Next Generation Hydrogen Infrastructure Evaluation · 5/16/2013 · Infrastructure Data)...

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


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


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


Cap

acity

Util

izat

ion

1 [%]

Demonstration Station Capacity Utilization

58.9%

Maximum Daily Utilization

Maximum Quarterly Utilization2

Average Daily Utilization2


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


-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


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


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


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


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


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



5

10

15

20

25Refueling by Day of Week

% o

f Fill

s in

a D

ay

Day

Through 2009Q4After 2009Q4


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%


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Histogram of Fueling RatesComm vs Non-Comm Fills



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)


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)


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


50

100

150

200

Ar (µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

Ar (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method






500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Ar+

N2 ( µ

mol

/mol

)(ppm

)

Ar+N2 (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method






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





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






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






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






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






5

10

15

H2O

( µm

ol/m

ol)(p

pm)

H2O (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method






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






5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

Part

icul

ate

Size

(µm

)

Particulate Size (µm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method






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






500

1000

1500

2000

2500

N2 ( µ

mol

/mol

)(ppm

)

N2 (µmol/mol)(ppm)Non-H2 Constituents by Year and Production Method






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






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






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






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






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



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).


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




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


*

*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


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


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


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


Histogram of Fueling Rates350 vs 700 bar Fills



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)


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


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



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


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)


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


36

CDP-INFR-05 Dispensed Hydrogen per Day of Week


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


37

CDP-INFR-06 Station Capacity Utilization

1 2 30

50

100

150

200

250


Cap

acity

Util

izat

ion

1 [%]

Station Capacity Utilization

60.8%

Maximum Daily Utilization

Maximum Quarterly Utilization2

Average Daily Utilization2


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


Fills

Per

Day

1

Station Usage

Maximum Daily Fills

Average Daily Fills2


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


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)


Num

ber o

f Fue

lings

Fueling Final Pressures





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


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


Next Generation Hydrogen Infrastructure Evaluation · 5/16/2013 · Infrastructure Data)...

Documents

Transcript of Next Generation Hydrogen Infrastructure Evaluation · 5/16/2013 · Infrastructure Data)...