PROJECT FINAL REPORT - EUROPA - SETIS · PROJECT FINAL REPORT ... The project has developed...

PROJECT FINAL REPORT

Final Publishable Summary Report

FCH JU Grant Agreement number: 245133

Project acronym: NEXTHYLIGHTS

Project title: Supporting Action to prepare large-scale hydrogen vehicle demonstration in Europe

Funding Scheme: Support Action

Period covered: from 01 January 2010 to 31 December 2010

Name of the scientific representative of the project's co-ordinator1, Title and Organisation:

Hubert Landinger

Tel: + 49 89 60 81 10 37

Fax: + 49 89 6 09 97 31

E-mail: [email protected]

Project website2 address: www.nexthylights.eu

1 Usually the contact person of the coordinator as specified in Art. 8.1. of the grant agreement

2 The home page of the website should contain the generic European flag and the FCH JU logo which are available in

electronic format at the Europa website (logo of the European flag: http://europa.eu/abc/symbols/emblem/index_en.htm;

logo of the FCH JU, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/index_en.cfm). The area of activity of the project

should also be mentioned.

PREPARATION FOR LARGE-SCALE

VEHICLE DEMONSTARTION IN EUROPE

NEXTHYLIGHTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The project partners would like to thank the EC for establishing the

New Energy World JTI framework and for supporting this activity.

This project is co-financed by funds from theEuropean Commission under

FCH-JU-2008-1 Grant Agreement Number 245133.

The project partners would like to thank the EC for establishing the

New Energy World JTI framework and for supporting this activity.

This project is co-financed by funds from theEuropean Commission under

FCH-JU-2008-1 Grant Agreement Number 245133.

Executive Summary

5 / 49

CONTENTS

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................7

2 Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars.......................................................................8 2.1 Project ambition ......................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Programs and European regions commitment ........................................................... 8

2.3 Automotive industry’s commitment........................................................................... 9

2.4 Energy industry’s commitment ................................................................................ 13

2.5 Work plan AIP 2011 to AIP 2013............................................................................ 16

3 Work Plan and Roll-out Plan for Hydrogen Buses......................................................18 3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Key conclusions on hydrogen buses ........................................................................ 18

4 Work Plan for “Other Vehicles”....................................................................................23 4.1 Objective .................................................................................................................. 23

4.2 Material handling (forklifts)..................................................................................... 24

4.2.1 State of the art .................................................................................................. 24

4.2.2 Economy........................................................................................................... 25

4.2.3 Energy and emission analysis .......................................................................... 25

4.2.4 Market potential ............................................................................................... 26

4.2.5 Technical maturity............................................................................................ 26

4.2.6 Recommendations ............................................................................................ 26

4.3 Municipal Sweepers ................................................................................................. 26

4.4 Boats and ships......................................................................................................... 27

5 Exploring Synergies of Hydrogen Infrastructure ........................................................28 5.1 Introduction, Motivation and Methodology............................................................. 28

5.1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 28

5.1.2 Motivation ........................................................................................................ 28

5.1.3 Methodology .................................................................................................... 28

5.2 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the passenger cars perspective ......... 29

5.2.1 Synergies with regard to the supply path ......................................................... 29

5.2.2 Synergies with regard to the hydrogen refuelling station ................................ 29

5.3 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the buses perspective ....................... 31

5.3.1 Synergies with the passenger car segment ....................................................... 31

5.3.2 Synergies with the special vehicle segment ..................................................... 33

5.4 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the ‘other vehicles’ perspective ....... 33

5.4.1 Hydrogen refuelling station demands for ‘other vehicles’............................... 33

5.4.2 Synergies material handling vehicles ............................................................... 34

5.4.3 Synergies boats / ships ..................................................................................... 34

5.4.4 Synergies sweepers .......................................................................................... 35

5.4.5 Synergies with other vehicle segments ............................................................ 35

6 Regional Demo Project Location Assessment...............................................................37

7 Social Acceptance of Hydrogen Demonstration Projects ............................................40 7.1 Social acceptance of hydrogen projects ................................................................... 40

7.2 Global acceptance: current status and outlook......................................................... 40

7.3 Local acceptance: current status and outlook........................................................... 41

Executive Summary

6 / 49

7.4 Market acceptance: current status and outlook ........................................................ 42

7.5 Recommendations for stimulating social acceptance............................................... 42

8 Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrogen Vehicles..........................................43 8.1 Passenger vehicles.................................................................................................... 43

8.2 Niche Vehicles ......................................................................................................... 44

8.3 Buses ........................................................................................................................ 44

9 Regulatory Requirements for Hydrogen Demonstration Projects .............................46

10 Policy Support Options for Hydrogen Buses in Public Transport .............................48

Executive Summary

Introduction

7 / 49

1 INTRODUCTION

The project has developed consolidated plans for large-scale demonstration projects

across three parallel hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (FCEV) segments ‘passenger cars’,

‘buses’ and ‘other vehicles’. In the case of the bus segment a roll-out plan covering

the market introduction has also been developed. The vehicle segment specific work

plans cover the time span including the next large-scale demonstration projects.

Figure 1: NextHyLights project participants

Corresponding contact names and associated coordinates of the respective project

participants are available upon request from the coordinator.

Executive Summary

Work Plan for Hydrogen Passenger Cars

8 / 49

2 WORK PLAN FOR HYDROGEN PASSENGER CARS

2.1 Project ambition

FCH JU has funded the NextHyLights partners for their advice and support to be

prepared for the demonstration projects on hydrogen and fuel cells for transport

under the last three project calls within its MAIP.

For the fuel cell passenger car sector it was decided early in the project to shift the

focus away from the development of a full commercialization and deployment plan

as this had already been undertaken by the EU Coalition Study. Instead, it has been

decided jointly to add a close-up assessment of European regions most committed

to actively pursue applying for funds under FCH JU to carry out demonstration (=

Lighthouse) projects involving fuel cell passenger cars together with the related

hydrogen refuelling infrastructure.

2.2 Programs and European regions commitment

The analysis of international, national and regional / municipal programs to

strategically kick-off or support the commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell

passenger cars as clean transport technology showed that these are well spread

across the world. With distinctions in focus, all programs aim at the same

overarching targets, namely to massively reduce GHG emissions, help to diversify

energy supply structures away from fossil energy, and support or develop large,

medium and small industries in this new field of technology.

In the U.S., California and some other states such as New York, South Carolina or

Indiana all have developed individual programs accompanied by a strong federal

program. Demonstration programs have always been an important component in the

U.S. at all levels. In Asia, both Japan and South Korea have strong programs, well

aware of the need to soon commercialize fuel cell technology, mostly pushed by

automobile manufacturers. And in Europe a multitude of supra-national, national,

regional and municipal programs and initiatives show that governments seem to

have finally understood that Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEV), Plug-in Hybrid

Electric Vehicles (PHEV) and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) are all part of a wider

move towards e-mobility. Also, for the time being, Germany has developed the most

ambitious program towards deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell technology with a

total budget of 1.4 B€, even surpassing the European program. With the Clean

Energy Partnership (CEP) project the demonstration activities are now stretching out

across Germany.

The regions’ commitment assessment then showed that further regions are following

Germany’s quest towards rapid deployment, yet with somewhat lower impact as the

major industrial driver, the large automobile industry, is either lacking completely in

some regions or, caused by a different product portfolio (a product portfolio

comprising smaller cars does under the current policy framework not necessitate a

shift away from the internal combustion engines and/or fossil fuels), is not as

Executive Summary


9 / 49

committed as some of the German manufacturers. It is assumed that the fast

following regions will need about 3-5 years to step up to the pace of the German

level of ambition, which had set off with the public-private Transport Energy Strategy

(TES) as early as 1998.

Individual face-to-face interviews revealed that currently the most committed fast-

follower regions all dock to the German hub, an efficient starting point when it comes

to a continuous rollout of the required hydrogen retail infrastructure to refuel the fuel

cell passenger cars widely with high utilization. These regions are

§ Scandinavia with Denmark, Norway and Sweden,

§ northern Italy with the regions South Tyrol, Lombardy, Piemonte, Trento and

Veneto with the plan to connect to the German hydrogen refuelling infrastructure

via

§ Austria (Innsbruck),

§ the UK with London, the British Midlands, North East England and Wales and

§ the Benelux states with the potential hubs Arnhem/Nijmegen and Brussels.

Specifically the Scandinavian regions provide economically relevant conditions with

very high vehicle taxes for conventional cars with hydrogen cars (and other clean

alternatives) being exempted.

As result from the personal interviews it was also found that those German regions

already profiting or expected to profit from the national German policy support within

the National Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology Innovation Programme (NIP), are

standing strong as public-private programs. All of these regions, comprising Baden-

Wuerttemberg, the City of Hamburg, Hessen and North Rhine Westphalia, have

stated that in principle they are willing to also participate in AIP 2011 to AIP 2013, if

the funding conditions are not too bureaucratic and are open for co-funding.

Yet, it was a message common to all regions that much work still needs to be done

to provide appropriate, efficient, reliable and safe approval and certification

procedures (e.g. in Italy refuelling of more than 35 MPa is not allowed, neither may

private persons refuel their fuel cell cars).

2.3 Automotive industry’s commitment

The analysis of automotive industry’s commitment to hydrogen and fuel cells was

undertaken in a phase when the economic crises of 2009 and the fresh wake of the

rush towards e-mobility, with PHEV and BEV clearly standing out, have changed the

scope of development priorities for some car manufacturers. The more astonishing

is the level of recent technical advancement in fuel cell systems technology and the

continuously strong commitment in vehicle deployment.

Virtually all basic technological challenges have been solved (see Figure 2 and

Figure 3), comprising

§ cold start capability,

Executive Summary


10 / 49

§ reduction of Pt use,

§ hydrogen onboard storage allowing driving ranges of up to 500 km and

§ system integration in a way that the next generation fuel cell systems have

become compatible with conventional drivetrains for integration in ordinary cars.

Figure 2: FCEV (passenger cars) performance overview

Figure 3: FCEV (passenger cars) performance overview

Executive Summary


11 / 49

Understanding that the technical hurdles can be overcome in series production, the

automobile manufacturers most committed to fuel cell passenger cars (see Figure 4)

have now begun to refocus their strategy to

§ support energy industry to develop an area-wide hydrogen refuelling

infrastructure being the bottleneck to wide public acceptance and

§ massive vehicle cost reduction by series production (see Figure 5).

Figure 4: Automobile manufacturers worldwide developing FC

passenger cars

Page 13

www.NextHyLights.eu

Number of global OEMs with FCEV programs

Non-exhaustive list: Daimler, Toyota, GM, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Volkswagen, Ford, Fiat,

Mitsubishi, Kia, Audi, Hyundai, Suzuki, Peugeot, SAIC

Source: LBST compilation from H2 Mobility database count

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Specifically Asian automobile companies have already announced they can produce

fuel cell passenger cars offering the full customer convenience of ordinary cars

under market conditions for prices similar to conventional cars.

Executive Summary


12 / 49

Figure 5: FC vehicle costs for early market entry (Source: EU Coalition

Study 2010, LBST assessment)

FCEV costs by component [EURO]

11.384 11.384

10.000 6.000

21.081

5.678

38.565

9.516

22.228

6.296

14.274

3.212

3.194

2.970

0

20.000

40.000

60.000

80.000

100.000

120.000

140.000

1 2

EU

RO

Glider

Hydrogen tank

Other FC spec. parts

FC - periphery

FC - structure

FC catalyst

FC - MEA(w/o catalyst)

FC assembly

2010

123,828

41,954

2015

Assumption: Batches per OEM:1,000 (2010) and 10,000 (2015)

This commitment is visible in the fuel cell vehicle rollout strategies which have very

recently been updated with vehicle numbers produced reaching up to 10,000 in total

for individual manufacturers around 2015, also in Europe (see Figure 6). Automobile

manufacturers have also contributed clear statements that in order to make fuel cell

passenger cars a success in Europe, the framework conditions until 2015 must

develop favourably already in the demonstration phase, i.e.

§ clear Europe-wide political and widely harmonised support (fuel cell passenger

cars becoming an important part of the e-mobility strategies),

§ simplified funding conditions and procedures for demonstration projects,

§ policy support of efficient fuel cells and CO2-free hydrogen and

§ preferential treatment of the new technologies by relevant policy frameworks (e.g.

EC Directives) and/or fiscal instruments.

Executive Summary


13 / 49

Figure 6: Worldwide OEM’s FCEV rollout plans (passenger cars)3

Page 7

www.NextHyLights.eu

OEM roll-out plans

2010 20202015

Daimler

Fiat

PSA

Nissan Renault

Volkswagen

Ford

GM

Toyota

Honda

Hyundai

Kia

SAIC

641st GEN: A-class

2011 2012 2013 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 2021

2002nd GEN: B-class

2009

10,0003rd GEN: B-class

10,000 p.a.4th GEN: B-class

100,000 p.a.5th GEN: e.g. C-class

20H2CNG Panda

> 20Panda

< 10FCVs

20 X-Trail FCV

15 No further commercialization plans before 2020(+ 20 Passat Lingju with Tongji Univ.)

30 FCVs

110 Equinox 10,000 FCVs 100,000 FCVs 250,000 FCVs

>100 FCHV-adv (SUV) FCV Sedan

200 FCX Clarity ≤1,000

100 >100 p.a. 2,000 10,000 p.a. 30,000 p.a. 100,000 p.a.

15Roewe 750

50Roewe 750

Riversimple1 10 60 5,000 p.a.

307 CC FiSyPAC

Source: GM, LBST compilation

2.4 Energy industry’s commitment

The commitment of energy industry is best documented by its participation in the

German H2 Mobility initiative. Eight of the most relevant stakeholders in this field

have joined this activity, namely Air Liquide, Air Products and Linde for the industrial

gases industry, OMV, Shell and Total for the oil industry, EnBW and Vattenfall for

the utility industry. The current plans of this activity foresee the installation of up to

300 hydrogen refuelling stations in Germany by 2015, with about 70 stations being

in operation in Europe today (see Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9).

3 The numbers shown represent a careful assumption, as the focus of NextHyLights was to

mostly address the demonstration project phase. As some of the OEMs interviewed were reluctant in disclosing their internal numbers, the numbers tend to show only the lower limit of probable deployment numbers.

Executive Summary


14 / 49

Figure 7: Worldwide HRS rollout strategies

Page 1

www.NextHyLights.eu

2010

1564

Japan

1,000

2025

2008 2010

223

7

China

196

Worldwide HRS Roll-Out Strategies

# HRS # Vehicles served 2011

8

30

11

>50

South Korea

>100

12

20

2012

>500

2013 2014

30

>1,000

>2,000

25

2010

1

East Coast

2009 2010 2011

5200

7370

West Coast / CA

710

12

19

2012

>800

2014

4,30046

2011 2012 >2012

24

11

202020102009

500 50,000

2mio

2015

100?

Figure 8: HRS in operation in Europe – geographic distribution

Page 45

www.NextHyLights.eu

HRS in operation in Europe

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2 3 1 1 26 12 3 5 4 2 2 6 1 5 1 1

AT BE CH CZ DE DK ES FR GB GR IS IT NL NO SE TR

unknown

non-public

public

Source: LBST compilation

Executive Summary


15 / 49

Figure 9: HRSs in operation in Europe – timely development

Page 46

www.NextHyLights.eu


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

unknown

non-public

public


In general the maturity of hydrogen refuelling station technology allows this

deployment roadmap even if some technical details such as compressor reliability or

hydrogen metering still require some efforts but do not present major hurdles. Today

hydrogen provision is based on a variety of input energies (see Figure 10).

Executive Summary


16 / 49

Figure 10: HRSs in operation in Europe – hydrogen supply

Page 47

www.NextHyLights.eu


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

no information

steam reforming

pipeline

LH2 delivery, steam reforming

LH2 delivery, electrolysis

LH2 delivery

electrolysis, steam reforming

electrolysis

CGH2 delivery, electrolysis

CGH2 delivery


In order to bring the costs of hydrogen refuelling stations down, industry calls for

standardization at both station and component level. With the definition of

specifications for four hydrogen refuelling station sizes this process is already well

underway. Further cost reductions can be achieved by larger order numbers

(economies of scale) and technological developments.

Energy industry urges to move away from demo project scale towards market

preparation (‘market preparation projects’) for a commercial launch in 3-5 years. The

aspect of focusing and concentration of activities was put in focus by the majority of

industry stakeholders as they can no longer afford to dilute their efforts.

2.5 Work plan AIP 2011 to AIP 2013

Based on the information and data collected from automotive and energy industry,

and furthermore based on the EU Coalition Study, a sensitivity study has been

carried out to scope the size and extent of the coming demonstration projects. This

revealed that the Program’s ambition should point towards deployment and early

market preparation, aiming at e.g. about 300-350 fuel cell passenger cars and about

6 further hydrogen refuelling stations to be deployed as part of the coming FCH JU

demonstration projects across Europe. Then a total budget of about M€ 130 will be

required to finance this activity.

Given the limited FCH JU funds available for vehicle demonstration in AIP 2011 to

AIP 2013 of about M€ 53 (out of which about M€ 32 for passenger cars) and given

Executive Summary


17 / 49

that automobile industry will roll out their new fuel cell vehicle generation only after

2013, it will be the task of FCH JU to identify ways to

§ activate other sources of (co-)funding (e.g. national resources) and

§ adapt budgets and timelines (e.g. allow stretched vehicle rollout across project

duration).

Executive Summary

Work Plan and Roll-out Plan for Hydrogen Buses

18 / 49

3 WORK PLAN AND ROLL-OUT PLAN FOR HYDROGEN BUSES

3.1 Introduction

Hydrogen buses have the potential to provide ultra-low carbon public transport, with

no harmful local emissions. The technology is, however, not fully commercially

mature and will require further support in the coming years if it is to gain commercial

traction within the sector.

This document summarises the three core deliverables of the Work Package 3 of

the NextHyLights project which are aimed at mapping out a pathway to achieving

commercialisation within the hydrogen bus sector:

§ The “Hydrogen Fuel Cell Bus Technology State of the Art Review” – which

explores the state of hydrogen buses today and the technical and economic

prospects into the future

§ The ‘Commercialisation Strategy for Hybrid Fuel Cell Buses during and beyond

the JTI’ (deliverable 3.3), aimed at understanding the pathway to achieving

commercial maturity within the sector

§ The ‘Technical Work Plan for Hybrid Fuel Cell Bus Demonstrations during the

JTI’ (deliverable 3.2), aimed at delivering a coherent set of recommendations to

the JTI’ Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking on the make-up of the next

calls for hydrogen buses from 2011-2013

3.2 Key conclusions on hydrogen buses

Hybrid fuel cell4 bus technology provides one of the two viable zero emission bus

options for the urban transit market (the other is an all-electric drivetrain, in e.g.

Trolley buses).

The analysis of performance data indicated that fuel cell bus performance is

improving significantly over time. The table below provides a snapshot of the key

metrics:

Figure 11: Performance data of fuel cell buses

4 Hybridised fuel cell buses combine hydrogen-fuelled fuel cells with energy storage devices such as batteries,

super-capacitors or a combination of both.

Executive Summary


19 / 49

Hybrid FC buses

(12m platform, low floor) Current Values Next Generation

Fuel Economy*

8 – 15 kg/100km

(up to 30% improvement over an

equivalent diesel route at parity

of calorific content)

7 – 12 kg/100km

(from 20% to 40% improvement

over an equivalent diesel route at

parity of calorific content)

Range 250 – 450 km 250 – 450 km

Availability** 55% - 80% ≥≥≥≥ 90%

Refueling Time*** 7 – 10 minutes/bus ≤ 7minutes/bus?(It may depend on tank size)

Diesel buses

(12m platform, low floor)

35 – 50 litre/100km

(approx. 11 – 15kg-

H2/100km at parity of

calorific content)

>> 400km

≥≥≥≥ 90%

<< 5minutes/bus

* Fuel economy depends on drive cycles. It is worth noting that there is no standard drive cycle for buses and hence these figures are indicative of best of class urban drive conditions only.

** Availability is defined as the percentage of days of actual service compared to the number of day of scheduled service (over the year).

*** Best of class performance range

The technology is expected to provide a more flexible and cost effective solution (on

a total cost of ownership basis) compared to trolley buses on new routes in the

period between 2015 and 2020. Further cost reduction is expected to lead to parity

with diesel bus total ownership costs beyond 2025. At this point the economics will

be dictated by the relative price of diesel versus hydrogen fuel for bus operators.

The key challenge facing the technology is to create sufficient demand in the short

term while the buses are more expensive than alternatives, in order to justify the

technology developments required to achieve the 2025 goal.

Figure 12: Total cost of ownership for different bus drivetrains today and

into the future – assumes a 12m bus platform. Error bars

represent upper and lower bound projections on ownership

cost. Cost figures are expressed in 2010 money value. Figures

assume an untaxed diesel fuel price of €0.58/litre.

Executive Summary


20 / 49

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Eu

ro /

Km

/ B

us

Total Cost Of Ownership (TCO):

hybrid fuel cell buses in comparison with diesel , diesel hybrid and trolley buses (2010 - 2030)

Taxes on fuel

CO2 price

Overhead contact wire network - maintenance

Extra maintenance facility costs

Bus Maintenance Fee

Propulsion-related Replacement cost

Untaxed fuel Cost

Overhead contact wire network - Financing

Bus Financing and Depreciation

Hybrid fuel cell buses : cost projections over time

(150kW FC system)

2010-2014 2015-2018 2018-2022 ~ 2025-2030

Diesel buses

Diesel hybrid buses

Trolley buses

Alternative bus technologies

as at 2015 - 2030 cost projections

Cost projections based on a set of assumptions – please

refer to the contents of this study

When this is translated into a hydrogen bus deployment strategy for bus operators, it

is possible to demonstrate a positive business case. This is only apparent when

considering a) industry’s more optimistic projections for bus cost and performance

and b) favourable local circumstances (particularly the relative price of hydrogen and

diesel fuel for bus operators).

This is a significant conclusion as it suggests it is possible to justify investment in the

technology from today (when it is more costly than diesel alternatives) as the

benefits of running hydrogen fuel cell buses from 2025 onwards can have a

sufficient value to cover initial high costs.

Investing today in hybrid fuel cell buses, however, does represent a risk for transit

agencies as the technology's market competitiveness is only expected around 2025.

Before then any interested city/region will need to base their investment decisions

on local conditions, such as the general desire to contribute to the development of

the technology, a particular desire to be seen as environmental cities or the potential

to stimulate local economic development.

In addition to investment of this type, buses’ rollout over the period 2010 – 2020 will

require support as in this phase the technology will be more costly to operate than

diesel alternatives (on a total cost of ownership basis). The level of support is

predicted to drastically reduce over time - from a capital intensive regime between

2010 and 2015 to a lower cost regime between 2015 and 2020/5. This less

expensive regime could be supported using on-going Opex based subsidies, such

as differential tax rates, or a small subsidy per km travelled, rather than relying on

Executive Summary


21 / 49

cumbersome capital schemes. The need for subsidies is expected to be low by 2020

and disappear even for competition with diesel vehicles by 2025.

Optimal rollout strategies in the 2011 to 2020 period would favour a deployment of

large fleets of buses in a very small number of cities in order to take full advantage

from economy of scale benefits for both infrastructure and buses.

In practice, the actual capabilities of European cities/regions to fund large bus

projects may require a less optimised approach. According to discussions with

interested players, even leading European cities/regions will be ready to deploy only

twenty to thirty buses each by 2015/6 and up to a maximum of 100 by 2020.

In order to achieve industry’s volume requirements to achieve cost reduction targets,

up to 6 cities will need to actively engage in large fleets of hydrogen buses by 2015

and some 15/20 by 2020.

From this perspective, the FCH JU can play a key role in initiating the

commercialisation process by supporting a first wave of large bus rollouts in the next

calls. Beyond this early rollout support, the JU could also consider a facilitator role

aimed at encouraging member states to consider hydrogen bus deployment

programs from 2015, as these are likely to be best deployed on a member state

level.

It is possible to make recommendations to the JTI’s Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint

Undertaking (FCH JU) on the make-up of the next calls for hydrogen buses from

2011-2013.

The study established that outstanding bus operational availability is a precondition

to benefiting from the very high fuel economy and other environmental benefits

available from hydrogen buses. Availability equivalent to diesel buses is,

furthermore, also a necessary condition for the bus operators before they commit to

the technology in large fleets.

The main short-term target for the next generation of hybrid fuel cell buses is

therefore to prove an operational availability equivalent to that of diesel buses. If

acceptable bus availability is not achieved within the current wave of

demonstrations, the FCH JU should require it as a precondition to any future large

scale bus deployment support.

This is a result expected from the current wave of bus demonstrations taking place

in Amsterdam, Cologne, Hamburg, and the other European cities included in the

EC’s CHIC project.

Assuming that the technology demonstrates diesel level availability in the current

demonstration projects, the next target is cost reduction. To this end, the FCH JU

should consider two new calls for bus projects:

§ Call 1: Support large roll out of buses (60 – 120 buses in, say, two to six

cities/regions, dependent on fund availability)

Large bus deployment (50 buses or over) is the next logical step towards cost

reduction for fuel cell bus technology. In this call the FCH JU should stimulate

Executive Summary


22 / 49

large proposals from cities/regions with experience in hydrogen bus projects

and/or from cities/regions and bus operators with large fleets.

§ Call 2: Support small bus deployments to encourage the entrance of novel hybrid

fuel cell bus concepts into the market by commissioning new bus prototypes

Only few European OEMs are currently active in the fuel cell bus sector. It is

recognised that a wider range of competitors would accelerate the cost reduction

process of the technology (through competition) and also promote new business

opportunities on regional level. In this call the FCH JU is therefore recommended

to support the entrance into the market by a broader range of hybrid fuel cell bus

options, by supporting prototype development.

Executive Summary

Work Plan for “Other Vehicles”

23 / 49

4 WORK PLAN FOR “OTHER VEHICLES”

4.1 Objective

In the first phase of the project a listing of current “other vehicle” applications with

main focus on Europe and basic information about US fleets were compiled. Some

of the applications could be directly supported on a high level of details due to the

participation of industrial partners in NextHyLights. Other applications are based on

voluntarily provided data arising from direct interviews conducted with stakeholders.

In this way comprehensive information to the different application areas of “other

vehicles” was collected and received data sheets were assessed in detail. The

results and assessments were presented in a project meeting and it was commonly

agreed among the project partners to investigate in further details the three vehicle

segments material handling vehicles (Deliverable 4.2), boats/ships and municipal

sweepers (Deliverable 4.3).

Figure 13: Process of WP4

Listing of possible demonstrators

Request for detailed information

Received data sheets

Presentation of data

Common decision of all NHL project members

Status Quo Report: Delivery 4.1

Work plan for selected vehicles

Material Handling Delivery 4.2 Sweeper

Delivery 4.3

Ship/Boat Delivery 4.3

The largest vehicle groups in the other vehicle segment are forklifts, material

handling applications, scooters and boat/ships (ref. Fig. 2). The motivation for the

development of fuel cell (FC) applications are in view of extended driving range

compared to pure battery vehicles (e.g. forklifts) and zero emission technology

versus internal combustion engines (ICE) especially at locations where strong

emissions restrictions exist (e.g. on lakes).

Potential customers are industries, municipal institutions and private enterprises.

Executive Summary


24 / 49

The most common hydrogen storage system is the 350 bar compressed gas tank.

Additionally 200 bar and 700 bar gas tanks are used. Only some of the applications

like e.g. scooters or municipal sweepers can benefit from public bus or car hydrogen

refuelling stations. Material handling vehicles or forklifts, boats and ships need on-

site refuelling stations preferably close to the location of daily operation.

Figure 14: Vehicles considered in "other vehicles" worldwide

Vehicles considered in "other vehicles" worldwide

Total:41

47%

2%

32%

2%

12%

5%

MH Total

Sweeper

Boat/Ship

Truck Ice Cleaner

2-Wheelers

Submarine

4.2 Material handling (forklifts)

4.2.1 State of the art

The number of fuel cell (FC) forklifts has been reached about 1000 vehicles in US

and less than 20 vehicles in Europe until end of 2010. Larger fleet numbers are

operated only in US whereupon European projects have small scale character.

In US and Canada fuel cell manufacturers highly promote fuel cell forklifts and

prospect near cost benefits substituting battery forklifts. The main arguments for

battery substitution can be summarized to faster refuelling time, no power loss in

vehicle performance, higher lifetime and better utilisation of commercial space.

Finally fuel cell and hydrogen infrastructure purchasers get on an unbureaucratic

way 30% direct tax credits.

Europe has a high commitment from infrastructure providers for fuel cell forklifts but

large material handling companies are less active than in US. Discussions with

forklifts operators lead to the conclusion that battery vehicles work quite well and the

customers are satisfied with the technology. Better energy management in the

vehicles and advanced battery changing solutions are available and obviously avoid

productivity disadvantages at battery forklifts. Thus, end user motivation is rather

limited regarding fuel cells even due to higher financial risks and additional project

efforts.

Executive Summary


25 / 49

4.2.2 Economy

The driving motivation for operators of large fuel cell forklift fleets is the beneficial

total cost of ownership (TCO) potential of fuel cells. A better TCO in comparison to

battery vehicles is expected for 2015. Today the fuel cell vehicle costs are twice as

much as conventional ones and thus cost reductions in all components including

hydrogen supply and maintenance are needed. Hence, fuel cell forklifts can

currently not compete against conventional technologies. Early fuel cell forklift

demonstration projects are depending on financial supports.

Case studies show that high fleet numbers, high operating grades and use of

synergies positively affect the TCO (time horizon until 2015). For 2015 and beyond

commercial cost targets for stacks, fuel cell systems, maintenance, provided

hydrogen and entire vehicles were defined.

The prospected further cost reduction confirmed by European companies could

make fuel cells in material handling applications an economic option in the next

years.

4.2.3 Energy and emission analysis

Fuel cell fork lifts meet clearly the common goals of less emissions and lower

energy consumption if internal combustion engine (ICE) forklifts are substituted.

The equivalent energy consumption of fuel cell forklifts is considerably higher than at

battery vehicles but significantly lower than at ICE vehicles.

Figure 15: WtW-CO2 emissions and vehicle energy consumption

WtW - CO2 Emisssions and Vehicle Energy Consumption per year for 3 ton Forklift 3 Shift use(3000h/a)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Die

sel-I

CE

LPG-IC

E

CNG

-ICE

Bat

tery

(EU-M

ix)

Bat

tery

(Ren

ew.)

H2-

FC(E

-Ren

ew.)

H2-

FC(S

urplu

s)

H2-

FC(S

MR)

H2-

FC(E-E

U-M

ix)

Ave

rage

Car-IC

E

To

ns

CO

2 [

to/a

]

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n V

eh

icle

[M

Wh

/a]

CO2 per year

Consumption Vehicle

Executive Summary


26 / 49

Assuming 7.5kWh energy consumption per hour of a 3ton class 1 battery forklift, a

fuel cell forklift consumes 55-100% more (target 2020 and today) and an ICE forklift

350% more energy.

Both, fuel cell and batteries are zero emission technologies. Thus the direct

substitution of battery vehicles does not automatically contribute to a sustainable

CO2 reduction. Exceptions are given for applications with surplus, by-product or

renewable hydrogen. The highest potential for CO2 reduction is given by

substitution of ICE forklifts - which are mainly in load areas greater 2.5 t.

4.2.4 Market potential

Boundary conditions limit the market. Depending on the price drop in the next years

the market will be limited to a few thousand vehicles a year but will be increased if

further price reductions can be reached - especially at the purchase price for the fuel

cell vehicle.

4.2.5 Technical maturity

Currently forklift demonstrations did not prove the set targets so far. Thus, technical

maturity regarding lifetime, reliability, fuel economy and productivity advantage is

neither accurate nor validated. Lifetime is one challenge and is targeted to reach

10.000h until 2015 and finally 15.000h. An important user requirement is the

reliability of forklifts which is targeted to >95% until 2015 and finally >99% (today’s

data not yet validated).

The current fuel cell forklift demonstrator is typically a class 1 forklift in the 2.5 t

range and substitutes a battery system. For easier installation the fuel cell power

pack is designed for same size and dimensions as the lead acid power pack. The

PEM fuel cell has a typical power range of 10kW and operates with hydrogen from a

35MPa tank.

4.2.6 Recommendations

Recommendations for fuel cell forklift demonstrators providing as a whole the best

arguments regarding economic aspects, market potential, energy and emission

saving requirements, end user expectations (i.e. motivation to apply FCs) and

supporting the European fuel cell industry were worked out and reported in

Deliverable 4.2.

4.3 Municipal Sweepers

The municipal sweeper is currently demonstrated in Switzerland and will be ready to

high fleet demo in the next years. Customers will be public institutions. The fuel cell

sweeper can fairly eliminate noise, exhaust and greenhouse gas emissions which is

important especially in the sensitive inner-urban area. The efficiency advantage of

the fuel cell prototype in comparison to standard Diesel vehicle already safes 30%

energy per operating hour. However, only one fuel cell sweeper prototype exists and

projections are not yet accurate.

Executive Summary


27 / 49

Compact sweepers are mainly sold in Europe due to the historical growth of the

cities and the smaller roads. On average about 6-10 vehicles per 100.000

inhabitants are operating in European cities.

Recommendation is to implement the sweeper in other demonstrations where

capacities from infrastructure are available. Sweeper demo projects can be

integrated in car or bus projects as well and could be serviced by the same

hydrogen refuelling station.

4.4 Boats and ships

Boats are currently very promising applications and can well benefit from synergies

to on road fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen infrastructures. However, the current

prices of fuel cell boats and ships can not yet compete with conventional

technologies.

The fuel cell versions are more expansive than ICE boats. But several synergies to

automotives are given. Boats require approximately the same power outputs as fuel

cell cars, have minor packaging requirements and could use 70MPa fuel technology.

This could make the boat market to a very early follower of the automotive industry

and could generate additional volumes. However, the boat branch itself is too small

for having significant impacts on the fuel cell prices.

Recommendation is to support current research activities and infrastructure,

especially if the hydrogen refuelling station could be used for boats and on road

vehicles.

Executive Summary

Exploring Synergies of Hydrogen Infrastructure

28 / 49

5 EXPLORING SYNERGIES OF HYDROGEN INFRASTRUCTURE

5.1 Introduction, Motivation and Methodology

5.1.1 Introduction

The topic of this task was to collect input from each vehicle segment specific

hydrogen infrastructure work plan and roll-out plan (buses only). From these plans

information on e.g. installed interfaces, available pressure levels, hydrogen purity,

public accessibility could be derived.

Please note that this report sheds light on the topic of synergies with regard to

hydrogen infrastructure from different angels, the different views of industry

stakeholders from the various vehicle segments. It was taken care to avoid mixing

these views in order to preserve the clear perspectives and to better understand the

various needs and points of view.

5.1.2 Motivation

Recent discussions in California have addressed possible economic synergies of

hydrogen car and bus refuelling stations. Other voices were questioning the effects

of these synergies. It was the goal of this task to shed more light on this issue.

5.1.3 Methodology

In this task possible synergies specifically with a view to the FCH JU large-scale

lighthouse projects have been discussed viewing the issue from different angels and

for all vehicle sectors:

§ Strategic: Which are the key messages demo projects transport for each sector

and do these match?

§ Technical: Hydrogen refuelling stations for bus demonstration projects can be

shared by projects for cars. There are no technical obstacles in delivering

hydrogen at different pressure levels at the same refuelling station. There can

however be logistics-related challenges (e.g. accessibility of bus depots for other

users; localisation of refuelling points, etc.). Additional questions to be answered

were: “Are car refuelling patterns compatible with other vehicle markets such as

material handling?”, “Do scooters use identical refuelling nozzles as cars do?”,

etc.

§ Economic: Assessment of potential economies of scale and risk sharing benefits

caused by common utilisation (across vehicle segment borders) of hydrogen

refuelling stations in large-scale demonstration projects.

Main issues with pros and cons have been collected by the work package leaders

and discussed with the industry partners.

The results are now made available to be used for the development of the next

demonstration project calls (AIPs).

5.2 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the passenger cars perspective

5.2.1 Synergies with regard to the supply path

a) Hydrogen production and distribution

During the demonstration and early deployment phase of FCEVs operators of the

equipment for hydrogen production (e.g. electrolysers for the supply of ‘green’

hydrogen) and distribution (e.g. truck trailers and first pipelines) will be challenged

through low utilization of capacities. If the roll-out of various vehicle segments e.g.

passenger cars and buses takes place in parallel the hydrogen supply routes can be

used for both sectors in parallel thus increasing the utilization rate of the equipment

resulting in improved economy.

Furthermore, existing HRS can supply nearby HRS for another vehicle segment via a

short hydrogen pipeline.

Examples:

From a large bus depot with high hydrogen throughput a nearby HRS for passenger

cars could be supplied at little additional effort capacity-wise.

An existing HRS for passenger cars (e.g. Stuttgart Airport) could supply material

handling vehicles or other ground support equipment with quite limited efforts.

b) Regulations, Codes & Standards (RCS)

The various vehicle segments can also benefit from ground-braking activities done by

stakeholders of another vehicle segment with regard to the approval of hydrogen

production and distribution equipment.

If a local authority is already experienced in this field approval procedures should be

simplified and faster and therefore more efficient.

c) Levelling of demand

Synergy effects may also occur if the respective hydrogen production unit (e.g.

electrolyser, SMR, etc.) can be operated at a higher level of continuity. This might be

achieved if the hydrogen production capacity of a supply unit matches the supply

needs of complementary refuelling profiles, e.g. for passenger cars and for buses.

Reason is that in general buses are refuelled at night time whereas the peak demand

for passenger car refuelling is during the day.

5.2.2 Synergies with regard to the hydrogen refuelling station

a) Supply of components

One of the most important synergies to be utilized between the vehicle segments with

regard to hydrogen refuelling will be the supply of hardware components. This effect is

of specific relevance for applications with limited market volume e.g. ships / boats as

they may benefit from lower component costs which would not be achievable with

refuelling equipment specifically dedicated for this application.

It has to be mentioned here that in general passenger car refuelling (70 MPa) will take

place at another pressure level as refuelling of buses and ‘other vehicles’ (35 MPa).

Executive Summary

30

Therefore synergy benefits for refuelling nozzles will not appear between the

passenger car segment and the other segments and the synergies for other

components such as refuelling hoses, hydrogen metering, hydrogen storage, hydrogen

compression, etc. might be limited. Nevertheless, synergy effects leading to economies

of scale will occur at low pressure levels for e.g. tubes and fittings, valves, filters, etc.

b) Regulations, Codes & Standards (RCS)

A similar effect as for hydrogen supply can be expected for the approval of HRSs (see

5.2.1b)). Local authorities which are already experienced with the approval of HRS for

another vehicle segment will be more efficient (faster and less bureaucratic) than

without any prior experience.

c) Back-up solutions

HRSs, even if they serve vehicles from different vehicle segments, may rely on

common back-up solutions such as tube trailers or mobile refuelers. This option can

already be applied during the demonstration phase given short distances between the

HRSs to be served.

It should be more economic to provide one, a little bit more complex back-up solution

(e.g. 35 MPa and 70 MPa supply pressure) which serves several HRSs than to provide

separate back-up solution for each single HRS.

d) Energy station concept

During the NextHyLights industry interviews some of the hydrogen infrastructure

stakeholders suggested to combine HRSs to energy stations where stationary fuel cells

simultaneously provide heat and power for the refuelling station. This opinion was not

shared by others pointing to the challenges by combining two premature technologies

without leading to any sensible synergy effects.

e) Vehicles using same HRS

Most of the stakeholders do see rare and very limited opportunities for the utilization of

the same HRS for vehicles from various segments as the requirements are typically

quite different. As a fall back position especially during the demonstration phase (e.g. if

the main HRS is delayed or as an additional refuelling point) it would be exceptionally

acceptable.

HRS requirements for the passenger car segment:

§ 70 MPa

§ located at main roads

§ easily accessible

§ 24/7 operation

§ easy to use existing general payment system

§ gauged measuring system installed

§ high visibility

§ ideally integrated in conventional refuelling station

Executive Summary

31

§ clean and appealing

HRS for the bus / other vehicle segment:

§ 35 MPa

§ located at the bus depot / company premises

§ accessible only for authorized users

§ operation according to specific schedule

§ no payment system required

§ potentially no or only cheap measuring system

§ no need to be visible

§ integration in conventional refuelling would create disadvantages (e.g. difficult

manoeuvring)

§ reliable, robust and cost efficient

The criteria list clearly indicates that it would mean a significant compromise to build

and operate an HRS to be utilized by passenger cars together with vehicles from the

other segments.

In the case of buses and other vehicles the location of the HRS is of highest relevance.

If the refuelling station is too far from the regular operation of the vehicles e.g. a FC

forklift it will not be accepted by the operator.

Resulting from the preceding discussion it is recommended that in general each vehicle

segment should be supplied by dedicated HRSs limiting the synergies to back-up

solutions, approval and component supply benefits as well as to synergies with regard

to the hydrogen supply paths whereby the customer requirements can be fulfilled at its

very best.

5.3 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the buses perspective

5.3.1 Synergies with the passenger car segment

Two main differences between hydrogen bus refuelling facilities and those for

passenger cars are:

§ Scale of hydrogen demand – a refuelling facility supporting 20 passenger cars

might expect to fuel only 10-30kg of hydrogen per day whilst it would require

between 400kg and 600kg of hydrogen each day for a same number of buses.

Looking at fleets of 250 buses or over, a full hydrogen bus depot could require over

5 tonnes of hydrogen each day – e.g. twice the capacity of the largest refuelling

station concept investigated by the H2 Mobility study for passenger cars. There is

the need, therefore, to develop design concepts for larger scale refuelling in order to

allow bus operators to plan for larger hydrogen bus fleets in the near future.

§ Refuelling pressure – all existing hydrogen buses use compressed gaseous

hydrogen at 35 MPa, as opposed to the 70 MPa standard for passenger cars in

Europe. The cost of refuelling stations is considerably lower at 35 MPa compared to

70 MPa and 35 MPa refuelling is therefore emerging as standard pressure for bus

refuelling.

Executive Summary

32

Apart from these differences, hydrogen refuelling for car and bus applications clearly

shares similar issues on technology readiness and economics. In particular it is

possible to identify at least three core aspects shared among the two vehicle

segments:

a) Standardisation and modularisation of hydrogen components across different suppliers

Standardisation of refuelling station designs will bring benefits in term of reduced

capital and maintenance costs. Such process will reduce bespoke components (which

are typically expensive and costly to replace in case of breakdowns), ease personnel

training and offer economy of scale benefits in case of large sales volume.

According to industry’s prospective, bulk reduction in refuelling station capital cost is

not expected from technology breakthrough but rather from technology optimisation

and standardisation (e.g. volume).

Most components of a hydrogen refuelling station are in fact well known in the

industrial gas market but often require specialised hand-built components due to the

lack of a large demand. In addition, the capital cost of key hydrogen technologies (such

as hydrogen compression technologies and on site electrolysers, for example) as well

as hydrogen storage systems (for both liquid and gaseous hydrogen) is expected to

substantially decrease over time thanks to combined sales volume effects in the

passenger car and bus segments.

b) Benefiting from common hydrogen supply routes

As for refuelling station components, substantial reduction in the hydrogen production

and distribution costs is expected mostly from sales volume effects.

Clusters of hydrogen refuelling stations for both passenger cars and buses can be

served by same supply routes, favouring investments in high-capacity hydrogen

production and distribution technologies (such as novel liquid hydrogen tanker

concepts, high pressure tube trailers or pipeline constructions; each of which will

improve the overall performance of the hydrogen logistics system).

In earlier phases, volume benefits can also be achieved by sharing buses’ refuelling

infrastructures with commercial car fleets (such as taxis, company car fleets, etc.).

c) Develop sound safety records

The development of sound safety records is key for ensuring quicker approval

procedures and, hence, reducing risk and overhead costs for investors. Although the

existing hydrogen refuelling stations have demonstrated an excellent safety

performance, hydrogen refuelling projects are often subjected to regulation and safety

standards far more stringent than any other transport fuel due to the lack of extensive

safety records.

An increasing number of refuelling stations in both the passenger car and bus

segments would develop quicker outstanding safety records than for each segment

separately. Sharing operational knowledge between the two segments would also

develop more straightforward codes and standardisation procedures to streamline the

permitting process for any hydrogen refuelling facility.

Executive Summary

33

In addition to the points discussed above, it is possible to identify another possible

synergy with the passenger car segment.

Some bus manufacturers have considered 70 MPa refuelling also for fuel cell buses in

order to improve range (most notably for shifting bus refuelling from once a day to

every two days) and also for developing more space-challenged on-board storage

solutions (for double decker buses and articulated buses, for example).

So far, these have not been required by the market, but as the passenger car sector

develops solutions around 70 MPa, a case may emerge for new designs based on 70

MPa technology. This, in the long term, would have a clear influence on buses

refuelling station design as well.

5.3.2 Synergies with the special vehicle segment

The synergies discussed above apply also with the special vehicle segment (scooters,

forklifts, etc.) although in a far reduced fashion essentially due to the characteristics of

the segment itself – e.g. infrastructure needs and approval processes for captive

commercial fleets (such as forklifts) are generally different from those for buses or

passenger cars, for example.

In earlier phases, however, some cost benefits can be secured by sharing buses’

refuelling infrastructure with other vehicle fleets (such as scooters, forklifts, ships, etc.)

in any occasion where this would result feasible. Few possible scenarios can be:

§ Bus depots located close to large warehouses so that the same refuelling

infrastructure can be used for refuelling buses and forklift fleets.

§ Bus depots located close to channels or other water-ways so that the same

refuelling infrastructure can be used for refuelling buses and ships.

5.4 Hydrogen infrastructure synergies seen from the ‘other vehicles’ perspective

5.4.1 Hydrogen refuelling station demands for ‘other vehicles’

Table 1: Hydrogen refuelling station demands for ‘other vehicles’

HRS network onsite HRS fleet HRS dedicated HRS

scooter material handling sweeper passenger boat

onsite transport tractor submarine

ice cleaner leisure boat / yacht

HRS network: vehicles are dependent on a close network of public hydrogen refuelling

stations.

Onsite HRS: vehicles are not allowed driving on public roads, thus they need an inner

company / local refuelling station. This does not mean that onsite HRS could not be

shared with public access.

Fleet HRS: vehicles return regularly to the same location (e.g. depot) where they can

be refuelled.

Executive Summary

34

Dedicated HRS: vehicles not necessarily return to the same refuelling station but have

specific requirements to the refuelling stations (e.g. location at the sea-side / lake-side).

5.4.2 Synergies material handling vehicles

The earliest adopters of hydrogen vehicles in relevant numbers will probably be the

industry sector where hydrogen is already available due to the need for production.

Thus at least parts of the infrastructure are available or hydrogen is available as by-

product / surplus. These industries are:

§ Petrochemical

§ Chemical and Pharmaceutical

§ Electronic/Semi conductor

§ Iron/ Non-iron Metal

§ Welding and Cutting

§ Glass

§ Fats and Oils

§ Ammonia

§ Power Plants (Cooling Processes)

5.4.3 Synergies boats / ships

Boats could have synergies to on-road vehicles. Almost all harbours are accessible by

car or bus. Thus the same port hydrogen refuelling stations could be used.

Plans for installations like this are available in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.

Figure 16: Hydrogen refuelling station plans for Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Executive Summary

35

Boats and cars are approximately in the same performance range. So, it is

recommended to promote technical synergies of boats and cars. Then boats can

benefit of the price drop in the automotive industry without being in need of a separate

refuelling station (grid).

5.4.4 Synergies sweepers

Compact sweepers are needed in almost every European city. Current and coming

demonstrations comprising the establishment of hydrogen refuelling infrastructure for

cars or buses could be combined with a compact sweeper demo.

Also for cleaning of large company sites, if hydrogen for other onsite vehicles e.g.

forklifts is already available, the sweeper could be introduced quite cost effective

saving on a separate infrastructure budget.

5.4.5 Synergies with other vehicle segments

Figure 17: Synergies with other vehicle segments

E.g. at airports all types of vehicles are operated synchronously. Thus, these places

surely are and will be among the first adopters of hydrogen vehicles.

BUSES (SWEEPERS)

ONSITE TRANSPORT

CARS (VANS)

Region

City Company

Company Fleets Delivery Service

Large company

Airport

Country

Executive Summary

36

Further examples where synergies between vehicle segments can be achieved are

companies with internal vehicle fleets or buses or delivery services with forklifts and

vans in operation.

Executive Summary

Regional Demo Project Location Assessment

37

6 REGIONAL DEMO PROJECT LOCATION ASSESSMENT

In the regions meetings a number of issues of strategic relevance have been raised by

the regions’ representatives. The most relevant ones are listed here either as outcome

and insights or as requests by the regions or in other words have been identified as

“gaps”:

§ Those regions interviewed have given an astonishingly solid testimony of their

commitment in the commercialization of hydrogen and fuel cell technology. Even

though it proved to be difficult to identify detailed budgets or exact timing of the

regions involvement for most regions, it can be stated in general that those regions

interviewed will be amongst the front running and the fast following regions.

However, it also became obvious that these regions depend on both a continuous

and clearly visible industry strategy as well as a solid European political program on

hydrogen and fuel cells for transport (with FCH JU as the responsible organization)

with continuously strong communication well across Europe.

§ The focus of the public sector is mostly on FC city buses as this is seen as a public

task and a potential measure to improve quality of life in population centres.

Furthermore, also the support of industry to rollout hydrogen infrastructure is

partially seen as a task for the public sector (e.g. Baden-Wuerttemberg,

Copenhagen, Hessen and the northern Italian regions).

In contrast, the picture with regard to the commercialization of FC passenger cars is

quite inhomogeneous. Whilst there is limited commitment of the regions outside

Germany to support the commercialization of FC passenger cars where the regions

will only feel obliged to provide the right set of policy support, the commitment of the

German regions with high OEM presence (Baden-Wuerttemberg, Hessen) to

support the automotive industry in the deployment of FC passenger cars is very

strong.

Finally, most regions strictly understand the commercialisation of other non-road

vehicles operated by fuel cells as industry’s responsibility whereby the regions again

feel obliged to provide the right set of policy support measures.

§ The reason for the staged approach to commercialise hydrogen and fuel cells

across Europe has been clearly pointed out (e.g. by Austria) to be a consequence

from the international automobile manufacturers concentrating their activities to

mostly Germany. Even though Tier 1 to Tier 3 automobile suppliers are keen to

contribute with technology and services, they are often fully dependent on the large

OEMs. This causes a missing industry push of the public sector in many regions at

the same level of commitment as in Germany or some German regions.

§ The regions are in need of instruments to keep up with the pace Germany has set at

national level. This is to avoid a large gap between the commitment and market

readiness between the different fuel cell vehicle markets in Europe, and, what is

more, to take care of a simultaneous hydrogen infrastructure roll-out which allows

vehicle customers to drive their cars across all over Europe (e.g. northern Italian

regions). This set of instruments or “toolbox” should help other countries or regions

to efficiently plan and support the infrastructure and vehicle roll-out. It specifically

comprises vehicle and infrastructure commercialization plans.

Executive Summary


38

§ Until now, the lack of vehicles and missing commitment from energy industry to build

the hydrogen infrastructure has dominated the regions’ lack of interest to participate

in further demonstration projects for passenger cars (e.g. North Rhine-Westphalia).

As some major vehicle manufacturers have announced larger FCEV numbers to

become available (passenger cars and buses) only recently, the interest of the

regions seems to be stimulated (e.g. northern Italian regions and Scandinavia).

However, the activities are still limited to some OEMs, major other OEMs

continuously announcing their lacking interest in hydrogen and fuel cells, specifically

in Europe. The regions therefore would like to encourage FCH JU to contribute to

stimulate those OEMs who have continuously denied the importance of hydrogen

and fuel cells to also join the strategy.

§ In general, the European regions outside of Germany have shown large interest to

participate in the coming FCH JU calls, all of them lacking large industrial players

and/or sufficient support at national or regional level to play in the first row. The

German regions have also shown interest, but specifically pointing out their request

for less bureaucracy, higher funding rates and simpler access to the funds.

§ Partnerships of regions could act efficiently at different levels, e.g. municipal level

(e.g. Hamburg and Copenhagen; focus on buses), regional level (e.g. northern

Italian regions together with Austria and southern Germany or Rotterdam area with

Arnhem / Nijmegen area and Cologne area). Some of the regions have specifically

pointed out their interest in partnerships. Hence it could be worthwhile to consider a

regions brokerage event, organised jointly by FCH JU and HyRaMP in preparation

of each coming call.

§ Several regions have observed that the European ambition to reduce passenger car

fleet emissions down to 95 gCO2/km by 2020 does not provide sufficient pull for all

automobile manufacturers to fully engage in electric vehicle technology. They have

pointed out that an adaptation towards lower targets would stimulate more industry

commitment concerning fuel cells and hydrogen becoming the preferred technology.

§ In many of the regions visited hydrogen and fuel cell technology suffers from the

current buzz of activity in battery electric vehicles. They are missing a fair, open,

neutral and transparent discussion regarding this issue, especially at European

level. The regions’ representatives interviewed request improved communication

that these technologies are not competing, but complementing each other. They

furthermore warn about establishing a separate ‘FCH JU’ on battery electric

vehicles. Instead, both technologies should be dealt with in one organisation as e.g.

in the German NOW.

§ Some regions have proposed to enlarge the German Clean Energy Partnership

demo project beyond the German borders potentially with financial resources from

the FCH JU. This would have the advantages of directly building on already existing

know how and organisation structures as well as naturally growing the hydrogen

refuelling infrastructure.

§ Some regions claimed that the access to the results of European demonstration

projects co-funded from EC resources needs to be improved. As these results have

been achieved with the support of European taxpayer’s money they should be

publicly available widely. Furthermore, this would contribute to a more efficient use

of resources and speed up technological learning.

Executive Summary


39

The objective comparison via the Regions Evaluation Tool underlines the results from

the qualitative analysis and the impressions from the regions interviews. Even if due to

the lack of data the regions tool cannot be applied to compare the full set of pre-

selected regions, it becomes clear that the intuitive selection has been within the range

of the outcomes verified by the tool.

The tool should be taken up by the FCH JU to objectively assess the suitability of

hydrogen regions in Europe to host hydrogen demonstration projects for the upcoming

calls for proposals until 2013.

Executive Summary

Social Acceptance of Hydrogen Demonstration Projects

40

7 SOCIAL ACCEPTANCE OF HYDROGEN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

7.1 Social acceptance of hydrogen projects

Social acceptance is a necessary condition for a successful introduction of hydrogen as

a fuel. In this report, social acceptance is defined as (i) a lack of (explicit) public

opposition to the introduction of hydrogen as fuel in the transport sector and (ii) the

willingness to use hydrogen when the opportunity arises.

The current status of social acceptance of hydrogen has been assessed using existing

studies. The assessment has been carried out using a framework that distinguishes

three types of acceptance (Figure 18: Three types of social acceptanceFigure 18).

Figure 18: Three types of social acceptance

A review of the existing surveys of social acceptance in hydrogen projects indicates

that current social acceptance is good. Respondents typically have a positive attitude

towards hydrogen and show high levels of support. Associations with hydrogen are

neutral in majority, while positive and negative associations claim about equal

proportions.

Yet, the current, favourable situation might change when hydrogen applications will be

implemented on a larger scale. This study has reviewed the existing material,

compared them with the development of social acceptance for other technologies, and

provides recommendations to stimulate social acceptance for in the large-scale

demonstration phase and beyond.

7.2 Global acceptance: current status and outlook

Apart from the positive indicators of current social acceptance, many studies report a

low level of knowledge on hydrogen, implying that the public does not yet have an

informed view. Outreach activities have generally only informed the public in the vicinity

of demonstration projects, leaving the larger public uninformed.

The lack of knowledge in the general public implies that its opinion may easily change.

Hydrogen is currently an uncontroversial technology, which implies that the general

public has so far not had the need to seek information on hydrogen.

Executive Summary


41

As experiences with other new energy technologies show, a technology may turn

controversial when experts disagree on aspects (e.g. appropriateness, risk) of the

technology. Comments from the critical parts of the expert community may be picked

up by the media and fuel an increased need for information on the part of the public as

the technology enters the commercialisation phase (and becomes more visible).

This may turn hydrogen into a controversial technology, with plummeting acceptance

ratings as a consequence. Although hydrogen has properties that fit political objectives

(e.g. energy independence) and enjoys the backing of the marketing skills of the car

industry, its uncontroversial image is not a given.

It is therefore recommended that measures are taken to monitor and mediate these

developments in the large-scale demonstration and commercialisation phases of

hydrogen technology. A survey among experts can help to identify potentially

controversial aspects. Joint study groups may then be formed to create a forum for the

various opinions and perform research on these aspects that produce factual

information. Finally, a survey that identifies longstanding values and beliefs in the

general public may increase understanding on how issues that experts consider

controversial may be perceived by the general public.

7.3 Local acceptance: current status and outlook

Concrete applications of hydrogen have met with good local acceptance. So far, only

one project has reported local resistance.

Local acceptance results from the interaction of a project with its context, moderated by

project management. Hydrogen projects are vulnerable to opposition in siting of

infrastructure, a mismatch between (local) expectations and the scale of

implementation, and a (bad) reputation of the operator/initiator. Although hydrogen

projects have so far been perceived as safe, safety is still a topic of major concern.

It is not foreseen that hydrogen will encounter additional issues with local acceptance

in the commercialization phase. Yet, a larger scale of implementation may lead to an

increase in the number of cases that encounter local opposition.

The first step in achieving local acceptance is to select a favourable site. An

assessment framework for site selection has been developed in the project HyLights. It

is recommended that the social acceptance section in this tool is expanded in

NextHyLights.

In addition to site selection, good project management can help to improve the fit

between a project and its context. Key to good project management is early

involvement of stakeholders. Engaging stakeholders helps to understand the local

context, and engaging stakeholders early in the process keeps the possibility open to

adapt the project plan to stakeholders’ concerns. As lack of communication and

engagement has shown to build distrust, engagement of stakeholders helps to build

trust among local stakeholders. Trust – in turn – is important to communicate the risks

that are associated with hydrogen projects in an effective way.

ESTEEM is a tool to engage stakeholders in new energy projects, including hydrogen.

It is recommended that ESTEEM (or a comparable tool) is used for the practical

organisation of the stakeholder engagement process.

Executive Summary


42

7.4 Market acceptance: current status and outlook

Market acceptance is different for different types of vehicles, due to different market

structures. Yet, costs are a major barrier in every segment. As hydrogen moves into

the commercialisation phase, this barrier is expected to diminish due to technological

progress and economies of scale.

7.5 Recommendations for stimulating social acceptance

The following actions are recommended to improve social acceptance of hydrogen

technology.

Stimulate global acceptance, by:

§ Implementing a periodic survey to monitor expert and policy-maker opinions on the

application of hydrogen. The purpose of this survey is to spot and respond to

controversial issues.

§ Implementing a monitor of public attitude towards hydrogen and its applications. The

monitor should include a section on public values towards possible controversial

aspects of the use of hydrogen as a fuel.

§ Based on the results of the monitor, create a communication plan to inform and

educate the general public on hydrogen as a fuel. Communication efforts should

complement planned demonstration projects and develop as the scale of

implementation develops. It is likely that the public need for information increases

with the scale of implementation, possibly with a focus on controversial topics.

Stimulate local acceptance, by:

§ Selecting sites with favourable conditions for local acceptance. To this end, it is

recommended to extend the social acceptance section in the regions eligibility

assessment tool. Moreover, the eligibility score of potential sites in the tool should

be included in the selection procedure for the proposals for future hydrogen

demonstration projects.

§ Requiring hydrogen demonstration project plans to include a section on stimulating

local acceptance. This section should detail how local stakeholders will be engaged.

The design of the engagement process should be such that the objectives outlined

can be met.

Investigate market acceptance, by:

§ Conducting a study to establish a business case for various applications of

hydrogen.

Executive Summary

Environmental Impact Assessment of Hydrogen Vehicles

43

8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF HYDROGEN VEHICLES

This report presents the environmental impact assessment for the deployment of

hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) subdivided in the segments passenger vehicles,

special vehicles and buses. Separate chapters present the results for the carbon

dioxide emission reduction potential related to the deployment of FCEVs for all vehicle

segments. In addition, the potential for air quality improvements for the bus segment is

presented. The results in this report are based on information available from recent

international fuel cell demonstration projects and from bilateral dialogues with the

members of the NextHyLights consortium.

Carbon dioxide emission calculations are performed for demonstration to large

deployment stages of hydrogen vehicles. Under the assumption of low market

penetration up to 2020, the expected CO2 emission reductions are of marginal impact,

depending on the vehicle segment. Although carbon dioxide emissions will slowly start

decreasing within the next decade, the choice of infrastructure setup for hydrogen

production, delivery and distribution via refuelling stations could either reduce

emissions moderately compared to those of ICE vehicles, or could importantly reduce

emissions compared to business as usual on the long-term until 2050.

8.1 Passenger vehicles

A large deployment of FCEV passenger vehicles, suitable with hydrogen production

and distribution by SMR and through compressed hydrogen pipelines respectively, may

contribute to carbon emissions reduction. Higher carbon abatement can be achieved if

CCS is implemented or if methane originates from zero emission sources, such as

biomass. Hydrogen produced by electrolysis powered by electricity from the grid will

not contribute to emissions reductions unless dedicated renewable energy sources

(RES) are utilized. Technical improvements of conventional vehicles could lead to 44%

of emissions reduction. In addition to the latter, the rapid deployment of HFC

passenger vehicles supplied in hydrogen by low carbon well-to-tank routes, might

contribute to further 292% reduction by 2050 compared to business-as-usual (BaU)

(see figure A). Making hydrogen refuelling stations (HRS) suitable to deliver hydrogen

produced from zero emissions methane will become a challenge when HFC vehicles

start to commercially deploy.

Executive Summary


44

Figure 19: Carbon dioxide emissions in the passenger vehicles segment

until 2050

8.2 Niche Vehicles

Hydrogen forklifts represent a high potential for emissions reductions. Although values

for the European forklift’s stock are not available, based on sales figures of the forklift

market it is possible to estimate the carbon emissions reduction. When hydrogen is

produced by any of the SMR pathways or electrolysis with renewable energy sources,

carbon emission reductions are possible. Hydrogen production via electrolysis powered

by grid mix electricity does not represent a tangible pathway to achieve emission

reductions.

8.3 Buses

Current demonstration projects for buses mainly produce hydrogen via the SMR

process. In the long-term carbon dioxide emissions will decrease even if hydrogen is

still produced by conventional SMR. Hydrogen production via electrolysis supplied with

high carbon power sources is one of the less attractive routes to achieve carbon

dioxide emission reductions. The market arrival of diesel hybrid vehicles might strongly

contribute to emission reductions beyond 2015, however, this is beyond the scope of

this report. In the mean time, deployment of HRS for HFC buses appears an attractive

option to obtain more expertise and knowledge on hydrogen technologies. The use of

HRS to refuel both passenger vehicles and buses seems to be an important way to

reduce emissions while getting passenger vehicle users familiarized with the

technology.

Germany, France, Italy and the UK combined have the biggest share of the passenger

vehicle and bus markets in Europe (~72%). Upcoming large-scale demonstration

activities for FCVs are highly anticipated to take place in these countries (to a lesser

extent in Italy and France), hence higher carbon emission reductions might be

expected in these countries earlier than the rest of Europe in the mid-term. In the long

term, technology transfer and commercialization plans of HFCVs to spread this

Executive Summary


45

technology will depend on OEMs strategies and infrastructure availability. Initiatives

such as H2 Mobility, looking into a near-future hydrogen infrastructure rollout in

Germany, together with the existing and forthcoming FCH JU lighthouse projects in

Scandinavia and elsewhere in the EU will represent the backbone for a gradual spread

out of infrastructure to adjacent countries.

Compared to other emission sources, such as industry and power plants, road

transport is a major source of health relevant air pollution. Since HFC vehicles do not

emit air pollutants via tailpipe their introduction will improve air quality and health.

Air quality assessments show that substituting diesel by HFC-buses has the largest

benefits on air quality and health in city centres, because of: (1) the dense population

and consequently large number of people exposed; and (2) the municipal building

structure, with “street canyons”, limiting dilution of exhaust gases, and associated

relative high impact on the atmospheric concentration of pollutants.

Even the advanced conventional bus fleets will in 2025 emit amounts of pollutants with

non-negligible impact on local air quality and related health impacts. Consequently, the

deployment of hydrogen buses will improve air quality, and related health benefits. For

the city of Amsterdam, the maximum emission reduction potential was estimated at

about 90 tons for NOx and about 0.55 ton for PM10 (see figure B). Indicatively, these

reductions would correspond to a decrease of about 10% of all transport related air

pollution in the city centre of Amsterdam. For London, the maximum achievable

reductions were estimated at about 2,000 tons for NOx and about 12.5 tons for PM10.

Figure 20: Prevented emissions of NOx and PM10 in 2025 as a function of

the assumed fleet share of HFC buses in Amsterdam

Executive Summary

Regulatory Requirements for Hydrogen Demonstration Projects

46

9 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR HYDROGEN DEMONSTRATION

PROJECTS

Hydrogen demonstration projects need to meet certain regulatory requirements. These

regulatory requirements relate both to vehicles and infrastructure (refuelling stations).

Of these two, regulatory requirements for vehicles form the lesser barrier.

Regulation 79/2009 has incorporated hydrogen vehicles in the EU-wide whole vehicle

type-approval framework, streamlining the type-approval of hydrogen vehicles.

Approval procedures for hydrogen infrastructure ensure acceptable safety levels and

minimise impact on the environment. They also claim resources in the project and

impact lead times. Approval procedures are not (yet) harmonised across Europe.

Consequently, the FCH JU and project partners in hydrogen demonstration projects

have an interest in selecting countries that have a favourable, i.e. relatively brief and

simple approval procedure.

The analysis done for this report revealed that Germany and the Netherlands have the

most favourable approval procedures, closely followed by Norway and Austria.

Compared to the procedures in these countries, the procedures in Italy and France

could benefit from more clarity (in terms of specific requirements for hydrogen stations)

and – especially in the case of France – simplification (in terms of steps in the

procedure and the number of authorities involved).

Lead time in Germany is relatively short, the procedure is straightforward and specific

guidelines for hydrogen are available.

The situation in the Netherlands is similar to that in Germany. Lead times are

comparable and the Netherlands also has hydrogen-specific national guidelines

(although not legally formalised). The procedure is straightforward and handled by a

single authority.

Norway has a short lead time (albeit with quite a large uncertainty) and a very

straightforward procedure. The information requirements in the procedure are based on

national regulations and guidelines, which are not hydrogen-specific. Hydrogen-specific

regulations and guidelines would make the requirements for a station clearer.

The situation in Austria is also relatively favourable. Main strength of the Austrian

procedure is simplicity. Although the lead times in Austria are currently quite long,

significant reductions are expected when more experience with hydrogen will be

developed. Austria does not yet have hydrogen-specific guidelines in place.

The lead time of the approval procedure in Italy is comparable to that of the previous

three countries. Substantial reduction is expected when experience is gained with

hydrogen. However, the procedure also proved to be complex. New, hydrogen-specific

regulations have recently been adopted that possibly improve the Italian approval

procedure. Future projects and experiences will tell whether the new regulation is

indeed an improvement.

The approval procedure in France is based on regulation for industrial plants with

hydrogen-related activities. Expected lead times are relatively long and it is unclear

whether more experience with hydrogen refuelling stations will reduce lead times. The

procedure is complex and involves many authorities, as well as the public.

Executive Summary

Regulatory Requirements for Hydrogen Demonstration Projects

47

As argued in the project HyApproval, a European Regulation may simplify the current

situation for hydrogen refuelling station approval procedures in Europe. As long as that

situation is a desire rather than reality, partners intending to deploy a hydrogen

demonstration project will have to monitor and follow nationally defined approval

procedures.

In the past decade, the various actors have gained experience with how to interpret

national guidelines, leading to more knowledge and reduced lead times. It can be

expected that this process will continue and that the approval for a hydrogen refuelling

station will eventually be no more complex than the procedure for a regular station.

Executive Summary

Policy Support Options for Hydrogen Buses in Public Transport

48

10 POLICY SUPPORT OPTIONS FOR HYDROGEN BUSES IN PUBLIC

TRANSPORT

This study aims to inform about policies that can be deployed to accelerate the roll-out

of hydrogen buses. Hydrogen buses offer environmental benefits in terms of global

warming, air quality and noise reduction. The study is targeted at the time window up to

2025, with cumulative bus numbers in European cities increasing to about 2000. In this

phase, in which hydrogen buses will still be more expensive than conventional buses,

policy support is crucial to reach the stage of mass production and the associated

lower external costs to society.

The policy support measures presented are expected to be relevant for the Fuel Cell

Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU), as well as for governments on the local,

national and EU level.

The study points out that support for hydrogen buses requires the direct contribution of

public funds to alleviate investment cost – in contrast to the passenger car segment

where a part of the additional cost can be also absorbed by car drivers. Consequently,

local and national policymakers should be prepared for public financial support for

hydrogen buses in the early market phase, that continues till about 2025. For the

industry a switch to hydrogen would require a clear perspective of large future demand

for hydrogen buses.

The policy support options presented here focus on the middle two phases of the roll-

out plan for hydrogen buses, as defined in Workpackage 3 of the NextHyLights project:

§ Demonstration phase (2010-2013) to prove the technical and operational feasibility

of hydrogen buses.

⇒ One-off order phase (2010-2015), with cost reductions via economies of scale,

based on a joint tender of a few leading cities.

⇒ Continues expansion phase (2015-2020/2025), with a growing number of cities

deploying hydrogen buses up to a cumulative fleet of about 2 thousand around

2025.

§ Competitive phase (after 2020/2025) when hydrogen buses are expected to be cost

competitive with conventional buses.

⇒ Up to 2015: one-off order

In the early roll-out phase till 2015 a number of cities is expected to pool demand in a

joint tender for a one-off order of a few hundreds of buses. This approach of pooling

demand enables larger production volumes and associated economies of scale,

resulting in lower bus cost. Measures could still take place on EU level as this is still

considered support of the innovation phase of hydrogen technology. In this phase

policy support measures can be divided in three forms, that ideally should be deployed

all:

(1) Coordination of the pooling of demand and resources in various cities.

(2) Reduction of investment risks. Governments can share in the risk of purchasing

hydrogen buses, e.g. in the form of loan guarantees, allowing bus operators to acquire

low interest loans and thus reduction of costs.

Executive Summary

Policy Support Options for Hydrogen Buses in Public Transport

49

(3) Investment subsidies to cover (part of) the capital expenditure will be crucial.

Subsidies could involve coordinated resources at the local, national and EU level.

⇒ 2015-2025: continuous expansion

In the subsequent phase of continuous fleet expansion, till a few thousand hydrogen

buses around 2025, direct public financial support will remain essential to cover the

(narrowing) cost gap with conventional vehicles. EU support will be unavailable as

production volumes increase and market introduction support is outside the scope of

EU R&D policy. That means that policy support needs to be initiated at the member

state level.

This vision was confirmed by an analysis of the relationships between bus operators

and their stakeholders, as well as by questionnaires send out to 5 European cities

deploying hydrogen buses (Bolzano, Hamburg, Oslo, Amsterdam, Barcelona). The

current (conventional) bus system in all cities cannot be completely funded by the ticket

fares, with the local government making up the difference. Consequently additional

public support - on top of the current subsidies - is the only way to bridge the financial

gap between the hydrogen bus and the conventional alternative. Part of the financial

support could be shifted from the local to the national level, where the relative impact

will be smaller, for example by tax exemptions for vehicle purchasing and fuel.

Policymakers may consider to finance the support of hydrogen buses by using

revenues from the taxation of other vehicle segments (e.g. through a congestion

charge).

Furthermore governments could support hydrogen buses by providing a consistent

long term market perspective for ultralow emission technologies, reflected in low

taxations in line with their lower external costs to society. However, it takes time for

legislation to pass through political instances. Therefore, member states should be

already aware of the situation. Measures to implement the required support schemes

should start already now.

PROJECT FINAL REPORT - EUROPA - SETIS · PROJECT FINAL REPORT ... The project has developed...

Documents

Transcript of PROJECT FINAL REPORT - EUROPA - SETIS · PROJECT FINAL REPORT ... The project has developed...