Development, Design, and Performance of A PEMFC System 06

Development, Design, and Performance
of a PEMFC System
for
Stationary and Residential Applications
Dr. Alan S. Feitelberg

Lead Architect & Manager of Simulation
Plug Power Inc.
Latham, New York
email: alan_feitelberg@plugpower.com
telephone: 1-518-782-7700, extension 1414
3rd International Workshop on Fuel Cells - WICaC 2006

October 18 - 19, 2006
Campinas / SP / Brazil
1
Safe Harbor Statement
This presentation contains forward-looking statements, including

statements regarding the company’s future plans and expectations
regarding the development and commercialization of fuel cell
technology. All forward-looking statements are subject to risks,
uncertainties and assumptions that could cause actual results to
differ materially from those projected. The forward-looking
statements speak only as of the date of this presentation. The
company expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to
release publicly any updates or revisions to any such statements to
reflect any change in the company’s expectations or any change in
the events, conditions or circumstances on which such statement is
based.
2
Plug Power Inc.
Founded in 1997, became a public company in 1999
Stock is publicly traded on the NASDAQ under the symbol "PLUG"
HEADQUARTERS EUROPE FEDERAL

Latham, New York Apeldoorn, Holland GOVERNMENT
Washington DC
Sales, Manufacturing Sales and R&D
and R&D Policy and Legislation
Fuel processing
Advanced development laboratory, catalyst test Lobbying
of future generation and CAD facilities
products
3
Plug Power's Strategy
Plug Power’s strategy is to be the leading provider of

Plug Power’s strategy is to be the leading provider of
clean, reliable on-site energy.
clean, reliable on-site energy.
We will profitably develop, market, manufacture, sell and
We will profitably develop, market, manufacture, sell and
support systems for energy consumers
support systems for energy consumers
worldwide who value reliability and energy security.
worldwide who value reliability and energy security.
Product
Product Sales &
Development
Development Support
Areas of Excellence
Relationships:
Relationships: Strategic
Strategic Partners,
Partners, Suppliers
Suppliers and
and Customers
Customers
4
Leading Developer of PEM Fuel Cell Systems
Industry leading producer of PEM fuel cell systems with over 600
systems delivered worldwide, as of January 2006
Key strategic partnerships and/or development agreements with

• General Electric
• Honda
• Tyco
• 3M, Engelhard (now BASF) and others
Strong technology position – 138 patents issued, 175 patents pending,

as of January 2006
Approximately 300 employees
5
Plug Power Products & Projects
GenSys®
• reformer-based PEM fuel cell systems
• designed for continuous-run applications
• fuel = natural gas or LPG
GenCore®
• H2-powered PEM systems for backup power
• designed for telecommunication industry
Home Energy Station

• joint development with Honda
• generates electricity, heat, and H2 to refuel vehicle
• prototypes demonstrated in Torrance, CA
And Other Projects

• we will not have time to discuss today
6
GenCore® Targets The $1.9 Billion / Year Global Backup
Battery Market…
System Reliability Improvement

• Extended run
• Remote monitoring and diagnostics
• Redundancy or replacement
Operating Expense Reduction

• Eliminates battery replacement and
maintenance
• Reduces customer turnover resulting
from network outages
GenCore® 5T Fuel Cell System with

Chemical Energy Storage Module
Source: Frost and Sullivan. 7

GenCore® Is Competitive with Current Backup Technology
Description Installed Price 5 Year Cost 10 Year Cost
New Battery
US$17,200 US$27,300 US$35,300
Plant
Battery
22,100 30,100 36,200
GenSet
Plug Power Fuel

22,490* 25,900 28,800
Cell Solution
*Manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP)
8
GenSys™ Fuel Cell System Product Specifications
Installation: Outdoor
Stack Technology: PEM
Fuel Processor Technology: Autothermal Reforming
Electrical Connection: Grid Parallel w/Standby Capability
Fuel: Natural Gas or LPG
Power Output: 2.5 - 5 kWe / 3 - 9 kWth
Voltage: 120/240 VAC @ 60Hz
Heating Loop Temperature: 65°C
Emissions: NOx < 1ppm, SOx < 1ppm
Audible Noise: < 65 dBa @ 1meter
More than 400 units deployed to

more than 130 field locations worldwide
9
The First Generation GenSys™ Fuel Cell System
Air Water and Heat
Fuel
Water AC
Electricity
Hydrogen DC Electricity
10
GenSys® History
Version Production Initiated
B1 August 2001
B2 August 2001
B3 October 2001
B4 March 2002
B5 September 2002
B6 January 2003
Design of next-generation system began in October 2000
Some next-generation concepts were included in later B versions
Ten next-generation prototypes shipped to Robins Air Force

Base, Georgia in September 2005 for reliability testing
Let's review first-generation system reliability before

discussing next generation system design
11
First-Generation GenSys System Reliability Growth
Within each product version,

Cumulative Failures per System
B B3
accumulated an average of
(normalized and averaged)
1.0 B 12 m
ont h
B 5900 to 7900 hours of field run
B1 s in B5
field time per unit before fitting
B
B4
B1
B3 Crow power law reliability
0.5 H
H 3 mo
nths B5
B
B6
growth model fit to raw data
in field H
B6
H
H
Data has been normalized by
B4
0.0 average number of failures of
0 6 12 18 B1 units after 12 months
Development Time (months)
After 18 months of development:

• early life (3 months in field) failures reduced by 77%
• 54% reduction in failures for systems with 12 months field exposure
• simultaneously reduced system cost by ~50% and added features
Source: Feitelberg et al., Journal of Power Sources, 147: pp. 203-207 (2005) 12
Top Seven GenSys™ Field Failures - October 2002
Data from a 75 unit sample
Number of Failure (normalized)
Stack failures excluded

1.0
4,000 to 12,000 hours of run time per unit
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Coolant Manual Catalytic Shift Flow Solenoid Inverter
Pump Restart Burner Reactor Meter Valve
Failure Category
Data normalized by number of failures for the poorest component

Reliability was improved by using systematic processes for
• reporting and tracking field failures
• identifying root cause and developing permanent fix
"Systematic processes" are FRACAS and 8D
Top Seven GenSys™ Field Failures - June 2004
Data from a 45 unit sample
Number of Failure (normalized)
Stack failures excluded

1.0
4,000 to 12,000 hours of run time per unit
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Remote Site Batteries Level Loss of Water Inverter
Comms Issues Sensor Grid Pump
Failure Category
Six of top 7 failures from October 2002 resolved

New problems rose to top of list as old problems were fixed
This type of information can be used to direct R & D efforts

First-Generation GenSys™ Fuel Cell Stack Reliability
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
1.0 1
We find the Weibull distribution

0.8 0.8
is a good fit to stack reliability
Reliability
0.6 0.6 data

B6
0.4 0.4
Time has been normalized by
B4 B5
0.2 0.2 the time required for reliability
B3
of B3 stacks to reach zero
0.0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time (normalized)
A combination of hardware and software changes

increased median stack life by a factor of 4
Next-Generation GenSys: Method Of Approach
Defined a high level system architecture
More than 100 numerical process simulations

• compared and contrasted different process design options
• focused on simplicity and operability (or latitude) in the presence of
environmental factors and aging of equipment
Adopted consistent design & development strategies

• sensor and actuator elimination
• advanced control concepts: MIMO, MPC, neural networks, ...
• anchored time-dependent models for controls development
• use Taguchi methods and custom test fixtures to maximize
inherent module robustness
Next-generation system builds on field

experience of first-generation units
16
Next-Generation GenSys Prototype Improvements
Approximately 33% reduction in direct material cost
50% reduction in PEM stack mass, 56% reduction in stack volume
~55% reduction in assembly time
60% reduction in unique parts
Reformate CO concentration reduced from < 50 to < 10 ppmv, dry
Pre-emptive multitasking, real-time operating system with more

than 10x additional RAM for embedded, object oriented software
17
More Benefits Of This Approach
System electrical efficiency increased by about 5 percentage points

on LPG fuel
First generation systems had 2 coolant loops and 2 coolant pumps;

next generation system has 1 coolant loop and pump
A portion of the fuel processor that contained 4 chemical reactors

and 3 heat exchange steps was replaced with 2 reactors and 1 heat
exchange step
• also increased reformer efficiency and reduced reformate CO
Embedded object-oriented software, controls, and electronics

boards are reusable in other products with a minimum amount of
rework
18
GenSys Comparison: Mass and Volume
First Artist's Sketch of

Generation Next-Generation
System System Prototype
Total mass reduced by 22%

Total volume reduced by 23%
19
The Next-Generation GenSys Prototype
Builds on experience of first

generation system
Based on autothermal reforming

and PEM stack technology
Launch configuration is LPG fuel,

DC power output for telecom
industry
20
Generalized Fuel Processor Block Diagram
Fuel Anode Tail Gas
Air Reformer CO Free Anode Tail Gas Exhaust

Cathode Tail Gas
Reformate Oxidizer (ATO)
Water (to Fuel Cell) Additional Fuel
Heat
Heat
The specification of
– reformate dewpoint
– CO-free reformate
– fractional fuel conversion in the reformer
leads to a unique, linear relationship (a steady state operating line)
that satisfies the requirement that mass balance
When the process is operated on this line, AND heat generated in the
ATO just balances the heat consumed in the reformer, the process
has achieved the maximum theoretical efficiency
Source: Feitelberg and Rohr., International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 30 (11): pp. 1251-1257 (2005) 21
Derivation of the Operating Line
With the reformate constraints on O2 and CO, the overall reaction is
CH4 + x (O2 + 3.76 N2) + y H2O =
where x = O2/CH4 mole ratio,

{ a CO2 + b CH4
+ c H2 + d H2O
+ 3.76x N2
y = H2O/CH4 mole ratio, and

b = fraction of fuel that has not reacted
Carbon balance: 1=a+b

Oxygen balance: 2x + y = 2a + d
Hydrogen balance: 4+2y = 4b + 2c + 2d
Dew point spec: d / (a + b + c + d + 3.76x) = Pvp,H2O / P
A set of 4 equations with 4 unknowns: a, b, c, d

Sample Calculations
This set of equations can be reduced to a single linear relationship
 3.76Z − 2   3Z − 2bZ − 2b + 2 
y =  x +
 1 − Z   1− Z 
where Z = Pvp,H2O / P = mole fraction of H2O in reformate
Operation along a line is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee

compliance with all given constraints
Slope depends only upon dew point specification, while intercept

depends upon both dew point and fuel conversion specs
Sample Calculations
P = 1 atm Fuel = CH4
3.5 Dew Point

Operating lines are not
Steam / CH4 Ratio
T =65°C 98% CH4

destruction parallel
2.5 95%
55°C A steam reformer is the
98% limiting case of O2/CH4 = 0
95%
1.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Reformer O2 / CH4 Ratio
Operating ABOVE a line means reformate dewpoint is greater than

specified. Energy has been wasted vaporizing more water than needed.
Operating BELOW a line means reformate dewpoint is lower than specified.

Premature MEA failure may result.
Specifying a fuel processor efficiency without also specifying reformate

dewpoint is meaningless
Fuel Processor Efficiency Definitions
Since the term "efficiency" is usually reserved for quantities that describe
useful energy (or work) produced divided by energy consumed, fuel
processor efficiency should be defined as
(LHV of H2 ) × (flow rate of H2 leaving reformer)

η =
∑ [(LHV of fuel stream) × (fuel stream flow rate)]
An "efficiency-like" parameter sometimes used in the fuel cell industry is
(LHV of H2 ) × (flow rate of H2 leaving reformer - flow rate of H2 entering ATO)

η* =
∑ (LHV of fuel stream) × (fuel stream flow rate)
where the anode tail gas is excluded from the summation in the
denominator
η* is always less than or equal to η
Definitions are identical in the limiting case of anode

stoichiometry = 1.0 (no hydrogen entering the ATO)
Comparison of Efficiency Definitions
When anode stoichiometry is
P = 1 atm Fuel = CH4 constant, η and η* are simply
100% CH4 destruction in reformer offset, and show similar
Maximum Fuel Processor
Reformate dew point = 65°C qualitative trends

86
Efficiency (%)
η
O2/CH4 ratio decreases from 0.49
to 0.14 in this figure
82 η∗
The maximum theoretical
efficiency of a steam-reformer-
Decreasing O2/CH4
based fuel processor (O2/CH4 = 0)
78
is only about one percentage
1.0 1.2 1.4 point higher than a well-designed
Anode Stoichiometry ATR-based fuel processor
(O2/CH4 ~ 0.5) at these conditions
• When anode stoichiometry is not constant, η* exhibits an

unexpected trend and actually decreases as the fuel processor
moves toward the steam reforming limit
• We recommend η as definition of fuel processor efficiency

26
H2 Production in Next-Generation GenSys Fuel Processor
Process simulation was

100 completed in summer of 2003;
Product H2 Flow Rate (SLPM)
a priori test data was collected

80 process simulation February 2004
3Q2003
60 Process simulation specifies
Test
performance from every
40
data functional component
1Q2004
20
Components were designed (or
0
purchased) to meet functional
0 5 10 requirements in process
LPG Fuel Flow Rate (SLPM) simulation
80 SLPM = 4.8 Nm3/hr = 9.4 kg H2/day
27
CFD Example: Reformer Reactor Design
Computation fluid
dynamic analysis is
performed as a
standard part of all
chemical reactor
designs
Anode tailgas view

oxidizer on right has
unique design to cut
prevent oxidation
upstream of catalyst
Boundary conditions:
3.1kg/hr air, T=316K
1.8kg/hr anode tail gas, T=351K
Outlet P =1.0154bar
28
Fuel Processor Facilities at Plug Power Holland
Reactor
Insulation
Furnace
10 microflow reactor stations

8 subassembly stations
6 gas chromatographs
All stations fully automated
29
Measurements of Improved PROX Reactor Performance
Outlet CO
Concentration
0-10 ppmv, dry
10-20 Inlet temperature and CO concentration held constant
20-30 High
30-40
System
Load
40-50
50-60 Medium
60-70
70-80
80-90 Low
90-100 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Outlet Temperature (ºC)
Reactor performance mapping shows wide operational window

for < 10 ppm CO
New measurements with a lower detection limit suggest there is

a < 1 ppm CO trench in the middle of this < 10 ppm CO valley
30
System Comparison: New Features
First Next
Generation Generation
Make-up
Make-up Water
Water
Water Independent
Required
Required
Electric
Electric Electric
Grid
Grid Grid
Parallel
Parallel Independent
Product water condensed from exhaust makes system

water independent under most ambient conditions
Next-generation system follows customer electric load

demands and is intended to be a prime power generator
31
Next-Generation GenSys Fuel Processor Transients
3500 60
GenSys B0 data fuel = LPG
3000 Large, sudden step changes in

50
Measured CO (ppmv, dry basis)

electrical load are imposed on system;
Electric Load Demand (W)
batteries make up load demand while
Fuel Cell Stack Current (A)

stack and reformer ramp up
2500
40
2000
30
1500
Control software ramps up 20

1000 reformer and stack current
at about 6 A/min
500 10
CO remains below 5 ppm
0 0
21:10 21:15 21:20 21:25 21:30 21:35
Time (HH:MM)
Control hardware and software keeps reformate CO within

specifications during large, rapid transients
32
Load Following Example: Large Step Changes
4.0
Electric Power (kW)
Load Demand
■ Measured Output
3.0 Measured power output
is indistinguishable from
2.0
demand
1.0
0.0 700
Temperature (°C)
19 20 21 22 23 24 ATR
Time (hrs) 500
Process temperatures 300 LTS

remain within acceptable PROX
bounds during transients
100
19 20 21 22 23 24
Time (hrs)
33
Load Following Example: Rapid Cycles
4.0 Load oscillates between
Power Output (kW)
2.4 and 3.6 kW

3.0
Measured power output is
2.0 2 4 minutes/cycle 8 minutes/cycle still indistinguishable from
demand
1.0
Load Demand
Measured Output
700
0.0 Temperature (°C)
ATR
300 325 350 375 400
500
Elapsed Time (minutes)
300 WGS
Process temperatures
remain within acceptable PROX
bounds during transients
100
300 325 350 375 400
34
Time Dependent Process Model Development
Linearize model
Generate nonlinear, at different
time dependent model power levels
in Aspen Dynamics
Steady state Export linearized
Aspen Plus models to MatLab
process model
Join linearized, reduced- Systematically

order models together reduce model
with weighting factors order
Time
dependent
model in Unified equipment descriptions in steady state and
MatLab dynamic environments
Steady state model updates automatically propagate
into dynamic models
MatLab environment provides needed speed, controls
analysis tools
35
Dynamic Model / GenSys Prototype Data Comparison
700
ATO Temperature (°C)
Prototype is run to a
600
steady state condition
500 Dynamic model
initialized with
400 prototype conditions
Data at time t = 0
Model
300
20 40 60 80
At time t = 32 minutes, all closed loop controls are turned OFF
• one actuator (in this case, the cathode air blower) is manipulated in a
pseudo random manner
Dynamic model is a remarkably good predictor

Complex models are needed for advanced controls development
36
Additional Improvements: PEM Stack
~20% reduction in cathode air flow requirements
Thinner plates
18% reduction in total MEA active area
Improved internal cell temperature distribution for better water

management
Simplified stack end hardware
Using both neutron imaging and computational

fluid dynamics, including electrochemistry,
to understand better cell and stack design issues
37
Single Cell CFD Example: MEA Temperature
Cathode
inlet
Temperatures shown are at
Coolant midplane of MEA
inlet
Temperature
Anode 70.3°C
inlet
Anode
outlet 65.5°C
Coolant
outlet
Cathode 60.8°C
Cell active area = 262 cm2 outlet
Average current density = 0.3 A/cm2
Hot spots near outlets are due to coolant channel geometry

38
What's Next?
50
Miniflow reactor
Dry Gas Composition (%) .
H2
H2O/C = 3.0
tests have shown
40 pure ethanol is
O2/C = constant
Inlet T = variable easily reformed
30 GHSV = constant
□, ■, ▲, ♦ = Measurements
in Plug Power's
― = Equilibrium calculations autothermal
20 CO2 reactor
10 Impact of
CO
denaturants is an
CH4
0 open question
550 575 600 625 650
ATR Outlet Temperature (°C)
Please contact me if you would like to discuss supporting

our ethanol-fueled product development efforts
39
Summary
Next-generation GenSys® fuel cell system has been in
development since October 2000
Builds on field experience of more than 400 first generation units
Outdoor, grid and water independent 5 kWe prime power

generator fueled by natural gas or LPG
Smaller, lighter, lower cost, more efficient, fewer parts, easier to

assemble and service than predecessor
Prototypes now in the field undergoing reliability tests
Achieving commercial targets for cost and

reliability requires substantial commitment of
time and resources
40

Development, Design, and Performance of A PEMFC System 06

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Development, Design, and Performance of A PEMFC System 06

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Development, Design, and Performance

Dr. Alan S. Feitelberg

3rd International Workshop on Fuel Cells - WICaC 2006

This presentation contains forward-looking statements, including

HEADQUARTERS EUROPE FEDERAL

Plug Power’s strategy is to be the leading provider of

Key strategic partnerships and/or development agreements with

Strong technology position – 138 patents issued, 175 patents pending,

Approximately 300 employees

Home Energy Station

And Other Projects

System Reliability Improvement

Operating Expense Reduction

GenCore® 5T Fuel Cell System with

Source: Frost and Sullivan. 7

Description Installed Price 5 Year Cost 10 Year Cost

Plug Power Fuel

*Manufacturer’s suggested retail price (MSRP)

More than 400 units deployed to

Air Water and Heat

Design of next-generation system began in October 2000

Some next-generation concepts were included in later B versions

Ten next-generation prototypes shipped to Robins Air Force

Let's review first-generation system reliability before

Within each product version,

After 18 months of development:

Stack failures excluded

Data normalized by number of failures for the poorest component

Stack failures excluded

Six of top 7 failures from October 2002 resolved

This type of information can be used to direct R & D efforts

We find the Weibull distribution

0.6 0.6 data

A combination of hardware and software changes

More than 100 numerical process simulations

Adopted consistent design & development strategies

Next-generation system builds on field

Approximately 33% reduction in direct material cost

50% reduction in PEM stack mass, 56% reduction in stack volume

~55% reduction in assembly time

60% reduction in unique parts

Reformate CO concentration reduced from < 50 to < 10 ppmv, dry

Pre-emptive multitasking, real-time operating system with more

System electrical efficiency increased by about 5 percentage points

First generation systems had 2 coolant loops and 2 coolant pumps;

A portion of the fuel processor that contained 4 chemical reactors

Embedded object-oriented software, controls, and electronics

First Artist's Sketch of

Total mass reduced by 22%

Builds on experience of first

Based on autothermal reforming

Launch configuration is LPG fuel,

Fuel Anode Tail Gas

Air Reformer CO Free Anode Tail Gas Exhaust

With the reformate constraints on O2 and CO, the overall reaction is

CH4 + x (O2 + 3.76 N2) + y H2O =

where x = O2/CH4 mole ratio,

y = H2O/CH4 mole ratio, and

Carbon balance: 1=a+b

A set of 4 equations with 4 unknowns: a, b, c, d

This set of equations can be reduced to a single linear relationship

where Z = Pvp,H2O / P = mole fraction of H2O in reformate