The Economic Viability of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell is Going Up

Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) are solid-state, high-temperature (typically greater than 600 °C), electrochemical devices that convert chemical energy from hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels directly into electricity and thermal energy. Fuel and air react along electrode-electrolyte interfaces, producing electric current without the combustion or criteria pollutants of conventional technologies.

Benefits of SOFCs

• Efficient: High electric and combined heat and power system efficiencies reduce fuel consumption and carbon emissions
• Reduced Carbon Emissions when Used with Renewables: Carbon emissions can be further reduced using carbon capture and sequestration or by operating on hydrogen made from the renewable electrolysis of water or biofuels derived from biomass
• Modular: Power output can be scaled by stacking SOFCs without compromising efficiency
• Fuel-Flexible: Systems can operate on gaseous (natural gas, hydrogen, biogas and propane) and liquid (diesel, JP-8 and kerosene) fuels
• Clean and Quiet: Negligible criteria pollutants (NOx, SOx, CO and particulate matter) and volatile organic compounds,1 plus quiet (few moving parts)

Fuel cells can be stacked for more power and integrated into a system to generate continuous, distributed, uninterpretable power for commercial, government and residential applications, as well as industrial processes.

SOFCs can operate on fossil or renewable fuels. A solid oxide electrolysis cell runs in the reverse direction of an SOFC to electrolyze water (H2O) into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). A solid oxide electrolyzer powered by solar, for example, can produce hydrogen from water. SOFCs can also be hybridized with gas turbines to increase overall electric efficiency.

MEETING SYSTEM COST AND STACK DEGRADATION TARGETS

Findings from our expert interviews suggest that SOFC systems will meet the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) system cost target of $900/kWnet and stack voltage degradation rate target of 0.2%/1,000 hrs by 2035–2050.2,3,*,†,‡

* Cost is defined as the capital cost, expressed in dollars per net kilowatt. Degradation rate is the reduction in the stack’s voltage, expressed as a percentage of the stack’s beginning-of-life voltage, divided by the operating time elapsed.

IMPROVING VIABILITY AND IDENTIFYING NEAR-TERM MARKETS

During our interviews2 and workshop,4 experts ranked barriers to advancing SOFC viability and identified potential near-term SOFC markets.

1. Stack Costs. Sixty-three percent of respondents identified the stack cost as the most considerable barrier to reducing system cost. Respondents identified materials and machinery (including operation) costs as the most considerable barriers to reducing stack cost.
2. Need for Demonstrations. Thirteen percent of respondents identified the lack of demonstration and validation projects as the most considerable barrier to advancing SOFCs’ widespread viability.
3. Cell and Stack Degradation. Fifty-six percent of respondents identified chromium poisoning of the air electrode as the most considerable barrier to mitigating stack degradation. Experts also identified electrode chemical and microstructural changes and seal and separator plate degradation as considerable.
4. Entry-Level Markets. Forty-eight percent of respondents identified medium-scale (between 5 kW and 500 kW) and 35% of respondents identified small-scale (<5 kW) applications as the most favorable entry-level markets.

RECOMMENDED RD&D FUNDING

Experts recommended government funding in FY 2018 to meet the DOE’s targets, assuming subsequent funding would remain at a similar level after FY 2018.2,5,†,‡

Summary

SOFCs could meet the U.S. DOE’s cost and degradation rate targets by 2035–2050. Our findings suggest that an increase in RD&D spending on cell, stack and systems development, particularly projects to reduce the system’s capital cost and increase system deployments, could accelerate progress toward meeting goals. Smaller applications (less than 500 kW) that generate primary power may be suitable entrylevel markets that can help advance the widespread viability of fuel cells.

† Median values reported. Experts ranged in their assessments.
‡ All dollar amounts are expressed in 2017 USD, and all costs assume high-volume manufacturing.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017. Catalog of CHP Technologies Available at: www.epa.gov/sites/
production/files/2015-07/documents/catalog_of_chp_technologies.pdf.
2 Whiston, M.M., et al. 2019. Meeting Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cost and Degradation Rate Targets.
Manuscript submitted.
3 Vora, S.D. 2018. U.S. DOE Office of Fossil Energy Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Program. 19th Annual Solid Oxide Fuel
Cell (SOFC) Project Review Meeting (Washington, D.C.). Available at: www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/netlfile/
FE0-SOFC-SOFC-Program-Overview-2018-AMR.pdf.
4 Whiston, M.M., et al. 2019. Workshop on Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Cost, Degradation, and Market Viability.
Manuscript in preparation.
5 National Energy Technology Laboratory. Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. Available at: www.netl.doe.gov/coal/fuel-cells
[Accessed April 10, 2019].

Source: Professor Jay Whitacre - Carnegie Mellon University

The 10 largest coal producers and exporters in Indonesia:

1. Bumi Resouces (BUMI)
2. Adaro Energy (ADRO)
3. Indo Tambangraya Megah (ITMG)
4. Bukit Asam (PTBA)
5. Baramulti Sukses Sarana (BSSR)
6. Harum Energy (HRUM)
7. Mitrabara Adiperdana (MBAP)
8. Samindo Resources (MYOH)
9. United Tractors (UNTR)
10. Berau Coal

Click Here for Top World Clean Coal Technologies Contractors