NREL/TP-560-44256 Demonstration and Validation Project2007 DOE MYPP Target2 Gen 1 Gen 2 Created: Sep-17-08 10:29 AM 1Data reported reference NGV2, HGV2, or EIHP standards. 2Some near-term

1

Technical ReportNREL/TP-560-44256October 2008

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet InfrastructureDemonstration and Validation Project

and

Fall 2008

Composite Data ProductsFinal Version September 24, 2008

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

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.

3

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and

Validation ProjectFall 2008

Composite Data ProductsSeptember 24, 2008 (Final)

Keith Wipke, Sam Sprik, Jennifer Kurtz, Todd Ramsden

4

0200

400600

8001000

1200

14001600

18002000

22002400

2006 Target

2009 Target

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

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

Tim

e (H

ours

)

DOE Learning Demonstration Fuel Cell Stack Durability:Based on Data Through 2008 Q2

Max ProjectionAvg Projection

Created: Sep-03-08 10:36 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 green bar 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 2008 Q2 data.

CDP#1: Hours Accumulated and Projected Hours to 10% Stack Voltage Degradation

5

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


(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

6

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

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

All OEMs

Effic

ienc

y (%

)

Fuel Cell System1 Efficiency2 at ~25% Net Power.

DOE Target

Created: Aug-29-06 4:09 PM

1 Gross stack power minus fuel cell system auxiliaries, per DRAFT SAEJ2615.

2 Ratio of DC output energy to the lower heating value of the input fuel (hydrogen).Excludes power electronics and electric drive.

CDP#8: FC System Efficiency

8

CDP#9: Safety Reports – Vehicles

9

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#10: Storage Weight % Hydrogen

10

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#11: Volumetric Capacity of H2 Storage

11

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.

CDP#12: Vehicle Hydrogen Tank Cycle Life

12

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 EfficiencyQuarterly Efficiency DataHighest Quarterly Efficiency

Created: Sep-24-08 4:17 PM

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.

CDP#13: On-Site Hydrogen Production Efficiency

13

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

tsHistogram of Fueling Rates

All Light Duty Through 2008Q2

5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar


11594 EventsAverage = 0.80 kg/min

25% >1 kg/min

2006 Tech Val Milestone2010 MYPP Adv Storage Materials Target


CDP#18: Refueling Rates

14

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Non-Event

Near Miss

Incident

Number of Reports

Seve

rity

Total Infrastructure Safety Reports by Severityand Report Type Through 2008 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

15

0 2 4 6 8 10 12-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.9 % trips below 0 oC

Max Op = 125.6 oF

Min Op = -1.3 oF

25.1 % trips above 28 oC

Frequency [%]

Tem

pera

ture

[o C]

Average Ambient Trip Temperature: All OEMs


CDP#21: Range of Ambient TemperatureDuring Vehicle Operation

16

CDP#22: Vehicle Operating Hours

17

CDP#23: Vehicles vs. Miles Traveled

18

CDP#24: Cumulative Vehicle Miles Traveled

19

CDP#25: Vehicle H2 Storage Technologies

20

CDP#26: Cumulative H2 Produced or Dispensed

21

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, and Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

CDP#27: Hydrogen Quality Index

22

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Particulates

μg/L

H2 Impurities

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: Sep-22-08 1:41 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 Impurities

Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Part

icul

ate

Con

cent

ratio

n ( µ

g/L)

Particulate Concentration (µg/L)H2 Impurities 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)




CDP#28 Supplemental: Hydrogen Impurities by Year and Production Method

23



500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Cal

culta

ted

Tota

l Im

purit

ies

( µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

Calcultated Total Impurities (µmol/mol)(ppm)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method

On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineCalculated Data





0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

H2O

( µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

H2O (µmol/mol)(ppm)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method







0.5

1

1.5

2

Tota

l HC

( µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

Total HC (µmol/mol)(ppm)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method







5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

O2( µ

mol

/mol

)(ppm

)

O2(µmol/mol)(ppm)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method







50

100

150

200

250

300

He

( µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

He (µmol/mol)(ppm)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method







500

1000

1500

2000

2500

N2 ( µ

mol

/mol

)(ppm

)

N2 (µmol/mol)(ppm)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method







50

100

150

200

Ar (µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

Ar (µmol/mol)(ppm)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method







500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Ar+

N2 ( µ

mol

/mol

)(ppm

)

Ar+N2 (µmol/mol)(ppm)H2 Impurities 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)H2 Impurities 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)H2 Impurities 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)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method







10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Tota

l S* (

nmol

/mol

)(ppb

)

Total S* (nmol/mol)(ppb)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method



Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, and Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2*Total S calculated from SO2, COS, H2S, CS2, and Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH).




0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Form

alde

hyde

(µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

Formaldehyde (µmol/mol)(ppm)H2 Impurities 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)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method







1

2

3

4

5

6

NH

3 ( µ

mol

/mol

)(ppm

)

NH3 (µmol/mol)(ppm)H2 Impurities 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)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method







5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Part

icul

ate

Size

(µm

)

Particulate Size (µm)H2 Impurities by Year and Production Method






24

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even


Comm vs Non-Comm Fills - All Light Duty Through 2008Q2



Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 ------------- ------------------ -------Comm 0.94 36%Non-Comm 0.68 17%

CommNon-Comm2006 Tech Val Milestone2010 MYPP Adv Storage Materials Target


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

25

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

AdjustmentCheck Only

OtherRepair

Replacement

Maintenance: Average Labor Hours Per Station Since InceptionThrough 2008 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

26

CDP#31: Number of Reporting Stations

27

CDP#32: Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods

28

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 = 16175

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.

CDP#33: Percentage of Theoretical Range Traveled Between Refuelings

29

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

30

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

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Reporting Period

Num

ber o

f Sta

tions

Infrastructure Safety Trend and Online Stations Through 2008 Q2

Number of Online StationsAvg Refuelings Between Safety Reports


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Avg

# o

f Ref

uelin

gs B

etw

een

Safe

ty R

epor

ts

7 11

32 34

88

102

117

47

75

124

100

58

44

CDP#35: Average Refuelings Between Infrastructure Safety Reports

31

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

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Reporting Period

Num

ber o

f Rep

orts

Type of Infrastructure Safety Reports by Quarter Through 2008 Q2

IncidentNear MissNon-EventStations OnlineAvg # Reports/Station



CDP#36: Type of Infrastructure Safety Report By Quarter

32

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Non-Event

Near Miss

Incident

Number of Reports

Seve

rity

Primary Factors of Infrastructure Safety ReportsThrough 2008 Q2

Calibration/Settings/ Software ControlsDesign FlawEnvironment (Weather, Power Disruption, Other)False AlarmInadequate Training, Protocol, SOPInadequate/ Non-working EquipmentMaintenance RequiredMischief, Vandalism, SabotageNew Equipment MaterialsNot Yet DeterminedOperator/Personnel Error



CDP#37: Primary Factors of Infrastructure Safety Reports

33

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Time (min)

Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

ts

Histogram of Fueling TimesAll Light Duty Through 2008Q2

Average = 3.23 % <5 = 88


CDP#38: Refueling Times

34

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Amount Fueled (kg)

Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

tsHistogram of Fueling AmountsAll Light Duty Through 2008Q2

Average = 2.24


CDP#39: Refueling Amounts

35

Tank Levels: DOE Fleet

15%

FE



1. Some refueling events not recorded/detected due to data noise or incompleteness.

Median Tank Level (At Fill) = 39%

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#40: H2 Tank Level at Refueling

36

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#41: Refueling Tank Levels - Medians

37

Refueling by Time of Day: DOE Fleet

9%

3

12

9

6


Total Fill3 Events = 15158% of fills b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 90.4%

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#42: Refueling by Time of Day

38

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday0

5

10

15

20

Fills by Day of Week: DOE Fleet

% o

f Fill

s in

a D

ay

DayCreated: Sep-19-08 10:35 AM

CDP#43: Refueling by Day of Week

39

Driving Start Time - Day: DOE Fleet

10%

3

12

9

6

DOE FleetNHTS

Created: Aug-29-08 9:49 AM

Total Driving3 Events = 181174% of driving trips b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 88.4%

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%

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

40

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday0

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

41

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50%Time at Power Levels: DOE Fleet

% T

ime

at P

ower

Lev

el

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

-100%

>100%

% Fuel Cell Power (Gross) of MaxCreated: Aug-28-08 5:48 PM

18.4%-43.7% of operating time at idle(Vehicle Speed = 0 & F.C. Power > 0)

CDP#46: Fuel Cell System Operating Power

42

0 5 10 15 20 250

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Trip Length (miles)

Trip Length: DOE Fleet

DOE FleetNHTS

Created: Sep-03-08 11:06 AM2001 NHTS Data Includes Car, Truck, Van, & SUV day tripsASCII.csv Source: http://nhts.ornl.gov/download.shtml#2001

CDP#47: Trip Length

43

CDP#48: Primary Factors Affecting Learning Demo Fleet Fuel Cell Degradation

44

CDP#49: Primary Factors Affecting Learning Demo Team Fuel Cell Degradation

45

Refueling by Time of Night: DOE Fleet

4%

3

12

9

6


Total Fill3 Events = 15158% of fills b/t 6 PM & 6 AM: 9.6%

1. Fills between 6 PM & 6 AM

2. The outer arc is set at 12 % total Fill.


PM AM

CDP#50: Refueling by Time of Night

46

Driving Start Time - Night: DOE Fleet

3%

3

12

9

6

DOE FleetNHTS


Total Driving3 Events = 181174% of driving trips b/t 6 PM & 6 AM: 11.6%

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%

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

47

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


Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even


All Light Duty by Year Through 2008Q2



Year Avg (kg/min) %>1 ------- ----------------- -------2005 0.66 16%2006 0.74 21%2007 0.81 26%2008 0.86 28%

20052006200720082006 Tech Val Milestone2010 MYPP Adv Storage Materials Target


CDP#52: Refueling Data by Year

48

0

2

4

6

8

10% Energy by Power levels: DOE Fleet

% 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

-100%

>100%

% Fuel Cell Power (Gross) of Max

Cum

ulat

ive

%

0

20

40

60

80

100


CDP#53: Fuel Cell System Energy within Power Levels

49

0-1 hr 1-6 hr 6-12 hr 12-18hr 18-24hr 1-7days 7-30days >30days0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% T

rips

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

50

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

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40Trip Energy: DOE Fleet

% T

rips

Energy Consumed [kWh]Created: Aug-28-08 5:48 PM

# of Trips: 208476

CDP#55: Fuel Cell System Energy

51

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

5

10

15

20

25

Freq

uenc

y (%

)

Daily Distance (miles)

Daily Distance: DOE Fleet

DOE FleetNHTS


Cumulative Frequency@ 20 miles

DOE Fleet: 50.1%NHTS: 27.2%

Cumulative Frequency@ 40 miles

DOE Fleet: 69.1%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

52

CDP#57: H2 Storage System Mass and Volume Breakdown

53

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#58: Fuel Cell System Power Density

54

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.

CDP#59: Fuel Cell System Specific Power

55

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

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 Fit3

Natural 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 = 0.81) & low correlation with natural gas data (R2 = 0.058)

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

56

On-Site Compression0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010 MYPP Compression Target

2015 MYPP Compression Target

Com

pres

sion

Effi

cien

cy (%

)

On-Site Hydrogen Compression Efficiency1

Average Station Compression EfficiencyQuarterly Compression Efficiency DataHighest Quarterly Compression Efficiency


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.

CDP#61: Refueling Station Compressor Efficiency

57

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 1296 g/mile.

CDP#62: Learning Demonstration Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

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)

October 2008 2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project: Fall 2008

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER DE-AC36-99-GO10337

5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) K. Wipke, S. Sprik, J. Kurtz, and T. Ramsden

5d. PROJECT NUMBER NREL/TP-560-44256

5e. TASK NUMBER H2708100

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 ORGANIZATIONREPORT NUMBER NREL/TP-560-44256

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)NREL

11. SPONSORING/MONITORINGAGENCY 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 2008.

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. TELEPONE NUMBER (Include area code)

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

Documents

NREL/TP-560-44256 Demonstration and Validation Project2007 DOE MYPP Target2 Gen 1 Gen 2 Created: Sep-17-08 10:29 AM 1Data reported reference NGV2, HGV2, or EIHP standards. 2Some near-term