Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Fuel cells are like batteries that don’t die. As long as they’re connected to their fuel source–typically hydrogen, natural gas, alcohol, or methanol–they pump out electricity. They are potentially a disruptive technology for how we power our buildings. But, they’ve been expensive, finicky in the past. Are they just an electrochemistry geek’s dream, or are they for real?
In this interview with CellEra CEO Ziv Gottesfeld, we talk about his fuel cell solution that eliminates the expensive platinum membrane to great an energy solution that can meet real world backup needs today. An Israeli company, I caught up with Gottesfeld at Cleanovation 2010, a conference highlighting cleantech companies produces by the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce.
We talk about:
- CellEra fuel cells and their applications
- Distributed generation scenarios
- Fuel cell manufacturing
You may also find our previous Tech2Energy discussion on Disruptive Technology In Energy particularly interesting as Garry Golden and I discuss at length fuel cells and distributed generation.
The image is of the 1839 sketch of William Grove’s fuel cell, one of the earliest.
4 Comments
Joel,
Thanks for posting this interview as a podcast. It was informative, but as usual, left some questions open.
It would have been interesting to hear how CellEra’s fuel cells compare to the BloomBox, which appears to be the biggest competitor out of California. Even CBS’s Lesley Stahl did a report on the Bloom Box on 60 Minutes just recently (though it avoided details and was not as inquisitive as you were).
Also, it would also have been interesting to learn if CellEra’s anion exchange membrane could be the enabling technology for a flow cell battery design that would be suited for utility applications. A flow cell battery is not lmited in energy capacity and represents a hybrid between a fuel cell and a traditional battery.
It seems to me that the limiting factors for fuel cells (and flow cells) are operating life (various failure mechanisms that reduce transport efficiency over time) and current density, which still appears quite low for CellEra’s product. Finally the challenges of storing energy in the form of hydrogen, whose handling is not exactly cheap or easy, versus as electrons in an anolyte/catholyte system, still appears a major hurdle for widespread application that is not going away anytime soon.
Regards,
Gaurav
Guarav,
Thanks very much for your questions. You bring up some great points. I’ll send your questions along to Ziv Gottesfeld and see what he says.
Yes, with their recent PR efforts, Bloom is leading mindshare in fuel cells (3:05 minutes to go until they launch as I write this, according to their website), although http://www.myfuelcell.se/ looks interesting as well.
Neither flow batteries nor fuel cells are limited by capacity as batteries are. Seems to me, flow batteries are currently viewed as solutions for grid level applications, while fuel cells appear to be for smaller applications. Yet, you bring up a good question of when flow batteries would make sense vs. when fuel cells make sense. We touched on flow batteries for utility level storage when we spoke with electrochemistry expert Dr. Jeremy Meyers of UT Austin.
Garry Golden and I just recorded a podcast (not yet posted) where we discuss the need…or not…for fuel cells to last 30 years, so that operating life may or may not be a valid criticism. Not sure I understand your concern about current density. 1kg hydrogen = 23 KWHrs of electricity seems fairly high density. And hydrogen currently is a niche fuel for other than it’s primary use of gasoline refining, although he did quote a $5kg – $50kg price for hydrogen based upon location and packaging. Gottesfeld did say direct hydrogen was his first fuel choice, implying, they are working on other fuels for their fuel cells.
As for widespread applications of fuel cells, I thought the most interesting thing he said was that energy is full of niche markets, but they’re so large, he’d be happy to be a niche player.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Gaurav
Ditto on most of Joel’s thoughts…and effort to pass forward questions about CellEra’s application goals.
I think there is a wide spectrum of demands/solutions that almost all require a combination of storage and fuel conversion. Flow batteries for utility scale is certainly a leading candidate. And fuel cells of various types are strong candidates as well.
The case is often made pro-battery, skeptical fuel cells– yet even the mature platform of batteries has failed to make any significant in roads. If batteries have fewer barriers, I’m confused why they haven’t made it to market. So I continue to look at fuel cells and the ‘fuel’ conversion model.
Re: fuel cell performance challenges (catalyst degradation, kinetics of oxidation, et al) — it’s clearly what keeps FCs from making their mark. Without going into range of strategies (carbon support structures; alloy nanospheres, et al) I think this is just a matter of time for science and materials experimentation to deliver solutions! I don’t think we should be guided by blind faith, but recognize that we are still early days in the development of functionalized nano materials. So, I’m cautiously optimistic that non-linear performance improvements will happen.
Hydrogen storage is certainly high on the of barriers to fuel cells though progress has been made in all mediums from compressed gas (surprisingly the likely favorite for 1st gen vehicles), range of room temp H2 rich liquids, and solid (shifting from absorption e.g. hydrides -adsorption e.g. MOFs). I am less concerned about H2 storage than I was a decade ago. I am confident that we’ll meet DOE targets and preserve the ‘fuel’ model that offer advantages over a pure storage play. (And per below, I think natgas on continuous supply for stationary eliminates transport problem)
As far as Bloom and others in stationary power gen— they are looking at steady fuel supplies via natural gas. So I don’t think there is an issue w/ storage at all when they can use continuous streams of hydrocarbons.
I wrote two posts on my own blog that might be of interest:
http://www.garrygolden.net/2010/02/23/bloom-energy-box-disruptive-future-of-distributed-energy/
http://www.garrygolden.net/2010/02/21/future-of-portable-personal-power-via-micro-fuel-cells/
Thanks for your thoughtful questions…
Best,
Garry
Joel,
I was referring to the current density of the flow cell/fuel cell membrane. This becomes an important economic design fact that determines how many cells are needed for a given rate of energy output. Improving current density is also a major focus of researchers, like Jeremy Meyers, in electrochemistry and transport phenomena.
As for operating life, I believe that the inherent lifetime may not need to be that long in every application. For example, if an economic method for replacing the membrane or the cell could be
developed (fast, easy, inexpensive), then this might actually provide a secondary service revenue stream for the provider. This might just be a packaging issue that has not become apparent to scientists and engineers working on the chemistry and power aspects. So predictability of the costs may be just as important as the level of cost.
Looking forward to more of your reports,
Gaurav