NOTICE 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions 

of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any 

agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge 

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov 

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov 

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

This publication received minimal editorial review at NREL 

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste 
Table of Contents 

Summary Report..............................................................................................................................iv

Introduction........................................................................................................................................1 

Cost Analysis Assumptions..................................................................................................1 

TIAX Process........................................................................................................................3 

Independent Team Approach................................................................................................4 

Findings..............................................................................................................................................5 

Additional Observations.....................................................................................................................7 

Recommendations.............................................................................................................................10 

References.........................................................................................................................................11 

Appendix A.....................................................................................................................................A-1 

Appendix B......................................................................................................................................B-1

-iii-
INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM SUMMARY REPORT

June 21, 2006 

From: Independent Review Team, Fuel Cell System Cost for Transportation – 2005 Cost Estimate 

To: Dale A. Gardner, NREL, DOE Hydrogen Systems Integrator 

Subject: Independent Review Team Report 

Per the tasks and criteria of the Independent Review Plan of February 17, 2006, this is the Independent 

Review Team’s consensus technical conclusion, arrived at from data collection, review, interviews, and 

deliberations over the period February through May, 2006: 

Conclusion Statement: 

The Team found the methodology used by TIAX to estimate the cost of producing PEM fuel cells to 

be reasonable and, using 2005 cell stack technology and assuming production of 500,000 units per 

year, to have calculated a credible cost of $108/kW. 

Rationale for Conclusion: 

The Independent Review Team believes the process used by TIAX for the bottom-up determination of the 

cell stack costs yielded appropriate and representative results within the framework of the assumptions 

and recommendations from DOE and the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Fuel Cell Technical Team. 

In general, the fuel cell companies and the national laboratories interviewed agree with the results of the 

TIAX cost analysis, based on the assumptions of 2005 cell stack technology and 500,000 units per year. 

Fuel cell component manufacturers agreed only with the estimated cost of their specific components, 

since they did not have the knowledge to comment on the total PEM fuel cell system. 

The TIAX cost analysis should not be used to infer that industry is prepared to manufacture 500,000 units 

per year based on the 2005 cell stack technology. Respondents stressed that the TIAX cost estimate of 

$108/kW is based on many design and manufacturing assumptions, including manufacture of 500,000 

units, $900/troy ounce platinum, 2005 cell stack technology, and vertical integration of the stack 

manufacturing process. No company is currently ready to produce either the cell stack or the balance-ofplant fuel cell components for 500,000 PEM fuel cell systems, let alone a complete fuel cell system at 

$108/kW. Industry anticipates major investments would be required to achieve the production volumes 

necessary for transportation applications. 

-iv- 
Introduction

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies

Program Manager asked the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to commission an

independent review of the 2005 TIAX cost analysis for fuel cell production. The NREL Systems 

Integrator is responsible for conducting independent reviews of progress toward meeting the DOE

Hydrogen Program (the Program) technical targets. An important technical target of the Program is

the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell cost in terms of dollars per kilowatt ($/kW). The

Program’s Multi-Year Program Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan established

$125/kW as the 2005 technical target. 

Over the last several years, the Program has contracted with TIAX, LLC (TIAX) to produce estimates

of the high volume cost of PEM fuel cell production for transportation use. Since no manufacturer is

yet producing PEM fuel cells in the quantities needed for an initial hydrogen-based transportation

economy, these estimates are necessary for DOE to gauge progress toward meeting its targets. For a

PEM fuel cell system configuration developed by Argonne National Laboratory, TIAX estimated the

total cost to be $108/kW, based on assumptions of 500,000 units per year produced with 2005 cell

stack technology, vertical integration of cell stack manufacturing, and balance-of-plant (BOP)

components purchased from a supplier network. Furthermore, TIAX conducted a Monte Carlo

analysis by varying ten key parameters over a wide range of values and estimated with 98% certainty

that the mean PEM fuel cell system cost would be below DOE’s 2005 target of $125/kW. 

NREL commissioned DJW TECHNOLOGY, LLC to form an Independent Review Team (the Team)

of industry fuel cell experts and to evaluate the cost estimation process and the results reported by

TIAX. The results of this independent review will permit NREL and DOE to better understand the

credibility of the TIAX cost estimation process and to implement changes in future cost analyses, if

necessary. 

Cost Analysis Assumptions 

DOE determined many of the top-level assumptions, in consultation with the FreedomCAR and Fuel 

Partnership Fuel Cell Technical Team (Tech Team), which were used by TIAX in its analysis. Lower

level assumptions were developed by TIAX, as required, and are described herein when they are

important to understanding the overall results. 

Fuel Cell Configuration: DOE requested that TIAX analyze an 80-kWnet direct hydrogen PEM fuel

cell system which includes the fuel cell stack and balance-of-plant (BOP) components for air, water,

thermal, and fuel management, but not the hydrogen storage and power conditioning, since the latter

are not included in DOE’s $125/kW target. DOE provided TIAX access to a PEM fuel cell system

configuration and model developed by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). The ANL model 

provides the basis for specifying the overall system, subsystem, and component performance

parameters and the fluid and electrical interfaces. 

The TIAX cost analysis uses representative component designs, manufacturing processes for

components, the development of a bill of materials, and list of purchased components. The model, 

data, component designs, and results were refined on the basis of recommendations from DOE, the

Tech Team, and fuel cell system and component developers. 

Figure 1 shows the major components of ANL’s PEM fuel cell system configuration. The BOP

subsystems include: 

-1- 
1. The air delivery system with the compressor-expander supplying pressurized air to the enthalpy

wheel. The enthalpy wheel humidifies the incoming air with moisture received from the exit gas of

the cathode (air) side of the PEM stack. The cathode exit gas humidifies the incoming hydrogen

through a membrane humidifier before high-humidity gas is delivered to the enthalpy wheel. Both the

compressor-expander and enthalpy wheel are powered by electric motors. The compressor-expander 

pressurizes the incoming air to ~2.5 bar at peak power and ~1.6 bar at 25% of peak power. 

2. The fuel delivery system has an ejector system for recirculation of the hydrogen when operating at

the higher pressures. At low pressures an electric hydrogen recirculation pump is used. The hydrogen

recirculation provides up to 99% hydrogen utilization. The membrane humidifier humidifies and

preheats the incoming hydrogen. Purging of nitrogen crossing over through the PEM fuel cell

membrane is required. 

3. The thermal management system contains a coolant pump, a radiator, and a fan. The pump and fan

are powered by an electric motor. 

Figure 1: PEM Fuel Cell System Model developed by Argonne National Laboratory

(Carlson et al. 2005)

Manufacturing Scale: In accordance with recommendations from DOE and the Tech Team, TIAX

used current (2005) cell stack technology, assumed production of 500,000 PEM fuel cell systems (80

kWnet) for automotive applications, and projected BOP technology.

Catalyst Loadings and Platinum Price: Loadings and price were set by DOE’s Fuel Cell Team, with

recommendations from the Tech Team, at 0.75 mg Pt/cm2 and $900/troy ounce (troz), respectively.

-2- 
System Integration: For ease of analysis, DOE directed that TIAX assume vertical integration of the

stack manufacture, i.e., one company would manufacture the complete cell stack from ionomer, 

catalyst, and bipolar plate precursor material to build a complete cell stack. The TIAX cell stack

analysis is a bottom-up approach using this vertical integration assumption. 

TIAX Process

Stack costs were estimated by evaluating known manufacturing processes and assuming they could be 

adapted to manufacture fuel cell components. The BOP analysis is based on component costs

provided by industry and benchmark checked by TIAX.

TIAX conducted both Monte Carlo (see Figure 2) and single variable sensitivity analyses on key 

parameters (see Table 1). The results indicate a baseline cost estimate of $108/kW and a 98% 

confidence that the cost would be less than DOE’s 2005 target of $125/kW.

Figure 2: Results of Monte Carlo simulation for the variation of input parameters

(Carlson et al. 2005)

Table 1. Parameter Values for the System Cost Sensitivity Analysis Parameter Units Minimum 

Baseline Maximum 

-3- 
Independent Review Team Approach 

NREL commissioned DJW TECHNOLOGY, LLC (DJWT) to conduct this independent review.

DJWT assembled an Independent Review Team (the Team) of four industry experts with more than 80

years combined experience in fuel cell research, development, and manufacturing. Backgrounds of

Team members are provided in Appendix A. 

The Team assessed the TIAX cost analysis (Carlson et al. 2005), developed discussion points and

questions, and conducted interviews with 19 companies and three national laboratories that are all

active in PEM fuel cell development, plus TIAX analysis staff. These companies represented fuel cell

integrators, fuel cell stack component manufacturers, and BOP manufacturers (see Appendix B). 

The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Fuel Cell Technical Team and the DOE Fuel Cell team were

also interviewed. General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, and Ford are members of the Tech Team and

participated in the review as part of that team. In addition, General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, and

Ford were individually contacted after the formal independent review period (due to schedules of key 

personnel in those companies). Their inputs were consistent with those received from other parties

and would not have materially changed the results presented in this report. 

The following ground rules were established for the industry and national laboratory interviews: 

1. The company or national laboratory would be identified.

2. Responses to the questions and summary remarks would not be attributed to any specific company

or national laboratory.

3. No intellectual property was to be disclosed. 

4. Follow-up would be provided, as requested, to the companies and national laboratories.

-4- 
Findings 

The findings of the Team are the results of interviews with industry and three national laboratories,

and an evaluation of the DOE-directed TIAX cost analysis, including input from the TIAX cost

analysis group members. 

1. The fuel cell industry agrees with the methodology used in the TIAX cost analysis. 

The Team found the methodology used by TIAX to estimate the cost of producing PEM fuel cells to

be reasonable and, using 2005 cell stack technology and assuming production of 500,000 units per

year, to have calculated a credible cost of $108/kW. Fuel cell component manufacturers and fuel cell

integrators generally agree with the PEM fuel cell system cost range of $108−$125/kW, based on the

assumptions used in the TIAX report. Many of the companies interviewed did not have the

knowledge to comment on the cost of the entire system, but were comfortable commenting on the cost

of components with which they were directly involved. 

Vertical integration of the stack manufacture (i.e., one company would manufacture the complete cell

stack from ionomer, catalyst, and bipolar plate precursor material to build a complete cell stack) is not

the model envisioned by the companies interviewed. Even so, they agreed that TIAX established a

reasonable cost number—within the boundaries of the assumptions—that can be used to gauge 

progress in the development and eventual commercialization of fuel cells. 

Interviewees believed the BOP costs for the fuel cell power plant were consistent with their

understanding; however, they expressed concerns that the specific system or BOP components

differed from their experience and that their final power plant designs for commercial production

would be different from the ANL model used by TIAX. They also expressed caveats concerning the

possible BOP cost increases to accommodate application issues such as: 

• Cold start 

• Durability – reliability of BOP components with moving parts (enthalpy wheel) and 

humidification approach 

• Operability – transient response, hot day operation, hill climbing, air conditioning. 

The TIAX cost analysis should not be used to infer that industry is prepared to manufacture 500,000

units per year based on the 2005 cell stack technology. Respondents stressed that the TIAX cost

estimate of $108/kW is based on many design and manufacturing assumptions, including manufacture

of 500,000 units, $900/troz Pt, 2005 cell stack technology, and vertical integration of the stack

manufacturing process. No company is currently ready to produce either cell stack or BOP

components for 500,000 PEM fuel cell systems, let alone a complete fuel cell system at $108/kW.

Industry identified the need for manufacturing R&D, and anticipates major investments would be

required to achieve the production volumes necessary for transportation applications. 

2. The bottom-up process used by TIAX for estimating cell stack cost is valid.

The Team believes the process used by TIAX for the bottom-up determination of the cell stack yielded

appropriate and representative results within the framework of the assumptions and recommendations

from DOE. The BOP cost analysis was based on supplier input and the requirements were established

by the ANL model. The supplier input contributed to cost projections by TIAX, which were then

calibrated against TIAX’s experience with similar technologies. There is confidence in this approach

within the assumptions and recommendations from DOE and ANL. 

-5- 
3. The PEM fuel cell system model performance was close to state-of-the-art.

The Team believes that the performance of the PEM fuel cell system model was close to the state-ofthe-art for the cell stack. The purpose of the ANL model is to represent a generic fuel cell system that

could achieve the performance targets set by DOE. In particular, efficiency at rated power is targeted

by DOE at 50% and efficiency at 25% of rated power is targeted at 60%. At rated power, the ANL

model achieves 47% efficiency and at 25% of rated power, 55% efficiency. 

Some BOP components have not been fully demonstrated. Industry reported to the Team that the

compressor-expander was based on data from separate devices and the combined device had not been

demonstrated. The enthalpy wheel was considered bulky and its ultimate reliability was questioned.

Discussions with industry identified alternative technologies that would replace the compressorexpander and possibly the enthalpy wheel. 

Predictably, the ANL model was accepted by some of the fuel cell manufacturers, but not by all. Fuel

cell integrators have their own fuel cell system designs based on their proprietary technologies. The

configuration of the fuel cell system has a strong influence on the cost analysis, since it will influence 

the component performance specifications (e.g., inlet and outlet pressures, temperatures, flow-rates,

and compositions) and establishes the BOP components. The ANL model may be too focused on one

PEM system or one BOP component manufacturer. Industry representatives suggested alternative

system designs and recommended that a study be undertaken to identify the optimum system for PEM

fuel cells. 

4. Some cost factors may have been underestimated. 

Assembly of the cell stack was not addressed with the same detail as the fuel cell stack components.

The TIAX approach assumes a robotic pick-and-place function that would rapidly assemble the stack. 

Further details on the rate of stack assembly (e.g., time to assemble a stack), the number of assembly

lines, and the capital investment for these lines are needed to support the assembly costs. Careful

attention to stack assembly is critical to achieving a high acceptance rate and low assembly cost.

Industry recommends future DOE supported cost analyses address this issue. 

Industry recognizes that quality control and stack conditioning could contribute significantly to cost

but were excluded from the TIAX analysis at the recommendation of DOE and the Tech Team. 

Industry believes quality control is critical and potentially costly to develop and implement into the

manufacturing process. TIAX states that quality control and stack conditioning could add 5% − 50%

to the cost. Narrowing this range will require additional analysis. Stack conditioning is addressed

briefly in the TIAX report, indicating that a two-hour conditioning of the cell stack would cause a

2.5% increase in cell stack cost, whereas a 24-hour conditioning would cause ~ 33% increase. 

5. Industry recommends incremental production cost analysis. 

The cost analysis for the production of 500,000 PEM fuel cell systems provides a gauge by which 

DOE can evaluate the progress toward achieving the cost targets for automotive PEM fuel cells and,

thus, is valuable. However, fuel cell companies believe progress will be made in incremental steps 

with several go/no-go decisions along the way. A real target that industry does consider viable is

manufacturing 10,000 PEM fuel cell systems per year. Incremental increases from 10,000 to 100,000

PEM fuel cell systems are the targets for cost analysis that industry believes will be viable. 

-6- 
Additional Observations

In general, the fuel cell companies and the national laboratories interviewed agree with the results of 

the TIAX cost analysis, given the assumptions provided by DOE and the Tech Team. However, as a

result of extensive discussions with each of the interviewees, the Independent Review Team was able

to recognize (1) opportunities for future reductions in PEM fuel cell system cost as well as (2) items

that could represent additional cost risk. Many of these areas are already the topics of DOE analysis

and R&D. 

Potential Opportunities for Future Cost Reductions

1. Platinum. The DOE assumption going into the analysis provided a cost range of $450−$900/troz

for platinum. The price of platinum at the time of this review was in excess of $1,200/troz, and

industry inputs suggest it may never return to $450/troz. However, there may be ways to limit catalyst

costs: 

a. Platinum content can be reduced. 

The platinum companies stated that current platinum reserves are sufficient for the production

of 500,000 PEM fuel cell systems per year. However, it would take one to two years to

deliver the catalyst because production facilities are not available. Reducing the platinum

content would reduce the cost of the PEM fuel cell system. Two respondents stated that

platinum reductions of 50% from the baseline of 0.75 mg/cm2 had already been achieved in

laboratory testing and that the durability and power density remained constant. 

With platinum content reductions and $900/troz, the estimated PEM fuel cell system cost 

could be reduced from $108 to $83/kW. Extensive cell stack testing is needed to confirm

these results, and the Team recommends testing at a neutral test facility. 

b. End users could own the platinum. 

In the supply chain scenario for cell stack manufacturing, markup is applied at each stage of

manufacturing. Applying markup to the high cost catalyst at each stage would increase the

cost of the PEM fuel cell system. An industry suggestion is that the end producer owns the

platinum and subcontracts fabrication of the catalyst, the membrane electrode assemblies

(MEAs) and eventually incorporates them into stacks. End user ownership of the platinum

would eliminate markup on platinum and effectively transfer the risk of platinum ownership to

the fuel cell integrator or automobile manufacturer at the end of the supply chain. 

c. Platinum should be recycled. 

Many industry respondents considered the life cycle of the platinum to be an important issue,

especially the possibility of recycling platinum. Recovery at levels approaching 90% is

needed to combat the high cost of platinum. This topic was not addressed in the TIAX report. 

Recycled platinum is considered by many industry interviewees to be the only path for PEM

fuel cells with platinum catalysts. 

-7- 
d. Platinum might be profitably leased. 

Leasing of platinum was also brought up by industry. The manufacture of 500,000 PEM fuel

cell stacks would consume approximately 2 million troz of platinum while worldwide demand

for platinum was 6.7 million troz in 2005 (Platinum Today 2005). Some fuel cell companies

responded that the automobile original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) should lease the

platinum (inside the cell stack) to the vehicle purchaser.

2. Bipolar plates can be thinner. 

The TIAX cost analysis states that compression-molded, graphite-resin composite plates may have 

thickness and conductivity limitations (Carlson et al. 2005). TIAX changed its analysis from the 2004

graphite resin composite formulation to an analysis of molded/stamped-expanded graphite foil to

achieve thinner bipolar plates. A manufacturer of this type of bipolar plates disagreed with the

thickness and conductivity statements of the analysis. Graphite foil also has high electrical

conductivity, low contact resistance, and low specific density, and it can be manufactured in a roll-toroll continuous process with embossed compression molding.

Manufacturers of both types of plates reported that thinner plates can be made. The limit on bipolar

plate thickness is based on two factors: (1) permeability of reactants through the web of the bipolar

plate and (2) the flow field depths required to ensure the reactants are adequately distributed. 

3. High power densities may be achievable. 

The Team was told by MEA manufacturers that power densities are achievable at greater than the 600

mW/cm2 baseline used in the analysis. Power densities of 700−1,000 mW/cm2

 have been obtained in

laboratory tests. The full details were not revealed; however, the industry claims suggest cell stack

cost reductions similar to those achieved in moving from 350 mW/cm2 in 2004 to 600 mW/cm2 in the 

2005 baseline cost analysis. Further demonstration in cell stacks is needed before reduced costs can

be claimed based on these data. 

4. Membrane electrode assembly technology is advancing. 

MEA manufacturers reported progress in roll processing of three-layer systems and advances toward

five-layer systems. At least one manufacturer reported their three-layer, roll-to-roll process is already

high volume. Some manufacturers indicated manufacturing development programs to adapt roll

processing for fuel cell production would be costly, but they were moving forward. These continued

efforts should be encouraged and may drive down costs. Industry anticipates a nonrecurring

engineering investment in the transition from three-layer (catalyst coated membrane) structures to 

five-layer, and possibly seven-layer structures. The application of seals in the roll processing was

considered a nontrivial manufacturing problem that would require process development. 

Additional Cost Risk Areas

1. The lower range of the ionomer cost is questionable. 

A Stanford Research Institute (SRI) report (SRI 1983) reviewed ionomer costs and proposed the

product value for ionomer was $60 − $89/lb for a 100,000−400,000 lb/yr (180 metric tons/year)

facility. These values (in 1983 dollars) are associated with the capital investment and production cost

for the ionomer and they compare well with the cost given in Table 19 (Carlson et al., 2005).

-8- 
However, given that energy costs have increased significantly since 1983, the SRI values are probably

low.

The TIAX sensitivity analysis assumed a Nafion cost range from $20 − $100/lb with a most likely 

value of $80/lb (see Table 20 of Carlson et al. 2005) that is inconsistent with the SRI study. The low

cost in Table 20 is attributed to the work of Gebert et al 2004. The membrane companies indicated the

low-end cost may approach $90/lb, in closer alignment with the SRI report. 

2. The woven gas diffusion layer is nonstandard. 

The gas diffusion layer (GDL) identified in the TIAX report is a woven material (Carlson et al. 2005).

Although the cost difference is not very significant, non-woven GDLs are used by all but one of the

MEA and cell manufacturers interviewed. The choice of woven GDLs is a cost risk that does not

reflect industry or national laboratory views. 

3. Vertical integration of cell stack manufacturing is not supported by industry. 

Industry consensus was that no one company had all the technology or could afford to have all the

technology to achieve vertical integration. The Independent Team concurs. The TIAX analysis did

evaluate the value chain cost and included 30% markup for the catalyst. Eliminating the catalyst

markup and using the end user approach identified here will reduce the supply chain cost. 

4. Nonrecurring engineering costs are not included in the analysis. 

The analysis does not include nonrecurring costs for manufacturing. Nonrecurring manufacturing

engineering costs need to be recovered by companies through sales revenue. Industry participants

indicated that the high cost of transitioning from limited production (<1,000 fuel cell units/year) to

automotive scale production (500,000 or more fuel cell units/year) will require a large investment in

nonrecurring engineering. These costs would be in addition to the capital expenditures identified by

TIAX for moving to automotive scale production.

-9- 
Recommendations 

As a result of this comprehensive review, the Team prepared the following recommendations for

future cost analyses of PEM fuel cell systems. 

1. Reduce platinum costs through recycling and alternative purchase options.

Recycled platinum should be evaluated in future cost analyses. A general recommendation is for the

DOE to increase its development programs on recycled platinum. A review of alternative methods

of purchasing platinum is also recommended and should include purchase by the end user to

minimize markup of the platinum during processing. An evaluation of the benefits of leasing

platinum by the OEM or automobile manufacturers is also recommended. 

2. Quantify the cost of ionomer used in PEM membranes. 

The minimum cost of $20/lb for ionomer assumed by TIAX in its sensitivity analysis is not

consistent with the available information. Industry input was closer to $90/lb. A new evaluation of

the cost of ionomer is recommended. 

3. Develop a value chain analysis of the cell stack. 

Value chain analysis of the cell stack should be used in all future cost analyses. The manufacturing

concept of vertical integration for the cell stack should be reconsidered. 

4. Review the use of non-woven gas diffusion layers. 

Since non-woven GDLs are used by most MEA and cell manufacturers, they should be considered

in all future cost analyses. 

5. Baseline design of the PEM fuel cell system should have broader input from industry. 

The PEM fuel cell system design should be reconsidered. Industry suggested alternative system

designs and a study to identify the optimum system for PEM fuel cells. Any future models should

be developed with broader industry and national laboratory input. 

6. Include nonrecurring engineering costs in future cost analyses. 

Nonrecurring manufacturing engineering costs need to be recovered by companies through sales

revenue, and thus should be included in future cost analyses. 

7. Evaluate incremental production costs. 

Future cost analyses should address incremental production increases beginning with 10,000 units

per year, in addition to the baseline of 500,000 units per year. 

8. Clarify intended usage of the cost analysis report. 

To avoid misinterpretation, future cost analyses should provide a statement in the front of the report

that clearly identifies how the report should be used and not used. What can and, more importantly,

what cannot be inferred from the results of the analysis should be clearly defined. 

9. Include more detail in future analyses. 

Future analyses would provide a greater understanding of the PEM costs if there were more detail

provided in the bottom-up analysis. 

-10- 
References 

Carlson, E.;Kopf, P.; Sinha, J.; Sriramulu, S.; and Yang, Y. 2005. Cost Analysis of PEM Fuel Cell

Systems for Transportation, Subcontract Report NREL/SR-560-39104. Golden, CO: National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Gebert, M.; Hohlein, B. et al. Nov. 2004. “Benchmark Cost Analysis of Main PEFC-Ionomer 

Membrane Solutions,” Trans. of the ASME, Journal of Fuel Cell Science and Technology, Vol. 1, pp. 

56−60. 

Platinum Today (2005). www.platinum.matthey.com/market_data/1147696728.html. SRI 1983. PEP 

(PROCESS Economic Program) #166 Fluoropolymers. 

-11- 
Appendix A

Independent Review Team 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory contracted with DJW TECHNOLOGY, LLC (DJWT) to

conduct the independent review. An Independent Review Team of four industry experts with a

combined experience of over 80 years in fuel cell research, development and manufacturing was

assembled by DJWT. 

DJW TECHNOLOGY, LLC: DJWT is a sole proprietorship formed by Douglas Wheeler to provide

consulting services to industry, the national laboratories, and government agencies. Mr. Wheeler was

manager technology and government contracts at UTC Fuel Cells (now UTC Power) for 18 years. At

UTC Fuel Cells, he managed the Advanced Technology team during UTC Fuel Cells’ transition from

Phosphoric Acid fuel cells to PEM fuel cells. During this time period UTC Fuel Cells’ critical

atmospheric pressure technology for PEM fuel cells was developed. The Advanced Technology team

developed and demonstrated the technology concepts for UTC Fuel Cells’ automotive PEM fuel cell

systems. 

PEM ENGINEERS: PEM ENGINEERS was formed by David Watkins and Clarence Chow, two

former long-term directors of Ballard’s Advanced Systems and Transportation Programs. 

David Watkins: During his 19 years at Ballard Power Systems, Mr. Watkins pioneered the

PEM fuel cell technologies behind Ballard's emergence as a global industry leader, including

an order of magnitude increase in power density, practical operation on air rather than on pure

oxygen, operation on widely available hydrocarbon fuels rather than pure hydrogen, and the

first methanol-to-electricity and natural gas-to-electricity integrated fuel power plants using

PEM technology. He started Systems Engineering at Ballard in 1991, retired in 2002 as

Director, Advanced Systems responsible for portable, stationary and transportation power

plants. 

Clarence Chow: Mr. Chow has extensive experience in fuel cell product development,

particularly for automotive applications. During his 12 years at Ballard Power Systems, he 

held the positions as Stack Engineering Manager, Director of Transportation Programs and

Director of Advanced Development. He managed a number of key projects that helped to put

Ballard at the forefront of fuel cell product development for automobiles. He led the stack 

development that advanced the power densities to the needs of the automotive fuel cell

systems and improved performance compatibility, reduced costs, and transformed the design

for high volume production processes. 

Paul J. Farris Consultant: Paul Farris has over 30 years experience in the fuel cell industry at UT Fuel

Cells where he was Manager of Business Development. He was a key member of the PC 25 

commercialization team and conducted cost and manufacturing analyses for the phosphoric acid fuel

cell. He led the effort for UTC Fuel Cells on the commercialization of an on-sit hydrogen generations

unit. He was instrumental in the UTC Fuel Cells’ transition to PEM fuel cell for transportation

applications and was an instructor at the Fuel Cell Short Course, “The Integrated System Approach 

to Fuel Cell Power Plant System Design” at the 2005 Fuel Cell Seminar. 

A-1 
Appendix B

Interviews for Independent Review of TIAX Cost Analysis 

Companies & National Laboratories Interviewed 

Companies

• TIAX, LLC 

• UTC Power, LLC 

• SGL Carbon Group 

• Porvair Advanced Materials 

• 3M Company

• W. L. Gore & Associates 

• Ballard Power Systems 

• Honeywell International Inc. 

• Plug Power Inc. 

• Arkema Group 

• E-TEK Division of PEMAS Fuel Cell Technologies

• Directed Technologies, Inc (written response) 

• DuPont E I DE NEMOURS & CO, DuPont Fuel Cells 

• GrafTech Advanced Energy Technology Inc. 

• Parker Hannifin Corporation 

• Dana Corporation 

• Johnson Matthey

• Delphi Corporation (written response) 

• Hydrogenics Corporation

• General Motors

• Daimler Chrysler 

• Ford

National Laboratories

• Argonne National Laboratory

• National Renewable Energy Laboratory

• Los Alamos National Laboratory

B-1 
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) 

October 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE 

Independent Review Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To) 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Fuel Cell System for Transportation – 2005 Cost Estimate 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Douglas Wheeler 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER 

NREL/BK-150-40160 

5e. TASK NUMBER 

HS061002 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Douglas Wheeler 

Independent Review Panel 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

LDC-6-66262-01 

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

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 

NREL 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

NREL/BK-150-40160 

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

NREL Technical Monitor: Michael Duffy 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words) 

Independent review report of the methodology used by TIAX to estimate the cost of producing PEM fuel cells using 

2005 cell stack technology. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

independent review; TIAX; cost analysis; fuel cells; cell stack 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT 

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18 

F1146-E(12/2004)