Vehicle Driving Range: In FY 2008, the driving range of the project's FCEVs was evaluated based on fuel economy from dynamometer testing (EPA adjusted) and on-board hydrogen storage amounts and compared to the 250-mile target. The resulting second-generation vehicle v driving range from the four teams was 196-254 miles, which met DOE's 250-mile range target. In June 2009, an on-road driving range evaluation was performed in collaboration with Toyota and Savannah River National Laboratory. The results indicated a 431-mile on-road range was possible in southern California using Toyota's FCHV-adv fuel cell vehicle [5]. More recently, the significant on-road data that have been obtained from second-and first-generation vehicles allowed a comparison of the real-world driving ranges of all the vehicles in the project. The data show that there has been a 45% improvement in the median distance between fueling events of second-generation vehicles (81 miles) as compared to first-generation vehicles (56 miles), based on actual distances driven between more than 25,000 fueling events. Over the last two years, we saw a continuation of this trend, with a median distance between fuelings of 98 miles, which is a 75% improvement over the first-generation vehicles. Obviously the vehicles are capable of two to three times greater range than this, but the median distance travelled between fuelings is one way to measure the improvement in the vehicles' capability, driver comfort with station location and availability, and how they are actually being driven. On-Site Hydrogen Production Cost: Cost estimates from the Learning Demonstration energy company partners were used as inputs to an H2A analysis [6] to project the hydrogen cost for 1,500 kg/day early market fueling stations. H2A is DOE's suite of hydrogen analysis tools, with the H2A Production model focused on calculating the costs of producing hydrogen. Results from version 2.1 of the H2A Production model indicated that on-site natural gas reformation could lead to a cost range of roughly $8-$10/kg and on-site electrolysis could lead to a hydrogen cost of $10-$13/kg. Note that 1 kg hydrogen is approximately equal to the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline, or gallon gasoline equivalent (gge). While these project results do not achieve the $3/gge cost target, two external independent review panels commissioned by DOE concluded that distributed natural gas reformation could lead to a cost range of $2.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content. Funding for this report came from the U.S. Department of Energy's Fuel Cell Technologies Office. The authors would like to acknowledge the industry project partners, both developers and end users, for their participation through deployment and providing operation data as well as reviewing the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's composite data products. Their participation and review are essential, and appreciated, for the validation analysis summarized in this report. Special thanks to Sprint, ReliOn, Altergy, Cummins Generator, Deka Batteries, AC Systems, and FAA for their contributions.

No abstract

a b s t r a c tThe design and deployment of DG systems requires an integrated assessment of the building and generator dynamics including the time-variant energy costs and emission factors. Static design optimizations are unable to consider the physical generator operating constraints, seasonal variability and non-coincidence in electric, heating, and cooling demands. This paper introduces the Distributed Generation Build-out Economic Assessment Tool (DG-BEAT) which combines building, utilities, and emissions databases with a library of simplified generator and building models in a user-friendly interface. Five control strategies are presented for the dynamic dispatch of distributed generation technologies at commercial buildings. The control approaches stem from the physical limitations of different generator types. Methods are also outlined for the dispatch of complementary technologies (e.g. energy storage) and accommodation of onsite renewables (e.g. solar PV) which could further improve the economic or environmental benefits of distributed generation. This paper details the methodology of sizing and dispatching distributed generation components, outlines eight databases that are employed to capture regional variations in pricing and building dynamics, and discusses the myriad of customizations available to provide a tailored analysis for a single building or national impact studies.

The US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Office has made significant progress in fuel cell technology advancement and cost reduction. Encouragingly, rollouts of fuel-cell vehicles by major automotive manufacturers are scheduled over the next several years. With these rollouts, enabling technologies for the widespread production of affordable renewable hydrogen becomes increasingly important. Near-term utilization of current reforming and electrolytic processes is necessary for early hydrogen markets, but transitioning to industrial-scale renewable hydrogen production remains essential to the longer term. Central to the long term vision is a portfolio of renewable hydrogen conversion processes, including, for example, the direct photoelectrochemical and thermochemical routes, as well as photo-assisted electrochemical routes. DOE utilizes technoeconomic analyses to assess the long-term viability of these emerging hydrogen production pathways and to help identify key materials- and system-level cost drivers. Sensitivity analysis from the technoeconomic studies will be discussed in connection with the metrics and fundamental materials properties that have direct impact on hydrogen cost. It is clear that innovations in macro-, meso- and nano-scale materials are all needed for pushing forward the state-of-the-art. These innovations, along with specific research and development pathways for advancing materials systems for the renewable hydrogen conversion technologies are discussed.