next generation hydrogen infrastructure evaluation · 5/16/2013 · infrastructure data)...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Next Generation Hydrogen Infrastructure Evaluation
2013 DOE Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting
Sam Sprik, Chris Ainscough, Jen Kurtz, Michael Peters
May 16, 2013 This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
Project ID# TV017
2
Overview
• Project start date: Oct 2011 • Project end date: Sep 2013*
• Lack of current hydrogen refueling infrastructure performance and availability data
• Total project: $ 200k (FY12) $ 285k (planned FY13)
• Contractor Share $ 0
Timeline
Budget
MYRDD Barriers Addressed
• Hydrogen Frontier • CSULA • CARB / Shell • Proton Onsite • GTI / Linde • Shell
Partners
*Project continuation is determined annually by DOE
3
Relevance: Meeting Vehicle Needs
• Location/Capacity/Utilization o Challenge: Stations need to provide coverage to meet the needs of vehicle drivers
in the pre-commercial stage as well as have hydrogen availability with minimal wait time
o Metrics: Station usage patterns and geographic locations • Fueling
o Challenge: Vehicles need to be fueled in an acceptable amount of time o Metrics: Fueling rates, times, amounts, back-to-back fills, communication...
• Maintenance/Availability o Challenge: Maintenance and other factors may cause station downtime and
increase cost o Metrics: Maintenance patterns, reliability and availability of stations
• Cost o Challenge: Hydrogen cost is dependent on several factors including where
produced, how delivered, efficiencies, and maintenance requirements o Metrics: Energy cost, maintenance cost…
• Station Timing o Challenge: Need enough lead time to build infrastructure to meet vehicle
demand o Metrics: Permitting time, building time, commissioning time…
Use metrics to clearly evaluate progress toward challenges
4
Approach: Relationship to Other Tech Val Projects
Next Generation Hydrogen Infrastructure
Evaluation (FY13 – )
5
Approach: FOA-626 (H2 Infrastructure Data)
Validation of Hydrogen Refueling Station Performance and Advanced Refueling Components • Objectives of FOA
o Provide H2 infrastructure data to NREL’s Hydrogen Secure Data Center (HSDC) for analysis and aggregation
o Test, demonstrate, and validate hydrogen technologies in real-world environments
6
Approach: FOA-626 Status (H2 Infrastructure Data)
• 4 awardees announced July 18, 2012
• All awards completed • Project kickoff Jan 2013 • Data to be delivered to
NREL’s HSDC in 2013 • Project to run for 4 years
through 2 phases • Will learn from state-of-
the-art stations
7
Approach: FOA-626 Winners Selected
Summary from press release (July 18, 2012) • California Air Resources Board (Sacramento, California)
o 1 station with natural gas to hydrogen, 180 kg of storage, and 60 kg of back-to-back fills in under an hour (DOE Award: $150,000)
• California State University and Los Angeles Auxiliary Services, Inc. (Los Angeles, California) o 1 station at CSULA with 24 hour public access and will fill up to 20 hydrogen
powered vehicles daily (DOE Award: $400,000) • Gas Technology Institute (Des Plaines, Illinois)
o 5 stations with their compressor technology, public access, and will analyze operational, transactional, safety, and reliability data (DOE Award: $400,000)
• Proton Energy Systems (Wallingford, Connecticut) o 2 stations that generate hydrogen from water through onsite solar-powered
electrolysis and will collect data on operation, maintenance and energy consumption (DOE Award: $400,000)
o Also, second project to deploy an advanced high-pressure electrolyzer at a station and nearly double the dispensing capacity of its storage tanks (DOE Award: $1 million)
8
Approach: Analysis Objectives
Analyze operational data on existing hydrogen stations to provide status and feedback in the following areas: • Capacity • Utilization • Station build time • Maintenance/availability • Fueling • Geographic coverage
9
Approach: Milestones
• Quarterly data analysis (based on available data)
• Publication of composite data products 1. FOA 626 awardees announced–July 18, 2012 2. Infrastructure projects kickoff–Jan 29, 2013
FY12 Q1 FY12 Q2 FY12 Q3 FY12 Q4 FY13 Q1 FY13Q2
2 1
10
Approach: Station Locations
58 Online 12 Future
3 mile radius
6 mile radius
• Maintain database of current stations in the U.S.
• Station coverage
Los Angeles Area
11
Accomplishment: Infrastructure Data Templates
Templates enable collection of similar data from all the stations Aggregated results from data collected Templates distributed to project partners for data collection and feedback
12
Approach: Station Data (Continual Collection)
• H2 produced or delivered by month • On-site efficiency, conversion efficiency,
compression energy, storage and dispensing energy • Maintenance • Safety • Hydrogen quality • Fueling • Cost of non-H2 energy for compression, dispensing,
conversion • Cost items (by month)
13
Approach: Station Data (Site Summary)
• Station description • Production capacity • Dispensing capacity • Survivability (max/min temperature) • Nominal pre-cooling temp and SAE 2601 type • Storage type(s) and capacities and at what pressure(s) • Number of dispensers at what pressure(s) • Compressor(s) information • Time to design, permit, construct, and commission • Footprints: storage, production, dispensing
14
Approach: Hydrogen Secure Data Center
CDPs
DDPs
Composite Data Products (CDPs) • Aggregated data across multiple systems,
sites, and teams • Publish analysis results without revealing
proprietary data every 6 months2
Detailed Data Products (DDPs) • Individual data analyses • Identify individual contribution to CDPs •Only shared with partner who supplied data every 6 months1
1) Data exchange may happen more frequently based on data, analysis, and collaboration 2) Results published via NREL Tech Val website, conferences, and reports
Results
Internal analysis completed quarterly
Bundled data (operation & maintenance/safety)
delivered to NREL quarterly
Confidential Public
15
Reliability (97,98,99)
Approach: Previously Published CDPs (Learning Demo) Infrastructure CDP # and Category
Deployment & Overview (26,31,32,93)
H2 Quality (27,28mult)
Refueling (14,18,29,38,39,42,43,50,
52, 72)
Cost (15) Efficiency/Emissions
(13,61,62)
Utilization (60,83,91,92)
Safety (20,35,36,37)
Maintenance (30,63,64,95,96)
0 10 20 30 40 50 600
1
2
3
4
Site MTBSM1 (Days)
Cou
nt o
f Site
s
Site MTBSM (Calendar Days In Operation): Infrastructure4
0 20 40 60 800
1
2
3
4
Site MTBPM2 (Days)
Cou
nt o
f Site
s
0 500 1000 1500 20000
1
2
3
4
Site MTBU3 (Days)
Cou
nt o
f Site
s
NREL cdp_fcev_99Created: Jan-09-12 4:20 PM 1. Mean Time Between Scheduled Maintenance.
Includes Preventative and Upgrades4. Includes data from stations operating after 2009 Q4.
2Mean Time Between Preventative Maintenance 3Mean Time Between Upgrade
0 5 10 15 20 25 300
1
2
3
4
Site MTBF1 (Days)
Cou
nt o
f Site
s
Site MTBF (Calendar Days In Operation): Infrastructure2
NREL cdp_fcev_98Created: Jan-09-12 4:26 PM 1. Cumulative Mean Time Between Failure 2. Includes data from stations operating after 2009 Q4.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Shap
e Pa
ram
eter
(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 historyLast 20% of eventsFirst 120 Days
NREL cdp_fcev_97Created: Jan-09-12 4:23 PM
Sites Sorted by Increasing Age (Calendar Days)
Failu
re R
ate
Incr
easi
ngFa
ilure
Rat
e D
ecre
asin
g
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
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Labor Hours Per Event
Freq
uenc
y (%
of t
otal
)
Maintenance Labor Hours Breakdown Infrastructure1
NREL cdp_fcev_96
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0
10
20
30
40
50
Site
Even
t Lab
or (h
rs)
Maximum and Mean Event Labor Hoursfor each site.
*excluded outlier
MeanMax
NREL cdp_fcev_96Created: Dec-15-11 11:57 AM
>12
78% of repairs require less than the mean of 4.6 hours of labor.Median labor hours: 2.0
1. Includes data from stations operating after 2009 Q4.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80Maintenance Events
Ave
rage
# o
f Eve
nts
Per T
hous
and
Fills
09Q4
10Q1
10Q2
10Q3
10Q4
11Q1
11Q2
11Q3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300Maintenance Hours
Ave
rage
Hou
rs P
er T
hous
and
Fills
09Q4
10Q1
10Q2
10Q3
10Q4
11Q1
11Q2
11Q3
ScheduledUnscheduledOperator
NREL cdp_fcev_95Created: Dec-15-11 12:10 PM
Infrastructure Maintenance by Quarter1
1. Includes data from stations operating after 2009 Q4.
5%
5%
6%
8%
9%
9%12%
21%
21%
Classified Events = 1,0951
60% unscheduled
multiplesystems 0
misc 190
entiresystem 203
classifiedevents1 1095
Event Count
9%
11%
6%
14%
16%
29%
Total Hours = 6,57050% unscheduled
electricalsoftwarehydrogen compressorsensorsvalvesair systemdispenserfittings&pipingcontrol electronicsH2 storage
NREL cdp_fcev_94
MISC includes the following failure modes: purifier, nitrogen system, feedwater system,seal, safety, reformer, electrolyzer, thermal management, other
2. Includes data from stations operating after 2009 Q4. Forlegacy results refer to CDP #63.
Created: Jan-17-12 1:53 PM
Infrastructure Maintenance By Equipment Type2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6
H2 Eq
uipm
ent F
ootp
rint (
sq.ft
.)
1Station capacities range from 25 to 100 kg/day, arranged from smallest to largest. Footprint size does not include dispenser footprint (about 10 sq.ft. per dispenser).
Demonstration Station Area Dedicated to H2 Equipment1
NREL cdp_fcv_93Created Jan-9-12 4:15 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 70
5
10
15
20
25
30
Station (Sorted By Increasing Station Capacity)
Fills
Per
Day
1
Demonstration Station Usage
Maximum Daily Fills
Average Daily Fills2
NREL cdp_fcev_92Created: Jan-10-12 11:38 AM
Note: Learning Demonstrationpriority was for good stationcoverage not high station utilization
1Excludes hydrogen fills of < 0.5 kg2Average daily fills considers only days when at least one fill occurred
1 2 3 4 5 6 70
50
100
150
200
250
Station (Sorted By Increasing Station Capacity)
Cap
acity
Util
izat
ion
1 [%]
Demonstration Station Capacity Utilization
58.9%
Maximum Daily Utilization
Maximum Quarterly Utilization2
Average Daily Utilization2
NREL cdp_fcev_91Created: Jan-10-12 11:38 AM
Note: Learning Demonstrationpriority was for good stationcoverage not high station utilization
1Station 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.2Maximum quarterly utilization considers all days; average daily utilization considers only days when at least one filling occurred
Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Dis
pens
ed H
ydro
gen
[% o
f tot
al]
Day of Week
Dispensed Hydrogen per Day of Week
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
Dai
ly A
vera
ge [k
g]
27 kg/day avgAll StationsIndividual Stations
NREL cdp_fcev_83Created: Dec-15-11 1:20 PM
-20 0 20 40 60-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ambient Air Temperature [deg C]
Tank
Tem
pera
ture
[deg
C]
Tank vs. Ambient Air Temps Prior to Refueling
Freq
uenc
y
50
100
150
200
250
300
-40 -20 0 20 400
500
1000
1500
2000
Delta Temperature [deg C]
Cou
nt
Delta Temperature: Tank minus Ambient
Delta Temp HistogramNormal Distribution Fit
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
Den
sity
Mean= -3.751Std Dev= 6.129
NREL CDP72Created: 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
13%
13%
18%
22%
By Number of EventsTotal Number of Events = 2491
20%12%
17%
21%
By Labor HoursTotal Hours = 11430
system control & safety
compressor
reformer
electrolyzer
dispenser
other
valves & piping
electrical
storage
NREL CDP63Created: Mar-10-10 10:31 AM
Hydrogen Fueling Station Maintenance
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
WTW
GH
G E
mis
sion
s (g
CO
2-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 CDP62Created: 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, hydrogenproduction 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 conventionalgasoline 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 fueleconomy 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 bothgrid-based electricity and renewable on-site solar electricity. GHG emissions associated with on-site production of hydrogen from electrolysis are highly dependent onelectricity 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 GHGemissions would be 1330 g/mile.
On-Site Compression Energy 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Com
pres
sion
Ene
rgy
(MJ/
kg)
On-Site Compression Efficiency0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2010 MYPP Compression Target
2015 MYPP Compression Target
Com
pres
sion
Eff
icie
ncy
(%)
On-Site Hydrogen Compression Efficiency1 and Energy Use
Average Station Compression Efficiency
Quarterly Compression Efficiency Data
Highest Quarterly Compression Efficiency
Average Station Compression Energy
Quarterly Compression Energy Data
Lowest Quarterly Compression Energy
NREL CDP61Created: Mar-11-10 9:41 AM
1Consistent with the MYPP, compression efficiency is defined as the energy of the hydrogen out of the process (on an LHV basis) divided by the sum of theenergy of the hydrogen output plus all other energy needed for the compression process. Data shown for on-site hydrogen production and storagefacilities only, not delivered hydrogen sites.
Compression Energy Requirement:On average, 11.3% of the energycontained in the hydrogen fuel isrequired for the compressionprocess.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Production Capacity Utilization1 [%]
Prod
uctio
n C
onve
rsio
n Ef
ficie
ncy
2 [%]
Monthly Production Conversion Efficiency vs Utilization
Electrolysis DataElectrolysis Fit3
Electrolysis Fit ConfidenceNatural Gas DataNatural Gas Fit3Natural Gas Fit Confidence
NREL CDP60Created: Mar-09-10 3:34 PM
1) 100% production utilization assumes operation 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week2) Production conversion efficiency is defined as the energy of the hydrogen out of the process (on a LHV basis) divided by the sum of the energy into the productionprocess from the feedstock and all other energy as needed. Conversion efficiency does not include energy used for compression, storage, and dispensing.3) High correlation with electrolysis data (R2 = 0.82) & low correlation with natural gas data (R2 = 0.060)
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
ts
Histogram of Fueling RatesAll Light Duty by Year
5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar
3 minute fill of5 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%
20052006200720082009201020112006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone
NREL cdp_fcev_52Created: Jan-10-12 11:49 AM
Refueling by Time of Night: DOE Fleet
3%
3
12
9
6
Total Fill3 Events = 22657% of fills b/t 6 PM & 6 AM: 10.3%
1. Fills between 6 PM & 6 AM
2. The outer arc is set at 12 % total Fill.
3. Some events not recorded/detected due to data noise or incompleteness.
PM AM
NREL CDP50Created: Mar-09-10 4:14 PM
Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat0
5
10
15
20
25Refueling by Day of Week
% o
f Fill
s in
a D
ay
Day
Through 2009Q4After 2009Q4
NREL cdp_fcev_43Created: Dec-13-11 3:56 PM
Through 2009Q4After 2009Q4
Refueling by Time of Day
9%
3
12
9
6
Total Fill3 Events = 22657% of fills b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 89.7%
1. Fills between 6 AM & 6 PM
2. The outer arc is set at 12 % total Fill.
3. Some events not recorded/detected due to data noise or incompleteness.
AM PM
10%
NREL cdp_fcev_42Created: Dec-13-11 3:56 PM
Total Fill3 Events = 9983% of fills b/t 6 AM & 6 PM: 88.3%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Amount Fueled (kg)
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
ts
Histogram of Fueling AmountsVehicle and Infrastructure
Average = 2.13 kg
Average = 2.64 kg
Through 2009Q4 After 2009Q4
NREL cdp_fcev_39Created: Dec-07-11 11:13 AM
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Amount Fueled (kg)
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
ts
Histogram of Fueling AmountsVehicle and Infrastructure
Average = 2.13 kg
Average = 2.64 kg
Through 2009Q4 After 2009Q4
NREL cdp_fcev_39Created: Dec-07-11 11:13 AM
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Time (min)
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
ts
Histogram of Fueling TimesVehicle and Infrastructure
Average = 3.26 min86% <5 min
Average = 4.49 min69% <5 min
2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone (5 kg in 5 min) 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone (5 kg in 3 min) Through 2009Q4 After 2009Q4
NREL cdp_fcev_38Created: Dec-07-11 11:10 AM
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Non-Event
Near Miss
Incident
Number of Reports
Seve
rity
Primary Factors of Infrastructure Safety ReportsThrough 2009 Q4
Calibration/Settings/ Software ControlsDesign FlawElectrical Power to SiteEnvironment (Weather, Power Disruption, Other)False AlarmInadequate Training, Protocol, SOPInadequate/ Non-working EquipmentMaintenance RequiredMischief, Vandalism, SabotageNew Equipment MaterialsNot Yet DeterminedOperator/Personnel ErrorSystem Manually Shutdown
NREL CDP37Created: Mar-11-10 2:45 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
0
10
20
30
40
50
Num
ber o
f Rep
orts
Type of Infrastructure Safety Reports by Quarter Through 2011 Q3
05Q2
05Q3
05Q4
06Q1
06Q2
06Q3
06Q4
07Q1
07Q2
07Q3
07Q4
08Q1
08Q2
08Q3
08Q4
09Q1
09Q2
09Q3
09Q4
10Q1
10Q2
10Q3
10Q4
11Q1
11Q2
11Q3
IncidentNear MissNon-EventAvg # Reports/Station
NREL cdp_fcev_36Created: Dec-15-11 3:36 PM
Reporting PeriodAn 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
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Num
ber o
f Sta
tions
Infrastructure Safety Trend and Number of Stations Through 2009 Q4
05Q2
05Q3
05Q4
06Q1
06Q2
06Q3
06Q4
07Q1
07Q2
07Q3
07Q4
08Q1
08Q2
08Q3
08Q4
09Q1
09Q2
09Q3
09Q4
Number of StationsAvg Refuelings Between Safety Reports
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Avg
# o
f Ref
uelin
gs B
etw
een
Safe
ty R
epor
ts
7 1132 34
88 102 115
4768
124101
57 5473
51
138
447
121
198
NREL CDP35Created: Mar-23-10 2:43 PM Reporting Period
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Compressed Liquid Pipeline Reforming Electrolysis
Num
ber o
f Sta
tions
Learning Demonstration Hydrogen Stations by Type
Operating Outside of ProjectOperating Within ProjectHistorical 2005-2009*
NREL cdp_fcev_32Created 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
7
12
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
Num
ber o
f Sta
tions
Reporting Period
Cumulative Stations
Continuing Outside of ProjectRetired StationsCurrent Project Stations
NREL cdp_fcev_31Created Dec-9-11 9:15 AM
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
AdjustmentCheck Only
OtherRepair
Replacement
Maintenance: Average Labor Hours Per Station Since InceptionThrough 2009 Q4
ScheduledUn-Scheduled
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
AdjustmentCheck Only
OtherRepair
Replacement
Maintenance: Average Number of Events Per Station Since Inception
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
# of EventsHours
Comparison of Scheduled/Un-Scheduled Maintenance
NREL CDP30Created: Mar-10-10 9:30 AM
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 RatesComm vs Non-Comm Fills
5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar
3 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar
Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 ------------- ------------------ -------Through 2009Q4Comm 0.86 30%Non-Comm 0.66 12%------------- ------------------ -------After 2009Q4Comm 0.58 3%Non-Comm 0.81 16%
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
ts (T
hrou
gh 2
009Q
4)
Comm (Through 2009Q4)Non-Comm (Through 2009Q4)Non-Comm (After 2009Q4)Comm (After 2009Q4)2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
ts (A
fter
200
9Q4)
NREL cdp_fcev_29Created: Jan-10-12 10:28 AM
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
NH
3 ( µ
mol
/mol
)(ppm
)
NH3 (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
50
100
150
200
Ar (µm
ol/m
ol)(p
pm)
Ar (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Ar+
N2 ( µ
mol
/mol
)(ppm
)
Ar+N2 (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Cal
culta
ted
Tota
l Con
stitu
ents
(µm
ol/m
ol)(p
pm)
Calcultated Total Constituents (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineCalculated Data
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CO
2 ( µm
ol/m
ol)(p
pm)
CO2 (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
CO
( µm
ol/m
ol)(p
pm)
CO (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Form
alde
hyde
(µm
ol/m
ol)(p
pm)
Formaldehyde (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Form
ic a
cid
( µm
ol/m
ol)(p
pm)
Formic acid (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
5
10
15
H2O
( µm
ol/m
ol)(p
pm)
H2O (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
50
100
150
200
250
300
He
( µm
ol/m
ol)(p
pm)
He (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
Part
icul
ate
Size
(µm
)
Particulate Size (µm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
N2+H
e+A
r (µm
ol/m
ol)(p
pm)
N2+He+Ar (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
N2 ( µ
mol
/mol
)(ppm
)
N2 (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
O2( µ
mol
/mol
)(ppm
)
O2(µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Part
icul
ate
Con
cent
ratio
n ( µ
g/L)
Particulate Concentration (µg/L)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
5
10
15
20
25
Tota
l Hal
ogen
ates
(µm
ol/m
ol)(p
pm)
Total Halogenates (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Tota
l HC
( µm
ol/m
ol)(p
pm)
Total HC (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tota
l S* (
nmol
/mol
)(ppb
)
Total S* (nmol/mol)(ppb)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineMeasuredLess Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4*Total S calculated from SO2, COS, H2S, CS2, and Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH).
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Particulates
µg/L
H2 Fuel Constituents
Data Range SAE J2719 APR2008 Guideline Measured Less Than or Equal To (Detection Limited)
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
(N2+He+Ar) He
(Ar+N2)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
H2O Total HC
O2 CO2 CO
NH3
µmol/mol (ppm)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Total S*
nmol/mol (ppb)NREL CDP28Created: Mar-10-10 11:05 AM Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testing
*Total S calculated from SO2, COS, H2S, CS2, and Methyl Mercaptan (CH3SH).
Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del. Ref. Elec. Del.99.7
99.75
99.8
99.85
99.9
99.95
100
Cal
cula
ted
H2 In
dex
(%)
H2 Calculated Quality Index by Year and Production Method
On-Site NG Reformer (Data Range)On-Site Electrolysis (Data Range)Delivered (Data Range)SAE J2719 APR2008 GuidelineCalculated Data
NREL CDP27Created: Mar-10-10 11:07 AM
Data is from Learning Demonstration and California Fuel Cell Partnership testingYear 1 is 2005Q3-2006Q2, Year 2 is 2006Q3-2007Q2, Year 3 is 2007Q3-2008Q2, Year 4 is 2008Q3-2009Q2, and Year 5 is 2009Q3-2009Q4
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 50
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Mas
s of
Hyd
roge
n (1
000
kg)
Calendar Quarter
Cumulative Hydrogen Produced or Dispensed Through 2011 Q3
NREL cdp_fcev_26Created Dec-9-11 9:15 AM
*
*Some project teams concluded in Fall/Winter 2009
151,900 kg of hydrogen produced or dispensed since project inception
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Non-Event
Near Miss
Incident
Number of Reports
Seve
rity
Total Infrastructure Safety Reports by Severityand Report Type Through 2009 Q4
Alarms OnlyAutomatic System ShutdownElectrical IssueEquipment MalfunctionFalse Alarm/MischiefH2 Release - Minor, NO IgnitionH2 Release - Significant, NO IgnitionManual System ShutdownNon-H2 ReleaseSite Power OutageStructural IssueSystem Trouble, not Alarm
NREL CDP20Created: Mar-11-10 2:45 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
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
ts
Histogram of Fueling RatesVehicle and Infrastructure
5 kg in 5 minutes
5 kg in3 minutes
25464 EventsAverage = 0.77 kg/min
23% >1 kg/min
8,050 EventsAverage = 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_18Created: Dec-07-11 11:08 AM
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16Projected Early Market 1500 kg/day Hydrogen Cost1
$/kg
Natural Gas Reforming2 Electrolysis2
2015 DOE Hydrogen Program Goal Range3
Median25th & 75th Percentile10th & 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 thecost of producing hydrogen on-site at the fueling station, using either natural gas reformation or water electrolysis, dispensed to the vehicle. Costsreflect 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 thelifetime cost of producing hydrogen at fueling stations installed during an early market rollout of hydrogen infrastructure and are not reflective of thecosts that might be seen in a fully mature market for hydrogen installations. Modeling uses default H2A Production model inputs supplemented withfeedback 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 and10th percentile to 90th percentile estimated ranges for key cost parameters as shown in the table. Capacity utilization range is based on the capabilitiesof 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
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 Rates350 vs 700 bar Fills
5 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar
3 minute fill of5 kg at 350 bar
Fill Type Avg (kg/min) %>1 Count------------- ------------------ ------- --------Through 2009Q4350 bar 0.82 29% 19659700 bar 0.63 4% 5590------------- ------------------ ------- --------After 2009Q4350 bar 0.70 8% 2594700 bar 0.64 7% 5208
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
ts (T
hrou
gh 2
009Q
4)
350 bar (Through 2009Q4)700 bar (Through 2009Q4)700 bar (After 2009Q4)350 bar (After 2009Q4)2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
ts (A
fter
200
9Q4)
NREL cdp_fcev_14Created: Jan-10-12 10:23 AM
On-Site Natural Gas Reforming On-Site Electrolysis0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 MYPP Target2015 MYPP Target
2012 MYPP Target
2017 MYPP Target
Prod
uctio
n Ef
ficie
ncy
(LH
V %
)
Hydrogen Production Conversion Efficiency1
Average Station Efficiency
Quarterly Efficiency Data
Highest Quarterly Efficiency
Efficiency Probability Distribution2
NREL CDP13Created: Mar-09-10 3:16 PM
1Production conversion efficiency is defined as the energy of the hydrogen out of the process (on an LHV basis) divided by the sum ofthe energy into the production process from the feedstock and all other energy as needed. Conversion efficiency does not includeenergy used for compression, storage, and dispensing.2The efficiency probability distribution represents the range and likelihood of hydrogen production conversion efficiency based onmonthly conversion efficiency data from the Learning Demonstration.
16
Accomplishment: Analysis
• NREL Fleet Analysis Toolkit (NRELFAT) o Developed first under fuel cell vehicle
Learning Demonstration o Restructured architecture and interface to
effectively handle new applications and projects and for analyses flexibility
o Leverage analysis already created • Publish results
o Detailed and composite results o Target key stakeholders such as fuel cell
and hydrogen community and end users
Leveraged analysis code from previous projects and created new code useful for other projects such as material handling equipment.
17
Accomplishments
• Analyzed data for station(s) providing data through CY2012Q4
• Visited several current stations • Published new Fall 2012 CDPs • Tracked current stations in database • Kicked off infrastructure projects (January 2013)
18
Fall 2012 CDPs with Comparisons to Other Applications
19
Accomplishment: CDP-INFR-09 Fueling Final Pressures
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 9000
20
40
60
80
100
120
450
bar*
350 bar Fills (200 to 450 bar) 700 bar Fills ( > 450 bar)
Final Pressure [bar]
Num
ber o
f Fue
lings
Fueling Final Pressures
Avg Final Pressure = 376 bar% of Fills > 350 bar = 80%
Number of Fills = 435
Avg Final Pressure = 707 bar% of Fills > 700 bar = 56%
Number of Fills = 1137
AverageNominal
NREL cdp_infr_09Created: Mar-27-12 2:53 PM *The line at 450 bar separates 350 bar fills from 700 bar fills. It is slightly over
the allowable 125% of nominal pressure (437.5 bar) from SAE J2601.
Average final pressures are above nominal filling pressures for 350 and 700 bar. 125% overpressure allowable under SAE J2601.
20
Accomplishment: CDP-XApp-12 Fueling Final Pressures by Application
250 and 350 bar 350 and 700 bar
Material handling equipment fuels at 250 and 350 bar
Vehicles fuel at 350 and 700 bar
21
Accomplishment: CDP-INFR-13 Number of Fueling Events per Hour
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Number of Fuelings in an Hour
Freq
uenc
y [%
of t
otal
]
Number of Fuelings Per Hour
NREL cdp_infr_13Created: Sep-25-12 3:07 PM
Average: 1.5 per hourMedian: 1.0 per hourMax: 7.0 per hour
Only for hours in which there were fueling events
In hours which had filling events, the average was 1.5 fills per hour.
22
Accomplishment: CDP-XApp-08 Fueling Events per Hour by Application
Material handling equipment has more fueling events in an hour than vehicles do
23
Accomplishment: CDP-INFR-14 Hydrogen Dispensed per Hour
0 5 10 150
2
4
6
8
10
12
Amount Fueled in an Hour [kg]
Freq
uenc
y [%
of t
otal
]
Hydrogen Dispensed Per Hour
NREL cdp_infr_14Created: Sep-25-12 3:07 PM
Average: 4.1 kgs per hourMedian: 3.5 kgs per hourMax: 14.9 kgs per hour
Only for hours in which there were fueling events
In hours which had filling events, the average amount filled was 4.1 kg per hour.
24
Accomplishment: CDP-XApp-09 Hydrogen Dispensed per Hour by Application
Material handling equipment and vehicles fuel similar kilogram amounts in an hour
25
Accomplishment: CDP-XApp-04 Fueling Rates by Application
Applications with more storage tend to have faster fueling rates
26
Collaborations
• Station Operators o Gas Technologies Institute (GTI) o Linde o Hydrogen Frontier o Shell o California State University Los Angeles (CSULA) o Proton OnSite
• Organizations o California Fuel Cell Partnership (CaFCP) o California Air Resources Board (CARB) o California Energy Commission (CEC)
27
Collaborations: CaFCP Working Group
• Participate in CaFCP working group meetings and station implementation team toward: o Developing recommendations for future stations o Staying current with California hydrogen activities
and needs
28
Future CDPs Planned
• Separate out fueling events (rates, etc.) by topic (as data allow) o Pre-cooling temp o Amount filled o Simultaneous fueling o Back-to-back
• Maintenance o Frequency, MTBF, most frequent, most costly…
29
Proposed Future Work
• Add stations to the analysis as they come online • Create new CDPs that describe the current state of
pre-commercial stations • Provide feedback on infrastructure status to
stakeholders, continue collaborations, and seek feedback on important metrics
• Feed shortfalls back to developers, and track consumer behavior
30
Project Summary
• Relevance: Hydrogen stations need to be able to meet vehicle needs.
• Approach: Analyze station operational data, building upon tools and capabilities from Learning Demo.
• Accomplishments and Progress: Updated database of stations, held project kickoffs, and completed analysis of current station data.
• Collaborations: Currently working with station operators and California organizations.
• Future Work: As new stations open and provide data, NREL will add them to the analysis to get a good picture of the current state of hydrogen infrastructure.
Technical Backup Slides Previous Spring 2012 Infrastructure CDPs
32
CDP-INFR-01 Hydrogen Dispensed by Quarter
2011Q40
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5Hydrogen Dispensed By Quarter
Hyd
roge
n D
ispe
nsed
[100
0 kg
]
Cumulative Hydrogen Dispensed = 4,600 kg
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Cum
ulat
ive
Am
ount
[100
0 kg
]
All Sites By QuarterCumulative By Site
NREL cdp_infr_01Created: Mar-20-12 3:25 PM
33
CDP-INFR-02 Histogram of Fueling Rates
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30
50
100
150
200
250
Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
tsHistogram of Fueling Rates
3 minute fill of5 kg
1,575 EventsAverage = 0.72 kg/min
20% >1 kg/min3% >1.67 kg/min
Reference Line at 1 kg/min2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone
NREL cdp_infr_02Created: Mar-29-12 8:44 AM
34
CDP-INFR-03 Histogram of Fueling Times
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
50
100
150
200
250
Time (min)
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
tsHistogram of Fueling Times
Average = 4.72 min61% <5 min22% <3 min
Reference Line at 5 min 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone (5 kg in 3 min)
NREL cdp_infr_03Created: Mar-29-12 8:45 AM
35
CDP-INFR-04 Histogram of Fueling Amounts
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70
50
100
150
200
250
Amount Fueled (kg)
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
tsHistogram of Fueling Amounts
Average = 2.95 kg
NREL cdp_infr_04Created: Mar-29-12 8:45 AM
36
CDP-INFR-05 Dispensed Hydrogen per Day of Week
Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat0
5
10
15
20
Dis
pens
ed H
ydro
gen
[% o
f tot
al]
Day of Week
Dispensed Hydrogen per Day of Week
0
10
20
30
40
30 kg/day avg
Dai
ly A
vera
ge [k
g]
All StationsIndividual Stations
NREL cdp_infr_05Created: Mar-27-12 8:41 AM
37
CDP-INFR-06 Station Capacity Utilization
1 2 30
50
100
150
200
250
Station (Sorted By Increasing Station Capacity)
Cap
acity
Util
izat
ion
1 [%]
Station Capacity Utilization
60.8%
Maximum Daily Utilization
Maximum Quarterly Utilization2
Average Daily Utilization2
NREL cdp_infr_06Created: Mar-21-12 12:00 PM
Note: The focus for early stationsis geographic coverage
1Station 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.2Maximum quarterly utilization considers all days; average daily utilization considers only days when at least one filling occurred
38
CDP-INFR-07 Station Usage
1 2 30
5
10
15
20
25
30
Station (Sorted By Increasing Station Capacity)
Fills
Per
Day
1
Station Usage
Maximum Daily Fills
Average Daily Fills2
NREL cdp_infr_07Created: Mar-21-12 12:00 PM
Note: The focus for early stationsis geographic coverage
1Excludes hydrogen fills of < 0.5 kg2Average daily fills considers only days when at least one fill occurred
39
CDP-INFR-08 Time Between Fueling
<0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200
1
2
3
4
5
Si
mul
tane
ous
Fills
Back-to-Back Fills
6 % of fills are within 0-5 minutes of each other82 % of fills have more than 20 minutes between them725 Total Fills
Time Between Fuelings* [min]
# of
Fue
lings
[% o
f tot
al]
Histogram of Time Between Fuelings
All Sites CombinedIndividual Sites
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 9000
2
4
6
8
10Final Pressures for Fills with <5 Minutes in Between
# of
Fue
lings
Final Pressure [bar]
Previous FillNext Fill
NREL cdp_infr_08Created: Mar-26-12 3:48 PM *Time is from end of fill to start of next fill.
40
CDP-INFR-09 Fueling Final Pressures
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 9000
20
40
60
80
100
120
450
bar*
350 bar Fills (200 to 450 bar) 700 bar Fills ( > 450 bar)
Final Pressure [bar]
Num
ber o
f Fue
lings
Fueling Final Pressures
Avg Final Pressure = 376 bar% of Fills > 350 bar = 80%
Number of Fills = 435
Avg Final Pressure = 707 bar% of Fills > 700 bar = 56%
Number of Fills = 1137
AverageNominal
NREL cdp_infr_09Created: Mar-27-12 2:53 PM *The line at 450 bar separates 350 bar fills from 700 bar fills. It is slightly over
the allowable 125% of nominal pressure (437.5 bar) from SAE J2601.
41
CDP-INFR-10 Cumulative Number of Stations
0
1
2
3
4
5
Num
ber o
f Sta
tions
Reporting Period
Cumulative Stations
NREL cdp_infr_10Created Mar-20-12 4:45 PM
42
CDP-INFR-11 Hydrogen Stations by Type
0
1
2
3
Compressed Liquid Pipeline Reforming Electrolysis
Num
ber o
f Sta
tions
Hydrogen Stations by Type
NREL cdp_infr_11Created Mar-20-12 4:45 PM
Delivered On-Site Production
43
CDP-INFR-12 Fueling Rates 350 vs. 700 bar
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)
Num
ber o
f Fue
ling
Even
tsHistogram of Fueling Rates
350 vs 700 bar Fills
3 minute fill of5 kg
Fill Type Avg %>1 %>1.67 Count------------- ---------- ------- --------- --------350 bar 0.77 15 3% 406700 bar 0.71 22 3% 1169
350 bar700 barReference Line at 1 kg/min2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone
NREL cdp_infr_12Created: Mar-29-12 8:33 AM