1 Technical Report NREL/TP-560-45451 March 2009 Controlled Hydrogen Fleet Infrastructure...

1

Technical ReportNREL/TP-560-45451

March 2009

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet InfrastructureDemonstration and Validation Project

Spring 2009

Composite Data ProductsFinal Version March 13, 2009

Keith Wipke, Sam Sprik, Jennifer Kurtz, and Todd Ramsden

2

Disclaimer and Government License

This work has been authored by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337 with the U.S. Department of Energy (the “DOE”). The United States

Government (the “Government”) retains and the publisher, by accepting the work for publication, acknowledges that the Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable,

worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for Government purposes.

Neither MRI, the DOE, the Government, nor any other agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any 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 any privately owned rights.

Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not constitute or imply its endorsement,

recommendation, or favoring by the Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of the authors and/or presenters expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect

those of MRI, the DOE, the Government, or any agency thereof.

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

Spring 2009Composite Data Products

March 13, 2009

Keith Wipke, Sam Sprik, Jennifer Kurtz, Todd Ramsden

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 4 Innovation for Our Energy Future

CDP#1: Hours Accumulated and Projected Hours to 10% Stack Voltage Degradation

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2006 Target

2009 Target

Actual Operating Hours Accumulated To-Date Projected Hours to 10% Degradation

Max Hrs Accumulated (1)(2) Avg Hrs Accumulated (1)(3) Projection to 10% Degradation (4)(5)(6)

Tim

e (H

ou

rs)

DOE Learning Demonstration Fuel Cell Stack Durability:Based on Data Through 2008 Q4

Max ProjectionAvg Projection

Created: Feb-24-09 1:21 PM

(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 green bar 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 2008 Q2 data.


Dyno Range (2) Window-Sticker Range (3) On-Road Range (4)(5)0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Veh

icle

Ran

ge

(mile

s)

Vehicle Range1

2015 Target2009 Target Gen 1 Gen 2

Created: Mar-03-09 10:56 AM

(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.

CDP#2: Vehicle Range


Dyno (1) Window-Sticker (2) On-Road (3)(4)0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Fu

el E

con

om

y (m

iles/

kg H

2)

Fuel Economy

Gen 1 Gen 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.

CDP#6: Fuel Economy


0

5

10

15

20

25

Op

erat

ing

Tim

e [%

]

Operating Time at Fuel Cell Stack Voltage Levels: DOE Fleet

<50%50-55%

55-60%60-65%

65-70%70-75%

75-80%80-85%

85-90%90-95%

95-100%>100%

% Max Fuel Cell Stack Voltage

All timeTime at low current


CDP#7: Fuel Cell Voltage


CDP#8: FC System Efficiency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All OEMs

Eff

icie

nc

y (

%)

Fuel Cell System1 Efficiency2 at ~25% Net Power.

DOE Target

Created: Aug-29-06 4:09 PM

1 Gross stack power minus fuel cell system auxiliaries, per DRAFT SAEJ2615.

2 Ratio of DC output energy to the lower heating value of the input fuel (hydrogen).Excludes power electronics and electric drive.


0

1

2

3

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

po

rts

Safety Reports - Vehicle Operation

Tank ScratchTraffic AccidentH2 Leak - During FuelingH2 Alarm - Fuel SystemH2 Alarm - Passenger Compartment


CDP#9: Safety Reports – Vehicles


CDP#10: Storage Weight % Hydrogen

350bar 700bar0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Wei

gh

t P

erce

nt

Hyd

rog

en (

%)

Weight Percent Hydrogen

2015 DOE MYPP Target1



Created: Aug-19-08 11:39 AM1Targets are set for advanced materials-based hydrogen storage technologies.


CDP#11: Volumetric Capacity of H2 Storage

350bar 700bar0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

Mas

s H

2 p

er L

iter

(kg

/L)

Mass of Hydrogen Per Liter




Created: Aug-19-08 11:39 AM1Targets are set for advanced materials-based hydrogen storage technologies.


CDP#12: Vehicle Hydrogen Tank Cycle Life

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Nu

mb

er o

f cy

cles

Hydrogen Tank Cycle Life1

All OEMs




Gen 1 Gen 2

Created: Sep-17-08 10:29 AM

1Data reported reference NGV2, HGV2, or EIHP standards.2Some near-term targets have been achieved with compressed and liquid tanks. Emphasis is on advanced materials-based technologies.


On-Site Natural Gas Reforming On-Site Electrolysis0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2010 MYPP Target

2015 MYPP Target

2012 MYPP Target

2017 MYPP Target

Pro

du

ctio

n E

ffic

ien

cy (

LH

V %

)

Hydrogen Production Conversion Efficiency1

Average Station Efficiency

Quarterly Efficiency Data

Highest Quarterly Efficiency

Efficiency Probability Distribution2


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 productionprocess 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 datafrom the Learning Demonstration.

CDP#13: On-Site Hydrogen Production Efficiency


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling Rates350 vs 700bar Fills - All Light Duty Through 2008Q4

5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar


Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 Count------------- ------------------ ------- --------350 bar 0.81 27% 14375700 bar 0.59 3% 2033

350 bar700 bar2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

Created: Mar-09-09 3:38 PM

CDP#14: Fueling Rates – 350 and 700 bar


0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 >80

5

10

15

20

25

30

35Segmented Trips/Hour Histogram: DOE Fleet

Trips/Hour*

Fre

qu

ency

[%

]

*Trips/Hour based on 50 hour segmentsspanning stack operating period


CDP#16: Fuel Cell Stack Trips Per Hour Histogram


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0-250 250-500 500-750 750-1000 1000-1250 1250-1500 1500-1750 1750-2000Stack Op Hour Groups

Tri

ps/

Ho

ur*

Statistics of Trips/Hour vs Operating Hour: DOE Fleet

*Trips/Hour based on 50 hour segmentsspanning stack operating period

Data Range25th & 75th PercentilesGroup MedianOutlier


CDP#17: Statistics of Trips/Hour vs. Operating Hour


CDP#18: Refueling Rates

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100


Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling RatesAll Light Duty Through 2008Q4



16623 EventsAverage = 0.78 kg/min

24% >1 kg/min

2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone



0-10 10-30 30-60 60-360 >3600

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Time [min]

Tri

p F

req

uen

cy [

%]

Time Between Trips with Ambient Temperature: DOE Fleet

<0oC

0-10oC

10-24oC

24-40oC

>40oC


CDP#19: Time Between Trips & Ambient Temperature


CDP#20: Safety Reports – Infrastructure

0 50 100 150 200 250

Non-Event

Near Miss

Incident

Number of Reports

Sev

erit

y

Total Infrastructure Safety Reports by Severityand Report Type Through 2008 Q4

Alarms OnlyAutomatic System ShutdownElectrical IssueEquipment MalfunctionFalse Alarm/MischiefH2 Release - Minor, NO IgnitionH2 Release - Significant, NO IgnitionManual System ShutdownNon-H2 ReleaseSite Power OutageStructural IssueSystem Trouble, not Alarm

Created: Feb-27-09 8:16 AM

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


0 2 4 6 8 10 12-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1.1 % trips below 0 oC

Max Op = 140.0 oF

Min Op = -2.2 oF

29.6 % trips above 28 oC

Trip Frequency [%]

Tem

per

atu

re [

oC

]

Average Ambient Trip Temperature: DOE Fleet


CDP#21: Range of Ambient TemperatureDuring Vehicle Operation


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Nu

mb

er o

f V

ehic

les

Total Vehicle Hours

Vehicle Hours: All OEMs, Gen 1 and Gen 2

In Service

Retired

85,244Total Vehicle Hours =

Through 2008 Q4


CDP#22: Vehicle Operating Hours


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Nu

mb

er o

f V

ehic

les

Total Vehicle Miles

Vehicle Miles: All OEMs Combined, Gen 1 and 2

In Service

Retired

Total Vehicle Miles Traveled = 1,924,869

Through 2008 Q4


CDP#23: Vehicles vs. Miles Traveled


1,924,869

-

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

1,750,000

2,000,000

2,250,000

Ve

hic

le M

iles

Tra

ve

led

Cumulative Vehicle Miles: All OEMs, Gen 1 and Gen 2


Through 2008 Q4

CDP#24: Cumulative Vehicle Miles Traveled


71

48

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Cu

mu

lati

ve V

eh

icle

s D

ep

loye

d/R

eti

red

1

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

Created Feb-23-2009 1:20 PM (1) Retired vehicles have left DOE fleet and are no longer providing data to NREL Created Feb-27-2009 9:10 AM

140

(1) Retired vehicles have left DOE fleet and are no longer providing data to NREL

CDP#25: Vehicle H2 Storage Technologies


0

5

10

15

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nu

mb

er o

f Sta

tio

ns

Mas

s o

f H

ydro

gen

(1

000

kg)

Calendar Quarter

Cumulative Hydrogen Produced or Dispensed Through 2008 Q4

Cumulative Hydrogen

Number of Stations

Created 2009-Mar-06 3:48 pm

CDP#26: Cumulative H2 Produced or Dispensed


Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.99.7

99.75

99.8

99.85

99.9

99.95

100

Cal

cula

ted

H2 In

dex

(%

)

H2 Calculated Quality Index by Year and Production Method

On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineCalculated Data


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

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

CDP#27: Hydrogen Quality Index


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Particulates

g/L

H2 Fuel Constituents

Data Range SAE J2719 APR2008 Guideline Measured Less Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

(N2+He+Ar) He

(Ar+N2)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

H2O Total HC

O2 CO2 CO

NH3

mol/mol (ppm)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Total S*

nmol/mol (ppb)Created: Feb-25-09 1:23 PM Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testing

*Total S calculated from SO2, COS, H2S, CS2, and Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH).

CDP#28: Hydrogen Fuel Constituents


CDP#28 Supplemental: Hydrogen Constituents by Year and Production Method

Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

NH

3 (

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pm

)

NH3 (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H

2 Constituents by Year and Production Method

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



Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.

0

50

100

150

200

Ar

(m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

Ar (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Ar+

N2 (

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pm

)

Ar+N2 (mol/mol)(ppm)

Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method





0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Cal

cult

ated

To

tal I

mp

uri

ties

( m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

Calcultated Total Impurities (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H


On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineCalculated Data




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CO

2 ( m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

CO2 (mol/mol)(ppm)






0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

CO

( m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

CO (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Fo

rmal

deh

yde

(m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

Formaldehyde (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Fo

rmic

aci

d (

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pm

)

Formic acid (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

5

10

15

H2O

( m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

H2O (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

50

100

150

200

250

300

He

(m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

He (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Par

ticu

late

Siz

e (

m)

Particulate Size (m)Non-H






0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

N2+

He+

Ar

(m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

N2+He+Ar (mol/mol)(ppm)






0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

N2 (

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pm

)

N2 (mol/mol)(ppm)






0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

O2(

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pm

)

O2(mol/mol)(ppm)






0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Par

ticu

late

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

g/L

)

Particulate Concentration (g/L)Non-H






0

5

10

15

20

25

To

tal H

alo

gen

ates

( m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

Total Halogenates (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

0.5

1

1.5

2

To

tal H

C ( m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

Total HC (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

To

tal S

* (n

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pb

)

Total S* (nmol/mol)(ppb)Non-H




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

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

(This slide contains 18 graphs (1 for each constituent): view in slide-show mode)


CDP#29: Fueling Rates Communication and Non-Communication Fills

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling RatesComm vs Non-Comm Fills - All Light Duty Through 2008Q4



Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 ------------- ------------------ -------Comm 0.88 32%Non-Comm 0.65 15%

CommNon-Comm2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone



0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

AdjustmentCheck Only

OtherRepair

Replacement

Maintenance: Average Labor Hours Per Station Since InceptionThrough 2008 Q4

ScheduledUn-Scheduled

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

AdjustmentCheck Only

OtherRepair

Replacement

Maintenance: Average Number of Events Per Station Since Inception

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

# of Events

Hours

Comparison of Scheduled/Un-Scheduled Maintenance


CDP#30: Infrastructure Maintenance


0

5

10

15

20

25

Nu

mb

er

of

Sta

tio

ns

Reporting Period

Online Stations

Existing Stations

Retired Stations

Created Feb-26-09 10:09am

CDP#31: Number of Online Stations


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Delivered Compressed H2

Natural Gas On-site Reforming

Electrolysis Delivered Liquid H2

# o

f S

tati

on

s

Production Technology

Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods

Existing Stations

Retired Stations

Created Feb-26-09 10:09am

CDP#32: Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods


CDP#33: Percentage of Theoretical Range Traveled Between Refuelings

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12Range Histogram: All OEMs

Percentage of chassis dyno range1 b/w refuelings

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

efu

elin

gs

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

25

50

75

100

Cu

mu

lati

ve P

erce

nta

ge


Total refuelings2 = 18799

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


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Gen1

Gen2

Vehicle Range Factors

Percentage of chassis dyno range1.

All

OE

Ms W

ind

ow

-Sti

cker

2 W

ind

ow

-Sti

cker

2

On

-Ro

ad 3

On

-Ro

ad 3

Dyn

o 1


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).

CDP#34: Effective Vehicle Range


05Q2 05Q3 05Q4 06Q1 06Q2 06Q3 06Q4 07Q1 07Q2 07Q3 07Q4 08Q1 08Q2 08Q3 08Q40

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Reporting Period

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tati

on

s

Infrastructure Safety Trend and Online Stations Through 2008 Q4

Number of Online StationsAvg Refuelings Between Safety Reports


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Avg

# o

f R

efu

elin

gs

Bet

wee

n S

afet

y R

epo

rts

711

32 34

88

102

117

47

68

124

100

5651

73

49

CDP#35: Average Refuelings Between Infrastructure Safety Reports


05Q2 05Q3 05Q4 06Q1 06Q2 06Q3 06Q4 07Q1 07Q2 07Q3 07Q4 08Q1 08Q2 08Q3 08Q40

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Reporting Period

Nu

mb

er o

f R

epo

rts

Type of Infrastructure Safety Reports by Quarter Through 2008 Q4

IncidentNear MissNon-EventStations OnlineAvg # Reports/Station



CDP#36: Type of Infrastructure Safety Report By Quarter


0 50 100 150 200 250

Non-Event

Near Miss

Incident

Number of Reports

Sev

erit

y

Primary Factors of Infrastructure Safety ReportsThrough 2008 Q4

Calibration/Settings/ Software ControlsDesign FlawElectrical Power to SiteEnvironment (Weather, Power Disruption, Other)False AlarmInadequate Training, Protocol, SOPInadequate/ Non-working EquipmentMaintenance RequiredMischief, Vandalism, SabotageNew Equipment MaterialsNot Yet DeterminedOperator/Personnel ErrorSystem Manually Shutdown



CDP#37: Primary Factors of Infrastructure Safety Reports


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Time (min)

Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling TimesAll Light Duty Through 2008Q4

Average = 3.30 min87% <5 min

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)


CDP#38: Refueling Times


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

100

200

300

400

500

600

Amount Fueled (kg)

Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling AmountsAll Light Duty Through 2008Q4

Average = 2.18 kg


CDP#39: Refueling Amounts


CDP#40: H2 Tank Level at Refueling

Tank Levels: DOE Fleet

14%

FE



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

Median Tank Level (At Fill) = 40%

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.


CDP#41: Refueling Tank Levels - Medians

FE

Tank Level Medians (At Fill): DOE Fleet, All Vehicles



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.


CDP#42: Refueling by Time of Day

Refueling by Time of Day: DOE Fleet

10%

3

12

9

6

Total Fill3 Events = 17237% of fills b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 91.1%

1. Fills between 6 AM & 6 PM

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

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

AM PM



CDP#43: Refueling by Day of Week

Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat0

5

10

15

20

Fills by Day of Week: DOE Fleet

% o

f F

ills

in a

Day

DayCreated: Feb-20-09 12:38 PM


Driving Start Time - Day: DOE Fleet

9%

3

12

9

6

Total Driving3 Events = 224309% of driving trips b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 86.9%

1. Driving trips between 6 AM & 6 PM

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


AM PM

% of NHTS trips b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 81.5%

DOE FleetNHTS


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

CDP#44: Driving Start Time – Day


Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Driving Trips by Day of Week: DOE Fleet

% o

f D

rivi

ng

Tri

ps

in a

Day

Day

DOE FleetNHTS


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

CDP#45: Driving by Day of Week


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Time at Fuel Cell Stack Power Levels: DOE Fleet

Op

erat

ing

Tim

e [%

]

0-5%

5-10

%

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%

>100%

% Max Fuel Cell Power (Gross)

All timeTime with 0 speed


CDP#46: Fuel Cell System Operating Power


0 5 10 15 20 250

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Tri

p F

req

uen

cy [

%]

Trip Length [miles]

Trip Length: DOE Fleet

DOE FleetNHTS



CDP#47: Trip Length


CDP#48: Primary Factors Affecting Learning Demo Fleet Fuel Cell Degradation

DOE Fleet

High Current TimeHot StartsStarts/hour

Low Voltage TimeHigh Voltage Time

Cold StartsShort Trips

0 Speed TripsHot Ambient Temp

H*

H*

1) On-going fuel cell degradation study using Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression model for combined Learning Demonstration Fleet.

2) DOE Fleet model has a low percentage of explained decay rate variance.


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

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.

DOE Fleet

High Current TimeHot StartsStarts/hour

Low Voltage TimeHigh Voltage Time

Cold StartsShort Trips

0 Speed TripsHot Ambient Temp

H*

H*

1) On-going fuel cell degradation study using Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression model for combined Learning Demonstration Fleet.

2) DOE Fleet model has a low percentage of explained decay rate variance.


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

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.


CDP#49: Primary Factors Affecting Learning Demo Team Fuel Cell Degradation

Team 1

High Voltage TimeLow Current Time

Short TripsLow Speed

Team 2

Team 3

Team 4

Low Current TimeLong Trips

Warm Ambient TempZero Speed

Current Transients

High Voltage TimeLow Current Time

Short TripsLow Speed

Current Transients

1) On-going fuel cell degradation study using Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression model for each team’s Gen 1 fleet.

2) Teams’ PLS models have a high percentage of explained decay rate variance, but the models are not robust and results are scattered.

3) Factor groups associated with stacks that are opposite to the identified groups here are not specified.

H*

Starts/HourZero SpeedShort Trips

Low Voltage TimeHigh Current TimeCurrent Transients

Cold StartsHot Ambient Temp

High Speed

H*

H*

H*

H*

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



CDP#50: Refueling by Time of Night

Refueling by Time of Night: DOE Fleet

3%

3

12

9

6

Total Fill3 Events = 17237% of fills b/t 6 PM & 6 AM: 8.9%

1. Fills between 6 PM & 6 AM

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


PM AM



Driving Start Time - Night: DOE Fleet

3%

3

12

9

6

Total Driving3 Events = 224309% of driving trips b/t 6 PM & 6 AM: 13.1%

1. Driving trips between 6 PM & 6 AM

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


PM AM

% of NHTS trips b/t 6 PM & 6 AM: 18.4%

DOE FleetNHTS


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

CDP#51: Driving Start Time – Night


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling RatesAll Light Duty by Year Through 2008Q4



Year Avg (kg/min) %>1 ------- ----------------- -------2005 0.66 16%2006 0.74 21%2007 0.81 26%2008 0.78 24%

20052006200720082006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone


CDP#52: Refueling Data by Year


0

2

4

6

8

10FC Energy by Power Levels: DOE Fleet

FC

En

erg

y [%

]

0-5%

5-10

%

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%

>100%

% Fuel Cell Power (Gross) of Max

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

0

20

40

60

80

100


CDP#53: Fuel Cell System Energy within Power Levels


0-1 hr 1-6 hr 6-12 hr 12-18hr 18-24hr 1-7days 7-30days >30days0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Tri

p F

req

uen

cy [

%]

Time

Time between Trips: DOE Fleet

0-10 min 10-20 min 20-30 min 30-40 min 40-50 min 50-60 min0

10

20

30

40

50

% T

rip

s

Time

0-60 min Breakdown: DOE Fleet


CDP#54: Time Between Trips


<-0.5 -0.5-0 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4 4-4.5 4.5-5 >50

10

20

30

40

50

60

Energy Consumed [kWh]

Tri

p F

req

uen

cy [

%]

Energy in Trip: DOE Fleet

Net batterycharge in trip

BatteryVehicle MotorFC


CDP#55: Fuel Cell System Energy


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

5

10

15

20

25

Tri

p F

req

uen

cy [

%]

Daily Distance [miles]

Daily Distance: DOE Fleet

DOE FleetNHTS


Cumulative Frequency@ 20 miles

DOE Fleet: 49.6%NHTS: 27.2%

Cumulative Frequency@ 40 miles

DOE Fleet: 69.1%NHTS: 52.9%


CDP#56: Daily Driving Distance


CDP#57: H2 Storage System Mass and Volume Breakdown

Average Breakout of H2 Storage System Volume

73%

24%

3%

Average Breakout of H2 Storage System Mass

3.26%

23%

73%

9%

35% 56%

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

72%

3.33%

24%

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

Created: Aug-19-08 9:14 AM

350 bar

700 bar


CDP#58: Fuel Cell System Power Density

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Po

wer

Den

sity

(W

/L)

FC System Power Density (W/L)

2010 and 2015 DOE MYPP Target1 Gen 1 Gen 2

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.


CDP#59: Fuel Cell System Specific Power

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Sp

ecif

ic P

ow

er (

W/k

g)

FC System Specific Power (W/kg)

2010 and 2015 DOE MYPP Target1 Gen 1 Gen 2

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.


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Production Capacity Utilization1 [%]

Pro

du

ctio

n C

on

vers

ion

Eff

icie

ncy

2 [%

]

Monthly Production Conversion Efficiency vs Utilization

Electrolysis Data

Electrolysis Fit3

Electrolysis Fit ConfidenceNatural Gas Data

Natural Gas Fit3

Natural Gas Fit Confidence


1) 100% production utilization assumes operation 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week2) 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 productionprocess 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 = 0.87) & low correlation with natural gas data (R2 = 0.018)

CDP#60: On-Site Hydrogen Production Efficiency vs. Capacity Utilization


On-Site Compression Energy0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Co

mp

ress

ion

En

erg

y (M

J/kg

)

On-Site Compression Efficiency0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010 MYPP Compression Target

2015 MYPP Compression Target

Co

mp

ress

ion

Eff

icie

ncy

(%

)

On-Site Hydrogen Compression Efficiency1 and Energy Use

Average Station Compression Efficiency

Quarterly Compression Efficiency Data

Highest Quarterly Compression Efficiency

Average Station Compression Energy

Quarterly Compression Energy Data

Lowest Quarterly Compression Energy


1Consistent 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 theenergy of the hydrogen output plus all other energy needed for the compression process. Data shown for on-site hydrogen production and storagefacilities only, not delivered hydrogen sites.

Compression Energy Requirement:On average, 9.3% of the energycontained in the hydrogen fuel isrequired for the compressionprocess.

CDP#61: Refueling Station Compressor Efficiency


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

WT

W G

HG

Em

issi

on

s (g

CO

2-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


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, hydrogenproduction 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 conventionalgasoline 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 fueleconomy 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 bothgrid-based electricity and renewable on-site solar electricity. GHG emissions associated with on-site production of hydrogen from electrolysis are highly dependent onelectricity 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 GHGemissions would be 1241 g/mile.

CDP#62: Learning Demonstration Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions


14%

16%

17%

22%

By Number of EventsTotal Number of Events = 1860

11%

19%

17%

22%

By Labor HoursTotal Hours = 9093

system control & safetycompressorelectrolyzerreformerdispenserotherelectricalvalves & pipingstorage


Hydrogen Fueling Station Maintenance

CDP#63: Hydrogen Fueling Station Maintenance by System


4%5%

34%57%

Fuel Cell Vehicle Events (9357)

22%

5%

49%

24%

Fuel Cell Vehicle Labor (10216 hours)

Vehicle (non-powertrain)Fuel Cell SystemPowertrainBattery

3%11%

11%

14%

26%

36%

Fuel Cell System Events (3175)< 1%

31%

24%12%

13%

20%

Fuel Cell System Labor (5035 hours)

Thermal ManagementAir SystemControls, Electronics, SensorsFuel SystemFuel Cell StackOther


Fuel Cell Vehicle Maintenance Events and Labor Hours

CDP#64: Fuel Cell Vehicle Maintenance by System

1 Technical Report NREL/TP-560-45451 March 2009 Controlled Hydrogen Fleet Infrastructure...

Documents

Transcript of 1 Technical Report NREL/TP-560-45451 March 2009 Controlled Hydrogen Fleet Infrastructure...