Advances in Energy Systems and Technology: Volume 5

94720

Fuel Cells for Electric Utility Power Generation

Arnold P. Fickett,     Advanced Conversion and Storage Department, Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, California

Publisher Summary

A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that continuously converts the chemical energy of a fuel to electrical energy. The essential difference between a fuel cell and a storage battery is the continuous nature of the fuel and oxidant supply. A fuel cell consists of two catalyzed carbon rods, immersed in an electrolyte and separated by a gas barrier. The fuel is bubbled across the surface of one electrode while the oxidant is bubbled across the other electrode. When the rods are electrically connected through an external load, the hydrogen dissociates on the catalytic surface of the fuel electrode, forming hydrogen ions and electrons. The hydrogen ions migrate through the electrolyte and separator to the catalytic surface of the oxygen electrode. Simultaneously, the electrons move through the external circuit to the oxygen electrode. The oxygen, hydrogen ions, and electrons combine at the oxygen electrode to form water. A fuel cell power, depending on its size, type, and sophistication, may require controls of varying complexity, an oxidant subsystem, and thermal and fluid management subsystems. This chapter focuses on fuel cells for electric utility power generation, which represents the most likely large-scale use of fuel cells.

I. Introduction

A. Background

B. Classification of Fuel Cell Technologies

C. Major Components of the Fuel Cell

D. Performance Characteristics

E. Fuel Cell Technologies and Electric Utility Power Generation

II. Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells

A. Description

B. Performance Characteristics

C. Endurance Characteristics

III. Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells

A. Description

B. Performance Characteristics

C. Endurance Characteristics

IV. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells

A. Description

B. Performance Characteristics

C. Endurance Characteristics

V. Electric Utility Fuel Cell Systems

A. Electric Utility Fuel Cell Power Plant Characteristics

B. Electric Utility Applications

C. Fuel Scenarios

D. Integration within Fuel Cell Power Plants

E. State of Hardware Development

F. Prognosis

References

I INTRODUCTION

A fuel cell is an electrochemical device that continuously converts the chemical energy of a fuel (and oxidant) to electrical energy. The essential difference between a fuel cell and a storage battery is the continuous nature of the fuel and oxidant supply.

A simple fuel cell is illustrated in Fig. 1. Two catalyzed carbon rods (electrodes) are immersed in an electrolyte (acid in this illustration) and separated by a gas barrier. The fuel (in this case, hydrogen) is bubbled across the surface of one electrode while the oxidant (in this case, oxygen from ambient air) is bubbled across the other electrode. When the rods are electrically connected through an external load, the following events occur.

Fig. 1 Simple fuel cell.

1. The hydrogen dissociates on the catalytic surface of the fuel electrode, forming hydrogen ions and electrons.

2. The hydrogen ions migrate through the electrolyte and separator (gas barrier) to the catalytic surface of the oxygen electrode.

3. Simultaneously, the electrons move through the external circuit to the oxygen electrode.

4. The oxygen, hydrogen ions, and electrons combine at the oxygen electrode to form water.

The net reaction is that of hydrogen and oxygen producing water and electrical energy; electrical energy is produced by the flow of electrons through the external circuit.

A practical fuel cell power plant, depicted in Fig. 2.will comprise at least three basic subsystems:

Fig. 2 Fuel cell power plant.

1. A power section, which consists of one or more fuel cell stacks: Each stack contains many individual fuel cells connected in series to produce a stack output ranging from a few to several hundred volts (dc).

2. A fuel subsystem that manages the fuel supply to the power section: This subsystem can range from simple flow controls to a complex fuel-processing facility.

3. A power conditioner that converts the output from the power section to the power type and quality required by the application: This subsystem could range from a simple voltage control to a sophisticated device that would convert the dc power to an ac power output.

In addition, a fuel cell power—depending on its size, type, and sophistication—may require controls of varying complexity and an oxidant subsystem, as well as thermal and fluid management subsystems.

Since they produce power by an electrochemical rather than a thermal cycle, fuel cells are not subject to the Carnot cycle limitation of thermal machines and thus offer the potential for highly efficient conversion of chemical to electrical energy. Furthermore, the efficiency is essentially independent of size; small power plants operate nearly as efficiently as large ones.

Fuel cell power plants are quiet and clean, the by-products being water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Thus, they can be considered for applications where noxious emissions or noise would be objectionable or where water is unavailable.

Fuel cell power plants offer considerable flexibility. They can be configured to use a wide variety of fuels and produce a wide range of dc or ac power outputs.

These and other advantages have led to the development of fuel cells for numerous applications, including space, underwater, transportation, and utility. This chapter will focus on fuel cells for electric utility power generation, which represents the most likely large-scale use of fuel cells that will occur in this century.

A Background

1 Historical

The fuel cell principle was first demonstrated in 1838 when Grove (1839) produced electricity from hydrogen and oxygen by operating a water electrolysis (electrochemical decomposition of water) cell in reverse. Four years later, Grove (1842) assembled a gaseous voltaic battery that used high-surface-area platinum electrodes, sulfuric acid electrolyte, and hydrogen and oxygen as the reactants. During his career Grove continued his investigations (Grove, 1874) into fuel cells and actually considered alternative fuels (to hydrogen), as well as the use of air as the oxidant.

During the 100 years from Grove’s first fuel cell experiment to the 1930s, fuel cells were investigated by a number of scientists. The more notable investigations are described by Liebhafsky and Cairns (1968). Although no practical fuel cell evolved from these activities, many ideas were considered. In fact, most of the concepts that we find important in the 1980s were actually conceived prior to 1930, including high-surface-area electrode, gas diffusion electrodes, acid fuel cells, alkaline fuel cells, molten carbonate fuel cells, redox fuel cells, direct hydrocarbon fuel cells, direct coal fuel cells, and solid oxide fuel cells.

The efforts of Bacon (1954), starting in the mid-1930s and continuing into the 1960s, led the way to a practical fuel cell power plant. Bacon’s fuel cell employed an alkaline electrolyte and metallic nickel electrodes to react hydrogen and oxygen electrochemically at 200°C and 600 psia. The Bacon cell concept was subsequently selected by Pratt and Whitney Aircraft as the basis for the Apollo spacecraft power plant. Modified to produce higher power densities and good reliability, the Bacon cell powered man’s venture to the moon in the 1960s.

In addition to Bacon’s efforts, other fuel cell activities were initiated in the 1950s. Allis-Chalmers explored a low-pressure alkaline fuel cell technology; General Electric (Grubb, 1957) developed an ion-exchange-membrane (now known as solid polymer electrolyte) fuel cell that was actually the first fuel cell in space, powering the Gemini spacecraft; Broers, working for the Central Technical Institute (TNO) in the Netherlands, pursued molten carbonate fuel cell technology. Led by the space efforts, interest in fuel cells grew explosively through the mid-1960s. Many potential applications were considered, including space, underwater, automotive, military, emergency power, and weather buoy. During this time period, almost every conceivable type of fuel cell was under investigation at one or more laboratories. At the peak of enthusiasm approximately 50 U.S. companies were involved. By the later 1960s, however, the problems inherent in fuel cell development had become apparent. This situation coupled with the reduction in emphasis on research and development in the United States, led to a rapid curtailment of fuel cell activity. And by 1970 only a few hardy organizations remained active in fuel cell development. In the United States, only United Technologies Corporation (formerly Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft) was making significant efforts aimed at consumer applications. The United Technologies Corporations (UTC) effort comprised two thrusts.

1. The TARGET (Team to Advance Research on Gas Energy Transformation) program to develop a fuel cell power plant for on-site (residential/commercial) power generation was initiated in 1967 by the Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Division of United Aircraft and a consortium of gas companies.

2. An electric utility program was initiated in 1971 by United Aircraft, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), and 10 electric utilities. In 1972 that program separated into (a) the FCG-1 program sponsored by nine utilities and United Aircraft and (b) the RP114 program sponsored by United Aircraft and the EEL Responsibility for the RP114 program was transferred from the EEI to the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in 1973. The FCG-1 program was intended to bring a first-generation, 26-MW fuel cell power plant into commercial service by the end of the decade. The RP114 program, in recognition of the somewhat limited applications of the first-generation machine, was aimed at seeking the technological advances needed to reduce cost and improve power plant flexibility.

The TARGET and FCG-1 programs were based on phosphoric acid fuel cell technology, while the RP114 effort was to explore alternative technologies and select the one best suited to future power plant application.

These programs provided the impetus for fuel cell development activities through 1975, when, partly in response to the energy crisis and partly due to renewed electric and gas utility interest in research and development, the federal government and the research arms of the utility industries initiated a comprehensive effort into fuel cell research and development. The results of this renewed fuel cell initiative have been impressive. A number of major companies are again actively involved. Furthermore, technological progress that was not forthcoming in the 1960s became rapid in the 1970s. As a result, fuel cell power plants are now on the threshold of commercial use.

2 Review of Nonelectric Utility Applications

Fuel cells are currently being developed for a number of diverse applications. In none of these can the fuel cell be considered an item of commerce. Although fully qualified as a spacecraft power system, the fuel cell has yet to achieve all of the goals required for widespread deployment as a commercial power plant. High efficiency (low fuel consumption), cleanliness (no inherent by-product or emissions), and lack of noise are the characteristics that drive most of the potential fuel cell applications. The major obstacle to deployment has been cost. The early fuel cell uses will, therefore, be those in which the premium for its advantageous characteristics and the tolerance to high capital cost are the greatest. Table I lists the most likely potential applications, together with the relative importance of the fuel cell’s characteristics in each application.

TABLE I

Potential Fuel Cell Applicationa

aKey: 1, major requirement; 2, important factor; 3, not a controlling characteristic.

Remote power applications in which the storage of fuel and/or oxidant is a problem are ideal for the fuel cell. This is especially true in the case of the longer-duration space and specialty undersea missions that are limited by the weight and volume of fuel and oxidant they can carry. For these applications, hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells are attractive, since they result in minimum weight/volume systems. The Gemini, Apollo, and Space Shuttle vehicles were all powered by hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells. The 1-kW Gemini power plant used the General Electric (GE) solid polymer electrolyte (SPE) technology, the 1.5-kW Apollo power plant was based on Pratt and Whitney Aircraft’s version of the Bacon cell, and the larger 12-kW Space Shuttle fuel cell employs the UTC aqueous potassium hydroxide electrolyte. The fuel cell’s record in space has been excellent during 7 Gemini flights, 12 Apollo flights, and the ongoing Shuttle activities. Both GE and UTC are developing advanced fuel cells for future space missions (McBryar, 1979).

Submarine applications have been restricted to a few specialty vehicles. This is likely due to the emergence of nuclear submarine fleets and the inability of conventional or fuel cell-powered submarines to compete. In the 1960s a substantial effort was conducted in Sweden to build a fuel cell propulsion system for submarines (Lindstrom, 1964), but it was terminated due to a series of engineering problems. United Technologies Corporation has developed and demonstrated a 60-kW (three 20-kW power plants) system for a deep-sea submergence vehicle (DSSV). It is possible that fuel cells will continue to serve specialty submarine applications; however, it is not a significant market opportunity.

A wide range of other remote applications that would be satisfied by fuel cells are characterized by a high energy-to-power ratio and the need for high efficiency and low environmental pollution. Navigational aids, automated weather stations, remote beacons, pipeline cathodic protection systems, and communication systems fall into this category. These applications range from milliwatts to about 100 W of power. In most cases they would use air as the oxidant and either methanol or hydrogen obtained from the decomposition of a metal hydride or methanol as the fuel. To date, a significant fuel cell market has not resulted from numerous investigations into this area, although recent Army interest in a family of 30- to 60-W fuel cell power plants based upon alkaline (George and Scozzofava, 1978) and SPE (Adlhart, 1978) cell technology could lead to a viable market.

Portable power applications overlap with air-breathing remote power applications. In our arbitrary classification system, portable power plants are defined as those in the 0.50- to 10-kW size range. They compete with such conventional generators as diesels and engine generator sets. For the recreational markets, the fuel cell’s advantages are not sufficient to offset the much higher cost of the fuel cell as compared with engine generator sets. Thus, there is not yet any serious consideration of developing fuel cells for this use. Before such consideration becomes likely, fuel cell power plants will have to sell at $200/kW or less.

The U.S. Army Mobility Equipment Research and Development Command (MERADCOM) is developing a family of fuel cells for forward-area military use. In this service, reliability, silence, light weight, fuel efficiency, and nondetectability are of major importance. The prototype for this family is a 1.5-kW unit based upon the phosphoric acid technology and employing methanol (reformate) as its hydrogen source. The Army has contracted with UTC to conduct a 16-unit demonstration (Barthelemy, 1981). Under a parallel program, Energy Research Corporation is continuing with the development of 3- and 5-kW power plants (Abens et al., 1981). The fuel cell will be cost competitive in this application at about $2000/kW and can meet special needs at as much as $4000/kW.

Utility applications can be classified into four categories:

1. those located on the customer side of the electric meter in commercial/residential situations (40- to 400-kW power requirements)

2. those located on the customer side in industrial cogeneration situations (1–20 MW),

3. those located on the electric utility side of the meter at substations (5–50 MW), and

4. those located on the electric side at central stations (100–500 MW).

The last three applications, which are generically similar, will be covered within the body of this chapter. The first, the so-called on-site application, has been pursued for about 15 years by a number of gas and gas-electric utilities.

The TARGET program was initiated in 1967 and in the late 1960s developed a 12.5-kW phosphoric acid fuel cell power plant, which demonstrated an electrical efficiency of 28%. In the early 1970s, 65 of these on-site power plants were tested at 35 sites in the United States, Japan, and Canada. Following these tests, the Gas Research Institute (GRI) and UTC developed and verified a larger 40-kW power plant, which incorporated heat recovery as well as several technical improvements. The 40-kW power plant is able to convert over 80% of the energy contained in the natural gas fuel to useful electrical and thermal energy.

In April 1980 the first of 48 field-test units entered into service at a Portland, Oregon, laundry. Related studies (Mientek, 1982) have indicated that the market size in terms of kilowatts sold is relatively insensitive in the 40- to 400-kW range. Above this range, the market diminishes significantly. Those same studies identified $2000–2500/kW as the threshold capital cost for this application.

The on-site power plants and the electric utility power plants share a great deal of common technology. In particular, the first-generation machines would utilize a very similar phosphoric acid fuel cell technology. For this reason, there is synergism among the various phosphoric acid fuel cell efforts. Technological accomplishments under the on-site program benefit the electric utility program and vice versa.

Other fuel cell uses that warrant mention are emergency power and transportation (propulsion) applications. Siemens AG has focused its attention on the development of a 7-kW fuel cell power plant for use as an emergency generator (Strasser, 1979). This application demands high reliability with low maintenance requirements. Efficiency and reactant type are not major concerns, since fuel consumption would be small or negligible during standby. Cost will be a major consideration; consequently, the Siemens approach uses H2/O2 reactants and low-cost alkaline electrolyte fuel cell technology. To date, experimental 7-kW systems have been tested successfully. The principal issues now relate to cost, life, and the European market for such a power plant. A well-defined U.S. market for emergency/standby power plants has not been identified, nor has a U.S. fuel cell been developed for such an application. Thus, the Siemens experience is being viewed with great interest.

In the United States transportation is the largest single energy user, accounting for approximately 50% of current petroleum consumption. This fact, coupled with the relatively slow development of battery-powered electric vehicles and the significant progress made by fuel cells, has stimulated interest in developing fuel cells for transportation (McCormick et al., 1979). In transportation applications the fuel cell must compete with internal combustion engines and diesels that cost $10/kW and $50/kW, respectively. These applications will thus be driven by cost. Capital costs will likely control consumer markets (automobiles); life-cycle cost will be more important for the nonconsumer applications (buses, fleet vehicles, etc.).

The Los Alamos National Laboratory has conducted an ongoing evaluation of fuel cells for transportation (Huff, 1982), including passenger vehicles, city buses, delivery trucks, highway trucks and buses, and nonhighway heavy-duty transportation, such as locomotives and towboats. Power requirements range from 20 kW (60-kW peak) for the passenger vehicle to 400 kW for the city bus and 4000 kW for the push tug. Preliminary conclusions have been that the larger (power and size) applications are better suited to early use of fuel cells than are the smaller vehicles (passenger and delivery vans). The larger applications are nonconsumer, and users will consider life-cycle costs rather than first costs. Thus, fuel efficiency becomes a more important factor. Furthermore, larger fuel cell power plants (FCPP) will be less expensive in terms of dollars per kilowatt than the smaller plants due to economies of scale. For fuel cell power plants to be considered for any of these applications, they will have to use logistic fuels, i.e., gasoline, diesel, or perhaps methanol. Achievement of capital costs consistent with transportation applications will require technical advances that will likely take 15 to 20 years to implement and reduce to commercial practice.

In summary, the applications can be considered in two groups: specialty, where cost is not the major requirement, and consumer, where cost is all important. State-of-the-art fuel cell power plants are able to qualify now for many of the former applications. Given development funding and/or market incentives, fuel cells could be made available in a relatively short period of time for many of the specialty applications. However, fuel cell power plants are still marginally too expensive for the cost-sensitive applications. Table II indicates FCPP costs ranges that need to be achieved for such applications. This table suggests that the early commercial uses will be for electric utility, on-site, and industrial cogeneration applications.

TABLE II

Cost-Sensitive Applications

B Classification of Fuel Cell Technologies

Fuel cells are normally classified according to their fuel source, oxidant, temperature of operation, and electrolyte. Table III identifies some of these parameters. The number of combinations and permutations of the various parameters would seem to be very large (10 fuel sources × 3 oxidant types × 4 temperature ranges × 8 electrolytes). In fact, the number of practical combinations is relatively few for the following reasons:

TABLE III

Fuel Cell Parameters

aIndirect systems decompose the primary fuel external to the fuel cell to provide a secondary fuel that is fed to the fuel cell stacks. The secondary fuel is usually rich in hydrogen and may contain other products, such as water vapor and carbon oxides.

1. Electrolytes are best suited to the following temperature ranges due to ionic conductivity and stability limitations: aqueous alkaline, SPE: low temperature (<120°C); phosphoric acid: intermediate temperature (∼200°C); molten carbonate, molten alkaline: high temperature (∼650°C); solid oxide: very high temperature (∼1000°C).

2. As discussed previously, the applications place constraints on the choice of fuel and oxidant.

3. There is a relationship between the fuel source (type) and the fuel cell temperature. In direct systems the fuel cell temperature must be high enough to result in reasonable electrochemical reaction rates. Hydrogen will react at any temperature; however, carbon monoxide (in coal gas) requires a higher temperature, and hydrocarbon fuels require an even higher temperature. Indirect systems often require that steam from the fuel cell (by-product water and heat) by cycled to the fuel-processing unit. This dictates a fuel cell temperature of at least 120°C to produce the