overview of hydrogen and fuel cell activities jhfc seminar … · 2011. 6. 6. · energy efficiency...

Energy Efficiency &

Renewable Energy

Dr. Sunita Satyapal

Deputy Program Manager

DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Program

Meetin

g with JHFC Seminar

Overview of Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Activities

to-tezuka

テキストボックス

JHFC Seminar March 2, 2010

2

Fuel Cells: Addressing Energy Challenges

Energy Efficiency and Resource Diversity

Fuel cells offer a highly efficient way to use diverse fuels and energy sources.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Air Pollution:

Fuel cells can be powered by emissions-free fuels that are produced from clean, domestic resources.

Stationary

Power(including CHP

& backup power)

Auxiliary &

Portable

Power

Transportation

Benefits

• Efficiencies can be

60% (electrical)

and 85% (with

CHP)

• > 90% reduction in

criteria pollutants

3

Where are we today?

Fuel Cells for Transportation

Production & Delivery of

Hydrogen

In the U.S., there are currently:

~9 million metric tons of H2 produced

annually

> 1200 miles of H2 pipelines

Fuel Cells for Stationary Power, Auxiliary

Power, and Specialty Vehicles

Fuel cells can be a cost-

competitive option for

critical-load facilities,

backup power, and forklifts.

The largest markets for fuel cells today are in

stationary power, portable power, auxiliary

power units, and forklifts.

~52,000 fuel cells have been shipped worldwide.

~18,000 fuel cells were shipped in 2008 (> 50%

increase over 2007).

In the U.S., there are currently:

> 200 fuel cell vehicles

> 20 fuel cell buses

~ 60 fueling stations

A variety of technologies—including fuel cell vehicles,

extended-range electric vehicles (or ―plug-in hybrids‖),

and all-battery powered vehicles—will be needed to meet

our diverse transportation needs.

The most appropriate technology depends on the drive

cycle and duty cycle of the application.

Stop-and-go (city) Continuous (highway)DRIVE CYCLE

DU

TY

CY

CL

E

Heavy LoadHeavy Load

Light LoadLight Load

Source: General Motors

Biofuel & Petroleum ICE/HEVBiofuel & Petroleum ICE/HEV

Source: General Motors

4

Analysis shows DOE’s portfolio of transportation technologies will reduce emissions of

greenhouse gases.

Systems Analysis —Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Program Record #9002, www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records.html.

Today’s Gasoline Vehicle

0 100 200 300 400

FCV - C. Wind

FCV - Nuke

FCV - C. Biomass

FCV - Coal w/

FCV - Natural Gas

PHEV - 40 - E85

PHEV - 40 - Gasoline

HEV - Cellulosic E85

HEV - Corn E85

HEV - Diesel

HEV - Gasoline

ICEV- Natural Gas

ICEV- Gasoline

Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions

(life cycle emissions, based on a projected state of the technologies in 2020)

Conventional

Vehicles

Hybrid

Electric

Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid

Electric Vehicles

(40-mile all-electric range)

Fuel Cell

Vehicles

Gasoline

Natural Gas

Gasoline

Diesel

Corn Ethanol – E85

Cellulosic Ethanol – E85

Gasoline


H2 from Distributed Natural Gas

H2 from Coal w/Sequestration

H2 from Biomass Gasification

H2 from Central Wind Electrolysis

H2 from Nuclear High-Temp Electrolysis

410

320

250

220

190

<65*

240

<150*

200

<110*

<55*

<40*

50

100 200 300 400

Grams of CO2-equivalent per mile

540

*Net emissions from these pathways will be lower if these figures are adjusted to include:• The displacement of emissions from grid power–generation that will occur when surplus electricity is co-produced with cellulosic ethanol

• The displacement of emissions from grid power–generation that may occur if electricity is co-produced with hydrogen in the biomass and coal pathways, and if surplus wind power is generated in the wind-to-hydrogen pathway

• Carbon dioxide sequestration in the biomass-to-hydrogen process

5

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

FCV - C. Wind

FCV - Nuke

FCV - C. Biomass

FCV - Coal w/ sequest.

FCV - Natural Gas

PHEV - 40 - E85 (cell)

PHEV - 40 - Gasoline

HEV - Cellulosic E90

HEV - Corn E90

HEV - Diesel

HEV - Gasoline

ICEV- Natural Gas

ICEV- Gasoline

Well-to-Wheels Petroleum Energy Use

(based on a projected state of the technologies in 2020)

Conventional

Vehicles

Hybrid

Electric

Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid

Electric Vehicles

(40-mile all-electric range)

Fuel Cell

Vehicles

Gasoline

Natural Gas

Gasoline

Diesel

Corn Ethanol – E85


Gasoline


H2 from Distributed Natural Gas

H2 from Coal w/Sequestration

H2 from Biomass Gasification

H2 from Central Wind Electrolysis

Btu per mile

4550

25

2710

2370

850

860

1530

530

30

25

95

45

15

2000 3000 40001000 5000

Today’s Gasoline Vehicle

6070

H2 from Nuclear High-Temp Electrolysis

Analysis shows DOE’s portfolio of transportation technologies will reduce oil consumption.

Systems Analysis — Petroleum Use

Program Record #9002, www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records.html.

6

Te

ch

no

lo

gy

Ba

rrie

rs*

Ec

on

om

ic

&

In

stitu

tio

na

l

Ba

rrie

rs

Fuel Cell Cost & Durability Targets*:

Stationary Systems: $750 per kW,

40,000-hr durability

Vehicles: $30 per kW, 5,000-hr durability

Safety, Codes & Standards Development

Domestic Manufacturing & Supplier Base

Public Awareness & Acceptance

Hydrogen Supply & Delivery Infrastructure

Hydrogen CostTarget: $2 – 3 /gge, delivered

Key Challenges

Technology

Validation:

Technologies must

be demonstrated

under real-world

conditions.

The Program has been addressing the key challenges facing the

widespread commercialization of fuel cells.

Assisting the

growth of early

markets will help to

overcome many

barriers, including

achieving

significant cost

reductions through

economies of scale.

Market

Transformation

*Metrics available/under development for various applications

Hydrogen Storage CapacityTarget: > 300-mile range for vehicles—without

compromising interior space or performance

7

Collaborations

DOE Fuel Cell

Technologies Program*

− Applied RD&D

− Efforts to Overcome

Non-Technical Barriers

− Internal Collaboration

with Fossil Energy,

Nuclear Energy and

Basic Energy Sciences

Federal Agencies Industry Partnerships & Stakeholder Assn’s.• FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership

• National Hydrogen Association

• U. S. Fuel Cell Council

• Hydrogen Utility Group

• ~ 65 projects with 50 companies

Universities~ 50 projects with 40 universities

State & Regional Partnerships

• California Fuel Cell Partnership

• California Stationary Fuel Cell

Collaborative

• SC H2 & Fuel Cell Alliance

• Upper Midwest Hydrogen Initiative

• Ohio Fuel Coalition

• Connecticut Center for Advanced

Technology

• DOC

• DOD

• DOEd

• DOT

• EPA

• GSA

• DOI

• DHS

P&D = Production & Delivery; S = Storage; FC = Fuel Cells; A = Analysis; SC&S = Safety, Codes & Standards; TV = Technology Validation

International• IEA Implementing agreements –

25 countries

• International Partnership for the

Hydrogen Economy –

16 countries, 30 projects

− Interagency coordination through staff-level Interagency Working Group (meets monthly)

− Assistant Secretary-level Interagency Task Force mandated by EPACT 2005.

•NASA

•NSF

•USDA

•USPS

* Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

National LaboratoriesNational Renewable Energy Laboratory

P&D, S, FC, A, SC&S, TV

Argonne A, FC, P&D

Los Alamos S, FC, SC&S

Sandia P&D, S, SC&S

Pacific Northwest P&D, S, FC, A

Oak Ridge P&D, S, FC, A

Lawrence Berkeley FC, A

Other Federal Labs: Jet Propulsion Lab, National Institute of Standards &

Technology, National Energy Technology Lab, Idaho National Lab

Lawrence Livermore P&D, S

Savannah River S, P&D

Brookhaven S, FC

8

Some tax credits affecting fuel cells have recently been expanded. Through new financing mechanisms, these credits can help facilitate federal deployments.

New and Expanded Policy Mechanisms

Hydrogen Fueling

Facility Credit

Increases the hydrogen fueling credit from 30% or $30,000 to 30% or $200,000.

Grants for Energy

Property in Lieu

of Tax Credits

Allows facilities with insufficient tax liability to apply for a grant instead of claiming the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) or Production Tax Credit (PTC). Only entities that pay taxes are eligible.

Manufacturing

Credit

Creates 30% credit for investment in property used for manufacturing fuel cells and other technologies

Residential

Energy Efficiency

Credit

Raises ITC dollar cap for residential fuel cells in joint occupancy dwellings to $3,334/kW.

Fuel Cell

Investment Tax

Credit

Increases the investment tax credit to 30%, up to $3,000/kW for business installations, and extends the credit from 2008 to 2016.

9

$100M

$200M

H2 Production & Delivery R&D

H2 Storage R&D

Fuel Cell R&D

Technology Validation

Crosscutting Activities*

= Congressionally Directed Activities

Funding History for Fuel Cells

*Crosscutting activities include Safety, Codes & Standards; Education; Systems Analysis; Manufacturing R&D; and Market Transformation.

$ 190 M

$153 M$167 M

$239 M

$206 M

$145 M

Recovery Act Funds$174 M

EERE2

Basic Energy Sciences4

Fossil Energy1,3

Nuclear Energy

EERE Recovery Act Funds

$100M

$200M

$300M

$92 M

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

EERE Funding for Hydrogen & Fuel Cells

DOE Funding for Hydrogen & Fuel Cells

1 All FE numbers include funding for program direction.

2 FY09 and FY10 include SBIR/STTR funds to be transferred to the Science Appropriation; previous years shown exclude this funding.

3 FY10 number includes coal to hydrogen and other fuels. FE also plans $50M for SECA in FY10.

4 FY10 shows estimated funding for hydrogen- and fuel cell–related projects; exact funding to be determined. The Office of Science also plans ~$14M for hydrogen production research in

the Office of Biological and Environmental Research in FY10.

10

As stack costs are reduced, balance-of-plant components are

responsible for a larger % of costs.

Fuel Cell R&D — Progress

We’ve reduced the

projected high-volume cost

of fuel cells to $61/kW*

• More than 35% reduction in the last two years

• More than 75% reduction since 2002

• 2008 cost projection was validated by independent panel**

*Based on projection to high-volume manufacturing

(500,000 units/year).

**Panel found $60 – $80/kW to be a ―valid estimate‖:

http://hydrogendoedev.nrel.gov/peer_reviews.html

$43$65

$34 $27

Stack ($/kW)

Balance of Plant ($/kW, includes assembly & testing)

$0

$100

$200

$300

2000 2005 2010 2015

$275/kW

$108/kW

$30/kW

$94/kW

$61/kW*

$45/kW

$73/kW

TARGETS

$100/kW

$200/kW

$300/kW

2005 2010 20152000

*preliminary estimate

Current

ICE

Cost

Projected Transportation Fuel Cell System Cost- projected to high volume (500,000 units per year) -

11

Fuel Cell R&D — Progress

2006 2008

Status

2015

Target

950

1900

5000*

Ho

urs

Automotive Fuel Cell System Durability (projected, under real-world conditions)

* 5000 hours corresponds to roughly 150,000 miles of driving

We’ve greatly increased durability—including more than doubling the

demonstrated durability of transportation fuel cells.

The program has

demonstrated a doubling

in fuel cell durability.

Stationary (PEM) Fuel Cell Durability

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

Ho

urs

2003 2005 2011 Target

15,000

20,000

40,000

~2000

Demonstrated >7,300-hour durability

This exceeds our target for MEA

durability, in single-cell testing—and

has the potential to meet the 2010

target for MEAs in a fuel cell system.

Transportation Fuel Cell System Durability (projected, under real-world conditions)

12

Hydrogen Production & Delivery R&D

The Program is developing technologies to produce hydrogen from clean, domestic

resources at reduced cost.

KEY PRODUCTION OBJECTIVE: Reduce the cost of hydrogen (delivered & untaxed) to $2 – 3 per gge (gallon gasoline equivalent)

* Distributed production status and targets assume station capacities of 1500 kg/day, with 500 stations built per year. Centralized production values assume the following plant capacities: biomass gasification—155,000 to 194,000 kg/day; central wind electrolysis—50,000

kg/day; coal gasification—308,000 kg/day; nuclear—768,000 kg/day; and solar high-temperature thermochemical—100,000 kg/day. Values for the status of centralized production assume $3/gge delivery cost, the while targets shown assume delivery cost targets are met ($1.70/gge in 2014 and <$1/gge in 2019).

NEAR TERM:

Distributed Production

Natural Gas Reforming

Electrolysis

Bio-Derived Renewable Liquids

LONGER TERM:

Centralized Production

Biomass Gasification

Nuclear

Projected* High-Volume Cost of Hydrogen (Delivered) — Status & Targets

($/gallon gasoline equivalent [gge], untaxed )

Solar High-Temp. Thermochemical Cycle

Central Wind Electrolysis

Coal Gasification with Sequestration

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

2005 2010 2015 2020

Cost Target: $2 – 3/gge

$6

$4

$2

$5

$3

$1

FUTURE MILESTONES

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

2005 2010 2015 2020

$12

$10

$8

$6

$4

$2Cost Target: $2 – 3/gge

FUTURE MILESTONES

13

Hydrogen Delivery R&D

Projected* Cost of Delivering Hydrogen

*projections based on high-volume deliveries and widespread market penetration

KEY OBJECTIVE

Reduce the cost of delivering hydrogen to < $1/gge

PROGRESS

We’ve reduced the

projected cost of

hydrogen delivery*

~30% reduction in

tube-trailer costs

>20% reduction in

pipeline costs

~15% reduction

liquid hydrogen

delivery costs

The Program is developing technologies to deliver hydrogen from centralized

production facilities, efficiently and at low cost.

$/g

ge

14

Hydrogen Storage R&D

The Program is developing technologies to enable high-capacity, low-cost storage of hydrogen.

KEY OBJECTIVE

> 300-mile driving range in all vehicle platforms, without compromising

passenger/cargo space, performance, or cost

National Hydrogen Storage Project1

Centers of Excellence

Metal Hydrides

Chemical Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen Sorption

New materials/processesfor on-board storage

Compressed/Cryogenic &Hybrid tanks

Off-boardstorage systems3

Material Properties & Independent TestingCross Cutting

Independent Projects

Storage SystemsAnalysis

1. Coordinated by DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies

2. Basic science for hydrogen storage conducted through DOE Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences

3. Coordinated with Delivery Program element

Basic Energy Science2

Engineering Center of Excellence

National Hydrogen Storage Project1

Centers of Excellence

Metal Hydrides

Chemical Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen Sorption

New materials/processesfor on-board storage

Compressed/Cryogenic &Hybrid tanks

Off-boardstorage systems3

Material Properties & Independent TestingCross Cutting

Independent Projects

Storage SystemsAnalysis







Basic Energy Science2

Engineering Center of Excellence

The National Hydrogen Storage Project involves the efforts of 45 universities, 15 federal labs, and 13 companies.

* Coordinated with Delivery

R&D subprogram

**Conducted by the DOE

Office of Science

**

*

The Program has identified several promising new materials for high-capacity, low-pressure

hydrogen storage—providing more than 50% improvement in capacity since 2004.

15

Storage – Status and Targets

• Assessed and updated targets as planned — based on real-world experience with

vehicles, weight and space allowances in vehicle platforms, and needs for market penetration

• Developed and evaluated more than 350 materials approaches

• Launched the Storage Engineering Center of Excellence — to address systems

integration and prototype development; efforts coordinated with materials centers of excellence

Storage System Capacities (weight vs. volume)

• High pressure

tanks are

viable for early

market

penetration and

demonstrate >

300 mile range

• Long term

approaches

focus on low-

pressure

materials

approaches

16

DOE Vehicle/Infrastructure Demonstration

Four teams in 50/50 cost-shared projects with DOE

• 140 fuel cell vehicles and 20 fueling stations demonstrated

• >2.3 million miles traveled, >115,000 kg H2 produced or dispensed*

• Analysis by NREL shows:

• Efficiency: 53 – 59% (>2x higher than gasoline engines)

• Range: ~196 – 254 miles

• Fuel Cell System Durability: ~ 2,500 hrs (~75,000 miles)

Technology Validation

Demonstrations are essential for validating the performance of technologies in

integrated systems, under real-world conditions.

Demonstrations of Specialty Vehicles: NREL is collecting operating data from federal

deployments and Recovery Act projects—to be aggregated, analyzed, and reported industry-wide.

Will include data such as: reliability & availability; time between refueling; operation hours & durability;

efficiency; H2 production; refueling rate; costs (installation, operation, and lifecycle); and others.

40 forklifts at a Defense Logistics Agency site have already completed more than 10,000 refuelings.

Other Demonstrations: DOE is also evaluating real-world bus fleet data (DOD and DOT collaboration)

and demonstrating stationary fuel cells — e.g., tri-generation (combined heat, hydrogen & power with biogas).

*includes hydrogen not used in the Program’s demonstration vehicles

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Delivered Compressed H2

Natural Gas On-site Reforming

Electrolysis Delivered Liquid H2

# o

f S

tati

on

s

Production Technology

Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods

Existing Stations

Retired Stations

Created Aug-27-09 1:03pm

60

49

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Cu

mu

lati

ve

Ve

hic

les

De

plo

yed

/Re

tire

d1

Vehicle Deployment by On-Board Hydrogen Storage Type

700 bar on-road

350 bar on-road

Liquid H2 on-road

700 bar retired

350 bar retired

Liquid H2 retired

Created Feb-23-2009 1:20 PM(1) Retired vehicles have left DOE fleet and are no longer providing data to NREL

Created Aug-26-2009 4:21 PM

140

(1) Retired vehicles have left DOE fleet and are no longer providing data to NREL

Technology Validation Summary

Learning Demo evaluation is ~80% complete

–NREL has been analyzing data from > 346,000 trips

–72 results have been published, updates every 6 months

–FC durability and vehicle range targets met with Gen 2 vehicles

–Demonstrated sub-freezing starts

–Project to be completed in 2011

•Vehicle/Station Status

• 2nd generation vehicles have now been on road for >1 year

• Station deployment nearing completion; some early stations retired

18

We are participating in a project to demonstrate a combined heat, hydrogen,

and power (CHHP) system using biogas.

Fuel

CellNATURAL GAS or BIOGAS

NATURAL GAS

GRID ELECTRICITY POWER

HEAT

POWER

HEAT

HYDROGEN

Generation &

Transmission Losses

Baseline System

CHHPSystem

Technology Validation — Tri-Gen Highlight

• System has been designed, fabricated and shop-tested.

• Improvements in design have led to higher H2-recovery (from 75% to >85%).

• On-site operation and data-collection planned for FY10.

Combined heat, hydrogen, and power systems can:

• Produce clean power and fuel for multiple applications

• Provide a potential approach to establishing an initial fueling infrastructure

Tri-Generation (CHHP) Concept

Public-Sector

Partners:

California Air

Resources

Board

South Coast Air

Quality Management

District

19

Safety, Codes & Standards and Education

Safety, Codes & Standards

• Facilitating the development & adoption of codes and standards for fuel cells

• Identifying and promoting safe practices industry-wide

ACTIVITIES

Develop data needed for key

codes & standards (C&S)

Harmonize domestic and

international C&S

Simplify permitting process

Promote adoption of current

C&S and increase access to

safety information

PROGRESS (key examples)

Published Web-based resources, including: Hydrogen Safety Best Practices Manual; Permitting Hydrogen Facilities

Through R&D, enabled harmonized domestic and international Fuel Quality Specifications

Developed safety course for researchers and held permitted workshops that reached >250 code officials

Growing number of C&S published (primary building & fire codes 100% complete)

Education: We are working to increase public awareness and understanding of fuel cells.

ACTIVITIES PROGRESS (key examples)

Launched courses for code officials and first responders (>7000 users)

Conducted seminars and developed fact-sheets and case studies for end-users

Conducted workshops to help state officials identify deployment opportunities

Educate key audiences to

facilitate demonstration,

commercialization, and

market acceptance

20Slide 20

Market Transformation activities seek to overcome barriers to commercialization

BARRIERS

Market/Industry Lack of domestic supply base

and high volume manufacturing.

Estimated backlog > 100 MW

Low-volume capital cost is

>2-3x of targets

Policies — e.g., many early

adopters not eligible for

$3,000/kW tax credit

Delivery

Infrastructure

Significant investment needed—

~$55B gov’t funding required

over 15 years for ~5.5M vehicles

($~10B for stations)*

Codes and

Standards

Complicated permitting process.

44,000 jurisdictions

H2-specific codes needed; only

60% of component standards

specified in NFPA codes and

standards are complete

Need for domestic and

international consistency

Education In spite of >7,000 teachers

trained and online tools

averaging 300-500 visits/month,

negative public perception and

safety concerns remain.

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

$4,000

2005 2010 2015 2020

Fu

el C

ell S

tack C

osts

(Do

llars

($)

per

kW

)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

Go

ve

rnm

en

t A

cq

uis

itio

ns

(Un

its

pe

r y

ea

r)

A government acquisition program could have a significant impact on fuel cell stack costs

Baseline Cost

Cost w/Gov’t Acquisition Program

Government Acquisitions

Economies of Scale

Achieved

Lo

w-V

olu

me

Co

st

Fu

el C

ell S

tack C

ost

($/k

W)

$1000

$4000

$3000

$2000

0

1000

2000

Material Handling Equipment

Backup Power (1–5 kW)

Government

Acquisitions

(units/year)

Source: David Greene, ORNL; K.G. Duleep, Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., Bootstrapping a Sustainable North American PEM Fuel Cell Industry: Could a Federal Acquisition Program Make a Difference?, 2008.

Recovery Act funding will deploy

up to 1000 fuel cells, in the private

sector, by 2012.

ADDRESSING BARRIERS—Example:

*2008 National Academies Study, Transitions to Alternative

Transportation Technologies—A Focus on Hydrogen

21

Recovery Act Funding for Fuel CellsDOE announced more than $40 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

to fund about 12 projects, which will deploy more than 1,000 fuel cells — to help achieve

near term impact and create jobs in fuel cell manufacturing, installation, maintenance &

support service sectors.

COMPANY AWARD APPLICATION

Delphi Automotive $2.4 M Auxiliary Power

FedEx Freight East $1.3 M Specialty Vehicle

GENCO $6.1 M Specialty Vehicle

Jadoo Power $1.8 M Backup Power

MTI MicroFuel Cells $2.4 M Portable

Nuvera Fuel Cells $1.1 M Specialty Vehicle

Plug Power, Inc. (1) $3.4 M CHP

Plug Power, Inc. (2) $2.7 M Backup Power

PolyFuel, Inc. $2.5 M Portable

ReliOn Inc. $8.6 M Backup Power

Sprint Comm. $7.3 M Backup Power

Sysco of Houston $1.2 M Specialty Vehicle

Approximately $70 million in cost-share funding from industry participants—for a total of about $110 million.

Backup Power

$20.4M

Auxiliary

Power

Residential

and Small

Commercial

CHP

$4.9M

Specialty Vehicles

$10.8M$2.4M

$3.4M

Portable

Power

Backup Power

$20.4M

Auxiliary

Power

Residential

and Small

Commercial

CHP

$4.9M

Specialty Vehicles

$10.8M$2.4M

$3.4M

Portable

Power

FROM the LABORATORY to

DEPLOYMENT:

DOE funding has supported R&D

by all of the fuel cell suppliers

involved in these projects.

22

U.S. PARTNERSHIPS

• FreedomCAR & Fuel Partnership: Ford, GM, Chrysler, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, Southern California Edison, DTE Energy

• Hydrogen Utility Group: Xcel Energy, Sempra, DTE, Entergy, New York Power Authority, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Nebraska Public Power Authority, Southern Cal Edison, Arizona Public Service Company, Southern Company, Connexus Energy, etc.

• State/Local Governments: California Fuel Cell Partnership, California Stationary Fuel Cell Collaborative

• Industry Associations: US Fuel Cell Council, National Hydrogen Association

INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS

International Partnership for Hydrogen & Fuel Cells in the Economy - partnership among 16 countries and the European Commission

International Energy Agency — Implementing Agreements• Hydrogen Implementing Agreement — 21 countries and the European Commission

• Advanced Fuel Cells Implementing Agreement — 19 countries

Key Partnerships

23

Past and Existing Collaboration

• IEA Hydrogen and Advanced Fuel Cells Implementing Agreements and

IPHE

• Technical collaboration (e.g. Hydrogenius Project, Codes & Standards,

Storage, Fuel Cells)

• MOU between NEDO, AIST and LANL

• IPHE Infrastructure workshop – Feb 2010

U.S. – Japan Collaboration

Potential Future Collaboration

• Analysis (e.g. infrastructure, stationary fuel cells)

• Expand fuel cell demonstration activities and exchange of data (e.g. CHP)

• Increased collaboration in safety, codes & standards

• Other/TBD

2424

Key Program Documents

Fuel Cell Program Plan

Outlines a plan for fuel cell activities in the Department of Energy

Replacement for current Hydrogen Posture Plan

To be released in 2010

Annual Merit Review Proceedings

Includes downloadable versions of all presentations at the Annual Merit Review

Latest edition released June 2009

www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_review09_proceedings.html

Annual Merit Review & Peer Evaluation Report

Summarizes the comments of the Peer Review Panel at the Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting

Latest edition released October 2009

www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_review08_report.html

Annual Progress Report

Summarizes activities and accomplishments within the Program over the preceding year, with reports on individual projects

Latest edition published November 2009

www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress.html

Next Annual Review: June 7 – 11, 2010

Washington, D.C.

http://annualmeritreview.energy.gov/

http://annualmeritreview.energy.gov/

25

Thank you

[email protected]

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells

26

Additional Information

Technology Validation – Results

Performance Summary

Max Fuel Cell Operation

Hours

Gen 1: > 2240

Gen 2: > 1260

Average Fuel Cell

Durability Projection

Gen 1: 833 hrs

Gen 2: 1020 hrs

Vehicle Range

(Window Sticker)

Gen 1: 103 – 190

Gen 2: 196 - 254

Fuel Economy

(Window Sticker)

Gen 1: 42 – 57

Gen 2: 43 - 58

Fuel Cell Efficiency @

25% Power

Gen1: 51-58%

Gen2: 53-59%

Average H2 Fill Rate 0.78 kg/min

NREL

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Delivered Compressed H2

Natural Gas On-site Reforming

Electrolysis Delivered Liquid H2

# o

f S

tati

on

s

Production Technology

Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods

Existing Stations

Retired Stations


0

5

10

15

20

25

Nu

mb

er

of

Sta

tio

ns

Reporting Period

Online Stations

Existing Stations

Retired Stations


Project Exploring 4 Types of Hydrogen Refueling

Infrastructure: Delivered and Produced On-Site

Delivered Liquid, 700 bar

Irvine, CAMobile Refueler

Sacramento, CA

Steam Methane Reforming

Oakland, CA

Water Electrolysis

Santa Monica, CA

Total of 115,000 kg H2

produced or dispensed

20

retiredretired

NREL


Gen1 Gen2 Gen1 Gen2 Gen1 Gen20

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

2006 Target

2009 Target

Actual Operating Hours Accumulated To-Date Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation

Tim

e (

Ho

urs

)

DOE Learning Demonstration Fuel Cell Stack Durability:Based on Data Through 2009 Q2

Max Hrs Accumulated (1)(2) Avg Hrs Accumulated (1)(3) Projection to 10% Voltage Degradation (4)(5)(6)

Max Projection

Avg Projection

Created: Sep-09-09 10:48 AM

(1) Range bars created using one data point for each OEM. Some stacks have accumulated hours beyond 10% voltage degradation.(2) Range (highest and lowest) of the maximum operating hours accumulated to-date of any OEM's individual stack in "real-world" operation.(3) Range (highest and lowest) of the average operating hours accumulated to-date of all stacks in each OEM's fleet.(4) Projection using on-road data -- degradation calculated at high stack current. This criterion is used for assessing progress against DOE targets, may differ from OEM's end-of-life criterion, and does not address "catastrophic" failure modes, such as membrane failure.(5) Using one nominal projection per OEM: "Max Projection" = highest nominal projection, "Avg Projection" = average nominal projection. The shaded projection bars represents an engineering judgment of the uncertainty on the "Avg Projection" due to data and methodology limitations. Projections will change as additional data are accumulated.(6) Projection method was modified beginning with 2009 Q2 data, includes an upper projection limit based on demonstrated op hours.

Gen 1 and Gen 2 Stack Operating Hours and Projected

Time to 10% Voltage Drop

(DOE Milestone)

Gen 2 projections

are early but

encouragingSome Gen 1 FC stacks

have demonstrated >2000

hours without repair

NREL


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

Net System Power [%]

Eff

icie

ncy [

%]

Fuel Cell System1 Efficiency

2

Eff. at 25% Pwr Eff. at 100% Pwr ------------------- -------------------Gen1 51 - 58% 30 - 54%Gen2 53 - 59% 42 - 53%

DOE Target at 25% Power

DOE Target at 100% Power

Gen 1 Efficiency Range

Gen 2 Efficiency Range

Created: Sep-02-09 11:27 AM

1 Gross stack power minus fuel cell system auxiliaries, per DRAFT SAE J2615. Excludes power electronics and electric drive.

2 Ratio of DC output energy to the lower heating value of the input fuel (hydrogen).

3 Individual test data linearly interpolated at 5,10,15,25,50,75,and 100% of max net power. Values at high power linearly extrapolated

due to steady state dynamometer cooling limitations.

While Improving Durability and Freeze Capability, FC

System Efficiency Stays High

Gen 2

Gen 1

NREL


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

50

100

150

200

250

300

Veh

icle

Ran

ge (

miles)

Vehicle Range1

2015 Target

2009 Target

Gen 1

Gen 2

Created: Aug-27-09 3:32 PM

(1) Range is based on fuel economy and usable hydrogen on-board the vehicle. One data point for each make/model.(2) Fuel economy from unadjusted combined City/Hwy per DRAFT SAE J2572.(3) Fuel economy from EPA Adjusted combined City/Hwy (0.78 x Hwy, 0.9 x City).(4) Excludes trips < 1 mile. One data point for on-road fleet average of each make/model.(5) Fuel economy calculated from on-road fuel cell stack current or mass flow readings.

NREL


Dyno (1) Window-Sticker (2) On-Road (3)(4)0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Fu

el E

co

no

my (

miles/k

g H

2)

Fuel Economy

Gen 1

Gen 2

Created: Aug-27-09 3:32 PM

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


NREL

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 20

500

1000

1500

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Nu

mb

er

of

Fu

elin

g E

ven

ts

Histogram of Fueling RatesAll Light Duty Through 2009Q2

5 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

3 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar

21854 EventsAverage = 0.78 kg/min

24% >1 kg/min

2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

Created: Aug-14-09 10:09 AM

Actual Vehicle Refueling Rates from 21,000 Events:

Measured by Stations or by Vehicles

Average rate = 0.78 kg/min

24% of refueling events

exceeded 1 kg/min

All Fills


NREL