hydrogen station data collection and analysis...2014 doe annual merit review and peer evaluation...

Hydrogen Station Data Collection and Analysis

2014 DOE Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting

Sam Sprik, Jennifer Kurtz, Mike

Peters June 19, 2014: Washington, DC

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 2014* Percent complete: ongoing

• Lack of current hydrogen refueling infrastructure performance and availability data

FY13 DOE Funding: $285k Planned FY14 DOE Funding: $200k Total Project Funding: $485k

Timeline

Budget

Barriers

• Hydrogen Frontier • CSULA • CARB • Shell • Proton OnSite • GTI • Linde

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 National Fuel Cell Technology Evaluation Center (NFCTEC) 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 starting to be

delivered to NREL’s NFCTEC

• 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 and Accomplishments: Milestones

• Quarterly data analysis (based on available data)

• Publication of composite data products

FY13 Q1 FY13 Q2 FY13 Q3 FY13 Q4

10

Approach: Station Locations

58 Online 12 Future

3 mile radius

6 mile radius

• Maintain database of current stations in the U.S.

• Sync data with Alt Fuels Data Center (AFDC)

• Station coverage

Los Angeles Area Hydrogen Station Location Data Available through AFDC Mobile App (iPhone)

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 Templates provided to CEC for inclusion in Hydrogen Station Program Opportunity Notices (PONs)

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

NREL’s National Fuel Cell Technology Evaluation Center

Approach: National Fuel Cell Technology Evaluation Center (NFCTEC)

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

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.

16

Accomplishments

• Analyzed data for station(s) providing data through CY2013Q4

• Visited several current stations • Published new Fall 2013 and Spring 2014 CDPs • Tracked current stations in database and synced with

Alt Fuels Data Center database of stations

17

Spring 2014 Composite Data Products

18

CDP-INFR-01 Hydrogen Dispensed by Quarter

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

2009Q12009Q2

2009Q32009Q4

2010Q12010Q2

2010Q32010Q4

2011Q12011Q2

2011Q32011Q4

2012Q12012Q2

2012Q32012Q4

2013Q12013Q2

2013Q32013Q4

Hydrogen Dispensed By QuarterH

ydro

gen

Dis

pens

ed [1

,000

kg]

Cumulative Hydrogen Dispensed = 43,821 kg

0

5

10

15

20

25

Cum

ulat

ive

Am

ount

[1,0

00 k

g]

All Sites By QuarterCumulative By Site

NREL cdp_infr_01Created: Apr-07-14 4:28 PM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2013Q4

19

CDP-INFR-02 Histogram of Fueling Rates

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

ts [1

,000

]Histogram of Fueling Rates

3 minute fill of5 kg

13,978 EventsAverage = 0.55 kg/min

14% >1 kg/min2% >1.67 kg/min

Reference Line at 1 kg/min2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone

NREL cdp_infr_02Created: Apr-24-14 11:43 AM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2013Q4

20

CDP-INFR-03 Histogram of Fueling Times

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

0.5

1

1.5

Time (min)

Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

ts [1

,000

]Histogram of Fueling Times

Average = 5.58 min

50% <5 min19% <3 min

Reference Line at 5 min 2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone (5 kg in 3 min)


21

CDP-INFR-04 Histogram of Fueling Amounts

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Amount Fueled (kg)

Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

ts [1

,000

]Histogram of Fueling Amounts

Average = 2.46 kg


22

CDP-INFR-05 Dispensed Hydrogen per Day of Week

Sun Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri Sat0

5

10

15

20

Dis

pens

ed H

ydro

gen

[% o

f tot

al]

Day of Week

Dispensed Hydrogen per Day of Week

0

10

20

30

40

33 kg/day avg

Dai

ly A

vera

ge [k

g]

All StationsIndividual Stations


23

CDP-INFR-06 Station Capacity Utilization

1 2 3 4 50

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Station (Sorted By Increasing Station Capacity)

Cap

acity

Util

izat

ion

1 [%]

Station Capacity Utilization

57.8%

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

24

CDP-INFR-07 Station Usage

1 2 3 4 50

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Station (Sorted By Increasing Station Capacity)

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

25

CDP-INFR-08 Time Between Fueling

<0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 200

2

4

6

8

10

12

Si

mul

tane

ous

Fills

Back-to-Back Fills

8 % of fills are within 0-5 minutes of each other71 % of fills have more than 20 minutes between them14017 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

100

200

300

400Final Pressures for Fills with <5 Minutes in Between

# of

Fue

lings

Final Pressure [bar]

Previous FillNext Fill

NREL cdp_infr_08Created: Apr-07-14 4:34 PM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2013Q4 *Time is from end of fill to start of next fill.

26

CDP-INFR-09 Fueling Final Pressures

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 9000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

450

bar*

350 bar Fills (200 to 450 bar) 700 bar Fills ( > 450 bar)

Final Pressure [bar]

% o

f Fue

ling

Even

tsFueling Final Pressures

Avg Final Pressure = 346 bar% of Fills > 350 bar = 46%Number of Fills = 3880

Avg Final Pressure = 722 bar% of Fills > 700 bar = 60%Number of Fills = 9894

AverageNominal

NREL cdp_infr_09Created: Apr-24-14 2:09 PM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2013Q4 *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.

27

CDP-INFR-10 Cumulative Number of Stations

28

CDP-INFR-11 Hydrogen Stations by Type

29

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

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Avg Fuel Rate (kg/min)

Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

ts

Histogram of Fueling Rates350 vs 700 bar Fills

3 minute fill of5 kg

Fill Type Avg %>1 %>1.67 Count------------- ---------- ------- --------- --------350 bar 0.43 4 1% 3117700 bar 0.64 22 3% 7265

350 bar700 barReference Line at 1 kg/min2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone


30

CDP-INFR-13 Number of Fueling Events per Hour

0 5 10 15 20 250

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of Fuelings in an Hour

Freq

uenc

y [%

of t

otal

]

Number of Fuelings Per Hour


Average: 1.9 per hourMedian: 1.0 per hourMax: 23.0 per hour

31

CDP-INFR-14 Hydrogen Dispensed per Hour

0 10 20 30 40 50 600

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Amount Fueled in an Hour [kg]

Freq

uenc

y [%

of t

otal

]

Hydrogen Dispensed Per Hour


Average: 4.4 kgs per hourMedian: 3.2 kgs per hourMax: 50.9 kgs per hour

32

CDP-INFR-15 Number of Fills by Time of Day

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 240

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Number Included19,698 fills

Number of Fueling Events per Time of Day

Time of Day [hours]

Tota

l Num

ber o

f Fill

s [%

of T

otal

]


33

CDP-INFR-16 Fueling Amounts per Time of Day

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 240

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Amount Included45,732 kg

Fueling Amounts per Time of Day

Time of Day [hours]

Tota

l Dis

pens

ed [%

of T

otal

]

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Max

and

Avg

Dis

pens

ed [k

g]

TotalMaxAverage


34

CDP-INFR-17 Fueling Rates by Amount Filled

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.50

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Average Fuel Rate [kg/min]

Num

ber o

f Fue

ling

Even

ts

Histrogram of Fueling Rates by Amounts

0 to 0.5 kg0.5 to 1 kg1 to 2 kg2 to 4 kg4 to 6 kgReference Line at 1 kg/min2012 MYPP Tech Val Milestone


35

CDP-INFR-18 Fueling Amount vs. Time to Fill

36

CDP-INFR-19 Hydrogen Dispensed by Month

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Mon

thly

Am

ount

[kg]

Hydrogen Dispensed By Month


37

CDP-INFR-20 Number of Fills by Month

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Mon

thly

Num

ber o

f Fill

s

Number of Fills By Month


38

CDP-INFR-21 Maintenance by Equipment Type

5%

6%

7%

9%

18%

19%

20%

Total Events = 1,9471

39% unscheduled

entiresystem 46

multiplesystems 155

misc 372

classifiedevents1 1374

Event Count

14%

23%

6%

14%

31%

Total Hours = 19,08119% unscheduled

hydrogen compressor

dispenser

safety

thermal management

reformer

electrolyzer

feedwater system

sensors

software

fuel system

air system


Maintenance by Equipment Type

MISC includes the following failure modes: seal, nitrogen system, storage,valves, electrical, purifier, control electronics, fittings&piping, other

39

CDP-INFR-22 Maintenance Labor Hours Breakdown

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Labor Hours Per Event

Freq

uenc

y (%

of t

otal

)

Infrastructure Maintenance Labor Hours Breakdown

NREL cdp_infr_22

0

10

20

30

Sites

Even

t Lab

or (h

rs)

Maximum and Mean Event Labor Hoursfor each site.

*excluded outlier

MeanMax


>24

92% of repairs require less than the mean of 11.1 hours of labor.Median labor hours: 2.8

40

CDP-INFR-23 Equipment Category Repair Time

0123456789

101112

AIR SYSTEM

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

DISPENSER

ELECTRICAL

ELECTROLYZER

ENTIRE SYSTEM

FEEDWATER SYSTEM

FITTINGS&PIPIN

G

FUEL SYSTEM

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

MULTIPLE SYSTEMS

NITROGEN SYSTEM

OTHER

PURIFIER

REFORMER

SAFETYSEAL

SENSORS

SOFTWARE

STORAGE

THERMAL MANAGEMENT

VALVES

Rep

air L

abor

Tim

e (H

ours

)

Equipment Category Repair Time


75% Percentile

Median

25% Percentile

Mean

41

CDP-INFR-24 Failure Modes for Top Equipment Categories

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

DISPENSER

SAFETY

THERMAL MANAGEMENT

Event Count

20%*

19%*

18%*

9%*

FLUID LEAK_NON_HYDROGEN

HYDROGEN LEAK

IMPROPER INSTALLATION

INSPECT TROUBLE ALARM OR REPORT

MANUFACTURING DEFECT

REPLACE FAILED PARTS

SOFTWARE BUG

MISC

SCHEDULED (PREV MAINT, UPGRADES)

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

DISPENSER

SAFETY

THERMAL MANAGEMENT

Labor Hours

31%*

14%*

6%*

23%*


Failure Modes for Top Equipment Categories

* Percentage of total events or hours.

MISC includes the following failure modes: flow low, inspect trouble alarm or report,other, out of calibration, pressure high, software bug, other

42

0

1

2

3

4

5

H2O = 22*

H2O = 400*

H2O = 97*

H2O = 20*

H2O = 52*

H2O = 6.2*

H2O = 55*

HC = 2.2*

HC = 7.5*

CO = 2.7*

HC = 8*

CO = 4.5*

CO2 = 1.2*

2009

Q1

2009

Q2

2009

Q3

2009

Q4

2010

Q1

2010

Q2

2010

Q3

2010

Q4

2011

Q1

2011

Q2

2011

Q3

2011

Q4

2012

Q1

2012

Q2

2012

Q3

2012

Q4

2013

Q1

2013

Q2

2013

Q3

2013

Q4

Num

ber o

f Sam

ples

Rep

orte

dH2 Quality


23 of 33 samples ( 70%) met the SAEJ2719 guidelines. Consecutivesamples may be for a single issue.

*Values are in micromole/mole. Only values that exceed SAE J2719 guideline are shown in text.

CDP-INFR-25 H2 Quality

43

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) o H2USA – Station Working Group

44

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

45

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…

46

Proposed Future Work • Add stations to the analysis as they come online

• FOA Station Status • Proton OnSite upgrades to Wallingford station (2014Q3) • Proton OnSite 2nd station (2014Q3) • GTI reporting on new Linde stations (2014Q4) • CARB Station measurement upgrades and data (2014Q3)

• 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

47

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 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.

hydrogen station data collection and analysis...2014 doe annual merit review and peer evaluation...

Documents