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.

Final Results from U.S. FCEV 

Learning Demonstration

EVS-26

Keith Wipke, Sam Sprik, Jennifer Kurtz, Todd 

Ramsden, Chris Ainscough, Genevieve Saur

May 7, 2012: Los Angeles, CA

NREL/PR-5600-55347

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information

V2, 4/5/12

Session B1
2

Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Learning Demo 

Project Objectives, Relevance, and Targets

• Objectives

– Validate H2 FC Vehicles and Infrastructure in Real-World Setting

– Identify Current Status and Evolution of the Technology

– Objectively Assess Progress Toward Targets and Market Needs

– Provide Feedback to H2 Research and Development

– Publish Results for Key Stakeholder Use and Investment Decisions

APC/Shell Pipeline station, Torrance, CA. 

Photo by Michael Penev, NREL

Performance Measure Interim 

(2009)*

Ultimate 

(2020)

Fuel Cell Stack Durability 2000 hours 5000 hours

Vehicle Range 250+ miles 300+ miles

Hydrogen Cost at Station $3/gge $2-4/gge**

Key Targets

*Project extended 2 years through 2011; **Previously $2-3/gge for 2015

Outside 

review

panel

Details of each of these 3 results in technical backup slides (previous EVS)
3

CDPs

DDPs

Public

Composite Data Products (CDPs) 

• Aggregated data across multiple systems, 

sites, and teams

• Publish analysis results every six months 

without revealing proprietary data2

Detailed Data Products (DDPs) 

• Individual data analyses

• Identify individual contribution to CDPs

• Shared every six months only with the 

partner who supplied the data1

1) Data exchange may happen more frequently based on data, analysis, & collaboration

2) Results published via NREL Tech Val website, conferences, and reports (http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_learning_demo.html)

NREL’s Technology Validation Approach

Supporting Both DOE/Public as Well as Technology Developers

Results

Bundled data (operation & 

maintenance/safety) delivered 

to NREL quarterly

Internal analysis 

completed quarterly
4

Industry Partners: Collaborative Relationship, Working 

Through Details of Analysis, was Critical to Success

Gen 1

Gen 2

Gen 2

Gen 1

Collaboration with Daimler, GM, and Air Products;

(CHIP)*

*CHIP = California Hydrogen Infrastructure Project

Data in the Last Year (through Sept.) came from These 3 Companies

RFP Startup Operation, Data Collection, and Analysis

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Gen 1 Gen 2 Gen 1 & 2

Ford/BP and Chevron/Hyundai-Kia Participated Through 2009 
5

2nd Generation Vehicles Demonstrated Technology 

Improvements Over Gen 1

Generation 1 Vehicles

• FC not freeze-capable

• ~2003 stack technology

• Storage: liquid H2 & 350 

and 700 bar

• Range: 100-200 miles

• Efficiency: 51-58% at 1⁄4 

power

Generation 2 Vehicles

• FC freeze-capable

• ~2007-2009 stack tech.

• Storage: All 700 bar

• Range: 200-250 miles

• Efficiency: 53-59% at 1⁄4 

power

• Longer FC durability
6

4

83

45

51

-

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

160 

180 

200 

Cumulative Vehicles Deployed/Retired1

Vehicle Deployment by On-Board Hydrogen Storage Type

700 bar on-road

350 bar on-road

Liquid H2 on-road

700 bar retired

350 bar retired

Liquid H2 retired

(1) Retired vehicles have left DOE fleet and are no longer providing data to NREL Created Dec-13-11 3:12 PM (2) Two project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009

183

NREL cdp_fcev_25

(2)

Vehicle Status: All Project Vehicles in the Last Two 

Years Were Using 700 bar Storage

51 vehicles on road

132 retired

Large # vehicles 

required for statistical 

significance
7

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Compressed Liquid Pipeline Reforming Electrolysis

Number of Stations

Learning Demonstration Hydrogen Stations by Type

Operating Outside of Project

Operating Within Project

Historical 2005-2009*

NREL cdp_fcev_32

Created Dec-9-11 9:15 AM

Delivered On-Site Production

*Some project teams concluded Fall/Winter 2009. Markers show the cumulative stations operated during the 2005-2009 period

Five Types of Fueling Stations Evaluated

Note: Many demonstration 

stations were taken offline as 

planned at conclusion of demo. 

Some stayed open and/or 

received upgrades (CA and NY).

* CDP station status is as of 9/30/11
8

Infrastructure Status: Out of 25 Project Stations, 13 Were Still 

Operational at End of Project (6 outside of DOE project)

Apr-26-2012

2 Online

5 Future

54 Online

25 Future

6 Online

SF Bay Area

DC to New York

3 Online

Detroit Area

Los Angeles Area

16 Online

18 Future

3 mile radius

6 mile radius

*

* Funded by state of CA or others, outside of 

this project

** Infrastructure project after Learning Demo

**
9

Total of 99 CDPs Published (40 Winter 2011 CDPs) 

Only selected highlights 

(mostly from the last 

year) will be covered
10

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0

5

10

Percentage of Refuelings

Distance between refuelings [Miles]2

Distance Driven Between Refuelings: All OEMs

Gen1

Gen2

After 2009Q4

NREL cdp_fcev_80

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

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

 Gen1

 Refuelings1 = 18941

 Median distance between refuelings = 56 Miles

 Gen2

 Refuelings1

 = 6870

 Median distance between refuelings = 81 Miles

Created: Dec-13-11 3:57 PM

Refuelings after 2009Q41 = 9937

 Median distance between refuelings = 98 Miles

Vehicles Show Continued Improvement in 

Distance Between Fuelings (Real-World)

+45% improvement 

Gen 1 to Gen 2

+75% improvement 

in real-world driving 

range with latest adv. 

tech. vehicles

Note: Actual range 

possible >200 miles

2

2

2
11

Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Dispensed Hydrogen [% of total]

Day of Week

Dispensed Hydrogen per Day of Week

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

21

24

27

30

Daily Average [kg]

27 kg/day avg All Stations

Individual Stations

NREL cdp_fcev_83

Created: Dec-15-11 1:20 PM

INFRASTRUCTURE: New Infrastructure CDP Gives 

Insight Into Specific Fueling Usage Patterns

Several stations 

are serving >5 

vehicles/day on 

average

Some stations still significantly underutilized but helping provide coverage Vehicle OEMs state that coverage is 

more important right now than capacity

(Data from stations operating after 2009Q4)
12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0

50

100

150

200

250

Station (Sorted By Increasing Station Capacity)

Capacity Utilization 1 [%]

Demonstration Station Capacity Utilization

58.9%

Maximum Daily Utilization

Maximum Quarterly Utilization2

Average Daily Utilization2

NREL cdp_fcev_91

Created: Jan-10-12 11:38 AM

Note: Learning Demonstration

priority was for good station

coverage not high station utilization

1

Station nameplate capacity reflects a variety of system design consderations including system capacity, throughput,

 system reliability and durability, and maintenance. Actual daily usage may exceed nameplate capacity.

2

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

INFRASTRUCTURE: While Station Focus is on Coverage, 

We’ve Tracked Capacity Usage as Baseline for Future

Some stations being 

utilized 40-60% on 

average, and are on path 

to higher utilization

(Data from stations operating after 2009Q4)
13

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 >2000 0

5

10

15

20

25

Fuel Cell Stack4

 Operation Hours

FC Stacks [%]

Operation Hours

25% of FC Stacks > 937 hours

Median (620 hours)

In Service1

Retired2

Not in Service3

NREL cdp_fcev_86

Created: Dec-15-11 12:32 PM

1) Stacks that are in service and accumulating operation hours.

2) Stacks retired due to low-performance or catastrophic failure.

3) 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.

4) Only includes systems operating after 2009Q4.

FC DURABILITY: Evaluated FC Durability Data from 

FCEVs After 2009Q4 

Some stacks 

operated over 1,400 

hours, but half were 

still below 600 hours

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 10001100120013001400150016001700180019002000

Stack Op Hour Segments2

% Power1

Max Fuel Cell Stack3 Power Degradation Over Operation

1) Normalized by fleet median value at 200 hours.

2) Each segment point is median FC power (+-50 hrs). Box not drawn if fewer than 3 points in segment.

3) Only includes systems operated after 2009Q4.

Data Range

25th & 75th Percentiles

Group Median

Outlier

NREL cdp_fcev_90

Created: Jan-10-12 10:29 AM

Median power difference

from 0 hour segment to

1300 hour segment = -18.2%

Recent data from 

stacks shows knee 

in FC power 

degradation curve 

at ~200 hours
14

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 >3000 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Fuel Cell Stacks4

 Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation 1,748

FC Stacks [%]

Time 0 Fit (In Service)

Time 0 Fit (Retired or Not in Service)2

Weighted Average (Fleet)

0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000 >3000 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2,261

Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation 1,3

FC Stacks [%]

Steady Operation Fit (In Service)5

Steady Operation Fit (Retired or Not in Service)2, 5

Weighted Average (Fleet)

NREL cdp_fcev_87

Created: Jan-10-12 10:28 AM

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

 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.

4) Only includes systems operating after 2009Q4.

5) Not all stacks have a steady operation fit which is calculated from data after 200 hr break-in period. The steady operation starting hour is an approximation of

 the period after initial break-in where degradation levels to a more steady rate.

FC DURABILITY: Projected Fuel Stack Durability to 

10% Voltage Degradation; Two Fits

Using all data 

from t0

Fitting after first 

200 hours

See technical backup 

for additional details 

in scatter plot

Average 

projections

Gen 1: 821

Gen 2: 1,062

Recent: 1,748

Many stacks have 

projections that we 

limit to 2X to minimize 

extrapolation
15

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Number of Fueling Events

Histogram of Fueling Rates

All Light Duty by Year

5 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

Year Avg (kg/min) %>1 

------- ----------------- -------

2005 0.66 16%

2006 0.74 21%

2007 0.81 26%

2008 0.77 23%

2009 0.77 22%

2010 0.63 2%

2011 0.68 12%

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

NREL cdp_fcev_52

Created: Jan-10-12 11:49 AM

FUELING: Tracked Fueling Rates by Year – Analyzed 

Trends as Stations Move to 700 bar as Standard

Average fueling rate 

rose, up until 2009 when 

some of the higher 

throughput stations 

closed down
16

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Histogram of Fueling Rates

350 vs 700 bar Fills

5 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 Count

------------- ------------------ ------- --------

Through 2009Q4

350 bar 0.82 29% 19659

700 bar 0.63 4% 5590

------------- ------------------ ------- --------

After 2009Q4

350 bar 0.70 8% 2594

700 bar 0.64 7% 5208

Number of Fueling Events (Through 2009Q4)

350 bar (Through 2009Q4)

700 bar (Through 2009Q4)

700 bar (After 2009Q4)

350 bar (After 2009Q4)

2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Number of Fueling Events (After 2009Q4)

NREL cdp_fcev_14

Created: Jan-10-12 10:23 AM

FUELING: Evaluated Fueling Rates by Fill Pressure 

and Communication vs. Non-Communication

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Histogram of Fueling Rates

Comm vs Non-Comm Fills

5 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 

------------- ------------------ -------

Through 2009Q4

Comm 0.86 30%

Non-Comm 0.66 12%

------------- ------------------ -------

After 2009Q4

Comm 0.58 3%

Non-Comm 0.81 16%

Number of Fueling Events (Through 2009Q4)

Comm (Through 2009Q4)

Non-Comm (Through 2009Q4)

Non-Comm (After 2009Q4)

Comm (After 2009Q4)

2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Number of Fueling Events (After 2009Q4)

NREL cdp_fcev_29

Created: Jan-10-12 10:28 AM

700 bar fueling rates holding 

constant at ~0.63 kg/min

350 bar fueling rates dropped 

from 0.82 to 0.70 kg/min

Comm. fill rates dropped while 

non-comm. fill rates increased

350 vs. 700 bar

Communication vs. 

non-communication

Fueling rates are still evolving due to 

changes in technology and protocols
17

STANDARDS: Analysis Results Informed R&D 

Activities and Codes and Standards Development

-20 0 20 40 60 -20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ambient Air Temperature [deg C]

Tank Temperature [deg C]

Tank vs. Ambient Air Temps Prior to Refueling

Frequency

50

100

150

200

250

300

-40 -20 0 20 40 0

500

1000

1500

2000

Delta Temperature [deg C]

Count

Delta Temperature: Tank minus Ambient

Delta Temp Histogram

Normal Distribution Fit

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Density

Mean= -3.751

Std Dev= 6.129

NREL CDP72

Created: Mar-11-10 10:24 AM

-This CDP created in support of SAE J2601 related to refueling

-Temperatures are prior to refueling and exclude data within 4 hours of a previous fill

-The plot to the left excludes ambient temperatures less than -5 deg C

FCEVs arrive at station 

with a tank temperature 

that is 3.8 degrees C 

colder than ambient 

temp

This result allowed 

participants in J2601 to 

use validated/realistic 

initial conditions to their 

computer models for tank 

temperature rise
18

Final Project Results Communicated to 

Broad Audience via Multiple Paths

• Final report 

published in April 

and posted on 

NREL’s web site

• EVS-26 paper

• Held public webinar

o 260 participants 

(400 registered)

o Active Q&A

• Created more 

interactive way to 

access CDP results 

from web site (now 

live)

Link to sunburst
19

Summary of Key Technical Results

Vehicle Performance Metrics Gen 1 Vehicle Gen 2 Vehicle 2009 Target After 2009Q4

Fuel Cell Stack Durability 2,000 hours

Max Team Projected Hours to 

10% Voltage Degradation 1,807 hours 2,521 hours --

Average Fuel Cell Durability Projection 821 hours 1,062 hours 1,748 hours

Max Hours of Operation 

by a Single FC Stack to Date 2,375 hours 1,261 hours 1,582 hours

Driving Range 250 miles

Adjusted Dyno (Window Sticker) Range 103-190 miles 196-254 miles --

Median On-Road Distance Between

Fuelings 56 miles 81 miles 98 miles

Fuel Economy (Window Sticker) 42 – 57 mi/kg 43 – 58 mi/kg no target --

Fuel Cell Efficiency at 1⁄4 Power 51 – 58% 53 – 59% 60% --

Fuel Cell Efficiency at Full Power 30 – 54% 42 – 53% 50% --

Infrastructure Performance Metrics 2009 Target After 2009Q4

H2 Cost at Station (early market)

On-site natural 

gas reformation

$7.70 –

$10.30/kg

On-site 

Electrolysis 

$10.00 –

$12.90/kg

$3/gge --

Average H2 Fueling Rate 0.77 kg/min 1.0 kg/min 0.65 kg/min

Outside of this project, DOE independent panels concluded at 500 replicate stations/year:

Distributed natural gas reformation at 1500 kg/day: $2.75-$3.50/kg (2006)

Distributed electrolysis at 1500kg/day: $4.90-$5.70 (2009)

Outside 

review

panel
20

Future Work

• Support DOE in launching new vehicle evaluation project

o “Light-Duty Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Validation Data” (FOA 625)

• Support DOE in launching new infrastructure evaluation 

project

o Transition H2 station analysis activity to “Next Generation H2 

Station Analysis” project led by Sam Sprik, initiated in January

o Support DOE in launching new infrastructure validation project: 

“Validation of Hydrogen Refueling Station Performance” (FOA 

626, topic 1)

• Continue to leverage analysis capability to other 

validations

• Identify and exploit new opportunities to document FC & 

H2 progress publicly
21

Summary

• Relevance

o Provided DOE and taxpayers strong return on investment made in this 7-

year project, the largest single FCEV & infrastructure demonstration in 

the world to date

o Many system-level DOE program targets validated by this project

• Approach

o Collaborative relationship to analysis with industry partners

o Established core HSDC and analysis capability and tools

o This project is the 1st time such comprehensive data was collected by an 

independent 3rd-party and consolidated for public dissemination

• Technical Accomplishments and Progress

o 99 total CDP analysis results available; published at conferences every 6 

months

o Project achieved the two key technical targets on driving range (>250 

miles) and FC durability (>2,000 hours) [refer to technical backup slides 

and Final Report]

183 Vehicles: 154,000 hours, 3.6M miles, 500K trips

25 Stations: 152,000 kg produced/dispensed, 33K fuelings
22

Questions and Discussion

All public Learning Demo papers and presentations are available online at 

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_validation.html 

Project Contact: Keith Wipke, National Renewable Energy Lab

303.275.4451 keith.wipke nrel.gov @
Technical Backup Slides
24

0 500 1000 1500 2000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Comparison of Operation Hours and Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation5

Projected Hours1,2,4

Operation Hours

projected hrs = operation hrs

FC System

FC System (Limited)2

FC System (Retired)3

Unity Line

NREL cdp_fcev_88

Created: Jan-10-12 10:29 AM

25% of stacks are

below the unity line

and have operated

past 10% voltage

degradation.

On average, these

stacks have

operated for 990

hours.

Stacks above the

unity line have not

operated past 10%

voltage degradation.

1) Indicates the projected hours to a 10% voltage degradation based upon curve fitting data from operation hour 0.

2) Projected hours limited based on demonstrated hours.

3) Stacks retired due to low-performance or catastrophic failure.

4) Each projection has uncertainty based on the confidence intervals of the fit.

5) Only includes systems operated after 2009Q4.

Accomplishment: Scatter Plot of Fuel Cell Operation 

Hours and Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation

Many stacks have 

projections that we 

limit to 2X to minimize 

extrapolation

Stacks consistently

operating past 10% 

voltage degradation
25

1) FC Durability Target of 2000 Hours Met By Gen 2 

Projections (2010)

Gen1 Gen2 Gen1 Gen2 Gen1 Gen2 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

2006 Target

2009 Target

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

Time (Hours)

DOE Learning Demonstration Fuel Cell Stack Durability:

Based on Data Through 2009 Q2

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

Max Projection

Avg Projection

NREL CDP01

Created: Mar-23-10 10:39 AM

(1) Range bars created using one data point for each OEM. Some stacks have accumulated hours beyond 10% voltage degradation.

(2) Range (highest and lowest) of the maximum operating hours accumulated to-date of any OEM's individual stack in "real-world" operation.

(3) Range (highest and lowest) of the average operating hours accumulated to-date of all stacks in each OEM's fleet.

(4) Projection using on-road data -- degradation calculated at high stack current. This criterion is used for assessing progress against DOE targets,

 may differ from OEM's end-of-life criterion, and does not address "catastrophic" failure modes, such as membrane failure.

(5) Using one nominal projection per OEM: "Max Projection" = highest nominal projection, "Avg Projection" = average nominal projection.

 The shaded projection bars represents an engineering judgment of the uncertainty on the "Avg Projection" due to data and methodology limitations. 

 Projections will change as additional data are accumulated.

(6) Projection method was modified beginning with 2009 Q2 data, includes an upper projection limit based on demonstrated op hours.

*

*Durability is defined by DOE as projected hours to 10% voltage degradation
26

Dyno Range (2) Window-Sticker Range (3) On-Road Range (4)(5) 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Vehicle Range (miles)

Vehicle Range1

2015 Target

2009 Target

 Gen 1

 Gen 2

NREL CDP02

Created: Mar-10-10 1:18 PM

(1) Range is based on fuel economy and usable hydrogen on-board the vehicle. One data point for each make/model.

(2) Fuel economy from unadjusted combined City/Hwy per DRAFT SAE J2572.

(3) Fuel economy from EPA Adjusted combined City/Hwy (0.78 x Hwy, 0.9 x City).

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

(5) Fuel economy calculated from on-road fuel cell stack current or mass flow readings.

2) Vehicle Range Achieved 2009 Target of 250 Miles with 

Gen 2 Adjusted Fuel Economy (2010)
27

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Projected Early Market 1500 kg/day Hydrogen Cost1

$/kg

Natural Gas Reforming2 Electrolysis2

2015 DOE Hydrogen Program Goal Range3

Median

25th & 75th Percentile

10th & 90th Percentile

Created: Jan-19-10 11:08 AM

(1) Reported hydrogen costs are based on estimates of key cost elements from Learning Demonstration energy company partners and represent the

cost of producing hydrogen on-site at the fueling station, using either natural gas reformation or water electrolysis, dispensed to the vehicle. Costs

reflect an assessment of hydrogen production technologies, not an assessment of hydrogen market demand.

(2) Hydrogen production costs for 1500 kg/day stations developed using DOE’s H2A Production model, version 2.1. Cost modeling represents the

lifetime cost of producing hydrogen at fueling stations installed during an early market rollout of hydrogen infrastructure and are not reflective of the

costs that might be seen in a fully mature market for hydrogen installations. Modeling uses default H2A Production model inputs supplemented with

feedback from Learning Demonstration energy company partners, based on their experience operating on-site hydrogen production stations. 

H2A-based Monte Carlo simulations (2,000 trials) were completed for both natural gas reforming and electrolysis stations using default H2A values and

10th percentile to 90th percentile estimated ranges for key cost parameters as shown in the table. Capacity utilization range is based on the capabilities

of the production technologies and could be significantly lower if there is inadequate demand for hydrogen.

(3) DOE has a hydrogen cost goal of $2-$3/kg for future (2015) 1500 kg/day hydrogen production stations installed at a rate of 500 stations per year.

Key H2 Cost Elements and Ranges

Input Parameter Minimum

(P10)

Maximum

(P90)

Facility Direct Capital Cost $10M $25M

Facility Capacity Utilization 85% 95%

Annual Maintenance & Repairs $150K $600K

Annual Other O&M $100K $200K

Annual Facility Land Rent $50K $200K

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

Electrolysis Prod. Efficiency (LHV) 35% 62%

NREL CDP15

3) Projected Early Market H2 Production Cost from 

Learning Demo Energy Partners’ Inputs (2010)

*

*

This project provides an excellent learning opportunity, but 

stations were not meant to emulate high volume replicate 

stations of the future. Permitting was in transition.

Outside of this project, DOE independent panels concluded at 500 replicate stations/year:

Distributed natural gas reformation at 1500 kg/day: $2.75-$3.50/kg (2006)

Distributed electrolysis at 1500kg/day: $4.90-$5.70 (2009)
28

Average Fueling Rate Decreased 16% Due to Some High 

Throughput Stations Leaving Project

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Number of Fueling Events

Histogram of Fueling Rates

Vehicle and Infrastructure

5 kg in 

5 minutes 

5 kg in

3 minutes

25464 Events

Average = 0.77 kg/min

23% >1 kg/min

8,050 Events

Average = 0.65 kg/min

7% >1 kg/min

 2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

 Through 2009Q4

 After 2009Q4

NREL cdp_fcev_18

Created: Dec-07-11 11:08 AM

Decrease is result of 

average H2 per fill 

increasing 25%, but 

average fueling time 

increasing by 37%
29

FUELING: Leveraged Effort to Other Fuel Cell 

Applications; Cross-Application CDPs Expanding

Accomplishment:

Significant leveraging of 

this project to other 

evaluations 

(e.g., ARRA/DOD: MHE, 

backup power)

Fueling rates vary by application, driven 

by constraints on nominal pressure, 

volume, tank materials
30

EFFICIENCY: Verified High Gen 2 Fuel Cell System Efficiency 

Maintained (Compared to Gen 1)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Net System Power [%]

Efficiency [%]

Fuel Cell System1

 Efficiency2

 Eff. at 25% Pwr Eff. at 100% Pwr

 ------------------- -------------------

Gen1 51 - 58% 30 - 54%

Gen2 53 - 59% 42 - 53%

DOE Target at 25% Power

DOE Target at 100% Power

Gen 1 Efficiency Range

Gen 2 Efficiency Range

NREL CDP08

Created: Sep-02-09 11:27 AM

1

 Gross stack power minus fuel cell system auxiliaries, per DRAFT SAE J2615. Excludes power electronics and electric drive.

2

 Ratio of DC output energy to the lower heating value of the input fuel (hydrogen). 

3

 Individual test data linearly interpolated at 5,10,15,25,50,75,and 100% of max net power. Values at high power linearly extrapolated 

 due to steady state dynamometer cooling limitations.

Critical result: Efficiency not 

sacrificed in order to achieve 

improved durability and 

freeze capability
31

RANGE: NREL/SRNL Experiment Verified Toyota FCHV-adv Capable of up to 430-

Mile Driving Range Without Refueling on June 30, 2009 

Average 

trip 

distance 

(miles)

H2

consumed 

(kg)

Remaining 

usable H2

(kg)

Calculated 

remaining 

range 

(miles) (miles) (miles)

Vehicle 

#1

331.50 4.8255 1.4854 102.04 433.55

Vehicle 431

#2

331.45 4.8751 1.4328 97.41 428.87

0 MPG

30 MPG

60 MPG

90 MPG

Report: http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/toyota_fchv-adv_range_verification.pdf 

Toyota video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz0vD5E7glA