FUEL CELL AND POWER SYSTEM

A
Seminar Report
submitted
in partial fulfilment
for the award of the Degree of
Bachelor of Technology
in Department of Mechanical Engineering

Supervisor: Submitted By:

Mr. Nitin Goyal Siddharth Sharma
Assist. Professor 14ESKME108

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Swami Keshvanand Institute of Technology, Management & Gramothan, Jaipur

Rajasthan Technical University, Kota

Month and Year
 Candidate’s Declaration
I hereby declare that the work, which is being presented in the Seminar, titled “FUEL CELL
AND POWER SYSTEM.”in partial fulfilment for the award of Degree of “Bachelor of
Technology” in Department of Mechanical Engineering, and submitted to the Department of
Mechanical Engineering, Swami Keshvanand Institute of Technology, Management &
Gramothan, Jaipur is a record of my own investigations carried under the Guidance of Mr. Nitin
goyal..............................., Department of ..Mechanical......... .......... Engineering, Swami
(Name of Deptt.)
keshvanand Institute of Technology ........... ........... .
(Name of College)

I have not submitted the matter presented in this report anywhere for the award of any other
Degree.
(Name and Signature of Candidate)

........... ..........,
(Name of Specialization)
Enrolment No.: ............

............... ..............,
(Name of College)

Counter Signed by
Name(s) of Supervisor(s)
.....................................
.....................................
 Swami Keshvanand Institute
of Technology, Management & Gramothan, Jaipur
Department of Mechanical Engineering

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that <student name> University Roll No. of VIII Semester, B.Tech
(Mechanical Engineering ) 2016-17, has presented a seminar titled “title name” in partial
fulfilment for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology under Rajasthan Technical
University, Kota.

Date:

<Name> <NAME>
Seminar Faculty(s) Supervisor
 ACKNOWLEDGMENET

I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to <supervisor name> who has given
guidance and a light to me during this Seminar. His versatile knowledge about “title name”
has eased me in the critical times during the span of this Seminar.
I am very grateful to our course faculties -----Name and Designation of Faculty(s)-----,
who analyzed my presentation and suggest me to improve in my grey areas of my
presentation.
I extend my sincere thanks towards Prof. N. C. Bhandari (Head, Mechanical
Engineering Department) for his kind support throughout my span of degree. I am also
thankful to Prof. S. L. Surana (Director - Academics) and Shri Jaipal Meel (Director) for their
kind support.
I acknowledge here out debt to those who contributed significantly to one or more
steps. I take full responsibility for any remaining sins of omission and commission.

Student Name
University Roll No.
B.Tech IV Year
(Mechanical Engineering)
 ABSTRACT

The following document is a seminar report required in VIII semester, under the curriculum of
Rajasthan Technical University, Kota. The contents of the document tend to give a brief view
of hydrogen fuel cell, their working, components their types, etc.
One having interest in Mechanical Engineering would be keen to gain additional knowledge
in field of Fundamentals of Fuel Cell, Utilization of energy resources in automobile
engineering and its wide applications. The document is one of the scopes I have taken into
consideration.
 LIST OF CONTENTS

Title Page No:-

Preliminary Page i
Cover Page i
Certificate ii
Abstract iii
Acknowledgement iv
List of Figures
List of Tables

Main Text

Chapter-01: Introduction 1-6

1.1 Origins Of Fuel Cell 1-2
1.2 History Of Fuel Cell 3-4
1.3 Basic Principle Of Fuel Cell 4-6

Chapter-02: Fuel Cell Technology 7-26

2.1 Introduction 7
2.2 Working Of Fuel Cell 8
2.3 Classification Of Hydrogen Fuel Cell 8
2.3.1 Stationary Fuel Cell System 9-10
2.3.2 Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cell (PEMFC) 11-13
2.3.3 Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell (PAFC) 14-15
2.3.4 Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC) 16-18
2.3.5 Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) 19-22
2.4 Other Fuel Cell Technologies 22-23
2.5 Fuel Cell System For Automotive Application 23
2.5.1 Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell (PEFC) System 23-26

Chapter-03: Hydrogen Engine For Automotive Application 27-40

3.1 Basic Mechanism 27
3.2 Examples Of Application 27-29
3.3 Hydrogen Production Options 30
3.4 Hydrogen From Water 31
3.4.1 Electrolysis 31-33
3.5 Hydrogen From Fossil Fuel 34
3.5.1 Natural Gas Reforming 34-35
3.5.2 Partial Oxidation Of Heavy Fuel 36-37
3.6 Other Method For Hydrogen Production 37
3.6.1 Photo Electro Chemical Water Splitting 37-38
3.6.2 Biological Hydrogen Production 38-39
[v]
 3.6.3 Hydrogen Production From Thermo Chemical Process 39-40

Chapter-04: Hydrogen Storage Technologies 41-57

4.1 Introduction 41
4.1.1 Pressurized Tank Storage 42
4.1.2 Hydrogen Uptake In Metal-Based Compound 42
4.1.3 Cryo Adsorption Hydrogen Storage 42
4.1.4 Carbon Nano Tube & Related Storage Technologies 43-44
4.2 Hydrogen Fuel Storage Safety 44
4.3 Benefits Of Fuel Cell Technologies 45
4.3.1 Stacks & Systems 45-49
4.4 Advantages Of Hydrogen Fuel Cell 49-51
4.5 Issues Of Hydrogen Fuel Cell 51
4.6 Application Of Fuel Cell 52
4.6.1 Automotive Application 52-54
4.6.2 Niche Transport Application 54-56
4.6.3 Portable Application 56-57
4.6.4 Wireless Application 57
4.7 Power generation

Conclusion 58

References 59
 LIST OF FIGURES

S.No. Fig. No. Title Page No.

1 1 Fuel Cell 6
2 2.1 Working Of Hydrogen Fuel Cell 8
3 2.2 PEM 11
4 2.3 Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell 14
5 2.4 Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell 16
6 2.5 Solid Oxide Fuel Cell 20
7 2.6 1.5 kw PEFC System 23
8 2.7 Light Duty Fuel Cell Engine 24
9 3.1 Hydrogen Production Path 30
10 3.2 Natural Gas Steam Reforming 34
 LIST OF TABLES

S.No Table No. Titles Page No.

1 2.1 Classification Of Fuel Cell 9
2 2.2 Technical Data Of PEMFC System 13
3 2.3 Technical Data Of PAFC System 15
4 2.4 Technical Data Of MCFC System 18
5 2.5 Technical Data Of SOFC System 21
6 2.6 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Demonstration 24
7 2.7 Technical Data For Gasoline Reformers 25
8 2.8 Cost Data For PEFC Stacks For Molecular 26
Hydrogen
9 3.1 Technical Data For H2 I.C Engine 28
 Chapter-01

INTRODUCTION

1.1Origins Of Fuel Cell

The seminal work of William Grove on fuel cells in 1839 is well known nowadays but at the
time of his invention, the scientist rather called the device a “gas voltaic battery”. Therefore,
while year 1839 is unambiguously considered at the birth date of fuel cells, the first official
appearance of the term “fuel cell” will only be found in a publication of the Transactions of
the Faraday Society almost one century later, in 1922. Grove’s first invention,
a battery called “Grove cell” was used by the American Telegraph Company due to its high
current output until 1860. After having started as a lawyer Grove will turn to a professor of
physics, and after then switch between a legal and a scientific carrier several times. With
probably some help from the German chemist Christian Schönbein, a friend and colleague
with whom he is exchanging fruitful ideas; he successfully reverses the electrolysis of water
that has been discovered in the early 1800s by English chemists William Nicholson, Anthony
Carlisle and experimented by Humphry Davy. Grove constructs a cell consisting of two
separate sealed compartments, each one having a porous platinum foil electrode dipped in
aqueous sulphuric acid and being fed by hydrogen gas and by oxygen gas, respectively. The
experiment however, does not generate enough electricity to do useful work. Therefore,
Grove combines in series several sets of electrodes and obtains the actual “gas battery”. He
shows this way that a constant current can be drawn between electrodes and observes that
water and heat are produced as by products. Yet, he is unable to quantify the reaction
products and study in much more detail the system he has created. The reason is that these
questions could not possibly be answered due to the lack of a comprehensive theory and
adequate equipment in the 1840s. He is also conscious that the chief issue is to increase the
“surface of action” between the components and comes close to the idea of gas electrodes
as used in current fuel cells. It really seems that the man was too much ahead of his time!

Unlike batteries such as the Grove cell, the gas battery is left as a scientific curiosity during a
th
large part of the XIX century. Times were not up to, should we say. Despite continued
technological advancements, applications in the real world have not come to the mind of
engineers and inventors. Nevertheless, during the same period the debate is lively among
scientists trying hard to clarify the basic principles of electrochemica l phenomena. Grove’s
gas battery becomes a perfect practical illustration of these theoretical discussions. In order
to explain the origin of current flow between certain materials, a “contact” theory involving
mere physical contact and a “chemical” theory involving a chemical reaction are opposed.
Schönbein and Grove are in favour of the chemical theory. The truth is actually in‐between,
and after a long controversy it is eventually established that in a gas battery the reaction will
only occur in the contact zone between reactant, electrode and electrolyte. None but the
main founder of modern physical chemistry, the Russian‐German Friedrich Ostwald
eventually brings a decisive contribution to the theoretical and experimental understanding
of fuel cell reactions in the 1880s. By skilfully associating measurements of physical
properties and chemical analysis, and thanks to his work on metal catalysis, he succeeds to
explain how fuel cells operate: not only the function of the different components
(electrodes, electrolyte and gas reactants) but also their thermodynamically‐

[1]
and kinetically‐driven interactions at the interface between the electrode and the electrolyte
under the presence of a fuel. This breakthrough in the scientific knowledge about gas
batteries is the necessary open door for practical attempts to make them become a reality.
th th
At the turning point between the XIX and XX centuries, the first systems begins to come
out from European and US laboratories as researchers are examining the possibility of
converting coal or coal gas directly into electricity. As coal is a fuel, Grove’s gas battery
changes its name into “fuel battery” and finally “fuel cell” as we know today.

In agreement with Grove’s request for a higher contact area between fuel cell components,
early developments (50 years after Grove’s experiments!) are devoted to experimental
improvements in the design, e.g., introduction of more efficient platinum black powder as a
catalyst coated on the bulk platinum electrodes and addition of a porous diaphragm in order
to impregnate the liquid electrolyte. In 1889 German chemist Ludwig Mond and his assistant
Charles Langer build a device running on air and coal gas known as the “Mond gas”. At the
same time other systems are setup by US and French teams. Typical problems experienced
by researchers are due to materials chosen in the different parts or gas leakages between
compartments, which prevent from reaching high voltages upon series combination of the
unit cells and cause limited durability. It is also observed that only high‐cost precious metals
such as platinum can make the reaction with a valuable efficiency. This is obviously
deleterious for practical applications of the process.

th
The end of the XIX century is also the time for a prospective debate about the possible
direct production of electricity from inexpensive coal and combustible gasses: such a
perspective is asserted by some authors nothing less than a revolution while strongly
tempered by others, (e.g., controversy in the Electrical World Journal in 1895). Finally,
consensus is made on the fact that gas batteries are complex and costly systems unable to
compete with more simple batteries. In the following period batteries undergo continued
development for several applications including cars, whereas gas batteries are put away back
th
in the lab for a few more decades. Let us remind that in the first quarter of the XX century
one third of all automobiles were battery‐powered electric vehicles. What visionary mind
could have predicted at this time that it would require hundred more years or so before gas
batteries, now called fuel cells, could come close to being “ready for market”?

It is therefore at the lab level that the next improvements are obtained on fuel cells. The
importance of the kinetics in the electrochemical reactions is discovered. At the beginning of
th
the XX century, new electrolyte materials performing at higher temperatures than
aqueous solutions are explored that will lead to the various types of modern fuel cells: melt
carbonates, solid oxides, phosphoric acid. Further historic information about practical
developments of a specific fuel cell technology will be found in the corresponding pages of
this website. For example, Francis Bacon’s pioneering work on acid phosphoric fuel cells is
reported in the AFC page.

[2]
1.2 History Of Fuel Cell
In 1889, the term “fuel cell” was first coined by Ludwig Mond and Charles Langer, who
attempted to build a working fuel cell using air and industrial coal gas. Another source states
that it was William White Jacques who first coined the term "fuel cell." Jacques was also the
first researcher to use phosphoric acid in the electrolyte bath.

In the 1920s, fuel cell research in Germany paved the way to the development of the
carbonate cycle and solid oxide fuel cells of today.

In 1932, engineer Francis T Bacon began his vital research into fuels cells. Early cell
designers used porous platinum electrodes and sulphuric acid as the electrolyte bath. Using
platinum was expansive and using sulphuric acid was corrosive. Bacon improved on the
expensive platinum catalysts with a hydrogen and oxygen cell using a less corrosive alkaline
electrolyte and inexpensive nickel electrodes.

It took Bacon until 1959 to perfect his design, when he demonstrated a five-kilowatt fuel
cell that could power a welding machine. Francis T. Bacon, a direct descendent of the other
well known Francis Bacon, named his famous fuel cell design the "Bacon Cell."

In October of 1959, Harry Karl Ihrig, an engineer for the Allis - Chalmers Manufacturing
Company, demonstrated a 20-horsepower tractor that was the first vehicle ever powered by
a fuel cell.

During the early 1960s, General Electric produced the fuel-cell-based electrical power
system for NASA's Gemini and Apollo space capsules. General Electric used the principles
found in the "Bacon Cell" as the basis of its design. Today, the Space Shuttle's electricity is
provided by fuel cells, and the same fuel cells provide drinking water for the crew.

NASA decided that using nuclear reactors was too high a risk, and using batteries or solar
power was too bulky to use in space vehicles. NASA has funded more than 200 research
contracts exploring fuel-cell technology, bringing the technology to a level now viable for
the private sector.

The first bus powered by a fuel cell was completed in 1993, and several fuel-cell cars are
now being built in Europe and in the United States. Daimler Benz and Toyota launched
prototype fuel-cell powered cars in 1997.

Maybe the answer to "What's so great about fuel cells?" should be the question "What's so
great about pollution, changing the climate or running out of oil, natural gas and coal?" As
we head into the next millennium, it is time to put renewable energy and planet-friendly
technology at the top of our priorities.

Fuel cells have been around for over 150 years and offer a source of energy that is
inexhaustible, environmentally safe and always available. So why aren't they being used
everywhere already? Until recently, it has been because of the cost. The cells were too
expensive to make. That has now changed.

In the United States, several pieces of legislation have promoted the current explosion in
hydrogen fuel cell development: namely, the congressional Hydrogen Future Act of 1996

[3]
and several state laws promoting zero emission levels for cars. Worldwide, different types
of fuel cells have been developed with extensive public funding. The United States alone
has sunk more than one billion dollars into fuel-cell research in the last thirty years.

In 1998, Iceland announced plans to create a hydrogen economy in cooperation with

German car maker Daimler Benz and Canadian fuel cell developer Ballard Power Systems.
The 10-year plan would convert all transportation vehicles, including Iceland's fishing fleet,
over to fuel-cell-powered vehicles. In March, 1999, Iceland, Shell Oil, Daimler Chrysler,
and Norsk Hydro formed a company to further develop Iceland's hydrogen economy.

In February, 1999, Europe's first public commercial hydrogen fuel station for cars and trucks
opened for business in Hamburg, Germany. In April, 1999, Daimler Chrysler unveiled the
liquid hydrogen vehicle NECAR 4. With a top speed of 90 mph and a 280-mile tank
capacity, the car wowed the press. The company plans to have fuel-cell vehicles in limited
production by the year 2004. By that time, Daimler Chrysler will have spent $1.4 billion
more on fuel-cell technology development.

In August, 1999, Singapore physicists announced a new hydrogen storage method of alkali
doped carbon nano tubes that would increase hydrogen storage and safety. A Taiwanese
company, San Yang, is developing the first fuel cell powered motorcycle.

1.3 Basic Principle Of A Fuel Cell

Basically, a fuel cell is a device that converts directly the chemical energy stored in gaseous
molecules of fuel and oxidant into electrical energy. When the fuel is hydrogen the only by‐
products are pure water and heat. The overall process is the reverse of water electrolysis. In
electrolysis, an electric current applied to water produces hydrogen and oxygen; by
reversing the process, hydrogen and oxygen are combined to produce electricity and water
(and heat).

A fuel cell can be seen with profit as a “chemical factory” that continuously transforms fuel
energy into electricity as long as fuel is supplied. However, unlike internal combustion
engines that can be regarded as factories as well, fuel cells rely on a chemical reaction
involving the fuel, and not on its combustion.

During combustion, molecular hydrogen and oxygen bonds are broken and electrons
reconfigure into molecular water bonds at a picoseconds length scale. There is no possible
way to “catch up” these free electrons and the net energy difference between molecular
bonds in products vs. reactants can only be recovered in the most degraded form of energy,
i.e. heat. A Carnot cycle involving the transformation of heat into mechanical and electrical
energy is then involved in conventional methods for generating electricity: these successive
steps of transformation of energy severely limit the overall efficiency of the process (which
is by definition the product of the efficiency of the different steps).

In a fuel cell the direct conversion of the chemical energy of covalent bonds into electrical
energy is made possible by the spatial separation of the hydrogen and oxygen reactants by
the electrolyte. The electron transfer necessary to complete the bonding reconfiguration into
water molecules occurs over a much longer length scale. This allows direct collection of
electrons as a current in fuel cells and leads to fuel efficiencies two to three times higher
than in internal combustion engines (depending on the fuel cell technology).
[4]
Unlike batteries, there is no chemical transformation of any component of the fuel cell
device during operation and it can generate power without recharging, as long as it is being
fed with fuel.

The unit fuel cell structure called the membrane electrode assembly (MEA) typically
consists of an electrolyte in contact on its both sides with two electrodes, one negative
electrode (anode) and one positive electrode (cathode). Fuel is continuously fed to the anode
side and oxidant is continuously fed to the cathode side.

Fuel cell reactants are classified as fuels and oxidants on the basis on their electron donor
and electron acceptor properties. Oxidants mainly include pure oxygen and oxygen‐
containing gases e.g. air, or halogens e.g. chlorine. Fuels include pure hydrogen and
hydrogen‐containing gases, e.g. methanol, ethanol, natural gas, gasoline, biogas, diesel, etc.

In the most straightforward case, i.e. the hydrogen fuel cell the combustion of hydrogen into
water is split into two electrochemical reactions occurring at the anode and cathode,
respectively, which are termed as the two half‐cell reactions:
+ ‐
H2 = 2 H + 2 e
½ O2 + 2 H + 2 e‐ = H2O
+
Combination of the two half‐cell reactions gives the overall combustion reaction:
H2 + ½ O2 → H2O
In any fuel cell configuration the role of the electrolyte is crucial because it must insulate the
two half‐cell reactions electrically in a strict sense while allowing the ionic passage of
protons produced at the anode to the cathode side where they will combine and form a
molecule of water. As a consequence, electrolytes are both good proton conductors and
electric insulators. The third requirement for electrolytes is impermeability to gases in order
to separate the anodic and the cathodes compartments, and thus prevent parasitic reactions
due to gas crossover. Finally, the electrolyte has to be chemically resistant to any reactant or
product during the process.

As passage of electrons is hindered through the electrolyte, they are forced to flow another
way. To this purpose, electrodes are connected to an external electrical circuit and instead to
follow protons the electrons take this second pathway. This allows direct collection of
electricity. Depending on the type of fuel cell, the most suitable electrode materials are of
various natures: metals or oxides, catalyzed or not. They are described in the section relative
to the members of the fuel cell family. The common feature of fuel cell electrodes is a high
surface area in order to maximize each half‐cell reaction zone; therefore they are relatively
porous compounds.

Every type of fuel cell is characterized by its own particular geometry, dimensions, and
materials; yet, the core of the device remains the same: it consists of an electrolyte, two
electrodes, and two gas backing layers and most often, bipolar plates separating unit cells.

[5]
For the gas backings not less than five different requirements must be fulfilled:
1. Good electronic conductivity to transport the electrons from the
electrochemical oxidation of hydrogen most efficiently;
2. High gas permeability to allow easy access of the gas reactants
from the feeding source to the reaction zone;
3. High porosity to optimize product water management in the system;
4. Good resistance strength to give a mechanical support to the MEA;
5. High corrosion resistance to the acidic environment in the fuel cell.

The bipolar plates are the interconnecting components that collect the electrons and drive
them to the external circuit. They are grooved with channels for gas flow input and output
and must manage water as well as possible. The design and the geometric dimensions of the
channels (in the order of 1 mm) are crucial for obtaining a homogeneous transport of gases
on the whole surface of electrodes, evacuate liquid water droplets formed by the fuel cell
reaction, thus achieving stable continuous operation. As every component in a fuel cell, they
must be corrosion‐resistant; but unlike gas backings, the bipolar plates must be gastight.

Fig.1 Fuel Cell

[6]
 Chapter-02

FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY

2.1 Introduction
A fuel cell is a galvanic cell that efficiently converts chemical energy to electrical
energy and useful heat. Stationary fuel cells can be used for backup power as well as
distributed power. Modularity of fuel cells makes them useful for almost any portable
application that typically uses batteries. Fuel cells have proved to be very effective in the
transportation sector from personal vehicles to marine vessels.

There are two important types of fuel cells, namely, hydrogen fuel cells and
microbial fuel cells. This study will be focused on hydrogen fuel cells. These fuel cells
directly convert the chemical energy in hydrogen to electricity. The only by-products of this
reaction are pure water and useful heat. Hydrogen fuel cells are more efficient than
traditional combustion engines and are pollution free, given that one has a source of
hydrogen. A traditional combustion power plant is 33% - 35% efficient in generating
electricity, whereas fuel cells have been known to be 60% efficient without cogeneration
[2]. In addition to that, fuel cell engines have fewer moving parts when compared to a
traditional combustion engine, and this helps in their quieter operation.

Fuel cells are expected to be suitable for a wide range of applications. Transportation
applications include vehicle propulsion and on-board auxiliary power generation. Portable
applications include consumer electronics, business machinery, and recreational devices.
Stationary power applications include stand-alone power plants, distributed generation,
cogeneration, back-up power units, and power for remote locations. Within CASCADE
MINTS, we focus on applications that might achieve a relevant share with respect to their
overall energy consumption in a future energy system, i.e. stationary applications in
power plants (mainly decentralised cogeneration), and vehicle propulsion.
There are several different fuel cell technology paths being pursued. These divide into
low temperature and high temperature technologies. Low temperature technologies,
including phosphoric acid (PAFC) and polymer electrolyte membrane (PEMFC) fuel
cells, target transportation, portable power, and lower-capacity distributed power
applications. High temperature technologies, including molten carbonate (MCFC) and
solid oxide (SOFC) fuel cells, focus on larger stationary power applications, niche
stationary and distributed power, and certain mobile applications (e.g. APU). A
combination of technology developments and market forces will determine which of these
technologies are successful. Currently, phosphoric acid fuel cells are the only
commercially available fuel cells. While more than 200 units of the 200 kW PC25 fuel
cell manufactured by UTC Fuel Cells are in operation around the world, UTC decided
recently to stop the production of the PAFC fuel cell, because cost targets could not be
achieved, and to focus on PEMFC development in the future.

[7]
2.2 Working of Fuel Cell
Figure 1 shows the basic working principle of a hydrogen fuel cell. It consists of two
electrodes separated by an electrolyte. When hydrogen gas, in channels, flows to the anode,
a catalyst (usually platinum based) causes the hydrogen molecule to split into protons and
electrons. These electrons follow an external circuit to the cathode, whereas the protons get
conducted through the electrolyte. This flow of electrons through the external circuit is the
produced electricity that can be used to do work.

Fig.2.1 Working of hydrogen fuel cell

2.3 Classification of Hydrogen Fuel Cells

In this section, we will be discussing the classification criterion of hydrogen
fuel cells followed by a detailed description of each hydrogen fuel cell. Table 1
provides us with the classification of the types of hydrogen fuel cells that are
currently in use and development. Fuel cells are usually classified depending on the
electrolyte that is used in them, with one exception: the direct methanol fuel cell in
which methanol is directly fed to the anode in the course of the reaction. Methanol
acts as a fuel in these types of fuel cells eliminating the need to reform the fuel to
hydrogen. Fuel cells can also be classified on the basis of operating temperature for
the fuel cell. Alkaline fuel cells, Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell,
direct methanol fuel cell and Phosphoric acid fuel are low temperature fuel
cells: the operating temperature is ells are high
temperature fuel cells, with an operating temperature of around 600-

[8]
 Table 2.1: Classification of fuel cells

Fuel Cell Type Operating System Output Efficiency Application

Temperature
(C)

53-58% Backup Power,

(transportation) Portable Power,
Polymer 50-100 1kW – 250kW Transportation,
Electrolyte 25-35% (stationary) Small Distributed,
Generation

Direct Methanol 60-90 1W – 100W 25-35% Small Portable

Power

Alkaline 90-100 10kW – 60% Military, Space

100kW

Phosphoric Acid 150-200 50kW – 1MW >40% Distributed

Generation
Large Distributed
Generation, Electric
Molten Carbonate 600-700 1kW – 1MW 45-47% Utility.
Auxiliary Power,
Large Distributed
Solid Oxide 600-1000 1kW – 3MW 35-43% Generation, Electric
Utility

2.3.1 Stationary fuel cell systems

The following sections provide an overview on the state of the art and the current most
relevant development paths with regard to stationary fuel cells. While there is still a
considerable variety of competing fuel cell technologies, there are currently two main fields
of application for stationary fuel cells: small scale house supply fuel cell heating appliances
with a capacity of 1 to 5 kWel, and fuel cells of the 200 to 300 kWel class which can be used
as a district heating CHP plant or for power and heat supply for commercial or industrial
applications. It is possible that after a first successful market integration of high temperature
fuel cells (MCFC,SOFC) of the 300 kWel class these technologies will expand towards the
multi-Megawatt class.

[9]
All the fuel cell systems discussed below are in a very early phase of market introduction.
The UTC 200 kW PAFC is the only stationary fuel cell system commercially available.
Most of the other systems are currently tested in field trial programs, while for some fuel
cell types there exist only first proof-of-concept demonstration plants. As a consequence, the
availability of reliable data is poor. Taking into account the context of early market
introduction, it is obvious that technical and economical data are quite sensitive, and thus in
general a matter of confidentiality. It is difficult to assess to which extent specific data
published by fuel cell manufacturers can be generalised or transferred into another context.
Any data on current investment cost is uncertain, and the information on the cost structure
given by different manufacturers seems to be partly contradicting.
The data given in the following sections was compiled largely during a recent German
research project on long term perspectives of stationary fuel cells in Germany (Krewitt et al.
2004). The technical data and cost data underlying the analysis were reviewed in a
workshop that took place in June 2003 in Stuttgart, with participation from fuel cell
manufacturers and utilities. Although the workshop did not claim to achieve an explicit
agreement on each data set, workshop participants in general agreed to the basic database
used in the project. We thus conclude that an updated version of the database elaborated in
(Krewitt et al. 2004) is a sound basis for the future work in CASCADE MINTS.
It is difficult to derive reliable estimates on operation and maintenance costs from the
current pilot and demonstration plants. We expect that O&M costs during the fuel cell
market introduction phase are higher than those of a conventional CHP unit, but that on the
lung run O&M costs for the fuel cell system are lower because there are less moving
components. We thus assume ‘generic’ O&M costs that are similar for all types of fuel cells,
which are 5% of the investment costs per year during the early market introduction phase,
and 2% of investment costs per year for a mature system.
Based on the description of the individual fuel cell technologies, section 1.1.6 provides a
summary of the main technical and economic data for each type of fuel cell which can be
used as an input to the energy models in CASCADE MINTS. Some of the data which are
required for a consistent characterisation of the fuel cell technology in the model are not
always directly available from the data sources (e.g. availability, stack lifetime), and are
thus specified based on expert judgement. As some of the models to be used in CASCADE
MINTS might not differ between different fuel cell technologies for the same applications,
section 1.1.6 suggests also the specification of two ‘generic’ fuel cells for small scale
heating appliances, and for cogeneration units of the 300 kW-class.

[10]
2.3.2 Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (PEMFC)

In this section we discuss the polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell (also known as
proton exchange membrane fuel cell). We start with a basic introduction of the fuel cell
followed with the specifics of the electrodes and electrolyte used in the PEMFC.

PEMFC are a type of the low temperature fuel cell with an operating temperature in -

and high power density. This allows the cell to have a compact design, lightweight and
faster response time when compared to other fuel cells.
 
Cell components for PEMFC

As the name suggests, a solid proton exchange membrane is used as electrolyte in a

PEMFC. The proton conducting membrane is an important component of the fuel cell.
Using a solid electrolyte has its advantages. The sealing of the anode and cathode gases
becomes easier, which in turn makes the manufacturing economical. Unlike liquid
electrolytes, solid electrolytes are less prone to corrosion allowing the system to have longer
cell and stack life. Figure 2 here shows the working of a PEMFC. Platinum impregnated
porous gas diffused electrodes are usually used in PEMFC’s to ensure the regular supply of
reactant gases to the system. The back of the electrodes is coated with
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) that provides a waterproof path for diffusion of gas to the
catalyst. The gas supply, the catalyst particle, and the ionic conductor form a three-phase
boundary.

Membranes usually operate in a very limited temperature range. Nafion is the most
studied membrane in the PEMFCs [3]. Membranes in this fuel cell are generally filled with
water that keeps the conductivity high. Thus, water management becomes major issue in the
fuel cell. Solidifying the gases coming into the fuel cell can solve this problem.

Fig.2.2 PEM
[11]
  
Fields of application
A variety of stationary PEM-fuel cell systems are being developed (for mobile
applications). Various manufacturers (including e.g. Buderus/IFC, HGC, IDATECH,
Nuvera, Vaillant, Plug Power, Ballard, Viessmann) aim at small scale house supply
cogeneration systems with a capacity of 1 to 5 kWel. The fuel cell systems in general run on
natural gas, and are equipped with a gas reformer integrated into the system. The systems
are designed to operate to feed electricity into the utility grid (‘virtual power plant’).
Ballard Generation Systems developed a stationary PEMFC generator with a capacity of
250 kWel (P2B-PEM-FC). The system is designed to deliver power to the onsite power grid
and to provide heat. A field trial programme with several units installed in the US and
Europe was launched in 1999, and is expected to continue until 2004 (Ballard 2004).
 
Technical data
Table 1.2 summarises the key technical data of PEMFC systems used for the two different
types of application described above. Data are based on a review of technical data published
from the various manufacturers. It should be noted that the electrical, thermal and overall
efficiency depend on the intended application of the system (e.g. level of heat supply).
With regard to the house supply system, there are data available e.g. from the Vaillant’s
field trial programme in Europe, which is supported by the European Commission. The
Vaillant system is based on a PEM- fuel cell provided by Plug Power. A total of 31 Vaillant
fuel -cell heating appliances have been installed by now in several European countries and
linked with each other via a control centre to analyse how fuel cells can be run as a virtual
power plant. 13 units of a 4.7 kWel system (“EURO1” version) were installed in the first half
of 2003, and the installation of further 43 units (“EURO2”) started in November 2003.
Measurement data from the EURO2 systems suggest that an electrical efficiency of up to 31
%, and a total efficiency of 88-89 % can be achieved. The lifetime of the stack is currently
about 6,000 h, according to Vaillant a stack lifetime of 12,000 h seems to be realistic with an
acceptable degradation (Klinder 2003). There are no published data available on the
system’s availability.
Measured data from the Ballard 250 kWel P2B-PEM-FC operated in Berlin since June 2000,
which was the first system installed in Europe, indicate that an electrical net efficiency of 33
to 34 % was achieved, with a total efficiency of more than 70 % (Pokojski 2001). The target
electrical efficiency of a pressurised system is 40 %. The availability of the first pilot plant
during the first time of operation was still low. There are no data open to the public on stack
degradation.

[12]
 Table 2.2: Technical data of PEMFC systems
1-5 kWel PEMFC fuel 250 kWel PEMFC
cell heat appliance
state-of- long term state-of- long term
the-art target the-art target
Performance data
Electrical capacity kWel 1-5 1-5 250 250
Electrical net efficiency % 28 32 35 42
Overall efficiency % 80 90 76 84
Stack lifetime h 10,000 40,000 40,000
Availability %
Fuel processing
Fuel natural gas natural gas, biogas
Reforming steam reformer Steam reformer

 
Economic data
The cost of the Plug Power 5 kWel fuel cell, which is used e.g. in the Vaillant system, is
about 55,000 $, the specific costs are thus 11,000 $/kW (Fuel Cell Today 2002). Plug Power
expects that still 4 to 7 years are required until a fuel cell heat appliance system is an
economically viable option for the end-use costumer. Since January 2001, Vaillant could
reduce the manufacturing costs of its fuel cell system by 50 % within 1.5 years (Klinder
2002). Target costs for the Vaillant fuel cell heat appliance system are given as 1,500 €/kW.

Based on a detailed costs analysis, Siemens concludes that assuming a production volume
of 50,000 units per year the costs for the individual components of a 5 kW el PEMFC
system amount to at least 1,550 €/kW. It was assumed that the stack with 100 €/kW
contributes to only about 6 % of the total system costs (Kabs 2002).

Data from Viessmann indicate that the material costs for the current 2 kW el prototype are
6,100 €/kW if a product volume of 10,000 units per year is achieved, the material costs of
the stack contribute about 20% of the total material costs (Britz 2003). The reformer costs
contribute to about 8 to 10% of the total costs.
The total cost of the Ballard 250 kWel P2B-PEM- FC pilot plant which was put into
operation in June 2000 in Berlin was about 3.8 Mill €, with about 5 % of the total costs
allocated for planning and other services (Pokojski 2001). The specific system costs were
thus about 14,000 €/kWel. There are no data available on operation and maintenance cost.
According to (Schmidt et al., 2002), stack costs of around 30 $/kW can be achieved in an
automated mass production, leading to system costs of about 100 to 200 € /kW. We take
this optimistic view as an indication of floor costs for small scale (1-5 kWel) PEM-systems
for house applications.

[13]
2.3.3 Phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC)
In this section we discuss the Phosphoric Acid fuel cell. We start with a basic
introduction of the fuel cell followed with the specifics of the electrodes and electrolyte
used in a PAFC.
The phosphoric acid fuel cell is a low temperature fuel cell with an operating
temperature of about 200 ºC. It is the most advanced fuel cell system with its main
application in stationary power plants. PAFC is amongst the first few commercialized fuel
cell technology with worldwide installed capacity of 75 MW . These cells are expected to
find a position in the market for applications of about 1 MW as they are very reliable and
can be used for cogeneration of low-temperature steam.
 
Cell components for PAFC

Figure 5 below shows the general working of a PAFC. Electrodes of a PAFC are Pt
bonded PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene). At the cathode, relatively higher loading of Pt is
necessary for the oxygen reduction reaction [3, 55]. It was the development of supported
platinum electro catalysts that helped to reduce the platinum loading. In recent times,
platinum supported carbon black electrodes are also used along with the porous PTFE
electrode structure as electro catalyst . The carbon not only increases the conductivity of the
electrodes but it also help in dispersing the Pt catalyst and ensuring the proper utilization of
the catalyst .

Phosphoric acid is used as the electrolyte in the PAFC. The ionic conductivity of
phosphoric acid is low at low temperatures, thus PAFC’s are operated in temperature range
of 150 - 200 ºC. In the beginning diluted PAFC was used to avoid the corrosion of the cell
elements, but with the advent in technology and with development of better materials 100%
concentrated acid is used. The higher the concentration of the acid, higher is the
conductivity of the electrolyte. Operating temperature and concentration of the acid have
increased in order to achieve better performance.

Figure 2.3: Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell

[14]
  
Fields of Application
The PAFC is available for commercial applications. UTC as the main manufacturer
introduced the PC-25 200 kWel system, the world’s first commercially available fuel cell
power plant, in 1991. Today, more than 250 units of the PC-25 have been delivered. These
power plants operate independently or connected to the grid, partly as a co-generator with
heat recovery, and it is used in numerous applications that require ‘premium’ power supply.
 
Technical data
Table 1.4 summarises the technical data of the current PC25T M as specified by UTC Fuel
Cells (UTC 2004). The efficiency of the system is high over a wide range of load settings.
The standard PC25 delivers product heat to a heat exchanger designed to provide 60 oC hot
water to customer loads, a high-grade heat option is also provided that makes
approximately half of the power plant heat available at temperatures up to 120 oC. Overhaul
after 40,000 h includes replacement or factory refurbishment of the stack. Experience with
the PC25 C system shows that power plant availability is > 90% (King and McDonald
2003). The system is designed to run on natural gas or anaerobic digester gas.
As the costs of the PC25 system could not be reduced as required to achieve significant
market penetration, UTC announced in 2002 to phase out the production of PAFC systems.
As a consequence we do not report any long term technical development targets.

Table 2.3: Technical data of PAFC system

state-of-the-art long term target

Performance data
Electrical capacity kWel 200
Electrical net efficiency % 37
Overall efficiency % 87
Stack lifetime h 40,000
Availability % > 90
Fuel processing
Fuel natural gas, anaerobic digester gas
Reforming steam reformer

 
Economic data
UTC reported costs for the 200 kWel PC25 unit to be approximately 850,000 $ , the specific
costs for the installed system are thus about 4,250 $/kW (UTC 2002). The cost of the PAFC
power plant is approximately three times higher than required for significant market
penetration. There is no unique component or system in the power plant that dominates the
overall system costs. As mentioned above, in 2002 UTC announced to phase out the
production of PAFCs because there is no realistic perspective to bring the costs down to the
target costs, and to focus future fuel cell development activities towards the development of
PEM-fuel cells.

[15]
2.3.4 Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)

In this section we discuss the Molten Carbonate fuel cell in detail. We start with a
basic introduction of the fuel cell followed with the specifics of the electrodes and
electrolyte used in a MCFC.

The molten carbonate fuel cell is a high temperature fuel cell having an operating
temperature of about 600 -
conductivity of its carbonate electrolyte and still work with low cost metal cell components.
The high temperature also improves the oxidation - reduction processes at the electrodes.
The high temperature has two major disadvantages. It places a great demand on corrosion
stability of the cell and it adversely affects the life span of the cell components. MCFCs
have proven to attain an electrical efficiency of approximately 50%.

 
Cell components for MCFC

Figure 4 below shows the working of a MCFC. Electrodes for a MCFC are usually
made from Nickel. The cathode for MCFC is made of Nickel Oxide (NiO) and Ni-Al or Ni-
Cr alloys [3, 10, 55]. The problem with nickel oxide cathodes is that particles of nickel
oxide creep into the molten carbonate over a period of time which reduces its conductivity.
Hence, lithium oxide material in combination with nickel oxide is used to avoid this
problem. Nickel oxide is used because it is very active at high temperatures for oxygen
reduction which eliminates the need for a Pt based catalyst.

The electrolyte used in the MCFC is alumina based and it is in the form of a
stabilized matrix. Till the 1990’s, the electrolyte was prepared by fabricating it into a tile
using a hot pressing process. Nowadays tape casting methods are used for the preparation of
the matrix. Ceria based electrolytes with better stability at higher temperatures are being
used as electrolyte, but ceria-based materials are very expensive. Thus, mixtures of lithium
and potassium carbonate salts that melt at high temperatures are also being considered .

Figure2.4: Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell

[16]
  
The electrochemical reactions occurring in MCFCs can be summarised as follows:
2-
H + CO H O + CO + 2e-
Anode: 2 3 2 2
2-
Cathode: ½O2 + CO2 + 2e- CO3
Overall cell reaction: H2 + ½O2 + CO2 (cathode) H2O + CO2 (anode)

High operating temperatures enable internal reforming, usually carried out with steam and
promoted by a catalyst. Various concepts have been developed to use coal gas, biogas or
liquid hydrocarbons as a fuel.

 
Fields of application
While several years ago according to market requirements development of MCFC power
plants aimed at the multi-MW class, currently the 250 kW class for decentralised combined
heat and power production is close to commercialisation. The largest number of
demonstration plants today is based on the ‘HotModule’ concept developed by MTU CFC
Solutions (which is based on cells from FCE), with currently 14 systems installed. Some of
them are operated to provide premium power supply and combined heat and power for
hospitals, which is a quite challenging supply task in terms of reliability. We thus take the
technical data of the HotModule as a reference. Future developments will include an up-
scaling of the system (MTU announced to produce a 1 MW system in 2006 (Berger 2003)),
and the development of hybrid systems with a steam or gas turbine.

 
Technical data
Measurement data on the HotModule demonstration plants, which run on natural gas,
confirm that the relatively high electrical efficiency of 47% could be reached (Berger
2003). We assume that the CHP unit achieves an overall efficiency of 83%, with depleted
o
air available at a temperature of 400 C. There are no public data on availability and on
stack degradation, but it is reported that the stack lifetime is still one of the main challenges.
Similar to other fuel cell manufacturers, the target for the stack lifetime is given as 40,000
h.
As development activities mainly focus on increasing the electrical efficiency, it is expected
that future developments will lead to an increase of the electrical efficiency by 5 percent
points to 52%, while the overall efficiency increases to 86%. It is expected that a future
hybrid system which combines a MCFC with a steam turbine will achieve an electrical
efficiency of 55 to 56%, with an overall efficiency of 90%.

[17]
Table 2.4: Technical data system
250 kWel MCFC hybrid MCFC with steam
turbine
state-of-the- long term 2010 (?) long term
art target target
Performance data
Electrical power kWel 250 250 1,000 1,000
Electrical net efficiency % 47 52 55 56
Overall efficiency % 83 86 90 90
Stack lifetime h << 40,000 40,000 40,000
availability % 80 (?) 90 (80) 90
Fuel processing
Fuel natural gas, biogas natural gas, biogas
Desulphurisation
Reforming intern al reform in g intern al reform in g

 
Economic data
The system costs of the Hot Module 2, which was put into operation 1999, and was the
first system which was operated by the customer, were 2.9 Mill €, which is equivalent to
specific investment costs of about 12.000 €/kW. The cost of the Hot Module installed at
the Los Angeles Department for Water and Power (LADWP) headquarters in 2000 was
reported to amount to 2.4 Mill $ (MTU 2000). The stack costs are estimated to contribute
about 30% of the total system costs. No data are available on operation and maintenance
costs.
According to MTU, the target costs for a commercial product are below 1,250 €/kW.
MTU expects to achieve this target once the production volume amount to 40 to 50 MW/a
(Berger 2003), which is equivalent to the production of 160 to 200 systems per year.

[18]
2.3.5 Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)

In this section we discuss the Solid Oxide fuel cell. We start with a basic introduction
of the fuel cell followed with the specifics of the electrodes and electrolyte used in a SOFC.

The SOFCs are the latest entry to the high temperature fuel cells with an operating
temperature of 1000°C. SOFCs are a two-phase gas-solid system, which is a major advantage
over other fuel cells i.e. the absence of a liquid electrolyte eliminates the need for elaborate
systems for water management or flooding of the catalyst layer. SOFCs have demonstrated
high power densities that help in the compact designing of its system. Due to the operating
condition of the system, special materials are required to withstand the high operating
temperature. Thus, the development of low cost ceramic structures (which would work
efficiently under such high temperatures) is the key to commercialize SOFCs.

 
Cell components for SOFC

Figure 7 below shows the basic working of a SOFC. The electrodes in the SOFCs have
to perform under severe operating conditions. Thus, right from the beginning LSM
(Lanthanum Strontium Magnetite) cathodes have been used, since they are stable under SOFC
operating temperatures and show high activity for oxygen reduction at high temperatures. The
anodes of the SOFCs are Ni based usually Ni-Zr (nickel – zirconia cermet). Applying a thin
layer of zirconia particles improves the conductivity and stability of the electrodes.

The SOFCs use solid oxide ceramics, usually perovskites, as the electrolyte that

(ZrO2) have proven to be highly conductive and stable . Compared to other cell components,
the electrolyte layer exhibits high ionic and low electronic conductivities.

The solid state character of the SOFCs, enable us to shape the cell according to the type of
application. Also the solid electrolyte eliminates the need of a water management system (like
in PEMFC) and helps in avoiding the corrosion of cell components. But due to the high
temperature of the SOFCs, it is difficult to find suitable materials that would have the
necessary thermal and stability properties. Thus, it is one of the major contributors to the cost
of SOFC.

[19]
 Figure 2.5: Solid Oxide Fuel Cell

 
Fields of Application
Current SOFC development aims primarily at stationary applications. The two main manufacturers which are closest
to SOFC commercialisation developed two different SOFC concepts for different applications for the combined heat
and power sector:
• The Sulzer Hexis system, which is based on the planar SOFC concept, generates 1 kW of electrical power and
is intended to cover the thermal requirements of a one-family house. A modular auxiliary burner integrated
into the system is switched on automatically on higher heat demand, thus the system replaces a conventional
gas boiler. The system is designed for use with natural gas, it is operated in parallel to the grid.
Sulzer Hexis is commercialising the fuel cell system “HXS 1000 Premiere” with an energy contracting
programme in close cooperation with utilities. A pre-series phase was launched towards the end of 2001. It is
planned to manufacture a near-series product starting from the end 2004/beginning 2005.
• Siemens-Westinghouse is planning two major product lines based on the tubular SOFC concept. The first
product will be a 250 kW cogeneration system operating at atmospheric pressure. The system will be a direct
scale-up of a 100 kW demonstration plant, which was operated in the Netherlands since 1997, and later in
Germany. The 250 kWel system will be followed by a pressurised SOFC/gas turbine hybrid system of
approximately 500 kWel. A 220 kWel proof-of-concept hybrid system is operated at the University of
California, Irvine. After initial production, larger systems are expected as well.
 Current developments also aim at using small scale (1-10 kW) SOFCs as Auxiliary Power Units (APU) in
vehicles and aircrafts. While this application might open up a potential high value mass market for fuel cells, it
is not relevant in terms of installed capacity from the overall energy system’s perspective, so that we do not
consider it in the context of
 CASCADE-MINTS.

[20]
FUEL CELL / GAS TURBINE SYSTEMS
HYBRID – 220KW SOFC/MICRO TURBINE GENERATOR SYSTEM

System Configuration

 Stack:· Siemens Westinghouse tubular SOFC

 100 kW stack at atmospheric pressure
 Pressurized to 3 ATM to produce 180 kW
 1152 cells, 1.5 meters in height
 Operates at 1000 °C
 Air inlet temperature is 500 °C (preheated)
 Air outlet temperature is 800 °C

 Microturbine Generator· Ingersol Rand (Originally NREC MTG)

 Size is 70 kW (oversized) - only 20-30 kW produced in this configuration
 Dual shaft microturbine
 High pressure turbine drives compressor
 Low pressure turbine drives AC generator

 Fuel
 Natural gas at supplied at 100 psi pressure
 Pre-reformers located in the stack to generate H2 from natural gas
 Overview
World's first Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) / gas turbine hybrid system was delivered to the National
Fuel Cell Research Center in June of 2000 for operation and testing on behalf of Southern California
Edison and in cooperation with Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation.
The hybrid system includes a pressurized Siemens Westinghouse SOFC module integrated with a
microturbine / generator supplied by Ingersoll-Rand Energy Systems (formerly Northern Research and
Engineering Corp.)
The system has a total output of 220 kW, with an output of approximately 180 kW from the SOFC
and approximately 40 kW from the microturbine generator.
This system is the first-ever demonstration of the SOFC/gas turbine hybrid concept. This proof of concept
demonstration has already demonstrated the high efficiency feature of hybrid systems with a world record
fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiency of approximately 53% for this size class.
The system continues to undergo testing at the NFCRC to determine its operating characteristics and
operating parameters, and gain experience for the design of prototypes and commercial products. Eventually,
such SOFC/GT hybrids should be capable of fuel-to-electricity conversion efficiencies of 60-70%.
 If a SOFC is pressurized, an increased voltage results, leading to improved performance. For example,
operation at 3 atmospheres increases the power output by approximately 10%. However, this improved
performance alone may not justify the energy required for pressurization. What will justify the expense of
pressurization is the ability to integrate the SOFC with a gas turbine that needs a hot pressurized gas flow to
operate. Since the SOFC stack operates at 1000°C it produces a high temperature exhaust gas. If operated at
elevated pressure the exhaust becomes a hot pressurized gas flow that can be used to drive a turbine. If an
SOFC and a gas turbine are integrated carefully, the pressurized air needed by the SOFC can be provided by the
gas turbine's compressor, the SOFC can act as the system combustor, and the exhaust from the SOFC can drive
the compressor and a separate generator. This yields a dry (no steam) hybrid cycle power system of
unprecedented electrical generation efficiency
 Objectives
The $16 million Energy Department's contract, which is managed by its National
Energy Technology Laboratory, calls for a total test program of at least 3000
hours to meet the following objectives:
Multi hour demonstration,
Identification of design and development issues,
First experimental data set for hybrid system,
Gain insight into hybrid systems,
Acquire data for model validation and insight, and
Facilitate Market

Status
As of Summer 2002, the system has been tested over four separate periods of time for an
excess of 1,500 hours. It is expected that the system will be restarted in the fall of 2002.
April 2000 - Factory Acceptance Test in Pittsburgh (4/1/00 - 4/8/00) 200 hours
June 2000 - Delivered to NFCRC
June 2000 - 1st Start: (6/3/00 - 6/11/00)
Early test data show fuel to electrical efficiencies of approximately 53%, believed to
be a world record for the operation of any fuel cell system on natural gas.
Improvements in the technology could ultimately raise efficiencie to 60% for smaller
systems and 70% or higher for larger systems. January 2001 - 2nd Start: (1/8/01 -
2/11/01) January 2002 - 3rd Start: (1/31/02 4/7/02)
How it works
 During normal operation air enters the compressor and is compressed to ~3
atmospheres. This compressed air passes through the recuperator where it is
preheated and then enters the SOFC. Pressurized fuel from the fuel pump also enters
the SOFC and the electrochemical reactions takes place along the cells. The hot
pressurized exhaust leaves the SOFC and goes directly to the expander section of the
gas turbine, which drives both the compressor and the generator. The gases from the
expander pass into the recuperator and then are exhausted. At ~400F the exhaust is
hot enough to make hot water.
 Electric power is thus generated by the SOFC (DC) and the gas turbine generator (AC)
using the same fuel/air flow. Analysis indicates that with such SOFC/GT hybrids an
electrical efficiency of 58% can be achieved at power plant capacities as low as 250
kW, and 60% as low as 1 MW using simple small gas turbines. At the 2 to 3 MW
capacity level with larger, more sophisticated gas turbines analysis indicates that
electrical efficiencies of 70% or more
 
Technical Data
The technical data of the relevant SOFC systems are summarised in Table 1.8. Data from
the pre-series phase of the Sulzer Hexis system indicate that an electrical net efficiency
between 25 and 30 % were achieved. The development target is to achieve an electrical
efficiency > 30 %, so that we assume a 32 % net electrical efficiency and a 90 % overall
efficiency as a long term development perspective. The main problem of the per-series
product is the high stack degradation, resulting in an average lifetime of the stack of only
2000 hours (Raak 2003). More than 90 % of the demonstration systems had an availability
of more than 90 %.
There are currently two demonstration plants that can be used to get an indication of
performance data of the Siemens-Westinghouse concept. A 100 kWel SOFC cogeneration
unit was first operated by EDB/ELSAM in the Netherlands, and was moved in 2001 to
Essen, Germany for operation by RWE. The demonstration plant has been operated since
more than 20,000 hours, and achieved an electrical efficiency of 46 %. According to
information from Siemens, a stack lifetime of more than 80,000 hours seems to be
achievable already now with the Siemens-Westinghouse tubular stack concept (as a
conservative estimate, we assume a stack lifetime of 40,000 hours for current state-of-the-
art).
The first SOFC/gas turbine hybrid system is operated by Southern California Edison at the
University of California. As of January 2002 the system has operated for more than 900
hours and has demonstrated 53 % electrical efficiency (Siemens 2004). It is expected that
hybrid systems with a capacity of 1 MW can achieve an electrical capacity of 60 % using
simple small gas turbines. At the 2 to 3 MW capacity level with larger, more sophisticated
gas turbines analysis indicates that electrical efficiencies of 70 % or more are possible.
However, the construction of a 1 MW “Mega-SOFC” in Marbach (near Stuttgart,
Germany) which was planned to be brought into operation in 2003, had to be cancelled;
the ‘official’ reason was that there was no appropriate micro-gas turbine available, but
there are also doubts on whether cost targets could have been achieved.

Table 2.5: Technical data of SOFC systems

1 kWel SOFC 250 kWel pressurised hybrid

single -fa m ily house atmos ph e ric SOFC SOFC
application
state-o f- long term state-o f- long term state-of- long term
the-art target the-art target the-art target
Performance data
Electrical power (fuel cell) kWel 1 1 250 250 244 400
Gas turbine AC power kWel 65 100
Electrical net efficiency % 28 32 47 49 58 60
Overall efficiency % 80 90 80 85 80 85
Stack lifetime h 2,000 40,000 100,000 40,000 100,00 0
availability % > 90
Fuel processing
Fuel natural gas natura l gas, biogas natural gas, biogas
Desulphurisation activated carbon
Reforming steam reformer or internal reforming internal reforming
catalytic partial
oxidation

[21]
  
Economic data
The costs for the 100 kW Siemens-Westinghouse demonstration plant which was put into
operation in the Netherlands in 1998 were estimated to about 100,000 €/kWel by (Kuipers
1998). Investment costs for a today’s demonstration plant are estimated by Siemens to
10,000 to 25,000 $/kW. Costs for a first commercial market introduction shall be reduced
to 6,000 $/kW, and the long term target costs are 1,000 kW for a CHP unit, and 500 $/kW
for a small scale SOFC system (Kabs 2002), which we consider here as extremely
optimistic. Based on the analysis of component costs, Siemens-Westinghouse expects that
a turn-key-price of 1,300 $/kW for a 1 -3 MW hybrid system (SOFC/gas turbine) can be
realised if series production of 50 units per year is achieved (George a. Bessette 1998).
Tanaka et al. (Tanaka et al. 2000) however estimate the investment costs for a 1 MW
pressurised hybrid system to 4,900 $/kW. The costs for the stack are estimated to about 25
to 50 % of the total system costs, while the share of the gas turbine is about 35 %.
For planar concepts, prices for electrolyte-supported cells produced in batch wise series are
in the range of 2,500 to 5,000 $ /kW, whereas the prices of prototypes of anode-supported
cells are in the order of 12,000 $/kW (Stöver et al. 2003). It is obvious that an order of
magnitude cost reduction is still required to achieve commercially acceptable prices for the
cells. Sulzer Hexis expects to reduce costs for the 1 kWel HXS Premiere system to 3,600
CHF until 2010 (Sulzer Hexis 2001).

2.4 Other Fuel Cell Technologies

In addition to the fuel cell technologies described above, there are other fuel cell
technologies that had importance in the past, or are an important future option. In this
section we briefly describe these fuel cell technologies and give some reasoning for not
including them in our study.

  Alkaline Fuel cell

Is a low temperature fuel cell that was amongst the first fuel cells to be used in the
Apollo space missions that led to its application in the European Hermes Project [3, 4].
The AFC uses aqueous solution of potassium hydroxide as electrolyte and Pt-Co
(Platinum-Cobalt) and Pt-Pd (Platinum Palladium) alloys electrodes. Major operating
constraints for AFCs are that they work well only with pure gases and it requires for low
carbon dioxide concentrations in the feed.
AFC’s are known to have the highest electrical efficiency among fuel cells, but interest in
these types of fuel cells has diminished over the years as they were considered too costly
for commercial applications and also there are no significant advantages over PEMFCs.
 
 Direct Methanol fuel cells

It is actually a subset of Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells, and are typically
used for small portable applications having low operating temperature. Methanol is
directly fed to the anode in these fuel cells. This eliminates the need for a fuel
reformer to convert the fuel to hydrogen. This makes the DMFC a very promising
candidate for portable power sources, electric vehicles and transportation
application. The working of a DMFC is similar to that of the PEMFC and it also uses
a selective membrane as its electrolyte.

[22]
 The DMFCs are typically used for small portable applications having low operating
temperatures. Thus, it is highly unlikely that these types of fuel cells could be used
in a wind farm for storage purposes.

2.5 Fuel Cell Systems For Automotive Application

2.5.1 Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell (PEFC) System
 
Basic mechanism
The basic mechanism of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEFC) is described in
section 1.1.1. on stationary fuel cell systems. For automotive applications PEFC can be
applied also, however the main difference between stationary and automotive applications
lies in the high degree of integration of system components in order to comply with the
available space in a passenger car.
In order to operate a fuel cell stack in general, supplementary technical equipment is
necessary. These equipment is composed of a stack cooling system, a cathode air supply
compressor, sensors and control valves. In addition so called ancillary components or
‘Balance of plant’ (BOP) and efforts are needed to operate the fuel cell stack within an
application: e.g. an electronic controller, a start-up battery, electrical equipment, safety
equipment and system packaging. The figure below illustrates such a PEFC system with the
stack and the surrounding controls.

Figure 2.6: 1.5 kW PEFC system (Source: DLR-FK)

 
Fields of application
Polymer electrolyte fuel cell stacks are preferably used in fuel cell engines which are
designed to be easily integrated into electric vehicles. Today, most of the fuel cell
demonstration vehicles are custom build with an individual integration of components in the
vehicle. Development towards modularisation and system integration however is the way
forward in the future in order to fit in the concept of automobile manufacturing.

[23]
Fuel cell engines typically consist of the system module, the stack module, a control unit,
power distribution unit (PDU) and a cooling pump, as shown in Figure 1.7 from Ballard.
Ballard is today the world leader as a fuel cell system integrator.

Figure 2.7: Light duty fuel cell engine Xcellsis HY-80 from Ballard

To date a small fleet of fuel cell vehicles has been demonstrated (see Table 1.12 for
vehicles of the time 2001-2003). However no fuel cell vehicle is commercially available
yet. The next generation of demonstration vehicles is expected to be introduced between
2005-2007. Commercially available fuel cell vehicles are expected to be manufactured
after 2012. Market penetration however depends on several other factors like e.g. the
existence of a hydrogen supply infrastructure.

Table 2.6: Hydrogen fuel cell demonstration vehicles 2001-2003.

Car manufacturer Fuel Cell Nr. of Project Year

manufacturer demonstration
projects
Daimler Chrysler Ballard 14 F-Cell (A - Class) 2002
Ford Ballard 5 Advanced Focus FCV 2002

General Motors Hydrogenise/G M 9 Diesel Hybrid Electric 2003

Military truck
Honda Ballard 5 FCX 2002
Toyota Toyota 10 FCHV-Bus2 2003
Nissan Ballard/UTC 3 X-TRAIL (SUV) 2002
PSA Peugeot Citroen Nuvera, H Power 2 Peugeot Fuel Cell Cab "Taxi 2001
PAC"
BMW UTC 2 BMW 745h 2001

[24]
  
 Technical data
 Polymer electrolyte fuel cell stacks
Considerable improvements in power densities have been achieved in PEFC stacks through
reduction of electrolyte thickness and architectural control of the composite electrodes.
Current research efforts are targeted on developing water-free membranes. This technology
significantly reduces the system complexity and would result in lowering costs. A second
target is to increase the operation temperature from at present 70°C to about 150-170°C.
Higher operating temperatures result in higher efficiency and greater fuel flexibility due to
enhanced electrode activity (Haile 2003). This would solve also currently existing problems
with the catalyst and help to reduce platinum loadings. State-of-the-art platinum loadings
2 2
are 0.3 mg Pt/cm for pure hydrogen as fuel, while for reformat 0.6 mg Pt/cm are used
(Rice 2004).

 Reformers
Direct hydrogen allows for simpler system architecture but storage problems limit the
operation range of vehicles. The use of small reformers to produce hydrogen onboard of
FCVs could overcome this and omit major infrastructure changes and thus support the
transition towards fuel cell propulsion at low costs. Onboard reformers convert a liquid (or
other gaseous fuel) to hydrogen, however natural gas reforming is more difficult than liquid
reforming, and therefore research has focused on liquids reforming so far. Methanol
reforming is also possible, however to check whether reforming is economically a possibility
at all, CASCADE focuses on gasoline reformers. It is also important to note that the funding
for R&D of onboard fuel processing in the US has been recently severely reduced since it
was judged uncertain if the technical goals can be reached until 2015. The independent
review panel concluded, that due to the advanced state of competing technology (gasoline
ICE/battery hybrids) on-board reforming technology does not offer clear advantages over
hybrid vehicle technology available today (DoE Team Report, 2004). Table 1.13 shows key
technical data for gasoline reformers.

Table 2.7: Technical data for gasoline reformers

Target for year Ultimate
Characteristics Units Status (2003)
2005 2010 target
Efficiency % 78 78 80 >80
Power density We/L 700 700 800 2,000
Specific power W/kg 600 700 800 n.a.
Durability hours 2000 4000 8000 8,000
Source: Thompson et al (2005), DoE Team Report (2004)

 
 Economic data
 Cost data for current PEFC stack
For automotive applications, it is still rather difficult to purchase a fuel cell stack with an
electric power above 50 kWhel today. Stacks that are build in demonstration vehicles are
mostly obtained through research co-operations. This technology cannot be purchased in the
wholesale or retail market yet and therefore no clear price is available. Currently available
information on the unit cost is thus not based on a “true” business calculation. Some
indicative cost data of for fuel cells implemented in demonstration projects are summarised
in Table 1.14.

[25]
Table 2.8 : Cost data for PEFC stacks for molecular hydrogen.

Stack characteristics Power Year Units Stack cost Cost

kW net units / year T€ €/kWe l

ZSW "Water cooled stack" n.a. n.a. n.a. 30 n.a.

Ballard 70kW-Stack 37 2003 n.a. 230 6,000
Nuvera "Direct water stack" 10 7,000
Nuvera "Air cooled stack" 0.5 2 4,000
§
Smart Fuel Cell DMFC 0.05 5 100,000
Föller H2-System 0.08 5 63,000
§
Source: all data DLR-VC internal information. methanol, all others hydrogen stacks

 Cost data for current fuel cell engines

A fuel cell engine such as the Xcellsis HY-80 comprises the stack and the system equipment
to run the fuel cell. The production volume of fuel cell engines from Ballard in 2003 was <
10 units with “costs” of about 37,000 US$/kW. The term “costs” is here used in the sense of
the expenses which have to be paid to suppliers for purchasing specialised components by
the system integrator. This includes however not the accumulated expenses accruing from
own research of Ballard. In 2004, the production volume is expected to be approximately
100 fuel cell engines. For this number of sales already cost reductions in one order of
magnitude to 3,700 US$/kW are anticipated (Anonymous 2004). Of the total costs only 40%
are allocated to the stack manufacturing while the remaining 60% originate from system
components.

 Modelled cost projections for PEFC fuel cells

Total fuel cell module costs are projected by ADL (2001) to US$ 181/kW for a PEFC -Stack
2
with 50 kWel (unit cell voltage 0.8V, power density 250 mW/cm ). These costs are driven
by the membrane electrode assembly (MEA) (82%), while approx. 12% arise from the
bipolar coolant plate and interconnect. Cost projections of several other authors lead to
contributions of MEA in the range of 50-80% to the total cost of a PEFC-stack. This is due
to the complicated manufacturing processes and the contribution of membrane and catalyst
material cost.
Current carbon paper electrodes are thermoset resin impregnates carbon fibre paper moulded
and graphitised at temperatures in excess of 2000°C. Typically, these electrodes are 0.2 – 0.3
mm thick, but provide the required electrical conductivity and structural strength (James
2
1999). Costs for such components are approx. 50 $/m at an annual production volume of
2 2
2000 m , but may potentially drop to 20 $/m provided further standardization and market
introduction.
The configuration of the catalyst in the PEFC depends to a large extent on the type and
quality of fuel used. Recent research has focused on CO-tolerant catalysts, which are needed
at the Anode, if hydrogen contains residual CO from the reforming process. Pt-Ru catalysts
are the state-of-the-art here.
Almost all of the membranes contain the toxic element fluor. Therefore, the manufacturing
process needs dedicated precautions to protect the environment, which adds also to the total
costs for such systems. Research on fluor- free membranes is currently under way (e.g. by
AXIVA). However interim results are not yet available since such membranes are still in
development (Gerl 2002).

[26]
 Chapter-03

Hydrogen Engines For Automotive Application

3.1 Basic mechanism

Hydrogen can be used as a fuel for internal combustion engines (H2 ICE). The combination
of hydrogen as an energy carrier with proven and well understood engine technologies is
seen as an ultimate near-term solution which could bridge the gap up to the full
development of fuel cell vehicles. Combustion of H2 in air produces water, non-methane
2
volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide below SULEV standard, but significant
amounts of oxides of nitrogen. However given the inherent inefficiency of the internal
combustion engine, H2ICE will not be able to provide such substantial emission reductions
‘well-to-wheel’ and efficient energy use than a fuel cell powered vehicle.
The use of hydrogen as an engine fuel has been addressed on a rather limited basis with
varying degrees of success over several decades (Karim 2003). Hydrogen can be applied in
conventional spark ignited piston engines as well as in compression ignition engines of dual
fuel type, homogenous charge compression ignition engines (HCCI) and engines where
ignition is effected through surface or catalytic ignition (Karim 2003).
There are numerous positive features of hydrogen as an ICE fuel, mostly related to its high
burning rates. However there are also some disadvantages and limitations. Engines fuelled
with hydrogen suffer from reduced power output, due mainly to the very low heating value
of hydrogen on volume basis (Karim 2003). A hydrogen engine when operated
stoichiometrically needs to be 40-60% larger in size than for gasoline for the same power
and torque output. Knock is seen as problem in SI engines caused by auto-ignition of
unburned mixture of gas (Karim 2003) however seems to be solved by engine
manufacturers. Due to the volatile nature of the gas, there are serious potential operational
problems with uncontrolled pre-ignition and back-firing on the intake manifold, which need
to be addressed.
High temperatures may lead to high emissions of oxides of nitrogen. NO x emissions of 0.5
g/km are reported (RICARDO 2002) thus requiring a lean NO x trap or other NOx after
treatment to meet EURO 4 and 5 standards.

3.2 Examples of application

Prototype vehicles using hydrogen internal combustion engines have been demonstrated in
the past by BMW, Daimler Crysler, Mazda and Ford. BMW certainly has put the highest
effort in H2 ICEs, starting in 1979 and meanwhile presenting vehicles in the fourth
Generation (Scheuerer 2003). BMW presented a dual-fuel V12 hydrogen engine at IAA
Frankfurt Motor Show 2003. Daimler Crysler has stopped research on H2ICE and switched
to FC engines.
Mazda, the world’s only manufacturer of rotary engines, has presented at the 2003 Tokyo
Motor Show the hydrogen -powered version of the RENESIS as an example of a hydrogen-
gasoline dual-fuel system. The rotary engine can run on hydrogen with very little
modification. It has the injection, compression, ignition
and exhaust areas separated from
each other so no pre-ignition of the gas occurs. Since the engine requires few
modificationsto run on hydrogen, it could enable production of a relatively low-cost
hydrogen hydrogen-powered alternative- fuel vehicle.

[27]
  Technical data
From the demonstration vehicles and engines, some technical data are available. For general
conclusions there is less information available. Some generic data for application in energy
system models is summarized in Fehler! Verweisquelle konnte nicht gefunden werden..
The BMW Group has presented a dual-fuel V12 hydrogen engine at the IAA Frankfurt
Motor Show 2003. The 12-cylinder concept engine with a capacity of six litres yields 170
kW (231 HP) at 5500/min. The BMW 745h is powered by a 4.4-liter V8, featuring variable
valve timing, variable intake runners, and a fully variable intake manifold. The 745h can use
either hydrogen or premium unleaded gasoline. Running on hydrogen, the 745h produces
137 kW and can achieve a top speed of 214 km/h. The cruising range is 300 km. Added to
the 645-km range of the normal fuel tank, the 745h can go 945 km between fill-ups .
The hydrogen-powered MINI features a possible new injection process in which super-
cooled liquid hydrogen is injected into the intake ducts where it mixes with air before
entering the cylinders for ignition. Previously, the liquid hydrogen was heated to ambient
temperature before combustion. This measure lowers also NOx emissions (RICARDO
2002).
Ford’s introduced the Model U concept SUV, including a hydrogen-fueled 2.3-liter, four-
cylinder internal combustion engine (based on the 2.3- liter I-4 engine used in the Ford
Ranger and European Ford Mondeo) that is supercharged and optimized to run on hydrogen.
The powertrain is coupled with a hybrid electric transmission. The overall efficiency can
reach 38 percent, which is 25 percent more fuel efficient than gasoline fueled ICE vehicles.
The Model U was designed for mass production and affordability, and has a range of
approximately 300 miles (Ford 2003).

Table 3.1: ‘Generic’ technical data for H2 internal combustion engines

(dedicated engine)

‘dual-fuel’
‡
Energy consumption MJ/100 km 151
$
Average efficiency improvement §
City cycles + 14%
§
Highway cycles + 6%
Range km ++

Technical system lifetime a -as conventi onal-

§ $
Ford P2000 demonstration vehicle results with 2.0 litre Zetec dedicate hydrogen engine (RICARDO 2002);
++ ‡
compared to gasoline engine; depending on storage; own calculation based on storage and range data.
Today’s hydrogen IC engines do not achieve the specific power of conventional gasoline
engines. The reason is that the volume of hydrogen in the combustion chamber is one third
of a gasoline mixture and due to this charge loss the heating value of the total compound is
lower. However with exterior mixture formation or high pressure injection with turbo
charging fuel consumption of EURO IV calibrated turbo charged diesel engines are feasible
(Pischinger 2005).

[28]
  Economic data
Economic data on hydrogen internal combustion engines are scarce. Difiglio (2003) suggest
additional cost in a range between of $0-1,000 over conventional ICE. RICARDO (2002)
used a reduction of 400 € 2000 in their analysis for the year 2008 for an advanced H2ICE
compared to a Diesel engine with expensive fuel injection system. However at this stage
already 800 € were include for the lean NOx trap (LNT) and a Diesel particle filter.
RICARDO (2002) concludes also: “there would be a cost penalty due to the introduction of an
LNT and addition of a boosting system”.
Therefore we suggest until better data is available to use additional costs of 750 € compared to
conventional gasoline engines due to the boosting system and LNT for energy system
modelling. On the long run, no additional costs for the engine compared to a future diesel
engine with supercharging can be assumed.
We don’t see any significant changes on O&M fixed and O&M variable costs for the H2ICE
compared to conventional gasoline engines. Operation on hydrogen has no fundamental
implications on cost, durability and recyclability of the engine (RICARD 2002).

[29]
3.3 Hydrogen Production Options
Hydrogen is a high quality secondary energy carrier, not a primary fuel, and thus has to be
produced from primary energy sources such as thermal or electric power. Hydrogen can be
made from a variety of widely available feedstocks, including various fossil and renewable
energy sources (Figure 3.1). Today almost 50 % of hydrogen is produced by steam methane
reforming, which for large scale hydrogen production is the most economical route. To
comply with key sustainability targets (climate protection, protection of non-renewable
resources), a future hydrogen economy will however be based on alternative hydrogen
production options. The following sections review the current technical and economic status
of hydrogen production technologies, taking into account their respective potential for
future prospects for improvement.

Renewable non-renewable
Solar,
Primary Biomass Org a ni c Hydro, Wood Natu ra l Uranium Coal Crude oil
Resi d u a l s
energy Wind gas

Electricity
Generation
Conversion

Fermen-Ferm e n -
tation Elect rol y si s Ga sif i ca ti o n Reformer Gasification Refin e ry
tatio n

Secondary
Ethanol Biogas Hydrogen Natu ra l Methanol Ga soli n e /
energy (I) gas diesel

Conversion Reformer Refo rm e r Ref o rm e r Reformer Ref o rm e r

Secondary Hydrogen
energy(II)

Conversion Burner Fuel Cell Comb us ti on

engi ne/tur bi n e

Useful energy Heat Power/heat Power/h eat

Figure 3.1: Hydrogen production Path

[30]
3.4 Hydrogen from Water
3.4.1 Electrolysis
 
Basic mechanism
Water is electrolysed in an electrochemical cell to produce hydrogen and oxygen. Water
electrolysis was one of the main means of hydrogen production before the steam reforming
process was introduced..
Water can be electrolysed by passing direct current (DC) through it in the presence of a
suitable electrolyte, causing positively charged hydrogen ions to migrate to the negatively
charged cathode, where they reduce to form hydrogen. Similarly, oxygen is formed at the
positively charged anode. Chemically inert conductors such as platinum are used as
electrodes to avoid unwanted reactions and the production of impurities in the hydrogen gas.
+ -
Anode: 2 H2O O2 + 4 H + 4 e
+ -
Cathode: 4H +4e 2 H2
Overall reaction: 2 H2O 2 H2 + O2
Three different process versions have been developed for electrolytic water dissociation:
• Alkaline water electrolysers are in use commercially for long times. Alkaline
electrolysers work at atmospheric or low pressure (0-8 bar) or at pressure (up to 30
bar).
• Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) electrolysers (reverse reaction of PEM-fuel cell)
use an organic membrane instead of alkaline aqueous solution, which leads to a
significant volume reduction. PEM electrolysers exhibit higher efficiency while
operating at significantly higher current densities when compared to the advanced
alkaline electrolysers (but system costs are still very high, see below). Mitsubishi
Corporation is developing a ‘High-pressure Hydrogen Energy Generator’ (HHEG),
which is based on a proton exchange membrane stack in a high pressure vessel,
which stores high-compressed hydrogen generated by electrolysis. The advantage of
the system is that it produces high-pressure hydrogen by itself without the need for
further compression.
o
• High-temperature steam electrolysis operates between 700 and 1000 C, using
oxygen ion-conducting stabilised ZrO2-ceramics as an electrolyte (reverse reaction
of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell). The water to be dissociated is entered on the cathode side
as steam, which forms a steam hydrogen mixture during electrolytic dissociation
(Winter and Nitsch 1988). The dissociation of steam theoretically requires less
electrical energy than the dissociation of water. The energy required for water
evaporation can be supplied by thermal energy and thus allows the use of various
energy sources. The driving force for the development of the high-temperature
electrolysis process in the 1980s was to use waste heat from high temperature
nuclear reactors for hydrogen production, but most research activities were reduced
significantly since then. Because of the improvements in Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
technologies, there is a new interest in this technology, which can be combined with
high temperature solar heat. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC) used in electrolysis

[31]
 mode, called Solid Oxide Electrolyser Cells (SOEC), have the potential to become
an efficient electrolyser technology.
 
Fields of application
Electrolysis is scaleable from few Nm3/h to several 10,000 Nm3 /h, so that it can be used for
decentralised on-site hydrogen production as well as for large scale centralised hydrogen
plants. On-site hydrogen production can use existing electrical infrastructure and has the
advantage that no additional infrastructure for hydrogen distribution is required. Due to their
flexibility in operation (start and stop on demand) electrolysers can support the load
management in the electricity grid and thus facilitate the integration of fluctuating energy
sources.
Because of the additional high temperature heat requirements from a nuclear reactor or a
solar thermal facility, early process design studies for a high temperature steam electrolysis
process assumed a hydrogen production capacity of several 10,000 Nm3/h (Dönitz 1988). A
Solid Oxide Electrolyser Cell will be scaleable over a broad capacity range, thus also
allowing the decentralised hydrogen production.
 
Technical data
As mentioned before, the capacity of electrolysers is scaleable from small-scale on site
hydrogen production to large-scale centralised hydrogen plants near the electricity source.
The efficiency of the process is largely unaffected by the variation in size (EUCAR 2003),
so that we do not have to differentiate between different size classes. The outlet pressure of
commercially available pressurised electrolysers range between 1.1 and 30 bar, and the
efficiency ranges between 62 and 70 % related to the LHV of the delivered hydrogen (see
e.g. EUCAR 2003; Stuart Energy 2004; BOC 2004). Future long term developments are
expected to result in an efficiency of close to 80 % (Dreier and Wagner, 2000).
Membrane electrolysers are still in the development stage. A version is offered by Proton
Energy Systems, USA, for the production of ultra-high purity hydrogen gas for industrial
and laboratory applications, but the energy efficiency of 45 % is rather low (Proton 2004),
and the lifetime of the stack is only 3 to 4 years. Mitsubishi Corporation recently announced
the successful application of the ‘High-pressure Hydrogen Energy Generator’ (HHEG)
prototype PERM-electrolyser (Mitsubishi 2004), producing hydrogen at a pressure of up to
3
350 bar without a compressor. The capacity of the prototype is 2.5 Nm /h, and Mitsubishi
3
plans to have a commercial product with a capacity of 30 Nm /h and a pressure of 400 bar
available in the next years. There are currently no data available on efficiency, stack
lifetime, or costs of HHEG system.
Bench scale tests and a pilot plant design of a high temperature steam electrolysis process
have been performed in the 1980s in particular in Germany, but research activities were
slowed down (high costs, termination of the high temperature nuclear reactor programme in
Germany). As discussed above, current research activities (e.g. at RISO, Denmark) on high
temperature electrolysis focus on Solid Oxide Electrolyser Cells. The splitting of steam into
o
hydrogen and oxygen at 1000 C in a SOFC operated in the electrolysis mode has been
successfully demonstrated in the laboratory (Jensen et al. 2003). The durability of the
system is however limited, and much more work is necessary to achieve an acceptable
lifetime of the cells.

[32]
  
Economic data
A summary of cost data for 100 MW scale plants built in the early 1990s suggest that the
investment costs were in the range of ∼600 $1997/kWel (Basye and Swaminathan 1997). Stuart
Energy, one of the main manufacturers of alkaline electrolysers, report capital costs for small
scale systems with a capacity below 5 MW as 500 $/kWel, while the costs for larger systems (> 5
MW) are 400 $/kW (Stuart Energy 2004). Additional system costs from connections, building,
and other infrastructure are estimated to amount to about 15% of the electrolyser. Long term
target costs of the US DOE for electrolysers are given as 300 $/kW (Myers et al. 2003), which
we consider here as very optimistic. While (Angloher and Dreier, 2000) estimate that capital
costs of a high pressure electrolyser will be reduced by 6% until 2025, we assume a long term
cost reduction of 10 to 15%.
The O&M costs for electrolysis, apart from electricity, are small, as electrolysis plants are
well automated. Electrode reactivation is normally carried out every five to seven years for
alkaline electrolysers. According to Stuart Energy the annual operation and maintenance
costs amount to 2 % of the investment costs (Stuart Energy 2004).
Costs for PEM electrolysers are currently a factor of about 3 higher than conventional
alkaline electrolysers. It is expected that due to spillovers from the development of PEM fuel
cells – if manufacturers succeed to reduce fuel cell costs significantly – the competitiveness
of PEM-electrolysers might be enhanced in the future.
In the early phase of high -temperature steam electrolysis development, system target costs
were estimated to amount to about 700 €2000/kWH2 (Dönitz 1988). (Mogensen and Bagger al.
1998) estimate investment costs for a SOEC system to around 1,000 €/kW el, which is well in
line with the long term SOFC target costs (see section 1.1.4.4). Because of the lower
electricity demand of the high-temperature steam electrolysis, the competitiveness of the
process over other electrolysis technologies gains from an increase in electricity costs.
Oxygen is the by-product of water electrolysis. Whether any credit can be taken for the
oxygen produced depends very much on the oxygen demand in close proximity to the plant.
In the context of CASCADE MINTS we do not consider a by-product credit for oxygen.

[33]
 3.5 Hydrogen from Fossil Fuels
3.5.1 Natural gas steam reforming
 
Basic mechanism
Steam reforming of natural gas (SMR) is the most commonly used process for producing
hydrogen in large quantities. Natural gas is reacted with steam at elevated temperatures (> 800
o
C) in the presence of a nickel catalyst. The reaction product (syn-gas) is a mixture of hydrogen
and carbon monoxide:
CxHy + xH2O xCO + (x + y/2) H2
The syngas from the reformer is cooled and fed to a water-gas shift reactor in which carbon
monoxide reacts with steam over a catalyst to hydrogen and carbon dioxide:
xCO + xH2O xCO2 + xH2
To achieve pure hydrogen, the gas is finally cleaned in a pressure swing absorption unit (PSA)
(Figure 3.2).
A novel concept called ‘Sorption Enhanced Reaction Process’ (SERP) aims at developing a more cost-
effective steam methane reforming process. The reactants steam and methane are fed at 440-550 oC into a
reactor containing an admixture of reforming catalyst and an adsorbent for removing carbon dioxide from
the reaction zone (Reijers et al. 2003, Hufton et al. 2000). The potential benefit from this process is the
production of hydrogen at relatively high purity (∼90% H2) directly from the reactor, thus leading to a
reduction or even elimination of downstream hydrogen purification steps.
Möller et al. (Möller et al. 2004) suggest that fuel saving of up to 40 % can be achieved by using
a solar reforming process, which provides process heat by solar energy. The off-gas, which is
burnt to provide process heat in the conventional process, can be recycled, which increases the
overall process efficiency and reduces CO2 emissions. A concentrating solar system with a
heliostat field and a solar tower is used to supply high temperature solar process heat. A first
proof of concept solar volumetric reactor receiver has been tested (Möller et al. 2004).

Steam Steam

Natural
Gas Desulphu ri- Hydroge n
Reform e r CO-shift CO2 removal PSA

sation

CO2

Figure 3.2: Schematic diagram of natural gas steam reforming

 
Fields of application
Today, hydrogen is produced industrially in large-scale steam reformers at rates in the order
3
of 100,000 Nm /h at high pressures (20-40 bar). Decentralised on-site production e.g. at a
gas station or in a residential district requires small-scale SMR facilities with a production
3
rate between 1,000 and 4,000 Nm /h. Small scale stationary and mobile reformers which are
developed as being part of a fuel cell package are not considered here.

[34]
  
Technical data
Technical data for two steam reforming facilities of different size, which are considered as
representative for small scale on-site hydrogen production, and for large scale industrial
applications. As SMR is a well established and mature technology, the potential for technical
improvement is limited. According to (Dreier and Wagner 2000) we assume that today’s
process efficiency of 67% (small scale) and 74% (large scale) (related to LHV of hydrogen)
can still be slightly increased in the future.
Results from first Sorption Enhanced Reaction Process laboratory plants do not yet fulfil the
expected performance objectives (Hufton et al. 2000), so that the potential for improvement
is difficult to assess. We suggest to not consider this new process here as long as there is no
further technical evidence that the theoretical targets can be met.
Technical data for the solar reforming process are based on a system design study by (Möller
et al. 2004). The plant has a solar thermal capacity of 50 MWth, and a hydrogen production
3
rate of 50,000 Nm /h. The current concept aims at a ‘solar only’ operation mode without
storage for night time operation, resulting in only 2,000 full load hours per year. The system
3 3 3
requires 0.25 Nm of CH4 per Nm of H2, and 0.32 kWh solarthermal energy per Nm of
H2, resulting in an overall reformer efficiency of 87 %.
 
Economic data
A literature review by (Basye and Swaminathan 1997) suggest capital costs for large hydrogen
production plants (1.4 to 2.8 million Nm3 /d) in the range of 160 to 490 $1997/kWH2, indicating
that economies of scale plays an important role even in these large scale plants. More recent data
from (Dreier and Wagner 2000) suggest capital costs of 335 €2000/kWH2 for large scale steam
methane reforming plants. Capital costs for decentralised small scale applications are
significantly higher, and according to (Dreier and Wagner 2000)
amount to 690 €2000/kWH2 for the 1,000 Nm3/h reference plant. As the process of steam
reforming is well established, (Angloher and Dreier, 2000) do not expect a substantial
potential for further cost reduction. We assume that on the long term specific investment costs
will be reduced by 5%.
A review of O&M costs from various studies in (Basye and Swaminathan 1997) suggests
that normalised O&M costs for large scale plants are between 0.45 and 0.6 $-cents1997/Nm3. We
3
thus assume O&M costs of 0.55 Euro-Cent2000/Nm , not including feedstock costs. There are no
reliable data available on O&M costs for small scale facilities. As the
operating costs for smaller SMR plants do not decrease with plant size and the raw material
needs per unit of hydrogen produced remains similar, we assume the same O&M costs for all
plant sizes.
The economics of a first Sorption Enhanced Reaction demonstration process were found to be
non-competitive with conventional technology (Hufton 2000).
The costs of the solar natural gas reforming process were estimated by (Möller et al. 2004) to
amount to 370 € /kWH2, including the heliostat field, the solar tower and receiver, but not
including the land cost. We consider the cost estimates of Möller et al., which are only slightly
higher as the investment cost of a current large scale SMR plant, as a long term target. Annual
O&M costs are estimated to amount to 7 % of the investment costs

[35]
3.5.2 Partial oxidation of heavy oil
 
Basic mechanism
Partial oxidation is used in refineries for the conversion of residues (liquid, highly
viscous hydrocarbons) essentially into hydrogen, CO, CO2 and water. Heavy
hydrocarbon's low volatility and often high sulphur content prevents using steam
reforming. Instead, heavy hydrocarbons are transferred to hydrogen by partial oxidation,
leading to an exothermic conversion of heavy fuel oil with oxygen:
CxHy + x/2 O2 x CO + y/2 H2
o
Partial oxidation takes place at a temperature of 1300-1500 C and a pressure of 30 to
100 bar without the need for a catalyst. The partial oxidation process is followed by a
desulphurisation process, the CO-shift and a final CO2-removal (Figure 3.3). In
contrast to steam reforming, the partial oxidation process does not pose any specific
requirements towards the quality of the feedstock.
 
Fields of application
Partial oxidation is not widely utilized for the production of hydrogen unless the only
available feedstock is a heavy hydrocarbon. The process is most commonly
considered for the production of carbon monoxide or for applications where the
desired H2/CO ratio is 1.6 - 1.8 or less. Partial oxidation is used in refineries for the
conversion of residues (liquid, highly viscous hydrocarbons) essentially into
hydrogen, CO, CO2 and water. The products can be used as synthesis gas, fuel gas or
feed for hydrogen recovery. Partial oxidation is relevant only for large scale
hydrogen production.
 
Technical data
Partial oxidation of heavy hydrocarbons is a well established process based on the
Texaco Gasification Process (TGP) (see e.g. EPA 1995) or the Shell Gasification
Process (SGP) (see e.g. Heurich and Higman 1993). As a reference, we take technical
data given by (Angloher and Dreier 2000) for a partial oxidation plant with a capacity
of 100,000 Nm3/h hydrogen output. The data given in Table 3.6 refer to a plant in
which electricity covers about 5 % of the energy demand. As the primary energy for
electricity generation is not considered when calculating the process efficiency it
results in a higher efficiency compared to steam reforming.
Although partial oxidation is a well established process, it is expected that a further
optimisation of system integration may result in a reduction of fuel input by 5 %, and
a reduction of the electricity requirement by 10 %, leading to an improvement of the
total efficiency from today 73 % to 77 % in the future.
 
Economic data
Capital costs for partial oxidation are higher than for steam reforming, while the
feedstock price (heavy oil) is lower. Consequently, capital costs begin to contribute
more to the overall production costs. Partial oxidation of heavy oil is a commercial
process, so that cost estimates are based on considerable experiences. According to
[36]
(Angloher and Dreier 2000),
capital costs for a current heavy fuel partial oxidation plant are 500 €2000/kWH2. They
do not expect that capital costs can significantly be reduced in the future due to
technological
improvements, but like in the case of steam reforming we assume a future 5% reduction
of capital costs.

There are unfortunately no reliable data on O&M costs available. (Basye and
Swaminathan 1997) report O&M costs of 1.9 $1997/GJ based on a quite old study by
(Steinberg and Cheng 1989), which are also quoted elsewhere throughout the relevant
literature. We consider annual O&M costs in the range of 10 % of the capital costs as too
high, and suggest to use fixed annual O&M costs of 5 % of total capital costs, which is
more in line with similar facilities in the energy sector. Variable operation costs resulting
from electricity consumption depend on the electricity costs. Assuming electricity costs
3
of 5 ct/kWh, the electricity costs amount to 0.95 ct/Nm H2.

3.6 Other methods for hydrogen production

The following sections summarise further processes for hydrogen production, which
today are in a basic research phase and thus quite far away from a technical
implementation. Although some authors already provide cost estimates for specific
processes, we consider them as being highly unreliable, as there is still significant basic
research required to understand and to set up a reliable technical process. This does not
mean that some of these processes might not evolve further during the 50 years time
horizon covered in CASCADE MINTS, but for the time being there is no basis for a
sound technical and economic characterisation that is required to include these processes
into the energy system models addressed in CASCADE MINTS.

3.6.1 Photo electrochemical water splitting

Photo electrolysis of water is the process whereby light is used to directly split water into
hydrogen and oxygen. This can be achieved by illuminating a wet semiconductor device
either directly or via dye sensitisation. Such systems eliminate the need for two separate
systems regarding power generation and electrolysis, and hence offer the potential for
cost reduction of electrolytically produced hydrogen compared with conventional two-
step technologies. The direct production of hydrogen via water splitting by sunlight
requires a light-harvesting device in conjunction with water-splitting catalysts. The
necessary semiconductor-based light-sensitive device is similar to a PV solar cell.
For direct photo electrochemical decomposition of water to occur, several key criteria of
the semiconductor must be met: the semiconductor system must generate sufficient
voltage to split water, the energetic of the semiconductor must overlap that of the
hydrogen and oxygen redox reactions, the semiconductor must be stable in aqueous
electrolytes, and finally the charge transfer from the surface of the semiconductor must be
fast enough not only to prevent corrosion, but also reduce energy losses due to
overvoltage.

[37]
Research and development programs on Photo electrolysis of water are in place in several
countries such as the United States, Japan, Sweden or Switzerland. Photo electrochemical
hydrogen production is in an early stage of development, and it depends on a
breakthrough in materials development. One of the main technical problems related to the
use of photo electrochemical cells is the stability of electrodes against corrosion.
Research activities focus on the development of appropriate semiconducting materials
and surface treatment to increase the semiconductor’s stability. Amorphous silicon
(Varner et al. 2002) or gallium based materials (Turner 2003 et al.) are being considered
for this technology. Different coating options are analysed to increase the stability of the
semiconductor.
While the efficiency of the electrolysis in a photoelectrochemical system can be higher
than in a conventional electrolysis due to the lower voltage required, theoretically the
overall efficiency for photoelectrochemical water splitting is around 24 % (Winter and
Nitsch 1988). System efficiencies of 10 to 12 % have been achieved in the laboratory, but
these high efficiency systems have extremely short lifetimes (< 20 hours). A solar-to-
hydrogenefficiency of 16%—the highest reported efficiency to date—was achieved using
a tandem photo-electrochemical cell (IEA 2004a). The materials used in this cell are still
too costly for this to be an economically competitive technology in the near term. A
potential future system will likely be a compromise between efficiency and lifetime.
Current research targets are to achieve a 10 % solar-to-hydrogen efficiency at a 10 year
cell lifetime, with hydrogen production costs of 3 $/kg (Turner 2003).

Assuming an efficiency of 5 to 10 %, the potential for hydrogen production with photo-

electrochemical water splitting methods is comparable to that of solar cells combined
with electrolysis. Today, with research still focused on the development of appropriate
stable semiconductor materials, it is not possible to give a definitive statement about the
technical feasibility or a possible point in time when such a system might become
practical.

3.6.2 Biological hydrogen production

Green algae capture energy from sunlight. Under anaerobic conditions, the green algae
produce a hydrogenase enzyme which produces hydrogen from water by a process known
as bio-photolysis. The conditions must be carefully regulated, since the hydrogenase
enzyme works in the dark phase and is sensitive to the presence of oxygen produced from
photosynthesis. Basic research, which is progressing under the IEA Task 15
‘Photobiological Production of Hydrogen’ is still in a very early stage. The overall
objective set out for the IEA Task 15 program is to ‘sufficiently advance the basic and early
stage applied science in this area of research to allow an evaluation of the potential of such
a technology to be developed as a practical renewable energy source for the 21st century’
(IEA 2004b). Current laboratory work demonstrates the feasibility of using algal cultures
to photoproduce hydrogen continuously for 3-4 days (Ghirardi et al. 2002). The major
research challenges however still are to increase hydrogen production by a factor of at
least 10, and to increase the solar energy conversion efficiency from 5 % to at least 10 %
(Dutton 2002).

[38]
The second main biological pathway to hydrogen uses fermentation without the need for
light. This is a dark, anaerobic process carried out by many species of bacteria, one of
which (Clostridia) has been singled out for particular attention. The reaction involves a
hydrogenase enzyme acting on carbohydrates to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide
(Dutton 2002):
C6H12O6 + 2H2O CH3COOH + 2CO2 + 4H2
Laboratory studies have concentrated on pure microbial cultures, sterile feedstocks,
batch operation. Potential feedstocks include and sugar cane or the organic fraction of
3
municipal waste. The theoretical yield is 0.5 m H2/kg carbohydrate, although this is yet
to be achieved, largely because the reaction is hindered by increasing hydrogen
concentration. Fermentative bacteria can multiply rapidly and produce high quantities of
hydrogen, but the design and the operational parameters of the process are not yet well
established, so that there is still basic research required to further understand and improve
the process.

3.6.3 Hydrogen production from thermochemical cycle processes

Water can be split thermally only at very high temperatures above 2,000 K. To avoid
materials problems occurring at these high temperatures, in contrast to direct thermal
water splitting, thermochemical cycle processes utilise the coupling of several
equilibrium reactions which in separate process steps and at different temperature levels
permit the separate release of hydrogen and oxygen at temperatures of less than 1,200 K.
Thermochemical cycles are Carnot-limited, for an upper temperature of 1,000 K and a
lower temperature of 300 K the maximum theoretical efficiency is 88 %.
During the 1970/80ies, some 2,000 to 3,000 cycles have been ‘invented’ and analysed in
theory (Wendt and Bauer 1988). After examining their feasibility with respect to reaction
and process technology, only some 20 to 30 remained, some of which were examined in
some detail as to their reaction technology. They were grouped in ‘families’ according to
the respective working substances, such chlorides, oxides, metals sulphates or other
elements with multiple valences common to the process of one family. High temperature
process heat can be provided either from solar energy or from a high temperature nuclear
reactor. As an illustrative example the following equations describe the high-temperature
dissociation of a metal oxide to oxygen and metal, which is coupled to the low-
temperature reaction of the same metal with water releasing hydrogen:
Me2O + high temperature heat 2Me + ½O2 2Me
+ H2O + low temperature heat Me2O + H2
Theoretical calculations based largely on entropy balance considerations postulate that
such thermo chemical cycles shall not be limited to two reactions to achieve an attractive
energy yield at an upper maximum temperature of 1,200 K, but must include more than
two reactions operating at more than two separate temperature levels. This on the other
hand implies complicated process engineering. In all cycles that use metal oxides, metal
chlorides or metal sulphates as working materials, solids must be reacted, cooled or
heated and circulated, leading to significant technical difficulties in process engineering.
After some ten years of research and technical and economic analysis of process specific
technical data, because of these problems further development work on this type of
thermo chemical cycles was virtually stopped.
[39]
In recent years, significant progress has been accomplished both in the field of materials
science, and in the development of optical systems for large scale collection and
concentration of solar energy, using solar tower and tower-reflector technology at power
levels of several megawatts. These concentrating systems are capable of achieving power
flux intensities equivalent to solar concentration ratios of 5000 suns and high by applying
non-imaging secondary concentrators in tandem with the primary focusing heliostat field.
Such high radiation fluxes correspond to temperatures exceeding 3,000 K and allow the
conversion of concentrated solar radiation to thermal reservoirs at 2,000 K and above.
Thus, the door was opened for the more efficient two-step thermo chemical cycles for
splitting water using solar energy (Seinfeld 2002; Palumbo et al. 2004). Several two-step
water-splitting cycles based on metal oxides reactions have been proposed. Of specific
interest is the solar thermo chemical cycle based on ZnO/Zn redox reactions. The first
endothermic step is the thermal dissociation of ZnO(s) into Zn(g) and O 2 at 2,300 K
using concentrated solar energy. The second, exothermic step is the hydrolysis of Zn(l) at
700 K to form H2 and ZnO(s), the latter separates naturally and is recycled to the first
step:
ZnO Zn + ½O2
Zn + H2O ZnO + H2
Hydrogen and oxygen are derived in different steps, thereby avoiding the need for high-
temperature gas separation. According to (Steinfeld 2002), a maximum exergy
conversion efficiency of 29 % is achieved when using s solar cavity-receiver operated at
2,300 K and subjected to a solar flux concentration ratio of 5,000. Steinfeld estimate the
costs of solar hydrogen produced in a large scale chemical plant equipped with a 90 MWt
h solar reactor and a hydrogen production of 61 million kWh/a between 0.13 and 0.15
$/kWh, thus suggesting might be competitive with other renewables-based routes for
hydrogennproduction. However, currently there are only exploratory test carried out e.g.
at PSI/ETH (Switzerland) on the dissociation of ZnO, and the economic feasibility
strongly depends on the availability of an effective Zn/O2 separation technique. The cost
estimates by (Steinfeld 2002) thus are at least highly uncertain. Similar to the ‘old’-type
of thermochemical cycle
processes, the ZnO/Zn process has to face the challenge of handling large volume
streams of solid materials for producing a relevant amount of hydrogen. Further
development work is currently focused on solar chemical reactor modelling, and on
designing a better quench method for recovering Zn. The benchmark against which the
process has to prove its technical and economic viability in the future is hydrogen
production from electrolysis with electricity from solar thermal power plants.

[40]
 Chapter-04

HYDROGEN STORAGE TECHNOLOGIES

4.1Introduction

In the development of fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen storage is “the biggest remaining
research problem” according to the January 2003 Office of Technology Policy
report,
Fuel Cell Vehicles: Race to a New Automotive Future. Current hydrogen storage systems are
inadequate to meet the needs of consumers in a fuel cell vehicle. The OTP report
continues, “Hydrogen’s low energy-density makes it difficult to store enough on board a
vehicle to achieve sufficient vehicle range without the storage container being too large
or too heavy.”

Existing and proposed technologies for hydrogen storage include

(1) physical storage: pressurized tanks for gaseous hydrogen and pressurized
cryotanks for liquid hydrogen;
(2) reversible hydrogen uptake in various metal-based compounds including hydrides,
nitrides, and imides;
(3) chemical storage in irreversible hydrogen carriers such as methanol;
(4) cryoadsorption with activated carbon as the most common adsorbent; and
(5) advanced carbon materials absorption, including carbon nanotubes, alkali-doped
carbon nanotubes, and graphite nanofibers.

The Department of Energy timeline for development of storage systems projects that
high pressure and cryogenic storage will be demonstrated in 2002- 3, cost-effective
hydride storage systems in 2003-6, and carbon-based storage systems in 2006-11 [24].

Goals for hydrogen storage systems for 2010 that were established in the Freedom
CAR initiative include
  available capacity of 6 wt% hydrogen 
 specific energy of 2 kWh/kg 
 energy density of 1.1 kWh/L 
 cost ≤ $5/kWh or $1.25/gal (gas equiv.) in CY2001 dollars 

[41]
4.1.1 Pressurized Tank Storage
Pressurized tanks of adequate strength, including impact resistance for safety in
collisions, have been made of carbon-fiber wrapped cylinders. Compressed gas storage in
such tanks has been demonstrated at a pressure of 34 MPa (5,000 psi) with a mass of 32.5
kg and volume of 186 L, sufficient for a 500-km range. Note, however, that this tank
volume is about 90% of a 55-gallon drum, rather large for individual automobiles. So
while the 6 wt% goal can be achieved, tank volume is problematic. Pressures of 70 MPa
(10,000 psi) have been reached, and in 2002 Germany certified Quantum Technology’s
10,000 psi on-board storage tank . A footnote in the OTP report cited above says,
“The Toyota and Honda vehicles available for lease in late 2002 use hydrogen stored in
high-pressure containers. However, their range will be less than optimal because
hydrogen’s low density does not permit a sufficient amount to be stored (unlike CNG
[compressed natural gas], which has a higher energy density for the same volume).”

Low temperature storage of liquid hydrogen does not appear to be suitable for normal
vehicle use, although research on this possibility is being conducted at a low level by
several automobile manufacturers. Furthermore, “a liquid hydrogen storage system
loses up to 1% a day by boiling and up to 30% during filling, as well as requiring
insulation to keep the hydrogen at 20 K.”

4.1.2Hydrogen Uptake in Metal-Based Compounds

Metal hydridation can be used to store hydrogen above room temperature and below 3
or 4 MPa. However, the metals introduce too much additional weight for most vehicle
uses. They are also expensive .

Recent work by P. Chen, et al. has shown that lithium nitride can reversibly take up large
amounts of hydrogen . This material takes up hydrogen rapidly in the temperature range
170-210ºC, and achieved 9.3 wt% uptake when the sample was held at 255ºC for
30 minutes. Under high vacuum (10-9 MPa, 10-5 mbar, or 10-5 torr) about two -thirds of
the hydrogen was released at temperatures below 200ºC. The remaining third of the
stored hydrogen required temperatures above 320ºC for release. The hydrogen was taken
up as lithium imide (LiNH2) and lithium hydride (LiH). These researchers suggest that
related metal-N-H systems should be investigated to find a hydrogen storage system that
works at more practical temperatures and pressures.

4.1.3 Cryoadsorption Hydrogen Storage

While having potential weight and volume advantages, cryoadsorption with activated
carbon as adsorbant requires liquid nitrogen temperatures and 2 MPa (300 psi) to hold
the physically adsorbed hydrogen. It does not appear to be suitable for vehicle use.

[42]
4.1.4 Carbon Nanotube and Related Storage Technologies
The status of hydrogen storage in advanced carbon materials is still unclear. In this
subsection, we review briefly the status of carbon nanotube storage, both single-walled
and double-walled, and graphite nanofiber stack storage. Other carbon-based storage
technologies that have been proposed include alkali-doped graphite, fullerenes, and
activated carbon.

High surface area and abundant pore volume in the nanostructured materials make these
especially attractive as potential absorption storage materials. Some early work gave
tantalizing results for hydrogen storage in carbon nanotubes. Ogden reported various
conflicting, some excessively optimistic, results . A query by this subcommittee to Prof.
Mildred Dresselhaus of MIT about the achievable wt% (6.5 wt% has been suggested)
brought this response:

1. It is hard to say what is a reliable estimate of the hydrogen uptake number

because of the differences in the reported levels by different groups, presumably
doing similar measurements. The reasons for the different results between groups
are not understood.

2. The 6.5% value is not yet achievable in my opinion.

3. The problem seems to be hard to me, arguing from a theoretical standpoint.

However I would not discount the possibility of a breakthrough that might change
the situation dramatically. So far it doesn't seem to me that there is yet much
available carefully controlled work.

A 2001 review of carbon nanostructure storage research, sponsored by the German

Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF), found that follow-up work “has
been unable to reproduce any of the high-capacity results.” [29] They concluded “In view
of today’s knowledge, it is unlikely that carbon nanostructures can store the required
amount of hydrogen. In any case, this calls into doubt whether carbon nanostructures
would have any advantage over high-pressure tank storage.”

The German study presented the following summary figure on the capacity of
current and future hydrogen storage systems:

[43]
The considerable doubt that has been cast upon carbon nanotube storage capacity makes it
highly likely that their position on this chart will have to be moved to a much less favourable
point.

4.2 HYDROGEN FUEL STORAGE SAFETY

Hydrogen has a reputation for being explosive and therefore raises concerns about the safety
of carrying a substantial quantity of H2 in a vehicle fuel tank. However, because H2 is the
lightest gas, it has a tendency to diffuse away quickly in case its container is breached and
consequently may represent less of a hazard than gasoline.

The simplest way to carry hydrogen fuel in a car or other vehicle is as a high-pressure gas 3-
10 kpsi (21-69 MPa) in metal or composite-reinforced (fibreglass, carbon fibre, Kevlar)
tanks. This is similar to the way compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles operate.

There is an interesting report on H2 for energy use by the Norwegian environmental

organization. These authors conclude that “hydrogen is no more or less dangerous than any
other energy carrier and furthermore that hydrogen has properties that in certain areas make it
safer than other energy carriers: it is not poisonous, and has the ability to dissipate quickly into
the atmosphere because of its light weight compared to air.” They describe tests by
Lockheed and Arthur D. Little that indicated that H2 is, if anything, safer than gasoline or jet
fuel. There are a number of references to crash testing by BMW that say BMW demonstrated
the safety of H2 fuel for cars.

[44]
4.3Benefits Of The Fuel Cell Technology
4.3.1 Stacks and systems
Now moving from the single fuel cell unit to real‐world systems, what do we have to add to
get them all setup and why?

Similar to all electrical devices the output power of a fuel cell is equal to the current
multiplied by the voltage. While the current may be in theory indefinitely increased by
increasing the reaction area between hydrogen‐ and oxygen‐containing reactants, the voltage,
i.e. the potential difference between the anode and cathode, is thermodynamically limited to a
little more than 1 V by the nature of the two half‐cell reactions in a fuel cell: hydrogen
oxidation reaction (HOR) at the anode and oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) at the cathode.
Moreover, losses inevitably occur in a fuel cell due to slow kinetics of the electrode reactions
(activation over potential), intrinsic resistances of the different components and contact
resistances between one other (ohmic over potential), and transport resistances of the reactants
(concentration over potential). Therefore, under operational load the actual voltage of a single
fuel cell is in the 0.6‐0.7 V range.

Useful voltages are generally achieved by interconnecting multiple unit fuel cells in series.
This is the concept of “stacking”. The stack’s final output voltage will depend on the number
of cells and the available current will be proportional of the total surface area of the cells. In
this configuration, the conductive interconnecting element is in contact with both the anode of
one cell and with the cathode of the adjacent cell, hence the name “bipolar plate”. Flow
channels are grooved on each side for gas distribution and water removal. Bipolar plate
materials are highly impermeable to gases in order to avoid harmful fuel and oxidant
mixtures: these materials are mainly graphite, polymer‐graphite composites and metals such as
stainless steel or aluminum (most often coated with a corrosion‐resistant alloy).
 
Bipolar stacking
It has been up to now the most simple and the most conventional configuration in most types
of fuel cell systems, particularly low‐temperature systems. For high‐temperature systems such
as SOFCs however, sealing issues due to large temperature gradients during operation have
driven research toward alternative arrangements, leading to the development of a tubular
design.
 
Tubular stacking
In the different elements of the fuel cell unit (anode/electrolyte/cathode) are arranged
concentrically forming a hollow cylinder. Fuel is fed on the anode side, either through the
inside or along the outside of the cylinder, and oxidant is fed on the cathode side. Series
connection is accomplished by vertical addition of the cells (in the height direction) while
parallel connection is accomplished by horizontal addition of the cells (in the same plan). The
tubular design is well suited for high‐temperature applications since it minimizes the number
of seals in the fuel cell system thus alleviating problems due to unmatching expansion
coefficients.

[45]
  
Planar stacking
Is a second alternative to the bipolar arrangement, in which cells are connected laterally
rather than vertically. Several planar designs have been explored, mostly for small‐scale
systems: the banded‐membrane design, in which the anode of one cell is connected to the
cathode of the adjacent cell across the band; and the flip‐flop design, in which there is
interconnection of unit cells on the same side of the band thanks to alternate
anodes and cathodes. The main advantage of this third arrangement is a better volumetric
packaging, yet at the expense of increased resistance losses.

Besides the fuel cell stack, referred to as the fuel cell subsystem, the other subsystems that are
needed to keep the whole system running can be classified into three categories:

• The thermal management (cooling) system

• The fuel delivery/processing system
• The power electronics (and safety) system for power regulation and monitoring

The components that draw electrical power from the fuel cell thereby causing parasitic power
losses are called ancillaries. For example, an actively cooled fuel cell system will employ an
ancillary device like a fan, a blower or a pump for cooling fluid circulation.

1. As fuel cells are usually about 30‐60% electrically efficient (depending of the type of fuel
cell), the balance of energy is released in the form of heat and this has to be managed by the
system in order to maintain the thermal gradients inside the stack at the lowest possible level
(within a few °C) and ensure stable operation. A cooling system is required for fuel cells that
cannot benefit from natural heat regulation by the ambient, i.e. all systems except small
PEMFCs (output power < 100 W). The cooling fluid can be either a gas (air), or a liquid
(distilled water or aqueous glycol‐based solution) depending on the heat dissipation capacity
needs and the other characteristics of the fuel cell system. Given that the heat capacity of
liquids is much greater than that of gases; consequently, small liquid‐cooled devices will
generally be far more efficient than their massive gas‐cooled equivalents.

In advanced fuel cell systems, the heat released by the stack can be purposely recovered for
internal (1) or external (2) heating. Examples follow:

• Heat can be used for conditioning reactant gases = pre‐heating + humidification;

• Heat can be used for providing space and/or water heating in a house, or passenger
compartment warming in a car;
Cogeneration by heat recovery is a powerful means to increase the overall efficiency of fuel
cells systems up to 80‐85%. It is very advantageous in high temperature fuel cell systems,
mainly PAFC and SOFC.

2. Given that almost all practical fuel cells today use hydrogen or compounds containing
hydrogen as a fuel, there are two primary options to feed a fuel cell:
(a) in a direct way by pure hydrogen or
(b) by a hydrogen carrier after upstream processing.

[46]
 (a) In the first case, hydrogen is produced outside the fuel cell system in an industrial
process (steam reforming for example), and is ready for direct use. The fuel management
subsystem will include a hydrogen reservoir related to the physical state of hydrogen stored:
high‐pressure gas cylinder (up to 700 bars) for compressed gas, double‐walled insulator under
cryogenic conditions (22 K) for liquid hydrogen in extreme situations where mass storage
capacity is especially important, e.g. space conditions, or low‐pressure container for metal
hydrid compounds ground into extremely fine powders. The advantages of direct hydrogen
feeding include high performance, simplicity, and the eliminatio n of impurity
concerns. But the current storage options, mainly in the form of compressed gas or reversible
metal hydride, are not optimal yet.

(b) In the second case, the system is more complex. Since hydrogen is not available as
is, it must be derived from hydrogen‐containing fuels called “hydrogen carriers” that are
widely available in the industry, like methane, methanol, diesel or gasoline. Except a few
hydrogen carriers that are directly usable in fuel cells systems including methanol in DMFCs
and methane in SOFCs of MCFCs, a vast majority of them must be processed before they
enter the fuel cell. This is possibly achieved in two different ways:
• by direct electro‐oxidation
• by chemical reforming
A further distinction must be made between external reforming whether reforming occurs in a
chemical reactor separated from the fuel cell, and internal reforming whether the reaction
takes place at the catalyst surface inside the fuel cell.

i. Direct electro‐oxidation of the carrier fuel into hydrogen is attractive because it avoids the
extra step of reforming it prior to the fuel cell reaction and all chemical reactors associated
with it. Direct Methanol Fuel Cells are based on this principle, and other simple compounds
like ethanol and formic acid can also be employed. Unfortunately, the overall electrical
efficiency of this category of fuel cells is significantly reduced due to the complexity of the
reactions. As a result, the energy density gained by the absence of a reformer or a fuel
reservoir can be largely offset by the low fuel efficiency and the need for larger stacks.

Direct electro‐oxidation is best applied in portable applications, where simple systems,

minimal ancillaries, and low power are needed.

ii. External reforming systems are composed of several devices for successively treating
chemically or physically the gas reactant (hydrogen carrier) and the products (including
hydrogen). Several ways are possible, and the exact conditions will vary with the process and
the hydrogen carrier. The most used process is steam reforming: fuel molecules are burned
over a catalyst (nickel‐, copper oxide‐ or zinc‐based) under the presence of water steam at a
few hundred degrees C, according to the reaction:
CxHy + x H2O(g) ↔ x CO + (1/2y + x) H2 ⇒ H2, CO, CO2, H2O

The yield of this endothermic reaction can be further increased in the presence of excess water
vapor via the water‐gas shift reaction involving the product CO:

CO + H2O(g) ↔ CO2 + H2
Before reforming, the fuel may have to be desulfurized and heated. After reaction, a

[47]
 hydrogen‐containing gas mixture is obtained that in certain cases has to be purified in
multi‐ processing steps. This additional post‐treatment is required for removing
poisons and be able to feed the fuel cell with a pure hydrogen gas, what is especially
important for low‐ temperature systems.

iii. Internal fuel reforming is possible for high‐temperature fuel cells with certain fuels. In
this case, the fuel is mixed with steam prior entering the fuel cell anode where it is both
reformed into hydrogen and the usual co‐products CO and CO2 and then split into protons in
the fuel cell reaction. Under these high‐temperature conditions, the presence of carbon oxides
is not an issue anymore. These gases are even further processed in situ thus contributing to the
fuel cell efficiency. Although the different interplaying parameters are difficult to optimize,
internal reforming is a promising solution because it gives an elegant (and economically
winning) answer to a complex question.

Fuel reforming is best applied in stationary applications, where fuel flexibility is important
and the excess heat can be managed inside or outside the system. However, fuel reforming
technology is not a current choice of authorities for transportation applications since the
existing technologies do not meet the technical or economic targets, and only marginal
improvement is expected in efficiency and emissions between a hybrid vehicle and an FC
vehicle equipped with on‐board reforming.

For any of the fuel delivery/processing systems considered previously, gas pumps are used to
feed the gas reactants in the fuel cell, and a water purge system must also be integrated.

3. Last but not least, it is necessary to manage the direct power output of the fuel cell into
usable power. The power electronics subsystem consists of:
a) Power regulation;
b) Power inversion;
c) Power monitoring and control;
d) Power supply management.
Power conditioning corresponds to regulation and inversion of the fuel cell power output.

a) Regulation allows delivery of power at a voltage level that is stable over time from
a fuel cell output power that most often is not. Fuel cell power is generally regulated by
DC/DC converters, which transform the fluctuating Direct Current (DC) voltage input into a
fixed, stable DC voltage output. A DC/DC converter is generally 85‐98% efficient.

b) Inversion means converting the DC power provided by the fuel cell into
Alternative Current (AC) power consumed by most electronic devices, electric motors, and
the electrical grid. This task is performed by a DC/AC converter. Similar to DC/DC
converters, DC/AC converters are 85‐97% efficient. Consequently, these devices taken
together yield a 5‐20% decrease in fuel cell electrical efficiency, which is far from negligible.
Selections of optimal options for a given fuel cell stack technology, geometry and size in a
given environment is therefore an essential point.

c) Power monitoring and control includes system monitoring by gauges, sensors, etc.
that measure the conditions of the fuel cell, system actuation by valves, pumps, switches, fans,
etc. that regulate them, and a central control unit that mediates the interaction between

[48]
sensors and actuators. Most control systems are based on feedback algorithms to maintain
stable fuel cell operation, i.e. different sets of feedback loops are implemented between stack
monitoring elements and ensuing corrective actions by actuators.

(4) Power supply management is the part of the power electronics subsystem that
adapts the electrical power output of the fuel cell to the load requirements. Depending on the
application, the demand may be driven be toward short‐time and/or large‐scale load changes
that the fuel cell alone is not able to answer due to lag times in system ancillary components
such as compressors and pumps. The dynamic response of the fuel cell can be enhanced by
energy storage buffers like batteries or capacitors. The response time will be reduced from
seconds or even hundreds of seconds to milliseconds. In the case of stationary fuel cell
applications, the power supply management subsystems must also incorporate a special
control device for interacting with the local grid, allowing for example shutdown or
disconnection during a power outage.

The target application ultimately dictates the fuel cell system design and the choice of fuel
delivery. In portable systems for instance, there is a strong incentive to minimize the size of
components and avoid the use of ancillaries. Direct or reformed methanol fuel systems may
provide energy density improvements compared to direct hydrogen storage solutions. A
delicate trade‐off is necessary between the size of the fuel cell unit and the size of the fuel
reservoir. In utility‐scale stationary power generation, durability and efficiency are of prime
importance. Reformed natural gas and biogas are the leading fuel solutions due to their wide
availability and low cost.

4.4 ADVANTAGES Of Hydrogen Fuel Cell

• Efficiency
Fuel cells combine many of the advantages of both internal combustion engines (ICE) and
batteries. Thanks to the direct conversion of chemical energy into electrical energy, fuel cells
are 2‐3 times as efficient as ICEs for vehicle propulsion: the net electrical efficiency of a
PEMFC ranges between 40 and above 50% in a driving schedule, which is favorably
compared to the 21‐24% efficiency range of ICEs “from well to wheel”, i.e. accounting for the
type of fuel used and its entire life cycle. Now if we add in the calculations the reforming
process of gasoline and methanol or the use of compressed hydrogen in the calculations the
efficiencies are 33, 38, and about 50%, respectively.

Interestingly, the fuel cell efficiency does not drop for small systems because it does not
depend on its size: unlike gas turbines for example that suffer from scale effects, small fuel
cell devices are quite as efficient as larger ones. Accounting for energy losses in ancillaries
the efficiency is somewhat lowered but is in any case higher than conventional systems.

[49]
  Reduced Emissions
Because fuel cells are electrochemical systems and do not rely on combustion, they are the
cleanest fuel‐consuming energy technology, with near‐zero smog‐causing emissions. They
produce benefits in all applications: power generation, industrial equipment, transportation,
military power and consumer electronics.

The emissions produced by a fuel cell system strongly depend on the fuel used and its origin.
For example, a FC vehicle produces only water if it is fed by compressed hydrogen, some CO,
CO2 and CH4 if it is fed with ethanol, and additional SO2 if it is fed with gasoline. Under fuel
cell operation, undesirable products such as carbon monoxide CO, sulfur oxides SO x or
nitrogen oxides NOx, ashes and carbon particulate emissions are virtually zero.
produced by water electrolysis from renewable electricity. Emissions of pollutants are
increased for electricity from the grid, i.e. a mixture of thermic, nuclear and renewable
sources.

• Reliability, low maintenance and quietness

Fuel cells can help provide stability and continuity to the electric grid since they can maintain
a continuous base power in parallel with or independent of the grid. Fuel cells provide high
quality power without any risk of power outage. They have more predictable performance
over wider operating temperature ranges than lead acid batteries.

Fuel cells can be recharged everywhere within a few minutes by refuelling while batteries
have to be plugged in for time‐consuming recharge (and eventually replaced). They operate at
constant peak performance from fuel replenishment to depletion. Therefore operation time is
well‐known and directly proportional to the amount of fuel supplied.

Fuel cells systems have practically no rotating or even moving parts. Certain types of fuel
cells (PEMFC, SOFC) are all solid state thus close to mechanically ideal. This means less
noise and potentially reduced maintenance work (and related costs) besides refueling.
Stationary fuel cells require only minimal maintenance (once every one to three years)
compared to monthly or quarterly site visits to lead acid battery‐based installations.

Fuel cells are relatively silent systems making them suitable for residential areas. The only
parts that are liable to cause moderate noise are the pieces of ancillary equipment like fans,
compressors and pumps. Noise levels measured on stationary systems are typically as low as
50‐60 dB.

• Sustainability
Fuel cells are powered by hydrogen, the most abundant element in the Universe. Hydrogen
can be produced from a variety of sources including fossil fuels, natural gas, methanol, and
various renewable energy sources: wind, photovoltaic, geothermic, waves, etc. This is a key
point asset from the perspective of greenhouse gas reduction and follow‐on process of the
Kyoto Conference.
Fuel cells are essential to achieving carbon reduction goals, with CO 2 reduction ranging from
40% or better using conventional fuels to nearly 100% using renewable derived hydrogen, as
compared to conventional power sources. Fuel cells can contribute to the world’s end of
dependence on hydrocarbons. They can greatly simplify the sequestration of CO 2 from
[50]
hydrocarbon fuels, enabling the use of domestically‐produced fuels including coal, biomass
and hydrogen.
Due to their low environmental footprint, fuel cells are a realistic option in several fields
concerned by the climate change debate: automotive, residential, industrial.

• Compactness
Fuel cells offer higher energy density and higher storage capacity compared to batteries, and
thus good compactness, which is an interesting feature especially for portable applications.

• Modularity and flexibility

Fuel cells allow independent scaling between power (determined by the fuel cell size) and
capacity (determined by the fuel reservoir size). The fuel cell size can be adapted by simply
changing the number of elementary cells and the active area. Scale up is therefore very easy,
from the W range of a cell phone to the MW range of a power utility plant. For miniaturized
systems techniques derived from microelectronics are being developed.

Fuel cells are the ideal solution when space is limited or weight is a concern, offering clean
and quiet operation in a wide range of installation conditions. For example, the reduced
footprint requirements for normal rooftop loading limits, and zero‐emission combined with
silent operation make them highly suitable for indoor/outdoor, urban/rural applications.

In addition, they can be fueled by a variety of fuels including intermittent renewable energy.

4.5 Issues Of Hydrogen Fuel Cell

There are three main barriers remaining to widespread adoption of the fuel cell technology:
- Cost

- Durability

- Lack of hydrogen infrastructure

The lack of hydrogen infrastructure has long been considered the biggest obstacle in particular
for introduction of fuel cell vehicles, although this question resembles the classic
chicken‐and‐egg problem (there are no FCVs because there are no hydrogen fuelling stations,
but there are no hydrogen fuelling stations because there is no demand for hydrogen as fuel
for FCVs…). Establishing the necessary infrastructure for hydrogen production, transport and
distribution would require significant capital investment, but there is no absolute impediment,
since hundreds of hydrogen refuelling stations already exist in the U.S.A., Japan, and Europe.
Obviously, legislation and standards are however still missing. In a recent paper published by
General Motors, it is projected that consumers will not have to pay significantly
more for hydrogen than gasoline in the longer term and also that the key challenge remains
matching scale and timing of hydrogen investment with actual hydrogen demand

[51]
We should add to the list the public acceptance of a daily use of hydrogen.

4.6 Application Of Fuel Cell

4.6.1 Automotive applications (50‐250 kW)
This section is limited to the application of fuel cells for light‐duty vehicle and bus propulsion.
The other related application as an auxiliary power unit onboard the vehicle will be treated in
the next section named “Niche transport applications”.

a. Light‐duty vehicles (50 kW)

Almost all major car manufacturers have demonstrated prototype fuel cell vehicles and have
announced plans for production and commercialization in the near to midterm future (5‐10
years). The race to develop a viable fuel cell vehicle and bring it to market began during the
1990s and continues today. The big drivers for the development of automotive fuel cell
technology are its efficiency, low or zero emissions, and fuel that could be produced from
local sources rather than imported. The main obstacles for fuel cell commercialization in
automobiles are the cost of components and the availability of hydrogen.

The only fuel cell technology satisfying to both temperature and time response criteria for
vehicle propulsion is the PEMFC. The low operating temperature combined with good
durability and range makes it ideal for use in light duty vehicle. Power range is about 50 kW.

PEMFCs meet the 4000 h lifetime target for automotive applications at the laboratory scale.
The effect of real‐life conditions on the fuel cell system (repeated startups and shutdowns,
impurities in fuel and air, low and high temperatures) has to be assessed more thoroughly.
Startup and steady operation in extremely cold climates (‐40°C) require specific water
management controls, whereas the heat rejection system must be sized for hot weather
conditions (+40°C). Water balance is a prerequisite in a PEMFC for optimal operation; this
results also in an additional cooling system.

Four configurations are possible in a Fuel Cell Vehicle (FCV):

 The fuel cell is sized to provide all the power needed. Due to the slower
 response of fuel processors (reformers), this configuration only applies for
fast dynamic hydrogen‐fed vehicles. A small battery may be present but for
 start-up only.
 In the parallel hybrid configuration, the fuel cell is sized to provide the base
load, but the peak power for start-up and acceleration is provided by a
battery. The battery allows rapid start-up without preheating of the fuel
processor and recapturing of the braking energy, resulting in a more
efficient system.

 In the serial hybrid configuration, the fuel cell is sized to recharge the
battery and the battery drives the electric motor. The relative sizes of the
battery and the fuel cell are tied up: a smaller battery will have to be
recharged faster and will result in a larger fuel cell.
 Fuel cell serves only as an auxiliary power unit, that is, not for propulsion.
This configuration is attractive for idling trucks requiring operation of air‐
[52]
 conditioning or refrigeration systems.

The difficulty of storing hydrogen onboard a vehicle, as well as lack of hydrogen

infrastructure has forced car manufacturers to consider other, more conveniently supplied
fuels. In that case the fuel cell must be integrated with a fuel processor that produces hydrogen
from gasoline or methanol. However, apart from being a non zero‐emission process, onboard
reforming is not easy and raises numerous engineering issues:
 Onboard reforming reduces the overall efficiency of the propulsion
 system, which leads to upgrade the fuel cell size;
 Onboard reforming enhances complexity, size, weight, and cost of the
propulsion system;

 Start-up time of fuel processors is too long in practice: this issue may be
avoided in hybrid configurations;

 Durability issues of the PEMFC due to impurities in the reformate
hydrogen have been evidenced.

Many car manufacturers are perfecting their proprietary PEM units for use in their vehicles,
e.g. Honda with the FCX Clarity, General Motors with fuel cell‐powered Chevrolet Volt and
Equinox models, and Volkswagen with fuel cell‐powered Touran and Tiguan models. While A
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle does not generate any pollution and is qualified as Zero Emission
Vehicle (ZEV). If another fuel is used and reformed onboard, the propulsion system has some
emissions generated during the reforming process, but those emissions are in general still
much lower than the emissions from an internal combustion engine (ICE); therefore the fuel
cell vehicles using a fuel reformer are typically qualified as Ultra Low Emission Vehicles
(ULEV). Fuel cell‐powered vehicles also generate significantly less greenhouses gases than
the comparable gasoline‐, diesel‐, or methanol‐powered ICEs.

Hydrogen is the only fuel that results in a zero‐emission vehicle, particularly if hydrogen is
produced from renewable sources. Use of hydrogen as transportation fuel could reduce
dependency on imported oil. A fuel cell system that runs on pure hydrogen is relatively
simple, has the best performance, runs more efficiently, and has the longest stack life.
Hydrogen is nontoxic and, despite its reputation, has some very safe features. One of the
biggest problems related to hydrogen use in passenger cars is its onboard storage. Hydrogen
can be stored as compressed gas, as cryogenic liquid, or in metal hydrides. Tanks for gaseous
hydrogen are bulky, and the amount to be stored depends on the fuel efficiency and the
required range (typically 300 miles or 500 km). In order to achieve a better match between the
storage capacity of the tank, the fuel efficiency of the car and its range, further improvements
in vehicle design, introduction of new lightweight composite materials, and compression of
hydrogen at 700 bar are mandatory.
the first one is based on a specific fuel cell design, all the others are derived from standard
ICEs, with mere replacement of the propulsion engine by a fuel cell system. Alone amongst
the major automakers, BMW is developing an SOFC‐based auxiliary power unit for its 7‐
series luxury car model.
b. Buses (250 kW)
Buses for city and regional transport are considered the most likely type of vehicles for an
early market introduction of the PEMFC technology. Most of the issues discussed in the
previous section, Light Duty Vehicles, also apply for the fuel cell applications in buses. The
major differences are in power requirements, operating conditions and resulting lifetime,
space available for hydrogen storage, and refuelling sites.

[53]
Buses require typically 250 kW under high demanding, intermittent conditions, with frequent
starts and stops. Compared to their diesel engine equivalent the efficiency gain is about 15%.

Buses are almost always operated as a fleet and refuelled in a central facility. Storage of large
quantities of hydrogen onboard (the roof location is very safe for a gas lighter than air) is not a
concern. These two characteristics make use of hydrogen much easier.

Thanks to use of hydrogen, fuel cell buses are Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs), which is a big
advantage over diesel buses in densely populated regions. Demonstration programs funded
from local to international level have seen several fleets of fuel cell buses deployed in
European cities (Clean Urban Transport for Europe program), in the U.S.A. (Sun line Transit
Authority in Palm Springs), and in large cities worldwide (United Nations Development
Program, Global Environment Facility).

The main obstacles for commercialization of fuel cell buses are their cost and durability.
Because the production series for buses are smaller than for passenger cars, their cost per kW
is somewhat higher, as is the expected lifetime. Together with the intermittent operating
regime, this could eventually challenge the current fuel cell technology.

4.6.2 Niche transport applications (1‐10 kW)

Small mobile fuel cell systems are designed to produce 1 to 10 kW of electrical power with
low to zero emissions. This application is not as demanding as passenger cars or buses. The
possible applications are very diverse and include:
- Utility and leisure vehicles, material handling industrial vehicles, e.g. forklifts, tow
trucks, bicycles, scooters, motorbikes, golf carts; and wheelchairs for mobility
assistance;
- Aircraft and aerospace applications;
- Marine and submarine applications;
- Auxiliary power units (APUs) for on‐board power supply.

An auxiliary power unit is composed of a small fuel cell system (a stack in the KW power
range and a balance of plant part, with or without a reformer), which is associated to a prime
driver engine i.e., internal combustion engine or electric motor, in order to supply additional
power not related to the propulsion of the vehicle: air‐conditioning, multimedia playing or
other comfort features. The fuel cell technology allows power generation without engine
operation and enhances the run time of batteries. This is especially a good point at the time
where anti‐idling regulations are setting place in a number of countries. Hence fuel cell‐based
APUs improve the power flexibility of the vehicle without a complete replacement of the
existing technology, which could foster an early market uptake of these “secondary” power
sources. Moreover, the continuous increase in electrical demand for leisure vehicles and
equipments is now accompanied by a desire for environmentally friendly on‐board

[54]
conveniences. The growth in this sector is being driven by the need for clean, quiet, efficient
power with extended run‐time particularly in the high end of the campervan and luxury
boating markets. In a market largely insulated against recession, consumers are willing to pay
a premium for the advantages that fuel cells have over batteries and generators. Campervan
manufacturers have understood this very well and are now offering fuel cell‐ based APUs at
least as optional extra and even standard equipment.
Fuel cells for these applications are of the PEMFC or DMFC type, with a small number of
SOFC‐based units essentially for APU applications. PEMFC‐based units are largely dominant
in the aerospace, aircraft and materials handling markets while DMFC ‐based units are more
often found for leisure, marine and mobility assistance vehicles. DMFC‐based APUs run on
methanol without a reformer. SOFC‐ and PEM‐based APUs usually incorporate a fuel
reformer built into the unit so that the system can run on alternatives to hydrogen. In a peculiar
market approach, the selection of fuel determines the type of fuel cell stack and the reformer
technology. The reason for this fuel diversification is the desire to design the fuel cell APU to
run on a fuel that is readily available to the end user. The choice of the same fuel for the fuel
cell‐based APU as the main engine is a specific requirement of this application. Today this
means gasoline or diesel, and development efforts are currently geared towards efficient
reformers in order to make this eco‐friendly option available for use in commercial trucks
shortly.

Like the portable sector, the materials handling sector is one where a real value proposition is
now available to warehouse professionals because fuel cell‐powered materials handling
vehicles operate near silently, with no or few emissions, and offer faster refuelling (1‐3
minutes) as well as longer run‐time than lead acid batteries and conventional internal
combustions engines. Compared with battery‐powered equipment, fuel cell systems have also
the advantage of not requiring lengthy and floor space‐hungry recharges. Moreover, capital
investment is less since a single fuel cell will operate continuously while from a logistic point
of view, two or even three batteries are needed per battery‐powered vehicle. Fuel cell‐ based
two‐ and three‐wheeled vehicles basically combine clean and efficient indoor operation with
lower downtime, rapid refuelling, extended range and no operational degradation over time:
since power provided by the fuel cell is constant throughout each shift, there is no
performance loss of the vehicle.

Altogether, lower lifetime running costs are expected from fuel cell‐based systems than from
their equivalents. This explains why an increasing number of manufacturers are developing
and selling fuel cell‐powered bikes and three‐wheelers. A worldwide potential market exists
for example in national postal services that use thousands of bikes and delivery trolleys. In the
materials handling market, fuel cells seem to be still some way off being a serious competitor
to long‐used ICEs and acid‐lead batteries, but some early niche markets are being actively
explored and experience is currently gained in warehouse environments before large scale
deployments. Ballard, Plug Power, Nuvera Fuel Cells and Hydrogenise are main players in the
materials handling sector who are currently testing products on‐site. Finally, mobility
assistance vehicles are an interesting niche market for light fuel cell systems, which offer an
extended range but none of the inconveniences of battery recharging. SFC Smart Fuel Cells
from Germany and Ajusa from Spain have shipped tens of units for impaired customers in
2008 In the aerospace and aircraft sectors, successful test flights have been reported in recent
years, as well as a continued development of fuel cells for auxiliary power units on board
larger aircrafts. Due to their silentness and long run time, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
are especially attractive in the defence and aerospace fields for handling military

[55]
reconnaissance, surveillance missions, or remote communications in strict secrecy. Other
civilian applications are studied like remote scientific data collection under harsh conditions,
disaster relief missions… It is unlikely that fuel cells will be used as a primary source of
power for commercial aircrafts any time soon, but demonstration is being made that they are
able to operate under extreme conditions: low temperatures and pressures, and unusual spatial
orientations; hence they could provide efficient energy for on‐board electrical systems in‐
flight or under ground operation: heating/cooling, entertainment devices, and even essential
controls in the aircraft, thereby reducing fuel consumption. Here a fuel cell APU may offer
better efficiency than turbine APUs used today in spite of the necessary kerosene reformer. As
a further advantage, in‐flight production of water is under investigation by several aircraft
companies, e.g. Airbus. In the marine sector, legislation is likely to act as a key driver for the
adoption of fuel cells. New restricting policies requiring low or zero emission for vessels in
certain rivers, lakes and inland waterways in China and Europe, as well as growing pressure
on regulating pollutant emissions in harbours, in coastal waters and on the high seas, are a
favourable ground for the uptake of fuel cells as APUs on board vessels to reduce overall
emissions and also for development of fuel cells as main means of propulsion. This has
already caused a doubling of unit shipments in 2008 (mainly in Europe) and the trend will
supposedly accelerate in the forthcoming years. Proton Motor’s Zero Emission Ship is the first
fuel cell repulsed boat: as a demonstration project it has carried passengers since July 2008 in
Hamburg’s harbour. Other proof‐of‐concept projects of low‐emission and low‐noise fuel
cell‐powered or battery hybrid systems are under development for integration in canal barges,
tug or river boats. Silent operation is of utmost importance for certain applications like
scientific studies of sea animals. National governments and the International Maritime
Organisation are in the process of voting further reductions of pollutant and noise emissions
and new laws will certainly follow. Clearly, there is a great opportunity for fuel cells at the
time of regulation in the marine environment.

4.6.3 Portable applications (0.1‐100 W)

In the portable sector, industrial interest for fuel cells in the W power range is great because of
recurrent issues inherent to battery technologies (Nickel‐Metal Hydrure, Lithium‐Ion or
Lithium‐Polymer). Significative improvements are possibly brought by fuel cells in this field:

 Fuel cells have a higher energy density than batteries, i.e. they provide
more energy per unit of weight, up to 5 times more. This allows longer run
 time before refuelling.
 Portable fuel cell systems including the fuel storage container can be
designed smaller and lighter than a battery of equivalent power.
  Continuous operation of fuel cells (as long as fuel is supplied) means also
longer standby time (depending on the fuel reservoir volume), no time‐
consuming recharge and associated logistics (e.g., need for several units for
battery exchange), and less degradation of the components.
Micro power applications of fuel cells are typically the same as batteries, i.e. all electronic
devices for nomad use like mobile phones, laptop computers, personal digital assistants,
cameras, and music or multimedia players. Other applications are found in portable military,
healthcare or camping tools. In these applications fuel cells are expected to replace batteries
thanks mainly to their higher storage capacity. Conversion efficiencies are of less importance
as long as they do not restrict autonomy.

[56]
Micro fuel cells are of the DMFC or the PEMFC type; they run at low temperatures on liquid
methanol, formic acid, or hydrogen stored in low pressure hydride containers. The operation
temperature should not exceed 50 to 60°C, which excludes the use of a reformer. Further, it is
important that the fuel storage must achieve a high level of security. Use of liquid high‐
pressure hydrogen is of course excluded as well. In this field PEMFCs with chemical
hydrogen storage are competing with DMFCs. While PEMFCs have a higher power density
than DMFCs, chemical hydride solutions are not ready for market yet. Portable DMFC‐based
micro fuel cells have been first demonstrated by Toshiba, Smart Fuel Cell and MTI Micro
Fuel Cells. An increasing number of companies are also developing DMFC ‐based fuel cell
cartridges, either as stand‐alone products (BIC, Gillette; Neah Power) or for powering their
own consumer electronics portfolio (Motorola, Hitachi, Panasonic, Sony). Motorola expects
its fuel cells to run about 10 times longer than today’s batteries before needing to be
recharged.

Smart Fuel Cell is selling a wide range of DMFC‐based products; from 50 W‐units targeted to
the recreational market, to portable docking stations for laptop computers.
The real challenge is the miniaturization of the system, which may consist of either scaling
down the different components of larger existing stacks or developing a specific architecture
based for instance on silicone‐supported thin films derived from microelectronics. Each of
these solutions implies a specific management of the various fluxes in the fuel cell: flux of
reactant gases, flux of products water and heat. The crucial point for the micro fuel cell is to
handle a power surge upon switching the device from idle to active.

The current trend for portable devices is an ever growing power demand in conjunction with
their increasing number of Internet functionalities. Therefore, the advantages of fuel cells of
storing more power in the same volume, for longer time while being able to refuel the product
quickly instead of recharging will be hopefully seen by most consumers as another area for
freedom and lead to a progressive decay of the battery‐based today technology. Furthermore,
standard batteries on use today like lithium‐ion batteries are quite expensive themselves so
that the cost barrier for the introduction to fuel cells to the portable market is lower than in
other applications.

4.6.4. Wireless applications (0.1‐1 kW)

  Portable soldier power
 Wireless tools

[57]
 CONCLUSION
A fuel cell is a device that converts the chemical energy from a fuel into electricity through a
chemical reaction with oxygen or another oxidizing agent. Hydrogen is the most common
fuel, but hydrocarbons such as natural gas and alcohols like methanol are sometimes used.
Fuel cells are different from batteries in that they require a constant source of fuel and oxygen
to run, but they can produce electricity continually for as long as these inputs are supplied.

There are many types of fuel cells, but they all consist of an anode (negative side), a cathode
(positive side) and an electrolyte that allows charges to move between the two sides of the fuel
cell. Electrons are drawn from the anode to the cathode through an external circuit, producing
direct current electricity. As the main difference among fuel cell types is the electrolyte, fuel
cells are classified by the type of electrolyte they use. Fuel cells come in a variety of sizes.
Individual fuel cells produce very small amounts of electricity, about 0.7 volts, so cells are
"stacked", or placed in series or parallel circuits, to increase the voltage and current output to
meet an application’s power generation requirements. In addition to electricity, fuel cells
produce water, heat and, depending on the fuel source, very small amounts of nitrogen dioxide
and other emissions. The energy efficiency of a fuel cell is generally between 40-60%, or up to
85% efficient if waste heat is captured for use.
[58]
 REFRENCES

www.google.com
www.wikipedia.com
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/natura
l_gas.html.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hydro/appendixc.html.
https://www.hfpeurope.org/infotools/energyinfos__e/hydrogen/main0
3.html
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenfuel/

[59]
[60]
.

[61]
[62]
[63]
.

[64]