National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

Hydrogen Infrastructure 

Transition Analysis 

M. Melendez and A. Milbrandt

Milestone Report 

NREL/TP-540-38351 

January 2006 
Hydrogen Infrastructure 

Transition Analysis 

M. Melendez and A. Milbrandt

Prepared under Task No. HY55.2200 

Milestone Report 

NREL/TP-540-38351 

January 2006 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
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:reports@adonis.osti.gov

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: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

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

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

During 2002, President George W. Bush launched the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which envisions a future 

hydrogen economy for the United States. A hydrogen economy would increase U.S. energy security, 

environmental quality, energy efficiency, and economic competitiveness. Transitioning to a hydrogen 

economy, however, presents numerous technological, institutional, and economic barriers. These barriers 

apply not only to the development of fuel cell vehicles and stationary fuel cells, but also to the 

development of a hydrogen fueling infrastructure. The President asked the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) to lead the efforts to overcome these barriers. 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) works closely with DOE to evaluate the current 

status and future potential of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. NREL’s capabilities include fuel cell 

and vehicle modeling and analysis of fuel cells, vehicles, production technologies, and delivery options, 

as well as policy analysis and technology validation expertise. Using these capabilities, NREL has 

contributed to identifying and addressing barriers to the hydrogen economy. One barrier discussed in 

DOE’s Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan (2003) is the development of a 

hydrogen fueling infrastructure. The goal of this study is to investigate the barriers to developing a 

hydrogen fueling infrastructure and identify and quantify potential solutions for overcoming them. 

As hydrogen vehicles are first introduced, they will be few in number. This makes it difficult to build a 

large number of viable hydrogen fueling stations. Conversely, without adequate fueling options, 

consumers will be reluctant to purchase hydrogen vehicles. This project addresses this “chicken-and-egg” 

situation by identifying a minimum infrastructure that could support the introduction of hydrogen 

vehicles. It also develops and evaluates transition scenarios supported by this infrastructure. The focus of 

this analysis is infrastructure located along major U.S. interstates to facilitate interstate travel. 

Background 

ArcGIS, a geographic information system (GIS), and Microsoft Excel were the primary analysis tools 

used in this project. GIS is a computer-based information system used to create, manipulate, and analyze 

geographic information. A GIS dataset consists of two elements: a graphic representation (map) and 

associated tabular information (data tables) for each graphic element. All information in GIS is linked to a 

spatial reference used to store and access data (i.e., each point on a map can be queried to view its 

associated information). The combination of geographic information and tabular forms enables analysis 

and characterization of different phenomena that occupy the same geographic space. Because GIS data 

and analysis are easily entered into tabular form, they can be converted for further analysis using a 

spreadsheet. In the case of this analysis, Excel was used. 

The analysis done in fiscal year (FY) 2005 built upon the FY 2004 work described in the March 2005 

report, “Analysis of the Hydrogen Infrastructure Needed to Enable Commercial Introduction of 

Hydrogen-Fueled Vehicles”1

. The FY 2005 project: 

• Identified existing hydrogen production facilities and alternative fuel stations. 

• Identified highway traffic volumes throughout the U.S. interstate system. 

• Selected specific north/south and east/west routes as a focus for the project. 

• Incorporated existing hydrogen production facilities, hydrogen and natural gas fueling stations, 

railroads, traffic volume, and county population data. 

• Placed stations on the U.S. interstate network according to population density and station 

distances. 

• Identified a significant potential to co-locate refueling with federal government partners. 

In FY 2005, analysis focused on using the basic refueling station network proposed in FY 2004 to 

evaluate various scenarios for transition. These strategies and analyses are described in this report. 

 

1

 “Hydrogen Infrastructure Needed to Enable Commercial Introduction of Hydrogen-Fueled Vehicles,” March 2005, 

NREL/CP-540-37903, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37903.pdf 

1
Demographics and Network Details 

The proposed network includes 284 hydrogen refueling stations (see Figure 1). These stations, spaced 

approximately 50 miles apart east of the Mississippi River and 100 miles apart west of the Mississippi 

River, facilitate travel along 65% of the U.S. interstate highway system. 

Using average daily traffic statistics from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), more than 13 

million vehicles pass the proposed stations each day2

. This data represents the count of vehicles driving 

past each station on the interstate, no matter how many times the same vehicles pass the station. While 

this information is helpful, it does not break out the number of unique vehicles that pass each station. 

According to 2000 census data, almost 233 million people live in the 362 Metropolitan Statistical Areas 

(MSAs) in the United States. This represents nearly 83% of the overall U.S. population (281.4 million). 

The proposed network of hydrogen stations consists of at least one station in 87 of the total 362 MSAs. 

Approximately 91 million people, or 32% of the total U.S. population, live in these MSAs. Although the 

proposed hydrogen stations are technically within these MSAs, the stations may not be available to every 

person within that MSA. Many of the MSAs are situated in large land areas, and the station locations are 

optimized for interstate travel, not local city traffic. Therefore, a better way to evaluate the impact of the 

stations is population within a given radius. Total population living within a five-mile radius of the 

proposed hydrogen stations is 22.3 million; the population within 10 miles of the stations is 58.2 million. 

Figure 1. Proposed Hydrogen Fueling Stations 

Forecourt Infrastructure Scenario 

Assuming network-wide forecourt production and hydrogen analysis (H2A3) assumptions for capital 

equipment costs, a basic cost estimate for the proposed refueling network was completed for a baseline 

 

2

 Reference 6, page 4: “Hydrogen Infrastructure Needed to Enable Commercial Introduction of Hydrogen-Fueled 

Vehicles,” March 2005, NREL/CP-540-37903, www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/37903.pdf 3

 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program website: H2A Model section, 

www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/analysis/model.html 

2
scenario and several variations on that scenario. Table 1 summarizes the H2A capital cost assumptions 

and shows the seven types of stations used in this analysis. As the H2A costs are updated, the values used 

in this model will be updated.

Using assumptions (described below) for hydrogen demand, station configuration (size and type of 

production) was fit to meet that demand. Resources and infrastructure at the station location were also 

considered. Table 2 shows the production and capital equipment assigned to each station. 

Table 1. H2A Capital Cost Assumptions (September 2004) 

Installed Capital Costs 

Station Type Abbreviation Production Storage Dispensing Pipeline 

Cost per 

Station ($M) 

Forecourt, SMR, 100 kg/day SMR100 $135,000 $73,000 $49,000 $0 $257,000 

Forecourt, SMR, 1,500 kg/day SMR1500 $906,000 $732,000 $103,000 $0 $1,741,000 

Forecourt, SMR, 3,000 kg/day SMR3000 $1,813,000 $1,464,000 $184,000 $0 $3,461,000 

Forecourt, Electrolysis, 100 kg/day EL100 $129,000 $73,000 $49,000 $0 $251,000 

Forecourt, Electrolysis, 1,500 kg/day EL1500 $905,000 $732,000 $103,000 $0 $1,740,000 

Forecourt, Electrolysis, 3,000 kg/day EL3000 $1,809,000 $1,464,000 $184,000 $0 $3,457,000 

Pipeline, 3000 kg/day (three miles 

from plant) P3000 $0 $0 $184,000 $3,000,000 $3,184,000 

Table 2. Station Production and Volume Assignments 

Conditions for Assigning Station Types 

Existing 

Infrastructure 

Volume of 

Hydrogen (kg/day) Station Type 

CNG <100 Forecourt, SMR, 100 kg/day 

LNG <100 Forecourt, SMR, 100 kg/day 

Hydrogen Facility <100 Forecourt, Electrolysis, 100 kg/day 

Hydrogen <100 NC 

None <100 Forecourt, Electrolysis, 100 kg/day 

CNG 101-1,500 Forecourt, SMR, 1,500 kg/day 

LNG 101-1,500 Forecourt, SMR, 1,500 kg/day 

Hydrogen Facility 101-1,500 Forecourt, SMR, 1,500 kg/day 

Hydrogen 101-1,500 NC 

None 101-1,500 Forecourt, SMR, 1500 kg/day 

CNG >1,500 Forecourt, SMR, 3000 kg/day 

LNG >1,500 Forecourt, SMR, 3,000 kg/day 

Hydrogen Facility >1,500 Pipeline, 3,000 kg/day ( three miles from plant) 

Hydrogen >1,500 NC 

None >1,500 Forecourt, SMR, 3,000 kg/day 

Baseline Scenario: Vehicle penetration into the marketplace, average volume of a vehicle fill-up, and the 

percentage of vehicles that pass each station and stop to refuel were the primary factors affecting the 

overall hydrogen demand at each station. 

Vehicle Penetration: Using the VISION 1.0 model vehicle penetration estimates under the “Go 

Your Own Way (GYOW)” scenario, vehicle penetration for the baseline scenario was selected to 

be 1.1% of the entire U.S. light-duty fleet in 2020. The GYOW scenario models the rate of 

3
penetration of fuel cell vehicles under conditions of a fast pace of innovation and a high level of 

environmental responsiveness in the market4

. The model predicts that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles 

will be introduced in 2018 and the U.S. fleet will be composed of 50% hydrogen vehicles by 

2050. 

Average Fill-Up: Average fill-up was based on the DOE hydrogen program goal to achieve two 

times the efficiency of a conventionally fueled vehicle (25.1 mpg for light-duty fleet average in 

2003) with a range of 300 mpg. With equal energy content for 1 kg of hydrogen and one gallon of 

gasoline, the usable tank capacity would need to be 6 kg. The average fill-up was selected to be 

two-thirds of the tank capacity, and therefore 4 kg was used in this analysis. 

Vehicles Stopping at the Station: FHWA traffic data counts all the vehicles that drive past a 

particular point on the interstate. Vehicles traveling long distances or cross country will need to 

refuel at roughly every other or every third station (if the stations are 100 miles apart). Local 

vehicles, however, would refuel less frequently when passing the station, because they may take 

numerous short trips past a station. To determine the percentage of vehicles stopping at a station 

each day, we assumed that roughly 50% of the population is long-distance traffic stopping at 

every other station along the route. The remaining 50% of the traffic stops only once every 10 

trips. Therefore, the overall percentage of vehicles stopping at a station is 30% (50%*1/2 + 

50%*1/10). 

Results for the baseline scenario and its various scenarios are shown in Table 3. The final row of the 

Table 3 represents a hybrid-like scenario. 

Table 3. Cost Scenarios for Forecourt Hydrogen Production on Interstate Station Network 

Vehicle 

Penetration in Fleet 

Average 

Vehicle Fill-Up 

Interstate Traffic 

Using Station 

Total 

Capital Costs ($M) 

1.10% 4 kg 30% $472 

1.10% 4 kg 50% $556 

2.50% 4 kg 30% $619 

2.50% 4 kg 50% $747 

5.00% 4 kg 30% $770 

5.00% 4 kg 50% $847 

0.08% 4 kg 30% $156 

Table 4. Total U.S. Hybrid Registrations 

Category 

Model Year 

(MY) 2000 MY 2001 MY 2002 MY 2003 MY 2004 

New Hybrid Vehicles 6,479 19,033 34,521 43,435 83,153 

U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Sales 17,349,000 16,076,000 15,904,000 16,634,000 16,267,000 

Hybrid Vehicle Penetration into Market 0.04% 0.12% 0.22% 0.26% 0.51% 

Sources: R.L. Polk & Co. U.S. Registrations, VISION 1.0 Model

Hybrid-Like Scenario: This scenario assumes the same introduction rate into the marketplace as hybrid 

vehicles for the first five years of vehicle availability. 

Vehicle Penetration: Vehicle penetration into the marketplace was determined based on the 

introduction of the hybrid electric vehicle. Table 4 shows total U.S. hybrid sales beginning with 

 

4 “Joint DOE/NRCan Study of North American Transportation Energy Futures,” U.S. Department of Energy, May 

2003, www.nrel.gov/analysis/seminar/docs/2003/es_3-13-03.ppt 

4
the 2000 introduction of the technology. Assuming hydrogen vehicles are introduced in 2017—

and that after five years no vehicles have been taken out of service—the vehicle penetration into 

the marketplace after five years (2022) would be roughly 0.08% (sum of all vehicles sold for 

2000 through 2005 divided by the total U.S. fleet of roughly 222 million). 

Average Fill-Up: 4 kg (See baseline scenario.) 

Vehicles Stopping at the Station: 30% (See baseline scenario.) 

These costs represent the price of purchasing and installing the equipment at each site using the H2A 

reference year of 2005 dollars. This does not take into account any operational costs or costs required to 

subsidize these stations until they are economically self-sustaining. 

Under the baseline scenario, the network consists of 58 reforming stations, 223 electrolysis stations, and 

one station with delivery via pipeline from a nearby production facility. Two stations currently have the 

ability to fuel hydrogen, and no change is necessary (we assumed these can adequately meet demand in 

their current configuration). These stations are in Phoenix, Arizona, and Rancho Mirage, California. 

Figure 2. Forecourt Infrastructure—Baseline Scenario 

Because stations were limited to a maximum of 3,000 kg/day (as shown in Table 1), under the baseline 

scenario, nine stations do not have sufficient capacity to support demand. Of the stations operating below 

their capacity, the average utilization is about 44% of capacity. Table 5 shows how hydrogen demand 

grows with increasing vehicle sales. 

The stations with excess high demand for hydrogen are located in urban areas and should ultimately be 

supported by central production facilities. Therefore, this analysis under predicts capital costs for 

forecourt production at these stations. Because of this limitation, this analysis is best used for early 

transition scenarios with low rates for vehicle penetration into the marketplace. Future work will focus on 

a mix of forecourt and centrally produced hydrogen to address this issue, incorporating other models to 

evaluate delivery to high volume stations. 

5
Table 5: Hydrogen Demand at Stations—Baseline Scenario 

Vehicle 

Penetration in Fleet 

Average 

Vehicle 

Fill-Up 

Interstate 

Traffic 

Using 

Station 

Annual 

Demand 

(Mil. kg H2) 

Stations 

with 

Excess 

Demand 

Average 

Utilization of 

Stations with 

Sufficient 

Capacity 

1.10% 4 kg 30% 58 1 39% 

1.10% 4 kg 50% 97 11 46% 

2.50% 4 kg 30% 132 25 49% 

2.50% 4 kg 50% 220 55 52% 

5.00% 4 kg 30% 264 71 55% 

5.00% 4 kg 50% 441 137 56% 

0.08% 4 kg 30% 4 0 29% 

Using the baseline scenario, hydrogen demand is 159,000 kg/day or 58 million kg/year (more than 14 

million fill-ups per year). Assuming that each kilogram of hydrogen used displaces two gallons of 

gasoline (because of 2X vehicle efficiency), the capital infrastructure costs represent roughly $4.06 per 

gallon of gasoline displaced in the first year. Considering that the population within five miles has 

relatively convenient access to the infrastructure, capital costs are $21 per person served by the 

infrastructure. 

Forecourt production seems to be a relatively inexpensive way to produce hydrogen during the transition. 

This is because it has relatively low capital costs and allows for tailoring stations to meet localized 

hydrogen demands. This can translate into a high utilization rate and, in turn, easier payback. Future work 

will evaluate growth of hydrogen demand and key parameters for avoiding stranded assets. For example, 

in areas where hydrogen demand is anticipated to grow significantly, it may be more economical to install 

a larger-capacity station or use central production with truck or pipeline delivery to support future 

demand, instead of installing infrastructure that will be outgrown in a short period of time. FY 2006 work 

will include an analysis on demand growth over time and the best way to address infrastructure issues to 

meet this growing demand. 

Renewable Infrastructure Scenario 

One of the advantages of using hydrogen as a transportation energy source is the ability to generate it in 

many ways from many resources. This diversity allows each region to utilize its best resources to produce 

hydrogen. If transition infrastructure is installed at each station using a forecourt technology, such as 

electrolysis, renewable energy could be incorporated at each station. Because of the relatively low 

volumes at more rural stations, forecourt technologies could present an opportunity to utilize renewables. 

Using NREL analysis5

 as a basis, the availability of renewables was evaluated at each station to determine 

whether there were sufficient resources to meet the hydrogen demand at each site (at a 1.1% vehicle 

penetration). Each of the stations had sufficient renewable capacity. All 284 stations had enough usable 

solar resources to satisfy the hydrogen demand for vehicle refueling. Wind and biomass resources were 

sufficient at 163 and 281 stations, respectively. 

Solar has the ability to meet the demands at nearly every station during the transition phase where 

demand is relative low. The most abundant and accessible in more rural areas, wind can meet demands at 

a little more than half of the stations with lower volume, and biomass can meet demands at more than 

90% of the stations. 

 

5

 “Hydrogen Potential from Wind and Solar,” Anelia Milbrandt, FY 2004 DOE Milestone Report; “Hydrogen from 

Renewable Resources,” Anelia Milbrandt, FY 2005 DOE Milestone Report 

6
Table 6. Ability of Renewable Resources to meet Hydrogen Demand at Refueling Stations 

 

Stations with Sufficient 

Renewable Resources 

Vehicle 

 Penetration Rate 

Average 

Vehicle Fill-Up 

Interstate Traffic

Using Station Solar Wind Biomass 

1.10% 4 kg 30% 284 164 282 

1.10% 4 kg 50% 284 163 280 

2.50% 4 kg 30% 284 162 278 

2.50% 4 kg 50% 284 159 274 

5.00% 4 kg 30% 284 156 270 

5.00% 4 kg 50% 284 150 264 

0.08% 4 kg 30% 284 169 284 

Using the most prevalent renewable resource at each station, for the baseline case, 248 stations would 

incorporate solar and 36 would incorporate wind. Although biomass has sufficient potential to satisfy 

demand at 282 stations, it is not the resource with the most hydrogen production potential and was 

therefore not selected for any of the stations. In practice, other issues (besides the greatest hydrogen 

production capacity) would factor into the renewable decision, such as incentives and local initiatives. 

Figure 3 shows the network and the types of locally available renewable energy sources for each station. 

Figure 3. Scenario of Renewably Produced Hydrogen Network 

Transition Strategies 

Successful transition from conventional vehicles to hydrogen vehicles takes more than just technology. 

The coordination of simultaneous and strategic infrastructure and vehicle deployment are critical 

components. Roughly 17 million new vehicles are sold per year6

. In comparison to the overall vehicle 

stock in the U.S. (222 million7

), if all the new vehicles sold were hydrogen vehicles, hydrogen vehicles 

would penetrate vehicle stock around 7.5% each year. Perhaps a more realistic scenario could be 

 

6

 2003 Transportation Energy Data Book, 2002 data, tables 4.7 and 4.8 

7

 2003 Transportation Energy Data Book, 2002 data, tables 4.7 and 4.8 

7
penetration approaching that of hybrid vehicles. If hydrogen vehicles penetrated the marketplace as 

effectively as hybrid vehicles (88,000 hybrid electric vehicles were sold in 2004 or about 0.51% of new 

vehicle sales in the United States, according to the J.D. Power-LMC “Automotive Forecasting Services 

Hybrid Electric Vehicle Outlook,” February 3, 2005), after five years of vehicle sales, hydrogen vehicles 

would only represent 0.08% of the U.S. fleet of vehicles. There are many different scenarios and 

strategies, but, overall, the challenge to transform the marketplace to hydrogen vehicles is daunting and 

will not happen overnight. Therefore, transition strategies are critical. In FY 2005, two specific strategies 

to aid in the transition were evaluated.

Coordination with the USPS and Other Federal Agencies 

Because the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) operates roughly 170,000 vehicles—nearly 37,000 of them 

capable of being powered by alternative fuel—across the country, it could be a valuable partner in 

infrastructure and vehicle deployment. In particular, remote post offices may have potential for cogeneration options. A rural facility can meet its energy demands using a stationary fuel cell for power, 

while allowing local postal or public vehicles to refuel. This could stimulate demand for hydrogen (by 

building energy demand), while introducing the vehicles into the community. Figure 4 shows that postal 

facilities are widespread across the country. Many stations from the FY 2005 analysis are within the 

proximity of post offices and could be designed to coordinate with a post office co-generation project. 

Figure 4. USPS Facilities Nationwide 

Non-postal federal facilities are also prevalent nationwide. Coordination with non-postal federal entities is 

important because federal agencies are subject to Executive Order 13149, which requires certain federal 

fleets to utilize alternative fuels. They are also covered under Executive Order 13123, which requires 

renewable energy use in federal facilities. The combination of these requirements makes federal entities 

an important factor in the transition to hydrogen. For example, Figure 5 shows the federal facilities in the 

Denver metropolitan area. Federal facilities are located widely across the country and could be key to 

transition from a geographic, as well as logistic, standpoint. 

8
Figure 5. Federal Facilities in the Denver Metropolitan Area 

Petroleum Depots 

As the United States transitions from a petroleum-driven transportation system to one that is hydrogen 

based, existing petroleum-related assets may become underutilized (as we transition to the 20% or 30% 

penetration level). One such type of asset is the petroleum depot for short-term storage and the 

distribution of transportation fuel. It would be advantageous to use these existing facilities for hydrogen 

production and distribution. To evaluate the potential for this type of transition, the existing petroleum 

depots in the United States were examined. Figure 6 shows these depots throughout the United States. 

Figure 6. Areas within 30-Mile Radius of Gasoline Depots and Proposed Hydrogen Stations 

9
It would be relatively easy to transport hydrogen via truck to support refueling stations within a 30-mile 

radius of these depots. Because 60% of the proposed interstate stations fall within this range, the depots 

could be good candidates for centralized production with distribution to the proposed stations. 

Furthermore, because these depots were designed to distribute transportation fuel they should also be 

suited to support hydrogen distribution. Analysis for trucking delivery costs from depots to the proposed 

stations will be incorporated in FY 2006 and will harmonize with the H2A delivery analysis. 

Hydrogen Production Facilities 

More than 370 U.S. facilities (such as petroleum refineries and ammonia and chemical plants) produce 

hydrogen as a primary product or have hydrogen as a by-product. During the transition phase when 

hydrogen demand is relatively low, these existing facilities may be able to increase production to satisfy 

emerging needs for transportation hydrogen. Figure 7 shows the existing hydrogen facilities and the 

proposed interstate stations within a 30-mile radius of these facilities. 

Figure 7. Areas within 30-Mile Radius of Hydrogen Production Facilities 

and Proposed Refueling Stations 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Hydrogen infrastructure is a big challenge in the transition to hydrogen vehicles. This project suggests 

possible first steps. It identifies a minimum infrastructure that could support the introduction of hydrogen 

vehicles and evaluates transition scenarios supported by this infrastructure. It represents an infrastructure 

to facilitate interstate or longer-distance trips. For this type of travel the vehicle distribution is of 

secondary concern because the emphasis is connecting major urban centers. 

The second aspect of infrastructure that needs analysis is local trips, where drivers refuel near their homes 

or work. This is especially challenging because during the transitional phase, vehicles will not be 

uniformly distributed. Understanding the spatial distribution of vehicles and corresponding hydrogen 

demand to accommodate local trips is critical for transitional infrastructure analysis. 

To adequately address local infrastructure, the following issues must be better understood. 

• Effects of changing demand throughout the transition to avoid stranded assets 

• Consumer vehicle choices and if/how previous new product introduction can aid in this 

understanding (i.e. hybrid and/or alternative fuel vehicles, cellular telephones, etc.) 

10
• Relationship between availability of fuel and vehicle choice 

• Policy and economic implications of very early transition (<1%) versus later transition (5%-10%) 

During FY 2006, this project will address some of these concerns. It will focus on hydrogen demand 

analysis, including: 

Defining Key Demographics and Attributes, Rank Attributes, and Predict Vehicle Penetration 

and Hydrogen Demand Growth under Various Market Scenarios: Key attributes affecting 

consumer acceptance of a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will be identified (with consultation from 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and spatially analyzed using GIS. Attributes will be assigned 

rankings and scores geographically to represent the likelihood to purchase/operate a fuel cell 

vehicle. 

Conducting Sensitivity Analyses: Sensitivity analysis will ensure that the scores assigned for each 

demographic/characteristic are reasonable. 

Defining Infrastructure Scenarios at Various Penetration Rates: The final infrastructure (100% 

vehicle penetration into the marketplace) will be the initial analysis with transitional demand 

scenarios (TDS) to follow (50%, 30%, and 10% vehicle penetration). At each penetration rate, the 

infrastructure will be spatially defined using GIS in terms of quantity of hydrogen required, 

station configuration, production and distribution, and percentage of population with access to 

hydrogen. 

Identifying Costs and Stranded Assets: Evaluate the degree to which infrastructure installed 

during the transition phases (TDS10, TDS30, TDS50) will become stranded assets and minimize 

wherever possible. For each scenario, incremental and cumulative infrastructure investment costs 

will be calculated. 

Evaluating Sustainability Levels: Determine the point when the stations become profitable and 

the private sector could be responsible for infrastructure development and operational costs 

without government funding. 

Identifying and Evaluating Transitional Strategies: Identify specific postal facilities with 

transitional potential, renewable community partnerships, hydrogen distribution from MTBE and 

ammonia plants, and hydrogen plug-in hybrid potential. 

Incorporating Centralized Production: Trucking and pipeline delivery costs from central to the 

proposed stations will be incorporated in FY 2006 and will harmonize with the H2A delivery 

analysis. 

11
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)

January 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Milestone Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Hydrogen Infrastructure Transition Analysis 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/TP-540-38351 

5e. TASK NUMBER

HY55.2200 

6. AUTHOR(S)

M. Melendez and A. Milbrandt 

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 ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-540-38351 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

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

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY 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)

This milestone report identifies a minimum infrastructure that could support the introduction of hydrogen vehicles and 

develops and evaluates transition scenarios supported by this infrastructure. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Hydrogen; vehicles; infrastructure; H2A; alternative fuel vehicles; fueling; stations; interstate 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18