DOE Fleet Learning Demonstration

8/4/2019 DOE Fleet Learning Demonstration

1/33

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

214th ElectrochemicalSociety Meeting

Keith Wipke, Sam Sprik,Jennifer Kurtz, ToddRamsden, John Garbak

October 13, 2008

Honolulu, HI

Fuel Cell Vehicle and Infrastructure LearningDemonstration Status and Results

NREL/PR-560-44266


2/33

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Outline

Objectives and Partners

NRELs Role in the Project and Methodology How to Access Complete Results

Analysis Results

Summary


3/33


Fuel Cell Vehicle Learning DemonstrationProject Objectives and Targets

Objectives

Validate H2 FC Vehicles and Infrastructure in Parallel

Identify Current Status and Evolution of the Technology Assess Progress Toward Technology Readiness

Provide Feedback to H2 Research and Development

Photo: NREL

Solar Electrolysis Station, Sacramento, CA

Performance Measure 2009 2015

Fuel Cell Stack Durability 2000 hours 5000 hours

Vehicle Range 250+ miles 300+ miles

Hydrogen Cost at Station $3/gge $2-3/gge

Key Targets


4/33


Industry Partners: 4 Automaker/Energy-Supplier Teams;Significant Number of Gen 2 Vehicles Now Deployed

Gen 1 Gen 1

Gen 1 & 2

Gen 2

Gen 2 Gen 2

Gen 1

122


5/33


DOE Learning Demo Fleet Has Surpassed69,000 Vehicle Hours and 1.5 Million Miles

Gen 2 vehicle introduction now

appears as the 2nd bulge at

low hours/miles


6/33


Majority of Projects Fixed Infrastructure to RefuelVehicles Has Been Installed Examples of 4 Types

Recent station addition:Santa Monica Blvd. (Shell)

16 stations now deployed

Delivered Liquid, 700 barIrvine, CA

Mobile RefuelerSacramento, CA

Steam Methane ReformingOakland, CA

Water ElectrolysisSanta Monica, CA

Total of >60,000 kg H2produced or dispensed


7/33


Refueling Stations Test Performance in Various Climates;Learning Demo Comprises ~1/4 of all US Stations

16

Oct-09-2008

6

51

4

SF Bay Area

Los Angeles Area

DC to New York

7

Detroit Area

2

Orlando Area


8/33National Renewable Energy Laboratory 8 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Extremely Large Data Sets Have Resulted in SophisticatedNREL-Developed Data Processing Tools

Composite

Data

Products

Detailed

Data

Products

NREL

HSDC

Data Flow

Through September 2008:

270,000 individual vehicle trips

60 GB of on-road data

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/cdp_topic.html

Individual Team Discussions
http://www.barrysclipart.com/barrysclipart.com/showphoto.php?photo=24290&papass=&sort=1&thecat=174



NREL Web Site Provides Direct Access to All CompositeData Products (53), Reports, and Presentations

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

50

100

150

200

250

300

VehicleRan

ge(miles)

Vehicle Range1

2015 Target

2009 Target

Created: Feb-27-07 4:49PM

(1) Range isbasedon fueleconomy and usable hydrogenon-boardthe vehicle. One data pointforeachmake/model.(2) Fueleconomy from unadjustedcombinedCity/Hwy perDRAFT SAE J2572.(3) Fueleconomy from EPAAdjusted combinedCity/Hwy (0.78x Hwy,0.9 x City).(4) Excludes trips< 1mile. One datapoint foron-road fleet average of each make/model.(5) Fueleconomy calculated from on-roadfuelcell stack current ormassflow readings.

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/cdp_topic.html

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_learning_demo.html

A subset of the 53

latest results will be

presented now



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All OEMs

Efficie

ncy(%)

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 d rive.

Gen 1 Baseline Dyno Tests Validated High Efficiency at Power Point Gen 2 Efficiency Results Public in 2009

Steady-State Efficiency

at power on dyno:

52.5% to 58.1%

High-efficiency point is well

matched to where most of

FCV energy is expended



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

%Time at Power Levels: DOE Fleet

%TimeatPo

werLevel

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%

70-75%

75-80%

80-85%

85-90%

90-95%

95-100%

>100%

% Fuel Cell Power (Gross) of MaxCreated: Aug-28-08 5:48 PM

18.4%-43.7% of operating time at idle(Vehicle Speed = 0 & F.C. Power > 0)

While Most of FC Time is Spent at Idle,Bulk ofEnergyis at 20-50% Power

~50% time

at 100

%

% Fuel Cell Power (Gross) of Max

Cumulative%

0

20

40

60

80

100

Created: Aug-28-08 5:48 PM



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

SpecificPo

wer(W/kg)

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.

Fuel Cell System Specific Power ShowsDramatic Improvement from Gen 1 to Gen 2



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

PowerDen

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.

Fuel Cell System Power Density Remained~Same Between Gen 1 and 2



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

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

FuelEconom

y(miles/kgH2)

Fuel Economy

Gen 1

Gen 2

Created: Sep-22-08 11:51 AM

(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.

Ranges of Fuel Economy from Dynamometerand On-Road Data Similar for Gen 1 & 2



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

50

100

150

200

250

300

VehicleRange(miles)

Vehicle Range1

2015 Target

2009 Target

Gen 1

Gen 2


(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.

Vehicle Range Based on Dyno Results andUsable H2 Fuel Stored On-Board

Gen 2 Vehicle Range Shows SignificantImprovement with 700 bar Storage

250-mile 2008

milestone met



0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

Op Hours

Voltage

Voltage vs. Operation Hours at 300A: Vehicle19-Stack1

871

900

847

288

259

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Stack Weight Factors

WeightValue

Overall

DatQty

DatGap

DR1ci

DR2ci

Created: Oct-09-08 3:01 PM

warm-up time=10 min

pwr rate filt=1000 kW/s

amp rate filt=1000 A/s

ptsper fit=2500

1 data pt e very 1seconds

2

2. FC Stackvoltage decay estimate using

robust, improved segmented linear fit

instead of linear fit (follows non-lineardecay trends & early voltage decay)

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Vehicle12 Stack1

Vehicle15 Stack1

Vehicle17 Stack1

Vehicle19 Stack1

Vehicle16 Stack2

EcoCars

EcoCars: Stack OpHr Projections

Op Hrs

Stack

FleetWgtAveOpTime

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Vehicle12 Stack1

Vehicle15 Stack1

Vehicle17 Stack1

Vehicle19 Stack1

Vehicle16 Stack2

EcoCars: Stack Weights

Weight

Created: Oct-09-08 1:20 PM Stacks sorted by Stack Weight

3

Fleet

Stack

3. Fleetweighted average using FC Stack

operating hour projections and weights

(based on data and confidence in fit)

Improved Method for Calculating ProjectedTime to 10% Voltage Drop for Stack and Fleet

1

1. FC Stackvoltage & current polarization fit

Note, 10% voltage drop is a DOE

target/metric, not an indicator of end-of-life



0

200

400

600800

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)

Time(Hours)

DOE Learning Demonstration Fuel Cell Stack Durability:Based on Data Through 2008 Q2

Max Projection

Avg Projection


(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 f rom 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.

Some Gen 1 FC Stacks Have Now Accumulated aSignificant Number of Hours Without Repair

(DOE Milestone)

More data requiredto make Gen 2

projections (2009)



0 5 10 15 20 250

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Frequency(%)

Trip Length (miles)

Trip Length: DOE Fleet

DOE Fleet

NHTS

Created: Sep-03-08 11:06 AM2001 NHTS Data Includes Car, Truck, Van, & SUV day tripsASCII .csv Source: http://nhts.ornl.gov/download.shtml#2001

Learning Demo FCVs Tend to Take Many More Trips



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

10

20

30

40

50

60

%Trips

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

%Trips

Time

0-60 min Breakdown: DOE Fleet


>1/3 trips occur

within 10 min of

previous trip

Examining Time Between Trips Shows Fuel CellsExperiencing Large Number of Hot Starts

>50% trips occur

within 1 hour of

previous trip

f



Range of Average Ambient TemperaturesDuring Vehicle Operation

0 2 4 6 8 10 12-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.9 % trips below 0oC

Max Op = 125.6oF

Min Op = -1.3oF

25.1 % trips above 28oC

Frequency [%]

Temperature[oC]

Average Ambient Trip Temperature: All OEMs


Fuel cell vehicles are operating in

some extreme temperatureconditions. 2nd gen vehicle tests

will determine ability to startin

cold temperatures.



350bar 700bar

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

MassH2p

erLiter(kg/L)

Mass of Hydrogen Per Liter

2015 DOE MYPP Target1



Created: Aug-19-08 11:39 AM

1Targets are set for advanced materials-based hydrogen storage technologies.

350bar 700bar 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

WeightPercentHyd

rogen(%)

Weight Percent Hydrogen




Created: Aug-19-08 11:39 AM

1Targets are set for advanced materials-based hydrogen storage technologies.

700 bar On-Board H2 Storage Systems DemonstratePotential for Improved Performance Over 350 bar

2nd Gen Vehicle Storage

Data Collected;

Allows a Comparison of

350 bar vs. 700 bar



More Detailed Data Reporting Allows a Comparison of Massand Volume of H2, Pressure Vessel, and BOP

Pressure Vessel and BOP for

700 bar Systems Take Up

Larger % of Volume, but Allowfor a More Compact Package

and Extended Range



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

ProductionEf

ficiency(LHV%)

Hydrogen Production Conversion Efficiency1

Average Station Efficiency

Quarterly Efficiency Data

Highest Quarterly Efficiency

Created: Sep-24-08 4:17 PM

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

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

On-Site Production Efficiency from Natural GasReformation and Electrolysis Compared to Targets



0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

WTW

GHGE

missions(gCO2-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, hydrogen

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

conversion efficiency values are the production efficiency data used in CDP #13.

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

gasoline mid-size passenger car and mid-size SUV, respectively. The Learning Demonstration fleet includes both passenger cars and SUVs.3. The Well-to-Wheels GHG probability distribution represents the range and likelihood of GHG emissions resulting from the hydrogen FCV fleet based on window-sticker fuel

economy data and monthly conversion efficiency data from the Learning Demonstration.4. On-site electrolysis GHG emissions are based on the average mix of electricity production used by the Learning Demonstration production sites, which includes both

grid-based electricity and renewable on-site solar electricity. GHG emissions associated with on-site production of hydrogen from electrolysis are highly dependent 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 GHG

emissions would be 1296 g/mile.

Learning Demonstration Vehicle Greenhouse Gas EmissionsUsing Actual Production Efficiencies and Fuel Economies



Hydrogen Quality Index Close to Target Except forSome High Inert Gas Measurements

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

99.75

99.8

99.85

99.9

99.95

100

CalculatedH

2Index(%)

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 Guideline

Calculated Data


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

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

H d I iti S l d f All



0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Particulates

g/L

H2

Impurities

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: Sep-22-08 1:41 PM Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testing*Total S calculated from SO2, COS, H2S, CS2, and Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH).

Hydrogen Impurities Sampled from AllStations to Date

High inert gases due to detection

limits, not measured values

H d I iti b Y d P d ti


27/33


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

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

TotalS*(nmo

l/mol)(ppb)

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

2Impurities by Year and Production Method

On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)

On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)

Delivered (Data Range)

SAE J2719 APR2008 Guideline

MeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)


Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testing

Year 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, and Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2*Total S calculated from SO2, COS, H2S, CS2, and Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH).

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

Hydrogen Impurities by Year and ProductionMethod Total Sulfur

Most sulfur measurements

continue to be detection-limited

A t l V hi l R f li Ti d A t f


28/33


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Amount Fueled (kg)

NumberofFue

lingEvents

Histogram of Fueling AmountsAll Light Duty Through 2008Q2

Average = 2.24


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Time (min)

NumberofFueling

Events

Histogram of Fueling TimesAll Light Duty Through 2008Q2

Average = 3.23%


29/33


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

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

NumberofFuelingEvents

Histogram of Fueling RatesAll Light Duty Through 2008Q2

5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

11594 EventsAverage = 0.80 kg/min

25% >1 kg/min

2006 Tech Val Milestone

2010 MYPP Adv Storage Materials Target


Actual Vehicle Refueling Rates from >11,500Events: Measured by Stations or by Vehicles

Average rate: 0.80 kg/min

25% of refueling events exceeded 1 kg/min

Includes Communication and

Non-Communication Fills

Communication H2 Fills Achieving


30/33


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



Histogram of Fueling RatesComm vs Non-Comm Fills - All Light Duty Through 2008Q2

5 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1------------- ------------------ -------Comm 0.94 36%Non-Comm 0.68 17%

Comm

Non-Comm




Non-Comm Has aPeak at ~0.2 kg/min

Comm Fills CanAchieve Higher

Fill Rates

Communication H2 Fills AchievingHigher Fill Rate than Non-Communication

Examining Refueling Data by Year Shows


31/33


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



Histogram of Fueling RatesAll Light Duty by Year Through 2008Q2

5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

Year Avg (kg/min) %>1------- ----------------- -------

2005 0.66 16%2006 0.74 21%2007 0.81 26%2008 0.86 28%

2005

2006

2007

2008




Examining Refueling Data by Year Shows0.2 kg/min Rate Phased Out

Includes Communication and

Non-Communication Fills


32/33


Summary

Learning Demo project is ~60% complete 122 vehicles and 16 stations deployed

1.5 million miles traveled, 60,000 kg H2 produced or dispensed

270,000 individual vehicle trips analyzed Project to continue through 2010 with additional vehicles & stations

Many new results in the Fall 2008 composite data products 50 new/updated results, 3 unchanged for a total of 53

Several Gen 1 vs Gen 2 vehicle comparisons Hydrogen production efficiency related results

Vehicle greenhouse gas estimates using actual productionefficiencies

Fuel cell system W/kg and W/L Hydrogen impurity breakdown by year and production technology

All results available on web site

Roll-out of 2nd generation vehicles continues

Most of remaining vehicles to be deployed this year Additional 700 bar stations coming online soon


33/33

Questions and Discussion

Project Contact: Keith Wipke, National Renewable Energy Lab

303.275.4451 keith_wipke nrel.gov

All public Learning Demo papers and presentations are available

online at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_validation.html

Systems

Integration&

Analysis

Basic Research & Applied R&D

DELIVERY

FUEL CELLS

STORAGE

PRODUCTION

Education

Ma

rketTransform

ation

Mar

ketTransform

ation

Mar

ketTransform

ation

Tech

nology

Validation

Safety, Codes & Standards

Manufacturing R&D

@

DOE Fleet Learning Demonstration

Documents

Transcript of DOE Fleet Learning Demonstration