2008 DOE Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure 

Program Review

Keith Wipke, Senior Engineer and Gro

Sam Sprik, Jennifer Kurtz

NREL

June 10, 2008

Controlled Hydrogen Fle

Infrastructure Analy

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or oth

Project ID# TV-5

NREL/PR-560-44388

Presented at the 2008 Hydrogen Program Annual Merit Review sponsored by DOE EERE held J
Fuel Cell Vehicle Learning Dem

Project Objectives and Ta

• Objectives

– Validate H

2 FC Vehicles and Infrastruct

– Identify Current Status and Evolution of 

• Assess Progress Toward Technology Read• Provide Feedback to H

2 Research and Dev

Solar Electrolysis S

Performance Measure 2009 2015

Fuel Cell Stack Durability 2000 hours 5000 hoursVehicle Range 250+ miles 300+ milesHydrogen Cost at Station $3/gge $2-3/gge

Key Targets
Project Overview

• Project start: FY03• Project end: FY10• ~70% of Task III complete 

(see timeline slide)

A. Vehicles – lac

road H

2 vehic

B. Storage – tec

provide neces

C. Hydrogen Re

– cost and ava

D. Maintenance 

– lack of facilitpersonnel

E. Codes and St

adoption/valid

H. Hydrogen Pro

Renewables durability, efficapplication

I. 

H

2 and Electr

cost and dura

• Context: Overall DOE project is 

~$170M project over 5 years

– Equal investment by industry

• NREL funding prior to FY07 : $2192K• NREL FY07 funding: $850K• NREL FY08 funding: $850K

Timeline

Budget

Tech. V

• See partner slide

Partners
4

Project Timeline and Major M

• Task I – Project Preparation [100% Complete]

1 Support development of RFP, statement of objectives (Appendix C)2 Bidder’s meeting in Detroit – launch of RFP3 Create data analysis plan and presentation for discussion with industr

• Task II – Project Launch [100% Complete]

4 Announcement of successful bidders (4/04)5 Kick-off meetings and cooperative agreement awards

• Task III – Data Analysis and Feedback to R&D activities (pa

6 Preliminary data collection, analysis, and first quarterly assessment re7 Demonstrate FCVs that achieve 50% higher fuel economy than gasol8 Publication of first “composite data products”9 Evaluate FC stack time to 10% voltage degradation relative to 1000-h10 Decision for purchase of additional vehicles based on performance, 11 Preliminary evaluation of dominant real-world factors influencing FC 12 Introduction of 2nd generation FC systems into vehicles begins

13 FCVs demonstrate 250-mile range without impacting passenger carg14 Validate FCVs with 2,000 hour durability and $3.00/gge (based on v

Task I

1 2 3

Task II

5 6

Task III

7 10 

NREL Quarterly Analysis of 

9

5/06

11

5/05

8

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 F

5/07

12 

5/04 
Industry Partners: 4 Automaker/Energy-

Rollout: 

2nd Generation FC Introduction in 

On-Board Hydrogen Storage Methods

-

102030405060708090

100

2005Q2

2005Q3

2005Q4

2006Q1

2006Q2

2006Q3

2006Q4

2007Q1

2007Q2

2007Q3

2007Q4

Cumulative Vehicles Deployed

Liquid H2700 bar tanks350 bar tanks

Created Feb-08-2008 8:57AM

92

92

Gen 1 Gen 1

Gen 1 & 2

Gen 2

Gen 2 

Gen 1
Vehicle Miles: All 

02468

10121416

0-3500

3500-7000 7000-10500 10500-14000 14000-17500 1750

Total Vehic

Number of Vehicles

Tot

Through 20

Created: Feb-15-08

Vehicle Hours: All OEMs Combined

02468

1012141618

0-150150-300300-450450-600600-750750-900 900-1050 1050-1200 1200-1350>1350

Total Vehicle Hours

Number of Vehicles

Through 2007 Q4

Created: Feb-15-08

Total Vehicle Hours = 52,268

DOE Learning Demo Fleet Has 

50,000 Vehicle Hours and 1.1 M

Gen 2 vehicle introduction now 

appears as the 2nd bulge at 

low hours/miles
Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods 

012345

Delivered

Compressed H2

Natural Gas On-site

Reforming

Electrolysis Delivered Liquid H2

Production Technology

# of Stations

Created Feb-15-08

Majority of Project’s Fixed Infrastruc

Vehicles Has Been Installed – Examp

Mobile Refueler

Sacramento, CA

Steam Methane Reforming

Oakland, CA

Online Stations

02468

10121416

2005

Q2

2005

Q3

2005

Q4

2006

Q1

2006

Q2

2006

Q3

2006

Q4

2007

Q1

2007

Q2

2007

Q3

2007

Q4

Reporting Period

Number of Stations

Created Feb-15-08

Total of >40,000 kg H2 

produced or dispensed

Recent station additions include: 

SMUD (BP) and White Plains, NY (Shell). 

15 stations now deployed
Refueling Stations Test Performance in Va

Learning Demo Comprises ~1/3 of all 

April-14-2008

Northern 

California

7

Southern California

17

44

Southeast Michigan

7
Project Approach

• Provide facility and staff for securing and 

analyzing industry sensitive data

– NREL Hydrogen Secure Data Center (HSDC

• Perform analysis and simulation using de

data in HSDC to:

– Evaluate current status and progress toward – Feedback current technical challenges and 

opportunities into DOE H

2 R&D program

– Provide analytical results to originating compa

their own data (detailed data products)

– Collaborate with industry partners on new and 

detailed analyses

• Publish/present progress of project to pu

stakeholders (composite data products)
Approach: Providing Data Analysis a

Both the Public and the Industry P

Raw Data, 

Reports

Hydrogen Secure Data 

Center (HSDC)

• Located at NREL: Strictly Controlled Access• Detailed Analyses, Data Products, Internal Reports

Co

• A

res

D

• 

coor

• N

inf
Accomplishment: Eleven Quarters of Data 

Current Status of Data Reporting to the Hydrogen Secur

Through March 2008:

211,000 individual vehicle trips

50 GB of on-road data

2005 Review

2006 Review

2007 Review

2004

Review

= Composite Data Products Published
Accomplishment: Generated All R

NREL-Developed GUI – Fleet Analysi
Accomplishment: In the Last Year Published Fall 20

CDP Results through Conferences, Progress Rep
Accomplishment: NREL Web Site Provides Di

Composite Data Products (47), Reports, and 

http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/cdp_topic.

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

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

50

100150200250300

Vehicle Range (miles)

Vehicle Range1

2015 Target2009 Target

Created: Feb-15-08 7:37 AM

(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.
Accomplishment: Restructured CDP Web S

Tracking of Most Frequently Accessed Te

Top 5 CDPs

viewed

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

Sustained activity

in last 5-6 months

3/1/07 4/1/08

Summer 2007 Progress Report 

Downloaded 2,138 times; 

6th most popular download from 

NREL’s H2 website
Dyno (1) Window-Sticker (2) 

0

1020304050607080

Fuel Economy (miles/kg H

2

)

Fuel Economy

Created: Feb-15-08 7:17 AM

(3) Excludes trips < 1 mile. One data point for on-road fleet average of each make/model.(1) One data point for each make/model. Combined City/Hwy fuel economy per DRAFT SAE J2572.(2) Adjusted combined City/Hwy fuel economy (0.78 x Hwy, 0.9 x City).(4) Calculated from on-road fuel cell stack current or mass flow readings.

Dynamometer and On-Road Fuel Ec

Gen 1 Learning Demonstration 

High Fue

Efficiency 

Relatively Hi
Dyno Range (2) Window-Sticker Range (3) On-

0

50

100150200250300

Vehicle Range (miles)

Vehicle Range1

Created: Feb-15-08 7:37 AM

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

Gen 1 Vehicle Range Based on D

and Usable H2 Fuel Stored O

...But Gen 1 Vehicle Range Still Limited 

by H2 Storage Technology Available
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

0123456789

101112

Range Histogram: All OEMs

Percentage of chassis dyno range1 b/w refuelings

Percentage of Refuelings

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 

Created: Feb-15-08 9:20 AM

Total refuelin

1. Range calculated using the combined City/Hwy fuel economy from dyno testing (not EPAadjusted) and usable fuel on board.2. Some refueling events are not detected/reported due to data noise or incompleteness.

Majority (75%) of Vehicles Trav

Dyno Range Between Refu

Contri

• Fear of 

• Limited 

• On-Roa

Average

on-road
Tank Levels: DOE Fleet

15%

E 

Created: Feb-27-08 10:51 AM

1. Some refueling events not recorded/detected due to data noise or inco

Median Tank Level = 39% at Fill

2. The outer arc is set at 20% total refuelings.3. If tank level at fill was not available, a complete fill up was assumed.

Large Spread in H2 Tank Level 

Peak at ~1/4 Full, Median at 
700 bar On-Board H2 Storage System

Potential for Improved Performance 

350bar 

0

0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09

0.1

Mass H2 per Liter (kg/L)

Mass of Hyd

Created: Feb-15-08 7:32 AM

1Targets are set for advanced materials-based hydrogen storage tec

350bar 700bar 0

123456789

Weight Percent Hydrogen (%)

Weight Percent Hydrogen

2015 DOE MYPP Target12010 DOE MYPP Target12007 DOE MYPP Target1

Created: Feb-15-08 7:32 AM

1Targets are set for advanced materials-based hydrogen storage technologies.

2nd Gen Vehicle Storage 

Data Collected; 

Allows a Comparison of 

350 bar vs. 700 bar
More Detailed Data Reporting Allows a Com

and Volume of H2, Pressure Vessel

70

% 

Co
0 500 

200220240260280300

STA

Predicted Voltage at 300A

Voltage vs. Ope

Created: Apr-17-08 12:04 PM

warm-up time = 10 minpwr rate filt = 1000 kW/samp rate filt = 1000 A/spts per fit = 25001 data pt every 1.00 secondsdecay rate range = 1.8 mVphnom decay rate = 24.9 mVph

0 500 

200220240260280300

O

Predicted Voltage at 300A

Voltage vs. Operatio

Created: Apr-17-08 12:04 PM

Approach: Method for Projecting Time to 10

Voltage Degradation (Linear Decay Fit, Calcu

Fixed t0 voltages and non-linear decay fits 

will be investigated for Fall 2008 analysis 

of stacks with significant number of 

accumulated hours 

Note: 10% is an R&D metric for FC stack 

degradation. It does not necessarily 

indicate an end-of-life condition. OEMs 

may use other values or indicators.

~40 min 
0

200400600800

10001200140016001800200022002400

2006 Target2009 Target

Actual Operating Hours Accumulated To-Date Projected Hou

Max Hrs Accumulated (1)(2) Avg Hrs Accumulated (1)(3) Projection to 

Time (Hours)

DOE Learning Demonstration Fuel Cell Stack Durabi

Based on Data Through 2007 Q4

Created: Feb-26-08 11:46 AM

(1) Range bars created using one data point for each OEM.(2) Range (highest and lowest) of the maximum operating hours accumulated to-date of any OEM's individual stack (3) Range (highest and lowest) of the average operating hours accumulated to-date of all stacks in each OEM's flee(4) Projection using on-road data -- degradation calculated at high stack current. This criterion is used for assessing  may differ from OEM's end-of-life criterion, and does not address "catastrophic" failure modes, such as membra(5) Using one nominal projection per OEM: "Max Projection" = highest nominal projection, "Avg Projection" = averag The shaded green bar represents an engineering judgment of the uncertainty due to data and methodology limit as additional data are accumulated.

As More Gen 1 Data Is Accumu

Teams Are Demonstrating Long 

(DOE Milestone)

Multiple stacks have now 

demonstrated >1000 

hours of operation
Approach: Use Multivariate Analysis 

Dominant Factors Affecting FC D
Primary Factors Affecting Learning Demo Fleet Fu

FC Diversity (Between Teams) Limits Drawing St
Primary Factors Affecting Fuel Cell Degrad

Extract, and Different (sometimes opposite
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

05

10152025

Frequency (%)

Daily Distance (miles)

Daily Distance: DOE Fleet

Created: Feb-27-08 11:56 AM

Cumulative Frequency

@ 20 miles

DOE Fleet: 50.9%

NHTS: 27.2%

2001 NHTS DaASCII.csv Sou

Large Number of Short Trips Co

Lower Daily Distance than Natio

0 5 10 15 20 25 0

5

1015202530354045

Frequency (%)

Trip Length (miles)

Trip Length: DOE Fleet

DOE FleetNHTS

Created: Feb-27-08 11:56 AM

2001 NHTS Data Includes Car, Truck, Van, & SUV day tripsASCII.csv Source: http://nhts.ornl.gov/download.shtml#2001

Daily

Distance

Trip Length
0-1 hr 1-6 hr 6-12 hr 12-18hr 18-24hr 1-7days 7-

0

102030405060

% Trips

Time

Time between Trips: DOE Fleet

0-10 min 10-20 min 20-30 min 

0

102030405060

% Trips

Tim

0-60 min Breakdo

Created: Feb-27-08 11:56 AM

>1/3 trips occur 

within 10 min of 

previous trip

Examining Time Between Tri

Fuel Cells Experiencing Large # 

60% trips occur 

within 1 hour of 

previous trip
05

101520253035404550

%Time at Power Levels v2: DOE Fleet

% Time at Power Level

0-5% 5-10%10-15%15-20%20-25%25-30%30-35%35-40%40-45%45-50%50-55%55-60%60-65%65-70%70-75%75-80%

Created: Feb-27-08 12:04 PM % Fuel Cell Power (Gross) of Max

17.6%-47.9% of operating time at idle(Vehicle Speed = 0 & F.C. Power > 0)

While Most of FC Time is Spe

Bulk of Energy is at 20-50% 

02468

10

% Energy by Power levels: DOE 

% Energy

0-5% 5-10%10-15%15-20%20-25%25-30%30-35%35-40%40-45%45-50%50-55%55-60%60-65%65-7

% Fuel Cell Power (Gross) of Max

Created: Feb-27-08 12:04 PM

~50% Energy

>50% time 

at <5% FC 

power
0

10203040506070

All OEMs

Efficiency (%) 

Fuel Cell System1 Efficiency2 at ~25% Net Po

Created: Aug-29-06 4:09 PM

1 Gross stack power minus fuel cell system auxiliaries, per DRAFT SAEJ2615.2 Ratio of DC output energy to the lower heating value of the input fuel (hydrogen).

Excludes power electronics and electric drive.

Gen 1 Baseline Dyno Tests Validated 

at 1⁄4 Power Point – Gen 2 Tests to O

Steady-State Efficiency 

at 1⁄4 power on dyno: 

52.5% to 58.1%

High-e

match

FCV 
0-0.5 0.5-1 1-1.5 1.5-2 2-2.5 2.5-3 3-3.5 3.5-4 4-4

05

10152025303540

Trip Energy: DOE Fleet

% Trips

Energy Consumed [kWh]

Created: Feb-27-08 12:04 PM

~40% of Learning Demo Trip

<0.5 kWh of Fuel Cell Outpu

Great opportunity for synergy 

between fuel cell drivetrain and 

plug-in HEV battery sizing to 

“electrify” these short trips
Minimal Vehicle Safety Report

to Demonstrate a Strong Safe

Note: NREL has begun 

entering some of the 

H2 reports into 

H2incidents.org 

(with associated 

company permission)
0 20 40 60 80 

Non-Event

Near Miss

Incident

Number of Reports

Severity

Total Infrastructure Safety Reports by Severity

and Report Type Through 2007 Q4

Alarms OnlyAutomatic SysteElectrical IssueEquipment MalfuFalse Alarm/MiscH2 Release - MinH2 Release - SigNon-H2 ReleaseStructural IssueSystem Trouble, 

Created: Feb-15-08 1:24 PM

An INCIDENT is an event that results in: - a lost time accident and/or injury to personnel - damage/unplanned downtime for project equipment, facilities or property - impact to the public or environment - any hydrogen release that unintentionally ignites or is sufficient to sustain a flame if ignited - release of any volatile, hydrogen containing compound (other than the hydrocarbons used as common fuelsA NEAR-MISS is: - an event that under slightly different circumstances could have become an incident - unplanned H2 release insufficient to sustain a flame

Most of Infrastructure Safety Reports 

Non-Events (and Most of Those, A

• Compressor bolts vibrated loose• Part installed backwards

Causes of 2 Incidents:
2005Q2 2005Q3 2005Q4 2006Q1 2006Q2 2006Q3 2006Q4 2007Q1 2007

05

10152025

Reporting Period

Number of Reports

Type of Infrastructure Safety Reports by Quarter Through 

IncidentNear MissNon-EventStations OnlineAvg # Reports/Station

Created: Feb-15-08 1:24 PM

An INCIDENT is an event that results in: - a lost time accident and/or injury to personnel - damage/unplanned downtime for project equipment, facilities or property - impact to the public or environment - any hydrogen release that unintentionally ignites or is sufficient to sustain a flame if ignited - release of any volatile, hydrogen containing compound (other than the hydrocarbons used as common fuelsA NEAR-MISS is: - an event that under slightly different circumstances could have become an incident - unplanned H2 release insufficient to sustain a flame

Overall Infrastructure Safety Reports 

Increase in New Stations Comin
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Particulates 

μg/L

H2 Impurities

Data Range SAE J2719 Measured Less Than or Eq

0 500 1000 1500 2000 

(N2 + He + Ar) 

0 5 10 15 20 25 

H20 

Total HC 

O2 

CO2 

CO 

NH3 

μmol/mol (ppm)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 7

Total S* 

nmol/mol (ppb)

Created: Feb-15-08 2:10 PM *Calculated from SO2, COS, H2S, CS2, and Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH).

Hydrogen Impurities Sampled from All S

In General, Inert Gases and Sulfur Have Had High 

High i

lim

N
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0

200400600800

100012001400

Time (min)

Number of Fueling Events

Histogram of Fueling Times

All Light Duty Through 2007Q4

Average = 3.43

 % <5 = 87

Created: Feb-15-08 1:44 PM

Actual Vehicle Refueling Times and A

8,700 Events: Measured by Stations o

Average time: 

87% of refueling eve

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2

0

50

100150200250300350

Amount 

Number of Fueling Events

Histogram of FAll Light Duty 

Average = 2.25

Created: Feb-15-08 1:44 PM

Average fill amount: 2.25 kg

Includes Communication and 

Non-Communication Fills
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 

0

100200300400500600

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Number of Fueling Events

Histogram of Fueling Rates

All Light Duty Through 2007Q4

5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill o5 kg at 350 b

Average = 0.79

 % >1 = 24

2006 Tech V2010 MYPP 

Created: Feb-15-08 1:44 PM

Actual Vehicle Refueling Rates from 

Measured by Stations or by V

Average rate: 0.79 kg/min

24% of refueling events exceeded 1 kg/min

Includes Communication and 

Non-Communication Fills
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 

0

50

100150200250300350400

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Number of Fueling Events

Histogram of Fueling Rates

Comm vs Non-Comm Fills - All Light Duty Through 200

5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill o5 kg at 350 b

Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 ------------- ------------------ -------Comm 0.94 36%Non-Comm 0.66 20%

CommNon-Comm2006 Tech V2010 MYPP 

Created: Feb-27-08 11:26 AM

Communication H2 Fills Ach

Higher Fill Rate than Non-Comm

Non-Comm Has a

Peak at ~0.2 kg/min

Comm Fills 

Achieve Hig

Fill Rates
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 

0

50

100150200250300350

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Number of Fueling Events

Histogram of Fueling Rates

All Light Duty by Year Through 2007Q4

5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill o5 kg at 350 b

Year Avg (kg/min) %>1 ------- ----------------- -------2005 0.66 17%2006 0.72 20%2007 0.86 28%

2005200620072006 Tech V2010 MYPP 

Created: Feb-27-08 11:39 AM

Examining Refueling Data by Y

0.2 kg/min Rate Phased 

Includes Communication and 

Non-Communication Fills
Refueling by Time of Day: DOE Fleet

9%

3

12

9

6

Created: Feb-27-08 10:51 AM

% of fills b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 86.5% 

1. Fills between 6 AM & 6 PM2. The outer arc is set at 12 % total Fill.3. Some events not recorded/detected due to data noise or incompleteness.

AM PM

Refueling by Time of Day; Relati

Refueling Infrastructure Demand 

Created

% 

1. Fills 2. The 3. Som
Driving Start Time - Day: DOE Fleet

9%

3

12

9

6

Created: Feb-27-08 10:51 AM

% of driving trips b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 88.7% 

1. Driving trips between 6 AM & 6 PM2. The outer arc is set at 12 % total Driving.3. Some events not recorded/detected due to data noise or incompleteness.

AM PM

% of NHTS trips b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 81.5%

20A

Driving Trip Start Time – Day

Matches National Statistics Exce

Created: F

% o

1. Driving 2. The ou3. Some 

% o
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Frid

05

101520

Driving Trips by Day of Week: DOE Fleet

% of Driving Trips in a Day

Day

Created: Feb-27-08 10:51 AM

20A

Gen 1 Learning Demo FCV Travel 

Primarily Weekday Driving; Differs 

Driving
Other CDP Results Not Discusse

E

F

Tank Level Medians: DOE Fleet, All Vehicles

Created: Feb-27-08 10:51 AM

Total refuelings1 = 13085

1. Some refueling events not recorded/detected due to data noise or incompleteness.2. If tank level at fill was not available, a complete fill up was assumed.

Refueling Tank Levels - Medians

-30-20-10

0

102030405060

1.4o

F

122.9o

F

Degrees Celsius

Ambient Temperature During Operation

All OEMs

Created: Feb-14-08 5:40 PM

Range of Ambient Temperature

During Vehicle Operation

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Adjustment

Check Only

Other

Repair

Replacement

Maintenance: Average Labor Hours Per Station Since Inception

Through 2007 Q4

ScheduledUn-Scheduled

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Adjustment

Check Only

Other

Repair

Replacement

Maintenance: Average Number of Events Per Station Since Inception

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

# of Events

Hours

Comparison of Scheduled/Un-Scheduled Maintenance

Created: Feb-13-08 4:54 PM

Infrastructure Maintenance

Cumulative Vehicle Miles Traveled: All OEMs

-

200,000400,000600,000800,000

1,000,0001,200,000

2005Q2

2005Q3

2005Q4

2006Q1

2006Q2

2006Q3

2006Q4

2007Q1

2007Q2

2007Q3

2007Q4

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Created: Feb-15-08

Cumulative Vehicle Miles Cumulative H2 

Produced or Dispense

99.7399.7499.7599.7699.7799.7899.79

99.8

99.8199.8299.8399.8499.8599.8699.8799.8899.89

99.9

99.9199.9299.9399.9499.9599.9699.9799.9899.99

100

Hydrogen Fuel Quality Index (%)

Created: Feb-15-08 2:10 PM (1) Includes sampling from 

2005Q2 2

05

1015

Number of Stations

Number oAvg Refu

Created: Feb-15-08 1:24 PM

7 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Vehicle Range Factors

Percentage of chassis dyno range1

.

All OEMs

Window-Sticker 2

On-Road 3

Dyno 1

Created: Feb-15-08 9:20 AM

1. Calculated using the combined City/Hwy fuel economy from dyno testing (non-adjusted)and usable fuel on board.2. Applying window-sticker correction factors for fuel economy: 0.78 x Hwy and 0.9 x City.3. Using fuel economy from on-road data (excluding trips > 1 mile, consistent with other data products).

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Non-Event

Near Miss

Incident

Number of Reports

Severity

Primary Factors of Infrastructure Safety Reports

Through 2007 Q4

Calibration/Settings/ Software ControlsDesign FlawEnvironment (Weather, Power Disruption, Other)Inadequate Training, Protocol, SOPInadequate/ Non-working EquipmentMaintenance RequiredMischief, Vandalism, SabotageNew Equipment MaterialsNot Yet DeterminedOperator/Personnel Error

Created: Feb-15-08 1:24 PM

An INCIDENT is an event that results in: - a lost time accident and/or injury to personnel - damage/unplanned downtime for project equipment, facilities or property - impact to the public or environment - any hydrogen release that unintentionally ignites or is sufficient to sustain a flame if ignited - release of any volatile, hydrogen containing compound (other than the hydrocarbons used as common fuels)A NEAR-MISS is: - an event that under slightly different circumstances could have become an incident - unplanned H2 release insufficient to sustain a flame

Refueli

Effective Driving Range H2 Safety Primary Factors H
Highlights of Interactions 

Collaborations in Last Y

• Auto/Energy Industry Partners

– Site visits with industry (at OEM site or NREL) to discuss d

results and NREL methodology

– Focused on 2-way sharing of stack degradation multivariate – Validated NREL’s on-road stack degradation analysis techn

and results with two OEMs

– Improved methodology for producing detailed data results a

CDPs at same time for easier industry review

• FreedomCAR and Fuel Technical Teams

– H2 Storage (10/07) and Delivery (11/07) Tech Teams– DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Program and HFCIT Program 

(10/07)

• US Fuel Cell Council Technical Working Groups

– Transportation Working Group – Focus on CA series

– Joint H2 Quality Task Force

• California Organizations

– CaFCP: NREL will include H2 impurity test results in future 

– CARB: Discussing data from new stations being sent to NR

inclusion in analysis results
Future Work

• Remainder of FY08:

– Continue to investigate correlations of real-world fa

cell degradation

– Create new and updated composite data products 

data through June 2008 

• Prepare results for publication at 2008 Fuel Cell Sem

– For 2nd generation vehicles, begin to evaluate imp

durability, range, fuel economy, and safety

– Key upcoming September 2008 DOE MYPP and J

validate 250-mile range from 2nd generation vehicl

– Support OEMs, energy companies, and state orga

in coordinating early infrastructure plans

• FY09:

– Semi-annually (spring/fall) compare technical prog

objectives and targets and publish results

• Production cost, production efficiency, FC freeze sta

tolerance, 2nd gen stack durability

– Identify opportunities to feed findings from project 

program and industry R&D activities to maintain prdemonstration”

– Help DOE prepare plans for Phase II of project
Summary

• More than half of project completed

– 92 vehicles and 15 stations deployed– 1.1 million miles traveled, 40,000 kg H2 produce

– 211,000 individual vehicle trips analyzed– Project to continue through 2010

• Examination of Factors Affecting FC Degra

Continues

– NREL collaborating with each team to understa

inputs and analysis

– Triggered more thorough analysis of vehicle/sta

as time between trips, trip length, FC power lev

• Total of 47 composite data products publis

– This presentation only covered some of the new– Web site allows direct web access to all CDPs

• Roll-out of 2nd generation vehicles has beg

– Most of remaining vehicles to be deployed this – Additional 700 bar stations coming online soon
Questions and Discu

Project Contact: Keith Wipke, National Renew

303.275.4451 keith_wipke@

All public Learning Demo papers and presentations are 

online at http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_valida

Systems Integration & Analysis

Basic Research & Applied R&D

DELIVERY

FUEL CELLS

STORAGE

PRODUCTION

Education

Market Transformation Market Transformation

Market Transformation

Technology 

Validation

Safety, Codes & StandardsManufacturing R&D
Responses to Previous Yea

Reviewers’ Comment

• Q: “Refueling time, amount, capacity factors, and a

should be analyzed for greater value of the data”

– Extensive analysis has been performed on refueling tim

comm. vs. non-comm., changes in distribution with time

– Station capacity and availability factor data is not provid

be of limited extended value with such a sparse networ

vehicles at this stage.

• Q: “Try to include more projects, even those not in 

– Vehicles: Difficult to obtain detailed data from non-DOE – Infrastructure: Data from CHIP project (Air Products) no

obtaining data from new/upgraded California Stations fr

• Q: “Benchmark against European and Japanese in

global record of FCV demonstration results”

– Little public technical data (outside of number of vehicle

publicly from these foreign demonstration projects

– An IPHE Demonstration Working Group (DWG) has bee

this type of data sharing and has met 3 times; we’ve puDOE is working through the DWG to assemble data fro
Publications and Prese

(Since FY07 Review, Key Text in 

1. Wipke, K., Sprik, S., Kurtz, J., “Learning Demonstration Progress Report—Spring 2008,” National 

Report NREL/TP-560-42986, April 2008.

2. Wipke, K., Sprik, S., Kurtz, J., Garbak, J., “Fuel Cell Vehicle Learning Demonstration: Spring 2008 R

Hydrogen Association Annual Hydrogen Conference, March 2008. (paper and presentation) 

3. Wipke, K., Sprik, S., Kurtz, J., “Composite Data Products for the Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and In

Validation Project,” Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory, updated March 2008. (pre

4. Wipke, K., “Hydrogen Secure Data Center: Procedures to Protect Technical Data Submitted unde

Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation Project,” Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Labodocument)

5. Wipke, K., Sprik, S., Kurtz, J., Thomas, H., “FCV Learning Demonstration: Project Midpoint Status a

Conference, Anaheim, CA, December 2007. (paper and presentation)

6. Kurtz, J., Wipke, K., Sprik, S., “FCV Learning Demonstration: Factors Affecting Fuel Cell Degradatio

Conference, Miami, Florida, November 2007. (presentation).

7. Wipke, K., Sprik, S., Kurtz, J., Thomas, H., Garbak, J., “FCV Learning Demonstration: Project Midpo

Results,” ZERO REGIO Conference, Montecatini Terme, Italy, November 2007. (presentation) 

8. Wipke, K., Sprik, S., Thomas, H., Welch, C., Kurtz, J., “Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure 

Program Annual Progress Report, System Analysis Section VI.D.1, November 2007. (paper) 

9. Wipke, K., presentation of Learning Demonstration results to FreedomCAR and Fuels Delivery Te

(presentation)

10. Wipke, K., Sprik, S., Kurtz, J., Thomas, H., Garbak, J., “FCV Learning Demonstration: First-Generat

Fuel Cell Degradation,” Fuel Cell Seminar, San Antonio, TX, October 2007. (presentation and exte

11. Wipke, K., Sprik, S., Kurtz, J., Thomas, H., Garbak, J., “Fuel Cell Vehicle and Infrastructure Learning 

H2 Infrastructure Forum Between National & Local Governments and Industry, hosted by USFCC

(presentation)

12. Wipke, K., Sprik, S., Kurtz, J., Thomas, H., “Learning Demonstration Progress Report – Septembe

Laboratory Technical Report NREL/TP-560-42264, October 2007. (paper)

13. Wipke, K., presentation of Learning Demonstration results to Vehicle Technologies Program at DO

14. Wipke, K., presentation of Learning Demonstration results to FreedomCAR and Fuels Hydrogen S

(presentation)

15. Wipke, K., presentation of Learning Demonstration results to HFCIT Program at DOE, October 200

16. Wipke, K., Sprik, S., Thomas, H., Welch, C., Kurtz, J., “Learning Demonstration Interim Progress R

Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report NREL/TP-560-41848, July 2007. (paper)

17. Wipke, K., Welch, C., Thomas, H., Sprik, S., Kurtz., J., “DOE’s Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infras

Project: Quarterly Validation Assessment Reports,” (HSDC papers only)

• 1Q 2007, June 2007.• 2Q 2007, September 2007.
Critical Assumptions and 

• Assumption: Linear fit for stack degradation slope and calculate

(under load) used for projecting time to 10% voltage drop

– When just a few hundred hours of data existed, no shape other than – As more data was received, some stacks showed an initial drop in t

with a more gradual slope after that

– With more data, a linear fit with a calculated initial voltage will tend t

time to a 10% voltage drop.

– Proposed solution: 

• NREL is investigating using a fixed initial voltage under load for each stac

linear or two-slope fit to the degradation curve

• NOTE: Several Gen 1 stacks have already achieved over 1,000 hours of 

more stacks achieve their full life, the emphasis on projecting time to 10% 

will shift to Gen 2 stacks to enable a comparison to 2,000 hour target. G

improved methodology.

• Issue: Influences from fuel quality and climate on stack degrada

enough to draw conclusions for 1st gen vehicles

– Fuel quality good at all sites...have not had a site with bad fuel qua

of vehicles refueling there

– First gen stacks not freeze-tolerant, so vehicles are not left to soak 

likely to show strong impact of different climates yet

– Proposed solution: 

• 2nd gen vehicles will be operated and soaked in cold environments to not 

also look at impact on stack durability. 

• Separate activities (codes and standards) are looking at impact of fuel im

probably most direct/controlled way to examine impurity impacts.