Overview of Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Activities

Dr. Sunita Satyapal Deputy Program Manager DOE Fuel Cell Technologies Program

Meetin g with JHFC Seminar 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

Benefits • Efficiencies can be Transportation 60% (electrical) and 85% (with CHP) • > 90% reduction in criteria pollutants 2 Where are we today?

Fuel Cells for Stationary Power, Auxiliary Production & Delivery of Power, and Specialty Vehicles Hydrogen The largest markets for fuel cells today are in In the U.S., there are currently: stationary power, portable power, auxiliary ~9 million metric tons of H2 produced power units, and forklifts. annually ~52,000 fuel cells have been shipped worldwide. > 1200 miles of H2 pipelines ~18,000 fuel cells were shipped in 2008 (> 50% increase over 2007).

Fuel cells can be a cost- competitive option for critical-load facilities, backup power, and forklifts.

Fuel Cells for Transportation BiofuelBiofuel && PetroleumPetroleum ICE/HEVICE/HEV HeavyHeavy LoadLoad In the U.S., there are currently: > 200 fuel cell vehicles > 20 fuel cell buses

~ 60 fueling stations Stop-and-go (city) DRIVE CYCLE Continuous (highway)

A variety of technologies—including fuel cell vehicles, CYCLE DUTY 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. LightLight LoadLoad Source: General Motors Source: General Motors 3 Systems Analysis — Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis shows DOE’s portfolio of transportation technologies will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions (life cycle emissions, based on a projected state of the technologies in 2020)

ICEV- GasolineGasoline 410 540 Today’s 320 Conventional Gasoline ICEV- NaturalNatural Gas Gas Vehicle Vehicles HEV - GasolineGasoline 250 HEV - DieselDiesel 220 Hybrid Electric HEVCorn - EthanolCorn E85 – E85 190 Vehicles HEVCellulosic - Cellulosic Ethanol E85 – E85 <65* PHEV - 40 - GasolineGasoline 240 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles CellulosicPHEV -Ethanol 40 - E85 – E85 <150* (40-mile all-electric range)

H2 fromFCV Distributed - Natural Natural Gas Gas 200 H from Coal w/Sequestration 2 FCV - Coal w/ <110* Fuel Cell

H2 fromFCV Biomass - C. GasificationBiomass <55* Vehicles

H2 from Nuclear High-TempFCV Electrolysis - Nuke 50

H2 from CentralFCV Wind - ElectrolysisC. Wind <40* 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 Grams of CO2-equivalent per mile *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

Program Record #9002, www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records.html. 4 Systems Analysis — Petroleum Use

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

Well-to-Wheels Petroleum Energy Use (based on a projected state of the technologies in 2020)

ICEV- GasolineGasoline 4550 6070 Natural Gas 25 Conventional ICEV- Natural Gas Today’s Vehicles Gasoline HEV - GasolineGasoline 2710 Vehicle Diesel 2370 HEV - Diesel Hybrid HEVCorn - Corn Ethanol E90 – E85 850 Electric Vehicles HEV Cellulosic- Cellulosic Ethanol E90 – E85 860 PHEV - 40 - GasolineGasoline 1530 Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles PHEV Cellulosic- 40 - E85 Ethanol (cell) – E85 530 (40-mile all-electric range)

H2 fromFCV Distributed - Natural Natural Gas Gas 30

FCVH 2- from Coal Coal w/ w/Sequestration sequest. 45 Fuel Cell H from Biomass Gasification 95 2FCV - C. Biomass Vehicles H2 from Nuclear High-FCVTemp Electrolysis - Nuke 25

H2 from CentralFCV Wind - C. Electrolysis Wind 15 4000 5000 0 10001000 20002000 30003000 4000 5000 Btu per mile

Program Record #9002, www.hydrogen.energy.gov/program_records.html. 5 Key Challenges The Program has been addressing the key challenges facing the widespread commercialization of fuel cells.

Fuel Cell Cost & Durability Targets*: Stationary Systems: $750 per kW, 40,000-hr durability Technology Vehicles: $30 per kW, 5,000-hr durability Validation:

Technologies must Hydrogen Cost be demonstrated Target: $2 – 3 /gge, delivered under real-world Market Barriers* conditions. Transformation Technology Technology Hydrogen Storage Capacity Assisting the Target: > 300-mile range for vehicles—without compromising interior space or performance growth of early markets will help to overcome many Safety, Codes & Standards Development barriers, including achieving Domestic Manufacturing & Supplier Base significant cost reductions through

Public Awareness & Acceptance economies of scale.

Barriers

Economic & & Economic Institutional Institutional Hydrogen Supply & Delivery Infrastructure

*Metrics available/under development for various applications 6 Collaborations

Federal Agencies Industry Partnerships • DOC • EPA •NASA DOE • DOD • GSA •NSF & Stakeholder Assn’s. • DOEd • DOI •USDA Fuel Cell • FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership • DOT • DHS •USPS Technologies • National Hydrogen Association • U. S. Fuel Cell Council − Interagency coordination through staff- level Interagency Working Group (meets Program* • Hydrogen Utility Group monthly) • ~ 65 projects with 50 companies − Assistant Secretary-level Interagency − Applied RD&D Task Force mandated by EPACT 2005. − Efforts to Overcome State & Regional Universities Non-Technical Barriers Partnerships ~ 50 projects with 40 universities − Internal Collaboration • California Fuel Cell Partnership with Fossil Energy, • California Stationary Fuel Cell International Nuclear Energy and Collaborative Basic Energy Sciences • IEA Implementing agreements – • SC H2 & Fuel Cell Alliance 25 countries • Upper Midwest Hydrogen Initiative • International Partnership for the • Ohio Fuel Coalition Hydrogen Economy – • Connecticut Center for Advanced 16 countries, 30 projects Technology

National Laboratories National Renewable Energy Laboratory Sandia P&D, S, SC&S Lawrence Livermore P&D, S P&D, S, FC, A, SC&S, TV Pacific Northwest P&D, S, FC, A Savannah River S, P&D Argonne A, FC, P&D Oak Ridge P&D, S, FC, A Brookhaven S, FC Los Alamos S, FC, SC&S Lawrence Berkeley FC, A

Other Federal Labs: Jet Propulsion Lab, National Institute of Standards & Technology, National Energy Technology Lab, Idaho National Lab P&D = Production & Delivery; S = Storage; FC = Fuel Cells; A = Analysis; SC&S = Safety, Codes & Standards; TV = Technology Validation

* Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 7 New and Expanded Policy Mechanisms

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

Hydrogen Fueling Increases the hydrogen fueling credit from 30% or Facility Credit $30,000 to 30% or $200,000.

Grants for Energy Allows facilities with insufficient tax liability to Property in Lieu apply for a grant instead of claiming the of Tax Credits Investment Tax Credit (ITC) or Production Tax Credit (PTC). Only entities that pay taxes are eligible. Manufacturing Creates 30% credit for investment in property used Credit for manufacturing fuel cells and other technologies

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

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

8 Funding History for Fuel Cells

EERE Funding for Hydrogen & Fuel Cells = Congressionally Directed Activities

$239 M

$206 M $200M $ 190 M Recovery Act Funds $167 M $174 M $145 M $153 M Crosscutting Activities*

$92 M Technology Validation $100M

H2 Storage R&D

H2 Production & Delivery R&D FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Fuel Cell R&D

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

DOE Funding for Hydrogen & Fuel Cells EERE Recovery Act Funds

$300M

Nuclear Energy $200M Fossil Energy1,3

$100M Basic Energy Sciences4

EERE2

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

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 9 the Office of Biological and Environmental Research in FY10. Fuel Cell R&D — Progress

Projected Transportation Fuel Cell System Cost - projected to high volume (500,000 units per year) - We’ve reduced the $300/kW$300 $275/kW projected high-volume cost of fuel cells to $61/kW* $200/kW$200 TARGETS • More than 35% reduction Current in the last two years ICE $100/kW$100 $108/kW $94/kW Cost $61/kW* $73/kW • More than 75% reduction $30/kW $45/kW since 2002 $0 2000 2005 2010 2015 • 2008 cost projection was 2000 2005 2010*preliminary estimate2015 validated by independent Balance of Plant ($/kW, panel** $43 $34 $27 includes assembly & testing) $65 Stack ($/kW)

As stack costs are reduced, balance-of-plant components are responsible for a larger % of costs.

*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 10 Fuel Cell R&D — Progress We’ve greatly increased durability—including more than doubling the demonstrated durability of transportation fuel cells.

TransportationAutomotive Fuel Fuel Cell Cell System System Durability Durability Stationary (PEM) Fuel Cell Durability (projected,(projected, under real under-world real- worldconditions) conditions) 5000* 50,000The program has demonstrated a doubling 40,000 40,000in fuel cell durability.

~20001900 30,000 Hours 20,000 950 20,000 Hours 15,000

10,000 2006 2008 2015 Status Target 0 * 5000 hours corresponds to roughly 150,000 miles of driving 2003 2005 2011 Target

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.

11 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)

Projected* High-Volume Cost of Hydrogen (Delivered) — Status & Targets ($/gallon gasoline equivalent [gge], untaxed )

$6$6 NEAR TERM: FUTURE MILESTONES $5$5 Distributed Production $4$4

Natural Gas Reforming $3$3 Cost Target: $2 – 3/gge Bio-Derived Renewable Liquids $2$2 Electrolysis $1$1 $0 2005 2010 2015 2020 $14

LONGER TERM: $12$12 FUTURE MILESTONES Centralized Production $10$10

Biomass Gasification $8

Central Wind Electrolysis $6

Coal Gasification with Sequestration $4 Cost Target: $2 – 3/gge Nuclear $2 Solar High-Temp. Thermochemical Cycle $0 2005 2010 2015 2020

* 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).12 Hydrogen Delivery R&D

The Program is developing technologies to deliver hydrogen from centralized production facilities, efficiently and at low cost.

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

PROGRESS Projected* Cost of Delivering Hydrogen We’ve reduced the projected cost of hydrogen delivery* ~30% reduction in tube-trailer costs

>20% reduction in $/gge pipeline costs ~15% reduction liquid hydrogen delivery costs

*projections based on high-volume deliveries and widespread market penetration 13 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 Project 1

Centers of Excellence Independent Projects

Material Properties & Independent TestingTesting Cross Cutting

Metal Hydrides Storage New materials/processes for on-board storage Systems Analysis Chemical Hydrogen Compressed/Cryogenic & * Coordinated with Delivery Storage Hybrid tanks R&D subprogram Engineering * **Conducted by the DOE Center of Off-board Office of Science Hydrogen Sorption Excellence ** storage systems3

The National Hydrogen Storage Project involvesBasic the Energy efforts Science of 45 universities,2 15 federal labs, and 13 companies.

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 The Program has identified several promising new materials for high-capacity, low-pressure hydrogen storage—providing more than 50% improvement in capacity since 2004. 14 Storage – Status and Targets

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

• 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 15 Technology Validation Demonstrations are essential for validating the performance of technologies in integrated systems, under real-world conditions.

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

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).

16 Technology Validation Summary

Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods 8 Existing Stations Learning Demo evaluation is 7 Retired Stations ~80% complete 6 –NREL has been analyzing data 5 from > 346,000 trips 4 3

–72 results have been published, ofStations # 2

updates every 6 months 1

0 –FC durability and vehicle range Delivered Natural Gas On-site Electrolysis Delivered Liquid H2 targets met with Gen 2 vehicles Compressed H2 Reforming Production Technology –Demonstrated sub-freezing Created Aug-27-09 1:03pm

starts Vehicle Deployment by On-Board Hydrogen Storage Type –Project to be completed in 2011 160

1 700 bar on-road 140 140 350 bar on-road Liquid H2 on-road 120 700 bar retired 49 •Vehicle/Station Status 350 bar retired 100 Liquid H2 retired nd • 2 generation vehicles have 80

now been on road for >1 year 60 60

• Station deployment nearing 40

20 completion; some early stations Deployed/Retired Vehicles Cumulative

retired -

Created FebAug--2326--2009 1:204:21 PM (1) Retired vehicles have left DOE fleet and are no longer providing data to NREL Technology Validation — Tri-Gen Highlight We are participating in a project to demonstrate a combined heat, hydrogen, and power (CHHP) system using biogas.

• 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.

Tri-Generation (CHHP) Concept Combined heat,

Generation & hydrogen, and Transmission Losses power systems can:

GRID ELECTRICITY POWER • Produce clean Baseline power and fuel NATURAL GAS HEAT System for multiple applications • Provide a potential POWER approach to Fuel CHHP NATURAL GAS or BIOGAS Cell HEAT establishing an HYDROGEN System initial fueling infrastructure

Public-Sector South Coast Air California Air Quality Management Resources Partners: District Board 18 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 PROGRESS (key examples) Develop data needed for key Published Web-based resources, including: Hydrogen codes & standards (C&S) Safety Best Practices Manual; Permitting Hydrogen Facilities Harmonize domestic and Through R&D, enabled harmonized domestic and international C&S international Fuel Quality Specifications

Simplify permitting process Developed safety course for researchers and held permitted workshops that reached >250 code officials Promote adoption of current C&S and increase access to Growing number of C&S published (primary building safety information & 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 Educate key audiences to responders (>7000 users) facilitate demonstration, Conducted seminars and developed fact-sheets commercialization, and and case studies for end-users market acceptance Conducted workshops to help state officials identify deployment opportunities 19 Market Transformation activities seek to overcome barriers to commercialization

BARRIERS ADDRESSING BARRIERS—Example: Market/Industry Lack of domestic supply base and high volume manufacturing. A government acquisition program could have a Estimated backlog > 100 MW significant impact on fuel cell stack costs Low-volume capital cost is $4,000$4000 4000 >2-3x of targets Baseline Cost $3,500 3500 Policies — e.g., many early Cost w/Gov’t adopters not eligible for Acquisition $3,000$3000 3000 $3,000/kW tax credit Program Delivery Significant investment needed— $2,500 2500 Government Acquisitions

Infrastructure ~$55B gov’t funding required

Volume - over 15 years for ~5.5M vehicles $2,000$2000 Cost 20002000

($~10B for stations)* Low $1,500 1500

Complicated permitting process. peryear)(Units

Codes and Cost ($/kW)Stack Cell Fuel (Dollars ($) per kW) per ($) (Dollars

Standards 44,000 jurisdictions Costs Stack Cell Fuel $1,000$1000 10001000 GovernmentAcquisitions H2-specific codes needed; only 60% of component standards $500 Economies of Scale 500 Achieved specified in NFPA codes and standards are complete $0 00 2005 2010 2015 2020 Need for domestic and international consistency Government Material Handling Recovery Act Equipment funding will deploy Acquisitions In spite of >7,000 teachers Education up to 1000 fuel (units/year) Backup Power trained and online tools cells, in the private (1–5 kW) averaging 300-500 visits/month, sector, by 2012. negative public perception and Source: David Greene, ORNL; K.G. Duleep, Energy safety concerns remain. and Environmental Analysis, Inc., Bootstrapping a Sustainable North American PEM Fuel Cell Industry: *2008 National Academies Study, Transitions to Alternative Could a Federal Acquisition Program Make a Transportation Technologies—A Focus on Hydrogen Difference?, 2008. Slide 20 20 Recovery Act Funding for Fuel Cells DOE 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.

FROM the LABORATORY to COMPANY AWARD APPLICATION

DEPLOYMENT: Delphi Automotive $2.4 M Auxiliary Power DOE funding has supported R&D FedEx Freight East $1.3 M Specialty Vehicle by all of the fuel cell suppliers involved in these projects. GENCO $6.1 M Specialty Vehicle Jadoo Power $1.8 M Backup Power

MTI MicroFuel Cells $2.4 M Portable Auxiliary Power Nuvera Fuel Cells $1.1 M Specialty Vehicle $2.4M Specialty Vehicles $10.8M Portable Plug Power, Inc. (1) $3.4 M CHP Power $4.9M Plug Power, Inc. (2) $2.7 M Backup Power

Residential PolyFuel, Inc. $2.5 M Portable and Small $3.4M Commercial Backup Power ReliOn Inc. $8.6 M Backup Power CHP $20.4M 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. 21 Key Partnerships

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

22 U.S. – Japan Collaboration

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

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

23 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/ 24 Thank you

[email protected] http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells

25 Additional Information

26 Technology Validation – Results

Performance Summary

Max Fuel Cell Operation Gen 1: > 2240 Hours Gen 2: > 1260 Average Fuel Cell Gen 1: 833 hrs Durability Projection Gen 2: 1020 hrs Vehicle Range Gen 1: 103 – 190 (Window Sticker) Gen 2: 196 - 254 Fuel Economy Gen 1: 42 – 57 (Window Sticker) Gen 2: 43 - 58 Fuel Cell Efficiency @ Gen1: 51-58% 25% Power Gen2: 53-59%

Average H2 Fill Rate 0.78 kg/min

NREL Technology Validation – Results Project Exploring 4 Types of Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure: Delivered and Produced On-Site

Infrastructure Hydrogen Production Methods 8 Existing Stations Delivered Liquid, 700 bar Mobile Refueler 7 Retired Stations Irvine, CA Sacramento, CA 6

# ofStations # 2

1 retired retired 0 Delivered Natural Gas On-site Electrolysis Delivered Liquid H2 Compressed H2 Reforming

Production Technology Created Aug-27-09 1:03pm

Steam Methane Reforming Water Electrolysis Online Stations Oakland, CA Santa Monica, CA 25 Existing Stations 20 20 Retired Stations

Number of Stations of Number 5

Created Aug-27-09 1:03pm Reporting Period

Total of 115,000 kg H2 produced or dispensed NREL Technology Validation – Results Gen 1 and Gen 2 Stack Operating Hours and Projected Time to 10% Voltage Drop DOE Learning Demonstration Fuel Cell Stack Durability: Based on Data Through 2009 Q2 2800 Actual Operating Hours Accumulated To-Date Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation 2600 2400 2200 Gen 2 projections are early but 2000 Some Gen 1 FC stacks 2009 Target encouraging 1800 have demonstrated >2000 hours without repair 1600 1400 1200 (DOE Milestone)

Time (Hours) Time 1000 2006 Target 800 600 400 Max Projection 200 Avg Projection 0 Gen1 Gen2 Gen1 Gen2 Gen1 Gen2 Max Hrs Accumulated (1)(2) Avg Hrs Accumulated (1)(3) Projection to 10% Voltage Degradation (4)(5)(6)

(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.

Created: Sep-09-09 10:48 AM

NREL Technology Validation – Results While Improving Durability and Freeze Capability, FC System Efficiency Stays High

Fuel Cell System1 Efficiency2

50 Gen 2 40 Gen 1

Eff. at 25% Pwr Eff. at 100% Pwr 30 ------Gen1 51 - 58% 30 - 54%

Gen2 53 - 59% 42 - 53% Efficiency [%] Efficiency 20

DOE Target at 25% Power 10 DOE Target at 100% Power Gen 1 Efficiency Range Gen 2 Efficiency Range 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Net System Power [%]

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 Created: Sep-02-09 11:27 AM due to steady state dynamometer cooling limitations.

NREL Technology Validation – Results

Vehicle Range1

2015 Target 300 2009 Target Gen 1 Gen 2 250

200

150

100 Vehicle Range (miles) Range Vehicle

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

(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). Created: Aug-27-09 3:32 PM (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 Technology Validation – Results

Fuel Economy 80 Gen 1 Gen 2

70 ) 2 60

20 Fuel Economy (miles/kg H (miles/kg Economy Fuel

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

(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. Created: Aug-27-09 3:32 PM (4) Calculated from on-road fuel cell stack current or mass flow readings.

NREL Technology Validation – Results Actual Vehicle Refueling Rates from 21,000 Events: Measured by Stations or by Vehicles Histogram of Fueling Rates All Light Duty Through 2009Q2 1500 2006 MYPP Tech Val Milestone 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

1000 5 minute fill of 5 kg at 350 bar All Fills

500 3 minute fill of

5 kg at 350 bar Number of Fueling Events ofFueling Number

Average rate = 0.78 kg/min

24% of refueling21854 events Events Average = 0.78 kg/min exceeded 1 kg/min24% >1 kg/min 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min) Created: Aug-14-09 10:09 AM

NREL