Fuel Cells An Emerging High-Technology

IndustryRodger McKain, PhD

4/22/2006

Energy Sets the Scene

Setting the Scene for Fuel Cells: Petroleum supply, consumption, and imports, 1970-2025

(million barrels per day)

13 millionBbls/d

US EIA 2005

Setting the Scene for Fuel Cells: Petroleum supply, consumption, and imports, 1970-2025

(million barrels per day)

60% 71%

US EIA 2005

Primary energy use by fuel, 2003-2025 (quadrillion Btu)

1 quad = 170 million bbls= 1 trillion SCF (nat gas)= 45 million tons (coal)

Fuel Cells:

An Old Technology Provides New Solutions

First Communication of Fuel Cell Related Phenomena

“I cannot but regard the experiment as an important one…”

William Grove to Michael Faraday October 22, 1842

SOFC Fuel Cell Operation

2 H+ + O2- H2O + 2 e-

2O2-

H2

½ O 2 + 2 e-

H2O + 2 e-

O2-O2

H2 2 H+ + 2e-

2e-

Solid Oxide Electrolyte – ionic conducting

membrane

External electrical conducting circuit

Porous perovskite cathode

Porous nickel-cermet anode

Fuel Cell Operation

Source: U.S. Fuel Cell Council

Incr

easi

ng

Tem

per

atu

re

H2 + ½ O2 H2O

H2O

(Ionic transport)

O + 2e_ O

=

H2 + O= _ 2e_

H2O

Attributes of Fuel Cells

AFC AFC PACFPACF PEMPEM MCFCMCFC SOFCSOFC

ElectrolyteElectrolyte KOH KOH Phosphoric Phosphoric SulfonicSulfonic Molten Molten YY22OO33-ZrO-ZrO22 AcidAcid Acid Acid Carbonate Carbonate CeramicCeramic

Polymer SaltPolymer Salt

TemperatureTemperature 10010000CC 200 20000CC 80 80 00CC 650 65000CC 800-1000800-100000CC FuelFuel H H22 H H22 H H22 H H22/CO/CO H H22/CO/CO

Efficiency (HEfficiency (H22 fuel) fuel) 60% 60% 55% 55% 60% 60% 55% 55% 55% 55%

(NG fuel) -- (NG fuel) -- 40% 40% 35% 35% 50% 50% 50% 50%

PollutionPollution Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

HydrocarbonHydrocarbon No No Difficult Difficult Difficult Difficult Yes Yes Yes YesFuel UseFuel Use

Start-UpStart-Up Fast Fast Moderate Moderate Fast Slow Fast Slow Slow Slow

Zirconia

Fuel Cell Power System

Fuel cell StackFuel cell StackSub AssemblySub Assembly

Useful heat

AirAirAirAir

FuelFuelFuelFuelA.C. Power

HeatHeat

ManagementManagement

PowerPowerConditionerConditioner

FuelFuelProcessorProcessor

ControlsControls

Fuel Cell Impact (from Hydrogen Economy Statements)

– Clean environment– Reduced Global Warming– Energy independence– National Infrastructure Security– Low cost, reliable electrical power

Contaminant

Average U.S. Utility

Emissions(lbs per megawatt-hour)

ONSI PC25 200 kW NG Fuel Cell

(lbs per megawatt-hour)

Nitrogen Oxides 7.65 0.016

Carbon monoxide 0.34 0.023

Reactive organic gases

0.34 0.0004

Sulfur oxides 16.1 0

Particulates (PM10) 0.46 0

Regulated Emissions Comparison:Coal Fired Utility vs. PA Fuel Cell

Fuel Cell System Trends Compared with other Distributed Generation Technologies

10

30

20

40

50

60

70

1 10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000 500,000

Ele

ctr

ical

Ge

ner

atio

n

Eff

icie

ncy

%L

HV

Size in kW

PEM Fuel Cell

Carbonate Fuel Cell

IC Engines

0

PAFC

Microturbines

Industrial Gas Turbine

Aero Gas Turbines

Residential Commercial Industrial Wholesale

Solid Oxide Fuel Cells

Combined Cycle

Stirling Engine

Hydrogen Production

• Principle Sources of Hydrogen– Hydrocarbons (natural gas and crude oil)– Water

• Conversion Technology– Steam Methane Reforming (commercial) – Water Electrolysis (commercial)– Methane Pyrolysis (small scale)– Water-Sulfur-Iodide Process (small scale)

Hydrogen Production Dilemma

• 13 million barrels crude oil per day used in transportation – equivalent to 1.46 billion pounds per day hydrogen

• This would require doubling the total US power production (850 GWe to 1780 GWe) if hydrogen were produced by conventional electrolysis. (assume 1 MW per 1000 lbs and efficiency improvements)

OR• This would require 23 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per

year - approximately 110% of the 2002 total US consumption, nearly doubling the total natural gas requirement.

Hydrogen Production Solutions

• Near Term (small volumes)– Conventional technology distributed to point of use

• Fueling stations (hydrocarbon reforming or water electrolysis)

• Long Term (large volumes)– High Temperature gas Cooled Nuclear Reactor –

boost electrolysis efficiency from 20+% to 40+%. (Reduce power requirement by half)

– FutureGen – Hydrogen and power from coal– Solar Cell Direct Electrolysis

100Energy Units

IC Engine40%

Power Train37.5% 15

6020

Idling5

Friction

40

40Energy Units

Fuel Cell50%

Direct Drive75% 15

200

Idling5

Friction

20

Are Fuel Cell Powered Cars Really More Efficient?

Conventional Car

Fuel Cell Car

- 60 UnitsH2 production

Technology Commercialization Conundrum

• Public Expectations are high• But, Success Rates are less than 30%• And, Success generally takes longer and costs more

• Fuel Cell system OEM’s will determine the future• Much more investment is required• Development phase is more costly than anticipated• Strategic development is likely to dominate• But, focus is on suppliers and entrepreneurs

• Basis for a hard, clear-eyed review of the fuel cell opportunity • Role of OEM’s• Public expectations• Government and NPO involvement

When Will Fuel Cells Be Available?(An Ohio View)

Source: Projections represent Taratec Corporation’s estimate of market activity”based on input from industry analysts and information provided in executive interviews.

Today’s Technology Cost Comparison

Watts Sector Application $/kW

0.1 – 1.0 Biomedical Autonomous power for 105

sensors and implants

1 – 100 Electronics Battery replacement 104

100 - 10,000 Communications Battery replacement 103 – 104

Cell tower stationary power

5,000 - Transportation Propulsion 101 – 102

100,000 Auxiliary Power Units

> 10,000 Stationary power Emergency backup 102 – 103

grid supplement

Sales Projection (Ohio 2004 Fuel Cell Road Map)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040

Year

Bill

ion

s, $

Market Projections

Military/Aerospace

Vehicle

Stationary

Auxiliary

Portable

Portable Power leads the way

Public Expectations

• Set by “soft industry” successes– Dominated by services sector and incremental

changes to existing businesses• Low development costs• Investment usually for revenue growth• Less than 5 years for acceptable ROI• Satisfying unmet market needs (existing markets)• Returns through M&A’s or IPO’s• Not universally applicable

Years Since Commercial Introduction

Time to Max.TV – 30 yrsColor TV – 10 yrsElectricity – 75 yrsAutomobile – 80 yrsTelephone – 90 yrsCell phone – 20 yrsPC – 20 yrsInternet – 15 yrs

Market Penetration(Per Cent Households)

Fuel Cell vs. Service Sector Commercialization

• Some Fuel Cells are here today– Battery replacement– Military– Space Shuttle– Back-up power

But, to impact domestic energy consumption:• FC’s require

– 10-100X development funding $100-200 million per product (from now)

– 10X development time (20 yrs)But, FC’s offer similar market opportunities ($20

billion) to service sector businesses

Fuel Cell Commercialization

Service Sector

Log

[$]

Log [yrs]

Fuel Cells

Cost Comparison

DC

F (

mil

lio

n $

)

-200

0

2000

Yrs from 2006

Fuel CellsService

2010

Differentiators• Infrastructure• Capital intensity• Market Creation• Diversity• Competitive Alternatives

Service Sector vs. Fuel Cell Commercialization

Fuel Cell Cost Pyramid(DOE)

Stack

Hot Box Reformer, Recuperator

Manifold, Filter, enclosure/insulation

Controls/Power ElectronicsInverter, DC Boost, Sensors, Actuators

Balance of PlantPackaging, Air/Fuel Handling

Cost Contribution$/kW

Industrial Segments

184

325

46

128

Now Future

683

48%

27%

19%

6%

118

109

110

44 12%

28%

28%

30%

382

Fuel Cell Business Creation Gap

• This time around----20-year development cycle (profitable industry following silicon chip history)

• Suppliers betting on system integrators• System integrators require large infusions of

capital to advance to product stage…the bottleneck in the cycle...returns are still beyond the horizon.

• Gap: Financing development for an uncertain market.

Years Since Commercial Introduction

Fuel Cells? 2005-2060

FC’s Early Adopter Chasm (Created by Government Development Programs)

DC

F [

$]

Years

Revenue Chasm• Early demand for components• OEM’s commercial development lags demonstration gov programs• Transition to commercial prototypes• Renewed demand as OEM’s book product sales

How does a fuel cell business survive and thrive?

• Military “bootstrap”

• Federal agency funding

• Private investors

• Strategic partners/customers

• Leveraging Resources

Building an Industry

General Requirements

• Source(s) of ideas

• Availability of funds

• Accessible Workforce– Education and Training Resources

• Informed and supportive infrastructure

• Competitive business environment– Regulations, Taxation, Financing etc.

Critical Role for Building a Fuel Cell Industry in Ohio

• Educate Policymakers• Create realistic expectations• Facilitate information exchange• Inform the public• Engage all interests• Create opportunities• Focus on government-University-Industry Relationships• Maintain an independent perspective• Enable new and existing companies to access resources

to pursue fuel cell business plans more aggressively in Ohio than anywhere else

Fuel Cells for 2010Today’s Glimpse into the Future

Motive Power

Motive Power

Auxiliary Power

Fueling Stations

Small-Scale Power Systems

Concept: Truck Auxiliary Power UnitsSave 700 Million Gallons Diesel Fuel per Year

Long-haul trucks idle about 2,000 hours per year

Idling trucks consume 860 Millions gallons of fuel per year!

Fuel cells can reduce truck idling fuel consumption from 1 gal/hr to 0.2 gal/hr or by 688 million gallons.

Concepts: Aircraft Power Systems

Benefits to commercial aircraft cabin power• 50% fuel savings over conventional turbine APU• Reduced emissions (e.g., >20% NOx reduction)• Reduced noise (>10db reduction at gate)Commercial Aircraft

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

High-Altitude, Long Endurance UAV

Benefits to UAVs:• Emergency power – improved vehicle recovery• Payload power – significant increase in payload

Benefits to HALE UAVs:• Longer mission endurance• Higher payloads

NASA LEAP Project (Low Emissions Alternative Power)

Today’s Designs – Tomorrow’s Products

Summary

Challenges for Widespread Use of Fuel Cells

• Cost: (capital and operating) – further breakthroughs?• Operating Life: 4000 – 40,000 hours (automotive vs.

stationary power)• Reliability• Investment – Catch 22?• Many demonstrations• Hydrogen Infrastructure (fuel transportation and storage)• Codes and Standards

Fuel Cell Types

Source: U.S. Fuel Cell Council

Incr

easi

ng

Tem

per

atu

reNASA Glenn

Parker HannifinGrafTechCAPIBattelle

HydroGen

AMPOhio

NexTechMetaMateriaSOFCo-EFSTMICWRU-First EnergyNASA Glenn

Ohio Interests

The Ohio Fuel Cell Enterprise• Ohio Fuel Cell Coalition – Ken Alfred• Wright Fuel Cell Group – John McGrath• NorTech – Dorothy Baunach• CWRU – Bob Savinell, Tom Zawodzinski• OSU – Giorgio Rizzoni• CSU – Orhan Talu• U of Toledo – Martin Abraham• U of Akron – Steven Chuang• Ohio University – Dave Bayless• NASA Glen – Serene Farmer• Wright Patterson AFRL – Tom Reitz• Battelle – Dave Salay• EMTEC – Frank Svet, Mike Martin• EWI – Frank Jacob• Stark State College of Technology – Dorey

Diab• Hocking College

• Catacel – Bill Whittenberger• MetaMateria Partners – Dick Schorr • NexTech Materials – Bill Dawson• SOFCo-EFS – Rodger McKain • TMI – Benson Lee• Parker-Hannifin• AEP• First Energy• Dana Corporation• Rockwell International• Keithley Instruments• Solarflo• Vanner• Governor Bob Taft• Ohio Department of Development – Pat

Valente, Mike McKay• Stark County Development Board – Steve

Paquette• Congressman Regula

Thank You!