Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration .../67531/metadc... · 1 Technical Report NREL/TP-560-46679 September 2009. Controlled Hydrogen Fleet Infrastructure Demonstration

1

Technical ReportNREL/TP-560-46679September 2009

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet InfrastructureDemonstration and Validation ProjectFall 2009

Composite Data ProductsFinal Version September 11, 2009

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

and

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

Fall 2009Composite Data Products

September 11, 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

Gen1 Gen2 Gen1 Gen2 Gen1 Gen20200400600800

1000120014001600180020002200240026002800

2006 Target

2009 Target

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

Tim

e (H

ours

)

DOE Learning Demonstration Fuel Cell Stack Durability:Based on Data Through 2009 Q2

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

Max ProjectionAvg Projection

Created: Sep-09-09 10:48 AM

(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.


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

50

100

150

200

250

300

Vehi

cle

Ran

ge (m

iles)

Vehicle Range1

2015 Target2009 Target Gen 1 Gen 2

Created: Aug-27-09 3:32 PM

(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


CDP#3: Fuel Cell System Power Density, Including Hydrogen Storage

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Pow

er D

ensi

ty (W

/L)

FC System (Including Hydrogen Storage) Power Density (W/L)

2010 and 2015 FreedomCAR Research Goal1

Gen 1 Gen 2

Created: Sep-08-09 10:32 AM (1) Fuel cell system includes fuel cell stack, BOP and H2 stroage, but excludes power electronics, battery storage, and electric drive.


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Spec

ific

Pow

er (W

/kg)

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

2010 and 2015 FreedomCAR Research Goal1

Gen 1 Gen 2

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.

CDP#4: Fuel Cell System Specific Power, Including Hydrogen Storage


12 hr Equilibrium 12 hr Equilibrium0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Time to Drive Away Time to Max FC Power

Tim

e [s

]

Fuel Cell Vehicle Start Time from Sub-Freezing Soak Condition1

Created: Sep-08-09 10:54 AM(1) Learning Demo soak temperature for freeze tests were between -9 and -20 oC(2) 2010 & 2015 DOE MYPP Cold Start Up Time Target: 30 seconds to 50% of rated power from -20 oC (soak duration not specified).

CDP#5: Fuel Cell Start Times from Sub-Freezing Soak Conditions


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

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Fuel

Eco

nom

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

Ope

ratin

g Ti

me

[%]

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


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

Net System Power [%]

Effic

ienc

y [%

]

Fuel Cell System1 Efficiency2

Eff. at 25% Pwr Eff. at 100% Pwr ------------------- -------------------Gen1 51 - 58% 30 - 54%Gen2 53 - 59% 42 - 53%

DOE Target at 25% PowerDOE Target at 100% PowerGen 1 Efficiency RangeGen 2 Efficiency Range


1 Gross stack power minus fuel cell system auxiliaries, per DRAFT SAE J2615. Excludes power electronics and electric drive.2 Ratio of DC output energy to the lower heating value of the input fuel (hydrogen). 3 Individual test data linearly interpolated at 5,10,15,25,50,75,and 100% of max net power. Values at high power linearly extrapolated due to steady state dynamometer cooling limitations.

CDP#8: FC System Efficiency


0

1

2

3

Num

ber o

f Rep

orts

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

ght P

erce

nt H

ydro

gen

(%)

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 pe

r Lite

r (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

Num

ber o

f cyc

les

Hydrogen Tank Cycle Life1

All OEMs



2007 DOE MYPP Target2 Gen 1 Gen 2


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 Target2015 MYPP Target

2012 MYPP Target

2017 MYPP Target

Prod

uctio

n Ef

ficie

ncy

(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

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

ts

Histogram of Fueling Rates350 vs 700 bar Fills - All Light Duty Through 2009Q2

5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar


Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 Count------------- ------------------ ------- --------350 bar 0.82 29% 17847700 bar 0.62 3% 3792

350 bar700 bar2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone


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

30Segmented Trips/Hour Histogram: DOE Fleet

Trips/Hour*

Freq

uenc

y [%

]

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


CDP#16: Fuel Cell Stack Trips Per Hour Histogram


0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

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

Trip

s/H

our*

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


0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

500

1000

1500


Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

ts

Histogram of Fueling RatesAll Light Duty Through 2009Q2



21854 EventsAverage = 0.78 kg/min

24% >1 kg/min

2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

Created: Aug-14-09 10:09 AM

CDP#18: Refueling Rates


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

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Time [min]

Trip

Fre

quen

cy [%

]

Time Between Trips with Ambient Temperature: DOE Fleet

<0oC0-10oC10-24oC24-40oC>40oC


CDP#19: Time Between Trips & Ambient Temperature


0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Non-Event

Near Miss

Incident

Number of Reports

Seve

rity

Total Infrastructure Safety Reports by Severityand Report Type Through 2009 Q2

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


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

CDP#20: Safety Reports – Infrastructure


0 2 4 6 8 10 12-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1.4 % trips below 0 oC

Max Op = 140.0 oF

Min Op = -5.8 oF

26.9 % trips above 28 oC

Trip Frequency [%]

Tem

pera

ture

[o C]

Average Ambient Trip Temperature: DOE Fleet


CDP#21: Range of Ambient TemperatureDuring Vehicle Operation


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Num

ber

of V

ehic

les

Total Vehicle Hours

Vehicle Hours: All OEMs, Gen 1 and Gen 2

In ServiceRetired

100,284Total Vehicle Hours =

Through 2009 Q2


CDP#22: Vehicle Operating Hours


05

1015202530354045

Num

ber

of V

ehic

les

Total Vehicle Miles

Vehicle Miles: All OEMs Combined, Gen 1 and 2

In ServiceRetired

Total Vehicle Miles Traveled = 2,318,038

Through 2009 Q2


CDP#23: Vehicles vs. Miles Traveled


2,318,038

-

250,000

500,000

750,000

1,000,000

1,250,000

1,500,000

1,750,000

2,000,000

2,250,000

2,500,000

Vehi

cle

Mile

s Tr

avel

ed

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


Through 2009 Q2

CDP#24: Cumulative Vehicle Miles Traveled


60

49

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Cum

ulat

ive

Vehi

cles

Dep

loye

d/Re

tired

1

Vehicle Deployment by On-Board Hydrogen Storage Type

700 bar on-road350 bar on-roadLiquid H2 on-road700 bar retired350 bar retiredLiquid 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 Aug-26-2009 4:21 PM

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

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Num

ber o

f Sta

tions

Mas

s of

Hyd

roge

n (1

000

kg)

Calendar Quarter

Cumulative Hydrogen Produced or Dispensed Through 2009 Q2

Cumulative HydrogenNumber of Stations

Created 2009-Aug-27 1:09 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 2008Q3-2009Q2

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4

CDP#27: Hydrogen Quality Index


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Particulates

µg/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

µmol/mol (ppm)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Total S*

nmol/mol (ppb)Created: Aug-31-09 4:39 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

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Tota

l S* (

nmol

/mol

)(ppb

)

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 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)


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 2008Q3-2009Q2*Total S calculated from SO2, COS, H2S, CS2, and Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH).





0.5

1

1.5

2

Tota

l HC

( µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

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








5

10

15

20

25

Tota

l Hal

ogen

ates

(µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

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








2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Part

icul

ate

Con

cent

ratio

n ( µ

g/L)

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








5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

O2( µ

mol

/mol

)(ppm

)

O2(µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method








500

1000

1500

2000

2500

N2 ( µ

mol

/mol

)(ppm

)

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








500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

N2+H

e+A

r (µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

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








5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Part

icul

ate

Size

(µm

)

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








50

100

150

200

250

300

He

( µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

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








5

10

15

H2O

( µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

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








0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Form

ic a

cid

( µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

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








0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Form

alde

hyde

(µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

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








0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

CO

( µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

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








1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CO

2 ( µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

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







500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Cal

culta

ted

Tota

l Con

stitu

ents

(µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

Calcultated Total Constituents (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 GuidelineCalculated Data







500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Ar+

N2 ( µ

mol

/mol

)(ppm

)

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








1

2

3

4

5

6

NH

3 ( µ

mol

/mol

)(ppm

)

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




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 (µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

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








1

2

3

4

5

6

NH

3 ( µ

mol

/mol

)(ppm

)

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







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


Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

ts

Histogram of Fueling RatesComm vs Non-Comm Fills - All Light Duty Through 2009Q2



Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 ------------- ------------------ -------Comm 0.92 36%Non-Comm 0.66 13%

CommNon-Comm2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone


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


0 50 100 150 200 250

AdjustmentCheck Only

OtherRepair

Replacement

Maintenance: Average Labor Hours Per Station Since InceptionThrough 2009 Q2

ScheduledUn-Scheduled

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

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 EventsHours

Comparison of Scheduled/Un-Scheduled Maintenance


CDP#30: Infrastructure Maintenance


0

5

10

15

20

25

Num

ber o

f Sta

tions

Reporting Period

Online Stations

Existing Stations

Retired Stations

Created Aug-27-09 1:03pm

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

# of

Sta

tions

Production Technology

Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods

Existing Stations

Retired Stations

Created Aug-27-09 1:03pm

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

Perc

enta

ge o

f Ref

uelin

gs

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

25

50

75

100

Cum

ulat

ive

Perc

enta

ge


Total refuelings2 = 22470

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

OEM

s Win

dow

-Stic

ker

2 W

indo

w-S

ticke

r 2

On-

Roa

d 3

On-

Roa

d 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 08Q4 09Q1 09Q20

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Reporting Period

Num

ber o

f Sta

tions

Infrastructure Safety Trend and Number of Stations Through 2009 Q2

Number of StationsAvg Refuelings Between Safety Reports


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Avg

# o

f Ref

uelin

gs B

etw

een

Safe

ty R

epor

ts

7 1132 34

88 102 115

4768

124101

57 5473

51

146

530

CDP#35: Average Refuelings Between Infrastructure Safety Reports


05Q2 05Q3 05Q4 06Q1 06Q2 06Q3 06Q4 07Q1 07Q2 07Q3 07Q4 08Q1 08Q2 08Q3 08Q4 09Q1 09Q20

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Reporting Period

Num

ber o

f Rep

orts

Type of Infrastructure Safety Reports by Quarter Through 2009 Q2

IncidentNear MissNon-EventNumber of StationsAvg # Reports/Station



CDP#36: Type of Infrastructure Safety Report By Quarter


0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Non-Event

Near Miss

Incident

Number of Reports

Seve

rity

Primary Factors of Infrastructure Safety ReportsThrough 2009 Q2

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

3000

Time (min)

Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

ts

Histogram of Fueling TimesAll Light Duty Through 2009Q2

Average = 3.26 min86% <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

700

800

900

Amount Fueled (kg)

Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

tsHistogram of Fueling AmountsAll Light Duty Through 2009Q2

Average = 2.14 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) = 41%

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

9%

3

12

9

6

Total Fill3 Events = 20939% of fills b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 90.2%

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 Fill

s in

a D

ay

DayCreated: Aug-26-09 9:40 AM


Driving Start Time - Day: DOE Fleet

9%

3

12

9

6

Total Driving3 Events = 273900% of driving trips b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 85.6%

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 Driv

ing

Trip

s in

a D

ay

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

10

20

30

40

50

Time at Fuel Cell Stack Power Levels: DOE Fleet

Ope

ratin

g Ti

me

[%]

0-5%

5-10%

10-15

%

15-20

%

20-25

%

25-30

%

30-35

%

35-40

%

40-45

%

45-50

%

50-55

%

55-60

%

60-65

%

65-70

%

70-75

%

75-80

%

80-85

%

85-90

%

90-95

%

95-10

0%>10

0%

% 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

Trip

Fre

quen

cy [%

]

Trip Length [miles]

Trip Length: DOE Fleet

DOE FleetNHTS

Created: Sep-04-09 12:13 PM2001 NHTS Data Includes Car, Truck, Van, & SUV day tripsASCII.csv Source: http://nhts.ornl.gov/download.shtml#2001

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.

Created: Feb-21-08 9:32 AM

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.

Created: Feb-21-08 9:32 AM

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

Created: Mar-09-09 9:06 AM


CDP#50: Refueling by Time of Night

Refueling by Time of Night: DOE Fleet

3%

3

12

9

6

Total Fill3 Events = 20939% of fills b/t 6 PM & 6 AM: 9.8%

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 = 273900% of driving trips b/t 6 PM & 6 AM: 14.4%

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

500


Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

tsHistogram of Fueling Rates

All Light Duty by Year Through 2009Q2



Year Avg (kg/min) %>1 ------- ----------------- -------2005 0.66 16%2006 0.74 21%2007 0.81 26%2008 0.77 23%2009 0.79 26%

200520062007200820092006 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 E

nerg

y [%

]

0-5%

5-10%

10-15

%

15-20

%

20-25

%

25-30

%

30-35

%

35-40

%

40-45

%

45-50

%

50-55

%

55-60

%

60-65

%

65-70

%

70-75

%

75-80

%

80-85

%

85-90

%

90-95

%

95-10

0%>10

0%

% Fuel Cell Power (Gross) of Max

Cum

ulat

ive

%

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

Trip

Fre

quen

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

rips

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]

Trip

Fre

quen

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

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Trip

Fre

quen

cy [%

]

Daily Distance [miles]

Daily Distance: DOE Fleet

DOE FleetNHTS

Created: Sep-04-09 12:13 PM

Cumulative Frequency@ 20 miles

DOE Fleet: 48.4%NHTS: 27.2%

Cumulative Frequency@ 40 miles

DOE Fleet: 68.1%NHTS: 52.9%

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

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

Pow

er D

ensi

ty (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

Spec

ific

Pow

er (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.


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Production Capacity Utilization1 [%]

Prod

uctio

n C

onve

rsio

n Ef

ficie

ncy

2 [%]

Monthly Production Conversion Efficiency vs Utilization

Electrolysis DataElectrolysis Fit3

Electrolysis Fit ConfidenceNatural Gas DataNatural Gas Fit3Natural 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 = 0.86) & low correlation with natural gas data (R2 = 0.034)

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


On-Site Compression Energy 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Com

pres

sion

Ene

rgy

(MJ/

kg)

On-Site Compression Efficiency0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010 MYPP Compression Target

2015 MYPP Compression Target

Com

pres

sion

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, 11.0% 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

WTW

GH

G E

mis

sion

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 1245 g/mile.

CDP#62: Learning Demonstration Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions


14%

14%

19%

21%

By Number of EventsTotal Number of Events = 2291

22%12%

17%

20%

By Labor HoursTotal Hours = 11119

system control & safetycompressorreformerelectrolyzerdispenserothervalves & pipingelectricalstorage


Hydrogen Fueling Station Maintenance

CDP#63: Hydrogen Fueling Station Maintenance by System


3%5%

33%58%

Fuel Cell Vehicle Events (11075)

19%

7%

49%

24%

Fuel Cell Vehicle Labor (11849 hours)

Vehicle (non-powertrain)Fuel Cell SystemPowertrainBattery

4%10%

11%

13%

24%

38%

Fuel Cell System Events (3704)< 1%

28%

27% 11%

12%

21%

Fuel Cell System Labor (5856 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


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

1015

Cyc

le

UD

DS

Cyc

le

US0

6 C

ycle

HW

FET

Cyc

le

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100

Percent Idle in Trip

% Idle

Trip

Fre

quen

cy [%

]


CDP#65: Percent Idle in Trip with Comparison to Standard Drive Cycles


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 700

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Speed [mph]

Ope

ratio

n Ti

me

[%]

Fuel Cell Vehicle Speed

DOE Fleet SpeedDOE Fleet Idle1015 Cycle (14.1 mph avg)UDDS Cycle (19.6 mph avg)HWFET Cycle (48.0 mph avg)US06 Cycle (48.2 mph avg)


CDP#66: FCV Speed with Comparison to Standard Drive Cycles


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Stac

k C

ount

Fuel Cell Stack Operation Hours: Gen1

Gen1

0-200 40

060

080

010

0012

0014

0016

0018

0020

00>2

000

Gen1 Hours

32% of stacks in operation

In Op1

Retired2

Other3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Stac

k C

ount

Fuel Cell Stack Operation Hours: Gen2

Gen2

0-200 40

060

080

010

0012

0014

0016

0018

0020

00>2

000

Gen2 Hours

65% of stacks in operation

In Op1

Retired2

Other3


1) Stack currently accumulating hours2) Stack removed for low performance3) Stack not currently accumulating hours, but not removed because of low performance

CDP#67: Fuel Cell Stack Operation Hours


0-5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 >400

5

10

15

20

25

30

Stac

k C

ount

% FC Power Drop

FC Power Drop During Operation Period: Gen1

Gen1

68% of In Op stackshave > 10% power drop

In Op1

Retired2

Other3

0-5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 >400

5

10

15

20

25

30

Stac

k C

ount

% FC Power Drop

FC Power Drop During Operation Period: Gen2

Gen2

95% of In Op stackshave > 10% power drop

In Op1

Retired2

Other3


1) Stack currently accumulating hours2) Stack removed for low performance3) Stack not currently accumulating hours, but not removed because of low performance

CDP#68: Power Drop During Fuel Cell Stack Operation Period


30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10001100120013001400150016001700180019002000Stack Op Hour Segments(2)

% P

ower

(1)

Max Fuel Cell Power Loss vs Op Hours: Gen1

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 4 points in segment.

Gen1 Data Range25th & 75th PercentilesGroup MedianOutlier


CDP#69: Max Fuel Cell Power Degradation –Gen 1


30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10001100120013001400150016001700180019002000Stack Op Hour Segments(2)

% P

ower

(1)

Max Fuel Cell Power Loss vs Op Hours: Gen2

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 4 points in segment.

Gen2 Data Range25th & 75th PercentilesGroup MedianOutlier


CDP#70: Max Fuel Cell Power Degradation –Gen 2


0-200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 >20000

5

10

15

20

25

30

27% Gen1 > 2000 projected hrs9% Gen2 > 2000 projected hrs

Projected Hours

% S

tack

s

Durability: Projected Hours to Low Fuel Cell Power Limit

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


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 specifichigh current.4. Stacks with less than 200 operation hours are in separate groups because the projection is based on operation data and with operationhours greater than 200 the degradation rate tends to flatten out.

CDP#71: Projected Hours to OEM Low Power Operation Limit


-20 0 20 40 60-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ambient Air Temperature [deg C]

Tank

Tem

pera

ture

[deg

C]

Tank vs. Ambient Air Temps Prior to Refueling

Freq

uenc

y

50

100

150

200

250

-40 -20 0 20 400

1000

2000

Delta Temperature [deg C]

Cou

nt

Delta Temperature: Tank minus Ambient

Delta Temp HistogramNormal Distribution Fit

0

0.05

0.1

Den

sity

Mean= -3.896Std Dev= 5.775


-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

CDP#72: Difference Between Tank and Ambient Temperature Prior to Refueling


10 15 20 25 300

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000Fuel Cell Stack Projected Hours as a Function of Voltage Drop

% Voltage Drop

Proj

ecte

d H

ours

2,3

Gen 1 Average ProjectionsGen 1 Average Projection to 10% Voltage Degradation1

Gen 2 Average ProjectionsGen 2 Average Projection to 10% Voltage Degradation1


(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.

CDP#73: Fuel Cell Stack Projected Hours as a Function of Voltage Drop

F1147-E(10/2008)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

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)

September 2009 2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project: Fall 2009; Composite Data Products, Final Version September 11, 2009

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-560-46679

5e. TASK NUMBER FC087810

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. 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-560-46679

9. 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) Graphs of composite data products produced by DOE's Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation project through September 2009.

15. SUBJECT TERMS hydrogen; hydrogen demonstration; hydrogen validation

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

UL

18. NUMBER OF PAGES

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT

Unclassified b. ABSTRACT Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18

Documents

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration .../67531/metadc... · 1 Technical Report NREL/TP-560-46679 September 2009. Controlled Hydrogen Fleet Infrastructure Demonstration