NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

An Assessment of the Current 

Level of Automation in the 

Manufacture of Fuel Cell 

Systems for Combined Heat and 

Power Applications

Michael Ulsh 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Douglas Wheeler 

DJW Technology

Peter Protopappas 

Sentech

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5600-52125

August 2011
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

1617 Cole Boulevard

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

An Assessment of the Current 

Level of Automation in the 

Manufacture of Fuel Cell 

Systems for Combined Heat 

and Power Applications

Michael Ulsh 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Douglas Wheeler 

DJW Technology

Peter Protopappas 

Sentech

Prepared under Task No. 2940.2008

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5600-52125

August 2011
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
iii

Executive Summary

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is interested in supporting manufacturing research and

development (R&D) for fuel cell systems in the 1–1,000 kilowatt (kW) power range relevant to 

stationary and distributed combined heat and power (CHP) applications, with the intent to reduce 

manufacturing costs and increase production throughput. To assist in future decision-making, 

DOE requested that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) provide a baseline 

understanding of the current levels of adoption of automation in manufacturing processes and 

flow, as well as of continuous processes. NREL identified and visited or interviewed key 

manufacturers, universities, and laboratories relevant to the study using a standard questionnaire.

The questionnaire covered the following topics: 

• Current level of vertical integration 

• Importance of quality control developments for automation

• Current level of automation and source of automation design

• Critical balance of plant (BOP) issues

• Potential for continuous cell manufacturing

• Key manufacturing steps or processes that would benefit from DOE support for 

manufacturing R&D

• Potential for cell or stack design changes to support automation

• The relationship between production volume and decisions on automation.

Companies with known advanced levels of adoption of continuous processes or automation are

referenced in appropriate sections of the report as comparison cases. In addition to the 

manufacturers, two automation companies were also interviewed to understand the critical 

factors for automation from the design and implementation perspective. Both of these companies 

have experience working with fuel cell manufacturers.

Table ES-1 summarizes key information about current and projected production capabilities at 

these companies for the fuel cell systems of interest. 

Detailed information about the manufacturing status and directions of the key manufacturers are 

presented in two sections—one summarizing the status of automation for cell and stack 

manufacture, and the other for BOP and system manufacture. As noted above, the manufacturers 

were asked what specific development areas would be the most effective in reducing 

manufacturing cost and/or improving throughput and quality. Tables ES-2 and ES-3 summarize 

these results for cells and stacks (ES-2) and BOP and systems (ES-3).
iv

Table ES-1. Fuel Cell Manufacturers and Capacities as of July 2010

Manufacturer Current 

Unit Size

Current Build 

Rate Current Capacity

Annual Max 

Capacity with 

Current Facility

Capacity with 

Automation

FuelCell Energy 350 kW 25 MW 70 MW 140 MW 280 MW

UTC Power 400 kW

20-30 units (8-12 

MW) 50 units (20 MW) 100 units (40 MW)

Acumentrics 1-2 kW

100 units (100-200 

kW)

150 units (150-300 

kW)

400 units (400-800 

kW)

Versa Power 1-20 kW

10s of units 

(~200-400 kW) 500 kW

Rolls-Royce 25 kW

ClearEdge Power 5 kW

~50 units (250 

kW) 1-2 units/day

2,200 units (11 

MW)

36,000 units (180 

MW)

Altergy 5 kW 1 MW/qtr (4 MW)

2200 units (11 

MW)

10,000 units (50 

MW)

Table ES-2. Summary of Suggested Development Areas for Cells and Stacks

Company Suggested Areas of Support for Cell and Stack Manufacture

FuelCell Energy - Increase casting thickness capability for electrolyte matrix

- Increase throughput and control of sintering furnaces

- Decrease break-in time of the stack

- Automation of cell assembly, enabled by improved cell frame welding techniques

- Automation of stack assembly

UTC Power - Eliminating the machining of separator plates by developing molding or other processes

- Development of new matrix coating method

- Automation of stack assembly

Acumentrics - Barcoding of tubes for quality data tracking

- Improved process for application of silver current collector to tube

- Development of continuous firing furnaces that allow the tube to remain vertical

- Continuous plasma spraying of tube interconnects

- Develop continuous dry molding of tubes

ClearEdge Power - Automation of stack repeating part assembly

- Development of quality control methods at the MEA level

- Automation of subassembly quality control and testing

Versa Power Systems - Development of methods to identify defects in cell components

- Automation of stack assembly

- Improved methods for printing of active layers and application of seals

Rolls-Royce - Automation of stack repeat unit assembly

- Automation of the process to collect process control data

Roberts Sinto, PMD and 

RPI

- Automation of stack assembly, including stack redesign for improved benefits from automation

- Developing in-line inspection and quality control; quality ‘mapping’

- Further innovation to reduce the cycle time (or transition from batch to continuous) of individual 

process steps

- Automate entire process from receipt of parts to gain the greatest benefit from automation

Table ES-3. Summary of Suggested Development Areas for BOP and Systems

Company Suggested Areas of Support for BOP and System Manufacture

FuelCell Energy - Decrease cost and improve performance of fuel gas cleanup

- Improve processes for metal stamping

UTC Power - Decrease the cost of reformer

- Improve design of power conditioning system and heat exchangers

- Decrease time for system test and conditioning

Acumentrics - Development of stamping of manifold plates

ClearEdge Power - Decrease the cost of reformers

- Decrease the cost of welding and sheet metal operations

Versa Power Systems - Develop increased experience in supply chain for working with high temperature metals

Rolls-Royce
v

In addition to these specific development areas, some overarching key insights were realized as a 

result of the study. Summarized below, these insights provide a higher level understanding of the 

implications of implementing automation to decrease manufacturing costs.

• Manufacturing cost is largely material-driven. This means that reducing labor and/or 

increasing throughput are not necessarily strong drivers for adopting automation.

• Given the current state of the industry, the drivers for increased implementation of 

automation are repeatability, quality, safety, and better use of factory space.

• The key opportunities for automation at this point are in repeat part fabrication and 

operations, such as for cell and stack assembly, and for automation or further 

development of individual process steps.

• Metal working was universally identified as high cost and an issue relative to strong 

competencies in the supply chain.

• Automation is most useful in a fully vertically integrated operation.

• Manufacturers agreed that lack of supply chain leverage resulting from low market 

volumes increases manufacturing cost.

Based on the knowledge gained from this study, NREL recommends manufacturing R&D 

support for stationary/CHP fuel cell systems with the following objectives: 

• Automation of repeat part processes such as cell and stack assembly

• Decreased cycle time of continuous processes or transition from batch to continuous 

processes

• Improved supply chain capabilities and reduced costs for metal forming operations and 

use of high-temperature metals

• In-line inspection and quality control techniques for continuous and automated processes.
vi

Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................iii

Tables............................................................................................................................................. vi

1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Charter.............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Process.............................................................................................................................. 1

2 Discussion............................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Synopsis ........................................................................................................................... 3

2.2 Manufacturing Methodologies......................................................................................... 3

2.3 State of Automation for Cells and Stacks ........................................................................ 4

2.3.1 FuelCell Energy ........................................................................................................ 4

2.3.2 UTC Power ............................................................................................................... 5

2.3.3 Acumentrics.............................................................................................................. 6

2.3.4 ClearEdge Power ...................................................................................................... 7

2.3.5 Versa Power Systems................................................................................................ 8

2.3.6 Rolls-Royce............................................................................................................... 9

2.3.7 Automation and Continuous Processes for Cell and Stacks: Comparator 

Companies................................................................................................................ 9

2.4 State of Automation in BOP and Final System Assembly............................................. 10

2.4.1 FuelCell Energy ...................................................................................................... 11

2.4.2 UTC Power ............................................................................................................. 11

2.4.3 Acumentrics............................................................................................................ 11

2.4.4 ClearEdge Power .................................................................................................... 12

2.4.5 Versa Power Systems.............................................................................................. 12

2.4.6 Rolls-Royce............................................................................................................. 12

2.4.7 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 12

3 Key Insights.......................................................................................................................... 13

4 Recommendations................................................................................................................. 14

Appendix A................................................................................................................................... 15

Appendix B................................................................................................................................... 18

Tables

Table ES-1. Fuel Cell Manufacturers and Capacities as of July 2010..................................... iv

Table ES-2. Summary of Suggested Development Areas for Cells and Stacks....................... iv

Table ES-3. Summary of Suggested Development Areas for BOP and Systems.................... iv

Table 1. Fuel Cell Manufacturers and Capacities (as of July 2010)........................................... 1

Table 2. Comparator Companies................................................................................................ 2

Table 3. Other Organizations Contacted .................................................................................... 2

Table 4. Summary of Suggested Development Areas for Cells and Stacks............................. 10

Table 5. Summary of Suggested Development Areas for BOP and Systems. ......................... 12
1

1 Introduction

1.1 Charter

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is interested in supporting manufacturing research and

development (R&D) for fuel cell systems in the 1–1,000 kilowatt (kW) power range relevant to 

stationary and distributed combined heat and power (CHP) applications, with the intent to reduce 

manufacturing costs and increase production throughput. To assist in future decision-making, 

DOE has requested that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) provide a baseline 

of understanding of the current levels of adoption of automation in manufacturing processes and 

flow, as well as of continuous processes, where applicable. The scope for this study includes the 

supply chain from cell production to system assembly and testing, and includes major balance of

plant (BOP) components. In addition to literature and public media sources, NREL 

communicated directly with fuel cell and component manufacturers supporting this market to 

gather relevant information, including site visits to key manufacturers. To support the data 

gathering process and guide the discussion toward important topics, NREL developed and used a

questionnaire (see Appendix A).

1.2 Process

Key manufacturers, universities, and laboratories were identified early in the project and are 

shown in the tables below. Table 1 identifies the fuel cell manufacturers that were visited or 

interviewed for this study. The table also summarizes key information about current and 

projected production capabilities at these companies for the fuel cell systems of interest. A 

contact list for each of the companies interviewed is provided in Appendix B.

Table 1. Fuel Cell Manufacturers and Capacities (as of July 2010)

Manufacturer Current 

Unit 

Size

Current Build 

Rate

Current 

Capacity

Max Capacity 

With Current 

Facility

Capacity with 

Automation

FuelCell Energy 350 kW 25 megawatts 

(MW)

70 MW 140 MW 280 MW

UTC Power 400 kW 20–30 units 

(8–12 MW)

50 units

(20 MW)

100 units

(40 MW)

Acumentrics 1–2 kW N/A 100 units 

(100–200 

kW)

150 units 

(150–300 

kW)

400 units 

(400–800 kW)

Versa Power 1–20 

kW

10s of units 

(~200–400 

kW)

500 kW

Rolls-Royce 25 kW N/A N/A N/A N/A

ClearEdge 

Power

5 kW ~50 units (250 

kW)

1–2 

units/day

2,200 units 

(11 MW)

36,000 units 

(180 MW)

Altergy 5 kW 1 MW/qtr

(4 MW)

2,200 units 

(11 MW)

N/A 10,000 units 

(50 MW)
2

Note that Bloom Energy, Toshiba, Samsung, and Fuji Electric were also contacted, but indicated 

that they were either no longer active in the stationary/CHP market or not interested in 

participating, or they provided advertising literature only.

Table 2 identifies comparator companies that have a high degree of adoption of automation 

and/or continuous processes. These companies will be discussed in terms of best practices for 

this work.

Table 2. Comparator Companies

Manufacturer Operation

Ballard Power Systems Proton exchange membrane (PEM) cell 

and stack

Altergy PEM stack and system

BASF Polybenzimidazole (PBI) membrane 

electrode assemblies (MEAs)

3M PEM MEAs

Table 3 identifies university and laboratory programs that were contacted as part of this study. 

Companies with experience designing and implementing automation in fuel cell manufacturing 

operations were also identified. These companies provided valuable insight into the processes 

used to understand how, and with what priority, automated systems should be applied in this 

industry.

Table 3. Other Organizations Contacted

Company or Laboratory Point of Contact Activity

Roberts Sinto Bob Conrad and 

Scott Bethke Automation systems

Progressive Machine & Design Garry Sperrick Automation systems

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute – Center 

for Automation Technologies and Systems

Ray Puffer and Steve 

Rock

R&D, design and test of 

automated processes and 

systems

University of Connecticut – Center for Clean 

Energy Engineering Trent Molter R&D

Ohio State University – SOFC Manufacturing 

and Reliability Laboratory Winston Ho R&D, membrane casting

Southwest Research Institute Mike Miller and Joe 

Redfield

R&D, vacuum process 

development

Pacific Northwest National Lab Subhash Singhal R&D
3

2 Discussion

2.1 Synopsis

Detailed information about the manufacturing practices and status of each company interviewed 

was gathered in this study and is presented in this section of the report. Similarities in the level of 

adoption of continuous and automated processes were seen at the cell and stack level for these 

manufacturers. Likewise, similarities were seen at the balance of plant (BOP), subassembly, and 

system levels. Therefore, the information is presented in two subsections, one for the status of 

automation at the cell and stack level and one for the status of automation at the BOP and system 

level. Within each subsection, detailed information about each participating company is 

provided. After the company details in the cell and stack subsection, there is a discussion of 

comparator companies whose best practices may inform future activities or advances for the 

companies in this study. At the end of each of these subsections, a table is provided that lists the 

main suggestions from the manufacturers regarding areas of development in terms of automation 

or process improvement. In addition, standard manufacturing practices are discussed in the 

descriptions. These practices are detailed in the Manufacturing Methodologies subsection. 

Finally, the discussion ends with key insights.

2.2 Manufacturing Methodologies

Currently, manufacturing operations in the fuel cell industry are set up to support a low-volume 

market in the demonstration phase. As the market expands, manufacturers and their suppliers 

must adopt processes and methodologies that fit their business models, and provide the ability to

increase production volume while improving quality. A basis of terms for this progression is 

provided in Appendix A. The term “pick and place” refers to manual material flow and assembly 

of parts. Note that others use this term to refer to a certain type of automation. In addition, a 

process flow that combines robotic or machine-controlled motion with manual activity is referred 

to as semi-automated in this report. An example would be an operator loading a part into a rig, 

followed by a robot performing some operation on that part. An automated flow would then be 

fully operated by robots or machine motion. Similarly, continuous process refers to a roll-to-roll 

or belt-fed operation of a continuous sheet material. Examples would be tape casting of an 

electrolyte or anode support, or coating of an electrode active layer onto a gas diffusion layer 

(GDL). A process that operates in a continuous fashion, but operates on individual parts rather 

than a continuous sheet of material, is referred to as semi-continuous. An example would be 

continuous coating of an electrolyte matrix onto individual backings that have already been cut 

to the planform and size of the cell.

Beyond these process and flow descriptors, manufacturers often adopt continuous improvement 

methodologies to provide a consistent framework for their operations. Two often-used examples 

are lean and Six Sigma, both of which are typically seen as suites of tools sewn together with a 

standard method of use. Two examples of lean tools that were observed are ‘5s’, which is a 

methodology for work station organization, and kanban, which is a process flow and tracking 

methodology where all required parts or materials for a particular assembly step are provided to 

the work station along with associated documentation that describes when and how many of each 

assembly are required. Both methodologies provide structured systems to understand where 

waste and poor quality exist and utilize measurements to quantify these issues. This information 

is then used to address the issues in a defined and ongoing manner. There are similarities and 
4

differences between the two, and implementation of either is more often undertaken in a “pick 

and choose” fashion rather than adoption of the entire system. But for the purposes of this report, 

both can be useful methods to organize process flow, reduce waste, and improve quality.

2.3 State of Automation for Cells and Stacks

The industry’s incorporation of automation and continuous manufacturing methods in the 

manufacture of fuel cell stacks, stack components, and cell components addresses the need to 

control the physical, chemical, and material properties of the cell components and to assure 

repeatable quality in the performance and durability of the fuel cell stacks. However, automation 

and continuous manufacturing methods have only been applied to those critical cell component 

manufacturing processes that demand the repeatability and precision afforded by robotic and 

continuous processes. The majority of manufacturers have production facilities that are 

underutilized because of the limited demand for fuel cells. All of the manufacturers report that 

they are in the initial phase of market growth and predict that an order of magnitude increase in 

deliveries of fuel cell systems will occur in the next 2–3 years. Still, most of the fuel cell 

manufacturers indicated that an additional investment in high rate cell stack manufacturing 

processes will only be considered in response to an increase in demand.

2.3.1 FuelCell Energy

FuelCell Energy’s production facility in Torrington, Connecticut, operates a continuous tape 

casting method for the manufacture of matrix electrolyte support and anodes. Throughput of the 

matrix tape casting process is limited by the need to control the porosity and pore size 

distribution of the support. Research and development is needed on the continuous manufacture 

of a full thickness matrix tape, as this one process development would double the throughput of 

the casting process.

Manufacturing of the nickel electrode is performed in a semi-continuous manner. Automation 

has been incorporated in the loading of the nickel powder into the drop coater, while coating of 

the nickel powder is performed onto individual backings. The sintering of the nickel electrode in 

a reducing gas furnace is a throughput limitation. A sintering furnace with a greater capability for 

continuous, large-scale processing of full-size electrodes is a proposed development effort. The 

size of the electrodes, about 2 feet by 4 feet, impacts the design of a continuous sintering furnace.

The initial assembly of the cell components into a single plate is a manual lay-up operation that 

can be readily automated, the primary advantage of which would be greater precision and 

repeatability during production. The application of metal strips that form the picture frame cell 

holder, i.e., bipolar plate, is a combination of manual assembly and robotic assembly. FuelCell 

Energy has automated the welding of the bipolar plate metal frame to bind the individual cells, 

using robots to move and weld the frame, and optical inspection methods to complete the cell 

assembly. The current bipolar plate design drives much of the labor and level of automation. 

Therefore, the development of a bipolar plate that can facilitate automated assembly is important.

Assembly of the internal reformer is time consuming and results in a throughput limitation in the 

overall manufacturing process. Automation of this process may require a new design of the 

internal reformer.
5

Stack assembly is a manual process that could be automated. FuelCell Energy’s business model 

is to produce cells that are readily shipped to stack assembly locations. The stack assembly 

stations may be close to the end users. 

There is extensive welding of stainless steel reactant flow piping used to deliver reactants, 

recycle carbon dioxide to the cathode, and remove gas products. Automation of the welding of 

the flow manifolds and flow delivery piping is one approach to reduce costs. 

First-time conditioning of the 350 kW molten carbonate fuel cell system takes 7–14 days. 

FuelCell Energy recommends research and development in the optimization of electrode design 

and system break-in practices as part of a manufacturing R&D effort.

FuelCell Energy discussed in some detail a future capability analysis that was performed to 

establish a production rate of 280 megawatts (MW)/yr. At this rate, the company would need to 

produce 1 cell per minute, or 1,200 cells per day, or 275,000 cells per year. As of July 2010,

FuelCell Energy was producing about 100 cells per day. The company provided some very 

instructive examples of the manufacturing enterprise that would need to be put into place to 

support 280 MW per year of production. For example, just for material handling within the 

factory, greater than 1 MM lbs of material per year would have to be moved around. At this rate, 

the entire layout and infrastructure of the facility would need to be re-designed to “feed the 

beast”. Relative to current production facilities and volumes, FuelCell Energy has plans to 

increase production to about 140 MW per year at its current facility. For higher volumes, the

company states that a new facility should be designed to facilitate higher levels of automation.

This would include changing from wood to returnable pallets, automated loading and unloading, 

material handling modifications, and process cycle time improvements.

2.3.2 UTC Power

UTC Power outsources the manufacture of the major repeat cell components, catalyzed 

electrodes (gas diffusion electrodes [GDE]), and bipolar plates. Other stack components, such as 

reactant and product manifolds, are also outsourced, as well as major subsystems, such as the 

fuel processor and power control system (e.g., inverter). UTC Power manufactures the individual 

cells, assembles the cells into stacks, and assembles the subsystem components into the 400 kW 

PureCell power system. Present production capacities are 50 units per year with the capability to 

reach 100 units per year.

UTC Power’s cell assembly is automated and conducted through a combination of continuous 

processing and robotic movement of the cell system through the assembly stages. In the 

continuous process, each GDE—anode or cathode—is given an edge seal coating to form a 

silicon-carbide-based picture frame around the catalyst layer. A silicon carbide matrix coating is 

then applied to each GDE while moving on a continuous belt. The belt holding the silicon 

carbide-matrix-coated GDE passes through a heat treatment oven to fix the silicon carbide 

matrix. Phosphoric acid is applied to the GDE-matrix component and absorbed into the porous 

matrix-electrode. Sequential anode and cathode GDEs are lifted from the belt by robots and 

sandwiched together to form an MEA. The MEA is applied to a porous anode bipolar plate 

containing phosphoric acid. Then, a non-porous cathode bipolar plate/separator plate is applied 

on top of the anode bipolar plate/MEA subassembly to form a complete cell. All of these actions

are performed on the continuous moving belt using robots to add components to the emerging 
6

cell. After that, eight of the completed cells are robotically stacked to form a substack. Multiple 

substacks are then manually stacked to form a full-size stack. 

An important function of the continuous belt/robotic manufacture of the phosphoric acid cells is 

to maintain repeatability and quality control in the cell. An equally important feature is the 

reduction in scrap, which is accomplished by minimizing hand touches of the fragile cell 

components until they are fully assembled into a substack.

UTC Power indicated the following areas that could benefit from further development: 

elimination of the machining of separator plates (by molding or other means), reduction of cycle 

time for system testing and conditioning, and the creation of new matrix coating methods. UTC 

Power does not see the need to redesign cells or the stack for automation. Rather, the company 

sees a need to focus on improving supply chain leverage.

UTC Power assembles the three major subsystems, the fuel processor, the cell stack assembly, 

and the power conditioning unit, using lean manufacturing methods and 5S methodology. The 

company is managing the investment on the next stages of system-level automation until there is 

a demonstrated and sustainable market pull. Automation and process improvement of individual 

manufacturing steps is UTC Power’s suggested focus. Furthermore, the company stated that 

volume is not going to reduce its costs dramatically, and that technical advancements and 

simplification are still needed to reduce costs. UTC Power verified the comment from FuelCell 

Energy that cost is largely driven by materials as opposed to labor or processes. The company

also indicated that a sales volume of thousands of units per year would be required to consider a 

highly automated manufacturing facility.

2.3.3 Acumentrics

Acumentrics suggested that DOE support for high-temperature system manufacturing R&D can 

be analogous to recent support of proton exchange membrane (PEM) systems. While CHP is the 

eventual goal, support for the development (technical and manufacturing) of nearer term, or

more economically feasible applications needs to be considered to enable advancements that will 

not only benefit current markets, but enable progress toward target markets. Acumentrics 

discussed a recent joint development effort with Ariston Thermal Group, a condensing boiler 

company in Italy, to offer a 1kW(e)/20kW(thermal) on-wall residential CHP system for the 

European market. Acumentrics states that it can produce about 100 systems per year now, and 

would keep the same manufacturing system up to about 1,000–2,000 systems per year, above 

which would require a change in manufacturing approach.

The company is essentially fully vertically integrated for cell and stack production, and, like 

FuelCell Energy, starts with ceramic raw materials. Acumentrics then fabricates tube cells and 

assembles stacks. The company discussed the importance of future decisions regarding when and 

to what extent it should begin to establish a supply chain. Regarding quality control, 

Acumentrics indicated that it wanted to develop a way to barcode each tube so that quality 

control (QC) data can be tracked. In addition, the company sees a need to develop quality control 

methods for the plasma spray process.

Currently, Acumentrics uses a high level of individual process automation in cell fabrication, 

such as, tube-end forming, dip coating, active layer coating, spraying, and QC on diameter/run-
7

out of fired tubes. To increase throughput and quality, the company recently changed its tube 

forming process from extrusion to hydraulic molding. At present, tube molding and firing are 

batch processes. The cell fabrication flow is manual, as is application of the current collector 

wire, and stack assembly. Acumentrics stated that their current process automation was internally 

designed. They stated that adoption of increased levels of automation will not cause a design 

change to the stack.

According to Acumentrics, the following areas could benefit from further development: 

improved methods for applying current collectors to tubes, continuous firing furnaces that enable 

the tube to stay vertical, better temperature control of a batch furnace to reduce cycle time, a 

continuous process for the plasma spray of tube interconnects, stamping of manifold plates for 

some applications where , moving to dry tube molding which could be implemented in a 

continuous or semi-continuous fashion, and general loading and unloading of tubes for each step 

in the cell fabrication process.

2.3.4 ClearEdge Power

ClearEdge Power manufactures a 5 kW polybenzimidazole (PBI)-based fuel cell system for 

residential and commercial micro-CHP applications. The company’s initial market was in 

California, for high-end early adopter residences and small businesses. ClearEdge Power has a 

binding contract with a Korean company for a minimum of 800 units and considers Asia, 

Australia, and South America to be major market areas. The company provides an average of 

750 gallons of hot water per day at 130°F–150°F from its ClearEdge5 system, which is used for 

boiler preheat, domestic hot water, or heating pools. ClearEdge Power indicated that the 

electrical efficiency of the system was about 37% averaged over the 2–3 year stack life. 

Furthermore, consumers receive a 5-year product warranty, which includes change out of the 

stack after 2.5 years. 

Currently, ClearEdge Power has about 100 systems installed, with current production capacity at 

approximately 2 units per day. The company expects to achieve 5 units per day by the fourth 

quarter of 2011. ClearEdge Power recently performed an automation study for its current 

manufacturing process and determined that its maximum capacity is about 2,200 units per year. 

With full implementation of automation and running three shifts, the company could achieve 

36,000 units per year in the same facility for an investment of approximately $12–$15 million.

ClearEdge Power sources MEAs and manually assembles stacks. The company specifies the 

properties of the catalyst layer and GDL for its sourced MEAs and specifies the properties of the 

bipolar plates. Automation of stack assembly (stack repeating parts) was identified as a 

manufacturing operation that could benefit from DOE support. The company also indicated that 

quality control at the MEA level is an ongoing need and agreed with DOE support of MEA-level 

QC development. ClearEdge Power does not expect that major stack redesign to be required to 

support the implementation of automation.

The company relies on its suppliers for MEA and subassembly/component quality assurance. For 

stack and subassemblies, QA testing is performed. Break-in and testing of the final system is for 

an 8-hour period and then a 48-hour period, most of which is not for break-in, but to try to 

identify hardware or stack performance issues before the system is in the field. ClearEdge Power

stated that automation of subassembly quality control and testing was an area of interest.
8

The company indicated that the decision to implement automation would depend on the 

economics of each subassembly, but stated that it would only consider the implementation of 

automation for its manufacturing process when the market demand justified the investment.

2.3.5 Versa Power Systems

Versa Power Systems has developed two fully integrated 3–10 kW solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC)

systems in its Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA) programs with FuelCell Energy 

and Cummins Power Generation. The company has aligned its current manufacturing capabilities 

and methods with the current demonstration (as opposed to commercialization) stage of the 

market for these systems. As a result, Versa Power Systems indicated that there is a significant 

amount of overdesign—in instrumentation and redundancy—currently built into its systems,

specifically, “So that the stack can show its potential.” As the market shifts to 

commercialization, the company indicated that design simplification will be undertaken which 

will reduce costs.

Versa Power Systems manufactures its own cells from the ceramic powders, using continuous 

tape casting and co-firing (sintering) for anode support layers, and semi-continuous screen 

printing processes for cell active layers. Cells are assembled into stacks by hand. Versa indicated 

that there is not a mature supply chain for high-temperature cells, and that cell production is the

company’s core intellectual property. Versa Power Systems stated that maintaining cell 

production within the company enables maximum control over design and quality.

The company is strongly committed to quality control to best address the demonstration stage of 

the market and stated that the time to build a stack is a huge investment. For example, if the stack 

fails after 1,000 hours, a huge amount of time and funds are wasted. Versa Power Systems also 

indicated that defects must be caught as soon as possible, and that new in-line QC and inspection 

methods, including process feedback, must be developed to support higher volume production 

processes. The company gathers large amounts of quality data, and understands its control limits 

for production. Versa Power Systems stated that transition to continuous or automated processes 

is justified just as much for improvement in quality as for increase in capacity. The company

stated that it currently performs visual and dimensional inspections, and that methods are needed 

to identify these defects in continuous processes.

At this time, Versa Power Systems is engaged with automation manufacturers to explore 

automation of stack assembly. The stack build would be performed by subassembly to assist in 

quality control. Printing of active layers and application of seals are other processes that are of 

interest to transition to continuous or automated processes. The company cautioned, however, 

that, at this point in the market, more automation means less flexibility to respond to design 

changes, and that a balance must be kept in the short term.

Versa Power Systems stated that it has always had a focus on high-volume manufacturing, and 

thus its base stack design should not require significant design modifications to implement 

automation. However, as expressed above, the company indicated that, as a result of the 

demonstration phase of the market, its current system is purposefully overdesigned. Thus, a 

simplification of design will occur as the market becomes more mature.
9

2.3.6 Rolls-Royce

Rolls-Royce operates a pilot manufacturing line in Canton, Ohio, for its SOFC system. The

company stated that its target is a 1 MW system, comprised of four 250 kW modules, each of 

which having 8–10 stack blocks (about 25 kW each). To date, Rolls-Royce has demonstrated 

systems containing multiple stack blocks, but not yet at the level of a full 250 kW module. The 

company indicated that it is in the development stage of addressing the market for its systems.

Rolls-Royce sources the flat tube supports for its cells, then applies the active layers to these 

tubes in-house. Ceramic raw materials for the electrolyte and active layers are also sourced. 

Semi-continuous screen printing processes are used to coat the multiple active layers on the flat 

tube support. Sintering is currently a batch process and is the bottleneck on the pilot 

manufacturing line. However, a predecessor operation in the United Kingdom uses a continuous 

tunnel furnace. Most of the stack assembly steps are performed by hand, although Rolls-Royce

has partially automated some steps, such as robot-assisted glue dispensing for sealing. The

company relies mainly on internal resources for design but uses outside suppliers for 

implementing automation. Rolls-Royce does not envision a need to change the design of the 

stack to assist with the implementation of automation.

The company considers automation of stack repeat unit assembly to be a major near-term 

opportunity as it allows the process to be developed and demonstrated in the pilot facility. RollsRoyce also sees the need to automate the collection and management of process control data as 

higher levels of process automation are adopted.

2.3.7 Automation and Continuous Processes for Cell and Stacks: Comparator 

Companies

Manufacture of MEAs for fuel cell applications has advanced to the use of continuous and semiautomated processes. 3M reports that roll-to-roll processes have been designed and implemented 

for continuous production of MEA components and MEAs, including a hot roll laminating step 

to replace the slow hot press bonding process. The continuous process brings together 

membrane, electrodes—either in the form of catalyst-coated membranes or gas diffusion 

electrodes (GDE)—the gas diffusion layers (GDL), and seals to form a full MEA. BASF reports 

that roll goods of membrane, GDE, and membrane seal are semi-continuously assembled into an 

MEA. Additionally, RPI reports strong progress in the development of ultrasonic processes for 

both welding of MEA components and gaskets and pressing of the MEA. This work is 

concentrated on PBI-based MEAs, but is also expected to be applicable to PEM MEAs.

Another manufacturer has established electrode manufacturing using a semi-continuous process 

with a discontinuous hot pressing step for the deposition of catalyst onto a gas diffusion layer to 

form a gas diffusion electrode. The hot pressing process was optimized to reduce the pressing 

time and maximize the throughput. This manufacturer reports that the hot pressing step ensures 

the quality of the electrodes and is essential for maintaining control of reactants and products in 

the GDEs.

Ballard has established three production lines each representing different levels of production 

maturity. The oldest production facility is the least mature and requires considerable hand labor 

for the production of the fuel cell stack. The second production line has partial automation with a 

pick-and-place assembly of the membrane electrode assemblies and then hand placement of the 
10

bipolar plates. The final production line, which is currently in development, is for continuous roll 

production of MEAs.

The above examples identify advances and best practices related to continuous and semicontinuous processes for MEA production. An example of automation best practices is Altergy’s

very sophisticated cell assembly facility. Starting with a pre-assembled MEA, the cell, including 

metal bipolar plates and seals, is assembled and welded, with the parts moving through the line 

on a belt, and robots performing individual assembly and joining steps. This line is capable of 

producing a complete cell every 30 seconds.

Table 4. Summary of Suggested Development Areas for Cells and Stacks

Company Suggested Areas of Support for Cell and Stack Manufacture

FuelCell Energy • Increase casting thickness capability for electrolyte matrix

• Increase throughput and control of sintering furnaces

• Decrease break-in time of the stack

• Automate cell assembly, enabled by improved cell frame welding techniques

• Automate stack assembly

• Improve processes for metal stamping

UTC Power • Eliminate the machining of separator plates by developing molding or other 

processes

• Decrease time for system testing and conditioning

• Develop new matrix coating method

• Automate stack assembly

Acumentrics • Barcode tubes for quality data tracking

• Improve the process for application of current collector to tube

• Develop continuous firing furnaces that allow the tube to remain vertical

• Establish continuous plasma spraying of tube interconnects

• Develop continuous dry molding of tubes

ClearEdge Power • Automate stack repeating part assembly

• Develop quality control methods at the MEA level

• Automate subassembly quality control and testing

Versa Power 

Systems

• Develop methods to identify defects in cell components

• Automate stack assembly

• Improve methods for printing of active layers and seal application

Rolls-Royce • Automate stack repeat unit assembly

• Automate the method to collect process control data

Roberts Sinto, 

PMD, and RPI

• Automate stack assembly, including stack redesign for improved benefits from 

automation

• Develop in-line inspection and quality control; quality ‘mapping’

• Further innovate to reduce the cycle time (or transition from batch to 

continuous) of individual process steps

• Automate entire process from receipt of parts to gain the greatest benefit 

from automation

2.4 State of Automation in BOP and Final System Assembly

Overall, the level of automation for BOP assembly and final system assembly is relatively 

consistent across all of the companies interviewed. Each has established workstation assembly 

for BOP and final system components, and employs lean manufacturing principles in production 

facility layout and design. Major BOP components are typically purchased from outside 
11

suppliers. However, in some cases, the companies manufacture their own reformer, heat

exchanger, and/or electronics components. All have identified the need for cost reduction of 

BOP components. Power electronics, reformers, inverters, stack end plates, and heat exchangers 

are all candidates for cost improvement and also improvement in design and assembly. Dual 

sourcing of specialty components is needed, but current production volumes are too low to

justify the cost of qualifying or developing new suppliers. While obstacles exist in automating 

BOP and final system assembly, manufacturers are continually working to streamline this part of 

the manufacturing process.

2.4.1 FuelCell Energy

Final assembly of the fuel cell module at FuelCell Energy incorporates no automation and is 

highly labor-intensive. Due to the size and weight of the components, lifts or cranes are used as 

assembly aids in the final assembly process. Each 1.4 MW unit is assembled by hand with no 

more than one unit in process at a time. There are two stations in the final assembly process: the 

first station installs all BOP components and the stacks to the base of the unit housing; the 

second station integrates the top housing and final assembly (aided by an overhead crane). The 

stack module housing is constructed of thick, heavy steel and is insulated and designed to handle 

extreme internal and external events, although the module is not pressurized. The top housing is 

outsourced and insulation is installed at the supplier. Because of the large component size,

several technicians are needed to install these large components. FuelCell Energy also indicated 

that improved processes and quality for metal stampings at its suppliers is an area of focus. 

2.4.2 UTC Power

Similar to FuelCell Energy, UTC Power employs a very manual process in its BOP and final 

system assembly. Stacks are manually transported, with the aid of forklifts and cranes, to work 

stations where BOP components are integrated. Each station employs lean manufacturing and 5S 

principles, which ensures efficient piece flow throughout the assembly process. Many of the 

BOP components are delivered to the power plant assembly line as completed sub-assemblies. 

Recently, UTC Power has installed an assembly system utilizing a base frame, which can roll on 

rails though the final assembly, test, and conditioning system. 

UTC Power stated that the reformer is the single most expensive BOP component in the system, 

and should be a candidate for manufacturing R&D support. Redesign and re-qualifying a new 

power conditioning system, as well as heat exchangers, were also identified as in need of further 

development.

2.4.3 Acumentrics

BOP and final assembly at Acumentrics are all done manually by technicians. There is a mix of 

in-house fabricated and sourced components: for example, heat exchangers, flow components, 

and electronics are fabricated in house. On the other hand, some wiring assemblies that were

previously made in house are now outsourced. In each make/buy decision, cost has been the

deciding factor. Lean manufacturing and 5S principles have not necessarily been implemented 

into the work station design or layout. Testing and conditioning at the final assembly level is 

conducted in a separate area where units are manually transported one unit at a time. 

Acumentrics plans to keep production of its hot box, or stack, in house. 
12

2.4.4 ClearEdge Power

ClearEdge Power sources all of its BOP and final assembly components, including small BOP 

components, heat exchangers, inverters, and electronic assemblies. Some larger assemblies, such 

as the fuel processing system, are assembled in house. Reformer manufacturing, welding, and 

sheet metal operations were identified as high-cost activities. Some of these activities are 

performed by suppliers. All assembly is performed manually with high emphasis on lean 

methodologies, such as 5S and kanban, as well as piece process flow. No continuous or 

automated processes are currently being used, however, ClearEdge Power is exploring 

automation in every area of its manufacturing process. Currently, the company has the capability 

to perform final testing of 12 units simultaneously. 

2.4.5 Versa Power Systems

Versa Power Systems assembles systems using manual flow. Metal work and machining are 

typically outsourced. In general, the company stated that BOP components are not significant 

needs. However, it did state that the supply chain needed to be further developed for BOP 

components requiring high-temperature metals such as nickel super-alloys.

Versa Power Systems has performed cost modeling, as a part of its participation in the SECA 

program, for a capacity of 50,000 systems per year. This modeling has provided the company

with volume-based decision points for implementation of automation. 

2.4.6 Rolls-Royce

System assembly at Rolls-Royce is currently manual, in accordance with the demonstration level 

of maturity of the market for its product. For BOP, Rolls-Royce relies on suppliers for some 

components, but also relies on manufacturing capabilities of its parent company for other

components. The company considers BOP to be very specific to system design, and therefore not 

generic enough to warrant DOE support.

2.4.7 Conclusion

In all companies, BOP and final assembly are highly specialized and technicians are trained to 

meet the needs of the complete final assembly. Due to the nature of BOP assembly and final 

system assembly and testing, many companies identified that these operations could be either 

outsourced or moved to international locations closer to their target markets. This differs from 

cell and stack assembly, which were identified as core to their business and crucial in 

maintaining control over their intellectual property.

Table 5. Summary of Suggested Development Areas for BOP and Systems.

Company Suggested Areas of Support for BOP and System Manufacture

FuelCell Energy • Decrease cost and improve performance of fuel gas clean up

• Improve processes for metal fabrication

UTC Power • Decrease the cost of reformers

• Improve design of power conditioning system and heat exchangers

Acumentrics • Develop stamping of manifold plates

ClearEdge Power • Decrease the cost of reformers

• Decrease the cost of welding and sheet metal operations

Versa Power 

Systems

• Develop increased experience in supply chain for working with high-temperature 

metals

Rolls-Royce N/A
13

3 Key Insights

Specific development areas for cell, stack, BOP, and system manufacturing have been discussed 

and summarized in section 2, above. However, in addition to these inputs from the participating 

companies, some overarching key insights were realized as a result of the study. Summarized 

below, these insights provide a higher level understanding of the implications of implementing 

automation to decrease manufacturing costs.

• Top level manufacturing cost is largely material-driven, and to a lesser extent, labordriven. This means that reducing labor and/or increasing throughput are not necessarily 

strong drivers for adopting automation.

• Given the state of the industry at this time, the drivers for increased implementation of 

automation are repeatability, quality, safety, more efficient use of factory space, and labor 

cost reduction.

• The key opportunities for automation today are in the repeat part fabrication and repeat 

part operations, such as for cell and stack assembly, and for automation or further 

development of individual process steps.

• Metal working was universally identified as high cost and an issue relative to the need for 

stronger competencies in the supply chain. Specific processes that were mentioned were 

machining and stamping of plates and welding. Working with high-temperature steels for 

heat exchangers and other fuel-side components was also mentioned as an issue.

• Automation is most useful in a fully vertically integrated operation, driven by the maxim, 

“once you grab a part, don’t let go.” Typical automation of process flow can increase 

throughput by 10 times.

• Manufacturers agreed that lack of supply chain leverage resulting from low market 

volumes increases manufacturing cost.
14

4 Recommendations

Many differences were observed regarding the business plans and operational capabilities of the 

manufacturers that were interviewed. In addition, differences between fuel cell technologies lead 

to different material and process constraints. However, many common threads were heard, and 

strong opportunities exist for DOE to support increased production volume and reduced 

manufacturing cost. Based on this study, NREL’s recommendations for areas of future support 

include the development of:

• Automation for repeat part processes such as cell and stack assembly

• Reduced cycle time of continuous processes (e.g., coating of electrolyte matrix or active 

layers) or transition from batch processes to continuous processes (e.g., sintering or tube 

molding)

• Improved supply chain capabilities and reduced costs for metal parts (e.g., welding, 

stamping, and machining) and use of high-temperature metals

• In-line inspection and quality control techniques for continuous and automated processes.
15

Appendix A

Manufacturer Questionnaire

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Program requested the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to conduct a review of manufacturing automation in the 

production (or potential production) of 1 kW to 1 MW stationary fuel cell systems. The approach 

for this review is to contact major fuel cell system manufacturers, fuel cell stack component 

manufacturers, and manufacturers of balance-of-plant (BOP) components to:

1. Discuss the status of automation for fuel cell system and component manufacturing

2. Obtain the recommendations of fuel cell manufacturers for accelerating and driving down 

the cost of fuel cell manufacturing through automation.

Manufacturing Approaches

Pick and place is the manufacturing process used by many fuel cell manufacturers. The process 

is manpower-intensive for the production of fuel cell components, fuel cell subsystems, and 

assembly of fuel cell systems. By “Pick and place”, we mean that construction of the fuel cell 

component is done one operation at a time by using manpower to move fuel cell components and 

assemble these components into a fuel cell subsystem. The use of automation is minimal with an 

employee operating assembly equipment, for example, screen printers, presses, or stacking of 

cell components.

Semi-continuous manufacturing of a fuel cell system incorporates continuous processing at 

different stages of the manufacturing process, but still has some operations that use pick and 

place. An example of semi-continuous manufacturing of cell components would be electrode 

manufacture where the worker prepares the catalyst for screen printing with subsequent 

deposition of the catalyst and bonding of the catalyst to a gas diffusion electrode by an 

automated continuous process. An example of fuel cell system semi-continuous manufacturing 

would include connecting (e.g. by welding) of a reformer to the shift converter during the 

assembly of the stationary fuel cell system.

Continuous/automated

Discussion

manufacturing of a fuel cell system incorporates processes such as roll-toroll processing where fuel cell components are assembled continuously with minimal manpower 

contribution. For example, an operator loads roll stock materials (such as the membrane, gas 

diffusion material, and catalyst) into the roll processor which continuously assembles these 

components into membrane-electrode sheets, cuts the sheets to form MEAs, and applies seal 

materials to the MEA, which are immediately assembled into a cell stack, (for example, with 

robots), with bipolar plates alternating between the MEAs. In one continuous process, the 

precursor materials for the cell stack are processed and assembled into a final product.

NREL recognizes that a combination of the manufacturing approaches may be used and would 

like to identify the different manufacturing approaches presently used, relative to automation and 

continuous processes, for different process steps. An example would be the process for 
16

electrode/catalyst/membrane (separator) assembly. Another example would be cell stack 

assembly and the connections to the reactant and exit manifolds of the cell stack.

NREL also recognizes that an important factor for the industry to invest in automation is the 

market demand for the fuel cell system. Only under certain market conditions (demand/pricing) 

will the industry make the investment in a highly automated production facility.

The DOE is interested in understanding the technical/manufacturing—as opposed to market—

barriers to achieving highly automated production capabilities. What are the key technical or 

process barriers that inhibit adoption of highly automated production methods (or is the lack of 

implementation of these methods strictly market-based)? What specific process or automation 

technologies, if any, should the DOE focus on to assist in decreasing cost and increasing quality 

of these fuel cell systems?

Automation and manufacturing discussion points include:

1. What do you consider the benefits or limitations for the manufacture of fuel cell systems 

or components of vertical integration of the manufacturing process? Because vertical 

integration of the manufacturing process eliminates the "markup" associated with using a 

supplier network for components, it is argued that the savings from vertical integration

offset the capital expenditure cost associated with establishing a vertically integrated 

production facility. Does a vertically integrated manufacturing process receive a greater 

benefit from automation than a manufacturing system built around a supplier network? 

Please describe your level of vertical integration for the components, subsystems, or 

systems you manufacture.

2. How are specifications and quality control addressed when working with a supplier—

especially when working with MEA components? Is quality control established at the 

production line or is it achieved through selective sampling of the delivered components,

and how does this impact the manufacturing process? How is manufacturing automation 

impacted by quality control requirements? Are quality control techniques and devices 

necessary to support the more continuous and/or automated manufacturing processes? 

3. Describe the level of automation you presently employ for cell stack, cell components, 

and fuel cell system assembly. What will be the next automation improvements that will 

optimize the production rates? As you make improvements to your manufacturing 

process, do you use internal manufacturing expertise or do you contract with companies 

that specialize in developing manufacturing processes? If you use a contractor to assist in 

the development of your manufacturing processes, what level of fuel cell expertise do 

they bring into the manufacturing? Please identify, if possible, any contractors you have 

employed that specialize in fuel cell manufacturing.

4. Are major subcomponents such as reformers and power conditioning units obtained 

through a supplier network, and, if so, from whom? Are they delivered as completed 

subsystems that are readily "inserted" into the fuel cell system?

5. Is there an approach to continuous manufacture of cell components that will result in a 

continuous assembly process with stack components going directly to cell stack 
17

assembly? If this is not part of your manufacturing system, what is the primary bottleneck 

in the continuous manufacture of cell components and their assembly into cell stacks? 

6. Describe the levels of automation in the manufacturing processes, if improved in rate, 

scale, quality, or otherwise, which would most reduce manufacturing cost or increase 

production volume. What manufacturing process which is currently of the pick and place 

type would most reduce manufacturing cost or increase production volume if it was 

transitioned into a continuous process?

7. Please describe the opportunities to significantly reduce manufacturing cost by 

redesigning MEAs and cell stacks to facilitate automation in their manufacture.

8. At what level of production will cost savings associated with automation start to drive 

overall cost to the materials cost level? If one assumes a classical cost reduction learning 

curve, what would be the key production levels of stationary systems for the learning 

curve?
18

Appendix B 

Contact List

Company/Laboratory Location Contacts

FuelCell Energy Torrington, CT Mohammad Farooque (Senior VP, DFC Technology), Neil 

Aiello (VP, MFG), Chris Bentley (Executive VP, Government 

Operations and Strategic Manufacturing Development), 

Pinakin Patel (Dir., Special Sys & Research), Carson Payne 

(Dir., Manufacturing Strategic Planning), and Tom Lucas 

(Engineering Manager)

UTC Power South Windsor, 

CT

James Dayton (Manager, Operations), Steve Nelson 

(Manager, Cost/Producibility)

Acumentrics Dedham, MA Norman Bessette (CTO and Senior VP, Engineering), Jolyon 

Rawson (Engineering Manager)

Altergy Folsom, CA Mickey Oros (Senior VP, Business Development)

ClearEdge Power Hillsboro, OR Mike Upp (VP, Marketing), Bill Trivette (Senior VP,

Operations), Zakiul Kabir (CTO and Senior VP,

Engineering), Jonathan Iddings (Director Manufacturing,

Engineering), Tom Prevish (Project Engineering Manager), 

Robert Billodeau (Manufacturing Engineer)

Versa Power Systems Calgary, Alberta Eric Tang (Manager, R&D), Casey Brown (Manufacturing)

Rolls-Royce Fuel Cells Canton, OH Dan Birmingham (Dir., Engineering)

Ballard Power

Systems

Burnaby, British 

Columbia

Paul Cass (VP, Operations)