You are on page 1of 79

Solid Oxide Fuel Cells

The Power for the 21
st
Century
Meilin Liu
Center for Innovative Fuel Cell and Battery Technologies
School of Materials Science and Engineering
Georgia Institute of Technology
Atlanta, GA 30332-0245
What is a Fuel Cell?
Hydrogen
Fossil Fuels
(Gas, oil, coal)
Electricity
Why Fuel Cells?
From: McDermott
FC
TG
DG
TG
DG
FC
SSFC: Ship Service Fuel Cell Program; GTG: Gas Turbne Generator
SSDG: Ship Service Diesel Generator
Motives for Fuel Cells
• High efficiency
• Low emissions (no SO
x
or NO
x
, half CO
2
)
• Low operating costs & low maintenance
• Quiet
• Distributed power generation (avoid power outages)
• Stricter transportation emission standards
Applications of Fuel Cells
Stationary power
Hybrid propulsion
Compact power systems
Distributed power systems
Portable power systems
Microturbine combined cycles
Naval power systems
Naval Applications
Driving Force
• US Department of Energy
¾ $70 million for SOFC research 2002-2003
¾ $140 million supporting hydrogen production and
stationary PEM fuel cell technologies
• FreedomCar initiative
¾ To promote development of hydrogen as a primary fuel for
automobiles
¾ Will spend $150 million on PEMFC technologies in 2002
• Private auto and energy companies
• European, Japanese, and Chinese governments
US DOE Performance Targets
• 2nd Generation
Efficiency: 50-60% LHV
Cost: $1,000-$1,500/kW
Year: 2003
• 21st Century System
Efficiency: 70-80% LHV
Cost: $400/kW
Year: 2015
Cost and Reliability Issues
• Moving parts (pumps, compressors) unable to
perform for thousands of continuous hours
• Stationary fuel cells must operate continuously for
40,000 hours
• Automotive fuel cells require 5000-hour lifetime
• Catalyst costs (platinum, ruthenium, palladium)
• For automotive applications fueling infrastructure is
an issue
Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells
Proton
Exchange
Membrane
H
2
e’
H
+
H
2
O H
2
Load
Fuel in
Oxidant in
O
2
Depleted oxidant
Depleted fuel
Anode Cathode
Proton Exchange Membrane (PEMFC)
• Specialty power (small stationary)
• Buses/Vehicles
• Gemini space program
• Dow Chemical (MI, AR)
• Electrochem (MA)
• Energy Partners (FL)
• H-Power (NJ, CA)
• UTC Technologies Corp.(CT)
• 1000 PEMFCs (each averaging 5 kW per unit) were put
into service on an experimental basis
PEMFC
• Solid state (No liquid to circulate)
• Flexible membrane won’t leak or crack
• Produce high power density at temperatures below
100°C; allows fast start-ups and immediate response to
changes in power demand
• Fuels must be purified to avoid catalyst poisoning by
CO and sulfur
• Platinum accounts for 20% of total costs of a 50-kW
PEMFC system for vehicles
– 200 grams of Pt required based on a loading of 0.5
mg/cm
2
in the MEA
PEMFC
• Goal is to bring system cost down to $2500 per vehicle;
current cost is about $14,000 per fuel cell engine
• Stationary PEMFCs cost more than $3600 per KW
installed; must bring system cost down to $1200-$1500
per kilowatt to be competitive
Direct Methanol (DMFC)
• No need for fuel reformer
• Operate at 120-190 F
• 40% efficiencies are expected
anode: CH
3
OH + H
2
O →CO
2
+ 6H
+
+ 2e
-
cathode: 3/2O
2
+ 6H
+
+ 6e
-
→3H
2
O
overall: CH
3
OH + 3/2O
2
→CO
2
+ 2H
2
O
Challenges & Opportunities
¾ Catalysts insensitive to contaminants in the fuel
such as CO;
¾ Novel membranes with minimal MeOH across-over
and high H
+
conductivity at 120-180°C ;
¾ Efficient catalysts that promote a high rate
of oxygen reduction;
¾ Alternative catalysts less expensive than
Pt/Ru to reduce the cost.
Electrolyte
(Ionic
conductor)
H
2
e’
Anion
conductor
H
2
O
O
2
H
+
H
2
O H
2
Hydrocarbon
Fuels
Solid Oxide (SOFC)
Fuel in
Oxidant in
O
2
Depleted oxidant
Depleted fuel
Anode Cathode
4e
-
+ O
2
→2O
2-
CO, H
2
+O
2
→CO
2
, H
2
O+2e
-
SOFC Materials
• Electrolyte: YSZ, GDC, LSGM, SrCeO
3
• Anode: Porous Ni-ZrO
2
or Cu-YSZ cermet
• Cathode: LSM/YSZ, LSCF/GDC, SSC
Why SOFC ?
The cleanest, most efficient &
versatile system for chemical
to electrical energy conversion
50%electrical, 85% overall
Advantages of SOFCs
Efficient – 40-60% efficiency in individual electric systems and up to
80% in hybrid systems
Environmental – Reduces global warming and air pollution
Fuel Flexible – Uses available liquid fuels such as gasoline and
diesel as well as natural gas and propane
Fuel Extending – Extends the use of variety of fossil fuels, including
vast domestic coal reserves
Modular: as the basic building block for multiple applications
Distributive Energy – Brings electricity to remote locations where
no transmission exists
Domestic Security – Reduces dependence on foreign oil
SECA
Applications
Stationary – SOFCs will efficiently provide clean,
economical electricity either in urban settings, or in
remote locations for homes, hospitals, farms,
businesses, or recreation facilities.
Transportation – SOFCs are able to work with all
standard transportation fuels to provide auxiliary
power (AP) for trucks and other vehicles.
Military – Fuel cells are attractive for military use
because they represent quiet, clean, uninterruptible
energy that can be delivered at the point of power
application.
SECA
Honeywell SOFC System Concept
36 IN.
15 IN.
20 IN.
McDermott's
2-kW Technology
Demonstration Unit
Delphi/Battelle’SOFC APU
12V Alternator
12V-24V trailer
converter
Low Voltage
Disconnect
Refrigeration Unit
Refrigeration
12V Alternator
Battery Isolator
Lift-gate Battery
Refrigeration Unit
Battery
Voltage
conditioner for trailer lights, ABS,..
AM/FM
CAB LIGHTS
CB RADIO
HEATER
SATELLITE
FRIDGE
‹ SOFC system as an AUXILIARY POWER UNIT (APU)
‹ Markets: stationary, passenger automobiles, trucks, recreational vehicles,
military
Delphi Gasoline APU
for passenger automobiles
Diesel Truck APU
Stationary applications -
Natural gas or diesel power generators
Delphi Next Generation APU System
Proof of Concept (PoC) APU
Mass reduction:
PoC: 200 + kg
Next Generation: 50 kg
Next Generation
APU Mock-up
Size reduction:
PoC: 152 Liters
Next Generation: 50 Liters
SOFC Obstacles
• Electrolyte conductive only at high temp
• Expensive alloys needed to house the cell
• High temperature causes thermal stresses in
ceramic structures
• Too expensive: $4000-6000/kW
Challenge: Cost Reduction
• Materials selection: inexpensive
materials
• Fabrication processes: simple &
cost-effective
Lower Operating Temp →Material Cost
• Advantages
– Inexpensive metallic components may be used for
interconnect, heat exchanges, and other components
– Greater system reliability & longer optional life
– Potential for mobile applications
• Challenges
– Conductive electrolytes
– Catalytically active electrodes
– Macro- & meso-porous electrodes/interfaces
GT – FC/BT
Cost-Effective Fabrication→Manufacturing Cost
• Fabrication Techniques
– Screen Printing
– Dry Pressing
– Co-Extrusion
• Advantages
– Simple, inexpensive, reproducible
• Challenges
– How to retain competitive performance
GT – FC/BT
SECA Development:
SECA Development:
Progressive Applications
Progressive Applications
• Vision 21 Power Plants
75% efficient plants
• Propulsion <$200?/kW
2005
• $800/kW
• Prototype ($-
Unit)
3 - 10 kW
2015
2010
• $400/kW
• Commercial
Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
Fabricated by
Screen-Printing & Dry-Pressing
Characteristics of GDC Powder by GNP
Characteristics of GDC Powder by GNP
Large surface area
4um
Compositional homogeneity
Loose agglomerates
Foam-like structure
Fill density 0.059 g/cm
3
120
th
of theoretical value
1um
b
Easy to densify
92% at 1250
o
C/5 hrs
95% at 1350
o
C/5 hrs
Dry Pressing of GNP Powder
Dry Pressing of GNP Powder
20 um
Dense Film
Loose
Powder
2400 um
2.4 mm
~ 0.1”
The thickness of the
loose powder is
about 120 times that
of the dense film
The thinnest: 8 um
Microstructures of Dry
Microstructures of Dry
-
-
Pressed Films
Pressed Films
GDC film
Substrate
~8 um
10um
30um
cathode
electrolyte
anode
~15 um
Cross
Cross
-
-
Sectional View of a Single Cell
Sectional View of a Single Cell
electrolyte
anode
cathode
A single cell
30um
2um
Porous SSC and
10 v%SDC
Cathode
2um
Dense SDC
Porous Ni-SDC
Anode
2um
Changrong Xia, Fanglin Chen and Meilin Liu, Electrochemical and Solid State letters, 4(5) A52-A54 (2001).
Performance of SOFCs
400 500 600 700 800
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
P
o
w
e
r

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
W
c
m
-
2
Temperature, °C
YSZ (5-10
u
m), Tsai
NW
YSZ (10 u m), Kim
Utah
YSZ (9 um), Visco
LBL
SDC (30 um), Xia, dry pressing
GT
YSZ (8 u m), YDC interlayer, Ghosh
ANL
Dry pressing
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
a
600
o
C
550
o
C
500
o
C

I
m

Z
,


c
m
2
Re Z, Ωcm
2
400 450 500 550 600
0
2
4
6
8
10
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,

c
m
2
Temperature, °C
Electrolyte, 30um
Interfacial Resistance
Performance is
determined by R
p
at
low temperatures!

Significance of Interfacial Resistances
Significance of Interfacial Resistances
Modeling and Design of
Porous Mixed-Conducting Electrodes
Supported by
National Science Foundation
GT – FC/BT
SOFC: Key Components
OXIDANT: air or O
2
FUEL: H
2
or Propane
e
-
e
-
e V O H O H
O
X
O

+ + → +
• •
2
2 2
X
O O
O e V O →

+ +
• •
2
2
1
2
• •
O
V
anode
electrolyte
Load
cathode
Active sites for Electrochemical reactions
Metallic Electrode: TPB
X
O
gas e electrolyt
O
electrode O O V e → + +

• •
) (
2
1
) ( ) ( 2
2
Vo
..
Electrolyte
Metallic Electrode
2e
-
O
2
(gas)
Reaction Rate
Active sites for Electrochemical reactions
MIEC Electrode: Solid/Gas Interface
Reaction Rate
Vo
..
MIEC Vo
Electrolyte
2e
-
O
2
X
O
MIEC
O
gas O e V O →

+ + ) }( 2 { ) (
2
1
..
2
X
O
gas e electrolyt
O
electrode O O V e → + +

• •
) (
2
1
) ( ) ( 2
2
Electrolyte
Porous MIEC Electrode
Elementary Steps
X
O
gas e electrolyt
O
electrode O O V e → + +

• •
) (
2
1
) ( ) ( 2
2
O
2
O
ad
e
-
O
2-
Electrolyte
Diffusion
Adsorption
Ionization of O
ad
Surface diffusion Ionic and Electronic
Transport
Modeling of Porous MIEC Electrodes
( ) | |( ) φ u
τ
∇ + ∇ − |
.
|

\
|
− = F z c p
u
F z J
k k k
s
k
k k
1
• In the Solid MIEC
• Through the Pores of MIEC
( )
2 2
2
2
O O
g
O
O
pc v
u
N

+ ∇
|
|
.
|

\
|
− = u
τ
• At the MIEC/O
2
Interface & TPBs
¦
)
¦
`
¹
¦
¹
¦
´
¦
|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|

|
.
|

\
|
=
RT p
p
RT c
c
J J
e c
O
e a
V
V
V V
O
~
2
1
*
~
*
, 0
exp exp
2
2
u α u α
Distribution of Reaction Rate
Useful Thickness
MIEC/O
2
Porous MIEC CC
El.
TPB1
J
v
MIEC/O
2
Porous MIEC CC El.
TPB1
TPB2
Functionally Graded Electrode
Intermediate Layer
Catalytic layer
Electrolyte
Current collector Layer
In-situ potential-dependent FTIR
Emission Spectroscopy
To understand elementary steps involved in electrode
reactions in SOFCs, such as adsorption, dissociation,
charge transfer, and mass transfer;
To provide surface structural details under conditions
for actual fuel cell operation; and
To rationalize the pd-FTIRES spectra correlated to
electrochemical data with the types of the intermediate
species found at the functional interfaces.
GT – FC/BT
Experimental Arrangements for
Investigations into SOFC Reactions Using
in-situ FTIR-ES, IS, and MS/GC
Fuel/O
2
Argon
Process
Control
System
Mass Flow
Controllers
Mass
Spectrometer
FTIR
Accessory
Impedance Spectroscopy
Electroanalytical measurements
Drier
Gas
Chromatograph
Oxygen
Sensor
To Vent
To Vent
GT – FC/BT
Optical Configuration
for In-Situ pd-FTIR Emission Spectroscopy
P
O2
O
2−
Thermocouple
P
O2
Heating Cartridge
Impedance Spect.
DC Overpotential
FTIR Spectrometer
(Liquid-N
2
-Cooled
MCT Detector)
Top: Oxygen Reduction
X
O O
O e V O → + +
− • •
2 2 / 1
2
) 2 2 / 1 (
2
2
− −
→ + O e O
Bottom: Oxygen Evolution
2
2
2 / 1 2 O e O → −
− −
GT – FC/BT
0
5
10
15
20
25
wavenumber / cm
-1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
2
4
6
8
wavenumber / cm
-1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
0
5
10
15
20
25
w a v e n u m b e r / c m
-1
9 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 4 0 0
-0 . 1
0 . 0
- 3
0
w a v e n u m b e r / c m
-1
9 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 4 0 0
- 3
0
( a )
( b )
( c )
(η: 0 to
320 mV)
In air
(η: 0 to
760 mV)
In 1%O
2
(η: 0 to
690 mV)
In N
2
In-Situ Pd-FTIRES Spectra - After local baseline correction

2
O
After local baseline correction
Evolution of Oxygen - SSC/SDC/SSC, in 1% O
2
at 500°C
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0
2
4
6
SSC/SDC/SSC, in 1%O
2
, at 550
o
C
with DC bias, 0~1.1V with 0.2V increment
-
I
m
{
Z
}

(


c
m
2
)
Re{Z} (Ω⋅cm
2
)
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0

~

-
1
.
1
V
,

w
it
h

-
0
.
2
V

i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t

E
/
E
0
(
%
)
Wavenumber/cm
-1
550
o
C, with DC bias
0

~

1
.
1
V
,

w
i
t
h

0
.
2
V

i
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
OCV
1124
1236
930
Proposed Reaction Mechanism for Oxygen Reduction
= −


+
ad ad
O e O
, 2 , 2
Rate-determining step (rds):
− 2
LC
O
− 2
LC
O
− 2
LC
O
− 2
LC
O
− 2
LC
O
− 2
LC
O
− 2
LC
O
− 2
LC
O
− 2
LC
O
− 2
LC
O
• •
O
V
• •
O
V
O
O
-
O
O
-
2
O
P
O
2
(gas)
O
2
(gas)
e
-
e
-
Gas Mixture
MIEC Electrode
SDC Electrolyte
• •
O
V
− 2
LC
O
• •
O
V
• •
O
V
• •
O
V
+
+
MIEC Electrode
O
2-
O
2-
e
-
e
-
2
O
P
O
2
(gas) O
2
(gas)
GT – FC/BT
In-situ FTIRES – Anodes in SOFCs
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500
4
8
12
16
20
CH
4
(gas)
1072
807
817
1050
2143
1540

E
/
E
0
(
%
)
Wavenumber/cm
-1
1712
1540
N
i
-
S
D
C

A
n
o
d
e
H
2
as background and CH
4
as sample
After 5 min in CH
4
C
u
-S
D
C
A
n
o
d
e
CH
4
(gas)
CO
2
2143 cm
-1
: CO (Adsorbed)
1712 and 1540 cm
-1
: Graphite
1070-800 cm
-1
: Metal (Ni or Cu)
carbonato (CO
3
) complexes
GT – FC/BT
New Electrode Materials for
Low-Temp SOFCs
Supported by
Department of Energy
Microstructures and Impedances of SSC-SDC10 Cathodes
fired at different temperatures
2um
900
o
C
2um
1000
o
C
2um
950
o
C
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
0.0
0.1
0.2
1000
o
C
900
o
C
950
o
C


I
m

Z
,


c
m
2
Re, (Z -R
b
), Ωcm
2
The Best Performance at 400-600°C
-0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
0.60
0.65
W400
W450
W500
W550
W600
P
o
w
e
r

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,

W
c
m
-
2
Current density, Acm
-2
0.6 W/cm
2
at 600°C
The Best Performance of LT-SOFCs
400 500 600 700 800
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
P
o
w
e
r

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
W
c
m
-
2
Temperature, °C
YSZ (5-10
u
m), Tsai
NW
YSZ (10 u m), Kim
Utah
YSZ (9 um), Visco
LBL
SDC (30 um), Xia, dry pressing
GT
GT
GDC (30 um), Xia, dry pressing
YSZ (8 u m), YDC interlayer, Ghosh
ANL
Hybrid Metal/Electrolyte
Monolithic Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
Supported by
DARPA/DSO - Palm Power
(with J. Cochran, J. Lee, D. McDowell, T. Sanders)
Tubular SOFC
Low Power Density
Planar SOFC
End Plate
Anode
Electrolyte
Cathode
Bipolar Separator
Anode
Repeating
unit
Difficulties in manifolding and sealing
SOFC: An Extruded Cell
Hybrid Metal/Electrolyte Monolithic Low Temperature SOFCs
FeNiCoMo LCM
Georgia Institute
of Technology
Fuel
Fuel
Air
Air
+
_
Load
Hybrid Extrusion - ”In617”/YSZ
2.5 mm
Web =
180 um
Lengths can be continuous
Note that
40% linear
shrinkage
occurs on
sintering.
Webs will
be 110 mm.
GT – FC/BT
Electrolyte
honeycomb
Slurry coating
Slurry in
Slurry out
Honeycomb
fuel cell
Drying
Sintering
Projections for Hybrid Metal/Ceria Monolithic SOFC
1. Operation Fuels -- Hydrogen, Natural Gas, Propane, Coal Gas, Methanol,
Ethanol, and Reformed Gasoline and Diesel; potentially insensitive to
contaminants such as H
2
S in reformed fuels.
2. Power Density – 1 Watt/cc in Near Future, 5 Watts/cc in 3-4 Years
3. Operating Temperature – 400-600
0
C
4. Fuel Cell Size – 6 X 6 mm square by 11cm long. (This Is 4 Watts at 1 W/cc
and 20 watts at 5 W/cc. (This Is Not Palm Power. It Is Finger Power)
5. Materials – Samaria Doped Ceria (SDC) Solid Electrolyte, CoCr Doped Ni
Metal Interconnect, Anode of Porous Ni-SDC, and a Cathode Layer,
Consisting of Sm
0.5
Sr
0.5
CoO
3
and 10wt.% SDC. Catalysts Will be Added as
Needed Depending on Fuel.
6. Fuel Cell Cost -- $500/kW in One Year, $50/kW in 3-4 Years
Georgia Institute
of Technology
Functionally Graded Electrodes
on Honeycomb Cells
GT – FC/BT
Functionally Graded Electrodes
650 700 750 800
0
4
8
12
5
4
3
2


I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
i
a
l

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

(

c
m
2
)
Temperature (
o
C)
YSZ
GDC
LSM
LSCF 1 2 3 4 5
GT – FC/BT
Sample 5: LSM/GDC/LSCF
Sample 5: LSM/GDC/LSCF
YSZ
LSM50+GDC50
LSM25+LSCF25+
GDC50
LSCF50+GDC50
LSCF
GT – FC/BT
Graded Composition
Electrolyte
High Electronic Conductivity
Interconnect Compatibility
Inter-Mixed Layer
Highly Catalytic
Electrolyte Adhesion
Matched Thermal Expansion
The Interfacial Resistances About 10 Times Smaller
YSZ (300 u m thick)
LSM based cathode
30
Functional graded cathode
c
m
2
25
0
5
10
15
R
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,


20
550 600 650 700 750 800
Temperature, °C
Cathodes for Zirconia Fuel Cells
0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25
0.1
1
10
Cathode for zirconia
850
o
C
650
o
C
550
o
C 750
o
C


Graded cathode, Hart, JPS 106(2002)42
LSM-GDC cathode, Murray, SSI 143(2001)265
Graded cathode,
YDB cathode
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
i
a
l

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,


c
m
2
Temperature, 1000/T
0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25
0.1
1
10
Cathode for zirconia
850
o
C
650
o
C
550
o
C 750
o
C


Graded cathode, Hart, JPS 106(2002)42
LSM-GDC cathode, Murray, SSI 143(2001)265
Graded cathode
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
i
a
l

r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
,


c
m
2
Temperature, 1000/T
700ºC
One Order of Magnitude
150ºC
GT – FC/BT
Summary - Electrode Development
• Cathodes graded in composition show interfacial
resistances about 10 times lower than that of a
conventional LSM-YSZ cathode;
• The performances are dependent on the microstructures,
and is improved by low-temperature sintering;
• Interfacial resistance of graded cathodes as low as 0.47
Ωcm
2
was achieved at 750
o
C. However, it increased to
4.1 Ωcm
2
at 600
o
C; and
• A new cathode showed much lower interfacial
resistances than the graded cathodes, 0.30 Ωcm
2
at
600
o
C, about 10 times better.
600 mW/cm
2
at 600°C
GT – FC/BT
Other Alternative
Advanced Energy Technologies
Future Energy Technology
Renewable, Regenerative Fuel Cells using Solar Energy
Water Water
Courtesy: Aerovironment
The Cleanest Alternative
H
2
H
2
O
Solar Energy
Photo-
electrochemical
Cell
Electricity
Fuel Cell
Concluding Remarks
• Solid Oxide Fuel Cells represent the cleanest,
most efficient & versatile system for efficient
use of fossil fuels.
• Recent advances in SOFC R&D suggest that
SOFC technology has the greatest potential
to be the primary energy technology for the
21
st
century.
Challenges & Opportunities
¾ Cathode development
First-principle calculation to predict best materials and structures
Rational design of functionally graded electrodes and interfaces
¾ Contaminant-Resistant Anodes and reforming
catalysts
Sulfur resistant, Carbon-deposition resistant,
Sulfur removal
¾ Cost-effective fabrication processes to
dramatically reduce the cost
$4,000→$400/KW
Research Team Members
• Bill Rauch
• Alan Burke
• Erik Koep
• Xinyu Lu
• Dr. Changrong Xia (MSE)
• Dr. Siwen Li (MSE)
• Dr. Jessica Bartling (ChE)
Acknowledgements
NSF
DoE/NETL
DARPA/DSO-Palm Power
ONR Grant N00014-99-1-0353
Center for Innovative Fuel Cell and Battery
Technologies, Georgia Tech