Advanced High Efficiency, Quick Start Fuel Processors for Transportation Application

Presented to Department of EnergyLocation Philadelphia, PADate May 25, 2004By P. S. Chintawar, W. Mitchell

This presentation does not contain any proprietary or confidential information

Overall Program Objectives / Progress ReviewGoal: Develop an automotive fuel processor for PEM fuel cells that is

small enough and powerful enough for vehicle integration.

Review: From Jan 2000 to May 2003, Nuvera developed a new compact fuel processor technology (STAR)

•STAR - Substrate-based Transportation Autothermal Reformer•Substrate-based catalysts researched to reduce volume

•Developed new technology with leading catalyst companies•FP designed with substrate catalysts / custom heat exchangers

•Automotive volume achieved (75 liters)•Under-vehicle, “flat” aspect ratio (height < 9 in)

•Automotive power achieved•200 kWth gasoline

Power Density Progress

Model B

LTS

Prox 1

Radiator Heat

Exchanger

Nuvera has achieved onboard volume and power density!

Volume

800

750

200

400

600

800

1000

1999 2004

Lite

rs

Power Density2.13

0.170.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

1999 2004

kW H

2 / l

iter

1999 2004

STAR Fuel Processor

2003-2004 ObjectivesGoal: Continue characterizing and advancing the STAR fuel processor

technology toward the DOE targets

•Continue characterizing the STAR fuel processor on gasoline

•Characterize the STAR fuel processor on CNG and Ethanol

•Verify gasoline performance at ANL

•Improve durability

•Improve startup time

Technical Barriers and Targets• Barriers (section 3.4.4.2)

•D – Fuel Cell Power System Benchmarking•I – Fuel Processor Startup / Transient Operation•J – Durability•K – Hydrogen Purification / Carbon Monoxide Cleanup•M – Fuel Processor System Integration and Efficiency

• Key TargetsCHARACTERISTIC 2005 TARGET•Energy Efficiency 78%•Power Density 700 W / L•Specific Power 700 W / kg•Cold Startup time <2 min•Transient Response 5 sec•Emissions <Tier 2 bin 5•Durability 5000 hours•CO content 10 ppm steady, 100 ppm transient

2003-2004 Technical Approach•Multi-fuel testing

•Performance measurements at Nuvera

•Performance verification at ANL•Testing from 50 to 200 kWth (input) on gasoline•Data useful for ANL models

•Durability improvement•Micro reactor testing of catalysts (ATR, WGS, PROX)•New design of PROX reactor

•Startup time improvement•Burner development •Controls optimization

Project Safety•Project follows company safety procedures and policies•Detailed “What if” analysis identifies possible issues from component failures and generates changes to the system P&ID•Mechanical safety devices

•Each vessel is rated for pressure and temperature with safety factor•Add pressure relief valves and burst disks where appropriate•Add check valves where appropriate•Insulation / local ventilation / warning signs to protect operators•All valves chosen to go to safe condition when de-energized

•Automated Safety systems•E-STOP code written into Data Acquisition and Control computer•Any parameter can be set to trigger a shutdown when out of normal range

•System modifications must be tracked and reviewed for safety

Program Gantt Chart

Research 1 Substrate/catalyst development and testing, compact HX development, sulfur removal technologies2 First attempt of all substrate-based fuel processor

Initial Design 3 STAR fuel processor design concept chosen 4 Fuel processor core #1 testing5 Fuel processor core #2 testing

Validation and 6 Integrated fuel processor testing on gasoline Design Iterations 7 250 hour endurance run on gasoline

8 Integrated fuel processor testing on gasoline9 Fuel processor / fuel cell integration on gasoline10 Gasoline optimization (200 kWth, 78% efficiency, 30 ppm CO)11 CNG testing (180 kWth, 75% H2 efficiency, 40 ppm CO)12 Ethanol testing (175 kWth, 77% H2 efficiency, 50 ppm CO)13 Testing at ANL14 <10 min startup demonstrated15 New PROX concept validated16 Final durability test

Research Initial Design Validation / Design Iterations1/2000 – 6/2001 6/2001 – 6/2002 6/2002 – 6/2004

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

2003-2004 Technical Accomplishments•Gasoline Testing

•200 kWth, 81±3% H2 efficiency, 10 ppm CO•CNG testing

•175 kWth, 77% H2 efficiency, 40 ppm CO•Ethanol Testing

•180 kWth, 75% H2 efficiency, 50 ppm CO•Performance verification at ANL

•50 - 200 kWth on gasoline, 76±2% H2 efficiency, 30 ppm CO•Durability improvement

•1000 hour micro reactor testing of catalysts (ATR, WGS, PROX)•New PROX reactor validated – durability being tested

•Startup improvement•New burner / controls gave <10 min startup (improved from ~25 min)

•Controls Hardware and Packaging•Work with automotive partner improves response time and shows system can be packaged in a vehicle

STAR Fuel Reforming SystemFuel: SFG Date: September 11, 2003

Gasoline Testing Results

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

14:05 14:10 14:15 14:20 14:25Time

Pow

er (k

W),

H2

Effic

ienc

y (%

)H

2 (d

ry %

), C

O (p

pmv)

ATR PowerH2 EfficiencyPrOx CO ppmH2

Prox CO (dry ppm)

ATR Thermal Power (kWth)

Hydrogen Efficency (%)

Hydrogen (dry %)

(PrOx)P

STAR Gasoline Testing200 kWth

•Gasoline Performance Verified up to 200 kWth•80% Hydrogen Efficiency •<10 ppm CO

STAR Fuel Reforming SystemFuel: CNG Date: May 30, 2003

CNG Testing Results

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

11:40 11:50 12:00 12:10 12:20 12:30 12:40 12:50Time

Pow

er (k

W),

H2

Effic

ienc

y (%

)H

2 (d

ry %

), C

O (p

pmv)

ATR PowerH2 EfficiencyPrOx CO ppmH2

Prox CO (dry ppm)

ATR Thermal Power (kWth)

Hydrogen Efficency (%)

Hydrogen (dry %)

Prox ATR HTS LTS Prox

STAR CNG Testing180 kWth

•CNG Performance Verified up to 180 kWth•77% Hydrogen Efficiency •<30 ppm CO

STAR Fuel Reforming SystemFuel: EtOH Date: June 13, 2003

Ethanol Testing Results

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

12:00 12:05 12:10 12:15 12:20 12:25 12:30 12:35 12:40 12:45 12:50 12:55Time

Pow

er (k

W),

H2

Effic

ienc

y (%

)H

2 (d

ry %

), C

O (p

pmv)

ATR PowerH2 EfficiencyPrOx CO ppmH2

Prox CO (dry ppm)

ATR Thermal Power (kWth)

Hydrogen Efficency (%)

Hydrogen (dry %)

LTS HTS ATR Prox

STAR Ethanol TestingSTAR Ethanol TestingSTAR Ethanol TestingSTAR Ethanol Testing175 kWth

•Ethanol Performance Verified up to 175 kWth•75% Hydrogen Efficiency •<50 ppm CO

ATRC Durability Testing•ATR performance steady through ~ 800 hours•Decline after 800 hours due to reactor malfunction

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 200 400 600 800 1000Time, hours

Prod

uct G

as C

ompo

sitio

n, v

ol.%

H2 H2

N2 N2

CO2 CO2

CO CO

CH4 CH4

(8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (14) ((16) (18)

WGSC Durability

•WGS showed degradation that appeared at ~ 800 hours

CatC231Conversion at 400C bed temp

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Hrs

CO

Con

vers

ion

ConversionShutdowns

PROX Catalyst Durability – 2003 vs 2004

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Time-on-Stream (hr)

Con

vers

ion

& S

elec

tivity

COSelect.

•First Prox tested showed showed gradual conversion decline over 1000 hours

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

150 200 250 300 350 400 450

Time-on-Stream (hr)

CO

Con

vers

ion

CO Shutdown

New test showing stable operation at 400 hours

New PROX Validation

New Prox to improve•Durability•Manufacturability

Initial Concept ValidatedDurability test by June 2004

FPTS Durability Test Data, 04-16-04125 kWth, Sulfur Free Gasoline

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

11:15 11:20 11:25 11:30 11:35 11:40 11:45 11:50 11:55 12:00

Time

Pow

er (k

Wth

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

CO

(ppm

)

ATR_Power_val PrOx CO ppm

Power (kWth)

PrOx CO (ppm)

Startup Time Optimization

<10 min to Low CO

•New Burner design•<10 min to low CO

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

18:46 18:48 18:50 18:52 18:54 18:56 18:58 19:00 19:02 19:04 19:06 19:08 19:10

Time

Pow

er (k

Wth

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Prox

CO

(ppm

)

PrOx CO (ppm)

ATR Power (kWth)

Date: 20 November 2003 Fuel: Sulfur Free Gasoline

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

17:37 17:42 17:47 17:52 17:57 18:02 18:07 18:12Time

Pow

er (k

Wth

)H

2 Ef

ficie

ncy

(%)

Hyd

roge

n (d

ry %

vol

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

CO

con

cent

ratio

n (p

pmv)

H2 (vol%)

ATR Power (kWth)

Hydrogen Efficiency (%)

PrOx CO (ppmv)

Controls Advancements

Interactions and CollaborationsAutomotive OEM

– Renault

National Laboratories– Argonne National Lab

Catalyst Vendors and Subcontractors– SudChemie– STC Catalysts, Inc.– Corning– EU suppliers

Sensors– NexTech Materials

Response to Reviewers’ Comments

More data in the presentations

Technology transfer

Define off-ramps in the program

Future Plans

This work– Complete durability testing by June 30, 2004– Submit Final Report

Suggestions for future DOE projects– Develop improved catalysts (and other materials) and validate

performance in integrated fuel processor

– Further cost reduction via design iterations of STAR type fuel processor

– Optimization of “systems” approach

Commercial Automotive Fuel Processor Update

StationaryEnvironment ResidentialTransportation Premium Power

Automotive Product VisionAutomotive quality Products, not laboratory prototypes!

Automotive Technology Development Roadmap

Commercialization of fuel cell systems for automotive applications requires significant improvements in technology in the followingareas

EfficiencyEmissionsPower DensitySpecific PowerStart Up TimeTransient ResponseDurabilityPackagingCostSystem Integration

2004-01-14736

Why explore onboard fuel processing?Energy Storage Density by Method

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Gasoline

Ethanol

H2 in Metal Hydride(high value)

Liquid Hydrogen(1 bar, 20 K)

H2 in Metal Hydride(low value)

Hydrogen Gas(700 bar)

Hydrogen Gas (345 bar)

Energy Density* (MJ / liter)*Based on lower heating value Not including tank volume Not including compression or refrigeration power

Why explore onboard fuel processing?

Choudhury, Raj. Well to Wells Analysis of Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems. A European Study Hart World Fuel Cells Conference. 2002

Gasoline FP/ FC Vehicle Targets are on-par with well-to-wheels CO2 from Pure H2 vehicles

!

FP/FCV Target: 100 gCO2/km

Hydrogen Infrastructure costs could be avoided with gasoline FP/FCVs or managed across a longer timeframe while still allowing proliferation of fuel cell vehicles

Gasoline FP/FCV

Hydrogen FCVs

2004-01-14737

Renault strategy

Range

Customer acceptance

Security, Reliability

Cost of system, Cost of use

Performance

Infrastructure

Fuel Processor System

Renault Choice

Renault / Nuvera program

•Fuel Cell activities started in 1992•Focused on a fuel-cell vehicle with a gasoline reforming system to be marketed after 2010.

•Fuel processing and fuel cell expertise since 1992

•Focused on transportation and stationary systems

- Onboard Fuel Processor Project- January 2002, until summer 2004- Phase 1 : laboratory prototype system

compactness, efficiency, and emissions

- Phase 2 : automotive prototype startup time, transient performance, fuel economy

Automotive Packaging StudyPackaging Study done in conjunction with automotive partner shows the system can fit on a vehicle

2004-01-147318

ConclusionsNuvera has successfully demonstrated

a fuel processor small enough and powerful enough for vehicle integration

Dramatic advancement of fuel processor technology" 10x volume reduction"Design for vehicle packaging

Proven operation"Gasoline operation"Power (33-200 kWth)"Size (75 liters)"CO (<100 ppm)"Efficiency (81%)"Pressure drop (0.5 bar)

Continuing work will build on the success so far " Further fuel processor optimization"More automotive controls"Vehicle integration