decay rate variance, but the models are not robust and results are scattered. Factor groups associated with stacks that are opposite to the identified groups here are not specified.

H*: Factor group associated with high decay rate fuel cell stacks


Figure 44: Primary factors affecting learning demonstration team fuel cell degradation (CDP49)

25

Operating Time at Fuel Cell Stack Voltage Levels: DOE Fleet All time Time at low current

Operating Time [%]

20

15

10

5


% % % % % % % % % % 0% 0% 00 -85 -95 -80 -75 -90 -60 -70 -65 -55 1 80 75 85 90 70 55 60 65 50 95 % Max Fuel Cell Stack Voltage

Figure 45: Fuel cell voltage (CDP07)

46

Figure 46: Fuel cell transient voltage and time change (CDP75) Number of Cycles1 per Trip Mile

15 10 5 0 0

40

2

4

6

8 10 12 14 Cycle Per Mile

16 18

Number of Cycles1 per Trip Minute

60 Trip Frequency [%]

Trip Frequency [%]

20

50 40 30 20 10 0 0

20

Range of Fleet Average Cycle1 per Mile

7

2

4

6

8 10 12 14 Cycle Per Min

16 18

20

Range of Fleet Average Cycle1 per Min

Cycle per Min

Cycle per Mile

6 30 20 10

5 4 3 2


Gen1

1

Gen2

Gen1

Gen2

1) A fuel cell voltage transient cycle has a decrease and increase with a minimum delta of 5% max stack voltage.

Figure 47: Fuel cell transient cycles by mile and by minute (CDP74)

47

50

30

25

40

Frequency [%]

25

DownUp Cycle1 dV/dT

20 15 10

20 15 10 5

0

0

p Sl ow U Sl p ow D ow Sl ow n D ow nU D p ow nS SU p

5

D

SlowDown Cycle1 dV/dT

30 20 10

DownSSUp Cycle1 dV/dT

80

40 30 20

60 40 20

10 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 dV/dt

100

Frequency [%]

Frequency [%]

Frequency [%]

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 dV/dt

50

40


20 10

60

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 dV/dt

30

SlowDownUp Cycle1 dV/dT

50

0

SlowUp Cycle1 dV/dT

Frequency [%]

30

ow nU

Frequency [%]

Transient Cycle1 Count by Category2 35

0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 dV/dt

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 dV/dt

1) A fuel cell voltage transient cycle has a decrease and increase with a minimum delta of 5% max stack voltage. 2) Cycle categories based on cycle up and down times. A slow up or down transient has a time change >= 5 seconds. SS = Steady State, where the time change is >= 10 seconds and the voltage change is = 5 seconds. SS = Steady State, where the time change is >= 10 seconds and the voltage change is = 10 seconds and the voltage change is = 5 seconds. SS = Steady State, where the time change is >= 10 seconds and the voltage change is 360

Delta Temperature: Tank minus Ambient

Tank vs. Ambient Air Temps Prior to Refueling 60

Delta Temp Histogram Normal Distribution Fit

300 50

Density

Count

0.06 1000

0.04 Mean= -3.751 Std Dev= 6.129

500

Tank Temperature [deg C]

0.08 1500

250

40

200

30 20

150

10 100 0

0.02

50

-10 0 -40

-20 0 20 Delta Temperature [deg C]

-20 -20

0

40

0 20 40 Ambient Air Temperature [deg C]

60

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

Figure 60: Difference between tank and ambient temperature prior to refueling (CDP72) Vehicle Hours: All OEMs, Gen 1 and Gen 2 Through 2009 Q4

Number of Vehicles

40 35

Total Vehicle Hours = 106,413

30

In Service

25

Retired (1)

20 15 10 5 0

Total Vehicle Hours NREL CDP22 Created: Mar-09-10 02:36 PM

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

Figure 61: Vehicle operating hours (CDP22) 54

Frequency

2000

Vehicle Miles: All OEMs, Gen 1 and 2

Number of Vehicles

Through 2009 Q4

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Total Vehicle Miles Traveled = 2,580,382

In Service Retired (1)

Total Vehicle Miles (1) Retired vehicles have lef t DOE f leet and are no longer providing data to NREL Some project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009


Figure 62: Vehicles vs. miles traveled (CDP23) Cumulative Vehicle Miles: All OEMs, Gen 1 and Gen 2 Through 2009 Q4

2,750,000

2,580,382

Vehicle Miles Traveled

2,500,000 2,250,000 2,000,000 1,750,000 1,500,000 1,250,000 1,000,000 750,000 500,000 250,000 -


Figure 63: Cumulative vehicle miles traveled (CDP24) 55

Hydrogen Production Conversion Efficiency

1

80 2015 MYPP Target 2010 MYPP Target

Production Efficiency (LHV %)

70

2017 MYPP Target 2012 MYPP Target

60 50 40 Average Station Efficiency

30

Quarterly Efficiency Data Highest Quarterly Efficiency

20

Efficiency Probability Distribution2

10 0

On-Site Natural Gas Reforming

On-Site Electrolysis

1

Production 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.


2

The efficiency probability distribution represents the range and likelihood of hydrogen production conversion efficiency based on monthly conversion efficiency data from the Learning Demonstration.

Figure 64: Onsite hydrogen production efficiency (CDP13) Monthly Production Conversion Efficiency vs Utilization

60

2

Production Conversion Efficiency [%]

70

50

40

30 Electrolysis Data 3

20

Electrolysis Fit Electrolysis Fit Confidence Natural Gas Data

10

Natural Gas Fit Natural Gas Fit Confidence

0 0


3

10

20

30

40 50 60 70 1 Production Capacity Utilization [%]

80

90

100

1) 100% production utilization assumes operation 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week 2) Production conversion efficiency is defined as the energy of the hydrogen out of the process (on a 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. 3) High correlation with electrolysis data (R2 = 0.82) & low correlation with natural gas data (R2 = 0.060)

Figure 65: Onsite hydrogen production efficiency vs. capacity utilization (CDP60)

56

1

Learning Demonstration Fuel Cycle Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions

WTW GHG Emissions (g CO2-eq/mi)

700 600

Baseline Conventional Mid-Size SUV 2

500

Baseline Conventional Mid-Size Passenger Car2

400 300 200

Average WTW GHG Emissions (Learning Demo) Minimum WTW GHG Emissions (Learning Demo)

100

WTW GHG Emissions (100% Renewable Electricity) WTW GHG Probability Based on Learning Demo3

0

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 NREL CDP62 grid-based electricity and renewable on-site solar electricity. GHG emissions associated with on-site production of hydrogen from electrolysis are highly dependent on Created: Mar-08-10 4:16 PM 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.

Figure 66: Learning Demonstration vehicle greenhouse gas emissions (CDP62) 1

On-Site Hydrogen Compression Efficiency and Energy Use 100

70

2015 MYPP Compression Target 2010 MYPP Compression Target

Compression Energy Requirement: On average, 11.3% of the energy contained in the hydrogen fuel is required for the compression process.

Compression Efficiency (%)

80 70 60

50

40

Average Station Compression Efficiency

50

60

Quarterly Compression Efficiency Data

30

Highest Quarterly Compression Efficiency

40

Average Station Compression Energy Quarterly Compression Energy Data

30

20

Lowest Quarterly Compression Energy

20 10 10 0

On-Site Compression Efficiency

On-Site Compression Energy

1


Consistent with the MYPP, compression efficiency is defined as the energy of the hydrogen out of the process (on an LHV basis) divided by the sum of the energy of the hydrogen output plus all other energy needed for the compression process. Data shown for on-site hydrogen production and storage facilities only, not delivered hydrogen sites.

Figure 67: Refueling station compressor efficiency (CDP61)

57

0

Compression Energy (MJ/kg)

90

Projected Early Market 1500 kg/day Hydrogen Cost1 16 14

Key H2 Cost Elements and Ranges 12

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%

Input Parameter

$/kg

10 8 Median 25th & 75th Percentile 10th & 90th Percentile

6 4

2015 DOE Hydrogen Program Goal Range3

2 0

2

Natural Gas Reforming

NREL CDP15 Created: Jan-19-10 11:08 AM

Electrolysis

2

(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 of 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.

Figure 68: Hydrogen production cost vs. process (CDP15)

H2 Calculated Quality Index by Year and Production Method 100

Calculated H 2 Index (%)

99.95

99.9 On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range) On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range) Delivered (Data Range) SAE J2719 APR2008 Guideline Calculated Data

99.85

99.8

99.75

99.7


Ref. Elec. Del. Year 1





Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testing Year 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4

Figure 69: Hydrogen quality index (CDP27)

58

H2 Fuel Constituents Data Range

SAE J2719 APR2008 Guideline

Measured

Less Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)

Particulates 0

2

4

6

8

10 μg/L

12

14

16

18

20

(Ar+N2) He (N2+He+Ar) 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

NH3 CO CO2 O2 Total HC H2O 0

5

10

15

20 μmol/mol (ppm)

25

30

35

40

0

10

20

30

40 nmol/mol (ppb)

50

60

70

80

Total S* NREL CDP28 Created: Mar-10-10 11:05 AM

Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testing *Total S calculated from SO2, COS, H2S, CS2, and Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH).

Figure 70: Hydrogen fuel constituents – all (CDP28) Total S* (nmol/mol)(ppb) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range) On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range) Delivered (Data Range) SAE J2719 APR2008 Guideline Measured Less Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)

70

Total S* (nmol/mol)(ppb)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0







Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testing Year 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4 *Total S calculated from SO2, COS, H2S, CS2, and Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH).

Figure 71: Hydrogen fuel constituents – sulfur (CDP28)

59

Total HC (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method

Total HC ( μmol/mol)(ppm)

2

On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range) On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range) Delivered (Data Range) SAE J2719 APR2008 Guideline Measured Less Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)

1.5

1

0.5

0








Figure 72: Hydrogen fuel constituents – total hydrocarbons (CDP28) Total Halogenates (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method

Total Halogenates ( μmol/mol)(ppm)

25

20


15

10

5

0








Figure 73: Hydrogen fuel constituents – total halogenates (CDP28)

60

Particulate Concentration (μg/L) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method 22 20

Particulate Concentration ( μg/L)

18


16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0








Figure 74: Hydrogen fuel constituents – particulate concentration (CDP28) O2(μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method 40

O2(μmol/mol)(ppm)

35 On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range) On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range) Delivered (Data Range) SAE J2719 APR2008 Guideline Measured Less Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)

30 25 20 15 10 5 0








Figure 75: Hydrogen fuel constituents – oxygen (CDP28)

61

N2 (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method 2500

N2 (μmol/mol)(ppm)

2000


1500

1000

500

0








Figure 76: Hydrogen fuel constituents – nitrogen (CDP28) N2+He+Ar (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method

N2+He+Ar (μmol/mol)(ppm)

3000


2000

1500

1000

500

0








Figure 77: Hydrogen fuel constituents – nitrogen + helium + argon (CDP28)

62

Particulate Size (μm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method 30000

Particulate Size ( μm)


20000

15000

10000

5000

0








Figure 78: Hydrogen fuel constituents – particulate size (CDP28) He (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method 300

He (μmol/mol)(ppm)


200

150

100

50

0








Figure 79: Hydrogen fuel constituents – helium (CDP28)

63

H2O (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method

H2O (μmol/mol)(ppm)

15

10


5

0








Figure 80: Hydrogen fuel constituents – water (CDP28) Formic acid (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range) On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range) Delivered (Data Range) SAE J2719 APR2008 Guideline Measured Less Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)

Formic acid ( μmol/mol)(ppm)

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0








Figure 81: Hydrogen fuel constituents – formic acid (CDP28)

64

Formaldehyde (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method

Formaldehyde ( μmol/mol)(ppm)

0.1

0.08

0.06


0.04

0.02

0








Figure 82: Hydrogen fuel constituents – formaldehyde (CDP28) CO (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range) On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range) Delivered (Data Range) SAE J2719 APR2008 Guideline Measured Less Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)

1

CO (μmol/mol)(ppm)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0








Figure 83: Hydrogen fuel constituents – CO (CDP28)

65

CO2 (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method 9 8

CO2 (μmol/mol)(ppm)

7


6 5 4 3 2 1 0








Figure 84: Hydrogen fuel constituents – CO2 (CDP28)

Calcultated Total Constituents ( μmol/mol)(ppm)

Calcultated Total Constituents (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method 3000

2500

2000 On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range) On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range) Delivered (Data Range) SAE J2719 APR2008 Guideline Calculated Data

1500

1000

500

0








Figure 85: Hydrogen fuel constituents – total (CDP28)

66

Ar+N2 (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method 2500

Ar+N2 (μmol/mol)(ppm)

2000


1500

1000

500

0








Figure 86: Hydrogen fuel constituents – argon + nitrogen (CDP28) Ar (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method

Ar (μmol/mol)(ppm)

200


150

100

50

0








Figure 87: Hydrogen fuel constituents – argon (CDP28)

67

NH3 (μmol/mol)(ppm) Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method 6

NH3 (μmol/mol)(ppm)


4

3

2

1

0








Figure 88: Hydrogen fuel constituents – ammonia (CDP28) Maintenance: Average Labor Hours Per Station Since Inception Through 2009 Q4 Replacement Repair Other Check Only Adjustment 0

Scheduled Un-Scheduled 20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Maintenance: Average Number of Events Per Station Since Inception Replacement Repair Other Check Only Adjustment 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Comparison of Scheduled/Un-Scheduled Maintenance Hours # of Events 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


Figure 89: Infrastructure maintenance (CDP30)

68

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Hydrogen Fueling Station Maintenance

By Number of Events Total Number of Events = 2491

By Labor Hours Total Hours = 11430 system control & safety

22%

21%

compressor reformer electrolyzer dispenser other valves & piping

17%

electrical 18%

storage

13%

20% 12%

13%


Figure 90: Hydrogen fueling station maintenance by system (CDP63) Total Infrastructure Safety Reports by Severity and Report Type Through 2009 Q4 Alarms Only Automatic System Shutdown Electrical Issue Equipment Malfunction False Alarm/Mischief H2 Release - Minor, NO Ignition H2 Release - Significant, NO Ignition Manual System Shutdown Non-H2 Release Site Power Outage Structural Issue System Trouble, not Alarm

Severity

Incident

Near Miss

Non-Event

0

50

100

150 Number of Reports

200

An INCIDENT is an event that results in: - a lost time accident and/or injury to personnel - damage/unplanned downtime for project equipment, facilities or property - impact to the public or environment - any hydrogen release that unintentionally ignites or is sufficient to sustain a flame if ignited - release of any volatile, hydrogen containing compound (other than the hydrocarbons used as common fuels) A NEAR-MISS is: - an event that under slightly different circumstances could have become an incident - unplanned H2 release insufficient to sustain a flame


Figure 91: Safety reports – infrastructure (CDP20)

69

250

300

Primary Factors of Infrastructure Safety Reports Through 2009 Q4 Calibration/Settings/ Software Controls Design Flaw Electrical Power to Site Environment (Weather, Power Disruption, Other) False Alarm Inadequate Training, Protocol, SOP Inadequate/ Non-working Equipment Maintenance Required Mischief, Vandalism, Sabotage New Equipment Materials Not Yet Determined Operator/Personnel Error System Manually Shutdown

Severity

Incident

Near Miss

Non-Event

0

50

100

150 Number of Reports

200

250

300



Figure 92: Primary factors of infrastructure reports (CDP37)

22

Infrastructure Safety Trend and Number of Stations Through 2009 Q4

600

Number of Stations Avg Refuelings Between Safety Reports

20

500

Number of Stations

18

447

16

400

14 12

300

10 8

198

6 4

88

2


7

11

34

138

124

115

101 47

68

57

54

73

121

Reporting Period

Figure 93: Average refuelings between infrastructure safety reports (CDP35)

70

100

51

05 Q 2 05 Q 3 05 Q 4 06 Q 1 06 Q 2 06 Q 3 06 Q 4 07 Q 1 07 Q 2 07 Q 3 07 Q 4 08 Q 1 08 Q 2 08 Q 3 08 Q 4 09 Q 1 09 Q 2 09 Q 3 09 Q 4

0

32

102

200

0

Avg # of Refuelings Between Safety Reports

24

Type of Infrastructure Safety Reports by Quarter Through 2009 Q4 50 Incident Near Miss Non-Event Number of Stations Avg # Reports/Station

Number of Reports

40

30

20

10

05 Q 2 05 Q 3 05 Q 4 06 Q 1 06 Q 2 06 Q 3 06 Q 4 07 Q 1 07 Q 2 07 Q 3 07 Q 4 08 Q 1 08 Q 2 08 Q 3 08 Q 4 09 Q 1 09 Q 2 09 Q 3 09 Q 4

0 Reporting Period



Figure 94: Type of infrastructure safety report by quarter (CDP36) Histogram of Fueling Times All Light Duty Through 2009Q4 3500

2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone (5 kg in 5 min at 350 bar) 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone (5 kg in 3 min at 350 bar)

Number of Fueling Events

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500 Average = 3.26 min 86% 1 kg/min

0.2

0.4

0.6


0.8 1 1.2 Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Figure 97: Refueling rates (CDP18)

72

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Histogram of Fueling Rates Comm vs Non-Comm Fills - All Light Duty Through 2009Q4

2500

Comm Non-Comm 2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone 5 minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar


2000

1500

1000 3 minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar

500 Fill Type Avg (kg/min) ------------- -----------------Comm 0.86 Non-Comm 0.66

0 0

0.2

0.4

0.6


%>1 ------30% 12%


1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Figure 98: Fueling rates – communication and non-communication fills (CDP29) Histogram of Fueling Rates 350 vs 700 bar Fills - All Light Duty Through 2009Q4

2500


2000

350 bar 700 bar 2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 Count ------------- ------------------ ------- -------350 bar 0.82 29% 19659 700 bar 0.63 4% 5590

5 minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar

1500


500

0 0 NREL CDP14 Created: Mar-09-10 3:10 PM

0.2

0.4

0.6


Figure 99: Fueling rates – 350 and 700 bar (CDP14)

73

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Histogram of Fueling Rates All Light Duty by Year Through 2009Q4 700

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


600

500

Year ------2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Avg (kg/min) ----------------0.66 0.74 0.81 0.77 0.77

%>1 ------16% 21% 26% 23% 22%

5 minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar

400


200

100

0 0

0.2

0.4

0.6



1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Figure 100: Refueling data by year (CDP52)

Tank Levels: DOE Fleet Total refuelings1 = 27113

Median Tank Level (At Fill) = 42%

14%

E

F 1. Some refueling events not recorded/detected due to data noise or incompleteness. 2. The outer arc is set at 20% total refuelings.


3. If tank level at fill was not available, a complete fill up was assumed.

Figure 101: Hydrogen tank level at refueling (CDP40)

74

Tank Level Medians (At Fill): DOE Fleet, All Vehicles Total refuelings1 = 27113

E

F 1. Some refueling events not recorded/detected due to data noise or incompleteness. 2. If tank level at fill was not available, a complete fill up was assumed.


Figure 102: Refueling tank levels – medians (CDP41) Refueling by Time of Day: DOE Fleet

Total Fill3 Events = 22657

% of fills b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 89.7%

12 9%

9

3

1. Fills between 6 AM & 6 PM 2. The outer arc is set at 12 % total Fill.

AM

3. Some events not recorded/detected due to data noise or incompleteness.


Figure 103: Refueling by time of day (CDP42)

75

6 PM

Refueling by Time of Night: DOE Fleet

Total Fill3 Events = 22657

% of fills b/t 6 PM & 6 AM: 10.3%

12

9

3 3%

1. Fills between 6 PM & 6 AM PM

2. The outer arc is set at 12 % total Fill.

6 AM

3. Some events not recorded/detected due to data noise or incompleteness.


Figure 104: Refueling by time of night (CDP50) Fills by Day of Week: DOE Fleet

20

% of Fills in a Day

15

10

5


Sun

Mon

Tues

Wed

Day

Figure 105: Refueling by day of week (CDP43)

76

Thur

Fri

Sat

160

25

140 20

Mass of Hydrogen* (1000 kg)

120 100

15

80 10

60 40

Cumulative Hydrogen

20

0

0

NREL CDP26 Created 2010-Mar-22 2:50pm

5

Number of Stations

Calendar Quarter

Figure 106: Cumulative hydrogen produced or dispensed (CDP26)

77

Cumulative Number of Stations

Cumulative Hydrogen Produced or Dispensed Through 2009 Q4

*Some project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION. 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE

September 2010

4.

Technical Report

TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Learning Demonstration Interim Progress Report – July 2010

3.

DATES COVERED (From - To)

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-08-GO28308

5b. GRANT NUMBER 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6.

AUTHOR(S)

K. Wipke, S. Sprik, J. Kurtz, and T. Ramsden

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-560-49129

5e. TASK NUMBER

H270.8100

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7.

9.

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 1617 Cole Blvd. Golden, CO 80401-3393

8.

PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-560-49129

SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service U.S. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This report discusses key results based on data through December 2009 from the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Validation and Demonstration Project, also referred to as the National Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Learning Demonstration. The report serves to help transfer knowledge and lessons learned within various parts of DOE’s hydrogen program, as well as externally to other stakeholders. It is the fourth such report in a series, with previous reports being published in July 2007, November 2007, and April 2008.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Validation and Demonstration Project; National Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) Learning Demonstration; California Hydrogen Infrastructure Project; Fuel Cell Stack Durability; Fuel Economy; Fuel Cell Efficiency

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: a. REPORT

Unclassified

b. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES

UL

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

F1147-E(10/2008)