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 

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and 

Infrastructure Demonstration 

and Validation Project: 

Progress Update 

Preprint 

K. Wipke, C. Welch, H. Thomas, and S. Sprik 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

S. Gronich, J. Garbak, and D. Hooker 

U.S. Department of Energy

To be presented at the National Hydrogen Association Conference 

Long Beach, California 

March 12-16, 2006 

Conference Paper 

NREL/CP-560-39555 

March 2006 
NOTICE

The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), a 

contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-99GO10337. Accordingly, the US 

Government and MRI retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of 

this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes. 

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
CONTROLLED HYDROGEN FLEET AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE DEMONSTRATION AND VALIDATION 

PROJECT: PROGRESS UPDATE1

K. Wipke2

, C. Welch, H. Thomas, S. Sprik, S. Gronich3, J. Garbak, D. 

Hooker4

Abstract 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) initiated the “Controlled Hydrogen Fleet 

and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project” through a competitive 

solicitation process in 2003. The purpose of this project is to conduct an 

integrated field validation that simultaneously examines the performance of fuel 

cell vehicles and the supporting hydrogen infrastructure. Insights from the 

vehicles and infrastructure study will be fed back into DOE’s research and 

development program to guide and refocus future research, making this project a 

“learning demonstration.” Five teams were selected and four cooperative 

agreements between DOE and industry partners have been awarded and 

commenced. These four cooperative agreements will ultimately support more 

than 130 fuel cell vehicles, which will be validated on-road, as well as more than 

25 hydrogen refueling stations. Fifty-nine first-generation vehicles have already 

entered into service with customers, and several new hydrogen refueling stations 

have opened, with more vehicles and stations planned. Lessons learned from this 

project on the interrelationship between the vehicles and the infrastructure will 

influence ongoing development of codes and standards. The auto industry and the 

energy companies are strongly committed to this project, and the government’s 

investment in this project is matched by each industry team. 

This DOE/industry collaborative project will continue for a total of 5 years, during 

which multiple generations of technology will be tested. Technical performance 

of vehicles and infrastructure will be compared against DOE targets at 

intermediate stages and at project completion. Examples of 2009 DOE validation 

targets include a 250-mile vehicle range, 2,000-hour durability of vehicle fuel cell 

stacks, and a hydrogen production cost of $3/gge untaxed, when produced in 

quantity. This paper provides a status update covering the progress of the 

demonstration and validation project over the last year. This includes the first 

composite data products to be released from the project, along with a summary of 

the data inputs and analysis methodology. The composite data products aggregate 

 

1

 This work has been authored by an employee of the Midwest Research Institute under Contract 

No. DE-AC36-99GO10337 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government 

retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United 

States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or 

reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States Government 

purposes. 

2

 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO. 

3

 U.S. Department of Energy – Washington, DC. 

4

 U.S. Department of Energy – Golden Field Office, Golden, CO.

1
individual performance into a range that protects the intellectual property and the 

identity of each company, while still being able to publicize the progress made by 

the hydrogen and fuel cell industry relative to program objectives and timeline. 

Comparison of progress toward DOE technical targets are made through these 

composite data products, and future project activities and analysis are discussed. 

Keywords: demonstration, fuel cell, hydrogen, infrastructure, passenger car. 

1. Introduction 

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are being developed and tested for their potential as 

commercially viable and highly efficient zero-tailpipe-emission vehicles. Using 

hydrogen fuel and high-efficiency fuel cell vehicles provides environmental and 

fuel feedstock diversity benefits to the United States. Hydrogen could be derived 

from a mixture of renewable sources, natural gas, biomass, coal, and nuclear 

energy, enabling the United States to reduce emissions and decrease its 

dependence on foreign oil. Numerous technical barriers remain before hydrogen 

fuel cell vehicles are commercially viable. Significant resources from private 

industry and government are being devoted to overcoming these barriers. 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is working with industry to facilitate 

commercialization of these technologies through its Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & 

Infrastructure Technologies (HFCIT) Program. This multi-faceted program 

simultaneously addresses hydrogen production, storage, delivery, conversion (fuel 

cells), technology validation, deployment (education), safety, and codes and 

standards. Many key technical barriers, such as hydrogen storage and fuel cell 

durability, have been identified and are being addressed. Additional challenges 

may become apparent through integrated, real-world application of these 

technologies. Prior to this project, the number of fuel cell vehicles in service has 

been small, and vehicle operation has been focused primarily in California, 

limiting the quantity and geographic diversity of data collected. To address 

vehicle and refueling infrastructure issues simultaneously, DOE is conducting a 

large-scale “learning demonstration” involving automotive manufacturers and fuel 

providers. This learning demonstration, titled the “Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and 

Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project,” is the second phase of the 

HFCIT Program’s Technology Validation effort (see Figure 1). 

2
Figure 1: Transportation and Infrastructure Timeline 

In April 2003, DOE initiated a competitive solicitation for proposals for this 

project. Five teams were selected and four cooperative agreements between DOE 

and industry partners were awarded in fiscal year 2004. These four agreements 

will ultimately support more than 130 fuel cell vehicles, which will be validated 

on road, as well as about 25 hydrogen refueling stations. Fifty-nine firstgeneration vehicles have already entered into service with customers, and several 

new hydrogen refueling stations have opened, with more vehicles and stations 

planned. Estimated government investment in this 5-year project will be about 

$175 million; with cost share from industry, total projected expenditures are over 

$350 million. 

2. Project Objectives and Targets 

One of the HFCIT Program’s key objectives is to conduct parallel learning 

demonstrations of hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles to facilitate an 

industry commercialization decision by 2015. We will accomplish this objective 

through validating the vehicle and infrastructure as a complete system solution. 

The quantity and breadth of data collected and analyzed will enable evaluation of 

technology status versus DOE program targets as well as refocusing of DOEfunded research and development as appropriate. The ability to refocus research 

and development as an integrated part of DOE’s program makes this project 

unique. 

3
This project has specific performance targets for 2009, which will be used to 

evaluate progress toward the 2015 targets. The targets listed in Table 1 address 

key barriers to successful market entry. Fuel cell stack durability is critical to 

customer acceptance of fuel cell vehicles. Although 2,000-hour durability in 2009 

is considered acceptable to validate progress, a 5,000-hour lifetime (equivalent to 

approximately 100,000 miles) is estimated as a requirement for 

commercialization. Vehicle range is also an important consumer expectation. 

Although many factors contributed to the failure of all-electric vehicles to gain 

market acceptance despite California government mandates, limited vehicle range 

is widely accepted as being a significant contributor. Finally, hydrogen 

production cost is a key metric because consumers are much less likely to 

purchase an alternative fuel vehicle if the fuel is significantly more expensive than 

gasoline. 

Table 1: Project Performance Targets 

Key Hydrogen Learning Demonstration Targets

Performance Measure 2009* 2015**

Fuel Cell Stack Durability 2000 hours 5000 hours 

Vehicle Range 250+ miles 300+ miles 

Hydrogen Cost at Station (untaxed) $3/gge $2-3/gge 

 * To verify progress toward 2015 targets 

 ** Subsequent projects to validate 2015 target 

3. Cooperative Agreements and Industry Partners 

DOE selected five teams and awarded cooperative agreements to four of those 

teams in fiscal year 2004. This section describes the makeup of the four teams 

that are currently working on this project. The DOE solicitation required each 

team to include an automotive original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and an 

energy provider, and that the OEM or energy provider be the team leader. 

Automotive OEMs are leading three of the teams, and an energy provider is the 

leader of the fourth. Figure 2 shows the teaming arrangement of the four teams 

along with their fuel cell vehicles, and Figure 3 shows examples of representative 

H2 refueling infrastructure used in the project from the three energy providers. 

 

4
*Validation also includes FCV Sprinter 

*Validation also includes Kia Sportage 

Figure 2: OEM & Fuel Supplier Teams, Along with Representative Vehicles 

Figure 3: Representative H2 Refueling Stations from the Project 

DTE/BP Power Park, 

Photos: DTE Southfield, MI 

Chino, CA

LAX refueling station 

Hydrogen and gasoline station, WA DC Photo:Shell Hydrogen 

Photo: H2CarsBiz 

5
The major companies making up the 4 teams are as follows: 

• Chevron and Hyundia-Kia 

• DaimlerChrysler and BP 

• Ford Motor Company and BP 

• General Motors and Shell 

4. Data Collection and Analysis Process 

4.1 Data Collected and Geographic Locations 

To enable DOE to identify technology status and refocus DOE-funded research 

and development, a large amount of data is being collected and analyzed during 

this learning demonstration. Table 2 shows a high-level summary of the data 

being collected and delivered to NREL’s Hydrogen Secure Data Center, which 

will be discussed in more detail later. 

Table 2: Key Vehicle and Infrastructure Data Collected 

Conversion, Compression, 

Storage and Dispensing 

Efficiency

H2 Production Cost

Refueling Events, Rates

Hydrogen Purity/Impurities

Maintenance, Safety Events

Production Emissions

Conversion Method

Key Infrastructure Data

Conversion, Compression, 

Storage and Dispensing 

Efficiency

H2 Production Cost

Refueling Events, Rates

Hydrogen Purity/Impurities

Maintenance, Safety Events

Production Emissions

Conversion Method

Key Infrastructure Data

Continuous Voltage and Current 

(or Power) from Fuel Cell Stack, 

Motor/Generator, Battery & Key 

Auxiliaries: (Dyno & On-Road)

Freeze Start Ability (Time, Energy)

Max Pwr & Time at 40C

Top Speed, Accel., Grade

Maintenance, Safety Events

Fuel Cell System Efficiency

Fuel Economy (Dyno & On-Road) 

and Vehicle Range

Stack Durability

Key Vehicle Data

Continuous Voltage and Current 

(or Power) from Fuel Cell Stack, 

Motor/Generator, Battery & Key 

Auxiliaries: (Dyno & On-Road)

Freeze Start Ability (Time, Energy)

Max Pwr & Time at 40C

Top Speed, Accel., Grade

Maintenance, Safety Events

Fuel Cell System Efficiency

Fuel Economy (Dyno & On-Road) 

and Vehicle Range

Stack Durability

Key Vehicle Data

Vehicle and infrastructure validation is taking place in five different geographic 

regions (Figure 4), and Table 3 summarizes the different climates in these regions. 

Operating vehicles in a variety of climates is important because each climate 

presents a different technical challenge for fuel cells. Cold climates permit 

evaluation of a fuel cell vehicle’s ability to start and operate in sub-freezing 

temperatures; a key threshold for a fuel cell system that requires humidification 

and produces water during operation. Hot environments permit evaluation of the 

system’s ability to reject heat while keeping the fuel cell stack membranes 

adequately humidified. Fuel cell systems operate at lower temperatures than 

internal combustion engines (ICEs), making heat rejection more challenging and 

typically requiring a larger coolant radiator. All the regions include moderate 

conditions during the year, which should permit us to compare performance of a 

large number of vehicles under similar environmental conditions. 

6
Figure 4. The Five Validation Project Regions 

Table 3. Climates Represented by Learning Demonstration Locations 

Climate Station/Vehicle Location Cold Moderate Hot, Humid Hot, Arid 

Northern California X X 

Southern California X X 

Detroit, Michigan X X X 

Washington, D.C./NYC X X X 

Orlando, Florida X X 

Since the project has only been underway for one year, the entire new H2 

refueling infrastructure has not yet been put in place. Due to codes, standards, and 

safety requirements, establishing the H2 refueling infrastructure takes additional 

time. Since inception, this project has included construction or installation of 

many new stations. These stations are in addition to the stations that already 

existed before this project started. There are currently eight stations in northern 

California, 12 stations in southern California, five stations in Michigan, two in the 

Mid-Atlantic region, and one in Florida. Figure 5 shows the project stations 

(colored symbols) in the context of the non-project stations already in place (white 

symbols) in the five geographic regions. 

7
Northern California Mid-Atlantic 

Additional Pl d Stations anne

Ford & BP (3)

DaimlerChrysler & BP (TBD)

General Motors & Shell (1)

Figure 5. Online H2 Refueling Infrastructure in Five Regions of Learning Demo 

4.2 Data Security and Concept of Composite Data Products 

Because most of the data to be collected are highly confidential and represent the 

result of several hundred million dollars of development effort from each 

company, considerable attention is being given to data security. Figure 6 

provides an overview of the data collection and analysis process for this project. 

 

Figure 6. Data Collection and Analysis Process Overview 

Hydrogen Secure Data 

Center (HSDC) 

Raw Data, 

Reports 

• @ NREL: Strictly 

Controlled Access 

• Detailed Analyses, 

Data Products, 

Modeling, Internal 

Reports 

Composite Data 

Products 

• Pre-Agreed 

Upon Aggregate 

Data Products 

• No Confidential 

Information 

Fuel Cell Durability

Actual vs. DOE Targets

All OEM's, All Fuel Cell Stacks .

6000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2000 2005 2010 2015

Durability (Operating Hours)

Median Target 90% Prediction

Interval

.6000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2000 2005 2010 2015

Durability (Operating Hours)

Median Target 90% Prediction

Interval

Southern California 

Additional Planned Stations

DaimlerChrysler & BP (2)

General Motors & Shell (2)

Chevron & Hyundai/Kia (2)

Additional Planned Stations 

General Motors & Shell (2)

SE Michigan 

Additional Planned Stations 

DaimlerChrysler & BP (2)

Ford (1)

Chevron & Hyundai/Kia (1)

Florida 

8
Raw data and reports from partner companies are delivered to the Hydrogen 

Secure Data Center (HSDC), located at the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado. Access to the HSDC is strictly 

controlled and limited to a handful of individuals within NREL and DOE. 

Detailed analyses and reports are being generated within the HSDC, the results of 

which are available only to the limited number of individuals authorized to enter 

the HSDC. The only public data products permitted to leave the HSDC are 

termed “Composite Data Products” and are agreed upon in advance with each 

partner company. These data products will contain no confidential information 

and will display only aggregate data from the partners. For instance, the 

composite data products will contain ranges of performance values, and the 

performance of individual companies will not be distinguishable. Figure 7 lists 

the current 26 composite data products developed and agreed upon among DOE 

and all industry partners, with the ones that have been completed highlighted in 

yellow. Additional composite data products will be developed, approved for 

release, and then published as the project progresses. 

Highlighted CDPs Have 

Been Completed 

Figure 7. List of Composite Data Products with Completed Ones in Yellow 

These composite data products permit the government to report progress toward 

targets and publish mid-course program changes without compromising any 

company’s data or competitive advantage. The data are also used to identify 

9
trends and significant technology issues that current research may not adequately 

address. The Composite Data Product results will be presented in Section 5. 

4.3 Advanced Analysis Tool Developed for this Project 

With 59 fuel cell vehicles currently in the validation fleet, all of which are 

providing second-by-second data from every single trip, a large quantity of data is 

quickly being amassed in NREL’s HSDC. As shown in Figure 8, the high rate of 

data accumulation began in spring of 2005. Through January, 2006 the HSDC has 

now received over 21,500 individual vehicle trips which add up to 14.2 GB of onroad data. 

On-Road Data Received -- Running Totals

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Sep-04

Oct-04

Nov-04

Dec-04

Jan-05

Feb-05Mar-05

Apr-05

May-05

Jun-05

Jul-05

Aug-05

Sep-05

Oct-05

Nov-05

Dec-05

Jan-06

# Files

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Data Size (MB)

# files

Data Size (MB)

Figure 8. Cumulative Number of Vehicle Trips and Size of Data Received at the 

HSDC 

While the sheer volume of data received may suggest that it couldn’t possibly all 

be analyzed in detail, NREL has created some advanced analysis tools to automate 

the processing of the data and analyze every single trip that each fleet vehicle 

drives. Figure 9 shows some screen images of NREL’s new analysis tool called 

the NREL Fleet Analysis Toolkit (NREL FAT). This tool is programmed entirely 

in MATLAB, and automates the process from new CDs of data received to 

processed results through three button-clicks. All of the analysis results can also 

be viewed as automatically generated figures within the graphical user interface 

(GUI). The data can further be investigated on a trip-by-trip basis through an 

integrated tool called TripView, shown in Figure 10. 

10
PUBLISH

Figure 9: Screen Images of NREL's Fleet Analysis Toolkit 

Figure 10: Integrated TripView Allows Deeper Investigation of Individual Trips 

11
5. Composite Data Product Results 

5.1 Vehicle Fuel Economy, Range, and Operating Environment 

All four industry teams performed chassis dynamometer testing to evaluate the 

baseline fuel economy of representative vehicles under controlled, repeatable 

conditions at the beginning of this project. The test procedure used was SAE 

J2572, “Recommended Practice for Measuring Fuel Consumption and Range of 

Fuel Cell and Hybrid Fuel Cell Vehicles Fueled by Compressed Gaseous 

Hydrogen.” This procedure ensures that the unique aspects of testing fuel cell 

vehicles (such as measuring the quantity of fuel used without having any 

emissions to “carbon count” and handling battery pack state-of-charge 

differences) are appropriately accounted for while still allowing backwardcompatibility comparisons to be made to conventional gasoline vehicles and 

gasoline hybrids. Photographs of all four vehicle platforms undergoing 

dynamometer testing are shown in Figure 11. 

Ford/BP DaimlerChrysler/BP 

GM/Shell Chevron/Hyundai-KIA

Figure 11. The Four Teams Dyno Testing Their Fuel Cell Vehicles 

Figure 12 shows the fuel economy results from the vehicle chassis dynamometer 

testing on the left bar. The bar represents the actual range of fuel economies 

achieved from the test, and includes four data points (one from each vehicle 

make/model represented). The urban and highway fuel economies are determined 

independently from SAE J2572, and then combined using the usual 55/45 inverse 

harmonic weighting. The center bar takes the chassis dynamometer results and 

decreases them according to the method used for new car “window stickers,” 

which multiplies the city fuel economy by 0.90 and the highway fuel economy by 

0.78. This represents a result that is most comparable to other vehicles available 

for purchase in the public’s eye. Finally, the right bar represents the range of on12
road fuel economy results by analyzing the 21,500 individual trips. To remove 

extremely short trips, all trips less than 1 mile were excluded from this calculation. 

The downward trend between raw dynamometer, window-sticker, and on-road 

results appears similar to that of gasoline hybrid vehicles; however a more 

complete analysis and comparison will be performed in the future. 

Dyno (1) Window-Sticker (2) On-Road (3)(4) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Fuel Economy (miles/kg H 2

)

Fuel Economy

Created: 16-Feb-2006

(3) Excludes trips < 1 mile. One data point for on-road fleet average of each make/model.

(1) One data point for each make/model. Combined City/Hwy fuel economy per DRAFT SAEJ2572.

(2) Adjusted combined City/Hwy fuel economy (0.78 x Hwy, 0.9 x City).

(4) Calculated from on-road fuel cell stack current or mass flow readings.

Figure 12. Fuel Economy Results: Dyno, Window-Sticker, and On-Road 

The vehicle driving range is a calculated number based on the chassis 

dynamometer fuel economy (combined) and the usable hydrogen stored on board 

the vehicle. The driving range shown in Figure 13 is between 122 and 223 miles, 

with the bar representing four data points, one for each team. It is important to 

note, however, that the longest driving range is not necessarily from the highest 

fuel economy vehicle since the amount of hydrogen stored on-board is 

independent of vehicle efficiency. The vehicle driving range data indicate that 

improved H2 storage technologies which are able to be packaged in a vehicle are 

necessary to meet DOE and customer range targets. DOE’s hydrogen program 

has active research in this area with aggressive storage target goals, as indicated 

by the dashed lines in the figure. 

The ambient temperature during vehicle operation was reported to the HSDC, and 

ranged between –16 and +47 degrees Celsius. It is important to note that while 

fuel cell vehicles appear as though they can operate in extreme temperatures, the 

real challenge is in overcoming the freeze durability and start-up capability from 

sub-freezing temperatures. This will be evaluated later in the project with the 

second generation fuel cell stacks. 

13
0

50

100

150

200

250

300

All OEMs

Vehicle Range (miles)

Vehicle Range(1)

2015 Target

2009 Target

Created: 21-Feb-2006 (1) Calculated from combined City/Hwy fuel economy (dyno test) per DRAFT SAE J2572 and usable fuel on board.

Figure 13. Driving Range Based on Dyno Results and H2 Stored On-Board 

5.2 Safety: Vehicles and Range 

Safety is a high priority in DOE’s hydrogen program, so evaluating the safety of 

this project objectively is an important metric. With respect to vehicle safety, 

there were only three safety incidents ; as indicated in Figure 14. Two were based 

on passenger compartment alarms and one was a hydrogen release. The root 

cause of all three of these incidents has been identified and remedied to avoid 

repeat occurrence. 

Safety Incidents - Vehicle Operation

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

'05 Q2'05 Q3'05 Q4

Number of Incidents

Passenger Compartment H2 alarm H2 release Created 21-Feb-2006

Figure 14. Vehicle Safety Incidents Reported 

14
During hydrogen infrastructure installation and operation there were 21 incidents 

reported to the HSDC. While this may seem like a large number at first glance, it 

is actually a very strong safety record when the events are categorized and 

conveyed in a histogram (Figure 15). The top three sources (accounting for 17 of 

the 21 events) of reportable infrastructure safety incidents were 

Unconfirmed/False Alarms, Environmental (weather, power disruption, etc.), and 

Mischief-Vandalism. All three of these areas can be improved by making the 

stations more robust overall, which will occur naturally as more stations are 

installed and designed to be more like conventional gas stations in their operation 

and usage. There are four other categories of infrastructure safety incidents with 

one event each. Most of these came from start-up issues or component 

malfunction. As with the vehicles, the root causes have been identified and the 

stations improved to prevent them from occurring again. 

 Safety Incidents - Infrastructure

2005 Q2 - Q4

Calibration/Settings

Electrical

H2 Leak/Unplanned Vent

Non-H2 Leak

Mischief, Vandalism

Environmental 

(Weather, Power 

Disruption, etc.)

Unconfirmed/False 

Alarm

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Calibration/Settings

H2 Leak/Unplanned

Vent Mischief, Vandalism

Unconfirmed/False

Alarm

General Category

Created 21-Feb-2006 Number of Incidents

Figure 15. Hydrogen Infrastructure Safety Incidents Reported 

5.3 Hydrogen Storage 

Currently there are three hydrogen storage technologies being used on-board the 

vehicles for this learning demonstration: liquefied hydrogen, compressed 

hydrogen at 350 bar (5,000 psi), and compressed hydrogen at 700 bar (10,000 psi). 

Figure 16 shows two things: the number of vehicles using each storage technology 

as well as the ramp-up in the total number of vehicles in the fleet. The total 

number of vehicles will continue to grow for the first generation of vehicles until 

they are fully deployed. As second-generation vehicles are introduced in a few 

15
years, the total number of vehicles may go up or down depending on whether the 

generation-1 vehicles are retired or remain in service. 

On-Board Hydrogen Storage Methods

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Q205 Q305 Q405

# of Vehicles (All Teams)

5,000 psi tanks 10,000 psi tanks Liquid H2

Created 16-Feb-2006

Figure 16. Number of Vehicles and Their H2 Storage Types 

Data were collected on the on-board hydrogen storage systems and compared to 

DOE targets. The first metric is number of cycles that the storage system will 

achieve (according to manufacturer certification). The DOE targets are set based 

on vehicle lifetime requirements, and oriented toward advanced material-based 

technologies such as metal hydrides and carbon nanostructures because these 

materials may change or degrade with repeated cycling. The data indicate that 

current compressed and liquid tanks do not have any issues with repeated cycling 

as they exceed even the long-term goals. 

Figure 17 shows the weight percent of hydrogen stored (ratio of weight of usable 

hydrogen to total weight of storage system plus hydrogen). As can be seen in the 

graph, current liquid and compressed tanks can meet the 2007 target but not the 

2010 and 2015 target. This is why advanced materials-based H2 storage 

technologies must be developed. Finally, the volumetric storage capacity (kg H2 

per liter of total system) is mapped against program targets in Figure 18. For this 

metric, liquid and compressed hydrogen do not meet the 2007 targets. In 

summary, compressed and liquid H2 tanks meet durability and short term 

gravimetric capacity goals, but not the long term gravimetric capacity or 

volumetric capacity goals established by the program and required for nonintrusive vehicle packaging and design. 

16
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

All OEMs

Weight Percent Hydrogen (%)

Weight Percent Hydrogen

2015 DOE MYPP Target1

2010 DOE MYPP Target1

2007 DOE MYPP Target1

Created: 23-Feb-2006

1

Some near-term targets have been achieved with compressed and liquid tanks. Emphasis is on advanced materials-based technologies.

Figure 17. Gravimetric Capacity of On-Board H2 Storage Compared to Targets 

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

All OEMs

Mass H2 per Liter (kg/L)

Mass of Hydrogen Per Liter

2015 DOE MYPP Target1

2010 DOE MYPP Target1

2007 DOE MYPP Target1

Created: 23-Feb-2006

1

Emphasis is on advanced materials-based technologies.

Figure 18. Volumetric Capacity of On-Board H2 Storage Compared to Targets 

5.4 Hydrogen Fuel Quality, Impurities, and Refueling Rates 

Hydrogen fuel purity is an important metric, documenting the percentage of the 

material dispensed from a hydrogen refueling station which is pure hydrogen. The 

ISO FDTS 14687-2 target for hydrogen purity is set at 99.99%, also known as 

“four nines.” The hydrogen from the learning demonstration refueling stations is 

sampled quarterly, and the results ranged between 99.986% and 99.999%. Most 

of the samples analyzed by the labs met the standard, although there was at least 

one sample that did not meet this target. 

Even more important than the absolute purity of the hydrogen are the impurities 

that, while making up a small percentage volumetrically, can have serious 

negative impacts on fuel cell durability and performance. Key impurities 

analyzed from the refueling station samples include particulates, inert gases 

17
(nitrogen, helium, and argon), ammonia, sulfur containing compounds, carbon 

monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxygen, hydrocarbons, and water. Figure 19 includes 

the results of impurity sampling from the learning demonstration stations. The 

green diamond symbol indicates the ISO standard maximum allowable, the blue 

bar indicates the range of data received for that impurity, and the vertical red lines 

indicate the reported detection limit (the lowest possible value that could be 

measured). It is important to note that when there is a red line at the right side of 

the bar it means that at least one sample was reported that had a detection limit of 

that value. For example, in the case of sulfur, there is a red line at 10 

micromoles/mole (ppm) indicating that one of methodologies used by the gas 

analysis labs could not detect a value less than 10. The actual value could be 

anywhere from 0 to 10, but will not be known definitively until a more sensitive 

gas analysis methodology is employed. Figure 19 clearly indicates that improved 

gas analysis methodologies should be employed for many of the impurities to 

ensure that the hydrogen supplied is compatible with the fuel cells that will be 

using it. 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Particulates 

μg/L

H2 Impurities

Range of Reported Data ISO FDTS 14687-2 Max Reported Detection Limit

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

(N2 + He + Ar) 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

H2O 

Total HC 

O2 

CO2 

CO 

Total S Compounds* 

NH3 

μmole/mole Created: 23-Feb-2006 *Includes SO2, COS, and H2S.

Figure 19. Hydrogen Impurities Sampled from Project Refueling Stations 

Hydrogen vehicle refueling needs to be as similar as possible to conventional 

vehicle refueling to allow an easier commercial market introduction. A key 

technical metric for convenience of refueling for the consumer is refueling time. 

The hydrogen technology validation activity at DOE has a milestone in 2006 of 

refueling in 5 minutes (with an assumed 5 kg at 350 bar). This translates into a 1 

kg H2/min target. From the learning demonstration project, refueling amount, 

time, and rate are recorded from either the stations or from on-board vehicle data 

acquisition systems. Figure 20 shows a histogram for all of the refueling events 

for which this data exists. The graph indicates that while many (>70) of the 

18
refueling events exceed the 1 kg/min target for 2007, the majority fall below this 

rate. Part of this is due to a conservative approach to ensure safety while people 

get familiar with the technologies, and also because this graph shows a mixture of 

communication and non-communication fills. Future plans include a comparison 

of the rate distribution between communication and non-communication fills. 

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Refueling Rate (kg H2/minute)

# of Refueling Events

Histogram of Vehicle Refueling Rates

5 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

2006 Tech Val Milestone

2010 MYPP Adv Storage Materials Target

Created: 21-Feb-2006

Figure 20. Hydrogen Refueling Rate Data Compared to Targets 

5.5 High-Level Measure of Vehicle and Infrastructure Introduction 

In the first year of this project, vehicles and infrastructure have been introduced at 

a rapid rate. In order to capture a snapshot of the fleet and infrastructure 

introduction, a number of different graphs have been created to measure the rate at 

which the project is progressing. The upper two graphs in Figure 21 show the 

distribution of vehicles that have traveled a given distance or operated for a given 

number of hours. The data indicate the youthful nature of the fleet, and will show 

the peak moving to the right with time. The lower left graph shows the 

cumulative number of vehicle miles traveled while the lower right graph shows 

the cumulative hydrogen production produced (on-site) or dispensed to vehicles. 

19
Cumulative Hydrogen Produced or Dispensed

All Teams Combined

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Q2 2005 Q3 2005 Q4 2005

Reporting Calendar Quarter

Mass of Hydrogen (kg)

Created 21-Feb-2006

Cumulative Vehicle Miles Traveled: All OEMs

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Q205 Q305 Q405

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Created: 16-Feb-2006

Vehicle Hours: All OEM's Combined

through Q4 2005

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0-50

50-100

100-150

150-200

200-250

250-300

300-350

350-400

400-450

>450

Total Vehicle Hours

Number of Vehicles

Total Vehicle Hours = 7,831

Created: 16-Feb-2006

Vehicle M iles: All OEM 's Combined

through Q4 2005

0

5

10

15

20

25

0-1500

1500-3000

3000-45004500-60006000-75007500-9000

9000-10500

10500-1200012000-13500

>13500

Total Vehicle Miles

N umber of Vehicles

Total Vehicle M iles Traveled = 196,405

Created: 28-Feb-2006

Figure 21. High-Level Metrics Tracking Overall Progress of Project 

6. Summary 

The purpose of this project is to conduct an integrated field validation that 

simultaneously examines the performance of fuel cell vehicles and the requisite 

hydrogen infrastructure. The integrated nature of the project enables testing, 

demonstrating, and validating complete system solutions for hydrogen-powered 

transportation. Insights from the vehicles and infrastructure will be fed back into 

DOE’s research and development program to guide program structure and to 

refocus future research, making this project a “learning demonstration.” 

One year of operation has now been successfully completed for the project. A 

significant quantity of data has been delivered to HSDC and four quarterly 

validation assessment reports have been completed by NREL (internal HSDC 

documents). Based upon the data received, 16 composite data products have been 

generated and publicly released. Fuel economy data indicate that hydrogen fuel 

cell vehicles are able to achieve a high fuel economy with zero-tailpipe emissions. 

As expected, on-road fuel economy is lower than dynamometer test results. 

Vehicle driving range is quite varied, but even the best is not able to achieve 250 

miles range with compressed or liquid hydrogen tanks in current vehicle 

packaging configurations. The first year has been a safe one for the project, with 

all safety incidents being minor and ones that could be learned from to make 

things safer for the future. This project will continue until 2009, at which time it 

may be extended to validate the program’s 2015 targets. 

20
7. Author Biography 

Keith Wipke, Senior Engineer II 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd 

Golden, CO 80401 

303.275.4451, FAX 303.275.2905, keith_wipke@nrel.gov 

Mr. Wipke has worked at NREL in the area of advanced vehicles for 13 years. 

The first decade of that time was spent researching hybrid electric vehicles 

through on-road data collection, analysis, and computer modeling using NREL’s 

advanced vehicle simulator ADVISOR. In 2003, ADVISOR was licensed to AVL 

for commercialization and Mr. Wipke moved to the hydrogen group at NREL to 

work on the Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and 

Validation Project and lead the Hydrogen Technology Validation team. 

21
F1147-E(12/2004) 

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)

March 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Conference Paper 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and 

Validation Project: Progress Update; Preprint 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

NREL/CP-560-39555 

5e. TASK NUMBER

HF65.8100 

6. AUTHOR(S)

K. Wipke, C. Welch, H. Thomas, S. Sprik, S. Gronich, J.Garbak, 

and D. Hooker 

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/CP-560-39555 

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)

Summary of DOE's Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Domonstration and Validation project from initiation 

through January 2006. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

validation; hydrogen fleet; infrastrucutre; demonstration 

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. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18