Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.