fuel cell electric vehicle evaluation - nrel · fuel cell electric vehicle evaluation . 2 ......
TRANSCRIPT
Jennifer Kurtz (PI), Sam Sprik, Chris Ainscough, Genevieve Saur, Matt Jeffers
NREL/PR-5400-66760
June 17, 2016 Advanced Automotive Battery Conference Detroit, MI
Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Evaluation
2
• Why FCEVs • Overview of FCEV evaluation • Results
Content
3
NREL RD&D accelerates the process of bringing sustainable transportation technologies to the market with the ultimate goals of:
• Reduction of GHG emissions in the
transportation sector to meet a 2050 goal of 80% below 2005 levels
• Diversification of transportation energy sources to reduce petroleum consumption and promote U.S. energy security
Sustainable Transportation Vision
Figure by NREL
4
Why Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
Hydrogen FCEVs are clean, efficient, refuel quickly, and provide long driving range
Challenges include hydrogen infrastructure cost & reliability, fuel cell durability & reliability
5
The Hydrogen Fueling Research & Station Technology
Ensure that FCEV customers have a positive fueling experience relative to conventional gasoline/diesel stations as vehicles are introduced (2015-2017), and transition to advanced refueling technology beyond 2017.
1. Reduce the installation cost of a hydrogen fueling station to be competitive with conventional liquid fuel. 2. Improve the availability, reliability, and cost while ensuring the safety of high-pressure components. 3. Focus a flexible and responsive set of technical experts and facilities to help solve today’s urgent challenges and
the future unpredicted needs. 4. Enable distributed generation of renewable hydrogen in a broader energy ecosystem.
Stakeholders Partners Programs
Delivered
On-site
6
Renewable Hydrogen Options
7
NFCTEC Analysis and Reporting of Real-World Operation Data
CDPs
DDPs
Public
Composite Data Products (CDPs) • Aggregated data across multiple systems,
sites, and teams • Publish analysis results every six months
without revealing proprietary data
Detailed Data Products (DDPs) • Individual data analyses
• Identify individual contribution to CDPs • Shared every six months only with the
partner who supplied the data
www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_validation.html
Results
Bundled data (operation and maintenance/safety) delivered
to NREL quarterly Internal analysis
completed quarterly in NFCTEC
National Fuel Cell Technology Evaluation Center
8
On-road FCEVs & Partners
GM
Mercedes-Benz
Honda2
Nissan North America2
Toyota2
Six Data Providers1
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Range of FCEV Model Years
1DOE project overview: • $5.5 million DOE funding • Data to be collected from up to ~90 vehicles
2Project managed by Electricore Award completed
Hyundai
Objectives o Data analysis and reporting of
hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) operating in real-world setting
o Identify current status and evolution of the technology
o Publish performance status and progress from multiple FCEV models
9
FCEV Deployment and Operation Through 12/2015
FCEVs retired
Max fleet voltage durability (Hours to 10% degradation metric)
miles traveled
Fuel cell operation hours
Max FCEV odometer miles
Max fuel cell operation hours
Average on-road fuel economy miles/kg
FCEVs total
NREL Hydrogen Station Dedication 10/2015
10
Vehicle Count & Miles Since 2006
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
50
100
150
200
250
Vehi
cle
Cou
nt
Vehicle Count
Total Vehicle Count = 222
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0
2
4
6
8
Cum
ulat
ive
Mile
s
10 6 Cumulative Miles
Total Miles = 6,335,866
NREL
Created: May-01-16 8:19 P
Pause in evaluation project
Pause in evaluation project
Diverse and statistically significant data set
11
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
LD1
LD2
LD2+
LD3
FCEV Evaluation Phases
Results Published
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20160
2
4
6
8Number of Participating OEMs
2006
Q1
2006
Q3
2007
Q1
2007
Q3
2008
Q1
2008
Q3
2009
Q1
2009
Q3
2010
Q1
2010
Q3
2011
Q1
2011
Q3
2012
Q1
2012
Q3
2013
Q1
2013
Q3
2014
Q1
2014
Q3
2015
Q1
2015
Q3
2016
Q1
10 4
0
2
4LD Evaluation Trip Count 1
NREL
Created: Mar-04-16 1:33 PM
Participants and Trips Since 2006
NREL analyzed trips decreasing due to planned vehicle decommissioning of older generation vehicles.
Current phase
12
FCEV Analysis Categories
Analyzed data through 12/2015 All results not included here. All results available online at
www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_validation.html
Driving
Deploy
Specs Fuel Economy
Reliability
Durability
Range
FC Performance
H2 Performance
Fueling
Other
13
FCEV Voltage Durability
2006-2007 (LD1)
2008-2009 (LD2)
2010-2011 (LD2+) 5 2012-2015
Hou
rs
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
DOE MYRD&D 2020 Durability Target
Comparison of Fuel Cell Operation Hours and Durability
Max Op Hours
Max Fleet Ave Durability 1 , 2 , 3
Ave Fleet Ave Durability 1 , 2 , 3
NREL
Created: May-03-16 12:38 P
Average fleet voltage durability projection increased > 160% from initial projections in 2006 (CDP-FCEV-31)
14
Operation Hours
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
FC S
tack
(%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35Fuel Cell Stacks with Operation Hours Beyond the Voltage Degradation Prediction
1
FC Stack Op Hr > FC Stack 10% V deg
FC Stack Op Hr 2 < FC Stack 10% V deg
NREL
Created: Apr-28-16 12:59 P
Comparison of FC Stacks Operated Beyond 10% Voltage Degradation
More than 60% of analyzed stacks have not operated beyond 10% voltage degradation.
15
On-Road Fuel Economy
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Fuel Economy (miles/kg)4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Vehi
cle
Cou
nt [%
]Average On-Road Vehicle Fuel Economy
1 ,2
Max57.5
Median51
Min40.9
Average EPA adjusted fuel economy
for comparable gasoline car5
Model year 2004 = 22.8 mpgModel year 2008 = 24.5 mpgModel year 2013 = 27.6 mpg
NREL
Created: Apr-28-16 10:46 A
The median on-road vehicle fuel economy is 51 miles per kg, nearly twice the 2013 EPA adjusted fuel economy for gasoline.
16
Comparison of On-Road Fuel Economy
2006-2007 (LD1) 2008-2009 (LD2) 2012-201530
35
40
45
50
55
60
Fuel
Eco
nom
y (m
iles/
kg)
Comparison of On-Road Fuel Economy1 ,2 ,3
NREL
Created: May-16-16 2:07 P
The on-road fuel economy has consistently increased over the last 10 years.
17
0 - 50k 50 - 100k > 100kVehicle Odometer [miles]
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fuel
Eco
nom
y [m
iles/
kg]
Average On-Road Fuel Economy by Vehicle Odometer
Overall Median
NREL
Created: Feb-19-16 7:41 AM
Average On-Road Fuel Economy by Vehicle Odometer
Overall median fuel economy = 51 m/kg, more than two times the average 2008 (comparable model year of FCEVs analyzed) EPA car fuel economy.
18
A. SMR LH2
B. SMR G
H2
C. Onsit
e RH2
D. Onsit
e 33%
RH2
E. Onsit
e CA G
rid H
2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Wel
l-to-
Whe
els
Emis
sion
s (g
CO
2-eq
uiv/
mile
)
Well-to-Wheels CO2
and GHG Emissions 1 by FCEV On-road Fuel Economy
2
CO2 FCEV Min/Max On-road FE 2 ,3
GHGs 4 FCEV Min/Max On-road FE
CO2/GHG FCEV Median EPA FE 5
CO2 Baseline 6 Passenger Car - CA Gas
GHG Baseline 6 Passenger Car - CA Gas
CO2 Baseline 6 Light Duty Truck - CA Gas
GHG Baseline 6 Light Duty Truck - CA Gas
NREL
Created: Apr-28-16 12:39 P
GHG Emissions Comparisons
Scenario B: Median FCEV GHG 30% lower than passenger car and 35% lower than light duty truck baselines. Majority of current stations are delivered gas and FCEVs analyzed include sedan and SUV.
1. GREET Fuel Cycle 2. CDP-FCEV-14 3. On-road FCEV 40.9 – 57.5 miles/kg 4. GHG includes CO2 and CO2 equivalent global warming
potential CH4, N2O, VOC, CO, NOx, Black Carbon, and Organic Carbon
5. Median FCEV EPA combined rating 6. Gasoline (model year 2015) passenger car 28.8 mpg,
light duty truck 26.8 mpg
19
Number of Events26% were unscheduled
8%
12%
27%
45%
FILTER
COOLANT
SENSOR
STACK
MISC
Mile
s/La
bor H
our
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Miles per Labor Hour
Typical, regular vehicle maintenance
FCEV Maintenance and Reliability
Majority of FCEVs are older generation without commercial grade maintenance expectations. Simple unscheduled maintenance (72%) filters and coolant fills. Only 3.5% of failures occurred on-road (CDP-FCEV-73). Average maintenance per vehicle decreasing since 2012 (CDP-FCEV-68).
20
Comparison of Fills to SAE J2601 Temperature and Pressure Limits
Fills (35 and 70 MPa) following pressure and temperature SAE J2601 limits
21
Summary of Key Metrics
Updated values since 6/2015 report and continued progress demonstrated over the four evaluation periods with FCEV technology improvements especially in key technical areas like fuel cell durability, range, and fuel
economy.
22
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.
Learn more at www.nrel.gov/transportation
and www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_validation
Technical Back-Up Slides
24
% of Rated Stack Power0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Stac
k LH
V Ef
ficie
ncy
(%)
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80Fuel Cell Stack Efficiency
On Road Stack Efficiency 1
Reported System Efficiency2
DOE 2020 Target 3
NREL
Created: Apr-29-16 2:26 PM
On-Road Fuel Cell Stack Efficiency
On-road stack efficiency compared with dyno system efficiency and DOE MYRDD 2020 Stack Target (65%). Average system efficiency at 25% power is 57%.
25
Voltage Degradation Analysis Approach Analysis – EXAMPLE DATA
• Voltage and current data 1
1
• Apply polarization fit
2
2
3
• Corresponding operation hour 3
Voltages from polarization fit at set currents
4 4
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
Op Hours
Volta
ge
Voltage vs. Operation Hours at 300A: Vehicle19-Stack1
871
900
847
288
259
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1Stack Weight Factors
Wei
ght V
alue
Overal
l
DatQty
DatGap
DR1ci
DR2ci
Created: Oct-09-08 3:01 PM
warm-up time=10 min
pwr rate filt=1000 kW/s
amp rate filt=1000 A/s
pts per fit=2500
1 data pt every 1seconds
5
5 Fit voltage and operation data
6
6 Degradation linear fit 7
7 Y-intercept beginning of life voltage
8 8 Record operation hour when fit crosses 10% nominal voltage drop
9
9 Investigate fit quality
26
Key Analysis Topics
Critical
• Fuel cell durability • Vehicle operation (hours,
miles) • Specs (power density, specific
power) • Range, fuel economy, and
efficiency • Fill performance • Reliability
Important
• Drive behaviors • Fill behaviors • Power management • Energy • Transients • Comparisons to conventional
vehicles
These key topics were selected based on review of past CDPs, targets, most commonly referenced topics, and DOE feedback.
27
Data Templates and Tools
Templates enable collection of similar data from all the projects
Thank you!