Executive SummaryTechnical and cost gap analyses were performed to identify pathways for reducing the costs of molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) and phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC) stationary fuel cell power plants. The MCFC analysis was performed by Dr. Robert Remick at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and the PAFC analysis was performed by Douglas Wheeler of DJW Technology, LLC. The MCFC developer, FuelCell Energy, Inc., of Danbury, Connecticut, provided information on the current costs of manufacturing their products and shared their vision for reducing costs by 2020. The PAFC developer, UTC Power, Inc., provided insight into opportunities for cost reduction that could yield to additional technology advancement, but were more circumspect in providing proprietary cost data. This gap analysis is the follow-on to the results obtained at the MCFC/PAFC Research and Development (R&D) Workshop held in Palm Springs, California, on November 16, 2009, as a pre-meeting to the Fuel Cell Seminar.No single issue was identified in the MCFC analysis presented here that could achieve major cost reductions. However, results show that significant cost reductions can be achieved through technical advancements on several fronts. The three most important MCFC R&D areas to be addressed are 1) extending stack life to 10 years, 2) increasing power density by 20%, and 3) significantly reducing the cost for contaminant removal from fuel streams, especially from renewable fuel streams. Results also support, to some extent, the claim that volume production will bring down costs. However, even under the most optimistic circumstances, it is not likely that first costs for an MCFC power plant can be brought much below $2,000/kW.One issue identified in the PAFC analysis that certainly ranks high is platinum costs. At 10% to 15% of the current installed costs of a PAFC power plant, platinum costs represent an Achilles heel of the PAFC technology, as pointed out in the MCFC/PAFC Workshop. In the case of the current PAFC power plants marketed by UTC Power, a reduction in fabrication costs also represents an opportunity for cost reduction. Here, cost reduction can be achieved through innovative redesign of processes and formulations to lower the cost of manufacturing the PAFCs. As with the MCFC power plant, an increase in PAFC power density would help reduce costs. In this instance, solving the anion adsorption problem at the fuel cell cathode would bring about a 20% increase in power density and a concomitant decrease in the cost per kilowatt of the existing technology. It is also important to note that no clear pathway was identified for the PAFC that would lead to power plant costs below $2,000/kW.One of the most important issues identified, and one that is not specific to any fuel cell type, is contaminant removal. Development of a cost-effective process for removing contaminants, especially those found in renewable fuels, would have an impact well beyond the fuel cell communities. , is currently marketing a 400-kW PAFC p...

Platinum alloy catalysts (Pt05Co0.3Cr0.2) were supported on carbon to achieve 10, 15, and 20% platinum. The oxygen-reduction performances of these supported catalysts were evaluated for phosphoric acid fuel-cell cathodes. The higher mass fractions of catalyst allow for thinner catalyst layers. Theoretical modeling predicts improved performance under some conditions. The platinum alloy catalysts were fabricated into electrodes, and improved performance was seen experimentally in a half-cell apparatus.

-10 kW CHP stationary fuel cell systems and to comment on the achievability of cost, efficiency, and durability targets. The Independent Review Panel evaluated the three independent fuel cell technologies that are being developed to address the market needs of 1-10 kW CHP stationary systems: low-temperature proton exchange membrane (LT-PEM) fuel cell systems operating, for the most part, in a temperature range of 60°-90°C; high temperature PEM (HT-PEM) fuel cell systems operating in a temperature range of 130°-180°C; and solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) systems operating in a temperature range of 550°-1,000°C.Stakeholder claims regarding the current status for efficiency, cost, and durability varied widely within each of these three technologies. DOE reports the 2008 status of electrical efficiency, CHP efficiency, and durability at 34%, 80%, and 6,000 hours, respectively (see Table 2). Those values are representative of or even on the low end of demonstrated results. On the other hand, the stakeholders claimed that the reported 2008 status for factory cost ($750/kW) is low, especially for the low end of the 1-10 kW range.

No abstract

No abstract