Table of Contents

Fuel Cells: Current Technology Challenges and Future Research Needs, 1st Edition

Preface

Table of Contents

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?
2.1.1. 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
2.8.4.5.1. Bonded Seals
2.8.4.5.2. Compressive Seals
2.8.4.6. Stack Scale-Up is Daunting
2.8.5. Are Alternative Cell Designs Feasible?
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
3.3.1. United Technologies Corporation Achieves Spectacular Success with AFCs in Space
3.3.2. Union Carbide Corporation: Vigorous Efforts but No Successes
3.3.3. Allis Chalmers: Sharing the Same Fate as UCC
3.4. AFC Development in Europe: Decades of Work With No Significant Consequence..But Some Field Tests Continue
3.4.1. AFC Development in Germany
3.4.1.1. Siemens
3.4.1.2. Varta
3.4.2. AFC Development in France
3.4.2.2. CGE
3.4.2.3. IFP
3.4.3. AFC Development in Belgium: Elenco
3.4.4. AFC Development in Sweden: ASEA
3.4.5. AFC Development in UK: AFC Energy
3.5. AFC Development in Russia: Sustained Effort, But With Little Commercial Success
3.5.1. Kiev Research and Production Association “KVANT”
3.5.2. S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation RSC “ENERGIA”
3.5.3. Ural Electrochemical Integrated Plant
3.5.4. ZAO Independent Power Technologies
3.5.5. No Commercial Success in the Near Term
3.6. AFC Development in Japan: Limited Activities of No Consequence..But A New Effort Emerges
3.6.1. Fuji Electric
3.6.2. Hitachi
3.6.3. Japan Storage Battery
3.6.4. Sanyo
3.6.5. Panasonic
3.6.6. Daihatsu Motor
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
4.2.1. US Army’s PAFC Programs
4.2.2. US Air Force PAFC Programs
4.2.3. PAFC Programs for Stationary Applications: United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Prevails
4.2.3.1. TARGET Program
4.2.3.2. GRI-DOE Project
4.2.3.3. FCG-1 (Fuel Cell Generator 1) Project
4.2.4. Other PAFC Programs in the United States
4.2.4.1. Engelhard
4.2.4.2. Energy Research Corporation (ERC)
4.2.4.3. Westinghouse
4.2.5. PAFC Programs for Transport Applications: No Successes
4.2.6. US PAFC Subsidy Programs
4.2.6.1. US Department of Defense Demonstration Program
4.2.6.2. DoD Climate Change Fuel Cell Rebate Program
4.2.6.3. Federal and State Tax Credit Programs Implemented
4.2.6.3.1. Federal Investment Tax Credits
4.2.6.3.2. State-Initiated Clean Energy Fund Initiatives
4.2.7. A Major New Hope Emerges.But Results in Little Consequence
4.3. PAFC Development in Japan
4.3.1. Japanese Private-Sector PAFC Activities Begin in the 1960s
4.3.1.1. Japanese Utility Companies Engage in Field-Testing of US PAFC Power Plants
4.3.1.2. Japanese Electric Machinery Companies Launch PAFC Development
4.3.1.2.1. Fuji Electric
4.3.1.2.2. Toshiba
4.3.1.2.3. Mitsubishi Electric
4.3.1.2.4. Sanyo
4.3.1.2.5. Hitachi
4.3.2. Japanese Government Launches PAFC Program in 1981
4.3.2.1. METI’s Moonlight Project
4.3.2.1.1. 1MW Power Plant Project (Fiscal Year 1981-1988)
4.3.2.1.2. 200KW PAFC System Development (Fiscal Year 1986-1990)
4.3.2.2. Other METI PAFC Programs
4.3.2.2.1. Grid Interconnection Demonstration Project
4.3.2.2.2. Urban Energy Center PAFC Technology Development
4.3.3. Government and Private Sector Join Hands in Field Test Program
4.3.3.1. METI PAFC Field Test Program
4.3.3.1.2. Field Test Project Ii (Fiscal Year 1997-2000)
4.3.3.1.2. Field Test Project Ii (Fiscal Year 1997-2000)
4.3.3.2. Private-Sector Field-Test Activities
4.3.4. Japanese Fuel Cell Subsidy Programs: Funding One-Third to Two-Thirds of Acquisition Cost
4.3.5. PAFC Power Plants Are Not a Commercial Success
4.3.6. Government Evaluates PAFC R&D Program as Inadequate
4.4. PAFC Development in Other Countries: Primarily Test-Operating US and Japanese PAFC Power Plants
4.4.1. European Countries
4.4.2. The Rest of the World
4.4.3. Again, No Measurable Commercial Success
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
5.2.1. Early Efforts
5.2.1.1. The US Army: Early MCFC Supporter
5.2.1.2. The Institute of Gas Technology: Early MCFC Developer
5.2.2. The Department of Energy: Initiating MCFC R&D Program in 1975
5.2.2.1. MCFC Development Program in the 1980s: GE and UTC Emerge as Prime Contractors
5.2.2.2. MCFC Demonstration Program in the 1990s: Fuel Cell Energy and M-C Power as Primary Developers
5.2.2.2.1. Fuelcell Energy
5.2.2.2.1.1. 125 KW Stack Development
5.2.2.2.1.2. Santa Clara 2 MW Plant Demonstration Project
5.2.2.2.1.3. Product Development for Market Entry
5.2.2.2.2. M-C Power
5.2.2.2.2.1. 250 KW Stack Development
5.2.2.2.2.2. Miramar 250 KW Plant Demonstration Project
5.2.2.2.2.3. Product Development For Market Entry
5.2.3. Commercial Success Still Uncertain
5.3. MCFC Development in Japan
5.3.1. Government Plays Dominant Role-Limited Activities in Private Sector
5.3.2. The Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry Starts MCFC Development Program in 1981
5.3.2.1. Phase I MCFC Development (1981-1986): Five Companies Participate in 10KW Stack Development
5.3.2.2. Phase II MCFC Development (1987-1999): Three Companies Participate in 200KW Internal Reforming Stack and 1000KW Pilot Plant Development
5.3.2.2.1. MELCO Develops 200KW MCFC Internal Reforming Stack
5.3.2.2.2. IHI and HITACHI Develop 1000KW Pilot Plant
5.3.2.3. Phase III MCFC Development (2000-2004): Only One Company Remains
5.3.3. MCFC Commercialization in Japan Hopeless
5.4. MCFC Development in Europe
5.4.1. The Netherlands Revives Europe’s MCFC Development Effort in 1986
5.4.1.1. European Union Framework Program Starts Funding Dutch MCFC Efforts in 1987-ECN Takes the Lead
5.4.1.2. The Netherlands Ends MCFC Development in 1999
5.4.2. Italy Starts MCFC R&D also in 1986-Ansaldo Ricerche Takes the Lead
5.4.2.1. EU Framework Program Supporting the Italian MCFC Effort in 1987
5.4.2.2. Ansaldo’s MCFC Commercialization Phase Delayed
5.4.3. Germany Starts MCFC Development in 1988-MBB (Currently CFC Solutions) Takes the Lead
5.4.3.1. EU Framework Program Begins Supporting German MCFC Effort in 1990
5.4.3.2. German Government’s MCFC Demonstration Programs Bolsters HotModule Installations
5.4.3.3. CFC Solutions Shuts Down its MCFC Business in December 2010
5.5. MCFC Development in South Korea
5.5.1. South Korea Begins MCFC Development in 1993
5.5.2. South Korea More Interested in Rapid Acquisition of Foreign MCFC Technology for Domestic Economy and Export Growth
5.5.3. POSCO’s MCFC Strategy Still Unfolding.Too Early to Predict the Outcome
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
6.2.1. DOE Taps Westinghouse to be Global Leader of SOFC Technology
6.2.1.1. Westinghouse Makes Major Technological Advances in 1995
6.2.1.2. Siemens Acquires Westinghouse and Launches Ambitious Commercialization Plans (1997-2002)
6.2.1.2.1. Milestone 1: 100KW SOFC CHP Cogeneration System Field Test (1997-2008)
6.2.1.2.2. Milestone 2: 220KW Proof-Of-Concept SOFC/GT System Validation (2000-2002)
6.2.1.2.3. Milestone 3: 250KW Precommercial Prototype CHP System Demonstration (2003)
6.2.1.2.4. Milestone 4: Building Commercial SOFC Manufacturing Facility (2006)
6.2.1.3. Siemens Westinghouse Hits Technical Barriers in the 2000s…Validation of Tubular SOFC Technology Fails
6.2.1.4. Siemens Westinghouse Abandons Tubular SOFC Commercialization, Shuts Down Fuel Cell Business, September 30, 2010
6.2.2. DOE Launches SECA Program in 2001 in Search of New SOFC Technology
6.2.2.1. SECA Sets Off Renewal of Global Interest in SOFCs
6.2.2.2. SECA Soon Encounters Tough Challenges
6.2.2.2.1. Delays in Program Schedule
6.2.2.2.2. Change in SECA Goals: Development Of Coal-Based Central Power Plant
6.2.2.2.3. Shifts In Industry Team Lineup: Ge Leaves Seca Program
6.2.2.2.4. Core Technology Program Fails To Provide Critically Needed Assistance
6.2.2.2.5. Latest Change Weakens SECA
6.2.2.3. Development of Commercially Viable SOFCs under SECA Unlikely
6.2.3. Meanwhile, Many US Companies Launch SOFC Development Activities
6.2.3.1. Acumentrics
6.2.3.2. Allied Signal Aerospace
6.2.3.3. Bloom Energy
6.2.3.4. Ceramatec
6.2.3.5. Cummins Power Generation
6.2.3.6. Delphi
6.2.3.7. FuelCell Energy/Versa Power System
6.2.3.8. General Electric
6.2.3.9. Protonex
6.2.3.10. Rolls Royce Fuel Cell Systems
6.2.3.11. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corporation
6.2.3.12. SOFCo
6.2.3.13. Technology Management, Inc
6.2.3.14. UTC Power/Delphi
6.2.3.15. Ztek
6.2.4. US Global SOFC Leadership Position Has Largely Eroded
6.3. Japan Launches SOFC Research in Wake of Oil Crisis
6.3.1. METI Begins Modest Funding of Basic SOFC Research in 1974
6.3.2. METI Launches Long-Term SOFC R&D Programs in 1989
6.3.2.1. SOFC R&D Program Phase I (1989-1991)
6.3.2.2. SOFC R&D Program Phase II (1992-1997)
6.3.2.3. SOFC R&D Program Phase II Extension (1998-2000)
6.3.2.4. SOFC R&D Program Phase III (2001-2004)
6.3.3. MITI Begins Ambitious System Technology Development Program (2004-2007) in 2004
6.3.3.1. System Development Program (2004-2007)
6.3.3.2. Component Technology Development Program (2005-2007)
6.3.3.2.1. Projects to Increase Reliability
6.3.3.2.2. Projects to Increase Power Density
6.3.3.2.3. Projects to Increase Functionality
6.3.3.3. The Post-Program Evaluation Report Judges the 2004-2007 SOFC R&D Program to be an Overall Failure
6.3.4. SOFC Demonstration Research Program (2007-2010): A New Hope for Near-Term SOFC Commercialization
6.3.4.1. Program Helps SOFC Industry Grow
6.3.4.2. Program Results Are Mixed
6.3.5. METI Institutes “Back-to-Basics” Research Program (2008-2012)
6.3.5.1. Program is Subject to Serious Constraints
6.3.6. Still Japanese SOFC Developers Press on with Their Commercialization Plans
6.3.6.1. Acumentrics Japan
6.3.6.2. National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology
6.3.6.3. Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
6.3.6.4. Fuji Electric
6.3.6.5. Fujikura Cable
6.3.6.6. Kyocera: The Leading SOFC Player in Japan Today
6.3.6.6.1. Kyocera/Osaka Gas
6.3.6.6.2. Kyocera/Osaka Gas/Toyota Motor/Aisin Seiki
6.3.6.6.3. Kyocera/Tokyo Gas/Rinnai/Gastar
6.3.6.6.4. But Kyocera’s Commercial Success Is Not Assured
6.3.6.7. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
6.3.6.7.1. MHI Kobe/Chubu Electric
6.3.6.7.2. MHI Nagasaki/J-Power/Tokyo Electric
6.3.6.8. Mitsubishi Materials Corporation/Kansai Electric
6.3.6.9. Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding
6.3.6.10. Murata Manufacturing/Osaka Gas
6.3.6.11. NGK Insulators/J-Energy/Sumitomo Precision Products
6.3.6.12. NGK Spark Plugs/AIST/Fine Ceramic Research Association/Toho Gas
6.3.6.13. JX Nippon Oil & Energy/Kyocera
6.3.6.14. Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT)
6.3.6.15. Sanyo Electric
6.3.6.16. Toho Gas/Sumitomo Precision Products/Nippon Shokubai/Daiichi Kigenso
6.3.6.17. Tonen
6.3.6.18. TOTO/Hitachi/Kyushu Electric/Nippon Steel
6.3.7. Japan’s Initiatives Approach Critical Mass
6.4. Europe Restarts SOFC Development in 1986
6.4.1. Denmark
6.4.1.1. Risø and Haldor Topsoe: Developmental Work in Partnership
6.4.1.2. Forming a Consortium in 2001 for SOFC Commercialization
6.4.1.3. Forming a Topsoe Fuel Cell for SOFC Commercialization in 2004
6.4.1.4. Topsoe Fuel Cell Achieves a Number of Milestones
6.4.1.5. But No discernible commercial Success
6.4.2. Finland
6.4.2.1. Wartsila Starts SOFC Development in 2000 But Soon Chooses to Outsource SOFC Stacks
6.4.2.2. Wartsila Optimistic about Commercialization of WFC20 and WFC50 Units
6.4.2.3. But Technology Yet to be Validated
6.4.3. Germany
6.4.3.1. Asea Brown Boveri (ABB): Started SOFC R&D in 1968, Ended in 1993
6.4.3.2. BMW: Begins SOFC R&D in Late 1990s, Ends in Late 2000s
6.4.3.3. Dornier: Begins SOFC R&D in 1988, Ends in 1995
6.4.3.4. Forschungszentrum Julich
6.4.3.4.1. Julich Establishes a Series Of World Records In SOFC Development
6.4.3.4.2. Julich Widely Sought After For Its SOFC Expertise
6.4.3.4.3. But Experiences Technology Barriers
6.4.3.4.4. A Glimpse Of New Hope: World’s First Operating Lifetime of 40,000 H Achieved
6.4.3.5. H.C. Starck/Staxera/Webasto (Enerday)
6.4.3.5.1. H.C. Starck Builds State-Of-Theart SOFC Manufacturing Facility In Selb, Germany
6.4.3.5.2. Staxera Demonstrates Rapid Advances in SOFC Stack Technology
6.4.3.5.3. New Enerday Plans To Introduce Its Market Entry Product,
The 1 Kw-Class En-1000 LPG
6.4.3.5.4. Signs Of Commercial Success Yet To Be Seen
6.4.3.6. Siemens Efforts: Rise And Fall In 50 Years
6.4.4. The Netherlands
6.4.4.1. ECN Starts SOFC Activities In 1987
6.4.4.2. ECN Forms Indec, a Spin-Off SOFC Ceramic Component Production Company, in 1999
6.4.4.3. Indec Acquired by German Company H.C. Starck
6.4.5. Switzerland
6.4.5.1. Htceramix Starts as a University Spin-Off in 2000
6.4.5.1.1. Htceramix Presents Impressive Product Lineup In 2005
6.4.5.1.2. SOFCPOWER of Italy Acquires Htceramix In 2007
6.4.5.1.3. SOFCPOWER /Htceramix Makes Good Progress in Raising Stack Efficiency
6.4.5.1.4. Signs Of Commercial Success Not Yet Present
6.4.5.2. Sulzer/Sulzer Hexis/Hexis
6.4.5.2.1. Sulzer Starts Hexis Development In 1991
6.4.5.2.2. Sulzer Establishes Wholly Owned Sofc Subsidiary, Sulzer Hexis, In 1997
6.4.5.2.3. Hexis Becomes an Independent Company In 2006
6.4.5.2.4. ….Too Early To Forecast Commercial Outcome
6.4.6. United Kingdom
6.4.6.1. Alstom: Started SOFC R&D in Mid-1990s, Ended in Early 2000s
6.4.6.2. Ceres Power
6.4.6.2.1. Ceres Power Makes Rapid Progress Backed By Solid Finance
6.4.6.2.2. Uk Government Introduces Feed-In-Tariff to Encourage Residential Introduction Of Micro Combined Heat And Power Systems
6.4.6.2.3. But Some Technical Questions Remain Unresolved
6.4.6.3. Rolls Royce Fuel Cell Systems
6.4.6.3.1. UK Department Of Trade and Industry Provides Support
6.4.6.3.2. EU Framework Program Provides Major Support
6.4.6.3.3. ..Prospects for Commercial Success Uncertain In The Near Term
6.4.7. Europe Lacks Clear SOFC Strategy
6.5. Other Countries
6.5.1. Australia
6.5.1.1. CSIRO establishes Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited in 1992
6.5.1.2. CFCL Develops Pre-Commercial Demonstration Units in 2005-Creates Major Interest among Utilities
6.5.1.3. CFCL Establishes Large-Scale Manufacturing Facilities and Component Supply Chains in Europe
6.5.1.4. CFCL Launches New Commercial Product-2 kW BlueGenPower Plant
6.5.1.5. Commercial Success Not Yet Guaranteed
6.4.4.1. ECN Starts SOFC Activities in 1987
6.4.4.2. ECN forms InDEC, a spin-off SOFC Ceramic Component Production Company, in 1999
6.4.4.3. InDEC Acquired by German Company H.C. Starck
6.4.5. Switzerland
6.4.5.1. HTceramix Starts as a University Spin-Off in 2000
6.4.5.2. Sulzer/Sulzer Hexis/Hexis
6.4.6. United Kingdom
6.4.6.1. Alstom: Started SOFC R&D in Mid-1990s, Ended in Early 2000s
6.4.6.2. Ceres Power
6.4.6.3. Rolls Royce Fuel Cell Systems
6.4.7. Europe Lacks Clear SOFC Strategy
6.5. Other Countries
6.5.1. Australia
6.5.1.1. CSIRO establishes Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited in 1992
6.5.1.2. CFCL Develops Pre-Commercial Demonstration Units in 2005-Creates Major Interest among Utilities
6.5.1.3. CFCL Establishes Large-Scale Manufacturing Facilities and Component Supply Chains in Europe
6.5.1.4. CFCL Launches New Commercial Product-2 kW BlueGen Power Plant
6.5.1.5. Commercial Success Not Yet Guaranteed
6.5.2. Canada
6.5.2.1. Fuel Cell Technologies Limited
6.5.2.2. Global Thermoelectric
6.5.2.3. Both Acquired by US Companies
6.5.3. South Korea
6.5.3.1. Korea Electric Power Research Institute
6.5.3.2. Korea Institute of Energy Research
6.5.3.3. No Plans for Near Term Commercialization
6.5.4. China
6.5.4.1. Ningbo Institute of Material Technology and Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences
6.5.4.2. Shanghai Institute of Ceramics, Chinese Academy of Sciences
6.5.4.3. Focused on Longer Term Commercial Success
6.5.5. India
6.5.5.1. Central Glass and Ceramic Research Institute
6.5.5.2. Too Early to Foretell Future Outcome
6.6. Japan Emerges as the Global SOFC Leader; the United States and Europe Follow Behind
6.6.1. Japan Promotes Close Public-Private Collaboration, Greater Breadth of Industrial Expertise and Infrastructure
6.6.2. The United States Loses Its Edge Through the Slow Erosion of Its Base
6.6.3. Europe Is Fragmented, Uncoordinated, and Ineffective
6.6.4. But No Country Has a Viable SOFC Product Yet
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
7.2.1. GE PEMFCs Fail Manned Space Mission in the late 1960s
7.2.2. New Nafion Membrane Increases PEMFC Efficiency. But GE Abandons PEMFC Effort in 1984
7.3. Canadian Government Decides to Foster Domestic PEMFC Capabilities in the Early 1980s
7.3.1. Canada’s Defense Department Commissions Ballard to Advance GE’s PEMFC Technology in 1983
7.3.1.1. Second Contract Makes Marked Advances toward Practical Applications of PEMFCs
7.3.2. Canada’s Energy Department Sponsors Ballard to Develop PEM Fuel Cell Bus in 1990
7.3.3. Ballard Becomes the Global PEMFC Leader
7.3.3.1. Ballard/Daimler-Benz/Ford Fuel Cell Car Alliance Formed in 1997
7.4. A Global Fuel Cell Race Begins
7.4.1. Major Global Automakers and Bus Manufacturers Join the Race
7.4.1.1. Beijing LN Green Power Company (China)
7.4.1.2. Daihatsu
7.4.1.3. Daimler-Benz (DaimlerChrysler)
7.4.1.4. Dalian Institute of Chemical Physics (DCIP) (China)
7.4.1.5. EvoBus
7.4.1.6. Fiat
7.4.1.7. Ford
7.4.1.8. General Motors
7.4.1.9. Gillig
7.4.1.10. Hino
7.4.1.11. Honda
7.4.1.12. Hyundai
7.4.1.13. Irisbus
7.4.1.14. Man Nutzfahrzeuge (MAN Trucks and Bus)
7.4.1.15. Mazda
7.4.1.16. Mitsubishi Motors
7.4.1.17. NEOPLAN
7.4.1.18. New Flyer Industries
7.4.1.19. Nissan
7.4.1.20. Nova Bus
7.4.1.21. PSA Peugeot Citroen
7.4.1.22. Renault
7.4.1.23. Scania
7.4.1.24. Suzuki
7.4.1.25. Thor Industries (ThunderPower)
7.4.1.26. Toyota
7.4.1.27. Tongji University (China)
7.4.1.28. Tsinghua University (China)
7.4.1.29. Van Hool
7.4.1.30. Volkswagen
7.4.2. Many Governments Join the Race to Boost Domestic PEMFC Capabilities
7.4.2.1. Japanese Government Begins Modest R&D Investment in 1992
7.4.2.1.1. Japan Makes Dramatic Strategic Moves In 2000
7.4.2.1.1.1. Ministry Of Economy, Trade, and Industry Implements Major PEMFC R&D Projects
7.4.2.1.1.1.1. PEMFC System Technology Development Project (2000-2004)
7.4.2.1.1.1.2. Strategic Technology Development for PEMFC Commercialization Project (2005-2009)
7.4.2.1.1.1.3. Portable Fuel Cells for Electronic DevicesdA Successful Development Project
7.4.2.1.1.2. METI Implements Fuel Cell Car And Residential Power System Demonstration Projects
7.4.2.1.1.2.1. Japan Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Demonstration Project, JHFC I (2002-2005)
7.4.2.1.1.2.2. Japan Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Demonstration Project II, JHFC II (2006-2010)
7.4.2.1.1.2.3. Large-Scale Stationary PEMFC Demonstration Project (2005-2009)
7.4.2.1.1.3. METI Launches “Back to Basics” PEMFC Technology R&D Project (2010-2014)
7.4.2.1.1.3.1. But Small Budget and Overarching Goal of Commercialization Might Impede Basic Research Effort
7.4.2.2. US Government Launches Ambitious Fuel Cell Car and Hydrogen Technology Initiatives in 2002
7.4.2.2.1. Questionable Program Governance
7.4.2.2.2. FREEDOMCAR and Fuel Initiative Becomes Virtual Extension of the Partnership For New Generation of Vehicles (PNGVS)
7.4.2.2.3. Fuel Cell R&D Gets Increasingly Lesser Focus
7.4.2.2.4. Effectiveness of The Fuel Cell Program Questionable
7.4.2.2.5. Fuel Cell R&D Budget Starts Declining In 2009…Future US PEMFC
Development Uncertain
7.4.2.3. Europe Recognizes Global Fuel Cell Challenge in Late 1990s
7.4.2.3.1. European Commission Takes Charge In 2000
7.4.2.3.1.1. EC Still Happy With R&D under FP5 (1998-2002)
7.4.2.3.1.1.1. EC Programs Emulated Elsewhere in the World
7.4.2.3.1.2. But Post-FP6 Review in 2007 Reveals Europe 5 Years Behind the United States and Japan
7.4.2.3.1.3. EC Makes a Surprise Move—Entrusts FP7 Fuel Cell R&D Management to Public-Private Partnership
7.4.2.3.1.3.1. But Little Increase in Fuel Cell R&D Funding
7.4.2.3.1.4. FP7 May Not Achieve Near-Term Commercial Success
7.4.2.3.2. European Member State Governments Conduct Modest PEMFC R&D Commercial Success
7.4.2.3.2.1. France
7.4.2.3.2.1.1. France Establishes Core Hydrogen and PEMFC R&D Group
7.4.2.3.2.1.2. France Established Public Funding Channel
7.4.2.3.2.1.3. Some Success in Building PEMFC Capabilities, but Falls Short of a Critical Mass for Developers
7.4.2.3.2.2. Germany
7.4.2.3.2.2.1. Germany Implements PEMFC Demonstration Programs in the 2000s
7.4.2.3.2.2.2. The Program on Investment into the Future (2001-2005)
7.4.2.3.2.2.3. Clean Energy Partnership (2002-2007)
7.4.2.3.2.2.4. National Innovation Program for Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technology (2007-2016)
7.4.2.3.2.2.5. H2 Mobility Initiative (2009-2015)
7.4.2.3.2.2.6. But Success of FCV Commercialization in Near Term Remains Uncertain
7.4.2.3.2.3. Italy
7.4.2.3.2.3.1. Italy provides Relatively Small PEMFC R&D Funding
7.4.2.3.2.3.2. Italy Focuses on PEM FCVs in Early 2000s
7.4.2.3.2.3.3. Lack of Government Will and Absence of Domestic PEMFC Capabilities Hinders Commercial Success
7.4.2.3.2.4. United Kingdom
7.4.2.3.2.4.1. UK Implements National Plans and Strategies to Promote PEMFC R&D
7.4.2.3.2.4.2. UK Deploys Three R&D Funding Channels
7.4.2.3.2.4.3. Commercial Success in Near Term Uncertain
7.4.2.4. Other Governments
7.4.2.4.1. China
7.4.2.4.1.1. China Launches Aggressive PEM FCV Development Plan in the Early 2000s
7.4.2.4.1.1.1. China Provides Administrative Guidance for FCV Development
7.4.2.4.1.2. China Unveils a Series of FCVS
7.4.2.4.1.2.1. Fuel Cell Cars
7.4.2.4.1.2.2. Fuel Cell Buses
7.4.2.4.1.2.3. FCV Performance Falls Short of Expectations
7.4.2.4.1.3. Commercial Success in the Near Term Unlikely
7.4.2.4.2. South Korea
7.4.2.4.2.1. Korea Initiates Aggressive 10-Year Fuel Cell Development Program
7.4.2.4.2.2. But Plans Yet To Deliver Results
7.5. The Global Fuel Cell Race So Far Fails to Attain Commercial Success
7.5.1. Transportation Applications
7.5.1.1. Passenger Cars
7.5.1.1.1. Some Automakers Remain Focused…But With a Wavering Mind
7.5.1.1.1.1. Daimler
7.5.1.1.1.2. GM
7.5.1.1.1.3. Honda
7.5.1.1.1.4. Hyundai-Kia
7.5.1.1.1.5. Nissan
7.5.1.1.1.6. Toyota
7.5.1.1.1.7. But Commercial Success in thee Near Term Uncertain
7.5.1.1.2. Some Shift Focus Away From Fuel Cells
7.5.1.1.2.1. Chrysler
7.5.1.1.2.2. Ford
7.5.1.1.2.3. Mazda
7.5.1.1.2.4. Mitsubishi Motors
7.5.1.1.2.5. Renault
7.5.1.1.3. Some Automakers Shift toward Using Fuel Cells for Auxiliary Power Use
7.5.1.1.3.1. BMW
7.5.1.1.3.2. Lotus Engineering/Intelligent Energy
7.5.1.1.3.3. PSA Peugeot Citroen
7.5.1.1.3.4. Suzuki
7.5.1.1.3.5. Volvo
7.5.1.1.4. Some Have Uncertainty about Fuel Cell Future
7.5.1.1.4.1. Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation
7.5.1.1.4.2. Other Chinese Fuel Cell Car Developers
7.5.1.1.5. Some Have a Long-Term Perspective
7.5.1.1.5.1. Fiat
7.5.1.1.5.2. Volkswagen/Audi
7.5.1.2. Buses
7.5.1.2.1. Government Programs Led Fuel Cell Bus Development
7.5.1.2.2. Top Three Leaders in Fuel Cell Bus Development: Ballard, Hydrogenics, and UTC Power
7.5.1.2.3. Emerging Trend: Fuel Cells as Range Extenders
7.5.1.2.4. But No Near-Term Commercial Success
7.5.1.3. Material Handling Vehicles
7.5.1.3.1. Growing Fuel Cell Material Handling Market in The United States
7.5.1.3.2. Emerging Leaders in Material Handling
7.5.1.3.2.1. Ballard
7.5.1.3.2.2. Plug Power
7.5.1.3.2.3. Oorja Protonics
7.5.1.3.2.4. Nuvera
7.5.1.3.2.5. Hydrogenics
7.5.1.3.2.6. H2 Logic
7.5.1.3.2.7. Proton Motor
7.5.1.3.3. Leading Original Equipment Manufacturers of Fuel Cell Material Handling Vehicles
7.5.1.3.3.1. Crown Equipment
7.5.1.3.3.2. Linde Material Handling
7.5.1.3.3.3. Raymond Corporation/Toyota
7.5.1.3.4. Hopes For Commercial Success Rising
7.5.1.4. Other Transport Applications (Scooters, Bikes, Trains, Marine Vessels, and Aircraft)…Perhaps No Near-Term Commercial Success
7.5.2. Stationary Applications Shore up Only Two Notable Markets
7.5.2.1. Small Residential Combined Heat and Power Market in Japan Sustained by Government Subsidies
7.5.2.1.1. Panasonic (Formerly Matsushita Electric Industrial)
7.5.2.1.2. Toshiba
7.5.2.1.3. Eneos Celltech
7.5.2.1.4. Near-Term Success Of Japanese Small Residential Chp Not Certain
7.5.2.2. Backup Power (Ups/Emergency Power/Remote Power) Market In The United States…With Potential Success In The Near Term
7.5.2.2.1. Ballard/Dantherm
7.5.2.2.2. Relion
7.5.2.2.3. Idatech
7.5.2.2.4. Altergy
7.5.2.2.5. Hydrogenics
7.5.3. Portable Fuel Cell Applications
7.5.3.1. Consumer Electronic Devices Not Yet Commercially Viable
7.5.3.2. Major Success in Toys and Educational Systems…and Beyond
7.5.3.2.1. Heliocentris
7.5.3.2.1.1. Educational Systems
7.5.3.2.1.2. Stationary Ups/Backup Power Applications
7.5.3.2.1.3. Auxiliary Power for Transport Applications
7.5.3.2.2. Horizon Fuel Cell Technologies
7.5.3.2.2.1. Toys and Educational Kits
7.5.3.2.2.2. Transport Applications Including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVS) And Small Cars
7.5.3.2.2.3. Portable Auxiliary Power Applications For Emergency/Recreational Uses and For Pocket-Size Power Chargers
7.5.3.3. SFC Energy: The Global Leader in Portable Auxiliary Power Unit Applications
7.5.3.3.1. SFC Energy Founded In February 2000 near Munich, Germany
7.5.3.3.2. SFC Commercializes Its First Portable APU DMFC in 2004
7.5.3.3.3. SFC Introduces New Fuel Cell Family EFOY DMFC in 2006—with Remarkable Market Success
7.5.3.3.4. SFC Makes a Strategic Move to Widen Areas of Application
7.5.3.3.5. But SFC Is Not Yet Profitable
7.5.4. Conclusion: An Unexpected and Disconcerting Trend
7.5.4.1. Perhaps Current Fuel Cell Technology Is Only Adequate for Niche Market Applications
7.5.4.2. And Not Mature Enough for Primary Market Applications
7.5.4.3. Incremental Improvement Unlikely to Deliver Near-Term Commercial Success in Primary Markets
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
8.1.1. Government R&D Funding: Japan Outspends the United States and Europe
8.1.2. Private-Sector R&D Investment: Japanese Government and Industry Together Outspend the United States by a Factor of Two; European Government and Industry Together Outspend the United States by 50 percent
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
8.4.1. Alkaline Fuel Cells
8.4.2. Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells
8.4.3. Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells
8.4.4. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
8.4.5. Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells
8.5. Fuel Cell Patenting Activity
8.5.1. Japan Grants the Largest Number of Fuel Cell Patents in 2010
8.5.2. Japanese Corporations Expand Dominance in Fuel Cell Patent Activity During the Past Decade
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
9.3.1. The United States Starts a Small Interdisciplinary PEMFC Basic Research Center in 2007
9.3.2. Japan Launches an Interdisciplinary PEMFC Basic Research Project in 2010
9.3.3. Small Budgets, Short Deadlines, and Overarching Goal of Commercialization Might Inhibit Basic Research
9.4. Fuel Cell Development Requires Three Levels Of Research: Basic Research Supported By Applied Research And Product Development
9.4.1. Forschungszentrum Julich Assigned to Lead EU FP6 Real-SOFC Project to Address Degradation in 2004
9.4.2. AIST Assigned to Lead SOFC Basic Research Project to Address Degradation in 2008
9.4.3. .But Basic Research Limited by Serious Constraints
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
9.6.1. Past Spending
9.6.2. An Exemplar in History: The Manhattan Project
9.6.2.1. Preceded by Nobel Prize-Class Nuclear Fission Basic Research in the 1930s
9.6.2.2. The Manhattan Project-An Applied Research and Development Project-Began in 1939
9.6.2.2.1. Placing Project Leaders Directly Under US President
9.6.2.2.2. Providing Vast Resources to Explore All Possible Technologies
9.6.2.2.2.1. Momentous Budget
9.6.2.2.2.2. Liberal Use of Silver Mint
9.6.2.2.3. Taking Whatever Actions Needed
9.6.2.2.3.1. Replacement within Three Months Of The Initially Appointed Colonel James Marshall With A Dynamic Go-Getter Colonel Leslie Groves and Immediate Promotion of Groves to Brigadier General to Raise His Stature
9.6.2.2.3.2. Appointment of Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer as Director of Project Y Despite Security Concerns
9.6.2.2.4. Enlisting Nation’s Top Quality Research Cadre
9.6.2.2.5. Building Massive Research Infrastructure
9.6.2.2.5.1. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Berkeley Lab
9.6.2.2.5.2. Los Alamos National Laboratory.
9.6.2.2.5.3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory
9.6.2.2.5.4. Argonne National Laboratory
9.6.2.2.5.5. Ames Laboratory
9.6.2.2.5.6. Brookhaven National Laboratory
9.6.2.2.5.7. Sandia National Laboratories
9.7. Policy Recommendations: Implementation of the National Fuel Cell Development Project
9.7.1. Basic Research: A Central and Vital Mission
9.7.2. Budget and Research Period: $2 Billion a Year for 5 Years
9.7.3. Giving a New Mission to National and Industry R&D Labs
9.7.3.1. Appointing Selected National Laboratories, Universities, and Their Research Cadre for Basic Research: At least 2000 Top-Notch Scientists and Physicists from All Related Disciplines
9.7.3.2. Enlisting Fuel Cell Industry for Applied Research and Product Development
9.7.4. The NFCDP as Top National Energy Security Priority
9.7.5. Three Possible National Options for the NFCDP Project Implementation
9.7.5.1. German Option
9.7.5.2. Japanese Option
9.7.5.3. US Option
9.7.6. The Outlook-Japan Will Likely Emerge as First Global Fuel Cell Market Leader for the Next Decade-But the World Will Be the Ultimate Winner
References

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s