Impact of Fuel Cell System Peak Efficiency on Fuel Consumption

and Cost 2014 DOE Hydrogen Program and Vehicle Technologies

Annual Merit Review June 2014

Aymeric Rousseau Argonne National Laboratory

Sponsored by Fred Joseck

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

Project ID # AN044

Project Overview

Timeline Start: September 2014. End: September 2015. Status: 80% complete.

Budget FY13 DOE Funding: $50K FY14 DOE Funding: $100K Total Project Value: $150K

Barriers Provide guidance on component

targets and future R&D directions.

Partners Argonne Fuel Cell System Experts. Inputs from industry and academia.

2

Relevance – What is the Fuel Displacement and Cost of Advanced Fuel Cell Systems?

Evaluate benefits of aggressive fuel cell system peak efficiency compared to the current target of 60% from an energy consumption and cost point of view.

Provide guidance on future research priorities by evaluating the potential of technologies to accelerate petroleum displacement.

3

Use of current technology to determine baseline technology

R&D Improvements

Approach

4

Analysis Framework

USDrive Technical Targets

Models & Tools Autonomie GCTool

Studies & Analysis

Fuel cell system design impact on vehicle benefits for different classes on standard driving cycles

Outputs & Deliverables

Report Improved understanding of fuel cell system design impact on fuel efficiency and cost compared to conventional vehicle.

National Labs ANL

Argonne DTI

FCT Office, & External Reviews

Impact of Fuel Cell System Peak Efficiency on Fuel Consumption and Cost

Approach

Gather component and vehicle assumptions from experts Size the vehicles to meet similar vehicle technical specifications (I.e.

performance, range…) Model several vehicle classes, including compact car, midsize car, small

SUV, large SUV, pickup truck Evaluate the impact of aggressive fuel cell system performance on

component sizing and weight Perform the simulations on the US standard driving cycles (i.e. UDDS and

HWFET). Evaluate the impact of aggressive fuel cell system performance on vehicle

energy consumption Compare fuel cell hybrid vehicle energy consumption and cost to their

respective conventional vehicles

5

Parameter Units 2013 2030 Low Med High Low Med High

Specific Power FC system W/kg 400 400 400 580 660 740 Power Density W/L 410 410 410 600 730 980

Peak Fuel Cell System Efficiency at 25% Rated Power (Aggressive Projection)

% 60 60 61 65 67 68

Peak Fuel Cell System Efficiency at 25% Rated Power (Constant Efficiency)

% 60 60 60 60 60 60

Platinum Price $/Troy Oz $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 $1,800 $1,400 $1,100

Fuel.Cell.Cost=(x*1246.5*(Stack.UnitsPerYr)^-0.2583+(Pt.Price*y))*Fuel.Cell.kW*(Fuel.Cell.kW/Base.80kW)^z (x,y,z): Coefficients Stack.UnitsPerYr = 500,000 Pt.Price: Platinium Price Fuel.Cell.kW: Fuel Cell Power

6

Technical Accomplishments Fuel Cell System Assumptions

Costs are assumed for high production volumes

Parameter Units 2013 2030

Low Med High Low Med High

System Gravimetric Capacity

Useable kWh/kg 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.5 1.67 1.96 Useable kg H2/kg

of Tank system 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.045 0.050 0.059

System Volumetric Capacity

Useable kWh/L 0.947 0.947 0.947 1.27 1.5 1.6 Useable kg H2/L 0.028 0.028 0.028 0.038 0.045 0.048

Cost $/Useable kg H2 $769 $769 $769 $418 $334 $267 Percentage H2 used in Tank % 95% 95% 95% 97% 97% 97%

Range on combined, adjusted Mpgge miles

320 320 320 320 320 320

H2.Storage.Cost=Cost.Coefficient*Fuel.Mass H2.Storage.Mass=Fuel.Mass/Gravimetric.Capacity

7

Technical Accomplishments Hydrogen Storage Assumptions

Technical Accomplishments Fuel cell vehicles weight similar to conv. vehicles by 2030

8

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high

2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030

Compact Midsize Small SUV Midsize SUV Pickup

PERC

ENTA

GE

COM

PARI

SON

(%)

VEHI

CLE

CURB

WEI

GHT

(KG

)

Vehicle Curb Weight

FC HEV (Increased Eff) FC HEV (60% cst peak eff) Conventional SI Comparison (60% Eff. vs. Increased Eff.)

Technical Accomplishments Aggressive fuel cell system peak efficiency lead to significant reduction in onboard H2 weight by 2030 (up to 12%)

9

- Current DOE target exceeds range requirements for most vehicles by 2030

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high

2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030

Compact Midsize Small SUV Midsize SUV Pickup

PERC

ENTA

GE

COM

PARI

SON

(%)

USA

BLE

H2

FUEL

MAS

S (K

G)

Usable H2 Fuel Mass Comparison - Constant Eff vs. Increased Eff

FC HEV (Increased Eff) FC HEV (60% cst peak eff) Comparison

5.6

Kg (u

sabl

e) D

OE

Targ

et

Technical Accomplishments Aggressive fuel cell system peak efficiency lead to significant fuel savings on the EPA combined driving procedure

10

-16.0%

-14.0%

-12.0%

-10.0%

-8.0%

-6.0%

-4.0%

-2.0%

0.0%

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high

2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030

Compact Midsize Small SUV Midsize SUV Pickup

PERC

ENTA

GE

COM

PARI

SON

(%)

UN

ADJU

STED

FU

EL E

CON

OM

Y (M

PG)

Fuel Economy Comparison - Constant Eff vs. Increased Eff

FC HEV (Increased Eff) FC HEV (60% cst peak eff) Comparison

Technical Accomplishments By 2030, Fuel Cell HEVs could be up to 5 times more fuel efficient than today’s conventional baseline

11

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high

2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030

Compact Midsize Small SUV Midsize SUV Pickup

RATI

O O

F FU

EL C

ELL

HEV

VS. C

ON

V SI

REF

Ratio - Fuel Cell HEV vs. Conventional SI Baseline

FC HEV (Increased Eff) FC HEV (60% cst peak eff)

Technical Accomplishments By 2030, fuel cell HEVs fuel economy tend to get closer to the respective conventional gasoline vehicle of the same year (ratio closer to 1.5).

12

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high

2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030

Compact Midsize Small SUV Midsize SUV Pickup

RATI

O O

F FU

ELCE

LL H

EV V

S. C

ON

V. S

I SAM

E YE

AR

Ratio - Fuel Cell HEV vs. Conventional SI of the Same Year

FC HEV (Increased Eff) FC HEV (60% cst peak eff)

Technical Accomplishments Gasoline engines get more competitive as the engine efficiency significantly increases by 2030

13

- Aggressive Fuel Cell Peak efficiency targets could provide up to 14% of Fuel Cell average efficiency increase on the UDDS cycle by 2030

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high

2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030

Compact Midsize Small SUV Midsize SUV Pickup

COM

PARI

SON

UDD

S FU

EL C

ELL

AND

ICE

AVER

AGE

EFFI

CIEN

CY (%

)

Fuel Cell and ICE Average Efficiency on UDDS Cycle

FC HEV (Increased Eff) FC HEV (60% cst peak eff) Conventional SI Comparison (60% Eff. vs. Increased Eff.)

Technical Accomplishments Aggressive Fuel Cell System Peak efficiency could provide small cost benefit by 2030

14

- Cost benefits increase with heavier vehicles

0.0%

0.1%

0.2%

0.3%

0.4%

0.5%

0.6%

0.7%

0.8%

0.9%

1.0%

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high low avg high

2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030 2013 2030

Compact Midsize Small SUV Midsize SUV Pickup

PERC

ENTA

GE

COM

PARI

SON

(%)

VEHI

CLE

MSR

P CO

ST ($

)

Vehicle MSRP Cost Cost Comparison - Constant Eff vs. Increased EffFC HEV (Increased Eff) FC HEV (60% cst peak eff) Comparison

Collaboration and Coordination with Other Institutions

15

Market Acceptance of Advanced Automotive Technologies

DOE vehicle life cycle cost analysis

GREET

Fuel Consumption & Cost

Component and Vehicle Assumptions

Fuel Cell System Performance

Ongoing and Future Work

16

Develop specific fuel cell systems using high fidelity GCTool model for different mass activity to understand the impact of higher efficiency on component design and cost.

Update the vehicle simulation results using high fidelity plant model and detailed cost analysis

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

x 104

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Fuel Cell Power (W)

Fuel

Cel

l Effi

cien

cy (%

)

Fuel Cell operating points on UDDS and HWFET

Status2X Mass Activity5X Mass Activity10X Mass ActivityGPRA 2013 map

GCTool Performance Maps

Understand the impact of the fuel cell system and hydrogen storage performance and cost requirements compared to other powertrain technologies to ensure successful commercialization path.

Provide guidance for long term requirements for peak power and onboard hydrogen weight.

Summary

17

Full vehicle simulations were performed to assess the vehicle energy consumption and cost of current and future fuel cell vehicles compared to conventional powertrains as well as aggressive fuel cell system peak efficiencies.

Aggressive fuel cell system peak efficiency targets could increase fuel economy from 10 to 15% while slightly decreasing cost.

The cost decrease is mostly due to the decrease of hydrogen tank cost (8 to 13%)

Compared to conventional vehicles, fuel cell vehicles achieve similar weight and a fuel economy up to 4x higher by 2030

Current DOE targets for both fuel cell peak power (80 kW) and onboard hydrogen weight (5.6 kg) will exceed the requirements for most vehicle classes by 2030.