Fuel Cells: Current Technology Challenges and Future Research Needs

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

Dedication

Preface

Chapter 1. Introduction

1.1 William Grove Invents the Fuel Cell

1.2 Fuel Cells: Commercial Success Remains Elusive

1.3 The Unfulfilled Promise

References

Chapter 2. Fuel Cells and the Challenges Ahead

2.1 What Is A Fuel Cell?

2.2 Types Of Fuel Cells: Distinct Technologies

2.3 Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cells

2.4 Direct Methanol Fuel Cells

2.5 Alkaline Fuel Cells

2.6 Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells

2.7 Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells

2.8 Solid Oxide Fuel Cells

References

Chapter 3. History of Alkaline Fuel Cells

3.1 Overview

3.2 Francis T. Bacon Builds The First Alkaline Fuel Cell

3.3 AFC Development in the United States

3.4 AFC Development in Europe: Decades of Work With No Significant Consequence….But Some Field Tests Continue

3.5 AFC Development in Russia: Sustained Effort, But With Little Commercial Success

3.6 AFC Development in Japan: Limited Activities of No Consequence….But A New Effort Emerges

References

Chapter 4. History of Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells

4.1 Overview

4.2 PAFC Development in the United States: 25 Years of Government Programs Fail to Produce a Cost-Competitive PAFC System

4.3 PAFC Development in Japan

4.4 PAFC Development in Other Countries: Primarily Test-Operating US and Japanese PAFC Power Plants

References

Chapter 5. History of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells

5.1 MCFC Effort Starts in the Netherlands in the 1950S

5.2 MCFC Development in the United States

5.3 MCFC Development in Japan

5.4 MCFC Development in Europe

5.5 MCFC Development in South Korea

References

Chapter 6. History of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells

6.1 Introduction

6.2 US Department of Energy Initiates SOFC R&D Program in 1977

6.3 Japan Launches SOFC Research in Wake of Oil Crisis

6.4 Europe Restarts SOFC Development in 1986

6.5 Other Countries

6.6 Japan Emerges as the Global SOFC Leader; the United States and Europe Follow Behind

References

Chapter 7. History of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells and Direct Methanol Fuel Cells

7.1 Introduction

7.2 US National Aeronautics and Space Administration Boosts GE’S PEMFC R&D in the late 1950S

7.3 Canadian Government Decides to Foster Domestic PEMFC Capabilities in the Early 1980S

7.4 A Global Fuel Cell Race Begins

7.5 The Global Fuel Cell Race So Far Fails to Attain Commercial Success

References

Chapter 8. Strengths and Weaknesses of Major Government Fuel Cell R&D Programs: Europe, Japan, and the United States

8.1 Fuel Cell R&D Expenditure: Japan Invests the Most

8.2 Consistency in Policy and Programs: Japan is the Most Constant and Stable

8.3 Soundness Of Program Evaluation: US Evaluation Is The Least Valuable

8.4 Resilience in Industry: Europe is the Least Sturdy

8.5 Fuel Cell Patenting Activity

8.6 The Global Fuel Cell Leader Today

References

Chapter 9. Policy Recommendations

9.1 Difficulties of Perfecting Fuel Cell Technology Never Understood

9.2 Until Recently, Science and Physics too Immature for Fundamental Understanding of Fuel Cell

9.3 Fuel Cell Knowledge Requires Multiple Scientific Disciplines…But Few Institutions have Interdisciplinary Research Capabilities

9.4 Fuel Cell Development Requires Three Levels of Research: Basic Research Supported by Applied Research and Product Development

9.5 Fuel Cell too Valuable to Abandon: Go Back to Basics Now

9.6 Learning from Past Experience to Plan Future Course of Action

9.7 Policy Recommendations: Implementation of the National Fuel Cell Development Project

References

Abbreviations

Index

Copyright

Elsevier

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, UK

30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA

525 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA

First edition 2013

Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Science & Technology Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (+44) (0) 1865 843830; fax (+44) (0) 1865 853333; email: permissions@elsevier.com. Alternatively you can submit your request online by visiting the Elsevier web site at http://elsevier.com/locate/permissions, and selecting Obtaining permission to use Elsevier material

Notice

No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, in particular, independent verification of diagnoses and drug dosages should be made

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

ISBN: 978-0-444-56325-5

For information on all Elsevier publications visit our web site at store.elsevier.com

Printed and bound in Great Britain

13 14 15 16 17 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Dedication

I dedicate this book to:

My father, Riichi Hikosaka, a physicist and industrialist from the Imperial Kyoto University who died too soon with his dreams and aspirations cut short.

My mother, Chiyo Hikosaka, a teacher and a devout Catholic and Buddhist, who raised three cosmopolitan daughters on her own, Nobuko residing in Japan, Satoko in Germany, and me in the United States.

My husband, Thomas, an insightful analyst, former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, and a patient and loving husband, who taught me how to write English from scratch, starting with a single sentence, then a paragraph, and ultimately a book.

Preface

I have worked as an analyst on science and technology policy for many years, both in and out of government.

My interest in fuel cell technology has been more recent, however. In 2000, I saw major fuel cell programs being pursued around the globe. I wrote some papers on the subjects, which were noticed by the White House and led to the FreedomCar Initiative and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative in 2002 and 2003. These initiatives were designed to promote the development of fuel cell cars and encourage the construction of needed hydrogen fuel supply infrastructure. Since then, I have become an enthusiastic observer of fuel cell developments worldwide.

The fuel cell industry has seen many ups and downs. Many companies dedicated a lot of hard work and billions of dollars to develop fuel cell technology. Many governments also recognized the promise of fuel cells and worked in tandem with industry. The world watched these developments with great hope and expectations. But these efforts did not deliver on their promise. To date, major impediments to fuel cell commercialization remain; fuel cells still have insufficient longevity, reliability, and have unacceptably high cost.

With sadness and disappointment, I started to wonder why fuel cell technology has not become commercially successful. After all, fuel cells were invented in 1839, more than 170 years ago. Many technologies such as airplanes, computers, and automobiles, have been successfully commercialized much sooner than that. I concluded that fuel cell technology must be a more complex and challenging technology than any of these other examples and that few in the industry appreciated the difficulties they faced. I started to realize that the challenges of fuel cell technology derive from complex physical and chemical processes taking place at the atomic level within the fuel cell and its supporting components. These processes span the seams that define traditional scientific and engineering disciplines and therefore are much more difficult to master than problems that can be addressed within a single discipline.

Perhaps no advanced technology on the market today requires the scale, magnitude, and range of scientific, physical, and engineering knowledge as do fuel cells. Only recently have fuel cell researchers begun to recognize the true complexity of the technology. Perhaps modern science has progressed to the point that researchers are now ready to explore and discover the secrets of fuel cell, how it works, why it works, and how it can be made to work cheaply, reliably, and efficiently.

That is why I wrote this book. It took five years of research and writing to document the story of fuel cells, including the many impressive accomplishments of researchers and companies worldwide who have worked to master the technology. The book describes many unfortunate stories of companies that ultimately gave up and abandoned their fuel cell research. It evaluates the successes and failures of government policy to promote fuel cell development, and explains why government policies were unable to build the needed foundation for its commercial success. Finally, the book provides policymakers in every country a set of recommendations as to what they can do to change the current situation and help realize the ultimate promise of fuel cell technology.

I have made every effort to ensure that the material contained in this document is current, complete, and accurate. Nonetheless, errors and mistakes undoubtedly exist in the text. I apologize for any such errors and hope they will be forgiven. My intention is sincere, and I take full responsibility for the conclusions in this book. I also thank those companies which so kindly provided photographs of their automobiles, buses, and power generation systems and granted their permission for reprinting. Because of page length limitations I was unable to use them. I am very sorry for this and hope you will understand.

Lastly but not the least, I would like to thank Dr. Mark Williams, former DOE fuel cell manager and a prominent international fuel cell leader, for his kind guidance and assistance. I am particularly grateful for his fairness and understanding of my analytical judgments, which I know occasionally conflict with his own experiences.

Chapter 1

Introduction

Outline

1.1. William Grove Invents the Fuel Cell

1.2. Fuel Cells: Commercial Success Remains Elusive

1.3. The Unfulfilled Promise

1.1 William Grove Invents the Fuel Cell

The fuel cell was invented in 1839 by William Grove (1811–1890). Grove was a scientist and a lawyer in the courts of Common Law (Fig. 1.1). He was born in Swansea, Wales, and became a barrister at Lincoln’s Inn and a member of the Royal Institution of Great Britain.¹ He later became a professor of experimental philosophy at the Royal Institution in London and then its vice-president. He subsequently was knighted and became a Lord Justice of the Queen’s Bench.

FIGURE 1.1 Portrait of William Robert Grove (1811–1896): Father of the fuel cell.

Source: Smithsonian Institution Libraries, US, 2012.

William Grove invented two electrochemical cells, the first in 1839 and the second in 1844. In the days before electrical distribution networks became available, batteries were the only practical source of electricity, and his intent was to invent a robust, practical battery. The first invention, the gas voltaic battery, was similar to conventional batteries in its compositions and purpose, but was based on an entirely new concept of electric generation, and indeed became the forerunner of fuel cells.

In 1839, Grove observed the production of an electric current in his experimental setup.² In the experiment, the two platinum electrodes were submerged halfway into a beaker of aqueous sulfuric acid, and tubes were inverted over each of the electrodes, one containing hydrogen gas and the other containing oxygen gas (Fig. 1.2). When the tubes were lowered, the gases displaced the electrolyte, leaving only a thin coating of the acid solution on the electrode. A galvanometer deflected to indicate a flow of electrons between the two electrodes, leading Grove to claim that his device produced a voltaic current.³ He published this process in Philosophical Magazine.² Three years later, Grove described in his paper that electric energy was generated at the three-phase contact where the liquid, gas, and platinum met; he sought to extend this contact by coating the electrodes with spongy platinum.

• The process was exactly the reverse of a process, electrolysis—discovered in 1800 by British scientists William Nicholson and Anthony Carlisle—that split water into hydrogen and oxygen by electricity. According to Grove, combining the gases to produce electricity and water was a step further that any hitherto recorded.⁴

• Grove, however, could not explain the basic principles underlying the behavior of fuel cells. Grove demonstrated strong evidence that producing an electric current required both hydrogen and oxygen, but did not understand why the fuel cell produced heat and novel gaseous and liquid products.⁴

FIGURE 1.2 Sketch of William Grove’s 1839 fuel cell.

Source: 1839 William Grove Fuel Cell.jpg, File, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1839_William_Grove_Fuel_Cell.jpg, Wikipedia, no date, accessed March 2012. Originally published in the article authored by W. R. Grove, On a Gaseous Voltaic Battery, LXXII, Third Series, the London, Edinburgh And Dublin Philosophical Magazine And Journal Of Science, Richard and John E. Taylor, London, December 1842. (For the color version of this figure, the reader is referred to the online version of this book.)

Grove also reported on other experiments on fuel cells.² He experimented with stronger sulfuric acid, hydrogen, and air for oxygen. He also reported on a hydrogen–chlorine fuel cell and established that different hydrocarbon fuels, such as camphor, oils, ether, and alcohol, produced electricity. He foresaw the fuel cell as a possible source of commercial electricity, especially if hydrogen as a fuel could be replaced by coal, wood, or other combustibles. He, however, was troubled by the lack of reliability in cell performance. He also was unable to build a fuel cell that generated enough electricity to serve as a practical source of electricity. Grove, thus, never made an effort to commercialize the invention.⁵

Grove, however, made a major commercial success out of his second invention, the Grove cell, which became a popular battery for the telegraph industry. Grove’s invention in the year 1844 consisted of a zinc anode dipped in sulfuric acid and a platinum cathode dipped in nitric acid, separated by porous earthenware.⁶ The Grove cell provided a high current and nearly twice the voltage of the Daniell cell and became the favorite battery of the early American telegraph (1840–1860).⁵

The first battery in history was invented in 1800 by Alessandro Volta. It was of great value for science, but was unsafe to handle because of sulfuric acid in the battery and the power of the cell diminished over time. Later batteries, starting with John Frederic Daniell’s wet cell in 1836, provided more reliable currents and were adopted by industries for use in stationary devices, particularly in telegraph networks.⁶

• As telegraphic traffic increased, however, it was found that the Grove cell discharged poisonous nitric dioxide gas.⁵ Platinum was also very expensive. The Grove cell was replaced by the cheaper, safer, and better performing gravity cell in the 1860s.

1.2 Fuel Cells: Commercial Success Remains Elusive

William Grove probably never expected that his invention would keep the global science and technology community excited as well as exasperated for the next 170 years. Since Grove’s invention, scientists, engineers, and businessmen have dreamed that the fuel cell could deliver low cost, clean energy to power factories, homes, cars, appliances—virtually anything that uses electric power. Despite the best of intentions, this dream remains unfulfilled.

In the first 100 years after Grove’s invention, many notable European scientists followed his footsteps and attempted to develop a fuel cell with commercial viability. They explored various electrolytes and electrodes that could produce an electric current reliably and inexpensively. They also experimented with a variety of fuels, including wood, oil, coal, and coal gas. Coal was the major source of fuel in the nineteenth century, readily and easily available for public consumption at that time. Thus, the possibility of using coal in fuel cells drew particular interest among researchers and developers. Indeed, they experimented with nearly every type of fuel cell chemistry and physical design, many of which foreshadowed the fuel cells that we know of today. These researchers, however, realized that there were too many hurdles to overcome before fuel cells could be reliable and inexpensive enough to be commercialized. Over time enthusiasm for the device gradually withered away. By the end of the nineteenth century, the internal combustion engine was invented, and the fuel cell was relegated to the status of a scientific curiosity.⁷

By the mid-1900s, however, fuel cell technologies started to make significant progress, and some fuel cells began to serve practical functions. The first fuel cell used in practical application was the alkaline fuel cell (AFC) developed by British scientist Sir Francis Bacon. Bacon’s AFC technology was licensed by a US company, which developed it as the source of onboard power and drinking water for its Apollo lunar missions in 1962. A number of companies, both in the United States and Europe, sprang into action and began developing terrestrial applications of AFCs. They produced a number of prototype AFC products, but were unable to bring them to the commercial market. They found AFCs intolerant of carbon dioxide, which is omnipresent on Earth, and thus concluded AFCs to be unsuitable for terrestrial applications. Many companies abandoned AFC development by the 1970s.

In the mid-1970s, phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFCs) came to be recognized as better suited for stationary, terrestrial applications. A number of US companies launched R&D of PAFCs. The US Government and electric and gas utilities started to assist those companies by funding their R&D and demonstrations. Japan eagerly followed the US footsteps and tried to learn the PAFC technology. By the mid-1980s, attention focused on molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs) and by the 1990s on solid oxide fuel cells. Also in the mid-1990s, proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) came to be viewed as the most exciting technology; in fact, researchers and developers were able to build an automobile powered by hydrogen-fueled PEMFCs.

Unfortunately, however, none of these fuel cells achieved commercial success on any major scale. PAFCs entered the market in the early 1990s as the first generation fuel cell technology to be commercialized. A few hundred power plants were installed, but sales of most of them were completed with government and public subsidies. MCFCs also hit the market as second generation fuel cells in the early 2000. A small number of stationary power generation systems have been sold, also with subsidies. PEMFCs have been put on the commercial market recently; they are used as a small stationary power plant and the power source for material handling vehicles and emergency backup power systems. A subtype of PEMFCs, direct methanol fuel cells, is also under development for portable applications to power small electronic devices. Fuel cell researchers and developers, however, are still struggling to develop reliable, durable, and inexpensive fuel cells that are competitive with conventional power generation technologies.

1.3 The Unfulfilled Promise

Fuel cell technology is an extraordinary, revolutionary technology. Without question, the development of a commercially feasible fuel cell technology would set off a marked change in the world that truly could be called a paradigm shift.

Fuel cells are singularly remarkable in their potential for efficiently converting the energy that is locked up in chemical bonds to electrical energy. This efficiency is achieved because fuel cells convert the chemical energy contained in a fuel into electrical energy in a single step, extracting more useful energy from the same amount of fuel than any other known device. An internal combustion engine, for example, requires several steps: converting chemical energy contained in gasoline to thermal energy via combustion, using thermal energy to expand gases within the engine’s cylinders, and then converting the high pressure gas to mechanical energy via the pistons and drive train. Because conventional internal combustion engines rely on so many energy conversion steps, they are inherently inefficient and lose much energy to incomplete combustion and exhaust heat.

• A fuel cell is not only more efficient than a combustion engine, but also delivers high efficiency even while operating under partial design loads. Moreover, its high efficiency is scalable from very small units to very large units. A combustion engine, on the other hand, is most efficient under full operational loads and only at certain minimum engine sizes.

Because of these remarkable attributes and capabilities, fuel cells can end the way we generate and consume electricity today. It can deliver power that is inherently healthy for the environment and highly efficient. Because of their efficiency, fuel cells create less carbon dioxide when operating on carbon-based fuels like methane and no emissions when operating on hydrogen. In addition, fuel cells do not generate any other emissions like nitrogen oxide, which will harm the earth’s atmosphere. Because of their efficiency, their widespread use would slow the depletion of the earth’s fossil fuel resources.

Fuel cells most commonly use hydrogen to generate electricity, but can use various other fuels, including gasoline, natural gas, ethanol, and methanol. Hydrogen, which would have the least environmental impact, can be produced from water through renewable energy readily available in any country on earth, including sun, wind, water, geothermal energy, and biomass.

Fuel cell technology can cause a paradigm shift in quality of life on a global scale. It will give an ordinary citizen the ability to generate electricity at home instead of buying electric power from a national electrical grid system that is often delivered over great distances with high transmission losses and is commonly generated by polluting coal-fired power plants. Individuals will be able to drive cars that operate on hydrogen instead of gasoline, and help promote new industry and manufacturing sectors that can dramatically reduce carbon footprints. Thus, the fuel cell technology can spur the development of new classes of energy demand and supply systems, transportation systems, and industrial and manufacturing systems in all nations, while generating trillions of dollars in new revenue. In addition, oil importing nations can cut down on the use of oil, thereby gaining greater independence from oil-producing nations, enhancing their energy security, economic security, environmental security, and the national security. The world will then find a profoundly different paradigm for socio-economic, environmental, and geopolitical relationships that could lead to greater stability around the globe.

Many governments and corporations have recognized the promise of fuel cells and are working in tandem to develop their fuel cell technology, manufacturing capabilities, and global technological leadership. Many governments have devoted tens of billions of dollars in R&D on fuel cell technology in the past 50 years. Likewise, many corporations have invested billions of dollars in R&D, some for over half a century.

But these efforts have not delivered on the needed fuel cell technology. Despite huge investment and sacrifice, few companies have made any profit. To date, major impediments to fuel cell commercialization remain. Daunting technical challenges have frustrated every effort to create economically feasible fuel cells. The problems are wide-ranging: fuel cells have insufficient longevity, reliability, and have unacceptably high cost. For fuel cells that require special fuels (such as hydrogen), the lack of a fuel infrastructure also limits commercialization.⁸

Given the long history of fuel cell technology, it is mystery that such an important invention has not yet achieved commercial success on any significant scale. This book attempts to unravel this mystery. It explores the history of fuel cell development, evaluates the technical challenges, considers the successes and failures of government policy in promoting solutions to the technical challenges, and explains why the fuel cell industry has not been able to achieve commercial success with the technology. This book then turns to the future. It outlines a set of policy recommendations that might help realize the ultimate promise of fuel cell technology, and suggests who the potential winners might be in the race for a viable commercial product.

References

1. Grove Sir William Robert. (1811–1896), Archives in London and the M25 Area. US: Royal Institution of Great Britain UK; April 2001.

2. Leo J, Blomen MJ, Mugerwa Michael N. Fuel cell systems. US Springer 1993.

3. Hoogers Gregor, ed. Fuel cell technology handbook. UK: CRC Press LLC; July 2002.

4. Collecting the History of Fuel Cells. US: Smithsonian Institution; 2007; In: http://americanhistory.si.edu/csr/fuelcells/index.htm; 2007.

5. Sir William Grove (1811–1896), Biographies, http://www.corrosion-doctors.org/Biographies/GroveBio.htm; Kingston Technical Software, no date, accessed August 2012.

6. History of the Battery, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_battery; [accessed October 2008].

7. Fuel cells—the first 120 years. History of Fuel Cells. vol. 24 UK: Fuel Cell Today; July 2007.

8. Fuel cell handbook. 7th ed. US: NETL, the US Department of Energy; November 2004.

Chapter 2

Fuel Cells and the Challenges Ahead

Outline

2.1. What Is A Fuel Cell?

2.1.1. The Unit Cell: A Simple But Formidable Device

2.1.2. Fuel Cell Stacks: Planar or Tubular Designs

2.1.2.1. Planar-Bipolar Stacking

2.1.2.2. Stacks with Tubular Cells

2.1.3. Fuel Cell Systems

2.2. Types Of Fuel Cells: Distinct Technologies

2.3. Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cells

2.3.1. Principles of Operation and Characteristics

2.3.2. Another Daunting Problem: Electrolyte Performance

2.3.3. Challenges with Transport Applications

2.4. Direct Methanol Fuel Cells

2.4.1. Principles of Operation and Characteristics

2.4.2. Experiencing the Same Problems as PEMFCs And More

2.4.3. Challenges with Portable Applications

2.5. Alkaline Fuel Cells

2.5.1. Principles of Operation and Characteristics

2.5.2. An Early Success, Major Setbacks, Then Redemption, But…

2.6. Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells

2.6.1. Principles of Operation

2.6.2. The Presumptive First Generation Commercial Fuel Cell

2.6.3. Inferior and Expensive

2.7. Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells

2.7.1. Principles of Operation

2.7.2. The Presumptive Second Generation Commercial Fuel

2.7.3. Not Durable Enough and Still Expensive

2.8. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells

2.8.1. Principles of Operation and Characteristics

2.8.2. An Early Favorite: High Temperature Tubular Cells

2.8.3. Brief Exploration of High Temperature Planar Cells

2.8.4. The Current Target: Intermediate Temperature Planar Cells, Many Problems Remain

2.8.4.1. Better Electrolytes Needed

2.8.4.2. Better Anode Needed

2.8.4.3. Alternate Cathode Needed…Perhaps the Greatest Long-Term Need

2.8.4.4. Lack of Interconnect Materials

2.8.4.5. Seal Materials Needed

2.8.4.6. Stack Scale-Up is Daunting

2.8.5. Are Alternative Cell Designs Feasible?

References

After More than 170 Years Since Its Invention, Why Hasn’t the Fuel Cell Become A Viable Product: How to Make It Happen, and Who Will Get There First?

By Noriko Behling

2.1 What Is A Fuel Cell?i

A fuel cell is an energy conversion device that electrochemically converts chemical energy held within two reactants, a fuel and an oxidant, into electrical energy. Fuel can be any ordinary fuel, but hydrogen is most commonly used. The oxidant is most commonly oxygen, usually in the form of ambient air. The fuel cell produces power as fuel and oxidant are supplied.

A fuel cell has physical components and characteristics that are similar to those of a typical battery. But there are two critical differences:

• Energy depletion versus continuous refueling: A battery will cease to produce electrical energy when the chemical reactants stored within the battery are consumed or discharged. (In a rechargeable battery, the reactants are regenerated by recharging from an external source.) A fuel cell, in contrast, is theoretically capable of producing electrical energy for as long as fuel and oxidant are supplied to the electrodes. Fuel cell life is typically limited by the physical degradation of the components, usually corrosion, or by malfunction of the components.

• Fixed versus dynamic electrochemistry: A battery contains a physically fixed set of chemicals that react with each other to produce power. A fuel cell produces energy based on an intricate, dynamic flow of chemicals and electrical properties, which can be disrupted by any number of factors.

2.1.1 The Unit Cell: A Simple But Formidable Device

Like the battery, the fuel cell is a simple device, consisting of only four basic components that support electrochemical reactions. They are as follows:

1. An electrically negative electrode, called the anode with or without a catalyst, to which a fuel is supplied;

2. An electrically positive electrode, called the cathode with or without a catalyst, to which an oxidant (oxygen) is supplied;

3. Electrolyte (a substance that allows movement of electrically conductive ions) that separates the two electrodes;

4. An external electric circuit connecting two electrodes (Fig. 2.1).

FIGURE 2.1 Schematic illustration of a single cell.

Source: J.H. Hirschenhofer, D.B. Stauffer, R.R. Engleman, and M.G. Klett, Reprinted in several editions of Fuel Cell Handbook produced by EG&G Technical Services, for the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, different dates. The 7th edition, which may be the last, was published in November 2004. (For the color version of this figure, the reader is referred to the online version of this book.)

The electrochemical reactions take place at the electrodes as fuel and oxidant are supplied, producing or consuming electrons and ions. Electrons are produced at the anode and are consumed at the cathode. Electrons move from anode to cathode via an external circuit—a process that results in the electric current that the fuel cell produces. Within the fuel cell, ions flow between anode and cathode. Ions are individual atoms that have an uneven number of protons and electrons, and thus possess a net positive charge (ions with a positive charge are called cations) or negative charge (ions with a negative charge are called anions). A hydrogen atom, which is the simplest case, has a nucleus of one proton that is balanced by a single electron in its surrounding electron shell. A hydrogen cation has no electron, and therefore carries a net positive charge. The cation flows to the cathode where it combines with electrons flowing through the external circuit. Some electrodes require electrocatalysts (commonly precious metal platinum) for the reaction to proceed at the desired rate.

In a fuel cell, ion creation is continuous and enabled by the electrolyte, which allows ions to move between the two electrodes. The electrolyte also serves as a physical barrier to prevent the fuel and oxidant gas streams from directly mixing. The process of consuming electrons and ions at the cathode also creates reaction waste products and heat, which must be transported away.

The working of a fuel cell is nothing if not complex; its various chemical and electrical components and processes are intricate, delicately balanced, and dynamic. The most critical part of a fuel cell is the so-called three-phase boundary or interface, which is the area where the electrodes and the electrolyte meet and the electrochemical reactions take place. For the interface area to be active, it must be exposed to the reactant (fuel or oxidant), be in electrical contact with the electrode, also be in ionic contact with the electrolyte, and contain sufficient amounts of electrocatalyst for the reaction to occur.¹

These requirements lead to complex performance and cost trade-offs. The density or thickness of the electrolyte and the nature of the interface play a critical role in the electrochemical performance of both liquid and solid electrolyte fuel cells. In fuel cells that use liquid electrolytes, the electrolyte could wet the electrodes excessively and flood them, lowering their ability to transport reactants to the electrolyte and causing degradation of cell performance over its life.¹ In solid electrolyte fuel cells, the challenge is how to engineer the interface so that the electrodes and the electrolyte remain electrically and ionically well connected and are efficiently exposed to the reactant gases. Also, in fuel cells that operate at low temperatures, rare and precious materials—commonly platinum—are needed at the interface to provide sufficient electrocatalytic activity, making the fuel cells extraordinarily expensive. In high temperature fuel cells, the electrocatalytic activity of the bulk electrode material is often sufficient to support the reaction, but high operating temperatures can cause other problems, including longevity issues.

• Over the past 20 years, the performance of at least some fuel cells has been substantially improved based on improvements in the three-phase boundary interface. The improvements included reductions in the thickness of the electrolyte and the development of improved electrode and electrolyte materials which broaden the temperature range over which the cells can be operated.¹ These improvements, however, are incremental in nature and do not constitute a technical breakthrough.

2.1.2 Fuel Cell Stacks: Planar or Tubular Designs

A single fuel cell typically generates a small amount of electricity, but cells can be connected in series to produce greater power output. Such a collection of fuel cells in series is called a stack. There are two major types of stack technology: planar-bipolar stacking and tubular stacking.

2.1.2.1 Planar-Bipolar Stacking

For flat plate or planar fuel cells, individual cells are stacked in layers and are electrically connected with interconnects, which are called planar bipolar plates. A bipolar plate connects the entire surface of one cathode (electrically positive) and the entire surface of one anode (electrically negative) of the next cell—hence the name bipolar—and provides a series electrical connections between adjacent cells. A bipolar plate also has other functions. The bipolar plate contains channels or grooves that allow for the uniform distribution of fuel gas over the surface of the anode and the distribution of oxygen or air over the surface of the cathode. The bipolar plate also often can be hollow in which case it carries a cooling fluid through the stack with a design that keeps all the reactant gases and cooling fluids apart. The bipolar plate keeps the reactant gases contained within each cell, so the edges of the cell are designed to allow space to create a gas-tight seal around each cell.

• Bipolar plates, which could be made of graphite or metal, are expensive and difficult to manufacture, often coated or treated, and much attention has been focused on the materials and manufacturing processes to manufacture superior bipolar plates.

2.1.2.2 Stacks with Tubular Cells

Each tube consists of one cell and is generally small in diameter relative to its length. Tubular cells are stacked in arrays and connected either in series or in parallel within the stack. In one of the tubular designs, the electric current is conducted tangentially around the tube. In another tubular type, current is conducted axially along the tube, and interconnections are made between the cells at the end of each tube. The problem with tubular stacks is the long path that the electrical power has to travel through each cell and then from the anode of one cell to the cathode of the next cell and the large voids within the stack structure. Conduction of electrical current over significant distances results in a significant loss of power and, thus, low power density.

• To shorten the current path and increase power density, some tubular stack designs use flattened tubes. Tubular fuel cells, nonetheless, represent a special geometric challenge to the stack designer when it comes to achieving high power density and short current paths.

• Current collection is a major issue in all tubular designs.

2.1.3 Fuel Cell Systems

In addition to the stack, fuel cell systems require several other subsystems and components—the so-called balance of plant (BoP)—which constitute the supporting infrastructure that enables a fuel cell to operate (Fig. 2.2). Together with the stack, the BoP forms the fuel cell system. The types of BoP equipment required depend heavily on the fuel cell type, the fuel source, and the application.¹ In addition, specific operating conditions and requirements of individual cell and stack designs determine the characteristics of the BoP. Most fuel cell systems include BoP equipment that perform fuel processing or reforming, thermal management, water management, and electric power conditioning. While perhaps not the focus of most of the development effort, the BoP represents a significant fraction of the weight, volume, and cost of most fuel cell systems. The BoP also plays a major role in the reliability and durability of most fuel cell systems. BoP equipment, however, often is developed and manufactured by manufacturers other than fuel cell manufacturers, which makes the integration of a total fuel cell system problematic. Still, most fuel cell systems contain the following:

• Fuel processing or reforming: Various conventional fuels need to be processed or reformed into hydrogen-rich gas which is electrochemically oxidized. Except when pure hydrogen is used, the removal of impurities from the fuel is usually required.

• Air supply: In most fuel cell systems, air compressors or blowers as well as air filters and humidifiers are used.

• Thermal management: All fuel cell systems require careful management of the fuel cell stack temperature. This is accomplished with insulation, stack cooling, air and fuel preheating, exhaust cooling, and recycle. The heat exchanger serves to cool or heat fuel cell stack, air, and fuel.

• Water management: Water is needed in some parts of the fuel cell, while water is generated in the fuel cell as a reaction product. Water management systems are required in most fuel cell systems to effectively recycle the water that was generated in the fuel cell and deliver it to where it is needed without introducing water from external sources. Water management also is required to operate heat exchangers.

• Electric power conditioning: Fuel cell stacks generate direct current electricity, which needs to be converted to alternating current that can be used by most existing facilities. This is done by some combination of inverters, converters, and/or transformers.

FIGURE 2.2 A fuel cell system schematic diagram.

Source: Takashi Ujiie, Overview of Fuel Cell R&D on NEDO, New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO), Japan, 27 October 2006. (For the color version of this figure, the reader is referred to the online version of this book.)

2.2 Types Of Fuel Cells: Distinct Technologiesii

There are several types of fuel cells, and they are all different and are each distinct. Fuel cells are most commonly classified by the type of electrolyte used in the cell. The electrolyte can be aqueous, solid, or molten; alkaline, neutral, or acid; or polymer, chemical substance, or ceramic. The choice of the electrolyte determines the temperature range in which the fuel cell operates. The operating temperature in turn dictates the type of material used in the fuel cell. Aqueous electrolytes are limited to temperatures of about 200 °C or lower because of their high vapor pressure and the rapid degradation of these fluids that occurs at higher temperatures. Low temperature fuel cells usually have slow chemical reactions and require rare and precious metal platinum catalysts at the anode or the cathode or both to speed the reaction. Higher temperatures typically promote faster reactions, and requirements for catalysis are lessened. The operating temperatures also impact the type of fuel that is used. In low temperature fuel cells, gaseous fuel must be converted to hydrogen prior to entering the fuel cell. Reforming of fuels such as methane must occur at 600–700 °C and must be done outside the low temperature fuel cells. In high temperature fuel cells, hydrocarbon fuels can be internally converted to hydrogen or even directly oxidized electrochemically.

• Fuel cells also sometimes are classified by the type of fuel they use. Direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs), for example, are a subtype of polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs). DMFCs use polymers as an electrolyte and methanol as fuel.

There are six types of fuel cells currently under development including:

1) Proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) or polymer electrolyte fuel cells (PEFCs)

2) Direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs)iii

3) Alkaline fuel cells (AFCs)

4) Phosphoric acid fuel cells (PAFCs)

5) Molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs)

6) Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs)

Table 2.1 provides a summary of the characteristics of the different types of fuel cells.

TABLE 2.1 Comparison of Fuel Cell Technologies

Direct Methanol Fuel Cells (DMFC) are a subset of PEM typically used for small portable power applications with a size range of about a subwatt to 100 W and operating at 60–90 °C.

Source: Comparison of Fuel Cell Technologies, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/pdfs/fc_comparison_chart.pdf, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy, February 2011.

Direct methane fuel cells and direct carbon fuel cells are also being developed but at a much lower level than the other six. Methane and carbon are special fuels in which direct oxidation at the anode would be of great benefit if found feasible.

2.3 Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel Cellsiv

2.3.1 Principles of Operation and Characteristics

PEMFCs create electrochemical reactions using positive hydrogen ions as carrier ions; the direction of the flow of the ions is from anode to cathode (Fig. 2.3).

• In PEMFCs, the fuel (hydrogen, H2) enters at the anode. There, a chemical reaction causes the hydrogen molecules to separate into positive hydrogen ions (H+ or protons) and electrons (e−). This reaction releases heat. The positive hydrogen ions pass through the electrolyte made of a polymer membrane and travel to the cathode. The electrons remain behind and thereby give the anode a negative charge, creating a voltage difference between the anode and the cathode. Because electrons travel from negative to positive, the electrons follow an external circuit from the anode to the cathode. At the same time, oxygen (O2) enters the fuel cell at the cathode and combines there with the electrons, which have traveled through the external circuit, and the positive hydrogen ions, which have traveled through the electrolyte, to produce water (H2O) at the cathode. The chemical reaction is represented here:

FIGURE 2.3 Polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs).

Source: Fuel Cells, Types of Fuel Cells, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/fc_types.html, Content Last Updated 8 March 2007. (For the color version of this figure, the reader is referred to the online version of this book.)

PEMFCs are regarded as best suited for fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) and small stationary applications. They have been the fuel cells most favored by researchers and developers. In 1994, when Daimler (then Daimler-Benz) demonstrated its first FCV powered by hydrogen-fueled PEMFCs, global automakers were thrilled by the commercial potential of PEMFCs as a primary power of vehicles. Major global automakers joined in the race to develop PEM-based FCVs. PEMFCs’ popularity likely is partly based on their easy-to-handle characteristics, including moderate operating temperatures, use of manageable polymer materials, and absence of corrosive electrolytes. Over the decade, PEMFCs for FCVs and small stationary applications received much attention and investments that likely surpass all the other types of fuel cells combined. More corporations and research institutions are involved in R&D of PEMFCs than in any other fuel cell type.

PEMFCs have many advantages. PEMFCs deliver a high power density—power generated per unit of weight, volume, or area—leading to compact size and light weight. Because of the thermal properties of the electrolyte—perfluorosulfonic acid (PFSA) polymer—PEMFCs operate at low temperatures—typically at about 60–80 °C—allowing them to warm up quickly, start up quickly, and respond to load changes rapidly. Since water is the only liquid in the PEMFCs, corrosion is minimal. In addition, PEMFCs use no corrosive fluid in the cell and, thus, are easy to seal, handle, and assemble. While PEMFCs are particularly suitable for operations using pure hydrogen as the fuel, fuel processors have been developed that will allow the use of conventional fuels such as natural gas.

• One unique design of PEMFCs allows the direct use of methanol without a fuel processor; it is the DMFC, which will be discussed in a following section.

PEMFCs, however, have disadvantages, and one of them is the need for a platinum catalyst. At low temperatures, fuel cells electrochemical reactions are slow and only a few relatively rare and precious materials, such as platinum, provide sufficient electrocatalytic activity. Both PEMFC anodes and cathodes use platinum catalysts. PEMFCs also require higher catalyst loading at both electrodes than other fuel cell types, except for DMFCs.¹ Platinum is expensive. Efforts have been made to minimize the use of platinum by extensively optimizing the platinum particle size. There also have been efforts to develop mixtures of platinum and other metals or to find substitute metals. Most of these attempts focused either on gold or on platinum alloys. So far, these efforts have not demonstrated a decisive cost advantage over pure platinum catalysts.

The effectiveness of the platinum catalyst in the PEMFC fuel cell is seriously degraded by CO even if it is present in trace amounts (as little as 10 ppm or 0.001 percent).¹ CO in the gas stream attacks the platinum catalyst at the anode, masking the catalytic activity and reducing cell performance. To minimize CO poisoning, highly purified hydrogen must be supplied to the anode. Hydrogen gas produced by reforming hydrocarbons typically contains 1 percent of CO, and extensive fuel processing is required to reduce CO content in the fuel gas. This increases overall system cost. Efforts to make the catalyst less sensitive to CO poisoning has led to the development of platinum/ruthenium catalysts with intrinsic tolerance to CO. Electrodes with platinum/ruthenium catalysts have been shown to tolerate CO up to 200 ppm or 0.02 percent, helping to lower the cost of fuel purification but this solution still does not solve the problem of CO poisoning.

2.3.2 Another Daunting Problem: Electrolyte Performance

The standard electrolyte material used in today’s PEMFC systems is a PFSA polymer membrane. PFSA membranes have exceptionally high chemical and thermal stability, and remain stable against chemical attack from both strong bases and strong oxidizers and reducing acids at temperatures up to 125 °C.¹ These membranes have characteristics suited for an electrolyte for PEMFCs; they are good ionic conductors and electrical insulators as well as good fuel/oxidant separators.

The PFSA membrane, however, presents a series of daunting challenges. The membrane itself is expensive.² It also is low in efficiency. Nafion, for example, is available only in a limited range of thicknesses with specific ionic conductivity. Because the Nafion membrane is thick, and its internal resistance high, the ionic conductivity is low and, thus, so is the efficiency of the fuel cell. In addition, the Nafion membrane requires very precise water and thermal management, which reduces the overall efficiency of the fuel cell. A critical requirement of the membrane is that all parts must be sufficiently hydrated with water, but not flooded. If dehydration occurs, it will degrade the polymer and shorten membrane life.

Temperatures within the cell also must be kept within a narrow range in order to avoid local dehydration of the membrane, which can result in hot spots and local dead zones. Thermal management is highly challenging because of the narrow temperature range in which the membrane can operate and the relatively small temperature differences between the cell operating temperature and the ambient temperature.¹ In addition, the future supply of Nafion and other PFSA polymer is not assured. PFSA polymers contain a poisonous chemical, fluorine, a major concern when the membrane is recycled or burned. Plants that were originally built to manufacture Nafion and other PFSA polymers in the 1970s and 1970s would not get approval to be built today because of health and safety considerations.³ Thus, future production of PFSA polymers would likely be limited to those existing plants that belong to DuPont and a few other large chemical companies.

More importantly, the PFSA-based PEMFCs have demonstrated less than satisfactory performance and durability. Total system efficiency is in range of 33–36 percent for stationary applications.⁴ This is no more efficient than conventional combustion-based power plants. By recovering the waste heat from the cooling water, the overall efficiency could be raised to about 80 percent, but the resulting water temperature (about 50–70 °C) is not high enough for many combined heat and power (CHP) co-generation applications.

PEMFC systems also suffer from lifetime performance degradation, and the nominal operating life of PEMFC systems falls far short of the lifetimes required for typical transport or stationary cogeneration applications (these requirements are at least 5000 h for transport applications and at least 40,000 h for stationary cogeneration applications—or about 10 years of daily start and stop operations).⁴ According to a Japanese source as of March 2008, the operating life of PEMFC systems for transport applications is about 1000 h and that for stationary CHP cogeneration applications is about 20,000 h. Furthermore, the causes of PEMFC degradation are not fully understood, making it highly difficult to rectify the problem.

For the past several years, there has been an accelerated effort to develop PEMFC electrolytes that are better than Nafion or other similar PFSA-based polymer electrolytes. Figure 2.4 shows rapid growth in the number of patent families that refer to Nafion and fuel cells since the late 1990s.³ The numbers are based on patents at the time of filing.v

FIGURE 2.4 Cumulative rates of patent filings worldwide per year for patent families referring to Nafion and fuel cells.

Source: Jonathan Butler, 2007 Patent Review Q4, Fuel Cell Today, January 2008. (For the color version of this figure, the reader is referred to the online version of this book.)

From the late 1970s to the early 1990s, researchers and developers appear to have been satisfied with Nafion as a PEMFC electrolyte; Fig. 2.4 also shows there was relatively little patent activity during that period, but patent filing grew rapidly starting in the early 1990s. About ten patents were filed in 1991, around 50 in 1999, and more than 350 in 2007.³ The rapid increase in activity undoubtedly is due to the industry’s growing sentiment that Nafion and other PFSA membranes may be inadequate and are a barrier to the technical viability and commercialization of this class of fuel cell.

Many researchers and developers remain convinced that the disadvantages involving Nafion and other PFSA polymer electrolytes can ultimately be overcome. Researchers and developers have a wide range of initiatives underway. One approach focuses on increasing ionic conductivity by making the Nafion membrane thinner; the thinner the membrane, the greater the ionic conductivity and the higher the efficiency of the fuel cell.¹ Reduction in membrane thickness, however, results in weakened mechanical strength of the membrane. So researchers are introducing an internal support layer to enhance the mechanical strength of the membrane film even as they make the membranes thinner. Another approach focuses on making the Nafion and other PFSA membranes operable with low or zero hydration. They are adding some substances, such as silica and platinum, in the hope of improving this characteristic.⁵ Yet another approach focuses on making Nafion and PFSA membranes operable at higher temperatures—in the 120–160 °C range. The high operating temperature is advantageous; it eliminates CO occlusion of the platinum sites and eliminates CO poisoning, increases system efficiency, and generates more heat for possible use in stationary CHP applications.¹ At such high temperatures, however, PFSA membranes would dehydrate and dry out quickly, leading to a loss of ion conductivity and severe reduction in membrane lifetimes. This has led researchers to develop hybrid materials using PFSA polymer and inorganic materials that can sustain higher operating temperatures.⁵

• All of these efforts on Nafion or other PFSA-type membranes, however, constitute a series of independent scientific activities which might be able to alter and improve some of the characteristics of the membranes, but are unlikely to be able to significantly change the fundamental shortcomings of PFSA polymer membranes.

There also are efforts to reexamine polymers based on hydrocarbons that have favorable characteristics akin to Nafion and other PFSA polymers. Hydrocarbon polymers conduct ions under properly hydrated (humid) conditions. These polymers have been known for many years and were among the first compounds to be tested as an early PEMFC electrolyte membrane, even before PFSA polymers were used in PEMFCs.² Hydrocarbon polymers have a number of advantages over PFSA polymers. They are far less expensive and easier to manufacture. They have greater mechanical strength and ionic conductivity at higher temperatures.⁵ Hydrocarbon polymers also contain no hazardous substances.

• Hydrocarbon polymer membranes, however, have a number of major disadvantages as well. They are inferior to PFSA in chemical stability and are about equal to PFSAs in durability at low levels of humidity.⁵ They also have a trade-off problem: as ionic conductivity increases, these polymers have less mechanical strength and chemical stability. Hydrocarbon polymer membranes also have physical properties that make it difficult to maintain close contact between the membrane and the catalyst.

Hydrocarbon polymers, nonetheless, have one major advantage. They possess great freedom in molecular mobility that allows for the creation of a wide variety of molecular structures. Researchers and developers are creating many varieties of hydrocarbon polymers for experimentation, including sulfonated polyimides, sulfonated aromatic polyethers, polyarylene ethers, polymerized styrene, polybenzimidazole (PBI) polymers, polymerized trifluorostyrene sulfonic acid membranes, polymerized trifluorostyrene, polymerized trifluorostyrene phosphonic acid membranes, and polyphosphazene polymers.⁵

• It is noteworthy that some hydrocarbon PEMFC electrolytes resemble other fuel cell types. PBI, for example, approximates PAFC electrolytes. PBI operates at higher operating temperatures, eliminating CO poisoning of platinum and allowing for possible use in stationary CHP.¹ Because PBIs require significantly lower water content to facilitate ion transport, an additional benefit is that water management is dramatically simplified. To achieve acceptable ionic conductivity, however, the membrane must be impregnated with phosphoric acid, which is apparently not very tightly bound to the polymer backbone. As a result, precautions must be taken to avoid liquid water and resulting corrosion—the same shortcomings inherent in PAFCs.

The most noteworthy development in the field of PEMFCs is the emergence of a systematic plan for conducting basic research. After 40 years of virtual dependence on Nafion and other PFSA membranes, researchers and developers are making a new start in the exploration of PEMFC electrolyte technology. They are experimenting with a wide range of materials, including room-temperature molten salts (or ionic liquids), inorganic materials, organic/inorganic hybrid materials, and fullerenes. They also are trying to build new materials at the molecular level.

• Room-temperature molten salts are liquid at the ambient temperature and have negligible vapor pressure and low viscosity. They are known to have high thermal and chemical stability as well as high ionic conductivity. Efforts are being made to incorporate room-temperature molten salts into organic polymers.⁵

• Researchers and developers also are exploring inorganic materials, such as glass-forming oxides. Glass-forming oxides are known to have superior ionic conductivity. To further raise conductivity, adding phosphates to glass-forming oxides is being considered.

• Researchers are also considering adding inorganic materials—such as boron, silicon, and titanium—to organic polymers to attain high durability at higher temperatures. They believe that the inorganic materials would protect the organic materials from high heat.

• They also are mixing strong acids, such as sulfonic acid, to fullerene to achieve high ionic conductivity.

The primary goal of these various efforts focuses on the creation of ion conducting electrolyte membranes that can operate at temperatures higher than 150 °C with no water. This is a temperature range that no PFSA or hydrocarbon polymer has achieved so far.⁵ But no new electrolyte under exploration has demonstrated ionic conductivity and thermal or chemical stability that are equal to PFSA or hydrocarbon polymers. It is also true that some of the new candidate electrolytes, such as inorganic materials mixed with phosphoric acid, resemble PAFCs, perhaps providing an alternative to PEMFC technology.

2.3.3 Challenges with Transport Applications

PEMFCs face great challenges if they are to be used in transport applications that go well beyond the demands of stationary applications. For terrestrial transportation, PEMFCs are required to be robust enough to operate under the entire range of environmental conditions that any internal combustion engine vehicle is expected to endure on the road. FCVs will have to tolerate various contaminants, particles, dust, sand, and debris in the air. FCVs will need to be mechanically sturdy to withstand bumps on the road, vibrations, and collision impacts. FCVs will have to endure repeated start-and-stop cycles and acceleration-and-deceleration operations daily for over 10 years. FCVs also will have to withstand arid, wet, hot, cold, and freezing weather conditions as well.

If PEMFCs are to be used in transport applications, engineers will need to figure out how to refuel them. FCVs that use high density liquid fuels such as methanol, ethanol, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, and gasoline, will need to have onboard fuel processors to convert the fuel and purify the reformate fuel into high purity hydrogen. Considerable effort has been expended to develop liquid-fueled FCVs or to reform other fuels into hydrogen while onboard FCVs. The fuel processing operations and related balance of plant components add cost and system integration constraints due to their size and weight and maintenance requirements. They also release carbon dioxide, although less than that emitted from current gasoline engines. Most experts thus believe that onboard storage of hydrogen will be necessary for practical FCVs.¹

A key component of the direct hydrogen FCVs is the hydrogen storage tank and the hydrogen refueling infrastructure. A wide range of hydrogen storage methods are being considered, including compressed hydrogen storage, liquid storage, storage in metal hydrides, and chemical storage.¹ Each of these options represents a compromise between energy density, weight, energy efficiency, and cost, and none of them are competitive with gasoline powered vehicles today. Special safety considerations also must be made in all cases. In addition, the volume and weight of the hydrogen storage tank needs to match the power density of internal combustion engines. Storage remains a long-term R&D challenge.

If FCVs are to become commercially practical there must be a business case which justifies establishing a widespread hydrogen refueling infrastructure. FCVs need to be refueled as conveniently as gasoline vehicles can, and the establishment of hydrogen stations that are conveniently located as gasoline stations would require a huge investment. According to a DOE data in 2005, there were 169,000 gasoline stations in the United States.⁶ If a hydrogen station costs $1 million to $4 million to build, the United States would need nearly $170 billion to $680 billion for the refueling station infrastructure alone.

2.4 Direct Methanol Fuel Cells

2.4.1 Principles of Operation and Characteristics

DMFCs are a subset of PEMFCs, in which methanol (CH3OH) is used as a fuel without the use of a fuel processor (Fig. 2.5). DMFC electrochemical reactions are similar to those of PEMFCs and PAFCs:

• In DMFCs, the carrier ion is the hydrogen ion and the direction of the flow of the ions is from the anode to the cathode—the same as for PEMFCs. When methanol enters the fuel cell at the anode, however, water is needed to enable the oxidation reaction to occur, which requires a precise metering of methanol and water at the anode. One product of this oxidation is carbon dioxide (CO2) which must be vented from the system. The reaction also produces electrons (e−) and hydrogen ions (H+). The hydrogen ions pass through the electrolyte while the electrons pass through the external electrical circuit to the cathode. At the cathode, the hydrogen ions, electrons, and oxygen from the air react and produce water (H2O), again, the same as for PEMFCs:

FIGURE 2.5 Direct methanol fuel cells (DMFCs). (DMFCs are a subset of PEM typically used for small portable power applications with a size range of about a subwatt to 100 W and operating at 60–90 °C.)

Source: Technology, How Does a fuel cell Work? www.sfc.com, SFC Energy AG, Germany, no date. (For the color version of this figure, the reader is referred to the online version of this book.)

The major advantage of the DMFC is that it uses methanol without a fuel reformer. Eliminating the need for a fuel reformer leads to a very simple system. Methanol also is a desirable fuel; it has a relatively high energy density and is a liquid under ambient conditions.¹ This makes DMFCs an attractive alternative to PEMFCs which require pure hydrogen as a fuel. DMFCs are regarded as the leading candidate for portable applications, such as cameras, notebook computers, and cell phones today.

2.4.2 Experiencing the Same Problems as PEMFCs And More

Researchers and developers of DMFCs have experienced a different set of challenges that are as daunting as those for PEMFCs. Current DMFCs are most commonly based on current state-of-the-art PEMFCs designs, which include membranes made up of Nafion or other PFSA polymers, anodes containing a platinum/ruthenium catalyst, and cathodes with platinum catalysts. Researchers and developers have come to realize that this approach has not been such a