Ceramic Opportunities in Fuel Cells
By Christine L. Grahl, grahlk@bnp.com
Posted on: 06/01/2002
Within the past year, interest in fuel cells—both on the part of industry and the general public—has increased significantly. Once embraced primarily for their ability to minimize air pollution and conserve hydrocarbon fuels, fuel cells have recently gained even more popularity for their potential to reduce or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil through their ability to use a variety of different fuels. Automotive companies alone have spent an estimated $4.5 billion in the development of this new technology, and companies associated with the portable and stationary power industries have also invested heavily in fuel cell research and development. These days, you don’t have to look far to find a company that is pursuing some sort of technology related to fuel cells, whether on the supply or the manufacturing end, and new investments in fuel cell development are announced in press conferences and the general news media on a regular basis.
But how much of the publicity surrounding fuel cells is hype, and how much is reality? And what role will ceramics play in this new energy regime?
While the answers to these and other questions surrounding fuel cells remain largely a matter of speculation, one thing is certain: The potential for fuel cells—and for ceramic applications in fuel cells—is enormous. Some experts estimate that the market for fuel cells will reach $95 billion in 2010. Although a number of hurdles must be overcome before that level of market penetration can occur, the door is wide open for those who are willing to take on the challenge.
Fuel Cell Types
A fuel cell is an electrochemical energy conversion device that converts hydrogen and oxygen into electricity and heat. It is very much like a battery that can be recharged while power is being drawn from it. However, instead of recharging using electricity, a fuel cell uses hydrogen and oxygen.
A fuel cell consists of two electrodes, an anode and a cathode, separated by an electrolyte. Power is produced electrochemically when ions (charged particles) are formed at one end of the electrodes with the aid of a catalyst, and are then passed through the electrolyte. The current produced can be used for electricity.
A number of different types of fuel cells are currently in development, including phosphoric acid (PAFCs), molton carbonate (MCFCs), proton exchange membrane (PEMs), direct methanol (DMFCs) and solid oxide (SOFCs). Each type operates within a different temperature range and with varying levels of efficiency, making it suitable for use in different applications. PAFCs, which are considered the “first generation” of modern-day fuel cell technologies, are already being used around the world for applications in hospitals, nursing homes, hotels, office buildings, schools, utility power plants, an airport terminal, landfills and wastewater treatment plants. Over the past 20 years, however, advanced generations of fuel cell technologies, such as MCFCs, PEMs and SOFCs, have captured a large share of the spotlight. Of these technologies, SOFCs, which incorporate ceramic-based electrolytes as well as ceramic anode and cathode materials, hold the most promise for the ceramic industry.
For the past several years, a great deal of attention in the automotive industry has been focused on PEMs (which contain no ceramic components) because of their low operating temperatures (80C/175F). However, one ceramic manufacturer that has been carefully following the markets noted that the major automotive manufacturers are now looking away from PEMs and toward SOFCs because of the latter’s ability to use commonly available fossil fuels, such as natural gas, gasoline, diesel and kerosene, at low cost. PEMs, on the other hand, require highly refined hydrogen—a fuel that will be difficult to obtain without a completely new infrastructure.
According to Bruce Godfrey, managing director of Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd., Noble Park, Victoria, Australia, “SOFCs have the best prospects for a broad and deep range of products covering a wide variety of applications, and they don’t need a hydrogen economy to arrive to underpin their usefulness.”
The U.S. government is also actively pursuing SOFC technology. The Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA), coordinated by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, is working to create a low-cost, high-efficiency SOFC technology by 2010 for stationary, military and transportation applications. According to the SECA, the advantages of SOFCs include their high efficiency (40-60% efficiency in individual electric systems and up to 80% in hybrid systems) and fuel flexibility.
Challenges to SOFC Commercialization
Despite the growing popularity of SOFCs, a number of challenges bar the way to full commercialization of the technology. According to Jim Miller, manager of the Electrochemical Technology Program at Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., high manufacturing costs and slow start-up times are the biggest factors. “Both of these are tied to the development of a lower-temperature form of SOFC,” Miller said. “Traditionally, SOFCs have operated at 1000C. We’re trying to get them down to 600-700C. At these lower temperatures, a composite structure can be used in which the electrodes and electrolytes are still ceramics, but the separator plates are metallic. This design provides a combination of metal toughness with the ionic transport [capabilities] of ceramic electrolytes.”
Miller also noted that there is a need for new, lower-cost materials and design changes that reduce the number of small parts and make the fuel cells easier to fabricate. “Another problem is building up enough volume so that you can get the economies of scale to make production less expensive,” he said.
According to Walter Garff, vice president of sales and marketing for Tal Materials, Inc., Ann Arbor, Mich., materials suppliers will play a key role in the success of SOFCs. “To some extent, [fuel cell developers] have to work with what they can get, and there are so many variables to take into consideration. I think that’s where we as suppliers have an opportunity—to make some of the more exotic materials on a direct production scale, and to make them cost effective,” Garff said. Tal Materials, NexTech Materials, Ltd., Magnesium Elektron Inc. (MEI), Tosoh Ceramics Division and Zirconia Sales (America) Inc. are just a few of the many suppliers that are working to provide the required materials.
Equipment manufacturers are also getting on board. Companies such as Harrop Industries Inc., Harper International Corp. and PSC Inc., are following the industry closely in an effort to develop technologies that will facilitate the manufacture of SOFCs and other types of fuel cells.
“As a custom kiln builder and a custom equipment purveyor, we think there is great promise in the fuel cell industry,” said Dan O’Brien, vice president of Harrop. “We’re working closely with clients and potential clients to try to understand all of the limitations that are out there, and how our equipment can help overcome those limitations.”
Boundless Opportunities
Most fuel cell developers agree that wide scale commercialization of fuel cells probably won’t occur until at least 2010 or later, and it is unclear which technology will capture the largest market share. According to Miller, “There is no single specific technical approach that is clearly superior in terms of what the ultimate successful design is going to be. Instead, a variety of fuel cell types will be used in various sectors of the market, because different types have different advantages.”
Even if SOFCs do not emerge as the biggest player, ceramics will likely find applications in other areas related to fuel cells. For example, Argonne’s Energy Technology Division has developed a ceramic membrane that can extract hydrogen from methane, the chief component of natural gas. This would provide a market for ceramics with the use of low-temperature fuel cells, such as PEMs. According to Steve Campbell, marketing director of NexTech Materials, Ltd., Worthington, Ohio, ceramic materials might also be used as catalysts in PEMs and other fuel cells.
One thing is clear: the opportunities for fuel cells, and for ceramics in fuel cells, are limited only by the imaginations of those who are pursing the technology. According to Campbell, manufacturers looking to get into the industry should learn as much as they can about the different technologies and be open to alternatives.
“Ceramic manufacturers that want to become involved in this market have to gain an understanding of fuel cells and how they work, and what the limitations are,” Campbell said. “Partnerships and relationships will be key—on the supply side, starting with the raw materials; to the intermediate processing side, where the raw materials are converted into the fuel cell material; and on the end use side, working with automotive companies, electric utilities and other potential users of fuel cells to determine their needs and challenges.”
Author's Note
This article is not intended to be a comprehensive overview of the companies involved in fuel cell technology. Manufacturers should contact their material or equipment supplier to find out whether the supplier is developing products related to fuel cell manufacturing. Information for this article was obtained from the sources quoted, as well as from fuel cell developers’ websites and the U.S. Department of Energy.
To add your company's name to the list of related websites below, e-mail grahlk@bnp.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Websites
Accumentrics Corp. www.accumentrics.com
Argonne National Laboratory www.anl.gov
Ben Wiens, Applied Energy Scientist www.benwiens.com/energy4.html#energy1.8
Ceramatec, Inc. www.ceramatec.com
Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd. www.cfcl.com.au
FuelCell Info www.fuelcell-info.com
Fuel Cell Online www.fuelcellonline.com
Global Thermoelectric www.globalte.com
Harper International Corp. www.harperintl.com
Harrop Industries Inc. www.harropusa.com
Magnesium Elektron Inc. (MEI) www.zrchem.com/conmag.htm
The National Energy Technology Laboratory www.fetc.doe.gov
NexTech Materials, Ltd. www.nextechmaterials.com
The Online Fuel Cell Information Center www.fuelcells.org
PSC Inc. www.pscrfheat.com
Siemens Power Generation www.pg.siemens.com/en/fuelcells
Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance www.seca.doe.gov/
Tal Materials, Inc. www.talmaterials.com
Tosoh Ceramics Division www.tosoh.com
The University of California, Irvine’s National Fuel Cell Research Center www.nfcrc.uci.edu/
The U.S. Department of Defense www.dodfuelcell.com
The U.S. Department of Energy’s Fossil Energy organization www.fe.doe.gov/coal_power/fuelcells/index.shtml
The U.S. Fuel Cell Council www.usfcc.com
The U.S. Office of Distributed Energy Resources www.eren.doe.gov/der/fuel_cells.html
UTC Fuel Cells www.utcfuelcells.com
Zirconia Sales (America) Inc. www.amverco.com
Christine Grahl is the Editor of Ceramic Industry magazine. She can be contacted at 3610 Elmview St., West Bloomfield, MI 48324; (248) 366-2503 or fax (248) 366-2504.
ceramicindustry.com ... original link with ...
A series of solid oxide fuel cells. Photo courtesy of Ceramic Fuel Cells Ltd., Noble Park, Victoria, Australia.
Global Thermoelectric Posts Second Quarter Results, Achieves New Milestone
(7/26/2002)
July 16, 2002–-Global Thermoelectric Inc. today announced operational and financial results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2002. The company hosted a conference call this morning to discuss the results which may be accessed through Company's web site at www.globalte.com.
The Company reported their system development and prototyping program achieved another milestone with the successful assembly and initial testing of three latest generation prototype 2 kW fuel cell systems as part of its partnership with Enbridge Inc. ("Enbridge") to develop residential fuel cell products.
In early July, Enbridge and Global agreed to proceed with testing of these three prototype systems in Global's Calgary facility prior to shipment to Enbridge's Toronto facility. Although the test plan remains the same, more timely and comprehensive testing data can be obtained within Global's laboratories.
While Global's system prototyping initiatives have received much attention, the underlying importance of the key system components and core technology has not been emphasized. These are critical to long term product commercialization success.
Global said the first priority of their management team is to rapidly develop and refine this core technology to ensure progress to ultimate commercialization. At the present time, for example, there are four parallel stack development initiatives underway to optimize stack performance, manufacturability, dependability and cost.
Development of Global's fuel cell manufacturing capability progressed on target in the current quarter. In particular, Global's kiln, used in the process of manufacturing individual fuel cell membranes, was modified to accommodate a greater throughput of cells. As a result, the Company will be able to demonstrate production of 2,500 cell membranes per week later this year.
In a statement the company highlighted the following:
Financial Results –- Discussion and Analysis
Revenue from thermoelectric generator sales and service for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 increased 125% to $5.4 million compared to $2.4 million for the second quarter of 2001. The Company was successful in collecting, in full, a $2.0 million contractual holdback related to its India contract.
Revenues in the current quarter also included strong U.S. and other international sales, offsetting a reduction in orders from western Canada due to a seasonal decrease in industry natural gas drilling activity.
The gross margin from continuing operations was $2.6 million, or 46.9 percent of revenue in the quarter, compared to $0.6 million or 26.4 percent of revenue for the quarter ended June 30, 2001.
The Company reported $0.8 million of investment income in the quarter from cash and short-term investments, compared to $1.6 million in the second quarter of 2001. The reduction in investment income parallels the reduction in interest rates, on a year-over-year basis, on the Company's conservative money market investments, and to a lesser extent, a decrease in the Company's cash and short-term investment reserves. Recent increases in short-term interest rates will have a positive impact on the Company's investment income over the next year.
As anticipated, research, engineering and development costs rose to $6.4 million, of which fuel cell expenditures comprised $6.1 million. This compares to research, engineering and development costs of $3.6 million, including $3.3 million of fuel cell expenditures in the second quarter of 2001.
The Company increased its personnel count in the fuel cell division to 181 people at June 30, 2002 compared to 107 employees at June 30, 2001. Including support and ancillary personnel, Global currently has approximately 200 personnel employed in or supporting its fuel cell initiatives. As in the previous quarter, increased prototype building and testing activities also contributed to the higher fuel cell expenditures in the quarter.
Marketing expenses, which relate to the Company's generator division, increased $53,000 reflecting an increase in revenues over the comparative period.
General and administrative expenses increased $0.3 million to $1.3 million in the current quarter, reflective of additional systems and infrastructure required to support the growth of the Company's fuel cell division.
Business development expenses were $0.4 million in the quarter compared to $0.3 million. The increase reflects a continued focus on creating additional strategic alliance relationships and efforts to strategically expand the Company's thermoelectric generator business.
Depreciation expense increased to $0.8 million compared to $0.4 million in the second quarter of 2001. Capital expenditures in the fuel cell division over the past year accounted for the increase in year-over-year depreciation expenses. The Company also accelerated by $0.1 million depreciation on a piece of equipment in its generator division.
The planned increase in fuel cell research and product development expenditures partially offset by significant earnings in Global's generator division contributed to a net loss from continuing operations of $6.5 million ($0.24 per share) for the quarter ended June 30, 2002, compared to a net loss from continuing operations of $4.0 million ($0.14 per share) for the quarter ended June 30, 2001.
For the six months ended June 30, 2002, the Company reported revenues from continuing operations of $9.9 million compared to $8.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2001. The second quarter receipt of the India holdback contributed to the increase in revenues from the prior year. A net loss of $12.9 million ($0.47 per share) from continuing operations was incurred in the first six months of 2002, compared to a net loss from continuing operations of $4.2 million ($0.16 per share) in the similar period of the prior year.
In spite of improved profitability in our generator division, increased research and product development expenditures together with lower investment income accounted for a higher loss in the current period.
Capital resources and liquidity
At June 30, 2002 the Company had cash and short-term investments of $107.8 million compared to $121.1 million at December 31, 2001. Short-term investments are defined as investments maturing (or expected to be held) longer than three months from the initial date of purchase.
The Company adheres to a conservative investment strategy with its cash and short-term investments, limiting its investments to Canadian government and bank securities and high-grade commercial paper.
While the Company believes it has sufficient cash reserves to fund its fuel cell commercialization initiatives for the next two to three years, efforts are underway to ensure the most cost effective process for product commercialization is strictly adhered to.
To that end, the Company believes that its fuel cell commercialization expenditures will level off in 2002, with marginal increases in expenditures anticipated in 2003.
Investing Activities
Capital expenditures were $1.8 million in the current quarter, compared to $0.7 million in the second quarter of 2001. Expenditures related primarily to the purchase of test stands used in our fuel cell development and testing initiatives.
Global Thermoelectric Inc. is a world leader in the development of SOFC products. The Company is also the world's largest manufacturer and distributor of thermoelectric power generators for use in remote locations. Global is developing fuel cell products that are compatible with natural gas or propane. The Company is currently prototyping systems to address residential and remote applications. Global is listed on The Toronto Stock Exchange (stock symbol: GLE).
The company has posted a copy of the complete financial statement on its website at www.globalte.com.
eyeforfuelcells.com
GM Submits Study on Fuel Cell Vehicles at European Conference
(7/29/2002)
July 29, 2002–- General Motors, with input from several energy companies and Ludwig Bolkow Systemtechnik (LBST), a research institute in Ottobrunn, Germany, presented initial results today from a comprehensive study assessing the effect of greenhouse gas emissions at a leading fuels conference.
The study, released at the Hart World Fuel Conference, assessed fuel sources, proc-essing techniques and propulsion systems. A total of 36 fuel pathways and 18 propulsion concepts examined for the 2010 timeframe, from conventional engines to advanced concepts, were analyzed under European driving conditions.
The study assessed energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, but not costs.
Experts examined the complete chain, from the production of fuels from their basic feedstock components to the actual consumption of the fuel in the car, what scientists call "well-to-wheel" analysis.
LBST acted as a scientific advisor and consultant. BP, ExxonMobil, Shell and Total-FinaElf energy companies provided additional data and analysis.
A principal finding of the study was that fuel cell vehicles using hydrogen produced from natural gas could be attractive in terms of well-to-wheel gas emission depending on the source of the natural gas. However, optimum results are realized when renewable energies such as biomass or wind power are used to produce the hydrogen.
This project is a sequel to the North American Well-to-Wheels study published by GM, BP, ExxonMobil, Shell and Argonne National Labs last year analyzing the impact of energy sources and alternative propulsion systems in North America.
In that study, a Chevrolet Silverado pickup was used as a reference vehicle. That study reached similar conclusions and is now regarded as a reference work in worldwide discussions on transport-related greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption. In the new study, the original method-ology was applied in a European context for both fuel and vehicle.
"We based our additional research work, which took over a year, on the Opel Zafira minivan, European driving conditions, and our understanding of the European energy supply situation," explained Raj Choudhury, project manager for the study at a GM research center in Mainz-Kastel, Germany.
The vehicle data for the European study was compiled by GM scientist, Trudy We-ber:
"The Zafira proved to be the ideal reference vehicle, since it already exists with gasoline, diesel, compressed natural gas (CNG) and fuel cell propulsion systems. We forecasted the powertrain system characteristics for the 2010 time frame and imposed the constraint that all 18 vehicle variants examined be able to meet the same set of stringent, customer-based performance criteria over the European drive cycle (EDC)."
"For the first time, this provided us with a realistic and comparable basis for energy use and net greenhouse gas emissions in a European context," Weber said.
On the fuel side, a variety of different pathways were considered. They can be put into four basic groups, based on their source of feedstock: crude oil, natural gas, electricity - from both traditional power stations and renewable sources - and biomass.
The study found that on a well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions basis, the best use for natural gas was to reform it to obtain hydrogen for use in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
To a lesser extent, natural gas offered improvements relative to conventional gasoline and diesel systems when used to fuel compressed natural gas vehicles.
The use of hydrogen from natural gas in internal combustion engines actually produces poorer well-to-wheel results than do conventional gasoline engines.
"The best alternative, however, is to produce hydrogen from renewably generated electricity - e.g. wind power - and use it in a fuel cell. This will essentially eliminate well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions," says Dr. Erhard Schubert, Co-director of GM's Fuel Cell Activities.
The complete study will be concluded and published this summer. The focus for the GM team now turns to addressing commercialization challenges faced by fuel cell vehicles and the hydrogen infrastructure, including cost and availability issues.
"It's clear fuel cells have much more promise than any other propulsion option, especially when if renewable energy is used in the production of hydrogen as a suitable infrastructure becomes available," says GM Vice President Larry Burns, responsible for research & development and planning at General Motors. "That is why we intend to do everything we can to produce a fuel cell car that is both affordable for the customer and economically viable for us by the end of this decade."
eyeforfuelcells.com |
