1 Technical Report NREL/TP-560-48173 May 2010 Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project Spring 2010 Composite Data.

1

Technical ReportNREL/TP-560-48173

May 2010

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and InfrastructureDemonstration and Validation Project

Spring 2010

Composite Data ProductsFinal Version March 29, 2010

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

2

NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United

States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes

any legal 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 privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific

commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute

or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views

and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any

agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:[email protected]

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: [email protected]

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste

http://www.osti.gov/bridge

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

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.

Spring 2010Composite Data Products

March 29, 2010

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 Gen20

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

2006 Target

2009 Target

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

Tim

e (H

ou

rs)

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

Max Hrs Accumulated1,2 Avg Hrs Accumulated1,3 Projection to 10% Voltage Degradation4,5,6

Max ProjectionAvg Projection

NREL CDP01Created: Mar-23-10 10:39 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

Veh

icle

Ran

ge

(mile

s)

Vehicle Range1

2015 Target2009 Target Gen 1 Gen 2

NREL CDP02Created: Mar-10-10 1:18 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

Po

wer

Den

sity

(W

/L)

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

2010 and 2015 FreedomCAR Research Goal1

Gen 1 Gen 2

NREL CDP03NREL CDP03NREL CDP03NREL CDP03

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


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Sp

ecif

ic P

ow

er (

W/k

g)

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

2010 and 2015 FreedomCAR Research Goal1

Gen 1 Gen 2

NREL CDP04NREL CDP04

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

Fu

el E

con

om

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

Op

erat

ing

Tim

e [%

]

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 [%]

Eff

icie

ncy

[%

]

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

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

po

rts

Safety Reports - Vehicle Operation

Tank ScratchTraffic AccidentH2 Leak - During FuelingH2 Alarm - Fuel SystemH2 Alarm - Passenger Compartment

Created: Mar-10-10 2:35 PMNREL CDP09

CDP#9: Safety Reports – Vehicles


CDP#10: Storage Weight % Hydrogen

350bar 700bar0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Wei

gh

t P

erce

nt

Hyd

rog

en (

%)

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 p

er L

iter

(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

Nu

mb

er o

f cy

cles

Hydrogen Tank Cycle Life1

All OEMs




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#13: On-Site Hydrogen Production Efficiency

On-Site Natural Gas Reforming On-Site Electrolysis0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2010 MYPP Target

2015 MYPP Target

2012 MYPP Target

2017 MYPP Target

Pro

du

ctio

n E

ffic

ien

cy (

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 ofthe energy into the production process from the feedstock and all other energy as needed. Conversion efficiency does not inc ludeenergy used for compression, storage, and dispensing.2The efficiency probability distribution represents the range and likelihood of hydrogen production conversion efficiency base d onmonthly conversion efficiency data from the Learning Demonstration.


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)

Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling Rates350 vs 700 bar Fills - All Light Duty Through 2009Q4

5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar


Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 Count------------- ------------------ ------- --------350 bar 0.82 29% 19659700 bar 0.63 4% 5590

350 bar700 bar2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone


CDP#14: Fueling Rates – 350 and 700 bar


CDP#15: H2 Production Cost vs. Process

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16Projected Early Market 1500 kg/day Hydrogen Cost1

$/kg

Natural Gas Reforming2 Electrolysis2

2015 DOE Hydrogen Program Goal Range3

Median25th & 75th Percentile10th & 90th Percentile

Created: Jan-19-10 11:08 AM

(1) Reported hydrogen costs are based on estimates of key cost elements from Learning Demonstration energy company partners and represent thecost of producing hydrogen on-site at the fueling station, using either natural gas reformation or water electrolysis, dispensed to the vehicle. Costsreflect an assessment of hydrogen production technologies, not an assessment of hydrogen market demand.(2) Hydrogen production costs for 1500 kg/day stations developed using DOE’s H2A Production model, version 2.1. Cost modeling represents thelifetime cost of producing hydrogen at fueling stations installed during an early market rollout of hydrogen infrastructure and are not reflective of thecosts that might be seen in a fully mature market for hydrogen installations. Modeling uses default H2A Production model inputs supplemented withfeedback from Learning Demonstration energy company partners, based on their experience operating on-site hydrogen production stations. H2A-based Monte Carlo simulations (2,000 trials) were completed for both natural gas reforming and electrolysis stations using default H2A values and10th percentile to 90th percentile estimated ranges for key cost parameters as shown in the table. Capacity utilization range is based on the capabilitiesof the production technologies and could be significantly lower if there is inadequate demand for hydrogen.(3) DOE has a hydrogen cost goal of $2-$3/kg for future (2015) 1500 kg/day hydrogen production stations installed at a rate of 500 stations per year.

Key H2 Cost Elements and Ranges

Input Parameter Minimum

(P10) Maximum

(P90)

Facility Direct Capital Cost $10M $25M

Facility Capacity Utilization 85% 95%

Annual Maintenance & Repairs $150K $600K

Annual Other O&M $100K $200K

Annual Facility Land Rent $50K $200K

Natural Gas Prod. Efficiency (LHV) 65% 75%

Electrolysis Prod. Efficiency (LHV) 35% 62%

NREL CDP15


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*

Fre

qu

ency

[%

]

*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

Tri

ps/

Ho

ur*

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

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800


Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling RatesAll Light Duty Through 2009Q4



25464 EventsAverage = 0.77 kg/min

23% >1 kg/min

2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone


CDP#18: Refueling Rates


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

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Time [min]

Tri

p F

req

uen

cy [

%]

Time Between Trips with Ambient Temperature: DOE Fleet

<0oC

0-10oC

10-24oC

24-40oC

>40oC


CDP#19: Time Between Trips & Ambient Temperature


0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Non-Event

Near Miss

Incident

Number of Reports

Sev

erit

y

Total Infrastructure Safety Reports by Severityand Report Type Through 2009 Q4

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

28.2 % trips above 28 oC

Trip Frequency [%]

Tem

per

atu

re [

oC

]

Average Ambient Trip Temperature: DOE Fleet


CDP#21: Range of Ambient TemperatureDuring Vehicle Operation


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Nu

mb

er o

f Ve

hic

les

Total Vehicle Hours

Vehicle Hours: All OEMs, Gen 1 and Gen 2

In Service

Retired (1)

106,413Total Vehicle Hours =

Through 2009 Q4

Created: Mar-09-10 02:36 PM

(1) Retired vehicles have left DOE fleet and are no longer providing data to NRELSome project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009

NREL CDP22

CDP#22: Vehicle Operating Hours


05

1015202530354045

Nu

mb

er o

f V

ehic

les

Total Vehicle Miles

Vehicle Miles: All OEMs, Gen 1 and 2

In Service

Retired (1)

Total Vehicle Miles Traveled = 2,580,382

Through 2009 Q4


NREL CDP23 (1) Retired vehicles have lef t DOE f leet and are no longer providing data to NRELSome project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009

CDP#23: Vehicles vs. Miles Traveled


2,580,382

-

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

2,750,000

Ve

hic

le M

iles

Tra

ve

led

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


Through 2009 Q4

NREL CDP24

CDP#24: Cumulative Vehicle Miles Traveled


83

40

17

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Cu

mu

lati

ve V

ehic

les

Dep

loye

d/R

etir

ed1

Vehicle Deployment by On-Board Hydrogen Storage Type

700 bar on-road350 bar on-roadLiquid H2 on-road700 bar retired350 bar retiredLiquid H2 retired

(1) Retired vehicles have left DOE fleet and are no longer providing data to NRELSome project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009Created Mar-09-2010 8:34 AM

144

NREL CDP25

CDP#25: Vehicle H2 Storage Technologies


CDP#26: Cumulative H2 Produced or Dispensed

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Cu

mu

lati

ve N

um

ber

of S

tati

on

s

Mas

s o

f H

ydro

gen

* (1

000

kg)

Calendar Quarter

Cumulative Hydrogen Produced or Dispensed Through 2009 Q4

Cumulative Hydrogen

Number of Stations

NREL CDP26

Created 2010-Mar-22 2:50pm

*Some project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009


Ref. Elec. Del. 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, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

CDP#27: Hydrogen Quality Index


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Particulates

g/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

mol/mol (ppm)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Total S*

nmol/mol (ppb)NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:05 AM 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


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

1

2

3

4

5

6

NH

3 (

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pm

)

NH3 (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H

2 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)



Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.

0

50

100

150

200

Ar

(m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

Ar (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Ar+

N2 (

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pm

)

Ar+N2 (mol/mol)(ppm)

Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method





0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Cal

cult

ated

To

tal C

on

stit

uen

ts (

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pm

)

Calcultated Total Constituents (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H


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




0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

CO

2 ( m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

CO2 (mol/mol)(ppm)






0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

CO

( m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

CO (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

Fo

rmal

deh

yde

(m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

Formaldehyde (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

Fo

rmic

aci

d (

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pm

)

Formic acid (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

5

10

15

H2O

( m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

H2O (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

50

100

150

200

250

300

He

(m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

He (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Par

ticu

late

Siz

e (

m)

Particulate Size (m)Non-H






0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

N2+

He+

Ar

(m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

N2+He+Ar (mol/mol)(ppm)






0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

N2 (

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pm

)

N2 (mol/mol)(ppm)






0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

O2(

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pm

)

O2(mol/mol)(ppm)






0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

Par

ticu

late

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

g/L

)

Particulate Concentration (g/L)Non-H






0

5

10

15

20

25

To

tal H

alo

gen

ates

( m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

Total Halogenates (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






0

0.5

1

1.5

2

To

tal H

C ( m

ol/m

ol)

(pp

m)

Total HC (mol/mol)(ppm)Non-H






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

(This slide contains 18 graphs (1 for each constituent): view in slide-show mode)

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

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

To

tal S

* (n

mo

l/mo

l)(p

pb

)

Total S* (nmol/mol)(ppb)Non-H




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, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4*Total S calculated from SO2, COS, H2S, CS2, and Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH).



0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling RatesComm vs Non-Comm Fills - All Light Duty Through 2009Q4



Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 ------------- ------------------ -------Comm 0.86 30%Non-Comm 0.66 12%

CommNon-Comm2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone


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


0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

AdjustmentCheck Only

OtherRepair

Replacement

Maintenance: Average Labor Hours Per Station Since InceptionThrough 2009 Q4

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 Events

Hours

Comparison of Scheduled/Un-Scheduled Maintenance


CDP#30: Infrastructure Maintenance


CDP#31: Number of Online Stations

8

10

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nu

mb

er

of

Sta

tio

ns

Reporting Period

Cumulative Stations

Existing Stations

Continuing Outside of Project

Retired Stations

NREL CDP31Created Mar-19-10 9:05am


CDP#32: Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Delivered Compressed H2

Natural Gas On-site Reforming

Electrolysis Delivered Liquid H2

# o

f S

tati

on

s

Production Technology

Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods

Existing StationsContinuing Outside of ProjectRetired Stations

NREL CDP32Created Mar-19-10 9:05am


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

12

13Range Histogram: All OEMs

Percentage of chassis dyno range1 between refuelings

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

efu

elin

gs

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

25

50

75

100

Cu

mu

lati

ve P

erce

nta

ge

NREL CDP33

Created: Mar-23-10 10:53 AM

Total refuelings2 = 25811

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

OE

Ms W

ind

ow

-Sti

cker

2 W

ind

ow

-Sti

cker

2

On

-Ro

ad 3

On

-Ro

ad 3

Dyn

o 1

NREL CDP34


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


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Nu

mb

er o

f S

tati

on

s

Infrastructure Safety Trend and Number of Stations Through 2009 Q4

05Q2

05Q3

05Q4

06Q1

06Q2

06Q3

06Q4

07Q1

07Q2

07Q3

07Q4

08Q1

08Q2

08Q3

08Q4

09Q1

09Q2

09Q3

09Q4

Number of StationsAvg Refuelings Between Safety Reports

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Avg

# o

f R

efu

elin

gs

Bet

wee

n S

afet

y R

epo

rts

7 1132 34

88102

115

4768

124101

57 5473

51

138

447

121

198

NREL CDP35

Created: Mar-23-10 2:43 PM Reporting Period

CDP#35: Average Refuelings Between Infrastructure Safety Reports


0

10

20

30

40

50

Nu

mb

er o

f R

epo

rts

Type of Infrastructure Safety Reports by Quarter Through 2009 Q4

05Q2

05Q3

05Q4

06Q1

06Q2

06Q3

06Q4

07Q1

07Q2

07Q3

07Q4

08Q1

08Q2

08Q3

08Q4

09Q1

09Q2

09Q3

09Q4

IncidentNear MissNon-EventNumber of StationsAvg # Reports/Station

NREL CDP36


Reporting PeriodAn 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#36: Type of Infrastructure Safety Report By Quarter


0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Non-Event

Near Miss

Incident

Number of Reports

Sev

erit

y

Primary Factors of Infrastructure Safety ReportsThrough 2009 Q4

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


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#37: Primary Factors of Infrastructure Safety Reports


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Time (min)

Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling TimesAll Light Duty Through 2009Q4

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

1000

Amount Fueled (kg)

Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling AmountsAll Light Duty Through 2009Q4

Average = 2.13 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) = 42%

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

NREL CDP41



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 = 22657% of fills b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 89.7%

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 F

ills

in a

Day

DayNREL CDP43Created: Mar-09-10 4:14 PM


Driving Start Time - Day: DOE Fleet

9%

3

12

9

6

Total Driving3 Events = 295222% of driving trips b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 85.3%

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%

NREL CDP44

DOE FleetNHTS

NREL CDP44


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 D

rivi

ng

Tri

ps

in a

Day

Day

NREL CDP45

DOE FleetNHTS

NREL CDP45


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

Op

erat

ing

Tim

e [%

]

0-5%

5-10

%

10-1

5%

15-2

0%

20-2

5%

25-3

0%

30-3

5%

35-4

0%

40-4

5%

45-5

0%

50-5

5%

55-6

0%

60-6

5%

65-7

0%

70-7

5%

75-8

0%

80-8

5%

85-9

0%

90-9

5%

95-1

00%

>100%

% 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

Tri

p F

req

uen

cy [

%]

Trip Length [miles]

Trip Length: DOE Fleet

DOE FleetNHTS



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.

NREL CDP48


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 AMNREL CDP49


CDP#50: Refueling by Time of Night

Refueling by Time of Night: DOE Fleet

3%

3

12

9

6

Total Fill3 Events = 22657% of fills b/t 6 PM & 6 AM: 10.3%

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

4%

3

12

9

6

Total Driving3 Events = 295222% of driving trips b/t 6 PM & 6 AM: 14.7%

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%

NREL CDP51

DOE FleetNHTS

NREL CDP51


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

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


Nu

mb

er o

f F

uel

ing

Eve

nts

Histogram of Fueling RatesAll Light Duty by Year Through 2009Q4



Year Avg (kg/min) %>1 ------- ----------------- -------2005 0.66 16%2006 0.74 21%2007 0.81 26%2008 0.77 23%2009 0.77 22%

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

En

erg

y [%

]

0-5%

5-10

%

10-1

5%

15-2

0%

20-2

5%

25-3

0%

30-3

5%

35-4

0%

40-4

5%

45-5

0%

50-5

5%

55-6

0%

60-6

5%

65-7

0%

70-7

5%

75-8

0%

80-8

5%

85-9

0%

90-9

5%

95-1

00%

>100%

% Fuel Cell Power (Gross) of Max

Cu

mu

lati

ve %

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

Tri

p F

req

uen

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

rip

s

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]

Tri

p F

req

uen

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

Tri

p F

req

uen

cy [

%]

Daily Distance [miles]

Daily Distance: DOE Fleet

DOE FleetNHTS


Cumulative Frequency@ 20 miles

DOE Fleet: 47.4%NHTS: 27.2%

Cumulative Frequency@ 40 miles

DOE Fleet: 67.2%NHTS: 52.9%


CDP#56: Daily Driving Distance


CDP#57: H2 Storage System Mass and Volume Breakdown

73%

24%

3%

Average Breakout of H2 Storage System Volume

3.26%

73%

23%

Average Breakout of H2 Storage System Mass

56%35%

9%

H2 Volume (%)Pressure Vessel Volume (%)Balance of Plant Volume (%)

3.33%

72%

24%

H2 Mass (%)Pressure Vessel Mass (%)Balance of Plant Mass (%)Created: Aug-19-08 9:14 AM

350 bar

700 bar

NREL CDP57


CDP#58: Fuel Cell System Power Density

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Po

wer

Den

sity

(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

Sp

ecif

ic P

ow

er (

W/k

g)

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

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Production Capacity Utilization1 [%]

Pro

du

ctio

n C

on

vers

ion

Eff

icie

ncy

2 [%

]

Monthly Production Conversion Efficiency vs Utilization

Electrolysis Data

Electrolysis Fit3

Electrolysis Fit ConfidenceNatural Gas Data

Natural 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 = 0.82) & low correlation with natural gas data (R2 = 0.060)


CDP#61: Refueling Station Compressor Efficiency

On-Site Compression Energy0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Co

mp

ress

ion

En

erg

y (M

J/kg

)

On-Site Compression Efficiency0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2010 MYPP Compression Target

2015 MYPP Compression Target

Co

mp

ress

ion

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, 11.3% of the energycontained in the hydrogen fuel isrequired for the compressionprocess.


CDP#62: Learning Demonstration Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

WT

W G

HG

Em

issi

on

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 1330 g/mile.


13%

13%

18%

22%

By Number of EventsTotal Number of Events = 2491

20%12%

17%

21%

By Labor HoursTotal Hours = 11430

system control & safety

compressor

reformer

electrolyzer

dispenser

other

valves & piping

electrical

storage


Hydrogen Fueling Station Maintenance

CDP#63: Hydrogen Fueling Station Maintenance by System


3%5%

34%

58%

Fuel Cell Vehicle Events (11574)

18%

8%

50%

24%

Fuel Cell Vehicle Labor (12522 hours)

Vehicle (non-powertrain)Fuel Cell SystemPowertrainBattery

4%10%

12%

13%

23%

39%

Fuel Cell System Events (3916)< 1%

27%

28%11%

11%

22%

Fuel Cell System Labor (6304 hours)

Thermal Management

Air System

Controls, Electronics, Sensors

Fuel System

Fuel Cell Stack

Other


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

US

06 C

ycle

HW

FE

T C

ycle

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

Tri

p F

req

uen

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]

Op

erat

ion

Tim

e [%

]

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

Sta

ck C

ou

nt

Fuel Cell Stack Operation Hours: Gen1

Gen1

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Gen1 Hours

24% of stacks in operation

In Op1

Retired2

Other3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Sta

ck C

ou

nt

Fuel Cell Stack Operation Hours: Gen2

Gen2

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Gen2 Hours

34% 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. Some project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009

CDP#67: Fuel Cell Stack Operation Hours


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

5

10

15

20

25

30

Sta

ck C

ou

nt

% FC Power Drop

FC Power Drop During Operation Period: Gen1

Gen1

60% of In Op stackshave > 10% power drop

In Op1

Retired2

Other3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

5

10

15

20

25

30

Sta

ck C

ou

nt

% FC Power Drop

FC Power Drop During Operation Period: Gen2

Gen2

85% 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. Some project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009

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

ow

er(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 3 points in segment.

Gen1Data 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

ow

er(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 3 points in segment.

Gen2Data 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 hrs17% 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


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

-20 0 20 40 60-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ambient Air Temperature [deg C]

Tan

k T

emp

erat

ure

[d

eg C

]

Tank vs. Ambient Air Temps Prior to Refueling

Fre

qu

ency

50

100

150

200

250

300

-40 -20 0 20 400

500

1000

1500

2000

Delta Temperature [deg C]

Co

un

t

Delta Temperature: Tank minus Ambient

Delta Temp HistogramNormal Distribution Fit

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Den

sity

Mean= -3.751Std Dev= 6.129


-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


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

Pro

ject

ed H

ou

rs2,

3

Gen 1 Average Projections

Gen 1 Average Projection to 10% Voltage Degradation1

Gen 2 Average Projections

Gen 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


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

5

10

15

20

Cycle Per Mile

Tri

p F

req

ue

nc

y [

%]

Number of Cycles1 per Trip Mile

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

10

20

30

40

50

60

Cycle Per Min

Tri

p F

req

ue

nc

y [

%]

Number of Cycles1 per Trip Minute

Gen1 Gen20

10

20

30

40

Cy

cle

pe

r M

ile

Range of Fleet Average Cycle1 per Mile

Gen1 Gen21

2

3

4

5

6

7

Cy

cle

pe

r M

in

Range of Fleet Average Cycle1 per Min

NREL CDP74Created: Mar-22-10 4:46 PM 1) A fuel cell voltage transient cycle has a decrease and increase with a minimum delta of 5% max stack voltage.

CDP#74: Fuel Cell Transient Cycle Count per Mile and per Minute


CDP#75: Fuel Cell Transient Voltage and Time Change


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

DownUp

SlowUp

SlowDown

SlowDownUp

DownSSUp

Fre

qu

ency

[%

]

Transient Cycle1 Count by Category2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

5

10

15

20

25

30

dV/dtF

req

uen

cy [

%]

DownUp Cycle1 dV/dT

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

10

20

30

40

50

dV/dt

Fre

qu

ency

[%

]

SlowUp Cycle1 dV/dT

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

10

20

30

40

50

dV/dt

Fre

qu

ency

[%

]

SlowDown Cycle1 dV/dT

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

10

20

30

40

50

60

dV/dt

Fre

qu

ency

[%

]

SlowDownUp Cycle1 dV/dT

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

20

40

60

80

100

dV/dtF

req

uen

cy [

%]

DownSSUp Cycle1 dV/dT


1) A fuel cell voltage transient cycle has a decrease and increase with a minimum delta of 5% max stack voltage.2) Cycle categories based on cycle up and down times. A slow up or down transient has a time change >= 5 seconds. SS = Steady State, where the time change is >= 10 seconds and the voltage change is <= 2.5% max stack voltage.

CDP#76: Fuel Cell Transient Rate by Cycle Category


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

DownUp

SlowUp

SlowDown

SlowDownUp

DownSSUp

Fre

qu

ency

[%

]

Transient Cycle1 Count by Category2

0

5

10

15

20

-34

-30

-26

-22

-18

-14

-10 -6 -2 2 6

10

14

18

22

26

30

34

% Voltage Change [%Max Stack Voltage]F

req

uen

cy [

%]

DownUp Cycle1 dV

0

5

10

15

20

-34

-30

-26

-22

-18

-14

-10 -6 -2 2 6

10

14

18

22

26

30

34

% Voltage Change [%Max Stack Voltage]

Fre

qu

ency

[%

]

SlowUp Cycle1 dV

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

-34

-30

-26

-22

-18

-14

-10 -6 -2 2 6

10

14

18

22

26

30

34


Fre

qu

ency

[%

]

SlowDown Cycle1 dV

0

2

4

6

8

10

12-3

4-3

0-2

6-2

2-1

8-1

4-1

0 -6 -2 2 61

01

41

82

22

63

03

4


Fre

qu

ency

[%

]

SlowDownUp Cycle1 dV

0

5

10

15

20

-34

-30

-26

-22

-18

-14

-10 -6 -2 2 6

10

14

18

22

26

30

34

% Voltage Change [%Max Stack Voltage]F

req

uen

cy [

%]

DownSSUp Cycle1 dV


1) A fuel cell voltage transient cycle has a decrease and increase with a minimum delta of 5% max stack voltage.2) Cycle categories based on cycle up and down times. A slow up or down transient has a time change >= 5 seconds. SS = Steady State, where the time change is >= 10 seconds and the voltage change is <= 2.5% max stack voltage.

CDP#77: Fuel Cell Transient Voltage Changes by Cycle Category


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

DownUp

SlowUp

SlowDown

SlowDownUp

DownSSUp

Cyc

le F

req

uen

cy [

%]

Transient Cycle Count by Category4

Total

<LoV Level2

>HiV Level3

tV

Example

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Count per Mile

Tri

p F

req

uen

cy [

%]

Cycles1 Outside of Voltage Levels2,3

<LoV Level2

>HiV Level3


1) A fuel cell voltage transient cycle has a decrease and increase with a minimum delta of 5% max stack voltage.2) The low voltage level is 70% Max Stack Voltage3) The high voltage level is 90% Max Stack Voltage4) Cycle categories based on cycle up and down times. A slow up or down transient has a time change >= 5 seconds. SS = Steady State, where the time change is >= 10 seconds and the voltage change is <= 2.5% max stack voltage.

CDP#78: Fuel Cell Transient Cycles Outside of Specified Voltage Levels


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

% Time

Tri

p F

req

uen

cy [

%]

Percent of Trip Time at Steady State


1) SS = Steady State, where the time change is >= 10 seconds and the voltage change is <= 2.5% max stack voltage.

CDP#79: Percentage of Trip Time at Steady State


0 50 100 150 200 250 3000

5

10

Per

cen

tag

e o

f R

efu

elin

gs

Distance between refuelings [Miles]2

Distance Driven Between Refuelings: All OEMs

Gen1Gen2

NREL CDP80

Created: Mar-23-10 10:53 AM

Total Refuelings1 = 25811 Gen1 Refuelings = 18941 Median distance between refuelings = 56 Miles Gen2 Refuelings = 6870 Median distance between refuelings = 81 Miles

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

2. Distance driven between refuelings is indicative of driver behavior and does not represent the full range of the vehicle.

CDP#80: Miles Between Refuelings

1 Technical Report NREL/TP-560-48173 May 2010 Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project Spring 2010 Composite Data.

Documents

energy futurecdp

sustainable energy

office of energy efficiency

national laboratory

united states government

fuel cell system power

infrastructure demonstration

keith wipke