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.

U.S. Department of Energy-Funded 

Performance Validation of Fuel Cell 

Material Handling Equipment

UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association 

Webinar

Jennifer Kurtz, Sam Sprik, Todd 

Ramsden, Genevieve Saur, Chris 

Ainscough, Matt Post, Mike Peters

November 27, 2013

NREL/PR-5400-60951
2

FCMHE Validation Overview

• U.S. DOE enabling early fuel cell markets

• National Fuel Cell Technology Evaluation 

Center objectives

• FCMHE performance status
3 | Fuel Cell Technologies Office eere.energy.gov

Enabling Early Markets

Deployments help catalyze market penetration and ensure continued technology 

utilization growth while providing data and lessons learned.

Leveraging DOE Funds: 

Government as “catalyst” for market 

success of emerging technologies.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Cost Share

Deployments ~1,600

Additional Purchases

without DOE Funding

~9,000

Lift Trucks

BU Power

Backup 

Power

Lift 

Trucks

DOE cost-shared 

deployments led 

to >5X additional 

purchases and 

orders.

~9,000 ADDITIONAL FUEL CELL LIFT TRUCKS 

AND BACKUP POWER UNITS PLANNED OR 

INSTALLED with NO DOE funding

Examples of industry* sectors in DOE ARRA projects

• Telecommunications (e.g., AT&T, PG&E, Sprint, etc.)

• Distribution Centers/Warehouses (e.g., FedEx, Genco, 

Sysco, Wegmans, Whole Foods, etc.)

*Provided as examples and not intended as endorsement

DOE FCTO Fall 2013

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presentations.html
4 | Fuel Cell Technologies Office eere.energy.gov

The Case for Fuel Cell Forklifts

Fuel cell forklifts offer several advantages compared to conventional fork lift 

technology

Preliminary Analysis

• Compared to conventional forklifts, fuel 

cell forklifts have:

• 1.5 X lower maintenance cost

• 8 X lower refueling/recharging labor 

cost

• 2 X lower net present value of total 

system cost

Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of PEM Fuel Celland Battery-Powered Forklifts

Time for Refueling/ 

Changing Batteries

4-8 min/day 45-60 min/day (for 

battery change-outs)

8 hours (for battery 

recharging & cooling)

Labor Cost of 

Refueling/Recharging

$1,100/year $8,750/year

NPV of Capital Costs $12,600 ($18,000 

w/o incentives)

$14,000

NPV of O&M Costs 

(including fuel)

$52,000 $128,000

Published Fact Sheets & Case Studies

DOE FCTO Fall 2013

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presentations.html
5

www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_validation.html

NFCTEC Analysis Approach

National Fuel Cell Technology 

Evaluation Center

NFCTEC

Analysis and reporting of real-world operation data
6

Objectives

• Assess technology

o Perform independent technology assessment in real world operation conditions

o Focus on fuel cell system and hydrogen infrastructure: performance, operation, and 

safety

o Leverage data processing and analysis capabilities developed under the fuel cell vehicle 

Learning Demonstration project

o Evaluate material handling equipment (MHE) and backup power

o Analysis includes up to 1,000 fuel cell systems deployed with American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds

• Support market growth

o Provide analyses and results relevant to the markets’ value proposition

o Report on technology status to fuel cell and hydrogen communities and other key 

stakeholders such as end users

Assess the technology status in real world operations, establish 

performance baselines, report on fuel cell and hydrogen 

technology, and support market growth by evaluating 

performance relevant to the markets’ value proposition 
7

74 MHE CDPs—Count and Category

Deployment & Site 

Overview (1, 40)

Fuel Cell Operation

(2, 7, 8, 11, 15, 

16, 17, 23, 24, 63) Fuel Cell Reliability

(28, 29, 30, 31)

Fuel Cell Safety

(26, 27, 53, 56, 57)

Infra. Safety

(25, 41, 46, 51, 55)

Infra. Reliability

(45, 48, 49, 50)

FC Maintenance

(12, 13, 14, 43, 54, 61)

(1) Total cost represents the annualized cost of ownership of Class I, II, and III forklifts on a net present value basis, accounting for capital, 

operating, and maintenance costs of forklifts, power packs, and infrastructure (labor costs for maintenance and for charging or fueling are 

included, but labor costs of forklift material handling operations are excluded). Costs are calculated assuming that the material handling 

operations are ongoing, with equipment replacements made as necessary. Capital, operating, and maintenance costs are assumed to

remain constant in real-dollar terms, and capital purchases are discounted using a discount rate representing the time value of money. 

Fuel cell system costs reflect the current fuel cell tax credit of $3,000/kW or 30% of purchase price. Analysis does not consider the 

potential productivity increases resulting from the constant power output of fuel cell systems, which may be significant. Costs of 

ownership of Class II forklifts are expected to be similar for Class I forklifts, though the cost of the lift itself is expected to be higher.

Costs are based on information provided by deployment host partners (end-users) based on a questionnaire developed by NREL, 

supplemented with data provided by project partners, and are reflective of the material handling operations of these deployments. Where 

appropriate, fuel cell deployment data were used in place of end-user questionnaire data; in particular, data from CDPs 1, 6, 8, 14, and 22 

were used. Cost assessment will be further refined as additional data are available.

Total Cost of Ownership for Class I, II & III Forklifts1

Cost of Ownership

(58, 59, 60,64) Total Cost of Ownership Sensitivity Analysis1

(1) Total cost represents the annualized cost of ownership of Class I, II, and III forklifts on a net present value basis. Fuel cell system costs 

reflect the current fuel cell tax credit of $3,000/kW or 30% of purchase price. Costs are based on information provided by deployment 

host partners based on a questionnaire developed by NREL, supplemented with additional data provided by project partners, and are 

reflective of the material handling operations of these deployments. Where appropriate, fuel cell deployment data were used in place of 

end-user questionnaire data; in particular, data from CDPs 1, 6, 8, 14, and 22 were used. 

Sensitivity analysis shows the ranges in annual per lift cost of ownership resulting from varying key parameters affecting battery and fuel 

cell forklift cost.

Fuel Cell Durability

(32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 73)

< 10000 hours > 10000 hours 0%

 10%

 20%

 30%

 40%

 50%

 60%

 70%

 80%

 90%

100%

Fuel Cell Stacks Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation

Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation 1,3

FC Stacks [%]

In Service

Not In Service2

NREL cdp_mhe_97

Created: Apr-02-13 9:36 AM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2012Q4

1) Projection using field data, calculated at high stack current, from operation hour 0.

 Projected hours may differ from an OEM's end-of-life criterion and does not address "catastrophic" failure modes.

2) Indicates stacks that are no longer accumulating hours either a) temporarily or b) have been retired for non- stack performance related issues 

 or c) removed from DOE program.

3) Projected hours limited based on demonstrated hours.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Amount Fueled in an Hour [kg]

Frequency [% of total]

Hydrogen Dispensed Per Hour - ARRA

NREL cdparra_mhe_69

Created: Apr-02-13 8:41 AM | Data Range: 2010Q1-2012Q4

Average: 4.8 kgs per hour

Median: 3.5 kgs per hour

Max: 52.5 kgs per hour

Infra. Operation

(3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 21, 22, 35, 

37, 42, 62, 65, 68, 69, 70, 

71)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Station (Sorted By Increasing Max Daily Amount)

Capacity Utilization 2 [%]

Station Capacity Utilization

Max Daily

20 kg

Max Daily

25 kg

Max Daily

64 kg

Max Daily

99 kg

Max Daily

102 kg

Max Daily

135 kg

Max Daily

293 kg

Max Daily

358 kg

42.9%

Average Daily Utilization1

Maximum Daily Utilization

NREL cdparra_mhe_71

Created: Apr-02-13 10:48 AM | Data Range: 2009Q4-2012Q4

1Maximum quarterly utilization considers all days; average daily utilization considers only days when at least one filling occurred 2

100% represents maximum daily amount dispensed for each individual site

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0

50

100

150

200

250

Station (Sorted By Increasing Max Daily Amount)

Fills Per Day

Station Usage

Maximum Daily Fills

Average Daily Fills1

NREL cdparra_mhe_70

Created: Apr-02-13 8:52 AM | Data Range: 2010Q1-2012Q4

1Average daily fills considers only days when at least one fill occurred

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of Fuelings in an Hour

Frequency [% of total]

Number of Fuelings Per Hour - ARRA

NREL cdparra_mhe_68

Created: Apr-02-13 8:25 AM | Data Range: 2010Q1-2012Q4

Average: 7.3 per hour

Median: 5.0 per hour

Max: 39.0 per hour

<0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Simultaneous Fills

Back-to-Back Fills

36 % of fills are within 0-5 minutes of each other

23 % of fills have more than 20 minutes between them

228912 Total Fills

Time Between Fuelings* [min]

# of Fuelings [% of total]

Histogram of Time Between Fuelings

All Sites Combined

Individual Sites

200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 450 0

1

2

3

4

5x 104 Final Pressures for Fills with <5 Minutes in Between

# of Fuelings

Final Pressure [bar]

Previous Fill

Next Fill

NREL cdparra_mhe_65

Created: Apr-02-13 8:12 AM | Data Range: 2010Q1-2012Q4 *Time is from end of fill to start of next fill.

Infra. Maintenance

(18, 19, 20, 44, 47, 52, 

66, 67, 72,76,77)

0

50

100

150

200

250

AIR SYSTEM

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

DISPENSER

FITTINGS&PIPING

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

VALVES

MTBF (Days)

MTBF by Equipment Category: Infrastructure (Delivered H2 Only)

Median Site

Lowest Site

NREL cdparra_mhe_72

Created: Apr-02-13 11:01 AM | Data Range: 2010Q1-2012Q4

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Month

Count of Maintenance Events

Infrastructure Maintenance by Month

Unscheduled

Scheduled

NREL cdp_mhe_67

Created: Apr-02-13 9:36 AM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2012Q4

8%

19%

23%

50%

Total Events = 1,0581

64% unscheduled

entire

system 46

misc 124

multiple

systems 221

classified

events1 667

Event Count

8%

19%

17%

56%

Total Hours = 7,080

62% unscheduled hydrogen compressor

control electronics

dispenser

air system

NREL cdp_mhe_66

Created: Apr-02-13 9:35 AM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2012Q4

Delivered Hydrogen Infrastructure Maintenance By Equipment Type

MISC includes the following failure modes: seal, fuel system, safety,

thermal management, storage, electrical, software, fittings&piping, valves,

sensors, other

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Apr-2010

Jul-2010

Oct-2010Jan-2011

Apr-2011

Jul-2011

Oct-2011Jan-2012

Apr-2012

Jul-2012

Oct-2012Jan-2013

Apr-2013

% of Total Monthly Maintenance Labor Hours

Equipment Percentage of Repair Labor Hours Over Time*

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

DISPENSER

NREL cdparra_mhe_77 AIR SYSTEM Created: Sep-30-13 12:56 PM | Data Range: 2010Q10-2013Q2

*Calculated as a percentage

of all maintenance each month; bars may

not total to 100% if other maintenance

categories were present.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

AIR SYSTEM

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

DISPENSER

ELECTRICAL

ENTIRE SYSTEM

FITTINGS&PIPING

FUEL SYSTEM

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

MULTIPLE SYSTEMS

OTHER

SAFETY

SENSORS

SOFTWARE

STORAGE

THERMAL MANAGEMENT

VALVES

Repair Labor Time (Hours)

Equipment Category Repair Time: Infrastructure (Delivered H2 Only)

NREL cdparra_mhe_76

Created: Sep-28-13 10:08 AM | Data Range: 2010Q10-2013Q2

75% Percentile

Median

25% Percentile

Mean
8

MHE Operation Summary 

2009 Q4–2013 Q2

Units in operation*

Hydrogen fills

Hydrogen dispensed

in kg

Operation hours

Average operation hours

between fills

Average fill amount

in kg

Average fill time

in minutes *One project has completed

Validation of MHE is based on 

real-world operation data 

from high-use facilities
9

Study of FC Voltage Degradation Against 10,000 Hours

< 10000 hours > 10000 hours 0%

 10%

 20%

 30%

 40%

 50%

 60%

 70%

 80%

 90%

100%

Fuel Cell Stacks Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation

Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation 1,3

FC Stacks [%]

In Service

Not In Service2

NREL cdp_mhe_97

Created: Sep-28-13 12:46 PM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2013Q2

1) Projection using field data, calculated at high stack current, from operation hour 0.

 Projected hours may differ from an OEM's end-of-life criterion and does not address "catastrophic" failure modes.

2) Indicates stacks that are no longer accumulating hours either a) temporarily or b) have been retired for non- stack performance related issues 

 or c) removed from DOE program.

3) Projected hours limited based on demonstrated hours.

More than 50% of stacks have 

projected hours to 10% voltage 

degradation >10,000 hours 
10

Published MHE Cost of Ownership Report

Key Findings

• Cost advantages dependent on 

deployment size and use (i.e., 

multi-shift operation per day)

• H2 fuel cell cost advantages in 

maintenance, warehouse 

infrastructure space, and 

refueling labor cost

• H2 fuel cell cost disadvantages 

in infrastructure and fuel cell 

cost and hydrogen cost

Report Sections

• Inputs, assumptions, and results for 

Class I/II and Class III

• Sensitivity study

• Intensive deployment scenario

Cost advantage per unit is ~$2,000/year for 

the average high-use facility with Class I 

and II fuel cell lift trucks analyzed by NREL
11

Study of Infrastructure Usage by Daily Fills

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0

50

100

150

200

250

Station (Sorted By Increasing Max Daily Amount)

Fills Per Day

Station Usage

Maximum Daily Fills

Average Daily Fills1

NREL cdparra_mhe_70

Created: Sep-26-13 10:20 AM | Data Range: 2009Q4-2013Q2

1

Average daily fills considers only days when at least one fill occurred

The maximum daily fill count for 

two sites was >200 fills. Those 

two sites average nearly 100 fills 

per day.
12

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Site MTBF1 (Days)

Count of Sites

Site MTBF (Calendar Days In Operation): Infrastructure

NREL cdp_mhe_48

Created: Sep-28-13 12:45 PM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2013Q2

1. Cumulative Mean Time Between Failure

Infrastructure Reliability Analysis

Infrastructure consistently 

delivering 250 and 350 bar 

fills even though the 

majority of the sites have a 

MTBF of 25 days or less

Compressor

51%

Control

Electronics

 20%

Dispenser

19%

Air

System

10%

Delivered H2 Maintenance 

Count by Category

1,330 Maintenance Events

63% unscheduled
13

Equipment Percentage of Monthly Repair Labor Hours 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Apr-2010

Jul-2010

Oct-2010Jan-2011

Apr-2011

Jul-2011

Oct-2011

Jan-2012

Apr-2012

Jul-2012

Oct-2012

Jan-2013

Apr-2013

% of Total Monthly Maintenance Labor Hours

Equipment Percentage of Repair Labor Hours Over Time*

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

DISPENSER

NREL cdparra_mhe_77 AIR SYSTEM

Created: Sep-30-13 12:56 PM | Data Range: 2010Q10-2013Q2

*Calculated as a percentage

of all maintenance each month; bars may

not total to 100% if other maintenance

categories were present.

Compressor and dispenser repairs 

consistent over evaluation period
14

0

50

100

150

200

250

AIR SYSTEM

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

DISPENSER

FITTINGS&PIPING

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

SENSORS

VALVES

MTBF (Days)

MTBF by Equipment Category: Infrastructure (Delivered H2

 Only)

Median Site

Lowest Site

NREL cdparra_mhe_72

Created: Sep-26-13 10:24 AM | Data Range: 2010Q1-2013Q2

Breakdown of MTBF by Key Delivered Hydrogen 

Infrastructure Categories 

Consistent across all sites are 

failures with control electronics 

and hydrogen compressors. 

These two categories have low 

MTBF.
15

Breakdown of Failure Modes for Top Four Maintenance 

Categories for Infrastructure

0 100 200 300 400

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

DISPENSER

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

AIR SYSTEM

Event Count

51%*

20%*

19%*

10%*

DATA ERROR

DRIVE OFF

EXCESSIVE NOISE

FAILED CLOSED

HYDROGEN LEAK

INSPECT TROUBLE ALARM OR REPORT

LIGHTNING STRIKE

METAL FATIGUE

MOISTURE INFILTRATION

OUT OF CALIBRATION

PRESSURE LOW

REPLACE FAILED PARTS

TEMPERATURE HIGH

MISC

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

DISPENSER

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

AIR SYSTEM

Labor Hours

58%*

18%*

14%*

9%*

NREL cdp_mhe_52

Created: Sep-26-13 9:51 AM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2013Q2

Failure Modes for Top Four Infrastructure Equipment Categories

* Percentage of total events or hours, reference CDP 66.

MISC includes the following failure modes: ambient temperature too low, broken wire,

cavitation, data error, debris infiltration, electrical short, failed closed, false alarm, flow

high, flow low, fluid leak non-hydrogen, fluid leak non_hydrogen, fluid

leak_non_hydrogen, inspect trouble alarm or report, maintenance error, manufacturing

defect, metal fatigue, moisture infiltration, network malfunction, operator protocol, other,

power outage, pressure high, pressure low, replace failed parts, software bug,

unspecified electronics failure, vandalism, voltage low, other

There are many different failure modes for the top four 

categories and these modes provide insight for RD&D needs
16

MHE and Infrastructure Safety Report Analyses

14%

14%

14%

14%

14%

29%

By Number of Incidents

Total Incidents = 7

Control

Electronics

Operator 

Protocol

Fuel 

System

Fittings &

Piping

FC Stack

Electrical

Majority of MHE safety reports (217) are 

minor hydrogen leaks 

(4,480 stack hours per report)

Majority of infrastructure safety reports (82) 

are hydrogen leaks primarily from the 

hydrogen compressor and plumbing 

(2,879 kg dispensed per report)

5%

5%

90%

By Number of Incidents

Total Incidents = 21

 

 

Dispenser

Compressor

Valves
17

Technical Summary—What We’ve Learned

• Operating with an average availability 

of ~98% at eight end-user facilities.

• Most systems operate at least 6 hours 

a day.

• Cost of ownership comparison 

between fuel cell and battery MHE 

indicate significant cost savings for 

refueling labor and infrastructure 

space but much greater cost for 

hydrogen infrastructure and fuel.

• MHE infrastructure can provide insight 

into infrastructure performance for 

the light duty vehicle application.

Aggregated data showcase 

performance over the last two 

years in MHE and backup 

power.

Performance results address a 

need for published results on 

the technology status.

Data analyses develop as 

systems operate and based on 

the key performance areas in 

the markets.
18

This project is supported by the U.S. 

Department of Energy Fuel Cell Technologies 

Office EERE, Jason Marcinkoski, Sara Dillich, 

and Pete Devlin 

Jennifer Kurtz

jennifer.kurtz@nrel.gov

Photo by Jennifer Kurtz, NREL 18347