Keith Wipke, Sam Sprik, 

Jennifer Kurtz, Todd 

Ramsden, Chris 

Ainscough, Genevieve 

Saur 

February 6, 2012

DOE’s Informational 

Webinar Series

NREL/PR-5600-54244

National Hydrogen Learning 

Demonstration Status

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

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.

v8
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 2 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Outline

• U.S. DOE Learning Demonstration Project Goals

• Fuel Cell Vehicle and H2 Station Deployment 

Status

• Technical Highlights of Vehicle and Infrastructure 

Analysis Results and Progress

• Next Steps and Project Wrap-up
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 3 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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

• Relevance

– Objectively Assess Progress Toward Targets and Market Needs

– Provide Feedback to H2 Research and Development

– Publish Results for Key Stakeholder Use and Investment Decisions

Burbank, CA station. Photo: 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 shown later
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 4 Innovation for Our Energy Future

History: 4 OEM/Energy Teams Selected 

Competitively through FOA in 2004

***

*

**

* now ** now *** now 

DOE funding: $170M

Industry cost share: $189M

Total: $359M

NREL received $6.6M 

from DOE for analysis 

and support of this 

project since FY03
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 5 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Involvement of Industry Teams Over 7 Years

RFP Startup Operation, Data Collection, and Analysis

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

TODAY

Gen 1

Gen 2

Gen 2

Gen 1

Daimler, GM, and Air Products (CHIP) Demonstrated

Vehicles/Stations within Project through CY2011

(CHIP)

Gen 1 Gen 2 Gen 1 & 2

Ford/BP and Chevron/Hyundai-Kia Concluded in 2009 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 6 Innovation for Our Energy Future

What is NREL’s Role? Project Approach 

Supporting Both DOE/Public as Well as Fuel Cell Developers

Bundled data (operation & 

maintenance/safety) 

delivered to NREL quarterly
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 7 Innovation for Our Energy Future

What is NREL’s Role? Project Approach 

Supporting Both DOE/Public as Well as Fuel Cell Developers

Internal analysis 

completed quarterly

Bundled data (operation & 

maintenance/safety) 

delivered to NREL quarterly
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 8 Innovation for Our Energy Future

CDPs

DDPs

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)

What is NREL’s Role? Project Approach 

Supporting Both DOE/Public as Well as Fuel Cell Developers

Results

Internal analysis 

completed quarterly

Bundled data (operation & 

maintenance/safety) 

delivered to NREL quarterly
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 9 Innovation for Our Energy Future

This Project Analyzed Massive Amounts of Data:

3.5 M miles and >500,000 vehicle trips (second-by-second)

122429

508441

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

0

25000

50000

75000

100000

125000

# Trips

Size of Data (MB)

Cumulative On-Road Data Received for 

Fuel Cell Vehicle Learning Demonstration

MB of data

# trips

~420 million 

seconds of data
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 10 Innovation for Our Energy Future

99 CDPs in Total (40 Winter 2011 CDPs) 

Hence, we’ll just 

cover some 

highlights today
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 11 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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)

Current Vehicle Deployment Status at 

End of Evaluation Period (9/30/11)

51 vehicles on road

132 retired

Large # vehicles 

required for statistical 

significance
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 12 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 13 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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

Current Infrastructure Status: Demonstration Station 

Testing Successfully Completed as Planned

Note: Many demonstration 

stations were taken offline as 

planned at conclusion of demo. 

Some stayed open and/or 

received upgrades (CA and NY).
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 14 Innovation for Our Energy Future

7

12

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

Number of Stations

Reporting Period

Cumulative Stations

Continuing Outside of Project

Retired Stations

Current Project Stations

NREL cdp_fcev_31

Created Dec-9-11 9:15 AM

Infrastructure Status: Out of 25 Project Stations, 13 

Are Still Operational* (~1/2 outside of DOE project)

Jan-31-2012

2 Online

3 Future

54 Online

15 Future

6 Online

SF Bay Area

DC to New York

3 Online

Detroit Area

Los Angeles Area

16 Online

11 Future

3 mile radius

6 mile radius

12

7

6

**

** Funded by state of CA or others, 

outside of this project

* CDP station status is as of 9/30/11
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 15 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Project Achieved Both Technical Goals; Outside 

Analysis Used for Cost Evaluation

Vehicle Performance Metrics Gen 1 Vehicle Gen 2 Vehicle 2009 Target

Fuel Cell Stack Durability 2000 hours

Max Team Projected Hours to 

10% Voltage Degradation 1807 hours 2521 hours

Average Fuel Cell Durability Projection 821 hours 1062 hours

Max Hours of Operation 

by a Single FC Stack to Date 2375 hours 1261 hours

Driving Range 103-190 miles 196-254 miles 250 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

H2 Cost at Station (early market)

On-site natural gas 

reformation

$7.70 - $10.30

On-site 

Electrolysis 

$10.00 - $12.90

$3/gge

Average H2 Fueling Rate 0.77 kg/min 1.0 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

1)

2)

3)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 16 Innovation for Our Energy Future

1) FC Durability Target of 2000 Hours Met By 

Gen 2 Projections

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 *
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 17 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 18 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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

*

*

This project provides an excellent learning opportunity, but 

stations are 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)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 19 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 20 Innovation for Our Energy 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

 Gen 1

 Gen 2

NREL CDP06

Created: Mar-10-10 1:18 PM

(1) One data point for each make/model. Combined City/Hwy fuel economy per DRAFT SAE J2572.

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

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

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

FUEL ECONOMY: Ranges of Fuel Economy from 

Dynamometer and On-Road Data Similar for Gen 1 & 2

Gen 2 on-road 

fuel economy 

more robust to 

different driving
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 21 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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

RANGE: Results Show Significant Improvement in RealWorld Driving Range Between 3 Sets of Vehicles

+45% improvement 

Gen 1 to Gen 2

+71% improvement 

in real-world driving 

range with latest 

adv. tech. vehicles

Note: Actual range 

possible >200 miles
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 22 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 23 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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.

DURABILITY: Data from FCEVs After 2009 Q4

Fuel Cell Stack Operation Hours

Some stacks 

operated up over 

1,400 hours, but 

half still below 600 

hours
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 24 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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%

DURABILITY: What Does the Stack Aging Look 

Like? Max FC Power Degradation Rate Drops with Aging
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 25 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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.

DURABILITY: Fuel Cell Stacks Projected Hours to 

10% Voltage Degradation; Two Fits

Using All 

Data from t0

Fitting After 

First 200 

Hours
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 26 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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.

DURABILITY: Comparison of Fuel Cell Operation Hours 

and Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation

Many stacks have 

projections that we limit 

to 2X due to minimize 

extrapolation

Stacks consistently 

operating past 10% 

voltage degradation
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 27 Innovation for Our Energy Future

INFRASTRUCTURE: Evaluated On-Site 

Hydrogen Production Efficiency

On-Site Natural Gas Reforming On-Site Electrolysis 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2010 MYPP Target

2015 MYPP Target

2012 MYPP Target

2017 MYPP Target

Production Efficiency (LHV %)

Hydrogen Production Conversion Efficiency1

Average Station Efficiency

Quarterly Efficiency Data

Highest Quarterly Efficiency

Efficiency Probability Distribution2

NREL CDP13

Created: Mar-09-10 3:16 PM

1

Production conversion efficiency is defined as the energy of the hydrogen out of the process (on an LHV basis) divided by the sum of

the energy into the production process from the feedstock and all other energy as needed. Conversion efficiency does not include

energy used for compression, storage, and dispensing.

2

The efficiency probability distribution represents the range and likelihood of hydrogen production conversion efficiency based on

monthly conversion efficiency data from the Learning Demonstration.

Highest 

Quarterly 

Efficiencies 

Approach DOE 

Targets
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 28 Innovation for Our Energy Future

GHG: Learning Demonstration Vehicle 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions (WTW)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

WTW GHG Emissions (g CO2-eq/mi)

Learning Demonstration Fuel Cycle Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions1

Baseline Conventional Mid-Size Passenger Car2

Baseline Conventional Mid-Size SUV2

Average WTW GHG Emissions (Learning Demo)

Minimum WTW GHG Emissions (Learning Demo)

WTW GHG Emissions (100% Renewable Electricity)

WTW GHG Probability Based on Learning Demo3

NREL CDP62

Created: Mar-08-10 4:16 PM

On-Site Natural Gas Reforming On-Site Electrolysis(4)

1. Well-to-Wheels greenhouse gas emissions based on DOE's GREET model, version 1.8b. Analysis uses default GREET values except for FCV fuel economy, hydrogen

production conversion efficiency, and electricity grid mix. Fuel economy values are the Gen 1 and Gen 2 window-sticker fuel economy data for all teams (as used in CDP #6);

conversion efficiency values are the production efficiency data used in CDP #13.

2. Baseline conventional passenger car and light duty truck GHG emissions are determined by GREET 1.8b, based on the EPA window-sticker fuel economy of a conventional

gasoline mid-size passenger car and mid-size SUV, respectively. The Learning Demonstration fleet includes both passenger cars and SUVs.

3. The Well-to-Wheels GHG probability distribution represents the range and likelihood of GHG emissions resulting from the hydrogen FCV fleet based on window-sticker fuel

economy data and monthly conversion efficiency data from the Learning Demonstration.

4. On-site electrolysis GHG emissions are based on the average mix of electricity production used by the Learning Demonstration production sites, which includes both

grid-based electricity and renewable on-site solar electricity. GHG emissions associated with on-site production of hydrogen from electrolysis are highly dependent on

electricity source. GHG emissions from a 100% renewable electricity mix would be zero, as shown. If electricity were supplied from the U.S. average grid mix, average GHG

emissions would be 1330 g/mile.

Even with 

demonstration 

systems, FCEVs 

show significant 

GHG reduction 

potential
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 29 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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: Station Capacity Utilization
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 30 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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: Some CDPs Are Now Looking at the Transition 

from Demo to Early Market – Utilization is Important

Several stations 

are serving >5 

vehicles/day on 

average

Some stations still significantly underutilized but helping provide coverage
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 31 Innovation for Our Energy Future

INFRASTRUCTURE: Infrastructure Reliability 

Growth

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Shape Parameter (

β)

1

Overall Site Reliability Growth: Infrastructure3

Site: 1 Site: 2 Site: 3 Site: 4 Site: 5 Site: 6 Site: 7

1. IEC 61164:2004(E)., Reliability Growth - Statistical Test and Evaluation Methods, IEC. 2004.

2.% change in instantaneous MTBF

3. Includes data from stations operating after 2009 Q4.

Entire history

Last 20% of events

First 120 Days

NREL cdp_fcev_97

Created: Jan-09-12 4:23 PM

Sites Sorted by Increasing Age (Calendar Days)

Failure Rate Increasing

Failure Rate Decreasing

Instantaneous MTBF improved for 5 of 7 sites for the last 20% of events.

12%2 522%2

43%2

127%2

-64%2 -20%2

379%2

Most stations have 

shown improved 

reliability recently
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 32 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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: Tracking Fueling Rates by Year

Average fueling rate 

rose, up until 2009 

when some of the 

higher throughput 

stations closed down
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 33 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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

FUELING: Changes in Refueling Rate Trends – Average 

Refueling Rate Decreased 16%

Decrease is result of 

average H2 per fill 

increasing 25%, but 

average fueling time 

increasing by 37%
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 34 Innovation for Our Energy Future

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: Fueling Rates by Fill Pressure and Communication vs. Noncommunication – Fueling infrastructure in transition

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
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 35 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Analysis at NREL Leveraged Across Applications; 

Being Applied to Compare Similarities/Differences

Other data sources:

FC bus, forklift, lab 

data, and backup 

power

Fueling rates vary by application, 

driven by constraints on nominal 

pressure, volume, tank materials
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 36 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Example of Analysis Results Informing 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
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 37 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Technical Summary

• Project has completed ~7 years of real-world validation

• Vehicle operation: 183 vehicles, 154,000 hours, 3.5 million 

miles, 500,000 trips

• H2 station operation: 25 stations, 151,000 kg produced or 

dispensed, 33,000 fuelings

• DOE Key Technical Targets Validated and Met: 

• FC Durability >2,000 hours and Range >250 miles
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 38 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Learning Demo Project Wrap-Up

• Winter 2011 CDPs just posted on NREL web site

• Draft final report in March 2012, to be published in April

• Continuing to receive data on H2 infrastructure with 

support from DOE (primarily in CA: stations funded by 

CEC and ARB). New results to follow. 

• In discussions with how to continue to assess FCEV 

progress in the coming years

• This project is the 1st time such comprehensive data was 

collected by an independent 3rd-party and consolidated 

for public dissemination

 Successful framework being used for other projects
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 39 Innovation for Our Energy Future

NREL Has Built the Infrastructure and Framework 

for Other Projects to Follow

Final 

Public Report

Learning Demo

Conclusion

Spring 2006 CDPs

Fall 2006 CDPs

Spring 2007 CDPs

Fall 2007 CDPs

Spring 2008 CDPs

Fall 2008 CDPs

Spring 2009 CDPs

Fall 2009 CDPs

Spring 2010 CDPs

Fall 2010 CDPs

Spring 2011 CDPs

Fall 2011 CDPs

Winter 2011 CDPs
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 40 Innovation for Our Energy Future

To Learn More on Your Own...

It’s All Online on NREL’s web site

Web link
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 41 Innovation for Our Energy Future

New Graphical Way of Viewing Results 

Will Soon Be Online

Web demo

Sunburst temporarily located at http://nreldev.nrel.gov/hydrogen/_noctp/demo/source/sunburst.html
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 42 Innovation for Our Energy Future

Online 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 @

DOE FCT Program website: 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/index.html