IEEE Vol. 6, No.

1 march 2018 ISSN 2325-5987

www.ieee-pes.org/

MAGAZINE

f e at u r e s

8 Renewable Hydrogen—
Economically Viable
37 The Future Is Present
in California
Integration into the U.S. Delivering on the promise
transportation sector. of fuel cell-powered
Jennifer Kurtz, Mike Peters, transportation.
Matteo Muratori, and Chris Gearhart Andrew Martinez

19 Hydrogen Production via

Water Electrolysis
48 Obstacles to the
Success of Fuel-Cell Cover image: Globally, governments and companies
are investing in and developing technologies to
The benefits of a solar Electric Vehicles reduce the environmental impact of transportation
cell-powered process. Are they truly impossible systems. A variety of alternative fuel technologies
Woo Je Chang, Kyung-Hwan is being used or researched as alternatives to
to overcome?
­fossil fuel-based transportation. In this special issue,
Lee, Jung-Ik Ha, and Ki Tae Nam Jungik Kim and Saehoon Kim we discuss hydrogen fuel cells for transportation.
Cover image: ©istockphoto.com/chombosan

26 Government Policies
Help Promote Clean
55 The Island
Hydrogen Project
Transportation in India Electrolytic generated Mission Statement: IEEE Electrification Maga-
Proton-exchange membrane hydrogen for automotive zine is dedicated to disseminating information on
fuel cells for vehicles. and maritime applications. all matters related to microgrids onboard electric
vehicles, ships, trains, planes, and off-grid applica-
Bandi Mallikarjuna Reddy, Silviu Nistor, Stephen Carr, tions. Microgrids refer to an electric network in a
Paulson Samuel, and and Mahesh Sooriyabandara car, a ship, a plane or an electric train, which has a
Narapureddy Siva Mohan Reddy limited number of sources and multiple loads. Off-
grid applications include small scale electricity sup-
ply in areas away from high voltage power net-
works. Feature articles focus on advanced con-
cepts, technologies, and practices associated with
all aspects of electrification in the transportation
and off-grid sectors from a technical perspective in
synergy with nontechnical areas such as business,
d e pa r t m e n t s & c o l u m n s environmental, and social concerns.

IEEE Electrification Magazine (ISSN 2325-5897) (IEMECM)

is published quarterly by the Institute of Electrical and
2 ABOUT THIS ISSUE 62 Newsfeed ­Electronics ­Engineers, Inc. Headquarters: 3 Park Avenue,
17th Floor, New York, NY 10016-5997 USA. Responsibility
4 TECHNOLOGY LEADERS 63 Errata for the contents rests upon the authors and not upon the
IEEE, the Society, or its members. IEEE Operations Center
61 dates ahead (for orders, subscriptions, address changes): 445 Hoes
Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA. Telephone: +1 732 981
0060, +1 800 678 4333. Individual copies: IEEE members
US$20.00 (first copy only), nonmembers US$133.00 per
copy. Subscription Rates: Society members included with
membership dues. Subscription rates available upon
request. Copyright and reprint permissions: Abstracting is
permitted with credit to the source. Libraries are permitted
to photocopy beyond the limits of U.S. Copyright law for the
private use of patrons 1) those post-1977 articles that
carry a code at the bottom of the first page, provided the
per-copy fee indicated in the code is paid through the
Carlton Anumnu, Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers,
the IEEE PES Scholarship Plus MA 01923 USA; 2) pre-1978 articles without fee. For other
Initiative grant recipient. copying, reprint, or republication permission, write
Copyrights and Permissions Department, IEEE Operations
Page 63. Center, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA.
Copyright © 2018 by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc. All rights reserved. Postmaster:
Send address changes to IEEE Electrificaton Magazine, IEEE
Operations Center, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, NJ 08854
USA. Canadian GST #125634188 Printed in U.S.A.

Promoting Sustainable Forestry

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784625 SFI-01681

 Editorial board Chris Searles
about this issue Iqbal Husain Editor, Electric Vehicles
Editor-in-Chief BAE Batteries
North Carolina State Wisconsin, USA
University Chris.Searles@baebatter-
North Carolina, USA iesusa.com
ihusain2@ncsu.edu
Silva Hiti
Tamas Ruzsanyi Editor, Electric Vehicles

Powering
Editor, Electric Trains Faraday Future
Ganz-Skoda California, USA
Hungary silva.hiti@ff.com
tamas.ruzsanyi@ieee.org

Transportation with
Eduard Muljadi
Eduardo Pilo de la Fuente Editor, Electric Vehicles
Editor, Electric Trains Auburn University
EPRail Research Alabama, USA

Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Consulting

Spain
eduardo.pilo@eprail.com
mze0018@auburn.edu

Jose Conrado Martinez
Editor, Electric Trains
Directcion de Estrategia
By Eduard Muljadi and Syed Hossain y Desarrollo
Spain
jcmartinez@adif.es
Suryanarayana Doolla
ransportation sectors are currently Editor, Microgrid
Syed A. Hossain
Editor, Electric Planes
GE Aviation
Ohio, USA
syed.hossain@ge.com
Kaushik Rajashekara
Editor, Electric Planes
University of Houston
Texas, USA
ksraja@central.uh.edu

T focused on a few key areas: fuel, emissions, noise,

security, and safety. Globally, governments and com-
Indian Institute of Technol-
ogy Bombay
India
panies are investing in and developing technologies to reduce suryad@iitb.ac.in
the environmental impact of transportation systems, thereby
Mohammad
increasing concentration on fuel sources. A variety of alterna- Shahidehpour
tive fuel technologies, i.e., batteries, fuel cells, synthetic fuels, Editor, Microgrid
Illinois Institute
and biofuels, is being used or researched as alternatives to fossil of Technology
fuel-based transportation. In this special issue, we discuss Illinois, USA
ms@iit.edu
hydrogen fuel cells for transportation.
We open the issue with the article “Renewable Hydrogen— Steve Pullins
Economically Viable,” where authors Jennifer Kurtz, Mike Peters, Editor, Microgrid
GridIntellect
Matteo Muratori, and Chris Gearhart discuss renewables Tennessee, USA
in U.S. transportation. The article explores the feasibility steve@gridintellect.com
of renewable hydrogen sus-
Antonello Monti
tainability by utilizing re- Editor, Microgrid
The articles presented RWTH Aachen
newable energy to support
in this issue discuss Germany
the production of hydrogen
amonti@eonerc.
the advantages, and discusses t h e future rwth-aachen.de
obstacles, current development of fueling sta- Marta Molinas
status, feasibility, tion infrastructure. Editor, Electric Ships
Norwegian University of
The next article, “Hydrogen
and sustainability Science and Technology
Production via Water Electroly- Norway
of renewable sis” by Woo Je Chang, Kyung- marta.molinas@ntnu.no
hydrogen production. Hwan Lee, Jung-Ik Ha, and Ki Herb Ginn
Tae Nam, presents an exam- Editor, Electric Ships
University of
ple of practical solar photovol- South Carolina
taic energy conversion into hydrogen through electrolysis. The South Carolina, USA
ginnhl@cec.sc.edu
authors explain the conversion process of maximizing the ener-
gy harvested from the sun, and they provide an overview of the Robert Cuzner
hydrogen production optimization process, a concept that was Editor, Electric Ships
University of
developed and tested at the university laboratory. ­Wisconsin-Milwaukee
In “Government Policies Help Promote Clean Transportation Wisconsin, USA
in India,” authors Bandi Mallikarjuna Reddy, Paulson Samuel, Cuzner@uwm.edu
and Narapureddy Siva Mohan Reddy give an Indian point of Khwaja Rahman
Editor, Electric Vehicles
General Motors
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784627 Michigan, USA
Date of publication: 28 February 2018 khwaja.rahman@gm.com
Babak Nahid-Mobarakeh
Editor, Electric Planes
University of Lorraine
France
Babak.nahid@ieee.org
Bulent Sarlioglu
Editor, Electric Planes
University of
Wisconsin-Madison
Wisconsin, USA
bulent@engr.wisc.edu
IEEE Periodicals
Magazines
­Department
445 Hoes Lane,
Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA
Debby Nowicki
Managing Editor
Geri Krolin-Taylor
Senior Managing Editor
Janet Dudar
Senior Art Director
Gail A. Schnitzer,
Associate Art Director
Theresa L. Smith
Production Coordinator
Felicia Spagnoli
Advertising Production
Manager
Peter M. Tuohy
Production Director
Kevin Lisankie
Editorial Services Director
Dawn Melley
Staff Director,
Publishing Operations
advertising sales
Erik Henson
Naylor Association Solutions
Tel: +1 352 333 3443
Fax: +1 352 331 3525
ehenson@naylor.com

2 I EEE E l e c t ri f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018 Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784626

view on the importance of building zero-emission
vehicles. The logistics and required infrastructure,
particularly the environmental and economic driv-
ers, are discussed, and the local talents developing
fuel-cell technology are acknowledged.
Many areas have begun using alternative fuel-
ing transportation, including California, where
hydrogen fueling infrastructures are already in
place. The article “The Future Is Present in Cali-
fornia” by Andrew Martinez details the fast-paced
efforts by manufacturers making it possible for
the general public to enjoy various models of
fuel-cell electric vehicles. If the trend con­­tinues,
California will be in the technological forefront,
reaping the benefits of the hydrogen econo-
my resurrection.
The article, “Obstacles to the Success of Fuel-
Cell Electric Vehicles,” by Jungik Kim and Saehoon
Kim, focuses on fuel-cell electric vehicles and dis-
cusses the technology’s efficiency, driving range,
and power capacity. The article notes ways to sus-
tain technology and maintain market share when
in competition with other technologies. The authors
consider durability, cost, safety, and infrastructure
to be the industry’s recipe for success.
The final feature considers transportation in
the automotive and marine milieu. “The Island
Hydrogen Project,” by Silviu Nistor, Stephen Carr,
and Mahesh Sooriyabandara, offers a unique per-
spective on the concept called the Island Hydrogen
Project, which studies both automotive and marine
fueling stations.
The “Technology Leaders” column presents a
contemporary explanation of the importance of
hydrogen for our transportation industry. The arti-
cle overviews the development of fuel-cell technol-
ogies from the 1960s to the present and how their
performance and cost have improved dramatically
over the years.
The articles presented here discuss the advan-
tages, obstacles, current status, feasibility, and sus-
tainability of renewable hydrogen production. We
hope readers will enjoy these articles and, with
the authors’ proposed solutions, others in various
industries will be inspired to contribute their
Ground Fault Protection
knowledge and expertise. In this issue, we are for-
tunate to have many contributors from diverse
for Electric Vehicles
backgrounds and from countries representing dif- Bender’s insulation monitoring devices (IMI) protect
ferent continents. The various experience of the the entire electrical drive train, from the battery
contributors will enlighten readers with issues modules to the motors and loads
considered from many different points of view.

BENDER INC
1-800-356-4266
www.bender.org
 technology leaders
Hydrogen: What’s Different Now
By Chris Gearhart
his is an exciting time
T for hydrogen fuel-cell elec-
tric vehicles (FCEVs). They
seem to be on the verge of a major
market breakthrough. However,
those of us who have been working
in the hydrogen and FC industry for a
while are familiar with the boom and
bust cycle of FCEV hype—it feels like
we have been here before. The first
FC automobile was designed as far
back as the 1960s. NASA was using
FCs to power its spacecraft, and, in
1966, General Motors (GM) used this
space-age technology in the proto-
type GM Electrovan. The Electrovan
used the body and chassis of GM’s
Handivan, their production utility
van at the time. The FC and hydrogen
components for this vehicle filled
nearly the entire available space of
the van. At this point, FCs were clear-
ly too expensive and impractical for
production vehicles.
A few years later, during the
height of the energy crisis, the hydro-
gen economy received a large
amount of attention. Hydrogen of­­
fered a way to decouple transporta-
tion energy requirements from
petroleum production and ease U.S.
dependence on imported oil. How-
ever, with the return of cheap gaso-
line in the 1980s, momentum around
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784630
Date of publication: 28 February 2018
4 I E E E E l e c t ri f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018
the hydrogen economy, which could
have spurred the development of FC
vehicles, slowed. With the develop-
ment of viable polymer electrolyte
membrane (PEM) FC technologies in
the 1990s and a wave of new research,
the industry launched into the next
phase of FC vehicle excitement.
Daimler produced the NECAR-1 vehi-
cle in 1994, and, in the next six years,
Toyota, GM, Mazda, Ford, Honda, Nis-
san, and Volkswagen all developed
FC demonstration vehicles. It seemed
that FCEVs were on the verge of a
market breakthrough.
However, this enthusiasm created
expectations that grew faster than the
pace of technological development.
During the late 1990s and early 2000s,
car companies launched several limit-
ed FCEV-demonstration programs.
The vehicles in these programs
showed significant promise and pro-
vided an invaluable learning opportu-
nity, but they were not quite ready for
production. These results have led
many people to say that FCEVs are
the future and always will be. So,
what is different this time? Within
the past decade, there have been
many changes that will have sig-
nificant impact on the hydrogen
FC market.
Improved Cost and
Performance of FCs
Perhaps the most significant devel-
opment is that the fuel cells them-
selves have improved. FC costs have
dropped dramatically—by 60% since
2006—while performance has
improved. The U.S. Department of
Energy calculates the cost of FCs,
manufactured at high volume, to
b e roughly US$50/kW today, as
compared to its cost of more than
US$120/kW a decade ago (Figure 1).
Durability has increased by a factor
of four, and the power density of FC
stacks continues to increase, making
them easier to package in vehicles
(Satyapal 2016).
Availability of Commercial
FC Vehicles
A decade ago, car companies were
deploying small demonstration fleets
of FCEVs. Today, Hyundai, Toyota, and
Honda all have commercial vehicles
available, and although sales are still
small compared to other types of
vehicles, they are growing rapidly. As
of May 2017, total FCEV sales passed
2,700 in the United States. In addi-
tion, monthly sales numbers are
increasing by an average of roughly
10% every month (Figure 2) (Cobb
2017). Thus, FCEVs are no longer
demonstration vehicles; they are
commercial products.
Reduced Cost of
Renewable Hydrogen
The cost of renewable electricity
generation has dropped, enabling
cost-effective green hydrogen. ­Within
2325-5987/18©2018IEEE
the last decade, the availability of
low-cost solar cells has driven the
cost of utility-scale solar power down
to US$0.044–0.066/kWh, and the cost
of installed wind power has dropped
to US$0.02–0.04/kWh (Pivovar 2017).
Figure 3 illustrates the steep decline
in these prices. Consequently, re­­
newable electricity represents the
largest fraction of new installed elec-
trical power in the United States.
Although renewable electricity is still
a small fraction of the total installed
generation power, the rate of new
installation is impressive.
This dramatic reduction in the cost
of green electricity has two significant
effects on the hydrogen economy. First,
tailpipe emissions. The electrification of vehicles in ports. At least two compa-
heavy truck miles will reduce emissions nies, Toyota and Nikola, have demon-
just as it does in the light-duty sector. strated prototypes with the intention
However, the challenges of electrifying of developing commercial vehicles.
heavy-duty miles are much greater
than for light-duty vehicles. This is Global Commitment to
where hydrogen FC power trains real- Green House Gas Reduction
ly shine. These trains allow much and Cleaner Air
more energy to be stored in a smaller The main goals driving the develop-
volume than battery electric power ment of hydrogen FCEVs have always
trains allow. Several prototype-class been energy diversification and clean-
eight-FC vehicles have been devel- er air. This has not changed in the last
oped and deployed, mostly as drayage decade, but the global dedication to
140
120
FC System Cost (US$/kW)

it makes producing renewable hydro-

100
gen much more affordable. Second, as
more renewable electricity is installed, 80
strategies will be required to deal with
60
the intermittency of this generation.
Producing clean hydrogen is one way 40
to store renewable wind or solar elec-
trical energy that would have to other- 20
wise be curtailed. This trend should
0
lead to more affordable, low-carbon
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
sources of hydrogen.
Year

Electrification of Figure 1. The modeled cost of a PEM FC system based on the projection to high-volume man-
Heavy-Duty Vehicles ufacturing (500,000 units per year). (Data from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.)
It is not just about light-duty vehicles
anymore. It never really was; buses
have been a big part of early FC
400
deployments, and hundreds of FC
buses have been deployed globally 250
and have been shown to be efficient 300
and durable (NREL 2017). However, Monthly Sales
FC Vehicle Sales

250 10% Growth

much of the early development and
demonstration of FC propulsion sys- 200
tems has focused on demonstrating
that FCs could be packaged into 150
small vehicles. Now, attention is 100
turning toward heavy-duty vehicles.
These vehicles are an important 50
part of our economy. They move more 0
than 2 trillion ton-miles of freight in any
January
2016

May
2016

August
2016

November
2016

March
2017

June
2017

September
2017

December
2017

given year, and an increase to more

than 3 trillion ton-miles by 2050 is pre-
dicted. They also emit approximately
Month and Year
22% of the carbon dioxide emissions in
the United States and are responsi- Figure 2. The monthly U.S. FCEV sales from April 2016 to October 2017. (Data from the
ble for a disproportionate fraction of National Renewable Energy Laboratory.)

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 5

 technology leaders

meet these challenges has grown. The Another significant trend over the increases in manufacturing volume.
negative health impacts of tailpipe past several decades is the growing Over the last few decades, there has
emissions have been, and continue to commitment of governments around been a dramatic increase in other
be, the primary motivation for the the world to reduce the emission of markets for FC systems. Forklifts and
development and deployment of FCEVs greenhouse gases (GHGs). Nearly material-handling applications have
in the United States. These emissions, every country, apart from the United become a big part of the FC market,
in particular, nitrogen oxides, sulfur States, has signed the Paris Climate with more than 15,000 hydrogen FC
oxides, and particulates, are responsi- Accords. Each country that has signed forklifts already deployed or on order
ble for significant health problems, this agreement determines its own (Office of Energy Efficiency and Re­­
resulting in a large number of prema- contribution to GHG emissions reduc- newable Energy 2017).
ture deaths every year. California has tions and how it will meet this con- Stationary applications of FC
led the way with ambitious clean air tribution. Of these individually systems have also been growing.
targets that have helped drive the determined contributions, 75% in­­ PEM fuel cells have been shown to
development of FCEVs. clude explicit targets to reduce GHG be robust and reliable sources of
Globally, poor air quality in devel- emissions from the transportation stationary and backup power. The
oping countries such as China and sector. As with clean air standards, ability of FC systems to provide reli-
India is a significant and growing developing countries will need to able backup power to add resilience
problem. Although transportation- achieve these GHG emissions reduc- to the electrical grid during extreme
related emissions are not the only tions while transportation energy weather events is going to make
source of these emissions, they are a consumption nearly doubles. This can these systems increasingly valuable.
significant part of the problem. As only be accomplished and sustained A prior analysis of backup power gen-
the economies of developing nations if transportation energy can come eration in the aftermath of Hurri-
grow, the increased demand for auto- from near-zero-carbon-sources. cane Sandy demonstrated this value
mobiles and freight movement will in dramatic fashion (Kurtz et al.
only make these problems more dif- Emerging Market Applications 2015). The combination of high reli-
ficult to address. Furthermore, the Synergies with other industries that ability and the potential to provide
demand in these countries for zero- use FCs and hydrogen are increasing. low-carbon energy has also made
emission vehicles is going to increase The cost of new technologies is these systems desirable as power
as the need to reduce both emis- reduced through a combination of supplies for data centers. Daimler,
sions and vehicle miles traveled research breakthroughs and reduc- Hewlett Packard, and Power Innova-
becomes more prominent. tions in manufacturing costs due to tions have developed prototype FC
systems to power data center
microgrids (Daimler 2017). Conse-
quently, this market has the poten-
tial to create a dramatic in­­crease in
fuel-cell system sales.
12
Contract Price (US$/kWh)

10 Conclusion
There are still many barriers to the
8 widespread adoption of hydrogen
FCEVs, and we cannot say with
6
­certainty how soon we will see this
4 widespread adoption happen. But in
US$0.02/kWh response to those who say that
2 hydrogen will always be the technol-
ogy of the future, I would like to sug-
0
gest that they have not been paying
2008 2010 2012 2014 2015
attention to the successes of the last
Year
decade. A large amount has changed
Solar Wind Capacity (Gigawatt) in the past ten years: the technology
has made significant advances, the
economics of renewable hydrogen
Figure 3. Renewable electricity prices have fallen while capacity has grown. (Figure adapted
from B. Pivovar, H2@Scale: “Energy System-Wide Benefits of Increased Hydrogen Implementa- are quickly changing, the recognition
tion,” presented at the Fuel-Cell Seminar, Long Beach, California, 2017.) of the need for alternative energy

6 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

 sources for transportation is greater
than ever, and the synergies with
other FC applications are growing.
The next few years are going to be
very interesting as we watch the
ongoing development of the now-
commercial FCEV market.
For Further Reading
S. Satyapal, “U.S. Department of Energy
hydrogen and fuel cells program,” pre-
sented at the 2017 Annu. Merit Review
and Peer Evaluation Meeting, Washing-
ton, D.C., 2016.
J. Cobb. (2017, Nov. 2). October 2017
dashboard. Hybrid Cars. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.hybridcars.com/october-
2017-dashboard
B. Pivovar, “H2@Scale: Energy system-
wide benefits of increased hydrogen
implementation,” presented at the Fuel
Cell Seminar, Long Beach, CA, 2017.
NREL. (2017). Fuel cell electric bus
evaluations. [Online]. Available: https://
www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/fuel-cell-bus-
evalu​ation.html
Office of Energy Efficiency and Re­­
newable Energy. (2017). Fuel cell tech-
nologies office accomplishments
a n d progress. [Online]. Available:
https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/
fuel-cell-technologies-office-accom​
plishments-and-progress
J. Kurtz, G. Saur, and S. Sprik. (2015).
Hydrogen fuel cell performance as tele-
communications backup power in the
United States. NREL, U.S. Dept. Energy.
Washington, D.C. Tech. Rep. NREL/
TP-5400-60730. [Online]. Available:
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16os-
ti/60730.pdf
Daimler. (2017, Nov.). Technology
collaboration on non-transportation
fuel cell systems: Daimler partners
with computing experts to transfer
automotive fuel cell technology to car-
bon-free energy supply systems.
[Online]. Available: http://media.daimler
.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/
ko/Technology-collaboration-on-non-
transportation-fuel-cell-systems-
Daimler-partners-with-computing-
experts-to-transfer-automotive-fuel-
cell-technology-to-carbon-free-energy-
supply-systems.xhtml?oid=30224374
Biography
Chris Gearhart (Chris.Gearhart@nrel
.gov) is with the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory.


& IAS

Cape Town • 26-29 June 2018

PowerAfrica 2018 will be a platform for
participants from academia, electric utilities and
industry to discuss experiences, best practices
and associated technical developments that can
be applied towards the electrification of Africa
enabling socio-economic development. Power
delivery regulations, investments and policies
will also be addressed.

ieee-powerafrica.org

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2018.2802819

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 7

 By Jennifer Kurtz, Mike Peters,
Matteo Muratori, and Chris Gearhart

Renewable
Hydrogen—
Economically Viable
Integration into the he U.S. transportation sector is expected

T
to meet numerous goals in differing applications.
U.S. transportation These goals address security, safety, fuel source,

sector. emissions reductions, advanced mobility models,

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784631
Date of publication: 28 February 2018
©istockphoto.com/Petmal
and improvements in quality and accessibility. Solu-
tions to meeting these goals include a variety of alternative-fuel
technologies, including batteries, fuel cells, synthetic fuels, and bio-
fuels, as well as modifying how current transportation systems are

8 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / March 2018 U.S. Government work not protected by U.S. Copyright.
used and integrating new systems, such as storing renew-
able energy. Overall, there are many combinations of prob-
lems, objectives, and solutions.
In this article, we focus on one component of a multi-
technology strategy: hydrogen. Hydrogen for transportation
applications can reduce emissions without sacrificing per-
formance, be sourced locally via renewable resources, and
support the U.S. economy through jobs and advanced tech-
nology development. As a ­flexible energy carrier, hydrogen
can also support the electric power and industrial sectors.
With support from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
Fuel-Cell Technology Office, the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) is demonstrating ways to improve the
cost, performance, and durability of hydrogen production,
infrastructure, and end-use technologies.
A Sustainable Transportation Solution
The Questions
When hydrogen is discussed as a sustainable transporta-
tion solution, the following questions are commonly asked:
1) Is hydrogen available and feasible in the near term?
2) Why should hydrogen be part of the solution for
reducing transportation emissions even if we still pro-
duce it from natural gas?
3) How will renewable hydrogen be cost effective and
able to meet the transportation demands?
The Answers
Today, about ten million metric tons of hydrogen are pro-
duced each year for use primarily in industrial applications,
i.e., petroleum refining and fertilizer production. Most of
this hydrogen is produced via steam methane reforming,
which is the lowest-cost production method. Hydrogen is
also being used in the United States for mobile and station-
ary fuel-cell applications. California now has more than 30
retail hydrogen-fueling stations for fuel-cell passenger vehi-
cles, and these stations dispensed more than 100,000 kg of
­hydrogen in 2016.
Fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are available for lease
and purchase in limited regions that have hydrogen infra-
structure, mainly in California but also in some Northeast
locations. Hydrogen fuel-cell buses have been operating in
revenue transit service for more than a decade. Fuel-cell
forklifts are in use by a variety of companies because of
their demonstrated value in high-demand warehouse
operations, and fuel-cell trucks are in development
because of performance benefits, including extended
range, short refueling time, and vehicle driving capability
(e.g., acceleration and power).
Steam methane reforming of natural gas is currently
the most common and lowest-cost method used to pro-
duce hydrogen; however, there are many options in vari-
ous stages of commercial readiness for hydrogen
production using renewable resources. The most techni-
cally advanced option is through water electrolysis with
renewable electricity. In fact, many renewable resources in
the United States, i.e., wind, solar, and biomass, can be
used to produce hydrogen.
Currently, it is expensive to produce hydrogen renew-
ably via electrolysis, and research and development (R&D)
is focused on reducing cost through advancing technology,
IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / Ma r c h 201 8 9
 optimizing operation strategies, and
utilizing otherwise-curtailed renew-
able energy. California requires 33% of
the hydrogen sold in the state to be
produced from renewable sources,
and other areas are beginning to
implement renewable hydrogen pro-
duction and dispensing requirements
for stations receiving incentives.
Enabling wide-scale production and
utilization of hydrogen is an objective
of a multilab initiative called Hydrogen
at Scale (H2@Scale). This initiative aims to integrate hydro-
gen technologies across generation and consumption sec-
tors to reduce cost, diversify feedstocks, enhance grid
flexibility, reduce emissions, and generate jobs. Hydrogen
can be an economically viable solution that connects the
grid with the renewable generation, transportation, sta-
tionary, and industrial sectors.
Current View: Hydrogen Use in Transportation
Hydrogen FCEVs are considered by many to be ideal, no-
compromise, alternative-fuel vehicles. FCEVs offer zero
tailpipe emissions while giving drivers the same range
and fueling experience they have come to expect from
gasoline-powered vehicles. Figure 1 shows the current
fueling nozzle and FCEV receptacle. Despite their many
advantages, these vehicles have been perpetually con-
sidered for the future. However, during years when the
attention on alternative-fuel-vehicles shifted solutions
considered closer to market-ready, the R&D of hydrogen
FCEVs ­continued. In the past decade, dramatic technol-
ogy improvements in the industry have resulted in
many automakers now having commercially available
FCEVs, and many others are poised to bring them to the
market soon.
To generate useful work from stored hydrogen, fuel
cells consume hydrogen in an electrochemical reaction
with oxygen (from the air) to produce electricity, water,
and heat. The electricity is then used to power the FCEV’s
electric motor. The efficiency of a fuel-cell system is
Figure 1. An example of retail hydrogen fueling. (Image courtesy of NREL.)
10 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / March 2018
Hydrogen FCEVs typically two to three times higher
than that of an internal combustion
are considered by engine, and FCEVs have many of the
same attributes—fueling time, range,
many to be ideal, power, mass, and size—as today’s
no-compromise, conventionally fueled vehicles. Many
of the initial barriers to FCEV adop-
alternative-fuel tion, including cost, durability, perfor-
mance in subfreezing temperatures,
vehicles. volume/mass of on-board hydrogen
storage tanks, and vehicle packaging,
have been reduced or eliminated
through technology advances. Fuel-cell system costs have
dropped from US$275/kW in 2002 to US$50/kW in 2016,
roughly an 80% reduction, while durability has seen a
fourfold increase. Fuel-cell systems in the field have
achieved more than 120,000 mi of operation with less
than 10% degradation in stack voltage. Fuel-cell stacks
and power systems have also made dramatic improve-
ments in power density and system integration. Fuel-cell
system power densities have roughly doubled in the past
decade, allowing greater packaging flexibility.
The automotive industry has settled on 70-MPa on-
board hydrogen storage systems with energy storage den-
sities of ~1.4 kWh/kg and ~0.8 kWh/L, compared to
~0.24 kWh/kg and ~0.5 kWh/L for automotive lithium-ion
batteries. Although these energy densities are low com-
pared to liquid fuels, they allow most FCEVs to store
enough hydrogen for more than 300 mi per fill. These vehi-
cles can fill at a rate of 5 kg (a full tank) in 3–5 min, and the
energy content of hydrogen is 33.3 kWh/kg (roughly the
equivalent energy content of a gallon of g ­ asoline).
To date, most FCEV development has focused on light-
duty personal vehicles, but the benefits that hydrogen fuel-
cell power trains bring to light-duty vehicles can have an
even bigger impact in heavy-duty vehicle applications.
As heavy-duty vehicles are responsible for the majority of
tailpipe emissions in urban areas, electrification of these
vehicles could have significant air quality and health ben-
efits. The volume and weight of the batteries to electrify
many of these heavy-duty applications make battery-
based systems very difficult, but hydrogen fuel-cell systems
are a possible solution. The large number of hydrogen fuel-
cell bus demonstrations shows there is a precedent for the
use of hydrogen in heavy-duty applications. Additionally,
there are a number of demonstrations of hydrogen vehi-
cles in other commercial applications, ranging from local
delivery trucks to class-8 tractors.
Successful deployment of FCEVs relies on the availabil-
ity of a widespread and convenient hydrogen refueling
infrastructure. Hydrogen infrastructure for fueling FCEVs
has progressed in the last decade from individual stations
with specific access requirements and limited opera-
tion hours to retail fueling stations. Because of the high
costs of hydrogen infrastructure, planning and opti-
mizing hydrogen fueling system rollout have been key
components of the stakeholders’ agenda. Policy has been
a key enabler for hydrogen stations in California, where
the number of retail hydrogen stations went from zero to
more than 30 in fewer than two years and the annual
hydrogen dispensed went from 27,400 kg in 2015 to
109,200 kg in 2016, a nearly fourfold increase in just one
year (Figure 2). As of 2017, there were 36 public hydrogen
stations in the United States, with 33 of them in California
(29 counted as fully operational retail stations in Septem-
ber 2017). If private stations are included, there are 62 sta-
tions currently operating in the United States and another
26 stations planned, with the Northeast as the next region
of deployment focus. Hydrogen infrastructure is also
expanding internationally, with 180 active stations outside
the United States.
The DOE’s long-term cost target for dispensed hydro-
gen is US$2–3/gasoline gallon equivalent (gge). (The
energy of 1 kg of hydrogen is approximately equivalent
to the energy of 1 gal of gasoline.) This long-term target
cost exists to benchmark cost reduction progress and
to identify a goal of parity with gasoline costs. Hydro-
gen station cost studies have shown that cost-competi-
tive (US$3–5/gge) hydrogen is possible today for a
station that uses delivered hydrogen produced from a
centralized steam methane-reforming facility. One sig-
nificant assumption of this analysis is that the station
has a high average dispensing rate of 750–1,000 kg of
hydrogen per day. This rate is much higher than the
dispensing rate of current stations, but, with installa-
tion costs contributing a large fraction of the life-cycle
costs of the station, the cost of dispensed hydrogen will
decrease with an increasing dispensing rate to meet
the long-term target cost. Today, hydrogen station dis-
pensing price ranges US$13–16/gge, with at least one
station operator announcing plans for US$10/gge
hydrogen sales.
A modern U.S. hydrogen station is capable of dis-
pensing 100–400 kg per day, with, typically, one dispens-
er per station. The quantity of hydrogen dispensed
has increased significantly as stations have moved
from demonstration to retail and as FCEVs have
moved from prototypes to commercial products. As
exemplified using data from NREL’s National Fuel-Cell
Technology Evaluation Center, fewer than 2,000 kg of
hydrogen were dispensed in all of 2009, while nearly
61,000 kg were dispensed in just the first three quar-
ters of 2016, with retail stations (as opposed to fleet
stations) dispensing more than 93% of the total hydro-
gen in that period.
The remaining challenges for fuel cells and hydrogen
in transportation are now related to improving perfor-
mance, decreasing cost, increasing renewable hydrogen

Hydrogen Dispensed by Quarter

120 Cumulative Hydrogen Dispensed = 372,503 kg

2017 By Year
Through Q2 170,139 kg
100
2016 109,202 kg
Hydrogen Dispensed (1,000 kg)

2015 27,431 kg
2014 19,738 kg
80
2013 16,335 kg
2012 17,433 kg
2011 8,055 kg
60
2010 2,260 kg
2009 1,910 kg
0 50 100 150 200
40
H2 Dispensed (1,000 kg)

20

0
2009 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2010 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2011 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2012 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2013 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2014 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2015 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2016 Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
2017 Q1
Q2

Note: Colors Represent Individual Stations

Figure 2. Through June 2017, the hydrogen dispensed by quarter (Q) for stations in the evaluation project. (Image courtesy of NREL.)

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / Ma r c h 201 8 11

 generation, and increasing fueling capability. the chal-
lenges are no longer about whether hydrogen fueling is
possible, since the challenges are now typical of engineer-
ing product development.
Feasibility and Sustainability of
Large-Scale Renewable Hydrogen
About ten million metric tons of hydrogen—enough to
power approximately 45 million passenger cars, assuming
a fuel economy of 51 mi/kg and about 11,000 mi driven per
year—is produced annually in the United States, mostly
for industrial applications, including petroleum refining
and fertilizer production. While nearly all of this hydrogen
is produced through steam methane reforming, which is
currently the least-expensive production pathway, several
other methods exist for producing hydrogen from renew-
able energy sources. These include the following:
xx water electrolysis based on renewable (or nuclear)
electricity
xx high-temperature thermochemical hydrogen produc-
tion that uses concentrated solar energy
xx biomass-derived liquid reforming
xx biomass gasification
xx photoelectrochemical and biological hydrogen pro-
duction (early-stage technologies).
All of these renewable hydrogen production pathways,
with some graphically represented in Figure 3, can be
deployed in centralized or semicentralized plants—i.e.,
facilities that are located at the edge of urban areas to
limit distribution requirements. Electrolysis can also be
deployed in a network of small-scale distributed refueling
stations to avoid the large capital investments required for
hydrogen transport and delivery infrastructure. Producing
hydrogen through electrolysis also offers opportunities to
provide grid services and facilitate the integration of
renewable electricity generation sources.
Recent Studies
NREL performed several studies recently to assess the
availability of renewable hydrogen supply in the United
States, the geographic correlation between hydrogen
supply and demand for mobility needs (mainly for pas-
senger vehicle applications), and the sustainability of
renewable hydrogen. For a transportation-based success
in the United States, domestic, renewable hydrogen
needs to be available at a scale (e.g., six times current
hydrogen production levels) large enough to satisfy
mobility needs and industrial demand at a competitive
price. It concluded that ample domestic, low-carbon
energy resources are available in terms of the technical

Natural
Bioreactor Gas Storage CNG Fueling
Biomass CO2 Storage
Pyrolysis

Hydrogen-
Hydrogen Hydrogen Fueled
Electrolyzer Storage Fueling Vehicles
+ –
CNG-Fueled
Vehicles

Wind Fuel Cells + – Fueling

and Station
Short-Term Engines Electrolyzer Home Heating
Energy Storage
and Hot Water

Other Renewables:
Solar, Geothermal,
Hydro Electric Line
Hydrogen Piping
CO2 Piping
Natural Gas Piping

Electric Natural Gas

Grid Turbine

Figure 3. The various renewable pathway scenarios for hydrogen production. CNG: compressed natural gas. (Image courtesy of NREL.)

12 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / March 2018

production potential, which does
Table 1. The renewable resource and corresponding
not consider economic or market
hydrogen production potentials.
constraints, and the spatial prox-
imity of adequate resources to Renewable
­Pathway Annual Resource Annual Hydrogen Potential
future demand centers.
Table 1 shows the availability of Biomass (EP) 900 t 15 quads 60 t/h2 8 quads
Biomass (TRR) 1,100 t 19 quads 80 t/h2 10 quads
renewable resources in the United
Wind (EP) 2,000 tWh 20 quads 40 t/h2 6 quads
States and the corresponding annual Wind (TRR) 50,000 tWh 500 quads 1,100 t/h2 150 quads
hydrogen production potential. For Solar (EP) 1,000 tWh 10 quads 20 t/h2 3 quads
comparison, the entire U.S. transpor- Solar (TRR) 400,000 tWh 3,900 quads 8,700 t/h2 1,200 quads
tation sector consumed ~28 quadril- EP: economic potential; TRR: technical recoverable resource.
lion British thermal units (quads) in
2016. Results indicate that economi-
cally recoverable resources could produce enough hydro- hydrogen transportation network will be needed to
gen to satisfy the majority of the transportation needs and serve high-demand urban centers.
that the technical recoverable resource exceeds transpor- Multiple resources, including biomass, wind, and solar,
tation demand by two orders of magnitude. likely will be needed to support large-scale production of
The renewable hydrogen technical potential with the renewable hydrogen. In an assessment of renewable
gasoline consumption in each U.S. county is compared resources available for hydrogen production, NREL showed
in Figure 4, showing that large-scale renewable hydrogen that the solar potential for renewable hydrogen produc-
to support mobility needs is feasible in the United tion tends to dominate biomass and wind resources
States. While the overall availability for renewable across the United States (see Figure 5). However, biomass-
hydrogen exceeds the overall mobility needs near major produced hydrogen and electrolytic hydrogen produced
urban areas and across the Appalachian Mountains, from otherwise-curtailed wind electricity present good
there are counties where gasoline use exceeds the opportunities for producing renewable hydrogen at a
hydrogen production potential. Deployment of a lower cost. While biogas resources, such as landfills,

Above 1,000 Times

500–1,000 Times
100–500 Times
50–100 Times
25–50 Times
5–25 Times
1–5 Times
50–100%
Less than 50%

Figure 4. The renewable hydrogen production potential relative to gasoline consumption, by county. (Image courtesy of NREL.)

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / Ma r c h 201 8 13

 Total: 4.7 Trillion kg H2/yr
Potential Generation from Land-Based and Offshore Wind,
Hydrogen (Thousand kg/km2/yr)
Utility-Scale Photovoltaics, and Solid and Gaseous Biomass
Residues, with Resource-Specific Exclusions Applied to Biomass Wind Solar
Land-Based Wind and Photovoltaics. Above 1,000 Above 1,000 Above 1,000
500–1,000 500–1,000 500–1,000
100–500 100–500 100–500
Below 100 Below 100 Below 100

Figure 5. The hydrogen production potential from dominant renewable resources. Total kg of hydrogen per county, normalized by county area.
(Image courtesy of NREL.)

animal manure, and wastewater treatment centers, have
lower overall availability, they are usually located close to
population centers, and this proximity offers good early-
market opportunities to exploit waste resources and limit
transportation cost and infrastructure requirements.
Overall, it is likely that renewable hydrogen will come
from a variety of sources, with large opportunities to sup-
port the integration of renewable electricity sources and
exploit otherwise-curtailed renewable electricity.
Status of Renewable Hydrogen
Production Technologies
NREL is pursuing economically viable technology options
for renewable hydrogen production. The results of path-
ways analyses to date suggest there is more than enough
renewable resources to domestically produce hydrogen for
the U.S. transportation sector, and H2@Scale analysis pre-
sented a roadmap for improving the economics of renew-
able hydrogen.
So where are we right now with moving renewably
produced hydrogen molecules into mobile fuel-cell sys-
tems? Dispensing renewably produced hydrogen to
FCEVs is currently cost prohibitive, and most hydrogen
stations use delivered gas produced at large, centralized
steam methane-reforming plants. However, to fully
realize the benefits of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles,
renewable hydrogen stations are necessary and, there-
fore, are a focus for future hydrogen station research
and development.
Renewable Hydrogen-Fueling Stations of Today
There are a few renewable hydrogen stations currently
in operation or planned. The California Energy Com-
mission (CEC) helps fund the capital and operation and

14 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / March 2018

maintenance cost of hydrogen sta- This project landfill-gas-to-hydrogen project in
tions in California. In turn, the CEC South Carolina, leaving the door
mandates that all hydrogen stations combines modeling, open for a mix of technologies in
funded by the commission must pro- the future of hydrogen production.
vide 33% of their hydrogen from
simulation, and
renewables. The CEC has also funded hardware to validate Advances in Renewable Hydrogen
100% renewable hydrogen stations as Production Systems
part of the same initiative; these 100% system performance Out of all of the renewable hydrogen
renewable stations typically produce production technologies, electrolysis
hydrogen from electrolysis, purchas-
and quantify the has the highest system readiness
ing renewable electricity credits to economic benefit. level because of advancements made
power the system. In practice, a by small business electrolyzer compa-
majority of the stations simply pay a nies, advancements in the fuel-cell
small renewable gas credit fee and do field that have been applied to elec-
not actually produce the renewable hydrogen themselves. trolyzers, and research in the direct coupling and opera-
For this reason, the California Air Resources Board estab- tion of electrolyzers at NREL. In the near- (e.g., less than
lished a low-carbon fuel standard to help offset the cost of five years) and midterm (e.g., five-to-ten years), low-tem-
producing hydrogen from renewable sources. This 2015 perature electrolysis is a viable solution for renewable
standard has the goal of reducing the carbon intensity pool hydrogen production. In the long-term (e.g., more than ten
of the transportation sector by 10% by 2020. years), technologies like high-temperature electrolysis,
California is not the only state with hydrogen sta- photoelectrochemical water splitting, or others may
tions in development. In the Northeast, Air Liquide, become the mainstream technology. There have been sig-
United States, plans to build 12 stations as a first step nificant technology advancements in long-term solu-
in establishing a station network in that area. Air Liq- tions. For instance, NREL demonstrated a new world
uide is committed to generating renewable hydrogen, record for photoelectrochemical solar-to-hydrogen con-
with a goal of having 50% of its hydrogen energy be version of more than 16% in 2017. Figure 6 illustrates the
CO2-free by 2020. In addition, BMW has demonstrated a status of current technologies and what the near-, mid-, and

Established
Industrial Process
High-Temp
Coal Gasification Electrolysis
with CCS
Central

Natural Gas STCH

Reforming
Biomass Electrolysis Photo-
Gasification Electrolysis PEC
(Wind) Biological
(Solar)

Near Term Midterm Long Term

Distributed

Natural Gas Electrolysis Bio-Derived Microbial Biomass

Reforming (Grid) Liquids Conversion

Biomass Pathways Solar Pathways

P&D Subprogram R&D Efforts

Successfully Concluded
Estimated Plant Up to 50,000 100,000 ≥ 500,000
Capacity (kg/day) 1,500

Figure 6. The near-, mid-, and long-term hydrogen production pathways. CCS: carbon capture sequestration; STCH: solar thermochemical hydro-
gen production; PEC: photoelectrochemical; P&D: production and delivery. (Image courtesy of the DOE Fuel-Cell Technologies Office.)

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / Ma r c h 201 8 15

 long-term options are for hydrogen
production pathways.
It is hard to predict the implemen-
tation of long-term hydrogen produc-
tion pathways, so here we focus on
near-term hydrogen production
through low-temperature electrolysis.
There are three primary technolo-
gies for low-temperature electrolysis
systems: alkaline, polymer electrolyte
membrane (PEM), and alkaline mem-
brane. Alkaline systems are a proven
technology that is capable of scaling
to megawatt levels. PEM systems have
seen the most growth in the past few
years in terms of size. Alkaline mem-
brane systems have the potential to be a very low-cost
solution; however, this technology is a few years away
from commercialization.
The PEM electrolysis industry has seen growth for
two main reasons: 1) PEM systems are more compact
and have a smaller footprint, and 2) PEM systems
allow for a differential pressure between the hydro-
gen (cathode) and oxygen (anode) side of the electro-
lyzer stack. This differential pressure allows for some
work to be done by the stack to electrochemically
compress the hydrogen to higher pressures. Current
PEM stacks operate around 200–400 psig, but there
are smaller PEM stacks that are approaching up to
6,000+ psig with electrochemical compression. Elec-
trochemical compression has the potential to elimi-
nate mechanical compressors from hydrog en
stations altogether, but innovations in electrochemi-
cal compression are necessary to meet the needs of
transportation fueling stations.
The DOE has set targets for stack and system efficien-
cy for electrolyzers, which are easily compared with a
standard metric that measures the energy needed (kWh)
to make 1 kg of hydrogen. The 2020 DOE target is
43 kWh/kg for stack energy use and 44 kWh/kg for system
energy use. Currently, low-temperature electrolyzer effi-
ciency is approximately 50–55 kWh/kg. To improve sys-
tem efficiency, NREL is conducting research to integrate
and optimize electrolyzer systems. One system optimiza-
tion problem is associated with the inverse relationship
between high power and high efficiency. On one hand,
larger systems operating at higher power levels are need-
ed to absorb excess renewable electricity generation and
produce large volumes of hydrogen; on the other hand,
as electrolyzer stacks reach higher power levels, their
stack efficiency tends to drop. Researchers at NREL track
the current state-of-the-art electrolyzer stacks and sys-
tems available on the market.
On top of the hydrogen stacks, an electrolyzer system
contains ac/dc power supplies, deionized water systems,
hydrogen cleanup or drying systems, instrumentation and
16 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / March 2018
Renewable hydrogen controls, and safety and cooling sys-
tems. In general, the electrolyzer
in the U.S. stack consumes the most energy
in the hydrogen production process,
transportation accounting for ~80% of the energy
sector is a high-value consumed. The power conversion loss-
es through the ac/dc power supplies
pathway that will tend to have the second-highest
impact on system efficiency and could
both drive and be up to 15% of the energy consumed
benefit from H2@ by the system. Hydrogen cleanup
through drying can also have an
Scale’s efforts. impact on system efficiency.
A major benefit of low-tempera-
ture electrolysis is the ability of the
systems to ramp their energy con-
sumption up and down quickly. An NREL analysis showed
that electrolyzer systems could change their electricity
demand within milliseconds of a set-point change. This
makes electrolyzer systems a great candidate to provide
grid services. Also, their ability to handle highly variable
power profiles allows electrolyzer systems to be directly
coupled or closely coupled with renewable energy sources.
Building off of these small-scale experiments on electro-
lyzer control, NREL and the Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
are studying the controllability of a larger-scale (250-kW)
electrolyzer, producing hydrogen for transportation fuel-
ing under dynamic grid conditions to
xxdemonstrate reliable, fast-reacting electrolyz-
er performance
xxverify communications and controls needed for suc-
cessful participation in grid services for potential
additional revenue generation by hydrogen-fuel-
ing stations
xxvalidate enhanced grid management utilizing the
electrolyzer as a controllable load
xxoptimize operation decisions (e.g., whether or not to
participate in grid services) to maximize revenue and
reduce operating costs.
This project combines modeling, simulation, and hard-
ware to validate system performance and quantify the
economic benefit. NREL and INL have validated the vari-
able performance of multiple types and sizes of electrolyz-
ers under many scenarios and operating conditions for
the following performance metrics:
xxresponse time to power set-point changes
xxsettling time after set-point changes
xxstartup and shutdown time
xxturndown capability.
However, commercial, off-the-shelf electrolyzers are
not currently equipped with the controls and interfac-
es necessary for dynamic integration with the grid and
renewables. NREL, with INL, has developed a front-end
controller for power and grid management commands
with a fast and slow loop. The fast loop is for grid ser-
vices like voltage and frequency stability; the slow loop
is for decision making and optimi-
zation around economics and
hydrogen-fueling demands. These
two control loops factor in energy
price forecasting, hydrog en de­­
mand, hydrogen storage state of
charge, utility control, power, and
voltage. None of this is necessary,
though, if there is not a clear bene-
fit to these operation modes, so the
benefits must reach beyond the
question of whether an electrolyzer
can respond to grid and renewable
signals. Our research team demon-
strated that electrolyzers could enhance grid stability
by limiting frequency and voltage excursions, and an
NREL technoeconomic analysis looking at revenue
operation and device optimization found that it is pos-
sible to reduce electrolyzer operation costs by up to
Expanding hydrogen 20% using current market and rate
structures within California.
utilization in
Next Steps for Renewable
multiple energy Hydrogen-Fueling
sectors will support Infrastructure Development
The H2@Scale objective of connecting
hydrogen as a all the U.S. energy sectors via eco-
nomical hydrogen is providing a road-
game-changing map to increase renewable hydrogen
energy carrier. for transportation. This initiative is
showing how hydrogen, an energy
carrier, can provide multiple benefits
with multiple sectors to enhance the
value proposition (Figure 7).
Renewable generation costs for wind and solar are
decreasing. As of August 2016, 29 states, plus Washing-
ton, D. C., and three territories, have a renewable portfo-
lio standard, and eight other states and one territory

Power
Generation Value-Added
Applications
Hydrogen/
Electricity
Natural Gas
Wind Grid
Infrastructure

Hydrogen
Hydrogen Vehicle
Solar PV Storage/
Distribution

ortation
Synthetic
Fuels

Transp

CO2
Upgrading
Natural Oil/
Gas/Coal Biomass

Battery N2

Nuclear,
Thermal,
Geothermal, Ammonia/
and More Fertilizer

Hydrogen Metals
Generation Refining
Other
End Use
CO2 ial
ustr
Ind

Figure 7. An illustrative example of the H2@Scale concept (not comprehensive). PV: photovoltaic. (Images courtesy of B. Pivovar et al., 2017.)

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / Ma r c h 201 8 17

 have renewable portfolio goals. These renewable portfolio
standards range from 18% by 2021 (Pennsylvania) to
100% by 2045 (Hawaii). With these trends, renewable
capacity has increased exponentially, which is improving
the economics of hydrogen production from low-cost
renewable electricity. For instance, as renewable genera-
tion increases, the mismatch between load and genera-
tion is more pronounced and managed by limiting the
generation. This mismatch can be managed by producing
hydrogen with the excess renewable generation instead
of it being curtailed.
Low-cost electricity is essential to improving the eco-
nomics of this multisector hydrogen energy system.
Steam methane reforming is currently the lowest-cost
hydrogen production method with a production cost of
approximately US$2/kg hydrogen at industrial scale.
Today’s electrolyzer production cost is approximately
two and one half times more expensive than that of
steam methane reforming, mainly because of high feed-
stock (electricity price) and capital costs. The H2@Scale
initiative establishes steps to improve the economics of
electrolysis. The first step is to leverage the low-cost
renewable electricity with intermittent operation, and
the second step is to reduce capital costs through R&D
advances. The following research paths are needed to
achieve H2@Scale:
xx low-cost, durable intermittent hydrogen generation
technology
xx storage and distribution infrastructure that is reliable,
safe, and durable
xx development and expansion of energy sectors utiliz-
ing hydrogen.
Renewable hydrogen in the U.S. transportation sector is
a high-value pathway that will both drive and benefit
from H2@Scale’s efforts. Advancing the direct coupling of
electrolyzers with low-cost, reduced, renewable genera-
tion and operation for grid services is expected to increase
the amount of renewable hydrogen dispensed into FCEVs.
At-scale system sizes (e.g., gigawatts of renewable genera-
tion capability) will help create the necessary infrastruc-
ture to move renewable hydrogen from production
locations to fueling stations. Expanding hydrogen utiliza-
tion in multiple energy sectors will support hydrogen as a
game-changing energy carrier.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank the U.S. Department of Energy’s
Fuel-Cell Technologies Office for their funding support on
several of the studies described in this article.
Notice: The views and opinions of the authors expressed
herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Unit-
ed States Government or any agency thereof. Neither the
United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor
any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or
18 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / March 2018
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for
the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any informa-
tion, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or repre-
sents that its use would not infringe privately owned
rights. The U.S. Government retains and the publisher, by
accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that
the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, paid-up,
irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce
the published form of this work, or allow others to do so,
for U.S. Government purposes.
For Further Reading
B. Pivovar, “H2@Scale: Energy system-wide benefits of
increased hydrogen implementation,” presented at the 2017
Fuel Cell Sem. & Energy Expo., 7–9 Nov., Long Beach, CA.
S. Sprik, J. Kurtz, C. Ainscough, G. Saur, and M. Peters,
“Performance of existing hydrogen stations,” presented at
the 2017 Fuel Cell Sem. & Energy Expo., 7–9 Nov., Long
Beach, CA.
B. Piviovar, J. Kurtz, and K. Harrison. (2017, Oct. 11). Demon-
strating and advancing benefits of hydrogen technology.
R&D Magazine. [Online]. Available: https://www.rdmag
.com/article/2017/10/demonstrating-and-advancing-benefits-
hydrogen-technology
California Environmental Protection Agency. (2017, Aug.).
2017 annual evaluation of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle
deployment and hydrogen fuel station network development.
[Online]. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/
ab8/ab8_report_2017.pdf
J. Young, M. Steiner, H. Doscher, R. France, J. Turner, and T.
Deutsch, “Direct solar-to-hydrogen conversion via inverted
metamorphic multi-junction semiconductor architectures,”
Nature Energy, vol. 2, p. 17028, Mar. 2017.
T. Ramsden, M. Ruth, V. Diakov, M. Laffen, and T. A. Timbar-
io, “Hydrogen pathways: Updated cost, well-to-wheels energy
use, and emissions for the current technology status of ten
hydrogen production, delivery, and distribution scenarios,”
National Renewable Energy Lab., Golden, CO, Rep. NREL/
TP-6A10-60528, Mar. 2013.
J. Turner, G. Sverdrup, M. K. Mann, P. C. Maness, B. Kroposki,
M. Ghirardi, R. J. Evans, and D. Blake, “Renewable hydrogen
production,” Int. J. Energy Res., vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 379–407, Apr.
2008.
M. W. Melaina, “Turn of the century refueling: A review of
innovations in early gasoline refueling methods and analo-
gies for hydrogen,” Energy Policy, vol. 35, no. 10, pp. 4919–4934,
Oct. 2007.
Biographies
Jennifer Kurtz (jennifer.kurtz@nrel.gov) is with the Nation-
al Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.
Mike Peters (michael.peters@nrel.gov) is with the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.
Matteo Muratori (matteo.muratori@nrel.gov) is with
the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden,
­Colorado.
Chris Gearhart (chris.gearhart@nrel.gov) is with the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.

By Woo Je Chang, Kyung-Hwan
Lee, Jung-Ik Ha, and Ki Tae Nam

Hydrogen Production
via Water
Electrolysis
The benefits of a
solar cell-powered
process.

he recent emergence

T
of the hydrogen (H 2) fuel-
cell electric vehicle (FCEV)
guarantees the benign
nature of the transpor-
tation industry. Several companies, e.g.,
Toyota and Hyundai, have started to com-
mercialize H 2 FCEV with relatively com-
parable properties to meet the renewable
energy-based future. For instance, the Hyundai
Tucson can drive around 400 mi after 3 min of a
simple H 2 charge. Additionally, to keep abreast of
supporting H 2 FCEVs, Germany has decided to help
construct the fueling stations by supporting funding and
restricting oil-based vehicles production.

The Environmental Concerns

©istockphoto.com/Petmal

of Gas-Reforming H2 Production
The fervent research, industrialization, and funding
of FCEVs are due to the belief that they do not produce any
harmful products after H 2 combustion. This is partially
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784632
Date of publication: 28 February 2018
acceptable, because FCEVs utilize the H 2-oxygen (O 2) com-
bustion reaction for electricity generation, which results in
water (H 2 O) production. However, mass production of H 2 is
currently based on the gas-reforming process (more than
96% of total H 2 production), which concomitantly produces

2325-5987/18©2018IEEE IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma rch 201 8 19

 high amounts of carbon dioxide (CO 2).
Usually, the gas-reforming process is
based on the combustion of methane
(CH 4), which contains high amounts of
carbon source. For example, after CH 4
reacts with steam, H 2 is produced as
well as a tremendous amount of CO 2
as a byproduct. Therefore, it is quite
ironic to say that H 2 FCEVs are an envi-
ronmentally benign transportation
because of the mass production of CO 2
during the gas-reforming process.
An H2O-Splitting Reaction
Instead of gas-reforming H 2 produc-
tion, truly benign H 2 production
should be commercialized. By focus-
ing on the reaction of H 2 combustion with O 2 to make
H 2 O, we can produce H 2 by applying energy on the H 2 O.
This is called a water-splitting reaction.
Considering that H 2 O splitting to produce H 2 and O 2
is a thermodynamically unfavorable reaction, additional
energy should be applied on H 2 O to split it. The applied
energy source should be also environmentally friendly for
ultimately clean H 2 . The most abundant, renewable ener-
gy source, i.e., sunlight energy, can be a plausible candi-
date because of its propensity throughout all locations on
earth. Solar energy conversion into H 2 by H 2 O splitting
has been long studied by various research groups due to
its easy scale-up nature. However, the price of H 2 generat-
ed by solar light is still expensive compared to the H 2 pro-
duced from a gas-reforming process (US$2–3/kg). This is
because US$13.50/kg H 2 would be the price if we pro-
duced H 2 by solar H 2 O splitting based on the industrially
available current price for solar-driven electricity
(US$0.30/kWh) and the amount of electrical power
needed for an industrial electrolysis H 2 generation sys-
tem (46 kWh/kg H 2 ).
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) also tries to set
goals every year in terms of H 2 O electrolysis-based H 2
production. The goal for the amount of electrical power
consumption for an H 2 O electrolysis cell (EC) is 44.7 kWh
and US$2/kg H 2. It further bolsters the idea that more
research on H 2 O EC should be done for the industrial
commercialization of this system.
Solar Light Irradiance
Even if the current price of H 2 production by solar light is
expensive, intensive research has been done to decrease
the H 2 cost from solar light irradiance. Generally, there
have been three possible solar-H 2 conversion systems:
photocatalysis, photoelectrochemical (PEC) cell, and pho-
tovoltaic (PV)-EC cell. The conventional photocatalysis is
the system where materials with superior optoelectric
and catalytic properties are dispersed on solution. Then,
irradiated light on the solution makes excited electron
20 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018
In addition to the transfer to the H 2 O by the photocata-
lyst materials. In the case of a PEC cell
optimization and system, the photoactive materials are
usually solidified as a form of elec-
control of the trode, and the light applied on the
configuration of electrode can excite electron and hole
to split H 2 O .
the PV-EC system, The PV-EC system separates the
solar cell (i.e., the PV) and EC cell.
properties of PV Therefore, the photogenerated electri-
and EC are also cal power is transferred to the EC,
which contains H 2 O to split H 2 O.
important on Compared to the state-of-art photoca-
talysis and the PEC systems with 10%
their own. and 5% of solar-to- H 2 conversion
(STH) efficiency, respectively, the cur-
rent PV-EC system almost reached
30% of STH efficiency. The separation of light absorbing
and the H 2 O -splitting reaction center provides the possi-
bility for a versatile optimization strategy, i.e., controlling
surface-area ratio and catalyst material improvement.
Efficient PV Power Optimization
In addition to the optimization and control of the config-
uration of the PV-EC system, properties of PV and EC are
also important on their own. PV converts solar light into
electricity, a process called PV efficiency, and the generat-
ed electricity is finally converted into H 2 via EC. The
main role of the converter is maximum power point
tracking (MPPT) of the sun light to the EC system. Thus,
we can express this system with a simple scheme, as
shown in Figure 1.
In the system where the PV and EC are directly cou-
pled, PV and EC always have the same voltage and current
as shown in Figure 1(a), i.e., VPV = VEC and I PV = I EC . There-
fore, as previously mentioned, unless the current-voltage
(I-V) curves of PV and EC intersect at the maximum power
point of PV, the total solar energy cannot be utilized effi-
ciently. On the other hand, in the PV-converter (conv)-EC
system of Figure 1(b), the operation of the dc–dc convert-
er can make the voltage and current of PV different
from those of EC, i.e., VPV ! VEC and I PV ! I EC . The ratio of
VEC : Vpv = (VEC /VPV) and the ratio of I EC : I PV = ^I EC /I PV h depends
on the dc–dc converter topology. Also, the power delivered
to the EC PEC is reduced by the converter efficiency com-
pared to the output power of PV cell PPV. Then, h conv direct-
ly affects the STH efficiency, so it is important to
implement a highly efficient dc–dc converter for achieving
higher STH efficiency.
To be more specified with the types of dc–dc converter,
Figure 1(c) and (d) demonstrates the PV curves of the PV-
conv-EC system. Two possible topology converters can be
possible: the buck- and the boost-type converters. Here,
VPV,max and VEC,MPPT, respectively, represent the voltages of a
PV and an EC when the PV cell outputs its maximum
power, i.e., PPV,max. As shown in Figure 1(c), the boost
operation is required for the PV voltage range that is less
than the voltage at the intersection of two PV curves,
while the buck operation is needed for a higher voltage
range. If VPV,max is higher than VEC,MPPT, as displayed in Fig-
ure 1(c), the maximum power point of PV is in the buck
operation range, and a buck converter is then required for
achieving PPV,max.
In contrast, if VPV,max is less than VEC,MPPT, as in
Figure  1(d), a boost converter is needed to operate at the
maximum power point. In most cases, VPV,max is higher
than VEC,MPPT because a low-voltage EC is efficient and easi-
ly implemented. In addition, PV cells can be connected in-
series for high open-circuit voltage. Consequently, many
researchers use buck-type converters, i.e., a buck converter
in the low-voltage PV-EC system and push-pull topology
in the high-voltage application for galvanic isolation and
high step-down ratio. Soft-switching converter topologies,
such as quasi-resonant converter and phase shift full-
bridge converter, are utilized for achieving higher convert-
er efficiency at a high PV voltage.
The EC System
The EC system is composed of catalyst-decorated elec-
trodes (cathode and anode) and a membrane between two
electrodes. To deeply understand the catalyst, we should
first understand the concept of overpotential, which is the
extra potential that should be applied in addition to ther-
modynamic potential. This is the result of activation
energy of the chemical potential, which results in higher
energy costs. Even though the thermodynamic energy
cannot be changed at a fixed temperature and pressure
condition, overpotential can be varied by the utilization of
a catalyst. Lowering the overpotential requires the proper
catalyst materials.
One reaction of H 2 O splitting can be divided into O 2
and H 2 generation, indicating that we need both cathode
and anode catalyst materials to decrease the overpoten-
tial. In the case of H 2 O oxidation catalyst for O 2 genera-
tion, researchers have first used rare metal oxides
(iridium oxide or ruthenium oxide) but, recently, have
transitioned to cheaper metal-based catalysts, i.e., com-
positions mainly based on nickel, manganese, iron, and
cobalt are often developed.
The membrane, usually the polymer membrane
between two electrodes, should be less resistant and
should have a good separation property of gaseous prod-
ucts. To keep away from a short of this system, the mem-
brane should only transfer the ion form, e.g., proton or
hydroxide, to balance the EC system. Since the conductivity
of ions through the membrane is not ultrahigh, resistance
along the membrane is not negligible, especially under a
high rate of reaction.
Figure 2 shows the overlaid I-V relationship of a PV and
EC component. If a PV and EC are directly connected, the
photogenerated voltage and current from PV should
match the applied voltage and current from EC as I PV = I EC

IPV, PPV IEC, PEC IPV, PPV IEC, PEC

+ + + +

PV EC PV dc-dc
VPV VEC VPV VEC EC
Cell Cell Converter

– – – –

VPV = VEC IPV = IEC VPV ≠ VEC IPV ≠ IEC

PPV = PEC PPV ≠ PEC/ηconv
(a) (b)

Maximum Maximum
Power EC Power Point Power Power Point EC
PPV,max PPV,max
Boost
Operation
Boost Buck Buck
Operation Operation Operation

PV PV

VEC,MPPT VPV,max Voltage VPV,max VEC,MPPT Voltage

(c) (d)

Figure 1. The two configurations of the PV-EC system. (a) A direct coupling for a PV-EC system. (b) A dc–dc converter connection to construct a
PV-conv-EC system. Power-voltage curves of the PV-EC system when (c) VPV,max > VEC,MPPT and (d) VPV,max < VEC,MPPT.

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 21

 Figure 2(b), helps the higher final solar-H 2 conversion effi-
25 ciency. In contrast, a catalyst with a higher overpotential
EC I-V [the red line at Figure 2(b)] gives rise to a lower PH2 value.
20 PV I-V The EC composed on Figure 2(a) and the yellow line in
PPV,max
(b) does not utilize the full amount of PV power, consider-
Current (mA)

15 ing that PH2 + Pkin is still smaller than PPV,max. Therefore, the
role of converter can help an EC to fully use the PPV,max [Fig-
10 ure 2(c)]. By the MPPT procedure, extra PH2 gain can be
PH2 Pkin expected, indicating a much higher H 2 gain even with
5 same PV and EC systems, as shown by the yellow line in
Figure 2(b). Unless the efficiency of a converter is small
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 enough to reduce the PH2 to a conventional PV-EC system
Voltage (V) without a converter, the converter utilization is important
(a) part needed to maximize the H 2 generation.
25
EC with Good Catalyst The Advantages of a PV-EC System
EC with Bad Catalyst
20 PV I-V Based on the concept suggested in Figure 2, continuous
research has been made to improve the efficiency, sta-
Current (mA)

Higher PH2
15 bleness, scalability and economic viability of a PV-EC
system. For instance, the concept of connecting solar
Smaller
10 cell with H 2 O electrolysis catalysts was suggested by the
PH2
Turner group at National Renewable Energy Laboratory
5 (NREL). This research, also known as PV-PEC system, pro-
vided insight to the researchers to develop PV-EC sys-
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 tem. NREL’s continuous research increased the efficiency
Voltage (V) of the PV-PEC system and recently broke 16% STH effi-
(b) ciency [Figure 3(a)].
25 Additionally, researchers have developed the novel
P configuration: a topology and material designing process
PV
20 ,m to increase the STH efficiency and sustain its stability dur-
ax
=
I× ing photoelectrolysis. For example, the Nocera group pio-
Current (mA)

15
PH2
10 Pkin
EC I-V
PV I-V
5 achieve 10% STH efficiency ­[Figure 3(b)].
Extra PH2
0 0.5 1 1.5
Voltage (V)
(c)
Figure 2. An analysis method for understanding the PV-EC system:
(a) the H 2 power density ^PH2h and kinetic loss ^Pkinh at a given cur-
rent-voltage (I-V) curve of the PV and EC and (b) the contrast of PH2
with a good and bad EC catalyst. (c) PH2 and Pkin after the dc–dc
converter assistance on (a) (Chang et al. 2017). (Image courtesy of
the American Chemical Society.)
and VPV = VEC, as stated in the intersection of Figures 1(a)
and 2(a). We could estimate the amount of power stored
as H 2 as PH2 and the amount of solar-driven electrical
power loss as Ploss. PH2 can be the generated current from
the PV-EC system multiplied by 1.23 V, since chemical
energy stored as H 2 is as same as the free-energy change
of a H 2 O-splitting reaction.
At a fixed solar cell condition, the catalyst materials
with lower overpotential, displayed as the yellow line in
V
neered the compact PV-EC system, known as an artificial
leaf. Based on the compact configuration and control of
the number of PV cells, his group utilized four series-con-
nected silicon PVs and transition metal-based catalysts to
To keep abreast of the fast-growing organic and inor-
2 ganic perovskite solar cell, the Gratzel group applied a PV
and state-of-the-art transition metal-based catalyst for
H 2 O splitting. This research reaps benefits in terms of cost
efficiency because PV and EC materials are famously inex-
pensive. Additionally, this system shows 12.3% STH effi-
ciency, even with less expensive PV and EC materials,
which have comparable efficiency with the PV-EC system
using novel materials.
Recently, several PV-EC systems with more than 20%
STH efficiency have been reported. By controlling the sur-
face area of an EC and PV, and by applying concentrator on
a PV, the Fuji group reported a PV-EC system with 24.4%
STH efficiency [Figure 3(d)]. In 2016, the Jaramillo group
broke 30% STH efficiency by utilizing a state-of-the-art
catalyst and an extremely efficient tandem solar cell. Not
only for the subcompartments, they heated the EC and
optimized the light and series connection of each sub-
compartment to reap highest efficiency. Even if the exter-
nal electrical energy was utilized for heating the cell, this

22 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

 GalnAs GalnP Electrolyte
Eg = 1.2 eV Eg = 1.8 eV
e– H2

–
H+ H2/H2O AM 1.5
~nc
Global Tilt Flux
e– Vph1 1.23 V dNphdλ (a.u.)
ECB 4
O2 3

NiBi
hν > 1.8 eV

NiMoZn
V 2
EF ph2 h+ ~na
EVB
H2O/O2 H2O

Potential (V)
eV
hν < 1.8 eV e–
+ p
h
p n
n
Metal Anode 1
+
Si Epoxy Au Transparent Transparent
Wafer Contact Graded Tunnel
Handle Reflector Buffer Junction
(a) (b)

+ –

CPV Modules
O2

H2
OH– Electrical Connection
OER HER
H2O Electrochemical Cells

(c) (d)

Figure 3. A PV-EC system developed by various research groups. (a) A PV-PEC cell system developed by the NREL (Young et al. 2017). (Image courtesy of Nature.) (b) The artificial leaf suggested by Har-
vard University (Cox et al. 2011, Noorden 2011). (Photo courtesy of the National Academy of Science.) (c) An organic/inorganic perovskite solar cell-based PV-EC system suggested by the Gratzel group
(Luo et al. 2014). (Image courtesy of Science.) (d) A PV-EC system constructed by a light concentrator, multijunction PV, and membrane electrode assembly-based EC system (Nakamura et al. 2015).

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8

(Photo courtesy of the Japanese Society of Applied Physics.)

23
 research shows the possibility of ultraefficient solar-H 2
conversion system.
The Disadvantages of PV-EC
Systems Without Converters
The conventional PV-EC systems without converters have
clear disadvantages, e.g., they are best-performed with
specific light conditions. If the light density varies, as the
real sunlight intensity changes every hour, the I-V charac-
teristics of a PV varies, so it is difficult to predict and opti-
mize the best performing condition. For practical
utilization, the PV-EC system should be flexible regardless
of sunlight. To maximize PPV,max and to keep track of the
intensity of sunlight, there is no reason to postpone the
power converting technique. Therefore, the dc–dc convert-
er can provide the  MPPT technique to follow the maxi-
mum power of solar light.
There are several related reports on utilizing converted
technology for solar light H 2 conversion. The Garrigos
group suggested the insulating-type topology of the con-
verter to scale up the PV-EC system, which is caused by
high voltage generated from the PV. The same group pro-
posed the topology to precisely regulate the output current
control region, as shown in Figure 4(a). This situation only
occurs when the EC needs more voltage than the VPV,max,
which requires delicate duty control. With the Agbossou
group, the design principle of a converter covered the
whole H 2 generation and the H 2 storage system.
The Nam and Ha group reported the casual relation
between the converter on/off ratio, the duty and final

Output Capacitor

EC
4–20 mA and Converter
Telemetry
uC
Error
Amplifiers

Input Capacitor
PV

(a) (b)

Figure 4. The various analyses of a converter-assisted PV-EC system. (a) The topology of the converter for output current control when the
EC cannot properly manage the power from a PV (Garrigós et al. 2014). (Photo courtesy of Elsevier.) (b) A converter efficiency measurement
system based on the ratio between input and output electrical power (Chang et al. 2017). (Photo courtesy of the American Chemical Society.)
uC: microcontroller.

25 1.0
U. Tokyo EPFL, STH 12.3%
Tandem PV U. Osaka, STH 2.93%
Single-Junction PV U. Monash
SNU, STH 20.6%
Reported STH Efficiency (%)

SNU 0.8 Technion, STH 18.3%

20 Technion SNU U. Tokyo, STH 24.4%
NREL SNU, STH 19.5%
Fraunhofer U. Tokyo Caltech, STH 10%
PH2/PPV,max

15 0.6
NREL EPFL
Caltech
10 Uppsala 0.4
U. Hawaii NREL MIT
GM
Texas A&M
5 UC Berkeley 0.2
U. Osaka

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 0 10 20 30 40 50

Year AEC/APV at 100 mW cm–2
(a) (b)

Figure 5. The reported efficiency of a PV-EC system: (a) the reported STH efficiency of a PV-EC system by year and (b) the PH2 /PPV,max (produced
H2 energy compared to the solar-driven maximum electrical power) value based on a surface-area ratio between EC and PV. A high PH2 /PPV,max with
a low A EC /A PV indicates an economical PV-EC configuration. EPFL: École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne; NREL: National Renewable
Research Laboratory; SNU: Seoul National University.

24 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

converter efficiency, as well as the converter type by the
precise measurement system, as displayed in Figure 4(b).
The converter efficiency is calculated by the theoretical
discrepancy current obtained from the PV and EC I-V rela-
tionship and from the real current measured by the exper-
iment. The experiment found that duty ratio, which is
closed to the certain ratio as 1, can decrease the convert-
ing efficiency of buck-type converters. If the duty ratio
applied on converter decreases to less than 0.9, the effi-
ciency of a converter increases to ~95% at 50–150 mW of
PV-generated electrical power range. According to this
study, the buck-type converter can guarantee a higher
converting efficiency compared to the boost-type convert-
er. Therefore, this study gives important guidelines
to design the PV-EC system with an appropriate converter
type, as well as the underlying science beneath this
whole system.
STH Efficiency
Based on STH efficiency and the electrical energy conver-
sion efficiency, we can plot the STH efficiency, as shown in
Figure 5. As the years go by, the reported STH efficiency
generally increases. Moreover, the efficiency of monolithic
solar cell-based system, as well as the tandem solar cell-
based system, upsurges. The monolithic solar cell-based
system record high in Figure 5(a) is the research assisted
by dc–dc converter (20.6% STH efficiency). When it comes
to the electricity conversion ratio to H 2, presented in Fig-
ure 5(b), it indicates that the converter usage is beneficial.
Even if the high A EC /A PV usually helps achieve high solar-
driven electricity-to-H 2 generation ratio, a high EC surface
area compared to a PV generally requires a high amount
of EC materials and, consequently, costs a lot. Therefore, a
modest A EC /A PV design that still produces high amounts
of H 2 compared to the solar-driven electrical power
should be targeted.
Conclusion
The converter-assisted PV utilization, in addition to the H 2
generated by solar light for an energy system, can be gen-
eralized. For instance, solar-driven CO 2 reduction to useful
organic molecules, i.e., ethanol, methanol, acetaldehyde,
or even propanol, can be achieved with converter-assisted
PV-EC with appropriate catalyst materials designed for
CO 2 reduction. Indeed, the potential range is much nar-
rower for CO 2 reduction, so the role of the converter with
a designated duty ratio can reap benefits for this system.
The combination of converter technology with energy
conversion catalysts and solar cells are effective ways to
reach a sustainable future in H 2 production.
For Further Reading
O. Khaselev and J. A. Turner, “A monolithic photovoltaic-pho-
toelectrochemical device for hydrogen production via water
splitting,” Sci., vol. 280, no. 5362, pp. 425–427, 1998.
J. Jia, L. C. Seitz, J. D. Benck, Y. Huo, Y. Chen, J. W. D. Ng,
T. Bilir, J. S. Harris, and T. F. Jaramillo, “Solar water splitting by
photovoltaic-electrolysis with a solar-to-hydrogen efficiency
over 30%,” Nature Commun., vol. 7, no. 13237, 2016.
T. J. Jacobsson, V. Fjällström, M. Sahlberg, M. Edoff, and T.
Edvinsson, “A monolithic device for solar water splitting
based on series interconnected thin film absorbers reaching
over 10% solar-to-hydrogen efficiency,” Energy Environ. Sci., vol.
6, no. 12, pp. 3676–3683, 2013.
S. A. Bonke, M. Wiechen, D. R. MacFarlane, and L. Spiccia,
“Renewable fuels from concentrated solar power: Towards
practical artificial photosynthesis,” Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 8,
no. 9, pp. 2791–2796, 2015.
E. Verlage, S. Hu, R. Liu, R. J. Jones, K. Sun, C. Xiang, N. S.
Lewis, and H. A. Atwater, “A monolithically integrated, intrin-
sically safe, 10% efficient, solar-driven water-splitting system
based on active, stable earth-abundant electrocatalysts in
conjunction with tandem III–V light absorbers protected by
amorphous TiO 2 films,” Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 8, no. 11,
pp. 3166–3172, 2015.
M. A. Modestino, K. A. Walczak, A. Berger, C. M. Evans, S.
Haussener, C. Koval, J. S. Newman, J. W. Ager, and R. A. Segal-
man, “Robust production of purified H2 in a stable, self-regu-
lating, and continuously operating solar fuel generator,”
Energy Environmental Sci., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 297–301, 2014.
W. J. Chang, K.-H. Lee, H. Ha, K. Jin, G. Kim, S.-T. Hwang, et
al., “Design principle and loss engineering for photovoltaic–
electrolysis cell system,” ACS Omega, vol. 2, pp. 1009–1018,
2017.
J. L. Young, M. A. Steiner, H. Döscher, R. M. France, J. A. Turn-
er, and T. G. Deutsch, “Direct solar-to-hydrogen conversion via
inverted metamorphic multi-junction semiconductor archi-
tectures,” Nature Energy, vol. 2, p. 201728, 2017.
C. R. Cox, J. Z. Lee, D. G. Nocera, and T. Buonassisi, “Ten-per-
cent solar-to-fuel conversion with nonprecious materials,”
Nat. Academy Sci., vol. 111, pp. 14057–14061, 2014.
R. V. Noorden, “Secrets of artificial leaf revealed,” Nature
news, vol. 10, 2011.
J. Luo, J.-H. Im, M. T. Mayer, M. Schreier, M. K. Nazeeruddin,
N.-G. Park, et al., “Water photolysis at 12.3% efficiency via
perovskite photovoltaics and Earth-abundant catalysts,” Sci-
ence, vol. 345, pp. 1593–1596, 2014.
A. Nakamura, Y. Ota, K. Koike, Y. Hidaka, K. Nishioka, M.
Sugiyama, et al., “A 24.4% solar to hydrogen energy conver-
sion efficiency by combining concentrator photovoltaic mod-
ules and electrochemical cells,” Appl. Physics Express, vol. 8,
p. 107101, 2015.
A. Garrigós, J. Lizán, J. Blanes, and R. Gutierrez, “Combined
maximum power point tracking and output current control
for a photovoltaic-electrolyser dc/dc converter,” Int. J. Hydrogen
Energy, vol. 39, pp. 20907–20919, 2014.
Biographies
Woo Je Chang (woochang2021@u.northwestern.edu) is
pursuing a Ph.D. degree in materials science and engineer-
ing, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois.
Kyung-Hwan Lee (kyungahsal@snu.ac.kr) is pursuing a
Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer engineering, Seoul
National University, South Korea.
Jung-Ik Ha (jungikha@snu.ac.kr) is an associate profes-
sor of electrical and computer engineering, Seoul National
University, South Korea.
Ki Tae Nam (nkitae@snu.ac.kr) is an associate professor
of materials science and engineering, Seoul National Uni-
versity, South Korea.

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 25
 By Bandi Mallikarjuna Reddy, Paulson Samuel,
and Narapureddy Siva Mohan Reddy

images licensed by ingram publishing

26 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018 2325-5987/18©2018IEEE

Government Policies
Help Promote
Clean Transportation
in India
Proton-exchange membrane fuel cells for vehicles.
he fuel-cell (FC) concept was invented
T
and demonstrated in the early 18th centu-
ry by Humphrey Davy. The FC itself was
developed in 1839 by the chemist William
Grove, who conducted a series of experi-
ments with what he called a gas-voltaic battery. The term
fuel cell was first used in 1889 by Charles Langer and Lud-
wig Mond, who researched FCs using coal gas as a fuel. In
the early 1960s, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration and its industrial partners conducted
experiments on manned space vehicles based on alkaline
FCs (AFCs). Later, the international FC made advances in
the AFC for the Apollo space mission, which resulted in
supporting the requirements of drinking water and elec-
tricity for the astronauts.
Government policies in India have helped promote
clean transportation and the development of proton-
exchange membrane FC (PEMFC) vehicles in automotive
applications. In 2004, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) and
the Ministry of New Renewable Energy developed a
motorcycle using new FC technology based on PEMFCs. In
the 2010s, the Indian Space Research Organization and
TATA Corporation Ltd. jointly developed the passenger
vehicle project named “Starbus” based on the PEMFC
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784633
Date of publication: 28 February 2018
technology. The Government of India promotes various
schemes and policies for research and development by
the country’s major FC system players, including research
and educational institutions and industries.
Classifications of Conventional FCs
An FC is the main energy source of modern electric vehi-
cles (EVs) such as PEMFC EVs, which will likely become
more common due to their zero-emission advantages and
the other beneficial uses in the transportation sector and
as distributed storage when used with advanced converter
and battery technologies in the smart grid. Figure 1 pro-
vides a description and operation of each class of FC cate-
gorized on the basis of the fuel used in the fuel reformer.
Direct-Methanol FCs
The direct-methanol FC (DMFC) is a relatively new type. It
resembles a PEMFC in that it uses polymer electrolyte (sul-
fophynelated sulfonic) as an electrolyte. A typical solitary
DMFC can supply just 0.3–0.5 V under loaded conditions.
DMFCs are used to replace the batteries for cameras,
scratch-pad personal computers, and other convenient
electronic applications within the power range of 1  W–
1  kW. The internal operation is constrained by two vital
processes, which lower the framework efficiency (40%).
The principle of operation of the DMFC on the basis of
chemical equations is shown in Figure 2.
IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 27
 Name: AFC(PEMFC) Name: Solid-Oxide FC
Temperature: Low Temperature: High Range
Fuel: Hydrogen Fuel: Hydrogen and Carbon
Anode Reaction: H2 + 2(OH)– = 2H2O + 2e– Anode Reaction: H2 + O2 = H2O + 2e–
Cathode Reaction: 0.5 O2 + HO2 + 2e– = 2(OH)– Cathode Reaction: 0.5 O2 + 2e– = O2–
Total Reaction: H2 + 0.5 O2 + CO2 = H2O Total Reaction: H2 + 0.5O2 = H2O
Efficiency: 64% Efficiency: 60–65%
Power Range: Kilowatts Power Range: Megawatts
Applications: Space Appliances Applications: Power Plants,
Combined Heat Plants

Compressed Water
Air (H2O)
Heat

Applications: Power Plants and Combined Heat Plants

Name: Molten-Carbonate FC (Phosphorous-Acid FC)
Applications: Block-Type Heat and Power Stations

2–

Total Reaction: H2 + 0.5 O2 + CO2 = H2O + CO2

Anode Reaction: H2 + CO3 = H2O + CO2 + 2e–
Cathode Reaction: 0.5 O2 + CO2 + 2e– = CO3
Cathode Reaction: 0.5 O2+ 2H+ + 2e– = H2O

Power Range: Watts/Kilowatts Range

Total Reaction: H2 + 0.5 O2 = H2O
Anode Reaction: H2 = 2H++ 2e–

Appliance

Power Range: Kilo/Megawatts

O2
Electrical

H2O

Fuel: Hydrogen and Carbon

Temperature: High Range
Efficiency: 48–58%
Temperature: Low

CGDL
Field Plates
Fuel: Hydrogen

Efficiency: 50%
Name: PEMFC

(CCC)

2–
H+ MEA
e– H2
ACC
AGDL

Bipolar Plates

H2 from the H2 from the

Reformer Bipolar Fields

Name: Direct-Methanol FC Name: Phosphorous-Acid FC

Temperature: Low Temperature: High Range
Fuel: Methanol Fuel: Hydrogen
Anode Reaction: CH3OH + H2O = 6H+ + 6e– + CO2 Anode Reaction: H2 + = 2H+ + 2e–
Cathode Reaction: 1.5 O2 + 6H+ + 6e– = 3H2O Cathode Reaction: 0.5 O2 + 2H+ + 2e– = H2O
Total Reaction: CH3OH + 1.5 O2 = 2H2O + CO2 Total Reaction: H2 + 0.5 O2= H2O
Efficiency: 40% Efficiency: 42%
Power Range: Watts Range Power Range: Kilowatts
Applications: Portable Products Applications: Block-Type Heat and
(Flashlights and Battery Chargers) Power Stations

Figure 1. A description of the operation of an FC with a representation of the characteristics of major FC types based on the use of a
membrane electrode assembly. AGDL: anode gas diffusion layer; ACC: anode carbon catalyst; MEA: membrane electrode assembly;
CCC: cathode carbon catalyst; CGDL: cathode gas diffusion layer.

28 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

PEMFCs
A solid membrane of natural material, such as polysty-
rene sulfonic acid, is used as an electrolyte in a PEMFC.
This FC works at 40–60 °C, a low-temperature operation
that allows the PEMFC to start quickly and results in less
wear on system components, resulting in better durability.
An explanation of the PEMFC on the basis of chemical
equations is shown in Figure 3.
AFC
The AFC is the most seasoned FC, using 40% of aqueous
potassium hydroxide as an electrolyte. The working tem-
perature is roughly 90 °C. The fuel of the AFC technology
is free of carbon dioxide. The AFCs were used in the Apol-
lo shuttle to provide both power and drinking water. Fig-
ure 4 explains the operation of the AFC on the basis of
chemical equations.
Phosphorous-Acid FC
The phosphorous-acid FC (PAFC) was invented in the
1980s. It comprises two electrodes of porous conducting
material (usually nickel) to receive a charge, with concen-
trated phosphoric acid present between the electrodes to
function as an electrolyte. A platinum catalyst is added to
both electrodes to increase the rate of the reaction. The
explanation of a PAFC on the basis of chemical equations
is shown in Figure 5.
Molten-Carbonate FC
The molten-carbonate FC (MCFC) uses carbonate of alkali
metals in a molten state as an electrolyte. This requires
the cell operation to occur over the melting point (rough-
ly 600–700 °C) of the separate carbonates but does not
require a catalyst due to the high temperature. Figure 6
explains the MCFC on the basis of chemical equations.

Electron Flow

Methonal Oxygen

Hydrogen Ions
CGDL
AGDL

Carbon
Dioxide Bipolar Plates AGDL Plus Electrolyte CGDL Plus Bipolar Plates Water
(Polymer/Graphite Anode Catalyst (Sulfophynelated Cathode Catalyst (Polymer/Graphite
Composite) (Platinum Alloy) Polysulfonic) (Platinum Alloy) Composite)

Figure 2. A portrayal of the internal operation of a DMFC.

Electron Flow

Hydrogen Oxygen

Hydrogen Ions
CGDL
AGDL

Excess Bipolar Plates AGDL Plus Electrolyte CGDL Plus Bipolar Plates Water
Hydrogen (Platinum/Graphite Anode Catalyst (Polystyrene Cathode Catalyst (Platinum/Graphite
Composite) (Platinum) Sulphonic Acid) (Platinum) Composite)

Figure 3. A portrayal of the internal operation of a PEMFC.

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 29

 Electron Flow

Hydrogen Oxygen

Hydrogen Ions

CGDL
AGDL
Water Bipolar Plates AGDL Plus Electrolyte CGDL Plus Bipolar Plates Excess
(Metallic Plates) Anode Catalyst (KOH) Cathode Catalyst (Metallic Plates) Oxygen
(Nikhel or Silver) (Nikhel or Silver)

Figure 4. A portrayal of the internal operation of an AFC. KOH: potassium hydroxide.

Electron Flow

Hydrogen Oxygen

Hydrogen Ions
CGDL
AGDL

Excess Bipolar Plates AGDL Plus Electrolyte (Liquid CGDL Plus Bipolar Plates Water
Hydrogen (Metallic Plates) Anode Catalyst Phospheric Cathode Catalyst (Metallic Plates)
(Platinum) Acid) (Platinum)

Figure 5. A portrayal of the internal operation of a PAFC.

Electron Flow
Syngas
(Hydrogen and Carbon
Monoxide) Oxygen
Carbon Dioxide

Oxygen Ions
CGDL
AGDL

Carbon Bipolar Plates AGDL Plus Electrolyte CGDL Plus Bipolar Plates Carbon
Dioxide and (Metallic Plates) Anode Catalyst (Sodium Cathode Catalyst (Metallic Plates) Dioxide and
Water Carbonate) Oxygen

Figure 6. A portrayal of the internal operation of an MCFC.

30 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

Solid-Oxide FC The drivetrains are Series-Hybrid EVs
The solid-oxide FC (SOFC) uses a hard A series-hybrid EV is fundamental­
ceramic compound of metal (e.g., cal- the heart and soul ly an EV with an onboard battery
cium and zirconium) oxides as an charger. An ICE is generally run at a
electrolyte and is suitable for high-
of any vehicle used desired efficiency point to drive the
temperature conditions of approxi- in transportation, generator and charge the onboard
mately 600–1,000 °C. The anode is battery. Series-hybrid EVs would run
made of porous nickel and a cathode especially four- at their optimal torque and speed to
and uses a metal oxide such as indi- save fuel and improve the efficiency
um oxide. The exhaust heat can be
wheel-drive vehicles. of the system. However, some of the
reused in a combined heat power energy is lost because of the two-
plant to further boost the overall effi- stage power conversion process.
ciency of the plant. The explanation of an SOFC on the Moreover, the engine/generator set maintains the battery
basis of chemical equations is shown in Figure 7. charge at roughly 65–75%. A series-hybrid EV is more use-
ful for city driving.
Topologies of Drivetrains of EVs
The drivetrains are the heart and soul of any vehicle used Parallel-Hybrid EVs
in transportation, especially four-wheel-drive vehicles. In the parallel-hybrid EV, the traction motor and system
Advances in drivetrains are playing a key role in PEMFC generator are mechanically connected through the
vehicles because of the new techniques to control the torque coupler. The parallel-hybrid EV has various modes
acceleration and deceleration of the drivetrains by using of operation based on the use of the generator and trac-
front-wheel drive. Rear-wheel drive and all-wheel drives tion motor. Furthermore, the torque coupler is designed
are being developed to achieve a more effective use of fuel using digital concepts such as the continuous variable
and to improve the efficiency of FC vehicles. A compre- transmission system rather than the conventional fixed
hensive analysis of complete drivetrains for EVs is shown variable transmission system for efficient use of fuel and
in Figure 8 and described in the following sections. optimal operation. The transmission losses are less com-
pared to the series-hybrid EVs, but parallel-hybrid EVs
Battery EVs are much bigger and require more complex operation
A purely electric drive system principally replaces the and control.
internal combustion engine (ICE) and the various trans-
mission systems with an all-electric system (power elec- Series-Parallel-Hybrid EVs
tronics and super batteries). The practical EVs still use It is possible to combine the advantages of both the
lead-acid batteries, while the more sophisticated ones use series and parallel-hybrid EV configurations. When accel-
nickel metal-hydrate batteries. eration is required, the electric traction motor is used in

Electron Flow

Syngas
(Hydrogen and Carbon
Monoxide) Oxygen

Oxygen Ions
CGDL
AGDL

Carbon Bipolar Plates AGDL Plus Electrolyte CGDL Plus Bipolar Plates Excess
Dioxide and (Metalic Plates) Anode Catalyst (Ceramic) Cathode Catalyst (Metalic Plates) Oxygen
Water

Figure 7. A portrayal of the internal operation of an SOFC.

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 31

 combination with the ICE to give extra power in both from the ICE via the gearbox to the wheels, whereas, in
configurations. During braking or deceleration, the trac- series-hybrid EV mode, the energy flows from the gen-
tion motor is used as a generator to charge the battery. In erator and motor to the wheels. The performance index
standstill, the ICE can continue to run and drive the gen- of a complex-hybrid EV is shown in Table 1. The torque
erator to charge the battery if needed. However, the of the motor and the ICE would be control by the plane-
series-parallel-hybrid EV is also relatively more compli- tary gear system (PGS) of the vehicle’s chassis section.
cated and expensive. Table 1 shows the performance The PGS is connected to the motor, ICE, and generator
index of a series-parallel-hybrid EV. of the system and coordinates the torque of all devices
in the vehicle.
Complex-Hybrid EVs
Another form of series-hybrid configuration is the com- FC Hybrid EVs
plex-hybrid EV, which is a split-power hybrid EV topolo- The potential for superior efficiency and zero (or near
gy. In this configuration, the energy flows in a fashion zero) emissions has long attracted interest in FCs as the
similar to either that of a parallel-hybrid EV or a series- potential automotive power source of the future. The over-
hybrid EV. In parallel-hybrid EV mode, energy flows all goal of FC research and development programs is to
er

RDAB-

Ul
arbon

Reform

tra
IBDC

ca
Fuel

Pack

pa
Hydroc

Battery

cit
or
ry
r
Inverte

tte
Ba ack
FCS

P
r

or
n Moto

c
ot /a r
ox

M dc erte
Gear B

tion In
v
ac
Tractio

Tr
Ve

Inver
ar
hic

ter
System Ge ox
le

M Ve h ic le B
Sy

Tran Highe
V BE State of r
ste

smis HE
ck

stem

sion V Charge
m

C
ry Pa

F
System

Topologies Ultra
PGS

CHEV
le Sy

SHEV

of Drive Trains Tractio Capacit

or
Batte

ICE n Mach
of Electric ine –
Vehic

Vehicle

Recti Vehicles +
fier SP Gear Inverte
Ve H V Box r
G hic E V P HE Rectifie
r
le tem
ler

Sys L o
Sy le wer
up

hic
ste Ve State
Co

m Chargo f
To e

e
s

ue

G
Ca

sion
rq

ICE
ion

Low
ive

iss

er S
smis
ns

sm

pee
te

an

ds
ler
-In

Tran
Tr

ine
e
tric

PS
oup
iv
ec

se ns

D
ach
eC
El

Ca Inte

eds
M

nM
-

u
ne

Spe
q
gi

Tor

ctio

In dc/
En
G

ve ac
e

– Tra

rte
h

tery r
Bat capacito
Hig

r
or
dc/arter

Ba
Ultra
c
E

tte
e
IC

ry
v
nk

In
ICE

Pa
+
l Ta

ck
ill d
Sttan

Fue
S

Figure 8. A description of the topologies of drivetrains for EVs in India. FCHEV: FC hybrid EV; SHEV: series-hybrid EV; PHEV: parallel-hybrid EV;
SPHEV: series-parallel-hybrid EV; CHEV: complex-hybrid EV; BEV: battery EV; RDAB-IBDC: resonant dual-active bridge-isolated bidirectional dc–dc
converter; FCS: FC stack; M: motor; G: generator; PSD: power split device.

32 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

create a FC engine that will give vehi-
The technology of country started producing FCs for por-
cles a range of conventional cars, table and transportation applications.
while attaining environmental bene- FCs is extremely The production and sales of FC-based
fits comparable to those of battery- EVs is expected to reach a peak of
powered EVs. The power conditioner advanced in the approximately 300,000 vehicles by
must have minimal losses leading to
European and 2020; the estimated world market,
higher efficiency. Power conditioning especially for buses and cars, is shown
efficiencies can typically be higher American market, in Figure 9.
than 90%. India does not have sufficient
which has knowledge of the technology of FC EVs
Statistical Analysis subsequently compared to Western countries. It will
and Trends of FC EVs in India take some time to reduce the cost per
The technology of FCs is extremely spurred a growth kilowatt for FC-based EVs. In early 2004,
advanced in the European and Ameri- the cost was 9,000/kW for a FC system,
can market, which has subsequently in their sales. which has since de­­creased because of
spurred a growth in their sales. In advances and the availability of materi-
comparison, the sales of FCs have al to make the FC system and the avail-
been sluggish in the Indian market. The early 2010s saw ability of skilled labor for production. India’s target plan, as
the development of prototype FC systems for transpor- shown in Figure 10, is to reduce the cost for a FC system
tation applications, and in the latter part of 2015, the (PEMFC) to 1,800/kW by 2020 and to 1,000/kW by 2030.

Table 1. A comprehensive comparison of EVs.

Parameters ICEs BEVs Hybrid EVs FC Vehicles
Propulsion ICE Electric motor drives Electric motor drives, Electric motor drives
ICEs
Energy-storage Fossil or alternative Battery/super capacitor Fossil or alternative Hydrogen tank, battery/su-
­subsystems fuel fuel, battery/super per capacitor
capacitor
Energy source Gasoline stations Electrical-grid charging Gasoline stations, Hydrogen, hydrogen produc-
and ­infrastructure facilities electrical grid charging tion, transportation infra-
facilities structure and facilities (for
plug-in hybrid EVs)
Efficiency Converts 20% of Converts 75% of the Converts 40% of Converts 50% of the energy
the energy stored in energy stored in the the energy stored in stored in hydrogen to power
gasoline to power the super capacitor to power gasoline and super the vehicle
vehicle the vehicle capacitors to power
the vehicle
Refueling time Typically 5 min Normally 5–7 h Depends on the use 5 min
Speed (average 124 mi/h 80 mi/h 110 mi/h 40–95 mi/h
­maximum speed)
Acceleration 0–55 mi/h in 8.5 s 0–50 mi/h in 6–7 h 0–60 mi/h in 6–7 s 0–60 mi/h in 4–6 s
average
Major issues Sound and air pol- Battery size and man- Battery size and FC cost, life cycle and reli-
lution agement, battery life, ­management, ability, hydrogen production,
charge facilities and control, optimization infrastructure cost
cost and management
of multiple energy
sources
Cost 9,50,450– 13,62,500–17,70,750 12,94,000– 4,08,600–60,12,000
11,57,550 17,02,450
Technology Obsolete technology Fully available Huge demand and Under development requires
good technology avail- significant technology to
able reach customers
Ranges 24–703 mi 62–294 mi 150–600 mi 90–490 mi

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 33

 The FC system is manufactured in
separate parts and assembled like a
The challenge for in Figure 11. The worldwide electrifica-
tion of vehicles started in 1997 as a
transformer. It has several compo- the automobile result of the Kyoto protocol for improv-
nents such as an MEA, a gas diffusion ing environmental conditions.
layer, bipolar plates, and field plates. industry is to The challenge for the automobile
The breakdown cost of PEMFC system
develop vehicles that industry is to develop vehicles that
components in 2008 is shown in Fig- have zero emissions and emit less-
ure 5; by 2016, the cost of a PEMFC sys- have zero emissions harmful particulate in the environ-
tem was expected to decrease 15% ment. Due to this protocol, many
compared to 2008. This price reduction and emit less- advances in vehicle technology and in
has been feasible because of lower harmful particulate vehicle drivetrains have started
manufacturing costs and better fuel appearing in the market, e.g., mild-
management. There was a 15% reduc- in the environment. hybrid, full-hybrid, and parallel-
tion in PEMFC system cost, as shown hybrid EVs (Figure 12). The cost of

Prediction of FC Vehicles
Sales over the World Market (Including India)

400,000
North America
350,000
FC Vehicles (Sales)

300,000 Western Europe

250,000 Asia Pacific

(Including India)
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000

0 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Year

Figure 9. A prediction of FC vehicle sales in the world market. (Data taken from Pike Research/Open Energy Information.)

Projected FC System Cost of Indian Market

11,200

9,800
FC Vehicles Cost ( /Kwnet)

8,680
8,400 Target by Target by
7,200 the 2020 the 2030
7,000 5,800
5,600 4,560
3,700
4,200 3,100
2,000
2,800 1,800
1,400 1,000

0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2020 2030

Financial Year

Figure 10. Projected PEMFC system costs in the Indian market. (Data taken from the Center of FC Technology 2017.)

34 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

 Membrane Cost
Gas Diffusion Layer Cost
Membrane Cost
Catalyst Cost
4 5 Gas Diffusion Layer Cost 4 5
15 Balance of MEA
19 Catalyst Cost Bipolar Cost
Balance of MEA 12
Balance of Stack
21 Bipolar Cost

15% Saving Amount by

the Year 2016 from 2008
19 6 Air Management Cost
8 Balance of Stack
Water Management Cost
Air Management Cost 7 Thermal Management Cost
8 Water Management Cost
6 6 3 Fuel Management Cost
Thermal Management Cost
5 7 8 10 Remaining Balance
Fuel Management Cost 5
14 3 of System Cost
Remaining Balance
Saving Amount (%)
of System Cost
Compare to the 2008–2016

(a) (b)

Figure 11. The breakdown cost of PEMFC components in (a) 2008 and (b) 2016. (Data taken from the Center for FC Technology 2017.)
Fuel Efficiency and Carbon-Dioxide Reduction (%)

EV (BEV or FCV)
Plug-In HEV
Full HEV
Mild HEV
Micro HEV

0 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Level of Electrification with Progress of Time

Figure 12. The different levels of electrification to reach the target set by the 1997 Kyoto protocol in the world market to reduce greenhouse
gases. HEV: hybrid EV. (Data taken from the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy 2016.)

different types of FC systems is shown in Figure 13, where

it can also be seen that the cost of the solid-oxide FC FCs Combined Heat Plants System
(SOFC) is higher compared to the other FC systems. The 120,000 107,500
100,000
Cost ( /Kwnet)

reference FC system cost is 37,000/kW, and there is a sig- 81,400

FC System

nificant difference between the PEMFC system and the 80,000

60,000 55,400
reference system. The cost of the FC system will likely be 40,000 37,000
equal to the reference system by the 2020s, according to 20,000
data from the Center of FC Technology (CFCT) of India. 0
The CFCT also estimates that, by 2032, there will be 4,500 Reference PEMFC MCFC SOFC
System
hydrogen FC stations worldwide. India will have to deploy
at least 50 stations by then, but there are currently only
Figure 13. A comparison of different FC systems over the reference
two stations (Faridabad and Dwaraka near Delhi), as system. (Data taken from the Central Electrochemical Research Insti-
shown in Figure 14. In the early 2030s, the Asia-Pacific tute 2012.)

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 35


1,800
1,600 Asia Pacific (India)
Number of Hydrogen
Deployment Stations
1,400 European Region
1,200 America
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2017
Figure 14. The deployment of hydrogen-fuel stations in the world market, including the Faridabad hydrogen-fueling station. (Data taken from the
National Fuel-Cell Symposium 2016.)
region would have more hydrogen stations compared to
the rest of the Eurozone as well as the United States, as
shown in Figure 14.
Development of FC Vehicles in India
There have been a few significant developments for FC
vehicles in India.
xxA group of BHU scientists and the Ministry of New
and Renewable Energy achieved a breakthrough event
in cutting-edge FC vehicle technology. The fuel box for
a motorcycle weighs roughly 17 kg, or twice that of a
tank with 10 L of petrol. This lasts for 70–80 km before
a recharge is necessary. During tests, the three-wheel-
er clocked a range of 50–60 km.
xxA PEMFC battery hybrid van has been developed.
xxA reformer for a 10-kW PEMFC system was developed
and tested in the CFCT.
xxTATA Corporation Ltd. and the Indian Space Research
Organization took the lead role in introducing the lat-
est FC vehicle technology with the new FC-based pas-
senger vehicle, “Starbus,” during 2012–2013.
Comparison
The drivetrains of EVs are distinguished based on key
parameters such as propulsion, efficiency, refueling
time, speed (average maximum speed), acceleration
(average), cost, and technology. Table 1 shows a compar-
ison of the various EVs. The drivetrains of FC vehicles
have excellent advantages and good feasibility that can
be implemented if the required technology is achieved
by 2025 in India.
Conclusions
This article explored the Indian PEMFCV vehicle market
with respect to the need for FCs in the transportation field
36 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018
Global Hydrogen Station Deployment Forecast
2020 2023 2026 2029 2032
Financial Year
and the need of zero-emission vehicles in logistic hubs, as
well as identified specific fuel-supply strategies to meet
the growth of FC technology. Several environmental and
economic drivers are inspiring the FC technology players
in developing countries such as India. PEMFCVs have
many merits compared to ICEs and hybrid vehicles, e.g.,
they are efficient and produce less or no greenhouse
gases. According to experts, the future belongs to modern
FC vehicles. Therefore, we believe there is huge potential
for FC vehicles in India.
For Further Reading
Centre for Fuel Cell Technology. (2017). [Online]. Available:
https://www.arci.res.in/centres-about-fuel-cell-technology
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. (2016, June).
Hydrogen energy and fuel cells in India—A way forward. Gov-
ernment of India. New Delhi. [Online]. Available: http://mnre
.gov.in/schemes/new-technologies/hydrogen-energy/report-
on-hydrogen-energy-fuel-cells-in-india-way-forward/
Central Electrochemical Research Institute. (2012). Fuel
cells: Electrochemical power sources division. [Online]. Avail-
able: http://www.cecri.res.in/ResearchAreas/Electrochemical-
PowerSources
National Fuel Cell Symposium. (2016). [Online]. Available:
http://www.nfcrc.uci.edu/nationalfuelcellsymposium/2016
Biographies
Bandi Mallikarjuna Reddy (ree1505@mnnit.ac.in) is with
the Electrical Engineering Department, Motilal Nehru
National Institute of Technology Allahabad, India.
Paulson Samuel (paul@mnnit.ac.in) is with the Electri-
cal Engineering Department, Motilal Nehru National Insti-
tute of Technology Allahabad, India.
Narapureddy Siva Mohan Reddy (nsiva.fch@iitr.ac.in) is
with the Chemical Engineering Department, Indian Insti-
tute of Technology, Roorkee, Uttarakhad, India.

 By Andrew Martinez
Delivering on the promise
of fuel cell-powered
transportation.
The Future Is
Present in California
or years, hydrogen fuel and fuel-
F
cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) have been
consistently referred to as “five years away
from commercialization,” even among pro-
ponents of vehicles powered by alternatives
to conventional gasoline. Year after year, commercializa-
tion seemed just out of reach. Critical FC technology
advancements took longer than expected; hydrogen stor-
age, compression, and dispensing standards needed more
fine-tuning; and favorable business opportunities for fuel-
ing infrastructure came a bit slower. Today, in California,
that is no longer the case.
There is widespread agreement among auto manufac-
turers and other light-duty hydrogen transportation stake-
holders that the technology has successfully transitioned
from the precommercial to early-commercial market
phase. At least three different models of early-market
FCEVs are available for lease or purchase across the state.
As of October 2017, nearly 2,500 FCEVs have been regis-
tered with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV),
and the latest projections estimate tens of thousands of
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784634
Date of publication: 28 February 2018
2325-5987/18©2018IEEE
©istockphoto.com/jeremyiswild
these zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) on the road by the
early 2020s.
More than 30 open fueling stations with full retail oper-
ations serve communities in Los Angeles and Orange
counties, near San Diego, inland to Riverside, and north to
the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento region. North-
south travel between these markets is made possible by a
station located on the property of Harris Ranch, shown in
Figure 1, a landmark in the city of Coalinga. Owing to the
vehicles’ range and rapid fueling capability and in combi-
nation with strategically sited fueling stations, today’s Cal-
ifornia FCEV drivers can travel to northern Tahoe and
Santa Barbara. Moreover, California is currently on track to
develop a fueling infrastructure capable of supporting at
least 25,000 vehicles by 2020.
The transition from a perpetual promise to today’s
reality was made possible in California by dedicating time
and resources to supporting FCEV deployment and devel-
oping hydrogen fueling infrastructure. Without a doubt,
hydrogen as a transportation fuel has arrived, and there
are several efforts underway to ensure that the last few
years’ momentum is not only maintained but also accel-
erated in the near future. An examination of the timeline
(see “Hydrogen in California”) of fueling infrastructure
IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 37

Figure 1. A Honda Clarity FC refuels at the TrueZero hydrogen fueling
station in Coalinga, California. (Photo courtesy of Andrew Martinez.)
development, FCEV deployment, and experience gained
provides useful insight for other jurisdictions looking to
capitalize and expand on the progress made in the state.
Foundations of California’s Commitment
Health Concerns and Regulations
California’s ZEV regulation was the first catalyst for the
state to take an active role in the development of an
FCEV market and a hydrogen fueling network. Passed in
1990, the state’s regulation ensured that the light-duty
vehicle sector would contribute to the state’s air quality
improvement goals. At that time, the South Coast Air
Basin, which includes major population centers in Los
Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties
and features a geography that tends to trap environmen-
tal pollutants, experienced more than 100 days in ranges
above the state and national one-hour ozone standards.
The same region experienced nearly 275 days above the
state 24-h particulate matter (PM) standard. The San Joa-
quin Valley Air Basin, which spans the central valley of
the state and is a major agriculture and transport corri-
dor, experienced 100 days above the state ozone standard
and nearly 300 days beyond the PM standard.
Every day in exceedance of state and federal limits
represents a potential health hazard to those living,
working, and traveling in these regions. Sensitive pop-
ulations, e.g., the elderly and children with cardiopul-
monary health issues, are put at risk by unhealthy air
on days when the ozone standards are exceeded. As
the state’s primary agency charged with ensuring
clean air for all its residents, the California Air Resourc-
es Board (CARB) had long recognized that transpor-
tation-related emissions are a major contributor to
38 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018
un­­healthy air conditions. Ever since California’s Bureau
of Air Sanitation established the nation’s first automo-
bile emissions regulation in 1961, which required the
implementation of positive crankcase ventilation on all
passenger cars from 1963 forward, California has devel-
oped several programs and regulations to reduce trans-
portation-based air pollution.
With the passage of the Low Emission Vehicle stan-
dards in 1990, CARB introduced modernized standards to
continue challenging the automotive industry to push the
envelope of conventional internal combustion engine
technology. The accompanying passage of ZEV require-
ments established a forward-thinking vision on zero-
emission technology to power the state’s transportation
sector. In combination with stationary source emission
regulations promulgated throughout the state, there have
been tangible improvements in air quality. Days above the
state ozone standard fell to 24 and 52 days in 2015 in the
San Joaquin and South Coast Air Basins, respectively, and
the days above the 10 PM standard fell to slightly above
120 in 2015.
In its first incarnation, California’s ZEV regulation
required auto manufacturers with a large market pres-
ence to meet a series of goals for technology introduction:
2% of sales by 1998, 5% by 2001, and 10% by 2003. These
requirements have been updated through regular itera-
tions of review, leading to adjustments and a continuous-
ly growing understanding of the status and pace of ZEV
technology development. With the passage of Assembly
Bill (AB) 32 and the issuance of Governor Jerry Brown’s
March 2012 executive order, ZEVs also came to be recog-
nized as critically important factors in achieving the
state’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals.
The governor’s executive order included critically impor-
tant requirements for state agencies to work with the
automotive industry to establish fueling infrastructure
plans by 2015, followed by the development of infrastruc-
ture sufficient to support one million ZEVs by 2020 and
an eventual achievement of a sustainable ZEV and infra-
structure industry by 2025.
FCEVs and Zero-Emission Transportation Goals
FCEVs have been recognized as critical components in
achieving California’s air quality, climate, and zero-emis-
sion transportation goals. FCEVs offer zero tailpipe emis-
sions, producing only water vapor from the electrochemical
combination of hydrogen and oxygen that occurs within
the vehicle’s FC stack and providing on-board generation of
electrical power. Hydrogen-powered FCs also offer long-
range, stable performance across extreme ambient temper-
atures; adaptability to a wide range of vehicle classes, e.g.,
sport-utility vehicles and medium-/heavy-duty vehicles;
fast refueling times on par with today’s gasoline fueling;
and a familiar fueling experience for customers. The fun-
damental goal for state and industrial partners is that
FCEVs offer a zero-emission transportation option that
 HYDROGEN IN CALIFORNIA
A Timeline of Selected State, Federal, Industry, and Public–Private Events

1961
First Automotive Emissions Regulations
in Nation by California Bureau of Air Sanitation

1990 CARB First Adopts

ZEV Regulation
(2004–2008) Governor Schwarzenegger’s
Executive Order S-7-04: Hydrogen
Highway for Precommercial
(2005–2012) California Hydrogen Infrastructure and Technology
2004

Infrastructure Project (U.S. DOE and Demonstration

Air Products): Demonstrates Retail
Hydrogen Fueling Feasibility
2005

Senate Bill 1505 Defines (2007–2016) AB 118

Renewable Hydrogen Establishes Alternative and Renewable
2006

Requirements Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program

2007

Honda FCX Clarity: First

Project Driveway (GM):
Commercial Production FCEV in
Public FCEVs for Technical
United States
and Marketing Research
2008

Governor Brown’s Executive

Order B-16-12: Initiates ZEV
CARB Adopts Advanced Clean Action Plan to Accelerate ZEV
Cars with ZEV Requirements for Market (1.5 Million ZEVs by 2025)
2012

2018–2025
California Fuel-Cell
Partnership Publishes a
2013

California Roadmap
Hyundai Tucson Fuel (2013–2023)
Cell: First Mass-Produced Assembly Bill 8:
FCEV Extends AB 118 with
2014

up to US$20 Million per

Toyota Mirai: First Year for 100+
First Fully Retail Station: Stations by 2023
Mass-Market FCEV
West Sacramento
2015

California Status: 30+ Retail Fueling Stations Open, 30+ Additional Stations Funded,
2017

3,000+ FCEVs, 400,000+ kg H2; Two FCEV Car-Share Programs Funded

Mercedes-Benz GLC F-Cell:

2019

World’s First Plug-In Hybrid FCEV

does not require any change in owners’ driving, fueling, or
ownership habits. A ZEV with these characteristics offers a
heightened ease of adoption and can make the vehicle an
attractive choice. These goals help ensure accelerated
growth of zero-emission transportation once the neces-
sary fueling infrastructure and vehicle supply chains have
been established.
Hydrogen offers great flexibility in the utilization of
resources, including renewable energy sources available to
California and to the country at large. Since the passing of
the state’s ZEV regulation, a wide array of production meth-
ods have been studied, including steam-methane reforma-
tion, electrolysis (powered either by the grid or dedicated
renewable resources), and tri-generation, i.e., the coproduc-
tion of hydrogen, electricity, and heat from the integration
of a specially designed FC system with biogas resources at
municipal waste treatment or similar facilities. Additional
prospective methods have been introduced, including
some with negative carbon intensities where the hydrogen
production process sequesters GHGs that would otherwise
be emitted by the feedstock fuel.
Although this ZEV regulation established commitment
and criteria for ZEV targets, experience gained during its
decades-long implementation has emphasized that this is
only one of several initiatives necessary to ensure the suc-
cessful market launch of new vehicle motive technologies.
The development of fueling infrastructure represents a
second major aspect that requires a similar commitment,
concurrent with efforts for the deployment of ZEV tech-
nologies. This is true of all alternative vehicle fuel options.
Additional critical aspects for the successful market
launch of ZEVs include public outreach and awareness,
consumer incentives, education for planning authorities
and emergency responders, and so on.

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 39

 The Rise of Hydrogen Fueling
For more than a decade, California, often in collaboration
with partners in academia, industry, and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy (DOE), has initiated several projects and
programs to understand and develop hydrogen fueling
infrastructure. Some of the earliest research and demon-
stration projects in this area were carried out by the DOE,
e.g., the California Hydrogen Infrastructure Project and
General Motors’ Project Driveway. Early state efforts such
as Senate Bill 76 established funding for precommercial
demonstration hydrogen fueling stations. These stations
helped auto manufacturers test driver interactions with
their FC vehicle technologies and their future vehicle
release strategies. They also allowed for new technology,
hardware, and logistics and operation strategy testing in
the hydrogen distribution and dispensing supply chain.
As vehicle developments progressed and the potential
for a full commercial market launch became increasingly
favorable, hydrogen fueling gained more attention in
public–private coordination efforts. California passed fur-
ther complementary legislation dedicated to expanding
the state’s efforts to address the challenge of ZEV fuel­­
ing availability. Passed in 2007, AB 118 established the
alternative and renewable fuel and vehicle technology
program (ARFVTP) and fund, which provided state com-
mitment to several alternative fuel options with the
promise of improving air quality and GHG emissions. This
program helped fund 20 of the first fully public, early-
market-era hydrogen fueling stations in the state through
two rounds of project solicitations. It also included retail
capability upgrades to three demonstration-era stations,
several plug-in EV charging points, and other alternative
fueling installations.
By 2013, several public–private efforts and research
studies had come to the similar conclusion that a full
commercial market release of FCEVs would require
large-scale dedication to a concrete plan for hydrogen
station deployment well coordinated with auto manu-
facturers’ aspirations for vehicle deployment schedules.
AB 8 was then passed in 2013 to provide further
Figure 2. A hydrogen fueling station in Hayward, California, operated
by TrueZero. (Photo courtesy of FirstElement Fuel.)
40 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018
certainty in funding for hydrogen fueling stations. AB 8
required that, every year, up to US$20 million of the
funds collected for ARFVTP would be utilized for cofund-
ing publicly available hydrogen fueling stations (Figure 2).
In addition, the bill established that the California Ener-
gy Commission and CARB would work cooperatively to
determine the needs for new hydrogen stations. It spe-
cifically defined the analysis metrics and reporting
needs, including coverage provided by stations (the
extent and degree of single-station and redundant fuel
availability to markets across the state), the amount of
new fueling capacity needed in the state’s local FCEV
markets, and technological capabilities required of new
stations. This program has now expanded the total
number of funded station projects across the state to
more than 60.
Evolutions of the Hydrogen Strategy
Principal Challenges in FCEV
and Hydrogen Deployment
The key to the success of these programs has been a long-
standing commitment by the state and its private part-
ners to well-coordinated hydrogen fueling network
development and FCEV deployment. The coordination
aspect has proven critical, demanding some of the most
focused attention. Fundamentally, FCEVs and hydrogen
fueling stations’ long-term success are dependent on one
another. If there is an insufficient number of hydrogen
fueling stations available, then prospective adopters will
not feel secure in the availability of fuel to support their
driving habits and may decide not to switch to zero-emis-
sion FCEVs. At the same time, if there are too few vehicles
made available to drivers in a market near fuel stations,
then stations may be underutilized. This limits revenue
and leads to an unfavorable business case for sustained
station operation.
At first, this appears to establish a paradox, with both
industries requiring an initial commitment from the
other. However, the state’s efforts offered creative solu-
tions to overcome this potential roadblock. The challenge
is still great; there is a significant amount of risk involved
in creating a new industry, not to mention the difficult
task of coordinating two industries. However, California’s
efforts have been successful in moving these industries
forward. Infrastructure programs have evolved to support
financing of capital investments for hydrogen fueling sta-
tions, as well as operational costs for the first few years of
retail hydrogen sales. This enables the stations to be
developed and open slightly in advance of FCEV deploy-
ments. The capital and operations and maintenance
funding through the Energy Commission improves the
business outlook during the high-risk years of a station’s
operation. At the same time, this allows potential FCEV
adopters to see the development of hydrogen fueling
infrastructure in their area, providing greater certainty
that a switch to an FCEV is a viable alternative for their The understanding at the time was that the limited
transportation needs. number of demonstration-era stations would need to
Accordingly, the reporting requirements of AB 8 include enable hydrogen transportation within localized clusters
annual analysis surveys of auto manufacturer deployment of stations built around major markets. Enabling interre-
plans to help determine likely markets for the early adop- gional travel so drivers could take advantage of the long-
tion of FCEVs. Progress on the deployment of vehicles and range capability expected of FCEVs was also required. In
the development of funded stations is also reported in addition, there was an emphasis on phasing in FCEVs,
semiannual intervals. Reports like these allow for trans- beginning with fleet applications as the first 100 stations
parency in the latest information available and help plan were built and eventually introducing the vehicles for
future hydrogen fueling station funding. They also provide private ownership and driving. The California Hydrogen
a public venue for open comment and discussion and are Highway program (2004 –2008) was envisioned as more of
a springboard for discussions in public–private partner- a proving ground for various fueling station technologies
ships to better understand the needs of both the hydrogen and for energy park strategies. This allowed the industry
fueling and FCEV industries. an opportunity to test several technology solutions for
Since the hydrogen and FCEV markets are in their early hydrogen fueling and identify the most promising candi-
stages of development, there have been many shifts in dates for future mass-market expansion. While several of
technology focus, market development strategies, and these goals were accomplished, not all concepts have
planning priorities. Plans generated and espoused at one been pursued beyond the demonstration phase.
phase of development were appro-
priate in the context of several con-
temporaneous factors; however, as
various forces pushing toward
FCEV and hydrogen commercializa-
tion have adjusted, so have the nec-
essary planning tools and actions.
These have, at times, been inter-
preted as earlier-stage goals that
simply did not come to fruition,
indicating a failure of technology,
policy, or even resolve in the com-
Sacramento Area:
mitment to hydrogen-powered One Open
personal transport. Yet these are Two In Development
often misunderstandings of evolv- Truckee:
North Bay Area: One Open
ing situations. Actions in more Four Open
recent deployment phases have Seven In Development
indeed replaced prior plans, but it is Santa Nella:
precisely because the progress One In Development
South Bay Area:
made in earlier phases spurred new Four Open Coalinga:
opportunities and improved an Seven In Development One Open
understanding of market needs. In
moments like these, adjustments
are necessary to maintain progress.
Santa Barbara:
One Open
Shifting Strategies to Capitalize Orange County Area:
on Progress Seven Open
There have been several efforts Four In Development
through the years to define a struc-
tured strategy and to construct a San Diego Area:
Los Angeles Area: One Open
hydrogen fueling station network 11 Open One In Development
throughout the state (Figure 3). 11 In Development
During Governor Arnold Schwar-
zenegger’s administration, the con-
cept called Hydrogen Highway was Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia,
deemed most likely to meet the © OpenStreetMap Contributors, and the GIS User Community
needs of FCEVs based on demon- Figure 3. The status of California’s network of fueling stations as of 1 November 2017. (Image
stration-era understanding. courtesy of Andrew Martinez.)

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 41

 Eventually, ABs 8 and 118 provided secure funding for
hydrogen fueling stations, station and vehicle technology
progressed and evolved, and new understandings of the
likely FCEV adopter markets and their usage patterns
emerged. The dynamics and context of requirements for
the industry also shifted. Emblematic works of the time
include the 2012 roadmap document developed by the
California Fuel-Cell Partnership (CAFCP) and related works
by the University of California, Davis and Irvine (UCI) cam-
puses. The development of these works refined the sta-
tion placement and timing strategy, as well as the
necessary fueling infrastructure scale to meet a coordi-
nated FCEV release schedule. For example, within the
context of the roadmap, a list of 68 station locations was
developed through public–private cooperation. This list
not only targeted more stations than previous efforts, but
also defined a broader range of station operation modes,
including cluster (within first-adopter neighborhoods),
connector (for long-distance travel), and vacation and
destination stations (Figure 4).
Several analyses contributed to the development of
this new roadmap, though the spatially and temporally
resolved energy and environment tool (STREET) developed
by the Advanced Power and Energy Program at UCI had a
particular influence, especially in helping understand the
scale of the necessary hydrogen fueling network. This tool
was one of the first to assess and quantify coverage, and it
helped to define the criteria for sufficient coverage. Bor-
rowing from observations of gasoline stations and analy-
sis of network optimization in Orange County, STREET
was instrumental in approximating the number of cluster-
type hydrogen stations that would be required to ensure
convenient fuel availability.
For some of the stations funded under ABs 8 and
118, STREET served as an information resource for the
Figure 4. The TrueZero staff refueling a pair of Toyota Mirais in Truckee, California, during a drive
that set a record for the greatest distance traveled in 24 h in an electric-drive vehicle. (Photo cour- have become a focus in recent
tesy of Andrew Martinez.)
42 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018
selection of station grants, i.e., stations that more spe-
cifically matched the projected needs would receive
more favorable consideration. However, the reality of
competitive solicitations is that even the best available
applications did not match perfectly with a static opti-
mized plan, and new understandings of the market
needs continued to evolve. In particular, the need for
redundancy of fueling coverage in neighborhoods with
expected and observed first adopters became increas-
ingly important.
To remedy this, CARB developed the California Hydro-
gen Infrastructure Tool (CHIT). Like STREET, CHIT is a geo-
graphic information system tool built in the ArcGIS
environment. However, CHIT differed from STREET in
intent and method. Where STREET was designed to pro-
vide a larger plan for a single cohesive network, CHIT was
designed to provide a method to locally assess how well
the degree of coverage provided by the existing and
planned hydrogen fueling network matches the relative
intensity of the localized, first-adopter market viability.
Thus, a fundamental aspect of CHIT is also the assess-
ment and consideration of coverage not as a binary yes/no
theorem, but as a quantifiable value that increases with
the number of stations and their proximity to a location.
In CHIT, the abundance and proximity of stations equate
to higher degrees of coverage (Figure 5).
CHIT also utilizes a collection of open and public data
sets to establish its assessment of projected FCEV first-
adopter market locations and intensity. This was done in
accordance with the overall goal of reporting transparency
through the AB 8 process. The desirability of a station in
individual locations anywhere in the state can then be
established by a comparison of the local intensity of the
FCEV first-adopter market forecast, estimates of vehi-
cle traffic patterns and the intensity of coverage pro-
vided by existing stations. Larger
markets and smaller degrees of
coverage indicate a greater desir-
ability for a new station to be
funded at a location.
In addition, CHIT is designed to
take advantage of the auto manu-
facturer-supplied vehicle projection
data. Combining CHIT’s first-adopt-
er market projections, population
densities, and the vehicle projec-
tions allows CHIT to develop local-
ized evaluations of additional
fueling capacity needs. CHIT’s flexi-
ble methodology led to its adoption
in the most recent funding program
from the Energy Commission: the
GFO 15-605.
Additional considerations that
years include the following:
 improved station equipment reliability and availabili-
x in recent years in Japan, Korea, Germany, the United King-
ty, in conjunction with dependable communication of
station availability to FCEV drivers
greater emphasis on renewable and low-carbon
x ticularly developing supply chains and market competi-
hydrogen production, as demanded by FCEV custom-
er feedback
greater in-state hydrogen production.
x private partnership and public cofunding of efforts within
station network funding strategies that emphasize
x both industries.
transition to a self-sustaining market and increased
private investment
the potential role of hydrogen-powered transporta-
x These successive iterations of planning, funding, and
tion in the larger energy system to include grid man-
agement, energy storage, and peak renewable energy
uptake needs.
Evolving Strategies Ahead
Showcased are the wide array of strategies, tools, contex-
tual understanding, and evolving market dynamics that
have occurred throughout the course of California’s hydro-
gen fueling network development. These shifts demon-
strated that prior plans may have needed to be adjusted or
recast in light of new information, but it has not meant
that any of the progress from the previous plans was
wasted. In fact, it is only because of early and continued
successes that California’s hydrogen fueling network
development has evolved and incorporated many differ-
ent perspectives in its history.
Similar shifts in strategy are likely to continue, espe-
cially as the FCEV and hydrogen markets progress from
early commercialization to full-scale commercialization
and, hopefully, widespread adoption. To date, most of the
strategies and planning have been based, at least in part,
on efforts to project where the current and/or future FCEV
adopters might be located throughout the state. This has
been a crucial step, as large-scale commercial-era deploy-
ment did not start until 2015, with the introduction of the
Toyota Mirai. Although the Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell was
released in 2014, the announced volume of Mirai deploy-
ments was more closely aligned with expectations of ear-
ly-commercial markets.
As greater numbers of vehicles continue to be
deployed, on-the-ground market realities will become
increasingly important. The actual vehicle deployment
may or may not reveal that the market projections
were correct. Either way, the continued successful
development of the hydrogen fueling network will need
to follow the market realities of deployed FCEVs and
their observed fueling patterns and behaviors. Any
shifts and course-corrections in strategy that arise
from increased focus on market realities will not invali-
date the progress gained to date, but rather will repre-
sent proof of the success of early development to
enable these transitions.
It is also important to acknowledge that California is
not alone in its pursuit of FCEVs and hydrogen-powered
transport. The effort is global, and similar progress made
dom, Denmark, and other nations indicates that the effort
is increasingly multinational. New market dynamics, par-
tion, will require new kinds of analysis and likely
reconsideration of the most effective means of public–
California’s Unique Contributions
knowledge-building have resulted in California establish-
ing one of the largest hydrogen fueling networks in the
world and deploying the largest number of FCEVs. CARB
and the Energy Commission reported that, as of October
2017, approximately 2,500 FCEVs were registered with its
DMV, and similar industry estimates show numbers
exceeding 3,000. CARB’s most recent short- and midterm
estimates predict 13,400 on-road FCEVs by 2020 and
37,400 by 2023 (Figure 6). At the same time, the provisions
of AB 8 call for at least 100 stations by 2023. Growth may
accelerate beyond these projections, especially as indus-
try and government perspectives have recently shifted
toward an emphasis on self-sustained fueling station
market growth.
However, there may be an even more important
story beyond volumes of FCEVs deployed and the size
Hydrogen Fueling Community with Low
Stations Coverage (Access to
Few Stations Far Away)
Community with High
Coverage (Access to Community with
Multiple Stations No Coverage
Nearby)
Community with
Medium Coverage Extent of Station
(Access to Multiple Coverage
and/or Near by Stations)
UCI
Costa
Mesa
Newport
Beach
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, MapmyIndia,
© OpenStreetMap Contributors, and the GIS User Community
Figure 5. A conceptual representation of degrees of coverage provid-
ed by a group of hydrogen fueling stations near several local commu-
nities. (Image courtesy of Andrew Martinez.)
IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 43
 Drivers can pull up to a re­­tail
Retail Hydrogen Cumulative Sales (kg) 450,000 hydrogen dispenser at any time
Prior-Quarter Cumulative Sales 2,473 FCEVs (within the host station’s normal
400,000
New Quarterly Sales operating hours), use preferred
350,000 Registered FCEVs methods of payment, and fuel
300,000 1,609 FCEVs their vehicle without help from
250,000 an attendant or with the provi-
sion of a special code to gain
200,000 925 FCEVs access to the fueling position (Fig-
150,000 ure 7). Fueling should take 5 min
100,000 331 FCEVs or less, and it does not require any
200 FCEVs special training. Service outages
50,000
should be exceedingly rare, on par
0 with customers’ experiences with
15

16

16

16

16

17

17

17
gasoline fueling.
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
This type of retail experience
4,

1,

2,

3,

4,

1,

2,

3,
Q

Q
has been pioneered in the past
Figure 6. A representation of the growth in retail hydrogen sales and FCEV deployments in Califor- few years within California’s fuel-
nia. Q: quarter. (Image courtesy of Andrew Martinez.) ing network. This has not been a
trivial matter, and significant
of the state’s hydrogen fueling network. A critical first-hand knowledge has been gained through the
aspect of the fueling network developed in California experience of California’s efforts. One early example
is the emphasis on a familiar, reliable retail fuel sales came in 2015, when the station on the California State
environment. As previously mentioned, the ultimate University, Los Angeles (CSULA) campus became the
goal for hydrogen fueling network development is to first in the world to demonstrate hydrogen metering
provide a seamless transition from conventional gas- accuracy at tolerances sufficient to enable retail sales.
powered vehicles to zero-emission FCEVs. This tran- Accurate metering is a fundamental principle of retail
sition requires not only vehicles that provide the sales, as it provides reassurance to customers that they
same capabilities, e.g., expected range, performance, are properly billed, as well as to station operators that
seating capacity, and storage capacity, but also fuel- they are receiving proper revenue for the true amount
ing options that provide service comparable to that of hydrogen sold.
of gas stations. The CSULA station demonstrated sufficient metering
Today, all stations funded in California are required accuracy according to a set of standards developed and
to provide this familiar retail fueling experience. adopted first in California by the Department of Food and
Agriculture’s Division of Measure-
ment Standards (DMS). Later that
same year, the West Sacramento
Air Compressor and Water Chiller
(Behind Convenience Store) fueling station became the first in
Compressor High Pressure the state to officially achieve fully
Hydrogen retail operations. These successes
Storage
were possible because collabora-
Gas tive efforts between the DMS, other
Panel
Hydrogen Chiller state agencies, and industry part-
and Cooling Block Hydrogen ners recognized that existing
Dispenser
national standards were too strin-
gent for available technology.
Tube Trailer
Without modification, national
(Bulk Low-Pressure
Hydrogen Storage) standards could have prevented
Underground retail sales for a number of years
Hydrogen Piping until significant technology de­­
velopment took place. The DMS,
therefore, instituted a set of revised
standards allowing for looser
tolerances in the near term with
Figure 7. The major components and layout of a conventional hydrogen fueling station with gas-
eous delivery. (Image courtesy of Sandia National Laboratories, adapted from E. S. Hecht and J. specific sunset dates, such that
Pratt 2017.) the metering technology would

44 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

eventually achieve the stricter requirements already
adopted in the national code.
Insights from these experiences have recently in­­
formed national and international efforts for codes and
standards development. For example, the success of the
structure of California’s modified accuracy tolerances
played a role in the National Institute of Standards and
Technology modifying Handbook 44 in 2017 to include an
accuracy class in national standards that more precisely
reflects available technology.
Retail hydrogen fueling stations are also expected to
reliably, quickly, and safely transfer hydrogen gas from sta-
tion-side storage to the vehicles’ on-board tanks. Today’s
FCEVs typically store 5–5.5 kg of hydrogen at 70 MPa. Rapid
fueling of this amount of hydrogen at such a high pres-
sure requires chilling the hydrogen to temperatures as low
as −40 °C. Such low temperatures during the fill maintain
thermal stresses in the tanks within tolerances that
ensure longevity in the lifetime of the vehicle. Industry-
developed standards through the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE J2601, J2799, and others) provide common
fueling protocols for equipment suppliers, station devel-
opers, and operators. Pressure ramp rates, temperature
limits of the fuel, targets for the final on-board tank pres-
sure, vehicle-dispenser communications, and other fill
parameters are defined by these standards. In addition,
CSA hydrogen gas vehicle (HGV) 4.3 describes standard-
ized test methods to validate a hydrogen fueling station’s
compliance with the SAE protocols.
California’s developing hydrogen fueling network has
been a valuable resource for these performance and vali-
dation efforts. Some of the earliest hydrogen fueling sta-
tions began operating when several of the SAE protocols
were only technical information reports, i.e., the standards
were not yet fully vetted and finalized but provided early
guidance. Today, several of California’s hydrogen stake-
holders across industry and public agencies are actively
engaged in ongoing refinement. Recent efforts from the
state seek to refine clarity and reduce ambiguity so that
future testing and certification authorities may be able to
complete assessments in a faster and increasingly pre-
dictable and standardized manner.
The state’s involvement has largely been due to the
initiative of the hydrogen station equipment perfor-
mance (HyStEP) device and program to accelerate station
performance validation. During California’s precommer-
cial phase of hydrogen and FCEV deployment, individual
auto manufacturers tested new hydrogen stations’ dis-
pensers to determine compliance with fueling protocols.
Oftentimes, each manufacturer would require several
trips to allow the station operator to make adjustments
based on results from earlier tests. The coordination and
logistical effort was cumbersome, placed burden on sta-
tion developers, and significantly lengthened total sta-
tion development time. To address this, the HyStEP
device was designed and built by Sandia National
Laboratories, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
and Powertech Labs with funding provided by the DOE’s
Fuel-Cell Technology Office and its H2FIRST program. The
device is able to perform validation tests specified by
CSA HGV 4.3 and is therefore able to replace much of the
testing of multiple auto manufacturers with a single visit
and a single device.
Today, the device is operated by CARB in cooperation
with several other state agencies and has been critical in
performance testing and validation of California’s open
retail stations. Station developers and operators have
been able to use the device’s test results to refine their
station design and operation parameters. Potential vari-
ations in interpretation of protocol requirements and
ambiguous language have been identified through
observation of the various station developers’ imple-
mentation of the standards. Auto manufacturers have
been relieved of much of the burden of testing a station’s
performance themselves.
These benefits have all contributed to the hydrogen
and FC industry and significantly advanced the state of
the science and focus for continued development. From
these combined efforts, a picture of the requirements and
expectations for retail hydrogen station performance has
emerged. In addition, complementary efforts have made
significant progress in further defining the retail customer
experience. The efforts include
x communication with customers, e.g., public updates
when new hydrogen fueling stations open and the
real-time station operational status system operated
by the CaFCP (https://m.cafcp.org)
x equipment and station design for intuitive fueling
experiences
x equipment reliability and station availability as per-
ceived by customers
x capability for stations to serve multiple customers’
hydrogen fueling needs in rapid succession, providing
the assurance of on-demand, rapid hydrogen fuel
availability similar to current gasoline stations.
There are still several refinements that are expected as
the hydrogen fueling network expands, but the stations
currently in operation are proving the promise today of
zero-compromise, zero-emission transportation through
hydrogen-powered FCEVs.
Hydrogen’s Horizons
In the future, there are many indications for a shift in
emphasis on the scale of the hydrogen fueling and FCEV
markets and on the expansion of the hydrogen market
itself as an energy resource for applications across sev-
eral industries. Recent efforts by the CaFCP provide a
vision for what this shift from market establishment to
a rapidly expanding scale may look like in California.
Rapid growth in numbers of stations and deployed vehi-
cles, the growth of hydrogen fueling station capacity to
and beyond 1,000 kg/day, and the design of stations with
IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 45

Figure 8. A hydrogen fueling station in Torrance, California, operated
by Shell Hydrogen. It is the first retail station in California with two
fueling positions that can fill simultaneously, and it is the only station
in the United States with hydrogen supplied directly from a pipeline.
(Photo courtesy of the CAFCP.)
multiple fueling positions and the ability to fuel custom-
ers’ vehicles back-to-back without interruption are all
likely to be major requirements of imminent market
growth (Figure 8). Similar discussions and efforts to
understand the best use of state funds to approach a
self-sufficient hydrogen fueling market have also begun.
Emphasis is also likely to be placed on the expansion of
hydrogen as an energy resource for other sectors and
industries. Currently, this appears to be a promising avenue
for achieving the upstream scale necessary (especially for
hydrogen production and distribution technologies and
industries) to enable large and necessary cost reductions in
hydrogen as a transportation fuel.
Additional applications like medium- and heavy-duty
transportation, including municipal buses and vocational
vehicles, are also showing great promise for their future
role in zero-emission transportation. These markets repre-
sent much larger, more consistent, and more predictable
Figure 9. A hydrogen fueling station in Riverside, California, operat-
ed by ITM Power. A portion of the station’s hydrogen is produced
onsite through an electrolyzer (visible in the background, to the right
of the dispenser) powered by renewable electricity. (Photo courtesy of
ITM Power.)
46 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018
per-vehicle hydrogen consumption rates. This offers the
potential for the large, rapid expansion of hydrogen
demand. Such high levels of demand are anticipated to
drive price competition and investments in new hydrogen
production facilities and resources.
Many of the revolutionary efforts place concerted
emphasis on the expansion of hydrogen production
through renewable and low- or zero-carbon methods.
Industry members and CARB’s FCEV driver survey data
have indicated that hydrogen customers demand the
ability to have the greatest positive environmental
impact through their switch to FCEV transportation.
Renewable hydrogen production will have to play a
major role in any expansion of FCEVs and other hydro-
gen-powered applications (Figure 9).
Renewable Electricity and Hydrogen Production
In today’s markets and regulation structures, hydrogen
and renewable electricity and fuels are often considered
separately. Even though significant policies, market driv-
ers, and investments in each of these energy products
exist, there is very little opportunity for the two to be
implemented together toward their common goals. This
is a particularly unfortunate situation, since hydrogen
and renewable electricity and fuels still face significant
market expansion and scaling challenges; however,
these challenges may be mutually resolved by each oth-
er’s strengths.
For example, hydrogen production via renewably
sourced electricity, through the process of electrolysis,
currently faces significant economic challenges because
of the cost to procure certified renewable electricity. At
the same time, renewable electricity implementation
goals, e.g., renewables portfolio standards, are projected
to soon face difficulties of economic management of
renewable electricity generation. With high rates of inter-
mittent renewable electricity generation devices on the
grid, there is significant risk of large excess electricity
generation in the middle of the day, followed by rapidly
growing rates of unmet demand in the late afternoon
and early evening. This presents a challenge in matching
generation assets with demand appropriately through-
out the day.
It is widely accepted that energy storage technologies
need to be implemented on a large scale to address this
coming challenge. Several studies have shown signifi-
cant potential for hydrogen production to respond as a
necessary demand in the middle of the day during the
highest generation and to provide electricity back to the
grid as needed during the anticipated, precipitous
demand growth. Hydrogen energy storage has unique
characteristics and potential advantages in terms of
response time and storage-length potential compared to
other technologies, e.g., batteries.
Without energy storage solutions, there is the risk that
renewable generation on the grid could be limited to less
than its full potential. Thus, renewable electricity and
hydrogen production via electrolysis may be able to
resolve each other’s challenges. The coupling of these
technologies can help address the challenge of hydrogen
production scale for transportation, as some of the hydro-
gen produced from the excess renewable electricity could
also be diverted to transportation applications, ultimately
improving the economics of FCEV ownership.
Researchers are currently assessing the total potential
for hydrogen as an energy carrier. The DOE recently began
an effort called H2@Scale, which takes this concept
beyond merely the transportation market and is seeking
to develop a holistic understanding of hydrogen as an
energy carrier and industrial process feedstock through-
out several sectors. The central focus of this effort is to
similarly understand the potential for an economically
self-sufficient hydrogen-based fuel and energy market
coupled with wide-scale implementation of renewable
electricity resources for hydrogen production. This ambi-
tious program seeks to understand and resolve the techni-
cal challenges to achieve an economically viable hydrogen
energy system across the United States.
These collective efforts anticipate a future of wide-
spread implementation of renewably sourced hydrogen in
transportation and other sectors. Potentially the most
exciting aspect is that these hydrogen efforts are built
upon the successes seen through current and historical
hydrogen fueling and FCEV efforts and take into account
insights gained through those experiences.
Translating the Lessons
Moving the hydrogen and FCEV markets beyond Califor-
nia’s borders is crucial to achieving future success. Howev-
er, it is important to realize that the potential has been,
and continues to be, demonstrated on a daily basis in Cali-
fornia with its early-market fueling network and FCEV
population. Considerable efforts in California and concur-
rent developments in other countries have accomplished
significant evolutionary steps in technology development,
planning and deployment strategies, operational require-
ments, and customer experience. The insights gained pro-
vide advanced launch points for other municipalities and
states within the nation to begin hydrogen and FCEV
deployment efforts.
Public–private partnerships like the CaFCP provide a
template for the successful coordination of government
programs with industry stakeholders and their on-the-
ground needs. Planning tools for network design are
more sophisticated and refined today than those that
had been available when California’s efforts first began.
Tools for accelerating station deployment and ensuring
satisfactory customer experiences now exist and can be
utilized or replicated for new fueling network develop-
ment. Indeed, a recent publication prepared by the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory for the public–
private partnership H2USA emphasizes the lessons from
the California experience that can be leveraged to
ensure future FCEV launch success in other markets
across the nation.
Looking at these considerations together and in the
context of the required developments for their achieve-
ment, it is clear that the prospects for hydrogen-powered
transportation are, today, at a very different phase than
they have ever been. For some, the progress may not be
immediately apparent based on market size alone. How-
ever, California has shown that vehicle and station counts
are only one aspect of a much larger set of developments
necessary to make hydrogen-powered transportation via-
ble. Still, hydrogen station and FCEV volumes are growing
rapidly, and the industry and the public sector appear
ready to address the challenges of maintaining and even
accelerating the pace of growth. California’s success has
allowed FCEVs to be a present-day reality.
For Further Reading
California Air Resources Board. (2017). Annual evaluation of
fuel cell electric vehicle deployment and hydrogen fuel sta-
tion network development. California Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. Sacramento, CA. [Online]. Available: https://www
.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/ab8/ab8_report_2017.pdf
Energy Commission and the California Air Resources Board.
(2017). Joint agency staff report on Assembly Bill 8: 2017 annual
assessment of time and cost needed to attain 100 hydrogen
refueling stations in California. [Online.] Available: http://www
.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-600-2017-011/CEC-600-
2017-011.pdf
M. Melaina, B. Bush, M. Muratori, J. Zuboy, and S. Ellis.
(2017). National hydrogen scenarios: How many stations,
where, and when? H2USA Locations Roadmap Working
Group. Boulder, CO. [Online]. Available: http://h2usa.org/sites/
default/files/H2USA_LRWG_NationalScenarios2017.pdf
California Fuel Cell Partnership. (2012). A California road-
map: Bringing hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles to the Gold-
en State. California Fuel Cell Partnership. West Sacramento,
CA. [Online]. Available: https://cafcp.org/sites/default/
files/20120814_Roadmapv%28Overview%29.pdf
California Air Resources Board. (2005). California hydrogen
blueprint plan. California Environmental Protection Agency.
Sacramento, CA. [Online]. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/
msprog/zevprog/hydrogen/documents/historical/volume1_
050505.pdf
ICCT. (2017). Developing hydrogen fueling infrastructure for
fuel cell vehicles: A status update. The International Council
on Clean Transportation, Washington, D.C. [Online]. Available:
http://www.theicct.org/publications/developing-hydrogen-
fueling-infrastructure-fuel-cell-vehicles-status-update.
E. S. Hecht and J. Pratt. (2017). Comparison of conventional
vs. modular hydrogen refueling stations and on-site produc-
tion vs. delivery. Sandia National Labs. Livermore, CA.
[Online]. Available: https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/.../fcto-
h2first-reference-station-phase2-2017.pdf
Biography
Andrew Martinez (andrew.martinez@arb.ca.gov) is with
the Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Section at the Air
Resources Board, California Environmental Protection
Agency, Sacramento.

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 47
 By Jungik Kim and Saehoon Kim

Obstacles to the
Success of Fuel-Cell
Electric Vehicles ©istockphoto.com/milehightraveler

Are they truly

lobal warming and envi-
impossible
to overcome?
G
ronmental pollution are no
longer scientific warnings;
they are a part of everyday
life in the 21st century. Weather forecasts
in many countries report record-breaking temperatures
and precipitation, with droughts occurring every season.
In addition, highly industrialized cities continue to suffer
from deteriorating air quality and related health issues.
Although the debate remains about these environmental
anomalies being solely the result of human activities, no
one can deny the effect of highly concentrated chemicals
that are emitted from vehicles and manufacturing plants,
which are rarely observed in nature (with the possible
exception of those near volcanoes). Researchers and engi-
neers continue to attempt to explain the effects of
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784635
Date of publication: 28 February 2018
human activity on the earth, and, more
importantly, find solutions to the problem
that affects current and future generations.
However, the moral idea that the earth
should be passed on as received is frequently supersed-
ed by the selfish notion of making instant profits from
burning fossil fuels. Hence, the transition from fossil
fuels to renewable energy sources is slow and some-
times requires government enforcement to accelerate. A
notable activity of the United Nations (UN) in this regard
is the 2015 Paris Agreement. Signed by 196 countries,
including those most responsible for greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, the agreement is a step in the right
direction toward reducing climate change. According to
the agreement, the parties must reduce GHG emissions
to limit global warming to under 2 °C compared to the
preindustrial levels (Table 1).
To accomplish this goal, many countries have passed
regulations for vehicles to satisfy a certain level of

48 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018 2325-5987/18©2018IEEE

 carbon-dioxide emissions, i.e., fuel econo- friendly as EVs (hydrogen fuel cells and simple fuel cells
my, of which the detailed methods vary are practically synonymous in the automotive industry).
depending on the country. However, the A distinct advantage of FCEVs over EVs comes from the
basic idea is identical for all countries: refueling process. When an FCEV is refueled, hydrogen is
impose penalties for using fossil fuels physically injected into the hydrogen storage system of
and encourage using renewables. For an FCEV, whereas the batteries of an EV must be electro-
example, the U.S. Corporate Average Fuel chemically charged. As one can imagine, a physical injec-
Economy requirement will be increased tion process is much faster than an electrochemical
from 37.8  mi/gal in 2015 to 56  mi/gal in charging process, which indicates that the FCEVs can
2025 (approximately 4.8% increase per have a similar usage pattern to the familiar conventional
year), and the penalty for not satisfying vehicles. Hydrogen refueling typically takes a few min-
the standard is US$14 per 0.1 mi/gal utes, and the driving range of an FCEV can easily reach a
under the standard multiplied by the few hundred miles.
manufacturer’s total production for the Even with the aforementioned advantages of FCEVs,
U.S. domestic market, which can reach a the success of FCEVs in the emerging, environmentally
significant amount when calculated conscious automotive market is still considered ques-
against today’s typical fuel economy. tionable. The downsides to FCEVs include insufficient
China aims to deploy 5 million new ener- performance and durability, unaffordable cost, uncertain-
gy vehicles (NEVs) by 2020 and has ty of hydrogen safety, and scarce infrastructure for
required that NEVs comprise 30% of all hydrogen refueling. Are these obstacles truly impossible
new vehicles purchased by their govern- to overcome? Can the advancement of this technology
ment. In addition, China provides a subsi- with time and effort solve these problems, as observed
dy of approximately US$30,000 per many times before in the history of science and engi-
fuel-cell electric vehicle (FCEV) until, and neering? Nobody can predict the future with 100% cer-
possibly beyond, 2020. tainty, but some facts and figures in this article may help
These regulations and standards on answer these questions.
the fuel economy and emissions of
vehicles, which are expected to be grad-
TABLE 1. A list of selected intended nationally
ually augmented until 2050, represent determined contributions submitted by the
challenges and opportunities for auto- parties of the 2015 Paris Agreement to
makers. Despite the improved efficiency reduce climate change.
of fossil-fuel-based internal combustion
engines and their hybrid drivetrains, a
Plan to Reduce Target Base
Country GHG Emissions Year Year
yearly improvement of 4–5% will not be
easy, especially considering the maturi- Australia 26–28% 2030 2005
ty of the corresponding technologies. Brazil 37% 2025 2005
However, an automaker who overcomes
Canada 30% 2030 2005
this difficult challenge may eventually dominate the
market (Figure 1). China 60–65% (per unit 2030 2005
Another option for carmakers is the production of of GDP)
zero-emissions vehicles, which include FCEVs and other European Union 40% 2030 1990
EVs. When an EV runs, it uses the energy stored in its
India 33–35% (per unit 2030 2005
batteries and emits only heat, as does a smartphone. of GDP)
This mechanism is perfect for the environment, and the
Japan 26% 2030 2013
only possible drawback is that the driver must wait a
long time to charge the batteries. An FCEV uses an elec- Korea 37% 2030 BAU
tric motor to operate, but the energy source is fuel cells, Mexico 25% (unconditionally), 2030 BAU
which are considerably different from batteries. A fuel 40% (conditionally)
cell is an electrochemical energy conversion device, i.e., it Norway 40% 2030 1990
extracts electrical energy from the chemical reactions
between fuels and oxidants. Depending on the combina- Russia 70–75% 2030 1990
tion of fuels and oxidants, various types of fuel cells can Singapore 36% 2030 2005
be devised. When hydrogen and oxygen are selected as a Switzerland 50% 2030 1990
fuel and as an oxidant, the final output of their electro-
chemical reaction is electricity, heat, and water. There- GDP: gross domestic product; BAU: business as usual.
Table assembled from information on http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php.
fore, FCEVs with hydrogen fuel are as environmentally

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 49

 Performance
The driving performance of an FCEV is directly related to
the power density of the fuel-cell stack of serially connect-
ed unit fuel cells (Figure 2). Since the electrochemical reac-
tion between hydrogen and oxygen typically generates
less than 1 V, a serial connection among individual cells is
necessary to obtain the required voltage for the drive
motor, which is typically a few hundred volts. A unit fuel
cell has a layered structure, where a membrane electrode
assembly (MEA) is located between a pair of bipolar plates.

Clean Mobility
Green Energy System

Hybrid System
Electrification/
Efficiency Regeneration
Technologies FCEV
Hydrogen
ICE Improvement/
Fuel Cell
CO2 Reduction
PHEV
Plug-In Hybrid

Gasoline

EV

HEV Pure Electric

Hybrid Electric Motor

Research Diesel
and ICE + Electric Motor
Development
ICE

Figure 1. A strategy to develop ecofriendly vehicles. PHEV: plug-in hybrid electric vehicle; HEV: hybrid electric vehicle; ICE: internal combustion
engine. (Image courtesy of Hyundai Motor Company.)

Bipolar Plate
GDL
MEA

y
tricit
Elec
Water

Oxygen

Hydrogen
ton
Pro

(a) (b)

Figure 2. The schematic of (a) a fuel-cell stack of (b) serially connected unit fuel cells.

50 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

An MEA is where the electrochemical An MEA is a
reaction occurs, and it takes the form
of a thin sheet. The bipolar plates proton-conducting
electrically connect the neighboring
fuel cells and form ­flow channels on membrane coated
both sides of an MEA, through which on both sides with
hydrogen and oxygen are distributed
and the water produced is removed. two electrodes:
Another key component, the gas dif-
fusion layer (GDL), is an electron-con-
an anode and
ducting porous material inserted a cathode.
between an MEA and a bipolar plate
to enhance the roles of bipolar plates.
To increase the power density of a
fuel-cell stack, MEAs that generate more watts per unit
area and thinner bipolar plates and GDLs without reduc-
ing their electron-conducting and fluid-transferring capa-
bilities must be developed.
Graphite was used as a material for bipolar plates in
most prototype fuel cells because of its machinability, con-
ductivity, and resistance to corrosion. However, the brittle-
ness of graphite sets a lower limit for the thickness of the
graphite bipolar plates and makes them unsuitable for
high-power-density applications. Metal bipolar plates that
are made from stamped, thin metal sheets to form a flow-
field pattern have been widely used for this application.
The problem of corrosion in harsh environments (heat
and acidic chemicals) within fuel cells has been handled
by a careful selection of the material and by proper coat-
ing treatments. Recently, the use of porous plates instead
of flow-field patterned plates has further increased the
power density. In fact, flow-field patterned plates can also
be considered as porous layers, in a wide sense, with the
characteristic pore size within the millimeter range,
whereas porous plates have pores within the submillime-
ter range. This change in pore size of bipolar plates should
be in harmony with that of GDLs, which have pores in the
micrometer range, and complete the cascade of porosity
to nanometer-sized pores in MEAs. The combined optimi-
zations of bipolar plates and GDLs have enabled thinner
but functionally better fuel cells.
MEAs have a different and more material-oriented
development strategy compared to that of bipolar plates
and GDLs. As the name suggests, an MEA is a proton-
conducting membrane coated on both sides with two
electrodes: an anode and a cathode. When hydrogen
and oxygen are supplied to the anode and cathode,
respectively, the hydrogen atoms are split into protons
and electrons. The membrane then selectively conducts
protons to the cathode, whereas the electrons go through
an external electric circuit to reach the cathode and
generate electricity. Finally, water is produced at the
cathode by combining protons, electrons, and oxygen.
Since this electrochemical reaction is spontaneous but
slow, catalysts, which are commonly platinum, are
mixed into the electrodes. Therefore, the electrodes of a
fuel cell are obtained from a sophis-
ticated mixture of a catalyst, electron
conductor, and proton conductor.
Careful choices of the ingredients,
composition, and coating process
have continuously contributed to
the increase in electric power gen-
eration per unit area of MEAs. In
addition, the development of thin,
mechanically strong membranes
has further increased the power
density by enhancing the proton
conductivity and reducing the
thickness of the fuel-cell stack.
The combined result of these technological advances
is appreciable. Figure 3 shows a polarization curve,
which compares the characteristics of fuel-cell stacks in
2013 and 2018 and indicates a 60% increase in power
density during these five years. Unfortunately, the num-
ber of FCEVs currently available in the automotive mar-
ket remains insufficient for a statistical analysis, but
some typical numbers related to the driving perfor-
mance of FCEVs are: a 0–60  mi/h time of 12.5  s, a top
speed of 100  mi/h, and a driving range of 260 mi.
Although these figures are not comparable to those of
supercars, one can readily agree that the FCEVs current-
ly available have the necessary performance levels for
commuting and traveling. Moreover, the next-generation
FCEVs, which incorporate all technological progress dur-
ing the development period, will show better perfor-
mances with the same size fuel-cell stacks as the
predecessor, longer driving range with reduced weight
and increased efficiency, or both (Figure 4).
Durability
Durability, which is not easy to achieve, particularly because
of the tradeoff between performance and endurance, is
another important factor for the success of FCEVs. Simi­­
lar to any other industrial good, a fuel-cell system and
2018
2013
Stack Voltage
Stack Current Density
Figure 3. A representation of improved performance of the fuel-cell
stacks. (Image courtesy of Hyundai Motor Company.)
IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 51
 its components degrade over time or from usage, and the
degradation accelerates when it is exposed to extreme con-
ditions or pushed to exceed performance limits. One solu-
tion may be to develop components that demonstrate
higher performance than is required and use them in con-
ditions well below their limits. However, this unreasonable
solution is not acceptable in the automotive market
because of cost issues. Further adding to this challenge, the
laws of nature do not allow some delicate components of
fuel-cell systems to outperform all conflicting require-
ments. For example, a proton-conducting membrane must
be thin and strong enough for higher proton conductivity
and the complete separation of hydrogen and oxygen,
respectively, although a thin membrane is inherently
weak and fragile. Nonetheless, many researchers and
engineers are attempting to resolve these types of conflicts.
However, the situation is not hopeless. Techniques to
elongate the durability of fuel-cell systems are similar to
363 mi
60.0%
55.3% 260 mi
134 hp
Efficiency Driving Range
Figure 4. A representation of the improved performance of FCEVs.
those for extending the lifespan of humans or living crea-
tures. Fuel-cell system developers test their devices under
nearly all possible conditions, e.g., hot, cold, high pressure,
low pressure, humid, dry, steady, dynamic, high load, and
low load. Then, they identify the specific causes of the deg-
radation and discover strategies to mitigate or prevent it.
The strategies are realized by actively controlling the tem-
perature, pressure, humidity, gas flow rate, and response to
the electric power demand. Indeed, modern FCEVs are
equipped with: 1) various sensors to monitor physical
quantities; 2) real-time controllers to diagnose the health
status of the fuel-cell stack and to determine the optimal
operational conditions in various situations; and 3) actua-
tors, which are called balance of plants, to realize the
required conditions (Figure 5).
The last two decades have seen a significant increase
in the lifespans of FCEVs. Two key factors for this have
been the development of more durable materials, while, at
the same time, maintaining the
performance; and the onboard con-
trol system, which provides an
optimal environment that is delib-
2013 erately determined depending on
2018 the status and load demand of the
fuel-cell system. Early stage FCEVs
163 hp
barely survived a few hundred
hours of operation, which was far
less than the required lifetime of a
decent passenger car. Only a de­­
cade ago, developers endeavored
to create FCEVs that were capable
of withstanding several-thousand
hours of operation, and, more
Power recently, attempted to design them
to perform for 10,000 h. The in­creased
durability of FCEVs is expected to
cause the durability of the second-
hand market value of the automo-
biles to rise as well.

Battery Controller Fuel-Cell Stack Cost

Despite the technological achieve-
ments, i.e., performance and dura-
bility, FCEVs remain an expensive
option when compared to conven-
tional (gasoline or diesel engines),
hybrid, and electric automobiles.
Overcoming this price gap may
depend on government subsi-
dies for environmentally friendly
vehicles; however, these subsi-
dies are short-term, and the cost
of FCEVs will need to be lowered
Hydrogen Tank Drive Motor Balance of Plant
to attract customers.
One favorable point is that a
Figure 5. The schematic of an FCEV. (Image courtesy of Hyundai Motor Company.) considerable portion of the cost of

52 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

fuel-cell systems is related to parts
Additionally, the
that are inherent to the automotive
industry, but these have not yet been safety and
mass produced by the free market.
These parts, e.g., sensors, controllers, functionality of
valves, filters, and blowers have hydrogen tanks are
slightly different specifications com-
pared to generic parts. However, with tested and certified
the increased demand for FCEVs,
many current vendors may partici- by authorized
pate in the supply chain, and the institutions.
prices should decrease.
Of course, there are also many
components unique to fuel-cell sys-
tems that are new to the automotive industry, and they are
more related to the material and chemical industry, e.g.,
catalysts, membranes, and porous media. When the sales
volume of FCEVs increases, as mentioned previously, the
related industries will not overlook the opportunity to
expand into this market. These components are also used
in hundreds of units per FCEV, which may decrease the
threshold of mass production by a factor of a few hundred.
In addition, some people are more concerned about the
depletion of a material (platinum), which is used as a cata-
lyst, than about the price. However, platinum is a noble
metal with well-studied recycling techniques. In other
words, platinum, which is one of the most expensive mate-
rials in a fuel cell, can be recycled from retired FCEVs to
help prevent a steep price increase resulting from deple-
tion, although the recycling process has its own costs.
Little information is available about the cost of FCEVs
because most carmakers regard the cost breakdown of
their vehicles as trade secrets. However, one may soon see
affordable FCEVs in the market because of the previously
mentioned subsidies, cost reduction achieved by technolo-
gy, or both. Moreover, the popularity of FCEVs will expedite
the price reduction.
Hydrogen Safety
FCEVs are not commonly observed on the streets, but they
are featured in many automotive shows and exhibitions
that focus on the environment. One of the most frequent-
ly asked questions about FCEVs from attendees at these
shows is if they are dangerous, or, more specifically,
whether the hydrogen tanks in FCEVs can explode. This
exaggerated fear may originate from the hydrogen bomb,
which is completely different from a hydrogen tank or a
hydrogen fuel cell and uses a fusion reaction that cannot
accidently occur with only hydrogen gas. Although a
hydrogen tank is not a hydrogen bomb, the answer to the
question about whether or not a hydrogen tank can
explode is, unfortunately, yes, but the possibility is very
slim. The standard charging pressure of hydrogen tanks
for FCEVs is 70 MPa, which is 700 times that of the atmo-
spheric pressure and sufficiently high enough to explode
when the tanks are heated or impacted. To make matters
worse, hydrogen is readily flammable
when it is mixed with oxygen in the
air and ignited.
To safely store hydrogen in a
vehicle, the tank is designed to be
tougher than is required. Its inside is
an airtight container made of plastic
or aluminum, and the outside is a
thick layer of carbon-fiber-reinforced
polymer, which gives it the strength
to endure more than double the re­­
quired pressure of 70  MPa. Because
of the selection of material and its
structure, a hydrogen tank deforms
instead of cracks when it is physically impacted. In addi-
tion, a special mechanical device called the thermally acti-
vated pressure-relief device (TPRD) is attached to the tank in
preparation for the event of exposure to a fire or high
temperature. The TPRD purposely opens an emergency
vent when the temperature of the tank increases beyond
a set value so that the hydrogen gas is discharged in a
controlled manner instead of in a disastrous explosion.
Therefore, an explosion of a hydrogen tank in an FCEV
may only occur when a deliberate effort is made, e.g.,
to set a fire underneath the tank and cool the TPRD.
Although the explosion, like any other event, probability
cannot be completely eliminated; it is considerably rare
and virtually impossible.
Additionally, the safety and functionality of hydrogen
tanks are tested and certified by authorized institutions.
The test protocol is extensive and includes leakage, charge
and discharge cycles, drops, bursts, bonfires, bullets, and
so on. To the relief of the end user, these related regula-
tions have been strengthened and require a single tank to
pass a series of tests rather than multiple tanks passing
individual tests. Finally, FCEVs with hydrogen tanks
should pass various crash tests to ensure the safety before
customers can purchase them as common vehicles (Fig-
ure 6). Therefore, FCEVs are at least as safe as any other
conventional vehicle.
Infrastructure
The last obstacle to overcome for the popularization of
FCEVs is the insufficient infrastructure for hydrogen refu-
eling. Even with perfect FCEVs that are environmentally
friendly, pleasing to drive, affordable, and safe, who would
buy them if their refueling takes hours of driving? Mean-
while, who would build a refueling station if the number
of potential customers is very low? This is quite a dilem-
ma. Furthermore, a pioneer who attempts to build a refu-
eling station may be frustrated by public concerns about
hydrogen safety, which may make people reluctant to
allow one in their neighborhood.
Objectively, the chances are slim that this quandary will
naturally be solved by the market economy. Instead, strong
initiatives based on a reasonable belief of what must be
IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 53
 (a) (b)

Figure 6. A crash test performed on an FCEV: (a) a view from the side and (b) a view from the bottom. (Images courtesy of Hyundai Motor Company.)

from petroleum and natural gases, i.e., hydrocarbon, and

TABLE 2. The members of
the process to obtain hydrogen is not free from carbon-
the Hydrogen Council.
dioxide emissions. A cleaner method to produce hydrogen
Category Company is the process of water electrolysis using electricity, which
can be generated from renewable energy sources. In fact,
Energy Engie
Iwatani some regions of the earth are abundant in renewables such
Shell as solar, wind, and geothermal energy. Therefore, hydrogen
Statoil can be a suitable energy carrier to resolve the temporal and
Total spatial discrepancy between energy demand and supply
Industrial gas Air Liquide because it can store surplus renewable energy, which would
The Linde Group otherwise vanish, for future use and be transported from
Mining AngloAmerican places with more supply to places with more demand.

Plastic Plastic Omnium

Transport Alstom
Audi
BMW
Daimler
GM
Honda
Hyundai
Kawasaki
Toyota
done will help. In this regard, the activities of Japan and
China are noteworthy; plans have been announced for the
construction of 900 and more than 1,000 hydrogen refuel-
ing stations, respectively, by 2030. In addition, countries in
Europe and North America have their own plans. Aggre-
gately, approximately 2,360 hydrogen refueling stations are
expected to be globally available by 2025. The private sector
is also making contributions, of which a notable example
is the launch of the Hydrogen Council in 2017. This council
is composed of 18 international members that are leading
energy, transport, and industry companies working togeth-
er for the development and commercialization of the
hydrogen and fuel-cell sectors (Table 2).
In addition to the number of available hydrogen refuel-
ing stations, the challenges of where and how to obtain
hydrogen remain. Currently, hydrogen is mostly produced
Summary
There are many obstacles to the success of FCEVs, each of
which is not easy to overcome. Although the solutions to
some of them have been found, a portion of these solu-
tions are based on a hypothetical situation of the preva-
lence of FCEVs, which appears illogical. Nevertheless, the
use of fossil fuels undeniably damages the environment,
and hydrogen is a clean-energy carrier that can be pro-
duced from renewable energy sources. FCEVs using hydro-
gen as a fuel will soon emerge in the automotive market,
unless a completely new technology suddenly appears.
A key question is how to begin the virtuous cycle of the
hydrogen economy. The answer may be found in humani-
ty. The desire to drive a car that is better for our families
and our planet can be more effective than government
regulations and business activities. Sales of organic foods
and products have been on the rise even though they are
more expensive and sometimes worse in quality than reg-
ular ones. Why, then, can’t FCEVs be like them?
Biographies
Jungik Kim (kignuj@hyundai.com) is with the Hyundai
Motor Company, Seoul, South Korea.
Saehoon Kim (saehoon@hyundai.com) is with the
Hyundai Motor Company, Seoul, South Korea.


54 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

By Silviu Nistor, Stephen Carr,
and Mahesh Sooriyabandara

image licensed by ingram publishing

Electrolytic generated
hydrogen for automotive
and maritime applications.

The Island
Hydrogen Project
n 2014, the transport sector was refueling stations are needed to decarbonize the trans-

I
responsible for 23% of total greenhouse
gas emissions in the European Union (EU).
During the same year, 13% of that sector’s
emissions came from the maritime seg-
ment, a number that is expected to rise during the com-
ing years. The transport sector’s share of renewable
energy in 2014 was just 5.9%, mostly comprising biodies-
el and bioethanol fuel. When we compare this to electric-
ity generated in the EU from renewable sources, at 25.4%,
it is clear that electricity generation is leading by a sig-
nificant margin. Electrification is a solution that will help
reduce the transport sector’s reliance on hydrocar­­bon-
based fuels. New energy infrastructures such as hydrogen
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784636
Date of publication: 28 February 2018
port sector. This article describes the Island Hydro-
gen project, which introduced and tested new solutions
to produce and use hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles
and vessels.
Worldwide, the primary companies in the automotive
industry have already developed fuel-cell electric vehi-
cles (FCEV). Major improvements from one generation to
the next have resulted in hydrogen vehicles with range
and reliability parameters comparable to conventional
vehicles. The basic principle of an FC is that hydrogen
combines with the oxygen from air in the FC stack and
produces an electric current, which then powers the
electric motors. The short-term energy balance between
the FC and the electric motors is facilitated using a bat-
tery. If the battery capacity is much larger than the FC
capacity, then the FC has the role of extending the range

2325-5987/18©2018IEEE IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / Ma r c h 201 8 55


Table 1. The emissions from vessels per megawatt
of offshore wind turbine capacity.
Estimated Greenhouse
Estimated
Lifecycle Phase Fuel Use (t) CO2
Construction 65.91 208.65
Operation and maintenance (20 years) 176.6 559.05
Decommissioning 49.43 156.49
of the EV. A lack of hydrogen refueling infrastructure and
higher prices are contributory factors to the slow accep-
tance of FCEVs. It is estimated that only 70,000 will be
produced annually by 2027. An alternative method for
generating mechanical energy from hydrogen is com-
bustion of the hydrogen gas in an internal combustion
engine. As with engines using hydrocarbon-based fuels,
the high-pressure gas resulting from the combustion
will drive the pistons, which will transfer mechanical
energy to the vehicle’s drivetrain.
Maritime transportation is a growing sector and a
large emitter of greenhouse gases because it relies heavily
on carbon-intensive fuels. Improvement in fuel efficiency
is lagging behind its surface transport counterpart due to
the lack of strict maritime environmental regulations.
Also, in many countries, including the United Kingdom,
the maritime sector is exempt from paying fuel-excise
duties, thus decreasing the incentive to use ultralow
emission fuels. The legislation is taking the first steps to
reduce the emissions from the shipping sector. For
instance, starting in 2018, large ships using EU ports will
be required to report their verified annual emissions.
In some sections of maritime transport, there are rea-
sons other than regulations that might drive the adoption
of ultralow emission fuels such as hydrogen gas. One of
these reasons is to increase the local air and water quali-
ty, e.g., in the Venice Lagoon in northern Italy. Another
Electricity Hydrogen
Gas
is e
lys g sin
ctro tora
e s
El S Di
Hydrogen
Refuelling
Station
Figure 1. The Island Hydrogen concept of a zero-carbon fuel chain.
56 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / March 2018
example is that of the ves-
sel fleets used in the instal-
lation, maintenance, and
decommissioning of off-
Gas Emissions (t) shore wind farms. An esti-
CH4 N2O CO2e mate of the greenhouse
0.01 0.08 233.84 emissions produced from a
0.05 0.2 626.55 selection of vessels per
0.01 0.06 175.38 each milliwatt of installed
offshore wind turbine ca­­
pacity is given in Table  1.
These data are based on the 400-mW Rampion offshore
wind farm in the United Kingdom, which is expected to
be completed in 2018. Hydrogen production can close the
sustainability circle for the renewable energy industry.
Project Overview
This article presents the systems developed in the Island
Hydrogen project, formally known as EcoIsland, in the Unit-
ed Kingdom. The project was awarded £2.3 million in fund-
ing by Innovate UK for November 2012–April 2016. The
project consortium was composed of 12 partners from
industry and academia. The project aimed to demonstrate
the use of hydrogen technology to integrate renewable gen-
eration, hydrogen production, and storage, supported by
communication technologies, to provide a zero-carbon
alternative to power road and maritime vehicles. During the
project, two hydrogen refueling platforms were designed,
built, and operated. A field experiment also was conducted
that investigated the operation of the proton exchange
membrane (PEM) electrolyzer for extended periods of time.
The principle behind the Island Hydrogen project is
depicted in Figure 1. Electrical energy from renewable
sources, such as wind and solar energy, was used together
with water to create hydrogen gas. The hydrogen gas was
then transferred to vehicles or boats to be used as fuel
either in FCs or hydrogen internal combustion engines. The
main benefit is that there are zero greenhouse gasses emit-
ted during the entire transfer of
energy from well to wheels.
Field Trial: M1 Refueling
Station
Site
The trial site for the vehicle hydro-
g
gen refill station was located in
pen
Sheffield, United Kingdom. Figure 2
shows the main components of
the trial. A high-pressure PEM
electrolyzer, manufactured by ITM
Power, with a capacity of 80 kg
H2/d, was installed. The electrolyz-
er used electricity generated by a
225-kW wind turbine. The station
had the capacity to store 220 kg of
hydrogen gas. The compressor
Hydrogen Hydrogen Wind Turbine
increased the hydrogen gas pres- Electrolyzer
Dispenser Storage
sure to 350 bar. The dispenser then Cylinders
transferred the hydrogen gas to the
vehicles according to the Society of
Automotive Engineers J2601 stan-
dard. The fleet of vehicles refueling
during the trial period included a
set of FC vehicles with power rang-
ing from 3 kW to 100 kW.

Trial Outcomes
A measurement campaign at the
vehicle refueling station lasted four
months and was completed in
April 2016. Figure 3(a) shows the
distribution of the refill events Hydrogen Fuel-
according to the mass transferred Cell Vehicle Compressor Buffer
during the refill. The average mass
Figure 2. An M1 hydrogen refueling station in the United Kingdom. (Photo courtesy of ITM Power.)
transferred was 1.355 kg H2, which
is the equivalent of 45.12 kWh
(lower heating value). In the larger,
similar trial completed by the U.S. Mass Refilled Time to Refill
National Renewable Energy Labora- 12 15
Refill
tory (NREL), a value of 2.13 kg was 10
Instances
Refill Instances

Refill Instances
reported (NREL 2011). The Island 8 10
Hydrogen value was influenced by
6
the refueling of Microcabs, pro-
duced by a U.K.-based manufactur- 4 5
er, with a tank capacity of 1.8 kg, 2
which is significantly smaller than 0 0
other FCEVs such as the ones used 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
in the NREL trial. Mass (kg) Time (min)
Figure 3(b) shows the distribu- (a) (b)
tion of the refill events according
to the time taken for each refill. Figure 3. The frequency of refueling events versus (a) the mass of hydrogen gas dispensed and
(b) the time for refill.
The average time for refill was
2 min, 55 s. The refueling time
reported by NREL was 3 min, 26 s. By dividing the energy
of the mass refilled by the time taken to refill, we calcu- Mass Refilled Versus Time to Refill
lated that, on average, the FCEVs were charging at a rate 6
of 1 mW of electric power. The correlation between the
mass of hydrogen gas with which the vehicles were 5
refueled and the time needed for refueling is shown in
Minute Refill (min)

4
Figure 4. The relation was not linear because there were
many factors influencing the time to refill, including the
3
outside temperature, the pressure inside the vehicle
tank, and the storage pressure in the station refueling.
2

Field Trial: Marine Hydrogen Station 1

Site 0
The trial site for the marine hydrogen refill station was Vent- 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
nor, Isle of Wight, United Kingdom. Figure 5 shows the main Mass Fill (kg)
components of the trial. An ITM Power manufactured elec-
trolyzer with a capacity of 15  kg H2/d was installed. Figure 4. The relation between the refill time and the dispensed mass.

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / Ma r c h 201 8 57

 The electricity demand required to
generate the hydrogen was covered by
a 26-kW bank of solar photovoltaic
(PV) panels. A small buffer stored the
hydrogen, and the gas flowed to a
compressor, which drove the hyd­
rogen to the cylinders for onboard
hydrogen storage. The cylinders could
store up to 15 kg of hydrogen at 350
bars. The frame supported the cylin-
ders while they were onboard the ship
and during transport for onshore refu-
eling. In the future, as regulators better
understand the safety issues, refuel-
ing while the cylinders are onboard
will likely be possible. The boat, a
10-m-long catamaran, was retrofitted with the world’s first
hydrogen internal combustion engine. One of the two 135-hp
Honda engines the boat was equipped with had been con-
verted to run on hydrogen gas as well as petroleum.
Trial Outcome
The marine refill station trial was a boat trip around the
Isle of Wight. The collected measurements showed that
the 56 nmi were covered in 8 h. The pressure in the stor-
age dropped over the duration of the trip, from 350 to
140 bar, or 6.59 kg of hydrogen gas consumed. The same
refill station was used to fill an FC Microcab car that
toured the island and stopped at primary schools to raise
the profile of hydrogen as fuel.
Field Experiment: PEM Electrolysis
Site
As part of the Island Hydrogen project, a trial and dem-
onstration of an ITM Power PEM electrolyzer were
Electrolyzer
Container
Buffer
Compressor
Cylinders for
Onboard
Hydrogen Storage
Figure 5. The Isle of Wight marine filling station. (Photo courtesy of ITM Power.)
58 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / March 2018
A number of factors carried out at the University of South
Wales (USW) Hydrogen Research and
were considered Demonstration Centre at Baglan Ener-
gy Park. The electrolyzer, an ITM
before the Hpac40 capable of producing 5.2 kg/d
electrolyzer could be of hydrogen at a pressure of 15 bar,
was installed and commissioned at
installed at Baglan the Hydrogen Centre on 10 July 2013.
The purpose of the trial was to ana-
to allow for the safe lyze the performance of the electro-
operation of lyzer under the operating conditions
at the Hydrogen Centre, provide
hydrogen systems. learning associated with the installa-
tion and integration of the electrolyz-
er with the existing system at Baglan,
and comment on the design of the
two Island Hydrogen trial refueling stations. The electro-
lyzer installed at Baglan was of a similar design but dif-
ferent size than those installed at the two island
hydrogen refueling trial sites.
The USW Hydrogen Centre was developed to allow
field trials of equipment associated with hydrogen energy
storage. It had an existing 22-kg/d alkaline electrolyzer
installed along with associated hydrogen compression,
storage, and other ancillaries. It also had a 12-kW FC
capable of powering the building, an onsite hydrogen
refueling station, and a 20-kW PV array. A diagram of
the Centre is shown in Figure 6. The ITM electrolyzer
was integrated with the existing systems at Baglan to
allow the generated hydrogen to be compressed and
stored. Data-gathering equipment that allowed the
stack voltage, stack current, ambient temperature, stack
temperature, and systems pressure to be recorded was
installed along with the electrolyzer. Hydrogen produc-
tion was calculated from the stack current according to
Faraday’s law.
Installation Considerations
Hydrogen Boat A number of factors were consid-
with Internal ered before the electrolyzer could be
Combustion
installed at Baglan to allow for the
Engine
safe operation of hydrogen systems.
The lab at the Baglan Hydrogen
Centre was naturally ventilated,
allowing more than 12 air changes
per hour, meaning that tempera-
tures inside the lab were similar to
those outside. This required the
system to be insulated and trace
heated to allow year-round opera-
tion. Figure 7 shows a diagram of
the Hpac40 unit installed at the
Hydrogen Centre. The electrolyzer,
trace heating, and hydrogen com-
pressor can be seen in Figure 7. A
hazard and operability study was
 Stationary Fuel Cell

Offices and H2 FC Vehicle

440-Bar
Conference Room H2 Storage H2 Dispenser

H2 IC Vehicle
Low-Pressure H2 Storage

H2/CH4 Vehicle
CH4 Storage
Compression CH4 and
Electrolyzer
Low Stage and Mixture
High Stage Dispenser

2 × PV power

Figure 6. The Baglan Hydrogen Centre principles of operation.

carried out to identify potential risks, including suitable sys-

tem venting and draining, as well as a risk assessment
under the Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmo-
sphere Regulations. A Hazardous area assessment was con-
ducted to identify safe distances from the installed
equipment. This has provided a valuable learning opportu-
nity for the Island Hydrogen project, with the incorporation
of current regulations, codes, and standards remaining a
challenge for hydrogen energy installations.

Field Experiment Outcomes

Between 10 July and the end of November 2014, the elec-
trolyzer operated for 775 h, generating a total of 109 kg of Figure 7. The HPac40 installation at the Baglan Hydrogen Centre.
hydrogen. This included continuous runs of 209, 191.5,
168.5, and 112 h. Figure 8 shows the operation of the elec-
trolyzer in the hydrogen-generation mode over a five-day
Temperature (°C) and H2 Pressure (Bar)
Stack Current (A) and Stack Voltage (V)

150
period, i.e., 10–15 December 2013. The system consistently
operated at roughly 85 V with a hydrogen pressure of
14 bar and the stack current fluctuating between 100 and
120 A. Any fluctuations in the stack voltage lead to exag- 100 40
gerated fluctuations in the stack current due to the shape
of the electrolyzer I-V curve.
When not in hydrogen-generation mode, the electro- 50 20
lyzer maintained a small voltage and current to ensure it
was not damaged by low temperatures, a process called
the frost-protection mode. Figure 9 shows the electrolyzer
0 0
operating in this mode on 4 November 2013. A nominal 10 11 12 13 14 15
voltage of 0.8 V is maintained until the stack temperature Time (date)
falls close to 5 °C. When the stack temperature falls to
Stack Current Ambient Temperature
5 °C, the voltage increases to raise the stack temperature. Stack Voltage Stack Temperature
The trial demonstrated the electrolyzer’s ability to gener- H2 Pressure
ate hydrogen year round and for prolonged periods. Oper-
ational data were shared with the Island Hydrogen Figure 8. HPac40 in hydrogen-generation 10–15 December 2013.

IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / Ma r c h 201 8 59

 project partners, including learning
outcomes associated with safe instal-
lation of the electrolyzer.
The Way Forward
The surface and maritime transport
sectors are lagging behind the elec-
tric power sector in the use of re­­
newable energy. However, increasing
the use of electric power from re­­
newables in the transport sectors
can help close this gap, and hydro-
gen gas produced by electrolysis is an energy carrier that
can enable this goal. The U.K.-based project, Island
Hydrogen, demonstrated the readiness of the stand-
alone hydrogen filling-station technology. Two stations
were installed: the first one, located in Sheffield, refilled
vehicles, and the second station, installed on the Isle of
Wight, refilled vehicles and boats. As proof of success,
when the project ended, the Sheffield station was
upgraded to 700 bar and, at the time of this writing, it
was providing commercial services.
Hydrogen gas is a suitable fuel to be used for boats, as
demonstrated by the marine field trial on the Isle of
Wight. The boat’s converted internal combustion engine
operated successfully on hydrogen gas. The project’s
consortium expects that the efficiencies of the hydro-
gen-powered boats will increase with the size of the ves-
sel, with the hydrogen tanks having a lower share of the
total vessel weight. Field experiments conducted on the
electrolyzer stack showed a high reliability of the current
commercial hydrogen-generation installation by testing
Unit Operation (4 November 2013)
1.15
1.1
1.05
Stack Voltage (V)
1 18
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
00:00 06:00 12:00 18:00
Time (Hours and Minutes)
Stack Voltage Ambient Temperature
Air Temperature Stack Temperature
Figure 9. HPaC40 in frost-protection mode on 4 November 2013.
60 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / March 2018
The energy transfer it for long intervals of time through-
out the year. The installation stayed
to the vehicle using within normal operational para­­
meters, even in the lower temper-
hydrogen gas is more ature ranges experienced in the
than 20 times faster United Kingdom.
The field trial highlighted one ad­­­
than the state of the vantage the hydrogen systems have
over EVs, i.e., the energy transfer to the
art for EVs. vehicle using hydrogen gas is more
than 20 times faster than the state of
the art for EVs. However, there is still
progress to be made incorporating current regulations,
codes, and standards for hydrogen energy installations.
Such progress is expected to lead to faster planning permis-
sions and more competitive insurance premiums, which
will help drive costs lower for hydrogen-vehicle owners.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank their partners in the
Island Hydrogen project (funded by Innovate UK, project
no. 101292): ITM Power, University of Nottingham, Interna-
tional Business Machines Corporation, Cheetah Marine,
Arcola Energy, and SSE Energy Supply Limited.
For Further Reading
NREL. (2011). Composite data products: National FCEV learn-
ing demonstration. [Online]. Available: https://www.nrel.gov/
docs/fy11osti/51565.pdf
S. Nistor, S. Dave, Z. Fan, M. Sooriyabandara. (2016.) “Tech-
nical and economic analysis of hydrogen refuelling,” Appl.
Energy. [Online.] 167, pp. 211-220. Available: http://www
.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261915013215
University of Southampton (2016, 23 June). A green trans-
port revolution for Venice. Phys.Org. [Online]. Available: https://
phys.org/news/2016-06-green-revolution-venice.html
European Commission. (2016, July). A European strategy
for low-emission mobility. [Online]. Available: http://eur-lex.
24 europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016DC0501
22 RSK Environmental Ltd. (2012). Rampion offshore wind
20 farm: ES section 30—Carbon balance. [Online]. Available:
https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-
Temperature (°C)
content/ipc/uploads/projects/EN010032/EN010032-001550-
16 6.1.30%20Carbon%20Lifecycle%20and%20Balance.pdf
14 Fueling Protocols for Light Duty Gaseous Hydrogen Surface Vehi-
12 cles, Fuel Cell Standards Committee, SAE International Stan-
dard J2601_201612, 2016.
10
8
6 Biographies
4 Silviu Nistor (silviu@yurbs.org) is with YoUrban Innova-
00:00
tions Ltd., Bristol, United Kingdom.
Stephen Carr (stephen.carr@southwales.ac.uk) is with
the University of South Wales, Pontypridd, United Kingdom.
Mahesh Sooriyabandara (mahesh@toshba-trel.com) is
with Toshiba Research Laboratory, Bristol, United K
­ ingdom.

 dat e s a h e a d
2018
12–1 4 MAR C H
ESTMP 2018: IEEE Electrical Safety, Technical, Maintenance
and Projects Workshop, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, http://
sites.ieee.org/estmp/
19–2 3 MAR C H
ESW 2018: IEEE IAS Electrical Safety Workshop, Fort Worth,
Texas, United States, http://www.ewh.ieee.org/cmte/
ias-esw/
16–1 9 AP R IL
T&D 2018: IEEE PES Transmission and Distribution Confer-
ence and Exposition, Denver, Colorado, United States, con-
tact Tommy Mayne, mayne25@charter.net, http://www
.ieeet-d.org/
6–9 MAY
REPC 2018: IEEE Rural Electric Power Conference, Memphis,
Tennessee, United States, http://ieeerepc.org
6–10 M AY
IAS/PCA 2018: IEEE IAS PCA Cement Industry Confer-
ence, Nashville, Tennessee, United States, http://www
.cementconference.org/
7–10 M AY
I&CPS 2018: IEEE IAS 54th Industrial and Commercial Power
Systems Technical Conference, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Cana-
da, http://sites.ieee.org/icps2018/
16–1 8 MAY
WiPDA Asia 2018: First Workshop on Wide Bandgap Power
Devices and Applications in Asia, Xi’an, China, http://www
.wipda-asia.org/
20–2 4 MAY
IPEC-Niigata 2018–ECCE Asia: International Power Electron-
ics Conference, Niigata, Japan, http://www.ipec2018.org/
22–2 5 MAY
ISGT Asia 2018: IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technolo-
gies Asia, Singapore, contact Dr. Kian Hoong Kwan,
kwankh@tp.edu.sg, http://sites.ieee.org/isgt-asia-2018/
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784637
Date of publication: 28 February 2018
3 –7 JUNE
WoW 2018: IEEE PELS Workshop on Emerging Technologies:
Wireless Power Transfer, Montréal, Quebec, Canada,
http://2018wow.org/
1 3 –1 5 JUNE
ITEC 2018: IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference
and Expo, Long Beach, California, United States, contact
Dr. Omer Onar, onaroc@ornl.gov, http://itec-conf.com/
1 7 –2 2 JUNE
PPFIC 2018: IEEE IAS Pulp, Paper and Forest Industries Con-
ference, Appleton, Wisconsin, United States
2 5 –2 8 JUNE
PEDG 2018: Ninth IEEE International Symposium on Power
Electronics for Distributed Generation Systems, Charlotte,
North Carolina, United States, http://www.ieee-pedg.org/
2 5 –2 8 JUNE
COMPEL 2018: IEEE 19th Workshop on Control and Model-
ing for Power Electronics, Padova, Italy, http://sites.ieee.org/
compel2018/
2 6 –2 9 JUNE
PowerAfrica 2018: IEEE PES/IAS PowerAfrica Conference,
Cape Town, South Africa, contact Abraham Gebregergid,
Abraham.g.us@ieee.org, http://ieee-powerafrica.org/
5 –1 0 A UGUS T
GM 2018: IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting,
Portland, Oregon, United States, contacts Richard Goddard,
richard.goddard@pgn.com, Shane Freepons, Shane
.Freepons@pgn.com, http://www.pes-gm.org/2018/
2 6 –3 0 A UGUS T
PEMC 2018: IEEE 18th International Power Electronics and
Motion Control Conference, Budapest, Hungary, http://
www.ieee-pemc2018.org/
1 3 –1 4 S E P TE MBE R
SLED 2018: IEEE Ninth International Symposium on Sensor-
less Control for Electrical Drives, Helsinki, Finland, http://
sites.ieee.org/sled2018/
1 7 –2 1 S E P TE MBE R
EPE’18 ECCE Europe: 20th European Conference on Power
Electronics and Applications, Riga, Latvia, http://www
.epe2018.com/
IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8 61
 Newsfeed
United Nations Recognizes
IEEE Smart Village Program
he IEEE, the world’s
T largest technical profession-
al organization ad­­vancing
technology for humanity, has an-
nounced that its IEEE Smart Village
(ISV) initiative was named a finalist in
the 2017 United Nations (UN) Depart-
ment of Economic and Social Affairs
(DESA) grant competition, “Powering
the Future We Want: Recognizing Lead-
ership and Innovative Practices in Ener-
gy for Sustainable Development.” The
ISV was one of 13 groups out of 231
screened applicants that were invited
to the UN headquar-
ters for the face-to-
face presentations.
The UN program
offers a grant of US$1
million to fund fu-
ture capacity devel-
opment activities in
energy for sustain-
able development.
The grant is awarded
to an individual, in-
stitution, or partner-
ship based on past
and current achievements, with the
objective of promoting leadership
and innovative practices in meeting
the global energy challenge. One win-
ner is selected every year. The 2017
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784658
Date of publication: 28 February 2018
62 I EEE E l e c t ri f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018
grant was awarded to the Partnership
of Grameen Shakti and ME SOLShare,
Ltd. from Bangladesh in an event in
New York City on 21 November 2017.
The grant seeks to advance sustain-
able development by
en­­couraging scientific
ISV integrates and technological in­­
sustainable electricity, novations and foster-
education, and ing leadership initia-
tives and innovative
entrepreneurial
actions that improve
solutions to directly sustainable energy for
assist off-grid eradicating poverty
communities to and promoting pros-
perity, while address-
become self-sufficient.
ing economic, social,
and environmental
sustainability.
“We are extremely honored by this
recognition from DESA,” said Ray
Larsen, chair of the ISV Committee.
Larsen went on to say:
Our volunteers across the world
have worked hard to build this
program into the positive force
for sustainable development
that it is. ISV is a unique model
bringing the talents of IEEE
Members together with local
entrepreneurs and entire com-
munities with a plan to em­­
power millions with electricity,
education, and sustainable,
scalable enterprises. We also
wish to congratulate the win-
ner, Partnership of Grameen
Shakti and ME SOLShare, Ltd.,
and to thank all of the final-
ists and our UN host for the
unique privilege to share
with and learn from them
during the Capacity Develop-
ment Seminars.
About IEEE Smart Village
ISV integrates sustainable electricity,
education, and entrepreneurial solu-
tions to directly assist off-grid com-
munities to become self-sufficient.
Through a global network of local
entrepreneurs, expert engineers,
and passionately dedicated volun-
teers, the team works in partnership
with the community and other
change agents to help empower
local economies, create job oppor-
tunities, and foster education pro-
grams that help communities
around the world to learn how to
continually improve their quality of
life. Learn more at www.ieee-smart-
village.org.
The IEEE PES Scholarship Plus
Initiative Recognizes Carlton Anumnu
he IEEE Power & Energy
T Society (PES) Scholarship
Plus Initiative recognizes
highly qualified electrical engineer-
ing undergraduate students with
multiyear scholarships and assists in
connecting them with relevant and
meaningful career experiences. The
goal of the program is to increase the
number of well-qualified, entry-level
engineers in the power and energy
industry. Since the program launched
in 2011, 835 students have received
1,382 scholarships from 191 universi-
ties. The program has had a positive
impact within the field, with more
students becoming involved in the
power industry.
Carlton Anumnu recently graduat-
ed from the University of Texas (UT),
Austin, with a B.S. degree in electrical
engineering. He was also an All-Amer-
ican sprinter on UT’s track and field
team. He is now working as a facilities
electrical engineer specializing in
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2784659
Date of publication: 28 February 2018
e r r ata
In the December issue of IEEE Elec-
trification Magazine [1], the authors
of “ITEC Asia-Pacific 2017: Toward a
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2018.2797778
Date of publication: 28 February 2018
Carlton Anumnu, the IEEE PES Scholarship
Plus Initiative grant recipient.
power systems. What he likes most
about the power engineering field is
the feeling he gets from performing
meaningful work. Power engineering
is crucial in today’s society, and the
country and the world need power
engineers to maintain a certain stan-
dard of living. Power is needed every-
where, from drilling for oil, to oper-
ating supermarkets and keeping
homes and businesses cool in the
summer and warm in the winter. We,
Sustainable Future” in the “News-
feed” column were mistakenly omit-
ted due to a production error. The
authors are Yijie Wang and Don Tan.
Also missing was the statement:
“This article also appeared in the
September 2017 issue of TEC eNews.”
IEEE Elec trific ation Magazine / ma r c h 201 8
as power engineers, are needed in
almost every area of society, and we
help to deliver an important product
that this world cannot live without.
Thus, he knows that the work he
does, even though small, plays a
meaningful role in our society.
Anumnu stated, “I love the versa-
tility of the power engineering field. I
can work in many different indus-
tries throughout my career, if I choose
to. I can work in the oil and gas, utili-
ty, petrochemicals, or renewable ener-
gy industries, just to name a few. This
gives me a great sense of job security
and the assurance that I chose to
study the right field.”
Find out how this program is
helping to address the problem of the
shortage of engineers in the power
and energy industry by visiting the
IEEE PES Scholarship Plus website
(www.ee-scholarship.org).

We apologize for this error and
any confusion it may have caused.
Reference
[1] “ITEC Asia-Pacific 2017: Toward a Sus-
tainable Future,” [Newsfeed], IEEE Electri-
fication Mag., vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 87–88. 
63
 ad index & sales offices

The Advertisers Index contained in this issue is compiled as a service to our readers and advertisers: the
publisher is not liable for errors or omissions although every effort is made to ensure its accuracy. Be
sure to let our advertisers know you found them through IEEE Electrification Magazine.

Advertiser Pag e U R L Phone

Bender, Inc. 3 www.bender.org +1 800 356 4266

ELANTAS PDG, Inc. 3 www.elantas.com +1 314 621 5700

Powersim, Inc. Cov 2 powersimtech.com/ELEC2018 +1 301 841 7445

IEEE Electrification Magazine Representative

Erik Henson
Naylor Association Solutions
Tel: +1 352 333 3443
Fax: +1 352 331 3525
ehenson@naylor.com

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2017.2770685

2018

Asia

REGISTER NOW FOR THE IEEE PES ISGT ASIA 2018

SMART GRID TECHNOLOGIES FOR SMART NATIONS

22-25 May 2018 | Suntec International Convention and Exhibition Centre, Singapore

The International Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT Asia 2018),
sponsored by the IEEE Power & Energy Society (PES), will be held from 22-25 May, 2018
at the Suntec Singapore International Convention and Exhibition Centre in Singapore, the
world’s gateway to Southeast Asia.

For More Information visit: sites.ieee.org/isgt-asia-2018

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2018.2802820

64 I EEE E l e c t r i f i c a t i on M a gaz ine / march 2018

 ®

2018
IEEE PES
GENERAL MEETING

5-9 AUGUST
PORTLAND, OR USA

CONVENTION CENTER AND CROWN PLAZA

Re-imagining the Electric Grid

Join us for the 2018 PES General Meeting in Portland, Oregon

The 2018 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting will be held from August 5-9, 2018
at the Convention Center and Crown Plaza.

The PES General Meeting attracts over 3,400 professionals from every segment of the electric
power and energy industries. It features a comprehensive technical program with paper
presentations, poster and panel sessions, a number of technical tours, a student program and
companion activities.

As always, IEEE PES has put together an outstanding program,

with Super Sessions addressing such topics as:
• Extreme Events and Grid Resiliency
• Energy Storage
• Cyber and Physical Security
• Distributed Generation (DG) Regulation, Engineering,
Modeling, and Impacts

Don’t miss this spectacular event- make plans now to attend!

We look forward to seeing you in Portland!

IEEE PES – More Power to the Future TM

For more information visit: pes-gm.org/2018

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2018.2802821

 THE FUTURE IS A
POWERFUL PLACE.

POWER Mark your calendars to join us in Denver

for the most prominent show in the
power industry. With the exponential

FORWARD growth of new technology, staying

current is essential to any business.
Offering a robust and immersive

A P R I L 1 6 –1 9 2 0 1 8 program, the IEEE PES Transmission &

Distribution Conference and Exposition

D E N V E R C O LO R A D O provides an unparalleled opportunity to

adapt and succeed in this ever-shifting
environment. Don’t miss this unique
chance to discover the latest innovations
and technology solutions for powering
your company forward.

REGISTRATION AND HOUSING

NOW OPEN! REGISTER SOON AS
TECHNICAL TOURS SELL QUICKLY.

Register at:
PowerForwardDenver.org

Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MELE.2018.2802822