Author:  David Jollie, Kerry-Ann Adamson

Description:  Sunny Palm Springs: beautiful weather, and a fuel cell conference. What could keep the crowds away?

Well, by the looks of the first plenary session, not much could keep the crowds away. Busy was the only word to describe it. However, there were certianly a few things to keep the speakers away.

Kevin Krist, of the Gas Technology Institute and Chairman of the 2005 Fuel Cell Seminar, introduced the conference and as well as explaining the changes from last year’s format, apologised for the absence of Alan Lloyd, who was unavoidably detained with the other star of the fuel cell world, Arnold Schwarzenegger, on a Californian mission to China. Nonetheless, as with the Grove conference a month or so ago, Dr. Lloyd was to receive an award for his commitment to and achievements in fuel cells, not only from his work on the Zero Emission Vehicle legislation but other activities like his chairing the California Fuel Cell Partnership. In December 2004, he was appointed to be the head of the Californian Environment Protection Agency. According to Governor Schwarzenegger, "the time for talk about global warming is over, the time for action is now." Which is precisely why Alan Lloyd has been appointed to this position.

Catherine Dunwoody, Executive Director of the California Fuel Cell Partnership received the award on behalf of Dr. Lloyd. Although receiving the award is important, it was felt that a memorandum of understanding with China on emissions reduction was perhaps more important than attendance at the Palm Springs jamboree.

Later in the plenary session, Byron McCormick of General Motors spoke on his company’s fuel cell activities. Apparently, if the USA changed all of its vehicles today to hybrids, then oil imports would still begin rising again in six years. Hybrids are clearly exciting technology but they cannot provide all the answers. “We are beginning to think a little bit about reinventing the automobile” was his answer.

He spoke about some of the challenges about meeting a vast number of different regulations all round the world. One of the attractions of fuel cells is that they allow companies like GM to move from the high proliferation of propulsion systems today (different engine types, transmissions etc.) to a single propulsion system, the fuel cell with electric drivetrain. This would allow them to get back to what they want to do, “selling style, selling utility” rather than selling an array of technical components.

He also enthused over the idea of moving from mechanical power to electrical power, with the opportunities to improve vehicle safety, performance and other aspects. As well as this, there is the freedom fro having to design a car around the engine and the transmission. Use of novel packaging, such as the skateboard, with distributed hydrogen tanks, really frees the designers again, to again, design for style and design for utility. And finally, if the technology comes down in cost (and this will take some time) then the simplicity will allow lower costs. It is clear that this is some considerable time away but the mere fact that this was mentioned by a major car manufacturer was very positive. Overall fuel cells are "a compelling business opportunity".

GM’s specific objectives are "to design and validate an automotive-competitive fuel cell propulsion system" (although not at the volumes envisaged in 2010). This system will have performance durability and cost (subject to the caveat above) with today’s technology: some challenge.

The next generation we will see has technology that is about two years old and we’ll see these in the 2007-2009 releases. The future generation will have 300 mile range, 0-60mph performance which is exciting and 150,000 mile durability as well as the US$50/kW cost. There are still questions though: for instance the hydrogen storage method to be used in 2010 and onwards has not yet been decided. For the technologists amongst us, that means that there are challenges still to be solved: good news perhaps?

Russ Bosch, Director and Chief Engineer of solid oxide fuel cells and reformers at Delphi was next up. He spoke on how the fuel cell industry can compete with the internal combustion engine (ICE) and then explained Delphi’s SOFC activities (which I first heard a little about back in 2000 and seems to be proceeding pretty much on line. Mr. Bosch collects antique cars and compared many of the issues faced by the ICE back at the turn of the last century on moving from animal power to mechanical power. Fuelling infrastructure did not exist back then, nor did any service capability.

Even after this, the ICE still had to compete with steam and other engine technologies. Over the twenty years which it took to win this latter battle, the technology changed almost beyond recognition and the 2000 US car manufacturers have been somewhat whittled down. In 2011, he sees the issues facing fuel cells as very, very similar. And, at the end of this, there is potential (in some areas) for competition between PEMFC, SOFC and the more incumbent battery. Delphi does not, however, see a single fuel cell winner.

SOFC is of interest to Delphi particularly because of its early potential. It does not require the use of hydrogen but can work with current fuels and a range of possible future fuels. It can also be cost-effective and, with few working arts can be reliable. Of course, it is not as flexible in other ways as the PEMFC and cannot be used to quickly start-up and shut-down but, in Delphi’s case, this is not too much of an issue. And this approach must have some credibility, coming as it does from a company with considerable experience in heat and engine management. The SFOC APU programme (for small stationary and transportation markets) seems to be quite large, being based over seven locations and six states in North America (including work at PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Labs)).

The 3rd generation of the SOFC is the current one and is much, much smaller than the 2000 prototype. The 30 cell 2.6kW stack (two per system) will be even smaller in the next generation units. So far, 1.8kW per stack has been demonstrated with mid twenties per cent efficiency.

Mr. Bosch also spoke on the competition. For truck auxiliary power, the current solution is an ICE. Typically this is 150 litres in size and provides only 15 per cent efficiency. He believes that the final Delphi system will be 70 litres and work at up to 35 per cent efficiency. In the residential market, of course, the competition is different but success for fuel cells is still possible.

He also gave an interesting view of the challenges awaiting fuel cells. Not least, we are still in an R&D phase but there are also large capital requirements which are not easy to access from venture capital or other sources (including industrial funding). The government "has a major role in providing incentives for the development of the product and stimulating the market for early adopters". The competition will not simply disappear, after all the Ice is well-engineered. And finally, although technical progress has been significant, the cost value balance is vitally important. If consumers can see why they should buy the product, their intransigence and unwillingness to change can be overcome.

The last plenary of the morning was Kees Van der Klein, not only flying the flag for Europe but also the European Technology Platform flag. Dr Van der Klein took a different perspective on the issues, looking at the need for transitions, which he defined as short term actions which lead to long term changes.

After the final presentation was the traditonal throw yor questions to the panel session, otherwise known as a Q&A. Perhaps not surpisingly Honda and GM faced the majority of the questions on issues such as cost, R&D and timing. Sorry to say that there were no major breakthroughs annouced but GM did say that the US$50/kW was looking achievable - with mass production!

After lunch, the conference turned towards more technical questions, and a more challenging time for my mind! I sat through part of the PEM MEAs session, hearing a little about Graftech’s developments in carbon technology. The reason for my presence though was to listen to Jeff Bahr of Carbon Nanotechnologies talking on carbon nanotube-based catalysts for PEMFC (which to admit an interest is an effort involving Carbon Nanotechnologies, Motorola and Johnson Matthey, Fuel Cell Today’s parent company). The aim of the project is to try and produce carbon nanotubes which can be used as catalyst support, with Motorola testing the MEAs produced using this technology and potentially being an end user.

From my time as a chemist, in the 1990s, carbon nanotubes were then a rare and expensive component. This presentation made clear that they are still not cheap but production volumes at Carbon Nanotechnlogies are increasing and prices are coming down. More interestingly though, nanotubes have some remarkable electrical properties, which can help in fuel cells. The companies involved have also chemically modified the tubes to change their physical properties to make them easier to process without damaging their electronic performance or some of the other effects they exhibit (improved catalysts, support, membrane contact, prevention of aggregation of platinum particles etc.). The results are fairly positive, showing high surface area carbon structures with, in some cases, low corrosion rates and high platinum dispersion and utilisation.

The exhibition, though slow, has seen a steady stream of interested stakeholders. The exhibition hall itself is packed with interesting stands, goodies and a lovely looking fuel cell scooter. More from the exhibition tomorrow.
 

Author:  David Jollie, Kerry-Ann Adamson, Lisa Callaghan

Description:  In Wednesday morning’s second plenary session, I (David) had the chance to present work carried out by Kerry-Ann on research, development and deployment targets and funding around the world. We will publish the presentation online but the key point for me was that it’s hard to compare what different countries are doing.

Nonetheless, some comparisons can be drawn, for instance in terms of the style of each government’s approach, with Korea being much more integrated than the laissez-faire style in Europe. I also commented on the potential distraction of nuclear hydrogen and clean coal, things that are probably good but might not be mainstream technologies. So, it was interesting to be followed by Mark Williams, Distributed Generation Manager of the Strategic Centre for coal at the US NETL. He spoke on stationary power generation with particular reference to the solid state energy conversion alliance (SECA) activities.

To start with, SECA will develop fuel cell coal-based systems. SECA's goals are to have a cost of US$400/kW by 2010. By 2012-2015 a coal-based fuel cell should have been tested. 2020 is the target date for 100MW size commercial systems. There are two major projects: Siemens Power Generation is working with Conoco Phillips on a US$85 million test plant, while GE has a similar size project.

Elsewhere in SECA, in 2005, GE was the first team to test a complete prototype fuel cell system as part of SECA, a good step for the SECA programme. In terms of stack power density (at GE and Delphi) SECA improvements have been made. The targets have in fact been met with 600mW/cm2 by Delphi. Potential market size is 26GW p.a. by 2011, although of course SOFC will only take a part of that (perhaps in distributed generation). However, these markets, or even a part of them is enough to provide the mass manufacturing levels necessary to bring costs down to the SECA targets. Numerous improvements are already being made and it seems that this programme is seen as largely successful so far (albeit with some way still to go).

Christine Bergeron, VP Investments from Chrysalix Energy in Vancouver was up next, explaining a little about Chrysalix (a Venture Capital fund which has relatively recently closed its second fund) and about her view of how to build companies in the fuel cell space. On the subject of Chrysalix, its focus has shifted slightly from fuel cells and associated industries to a wider set of technologies, so-called "cleantech". It now has thirteen investments, with US$80 million under management. She also introduced her concept of "preferred energy" in that green is not enough of a driver for customers to buy alternative solutions. Christine touched on the alternative drivers which have moved the economics of fuel cells for the better. Preferred energy means doing something not because it is green but because it is better, i.e. it is a preferred energy solution. Only by moving into the mainstream can we either make money or improve the environment or, even better, both.

Looking at the fuel cell industry itself, her view (informed by others as well) is that it has been technology-focused rather than looking to the market or the customer. Resources have been wasted by replicating work, whether in one company trying to play too many roles or in many companies working in the same part of the supply chain. Over-promising and under-delivering is also an important issue, something that comes as no surprise to many in the industry. These then are the background to many of the challenges (outside of the technology itself) facing any new company in this industry, including the move from demonstrations to sales (involving changes in the company), and from research and development to product (including basic issues such as how to make a margin on products).

Rounding off the first part of the session, Valri Lightner, fuel cell team leader at the US DOE (and co-chair of the technical team at FreedomCAR) spoke on the US hydrogen programme, updating on this activity which is complementary to the areas covered by Mark Williams earlier on. The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative is a five year US$1.2 billion to carry out RD&D on hydrogen and fuel cells and a further US$500 million for vehicles. The aim is to be able to examine the commercial prospects of fuel cell cars by 2015 with a positive decision (i.e. the technology being competitive with the mainstream) allowing the cars to be in the showrooms by 2020.

The DOE view of the critical path focuses on three issues as challenges to a hydrogen economy: hydrogen storage (to allow the much-vaunted 300 mile minimum range), hydrogen cost and, of course, fuel cell cost (current status is US$110/kW compared to the $30 target. On the institutional end, codes and standards are on the to do list alongside education. Hydrogen storage seems to be a major issue, with current technology simply not good enough (yet?). Hydrogen production costs are not so worrying and there seems to be some confidence that answers will be found here, with distributed natural gas an attractive interim solution. Clean coal and nuclear electrolysis may come into play at some point after 2015.

She also gave a taste of a Tiax presentation from later in the week on PEMFC costs (which is where the $110/kW cost comes from). Catalyst cost now, in 2005, is $55 of this (while the MEA in total is $60, and the stack is $70) as opposed to the 2015 target of $6.

Yuji Ando, Deputy Director of the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Promotion Office at Japan's METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) discussed Japan's approach to the commercialisation of fuel cell technology. Much of this has already been mentioned elsewhere but there are some new developments, as the very first slide showed, with the April 2005 installation of a Panasonic and an Ebara-Ballard system in the Prime Minister’s Official Residence. The forecasts, or targets, for fc commercialisation have also been extended. For instance, now they see 50,000 cars in 2010 and 15 million in 2030. The amount of money being spent is now 35 million Yen in 2005, with a further small increase expected next year. The regulatory review, aimed at removing barriers to fuel cell and hydrogen use, has been completed (in March 2005), with 28 items in six laws being amended. For instance, some of the more bizarre rules, such as the requirement for a fuel cell to be more than 3m from a house are now more sensible (the distance is now 15cm).

JHFC, the car demonstration project, now has about 60 FCVs and about ten hydrogen stations in the Tokyo area, with two more in Aichi (Nagoya). Preliminary results show much better performance for FCVs over conventional ICE vehicles or even over hybrid electric vehicles. JHFC II will start in the next fiscal year. Aichi was also interesting with fuel cell buses, PAFC, MCFC and SOFC powering the Japanese National Government pavilion at the Aichi Exposition. The stationary fuel cell demonstration programme now also has 33 locations under test, up from 31 last year and the results have also been good with 35 per cent CO2 reduction amongst them. The testing programme has also been able to identify failure modes of the fuel cells and to improve performance. On the residential testing programme, 480 systems have now been installed. FC Cubic, a new national PEM research centre has also been established (in Tokyo's Odaiba: very convenient for anyone visiting FC Expo), looking at membranes, catalysts and other issues. A new hydrogen material lab will be established this fiscal year, costing 1.7 billion Yen. A prime focus will be looking at issues like material embrittlement with exposure to hydrogen.

Byron Washom, President of Spencer Management Associates, presented on the World Bank/Global Environment Facility’s activities in our area and US State programmes. The International Finance Corporation is an arm of the World Bank lending to commercial, private sector projects, and has sustainability as one of its key aims. The GEF aims to finance the incremental costs of developing country projects with global environmental benefits, such as greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Fuel cells therefore fit in, and the GEF is trying to leapfrog fuel cells into power generation in developing countries.

Phase I of the project has already been approved (in November 2003) to fund 50 per cent of project costs for up to three projects and up to $9 million of funding. Phase II has $45 million but is slightly less generous to individual projects, with an effective US$1000/kW subsidy. This programme is still to be approved.

Looking elsewhere at the US States' activity, state funding is higher in total than federal funding. And the emphasis is slowly shifting away from pure research and development to manufacturing. In Washom's opinion, Ohio is leading the way, with $100 million over three years while Connecticut, unsurprisingly, is also a leading light. In this latter case, various benefits (not least the up to 5.5 cents per kilowatthour subsidy) may help fuel cells move from demonstration to something more commercial.

If it's true that success has a thousand fathers but failure is an orphan, things bode well for the new SunLine Transit hybrid fuel cell bus that was unveiled today. Mike Oglesby, SunLine's general manager, introduced a multitude of partners pleased to take some credit for the flashy new bus. The technical partners that were there: SunLine Transit, which will be putting the bus into service at the beginning of December; UTC Fuel Cells, whose 120 kW PureMotion fuel cell powers the bus; ISE Corporation, the electric drive integrator; and Van Hool, the Belgium-based bus supplier. The bus is identical (except for the exterior painting) to three others which will enter into service at AC Transit, in Oakland, California, in mid-December. Many state and federal agency representatives took credit for providing millions in financial support for the four buses, which AC Transit quotes at costing US$3.1 million apiece.

AC Transit had oversight of the bus development process, working closely with their technical partners to develop a fully functional 33 m (40-ft) bus with a hybridized fuel cell system integrated into the new A330 Van Hool chassis designed specifically for AC Transit. The bus is an extremely quiet ride, not only due to the lack of a diesel engine, but also because UTC's fuel cell doesn't use compressors that give off the typical fuel cell "whine." Based on early tests, the bus averages 15 km/kg, about 2.5 times more efficicent than a comparable 33 m. diesel bus. The buses will be tested for two years in regular revenue service. UTC reports that they are "spending a lot of time in Europe" seeking other users for the bus.