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.

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Evaluation

Jennifer Kurtz (PI), Sam Sprik, Chris Ainscough, Genevieve Saur, Matt JeffersNational Renewable Energy LaboratoryJune 7, 2016DOE 2016 Annual Merit ReviewWashington, DC

Project ID TV001

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

2

Overview

• Project start date: 10/2012*• Total DOE funds received to date:

$1,565k• FY15 DOE funding: $365k• FY16 planned DOE funding:

$300k

• Lack of current controlled and on-road hydrogen fuel cell vehicle data

Timeline and Budget

Barriers

• Project partners supplying data include:– Daimler– GM– Honda

Partners

*Project continuation determined annually by DOE

– Hyundai– Nissan– Toyota

3

Project Objectives, Relevance, and Targets:Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Evaluation

• Objectives o Data analysis and reporting of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV)

operating in real-world settingo Identify current status and evolution of the technologyo Publish performance status and progress from multiple FCEV models

• Relevanceo Objectively assess progress toward targets and market needso Provide feedback to hydrogen research and developmento Publish results for key stakeholder use and investment decisions

APC/Shell Pipeline station, Torrance, CA. Photo: NREL

FY16 ObjectivesAnalysis and reporting on FCEV

durability, fuel economy, range, fueling behavior, and reliability.

4

CDPs

DDPs

Public

Composite Data Products (CDPs) • Aggregated data across multiple systems,

sites, and teams• Publish analysis results every six months

without revealing proprietary data

Detailed Data Products (DDPs) • Individual data analyses

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

partner who supplied the data

www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_validation.html

Approach: NFCTEC Analysis and Reporting of Real-World Operation Data

Results

Bundled data (operation and maintenance/safety) delivered

to NREL quarterlyInternal analysis

completed quarterly in NFCTEC

National Fuel Cell Technology Evaluation Center

5

Approach: On-road FCEVs & Partners

GM

Mercedes-Benz

Honda2

Nissan North America2

Toyota2

Six Data Providers1

1DOE project overview:• $5.5 million DOE funding• Data to be collected from up to ~90 vehicles

2Project managed by ElectricoreAward completed

Hyundai

6

Approach: Milestones

Regular project activities include:Quarterly analysis

Bi-annual technical CDPsDetailed data and analysis reviews with project partners

Publishing and presenting resultsCollaborating with infrastructure evaluation

7

Accomplishment: FCEV Deployment and OperationThrough 2015CYQ4

FCEVs retired

Max fleet voltage durability (Hours to 10% degradation metric)

miles traveled

Fuel cell operation hours

Max FCEV odometer miles

Max fuel celloperation hours

Average on-roadfuel economy miles/kg

FCEVs total

NREL Hydrogen Station Dedication 10/2015

8

Accomplishment:VehicleCount&MilesSince2006

Pauseinevalua*onproject

Pauseinevalua*onproject

Diverseandsta*s*callysignificantdataset

Diverseandsta*s*callysignificantdataset

9

Accomplishment:Par0cipantsandTripsSince2006

NRELanalyzedtripsdecreasingduetoplannedvehicledecommissioningofoldergenera*onvehicles.

Currentphase

10

Accomplishment: Analysis Categories

Driving

Deploy

SpecsFuel Economy

Reliability

Durability

Range

FC Performance

H2 Performance

Fueling

Other

Analyzed data through 12/2015Reliability is a new category since 6/2015

All results not included here. All results available online at www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_validation.html

JJ%

9((145$+8-4#2)Q%&145/*+812%1U%!&%3)/(68%L5#*/)#P%Z#D12P%IHe%,1$)/:#%K#:*/P/012%

^+.3%/2()%eIi%+1%()(,0_3?%'/(>M'%2(O3%)+/%+83.(/3?%-30+)?%JIi%O+,/(:3%?3:.(?(*+)5%

AO3.(:3%h33/%O+,/(:3%?B.(-&,&/0%8.+E3>*+)%&)>.3('3?%k%JeIi%1.+9%&)&*(,%8.+E3>*+)'%&)%LIIe%SC7DNTC#HNQJU%

JL%

9((145$+8-4#2)Q%L2_A1/P%!"#$%&#$$%3)/(6%'f(+#2(D%

<)N.+(?%'/(>M%3=>&3)>0%>+98(.3?%@&/2%?0)+%'0'/39%3=>&3)>0%()?%7<#%^l"77%LILI%6/(>M%G(.:3/%Se\iU5%AO3.(:3%'0'/39%3=>&3)>0%(/%L\i%8+@3.%&'%\gi5%%%

JQ%

&KN_!&',_bb%9.#*/:#%L2_A1/P%!"#$%'(1214D%CD%,#-+($#%LP14#)#*%

<O3.(,,%93?&()%1B3,%3>+)+90%m%\J%9ZM:;%9+.3%/2()%/@+%*93'%/23%(O3.(:3%LIIj%S>+98(.(-,3%9+?3,%03(.%+1%TC#H'%()(,0_3?U%#DA%>(.%1B3,%3>+)+905%%

A88.+X&9(/3,0%QIi%&)>.3('3%&)%+)N.+(?%1B3,%3>+)+90%1.+9%LIIe%/+%>B..3)/%3O(,B(*+)%SC7DNTC#HNQLU5%

JW%

9((145$+8-4#2)Q%;[;%'4+88+128%&145/*+8128%

6>3)(.&+%Ya%^3?&()%TC#H%]`]%QIi%,+@3.%/2()%8(''3):3.%>(.%()?%Q\i%,+@3.%/2()%,&:2/%?B/0%/.B>M%-('3,&)3'5%^(E+.&/0%+1%>B..3)/%'/(*+)'%(.3%?3,&O3.3?%:('%()?%TC#H'%()(,0_3?%&)>,B?3%'3?()%()?%64H5%

J5! ]"##G%TB3,%C0>,3%L5! C7DNTC#HNJW%Q5! <)N.+(?%TC#H%WI5d%n%\g5\%9&,3'ZM:%W5! ]`]%&)>,B?3'%C<L%()?%C<L%3[B&O(,3)/%

:,+-(,%@(.9&):%8+/3)*(,%C`W;%!L<;%H<C;%C<;%!<X;%Y,(>M%C(.-+);%()?%<.:()&>%C(.-+)%

\5! ^3?&()%TC#H%#DA%>+9-&)3?%.(*):%e5! ]('+,&)3%S9+?3,%03(.%LIJ\U%8(''3):3.%

>(.%Lj5j%98:;%,&:2/%?B/0%/.B>M%Le5j%98:%

J\%

9((145$+8-4#2)Q%!&',%</+2)#2/2(#%/2P%A#$+/C+$+)D%

^(E+.&/0%+1%TC#H'%(.3%+,?3.%:3)3.(*+)%@&/2+B/%>+993.>&(,%:.(?3%9(&)/3)()>3%3X83>/(*+)'5%6&98,3%B)'>23?B,3?%9(&)/3)()>3%SgLiU%K,/3.'%()?%>++,()/%K,,'5%<),0%Q5\i%+1%1(&,B.3'%+>>B..3?%+)N.+(?%SC7DNTC#HNgQU5%AO3.(:3%9(&)/3)()>3%83.%O32&>,3%?3>.3('&):%'&)>3%LIJL%SC7DNTC#HNejU5%

G08&>(,;%.3:B,(.%O32&>,3%9(&)/3)()>3%%

16

Accomplishment:StackMaintenanceCausesandEffects

FCstackmaintenanceislowerfrequencythanfilters.Contamina*onascauseforstackmaintenanceislowyetresultsinsignificant(costand*me)maintenance.

17

Accomplishment: Comparison of Fills to SAE J2601 Temperature and Pressure Limits

Fills (35 and 70 MPa) following pressure and temperature SAE J2601 limits

18

Accomplishments and Progress:Responses to Previous Year Reviewers’ Comments• There is a need to aggregate data, given confidentiality issues, but it would be very useful if the aggregated data could be

provided in an Excel spreadsheet and if the results were categorized by vehicle class. It would be much more useful to get the actual numbers instead of trying to guess. o Aggregated data not yet presented in tabular form. Depending on the specifics, additional details could be possible to

publish without a confidentiality issue. The vehicle class and model year is difficult to separate because identification by model year and vehicle class could identify an individual OEM.

• If the number of vehicles gets to a certain minimum, then the usefulness of the data collection effort should be reconsidered. o Agreed and this is a major activity for the remainder of FY16

• New analyses: As stack production improves, consideration should be given to how to capture that repeatable process to evaluate life changes. As more cars deploy, a note on the ambient environment will become appropriate—cold-weather climate versus warm-weather climate, southern California versus the Northeast. Another metric to consider will be the impact the mechanic will have on the vehicle: his training, his tools, etc.—i.e., considering who is taking care of the car and whether the mechanic is at a factory location or a dealer. It would also be good to include collection of data for fuel efficiency at one-quarter and full power for newer-model vehicles. o New analyses added for fuel cell stack and system efficiency, reliability, and GHG emissions.

• It is not clear whether the data is being fed back to U.S. DRIVE Partnership Technical Teams to adjust model assumptions. o Data was not presented specifically to U.S. DRIVE last year. A presentation is scheduled for May 2016.

• It would be nice to substantially increase the number of vehicles in the study by establishing contracts with the automotive OEMs and the state of California for data collection and analysis services for the rollout of the commercial vehicles, especially those that will be purchased as part of the state fleet. o Communicating with FCEV OEMs to identify new data sources and coordinating with CEC and CARB for data analyses

and sources. • Some key caveats, assumptions, or key points, if any, may need to be included with composite data products (CDPs).

o Added analysis capability to capture key caveats, assumptions, and key points for each aggregated result, as well as avenues to record that information via reports and metadata with the online data

19

Collaborations• Six participating OEMs – Daimler, GM, Honda, Hyundai,

Nissan, Toyota. These OEMs:o Supply datao Review detailed data analysis and approve published resultso Review current and future analysis topics.

• Industry working groups (CaFCP, H2USA, and FCHEA) o Participation and briefings

Detailed view of a typical data cycle with OEMs

Example Data Results (if needed) Draft CDPs

OEM Initial Review (~4 week)

Final Draft CDPs

(<1 week)

OEM Final Review (2 week)

Finalized CDPs

(<1 week)

Data Process

and Analysis

(~8 weeks excluding data processing and analysis)

20

Remaining Challenges and Barriers• Relationship between vehicle, station, and driver

o Interface between vehicle and station a key issue for successful market adoption, especially from the perspective of the consumer.

o Information from customer perspective essential for complete understanding of technology gaps.

o Station performance challenges based on increased FCEV demand.o Opportunities for optimization and improvement based on vehicle

connectivity and adaptive learning. • Availability of on-road vehicle data – more significant issue than FY15 as

vehicles have retired and newest FCEV not currently part of this project• FCEV model year variation

o We are not able to publish all of the trend data if only one OEM has supplied data during a time period or if separation by model year identifies an OEM.

21

Proposed Future Work

• Identification of top priority objectives and analysis topics based on stakeholder feedback (with FCEVs no longer in the development stage)

• Identification of commercially available FCEV data to add• Interface analysis between FCEVs and hydrogen stations• Estimation of FCEV demand for improved hydrogen station operation

and controls to decrease operation and maintenance costs• Fall 2016

o Complete quarterly analysis of CY16 Q1 and Q2 datao Publish analysis results dependent on number of on-road vehicles (10/2016)

• Spring 2017o Complete quarterly analysis of CY16 Q3 and Q4 datao Publish analysis results dependent on number of on-road vehicles (4/2016)

22

Summary of Key Metrics

Updated values since 6/2015 report and continued progress demonstrated over the four evaluation periods with FCEV technology improvements especially in key

technical areas like fuel cell durability, range, and fuel economy.

23

Summary• Relevance

o Independent validation of FCEV on-road performance against DOE and industry targets

• Approacho Collaborate with industry partnerso Continue to develop core NFCTEC and analysis capability and toolso Leverage 7+ years of analysis and experience from the Learning Demonstration

• Technical Accomplishments and Progresso Analyzed data from six OEMso Performed detailed reviews of individual OEM data resultso Published results via 73 CDPs that cover topics such as deployment, fuel cell

performance, durability, fuel economy, range, driving, fueling, specifications, and reliability.

• Collaborationso Working closely with industry partners to validate methodology and with other

key stakeholders to ensure relevance and accuracy of results

• Future Worko New objectives and priorities with commercial FCEVs instead of development

FCEVso New data from commercially available FCEVso Analyze on-road FCEVs and publish updated results in Fall 2016

Technical Back-Up Slides

25

Accomplishment:Comparisonofvoltagedegrada0on

26

Approach – Voltage Degradation AnalysisAnalysis – EXAMPLE DATA

• Voltage and current data1

1

• Apply polarization fit

2

2

3

• Corresponding operation hour3

Voltages from polarization fit at set currents

44

5

5 Fit voltage and operation data

6

6 Degradation linear fit 7

7 Y-intercept beginning of life voltage

88 Record operation hour when fit crosses 10% nominal voltage drop

9

9 Investigate fit quality

Lg%

9((145$+8-4#2)Q%L2_A1/P%!"#$%'(1214D%

28

Accomplishment:ComparisonofOn-RoadFuelEconomy