Paving the way

toward a hydrogen
energy future

Hydrogen, Fuel Cells

& Infrastructure
Technologies Program
Multi-Year Research, Development
and Demonstration Plan
Planned program activities for 2003-2010

Education
Codes & Standards

H2
Safety
Systems Integration/Analyses

DELIVERY

PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
FUEL CELLS
VALIDATION Economy
Economy
STORAGE

Research & Development

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on
the Future of Personal Transportation
Hydrogen offers the long-term potential for a highly
efficient energy system that produces near-zero emis-
sions and is based on domestically available resources.
Hydrogen can be produced from fossil, nuclear, and
renewable resources, thus encouraging diversity in the
nation’s energy supplies. It can be produced from
abundant fossil fuels such as coal without unde-
sirable CO2 emissions by the use of carbon man-
agement approaches such as sequestration.
The day of the hydrogen economy, while not
imminent, is now within sight . . . It promises the
kind of transformation not seen since the nine-
teenth and early twentieth centuries, when the
world experienced the last energy revolution.
We in the U.S. government, along with our governmental
partners around the world, will work to promote and
support cooperation and collaboration. But, as always,
we look to the genius of the private sector . . . to bring us
a better future.
We are faced with a mammoth task but I can’t think of
anything that any group of people can do that will have
more lasting benefit for more people than working to
create an energy-transportation revolution. I’m sure you
agree that the challenge we have set for ourselves will
have historic consequences—and that it is a privilege to
be among those who have the opportunity to contribute
in some way to meeting that challenge.
 Foreword

Foreword
In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush announced a $1.2 billion Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to
reverse America’s growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology needed for commercially
viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells—a way to power cars, trucks, homes and businesses that could significantly
reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Since then, the U.S. Department of Energy has established
a coordinated and focused Hydrogen Program that will make this vision a reality. The DOE Program
integrates activities in hydrogen production, delivery and storage with transportation and stationary fuel cell
research, development and demonstration across DOE’s Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(EERE); Fossil Energy; Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology; and Science. EERE has lead management
responsibility for the DOE Hydrogen Program.

This Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan details the goals, objectives, technical targets,
tasks and schedule for EERE’s contribution to the DOE Hydrogen Program. Similar detailed plans exist for
the other DOE offices that make up the Hydrogen Program. The integrated plan for all four offices involved in
the President’s Initiative can be found in the DOE Hydrogen Posture Plan at http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/
pdfs/hydrogen_posture_plan.pdf. EERE has responsibility for implementing research, development and
demonstration activities of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and the FreedomCAR and Fuel Cell Partnership. These
activities are mainly split between two programs - the EERE Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies
Program, which conducts the hydrogen infrastructure and polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell
research, and the EERE FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program, which conducts the advanced internal
combustion engine and hybrid vehicle component research.

This Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Multi-Year

Research, Development and Demonstration Plan is a living document,
which will periodically be updated to reflect advances in technology, as
well as changes to and within the system. The intended audience for
this document is the research community and policy makers. The first
version of the Plan was released as a draft in June 2003 and was reviewed
by a panel of the National Research Council and the National Academy
of Engineering of the National Academies. This January 2005 version
reflects recommendations made by the panel. This version also reflects
progress made since the draft release. Details on every project funded by
the Program can be found in the 2004 Annual Progress Report available at
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/annual_report04.html.

Document Revision History

NOTICE
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United
States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any
legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed
herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan

Foreword

This page summarizes the revisions to the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program Multi-
Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan.

Date Description
Draft prepared for review by the National Academies’ Committee on Alternatives and Strategies
June 6, 2003 for Future Hydrogen Production and Use.

Finalized plan reflecting recommendations made by the National Academies and progress made
January 21, 2005 since the June 6, 2003 draft release.

Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Executive Summary

Executive Summary
President Bush launched the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to ensure
our nation’s long-term energy security and a clean environment.
Using hydrogen to fuel our economy can reduce U.S. dependence
on imported petroleum, diversify domestic energy sources, and
reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Fuel cells are an
important enabling technology for a future hydrogen economy
and have the potential to revolutionize the way we power our
nation, offering cleaner, more efficient alternatives to today’s
technology.

Energy Security: The U.S. uses about 20 million barrels of

oil per day (60% of which is imported), at a cost of about $6
billion a week (assumes a cost of $45 per barrel of oil). Much
of this oil is used to power highway vehicles. Over 97% of our
transportation energy is from petroleum. Because hydrogen
can be derived from a variety of domestically-available primary
sources (hydrogen itself is not a primary resource), including
fossil fuels, renewable resources, and nuclear power, its use
would allow us to diversify our transportation energy supply and
make us less reliant upon foreign energy sources.

Additionally fuel cells are significantly more energy efficient

than combustion-based power generation technologies. Internal
combustion engines in today’s automobiles convert less than 30
percent of the energy in gasoline into engine power for moving
the vehicle. Vehicles using electric motors powered by hydrogen “With a new national
fuel cells have 2-2.5 times the thermal efficiency of internal commitment, ... the first car
combustion engines.
driven by a child born today
Environmental Benefits: Fuel cells powered by pure hydrogen could be powered by hydrogen,
emit no harmful pollutants, only pure water. Hydrogen generation and pollution-free.”
and carbon-management technologies can be developed, which
can significantly reduce pollutants and greenhouse gases from – President Bush
fossil-based hydrogen production. As a transportation fuel, it will State of the Union Address
be much easier to manage and contain greenhouse gas emissions January 28, 2003
from stationary hydrogen generation sources than from the
tailpipe of internal combustion engine vehicles. Using renewable
or nuclear-based hydrogen in high-efficiency fuel cells to fuel
our vehicles and to generate power could virtually eliminate
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

Economic Competitiveness: Heavy dependence on imported

oil threatens America’s economic well-being. Small changes
in the price of crude oil or disruptions to oil supplies can have
big impacts on our economy, from trade deficits, to industrial
investment, to employment levels. Hydrogen’s diversity in
production and flexibility in use offers opportunities for new
technologies and players in energy markets, broadening our

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan i

 Executive Summary

energy choices and increasing economic growth both at home and

around the world. In addition, developing and leading the way in
hydrogen fuel cell technologies for automobiles will help the U.S.
to maintain its future economic competitiveness in the worldwide
automotive industry.

Path Forward: Addressing Barriers to a Hydrogen Economy

The transition of our current energy infrastructure to a clean and
secure energy infrastructure based on hydrogen will take decades.
The technology, economic and institutional barriers pose difficult
challenges. The “critical path” barriers to a hydrogen economy are:

Technology Barriers
• Hydrogen storage systems for vehicles are inadequate to meet
customer driving range expectations (>300 miles) without
intrusion into vehicle cargo or passenger space.
“Government coordination of • Hydrogen is currently three to four times as expensive as
this huge undertaking will help gasoline.
resolve one of the difficulties • Fuel cells are about five times more expensive than internal
associated with the development combustion engines and do not maintain performance over the
of a commercially viable hydrogen full useful life of the vehicle.
fuel-cell vehicle:…
Economic and Institutional Barriers
Which comes first, the
vehicle or the infrastructure • Investment risk of developing a hydrogen delivery
of manufacturing plants, infrastructure is too great given technology status and current
distribution and storage hydrogen vehicle demand.
• Uniform model codes and standards to ensure safety,
networks, and the convenient
insurability and fair global competition are lacking.
service stations needed to support
• Local code officials, policy makers and the general public lack
it?…[The Department will work education on hydrogen benefits and on safe handling and use.
with all stakeholders] to
develop both the vehicle and Defining Success and Measuring Progress
the infrastructure in parallel— Success for the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure
and by so doing, advance a Technologies Program is defined as validation, by 2015, of
commercialization decision by 15 technology for:
years, from 2030 to 2015.”
• Hydrogen storage systems enabling greater than 300-mile
— Energy Secretary Abraham vehicle range while meeting identified packaging, cost and
2004 DOE Budget Submission performance requirements
February 3, 2003 • Hydrogen production from diverse pathways to safely and
efficiently deliver hydrogen to consumers at competitive costs
with gasoline without adverse environmental impacts
• Fuel cells to enable engine costs of less than $50/kW (in
high volume production) and stationary power production
at $400-700/kW while meeting performance and durability
requirements

If these indicators are met, there is a high probability of success

that customer requirements can be met, and that industry will

ii Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Executive Summary

begin to realize a business case for proceeding with a positive

commercialization decision regarding hydrogen infrastructure
and fuel cell vehicles. While the full extent of life-cycle cost
and energy and environmental impacts will not be achieved for
decades, a positive commercialization decision in 2015 will begin
to yield national benefits as early as 2025.

To assist in measuring interim progress towards the 2015

commercialization decision, the following program objectives
have been established with industry input. Key milestones will be
monitored by the Office of Management and Budget within the
Executive Office of the President:

Hydrogen Production
• Reduce the cost of distributed production of hydrogen from
natural gas to $1.50/gge1 (delivered, untaxed) at the pump
(without carbon sequestration) by 2010 and reduce the cost
of distributed hydrogen production from biomass-derived
renewable liquids to $2.50/gge (delivered, untaxed) at the
pump by 2015.
• Verify grid-connected distributed water electrolysis at a
projected delivered hydrogen cost of $2.85/gge by 2010, and
by 2015, verify central hydrogen production from renewable
energy sources at a projected cost of $2.75/gge delivered.
• Reduce the cost of hydrogen produced from biomass to
$1.60/gge at the plant gate ($2.60 delivered) by 2015.
• Develop advanced renewable photoelectrochemical and
biological hydrogen generation technologies. By 2015, verify
the feasibility of these technologies to be cost-competitive in
the long term.
• Research and develop high-temperature thermochemical cycles “There are two paths we need to
driven by concentrated solar power processes to produce follow: research and development,
hydrogen with a projected cost of $3.00/gge at the plant gate and public outreach to capture the
($4.00 delivered) by 2015. imagination of the American people.
Hydrogen Delivery
This will be a long journey and
process, and the Department of
• By 2010, develop technologies to reduce the cost of hydrogen
Energy will work with you as we
delivery from central and semi-central production facilities to
the gate of refueling stations and other end users to <$0.90/gge move forward.”
of hydrogen and to reduce the cost of compression, storage
David Garman, Assistant Secretary for
and dispensing at refueling stations and stationary power
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
facilities to <$0.80/gge of hydrogen. National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap
• Develop enabling technologies to reduce the cost of hydrogen Workshop
delivery from the point of production to the point of use in April 2-3, 2002
vehicles or stationary power units to <$1.00/gge of hydrogen
by 2015.

1
Currently under evaluation. One gallon of gasoline is approximately equal to one
kilogram of hydrogen on an energy basis.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan iii

 Executive Summary

Hydrogen Storage
• By 2010, develop and verify on-board hydrogen storage
systems achieving 2 kWh/kg (6 wt%), 1.5 kWh/L, and $4/kWh.
“As we go forward into the By 2015, 3 kWh/kg (9 wt%), 2.7 kWh/L, and $2/kWh.
21st century, we will see a huge
Fuel Cells
explosion in demand for energy,
• Develop a 60% peak-efficient, durable, direct hydrogen fuel
both here at home and around
cell power system for transportation at a cost of $45/kW by
the globe, especially the devel- 2010 and $30/kW by 2015.
oping world. Failing to meet that • Develop a distributed generation polymer electrolyte
demand threatens our nation’s membrane (PEM) fuel cell system operating on natural gas or
energy and economic security. liquid petroleum gas that achieves 40% electrical efficiency
and 40,000 hours durability at $400-$750/kW by 2010.
The United States today obtains
54 percent of its oil from foreign Technology Validation
sources. That dependency is pro- • By 2009, validate hydrogen vehicles that have greater than
jected to grow to 68 percent by 250-mile range and 2,000-hour fuel cell durability, with
2025.” hydrogen infrastructure that results in a hydrogen production
cost of less than $3.00/gge (untaxed); by 2015, vehicles that
Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy have 300+ mile range and 5,000 hours fuel cell durability, with
14th National Hydrogen Association a hydrogen production cost of $1.50/gge (untaxed).
Annual Conference • Validate an electrolyzer that is powered by a wind turbine
March 5, 2003 at a capital cost of the electrolyzer of $400/kWe and 65%
efficiency, including compression to 5,000 psi, when built in
quantities of 1,000 by 2008.
• Validate an integrated biomass/wind or geothermal electrolyzer
system to produce hydrogen for $2.85/gge at the plant gate
(untaxed) by 2011.

Codes and Standards

• By 2006, complete research and development on hydrogen
release scenarios, providing a sound basis for model code
development and adoption.
• Support and facilitate the drafting and adoption of model
building codes for hydrogen applications by the National Fire
Protection Association and the ICC by 2007.
• Support and facilitate the completion of the ISO standards for
hydrogen refueling and on-board storage by 2007.
• Support and facilitate development of Global Technical
Regulations (GTR) for hydrogen vehicle systems by 2010.
• By 2015, ensure necessary codes and standards are completed
that support the commercialization of hydrogen technologies.

iv Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Executive Summary

Safety
• In collaboration with industry, develop a comprehensive
hydrogen safety plan by 2005 that establishes Program safety
policy and guidelines.
• Integrate safety procedures into new DOE project-funding
procurements to ensure that all projects incorporate hydrogen
safety requirements.
• Publish a handbook of “Best Management Practices for Safety”
by 2007.
• Continuously develop supporting research and development
program to provide critical hydrogen behavior data and
hydrogen sensor and leak detection technologies to support the
establishment of building codes.
• Continuously promote widespread sharing of safety-related
information, procedures and lessons-learned to first responders,
jurisdictional authorities and other stakeholders.

Education
• By 2010, achieve a fourfold increase (from 2004 baseline)
Educating consumers, industry
in the number of state and local government representatives,
students and teachers, and a twofold increase in the number of leaders, and public policy makers
large-scale end users who understand the concept of a hydrogen
economy, and how it may affect them.
about the benefits of hydrogen is
• Launch a comprehensive and coordinated public education critical to achieving the vision.
campaign about the hydrogen economy and fuel cell
technology by 2010.

Systems Analysis
• Through analysis, support the integration of the Program
within a balanced, overall DOE national energy R&D effort
addressing the role of hydrogen in context of the overall energy
infrastructure.
• By 2007, identify and evaluate transition scenarios consistent
with developing infrastructure and hydrogen resources,
including an assessment of timing and sequencing issues.
• Provide and/or coordinate appropriate and timely analysis of
environmental and technoeconomic issues to support decision-
making tied to Program schedules, targets and milestones.
• By 2008, develop a macro-system model of the hydrogen
fuel infrastructure to support transportation systems. By
2010, enhance the model to include the stationary electrical
generation and infrastructure for a full hydrogen economy.
• Support a spectrum of analyses, including financial and
environmental assessments, across and within Program
elements—from individual unit/subsystem elements to a fully
integrated system and infrastructure.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan v

 Executive Summary

Systems Integration
• By 2005, establish an integrated technical and programmatic
baseline, and maintain and utilize the baseline to support
“It is important that all aspects of programmatic decisions and ensure research and development
the various conceivable hydrogen directions satisfy needs.
system pathways be adequately • Verify that the system being developed satisfies the Program
modeled to understand the requirements, projects are meeting performance and
complex interactions between milestone objectives, and progress toward technical targets is
components, system costs, substantiated.
environmental impacts of • Provide analyses and recommend DOE-sponsored activities
individual components and the to enable the commercial sector to deploy a well-integrated
system as a whole, societal impacts hydrogen system that satisfies needs while continually
monitoring system performance to identify potential
(e.g., offsets of imported oil per
improvements.
year), and possible system trade-
offs.” Tracking Progress and Achieving Success
–National Academies’ Committee on Putting it all together is the ultimate challenge. To achieve the
Alternatives and Strategies for Future goal of commercially-viable hydrogen and fuel cell systems in the
Hydrogen Production and Use, 2015 timeframe:
April 2003 Letter Report
• R&D efforts must be focused on the most promising
technologies
• Customer requirements must be validated in a fully-integrated
operating system

DOE has identified the key Program milestones necessary to

meet these technical targets (see Appendix B). These milestones
support the critical path technologies outlined by DOE. Each of
the timelines specify a delivery date for the given technology
development, improvement or demonstration. As technologies
evolve and economic and systems analyses data become
available, these targets will be refined.

The Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies

Program is emphasizing a results-driven management approach,
in accordance with the principles laid out in the President’s
Management Agenda, to ensure that efforts are continually
refocused on technologies that are most likely to achieve the goals
of the Program. The technical targets provide clear quantifiable
measures, which can be used to track progress and to show the
return on investment of taxpayer dollars. Periodic milestones and
Go/No-Go decision points ensure that performance is linked to
budget and that funds will be used only for the most promising
technology approaches as performance goals are being met along
the way. The technological advancements in each Program
element and lessons learned from successful demonstrations of
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies must be integrated to work
together as a fully functional system.

vi Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Executive Summary

As we look to the future, hydrogen and fuel cell technologies

appear to be viable in meeting the long-term energy needs of
the nation. The DOE is building partnerships with universities,
national laboratories, industry and the international community to
speed up the development of hydrogen technologies. Together,
we will realize our vision of a hydrogen energy future.

“The effective management of the

Department of Energy hydrogen
program will be far more
challenging than any activity
previously undertaken on the
civilian energy side of the DOE.”
– National Academies’ Report,
“The Hydrogen Economy:
Opportunities, Costs, Barriers,
and R&D Needs”
February 2004

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan vii

 Executive Summary

viii Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Executive Summary i
Table of Contents ix
Acronyms xiii
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Scope of Multi-Year RD&D Plan 1-2
1.2 Background 1-2
1.3 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program 1-5
1.4 National Academies’ Hydrogen Economy Report 1-10
1.5 Coordination with Others 1-11

2.0 Program Benefits 2-1

2.1 Energy Security 2-1
2.2 Environmental Benefits 2-4
2.3 Economic Competitiveness 2-6
2.4 Potential Impact of Fuel Cell Vehicle Introduction 2-6
2.5 Realizing the Benefits 2-10

3.0 Technical Plan 3-1

3.1 Hydrogen Production 3-3
3.1.1 Technical Goal and Objectives 3-3
3.1.2 Technical Approach 3-3
3.1.3 Programmatic Status 3-5
3.1.4 Technical Challenges 3-8
3.1.4.1 Technical Targets 3-9
3.1.4.2 Barriers 3-19
3.1.4.2.1 Distributed Hydrogen Production from Natural Gas
or Renewable Liquid Feedstocks 3-19
3.1.4.2.2 Hydrogen Generation by Water Electrolysis 3-19
3.1.4.2.3 Separations and Other Cross-Cutting Hydrogen Production 3-20
3.1.4.2.4 Biomass Gasification/Pyrolysis Hydrogen Production 3-22
3.1.4.2.5 Biological Hydrogen Production 3-22
3.1.4.2.6 Photoelectrochemical Hydrogen Production 3-25
3.1.4.2.7 High-Temperature Thermochemical, Solar-Driven Production
of Hydrogen 3-26
3.1.5 Technical Task Descriptions 3-27
3.1.6 Milestones 3-30

3.2 Hydrogen Delivery 3-37

3.2.1 Technical Goal and Objectives 3-37
3.2.2 Technical Approach 3-37
3.2.3 Programmatic Status 3-41
3.2.4 Technical Challenges 3-43

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan ix

 Table of Contents

3.2.4.1 Technical Targets 3-44

3.2.4.2 Barriers 3-46
3.2.5 Technical Task Descriptions 3-48
3.2.6 Milestones 3-50

3.3 Hydrogen Storage 3-55

3.3.1 Technical Goal and Objectives 3-55
3.3.2 Technical Approach 3-55
3.3.3 Programmatic Status 3-56
3.3.4 Technical Challenges 3-59
3.3.4.1 Technical Targets 3-59
3.3.4.2 On-Board Hydrogen Storage Technical Barriers 3-62
3.3.5 Technical Task Descriptions 3-64
3.3.6 Milestones 3-65

3.4 Fuel Cells 3-69

3.4.1 Technical Goal and Objectives 3-69
3.4.2 Technical Approach 3-69
3.4.3 Programmatic Status 3-71
3.4.4 Technical Challenges 3-74
3.4.4.1 Technical Targets 3-75
3.4.4.2 Barriers 3-90
3.4.5 Technical Task Descriptions 3-92
3.4.6 Milestones 3-96

3.5 Technology Validation 3-101

3.5.1 Technical Goal and Objectives 3-101
3.5.2 Technical Approach 3-101
3.5.3 Programmatic Status 3-104
3.5.4 Technical Challenges 3-106
3.5.4.1 Technical Targets 3-106
3.5.4.2 Barriers 3-107
3.5.5 Technical Task Descriptions 3-108
3.5.6 Milestones 3-110

3.6 Hydrogen Codes and Standards 3-115

3.6.1 Goal and Objectives 3-115
3.6.2 Technical Approach 3-116
3.6.3 Programmatic Status 3-120
3.6.4 Challenges 3-125
3.6.4.1 Targets 3-126
3.6.4.2 Barriers 3-127
3.6.5 Task Descriptions 3-128
3.6.6 Milestones 3-128

3.7 Hydrogen Safety 3-133

3.7.1 Goal and Objectives 3-133
3.7.2 Approach 3-134

x Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Table of Contents

3.7.3 Status 3-135

3.7.4 Challenges 3-136
3.7.4.1 Targets 3-137
3.7.4.2 Barriers 3-137
3.7.5 Task Descriptions 3-138
3.7.6 Milestones 3-139

3.8 Education – Deferred 3-143

3.8.1 Goal and Objectives 3-144
3.8.2 Approach 3-144
3.8.3 Programmatic Status 3-146
3.8.4 Challenges 3-149
3.8.4.1 Barriers 3-150
3.8.5 Task Descriptions 3-150
3.8.6 Milestones 3-153

4.0 Systems Analysis 4-1

4.1 Technical Goal and Objectives 4-1
4.2 Technical Approach 4-2
4.2.1 Systems Analysis Framework 4-2
4.2.2 Analysis Studies/Tasks 4-3
4.3 Analysis-Specific Roles and Responsibilities 4-4
4.4 Programmatic Status 4-4
4.5 Technical Challenges 4-6
4.6 Target Setting Process 4-6
4.7 Technical Task Descriptions 4-7
4.8 Milestones 4-8

5.0 Systems Integration 5-1

5.1 Technical Goal and Objectives 5-1
5.2 Technical Approach 5-1
5.3 Programmatic Status 5-5
5.4 Technical Challenges 5-5
5.4.1 Expected Outcomes 5-6
5.5 Technical Task Descriptions 5-7
5.6 Milestones 5-7

6.0 Program Management and Operations 6-1

6.1 Program Organization 6-1
6.2 Program Management Approach 6-5
6.3 Program Elements 6-7
6.4 Program Implementation 6-8
6.5 Decision Making 6-8
6.6 Program Schedule 6-9
6.7 Program Control 6-9

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan xi

 Table of Contents

Appendices
Appendix A – Budgetary Information A–1
Appendix B – Milestones B–1
Appendix C – Benefits Assumptions C–1
Appendix D – 2003 DOE Hydrogen, Fuel Cells, & Infrastructure Technologies
Program Review Meeting (Project Evaluation Form) D–1
Appendix E – H2A Analysis Model E–1

xii Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Acronyms

Acronyms, Abbreviations and Formulas

ANL Argonne National Laboratory

ANSI American National Standards Institute

APCI Air Products and Chemical, Inc.

APU Auxiliary power unit

ASHRAEW American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

atm Atmosphere

BOCA Building Officials and Code Administrators International

Btu British thermal unit

ºC Degrees Celsius

CaFCP California Fuel Cell Partnership

CGA Compressed Gas Association

CH4 Methane

Chl Chlorophyll

CHP Combined heat and power

cm2 Square centimeter

CO Carbon monoxide

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CSA Canadian Standards Association International of America

CY Calendar year

dB Decibel

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan xiii

 Acronyms

dB(A) Decibel ampere

DC Direct current

DFMA Design for Manufacture and Assembly

DG Distributed Generation

DMFC Direct methanol fuel cell

DOC U.S. Department of Commerce

DOD U.S. Department of Defense

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

ECE WP29 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Working Party 29

EERE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

EIHP European Integrated Hydrogen Project

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPAct Energy Policy Act

ºF Degrees Fahrenheit

FC Fuel cell

FE Fossil Energy

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program

FMEA Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

ft2 Square foot

FY Fiscal year

g Gram

xiv Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Acronyms

gal Gallon

GATE Graduate Automotive Technology Education (a DOE program)

GDL Gas diffusion layer

gge Gallon of gasoline equivalent

GHG Greenhouse gas

GRPE Global Technical Regulations on Pollution and Energy

GTR Global Technical Regulations

HAMMER Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response

H2 Molecular hydrogen

H2O Water

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide

HCG Hydrogen Coordinating Group

HDV Heavy duty vehicle

HHV Higher heating value

HQ Headquarters

hr Hour

HTAP Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel

HTM High temperature membrane

HVAC Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning

IAPMO International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials

IB Integrated Baseline

ICBO International Conference of Building Officials

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan xv

 Acronyms

ICC International Code Council, Inc.

ICE Internal combustion engine

IEC International Electrotechnical Commission

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

IL Illinois

in2 Square inch

IPHE International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy

IRR Internal rate of return

ISO International Organization for Standardization

K-12 Kindergarten through twelfth grade

kg Kilogram

kW kilowatt

kWe Kilowatt-electric

kWh Kilowatt-hour

L Liter

lb Pound

LDV Light duty vehicle

LHV Lower heating value

LPG Liquefied petroleum gas

mA Milliampere

MEA Membrane electrode assembly

min Minute

xvi Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Acronyms

MJ Megajoule

μm Micron

MMBtu Million British thermal unit

mmb Million Barrels

MMTCE Million tons carbon equivalent

msec millisecond

MSM Macro-System Model

mV Millivolt

N2 Molecular Nitrogen

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NE Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology

NEP National Energy Policy

NETL National Energy Technology Laboratory

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

NGI Natural Gas Institute

NH3 Ammonia

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NMHC Non-methane hydrocarbon

NOx Oxides of nitrogen

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NSF National Science Foundation

O&M Operation and maintenance

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan xvii

 Acronyms

O2 Molecular oxygen

OEM Original equipment manufacturer

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Pa Pascal

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool

PB Programmatic Baseline

PBA Planning, Budget and Analysis

PEM Proton exchange membrane; polymer electrolyte membrane

PEMFC Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell

PM Particulate matter

PNGV Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles – former partnership between the DOE
and USCAR, replaced by FreedomCAR
ppb Parts per billion

ppm Parts per million

PSA Pressure swing adsorption

psi Pounds per square inch

psig Pounds per square inch gauge

Pt Platinum

Q Quarter

R&D Research and development

RD&D Research, development, and demonstration

xviii Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Acronyms

RH Relative humidity

s Second

S Siemens

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SBCCI Southern Building Code Congress International

Sc Science

Scc Standard cubic centimeter

scf Standard cubic feet

scfh Standard cubic feet per hour

SDO Standards development organization

sec Second

SECA Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (a program of the DOE Office of Fossil
Energy)
SMS Strategic Management System

SO2 Sulfur dioxide

SOFC Solid oxide fuel cell

SOP Standard operating procedures

SOx Oxides of sulfur

SwRI Southwest Research Institute

TAG Technical Advisory Group

TB Technical Baseline

TBD To be determined

TC Technical committee

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan xix

 Acronyms

U.S. United States

UC Berkeley University of California at Berkeley

UL Underwriters Laboratories

USCAR U.S. Council for Automotive Research, and organization founded by Ford, General
Motors, and DaimlerChrysler to manage collaboration on pre-competitive research
V Volt

vol Volume

W Watt

WFCA Western Fire Chiefs Association

wt Weight

xx Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Introduction

1.0 Introduction
Today, after decades of dependence on imported petroleum
to fuel the United States’ transportation sector, our nation has
a new vision for our future– a form of domestically-derived,
clean energy to power not only our vehicles but our industries,
buildings and homes. This form of energy for the future is
hydrogen.

President Bush is providing the leadership to help make this

vision a reality. In his 2003 State of the Union address, the
President proposed the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to reverse
America’s growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the
technology needed for commercially viable hydrogen-powered
fuel cells (see back cover). Through this initiative, President Bush
has committed $1.2 billion for the first five years (FY2004-2008)
of a long-term research and development effort for hydrogen
infrastructure and polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cell
technologies. This commitment is $1.7 billion over five years
when hybrid vehicle technologies are included.

The Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency

and Renewable Energy’s (EERE’s) Hydrogen, Fuel Cells &
Infrastructure Technologies Program is implementing the
technology development efforts needed to realize the vision of a
hydrogen economy. This Multi-Year Research, Development and
Demonstration (RD&D) Plan, covering the period 2003 through
2010, provides a description of the activities that the Hydrogen, Vision for the Hydrogen
Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program will undertake Economy
to implement the first years of the President’s Initiative. The Plan
addresses technologies for hydrogen production, delivery, storage Hydrogen is America’s clean energy
and infrastructure, and fuel cells for transportation and stationary choice. Hydrogen is flexible,
applications. As detailed in this Plan, the nation’s resources will
be applied to these RD&D activities, and government resources affordable, safe, domestically
will be fully leveraged through partnerships with industry as produced, used in all sectors of
we move toward a hydrogen future. The planned Program is
the economy and in all regions
designed to bring technologies to a point where the private sector
can make their business decisions on commercializing hydrogen of the country.
infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles by 2015.

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership

In January 2002, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham
established the FreedomCAR Partnership as a research and
development partnership between the Department of Energy
and the U.S. Council for Automotive Research (USCAR - a
partnership between Ford Motor Company, DaimlerChrysler
Corporation, and General Motors Corporation). In September

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 1- 1

 Introduction

2003, the Partnership was expanded to the FreedomCAR and

Fuel Partnership by bringing the major energy companies (BP
America, ChevronTexaco Corporation, ConocoPhillips, Exxon/
“The NEPD Group Mobil Corporation and Shell Hydrogen) to the table.
recommends that the President
direct the Secretary of Energy to The Partnership examines the pre-competitive, high-risk research
develop next-generation needed to develop the vehicle and infrastructure technologies
technology-including hydrogen to enable a full range of affordable cars and light trucks. These
and fusion.” technologies will reduce the dependence of the nation’s personal
transportation system on imported oil and minimize harmful
vehicle emissions, without sacrificing freedom of mobility and
freedom of vehicle choice.

The “Freedom” principle is framed by:

• Freedom from dependence on imported oil
• Freedom from pollutant emissions
• Freedom for Americans to choose the kind of vehicle they
want to drive, and to drive where they want, when they want
• Freedom to obtain fuel affordably and conveniently

1.1 Scope of Multi-Year RD&D Plan

This Multi-Year RD&D Plan details near-term tasks and
milestones, and thus, represents a snapshot in time of DOE’s
Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program,
which is focused on longer-range objectives. Planned activities
“This Roadmap provides a are focused on technologies for hydrogen production, delivery,
and storage; fuel cells for transportation and stationary
blueprint for the coordinated,
applications; technology validation; codes and standards; safety;
long-term, public and private education; systems analysis; and systems integration. For each
efforts required for hydrogen of these Program elements, goals, objectives and technical
energy development.” targets are identified through 2015, and milestones and schedules
are identified for the years 2003 through 2010. While the
government’s role is key to advancing hydrogen and fuel cell
research and technologies in the early stages of development,
once the technical targets are validated in a systems context,
government’s role ends and industry takes over commercialization
of the technologies. To keep moving efficiently toward the goal
of commercialization, the Plan will be updated periodically to
reflect advances in technology, changes to and within the system,
and policy decisions.

1.2 Background
The Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program
Multi-Year RD&D Plan describes the details of the technology
development, requirements, and schedule in support of the
National Energy Policy, the National Hydrogen Energy Vision

page 1- 2 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Introduction

and Roadmap, DOE Strategic Plans, DOE Hydrogen Posture

Plan, and the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Plan.

National Energy Policy

The Administration’s National Energy Policy, released in May
2001, outlines a long-term strategy for developing and using
leading-edge technology within the context of an integrated
national energy, environmental, and economic policy. It
specifically highlighted the potential of hydrogen with the
following recommendations:
• Focus research and development efforts on integrating current
programs regarding hydrogen, fuel cells and distributed
energy.
• Develop an education campaign that communicates the
benefits of alternative forms of energy, including hydrogen.

In addition, the administration is recommending and

implementing a number of actions that could help reduce our
nation’s dependence upon imported petroleum in the near term as
hydrogen energy technologies are developed for the long term.
Among these actions are:
• Promote energy efficiency through research and development
of technologies to improve fuel economy (i.e., advanced
gasoline/diesel hybrid technology development under the
Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies).
• Reduce petroleum demand by reducing fuel consumption of
long-haul trucks by implementing alternatives to idling when
parked.

National Hydrogen Energy Vision and Roadmap

In response to recommendations within the National Energy
Policy, in November 2001, DOE organized a meeting of 50
visionary business leaders and policy makers to formulate a
National Hydrogen Vision. A National Vision of America’s
Transition to a Hydrogen Economy—to 2030 and Beyond
was published in February 2002 as a result of the Hydrogen
Vision Meeting. This document summarizes the potential role
for hydrogen systems in America’s energy future, outlining the
common vision of the hydrogen economy.
The mission of the Hydrogen, Fuel
In April 2002, DOE followed up with a larger group of over Cells & Infrastructure Technologies
200 technical experts from industry, academia, and the national Program is to research, develop,
laboratories to develop a National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap. and validate fuel cell and hydrogen
This roadmap, released in November 2002, describes the principal
challenges to be overcome and recommends paths forward to production, delivery, and storage
achieve our National Vision. technologies for transportation and
stationary applications.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 1- 3

 Introduction

DOE Strategic Planning

Building on the recommendations of the National Energy Policy
and the National Hydrogen Energy Vision and Roadmap, DOE’s
and EERE’s strategic plans provide the broad direction under
which this Multi-Year RD&D Plan was formulated.

A strategic goal in the Department of Energy’s Strategic Plan

is to protect our national and economic security by promoting
a diverse supply and delivery of reliable, affordable and
environmentally sound energy. Development of hydrogen and
fuel cell technologies is identified as a key strategy in attaining
this strategic goal.

EERE’s Strategic Plan (2002) supports DOE’s Strategic Plan.

EERE’s Plan describes its response to Secretary Abraham’s
challenge to “leapfrog the status quo” and to pursue “dramatic
environmental benefits” in its approach to energy efficiency and
renewable energy technologies. Four goals that are specified
in EERE’s Strategic Plan and are particularly relevant to the
Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program are:
• Dramatically reduce dependence on foreign oil
• Promote the use of diverse, domestic and sustainable energy
resources
• Reduce carbon emissions from energy production and
consumption
• Increase the reliability and efficiency of electricity generation

In March 2004, DOE published its Hydrogen Posture Plan,

which describes DOE’s “plan for successfully integrating
and implementing technology research, development and
demonstration activities needed to cost-effectively produce, store
and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity
generation.” Research, development and demonstration efforts
across the DOE Offices of EERE; Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology; Fossil Energy; and Science are described and are
“This project supports consistent with the recommendations in the National Hydrogen
Energy Roadmap. The DOE Posture Plan became the key
FreedomCAR by providing the
supporting document used to launch the President’s Hydrogen
means for learning about hydro- Fuel Initiative.
gen infrastructure technologies
necessary for clean energy-effi- Another document that provides a framework for this Multi-Year
cient vehicles.” RD&D Plan is DOE’s Fuel Cell Report to Congress (February
2003). This report summarizes the technical and economic
David K. Garman barriers to the use of fuel cells in transportation, portable power,
Opening of the world’s first energy stationary and distributed power generation applications, and
station featuring hydrogen and provides a preliminary assessment of the need for public-private
electricity coproduction in
Las Vegas, Nevada
cooperative programs to demonstrate the use of fuel cells in
November 15, 2002

page 1- 4 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Introduction

Figure 1.1. The Multi-Year RD&D plan is built upon several predecessor planning
documents and is integrated with other DOE office plans.

commercial-scale applications by 2015. Specifically, the report

recommends adjusting federally-sponsored programs to:
• Focus on advanced materials, manufacturing techniques and
other advancements that will lower costs, increase life and
improve reliability of fuel cell systems
• Increase emphasis on hydrogen production and delivery
infrastructure, storage, codes and standards development, and
education
• Develop public-private learning demonstrations, namely,
a transportation and infrastructure partnership, as an
integrated means to addressing commercialization barriers by
collaboration between energy and auto industries

1.3 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure

Technologies Program
The EERE Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies
Program is the lead for directing and integrating R&D activities
in hydrogen production, storage, delivery and end use for
transportation and stationary applications.

This Program responds to recommendations in the President’s

National Energy Policy, the National Hydrogen Energy Vision
and Roadmap, and DOE Strategic Plans. The Program works in
partnership with industry, academia and national laboratories,

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 1- 5

 Introduction

and in close coordination with the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program and other DOE Programs to
achieve the four EERE strategic goals that were cited previously.

The four EERE strategic goals can be realized with a domestic hydrogen energy system, and are consistent with
broader DOE policy goals. As illustrated in Figure 1.2, hydrogen can be produced from a diverse set of domestic
resources including fossil, nuclear and renewable resources, helping to attain the first three strategic goals. High
efficiency and low emissions through use of fuel cells in both transportation and distributed electric power
generation help attain the last two strategic goals.

Figure 1.2. A domestic hydrogen energy system will help DOE’s EERE meet four strategic
goals.
Biomass
Geothermal Transportation
Hydro
Wind
Solar High Efficiency

H2
Nuclear
With Carbon Sequestration

Oil
Distributed
Coal Zero/Near Zero Generation
Emmissions
Natural
Gas

Program Elements
The Program conducts its research, development and validation activities through key Program components. The
detailed technical targets and milestones that have been identified for each element are identified in this RD&D
Plan.

Figure 1.3. The Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program is conducted
through interrelated elements.

Education
Codes & Standards
Safety
Systems Integration/Analyses

DELIVERY

PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
FUEL CELLS
VALIDATION
Economy
STORAGE

Research & Development

page 1- 6 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Introduction

Table 1.1 The Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program Elements

Production Production of hydrogen from domestic resources minimizing environmental impacts

Distribution, storage and dispensing of hydrogen from centralized or within distributed

Delivery sites of production

Storage Storage of hydrogen (or its precursors) on vehicles or within the distribution system

Conversion of hydrogen to electricity or heat; use of hydrogen to power vehicles

Fuel Cells (primary propulsion), for auxiliary power units for vehicles, and stationary and portable
applications

Technical validation of system performance, durability and availability in real-world

Technology Validation environments

Safety Safety assurance in DOE-sponsored R&D activities and in the marketplace

Research to enable development of model codes and standards for domestic and
Codes and Standards international production, distribution, storage and utilization of hydrogen

Education of key target audiences—including teachers and students, state and local
Education governments, safety and code officials, large-scale end users and the public—about the
hydrogen economy and how it can affect them

Analysis of existing and emerging technologies for their ability to meet the needs of the
Systems Analysis future hydrogen economy, providing direction, focus and support to the development and
introduction of hydrogen production, storage and end-use technologies

Establishment of a disciplined approach that ensures program requirements are

identified, met and validated in the context of dynamic commercial market requirements,
Systems Integration while minimizing the impact on cost and schedule of unanticipated events and
interactions.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 1- 7

 Introduction

Government and Industry Roles in Developing Hydrogen

Technologies
The Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program
funds research, development and validation activities linked to
public-private partnerships. The government’s current role is to
concentrate its funding on high-risk, pre-competitive research in
the early phases of development. As activities progress through
the stages of developing technology to validating technical targets,
the government’s cost share will diminish. The government’s role
as co-funder will bring technologies to the point where the private
sector can make informed decisions on whether or not, and how
best to commercialize technologies.

The timeframe to attain self-reliance in meeting our nation’s

energy needs will be long and will require substantial investment.
In the next two decades, conservation and increased efficiency
through the use of gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles are the best
options for reducing oil use and emissions. Ultimately, though,
fuel substitution will be required to achieve energy independence
while minimizing environmental impacts. DOE envisions four
phases in the transition to a hydrogen economy, each of which
requires and builds on the success of its predecessor. The bulk of
the work for each phase will take place in the timeframe indicated
in Figure 1.4; in addition, the work in progress will continue on as
the next phase begins. The transition to a hydrogen economy will
take several decades, and this transition will require strong public
and private partnerships, commitment and resolve.
Figure 1.4. Hydrogen Economy Timeline
1. Technology Development Phase
Strong Government Strong Industry Research to meet customer
R&D Role Commercialization Role requirements and establish business
case lead to a commercialization
decision
Phase
RD&D 1 2. Initial Market Penetration Phase
I
Commercialization Decision Portable power and stationary/
transport systems begin
commercialization; infrastructure
Phase Transition to the Marketplace 2 investment begins with government
II policies

3. Infrastructure Investment Phase

Phase H2 power and transport systems
Expansion of Markets & Infrastructure 3 commercially available; infrastructure
III
business case realized

4. Fully Developed Market and Infra-

Phase structure Phase
Realization of the Hydrogen Economy 4
IV H2 power and transport systems
commercially available in all regions;
national infrastructure
2000

2010

2020

2030

2040

page 1- 8 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Introduction

In Phase I, government and private organizations will research,

develop and demonstrate “critical path” technologies and work
to establish comprehensive safety guidelines and codes and
standards prior to investing heavily in infrastructure. This
phase is now underway, and it will enable industry to make
decisions on commercialization by 2015. Following a positive
commercialization decision, research will continue on advanced
hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. Throughout the RD&D
phase, exploratory research in materials sciences and engineering, “And despite the progress of
chemistry, geosciences and molecular biosciences, will be carried recent decades, we must further
out in close collaboration with the DOE Office of Science and address the environmental
other federal agencies. concerns surrounding the
production and use of energy,
Phase II is the Initial Market Penetration Phase. This could begin
as early as 2010 for applications such as portable power and including those related to
some stationary applications, and continue as hydrogen-related transportation, which uses more
technologies meet or exceed customer requirements. than two-thirds of the 20 million
barrels of oil Americans consume
As these markets become established, government can foster
each day. “
their further growth by playing the role of “early adopter,” and
by creating policies that stimulate the markets. This leads to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham
Phase III, the Infrastructure Investment Phase, in which there is 14th Annual National Hydrogen
expansion of markets and infrastructure. The start of Phase III is Association Conference
consistent with a positive commercialization decision for fuel cell March 5, 2003
vehicles in 2015. A positive decision will attract investment in
infrastructure for manufacturing fuel cells and for producing and
distributing hydrogen. Government policies still may be required
to nurture this infrastructure expansion phase.

Phase IV, which could begin around 2025, is the Fully Developed
Market and Infrastructure Phase. In this phase, national benefits
in terms of energy security and improved environmental quality
will be achieved, and industry will receive adequate return
on investment and compete globally. Phase IV provides the
transition to a full hydrogen economy by 2040.

Phase I will not abruptly end if industry makes a positive

commercialization decision in 2015. Just as DOE still conducts
research and explores the underlying science for internal
combustion engines today, DOE will continue to research
hydrogen technologies in the future, as indicated by the dotted
lines in Figure 1.4. This research will be more fundamental in
nature, and will be focused more on long-term pathways, such as
photolytic production of hydrogen.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 1- 9

 Introduction

1.4 National Academies’ Hydrogen

Economy Report
The Department of Energy commissioned the National Academies
to review the June 2003 draft RD&D Plan. Almost all of the
recommendations have been or are being incorporated into the
“A transition to hydrogen as Program. Some of the significant changes are:
a major fuel in the next 50 • Recommendation: Establish a comprehensive systems analysis
years could fundamentally capability to drive technology development decisions relevant
transform the U.S. energy to energy, environmental and economic criteria. Action: A new
system, creating opportunities Technology Analyst position has been established to build up
to increase energy security and manage DOE’s capability in this area.
through the use of a variety • Recommendation: Establish an independent systems
integration effort to ensure that the various Program elements
of domestic energy sources
(i.e., production, delivery, storage, etc.) fit together seamlessly.
for hydrogen production Action: To help address the complex management challenges,
while reducing environmental DOE asked the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to
impacts, including establish a small group of engineers (who are “firewalled”
atmospheric CO2 emissions from the research organizations) to assist the program in
and criteria pollutants.” developing an integrated baseline (see Systems Integration
section); controlling technical requirements, cost and schedule;
– National Academies’ Report, “The and helping manage risks. A new Chief Engineer position has
Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, been established to oversee these critical program management
Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs”
February 2004
functions as well as to improve integration with other agencies
and other DOE offices involved in hydrogen development.
• Recommendation: Increase emphasis on hydrogen safety to
understand how hydrogen systems must be designed, built and
operated differently than today’s vehicles and infrastructure.
Action: A hydrogen safety expert panel has been formed to
help DOE audit safety plans and practices within the Program.
In addition, the research program to develop safety data and
information has been expanded.
• Recommendation: Engage universities to play a much bigger
role in the research program. Action: In 2004, dozens of
universities were selected to conduct hydrogen production
and storage research. This indicates the gradual shift from
hardware development to more fundamental research as the
Program succeeds in overcoming barriers and as more private
investment occurs.

Consistent with the National Academies’ findings, DOE made

a “no-go” decision on on-board fuel processing. The rationale
for this decision can be found in section 3.4. Furthermore, in
response to a National Academies’ recommendation, DOE has
established a 2010 Go/No-Go Decision for stationary PEM fuel
cell research.

page 1- 10 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Introduction

1.5 Coordination with Others

The DOE Hydrogen Program coordinates its activities with
different countries through the International Partnership for the
Hydrogen Economy (IPHE), other federal agencies across the
government by leading the Interagency Task Force on Hydrogen
R&D, and by participating in state efforts like the California
Hydrogen Highway Network and the California Fuel Cell
Partnership.

In November 2003, the United States hosted the inaugural

Ministerial meeting of IPHE – bringing together 15 countries and
the European Commission and helping to launch international
cooperation on vital hydrogen-related research activities. The
IPHE provides a mechanism to organize, evaluate and coordinate
multinational research, development and deployment programs
that advance the transition to a global hydrogen economy. The
IPHE leverages limited resources; identifies promising directions
for RD&D and commercial use; provides technical assessments
for policy decisions; prioritizes, identifies gaps and develops
common recommendations for international codes, standards
and safety protocols; and maintains communications with the
key stakeholders to foster public-private collaboration that
addresses the technological, financial and institutional barriers “Through this Partnership,
to a cost-competitive, standardized, widely accessible, safe and we have established a
environmentally-benign hydrogen economy. comprehensive framework
on which to structure global
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s hydrogen research and
(OSTP) Hydrogen R&D Interagency Task Force was established development. We can begin
in early 2003 and serves as the key mechanism for collaboration to take the concrete steps
among eight federal agencies that fund hydrogen-related R&D.
necessary to ensure that the
Co-chaired by OSTP and DOE, it also includes the Departments
scientific and technological
of Transportation, Defense, Agriculture and Commerce;
Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics and
work that is to come is best
Space Administration; National Science Foundation; and, from directed toward our ultimate
the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management goal - a secure, environmentally
and Budget, and Council on Environmental Quality. Launching friendly energy future.”
“Hydrogen.gov,” a website that will serve as a central source
– Spencer Abraham, Secretary of Energy
of information on important federal R&D activities related to
IPHE Ministerial Meeting
hydrogen and fuel cells, and completing a comprehensive 10-year November 18-21, 2003
coordination plan, including opportunities for joint solicitations,
are near-term priorities.

Additionally, the Program is closely coordinating with state

and local efforts. For example, DOE is participating on an
advisory panel for California’s Hydrogen Highway Network and
participates in the California Fuel Cell Partnership.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 1- 11

 Introduction

page 1- 12 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Benefits

2.0 Program Benefits 1

The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is designed to reverse America’s

growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the
technology for hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles and the
infrastructure to support them. This approach was chosen not
only because of the energy security benefits associated with
a transportation fuel that can be produced domestically from
a diversity of feedstocks, but also because of the potential
environmental benefits in transportation applications and
stationary markets.

2.1 Energy Security “…hydrogen can be produced from

domestic sources -- initially, natural
The U.S. currently imports more than half of its oil (compared gas; eventually, biomass, ethanol,
to only a third during the 1973 oil crisis), and imported clean coal, or nuclear energy…One of
oil is expected to increase as demand continues to rise and the greatest results of using hydrogen
domestic oil production continues to decline. In addition power, of course, will be energy inde-
to crude oil import concerns, current U.S. oil refining is at pendence for this nation…”
nearly 97% capacity, and further expansion of domestic U.S. –President George W. Bush
The National Building Museum
refining capacity is hindered due to environmental constraints February 16, 2003
(American Petroleum Institute). As a result, the growing U.S.
oil consumption beyond 2004 will be supplied primarily from
refined fuel imports versus crude oil imports (see Figure 2.1.1).

By 2025, the share of oil imports is expected to reach nearly 70% of the total oil consumed in the U.S. This
imbalance presents a major concern for our nation’s energy security. Two-thirds of the oil used in the U.S. goes
to support our transportation fleet. To significantly reduce or end our dependency on oil imports, we must make
a major change in the fuel used for the transportation sector. Even with the significant energy efficiency benefits
that gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles and diesels can provide, we ultimately must find an alternative fuel that can
be domestically produced.
Figure 2.1.1. U.S. Transportation Oil Gap

1
References for this section are listed in Appendix C.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 2- 1

 Benefits

U.S. Dependence on Foreign Crude Oil and Transportation Fuel Imports

The divergence between oil used in the transportation sector and that produced and refined domestically (see
Figure 2.1.1) is a result of a number of factors. U.S. crude production peaked in 1970, and has declined
steadily since the mid-1980s. Even the addition of oil from other domestic sources has not changed this long-
term decline in U.S. oil production. By the late-1980s, the transportation sector alone used more oil than was
produced domestically. And by the late 1990s, the growing fleet of light duty cars and trucks (pickups, SUVs,
and mini-vans) for personal transportation resulted in increased fuel use by light-duty vehicles.

The growing fuel consumption of the transportation sector not only has caused the U.S. to import more crude
oil, but has forced a transition to a refined products import position. The fuel demand has outpaced the domestic
crude oil refining capacity because of domestic refinery shutdowns, limited expansion of existing refineries and
a lack of construction of new domestic refineries (the last new domestic refinery was constructed in the 1970s).
As a result, increasing amounts of oil supplied for the U.S. transportation sector will be in the form of refined
transportation fuels.

In an effort to manage the growing fuel demand, even a 60% increase in the average fuel efficiency for light-duty
vehicles (to about 38 mpg) would not reduce the oil consumption, only slow the growth rate for a short period of
time. Continued growth in the number of vehicles and the amount of travel will overwhelm the beneficial effects
within a few years without continued vehicle fuel economy improvements. The addition of other domestic oil
resources also provides a partial solution to meeting the nation’s petroleum needs. However, the combination of
efficiency improvements and increased domestic oil production does not close the transportation oil gap, which
will widen again unless the transportation system eventually moves to a non-petroleum fuel.

From a global perspective, the finite levels of global petroleum resources further compound the energy security
issue. As shown in Figure 2.1.2, a recent U.S. Geological Survey (2000) estimates that there are 3 trillion barrels
of recoverable oil worldwide. About one-fourth has already been produced and consumed, while roughly an
equal amount has been discovered and “booked as reserves.” Thus, the remaining half of the identified global
oil resources are categorized as either reserve growth or probable, but undiscovered, resources. While data do
not suggest an imminent global oil shortage, increasing petroleum consumption does present some concerns.
World petroleum resources are finite and U.S. reserves are small compared to OPEC and the rest of the world.
Although petroleum resources are relatively abundant, the geographic distribution is uneven and distant from
most major consumers, and of particular concern, oil is concentrated in regions that have either political or
environmental sensitivities.

Figure 2.1.2. Global Distribution of Petroleum Resources

page 2- 2 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Benefits

Global Transportation Trends

The worldwide growth in transportation as countries modernize and improve economically will accelerate oil
consumption, resulting in the realization of a critical need to develop alternative energy sources. Some of the
most rapidly developing countries are also the most populous, e.g., China and India. In terms of motor vehicles
per thousand people, China is where the U.S. was in 1913 (Figure 2.1.3), and growing rapidly. During the
1990s, automobile registrations in China and India increased at an annual rate of 9.1% and 7.6%, respectively,
while the growth rates for trucks and buses were 8.8% and 8.2%, respectively. For comparison, the U.S. growth
rates for automobile registrations for the same decade declined by 0.5% while truck registrations (including
SUVs, pickups, and mini-vans) and buses increased by 4.5%.

Figure 2.1.3. Current Global Motorization Rates Compared to U.S. Historical Rates

Advanced Vehicles Technologies Comparison

Improving the nation’s energy security primarily depends on the degree that the transportation system can
improve its energy efficiency and utilize domestic non-petroleum fuels. Success in the marketplace for advanced
vehicle technologies will depend in part on the fuel economy advantages that can be achieved. Figure 2.1.4 (fuel
economy estimates from Argonne National Laboratory) illustrates that fuel cell vehicles offer advantages over
gasoline vehicles, even allowing for technological improvements in conventional powertrains.

Figure 2.1.4. Relative Fuel Economies for Advanced Vehicle Technologies

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 2- 3

 Benefits

Vehicle efficiency is not the sole measure used to compare the various technology options; upstream fuel
processing, delivery and refueling needs must also be considered. Total energy well-to-wheels (WTW) cycle
analysis is used to make informed decisions when comparing technology choices or applications within a given
feedstock. The well-to-wheels analysis tells a complete energy story for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as well as
for alternative powertrains when different feedstocks are compared.

Figure 2.1.5 presents the full WTW energy use per mile of future light-duty vehicles using several prominent
powertrain/fuel options. This figure shows that even with fuel production factored in, a fuel cell vehicle powered
by hydrogen from natural gas offers improved efficiency over conventional gasoline-hybrid options. In addition,
the fuel cell vehicle powered by hydrogen from renewable electrolysis offers improved efficiency over both
gasoline- and diesel-hybrid vehicle options. This figure also illustrates that, as fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen
infrastructure are developed, gasoline and diesel hybrid electric vehicles can offer significant energy savings
over current gasoline vehicles. As mentioned, however, improving efficiency cannot fully address the long-term
petroleum dependency problem; a move toward alternative energy resources is needed. For example, in addition
to the two hydrogen-based options exhibited, hydrogen from solar, nuclear and renewable liquids (e.g., cellulosic
ethanol) provides opportunities for reductions in petroleum use.

Figure 2.1.5. Comparative Vehicle Technologies: Well-to-Wheels Energy Use

2.2 Environmental Benefits

While addressing the energy security
issue, we must also address our Figure 2.2.1. Emissions from Fossil Fuel Combustion
environmental viability. Air quality is a 75 5000 Million Tons Carbon Equivalent Per Year
major national concern. It has been estimated
that 60% of Americans live in areas where Electric Utilities
Million Tons Per Year

Industry
levels of one or more air pollutants are high 52.5
Transportation
3750

enough to affect public health and/or the

environment. As shown in Figure 2.2.1,
35 2500
personal vehicles and electric power plants
are significant contributors to the nation’s
air quality problems. Most states are now 17.5 1250
developing strategies for reaching national
ambient air quality goals and bringing their
major metropolitan areas into attainment 0 0
CO NOx VOC CO2
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
The State of California has been one of the
most aggressive in their strategies and has
launched a number of programs targeted

page 2- 4 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Benefits

at improving urban air quality, since 90% of the state’s population breathes unhealthy levels of one or more air
pollutants during some part of the year.

Criteria Pollutants
Internal combustion engines (both conventional and hybrid drives) will continue to have some on-road
emissions. Although emission control technologies such as on-board diagnosis (OBD) systems can reduce the
likelihood of vehicles that have high emissions rates due to on-road deterioration of engine performance and
emission control devices, they cannot eliminate the so-called “high emitters.” Consequently, widespread use of
fuel cell vehicles, because they are zero-emission vehicles and have no on-road emission deterioration, could be
expected to have a measurable effect on reducing nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, and particulate
matter produced by light-duty vehicles. Although hydrogen production from certain feedstocks will generate
some pollutants, emissions from stationary sources such as hydrogen production plants are easier to control and
monitor than are deterioration in emissions control on vehicles.

Greenhouse Gases
Emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), like carbon dioxide and methane, has been cited as a major global
concern. Build-up of these gases in the atmosphere is thought to have detrimental effects on the global climate.
Although there is not yet agreement on what the exact impact will be, when it will be realized, or how best
to address the problem, there is agreement that emissions of these gases need to be reduced. Hydrogen offers
a unique opportunity to address this problem, since carbon emissions can be decoupled from energy use and
power generation; used in a fuel cell, the only emission is water. Efficient hydrogen production technologies
and the possibility of carbon sequestration make natural gas and coal viable feedstock options, even in a carbon-
constrained environment. In the case of renewable and nuclear options, greenhouse gases are essentially only
the product of materials for construction, and of feedstock collection, preparation, storage, and delivery. The
well-to-wheels analysis illustrated in Figure 2.2.2 confirms that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can offer significant
greenhouse gas benefits, even in the case of natural gas without carbon sequestration.

Figure 2.2.2. Comparative Vehicle Technologies: Well-to-Wheel Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 2- 5

 Benefits

2.3 Economic Competitiveness

Abundant, reliable, and affordable energy is an essential component in a healthy economy. When energy prices
spike, as has occurred several times recently due to supply interruptions and/or high demand, Americans suffer
economically, particularly those in lower-income brackets. Looking at the expenditures for energy across all
income levels, the average percentage of personal income that was spent on energy in 2003 was 4.8% (U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis). Lower-income families spend nearly as many dollars
as those in higher-income brackets to heat their homes and fuel their cars (the average energy expense for low-
income families is 12.6% of income). The number of American families requesting assistance with heating bills
has risen significantly; in the winter of 2000, 5 million families applied to receive Low Income Home Energy
Assistance. Hydrogen offers unique opportunities to drastically increase the efficiency with which we generate
and use energy. And because it can be produced from a wide variety of domestically-available resources, we
can reduce the impact of externalities on energy prices. Hydrogen’s diversity in production, and flexibility in
use, also opens the door for new players in energy markets. In addition to the energy security benefits, this has
economic equity implications due to broadening energy choices and increasing competition.

The technical and economic success of hydrogen-based distributed energy systems will catalyze new business
ventures. Hydrogen power parks will provide an economic development path for the integrated production of
energy services such as electricity, transportation fuels, and heating and cooling. This will lead to the creation of
high-tech jobs to build and maintain these systems. Hydrogen also offers a wide variety of opportunities for the
development of new centers of economic growth in both rural and urban areas that are currently too far off line
to attract investment in our centralized energy system.

The competitiveness of U.S. industry is also of vital importance to the well-being of our people and of the nation
as a whole. For example, the U.S. auto industry is the largest automotive industry in world, producing 30% more
vehicles than the second largest producer, Japan. The auto industry is a highly productive one (ranked fourth)
and is accompanied by relatively high levels of compensation; in 1998, the average autoworker earned $65,000,
compared to $48,000 for the average in the manufacturing sector and $38,000 for the average worker nationwide.
The auto industry is also a major exporter, accounting for 12% of all non-agricultural exports. For every worker
directly employed by an auto manufacturer, there are nearly seven spin-off jobs. America’s automakers are also
among the largest purchasers of aluminum, copper, iron, lead, plastics, rubber, textiles, vinyl, steel and computer
chips. The auto industry ranks near the top of U.S. industries in terms of investment in R&D. Remaining
competitive in the international market is essential to the auto industry and the U.S. economy as a whole.

2.4 Potential Impact of Fuel Cell Vehicle Introduction

The rate of market penetration of the fuel cell vehicle will determine its impact on future U.S. petroleum
consumption. A penetration scenario is provided in Figure 2.4.1, which is based on a market model of past U.S.
transportation fuel transition, and assumes the necessary RD&D to overcome the technical and cost barriers is
completed by 2015. If the commercialization decision is positive, then vehicle sales could begin three years
later in 2018. Meeting the milestones in this plan means that the fuel cell vehicles are not just competitive
with conventional vehicles in both performance and cost, but also provide additional energy and environmental
benefits, making rapid market acceptance feasible such that by 2025 half of all new light duty vehicle sales
are fuel cell vehicles. Rapid market penetration could also be stimulated by government policies that provide
incentives to consumers.

page 2- 6 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Benefits

Figure 2.4.1 A Scenario: Market Penetration of Fuel Cell Vehicles

Based on the optimistic scenario described above, the impact of fuel cell vehicle and gasoline hybrid vehicle
penetration in reducing petroleum use is illustrated in Figure 2.4.2. As shown, the gasoline hybrid vehicle will
temporarily slow the growth in oil consumption. But as the population continues to grow, gasoline demand will
return to historic consumption growth rates. In contrast, the penetration of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, or a
combination of gasoline hybrids and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, will begin to slow petroleum use and eventually
cause the decline approximately in 2025, if a substantial number of light duty fuel cell vehicles are on the road.

The rate of projected transition of fuel use illustrated here was compared to historical rates of fuel transition in
the U.S. in an analysis by Argonne National Laboratory. This comparison illustrated that this rate is well within
the range of transportation fuel switch transition rates that have occurred in the U.S. over the last two centuries.
Note that the projected eventual elimination of oil use in light duty vehicles would not by itself mean that oil
use in the transportation sector would disappear, as oil would still be needed for other parts of the transportation
system. However, our reliance on foreign sources of oil would be significantly reduced.

Figure 2.4.2. Potential Impact of Fuel Cell Vehicles on U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Petroleum Use

20

15
Petroleum Use (MMBPD)

DOE Base Case (Gasoline ICE)

National Academies'
10 Hybrid Electric Vehicle Case

DOE Fuel Cell Vehicle Case

5
National Academies'
Hybrid Electric Vehicle & DOE Fuel Cell Vehicle Case

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 2- 7

 Benefits

Domestic Resources
One of the principal energy security advantages of hydrogen as an energy carrier is diversity – the potential
for producing it from a variety of domestic resources. But do we have enough domestic resources to provide
the hydrogen we need? Assuming an average vehicle mileage of 60 mpg, 150 million fuel cell vehicles
(approximately one-half of the U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet) will require around 40 million tons of hydrogen
annually. In a worst case situation, we would need to produce all of this hydrogen from just one resource, for
example, natural gas. Current annual U.S. consumption is 495 million tons of natural gas. An additional 130
million tons of natural gas would be needed to produce the 40 million tons of hydrogen; this represents a 27%
increase in consumption. As of January 2000, remaining technically recoverable natural gas reserves were
estimated at 28 billion tons, or 46 times the needed annual consumption. If, instead, we produced the 40 million
tons of hydrogen from our abundant domestic coal resources (approximately 4 trillion recoverable tons), annual
coal consumption would increase by less than 30%. Other options include:

• Biomass: The current agricultural and forest products residues, organic municipal solid waste, urban tree
residues, livestock residues and potential energy crops would be sufficient to produce 40 million tons of
hydrogen.
• Wind-Electrolysis: 555 GW of installed wind would be needed to produce 40 million tons of hydrogen.
Only around 4 GW of wind is currently installed in the U.S., but this figure is growing rapidly with improved
designs and lowering costs. The estimated wind capacity in the U.S. is around 3,250 GW; 555 GW represents
the available capacity of North Dakota.
• Solar-Electrolysis: 740 GW, approximately 3,750 square miles (equivalent to 3% of the land area of
Arizona), of flat-plate photovoltaics would be needed to produce 40 million tons of hydrogen.
• Nuclear energy: Nuclear power can also provide electricity to produce hydrogen via electrolysis of water.
Around 200 conventional 1 GWe reactors would be needed to produce 40 million tons of hydrogen annually.
This would require tripling the number of currently-deployed nuclear reactors. Instead of generating
electricity, advanced nuclear reactor concepts (Gen IV) could be used to produce heat that would permit high-
temperature electrolysis or thermochemical cycles. In this case, only 125 new reactors would be needed.

The following provides a brief description of the key attributes of some of the various resources from which
hydrogen can be produced.

Natural Gas. One of the most widely used energy sources is natural gas. It is used for space heating and
cooling, water heating, cooking, electricity generation, transportation, and in industry provides the base
ingredients, such as hydrogen, for such varied products as plastics, fertilizers, anti-freeze, and fabrics.
Reforming of natural gas makes up nearly 50% of the world’s hydrogen production and is the source of 95%
of the hydrogen produced in the U.S. Steam reforming is a thermal process, typically carried out over a
nickel-based catalyst that involves reacting natural gas or other light hydrocarbons with steam. Large-scale
commercial units capable of producing hydrogen are available as standard “turn-key” packages.

Coal. Another widely used energy source is coal; major uses include electricity production, iron and steel
manufacturing, and cement production. Currently, more than 70 gasification plants are operating throughout
the world using coal or petroleum coke as a feedstock. Advanced systems are also the subject of RD&D.
DOE’s FutureGen Initiative, led by the Office of Fossil Energy, is a plan to build a prototype of the fossil
fuel power plant of the future—a plant that combines electricity generation and hydrogen production with the
virtual total elimination of harmful emissions and greenhouse gases. Current plans call for the 275 MW plant
to be designed and built over the next ten years, then operated for at least five years beyond that.

page 2- 8 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Benefits

Biomass. Renewable feedstocks can be used to produce hydrogen, either directly or through intermediate
carriers (e.g., ethanol). Some biological organisms can produce hydrogen through fermentation.
Alternatively, fermentation could be used to produce methane or sugar alcohols that can be reformed to
hydrogen. Thermal processing (pyrolysis or gasification) can also be used and the techniques for biomass
and fossil fuels (reforming, water gas shift, gas separation) are similar. Approximately 10 kg of biomass are
required to produce 1 kg of hydrogen. For comparison, around 3 billion gallons of ethanol is produced for
fuel use and 200 million tons of biomass is used to produce heat, power and electricity annually.

Wind. In some parts of the country, wind energy is supplementing more conventional forms of electricity
production. California now produces more than 10% of the world’s wind-generated electricity. Wind
turbines have been connected to electrolysis systems that can operate with high efficiency (~70%) to produce
hydrogen. Construction costs have dropped to about $1 million per MW, which works out to about 4 to 6
cents per kWh and this price is expected to drop even further in the coming years.

Solar. Sunlight can provide the necessary energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Photovoltaic
arrays can be used to generate electricity that can then be used by an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen. Some
semiconductor materials can also be used to directly split water in a single monolithic device, eliminating the
need for separate electricity-generation and hydrogen-production steps. Similarly, a number of biological
organisms have the ability to directly produce hydrogen as a product of metabolic activity. Finally, solar
concentrators can be used to drive high-temperature chemical cycles that split water. Like wind, there are
huge solar resources in the U.S., especially in the southwestern portion of the nation, where one acre of land
could potentially supply 15,000 kilograms of hydrogen per year using today’s commercial photovoltaics.

Nuclear Energy. Current nuclear technology generates electricity that can be used to produce hydrogen
via electrolysis of water. Advanced nuclear reactor concepts (Gen IV) are also being developed that will be
more efficient in the production of hydrogen. These advanced technologies provide heat at a temperature that
permits high-temperature electrolysis (where heat energy replaces a portion of the electrical energy needed
to dissociate water) or thermochemical cycles that use heat and a chemical process to dissociate water. The
thermodynamic efficiencies of thermochemical cycles for the direct production of hydrogen with Gen-IV
reactors may be as high as 45%. This contrasts with the 33% efficiency of the existing reactors for electric
power production. By bypassing the inefficiencies of electric power production and electrolysis losses, the
overall efficiency of converting heat energy to hydrogen energy is increased significantly.

Fusion Energy. Fusion power, if successfully developed, could be the ultimate source of a clean, safe,
abundant, and carbon-free domestic resource for hydrogen production. The DOE Office of Science will lead
the U.S. efforts in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project, whose mission is to
demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy within the next 35 years. The United
States will work with Great Britain and several European nations, as well as Canada, Japan, Russia and
China, to build a fusion test facility and create the largest and most advanced fusion experiment in the world.
Fusion energy releases vast amounts of heat, which can be used to produce hydrogen from water by means of
thermolysis (thermally driven dissociation of water) or by thermochemical cycles.

The reality is that a transition from petroleum to hydrogen will be gradual and a variety of technologies and
feedstocks will be used to meet the growing demand. Near-term production needs will likely begin with natural
gas. Electrolysis will find markets where lower-cost and off-peak electricity is available. Biomass could meet
mid-term needs in regions where agriculture and forest products are the mainstay. Over time, we will see the
costs of renewable power generation technologies drop and gain growing shares of the electrolysis markets.
Direct water splitting and high temperature technologies will begin to be demonstrated and find their place in

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 2- 9

 Benefits

the market, as well. The share of each technology will be a function of cost, regional markets and resource
availability. Policy and environmental constraints will also dictate the penetration rates of the various options.

2.5 Realizing the Benefits

In addition to addressing the major challenge of energy security, hydrogen fuel cell systems can address many of
our nation’s other energy-related needs. To meet our growing electrical demands, it is estimated that electricity
generation will have to increase by 2% per year. At this rate, 330 GW of additional electricity generation
capacity will be needed by 2020. Along with an aging transmission and production infrastructure, requirements
for reliable premium power and market deregulation, this increasing demand opens the door for hydrogen power
systems.

Hydrogen power systems provide unique opportunities for increasing the diversity of the electricity market.
Currently, grid stability and intermittency issues are major limitations for the penetration of renewables like wind
and solar into the electricity market. By combining these generation technologies with hydrogen production and
storage, intermittent renewables could potentially capture a larger share of the power production market without
major upgrades to the existing grid.

Hydrogen systems can be extremely efficient over a large range of sizes (from one kilowatt to hundreds of
megawatts). Some systems can achieve overall efficiencies of 80% or more when heat production is combined
with power generation. Additionally, smaller-scale distributed hydrogen systems offer combined heat, power
and fuel opportunities. Fuel cell systems integrated with hydrogen production and storage can provide fuel for
vehicles, energy for heating and cooling, and electricity to power our communities. These clean systems offer a
unique opportunity for energy independence, highly reliable energy services and economic benefits.

While enormous, the benefits of a hydrogen economy cannot be realized overnight. A transition is necessary;
however, hydrogen has the flexibility and robustness to meet the challenge. To realize the benefits, several
things must occur. Fuel cell technologies and hydrogen storage systems must be advanced so that hydrogen
fuel cells can be a cost-competitive choice for the consumer when they go to buy a new vehicle, or when
communities evaluate energy options. Hydrogen production options require additional research and
implementation for cost parity with today’s fuels. And the existing hydrogen infrastructure needs to grow to
a point where all consumers can conveniently obtain hydrogen. If we are successful in developing hydrogen
technologies to their full potential, we could significantly reduce U.S. demand for oil and greenhouse gas
emissions.

page 2- 10 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan

3.0 Technical Plan

This section of the Plan provides a detailed outline of the various activities occurring within the technical
Program elements of the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program, as follows:

3.1 Hydrogen Production

3.2 Hydrogen Delivery
3.3 Hydrogen Storage
3.4 Fuel Cells
3.5 Technology Validation
3.6 Hydrogen Codes and Standards
3.7 Hydrogen Safety
3.8 Education

For each section, a brief introduction is followed by the specific goal and objectives of the Program element. The
remainder of the section presents the Program element’s strategy for achieving success and measuring progress.
This begins with an overview of the technical approach and review of the current activities within the Program
element. Next, each section lays out specific targets that will lead a pathway toward the objectives, the barriers
to achieving these targets, and the specific tasks and milestones used to direct their efforts and gauge their
progress.

Activities within each of the Program elements must be coordinated and integrated to achieve the ultimate
commercialization goals of the Program. Interrelationships between all Program elements, including Systems
Analysis and Systems Integration, are represented in Figure 3.0.1; specific inputs and outputs between Program
elements are identified in the milestone charts and tables. Systems Analysis and Systems Integration (see
Sections 4.0 and 5.0) will be used to identify, analyze, and evaluate these complex interdependencies and to
guide decision making for the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program Manager. Program
Management and Operations are discussed in Section 6.0.

Figure 3.0.1. Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

Education
Codes & Standards
Safety
Systems Integration/Analyses

DELIVERY

PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
FUEL CELLS
VALIDATION
Economy
STORAGE

Research & Development

Each Program element is also actively involved in coordination activities with the DOE Hydrogen Program,
which includes hydrogen and fuel cell research and development efforts within the Offices of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy (EERE); Fossil Energy (FE); Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE); and Science
(SC). In particular, EERE Programs that perform research on technologies that can be used to produce or use
hydrogen are an important component of research taking place within the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure
Technologies Program. These include:

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 1

 Technical Plan

• Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program

• Geothermal Technologies Program
• Solar Energy Technology Program
• Biomass Program
• FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program
• Building Technologies Program
• Federal Energy Management Program

Each of these programs is pursuing technologies that will efficiently and affordably enhance the nation’s access
to clean, domestic energy supplies. Hydrogen can play a key role in the realization of these technologies, and
will certainly benefit from the research and development taking place in each program. Advanced electrolysis
technologies, conversion of biomass to hydrogen, PEM fuel cell development, and application of hydrogen
for stationary energy needs are examples of areas in which collaboration between the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells &
Infrastructure Technologies Program and other EERE Programs is vital to the technical targets identified in this
chapter.

page 3- 2 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

3.1 Hydrogen Production

Hydrogen can be produced from a diversity of energy Education

resources, using a variety of process technologies. Energy Codes & Standards

resource options include fossil, nuclear and renewables.

Safety
Systems Integration/Analyses
Examples of process technologies include thermochemical,
biological, electrolytic and photolytic. DELIVERY

PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY
FUEL CELLS
VALIDATION

3.1.1 Technical Goal and Objectives STORAGE

Research & Development

Goal
Research and develop low-cost, highly efficient hydrogen
production technologies from diverse, domestic sources, including natural gas and renewable sources.1

Objectives
• By 2010, reduce the cost of distributed production of hydrogen from natural gas to $1.50/gge2 (delivered,
untaxed) at the pump (without carbon sequestration).3

• By 2015, reduce the cost of distributed hydrogen production from biomass-derived renewable liquids to
$2.50/gge (delivered, untaxed) at the pump.

• By 2010, verify distributed grid-connected water electrolysis at a projected delivered hydrogen cost of
$2.85/gge. By 2015, verify renewable central hydrogen production at a projected cost of $2.75/gge delivered.

• By 2015, reduce the cost of hydrogen produced from biomass to $1.60/gge at the plant gate ($2.60/gge
delivered) by developing reforming technologies for gasification and pyrolysis processes.

• Develop advanced renewable photoelectrochemical and biological hydrogen generation technologies. By

2015, verify the feasibility of these technologies to be competitive in the long term.

• By 2015, develop high-temperature thermochemical cycles driven by concentrated solar power processes to
produce hydrogen with a projected cost of $3/gge at the plant gate ($4.00/gge delivered).4

• Evaluate other new technologies that have the potential for cost-effective sustainable production of hydrogen
and fund appropriate research and development in promising areas.

3.1.2 Technical Approach

Hydrogen production research is focused on meeting the objectives outlined in Section 3.1.1. by conducting
R&D through industry, national laboratory, and university projects.

1
Coal-based and nuclear-based hydrogen production are being addressed by the DOE Offices of Fossil Energy and Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology, respectively.
2
The energy content of a gallon of gasoline and a kilogram of hydrogen are approximately equal on a lower heating value basis; a kilogram of hydrogen is
approximately equal to a gallon of gasoline equivalent (gge) on an energy content basis.
3
$1.50 is the estimated cost for hydrogen to be competitive for transportation systems in the 2015 timeframe. This estimate is currently under evaluation.
4
Collaboration with DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 3

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

An array of feedstocks and technologies for hydrogen production will be necessary to address energy security
and environmental needs. This program element addresses multiple feedstock and technology options
for hydrogen production for the short and long terms. The research focus for the transition to a hydrogen
infrastructure is on distributed reforming of natural gas and renewable liquid fuels, and on electrolysis to meet
initial lower volume hydrogen needs with the least capital investment. The research focus is on renewable
feedstocks and energy sources for the long term, with more emphasis on centralized options to take advantage
of economies of scale when an adequate hydrogen delivery infrastructure is in place. There is a strong
collaboration with DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy to develop centralized production from coal with carbon
sequestration, and with DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology to develop centralized
production from advanced nuclear energy-driven high-temperature thermochemical cycles and high temperature
electrolysis. DOE’s Office of Science is a collaborator on long-term technologies such as biological and
photoelectrochemical hydrogen production.

The planned development of a national hydrogen production infrastructure will take multiple pathways. Some
of these pathways and their roles within the strategy of the Hydrogen Production Program element are described
below.

Distributed Production Pathway

Distributed production of hydrogen may be the most viable approach for introducing hydrogen as an energy
carrier. It requires less capital investment for the smaller volume of hydrogen needed initially, and it does not
require a substantial hydrogen transport and delivery infrastructure.

Two distributed hydrogen production technologies that have the best potential for development and
commercialization during a transition to a hydrogen economy are 1) reforming of natural gas or liquid fuels,
including renewable liquids such as ethanol and bio-oil, and 2) small-scale water electrolysis located at the
point of use, i.e., refueling stations and stationary power generation sites. Of these technologies, natural gas
reformers are in the most mature stage of development and are the closest to meeting the hydrogen production
cost targets. Research will focus on developing these technologies through 2010, and then on applying them to
reforming renewable liquid feedstocks for a competitive hydrogen cost. Distributed reforming using renewable
liquids offers near-zero net greenhouse gas emissions. The second research focus is on small-scale electrolyzers
for splitting water. Electrolyzers present the opportunity for
non-carbon-emitting hydrogen production when a renewable Figure 3.1.1 Centralized Hydrogen
electricity source such as wind or hydro power is used. When Production Facility
off-peak electricity is used, greater economic opportunities
may be presented by energy stations that produce both fuel and
electricity.

Centralized Production Pathway

Large hydrogen production facilities that can take advantage
of economies of scale will be needed in the long term to meet
hydrogen fuel demand (see Figure 3.1.3). Central hydrogen
production allows management of greenhouse gas emissions
through strategies like carbon sequestration. In parallel with
the distributed production effort, DOE is pursuing central
production of hydrogen from a variety of resources-fossil,
nuclear and renewable. Coal and natural gas are possibly the
least expensive feedstocks, and carbon sequestration is required
to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions. Reforming of

page 3- 4 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

biomass gases or liquids offers a renewable option and near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Centralized natural
gas is not being pursued for the long-term because of energy security issues. Biomass reforming of gas or oils
offers renewable feedstocks with near-zero net greenhouse gas emissions. Photoelectrochemical and biological
hydrogen production are long-term technologies that have the potential to produce hydrogen with sunlight,
but they can currently only produce small amounts of hydrogen at high cost. Centralized water electrolysis
is a viable approach where there is inexpensive and low-carbon electricity. However, as the cost of capital
equipment is reduced through advanced development, the cost of electricity becomes the dominant factor in
the cost of hydrogen. High-temperature thermochemical hydrogen production that uses concentrated solar heat
may be viable with the development of appropriate water-splitting chemical process cycles and materials. Other
feedstocks and technologies for hydrogen production that show promise may also be considered.

Central production of hydrogen could potentially include a more diversified feedstock base, but to be
commercially viable it would require development of a distribution infrastructure for hydrogen. The Program is
pursuing projects to identify a cost-effective, energy-efficient, safe infrastructure for the delivery of hydrogen or
hydrogen carriers from centrally located production facilities to the point of use (see section 3.2).

Other Production Pathways

Another pathway being explored is combined production of hydrogen, heat, and electric power. In this scenario,
hydrogen would be produced for use in a higher temperature stationary fuel cell to produce electricity and heat as
well as for use as a transportation fuel in fuel cell vehicles or hydrogen internal combustion engines. This allows
two markets for the hydrogen in a swing plant operation, which could help to initiate the use of hydrogen when
hydrogen demand is small. As the demand grows, more of the hydrogen could be produced for vehicle fuel rather
than used for power production.

Much of the research is applicable to several of the production options. For example, advanced technology
for reforming, shift, hydrogen separations, and hydrogen purification broadly applies to natural gas, coal, and
biomass feedstocks and to both distributed and central production situations. Advanced hydrogen separation and
purification technology is also common to many hydrogen production routes.

The Hydrogen Production Program element will develop the technologies to produce hydrogen for transportation
and stationary applications. System validations will be performed by the Technology Validation Program
element. Results of validation projects will guide continued R&D efforts.

3.1.3 Programmatic Status

Current Activities
Major Hydrogen Production Program element activities are listed in Table 3.1.1.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 5

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Table 3.1.1. Major Hydrogen Production Program Element Activities

Challenge Approach Activities
Cost reduction of • Improve reforming and separation Praxair: Low-cost production platform using design for
distributed hydrogen efficiencies manufacture and assembly
production from
natural gas and • Identify more durable reforming
renewable liquids catalysts Air Products and Chemicals Inc: Hydrogen refueling
station using advanced natural gas steam methane
• Incorporate breakthrough
separations technology reforming technologies

• Reduce space needed General Electric: Fuel-flexible autothermal cyclic reformer

• Optimize system operation National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Lower-cost

technology for distributed reforming of biomass pyrolysis-
• Intensify and consolidate the
derived bio-oils
number of steps, unit operations
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL): Lower-cost
technology to reform biomass-derived liquids such as
sugars, sugar alcohols, and ethanol via liquid-phase or gas-
phase reforming

Argonne National Laboratory (ANL): Novel technology to reform

natural gas using high-temperature membranes and water
splitting

ANL: High-pressure ethanol reforming technology combined

with more efficient separations and purification

Virent Energy Systems, LLC, U. of Wisconsin, Archer Daniels

Midland, UOP: Novel one-step liquid-phase reforming of
carbohydrates

H2Gen Innovations, Süd-Chemie, Inc., Naval Research

Lab : Advanced Steam Methane Reformer and Pressure
Swing Adsorption Turn-Key Hydrogen Production System

GE Global Research, University of Minnesota, Argonne National

Laboratory: Integrated short-contact-time natural gas/bio-
derived feedstock, compact reformer

The BOC Group, Inc., Membrane Reactor Technologies Ltd., HERA

USA Inc.: Integrated hydrogen production, purification and
compression system

Ohio State University Research Foundation: Ethanol steam

reforming

Biomass-to-hydrogen • Develop advanced, lower- Gas Technology Institute, NETL, U. of Cincinnati, Allegheny
cost reforming technologies Technology Company: Novel technology for one-step
for hydrogen production from gasification, reforming, shift, and H2 separation
biomass gasification/pyrolysis
United Technologies Research Center, U. of North Dakota:
Innovative integrated slurry-based biomass hydrolysis and
reforming process for low-cost hydrogen production

page 3- 6 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Biological production • Develop modifications to NREL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), UC Berkeley,
of hydrogen5 green algae, cyanobacteria, IBEA, Montana State University, and Advanced Bionutrition:
photosynthetic bacteria, and dark
Identification of the physical and chemical variables
fermentative microorganisms that
needed to optimize biological systems based on new
will facilitate efficient production
of hydrogen algal, cyanobacterial, photosynthetic bacterial, and dark
fermentative microorganism strains; research the feasibility
• Develop biochemical and process
of various materials for photoreactors
methods to facilitate efficient
production of hydrogen Benneman Associates: High-rate and yield hydrogen
• Identify and develop cost- fermentation (SBIR)
effective components such
as transparent, hydrogen-
impermeable materials for
photoreactors
Photoelectrochemical • Develop high-efficiency materials NREL, University of Hawaii, UC Santa Barbara, SRI, MV Systems,
hydrogen production GE Global Research, and Midwest Optoelectronics: Identify
from water (direct • Improve the durability of
materials and develop durable and efficient photoelectrochemical
water splitting)5
material(s), devices and systems
• Develop photoelectrochemical
devices and systems
• Identify and develop cost-
effective components such
as transparent, hydrogen-
impermeable materials for
photoreactors
Hydrogen production • Reduce electricity costs Teledyne Energy Systems: New alkaline electrolysis materials
from water via of hydrogen production by for higher efficiencies and pressures
electrolysis developing new materials and
systems to improve efficiency Proton Energy Systems: Higher pressure PEM electrolysis
system and renewable integration
• Reduce capital costs of
electrolysis system through new Giner Electrochemical Systems: PEM electrolysis system
designs with lower cost materials
capable of electrochemical pressurization to 5000 psi with
• Develop low-cost hydrogen reduced capital costs; low-cost solid membranes (SBIR)
production from electrolysis
using wind and other renewable Arizona State University: Combinatorial development of water-
electricity sources splitting catalysts for high efficiency electrolysis

Ceramatec, Inc.: Large area cell for hybrid solid oxide

hydrogen co-generation process

General Electric: High-temperature reversible electrolysis

materials and system development

SRI International: Modular high-temperature system for

hydrogen generation

National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Research on renewable

electrolysis power electronics integration

Sandia National Laboratory: New high-efficiency, high-current-

density alkaline membrane and electrode materials

Avalence: High-efficiency ultra high-pressure electrolysis with

direct linkage to photovoltaic arrays (SBIR)

Ceramatec, Inc.: Novel bidirectional power controller for

regenerative fuel cells.

5
In collaboration with DOE Office of Science.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 7

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

High-temperature, •Utilize the high-temperature Stirling Energy Systems, Inc., U. of Alabama, Weizmann Institute,
solar-driven energy from concentrated solar CT LLC, U. of Massachusetts-Boston: Novel technology for
thermochemical power to produce hydrogen solar-powered, low-voltage, high-efficiency production of
cycles for splitting through thermochemical cycles
water to produce hydrogen from water
hydrogen6 Science Applications International Corporation, Florida Solar Energy
Center, U. of Turabo, U. of Central Florida: Evaluation of solar-
driven carbon dioxide cycles for hydrogen production; pilot-
scale testing of most promising system

University of Colorado: Manganese-based solar-driven high-

temperature thermochemical cycle to split water

Separation and • Develop separation technology Praxair: Integrated ceramic membrane system
purification systems for distributed and central
(cross-cutting hydrogen production Sandia National Laboratories (SNL): Defect-free thin film
research)7 membranes for hydrogen separation and purification

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL): Inorganic membrane

porous support tube fabrication and pyrochlore/perovskite
ion transport membrane

Media and Process Technologies, Johnson Matthey Catalyst,

ChevronTexaco, University of Southern California: Carbon
molecular sieve; membrane in a single-step shift reactor

Pall Corporation, ChevronTexaco, Colorado School of Mines, Oak

Ridge National Laboratory: Palladium alloy membrane

U. of Cincinnati, Ohio State University, New Mexico Institute of

Technology: Zeolite membrane reactor for single-step water
gas shift reaction

3.1.4 Technical Challenges

The overarching technical challenge to hydrogen production is reducing cost. Hydrogen currently (as of 2003)
costs $5/gge delivered to a car at a refueling station (see Table 3.1.2) based on distributed production using
natural gas, compared to the goal of $1.50/gge (untaxed) in 2010. Estimates of the delivered cost of hydrogen
using currently available technology for all production feedstocks is considerably higher than that required for
hydrogen to be a cost-competitive primary energy carrier.

The capital costs of current electrolysis systems, along with the high cost of electricity in many regions, limit
widespread adoption of electrolysis technology for hydrogen production. Electrolyzer capital cost reductions
and efficiency improvements are required along with the design of utility-scale electrolyzers capable of grid
integration and compatible with low-cost, near-zero emission electricity sources. Electrolytic production
of hydrogen, where coal is the primary energy resource, will not lead to carbon reduction without carbon
sequestration technologies.

Hydrogen can be produced from biomass either by distributed reforming of bio-derived liquids or through
gasification or pyrolysis of biomass feedstocks. The costs of currently-available bio-derived liquids such as
ethanol or sugar alcohols (e.g. sorbitol) need to be reduced. Significant improvements in ethanol reforming and
new technologies need to be developed for other bio-derived liquids to reduce the capital and operating costs

6
In collaboration with DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
7
In collaboration with DOE Office of Fossil Energy.

page 3- 8 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

for this production option to become competitive. The efficiencies of biomass gasification or pyrolysis and
reforming need to be increased and the capital costs need to be reduced by developing improved technologies
and approaches.

Biological hydrogen production is in an early stage of research and presents many technical challenges,
beginning with molecular engineering of microorganisms that can produce hydrogen at high rates. However, the
advantages of biological hydrogen production are that high-purity water is not required and toxic or polluting
byproducts are not generated.

Photoelectrochemical hydrogen production (direct water splitting), also in an early stage of development,
depends on a breakthrough in materials development and could require large areas of land. Research in this
area is progressing on three fronts: 1) the study of high-efficiency materials in order to attain the basic science
understanding needed for improving lower-efficiency lower-cost materials; 2) the study of low-cost durable
materials in order to attain the basic science understanding needed for modifying higher-efficiency lower-
durability materials; and 3) the development of multijunction devices incorporating multiple material layers to
achieve efficient water splitting.

High-temperature, solar-driven, thermochemical hydrogen production using water-splitting chemical cycles is

in an early stage of research. Research is also needed to cost-effectively couple the thermochemical cycles with
advanced concentrated solar power technology. If these efforts are successful, high-temperature thermochemical
processes may provide a clean, efficient, and sustainable route for producing hydrogen from water.

3.1.4.1 Technical Targets

A variety of feedstocks and processes are being researched and developed for producing hydrogen fuel. Each
technology is in a different stage of development, and each offers unique opportunities, benefits, and challenges.
Economics favor certain technologies more than others in the near term, but other technologies are expected to
become economically viable as the technologies mature and market conditions shift.

Tables 3.1.1 through 3.1.12 list the DOE technical targets for hydrogen production from a variety of feedstocks.
All targets were developed through preliminary hydrogen production analyses and will be refined further as the
technology matures and trade-offs are identified. The targets and timeline for each technology reflect a number
of factors, including the expected size of a production unit, the stage of technology development, and the costs
and characteristics of the feedstock.

Targets for 2010 and 2015 are R&D milestones for measuring progress and are not necessarily the targets
required for successful commercialization of the technology. For hydrogen to become a major energy carrier,
the combination of its cost and that of the power system it is used in, must be competitive with the alternatives
available in the market. For personal transportation light duty vehicles, this means that the combination of the
hydrogen cost, and its use in a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, must be competitive with gasoline internal combustion
engine powered vehicles, or other alternatives, on a cost/mile basis to the consumer. The estimated cost of
hydrogen needed to be competitive with gasoline is $1.50/gge delivered (untaxed) at the dispenser. This estimate
is currently being re-evaluated to reflect projected fuel costs and vehicle power system energy efficiencies on a
cost per mile basis. The ultimate target for all of the production technologies being researched is a hydrogen cost
that will be competitive for transportation on a well-to-wheels basis, regardless of the production pathway.

All targets must be achieved simultaneously; however, status is not neccessarily reported from a single system.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 9

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Table 3.1.2. Technical Targets: Distributed Production of Hydrogen from Natural Gas a, b
Calendar Year
Characteristics Units
2003c 2005d 2010d
Status Target Target
Total Energy Efficiencye %(LHV) 65.0 65.0 75.0

Production Energy Efficiency %(LHV) 69.0 69.0 80.0

Storage, Compression, and Dispensing Energy Efficiencyf %(LHV) 94.0 94.0 94.0

Total Hydrogen Cost $/gge H2 5.00 3.00 1.50

Detailed Cost Breakdown − These calculations are for guidance only and not necessarily the research targets to achieve
the total energy efficiency and cost goals.

Capital Cost Contribution $/gge H2 2.70 1.40 0.30

Production $/gge H2 1.90 0.60 0.10

Storage, Compression, Dispensingf $/gge H2 0.80 0.80 0.20

Fixed O&M Cost Contribution $/gge H2 1.20 0.60 0.30

Feedstock Cost Contribution $/gge H2 0.90 0.80 0.70

Other Variable O&M Cost Contribution $/gge H2 0.20 0.20 0.20

a
Economic parameters used were for a production design capacity of 1500 kg/day of hydrogen: 20 yr. analysis period, 10% IRR after taxes, 100% equity
financing, 1.9% inflation, 38.9% total tax rate, and MACRS 7-year depreciation. A 70% capacity factor was used for 2003 and 2005. A 90% capacity
factor was used for 2010. The results in 2000$ were inflated by 6% to yield 2003$.
b
The natural gas price was set to $4.50/MMBTU in 2000$, based on the levelized price for natural gas between 2005 and 2025 based on the EIA AEO
2004 for industrial rates. The electricity price was set at $.07/kWhr in 2000$ based on the levelized price between 2005-2025 based on the EIA AEO
2004 for commercial rates.
c
For the 2003 analysis it was assumed the units would be built a few at a time.
d
For the 2005 and 2010 analysis it was assumed that Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) would be employed and that on the order of 500
units per year would be produced.
e
Energy efficiency is defined as the energy of the hydrogen out of the process (LHV) divided by the sum of the energy into the process from the
feedstock (LHV) and all other energy needed. The electrical energy utilized does not include the efficiency losses from the production of the electricity.
f
Storage capacity for 1100 kg of hydrogen at the forecourt is included. It is assumed that the required hydrogen pressure for refueling is 5000 psi for
2003 and 2005. It is assumed that in 2015, the pressure for hydrogen refueling is 1500 psi.

page 3- 10 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Table 3.1.3. Technical Targets: Distributed Production of Hydrogen from Bio-Derived

Renewable Liquids a,b
Calendar Year
Characteristics Units
2003c 2005c 2010c 2015d
Status Target Target Target
Total Energy Efficiencye % 46.0 46.0 66.0 70.0

Production Energy Efficiency % 49.0 49.0 70.0

Storage, Compression, Dispensing Energy Efficiencyf % 94.0 94.0 94.0

Total Hydrogen Cost $/gge 6.70 5.90 3.60 2.50

Detailed Cost Breakdown − These calculations are for guidance only and not necessarily the research targets to achieve
the total energy efficiency and cost goals.

Capital Cost Contribution $/gge 1.90 1.30 0.90

Production $/gge 1.10 0.50 0.50

Storage, Compression, Dispensingf $/gge 0.80 0.80 0.40

Fixed O&M Cost Contribution $/gge 0.70 0.50 0.40

Feedstock Cost Contributiong $/gge 3.80 3.80 1.80

Other Variable O&M Cost Contribution $/gge 0.30 0.30 0.50

a
Economic parameters used were 20 yr. analysis period, 10% IRR after taxes, 100% equity financing, 1.9% inflation, 38.9% total tax rate, MACRS
7-year depreciation, 70% capacity factor. 2000$ calculations were inflated by 6% to yield 2003$.
b
The electricity price was set at $.07/kWhr in 2000$ based on the levelized price between 2005-2025 based on the EIA AEO 2004 for commercial
rates.
c
The 2003 status, 2005, and 2010 target are based on an initial analysis of distributed reforming of ethanol at a design capacity of 1500 kg/day of
hydrogen based on available information.
d
The 2015 target is based on what might be achievable with breakthroughs in technology and alternative bio-derived renewable liquids.
e
Energy efficiency is defined as the energy of the hydrogen out of the process (LHV) divided by the sum of the energy into the process from the
feedstock (LHV) and all other energy needed. The electrical energy utilized does not include the efficiency losses from the production of the
electricity.
f
Storage capacity for 1100 kg of hydrogen at the forecourt is included. It is assumed that the required hydrogen pressure for refueling is 5000 psi for
2003 and 2005. It is assumed that in 2015, the pressure for hydrogen refueling is 1500 psi.
g
For 2003 and 2005 the price of ethanol used is $1.15/gallon in 2003$. This is a typical price for ethanol in the fuel market over the past 5 years. For
2010, the price of ethanol used is $.85/gallon in 2003$. It is assumed that this cost reduction is possible based on using less purified and wet ethanol
(i.e. only using a single distillation step rather than two distillation steps and molecular sieve drying currently used in ethanol manufacture from
corn), further improvements in ethanol production from corn and/or the introduction of other lower cost ethanol production technology such as from
cellulosic biomass.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 11

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Table 3.1.4. Technical Targets: Water Electrolysisa

Central
1500 kg/day refueling station
Renewableb
2005 2010
Characteristics Units 2003 Status 2015 Target
Target Target
Cost $/gge H2 0.95 0.80 0.39 0.24
Power Conversion,
Cell Stack, Balance of Plantc Total Cell
% 66 68 76 77
Efficiency

Cost $/gge H2 0.83 0.77 0.19 0.08

Compression, Storage, Dispensing d

Efficiency % 94 94 99 99.5

Electricitye Cost $/gge H2 2.57 2.47 1.89 1.32

O&M Cost $/gge H2 0.80 0.71 0.38 0.11

Cost $/gge H2 5.15 4.75 2.85 2.75g

Totalf
Efficiency % 62 64 75 76

a
Economic parameters used were: 20 yr. analysis period, 10% IRR after taxes, 100% equity financing, 1.9% inflation, 38.9% total tax rate, MACRS
7-year depreciation, 70% capacity factor. The H2A results in 2000$ were inflated by 6% to yield 2003$.
b
Renewable Option: Calculation base on delivering 50,000 gge hydrogen per day (1000+ gge modules) with option of electricity co-production.
Electricity back up provided by grid.
c
Includes power conversion, cell stack and balance of plant (efficiency based on AC electric input to hydrogen output on a LHV basis).
d
Compression improvements result from integral electrochemical or other system compression to reduce or eliminate mechanical compression.
Lower pressure storage assumed in 2015.
e
Electricity at EIA projected industrial electricity rate for 2003-2005. $.04 per kWh assumed in 2010 based on regional industrial electricity rate and
new renewable technologies on the grid. $.03 per kWh assumed in 2015 with central wind and grid back up. $.03 per kWh also corresponds to the
Office of Wind and Hydropower 2012 production cost goal for class 4 wind resources.
f
Based on system capital cost per kWe of $700, $600 and $250 for the refueling station in 2003, 2005 and 2010, respectively, and $200 for the central
station in 2015. Assumes high volume annual production (1,000 units for all purposes and all markets) of electrolyzer units in 2010-2015 and
centralized facility benefiting from scale on installation.
g
Includes $1.00 per gge delivery charge (transportation to the station, hauling and dispensing).

Hydrogen separation is a key component that cross-cuts most, if not all of the hydrogen production
technology options. The separation membranes described in Tables 3.1.5 and 3.1.6 have multiple applications
requiring an array of system configurations. Separations systems that best reduce the cost to produce
hydrogen more efficiently from diverse feedstocks will be downselected. These separations sub-system
components must be optimized to achieve the cost and hydrogen quality requirements. Tables 3.1.5 and
3.1.6 present targets for three major hydrogen separation technology pathways and reflect the current stage
of development for each as well as the need to achieve performance requirements within the timeframe of
the 2015 commercialization decision. The performance requirements presented are based on a preliminary
set of assumptions with regard to system configuration (feedstock composition, temperature, pressure, and
product composition). Ultimately, though, success will be determined based on analysis of the actual system
configuration and its requirements.

page 3- 12 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Table 3.1.5. Technical Targets: Dense Metallic Membranes for Hydrogen Separation and
Purification
Calendar Year
Performance Criteria a
Units
2003 Statusb 2005 Target 2010 Target 2015 Target

Flux Ratec scfh/ft2 60 100 200 300

Membrane Material and All Module

$/ft2 of membrane 2,000 1,500 1,000 <500
Costsd

Durabilitye hr <8,760f 8,760 26,280 >43,800

ΔP Operating Capabilityg psi 100 200 400 400-1,000

Hydrogen Recovery % of total gas 60 >70 >80 >90

% of total (dry)
Hydrogen Qualityh >99.9 >99.9 >99.95 99.99
gas
a
The membranes must be tolerant to impurities. This will be application specific. Common impurities include sulfur and carbon monoxide.
b
Based on membrane shift reactor with syngas.
o
c
Flux at 20 psi hydrogen partial pressure differential with a minimum permeate side total pressure of 15 psi, preferably >50 psi and 400 C.
d
The membrane support structure is approximately three times membrane material costs.
e
Intervals between membrane replacement.
f
Hydrogen membranes have not been demonstrated to date, only laboratory tested.
g
Delta P operating capability is application dependent. There are many applications that may only require 400 psi or less. For coal gasification 1000 psi is
the target.
h
Based on current available PEM fuel cell information, the tentative contaminant targets are: <10ppb sulfur, <1 ppm carbon monoxide, <100 ppm carbon
dioxide, < 1 ppm ammonia, < 100 ppm non-methane hydrocarbons on a C-1 basis, oxygen, nitrogen and argon can not exceed 2% in total, particulate
levels must meet ISO standard 14787.

Notes: Revised targets take into consideration input received at the September, 2004 H2 Separations Workshop. These targets are undergoing detailed
engineering analysis. Membrane systems should be demonstrated within a temperature range between 250-1,000 degrees Celsius. Also, parasitic power
requirements (that used to recompress the hydrogen downstream of the membrane due to potential pressure drops across the membrane) should be
minimized.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 13

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Table 3.1.6 Technical Targets: Microporous Membranes for Hydrogen Separation and
Purification
Performance Criteriaa Units 2003 Status 2005 Target 2010 Target 2015 Target

Flux Rateb scfh/ft2 100 100 200 300

Membrane Material and All

$/ft2 of Membrane 450-600 400 200 <100
Module Costsc

Durabilityd hr <8,760e 8,760 26,280 >43,800

∆P Operating Capabilityf psi 100 200 400 400-1000

Hydrogen Recovery % of total gas 60 >70 >80 >90

Hydrogen Qualityg % of total (dry) gas >90 95 99.5 99.99

a
The membranes must be tolerant to impurities. This will be application specific. Common impurities include sulfur and carbon monoxide.
o
b
Flux at 20 psi hydrogen partial pressure differential with a minimum permeate side total pressure of 15 psi, preferably >50 psi and 400 C.
c
The membrane support structure cost is approximately three times more than membrane material costs.
d
Intervals between membrane replacement.
e
Hydrogen membranes have not been demonstrated to date, only laboratory tested.
f
Delta P operating capability is application dependent. There are many applications that may only require 400 psi or less. For coal gasification 1000 psi is
the target.
g
Based on current available PEM fuel cell information, the tentative contaminant targets are: <10ppb sulfur, <1 ppm carbon monoxide, <100 ppm carbon
dioxide, < 1 ppm ammonia, < 100 ppm non-methane hydrocarbons on a C-1 basis, oxygen, nitrogen and argon can not exceed 2% in total, particulate
levels must meet ISO standard 14787.

Note: Revised targets take into consideration input received at the September, 2004 H2 Separations Workshop. These targets are undergoing detailed
engineering analysis. Membrane systems should be demonstrated within a temperature range between 250-1,000 Degrees Celsius. Also, parasitic power
requirements (that used to recompress the hydrogen downstream of the membrane due to potential pressure drops across the membrane) should be
minimized.

page 3- 14 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Table 3.1.7. Technical Targets: Biomass Gasification/Pyrolysis Hydrogen Productiona

Calendar Year
Characteristics Units
2003 Status 2005 Target 2010 Target 2015 Target

Energy Efficiencyb % 44 47 50 52

Total Hydrogen Cost $/gge H2 2.10 1.90 1.75 1.60

Detailed Cost Breakdown − These calculations are for guidance only and not necessarily the research targets to achieve
the total energy efficiency and cost goals.

Capital Cost Contribution $/gge H2 0.70 0.60 0.55 0.50

Feedstock Cost Contributionc $/gge H2 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.50

Fixed O&M Cost Contribution $/gge H2 0.40 0.40 0.35 0.35

Other Variable O&M Cost Contribution $/gge H2 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.25

a
Economic parameters used were: 40 yr. analysis period, 10% IRR after taxes, 100% equity financing, 1.9% inflation, 38.9% total tax rate, MACRS
20-year depreciation. The results in 2000$ were inflated by 6% to yield 2003 dollars. These costs are at the plant gate. The cost target for delivery of
hydrogen from the plant gate to the point of refueling at a refueling station in 2015 is $1.00/gge (See Section 3.2).
b
Energy efficiency is defined as the energy of the hydrogen out of the process (LHV) divided by the sum of the energy into the process from the feedstock
(LHV) and all other energy needed. The electrical energy utilized does not include the efficiency losses from the production of the electricity.
c
For 2003 and 2005 a biomass feedstock cost of $46/dry ton in 2000$ was used. For 2010 a feedstock cost of $44/dry ton was used. For 2015 a feedstock
cost of $42/dry ton was used.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 15

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Table 3.1.8. Technical Targets: Photolytic Biological Hydrogen Production from Watera
Characteristics Units 2003 Status 2010 Targetb 2015 Targetc,d

Utilization Efficiency of Incident Solar Light Energy % 10 15 20

(E0*E1)e

Efficiency of Incident Light Energy to Hydrogen from % 0.1 2 5

Water (E0*E1*E2)f

Duration of Continuous Photoproductiong Time Units not availableg 30 min 4 hr

O2 Tolerance (half life in air) Time Units 1 sec 10 min 2 hr

E0 E1 E2
Solar Light Absorbed Light Electrons H2
a
Hydrogen cost will be evaluated as part of the research and development Go/No-Go decision in 2015 (see Appendix B). The targets in this table are for
research tracking. The final targets for this technology are to reach costs that are competitive with traditional fuels for transportation applications and
with other hydrogen production technologies.
b
2010 target is based on analysis of best technologies available, theoretically integrated into a single organism.
c
2015 targets are based on analysis of best technologies available, actually integrated into a single organism.
d
Near commercialization targets (beyond 2015) are 25% utilization efficiency of incident solar light energy (E0*E1), 10% efficiency of incident light
energy to H2 from water (E0*E1*E2), ≥12h (O2 tolerant) duration of continuous photoproduction, and 6h O2-tolerance (half-life in air).
e
E0 reflects the light collection efficiency of the photoreactor and the fact that only a fraction of solar incident light is photosynthetically active
(theoretical maximum is 45%). E1 is the efficiency with which algae convert the energy of absorbed photons to chemical energy (i.e. chemical potential;
theoretical maximum is 71%). E0*E1 represents the efficiency of conversion of incident solar light to chemical potential (theoretical maximum is 32%).
f
E2 reflects the efficiency with which the chemical potential generated by the absorbed photons is converted to hydrogen (theoretical maximum is 41%).
E0*E1*E2 represents the efficiency of conversion of incident solar light to H2 (theoretical maximum is 13% when water is the substrate); only peak
efficiencies are meant.
g
Duration reflects continuous production in the light, not necessarily at peak efficiencies. Targets reflect oxygen tolerant system.

page 3- 16 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Table 3.1.9. Technical Targets: Photosynthetic Bacterial Hydrogen Productiona

Characteristics Units 2003 Status 2010 Target 2015b Target

Efficiency of Incident Solar Light Energy to H2

% 1.9d 3 4.5
(E0*E1*E2)c from organic acids

Molar Yield of Carbon Conversion to H2 (depends on

% of maximum 42e 50 65
nature of organic substrate) E3e

Duration of continuous photoproductionf Time 6 daysg 30 days 3 months

E0 E1 E2
Solar Light Absorbed Light (nitrogenase) H2
+
Organic Acid E3
a
Hydrogen cost will be evaluated as part of the research and development Go/No-Go decision in 2015 (see Appendix B). The targets in this table are for
research tracking. The final targets for this technology are to reach costs that are competitive with traditional fuels for transportation applications and
with other hydrogen production technologies.
b
Near commercialization targets (beyond 2015) are 5.5% efficiency of incident solar light energy to H2 (E0*E1*E2) from organic acids, 80% of maximum
molar yield of carbon conversion to H2 (depends on nature of organic substrate) E3, and 6 months duration of continuous photoproduction.
c
E0 reflects the light collection efficiency of the photoreactor and the fact that only a fraction of incident solar light is photosynthetically active (theoretical
maximum is 68%, from 400 to 1000 nm). E1*E2 is equivalent to the efficiency of conversion of absorbed light to primary charge separation then to
ATP; both are required for hydrogen production via the nitrogenase enzyme. E0*E1*E2 represents the efficiency of conversion of incident solar light to
hydrogen through the nitrogenase enzyme (theoretical maximum is 10% for 4-5 electrons). This efficiency does not take into account the energy used to
generate the carbon substrate.
d
Average from data presented by Akkerman, I., M. Janssen, J. Rocha, and R. H. Wijffels. 2002. Intl. J. Hydrogen Energy 27: 1195-1208.
e
E3 represents the molar yield of H2 per carbon substrate (the theoretical maximum is 7 moles per mol carbon in the substrate, in the case of acetate and
butyrate). Average of data presented by Koku, H., I. Eroglu, U. Gunduz, M. Yucel, and L. Turker. 2002. Intl. J. Hydrogen Energy 27: 1315-1329.
f
Duration reflects continuous production in the light, not necessarily at peak efficiencies. It includes short periods during which ammonia is re-added to
maintain the system active.
g
Average from data presented by Koku, H., I. Eroglu, U. Gunduz, M. Yucel, and L. Turker. 2002. Intl. J. Hydrogen Energy 27: 1315-1329.

Table 3.1.10. Technical Targets: Dark Fermentative Hydrogen Productiona

Characteristics Units 2003 Status 2010 Target 2015 Targetb

mol H2
Yield of H2 production from glucosec 2d 4 6
mol glucose

Feedstock Coste cents/lb sugar 13.5 10 8

Duration of continuous production Time 17daysf 3 months 6 months

a
Hydrogen cost will be evaluated as part of the research and development Go/No-Go decision in 2015 (see Appendix B). The targets in this table are for
research tracking. The final targets for this technology are to reach costs that are competitive with traditional fuels for transportation applications and
with other hydrogen production technologies.
b
Near commercialization targets (beyond 2015) are 10 molar yield of H2 Production from glucose, 6 cents/lb sugar feedstock cost, and 12 months duration
of continuous production.
c
The theoretical maximum from known fermentative pathways is 4, although the H2 content of 1 mole of glucose is 12. Clearly, in order to achieve molar
yields greater than 4, the feasibility of developing new pathways or discovering new microbes needs to be assessed.
d
DOE Workshop on Hydrogen Production via Direct Fermentation (June 2004) and Boundary Analysis for H2 Production by Fermentation, publications in
preparation.
e
Targets set by the DOE Biomass Program for glucose from lignocellulosic biomass. NREL Report TP-510-32438 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/
32438.pdf; NREL E Milestone #586, May 2004.
f
Van Ginkel, S., and S. Sung. 2001. Environ. Sci. Technol.,35: 4726-4730.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 17

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Table 3.1.11. Technical Targets: Photoelectrochemical Hydrogen Productiona

Characteristics Units 2003 Status 2010 Target 2015 Targetb

Usable semiconductor bandgapc eV 2.8 2.3 2.0

Chemical conversion process efficiency (EC)d % 4 10 12

Plant solar-to-hydrogen efficiency (STH)e % not available 8 10

Plant durabilityf hr not available 1000 5000

a
Hydrogen cost will be evaluated as part of the research and development Go/No-Go decision in 2015 (see Appendix B). The targets in this table are for
research tracking. The final targets for this technology are to reach costs that are competitive with traditional fuels for transportation applications and
with other hydrogen production technologies.
b
Near commercialization targets (beyond 2015) are 16% plant solar-to-hydrogen efficiency (STH) and 15,000 hours plant durability.
c
The bandgap of the interface semiconductor establishes the photon absorption limits. Useable bandgaps correspond to systems with adequate stability,
photon absorption and charge collection characteristics for meeting efficiency, durability and cost targets.
d
EC reflects the process efficiency with which a semiconductor system can convert the energy of absorbed photons to chemical energy [based on AM (Air
Mass) 1.5 insolation] and is a function of the bandgap, IPEC and electronic transport properties. A multiple junction device may be used to reach these
targets.
e
Solar-to-hydrogen (STH) is the projected plant-gate solar-to-hydrogen conversion efficiency based on AM (Air Mass) 1.5 insolation. Both EC and STH
represent peak efficiencies, with the assumption that the material systems are adequately stable.
f
Durability reflects projected duration of continuous photoproduction, not necessarily at peak efficiencies.

Table 3.1.12. Solar-Driven High-Temperature Thermochemical Hydrogen Productiona

Characteristics Units 2005 Target 2010 Target 2015 Target

Solar-Driven High-Temperature Thermochemical Cycle
$/gge H2 10 6 3
Hydrogen Cost

Solar Concentrator Capital Cost (installed cost)b $/m2 200 170 130

Process Energy Efficiencyc % 30 40 45

a
Based on initial analysis. Two potential high temperature cycles were examined: the Westinghouse modified sulfur cycle with electrolysis, and a zinc
oxide cycle. The capacity basis was central production of 150,000 kg/day of hydrogen. All targets are expressed in 2003 dollars. These costs are at the
plant gate. The cost target for delivery of hydrogen from the plant gate to the point of refueling at a refueling station in 2015 is $1.00/gge (See Section
3.2)
b
These capital cost targets are consistent with those of the EERE Solar Program for a heliostat field and tower. They do not include the receiver.
c
The process energy efficiency is defined as the energy of the hydrogen produced (LHV) divided by the sum of the energy from the solar concentrator plus
any other net energy required for the process. The solar concentrator energy efficiency targets are the same as for the EERE Solar Program.

page 3- 18 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

3.1.4.2 Barriers

The following sections detail the technical and economic barriers that must be overcome to attain the Hydrogen
Production goal and objectives. The barriers are divided into sections depending on the hydrogen production
method.

3.1.4.2.1 Distributed Hydrogen Production from Natural Gas or Renewable Liquid

Feedstocks

A. Fuel Processor Capital Costs. Current small-scale distributed natural gas and renewable liquid feedstock
reforming technologies have capital costs that are too high to achieve the targeted hydrogen production
cost. Multiple unit operations and low energy efficiencies are key contributors to the high capital costs.
Improved reforming and shift catalysts are needed to reduce side reactions and improve performance. Shift,
separation, and purification costs need to be reduced. Process intensification by combining steps could
significantly reduce costs. For example, combining the current two step shift and PSA separation into a one-
step shift with integrated hydrogen separation could significantly reduce capital costs.

B. Fuel Processor Manufacturing. Distributed reforming units are currently designed and built one at a
time, particularly for large industrial applications. Efforts such as Design for Manufacture and Assembly
(DFMA) need to be applied to develop more compact, appliance-type units that can be produced using low-
cost, high-throughput manufacturing methods.

C. Operation and Maintenance (O&M). O&M costs for distributed reforming hydrogen production from
natural gas and renewable feedstocks are too high. Robust systems that require little maintenance and that
include remote monitoring capability need to be developed.

D. Feedstock Issues. Availability of some feedstocks is limited in certain areas. Feedstock-flexible reformers
are needed to address location-specific feedstock supply issues. Effects of impurities on the system from
multiple feedstocks as well as the effects of impurities from variations in single feedstocks need to be
addressed in the reformer design.

E. Carbon Dioxide Emissions. Distributed natural gas reformers emit greenhouse gases. Cost-effectively
sequestering these relatively smaller volume and highly distributed carbon emissions is significantly
more challenging than at central hydrogen production facilities that use fossil fuels. Feedstocks and/or
technologies that can approach near zero net greenhouse gas emissions are needed.

F. Control and Safety. Control and safety issues are associated with natural gas and renewable feedstock
reforming, including on-off cycling. Effective operations control strategies are needed to minimize cost and
emissions, maximize efficiencies, and enhance safety. Hydrogen leakage is addressed within the Delivery
and Safety Program elements.

3.1.4.2.2 Hydrogen Generation by Water Electrolysis

G. Capital Cost. The capital costs of electrolysis systems are prohibitive to widespread adoption of
electrolysis technology for hydrogen production. R&D is needed to develop lower cost materials with
improved manufacturing capability to lower capital while improving the efficiency and durability of the
system. Development of larger systems is also needed to improve economies of scale.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 19

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

H. System Efficiency. New membrane, electrode and system designs are needed to improve system efficiency.
Mechanical high-pressure compression technology exhibits low energy efficiency and often reduces
hydrogen purity while adding significantly to the system cost. Efficiency gains can be realized using
electrochemical compression in the cell stack. Low-cost, high-pressure materials need to be developed to
provide integral electrochemical or other high-pressure compression technologies to replace some or all
mechanical compression stages. Development is needed for low-cost cell stack optimization considering
efficiency, electrochemical compression, and durability.

I. Grid Electricity Emissions. The current grid electricity mix in most locations increases greenhouse gas
emissions in large-scale electrolysis systems. Low-cost, carbon-free electricity sources are needed.

J. Renewable Integration. More efficient integration with renewable electricity sources is needed to reduce
costs and improve performance. Development of integrated renewable electrolysis systems is needed,
including optimization of power conversion and other system components from renewable electricity to
provide high-efficiency, low-cost integrated renewable hydrogen production. Novel concepts for carbon-
free electrolytic hydrogen production need to be evaluated.

K. Electricity Costs. High-temperature solid oxide electrolysis can use lower cost energy in the form of
steam for water splitting to decrease electricity consumption. Technically viable systems for low-cost
manufacturing need to be developed for this technology. Electrolysis systems that can produce both
hydrogen and electricity need to be evaluated. (Renewable electricity costs will be addressed by the DOE
EERE renewable power programs – Solar, Wind, Hydropower, Geothermal and Biomass.)

3.1.4.2.3 Separations and Other Cross-Cutting Hydrogen Production

There are a number of technology options available that can be used to separate and purify hydrogen. The
following is a set of broad, cross-cutting barriers that must be overcome to reduce the cost and increase the
efficiency of these separation technologies.

L. Durability. Since hydrogen is noncorrosive, special materials of construction are not usually required;
however, hydrogen embrittlement occurs in some metals. Hydrogen can embrittle certain types of
membranes used in separation technologies, inducing a phase change. Embrittlement reduces the durability
and effectiveness of the membrane for selectively separating hydrogen. Thermal cycling can cause
failure in some membranes, reducing their durability and operating life. This is especially problematic in
distributed applications that are subject to frequent start-up and shut-down cycles. Finally, materials do not
perform optimally. Support structures with more uniform pore sizes and less surface roughness are needed
to avoid membrane defects. Interactions between membrane and support structure materials need to be
better understood. Fundamental materials science work is needed to understand microstructural evolution
during operation and effect on membrane permeance, selectivity, and failure modes. Combinatorial methods
are needed for rapid testing and evaluation of novel materials and alloys.

M. Impurities. The presence of trace contaminants as well as CO, water, and CO2 in the exit gas from
a gasifier or reformer can reduce the hydrogen flux across different types of membranes. It is not
understood whether these effects are caused by competitive adsorption or compositional changes on the
membrane surface. Additionally, some membranes exhibit poor thermochemical stability in carbon dioxide
environments, resulting in the conversion of membrane materials into carbonates. In solvent systems,
impurities can cause less effective absorption and may lead to excessive loss of solvent, which will increase
cost. Non-reversible adsorption of impurities onto the surface of metallic membranes can poison the

page 3- 20 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

membrane and lead to total failure. Researchers and membrane developers need a better understanding of
the concentrations of all trace components in the feed gas stream so that membrane systems can be designed
and tested for tolerance to these contaminants. PEM fuel cells require a highly pure hydrogen product
containing: CO <1 ppm, CO2 <100 ppm, S <10 ppb, NH3 <1 ppm, non-methane hydrocarbons <100 ppm
and O2, N2, Ar <2%.

N. Defects. Oxidizing gas mixtures (oxygen, steam, and carbon oxides) have been observed to cause metallic
membranes to rearrange their atomic structure at temperatures greater than 450 ºC. This results in the
formation of defects that reduce membrane selectivity for hydrogen. High-temperature and high-pressure
seals are difficult to make using ceramic substrates. Seals and joints are a weak link in membrane module
construction and one of the most common points of membrane system failure. Large-scale (high-yield,
low-cost) manufacturing methods for defect-free thin films and membranes and modules in mass production
must be developed and demonstrated. Fabrication of defect-free membranes requires a reduction in
membrane deposition cycles. The chemical deposition of thin palladium or palladium-alloy membranes
onto support structures is also an important technical challenge. Vapor deposition and solution plating offer
the ability to rapidly produce very thin films, but current technologies are defect prone and susceptible to
contamination.

O. Selectivity. The hydrogen selectivity of microporous membranes is lower than desired for cost-effective
use, especially for zeolite-supported membranes where selectivity decreases with increasing temperature
(inadequate above 150 ºC). However, temperatures typically need to be greater than 300 ºC in various
applications.

P. Operating Temperature. Processes that can be designed to operate at or near system conditions, without
the need for cooling and/or re-heating, will be more efficient. For example, dense ceramic proton hydrogen
separation membranes currently operate only at high temperatures (~900 ºC). Separation systems suitable
for distributed reforming of natural gas and renewable liquids are needed. Low temperature systems (< 50
°C) are needed for biological and photoelectrochemical systems.

Q. Flux. Flux rates for membranes need to be improved to reduce the membrane size and lower overall cost of
hydrogen separation and purification systems.

R. Testing and Analysis. Better information is needed to guide researchers and membrane technology
developers towards performance targets that are application specific. Standard methods for evaluating
and screening membrane materials and modules are needed to provide a solid basis for comparison of
alternatives and to conduct needed tests such as accelerated durability tests. Testing under real-world
operating conditions is needed to demonstrate durability and robust, reliable performance. Additionally,
there is currently a lack of understanding of tradeoffs between different system configurations and operating
parameters. Operation at higher temperatures and partial pressure differentials can increase flux rates but
results in more expensive membrane modules. Very thin membranes increase flux but they are harder to
fabricate defect-free. Analysis is also needed to understand options and tradeoffs for process intensification
in different applications.

S. Cost. In addition to precious metals, membrane materials and support structures are costly. Even metallic
membranes, where small amounts of precious metals are used, are more costly than non-metallic
membranes.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 21

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

T. Oxygen Separation Technology. Commercial oxygen separation technology relies on expensive and
energy-intensive cryogenic separation. Low-cost oxygen membrane technology needs to be developed
for potential use in distributed reforming, biomass gasification/pyrolysis and other hydrogen production
technologies.

U. High-Purity Water Availability. Impacts on water supplies are not understood. Further analysis is needed.

3.1.4.2.4 Biomass Gasification/Pyrolysis Hydrogen Production

V. Feedstock Cost and Availability. Feedstock costs are high. Improved feedstock/agriculture technology
(higher yields per acre, etc.), lower cost feedstock collection, and improved feedstock preparation are
needed. Because biomass feedstocks are often seasonal in nature, feedstock-flexible processes and/or cost-
effective feedstock storage are needed (Tasks to overcome these barriers will be developed by the DOE
Biomass Program and the U.S. Department of Agriculture).

W. Capital Cost and Efficiency of Biomass Gasification/Pyrolysis Technology. The capital cost for biomass
gasification/pyrolysis needs to be reduced. Process intensification by combining steps can significantly
reduce capital costs. This could range from combining the current two step shift and PSA separation to
a one step shift with integrated separation, to integrating gasification, reforming, shift and separation all
in one unit. Improved process efficiency and higher hydrogen yields and selectivities through catalyst
research, better heat integration, and alternative gas clean-up approaches are needed. Improved catalysts or
engineering approaches for tar cracking are also needed.

3.1.4.2.5 Biological Hydrogen Production

A number of technologies for biological H2 production are available, but they are not mature at present.
Technical barriers related to each individual technology must be overcome, integrated models must be developed,
and barriers related to an integrated system must be identified before economic barriers can be meaningfully
considered. Methods for engineering and manufacturing these systems have not been fully evaluated. Barriers
are listed below for each technology, followed by a model for how these different technologies could be
integrated and a list of barriers for the integrated process.

Photolytic H2 Production from Water (green algae or cyanobacteria):

X. Light Utilization Efficiency. The microorganisms used for photobiological H2 production possess large
arrays of light-capturing antenna pigment molecules. Under bright sunlight, pigment antennae absorb
much more light than can be utilized by the photosynthetic electron transport apparatus, resulting in heat
dissipation and loss of up to 80% of the absorbed sunlight. Research is needed to identify ways to increase
the light conversion efficiency, including the identification of better and/or modified photosynthetic
organisms for H2 production.

Y. Rate of Hydrogen Production. The current H2 production rate from photosynthetic microorganisms is
too low for commercial viability. The low rates have been attributed to (a) the non-dissipation of a proton
gradient across the photosynthetic membrane, which is established during electron transport from water to
the hydrogenase (the H2-producing enzyme) under anaerobic conditions, and (b) the existence of competing
metabolic flux pathways for reductant. Genetic means to overcome the restricting metabolic pathways,
such as the insertion of a proton channel across the thylakoid membrane, must be used to significantly
increase the rate of H2 production. Under aerobic conditions, with an O2-tolerant hydrogenase catalyzing H2
production, the competition between CO2 fixation and hydrogenase will have to be addressed.

page 3- 22 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Z. Continuity of Photoproduction. Hydrogen-producing algae co-produce oxygen, which inhibits the

hydrogenase enzyme activity. This inhibition needs to be alleviated, possibly by (a) identifying or
engineering a less O2-sensitive enzyme; (b) separating the oxygen and hydrogen production cycles; or
(c) affecting the ratio of photosynthesis to respiration (P/R) by a variety of means, such that O2 does not
accumulate in the medium, the quantum yield of photosynthesis is maintained, and full hydrogenase activity
is achieved (see details under Integrated System).

AA. Systems Engineering. System requirements for cost-effective implementation of photolytic hydrogen-
production technologies have not been adequately evaluated. Analysis and research are needed on
inexpensive/transparent materials for H2 containment, H2 collection systems, prevention of the build-
up of H2/O2 gas mixtures, separation of co-produced H2 and O2 gases, continuous bioreactor operation,
monoculture maintenance, land area requirements and capital costs.

AB. Diurnal Operation Limitations. Photolytic processes are discontinuous because they depend on sunlight,
which is unavailable at night and available only at low intensities on cloudy days. This results in increased
capital costs for larger facilities to accommodate higher short-term production rates and larger hydrogen
storage needs. Engineering options need to be carefully analyzed to minimize capital requirements.

Photosynthetic Bacterial Hydrogen Production, Required for an Integrated System:

AC. Light Utilization Efficiency. Same issues apply as for photolytic systems (see Barrier X).

AD. Rate of Hydrogen Production. Photosynthetic bacteria can metabolize a variety of organic substrates that
are waste by-products of various fermentative processes. However, the metabolism of acetic and lactic
acids to H2 also generates by-products such as polymer polyhydroxyalkanoate (PHA). Synthesis of PHA
competes with H2 production for the same source of electron donors. Genes controlling PHA synthesis and
perhaps other pathways must be inactivated to maximize H2 production. Alternative types of nitrogenase are
needed to produce larger stoichiometric amounts of H2/ammonia.

AE. Hydrogen Re-oxidation. Most photosynthetic bacteria contain an H2-oxidation pathway catalyzed by
an uptake hydrogenase enzyme. This enzyme will recycle the H2 produced by the nitrogenase to support
cell growth. Uptake hydrogenase enzyme(s) must be inactivated to ensure net H2 accumulation by
photosynthetic bacteria.

AF. Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio. To maximize nitrogenase activity, the proper ratio of carbon to nitrogen (C/N)
nutrients must be maintained. The C/N nutrient content in the photoreactor (algal and cyanobacteria) and in
the dark fermentor needs to be evaluated to assess whether the media composition is suitable for subsequent
photosynthetic bacterial hydrogen production. Enzyme engineering approaches may be needed to alleviate
inhibition of nitrogenase by elevated levels of nitrogen nutrient.

AG. Systems Engineering. The same issues apply as for photolytic systems (see above), except for the mixture
of gases. Photosynthetic bacteria do not co-evolve H2 and O2 but release H2 and CO2. The cost of H2 and
CO2 separation must be evaluated.

AH. Diurnal Operation Limitation. The same issues apply as for photolytic systems (see Barrier AB).

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 23

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Dark Fermentative Hydrogen Production, Required for an Integrated System:

AI. H2 Molar Yield. Up to 4 moles of H2 can theoretically be produced per mole of glucose through the known
fermentative pathways. However, various biological limitations such as H2-end-product inhibition and
waste-acid and solvent accumulation limit the molar yield to around 2 moles per mole glucose consumed.
Hydrogen molar yields must be increased significantly through metabolic engineering efforts. New
pathways must be discovered to directly take full advantage of the 12 moles of H2 available in a mole of
glucose.

AJ. Waste Acid Accumulation. Organic acids such as acetic and butyric acids are waste by-products of the
fermentation process. The production of these acids poses several challenges such as lowering the molar
yield of H2 by diverting the metabolic pathway toward solvent production and requiring subsequent
wastewater treatment. Elimination of this pathway or subsequent processing (such as in an integrated
biological hydrogen production system) of the organic acids by photosynthetic bacteria is needed to increase
hydrogen yields. Potential release of toxins during dark fermentation and their inhibition of the subsequent
steps (such as in an integrated system) will need to be evaluated.

AK. Feedstock Cost. The glucose feedstock is the major cost driver for economic H2 production via
fermentation. For renewable H2 to be cost competitive with traditional transportation fuels, the glucose cost
must be around $0.05 per pound and provide a molar yield of H2 approaching 10 (see Barrier AI and Target
Table 3.1.9). Lower-cost methods for producing glucose from whole biomass are needed. Cellulolytic
microbes with a high rate of H2 production are also needed to use the cell biomass of the green algal/
cyanobacterial and photosythetic bacterial co-culture (in an integrated biological H2 production system).

AL. Systems Engineering. The same issues apply as above, plus prevention of methanogen contamination is
needed.

Integrated Biological Hydrogen Production System (many configurations are possible, Figure 3.1.2):
Figure 3.1.2. Integrated ����������
Biological �����������
System ���������� �������

�� �� �� ���������������
�������
����� ��� �������
�����

������ ����� ���� �������

����
����� �������� ���������
�����
����� ��������

���
����� ������� ���������

������������ ��������� �������������� ���������� ����������� ����� ��� �������������� �������� ��

� ������������� ��� ���� ��������� �������� �� � ���������� ��������� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��������
�� ������� ���� ��� ���� �������������� �� ��� ����������� ����� ��� ��� �������������� ���������
���������� ��������� ��� ��� ���� ��������� �������� �� ������� ���� ��������������� ���������
��� ����� ������� �������� ����������� �� ��� ���� ��������� ��������� ������������ ��� ������������
�������� �� ��������� ��� ��� ����������� ����� ��� �������������� ���������

page 3- 24 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

AM. Photosynthesis/Respiration Capacity Ratio: Green algae and cyanobacteria become anaerobic when their
P/R (photosynthesis/respiration) capacity ratio is 1 or less. Under such anaerobic conditions, photosynthetic
water oxidation produces H2 (instead of starch), and the O2 evolved by photosynthesis is consumed by
respiration, producing CO2. Currently, this process is achieved by nutrient deprivation, with the drawback
that the resulting P/R ≤ 1 ratio is achieved by partially decreasing the quantum yield of photosynthesis.
Alternative mechanisms to bring the P/R ratio to 1 need to be investigated, particularly those methods that
focus on achieving a P/R ratio of 1 without changing the quantum yield of photosynthesis. Two further
issues will need to be investigated under these conditions: (a) rate limitations due to the non-dissipation of
the proton gradient and (b) the ability of the culture to take up a variety of exogenous carbon sources under
the resulting anaerobic conditions.

AN. Co-Culture Balance: To extend the absorption spectrum of the H2-photoproducing cultures to the infrared
(700-900 nm), the possibility of co-cultivating oxygenic photosynthetic organisms with anoxygenic
photosynthetic bacteria should be investigated. However, in addition to light in the infrared region,
photosynthetic bacteria also absorb light in the visible (400 to 600 nm), thus potentially competing with
green algae for these latter wavelengths. Strategies need to be devised to either maintain the appropriate
biomass ratio of the two organisms as suspensions in the same reactor, or to physically separate them in the
same photoreactor via immobilization of one or both cultures. The competition for organic carbon substrates
between two organisms in the same medium also needs to be investigated.

AO. Concentration/Processing of Cell Biomass. In an integrated system, cell biomass from either green
algae/cyanobacteria or photosynthetic bacteria can serve as the substrate for dark fermentation. The green
algal and cyanobacterial cell walls are made mostly of glycoproteins, which are rich in arabinose, mannose,
galactose and glucose. Purple photosynthetic bacterial cell walls contain peptidoglycans (carbohydrate
polymers cross-linked by protein, and other polymers made of carbohydrate protein and lipid). Pretreatment
of cell biomass may be necessary to render it more suitable for dark fermentation. Methods for cell
concentration and processing will depend on the type of organism used and how the biological system is
integrated.

3.1.4.2.6 Photoelectrochemical Hydrogen Production

Photoelectrochemical hydrogen production, in an early stage of development, depends on a breakthrough

in materials development. The primary research in this area is progressing on three fronts: 1) the study of
high-efficiency materials to attain the basic science understanding needed for improving lower-efficiency,
low-cost materials; 2) the study of low-cost durable materials to attain the basic science understanding
needed for modifying higher-efficiency, lower-durability materials; and 3) the development of multijunction
devices incorporating multiple material layers to achieve efficient water splitting. Methods of engineering and
manufacturing these systems need to be developed in conjunction with the materials and device research.

Current material systems for photoelectrochemical hydrogen production can broadly be divided into three
categories, each with its own characteristics and research challenges. These groupings are: (i) stable materials
with low visible light absorption efficiency (e.g. oxides), (ii) highly efficient light absorbers with low lifetimes
(e.g. III-Vs) and (iii) hybrid and multijunction systems which combine multiple materials in multi-photon
devices. The group (i) materials are characterized by high bandgaps and low integrated incident-photon-to-
electron conversion (IPEC) over the solar spectrum; the group (ii) materials have very high IPEC (better than
90% throughout the visible spectra), but have low corrosion resistance and poor energetics; and the group (iii)
systems can have very high efficiency and long lifetime, depending on the material set, but can be complicated
and expensive to build. Research in all three categories is necessary for developing systems that meet the targets

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 25

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

reflected in the PEC target table. To date, a range of materials and material systems have met individual 2010
targets of chemical efficiency or durability, but no single material/system has simultaneously met efficiency,
durability and cost targets. This is the primary research challenge for photoelectrochemical hydrogen production.

AP. Materials Efficiency. Materials with smaller bandgaps more efficiently utilize the solar spectrum, but are
often less energetically favorable for hydrogen production because of the bandedge mismatch with respect
to either hydrogen or oxygen redox potentials. Materials with appropriate bandedge and bandgap for
hydrogen production must be developed.

AQ. Materials Durability. Durable materials with the appropriate characteristics for photoelectrochemical
hydrogen production that meet the Hydrogen Production Program element goals have not been identified.
The high-efficiency materials currently available corrode quickly during operation, and the most durable
materials are very inefficient for hydrogen production.

AR. Bulk Materials Synthesis. Fabrication techniques for materials identified to have potential for high
efficiency, durability and low cost need to be developed on scales consistent with implementation in
commercial reactors.

AS. Device Configuration Designs. Hybrid and other device designs that combine multiple layers of materials
could address issues of durability and efficiency. Techniques are needed for manufacturing appropriate
photoelectrochemical materials in these device configurations at commercial scales.

AT. Systems Design and Evaluation. System designs incorporating the most promising device configurations,
and using cost-effective, hydrogen-impermeable, transparent materials are also needed to implement
photolytic production routes. The complete systems evaluation will need to consider a range of important
operational constraints and parameters, including the diurnal operation limitations and the effects of water
purity on performance and lifetime. Engineering options need to be carefully analyzed to minimize capital
requirements.

3.1.4.2.7 High-Temperature Thermochemical, Solar-Driven Production of Hydrogen6

AU. High-Temperature Thermochemical Technology. There are over 150 possible thermochemical cycles for
solar driven water splitting. These cycles need to be evaluated and ranked for their suitability. The most
promising cycles need to be more fully explored and verified to down select to a few cycles for research
and development. Many of these cycles require the development of technology to either very rapidly quench
high temperature reactions and/or separate hydrogen or other materials at high temperatures.

AV. High-Temperature Robust Materials. High temperatures are employed in these thermochemical systems.
Cost-effective, durable materials are needed that can withstand these high temperatures and the thermal duty
cycles present in solar concentrator systems.

AW. Concentrated Solar Energy Capital Cost. Concentrated solar energy collection is currently expensive
and requires large areas of land. Improved, lower-cost solar concentrator/collection technology, including
materials, is needed.7

6
DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology has the lead responsibility for hydrogen production utilizing nuclear energy for high
temperature (700°-1000°C) thermochemical water splitting chemical cycles. The Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies will
collaborate with Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology on the thermochemical hydrogen production R&D activities.
7
The Hydrogen Program will rely on and collaborate with the DOE EERE Solar Program for the advancement of concentrated solar energy technology.

page 3- 26 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

AX. Coupling Concentrated Solar Energy and Thermochemical Cycles. Coupling concentrated solar energy
with thermochemical cycles presents many challenges. Receivers and reactors need to be developed and
engineered. Cost effective approaches and systems to deal effectively with the diurnal nature of sunlight
need to be researched and developed.

3.1.5 Technical Task Descriptions

The technical task descriptions are presented in Table 3.1.10. Concerns regarding safety and environmental
effects will be addressed within each task in coordination with the appropriate Program element.

Table 3.1.10. Technical Task Descriptions

Task Description Barriers

Low-Cost, Distributed Production of Hydrogen from Natural Gas

• Develop advanced, small-scale reformer technology for greater efficiency, selectivity, and
durability.
• Develop advanced shift catalysts that are more efficient and impurity tolerant. Evaluate
pathways for improving conventional water-gas-shift catalysts and reactors, including A, B, C, D,
1 single-stage shift. E, F
• Develop advanced technology that integrates process steps and energy to minimize capital,
unit size, and energy use in an intensified process.
• Utilize Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) to design appliance type units for
high-thoughput low-cost manufacture.
• Design for robust operations that minimize maintenance and process monitoring needs.

Distributed Reforming of Renewable Liquid Feedstocks

• Analyze and research options for alternative renewable feedstocks (e.g., ethanol, methanol,
sugar alcohols, bio-oils, bio-based Fischer Tropsch liquids) for distributed production. A, B, C, D,
2 • Utilizing the technology concepts developed for distributed natural gas reforming, develop E, F
efficient, integrated, compact, robust process technology for bio-derived liquid feedstocks.
• Explore novel technology for reforming bio-derived renewable liquid feedstocks that could
result in a cost breakthrough.

Advanced Electrolysis Technologies to Reduce Cost and Increase Efficiency

• Reduce cell stack cost by developing lower cost durable materials with improved
manufacturing capability optimized for efficiency, durability, and stack compression.
• Develop electrochemical and other novel compression technologies, integral to cell stacks,
to reach hydrogen output pressures greater than 500 psi using low-cost materials.
• Optimize electrolysis with renewable energy systems to lower cost of power conversion and
other system components. G, H, I, J,
3 • Develop utility-scale electrolysis system suitable for renewable and grid electricity K, U
integration.
• Develop system components for lower system O&M costs including cell stack durability
and compression.
• Evaluate steam electrolysis for reducing electricity costs associated with hydrogen
production and improving system durability.
• Continue development of reversible solid oxide electrolyzer materials and system design.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 27

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Separation and Purification Systems (Cross-Cutting Research)

• Develop a membrane reactor system that combines water-gas-shift reaction for hydrogen
production with a membrane for hydrogen separation and purification in a single step to
achieve reductions in system operations and maintenance costs as well as reductions in
overall system capital costs.
• Investigate new lower-cost alloys to achieve fundamental improvements in metallic A, B, C, E, L,
membrane technology to achieve necessary hydrogen purity levels. M, N, O, P,
4 • Overcome embrittlement and fracture issues associated with producing high-purity Q, R, S, T, V,
hydrogen at high concentrations to promote system durability. W, AA, AG,
• Verify that inorganic, metallic, and ion transport membrane systems can meet or exceed AL, AS, AU,
separation targets under realistic commercial operating conditions. AV
• Develop membranes that optimize hydrogen and carbon dioxide selectivity.
• Improve existing air separation technologies and identify novel technologies for separating
oxygen for gasification and reforming.
• Develop integrated membrane/reactor systems for reforming.

Cost Reduction of Biomass Reforming for Gasification/Pyrolysis

• Identify all opportunities for reducing the cost of biomass gasification/pyrolysis
technologies.
• Reduce the cost and increase the feedstock flexibility of biomass feedstock preparation
(e.g. handling, size reduction, etc.)
• Research and develop more cost-effective, efficient, and durable biomass product gas
clean up technologies for feed into reforming operations, including hot-gas clean-up, tar
cracking, and other related technologies. (This will be coordinated with the Office of Fossil
Energy for coal-gasifier product gas clean up technologies and with the EERE Biomass
Program.)
5 • Investigate opportunities for catalyst and reactor improvement for reforming and V, W
conditioning of biomass producer gases.
• Improve process overall heat integration and improve hydrogen yields and selectivities to
improve energy efficiency and reduce cost.
• Intensify and reduce the capital cost by combining/integrating process steps and
operations. This could include single step shift with an integrated membrane, combining
shift and reforming in one operation, combining gasification and reforming in one operation,
etc.
• Develop other gasification/pyrolysis improvements, including further heat integration,
reactor configurations, etc.

Molecular and Physiological Engineering of Organisms for Photolytic Hydrogen

Production from Water
• Generate organisms that are O2-tolerant, have increased light conversion efficiency, allow
more efficient photosynthetic electron transport toward H2, and eliminate competing
6 pathways for enhanced H2 production. Eliminate H2 uptake pathways in cyanobacteria. X,Y, Z
• Research and develop systems in which water photolysis occurs under anaerobic
conditions (i.e., in which the P/R ratio is ≤1). Test different methods to achieve that ratio
without affecting H2 production (priority for the development of an integrated system).
Incorporate elements from the first bullet, if necessary.

Systems Engineering for Photolytic Hydrogen Production from Water

• Optimize photoreactor material and system designs.
• Discover and develop cost effective, transparent, H2-impermeable materials for photolytic
7 production of H2. AA, AB
• Develop hydrogen collection and gas separation technologies.
• Verify economic and technical viability of continuous hydrogen production.

page 3- 28 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Molecular Engineering of Organisms for Photosynthetic Bacterial Hydrogen Production

• Increase the useful portion of the solar spectrum beyond the visible and into the infrared
by co-cultivating green algae/cyanobacteria and photosynthetic bacterial (priority for the
development of an integrated system).
AC, AD, AE,
8 • Generate photosynthetic bacteria that have increased sunlight conversion efficiency and
AF
display more efficient photosynthetic electron transport. Eliminate competitive pathways
such as H2 oxidation and polymer accumulation. Engineer organisms that have a functional
nitrogenase at elevated nitrogen-nutrient concentration. Investigate the H2-production
activity and solar efficiency of organisms containing alternative nitrogenases.

Systems Engineering for Photosynthetic Bacterial Hydrogen Production

• Optimize photoreactor material and system designs.
• Discover and develop cost effective, transparent, H2-impermeable materials for
9 photosynthetic bacterial H2 production.
AG, AH
• Develop H2-collection and gas-separation technologies.
• Verify economic and technical viability of continuous H2 production.

Molecular Engineering of Organisms for Dark Fermentative Hydrogen Production

• Eliminate competing pathways for H2 production.
• Bioprospect for cellulolytic microbes that can ferment cellulose along with mixed
10 sugars, and for organisms with pathways that allow for higher H2 molar yield. Investigate AI, AJ, AK
fermentation of green alga/photosynthetic bacteria cell biomass from the co-culture for
H2 production. Investigate the potential production of toxins by different fermentative
organisms that could prevent integration with other components of the overall system.

Systems Engineering for Dark Fermentative Hydrogen Production

• Develop catalytic degradation processes of cell biomass to be more suitable for the
subsequent dark fermentation. Industrial-scale enzymes, or chemical processes, need
to be defined that can be applied in large scale for the catalytic breakdown of these cell
11 wall biopolymers to their monomeric constituents. Dark anaerobic fermentations for the
AL
production of H2 can then utilize the resulting sugars as a suitable feedstock.
• Develop H2-collection and gas-separation technologies.
• Develop methanogen management approaches.

Integrated Biological Hydrogen Production (dependent on configuration used) (see

Figure 3.1.2)
• Investigate the best way to integrate anaerobic water photolysis (green algal and/or
cyanobacterial H2 production) with photosynthetic bacterial H2 production. This could
involve co-cultivation of organisms or immobilized cultures.
• Determine the efficacy of green algae/cyanobacteria and photosynthetic bacteria to
12 metabolize different exogenous organic carbon substrates. AM, AN, AO
• Regulate competition (for sunlight and/or nutrients) between different organisms in the case
of co-cultivation, and eliminate transfer of potential cell-growth inhibitors from the fermentor
to the photoreactors.
• Investigate low-cost methods to concentrate/process organisms in suspension, as
necessary.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 29

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Development of Semiconductor Materials for Photoelectrochemical Hydrogen

Production
• Develop and optimize the current state of the art materials for meeting near term efficiency
and durability targets.
• Discover, utilizing combinatorial or other screening methods, new materials for meeting
13 long-term efficiency, durability, and cost targets. AP, AQ, AR
• Develop cost-effective synthesis techniques for fabricating the most promising
semiconductor materials.
• Develop accelerated screening protocols to evaluate and validate long-term material
efficiencies and durability.

Material Configurations and Device Engineering for Photoelectrochemical Hydrogen

Production
• Evaluate device configurations, including multi-junction configurations and other advanced
14 designs, for improved efficiency and durability and lower device cost. AP, AQ, AR,
• Develop and optimize the most promising device configurations. AS
• Develop cost-effective fabricating synthesis techniques that are scalable and
manufactureable for the most promising materials systems, devices, and configurations.

Systems Development for Photoelectrochemical Hydrogen Production

• Design reactor systems to optimize light-capture efficiency, hydrogen production, gas
collection and reactor life – including utilization of novel geometries and electrolyte options.
• Identify or develop auxiliary materials and components necessary for photoelectrochemical
hydrogen production systems, including cost effective transparent, hydrogen-impermeable
15 materials for reactors. AT
• Develop accelerated testing protocols to evaluate and validate long-term system
efficiencies and durability.
• Apply economic modeling tools for predicting cost potentials for photolytic production
technologies.

High-Temperature, Solar-Driven, Thermochemical Processes

• Evaluate potential high-temperature, solar driven thermochemical water-splitting cycles and
down-select to the most promising cycles.
• Develop a cost effective integration of concentrated solar power with high-temperature
thermochemical water splitting cycles.
16 • Develop a viable integrated, solar-driven high-temperature thermochemical water-splitting AU, AV, AW,
process. AX
• Develop cost-effective, high-temperature materials compatible with thermochemical
processes.
• Verify an integrated, solar-driven high-temperature thermochemical water-splitting cycle
with targeted costs.

3.1.6 Milestones
Figure 3.1.3 shows the interrelationship of milestones, tasks, supporting inputs from other Program elements,
and technology outputs for the Hydrogen Production Program element from FY 2004 through FY 2012. This
information is also summarized in Table B.1 in Appendix B.

page 3- 30 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 31

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Figure 3.1.3. Hydrogen Production R&D Milestone Chart

For chart details see next page.

page 3- 32 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Milestones
1 Down-select research for distributed natural gas-to-hydrogen production.
2 Select advanced shift catalysts that are more efficient and impurity tolerant.
3 Verify feasibility of achieving $1.50/gge (delivered) from distributed natural gas.
4 Verify feasibility of achieving $3.60/gge for renewable liquids distributed reforming.
5 Down-select research for distributed production from bio-derived renewable liquids.
6 Go/No-Go: Decision on continued high-temperature steam electrolysis R&D based on a complete technoeconomic analysis and laboratory-
scale research results.
7 Verify feasibility of achieving $2.85/gge (delivered) from electrolysis.
8 Go/No-Go: Determine if membrane separation technology can be applied to natural gas distributed reforming during the transition to a
hydrogen economy.
9 Down-select separation technology for development in distributed natural gas reforming.
10 Demonstrate pilot-scale use of integrated separation (membrane) reactor system for natural gas.
11 Down-select separation technology for distributed bio-derived renewable liquid feedstocks reforming.
12 Demonstrate pilot-scale use of integrated separation (membrane) reactor system for renewable feedstocks.
13 Down-select to a primary technology and configuration for biomass gasification/pyrolysis clean–up, reforming, shift, separation and
purification.
14 Verify a projected cost for biomass gasification/pyrolysis of $1.75/gge at plant gate.
15 Down-select to 1-2 primary novel technologies for biomass gasification/pyrolysis clean up, reforming, shift, separation and purification.
16 Identify or generate an Fe-hydrogenase with a half-life of 5 min in air for photolytic hydrogen production.
17 Produce one cyanobacterial recombinant evolving H2 through an O2-tolerant NiFe-hydrogenase.
18 Increase the duration of H2 production by immobilized, sulfur-deprived algal cultures to 40 days.
19 Complete research to develop a photosynthetically efficient green alga/cyanobacterial system in which the P/R ratio is ≤2.
20 For photolytic hydrogen production, achieve 15% primary utilization efficiency of incident solar light energy (E0*E1), 2% efficiency of
incident light energy to H2 from water (E0*E1*E2), and 30 min (O2 tolerant system) duration of continuous photoproduction.
21 Identify or generate an Fe-hydrogenase with a half life of 30 min in air for photolytic hydrogen production.
22 Go/No-Go: Identify cost-effective (based on analysis) transparent H2 -impermeable material for use in photobiological H2 -production system.
23 Complete research to generate photosynthetic bacteria that have 50% smaller (compared to wild-type) Bchl antenna size and display increased
sunlight conversion efficiency.
24 Complete research to engineer photosynthetic bacteria with a 30% expression level of a functional nitrogenase/hydrogenase at elevated
nitrogen-carbon ratios (expression level is defined relative to that detected at low N:C ratios).
25 Complete research to inactivate competitive uptake of H2 by hydrogenase.
26 For photosynthetic bacterial hydrogen production, achieve 3% efficiency of incident solar light energy to H2 (E0*E1*E2) from organic acids,
and 50% of maximum molar yield of carbon conversion to H2 (depends on nature of organic substrate).

Outputs
P1 Output to Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Hydrogen production technology for distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost
of $3.00/gge hydrogen at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of units of production per year.
P2 Output to Delivery, Storage and Fuel Cells: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition.
P3 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Impact of hydrogen purity on cost and performance.
P4 Output to Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Hydrogen production technology for distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost
of $2.50/gge hydrogen at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of units of production per year.
P5 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Impact of hydrogen purity on cost and performance.
P6 Output to Delivery, Storage and Fuel Cells: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition.
P7 Output to Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Hydrogen production technologies for distributed systems using natural gas with projected
cost of $1.50/gge hydrogen at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of units of production per year.
P8 Output to Technology Validation: Down-select of high-temperature electrolysis technology based on research results.
P9 Output to Technology Validation: Electrolysis system making hydrogen for $2.85/gge delivered.
P10 Output to Technology Validation: Hydrogen production system making hydrogen for $1.90/gge from biomass at the plant gate.

Inputs
C3 Input from Codes and Standards: Preliminary Assessment of Safety, Codes and Standards requirements for the hydrogen delivery
infrastructure.
Sf3 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling.
C5 Input from Codes and Standards: Completed hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Technical Specification.
A1 Input from Systems Analysis: Complete technoeconomic analysis on production and delivery technologies currently being researched to meet
overall Program hydrogen fuel objective.
F2 Input from Fuel Cells: Research results of advanced reformer development.
V9 Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three refueling stations.
A2 Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at each point in the system.
C12 Input from Codes and Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Standard.
Sf5 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 33

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Figure 3.1.3. Hydrogen Production R&D Milestone Chart

For chart details see next page.

page 3- 34 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

Milestones
27 For dark fermentative hydrogen production, achieve 4 molar yield of H2 production from glucose.
28 Complete research to determine the efficacy of green algae/cyanobacteria and photosynthetic bacteria to metabolize carbon substrates (C≤4)
and produce H2 in co-cultivation.
29 Update technoeconomic analysis on the projected technology.
30 Complete structure and initial data population of a photoelectrochemical materials database.
31 Establish standard cell and testing protocols for PEC materials for validation efficiencies.
32 Install testing laboratory for the standard cell and testing protocol for PEC materials.
33 Update technoeconomic analysis on the projected technology.
34 Identify materials/systems with a 2.3 eV useable semiconductor bandgap, 8% plant solar-to-hydrogen efficiency, and projected durability of
1,000 hours.
35 Build a consensus, lab-scale PEC panel based on best available 2010 technology to validate technoeconomic analysis.
36 Go/No-Go: Identify cost-effective (based on analysis) transparent hydrogen-impermeable material for use in photoelectrochemical hydrogen
production system.
37 Down-select to 2-4 promising high temperature solar-driven thermochemical cylcles for R&D based on analysis and initial laboratory work of
potential cycles.
38 Go/No-Go: Verify the feasibility of an effective integrated high-temperature solar-driven thermochemical cycle for hydrogen projected to
meet the 2010 cost goal of $4/gge.
39 Verify the successful continuous operation of a promising integrated high temperature solar-driven thermochemical cycle at a scale of >10
kg/hr. of hydrogen production.
40 Down-select to 1-2 promising high-temperature solar-driven thermochemical cycles for development.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 35

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Production

page 3- 36 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Delivery

3.2 Hydrogen Delivery

Hydrogen must be transported from the point of production Education

to the point of use. It also must be compressed, stored and Codes & Standards

dispensed at refueling stations or stationary power facilities.

Safety
Systems Integration/Analyses
Due to its relatively low volumetric energy density,
transportation, storage and final delivery to the point of use DELIVERY

can be one of the significant cost and energy inefficiencies PRODUCTION FUEL CELLS
TECHNOLOGY
VALIDATION
associated with using hydrogen as an energy carrier. STORAGE

Research & Development

3.2.1 Technical Goal and Objectives

Goal
Develop hydrogen delivery technologies that enable the introduction and long-term viability of hydrogen as an
energy carrier for transportation and stationary power.

Objectives
• By 2006, define criteria for a cost-effective and energy-efficient hydrogen delivery infrastructure for the
transition and long-term use of hydrogen for transportation and stationary power.

• By 2010, reduce the cost of hydrogen transport from central and semi-central production facilities to the gate
of refueling stations and other end users to <$0.90/gge of hydrogen.1

• By 2010, reduce the cost of compression, storage and dispensing at refueling stations and stationary power
facilities to <$0.80/gge of hydrogen (independent of transport).1

• By 2015, reduce the cost of hydrogen delivery from the point of production to the point of use in vehicles or
stationary power units to <$1.00/gge of hydrogen in total.1

3.2.2 Technical Approach

The Hydrogen Delivery Program element is focused on meeting the hydrogen delivery objectives outlined in
Section 3.2.1 by conducting R&D through industry, national laboratory and university projects. Projects will
address the barriers outlined in Section 3.2.4.2, and progress toward meeting the objectives will be measured
against the technical targets outlined in Section 3.2.4.1. Delivery efforts will be coordinated with any related
activities in the DOE Office of Fossil Energy and the Department of Transportation.

Infrastructure Options
The hydrogen production strategy greatly affects the cost and method of delivery. If the hydrogen is produced
centrally, the longer transport distances can increase delivery costs. It can be produced semi-centrally (within
50-100 miles of the point of use) to reduce this transport distance. Distributed production at the point of use
eliminates the transportation costs but results in higher production costs because the economy of larger scale
production is lost. In all cases, the delivery costs associated with compression, storage and dispensing at the
refueling station or stationary power site are significant and need to be minimized.
1
These targets are based on a well-established hydrogen market demand for transportation. The specific scenario examined assumed central and semi-
central production of hydrogen servicing small (~100,000 people) and large (~1,000,000 people) cities.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 37

 Technical Plan–Delivery

There are three primary options for hydrogen delivery. One option is that it can be delivered as a gas in pipelines
or high-pressure tube trailers. This is illustrated in Figure 3.2.1. This option offers the possibility of transporting
a mixture of hydrogen and natural gas in the existing natural gas pipeline infrastructure followed by separation
and purification of the hydrogen. Hydrogen can also be liquefied and delivered in cryogenic tank trucks. This is
illustrated in Figure 3.2.2. Gaseous and liquid delivery are used today but there is only a very limited hydrogen
pipeline infrastructure for gaseous service.

Figure 3.2.1. Gaseous Hydrogen Delivery Pathway

���������� ��������
����������� ���������� ���������� �������
������������ ��������
��
���������� ����������

������� ����

������������
�������
��������
�������

������� ����
�������

������� ����������
�������

���������

���� �� ������� ��� ����

���������� ������� ��� ����
���� ���� �� �������� ��
�������� ���������
���� �� ���� ��� ����� ��������������
�� �������� ��� ����� ������
��������� ������� �������
���������� ��� � ��������
��������
���� �� ������������ ������� ��������
�� � ������� �� ���������

page 3- 38 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Delivery

Figure 3.2.2. Cryogenic Liquid Hydrogen Delivery

������ ������
�������

���������
������ ����
��
������������ ������� ����
����������
��������
�������� � ����� ��������

������ ������
�������
���������� ��� ���������

������������ ������ ���������

��������� ������ ����

������� �������

A third option is higher volumetric energy density carriers such as natural gas, methanol, ethanol or other liquids
derived from renewable biomass that can be produced, transported to the point of use, and reformed to hydrogen.
Novel carriers such as metal hydrides or other hydrogen containing solids or liquids that can be treated to release
hydrogen at a refueling station or stationary power location or possibly even directly on-board a vehicle are other
promising alternatives. This carrier approach is illustrated in Figure 3.2.3.

Figure 3.2.3. Novel Carrier Pathway

������� �������

����������
��������
��������
�������
������� �������
���������� �����������

�������
������������

������
� �������� ��
��� ��������� ��������� �������

������

��������
����������
������� ������� ��� ��� �������
������� ��� ����� ���� �������
������� ��� �������� ����������
��

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 39

 Technical Plan–Delivery

These primary delivery pathways can also be used in combination. For example, gaseous hydrogen could be
delivered by pipeline to a terminal where it could be liquefied and then delivered by cryogenic tank truck or
transformed to a novel carrier system for delivery. There are many potential components to a complete hydrogen
delivery infrastructure:
• Pipelines
• Compression
• Liquefaction
• Tube Trailers, Cryogenic Liquid Trucks, Rail, Barges, Ships (liquid and gaseous H2)
• Liquid and Gaseous Tanks
• Geologic Storage
• Terminals
• Separation/Purification
• Dispensers
• Carriers

One advantage of hydrogen is that it can be produced from a variety of feedstocks in a variety of ways. It will
be produced from a spectrum of feedstocks and production technologies over the course of its introduction
and long-term use as a primary energy carrier. Similarly, the delivery technology may well encompass several
options over the short and long terms. The transportation methods used at the early stages, when hydrogen
volumes are relatively low, may be different than those used when hydrogen is used in large quantities as a
primary energy carrier. At very large volumes, an extensive pipeline infrastructure is currently the most cost-
effective and energy efficient manner to transport hydrogen to much of the market as is done with natural
gas today. However, other methods, such as, cryogenic liquid truck delivery or distributed natural gas or
liquid reforming, will be needed for the transition period. In any event, lower cost and more energy-efficient
technologies are needed for hydrogen transportation and handling for hydrogen to become a major energy carrier.

Terminals, Trucks, Rail Barges, and Ships

The current petroleum delivery infrastructure includes terminals, trucks, rail, barges and ships for delivery.
Other than truck delivery, none of these delivery infrastructure modes are used today for hydrogen delivery. For
the delivery infrastructure for hydrogen as a major energy carrier, some of these other delivery infrastructure
elements may be needed.

Bulk Storage
Storage within the hydrogen delivery infrastructure will be important to provide surge capacity for daily and
seasonal demand variations. The most common pressure vessels for gaseous hydrogen are steel tubes. They can
be used to store hydrogen at 6,000 psi or higher. They are often manifolded together allowing for larger storage
capacity. Hydrogen is also stored as a cryogenic liquid due to its higher volumetric energy density and thus
smaller footprint. This approach is not a low cost option due to the high cost of hydrogen liquefaction.

Geologic storage is routinely used to provide seasonal surge capacity in the natural gas delivery infrastructure.
Very large volumes of natural gas are stored in natural geologic formations such as salt caverns under modest
pressure (typically about 2000 psi or less). The hydrogen infrastructure will likely require similar bulk storage
capability. Besides naturally-occurring geologic formations, storing hydrogen in specially engineered rock
caverns, referred to as lined rock caverns (LRC), offers another possibility. Research into the suitability of
geologic storage is needed. Hydrogen is a much smaller molecule than natural gas and has a much higher
diffusivity. Containment within geologic storage may be more challenging and potential environmental impacts
need to be investigated.

page 3- 40 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Delivery

Novel hydrogen carriers could be very useful for off-board hydrogen storage. For example, a solid that could
reversibly adsorb and desorb significant amounts of hydrogen and store it at low pressures could significantly
reduce the compression costs associated with gaseous storage and might prove to have lower capital cost
requirements as well.

Interface with On Board Vehicular Storage of Hydrogen

The technology selected for storing hydrogen on board vehicles may affect the hydrogen delivery system and
infrastructure. Delivery and on-board storage need to be integrated at some junction in the system. For example,
the on-board storage system could be a solid carrier that receives hydrogen gas directly from a dispenser at a
refueling station. On the other hand, if an on-board carrier system requiring off-board regeneration is selected,
the hydrogen delivery system will need to cost-effectively accommodate this approach. In addition, vehicle
interface technologies will need to be jointly addressed by both the Delivery and Storage Program elements,
as promising options are selected. The Hydrogen Delivery milestone chart in Section 3.2.6 and the Hydrogen
Storage milestone chart in Section 3.3.6 show inputs and outputs between the Delivery and the Storage Program
elements that address these interactions.

Research Strategy

To enable the introduction of hydrogen as an energy carrier, a key initial focus of the Hydrogen Delivery
Program element will be on hydrogen delivery research challenges at refueling stations and stationary power
sites with respect to compression and storage technology. The improved technologies necessary for transport of
hydrogen from more central production facilities will be researched in a parallel effort but with greater emphasis
later in the program. After 2015, the remaining federal effort will likely be selective and only fund new concepts
that could make further significant impacts on delivery costs or energy efficiencies.

3.2.3 Programmatic Status

Specific focus on hydrogen transportation and delivery in the Program is now underway. The importance of this
part of the value chain was highlighted in the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap published in the fall of 2002
and more recently by the National Academies2. The Hydrogen Delivery Program element is now being initiated.

2
The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs. National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering of the
National Academies. National Academies Press, Washington, c2004.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 41

 Technical Plan–Delivery

The current projects that pertain to this Program element are shown in Table 3.2.1.

Table 3.2.1. Current Hydrogen Delivery Projects

Challenge Approach Activities
Pipelines: Reduce the • Develop new and improved • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL): Improved steel
capital costs and ensure materials for pipeline materials and welds.
safety and reliability delivery of hydrogen • ORNL: Low-cost fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) composite
pipelines.
• Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL): Natural
Gas pipelines for hydrogen use.
• Secat, Inc. ORNL, ASME, U. of Illinois, Applied Thin
Films, Columbia Gas, CCC Coatings, ATC, and Oregon
Steel Mills: Pipeline and weld materials, and coatings
testing and modeling.
• U. of Illinois: Lifetime prediction model for pipeline steels
in hydrogen service.
Carriers: Develop carriers • Explore novel liquid and • Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., UTRC, and
that can enable low cost solid carrier technology for Pennsylvania State University: Reversible liquid carrier
hydrogen delivery use in hydrogen delivery. for integrated hydrogen, storage, and delivery.

Compression: Increase • Develop improved • Argonne National Laboratory (ANL): Novel screw
the reliability, reduce compression technologies compression technology for hydrogen service.
the cost, and improve for hydrogen • HERA: Novel hydride compression and purification
the energy efficiency
of gaseous hydrogen
compression
Analysis: Identify the • Analyze systems and • National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), ANL
better options for cost- infrastructures for delivery and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL):
effective and energy- of gaseous and liquid Components modeling; compression technology and
efficient hydrogen delivery hydrogen and novel solid/ issues; ethanol delivery infrastructure characterization; and
infrastructure for the liquid hydrogen carriers hydrogen delivery scenario modeling.
introduction and long- • Nexant, Inc., Air Liquide, ChevronTexaco, NREL, Gas
term use of hydrogen Technologies Institute, Pinnacle West, and TIAX: Cost/
environmental analyses for delivery scenarios as a function
of time and demand.
Off-Board Storage: • Analyze available • Gas Technology Institute: Options for off-board storage
Reduce the cost and technology options for bulk at refueling stations with emphasis on the suitability of
footprint of hydrogen storage of hydrogen at a underground liquid hydrogen storage.
storage at refueling refueling station. Address • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Composite
stations. capital cost, operating materials and structures for high-pressure off-board
costs, footprint, fuel storage and tube trailers.
capacity and safety.
Liquefaction: Reduce • Explore new approaches to • NCRC Corporation, Promethius Energy Inc., and H2
the cost and improve hydrogen liquefaction. Storage Solutions: Efficient and inexpensive magnetic
the energy efficiency of liquefaction technology.
hydrogen liquefaction. • Gas Equipment Engineering Corporation and R&D
Dynamics: Turbocompressor/expander technology for
liquefaction.

Research and development of metal hydrides and other novel solid or liquid carriers of hydrogen useful for
storage (see section 3.3) may also find use for hydrogen delivery.

page 3- 42 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Delivery

3.2.4 Technical Challenges

Cost and Energy Efficiency
The overarching technical challenge for hydrogen delivery is reducing the cost of the technology so that
stakeholders can achieve a return on the investment required for this infrastructure. The energy efficiency of
delivery also needs to be improved.

Current costs for the transport of hydrogen, with the exception of that transported through the very limited
amount of hydrogen pipelines, is $4-$9/gge of hydrogen.3 This is based on transport by gaseous tube trailers or
cryogenic liquid trucks and is very dependent on amounts and distances. Pipeline transport costs are dependent
on transport distance and the amount of hydrogen delivered. These transport costs do not include the delivery
costs associated with compression, storage and dispensing at the point of use.

Hydrogen Purity Requirements

PEM fuel cells for automotive and other uses require very pure hydrogen (see Table 3.2.2). There also might
be purity specifications for the final technology developed and adopted for on–board vehicle storage (see
section 3.3). If the hydrogen is produced to these purity specifications, then the delivery infrastructure must
ensure it does not contaminate the hydrogen. Alternatively, the hydrogen could be produced to somewhat lower
purity levels and then be purified to specifications just prior to dispensing. The optimum purification strategy
that will minimize overall costs will depend on the nature of the potential contamination issues and thus
the technologies employed across production and delivery. The delivery research plan as depicted in Figure
3.2.5 has several inputs and outputs among Hydrogen Production, Delivery, Storage, Fuel Cells and Systems
Analysis to help optimize this purification strategy.

Hydrogen Leakage
The hydrogen molecule is very small and diffuses more rapidly compared with other gases such as natural gas.
This makes it more challenging to design equipment, materials, seals, valves and fittings to avoid hydrogen
leakage. Currently hydrogen is used and handled in significant quantities in industrial settings in petroleum
refining, ammonia production, and specialty chemicals production without significant leakage issues. Industrial
hydrogen operations are monitored and maintained by skilled people. The delivery infrastructure for hydrogen
use as a major energy carrier will need to rely heavily on sensors and robust designs and engineering.

Infrastructure Trade-Offs
Options and trade-offs for hydrogen delivery from central, semi-central and distributed production to the
point of use are not well understood. Analysis is needed to understand the advantages and disadvantages of
the various energy sources and production and delivery technology options to guide research and investment
efforts for the ultimate hydrogen infrastructure and for the most appropriate infrastructure to be used during the
introduction of hydrogen as a primary energy carrier. Examples of some of these trade-offs include:

3
Chemical and Market Reporter, February 24, 2003, p. 43.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 43

 Technical Plan–Delivery

• Centrally producing a liquid fuel, such as ethanol from biomass, and then transporting this relatively high
volumetric energy density fuel to a refueling station for reforming into hydrogen versus centrally producing
hydrogen from biomass and then transporting the lower volumetric energy density hydrogen to the refueling
station.
• Utilizing liquefaction and liquid truck delivery during the early transition period at low hydrogen demand
rates versus installing some hydrogen delivery pipelines early. The former involves potentially less capital
risk while the latter sets the stage for the longer term, lower cost delivery option when hydrogen is in high
demand.
• Purifying hydrogen at the central production point to required final use specifications and designing the
delivery infrastructure to avoid any contamination versus basic purification at the point of manufacture and
final polishing purification just prior to the point of use.
• The cost of a novel solid or liquid hydrogen carrier delivery system without the need for compression versus
the cost of gaseous delivery with compression.

3.2.4.1 Technical Targets

Table 3.2.2 lists the technical targets for the Hydrogen Delivery Program element.

The key to achieving the goal and objectives of the Hydrogen Delivery Program element is to bring down
the costs, improve the energy efficiency and ensure reliable performance of the key delivery technologies;
compression, liquefaction, pipelines and off-board bulk storage. The targets shown in Table 3.2.2 are based on an
analysis of current technology and costs, estimates of what might be possible with technology advances, and the
market-driven requirements for the total delivery system costs. Delivery system costs are a complex function of
the technology, delivery distances, system architecture and hydrogen demand. The 2015 cost targets in the table
are the estimated costs needed for these technologies to achieve the objective of the overall delivery system cost
contribution to be < $1.00/gge of hydrogen in 2015.

Initial targets are also given for hydrogen solid- or liquid-carrier technologies that could prove useful for
hydrogen delivery. There are many possible options for use of hydrogen carriers within the delivery system.

An important emphasis of the Program is the transition period when hydrogen will start to become utilized in the
transportation market. In the Production area, this results in an initial focus on distributed production at refueling
stations. Delivery research will support this through an emphasis on the cost of compression and storage at
refueling stations. This is also reflected in the targets.

All targets must be acheived simultaneously; however, status is not necessarily reported from a single system.

page 3- 44 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Delivery

Table 3.2.2 Hydrogen Delivery Targetsa

2003
Category 2005 2010 2015
Status
Pipelines: Transmission
Total Capital Cost ($M/mile)b $1.20 $1.20 $1.00 $0.80
Pipelines: Distribution
Total Capital Cost ($M/mile)b $0.30 $0.30 $0.25 $0.20
Pipelines: Transmission and Distribution
High
Reliability (relative to H2 embrittlement concerns and
Undefined Undefined Understood (Metrics
integrity)c
TBD)
H2 Leakaged Undefined Undefined <2% <0.5%
Compression: Transmission
Reliabilitye 92% 92% 95% >99%
Hydrogen Energy Efficiency (%) f
99% 99% 99% 99%
Capital Cost ($M/compressor)g $18 $18 $15 $12
Compression: At Refueling Sites
Reliabilitye Unknown Unknown 90% 99%
Hydrogen Energy Efficiency (%)f 94% 94% 95% 96%
Varies by Varies by
Contaminationh Reduced None
Design Design
Cost Contribution ($/gge of H2)i,j $0.60 $0.60 $0.40 $0.25
Liquefaction
Small-Scale (30,000 kg H2/day)
$1.80 $1.80 $1.60 $1.50
Cost Contribution ($/gge of H2)k
Large-Scale (300,000 kg H2/day)
$0.75 $0.75 $0.65 $0.55
Cost Contribution ($/gge of H2)k
Small-Scale (30,000 kg H2/day)
25% 25% 30% 35%
Electrical Energy Efficiency (%)k, l
Large-Scale (300,000 kg H2/day)
40% 40% 45% 50%
Electrical Energy Efficiency (%)k,l
Carriers
H2 Content (% by weight)m 3% 3% 6.6% 13.2%
H2 Content (kg H2/liter) Undefined Undefined 0.013 0.027
H2 Energy Efficiency (From the point of H2 production
Undefined Undefined 70% 85%
through dispensing at the refueling site)f
Total Cost Contribution (From the point of H2Production
through dispensing at the reueling site) Undefined Undefined $1.70 $1.00
($/gge of H2)
Storage
Refueling Site Storage Cost
$0.70 $0.70 $0.30 $0.20
Contribution ($/gge of H2)j, n
Capital and
operating
Verify cost <1.5X
Feasibility Feasibility
Geologic Storage Feasibility for that for
Unknown Unknown
H2 natural gas
on a per kg
basis
Hydrogen Qualityo >98% (dry basis)

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 45

 Technical Plan–Delivery
a
All dollar values are in 2003 U.S. dollars
b
The 2003 status is based on data from True, W.R.,”Special Report: Pipeline Economics,” Oil and Gas Journal, Sept. 16, 2002, pp 52-57. This article
reports data on the cost of natural gas pipelines as a function of pipe diameter. It breaks the costs down by materials, labor, misc. and right of way. It is
based on a U.S. average cost. A 15 inch pipe diameter was used for transmission and 2.5 inch for distribution. It was assumed that hydrogen pipelines
will cost 30% more than natural gas pipelines based on advice from energy and industrial gas companies and organizations. The targeted cost reductions
for 2010 and 2015 assume the right of way costs do not change.
c
Pipeline reliability used here refers to maintaining integrity of the pipeline relative to potential hydrogen embrittlement or other issues causing cracks or
failures. The 2015 target is intended to be at least equivalent to that of today’s natural gas pipeline infrastructure.
d
Hydrogen leakage based on the hydrogen that permeates or leaks from the pipeline as a percent of the amount of hydrogen put through the pipeline. The
2015 target is based on being equivalent to today’s natural gas pipeline infrastructure based on the article: David A. Kirchgessner, et al, “Estimate of
Methane Emissions from the U.S. Natural Gas Industry”, Chemososphere, Vol.35, No 6, pp1365-1390, 1997.
e
Compression reliability is defined as the percent of time that the compressor can be reliably counted on as being fully operational. The 2003 value
for transmission compressors is based on information from energy companies that use these types and sizes of compressors on hydrogen in their own
operations.
f
Hydrogen energy efficiency is defined as the hydrogen energy (LHV) out divided by the sum of the hydrogen energy in (LHV) plus all other energy
needed for the operation of the process.
g
The 2003 value is based on data from “Special Report: Pipeline Economics,” Oil and Gas Journal, Sept. 4, 2000, p 78. The compressor capital cost data
was plotted vs. the power required for the compressor using the natural gas transmission compressor data provided. The capital cost was increased by
30% as an assumption for higher costs for hydrogen compressors. The power required was calculated assuming 1,000,000 kg/day of hydrogen flow with
an inlet pressure of 700 psi and an outlet pressure of 1,000 psi.
h
Some gas compressor designs require oil lubrication that results in some oil contamination of the gas compressed. Due to the stringent hydrogen purity
specifications for PEM fuel cells, the 2015 target is to ensure no possibility of lubricant contamination of the hydrogen from the compression needed at
refueling stations or stationary power sites since this compression is just prior to use on a vehicle or stationary power fuel cell.
i
The 2003 value is based on utilizing the H2A Forecourt (refueling station) Model spreadsheet tool for a 1500 kg/day distributed natural gas hydrogen
production case (www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells). The standard H2A financial input assumptions were used. It was assumed that two
compressors would be needed due to the currently unknown reliability of forecourt compressors, at a total installed capital cost of $600K. The electricity
required assumed an isentropic energy efficiency of 70% and an electricity price of $.07/kWhr. The compression operation was assumed to have a
fractional share of the forecourt fixed costs based proportional to its capital and the total capital cost of the forecourt.
j
For 2003 and 2005, it is assumed that the hydrogen delivery pressure to the vehicle is 5000 psi. For 2010 and 2015, it is assumed that the hydrogen
delivery pressure to the vehicle is 1500 psi or less based on the on-board vehicle storage program (Section 3.3) being successful in meeting its targets.
k
The 2003 cost contribution and electrical energy efficiency was determined using the H2A Delivery Component Model spreadsheet using standard H2A
financial input assumptions and the liquefaction spreadsheet tab (www.eere.energy.doe/hydrogenandfuelcells). The H2A spreadsheet information is based
on data from other references sited in the H2A Delivery Component Model. References and a plot of liquefier capital cost as a function of capacity and a
plot of actual energy used as a function of liquefier capacity are provided in the H2A Delivery Component model.
l
Electrical energy efficiency is defined as the theoretical energy needed to liquefy the hydrogen divided by the energy actually needed in a hydrogen
liquefaction plant. The theoretical energy is that energy needed to cool the gas to the liquefaction temperature and the energy needed for the ortho/para
transition. The H2A Delivery Component Model (www.eere.energy.doe/hydrogenandfuelcells) provides the references and a plot of actual energy needed
for current hydrogen liquefiers as a function of capacity.
m
The 2010 hydrogen content targets are based on transporting 1500 kg of hydrogen in a truck. Although regulations vary to some degree by state, a
typical truck is limited to carrying 25,000 kg of load and/or 113,000 liters of volume. The minimum hydrogen content (% by weight and kg H2/liter) to
achieve 1500 kg of hydrogen on the truck is determined by the maximum loads allowable. Trucking costs with this hydrogen payload are such that this
transport option would seem attractive relative to the delivery cost objectives. A typical refueling station of 1500 kg/day of hydrogen servicing hydrogen
fuel cell vehicles would service the same number of vehicles as typical gasoline stations serve today. This delivery option would require one truck
delivery per day which is also typical of today’s gasoline stations. The 2015 targets are calculated in the same way but assuming 3000 kg per truck load
so that the one truck could service two refueling stations. The total cost and attractiveness of this delivery option would depend on the cost of the total
carrier delivery system including the cost of discharging the hydrogen at the refueling station and any carrier regeneration costs.
n
The 2003 value is based on utilizing the H2A Forecourt (refueling station) Model spreadsheet tool for a 1500 kg/day distributed natural gas case
(www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells). The standard H2A financial input assumptions were used. It was assumed that the hydrogen storage
installed capital cost is $1.1M based on current technology and 1,100 kg of hydrogen storage. The storage operation was assumed to have a fractional
share of the forecourt fixed costs based proportional to its capital and the total capital cost of the forecourt.
o
Based on current available PEM fuel cell information, the tentative contaminant targets are: <10ppb sulfur, <1 ppm carbon monoxide, <100 ppm carbon
dioxide, < 1 ppm ammonia, < 100 ppm non-methane hydrocarbons on a C-1 basis, oxygen, nitrogen and argon can not exceed 2% in total, particulate
levels must meet ISO standard 14787. Future information on contaminant limits for on-board storage may add additional constraints.

3.2.4.2 Barriers

A. Lack of Hydrogen/Carrier and Infrastructure Options Analysis. Options and trade-offs for hydrogen/
carrier delivery from central and semi-central production to the point of use are not well understood.
Distributed production is another option. Analysis is needed to understand the advantages and disadvantages
of these various approaches. Many site-specific and regional issues are associated with integrating production
and use of hydrogen. Production and delivery systems need to be integrated to minimize cost and take full
advantage of local resources and situations.

page 3- 46 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Delivery

B. Reliability and Costs of Hydrogen Compression. Compression of natural gas is a well-developed

technology. The hydrogen molecule is much smaller than methane, which creates significant challenges
for compression. Current compression technology used for hydrogen is unreliable, resulting in the need
for redundant compressors and thus higher cost. Centrifugal compression is the lowest cost approach for
pipeline compression needs but the current technology does not work with hydrogen. Lubricants used in
normal compression applications result in unacceptable contamination of hydrogen for PEM fuel cell use.
If high-pressure (5,000 -10,000 psi) on-board hydrogen storage is used for vehicles, this also adds to the
compression technology needs for hydrogen. Reliable, lower-cost, more efficient compression technologies
are needed.

C. High Cost and Low Energy Efficiency of Hydrogen Liquefaction. Cryogenic liquid hydrogen has a
much higher volumetric energy density than gaseous hydrogen. As a result, in the absence of a hydrogen
pipeline infrastructure, transporting liquid hydrogen by cryogenic truck is significantly less costly than
transporting compressed hydrogen by gaseous tube trailer. However, the cost of the liquefaction step adds
very significantly to the cost of delivered hydrogen. In addition, this process is very energy intensive and
inefficient (see Table 3.2.2). Improved liquefaction technology is needed. Possibilities include increasing
the scale of these operations and improving heat integration, integrating these operations with hydrogen
production or power production for improved heat integration and energy efficiency, and completely new
liquefaction technologies such as magnetic or acoustic liquefaction or other approaches. In addition,
hydrogen boil-off from cryogenic liquid storage tanks and tank trucks needs to be addressed and minimized
or eliminated for improved cost and energy efficiency.

D. High Capital Cost and Hydrogen Embrittlement of Pipelines. Existing hydrogen pipelines are very
limited and not adequate to broadly distribute hydrogen. Materials, labor and other associated costs result
in a large capital investment for new pipelines. Land acquisition or right of way can also be very costly.
Hydrogen embrittlement of steel is not completely understood. Current joining technology for steel pipes
is a major part of the labor costs and impacts the steel microstructure in a manner that can exascerbate
hydrogen embrittlement issues. Hydrogen leakage through the pipe itself, as well as through valves, fittings
and seals is much more problematic than for natural gas due to the very small size of hydrogen molecules.
Research is needed to determine suitable steels, and/or coatings, or other materials of construction to provide
safe and reliable transport of hydrogen in pipelines while reducing the capital costs for materials and labor.
Development of innovative materials and technologies (seals, components, sensors, and safety and control
systems) is needed. Approaches for using existing natural gas pipelines to transport mixtures of natural
gas and hydrogen without hydrogen embrittlement and leakage will be explored. Technologies for low cost
separation and purification of hydrogen from natural gas would need to be developed for this approach to
hydrogen delivery. The possibility of utilizing or upgrading natural gas or petroleum pipelines for pure
hydrogen use also needs to be examined.

E. Solid and Liquid Hydrogen Carrier Transport. Novel solid or liquid carriers that can release hydrogen
without significant processing operations are possible options for hydrogen transport and off-board storage.
Current solid and liquid hydrogen carrier technologies have high costs, insufficient energy density and/or
poor hydrogen release and regeneration characteristics. Substantial improvements in current technologies or
new technologies are needed.

F. Hydrogen Delivery Infrastructure Storage Costs. Hydrogen storage at production facilities, refueling
stations, and other points of end use, and for system surge capacity for pipelines, trucks and rail at terminals,
adds cost to the delivery infrastructure. Understanding and minimizing the need for this storage, while not

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 47

 Technical Plan–Delivery

adversely impacting the market daily and seasonal hydrogen demand cycles, will be important to minimizing
these costs. Lower cost technologies to satisfy these storage requirements will also reduce overall delivery
costs.

G. Geologic Storage. The feasibility of geologic hydrogen storage needs to be addressed. Geologic storage
is routinely used to provide seasonal surge capacity for natural gas and could be equally important for a
hydrogen delivery infrastructure. Novel approaches may be needed to deal with the higher diffusivity and
potentially higher reactivity of hydrogen as compared to natural gas. Options such as alternative cushion
gases coupled with membrane-separation of recovered hydrogen and identification of geologic structures
with particularly promising permeability characteristics may need to be examined. Potential environmental
impacts need to be investigated.

H. Storage Tank Materials and Costs. Off-board storage tanks required at refueling stations and at other
points in the delivery infrastructure add costs to the delivery system not only for the cost of the tanks
themselves but also for the cost of the valuable real estate space they consume. They can be impacted by
hydrogen embrittlement, as discussed in Barrier D. This can be exacerbated by pressure cycling. Materials
research is needed to help resolve hydrogen embrittlement issues. Higher pressures could reduce storage
footprint requirements. Research into new materials such as metal ceramic composites, improved resins,
and engineered fiber composites is needed. Costs might also be reduced through the use of Design for
Manufacture Analysis (DFMA) and mass production of many identical storage units.

I. Hydrogen Leakage. The hydrogen molecule is very small and diffuses more rapidly compared with other
gases such as natural gas. This makes it more challenging to design equipment, materials, seals, valves and
fittings to avoid hydrogen leakage. Current industrial hydrogen operations are monitored and maintained by
skilled people. The delivery infrastructure for hydrogen use as a major energy carrier will need to rely heavily
on sensors and robust designs and engineering.

J. Safety, Codes and Standards, Permitting and Sensors. Appropriate codes and standards are needed to
ensure a reliable and safe hydrogen delivery infrastructure. Some of the hydrogen delivery elements such
as tube trailers and cryogenic liquid hydrogen trucks are in commerce today. Others are not, such as an
extensive pipeline infrastructure for transmission and distribution and terminal operations. Applicable codes
and standards are needed to facilitate provision for off-board storage at refueling stations and upstream in
the hydrogen supply chain. More cost-effective sensors for leak detection and other purposes need to be
developed. Sighting and permitting hurdles need to be overcome. The plan to address these issues is in the
Codes and Standards section (Section 3.6).

3.2.5 Technical Task Descriptions

The technical task descriptions are presented in Table 3.2.3. Concerns regarding safety and environmental
effects will be addressed within each task in coordination with the appropriate Program element.

page 3- 48 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Delivery

Table 3.2.3. Technical Task Descriptions

Task Description Barriers

Delivery Infrastructure Analysis

• Characterize the current cost and energy efficiency of the components
and complete pathways for gaseous and liquid hydrogen and identify the
key cost reductions and energy efficiency improvements needed.
• Characterize the cost boundaries of novel solid and liquid hydrogen
carrier systems for delivery.
1 • Perform analysis to examine the options and trade-offs of hydrogen/ A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J
carrier delivery infrastructures and identify cost-effective, energy-efficient
and safe hydrogen delivery infrastructure for the introduction and long-
term use of hydrogen for transportation and stationary power.
• Analyze and optimize the trade-offs and costs at refueling stations
relative to the amount and pressure of hydrogen storage, compression
needs, and the utilization factor for distributed hydrogen production.

Reliable, Energy-Efficient, and Lower Cost Hydrogen Compression

Technology
• Research existing and novel hydrogen compression technologies that can
improve reliability, eliminate contamination, and reduce cost.
2 • Develop reliable, low cost, energy efficient compression technology for B, I
hydrogen pipeline transmission service.
• Develop reliable, low cost, energy efficient compression technology for
hydrogen refueling station needs.

Lower Cost and Energy-Efficient Hydrogen Liquefaction Technology

• Investigate cost and energy efficiency gains for larger scale operations,
achieving additional energy integration, and improving refrigeration
3 schemes. C
• Explore new and novel breakthrough technologies such as magnetic-
caloric liquefaction.

Hydrogen Gas Pipeline Technologies

• Research and identify preventative measures for hydrogen embrittlement
and permeability in steel pipelines, including in the delivery of mixtures of
hydrogen and natural gas.
• Research improved steel pipe joining methods and other approaches to
reduce capital cost and hydrogen embrittlement concerns.
• Research and develop coating technology for steel or other possible
pipeline materials to resolve hydrogen embrittlement and permeation
issues.
• Research and develop alternative materials to steel for hydrogen
4 pipelines that could reduce capital cost while providing safe and reliable D, I
operations.
• Develop improved and lower cost valves, fittings and seals to reduce
hydrogen leakage.
• Define available right of way and probable right of way costs for a
complete hydrogen pipeline infrastructure.
• Analyze, investigate, and develop technologies for existing natural gas
pipelines for transporting hydrogen and natural gas mixtures (including
technology to cost-effectively separate and purify the hydrogen) and for
upgrading natural gas pipelines for pure hydrogen.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 49

 Technical Plan–Delivery

Hydrogen Carrier Technologies

5 • Develop novel solid or liquid hydrogen carrier technologies for high
B, C, D, E, F, G, H. I, J
volumetric energy density, low-cost transport and/or storage of hydrogen.

Off-Board Hydrogen Storage

• From the outputs of Task 1, characterize the R&D requirements for
off-board storage including storage options at refueling stations and
throughout the delivery infrastructure.
• Research the feasibility of geologic storage as a low cost storage option.
• Develop more cost effective hydrogen storage technology by researching
6 areas including: tank materials, novel carriers, and the use of DFMA and
B, E, F, G, H, I, J

high throughput production methods.

• Identify the needs and initiate any appropriate research for the interface
requirements, including thermal management, between the refueling
station compression, storage and dispensing and the on-board vehicle
storage system, during refueling.

3.2.6 Milestones
Figure 3.2.4 shows the interrelationship of milestones, tasks, supporting inputs from other program elements, and
technology program outputs for the Hydrogen Delivery program element from FY 2004 through FY 2010. This
information is also summarized in Table B.2 in Appendix B.

page 3- 50 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Delivery

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 51

 Technical Plan–Delivery

Figure 3.2.4. Hydrogen Delivery R&D Milestone Chart

For chart details see next page.

page 3- 52 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Delivery

Milestones
1 Characterize the current cost and energy efficiency of the components and complete pathways for gaseous and liquid hydrogen delivery and
the cost boundaries of potential novel solid and liquid carrier systems.
2 Identify cost-effective options for hydrogen delivery infrastructure to support the introduction and long-term use of hydrogen for transportation
and stationary power.
3 Down select to 2-3 most promising compression technologies for hydrogen transmission, refueling, and other needs in delivery.
4 Verify 2010 targeted costs and performance for hydrogen compression (transmission and forecourt).
5 Verify achieving a refueling station cost contribution for compression, storage and dispensing of $0.80/gge of hydrogen
6 Down-select to most promising 1-2 liquefaction technologies.
7 Verify 2010 targeted cost and performance for hydrogen liquefaction.
8 Research identifies fundamental mechanism of hydrogen embrittlement and permeation in steel pipelines and identifies promising cost
effective measures to mitigate these issues.
9 Down-select on materials and/or coatings for pipelines including the potential use of natural gas pipelines for mixtures of natural gas and
hydrogen, or hydrogen alone.
10 Verify 2010 targeted cost and performance for hydrogen pipelines.
11 Go/No-Go: Initial down-select for potential solid or liquid carrier systems for hydrogen delivery based on cost boundary analysis and initial
research efforts.
12 Go/No-Go: Verify the feasibility of a hydrogen carrier system to meet the 2010 carrier targets.
13 Complete baseline analyses of off-board storage options at refueling stations and throughout the delivery infrastructure.
14 Complete the research to establish the feasibility and define the cost for geologic hydrogen storage.
15 Down-select to the most promising 1-2 technologies for off-board storage.
16 Verify the feasibility of achieving the 2010 refueling station storage cost targets.

Outputs
D1 Output to Storage, Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Assessment of cost and performance requirements for off-board storage
systems.
D2 Output to Storage and Fuel Cells: Hydrogen contaminant composition and issues.
D3 Output to Technology Validation, Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Hydrogen delivery infrastructure analysis results.
D4 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Assessment of impact of hydrogen purity requirements on cost and performance of
hydrogen delivery.
D5 Output to Technology Validation: Compression technology recommended for validation.
D6 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration : Update of hydrogen purity/impurity requirements.
D7 Output to Technology Validation: Recommended liquefaction technology for potential validation.
D8 Output to Technology Validation: Recommended pipeline technology for validation.
D9 Output to Storage and Technology Validation: Recommended off-board storage technology for validation.

Inputs
C3 Input from Codes and Standards: Preliminary assessment of Safety, Codes and Standards for the hydrogen delivery infrastructure.
Sf3 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling.
C5 Input from Codes and Standards: Completed hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Technical Specification.
C6 Input from Codes and Standards: Technical assessment of standards requirements for metallic and composite bulk storage tanks.
C8 Input from Codes and Standards: Draft standards (balloting) for refueling stations (NFPA).
A1 Input from Systems Analysis: Complete technoeconomic analysis on production and delivery technologies currently being researched to meet
overall Program hydrogen fuel objective.
C7 Input from Codes and Standards: Final standards (balloting) for fuel dispensing systems (CSA America).
V9 Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three refueling stations.
A2 Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at each point in the system
C11 Input from Codes and Standards: Codes and Standards for the delivery infrastructure complete.
C12 Input from Codes and Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Standard.
Sf5 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling.
P2 Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition.
C9 Input from Codes and Standards: Materials compatibility technical reference.
P6 Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition.
St4 Input from Storage: Full-cycle, integrated chemical hydrogen system meeting 2010 targets.
St5 Input from Storage: Baseline hydrogen on-board storage system analysis results including hydrogen quality needs and interface issues.
St6 Input from Storage: Final on-board hydrogen storage system analysis results of cost and performance (including pressure, temp, etc.) and
down-select to a primary on-board storage system candidate.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 53

 Technical Plan–Delivery

page 3- 54 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Storage

3.3 Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen storage is a key enabling technology for the Education

advancement of hydrogen and fuel cell power technologies Codes & Standards

in transportation, stationary, and portable applications. Safety

Systems Integration/Analyses
The Hydrogen Storage Program element will focus on the
research and development of on-board vehicular hydrogen DELIVERY

storage systems that will allow for a driving range of greater PRODUCTION FUEL CELLS
TECHNOLOGY
VALIDATION
than 300 miles. In addition, technologies applicable for off- STORAGE
board storage, such as for refueling infrastructure and Power Research & Development
Parks, will be coordinated with the Hydrogen Delivery
Program element.

3.3.1 Technical Goal and Objectives

Goal
Develop and demonstrate viable hydrogen storage technologies for transportation and stationary applications.

Objective

• By 2010, develop and verify on-board hydrogen storage systems achieving 2 kWh/kg (6 wt%), 1.5 kWh/L,
and $4/kWh.; by 2015, 3 kWh/kg (9 wt%), 2.7 kWh/L, and $2/kWh.

3.3.2 Technical Approach

On-board hydrogen storage to enable a driving range of greater than 300 miles, while meeting vehicular
packaging, cost and performance requirements, is the focus of the Hydrogen Storage Program element. Research
and development activities for vehicle interface technologies and off-board hydrogen storage will be coordinated
with the Hydrogen Delivery Program element—emphasizing that hydrogen delivery entails delivering hydrogen
from the point of production to the point of use on-board the vehicle, including storage at the fueling station (see
Hydrogen Delivery section 3.2 for complete description of off-board storage).

To lay the strategic foundation for hydrogen storage activities, a series of workshops with scientists and
engineers from universities, national laboratories and industry was held to identify R&D priorities. A “Think
Tank” meeting, which included Nobel laureates and other award-winning scientists, was held to identify
advanced material concepts and to develop an R&D strategy. Interactions with the DOE Office of Science are
ongoing to define and coordinate the basic research activities for hydrogen storage materials.

Gravimetric, volumetric and cost targets for hydrogen storage have been developed for 2010 and 2015,
as indicated in the objectives. Storage approaches currently being pursued are: 1) advanced concepts,
conformability and cost reduction of compressed gas and cryogenic hydrogen tanks for near-term vehicles, and
2) reversible solid-state hydrogen storage materials, chemical hydrogen storage, and new materials and concepts
for the longer-term vehicle applications (see Figures 3.3.1 and 3.3.2). The primary focus is on the latter set of
technologies and on exploratory research with potential to meet long-term goals, rather than on pre-commercial
technology development such as high-pressure tanks. Currently, hydrogen is stored both off-board and on-board
prototype vehicles as a high-pressure compressed gas or as a cryogenic liquid. Compressed hydrogen gas tanks

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 55

 Technical Plan–Storage

will likely be used in early hydrogen-powered vehicles Figure 3.3.1. Hydrogen storage tanks.
and will need to meet cost and packaging requirements
to play a role in the transition to the hydrogen economy.
Furthermore, tanks will be required for all future storage
approaches (e.g. solid-state or liquid chemical approaches)
and will need to conform to space limitations as well as
meet performance requirements such as heat management
during fueling. Hence, current efforts in tank R&D also
include novel concepts that are applicable to multiple
forms of storage.

The Hydrogen Storage Program element will include on-going analysis to examine the lifecycle cost,
energy efficiency, and environmental impact of the technologies developed, any changes in the system-level
requirements that might alter the technical targets, and the progress of each technology development effort
toward achieving the technical targets.
Figure 3.3.2. Micrograph of carbon nanostructure
As technologies are down-selected with potential for for hydrogen storage.
on-board storage, future activities on vehicle interface
technologies will be coordinated with the Delivery
Program element. Vehicle refueling connection devices
will need to be compatible with high pressure and
cryogenic storage in the near-term. In the long term, as progress
is made on solid-state or liquid-based options, vehicle refueling
issues such as thermal management or byproduct reclamation will
need to be addressed.

Funding for hydrogen storage R&D will be scaled down according

to measurable progress—as technical and cost targets are met or
missed, funding for particular technological approaches will be
adjusted. When all performance, safety and cost targets are met,
hydrogen storage R&D funding will end as appropriate. If specific
performance issues remain at that time, R&D could be extended if
the risk of the continued effort is justified by the potential benefit.

3.3.3 Programmatic Status

Current Activities
Table 3.3.1 summarizes the current (FY 2004) activities in the Hydrogen Storage Program element. For
compressed hydrogen, lightweight composite tanks with high-pressure ratings and conformability are being
developed. Complex metal hydrides, including alanates and other promising materials, are being explored to
determine their potential for hydrogen storage and to improve our understanding of hydrogen storage processes.
The search for new metal hydrides also includes combinatorial and high-throughput materials development
and screening. Similarly, carbon nanotubes and other carbon-based materials are being investigated to
explore possible novel hydrogen uptake mechanisms. Projects on chemical hydrogen storage, such as sodium
borohydride and magnesium hydride slurries, were initiated in FY 2004, with a focus on the key issue for
chemical hydrogen storage—off-board regeneration of the spent fuel. A project was also initiated on off-board
hydrogen storage and will be coordinated with the Delivery Program element (see section 3.2). Also shown
below are the new awards on novel materials and concepts that were announced in FY 2004. New projects on

page 3- 56 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Storage

systems analysis will include performance, cost and life-cycle analyses of on-board storage options. Finally,
a test and evaluation facility is being established to develop standard test protocols and provide independent
verification of hydrogen storage performance in reversible solid-state materials.

In FY 2005, coordinated activities will be launched with multiple university, industry and national laboratory
partners in the key focus areas of metal hydrides, carbon-based materials and chemical hydrogen storage.
New materials and concepts will be an emphasis in the FY05 storage portfolio. Future efforts also include
collaboration with the DOE Office of Science in FY 2005 on basic science, theory and modeling related to
various hydrogen storage technologies.

Table 3.3.1. Current Hydrogen Storage Activities

Approach Organizations Project Focus
10,000 psi Composite Tanks,
Quantum
Compressed Hydrogen Cost Reduction
Tanks Cryo-compressed Tanks and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Advanced Concepts
Materials discovery of new
alanate compositions; study of
United Technologies Research Center (2 projects)
system prototype using sodium
alanate
Discovery of novel complex
United Oil Products (UOP) hydrides using combinatorial
methods

Complex Metal Hydrides Center of Excellence on Metal Hydrides (Sandia National

Laboratory-Livermore, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
California Institute of Technology, General Electric, HRL Light-weight complex hydrides,
Laboratories, Intematix Corporation, Jet Propulsion destabilized binary hydrides,
Laboratory, NIST, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Savannah intermetallic hydrides, modified
River National Laboratory, Stanford University, University of lithium amides, and other on-
Hawaii, University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign, University board reversible hydrides
of Nevada-Reno, University of Pittsburgh/Carnegie Mellon
University, University of Utah)

Center of Excellence on Carbon-based Materials (National

Renewable Energy Laboratory, Air Products & Chemicals,
Carbon-based materials and
Inc., California Institute of Technology, Duke University,
high surface area sorbents;
Carbon Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NIST, Oak Ridge
storage capacity, mechanisms,
National Laboratory, Penn State University, Rice University,
characterization, optimization
University of Michigan, University of North Carolina,
University of Pennsylvania)

Millennium Cell Sodium borate regeneration

Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. Liquid chemical hydride

Safe Hydrogen LLC Magnesium hydride slurry

Chemical Hydrides
Center of Excellence on Chemical Hydrogen Storage (Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Intematix, Millennium Cell, Northern Arizona New chemical hydrogen storage
University, Penn State University, Rohm and Haas, University and regeneration processes
of Alabama, UC-Davis, UCLA, University of Pennsylvania,
University of Washington, US Borax)

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 57

 Technical Plan–Storage

Complex metal nanostructured

Cleveland State University
grids
Hollow glass microspheres and
Alfred University
electromagnetic radiation
Carnegie Institute of Washington Clathrates
Gas Technology Institute Graphite-based materials
Michigan Technological University Metal perhydrides
Research Triangle Institute Nitrogen/boron hydrides
Novel nanostructured activated
SUNY -Syracuse
carbon materials
Synthesis of carbon and boron
TOFTEC, Inc. nitride materials by gamma
irradiation

New Materials and Nanoporous polymers,

Concepts nanoporous coordination
University of California-Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley solids, destabilized high-density
National Laboratory hydrides, nanostructured boron
nitride and magnesium and
metal alloy nanocrystals
Nanoporous nickel phosphates,
inorganic and organic
University of California-Santa Barbara
framework materials and metal
hydrogen complexes
Mechanically activated,
University of Connecticut nanoscale lithium nitride
materials
University of Michigan Metal-organic frameworks
University of Missouri Organic clathrates
University of Pennsylvania and Drexel University Carbide based nanomaterials
Standard Test Protocols,
Testing and Evaluation Southwest Research Institute
Independent Test Facility
Analysis of performance and life
TIAX LCC
cycle costs of on-board storage
Analysis options

Analysis of hybrid concepts and

Argonne National Laboratory
systems

Technology Status (Demonstrations)

In the area of on-board hydrogen storage, the state-of-the-art is 5,000- and 10,000-psi compressed tanks, and
cryogenic liquid hydrogen tanks. Tanks have been certified worldwide according to ISO 11439 (Europe), NGV2
(U.S.), and Reijikijun Betten (Iceland) standards, and approved by TUV (Germany) and KHK (Japan). They
have been demonstrated in several prototype fuel cell vehicles and are commercially available at low production
volumes. All-composite 10,000-psi tanks have demonstrated a 2.35 safety factor (23,500-psi burst pressure)
as required by the European Integrated Hydrogen Project specifications. Liquid hydrogen tanks have also been
demonstrated. A sodium borohydride system has been demonstrated in a concept vehicle. A lithium hydride
slurry prototype has been demonstrated in a pick up truck with a hydrogen internal combustion engine.

page 3- 58 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Storage

3.3.4 Technical Challenges

For transportation applications, the overarching technical challenge for hydrogen storage is how to store
the necessary amount of hydrogen fuel required for conventional driving range (>300 miles), within the
constraints of weight, volume, durability, efficiency and total cost. Clearly, many important technical challenges
for hydrogen storage must be resolved to meet the ultimate performance and safety targets. Substantial
improvements must be made in the weight, volume and cost of these systems, for vehicular applications.
Durability over the performance lifetime of these systems must be verified and validated, and acceptable
refueling times must be achieved. Section 3.3.4.1 lists specific technical targets that the hydrogen storage system
must achieve to meet customer-driven requirements for vehicle performance. Section 3.3.4.2 lists the specific
technical barriers that must be overcome to achieve the performance targets. Section 3.3.5 describes the tasks
that will be carried out to resolve the identified technical barriers.

3.3.4.1 Technical Targets

The technical performance targets for hydrogen storage systems are summarized in Table 3.3.2. Figure 3.3.3
shows the status of current technologies relative to performance and cost targets. These targets were established
through the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership between DOE, the U.S. Council for Automotive Research
(USCAR) and the energy companies. The targets are subject to change as more is learned about system-level
requirements and as fuel cell technology progresses.

Based on the lower heating value (LHV) of hydrogen and greater than 300-mile vehicle range, the targets
are for a complete system, including tank, material, valves, regulators, piping, mounting brackets, insulation,
added cooling capacity, and/or other balance-of-plant components. The targets are based on the U.S. weighted
average corporate vehicle (WACV) that includes minivans, light trucks, economy cars, and SUV/crossover
vehicles, in proportion to their sales. A detailed explanation of each target is provided at www.eere.energy.gov/
hydrogenandfuelcells. It should also be noted that unless otherwise indicated in Table 3.3.2, the targets are for
both internal combustion engine and fuel cell power plants.

In addition, hydrogen storage systems must be energy efficient in delivering hydrogen to the vehicle power plant.
For on-board reversible systems, greater than 90% energy efficiency for the energy delivered to the power plant
from the on-board storage system is required. For systems regenerated off-board, the overall efficiency is also
important. In this case, the energy content of the hydrogen delivered to the automotive power plant should be
greater than 60% of the total energy input to the process, including the input energy of hydrogen and any other
fuel streams for generating process heat and electrical energy. This is based on the DOE on-board target of 90%
efficiency and the DOE off-board energy efficiency targets of 79% for hydrogen produced from natural gas and
85% for well-to-tank efficiency.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 59

 Technical Plan–Storage

Table 3.3.2. Technical Targets: On-Board Hydrogen Storage Systems

Storage Parameter Units 2007a 2010 2015
Usable, specific-energy from H2
kW.h/kg 1.5 2 3
(net useful energy/max system mass)b
(kg H2/kg) (0.045) (0.06) (0.09)
(“Gravimetric Capacity”)
Usable energy density from H2 (net useful
kW.h/L 1.2 1.5 2.7
energy/max system volume) (“Volumetric
(kg H2/L) (0.036) (0.045) (0.081)
Capacity”)
$/kW.h net 6 4 2
Storage system costc
($/kg H2) (200) (133) (67)
$ per gallon
Fuel costd gasoline equivalent 3 1.5 1.5
at pump
Operating ambient temperaturee °C -20/50 (sun) -30/50 (sun) -40/60 (sun)
Cycle life (1/4 tank to full) f
Cycles 500 1000 1500
% of mean (min) @
Cycle life variationg N/A 90/90 99/90
% confidence
Minimum and Maximum delivery temperature
°C -20/85 -30/85 -40/85
of H2 from tank

Minimum full-flow rate (g/s)/kW 0.02 0.02 0.02

Minimum delivery pressure of H2 from tank; 8 FC 4 FC 3 FC

Atm (abs)
FC=fuel cell, ICE=internal combustion engine 10 ICE 35 ICE 35 ICE

Maximum delivery pressure of H2 from tankh Atm (abs) 100 100 100

Transient response 10%-90% and 90%-0%i s 1.75 0.75 0.5

Start time to full-flow at 20°Cj s 4 4 0.5

Start time to full-flow at minimum ambientj s 8 8 2

System Fill Time min 10 3 2.5

Loss of useable hydrogenk (g/h)/kg H2 stored 1 0.1 0.05

Qualityl (H2 from storage system) % 98% (dry basis)

Permeation and leakagem Scc/h Federal enclosed-area safety-standard

Toxicity Meets or exceeds applicable standards

Safety Meets or exceeds applicable standards

Useful constants: 0.2778kWh/MJ, ~33.3kWh/gal gasoline equivalent.

a
Some near-term targets have been achieved with compressed and liquid tanks. Emphasis is on materials-based technologies.
b
Generally the ‘full’ mass (including hydrogen) is used, for systems that gain weight, the highest mass during discharge is used.
c
2003 US$; total cost includes any component replacement if needed over 15 years or 150,000 mile life.
d
2001 US$; includes off-board costs such as liquefaction, compression, regeneration, etc; 2015 target based on H2 production cost of $1.50/gasoline gallon
equivalent untaxed (subject to change based on DOE hydrogen production cost target).
e
Stated ambient temperature plus full solar load. No allowable performance degradation from –20C to 40C. Allowable degradation outside these limits is
TBD.
f
Equivalent to 100,000; 200,000; and 300,000 miles respectively (current gasoline tank spec).
g
All targets must be achieved at end of life.

page 3- 60 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Storage
h
In the near term, the forecourt should be capable of delivering 10,000 psi compressed hydrogen, liquid hydrogen, or chilled hydrogen (77 K) at 5,000
psi. In the long term, it is anticipated that delivery pressures will be reduced to between 50 and 150 atm for solid state storage systems, based on today’s
knowledge of sodium alanates.
i
At operating temperature.
j
Flow must initiate within 25% of target time.
k
Total hydrogen lost from the storage system, including leaked or vented hydrogen; relates to loss of range.
l
For fuel cell systems, steady state levels less than 10 ppb sulfur, 1 ppm carbon monoxide, 100 ppm carbon dioxide, 1 ppm ammonia, 100 ppm non-
methane hydrocarbons on a C-1 basis; oxygen, nitrogen and argon can’t exceed 2%. Particulate levels must meet ISO standard 14687. Some storage
technologies may produce contaminants for which effects are unknown; these will be addressed as more information becomes available.
m
Total hydrogen lost into the environment as H2; relates to hydrogen accumulation in enclosed spaces. Storage system must comply with CSA/NGV2
standards for vehicular tanks. This includes any coating or enclosure that incorporates the envelope of the storage system.

The current status for system capacity and cost, as shown in Figure 3.3.3, are estimates provided by technology
developers and the R&D community. All targets must be achieved simultaneously; however, status is not
neccessarily reported from a single system. Because it is challenging to estimate system-level weights and
volumes when research is still at the stage of materials development, the current status data will be revisited
and updated periodically. However, it is clear that none of the current systems meets the combined gravimetric,
volumetric, and system cost targets for either 2010 or 2015. Also note that although recent accomplishments
may show materials-based capacities as high as 5 wt%, the targets of 6 wt% by 2010 and 9 wt% by 2015 are
system-level capacities that include the material, tank and all balance-of-plant components of the storage system.
The system-level data also needs to include the first charge of hydrogen as well as any preconditioning such as
purification, liquefaction and regeneration of material, particularly for chemical hydrogen storage, for which the
cost of regenerating spent fuel will need to be included.

Figure 3.3.3 Status of current technologies relative to the key performance and cost targets.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 61

 Technical Plan–Storage

3.3.4.2 On-Board Hydrogen Storage Technical Barriers

General
A. Cost. The cost of on-board hydrogen storage systems is too high, particularly in comparison with
conventional storage systems for petroleum fuels. Low-cost materials and components for hydrogen storage
systems are needed, as well as low-cost, high-volume manufacturing methods.

B. Weight and Volume. The weight and volume of hydrogen storage systems are presently too high, resulting
in inadequate vehicle range compared to conventional petroleum fueled vehicles. Materials and components
are needed that allow compact, lightweight, hydrogen storage systems while enabling greater than 300-mile
range in all light-duty vehicle platforms. Reducing weight and volume of thermal management components is
required.

C. Efficiency. Energy efficiency is a challenge for all hydrogen storage approaches. The energy required to
get hydrogen in and out of the material is an issue for reversible solid-state materials. Life-cycle energy
efficiency may be a challenge for chemical hydrogen storage technologies in which the spent medium and
by-products are typically regenerated off-board. In addition, the energy associated with compression and
liquefaction must be considered for compressed and liquid hydrogen technologies. Thermal management for
charging and releasing hydrogen from the storage system needs to be optimized to increase overall efficiency.

D. Durability. Durability of hydrogen storage systems is inadequate. Materials and components are needed that
allow hydrogen storage systems with a lifetime of 1500 cycles and tolerance to fuel contaminants.

E. Refueling Time. Refueling times are too long. There is a need to develop hydrogen storage systems with
refueling times of less than three minutes, over the lifetime of the system. Thermal management during
refueling is a critical issue that must be addressed.

F. Codes and Standards. Applicable codes and standards for hydrogen storage systems and interface
technologies, which will facilitate implementation/commercialization and assure safety and public acceptance,
have not been established. Standardized hardware and operating procedures, and applicable codes and
standards, are required.

G. System Life-Cycle Assessments. Assessments of the full life cycle, cost, efficiency, and environmental
impact for hydrogen storage systems are lacking.

Compressed Gas Systems

H. Sufficient Fuel Storage for Acceptable Vehicle Range. Compressed hydrogen storage systems that contain
enough hydrogen to provide equivalent range to conventional vehicles are too bulky, which compromises
passenger and luggage space.

I. Materials. High-pressure containment limits the choice of construction materials and fabrication techniques,
within the weight, volume, performance, and cost constraints. Research into new materials such as
metal ceramic composites, improved resins, and engineered fibers is needed to meet cost targets without
compromising performance. Materials to meet performance and cost requirements for hydrogen delivery and
off-board storage are also needed (see Hydrogen Delivery section 3.2).

page 3- 62 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Storage

J. Lack of Tank Performance Data. An understanding of the fundamental mechanisms that govern composite
tank operating cycle life and failure due to accident or to neglect is lacking. Data on tank performance and
failure are needed to optimize tank structure for performance and cost. An independent test facility is needed
that has the capability to acquire the required data.

K. Balance of Plant (BOP) Components. Light-weight, cost-effective, high-pressure balance-of-plant

components are lacking. These include tubing, fittings, check valves, regulators, filters, relief and shut-off
valves, and sensors.

Cryogenic Liquid Systems

L. Liquefaction Energy Penalty and Hydrogen Boil-Off. The boil-off of liquid hydrogen requires venting,
reduces driving range and presents a potential safety/environmental hazard, particularly when the vehicle is in
an enclosed environment. The energy penalty associated with liquefaction, typically 30% of the lower heating
value of hydrogen, is an issue. Materials and methods to reduce boil-off in cryogenic tanks and to reduce the
energy requirements for liquefaction are needed.

Reversible Solid-State Material Storage Systems (Regenerated On Board)

M. Hydrogen Capacity and Reversibility. Hydrogen capacity and reversibility are inadequate at practical
operating temperatures and pressures and within refueling time constraints. Adequate cycle life of these
systems has not been demonstrated.

N. Lack of Understanding of Hydrogen Physisorption and Chemisorption. Fundamental understanding of

hydrogen physisorption and chemisorption processes is lacking. Improved understanding and optimization of
absorption/desorption kinetics is needed to optimize hydrogen uptake and release capacity rates.

O. Test Protocols and Evaluation Facilities. Standard test protocols and independent facilities for evaluation of
hydrogen storage materials are lacking.

P. Dispensing Technology. Requirements for dispensing hydrogen to and from the storage system have not
been defined. This includes meeting heat rejection requirements during fueling.

Q. Thermal Management. Reversible materials typically require heat to release hydrogen on board. Heat must
be provided to the storage system at reasonable temperatures to meet the flow rates needed by the vehicle
powerplant. Similarly, while charging the material with hydrogen, a significant challenge is removal of the
heat generated within the fueling time requirements.

Chemical Hydrogen Storage Systems (Typically Regenerated Off Board)

R. Regeneration Processes. Low-cost, energy-efficient regeneration processes have not been established. Full
life-cycle analyses need to be performed to understand cost, efficiency and environmental impacts.

S. By-Product/Spent Material Removal. The refueling process is potentially complicated by removal of

the byproduct and/or spent material. System designs must be developed to address this issue and the
infrastructure requirements for off-board regeneration.

T. Heat Removal. Significant heat may be generated or required during formation of hydrogen, requiring
substantial thermal management.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 63

 Technical Plan–Storage

3.3.5 Technical Task Descriptions

The technical task descriptions are presented in Table 3.3.3. Issues regarding safety will be addressed within
each of the tasks. The barriers associated with each task appear after the task title.

Table 3.3.3. Technical Task Descriptions

Task Description Barriers
Compressed and Cryogenic Tanks to Meet 2005 Targets
• Develop, demonstrate and verify low cost, compact 10,000-psi storage tanks.
• Assess the need for liner materials to reduce hydrogen gas permeation.
• Develop and optimize carbon fiber/epoxy over-wrap.
• Identify alternate designs and materials for advanced, integrated storage systems.
• Explore conformable tanks for compressed hydrogen.
• Demonstrate safety of hydrogen storage systems.
1 • Explore compressed gas/reversible storage material hybrid systems.
A-L

• Establish an independent test facility to acquire data on performance and durability of

compressed tanks using standardized test methods.
• Develop lightweight, low-cost balance of plant components for compressed and cryogenic
tanks.
• Study requirements and conceptual designs for cost-competitive off-board storage of
hydrogen, including underground scenarios.

Advanced Compressed and Cryogenic Tank Technologies

2 • Develop advanced compressed and cryogenic tank technologies to meet 2010 targets.
A-L

Solid-State Hydrogen Storage Materials R&D to Meet 2005 Targets (On-board

Regenerated)
• Perform theoretical modeling to provide guidance for materials development.
• Improve understanding of sodium alanate system to aid development of alanate and other
complex hydride materials with higher hydrogen capacities.
• Investigate a family of alanate materials with hydrogen capacities of 6 wt% or greater with
adequate charge/discharge kinetics and cycling characteristics.
• Investigate composite-wall containers compatible with the optimal alanate materials.
• Determine the decomposition products and pathways of materials to better understand their
mechanisms and kinetics.
3 • Engineer a hydride bed capable of efficiently storing and releasing hydrogen at 90°C. A-G, M-Q
• Determine the hydrogen storage capacity of nanostructured carbon materials; demonstrate
reproducibility of synthesis and capacity measurements.
• Develop cost-effective fabrication processes for promising nanostructured carbon materials.
• Explore combinatorial approaches to rapidly identify promising hydrogen storage materials.
• Perform analyses to assess cost effectiveness of reversible hydrogen storage materials
including scale-up to high-volume production.
• Explore non-thermal discharging methods, including mechanical, chemical and electrical
mechanisms.
• Establish an independent test facility and standard test protocols to evaluate reversible
hydrogen storage materials.

Advanced Solid-State Materials to Meet 2010 Targets (On-board Regeneration)

4 • Develop and verify most promising reversible storage materials to meet 2010 targets.
A-G, M-Q

page 3- 64 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Storage

Advanced Solid-State Materials

5 • Develop and verify most promising reversible storage materials to meet 2015 targets.
A-G, M-Q

Chemical Hydrogen Storage (Off-board Regeneration)

• Identify a family of chemical hydrogen storage materials capable of meeting weight and
volume goals. Characterize the reaction chemistry and thermodynamics of the most
promising candidates.
• Rank viable candidates according to hydrogen capacity based on resource availability, full
fuel cycle energy efficiency and emissions, and cost of the delivered fuel.
• Identify and develop improved processes, chemistry, catalysts and operating conditions for
the complete fuel cycle.
6 • Evaluate the safety performance of the complete system.
A-G, R, S

• Verify an entire closed loop, chemical hydrogen storage system, including an efficient
regeneration process that meets cost and performance targets.
• Ensure compatibility with applicable codes and standards for on-vehicle storage and fueling
interface.
• Assess the impact of a potentially complicated refueling process (due to spent material or
by-product removal) on implementation of hydrogen storage systems that are regenerated
off-board.

Advanced Chemical Hydrogen Storage (Off-board Regeneration)

7 • Develop and verify most promising chemical hydrogen storage materials to meet 2010
A-G, R-T
targets.

Advanced Chemical Hydrogen Storage (Off-board Regeneration)

8 • Develop and verify most promising chemical hydrogen storage materials to meet 2015 A-G, R-T
targets.

New Materials and Concepts Feasibility

9 • Identify and investigate new materials and storage approaches that have the potential to A-G
achieve 2010 targets of 2 kWh/kg (6wt%) or greater, and 1.5 kWh/L or greater.

New Materials and Concepts R&D

10 • Develop and characterize new materials and concepts to meet 2010 targets.
A-G

New Materials and Advanced Concepts R&D

11 • Develop and characterize new materials and advanced concepts to meet 2015 targets.
A-G

Analysis of On-board Storage Options

• Conduct analyses to examine life-cycle cost, energy efficiency, and environmental impacts
12 of the technologies developed, changes in the system level requirements that might alter A-G
the technical targets, and progress of each technology development effort toward achieving
the technical targets.

3.3.6 Milestones
Figure 3.3.4 shows the interrelationship of milestones, tasks, supporting inputs and outputs from other Program
elements from FY 2004 through FY 2010. This information is also summarized in Table B.3 in Appendix B.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 65

 Technical Plan–Storage

Figure 3.3.4. Hydrogen Storage R&D Milestone Chart

For chart details see next page.

page 3- 66 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Storage

Milestones
1 Complete feasibility study of hybrid tank concepts.
2 Go/No-Go: Decision on compressed and cryogenic tank technologies for on-board vehicular applications.
3 Complete construction of materials test facility.
4 Complete verification of test facility.
5 Reproducibly demonstrate 4wt% material capacity on carbon nanotubes.
6 Complete prototype complex hydride integrated system meeting 2005 targets.
7 Go/No-Go: Decision point on carbon nanotubes.
8 Down-select on-board reversible metal hydride materials.
9 Go/No-Go: Decision point on advanced carbon-based materials.
10 Complete prototype complex hydride integrated system meeting 2010 targets.
11 Go/No-Go: Decision on continuation of on-board reversible metal hydride R&D.
12 Complete preliminary estimates of efficiency for off-board regeneration.
13 Down-select from chemical hydrogen regeneration processes.
14 Demonstrate efficient chemical hydrogen regeneration laboratory process.
15 Complete chemical hydrogen storage life-cycle analyses.
16 Down-select from chemical hydrogen storage approaches for 2010 targets.
17 Complete prototype chemical hydrogen storage integrated system.
18 Demonstrate scaled-up chemical hydrogen regeneration process.
19 Identify advanced chemical hydrogen regeneration laboratory process with potential to meet 2015 targets.
20 Go/No-Go: Decision point on chemical storage R&D for 2015 targets.
21 Down-select from new material concepts to meet 2010 targets.
22 Down-select the most promising new material concepts for continued development.
23 Complete baseline analyses of on-board storage options for 2010 targets.
24 Update onboard storage targets.
25 Complete analyses of on-board storage options for 2010 and 2015 targets.

Outputs
St1 Output to Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Compressed and cryogenic liquid storage tanks achieving 1.5 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L.
St2 Output to Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Advanced compressed/cryogenic tank technologies.
St3 Output to Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Complex hydride integrated system achieving 1.5 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L.
St4 Output to Delivery, Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Full-cycle, integrated chemical hydrogen system meeting 2010 targets.
St5 Output to Delivery, Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Baseline hydrogen on-board storage system analysis results including hydrogen
quality needs and interface issues.
St6 Output to Delivery, Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Finalon-board hydrogen storage system analysis results of cost and
performance (including pressure, temp, etc) and down-select to a primary on-board storage system candidate.

Inputs
Sf3 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling.
C4 Input from Codes and Standards: Standards for compressed gaseous on-board storage.
Sf4 Input from Safety: Safety requirements for on-board storage.
C5 Input from Codes and Standards: Hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Technical Specification.
C6 Input from Codes and Standards: Technical assessment of standards requirements for metallic and composite bulk storage tanks.
P2 Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition.
D1 Input from Delivery: Assessment of cost and performance requirements for off-board storage systems.
D2 Input from Delivery: Hydrogen contaminant composition and issues.
C7 Input from Codes and Standards: Final standards (balloting) for fuel dispensing systems (CSA America).
V9 Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three refueling stations.
C9 Input from Codes and Standards: Materials compatibility technical reference.
A2 Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at each point in the system.
D9 Input from Delivery: Off-board storage technology.
P6 Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition.
C12 Input from Codes and Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Standard.
Sf5 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 67

 Technical Plan–Storage

page 3- 68 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

3.4 Fuel Cells

Fuel cells have the potential to replace the internal Education

combustion engine in vehicles and to provide power in Codes & Standards

Safety
stationary and portable power applications because they are Systems Integration/Analyses
energy efficient, clean and fuel flexible. Hydrogen or any
hydrogen-rich fuel can be used by this emerging technology. DELIVERY

For transportation applications, the Program is focusing on PRODUCTION FUEL CELLS

TECHNOLOGY
VALIDATION
direct hydrogen fuel cells, in which hydrogen is stored on STORAGE
board and is supplied by a hydrogen generation, delivery, and Research & Development
fueling infrastructure. This infrastructure is being developed
in parallel with the fuel cell development efforts.

Prior to August 2004, significant fuel cell activity resources supported on-board vehicle fuel processing, where
hydrogen could be produced from fuels such as gasoline, methanol, ethanol, natural gas or other hydrocarbons,
supplied by the existing infrastructure. Subsequently, DOE has decided to discontinue on-board fuel processing
R&D. Further discussion relating to this decision can be found in Programmatic Status (section 3.4.3).

For distributed generation applications, fuel cell systems will likely be fueled with natural gas or liquefied
petroleum gas (LPG, consisting predominantly of propane) in the near term and in the longer term by renewable
fuels. Fuel cells for auxiliary power units in trucks will use either diesel or LPG and recreational vehicles will
be powered by LPG alone. In small consumer electronics, hydrogen or methanol will be the fuel of choice for
fuel cell systems.

3.4.1 Technical Goal and Objectives

Goal
Develop and demonstrate fuel cell power system technologies for transportation, stationary and portable
applications.

Objectives
• By 2010, develop a 60% peak-efficient, durable, direct hydrogen fuel cell power system for transportation at a
cost of $45/kW; by 2015, a cost of $30/kW.

• By 2010, develop a distributed generation PEM fuel cell system operating on natural gas or LPG that achieves
40% electrical efficiency and 40,000 hours durability at $400-$750/kW.

• By 2010, develop a fuel cell system for consumer electronics with (<50 W) an energy density of 1,000 Wh/L.

• By 2010, develop a fuel cell system for auxiliary power units (3-30 kW) with a specific power of 100 W/kg
and a power density of 100 W/L.

3.4.2 Technical Approach

Fuel cell research and development will emphasize high efficiency and durability and low material and
manufacturing costs of the fuel cell stack, and balance-of-plant components like air compressors, and sensors

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 69

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

and controls. However, each application – light Figure 3.4.1. Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel
vehicle transportation, auxiliary power units (APUs) Cell
for heavy duty vehicles, stationary, and portable
power for consumer electronics—requires a different
approach for technology development. Specifically,
polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells, shown
in Figure 3.4.1, are the current focus for light duty
vehicles because they have fast start capability and
operate at low temperatures. Solid oxide fuel cells
(SOFCs) generate more power (have higher power
density) and are more applicable as APUs on heavy duty
vehicles where systems may run for extended periods
without frequent start and stop cycles. Direct methanol
fuel cells (DMFCs) are well suited for portable power
applications in consumer electronic devices where the
power requirements are low and the cost targets are not as
stringent as for transportation applications. The emphasis
of the Program is fuel replacement for light duty
vehicles to reduce our nation’s dependence on imported
petroleum. In addition to this transportation fuel cell
application focus, i.e. direct hydrogen fuel cell vehicles,
the program also supports stationary, portable power and
auxiliary power applications to a limited degree where
earlier market entry would assist in the development of a fuel cell manufacturing base.

To meet the efficiency, durability and cost requirements for fuel cells, research and development will focus
on identifying less expensive new materials and novel fabrication methods for membranes, catalysts and
bipolar plates. Testing of these new materials and fabrication methods will be carried out by industry, national
laboratories and universities. Progress has already been made in developing fuel cell membranes that are capable
of operating at 120oC or above for better thermal management. In addition, advances continue to be made in
minimizing precious metal loading, assessing and improving component durability, and developing thin catalyst
coatings for membranes, high-volume fabrication processes, and highly conductive, gas-impermeable bipolar
plates.

In comparison to prior years, much less emphasis will be placed on fuel cell systems development. Instead,
R&D efforts will focus on materials, components, and enabling technologies for low-cost fuel cell power
systems operating on direct hydrogen for transportation, reformed natural gas or LPG for stationary applications,
reformed diesel or LPG for auxilary power and methanol for consumer electronic applications. Validation of
fuel cell technology targets related to performance, reliability, durability and environmental benefits will be
conducted in the Hydrogen Infrastructure and Fuel Cell Vehicle Learning Demonstration. The Technology
Validation Program element (see section 3.5) will provide data under real-world conditions and, in turn, supply
valuable fuel cell results to help refine and direct future activities for fuel cell R&D.

Fuel cell R&D will taper and eventually end once the technical targets are achieved and the technologies are
commercially adopted. When major cost milestones are met for stationary and transportation applications, the
R&D in those areas will conclude. If specific cost performance and durability issues remain, R&D could be
extended, assuming the cost of a continued effort is justified by the anticipated benefits.

page 3- 70 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

3.4.3 Programmatic Status

As mentioned earlier, the Fuel Cell team conducted a review of on-board fuel processing for transportation
applications during 2004. In August of 2004 DOE decided to discontinue on-board fuel processing R&D.

Specific criteria for the on-board fuel processing decision are shown in Table 3.4.1.

Table 3.4.1 DOE On-Board Fuel Processing Go/No-Go Criteria

Current Probability of
2004 Demo Ultimate
Attribute Units Status Reaching
Criteria Target
(2/2004) Ultimate Target
2000 and 5,000 and
Durability hours 1000 medium
>50 stop/starts 20,000 starts
Power Density We/L 700 700 2,000 medium
Efficiency % 78 78 >80 high
Start−up Energy MJ/50 kWe <2 7 <2 low
<30 to 90%
<60 to 90%
Start−up Time (+20°C) sec 600 traction power low
traction power
<2 to 10%
<5, 10% to 90% <1, 10% to 90%,
Transient Response sec 10 low
and 90% to 10% and 90% to 10%
Turndown ratio 20:1 20:1 > 50:1 medium
<50 out from <10 out from
Sulfur Content ppb 130 medium
30 ppm in 30 ppm in
Cost $/kWe n/a 65 <10 low

A review of on-board fuel processing activities was conducted. It concluded that, based on the current state of the
technology, it was unlikely that on-board fuel processing would improve sufficiently to support the transition to a
hydrogen economy. This decision included consideration of the following key factors:
• The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative accelerated hydrogen technology development and lessened the contribution
that on-board fuel processing could make as a transitional technology;
• Compared to today’s gasoline hybrid electric vehicle technologies, on-board fuel processing for fuel cell
vehicles offered only marginal improvements in efficiency and emissions; and
• Existing technical and cost targets cannot be met with current fuel processing technologies and no clear path
forward has been articulated for meeting the difficult criteria associated with full implementation/integration
of on-board fuel processing in fuel cell vehicles.

While on-board fuel processing activities will be terminated, the fuel processing activity will continue.
Development projects supporting on-board fuel processing systems will be terminated or redirected. The
Program continues to develop fuel processors for stationary applications and to develop fundamental catalysts
suitable for a variety of fuel processing applications, such as auxiliary power applications (APU). Fuel
processing research for APU will support the 21st Century Truck Initiative and the Office of Fossil Energy’s
Solid-State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA).

Current Activities.
Table 3.4.2 summarizes the current activities of the Fuel Cells Program element.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 71

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.2 Current Fuel Cell Activities

Challenge Approach Activities
Transportation Systems
Efficient, cost- • New engineering • Honeywell: Integrated thermal/water management system that efficiently uses
effective compressor approaches to the fuel cell waste heat and water
/ expander compressor/expander • Mechanology: Toroidal intersecting vane compressor/expander module
technologies technologies (e.g. • Honeywell: Turbo compressor for operation in PEMFC transportation systems
and thermal/water lubricant-free) • Advanced Fluids (SBIR): Improved coolant (water/glycol with nanoparticles) for
management systems • Improve efficiencies and use in PEM fuel cell systems
performance • Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Carbon foam technology to recover water
• Reduce weight and cost from fuel cell exhaust and humidify inlet air
• Develop thermal and
water management
systems

Effective, reliable • Develop accurate, • Honeywell: Physical sensor technology meeting customer requirements
physical and chemical reliable, fast-responding • UTC Fuel Cells: Physical and chemical sensors for fuel cell application
sensors sensors to measure • Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Hydrogen safety and performance
physical properties and sensors
chemical species. • Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Fiber optic temperature sensor
• Reduce cost and footprint

System and market • Assess potential for cost • National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Fuel cell vehicle system analysis,
analysis reductions to reach trade-offs and optimizationa
customer-acceptable • New project: Cost analysis of fuel cell systemsa
levels • Argonne National Lab: System analysis, trade-offs and optimizationa
• Evaluate the potential
market demand and
economics of fuel cell
systems

Stationary Systems

High-temperature • Development of high- • Plug Power: Poly-benzimidazole membranes

membranes temperature membranes
for stationary to facilitate combined
applications heat and power
applications meeting
40,000 hour durability
requirement
Stationary fuel cell • Develop and demonstrate • UTC Fuel Cells: Distributed generation
system development integrated systems for • Plug Power: Back-up power
and demonstrations distributed generation • IdaTech: Combined heat and power
and back-up power • National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Computer aided engineering (CAE)
for durability of fuel cell componentsa

System and market • Perform economic • Battelle: Economic analysis of stationary fuel cell marketsa
analysis analysis of fuel cells and
their associated markets

a
Also listed in Systems Analysis Table 5.4.1.

page 3- 72 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Fuel Processors

Distributed natural • Develop technology for • Nuvera: Advanced reforming module for stationary applications
gas or LPG fueled reforming natural gas or • ChevronTexaco: Sorption- enhanced reformer for low-CO hydrogen production
LPG • Argonne National Laboratory: Develop advanced fuel processing and catalyst
• Develop advanced technology
catalysts • Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Catalytic oxidation for hydrogen sulfide
removal
Efficient fuel-flexible • Reduce cost, weight, and • Catalytica: New catalyst, plate-based reactor for gasoline steam reforming
fuel processors. size • University of Michigan: Microchannel fuel processing
Transportation • Simplify systems and
applications will end improve efficiency
in FY2005

Stack Components
Low-cost, durable • Develop new, lower-cost, • 3M: Advanced MEAs for 120ºC operation and low cost manufacturing methods
plates, membranes, longer-life materials • DeNora/DuPont: New cathode alloys, high temperature MEAs with increased
catalysts, membrane • Investigate new MEA kinetics
electrode assemblies configurations and low • UTC Fuel Cells: High temperature membranes with improved kinetics and CO
(MEAs), and high cost catalyses tolerance
temperature • Determine fuel/air • DuPont: Perfluorosulfonic acid membranes with extended lifetimes
membranes contaminant thresholds • 3M: Perfluorosulfonic acid membranes with extended lifetimes
• Develop MEAs that • Arkema (formerly Atofina Chemicals, Inc.): Polyvinylidenefluoride-based
tolerate excursions to membranes
120 ºC and/or operate at • Cabot Superior Micropowders: New cathode catalysts and structures for low
RH 25-50%. platinum loading
• Develop membranes that • 3M: Innovative low cost technology to synthesize new non-precious metal
tolerate -40ºC and fuel catalysts and their supports
cells that start up at - • University of S. Carolina: Metallic nanoclusters as PEM fuel cell catalysts
20ºC. • Ballard: Metal/chalcogen based cathode catalysts
• Evaluate catalyst • Ion Power: Catalyst coated fuel cell membrane and catalyst coated fuel
recycling and reuse processing component recycling and/or re-manufacture/reuse
technologies • Engelhard: Recover and recycle precious metals
• Porvair: Pre-pilot scale production of net shape molded low cost carbon/carbon
composite bipolar plates
• Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Metallic bipolar plate alloy using thermal
nitriding technology
• Los Alamos National Laboratory: Advanced membranes, non-precious metal
catalysts, and electrode technologies
• Argonne National Laboratory: Advanced membranes and non-precious metal
catalysts
• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: New electrocatalysts using materials-
by-design approach
• Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Characterize structural changes in membrane
• National Institute of Standards and Technology: Characterize water transport
in membrane
• Naval Research Laboratory: Develop metal oxides as catalyst supports to
reduce platinum loading
• Brookhaven National Laboratory: Low platinum loading catalysts
• Case Western Reserve University: Novel concepts for high-temperature/low
humidity membrane application
• Los Alamos National Laboratory: Investigate impact of freeze on the
performance and durability of specific fuel cell components
• T/J Technologies (SBIR): Low-cost polyphenylsulfonic acid (PPSA) membrane
• Farassis Energy (SBIR): Low-cost cathode catalysts using novel combinatorial
screening
• Nuvant (SBIR): Low-cost cathode catalysts using high throughput, rapid
screening methods
• Pacific Fuel Cell Corp. (STTR): Nanocomposite membranes for high
temperature PEMFCs

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 73

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Portable Power/APUs/Off-Road Applications

Auxiliary Power • Analysis and design of SOFC • Cummins Power Generation: Design, develop and perform in-vehicle
Unit (APU) system APU system demonstration of a diesel-fueled SOFC power system
for heavy truck • Develop and test subsystem • Delphi: Build and test a full APU system in a laboratory demonstration with
application to reduce components simulated load cycles
• Perform system integration • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory: Dynamic systems model and
idling of the main
and packaging analysis capability for SOFC for APU
heavy duty engine
• Perform vehicle integration

Consumer Electronics • Design, develop, fabricate • MTI Microfuel Cells: DMFC prototype for consumer electronics
System and validate fuel cell • Polyfuel Inc: DMFC system for all-day, wireless computing
systems for small portable • Giner (SBIR): 20W DMFC stack using combined mixed reactant configuration
power applications, such as • Microcell (SBIR): 20W regenerative PEMFC system with metal hydride fuel
cell phones and computers storage
• Renew Power (I&I): Powering cell phones with fuel cells using renewable
fuels
System which will • Characterize the • IdaTech: Team with UC Davis, Donaldson, and Toro to design, build, and test
allow PEM fuel cells concentration and a system for off-road application
to operate in off-road distribution of contaminants
applications found in off-road
environments
• Determine the impact of
contaminants on fuel cell
performance
• Design a filtration system to
mitigate the impact of off-
road contaminants

All the current R&D activities focus on advanced concepts, enabling technologies and the technical challenges
discussed in the following section.

3.4.4 Technical Challenges

Cost and durability are the major challenges to fuel cell commercialization. Size, weight, and thermal and water
management are also barriers to the commercialization of fuel cells. For transportation applications, fuel cell
technologies face more stringent cost and durability requirements. In stationary power applications, raising the
operating temperature of PEMs to increase fuel cell performance will also improve heat and power cogeneration
and overall system efficiency.

Transportation Systems
Fuel cell power systems must be reduced in cost before they can be competitive with gasoline internal
combustion engines (ICEs). The cost for automotive ICE power plants is currently about $25-35/kW; a fuel cell
system needs to cost less than $50/kW for the technology to be competitive.

The durability of fuel cell systems has not been established. Fuel cell power systems will be required to be as
durable and reliable as current automotive engines, i.e., 5,000 hour lifespan (150,000 miles equivalent) and able
to function over the full range of vehicle operating conditions (-40° to +40° C).

Lightweight, compact on-board hydrogen storage systems and economically-viable hydrogen production and
delivery also present challenges (see sections 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3).

page 3- 74 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Air management for fuel cell systems is a challenge because today’s compressor technologies are not suitable
for automotive fuel cell applications. In addition, thermal and water management for fuel cells are issues. Fuel
cell operation at lower temperatures creates a small difference between the operating and ambient temperatures
necessitating large heat exchangers and humidifiers. These components use part of the power that is produced,
reducing overall system efficiency.

Finally, the size and weight of current fuel cell systems must be further reduced to meet the packaging
requirements for automobiles. Size and weight reduction applies not only to the fuel cell stack (catalysts,
membranes, gas diffusion media, bipolar plates), but also to the ancillary components (e.g., compressor/
expander, heat exchangers, humidifiers, and sensors) making up the balance of plant.

Stationary/Distributed Generation Systems

Even though the specific performance requirements for stationary applications differ from transportation
applications, some of the technical challenges are the same. For example, the overall cost of stationary fuel cell
power systems must also be competitive with conventional technologies. Stationary systems, however, have an
acceptable price point considerably higher than transportation systems; stationary systems are projected to cost
$400–$750/kW for widespread commercialization and as much as $1000/kW for initial applications.

Performance of fuel cells for stationary applications for more than a few thousand hours must still be
demonstrated but market acceptance of stationary applications will likely necessitate more than 40,000 hours of
reliable operation at a temperature between -35o C and 40oC.

The low operating temperature of PEM fuel cells limits the amount of heat that can be effectively used in
combined heat and power (CHP) applications. Technologies need to be developed that will allow higher
operating temperatures and/or more effective heat recovery systems. Improved system designs that will enable
CHP efficiencies exceeding 80% are also needed. Technologies that allow cooling to be provided from the
heat rejected from stationary fuel cell systems (such as through regenerating desiccants in a desiccant cooling
cycle) also need to be evaluated. Hybrid systems or other viable methods to decrease start-up times need to be
developed for stationary fuel cell back-up power applications, which operate on direct hydrogen.

Portable Power Systems

Technical issues unique to fuel cell power systems for consumer electronics include: system and component
miniaturization; small-scale fuel processing; microcompressors; fuel storage, distribution, and recharging for
low-power applications; and system integration and packaging. Passive operation at near-ambient conditions
and insensitivity to orientation are necessary for the low-power applications. Fuel delivery and storage, as well
as safety, codes, and standards are important for consumer electronics and APUs.

3.4.4.1 Technical Targets

Tables 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 list the DOE technical targets specifically for integrated fuel cell power systems and PEM
fuel cell stacks operating on direct hydrogen for transportation applications. These targets have been developed
through the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership. Tables 3.4.5 through 3.4.7 list the DOE technical targets for
stationary applications. The targets have been developed with input from developers of stationary fuel cell
power systems, and have been established for small (3–25 kW) and large (50–250 kW) power levels. The
targets assume a sulfur level in the natural gas or LPG of less than 6 ppm (average value). These R&D targets
do not go beyond 2010 because stationary applications are closer to market than transportation applications. The
2010 targets are those that would be neccessary for successful commercialization.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 75

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Tables 3.4.8 and 3.4.9 list the DOE technical targets for consumer electronics, APUs, and truck refrigeration.
The consumer electronics table is based on direct methanol fuel cell technology and the APUs and truck
refrigeration table is based on solid oxide fuel cell technology and is consistent with the DOE Fossil Energy’s
SECA targets.

Tables 3.4.10 and 3.4.11 list DOE technical targets for automotive and stationary fuel cell system sensors and
automotive compressor/expander units. All input powers to the compressor are specified for +40°C ambient air
conditions and overall 50% system efficiency regardless of whether or not an expander is used. This requires
that a higher stack voltage be used for those cases for which no expander is present; therefore, the stack must be
slightly larger to compensate for such cases.

Tables 3.4.12 through 3.4.15 list DOE technical targets for fuel cell components: membranes, electrodes/
catalysts, membrane electrode assemblies (MEAs), and bipolar plates. This reflects a shift in program focus
from development of stack systems to more component-level research. These tables will assist component
developers in evaluating progress without testing full systems.

Table 3.4.16 lists a first draft specification of hydrogen quality required as input into the fuel cell system.

All targets must be achieved simultaneously; however, status is not necessarily reported from a single system.

page 3- 76 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.3. Technical Targets: 80-kWe (net) Integrated Transportation Fuel Cell Power
Systems Operating on Direct Hydrogena
Characteristic Units 2004 2015
2005 2010
Status

Energy efficiencyb @ 25% of rated power % 59 60 60 60

Energy efficiency @ rated power % 50 50 50 50

Power density W/L 450c 500 650 650

Specific power W/kg 420c 500 650 650

Costd $/kWe 120e 125 45 30

Transient response (time from 10% to

sec 1.5 2 1 1
90% of rated power)

Cold start−up time to 90% of rated

power
@–20°C ambient temp sec 120 60 30 30
@+20°C ambient temp sec 60 30 15 15

Durability with cycling hours ~1000f 2000 5000g 5000g

Survivabilityh °C −20 −30 −40 −40

a
Targets exclude hydrogen storage.
b
Ratio of DC output energy to the lower heating value of the input fuel (hydrogen). Peak efficiency occurs at about 25% rated power.
c
Based on corresponding data in Table 3.4.4 divided by 3 to account for ancillaries.
d
Based on 2002$ and cost projected to high-volume (500,000 stacks per year).
e
Based on 2004 TIAX Study and will be periodically updated.
f
Durability is being evaluated through the Technology Validation activities. Steady-state durability is 9,000 hours.
g
Includes typical drive cycle.
h
Performance targets must be achieved at the end of 8-hour cold-soak at temperature.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 77

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.4. Technical Targets: 80-kWe (net) Transportation Fuel Cell Stacks Operating
on Direct Hydrogena
2004
Characteristic Units 2005 2010 2015
Status

Stack power densityb W/L 1330c 1500 2000 2000

Stack specific power W/kg 1260c 1500 2000 2000

Stack efficiencyd @ 25% of rated power % 65 65 65 65

Stack efficiencyd @ rated power % 55 55 55 55

Precious metal loadinge g/kW 1.3 2.7 0.3 0.2

Costf $/kWe 75g 65 30 20

Durability with cycling hours ~1000h 2000 5000i 5000i

Transient response sec 1 2 1 1

(time for 10% to 90% of rated power)

Cold startup time to 90% of rated power

@ –20ºC ambient temperature sec 120 60 30 30
@ +20ºC ambient temperature sec <60 30 15 15

Survivabilityj ºC −40 −30 −40 −40

a
Excludes hydrogen storage and fuel cell ancillaries: thermal, water, air management systems.
b
Power refers to net power (i.e., stack power minus auxiliary power). Volume is “box” volume, including dead space, and is defined as the water-
displaced volume times 1.5 (packaging factor).
c
Average from Fuel Cells 2000, http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts.html#fcvs, April 2004
d
Ratio of output DC energy to lower heating value of hydrogen fuel stream. Peak efficiency occurs at about 25% rated power. Assumes system efficiency
is 92% of stack efficiency.
e
Equivalent total precious metal loading (anode + cathode): 0.1 mg/cm2 by 2010 at rated power. Precious metal target based on cost target of <$3/kWe
precious metals in MEA [@$450/troy ounce ($15/g), <0.2 g/kWe]
f
Based on 2002$ and cost projected to high-volume (500,000 stacks per year).
g
Based on 2004 TIAX Study and will be periodically updated.
h
Durability is being evaluated through Technology Validation activities. Steady-state durability is 9,000 hours.
i
Includes typical drive cycle.
j
Performance targets must be achieved at the end of 8-hour cold-soak at temperature.

page 3- 78 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.5. Technical Targetsa: Integrated Stationary PEM Fuel Cell Power Systems
Operating on Natural Gas or LPG Containing 6 ppm Sulfur, Average
Small (3–25 kW) Large (50–250 kW)

Characteristic Units 2004 2004

2005 2010 2005 2010
Status Status

Electrical Energy Efficiencyb

% 30c 32 35 30c 32 40
@ rated power

CHP Energy Efficiencyd

% 75c 75 80 75c 75 80
@ rated power

Coste $/kWe 3000 1500 1000 2500 1500 750

Transient Response Time (from

msec <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3
10% to 90% power)

Cold Start−up Timef (to rated

power @ −20ºC ambient)
Continuous use application min <90 <60 <30 <90 <60 <30

Survivability (min and max −25 −30 −35 −25 −30 −35
ºC
ambient temperature) +40 +40 +40 +40 +40 +40

Durability @ <10% rated power

hour >8,000 16,000 40,000 15,000 20,000 40,000
degradation

<70 <65 <60 <65 <60 <55

Noise dB(A)
@1m @1m @1m @ 10 m @ 10 m @ 10 m

g/
Emissions
1000
(Combined NOX, CO, SOX, <15 <10 <9 <8 <2 <1.5
kWe
Hydrocarbon, Particulates)

a
Includes fuel processor, stack, and all ancillaries.
b
Ratio of DC output energy to the LHV of the input fuel (natural gas or LPG) average value at rated power over life of power plant.
c
For LPG, efficiencies are 1.5 percentage points lower than natural gas because the reforming process is more complex.
d
Ratio of DC output energy plus recovered thermal energy to the LHV of the input fuel (natural gas or LPG) average value at rated power over life of
power plant
e
Includes projected cost advantage of high-volume production (2,000 units/year). Current cost does not include integrated auxiliaries, battery and power
regulator necessary for black start.
f
Not applicable to backup power because this application does not use a fuel processor.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 79

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.6. Technical Targets: Stationary Fuel Cell Stack Systems Operating on
Hydrogen-Containing Fuel from a Fuel Processor (Natural Gas or LPG)a

Characteristic Units 2004

2005 2010
Status
Costb
Small (3−25 kW) $/kWe 2000 1000 750
Large (50−250 kW) $/kWe 1500 1000 530
Durability
Small (3−25 kW) hours >8,000 16,000 40,000
Large (50−250 kW) hours 15,000 20,000 40,000
Transient Response Time
sec <3 <3 1
(for 10% to 90% of rated power)
Cold Start−up Time
min <2 <1 <0.5
(to rated power @ −20ºC)
−25 −30 −35
Survivability (min & max ambient temperature) ºC
+40 +40 +40

CO tolerancec
ppm 50 500 500
steady state (with 2% max air bleed)
ppm 100 500 1000
transient

a
Excludes fuel processing/delivery system. Includes fuel cell ancillaries: thermal, water, air management systems.
b
Includes projected cost advantage of high-volume production (2,000 units/year). Current cost does not include integrated auxiliaries, battery and power
regulator necessary for black start.
c
CO tolerance requirements assume capability of fuel processor to reduce CO. Targets for the stack CO tolerance are subject to trade-offs between
reducing CO in the fuel processor and enhancing CO tolerance in the stack. It is assumed that H2S is removed in the fuel processor.

page 3- 80 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.7. Technical Targets: Stationary Fuel Processors to Generate Hydrogen-

Containing Fuel Gas from Natural Gas or LPGa

Characteristic Units 2004

2005 2010
status
Costb
Small (3−25 kW) $/kWe 1000 500 250
Large (50−250 kW) $/kWe 1000 500 220

Cold Start−up Timec to rated power

min <90 <60 <30
@ −20ºC ambient

Transient Response Time (for 10% to 90% power) min <5 <4 1

Durabilityd
Small (3−25 kW) hours >8,000 16,000 40,000
Large (50−250 kW) hours 15,000 20,000 40,000
−25 −30 −35
Survivability (min and max ambient temperature) ºC
+40 +40 +40

CO content in product streame

ppm 10 5 1
Steady State
ppm 100 50 25
Transient

H2S content in product stream ppbv (dry) <10 <5 <2

NH3 content in product stream ppm <1f <0.1 <0.01

a
Excludes fuel storage; includes controls, shift reactors, CO cleanup, heat exchangers.
b
Includes projected cost advantage of high-volume production (2,000 units/year). Current cost does not include integrated auxiliaries, battery and power
regulator necessary for black start.
c
Not applicable to backup power because this application does not use a fuel processor.
d
Time between catalyst and major component replacement; performance targets must be achieved at the end of the durability period.
e
Dependent on stack development (CO tolerance) progress.
f
1ppm is detection limit for NH3.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 81

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.8. Technical Targets: Consumer Electronics (sub-Watt to 50-Watt)

Characteristic Units 2004
2006 2010
Status
Specific Power W/kg 10−20 30 100
Power Density W/L 10−15 30 100
Energy Density W−h/L 50−200 500 1,000
Cost $/W 40a 5 3

Lifetime hours <1,000 1,000 5,000

a
Fuel Cell Seminar Abstracts, 2004, p. 290.

Table 3.4.9. Technical Targets: Auxiliary Power Units (3–5 kW rated, 5–10 kW
peak) and Truck Refrigeration Units (10–30kW rated)
2004a
Characteristic Units 2006 2010 2015
Status

Specific Power W/kg 35b 70 100 100

Power Density W/L 35b 70 100 100

Efficiency @ Rated Powerc %LHV 15 25 35 40

Costd $/kWe >2,000 <800 400 400

Cycle Capability (from cold start) number of

5 40 150 250
over operating lifetime cycles

Durability hours 100 2,000 20,000 35,000

Start�up Time min 60−90 30−45 15−30 15−30

a
Estimate of current capability based on cell and small stack laboratory developments.
b
Without power conditioning.
c
Electrical efficiency only—does not include any efficiency aspects of the heating or cooling likely being provided.
d
Cost based on high-volume manufacturing quantities (100,000 units/year).

page 3- 82 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.10. Technical Targets: Sensors for Automotive and Stationary Fuel Cell
Systemsa
All sensors require industrial standard output, e.g., 4~20mA, 1~5V.DC, 0~5V.DC, 0~10V.DC
Sensor 2010 Requirement
(a) Stored H2 at 99.999% at transportation fueling station
• 0.1 – 0.5 ppm
• Operational temperature: <150°C
• Response time: 0.1–1 sec
• Gas environment: dry hydrogen at 1−700 atm total pressure
• Accuracy: <2% full scale

(b) Reformate from stationary fuel processor to PEM stack

• 100–1000 ppm CO sensors
• Operational temperature: 250°C
• Response time: 0.1–1 sec
Carbon Monoxide
• Gas environment: high−humidity reformer/partial oxidation gas: H2 30%–75%, CO2, CO, N2,
H2O at 1–3 atm total pressure
• Accuracy: <2% full scale

(c) Between shift reactors and PSA

• 0.1–2% CO sensor 250°–400°C
• Operational temperature: 250°– 400°C
• Response time: 0.1–1 sec
• Gas environment: high−humidity reformer/partial oxidation gas: H2 30%–75%, CO2, CO, N2,
H2O at 1–3 atm total pressure
• Accuracy: <2% full scale

• Measurement range: 25%–100%

• Operating temperature: 70°–150°C
Hydrogen in fuel
• Response time: 0.1–1 sec for 90% response to step change
processor output
• Gas environment: 1–3 atm total pressure, 10–30 mol% water, 30%–75% total H2, CO2, N2
• Accuracy: <2% full scale

• Measurement range: 1– 5%
• Temperature range: −30°C to 80°C
• Response time: under 1 sec
Hydrogen in ambient
• Accuracy: <5% full scale
air (safety sensor)
• Gas environment: ambient air, 10%–98% RH range
• Lifetime: 5 years
• Interference resistant (e.g., hydrocarbons)

(a) H2 to storage, ambient temperature

• Operating temperature: up to 300°C
• Measurement range: 0.01–0.5 ppm
• Response time: <1 min at 0.05 ppm
Sulfur compounds
• Gas environment: H2, CO, CO2, hydrocarbons, water vapor
(H2S, SO2, organic
sulfur)
(b) From fuel processor
• Operating temperature: up to 300°C
• Measurement range: 0.01–0.5 ppm
• Response time: <1 min at 0.05 ppm
• Gas environment: H2, CO, CO2, hydrocarbons, water vapor

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 83

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

• Flow rate range: 30–300 SLPM (3−25kW) and 800−15,000 SLPM (50−250 kW)
Flow rate of fuel • Temperature: 0−100°C
processor output • Gas environment: high−humidity reformer/partial oxidation gas: H2 30–75%, CO2, N2, H2O, CO
at 1–3 atm total pressure

• Operating temperature: 70–150°C

• Measurement range: 0.5−5 ppm
• Selectivity: <1 ppm from gas mixtures
Ammonia
• Lifetime: 5–10 years
• Response time: <1 min at 0.5 ppm
• Gas environment: high−humidity reformer/partial oxidation gas: H2 30%–75%, CO2, N2, H2O,
CO at 1–3 atm total pressure

• Operating range: –40°C to 150°C

• Response time: in the –40°–100°C range <0.5 sec with 1.5% full−scale accuracy; in the 100°–
150°C range, a response time <1 sec with 2% full−scale accuracy
Temperature
• Gas environment: high−humidity reformer/partial oxidation gas: H2 30%–75%, CO2, N2, H2O,
CO at 1–3 atm total pressure
• Insensitive to flow velocity

• Operating temperature: 0°C to 120°C

Relative humidity for • Relative humidity: 20%–100%
cathode and anode gas • Accuracy: 1% full scale
streams • Gas environment: high−humidity reformer/partial oxidation gas: H2 30%–75%, CO2, N2, H2O,
CO at 1–3 atm

• Measurement range: 0%–50% O2

• Operating temperature: 30˚–120°C
Oxygen in cathode exit
• Response time: <0.5 sec
• Accuracy: 1% full scale
• Gas environment: H2, CO2, N2, H2O at 1–3 atm total pressure

• Range: 0–1 psi (or 0–10 or 1–3 psi, depending on the design of the fuel cell system)
• Temperature range: 30˚–120°C
Differential pressure in • Survivability: –40°C
fuel cell stack • Response time: <1 sec
• Accuracy: 1% of full scale
• Other: measure in the presence of liquid and gas phases

• Flow rate maximum: 2500 SLPM for wet H2

Flow rate for direct
• Flow rate maximum: 1000 SLPM for dry H2
hydrogen system
• Gas environment: H2 dry (see table 3.4.16 for concentration), 25�100% RH

a
Sensors for transportation must enable conformation to size, weight, and cost constraints.

page 3- 84 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.11. Technical Targets: Compressor/Expanders for Transportation

Fuel Cell Systems 80-kWe Unit-Hydrogen
2004
Characteristic Units 2005 2010 2015
Status
Input Power a at Full Load, 40°C Ambient Air (with
kWe 6.3/13.7b 6.3/13.7 5.4/12.8 5.4/12.8
Expander / without Expander)
Overall Motor/Motor Controller Conversion Efficiency,
% 85 85 85 85
DC Input
Input Power at Full Load, 20°C Ambient Air (with
kWe 5.2/12.4b 5.2/12.4 4.4/11.6 4.4/11.6
Expander / without Expander)
Compressor/Expander Efficiency at Full Flow (C/E
% 75/80d 75/80 80/80 80/80
Only)c
Compressor/Expander Efficiency at 20−25% of Full
Flow (C/E Only) /Compressor at 1.3 PR/Expander at % 45/30d 55/45 60/50 60/50
1.2 PR

System Volumee liters 22b 15 15 15

System Weighte kg 22b 15 15 15

System Costf $ 700 600 400 200

Turndown Ratio 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:1

Noise at Maximum Flow (excluding air flow noise at dB(A) at 1

65 65 65 65
air inlet and exhaust) meter

Transient Time for 10−90% of Maximum Airflow sec 1 1 1 1

a
Input power to the shaft to power a compressor/expander, or compressor only system, including a motor/motor controller with an overall efficiency of
85%. 80-kWe compressor/expander unit for hydrogen/air flow – 90 g/sec (dry) maximum flow for compressor, compressor outlet pressure is specified to
be 2.5 atm. Expander (if used) inlet flow conditions are assumed to be 93 g/sec (at full flow), 80°C and 2.2 atm.
b
Projected.
c
The pressure ratio is allowed to float as a function of load. Inlet temperature and pressure used for efficiency calculations are 20-40ºC and 2.5 atm.
d
Measure blade efficiency.
e
Weight and volume include the motor and motor controller.
f
Cost targets based on a manufacturing volume of 100,000 units per year, includes cost of motor and motor controller.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 85

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.12. Technical Targets: Membranes for Transportation Applications

2004
Characteristic Units 2005 2010 2015
Status

Membrane Conductivity at
Operating Temperature S/cm 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
Room temperature S/cm 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07
−20°C S/cm 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Operating Temperature °C <80 ≤120 ≤120 ≤120

Inlet water vapor partial pressure kPa (absolute) 50 25 1.5 1.5

Oxygen cross−overa mA/cm2 5 5 2 2

Hydrogen cross−overa mA/cm2 5 5 2 2

Cost $/m2 65b 200 40 40

Durability with cycling

At operating temp of <80°C hours ~1000c 2000 5000d 5000d
At operating temp of >80°C hours not availablee 2000 5000d

Survivability °C −20 −30 −40 −40

Thermal cyclability in presence of condensed water Yes Yes Yes Yes

a
Tested in MEA at 1 atm O2 or H2 at nominal stack operating temperature.
b
Based on 2004 TIAX Study and will be periodically updated.
c
Durability is being evaluated. Steady-state durability is 9,000 hours.
d
Includes typical driving cycles.
e
High-temperature membranes are still in a development stage and durability data are not available.

page 3- 86 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.13. Technical Targets: Electrocatalysts for Transportation Applications

2004 Status Targets (Stack)
Characteristic Units
Cell Stack 2005 2010 2015

PGM Total Content g/kW rated 0.6 1.3 2.67 0.5 0.4

mg PGM/cm2 electrode
PGM Total Loadinga 0.45 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.2
area

Cost $/kWb 9 20c 40 8 6

Durability with cycling

At operating temp of <80°C hours >2000 ~1000d 2000 5000e 5000e
At operating temp of >80°C hours not not 2000 5000
availablef availablef

Mass Activityg A/mgPt @900mViR−free 0.28 0.11 0.30 0.44 0.44

Activityg μA/cm2 @ 900mViR−free 550 180 600 720 720

Non−Pt Catalyst Activity per not

A/cm3 @ 800 mVIR−free 8 50 >130 300
volume of supported catalyst available

a
Derived from achieving performance at rated power targets specified in Table 3.4.14. Loadings may have to be lower.
b
Based on platinum cost of $450/troy ounce = $15/g, and loading < 0.2 g/kWe
c
Based on 2004 TIAX Study and will be periodically updated.
d
Durability is being evaluated. Steady-state durability is 9,000 hours.
e
Includes typical driving cycles.
f
High-temperature membranes are still in a development stage and durability data is not available.
g
Test at 80˚C; H2/O2; fully humidified with total outlet pressure of 150 KPa; anode stoichiometry 2; cathode stoichiometry 9.5.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 87

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.14. Technical Targets: MEAs

2004
Characteristic Units 2005 2010 2015
Status

Operating Temperature °C <80 <120 <120 <120

Inlet water vapor partial pressure kPa (absolute) 50 25 1.5 1.5

Costa $/kW 40b 50 15 10

Durability with cycling

At operating temp of <80°C hours ~1000c 2000 5000d 5000d
At operating temp of >80°C hours not availablee 2000 5000d

Survivability Temperature °C −20 −30 −40 −40

Total Catalyst Loading

g/kW (rated) 1.1 2.7 0.33 0.20
(both electrodes)f

mA/cm2 200 250 400 400

Performance @ 1⁄4 power (0.8V)
mW/cm2 160 200 320 320

Performance @ rated power mW/cm2 600 800 1280 1280

Extent of performance degradation over lifetimeg % 10 10 10 10

Thermal cyclability in presence of condensed water Yes Yes Yes Yes

a
Based on 2002$ and cost projected to high-volume (500,000 stacks per year).
b
Based on 2004 TIAX Study and will be periodically updated.
c
Durability is being evaluated. Steady-state durability is 9,000 hours.
d
Includes typical driving cycles.
e
High-temperature membranes are still in a development stage and durability data are not available.
f
Equivalent total precious metal loading (anode + cathode): 0.1 mg/cm2 by 2010 at rated power.
Precious metal target based on cost target of <$3/kW precious metals in MEA [@$450/troy ounce ($15/g) and loading of < 0.2 g/kWe].
g
Degradation target includes factor for tolerance of the MEA to impurities in the fuel and air supply.

page 3- 88 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Table 3.4.15. Technical Targets: Bipolar Plates

2004
Characteristic Units 2010 2015
Status

Cost $/kW 10 6 4

Weight kg/kW 0.36 <1 <1

cm3 sec−1 cm−2

H2 Permeation Rate <2 x 10–6 <2 × 10−6 <2 × 10−6
@ 80oC, 3 atm (equivalent to <0.1 mA/cm2)

Corrosion µA/cm2 <1a <1b <1b

Electrical
S/cm >600 >100 >100
Conductivity

Resistivityc ohm/cm2 <0.02 0.01 0.01

Flexural Strength MPa >34 >4 (crush) >4 (crush)

Flexibility % deflection at mid−span 1.5 to 3.5 3 to 5 3 to 5

a
Based on coated metal plates.
b
May be as low as 1 nA/cm2 if all corrosion product ions remain in ionomer.
c
Includes contact resistance.

Table 3.4.16. Hydrogen Quality

Component Level

Hydrogen >99.9

Sulfur 10 ppb

CO 0.1 ppm

CO2 5 ppm

NH3 1 ppm

NMHC on a C−1 basis 100 ppm

Particulates Conform to ISO 14687

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 89

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

3.4.4.2 Barriers

Of the many issues discussed here, cost and durability present two of the most significant barriers to the
achievement of clean, reliable, cost-effective systems.

A. Durability. Durability of fuel cell stacks, which must include tolerance to impurities and mechanical
durability, has not been established. Tolerance to other impurities, such as sulfur and possibly ammonia,
is also necessary. MEA stability for automotive drive cycles has not been demonstrated. Operation at low
relative humidity (25-50% RH) and startup from sub-freezing temperatures have not been demonstrated.

To compete against other distributed power generation systems, stationary fuel cells must achieve greater
than 40,000 hours durability. Sulfur-tolerant catalysts and membrane materials are required to achieve this
durability target, and research must elucidate failure mechanisms. Benchmarking of the state-of-the-art R&D
systems is also necessary.

Current fuel processing systems have not achieved required durability, due in large part to the impurities
contained in the fuels entering the reformer. Limited data are available on the effects of fuel composition,
additives, impurities (e.g., sulfur) and contaminants on fuel processor catalyst and subsystem component
durability. The effect of carbon formation on catalyst activity for various fuels and the effect of operating
conditions on durability are not adequately quantified. Sulfur removal technology and impurity-tolerant
catalysts and/or removal processes are required.

B. Cost. Materials and manufacturing costs are too high for bipolar plates, catalysts, membranes and gas
diffusion layers (GDLs). Lower cost, lighter, corrosion-resistant bipolar plates and low-cost, high-
performance membranes, and catalysts enabling ultra-low precious metal loading are required to make fuel
cells competitive. The use of non-precious metal catalysts will also reduce the cost of MEAs. Low-cost,
high-volume manufacturing processes are also necessary.

The cost of fuel processors is high because the operating temperature requires costly high-temperature
materials, the low activity of shift catalysts requires large reactors, precious metal catalysts must be used, and
the complexity of the fuel processor requires multiple reactors and thermal integration. Substitution of lower-
cost materials (particularly reduced Pt or non-Pt catalysts) and components, and integration of subsystems and
functions are required to achieve cost goals.

C. Electrode Performance. Voltage losses at the cathode are too high to meet efficiency targets simultaneously
with the other targets. Anode and cathode performance depend on precious metal loading, which is currently
too high (at the cathode) to meet cost targets. In addition, power densities at the higher voltages required for
high-efficiency operation are currently too low to meet cost and packaging targets. Current activities are
focused on cathode performance because the kinetics at the cathode are ~100 times slower than at the anode.

D. Thermal, Air and Water Management. Thermal management processes include heat use, cooling,
and steam generation. Higher temperature membranes and/or improved heat utilization, cooling, and
humidification techniques are needed. The low operating temperature of PEM fuel cells results in a relatively
small difference between the fuel cell stack operating temperature and ambient air temperature that is not
conducive to conventional heat rejection approaches and limits the use of heat generated by the fuel cell
(approximately 50% of the energy supplied by the fuel). More efficient heat recovery systems, improved
system designs, advanced heat exchangers and/or higher temperature operation of current systems are needed
to utilize the low-grade heat and achieve the most efficient (electrical and thermal) systems, particularly for

page 3- 90 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

distributed generation power. Water management techniques to address humidification requirements and
maintain water balance are required.

E. Compressors/Expanders. Automotive-type compressors/expanders that minimize parasitic power

consumption and meet packaging and cost requirements are not available. To validate functionality in
laboratory testing, current systems often use off-the-shelf compressors that are not specifically designed
for fuel cell applications, resulting in systems that are heavy, costly, and inefficient. Automotive-type
compressors/expanders that meet the FreedomCAR and Fuel Cell Partnership technical guidelines need
to be engineered and integrated with the fuel cell stack so that the overall system meets packaging, cost,
and performance requirements.

F. Fuel Cell Power System Integration. The interdependency of fuel cell subsystems is an important
consideration in the development of individual components for propulsion and APUs. The
interdependency of the system components will affect the packaging, response, and efficiency of the
power system. Development of a validated system model and periodic benchmarking of integrated fuel
cell power systems, subsystems, and components are required to assess technology status. Ultimately,
operation of components and subsystems will be validated in the integrated systems developed outside
the Program. Careful system integration is required to achieve overall system efficiency and cost
targets. Full-sized, integrated systems with improved catalysts and reactors that demonstrate the required
operating characteristics and efficiency for stationary applications must be developed. Maximum fuel
processor efficiency is necessary to achieve target efficiencies for economic viability. Data and models
for fuel impacts on fuel processor performance and emissions are limited.

G. Power Electronics. Distributed generation fuel cell power systems will require energy management
strategies and power electronics that enable the fuel cell power system to manage power transients
and load-following requirements efficiently and cost effectively. Grid interconnection may also be a
major commercialization issue for many distributed fuel cell power applications as with all emerging
distributed power generation technologies (grid interconnection issues are being addressed by the Office
of Distributed Energy Resources). Priority power management issues include developing a universal dc
buss, high-frequency power conditioner, integrated transfer switch and inverter, and grid-independent
electronics.

H. Sensors. Sensors are required that meet performance and cost targets for measuring physical conditions
and chemical species in fuel cell systems. Current sensors do not perform within the required ambient
and process conditions, do not possess the required accuracy, range and response time, and/or are too
costly. Performance in humid environments is also a concern.

I. Hydrogen Purification/Carbon Monoxide Cleanup. A fuel processor must produce high-quality

hydrogen to prevent degradation of the fuel cell stack. Liquid fuels contain impurities such as sulfur
compounds. These compounds and their derivatives, as well as carbon monoxide, must be removed to
prevent loss of performance in the fuel cell. To prevent fuel cell catalyst poisoning, the fuel processor
needs to deliver a hydrogen stream with CO levels of less than 10 ppm under most operating conditions
and a maximum of 100 ppm during transients and startup. Current CO cleanup systems produce a fuel
stream with an acceptable CO level under steady-state operation, but require an extensive control system
for transient and startup operation. Improved membranes for hydrogen separation are needed to meet
fuel purity requirements under transient and startup operation.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 91

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

J. Startup Time/Transient Operation. Fuel cell systems take longer to cold start (30 second minimum)
compared to other distributed power generation systems, especially backup power systems. Stationary
fuel processors start up slowly and do not respond rapidly to variations in power demand. R&D to
address startup time through the use of hybrid systems or other viable methods is needed. Fuel cell
power plants will be required to meet rapid startup needs and to follow load variations. Some other
means of bridging the gap between the current status and 2010 targets must be used, such as hydrogen
storage tanks.

3.4.5 Technical Task Descriptions

The technical task descriptions are presented in Table 3.4.16. Concerns regarding safety will be addressed within
each task in coordination with the appropriate program element. The barriers associated with each task (see
Section 3.4.4.2) are also reported.

Table 3.4.16. Technical Task Descriptions

Task Description Barriers
Transportation Systems

Chemical and Physical System Sensors

Chemical Sensors: Prototype Development

• Measure the CO concentration at the entrance to the fuel cell stack.
• Monitor ambient concentrations of hydrogen for safety in the presence of other species found in
the ambient air.
• Measure the concentration of sulfur compounds such as H2S, SO2, and organic sulfur
compounds.
1 • Measure the concentration of ammonia in high-humidity stream in the presence of other H
constituents.
• Measure oxygen concentration at the cathode exit.

Physical Sensors: Prototype Development

• Measure the flow rate of hydrogen into the fuel cell at 1–3 atm total pressure.
• Fast-response temperature sensors that operate in high humidity gas streams and are insensitive
to flow velocity.
• Measure the relative humidity of anode and cathode gas streams.

page 3- 92 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Sensors Meeting 2010 Targets

Chemical Sensors: Verification

• Measure the CO concentration at the entrance to the fuel cell stack.
• Determine hydrogen concentration at the fuel cell inlet in the presence of other constituents.
• Monitor ambient concentrations of hydrogen for safety in the presence of other species found in
the ambient air.
• Measure the concentration of sulfur compounds such as H2S, SO2, and organic sulfur
compounds in the presence of other constituents.
2 • Measure the concentration of ammonia in high-humidity streams and in the presence of other
H
constituents.
• Measure oxygen concentration at the cathode exit.

Physical Sensors: Verification

• Devices for measuring the flow rate of hydrogen into the fuel cell at 1–3 atm total pressure.
• Fast-response temperature sensors that operate in high humidity streams and are insensitive to
flow velocity.
• Measure the relative humidity for the anode and cathode gas streams.

Benchmarking, Hardware Evaluation, and Analyses

• Test and evaluate fuel cell power systems under simulated automotive drive and rigorous
3 durability cycles.
B, F
• Quantify fuel cell power system emissions.
• Conduct analyses for overall and specific component costs for transportation fuel cell systems

Air, Water, and Thermal Management

• Develop and test low-cost, high-efficiency, lubrication-free compressors, expanders, motors,
4 motor controllers and blowers (turbo, torroidal intersecting vane) D, E
• Investigate and develop advanced heat rejection technologies and materials (compact
humidifiers, heat exchangers, and radiators)

Compressors Meeting 2010 Guidelines

5 • Verify advanced compressors/motor/expanders and blowers that meet the 2010 targets for E
weight, volume, performance and cost.

Direct Methanol Fuel Cells

• Design and test advanced cathode catalysts with low Pt loading.
• Develop membranes and MEAs with reduced methanol crossover.
• Build and evaluate improved-performance direct-methanol single cell. B, C,
6 • Design and build DMFC stack system with improved power density, efficiency, and water D, F
management.
• Test and evaluate DMFC stack.
• Develop and test DMFCs for consumer electronic devices.

Auxiliary/Portable Power
• Advanced methanol oxidation catalyst, and MEAs with low Pt-loading for DMFCs.
• Miniature fluid handling technologies for DMFC systems.
• Low-cost, high-volume manufacturing processes for auxiliary/portable power fuel cells.
7 • Miniature fuel processors for PEMFC and solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) systems.
A, B, C,
• Determine system requirements for fuel cell APUs for HDVs.
F, I
• Verify fuel cell technologies for APUs (to 30 kW), consumer electronic devices (< 50 W), and off-
road systems.
• Test and evaluate fuel cell APUs for HDVs under simulated duty and rigorous durability cycles.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 93

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Distributed Generation Systems

Distributed Generation and Back-up Power Systems

• Stationary fuel cell system that meets the 2005 technical targets for distributed generation
systems.
• Mitigate technical, commercial, and cost barriers to stationary fuel cells.
8 • CHP fuel cell systems to cost-effectively recover thermal energy to meet some or all of the
A, G, H, J
building’s heating/cooling requirements.
• Power systems for back-up or peak shaving applications for commercial/industrial operations.
• Identify and understand failure mechanisms to enable improvements in reliability and durability.
• Work with DER and utility partners to address interconnectivity to grid issues.

Advanced Distributed Energy Fuel Cell Systems

• Stationary fuel cell system that can operate on natural gas or LPG at 40% or higher electrical
efficiency.
• Advanced stationary fuel cell system that can achieve a cold start up time of less than 1 minute.
• Demonstrate through accelerated testing a stationary fuel cell system showing potential to
9 achieve >40,000-hour durability.
• Test improved heat recovery system that improves net system efficiency. A, G, H, J
• Advanced heat exchangers, condensers, and humidifiers.
• Improve system humidification to reduce overall energy required to humidify gases while
reducing size and cost.
• Investigate heat generated cooling (such as desiccant cycles).

High-Temperature Membranes for Distributed Generation Applications

• Highly conducting, high temperature membranes capable of achieving 100-150°C with improved
electrical and mechanical properties.
10 • Demonstrate improved CO tolerance. A, D, I
• Lower cost high-temperature membranes.

*Note - This task was initiated under the Fuel Cells for Buildings Program (Office of Power Technologies) and feeds into
Task 13

Fuel Processors

Fuel Processors
• Fuel processing catalysts (reforming, shift, desulfurization, etc.) having higher activities, greater
stability, lower cost and that enable lower reactor operating temperatures.
A, B, F,
11 • Evaluate alternative fuel processing techniques, such as absorber enhancement.
I, J
• Complete testing and evaluation of system performance and emissions on conventional and
alternative fuels over steady-state and transient operation.
• Verify and improve fuel processor model and system analyses.

Distributed Generation Fuel Processing

• Fuel processing systems that can reform natural gas or LPG to hydrogen for stationary
applications.
12 • Fuel processing systems that meet technical and cost targets for 2005.
A, B, F,
D, G, I, J,
• Advanced water-gas-shift catalysts and reactor designs that meet requirements for operational
space velocity.

page 3- 94 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Stack Components

Advanced Membrane RD&D (See Task 10)

• Investigate new approaches/electrode structures to achieve good adhesion between new
membranes and catalyst layer.
• Proton-conducting fuel cell membranes for operation at ≤120°C for transportation.
• Improve understanding of nature of local structure in catalyst layer.
• Increase knowledge of proton conduction in high-temperature membrane systems.
13 • Membranes with nonaqueous proton-conducting phases for stationary fuel cell membranes for
A, C, D, I

operation at >120°C.
• Investigate membranes that can function at low hydration levels, <25%.
• Fabricate and test MEAs meeting technical targets in single cells.
• Investigate membrane/MEA long-term stability and durability.
• Verify advanced membranes in subscale stack.

MEA Materials, Components, Processes

• Low-cost polymer membranes having higher ionic conductivity, improved humidification
properties, and lower gas permeability than state-of-the-art membranes.
• Improved gas diffusion layer on full-size cells.
• Investigate the effects of sulfur impurities on catalyst performance.
• Design, synthesize, and evaluate alternative catalyst formulations and structures (to reduce or
eliminate precious metal loading) for impurity tolerance and oxygen reduction.
A, B, C
14 • Alternative bipolar plate materials/coatings that are low-cost, lightweight, corrosion-resistant, and
impermeable.
• Fabricate and test MEAs in full-size single cells.
• Methods for producing low-cost, high-rate fabrication of fuel cell components (e.g., bipolar
plates, membranes, MEAs, and gas diffusion layers).
• Verify reproducibility of full-size components produced in high-rate manufacturing processes.
• Integrate components in subscale stack system to verify performance, i.e., increased efficiency,
power density, and reliability compared with previous development efforts.

Advanced MEA Meeting 2010 Targets

• Incorporate advanced cathode and membrane in MEA with Pt loading at 2010 targets.
• Verify advanced MEA in single cell.
A, B, C,
15 • Verify advanced MEA in stack.
D
• Demonstrate low-cost, high-volume manufacturing processes for advanced MEAs.
• Establish durability of advanced MEAs for 2010 targets for transportation and stationary
applications.

Cold Start
• Investigate new approaches for water management to mitigate the effects of exposure to
subfreezing environment.
• Determine kinetics of water phase change at freezing temperatures in fuel cell membranes. A, B, C,
16 • Characterize morphological changes and localized stresses in fuel cell components associated D, H, J
with water phase transition during freezing conditions.
• Membrane and gas diffusion layer materials to enhance freeze tolerance and improve subfreezing
operation and robustness.
Hydrogen Quality Requirements
• Determine the effects of very low level of sulfur compounds (<100 ppb of SO2 and <20 ppb of
H2S) on fuel cell performance.
• Determine the effects of organic materials such as formaldehyde and formic acid and of
A, B, C,
17 combustion diesel fumes on fuel cell performance as a function of impurity concentration and
H, I
operating temperature.
• Characterize the effects of salts (NaCl, CaCl2) on properties of fuel cell catalyst layer, membrane,
gas diffusion layer, and graphite flow fields or other bipolar plate materials; quantify effects of
low levels of salts on long-term fuel cell performance.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 95

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

3.4.6 Milestones
Figure 3.4.2 shows the interrelationship of milestone, tasks, supporting inputs, and technology program outputs
for the Fuel Cell Program element from FY 2004 through FY 2010. This information is also summarized in
Table B.4 in Appendix B.

page 3- 96 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 97

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Figure 3.4.2. Hydrogen Fuel Cell R&D Milestone Chart

For chart details see next page.

page 3- 98 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

Milestones
1 Complete development and testing of low-cost, high-sensitivity sensors.
2 Go/No-Go: The status of sensors and controls technologies will be assessed and compared with the established technical and cost targets.
Based on the assessment and the degree of success, the technologies will be released for use, more development will be indicated, or effort
will be terminated.
3 Develop laboratory-scale physical and chemical sensors with improved response time and lower cost.
4 Develop physical and chemical sensors meeting 2010 targets.
5 Deliver model of FCV system.
6 Complete modeling of the availability and economics of platinum group metals.
7 Complete initial evaluation of 25-50-kW advanced integration, atmospheric gasoline reformed system.
8 Quantify fuel cell power system emissions.
9 Evaluate progress towards meeting FY2005 fuel cell cost target.
10 Complete analysis of overall and specific component costs for transportation fuel cell systems.
11 Evaluate progress towards meeting FY2010 fuel cell cost target.
12 Evaluate progress towards meeting FY2010 fuel cell cost target.
13 Evaluate progress towards meeting FY2010 fuel cell cost target.
14 Evaluate progress towards meeting FY2010 fuel cell cost target.
15 Complete development of heat rejection technologies (compact humidifiers, heat exchangers, and radiators).
16 Complete development and testing of low-cost, high-efficiency, lubrication-free compressors, expanders, blowers, motors, and motor
controllers.
17 Go/No-Go: The status of air management and thermal management technologies will be assessed and compared to the established technical
and cost targets. Based on the assessment and the degree of success, the technologies will be released for use, more development will be
indicated, or effort will be terminated.
18 Complete development of compressor, expander, motor blower and motor controller meeting 2010 targets.
19 Identify main routes of DMFC performance degradation.
20 Go/No-Go: Decision to discontinue DMFC R&D for transportation applications.
21 Down-select design scenarios for vehicular fuel cell APUs for further study.
22 Complete evaluation of fuel cell system designs for APUs.
23 Complete design of filtration unit for off-road applications.
24 Evaluate 3-10 kW APU system towards meeting 80 W/kg and 80 W/L targets.
25 Evaluate 20-50 W portable power fuel cell system towards meeting 2006 targets.
26 Portable power fuel cell technology available for industry evaluation.
27 Go/No-Go: Decision on whether to continue auxiliary power, portable power and off-road R&D based on the progress towards meeting 2010
targets.
28 Complete testing on 50 kW stationary beta module system.
29 Complete economic analysis report.
30 Demonstrate prototype back up power system.
31 Complete 15,000 hour, stationary fuel cell system test.
32 Demonstrate the effective utilization of fuel cell thermal energy for heating to meet combined heat and power (CHP) efficiency targets.
33 Go/No-Go: Decision on whether to continue stationary fuel cell system based on progress towards meeting durability, cost and electrical
efficiency simultaneously.
34 Demonstrate performance (600 mV at 400 mA/cm2) of an ultra-thin membrane (< 75 µm) in an MEA under atmospheric conditions at 120°C
in a 30-cm2 cell.
35 Complete full-scale MEA evaluation in short stack.
36 Demonstrate fuel-flexible fuel processor meeting year 2005 targets for efficiency, power density and specific power. Measure startup
capability.
37 Verify quick-start concept in brass-board prototype system demonstrating capability to meet 2010 startup technical target.
38 Verify small scale, microchannel reformer.
39 Fabricate prototype ion transport membrane module.
40 Go/No-Go: Decision to discontinue fuel processing R&D.
41 Verify fuel processing subsystem performance for distributed generation towards meeting system targets for 2010.
42 Absorption-enhanced natural gas reformer start-up/shut down cycle, transient and durability testing.
43 Develop base metal shift catalysts that enhance conversion to hydrogen and reduce conversion to methane (<1% methane).
44 Develop tolerance of reforming catalysts to fuel containing 1 ppm sulfur.
45 Evaluate 120°C membrane in MEA/single cell.
46 Evaluate 120°C MEA in <10 kW stack.
47 Demonstrate MEA in single cell meeting 2005 platinum loading and performance targets.
48 Evaluate first generation 150°C membrane in MEA/single cell.
49 Evaluate reproducibility (physical and performance) of full-size bipolar plates in high-rate manufacturing processes.
50 Evaluate reproducibility (physical and performance) of MEAs in high-rate manufacturing processes.
51 Initiate 2,000-hour test with advanced membrane & standard GDL.
52 Develop 120°C membrane for operation at < 25% RH.
53 Complete 2,000 hour durability test of advanced MEA for stationary fuel cell application.
54 Go/No-Go: Evaluate precious metal reclamation processes to determine whether to scale-up or terminate.
55 Develop technology for platinum group metal recycling.
56 Evaluate a MEA running on re-manufactured catalyst coated membranes.
57 Develop a method for cleaning sulfur-poisoned platinum catalyst layers in stacks, with minimum interruption of fuel cell operation.
58 Develop a method for cleaning sulfur- and nitrogen-oxide poisoned platinum catalyst layers in stacks, with minimum interruption of fuel cell
operation.

Outputs
F1 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Develop a critical analysis of well-to-wheels studies of fuel cell system performance,
efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost.
F2 Output to Production: Research results of advanced reformer development.
F3 Output to Technology Validation: Laboratory PEM technology with 2,000 hours durability.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 99

 Technical Plan–Fuel Cells

F4 Output to Technology Validation: Complete 4,000 hour testing of advanced MEA for stationary and transportation applications.
F5 Output to Technology Validation: Laboratory PEM technology with 5,000 hours durability.
F6 Output to Technology Validation: Verify cold-start in 60 s of short stack.
F7 Output to Technology Validation: Technology short stack survivability at -40°C.
F8 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Develop preliminary hydrogen purity/impurity requirements.
F9 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Updated hydrogen purity/impurity requirements.

Inputs
V1 Input from Technology Validation: Validate maximum fuel cell system efficiency.
V9 Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three refueling stations.
St1 Input from Storage: Compressed and cryogenic liquid storage tanks achieving 1.5 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L.
St3 Input from Storage: Complex hydride integrated system achieving 1.5 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L.
St2 Input from Storage: Advanced compressed/cryogenic tank technologies.
St4 Input from Storage: Full-cycle, integrated chemical hydride system meeting 2010 targets.
C10 Input from Codes and Standards: Final draft standard (balloting) for portable fuel cells (UL).
P1 Input from Production: Hydrogen production technology for distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost of $3.00/gge hydrogen at
the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of units of production per year.
P4 Input from Production: Hydrogen production technology for distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost of $2.50/gge hydrogen at
the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of units of production per year.
P7 Input from Production: Hydrogen production technologies for distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost of $1.50/gge hydrogen
at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of units of production per year.
V6 Input from Technology Validation: Validate cold start-up capability (in a vehicle with an 8-hour soak) meeting 2005 requirements (specific
cold-start energy).
C5 Input from Codes and Standards: Completed hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Technical Specification.
P2 Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition.
D2 Input from Delivery: Hydrogen contaminant composition and issues.
A2 Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at each point in the system.
P6 Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition.
C12 Input from Codes and Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Standard.

page 3- 100 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

3.5 Technology Validation

The Technology Validation Program element is focusing Education

on conducting learning demonstrations that emphasize co- Codes & Standards

Safety
development and integration of hydrogen infrastructure in Systems Integration/Analyses
parallel with hydrogen fuel cell-powered vehicles to enable
an industry commercialization decision by 2015. Technology DELIVERY

validation will test, demonstrate and validate total system PRODUCTION FUEL CELLS
TECHNOLOGY
VALIDATION
solutions and use the results to refocus hydrogen R&D as STORAGE
appropriate. Research & Development

3.5.1 Technical Goal and Objectives

Goal
Validate total system solutions for integrated hydrogen and fuel cell technologies for transportation, infrastructure
and electric generation under real-world operating conditions for both the transition and mature market periods.

Objectives
• By 2008, validate an electrolyzer that is powered by a wind turbine at a capital cost of the electrolyzer of
$600/kWe and 68% efficiency including compression to 5,000 psi when built in quantities of 1,000.

• By 2009, validate hydrogen vehicles that have greater than 250-mile range, 2,000-hour fuel cell durability and
hydrogen infrastructure that results in a hydrogen production cost of less than $3.00/gge (untaxed), and safe
and convenient refueling by trained drivers.

• By 2011, validate an integrated biomass/wind or geothermal electrolyzer-to-hydrogen system to produce

hydrogen for $2.85/gge at the plant gate (untaxed).

• By 2015, validate hydrogen vehicles that have 300+ mile range and 5,000 hours fuel cell durability, and
hydrogen infrastructure that results in a hydrogen production cost of $1.50/gge (untaxed), and safe and
convenient refueling by trained drivers.

3.5.2 Technical Approach

The Technology Validation Program element will implement integrated, complex total systems (i.e., hydrogen
production facilities and hydrogen vehicles) and collect data from them to determine whether the technical targets
have been met under realistic conditions (see Figure 3.5.1). Technology validation learning demonstrations bring
together teams of automotive and energy companies working together to address fuel cell vehicle and hydrogen
infrastructure interface issues and to identify future research needs. The results of the validations will be used
to provide feedback on progress and to efficiently manage the other Program element activities and to refocus
research and development as needed.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 101

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

Figure 3.5.1. The Role of Technology Validation

Start
Resolve Barriers
• Cost
• Durability
Component • Performance
R&D

Independent Readiness
STOP Commercialize STOP
Review Review

Vehicle and
Infrastructure Learning
Demonstration
Validate
• Cost, Performance
• Durability
• Reliability
• Emissions
• Codes/Standards

Although all the components of complex systems may have met their technical targets and goals, the resulting
systems may fail due to unanticipated integration problems or real-world operating conditions that are outside
the planned design parameters. Complete validation will require collecting sufficient data to develop statistical
confidence that the systems meet customer expectations for reliability and durability, while satisfying regulatory
requirements (e.g., emissions and safety). System and sub-system level models will be developed to analyze
the performance data collected from the integrated hydrogen and fuel cell systems and validate the component
technical targets. The complete system models will also be used to validate the technical approach being taken
and redirect it as necessary.

To accomplish all of the objectives, a three-phase effort is envisioned with performance milestones that have to
be met at the end of phases 2 and 3. (Figure 3.5.2). The current Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure
Demonstration and Validation Project is phase 2 to be followed by phase 3, which is the pre-commercialization
project to be completed by 2015.

page 3- 102 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

Figure 3.5.2. Transportation and Infrastructure Timeline

2000 2004 2009 2015

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Commercialization

Technical Feasibility Controlled Fleet Commercial Readiness Phase
Test and Evaluation Demonstrations

Evaluate use of FC Investment to establish

Vehicles Objective Test FC vehicle performance Demonstrate commercial manufacturing plants &
vehicles under real-world
and feasibility viability of FC Fleet Vehicles sales/service
conditions

Demonstrate commercial
Demonstrate H2 fueling Onsite generation from viability of hydrogen Investment for
Infrastructure station; Analyze fuel options multiple feedstocks infrastructure substantial numbers of
Objective all stations to be H2
Primarily trucked in liquid Renewable & fossil fuels Most cost effective sources capable
by region

Go/No Go
Decision Points
Decision Criteria– Commercialization
Phase 2: Decision Criteria:
Validate hydrogen Validate hydrogen
vehicles that have vehicles that have a 300+
greater than a 250-mile mile range and 5,000
range, 2,000-hour fuel hours fuel cell durability,
cell durability and and hydrogen
hydrogen infrastructure infrastructure that results
that results in a in a hydrogen production
hydrogen production cost of $1.50/gge
cost of less than (untaxed)1, and safe and
$3.00/gge (untaxed), and convenient refueling by
safe and convenient
refueling by trained trained drivers.
drivers.

R&D continues concurrently to address key cost and performance barriers

Small-scale distributed hydrogen production from natural gas is the furthest along in development and is being
field evaluated by constructing hydrogen refueling stations. Electrolyzer technology is available today, but using
electricity produced from fossil fuels to make hydrogen creates large amounts of greenhouse gases. However,
electrolyzers open the possibility of using electricity made from renewable and nuclear sources to produce
carbon-free hydrogen. A demonstration of carbon-free hydrogen using an electrolyzer is planned to validate the
technology and the potential of this approach.

The energy station concept includes steady production of hydrogen from natural gas for vehicles and use of a
fuel cell or alternative power systems to produce electricity. When excess hydrogen is available, it is stored for
use when electricity demand is high and to refuel vehicles. The advantages of producing both hydrogen and
electricity in energy stations include the following: it provides access to lower cost natural gas because of the
higher volume required; it facilitates staged implementation of refueling components to better match the demand
from vehicles; and it allows use of a larger reformer or the fuel cell itself (internal reformation) that will lower the
per-unit capital costs of hydrogen production.

Power parks can combine these near-term hydrogen production technologies into a single system that produces
hydrogen and electricity. The power park concept is amenable to distributed production of hydrogen from natural
gas, and opens the possibility of incorporating wind and solar energy effectively (see Figure 3.5.3). Analysis of
the power park concept is ongoing and a future validation test is planned that will include the option of a vehicle
fuel cell being a back-up electric generator.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 103

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

Figure 3.5.3. Example of a Power Park Concept

Electricity Users

Renewable Energy Fuel Cell Vehicle

Electricity

Reformer and
Electricity Fuel Cell
Electricity
to the Grid Hydrogen
Electricity

Natural Gas

Electricity Hydrogen

Fuel Cell/Electrolyzer
Hydrogen Storage

Technical analyses will be initiated and used to assess current and guide future activities, including analyses of the
following:
• Vehicle component and vehicle system performance maps
• Early infrastructure options
• Energy stations
• Power parks that include integrated renewable hydrogen production systems that combine electrolysis
powered by wind, solar, hydropower, or geothermal with natural gas or biomass gasification systems
Analysis of a vehicle fuel cell power generator as a back-up power option for distributed power systems will be
considered along with other power park options.

3.5.3 Programmatic Status

Table 3.5.1 summarizes current technology validation activities, which focus on hydrogen vehicles and
infrastructure, energy stations, power parks, and renewable/hydrogen system demonstrations.

page 3- 104 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

Current Activities

Table 3.5.1 Current Technology Validation Activities

Organization Activities

Hydrogen Vehicles and Infrastructure

The Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Demonstration and Validation

DaimlerChrysler/ BP, Ford/BP, Project will be a learning demonstration that will help DOE refocus its research and
GM/Shell, Texaco Energy Systems/ development efforts, provide insight into vehicle and infrastructure interface issues,
Hyundai assess the status of the industry and help address codes, standards and safety
issues
The CaFCP is helping to encourage early introduction of fuel cell (FC) passenger
cars and buses in California. The partnership is examining fuel infrastructure issues
California Fuel Cell Partnership and beginning to prepare the California market for this new technology. SunLine
(CaFCP) Services Group, Inc. and the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit),
both associate members of the CaFCP, are acquiring fuel cell transit buses using
compressed hydrogen.

General Motors and Selected Develop and test student-designed hybrid fuel cell and internal combustion engine
Universities vehicles.

Natural Gas to Hydrogen Refueling Stations

Operating a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (FCV) refueling station in Coachella Valley,
SunLine Services Group, Inc. and
California that uses hydrogen made from natural gas autothermal reformation and
Hydradix
electrolysis of water using electricity generated from PV arrays.
Build and operate a steam methane reformation refueling station at the Pennsylvania
State University in State College, Pennsylvania, that can produce hydrogen for less
Air Products and Chemicals Inc. than $3.00/gge (untaxed) when built in quantity. Novel compression and fueling
apparatus to be incorporated and tested at Pennsylvania State University refueling
station.

Demonstrate a natural gas-to-hydrogen refueling station that can produce hydrogen

GTI
for less than $3.00/gge (untaxed) when built in quantity.

Stationary Hydrogen Fuel Cells for Co-Production of Hydrogen and Electricity (Energy Stations)

Build and operate energy station in Las Vegas, Nevada to validate $3.60/gge
Air Products and Chemicals Inc.
hydrogen cost and 8¢/kWh electricity cost (untaxed).

Air Products and Chemicals Inc. Validating a high-temperature fuel cell as an energy station.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 105

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

Renewable Hydrogen Production Systems and Power Parks

Performing parametric studies of the components needed, the relative production of

Sandia National Laboratory and Air
hydrogen and electricity, the resulting footprints of these systems, total system cost,
Products Corp.
and the anticipated cost of the hydrogen and electricity produced.

Construction and operation of three Power Park systems in Hawaii, Michigan, and
Hawaiian Electric Company, Arizona. Each will determine the relevant codes, safety standards, and engineering
Detroit Edison and Arizona Public data required for power parks. The operation of these systems will provide data to
Services better understand the performance, maintenance, operation, and economic viability
of power parks.

Developed technology to generate hydrogen from biomass and agricultural residue.

Clark Atlanta University Will test 1 kg/hour shift reactor using vapors from peanut shell pyrolysis. This
technology is applicable to all forms of biomass.

LAX Hydrogen Fueling Station – Design and demonstration of a small footprint

Praxair
hydrogen production facility suitable for placement at existing refueling stations.

3.5.4 Technical Challenges

In addition to the technical barriers being addressed through RD&D in the other subprograms, there are obstacles
to successful implementation of fuel cells and the corresponding hydrogen infrastructure that can only be
addressed by integrating the components into total system solutions, such as FCVs and refueling infrastructure.
To have confidence in these technologies, they must be evaluated in multiple systems to acquire sufficient data
to validate statistical significance and be able to meet local, national, and international codes and standards. All
integrated systems will have to meet safety regulations. A by-product of this approach to technology validation is
that technical and system problems are revealed and component requirements can be better assessed.

The Learning Demonstration Project is an important first step towards bringing energy companies and automakers
together to solve all elements of infrastructure and vehicle development that will support the President’s Hydrogen
Initiative in developing a path to a hydrogen economy. By 2009, when the project’s targets of 2000 hours fuel
cell durability operated in varied climates, 250 mile vehicle range and less than $3.00/gallon gasoline equivalent
hydrogen fuel cost are validated, it will be an important measure that the industry commercialization decision by
2015 will be on schedule.

In addition, the demonstration of high temperature coproduction systems (energy stations) could potentially
validate a complete system solution to meet a 2010 target for hydrogen fuel production cost of $1.50/gallon
gasoline equivalent. The demonstration of power park concepts that utilize renewable and fossil fuel systems and
automobile fuel cells as back-up or peaking power generation will allow utilities to increase overall efficiency in
the electric generation system and allow automobile companies to increase the value of vehicle fuel cells.

3.5.4.1 Technical Targets

The Technology Validation Program element does not develop new component technologies, and therefore
does not have technology targets. Instead, this Program element will validate individual component technical
targets developed within the other subprograms when integrated into a complex system and review the future
requirements for each component in such integrated systems. Specifically, once technical targets for each
individual component have been verified under laboratory conditions, they will be validated under real-world
conditions as part of learning demonstration and validation efforts.

page 3- 106 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

3.5.4.2 Barriers

The following barriers will be addressed by the Technology Validation Program element to pave the way for
commercialization of fuel cell and hydrogen infrastructure technologies.

A. Vehicles. In the public domain, statistical data for vehicles that are operated under both controlled and real-
world conditions is very limited (i.e., data such as FCV system fuel efficiency and economy,
thermal/water management integration, durability (stack degradation), and system durability). Most or all the
information is proprietary. Vehicle drivability, operation, and survivability in extreme climates (particularly
low temperature start-up and operation in hot/arid climates), are also barriers to commercialization. The
interdependency of fuel cell subsystems is an important element that must be considered when developing
individual subsystems. Development and testing of complete integrated fuel cell power systems is required
to benchmark and validate targets for component development.

B. Storage. Innovative packaging concepts, durability, fast-fill, discharge performance, and structural integrity
data of hydrogen storage systems that are garnered from user sites need to be provided for the community to
proceed with technology commercialization. Current technology does not provide 300+ mile range without
interfering with luggage or passenger compartment spaces, nor does it provide reasonable cost, efficiency
and volume options for stationary applications. An understanding of composite tank operating cycle life and
failure mechanisms and the introduction of potential impurities is lacking. Cycle life, storage density, fill-
up times, regeneration cycle costs, energy efficiency, and availability of chemical and metal hydride storage
systems need to be evaluated in real-world circumstances.

C. Hydrogen Refueling Infrastructure. The high cost of hydrogen production, low availability of the hydrogen
production systems, and the challenge of providing safe systems including low-cost, durable sensors are early
penetration barriers. Shorter refueling times need to be validated for all the storage concepts. Integrated
facilities with footprints small enough to be deployed into established refueling infrastructures needs to be
conceptualized and implemented. The overall hydrogen production efficiency and the quantity of greenhouse
gas emissions in well-to-tank scenarios are not well understood in real world conditions. Interface technology
to fast-fill tanks requires reliable demonstrations. Small factory-manufactured, skid-mounted refueling
systems need to be proven reliable options in low-volume production systems, for sparsely populated areas
with low anticipated vehicle traffic. Other concepts for energy stations, power parks, and mid-sized plants
(i.e., 25,000 kg/day), including pipelines or mobile refuelers, need to be verified with respect to system
performance, efficiency, and availability.

D. Maintenance and Training Facilities. Lack of facilities for maintaining hydrogen vehicles, personnel not
trained in handling and maintenance of hydrogen and fuel cell system components, limited certified
procedures for fuel cells and safety, and lack of training manuals are all barriers that must be overcome. Lack
of real-world data in the public domain on refueling requirements and operations and maintenance (O&M),
including time and material costs, of FCVs are additional barriers.

E. Codes and Standards. Lack of adopted or validated codes and standards that will permit the deployment
of refueling stations in a cost-effective and timely manner must be addressed. A database also needs to be
assembled that is relevant to the development of codes and standards to ensure that future energy systems
based on these technologies can be efficiently installed and operated. Data on the impact of constituent
hydrogen impurities on fuel cell and storage systems needs to be validated under real-world operating
conditions.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 107

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

F. Centralized Hydrogen Production from Fossil Resources. There are few data on the cost, efficiencies, and
availabilities of integrated coal-to-hydrogen/power plants with sequestration options. Hydrogen delivery
systems from such centralized production systems need to be validated and operated. Hydrogen separations
at high temperature and high pressure and their integrated impact on the hydrogen delivery system need to be
demonstrated and validated.

G. Hydrogen from Nuclear Power. Validate data on reaction rates, nonequilibrium reactions and material
properties for the high-temperature production of hydrogen through thermochemical and electrochemical
processes are limited. The cost and O&M of such an integrated system needs to be assessed before high-
temperature nuclear reactors are designed and developed for hydrogen production. Hydrogen delivery options
need to be determined and assessed as part of the system demonstration. Validation of integrated systems is
required to optimize component development.

H. Hydrogen from Renewable Resources. There is little operational, cost, durability, and efficiency information
for large integrated renewable electrolyzer systems that produce hydrogen. The integration of biomass and
other renewable electrolyzer systems needs to be evaluated.

I. Hydrogen and Electricity Coproduction. Cost and durability of hydrogen fuel cell or alternative-power
production systems and reformer systems for coproducing hydrogen and electricity need to be statistically
validated at user sites. Permitting, codes and standards, and safety procedures need to be established for
hydrogen fuel cells located in or around buildings and refueling facilities. These systems have no commercial
availability, or operational and maintenance experience.

3.5.5 Technical Task Descriptions

The technical task descriptions for the Technology Validation Program element are presented in Table 3.5.2.
Concerns regarding safety and environmental effects will be addressed within each task in coordination with the
appropriate Program element. The barriers associated with each task (see section 3.5.4.2) are also included.

page 3- 108 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

Table 3.5.2 Technical Task Descriptions

Task Description Barriers

Vehicle Field Evaluation Learning Demonstrations

• Support acquisition of vehicles for controlled fleet demonstrations in
strategic locations to collect data on FCV performance under real-world
conditions.
• Collect vehicle operating experience, including fuel economy, range,
cost, drivability, cold-start, emissions, and durability. Data will be used for
modeling, and composite results will be disseminated.
• Identify maintenance, safety, and refueling requirements, including sensors
1 and refueling connections. A, B, C, D, E
• Coordinate with and provide feedback to the FreedomCAR and Vehicle
Technologies Program.
• Support CaFCP demonstration by developing and providing technical
guidance for the development of data acquisition plans covering fuel cell
transit vehicles and light duty vehicles.
• Support ChallengeX Student Demonstration Program for hydrogen hybrid
vehicle that uses a small 10-kW fuel cell to augment an internal combustion
engine.

Hydrogen Infrastructure Learning Demonstrations

• Design, construct, and operate hydrogen refueling facilities to collect data
on the integrated systems that include natural gas reforming and renewable
hydrogen production systems to support fleet vehicles.
• Document permitting requirements and experiences.
• Develop a safety plan and then document its effectiveness, including
malfunctions.
• Validate efficient integrated systems and their ability to deliver low-
2 cost hydrogen, which includes performance, O&M, purity (and specific
B, C, D, E, H, I
impurities), and safety.
• Collect and disseminate composite operating data to verify component
performance using uniform protocols that include safety procedures, risk
mitigation, and communication plans.
• Collect and disseminate composite data from refueling sites in different
geographic areas to verify performance and reliability under real-world
operating conditions, including fast-fill and driver acceptance.

Technology Validation of Natural Gas-to-Hydrogen

Refueling Stations
• Build and operate natural gas-to-hydrogen refueling stations to collect data
on reformer performance and reliability under real-world conditions.
• Document permitting requirements and experiences.
• Develop a safety plan and then document its effectiveness, including
malfunctions that are encountered.
3 • Validate the cost of hydrogen produced including all aspects of station
B, C, D, E
O&M.
• Collect and disseminate composite operating data to verify component
performance using uniform protocols that include safety procedures.
• Collect and disseminate composite data from refueling sites in different
geographic areas to verify performance and reliability under real-world
operating conditions including fast-fill and driver acceptance.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 109

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

Stationary Hydrogen Fuel Cells for Coproduction

of Hydrogen and Electricity (Energy Station)
• Demonstrate stationary hydrogen fuel cells to collect data on fuel cell
performance, reliability, and cost.
• Collect statistical data on the durability of the hydrogen fuel cells.
• Identify O&M and safety requirements for stationary hydrogen fuel cells.
4 • Determine the economics of hydrogen and electricity coproduction B, C, I
compared to stand-alone hydrogen production facilities.
• Collect and disseminate composite operating data to verify component
performance using uniform protocols that include safety procedures.
• Collect and disseminate composite data from refueling sites in different
geographic areas to verify performance and reliability under real-world
operating conditions including fast-fill and driver acceptance.

Renewable Hydrogen Production Systems

• Validate integrated systems and their ability to deliver low-cost hydrogen,
which includes system performance, O&M, durability, and reliability under
real-world operating conditions.
5 • Collect operating data to verify component performance using uniform E, H
protocols that include safety procedures.
• Assess the economic viability of renewable hydrogen production, including
system size and siting requirements based on resource location and
transport economics.

Technical Analyses
• Validate and improve models to refocus the R&D Program.
• Analyze early infrastructure.
• Analyze integrated renewable hydrogen production systems that combine
electrolysis powered by wind, solar, hydropower, or geothermal with
6 biomass gasification systems.
A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I
• Analyze advanced energy stations and power parks for production of both
hydrogen and electricity from renewable and natural gas sources.
• Analyze a vehicle fuel cell power generator as a back-up power option for
distributed power systems.

3.5.6 Milestones
Figure 3.5.4 shows the interrelationship of milestones, tasks, supporting inputs from subprograms, and outputs for
the Technology Validation Program element. This information is also summarized in Table B.5 in Appendix B.

page 3- 110 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 111

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

Figure 3.5.4. Technology Validation R&D Milestone Chart

For chart details see below and next page.

Milestones
1 Make awards to start fuel cell vehicle/infrastructure demonstration activity and for hydrogen co-production infrastructure facilities.
2 Demonstrate FCVs that achieve 50% higher fuel economy than gasoline vehicles.
3 Demonstrate (on a vehicle) compressed and cryogenic storage tanks achieving the 2005 energy and mass density targets.
4 Go/No-Go: Decision for purchase of additional vehicles based on projected vehicle performance and durability, and hydrogen cost criteria
5 Validate fuel cell demonstration vehicle range of ~ 200 miles and durability of ~ 1,000 hours.
6 Validate vehicle refueling time of 5 minutes or less.
7 Test results from student-designed hybrid fuel cell and internal combustion engine vehicles.
8 Validate (on a vehicle) 2.0 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L compressed gas tank.
9 Validate FCVs with 250-mile range, 2,000-hour fuel cell durability, and a hydrogen cost of $3.00/gge (based on volume production).
10 Validate refueling time and durability for reversible complex hydride storage.
11 Validate cost of producing hydrogen in quantity of $3.00/gge untaxed.
12 Five stations and two maintenance facilities constructed with advanced sensor systems and operating procedures.
13 Total of eight stations and four maintenance facilities constructed with advanced sensor systems and operating procedures.
14 Validate $2.50/gge hydrogen cost.
15 Validate co-production system using 50 kW PEM fuel cell; hydrogen produced at $3.60/gge and electricity at 8 cents/kWhr.
16 Demonstrate prototype energy station for 6 months; projected durability >40,000 hours; electrical energy efficiency >40%; availability >0.80.
17 Validate prototype energy station for 12 months; projected durability >40,000 hours; electrical energy efficiency >40%; availability >0.85.
18 Demonstrate pyrolysis system for waste biomass.
19 Complete Power Park demonstrations and make recommendations for business case economics.
20 Validate $2.85/gge hydrogen cost from biomass/wind (untaxed and unpressurized) at the plant gate.

page 3- 112 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

Outputs
V1 Output to Fuel Cells: Validate maximum fuel cell system efficiency.
V2 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Final report for first generation vehicles, interim progress report for second generation
vehicles, on performance, safety, and O&M.
V3 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Technology Status Report and re-focused R&D recommendations.
V4 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Final report for second generation vehicles on performance, safety, and O&M.
V5 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Technology Status Report and re-focused R&D recommendations.
V6 Output to Fuel Cells: Validate Cold Start-Up capability (in a vehicle with an 8-hour soak) meeting 2005 requirements (specify cold-start
energy)
V7 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Final report on infrastructure and hydrogen quality for first generation vehicles.
V8 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Final report on infrastructure, including impact of hydrogen quality for second
generation vehicles.
V9 Output to Program: Submit final report on safety and O&M of three refueling stations.
V10 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Hydrogen refueling station analysis - proposed interstate refueling station locations.
V11 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Composite results of analyses & modeling from vehicle and infrastructure data collected
under the Learning Demonstration Project.
V12 Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Final composite results of analyses & modeling from vehicle and infrastructure data
collected under the Learning Demonstration Project.

Inputs
Sf3 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling.
Sf4 Input from Safety: Safety requirements for on-board storage.
St1 Input from Storage: Compressed and cryogenic storage tanks achieving 1.5 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L.
St3 Input from Storage: Complex hydride integrated system achieving 1.5 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L.
C5 Input from Codes and Standards: Completed hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Technical Specification.
C6 Input from Codes and Standards: Technical assessment of standards requirements for metallic and composite bulk storage tanks.
F3 Input from Fuel Cells: Laboratory PEM technology with 2,000 hours durability.
C7 Input from Codes and Standards: Final standards (balloting) for fuel dispensing systems (NFPA).
F4 Input from Fuel Cells: Complete 4,000 hour testing of advanced MEA for stationary and transportation applications.
Sf6 Input from Safety: Sensor meeting technical targets.
Sf7 Input from Safety: Final peer reviewed Best Practices Handbook.
F6 Input from Fuel Cells: Verify cold start in 60 s of short stack.
A2 Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at each point in the system.
St2 Input from Storage: Advanced compressed/cryogenic tank technologies.
F7 Input from Fuel Cells: Technology with short-stack survivability at -40°C.
F5 Input from Fuel Cells: Laboratory PEM technology with 5,000 hours durability.
C12 Input from Codes and Standards: Final Hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Standard.
Sf5 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling.
St4 Input from Storage: Full-cycle, integrated chemical hydride system meeting 2010 targets
P1 Input from Production: Verify hydrogen production technologies for distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost of $3.00/gge
hydrogen at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of units of production per year.
C8 Input from Codes and Standards: Draft standards (balloting) for refueling stations (NFPA).
P4 Input from Production: Verify hydrogen production technologies for distributed systems using natural gas or liquid fuels with projected cost of
$2.50/gge hydrogen at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration, assuming 100s of units of production per year.
D5 Input from Delivery: Compression technology recommended for validation.
D7 Input from Delivery: Recommendations liquefaction technology for potential validation.
D8 Input from Delivery: Recommended pipeline technology for validation.
D9 Input from Delivery: Off-board storage technology .
P7 Input from Production: Verify hydrogen production technologies for distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost of $1.50/gge
hydrogen at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of units of production per year.
P9 Input from Production: Electrolysis system making hydrogen for $2.85/gge delivered.
P8 Input from Production: Down-select of high-temperature electrolysis technology based on research results.
P10 Input from Production: Hydrogen production system making hydrogen for $1.90/gge from biomass at the plant gate.
D3 Input from Delivery: Hydrogen delivery infrastructure analysis results.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 113

 Technical Plan–Technology Validation

page 3- 114 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

3.6 Hydrogen Codes and Standards

The U.S. and most countries in the world have established Education

laws and regulations that require commercial products to Codes & Standards
Safety
meet all applicable codes and standards to demonstrate that Systems Integration/Analyses
they are safe, perform as designed, and are compatible in
systems in which they are used. Hydrogen has an established DELIVERY

history of industrial use as a chemical feedstock, but its PRODUCTION FUEL CELLS
TECHNOLOGY
VALIDATION
use as an energy carrier on a large-scale commercial basis STORAGE
remains largely untested and undeveloped. The development Research & Development
and promulgation of codes and standards are essential to
establish a market-receptive environment for commercial,
hydrogen-based products and systems.
Codes- Model building codes are
DOE’s focus is the research and development needed to guidelines for the design of the built
strengthen the scientific basis for technical requirements environment (e.g. buildings and
facilities). Codes are generally adopted
incorporated in national and international standards, codes
by local jurisdictions, thereby achieving
and regulations. DOE is also sponsoring a national effort by
a force of law. Codes often refer to or
industry, standards and model code development organizations, invoke standards for the equipment used
and government to prepare, review and promulgate hydrogen within the built environment.
codes and standards needed to expedite hydrogen infrastructure
development and to help enable the emergence of hydrogen as a Standards - Standards are rules,
significant energy carrier. In addition, DOE is also supporting guidelines, conditions or characteristics
the harmonization of essential requirements for the safe use of for products or related processes,
hydrogen by consumers in the U.S. and through the International and generally apply to equipment
Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy (IPHE). or components. Standards achieve
a regulatory-like status when they
The aim of this Program element is to identify those codes and are referred to in codes or through
standards that will be necessary or helpful in the implementation government regulations.
of the hydrogen economy, to facilitate their development, and
to support publicly-available research that will be necessary to
develop a scientific and technical basis for such codes and standards.

3.6.1 Goal and Objectives

Goal
Perform underlying research to enable codes and standards to be developed for the safe use of hydrogen in all
applications. Facilitate the development and harmonization of international codes and standards.

Objectives
• By 2006, facilitate the adoption of the most recently available model codes (e.g., ICC) in key regions;
complete research and development on hydrogen release scenarios; and provide a sound basis for model
code development and adoption.

• By 2007, support and facilitate the drafting of model building codes for hydrogen applications (i.e., NFPA
5000) by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 115

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

• By 2007, support and facilitate the completion of the ISO standards for hydrogen refueling and on-board
storage.

• By 2008, support and facilitate the completion of standards for bulk hydrogen storage (e.g., NFPA 55) with
experimental data and input from Technology Validation Program element activities.

• By 2010, support and facilitate development of Global Technical Regulations (GTR) for hydrogen vehicle
systems under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, World Forum for Harmonization of
Vehicle Regulations, and Working Party on Pollution and Energy Program (ECE-WP29/GRPE).

• By 2015, complete necessary codes and standards that support the commercialization of hydrogen
technologies.

3.6.2 Technical Approach

The Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program recognizes that domestic and international
codes and standards must be established along with affordable hydrogen and fuel cell technologies to enable the
timely commercialization and safe use of hydrogen technologies. The lack of codes and standards applicable to
hydrogen as an energy carrier is a major institutional barrier to deploying hydrogen technologies and developing
a hydrogen economy. It is in the national interest to eliminate this potential barrier. As such, this Program
element works with domestic and international Standard Development Organizations (SDOs) to facilitate
the development of performance-based standards. These standards are then referenced by building codes to
expedite regulatory approval of hydrogen technologies. This approach ensures that U.S. consumers can purchase
products that are safe and reliable, regardless of their country of origin, and that U.S. companies can compete
internationally.

The key U.S. and international SDOs developing and publishing the majority of hydrogen codes and standards
are shown in Table 3.6.1. These organizations typically work with the public and private sectors to develop
codes and standards.

Table 3.6.1. Organizations Involved in Codes and Standards Development and

Publication
Organization Responsibility
Domestic Codes and Standards

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Materials testing standards and protocols

Certifies consensus methodology of and serves as

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
clearinghouse for codes and standards development

American Petroleum Institute (API) Equipment standards

American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air
Equipment design and performance standards
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Equipment design and performance standards

Compressed Gas Association (CGA) Equipment design and performance standards

CSA America (CSA) Equipment standards

page 3- 116 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical

Mechanical building code
Officials (IAPMO)
Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) Electrical standards

International Code Council, Inc. (ICC) Family of model building codes

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Model building codes, standards

Natural Gas Institute (NGI) Natural gas vehicle standards

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Vehicle standards

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Equipment and performance testing standards

International Codes and Standards

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) International performance standards

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) International performance standards

Recently, a national agenda for hydrogen codes and standards has emerged through a collaborative effort
among DOE, industry, standards development organizations (SDOs) and model code development organizations
(CDOs). This collaboration has enabled significant progress in the development of codes and standards for
hydrogen applications. For example, provisions for hydrogen use are included in the International Code
Council’s (ICC) International Building, Residential, Fire, Mechanical and Fuel Gas model codes. Additional
provisions, such as underground storage of liquid hydrogen and canopy storage of gaseous hydrogen, will be
incorporated in a future edition of the ICC model codes.

The Codes and Standards Tech Team under the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership has developed and maintains
an RD&D roadmap to establish a firm scientific and technical basis for codes and standards. The roadmap
identifies key experimental and analytical needs to support codes and standards development. Data and
information obtained through implementation of the roadmap are provided to the appropriate standards and
model code development organization. The Tech Team also reviews the DOE RD&D projects annually so that
the results generated effectively support codes and standards development.

Research to Facilitate Domestic Codes and Standards Development

A primary role of this Program element is to perform R&D that supports the development of hydrogen codes and
standards. This R&D focuses on basic hydrogen properties and behavior, as well as the testing of materials and
components that support standards development.

In the development of hydrogen codes and standards, the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies
Program acts as a facilitator in the standards development process and provides funding to support this
process. One result of DOE’s effort is the creation of “national templates,” which identify players and establish
relationships to facilitate codes and standards development. Through these relationships, DOE and the major
SDOs and CDOs coordinate the preparation of critical standards and codes for hydrogen technologies in
vehicular and stationary applications. The structure provided by the templates is implemented through the DOE
Hydrogen Codes and Standards Coordinating Committee (HCSCC). The HCSCC provides a forum for the
codes and standard community to keep participants aware of progress in implementing the templates and discuss
issues and concerns that may arise. It is also important to note that state and local governments must incorporate
standards and model codes in regulations for the standards and codes to be enforceable.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 117

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

The Program is also assuming a communication and education role, so that timely, accurate, and relevant
information is prepared and disseminated to stakeholders. An important part of implementing the national
templates is to maintain an awareness of the status of and changes in hydrogen code and standards. To this end,
DOE maintains a matrix (posted at www.hydrogensafety.info) that lists codes and standards by application area
and for each code and standard listed, provides a brief description, technical contacts and current status.

Information about current codes and standards issues is also provided though the Hydrogen Safety Newsletter
published monthly by the National Hydrogen Association (NHA) and available at the same Web site as the
matrix. DOE has also created an interactive Web site (www.fuelcellstandards.com) that allows searching for
information on codes and standards under several search criteria, including application and geographic region.
The Web site also tracks activities in codes and standards and provides a convenient site for information on codes
and standards. To improve access to current hydrogen codes and standards, the DOE is working with ANSI to
create a hydrogen portal on ANSI’s national standards network. The portal will provide electronic access to key
hydrogen standards and model codes.

The ICC and the NFPA are the two major organizations in the U.S. that develop model codes. Typical model
codes available for adoption by state and local governments are listed in Table 3.6.2. Many of these model codes
have been or are being amended to incorporate requirements for hydrogen applications.

Table 3.6.2. Typical Model Codes

Model Code Content
Regulations affecting or relating to structures, processes, premises, and safeguards
Fire Code
regarding fire and explosions.

Ensures public health, safety, and welfare as they are affected by repair, alteration,
Building Code
change of occupancy, addition, and location of existing buildings.

Ensures public safety, health, and general welfare through proper electrical
Electrical Code installation, including alterations, repairs, replacement, equipment, appliances,
fixtures, and appurtenances.

Ensures adequate safety and health as they are affected by existing building
Property Maintenance Code
structures and premises.

Zoning Code Enforces land use restrictions and implements land use plan.

Ensures adequate practices for appliances, HVAC, insulation, and windows for low
Energy Conservation Code
cost operation.

Applies to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair,

Residential Code
use, and occupancy of one- and two-family dwellings.

Regulates the erection, installation, alternation, repairs, relocation, and replacement,

Plumbing Code
in addition to use or maintenance, of plumbing systems.

Regulates the design, installation, maintenance, alteration, and inspection

Mechanical Code of mechanical systems that are permanently installed and used to control
environmental conditions and related processes.

Regulates the design, installation, maintenance, alteration, and inspection of fuel gas
Fuel Gas Code
piping systems, fuel gas utilization equipment, and related accessories.

Performance Code Establishes requirements to provide acceptable levels of safety for fire fighters.

page 3- 118 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

Table 3.6.3 summarizes the various roles that the private sector and federal government have in the development
process. The federal government’s traditional role has been to serve as a facilitator/developer for standards
that cover technologies or applications that are of national interest. Examples include the involvement of the
U.S. Coast Guard in standards for marine use; the Department of Transportation (DOT) for interstate pipelines,
tunnels, railroads and interstate highways; and DOE for appliances (e.g. voluntary Energy Star Program). In
each case, the private sector plays a significant role in the process.

The federal government also plays an important role in the adoption process, which involves converting a
voluntary standard or model code into a law or regulation. Congress may pass laws governing both residential
and commercial building design and construction to ensure public safety. Certain agencies of the federal
government may also be granted authority by Congress to adopt and implement regulatory programs.

Table 3.6.3. Private and Federal Sector Role in Codes and Standards Development

Private Sector Government Sector

Standard/Model
Other Private Sector
Code Development Federal State Local
Firms
Organizations
Develop consensus- Develop hydrogen Perform underlying Evaluate codes and Evaluate codes and
based codes and technologies and research to facilitate standards that have standards that have
standards with open work with SDOs to development of been developed and been developed and
participation of develop standards. codes and standards, decide whether to decide whether to
industry and other support necessary adopt in whole, part, adopt in whole, part,
stakeholders. research and other or with changes. or with changes.
safety investigations,
and communicate
relevant information
to stakeholders
(including state and
local government
agencies).

International Codes and Standards Development

The Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program supports the development of international
codes and standards to facilitate trade between the U.S. and other countries. The Program element coordinates
and supports the participation of U.S. experts at key international codes and standards development organization
meetings sponsored by ISO, IEC and ECE-WP29/GRPE. Through its coordination of the domestic codes and
standards agenda, the Program element facilitates national consensus positions on international standards. The
Program element also supports and coordinates the U.S. Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) for ISO TC197
(Hydrogen Technologies) and IEC TC105 (Fuel Cell Technology). The TAGs provide a national forum for
industry and government experts to develop consensus positions on proposed ISO and IEC documents and
actions. The Program element also works with the EPA and DOT/NHTSA to provide technical expertise on
issues before the WP29/GRPE.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 119

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

3.6.3 Programmatic Status

Current Activities
The current Hydrogen Codes and Standards Program element activities are summarized in Table 3.6.4.

Table 3.6.4. Ongoing Activities for Hydrogen Codes and Standards

Activity Objective Organizations

U.S. Domestic Codes and Standards Development Activities

Stakeholder Meetings and Supports technical and coordination meetings to ensure NREL, PNNL, LANL,
Technical Forums communications among key stakeholders. SNL, NHA

Supports hydrogen safety research and provides expert

technical representation at key industry forums and codes
Technical Expertise SNL, NREL, LANL
and standards development meetings, such as the ICC and
NFPA model code revision process

Consensus Codes and Supports coordinated development of codes and standards NREL, SNL, SAE, CSA,
Standards Development through a national consensus process NHA, NFPA, ICC, ANSI

Supports information forums for local chapters of building

Information Dissemination and fire code officials, and the development of case studies PNNL, NHA
on the permitting of hydrogen refueling stations.

Supports focused research and testing needed to verify the

Research, Testing, and
technical basis for hydrogen codes and standards and for SNL, NREL
Certification
certification of components and equipment.
Supports the development of mixed media training modules
Training Modules and
and informational videos for local code officials, fire marshals, PNNL
Informational Videos
and other fire and safety professionals.
National Template for Identifies key areas of standards, codes, and regulations
Standards, Codes, and for hydrogen vehicles and hydrogen fueling/service/parking NREL
Regulations facilities and designates lead and supporting organizations.
Provides inventory and tracking of relevant domestic codes
Codes and Standards Matrix and standards: identifies gaps, minimizes overlap, and
NREL, ANSI
Database ensures that a complete set of necessary standards is
written.

U.S. International Codes and Standards Development Activities

International Stakeholder, Supports the international codes and standards development

Consensus Development, and activities of ISO TC197, IEC TC105, and the International LANL, NREL
Harmonization Meetings Partnership for a Hydrogen Economy (IPHE)

Provides representation and technical expertise in support

of U.S. concerns at key international codes and standards
Technical Expertise and
development organization meetings and forums, including LANL, NREL, SNL
Underlying Research Activities
ISO, IEC, and United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (WP29/GRPE).

page 3- 120 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

Status of Equipment Standards

Domestic Standards
The status of domestic standards in each application area is described below. Up to date information on the
development of fuel cell equipment standards is maintained at www.fuelcellstandards.com.

Stationary Fuel Cell Standards

Stationary fuel cell standards are the most comprehensively available standards within hydrogen technologies,
as the phosphoric acid fuel cell has been commercially available for more than 20 years. Standards are being
revised or developed to more adequately represent emerging fuel cell technologies. Figure 3.6.1 illustrates the
significant efforts underway for standards development related to stationary fuel cells.

Figure 3.6.1. Domestic Codes and Standards for Stationary Fuel Cells
ICC Family Codes CSA CAS No. 33 NFPA 853 NFPA 70 Article 692
Fire, Fuel, Mechanical Component Installation at Stationary National Electric Code
Electrical (Approved) Acceptance Service Fuel Cell Power Plants Fuel Cell Systems
(Published) (Published) (Published)

UL 1741 GRID SUPPORT

Inverters & Converters Central Park Police Station UL 2266
(Published) Telecommunications
(Proposed)

UL 2265
ANSI/CSA FC1-2004
Replacement FC Units
Fuel Cell Power Systems
(Under development)
(Published)

CGA G5.3 Hydrogen

IEEE P1547.1-4
Commercial Specification
Interconnection
(Published)
(in Progress)

NFPA Codes
CGA US G-5.4 UL 2075 Fuel, Electrical, Storage
NFPA 110 CSA US Requirements
H2 Piping at Flammable Gas Sensors (Under review for H2)
Standby Power Systems 1.01 FC Supplemental
(Published) Consumer Sites (Published)
(Published)
(Published)

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 121

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

Fuel Cell Vehicle Standards

A comprehensive effort is underway for the development of standards for automotive technologies. SAE,
working with technical experts from automotive, industrial gas and fuel cell companies, has developed a list of
the standards that are needed for the commercialization of fuel cell vehicles. Figure 3.6.2 shows the standards
under development for fuel cell vehicle applications.

Figure 3.6.2. Domestic Codes and Standards for Hydrogen-fueled Vehicles

CSA/NGV2 SAE J2574 SAE J2600

Fuel Tanks for Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle Compressed Hydrogen
(Under revision) Terminology Fueling Connectors
(Published) (Published)

SAE J2572
SAE J2594 Recommended Practice
Fuel Cell Recyclability Exhaust Emissions
Guidelines (In progress)
(Published)

SAE J2615
Performance Test Procedures SAE J2601
For Fuel Cell Systems Compressed Hydrogen
(In progress) Fueling Communication
(In progress)

SAE J2616 SAE J2578

Performance Test Procedures Recommended Practices
For Fuel Processor Subsystem EPA DOT/NHTSA For Vehicle Safety
(In progress) Emissions FC Vehicle (Published)
(Underway) Regulations
DOT/NHTSA (Planned)
Crashworthiness
SAE J2617 of HFCV SAE J2579
Performance Test Procedures (Planned) Recommended Practices
Of PEM FC Stack Subsystem For Hazardous Fluid Systems
(In progress) (In progress)

Refueling Station Standards

The development of standards for hydrogen fueling stations is underway. Although standards have been
developed for commercial production, delivery and use of hydrogen, these industry-based design requirements
and standard operating procedures are not suitable for dealing with hydrogen in a consumer environment. Efforts
are focused on developing new standards, or clarifying the language or constraints in established standards
to account for the significant differences in hazards and risks. Figure 3.6.3 shows the standards development
efforts for fueling stations. In all cases, safety is ensured through comprehensive engineering reviews, hazard
evaluations and risk mitigation plans.

page 3- 122 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

Figure 3.6.3. Status of Domestic Codes and Standards for Hydrogen Fueling Stations

���������������� ���� ���������

������������� ����������������������� ����������������� ������������������
��������������� ��������������������� ������� ����������� ���������
���������� ����������� �������������������������
���������������������

�������������
������������������ ���������
���������� ����������������������
�������������

�������
���������
���������������������
��������������������
����������������� ����������

��������������� ����������������� ���������� ��������������� �����������������

������������� ������������������������ ������ ��������������������� ��������������
����������� ����������� ����������� ����������� �����������

Hydrogen Transportation Standards

Since the 1950s, hydrogen has been transported across the U.S. using DOT federal regulations for the safe
transport of hydrogen in bulk and small portable containers. An effort is underway to update these standards to
address the range of technologies now available. Figure 3.6.4 illustrates the status of standards for the transport
of hydrogen.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 123

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

Figure 3.6.4. Domestic Codes and Standards for Hydrogen Transport

���������� ���������� �������

����������������������� ���������������� ����������������
����������� ������������������� �����������
�����������

����������
�������������������
�������
������������
���������������
�����������
�������������

��������������
�������������������� ���������
������� �������������������
����������� ������������
�����������

����������������
�������������
����������� ��������
�����������������
�����������

�������� ���� ��������

���������������������� ���������������������� ������������������
����������� ����������� �����������

International Standards
Three separate but related international efforts are underway to develop new technology standards through the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and
the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations.

International Organization for Standardization

ISO is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies from more than 140 countries. Established in 1947,
its mission is to promote standardization to facilitate the exchange of goods and services, and to facilitate
cooperation in intellectual, scientific, technological and economic activities. ISO standards are developed
through a consensus process.

The following ISO Technical Committees are working on standards related to hydrogen and fuel cells:

• TC 22 - Road Vehicles: compatibility, interchangeability, and safety, with particular attention to terminology
and test procedures for mopeds, motorcycles, motor vehicles, trailers, semi-trailers, light trailers, combination
vehicles, and articulated vehicles. The Electric Road Vehicle Subcommittee (SC21) is addressing operation of
vehicles, safety, and energy storage.

• TC 197 - Hydrogen Technologies: systems and devices for the production, storage, transport, measurement,
and use of hydrogen. Working groups address standards for gaseous and liquid fuel tanks for vehicles,
multimodal transport of liquid hydrogen, airport refueling facility, hydrogen safety, hydrogen and hydrogen
blends, hydrogen fuel quality, water electrolysis, fuel processing, and transportable gas storage devices.

• TC 58 - Gas Cylinders: fittings and characteristics related to the use and manufacture of high-pressure gas
storage. The working group on gas compatibility and materials coordinates with TC 197.

page 3- 124 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

International Electrotechnical Commission

IEC is a leading global organization for preparing and publishing international standards for electrical,
electronic and related technologies. The IEC is developing standards for the electrical interface to fuel cells.
IEC Technical Committee 105 is primarily addressing stationary fuel cell power plants, but has also addressed
portable and propulsion fuel cells. The working groups in TC 105 include: Terminology, Fuel Cell Modules,
Stationary Safety, Performance, Installation, Propulsion, and Safety and Performance of Portable Fuel Cells.

World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations

Within the U.N. framework on GRPE, the European Union recognized a need to harmonize vehicle regulations.
The original agreement was signed in 1958, with contracting parties including most European countries,
Australia, Japan and South Africa, but not the United States. Contracting parties have two years to adopt
standards developed under the 1958 agreement. Requirements (“regulations” or “directives”) under this
agreement are based on the “type” approval process, wherein an authority works with a technical service to
assess compliance of components and systems (such as a vehicle). European countries use the “type” approval
process, while the U.S. uses a self-certification process.

Since the initial agreement, the ECE WP29 developed a new “accelerated” agreement to allow the development
of global legal requirements. The 1998 agreement has most European countries, Canada, China, Japan, Korea,
South Africa and the U.S. as contracting parties. This new concept is termed Global Technical Regulations
(GTR). These regulations are essentially technical requirements; therefore, they allow the use of different
approval processes and global harmonization of legal requirements for all vehicles. The GRPE established an Ad
Hoc Group to draft regulations for gaseous and liquid hydrogen systems. The ISO process and that instituted
by the GRPE will harmonize the differences between both standards. In June 2002, the GRPE voted to move
all actions for the introduction of fuel cell vehicles under the 1998 agreement to accelerate the development and
adoption of a GTR. This Program element will monitor and participate in this process in support of the EPA and
DOT/NHTSA lead responsibilities.

3.6.4 Challenges
A major challenge to the commercialization of hydrogen technologies is the lack of available data necessary to
develop and validate standards. The Program sponsors a comprehensive, long-term RD&D effort to develop the
scientific and technical basis for requirements incorporated in standards and model codes.

Another challenge to the commercialization of hydrogen technologies is the availability of appropriate codes
and standards to ensure consistency and, if possible, uniformity of requirements and facilitate deployment.
Certification to applicable standards facilitates approval by local code officials and safety inspectors. Uniform
standards are needed because manufacturers cannot cost-effectively manufacture multiple products that would be
required to meet different and inconsistent standards.

Domestically, competition between the individual SDOs could impact the adoption of new codes for hydrogen
and fuel cell technologies. Because of the typical three- to five-year development cycle, some demonstration
projects could be delayed or incur additional development costs. The DOE has worked with SDOs, CDOs
and industry to minimize duplication in domestic codes and standards development. International standards
developed by ISO and IEC will have an increasing impact on U.S. hydrogen and fuel cell interests. The U.S.,
Japan and Europe, among others, have accelerated efforts in this area, and the Program supports cooperative and
coordinated development of international standards.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 125

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

3.6.4.1 Targets

Since the development of the model codes or domestic and international standards is a voluntary, industry-led
process, the federal government can influence but cannot direct this process. The Codes and Standards Program
element activities will focus on assisting the commercial acceptance of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.

Working with state and local code officials, the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program
will develop training programs to explain the new technologies, provide case studies of installations and
operation, and communicate the changes in the codes as they pertain to the new technology. The Codes and
Standards Program element will also work with state and local government officials to assist in the adoption
of approved model codes through education and outreach in cooperation with the Education Program element
(deferred).

This Program element will provide expertise and technical data on hydrogen properties, and hydrogen and fuel
cell technologies to facilitate the development of standards and codes. Additionally, the Program element will
provide support for industry and laboratory experts to participate in critical international standards development
meetings and workshops.

The Program element will continue to work directly with the SDOs, by providing technical support to facilitate
identification and development of new standards for hydrogen technologies, fuel cell systems and system
monitoring and safety. Table 3.6.5 lists the high priority items for the Codes and Standards Program element.

Finally, this Program element supports focused research for testing and certifying hydrogen components and
equipment.

Table 3.6.5. High Priorities for Development

Items Content

Piping (Non-transport) Hydrogen-specific piping design, installation, and certification standards.

Storage Hydrogen storage tank standards for portable, stationary and vehicular use.

Materials Guide Materials reference guide for design and installation.

Hydrogen Quality Hydrogen specifications and testing methods.

Methods to quantify hydrogen mass measurement to determine appliance

Mass Measurement
efficiency and consumer sales at refueling stations.

Transport Standards for pipelines, delivery and ancillary equipment.

page 3- 126 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

3.6.4.2 Barriers

The barriers are summarized below.

A. Limited Government Influence on Model Codes. The code development process is voluntary, so the
government can affect its progression, but buy-in is ultimately required from code publishing groups.

B. Competition between SDOs and CDOs. The competition between various organizations hinders the
creation of consistent hydrogen codes and standards.

C. Limited State Funds for New Codes. Budgetary shortfalls in many states and local jurisdictions impact
the adoption of codes and standards, since they do not always have the funds for purchasing new codes or for
training building and fire officials.

D. Large Number of Local Government Jurisdictions (approximately 44,000). The large number of
jurisdictions hinders the universal adoption of codes and standards.

E. Lack of Consistency in Training of Officials. The training of code officials is not mandated and varies
significantly. There are a large number of jurisdictions and variation in training facilities and requirements.

F. Limited DOE Role in the Development of International Standards. Governments can participate and
influence the development of codes and standards, but they cannot direct the development of international
standards.

G. Inadequate Representation at International Forums. Participation in international forums and meetings is

voluntary and, to date, has been ad hoc rather than planned and coordinated in advance.

H. International Competitiveness. Economic competition complicates development of international standards.

I. Conflicts between Domestic and International Standards. National positions can complicate the
harmonization of domestic and international standards.

J. Lack of National Consensus on Codes and Standards. Competitive issues hinder consensus.

K. Lack of Sustained Domestic Industry Support at International Technical Committees. Cost, time and
availability of domestic hydrogen experts has limited consistent support of the activities conducted within the
international technical committees.

L. Competitiveness in Sales of Published Standards. The development and licensing of codes and standards
is a business, and the competitiveness associated with the adoption of one set of codes and standards inhibits
harmonization.

M. Jurisdictional Legacy Issues. NFPA codes are historically adopted by some states and local jurisdictions;
others accept the ICC codes. Jurisdictions that adhere to a specific code family may not reference the most recent
codes and standards available.

N. Insufficient Technical Data to Revise Standards. Research activities are underway to develop and verify
the technical data needed to support codes and standards development, retrofitting existing infrastructure and
universal parking certification, but are not yet completed.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 127

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

O. Affordable Insurance is Not Available. New technologies not yet recognized in codes and standards will
have difficulty in obtaining reasonable insurance.

P. Large Footprint Requirements for Hydrogen Fueling Stations. The existing set-back and other safety
requirements result in large footprints.

Q. Parking and Other Access Restrictions. Complete access to parking, tunnels and other travel areas has not
yet been secured.

3.6.5 Task Descriptions

Task descriptions for the Hydrogen Codes and Standards Program element are presented in Table 3.6.7. To
complete these tasks, this Program element will collect and analyze data from the Production, Delivery, Storage,
Fuel Cells, Education (deferred) and Technology Validation subprograms on an on-going basis.

Table 3.6.7. Task Descriptions

Description Barriers
Develop coordinated training modules suitable for authorities having
1 jurisdiction C, D, E

Perform R&D of hydrogen properties and behavior and coordinate

2 participating organizations to facilitate the adoption of the hydrogen building C, D
codes

Implement a mechanism to provide royalty-free licenses for standards and

3 model codes related to hydrogen technologies
A, B

Perform component R&D and integrated systems analysis to support the F, G, H, I, J, K, M, N,

4 development of new standards for hydrogen systems O, P, Q

Coordinate the harmonization of international standards

• Facilitate the development of U.S. consensus for international standards
• Facilitate unified approach to standards development among key countries in
5 Europe and the Pacific Rim
F, G, H, I, J, L
• Develop mechanism to license ISO standards

3.6.6 Milestones
Figure 3.6.5 shows the interrelationship of milestones, tasks, supporting inputs and outputs from other Program
elements from FY 2004 through FY 2010. This information is also summarized in Table B.6 in Appendix B.

page 3- 128 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 129

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

Figure 3.6.5. Hydrogen Codes and Standards R&D Milestone Chart

For chart details see next page.

page 3- 130 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

Milestones
1 Produce a curriculum for training modules.
2 Collaborate with ICC and NFPA to develop first- order continuing education for code officials.
3 Coordination plan with Education Program element for state and local official training established.
4 Coordination Committee for hydrogen technical experts to support the code development process established.
5 Complete analytical experiments and data collection for hydrogen release scenarios as needed to support code development (Phase 1).
6 Generic licensing agreement drafted and estimated licensing costs established.
7 Final generic licensing agreement, schedule of critical licensing agreements, and budget requirements developed for FY05 and beyond.
8 Workshop to identify and develop critical research objectives that impact model codes held.
9 Initiate experimental validation of large hydrogen releases and jet flame tests completed.
10 Final code changes that incorporate underground storage of liquid hydrogen and canopy-top storage of gaseous hydrogen for fueling stations
(NFPC, ICC) completed.
11 Perform tests of walled hydrogen storage systems.
12 Complete detailed scenario analysis risk assessments.
13 Draft standards for dispensing systems (dispenser, hoses, hose assemblies, temperature compensating devices, breakaway devices, etc.)
available (CSA America).
14 Draft standards for compressed gaseous on-board storage available (CSA HGV-2).
15 Draft standards for sensors and leak detection equipment developed (UL).
16 Draft standards for portable fuel cells completed (UL).
17 Develop small leak characterization for building releases and pressure release devices (PRD).
18 Technical assessment of metallic and composite bulk storage containers completed (ASME).
19 Draft standards for refueling stations completed (NFPA).
20 Implement research program to support new technical committees for the key standards including fueling interface, and fuel storage.
21 Templates of commercially viable footprints for fueling stations that incorporate advanced technologies developed.
22 Complete Model unintended release in complex metal hydrides.
23 Final draft standard (balloting) for sensors and leak detection equipment developed (UL).
24 Final draft standards completed for transportable composite containers for balloting (ASME).
25 Materials compatibility technical reference updated.
26 Negotiate agreement with DOT/NHTSA at Working Party on Pollution and Energy meeting.
27 Mechanism to support appropriate U.S. Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) through CSA America and CGA in place.
28 Initiate the development of the next generation Sourcebook to include Japan, Europe, Canada & U.S. (PATH).
29 Roadmap for global technical regulations (GTR) published.
30 General licensing agreement for ISO standards in place.
31 Draft regulation for comprehensive hydrogen fuel cell vehicle requirements as a GTR approved (UN Global Technical Regulation).

Outputs
C1 Output to Education: Training modules for current practices.
C2 Output to Education: Training modules for amended practices for new technologies.
C3 Output to Production and Delivery: Preliminary Assessment of Safety, Codes and Standards requirements for the hydrogen delivery
infrastructure.
C4 Output to Storage: Standards for compressed gaseous on-board storage.
C5 Output to Program: Completed hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Technical Specification.
C6 Output to Delivery, Storage and Technology Validation: Technical assessment of Standards requirements for metallic and composite bulk
storage tanks.
C7 Output to Delivery, Storage and Technology Validation: Final standards (balloting) for fuel dispensing systems (CSA America).
C8 Output to Technical Validation and Delivery: Draft standards (balloting) for refueling stations (NFPA).
C9 Output to Delivery and Storage: Materials compatibility technical reference.
C10 Output to Fuel Cells: Final draft standard (balloting) for portable fuel cells (UL).
C11 Output to Delivery: Codes and Standards for delivery infrastructure complete.
C12 Output to Program: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Standard.

Inputs
V9 Input from Technology Validation: Submit final report on safety and O&M of three refueling stations.
A2 Input from Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at each point in the system.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 131

 Technical Plan–Hydrogen Codes and Standards

page 3- 132 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Safety

3.7. Hydrogen Safety

Safe practices in the production, storage, distribution and Education

use of hydrogen are essential components in a hydrogen Codes & Standards

Safety
economy. The Safety Program element delineates the steps Systems Integration/Analyses
that the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies
Program is taking to ensure that its projects are performed in DELIVERY

a safe manner and that lessons learned within the Program PRODUCTION FUEL CELLS
TECHNOLOGY
VALIDATION
are used to promote safety throughout the hydrogen STORAGE
economy. Research & Development

Like other fuels in use today, hydrogen can be used safely

with appropriate handling and systems design. Its risk level
as a fuel at atmospheric pressure is similar to that of fuels such as natural gas and liquid petroleum gas. Because
of the smaller size of the molecule and the greater buoyancy of the gas, hydrogen requires storage, handling and
use techniques that are different than those traditionally employed. The aim of this Program element is to ensure
the safe use of hydrogen, and to understand, communicate and provide training on the safety hazards related to
the use of hydrogen as a fuel. The Program element will also maintain a comprehensive database on hydrogen
and hydrogen safety.

3.7.1 Goal and Objectives

Goal
Develop and implement the practices and procedures that will ensure safety in the operation, handling and use
of hydrogen and hydrogen systems for all DOE projects and to utilize these practices and lessons learned to
promote the safe use of hydrogen throughout the emerging hydrogen economy.

Objectives
• Starting in 2004, integrate safety procedures into new DOE projects to ensure that they all incorporate
hydrogen safety requirements.

• By 2005, develop a comprehensive safety plan in collaboration with industry that establishes Program safety
policy and guidelines. The Safety Review Panel, formed in FY 2004, will continue to provide expertise and
guidance to the DOE, and will assist with identifying areas of additional research.

• By 2007, publish a handbook of “Best Management Practices for Safety.” The Handbook will be a “living”
document that will provide guidance for ensuring safety for DOE hydrogen projects, while serving as a model
for all hydrogen projects and for commercialization.

• Develop supporting research and development program to provide critical hydrogen behavior data and
hydrogen sensor and leak detection technologies. This data will support the establishment of setback distances
in building codes.

• Promote widespread sharing of safety-related information, procedures and lessons learned to first responders,
jurisdictional authorities and other stakeholders.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 133

 Technical Plan–Safety

3.7.2 Approach
The Safety Program element focuses on the following activities:
• Conduct safety reviews of current and future projects, including practices and procedures.
• Develop and provide a database on safety, including component reliability, materials, sensors and hydrogen
releases.
• Develop a safety training program for emergency responders and authorities having jurisdiction.
• Develop safety-related components such as sensors and coating materials.
• Investigate system approaches for integrated safety in design.
• Determine whether the current safety classification accurately reflects the behavior of hydrogen.

Safety is always an important focus of DOE efforts, but it must receive special emphasis during these critical
early stages of the envisioned hydrogen transition. The successful development of hydrogen as an energy carrier
will require an exceptional safety record. The risks and consequences of any accident must be minimized or
completely mitigated. Safety practices and procedures established now will carry into the future, and thus offer
long-term benefits as well.

Comprehensive safety management is a necessary step in the safe operation, handling and use of hydrogen and
related hydrogen systems. Safety management will ensure continued safe operations throughout the emerging
hydrogen transition, provide experimental data for hydrogen safety scenarios, and work to improve the public’s
perception of hydrogen.

Safety Management
Safety management is implemented through the document, “Guidance for Safety Aspects of Proposed Hydrogen
Projects” available on the DOE Web site (http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/). This document
details safety plans that must be submitted for each DOE-funded project. Such systematic application of safety
assessment methodologies reduces the likelihood that a potential risk may be overlooked, and allows a consistent
measure of safety across all DOE-supported hydrogen projects. The safety plans of the learning demonstrations
and the lessons learned under the Technology Validation Program element (see section 3.5) will play an important
role in the development of safe practices that are essential for future commercialization.

Hydrogen Safety Review Panel

DOE formed an independent Hydrogen Safety Review Panel in FY 2004 to provide expert guidance on safety
and hazard mitigation in DOE activities, programs and projects. Its objectives are to help DOE identify safety
concerns; determine current status of regulations, policies, codes, standards and guidelines; and provide a national
platform to discuss critical hydrogen safety issues. The Panel consists of a diverse set of experts representing a
breadth of industries and organizations including insurance, fuel providers, aerospace, fire safety, engineering and
others, providing well over one hundred years of collective safety experience. The Panel provides an independent
assessment of safety plans, makes recommendations, and proposes alternatives and/or needs for additional analysis
or review, as appropriate. Experience gained through the safety panel and learning demonstrations will form the
basis for a “Handbook of Best Management Practices” to be published in 2007.

Safety Data
Data and its proper classification present a number of challenges confronting hydrogen use. For example, the way
hydrogen is classified throughout the world is inconsistent. Some countries, including the U.S., currently classify
hydrogen as a hazardous material, and not as a fuel. This classification directly impacts issues like storage and

page 3- 134 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Safety

transportation through the regulations that consequently apply. One activity of the Program element will be to
determine whether the current hazardous material classification accurately reflects the actual risk of hydrogen
systems. The desired outcome of these activities is that hydrogen will be classified as a fuel for transport and
handling, comparable to today’s traditional fuels.

Other kinds of data needs also exist because hydrogen has been used primarily as a feedstock chemical (aside
from aerospace applications, which are generally non-commercial). In addition, safety-related information, often
corresponding to company-specific chemical processes and handling procedures, has been treated as proprietary.
The widespread availability and communication of safety-related information will be crucial to ensure safe
operation of future hydrogen fuel systems and thus are emphasized.

Although safety-by-design and passive mitigation systems are preferred, it will still be necessary to develop
technologies to detect hydrogen releases or other system failures. This Program element will develop hydrogen
sensors with the appropriate response time, sensitivity and accuracy for use in safety applications to reduce risk
and help establish public confidence. For example, coatings that change color upon exposure to hydrogen can
provide immediate visual evidence of a leak, while other coatings can be used to rapidly catalyze any small
amounts of hydrogen that do escape.

Finally, the Safety Program element coordinates with the Education (deferred) and Codes and Standards
Program elements to develop training materials and practices to foster the safety of projects and technologies. A
thorough approach to safety will enable risks to be measured and mitigated, and assist in establishing affordable
insurability.

3.7.3 Status
Before publishing this RD&D plan, DOE addressed hydrogen safety as a contractual requirement between
funded parties, relying on existing protocols and practices by the national laboratories, universities and industry
to review and enforce safety in R&D projects. Larger demonstration projects were required to provide third
party safety reviews after an award, but before hardware testing. Some aspects of these safety evaluations
included the appropriate use of applicable model building codes and equipment standards, the use of hydrogen
sensors to help detect hydrogen leaks and modeling and testing of potential leak/accident scenarios.

Project safety is now pursued in large part through the efforts of the Hydrogen Safety Review panel. A principal
activity of the Panel is to assess DOE hydrogen projects from a safety perspective, and make recommendations
for improvement, where appropriate. An individual project
assessment involves review of the project’s safety plan, at a
minimum, and may include a site visit by one or more Panel
members.

The first site visit of the panel took place in March 2004 at
the Las Vegas Hydrogen Energy Station in Nevada, shown
in Figure 3.7.1. Through the end of FY04, the Panel will
have completed five more site visit reviews and scheduled
additional reviews for FY05. The Hydrogen, Fuel Cells
& Infrastructure Technologies Program will continue to
select a portfolio of projects for safety review. Review Figure 3.7.1 Air Products Hydrogen Fueling
teams, consisting of Panel members, work with principal Station in Las Vegas, Nevada
investigators and their teams through scheduled site visits.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 135

 Technical Plan–Safety

Project teams have also used access to panel expertise to tap the body of knowledge that already exists for
dealing with hydrogen and hydrogen-related systems.

Another major issue on which the Safety Program element

focuses is the information, materials and facilities for training
and educating various audiences that are critical to the hydrogen
transition. Industry and aerospace have a long history of safe
hydrogen use, but the introduction of hydrogen as a commercial
fuel in the hands of the general public introduces a host of
new safety issues that must be addressed prior to the hydrogen
economy’s implementation. Accidents or other system failures
within the established fuel infrastructure of commonly used fuels
can and do occur. For any fuel, a suitably trained emergency
response force is an essential element to minimize safety-related Figure 3.7.2 Emergency Responder
incidents. Training of first responders is of particular importance Training at the HAMMER site in Richland,
to the successful implementation of the hydrogen economy, Washington.
especially in its nascent stages, as a loss in public confidence
related to its safety could derail the entire transition strategy.

The Volpentest HAzardous Materials Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) Training and
Education Center is the result of a $29.9 million federal investment completed in 1997 at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation in Washington state. HAMMER was established to provide critical training in fire operations,
nuclear materials handling and transport, occupational safety and health, and other areas relevant to the Hanford
mission (see Figure 3.7.2). DOE plans to establish a national hydrogen safety training facility by expanding
current training capabilities at HAMMER, beginning in FY 2005.

3.7.4 Challenges
Developing a comprehensive safety plan is challenging, partly because the database of safety information
on many hydrogen components and systems is largely limited to industrial practice. Scientific and technical
knowledge may also be limited because each company that produces and uses large quantities of hydrogen
has established training practices that must be followed for liability reasons, and these practices may not be
necessarily public information. Companies that use these practices comply with federal regulations, which are
accepted by insurance providers. Any new information may not be published, perhaps due to company policy or
because is may be considered proprietary.

The tendency for hydrogen to leak presents a challenge to its storage and delivery. As a flammable gas, leakage
creates a safety hazard. The Safety Program element works with other Program elements to eliminate leakage
and to develop design principles and systems that detect and mitigate the effects of hydrogen leakage.

There is a general lack of understanding of hydrogen and hydrogen safety needs among local government
officials, fire marshals and the general public. It is common for new endeavors to encounter resistance simply
because they are different from the known and accepted. Public opposition to siting of hydrogen refueling
stations has occurred in several instances, even preventing operation of the station in some cases. Such public
discomfort typically stems from misperceptions and confusion of hydrogen technologies with a “hydrogen
bomb” or with the Hindenburg disaster. In other cases, the local regulatory authority may view one or more
properties in isolation without considering other properties that could mitigate danger (e.g., hydrogen’s tendency
to rapidly disperse once released). Failing to consider the “big picture” may lead to over-restrictive policies that
preclude implementation.

page 3- 136 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Safety

The general public who uses the published information in many handbooks or training programs may be getting
limited or inaccurate information. For example, although hydrogen is listed as a Class B hazard, it is unclear
that this classification is based on accurate or reproducible data. There also is no comprehensive handbook
containing best management practices for hydrogen safety, to date. Once mandatory reporting is established for
safety and reliability, training will be required to adequately educate appropriate government officials. Finally,
all the data to be used in assessing the safety of hydrogen systems must meet the needs of insurance providers
and other stakeholders. This Program element is working to fill these gaps through R&D, training, and tracking
of safety-related incidents and lessons learned.

The technical challenges discussed elsewhere in this RD&D program plan must be overcome and the solutions
demonstrated to be reliable, safe and cost-effective. That these solutions are safe must be convincingly
communicated to not only crucial enablers of the technology like regulatory authorities, but also the public at
large. In the end, a failure in public confidence with regard to the relative safety of hydrogen will render other
implementation issues moot. Such challenges can and must be overcome, and documented through consistent,
clear and timely communication.

3.7.4.1 Targets

Table 3.7.1 summarizes the technical targets associated with the Safety Program element that addresses
sensor R&D.

Table 3.7.1. Targets for Hydrogen Safety Sensor R&D

• Measurement Range: 0.1%-10%
• Operating Temperature: -30 to 80°C
• Response Time: under one second
• Accuracy: full scale
• Gas environment: ambient air, 10%-98% RH range
• Lifetime: 5 years
• Interference resistant (e.g., hydrocarbons)

3.7.4.2 Barriers

This section details the barriers that must be overcome to achieve the goal and objectives of the Safety Program
element.

A. Limited Historical Database. Only a small number of hydrogen technologies, systems and components are
in operation. Only limited data is available on the operational and safety aspects of these technologies.

B. Proprietary Data. Hydrogen technologies, systems, and components are still in the pre-commercial
development phase. Only limited non-proprietary data is available on the operational and safety aspects of
these technologies. Sharing safety data is important for hydrogen projects funded under the Program.

C. Validation of Historical Data. The historical data used in assessing safety parameters for the production,
storage, transport and utilization of hydrogen are several decades old. Validation of this data and an
assessment of use may prove useful in the development of a hydrogen infrastructure.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 137

 Technical Plan–Safety

D. Liability Issues. Potential liability issues and lack of insurability are serious concerns that could affect the
commercialization of hydrogen technologies.

E. Variation in Standard Practice of Safety Assessments for Components and Energy Systems. Variations
in safety practices and lack of standardization across hydrogen technical projects increase the risk of safety
related incidents.

F. Safety is Not Always Treated as a Continuing Process. Safety practices will need to be maintained
throughout the duration of the project.

G. Expense of Data Collection and Maintenance. Principal Investigators need to pursue the detailed collection
and maintenance of all safety data and information regardless of the added expense.

H. Lack of Hydrogen Knowledge by Authorities Having Jurisdiction. Officials given the responsibility of
approving the safety of installations of various technologies often have insufficient knowledge of hydrogen
and its properties and characteristics to complete the approval.

I. Lack of Hydrogen Training Facilities for Emergency Responders. A suitably-trained emergency response
force is an essential element of preventing an accidental hydrogen release from progressing from an incident
with little or no damage to one of much greater consequences. The current level of responder experience
with hydrogen technologies is lacking, in part because there are no current facilities in the U.S. offering
emergency response training specific to hydrogen.

3.7.5 Task Descriptions

Task descriptions are presented in Table 3.7.2.

Table 3.7.2. Technical Task Descriptions

Task Description Barriers
Develop potential accident scenarios and key data needs
• Identify what can go wrong.
• Develop a system for classifying accident types.
1 • Develop a methodology for estimating accident likelihood.
A, B, C, G

• Develop and release a report of the most common accident scenarios.

Establish the protocol necessary to identify failure modes and mitigate risk
• Draft protocol for identifying potential failure modes and risk mitigation.
2 • Work with industry experts to review and revise the protocol. Release consensus A, B, C, G
protocol to become part of program solicitations.

Develop supporting research program to provide critical data and technologies

• A supporting research program will be developed to provide missing data. The
literature search performed to identify failure modes will be evaluated to identify
A, B, C, E, G
3 the areas where additional research is necessary.
• Explore systems approaches and “holistic” design strategies for development of
systems that are inherently safer.

Develop technologies essential to safe use of hydrogen, such as sensors

4 D, E

page 3- 138 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Safety

Safety Review Panel to perform safety assessments on Program projects

• Conduct site visits of selected projects.
5 • Review safety plans of Program projects. A, B, C, D, E, F, G
• Provide input for Best Management Practices Handbook (see Task 7).

Develop a hydrogen safety database

• Develop a repository for hydrogen safety data and information.
6 • Compile data and populate database. A, B, C
• Publish database.

Compile material from database and assessments into a comprehensive

handbook on best management practices
• Safety Review Panel will prepare draft.
7 • Publish final Best Management Practices Handbook and support the adoption of
A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I

these practices throughout the hydrogen economy.

Establish national hydrogen safety training facility

• Establish DOE HAMMER site as a central location for safety-related information
8 and training. H, I
• Develop a five-year plan.

Include safety in all Program procurements

• Develop guidelines for all DOE funded projects to include safety planning in all
E, F, G
9 aspects of the project, including safety incident tracking.
• Publish guidelines.

Include the comprehensive safety plan into the annual review process
• Establish criteria for Annual Review process.
F, G
10 • The Safety Review Panel will incorporate the safety-related comments of the Peer
Review Team into its business practices.

3.7.6 Milestones
Figure 3.7.3 shows the interrelationship of milestones, tasks, supporting inputs from other Program ele-
ments and outputs for the Hydrogen Safety Program element for FY 2004 through FY2010. This infor-
mation is also summarized in Table B.7 in Appendix B.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 139

 Technical Plan–Safety

Figure 3.7.3. Hydrogen Safety R&D Milestone Chart

For chart details see next page.

page 3- 140 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Safety

Milestones
1 Prepare draft failure modes and risk mitigation protocol.
2 Conduct workshop to review draft protocol.
3 Release consensus protocol.
4 Initiate collaboration with NASA, DOT, and other agencies to establish and publish an interagency plan on the cooperation of hydrogen safety
R&D.
5 Review existing data and hydrogen classification.
6 Develop design protocol that employs passive system or holistic design techniques.
7 Convene hydrogen safety workshops to communicate research findings and disseminate information to safety stakeholders.
8 Conduct research as needed to fill data gaps on hydrogen properties and behaviors.
9 Conduct workshop to identify key performance parameters for hydrogen sensors and leak detection devices.
10 Assemble panel of experts in hydrogen safety to provide expert technical guidance to funded projects.
11 Identify user needs for Safety database.
12 Publish Safety database.
13 Safety Review Panel to prepare draft of Best Management Practices Handbook.
14 Complete final peer-reviewed Handbook.
15 Kickoff meeting between HAMMER, DOE and national laboratory staff.
16 Consensus 5-Year Plan for HAMMER released.
17 First hydrogen safety class (non-prop) offered at HAMMER.
18 First hands-on training prop completed.
19 Develop guidelines for hydrogen safety planning and inclusion in procurements.
20 Publish guidelines for safety plans.
21 First DOE annual review incorporating new emphasis on safety.
22 Establish annual review criteria for safety.
23 Publish final annual review criteria for safety on DOE Web site.

Outputs
Sf1 Output to Education: Report of common accident scenarios.
Sf2 Output to Education: Updated report of common accident scenarios.
Sf3 Output to Production, Delivery, Storage and Technology Validation: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling.
Sf4 Output to Storage and Technology Validation: Safety requirements for on-board storage.
Sf5 Output to Production, Delivery, Storage and Technology Validation: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling.
Sf6 Output to Technology Validation and Systems Integration: Sensor meeting technical targets.
Sf7 Output to Technology Validation, Education and Systems Integration: Final peer reviewed Best Practices Handbook.

Inputs
V9 Input from Technology Validation: Submit final report on safety and O&M of three refueling stations.
E1 Input from Education: Published initial perceptions report.
E2 Input from Education: Interim perceptions report.
E3 Input from Education: Final perceptions report.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 141

 Technical Plan–Safety

page 3- 142 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Education

3.8 Education– Deferred

The Education Program element is deferred to FY 2006 Education
subject to congressional appropriation. Codes & Standards
Safety

The National Energy Policy and National Hydrogen

Systems Integration/Analyses

Energy Roadmap, two guiding documents for DOE DELIVERY

hydrogen activities, pay special attention to education. PRODUCTION FUEL CELLS

TECHNOLOGY
VALIDATION

STORAGE
The National Energy Policy recommends that the
Research & Development
Secretary of Energy develop an education campaign about
hydrogen.

“The NEPD Group recommends that the

President direct the Secretary of Energy to
develop next-generation technology–including
hydrogen…. Develop an education campaign that
communicates the benefits of alternative forms of
energy, including hydrogen…”
-National Energy Policy, May 20011

The National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, which lays the foundation for a national move toward the use of
hydrogen energy, also establishes a priority for education activities and suggests that education is an appropriate
activity for the federal government.

“Educating consumers, industry leaders, and public

policy makers about the benefits of hydrogen is critical
to achieving the vision.”
-National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap,
November 20022

Following the National Energy Policy and Roadmap recommendations, the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells &
Infrastructure Technologies Program established the Education Program element to accomplish the overall
objective of educating target audiences about the long-term benefits and near-term realities of hydrogen, fuel cell
systems, and related infrastructure. The Education Program element will help audiences to do the following:

• Understand the general concept and value of a hydrogen economy

• Recognize the near-term realities and opportunities of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies
• Develop an accurate understanding of hydrogen safety issues
• Understand, where appropriate, their part in facilitating the transition to a hydrogen economy

1
National Energy Policy: Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group (May 2001) U.S. Government Printing Office ISBN 0-16-050814-2
http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/National-Energy-Policy.pdf
2
National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap (November 2002) U.S. Department of Energy http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/national_h2_
roadmap.pdf

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 143

 Technical Plan–Education

Education crosscuts all of the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program elements. The
Production, Delivery, Storage, Fuel Cells, Codes and Standards, Safety and Technology Validation Program
elements will provide formal and informal input to Education activities, particularly for materials development and
technical information communicated through training. With regard to projects and tasks focused on the needs of
specific target audiences, coordination with the Codes and Standards, Safety and Technology Validation Program
elements is particularly important.

3.8.1 Goal and Objectives

Goal
Educate key audiences about the concept of a hydrogen economy and fuel cell and hydrogen systems to facilitate
near-term demonstration and long-term commercialization and market acceptance of these technologies.

Objectives
By 2010 –
• Achieve a fourfold increase in the number of state and local government representatives who understand the
concept of a hydrogen economy, and how it may affect them.*

• Achieve a fourfold increase in the number of students and teachers who understand the concept of a hydrogen
economy, and how it may affect them.*

• Achieve a twofold increase in the number of large-scale end-users who understand the concept of a hydrogen
economy, and how it may affect them.*

• Launch a comprehensive and coordinated public education campaign about the hydrogen economy and fuel cell
technology.

3.8.2 Approach
Education Framework
Although this plan establishes a framework for the Education Program element and identifies activities for 2003–
2011, it is not intended to limit or exclude the pursuit of any new or different opportunities that may arise over
time. Projects outside the scope of this plan will be considered, as appropriate.

Coordination with Other Entities

Educational activities will be coordinated with other Program element activities – Technology Validation, Safety,
and Codes and Standards, in particular – as well as other relevant activities conducted by DOE offices and
programs, national laboratories, trade associations, industry and others. Careful consideration will also be given
to coordination with the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE’s) Office of Communications and
Outreach to ensure all Program materials are developed according to EERE design and format guidelines.

Also, to the extent possible, the development and implementation of education strategies will be coordinated with
emerging local, state, and regional hydrogen, fuel cell and clean energy efforts. The Education Program element
will work with DOE Regional Offices to facilitate networking among national, state and local educational entities.

*According to a 2004 baseline

page 3- 144 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Education

Approach
A comprehensive education campaign needs a foundation on which to build. This foundation consists of readily
available “groundwork” materials that provide Program background and general information about hydrogen and
fuel cells—as well as a means by which to distribute the information. Although a growing number of people
now refer to the Web for their informational needs, printed documents, videos, and CDs remain in high demand.
Education activities will rely on Web-based materials to the greatest extent possible, including creating a library of
educational materials and building an effective distribution system to serve multiple target audiences. (Previously
published materials will be reviewed and used as appropriate.) The information dissemination infrastructure will
provide users and Program partners nationwide with quick and easy access to educational materials, and it will
provide education activity managers with a mechanism for tracking use and collecting feedback that can improve
the Program.

Once a Program foundation is established, attention can turn to activities that serve the specific needs of several
key target audiences. Initial education efforts will focus on state and local governments, community groups
and public citizens living in areas where near-term demonstration projects are planned, teachers and students,
and (to a lesser extent) potential large-scale end-users—target audiences identified as critical to the successful
implementation of near-term technology demonstrations and whose buy-in requires sustained education efforts. In
addition, safety and code officials comprise another critical-need audience; appropriate education activities will be
conducted in conjunction with the Safety and Codes and Standards Program elements. It is important to note that
the timeline for implementing strategies to reach priority audiences will vary slightly, according to their education
needs relative to the market-readiness of the technology.

Audience needs will be researched before new educational materials or programs are developed. Much of this
research will be addressed by a national, scientific and statistically-valid baseline knowledge survey conducted in
FY2004. The survey will be repeated in 2007 and 2010, and as funds allow, additional non-survey assessments of
target audience needs will be conducted in interim years.

When possible and as often as practical, activities and materials will be tested and revised before being
implemented or published to ensure their effectiveness. Once launched, they will be monitored and audiences will
have an opportunity to provide feedback for consideration in future editions or revisions. This process will help to
ensure that audience needs are served, education activities achieve success, and Program goals are met (see Figure
3.8.1).

Figure 3.8.1 Education Program Element Approach

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 145

 Technical Plan–Education

Careful consideration will be given to the messaging. Clearly communicating the benefits of using hydrogen
and fuel cell technologies is important, as is communicating the facts about hydrogen safety. The National
Academies emphasized the importance of public education about hydrogen safety in its report, “The Hydrogen
Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs.”3 Specifically, the report recommends, “The DOE’s
public education Program should continue to focus on hydrogen safety, particularly the safe use of hydrogen in
distributed production and in consumer environments.”

The message must also communicate the technical challenges ahead; the critical research, development and
demonstration activities needed to ensure successful commercialization; and the timeframe for the potential
mass-market introduction of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.

Program End-Point
Achieving the national vision for hydrogen and fuel cells will require a long-term RD&D strategy—and an even
longer-term education strategy. DOE’s RD&D effort for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, for example, is intended to
allow an industry commercialization decision to be made in 2015 and a subsequent vehicle introduction to dealer
showrooms by 2020. Education is critical to prepare for that market introduction and to enable demonstration
projects that can inform research and development activities prior to the 2015 decision. Local community
resistance to near-term hydrogen demonstration projects, often rooted in a misunderstanding of hydrogen safety,
can jeopardize implementation. In some cases, it has been strong enough to halt demonstrations altogether.
Similarly, safety and code officials can facilitate or inhibit near-term demonstration projects. Education and
training programs will help to ensure that the necessary hydrogen-specific codes are adopted and that emergency
responders are well prepared.

Education is also required after the planned 2020 commercial introduction to facilitate market success and
penetration beyond the niche of early adopters. A full-scale, national education campaign to reach the general
public, if timed properly, could help overcome knowledge barriers, including safety concerns and facilitate
market success, while also reflecting the market readiness of the technology. As the technology moves toward
mainstream market penetration, a government role in education becomes less critical and a phase-out or ramping-
down of government-funded education activities may be appropriate.

3.8.3 Programmatic Status

Stakeholder Input
To begin a dialogue with specialists on the content of and issues related to an educational program about
hydrogen and fuel cells, DOE convened a workshop in Washington, D.C. in December 2002. More than
50 individuals participated, representing industry, government, non-governmental organizations, national
laboratories and universities. Specific objectives were to solicit input regarding the following:

• Goals and objectives for the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program’s Education
Program element
• Factors driving the need for educational activities
• Target audiences and relative priorities
• Activities to reach target audiences
• Educational projects and activities that DOE might support

3
The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs (February 2004) National Research Council and National Academy of
Engineering of the National Academies. National Academy Press, Washington, C2004, http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/

page 3- 146 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Education

The Education Workshop was conducted in an open and participatory manner. Attendees met in plenary and
parallel breakout sessions to discuss the eight target audience groups identified in Table 3.8.1, and gathered in
plenary sessions to discuss common themes and crosscutting activities, as well as overall Program priorities.

Table 3.8.1 Key Objectives by Target Audience

Target Audience Key Objectives
State and Local Government
Representatives
(e.g., city, county, state, and • Provide objective, accurate information that government representatives can rely
regional governments, agencies, on as part of their research to make informed decisions.
and associations)

Large-Scale End Users

(e.g., transit agencies, fleets, • Provide objective, accurate information that potential end users can use as part of
building associations and their research to make informed decisions.
subdivisions, hospitals) • Support training for potential end users.

Educators and Students • Improve the level and breadth of hydrogen and fuel cell education, using
(e.g., primary and secondary established resources wherever possible and appropriate.
schools, colleges, universities, and • Increase the number of schools teaching hydrogen and fuel cell courses.
other post-secondary institutions) • Support and promote internships, academic research, and hands-on product
demonstrations in these areas.

Code Writing Organizations • Provide objective scientific and technical information to facilitate and expedite the
implementation of codes and standards.

National Regulatory Agencies • Provide objective scientific and technical information to support the timely
development of hydrogen and fuel cell policies and regulations.

Professional, Labor, and Trade • Support training for potential end-users and the labor force for a hydrogen
Organizations infrastructure.

Financial Institutions (lenders, • Provide objective, accurate information that these groups can use as part of their
investors, and insurers) research to make informed decisions.

General Public • Provide timely, objective, consumer-oriented information to support the transition
to a hydrogen economy.

Of the eight target audience groups, participants placed a high priority on those whose immediate buy-in is
important to overcome barriers to early hydrogen and fuel cell efforts. Participants singled out state and local
government representatives, safety and code officials, and large-scale end users, in particular. Also, considering
the need to develop the next generation workforce and provide accurate and objective information, students,
teachers and the public were added to the list of priority audiences. (Federal government representatives and
legislators were also discussed as a priority audience; within DOE’s current organizational structure, however,
activities to serve their needs largely fall under the purview of EERE and the EERE Office of Communications
and Outreach).

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 147

 Technical Plan–Education

Three cross-cutting areas also emerged as initial focal points of the Education Program element—information
management, including dissemination of accurate, objective information; educational activities; and coalition
and partnership building. Activities in these three cross-cutting areas, coupled with the target audience priorities,
provide focus for Education Program element activities.

Planned Activities
In 2003 and 2004, the Program initiated several projects to build its new hydrogen education effort, as noted in
Table 3.8.2 and illustrated in Figures 3.8.2 and 3.8.3.

Table 3.8.2 Current Hydrogen Technology Education Activities

Education Groundwork
Baseline knowledge assessment Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Opinion Research Corporation

National Hydrogen Association; Energy and Environmental Analysis

Educational materials for multiple target and partners; Anderson Creative Group and partners; Argonne National
audiences Laboratory; Computer Systems Management, Inc., Hydrogen 2000,
and others

K-12 Teachers and Students

Comprehensive high school hydrogen
Lawrence Hall of Science at the University of California at Berkeley and
technology curricula and teacher professional
partners
development
Comprehensive middle school hydrogen
technology curricula and teacher professional National Energy Education Development (NEED) Project and partners
development

Colleges and Universities

National Association of State Energy Officials; Florida Solar Energy
Center, Rochester Institute of Technology, University of California at
Davis, San Diego Miramar College; Virginia Tech, University of Maryland
Hydrogen Technology Learning Centers at College Park, Breakthrough Technologies Institute, Hampton Roads
Clean Cities Coalition; North Carolina A&T, University of South Carolina,
University of Georgia, University of Florida

“H2U” University Design Competition National Hydrogen Association, other industry partners

State and Local Governments

Hydrogen Learning Workshop Series DOE Regional Offices, other state and local partners

page 3- 148 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Education

Figure 3.8.2. Hands-on activities, such as this Figure 3.8.3. “Hydrogen 101” workshops provide
model fuel cell car race, allow students to delve an opportunity for state and local government
into hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. officials to learn more about the hydrogen
(Photo courtesy of Blanche Sheinkopf) economy and fuel cell technology.
(Photo courtesy of the Maryland Energy Administration)

3.8.4 Challenges
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, in his foreword to the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap, writes: “To
talk about the ‘hydrogen economy’ is to talk about a world that is fundamentally different than the one we
know now.” He also refers to the change in how we produce, store and use energy as “revolutionary.”

That the hydrogen economy is a revolutionary change from the world we know today is the fundamental
challenge to the education activity. Although great momentum and enthusiasm exist among the hydrogen and
fuel cell industries (due in part to the announcement of the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in January
2003), the public remains largely unaware of hydrogen as an energy carrier. People are, by nature, hesitant—or
resistant—to change, particularly when that change requires embracing a technology based on unfamiliar
principles (such as the electrochemical oxidation of hydrogen). Anecdotes about the Hindenburg tragedy also
perpetuate false perceptions about the safety of hydrogen use and compound that resistance to change—despite
the potential benefits of a hydrogen economy. In a December 2000 transportation energy survey conducted
by Opinion Research Corporation International on behalf of the DOE, 1,000 people were asked the following
question: “Consider a day when gasoline is no longer available. Which of the following do you think would be
the worst fuel for use in personal vehicles: ethanol, hydrogen, or electricity?” Of the respondents who chose
hydrogen as the worst fuel, more than 50% cited safety concerns, attributed largely to what they had heard or
their own intuition. Another almost 20% reported that they didn’t know why hydrogen would be the worst—
but that they simply thought it would be.

Therefore, an emphasis on safe practices for handling and using hydrogen is critical to advancing the
development of the technology. Community resistance to the installation of local hydrogen fueling stations,
for example, can slow and even prohibit project implementation. Moreover, when captured by the media,
such misunderstandings can spread to other communities unfamiliar with hydrogen, thereby perpetuating fears
about the safe use of hydrogen and jeopardizing other demonstration projects. It is the duty of the Program to
educate the public on the safe use of hydrogen.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 149

 Technical Plan–Education

Dangers exist for the handling of any fuel. For many decades motorists were not allowed to pump their own
gasoline because of safety concerns. Yet after 100 years of relying on internal combustion engines, a high
degree of comfort has been instilled for using gasoline. Such familiarity and the convenience of our current
energy infrastructure contribute to complacency with the status quo, which adds to the challenge of educating for
change.

3.8.4.1 Barriers

Resistance to change and concerns about hydrogen safety comprise the overarching challenge for the Education
Program element. The following section outlines barriers to implementing the education activities intended to
address the challenge and meet Program goals and objectives.

A. Lack of Awareness. Interest in hydrogen and fuel cell technology is increasing, but there remains a
general lack of awareness of hydrogen as an energy alternative. Moreover, although world events have
drawn new attention to national energy security issues, there is little consensus about the severity of today’s
environmental problems or linkages to fuel choice. With little awareness, understanding, or recognition
of these issues, there is little impetus for change, and target audiences are less inclined to embrace new
technology.

B. Lack of Demonstrations or Examples of Real World Use. Hands-on, personal experience greatly
enhances understanding and comfort with using any new technology. With the current limited number of
real-world examples, however, local communities, as well as safety and other local government officials, may
be reluctant to embrace hydrogen technology. They may also resist near-term demonstration projects based
on a lack of information, particularly if they have questions related to hydrogen safety.

C. Institutional Barriers and Access to Audiences. Once audience information needs have been defined and
educational materials or training workshops have been developed, they must reach their intended audiences
to be effective. Institutional barriers can complicate or inhibit access to target audiences. Moreover,
identifying the right organizations, as well as a champion within each organization to embrace hydrogen and
fuel cell technologies, can be challenging.

D. Regional Differences. Educational needs will vary by audience, but they may also vary regionally. What
applies to one state, county, city or district, may not apply to another. Serving the education needs of a single
target audience may therefore require multiple approaches tailored to serve the needs of various regions.
This strains resources and can complicate activities developed at the national level.

3.8.5 Task Descriptions

Task descriptions are presented in Table 3.8.3.

page 3- 150 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Education

Table 3.8.3. Task Descriptions

Task Description Barriers

Build Materials Library and Dissemination Infrastructure

• Add new features to meet educational goals and address information gaps to the
DOE Web site
• Build visibility of education materials on the Web
• Determine needs and structure for a clearinghouse; identify opportunities to tie into
1 existing hotline/clearinghouse capabilities Barrier A
• Establish and promote availability of information clearinghouse
• Create library of educational materials to serve the needs of multiple target
audiences
• Create specialized distribution plans for high visibility materials, identifying partners
as necessary

Build Presence of Hydrogen and Fuel Cells in K-12 Education

• Identify and review currently available hydrogen technology teaching materials
• Evaluate opportunities to integrate hydrogen and fuel cell information into traditional
and/or existing materials
2 o Identify partners with hydrogen and education expertise and create hydrogen Barriers A, C, D
technology curricula and coordinated and sustainable teacher training/
professional development program for middle schools and high schools
o Use secondary school experience to develop corresponding program for
elementary schools

Facilitate Development of Hydrogen Technology Programs at Universities

• Build internet-enabled database of university-level programs for hydrogen and fuel
cells
• Evaluate – and pursue, as appropriate – opportunities, to expand hydrogen and fuel
cell focus of current DOE-sponsored university programs
• Evaluate – and pursue, as appropriate – opportunities to work with industry and
3 trade associations to engage college and university students from a variety of
Barriers A, B, C, D

disciplines in the development of a hydrogen economy

• Work with university partners to develop and expand hydrogen technology curricula
for undergraduate and graduate students
• Facilitate the development of college and university networks to extend the
availability and use of hydrogen technology curricula, as appropriate and practical

Assess Perceptions and Understanding of Hydrogen Economy and Fuel Cell

Technologies Barriers A, C, D
4 • In 2004, conduct a baseline knowledge assessment of key target audiences
• Conduct periodic reassessments of public perceptions through 2010

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 151

 Technical Plan–Education

Develop Public Education Campaign

• Use knowledge assessments to identify audience education needs
• Work with local and state partners to distribute general education materials to
address initial education needs
• Work with Technology Validation partners to implement initial public education
strategies in conjunction with near-term demonstration projects Barrier A
5 • Identify partners for national-level coordinated public education campaign
• Develop comprehensive plan for education campaign—develop and test messages,
identify cost-effective communication mechanisms and methods for evaluating
success
• Implement public education campaign with partners

Facilitate Partnerships and Information Exchange among Local, State, and

Regional Education Efforts, and National Partners
• Work with DOE Regional Offices and established and emerging state and local
partnerships and coalitions to facilitate information exchange and coordinate Barrier A, B, C, D
6 activities to maximize the reach of education efforts and avoid duplication
• Create a Hydrogen Education Review Panel to facilitate coordination of education
activities among partners with objectives that are national in scope

Develop and Implement Educational Activities for State and Local Governments
• Provide objective information about hydrogen technology, safety, challenges to
commercialization, and the role that state and local governments can play in the
7 transition to a hydrogen economy
Barriers A, B, C

• With DOE Regional Offices and state and local partners, develop and conduct
training workshops to educate state and local governments

Develop and Implement Educational Activities for Large-Scale End Users

• Provide objective information about the technology and hydrogen safety; share case
studies, best practices, and lessons learned from the experiences of current users
and, in particular, participants in Technology Validation projects Barriers A, B, C
8
• With industry and trade association partners, as well as the Safety and Technology
Validation subprograms, educate potential large-scale end users and facilitate
technician and employee training

Develop and Implement Educational Activities for Safety and Code Officials
• Create coordination plan with Safety, Codes and Standards Program elements to
9 identify opportunities and education gaps
Barriers A, B, C, D

• Develop and implement training activities, as appropriate

page 3- 152 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Education

3.8.6 Milestones
Key education achievements often involve the creation of a product. As such, Figure 3.8.4 shows the milestones
and deliverables, as well as the interrelationship of these elements with the tasks and inputs from other
subprograms for the Education Program element from FY 2004 through FY 2011. This information is also
summarized in Table B.8 in Appendix B.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 153

 Technical Plan–Education

Figure 3.8.4. Hydrogen Education R&D Milestone Chart

The Education Program element is deferred to FY 2006 subject to congressional appropriation.

For chart details see next page.

page 3- 154 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Technical Plan–Education

Milestones
1 Complete Web site needs assessment.
2 Identify opportunities to tie into existing clearinghouse infrastructures.
3 Establish information clearinghouse.
4 Complete “phase 2” Web site upgrades and improvements (“phase 1” was initial launch, completed January 28, 2003).
5 Deliverable: Create library of materials, including, but not limited to the following: fuel cell technology fact sheets, hydrogen “basics” fact
sheet (production, storage, delivery), hydrogen safety fact sheet, technology “challenges” fact sheet.
6 Deliverable: Publish data from first generation Technology Validation projects.
7 Deliverable: Publish data from second generation Technology Validation projects.
8 Identify and review existing teaching materials for grades K-12.
9 Identify and evaluate opportunities to work with traditional textbook companies to incorporate hydrogen and fuel cell information.
10 Publish middle school hydrogen activity guide to serve interim education needs.
11 Publish high school hydrogen activity guide to serve interim education needs.
12 Develop and pilot draft comprehensive middle school hydrogen technology curricula.
13 Develop draft comprehensive high school hydrogen technology curricula.
14 Publish elementary school activity guide.
15 Publish comprehensive middle school hydrogen technology curricula; launch dissemination strategy and teacher professional development.
16 Conduct local pilots and national field tests of comprehensive high school hydrogen technology curricula and teacher professional
development training modules.
17 Launch national dissemination of comprehensive high school hydrogen technology curricula and teacher professional development program.
18 Launch hydrogen technology competition for university students.
19 Deliverable: Publish database of existing university programs.
20 Evaluate opportunities to expand hydrogen and fuel cell focus of current DOE-sponsored university programs.
21 Launch Hydrogen Technology Learning Center program for colleges and universities.
22 Complete development of community college hydrogen technology curriculum.
23 Establish baseline level of public awareness and perceptions.
24 Conduct follow-up public perception analysis.
25 Complete public perception assessment and results analysis.
26 Initiate national education campaign planning efforts with Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Validation project partners.
27 Create plan for pilot public education campaign in conjunction with Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Validation project partners.
28 Complete pilot of public education campaign strategies in conjunction with Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Validation partners
and in communities with ongoing technology validation activities.
29 Go-Now/Go-Later: Decision point on launch of full-scale public education campaign.
30 Complete assessment of opportunities for joint education activities with existing community partnership programs.
31 With DOE Regional Office and state and local government partners, complete first Hydrogen Learning Workshop Series to educate state and
local government officials.
32 Building on first series, launch second series of Hydrogen Learning Workshops for state and local government officials.
33 Identify partners to serve on Hydrogen Education Review Panel.
34 Launch Hydrogen Education Review Panel.
35 Launch Hydrogen Learning Workshop series for potential large-scale end-users.
36 Establish a coordination plan with Safety and Codes and Standards program elements for state and local safety and code official training.

Outputs
E1 Output to Safety: Publish initial perceptions report.
E2 Output to Safety: Publish interim perceptions report.
E3 Output to Safety: Publish perceptions report.

Inputs
C1 Input from Codes and Standards: Training modules for current practices.
Sf1 Input from Safety: Report of common accident scenarios.
C2 Input from Codes and Standards: Training modules for amended practices for new technologies.
Sf2 Input from Safety: Updated report of common accident scenarios.
V9 Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three refueling stations.
Sf7 Input from Safety: Final, peer-reviewed Best Practices Handbook.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 3- 155

 Technical Plan–Education

page 3- 156 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Systems Analysis

4.0 Systems Analysis

Systems Analysis supports decision-making by providing Education

greater understanding of the contribution of individual Codes & Standards

Safety
components to the hydrogen energy system as a whole, and Systems Integration/Analyses
the interaction of the components and their effects on the
system. Analysis will be used to continually evaluate the DELIVERY

alternatives for satisfying the functions and requirements PRODUCTION FUEL CELLS
TECHNOLOGY
VALIDATION
of the future hydrogen system/economy and the Program’s STORAGE
progress against the targets outlined in this RD&D Plan. Research & Development
Analysis is conducted to assess cross-cutting and overall
hydrogen system issues, and to support the development of
the production, delivery, storage, fuel cell and safety technologies. The Systems Analysis activities are led by
the DOE Technology Analyst and are supported by the Systems Integration function, which provides analytical
resources, models and tools, and independent analysis capabilities as required.

4.1 Technical Goal and Objectives

Goal
Support decision-making by evaluating existing and emerging technologies, utilizing a fact-based analytical
framework to guide the selection and evaluation of RD&D projects, and providing a sound basis for estimating
the potential value of research and development efforts.

Objectives
• Through analysis, continuously support the integration of the Program within a balanced, overall DOE
national energy R&D effort—addressing the role of hydrogen in context of the overall energy infrastructure.

• By 2007, identify and evaluate transition scenarios consistent with developing infrastructure and hydrogen
resources, including an assessment of timing and sequencing issues.

• Continuously provide and/or coordinate appropriate and timely analysis of environmental and technoeconomic
issues to support decision-making tied to Program schedules, targets and milestones.

• By 2008, develop and utilize a macro-system model of the hydrogen fuel infrastructure to support
transportation systems. By 2010, enhance the model to include the stationary electrical generation and
infrastructure for a full hydrogen economy.

• Continuously support a spectrum of analyses, including financial and environmental assessments, across
and within Program elements—from individual unit/subsystem elements to a fully integrated system and
infrastructure.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 4- 1

 Systems Analysis

4.2 Technical Approach

The overall approach to implementing a robust Systems Analysis capability is based on the need to support
Program decision-making processes and milestones, provide independent analysis when required to validate
decisions and/or ensure objective inputs, and respond to external review recommendations. As depicted in Figure
4.2.1, the approach provides the direction, planning, and resources/tools through the systems analysis framework,
the ongoing and planned studies and tasks, and the value-added products. To ensure that the effort is properly
focused, frequent, objective and effective, internal and external peer reviews are conducted.

Figure 4.2.1 Systems Analysis Approach Overview

4.2.1 Systems Analysis Framework

Systems Analysis Plan. A detailed Systems Analysis Plan (SAP) is being developed to lay out the overall
approach, tasks and processes for the systems analysis efforts of the Program. The SAP will contain a catalog of
resources, the systems analysis processes, the analysis results and supporting documentation.

Analysis Portfolio. A portfolio of technical analysis and evaluation activities will be established. The portfolio
will be prioritized based on need to better understand system requirements, support Go/No-Go decisions, and
evaluate progress towards the milestones and technology development goals of the program. The analysis
portfolio will be updated periodically to ensure that the analytical activities provide direction, focus and support to
the Program’s research and development activities.

Data Book. A technical data management system will be developed to provide a consistent database, a list of
assumptions, information standards and tools for capturing needed information. This repository will serve as
the standard input to systems analysis, and will be used to establish the base case hydrogen system and conduct
the subsequent trade-off analyses. The technical data management system will ensure consistency in analyses
conducted by the Program. The database will be updated annually and made available to the community through
the Web.

Models and Analysis Tools. Systems analysis tools support capturing the results of individual efforts, reviewing
progress against stated objectives, and conducting ongoing evaluations that advance the Program objectives.
Modeling tools will provide the basis for analyzing alternatives at the system-, technology-, or component-level
in terms of their cost, performance, benefit and risk impacts on the macro system. Numerous models exist or are
under development by national laboratories, industry and academia within the hydrogen system functional areas

page 4- 2 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Systems Analysis

(production, delivery, storage, etc.). Systems Analysis will add a macro-system model to the current model
portfolio to conduct overarching analysis and trade-off comparisons. A modeling architecture will be defined to
provide consistency among the models employed for analysis, and to sustain the integrity and continuity of the
outputs and results.

4.2.2 Analysis Studies/Tasks

Technical Analysis and Evaluation. The potential technology pathways for wide-scale hydrogen
implementation will be modeled and analyzed from the standpoints of application requirements (targets), costs,
risks, and environmental and societal impacts on a macro-system basis. Key cost and technology barriers/gaps
will be identified. These results will help to further define and update the key RD&D needs and plans within
each of the Program elements. Systems analysis will be used to update energy, environmental and financial
impact/risk projections. To achieve these results, the analysis activities will follow a modeling methodology
covering a wide spectrum of analysis needs. The types of analyses required to plan, execute and evaluate the
RD&D activities are described in Table 4.2.1.

Table 4.2.1. Analysis Methodologies

Analysis Type Description
Determines the quantity and location of resources needed to produce hydrogen. Additionally,
resource analysis quantifies the cost of the resources as a function of the amount that can be
Resource Analysis available for hydrogen production. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) modeling is often used
to portray and analyze resource data. GIS can also represent the spatial relationship between
resources, production facilities, transportation infrastructures and demand centers.

Determine the potential economic viability of a process or technology, and identify technologies
Technology
that have the greatest likelihood of economic success. The technical feasibility assesses the basic
Feasibility and Cost
viability of the process. The results from technology feasibility analysis provide input to balanced
Analysis
portfolio development and technology validation plans.

Quantifies the environmental impacts of technologies. Specifically, life cycle assessment is used
to identify and evaluate the emissions, resource consumption and energy use for all steps in the
Environmental process of interest, including raw material extraction, transportation, processing and final disposal
Analysis of all products and by-products. Also known as cradle-to-grave or well-to-wheels analysis,
this methodology is used to better understand the full impacts of existing and developing
technologies, such that efforts can be focused on mitigating negative effects.
Identifies the most economic options for delivering hydrogen and provides a foundation for
additional research on alternative storage and transportation options. Additionally, delivery
Delivery Analysis analysis provides crucial information to technology feasibility analysis in determining the optimal
production capacities and locations. Delivery analyses will be conducted to determine the most
promising technologies, as inputs to other technical elements of the Program.

Quantifies the total costs of scenarios for developing the hydrogen infrastructure, including
production, delivery and utilization. Infrastructure development analysis can identify economical
Infrastructure routes and financial risks for providing the lowest delivered cost of hydrogen from combinations
Development of central and distributed production facilities. Evaluations of the costs, impacts on existing
infrastructures and timelines of various scenarios for the hydrogen infrastructure will be
conducted.
Analyzes the interrelationships within the system utilizing the tools and results from the range of
Macro-System analysis methodologies. Identifies critical interface issues and system optimization opportunities.
Analysis Through scenario analysis, identifies the most viable routes for achieving the hydrogen future, and
the costs and benefits associated with these pathways.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 4- 3

 Systems Analysis

Independent Analysis. Independent analysis will be an integral part of Systems Analysis to ensure credibility,
validate methodologies and data, and provide perspective. Independent analysis is accomplished by utilizing
experts and analysts who have not been directly involved in the management, research and development,
analysis, evaluation, or recommendation efforts related to the activity in question. Such outside experts often
possess unique insight into particular issues that can benefit ongoing analysis activities. Independent analysts
may be brought in to provide input to key program milestones, such as technology down-select decisions, and to
provide recommendations on changes to major technical targets.

4.3 Analysis-Specific Roles and Responsibilities

Hydrogen Systems Analysis is the responsibility of the DOE Technology Analyst, supported by the Program’s
Systems Integrator. The overall team involves the Program element leads, FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership
Technical Teams, and the people and organizations that perform the analysis activities. A summary of the
individual analysis responsibilities of these positions and groups is provided below:

Technology Analyst
• Accountable for analysis activities
• Provides inputs and sets priorities for the Analysis Portfolio
• Ensures communication of consistent data and information
• Coordinates analysis done in support of the Program

Systems Integrator
• Establishes priorities for the Analysis Portfolio (including technical and time pathways)
• Develops and maintains consistent data and information, and standard analysis assumptions and guidelines
• Provides independent analysis (e.g. for Go/No-Go recommendations)
• Ensures tools/models are developed, maintained, available and validated

Program Element Leads

• Provides inputs to the Analysis Portfolio
• Provides recommendations on cross-cutting analysis
• Manages analysis tasks internal to the Program element

DOE/EERE Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis (PBA)

• Provides market and benefits analysis related to hydrogen and energy infrastructure
• Reviews analysis priorities
• Coordinates activities and exchanges results with the Technology Analyst and Systems Integrator

FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Technical Teams

• Provides recommendations to DOE on analysis needs and issues
• Reviews studies and analysis results
• Develops technical targets based on system and customer requirements

4.4 Programmatic Status

Current Activities
Major Systems Analysis activities are listed in Table 4.4.1.

page 4- 4 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Systems Analysis

Table 4.4.1. Current Systems Analysis Activities

Topic Approach Organization
• Quantify location, amount and
cost of resources
Resource National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): GIS studies of
• Develop GIS resource maps for
Analysis renewable resources for hydrogen
use in infrastructure development
studies
NREL, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Argonne
• Determine potential economic National Laboratory (ANL), Directed Technologies, TIAX, UC-
viability of hydrogen technologies Davis, Technology Insights and Parsons Engineering: Standards
Technology
• Guide Program research and tools for consistent analysis of hydrogen technologies (H2A;
Feasibility and
activities by identifying cost details of H2A Analysis model are presented in Appendix E)
Cost Analysis
reduction opportunities and NREL: Technoeconomic analysis of current research projects
critical development paths and case studies of competing and complementary production
technologies

• Conduct well-to-wheel analysis

to compare existing and PNNL: Incorporating hydrogen-specific technologies into long-term
developing transportation climate model
Environmental technologies ANL: Fuel cell vehicle benefits analysis using GREET and VISION
Analysis • Assess climate impact of the models
hydrogen economy Tellus: Greenhouse gas impacts of transition scenarios
• Determine environmental impacts NREL: Environmental analysis of hydrogen production technologies
of hydrogen technologies
PNNL, NREL and ANL: Components modeling; compression
• Analyze systems and technology and issues; ethanol delivery infrastructure
infrastructures for delivery of characterization; and hydrogen delivery scenario modeling
Delivery
gaseous and liquid hydrogen Nexant, Inc., Air Liquide, ChevronTexaco, NREL, Gas
Analysis
and novel solid/liquid hydrogen Technologies Institute, Pinnacle West, and TIAX: Cost/
carriers environmental analyses for delivery scenarios as a function of time
and demand
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and ANL: HyTrans
hydrogen infrastructure model to study fuel cell vehicle market
penetration
NREL: Geographic-specific hydrogen infrastructure model to study
• Evaluate cost impacts and hydrogen production and its interface to the electric grid
timelines of various scenarios UC-Davis and NREL: Assessment of geographic locations for
for developing hydrogen hydrogen fueling stations and infrastructure
Infrastructure infrastructure TIAX: Impacts of fuels choice on transportation infrastructure
Development • Identify economical routes RCF, ANL, Air Products, BP, Ford, WRI and University of Michigan:
and financial risks of hydrogen Analysis of the hydrogen production and delivery infrastructure as a
production and delivery complex adaptive system
technologies Direct Technologies, Inc., Sentech, H2Gen, ChevronTexaco and
Teledyne: Hydrogen production infrastructure options analysis
Energy and Environmental Analysis, BNL, Power and Energy
Analytic Resources: Impact of hydrogen production on U.S. energy
markets
• Enable broad understanding of
the hydrogen economy in the
EERE/PBA: Interrelationship of the hydrogen economy to the overall
Market/Benefits context of energy infrastructure
energy infrastructure; market and benefits analysis of hydrogen and
Analysis • Assess the potential benefits
fuel cell vehicles
and impacts of hydrogen and
competing technologies

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 4- 5

 Systems Analysis

4.5 Technical Challenges

The following discussion details the various technical and programmatic barriers that must be overcome to attain
the Systems Analysis goal and objectives.

Barriers
A. Lack of Prioritized List of Analyses for Appropriate and Timely Recommendations. Systems analysis
and its resulting observations and recommendations are only of value if they address the key decisions
faced by the Program and are tied to the schedules and milestones of those decision processes. Resource
constraints, fluid budgets and evolving technologies impact the setting of analysis priorities.

B. Lack of Consistent Data, Assumptions and Guidelines. Analysis results are strongly influenced by the
data sets employed, as well as the assumptions and guidelines established to frame the analytical tasks.
These elements have been largely uncontrolled in the past, with individual analysts and organizations
making their own value decisions. Although this does not necessarily make the results wrong, it does make
it more difficult to put the results and ensuing recommendations in context with other analyses and the
overall objectives of the Program. Establishing a Program-endorsed consistent set of data, assumptions and
guidelines is challenging due to the large number of stakeholders involved and the breadth of technologies and
system requirements.

C. Lack of a Macro-System Model. Although numerous models exist to analyze components and subsystems
of an eventual hydrogen economy, a modeling architecture does not exist that addresses the overarching
hydrogen fuel infrastructure as a “system.” Such a macro-system model is critical to assessing the transition
from the existing energy infrastructure to one including hydrogen. Individual models spanning a wide range
of modeling platforms (operating systems, software, inputs, outputs, boundary conditions, etc.) must be
integrated into a common macro-system model.

D. Stove-Piped/Siloed Analytical Capabilities. Analytical capabilities and resources have been largely
segmented, both functionally by Program element (production, storage, fuel cells, etc.) and organizationally
(laboratories, specialized teams, industry/academia, etc.). Successful systems analysis requires the integration
of analysis resources across all facets of the infrastructure.

E. Lack of Understanding of the Transition of a Hydrocarbon-Based Economy to a Hydrogen-Based

Economy. The long-term hydrogen fuel infrastructure is little understood and numerous economic, social,
political and technical influences will be involved in the transition to the hydrogen economy. In addition, the
overall energy infrastructure and economy into which hydrogen must fit is an ever-changing domain.

4.6 Target Setting Process

The objective of target setting is to set a realistic standard for focusing and assessing the research and develop-
ment efforts. The technical targets are an essential part of the Program and key to achieving the goals and objec-
tives of lowering cost, improving energy efficiency and ensuring reliable performance. The targets are driven by
the system level and consumer requirements necessary for them to be competitive for use in light-duty vehicle
transportation and stationary power markets. For example, for light-duty vehicle transportation, hydrogen fuel
cell vehicles will need to compete with internal combustion engine and/or hybrid electric vehicles on a cost and
performance basis. The hydrogen fuel cost target is based on the need to compete with gasoline on a cents-per-
mile basis and is independent of the production pathway. The hydrogen storage and fuel cell targets reflect con-
sumer expectations for vehicles with a range greater than 300 miles and system costs that are on parity with the
convention.

page 4- 6 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Systems Analysis

While system requirement targets are set based on a top-down approach, a bottom-up approach is also used to
determine if targets are realistic for specific technologies (e.g. thermodynamically feasible), to track progress
towards achieving the targets, and to set priorities for cost reduction and performance improvements. As tech-
nology progresses and more is learned about the system-level requirements, the targets may be further refined.

4.7 Technical Task Descriptions

The technical task descriptions are presented in Table 4.7.1. The Systems Analysis function is in the initial
stages of operation. Therefore, the tasks are currently process oriented and designed to establish the key elements
required for on-going analysis.

Table 4.7.1. Current Systems Analysis Activities

Task Description Barriers
Analysis Portfolio
• Develop and maintain the Analysis Portfolio, a prioritized listing and description of the analysis
A, B, C,
1 tasks needed to support programmatic and technical milestones
D, E
• Update the portfolio as required (at least annually to support budget preparation timelines)
• Integrate the portfolio in Systems Analysis planning

Systems Analysis Working Group

• Sponsor, establish and lead a hydrogen analysis community group to mature and coordinate
systems analysis for the Program
A, B,
2 • Coordinate analysis activities with the DOE Offices of Fossil Energy and Nuclear Energy, Science
D, E
and Technology
• Work with the EERE Office of Planning, Budget and Analysis to integrate and coordinate market/
benefits analysis with the Program needs
Data Book
• Develop standard and consistent analysis data, assumptions, guidelines, and scenarios
3 • Maintain the Data Book through a configuration managed change process
B
• Provide access to the Data Book via a web-based interface
Systems Analysis Plan
• Catalog current resources, systems analysis processes and analysis results, including supporting
documentation A, B,
4 • Develop an overall Systems Analysis Plan to guide the systems analysis activities of the Program, C, E
integrating input from the analysis community (Systems Analysis Working Group, Technical Teams,
H2A, etc.)

Models and Tools

• Complete the development of requirements for the Macro-System Model (MSM)
• Develop the overall MSM architecture and choose the infrastructure hardware/software
implementation
5 • Determine standard input/output schemes for utilization within the MSM
C, E
• Capture MSM requirements, description, and usage in the MSM Description Document
• Develop plans for supporting models, including optimization, transition, delivery, environmental,
fuel cell vehicle and combined energy

Analysis/Study Tasks
6 • Conduct systems analysis/study tasks in key areas to support Program decisions and milestones
A, D, E

Internal/External Review
• Conduct an internal review of systems analysis activities to ensure that plans and execution are in
7 line with Program needs
A
• Conduct an external peer review of the Systems Analysis function to measure progress

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 4- 7

 Systems Analysis

4.8 Milestones
Figure 4.8.1 shows the interrelationship of milestones, tasks, supporting inputs from other Program elements,
and technology/analytical outputs from the Systems Analysis function from FY 2005 through FY 2010. This
information is also summarized in Table B.9 in Appendix B.

Figure 4.8.1. Systems Analysis R&D Milestone Chart

For chart details see next page.

page 4- 8 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Systems Analysis

Milestones
1 Complete survey for Analysis Portfolio from all sources.
2 Complete 1st draft of prioritized Analysis Portfolio.
3 Publish Analysis Portfolio.
4 Annual update of Analysis Portfolio.
5 Establish Systems Analysis Work Group and Complete 1st Systems Analysis Workshop.
6 Complete 2nd Systems Analysis Workshop with hydrogen analysis community.
7 Annual Systems Analysis Workshop to review updated Analysis Portfolio and Data Book.
8 Survey hydrogen community for assumptions, data sets, targets and constraints for input to the database.
9 Complete “Review Version” of Data Book and issue for comment.
10 Complete 1st edition of Data Book and subsequent annual updates.
11 Complete “Review Version” of the Systems Analysis Plan.
12 Peer review the Systems Analysis Plan.
13 Complete 1st edition of the Systems Analysis Plan.
14 Complete model review for model architecture.
15 Complete transition model review.
16 Complete input/output guidelines for the Macro-System Model.
17 Select transition model for analysis and incorporate into Macro-system Model.
18 Develop initial model architecture.
19 Capture Macro-System Model requirements, description, and usage in a description document.
20 Peer review the Macro-System Model with the hydrogen modeling community.
21 Complete 1st version of the Macro-System Model.
22 Complete the integration of the Macro-System Model into the Systems Analysis and accomplish annual major model upgrades (2010 includes
electricity infrastructure).
23 Complete evaluation of the factors (geographic, resource availability, existing infrastructure) that most impact transition analysis.
24 Complete baseline economic, energy efficiency and environmental targets for fossil, nuclear and renewable hydrogen production and delivery
technologies.
25 Begin a coordinated study of transition analysis with H2A and Delivery models.
26 Complete study for transitioning scenarios for a hydrogen economy.
27 Complete assessment of current technologies for production and delivery pathways to meet the established targets.
28 Internal review of Systems Analysis function biennially.
29 External Peer review of Systems Analysis function biennially.

Outputs
A1 Output to Production, Delivery and Systems Integration: Complete techoeconomic analysis on production and delivery technologies currently
being researched to meet overall Program hydrogen fuel objective.
A2 Output to Program: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at each point in the system.

Inputs
F1 Input from Fuel Cells: Critical analysis of well-to-wheels studies of fuel cell system performance, efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and
cost.
F8 Input from Fuel Cells: Preliminary hydrogen purity/impurity requirements.
V10 Input from Technology Validation: Hydrogen refueling station analysis - proposed interstate refueling station locations.
C5 Input from Codes and Standards: Hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Technical Specification.
D1 Input from Delivery: Assessment of cost and performance requirements for off-board storage systems.
D3 Input from Delivery: Hydrogen delivery infrastructure analysis results.
St5 Input from Storage: Baseline hydrogen on-board storage system analysis results (and initial down-select) including hydrogen quality needs and
interface issues.
P3 Input from Production: Impact of hydrogen purity on cost and performance.
D4 Input from Delivery: Assessment of impact of hydrogen purity requirements on cost and performance of hydrogen delivery.
F9 Input from Fuel Cells: Updated hydrogen purity/impurity requirements.
V2 Input from Technology Validation: Final report for first generation vehicles and interim progress report for second generation vehicles, on
performance, safety and O&M.
V7 Input from Technology Validation: Final report on infrastructure, including impact of hydrogen purity on cost and performance.
V3 Input from Technology Validation: Technology status report and re-focused R&D recommendations.
V9 Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three refueling stations.
V11 Input from Technology Validation: Composite results of analyses & modeling from vehicle and infrastructure data collected under the learning
demonstration project.
P5 Input from Production: Impact of hydrogen purity on cost and performance.
D6 Input from Delivery: Update of hydrogen purity/impurity requirements.
St6 Input from Storage: Final on-board hydrogen storage system analysis results of cost and performance (including pressure, temperature, etc.)
and down-select to a primary on-board storage system candidate.
C12 Input from Codes & Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Standard.
V4 Input from Technology Validation: Final report for second generation vehicles on performance, safety and O&M.
V8 Input from Technology Validation: Final report on infrastructure, including impact of hydrogen purity on cost and performance.
V5 Input from Technology Validation: Technology status report and re-focused R&D recommendations.
V12 Input from Technology Validation: Composite results of analyses & modeling from vehicle and infrastructure data collected under the
Learning Demonstration Project.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 4- 9

 Systems Analysis

page 4- 10 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Systems Integration

5.0 Systems Integration

Education

Systems Integration provides a disciplined approach to the Codes & Standards

research, design, development and validation of complex Safety

Systems Integration/Analyses
systems, ensuring that requirements are identified, verified
and met, while minimizing the impact on cost and schedule DELIVERY

of unanticipated events and interactions. Systems Integration PRODUCTION FUEL CELLS

TECHNOLOGY
VALIDATION
supports the Program as it evolves and matures hydrogen STORAGE
production, delivery, storage, fuel cell and supporting Research & Development
technologies through successive stages of research
and development. The desired end point is a validated
technology set that enables industry commercialization
decisions leading to a well-integrated hydrogen system that reliably and cost-effectively provides energy for
transportation and stationary applications. The Systems Integrator provides the tools and processes to integrate
and measure progress towards the goals of the Program. Tailored to the particular requirements of a robust, long-
term research and development program, these tools and processes take advantage of experience and lessons
learned from other parts of the federal government (e.g., DOD and NASA) as well as in industry.

5.1 Technical Goal and Objectives

Goal
Establish a disciplined approach that ensures Program requirements are identified, met and validated in the
context of dynamic commercial market requirements, while minimizing the impact on cost and schedule of
unanticipated events and interactions.

Objectives

• By 2005, establish an integrated technical and programmatic baseline, and maintain and utilize the baseline to
support programmatic decisions and ensure research and development directions satisfy needs.

• Verify that the system being developed satisfies the Program requirements, projects are meeting performance
and milestone objectives, and progress toward technical targets is substantiated.

• Provide analyses and recommend DOE-sponsored activities to enable the commercial sector to deploy a well-
integrated hydrogen system that satisfies needs while continually monitoring system performance to identify
potential improvements.

5.2 Technical Approach

Systems Integration provides technical and programmatic support to the Program by 1) establishing, validating,
and maintaining the Integrated Baseline as hydrogen technologies and systems are advanced from concept to
commercial adoption, 2) providing consistent and independent (when required) results of analyses to support
programmatic decisions, 3) verifying that technology and system designs meet Program requirements, and 4)
supporting the implementation of strong program engineering and management processes (See Figure 5.2.1).

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 5- 1

 Systems Integration

Figure 5.2.1. Systems Integration Approach Overview

Integrated Baseline
The Integrated Baseline (IB) is a tool and process that helps manage the Program by ensuring that (1) RD&D
and analysis projects are properly addressing all of the Program requirements and (2) that the cost, schedule, and
performance of the Program and its projects are understood and controlled. In other words, the first ensures that
the Program is “doing the right things” and the second that it is “doing things right.” These two components
are represented by the Technical Baseline (TB) and Programmatic Baseline (PB), respectively, which are then
linked by the technical objectives of the Program to provide the “integrated” aspects of the overall baseline. As
shown in Figure 5.2.2, the IB is derived from the overarching policy, strategy and planning documents associated
with the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative. It is a representation of the entire DOE Hydrogen Program funded
under that Initiative and is developed and maintained in tools that are readily available, accessible and mature.

Once the IB is approved, it becomes Figure 5.2.2. The Integrated Baseline

the control version against which the
Program is assessed. The Systems National Energy Policy
DOE Strategic Plan
Integrator supports the Program in Hydrogen Posture Plan
implementing a formal process to
manage and control changes to the Mission
Requirements
baseline as budgets are requested and
appropriated, as changes in the market
or policy context are identified, or as Integrated Baseline
new technical advances and information
become available. Technical Baseline Programmatic Baseline
Delivery

‘To Be ’ System
Production Conversion Applications Cost
Technical
Technical Baseline. In order to Storage

Objectives
ensure that the Program is “doing
the right things,” the TB provides Work
Delivery
Delivery

Production
Production Conversion
Conversion Applications
Applications
‘As Is ’ System Scope Schedule
a detailed mapping starting from
Storage
Storage

the overall requirements, down

Figure 6.0.1. The Integrated Baseline

page 5- 2 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program
 Systems Integration

through the objectives and barriers of the individual Program elements, and finally to the task and individual
project level. Requirements for the TB are drawn from the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and related
announcements, FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Plan, National Energy Policy, National Hydrogen Vision and
Roadmap, DOE Strategic Plan, individual DOE Office strategic plans, Hydrogen Posture Plan, DOE Hydrogen
Program Management and Operations Plan, and individual DOE Office Multi-Year Research, Development &
Demonstration Plans.

The TB includes the prioritization of activities, as well as information on the risk level of individual activities.
Questions that can be addressed and answered using the TB include:
• Does the R&D portfolio properly address all the Program requirements?
• Are there gaps or weakness in coverage of technical areas?
• Are the high priority items receiving the proper level of programmatic attention?
• Are there sufficient approaches and projects in the higher risk areas to mitigate those risks?
• When funding or focus changes, in what areas should the Program redistribute, add or decrease resources?

The TB is a complete reference set of technical data describing the current (“as-is”) state of the Program and
hydrogen infrastructure. The CORE®1 systems engineering tool (an example CORE graphic is shown in Figure
5.2.3) in which the TB is hosted also has the capability to represent desired (“to-be”) end states, in terms of
hydrogen infrastructure scenarios or expected descriptions and at different points in time over the next several
decades. Using this feature, the TB can be used to identify and evaluate alternative pathways for meeting the
needs/requirements or responding to a new transition period or to long-term infrastructure directions.
Figure 5.2.3. Example of TB Representation from CORE
1

EERE's
Program

Activity

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

Develop hydrogen Develop hydrogen Develop hydrogen Develop hydrogen Develop hydrogen Develop hydrogen Develop
production delivery storage fuel cell Validate codes and education
Technologies safety practices
technologies technologies technologies technologies standards campaign
Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity Activity

The process of reviewing and validating requirements and aligning the Program with those requirements is
recurrent to accommodate advances in R&D, as well as changes that result from the evolution of markets or
policies, budget changes or programmatic focus.

Programmatic Baseline. To ensure that the Program is “doing things right,” the PB provides a tool and
process to track the cost, schedule, and performance of the Program down to the individually funded projects
(Figure 5.2.4). The PB describes these efforts in terms of their budget, milestones, and scope, and identifies
the dependencies among the activities through an integrated work breakdown structure and master schedule.
Loaded with the resources necessary to accomplish the work (funding, personnel, tools, facilities, etc.), it allows
assessment of shortfalls and effects of shifting priorities or funding changes. Questions that can be addressed
and answered using the TB include:
• Are budgets and schedules on track – for the Program, a Program element, a task or an individual project?
• If there is a delay in a particular activity’s schedule, what is the cost and schedule impact on dependent or
related activities?
• If funding is reduced in an area, what is the impact to the schedule, and if resources are reallocated, how are
schedules affected?
• How does the Program scope change given different funding-level scenarios?
1
CORE® is a registered trademark of Vitech Corporation.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 5- 3

 Systems Integration

Systems Analysis
Systems Integration supports the review and Figure 5.2.4. Programmatic Baseline Concept
assessment of alternatives for satisfying the
needs of the future hydrogen system/economy
and the Program’s progress. In addition,
Systems Integration provides independent
analysis, when required, to help ensure
objective and substantiated decisions by the
Program. For example, when key Program
decision milestones are approached, Systems
Integration convenes technical review panels
of peer experts to provide an independent
recommendation to DOE for consideration
during the decision process.

Technical Performance Verification

As the Program develops technologies and results, Systems Integration facilitates technical reviews at key
stages to evaluate strategic fit with Program objectives, technical potential, economic/market potential, and
environmental, health, and safety considerations along with the plan for further development. Verification will
be accomplished through analysis, testing and/or demonstration. Criteria and approaches will vary depending on
the maturity of the technology. For example, at early stages of development, information available to evaluate
concepts is likely to be more general and have higher uncertainty than that available at later stages. Information
stemming from these reviews will be used to re-evaluate the baseline.

The Systems Integrator works closely with the DOE Technology Development Managers to bring knowledge of
system-level requirements and review criteria to planning and execution. In particular, the Systems Integrator
supports reviews of the following Program activities:
• Peer review for all projects and activities
• Independent review panels for key Program milestones and Go/No-Go decisions
• Stage Gate reviews at key progress points for significant projects

Management and Technical Support

Systems Integration supports the Program by aiding implementation of several key processes, two of which are
described below:

Risk Management. Systems Integration supports implementation of a risk management process to identify
potential Program risks and determine actions that will mitigate the impact of those risks. A six-step risk
process—risk awareness, identification, quantification, handling, impact determination, and reporting and
tracking—is used. Throughout the life of the Program, the System Integrator helps identify “potential” risks,
focusing on the critical areas that could affect the outcome of the Program such as:
• System Requirements
• Environment, Safety and Health
• Modeling and Simulation Accuracy
• Technology Capability
• Budget and Funding Management
• Schedule
• Stakeholder, Legal and Regulatory Issues

page 5- 4 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Systems Integration

Configuration Management. Systems Integration manages the evolving configuration of the hydrogen system
(i.e., the Technical Baseline) and continuously monitors and controls it during its life cycle. Changes to the
Technical Baseline and the Programmatic Baseline (the approved work scope, schedule and cost) must both be
controlled to ensure that all work being performed is consistent with the approved technical requirements and
the current configuration, and that impacts throughout the Integrated Baseline are considered before actions are
taken. A formal change control process has been established to ensure that the potential impacts of proposed
changes to either the Technical Baseline or the Programmatic Baseline are evaluated, coordinated, controlled,
reviewed, approved and documented in a manner that best serves the Program and its projects. The decision-
making body within the Program for approving proposed changes is the Change Control Board. The procedures
and processes will be documented in a Configuration Management Plan.

5.3 Programmatic Status

Table 5.3.1 provides the current set of Systems Integration tasks and activities.

Table 5.3.1. Current Systems Integration Activities

Activities Description
• Technical Baseline: Using the results of the mission and functional analyses, link
and map the various levels and aspects of the Program – requirements, tasks,
Integrated Baseline objectives, barriers, technical targets and projects.
• Programmatic Baseline: Assemble the necessary data on subprogram and individual
project cost, schedule, work scope and interdependencies.
• Develop the Systems Analysis Plan
• Define requirements for the Macro-System Model
• Initiate Data Book development activities
Systems Analysis • Support the Technology Analyst in technical management and monitoring of analysis
projects
• Coordinate cross-cutting activities and plans for critical analyses (e.g., hydrogen
purity/quality)
• Conduct program peer review at Annual Merit Review Meeting
Verification of Technical • Tailor stage gate review process to fit Program needs and context
Performance • Choose and acquire resources to perform independent assessment of progress on
key technical targets

Management and Technical • Develop the Configuration Management Plan

Support • Develop the Risk Management Plan

5.4 Technical Challenges

The following discussion details the various technical and programmatic barriers that must be overcome to attain
the DOE Hydrogen Program Systems Integration goal and objectives.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 5- 5

 Systems Integration

Barriers
A. Integrated Baseline Development and Utilization. The breadth and depth of the DOE Hydrogen Program
make it a challenge to encompass all aspects into the Integrated Baseline. Completeness is important,
because a true assessment of the sufficiency of program efforts against the requirements can only be made if
the entire Program is represented. The four DOE offices (EERE, FE, NE and SC) and other programs and
agencies (e.g. Department of Transportation) that are involved in work under the President’s Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative each have their own baselining and scheduling requirements, which must be consistent down to the
individual projects. Tracking and assessing progress requires that projects have meaningful milestones, along
with periodic reviews and/or reports to allow transparency in terms of accomplishments and progress. The
Integrated Baseline can only provide value if it becomes an accepted and utilized tool for the planning and
decision-making processes within the Program.

B. Systems Analysis. Analysis at the hydrogen system level will require modeling tools that do not currently
exist. The integration of existing unique models into the Macro-System Model will require hydrogen
community support and sufficient resources to develop, maintain and grow the model. For example, relating
the Macro-System Model to existing national energy infrastructure models used for market and benefits
analysis (e.g. NEMS and MARKAL) must be addressed.

C. Verification. The primary barrier in verification of technical performance is purely one of numbers and
time/resources. For example, in FY05, the Program is funding over 200 RD&D and analysis projects to
address approximately 250 technical targets. The time and resources needed to verify the progress, status and
results of all these activities is a challenge.

D. Processes. Systems integration and engineering practices have typically been applied to large hardware
acquisition projects, not necessarily to R&D programs. Tailoring the systems integration procedures and tools
to the R&D paradigm will be a challenge, as will be gaining Program and stakeholder acceptance of these
processes as value-added and important to Program element and overall Program success.

5.4.1 Expected Outcomes

Establishing standardized tools and approaches to identify, document and evaluate the complex interactions
between components, systems costs, environmental impacts, societal impacts and system trade offs will enable
effective management of the Program and evaluation of alternative concepts and pathways, and result in well-
integrated and optimized hydrogen and fuel cell systems. Over the course of the President’s Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative, Systems Integration will enable the Program to:
• Establish well-documented system requirements linked to Program objectives
• Ensure that technology designs meet requirements
• Provide consistent systems-level analyses
• Make and document defensible decisions
• Identify and manage risk

page 5- 6 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Systems Integration

5.5 Technical Task Descriptions

The technical task descriptions are presented in Table 5.5.1.

Table 5.5.1. Technical Tasks

Task Description Barriers
Integrated Baseline
• Finalize all the inputs to the Technical Baseline and the Programmatic Baseline
• Determine risks and priorities and integrate them within the key tasks and milestones
of the baseline
• Validate the baseline through each of the Program technical and cross-cutting
1 elements A
• Complete independent quality assurance review of the baseline for accuracy and
completeness
• Place the Integrated Baseline under configuration management and formal change
control
• Produce periodic updates to the baseline as required

Systems Analysis
• Develop the Analysis Portfolio
• Develop, maintain and resolve consistent data sets/info and standard analysis
assumptions and guidelines
2 • Provide independent analysis (policy-related issues, Go/No-Go recommendations, H2 B
in the context of larger energy markets, etc.)
• Ensure tools/models are developed, maintained, available and validated
• Provide independent review of analysis results
• Support the definition of analysis scenarios

Verification of Technical Capability

• Conduct the peer review process in conjunction with the Annual Merit Review Meeting
(including EERE, FE, NE, and SC projects)
3 • Provide independent verification of the status and progress toward key technical C
targets of the Program
• Implement the Stage Gate review process for critical projects across the various
Program elements

Technical and Management Processes

• Complete the Configuration Management Plan and implement its processes within the
Program
4 • Support the Change Control Board
A, B, C, D

• Complete the Risk Management Plan and implement its processes within the Program
• Support the Risk Management Board

5.6 Milestones
Figure 5.6.1 shows the interrelationship of milestones, tasks, supporting inputs from other Program elements
and outputs from the Systems Integration function from FY 2005 through FY2010. This information is also
summarized in Table B.10 in Appendix B.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 5- 7

 Systems Integration

Figure 5.6.1. Systems Integration R&D Milestone Chart

For chart details see next page.

page 5- 8 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Systems Integration

Milestones
1 Approval of initial Integrated Baseline.
2 Integrated Baseline updates based on actual FY06 through FY10 Program appropriations.
3 Integrated Baseline versions reflecting FY08 through FY12 budget requests.
4 Integrated Baseline updates based on FY07 through FY11 spend plans.
5 Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on fuel processing R&D.
6 Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on sensors and controls technologies.
7 Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on MEA in single cell meeting targets.
8 Supporting analysis for Systems Analysis production and delivery task.
9 Independent analysis for Tech Val Go/No-Go decision on purchase of additional vehicles .
10 Independent analysis for Storage Go/No-Go decision on compressed and cryogenic tank technologies for on-board.
11 Independent analysis for Storage Go/No-Go decision on carbon nanotubes.
12 Independent analysis for Production Go/No-Go decision on continued high-temperature steam electrolysis R&D.
13 Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on air management and thermal management technologies.
14 Independent analysis for Production Go/No-Go decision on membrane separation technology.
15 Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on scale up precious metal reclamation process.
16 Supporting analysis for Systems Analysis hydrogen purity task.
17 Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on auxiliary power, portable power and off-road R&D.
18 Independent analysis for Storage Go/No-Go decision on advanced carbon-based materials.
19 Independent analysis for Storage Go/No-Go decision on continuation of on-board reversible metal hydride R&D.
20 Independent analysis for Storage Go/No-Go decision on chemical storage R&D for 2015 targets.
21 Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on stationary fuel cell systems.
22 Independent for Production Go/No-Go decision for transparent H2-impermeable material.
23 Independent analysis for Production Go/No-Go decision on high-temperature solar-driven thermochemical cycles.
24 Conduct peer review of projects at Annual Merit Review.
25 Formal configuration management plan approved and processes implemented.
26 Formal risk management plan approved and processes implemented.
27 Change Control Boards periodically each fiscal year.
28 Risk Management Boards periodically each fiscal year.

Inputs
F1 Input from Fuel Cells: Critical analysis of well-to-wheels studies of fuel cell system performance, efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and
cost.
F8 Input from Fuel Cells: Preliminary hydrogen purity/impurity requirements.
V10 Input from Technology Validation: Hydrogen refueling station analysis - proposed interstate refueling station locations.
C5 Input from Codes and Standards: Completed hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Technical Specification.
D1 Input from Delivery: Assessment of cost and performance requirements for off-board storage systems.
D3 Input from Delivery: Hydrogen delivery infrastructure analysis results.
A1 Input from Systems Analysis: Complete technoeconomic analysis on production and delivery technologies currently being researched to meet
overall Program hydrogen fuel objective.
St5 Input from Storage: Baseline hydrogen on-board storage system analysis results including hydrogen quality needs and interface issues.
P3 Input from Production: Impact of hydrogen purity on cost and performance.
D4 Input from Delivery: Assessment of impact of hydrogen purity requirements on cost and performance of hydrogen delivery.
F9 Input from Fuel Cells: Updated hydrogen purity/impurity requirements.
V7 Input from Technology Validation: Final report on infrastructure and hydrogen quality for first generation vehicles.
Sf6 Input from Safety: Sensor meeting technical targets.
A2 Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at each point in the system.
P5 Input from Production: Impact of hydrogen purity on cost and performance.
D6 Input from Delivery: Update of hydrogen purity/impurity requirements.
St6 Input from Storage: Final on-board hydrogen storage system analysis results of cost and performance (including pressure, temp, etc) and
down-select to a primary on-board storage system candidate.
C12 Input from Codes and Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Standard.
V8 Input from Technology Validation: Final report on infrastructure, including impact of hydrogen quality for second generation vehicles.
V2 Input from Technology Validation: Final report for first generation vehicles and interim progress report for second generation vehicles, on
performance, safety, and O&M.
V3 Input from Technology Validation: Technology Status Report & re-focused R&D recommendations.
V9 Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three refueling stations.
V11 Input from Technology Validation: Composite results of analyses & modeling from vehicle and infrastructure data collected under the learning
demonstration project.
Sf7 Input from Safety: Final peer reviewed Best Practices Handbook.
V4 Input from Technology Validation: Final report for second generation vehicles on performance, safety, and O&M.
V5 Input from Technology Validation: Technology Status Report & re-focused R&D recommendations.
V12 Input from Technology Validation: Final composite results of analyses & modeling from vehicle and infrastructure data collected under the
Learning Demonstration Project.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 5- 9

 Systems Integration

page 5- 10 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Program Management and Operations

6.0 Program Management

and Operations Program Management & Operations
Education
Codes & Standards
Safety
The DOE Hydrogen Program is comprised of activities within Systems Integration/Analyses
the Offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
DELIVERY
(EERE); Fossil Energy (FE); Nuclear Energy, Science and
TECHNOLOGY
Technology (NE); and Science (SC). EERE’s PRODUCTION FUEL CELLS
VALIDATION

Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program STORAGE

represents a major component of this effort. Each office Research & Development

manages those activities within its mission area, but because of

the complexity involved in transitioning to a hydrogen-based
economy, the DOE Hydrogen Program is being managed through a single Program Manager located within
EERE. This allows for clear lines of communication and authority, and integrates the many participating offices,
agencies, laboratories, and contractors.

DOE’s Hydrogen Program includes RD&D, systems integration, safety, codes and standards, and education
activities, requiring the integrated efforts of Washington, D.C. offices, field offices, laboratories, and contractors
spread across the country. Thousands of individuals will take part in the Program through partnerships with
automotive and power equipment manufacturers, energy and chemical companies, electric and natural gas
utilities, building designers, diverse component suppliers, other federal agencies, state government agencies,
universities, national laboratories, and other stakeholder organizations. This complexity requires a Program
management and operations approach based on a uniform set of requirements, assumptions, expectations, and
procedures.

6.1 Program Organization

The organizational structure of the DOE Hydrogen Program is shown in Figure 6.1.1. Program management
takes place at DOE Headquarters in Washington, D.C. Project management is conducted in field locations,
namely the Golden Field Office, EERE Regional Offices, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL),
Idaho Operations Office, and the Chicago Operations Office. Project implementation is carried out at the national
laboratories, with industry and universities, and through coalitions with state and local government agencies.

The management approach is grounded in the following results-oriented management principles:

• A vertical organization with clear lines of responsibility and authority

• Top-down Program (to project) planning from conception to technology validation, and time-phased technical,
cost and schedule baselines
• Centralization of key functions to ensure effective integration of the Program’s projects
• Independent Program control systems ensuring maximum visibility/transparency

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 6- 1

 Program Management and Operations

Figure 6.1.1. DOE Hydrogen Program Organization Chart

Secretary HTAP

Under Secretary

Program Secretarial Officers

• EERE
• FE
• NE
• SC

Interagency Task
DOE Hydrogen
Force
Program Manager (EERE)
Chief Technology
Systems Integrator Engineer Analyst

• Management, Hydrogen Program Coordination Group

Budget & Evaluation
• Policy & EERE FE NE SC
International Hydrogen Activities Hydrogen Activities Hydrogen Activities Hydrogen Activities

Program Management (Headquarters)

Idaho Chicago
Golden Field EERE
NETL Operations Operations
Office Regional Offices
Office Office
Project Management (Field)

State & Local

National Laboratories Industry Universities
Government
Project Implementation

Advisory Groups
The DOE Hydrogen Program utilizes outside experts to advise management on all aspects of the transition to
the hydrogen economy. The Program draws upon the best available information from experts in a variety of
fields such as chemistry and chemical engineering, materials science, environmental sciences, biology, physics,
mechanical engineering, and systems engineering. Since the creation of the DOE Hydrogen Program, a variety
of groups have been identified or created to oversee, review, or advise Program activities. Two examples of
DOE Hydrogen Program advisory groups include:

National Academies. At DOE’s request, the National Academies’ National Research Council and the National
Academy of Engineering appointed a committee in September 2002 to conduct a study of Alternatives and
Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use. The study evaluated the cost and status of technologies for
production, delivery, storage and end-use of hydrogen, and reviewed DOE’s hydrogen research, development and
demonstration strategy. The final report is available at http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/index.html.
In addition, the National Academies have been asked by DOE to do periodic assessments of the Program.

page 6- 2 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Program Management and Operations

Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel (HTAP). Legislation called for the establishment of HTAP to advise
the Secretary of Energy on DOE’s Hydrogen Program activities. HTAP is comprised of between 12 and 25
members. The Secretary appoints members to represent domestic industry, academia, professional societies,
government agencies, and financial, environmental, and other appropriate organizations to provide the range
of technical expertise and other experience required.

HTAP reviews and makes recommendations to the Secretary in a biennial report on:
• The implementation and conduct of programs and activities
• The safety, economical, environmental and other consequences of technologies for the production, distribution,
delivery, storage and use of hydrogen
• Means for resolving barriers to implementing hydrogen and fuel cell technologies

The Secretary considers, but is not required to adopt, any recommendations of HTAP. The Secretary either
describes the implementation of each recommendation made in the biennial report, or provides an explanation
to Congress of the reasons that a recommendation is not to be implemented. The Secretary also provides the
resources necessary for HTAP to carry out its responsibilities.

Public-Private Partnerships
Through cooperative partnerships, the DOE Hydrogen Program is leveraging the vast capabilities and experience
of stakeholders in industry, state and local governments, and international organizations. The roles of these
groups vary, as does the nature of their collaboration with DOE. In broad terms, the roles that these stakeholder
groups play are:

• State and Local Governments. Partnerships in codes and standards, field validation and education
• Industry. Partnerships in developing, validating and demonstrating advanced fuel cell and hydrogen
energy technologies
• International. Partnerships in R&D, validation, codes and standards and safety

State and Local Governments. The California Fuel Cell Partnership is a unique collaboration of auto
manufacturers, energy companies, fuel cell technology companies and government agencies that is placing fuel
cell vehicles on the roads in California. This partnership is showcasing new vehicle technology that could move
the world toward practical and affordable environmental solutions. The other government partners include the
California Air Resources Board, the California Energy Commission, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District, DOT and EPA.

The state and local partnerships that take place through the Regional Offices are the primary vehicle through
which DOE meets the needs of individual citizens, cities, counties and states across the nation. The Program will
coordinate with the Regional Offices to:
• Work with states and communities to promote the Program
• Identify and engage community and state partners
• Integrate the Program with public and private sector activities

Industry. The FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership includes the Department of Energy, USCAR and five energy
companies to develop the technologies and the infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to emerge in
the transportation sector. The Executive Steering Group (ESG) provides governance and management of the
Partnership (see Figure 6.1.2). The ESG is comprised of the DOE Assistant Secretary for EERE and a senior
executive responsible for R&D from each of the partnership member companies.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 6- 3

 Program Management and Operations

The Operations Groups are responsible for operations oversight of partnership activities and serve as primary
information channels to the ESG. Both operations groups include the DOE Program Managers for the Hydrogen,
Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program and the FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies Program. The
FreedomCAR Operations Group also includes the senior technical managers from the automotive companies,
while the Fuel Operations Group includes senior level technical directors from energy companies. The
operations groups are responsible for identifying and managing their respective technical teams.

Figure 6.1.2. FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership Executive Steering Group

������� ��� ���� �����������

��������� �������� �����
�������� ��������� ������������ ����� �
������ ��� ���� ����������
��� ���� ��������� ���������

���� ���������� ����� ����������

������ ��������� ����� ���������� �����
���������� �����
��� ������� �������� ��� ���������
��� ������� ��������

���� ���� ����� ����� ���� ����� ���� ���� ��� �������
� �������� ���������� � �������� �������� ���� �����
� �������� �������� �������
� ���� ������� ����������� � ���� ���� �������
� ����� ��� ���������
� �������� ����������
��������� �������
� ��������������� ������
�������
� ������� ������� ��������
� ���������
� ���������� ��� �����������

The technical teams consist of scientists and engineers with technology-specific expertise from the automotive
and energy partner companies, DOE, the national laboratories, and other sources on an as-needed basis such
as the supplier community and other government agencies. The primary purpose of the technical teams is to
identify and recommend comprehensive technical goals and evaluate progress and the achievement of technical
milestones. Each of the partners will consider the information developed by the technical teams in implementing
its respective R&D programs.

Coordination
Interagency Task Force. The Hydrogen Research and Development (R&D) Interagency Task Force was
established shortly after the President’s announcement of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in early 2003. It serves
as the key mechanism for collaboration among the eight federal agencies that fund hydrogen-related research
and development. The task force has developed an extensive hydrogen research taxonomy of past, present and
potential future hydrogen activities of the federal government; provided guidance for agency research directions;
identified key areas for interagency collaboration; and established subgroups to develop and implement a 10-year
Interagency Coordination Plan. The subgroups coordinate focused efforts in three areas:

page 6- 4 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Program Management and Operations

• Fundamental Research (led by DOE’s Office of Science)

• Hydrogen Production, Distribution and Storage Technologies (led by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy)
• Hydrogen Conversion Technologies (led by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of
Standards and Technology).

The task force is co-chaired by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the
Department of Energy (DOE), and includes the Department of Transportation; Department of Defense;
Department of Agriculture; Department of Commerce; Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics
and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; and, from the Executive Office of the President, OSTP,
Office of Management and Budget, and Council on Environmental Quality.

International. On April 23, 2003, Secretary Abraham called for an “International Partnership for the Hydrogen
Economy.” As a result of the Secretary’s vision, efforts have been initiated with 15 countries and the European
Commission in the areas of codes and standards, PEM fuel cells, hydrogen production, hydrogen storage, and
economic modeling.

The Secretary’s call for an international partnership builds on the efforts of the last several years in which
DOE has coordinated international activities to advance hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. DOE is taking a
leadership role in the International Energy Agency Hydrogen Implementing Agreement and Advanced Fuel Cell
Implementing Agreement (see Table 6.1.1).

Table 6.1.1. International Energy Agency Hydrogen and Advanced Fuel Cell
Implementing Agreement Tasks
Hydrogen Fuel Cells

• Photobiological Production • Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cells

• Hydrogen from Carbon-Containing Materials • MCFC Towards Demonstration
• Solid and Liquid State Storage • Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
• Integrated Systems Evaluation • Fuel Cells for Stationary Applications
• Hydrogen Safety • Fuel Cell Systems for Transportation
• Water Photolysis • Fuel Cells for Portable Applications

In addition, the Program is working with international groups, such as the ICC and the ISO to develop a com-
prehensive set of codes and standards, which will facilitate the global demonstration and commercialization
of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies.

6.2 Program Management Approach

The overall management of the DOE Hydrogen Program consists of a performance-based planning, budgeting,
execution, and evaluation system as shown in Figure 6.2.1.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 6- 5

 Program Management and Operations

Figure 6.2.1. The Four Phases of Program Management

Program Planning
The National Energy Policy and the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative provide the planning foundation for
the DOE Hydrogen Program. The Program integrates the hydrogen planning in EERE, SC, FE, and NE. Each
year, these offices will collaborate to integrate each office’s fiscal year planning and budgeting into the DOE
Hydrogen Posture Plan, which will reflect the prior year’s appropriations and the budget requested of Congress
in the upcoming fiscal year. Individual office research plans supporting the Posture Plan will be provided to the
DOE Hydrogen Program Manager for concurrence to ensure consistency in planning.

Program Budgeting
The budget for DOE’s Hydrogen Program falls under the jurisdiction of two separate Congressional
appropriations subcommittees. The key activities by DOE office are shown in Table 6.2.2.

Budget Execution

Table 6.2.2. DOE Hydrogen Program Key Activities by Budget Appropriation

Energy and Water Development Interior and Related Agencies
• EERE • EERE
− Hydrogen Technology − Fuel Cell Technology
o Hydrogen Production and Delivery − Transportation Systems
o Hydrogen Storage − Distributed Generation Systems
o Hydrogen Infrastructure Validation** − Fuel Processing
o Safety, Codes and Standards − Stack Components
o Systems Analysis and Education − Technology Validation**
• Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology − Technical/Program Support
− Generation IV Nuclear Systems Initiative* • Office of Fossil Energy
− Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative − Fuels, Hydrogen from Coal
• Office of Science − Carbon Sequestration*
− Chemical Science, Geoscience, and Energy Science − Pipeline Infrastructure*
− Materials Science and Engineering

* The appropriations indicated by an asterisk support the President’s Hydrogen Initiative, but are not directly a part of it, and would be
funded even without it.
** Resources appropriated in Infrastructure Validation under the Hydrogen Technology subprogram and Technology Validation under
the Fuel Cell Technology subprogram are planned, executed and evaluated as one project.

page 6- 6 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Program Management and Operations

Analysis and Evaluation

Program budget performance is regularly evaluated by OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and
Technology Policy. The OMB evaluation includes both the OMB R&D Investment Criteria and the OMB
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) process. The criteria are used to guide Program budget planning,
management review, and performance goals and targets. Each year, the Program reports the current status
against pre-established Program goals. In addition, projects are evaluated through the Program’s Annual Merit
Review and Peer Evaluation, and through FreedomCar and Fuel Partnership Tech Team review.

6.3 Program Elements

Achieving the hydrogen economy will require successfully addressing technical RD&D challenges including
lowering the cost of hydrogen production, delivery, storage, conversion (e.g., fuel cells), and end-use
applications; establishing effective codes and equipment standards to address safety issues; and instituting
outreach and education campaigns to raise awareness, accelerate technology transfer, and increase public
understanding of hydrogen energy systems. To ensure the success of the hydrogen economy, DOE’s Hydrogen
Program has identified the Program elements that are shown in Figure 6.3.1. The complex interdependencies
of these elements and technology options need to be understood and their interfaces managed to achieve overall
Program objectives. Consequently, as research provides new insights and as markets and policies evolve, the
Program will continuously reexamine its understanding of hydrogen system developments and refine Program
elements accordingly (the role of the Systems Integration function). To provide this research feedback loop
effectively, it is essential that a continuum of basic and applied research, technology development, and learning
demonstrations constitute the Program’s portfolio.

Figure 6.3.1. DOE’s Hydrogen Program Elements

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 6- 7

 Program Management and Operations

6.4 Program Implementation

The implementation strategy for the DOE Hydrogen Program has three functions:
• Linking the RD&D and Education Efforts to Policies, Requirements, and the Process for Selecting
Options. The development of an implementation strategy ensures that activities and procedures are consistent
with the rationale and analysis underlying the Program.
• Organizing the Program. The implementation strategy includes an organizational structure, procedures,
budget and schedule for carrying out the Program, and ensures the clear assignment of responsibility and
accountability.
• Managing and Monitoring the Program. The implementation strategy includes monitoring the Program so
that technological, cost, and scheduling issues can be addressed when they arise.

To carry out these functions, the DOE Hydrogen Program implementation strategy consists of the following
components:
• Program Management Approach
• Organization Plan
• Acquisition Strategy
• Technical Management Strategy
• Safety, Quality Assurance, Environmental Compliance and Security Strategies
• Program Schedule, Cost and Staffing Plan

6.5 Decision Making

A systematic decision process based on sound analytics and technical evaluation standards will provide a credible
and transparent basis for key Program decisions. A modified Stage-Gate™1 process will be used to manage
investments in development projects. The Stage-Gate™ process (represented conceptually in Figure 6.5.1) is a
disciplined approach for evaluating projects at key points (gates). For the DOE Hydrogen Program, this decision
framework will account for evolving markets and government policies.

At the beginning of each stage is a gate, or a Go/No-Go decision point, that must be passed before work on
the next stage can begin. Reviews held at these key stages ensure that a project has met its objectives and that
the plan for proceeding will satisfy the criteria for the next gate. Reviewers may include individuals from the
government, national laboratories and the private sector.

Figure 6.5.1. Stage-Gate™ Decision Process

Basic Applied
Development Demonstration Deployment
Research Research

Reviews
Review considerations
• Feasibility studies • Economic/market potential and risks
• Strategic fit • Environment, health, safety benefits and risks
• Technical potential and risks • Plan to complete

1
Professor Robert Cooper of McMaster University, Ontario, Canada has written and consulted extensively on this process and has
trademarked the term.

page 6- 8 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Program Management and Operations

The general types of criteria used at each stage are shown in the figure, with the specific criteria becoming more
rigorous as the project advances toward commercialization. At each gate, decisions are made to either:

• Advance the project to the next stage

• Continue the current effort because not all goals have been met
• Place the project on hold because the need appears to have gone away, but could re-emerge
• Stop the project because it is unlikely to meet its goals or the need for the effort has permanently disappeared

Each of the gate reviews is conducted in the context of changing external conditions, with consideration of
new knowledge and insights that are gained within the Program, and with a focus on the impact of decisions on
overall Program outcomes.

6.6 Program Schedule

The schedules and milestones supporting the DOE Hydrogen Program are divided into a multi-tier hierarchical
structure consisting of the Program master schedule, Program summary schedules, project intermediate
schedules, and project detailed schedules. This structure, shown in Figure 6.6.1, provides the framework for
vertical and horizontal integration among organizations, participants, and technologies.

Figure 6.6.1. DOE Hydrogen Program Schedule Hierarchy

��� �� �������
����� � ��������������

��� �������
����� � ��������������

������� �������
����� � ��������������

����������
����� � ��������������

At this time, all of the schedules and milestones are based on available cost estimates and projected budget
appropriations. Because most of the first phase of the Program (through 2015) focuses on RD&D, it is not
currently known which technologies will be winners or losers, and therefore schedules and budgets will be
continually adjusting to accommodate the results of Program activities.

6.7 Program Control

To ensure that the DOE Hydrogen Program remains on schedule and within cost, a Program control system is
being instituted with the following objectives:

• Provide assurance that all work has been planned and considered in developing the Program cost and schedule
baselines
• Identify the necessary procedures and organizational measures required for effective, timely management of
the effort
• Ensure that these measures are implemented and that the resulting information accurately reflects the status of
the Program
• Establish a review and decision-making process that addresses Program dynamics

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page 6- 9

 Program Management and Operations

Under the Program control system, integrated cost, schedule, and supporting baselines are developed. The
performance of the DOE Hydrogen Program offices and supporting organizations (contractors, national
laboratories, etc.) in completing tasks is measured against these baselines and reported to their organizations, so
that action can be taken if baselines and actual performance diverge significantly.

Responsibilities for Program Control Implementation. The Chief Engineer is responsible for Program
control. The Systems Integrator—in support of the Chief Engineer—gathers, integrates, and analyzes
information on the scope, schedule, and budget of elements. Element plans and schedules are integrated into a
Program plan, work breakdown structure, and master schedule. Together these plans comprise the programmatic
baseline that is associated with a specific version of the technical baseline. The Systems Integrator analyzes
this information to ensure that all technical requirements are addressed and consistent, and to identify critical-
paths, milestones, and decision points. The Systems Integrator provides tools and information to support DOE in
monitoring performance against schedule and budget and in identifying risk.

Implementation of Program Control. Figure 6.7.1 provides an overview of the DOE Hydrogen Program’s
Program control process. The primary inputs to Program control include the integrated baseline (see Section 5),
budget guidance, and results of prior Program reviews.

Figure 6.7.1. Program Control Process

������ ������� ������� �������

� ������� ����������� � ���������� ���� �����
� ����� � ������ ������� ����������� ����
� �������� ��� �����
� ���� ��������� ���������
� ������ � �������� � ������ ��������
� ������ � ����������� ���������� � ����� ��������� ������� ����
� ������� �� ������� � �������� ������� �������� ������� ��� �������

��������
� ������� ���������� �����
� ���� ���������� ������
� ������ ������������������
� �������� ������������������
� ������������� ������ ��� ������ � ������� ���������� ������

page 6- 10 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix A

Appendix A – Budgetary Information

The schedule for completing the milestones and achieving the targets and R&D priorities outlined in this plan is
based on expected funding levels, the current stage of development of different technologies, and the perceived
difficulty in attaining the targets. Deviation from the expected funding levels may alter the schedule for
completion of the tasks and milestones. For example, if funding falls short of expected levels, the target dates
for completion of certain milestones may be extended to later dates. If additional funding is made available over
the expected amount, the rate of technology development could be accelerated in key research areas.

Funding Profile:
The funding profile for the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program is shown in Table A.1.
Consistent with the National Energy Policy, there has been a steady increase in funding from FY 2001 through
FY 2005. To reach its targets, the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program expects funding
to be provided at the level projected within internal DOE planning documents. If funding deviates from these
projections, priorities have been established to reallocate funds.

Table A.1. Fiscal Year Funding (2003-2005)1 (Millions of Dollars)

Major Activity FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005
Funding Request Funding Request Funding
Hydrogen Technology
Hydrogen Production & Delivery 6.4 23.0 10.3 25.3 14.4

Hydrogen Storage 10.8 30.0 14.0 30.0 23.8

Infrastructure Validation 3.0 13.2 5.9 15.0 9.6

Safety, Codes & Standards, Utilization 2.6 16.0 5.9 18.0 6.1

Education and Cross-cutting Analysis 1.9 5.8 3.9 7.0 3.42

Congressionally-directed Projects 13.4 -- 42.0 -- 37.3

Subtotal, Hydrogen Technology 38.13 88.0 82.03 95.3 94.63

Fuel Cell Technology

Transportation Systems 6.1 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.5

Distributed Energy Systems 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.5 6.9

Fuel Processing 23.5 19.0 14.8 13.9 9.7

Stack Components 14.8 28.0 25.2 30.0 32.5

Technology Validation 1.8 15.0 9.9 18.0 17.8

Technical and Program Support 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

Subtotal, Fuel Cell Technology 53.9 77.5 65.2 77.5 74.9

TOTAL, Hydrogen and Fuel Cells 92.03 165.5 147.23 172.8 169.53
1
Funding for EERE only. Does not reflect other participants in the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (FE, NE, SC, DOT).
2
Funding for Education activities was not appropriated in FY 2005.
3
The amount appropriated by Congress; distribution among key activities (production, storage, etc.) is determined by DOE based on Program priorities.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page A- 1

 Appendix A

page A- 2 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Appendix B – Milestones
Table B.1. Hydrogen Production
Task Milestone Description Date (FY)

1 1 Down-select research for distributed natural gas-to-hydrogen production. 3Q, 2006

Select advanced shift catalysts that are more efficient and impurity
1 2 tolerant.
4Q, 2007

Verify feasibility of achieving $1.50/gge (delivered) from distributed natural

1 3 gas.
4Q, 2010

Verify feasibility of achieving $3.60/gge for renewable liquids distributed

2 4 reforming.
4Q, 2010

Down-select research for distributed production from bio-derived

2 5 renewable liquid fuels.
4Q, 2012

Go/No-Go: Decision on continued high-temperature steam electrolysis

3 6 R&D based on a complete technoeconomic analysis and laboratory-scale 2Q, 2007
research results.

3 7 Verify feasibility of achieving $2.85/gge (delivered) from electrolysis. 4Q, 2010

Go/No-Go: Determine if membrane separation technology can be applied

4 8 to natural gas distributed reforming during the transition to a hydrogen economy.
4Q, 2008

Down-select separation technology for development in distributed natural

4 9 gas reforming.
4Q, 2008

Demonstrate pilot-scale use of integrated separation (membrane) reactor

4 10 system for natural gas.
4Q, 2009

Down-select separation technology for distributed bio-derived renewable

4 11 liquid feedstocks reforming.
4Q, 2010

Demonstrate pilot-scale use of integrated separation (membrane) reactor

4 12 system for renewable feedstocks.
1Q, 2012

Down-select to a primary technology and configuration for biomass

5 13 gasification/pyrolysis clean–up, reforming, shift, separation and purification.
4Q, 2008

Verify a projected cost for biomass gasification/pyrolysis of $1.75/gge at plant

5 14 gate.
4Q, 2010

Down-select to 1-2 primary novel technologies for biomass gasification/pyrolysis

5 15 clean up, reforming, shift, separation and purification.
4Q, 2010

Identify or generate an Fe-hydrogenase with a half-life of 5 min in air for photolytic

6 16 hydrogen production.
4Q, 2008

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 1

 Appendix B

Produce one cyanobacterial recombinant evolving H2 through an O2-tolerant

6 17 NiFe-hydrogenase.
4Q, 2008

Increase the duration of H2 production by immobilized, sulfur-deprived algal

6 18 cultures to 40 days.
4Q, 2008

Complete research to develop a photosynthetically efficient green alga/

6 19 cyanobacterial system in which the P/R ratio is < 2.
4Q, 2009

For photolytic hydrogen production, achieve 15% primary utilization efficiency of

incident solar light energy (E0*E1), 2% efficiency of incident light energy to
6 20 H2 from water (E0*E1*E2), and 30 min (O2 tolerant system) duration of continuous
4Q, 2010

photoproduction.

Identify or generate an Fe-hydrogenase with a half life of 30 min in air for photolytic
6 21 hydrogen production.
4Q, 2012

Go/No-Go: Identify cost-effective (based on analysis) transparent H2 -

7 22 impermeable material for use in photobiological H2-production system.
4Q, 2010

Complete research to generate photosynthetic bacteria that have 50% smaller

8 23 (compared to wild-type) Bchl antenna size and display increased sunlight 4Q, 2009
conversion efficiency.

Complete research to engineer photosynthetic bacteria with a 30% expression

8 24 level of a functional nitrogenase/hydrogenase at elevated nitrogen-carbon ratios 4Q, 2009
(expression level is defined relative to that detected at low N:C ratios).

Complete research to inactivate competitive uptake of H2 by

8,9,10 25 hydrogenase.
4Q, 2009

For photosynthetic bacterial hydrogen production, achieve 3% efficiency of

incident solar light energy to H2 (E0*E1*E2) from organic acids, and 50% of
8 26 maximum molar yield of carbon conversion to H2 (depends on nature of organic
4Q, 2010

substrate).

For dark fermentative hydrogen production, achieve 4 molar yield of H2

10 27 production from glucose.
4Q, 2010

Complete research to determine the efficacy of green algae/ cyanobacteria and

9 28 photosynthetic bacteria to metabolize carbon substrates (C<4) and produce H2 4Q, 2009
in co-cultivation.

13,14,15 29 Update technoeconomic analysis on the projected technology. 3Q, 2006

Complete structure and initial data population of a photoelectrochemical

13 30 materials database.
4Q, 2006

Establish standard cell and testing protocols for PEC materials for validation
13 31 efficiencies.
4Q, 2006

Install testing laboratory for the standard cell and testing protocol for PEC
13 32 materials.
4Q, 2007

13,14,15 33 Update technoeconomic analysis on the projected technology. 4Q, 2010

page B- 2 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Identify materials/systems with a 2.3 eV useable semiconductor bandgap,

13,14,15 34 8% plant solar-to-hydrogen efficiency, and projected durability of 1,000 hours.
4Q, 2010

Build a consensus, lab-scale PEC panel based on best available 2010 technology to
13,14,15 35 validate technoeconomic analysis.
4Q, 2012

Go/No-Go: Identify cost-effective (based on analysis) transparent

15 36 hydrogen-impermeable material for use in photoelectrochemical hydrogen 4Q, 2010
production system.

Down-select to 2-4 promising high temperature solar driven thermochemical 4Q, 2007
16 37 cylcles for R&D based on analysis and initial laboratory work of potential cycles.

Go/No-Go: Verify the feasibility of an effective integrated high-temperature 4Q, 2010

16 38 solar-driven thermochemical cycle for hydrogen projected to meet the 2010
cost goal of $6/gge.

Verify the successful continuous operation of a promising integrated high 4Q, 2012
16 39 temperature solar-driven thermochemical cycle at a scale of >10 kg/hr. of
hydrogen production.

Down-select to 1-2 promising high-temperature solar-driven thermochemical 4Q, 2012

16 40 cycles for development..

Milestones Beyond 2012

Complete research to develop a photosynthetically efficient green alga/
6 cyanobacterial system in which the P/R ratio is ~ 1.
4Q, 2014

6 Demonstrate H2 production in air in a cyanobacterial recombinant. 4Q, 2015

Go/No-Go: For photolytic hydrogen production, achieve 20% primary utilization

efficiency of incident solar light energy (E0*E1), 5% efficiency of incident light
energy to H2 from water (E0*E1*E2), 4 h (O2 tolerant) duration of continuous
photoproduction, and 2 h O2 tolerance (half≠ life in air) at a projected hydrogen
6,7,12 production cost of less than $4/kg, with projected research improvements that
4Q, 2015

will achieve costs that are competitive with traditional fuels for transportation
applications and with other non-biological technologies for central hydrogen
production.

Complete research to generate photosynthetic bacteria that have 70% smaller

8 (compared to wild-type) Bchl antenna size and display increased sunlight 4Q, 2014
conversion efficiency.

Complete research to engineer photosynthetic bacteria with a 60% expression

8 level of a functional nitrogenase/hydrogenase at elevated nitrogen-carbon ratios 4Q, 2014
(expression level is defined relative to that at low N:C ratios).

Complete research to inactivate the photosynthetic bacterial metabolic pathway

8 leading to polymer accumulation that competes with H2 production.
4Q, 2014

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 3

 Appendix B

Go/No-Go: For photosynthetic bacterial hydrogen production, achieve

4.5% efficiency of incident solar light energy to H2 (E0*E1*E2) from organic
acids, and 65% of maximum molar yield of carbon conversion to H2 (depends on
8,9,12 nature of organic substrate) at a projected hydrogen production cost of less 4Q, 2015
than $4/kg, with projected research improvements that will achieve costs that are
competitive with traditional fuels for transportation applications and with other non-
biological technologies for central hydrogen production.

Go/No-Go: For dark fermentative hydrogen production, achieve 6 molar

yield of H2 production from glucose at a projected hydrogen production cost
10,11,12 of less than $4/kg, with projected research improvements that will achieve 4Q, 2015
costs that are competitive with traditional fuels for transportation applications
and with other non-biological technologies for central hydrogen production.

Complete research to regulate growth/competition between different organisms

12 in co-cultivation (e.g., to maintain optimal Chl/Bchl ratios). 4Q, 2014

Complete research to identify cell-growth inhibitors and eliminate transfer of such

12 compounds from bacterial fermentors to photoreactors. 4Q, 2014

Go/No-Go: Identify materials/systems with 12% chemical conversion

13,14,15 process efficiency, 10% plant solar-to-hydrogen efficiency, projected durability of 4Q, 2015
5,000 hours and cost of hydrogen of $50/gge.

Outputs
Output to Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Hydrogen production
technology for distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost of
1 P1 $3.00/gge hydrogen at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 4Q, 2005
100s of units of production per year.

Output to Delivery, Storage and Fuel Cells: Assessment of fuel contaminant

1,2,3,4,5 P2 composition. 4Q, 2006

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Impact of hydrogen purity

1,2,3 P3 on cost and performance. 3Q, 2007

Output to Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Hydrogen production tech-

nology for distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost of $2.50/
1 P4 gge hydrogen at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of 4Q, 2007
units of production per year.
Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Impact of hydrogen
1,2,3 P5 purity on cost and performance. 4Q, 2009

page B- 4 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Output to Delivery, Storage and Fuel Cells: Assessment of fuel

2,3,4,5 P6 contaminant composition.
4Q, 2009

Output to Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Hydrogen production

technologies for distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost
1 P7 of $1.50/gge hydrogen at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming
4Q, 2010

100s of units of production per year.

Output to Technology Validation: Down-select of high-temperature

3 P8 electrolysis technology based on research results.
2Q, 2007

Output to Technology Validation: Electrolysis system making hydrogen for

3 P9 $2.85/gge delivered.
4Q, 2010

Output to Technology Validation: Hydrogen production system making

5 P10 hydrogen for $1.90/gge from biomass at the plant gate.
4Q, 2005

Inputs

Input from Codes and Standards: Preliminary assessment of Safety,

1,2,3 C3 Codes and Standards requirements for the hydrogen delivery 2Q, 2005
infrastructure.

1,2,3 Sf3 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling. 2Q, 2005

Input from Codes and Standards: Hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO
1,2,3 C5 Technical Specification.
3Q, 2006

Input from Systems Analysis: Complete technoeconomic analysis on production

1,2,3,5 A1 and delivery technologies currently being researched to meet overall program 4Q, 2006
hydrogen fuel objective.

Input from Fuel Cells: Research results of advanced reformer

1,2 F2 development.
4Q, 2007

Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three
1,2,3 V9 refueling stations.
4Q, 2007

Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at

1,2,3,5 A2 each point in the system.
4Q, 2008

Input from Codes and Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as
1,2,3,5 C12 ISO Standard.
2Q, 2010

1,2,3 Sf5 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling. 2Q, 2010

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 5

 Appendix B

Table B.2. Hydrogen Delivery

Milestones

Task Milestone Description Date (FY)

Characterize the current cost and energy efficiency of the components

1 1 and complete pathways for gaseous and liquid hydrogen delivery and the 4Q, 2005
cost boundaries of potential novel solid and liquid carrier systems.

Identify cost-effective options for hydrogen delivery infrastructure to

1 2 support the introduction and long-term use of hydrogen for transportation 4Q, 2006
and stationary power.

Down select to 2-3 most promising compression technologies for

2 3 hydrogen transmission, refueling, and other needs in delivery.
4Q, 2008

Verify 2010 targeted costs and performance for hydrogen

2 4 compression (transmission and forecourt).
4Q, 2010

Verify achieving a refueling station cost contribution for compression,

2,5,6 5 storage and dispensing of $0.80/gge of hydrogen.
4Q, 2010

3 6 Down-select to most promising 1-2 liquefaction technologies. 4Q, 2008

3 7 Verify 2010 targeted cost and performance for hydrogen liquefaction. 4Q, 2010

Research identifies fundamental mechanism of hydrogen embrittlement and

4 8 permeation in steel pipelines and identifies promising cost effective measures 4Q, 2007
to mitigate these issues.

Down-select on materials and/or coatings for pipelines including the

4 9 potential use of natural gas pipelines for mixtures of natural gas and 4Q, 2008
hydrogen, or hydrogen alone.

4 10 Verify 2010 targeted cost and performance for hydrogen pipelines. 4Q, 2010

Go/No-Go: Initial down-select for potential solid or liquid carrier systems for
5 11 hydrogen delivery based on cost boundary analysis and initial research 4Q, 2007
efforts.

Go/No-Go: Verify the feasibility of a hydrogen carrier system to meet the

5 12 2010 carrier targets.
4Q, 2010

Complete baseline analyses of off-board storage options at refueling

6 13 stations and throughout the delivery infrastructure.
4Q, 2006

Complete the research to establish the feasibility and define the cost for
6 14 geologic hydrogen storage.
4Q, 2010

6 15 Down-select to the most promising 1-2 technologies for off-board storage. 4Q, 2010

Verify the feasibility of achieving the 2010 refueling station storage

6 16 cost targets.
4Q, 2010

page B- 6 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Outputs
Output to Storage, Systems Analysis and Systems Integration:
1 D1 Assessment of cost and performance requirements for off-board 4Q, 2006
storage systems.
Output to Storage and Fuel Cells: Hydrogen contaminant
1,2,3,4,5,6 D2 composition and issues.
4Q, 2006

Output to Technology Validation, Systems Analysis and Systems

1 D3 Integration: Hydrogen delivery infrastructure analysis results.
4Q, 2006

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Assessment of

2,3,4,5,6 D4 impact of hydrogen purity requirements on cost and performance of 3Q, 2007
hydrogen delivery.

Output to Technology Validation: Compression technology recommended for

2 D5 validation.
2Q, 2009

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Update of

2,3,4,5,6 D6 hydrogen purity/impurity requirements.
4Q, 2009

Output to Technology Validation: Recommended liquefaction technology for

3 D7 potential validation.
2Q, 2009

Output to Technology Validation: Recommended pipeline technology

4 D8 for validation.
2Q, 2009

Output to Storage and Technology Validation: Recommended off-

6 D9 board storage technology for validation.
2Q, 2009

Inputs

Input from Codes and Standards: Preliminary assessment of Safety,

1,2,3,4,5,6 C3 Codes and Standards for the hydrogen delivery infrastructure.
2Q. 2005

1,2,5,6 Sf3 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling. 2Q, 2005

Input from Codes and Standards: Completed hydrogen fuel quality standard
1,2,3,4,5,6 C5 as ISO Technical Specification.
3Q, 2006

Input from Codes and Standards: Technical assessment of standards

1,3,5,6 C6 requirements for metallic and composite bulk storage tanks.
3Q, 2006

Input from Codes and Standards: Draft standards (balloting) for refueling
1,2,5,6 C8 stations (NFPA).
4Q, 2006

Input from Systems Analysis: Selected production and delivery technologies

2,3,4,5,6 A1 identified to meet the program targets.
4Q, 2006

Input from Codes and Standards: Final standards (balloting) for fuel
2,5,6 C7 dispensing systems (CSA America).
4Q, 2006

Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three
2,3,4,5,6 V9 refueling stations.
4Q, 2007

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 7

 Appendix B

Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at

2,3,4,5,6 A2 each point in the system.
4Q, 2008

Input from Codes and Standards: Codes and Standards for the delivery
2,3,4,5,6 C11 infrastructure complete.
2Q, 2010

Input from Codes and Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO
2,3,4,5,6 C12 Standard.
2Q, 2010

2,5,6 Sf5 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling. 2Q, 2010

4,5 P2 Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition. 4Q, 2006

Input from Codes and Standards: Materials compatibility technical

4,6 C9 reference
2Q, 2008

4,5 P6 Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition. 4Q, 2009

Input from Storage: Full-cycle integrated chemical hydrogen system

5,6 St4 meeting 2010 targets.
4Q, 2010

Input from Hydrogen Storage: Baseline hydrogen on-board storage

6 St5 system analysis results including hydrogen quality and refueling interface 1Q, 2007
needs.

Input from Hydrogen Storage: Final on-board hydrogen storage system

analysis results of cost and performance (including pressure,
6 St6 temperature, etc.) and down-select to a primary on-board storage system
1Q, 2010

candidate.

Table B.3. Hydrogen Storage

Milestones
Task Milestone Description Date (FY)

1 1 Complete feasibility study of hybrid tank concepts. 4Q, 2005

Go/No-Go: Decision on compressed and cryogenic tank technologies for on-

1 2 board vehicular applications.
4Q, 2006

3 3 Complete construction of materials test facility. 4Q, 2004

3 4 Complete verification of test facility. 2Q, 2005

3 5 Reproducibly demonstrate 4wt% material capacity on carbon nanotubes. 4Q, 2005

3 6 Complete prototype complex hydride integrated system meeting 2005 targets. 2Q, 2006

3 7 Go/No-Go: Decision point on carbon nanotubes. 4Q, 2006

page B- 8 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

4 8 Down-select on-board reversible metal hydride materials. 4Q, 2007

4 9 Go/No-Go: Decision point on advanced carbon-based materials. 4Q, 2009

5 10 Complete prototype complex hydride integrated system meeting 2010 targets. 4Q, 2010

5 11 Go/No-Go: Decision on continuation of on-board reversible metal hydride R&D. 4Q, 2010

6 12 Complete preliminary estimates of efficiency for off-board regeneration. 1Q, 2006

7 13 Down-select from chemical hydrogen regeneration processes. 4Q, 2007

7 14 Demonstrate efficient chemical hydrogen regeneration laboratory process. 4Q, 2008

7 15 Complete chemical hydrogen storage life-cycle analyses. 1Q, 2009

7 16 Down-select from chemical hydrogen storage approaches for 2010 targets. 2Q, 2009

7 17 Complete prototype chemical hydrogen storage integrated system. 4Q, 2009

8 18 Demonstrate scaled-up chemical hydrogen regeneration process. 4Q, 2010

Identify advanced chemical hydrogen regeneration laboratory process

8 19 with potential to meet 2015 targets.
4Q, 2010

8 20 Go/No-Go: Decision point on chemical storage R&D for 2015 targets. 4Q, 2010

10 21 Down-select from new material concepts to meet 2010 targets. 4Q, 2007

Down-select the most promising new material concepts for continued

11 22 Development.
4Q, 2010

12 23 Complete baseline analyses of on-board storage options for 2010 targets. 4Q, 2006

12 24 Update on-board storage targets. 4Q, 2007

Complete analyses of on-board storage options for 2010 and 2015

12 25 targets.
4Q, 2009

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 9

 Appendix B

Outputs

Output to Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Compressed and cryogenic

1 St1 liquid storage tanks achieving 1.5 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L.
3Q, 2006

Output to Fuel Cells and Technology Validation: Advanced compressed/

2 St2 cryogenic tank technologies.
4Q, 2009

Output to Technology Validation and Fuel Cells: Complex hydride

3 St3 integrated system achieving 1.5 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L.
3Q, 2006

Output to Delivery, Technology Validation and Fuel Cells: Full-cycle, integrated

8 St4 chemical hydrogen system meeting 2010 targets.
4Q, 2010

Output to Delivery, Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Baseline

12 St5 hydrogen on-board storage system analysis results including hydrogen 1Q, 2007
quality needs and interface issues.

Output to Delivery, Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Final on-board

hydrogen storage system analysis results of cost and performance (including
12 St6 pressure, temp, etc.) and down-select to a primary on-board storage system
1Q, 2010

candidate.

Inputs
12 Sf3 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling. 2Q, 2005
Input from Codes and Standards: Standards for compressed gaseous
12 C4 on-board storage. 4Q, 2005

12 Sf4 Input from Safety: Safety requirements for on-board storage. 4Q, 2005
Input from Codes and Standards: Hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO
12 C5 Technical Specification.
3Q, 2006

Input from Codes and Standards: Technical assessment of standards

12 C6 requirements for metallic and composite bulk storage tanks. 3Q, 2006

12 P2 Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition. 4Q, 2006

Input from Delivery: Assessment of cost and performance requirements
12 D1 for off-board storage systems. 4Q, 2006

12 D2 Input from Delivery: Hydrogen contaminant composition and issues. 4Q, 2006
Input from Codes and Standards: Final standards (balloting) for fuel
12 C7 dispensing systems (CSA America). 4Q, 2006

Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three
12 V9 refueling stations. 4Q, 2007

Input from Codes and Standards: Materials compatibility technical

12 C9 Reference.
2Q, 2008

Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at each

12 A2 point in the system.
4Q, 2008

page B- 10 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

12 D9 Input from Delivery: Off-board storage technology. 2Q, 2009

12 P6 Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant composition. 4Q, 2009

Input from Codes and Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO
12 C12 standard.
2Q, 2010

12 Sf5 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling. 2Q, 2010

.4. Fuel Cells

Table B.4. Fuel Cells

Milestones

Task Milestone Description Date (FY)

1 1 Complete development and testing of low-cost, high-sensitivity sensors. 1Q, 2006

Go/No-Go: The status of sensors and controls technologies will be assessed

and compared with the established technical and cost targets. Based on the
1 2 assessment and the degree of success, the technologies will be released for use,
1Q, 2006

more development will be indicated, or effort will be terminated.

Develop laboratory-scale physical and chemical sensors with improved response

2 3 time and lower cost.
4Q, 2008

2 4 Develop physical and chemical sensors meeting 2010 targets. 4Q, 2010

3 5 Deliver model of FCV system. 4Q, 2003

Complete modeling of the availability and economics of platinum group

3 6 metals.
1Q, 2004

Complete initial evaluation of 25-50-kW advanced integration,

3 7 atmospheric gasoline reformed system.
1Q, 2005

3 8 Quantify fuel cell power system emissions. 2Q, 2005

3 9 Evaluate progress towards meeting FY2005 fuel cell cost target. 3Q, 2005

Complete analysis of overall and specific component costs for transportation fuel
3 10 cell systems.
4Q, 2005

3 11 Evaluate progress towards meeting FY2010 fuel cell cost target. 3Q, 2006

3 12 Evaluate progress towards meeting FY2010 fuel cell cost target. 3Q, 2007

3 13 Evaluate progress towards meeting FY2010 fuel cell cost target. 3Q, 2008

3 14 Evaluate progress towards meeting FY2010 fuel cell cost target. 3Q, 2009

Complete development of heat rejection technologies (compact humidifiers,

4 15 heat exchangers, and radiators).
1Q, 2006

Complete development and testing of low-cost, high-efficiency, lubrication-

4 16 free compressors, expanders, blowers, motors, and motor controllers.
4Q, 2006

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 11

 Appendix B

Go/No-Go: The status of air management and thermal management

technologies will be assessed and compared to the established technical and
4 17 cost targets. Based on the assessment and the degree of success, the 3Q, 2007
technologies will be released for use, more development will be indicated, or
effort will be terminated.

Complete development of compressor, expander motor, blower and

5 18 motor controller meeting 2010 targets.
3Q, 2010

6 19 Identify main routes of DMFC performance degradation. 4Q, 2003

Go/No-Go: Decision to discontinue DMFC R&D for transportation

6 20 applications.
4Q, 2003

6 21 Down-select design scenarios for vehicular fuel cell APUs for further study. 4Q, 2003

7 22 Complete evaluation of fuel cell system designs for APUs. 1Q, 2006

7 23 Complete design of filtration unit for off-road applications. 1Q, 2007

Evaluate 3-10 kW APU system towards meeting 80 W/kg and 80 W/L

7 24 targets.
1Q, 2008

Evaluate 20-50 W portable power fuel cell system towards meeting

7 25 2006 targets.
2Q, 2008

7 26 Portable power fuel cell technology available for industry evaluation. 3Q, 2008

Go/No-Go: Decision on whether to continue auxiliary power, portable

7 27 power and off-road R&D based on the progress towards meeting 2010
4Q, 2008

8 28 Complete testing on 50 kW stationary beta module system. 2Q, 2006

8 29 Complete economic analysis report. 4Q, 2006

8 30 Demonstrate prototype back up power system. 1Q, 2007

8 31 Complete 15,000 hour, stationary fuel cell system test. 3Q, 2007

Demonstrate the effective utilization of fuel cell thermal energy for heating to
9 32 meet combined heat and power (CHP) efficiency targets.
1Q, 2008

Go/No-Go: Decision on whether to continue stationary fuel cell system

9 33 based on progress towards meeting durability, cost and electrical efficiency 4Q, 2010
simultaneously.

Demonstrate performance (600 mV at 400 mA/cm2) of an ultra-thin

10 34 membrane (< 75 µm) in an MEA under atmospheric conditions at 3Q, 2003
120°C in a 30-cm2 cell.

10 35 Complete full-scale MEA evaluation in short stack. 4Q, 2006

Demonstrate fuel-flexible fuel processor meeting year 2005 targets

11 36 for efficiency, power density and specific power. Measure start-up 2Q, 2003
capability.

page B- 12 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Verify quick-start concept in brass-board prototype system

11 37 demonstrating capability to meet 2010 startup technical target..
4Q, 2003

11 38 Verify small scale, microchannel reformer. 4Q, 2003

11 39 Fabricate prototype ion transport membrane module. 1Q, 2004

11 40 Go/No-Go: Decision to discontinue fuel processing R&D. 3Q, 2004

Verify fuel processing subsystem performance for distributed

12 41 generation towards meeting 2010 targets.
1Q, 2007

Absorption-enhanced natural gas reformer start-up/shut down cycle,

12 42 transient and durability testing.
2Q, 2007

Develop base metal shift catalysts that enhance conversion to

12 43 hydrogen and reduce conversion to methane (<1% methane).
2Q, 2008

12 44 Develop tolerance of reforming catalysts to fuel containing 1 ppm sulfur. 4Q, 2010

13 45 Evaluate 120°C membrane in MEA/single cell. 1Q, 2005

13 46 Evaluate 120°C MEA in <10 kW stack. 1Q, 2006

Demonstrate MEA in single cell meeting 2005 platinum loading and

13 47 performance targets.
2Q, 2006

13 48 Evaluate first generation 150°C membrane in MEA/single cell. 1Q, 2007

Evaluate reproducibility (physical and performance) of full-size bipolar

14 49 plates in high-rate manufacturing processes.
1Q, 2004

Evaluate reproducibility (physical and performance) of MEAs in high-

14 50 rate manufacturing processes.
1Q, 2005

15 51 Initiate 2,000-hour test with advanced membrane & standard GDL. 4Q, 2005

15 52 Develop 120°C membrane for operation at < 25% RH. 1Q, 2007

Complete 2,000 hour durability test of advanced MEA for stationary

15 53 fuel cell application.
3Q, 2007

Go/No-Go: Evaluate precious metal reclamation processes to

15 54 determine whether to scale-up or terminate.
4Q, 2007

15 55 Develop technology for platinum group metal recycling. 4Q, 2008

Evaluate a MEA running on re-manufactured catalyst coated

15 56 membranes.
4Q, 2008

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 13

 Appendix B

Develop a method for cleaning sulfur-poisoned platinum catalyst layers in

17 57 stacks, with minimum interruption of fuel cell operation.
1Q, 2007

Develop a method for cleaning sulfur- and nitrogen-oxide poisoned platinum

17 58 catalyst layers in stacks, with minimum interruption of fuel cell operation.
1Q, 2010

Outputs
Output to Systems Analysis and System Integration: Develop a critical
3 F1 analysis of well-to-wheels studies of fuel cell system performance, efficiency, 2Q, 2003
greenhouse gas emissions, and cost.

Output to Production: Research results of advanced reformer

12 F2 development.
4Q, 2007

Output to Technology Validation: Laboratory PEM technology with

15 F3 2,000 hours durability.
4Q, 2006

Output to Technology Validation: Complete 4,000 hour testing of advanced

15 F4 MEA for stationary and transportation applications.
4Q, 2007

Output to Technology Validation: Laboratory PEM technology with

15 F5 5,000 hours durability.
2Q, 2010

Output to Technology Validation: Verify cold-start in 60 s of short

16 F6 stack.
1Q, 2008

Output to Technology Validation: Technology short stack survivability

16 F7 at-40°C.
1Q, 2010

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Develop preliminary

17 F8 hydrogen purity/impurity requirements.
2Q, 2005

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Updated hydrogen purity/

17 F9 impurity requirements.
3Q, 2007

Inputs
Input from Technology Validation: Validate maximum fuel cell system
3 V1 efficiency.
4Q, 2005

Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of

3 V9 three refueling stations.
4Q, 2007

Input from Storage: Compressed and cryogenic liquid storage tanks achieving
4 St1 1.5 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L.
3Q, 2006

Input from Storage: Complex hydride integrated system achieving 1.5 kWh/kg
4 St3 and 1.2 kW/L.
3Q, 2006

4 St2 Input from Storage: Advanced compressed/cryogenic tank technologies. 4Q, 2009

Input from Storage: Full-cycle, integrated chemical hydride system meeting

4 St4 2010 targets.
4Q, 2010

Input from Codes and Standards: Final draft standard (balloting) for
7 C10 portable fuel cells (UL).
4Q, 2008

Input from Production: Hydrogen production technology for distributed

systems using natural gas with projected cost of $3.00/gge hydrogen at
12 P1 the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration, assuming 100s of units of
4Q, 2005
production per year.

page B- 14 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Input from Production: Hydrogen production technologies for

distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost of $2.50/
12 P4 gge hydrogen at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration
4Q, 2007

assuming 100s of units of production per year.

Input from Production: Hydrogen production technologies for

distributed systems using natural gas with projected cost of
12 P7 $1.50/gge hydrogen at the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration
4Q, 2010

assuming 100s of units of production per year.

Input from Technology Validation: Validate cold start-up capability

16 V6 (in a vehicle with an 8-hour soak) meeting 2005 requirements 3Q, 2011
(specific cold-start energy).

Input from Codes and Standards: Completed hydrogen fuel quality

17 C5 standard as ISO Technical Specification.
3Q, 2006

Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant

17 P2 composition.
4Q, 2006

17 D2 Input from Delivery: Hydrogen contaminant composition and issues. 4Q, 2006

Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality

17 A2 at each point in the system.
4Q, 2008

Input from Production: Assessment of fuel contaminant

17 P6 composition.
4Q, 2009

Input from Codes and Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality

17 C12 standard as ISO Standard.
2Q, 2010

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 15

 Appendix B

Table B.5. Technology Validation

Milestones
Task Milestone Description Date (FY)
Make awards to start fuel cell vehicle/infrastructure demonstration activity and for
1,2 1 hydrogen co-production infrastructure facilities.
4Q, 2004

Demonstrate FCVs that achieve 50% higher fuel economy than gasoline
1 2 vehicles.
3Q, 2005

Demonstrate (on a vehicle) compressed and cryogenic storage tanks

1 3 achieving the 2005 energy and mass density targets.
4Q, 2006

Go/No-Go: Decision for purchase of additional vehicles based on projected

1 4 vehicle performance and durability, and hydrogen cost criteria
4Q, 2006

Validate fuel cell demonstration vehicle range of ~ 200 miles and durability of ~
1 5 1,000 hours.
4Q, 2006

1 6 Validate vehicle refueling time of 5 minutes or less. 4Q, 2006

Test results from student-designed hybrid fuel cell and internal combustion
1 7 engine vehicles.
3Q, 2007

1 8 Validate (on a vehicle) 2.0 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L compressed gas tank. 1Q, 2008

Validate FCVs with 250-mile range, 2,000-hour fuel cell durability, and a hydrogen
1,2 9 cost of $3/gge (based on volume production).
3Q, 2009

1 10 Validate refueling time and durability for reversible complex hydride storage. 4Q, 2010

2.3 11 Validate cost of producing hydrogen in quantity of $3.00/gge untaxed. 1Q, 2006

Five stations and two maintenance facilities constructed with advanced sensor
2 12 systems and operating procedures.
4Q, 2006

Total of eight stations and four maintenance facilities constructed with

2 13 advanced sensor systems and operating procedures.
1Q, 2008

2,3 14 Validate $2.50/gge hydrogen cost. 4Q, 2008

Validate co-production system using 50 kW PEM fuel cell; hydrogen produced at

4 15 $3.60/gge and electricity at 8 cents/kWhr.
4Q, 2005

Demonstrate prototype energy station for 6 months; projected durability

4 16 >40,000 hours; electrical energy efficiency >40%; availability >0.80.
1Q, 2008

Validate prototype energy station for 12 months; projected durability

4 17 >40,000 hours; electrical energy efficiency >40%; availability >0.85.
4Q, 2008

5 18 Demonstrate pyrolysis system for waste biomass. 1Q, 2005

Complete Power Park demonstrations and make recommendations for business

5 19 case economics.
2Q, 2007

Validate $2.85/gge hydrogen cost from biomass/wind (untaxed and

5 20 unpressurized) at the plant gate.
4Q, 2011

page B- 16 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Milestones Beyond 2012

1 Validate short-stack survivability at -40°C. 1Q, 2013

1 Validate chemical storage on vehicle at 1.5 kWh/L and 2.0 kWh/kg. 4Q, 2013

Outputs

1 V1 Output to Fuel Cells: Validate maximum fuel cell system efficiency. 4Q, 2005

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Final report for first
1 V2 generation vehicles, interim progress report for second generation vehicles on 3Q, 2007
performance, safety, and O&M.

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Technology Status

1,2 V3 Report and re-focused R&D recommendations.
4Q, 2007

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Final report for second
1 V4 generation vehicles on performance, safety, and O&M.
3Q, 2010

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Technology Status

1,2 V5 Report and re-focused R&D recommendations.
4Q, 2010

Output to Fuel Cells: Validate cold start-up capability (in a vehicle with
1 V6 an 8-hour soak) meeting 2005 requirements (specify cold-start energy).
3Q, 2011

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Final Report on

2 V7 infrastructure and hydrogen quality for first generation vehicles.
3Q, 2007

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Final Report on

2 V8 infrastructure, including impact of hydrogen quality for second generation 3Q, 2010
vehicles.

3 V9 Output to Program: Final report on safety and O&M of three refueling stations. 4Q, 2007

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Hydrogen refueling

6 V10 station analysis - proposed interstate refueling station locations.
2Q, 2005

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Composite results of

6 V11 analyses & modeling from vehicle and infrastructure data collected under the 4Q, 2007
Learning Demonstration Project.

Output to Systems Analysis and Systems Integration: Final composite results

6 V12 of analyses & modeling from vehicle and infrastructure data collected under the 4Q, 2010
Learning Demonstration Project.

Inputs

1,2 Sf3 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling. 2Q, 2005

1 Sf4 Input from Safety: Safety requirements for on-board storage. 4Q, 2005

Input from Storage: Compressed and cryogenic storage tanks achieving 1.5
1 St1 kWh/kg and 1.2 kWh/L.
3Q, 2006

Input from Storage: Complex hydride integrated system achieving 1.5 kWh/kg
1,2 St3 and 1.2 kWh/L.
3Q, 2006

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 17

 Appendix B

Input from Codes and Standards: Completed hydrogen fuel quality standard as
1,2 C5 ISO Technical Specification.
3Q, 2006

Input from Codes and Standards: Technical assessment of standards

1,2 C6 requirements for metallic and composite bulk storage.
3Q, 2006

1 F3 Input from Fuel Cells: Laboratory PEM technology with 2,000 hours durability. 4Q, 2006

Input from Codes and Standards: Final standards (balloting) for fuel dispensing
1,2,3 C7 systems (NFPA).
4Q, 2006

Input from Fuel Cells: Complete 4,000 hour testing of advanced MEA for stationary
1 F4 and transportation applications.
4Q, 2007

1,2 Sf6 Input from Safety: Sensor meeting technical targets. 4Q, 2007

1,2 Sf7 Input from Safety: Final peer reviewed Best Practices Handbook. 4Q, 2007

1 F6 Input from Fuel Cells: Verify cold start in 60 s of short stack. 1Q, 2008

Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at

1,2 A2 each point in the system.
4Q, 2008

1 St2 Input from Storage: Advanced compressed/cryogenic tank technologies. 4Q, 2009

1 F7 Input from Fuel Cells: Technology with short-stack survivability at -40°C. 1Q, 2010

1 F5 Input from Fuel Cells: Laboratory PEM technology with 5,000 hours durability. 2Q, 2010

Input from Codes and Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO
1,2 C12 Standard.
2Q, 2010

1,2 Sf5 Input from Safety: Safety requirements and protocols for refueling. 2Q, 2010

Input from Storage: Full-cycle, integrated chemical hydride system meeting 2010
1 St4 targets
4Q, 2010

Input from Production: Verify hydrogen production technologies for distributed

systems using natural gas with projected cost of $3.00/gge hydrogen at the
2,3 P1 pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of units of production
4Q, 2004

per year.

Input from Codes and Standards: Draft standards (balloting) for refueling stations
2,3 C8 (NFPA).
4Q, 2006

Input from Production: Hydrogen production technologies for distributed

systems using natural gas with projected cost of $2.50/gge hydrogen at
2,3 P4 the pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of units of
4Q, 2007

production per year.

Input from Delivery: Compression technology recommended for

2,3 D5 validation.
2Q, 2009

page B- 18 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Input from Delivery: Recommendations liquefaction technology for

2 D7 potential validation.
2Q, 2009

2 D8 Input from Delivery: Recommended pipeline technology for validation. 2Q, 2009

2,3 D9 Input from Delivery: Off-board storage technology. 2Q, 2009

Input from Production: Verify hydrogen production technologies for distributed

systems using natural gas with projected cost of $1.50/gge hydrogen at the
3 P7 pump, untaxed, no carbon sequestration assuming 100s of units of production
4Q, 2010
per year.

Input from Production: Electrolysis system making hydrogen for $2.85/gge deliv-
2,5 P9 ered.
4Q, 2010

Input from Production: Down-select of high-temperature electrolysis technology

5 P8 based on research results.
2Q, 2007

Input from Production: Verify hydrogen production system making hydrogen for
5 P10 $1.90/gge from biomass at the plant gate.
4Q, 2009

6 D3 Input from Delivery: Hydrogen delivery infrastructure analysis results. 4Q, 2006

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 19

 Appendix B

Table B.6. Codes and Standards

Milestones

Task Milestone Description Date (FY)

1 1 Produce a curriculum for training modules. 3Q, 2003

Collaborate with ICC and NFPA to develop first- order continuing education for
1 2 code officials.
2Q, 2004

Coordination plan with Education Program element for state and local official
1 3 training established.
4Q, 2005

Coordination Committee for hydrogen technical experts to support the code

2 4 development process established.
4Q, 2003

Complete analytical experiments and data collection for hydrogen release

2 5 scenarios as needed to support code development (Phase 1).
4Q, 2006

Generic licensing agreement drafted and estimated licensing costs

3 6 established.
4Q, 2003

Final generic licensing agreement, schedule of critical licensing agreements,

3 7 and budget requirements developed for FY05 and beyond.
2Q, 2005

Workshop to identify and develop critical research objectives that impact model
4 8 codes held.
4Q, 2003

Initiate experimental validation of large hydrogen releases and jet flame

4 9 tests completed.
1Q, 2005

Final code changes that incorporate underground storage of liquid hydrogen

4 10 and canopy-top storage of gaseous hydrogen for fueling stations (NFPC, 2Q, 2005
ICC) completed.

4 11 Perform tests of walled hydrogen storage systems. 3Q, 2005

4 12 Complete detailed scenario analysis risk assessments. 4Q, 2005

Draft standards for dispensing systems (dispenser, hoses, hose assemblies,

4 13 temperature compensating devices, breakaway devices, etc.) available (CSA 4Q, 2005
America).

Draft standards for compressed gaseous on-board storage available (CSA

4 14 HGV-2).
4Q, 2005

Draft standards for sensors and leak detection equipment developed

4 15 (UL).
1Q, 2006

4 16 Draft standards for portable fuel cells completed (UL). 2Q, 2006

Develop small leak characterization for building releases and pressure release
4 17 devices (PRD).
3Q, 2006

page B- 20 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Technical assessment of metallic and composite bulk storage

4 18 containers completed (ASME).
3Q, 2006

4 19 Draft standards for refueling stations completed (NFPA). 3Q, 2006

Implement research program to support new technical committees for the key
4 20 standards including fueling interface, and fuel storage.
4Q, 2006

Templates of commercially viable footprints for fueling stations that

4 21 incorporate advanced technologies developed.
1Q, 2007

4 22 Complete Model unintended release in complex metal hydrides. 2Q, 2007

Final draft standard (balloting) for sensors and leak detection

4 23 equipment developed (UL).
1Q, 2008

Final draft standards completed for transportable composite containers for

4 24 balloting (ASME).
1Q, 2008

4 25 Materials compatibility technical reference updated. 2Q, 2008

Negotiate agreement with DOT/NHTSA at Working Party on Pollution

5 26 and Energy meeting.
3Q, 2003

Mechanism to support appropriate U.S. Technical Advisory Groups (TAG)

5 27 through CSA America and CGA in place.
3Q, 2003

Initiate the development of the next generation Sourcebook to include Japan,

5 28 Europe, Canada and the U.S. (PATH).
1Q, 2004

5 29 Roadmap for global technical regulations (GTR) published. 2Q, 2005

5 30 General licensing agreement for ISO standards in place. 4Q, 2008

Draft regulation for comprehensive hydrogen fuel cell vehicle requirements as a

5 31 GTR approved (UN Global Technical Regulation).
4Q, 2010

Outputs

1 C1 Output to Education: Training modules for current practices. 2Q, 2005

Output to Education: Training modules for amended practices for new

1 C2 technologies.
2Q, 2006

Output to Production and Delivery: Preliminary assessment of Safety,

4 C3 Codes and Standards requirements for the hydrogen delivery infrastructure.
2Q, 2005

Output to Storage: Standards for compressed gaseous on-board

4 C4 storage.
4Q, 2005

Output to Program: Completed hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Technical

4 C5 Specification.
3Q, 2006

Output to Delivery, Storage and Technology Validation: Technical

4 C6 assessment of Standards requirements for metallic and composite bulk 3Q, 2006
storage tanks.

Output to Delivery, Storage and Technology Validation: Final standards (balloting)

4 C7 for fuel dispensing systems (CSA America).
4Q, 2006

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 21

 Appendix B

Output to Technical Validation and Delivery: Draft standards (balloting) for

4 C8 refueling stations (NFPA).
4Q, 2006

Output to Delivery and Storage: Materials compatibility technical

4 C9 reference.
2Q, 2008

4 C10 Output to Fuel Cells: Final draft standard (balloting) for portable fuel cells (UL). 4Q, 2008

Output to Delivery: Codes and Standards for delivery infrastructure

4 C11 complete.
2Q, 2010

Output to Program: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO

4 C12 Standard.
2Q, 2010

Inputs
Input from Technology Validation: Submit final report on safety and O&M of
4 V9 three refueling stations.
4Q, 2007

Input from Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at each point in the
4 A2 system.
4Q, 2008

page B- 22 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B
xB
Table B.7. Safety
Milestones

Task Milestone Description Date (FY)

2 1 Prepare draft failure modes and risk mitigation protocol. 4Q, 2005

2 2 Conduct workshop to review draft protocol. 4Q, 2005

2 3 Release consensus protocol. 1Q, 2006

Initiate collaboration with NASA, DOT, and other agencies to establish and publish
3 4 an interagency plan on the cooperation of hydrogen safety R&D.
1Q, 2004

3 5 Review existing data and hydrogen classification. 4Q, 2005

Develop design protocol that employs passive system or holistic design

3 6 techniques.
1Q, 2006

Convene hydrogen safety workshops to communicate research findings and

3 7 disseminate information to safety stakeholders.
2Q, 2008

Conduct research as needed to fill data gaps on hydrogen properties and

3 8 behaviors.
2Q, 2010

Conduct workshop to identify key performance parameters for hydrogen

4 9 sensors and leak detection devices.
3Q, 2005

Assemble panel of experts in hydrogen safety to provide expert technical

5 10 guidance to funded projects.
4Q, 2003

6 11 Identify user needs for Safety database. 3Q, 2006

6 12 Publish Safety database. 4Q, 2007

Safety Review Panel to prepare draft of Best Management Practices

7 13 Handbook.
2Q, 2007

7 14 Complete final peer-reviewed Handbook. 4Q, 2007

8 15 Kickoff meeting between HAMMER, DOE and national laboratory staff. 1Q, 2004

8 16 Consensus 5-Year Plan for HAMMER released. 2Q, 2005

8 17 First hydrogen safety class (non-prop) offered at HAMMER. 3Q, 2005

8 18 First hands-on training prop completed. 1Q, 2007

Develop guidelines for hydrogen safety planning and inclusion in

9 19 procurements.
2Q, 2003

9 20 Publish guidelines for safety plans. 4Q, 2004

10 21 First DOE annual review incorporating new emphasis on safety. 3Q, 2004

10 22 Establish annual review criteria for safety. 2Q, 2005

10 23 Publish final annual review criteria for safety on DOE Web site. 3Q, 2005

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 23

 Appendix B

Outputs

1 Sf1 Output to Education: Report of common accident scenarios. 3Q, 2005

1 Sf2 Output to Education: Updated report of common accident scenarios. 3Q, 2007

Output to Production, Delivery, Storage and Technology Validation: Safety

3 Sf3 requirements and protocols for refueling.
2Q, 2005

Output to Storage and Technology Validation: Safety requirements for on-

3 Sf4 board storage.
4Q, 2005

Output to Production, Delivery, Storage and Technology Validation: Safety

3 Sf5 requirements and protocols for refueling.
2Q, 2010

Output to Technology Validation and Systems Integration: Sensor meeting

4 Sf6 technical targets.
4Q, 2007

Output to Technology Validation, Education and Systems Integration:

7 Sf7 Final peer reviewed Best Practices Handbook.
4Q, 2007

Inputs

Input from Technology Validation: Submit final report on safety and O&M of three
3 V9 refueling stations.
4Q, 2007

7 E1 Input from Education: Published initial perceptions report. 4Q, 2004

7 E2 Input from Education: Interim perceptions report. 1Q, 2008

7 E3 Input from Education: Final perceptions report. 1Q, 2011

page B- 24 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Table B.8. Education

Milestones

Task Milestone Description Date (FY)

1 1 Complete Web site needs assessment. 4Q, 2003

1 2 Identify opportunities to tie into existing clearinghouse infrastructures. 4Q, 2003

1 3 Establish information clearinghouse. 2Q, 2004

Complete “phase 2” Web site upgrades and improvements (“phase 1” was

1 4 initial launch, completed January 28, 2003).
3Q, 2004

Deliverable: Create library of materials, including, but not limited to

the following: fuel cell technology fact sheets, hydrogen “basics” fact
1 5 sheet (production, storage, delivery), hydrogen safety fact sheet, technology
4Q, 2005

“challenges” fact sheet.

Deliverable: Publish data from first generation Technology Validation

1,7,8 6 Projects.
1Q, 2008

Deliverable: Publish data from second generation Technology Validation

1,7,8 7 projects.
1Q, 2011

2 8 Identify and review existing teaching materials for grades K-12. 3Q, 2004

Identify and evaluate opportunities to work with traditional textbook

2 9 companies to incorporate hydrogen and fuel cell information.
3Q, 2004

2 10 Publish middle school hydrogen activity guide to serve interim education needs. 3Q, 2004

2 11 Publish high school hydrogen activity guide to serve interim education needs. 3Q, 2005

Develop and pilot draft comprehensive middle school hydrogen technology

2 12 curricula.
4Q, 2005

Develop draft comprehensive high school hydrogen technology

2 13 curricula.
4Q, 2005

2 14 Publish elementary school activity guide. 3Q, 2006

Publish comprehensive middle school hydrogen technology curricula;

2 15 launch dissemination strategy and teacher professional development.
4Q, 2006

Conduct local pilots and national field tests of comprehensive high school
2 16 hydrogen technology curricula and teacher professional development training 3Q, 2007
modules.

Launch national dissemination of comprehensive high school hydrogen

2 17 technology curricula and teacher professional development program.
4Q, 2008

3 18 Launch hydrogen technology competition for university students. 1Q, 2004

3 19 Deliverable: Publish database of existing university programs. 3Q, 2004

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 25

 Appendix B

Evaluate opportunities to expand hydrogen and fuel cell focus of current DOE-
3 20 sponsored university programs.
4Q, 2004

Launch Hydrogen Technology Learning Center program for colleges and

3 21 universities.
4Q, 2004

Complete development of community college hydrogen technology

3 22 curriculum.
4Q, 2006

4 23 Establish baseline level of public awareness and perceptions. 4Q, 2004

4 24 Conduct follow-up public perception analysis. 4Q, 2007

4 25 Complete public perception assessment and results analysis. 4Q, 2010

Initiate national education campaign planning efforts with Controlled Hydrogen

5 26 Fleet and Infrastructure Validation project partners.
4Q, 2005

Create plan for pilot public education campaign in conjunction with Controlled
5 27 Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Validation project partners.
4Q, 2006

Complete pilot of public education campaign strategies in conjunction with

5 28 Controlled Hydrogen Fleet and Infrastructure Validation partners and in 3Q, 2010
communities with ongoing technology validation activities.

Go-Now/Go-Later: Decision point on launch of full-scale public

5 29 education campaign.
4Q, 2010

Complete assessment of opportunities for joint education activities with

6 30 existing community partnership programs.
1Q, 2004

With DOE Regional Office and state and local government partners, complete
6,7 31 first Hydrogen Learning Workshop Series to educate state and local 1Q, 2005
government officials.

Building on first series, launch second series of Hydrogen Learning

6,7 32 Workshops for state and local government officials.
3Q, 2005

6 33 Identify partners to serve on Hydrogen Education Review Panel. 3Q, 2005

6 34 Launch Hydrogen Education Review Panel. 4Q, 2005

Launch Hydrogen Learning Workshop series for potential large-scale end-

6,8 35 users.
2Q, 2008

Establish a coordination plan with Safety and Codes and Standards Program
9 36 elements for state and local safety and code official training.
4Q, 2005

Outputs

4,9 E1 Output to Safety: Publish initial perceptions report. 4Q, 2004

4,9 E2 Output to Safety: Publish interim perceptions report. 1Q, 2008

4,9 E3 Output to Safety: Publish perceptions report. 1Q, 2011

page B- 26 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Inputs
1,9 C1 Input from Codes and Standards: Training modules for current practices. 2Q, 2005

1,9 Sf1 Input from Safety: Report of common accident scenarios. 3Q, 2005

Input from Codes and Standards: Training modules for amended practices for new
1,9 C2 technologies.
2Q, 2006

1,9 Sf2 Input from Safety: Updated report of common accident scenarios. 3Q, 2007

Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three
1,9 V9 refueling stations.
4Q, 2007

1,9 Sf7 Input from Safety: Final, peer-reviewed Best Practices Handbook. 4Q, 2007

Table B.9. Systems Analysis

Milestones

Task Milestone Description Date (FY)

1 1 Complete survey for Analysis Portfolio from all sources. 2Q, 2005

1 2 Complete 1st draft of prioritized Analysis Portfolio. 4Q, 2005

1 3 Publish Analysis Portfolio. 1Q, 2006

4Q, 2006
1 4 Annual update of Analysis Portfolio. through 4Q,
2010

Establish Systems Analysis Work Group and Complete 1st Systems Analysis
2 5 Workshop.
4Q, 2004

2 6 Complete 2nd Systems Analysis Workshop with hydrogen analysis community. 3Q, 2005

1Q, 2006
Annual Systems Analysis Workshop to review updated Analysis Portfolio and Data
2 7 Book.
through 1Q,
2010

Survey hydrogen community for assumptions, data sets, targets and

8 2Q, 2005
3 constraints for input to the database.

3 9 Complete “Review Version” of Data Book and issue for comment. 3Q, 2005

1Q, 2006
3 10 Complete 1st edition of Data Book and subsequent annual updates. through 1Q,
2010

4 11 Complete “Review Version” of the Systems Analysis Plan. 3Q, 2005

4 12 Peer review the Systems Analysis Plan. 4Q, 2005

4 13 Complete 1st edition of the Systems Analysis Plan. 1Q, 2006

5 14 Complete system model and model architecture. 2Q, 2005

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 27

 Appendix B

5 15 Complete transition model review. 2Q, 2005

5 16 Complete input/output guidelines for the Macro-System Model. 3Q, 2005

Select transition model for analysis and incorporate into Macro-System

5 17 Model.
4Q, 2005

5 18 Develop initial model architecture. 4Q, 2005

Capture Macro-System Model requirements, description, and usage in a

5 19 description document.
1Q, 2006

Peer review the Macro-System Model with the hydrogen modeling

5 20 community.
3Q, 2006

5 21 Complete 1st version of the Macro-System Model. 1Q, 2007

Complete the integration of the Macro-System Model into the Systems 2Q, 2007
5 22 Analysis and accomplish annual major model upgrades (2010 includes electricity through 2Q,
infrastructure). 2010

Complete evaluation of the factors (geographic, resource availability, existing

6 23 infrastructure) that most impact transition analysis.
3Q, 2005

Complete baseline economic, energy efficiency and environmental targets

6 24 for fossil, nuclear and renewable hydrogen production and delivery 4Q, 2005
technologies.

Begin a coordinated study of transition analysis with H2A and Delivery

6 25 models.
1Q, 2006

6 26 Complete study for transitioning scenarios for a hydrogen economy. 3Q, 2006

Complete assessment of current technologies for production and delivery

6 27 pathways to meet the established targets.
4Q, 2006

2Q, 2005;
7 28 Internal review of Systems Analysis function biennially. 2Q, 2007; 2Q,
2009

4Q, 2005;
7 29 External Peer review of Systems Analysis function biennially. 4Q, 2007; 4Q,
2009

Outputs

Output to Production, Delivery and Systems Integration: Complete techoeconomic

6 A1 analysis on production and delivery technologies currently being researched 4Q, 2006
to meet overall Program hydrogen fuel objective.

Output to Program: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at each point in the

6 A2 system.
4Q, 2008

page B- 28 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Inputs

Input from Fuel Cells: Critical analysis of well-to-wheels studies of fuel cell system
6 F1 performance, efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and cost.
2Q, 2003

6 F8 Input from Fuel Cells: Preliminary hydrogen purity/impurity requirements. 2Q, 2005

Input from Technology Validation: Hydrogen refueling station analysis -

6 V10 proposed interstate refueling station locations.
2Q, 2005

Input from Codes and Standards: Hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Technical
6 C5 Specification.
3Q, 2006

Input from Delivery: Assessment of cost and performance requirements for

6 D1 off-board storage systems.
4Q, 2006

6 D3 Input from Delivery: Hydrogen delivery infrastructure analysis results. 4Q, 2006

Input from Storage: Baseline hydrogen on-board storage system analysis

6 St5 results (and initial down-select) including hydrogen quality needs and 1Q, 2007
interface issues.

6 P3 Input from Production: Impact of hydrogen purity on cost and performance. 3Q, 2007

Input from Delivery: Assessment of impact of hydrogen purity requirements

6 D4 on cost and performance of hydrogen delivery.
3Q, 2007

6 F9 Input from Fuel Cells: Updated hydrogen purity/impurity requirements. 3Q, 2007

Input from Technology Validation: Final report for first generation vehicles and
6 V2 interim progress report for second generation vehicles, on performance, safety and 3Q, 2007
O&M.

Input from Technology Validation: Final report on infrastructure, including impact of

6 V7 hydrogen purity on cost and performance.
3Q, 2007

Input from Technology Validation: Technology status report and re-focused

6 V3 R&D recommendations.
4Q, 2007

Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of three
6 V9 refueling stations.
4Q, 2007

Input from Technology Validation: Composite results of analyses and modeling

6 V11 from vehicle and infrastructure data collected under the learning demonstration 4Q, 2007
project.

6 P5 Input from Production: Impact of hydrogen purity on cost and performance. 4Q, 2009

6 D6 Input from Delivery: Update of hydrogen purity/impurity requirements. 4Q, 2009

Input from Storage: Final On-board hydrogen storage system analysis results of
6 St6 cost and performance (including pressure, temperature, etc.) and down-select to a 1Q, 2010
primary on-board storage system candidate.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 29

 Appendix B

6 C12 Input from Codes & Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard as ISO Standard. 2Q, 2010

Input from Technology Validation: Final report for second generation vehicles on
6 V4 performance, safety and O&M.
3Q, 2010

Input from Technology Validation: Final report on infrastructure, including impact of

6 V8 hydrogen purity on cost and performance.
3Q, 2010

Input from Technology Validation: Technology status report and refocused

6 V5 R&D recommendations.
4Q, 2010

Input from Technology Validation: Composite results of analyses and

6 V12 modeling from vehicle and infrastructure data collected under the Learning 4Q, 2010
Demonstration Project.

Table B.10. Systems Integration

Milestones
Task Milestone Description Date (FY)

1 1 Approval of initial Integrated Baseline. 3Q, 2005

2Q, 2006
Integrated Baseline updates based on actual FY06 through FY10
1 2 Program appropriations.
through 2Q,
2010

2Q, 2006
Integrated Baseline versions reflecting FY08 through FY12 budget
1 3 requests.
through 2Q,
2010

4Q, 2006
1 4 Integrated Baseline updates based on FY07 through FY11 spend plans. through 4Q,
2010

Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on fuel

2 5 processing R&D.
3Q, 2004

Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on sensors and

2 6 controls technologies.
2Q, 2006

Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on MEA in

2 7 single cell meeting targets.
3Q, 2006

2 8 Supporting analysis for Systems Analysis production and delivery task. 3Q, 2006

Independent analysis for Technology Validation Go/No-Go decision on

2 9 purchase of additional vehicles.
4Q, 2006

Independent analysis for Storage Go/No-Go decision on compressed

2 10 and cryogenic tank technologies for on-board.
1Q, 2007

Independent analysis for Storage Go/No-Go decision on carbon

2 11 nanotubes.
1Q, 2007

page B- 30 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Independent analysis for Production Go/No-Go decision on continued

2 12 high-temperature steam electrolysis R&D.
2Q, 2007

Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on air

2 13 management and thermal management technologies.
3Q, 2007

Independent analysis for Production Go/No-Go decision on membrane

2 14 separation technology.
4Q, 2007

Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on scale up

2 15 precious metal reclamation process.
4Q, 2007

2 16 Supporting analysis for Systems Analysis hydrogen purity task. 3Q, 2008

Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on auxiliary

2 17 power, portable power and off-road R&D.
4Q, 2008

Independent analysis for Storage Go/No-Go decision on advanced

2 18 carbon-based materials.
1Q, 2010

Independent analysis for Storage Go/No-Go decision on continuation of

2 19 on-board reversible metal hydride R&D.
4Q, 2010

Independent analysis for Storage Go/No-Go decision on chemical

2 20 storage R&D for 2015 targets.
4Q, 2010

Independent analysis for Fuel Cells Go/No-Go decision on stationary

2 21 fuel cell systems.
4Q, 2010

Independent for Production Go/No-Go decision for transparent H2-

2 22 impermeable material.
4Q, 2010

Independent analysis for Production Go/No-Go decision on high-

2 23 temperature solar-driven thermochemical cycles.
4Q, 2010

3Q, 2004
3 24 Conduct peer review of projects at Annual Merit Review. through 3Q,
2010

Formal configuration management plan approved and processes

4 25 implemented.
1Q, 2005

4 26 Formal risk management plan approved and processes implemented. 2Q, 2005

2Q, 2006
4 27 Change Control Boards periodically each fiscal year. through 2Q,
2010

3Q, 2006
4 28 Risk Management Boards periodically each fiscal year. through 3Q,
2010

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 31

 Appendix B

Inputs
Input from Fuel Cells: Critical analysis of well-to-wheels studies of fuel
2 F1 cell system performance, efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions, and 2Q, 2003
cost.

2 F8 Input from Fuel Cells: Preliminary hydrogen purity/impurity requirements. 2Q, 2005

Input from Technology Validation: Hydrogen refueling station analysis

2 V10 - proposed interstate refueling station locations.
2Q, 2005

Input from Codes and Standards: Completed hydrogen fuel quality

2 C5 standard as ISO Technical Specification.
3Q, 2006

Input from Delivery: Assessment of cost and performance requirements

2 D1 for off-board storage systems.
4Q, 2006

2 D3 Input from Delivery: Hydrogen delivery infrastructure analysis results. 4Q, 2006

Input from Systems Analysis: Complete technoeconomic analysis on

2 A1 production and delivery technologies currently being researched to meet 4Q, 2006
overall Program hydrogen fuel objective.

Input from Storage: Baseline hydrogen on-board storage system

2 St5 analysis results including hydrogen quality needs and interface issues.
1Q, 2007

Input from Production: Impact of hydrogen purity on cost and

2 P3 performance.
3Q, 2007

Input from Delivery: Assessment of impact of hydrogen purity

2 D4 requirements on cost and performance of hydrogen delivery.
3Q, 2007

2 F9 Input from Fuel Cells: Updated hydrogen purity/impurity requirements. 3Q, 2007

Input from Technology Validation: Final report on infrastructure and

2 V7 hydrogen quality for first generation vehicles.
3Q, 2007

2 Sf6 Input from Safety: Sensor meeting technical targets. 4Q, 2007

Input from Systems Analysis: Initial recommended hydrogen quality at

2 A2 each point in the system.
4Q, 2008

2 D6 Input from Delivery: Update of hydrogen purity/impurity requirements. 4Q, 2009

Input from Production: Impact of hydrogen purity on cost and

2 P5 performance.
4Q, 2009

Input from Storage: Final on-board hydrogen storage system analysis

2 St6 results of cost and performance (including pressure, temp, etc) and 1Q, 2010
down-select to a primary on-board storage system candidate.

Input from Codes and Standards: Final hydrogen fuel quality standard
2 C12 as ISO Standard.
2Q, 2010

page B- 32 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix B

Input from Technology Validation: Final report on infrastructure, including

2 V8 impact of hydrogen quality for second generation vehicles.
3Q, 2010

Input from Technology Validation: Final report for first generation

3 V2 vehicles and interim progress report for second generation vehicles, on 3Q, 2007
performance, safety, and O&M.

Input from Technology Validation: Technology Status Report & re-

3 V3 focused R&D recommendations.
4Q, 2007

Input from Technology Validation: Final report on safety and O&M of

3 V9 three refueling stations.
4Q, 2007

Input from Technology Validation: Composite results of analyses &

3 V11 modeling from vehicle and infrastructure data collected under the 4Q, 2007
learning demonstration project.

3 Sf7 Input from Safety: Final peer reviewed Best Practices Handbook. 4Q, 2007

Input from Technology Validation: Final report for second generation

3 V4 vehicles on performance, safety, and O&M.
3Q, 2010

Input from Technology Validation: Technology Status Report & re-

3 V5 focused R&D recommendations.
4Q, 2010

Input from Technology Validation: Final composite results of analyses

3 V12 & modeling from vehicle and infrastructure data collected under the 4Q, 2010
Learning Demonstration Project.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page B- 33

 Appendix B

page B- 34 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix C

Appendix C – Benefits Assumptions

This appendix has been added to provide additional information related to Program Benefits (see section 2.0).

References
Ahlbrandt, T.S., R.R. Charpentier, T.R. Klett, J.W. Schmoker and C.J. Schenk , “Chapter AR: Analysis of Assessment
Results,” U.S. Geological Survey World Petroleum Assessment 2000 – Description and Results, U.S. Department of
the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey (2000). http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/WorldEnergy/DDS-60/

American Petroleum Institute, API Monthly Statistical Report (September 2004). http://api-ec.api.org/media/inde
x.cfm?objectid=C5363301-9941-498B-B9BE2515D7100686&method=display_body&er=1&bitmask=00100700
1000000000

Davis, S.C. and S.W. Diegel, Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 22, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Report ORNL-6967, (September 2002).

Fulton, G.A., S.P. McAlinden, D.R. Grimes, L.G. Schmidt, and B.C. Richardson, Contribution of the Automotive
Industry to the U.S. Economy in 1998: The Nation and Its Fifty States, The University of Michigan Institute for
Labor and Industrial Relations, The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Office for the Study
of Automotive Transportation, and the Center for Automotive Research (Winter 2001).

National Academies’ National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering, The Hydrogen Economy:
Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs, National Academies Press, Washington (c2004).

Santini, D.J., “Interactions Among Transportation Fuel Substitution, Vehicle Quantity Growth and National Economic
Growth,” Transportation Research A, 23(3): 183-207 (May 1989).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA): Table 2.3.5.
Personal Consumption Expenditures by Major Type of Product (2003). http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.
asp?SelectedTable=65&FirstYear=2002&LastYear=2004&Freq=Qtr

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical National Population Estimates: July 1, 1900 to
July 1, 1999 (June 28, 2000). http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/1990s/popclockest.txt

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, World Population Profile, 1998 (March 1999). http://
www.census.gov/ipc/www/wp98.html

U.S. Department of Energy, “Table 7: Transportation Oil Consumption by Mode to 2025,”Annual Energy Outlook
With Projections to 2025,” Energy Information Administration, Report DOE/EIA-0383 (2003). To estimate
transportation oil consumption for 2026-2040, AEO 2003 projections were extended using the average annual growth
rate during 2020-2025.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Table MV-200: State Motor Vehicle
Registrations by Year, 1900-1995,”Highway Statistics Summary to 1995. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/
section2.html

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page C- 1

 Appendix C

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Table VM-1: Annual Vehicle Distance
Traveled in Miles and Related Data, 2001,”Highway Statistics 2001.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs01/re.htm

Wang, M., “Fuel Choices for Fuel Cell Vehicles: Well-to-Wheels Energy and Emissions Impacts,” Journal of Power
Sources, 112: 307-321 (2002). Data presented here has been updated for 2003 data.

Ward’s Communications, Ward’s World Motor Vehicle Data, Southfield, MI. http://wardsauto.com/home/index.htm

Modeling of the Fuel Cycle Analysis

The total fuel cycle analysis including the environmental analysis was conducted using the GREET (Greenhouse
gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation) model, developed by the Center for Transportation
Research at Argonne National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy (see http://www.transportation.anl.gov/
greet/index.html).

Modeling of the Oil Savings Benefit from Fuel Cell Vehicles

The President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative states that light duty fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) could save over 11 million
barrels of oil per day (mmb/d) by 2040. This reduction in oil demand is relative to the oil that light duty conventional
vehicles (CVs) might otherwise consume in 2040. The estimate was developed using the VISION model. This model
was developed by DOE to provide estimates of the potential energy use, oil use and carbon emission impacts through
2050 of advanced light- and heavy-duty highway vehicle technologies and alternative fuels. VISION was used
instead of the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) in part
because NEMS only provides such estimates to 2025. Further, NEMS market penetration estimates themselves require
projections of fuel prices, vehicle costs, and vehicle attributes. The prediction of fuel prices beyond 2025 is extremely
uncertain, while predictions of H2 FCV vehicle cost and attributes would be premature this early in the program, since
yet to be discovered technical and cost breakthroughs are the goal of the program.

The VISION model consists of two Excel workbooks: one a Base Case of US highway fuel use and carbon emissions
to 2050 and another a copy of the Base Case which can be modified to reflect alternative assumptions about advanced
vehicle and alternative fuel market penetration. Oil savings estimates that are derived using this model are thus
based on a number of assumptions about advanced vehicle (e.g., FCV) penetration, energy efficiency and resource
fuel as well as assumptions about Base Case vehicle oil use which in turn is dependent on vehicle fuel, efficiency and
travel.

A number of key modeling assumptions lead to the oil savings estimate calculated. They are as follows:

1) VISION uses EIA projections as much as possible in its Base Case. At this time, VISION uses the projections
contained in EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2002. EIA has subsequently released AEO 2003 that
actually implies higher oil use by light-duty vehicles (LDVs). VISION is being updated to incorporate these latter
estimates, but the VISION results discussed here are based on AEO 2002 estimates.

2) The certification test fuel economy of new gasoline-fueled CVs in the Base Case is fixed at 28.5 MPG for
cars and 21.2 MPG for light trucks throughout the analysis period. This assumption differs from EIA’s latest
projections of slight improvements in the fuel economy of gasoline-fueled CVs. In AEO 2003 EIA projects an
8% increase (total) in new gasoline light truck mpg between 2002 and 2025 and a 4% increase for new gasoline
cars. VISION uses a fixed MPG Base Case because many analyses want to evaluate the effects of new
technology penetration relative to existing technology.

page C- 2 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix C

3) All of the CVs in the Base Case are gasoline-fueled. Again this differs from EIA’s AEO 2003 projections. By
2025, EIA projects that 17% of all LDVs sold in that year will be in a category defined by EIA as alternative fuel
vehicles (AFVs). Though present hybrid electric vehicles run on gasoline and most, if not all, future hybrid
electric vehicles will likely also run on gasoline, EIA nevertheless includes hybrid vehicles in its accounting of
AFVs. Over 90% of EIA’s AFVs will be hybrid electric and ethanol flex fuel vehicles, both of which will or
can use gasoline (or diesel in the case of diesel hybrids). Only 0.04% would be FCVs. Again, the Base Case in
VISION assumes 100% gasoline CVs in the future in order to evaluate the effects of new technology penetration
relative to the predominant existing technology.

4) VISION includes Class 2b trucks (8,500 –10,000 lbs GVW) in its estimates of LDV fuel use. EIA does not.

5) The annual VMT per LDV in VISION is based on EIA’s AEO 2002 vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) estimates
extended to 2050. In VISION, average LDV VMT rises from 12,200 in 2002 to 13,859 in 2020, then to
14,737 in 2040, and finally to 15,000 by 2050. Cars and light trucks are used differently but by 2030 their
average annual VMT is quite similar. EIA’s AEO 2003 VMT estimates differ from its AEO 2002 estimates.

6) The energy efficiency of FCVs relative to current technology CVs is substantial, but also much debated. A future
FCV is likely to be two to three times as energy efficient as a current technology CV. In the VISION run used to
develop the oil savings estimate for the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership, the relative energy efficiency of
FCVs was assumed to a) be 2.25 in 2018 through 2020, b) increase linearly to 2.5 by 2030 and c) remain there until
2040. We assumed that a FCV’s relative energy efficiency would eventually reach 3.0, but not until post-2040.

7) When FCVs might be mass marketed is not known. But in this case it is assumed that FCVs would begin to
be sold in substantial numbers in 2018 and reach 52.2% of LDV sales in 2025. The specific penetration rates that
were assumed are 4% in 2018, 27% in 2020, 52% in 2025, 78% in 2030 and 100% in 2038, with linear interpolation
generally used for intervening years. Hydrogen supplies are assumed to be available to facilitate this market
penetration level.

8) The FCVs do not use petroleum (i.e., on-board reforming of gasoline is not assumed). The H2 used by the FCVs is
produced from natural gas or zero-carbon fuels.

Given the assumptions listed above, use of H2 FCVs was estimated with the VISION model to generate an oil savings
of 11.6 mmb/d in the light-duty transportation sector in 2040. Such a substantial savings in oil consumption would
likely lead to lower oil prices than would otherwise occur. If world oil supplies are depleted within the time frame
of the scenario, the hydrogen switch might be timely in preventing very high oil prices. If oil is abundant in that time
frame, then energy security would be provided for the U.S., but oil might be used to a greater extent elsewhere in the
world. VISION does not in any way evaluate interactions of world oil prices and oil demand.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page C- 3

 Appendix C

page C- 4 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix D

Appendix D – 2004 Annual Program Review Project Evaluation Form

SESSION: __Mon __Tues __Wed __Thu __a.m. __p.m.

REVIEWER : ___________________________________________________

TITLE OF PROJECT:_____________________________________________

Project # ________________

PRESENTER NAME:_____________________________________________

Using the following criteria, rate the work presented in the context of the program objectives and provide
specific, concise comments to support your evaluation. -- Write/print clearly please. --

1. Relevance to overall DOE objectives – the degree to which the project supports the President’s Hydrogen
Fuel Initiative and the goals and objectives of the HFCIT Multi-Year RD&D plan.
4-Outstanding. The project is critical to the Specific Comments:
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and
fully supports the RD&D plan objectives.
3-Good. Most aspects of the project align
with the President’s Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative and support the RD&D plan
objectives.
2-Fair. The project partially supports the
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and
the RD&D plan objectives.
1.-Poor. The project provides little support to
the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
and the RD&D plan objectives.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page D- 1

 Appendix D

2. Approach to performing the R&D – the degree to which technical barriers are addressed, the project is well-
designed, technically feasible, and integrated with other research.
4-Outstanding. The project is sharply Specific Comments:
focused on one or more key technical
barriers to development of the hydrogen
or fuel cell technologies. Difficult for the
approach to be improved significantly.
3-Good. The approach is generally well
thought out and effective but could be
improved in a few areas. Most aspects of
the project will contribute to progress in
overcoming the barriers.
2-Fair. Some aspects of the project may
lead to progress in overcoming some
barriers, but the approach has significant
weaknesses.

1.-Poor. The approach is not responsive to

project objectives and unlikely to make
significant contributions to overcoming the
barriers.

3. Technical Accomplishments and Progress toward overall project and DOE goals – the degree to which
research progress is measured against performance indicators and to which the project elicits improved
performance (effectiveness, efficiency, cost, and benefits).
4-Outstanding. The project has made Specific Comments:
excellent progress toward objectives and
overcoming one or more key technical
barriers. Progress to date suggests that the
barrier(s) will be overcome.
3-Good. The project has shown significant
progress toward its objectives and toward
overcoming one or more technical barriers.
2-Fair. The project has shown modest
progress in overcoming barriers, and the
rate of progress has been slow.

1.-Poor. The project has demonstrated little

or no progress towards its objectives or
toward overcoming any barriers.

page D- 2 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix D

4. Technology Transfer/Collaborations with industry/universities/other laboratories – the degree to which the

project interacts, interfaces, or coordinates with other institutions and projects.
4-Outstanding. The project is fully integrated Specific Comments:
with relevant hydrogen and fuel cell R&D
activities conducted through industry,
universities and other laboratories.
3-Good. The project is carried out in close
coordination with relevant hydrogen and
fuel cell R&D activities conducted through
industry, universities and other laboratories.
2-Fair. The project makes a modest effort
to coordinate its efforts with hydrogen and
fuel cell R&D activities conducted through
industry, universities and other laboratories.
1.-Poor. The project makes little to no effort
to coordinate with hydrogen and fuel cell
R&D activities conducted through industry,
universities and other laboratories.

5. Proposed Future Research approach and relevance – the degree to which the project has effectively planned
its future, considered contingencies, built in optional paths or off ramps, etc.
4-Outstanding. The future work plan clearly Specific Comments:
builds on past progress and is sharply
focused on one or more key technical
barriers in a timely manner.
3-Good. Future work plans build on past
progress and generally address removing or
diminishing barriers in a reasonable period.
2-Fair. The future work plan may lead to
improvements, but should be better focused
on removing/diminishing key barriers in a
reasonable timeframe.
1.-Poor. Future work plans have little
relevance or benefit toward eliminating
barriers or advancing the program.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page D- 3

 Appendix D

Strengths

Weaknesses

Recommendations for Additions/Deletions to Project Scope

page D- 4 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

 Appendix E

Appendix E – H2A Hydrogen Analysis Model

Introduction
The H2A model, which stands for Hydrogen Analysis model, was developed as a collaborative effort of the
Department of Energy, national laboratories and key industry analysts to provide consistent analysis of hydrogen
production and delivery technologies and systems to guide research and development efforts. The objective
of H2A is to improve the transparency and consistency of the analysis approaches, enable technologies to be
compared on a “level playing field” and seek better validation of analysis studies by industry. To meet this
objective, H2A has developed models to assess the economics of hydrogen production and delivery scenarios.

Approach
The H2A Production Cost Analysis Tool
To address the need for transparent reporting and consistent methodology, the H2A production modeling tool
was developed to assess the hydrogen cost for central and distributed hydrogen production technologies. The
user defines the characteristics of the process being studied, including process design, capacity, capacity factor,
efficiency, feedstock requirements and capital and operating costs. The tool includes agreed upon H2A reference
values for all key economic and financial parameters but users can vary these parameters for their own purpose.
These parameters include: internal rate of return, plant life, feedstock costs, tax rates and depreciation schedules.
The calculation part of the tool uses a standard discounted cash flow rate of return analysis methodology to
determine hydrogen cost for the desired internal rate of return (10% is the H2A reference value).

Assumptions and data from each case studied using the H2A production modeling tool will be transparent
and easily accessed. The tool is programmed into a standardized Excel spreadsheet (Summary Workbook
Spreadsheet) that documents the following:
• Original source(s) of data (i.e., report title, authors, etc.)
• Basic process information (feedstock and energy inputs, size of plant, co-products produced, etc.)
• Process flowsheet and stream summary (flowrate, temperature, pressure, composition of each stream)
• Technology performance assumptions (e.g., process efficiency and hydrogen product conditions)
• Economic assumptions (discount rate, depreciation schedule, plant lifetime, income tax rate, capacity factor,
etc.)
• Capital and operating costs
• Calculation of the discounted cash flow (the calculation procedure will be built into the standardized
spreadsheet so that all technologies use the same methodology)
• Results (plant-gate hydrogen selling price and cost contributions in $/kg H2, operating efficiency, total fuel
and feedstock consumption, and emissions)
• Sensitivity of the results to assumptions (e.g., feedstock cost, co-product selling price, capital cost, operating
costs, internal rate of return, conversion efficiencies, etc.)

This production modeling tool also will facilitate the explanation of any differences between the final results of
this effort and previously published results.

Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan page E- 1

 Appendix E

Technologies can be characterized at various future points in time, with the assumption that the performance
and cost will change in the future. The tool includes projected costs for various potential feedstocks and utilities
from 2000-2070 based on EIA and other analysis projections.
The tool allows the analysis to be done on a well-to-gate basis for central-plant technologies and a well-to-
pump basis for distributed technologies. In other words, the performance characteristics of the technology (cost,
energy consumption, emissions) include all upstream activities associated with the plant. This is straightforward
relative to costs (because the cost of upstream activities are included in the price of inputs to the plant). It is
less straightforward for energy use, efficiency and emissions. To help assess the energy and environmental
impacts of the upstream activities, the H2A effort will use a model developed by Argonne National Laboratory
called GREET, which contains a large database of environmental and energy data for characterizing the total
lifecycle energy and emissions of various transportation processes (see: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/greet/
index.html).

The H2A Production Model will be available for public use in the first quarter of 2005 and will be accessed from
the Program’s Web site (http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells).

Delivery Analysis
H2A delivery models are in the development stage. Once completed, this part of the H2A effort will provide
analysis fundamentals for increased understanding of delivery component costs and full delivery infrastructure
costs. Three modes of hydrogen transport will be included in the initial models: compressed gas truck, liquid
hydrogen truck and gas pipeline.

The H2A Delivery Component Model has information on and calculates the cost contribution of the various
components of hydrogen delivery infrastructure. These include:
• Compressed hydrogen gas truck (tube trailer)
• Liquid hydrogen truck
• Hydrogen compression
• Hydrogen pipelines
• Liquefiers
• Liquid hydrogen storage tanks
• Gaseous hydrogen storage tanks
• Compressed hydrogen gas truck terminal
• Liquid hydrogen truck terminal
• Gaseous hydrogen underground geological storage

In addition to the H2A Delivery Component Model, a Delivery Scenario Model is being developed. This model
will have the capability of laying out a full hydrogen delivery infrastructure for particular hydrogen delivery
scenarios. One such scenario might be the delivery infrastructure from a central plant to a large city of a million
people with a certain hydrogen fuel cell vehicle market share. The model will provide a discounted cash flow
analysis to calculate the cost of hydrogen delivery for that scenario. There will be a wide choice of delivery
scenarios when the model is fully developed.

All of the H2A tools will be compatible and consistent. They will contain the same analysis approach that
utilizes consistent data and financial parameter default values.

page E- 2 Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

A Strong Energy Portfolio for a Strong America
Energy efficiency and clean, renewable energy will mean
a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and greater
energy independence for America. Working with a wide array
of state, community, industry, and university partners, the
U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy invests in a diverse portfolio of energy
technologies.
 DRAFT
DRAFT

President Bush
Launches the
Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative

“Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America

can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

“A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and

oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car producing only
water, not exhaust fumes.

“With a new national commitment our scientists and engineers will over-
come obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom so that
the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen,
and pollution free.

“Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner,

and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy.”

– 2003 State of the Union Address

January 28, 2003

Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program

DOE/GO-102005-1741
March 2005