High Performance, Low Cost Hydrogen Generation from

Renewable EnergyP. I./Presenter Name: Dr. Katherine AyersOrganization: Proton Energy SystemsDate: May 11, 2011

Project ID #PD071

This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information

Overview

2

• Total project funding– DOE share:

$3,186,826– Contractor share:

$849,206• Funding for FY11

– DOE share: $762,610

Budget

• Project Start: Sept. 2009• Project End: December 2013• Percent complete: 25%

Timeline

• Barriers addressedG: Capital CostH: System EfficiencyJ: Renewable Electricity

Generation Integration

Barriers

• Entegris, Inc. (Industry)• Penn State (Academic)• Oak Ridge (National Lab)

Partners

Table 3.1.4 Source: DOE Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan, Updated April 2009

RelevanceOverall Cost of Hydrogen

• Cell stack largest contributor to system cost– Flowfields, separators and MEAs drive stack cost

3

Stack15%

32%

13%

25%

3%12%

53%

Power supplies

Balance of plant

MEA

flow fields and separators

balance of cell

balance of stack

24%

48%

5%

23%

Stack

System

RelevanceProton Roadmap• Detailed Technology Roadmap developed internally

– High level outline shown below• Over 15 projects completed or active to date

– Funded by DOE, NSF, ARPA-E, ONR, DoD, and internal funds

4

Membrane

6-12 months 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-5 years

Catalyst

Flow fields

PFSA materials, reduced thickness

Process improvements/reduced loading

Higher activity catalysts

Next generation materials New membrane chemistries, further thickness reduction

Alternate deposition techniques and engineered nanostructures

Supplier qualification, near term cost reductions

Bipolar plate, next generation design

Integrated frame/flow field, part count reduction

Alternate materials/ precious metal reduction

Unitized parts

Current Project

Timeline

5

RelevanceProject Objectives

• Improve electrolyzer cell stack manufacturability– Consolidation of components– Incorporation of alternative materials– Improved electrical efficiency

• Reduce cost in electrode fabrication– Reduction in precious metal content– Alternative catalyst application methods

Top Level Approach• Task 1.0: Catalyst Optimization

– Control catalyst loading– Improve application

• Task 2.1: Computational Cell Model– Develop full model– Flex parameters, observe impact on

performance• Task 2.2: Implement New, Lower

Cost Cell Design– Design and verify parts– Production release

• Task 2.3: Prototype Concepts– Test material compatibility– Fabricate test parts

6

• Task 2.4: Composite Bipolar Plates– Demonstrate functionality

• Task 3.0: Low Cost Manufacturing– Laminate concepts– Alternate processes

• Task 4.0: Operational Testing and Stack Scale Up

• Task 5.0: Manufacturing Development

• Task 6.0: Manufacturing Qualification

• Task 7.0: H2A Model Cost Analysis– Input design parameters– Assess impact of changes

Progress on Milestones

7

Task Number Project Milestones

Task Completion DateOriginal Planned

Percent Complete

1 Catalyst Optimization 03/31/10 100%

2.2 Improved Flowfield Implementation 05/30/10 100%2.1 Electrolyzer Cell Model 01/30/11 100%2.3 Next Generation Flowfield Prototypes 05/30/10 100%

2.4Metal-Composite Laminate Plate

Fabrication 12/31/10 100%3.1 Metal-Composite Plate Development 12/30/11 15%3.2 All-Metal Laminate Plate Development 12/30/11 15%3.3 Hydrogen Resistant Coating Development 12/30/11 10%4.1 Sample Operational Tests 12/31/11 15%4.2 Post Operational Testing Analysis 03/30/12 0%

4.3 Stack Scale Up 09/30/12 0%5 Bipolar Plate Manufacturing Development 06/30/13 0%6 Bipolar Plate Manufacturing Qualification 09/30/13 0%7 H2A Cost Model Analysis 09/30/13 50%8 Project Management 09/30/13 30%

Technical AccomplishmentsTask 1.0: Catalyst Optimization• Demonstrated new

alternative application techniques

• Step 1: 55% reduction on anode

• Step 2: >90% reduction on cathode

Page 8

3M nanostructuredthin film electrode

1.00

1.20

1.40

1.60

1.80

2.00

2.20

0 100 200 300 400 500

Cel

l Pot

entia

l (V)

Run Time (hours)

Catalyst Loading Test: 1800 mA/cm2, 80oC

Baseline20% loading reduction55% loading reduction

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Pote

ntia

l (Vo

lts)

Current Density (Amps/cm2)

3M Cathode #1, 8 mil total3M Cathode #2, 8 mil totalProton Baseline , 7 mil

80ºC operation

• Qualified non-proprietary test cell for collaborator use

• Enables rapid sample turnover and comparison between sites

9

Technical AccomplishmentsTask 1.0: Catalyst Optimization

1.41.51.61.71.81.9

22.12.22.32.4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Volta

ge (V

)

Current Density (A/cm2)

Comparison Polarization Curves

NPTC cell

Proton Baseline

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Baseline Internally funded

Internally funded

DOE Step 1 DOE Step 2 End Goal

% C

atal

yst L

oadi

ng

Implementation Timeline

10

RelevanceTask 1.0: Reduction of noble metals

Implemented

Qualified

Feasibility Demonstrated

11

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2.2

2.4

2.6

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0

Pote

ntia

l (Vo

lts)

Current Density (Amps/cm2)

Experimental Data

Model Data

• Modeling goals:– Current density distribution– Electrical potential distributions– Volume fraction of water and gases– Heat distribution

Technical AccomplishmentsSubtask 2.1: Computational Model

O2 Fraction

Bipolar Plate

GDL

RelevanceTask 2.1: Performance Prediction

• Cell component architecture can be refined in light of model predictions

• Use conclusions for iterations of next generation designs

12

Technical AccomplishmentsSubtask 2.2: Cell Improvements• Implemented first design step Oct. 2010• Over 1200 cells manufactured to date• 12% stack cost savings demonstrated

1.80

1.85

1.90

1.95

2.00

2.05

2.10

2.15

2.20

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000

Cel

l Pot

entia

l (Vo

lts)

Run Time (hours)

RND1020201 - 34-cell Validation(160 Amps, 415 psig, 50oC)

Cell Average

Linear (Cell Average)

13

1.800

1.850

1.900

1.950

2.000

2.050

2.100

2.150

2.200

2.250

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000

Cel

l Pot

entia

l (V)

Run Time (hours)

Composite Bipolar Plate(160 amps, 100 psi, 50°C)

Cell 1

Cell 2

Technical AccomplishmentsSubtask 2.3: Alternative Materials

• Built on previous work with test wafers

• Full bipolar plates show stable performance– >3000 hours demonstrated

Bipolar plate channels, nitrided plate

14

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Baseline DOE Step 1 DOE Step 2 End Goal

% B

ipol

ar A

ssem

bly

Cost

Implementation Timeline

RelevanceTask 2: Flow Field Design

Implemented

Feasibility Demonstrated

15

H2A Modeling Calculations – Year 1

• Highlighted items implemented in production

Cost savings ($/kg)

Bipolar assembly 0.24$ Membrane 0.30$ Initial catalyst loading reduction 0.06$ Total 0.60$

16

Technical Accomplishments: Subtask 2.4 Alternative Coatings

• Develop alternate protective coatings– Study with Oak Ridge on thermal

nitriding and characterization

C (carbide)C (cont.)O (total)N (total)Ti (metal)Ti (nit./carb.)Ti (oxide)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Depth (nm)

Com

posi

tion

(at.%

)

as received

500 h tested.

Nitride layer after 1300 hours operation

Oak Ridge alloy corrosion test

17

O2 Flow Field Plate

Header Plate

H2 Flow Field Plate

Technical AccomplishmentsTask 3: Alternative Concepts

• Surveyed alternative manufacturing techniques in addition to Task 2 work

Stamping

Diffusion bonding

Chemical/Electrochemical Etching

18

RelevanceTask 3: Alternative Concepts

• Over 30 concepts evaluated

• Ranked based on NRE cost, risk, and part cost

• Selected 2 additional concepts for prototyping

• Potential for additional 50% cost savings

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

15 27 2 25 23 24 21 5 26 3 6 8 19 13 14 20 7 4 11 17 10 12 18 16 9 22 1 B1 B2

NRE + DEV

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

15 27 2 25 23 24 21 5 26 3 6 8 19 13 14 20 7 4 11 17 10 12 18 16 9 22 1 B1 B2

COST/10000 PCS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

15 27 2 25 23 24 21 5 26 3 6 8 19 13 14 20 7 4 11 17 10 12 18 16 9 22 1 B1 B2

RISK

Baseline

19

RelevanceTasks 2 and 3: Cell Cost Reductions• Present program work impact on cell cost

Relative Cost

20

Collaboration

• Partners– Entegris (Industry): Demonstrating alternative materials

and coating techniques for reduced cost flowfields– Penn State (Academic): Developing a full computational

model of a functioning electrolyzer cell– Oak Ridge National Laboratory: (Federal) Investigating

advanced coating materials and deposition techniques

21

Future Work

• Task 2.3 Continue materials compatibility screening and evaluation of Entegris designs

• Task 2.4 Evaluate ORNL nitride coatings• Task 3.0 Obtain and test alternate design concepts• Task 4.0 Prototype testing in stacks and scale up• Task 5.0 Final downselect and manufacturing

process development• Task 6.0 Manufacturing qualification• Task 7.0 Perform H2A analysis for end design

22

Manufacturing Development• End goal of program to

scale up new flow field• Utilize existing stack design

and system capability

0.6 ft2 cell stack, >10,000 cell hours, ~1 kg/day/cell

65 kg/day system, operating Proton fueling station

23

Future Cell Stack Cost Reduction• A pathway has been identified to significantly lower cell cost

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Current <12 months

1-3 years >3 years

% B

asel

ine

cost

Implementation Timeline

MEABalance of cellBalance of stack

24

Future Cell Stack Efficiency Improvements

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

2

2.1

2.2

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Volta

ge, V

Current Density, mA/cm2

Predicted and Measured Cell Potential vs Current Density

Original Baseline, 2009 Design, 50 C

Current Production, 2010 Design, 50 C

Demonstrated 2011, New Membrane, 80 C

Simulated New Membrane and Catalyst, 80 C

25

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

FuelGen65, current stack

150 kg/day system, next

generation stack

150 kg/day system,

advanced stack*

$/kg

H2,

H2A

mod

el

*Assumes volumes of 500 units/year

Resulting Hydrogen Cost Progression

Based on $0.05/kWh electricity

26

Summary• Relevance: Cost savings at the electrolyzer cell level directly

impacts hydrogen production costs• Approach: Reduce cost of largest contributors first• Technical Accomplishments:

– Catalyst: Demonstrated reduced catalyst loading (55% anode, 90% cathode reduction) while maintaining desired electrical performance

– Flowfield: Implemented Phase 1 (25% part cost savings) and demonstrated new prototypes, evaluated new manufacturing methods with >50% savings

• Collaborations:– Cell Model: Will allow for optimization/verification of designs– Entegris: Concepts show good durability and >50% flow field cost savings– ORNL: Providing detailed information on nitrided layers, starting alloy work

• Proposed Future Work:– Continue development and verification of unitized flowfield architectures

27

Team

• Blake Carter• Luke Dalton• Brett Tannone• Andy Roemer• Mike Niedzwiecki• Tom Mancino (Entegris)• Mike Brady (ORNL)• Todd Toops (ORNL)

28