Marine Applications for Fuel Cell Technology

February 1986

NTIS order #PB86-183597
Recommended Citation:

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Marine Applications for Fuel Cell

Technology—A Technical Memorandum, OTA-TM-O-37 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1986).

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 85-600642

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
Foreword

Fuel cell technology is one of the most promising of the new electric power technologies currently undergoing development. Fuel cell power systems have attracted attention because of their potential for high efficiency, low emissions, flexible use of fuels,

and quietness. The Federal Government and the private sector have been funding fuel

cell R&D for more than 20 years. The state-of-the-art has advanced to the point that

fuel cell manufacturers hope to begin marketing fuel cells in just a few years. Full-scale

demonstration plants are currently being designed.

Much of the available R&D funding has been targeted for phosphoric acid fuel cell

research, and this is the type of fuel cell technology most nearly ready for commercialization. However, other types of fuel cells are also undergoing development, and these

hold promise for even greater efficiency of power production. The electric and gas utility industries have been most interested in using fuel cell technologies. The electric utility industry hopes to be able to use fuel cells for peak-shaving, load-following, and,

eventually, baseload powerplants. The gas industry, on the other hand, would like to

employ fuel cells to generate onsite electricity and heat for residential, commercial, and

small industrial applications.

To date, almost no attention has been given to the potential marine applications

for fuel cell technologies. Nevertheless, some of the benefits that fuel cells may offer

to the utility industry may also apply to some marine uses. Recognizing this possibility, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation asked OTA’s

Oceans and Environment Program to evaluate the likely benefits and problems of using

fuel cells for propulsion and auxiliary power at sea. As part of its investigation, OTA

held a 1 day workshop on Sept. 5, 1985, inviting fuel cell manufacturers and participants from the Department of Energy, Maritime Administration, Navy, Army, and industry research organizations. OTA found that fuel cells may offer advantages for some

marine uses, including applications requiring quiet operations, applications where throttle

settings are constantly changed, and for small submarines. However, the marine market

is not in itself large enough to drive fuel cell technology developments. Fuel cells are

not expected to penetrate marine markets until they become firmly established in the

commercial utility sector.

JOHN H. GIBBONS

Director

.,. ///
OTA Marine Applications for Fuel Cell Technology Workshop, Sept. 5, 1985

Gary Baham

Baham Corp.

Dick L. Bloomquist

David Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center

Frank Critelli

Maritime Administration

Lloyd Fink

Maritime Administration

Sigurd Folstad

International Fuel Cells Corp.

Don Glenn

Energy Research Corp.

Douglas Jewell

U.S. Department of Energy

Morgantown Energy Technology Center

Johann Joebstl

U.S. Army Belvoir R&D Center

Art Kaufman

Engelhard Corp.

William Kumm

Arctic Energies Ltd.

Shirley Morales

Legislative Assistant

Congresswoman Helen Bentley

James E. Nivin

American Commercial Barge Lines

Ted Stanford

U.S. Navy, NAVSEA

Percival Wilson

Consultant

Joe Woener

David Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center

Richard R. Woods

Gas Research Institute

iv
OTA Marine Applications for Fuel Cell Technology Project Staff

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division

Robert W. Niblock, Oceans and Environment Program Manager

Project Staff

Peter A. Johnson, Project Director

William E. Westermeyer, Policy Ahalyst

Administrative Staff

Kathleen A. Beil Jacquelynne R. Mulder

Contractor

Denzil Pauli

Other OTA Contributors

Peter D. Blair Thomas E. Bull
Contents

Page

OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Some Options for the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART ONE: FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY: DESCRIPTION AND STATUS . . . . . . . . . 4

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Description of Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Other Types of Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Advantages and Disadvantages of Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Fuel Cell Development Programs: Current and Future Emphasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Cost Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

PART TWO: MARINE USES OF FUEL CELLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Required Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Potential Applications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Other Transportation Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Some Options for the Federal Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

List of Tables

Table No. Page

1.

2.

3.

4.

Cost and Performance Comparisons for Land-Based Electrical Powerplants -

That Use Technologies Similar to Marine Propulsion Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Potential Fuels for Use in Marine Fuel Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Possible Marine Powerplants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Push-Tow Boat Powerplant Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

List of Figures

Figure No. Page

l. Diagram of Major Components of a Fuel Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. Schematic Representation of How a Fuel Cell Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3. National Fuel Cell Coordinating Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4, Participants in DOE’s Fuel Cell Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
OVERVIEW

A fuel cell is a device for directly converting

the chemical energy of a fuel, such as hydrogen

or a hydrogen-rich gas, and an oxidant into electrical energy. It also produces heat, which in some

applications may be a useful byproduct. Small,

specialized fuel cells were first successfully used

in the Gemini space program. Recent technological advances with other types of fuel cells and

small-scale demonstrations have encouraged the

development of fuel cell technology for commercial land-based use.

The private sector has been conducting fuel cell

research in the United States for more than 20

years. Federal funding also began more than 20

years ago with the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration’s (NASA) program. The

Department of Energy (DOE) began funding fuel

cell research in 1976. Although fuel cells are still

under development for commercial use, these efforts are beginning to bear fruit. Several types of

fuel cells are being investigated, but phosphoric

acid fuel cells are nearly ready for commercial use

in sizes ranging from a few kilowatts to a few megawatts.

The most promising near-term uses for fuel cell

technology are for applications in the electric and

gas utility industries. However, fuel cells have also

been considered for automobile, train, and marine applications. The use of non-petroleum-fueled

fuel cells in transportation is most desirable from

the standpoint of oil displacement, but application of fuel cell technology to the transportation

field in general and to the marine transportation

area in particular is still in the early exploratory

stage.

For marine applications, it has been suggested

that fuel cells be employed to provide propulsion

or auxiliary power for cruise ships, powered barges,

ferry boats, offshore supply boats, push-tow

boats, oceangoing tugs, submersibles, and even

submarine tankers. Fuel cells have also been suggested for use as power sources for offshore oil

platforms, for underwater facilities, and for refrigerated containers on containerships. Some of

these possible applications may be technically feasible and cost-effective in a decade or so. Other

potential applications (e.g., fuel-cell-powered submarine tankers) may take much longer to develop.

In any case, successful development for commercial needs will depend on economic factors in

addition to technical feasibility; likewise, successful development for military uses will also depend

on mission requirements.

If fuel cells prove technically and economically

feasible, they could conceivably replace many

electrical generating systems in use today in a

myriad of applications, from small transportation

units to large power stations. Their advantages

over existing systems could include higher efficiencies, lower cost, reduced emissions, and fewer

maintenance problems. Many of the benefits fuel

cells could provide to the utility industry could

also apply in the marine field. Of special interest

is the potential of fuel cells for high efficiency,

since this efficiency may translate into fuel cost

savings. Moreover, fuel cell efficiency is relatively

constant over a broad range of power settings.

Such a characteristic suggests that fuel cells might

be efficiently employed in ships that frequently

vary power demand—e. g., towboats, ferries, or

offshore supply boats. Capability of using a variety of fuels is another potential advantage. In

addition to the potential for providing main propulsion, fuel cells could also supply auxiliary

power and other heat needs.

Several other characteristics of fuel cells could

provide benefits for specific applications. The fact

that fuel cell systems are of modular design enables flexibility in the arrangement of plant components and could lead to a more cost-effective

layout of power and cargo spaces and of basic

ship structure. However, overall space and volume requirements of the fuel cell system and fuel

will probably be greater than for present systems.

As with other electrical powerplants, the maneuvering problems of ships and tugs might be mitigated by the advantage fuel cells provide in enabling electric power to be quickly switched to

various locations to reverse main propellers or to

activate side thrust propellers or water jets. Fuel

cells have few moving parts, suggesting minimal

manning requirements. Since they produce little

noise, they may have possible uses on anti-submarine warfare ships and seismic survey vessels.

1
2

Finally, fuel cells offer greater endurance than batteries for some types of submerged operation.

Despite these potential benefits, commercial

marine applications for fuel cells are a long way

off. None of the advantages stated above have

been demonstrated for marine fuel cells, and a

number of present problems constrain private development today. The marine market is not in itself large enough to drive fuel cell technology developments. Hence, it is not expected that fuel

cells will penetrate marine markets before they become firmly established in the commercial utility sector. Even then, fuel cell systems will have

a difficult time capturing a large share of the market, given competition from other systems. Shipbuilders will need to use and adapt products developed first either for the utility industry or for

the Department of Defense (DOD). Moreover,

potential cost advantages to onsite shore users due

to large-scale production may not accrue to the

marine industry.

Given these constraints, Federal assistance will

be required if the Federal Government wishes to

accelerate the development of fuel cells for the

commercial marine sector. Though OTA has not

evaluated the rationale for such Federal assistance,

many reasons to do so have been advanced. For

example, the Federal Government may wish to

stimulate commercial development of marine fuel

cells in order to reduce dependence on traditional

fuels (e.g., diesel oil), to help ensure the transition to alternative fuels as traditional fuels become

scarce, to help reduce pollutant emissions, or for

other reasons. It has also been suggested that if

the United States does not push development of

fuel cells, as the Japanese are doing, a developing market in which the United States now has

a technical lead will be lost.

Fuel cell technology may offer benefits to the

military as well. However, development of fuel

cell technology for military purposes can best be

considered separate from development for commercial purposes. If fuel cells prove to be the best

technology for specific military applications, cost

constraints that would slow development in the

commercial sector would be a less limiting factor.

Some Options for the

Federal Government

The outlook for using fuel cells in the electric

and gas utility industry appears promising. The

Federal Government has supported private sector research and development (R&D) efforts since

the 1960s. Continued Federal support of fuel cell

development programs is probably necessary to

advance the introduction of fuel cell technology

into the land-based utility industry.

The use of fuel cells in the marine industry in

the next 15 to 20 years is far less certain. When

and if the commercial maritime industry decides

that fuel cell power systems would provide significant cost and/or other advantages over competing power systems, these fuel cell systems must

be adapted to the unique demands of the marine

environment. Very little R&D on fuel cells for marine applications is currently underway inside or

outside the government. Since the R&D program

for land-based applications is so large in comparison, some believe that the proper course for the

marine industry is just to monitor closely that

R&D and select developments and applications

as they may occur in the future. Others believe

that unique marine requirements warrant specialized R&D efforts.

Specific research and development could be

supported by the Federal Government and/or industry to improve the potential of fuel cells in the

marine market. For example, the near-term use

of fuel cells in the marine industry could be stimulated by developing technology capable of reforming diesel oil. Other research that could be

undertaken includes: laboratory testing, followed

by shipboard analysis and testing, of fuel cell components to determine their suitability and/or vulnerability to the marine environment; basic electrochemical studies to improve catalysts and

electrolytes that would not be contaminated by

fuel processed from fuel oil; and accelerated investigation of molten carbonate fuel cells and of

the vulnerability of this type of fuel cell to the marine environment. The Federal Government’s investment in molten carbonate technology could
3

concentrate on those developments needed to support a demonstration of this fuel cell’s higher efficiency and fuel flexibility. The private sector could

focus on the technology and processes needed to

manufacture these fuel cells at a cost competitive

with conventional power generators.

The Maritime Administration, and perhaps

other agencies within the Department of Transportation, and DOE might be able to offer some

assistance for applications more directly relevant

for the commercial transportation sector. For instance, funding could be provided to demonstrate

and evaluate use of a fuel cell system on a commercial ship or locomotive. One suggestion is that

future fuel cell research for heavy-duty transportation applications focus on developing the more

efficient molten carbonate fuel cells. Once a small

(i.e., 50 kilowatts (kW)) molten carbonate system has been demonstrated, these agencies could

coordinate a demonstration of a 2 to 4 megawatt

(MW) powerplant for the heavy-duty transportation sector. Different types of incentives to private industry might also be used, such as tax benefits for those who use non-petroleum-based fuels

or accelerated depreciation.

The Federal Government may also wish to encourage the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Coast

Guard to become more involved in developing

fuel cells for their mission requirements, OTA’s

analysis indicates potential benefits of marine fuel

cell use in naval applications, and suggests that

more in-depth analysis of the potential applicability of fuel cell technologies for Navy missions

is needed.

The Navy is currently monitoring fuel cell developments, but it may be useful for the Navy

to consider supporting specialized research into

marine fuel cell development as well. At present,

for example, very little work has been done on

developing fuel cells for “quiet” ship operation

aboard certain vessels where noise emissions from

conventional engines are a major problem. If fuel

cells could match these and other unique Navy

missions, then naval fuel cell research, independent of private sector efforts, may be justified.

Recognizing that research funds are limited and

must be carefully targeted to the most productive

avenues of research, it may be best to begin by

encouraging the military to develop small fuel cell

systems for auxiliary power on naval surface

ships, As experience is gained, larger fuel cells (on

the order of a megawatt) might be used for naval

and Coast Guard auxiliary power. Finally, beyond 2000, the Navy or Coast Guard could be

encouraged to focus on developing larger fuel cell

powerplants for primary propulsion power. The

Navy and Coast Guard have different missions

than the civilian sector and some applications developed by them may not be directly useful for

the private sector. On the other hand, some applications first developed for military purposes

might stimulate development of applications for

commercial use.
PART ONE: FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY: DESCRIPTION AND STATUS

Introduction

A fuel cell converts the chemical energy of a

fuel, such as hydrogen or a hydrogen-rich gas,

and an oxidant into electrical energy. It also produces heat, which in some applications may be

a useful byproduct. Invented and demonstrated

by Sir William Grove, the principles governing

fuel cell operation have been known for about 150

years. Fuel cells were first successfully used in the

Gemini space program. However, these solid polymer electrolyte fuel cells were far too expensive

for commercial land use. Recent technological advances with other types of fuel cells and smallscale (40 kW) demonstrations have encouraged

the development of fuel cell technology for commercial use. Increased efficiency and low emissions are important advantages that fuel cells are

expected to have over most conventional powerplants.

The private sector has been conducting fuel cell

research in the United States for more than 20

years. Federal funding also began more than 20

years ago with NASA’s program. DOE began

funding fuel cell research in 1976. These efforts

are beginning to bear fruit. Several types of fuel

cells are being investigated, but phosphoric acid

fuel cells (PAFC) are most nearly ready for commercial use.

The PAFC development effort has proceeded

primarily along two tracks. The gas industry, with

the assistance of DOE, has installed and is testing 46 natural gas fueled 40 kW PAFC demonstration units at various locations (including four

at military installations) around the country.

These are designed to provide onsite electricity

and heat for residential, commercial, and small

industrial applications. The electric utility industry, on the other hand, is interested in developing fuel cells for use at central stations as peakshaving, load-following, and—eventually—baseload powerplants. To date, two 4.8 MW demonstration plants have been built, one in New York

City and the other in Japan. Much was learned

from the New York facility, but it was plagued

by numerous startup problems and was shut

down before it began generating electricity. The

Japanese prototype 4.8 MW PAFC facility, which

also uses U.S. technology, has been tested and remains in operation. U.S. companies are currently

designing 7.5 and 11 MW commercial demonstration plants.1

Fuel cells have been considered for automobile,

train, and marine applications. However, application of fuel cell technology to the transportation field in general and to the marine transportation area in particular is still in the early

exploratory stage. The future use of nonpetroleum-fueled fuel cells in transportation is most

desirable from the standpoint of oil displacement,

but transportation applications are also a difficult target market. One limitation could be the

need to set up a new fuel distribution network for

fuel cell fuels. A unique problem related to transportation applications is the need for quick startup

and rapid, large power variations during operations. 2

Two bills regarding fuel cells have recently been

introduced in the U.S. Senate. The effect of S.

1687, the Fuel Cells Energy Utilization Act of

1985, would be to promote development of fuel

cell technology. S. 1686, the Renewable Energy/Fuel Cell Systems Integration Act of 1985,

seeks to promote research on technologies that

will enable fuel cells to use nontraditional fuels.

Description of Phosphoric Acid

Fuel Cell Systems

Fuel cell systems are composed of three basic

elements, the heart of which is the fuel cell itself

(figure 1). The fuel supply subsystem, usually a

processor for producing hydrogen gas, and an

electrical converter, for providing electrical power

in a form acceptable to the user, make up the two

other elements. Fuel cell characteristics and performance typically vary depending on the mateIFor a more detailed discussion of fuel cell applications in the electrical utility industry, see U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, New Electric Power Technologies: Problems and Prospects

for the 1990s, OTA-E-246 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office, July 1985).

‘The Los Alamos National Laboratory has conducted studies of

fuel cells for such transportation applications as locomotives and

tugboats. General Motors has also sponsored R&D on fuel cell powerplants that could be used in both land and marine vehicles.

4
5

SOURCE National Fuel Cell Coordinatlng Group

rials used for electrodes, electrolytes, and catalysts. PAFCs are the most developed of the fuel

cell systems currently being considered, but other

types, such as molten carbonate, solid oxide, alkaline, and solid polymer electrolyte fuel cells (classified by the electrolyte used in the cell) are also

receiving research attention.

The Fuel Cell Stack

Fuel cells are composed of two electrodes, a

cathode and an anode, separated by an electrolyte (see figure 2). In the typical PAFC, fuel (a

hydrogen-rich gas reformed from natural gas or

another fossil fuel) is delivered to the porous

anode element. The anode is coated with a catalyst, such as platinum, which causes the hydrogen molecules to dissociate into hydrogen ions and

electrons. The hydrogen ions pass through the

phosphoric acid electrolyte to the cathode. A current is created as the electrons, unable to move

through the electrolyte, pass instead through a

conductor attached to both electrodes. When a

load is attached to this circuit, electrical work is

accomplished. At the cathode, oxygen (generally

in the form of air) is introduced. The oxygen combines with the hydrogen ions, which have migrated from the anode, and with the electrons arriving via the external circuit to produce water. 3

‘Arnold P. Fickett, “Fuel-Cell Power Plant s,” Scientific Arnericdn,

vol. 239, No, 6, December 1978, p. 70,

The nitrogen and carbon dioxide components of

the air are discharged. Unlike a battery, a fuel cell

does not have a fixed amount of chemical supply, and thus does not run down. It continues to

operate as long as fuel and oxidant are supplied

to it and an adequate level of electrolyte is maintained. 4

The individual PAFCs being developed for

commercial use are flat sandwich structures, with

size ranging from about 0.1 to approximately 1

square meter. One to two kW are produced per

square meter. The voltage produced by a single

cell is low, between 0.6 and 0.85 volts, after allowing for losses within the cell. However, these

small voltages add up when cells are connected

in series. A high voltage output is created by

stacking the individual cells. A typical 200 kW

“stack” of 500 fuel cells would result in about a

325 volt output, each cell producing about 400

watts of power. Stacks may then be connected

in parallel to provide the desired total power. The

current produced is proportional to the rate at

which the electrochemical reactions proceed and

to the surface area available for the reactions.

‘U.S. Department of Energy and National Aeronautics and Space

Administrationr Assessment of the Environmental Aspects of the

DOE Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell Program, DOE NASA 12703-3, May

1983, p. 3.
6

Figure 2.—Schematic Representation of How a Fuel Cell Works

1. Hydrogen gas flows over negative

electrode (anode).

2. Electrons split away from hydrogen and

flow through anode-to external electric

load.

3. Hydrogen ions move through electrolyte

to cathode. Electrons stream into cathode

4. Hydrogen, electrons, and oxygen combine

to form water (steam).

from load. Cathode is bathed with oxygen.

SOURCE Ernest Raia, “Fuel Cells Spark Utllltles’ Interest, ” l+~gh Technology, December 1984

The temperatures at which these reactions occur vary with the type of fuel cell. The choice of

phosphoric acid as the electrolyte in PAFCs determines an operating temperature of between

1500 and 2000 Celsius. Other types of fuel cells

operate at much higher temperatures. Below 1500

C the phosphoric acid is not a good hydrogen ion

conductor. Above 2500 C, the electrode materials become unstable. Heat is given off in this electrochemical reaction, some of which is used to maintain the temperature of the electrolyte. However,

most of the heat is transported away by air or liquid coolants and, if it can be used in the fuel processor and/or for other heating needs, it improves

the overall conversion efficiency of the fuel cell.

An important characteristic by which fuel cells

are compared with other powerplants is the heat

rate. Heat rate refers to the amount of thermal

energy required to produce a unit of electric

power, and is measured in terms of British thermal units per kilowatt-hour (Btu/kWh). Presently

available PAFC systems providing alternating current have heat rates of about 8,500 Btu/kWh, The

most efficient power generator now available, the

oil-fired powerplant operating on a combined cycle, also requires about 8,500 Btu/kWh. Commercialization of fuel cells depends in part on reducing heat rates, thereby improving cell power

output and efficiency. Realistic future goals for

PAFC heat rates are thought to be about 7,500
7

Photo cred(t Engelhard Corp

5 kW Fuel Cell Stack

Btu/kWh. One way to achieve these rates is by

developing cells that can run at higher operating

temperatures and pressures, Another is by using

advanced “super acids” that are more active electrochemically than phosphoric acid. Such acids

may be able to lower the heat rate to about 7,000

Btu/kWh. Phosphoric acid, for example, may in

principle be substituted directly for phosphoric

acid without having to change the design of present cells. However, super acids cannot yet be synthesized in great quantities, and they remain laboratory curiosities. 5

The Fuel Processor

The fuel processor or reformer performs two

important functions. One is to convert the stock

fuel to a hydrogen-rich gas for use in the fuel cell

stacks. The second is to remove impurities, To

minimize contamination of the fuel cell electrodes,

sulfur and carbon monoxide are removed by the

fuel processor through the use of special desulfurizers and carbon monoxide shifters (the shifters

transform CO to CO2

). Water vapor produced

by the reforming process is also removed from

the hydrogen-rich gas prior to its delivery to the

fuel cell stack. Fuel processing requires different

technology for each stock fuel. Since no power

or heat is available from the fuel cell stack when

the system is initially started, a separate source

of power is required to start both the reformer

and the stack. This power source must be able

to generate steam for the reformer and to preheat

the stock fuel. Startup times of several hours or

more are required for 40 kW and larger systems,

a factor that could affect the use of fuel cells for

some forms of marine transportation.

The Power Conditioner

The power conditioner receives electrical power

from the fuel cell stack and converts it to match

the required output. Fuel cells produce direct current (DC), and if the application uses DC current,

as may be the case for some marine applications,

the current may be used as it comes from the fuel

cell stack after providing for voltage and power

monitors and controls, and power cutoff devices.

If alternating current (AC) is required, an inverter

is incorporated into the power conditioner. This

conversion device is about 90 percent efficient

with present designs. In many cases the cost of

AC motors and the inverter is less expensive than

the equivalent DC system, and it is therefore likely

that the AC conditioner would be incorporated.

‘Ernest Raia, “Fuel Cells Spark Utilities’ Interest, ” High Techrtology, December 1984, p. 56,
8

Photo credit” Engelhard Corp

25 kW Fuel Cell Stack

The Controller

The fuel cell controller has a number of functions. It must control supplemental power during the startup operations, stack cooling and gas

flow during power and hold operations, and finally control the close-down operations. Numerous temperature, gas flow, and other sensors and

microprocessors are used by the controller in performing its functions.

Other Types of Fuel Cells

Although the PAFC is the most developed and

closest of the various types of fuel cells to becoming commercially available, several other promising development approaches are being pursued

by government and private industry. Each of the

fuel cell types discussed below requires considerable technological advances before commercialization, but these other approaches promise to be

even more efficient than PAFCs, as well as provide other benefits. Since each operates at a different temperature, each has different advantages

and limitations.

Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells (MCFC)

Development of MCFCs is still at a relatively

early stage. The program is about 5 to 10 years

behind the state-of-the-art of phosphoric acid systems. Therefore, MCFCs will probably not be

commercial before the late 1990s. However,

MCFCs are appealing for several reasons. Since

MCFCs operate at temperatures of from 6000 to

7000 C, a catalyst is not needed to speed up the

chemical reactions; expensive platinum use can

be eliminated. Moreover, this type of fuel cell is

even more efficient than the PAFC. MCFCs also

appear to be able to use more types of fuels. Furthermore, it may be possible to use the waste

steam to convert hydrocarbon fuel into hydrogen within the fuel cell itself, thereby eliminating

the need for an external reformer. This may increase efficiency and lower costs, but the feasibility of this process has not yet been verified.

The high operating temperatures that MCFCs

require and the corrosive electrolyte create materials problems. For example, the present nickel

oxide cathodes do not have an adequate operating life. Technical challenges include developing

anodes with improved dimensional stability during operation; maintaining the desired electrolyte

distribution during cell operation; and maintaining adequate corrosion resistance at a reasonable

cost. In addition, some investigators of transportation applications have noted that thermal inertia may be a problem in operations with rapid

load fluctuations.
9

use traditional marine fuels may also make

MCFCs attractive for marine applications.

Photo credit Engelhard Corp

50 kW Methanol Reformer

MCFCs are now under development principally

for large industrial or central power-generating

plants. It is believed that heat rates can be as low

as 6,500 Btu/kWh, and that eventually molten

carbonate heat rates may be reduced to as little

as 5,900 Btu/kWh, whereas the present PAFC

heat rate is about 8,500 Btu/kWh. The ability to

Solid Polymer Electrolyte (SPE)

SPE technology is still highly exploratory. Theoretically, however, this technology could provide

greater performance than PAFC technology. The

advantages could be high efficiency and almost

instantaneous startup and shutdown. However,

at present the electrolyte, a proton-exchange

membrane, is intolerant to high temperatures.

This means there are limited cogeneration applications and that control problems could be severe.’ The Los Alamos National Laboratory has

evaluated the feasibility of using SPE fuel cells for

selected heavy-duty transportation systems, and

believes further R&D of SPE fuel cells to be potentially very important.7 Likewise, General Motors is investigating the possible use of SPE fuel

cells for land transportation.

Solid Oxide

Solid oxide fuel cells are theoretically highly efficient and are at about the same stage of development as molten carbonate systems, at least 5 to

10 years from commercial use. A major attraction is that these fuel cells are conceptually simple. Since they are solid state, there should be

fewer maintenance problems, no liquids to contain, no migrating electrolyte, and no corrosion

problems. Compared to other fuel cell technologies, sulfur tolerance is high. In addition, since

solid oxide fuel cells operate at close to 1,0000 C,

high-quality heat for bottoming cycles and internal reforming is generated. High temperature operation also eliminates the need for special catalysts.

However, at these high temperatures, stability of

materials is a problem. Materials must also have

closely matched thermal expansion coefficients to

prevent delamination of ceramic layers, and not

many materials meet these requirements. All such

bPeter S, Hunt, “Analysis of Equipment Manufacturers and Vendors in the Electric Power Industry for the 1990s as Related to Fuel

Cells, ” prepared for the Energy and Materials Program, Office of

Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, Dec. ].5,

1984, p. 34.

7W. J. Walsh and J.B. Rajan, “Advanced Batteries for Electric Vehicles, ” Argonne National Laboratory, April 1985, p. 7. See also

J.R. Huff and H.S. Murray, “Feasibility Evaluation of Fuel Cells

for Selected Heavy-Duty Transportation Systems, ” Los Alamos National Laboratory, March 1982.
10

materials currently being investigated are rather

exotic. In addition, solid oxide fuel cells currently

under development are small, so the power output is low. Hundreds of thousands of these would

be needed to construct a multi-megawatt powerplant, and this could be a major problem for a

system designer. 8 The National Fuel Cell Coordinating Group sees the initial market for solid oxide fuel cells in electric utilities and industrial cogeneration applications using natural gas fuel.

Eventually coal-fueled powerplants might become

practical. 9 Solid oxide fuel cells may also have

some transportation applications because they

could be small and light.

Alkaline

Alkaline fuel cells, which operate at about 65°

C, were first developed by NASA for use in the

space program. First used on Gemini 5 to supply

electricity and drinking water, they have subsequently been used on Apollo, Skylab, and Space

Shuttle missions. The most advanced alkaline fuel

cells used on the Space Shuttle provide about eight

times as much power as the first versions developed. Alkaline fuel cells are highly efficient, with

a heat rate of about 5,000 Btu/kWh, but given

their high expense, industry sees few applications

for them. Alkaline fuel cells do not tolerate carbon in the fuel stream, so must rely on pure hydrogen and oxygen. Producing high purity fuels

is very expensive, and therefore alkaline fuel cells

are not considered commercially practical at the

present time for other than very specialized applications (e.g., in the chlor-alkali industry where

pure hydrogen is produced as a byproduct). NASA

is more concerned with weight, however, not fuel

cell expense.

Advantages and Disadvantages

of Fuel Cells

Generation of electricity by fuel cells promises

numerous benefits. General advantages are likely

to include:

1. High efficiency. The fuel cell converts the

chemical energy of a fuel directly to electrical energy without combustion. Thus, its

theoretical efficiency is not limited by the

Carnot cycle. The conversion efficiency of

PAFC stacks, from input fuel to output

8Raia, op. cit., p. 56.

91rwin Stambler, “Fuel Cell Systems Aiming at 5,000 Btu/kWh

Heat Rates, ” Cogerteration, November December 1984, p. 26.

2.

.

electricity, is between 40 and 44 percent.

Since the efficiency of a fuel cell stack is determined largely by the characteristics of

the individual cell, the efficiency of the fuel

cell power system is (to a degree) independent of the size of the plant. Overall, the

greater efficiency that fuel cells may provide could mean a significant fuel conservation potential.

Low emissions. Since most undesirable constituents are stripped from the fuel in the

reformer, emissions from the fuel cell itself

are negligible, consisting mostly of water,

which is emitted as a result of reactions

within the reformer. Water is emitted as a

result of the reduction of oxygen at the

cathode. Carbon dioxide is emitted as a

result of the reduction of oxygen at the

cathode. Carbon dioxide emissions may

contribute to world climate warming (the

“greenhouse effect”), but the quantities of

carbon dioxide produced are not greater

than quantities produced by conventional

fossil fuel powerplants.

The major source of undesirable emissions is in the preparation (reformation) of

hydrocarbon fuels for use in the fuel cell.

In reforming petroleum or coal for use in

fuel cell powerplants, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are produced. However, sulfur dioxide emissions are expected to be

about 0.0001 pound per million Btu (lb/

MMBtu), almost nonexistent when compared to emissions from oil- and coal-fired

powerplants, and nitrogen oxide emissions

about 0.2 lb/MMBtu, about three times

lower than present Federal standards for

new coal-fired powerplants. 10 In the environmental assessment they conducted for

DOE and NASA, Lundblad and Cavagrotti concluded that “sizable improvements in

national air quality can be expected when

fuel cells penetrate the energy supply market in substantial quantities."11

3. Quiet. Fuel cell powerplants are quiet compared to conventional powerplants. Because

the fuel cell has no moving parts, the only

1OFickett op. Clt., p. 73. Present Federal standards are discussed

in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Acid Rain and

Transported Air Pollutants: Implications for Public Policy, OTA0-204 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June

1984).

“U.S. Department of Energy and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, “Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell Platinum Use Study, ”

DOE/NASA/2701/2, May 1983, p. 156,
11

4.

5.

6.

7.

noises are those produced by the pumps and

fans of the fuel cells auxiliary equipment.

This fact means that investments in noise

control equipment can be reduced and that

fuel cell plants can be sited closer to the

loads they serve.

Ease of siting. Low emissions and quietness

are qualities that are likely to make siting

of utility fuel cell powerplants easier than

siting of conventional powerplants. Hence,

fuel cells are more easily located in urban

areas where construction of conventional

powerplants would be difficult. This same

quality may be important for some marine

applications—e. g., on cruise ships.

Opportunities for cogeneration. The fuel utilization efficiency of fuel cells can be further increased by utilizing the waste heat

generated by the electrochemical process.

When PAFCs are used to produce both electricity and heat, overall efficiencies of 80

percent or more maybe reached. The economics for cogeneration systems look much

better than for those systems producing

only electricity. A shipboard system could

also take advantage of cogeneration.

Modularty. Fuel cells can be manufactured

in modules. Unlike restrictions on conventional powerplants, the size of a fuel cell

powerplant can be easily increased in electric utility applications to match load requirements. By increasing capacity incrementally as needed, utilities may be able to

avoid some of the initial capital investments

otherwise required of steam or nuclear

plants, which are sized for some distant

year’s consumption. The conventional large

plant is not operated at its most efficient level

for many years. For shipboard applications,

adding capacity incrementally probably

does not apply. However, the fuel cells can

be distributed to points of load concentration, which offers advantages in certain military and specialized vessel applications.

Short construction lead time. Because fuel

cells can be factory mass-produced, lead

times necessary to construct a fuel cell powerpIant can be significantly reduced, Whereas a conventional coal or nuclear plant may

require 10 to 12 years to license, design, and

construct, it is estimated that once a fuel

8.

9.

10.

cell manufacturing plant is operating, a fuel

cell powerplant could be installed in less

than 3 years. These short construction lead

times in turn will reduce utility reliance on

frequently inaccurate long-term demand

projections, thereby reducing business risk

and improving utility economics. For certain naval operations, short construction

lead time may also be a substantial advantage.

Flexible fuel usage. Fuel cell systems can be

designed to use a variety of fuels. The fuel

usually selected for commercial onsite

PAFCs is natural gas. Other fuels that could

be used include waste site methane, naphtha, liquid hydrocarbon fuels such as butane or propane, low and medium Btu coal

gas, methanol or ethanol, coal-derived liquid fuels, biomass derived fuels, and hydrogen or hydrogen-rich byproduct gases from

industrial processes. However, the fuel processor must be specially designed for each

fuel. Since fuel cells will, to some degree,

displace conventional powerplants, their

capability to use alternative fuels could reduce dependence on premium oil and gas

used in conventional powerplants.

Fuel usage for a particular type of fuel cell

is largely dependent on the characteristics

of the electrodes, electrolyte, and catalyst

used in the cell. Since these components may

be sensitive to contamination by “poisons,”

the fuel processor must be designed to eliminate contaminants. For example, the

cathodes of PAFCs can be readily contaminated with any sulfur in the enriched hydrogen fuel. Thus, fuels containing significant

amounts of sulfur must undergo considerable desulfurization to be usable. An alkaline fuel cell can tolerate only pure hydrogen and oxygen and is readily poisoned even

by carbon dioxide.

Efficient part load application. Fuel cells

have the ability to maintain efficienc y

through a range of loads—i. e., at loads between 30 to 100 percent of rated output. Conventional systems, on the other hand, are

less efficient at the lower end of this range.

Easy to operate and maintain. Fuel cells are

simple to operate because there are few moving parts. Fuel cells could potentially oper-
12

ate unmanned. Hence, operation and maintenance costs are likely to be low.

Assuming fuel cells function as desired, there

would still be several potential drawbacks to their

widespread use. These include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Capital cost. Relatively high cost for a new

and unproven technology is the principal deterrent to early, widespread commercial use

of fuel cells, especially in the marine industry where difficult economic conditions prevail and no one is taking large risks.

F’reduction of carbon dioxide in amounts similar to those emitted by conventional fossil

fuel plants (when a fossil fuel is used as an

input fuel). Thus, like use of conventional

powerplants, fuel cell use could contribute

to global climate warming.

Possible material vulnerability. Some of the

materials used in fuel cells are in scarce supply in the United States. Among these are platinum, used as a catalyst in PAFCs. Domestic

platinum deposits are capable of supplying

only about 10 percent of annual U.S. requirements today.12 If fuel cells gain wide acceptance, demand for these materials could increase significantly, and, consequently U.S.

dependence on sometimes unstable foreign

sources of supply would grow. Cumulative

U.S. platinum demand for PAFC market

penetration of 20,000 to 40,000 MW is estimated to be between 1.1 and 2,2 million troy

ounces. ’3 The world supply of platinum appears sufficient to handle the estimated increased demand, and platinum prices are expected to rise only moderately, ’4

Some public exposure to fuels. If fuel cell powerplants were located in urban areas, there

could be more exposure to fuels transported

through populated areas than would be the

case with conventional powerplants located

away from densely populated areas.

Fuel supply. Wide availability of fuel for

transportation applications could be a probIZT, F, Anstett, D.I. Bleiwas, and C. Sheng-Fogg, “platinum Availability—Market Economy Countries, ” U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, information circular 8897, p. 12.

“DOE and NASA, DOE/NASA/2701/2, op. cit., pp. 109 and

110.

14 DOE and NASA, DOE/NASA/2701 /2, op. cit., p. 155.

6.

lem. Use of some fuels considered appropriate for fuel cells would require emplacement

of an entirely new distribution network. This

issue is considered in more detail below.

Fuel cell life. Periodic replacement of fuel cell

stacks is required for some systems after as

little as 5 years of use; thus, life-cycle costs

may be a negative factor.

Fuel Cell Development Programs:

Current and Future Emphasis

Fuel cell research is funded by the Federal Government, by industry research institutes, and by

private manufacturers and utility companies.

Since 1960, total expenditures for governmentsponsored R&D have exceeded $500 million.

Within the Federal Government, most of the research money comes from DOE, but DOD and

NASA also have active fuel cell programs. The

two major industry research institutes funding research are the Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI) and the Gas Research Institute (GRI).

These five entities comprise the National Fuel Cell

Coordinating Group (see figure 3). This group

provides an ad hoc forum for coordinating the

national fuel cell development effort. The costs

of many fuel cell technology development projects

are often shared between two or more of these

organizations. Several fuel cell users groups,

established to assist members in the development

and commercialization of fuel cells, have also been

formed. The Onsite Fuel Cell Users Group is comprised primarily of gas utilities, while the Electric Utility Fuel Cell Users Group is comprised

mostly of electric utilities.

U.S. Department of Energy

The Department of Energy’s Office of Fossil Energy runs the Federal Government’s most extensive fuel cell R&D program. DOE’s overall goal

in funding fuel cell research is to foster the development of environmentally acceptable technologies that will help reduce the Nation’s use of oil

and natural gas. In general, DOE does this by supporting high-risk, high-payoff technology development. Thus, a major objective is:

. . . to establish, in concert with the activities of

other funding organizations and fuel cell manu-
facturers, a verified technology base upon which

the private sector can, at lower risk, develop and

commercialize [fuel cell systems] for early entry

into U.S. markets. 15

DOE’s fuel cell program is divided into two major subprograms. The objective of one is to develop multi-megawatt fuel cell powerplants for

electric utility and large industrial applications;

of the other, to develop multi-kilowatt powerplants for onsite use by residences, light industry, and small businesses, Many research projects

may help foster commercialization of both types

of systems.

DOE is currently supporting development of

three types of fuel cells that may be used in both

multi-megawatt and multi-kilowatt systems—

phosphoric acid, molten carbonate, and solid oxide fuel cells (see figure 4). DOE began funding

fuel cell research in 1976. To date, most of the

research it has funded has been for development

of PAFC technology. However, DOE now believes that phosphoric acid research is sufficiently

advanced that the private sector no longer needs

as much support.

1 ~~OE and ~AsA, DOE NASA ‘ 2703-3, op. cit., P. 7,

SOURCE U S Department of Energy

Most DOE funding for fuel cell research has

gone to four private contractors for electric utility and onsite fuel cell development. These include

United Technologies Corp. and its subsidiary, the

recently established International Fuel Cells Corp.;

Westinghouse; Engelhard Corp.; and Energy Research Corp. There has been very little funding

of the possible transportation applications for fuel

cell technologies, but DOE has funded the Los

Alamos National Laboratory to evaluate the potential of fuel cells for selected heavy-duty transportation systems. DOE has also funded one commercial ocean transport system study. This was

a feasibility study for submarine tankers propelled

by PAFCs.

Between 1976 and 1984, DOE spent about $260

million on fuel cells, Since 1978 funding for DOE’s

fuel cell program has averaged about $35 million

per year. Of this, the bulk of funds (over 65 percent) have been expended on phosphoric acid research. Molten carbonate systems have received

about 28 percent of DOE’s funding support, and

solid oxide systems about 7 percent. DOE has preferred to focus program effort on phosphoric acid

development, since this technology is most advanced and since commercialization of a specific
14

SOURCE U S Department of Energy

fuel cell technology is likely to be necessary before potential users are likely to become very interested in fuel cell technologies that, however

promising, are not yet very advanced. Success of

PAFC systems will likely stimulate industry competition to further advance alternative fuel cell

technologies. The present administration has repeatedly sought to reduce funding for the fuel cell

program. However, Congress has been a strong

supporter of fuel cell research and has consistently

reinstated research funds that the present Administration has sought to cut.16

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

In the 1950s and 1960s, NASA funded the development of alkaline fuel cell powerplants for use

in spacecraft. The current NASA program is directed toward development of low temperature,

hydrogen-oxygen fuel cells for regenerative and

primary space mission applications, and toward

development of advanced concepts for future

space applications .17 Fuel cells developed for use

in outer space are not cost-effective for terrestrial

transportation uses. In addition to its other activ16 Hunt, Op. cit., P. 19 “U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, “Fuel Cell

Systems Program Plan, ” October 1984, p. 11.
15

ities, NASA (Lewis Research Center) has been designated by DOE to implement DOE-funded PAFC

projects.

U.S. Department of Defense

The armed services are interested in the possible applications of fuel cell technology primarily

as a means to support field operations. Characteristics of fuel cells that make them particularly

useful for the military include low noise, low thermal signature, and high efficiency. The Belvoir

Research and Development Center of the U.S.

Army has had a fuel cell program since the mid1960s, and is currently sponsoring the development of fuel cells for mobile applications to support troop operations. Phosphoric acid units have

been designed for power ranges between 1.5 and

5 kW. Thus far, the Army’s portable fuel cell powerplants have been designed to run on methanol;

however, future units will be developed to run

on diesel fuel, since it is both less expensive and

(since all Army vehicles use it) readily available

in the field. Work on developing reformers for

diesel-powered fuel cells is in progress.18

The Army also manages a fuel cell program for

the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force is primarily interested in using fuel cells in remote areas, such

as at Distant Early Warning radar sites in the Arctic. Currently, diesel drive electric generators are

used at these sites, but because the cost of providing fuel and maintenance services is high,

PAFCs are being considered as an alternative.

The U.S. Navy does not have a significant fuel

cell R&D program. However, several of its research offices monitor other agency and industrial programs and occasionally conduct reviews

to keep abreast of fuel cell developments that may

be applicable for Navy missions. Several small

SPE fuel cells are currently being tested at the

David Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center in Annapolis. In the past, the Navy

has supported development of fuel cells for powering small submersibles and submarines, but it has

no plans at the present time for using fuel cells

for main or auxiliary ship power.

‘HAllayne Adams, U.S. Army, Ft. Belvoir, interview, July 8, 1985.

U.S. Department of Transportation

The Maritime Administration (MARAD), within DOT, has funded a small amount of work investigating the potential marine applications for

fuel cells. One study assessed a broad range of

advanced merchant vessel power systems and

concluded that fuel cells are one of four contenders

with some potential.19 Another MARAD-sponsored study examined a plan to evaluate at sea

a methanol-fueled PAFC used as an auxiliary

power system, 20 MARAD has decided not to proceed with the proposed test.

Gas Research Institute

GRI is the gas industry research organization.

Its budget of about $170 million per year is generated by an R&D surcharge on natural gas consumption of 1.35 mills/MMBtu, as approved by

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Much of the research it funds is coupled with Federal and private efforts. A primary objective of

GRI is to promote the development of fuel cells

that can use pipeline gas.21 Hence, GRI has focused its effort on developing and demonstrating

fuel cells that can be operated independent of an

electric utility grid. The size of these onsite fuel

cell powerplants will likely be between 40 and 500

kW. Since a 40 kW plant generates about 150,000

Btu/hr of heat, these units can be used as cogenerators to maximize net efficiency. Commercialization of these onsite units would mean load losses

(and thus direct competition) for the electric utility industry.

A major facet of GRI’s onsite program is field

testing of phosphoric acid units. The program is

jointly sponsored by DOE, GRI, and a number

of participating utilities. Customers of the utility

user group include hospitals, stores, restaurants,

etc., and are spread all over the country. No marine users, however, are in the user’s group. To1’Gary J. Baham, “Merchant Vessel Advanced Power Systems, ”

final report to the Maritime Administration, U.S. Department 01

Transportation, NTIS #PB-82-185240, ]anuary 1982.

JoArctic Ener@e5 Ltd., “Development of Marine Rated Phosphoric

Acid Fuel Ce]]s, ” fina] report to MARAD, NTIS #1’ B-85-164879,

September 1984.

“Gas Research Institute, 1985-1Q8Q Five-yedr Research and Development Plan and 1Q85 Research and Development Program, April

1984, pp. 135-142.
16

tal project costs for the 1981-85 period have been

about $60 million. The purpose of the field test

project is to verify performance, demonstrate installation and maintenance, and stimulate user acceptance. The onsite field test program has progressed from tests in the 1960s of some sixty 12.5

kW fuel cell powerplants to the present testing of

over forty 40 kW PAFC powerplants. The present

installations began operating in 1983. Performance data will continue to be collected through

mid-1986. At the present time, 46 powerplants

have been placed in the field and over 215,000

operating hours have been obtained. Primary

problems seem to relate to supporting equipment,

such as pumps, and to the coolant system. It is

expected that the 40 kW field tests will be followed

by the design, development, and commercial introduction of an approximately 200 kW capacity unit in the future.

GRI is also helping to fund PAFC technology

development by the private sector (primarily

United Technologies Corp. (UTC)). The objectives of the technology development project are

to improve onsite components, system performance, reliability, and maintainability; and to reduce fuel cell manufacturing costs, thereby promoting early commercialization.

Electric Power Research Institute

EPRI is the major electric utility industry research organization. Like GRI, EPRI fuel cell programs are coordinated with Federal and private

efforts. EPRI funding is also derived from a levy

on ratepayers approved by FERC. However, unlike GRI, EPRI interest focuses more on large,

multi-megawatt central power generating systems.

With DOE, UTC, and a utility consortium led by

Continental Edison, EPRI participated in developing a 4.8 MW pre-prototype phosphoric acid

powerplant located in New York City.22 EPRI is

also contributing funds to the UTC effort to develop an 11 MW PAFC and to the Westinghouse

effort to build a 7.5 MW powerplant.

In addition to promoting phosphoric acid research, EPRI promotes R&D of advanced fuel cell

ZZThe New York [aci]ity cost $85 mi]]ion, of which 57 percent was

contributed by DOE, 20 percent by EPRI, 16 percent by UTC, and

7 percent by Consolidated Edison of New York and its partners.

concepts that may prove useful for the electric utility industry. Thus, EPRI has a program whose

major goals are to develop molten carbonate fuel

cells capable of 25,000 hours of operation under

a wide range of conditions, and to verify an advanced stack concept that can reform natural gas

or methanol within the fuel cell stack and produce power at approximately 60 percent efficiency. Achievement of this latter goal initially could

result in a relatively small (2 MW), modular, highly efficient (50 to 60 percent), and very simple

powerplant that does not require an external fuel

processor. 23 Such a powerplant could have potential marine transportation applications.

EPRI budgeted $9.6 million for fuel cell and hydrogen technology research in 1985, and it has

budgeted a total of $81.6 million for the 1985-89

period. 24

Major Company Efforts

There are relatively few companies involved in

fuel cell research, development, and manufacturing. All are, to some degree, supported by DOE

and/or other Federal agencies. Industry estimates

that the ratio of private sector spending to Federal funding has been historically approximately

2 to 1,25 but this figure is very difficult to verify.

Perhaps the company with the longest involvement in fuel cell R&D is UTC. UTC is involved

in development and manufacturing of PAFCs for

both the electric utility multi-megawatt program

and the gas utility onsite program. UTC and the

Toshiba Corp. recently established a joint venture, the International Fuel Cells Corp., to design,

develop, and market an 11 MW fuel cell powerplant for electric utility use. UTC is also funded

by DOE to conduct research on MCFCs, and it

has an ongoing program to develop alkaline fuel

cells for military and space applications.

Westinghouse is developing a multi-megawatt

PAFC system independent of the UTC effort. It

has received funding support from DOE and EPRI

ZJElectric power Research Institute, 1985-1989 Research & Development Plan, EPRI P-3930-SR, January 1985, pp. 474-475.

241 bid., p. 469.

Zssidney Law, Statement of Sidney Law, member, Fuel cell Users

Group, before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resource, U.S.

Senate, May 3, 1983, p. 745.
17

for the design of two 7.5 MW DC air-cooled

PAFCs, which it hopes to have operating in 1987

and 1988, However, as of October 1985 no utilities had offered sites for a commercial demonstration of these units. Both UTC and Westinghouse

expect to have multi-megawatt commercial PAFC

powerplants for sale before 1990. Westinghouse

is also conducting research on solid oxide systems,

and as a result of recent technical accomplishments, believes that commercial introduction of

solid oxide systems may become available as soon

as 1990.26

The Engelhard Corp. is designing an integrated

onsite energy system, which includes a PAFC

powerplant; a heating, ventilating, and airconditioning subsystem; and an energy storage

subsystem. The overall plan is to develop a fullsize 100 kW system made up of four 25 kW fuel

cell stacks, two 50 kW fuel conditioners, and two

50 kW power processors to provide adequate reliability and redundancy .27 DOE funding for the

project has been applied to improve the state-ofthe-art of fuel cell stack and fuel processor technologies.

The Energy Research Corp. (ERC) is primarily

involved in developing molten carbonate fuel cells

for large-scale industrial cogeneration applications. ERC has licensed its PAFC technology to

Westinghouse.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly with respect to transportation applications for fuel cell

technologies, the Allison Gas Turbine Division

of General Motors has an ongoing program to

study the feasibility y of using fuel cells as a power

source for automobiles and other transportation

applications.

Japan

Japan can be expected to be a major U.S. competitor in the future fuel cell market. z

” Five Japanese firms are involved in an ambitious R&D program, and Japan’s New Energy Development

2’G. W. Weiner and J.T, Brown, “Solid Oxide Fuel Cell po~,er

Plants–The New Perspective for Commercialization, ” 1985 Fuel Cell

Seminar: Abstracts, sponsored by the National Fuel Cell Coordinating Group, Tucson, AZ, May 19-22, 1985.

‘“DOE and NASA, DOE ~ ,NASA 2703-3, op. cit., p. 16.

2’Irwin Stambler, “Fuel Cell Outlook Brightens as Technical Obstacles Fall, ” Research and Development, December 1984, p, 52

Organization is supporting efforts aimed at having full-sized phosphoric acid plants on utility

grids by about 1990. The goal of Japan’s Moonlight Program is to develop a 1 MW commercial

system in 1986. Research is also progressing on

development of other types of fuel cells. All but

one of the Japanese firms has an operating alliance with a U.S. company: Toshiba with United

Technologies, Mitsubishi with Westinghouse, Engelhard with Fuji, and Sanyo with Energy Research Corp. Only Hitachi currently lacks a partner. 29 The Tokyo Electric Power Co. has been

successfully operating a 4.8 MW PAFC powerplant designed by UTC since late 1983. This plant

is similar to the one UTC installed in New York,

but it is an improved version that takes advantage of several of the lessons learned at the New

York site.

Japan is also one of the world’s leading maritime nations, and Japanese developers are aware

that if high efficiency fuel cells can be developed,

they could possibly be used for shipboard applications. 30

Cost Considerations

The installed capital costs of the first commercial demonstration PAFC powerplants are currently expected to be about $3,000/kW. However,

no manufacturer has made a public offering, and

without any commercial units in place, cost estimates should not be considered firm. With maturing technology and mass production of fuel cells,

capital costs for both large and small powerplants

have been projected to fall below $1,000/kW

(1985 dollars) by 1995.31 Estimates of the installed

capital cost that will enable fuel cells to compete

with other utility and cogeneration alternatives

vary, but are between $750 and $1,500/kW, depending on the specific application .32 These figures

——29 Hunt, Op, cit., p. 9.

‘“U.S. Department of Energy, “Japanese Research and Development ot Fuel Cells, ” DOE I SF ~ 10538, T6, prepared under the direction of Dr. Chico Fujishima of Galaxy N]M, February 1Q81, p. 22,

“U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, New E~ectric

Power Technologies: Problems and Prospects for the 1900s, OTAE-246 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing O[tice, luly

1985), pp. 107, 313,

12’’ Electric Utility and Gas Industry’s Fuel Cell Models in Research

Racer” Electric Utility WeeL, Mar, 4, 1985, p. 13; and Lee Catalano,

“Can Fuel Cells Survive the Free Market in the 1990s?” Power, February 1984, p. 61,
do not take into account various benefit values,

which, if taken together, could reduce present and

projected costs per kilowatt by an estimated $200

(1985 dollars), Among these potential benefits are

savings related to air emission offsets, spinning

reserve and load following, transmission and distribution, and most importantly, cogeneration potential. 33 Cost and performance parameters comparing large and small PAFC powerplants with

two conventional technologies are presented in

table 1.34

A number of factors influence the overall costs

of fuel cells. These include:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

the state-of-the-art of fuel cell technology,

the cost to manufacture the cells and build

the powerplant,

the cost to operate and maintain the powerplant,

cell replacement frequency, and

the cost of fuel.

Naturally, in order for fuel cell powerplants to

be competitive with other alternatives, these costs

must be minimized.

“Electric Power Research Institute, “System Planner’s Guide for

Evaluating Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell Power Plants, ” EPRI EM-3512,

July 1984, p. 4-3.

“0TA, New Electric Power Technologies, op. cit., pp. 142, 313.

Although PAFC technology is well-advanced,

incremental technical improvements of fuel cell

and related-system components can still help reduce costs. For example, development of:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

inexpensive, corrosion resistant cell structural materials;

less expensive and more effective catalysts

that can operate at higher temperatures and

pressures;

improved automated fabrication and handling processes for large area cells;

cheap, reliable, and efficient fuel processing

units; and

techniques for reducing electrolyte consumption, as well as improvements in various other

standard components,35 will lower costs and

enhance the ability of fuel cell units to compete with other powerplants.

One of the advantages that fuel cells will have

over conventional alternatives for producing electricity is that they can be factory mass-produced.

Thus, quality control can be maintained, and fuel

cell stacks can be prefabricated, enabling reduction of the expensive onsite work required of other

types of powerplants. Improvements in the manufacturing process will enable further reduction

351 bid., p. 108,

Table 1 .—Cost and Performance Comparisons for Land-Based Electrical Powerplants That Use Technologies

Similar to Marine Propulsion Units

Combustion Slow-speed PAFC PAFC

turbine diesel large small

General:

Reference year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1990 1990 1995 1995

Reference-plant size (MWe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 40 11a0.2

Lead-time (years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2 3-5 2

Performance parameters:

Operating availability (o/o) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 95 80-90 80-90

Duty cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peaking Intermediate Variable Variable

Plant lifetime (years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 30 30 20

Plant efficiency (

0

/0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

costs. =

39 40-44b

36-40 b

Capital costs ($/kWe) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 1,200 700-3,000d

950-3,000d

O&M costs (mills/kWh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4.7 5.1-8.2 4.2-1 1.5e 4.2-1 1.5e

Fuel costs (mills/kWh) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48.6 42 27-30f

30-33’

aA typical Commercial powerplant WIII be much larger than 11 Mw

bDoes not Include Cogeneration potenttal. Cogeneratlon efficiency could be as high as 85 Percent

CAII cost figures are reported in mid-19t33 dollars

dLower end of range assumes mature technology and mass productlorl, high end represents the estimated cost of the first commercial Unlk

elncludlng cell replacement costs

‘Natural gas fuel

SOURCE U S Congress, Off Ice of Technology Assessment, New E/ecfr/c Power Techr?o/og/es Problems and Prospects for the 1990s, OTA. E246 (Washington, DC

U S. Government Printing Off Ice, July 1985), pp 142, 313.
19

of total costs, However, one “chicken-and-egg”

type problem is that cost savings from mass production cannot be realized until utilities and other

potential users begin ordering fuel cells, but the

current cost of fuel cells is still too high for most

potential users to be willing to invest. This situation, according to fuel cell manufacturers and potential users, may warrant continued strong government participation in helping to bring costs

down and in demonstrating fuel cell technologies. 36

The cost to build certain plants, however, compares favorably with competing technologies because modular construction permits incremental

capacity to be added only as needed. Therefore,

funds do not have to be tied up in expensive,

many-year construction projects. Moreover, it is

frequently years before the capacity of a newly

constructed conventional powerplant is fully utilized. Fuel cell powerplants can be built to closely

match load needs, adding capacity only as needed.

Several costs are associated with operating and

maintaining (O&M) fuel cell powerplants. The

cost of labor is one such cost. Smaller plants are

being designed to operate unmanned; plants in the

multi-megawatt range may require manning for

safety. A second important O&M cost occurs because fuel cells must periodically be replaced, Fuel

cell voltage and efficiency decrease with time because the platinum catalyst undergoes a reduction

in surface area and performance due to sintering

“Brian E. Curry, “The Fuel Cell: Electric Utility Planning Perspectives, ” address before the New England Conference of Public

Utilities Commissioners, Farmington, CT, June 14, 1983, The Fuel

Cell Users Group, p. 16.

Table 2.—Potential Fuels

.

Extent of Ease of

(agglomeration of a solid by heating without melting) as the cells operate. In addition, the heat rate

slowly increases over time if cells are not replaced,

and as a result, the amount of fuel required increases .37 The cost of producing electricity can be

minimized by optimizing the fuel cell module reloading frequency.

The most important variable cost is the cost of

fuel. As noted above, fuel cells are capable of

using a variety of fuels. Moreover, since fuel cells

convert fuel to electricity with high efficiency,

they have an advantage over many competing

technologies in that the cost of fuel per kilowatthour can be substantially less. Present and projected fuel prices for six potential fuel cell fuels

are given in table 2, and table 1 compares the estimated cost of fuel for competing power supply

systems in terms of mills per kilowatt-hour. The

Fuel Cell Users Group (FCUG) believes that natural gas will remain the preferred fuel cell fuel for

utilities at least through the mid-1990s, but they

also predict that propane will eventually become

the less expensive and preferred fuel. Methanol,

typically made from natural gas, continues to be

priced above most other fuels suitable for fuel cell

application, and the FCUG predicts that its high

price per Btu will continue into the foreseeable

future, 38

‘7J.R. Lancer B.L. Pierce, and M.S. Barrett, “Economics and Performance of Utilit y Fuel Cell Power Plants, ” Westinghouse Electric

Corp., Advanced Energy Systems Division, Pittsburgh, PA, 1984,

p. 825.

“The Fuel Cell Users Group, “Report on the Availability and

Prices of Alternative Fuels to Supply Fuel Cell Power Plants, ” July

1983, pp. 8-9; see also, Chevron U. S. A., Inc., “The Outlook for

Use of Methanol as a Transportation Fuel, ” January 1985,

for Use in Marine Fuel Cells

Heat distribution processing Estimated Volume per unit

content infrastructure for fuel Complexity Recent price 1990 price energy (compared

(Btu/gal) and availability cell use of storage ($/MMBtu) (1985$/MMBtu) to diesel)

Methanol . . . . . . . . . 64,000 Medium Easy Moderate 7.00a

l0.50b

2.2

LNG . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,000 Low Easy Complex 5.00’ 5.20C

1.8

LPG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91,000 Medium Difficult Moderate 7.00d

7.00d

1.5

Diesel No. 2. ..., . . . 138,000 High Difficult Simple 6.20e

6.50d

1.0

Naphtha . . . . . . . . . . 125,000 Medium Difficult Simple 6.60e

6.60e1.1

JP-5 (Jet fuel) . . . . . . 122,000 Medium Difficult Simple 6.00d

6.75d

1.1

aDewl!t ~ C. , Inc , k?ethano/ Newsletter, Oct 18, 1985

bElectrlc Power Research Institute, “Fuel Forecast Rewew, Energy Resources Program, No 1,“ March 1985

Cphtlllps petroleum phllllps IS currently expofllng LNG t. Japan This ,s the only active LNG operation in the IJnlted States The price of LNG has r(?C6311!ly fluctuated

between $470 and $5 30/MMBtu

du s Department of Energy, 1984 Annual Errergy ~u~/oo~

‘The Fuel Cell Users Group “Report on the Avallablllty and Prices of Alternative Fuels to Supply Fuel Cell Power Plant s,” July 1983
PART TWO: MARINE USES OF FUEL CELLS

Introduction

Why consider fuel cells for marine applications?

As with land-based applications, economic factors drive the search for improved commercial

marine power generation. These factors include

capital and operating costs of propulsion and auxiliary power systems, cost and availability of fuel,

and powerplant efficiency and reliability. Each of

these factors has a strong influence on the design

of ships and other equipment and powerplants.

Fuel cells have been considered as one of several

alternative propulsion systems for the ships of the

future. Baham, for instance, has evaluated nontraditional propulsion systems for the commercial shipping industry (under contract to the Maritime Administration), and concluded that four

systems show merit worthy of further investigation: nuclear, closed Brayton cycle, Stirling cycle, and fuel cells .39

Some of the benefits fuel cells would provide

to the utility industry could also apply in the marine field. Of special interest is the potential of

fuel cells for high efficiency, since this efficiency

may translate into fuel cost savings. Moreover,

fuel cell efficiency is relatively constant over a

broad range of power settings. Such a characteristic suggests that fuel cells might be efficiently

employed in ships that frequently vary power demand—e.g., towboats, ferries, offshore supply

boats, or icebreakers. In addition to the potential for providing main propulsion, fuel cells could

also supply auxiliary power and other needs.

Several other characteristics of fuel cells could

provide benefits for specific applications. The fact

that fuel cells are of modular design enables flexibility in the arrangement of plant components

and could lead to a more cost-effective layout of

power and cargo spaces and of basic ship structure. However, overall space and volume requirements of the fuel cell system and fuel will be greater

than for present systems. As with other electrical powerplants, the maneuvering problems of

ships and tugs might be mitigated by the advantage fuel cells provide in enabling electric power

to be quickly switched to various locations to re-

.—

3qBaham, op. cit,

20

verse main propellers or to activate side thrust

propellers or water jets. Fuel cells have few moving parts, suggesting minimal manning requirements. Fuel cells are quiet, suggesting possible uses

on anti-submarine warfare ships and seismic vessels. Finally, fuel cells offer greater endurance over

batteries for some types of submerged operation.

Despite potential benefits, the marine market

is not in itself large enough to drive fuel cell technology developments. Hence, it cannot be expected that fuel cells will penetrate marine markets before they become firmly established in the

commercial utility sector, and shipbuilders will

need to use and adapt products developed first

either for the power industry or for DOD. In addition, cost advantages to onsite shore users due to

large-scale production may not accrue to the marine industry.

Technical barriers, of course, also remain to be

resolved. Barriers relating to the commercialization of fuel cells for transportation have been

noted by Walsh and Rajan.40 Most bear directly

on cost, and include:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

high cost of platinum and other catalysts;

thermal control problems;

difficult fuel processing requirements;

system complexity;

startup time, especially in PAFCs;

high reformer cost, especially in small systems;

low volumetric power density;

carbon monoxide intolerance of electrodes;

high cost of membranes (for solid polymer

electrolyte fuel cells);

low efficiency of the oxygen electrode;

deterioration of the cost/performance ratio

in small systems; and

need to replace cells periodically.

Required Characteristics

Fuel cells must be competitively priced, reliable, and durable if they are to be accepted by the

maritime industry, They will be competing with

other types of powerplants, especially with wellestablished diesel-electric plants, for a share of the

towalsh and Rajan, op. cit., P. g.
21

marine market. Current low-speed diesels operating on residual fuel are very nearly as efficient

as present PAFC powerplants, and the efficiency

of the conventional powerplants of the future is

expected to improve (see table 3). For example,

diesel manufacturers are continuing their efforts

to improve the heavy fuels capability of their engines. Shipowners will not likely try new propulsion systems without some very clear and convincing reasons to do so. Substantial advantages

must be demonstrated, not just incremental improvements in efficiency in order to induce potential buyers to switch from a long-established

powerplant to a new and relatively untested type

of unit,

What would it take in order for the fuel cell to

become competitive in the commercial marine industry? One view is that, for applications such

as tugboat propulsion, total efficiency improvements of 10 to 20 percent would be required, that

installed capital costs would have to be on the order of $300 to $500 (1985 dollars) per kilowatt

(to compete with direct drive diesels), that power

densities (kW/cubic foot and kW/lb) would have

to be reasonably close to those of the diesel engine, and that the fuel cell (in the near term, at

least) must be capable of running on distillate petroleum-type fuels customarily widely available.

Table 3. —Possible Marine Powerplants

Fuel Efficiency (o/o)

Current:

Steam turbine with reheat steam

(1,450 psig, 150 F) . . . . . . . . . Residual 32-36

Low-speed diesel ., ... . . . . . . . Residual 39-41

Future conventional:

Steam turbine with heat pressure,

high temperature reheat

(2,400 psig, 1,050’ F) . . . . . . . Residual 35-39

Adiabatic diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diesel 49

Naval Academy heat balance

engine . . . . . . . . . . . . Diesel 43

Heavy-duty gas turbine,

combined cycle . . . . . . . . Residual 36-40

Closed-cycle combustion turbine Residual 40-41

Fuel cells.a

Phosphoric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naphtha 41

Molten carbonate . . . . . . . . . . . Distillate 50

Alkaline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hydrogen 60

awlthout cornbltled cycle or other forms of heat recovery

SOURCE U S Department of Energy, A/ternatfve Energy Sources for Non.lflgh.

way Trar?sportaf~on, DOE/CS/05438-T 1, Ju ne 1980

Requirements for specific uses could vary considerably, but these will be difficult targets to reach.

The major factor inhibiting fuel cell usage for

commercial marine applications is high cost. For

military applications—e. g., for submersibles,

small surface ships, and other specialized vehicles—mission requirements rather than cost are

generally more important. Thus, if fuel cell technology is determined to have unique advantages

for a defined mission, high cost may not be the

major concern.

Other important factors to consider in selecting a fuel cell or other unconventional powerplant

include compatibility with salty air and water;

system and fuel safety; ability to withstand the

shocks, vibrations, and ship motions commonly

encountered at sea; ability to withstand and/or

control transient thermal shocks due to rapid

changes in load; training and manning requirements; and constraints on weight and volume of

the powerplant, auxiliary systems, and fuel. The

questions of fuel storage and possible additional

en route refueling time, as well as other elements

related to fueling along the transportation route,

have not been considered in most studies. The volume of fuel required to travel between two points

may be much greater for certain types of fuel (e.g.,

methanol). This may either place additional space

and therefore size requirements on the vessel or

necessitate additional refueling stops.

The ability to burn less expensive, widely available fuel would be advantageous, as would the

capability to cogenerate steam, since, typically,

ships have well-established uses for steam. Finally,

fuel cells, like any other marine propulsion system, will need to be certified by the U.S. Coast

Guard and/or ship classification societies (e.g.,

the American Bureau of Shipping or Lloyd’s of

London) that they are safe, durable, and perform

to acceptable specifications. Listed below are five

significant issues that will affect future marine fuel

cell use.

Capital, Operating, and Maintenance Costs

There is no question that it is technically feasible to propel a ship and/or generate auxiliary

power using fuel cells. The issue is whether and/or

when fuel cells will be economical to purchase,
22

install, operate, and maintain. Manufacturers of

fuel cells for the utility industry maintain that

$1,000/kW (1985 dollars) is a realistic installed

capital cost goal for a mature fuel cell system. A s

technical improvements are made (e.g., by improving power density, cell stack cooler arrays ,

catalyst material, electrolyte management, and/or

inverter efficiency) and as automated production

techniques improve, the capital costs may be reduced further. However, in order for fuel cells to

be competitive with direct drive diesel powerplants in the commercial marine industry, capital costs may have to be considerably lower than

$1,000/kW .

Several studies of specific marine applications

have considered the question of capital costs in

detail. Notably, the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) did a levelized life-cycle cost study

of a typical 7,000-horsepower (hp) vessel capable of operating on inland or coastal waters.

LANL concluded that such a vessel powered by

an advanced PAFC using methanol costing $12.30/

MMBtu could not compete with a similar vessel

powered by a medium- to high-speed diesel powerplant, even if the capital costs for the fuel cells

were zero. They then considered the case of fuel

cells capable of using less expensive fuels, residual bunker fuel and coal, noting that handling and

processing technology for these fuels has not yet

been developed. Although their conclusions are

tentative, they suggest that the capital costs necessary to make fuel cells competitive for this application would be significantly below $500/kW,

even when using low-cost coal .41 One of OTA’s

workshop participants estimated the total cost of

a fuel cell system for a 5,000-hp vessel, assuming

it can be installed for $500/kW, at $2 million .42

The cost for a comparable diesel would be about

$800,000.

The duty cycles and specific requirements of

other potential marine applications could vary

considerably. Thus, it is not suggested that the

required competitive capital cost per kilowatt will

be as low for all potential marine fuel cell appli4]J.H. Altseimer and J.A. Frank, “An Assessment of Fuel Cell Propulsion Systems, “ Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-9954-MS,

November 1983.

‘zFrancis )(. Critel]i, Maritime Administration, OTA workshop

comment, Sept. 5, 1985.

cations. However, what little evidence there is

suggests that fuel cells will have a difficult time

capturing a large share of the market for most marine propulsion systems.

The relatively small size of the marine market

will not likely encourage volume-based cost reductions; nor is the marine market large enough,

by itself, to stimulate development of alternative

fuels. For example, it has been estimated that, at

best, the U.S. domestic towboat industry might

acquire 50 fuel cell powerplants per year.43 Even

if all potential Navy applications utilized fuel cells,

the domestic market could still not be considered

large. Moreover, there are other reasons why development of marine fuel cells may be difficult.

Baham notes that it is possible that competing

powerplants could enter the market first and establish long-term commitments with major customers; that ship operators and builders tend to

be conservative in their attitude toward changes

in propulsion machinery and would likely be

skeptical about changes that involve unknown

risks; and that potential PAFC users may wish

to wait for development of molten carbonate fuel

cells, which may offer better performance and

cost .44

Fuel Costs and Supply

Methanol has been identified in several studies

of the possible marine applications for fuel cells

as one of the most practical fuels for marine transportation applications. Among its advantages,

methanol can be derived from a number of

sources (including natural gas and coal, and wood

and other renewable resources), it is clean and

relatively easy to store (although it takes up more

space per unit energy than hydrocarbon fuels),

it is easily reformed at low temperatures using

conventional heat exchangers, and methanol reforming technology is in a relatively advanced

stage. Nevertheless, there are some significant

problems and uncertainties associated with the use

of methanol as a fuel cell fuel.

It is apparent from the few studies that have

been commissioned that the competitiveness of

“James Niven, American Commercial Barge Lines, OTA workshop comment, Sept. 5, 1985.

44 Baham, op. Cit., P. 6-6.
23

fuel cells in the marine industry will be sensitive

to the cost of fuel. Researchers who have assumed

methanol will be used for marine fuel cells have

reached both optimistic and pessimistic conclusions about the future competitiveness of fuel

cells .45 The assumed price of methanol in these

studies varied widely. The price of methanol during the mid-1990s—the earliest time that fuel cells

could be expected to enter the marine market—

is highly uncertain. A 1983 study by FCUG estimated that by 1990 methanol would cost $16.00/

MMBtu (1983 dollars).” Recently, the same group

lowered their estimate to approximately $10.00/

MMBtu (1983 dollars). (The current price is about

$7.30/MMBtu. ) Although FCUG’s estimate has

been reduced, methanol is still expected to be

more expensive than No. 2 diesel, propane, and

naphtha (see table 2). Moreover, fuel cost is not

the only important factor. Experience has shown

that improvements to reduce fuel costs are not

acceptable if poor reliability is a consequence.

Perhaps as significant as the issue of cost is the

fact that methanol and other alternative fuels

(e.g., naphtha) are not widely available as transportation fuels and that no network exists to distribute these at present. It is not a simple matter

to shift from a well-established fuel to a new fuel,

and residual fuel, bunker C, and diesel will likely

be available for at least another 20 years. The U.S.

Navy considers the fuel availability problem so

important that it has all but eliminated methanol

from consideration as a potential fuel for its fleet.

Similarly, the U.S. Army has major reservations

about using methanol as a fuel cell fuel in the field.

All Army vehicles use diesel fuel. Thus, the logical fuel to use with the portable fuel cell generators the Army is developing is also diesel. It is not

surprising that the Army has initiated development of reformer technology capable of processing No. 2 diesel fuel.

For the short term, methanol appears to suffer

from a chicken-and-egg problem. Automotive and

vessel manufacturers are hesitant to produc e

4%ee, for example, Arctic Energies Ltd., op. cit.; and Los Alamm

National Laboratory, “Assessment of Fuel Cell Propulsion Systems, ”

November 1983.

‘“The Fuel Cell Users Group, “Report on the Availability and

Prices of Alternative Fuels to Supply Fuel Cell Power Plants, ” July

1Q83.

methanol-powered vehicles because the fuel distribution network does not exist. Fuel suppliers,

on the other hand, will not be motivated to provide methanol until there are enough vehicles on

the road or at sea that require it. From an economic point of view, the future cost of methanol

has been estimated to be twice as much as gasoline, on a mileage equivalent basis, if new methanol plants must be built to satisfy U.S. demands. 47 However, methanol may well deserve

a much closer look when the traditional fuels,

such as No. 2 diesel, become scarcer and more

expensive. It is the least expensive high-grade liquid fuel that can be produced from abundant U.S.

coal resources, and can be derived from other

sources as well. Some automotive industry people believe that a methanol distribution network

for automobiles could evolve naturally from the

present distribution system, since methanol is already used in small quantities in some places as

a gasoline additive .48 It is not too far-fetched,

then, to envision the distribution system expanding to include small boat marinas and eventually

to facilities for larger ships, but the costs of establishing such a network are very difficult to estimate.

Several additional concerns have been noted.

Methanol has a low flashpoint, which could be

particularly troublesome for some military applications. Thus, special precautions would likely

need to be taken in handling methanol. Second,

a safety problem could arise because methanol

burns without a visible flame; hence, a methanol

fire cannot be easily detected. And finally, very

little information is available on the effects of low

concentration, chronic exposure to methanol.

Reformer Technology

Development of reformer technologies capable

of using logistic fuels could be an important breakthrough for the acceptance of fuel cells for transportation. The logistic fuel of choice appears to

be No, 2 diesel. It is currently widely available

and relatively inexpensive. However, currently

available reformers are not capable of efficiently

‘

; Chevron, U. S. A., Inc., op. cit., pp. 4-5.

‘*Gene Helms, Allison Gas Turbine Division, General Motors,

telephone conversation, Nov. 6, 1985.
2 4

producing the hydrogen needed by the fuel cell

from No. 2 diesel fuel. If efficient reformer technology could be developed enabling fuel cells to

use No. 2 diesel, the fuel logistics and safety problems associated with methanol and some other

fuels would be moot for the near term. The key

challenge is to develop a reformer for liquid

hydrocarbon fuels that works for relatively small

to medium capacities. As noted above, the U.S.

Army has initiated work on this significant problem. Specific development needs include stable

catalysts, the reduction of the water-to-carbon ratio, and desulfurization.

Survivability in Marine Environment

For the most part, fuel cells have been designed

for terrestrial use and have not had to cope with

the special problems related to the marine environment—presence of salty air and water, vibrations, shocks, corrosion, etc. The durability of

fuel cells under harsh marine conditions is not

known. However, the design of fuel cell systems

that can withstand these elements is not expected

to be a major challenge. For instance, although

it is not yet known how salt will affect fuel cell

operation, the filtering system designed for a marine gas turbine might reasonably be expected to

remove salt in the air so fuel cells and reformers

are not contaminated. Similarly, it is likely that

fuel cells can be “hardened” to withstand marine

shocks. The Navy, for instance, designed their alkaline fuel cell to withstand the stress associated

with a 5G landing in a C5A transport plane, and

NASA designed its alkaline fuel cell for use in

space. Still, no long-term testing of commercial

fuel cells under typical marine conditions has been

conducted. The specific mission will control design requirements.

Transient Energy Response

Little is currently known about the response of

marine fuel cells to abrupt changes in temperature due to sudden, very large changes in load.

It has been suggested49 that present fuel cells may

not be able to withstand the temperature changes

associated with abrupt power changes (i. e., changJW--ene Helms, A]]ison Gas Turbine Division, General Motors,

personal communication, Oct. 9, 1985,

ing from full load to “all stop”) that occur aboard

ships. If this is true, fuel cell durability may be

significantly decreased. Problems resulting from

temperature changes could include fuel cell fires

and acid leaks, either of which would render the

fuel cell inoperative. Long-term testing, under

controlled conditions, of responses to electrical

and thermal transients is needed to determine the

nature of the problem.

If design changes of marine fuel cells are required to address this potential problem, the cost

of fuel cells for marine applications may increase.

Thus, a more sophisticated control system may

be needed, requiring the development of quick response sensors imbedded in the cell stack and gas

control system. Electrodes, electrolytes, and fuel

processors may also need modification.

PAFCs have been the type of fuel cell investigated in most studies of marine applications for

fuel cells. Other types of fuel cells offer the potential for greater efficiency than PAFCs, and

these may be considered for use as marine powerplants in the more distant future. Molten carbonate fuel cells using distillate fuel, for instance,

may be more than so percent efficient, and in addition, have the capability to cogenerate highquality steam, for which ships have well-established uses. In a 1980 study done for DOE, the

Exxon Research & Engineering Co. concluded that

future molten carbonate systems will be very close

to being competitive with diesel engines and therefore deserved closer examination. so Alkaline fuel

cells using pure hydrogen fuel, although expensive, have already demonstrated efficiencies in excess of 60 percent in the space program.

Potential Applications

The marine industry may have a wide variety

of applications for fuel cells of various power outputs. To date, however, virtually all of the fuel

cell development efforts undertaken by manufacturers and funded by government agencies and

‘“U. S. Department of Energy, “Alternative Energy Sources for

Non-Highway Transportation, ” prepared by Exxon Research & Engineering Co., DOE/CS/05438-Tl, June 1980, pp. 6-27. Exxon also

concluded that a coal-fired steam boiler/turbine should be able to

undercut the molten carbonate system by $lOO/hp-yr, given coal

priced at $0.90 to $1 .60/MMBtu.
2 5

industry have been associated with advancing the

state-of-the-art of fuel cell technology for landbased gas and electrical utility applications. Thus

far, the only fuel cell designed and tested specifically for marine use has been an alkaline fuel cell

built by UTC for a very specialized Navy deepsea search mission (this application is described

in some detail below). Other than this one project,

studies of fuel cell applications in the marine field

have been confined to a handful of conceptual and

planning studies initiated by DOE, the Maritime

Administration, and the Navy.

Given the sparse information available, the Office of Technology Assessment recently invited

some industry and government experts to brainstorm about some of the possible marine uses for

fuel cells. The suggestions may be broadly placed

into seven major categories:

1. Applications in which quiet operation is useful or desired:

. research ship propulsion and auxiliary

power,

• seismic vessel propulsion and auxiliary

power, and

● anti-submarine warfare vessel propulsion

and auxiliary power.

2. Applications in which power settings are

constantly changing:

• tow boat propulsion,

• Coast Guard cutter propulsion,

• ferry propulsion, and

• supply vessels for the offshore oil and gas

industry.

3. Submarines and submersibles:

. submersible propulsion (military or commercial),

● submarine tanker propulsion, and

• remote underwater vehicles.

4. Commercial transport ship propulsion:

• tankers,

● bulk carriers,

● containerships, and

• cruise ships.

5. Naval ship propulsion power.

6. Commercial and naval ship auxiliary power.

7. Other applications:

● offshore platform auxiliary power;

● power for remote navigation, radar, or

oceanographic data acquisition and transmission systems; and

● power for refrigerated containers.

Very little effort has been devoted to the specific requirements of the above (or any other) possible marine applications for fuel cells relative to

their mission cycles, or to the physical and operating constraints that must be considered for each

application and how fuel cells measure up to these

constraints relative to competing power systems.

Until mission requirements and physical and operating constraints are determined for potential applications, it will be impossible to reach definitive conclusions about the applicability of fuel

cells to specific cases.

Quiet Operation Applications

One of the most logical potential applications

for fuel cells is for propulsion and/or auxiliary

power for ships that require or could benefit from

quiet operations. Fuel cells appear to offer a distinct advantage over other powerplants for this

purpose. Moreover, cost considerations are not

as severe a constraint if quiet operation significantly improves the ability to accomplish the vessel’s mission. This is particularly true for the

Navy’s Anti-Submarine Warfare vessels, where

the mission requirement, and not cost, is the main

factor controlling selection of the powerplant. It

may also be true, but perhaps to a lesser degree,

for commercial seismic vessels and for oceanographic acoustic research ships, both of which

would be able to collect better quality data if the

powerplant made less noise. In addition to propulsion, the fuel cell system could be used for the auxiliary power and hotel load requirements on such

vessels.

Applications in

Are Constantly

Some vessels

Which Power Settings

Changing

are constantly changing speed

and/or varying load requirements. - Push= tow

boats are a prime example. This type of application may deserve a close look given the capability of fuel cells to maintain their efficiency over

a broad range (30 to 100 percent) of power fraction. This capability translates into significant
26

operational savings—in some instances—over diesel powerplants, which lose efficiency unless operated at full power. However, as noted above, sudden large changes in power loads may have negative consequences for marine fuel cell operation.

Several conceptual studies of these types of applications have been done.

Inland Waterways Push-Tow Boats .—The Los

Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) began studying possible transportation applications for fuel

cells in 1981 when it began a fuel cell R&D program jointly funded by DOE’s Division of Energy

Storage and Office of Vehicle and Engine Research

and Development. In particular, Huff and Murray of LANL have investigated the feasibility of

using fuel cells for propelling inland-water, 5,000

to 6,000 hp push-tow boats .51 The push-tow boats

now operating on the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers

are currently powered by two locomotive diesel

engines with direct coupling from each engine to

the propeller through a gear reduction and reversing gearbox. The usual tow consists of 15 barges,

arranged in 5 rows of 3. With this arrangement

the boat can move a 22,500 ton payload at speeds

of 5 mph upstream and 11 mph downstream. The

Los Alamos researchers determined that it is technically feasible to use fuel cells fueled by methanol to power push-tow boats. Fuel cell systems

meet weight and volume constraints, are compatible with existing propulsion components, and

provide adequate performance relative to operational requirements.

However, while technically feasible, the researchers concluded that using fuel cells for this

application is not particularly attractive. Although

the efficiency of both PAFC and SPE powerplants

for push-tow boat use was determined to be greater than diesel power efficiency (see table 4), diesels

are considered to be very efficient for this application. Methanol was chosen as the likely most

practical fuel cell fuel for this application. However, the researchers noted that “the addition of

electrical systems reduces the fuel cell system efficiency to the point where the energy cost disadvantage of methanol cannot be overcome. ” More51J.R, Huff and H.S. Murray, “Feasibility Evaluation of Fuel Cells

for Selected Heavy-Duty Transportation Systems, ” Los Alamos National Laboratory, March 1982.

Table 4.—Push-Tow Boat Powerplant Comparisons

PAFC SPEFC Diesel

Total power (hp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,760 5,760 5,140

Powerplant efficiency. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.55 0.50 0.36

Fuel consumption (gal/h)

(methanol/diesel) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 457 273

Upstream energy consumption

(Btu/net ton mile) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294 327 401

Downstream energy consumption

(Btu/net ton mile) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 140 172

Average energy consumption

(Btu/net ton mile) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 234 286

Upstream range

(miles for 120,000 gal tank) . . . . . . 832 1,182 1,976

SOURCE J R. Huff and HS Murray, “Feasibility Evaluation of Fuel Cells for Se.

Iected Heavy-Duty Transportation Systems, ” Los Alamos National Laboratory, October 1982, p 28

over, fuel consumption (in gallons/hour) was

calculated to be greater in both fuel cell systems

considered than in the current diesel system, so

that the range possible before refueling is much

reduced. In the case considered, two fueling stops

would be required for the PAFC-powered vessel

to travel the 1,890 mile distance from New Orleans to Pittsburgh. Additional onboard fuel storage could be a problem.

Coast Guard Cutters.–Arctic Energies, Ltd.

(AEL) reached a more optimistic conclusion in a

study of the potential fuel cost savings that use

of PAFCs on Coast Guard cutters might bring. 52

AEL combined data on fuel usage and duty cycles to determine fuel consumption at various

throttle positions. They concluded that for this

application fuel cost savings (over diesel-powered

cutters) of between 32 and 51 percent were obtainable by methanol-fueled fuel cells and DC propulsion drive. The price of methanol used in calculations was $0.42/gal. It should be pointed out

that this study was limited to consideration of fuel

cost savings only, and that other factors, such as

range, availability of fuel, etc., were not considered. The conclusions reached do suggest, however, that fuel cells used for this application may

eventually deserve a closer look.

SZArctic Energies, Ltd., “Evaluation of the Ship Fuel Cost Savings Potential of Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell Power Plants and DC

Drive for Coast Guard Cutters,” AEL/CGORD 85-1, May 1985.

The Coast Guard provided the data for this study but did not sponsor

the research and does not necessarily agree with the study’s conclusions.
2 7

Fuel cell being installed

Submarines and Submersibles

A major constraint faced by submerged vessels,

whether submarines or submersibles, is endurance. Fuel cells have been considered for submerged operations because they enable undersea

vessels to remain submerged for a greater length

of time than the batteries that typically propel

small submersibles.

The Deep Submergence Search Vehicle (DSSV)

and the Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle (DSRV).

—The only fuel cell system developed thus far for

a marine application has been the one designed

by UTC, using the alkaline fuel cell technology

developed by NASA, for use in a deep submergence search vehicle for the U.S. Navy, In 1978,

Lockheed installed and tested the UTC 30 kW alkaline fuel cell on board its deep submergence

search vehicle, Deep Quest. Deep Quest made

about 50 successful dives with its fuel cell power

Photo credit U S Navy

in submersible Deep Quest

system. Nevertheless, the U.S. Congress terminated the program, and the alkaline fuel cell no

longer had a mission. The fuel cell was reconfigured for possible application on the DSRV; however, the mission requirements for the DSRV were

sufficiently different from those of the DSSV that

it did not require a fuel cell propulsion system.

The DSRV is designed to be carried piggy-back

on a nuclear submarine, so it could get its batteries recharged by the mother submarine, Thus, the

initial power supply was more than adequate for

the submersible’s rescue mission. Moreover, although the fuel cell was technically satisfactory,

doubts persisted about reliability and system safety in a real rescue situation. High pressure hydrogen and oxygen to fuel the alkaline fuel cell would

have to be stored aboard the mother submarine

and transferred to the DSRV for refueling, a potential safety problem. In addition, if large quantities of hydrogen and oxygen were stored on
28

board, it would be necessary to take off a weapons system. In other words, the alkaline fuel cell,

technically adequate though it was, did not fill

the mission requirement .53 This example illustrates

the fact that for military applications, the mission

requirement, and not cost, is the major consideration.

The Navy has no current effort to develop submersible/submarine fuel cell power systems.

However, some believe that small submarines are

one type of naval vessel for which fuel cells would

be well-suited, providing, perhaps, a less expensive alternative to nuclear-powered submarines.

For instance, SPE technology is currently being

investigated in West Germany as an alternative

to diesel power for submarines.

Submarine Tankers. —Several conceptual engineering and economic studies have been done investigating the feasibility of building large submarine tankers to transport oil or products such

as methanol and liquefied natural gas from Alaska’s North Slope under Arctic Ocean ice to Europe or the U.S. East Coast. In 1982 Arctic Enterprises, Inc., prepared a report for DOE on the

feasibility of building a fuel cell propelled submarine tanker system .54 Although the report concluded that no engineering or R&D breakthroughs

were required to build such a vessel, neither technical nor economic feasibility have yet been demonstrated. No oil company at this time is seriously

considering transporting oil or oil products under Arctic ice, and the idea is considered by most

to be ahead of its time.

Remote Underwater Vehicles.—Remote underwater vehicles used for search, salvage, inspection, and scientific purposes are also constrained

by onboard energy sources. The principal users

of these vehicles are the oil industry, the Navy,

other government agencies such as the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and

the scientific community. It is expected that as the

needs arise within the industry and the Navy, systems similar to the DSRV system will be built.

sJTed Stanford, U.S. Navy, NAVSEA, discussion in OTA workshop, Sept. 5, 1985.

“U.S. Department of Energy, Fuel Cell Propelled Submarine

Tanker Svstem Studv, prepared by Arctic Enterprises Inc., DOE/

FE I 15086, June 1982.

The scientific community will probably first ride

“piggy-back” on industry or Navy fuel cell equipped

remote vehicles until it becomes clear that sufficient need and funding can be identified for such

equipment to become a part of the community’s

University National Oceanographic Laboratory

System fleet.

Commercial Transport Ships

Fuel cells have been considered as well for commercial transport ships. The competition with alternative systems is likely to be even stiffer for

tankers, containerships, bulk carriers, and the

like. This is because these ships operate at constant speeds and currently use high efficiency,

low-rpm diesel engines. Use of fuel cells will be

limited by industry reluctance to change from a

propulsion system that is reliable and efficient.

In general, commercial applications for fuel cells,

unlike military applications, must prove cost effective. Unless there are clear and significant economic advantages for fuel cells, they are unlikely

to be used. These advantages have not yet been

demonstrated.

Naval Ships

Cost is not necessarily the major concern in

building naval surface ships. Fuel cells will be used

if they prove to be the best technology for a particular application. The Navy has not yet determined that there are any missions for which fuel

cells are uniquely suited, although some analytical work has been done.55 Limited availability of

fuel cell fuel and the low power density are the

biggest constraints in developing fuel cells for naval ships. As presented above, it is no easy task

for a fleet to switch to a new fuel. In the Navy’s

case, before it would do so, the fuel would have

to be available worldwide. Thus, the Navy will

likely continue to depend on traditional logistic

fuels as long as they are available and fulfill mission requirements. A second special military problem concerns the use of low flashpoint fuels such

as methanol. A low flashpoint increases the potential for fires, and fuels with low flashpoints

SsFor example, Naval Sea Systems Command, A Total ship Analysis of Future Candidate Naval Fuel Alternatives, report No. 313-

011-81, July 1981.
2 9

could be particularly dangerous in a battlefield

situation, where fires are to be expected. Thus,

methanol-fueled fuel cells probably would not fit

some Navy missions even if fuel cells offered other

significant advantages. A different logistic fuel

would have to be found, or reformer technology

would have to be developed for No. 2 diesel.

Auxiliary Ship Power

Auxiliary power units provide electricity to all

systems aboard a ship except main propulsion.

These systems include hotel services (lighting,

plumbing, and pumps for water); bilge and ballast pumps; fuel transfer systems; cargo-handling

systems; navigation systems; etc. Fuel cells could

provide electricity for these auxiliary systems. Less

capital investment, and hence, less risk would be

required than would be the case for investment

in main propulsion systems. Hence, the outlook

for near-term testing of fuel cells for auxiliary purposes may be better than the outlook for the use

of fuel cells as main propulsion units. However,

there are some potential drawbacks to be considered. One would not want to have one fuel for

the main power units and another fuel for auxiliary power units. Generally, the simpler the fuel

logistic system, the better. In addition, although

fuel cell auxiliary systems may be more efficient

than alternative powerplants, the potential savings possible are not very large compared to savings potentially achievable by switching to more

efficient main propulsion units. Cruise ships may

be an exception to this rule, because they have

big hotel loads; hence, quiet, unobtrusive fuel cell

auxiliary power units may be particularly suited

for this type of ship.

Other Potential Applications

Several other potential marine applications

have been considered. Fuel cells could be used as

a power source on offshore oil platforms. Commercial diesel engines and gas turbines provide

power at present. Fuel cells could also be used to

power remote navigation, radar, or oceanographic data acquisition and transmission systems. As

with other marine uses, the long-term reliability

of fuel cells used for these purposes has never been

tested. Another possibility is to use fuel cells as

an auxiliary power source for refrigerated containers. Such containers are transferred from shore

to ship and must be kept refrigerated at all times.

Sea-Land Corp. has investigated the use of fuel

cells for this application and concluded that the

idea is not economically attractive at the present

time. Finally, large, floating fuel cell power generation systems can be envisioned. Such floating

plants might provide power for overseas markets

and could be an export opportunity for U.S. companies; however, development of this application

is not likely at any time soon.

Other Transportation Applications

Train Applications

Investigations of the application of fuel cells to

train transportation systems have been conducted

by DOE’s Los Alamos National Laboratory. Comparisons were made of phosphoric acid and solid

polymer electrolyte fuel cell systems with a conventional General Motors’ SD40-2 diesel electric

locomotive. The simulation results show that performance goals can be met and that overall energy consumption of heavy-duty fuel cell powerplants can be substantially improved over diesel

operation of locomotives. If development of fuel

cells for locomotives is pursued, it may eventually stimulate more interest in fuel cells on the part

of marine operators. Powerplants developed for

locomotives have many of the features and performance characteristics required for a number

of marine uses.

Automotive Applications

Potential applications of fuel cell technology for

land vehicles have ranged from automobiles to

buses and trucks. For automobiles, estimates have

been made that the fuel cell equipped auto might

be able to achieve 60 miles per gallon. However,

the use of a fuel cell alone for automotive propulsion leads to a serious deficiency. In the automotive field, fast acceleration and changing power

requirements place quick response requirements

on the power system. While fuel cell systems are

generally considered good load following systems

for industrial applications, they are too slow to

respond to fast and often unpredictable car, bus,

and truck power changes. Research is underway

to combine heavy-duty battery power sources
30

with the fuel cell system to obtain the response

needed to accommodate the almost instantaneous peak power increases required by on-road and

off-road vehicles. The fuel cell would be used to

recharge the battery during steady, low demand

driving periods.

Walsh and Rajan are not optimistic about the

use of fuel cells in the automotive industry. They

note that transportation economics demand radical reductions in the cost of fuel cell systems.

PAFCs are currently about 10 times too expensive to be considered for transportation markets.56

For fuel cells to become competitive with heat engines, major cost breakthroughs must be achieved.

Significantly, heat engines can be modified to burn

nonpetroleum fuels such as methanol, and therefore, fuel cells will be in direct competition with

heat engines. “Present fuel cell technology is grossly inadequate for most transportation applications, and quantum advances are needed. In our

opinion, 10 or 20 years of intensive R&D with

strenuous attempts at invention will be required.”57 Other factors, such as higher fuel efficiency, reduced maintenance costs, and reduced

pollution may compensate, to some degree, for

production costs. General Motors, on the other

hand, is more optimistic, and is currently investigating the potential of phosphoric acid and SPE

fuel cells for land transportation uses. ’g

Some Options for the

Federal Government

The outlook for using fuel cells in the electric

and gas utility industry appears promising. The

Federal Government has supported private sector R&D efforts since the 1960s. Continued Federal support of fuel cell development programs

is probably necessary to advance the introduction

of fuel cell technology into the land-based utility

industry.

The use of fuel cells in the marine industry in

the next 15 to 20 years is far less certain. When

and if the commercial maritime industry decides

that fuel cell power systems would provide sigs~w~l~h and Ili=ijan, op. cit, I p” 6“

“Walsh and Rajan, op. cit., p. 9.

“Gene Helms, Allison Gas Turbine Division, General Motors,

telephone conversation, Nov. 6, 1985,

nificant cost and/or other advantages over competing power systems, these fuel cell systems must

be adapted to the unique demands of the marine

environment. Very little R&D on fuel cells for marine applications is currently underway inside or

outside the government. Since the R&D program

for land-based applications is so large in comparison, some believe that the proper course for the

marine industry is just to monitor closely that

R&D and select developments and applications

as they may occur in the future. Others believe

that unique marine requirements warrant specialized R&D efforts.

Specific research and development could be

supported by the Federal Government and/or industry to improve the potential of fuel cells in the

marine market. For example, the near-term use

of fuel cells in the marine industry could be stimulated by developing technology capable of reforming diesel oil. Other research that could be

undertaken includes: laboratory testing, followed

by shipboard analysis and testing, of fuel cell components to determine their suitability and/or vulnerability to the marine environment; basic electrochemical studies to improve catalysts and

electrolytes that would not be contaminated by

fuel processed from fuel oil; and accelerated investigation of molten carbonate fuel cells and of

the vulnerability of this type of fuel cell to the marine environment. The Federal Government’s investment in molten carbonate technology could

concentrate on those developments needed to support a demonstration of this fuel cell’s higher efficiency and fuel flexibility. The private sector could

focus on the technology and processes needed to

manufacture these fuel cells at a cost competitive

with conventional power generators.

The Maritime Administration, and perhaps other

agencies within the Department of Transportation, and DOE might be able to offer some assistance for applications more directly relevant for

the commercial transportation sector. For instance, funding could be provided to demonstrate

and evaluate use of a fuel cell system on a commercial ship or locomotive. One suggestion is that

future fuel cell research for heavy-duty transportation applications focus on developing the more

efficient molten carbonate fuel cells. Once a small

(i.e., 50 kW) molten carbonate system has been
31

demonstrated, these agencies could coordinate a

demonstration of a 2 to 4 MW powerplant for the

heavy-duty transportation sector. Different types

of incentives to private industry might also be

used, such as tax benefits for those who use nonpetroleum-based fuels or accelerated depreciation.

The Federal Government may also wish to encourage the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Coast

Guard to become more involved in developing

fuel cells for their mission requirements. OTA’s

analysis indicates potential benefits of marine fuel

cell use in naval applications, and suggests that

more in-depth analysis of the potential applicability of fuel cell technologies for Navy missions

is needed.

The Navy is currently monitoring fuel cell developments, but it may be useful for the Navy

to consider supporting specialized research into

marine fuel cell development as well. At present,

for example, very little work has been done on

developing fuel cells for “quiet” ship operation

aboard certain vessels where noise emissions from

conventional engines are a major problem. If fuel

cells could match these and other unique Navy

missions, then naval fuel cell research, independent of private sector efforts, may be justified.

Recognizing that research funds are limited and

must be carefully targeted to the most productive

avenues of research, it may be best to begin by

encouraging the military to develop small fuel cell

systems for auxiliary power on naval surface

ships. As experience is gained, larger fuel cells (on

the order of a megawatt) might be used for naval

and Coast Guard auxiliary power. Finally, beyond 2000, the Navy or Coast Guard could be

encouraged to focus on developing larger fuel cell

powerplants for primary propulsion power. The

Navy and Coast Guard have different missions

than the civilian sector and some applications developed by them may not be directly useful for

the private sector. On the other hand, some applications first developed for military purposes

might stimulate development of applications for

commercial use.
GLOSSARY

alkaline fuel cell: Fuel cell using alkali (a type of soluble

salt) as the electrolyte. Operates at 650 C. First developed for NASA. Uses pure hydrogen and

oxygen.

anode: The negative electrode or terminal of a fuel cell.

base load: The normal, relatively constant demand for

energy on a given system.

bottoming cycle: A means to increase the thermal efficiency of an electric generating system by

converting some waste heat into electricity rather

than discharging all of it to the environment.

British thermal unit (Btu): The amount of heat required

to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water 10 F

under stated conditions of temperature and pressure. It is the standard unit for measuring quantity

of heat energy.

Carnot cycle: An ideal heat engine cycle in which the

sequence of operations forming the working cycle

consists of isothermal expansion, adiabatic expansion, isothermal compression, and adiabatic compression back to its initial state. An ideal Carnot

cycle engine converts heat into work with the maximum theoretical efficiency.

catalyst: A substance that changes the rate of a reaction without itself undergoing any net change; a

substance that induces catalysis.

cathode: The positive electrode or terminal of a fuel

cell.

carbon monoxide shifter: Used in processing fuel.

Transforms carbon monoxide (CO) to carbon dioxide (CO2

).

closed Brayton cycle: An external combustion gas

turbine engine. Potential propulsion system for

future ships.

cogeneration: Production of electrical (or mechanical)

energy and thermal energy from the same primary

energy source.

controller: In a fuel cell system, controls supplemental power during the startup operations, stack

cooling and gas flow during power and hold

operations, and close-down operations. Uses

temperature, gas flow, and other sensors and

microprocessors to perform its functions.

distillate fuel: The lighter fuels distilled off during the

refining process. Includes Nos. 1 and 2 heating oils,

diesel fuels, and No. 4 fuel oil.

electrochemical: Chemical action employing a current

of electricity to cause or to sustain the action.

electrode: Reactive materials, such as metals and metal

oxides, attached to grids that conduct electricity.

electrolyte: A conducting medium in which the flow

of electric current takes place by the migration of

ions.

flashpoint: The lowest temperature at which the

vapors arising from a liquid surface can be ignited

by an open flame.

fuel processor: Same as reformer. Converts a stock fuel

to a hydrogen-rich gas for use in fuel cells. Also

removes impurities.

fuel cell stack: A stack of individual fuel cells

connected in parallel to provide the desired total

power.

heat rate: A measure of thermal efficiency, generally

expressed as Btu per kilowatt-hour.

inverter: A device for converting direct current to alternating current.

kilowatt: A unit of power equal to 1,000 watts.

life-cycle cost: The accumulation of all funds spent for

the purchase, installation, operation, and maintenance of a system over its useful life. The accumulation generally includes a discounting of future

costs to reflect the relative value of money over

time.

load: The energy tapped from any power source. In

the electric industry, the amount of electric power

delivered or required at any specified point or points

in the system.

load following: A utility power generator used to cope

with swings in the load.

megawatt: One million watts, or 1,000 kilowatts.

molten carbonate fuel cell: Fuel cell using molten carbonate as the electrolyte. Operating at from 6000

to 7000 C. Able to use a variety of fuels. Internal

reforming potential.

oxidant: A chemical element or compound that is capable of gaining electrons, i.e., of being reduced.

peak-shaving: A type of utility powerplant operated

only when the need for additional power is temporarily high.

phosphoric acid fuel cell: Fuel cell using phosphoric

acid as the electrolyte. Operates at 1500 to 200° C.

power conditioner: Receives electrical power from the

fuel cell stack and converts it to match the required

output .

power density: The amount of power per unit of crosssectional area.

reformer: Same as fuel processor. Converts a stock fuel

to a hydrogen-rich gas for use in fuel cells. Also

removes impurities.

sintering: The agglomeration of solids at temperatures

below their melting point, usually as a consequence

of heat and pressure.

32
solid oxide fuel cell: Fuel cell using solid oxide as the electrolyte. Operates at temperatures close to 1,000° C.

Less developed than phosphoric acid fuel cells.

solid polymer electrolyte fuel cell: Fuel cell using solid

polymer as the electrolyte.

steam turbine: A machine powered by high pressure

steam and used to drive mechanical apparatus. It

has a rotary motion in contrast to a reciprocating

motion.

Stirling cycle: An external combustion engine under

development. Has the ability to use any heat source.

Prospects for high efficiency. A potential propulsion

system for future ships.

3 3

thermal inertia: The tendency for a heat machine to

generate heat at the same level at all times.

thermal signature: The heat trace that may be detected

from an energy source, such as a submarine.

thermal transient: Abrupt changes in temperature due

to sudden changes in load.

watt: A unit of power that equals 1 absolute joule per

second. It is analogous to horsepower or footpounds per minute of mechanical power. One

horsepower is equivalent to approximately 746

watts.