2002 Fuel Cell Seminar

Fuel Cell Seminar
Nov 18-21, Palm Springs, CA

The Fuel Cell Seminar has been held every two years* since 1978. Until recently, it’s been essentially a scientific forum. The 2000 event (in Portland OR) saw a major change into a full blown trade show. That trend continued this time, with 50% larger attendance (3000) and many more than twice the number of exhibitors (125). The event is very international, with huge contingents from Europe and Asia. For the first time, simultaneous translation in Japanese was provided. (*From now on, they’re going annual–the next one will be in Miami, Nov ’03.)

The mood this time, however, was distinctly different. Recall that January 2000 started with a runaway boom in stock prices and excitement over fuel cells. By November, that surge was still strong, and the event had the feel of a celebration. In contrast, this year the mood was almost grim, or at least very subdued. Beyond the effects of the wider economic doldrums, the reality has set in that cost and performance of fuel cell technology just aren’t there yet. Fuel cells are still years from being ready for a meaningful ramp-up in commercial market penetration. Investment bankers and venture capitalists, who were very much a presence in 2000, were few and far between this time.

A great many of the exhibitors were suppliers to the industry, offering membranes, catalysts, pumps and valves, test equipment, etc. Thus the comment that people were there to sell to each other, not to sell fuel cells to real customers. (The only customers appear to be governments–see below.) It is possible to spin this positively–companies like 3-M and Agilent wouldn’t be bothered if they didn’t see a big opportunity down the road. The large attendance could be viewed in the same light. The saying goes that it’s a matter of when, not if [that fuel cells will be a practical reality on a large commercial scale].

Keynote Address
S. David Freeman was blunt (as usual) in his keynote address–fuel cells have not achieved financial viability; the fuel cell car is a huge publicity stunt–not yet a practical reality; and distributed generation (via fuel cells) doesn’t have the political appeal that renewable energy enjoys. He urged the industry to pay more attention to the question of fuels for fuel cells, and suggested that it’s in everyone’s interest to deploy hydrogen burning IC engines, to build up the hydrogen infrastructure independent of and in parallel with fuel cell development.

Four keynote lectures followed:
– DOE Fossil Energy Fuel Cell Program (Victor Der for George Rudins)
FE spends $250 million/year for stationary fuel cell RD&D, mostly on SECA and FC-Hybrids. SECA is the initiative whose goal is $400/kw planar solid oxide fuel cell. Contracts have been awarded to four industry teams to pursue various technical strategies.

– Stationary Perspective (Jerry Leitman, Fuel Cell Energy)
Stationary plants are commercially available today, and offer dramatic efficiency and emissions improvements over engines and combined cycle plants.

– Transportation Perspective (Andrew Schell, for Ferdinand Panik, DaimlerChrysler)
Fuel cells in transportation are a necessity to gain the “freedoms” (i.e. of choice, from emissions, from oil dependence, etc). Applications will ramp up over the next 7 years to become truly commercial. New fuel insfrastructures must be deployed. (In January, DOE replaced the PNGV with FreedomCAR, concentrating on hydrogen and fuel cells

– Portable Perspective (Laryy DuBois, SRI)
There is no Moore’s Law for batteries. The price paid per kw is high compared with large scale power, creating an opportunity for fuel cells. Drivers include longer runtime, fast recharge, unlimited recharge, etc. A dozen companies at least plan to be selling products sometime in the next 3 years. Concentration is on direct methanol or PEM, with at least one SOFC to run on butane. The competition isn’t standing still, with advances in batteries and ultracaps, as well as work on nano-heat engines and RF scavenging. (I have a pdf of this presentation-2MB)

– Fuel Perspective (Don Huberts, Shell Hydrogen)
Stationary, Transportation and Portable each have different requirements for refueling infrastructure, and no single answer will suffice. There needs to be a mix of technologies, primary energy sources, and delivery means.

Program Overviews
A series of presentations outlined programs and budgets deveoted to fuel cell developments funded by the European Commission, Germany, Japan, and the US (DOE). Strong long term commitments were evident, with expressed goals of meeting Kyoto requirements and reducing oil dependence through hydrogen and fuel cells. $100s of millions are budgeted. Notably, they all talk in terms of gradual progress up the adoption curve, with the bulk of activity over the next 6-10 years in demos and projects.

In addition to over 230 poster papers, parallel sessions included presentations on PEM R&D, SOFC, Commercialization and Demonstrations, Fuel Processing and DMFC/Portable. Many of the papers were highly technical and specialized, while others were little more than general overviews for companies and programs (some bordering on infommercials).

Reflecting on the general state of the industry, governments appear to be the main customers for fuel cell companies, along with the big carmakers who are doing demos, partnerships, and their own development programs (GM was curiously quiet at this event). Otherwise, it just seems to be a swarm of similar sounding programs, and it’s nearly impossible to see any real differentiation that would indicate a possible eventual winner.

This is especially true in PEM, and also to some extent in SOFC. Fuel Cell Energy, of course, is the only US molten carbonate company, and they are just introducing a new and improved series of models into their 12 MW order backlog. They are “commercial”, but price remains an issue, as well as perceived technical risk on the part of buyers (the US Navy does seem to be keen on them for shipboard use). Meanwhile, companies like Plug and Nuvera have quietly stopped talking about residential.

As the long slow march of this technology continues, maybe the traditional approaches are just too difficult. Almost everyone seems to be pursuing the same old stacks with bolts around the edge, and the same handful of reformer technologies. Meanwhile, a number of “stealth” developments are underway, out of the spotlight, by people who are thinking different. They may just come along with novel new approaches that break through the age-old dilemmas of cost, manufacturability, and performance. One is almost tempted to think that if something is being presented at conferences, it’s not cutting edge, and it’s not the answer. (And it’s a safe bet that companies that do make presentations are probably not telling us about their really good stuff.)

Here is an example of such a possible “end-run”: Microcell Corp had a booth showing a very different configuration for a fuel cell system. Very few details were given, but they did tell me their cost goal is less than $100/kw. The cells are long thin hollow tubes (less than 1 mm in diameter) whose wall consists of the anode, electrolyte, and cathode, and which can be made by extrusion. The cells can be arrayed in bundles in a tube and header configuration, and high power densities are predicted. The company is in the 2nd year of a 3 year ATP grant, with cofunding investment by Pepco.

Ceramic Fuel Cell Ltd, of Australia, presented its new all ceramic SOFC stack technology which looks very promising. Temperature cycling is the big issue for SOFC’s and their latest set of innovations have resulted in a simple rugged design.

References and Publications:

Abstracts of the 2002 Fuel Cell Seminar–the book is 2 ” thick; also on a CD, available for purchase ($55 and $30, respectively). Contact:
Catherine Porterfield

European Integrated Hydrogen Project
White paper: “European Transport Policy for 2010 : time to decide ”

New releases (at the seminar):
2002 Annual Progress Report, H2, FC and Infrastructure Technologies Programs, 400 page book, or CD. Also online at

The new 6th edition of the DOE Fuel Cell Handbook (Oct 2002) was handed out at the Seminar. This comprehensive textbook (450 pages) can be ordered on CD at

Overview of Portable Power
The German company Smart Fuel Cell is among the many contenders in portable power, and appear to be making good progress towards commercialization. They were listed among Scientific American’s 50 Business Leaders (Dec issue)

They cite this helpful overview of the market on their website:

[web tips]
— The NETL website has its fuel cell materials under the Strategic Center for Natural Gas. Look under “End-Use” to find fuel cells.

— The DOD has a website which details a major residential PEM demo program, as well as the Army’s Fuel Cell Test & Evaluation Center (FCTEC), operated by Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) in Johnstown, PA

By coincidence, this article appeared right after the Seminar

More Rationalization Of Fuel-Cell Companies Expected
By Lynne Olver, Dow Jones Newswires — Nov 25, 2002

VANCOUVER — The fuel-cell industry is entering an “important phase” in which more corporate consolidation can be expected, according to Pierre Rivard, president and chief executive of Hydrogenics Corp. (HYGS). Rivard said the PC and telecom industries tend to have a few dominant players, and he expects a similar pattern in the fuel-cell business over the next three years.

“It’s typical that, post-consolidation, you might see two, three, perhaps four emerging, larger-sized companies and to me that’s very healthy,” Rivard told Dow Jones.

. . . . The article goes on to describe Plug Power’s acquisition of H Power, and Global Thermoelectric’s interest in finding a buyer or major partner for its SOFC business.,,BT_CO_20021125_005129-search,00.html?collection=autowire%2F30day&vql_string=olver%3Cin%3E%28article%2Dbody%29

Ceramicrete Phosphate Ceramic

Ceramicrete Phosphate Ceramic (…particularly applicable to fly-ash)

Argonne has developed this low-cost, ceramic binder which can be used in a wide variety of commercial applications, ranging from hazardous waste disposal to low-cost insulation. Since it won the R&D 100 award in 1996, Argonne has had more than 100 serious licensing inquiries, so they are setting strict conditions that applicants have a specific application and a well developed business plan. They’re open to collaboration for development and testing to see what specifications can be met with the particular materials in question.

Called CERAMICRETE, the binder — developed to stabilize and solidify radioactive and hazardous wastes — can also join ceramics together and convert nonhazardous wastes into useful construction products and nonflammable structural materials. It is formed by mixing magnesium oxide powder and soluble phosphate powder (common low cost materials) with water.

It is particularly applicable to fly-ash, because it is completely insensitive to the pH level, and it immobilizes virtually any type of contaminant, including mercury and other heavy metals. It forms a nonporous leach-resistant, hard, and dense ceramic which lab tests indicate meet or pass the EPA TCLP leaching standards.

CERAMICRETE can be manufactured at a low cost compared to other ceramic binders because it is made at room temperature and does not need high-temperature treatment. The setting times are short. Equipment needed is conventional (much like for cement) and hence is readily available, and training required for operations is simple.

The final material can be cast in any shape, and is very dense and strong. It can be used as a structural material in buildings, roads or other structures, or as brick, blocks, or tiles. It has compressive strength ranging from 2000 psi with binder to 6-8000 psi and even more with binder plus additives. In fact, the materials properties can be tailored, with strength increased by compaction during formation.

Besides solidifying wastes, the process can be used to convert lumber wastes into non-flammable particle board or to recycle waste plastic into blowable insulation that is fire- and moisture-proof. CERAMICRETE has already been used to make insulation products with thermal resistance (R values) of 4.5 per inch.

Argonne is using the CERAMICRETE process to stabilize low-level radioactive waste, such as soil, sludge, and lead bricks in a 55-gallon drum mixer. Contaminated wastes that contain radioactive contaminants and hazardous volatiles, such as mercury, lead, and cadmium are solidified in the binding process at room temperature to form a ceramic, noncorrosive, and final waste form. The process is unique because contaminants are converted and stabilized chemically into their natural minerals in a single step. Once encapsulated, the chemicals do not dissolve in groundwater and are isolated from the environment. Performance tests show that the waste forms far exceed the regulatory performance criteria set by DOE and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Contact: Don Johnson, Director, Center for Industrial Technology Systems 630-252-3392


>From the 18th U.S. Department of Energy Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Conference held in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, on May 20-22, 1997.


A. S. Wagh, D. Singh, S. Y. Jeong, and R. V. Strain
Energy Technology Division, Argonne National Laboratory


During the last three years, Ceramicrete (chemically bonded phosphate ceramics) has been investigated at Argonne-East for low-temperature stabilization and solidification of U.S. Department of Energy (DOE’s) mixed wastes, for which conventional high-temperature treatments cannot be used because of volatiles and pyrophorics present in these wastes. This paper summarizes the development of Ceramicrete and provides the current technology status. We discuss our early investigations with surrogates that are typical of DOE mixed wastes, subsequent testing with actual waste streams, and scale-up of the process to an operational level. Current efforts include testing the process at an operational level for an ash waste stream from the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and obtaining sufficient information to prepare a technology performance report.

Complete paper available at:

Pyroelectric Effect – New Thermal to Electric Energy Converter

Subject: UFTO Note – Pyroelectric Effect – New Thermal to Electric Energy Converter
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997
From: Ed Beardsworth

| ** UFTO ** Edward Beardsworth ** Consultant
| 951 Lincoln Ave. tel 415-328-5670
| Palo Alto CA 94301-3041 fax 415-328-5675

Pyroelectric Effect – New Thermal to Electric Energy Converter

Thermodyne, a small company in Salt Lake City, has what it believes to be a new type of Thermal to Electric Converter which is based on a combined piezoelectric pyroelectric effect. The device promises to have high energy density, operate at lower temperatures and with smaller temperature differences, and be far more efficient and cost effective than any existing thermoelectric device.

History: In 1990, a British group announced a new type of converter consisting of hundreds of layers of thin piezoelectric polymers coated with bi-metal electrodes. They hypothesized that the device was working on some kind of transverse thermoelectric effect, however the device degraded after a few hours of operation, and no convincing explanation of the phenomena was forthcoming.

Some time later the Thermodyne group, aware of the British work, came up with a different explanation for what had been observed, and quickly developed a better choice of materials and geometry to go with their theory.

Piezoelectric ceramics emit electrical impulses when compressed. Similarly, when an electric field is applied to a piezoelectric material, it changes volume. This reversible action is used today in loudspeakers and sonar devices. Hundreds of materials exhibit the piezoelectric effect.

The Pyroelectric effect is a lesser known thermal cousin of the Piezoelectric effect. When a sample is heated or cooled, it emits electrical impulses, and its temperature changes when a field is applied. About one third of piezoelectric materials are also pyroelectric.

A pyroelectric converter was proposed in 1980, but the effort failed because of poor performance due in part to the use of mechanical cycling of pyroelectric plates from hot to cold region.

The Thermodyne approach allows a converter to be built without moving parts that can be used for cooling/heating (heat pump) or to make electricity, with a theoretical efficiency of 50% of the ideal Carnot efficiency. A sandwich of ceramic plates resonate electronically to cause a pumping action from heat to mechanical to electrical energy via the combined action of the piezo and pyro effects.

With power densities of hundreds of watts per square centimeter, it should enable a wide variety of practical products such as coolers, air conditioners and refrigerators, and waste heat utilization. Thermodyne has received notice from the U.S. patent office that its initial patent has been allowed and international rights are being pursued. The company is seeking a modest amount of seed development funding (equity or non-equity) to build a first milestone of a one watt, 5% efficient demonstration device within the next 5-6 months by a 10 watt, 10% prototype 6 months later. Sufficient interest already expressed by some major companies suggests that the program could become self-funding thereafter.

Contact: Fred Jaeger, President
Thermodyne, Inc.
Salt Lake City, UT
801-583-2000, fax 801-583-6245,