U.S. Department of Energy-Funded Performance Validation … · • Distribution Centers/Warehouses...

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

U.S. Department of Energy-Funded Performance Validation of Fuel Cell Material Handling Equipment

UK Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Association Webinar

Jennifer Kurtz, Sam Sprik, Todd Ramsden, Genevieve Saur, Chris Ainscough, Matt Post, Mike Peters

November 27, 2013 NREL/PR-5400-60951

2

FCMHE Validation Overview

• U.S. DOE enabling early fuel cell markets • National Fuel Cell Technology Evaluation

Center objectives • FCMHE performance status

3 | Fuel Cell Technologies Office eere.energy.gov

Enabling Early Markets Deployments help catalyze market penetration and ensure continued technology

utilization growth while providing data and lessons learned.

Leveraging DOE Funds: Government as “catalyst” for market success of emerging technologies.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Cost ShareDeployments ~1,600

Additional Purchaseswithout DOE Funding

~9,000

Lift Trucks BU Power

Backup Power

Lift Trucks

DOE cost-shared deployments led to >5X additional purchases and orders.

~9,000 ADDITIONAL FUEL CELL LIFT TRUCKS AND BACKUP POWER UNITS PLANNED OR INSTALLED with NO DOE funding Examples of industry* sectors in DOE ARRA projects • Telecommunications (e.g., AT&T, PG&E, Sprint, etc.) • Distribution Centers/Warehouses (e.g., FedEx, Genco,

Sysco, Wegmans, Whole Foods, etc.)

*Provided as examples and not intended as endorsement

DOE FCTO Fall 2013 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presentations.html

4 | Fuel Cell Technologies Office eere.energy.gov

The Case for Fuel Cell Forklifts Fuel cell forklifts offer several advantages compared to conventional fork lift

technology

Preliminary Analysis • Compared to conventional forklifts, fuel

cell forklifts have: • 1.5 X lower maintenance cost • 8 X lower refueling/recharging labor

cost • 2 X lower net present value of total

system cost

Preliminary Analysis: Comparison of PEM Fuel Cell- and Battery-Powered Forklifts

Time for Refueling/ Changing Batteries

4-8 min/day 45-60 min/day (for battery change-outs) 8 hours (for battery recharging & cooling)

Labor Cost of Refueling/Recharging

$1,100/year $8,750/year

NPV of Capital Costs $12,600 ($18,000 w/o incentives)

$14,000

NPV of O&M Costs (including fuel)

$52,000 $128,000

Published Fact Sheets & Case Studies

DOE FCTO Fall 2013 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/presentations.html

5

www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_tech_validation.html

NFCTEC Analysis Approach

National Fuel Cell Technology Evaluation Center

NFCTEC

Analysis and reporting of real-world operation data

6

Objectives

• Assess technology o Perform independent technology assessment in real world operation conditions o Focus on fuel cell system and hydrogen infrastructure: performance, operation, and

safety o Leverage data processing and analysis capabilities developed under the fuel cell vehicle

Learning Demonstration project o Evaluate material handling equipment (MHE) and backup power o Analysis includes up to 1,000 fuel cell systems deployed with American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds

• Support market growth o Provide analyses and results relevant to the markets’ value proposition o Report on technology status to fuel cell and hydrogen communities and other key

stakeholders such as end users

Assess the technology status in real world operations, establish performance baselines, report on fuel cell and hydrogen

technology, and support market growth by evaluating performance relevant to the markets’ value proposition

7

74 MHE CDPs—Count and Category Deployment & Site

Overview (1, 40)

Fuel Cell Operation (2, 7, 8, 11, 15,

16, 17, 23, 24, 63) Fuel Cell Reliability (28, 29, 30, 31)

Fuel Cell Safety (26, 27, 53, 56, 57)

Infra. Safety (25, 41, 46, 51, 55)

Infra. Reliability (45, 48, 49, 50)

FC Maintenance (12, 13, 14, 43, 54, 61)

(1) Total cost represents the annualized cost of ownership of Class I, II, and III forklifts on a net present value basis, accounting for capital, operating, and maintenance costs of forklifts, power packs, and infrastructure (labor costs for maintenance and for charging or fueling are included, but labor costs of forklift material handling operations are excluded). Costs are calculated assuming that the material handling operations are ongoing, with equipment replacements made as necessary. Capital, operating, and maintenance costs are assumed toremain constant in real-dollar terms, and capital purchases are discounted using a discount rate representing the time value of money. Fuel cell system costs reflect the current fuel cell tax credit of $3,000/kW or 30% of purchase price. Analysis does not consider the potential productivity increases resulting from the constant power output of fuel cell systems, which may be significant. Costs of ownership of Class II forklifts are expected to be similar for Class I forklifts, though the cost of the lift itself is expected to be higher.

Costs are based on information provided by deployment host partners (end-users) based on a questionnaire developed by NREL, supplemented with data provided by project partners, and are reflective of the material handling operations of these deployments. Where appropriate, fuel cell deployment data were used in place of end-user questionnaire data; in particular, data from CDPs 1, 6, 8, 14, and 22 were used. Cost assessment will be further refined as additional data are available.

Total Cost of Ownership for Class I, II & III Forklifts1

Cost of Ownership (58, 59, 60,64)

Total Cost of Ownership Sensitivity Analysis1

(1) Total cost represents the annualized cost of ownership of Class I, II, and III forklifts on a net present value basis. Fuel cell system costs reflect the current fuel cell tax credit of $3,000/kW or 30% of purchase price. Costs are based on information provided by deployment host partners based on a questionnaire developed by NREL, supplemented with additional data provided by project partners, and are reflective of the material handling operations of these deployments. Where appropriate, fuel cell deployment data were used in place of end-user questionnaire data; in particular, data from CDPs 1, 6, 8, 14, and 22 were used.

Sensitivity analysis shows the ranges in annual per lift cost of ownership resulting from varying key parameters affecting battery and fuel cell forklift cost.

Fuel Cell Durability (32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 73)

< 10000 hours > 10000 hours 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Fuel Cell Stacks Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation

Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation 1,3

FC S

tack

s [%

]

In ServiceNot In Service2

NREL cdp_mhe_97

Created: Apr-02-13 9:36 AM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2012Q4

1) Projection using field data, calculated at high stack current, from operation hour 0. Projected hours may differ from an OEM's end-of-life criterion and does not address "catastrophic" failure modes.2) Indicates stacks that are no longer accumulating hours either a) temporarily or b) have been retired for non- stack performance related issues or c) removed from DOE program.3) Projected hours limited based on demonstrated hours.

0 10 20 30 40 50 600

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Amount Fueled in an Hour [kg]

Freq

uenc

y [%

of t

otal

]

Hydrogen Dispensed Per Hour - ARRA

NREL cdparra_mhe_69


Average: 4.8 kgs per hourMedian: 3.5 kgs per hourMax: 52.5 kgs per hour

Infra. Operation (3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 21, 22, 35,

37, 42, 62, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Station (Sorted By Increasing Max Daily Amount)

Cap

acity

Util

izat

ion

2 [%]

Station Capacity Utilization

Max Daily20 kg

Max Daily25 kg

Max Daily64 kg

Max Daily99 kg

Max Daily102 kg

Max Daily135 kg

Max Daily293 kg

Max Daily358 kg

42.9%

Average Daily Utilization1

Maximum Daily Utilization

NREL cdparra_mhe_71NREL cdparra_mhe_71


1Maximum quarterly utilization considers all days; average daily utilization considers only days when at least one filling occurred2100% represents maximum daily amount dispensed for each individual site

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

50

100

150

200

250


Fills

Per

Day

Station Usage

Maximum Daily Fills

Average Daily Fills1

NREL cdparra_mhe_70


1Average daily fills considers only days when at least one fill occurred

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450

2

4

6

8

10

12

Number of Fuelings in an Hour

Freq

uenc

y [%

of t

otal

]

Number of Fuelings Per Hour - ARRA

NREL cdparra_mhe_68


Average: 7.3 per hourMedian: 5.0 per hourMax: 39.0 per hour

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

5

10

15

20

25

30

Sim

ulta

neou

s Fi

lls

Back-to-Back Fills

36 % of fills are within 0-5 minutes of each other23 % of fills have more than 20 minutes between them228912 Total Fills

Time Between Fuelings* [min]

# of

Fue

lings

[% o

f tot

al]

Histogram of Time Between Fuelings

All Sites CombinedIndividual Sites

200 225 250 275 300 325 350 375 400 425 4500

1

2

3

4

5x 104 Final Pressures for Fills with <5 Minutes in Between

# of

Fue

lings

Final Pressure [bar]

Previous FillNext Fill

NREL cdparra_mhe_65

Created: Apr-02-13 8:12 AM | Data Range: 2010Q1-2012Q4 *Time is from end of fill to start of next fill.

Infra. Maintenance (18, 19, 20, 44, 47, 52,

66, 67, 72,76,77)

0

50

100

150

200

250

AIR SYSTEM

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

DISPENSER

FITTINGS&PIPIN

G

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

VALVES

MTB

F (D

ays)

MTBF by Equipment Category: Infrastructure (Delivered H2 Only)

Median SiteLowest Site

NREL cdparra_mhe_72


Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Month

Cou

nt o

f Mai

nten

ance

Eve

nts

Infrastructure Maintenance by Month

UnscheduledScheduled

NREL cdp_mhe_67


8%

19%

23%

50%

Total Events = 1,0581

64% unscheduled

entiresystem 46

misc 124

multiplesystems 221

classifiedevents1 667

Event Count

8%

19%

17%

56%

Total Hours = 7,08062% unscheduled

hydrogen compressor

control electronics

dispenser

air system

NREL cdp_mhe_66


Delivered Hydrogen Infrastructure Maintenance By Equipment Type

MISC includes the following failure modes: seal, fuel system, safety,thermal management, storage, electrical, software, fittings&piping, valves,

sensors, other

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Apr-201

0

Jul-2

010

Oct-20

10

Jan-20

11

Apr-201

1

Jul-2

011

Oct-20

11

Jan-20

12

Apr-201

2

Jul-2

012

Oct-20

12

Jan-20

13

Apr-201

3

% o

f Tot

al M

onth

ly M

aint

enan

ce L

abor

Hou

rs

Equipment Percentage of Repair Labor Hours Over Time*

HYDROGEN COMPRESSORCONTROL ELECTRONICSDISPENSERAIR SYSTEMNREL cdparra_mhe_77

Created: Sep-30-13 12:56 PM | Data Range: 2010Q10-2013Q2

*Calculated as a percentageof all maintenance each month; bars maynot total to 100% if other maintenancecategories were present.

0123456789

101112

AIR SYSTEM

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

DISPENSER

ELECTRICAL

ENTIRE SYSTEM

FITTINGS&PIPIN

G

FUEL SYSTEM

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

MULTIPLE SYSTEMS

OTHER

SAFETY

SENSORS

SOFTWARE

STORAGE

THERMAL MANAGEMENT

VALVES

Rep

air L

abor

Tim

e (H

ours

)

Equipment Category Repair Time: Infrastructure (Delivered H2 Only)

NREL cdparra_mhe_76

Created: Sep-28-13 10:08 AM | Data Range: 2010Q10-2013Q2

75% Percentile

Median

25% Percentile

Mean

8

MHE Operation Summary 2009 Q4–2013 Q2

Units in operation*

Hydrogen fills

Hydrogen dispensed in kg

Operation hours

Average operation hours between fills

Average fill amount in kg

Average fill time in minutes *One project has completed

Validation of MHE is based on real-world operation data from high-use facilities

9

Study of FC Voltage Degradation Against 10,000 Hours

< 10000 hours > 10000 hours 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Fuel Cell Stacks Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation

Projected Hours to 10% Voltage Degradation 1,3

FC S

tack

s [%

]

In ServiceNot In Service2

NREL cdp_mhe_97


1) Projection using field data, calculated at high stack current, from operation hour 0. Projected hours may differ from an OEM's end-of-life criterion and does not address "catastrophic" failure modes.2) Indicates stacks that are no longer accumulating hours either a) temporarily or b) have been retired for non- stack performance related issues or c) removed from DOE program.3) Projected hours limited based on demonstrated hours.

More than 50% of stacks have projected hours to 10% voltage degradation >10,000 hours

10

Published MHE Cost of Ownership Report

Key Findings • Cost advantages dependent on

deployment size and use (i.e., multi-shift operation per day)

• H2 fuel cell cost advantages in maintenance, warehouse infrastructure space, and refueling labor cost

• H2 fuel cell cost disadvantages in infrastructure and fuel cell cost and hydrogen cost

Report Sections • Inputs, assumptions, and results for

Class I/II and Class III • Sensitivity study • Intensive deployment scenario

Cost advantage per unit is ~$2,000/year for the average high-use facility with Class I and II fuel cell lift trucks analyzed by NREL

11

Study of Infrastructure Usage by Daily Fills

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 80

50

100

150

200

250


Fills

Per

Day

Station Usage

Maximum Daily Fills

Average Daily Fills1

NREL cdparra_mhe_70


1Average daily fills considers only days when at least one fill occurred

The maximum daily fill count for two sites was >200 fills. Those two sites average nearly 100 fills per day.

12

0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 3000

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Site MTBF1 (Days)

Cou

nt o

f Site

sSite MTBF (Calendar Days In Operation): Infrastructure

NREL cdp_mhe_48

Created: Sep-28-13 12:45 PM | Data Range: 2009Q1-2013Q21. Cumulative Mean Time Between Failure

Infrastructure Reliability Analysis

Infrastructure consistently delivering 250 and 350 bar fills even though the majority of the sites have a MTBF of 25 days or less

Compressor 51%

Control Electronics 20%

Dispenser 19%

Air System 10%

Delivered H2 Maintenance Count by Category 1,330 Maintenance Events

63% unscheduled

13

Equipment Percentage of Monthly Repair Labor Hours

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Apr-201

0

Jul-2

010

Oct-20

10

Jan-20

11

Apr-201

1

Jul-2

011

Oct-20

11

Jan-20

12

Apr-201

2

Jul-2

012

Oct-20

12

Jan-20

13

Apr-201

3

% o

f Tot

al M

onth

ly M

aint

enan

ce L

abor

Hou

rs

Equipment Percentage of Repair Labor Hours Over Time*

HYDROGEN COMPRESSORCONTROL ELECTRONICSDISPENSERAIR SYSTEMNREL cdparra_mhe_77


*Calculated as a percentageof all maintenance each month; bars maynot total to 100% if other maintenancecategories were present.

Compressor and dispenser repairs consistent over evaluation period

14

0

50

100

150

200

250

AIR SYSTEM

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

DISPENSER

FITTINGS&PIPIN

G

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

SENSORS

VALVES

MTB

F (D

ays)

MTBF by Equipment Category: Infrastructure (Delivered H2 Only)

Median SiteLowest Site

NREL cdparra_mhe_72


Breakdown of MTBF by Key Delivered Hydrogen Infrastructure Categories

Consistent across all sites are failures with control electronics and hydrogen compressors. These two categories have low MTBF.

15

Breakdown of Failure Modes for Top Four Maintenance Categories for Infrastructure

0 100 200 300 400

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

DISPENSER

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

AIR SYSTEM

Event Count

51%*

20%*

19%*

10%*

DATA ERROR

DRIVE OFF

EXCESSIVE NOISE

FAILED CLOSED

HYDROGEN LEAK

INSPECT TROUBLE ALARM OR REPORT

LIGHTNING STRIKE

METAL FATIGUE

MOISTURE INFILTRATION

OUT OF CALIBRATION

PRESSURE LOW

REPLACE FAILED PARTS

TEMPERATURE HIGH

MISC

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

HYDROGEN COMPRESSOR

DISPENSER

CONTROL ELECTRONICS

AIR SYSTEM

Labor Hours

58%*

18%*

14%*

9%*

NREL cdp_mhe_52


Failure Modes for Top Four Infrastructure Equipment Categories

* Percentage of total events or hours, reference CDP 66.

MISC includes the following failure modes: ambient temperature too low, broken wire,cavitation, data error, debris infiltration, electrical short, failed closed, false alarm, flow

high, flow low, fluid leak non-hydrogen, fluid leak non_hydrogen, fluidleak_non_hydrogen, inspect trouble alarm or report, maintenance error, manufacturing

defect, metal fatigue, moisture infiltration, network malfunction, operator protocol, other,power outage, pressure high, pressure low, replace failed parts, software bug,

unspecified electronics failure, vandalism, voltage low, other

There are many different failure modes for the top four categories and these modes provide insight for RD&D needs

16

MHE and Infrastructure Safety Report Analyses

14%

14%

14%

14%

14%

29%

By Number of IncidentsTotal Incidents = 7

Control Electronics

Operator Protocol

Fuel System

Fittings & Piping

FC Stack

Electrical

Majority of MHE safety reports (217) are minor hydrogen leaks

(4,480 stack hours per report)

Majority of infrastructure safety reports (82) are hydrogen leaks primarily from the hydrogen compressor and plumbing

(2,879 kg dispensed per report)

5%5%

90%

By Number of IncidentsTotal Incidents = 21

Dispenser

Compressor

Valves

17

Technical Summary—What We’ve Learned

• Operating with an average availability of ~98% at eight end-user facilities.

• Most systems operate at least 6 hours a day.

• Cost of ownership comparison between fuel cell and battery MHE indicate significant cost savings for refueling labor and infrastructure space but much greater cost for hydrogen infrastructure and fuel.

• MHE infrastructure can provide insight into infrastructure performance for the light duty vehicle application.

Aggregated data showcase performance over the last two

years in MHE and backup power.

Performance results address a need for published results on

the technology status.

Data analyses develop as systems operate and based on the key performance areas in

the markets.

18

This project is supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Fuel Cell Technologies Office EERE, Jason Marcinkoski, Sara Dillich,

and Pete Devlin

Jennifer Kurtz [email protected]

Photo by Jennifer Kurtz, NREL 18347

U.S. Department of Energy-Funded Performance Validation … · • Distribution Centers/Warehouses...

Documents

Transcript of U.S. Department of Energy-Funded Performance Validation … · • Distribution Centers/Warehouses...