Fuel Cell Systems for Transportation: Recent Developments in U.S.A.

R. K. Ahluwalia, X. Wang, T. Q. Hua and D. Myers

IEA Annex 26/35 Meeting

CEA Liten

Grenoble, France

December 3, 2014

2

Fuel Cell Systems for Transportation: Recent Developments in U.S.A.

Subtask A: Advanced Fuel Cell Systems for Transportation Fuel cell system and hydrogen storage technology Current issues and areas of research

Subtask B: Fuel Infrastructure Distributed and central hydrogen production technologies WTW studies

Subtask C: Technology Validation Light duty vehicles and buses Hydrogen production

Subtask D: Economics Automotive fuel cell systems and on-board hydrogen storage Hydrogen production and delivery infrastructure

3

Fuel Cells Systems Analysis Validate and document models for pressurized (2.5-3.0 atm at rated power) and low-pressure (1.5 atm at rated power) configurations Stack: Collaboration with 3M, Johnson-Matthey/UTRC and Ballard in obtaining data to develop validated models for pressures up to 3 atm Ternary PtCoMn/NSTF catalyst system De-alloyed PtNi/NSTF catalyst system Dispersed Pt/C and de-alloyed PtNi/C catalyst systems Air Management: Collaborating with Eaton to develop and model Roots compressors and expanders and integrated air management system

Water Management: Collaboration with Gore, dPoint and Ford (cross-flow humidifiers) Fuel Management: Collaboration with 3M and Ford (impurity buildup, ejectors) System Analysis: Collaboration with SA to optimize system performance and cost subject to Q/∆T constraint

Interim Argonne 2014 FCS ∆T: Stack coolant exit T – Ambient T

4

Rationally Designed Catalyst Layers for PEMFC Performance Optimization Project Objective To realize the ORR mass activity benefits of advanced

Pt-based cathode electrocatalysts in MEAs and stacks operating at high current densities and on air and at low PGM loading (≤0.1 mgPt/cm² on cathode)

Catalyst Variants and Metrics High temperature annealing is needed to drive

complete alloying of Pt and Ni in PtNi3 precursor, which increases particle size Annealing is followed by chemical dealloying

which dissolves Ni, not Pt Goal is to avoid nano-porosity by using mild de-

alloying conditions and by limiting particle size

Example of lack of performance benefit of a Pt alloy over Pt when operating at > 1 A/cm² on air

(cathode loading 0.2 mg Pt/cm², 80°C, 50/50 kPa gauge)

CatalystCode

Catalyst Type/

Annealing Conditions

Wt% Pt

Wt%Ni

Metal area by ex situ CO ads.

(m2/g-Pt)

Particle Size by TEM (nm)

Catalyst A (13/21)

Pt/CNot annealed

28.3 - 92 2.0±0.1

Catalyst B (13/176)

Pt/CHigh T

29.7 - 37 5.8±0.3

Catalyst C (12/409)

PtNi (45:55)High T

22.4 8.24 52 5.8±0.2

Catalyst D (13/228)

PtNi (50:50)High T

31.1 7.01 38 5.6±2.2

Catalyst E (13/239)

PtNi (59:41)High T

30.6 6.50 47 6.5±3.0

Catalyst F(13/300)

PtNi (57:43)High T

29.1 6.68 50 5.1±1.0

Near-Term Objectives Determine catalyst and cathode layer properties

responsible for decline in advanced Pt-based cathode air performance at >1 A/cm² Develop a cathode catalyst layer model for

advanced Pt-based catalyst Develop a method to impart proton conductivity

to high surface area carbon supports

Structure and distribution of Pt and Ni in d-PtNi

JM 13/300 d-PtNi Catalyst Powder

d-PtNi particles are primarily solid solutions with a truncated octahedron shape A minority of particles are ordered alloys All particles have a Pt-rich outer shell Particles are well-dispersed on carbon support

Pt Ni

TEM 600 nm

900 nm

10 nm

2 nm

7

d-PtNi (13/300) in CCM after polarization curves and diagnostics

Argonne National Laboratory 6

Pt+Ni EDS

Pt EDS Ni EDS

TEM Pt+Ni EDS

Pt EDS Ni EDS

TEM

Particles retaining Pt shell, PtNi core structure are observed as well as Ni-depleted particles in some regions Working to quantify Pt to Ni ratio in individual particles at various stages of fabrication and testing

Ni is lost from d-PtNi cathode during CCM fabrication and testing

Argonne National Laboratory 7

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

13/300 Powder 13/300 decalhot-pressed

13/300 GDE hot-pressed, never

exposed towater

13/300 GDE hot-pressed and

soaked in water

13/300 Cathodefrom half CCM

after hot-pressing

13/300 cathodefrom CCM after

UTRC testingand diagnostics

Ni t

o Pt

Mol

ar R

atio

Loss of 4% of initial Ni from

GDE

Loss of 24% of initial Ni from CCL

Loss of 54% of initial Ni from CCL

X-ray fluorescence Rigaku NEX-CG

High solid aqueous ink with I/C = 0.8 used to make GDE and CCLs

GM FC087 2014 AMR presentation (slide 9): approx. 63% of Ni lost after voltage cycling

8

H2/Air Cell Performance: Breakdown of Overpotentials

Loss in performance of d-PtNi/C (relative to baseline Pt/C) at high current densities is due to higher mass transfer overpotentials.

Mass transfer overpotentials are related to SEF and, therefore, are higher if Pt loading is reduced or particle size is increased.

Mass transfer overpotentials do not correlate with mass activity. The drop off in performance at high current densities on air for d-PtNi can be

attributed to both low SEF and additional limitations to oxygen transport in solid/liquid phase of cell not observed with just Pt. Low RH intensifies this.

0

100

200

300

400

500

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Ove

rpot

entia

l, m

V

Current Density, A.cm-2

T: 80°CP: 1.5 atmΦ: 100%X(O2): 21%

Blue Symbols: d-PtNi/CRed Symbols: Annealed Pt/CGreen Symbols: Pt/C

ηc

IR

ηm-100

0

100

200

300

400

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

η m, m

V

Current Density, A.cm-2

T: 80°CP: 1.5 atmΦ: 100%X(O2): 21% Annealed Pt/C

SEF: 26.6 m-Pt2.m-2

d-PtNi/CSEF: 38.2 m-Pt2.m-2

Pt/CSEF: 96.3 m-Pt2.m-2

FY’14 Milestones, Status, and Next Steps Date Milestone Status

12/31/13 Improve the high current density air performance of the advanced alloy catalyst by 15% (increase iR-free cell voltage at 1 A/cm² by 20 mV to 585 mV)

Exceeded. An iR-free voltage of 740 mV at 1 A/cm² on air was achieved in Dec., 2013.

3/31/14 Improve performance by 30% (increase iR-free cell voltage at 1 A/cm² by 40 mV to 606 mV)

Exceeded.

6/30/14 Improve performance by 40% (increase iR-free cell voltage at 1 A/cm² by 54 mV to 619 mV)

Exceeded.

9/30/14 Go/No-Go

Improve performance by 50% (increase iR-free cell voltage at 1 A/cm² by 67 mV to 632 mV)

Exceeded.

Argonne National Laboratory 9

Improvements in cell performance were the result of cell compression optimization and improved catalyst formulation Fabricate and test three MEAs with dealloyed PtNi cathode catalyst supported on a

functionalized proton-conducting carbon support Improve high current density air performance of an MEA containing dealloyed PtNi cathode

catalyst by ≥115 mA/cm² at 0.675 V, a 10% increase over the current status, in order to achieve ≥850 mW/cm² at rated power (Current status 776 mW/cm² @ 0.675 V and 925 mW/cm² at 0.55 V, 1.5 atm, 80°C, 100%RH)

Fuel Cell Air System

Expander Motor Compressor

10

Eaton’s Roots Air Management System with Integrated Expender Argonne is collaborating with Eaton-led DOE Contract DE-EE0005665 to model and analyze Roots air management system and optimize it for use in the Ballard fuel cell module Latest Configuration 260 Twin Vortex Series compressor 210 expander with molded plastic housing 20 kW motor, 30 kW motor controller

5-shafts, 10 bearings Coupling between compressor and motor Gear reduction between motor and expander Motor and compressor water cooled

Sources of Images D Stretch, “Roots Air Management System with Integrated Expander,” Eaton Corporation, DOE 2013 DOE Annual Merit Review Eaton Corporation, “Supercharger and Rotor and Shaft Arrangement Therefor,” US Patent 4,828,467, May 9, 1989. B James, J Moton, W. Collela “Fuel Cell Transportation Cost Analysis,” 2014 DOE Annual Merit Review, FC018.

11

Roots based Integrated CEM: Performance Model

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 50 100 150

Pres

sure

Rat

io

Mass Flow Rate, g∙s-1

0.3

0.55

0.64

4 krpm 8 12 16 20 24 24

R3 Compressor

0.66

0.40.5

0.5

0.60.62

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 50 100 150

Pres

sure

Rat

io

Mass Flow Rate, g∙s-1

1 2 6 10 14 18 krpm

0.4

V2 Expander

0.50.55

0.6

0.62

0.64

0.65

0.66

0.3

0

2

4

6

8

10

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

Torq

ue, N

·m

Motor Speed, rpm

96

9492

90

88

85

80

75

65554535

Optimum Conditions Compressor shaft speed: 22,000 rpm –

pushing the expander toward maximum efficiency for 2.5 atm discharge pressure Gear ratio: 2.2, 10,000 expander rpm Compressor swept volume: 0.765X Expander swept volume: 0.85X

Expander Isentropic Efficiency Motor/Motor-Controller Efficiency

12

Projected Performance of Roots Air Management System

*Projected performance based on current hardware. Eaton anticipates additional improvements from advances in design.

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 20 40 60 80 100

Com

pres

sor D

isch

arge

Pre

ssur

e, a

tm

Mass Flow Rate, %

Target

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Effic

ienc

y, %

Mass Flow Rate, %

Isentropic Compressor

Isentropic Expander

Motor and Motor/Controller

Characteristic Units 2011 Status 2017 Target Roots - SCE

Input power at full flow (with / without expander) kWe 11.0 / 17.3 8 / 14 11.6 / 16.4b

Combined motor/motor-controller efficiency at full flow % 80 90 90.9

Compressor / expander adiabatic efficiency at full flow % 71 / 73 75 / 80 64.5/79.6

Compressor / expander isentropic efficiency at full flow % 67.5 / 80 59.7/61.2

Input power at 25% flow (with / without expander) kWe 2.3 / 3.3 1.0 / 2.0 1.8 / 2.4

Combined motor/motor-controller efficiency at 25% flow % 57 80 70.7

Compressor / expander adiabatic efficiency at 25% flow % 62 / 64 65 / 70 61.8/88.2

Compressor / expander isentropic efficiency at 25% flow % 58.5 / 70 53.3/53.5

Turndown ratio (max/min flow rate) 20 20 20

Input power at idle (with / without expander) We 600 / 765 200 / 200 280a / 510Combined motor/motor-controller efficiency at idle % 35 70 50.6

Compressor / expander adiabatic efficiency at idle % 61 / 59 60 / 60 50.5/80.9

Compressor / expander isentropic efficiency at idle % 61 / 59 54 / 60 33.6/35.1a Compressor discharge pressure less than 1.2 atm at idleb CEM power projections for system without expander based on R3 compressor data

Adiabatic efficiency based on inlet and outlet temperatures. Isentropic efficiency based on torque (power).

13

Cross-flow dPoint Humidifier with Gore 311.05 Membrane*

Gore’s High Vapor Transport Membrane*

The cross-flow module and M311.05 membrane were developed by Gore and dPoint under DOE funded project DEEE0000465. William B. Johnson, “Materials and Modules for Low-Cost, High Performance Fuel Cell Humidifiers,” FC067, DOE 2012 Annual Merit Review

dPoint’s Planar Cross-Flow Humidifier with M311.05 Membrane*

14

Water Transport Resistances

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Wat

er F

lux,

g/m

2 .s

Experiment

Model

Static: Room Temperature

0

1

2

3

4

5

Wat

er F

lux,

g/m

2 .s

M311.01 M311.05 18 μm Gore

Experiment

Model

Dynamic: 80oC

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Mas

s Tr

ansf

er R

esis

tanc

e, s

/m

Ext Int ePTFE 1 μm 5 μm 18 μm

Static: Room TemperatureDynamic: 80 C

ExtarnalBoundaryLayer Interfacial Ionomer Diffusion

ePTFE

Permeance: Dynamic

Sample RH Probes RH Probes

Wet Gas

Dry Gas

H2O at 23 ºC

Saturated salt solution

ePTFE

Sample

Permeance: Static

15

Humidifier Model Validation

Data from dPoint cross-flow humidifier with Gore 311.05 membrane tested at Ford-Dearborn, 2 m2 active membrane area

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Wat

er F

lux,

g·m

-2s-

1

Relative Humidity at Wet Inlet

Air Flow Rate: 72 g·s-1

Solid Symbols: Data

Open Symbols: Model

Solid Lines: Model, 53oC Wet T

1.9 atm

1.4 atm

1.7 atm

Series Flow Rate P Dry Inlet T Wet Inlet T RH Commentsg.s-1 bar oC oC %

A 27 1.25, 1.6, 2.2 63 - 64 59 - 64 62 - 89 Direct water injection for RH controlB 45 1.35, 1.5, 1.9 65 - 66 56 - 65 43 - 81 Instrument limits maximum RH C 55 1.5, 1.7, 2.0 66 - 68 52 - 63 49 - 87D 72 1.4, 1.7, 1.9 65 - 68 47 - 59 44 - 86M 7 - 76 1.2 - 2.3 30 - 74 33 - 70 59 - 95 P, T and Q varied simultaneously

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Wat

er T

rans

fer E

ffect

iven

ess

Relative Humidity at Wet Inlet

Air Flow Rate: 72 g·s-1

Solid Symbols: Data

Open Symbols: Model

Solid Lines: Model, 53oC Wet T 1.9 atm

1.4 atm

1.7 atm

16

Assessment of Performance

The cross-flow humidifier with M311.05 membrane can meet the DOE target of 4.2 g.m-2.s-1 at stipulated conditions (including 11oC approach dew point temperature) if the inlet dry air is cooled below 65oC. Additional targets for cost, weight, volume, maximum operating T and

pressure differential, pressure drop, air leakage and durability Trade-off between the sizes of air pre-cooler and humidifier, and heat loads

on low-temperature and high-temperature radiators.

2

3

4

5

6

25 35 45 55 65 75 85

Wat

er F

lux,

g/m

2 .s

Dry Air Inlet Temperature, oC

Target

M311.05

Q P T RHslpm bar oC %

Dry Air In 3000 1.83 80 0Wet Air In 1600 1.60 80 85

17

FCS Heat Rejection

DOE FCS cost targets revised and updated, reflecting need to compete with incumbent technology on lifecycle cost basis Automotive FCS targets: $40/kW by 2020 and $30/kW ultimate Durability and cost are the primary challenges to fuel cell commercialization

and must be met concurrently FCS must meet heat rejection (Q/∆T < 1.45), required due to the constraint on

the radiator size inherent in automotive applications Pt price adjusted from $1100/tr. oz. to $1500/tr. oz.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Energy efficiency @ ¼ rated power (%) 60%

Stack power density (W/L)

2500 W/L

Stack specific power (W/kg) 2000 W/kg

40 $/kW System cost ($/kW)

Start from -20 °C (s)

30 s

Durability (h) 5000 h

1.0

4 3rd April 2014, Fuel Cells 2014 Science & Technology

Status of Fuel Cell Development

• Automotive fuel cell systems can meet power density & durability requirements. • Development focus is to meet the cost target while retaining these features.

2005 Equinox FCEV 2012 Prototype

Net Power (kW) 93 85 – 92

Max Operating Temperature (°C) 86 95

Durability (h Miles) 1500 50K 8450 150K

Mass (kg) 240 120

Stack Plate Molded Composite Stamped Metal

Catalyst Platinum (80g/stack) Pt-Alloy (30g/stack)

19

Impact of Q/∆T Constraint

Raising stack temperature and cell voltage to meet Q/∆T constraint results in higher costs and may require operating pressures >2 atm

50

60

70

1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75 3.00

Syst

em C

ost,

$/kW

e

Q/∆T, kW/oC

1.5 atm

2.5 atm

2.0 atm

LPt: 0.1(c)/0.05(a) mgPt·cm-2

∆Tc: 10oCTg-Tc: 5oCSR: 2(a)/1.5(c)

3.0 atm

Exit RH

20

FY2013 Single Variable Sensitivity Analysis- Tornado Chart

20

Pt loading limits are asymmetric because nominal loading is very close to minimum level set by FCTT.

Catalyst Loading and Power Density remain most sensitive parameters.

21

Compresses gas storage (cH2 at 700 bar is a near-term option but the storage volume and cost remain as challenges.

Gravimetric capacities: 4.7-5.4 wt% for 350-bar and 4.1-4.4 for 700-bar systems

Volumetric capacities: 17.1-17.7 g/L for 350-bar and 24.2-25 g/L for 700-bar systems

CF accounts for 67-71% by weight and 25-26% by volume of the 700-bar system; 55-59% by weight and 12.5% by volume of the 350-bar system

Compressed H2 Storage: Gravimetric and Volumetric Capacities

*

W (kg) V (L) W (kg) V (L) W (kg) V (L) W (kg) V (L)

Stored Hydrogen 6.0 250.4 6.0 250.4 5.8 145.2 5.8 145.2

HDPE Liner 11.4 12.0 14.4 15.2 8.0 8.4 10.1 10.6

Carbon Fiber Composite 61.9 39.2 64.6 40.9 91.0 57.6 92.0 58.2

Dome Protection 5.2 7.7 7.1 10.4 4.0 5.9 5.5 8.1

BOP 19.9 7.1 26.1 9.9 18.7 6.9 24.7 9.7

System Total 104.5 316.4 118.2 326.8 127.6 224.0 138.2 231.8

Gravimetric Capacity, wt% 5.4 4.7 4.4 4.1Volumetric Capacity, g H2/L 17.7 17.1 25.0 24.2

Type 4 Tank 350 bar One-Tank 350 bar Two-Tank 700 bar One-Tank 700 bar Two-Tank

cH2 Storage: System Cost for Dual Tank Systems

Charts from James, Moton and Colella, 2013 DOE Annual Merit Review, Project ST100 DFMA study for 5.6 kg usable H2, cost in 2007$, error bars for 90%

cost confidence CF composite accounts for 75% of the 700-bar system cost at high

volume manufacturing Cost of BOP components dominates at lower production volumes

700-bar Dual Tank System 350-bar Dual Tank System

23

cH2 Storage: Status and Prospects Strategies to reduce usage and cost of CF composites ANL: End caps, doilies, advanced hoop winding, ST001 PNNL-Ford-Toray-AOC-Lincoln: Holistic tank design approach, ST101 ORNL: Low-cost, high strength commercial textile precursors (PAN-MA),

ST099 ORNL: Melt processable PAN precursors for high strength, low cost carbon

fibers, ST093 Applied Nanotech Inc (ANI): Carbon nanotubes reinforced composites, ST105 NextGen Aeronautics: Low-cost nano reinforcement for composite tanks –

”LINCT”, ST109 Composite Tech Development, Inc: Graded carbon fibers, ST110 Materia: New resin system (PROXIMA) to reduce CF thickness PPG-PNNL-Lincoln: High-strength glass fiber (GF) tanks Gravimetric capacity of the 700-bar cH2 system may increase to 4.8-5.2 wt% with 20% reduction in composite weight

Unlikely to meet the 2017 target of 40/L volumetric capacity since the density of hydrogen at ambient temperature is only 23.5 g/L at 350 bar and 39.5 g/L at 700 bar

24

Error Bars Green: range of assumptions for fuel prices (EIA projections for fuels other than hydrogen; hydrogen range: $2.50 - $5.00 per kg) Red: range of assumptions for technology success.

Common Assumptions - 15-year ownership - 10,000 miles per year - 7% discount for annual fuel costs - 0 resale value at the end of 15 years

Vehicle Types 2012 Spark ignition (SI): Current gasoline car Adv SI ICEV: 2035 gasoline car Adv Compression ignition (CI): 2035 diesel car Adv NG SI ICEV: 2035 natural gas car Gasol HEV: 2035 hybrid electric car SI PHEV10: 2035 gasol PHEV10 SI EREV40: 2035 gasol EREV40 FCEV: 2035 fuel cell hybrid electric car BEV100, BEV300: 2035 battery electric cars

FCEV BEVs Battery Cost, $/kWh $75, $81, $84

Battery Cost, $/kW $20, $25, $28 Fuel Cell Cost, $/kW $32, $35, $38

Fuel Cost in $/gge (¢/kWh) $2.50, $3.50, $5.00 $3.94 (11.7¢), $3.98 (11.8¢), $4.01 (11.9¢)

• Analysis project in collaboration with the Vehicle Technologies Office

• Vehicle life cycle costs updated based on stakeholder input received from 2011 RFI

Costs Based on 15-Year Life (Societal Perspective)

See record: http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13006_ldv_life_cycle_costs.pdf

$0.00 $0.05 $0.10 $0.15 $0.20 $0.25 $0.30

Gasol 2012 (Gasol)

Gasol ICEV (Gasol)

Dies ICEV (Diesel)

NG ICEV

Gasol HEV (Gasol)

Gasol PHEV 10 (Gasol)

Gasol EREV 40 (Gasol)

FCEV

BEV 100

BEV 300

Dollars per Mile

Vehicle and Fuel Costs per Mile for Midsize Vehicles, 2035(Vehicle purchase price estimated as 1.5 x manufacturing cost) (2010$)

Vehicle Fuel Fuel Cost Range Vehicle Cost Range

Technology Analysis: Total Cost of Ownership for Future Light-Duty Vehicles

Multiple alternative-fuel vehicles are cost competitive on a life-cycle basis— supporting a portfolio approach for advanced vehicle evolution

http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13006_ldv_life_cycle_costs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13006_ldv_life_cycle_costs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13006_ldv_life_cycle_costs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13006_ldv_life_cycle_costs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13006_ldv_life_cycle_costs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13006_ldv_life_cycle_costs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13006_ldv_life_cycle_costs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13006_ldv_life_cycle_costs.pdf

25

• Analysis project in collaboration with the Vehicle Technologies Office and Bioenergy Technologies Office

• Updated analysis is posted as an Office analytic record.

See record: http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdf

Technology Analysis: Well-to-Wheel GHG Emissions

Analysis by Argonne National Lab, National Renew. Energy Lab, DOE Vehicle Technologies Office, DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office and DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Office shows benefits

from a portfolio of options

http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdf

26

xxx

• Analysis project in collaboration with the Vehicle Technologies Office and Bioenergy Technologies Office

• Updated analysis is posted as an Office record.

See record: http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdf

Technology Analysis: Well-to-Wheel Petroleum Life Cycle Analysis for Light Duty Vehicles

Analysis by Argonne National Lab, National Renew. Energy Lab, DOE Vehicle Technologies Office, DOE Bioenergy Technologies Office and DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Office shows benefits

from a portfolio of options

http://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdfhttp://hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/13005_well_to_wheels_ghg_oil_ldvs.pdf

27

Summary and Conclusions

Project details available at the DOE’s Fuel Cell Technologies website http://www.annualmeritreview.energy.gov/

1. FC017 (ANL): Fuel Cells Systems Analysis

2. FC067 (Gore): Materials and Modules for Low-Cost, High Performance Fuel Cell Humidifiers

3. FC103 (Eaton): Roots Air Management System with Integrated Expander

4. FC018 (SA): Fuel Cell Transportation Cost Analysis

5. FC104 (3M): High Performance, Durable, Low Cost Membrane Electrode Assemblies for Transportation Applications

6. FC106 (ANL): Rationally Designed Catalyst Layers for PEMFC Performance Optimization

7. ST001 (ANL): System Level Analysis of Hydrogen Storage Options

8. ST100 (SA): Ongoing Analysis of H2 Storage System Costs

Fuel Cell Systems for Transportation: �Recent Developments in U.S.A.�Fuel Cell Systems for Transportation:�Recent Developments in U.S.A.Fuel Cells Systems AnalysisRationally Designed Catalyst Layers for PEMFC Performance OptimizationStructure and distribution of Pt and Ni in d-PtNid-PtNi (13/300) in CCM after polarization curves and diagnosticsNi is lost from d-PtNi cathode during CCM fabrication and testingH2/Air Cell Performance: Breakdown of OverpotentialsFY’14 Milestones, Status, and Next StepsEaton’s Roots Air Management System with Integrated ExpenderRoots based Integrated CEM: Performance ModelProjected Performance of Roots Air Management SystemCross-flow dPoint Humidifier with �Gore 311.05 Membrane*Water Transport ResistancesHumidifier Model ValidationAssessment of PerformanceFCS Heat RejectionStatus of Fuel Cell DevelopmentImpact of Q/DT ConstraintFY2013 Single Variable Sensitivity Analysis- Tornado ChartSlide Number 21Slide Number 22Slide Number 23Technology Analysis: Total Cost of Ownership for Future Light-Duty VehiclesTechnology Analysis: Well-to-Wheel GHG EmissionsTechnology Analysis: Well-to-Wheel Petroleum �Life Cycle Analysis for Light Duty VehiclesSlide Number 27