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
Top Related