The following piece is by Bob Rose, founding executive director of the US Fuel Cell Council and Breakthrough Technologies Institute.
It has taken more than 15 years, but fuel cell combined heat and power (CHP) systems appear to be poised to become an instant success. FuelCell Energy (FCE), which sells molten carbonate (MCFC) units of various sizes, and United Technologies Power (UTC), which sells phosphoric acid fuel cells, are the flagship companies of the fuel cell CHP industry. Both have announced significant sales this year. But the most symbolic was the announcement June 11 that the new building under construction at Ground Zero will include 4.8 MW of fuel cell power, one of the largest installations to date.
The huge hole in the ground in lower Manhattan symbolizes the hole in nation’s psyche punched by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. What better place to demonstrate the potential – the reality – of a home grown, highly efficient energy technology that can provide a basis for a cleaner, more secure energy future?
It’s impossible to say when the first commercial sale of a fuel cell CHP actually took place. The industry is still struggling with what it means by “commercial sale.” But I usually date the commercial CHP era to the sale of United Technologies Corporation PC-25 units which began shipping production line units in 1992.
The units performed admirably in the field, generating tremendous amounts of practical data to help UTC engineers improve their products. Several units have operated more than 60,000 hours (8,000 hours is more or less considered one year of life, although not necessarily a calendar year). The utility industry in the 1990’s said 40,000 hour would be sufficient for a commercial product, but once the UTC units began to surpass that total, the number has inched up to 60,000 or even 80,000 hours.
Now, UTC is offering 400 kW with a 10-year guarantee. Both UTC and FCE claim exceptional reliability and fuel-to-electricity efficiencies above 40%. If all the heat is utilized, the number can exceed 90% — EPA measured a unit at 93%.
FCE is doing a brisk business in California in fuel cells powered by waste gases from water treatment facilities, breweries and the like, under a state program designed to support renewable energy generation. (California regulators in April expanded the fuel cell portion of that program.) Korea has a similar program; FCE sales and orders in Korea have reached nearly 40 MW.
There are many other companies in the fuel cell CHP marketplace. (I hope they will post supplemental comments rather than getting mad at me for not mentioning them. In fact, just today there was an announcement from Plug Power.) The point is not that FCE and UTC are making progress, but that the industry is finding markets for its products where the benefits of fuel cells are sufficient to overcome their price premium. (Prices are coming down. FCE argues that on a per-kilowatt basis, it already competes with grid power in many places.)
Fuel cells also make dandy grid stabilizers for renewable energy, by the way. But that’s for another article.
So the next time someone tells you that fuel cells are a technology for the far distant future, tell him or her that you can buy one today, and people are.
~Bob Rose
A recent paper on fuel cells for CHP can be found in Resources section.
Robert Rose is the founding executive director of the US Fuel Cell Council, the business association of the fuel cell industry, as well as Breakthrough Technologies Institute (parent organization of Fuel Cells 2000). In a career spanning more than 30 years in Washington, DC, Rose has served in senior communications and policy positions in the U.S. government, provided consulting service and advice to a wide range of public and private sector clients, written or edited several books, and appeared before Committees of Congress. Rose is the author of Fuel Cells and Hydrogen: The Path Forward, which outlines a public-private partnership to develop and commercialize fuel cells and a supporting fuel infrastructure. (Keep an eye out for an updated edition coming soon!) The Path Forward helped shape the fuel cell provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Rose has many other writing and speaking credits and is a regular media source.
|Back|
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
July 2, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Jennifer says...
Fuel cells definitely need to be part of the complete energy equation and the climate change debate, especially since stationary fuel cells are already and can be installed today and greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions (http://www.fuelcells.org/info/fuelcellsclimatechange.pdf). How do we make sure fuel cells get noticed? Neither presidential candidate mentions fuel cells or hydrogen when they talk about energy as of late.
July 2, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
fc-skeptic says...
You claim that “fuel cells definitely need to be part of the complete energy equation and the climate change debate”. You back this up with nothing.
You claim that fuel cells “greatly reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. You back this up with nothing. (The citation to Ballard fairy tails that don’t even pretend to address the issue of where the energy required to produce the hydrogen is going to come from is a joke.)
Your statements strike me as precisely the kind of “pronouncements” complained about in “Why a fuel cell blog?”
http://www.fuelcellinsider.org/2008/07/why-a-fuel-cell-blog/
You ask “How do we make sure fuel cells get noticed?”
Is that the goal here? To “get noticed”?
If fuel cells offered any kind of real value proposition they would have no trouble “getting noticed”.
July 2, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
George Harvey says...
We need to put a lot more energy into educating our leading legislators than we have in the past. Most are pretty ignorant when it comes to details that form the basis of energy acquisition and use. I heard our vice president say on TV that we could never get more than 2 percent of our electrical energy requirements from wind power; The DOE had estimated 20 to 40 percent using various scenarios. Wind power is our most reliable source of ready-to-use energy, and as Stanford engineers have found, and published, the wind never stops, and its energy is relatively constant in a distributed system. It was used in the late 1890s to generate electricity and produce hydrogen electrically in a practical system used for gas-lighting and electrical supply over a period of several years. What it lacked was a fuel cell. Can’t we do better now?
July 3, 2008 @ 5:29 am
Stephen Zorbas says...
Conversion from one form of energy to another consumes more useful energy than it yields, for if it could do the opposite by creating energy out of nothing, you could create a perpetual-motion machine violating the laws of physics. Conversion losses are unavoidable so the issue is whether they’re worth incurring. If they were intolerable as a matter of principle then we’d have to stop making gasoline from crude oil (~73–91% efficient from wellhead to retail pump) and electricity from fossil fuel (~29–35% efficient from coal at the power plant to retail meter).
July 3, 2008 @ 7:25 am
John Trocciola says...
Dear “fc skeptic”,
You claim that Bob backs up his claim of reduction in greenhouse gases with “nothing”.
I think the validity of the claim should be obvious. A typical central generating station operating on a fossil fuel is 33% efficient. Stationary fuel cells located at a building with heat recovery typically are 60% efficient, which means an input of about half of the carbon molecules which results in half the amount of CO2. In fact, I have direct experience with a PAFC unit coupled with a district heating system in the NE which had an overall efficiency of 90% in the winter time. I think that was and still is a world record.
With regard to “Value Proposition” ,I am afraid that stationary fuel cells have not been competing on a level playing field. For example, the electric utilties had the right to install their transmission and distribution wires basically anywhere. What would happen if they had to bid for those “rights” from the affected land owners? How about the insurance limit the Government has granted nuclear plants in case of an accident? Does that sound “level” to you?
In terms of “getting noticed” , have you watched the national news lately? Every time they talk about energy issues the “answers” are always, nuclear, solar,wind, algae or something else. I have never , ever seen stationary fuel cells offered as one of the solutions despite heroic performance by them during blackouts, (Central Park Police Station), space ( Space Shuttle and Apollo moon mission), buses which only exhaust water vapor etc.
July 3, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
blind mole rat says...
skeptic schmeptic,
History is filled with “if man were meant to fly he’d have wings” type. Want to hear something really stupid? - not only will man fly, one day he will go to the moon!
These are exciting times with thousands of scientists and engineers with supercomputers working on a global problem as a global community. Who wins in not as important as the race is on.
In your fervent criticism, you offer “nothing”. Achieving the perfection of hypocrisy is a lonely prize.
July 3, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
fc-skeptic says...
John Trocciola:
–I was responding to “Jennifer” when I said that she backed up her proclamations (like “fuel cells definitely need to be part of the complete energy equation”) with nothing.
–You say “Every time they talk about energy issues the “answers” are always, nuclear, solar,wind, algae . . .” Those are all primary energy sources. Stationary fuel cell are not.
–Every fuel cell sold by FuelCell Energy to date has had a massive subsidy, and FCE has still lost money on every sale. How can that ever be a sustainable solution? Connecticut’s “Project 100″ would be massively subsidized by both tax credits and ratepayers, and FCE will still lose money on those units (even if the ITC is renewed and the deal goes ahead). FCE still seems to be having an awful lot of trouble competing, even with considerable leveling of the playing field.
Anyway, in writing my previous comment, I was thinking more of transportation than stationary applications, I guess because Jennifer cited an old Ballard document in support of her proclamations.
But Bob is proclamating too. He says “It has taken more than 15 years, but fuel cell combined heat and power (CHP) systems appear to be poised to become an instant success.”!!! He says “FCE is doing a brisk business in California … under a state program designed to support renewable energy generation” but chooses not to point out that FCE is losing money on every one of those installations, even with big subsidies.
July 4, 2008 @ 7:02 am
John Trocciola says...
To all we fuel cell advocates,
This is a criticism for all of us. Whenever there is an article in a news magazine or a piece on the TV news about energy the alternatives are nuclear , wind (which requires massive grid improvements for wind or a yet to be “invented” waste storage solution for nuclear) or solar( which is not yet economic and of course is not effective 24 hours a day) yet never are stationary fuel cells mentioned ;which reduce CO2 levels as well as reduce grid outages. In the latter case think about winter storms, hurricanes etc and the news says:” ..massive power outages affecting 50,000 homes”.
What are we doing wrong or what can we do bettter to at least get stationary fuel cells mentioned as an alternative?
FC skeptic talks about fuel cell costs being high; he/she should know that the issue is manufacturing small quantities. What would a chevy cost to manufacture if only 500 were produced per year?
He/she talks about fuel cell subsidies; what would oil cost if the costs associated with the American soldiers/sailors/ airman who protect the Middle East oil flow were added to the cost?
What would coal really cost if the land to build the railroad which transport it had not been given away free to the railraod companies during their construction?
It is always easy for embedded technologies to speak against subsidies after they have gotten their ” fair share”
July 6, 2008 @ 9:22 am
Richard P. Horwitz says...
Posted on Sun, Jun. 1, 2008
Philadelphia Inquirer
“Return of trackless trolleys bypasses South Phila.
The Northeast already has 17 of the new 38. But SEPTA, favoring buses, calls restoring them elsewhere impractical.”
By Paul Nussbaum
Inquirer Staff Writer
The trackless trolleys are back.
This is a good place to introduce Franklin Fuel Cells (suburban Phila.) Some of the older trackless trolleys will be scrapped but one rescued electric car would make a good demonstration item, Franklin FC’s can run on any kind of hydrocarbon without combustion thus eliminating any hydrogen need.
These trolleys have bus wheels on a trolley body with high torque traction motors and the ride sensation is very un-bus like. The new trolleys have some off-wire capabilities, Fuel cells would make them completely independant of the pole & wire setup. Installing new catenary arrangement is not in the budget.
This is an opportunity that should not be missed. The need is there.
July 7, 2008 @ 6:11 pm
Bob Rose says...
I did not hide the fact that in most markets fuel cells still benefit from substantial public support. This is true for every energy option, I believe, and appropriate for advanced technologies given the public benefit. Wind and solar have enjoyed US federal tax support since the 1970’s, nuclear oil and coal even earlier. (I’ll post a Congressional Research Service cite for this tomorrow.) Whether FCE is making money at present is less relevant. Toyota may not yet be making money on the Prius, and it has sold more than a million of them worldwide. But we see Toyota as a shrewd company that now dominates the hybrid marketplace.
Skeptic has a fair point about cites and I’ll try to do better. Then at least he or she can take issue with their authors.
July 7, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
Jaimie Levin says...
To fc-skeptic,
AC Transit has been operating fuel cell hybrid buses for more than 2-1/2 years, with promising results. Our three demonstration buses have logged more than 100,000 miles, carrying in excess of 200,000 people, many of whom live and work in Title VI Environmental Justice neighborhoods. Our buses produce no street-level emissions, while operating smoothly and quietly through densely populated neighborhoods. As a dedicated bus rider, and a certified Class B driver, an all-electric bus powered by a fuel cell performs head and shoulders above any ICE/Transmission-drive bus. Acceleration and braking are nearly as smooth as glass, and the noise level is about equivalent to an electric golf cart.
One of the most amazing facts of all is that we are consistently realizing between 70% to 100% better fuel economy over our control fleet of diesel buses, even though each fuel cell bus carries around an 8,000 pound handicap because of early-stage components and bulky fuel storage systems.
Yes, we use steam reformed methane to generate our hydrogen, but we still realize as much as a 50% savings in CO2 emissions well-to-wheel compared to a diesel-powered bus, and our buses don’t really care where the hydrogen comes from, be it solar, wind, biomass, or whatever the feedstock.
As a result of another grant we recently received, AC Transit is proceeding with the development of a completely renewable 60kg/day station that will be powered by our solar arrays and renewable energy credits.
In the meantime, we’re moving forward with the production of 12 next-generation fuel cell buses that will be thousands of pounds lighter and will feature improved energy and fuel storage systems.
As we make further strides in technology development with our private partners, chiefly United Technologies, costs are dropping, reliability and durability metrics are climbing, and we remain bullish on the prospects of fuel cells for urban transit fleets in the not-too-distant future.
July 7, 2008 @ 11:27 pm
Rei says...
It amazes me that while EV advocates virtually always address their weaknesses, I have yet to once see fuel cell advocates do the same. You know how that looks to outsiders, right? It looks like you don’t have an answer.
1) Efficiency: 40-50% for commercial fuel cells. Same for commercial hydrogen electrolysis. This on top of carnot losses (20-50% efficiency) if the power plant is thermal. In short, miserable efficiency, compared to >90% efficiency for a charger + li-ion batteries. Even if the power is renewable, efficiency *cannot* be ignored. A quarter the efficiency means four times more desert plastered in solar cells, four times the coastline turned into wind farms, four times the dammed-up rivers, etc.
Will fuel cell advocates address this?
2) Fuel cell advocates love to criticize the $5k-$30k current cost of battery packs. Yet they invariably refuse to address the $50k-300k current cost of fuel cell stacks. They further refuse to accept that modern automotive batteries, like phosphates and spinels, are only at their current prices due to a lack of mass production, while fuel cells have more fundamental price problems such as the cost of platinum.
Will fuel cell advocates address this?
3) Fuel cell advocates love to paint batteries as being incapable of fast charging, ignoring that fast charging is already a reality. Oahu already has a network of 60kW fast chargers, and the company that makes the chargers makes them as big as 250kW. That’s more than enough to charge a large battery pack in 5-10 minutes. And phosphates, spinels, and titanates *can* charge that fast, and still have longer lifespans than fuel cells. At $125k a pop, fast chargers are cheaper than hydrogen pumps. However, fast chargers are *optional* infrastructure for EVs. Hydrogen pumps are *requisite* infrastructure for fuel cells.
Will fuel cell advocates admit to this?
July 8, 2008 @ 1:00 am
Rick says...
weird…i keep reading the clear implication here that fuel cells are some kind of energy source. they aren’t an energy source. They are a device that processes hydrogen or whatever and makes electricity. The hydrogen is the fuel, and the energy source is wherever the hydrogen comes from… natural gas, solar, coal, nuclear or whatever.
You guys make it sound like a fuel cell is a magic box that doesn’t require fuel
July 8, 2008 @ 9:08 am
JAF says...
As I see it there needs to be separation of the pros and cons of fuel cells by application:
1) Stationary power - fuel cells, like coal and natural gas fired plants, convert fuel and air to electricity. Large stationary fuel cells will most likely use some form of hydrocarbon fuel such as coal, natural gas, biomass, waste chemicals, etc. as the fuel source. the major difference is that they have the potential to be 70-80% efficient compared to 40% efficiency of large coal plants or 15-25% using reciprocating engines. Thus on TCO (total cost of ownership) and environmental benefit, fuel cells will eventually have the value proposition exceeding conventional generation techniques. And they will have the 24/7/365 operations that are missing from solar and wind.
As for the subsidy situation - we spend about $1billion a day in Iraq. Just imagine if even 1/4 of that money was financed through taxes on oil… And is the nuclear industry going to finance the building of Yucca mountain waste storate?
2) Transportation. Fuel cells show the most promise here. Our passion for free-wheeling is clear. It also makes us most vulnerable to the worst areas of the world. The vast majority of oil we import goes towards transportation. Clearly battery powered cars can be part of the solution with town cars, commuting, etc. So can great increases in public transportation (though this is not politically possible). But for short- and long-haul trucking, long commutes and many other transportation applications, batteries may never provide sufficient energy. Hybrids are showing us the way and it’s quite reasonable to imagine when fuel cells, with their 40-50% efficiencies will replace ICEs at 15-25% efficiencies. Again, by TCO, fuel cells have a significant value proposition.
3) Others - there are many, such as transportation and transportable auxiliary power, combined heat and power, autonomous vehicles, etc. where the combination of power density, energy density and efficiency of fuel cells make them quite attractive.
July 8, 2008 @ 10:34 am
Bob Rose says...
I promised to provide a citation of federal tax and other support for various energy technologies and fuels. The Energy Information Administration, responding to a Congressional request, published something recently that is as good as I have seen. http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/index.html
For the battery EV advocates here, EIA estimates the “tax expenditure” (revenue foregone) of the battery EV and hybrid vehicle tax incentive to be #250 million in 2007. See pp 23-24.
July 8, 2008 @ 12:21 pm
John Trocciola says...
Rick,
None of we fuel cell advocates are even a little bit confused about what a fuel cell “is” or “isn’t”. We all fully realize that it is a “energy conversion device” and not a source of energy.
So no need to further lecture us.
July 8, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
John Trocciola says...
REI,
While the cost of platinum is part of the total cost of a stationary fuel cell please remember that about 90% of it is reclaimed. So in effect the fuel cell owner only “rents” the platinum.
July 8, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Rei says...
“REI,
While the cost of platinum is part of the total cost of a stationary fuel cell please remember that about 90% of it is reclaimed. So in effect the fuel cell owner only “rents” the platinum.”
That doesn’t change it from needing to be extracted in the first place. It’s not like there are tonnes of platinum currently sitting out there in old fuel cells that will be being recycled as new ones are introduced.
July 9, 2008 @ 9:39 am
John Trocciola says...
Rei,
Have you ever spoken to the platinum miners?
Well I have and their comment was “If you need more platinum we will just put another mining hole in the ground”
July 19, 2008 @ 8:38 am
Joachim Colling says...
Stationary fuel cells seem to be (near to?)commercially viable. I just looked a a dabase listing most? of the installed units. But the information is dismal.
I would like to see a catalogue of all types of stationary units on the market with information of their type and capacity, price (unsubsidized), delivery time, length of life, reference installations, price per KWh, costs and security of operation etc.
There might be quite a number of home owners who might buy one even if the price for its energy per KWh is a bit higher than the grid. Selling stationary fuel cells like Singer sold the sewing machines, thats the way to go.
July 21, 2008 @ 6:57 am
John Trocciola says...
This comment is not really related to the title of this blog. Did anyone see Al Gore on Meet The Press? He is advocating that electricty be 100 % reneable and some how links that noble goal with reducing our dependence on imported oil. As we all know very little oil is used for generating electricty so generating electricty would not reduce imported oil unless we can somehow use electricty in cars and trucks, which would by the way require tremendous increases in generating capacity. He did mumble something about electric cars but as we know would require a better battery, recharging stations etc. Very challenging items.
On TV we hears similar arguments that somehow nuclear power would end our dependence on imported oil;in those cases no mention of the need for electric cars.
We need to get out our message which is that if we go reneawable or nuclear ( uck) a reasonable alternative is to use the power to make H2 which could then be used to refuel fuel cell cars.
In this case at least the fuel cell is “ready” with regards to technology and range as opposed to requiring a battery invention, lots of recharging stations etc.
July 21, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
David Redstone says...
“We need to get out our message which is that if we go reneawable or nuclear ( uck) a reasonable alternative is to use the power to make H2 which could then be used to refuel fuel cell cars.”
How do you figure that converting to and from H2 can ever be better than charging and discharging batteries?
“In this case at least the fuel cell is “ready” with regards to technology and range as opposed to requiring a battery invention, lots of recharging stations etc.”
You’re kidding, right? No one has demonstrated that FCs are “ready” for cars.
We could displace huge amounts of oil with electricity if only people were willing to slightly change their behavior.
This article says it very well:
“Unfortunately, the shiny new solar-powered hydrogen vehicle fueling station that recently spread its gossamer wings just east of the SMUD yard is anything but the future. It’s the desperate waking fantasy of a casino culture that can’t shake the feeling that the next jackpot is one pull of the lever away. . . “The widespread belief that hydrogen is going to save technological societies from the fast-approaching oil and gas reckoning is probably a good index of how delusional our oil-addicted society has become””
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=677680
July 21, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
John Trocciola says...
I guess you have not beenreading the FC news; Ihave been “living it”. FC’s:
Fit in the car; batteries are very, very heavy
Have the goal life
Can start and shut down in cold weather; I think batteries have an issue with cold weather
Have good range; batteries have limited range
Have no emissions
Have the right power output
Only thing missing is cost and with a large enough order that will happen too
Battery cars , in addition to infrastructure issues, require an invention or two and that is what I am referring too.
And since you are a big nuclear advocate the electricity for making the H2
” will be too cheap to measure”; so that is not really an issue. I think I heard the cost issue from the nukes a while back