No abstract

This report, and the conclusions contained herein, are the result of the exercise of Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, ANL) and TIAX's professional judgment, based in part upon materials and information provided to us by third parties, which in certain cases, have not been independently verified. Argonne and TIAX accept no duty of care or liability of any kind whatsoever to any third party, and no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made, or not made, or actions taken, or not taken, based on this document, or use of any of the information contained herein. This report may be produced only in its entirety. The cost analysis for the compressed gas tank systems assumes Year 2009 technology status for individual components, and projects their cost at production volumes of 500,000 vehicles/year. It is not known whether the exact system configuration adopted for this cost analysis currently exists as an integrated automotive hydrogen storage system, or how well the components and subsystems inter-operate with each other. In developing the system configuration and component manifests, we have tried to capture all of the essential engineering components and important cost contributors. However, the system selected for costing does not claim to solve all of the technical challenges facing hydrogen storage transportation systems or satisfy DOE or FreedomCAR on-board hydrogen storage performance, safety, and durability targets. .

This report, and the conclusions contained herein, are the result of the exercise of Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and TIAX's professional judgment, based in part upon materials and information provided to us by third parties, which in certain cases, have not been independently verified. ANL and TIAX accept no duty of care or liability of any kind whatsoever to any third party, and no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made, or not made, or actions taken, or not taken, based on this document, or use of any of the information contained herein. This report may be produced only in its entirety.The following report summarizes the results of a DOE-funded assessment of the cost of cryo-compressed hydrogen storage tank systems for automotive applications based primarily on publicly available information and design schematics of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Gen-3 prototype tank design. The results of the model should be considered only in conjunction with the assumptions used in selecting and sizing the tank and system components.The cryo-compressed system cost analysis assumes Year 2009 technology status for individual components, and projects their cost at production volumes of 500,000 vehicles/year. It is not known whether the exact system configuration adopted for this cost analysis currently exists as an integrated automotive hydrogen storage system, or how well the components and subsystems inter-operate with each other. In developing the system configuration and component manifest, we have tried to capture all of the essential engineering components and important cost contributors. However, the system selected for costing does not claim to solve all of the technical challenges facing hydrogen storage transportation systems or satisfy DOE or FreedomCAR on-board hydrogen storage performance and durability targets.

This review summarizes the background and recent status of the fuel cell electric bus (FCEB) demonstration projects in North America and Europe. Key performance metrics include accumulated miles, availability, fuel economy, fuel cost, roadcalls, and hydrogen fueling. The state-of-the-art technology used in today's fuel cell bus is highlighted. Existing hydrogen infrastructure for refueling is described. The article also presents the challenges encountered in these projects, the experiences learned, as well as current and future performance targets.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract