Assessment of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Technology

Assessment of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
Technology
Comparison of Alternative Design Approaches

Effective December 6, 2006, this report has been made publicly available in
accordance with Section 734.3(b)(3) and published in accordance with Section
A Product of EPRIsolutions, Inc. 734.7 of the U.S. Export Administration Regulations. As a result of this
publication, this report is subject to only copyright protection and does not
require any license agreement from EPRI. This notice supersedes the export
SED WARNING:
N control restrictions and any proprietary licensed material notices embedded in
A L
Please read the License Agreement

LICE
on the back cover before removing the document prior to publication.

R I
the Wrapping Material.

M AT E
Technical Report
12347402
12347402
Assessment of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
Technology
Comparison of Alternative Design Approaches
1003966
Final Report, March 2002
EPRIsolutions Project Manager

D. Herman
EPRIsolutions • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10414, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
12347402
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES
THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW AS AN ACCOUNT
OF WORK SPONSORED OR COSPONSORED BY EPRISOLUTIONS, INC. NEITHER
EPRISOLUTIONS, THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE, INC. (EPRI), ANY MEMBER
OF EPRI, ANY COSPONSOR, THE ORGANIZATION(S) NAMED BELOW, NOR ANY PERSON
ACTING ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THEM:
(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

WITH RESPECT TO THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR
SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS REPORT, INCLUDING MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR (II) THAT SUCH USE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON OR
INTERFERE WITH PRIVATELY OWNED RIGHTS, INCLUDING ANY PARTY’S INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY, OR (III) THAT THIS REPORT IS SUITABLE TO ANY PARTICULAR USER’S
CIRCUMSTANCE; OR
(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

(INCLUDING ANY CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF EPRISOLUTIONS OR ANY
EPRISOLUTIONS REPRESENTATIVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGES) RESULTING FROM YOUR SELECTION OR USE OF THIS REPORT OR ANY
INFORMATION, APPARATUS, METHOD, PROCESS, OR SIMILAR ITEM DISCLOSED IN THIS
REPORT.
ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
ORDERING INFORMATION
Requests for copies of this report should be directed to EPRI Orders and Conferences, 1355 Willow
Way, Suite 278, Concord, CA 94520, (800) 313-3774, press 2 or internally x5379, (925) 609-9169,
(925) 609-1310 (fax).
Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are registered service marks of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark of the Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc.
EPRIsolutions is a registered service mark of EPRIsolutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2002 EPRIsolutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
12347402
CITATIONS
This report was prepared by
Arthur D. Little, Inc.

Acorn Park
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
Principal Investigators
J. Thijssen
S. Sriramulu
This report describes research sponsored by EPRIsolutions.
The report is a corporate document that should be cited in the literature in the following manner:
Assessment of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Technology: Comparison of Alternative Design

Approaches, EPRIsolutions, Palo Alto, CA: 2002. 1003966.
iii
12347402
12347402
REPORT SUMMARY
Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology represents a potential breakthrough in performance and
cost in stationary power generation. Developers, who are pursuing a variety of stack
architectures and manufacturing methods, each claim their designs will lead to this low-cost /
high-performance scenario. To put these claims in perspective, this report analyzes the
differences in stack designs and their potential impact on the technical viability and prospective
manufactured cost of each configuration.
Background
Until several years ago, the general consensus was the cost of SOFC technology (around
$1000/kW manufactured cost, potentially dropping to $800/kW) would be higher than state-of-
the-art gas turbine technology. In recent years, developments in planar thin-electrolyte (often
referred to as anode-supported) SOFC technology have led to projections of significantly lower
manufactured cost (even as low as $500/ kW). A number of manufacturers have claimed their
designs and processes will make this low cost achievable. Potential investors and supporters of
SOFC technology must understand how these design differences may impact performance and
cost. They also must understand the technical risks and potential costs of reaching projected
technology performance.
Objectives
• To provide a comparison of alternative cell/stack/system concepts.
• To provide an understanding of complex design, materials, and manufacturing issues.
• To determine which of the many SOFC technologies and configurations under development
around the world will have the greatest chance of achieving manufactured cost and performance
goals necessary for viable commercial products.
• To develop a technology roadmap for viable commercial products.
Approach
The project team conducted its analysis in two phases: (1) analyze the performance and
architecture of SOFC technologies currently under development and characterize the likely
manufacturing cost for producing volumes up to 250 MW/yr and (2) establish scenarios
characterizing the architecture and potential performance of the most promising technology
configurations and estimate the cost for manufacturing volumes up to 250 MW/yr. Within each
of these two phases, the team carried out additional steps: (a) analyze the materials used and the
system architecture; (b) assess the power density and stack durability achievable at a meaningful
cell operating voltage and high fuel conversion; (c) estimate materials intensity of stack
components, as well as stack materials cost; and, (d) determine stack fabrication cost and overall
manufacturing cost.
v
12347402
Results
The study focused on eleven designs from the major SOFC developers. These architectures can
be classified into two major groups: (1) tubular or strip designs and (2) planar designs. Each of
these groups has two sub-classes—(a) tubular or strip-design SOFCs and (b) planar bipolar
SOFCs. For each of the eleven designs, the report provides a technical description and
assessment along with a manufacturing cost assessment.
EPRI Perspective
This project indicates that planar bipolar SOFC has potential for significantly lower
manufactured stack cost than tubular designs or planar thick-electrolyte designs. This advantage
arises solely from the higher power densities these designs can achieve. The potential for
significant future improvements in the planar technology, compared to the relatively modest
potential improvements in tubular or thick-electrolyte technology, would further increase the
competitive advantage of planar thin-electrolyte SOFC. However, the technology risk associated
with planar SOFC is greater than that with the more developed tubular technology. The next few
years will be critical to planar SOFC technology as the results of technical developments
necessary to attain satisfactory performance and durability goals become apparent. If these
developments are successful, planar SOFC will become a highly competitive power generation
technology.
Keywords
Solid oxide fuel cell
Manufacturing cost
Distributed generation
Distributed resources
Technology assessment
vi
12347402
EPRIsolutions Licensed Material
ABSTRACT
Solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) technology represents a potential breakthrough in performance and
cost for stationary power generation. Until recently, however, the general consensus was the cost
of SOFC technology would be higher than state-of-the-art gas turbine technology. In recent
years, developments in planar thin-electrolyte (often referred to as anode-supported) SOFC
technology have led to projections of significantly lower manufactured cost. Developers of the
different stack architectures and manufacturing methods under development claim their designs
will achieve this low-cost / high-performance scenario. Potential investors and supporters of
SOFC technology must understand how these design differences may impact performance and
cost. They also must understand the technical risks and potential costs of reaching projected
technology performance. To help them better understand these issues, this report assesses state-
of-the-art SOFC technology, analyzing eleven designs under development by major
manufacturers.
vii
12347402
12347402
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
EPRIsolutions and the power industries have recognized for some time that fuel cell technology
could present a breakthrough in performance or cost in stationary power generation. SOFC
technology promises to offer unparalleled electrical generating efficiency (over 70% in
combined cycle operation). Until several years ago the general consensus was that the cost of this
technology (around $1000/kW manufactured cost, potentially ultimately dropping to $800/kW)
would be higher than that of state-of-the-art gas turbine technology. In the past years,
developments in planar thin-electrolyte (often referred to as anode-supported) SOFC technology
have led to projections of significantly lower manufactured cost (even as low as five hundred
dollars per kW).
Myriad stack architectures and manufacturing methods under development have been claimed to
have various benefits that supposedly will lead to this low cost. Potential investors and
supporters of SOFC technology must understand these differences in terms of the leverage they
are likely to have on the performance and cost of these technologies. Similarly they must
understand the technical risks and potential costs associated with reaching the projected
technology performance. To this end, the objectives of this study were to understand better the
relevance of differences in the stack designs and their potential impact on the technical viability
and prospective manufactured cost of each of the stack configurations.
Objectives
The objectives of this study were to provide a technology assessment of state-of-the-art SOFC
technology:
• Starting with the Siemens Westinghouse (SW) technology as a baseline, provide a
comparison of alternative cell/stack/system concepts.
• Provide an understanding of complex design, materials, and manufacturing issues
• Determine which of the myriad SOFC technologies and configurations under development
around the world will have the greatest chance of achieving manufactured cost and
performance goals necessary for viable commercial products.
• Develop a technology roadmap to guide the development to viable commercial products
Approach
To give the analysis a firm footing in current reality while recognizing the rapid progress being
made in technology development the analysis was carried in two pieces:
ix
12347402
• Analyze the performance and architecture of SOFC technologies currently under

development, and characterize likely manufacturing cost for manufacturing volumes up to
250 MW/yr.
• Establish scenarios characterizing the architecture and potential performance of the most
promising technology configurations in the future (in, say, 2010) and estimate the
manufacturing cost for manufacturing volumes up to 250 MW/yr.
For each of these pieces, several analysis steps were followed to arrive at the conclusions:
• Analyze the materials used and the system architecture
•
2
Assess the power density (in terms of W/cm ) and stack durability (in terms of % degradation
in current per 1000 hrs, and cycling capability) achievable at a meaningful cell operating
voltage (0.7 V) and high fuel conversion (preferably higher than 80%).
•
2
Estimate materials intensity of the stack (in terms of g/cm and g/kW) components, as well as
stack materials cost
• Estimate stack fabrication cost and overall manufacturing cost
Descriptions of Current SOFC Designs

The study summarized here focused on eleven designs currently being pursued by the major
SOFC developers. Table 1 and 2 summarize the characteristics of the cell and stack architectures
being pursued by the major developers currently. The myriad SOFC architectures can be divided
into two major groups: tubular or strip designs and planar designs, each with two sub-classes:
• Tubular or Strip-design SOFCs. The designs pursued by SW, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries
(MHI tubular), and Rolls Royce come under this category. In these designs the electrically
active materials are fashioned around a tube or some other enclosed volume (such as a box).
In some cases one of the active materials serves as the support (e.g. SW) while in others a
separate supporting tube is used (e.g. MHI tubular). As a result simple and robust sealing
arrangements are possible. A direct consequence of this design is that the current must flow
along some of the length of the electrodes, leading to relatively high ohmic (electronic)
resistances, particularly in the cathode (which typically has a low electrical conductivity).
The high ohmic resistances limit the maximum power density that can be attained. The
tubular or strip designs can be further categorized into high current and high-voltage designs:
– In the high current designs, such as the SW and Accumentrics designs, a single tube
constitutes a single cell, and hence produces the equivalent of the single cell voltage.
For the SW design, the large surface area per cell implies a large current per tube.
In the high voltage designs (such as MHI tubular and Rolls Royce) multiple cells are fashioned
on a single tube or box in the form of strips leading to a unit voltage that is a multiple of single
cell voltage.
x
12347402
Table 1
Summary of Reported Cell Structure for the Different Designs Currently Pursued by Developers1.
Membrane Electrolyte Electrodes Assembly (MEA) Total

Interconnect Seal Thickness
Typical Anode Electrolyte Cathode Support Per Cell
Developer Refs Operating
Temp. (C) Thickness
Thickness Thickness Thickness
Material Material Material Element Material per cell Type mm
•m •m •m
•m
Siemens [6] No hermetic
1000 Ni – YSZ2 100 YSZ 40 LSM 2200 Cathode Doped LaCrO3 85 2.2
Westinghouse seals
[7, 8] Porous walled, Sealing by
MHI: Tubular 950 Ni – YSZ 100 YSZ 150 LSM 200 hollow ceramic Doped LaCrO3 250 interconnect 0.7
tube and electrolyte

Rolls Royce 950 Ni – YSZ 1003 YSZ 10 – 20 LSM 2001 hollow ceramic Doped LaCrO3 2504 interconnect 0.6
[11, 12] Screen printed

CFCL 850 Ni – YSZ 60 YSZ 100 LSM 60 Electrolyte Ferritic steel 4000 4.2
glass seal
[13-15] Info. not
MHI: Planar 1000 Ni – YSZ 50 YSZ 50 LSM 200 Electrolyte Doped LaCrO3 5002 0.8
available
[16-19] 3rd gen. Info. not
SOFCo 800 - 920 Ni – YSZ 25 – 40 YSZ 180 LSM 15 – 25 Electrolyte 20002 2.3
Ceramics available
[20-24] Ni + Gd YSZ + LSM + Info. not
Sulzer-Hexis 950 60 150 60 •m Electrolyte 95 Cr alloy4 4800 5.1
doped CeO2 GCO2 YSZ available
[25, 26] Info. Not
TMI 950 Ni – YSZ 752 YSZ 1802 LSM 752 Electrolyte Metallic alloy 30002 3.3
available
Global [27-29] Compression
750 Ni – YSZ 1000 YSZ 10 LSM 40 Anode Ferritic steel 4000 5.1
Thermoelectric metallic seal
Honeywell5 [30, 31] 800 Ni – YSZ 10002 YSZ 10 LSM 402 Anode Metallic foil 30002,6 Glass seal 4.1
[32-35] LSM + Pressure
MSRI 650 – 800 Ni – YSZ 1500 YSZ 10 100 Anode Metallic alloy 125 1.7
YSZ sealing gasket
1
Other developers not considered in detail at this time are LBNL, LLNL, Acumentrics, and Ztek
2
Also known as Ni-cermet
3
Estimated, such that the calculated ohmic resistance is less than or equal to the measured ohmic resistance (See chapter 2 for details).
4
Assumed for the analyses in chapters 2 and 3
5
Honeywell technology was acquired by GE in 2001
6
Includes the thickness of the separator plate
xi
12347402
Table 2
Summary of Reported Cell and Stack Designs Being Pursued by the Developers
Cell Physical Design Stack Physical Design

Typical Active area per Pitch
Refs Operating Single cell Single cell Flow
Developer cell Manifold Scale-up Approach Cells per
Temp. (C) shape dimensions∗∗ Field
(cm2) inch
24 tubes (3 parallel rows of 8 tubes in
Siemens 168 cm long 2.2 Cathode: internal series) per 2 kW bundle, 12 bundles in
[6] 900 – 1000 Tubular 1083 Co-flow --
Westinghouse cm dia Anode: external parallel give 100 kW, up to 250 kW
stacks built and tested
3.3 cm long** 2.1 Cathode: internal 22 cells per 25 W tube stack, 414 stacks
MHI: Tubular [7, 8] 900 Tubular 14.2 Co-flow --
cm dia Anode: external combine into 10 kW unit
30 cells per 30 W strip, 30 strips
0.7 cells
Cathode: external manifolded into single containment
Rolls Royce [9, 10] 800 – 900 Rectangular 1.5 cm** x 6 cm 9 Co-flow per long.
Anode: Internal vessel for 1 kW unit, up to 5 kW unit
inch
planned
Cross Stack of 4x4 array cells, module size of
CFCL [11, 12] 800 - 850 Rectangular 19 x 15 cm2 *** 100 Internal 5
flow 25 kW planned
Cross 10 cells per 1 kW module stack size up
MHI: Planar [13-15] 1000 Rectangular 20 x 20 cm2 281 External 6
flow to 50 kW planned
Cross Stacks of cells stack size up to 2 kW
SOFCo [16-19] 800 - 850 Rectangular 10 x 10 cm2 100 External ?
flow planned
Cathode: external Radial Series stack of up to 70 cells/stack
Sulzer-Hexis [20-24] 950 Circular 12 cm outer dia 100 4
Anode: internal outflow stacks up to 5 kW planned
Radial Stack of cells1, mini-stacks up to 3 kW
TMI [25, 26] 950 Circular 7.5 cm outer dia 45 Internal 8
outflow planned
Global Cross Modular 1 kW stack of 15 cells 1 kW unit

[27-29] 600 –800 Rectangular 18 x 18 cm2 *** 100 Internal 4
Thermoelectric flow stacks combined up to 5 kW
12.5 cm outer Radial Cells in series, stacks up to 500 W
Honeywell [30, 31] 600 – 800 Circular 120*** Internal ?
dia. outflow planned
Cells in series, stacks up to 500 W
Cross
MSRI [32-35] 600 – 800 Rectangular 7 x 7 cm2 75 Internal currently, 2 kW modules and 50 kW 8
flow
systems planned
∗
Does not include the dimensions of the manifold in case of externally manifolded designs
**
Estimated from the stack dimensions and number of cells per stack
***
Estimated from the given stack/single cell dimensions and analysis of stack photograph
xii
12347402
• Planar bipolar SOFCs. In planar designs electrically active materials are effectively flat and
the current flows (almost entirely) perpendicular to the surfaces of each of these elements.
This design leads to minimal current conduction path length throughout the stack, and hence
to low area specific resistances. However, the planar geometry inherently necessitates a
more complex sealing arrangement than is the case in the tubular designs. To tackle this
problem, two key classes of cell designs have been developed:
– Planar circular designs in which the reactants flow in a co-flowing arrangement. The
reactants are allowed to react at the edge of the plates (the outlet) and this reduces the
amount of sealing that is required. These circular designs are co-flow designs, which
combined with the geometry causes the local current density at the edge of the cells to
be substantially lower than that in the center, especially if larger diameter cells are
used.
– Planar rectangular designs in which the reactants flow in cross-flowing arrangement.
This could provide for a more even distribution of the current density. However, in
the planar rectangular designs all four stack flows have to be manifolded and thus
sealed, which results in a longer seal length per unit area of the cell compared to the
circular designs. In the rectangular designs, further classification is possible based on
the location of the flow passages:
– Flow passages located in the interconnect: In these designs, thick interconnects
are necessary for supporting the flow passages.
– Flow passages located in the electrodes: In these designs, thin interconnects can
be used, which directly benefit the materials costs associated with the
interconnects.
In the planar design, one or more of the electrically active materials must be the support. A
second classification of the planar designs is into thick and thin electrolyte systems. The thick
electrolyte systems, in which the electrolyte is the cell support, are somewhat easier to produce,
and were the predominant type until about three years ago. However, the better performance and
lower operating temperature of the thin electrolyte designs seem to favor their development
currently and also in the future. Current thin electrolyte designs all use the anode as the support
for the ceramic cell.
Demonstrated Performance of Current SOFC Designs

The measured power densities in the SOFC stacks are summarized in Figure 1. The performance
[maximum power density at 0.7 V and high (80%) fuel utilization] of the SOFC designs differs
dramatically and depends primarily on the area specific resistance (ASR):
• Tubular or Strip Designs: As previously explained the tubular and strip geometries lead to
high ASRs because of the longer electronic conduction paths. The high ASRs limit the
2
practical power densities currently to less than 200 mW/cm . Potential improvements (short
of a breakthrough in materials conductivity) are limited, so that maximum achievable power
2
densities may be limited to 250-300 mW/cm . In addition there is a direct trade-off between
the use of electrode material and the achievable power density. On the positive side, sealing
issues are largely absent in the tubular and strip designs. Despite the modest power densities,
reasonably effective use of materials is feasible.
xiii
12347402
• Planar Designs: In principle, because of the shorter conduction lengths and hence potentially
lower ASRs, the planar designs can achieve fundamentally higher power densities. However,
with thick electrolytes and high operating temperature, this potential does not materialize.
High contact resistances and sealing challenges cause the actual power densities of thick
electrolyte designs to be typically lower than those achieved in the tubular designs. On the
2
other hand, thin-electrolyte designs have demonstrated power densities over 500 mW/cm ;
several times that of the tubular designs. These high power densities enable a highly
effective use of materials, off-setting the relatively large amount of material needed to
accommodate flow passages and seals, typically in the interconnect. The technology risk
associated with seals are indisputably more significant than with the tubular designs.
However, at this point, there is not enough information to determine which of the many
planar designs has the least risk for seal failure. That being said, it must be noted that the
circular planar designs have significantly less sealing requirement than rectangular designs.
1000
Planar Anode Supported
Single Cell
Stack
0.77 V
800
Power Density / mW cm-2
600
400
Tubular Planar Electrolyte Supported
200
0.6 V
0
CFCL
Rolls Royce
SOFCo
Global
MSRI
TMI
Honeywell
MHI Tubular
MHI Planar
SW
Sulzer-Hexis
Figure 1
Comparisons of Single Cell and Stack Power Densities. The Data Were Obtained Under
Different Operating Conditions of Temperature, Pressure, Fuel Composition and
Utilization, as Summarized in the Main Text. Most of the Data is for Cell Operation at 0.7 V,
Except as Indicated.
In addition to peak power density, stack life and cycling capability of the stack are key
performance characteristics. While in general still far too little data has been published to
provide assurance about the practical viability of SOFC in stationary DG operation, significant
progress has been made in demonstrating these capabilities. SW’s tubular design has been
operated for over 10,000 hours in their field demonstration in the Netherlands, while laboratory
testing of single cells have reportedly exceeded 40,000 hrs, each with well under 1% degradation
per 1000 hours of operation (i.e., voltage drop at a given current density). With planar designs
on the other hand, not nearly as much experience has been accumulated. Nevertheless, Global
xiv
12347402
Thermoelectric and others have demonstrated several thousand hours of operation on stacks and
the ability to survive repeated thermal cycles. This level of testing surpasses what has been
achieved with proton exchange membrane fuel cells.
The relative lack of stack durability data makes it difficult to make a quantitative comparison of
the durability of different stack designs. Tubular and strip designs have benefits in terms of
sealing, which could improve durability compared with the planar designs. With respect to the
stability of the ceramic structures it is not clear that any of the planar designs has compelling
advantages over the tubular or strip designs. Ultimately, experimental comparison will
determine which stack designs are most durable.
Looking into the future, planar bipolar stack performance could be further improved. Although
this could result in even higher current densities, it is more likely that the improved performance
0
is translated into (even) lower temperatures, perhaps even as low as 600 – 700 C. Such a
reduction in temperature would considerably reduce the cost of these systems, by allowing the
use of lower cost metal interconnect materials as well as facilitating sealing arrangements. With
respect to the tubular designs, the improvements are more limited unless higher conductivity
cathode materials are developed.
Expected Manufacturing Cost of Current SOFC Designs

The objective of the manufacturing cost assessment was to determine whether fundamental
differences between cell and stack technology, and differences in the manufacturing methods
lead to substantial differences in the manufactured costs, both during high-volume production
and during the production scale-up. This high level cost assessment is subject to the following
caveats:
• Only the cost of the core stack, seals, and manifolding that directly contacts the stack and
necessary for the stack to operate effectively, was taken into account; the cost of other system
components and subsystems was out of the scope of this study.
• Only the direct manufacturing costs were calculated, viz., costs of materials, labor,
equipment, and facilities used to produce the stacks;
• Accurate assessment of manufacturing costs is difficult due to their early stage of
development and the lack of sufficient information and limited experience manufacturing
such products;
• Materials’ yields for the steps in the manufacturing processes were taken into account to
estimate the material scrap rate
The calculated manufacturing costs for the different designs are summarized in Figure 2 and
2 1
Figure 3 for a production volume of 100,000 m active area per year . The main findings from
2
the manufacturing cost assessment are that on a $ per 100 cm of active area basis:
• The total stack costs of the tubular or strip designs lie within $ 3 to $ 4, whereas that of the
planar designs has a much wider variation from $5 to $40. The higher end of the range for
the planar designs is for the designs that require the expensive high Cr interconnects. As
each technology is further developed – we expect all to converge on a similar cost range on a
1
This corresponds to a fuel cell stack business of 200 MW/yr, assuming a power density of 200 mW/cm2.
xv
12347402
per unit area basis. Although some differences in manufacturing cost exist, even with
today’s technology status, that difference is small compared with the differences in material
cost. As operating temperatures of planar systems are reduced the interconnect material costs
will be reduced as well.
• As a fraction of the total costs, the fabrication costs are between 30 – 50 % for the tubular
designs and between 5 – 20 % for the planar designs. For the planar designs, the low fraction
of the fabrication costs is a result of the high materials costs, especially those with superalloy
interconnects.
On a $/kW basis:
• A stack cost of less than $ 300 /kW is projected for the SW design, which is consistent with
previous detailed cost analysis for this design. After including balance of plant cost
(assumed as 20 %), mark-ups and installation costs, leads to an installed cost of $ 1050 -
$1550 /kW for simple cycle sub-MW systems (see Table A2 in the Appendix).
• Clearly, the planar thin electrolyte designs have the lowest cost because of their much higher
power densities, which more than off-set their higher area specific cost. Based on the current
demonstrated performance, the cost ranges from $ 130 – $ 190 per kW. It is likely that the
balance of stack costs for such a system should be similar in cost or somewhat cheaper (due
to the lower temperature operation, lower cost recuperators may be used). Overall the
installed cost of a system based on the technology may range from over $ 900 to around 1300
$ per kW (see Table A2 in the Appendix).
• Planar thick-electrolyte designs lead to an unattractive overall cost structure. Exceptions
could be the MHI planar and SOFCO designs, provided that acceptable product and material
yields can be achieved. The low material intensity associated with those designs provides
significant benefit, which could be further increased if their power densities were somewhat
improved. The technical risk associated with these options may however also be greater than
with the SW tubular design. In particular the geometric features of the MHI design (the egg
crate shape of the ceramic cell) could in theory be used in lower-temperature thin-electrolyte
designs, but MHI seems to be making no move in that direction at all. The SOFCo design
however would not apply to low-temperature operation.
The balance of stack cost for planar thin-electrolyte systems should be about the same as that of
a tubular system or even slightly lower:
• Manifolding. Based on current technology, a single tube produces about the same power as a
single planar thin-electrolyte cell. It appears that 10 – 30 cell stacks are at least feasible, and
hence a single stack would produce about the same power as a single SW, 3x8 module.
Hence the manifolding requirements would be similar. In the case of the planar rectangular
geometries the cost may be slightly higher, because the anode and cathode exhaust tend to be
manifolded separately. For the thick-electrolyte planar systems it would appear that more
manifolding would be required, but paradoxically their developers (SOFCo, MHI, CFLC) are
targeting much greater power stacks (25 kW per stack and up). If they achieve this it will
reduce the manifolding requirements below what it would be for the other technologies, but it
is not clear what would allow thick electrolyte systems to be scaled-up further than thin-
electrolyte systems.
xvi
12347402
• Enclosure. The higher power density of planar thin-electrolyte designs may lead to a slightly
smaller enclosure, but it may be made of a somewhat cheaper material due to the lower
operating temperature. Alternatively, stacks may be insulated individually (e.g. to facilitate
the compression sealing mechanism) which would lead to a slightly larger enclosure, but
with even lower cost materials.
• Insulation. The lower operating temperature of planar thin-electrolyte designs will allow the
use of relatively conventional insulation materials. In combination with the smaller
enclosure, this will lead to a rather dramatic reduction in the insulation cost.
The balance of plant should fundamentally exist of the same components for the different
designs. However, some key differences exist:
• Recuperators. The planar thin-electrolyte systems can operate at reduced temperatures,
which significantly reduces the demands on the recuperators. First the lower operating
temperature allows the use of more cost-effective materials, but in addition, a slightly lower
recuperator efficiency may be acceptable
• Pressurized Cycles. It appears that the simpler sealing design of the tubular or strip designs
would make pressurized cycles easier to realize. Although in pressurized systems both anode
and cathode would nominally be pressurized to the same extent, this may be difficult to
achieve in practice. The pressure differences between anode and cathode are likely to be
proportional to total operating pressure to a first approximation. In general, systems in which
the anode and cathode exhausts are mixed at the end of the stack (such as the tubular and
planar circular designs) limit pressure differences to the differences in pressure drop in the
stack.
• Combined Cycles. In the case of combined cycles, waste heat from the fuel cell is typically
used in a heat engine to generate additional power. The most commonly discussed option is
the incorporation of the SOFC as (part of) the combustor in a Brayton Cycle (gas turbine).
Due to the low cost of gas turbine equipment today this could likely lead to both an increase
in efficiency and a reduction in cost. In such integration a high turbine inlet temperature
improves the performance of the turbine cycle. Hence a high SOFC operating temperature
could be a benefit in those cases. This could have a modest impact on the overall system cost.
The impact of scale on the expected stack costs was also estimated and these are summarized in
Figure 4. Two cases were considered to illustrate the impact of manufacturing volume on costs:
the tubular SW design and the planar Global design. The calculations inherently assume that the
raw material costs do not depend on the production volume. The costs per kW change for two
principal reasons:
• Increased downtime for the equipment for decreasing production capacity, reflecting frequent
stoppages and slower production rates.
• Decrease in material yields at the lower production volumes.
xvii
12347402
Costs per 100 cm 2 of Active Area / $ cm-2

10
Material in Stacks $27 $19
9 Material Scrapped
Fabrication
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Honeywell
SOFCo
Sulzer-Hexis
S-W
CFCL
MSRI
MHI Planar
MHI Tubular
Rolls Royce
Global
TMI
Figure 2
Summary of the Fabrication Costs per 100 cm2 of Active Area for a Production Volume of
100,000 m2 (Active Area) per year.
800
Material in Stacks $1,907 $1,363
Stack Module Cost / $ kW -1
700 Scrap
Fabrication
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
CFCL
MSRI
MHI Planar
MHI Tubular
Rolls Royce
SOFCo
Global
S-W
TMI
Honeywell
Sulzer-Hexis
Figure 3
Cost per kW for a Production Volume of 100,000 m2 (Active Area) per year. The Power
Densities Summarized in Chapter 3 Were Used for the Calculations.
xviii
12347402
The results of this illustrative analysis indicate that:

• The direct stack manufacturing cost at market introduction volumes (say 10-25 MW per
year) could well be three to four times higher than in high-volume (250 MW per year)
production.
• Until such volumes are reached (i.e. at production volumes less than 10 MW per year),
indirect costs may well remain at levels above $50,000 per kW.
• The cost difference on a percentage basis between the tubular and anode-supported planar
design is substantially smaller at market-introduction volumes, and is statistically
insignificant.
100,000
Total Stack Cost / $ kW-1
10,000
1,000
Tubular
Planar
100
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Annual Manufacturing Volume / MW
Figure 4
Effect of Production Scale on the Total Stack Direct Cost (Inclusive of Fabrication Costs,
Stack Materials Costs, Scrap Material Costs, Overhead Costs, and R&D Costs).
When scaling down to even lower volumes, a critical question becomes how R&D, general
administration, and overhead costs are being accounted for. The results shown in Figure 4
assume that these costs are completely included in the production cost. While down to 10
MW/year production capacity the same type of production economics apply as from 25 to 250,
below 10 MW the R&D costs start to become a significant fraction of total production cost. At 1
MW fabrication costs also become a major factor. As such, the wide range of costs currently
quoted for demonstration projects can be understood: sometimes R&D and other overhead costs
are factored into the quote, and sometimes they are not. Even when the R&D and other overhead
costs are left out, current stack production costs are estimated to be around $1000 to about $3000
xix
12347402
per kW. Taking into account the high cost of installation for the one-off demonstration projects,
it is easy to see how quotes ranging from around $6,000 to $60,000 per kW are being offered.
The accuracy with which cost-volume relationships can be established is limited, especially since
technology development progress coincides (almost inevitably) with increases in production
volume. The rate of success of technology development as a function of time and R&D spending
is generally highly uncertain, and there is clearly a strong correlation between the material use
(in the stack, as well as during the manufacturing process) and the successfulness of technology
development. Thus the following analysis is meant to be illustrative, rather than predictive. In
addition, it is important to recognize that the manufactured cost of the stack may be somewhat
de-coupled from the system price in early years. Some manufacturers may set higher prices if the
markets bear it or, perhaps more likely, “subsidize” systems to build the market. Government
incentives could have similar effects.
Future Scenarios
It is reasonable to expect that in the future the developers of both the tubular and planar designs
will be able to reduce the costs from those discussed in the preceding sections. The reduction in
costs can come from changes to basic component dimensions or from reducing the contact
resistance in the stacks. While for tubular and thin-electrolyte planar designs steady
developments are expected to lead to additional performance and cost improvements, for thick
electrolyte planar systems it appears unlikely that substantial improvements can be made without
technology breakthroughs. More likely, the thick-electrolyte developers will switch to thin-
electrolyte designs, which would require a complete stack re-design.
Here, we estimate the costs of the two primary designs, the tubular and the planar designs in a
future scenario. The potential changes to these designs and the effect of the changes are
summarized in Table 3. Figure 5 summarizes the impact of these changes on the total costs.
• For estimating the future performance of tubular designs, we assume the developers will be
able to reduce the current conduction length (e.g., by using smaller diameter tubes) and
reduce the ASR of the cell, which will also allow the use of thinner cathodes. The results
would be an improvement in the stack power density and reduction in material usage, both of
which will lower the stack costs. For example, 20 % reduction in the current conduction
length will reduce the Area Specific Resistance (ASR) and allow the use of a thinner cathode.
With the net result that the power density increases by 40 % and the cathode material
requirement decreases by 30 % for each cell.
• For estimating the future performance of the planar designs, we assume the developers will
reduce the ohmic ASR in the stack by reducing the contact resistances (by 50 %) and using
the thin electrolyte technology. In addition, we assume that the developers will use thin
interconnects (such as in the designs pursued by Materials Science Research Incorporated
(MSRI) or MHI Planar designs). These improvements will allow higher stack power
densities, lower operating temperatures, and reduced interconnects costs. With these
-2
improvements, the power density of a future planar stack can exceed 800 mW cm at 0.7 V.
• The results in Figure 5 show that with these improvements the cost of a tubular stack will
reduce the total costs from ~ 280 $/kW to ~ 130 $/kW and the improvements to the planar
stack will reduce the total costs from ~ 120 $/kW to ~ 50 $/kW.
xx
12347402
Table 3
Description of the Changes to Current Technology and the Effect of the Change for the
Future Scenario
Tubular Design Planar Anode Supported Designs

Change from
Change from current
Effect of the Change current Effect of the Change
technology
technology
• Reduction of the • Decrease in ASR, which allows a decrease in • Reduction of • Allows for
current the cathode thickness. Consequently the contact ASR operation at 600 C
conduction path power density increases and the cathode by half and with a power
length by 20 % material requirement decreases. use of thin density of 800 mW
(e.g., by reducing interconnects cm-2 at 0.7 V
the tube diameter • For a 20 % reduction in the tube diameter such as the
or using the cathode thickness can reduce from 2.2 to 1.1 MSRI or MHI • Better sealing
ribbed design, mm and stack power density can increase planar options for lower
etc.) from 160 mW cm-2 to 220 mW cm-2 designs. temperature
operation
• Even with the improvements in stack design and performance, the cost of the future tubular
design would be slightly higher than that of the current planar technology with thin-
interconnects. But the technical risk for the SW technology is quite low. Clearly, the
potential for cost reduction is higher for the planar designs. However, they are also
accompanied by higher technical risks than the tubular designs.
• The improvements in planar technology considered here would be expected to benefit stack
durability too, primarily because of the reduced operating temperature. Increases in power
density tend to increase the challenges of improving durability. As such it would appear that
durability of the tubular designs would not automatically be improved through the
improvements considered in the future scenarios.
The necessary operating temperature of the different designs primarily depends on the thickness
of the electrolyte, but also on the overall area specific resistance (ASR). As a consequence, the
tubular designs and thick-electrolyte planar designs typically require an operating temperature of
900°C or more, while the thin-electrolyte planar systems can be operated in the range between
600 – 800°C (current best-in-class performance being achieved at around 800°C). While to the
uninitiated this may seem a relatively small difference, it has tremendous consequences for the
choice of construction materials, in particular for the interconnect and the seals. At 900°C the
principal choices of viable materials (from a thermo-mechanical perspective) are ceramics and
superalloys, while at 800°C ferritic stainless steels are a viable option (though coatings may be
required). Compressive sealing arrangements would still be challenging in this temperature range
because only a limited range of materials retains good mechanical properties for cycling under
load at this temperature. This is expected to have significant consequences for the material cost
(see chapter 4). If the operating temperature can be dropped further to around 600°C a relatively
wide range of commercial stainless steels may well be used in un-coated form, further reducing
the materials cost. Perhaps more importantly, a relatively wide range of materials retains
excellent mechanical properties at this temperature, drastically widening the range of sealing
options.
Despite the many significant developments and demonstrations of SOFC power plants, further
improvements in stack performance, reliability, and manufacturing methods are necessary to
translate the SOFC into a viable power generation technology. The current status, the expected
future status, and the key developments needed are summarized in Table 4.
xxi
12347402
300
Stack Module Cost / $ kW-1

Material in Stacks
250 Scrap
Fabrication
200
150
100
50
0
Current Future Current Future Planar
Tubular Tubular Planar
Figure 5
Potential Costs for a Future Scenario, When the Developers of the Different Designs
Enhance the Power Density of the Stacks.
Summary and Conclusions

In conclusion, our analysis indicates that indeed planar bipolar SOFC have the potential for
significantly lower manufactured stack cost than tubular designs or planar thick-electrolyte
designs, even assuming current technology performance. This advantage arises solely from the
much higher power densities these designs can achieve, as their cost on a per area basis is at best
equal to that of the tubular and strip designs.
The potential for significant future improvements in the planar technology, compared to the
relatively modest potential improvements in tubular or thick-electrolyte technology would
further increase the competitive advantage of planar thin-electrolyte SOFC, and indeed make it a
highly competitive power generation technology.
However, in order to realize these benefits thin electrolyte technologies must be developed and
proven to have excellent durability. Although initial data available for the thin-electrolyte
technologies are no cause for specific concern, significant improvements will be needed, and this
is one area in which planar stack technology is behind tubular technology.
Also, planar designs have inherently more complex and challenging sealing arrangements than
do some tubular designs. In addition to the obvious technology risks for planar designs, planar
stacks may have greater difficulty operating under pressure, such as would be required in any
combined cycle with a Brayton cycle.
Finally, it is expected that many of the thick-electrolyte planar SOFC developers will eventually
migrate towards the thin-electrolyte planar SOFC designs, leading to a convergence of
performance and cost amongst planar SOFC designs, much in the way that is already the case
with the tubular designs.
SOFC Roadmap: Thoughts for the Power Industry
The electric power industry is a key market for SOFC technology. However, power industry
interests do not automatically align with those of the SOFC developers or other organizations
xxii
12347402
interested in SOFC development. For example, a number of the high-volume applications of

interest to planar SOFC developers, such as auxiliary power unit (APU) or remote power
applications, are of little interest to most power companies. The development steps required for
SOFC technology to achieve successful commercialization are listed in Table 4. While for
tubular SOFC the focus is on demonstration and commercialization activities, for planar
technology some fundamental technology development activities must precede demonstration
and commercialization. Hence, areas where the power industry can support SOFC developments
varies by technology:
• Demonstration of tubular SOFC systems. Opportunities for the power industry to influence
the SW tubular SOFC technology development may be limited, given that it has already
entered the stage of technology demonstration. Some power industry players may choose to
monitor the situation, and wait for commercially available technology. However, if tubular
SOFC technology is to become available as a viable distributed generation alternative,
additional demonstrations of systems under realistic power generation conditions (both single
cycle and perhaps combined cycle) will be needed. Demonstrations in power industry
markets will be key to commercialization of tubular SOFCs. Fortunately, the technology is
ready for demonstrations at sizes that are relevant to the power industry. Unfortunately, such
demonstrations are quite costly, and thus will require some consideration to power
companies that support them. Third-party support (such as from governments) will help, but
cannot be expected to support all commercial development. Commercial sales are expected
after two to four years of technology demonstrations.
• Technology Development of Thin-Electrolyte Planar SOFC Systems. Planar thin-electrolyte
systems require improvements in stack performance before extensive field trials can begin.
For example, stack degradation during continuous duty and cycling operation must first be
reduced to less than 1% per thousand hours. This will require improvements in seal design
for some developers as well as a further improvement of the thermo-mechanical stability of
the ceramic structures. We expect that these developments will take another 2-5 years,
depending on the developer. Some power industry players may simply monitor
developments, while others may elect to invest or partner with developers. In the product
demonstration and early commercialization phase of planar systems the power industry may
play a slightly different role than in the case of tubular systems, especially for applications
outside traditional power industry “territory.” For those companies not directly participating
in the development, this may mean that the timeframe over which the technology becomes of
commercial importance is significantly longer than for tubular system: four to eight years.
Finally, given the importance of the economy of scale to SOFC production cost and hence for
market viability, there may not be room for a very large number of SOFC players in the ultimate
market. Companies that develop a head-start in demonstration and commercialization will likely
develop a strong competitive advantage. Power companies that want to actively participate in the
SOFC business should carefully consider when to enter the market and which company to align
with. Even though the timeframe for ultimate commercialization is medium term, for those
power companies that want to play a more significant role in SOFC development, today’s
choices will likely have a significant impact on the competitive advantage they ultimately derive
from SOFC technology.
xxiii
12347402
Table 4
Summary of the Current Status, Expected Future Status, and Necessary Key
Developments for the Tubular and Planar Designs.
Key Developments Required

Design Current Status Future Scenario to Facilitate the Future
Scenarios
Tubular • Mature stack performance: • Power density marginally • Reduction in current
reliable and stable higher conduction path length
performance • Marginally lower stack • High conductivity cathode
• Low stack power densities costs material
• Expensive manufacturing • Low-cost manufacturing
• Testing of integrated multi- processes
kW systems • Long term testing of
integrated-prototype
Planar thin • Testing of individual single • Improved stack • Demonstrate reliable and long
electrolyte sub-kW sized stacks performance will allow term stable operation
• High power densities in lower temperature • Demonstrate stable operation
short time scale tests operation even with temperature cycling
• Lab-scale tests • More reliable and stable • Demonstrate stack
stack operation
• Sealing/reliability issues performance with high fuel
dominate utilization
• Demonstrate integrated
systems
• Field testing of prototypes
• Optimize manufacturing
processes
Planar • Testing of individual single • Sealing/reliability issues
Electrolyte sub-kW sized stacks dominate forcing
Supported
• Low power densities developers to resort to
thin-electrolyte
• Lab-scale tests technology
• Sealing/reliability issues
dominate
Finally, given the importance of the economy of scale in production for SOFC production cost
and hence for market viability, there may not be room for a very large number of SOFC players
in the ultimate SOFC market. Companies that develop a head-start in demonstration and
commercialization will likely develop a strong competitive advantage as a result of this. Power
companies that want to participate in the SOFC business, as partners, must carefully consider
when to enter the market and who, if anyone, they align themselves with. Even though the
timeframe for ultimate commercialization is medium term, for those power companies that want
to play a more significant role in SOFC development, today’s choices will likely have a
significant impact on the competitive advantage they ultimately derive from SOFC technology.
Keywords
Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
Manufacturing Cost
Distributed Generation
Distributed Resources
Technology Assessment
xxiv
12347402
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1

Background .................................................................................................................................. 1-1
Objectives..................................................................................................................................... 1-1
Scope & Study Limitations .......................................................................................................... 1-2
Application Area...................................................................................................................... 1-2
Current Vs Future Technology and Manufacturing Volume................................................ 1-2
Approach ................................................................................................................................. 1-2
Information Sources................................................................................................................ 1-3
2 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS..................................................................................................... 2-1

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 2-1
Current SOFC Technology descriptions .................................................................................... 2-3
Overview of the Single Cell Elements................................................................................... 2-4
Structure and Composition of the Ceramic MEA ............................................................ 2-4
Operating Temperature ................................................................................................ 2-7
Interconnects...................................................................................................................... 2-7
Seals ................................................................................................................................... 2-8
Key Issues .......................................................................................................................... 2-8
Descriptions of Current Status of Single Cell and Stack Designs ....................................2-10
Tubular or Strip Technology............................................................................................2-11
Siemens-Westinghouse Air Electrode Supported (AES) Design............................2-11
Siemens-Westinghouse High Power Density (HPD) Design ..................................2-13
MHI Tubular.................................................................................................................2-13
Rolls Royce Integrated Planar (IP) Design....................................................................2-14
Other Tubular Designs ...............................................................................................2-16
Planar Bipolar Circular Technology................................................................................2-17
Honeywell ....................................................................................................................2-17
Sulzer-Hexis ................................................................................................................2-19
xxv
12347402
Technology Management Incorporated (TMI)..........................................................2-21

Ztek ..............................................................................................................................2-23
Planar Rectangular Designs ...........................................................................................2-23
Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (CFCL)...........................................................................2-24
SOFCo (McDermott)...................................................................................................2-25
Global Thermoelectric Incorporated..........................................................................2-27
Materials and Systems Research Incorporated (MSRI) ..........................................2-28
MHI Planar Design......................................................................................................2-30
Summary and Conclusions .......................................................................................................2-31
Bibliography...........................................................................................................................2-33
3 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 3-1

Fuel Cell Electrical Performance ................................................................................................ 3-1
Electrical Performance Basics ............................................................................................... 3-1
Electrical Performance Characterization .............................................................................. 3-5
Available Performance Data .................................................................................................. 3-7
Limitations of the Available Data ...................................................................................... 3-7
Analysis of the Electrical Performance ...............................................................................3-10
Tubular Designs...............................................................................................................3-10
Planar Thick Electrolyte Designs....................................................................................3-11
Planar Thin Electrolyte Designs .....................................................................................3-12
Discussion .............................................................................................................................3-14
Performance Stability.................................................................................................................3-15
Thermal Expansion of the MEA Components ....................................................................3-16
Sealing Issues.......................................................................................................................3-19
Glass Seals .................................................................................................................3-19
Compression Seals.....................................................................................................3-19
Comparison Of The Performance Stability Of The Different Designs..............................3-20
Ability to Withstand Temperature Cycling......................................................................3-20
Degradation Rate.............................................................................................................3-21
Seal Integrity.....................................................................................................................3-21
Sealing Requirements .....................................................................................................3-22
Materials Intensity & Usage Effectiveness ..............................................................................3-24
Materials intensity .................................................................................................................3-24
Usage Effectiveness.............................................................................................................3-26
xxvi
12347402
Future Scenarios...................................................................................................................3-27
References .................................................................................................................................3-29
4 MANUFACTURING COST ASSESSMENT................................................................................ 4-1

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4-1
Limitations of the Assessment ............................................................................................... 4-1
Approach to Cost Analysis..................................................................................................... 4-2
Materials Cost Analysis ............................................................................................................... 4-3
Stack Materials Cost Results................................................................................................. 4-4
Fabrication Costs ......................................................................................................................... 4-6
Common SOFC Processing Steps........................................................................................ 4-6
Ball Mill Mixing.................................................................................................................... 4-6
Tape Casting ...................................................................................................................... 4-6
Warm Rolling / Lamination................................................................................................ 4-7
Screen Printing................................................................................................................... 4-7
Co-Firing Sintering............................................................................................................. 4-7
Potential Plant Layout............................................................................................................. 4-8
Hypothetical SOFC Stack Manufacturing Process ......................................................... 4-8
Proposed Fabrication Steps for Current SOFC Designs..............................................4-10
Fabrication Cost Results ......................................................................................................4-11
Capital Investment Cost & Labor Requirement.............................................................4-11
Process Yields ...........................................................................................................................4-13
Total Stack Cost Results...........................................................................................................4-14
Total Costs on an Area Basis .........................................................................................4-14
Total Costs on a per kW Basis .......................................................................................4-15
Cost Dependence on Scaling .........................................................................................4-17
Future Scenario..........................................................................................................................4-22
References .................................................................................................................................4-25
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 5-1

Summary of the Technology Assessment ................................................................................. 5-1
Tubular or Strip-designs......................................................................................................... 5-1
Planar bipolar SOFCs............................................................................................................. 5-2
xxvii
12347402
Future Perspective.................................................................................................................. 5-3

SOFC Roadmap: Thoughts for the Power Industry................................................................. 5-4
A APPENDIX.................................................................................................................................... A-1
Development Status of the Different SOFC Designs................................................................A-1
Estimation of Installed Costs.......................................................................................................A-2
Proposed Manufacturing Processes .....................................................................................A-2
References ...................................................................................................................................A-7
xxviii
12347402
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Schematic Depiction of the Structure and Operation of a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell
(SOFC) ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1
Figure 2-2 Depiction of the Relative Dimensions of the MEA Components for the Three
Main MEA Configurations [1] ................................................................................................... 2-7
Figure 2-3 Current Conduction Pathways in the Tubular and Strip and Planar Bipolar
Designs: The Tubular Cross Section Shown in (a) is Cut along the Line A-A and
Represented as a Planar Structure as Shown in (b). ..........................................................2-10
Figure 2-4 Schematic Description of the Siemens-Westinghouse Tubular SOFC Design.
(a) Configuration and Operation a Single Tube, (b) A Single Tube in Cross Section,
(c) Cross Section of an Array of Tubes in a Stack, (d) Novel High Power Density
Stack Design. Schematics were adapted from [6]. ..............................................................2-12
Figure 2-5 Schematic of the MHI Tubular Design. (a) Shows the Cross Section of a Part
of a Stack of Cells; (b) Shows a Cross Section of a Single Cell Along the Line y-y in
(a); (c) A Stack of Cells Connected in Series on a Single Substrate Tube.
Schematics Were Obtained From [7]....................................................................................2-14
Figure 2-6 Schematic of the Integrated Planar SOFC Design Pursued by Rolls Royce.
(a) Cross Section of a Single Cell, (b) Top View of A Strip of Cells, (c) Side View of
a Stack of Strips, (d) Photograph of Strips of Cells (From EPRI).......................................2-15
Figure 2-7 Schematic of the Design Pursued by Acumentrics [36]. ...........................................2-17
Figure 2-8 Depiction of Honeywell’s Circular Anode Supported SOFC Design. (a)
Schematic of a Pair of Single Cells, (b) Schematic of a Stack of Circular Cells, (c)
Photograph of a Five Cell Stack. The cell schematics were obtained from [37]. .............2-19
Figure 2-9 Schematic of the Circular Cell Design Pursued by Sulzer-Hexis. (a)
Schematic Available in the Public Literature of the Sulzer-Hexis Stack Technology,
(b) A Cross-Section of the Stack Based on the Picture in (a) (Not Drawn to Scale),
(c) Top View of the Stack With a Cut-Away, Showing the Positioning of the Flow
Channels. Schematics were adapted from [39]. .................................................................2-20
Figure 2-10 Schematic of the Planar Circular Design Pursued by TMI. (a) Expanded
View of Single Cell and Stack, (b) Close-Up View of Separator, Electrode, and
Electrolyte. Schematics were adapted from [40] and [25]...................................................2-22
Figure 2-11 Schematic of Planar Circular SOFC Pursued by ZTek. (a) Schematic of
Single Cell, (b) Photograph of a 1 kW Stack........................................................................2-23
Figure 2-12 Schematic of Planar Rectangular SOFC Design.....................................................2-24
Figure 2-13 CFCL’s Electrolyte Supported Design. (a) Photograph of a 38 kW (D.C.)
Stack from CFCL, (b) Side View of a Single Cell Adapted From the Photograph, (c)
Top View of a Single Cell Adapted From the Photograph. Photograph Was
Obtained From CFCL’s Website. ..........................................................................................2-25
xxix
12347402
Figure 2-14 Schematic of the Design Being Pursued by SOFCo. Schematics of the Cell
Structure Assumed .................................................................................................................2-26
Figure 2-15 Description of Global Thermoelectric's Anode Supported Design. (a)
Photograph of a 20 Cell Stack [44], (b) Photograph of Interconnect Plates [44], (c)
Schematic of the Side View of a Single Anode supported Cell, (d) Schematic of an
Interconnect Plate based on the Photograph.......................................................................2-28
Figure 2-16 Schematic of an Anode Supported Single Cell Design From MSRI. (a) MEA
Structure With Integrated Flow Channels, (b) Photograph of a 240 W Stack (EPRI).......2-29
Figure 2-17 Schematics of the planar design being pursued by MHI. (a) Shows the
Dimpled Electrodes-Electrolyte Layer; (b) Shows a Single Cell With the Non-
Conductive Seal......................................................................................................................2-31
Figure 3-1 Depiction of the Voltage Losses in a Fuel Cell. ........................................................... 3-2
Figure 3-2 Comparison of the Temperature Dependence of the Ionic and Electronic
Conductivities of the Cell Components. Conductivity Data Obtained from [3] for the
Electrolyte, [4] for the Anode, [5] for the Cathode and [6] for the Ceramic
Interconnect............................................................................................................................... 3-4
Figure 3-3 Comparison of Single Cell and Stack Performance for the Global
Thermoelectric’s Design. Data Obtained from [7]. Current Reported Electrical
Performance.............................................................................................................................. 3-6
Figure 3-4 Comparisons of Single Cell and Stack Power Densities Using the Data from
Table 3-1. The Data Were Obtained Under Different Operating Conditions of
Temperature, Pressure, Fuel Composition and Utilization, as Summarized in Table
3-1. Most of the Data is for Cell Operation at 0.7 V, except as Indicated........................... 3-9
Figure 3-5 Comparison of the Slopes of the Polarization Curves and Calculated ohmic
ASR Using the Data From Table 3-1. The Operating Conditions for the Data are
Summarized in Table 3-1......................................................................................................... 3-9
Figure 3-6 Dependence of the Power Density on the Measured ASR from Polarization
Curves. The Solid Line Represents the Power Densities at 0.7 V Calculated by
Assuming the Measured ASR is Equal to the Total Ohmic ASR, Total Overpotential
of 0.1 V, and an Open Circuit Voltage of 1.05 V. .................................................................3-14
Figure 3-7 Comparison of the Temperature Dependence of the Thermal Expansion
Coefficients of the MEA Components. The Data was taken from ref. [29]. ......................3-18
Figure 3-8 Change in Linear Length of the MEA Components When Heated from Room
Temperature. Calculations Were Based on the Data in Figure 3-7. .................................3-18
Figure 3-9 Comparison of the Seal Length Required on an Active Area Basis. The
Calculations were Based on the Descriptions and Dimensions Listed in the
Previous chapter.....................................................................................................................3-23
Figure 3-10 Comparison of the Seal Length Required on a kW basis. The Calculations
Used the Power Density Values Listed in Table 3-1. ..........................................................3-23
Figure 3-11 Stack Materials Requirement on an Active Area Basis. For the MSRI and
MHI Planar Designs, the Face Area is Used Instead of the Active Area.
Calculations Based on the Design Descriptions and Dimensions Listed in the
Previous Chapter. ...................................................................................................................3-25
Figure 3-12 Stack Materials Requirement on a Power (Watts) Basis. Calculations Based
on the Data in Figure 3-11 and the Power Densities Listed in Table 3-1. .........................3-26
xxx
12347402
Figure 4-1 Stack Material Costs for 100 cm2 of Active Area for a Production Volume of
100,000 m2 (Active Area) per year.......................................................................................... 4-4
Figure 4-2 Stack Materials Costs on a kW Basis for a Production Volume of 100,000 m2
(Active Area) per year. The Power Densities Summarized in Chapter 3 Were Used
for the Calculations................................................................................................................... 4-5
Figure 4-3 Schematic of the Layout in a Hypothetical Manufacturing Facility............................. 4-9
Figure 4-4 Capital Investment Required to Manufacture SOFCs at a Production Capacity
of 100,000 m2 of Active Area per Year..................................................................................4-11
Figure 4-5 Number of Laborers Required per Shift for the Plant Capacity Producing
100,000 m2 of Active Area per Year......................................................................................4-12
Figure 4-6 Summary of the Stack Fabrication Cost (capital, labor, operating and
maintenance costs, but not materials) for 100 cm2 of Active Area for a Production
Volume of 100,000 m2 Per Year. ...........................................................................................4-13
Figure 4-7 Total Material Yields for the SOFC Designs for the Manufacturing Steps
Listed in and for a Production Volume of 100,000 m2 per Year.........................................4-14
Figure 4-8 Summary of the Fabrication Costs per 100 cm2 of Active Area for a
Production Volume of 100,000 m2 (Active Area) per year. .................................................4-15
Figure 4-9 Cost per kW for a Production Volume of 100,000 m2 (Active Area) per year.
The Power Densities Summarized in Chapter 3 Were Used for the Calculations. ...........4-16
Figure 4-10 Break-down of Stack Costs as a Function of Manufacturing Volume for the
Tubular Design........................................................................................................................4-20
Figure 4-11 Break-down of Stack Costs as a Function of Manufacturing Volume for the
Planar Design..........................................................................................................................4-21
Figure 4-12 Effect of Manufacturing Volume on the Stack Costs for the Tubular and
Planar Designs........................................................................................................................4-22
Figure 4-13 Potential Costs for a Future Scenario, When the Developers of the Different
Designs Enhance the Power Density of the Stacks. ...........................................................4-24
Figure A-1 Process Proposed for CFCL’s Planar Electrolyte Design. Process Details
Obtained From [1], [2]...............................................................................................................A-3
Figure A-2 Process Proposed for Honeywell’s Planar Anode Supported Design. Process
Details Obtained From [3], [4] ..................................................................................................A-3
Figure A-3 Process Proposed for MSRI’s Planar Anode Supported Design. Process
Details Obtained From [5] ........................................................................................................A-4
Figure A-4 Process Proposed for Sulzer-Hexis Planar Electrolyte Supported Design.
Process Details Obtained From [6] .........................................................................................A-4
Figure A-5 Process Proposed for SOFCO’s Planar Electrolyte Supported Design.
Process Details Obtained From [7] .........................................................................................A-5
Figure A-6 Process Proposed for Global Thermoelectric’s Planar Anode Supported
Design. Process Details Obtained From [8], [9] ....................................................................A-5
Figure A-7 Process Proposed for MHI’s Tubular Design. Process Details Obtained From
[10] .............................................................................................................................................A-6
Figure A-8 Process Proposed for MHI’s Tubular Design. Process Details Obtained From
[11] .............................................................................................................................................A-6
xxxi
12347402
12347402
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1 Scope of Technology Assessments............................................................................... 1-2

Table 2-1 Summary of Reported Cell Structure for the Different Designs Currently
Pursued by Developers............................................................................................................ 2-5
Table 2-2 Summary of Reported Cell and Stack Designs Being Pursued by the
Developers ................................................................................................................................ 2-6
Table 3-1 Summary of the Performance Data for the Different Designs Collected from
the Literature ............................................................................................................................. 3-8
Table 3-2 Summary of the Performance Stability Data Collected From the Literature ............3-17
Table 3-3 Stack Materials Density.................................................................................................3-24
Table 3-4 Description of the Changes to Current Technology and the Effect of the
Change for the Future Scenario ............................................................................................3-27
Table 4-1 Material Requirements for the Siemens-Westinghouse Tubular and Global
Thermoelectric Planar Designs for an Annual Production Volume of 250 MW................... 4-3
Table 4-2 Assumed Values of the Stack Material Costs for High-Volume Production of
SOFC Stacks. ........................................................................................................................... 4-4
Table 4-3 Summary of the Number of Process Steps Assumed for the Manufacture of
Each Design............................................................................................................................4-10
Table 5-1 Summary of the Current Status, Expected Future Status, and Necessary Key
Developments for the Tubular and Planar Designs............................................................... 5-6
Table A-1 Status of Stack Testing by the Different Developers ...................................................A-1
Table A-2 Rough Estimation of the Installed Costs for the Current Tubular and Planar
Anode Supported Designs.......................................................................................................A-2
xxxiii
12347402
12347402
1
INTRODUCTION
Background
EPRIsolutions and the power industries have recognized for some time that fuel cell technology
could present a breakthrough in performance or cost in stationary power generation. SOFC
technology promises to offer unparalleled electrical generating efficiency (over 70% in
combined cycle operation). Until several years ago the general consensus was that the cost of this
technology would be higher (around $1000/kW manufactured cost, potentially ultimately
dropping to $800/kW) than that of state-of-the-art gas turbine technology. In the past years,
developments in planar thin-electrolyte (often anode-supported) SOFC technology have led to
projections of significantly lower manufactured cost (even as low as five hundred dollars per
kW).
Myriad stack architectures and manufacturing methods have been claimed to have various
benefits that supposedly will lead to this low cost. Potential investors and participants in SOFC
technology must understand these differences in terms of the leverage they are likely to have on
the performance and cost of these technologies. Similarly they must understand the technical
risks and potential costs that are associated with reaching the projected technology performance.
To this end, this study assesses the ongoing activities in SOFC development and the relevance
and viability of difference approaches being pursed.
Objectives
The objective of this report is therefore to provide a technology assessment of the of state-of-the-
art SOFC technology:
• Starting with the Siemens Westinghouse (SW) tubular technology as a baseline, provide a
comparison of alternative cell/stack/system concepts.
• Provide an understanding of complex design, materials, and manufacturing issues
• Determine which of the myriad SOFC technologies and configurations under development
around the world will have the greatest chance of achieving manufactured cost and
performance goals necessary for viable commercial products. Determine which
configurations are most suitable for which products (i.e., as a function of size (kW rating) of
product.)
• Develop a technology roadmap to guide the development to viable commercial products
1-1
12347402
Introduction
Scope & Study Limitations
Application Area
This assessment of SOFC technology is focused on distributed, on-site generation and co-
generation applications for industrial and commercial/institutional customers. The emphasis is on
capacities between 250 kW and several MW. Smaller and larger scale applications are
considered but are not the focus of the study. The primary fuel considered is natural gas. The
assessment covers the entire SOFC stack: the unit cells, balance of stack (e.g. tie bolts,
tubesheets, insulation, and stack containment), and the manifolding of the stack streams to the
unit cells (in many cases this is done internally). However, the analysis is focused on unit cell
architectures (electrodes, electrolyte, and interconnects) given their predominant impact on stack
performance and cost.
Current Vs. Future Technology and Manufacturing Volume
For the cost estimates this study has considered we will also consider modest as well as high
production volumes and actual current as well as projected future technology. An overview of
this aspect of the scope is provided in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1
Scope of Technology Assessments
Current Technology Future Technology
Modest Production
Volume 3 2
High Production
Volume 3 3
The future technology scenario is based on our projections of the technology’s performance at
the time of commercial introduction of the technology (generally towards the end of this decade).
The projections are consistent with successful execution of ongoing, plausible, and well-defined
R&D programs aimed at achieving specific technical changes in the system that lead to the
improvements.
Approach
To give the analysis a firm footing in current reality while recognizing the rapid progress being
made in technology development, the analysis was carried out in two pieces:
• Analyze the performance and architecture of SOFC technologies currently under
development, and characterize likely manufacturing cost for manufacturing volumes up to
250 MW/yr.
1-2
12347402
Introduction
• Establish scenarios characterizing the architecture and potential performance of the most
promising technology configurations in the future (in, say, 2010) and estimate the
manufacturing cost for manufacturing volumes up to 250 MW/yr.
For each of these pieces, several analysis steps were followed to arrive at the conclusions:
• Analyze the materials used and the system architecture (including sketches of the stack and
cell structure).
• Assess the power density (in terms of W/cm2) and stack durability (in terms of % degradation
in current per 1000 hrs, and cycling capability) achievable at a meaningful cell operating
voltage (0.7 V) and high conversion (preferably higher than 80%).
• Estimate materials intensity of the stack (in terms of g/cm2 and g/kW) components, as well as
stack materials cost
• Estimate stack fabrication cost and overall manufacturing cost
Information Sources
The analysis carried out in this study is entirely based on publicly available information. Given
the paucity of detailed information on the structure of individual stack designs (especially in the
area of sealing and interconnect designs), as well as on the manufacturing methods, judicious
estimates and analogies had to be invoked to complete the picture for each of the technologies
considered. In addition, because there is no standardized method for SOFC stack performance
measurements performance data are provided for a wide variety of operating conditions. As a
result the data can be difficult to compare with one another.
Given these limitations it is quite possible that for some of the technologies the technology
described is not the “latest and greatest”. The descriptions of the technologies are meant more to
illustrate the differences in stack design than the competitiveness of each of the current players.
Finally, a review of patent positions or patent protection for competitive advantage was outside
of the scope of this work.
1-3
12347402
12347402
2
TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS
Introduction
Before we describe the different Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) technologies in detail, it is useful
to briefly revisit the workings and main components of the SOFC, to provide a common basis for
understanding and terminology for the technology descriptions.
A SOFC is an electrochemical device that converts the chemical energy in a fuel to useful
electrical energy. Figure 2-1 describes the typical SOFC structure and the operation. The SOFC
consists of an anode and a cathode separated by a ceramic ion-conducting electrolyte. In most
SOFC technologies under development today, the electrolyte conducts oxygen ions (O2-). In a
single cell the electrolyte-Membrane Electrode Assembly (MEA) is connected to a pair of
interconnects. Multiple single cells are electrically connected in series to form a stack.
2 e-
x H2 O2
O2-
Inter-
Anode Electrolyte Cathode
connect
Flow channel
H2 + O2- = H2O + 2 e- 1/2 O2 + 2 e- = O2-
H2 + 1/2 O2 = H2O
Figure 2-1
Schematic Depiction of the Structure and Operation of a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC)
In operation, fuel is oxidized at the anode/electrolyte interface and oxidant reduced at the
cathode/electrolyte interface. Note that electrochemical reactions take place only at or near the
2-1
12347402
Technical Descriptions
three-phase boundary (TPB1) between the feed gas, the electrode and the electrolyte. The overall
reaction taking place in a SOFC (as in any fuel cell) is essentially a combustion reaction that is
separated in space by the ion-conducting electrolyte, thereby forcing the electrons that are
released in fuel oxidation through an external circuit (the load) before they are consumed in the
reduction reaction at the cathode. The circuit is completed inside the cell by the transfer of ions
between the electrodes.
Each element in the fuel cell performs several different functions, all of which are essential for
good fuel cell performance.
Anode: The anode in a SOFC is a porous layer that facilitates diffusion of reactants to and
products from the reaction zone, conduction of electrons and heat from the reaction zone. The
anode is typically made of Ni-cermet, i.e., Ni particles enveloped by a thin layer of Yttria-
Stabilized Zirconia (YSZ). The Ni-cermet becomes an electronic conductor for Ni mole
fractions greater than 30 % (on a molar basis). Addition of YSZ prevents sintering of the Ni
particles, reduces the thermal expansion coefficient of Ni to be close to that of the electrolyte,
aids in the adhesive bonding of the anode to the electrolyte, and increases the effective length of
the three-phase boundary (TPB) [1]. The TPB is the only place where electrochemical reactions
can occur. Ni is an excellent catalyst for electrooxidation of H2 and CO and for the steam
reforming of partially reformed hydrocarbons. The overpotential2 for oxidation of H2 and for
partially reformed natural gas (with steam to carbon (S/C) ratios between 1 - 2.5) was less than
30 mV for a current density of 200 mA cm-2 and cell voltage of ~ 0.7 V and 900 C [2]. High
values for the S/C ratios are necessary to avoid coking on the anode, but at the same time,
increase in water concentration also reduces the thermodynamic driving force for the overall fuel
cell reaction and hence reduces the open circuit voltage.
Electrolyte: The electrolyte in a SOFC is a dense layer with negligible porosity. The electrolyte
transports O2- ions from the cathode to the anode and keeps the oxidant and fuel from directly
mixing with each other. The electronic conductivity of the electrolyte must be negligible so as to
prevent short-circuiting of the cell. YSZ is the typical electrolyte used with the mole percent of
Yttrium usually between 3 – 10 %. The ionic conductivity of YSZ increases with temperature
and at 1000 °C it roughly equals that of room temperature liquid electrolytes such as sulfuric
acid. Alternative electrolytes based on Ceria and Lanthanum Gallate have also been developed
with the aim of optimizing conductivity, mechanical properties, and bonding characteristics with
the electrodes while allowing lower temperature operation compared with conventional YSZ
electrolytes [3, 4]. The SOFC typically operates at elevated temperatures ranging from 500 to
1000 °C so as to minimize the voltage drop associated with ionic conduction. In traditional
planar designs, electrolyte thickness was approximately 150 – 180 mm. Newer designs using 10
– 20 µm thick YSZ allowed operation at a lower temperature with lower ohmic losses.
1
The three phase boundary (TPB) exists on both electrodes and is defined as the interface between the reactant gas,
electrolyte, and electrocatalyst. Electrocatalytic reactions in a fuel cell involve the neutral gas molecules, electrolyte
ions, and electrons from the electrocatalyst. Therefore, the electrocatalytic reactions can take place only at the TPB.
2
The overpotential (described in detail later) for an electrode reaction is a measure of the extent of deviation from
equilibrium and hence a measure of the electrode inefficiency.
2-2
12347402
Cathode: The cathode in a SOFC is a porous layer that facilitates the diffusion of the oxidant to
the reaction zone and conduction of electrons to and heat way from the reaction zone. The
cathode is typically made up of LaMnO3 suitably doped with rare earth and alkali metals such as
strontium (Sr). LaMnO3 itself is a p-type perovskite that shows reversible oxidation-reduction
behavior. The electronic conductivity of the material is due to electron hopping between the 3 +
and 4 + valence states of Mn [1]. It has been shown that incorporation of YSZ into the LSM
significantly reduces the cathode overpotential for oxygen reduction reaction. In fact, increasing
the YSZ from 40 to 60 wt % in the LSM layer increased the power density by about 60 % [5].
The reason is the increased length of the three-phase boundary.
Interconnect: The interconnect element is an electrically conductive layer that electrically

connects unit cells within the stack. In addition, it often has other functions including heat
management, the distribution of reactants over the anode and cathode surfaces (at least in planar
bipolar stack designs), and separation of gases in single cells that are connected in series in a
stack (For example in a bipolar stack). The interconnect material must have high electronic
conductivity, and be stable under the very harsh SOFC operating conditions (high temperatures
accompanied by oxidizing or reducing gases) in the fuel cell. In addition, in some designs, such
as planar bipolar designs, the material must be impenetrable to gases. The choice of interconnect
material depends on the operating temperature. For cells operating at temperatures less than 850
°C, metallic interconnects are being contemplated (likely coated with protective metallic oxides
such as Mn or Ni), whereas higher temperature cells typically require the use of ceramic electron
conductors [1].
Current SOFC Technology Descriptions
Developers of SOFC technology are pursuing myriad cell and stack designs. While this variety
is typical in the early phases in a technology’s development, it is worth noting the differences
between SOFC stack designs currently pursued are far more drastic than those between Polymer
Electrolyte Fuel Cell stack designs being pursued. Although one might think this is due only to
the early stage of development of SOFC technology, it is as much a function of one the major
issues facing SOFC developers: sealing of the cells. This necessitates stack construction
solutions (such as tubular designs), which reduce or eliminate the sealing requirement. By
contrast, in PEMFC designs sealing is relatively easy, thus clearly favoring the bipolar planar
design, which, absent any mechanical constraints, clearly leads to the highest power density and
the most efficient use of materials.
Potential advantages and disadvantages accompany each of the designs from the viewpoint of
performance, performance stability, materials cost, and manufacturing cost. Reported and
claimed differences between the designs in current and projected performance are a function of
both the basic cell and stack designs and of the stage of development of particular designs. This
study assesses how differences in cell and stack design contribute to these potential advantages
or disadvantages. This chapter provides a brief description of the major designs currently under
development and their current status. The next chapter critically analyzes the expected or
demonstrated performance of each design to assess the effect of the design on the overall
performance and cost. The description of the future technology options starts in the next chapter,
since it is not particularly illuminating to speculate on future stack architectures prior to
2-3
12347402
establishing a thorough understanding of the performance and cost implications of architecture

changes.
Table 2-1 summarizes the materials and dimensions of the elements in a single cell, and Table 2-
2 summarizes the physical characteristics of the single cell and stack designs reported by the
major developers. The information presented in these Tables was gathered from data available
in the public literature [1] and represents the best data currently publicly available. Reasonable
assumptions were made where information was unavailable and this is indicated explicitly in the
footnotes accompanying the Tables. Nevertheless, it may well be the case that some developers
are pursuing rather different designs and have achieved better performance than they have
published so far. Therefore, the attempt here was to characterize the fundamental differences in
the designs, and the consequences thereof for stack performance and cost. In light of this, future
scenarios are considered in the next chapter for more-or-less generic technologies, rather than
extrapolating the performance of each individual technology.
Overview of the Single Cell Elements
Before summary descriptions of each technology are developed, it is useful to make a few broad
observations based on the data in Table 2-1.
Structure and Composition of the Ceramic MEA
Most developers are employing more or less the same basic materials for the electrodes (Ni-YSZ
anode and doped LSM cathode) and the YSZ electrolyte. However, the electrode structure and
thickness of the elements varies from design to design. In theory, the thickness of the individual
MEA elements does not have to exceed 10-20 µm for performing their individual functions.
However, because the MEA is composed of brittle ceramics, some mechanical support is
required during processing and subsequent assembly. In most designs, one of the electrodes or
the electrolyte is made sufficiently thick to provide the necessary support. Some developers are
using a separate element to support the active components of the system, complicating the
structure but also allowing minimization of the thickness of the active layers.
Accordingly, the designs are usually classified according to the thickness of the electrolyte or
electrode, e.g., the tubular design from SW is a cathode supported structure. Figure 2-2 shows a
‘to-scale’ depiction of the relative thickness of the MEA elements with dimensions taken from
the data in Table 2-1. The relative thickness of the layers varies a great deal between the
designs. As may be expected, different MEA configurations give rise to significant differences
in ohmic voltage losses, reaction kinetics, diffusion, etc. In fact the temperature of operation can
be correlated with the MEA structure, with the thinner elements allowing lower operating
temperatures.
2-4
12347402
Table 2-1
Summary of Reported Cell Structure for the Different Designs Currently Pursued by Developers
Membrane Electrolyte Assembly (MEA) Total

Interconnect Seal Thickness
Typical Anode Electrolyte Cathode Support Per Cell
Developer Refs Operating
Temp. (C) Thickness
Thickness Thickness Thickness
Material Material Material Element Material per cell Type mm
•m •m •m
•m
Siemens [6] No hermetic
1000 Ni – cermet 100 YSZ 40 LSM 2200 Cathode Doped LaCrO3 85 2.2
Westinghouse seals

MHI: Tubular 950 Ni – cermet 100 YSZ 150 LSM 200 hollow ceramic Doped LaCrO3 250 interconnect 0.7

Rolls Royce 950 Ni – cermet 1001 YSZ 10 – 20 LSM 2001 hollow ceramic Doped LaCrO3 2502 interconnect 0.6
[11, 12] Screen printed

CFCL 850 Ni – cermet 60 YSZ 100 LSM 60 Electrolyte Ferritic steel 4000 4.2
glass seal
[13-15] Info. not

MHI: Planar 1000 Ni – cermet 50 YSZ 50 LSM 200 Electrolyte Doped LaCrO3 5002 0.8
available
rd
[16-19] 3 gen. Info. not
SOFCo 800 - 920 Ni – cermet 25 – 40 YSZ 180 LSM 15 – 25 Electrolyte 20002 2.3
Ceramics available
[20-24] Ni + Gd YSZ + LSM + Info. not

Sulzer-Hexis 950 60 150 60 •m Electrolyte 95 Cr alloy4 4800 5.1
doped CeO2 GCO2 YSZ available
[25, 26] Info. Not

TMI 950 Ni – cermet 752 YSZ 1802 LSM 752 Electrolyte Metallic alloy 30002 3.3
available
Global [27-29] Compression

750 Ni – cermet 1000 YSZ 10 LSM 40 Anode Ferritic steel 4000 5.1
Thermoelectric metallic seal
Honeywell [30, 31] 800 Ni – cermet 10002 YSZ 10 LSM 402 Anode Metallic foil 30002,3 Glass seal 4.1
[32-35] LSM + Pressure

MSRI 650 – 800 Ni – cermet 1500 YSZ 10 100 Anode Metallic alloy 125 1.7
YSZ sealing gasket
1
Estimated, such that the calculated ohmic resistance is less than or equal to the measured ohmic resistance (See chapter 3 for details).
2
Assumed for the analyses in chapters 2 and 3
3
Includes the thickness of the separator plate
2-5
12347402
Table 2-2
Summary of Reported Cell and Stack Designs Being Pursued by the Developers
Cell Physical Design Stack Physical Design

Typical
Active area per Pitch
Developer Refs Operating Single cell Single cell Flow
cell Manifold Scale-up Approach Cells per
Temp. (C) shape dimensions∗ Field
(cm2) inch
24 tubes (3 parallel rows of 8 tubes in
Siemens 168 cm long 2.2 Cathode: internal series) per 2 kW bundle, 12 bundles in
[6] 900 – 1000 Tubular 1083 Co-flow --
Westinghouse cm dia Anode: external parallel give 100 kW, up to 250 kW
stacks built and tested
3.3 cm long** Cathode: internal 22 cells per 25 W tube stack, 414 stacks
MHI: Tubular [7, 8] 900 Tubular 14.2 Co-flow --
2.1 cm dia Anode: external combine into 10 kW unit
30 cells per 30 W strip, 30 strips

0.7 cells
Cathode: external manifolded into single containment
Rolls Royce [9, 10] 800 – 900 Rectangular 1.5 cm** x 6 cm 9 Co-flow per long.
Anode: Internal vessel for 1 kW unit, up to 5 kW unit
inch
planned
Cross Stack of 4x4 array cells, module size of

CFCL [11, 12] 800 - 850 Rectangular 19 x 15 cm2 *** 100 Internal 5
flow 25 kW planned
Cross 10 cells per 1 kW module stack size up

MHI: Planar [13-15] 1000 Rectangular 20 x 20 cm2 281 External 6
flow to 50 kW planned
Cross Stacks of cells stack size up to 2 kW

SOFCo [16-19] 800 - 850 Rectangular 10 x 10 cm2 100 External ?
flow planned
Cathode: external Radial Series stack of up to 70 cells/stack

Sulzer-Hexis [20-24] 950 Circular 12 cm outer dia 100 4
Anode: internal outflow stacks up to 5 kW planned
Radial Stack of cellsi, mini-stacks up to 3 kW

TMI [25, 26] 950 Circular 7.5 cm outer dia 45 Internal 8
outflow planned
Global Cross Modular 1 kW stack of 15 cells 1 kW unit

[27-29] 600 –800 Rectangular 18 x 18 cm2 *** 100 Internal 4
Thermoelectric flow stacks combined up to 5 kW
12.5 cm outer Radial Cells in series, stacks up to 500 W

Honeywell [30, 31] 600 – 800 Circular 120*** Internal ?
dia. outflow planned
Cells in series, stacks up to 500 W

Cross
MSRI [32-35] 600 – 800 Rectangular 7 x 7 cm2 75 Internal currently, 2 kW modules and 50 kW 8
flow
systems planned
∗
Does not include the dimensions of the manifold in case of externally manifolded designs
**
Estimated from the stack dimensions and number of cells per stack
***
Estimated from the given stack/single cell dimensions and analysis of stack photograph
2-6
12347402
Cathode
Electrolyte
Anode
Thin Thick Siemens-

electrolyte electrolyte Westinghouse
design design tubular design
Figure 2-2
Depiction of the Relative Dimensions of the MEA Components for the Three Main MEA
Configurations [1]
Operating Temperature
The cathode supported tubular design pursued by SW operates at high temperatures to achieve
good cell conductivity. The high operating temperature lowers the electronic resistance through
the cathode and electrolyte. In the planar designs, the ionic conductivity of the electrolyte
dominates the ohmic voltage loss. For the thick electrolyte cells it means that they must operate
at temperatures typically greater than 850 °C in order to reduce the ionic resistance of the
electrolyte. In contrast, the ionic resistance in the thin-electrolyte cells is reduced by reduction in
the thickness of the electrolyte itself. This leads to reasonable voltage losses even at
temperatures lower than 800 °C.
Originally, most designs followed an electrolyte-supported approach, because it appeared to

provide the easiest way to manage differential thermal expansion problems. This architecture
necessitated an electrolyte thickness of more than 100 µm, resulting in low electrolyte
conductance. Over the past seven years (and especially the past four) the industry has
recognized that thin-electrolytes fundamentally provide better cell performance. As a
consequence, most developers are pursuing anode-supported or cathode-supported designs, even
if they are not always the technology they target for initial market introduction. For example,
both CFCL and Sulzer-Hexis are pursuing anode supported designs, even though the first
products will feature the older and more tested electrolyte supported cells.
Interconnects
With reference to Table 2-1, the interconnect materials fall broadly into either ceramics or metals
and are related to the operating temperature. Cells that operate at temperatures less than 850 °C
2-7
12347402
use metallic interconnects, whereas at higher temperatures, the ceramic materials are used.
Metallic interconnects have several advantages including easy fabrication, and superior thermal
and electronic conductivities. Metal alloys suitable for high temperature operation include nickel
alloys and superalloys or ferritic stainless steels – the choice of a particular material depends on
the operating temperature. Ferritic steels and Nickel alloys are typically used for lower
temperatures than the high chromium steels. In the case of the high Cr steels, a conductive scale
of Cr2O3 forms on the interconnect surface (on both the anode and cathode sides), which protects
the metal against corrosion. The presence of water in the environment can facilitate the growth
of the oxide layer. However, at high temperatures on the cathode side, the oxides and
hydroxides of Cr (Cr6+) evaporate and deposit on the cathode and electrolyte leading to
performance degradation. Typically, a protective coating is applied to the metallic interconnect
to reduce the evaporation of the Cr oxides and to maintain a low interfacial resistance [33].
Seals
Seals ensure that the reactant gases are confined to their respective cell chambers, thus ensuring
that the reactants do not mix anywhere within the fuel cell, and also prevent gases from leaking
to outside environment. These are critical functions for safe SOFC operation since any mixing
of the reactants may lead to an explosive situation (fuel and air mixed at high temperature). An
additional challenge is that seal integrity must be ensured through a sufficient number of start-up
and shut-down procedures to satisfy stack life requirements. Because the majority of the
components of the SOFC are made of brittle ceramic materials with poor thermal conductivity
and often significantly varying coefficients of thermal expansion, they can develop significant
stresses in the presence of thermal gradients. Thermal gradients typically arise during transient
operation, such as observed during start-up or shutdown. The above requirements mean that the
seal material must have a thermal expansion coefficient similar to the rest of the SOFC materials,
over a wide range of temperatures (25 °C – 1000 °C). Clearly, the seal design will depend on the
physical construction of the stack. All these construction issues are complicated by the large
number and length of the seals required in some planar SOFC designs.
In addition to the seal geometry, the choice of seal material is challenging. A certain degree of
compliance in the material is desirable, but at the same time the material must retain some
mechanical strength. However, at the high SOFC operating temperatures many materials suffer
from stress relaxation and considerable weakening. Glasses, metals, and certain ceramics have
been proposed as seal materials.
Key Issues
The structure and materials properties of the single cell elements may give rise to key
performance issues. These issues will be elaborated in the next Chapter, but are mentioned here
briefly prior to descriptions of the different technologies.
1. Performance
• Voltage Losses: When a load is applied across a cell, the voltage measured across the fuel
cell is lower than the thermodynamic potential. The decrease is due to voltage losses arising
from:
2-8
12347402
– Electrode overpotential: A finite overpotential, that is potential over and above that
predicted by thermodynamics, is necessary to sustain a certain reaction rate (or
current density). For a given current density, the overpotential varies with
temperature, concentration of the reactants at the TPB, length of the TPB, etc.
– Ionic resistance: The ionic resistance in the electrolyte results in an Ohmic-voltage
loss between the electrodes that is proportional to the ionic resistance.
– Electronic resistance: The electronic resistance of the anode, cathode, and the
interconnects, results in an Ohmic-voltage loss. The voltage loss is proportional to
the resistance.
– Contact resistance: The contact resistance between the various elements also behaves
as ohmic resistance. The contact resistance is determined by the structure and shape
of the cells and stacks, and may change with operating conditions. For example, any
separation of the layers may cause significant increase in the contact resistance.
• Gas distribution: gas distribution can compound the voltage losses:
– If the gas distribution within the cell is not uniform, then only a fraction of the total
active area will be useful for energy conversion. Moreover, the rate of reaction will
vary over the active area, leading to temperature gradients, which can lead to thermal
stresses.
– The flow field of the reactants, i.e., co-flow, counter-flow or cross-flow, also affects
the temperature distribution and hence the reaction rates. Co-flow operation may lead
to a more uniform temperature distribution when compared to cross-flow.
2. Performance Stability: The dimensions of the different elements in a single cell may respond
differently to changes in temperature. This could compound the voltage losses listed above:
– Increase in contact resistance: The elements can delaminate under certain conditions,
which may lead to an increase in contact resistance.
– Seal integrity: The delamination of the elements may also lead to seal failure, which
could lead to a decrease in the thermodynamic driving voltage, and lead to a
potentially explosive situation.
– Corrosion: The interconnects, especially the metallic interconnects, are susceptible to
corrosion, which may also lead to poisoning of the electrolyte or the cathode (hence
an increase in the ionic resistance or the cathode overpotential). This loss in
performance occurs over a period of time and is represented by decay in cell voltage
(mV/hr).
3. Materials Intensity and Usage Effectiveness: The volume of cell components (interconnects,
electrodes and electrolyte) required per cell (material intensity) would depend on the cell
design and dimensions. Depending on the cell performance, however, to produce a watt of
power, some designs may require more material than the others (usage effectiveness).
2-9
12347402
Descriptions of Current Status of Single Cell and Stack Designs
The physical designs pursued by the different developers are summarized in Table 2-1. Designs
are broadly classified into tubular (or strip) and planar bipolar designs. In general, the tubular
and strip designs require no hermetic seals and hence are robust, but have inherently high ohmic
resistance. The electrolytes for the tubular or strip designs do not need to be thick (although they
currently range from 20 to 150 micron). The planar bipolar designs all require seals, but have the
potential for very low ohmic resistances (and hence very high current densities).
Differences in current flow patterns in the two configurations (summarized in Figure 2-3), leads
to the vastly different ohmic resistances. Figure 2-3a and Figure 2-3b show the cross section and
current conduction pattern in tubular SOFCs. For ease of illustration, the tubular cross section
shown in Figure 2-3a is cut along the line A-A and represented as a planar geometry in Figure 2-
3b. Figure 2-3c and Figure 2-3d show the cross section and the current conduction pattern in the
planar SOFC design.
a) Tubular Design in Cross Section b) Current Flow Pattern in the Tubular Design
Electrolyte
2.2 cm dia Anode
A A e-
e-
O 2-
Cathode
Cathode Anode
3.5 cm
Electrolyte
Cathode Anode
interconnect interconnect
Electronic conduction path length per electrode: ~ 3.5 cm
c) Planar Design in Cross Section d) Current Flow Pattern in the Planar Design
Electrolyte Electrolyte
Cathode Cathode
Anode Anode
Cathode Anode
interconnect interconnect e- O 2- e-
Interconnect
0.01 - 1 mm
Electronic conduction path length per electrode: ~ 0.1 - 1 mm
Figure 2-3
Current Conduction Pathways in the Tubular and Strip and Planar Bipolar Designs: The
Tubular Cross Section Shown in (a) is Cut along the Line A-A and Represented as a Planar
Structure as Shown in (b).
For the tubular or strip designs, the ionic current flow is normal to the electrolyte, but the
electronic current flow is parallel to the surface of the electrodes along the length and the
diameter. For the tubular design the electronic resistance decreases with an increase in electrode
thickness (because the electrons must travel within the plane of the electrode) and a decrease in
electrode length or diameter. This feature is significant because of the modest electrical
conductivity of the cathode in all current tubular and strip designs. For the planar design, on the
other hand, the current flow is primarily perpendicular to the plane of the electrolyte and the
2-10
12347402
electrodes. In this case the electronic resistance decreases with a decrease in electrode thickness
and is independent of electrode length. The electronic resistance in the tubular designs is higher
than in the planar designs because, typically, the length of the electrode is greater than its
thickness. As will be shown in the next chapter, the long current conduction path length limits
the power density that can be achieved in the tubular designs. The planar design, on the other
hand, has the potential for minimizing the total ohmic voltage loss and hence for high power
density operation.
The planar bipolar designs can be further classified as planar circular or planar rectangular. The
following sections describe the construction and operation of the different designs.
Tubular or Strip Technology
Siemens-Westinghouse Air Electrode Supported (AES) Design
The tubular design being pursued by SW is in the most advanced stage of development
compared to all other SOFC designs. This design is also the best described in the public
literature. Furthermore it is the only design with which there is long-term operating experience
(~10,000 hrs) with a more-or-less full-scale stack in power production. Hence it is useful as a
benchmark for other designs. Figure 2-4 depicts the tubular SOFC design.
Construction: The cell consists of a porous hollow tube, closed at one end, and made of the
cathode material (as the support) with electrolyte and anode layers deposited on this cathode tube
in relatively thin layers. The cathode interconnect contacts part of the cathode as shown in
Figure 2-4a and Figure 2-4b, whereas a nickel felt makes contact with the anode on the outside
of the tube (shown in Figure 2-4c). In a stack, several (typically six) tubes are arranged in
bundles with 2x3 cells in parallel and series (as shown in Figure 2-4c) to provide a bundle
voltage of around 1.4 V. A typical stack module comprises 1152 cells arranged in 12 rows, with
each row made up of 24 cells (8 cells in electrical series and 3 cells in electrical parallel) to
provide a module voltage of 5-6 V and a module power around 200-400 W. Modules can then
be combined to boost both voltage and power as necessary for the application. Each module has
its own tube-sheet (and manifolding) but all modules can be placed in a single containment
vessel (pressurized if necessary).
Operation: In operation the fuel and oxidant flow in a co-flow fashion (Figure 2-4a). A centrally
located alumina tube preheats and injects air on the inside and near the end of the closed tube,
while fuel flows on the outside of the cell over the anode. The spent gases mix at the outlet of
the cell and are allowed to pass into a plenum (not shown) where they are combusted. Steam
reforming catalyst boards (not shown), placed between tube bundles in the stack, use the heat
released by the fuel cell reactions to completely reform fuel fed from a pre-reformer (to pre-
convert higher hydro-carbons) that is located outside the stack enclosure.
Major advantages: This design is mechanically robust and has been demonstrated to tolerate
several start-up and shut-down cycles. The cylindrical geometry provides a stable ceramic
structure, improving mechanical stability during operation as well as during cycling.
2-11
12347402
The single-ended tube design and the use of air delivery alumina tubes eliminate the need for
tight seals on the high temperature cells. SW has made considerable progress with prototype
construction, testing and operation. In addition, a pressurized version of this design is being
tested in a combined cycle with a microturbine. The simple seal arrangement is thought to
facilitate such pressurized operation compared with planar bipolar designs that require longer
and more complex seal designs.
a b Ni Felt
Interconnect
Alumina Tube
(85 µm)*
Air Electrode
(2.2 mm)*
Air Inlet
Electrolyte
(40 µm)* Air
Air Outlet
Fuel Electrode
Fuel Flow (100 µm)*
Fuel Ni Felt
c + Catho de Bu s
d
Interconnection
Ni felt NI Contact
Air Electrode
Interconnec tion Electrolyte

Fuel Electrode
Electrolyte
Fuel Electrode
A ir Electrolyte
HPD - SOFC
- A node Bu s
Dimensions were obtained from [6]
Figure 2-4
Schematic Description of the Siemens-Westinghouse Tubular SOFC Design. (a)
Configuration and Operation a Single Tube, (b) A Single Tube in Cross Section, (c) Cross
Section of an Array of Tubes in a Stack, (d) Novel High Power Density Stack Design.
Schematics were adapted from [6].
Finally, though not a fundamental benefit, this design is clearly the furthest-developed and best-
characterized of the SOFC designs at the present time. Importantly, the completed field-test in
Arnhem (The Netherlands) and others currently on going, have shown stable long-term
performance of the technology and have demonstrated degradation rates that are acceptable for
commercial application. Thus the technical risk associated with further development and
commercialization of the simple tubular SW technology must be judged as much lower than that
of any of the other designs.
Major disadvantage: Relatively modest power density is obtained even when operating at 1000
°C. Ohmic resistances and cathode overpotential dominate the voltage losses in the cell. The
large ohmic losses come from the long path for electronic conduction in the electrodes. Of this,
the cathode ohmic drop dominates because of its lower conductivity compared to the anode
(details are described in the next chapter). Also, the thick cathode represents a diffusion barrier
2-12
12347402
for oxygen, thus increasing the apparent cathode overpotential. As a result, power density is
practically limited to around 250 mW cm-2 at 85 % fuel utilization and 1 atm pressure [6].
Siemens-Westinghouse High Power Density (HPD) Design
Recent developments at SW have been aimed at improving power density through reduction in
ohmic losses and cathode polarization. As shown in Figure 2-4d, an oblong cross section has
been employed for the newer design. Compared to the circular cross-section, the oblong cross-
section is claimed to lead to a shorter current path for the electrons (through the ribs), and
consequently, a thinner cathode because of the reduced current flow through the cathode. Up to
25 % increase in the volumetric power density was obtained over the conventional design, even
for 85 % fuel utilization [6]. Clearly, reducing the dimensions of the conventional or oblong
designs would reduce cathode ohmic losses but this would come at the expense of having (even)
more tubes for a given output capacity, thereby potentially increasing the cost of tube
manufacture.
MHI Tubular
The tubular design being pursued by MHI is depicted in Figure 2-5.
Construction: A porous non-conductive ceramic substrate tube supports the MEA in the MHI
design. A single 72 cm substrate tube contains a stack of 22 single cells connected in series; the
cells appear as bands along the length of the substrate tube. The current is collected at the ends
of the strips of cells. The fuel electrode is in direct contact with the ceramic substrate and the
electrolyte, cathode, and the interconnect layers are deposited around the fuel electrode. Current
collecting strips are located at the end of the substrate tube for electrical contact. The gas-tight
electrolyte and interconnect layers accomplish the sealing.
Operation: In operation, fuel flows through the central porous tube and diffuses through the
porous walls of the ceramic tube and into the porous anode electrode. Air flows on the outside
of the cathode and diffuses through the cathode electrode. As such the MHI tubular design is
very similar to the SW design except that the current flows axially through the tube (leading to a
low current per tube) whereas in the SW design the current flows tangentially around the tubes,
leading to a roughly 20 times higher current per tube. Consequently, for similar tube dimensions,
the MHI design provides around 15-16 V per tube Vs 0.7 V for the SW design.
Potential advantages: As with the SW design, the cylindrical structure provides good thermo-
mechanical stability. One might argue that because all layers are continuous around the cylinder
the mechanical stability could be even better. Of course the structure is more complex than that
of the SW design, because of the large number of single cells per tube. Also, electrical
connections at the end of the tubes are required.
As with the SW tubular design, no hermetic seals are required within the cell, which reduces the
chances for leaks. From this perspective the MHI and SW designs are indistinguishable.
2-13
12347402
The use of a ceramic substrate means that the cathode does not need to support the tube and
could be thinner in theory. Additionally, the low-cost support tube can help reduce the total
costs.
The potential exists for fuel reforming in the hollow region of the porous tube, which could help
with temperature control. However, in this respect the design would be similar to the current SW
design (in which air and fuel are reversed).
a b
y Air
Air Cathode Cathode: 200µm

Electrolyte
Interconnect Electrolyte: 150µm
Anode 21mm dia.
Fuel Anode: 100µm
Hollow
substrate tube
Fuel
with porous Porous Support Tube
wall
Dimensions were obtained from [7, 8]
Figure 2-5
Schematic of the MHI Tubular Design. (a) Shows the Cross Section of a Part of a Stack of
Cells; (b) Shows a Cross Section of a Single Cell Along the Line y-y in (a); (c) A Stack of
Cells Connected in Series on a Single Substrate Tube. Schematics Were Obtained From
[7].
Potential disadvantages: As with the SW design, long current conduction path through the
electrodes may limit the maximum power density achievable with this design. Compared with
the SW design, shortening the conduction path means increasing the pitch of the strips, which
complicates the manufacturing process but does not necessitate smaller tubes (which would
presumably impact cost much more significantly). Because the electrolyte is in direct contact
with the interconnect, the possibility of interconnect corrosion may be an issue. Also, any
migration or vaporization of chromium species from the interconnect can easily poison the
electrolyte.
Rolls Royce Integrated Planar (IP) Design
The Rolls Royce SOFC design (shown in Figure 2-6) is considered a planar design. But it is
included in the description of the tubular designs because of the many similarities between the
Rolls Royce design and the tubular designs from MHI in particular. In fact, simplistically
2-14
12347402
speaking the Rolls Royce design could be seen as a variation of the MHI tubes with an oblong
cross-section.
a Load
d
e-
Air
Air Side
Cathode
Electrolyte -
Anode
Fuel H 2 CO H 2O CO 2
Porous support substrate
Anode1:100µm Cathode1:200µm
Interconnect 1 :200µm Electrolyte1:10µm
c Air
b
Fuel
Air
Fuel
Air
Interconnect Fuel
Electrolyte
1.5 cm*
Cathode Air
6 cm*
1
Estimated from analysis of polarization curve (see chapter 2)
* [10]
Figure 2-6
Schematic of the Integrated Planar SOFC Design Pursued by Rolls Royce. (a) Cross
Section of a Single Cell, (b) Top View of A Strip of Cells, (c) Side View of a Stack of Strips,
(d) Photograph of Strips of Cells (From EPRI).
Construction: In this design the substrate is a flattened hollow tube with porous walls. A single
substrate tube (30 cm long) contains a stack of about 20 single cells connected in series; the cells
appear as bands along the length of the substrate tube. The current is collected at the ends of the
strips of cells. The fuel electrode is in direct contact with the ceramic substrate and the
electrolyte, cathode, and the interconnect layers are deposited on the fuel electrode. Current
collecting strips are located at the end of the substrate tube for electrical contact. The gas-tight
electrolyte and interconnect layers accomplish the sealing.
2-15
12347402
Operation: In operation, fuel flows into the porous tube and then diffuses through the walls of
the porous tube and into the porous anode structure. The oxidant flows on the outside and
diffuses through the cathode to the electrolyte/cathode interface. Strips of such cells are used to
form a stack.
Potential advantages: The potential advantages of the design are identical to those for the MHI
design. Additional advantages are conferred by the flatness of the cell: facilitate in-situ tape-
casting of the ceramic layers (compared with casting them directly onto tubes) and potentially
high packing density.
Potential disadvantages: The disadvantages of the technology are identical to those of the MHI
design. However, the flat/box geometry confers good thermo-mechanical stability akin to the
tubular geometries.
In addition, the geometry requires a transition of the porous ceramic box to a dense ceramic
manifold. It appears that this would increase material use and complicate the design compared
with the SW or MHI designs. Also, unlike the MHI design, the Rolls Royce design has
unutilized tube surface area on the sides of the tube, which must be sealed.
Other Tubular Designs
Some other developers are also pursuing tubular structures. The most publicized one is
Acumentrics (Westwood, MA, USA) who are pursuing a small-diameter tubular design,
apparently with metal current collectors. In this case, the simple ceramic structure facilitates its
manufacture (Figure 2-7) [36].
However, the simple ceramic structure leads to a more complex current collection method,
significant additional material, complicated assembly, and possibly limited length of the tubes.
Because of lack of sufficient public information regarding the dimensions, materials used,
measured performance etc., this design is not included in the analysis presented in chapters 3 &
4.
It appears to us that if the metal current collection were feasible, it would promise superior
performance (since it negates the disadvantages of the other tubular designs). However, it could
then just as well be applied to the other designs, and provide similar performance improvements
for those designs.
2-16
12347402
Hollow ceramic
tube as burner
500 mm Long
1 - 5 mm dia
Tubular fuel cell
Fuel
Ceramic
ring
Ceramic
ring
Base
plate Ceramic
insulator
Air
Intercon
nect
Figure 2-7
Schematic of the Design Pursued by Acumentrics [36].
Planar Bipolar Circular Technology
In the planar designs, the current flows in a direction that is perpendicular to the active area.
This minimizes the ohmic losses in the electrodes and allows minimization of the thickness of
the layers to what is needed from a manufacturing / mechanical point of view.
Several developers are pursuing circular planar bipolar designs, with radial outflow of both
reactant streams in co-flow. In these designs the cathode and anode outlets (at the outer edge of
the cells) are allowed to mix and combust (similarly to the tubular designs) which simplifies
manifolding and sealing and smoothens thermo-mechanical stresses, compared to the planar
rectangular designs. Of all the planar circular SOFC designs reported in the literature, the
Honeywell design is well described in their patent [37]. Though not described in as much detail,
the Sulzer-Hexis design is the planar design that is furthest developed, with several field units
currently being tested.
1
Honeywell
Figure 2-8 depicts the Honeywell planar anode supported cell and stack design.
Single Cell Construction: The standard elements of the SOFC, the anode, the cathode, the
electrolyte and the interconnect, are annular in shape and surround a centrally located gas
delivery system that comprises a porous tube and a manifolding cylinder. The porous tube is
bonded to impervious layers of the electrolyte and the separator plate. The anode, interconnect
and cathode are on the outside of this porous tube. The central manifolding cylinder comprises
two non-communicating chambers for supplying fuel and oxygen. These chambers open into the
annular spaces created by the porous tube adjacent to the interconnects.
1
Honeywell’s SOFC technology was recently acquired by GE
2-17
12347402
Stack Construction: Figure 2-8b also depicts the stacking arrangement for the planar circular
cells. The stack of fuel cells is encased in a vessel that has a side opening for the spent gases.
The reactant gases are fed at opposite ends of the central manifold, but flow radially outward
over the electrode surfaces in a co-flow manner. The gas conduction chambers in the centrally
located manifolding tube do not run through the tube, rather they are dead-ended. It is claimed
that this design can in principle yield very high utilization of the fuel. The impervious separator
plate and the dense electrolyte ensure that the reactant gases in opposing annular regions do not
mix. The separator plate is made of a dense-conductive metallic material. Figure 2-8a also
depicts the location of the seals that are required to ensure the structural stability of the cells.
The seals are mainly required at the junctions between the porous tube and the separator plate,
between the porous tube and the electrolyte, between the separator plate and the cylindrical
manifold, and between the electrolyte and the cylindrical manifold.
Operation: The reactants flow into the annular porous tube and then flow radially outwards
through the interconnect element. The interconnects in this design comprise flow channels to
facilitate gas transport. The gas then diffuses to the electrode/electrolyte interface where
electrochemical reactions take place and unreacted fuel and oxidant gases combine at the
periphery of the cell. The flow of the reactants over the anode and the cathode is thus in co-flow.
The porous tube gives rise to a small pressure drop that helps a uniform – 360° delivery of the
reactant gases to the gas passages in the interconnect.
Potential advantages: Compared with the SW tubular design, this design should be able to
achieve substantially higher current densities ultimately, because most of the current flow is
perpendicular to the active layers (though this is not borne out by current operating data).
Because of the circular radial outflow design the sealing area required is small.
It is claimed that very high fuel utilization can be obtained with this design, however, supporting
data is scarce and it is not clear that this capability is the result of the cell design per se. Rather it
may be the result of larger cell area and lower power density.
Potential disadvantages: The main disadvantage compared with the SW tubular design is that
this design (as do all planar bipolar designs) requires essentially hermetic sealing. The
Honeywell design is a good example of how this requirement can complicate the stack design
and fabrication. In fact, the arrangement of the internal seal appears substantially more complex
than that of any of the other circular radial outflow designs. If this level of complexity is indeed
required to establish a working seal, it would appear to be a serious barrier to the implementation
of any of the circular / radial outflow designs.
In addition to the complexity in design and manufacturing, again as with all internally
manifolded designs, the location of the internal seals make it very difficult to inspect in the event
that they experience a leak. Moreover, in this case each cell has eight associated seals that run
the circumference of a circle, which appears to lead to a large seal length per kW of stack
(calculated in the next chapter). Based on available information, the internally manifolded
structure of the Honeywell stack appears to be significantly more complex than that of other
developers. It appears that this high level of complexity may lead to high reject rates in the
manufacturing.
2-18
12347402
The multiple layers of electrical conductors may lead to significant voltage losses due to
interfacial resistances between the layers, especially given that all layers will need to have
surfaces that are refractory to oxidation and reduction by the anode and cathode gases.
Figure 2-8c displays a 5-cell stack according to the present design that was constructed and
successfully tested.
a 1 cm *** c
Fuel Porous tube Cathode ** : 40µm
Electrolyte*** : 10µm
Anode**: 1000 µm
Fuel Fuel Int erconnect element**: 1000µm
Separator element **: 1000µm
Air Air
Electrodes -
electrolyte assembly
Sealant
Air
2.6 cm*
12.7 cm*
b Fuel in
Enclosing Vessel
Spent Fuel and

Oxidant Out
Fuel Cell Stack

Oxidant in
Internal Manifold
* [31]
** Assumed
*** Based on stack dimensions and analysis of stack picture
Figure 2-8
Depiction of Honeywell’s Circular Anode Supported SOFC Design. (a) Schematic of a Pair
of Single Cells, (b) Schematic of a Stack of Circular Cells, (c) Photograph of a Five Cell
Stack. The cell schematics were obtained from [37].
Sulzer-Hexis
Figure 2-9 shows the Sulzer-Hexis electrolyte supported SOFC design. Along with SW, Sulzer-
Hexis is the only company that has a significant amount of experience with its SOFC technology.
Since 1998 Sulzer-Hexis has had over ten of its 1 kW range systems in field tests with its utility
partners. The largest number of accumulated stack operating hours is around six thousand
(performance described in more detail in the following chapter).
Construction: In this design, the fuel cell is circular in shape with a central cylindrical region
used for fuel transport. The air is fed through small tubes located at the circumference of the
interconnect plate. The interconnect in this design also acts as a heat exchanger that heats the
incoming air to the cell temperature, which is the most differentiating feature of this design.
2-19
12347402
Consequently, the interconnect is quite thick, and comprises a hollow chamber, which acts as the
heat exchanger. The interconnect also contains flow channels that distribute the fuel and oxygen
over the active area. The air supply tube manifolding (required to each cell separately) must be
electrically insulated but could be done (partially) outside the hot stack zone. Sulzer-Hexis
currently uses a thick-electrolyte cell architecture (produced by InDEC, BV, Petten, The
Netherlands).
a c
Fuel
Air X
b
Air Air
1 mm**
Interconnect**: 2400µm
4.08 cm¥
1 mm #
Fuel Cathode$: 60µm 12 cm*
Electrolyte$: 150µm
Anode$: 60µm
Combustion
of Fuel
1 mm # 250 µm#
12 cm*
*[21]
** [38]
¥
Assumption based on cell outer diameter and active area from ref. [21]
#
Assumed
$
InDec brochure with electrolyte supported cell specifications
Figure 2-9
Schematic of the Circular Cell Design Pursued by Sulzer-Hexis. (a) Schematic Available in
the Public Literature of the Sulzer-Hexis Stack Technology, (b) A Cross-Section of the
Stack Based on the Picture in (a) (Not Drawn to Scale), (c) Top View of the Stack With a
Cut-Away, Showing the Positioning of the Flow Channels. Schematics were adapted from
[39].
Operation: In this design, the fuel flows from the central annular region of the cell, whereas air
flows into the cell through tubes located on the outside circumference. The fuel flows radially
outward over the anode surface. Air enters each cell via the small holes shown at the
circumference of the interconnect, gets heated while flowing through the interconnect, and then
flows over the cathode in a radially outward fashion. At the periphery of the cell, unreacted fuel
is combusted.
Potential advantages: The use of only one hot internal seal (on the fuel side) per cell reduces the
length of the seal area considerably, which may allow more start-up and shut-down cycles
2-20
12347402
without damage to the seal integrity. The external seals that separate the feed air from the
exhaust can be kept at a lower temperature than the stack and are also less critical than seals
within the stack as failure would not lead to combustion (merely a higher airflow requirement).
The use of the interconnect to preheat the inlet air may lead to more uniform temperatures within
the cell and reduces the amount of external recuperation required. The high-temperature
recuperators tend to be the second-most-expensive (to the stack itself) component in SOFC
systems.
The thick-electrolyte materials are quite robust and are able to withstand multiple cycles, as well
as exposure to air (even the anode).
Potential disadvantages: The thick electrolyte limits the current density of the design. As a
consequence the potential benefits of the planar-bipolar architecture cannot be fully realized.
The very thick interconnect used in this design may lead to a significant electronic resistance.
Moreover, the interconnect is expensive and will add to the overall cost of the stack
(approximate costs provided in a later chapter). In addition, air is fed only to certain points along
the circumference of the interconnect, which may lead to poor distribution of the air over the
active area.
As shown in Figure 2-9c, but not in Figure 2-9a, complicated external manifolding is required
for air delivery. A typical cell has more than 4 air manifold tubes placed along the
circumference, which implies that the cell occupies a much larger foot print, even if it does not
require much more material.
Advanced Sulzer-Hexis Design: Sulzer-Hexis is working on thin-electrolyte-based unit cells. If

they are successful, and incorporate them into their stack designs, current densities could be
increased four or five-fold, without further complicating the sealing design. As a matter of fact,
thin-electrolyte ceramics would likely allow a substantial reduction in operating temperature,
thus simplifying sealing further and allowing the use of less expensive interconnect materials.
Plansee, the current supplier of Hexis’ 95Cr interconnect material has already developed a
material for such intermediate-temperature Hexis systems that are in the ferric steel class. The
cost of such materials (see chapter 3) is expected to be less than half of the current material cost.
Compared with other developers, one may consider the current Sulzer-Hexis technology as an
early-entry technology, for which no parallel exists with the other developers. These early-entry
products would enter into premium and subsidized markets. It appears that Sulzer aims to use the
thin-electrolyte technology to enable broad-based market penetration.
Technology Management Incorporated (TMI)
The TMI electrolyte supported design is described in Figure 2-10.
Construction: As with the Honeywell design, the TMI design has internal manifolding of both
air and fuel. A difference here is that instead of the centrally located manifolding tube, the
internal manifolding is done through holes in the cell elements. Gaskets are used to restrict the
leakage of fuel over the cathode and air over the anode. Another difference is the use of the
2-21
12347402
porous electrode material itself to transport the reactants over the electrolyte surface. The
interconnect is a dense material that is impervious to gases. TMI’s design is based on a very
small unit cell diameter of 7-8 cm. Although they have demonstrated stacks of over 100 cells, the
small area of the cells lead to relatively low feasible stack power compared to stacks from some
of the other planar designs.
aa c
Interconnect1 : 2.5mm
Cathode 1:75µm
Air Fuel Air
Electrolyte1: 180µm
Anode1: 75µm
Gasket
Cathode
Electrolyte
Anode
Interconnect
b
Fuel Passage1
2 mm dia.
7.62cm
Air Passage1
2 mm dia.
7.62cm*
1
Assumed
Figure 2-10
Schematic of the Planar Circular Design Pursued by TMI. (a) Expanded View of Single Cell
and Stack, (b) Close-Up View of Separator, Electrode, and Electrolyte. Schematics were
adapted from [40] and [25].
Operation: The fuel and air flow out through the porous electrodes in a co-flow manner. As with
the Honeywell design, the unreacted gases react at the cell periphery.
Potential advantages: The potential advantages of the TMI design are similar to those of the
other planar circular / radial outflow designs. The use of holes in the elements themselves for
manifolding makes effective use of the area of cross-section leading to a more compact design.
Also, for the gaskets around the manifold openings the sealing force is normal to the seal area,
which will facilitate compressive sealing. As such, the sealing design used is the simplest of the
circular / radial outflow designs with internal sealing of both air and fuel.
Potential disadvantages: The criticality of the internal seals is very high, as a failure would lead
to combustion of fresh fuel and air in the stack, and doubtless to the eventual destruction of the
stack. At the same time, as with the Honeywell design, the internal manifolding does not allow
2-22
12347402
easy inspection of seals. Also, because of the lack of a diffuser for uniform (3600) distribution,
poor gas distribution may occur over the electrode surface. This can be alleviated to some extent
by tolerating a high pressure-drop.
Ztek
Little public information is available about the performance of the Ztek design, although the
construction is described in their patents. The Ztek design depicted in Figure 2-11 was obtained
from their promotional literature. As with the TMI design, a hole through the different layers
helps transport the reactant gases through the cell. Presumably gaskets are used to restrict gas
flow. Because of lack of sufficient public information regarding the dimensions, materials used,
etc., we did not consider this design in the analysis presented in chapters 3 & 4.
a b
Figure 2-11
Schematic of Planar Circular SOFC Pursued by ZTek. (a) Schematic of Single Cell, (b)
Photograph of a 1 kW Stack
Planar Rectangular Designs
The planar rectangular designs being pursued today are conventional filter-press type structures
(developed by MSRI, Global Thermoelectric, CFCL, and SOFCo) represented in Figure 2-12. In
this design, the rectangular elements of the fuel cell are stacked together. The direction of
current flow in these devices is perpendicular to the plane of the electrodes and electrolytes, as
shown in Figure 2-12. The interconnect, with gas flow channels, helps distribute the gas over the
electrode surfaces. The manifolding may be either internal or external. External manifolding
typically leads to cross-flow of the fuel and oxidant streams, as shown in Figure 2-12.
Fundamentally, the planar-rectangular bipolar geometry is the geometry of choice for PEMFC,
MCFC, and PAFC systems, as well as for a wide variety of industrial electrochemical processes
including chlor-alkali manufacture.
2-23
12347402
Current flow
Figure 2-12
Schematic of Planar Rectangular SOFC Design
Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited (CFCL)
Figure 2-13 describes the electrolyte supported SOFC design reported by CFCL.
Construction: Schematics of the cell design cannot be found in the public literature. Figure 2-
13a shows a photograph displaying CFCL’s stack technology. The stack design reported by
CFCL is of the so-called window-pane design, similar to the one that was once pursued by
Siemens. In the case of the CFCL technology, a 4x4 grid of single cells connected in parallel
forms the basic unit of the CFCL stack. Such grids are stacked in series to form a stack. Each
interconnect layer consists of four separate plates – an air plate, an aperture plate onto which the
fuel cells are sealed, the fuel plate and the gas separation/interconnection plate. The plates are
stamped from 1 mm thick ferritic steel that has a proprietary coating (e.g., manganese or nickel)
for corrosion resistance. The plates are bonded together by a screen-printed glass seal. The cells
are also sealed with a screen-printed glass seal. The stacked cell/interconnect layers are
internally manifolded at the top and bottom with manifold plates, which contain the various gas
inlet and outlet openings. Based on the dimensions disclosed for the stack in the Figure 2-13a,
we estimate a pitch of five cells per inch, with each layer being about 5 mm thick. Close
examination of the photograph discloses a ‘diffuser’ region that probably facilitates distribution
of the gases from the manifold openings to the flow channels.
Potential advantages: The use of grids of cells provides redundancy if localized areas in the
stack fail.
2-24
12347402
a c
9 cm**
Fuel manifold*
3.6 cm dia.
14.75 cm*
11 cm**
Bolt*
4.5 cm dia.
Air manifold*
3.6 cm dia.
19 cm*
b
Channels: 1 mm2 ***
Anode: 60 µm**
4 mm** Electrolyt e: 100 µm**
Cathode: 60 µm**
Interconnect : 2 000 µm
9 cm**
* Estimated based on given stack dimensions and analysis of stack picture

** [41]
***Assumed
Figure 2-13
CFCL’s Electrolyte Supported Design. (a) Photograph of a 38 kW (D.C.) Stack from CFCL,
(b) Side View of a Single Cell Adapted From the Photograph, (c) Top View of a Single Cell
Adapted From the Photograph. Photograph Was Obtained From CFCL’s Website.
Potential disadvantages: The large area per cell would make thermal management more
difficult, and may lead to significant temperature gradients, which in turn may degrade the seal
and corrode the metallic bipolar plates. Note that the active area is only 35 % of the total
geometric area of the cell (Table 2-2), implying the poor volumetric power density for the stack
(calculations given in the next chapter).
Advanced Technologies: After an initial unsuccessful test with its 25 kW stack, CFCL has
reportedly modified its stack design, and is now testing smaller systems successfully. Also,
indications are that the modified stack corresponds to a radial design. However, no public
information was found that would allow a description of that technology here.
SOFCo (McDermott)
SOFCo is pursuing an electrolyte supported planar rectangular design (schematic shown in

Figure 2-14). SOFCo has discussed a wide range of concepts and designs in various meetings.
However only one design has been described in any level of detail. That design is the one
discussed here.
Construction: The SOFCo design uses an externally manifolded cross-flow design, with cross-
flow channels for the flow-field. The newer designs are claimed to use third generation ceramics
interconnects, but the composition has not been disclosed.
2-25
12347402
A unique aspect of the SOFCo design described is that SOFCo proposes to manufacture it by co-
firing the entire stack. This is fundamentally different from all other developers, who plan to
either fire the ceramics layer by layer, or otherwise to co-fire complete unit cells.
Potential Advantages: The external manifolding leads to a quite simple stack design, avoiding the
complications of the internal manifolds in the stack. It also minimizes the inactive stack area to
the sealing areas resulting in potentially high material intensity and usage effectiveness.
Interconnect¥: 2mm
Cathode*: 25µm
Electrolyte**: 180µm
Anode*: 40µm
10 cm ***
1mm¥
10 cm ***
* [42]
** [4]
*** [43]
¥ Assumed
Figure 2-14
Schematic of the Design Being Pursued by SOFCo. Schematics of the Cell Structure
Assumed
If co-firing of the entire stack is successful, interfacial resistances between unit cells could be
substantially lower than in separately fired designs. This would lead to a lower ASR, and hence
higher current densities.
If the co-firing is successful, some of the required seals in the stack can be built-in, thus
eliminating the need for gaskets or separate seal materials.
Potential Disadvantages: The main potential disadvantage associated with the SOFCo design
is the risk associated with co-firing the entire stack. First, the “ideal” firing temperatures for the
materials are different. To achieve good density in the electrolyte and interconnect, high firing
temperatures are desirable; to retain good porosity in the electrodes, lower firing temperatures
are preferred.
A second disadvantage of the co-firing approach is that it does not leave any room or flexibility
for differential thermal expansion of the stack components, since all components would be
bonded together.
2-26
12347402
Finally, the external manifolds, while reducing sealing complexity within the stack, will require
additional seals against the edges of the stack, and require additional material themselves. In
general the seals have to be compliant to overcome edge non-uniformity and accommodate stack
thermal growth.
Global Thermoelectric Incorporated
Global is pursuing an anode supported SOFC technology that is licensed from Forchungszentrum
Julich. Global has put significant effort into perfecting the manufacturing of the ceramics using
the licensed technology, though it is not clear if any fundamental modifications to the ceramics
technology were made. As with the CFCL design, schematics of their stacks or single cells are
unavailable.
Construction: Figure 2-15 shows photographs and schematics (drawn based on the photographs)
of an internally manifolded stack and the interconnect plates. In this stack, the fuel and oxidant
are delivered in a cross-flow fashion (as is the case with all planar rectangular designs). The
interconnects are made from a multi-plate brazed assembly using ferritic stainless steel. Sealing
is accomplished by a proprietary compression seal technology. The current stack consists of a 1
2
kW stack with fifteen 100 cm single cells in series. Multiple 1 kW stacks (at least four) can be
combined into a single stack module end-plate and manifold assembly.
Potential advantages: The combination of an external compression device and compression seals
may help minimize the contact resistance between the layers (one of the main contributors to
ohmic losses in planar cells). This could significantly reduce the ASR, and lead to considerably
higher power densities.
Additionally, the compressive force can (partially) be used to establish a tight seal. Because the
seals are not bonded to the cell components, the cells can be dismantled and reassembled with
relative ease.
Potential disadvantages: An external compression system may add to the hardware weight and
cost. The compressive gasket may undergo creep when subject to temperature cycling. In
addition, since a single compressive system is used, the compressive pressure distribution
between the seal and the interconnect may not be easy to control during operation, leading to
sub-optimal pressure for one or the other or both.
The sealing and interconnection arrangement leads to rather massive interconnects, which could
use large amounts of material.
2-27
12347402
a
c
1.5mm 1.5mm* 1.8cm**
1.5mm*
Cathode*: 40 µm
Electrolyte*: 10 µm
Anode*: 1 mm
Interconnect***: 4.05mm
10 cm1
18.2 cm**
10 cm*
b d
3 cm **
Seal
Channel *
1.5x1.5 mm2
Gas manifold area
10 cm *
1.8 cm **
3 cm**
Seal
* [27]
** Assumptions based on given cell dimensions and analysis of picture
*** Assumed for the analyses in chapters 2 & 3
Figure 2-15
Description of Global Thermoelectric's Anode Supported Design. (a) Photograph of a 20
Cell Stack [44], (b) Photograph of Interconnect Plates [44], (c) Schematic of the Side View
of a Single Anode supported Cell, (d) Schematic of an Interconnect Plate based on the
Photograph.
Materials and Systems Research Incorporated (MSRI)
MSRI is pursuing a rectangular anode supported SOFC design with internal manifolds and flat
metal interconnects.
Construction: Figure 2-16 shows a schematic of a single cell used in this design. There are two
distinctive features of this design:
– With reference to Table 2-2, we see that the active area of the cell is about 60 %
greater than the face area. This is a result of corrugations in the electrolyte surface.
– The interconnect is a very thin foil without flow channels. The flow channels are
formed by the channels in the anode.
The anode substrate comprises parallel cross-flow channels on either planar side. On one side of
the anode substrate, a uniform 10 µm layer of electrolyte is deposited such that the electrolyte
material forms a coating over the flow channels. A 250 µm cathode layer is then deposited over
this corrugated electrolyte layer, such that the cathode surface is also corrugated and comprises
flow channels. This allows the use of very thin (~ 125 µm) metallic foil as interconnects. The
2-28
12347402
interconnect is fashioned from a commercial superalloy, appropriately coated for improved

tolerance to scaling on the cathode side. The cells have no special gaskets, but the edges of the
metallic interconnect themselves are to seal the cell against leaks. The plastic deformation that
accompanies the thin interconnects under compression aids in the sealing. The single cells in
this design typically have a thickness of about 3 mm, giving a pitch of about 8 cells per inch.
MSRI claims that future developments will lower the thickness, although it is hard to see how
substantial decreases in thickness could be achieved without decreasing the space available for
gas-flow, and hence increasing the pressure drop on the gas side. The ceramics technology used
by MSRI results in the high power densities observed in their single cells [45]. Essentially, they
enhance the effective length of the TPB in the cathode electrode by incorporating the electrolyte
YSZ into the electrode LSM [5].
MSRI disclosed an externally manifolded design in their patent [34]. But, their more recent
publications refer to an internally manifolded design [35]. It is interesting to note that both
MSRI and Honeywell initially pursued external manifolding for their anode supported
technologies, which did not perform satisfactorily and hence they changed to internal
manifolding.
a b
Metal foil
interconnect1
125 µm
Corrugated Air
cathode1
100 µm
Corrugated
electrolyte1
10 µm
Anode with
cross-flow
channels1
1.5 mm
Fuel
1
from ref. [34]
Figure 2-16
Schematic of an Anode Supported Single Cell Design From MSRI. (a) MEA Structure With
Integrated Flow Channels, (b) Photograph of a 240 W Stack (EPRI).
Potential advantages: The use of corrugations in the electrode and the use of the interconnect
itself as the sealing gasket eliminates the need for thick interconnects, which improves the cell
pitch and volumetric power density, and reduces amount of interconnect material needed.
Due to the thin interconnect and the compressive force used to ensure proper contact, one may
expect reduced voltage loss across the interconnect (due to lower interfacial resistance).
The thin interconnect leads to reduced weight of the fuel cell stack. Moreover, the thin
interconnects may also lead to lower cost for the MSRI design than compared to the other
designs, which have the flow channels in the interconnect itself.
2-29
12347402
The corrugation of the electrolyte leads to an active area greater than the face area of the cell
(even after taking into account inactive sealing and manifold areas). For all the other planar
designs discussed previously, the active area is equal, at best, to the face area, and in many cases
much lower.
Potential disadvantages: Achieving good sealing with simply the interconnect metal as the
gasket may be challenging. Also, to achieve good sealing the inside of porous layers in the
manifolding holes must be sealed with a sealant or with a dense layer.
Contact resistance between the electrodes and the interconnect could be large if the width of the
flow channel ridge is not sufficient. It may be challenging to manufacture uniformly flat channel
ridges to make contact with the interconnect element. Also, getting a uniform coating of the
electrolyte and cathode may pose a problem with the manufacturing process.
MHI Planar Design
Figure 2-17 shows a schematic of the MHI design.
Construction: The MHI planar design is externally manifolded with cross flow of fuel and air.
As with the MSRI design, the planar MHI design uses corrugations in the MEA as flow
channels, which allows the use of thin interconnects. In this case, the corrugations are in the
form of hemispherical dimples as illustrated in Figure 2-17. A conductive coating is applied on
the dimples to facilitate contact with the ceramic interconnect. The MEA is embedded in a non-
conductive seal.
Operation: In operation, fuel and oxidant flow over the dimpled surface of the MEA in a cross
flow fashion.
Potential Advantages: The use of corrugations in the electrode eliminates the need for thick
interconnects, which improves the cell pitch and volumetric power density. Consequently, one
can expect reduced voltage loss across the interconnect, reduced weight of the fuel cell stack,
and improved heat transfer across the interconnect. Also, the corrugations help enhance the
active area in a given face area. For all other planar designs, barring the MSRI design, the active
area is equal, at best, to the face area, and in many cases much lower.
The corrugations provide a modest level of flexibility in the ceramic structure, which may help to
take up some of the internal thermo-mechanical stresses.
Potential Disadvantages: The contact area between the electrodes and the interconnects may be
small, and, especially with the ceramic interconnect, could lead to undesirable current
concentration. It appears that the thickness of the electrodes is increased in order to mitigate
against this effect (creating “flat tops” on the dimples). The seal bracket appears to occupy a
large fraction of the electrode surface and hence reduce the available face area for reaction.
2-30
12347402
Dimple Height*: 1.06mm

Dimple Square Side*: 1.38mm
Anode*: 50 µm
Electrolyte*: 50 µm
Cathode*: µm
Dimple Diameter*:
1.25mm
b Fuel Opening Non-Conductive Support 4:

Length 4: 7cm 2.12mm
Anode
Cathode Electrolyte
Side***: 20cm
Interconnect
* [14, 15]
** [46]
***[13]
4
Estimated
Figure 2-17
Schematics of the planar design being pursued by MHI. (a) Shows the Dimpled Electrodes-
Electrolyte Layer; (b) Shows a Single Cell With the Non-Conductive Seal.
There are two major classes of SOFC designs being pursued currently, each with two sub-
classes:
• Tubular or Strip-design SOFCs. In these designs the electrically active materials are
fashioned around a tube or some other enclosed volume (such as a box). In some cases one of
the active materials serves as the support (e.g. SW) while in others a separate supporting tube
is used (e.g. MHI tubular). As a result simple and robust sealing arrangements are possible,
with a minimal amount of sealing length. In addition, in the case of cylindrical geometries,
the thermo-mechanical stability of the structure tends to be superior to that of flat structures.
As a direct consequence of this design, current must be conducted through the some of the
length of the electrodes leading to relatively high ohmic (electronic) resistances, particularly
in the cathode (which typically has a low electrical conductivity). The tubular or strip designs
can be further categorized into high-current and high-voltage designs. In the high-current
designs, such as the SW and Accumentrics designs a single tube constitutes a single cell, and
hence produces the equivalent of the single cell voltage. In the high voltage designs (such as
MHI tubular and Rolls Royce) multiple cells are fashioned on a single tube or box in the
form of strips leading to a unit voltage that is a multiple of single cell voltage. Of all the
tubular designs, indeed all SOFC designs, the SW tubular design is the furthest developed
stack technology.
2-31
12347402
• Planar bipolar SOFCs. In these designs electrically active materials are effectively flat and
the current flows (almost entirely) perpendicular to the surfaces of each of these elements.
The current is thus passed from one cell to another. As a consequence one or more of the
electrically active materials must be the support. This design leads to minimal current
conduction paths throughout the stack, and hence to low area specific resistances. However,
the planar geometry inherently necessitates a more complex sealing arrangement than is the
case in the tubular designs. To tackle this problem, two key classes of cell designs have
developed: planar circular designs in which the reactants flow in a co-flowing arrangement,
and planar rectangular designs in which the reactants flow in cross-flow. In the circular
designs the reactants are allowed to react at the edge of the plates (the outlet) and this reduces
the amount of sealing that is required. In the planar rectangular designs all four stack flows
have to be manifolded and thus sealed. In addition sealing between the layers is necessary in
all of the designs. A second classification of the planar designs is into thick and thin
electrolyte systems. The thick electrolyte systems are somewhat easier to produce, and were
the predominant type until about three years ago. However, the better performance and lower
operating temperature of the thin electrolyte designs seem to favor their development
currently.
Looking into the future the main improvements that could be made in the tubular or strip designs
is to reduce the ohmic resistance associated with the conduction through the electrodes (mainly
cathode). Either the development of electrodes or current collectors with higher conductivity or
the reduction of the conduction length will be required to achieve this.
For the planar bipolar designs we expect a migration towards thin-electrolyte systems, because of
their strongly favored performance and operating conditions. Whether circular or rectangular
systems will be favored is still unclear.
Finally, the necessary operating temperature of the different designs primarily depends on the
thickness of the electrolyte, but also on the overall ASR. As a consequence, the tubular designs
and thick-electrolyte planar designs typically require an operating temperature of 900°C or more,
while the thin-electrolyte planar systems can be operated in the range between 600 – 800°C
(current best-in-class performance being achieved at around 800°C). While to the uninitiated this
may seem a relatively small difference, it has tremendous consequences for the choice of
construction materials, in particular for the interconnect and the seals. At 900°C the principal
choices of viable materials (from a thermo-mechanical perspective) are ceramics and
superalloys, while at 800°C ferritic stainless steels are a viable option (though coatings may be
required). Compressive sealing arrangements would still be challenging in this temperature range
because only a limited range of materials retains good mechanical properties for cycling under
load at this temperature. This is expected to have significant consequences for the material cost
(see chapter 4). If the operating temperature can be dropped further to around 600°C a relatively
wide range of commercial stainless steels may well be used in un-coated form, further reducing
the materials cost. Perhaps more importantly, a relatively wide range of materials retains
excellent mechanical properties at this temperature, drastically widening the range of sealing
options.
2-32
12347402
Bibliography
1. S. C. Singhal, MRS Bulletin 5:16 (2000).
2. K. Ahmed, Y. Ramprakash, S. P. Jiang, and K. Foger, in Fifth International Symposium
on Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC - V), Vol. 97-18, The Electrochemical Society,
Aachen, Germany, 1997, p. 228 .
3. W. Bakker, J. Hartvigsen, S. Elangovan, and A. Khandkar, in Fifth International
Symposium on Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC - V), Vol. 97-18, The Electrochemical
Society, 1997, p. 254.
4. A. Khandkar, J. Hartvigsen, D. Rowley, R. Privette and M. Tharp, in Electrochemical
Society, 1999, p. 88.
5. F. Zhao, G. Yong Lin and A. Virkar, in Seventh International Symposium on Solid Oxide
Fuel Cells (SOFC - VII), Vol. 2001-16, The Electrochemical Society, Tsukuba, Japan,
2001, p. 501.
6. S. C. Singhal, in Sixth International Symposium on Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC - VI)
(M. D. S. C. Singhal, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1999, p. 39 .
7. H. Mori, N. Hisatome, K. Ikeda, K. Tomida, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells VI (SOFC - VI)
8. J. Iritani, N. Komiyama, K. Nagata, K. Ikeda, K. Tomida, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells VII
(SOFC - VII) (S. C. S. H. Yokokawa, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Tsukuba, Japan,
2001, p. 63 .
9. F. Gardner, N. Brandon, J. Brownell, , Rolls-Royce plc, US, 1997.
10. F. Gardner, N. Brandon, M. Pashley, M. Cassidy, Journal of Power Sources 86:122
(2000).
11. B. Godfrey, in Electrochemical Society, Vol. 2001-16, 2001, p. 120.
12. K. Ahmed, and R. Ratnaraj, in Seventh International Symposium on Solid Oxide Fuel
Cells (SOFC - VII), Vol. 2001-16, The Electrochemical Society, Tsukuba, Japan, 2001,
p. 904.
13. Y. Sakaki, M. Hattori, H. Miyamoto, H. Aiki, K. Takenobou, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
VII (SOFC - VII) (S. C. S. H. Yokokawa, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Tsukuba,
Japan, 2001, p. 72 .
14. T. Satake, K. Watanabe, F. Nanjo, K. Takenobu, in USPTO, Mitsubishi Jukogyo
Kabushiki Kaisha, United States, 1996.
15. M. Hattori, M. Iio, Y. Sakaki, in Seventh International Symposium on Solid Oxide Fuel
Cells (SOFC - VII) (S. C. S. H. Yokokawa, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Tsukuba,
Japan, 2001, p. 1061 .
16. S. Elangovan, T. L. Cable, T. A. Morris, E. A. Barringer, in 2000 Fuel Cell Seminar,
Portland, Oregon, 2000, p. 503 .
2-33
12347402
17. S. Elangovan, S.C. Kung, R.W. Goettler and E.A. Barringer, in Seventh International
Symposium on SOlid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC - VII), Vol. 2001-16, The Electrochemical
Society, 2001, p. 94.
18. S.C. Kung, T.A. Morris, E.A. Barringer, J.J. Hartvigsen, and S. Elangovan, :585 (2000).
19. J. Hartvigsen, and S. Elangovan, in Sixth International Symposium on Solid Oxide Fuel
Cells (SOFC - VI), Vol. 99-19, The Electrochemical Society, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1999, p.
1135.
20. R. Diethelm, Th. Gamper, M. Keller, R. Kruschwitz, D. Lenel, in Electrochemical
Society, Vol. 97-18, 1997, p. 79.
21. R. Diethelm, in Electrochemical Society, Vol. 99-19, 1999, p. 60.
22. K. Honegger, M. Keller, and G.M. Christie, in Electrochemical Society, Vol. 99-19,
1999, p. 1019.
23. E. Batawi, A. Schuler, M. Keller, and C. Voisard, in Electrochemical Society, Vol. 2001-
16, 2001, p. 140.
24. E. Batawi, W. Kraussler, M. Janousek, B. Boggwiler and R. Diethelm, in
Electrochemical Society, Vol. 99-19, 1999, p. 731.
25. M. A. Petrik, R. C. Ruhl, B. P. Lee, in !998 Fuel Cell Seminar, Palm Springs, CA, 1998,
p. 124 .
26. T. L. Cable, , Technology Management Inc., US, 1996.
27. D. Ghosh, R. Brule, E. Tang and P. Huang, in Electrochemical Society, Vol. 99-19, 1999,
p. 822.
28. D. Ghosh, R. Boersma, D. Prediger, M. Perry, A. Horvath and J. Devitt, in Fuel Cells -
Powering the 21st Century, Portland, Oregon, 2000.
29. D. Ghosh, M. Perry, D. Prediger, M. Pastula, and R. Boersma, in Electrochemical
Society, Vol. 2001-16, 2001, p. 100.
30. J. P. J. Yamanis, L. A. Xue, D. Dalfonzo, T. Palanisamy, K. Montgomery, N.Q. Minh, in
1998 Fuel Cell Seminar, Palm Springs, CA, 1998, p. 258 .
31. J. P. J. Yamanis, L. A. Xue, D. Dalfonzo, T. Palanisamy, K. Montgomery, N.Q. Minh, in
1998 Fuel Cell Seminar, Palm Springs, CA, 1998, p. 258 .
32. A. Virkar, K. Mehta, K.-Z. Fung, in SECA Conference, 1999.
33. A. Virkar, , Gas Research Institute, US, 2000.
34. A. Virkar, and K.-Z. Fung, , Gas Research Institute, US, 2000.
35. A. Virkar, N. S. Kapur, D. W. Prouse, G-Y. Lin, Y. Jiang, P. Smith, D. M. England, D.
K. Shetty, in 2000 Fuel Cell Seminar, Portland, Oregon, 2000.
36. N. M. Sammes, , Waikatolink Limited, Patent, New Zeland, 1999.
37. J. Yamanis, , Honeywell, US Patent, 1996.
38. P. Costamagna, Journal of the Electrochemical Society 145:3995 (1998).
39. R. Diethlem, , Sulzer Innotec AG, US Patent, 1995.
2-34
12347402
40. C. Milliken, in 2nd Annual SECA Conference, 2001.

41. K. Foger, in Fuel Cell 2000, Lucerne (Switzerland), 2000, p. 185.
42. S. Elangovan, J. Hartvigsen, , Ceramatec, US Patent, 1996.
43. S. Elangovan, T.L. Cable, T.A. Morris and E.A. Barringer, in 2000 Fuel Cell Seminar,
Portland, Oregon, 2000, p. 503.
44. C. De Minco, in 2nd Annual SECA Workshop, 2001.
45. A. Virkar, in Electrochemical Society, Vol. 99-19, 1999, p. 830.
46. T. Satake, K. Watanabe, S. Yamamuro, in European Patent Office, Mitsubishi Jukogyo

Kabushiki Kaisha, 1998.
2-35
12347402
12347402
3
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
The physical design of a fuel cell stack affects its technical performance. The previous chapter
described the different SOFC designs currently under development. This chapter will critically
analyze published data from different developers to assess the effect of cell/stack designs on:
• Performance
• Performance Stability
• Material intensity & usage effectiveness
Each section will start with a brief review of fuel cell basics, to provide a common understanding
of the physico-chemical and engineering phenomena that connect cell design and materials
selection to cell performance.
Finally, scenarios are developed that describe the potential evolution of both tubular and planar
designs over the next decade. The scenarios emphasize fundamental differences in the cell
architectures while eliminating differences observed currently due to differences in development
status.
Fuel Cell Electrical Performance
Electrical Performance Basics
The performance of a fuel cell is often characterized by a polarization curve, which describes the
dependence of the cell voltage on the current density for a given set of operating conditions.
Figure 3-1 shows a typical polarization curve, which is described by equation 3-1
E = E – (ηa – ηc) – J Rt
0
(3-1)
where, E is the measured cell voltage, E0 is the thermodynamic potential, ηa and ηc are the anode
and cathode overpotentials respectively, J is the current density, and Rt is the total ohmic area
specific resistance (ASR). The overpotentials and the ohmic resistance reduce the driving force
for electric current to flow through the load and hence are represented as losses. Another way of
looking at it is that a reduction in the single-cell operating voltage at a given current density
leads to a reduction in power output (since P=V*I) at the same fuel input and hence to a loss of
efficiency. Here we briefly discuss the different contributions to these voltage losses.
Thermodynamic potential (E0): Is a measure of the potential for electrical work for the given fuel
and oxidant composition and is equal to ∆G/nF, where ∆G is the free energy change for the
3-1
12347402
Technical Assessment
overall reaction, n is the number of electrons transferred per molecule of fuel, and F is Faraday’s
constant. The thermodynamic potential depends on the reaction conditions at the three-phase
boundary (TPB). The potential for electrical work increases with an increase in pressure, an
increase in reactants’ concentration, a decrease in temperature (because of the T∆S term in ∆G),
and a decrease in product concentration. It is useful to point out that at high utilization (or
conversion) of fuel, the fuel concentration decreases from cell inlet to the cell outlet,
consequently, the thermodynamic potential also decreases from the cell inlet to the cell outlet.
Similarly, high current densities require rapid transport of reactants from the bulk anode and
cathode flows through the porous electrodes to the TPB, introducing certain mass transfer
resistances, which inherently decrease local reactant concentrations and increase local product
concentrations.
In a perfect fuel cell, the open circuit voltage (OCV) of a fuel cell should equal the
thermodynamic potential, however any mixing of the reactants within the fuel cell lowers the
OCV. In SOFC the solubilities of reactants (molecular oxygen and fuel) in the electrolyte are
negligible (unlike in PEMFC systems), therefore, measured OCVs below the theoretical OCV
signal the presence of a leak in the cell or stack or a pinhole in the electrolyte.
Thermodynamic Potential (E0)
Polarization Loss
(ηa + ηc )
Cell Voltage
Ohmic Loss
(J R t)
Current Density
Figure 3-1
Depiction of the Voltage Losses in a Fuel Cell.
Overpotentials (ηa & ηc): Overpotentials represent voltage losses due to kinetic limitations at the
electrodes. For an electrochemical reaction occurring at a finite rate, the overpotential is a
measure of the extent of shift from equilibrium. In general, the overpotential increases as the
logarithm of the reaction rate (or current density). For a given current density, the overpotential
generally decreases with an increase in the length of the TPB [1], increase in temperature (due to
Arrhenius effects on electrode kinetics), and increases in reactants’ partial pressures (i.e. increase
in reactants’ concentration and / or increase in total pressure). On the other hand the
concentration at the TPB will decrease with an increase in the thickness of the electrode, a
decrease in the porosity (these two are due to mass transfer resistances and are more significant
at high current densities), and an increase in the utilization (or conversion) of the fuel. Likewise,
any mixing of the reactants within the fuel cell (e.g. due to leaks) will lower the effective
3-2
12347402
concentration of the reactants and hence increase the overpotential. On a separate note, if direct
oxidation of carbon monoxide or even hydrocarbons is to be accomplished in the SOFC (as
opposed to on- or off- anode reforming and water-gas-shift reaction), the significantly lower
diffusivity of these species compared to hydrogen will significantly depress the concentration of
fuel at the TPB, thus imposing significant mass-transfer limitations at much lower current
densities. This is a fundamental and potentially significant barrier to the development of truly
high-performance direct oxidation SOFCs.
Total ohmic ASR (Rt): The ohmic resistance in the cell causes a voltage drop according to Ohm’s
law (i.e. it is linear with current density). The ohmic ASR is composed of ionic ASR in the
electrolyte (Re), electronic ASR in the anode, cathode and interconnects (Ra, Rc, Ri), and contact
ASR between the different layers (Rcontact). Because these resistances occur in series, they can be
summed together as the total ohmic ASR, Rt, given by
Rt = Re + Ra + Rc + Ri + Rcontact (3-2)
Both material selection and, cell and stack design influence each component of the total ohmic
ASR. The ohmic ASR of a component is related to its conductivity (σ) and the path length for
current conduction (t) by
R = t/σ (3-3)
The importance of the path length for current conduction is discussed in a subsequent section.
The typical bulk conductivities of the different SOFC components are plotted in Figure 3-2.
Note that the absolute value of bulk conductivity also strongly depends on the chemical
composition.
• Ionic ASR: As Figure 3-2 shows the ionic conductivity of the YSZ electrolyte is a strong
function of temperature [2]. This is the primary barrier to further reducing the operating
temperature of planar SOFCs. As an example, consider a planar fuel cell with a 10 µm thick
electrolyte. At 800 C the ionic ASR in the fuel cell would be 0.03 Ω cm2, which is quite
small. But at 600 C, the ionic ASR would be 0.3 Ω cm , which is an order of magnitude
2
higher than that at 800 C. Alternatively, to maintain the low ASR of 0.03 Ω cm2, the cell
operating at 600 C should have an electrolyte that is thinner than 1 µm. Constructing pin-
hole free electrolytes of thickness less than 5 µm is challenging with current fabrication
techniques. In the long term operation, any contamination of the electrolyte with cationic
species, such as the chromium species vaporized from the interconnect, can increase the ionic
resistance with time.
• Electronic ASR: Over the temperature range 700 – 1000 °C, the bulk resistivity of the anode,
cathode, and interconnect are higher than the bulk ionic resistivity of the electrolyte. The
electronic conductivity of the ceramic components (cathode and interconnect) increases with
an increase in temperature, whereas that of the anode decreases with an increase in
temperature. In fact, in comparison to the strong temperature dependence of the ionic
conductivity, the electronic conductivity of the anode, cathode, and electrolyte appear
unchanging with temperature.
3-3
12347402
• Contact ASR: To the extent that the layers in the cell structure are not typically bonded
together at the molecular level, some measurable contact resistance arises. Often this is
caused by imperfect contact (reducing the area for conduction; this effect can be reduced by
increasing the contact pressure) and the formation of thin, less conductive, oxide layers on
the surfaces of the layers (these oxide layers are often what protects the materials from
corrosion, but their conductivity can be orders of magnitude lower than that of the bulk
material). The contact ASR is a strong function of cell design, but also of cell condition. The
contact ASR between the different layers may increase with time because of corrosion or
delamination. As noted in the previous chapter, metallic interconnects may (need to) develop
an oxide coating with higher resistance than the bulk. This is a dynamic process that would
gradually increase the contact resistance at the electrode/interconnect interface. In addition,
temperature gradients within the fuel cell can build up thermal stresses that may lead to
delamination or loss of contact between the different layers, leading to increased contact
resistance. In principle, in stacks that are completely fused / bonded together (such as the co-
fired SOFCo stack design) these interfacial resistances are minimized.
Temperature / C
1060 725 525 400 300 225 170
100000
Haynes 230, Metallic interconnect
10000
40%Ni-YSZ, anode
1000
-1
Conductivity / S cm
100
LSM, cathode
La0.85 Sr0.15 CrO3, ceramic interconnect
10
0.1
0.01
8% YSZ, electrolyte
0.001
0.0001
0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25
-1
(1000 / T) / K
Figure 3-2
Comparison of the Temperature Dependence of the Ionic and Electronic Conductivities of
the Cell Components. Conductivity Data Obtained from [3] for the Electrolyte, [4] for the
Anode, [5] for the Cathode and [6] for the Ceramic Interconnect.
3-4
12347402
Electrical Performance Characterization
The electrical performance of the different designs can be characterized by comparing the
information in polarization curves (voltage versus current density) measured under different
conditions. In particular measured polarization curves yield the following information:
• Power density at a given cell voltage and fuel utilization: The power density (product of
voltage and current density) determines the physical size of the stack, which in turn
determines the materials requirements and stack materials cost for a given application. The
single cell operating voltage determines the energy conversion efficiency (ηe) of the stack,
defined by
nFE
ηe = ηu (3-4)
∆H 0
where, ∆H0 is the enthalpy of combustion for the fuel at a reference standard state and ηu is
the utilization (or conversion) of the fuel. Therefore, high efficiency SOFC systems require
that the stack operate not only at a high cell voltage, but also at a high fuel utilization. In
order to make meaningful assessment of fuel cell performance the polarization curve should
be measured for high fuel utilization, near the design point for a practical operating system.
Stack developers sometimes quote the maximum power density measured without stating the
fuel utilization. However, the maximum power density might correspond to low cell
voltages (< 0.6 V) and/or low fuel utilizations, which are typically not realistic for SOFC
stationary power generation applications, because of the low associated efficiency. The
maximum power density at these low voltages may be constrained by mass transfer
limitations, whereas the power density that may be obtained at higher and more relevant cell
voltages tends to be constrained by electrode kinetics and ohmic ASR.
• Contact resistance: The slope of the polarization curve can help quantify the contact
resistance in the fuel cell stack. With regard to equation (3-1), the slope corresponds to:
dE d [η a + η c ]
= + Rt (3-5)
dJ dJ
The slope of the polarization curve would correspond to the total ohmic resistance Rt, if
d(ηa+ηc)/dJ is small compared to Rt,. This would occur under conditions of: high reactants’
concentration at the TPB or at high current densities in the absence of mass transport
resistances. Under these conditions, from the measured value of Rt, or the slope of the
polarization curve, one can subtract the calculated ASR of the cell components to get an
estimate of the contact ASR (Eq. 3-2).
• Single cell versus stack performance: The average performance of the cells in a stack is
usually inferior that of single cells of the same design. As an example, consider the published
data for the Global Thermoelectric design [7] reproduced in Figure 3-3. In this case, the
single cell performance (both power density and ASR) is superior to that of the fifteen-cell
stack. Performance of single cells is typically measured under controlled conditions:
isothermal oven, uniform gas flow, minimal contact resistances, etc. In contrast, in a stack,
control of temperature gradients, gas distribution, contact resistances, etc., is more difficult.
3-5
12347402
Therefore, comparison of the power densities and ASRs of the single cells and stacks can
provide an indication of the stack development status.
1.1
2
750 C, 1 atm, 100 cm active area
Humidified H2
1
Voltage / V
0.9
0.8
Single Cell
15-Cell Stack
0.7
0.6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
-2
Current Density / mA cm
Figure 3-3
Comparison of Single Cell and Stack Performance for the Global Thermoelectric’s Design.
Data Obtained from [7]. Current Reported Electrical Performance
The path length of the current flow along with the relevant material conductivities and the level
of current concentration determine the ohmic ASR in the fuel cell. The cell configuration (i.e.,
planar or tubular) dictates the current conduction patterns. For the planar geometry (CFCL,
SOFCo, Sulzer, TMI, etc.), current flow is almost exactly perpendicular to the plane of the
anode, electrolyte, cathode, and interconnect. The ohmic ASR drop across each component is
given by
R=ρt (3-6)
where ρ is the resistivity, and t is the component thickness. For the tubular or strip geometries
(SW MHI Tubular, and Rolls Royce) the current flows perpendicular to the electrolyte, but
parallel to the electrodes. Therefore the ohmic ASR for the electrolyte is given by Eq. (3-6).
The ohmic ASR of the electrodes can be approximated by
ρL2
R= (3-7)
2t
where L is the characteristic length of the electrode and t is its thickness (for the current SW
design pi/tube radius; for the MHI and Rolls Royce designs the pitch of strips). In deriving Eq.
(3-7), we assumed for simplicity that the current density at any point along the electrolyte-
electrode interface is a constant irrespective of position (i.e. the electrolyte resistance and
electrochemical overpotentials area still the controlling voltage drops). For the tubular SOFC
designs considered in this study, the electrodes are orders of magnitude longer than they are
3-6
12347402
thick. Therefore, from Eqs. (3-6) and (3-7), this ohmic ASR of the tubular designs will be higher
than the ohmic ASR of the planar designs (see Table 3-1).
From Figure 3-2, the electrical conductivity of the anode is at least an order of magnitude higher
than that of the cathode or the ceramic interconnect. Therefore, for the tubular designs, the
ohmic ASR of the cathode and the interconnect (SW, MHI, and Rolls Royce all use ceramic
interconnects) will dominate the total ASR. In the SW design, given the long conduction path of
the cathode, the cathode voltage drop will dominate the total ohmic voltage drop. This
characteristic of tubular and strip designs necessitates the use of relatively thick cathodes (e.g.
SW, MHI) or external current collectors (Acumentrix) lest the power density would be severely
limited (Rolls Royce).
Available Performance Data
The performance data for the designs discussed in chapter 1 are summarized in Table 3-1. The
data listed in Table 3-1 reflects recent information for the various designs and was collected from
public literature published in the last three years. Power densities used for estimation of
materials volumes, seal lengths, and other stack parameters are indicated by asterisks in Table
3-1. Also listed in Table 3-1 is an estimate of the ohmic ASR calculated from the component
thickness listed in the previous chapter and the bulk resistivities given in Figure 3-2. The ionic
resistance of the electrolyte is corrected for temperature of operation, whereas the bulk electronic
resistances of the other components are assumed to be independent of temperature. The power
density and ASR data listed in Table 3-1 is also plotted in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5 to facilitate
comparisons.
Limitations of the Available Data
Ideally the performance of the different designs would be compared under realistic and
comparable operating parameters (high system efficiency). These parameters include cell
voltage, fuel and oxidant compositions, and fuel and oxidant utilizations. In particular, a high
efficiency system requires operation at high cell voltage and high fuel utilization. Consequently,
to the extent possible, we have chosen stack power densities for 0.7 V operation. Unfortunately,
the data for most of the developers is available only at low fuel utilization.
To the extent data is available, the single cell and stack power densities for a given design are
compared at the same cell voltage. For cases where polarization curves are available, the
estimated ASRs are also given. For some of the designs (SW, Global, MSRI, SOFCo) data is
available for both single cells and stacks. For some of the other designs (MHI: tubular, MHI:
planar, CFCL, Rolls Royce) data is available only for stacks and for some (TMI, Honeywell)
only single cell data is available. Of these, polarization data is not available for the CFCL stack.
3-7
12347402
Table 3-1
Summary of the Performance Data for the Different Designs Collected from the Literature
Measured Single Cell Performance Calculated Measured Stack Performance
Developer Cell Power Slope of Cell Power Slope of

Ohmic Temp
Fuel Temp (C) voltage density pol. curve -2 Fuel voltage density Stack size pol. curve
Ref. ASR* •cm Ref. (C)
(V) (mW cm-2) •cm-2 (V) (mW cm-2) •cm-2
Siemens [8] H2 + 3% H2O,, [10] Reformed CH4 at

¥
85 % util. ,1 1000 0.7 175 0.66 ~ 0.6 85% utilization, 1 1000 0.7 160* 25 kW 0.83
Westinghouse [9] atm atm
[11] Reformed 17 kW, 414

¥
MHI: Tubular -- -- -- -- -- ~ 1.0 methanol, 50% 900 0.7 140 tubular 1.2
util., 5 atm stacks
¥ [12] 30 W, 30
Rolls Royce -- -- -- -- -- ~ 1.0 H2 low util., 1 atm 889 0.7 60* 1.2
cell trip
[13] Internal reforming

CFCL -- -- -- -- -- 0.14** of CH4, 85 % util., 900 0.6 120* Not given --
1 atm
[14] H2, 84 % util., 1 2 kW stack,

MHI Planar -- -- -- -- -- 0.15** atm 1000 0.7 190* 0.7
20 cells
[15] [15]
H2, low util., 1 atm 800 0.7 166* -- 1.0
H2, low util., 1
SOFCo atm 800 0.7 147 1.6 0.27**
[16] H2, 70 % util., 100 W, 10
800 0.7 77 --
1 atm cell
[17] H2, low util., 1 Pol. Curve [18] H2, low util. 960 0.8 110 1.4
Sulzer-Hexis atm 920 0.8 120 0.16**
not given
[18] H2, low util. 960 0.7 140* 5 cell 1.4
H2 + H2O, 75
% util., 300
TMI ppm H2S, 1
900 0.7 140* 1.0 0.19**
[19]
atm
Global [7] H2 low util., 1 [7] H2 60% util., 1 15 cells 10

atm 750 0.77 925 0.48 0.046** atm 750 0.77 650* 0.26
Thermoelectric x 10 cm
[20] H2 low util., 1

Honeywell atm 800 0.7 350* 0.63 0.03** -- -- -- -- -- --
[21] H2, low util., 1 [22] H2 + H2O low util.,

MSRI atm
800 0.7 630 0.13 0.03** 1 atm
800 0.7 350* 40 cell stack 0.5
3-8
12347402
1000
Planar Anode Supported
Single Cell
Stack
0.77 V
800
Power Density / mW cm-2 600
400
Tubular Planar Electrolyte Supported
200
0.6 V
TMI
Rolls Royce
MSRI
CFCL
SOFCo
MHI Tubular
MHI Planar
Sulzer-Hexis
Global
Honeywell
SW
Figure 3-4
Comparisons of Single Cell and Stack Power Densities Using the Data from Table 3-1. The
Data Were Obtained Under Different Operating Conditions of Temperature, Pressure, Fuel
Composition and Utilization, as Summarized in Table 3-1. Most of the Data is for Cell
Operation at 0.7 V, except as Indicated.
1.8
Calculated ohmic
Measured:Single Cell
1.6
Measured: Stack
2
Area Specific Resistance / Ω cm
1.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
MHI Tubular
MHI Planar
Sulzer-Hexis
Global
Honeywell
TMI
MSRI
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
SW
Figure 3-5
Comparison of the Slopes of the Polarization Curves and Calculated ohmic ASR Using the
Data From Table 3-1. The Operating Conditions for the Data are Summarized in Table 3-1.
3-9
12347402
Analysis of the Electrical Performance
Tubular Designs
In general, all of the tubular designs approach the maximum achievable power densities given
the geometries used. The length of the conduction path through the (modestly conductive)
cathode materials limits the power density. The only ways to fundamentally improve this would
be to improve the effective conductivity of the cathode (e.g. by providing a separate current
collector such as Acumentrics) or to reduce the length of the conduction path. Specifically, for
the individual designs we found that:
• Siemens Westinghouse (SW) Conventional Design: The tubular designs developed by SW
were profiled in chapter 2. For the current, single cathode chamber cell, a reasonable amount
of performance data is publicly available at realistic operating conditions (high utilization of
realistic fuels, large stack, etc.). The data for this design is summarized in Table 3-1. The
performance of the SW single cell is slightly better than the performance of the 25 kW stack.
However, because the two measurements were obtained for different gas compositions, we
cannot be certain whether the slightly higher ASR in the stack is due to increase in
overpotential or an increase in ohmic resistance. Even so, the difference between the single
cell and stack is not substantial and appears to indicate that the SW stack is relatively well-
optimized. In addition, the calculated ASR closely matches the measured ASR implying
minimal contact resistances in the stack, again pointing to a reasonably optimized stacking
arrangement. For the SW design, the air electrode polarization is more significant than the
fuel electrode polarization. Increase in utilization from 55 to 85 % (a change in outlet fuel
partial pressure of 30% for pure H2 feed) caused only a 6 % decrease in the power density at
0.7 V and 1000 °C. On the other hand, a decrease in the oxygen mole fraction from 100 %
(pure oxygen) to 21 % (air) led to a 40 % decrease in the power density at 0.7 V.
• Siemens-Westinghouse New Design: SW is also pursuing a high power density (HPD) design
(see chapter 2). At 0.7 V, the power density for HPD design were reported to be more than
60 % higher and the volumetric power density 25 % higher than the old design [8]. The
improvement in power densities was claimed to be a result of reduced conduction path for
the electrons. Unfortunately, for the newer high power density design, only single cell data is
available to us at this time.
• MHI Tubular: Only stack polarization curves are available for this design. The MHI design
operates at a pressure of 5 bar but delivers about 8 % lower power density than the 1 atm data
for the SW tubular design. Also, the MHI design has a 30 % higher measured ASR
compared to the SW design. Table 3-1 shows that the calculated ohmic ASR for this design
is quite high owing to the long conduction path for the electrons through the electrode and
interconnect layers. But this could be compensated to some extent, by the higher partial
pressure of the reactants (due to the high-pressure operation), which would help reduce the
overpotential losses. Without pressurization, the power density of the MHI tubular design
will be even lower. Additional ASR resulting from interconnecting strip tubes could
presumably be kept to a fairly low value as it is relatively thin in dimension.
• Rolls Royce: The power density of a 30 cell strip of the Rolls Royce design is the lowest of
the tubular designs and the ASR of the Rolls Royce design is comparable to that of the MHI
tubular design. The reason for the low power density may come from leaks in the stack
3-10
12347402
(discussed in a later section). The high ASR comes from the long electronic conduction path
in the electrodes. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the thickness values of the
electrodes are not available from public sources. But, comparison of the ohmic and
calculated ASRs provided an estimate of the minimum allowable thickness for these
components. As discussed previously, the electronic resistance of the cathode will dominate
the total ohmic ASR for the tubular designs. In order for the calculated ohmic ASR for the
Rolls Royce design to be less than the measured ASR, once can estimate that the cathode
thickness must exceed 250 µm and the anode thickness must exceed 100 µm.
Planar Thick Electrolyte Designs
For the planar thick electrolyte designs we found that the calculated ASRs are substantially lower
than those of the tubular designs. Thus in theory they should be able to achieve higher power
densities. However in practice the measured ASRs and power densities are slightly worse than
those of the tubular designs. The high interfacial resistances between the layers (e.g. due to poor
contact) are largely to blame for this. Over the past five years there has been only modest
progress in this. The high necessary operating temperatures in combination with thermo-
mechanical issues limit the amount of force that can be applied to establishing good contact,
while at the same time internal thermo-mechanical stresses appear to compromise contact
between the ceramic layers. It does not appear that rapid progress is likely. Rather, many of the
developers of this technology (such as Sulzer-Hexis) plan a switch to thin-electrolyte
architectures in the future (see below). Specifically, we found for the individual designs that:
• CFCL: Compared to the tubular SW design, the CFCL design operates at a slightly lower
temperature (900 °C), and has been shown to support internal reforming of natural gas at
these temperatures (as does the SW design). The demonstrated internal reforming of natural
gas in a stack (stack size not reported) occurs at 60 % fuel utilization and 0.65 V and 200 mA
cm-2. At the same current density, the cell voltage dropped to 0.6 V for 85 % fuel utilization.
Based on previous system studies, it appears that a cell operating voltage of 0.6V is
marginally acceptable at best from the point of view of system efficiency. Internal reforming
in the stack will eliminate the need for a fuel processor and hence lead to a simpler system
design. Polarization curves were not given, however, which makes further analysis of the
data difficult. While CFCL has been working on thin-electrolyte technology, and believes
that it will eventually migrate towards it, public statements made by CFCL appear to indicate
that their current confidence in that version of their technology is still rather low, and that the
first commercial products would use thick-electrolyte technology for some time to come.
• MHI Planar: The MHI planar design operates at a slightly higher temperature than the planar
CFCL design. Also, the measured ASR for the MHI planar design is lower than that of the
MHI tubular design or the SW tubular design. The slightly elevated temperature may reduce
the ohmic contribution from the thicker electrolyte and thus lead to reduced ASR. The power
density for this design is higher than that for the tubular designs and may come from the
1
corrugated electrodes. The active area of the dimples may be as much as 80 % higher than
the geometric surface area of the cell. Therefore, on an electrolyte area basis, the power
1
Estimate
3-11
12347402
density at 0.7 V is 105 mW cm-2, which is lower than that measured in the SW or MHI
tubular designs, or in the CFCL planar design. As we shall see in the next section, it is likely
that leaks in the stack contributed to the poor performance.
• SOFCo: Compared to the CFCL planar design, the SOFCo design operates at a lower
temperature of 800 °C even though the SOFCo design uses a thick electrolyte (180 µm).
Consequently, the calculated ohmic ASR for this design is the highest in Table 3-1. It is
claimed that the SOFCo developers have been able to improve the stack performance to
match that of the single cell. However, the published data shows that that the single cell
power density is slightly lower than that for the stack. Also, the ASR in the stack is lower
than that in the single cell [15]. In ref. [15], it was shown that a single cell operating at 850 C
matched the power density of the stack that operated at 800 C. For stack performance, the
data in Table 3-1 shows that the power density reduces by 50 % for 70 % fuel utilization.
The fuel composition for the high fuel utilization data (Table 3-1) is not available and hence
we cannot conclude whether the sharp drop is merely due to a change in fuel utilization, or
whether it reflects a change in the feed gas composition.
• Sulzer-Hexis: The Sulzer-Hexis stack operates at a slightly elevated temperature compared
to the CFCL design. For the Sulzer design, the stack power density at 0.8 V is only about 8
% lower than that of the single cell, although the stack operates at 40 °C higher temperature.
The measured ASR of the Sulzer stack is the highest for any design in Table 3-1. Given the
difference in the calculated ohmic ASR and the measured ASR, it is likely that contact
resistances in the stack are significant. Sulzer-Hexis has been working on thin-electrolyte
ceramic architectures over the past years. The work appears to be based on the Julich
technology (the same that was licensed by Global Thermoelectric). If and when this is
accomplished we expect that the Sulzer-Hexis performance would more or less equal that of
the Global technology, while at the same time allowing the use of lower-cost interconnect
materials.
• TMI: The TMI single cell operates at a slightly elevated temperature compared to the CFCL
stack. The measured single cell power density of the TMI design is similar to the other
electrolyte supported designs, though the feed for the TMI design contained 300 ppm H2S. It
is useful to mention the effects of sulfur on cell performance. Sulfur poisons Ni based
catalysts and increases the anode overpotential (Eq. 3-1), consequently, the cell voltage for a
given current density decreases. Note that the increase in the anode overpotential that will
lead to a noticeable loss of cell voltage depends on the ohmic resistance. With reference to
Eq. (3-1), if the ohmic resistance is large, then any small change in the anode overpotential
will only marginally affect the cell voltage. The measured ASR of the TMI single cell is one
of the highest for single cells and is a factor of five higher than the calculated Ohmic ASR.
Planar Thin Electrolyte Designs
Although the difference between the measured and calculated ASRs are comparable to the thick
electrolyte planar designs, the performance of the thin electrolyte planar designs is considerably
higher than that of either the other planar or the tubular designs. Current densities up to 650
mW/cm2 were measured. There currently is a wide spread in the performance achieved by
different developers, especially at the stack level. It appears that this is due to differences in
implementation and stage of development, rather than due to fundamental differences in the
3-12
12347402
designs. In addition, it appears that even compared to the best in class there is still significant
room for further improvement in performance. Specifically, for the individual developers we
found that:
• Global Thermoelectric: The Global Thermoelectric design has the highest single cell and
stack power density and the lowest measured stack ASR in Table 3-1. For the Global design
there is a 26 % reduction in power density and a 50 % increase in the ASR in going from a
single cell to a stack. Global has shown interesting historical data on its single-cell
performance showing that it has made steady improvements in the single cell power density
over time. From 1998 to 2000, the single cell power density has increased by a factor of
seven for operation at 0.7 V and 750 °C. However, to date, the cell and stack performance
measurements have been for fuel utilizations less than 60 %. For efficient energy
conversion, the fuel utilization must be high. Obtaining high fuel utilization without
compromising power density may be an issue for the anode supported designs because, the
thick anodes present a significant mass transport resistance at low concentrations of the fuel.
Data in the public literature for high fuel utilization in anode supported fuel cells is scarce.
To our knowledge, the only available data suggests that more than 20 % drop in power
density occurs when the fuel utilization increases from 10 % to 85 % [23]. This drop may be
greater for the designs that have low ohmic losses in the stack. Nevertheless, even with such
a drop taken into account, the power densities reported by Global are far greater than those of
their competitors. It is difficult to extrapolate the results to truly high fuel utilizations, but
even a 20-30% drop in power density would still yield the highest current density of the
pack. This indicates that Global’s cells are comparatively well-optimized and that its stack is
relatively well-optimized. Still, from the comparison with the calculated ASRs, there is still
considerable room for further improvement. The tubular designs would require a significant
technology improvement (breakthrough) to achieve similar levels (e.g. different materials or
a fundamentally different architecture).
• MSRI: The MSRI design disclosed in the patents is an externally manifolded design,
however, the latest publications indicate that MSRI has changed to an internally manifolded
design. The performance data listed in Table 3-1 is for an internally manifolded 250 W
stack. The performance of the MSRI technology is akin to that of the Global design at the
single cell level; the single cell power density and measured ASR are better than in the stack.
However, the power density for the MSRI design decreases by 45 % and the ASR increases
by 340 % in the stack. The large increase in the ASR of the stack may arise from contact
resistance between the interconnects and the electrodes or from possible leaks in the stack.
This point is further discussed in the next section. As with the Global design, MSRI design
must demonstrate high power density even at high fuel utilization. If MSRI’s stack
technology can be further refined, its performance could be on par with or better than that of
Global.
• Honeywell: There are no polarization curves available for the Honeywell radial flow stack.
The single cell polarization curve shows a reasonably high power density at 0.7 V. However,
the measured ASR is the highest of all the anode supported designs (Global or MSRI) and
may arise from significant contact resistances in the cell. As with the MSRI and Global
designs, the Honeywell design must show high power density at high fuel utilization.
Currently, the reported performance of the Honeywell design is not significantly higher than
that of the SW tubular designs. Although the fundamental concept should lead to similar
power densities as the Global design, its current implementation does not achieve this
3-13
12347402
potential. In our opinion, the complexity of the manifolding and the stack overall could be a
significant barrier to rapid improvement of the technology.
Discussion
Although the relatively simple analysis described above has limitations, some surprisingly broad
conclusions can be drawn from it to distinguish the ultimate potential of the different designs.
• The measured power density in a SOFC stack is strongly influenced by the ASR. Figure 3-6
shows a plot of the measured power density as a function of the measured ASR for the stack
data in Table 3-1. The solid line through the data was calculated for 0.7 V operation using
Eq. (3-1) and assuming 1.05 V for E0, 0.1 V for (ηa + ηc), and the measured ASR for Rt. It is
clear that a low value of the ASR results in a high value for the power density.
800
Measured: Stacks
Measured: Single cells
600
-2
Calculated
Power Density / W cm
400
200
0
0.2 0.7 1.2 1.7
Area Specific Resistance / Ω cm-2
Figure 3-6
Dependence of the Power Density on the Measured ASR from Polarization Curves. The
Solid Line Represents the Power Densities at 0.7 V Calculated by Assuming the Measured
ASR is Equal to the Total Ohmic ASR, Total Overpotential of 0.1 V, and an Open Circuit
Voltage of 1.05 V.
The implication is that a reduction in the contact ASR for the designs that have a high value
of the measured ASR will be key to improving the power density. Once these improvements
are made, more subtle differences in electrocatalytic performance may become more obvious
in their impact on overall cell and stack performance.
• Comparing the data listed in Table 3-1 and plotted in Figure 3-4 and Figure 3-5, it is clear
that the SOFC designs fall into two categories: those that support a power density less than
200 mW cm-2 and those that have a higher power density. The tubular and electrolyte
supported designs fall into the low power density category, whereas the thin electrolyte
designs support higher power densities. The obvious reason lies in the reduced ASR of the
thin electrolyte designs. Thus it appears that to significantly improve performance over
current performance of the SW tubular designs, thin-electrolyte planar bipolar designs offer
the most likely path to success. In fact, it appears that current densities approaching 1 A/cm2
3-14
12347402
should eventually be possible with these architectures, even at very modest operating
temperatures.
• It is expected that in the future all planar designs will converge towards thinner electrolytes
and lower operating temperatures. Note that the calculated Ohmic ASR for all the electrolyte
supported designs is greater than that measured for the single cells of either the Global or the
MSRI designs. With their current operating temperatures, the electrolyte-supported designs
will never match the measured ASR of the MSRI or Global designs. The operating
temperature of the electrolyte supported designs would have to exceed 1050 °C in order to
match the measured ASRs of the MSRI single cell. It is concluded that the thin-electrolyte
designs fundamentally provide higher power density capability than thick-electrolyte designs.
The fact that these designs achieve this higher performance at a lower operating temperature
further favors their future development.
• It is interesting to note that the power density of the planar thick electrolyte designs is on par
with the tubular designs (which have fairly thin electrolytes). Owing to the shorter electronic
and ionic conduction paths, the planar thick electrolyte designs were expected to provide a
higher power density than the tubular designs. However, it appears that the high actual
ohmic resistance of the electrolyte supported designs reduces the measured power density. In
our opinion, the complexity of thermo-mechanical issues (related to high-temperature
operation of the stacks) and related sealing issues prevent rapid improvement of that
technology.
• Although the anode supported designs have the highest power density in Table 3-1, the data
were obtained for less-than-practical operating conditions. The developers must demonstrate
the performance curves for operation at high utilization of fuel. Still, we expect that even if
these effects are accounted for the power densities for these designs will far exceed those of
the competing designs.
Performance Stability
None of the SOFC technologies have accumulated sufficient operating experience to completely
characterize the performance stability and maintenance requirements that would occur during
commercial operation. Nevertheless, some of the rudimentary aspects of performance stability
have been characterized:
• The ability to withstand thermal cycling: A poorly designed stack may fail during start-up or
shut down. Most of the components in a SOFC are brittle ceramics, with poor thermal
conductivity and rather widely differing coefficients of thermal expansion. During startup or
shutdown, damaging thermal stresses may develop, the sealant integrity may be
compromised, or the component layers may delaminate. Consequently, cracks may develop
in the cells, causing reactants to mix, and increasing the contact resistances. For these
reasons, developers pay much attention to testing the performance stability during
temperature cycling. Clearly, what is important in these experiments is the rate at which
cool-down or heat-up occurs. Unfortunately most developers do not report these rates. In
addition, many of the stack data are still taken in well-controlled thermal environments (i.e.
ovens) that are not representative of the thermal gradients that would be seen when a
thermally self-sustained system is started up. Of course, any limitation in the stack’s ability
3-15
12347402
to withstand cycling will severely limit the possible operating strategies for the SOFC and
hence the commercial versatility.
• Steady-State Degradation rate: Even during steady-state operation, the performance of
SOFC stacks degrades with time. In order for the stacks to be commercially viable, a rule of
thumb is that the cell voltage must degrade by less than 0.5 % per 1000 hours in a
galvanostatic (constant current) experiment (or about 20% over 40,000 hrs, considered to be
the minimum stack life). If the degradation rate is higher, the stack will require replacement
sooner, and consequently the O&M cost will increase, most likely unacceptably so for most
stationary power generation options. Performance degradation comes about because of the
very harsh environments that the cell components are exposed to: high temperatures
accompanied by oxidizing, reducing, or acidic environments. Important mechanisms for
degradation are sintering (leading to reduced surface area and reduction in the length of the
TPB), and migration of species between the layers in the ceramic. For example, it is known
that interconnects containing Cr are likely to form a Cr2O3 layer when exposed to oxygen. At
high temperatures in a wet gas, the chromium oxides evaporate and deposit on the cathode
electrode and poison it, thereby degrading its performance.
Thermal Expansion of the MEA Components
Key factors influencing the stability of the components in an SOFC during cycling are the
differences in the coefficients of thermal expansion of the components. To get an estimate of the
strain that develops in an MEA layer during cell startup we compared the thermal expansion
behavior of the MEA components. Figure 3-7 shows a comparison of the temperature
dependence of the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) for the different SOFC layers. Using
this data, we calculated the percent change in component length when heated from room
temperature. The results of these calculations are summarized in Figure 3-8. The results suggest
that if the anode, electrolyte, and cathode have equal lengths, say 10 cm, at room temperature
and are allowed to expand unconstrained, then the difference in the lengths at 800 °C would be
on the order of 100 µm. The electrolyte would be shorter than the anode or the cathode. The
implication is that if the electrolyte were the thickest component, then during MEA heat-up, the
anode and cathode would be under a compressive stress because they cannot expand
unconstrained. The electrolyte, on the other hand, will be under a tensile stress.
3-16
12347402
Table 3-2
Summary of the Performance Stability Data Collected From the Literature
Demonstrated Cycling Capability Leaks in Steady State

Developer Degradation rate Reference
Operation
Temperatures Size Comments
Siemens Demonstrated over 11

RT – 1000 25 kW stack < 0.5% per 1000 hrs Minimum, OCV > 1.0 V [24]
Westinghouse temperature cycles
10 kW, 5 atm Demonstrated stable performance
MHI: Tubular RT - 900 1 - 2% per 1000 hrs Minimum, OCV > 1.0V [25]
pressurized after four temperature cycles
Rolls Royce -- -- Cycling data not published -- Significant, OCV ~ 0.9 V [12]
< 1% / 1000 hrs, after
CFCL -- -- Cycling data not published the first 1000 hrs of Seals failed at fuel manifold [26]
operation
Demonstrated stable performance Negligible deterioration
MHI: Planar RT – 1000 1 kW stack Significant, OCV < 1.0 V [26]
after four temperature cycles after first 1000 hrs
Demonstrated stable performance
SOFCo RT – 900 62 cell stack < 0.5 per 1000 hrs Minimum, OCV > 1.0 V [27] [28]
after 4 temperature cycles
Demonstrated one temperature
Sulzer-Hexis RT – 950 5 cell stack < 0.5 per 1000 hrs Minimum, OCV > 1.0 V [18] [17]
cycle without loss of performance
Demonstrated reasonably stable ~ 5% for 1000 hrs,
TMI 100 – 950 Single cell performance for 30 temperature before temperature Pol. Curves Not Given [20]
cycles cycling
Global Claimed to one temperature cycle ~2% for first 1000 hrs,
RT – 750 6 cells stack Minimum, OCV > 1.0 V [7]
Thermoelectric without loss of stack performance but ~0.5% after 5000 hrs
Demonstrated several thermal
Honeywell RT – 800 Single cell cycles without significant loss of -- Minimum, OCV > 1.0 V [20]
performance
MSRI -- -- Cycling data not published -- Significant, OCV < 1.0 V [22]
3-17
12347402
1.3E-05
Thermal Expansion Coefficient / °C-1

Cathode
Anode
1.2E-05
Electrolyte
1.1E-05
1.0E-05
9.0E-06
8.0E-06
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Temperature (C)
Figure 3-7
Comparison of the Temperature Dependence of the Thermal Expansion Coefficients of the
MEA Components. The Data was taken from ref. [29].
1.4
Increase in Linear Dimension / %
Anode
1.2
Electrolyte
Cathode
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
200 400 600 800 1000
Temperature / °C
Figure 3-8
Change in Linear Length of the MEA Components When Heated from Room Temperature.
Calculations Were Based on the Data in Figure 3-7.
3-18
12347402
Sealing Issues
Effective sealing of planar SOFC designs has proved a major challenge. The main causes for
poor seal performance are:
– Chemical incompatibility with the cell components, which causes the seal and the cell
components to degrade with time;
– Improper bonding with the cell components, which leads to leakage and mixing of
reactants within the fuel cell;
– Inadequate viscosity at high temperatures;
– Small electronic or ionic conductivity in the seal, which causes current leakage;
– Lack of compliance at the cell operating temperature, which constrains expansion of
the cell components and hence leads to stress build-up;
– Mismatch of seal CTE with that of the cell components, which may cause the seal to
crack during cell cool down because of stress build up.
All of the above issues relate to the properties of the seal material, but the last two in the list also
depend on the physical dimension of the stack components. The challenge with choice of seal is
to satisfy all of the above requirements simultaneously. It appears that the materials properties of
the seals can be tailored sufficiently such that the seals can be made chemically compatible with
the cell components, bond with the cell components, and be ionic and electronic insulators.
However, the difficulty lies in simultaneously obtaining CTE match with the rest of the cell
components. Two types of seals are used in the designs profiled in this report: ceramic glass
seals and compressive gaskets (Global and MSRI).
Glass Seals
Ceramic glass seals are soft at the cell operating temperature, but are solid at room temperatures
[30]. The glass transition temperatures of ceramic glass seals are less than about 700 C [31].
Above this temperature the seals are soft and the resulting compliance allows the stack
components to expand and hence relieve their stresses. At the cell operating temperature, the
seal must have sufficient viscosity so that it does not flow. In fact, for an ideal seal, the
temperature dependence of the viscosity would be weak. For some glass seals, partial
crystallization at the fuel cell operating temperature ensures a reasonably high viscosity [31].
During cool-down from the operating temperature to room temperature, the glass seal thickens
when the temperature falls below the glass transition temperature. Below its glass transition
temperature the glass seal still provides the sealing function, but it is no longer compliant, which
may lead to the build up of stresses in the cell components. Therefore, depending on the relative
dimensions of the stack and cell components, stresses may develop during cell-cool down.
Compression Seals
As the name indicates, compression seals require a compressive force to provide the sealing
function. Compressive seals are especially useful when the thermal expansion of the seal does
not match that of the rest of the cell components. Typical compressive seals are metal gaskets
3-19
12347402
coated with an insulator to prevent electrical short circuit [32]. The main concerns for
compressive metallic gaskets relate to the low yield strength and creep behavior under sustained
load at high temperatures. This is because metal gaskets show a tendency to stress-relax by
creep at high temperatures. Sealing may become compromised with possible irreversible
deformation of the gasket during temperature cycling [32]. Global uses an external compression
mechanism to ensure that the compressive seal remains compressed at all temperatures [33].
• Seal integrity: Improper sealing, even under initially steady state conditions, can lead to
performance loss; decrease in the thermodynamic potential or increase in overpotentials. In
addition, catastrophic seal failures can lead to unacceptable local heating of the system
components, and eventually to the destruction of the system or even significant safety
hazards. For this reason, most leaks are unacceptable, even if they are initially small. Also,
even small steady leaks can considerably impact the system performance. As discussed
previously, the open circuit voltage measured in a stack indicates whether there is any mixing
of the reactants within the cells. Seals ensure that the reactants do not mix inside the fuel
cell. Any mixing of the reactants lowers the thermodynamic potential and hence the energy
conversion efficiency of the fuel cell. In addition, mixing will also increase the overpotential
because of reduction in the effective concentration of the reactants.
• Sealing length: The quantitative determination of the probability of seal failure for a given
SOFC design is influenced by:
– Physical dimensions of the cell components;
– Mismatch in the thermal expansion coefficients;
– Thermal history;
– Operating conditions such as temperature, pressure, cell voltage, load, etc.
– Presence of temperature gradients, etc.
Therefore, to differentiate between the different SOFC designs based on the seal robustness
requires detailed finite element modeling or, preferably, empirical measurements. In the
absence of either, we make use of a qualitative measure of robustness. Qualitatively, we may
say that the probability of failure increases with an increase in the seal length [34]. Clearly,
the seal length would depend on the cell geometry and the physical dimensions of the cell
components. Also, each SOFC stack may have seals between dissimilar materials, viz.,
metal-metal, metal-ceramic, and ceramic-ceramic. In a following section, the calculated
lengths of the seals for the different designs are presented and discussed.
Comparison Of The Performance Stability Of The Different Designs
Ability to Withstand Temperature Cycling
The data available in the public literature on performance stability of the different designs is
summarized in Table 3-2. Most of the developers who have tested stacks of fuel cells have
reported cell/stack stability during temperature cycling. The exceptions are: CFCL, MSRI and
Rolls Royce. Reports from CFCL indicate that a leak in the fuel manifold opening led to stack
failure.
3-20
12347402
The rate at which the stack is heated-up or cooled-down will affect the integrity of the cell
components. It is not clear whether the developers have optimized the stack design so as to
minimize the heat-up time. Even so, it is instructive to compare the rate of temperature change
for the single cell (Honeywell) and stack (MHI: planar). The Honeywell single cell, with
metallic interconnects, was heated-up at a rate of 45 °C per hr, whereas the 2 kW MHI stack with
all ceramic components was heated-up at a rate of 20 °C per hr. At these rates, to heat-up from
room temperature, it would take the Honeywell cell 27 hours to reach 800 °C, whereas the 1 kW
MHI stack would require 45 hours to reach 1000 °C. Again, if very slow start-up is required, this
brings additional start-up cost with it, and it also further limits the commercial versatility of the
technology, and limit its market potential.
Degradation Rate
A degradation rate of 0.5 % per thousand hours would imply that at the end of 40,000 hours the
power density would have decreased by 20 %. On the other hand, a degradation rate of 2 % per
thousand hours would imply that at the end of 40,000 hours the performance would have
degraded by 80 %. Therefore, for applications requiring a long lifetime, it is essential that the
degradation rate be kept less than 0.5 % per 1000 hours. Based on current stack cost estimates, a
stack life of around 40,000 hrs is needed to maintain acceptable O&M costs (including the cost
of stack replacement).
The degradation rate for the SW, SOFCo, and Sulzer-Hexis designs are within 0.5 % per 1000
hours. On the other hand, the designs from MHI (tubular and planar), TMI, and Global
Thermoelectric must demonstrate a slower rate of degradation for commercial viability of their
stacks. In the MHI tubular design, the interconnect material is in direct contact with the
electrolyte, raising the probability of corrosion of the interconnect. It is likely that any Cr
containing species that vaporizes will poison the electrolyte thereby increasing the ionic
resistance. Additionally, it would be interesting to see whether the Rolls Royce design, which is
akin to the MHI tubular design in many respects (but has much better power density), suffers
from a similar high rate of degradation.
Seal Integrity
The thermodynamic potential depends on the operating conditions such as temperature,

composition of the gas, etc. However, for operation on a rich stream of hydrogen and for
temperatures between 700 – 1000 °C, the thermodynamic potential is greater than 1 V. From
Table 3-2 it is clear that for most of the designs the measured open circuit voltage exceeds 1 V,
except for the MHI planar, MSRI, and Rolls Royce designs. The presence of leaks can explain
the poor performance of the MHI planar design and the reduced power density of the MSRI
design. It is interesting to note that the MSRI shifted from an externally manifolded design to an
internally manifolded design on account of leaks with the external manifold.
3-21
12347402
Sealing Requirements
To a first approximation, the likelihood of a seal failure is proportional to the length of seal
required for a given seal design and operating conditions. For each of the SOFC designs the seal
length depends on the physical design of the stack and its electrical performance. Based on the
design descriptions of the previous chapter and the demonstrated electrical performance, we
calculated the seal length on a kW basis for each of the designs. The results from these
calculations are summarized in Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10. The SW, MHI Tubular, and Rolls
Royce designs do not have any seals within the cell and hence were not considered for this
analysis (i.e. sealing length is zero). This is probably the major benefit of these designs over
planar bipolar designs. All the planar designs have seals around the edges of the manifold (either
internal or external). In addition, they must have seals between the electrodes and the
interconnect of each cell at the edges that seal the flow passages and the porous electrodes from
the manifold. The calculations discussed here must be treated as rough estimates and are subject
to the assumptions made in the previous chapter concerning the dimensions, where information
was unavailable from the public literature. Nevertheless they are useful to characterize the
enormous differences between the designs.
Based on the results in Figure 3-9 (sealing length per cm2 of active area) we can draw a few
broad observations:
• The difference between internally and externally manifolded designs is not overwhelming
(most of the sealing length is in seals between the layers of the stack)
• The circular designs (Sulzer-Hexis, TMI) that allow the gases to mix at the periphery of the
cell have a significantly shorter seal length than the rectangular designs. This is to be
expected since, in the rectangular designs the exhaust gases are separated at the cell outlet,
which requires additional manifolding and hence seals.
• The Honeywell design, while in principle sharing the same geometry as the Sulzer and TMI
designs, has a sealing length almost comparable to the rectangular designs, reflecting the
complex multi-component sealing system
• Differences in seal reliability (in terms of failures per thousand hours per cm of seal length)
depend on a complex set of issues, and cannot be easily analyzed. Discussions with high-
temperature sealing experts confirm that more detailed analysis or experimental verification
will be needed to meaningfully differentiate the reliability of different designs. For example,
ostensibly the reason for the complex Honeywell design is to achieve more reliable (though
not shorter) seals.
Normalizing the sealing length on a per kW basis (Figure 3-10), again shows that high power
density helps in this area too. Nevertheless, even here the Sulzer and TMI designs sport a
relatively short sealing length. If Sulzer incorporates the high-power density thin-electrolyte
design its sealing issues may be compellingly more manageable than those of the rectangular
designs. Based on the different possible seal geometries described above, there is an additional
effect that the seals have on overall system size, performance, and ultimately cost. The choice
and arrangement of the seal design can have a drastic effect on the material intensity of the rest
of the stack. This effect will be described in more detail in the next section.
3-22
12347402
0.8
Length per Active Area / cm cm-2

Metal - Ceramic Seal
0.7 Ceramic - Ceramic Seal
Metal - Metal Seal
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
TMI
Global
Honeywell
MSRI
MHI Planar
S-W
MHI Tubular
Sulzer-Hexis
Figure 3-9
Comparison of the Seal Length Required on an Active Area Basis. The Calculations were
Based on the Descriptions and Dimensions Listed in the Previous chapter.
3000
Metal - Ceramic Seal
6734 6664 Ceramic - Ceramic Seal
2500 Metal - Metal Seal
-1
Length / cm kW
2000
1500
1000
500
0
TMI
Global
Honeywell
MSRI
MHI Planar
MHI Tubular
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
Sulzer-Hexis
S-W
Figure 3-10
Comparison of the Seal Length Required on a kW basis. The Calculations Used the Power
Density Values Listed in Table 3-1.
3-23
12347402
Materials Intensity & Usage Effectiveness
On a single cell basis, the materials requirement for the anode, cathode, electrolyte and
interconnect would be unique for each SOFC design, owing to their distinct dimensions and
physical design. However, how effectively the materials are used depends the electrical
performance of the design. In this section, we analyze the material requirement on an active area
basis (materials intensity, to allow comparison independent of current cell performance) and on a
kW (usage effectiveness, to illustrate the effect of cell performance) basis.
Materials Intensity
The materials intensity is the volume of material required on an active area basis. The material
intensity for each design was estimated based on the stack/cell physical dimensions provided in
the previous chapter and the material densities reported in Table 3-3. As discussed in the
previous chapter, for some of the designs, the cell and stack dimensions were not readily
available from the literature sources, and thus required us to make assumptions. The analysis
below must be seen in light of these assumptions.
Table 3-3
Stack Materials Density
Materials Density
(g/cc)
Ceramic 4.6
Interconnect
Metallic 8
Electrolyte YSZ 6
Anode Ni Cermet 4.8
Cathode LSM 4.6
Figure 3-11 shows the materials intensity on an active area basis for the different SOFC designs
based on the dimensions listed in the previous chapter. The estimated manifold volume is also
shown. The manifold volume corresponds to:
• the volume of the auxiliary ceramic support for the MHI tubular and Rolls Royce Planar
designs;
• the volume of the ceramic sleeve for the MHI planar design;
• the volume of the air transport tubes located at the cell periphery for the Sulzer–Hexis
design;
• the volume of the external manifold material for the SOFCo and MSRI designs;
• and the volume of centrally located manifold tube for the Honeywell design.
3-24
12347402
From Figure 3-11, it is clear that the electrode or electrolyte supported designs (SW, CFCL, MHI
planar, SOFCo, Sulzer-Hexis, TMI, Global, Honeywell, and MSRI) require more active material
than the auxiliary supported designs (Rolls Royce and MHI tubular). Given the thick cathode in
the SW design, it is no surprise that the cathode material requirement dominates. Likewise, the
planar designs require relatively thick interconnects which dominates the material requirement
for the CFCL, Sulzer-Hexis, and Global designs. The most effective use of materials is
illustrated in the MSRI design, which uses a thin metal foil as the interconnect and relatively thin
MEA, hence is not volume intensive. The MHI planar design has the same benefits in principle
but currently suffers from a low active to total area ration.
The amount of material per cell also appears to depend strongly on the manifold design. The
externally manifolded designs require a smaller volume of material than the partially or fully
internally manifolded designs. The fully internally manifolded designs (CFCL and Global)
require a larger volume of material than designs that allow the gases to mix at the periphery of
the cell (Sulzer-Hexis, TMI, and Honeywell).
Furthermore, the seal design has a strong impact on the materials use, as it mostly controls the
amount of inactive area as well as the amount of interconnect material use. These factors further
increase the amount of interconnect material required for the Global Thermoelectric and CFCL
designs. Conversely, it significantly reduces the amount of material required in the SOFCo
design.
3
Materials Requirement / g cm-2
Interconnect
8 3 5
Cathode
Electrolyte
Anode
0
MHI Tubular
MHI Planar
Sulzer-Hexis
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
TMI
Global
Honeywell
MSRI
S-W
Figure 3-11
Stack Materials Requirement on an Active Area Basis. For the MSRI and MHI Planar
Designs, the Face Area is Used Instead of the Active Area. Calculations Based on the
Design Descriptions and Dimensions Listed in the Previous Chapter.
3-25
12347402
Usage Effectiveness
The effective usage of the materials not only depends on the physical design but also on the stack
performance. The designs are analyzed on the basis of volume of material required per W of
power produced. For this analysis, the power densities listed in Table 3-1 and marked with an
asterisk were used.
Figure 3-12 summarizes the results of the calculations. The lower the volume per W, the more
effective is the usage of the materials. The MSRI design appears to make the most effective use
of the materials, whereas the CFCL design appears to make the least effective use of the
materials, particularly the interconnect materials. Of the planar designs, the MSRI and MHI
designs, both of which use corrugations in the EEA for flow channels support a more effective
usage of material than the designs that have flow channels on the interconnects (CFCL, SOFCo,
Sulzer-Hexis, TMI, Global, and Honeywell).
The results reported in Figure 3-12 also underline the importance of considering the power
density of the stack in conjunction with the physical design of the stack. It is instructive to note
that the anode supported Global design, which supported the highest power densities (Table 3-1),
does not make the most effective use of materials, but its high power density largely offsets this
factor.
12
21 14 Interconnect
68
Cathode
-1
Materials Requirement / g W
Electrolyte
10
Anode
Manifold Material
0
Global
Honeywell
MHI Tubular
MHI Planar
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
Sulzer-Hexis
TMI
MSRI
S-W
Figure 3-12
Stack Materials Requirement on a Power (Watts) Basis. Calculations Based on the Data in
Figure 3-11 and the Power Densities Listed in Table 3-1.
3-26
12347402
Future Scenarios
To illustrate the future potential of each of the planar and tubular technologies, we developed
two scenarios. The scenarios would probably not be realized until the 2006 – 2010 timeframe,
but they more clearly illustrate the differences in potential between the technologies. We chose
not to relate these scenarios to any specific technology developer, but rather to recognize that
features from different designs may be blended to result in a more optimized system. It also
recognizes the differences in ultimate potential between the different technologies. Table 3-4
defines the two scenarios.
Based on the observations made and the two scenarios, we conclude that evolutionary
improvements in the tubular and strip designs could lead to a 25-30% improvement in power
density over the current SW technology. Such improvements could be made in a variety of ways,
including changes in the geometry. In fact, changes in geometry could provide much greater
increases in power density (related to the active area), but it is not clear whether such design
changes could significantly improve the material intensity of the designs (i.e. power density is
increased at the cost of adding more inactive material). Hence, larger improvements in
performance would require changes in materials (especially cathode materials with much higher
electronic conductivity) or other fundamental changes in the technology. The technical risk
associated with these improvements is commensurately moderate.
Table 3-4
Description of the Changes to Current Technology and the Effect of the Change for the
Future Scenario
Planar Anode Supported Designs

Tubular Design
Change from
Change from current
Effect of the Change current Effect of the Change
technology
technology
• Reduction of the • Decrease in ASR, which allows a decrease in the • Reduction of • Allows for operation at
current conduction cathode thickness. Consequently the power contact ASR by 600 C with a power
path length by 20 % density increases and the cathode material half and use of density of 800 mW
(for e.g., by reducing requirement decreases. thin cm-2 at 0.7 V
the tube diameter or interconnects
using the ribbed • For a 20 % reduction in the tube diameter such as the • Better sealing
design, etc.) cathode thickness can reduce from 2.2 to 1.1 MSRI or MHI options for lower
mm and stack power density can increase from planar designs. temperature operation
160 mW cm-2 to 220 mW cm-2
The potential in improvements in the planar technology is far greater. First the benefits of high-
performance thin-electrolyte technology could be applied to any planar SOFC technology. It is
expected that increases in performance over the current Global performance will be mostly
applied to further reduce the operating temperature, thus facilitating solving the thermo-
mechanical, sealing, and durability issues. Although the technical risk associated with this is
higher than that associated with the tubular design improvements, we believe that there is a high
likelihood that developments will proceed in this direction.
With respect to the planar stack geometries, it appears to us that circular geometries (With low
sealing requirements) could minimize the risk associated with sealing. The incorporation of
3-27
12347402
flow-passages within the ceramic (a la MHI or MSRI) could minimize the materials
requirements. It is not clear whether these two features could be combined in a single design, or
even whether at the intermediate operating temperatures these advantages will ultimately
outweigh other design considerations. To illustrate this, if one assumes the same operating
temperature and current densities for the Sulzer design as for the current Global design, the
performance and materials intensity is virtually indistinguishable. As such we expect that it will
take several more years before further convergence of stack geometries occurs.

• The performance (maximum power density at 0.7 V and 80% utilization) of the SOFC
classes differs dramatically:
– Tubular or Strip Designs have geometries that lead to high ASRs because of the
longer electronic current conduction paths and limit practical power densities
currently to less than 200 mW/cm2. The potential for improvements (short of a
breakthrough in materials conductivity) is limited, so that maximum power densities
may be limited to 250-300 mW/cm2. In addition there is a direct trade-off between the
use of electrode material and the achievable power density. On the positive side,
sealing issues are largely absent in the tubular and strip designs. Despite the modest
power densities, reasonably effective use of materials is feasible.
– Planar Designs can achieve fundamentally higher power densities. However, with
thick electrolytes this potential does not materialize. High contact resistances and
sealing challenges cause the actual power densities of thick electrolyte designs to be
lower than those achieved in the tubular designs. With well-optimized and engineered
2
thin-electrolyte designs power densities exceeding 500 mW/cm have been
demonstrated; several times that of the tubular designs. These high power densities
enable a highly effective use of materials, off-setting the relatively large amount of
material needed to accommodate flow passages and seals, typically in the
interconnect. The technology risk associated with seals are indisputably more
significant than with the tubular designs. Circular planar designs have significantly
less sealing requirement than rectangular designs, but the seals tend to be less
accessible for inspection or repair.
• In addition to the power density, stack life and cycling ability of the stack are key
performance characteristics.
– While in general still far too little data has been published to provide assurance about
the practical viability of SOFC in stationary DG operation, significant progress has
been made in demonstrating these capabilities. SW’s tubular design has been
operated for over 10,000 hours in their field demonstration in the Netherlands, while
laboratory testing of single cells have reportedly exceeded 40,000 hrs, each with well
under 1% degradation per 1000 hours of operation (i.e., voltage drop at a given
current density). With planar designs on the other hand, not nearly as much
experience has been accumulated. Nevertheless, Global and others have
demonstrated several thousand hours of operation on stacks and the ability to survive
repeated thermal cycles. This level of testing surpasses what has been achieved with
proton exchange membrane fuel cells.
3-28
12347402
– The relative lack of stack durability data makes it difficult to make a quantitative
comparison of the durability of different stack designs. Tubular and strip designs
have benefits in terms of sealing, which could improve durability compared with the
planar designs. With respect to the stability of the ceramic structures it is not clear
that any of the planar designs has compelling advantages over the tubular or strip
designs. Ultimately, experimental comparison will determine which stack designs are
most durable.
• Looking into the future, planar bipolar stack performance could be further improved.
Although this could result in even higher current densities, it is more likely that the improved
performance is translated into (even) lower temperatures, perhaps even as low as 600 -
7000C. Such a reduction in temperature would considerably reduce the cost of these systems,
by allowing the use of lower cost metal interconnect materials as well as facilitating sealing
arrangements. With respect to the tubular designs, the improvements are more limited unless
higher conductivity cathode materials are developed.
References
1. F. Zhao, G. Yong Lin and A. Virkar, in Seventh International Symposium on Solid Oxide
Fuel Cells (SOFC - VII), Vol. 2001-16, The Electrochemical Society, Tsukuba, Japan,
2001, p. 501.
2. V. Hendriksen, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC - V) (S. C. S. U. Stimming, H. Tagawa,
and W. Lehnert, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, 1997, p. 1319.
3. R. Gibson, J. T. S. Irvine, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 18:661 (1998).
4. S. K. Pratihar, S. Mazumder, H. S. Maiti, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC - VI) (M. D.
S. C. Singhal, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1999, p. 513 .
5. Y. Ishizuka, Y. Ohno, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells V (S. C. S. U. Stimming, H. Tagawa, W.
Lehnert, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Aachen, Germany, 1997, p. 1131 .
6. N. Q. Ming, J. T. Richardson, D. Luss, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC VI) (M. T. S. C.
Singhal, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1999, p. 474 .
Society, Vol. 2001-16, 2001, p. 100.
8. S. C. Singhal, in Sixth International Symposium on Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC - VI)
9. S. C. Singhal, MRS Bulletin 5:16 (2000).
10. H. Yokoyama, S. E. Veyo, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells V (SOFC-V) (S. C. S. U. Stimming,
H. Tagawa, W. Lehnert, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Aachen, Germany, 1997, p.
94 .
11. J. Iritani, N. Komiyama, K. Nagata, K. Ikeda, K. Tomida, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells VII
(SOFC - VII) (S. C. S. H. Yokokawa, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Tsukuba, Japan,
2001, p. 63 .
12. F. Gardner, N. Brandon, M. Pashley, M. Cassidy, Journal of Power Sources 86:122
(2000).
3-29
12347402
13. R. Bolden, and T. Pham, in Electrochemical Proceedings, Vol. 99-19, 1999, p. 80.
14. Y. Sakaki, M. Hattori, H. Miyamoto, H. Aiki, K. Takenobou, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
VII (SOFC - VII) (S. C. S. H. Yokokawa, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Tsukuba,
Japan, 2001, p. 72 .
15. A. Khandkar, J. Hartvigsen, D. Rowley, R. Privette and M. Tharp, in Electrochemical
Society, 1999, p. 88.
16. S. Elangovan, S.C. Kung, R.W. Goettler and E.A. Barringer, in Seventh International
Symposium on SOlid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC - VII), Vol. 2001-16, The Electrochemical
Society, 2001, p. 94.
17. R. Diethelm, Th. Gamper, M. Keller, R. Kruschwitz, D. Lenel, in Electrochemical
Society, Vol. 97-18, 1997, p. 79.
18. P. Costamagna, Journal of the Electrochemical Society 145:3995 (1998).
19. M. A. Petrik, R. C. Ruhl, B. P. Lee, in !998 Fuel Cell Seminar, Palm Springs, CA, 1998,
p. 124 .
20. J. Yamanis, L. A. Xue, D. Dalfonzo, T. Palanisamy, K. Montgomery, N.Q. Minh, in 1998
Fuel Cell Seminar, Palm Springs, CA, 1998, p. 258 .
21. J.-W. Kim, K.-Z. Fung, K. Mehta, S. C. Singhal, Journal of the Electrochemical Society
146:69 (1999).
22. A. Virkar, N. S. Kapur, D. W. Prouse, G-Y. Lin, Y. Jiang, P. Smith, D. M. England, D.
K. Shetty, in 2000 Fuel Cell Seminar, Portland, Oregon, 2000.
23. I. Yasuda, T. Ogiwara, H. Yakabe, Y. Matsuzaki, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells VII (SOFC-
VII) (S. C. S. H. Yokogawa, ed.), Tsukuba, Japan, 2001, p. 131 .
24. H. Yokoyama, E. Veyo, in Fifth International SYmposium on Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
(SOFC - V) (S. C. S. U. Stimming, H. Tagawa, W. Lehnert, ed.), The Electrochemical
Society, Aachen, Germany, 1997, p. 94 .
25. H. Mori, N. Hisatome, K. Ikeda, K. Tomida, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells VI (SOFC - VI)
26. B. Godfrey, and K. Foger, in Electrochemical Society, Vol. 99-19, 1999, p. 75.
27. S. Elangovan, A. Khandkar, R. Privette, K. Kneidel, M. Perna, M. Tharp, in Fuel Cells
Review Meeting, FETC, Morgantown, West Virginia, 1997.
28. S. Elangovan, T.L. Cable, T.A. Morris and E.A. Barringer, in 2000 Fuel Cell Seminar,
Portland, Oregon, 2000, p. 503.
29. J. P. Abellan, F. Tietz, L. Singheiser, W. J. Quadakkers, A.Gil, in Solid Oxide Fuel Cells
VII (SOFC-VII) (M. D. S. C. Singhal, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Tsukuba,
Japan, 2001, p. 811 .
30. Y. Sakaki, Y. Esaki, S. Ohara, T. Fukui, K. Kodera, Y. Kubo, in Fifth International
Symposium on Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC V) (S. C. S. U. Stimming, H. Tagawa, W.
Lehnert, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Aachen, Germany, 1997, p. 652 .
3-30
12347402
31. N. Lahl, K. Hilpert, K. Singh, D. bahadur, in Sixth International Symposium on Solid

Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFC VI) (M. D. S. C. Singhal, ed.), The Electrochemical Society,
Honolulu, Hawaii, 1999, p. 1057 .
32. M. Bram, F. Meschke, W. A. Meulenberg, H. P. Buchkremer, R. W. Steinbrech, D.
Stover, in Seventh International Symposium on Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (S. C. S. H.
Yokokawa, ed.), The Electrochemical Society, Tsukuba, Japan, 2001, p. 873 .
33. D. Ghosh, R. Boersma, D. Prediger, M. Perry, A. Horvath and J. Devitt, in Fuel Cells-
Powering the 21st Century, Portland, Oregon, 2000.
34. R. W. Hertzberg, Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering Materials, John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1996.
3-31
12347402
12347402
4
MANUFACTURING COST ASSESSMENT
Introduction
While at present the main challenge in the development and commercialization of SOFC is to
build and demonstrate working systems, ultimately the commercial success of fuel cells will be
determined by their ability to meet performance requirements of customers at prices that those
customers are willing to pay. Competition from many other power generation technologies, both
those existing and those in development will likely be fierce in many areas, making this an
extremely dynamic issue. Furthermore, the installed cost of many of the competing technologies
will likely be lower than that currently projected for early SOFC systems. In this chapter we take
the design of the technologies described in the earlier chapters, the materials that they each use
and the technologies necessary for their manufacture in order to understand the ultimate potential
of each of the technologies, what differentiates them, and what the likely cost-reduction path is
for each of the technologies.
Limitations of the Assessment
Manufacturing cost assessments of new technologies, such as SOFC, can be performed at

various levels of detail. In the past, very detailed assessments of the manufacturing cost of both
tubular and planar technologies have been carried out. However, the objective of this study was
rather to assess whether fundamental differences between cell and stack designs and
manufacturing methods lead to substantial differences in manufacturing cost, both in high-
volume production and during the production scale-up. Thus the approach to this assessment has
been different and higher level than that we used in those previous, more detailed, cost analyses.
Consequently, certain limitations must be recognized.
First, we have limited the scope of our cost analysis to the costs of the core stack, the seals and
manifolding that is in direct contact with the stack and necessary for the stack to operate
effectively. The costs of other “external” manifolding, insulation, containment and other BOP
requirements were not analyzed. Typically insulation and containment cost of an SOFC stack
module represent between 10 - 20% of the module cost, and considering the accuracy of our
assessment, this would be an appropriate factor to apply to achieve the total cost of a module.
There is little reason to believe that there would be substantial additional differentiation in this
so-called stack BOP cost between the technologies.
Second, we must be clear that the costs presented in this report are those of direct manufacturing
cost only. This reflects the direct costs of materials, labor, equipment and facilities used to
produce the product. General management, sales, marketing, R&D, warranty, profit, distribution,
and installation are all costs of a business that are not included in these costs, and would thus
4-1
12347402
Manufacturing Cost Assessment
need to be added if one desired an estimate of selling price. Doubtlessly, the impact of these
costs on the total cost are considerable, as would be the differences that arise from different
business arrangements (e.g. level of vertical integration) in the SOFC value chain. However,
assessing these costs and factors is outside the scope of this study. However, to understand the
effect of production scale, we did include estimates of the R&D and general administration costs
as explained later.
Third, accurately assessing manufacturing costs of SOFC technologies is challenging due to the
early stage of their development, the lack of information available and limited experience
manufacturing such products. The approach used for this report was to assess each of three areas
of cost independently at an annual production volume of 100,000 m2 and to assess them on an
area basis, converting to cost per kW at the final step.
Fourth, as mentioned in the previous chapters, the dimensions for the different cell components
were obtained from published literature data of the different developers. However, certain
dimensions were assumed because they were not clearly specified in the literature, which may
not correspond to the actual values, and this must be borne in mind while reviewing the results
presented in this chapter.
Approach to Cost Analysis
The three areas of cost are cost of materials required by the design, the fabrication costs
necessary to manufacture the design, and the sealing and manifolding costs required to assure
safe and stable performance of the system. To facilitate the cost analysis, a simple model was
constructed that incorporated relevant details of the physical design, the materials used
(described in chapter 2), the demonstrated electrical performance (described in chapter 3), and
the proposed process steps (described in this chapter), for each of the eleven designs.
Materials Costs: The costs of powder and binder to produce the anode, cathode, electrolyte,
interconnect and other parts of the stack, based upon the final dimensions and weight of these
parts in a finished stack.
Stack Fabrication Costs: The costs of fabrication steps used in manufacturing the stacks and the
cost of materials scrapped because of sub-100 % yields. Processes such as forming, tape casting,
sintering, and assembly are described and estimated on an area basis. Fabrication costs were
estimated based upon our current understanding of the state of the art manufacturing
technologies in the industry. These fabrication costs are in turn comprised of three parts:
equipment, labor and utilities. For each technology the process steps required for manufacture
were selected from a database of process technologies. Data collected as part of this and previous
studies profiled each process step in terms of the equipment investment required, the number of
operators required and the average utility requirements. Based upon production demand the
model automatically estimates the number of stations required to meet demand for each process
step, and thus the total investment, labor and utilities required. The model also computes the
process yields for each design based on the number of times each manufacturing technique is
employed for that design.
4-2
12347402
Sealing and Module Assembly Costs: The sealing requirements are assessed and the length of
seal calculated for each technology. With very little information in the literature and many
reports of seal failure, this technology remains a great uncertainty in cost. Most credibility of
cost is given to those technologies that have demonstrated repeated start-up cycles for full-scale
systems. Fortunately, though the sealing arrangement is expected to have a critical impact on the
technical success of each technology, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on the
manufacturing cost. The amounts of seal material used would be very small compared with other
material usage.
Materials Cost Analysis
For this analysis, the materials cost ($/kg) was assumed constant, identical for all technologies,
and independent of manufacturing scale. The material requirement for a given annual production
capacity for each cell component varies from design to design, which complicates the choice of
the component material cost. As an example, consider the annual material requirement for the
SW and Global designs (Table 4-1) for a production capacity of 250 MW, which may be
considered ‘high-volume’ production capacity for SOFCs.
The difference in the cathode material requirement for two designs is quite stark. The SW
design requires about 300 times the cathode material required by the Global design. The cost of
the cathode material may be lower when purchased at 3000 tons than when purchased at 9 tons
because the cost of the materials typically increases with a decrease in the volume. However, the
task of determining the scaling factors for the different stack component materials requires a
detailed study in itself and falls outside the scope of this study. For this study, therefore, we
make the simplifying assumption that the material costs (listed in Table 4-2) are independent of
the requirement. In other words, the material costs do not change with the volume used.
Table 4-1
Material Requirements for the Siemens-Westinghouse Tubular and Global Thermoelectric
Planar Designs for an Annual Production Volume of 250 MW.
Annual Material Requirement in Tons for Production Capacity of 250

MW/year
Siemens-Westinghouse Tubular Global Thermoelectric Planar
Anode 55 300
Electrolyte 30 4
Cathode 3100 9
Metallic
- 2230
Interconnect
Ceramic
33 --
Interconnect
4-3
12347402
Table 4-2
Assumed Values of the Stack Material Costs for High-Volume Production of SOFC Stacks.
Materials High Volume Cost
Ceramic LaCrO3 20 $/kg

Rolled Sheet 6.6 $/kg
Ferritic + Coating
Interconnect PM Powder 13.2 $/kg
PM Powder NA
95 Cr Alloy
Powder 90 $/kg
Electrolyte YSZ (Includes binders) Powder 120 $/kg
Anode Ni Cermet Powder 34 $/kg
Cathode LSM Powder 13 $/kg
Ceramic Glass 0.3 $/m

Seals
Metallic Gasket 0.4 $/m
Stack Materials Cost Results

Figure 4-1 gives the stack materials cost on $ per 100 cm2 of active area and Figure 4-2 gives the
stack materials cost in $/kW.
9
Stack Material Costs per 100 cm Area / $
Interconnect $18
$25
Cathode
8
Electrolyte
2
Anode
7
Manifold
Seals
6
0
MHI Tubular
MHI Planar
Sulzer-Hexis
Global
Honeywell
TMI
MSRI
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
S-W
Figure 4-1
2 2
Stack Material Costs for 100 cm of Active Area for a Production Volume of 100,000 m
(Active Area) per year.
4-4
12347402
600
Interconnect $1,810 $1,257
-1
Cathode
Stack Materials Cost / $ kW

500 Electrolyte
Anode
Manifold
400
Seals
300
200
100
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
MHI Tubular
MHI Planar
Global
Honeywell
Sulzer-Hexis
TMI
MSRI
S-W
Figure 4-2
2
Stack Materials Costs on a kW Basis for a Production Volume of 100,000 m (Active Area)
per year. The Power Densities Summarized in Chapter 3 Were Used for the Calculations.
For these calculations, the materials requirement for each of the designs per unit active area
given in Figure 3-11 was used. When projecting the materials cost (not including scrap) of
SOFC based on current technology then, we find that the materials cost of the tubular and strip
designs are substantially lower on a unit area basis than the planar designs, but that on a per kW
basis the thin-electrolyte planar designs more than make up for this in power density.
Specifically the key findings are that:
• The total cost of the MEA ranges between $1.50 and $2 per 100 cm2 for all designs.
Apparently, the differences in materials thickness between the designs off-set each other
when specific materials cost is taken into account. The amount of inactive area accounts for
the main difference between the designs with cost in the lower end of the range. The Rolls
Royce design has a cost of around $1.00 per 100 cm2, substantially lower than the others, but
as we will see that lower cost (compared with the SW design for example) is inextricably
linked to its rather low power density.
• The tubular and strip designs have the lowest material cost by far. This is primarily due to the
fact that neither sealing nor flow passages require much material in these cases. By
comparison, the support tubes require comparatively little material.
• The cost of the interconnects for the planar systems is very significant, and in fact dominates
the materials cost completely for many of the designs, including Sulzer-Hexis and Global
Thermoelectric. The high materials intensity associated with embedding flow passages and
manifolds in the interconnects, as well as accommodating the seals is part of the reason for
the high cost. In the case of the Sulzer-Hexis and TMI designs, this is combined with the use
of very high cost of superalloys. One would expect that as Sulzer-Hexis manages to move to
thin-electrolyte technology it will be able to operate at reduced operating temperature, which
would allow the use of ferritic steel interconnects, which would reduce the materials cost by
a factor of 5-6.
4-5
12347402
The power density advantage of the thin-electrolyte planar designs makes up for, or more than
makes up for the difference in materials cost (Figure 4-1). On a per kW basis, most designs have
materials costs between about $100 and $200 per kW. Exceptions are the CFCL, Sulzer-Hexis,
and TMI designs, which suffer from very heavy, interconnects made of expensive materials,
combined with modest power densities. Much lower cost is projected for the MSRI design (and
perhaps the Honeywell design) which combines low materials use with very high power
densities (see below).
Future improvements in the technologies are not expected to change the material volumes
required for each of the designs dramatically, but significant cost reductions may still be
possible:
• By increasing single cell dimensions or tube size the active area could become a larger
fraction of the total area. This effect would likely mostly benefit planar designs, but
achieving larger cell sizes may also be more difficult for planar designs
• By gradually reducing the operating temperature of the designs, lower-cost materials may be
used. The example of the impact on the Sulzer-Hexis design was mentioned above. In fact, if
in the Sulzer-Hexis design the same current density were achieved as in the Global
Thermoelectric design and at the same temperature, and if the interconnect material were
changed to a ferritic stainless, the materials cost would be lower than the Global design,
comparable to Honeywell.
Some of these improvements will be discussed at the end of this chapter in the analysis of future
scenarios.
Fabrication Costs
Common SOFC Processing Steps
Ball Mill Mixing
Slurry production is accomplished by first dispersing the powder in a ball mill mixer for
approximately 1 day. Then the binders and plasticizers are added to the dispersed powder and
the mixing is continued for approximately one more day. There are no major issues with slurry
preparation. Some minor issues that are easily rectified consist of the amount of slurry produced
(storing prepared slurry over time will cause particle settling) and loading and unloading slurry
to its equipment destination.
Tape Casting
Tape casting is a rapid process that is very sensitive to adjustment and slurry composition. Tape
casting is capable of producing tapes as thin as 3 microns. Thinner tape casting results in a faster
tape casting process. A thicker tape requires more time to allow the slurry pump to maintain a
consistent flow to the doctor blade to maintain a uniform tape thickness. Tape casting all of the
fuel cell layers poses some major problems. The problems that arise are mainly due to the
4-6
12347402
lamination process of the fuel cell layers. Lamination requires the physical handling of the 10-
micron electrolyte layer while it is placed on the anode layer. The electrolyte layer is very
fragile and could present many defects if handled. The tape casting equipment is not capable of
casting an electrolyte layer directly on top of another layer of a green tape. There are too many
inconsistencies due to tensions and temperature variances within the tape casting equipment.
Tape casting is best suited for the anode layer. Fully automated tape casting machines capable of
casting a 10-inch wide tape as thin as 3 micron are developed by Dreitek Inc. and cost
approximately $150,000.
Warm Rolling / Lamination
Warm rolling requires that at least two of the fuel cell layers are tape cast. Warm rolling is a
continuous and rapid process that has two main issues. The major concern is the durability of the
green tapes that are to be warm rolled. The combined green tapes entering the warm rolling
equipment are less than 1-mm thick and warm rolling requires tremendous pressure that is
applied by near point contact. This lamination process is a function of pressure and time. The
less dwell time, the higher the applied pressure that has to be applied to successfully laminate the
layers. The Calibration of the rollers, handling of the green tape and the rolling rate would be
very hard to control. Warm rolling onto an already sintered material is not recommended due to
the fragility of ceramics.
Screen Printing
This is a batch process unlike tape casting and warm rolling. The materials to be printed are
automatically loaded and adjusted. The drawback of screen-printing is the precise calibration of
the material and squeegee to ensure a uniform thickness of print. Typically one unit is printed on
at a time. Screen printers can be substantially equipped with optical sensors and computer
control to ensure uniformity. To speed up the screen printing process a larger print area can be
used for the application of print onto multiple surfaces. The problem with printing on multiple
surfaces is aligning a fixture and its multiple units into the screen printing equipment as precisely
as loading and aligning a single unit; the fixture will require more setup time. Screen-printing is
a rapid process and requires minimal drying time for the ink. Adjusting the sintering properties
of the screen-printing ink offers more flexibility in matching shrinkage rates during sintering.
Screen-printing of SOFCs may eventually be converted into a continuous process, but presently
there is no ongoing investigation into the development of a continuous process. Fully automated
screen-printing machines developed by Micro-tek and sold by Pacific Trinetics Corporation cost
approximately $145,000.
Co-Firing Sintering
Co firing layers can pose several problems of which many can be solved. The first problem
deals with shrinkage rates during sintering. Shrinkage rates can be matched by adjusting the
binders, plasticizers and particle sizes. Co-Firing the anode, electrolyte and cathode at the same
time poses a serious challenge. While the anode and electrolyte can easily be fired at the same
temperature, the cathode layer typically benefits from a firing at a lower temperature. This
difference in the sintering temperatures requires two different sintering cycles. The porous non-
4-7
12347402
reactive sand layer separating the assemblies during sintering allows for shape stability and out
gassing. High Temperature furnaces capable of maintaining fully loaded temperature of 1450 C
with internal dimensions of 44” long x 44” wide x 40” high, are electric and have a capacity to
fire approximately 13,000 assemblies (2/3 full load capacity with multiple stacks of 200
assemblies high). The high temperature furnaces developed by Micropyretics Heaters
International Inc. and cost approximately $135,000. The low temperature furnaces have the
same internal dimensions and capacities of the high temperature furnaces. The low temperature
furnace chamber is under a positive pressure inert environment of either nitrogen or argon. The
typical furnace cost is approximately $100,000.
Potential Plant Layout
To assess the fabrication costs for the different SOFC designs, and to analyze any possible
significant differences amongst them, we developed descriptions of potential layouts of
manufacturing plants for each of the technologies, with the same manufacturing capacity. Figure
4-3 shows a schematic of a plant layout for a hypothetical plant. Overviews of the process flows
of all of the technologies can be found in the Appendix. Clearly, only a limited amount of
information was available about even the manufacturing processes and process parameters used,
much less about the process yields. Thus we had to make estimates in those cases where no
complete set of information was available. These estimates are clearly indicated in the following
pages.
The baseline manufacturing plant capacity of 100,000 m2/yr is a high-volume plant, sufficient to
produce hundreds of megawatts per annum. This baseline plant description is then used to gain a
better understanding of the implications of manufacturing process choices and of the scale of
manufacture.
Hypothetical SOFC Stack Manufacturing Process

2
The baseline hypothetical process to produce 100,000 m of fuel cell units per year is first to
prepare the individual slurries of the anode, cathode and electrolyte material in ball milling slurry
prep stations. The preparation time of the slurries is a two-day maximum. The anode slurry is
then loaded into the tape-casting machine, then is tape cast and cut to dimensions of 12.5-cm by
12.5-cm square sections (2.5 cm to compensate for shrinkage). These sections are then
automatically loaded on the first screen-printing table.
4-8
12347402
Figure 4-3
Schematic of the Layout in a Hypothetical Manufacturing Facility
4-9
12347402
The screen-printing process prints the 10-micron electrolyte layer onto the green anode layer.
The cycle time for the screen-printing operation is approximately 5 seconds. After the
electrolyte layer is printed onto the anode layer the laminated sections are dried. After drying,
the sections are stacked with a controlled separation layer of non-reactive sand. These stacks are
then bottom-loaded into a stage-1 batch furnace that first de-binds and then sinters the laminated
sections in air at 1450 C for a total cycle time of two days. After stage-1 sintering the sections
are then automatically loaded onto the second screen-printing table. This screen-printing process
prints the cathode layer onto the already sintered laminated anode and electrolyte layer. These
sections are then dried and stacked with a controlled separation layer of non-reactive sand.
These stacks are then bottom loaded into a stage-2 batch furnace that first de-binds and then
sinters the laminated sections in an inert positive atmosphere at 1050 C for a total cycle time of
two days. Upon cooling the sintered sections are passed through final inspection.
Proposed Fabrication Steps for Current SOFC Designs
Table 4-3 summarizes the process steps used to manufacture the designs considered in this study.
The Table lists the number of steps of each technique used for fabricating a particular design.
The processing steps were taken from the literature publications by each developer and the
references are noted. For certain designs, due to lack of sufficient information, we assumed the
process steps and these are indicated.
Table 4-3
Summary of the Number of Process Steps Assumed for the Manufacture of Each Design
Refs.
Tape PM Sinter Sinter Plasma Screen
Developer Extrusion Forming CVD Machining
Casting Pressing 1 2 Spray printing
Siemens
1 1 1 1 1 2
Westinghouse
MHI: Tubular [1] 4 1 1 1
Rolls Royce -- 1 1 2 1 4
[2, 3]
CFCL 2 4 1 1 1
MHI: Planar [4] 4 1 2
SOFCo [5] 3 1 1
[6]
Sulzer-Hexis 1 2 1 1 2 1
TMI -- 3 1 2 1
Global
Thermoelectric
[7, 8] 1 1 2 1 1 1 1
Honeywell [9, 10] 3 4 1 1
MSRI [11] 1 1 1 1 1 1
It is noteworthy that most of the developers are manufacturing by tape casting, printing, and
spraying rather than more exotic techniques such as CVD. Note that this is a marked change
from about five years ago, when many of the exotic techniques were being considered.
Considerable differences exist, however, surrounding the approaches to sintering, with some
4-10
12347402
developers sintering after the application of each layer, while others co-sinter the entire cell or
even the entire stack.
Fabrication Cost Results
Capital Investment Cost & Labor Requirement
A critical step in developing the facility that will produce a viable quantity of product is the
investment necessary to set up that facility. Figure 4-4 shows the investment necessary to
2
provide for a facility that would fabricate 100,000 m of SOFC active area per year for each of
the technologies.
40
Investment for a 100,000 m2 facility / mm $
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
CFCL
SOFCo
Rolls Royce
MHI Planar
Global
MHI Tubular
Sulzer-Hexis
Honeywell
S-W
TMI
MSRI
Figure 4-4
2
Capital Investment Required to Manufacture SOFCs at a Production Capacity of 100,000 m
of Active Area per Year.
Most of the planar designs have investment costs for this capacity plant in the range of 12 – 18
million dollars, with the Sulzer-Hexis design showing a slightly higher cost because of the extra
processing of the interconnect for incorporating the heat exchanger channels. The lowest capital
cost options are the co-fired designs (MHI-planar and SOFCo) in which the reduced number of
sintering steps reduces the furnace requirements compared to the other planar manufacturing
processes, for which two or more sintering steps are required.
Figure 4-4 shows that the capital costs for the tubular and strip designs are notably higher and
fall in the range 25 – 35 million dollars. The SW plant would require the largest capital
4-11
12347402
investment because in addition it requires expensive vacuum chambers needed for the CVD
process of applying the electrolyte onto the cathode tube.
The capital investment is reflected in the fabrication costs by depreciating the investment over
ten years, with a cost of capital of 15% applied to the original investment. Given this financial
treatment of capital investment the model shows that a total annual cost of 20% of the original
investment is applied to a year’s production (allowing for principal and the interest of 15%).
Based upon our best judgement of the manufacturing technologies that represent the most viable
option for manufacturing each technology we estimated the labor required to staff the facility as
shown in Figure 4-5. Not surprisingly the labor requirements more or less follows the capital
costs, and the reasons for the differences also mirror those for the differences in capital cost.
75
Direct Laborers per Shift
50
25
-
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
Sulzer-Hexis
TMI
MSRI
S-W
MHI Tubular
MHI Planar
Global
Honeywell
Figure 4-5
2
Number of Laborers Required per Shift for the Plant Capacity Producing 100,000 m of
Active Area per Year.
4-12
12347402
-2
1.8
Stack Fabrication Cost for 100 cm Active Area / $ cm

1.5
1.3
2
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
Global
MHI Tubular
MHI Planar
Honeywell
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
TMI
MSRI
Sulzer-Hexis
S-W
Figure 4-6
Summary of the Stack Fabrication Cost (capital, labor, operating and maintenance costs,
2 2
but not materials) for 100 cm of Active Area for a Production Volume of 100,000 m Per
Year.
Process Yields
Different manufacturing processes may have different material yields. In high volume
production, the mechanical processes on tape casting, screen printing, CVD, etc. would be
expected to have very high yields. For our analysis, we assumed a yield of 99 % for each of
these processes under high-volume. On the other hand, the sintering steps are less efficient and
we assumed a yield of 80 %. Each of these numbers is consistent with other more detailed
analyses. The total yield for each stack component material was calculated by accounting for the
number of times it participates in each process. Figure 4-7 shows a summary of the total material
yields for the process steps listed in Table 4-3 for an annual production volume of 100,000 m2.
As mentioned previously, the material yields for the SOFCo design is very low because of the
co-fired process used. In the following discussion of the results, the cumulative material loss due
to process inefficiencies is accounted for in the cost of the scrap material costs.
4-13
12347402
Anode
100% Electrolyte
Cathode
Interconnect
Manifold Material
80%
Total Material Yield
60%
40%
20%
0%
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
MHI Tubular
MHI Planar
Sulzer-Hexis
Global
Honeywell
TMI
MSRI
S-W
Figure 4-7
Total Material Yields for the SOFC Designs for the Manufacturing Steps Listed in and for a
2
Production Volume of 100,000 m per Year.
Total Stack Cost Results
Total Costs on an Area Basis

2
Figure 4-8, Figure 4-9 and Figure 4-12 show the stack module costs on a basis of 100 cm of
active area. For the MHI planar and the MSRI designs, the face area is used as the basis (for
these designs the active area is larger than the face area owing to corrugations in the MEA). It is
useful to consider this area-specific cost in order to get a good understanding of the differences
in cost structure. In addition, if one considers that (at least within each class of SOFC) all designs
will eventually converge towards some achievable power density (i.e. current power densities are
as much a reflection of the status of development of each technology as of the inherent potential
of each technology), it provides an overview of inherent differences in cost structure between the
designs.
Key findings from the cost analysis on a per unit area basis are:
•
2
Total stack module costs range from $4 to $12 per 100 cm , excluding the Sulzer-Hexis and
TMI designs (which suffer from thick interconnects made of expensive Cr-based materials).
However, the cost for the tubular or strip designs varies much less: from $3 to slightly over
$4 per 100 cm2.
4-14
12347402
Costs per 100 cm2 of Active Area / $ cm-2

10
Material in Stacks $27 $19
9 Material Scrapped
Fabrication
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
TMI
Global
MHI Planar
Honeywell
MSRI
MHI Tubular
Sulzer-Hexis
S-W
Figure 4-8
2
Summary of the Fabrication Costs per 100 cm of Active Area for a Production Volume of
2
100,000 m (Active Area) per year.
• As a fraction of the total costs, the fabrication costs are between 30 – 50 % for the tubular
designs, and between 5 – 20 % for the planar designs. For the planar designs, the low
fraction for the fabrication costs stems in part from the high material costs, especially those
with the superalloy interconnects.
• As a fraction of the total costs, the cost of the scrap material varies between 8 – 30 %, except
for the SOFCo design, where the costs of the scrap material is almost 50 % of the total cost.
The reason is the co-firing of the entire stack as claimed by the developers. In this process, if
a part of the stack becomes defective during the co-firing, then the entire stack has to be
scrapped. Even if we consider a very low probability of 2 % for defect development in a
single cell during stack co-firing, the total yield for co-firing of a 40 cell stack is (0.98)40,
which is equal to 45 %. Of course, in all cases real experimental data will be needed to
ultimately compare the overall yield impacts of the different manufacturing methods.
Total Costs on a per kW Basis
The total strack module cost on a per kW basis shows a very different outcome, because of the
dramatic differences in power density. In this case the lowest costs are clearly achieved with the
thin-electrolyte planar designs. Figure 4-9 shows the costs on a kW basis:
• A stack cost of slightly under $300 per kW is projected for the SW tubular design (to include
the cost of manifolds, enclosure, and insulation, around 20% should be added to this
number). This number is consistent with our previous analyses for high-volume production,
4-15
12347402
and, after including balance of plant cost (~ 350 $/kW)1, mark-ups (~ 30 %) and installation
costs (~ 200 – 600 $/kW), leads to an installed cost of $1050 - $1550 /kW for simple-cycle
sub-MW systems.
800
Material in Stacks $1,907 $1,363
Stack Module Cost / $ kW-1
700 Scrap
Fabrication
600
500
400
300
200
100
Global
Honeywell
MHI Tubular
MHI Planar
Rolls Royce
CFCL
SOFCo
Sulzer-Hexis
TMI
MSRI
S-W
Figure 4-9
2
Cost per kW for a Production Volume of 100,000 m (Active Area) per year. The Power
Densities Summarized in Chapter 3 Were Used for the Calculations.
• Planar thin-electrolyte designs have lower cost because of their much higher power densities
which more than off-set their higher area-specific cost. Based on current technology status
the difference is around $70 - $150 per kW. Balance of plant components should be similar
in cost or perhaps somewhat cheaper (due to the lower temperature operation, substantially
cheaper recuperators may be used) ~ equal the stack cost. Overall, the installed cost of a
system based on the technology may range from slightly over $800 to around $1000 per kW.
• Planar thick-electrolyte designs lead to an unattractive overall cost structure. Exceptions
could be the MHI planar and SOFCo designs. The low material intensity associated with
those designs provides significant benefit, which could be further increased if their power
densities were somewhat improved. The technical risk associated with these options may
however also be greater than with the SW tubular design.
The balance of stack cost for planar thin-electrolyte systems should be about the same as that of
a tubular system or even slightly lower:
• Manifolding. Based on current technology, a single tube produces about the same power as a
single planar thin-electrolyte cell. It appears that 10 – 30 cell stacks are at least feasible, and
hence a single stack would produce about the same power as a single SW 3x8 module. Hence
the manifolding requirements would be similar. In the case of the planar rectangular
1
BOP costs estimated for anode supported planar designs in a study of 250 MW systems for SECA. Due to more
expensive recuperators, the BOP for the tubular design may be somewhat higher.
4-16
12347402
geometries the cost may be slightly higher, because the anode and cathode exhaust tend to be
manifolded separately. For the thick-electrolyte planar systems it would appear that more
manifolding would be required, but paradoxically their developers (SOFCo, MHI, CFLC) are
targeting much greater power stacks (25 kW per stack and up). If they achieve this it will
reduce the manifolding requirements below what it would be for the other technologies, but it
is not clear what would allow thick electrolyte systems to be scaled-up further than thin-
electrolyte systems.
• Enclosure. The higher power density of planar thin-electrolyte designs may lead to a slightly
smaller enclosure, but it may be made of a somewhat cheaper material due to the lower
operating temperature. Alternatively, stacks may be insulated individually (e.g. to facilitate
the compression sealing mechanism) which would lead to a slightly larger enclosure, but
with even lower cost materials.
• Insulation. The lower operating temperature of planar thin-electrolyte designs will allow the
use of relatively conventional insulation materials. In combination with the smaller
enclosure, this will lead to a rather dramatic reduction in the insulation cost.
The balance of plant should fundamentally exist of the same components for the different
designs. However, some key differences exist:
• Recuperators. The planar thin-electrolyte systems can operate at reduced temperatures,
which significantly reduces the demands on the recuperators. First the lower operating
temperature allows the use of more cost-effective materials, but in addition, a slightly lower
recuperator efficiency may be acceptable
• Pressurized Cycles. It appears that the simpler sealing design of the tubular or strip designs
would make pressurized cycles easier to realize. Although in pressurized systems both anode
and cathode would nominally be pressurized to the same extent, this may be difficult to
achieve in practice. The pressure differences between anode and cathode are likely to be
proportional to total operating pressure to a first approximation. In general, systems in which
the anode and cathode exhausts are mixed at the end of the stack (such as the tubular and
planar circular designs), limit pressure differences to the differences in pressure drop in the
stack.
• Combined Cycles. In the case of combined cycles, waste heat from the fuel cell is typically
used in a heat engine to generate additional power. The most commonly discussed option is
the incorporation of the SOFC as (part of) the combustor in a Brayton Cycle (gas turbine).
Due to the low cost of gas turbine equipment today this could likely lead to both an increase
in efficiency and a reduction in cost. In such integration a high turbine inlet temperature
improves the performance of the turbine cycle. Hence a high SOFC operating temperature
could be a benefit in those cases. This could have a modest impact on the overall system cost.
Cost Dependence on Scaling
Though many SOFC cost analyses are carried out for high production volumes (hundreds of
MWs per year), currently the technology is in the R&D stages and production is at hundreds of
kW per year at best. Hence a significant scale-up in manufacturing volume is assumed in these
cost studies. In this study we want to shed some light on the possible cost reduction trajectories
that would apply between now and when a high-volume market may actually materialize. It
4-17
12347402
should be noted that manufacturing cost and sales price are not necessarily proportionally
related.
The manufactured cost of the stack will depend on the annual production volume. In calculating
2
the total stack costs, we assumed a production volume of 100,000 m of active area, so as to not
be influenced by the stack power densities. However, in calculating the impact of scale on the
stack cost, we consider production capacities between 25 MW – 250 MW. The following
additional assumptions were made in calculating the effect of scaling on the production costs:
• After assessing the utilization levels of critical equipment, we believe that 25MW is a level
of production that represented the smallest production facility that would utilize the types of
production technologies and equipment that the model is based upon.
• As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, we make the simplifying assumption that the
stack materials prices are independent of the production capacity.
• Figure 4-7 shows the material yields for 100,000 m2 annual production volume. For 10,000
m2 annual production volume, the material yields were assumed to be 50 % of that shown in
Figure 4-7. For intermediate production volumes, the yields were interpolated between the
two values using a function of the type 1/x.
• Overhead costs were also added to the overall cost. The overhead costs were assumed to be
20 % of the total fabrication cost. The overhead costs represent the cost of general
administration, sales, etc.
• The R&D costs were assumed to be independent of scale at $ 5 million/annum, but the type
of R&D being performed would depend on the production capacity. During the initial
prototype testing phase (corresponding to production volume less than 100 kW per annum),
the R&D would be focussed on ensuring safe and reliable operation of the stacks, and not so
much on delivering optimum performance or optimizing the manufacturing processes.
During the ramp-up phase (between 10 – 100 MW production volumes), the R&D focus
would be on minimizing the manufacturing expenses and optimizing the stack performance.
In the mature technology phase, (production volumes greater than 250 MW), the R&D focus
would be on obtaining incremental improvements in both manufacturing processes and stack
performance (which would be the hardest) so as to outshine the competitors.
Two cases were considered to illustrate the effect of production volume on total stack costs: one
where the fabrication costs are a major fraction of the total cost (SW) and the other where the
fabrication costs are negligible compared to the materials costs (Global). The model developed
to estimate the costs of the different designs was used to calculate the material scrap and
fabrication costs for these two designs. The effect of production scale on the breakdown of the
different cost contributions is shown in Figure 4-10 and Figure 4-11. The results of the scaling
are compared for the two designs in Figure 4-12. The changes in per kW manufacturing cost
vary for the following principal reasons (detailed assumptions in Table A2 in the Appendix):
• Capital Equipment and Labor Productivity. The downtime of equipment was increased for
decreasing production capacity. This reflects the fact that there will be more frequent
stoppages and production rates will typically be slower at the lower production volumes.
• Material Yields. Decrease in material yields (reflecting a decrease in production efficiency)
with a decrease in the production capacity.
4-18
12347402
• R&D Expenditure: As the production volumes decrease the R&D expenditure, which was
assumed constant, becomes a larger fraction of the total cost. The analysis assumed a five
million dollar per year R&D budget, which is small compared to current spending levels in
most SOFC development companies (though many companies leverage their investments
with non-equity institutional funding).
The accuracy with which cost-volume relationships can be established is limited, especially since
technology development progress coincides (almost inevitably) with increases in production
volume. The rate of success of technology development as a function of time and R&D spending
is generally highly uncertain, and there is clearly a strong correlation between the material use
(in the stack, as well as during the manufacturing process) and the successfulness of technology
development. Thus the following analysis is meant to be illustrative, rather than predictive. In
addition, it is important to recognize that the manufactured cost of the stack may be somewhat
de-coupled from the system price in early years. Some manufacturers may set higher prices if the
markets bear it or, perhaps more likely, “subsidize” systems to build the market. Government
incentives could have similar effects.
The results discussed in this section are subject to the following caveats. It should be noted that
the modeling technique employed to understand the production costs is less effective at assessing
costs when production volumes become small. In addition, our approach had to be limited to a
fully integrated business model. In reality however, other models may be more optimal,
especially at low production volumes. For example, companies have the option to ‘toll’ process
certain steps in their process as opposed to investing in equipment that would be severely
underutilized.
Some issues should be considered when considering the toll processing option:
• The ceramic structures are sensitive to their chemical and physical environments and
consequently, may not withstand the rigors of shipping and handling.
• The processes are not well understood outside of companies participating in the R&D at this
time. Custom fixtures and specific operating procedures do not currently exist at external
facilities. Finding an effective toll processor could prove difficult.
• Of all the technologies considered here that could potentially be helped by the tolling route
are those where the support structure could be prepared by a supplier and delivered in either a
green, semi-sintered or fully sintered form. This would save on the investment in powder
preparation facilities and initial forming steps.
The results of this illustrative analysis indicate that:

• The direct stack manufacturing cost at market introduction volumes (say 10-25 MW per
year) could well be three to four times higher than in high-volume (250 MW per year)
production.
• From now until such volumes are reached (i.e. at production volumes less than 10 MW per
year), indirect costs could escalate system cost to well over $50,000 per kW.
4-19
12347402
• The cost difference on a percentage basis between the tubular and anode-supported planar
design is substantially smaller at market-introduction volumes, and is statistically
insignificant.
When scaling down to even lower volumes, a critical question becomes how R&D, general
administration, and overhead costs are being accounted for. The results shown in Figure 4-10 and
Figure 4-12 assume that these costs are completely included in the production cost. While down
to 10 MW/year production capacity the same type of production economics apply as from 25 to
250, below 10 MW the R&D costs start to become a significant fraction of total production cost.
At 1 MW fabrication costs also become a major factor. As such, the wide range of costs
currently quoted for demonstration projects can be understood: sometimes R&D and other
overhead costs are factored into the quote, and sometimes they are not. Even when the R&D and
other overhead costs are left out, current stack production costs are estimated to be around $1000
to about $3000 per kW. Taking into account the high cost of installation for the one-off
demonstration projects, it is easy to see how quotes ranging from around $6,000 to $60,000 per
kW are being offered.
100,000
Overhead
R&D
Fabrication
-1
Scrap
Total Stack Cost / $ kW
Materials
10,000
1,000
100
0.1 1 10 26 50 128 256
Figure 4-10
Break-down of Stack Costs as a Function of Manufacturing Volume for the Tubular Design.
The results summarized in Figures 4-10, 4-11, and 4-12 show that the costs of both the SW and
the Global designs have very similar dependence on the annual production capacity. The costs
generally increase with a decrease in the production volume, which reflects sub-optimal
utilization of the equipment (down time) and lower process efficiencies (lower material yields).
However, the two technologies tend to converge at lower manufacturing costs. The difference
between the two technologies (on a percentage basis) is very modest for manufacturing volumes
less than 25 MW. For the Global design the direct cost almost doubles in going from a
production volume of 250 MW to 25 MW, while for the SW design the cost increase by around
sixty percent. In other words, the economy-of-scale benefits are greater for the planar than for
the tubular design.
4-20
12347402
100,000
Overhead
R&D
Fabrication
-1
Scrap
Total Stack Cost / $ kW

Materials
10,000
1,000
100
0.1 1 10 26 52 130 260
Figure 4-11
Break-down of Stack Costs as a Function of Manufacturing Volume for the Planar Design.
This high cost at low production volumes could represent a considerable challenge for the market
introduction of either fuel cell technology. This emphasizes that the development and use of
material-efficient, and low-cost manufacturing methods deserve attention right now, lest the
SOFC industry becomes stuck in a chicken-and-egg dilemma with respect to system cost and
market demand (cannot achieve high enough production volume to reach low costs, and current
markets won’t bear the high prices resulting from low production volume). Many in the industry
believe that this phenomenon is one of the reasons for the very limited market penetration of
PAFC systems. 250 kW ONSI PAFC systems were priced at around $4,000 per kW before
production was stopped.
This phenomenon is a critical one for developers and commercializers to solve in order to be able
to ever grow the SOFC industry beyond a niche power business. And although the long-term
potential to achieve low cost remains important, it may be equally important for SOFC
developers to be able to rapidly achieve production volumes in the tens of MW per year so as to
realize the low cost potential. This could be achieved in a variety of ways, but the most attractive
one is likely to develop products early on that are suitable for reasonably large markets that are
willing to pay premium prices. On the other hand, the level of R&D funding required in the early
years will likely not be justifiable based on these early markets, and thus a parallel focus on
mass-markets may remain a necessity for most developers.
4-21
12347402
100,000
Total Stack Cost / $ kW-1

10,000
1,000
Tubular
Planar
100
0.1 1 10 100 1000
Figure 4-12
Effect of Manufacturing Volume on the Stack Costs for the Tubular and Planar Designs
It is clear that the actual levels of the cost curve have a strong impact on the ultimate success of a
venture: if the cost at market introduction is lower, systems can be priced lower and more market
segments can be accessed, leading to higher production volumes etc.
The power industry may thus do well to consider carefully which developers it invests in.
Supporting a wide range of players may not lead to the most competition in this case and may in
fact lead to fragmentation of the SOFC business that could make it harder for any player to
succeed. This could even mean that it is better not to support a player with an incrementally
better technology. In any case a certain degree of collaboration amongst the players, is to be
encouraged, especially since for some years to come competition for SOFC players is not going
to be principally from other SOFC players, but from other power sources, DG or not.
Future Scenario
One would reasonably expect that in the future the developers of both the tubular and planar
designs will further improve performance and reduce costs of their systems. The reduction in
costs can come from changes to basic component dimensions or from reducing the contact
resistance in the stacks, which then leads to increased power density and hence reduced cost.
Given the relatively early stages of development of most of the stack designs, and the large likely
changes that will occur prior to commercialization, we decided not to attempt to project the
development paths of the stack designs of individual stack developers.
Rather, to illustrate the potential of the different technologies, we estimate the costs of the two
primary designs, the tubular and the planar designs in a future scenario. The two cases are both
based on assumptions that neither the basic materials used nor the basic stack architecture
change. Of course if alternative materials were found with dramatically better properties this
4-22
12347402
could well lead to different scenarios, but given the alternative materials the properties of which
have been described in the literature such an assumption appears to be speculative at best. In
addition, even with the improvements in technology based on current materials highly attractive
cost structures would be achieved both for the tubular and the planar designs. The potential
changes to these designs and the effect of the changes are summarized in Table 3-4. Figure 4-13
summarizes the impact of these changes on the total costs.
• For estimating the future performance of tubular designs, we assume that the developers will
be able to reduce the current conduction length will reduce the ASR of the cell, which will
also allow the use of thinner cathodes. The results would be an improvement in the stack
power density and reduction in material usage, both of which will lower the stack costs. For
example, 20 % reduction in the current conduction length will reduce the ASR and allow the
use of a thinner cathode. With the net result that the power density increases by 40 % and the
cathode material requirement decreases by 30 % for each cell.
• For estimating the future performance of the planar designs, we assume that the developers
will be able to reduce the contact resistances in the stack by 50 %, use the thin electrolyte
technology to minimize the ohmic ASR in the stack, and use lightweight interconnects (such
as in the MSRI or planar MHI designs). These improvements will allow higher stack power
densities, lower operating temperatures, and reduced interconnects costs. With these
improvements, the power density of a future planar stack may be able to exceed 800 mW cm-
2
at 0.7 V.
• The results in Figure 4-13 show that with these improvements the cost of a tubular stack will
reduce the total costs from ~ 280 $/kW to ~ 130 $/kW and the improvements to the planar
stack will reduce the total costs from ~ 120 $/kW to ~ 50 $/kW.
• Even with the improvements in stack design and performance, the cost of the future tubular
design would barely equal that of the current planar technology with thin-interconnects. But
the technical risk for the tubular technology is quite low. Clearly, the potential for cost
reduction is higher for the planar designs. However, they are also accompanied by higher
technical risks than the tubular designs.
While we did not attempt to characterize the impact of these scenarios on low- and intermediate-
volume production, we believe the general trends to be the same as those for the baseline
technology. Nevertheless, the reduction in materials cost associated with the improvements
would significantly facilitate the market introduction. Because of the extreme sensitivity of the
market penetration rate to the initial system cost, we would expect such improvements to have a
rather dramatic impact on the rate of market penetration of SOFC technology.
It appears to us that support of technology developments that have a reasonable likelihood of

succeeding in achieving or approaching the scenarios described, could be prudent investments
for developers.
4-23
12347402
300
-1
Material in Stacks
Stack Module Cost / $ kW

250 Scrap
Fabrication
200
150
100
50
0
Current Future Current Future Planar
Tubular Tubular Planar
Figure 4-13
Potential Costs for a Future Scenario, When the Developers of the Different Designs
Enhance the Power Density of the Stacks.
In conclusion, our analysis indicates that indeed planar bipolar SOFC have the potential for
significantly lower manufactured stack cost than tubular designs or planar thick-electrolyte
designs, even assuming current technology performance. This advantage arises solely from the
much higher power densities these designs can achieve, as their cost on a per area basis is at best
equal to that of the tubular and strip designs.
There is potential for significant future improvements in the planar technology without requiring
fundamentally improvement materials combinations, compared to the relatively modest potential
improvements in tubular or thick-electrolyte technology. Such improvements would further
increase the competitive advantage of planar thin-electrolyte SOFC, and indeed make it a highly
competitive power generation technology. If new and improved materials are to be discovered or
developed, especially highly conductive cathode materials, the difference could be reduced as
they may benefit the tubular structures more than the planar structures.
We would therefore expect that many of the thick-electrolyte planar SOFC developers will
migrate towards the thin-electrolyte planar SOFC designs, leading to a convergence of
performance and cost amongst planar SOFC designs, much in the way that is already the case
with the tubular designs.
The economy of scale in production volumes for all SOFC technologies appears to be
significant. Thus, while projected cost at high production volume may be attractive, the cost at
production volumes more typical at market introduction (tens of MWs per year) would result in
significantly higher cost. This high initial cost will likely be a significant hurdle in the
commercialization of SOFCs.
4-24
12347402
References
1. H. Tsukuda, , Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Europe, 2001.
3. B. Godrey, R. Gillespie, R. Bolden, and S.P.S. Badwal, Journal of Power Sources 86:68
(2000).

5. SOFCo in SECA Workshop, 2001.

16, 2001, p. 140.
p. 822.

Society, Vol. 2001-16, 2001, p. 100.
9. N. Q. Minh, , AlliedSignal, US, 2001.
10. N. Q. Minh, J. Guan, S. Huss, G. Lear, K. Montgomery, and E. Ong, :593.
4-25
12347402
12347402
5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter summarizes the main results from the technology assessment, presents a potential
roadmap for the development of SOFC technology, and provides recommendations for R&D
funding and investment.
Summary of the Technology Assessment
SOFC designs under development can be classified into two major classes based on the stack
architecture, each with unique sets of advantages and disadvantages.
Tubular or Strip-designs
In these designs the electrically active materials are fashioned around an annular porous support
such as a cylindrical tube (e.g., SW or MHI tubular designs) or a box (e.g., Rolls Royce). In
some designs one of the active materials serves as the support (e.g. the cathode in the SW
design) while in others a non-active material serves as the support (e.g., a conductive ceramic
tube in the MHI tubular design). These designs can be robust because sealing issues are largely
absent. Essentially, the tubular designs minimize sealing length. In addition, in the case of
cylindrical geometries, the thermo-mechanical stability of the structure tends to be superior to
that of flat structures.
However, the achievable current densities for these tubular or strip designs are limited as a direct
consequence of their geometry. The placement of the interconnects leads to long electronic
current conduction paths through the electrodes. For example, the characteristic length between
the interconnects is proportional to the tube diameter for the SW tubular design and to the pitch
of the cells for the MHI tubular or Rolls Royce designs. Unless the electrodes are thick enough,
the electronic resistances of the electrodes will result in large ohmic drops, which will limit the
current density. Therefore, there is a direct trade-off between the use of electrode material and
the achievable power density. This is particularly a problem for the cathode because of its lower
conductivity. This creates a three-way trade-off between the current density (which affects the
materials cost), the thickness of the electrodes (which affects the materials cost), and the
characteristic length between the interconnects (which affects the fabrication cost). In practice
this means that the power densities for tubular designs are currently limited to around 250
2
mW/cm . The potential for improvements (short of a breakthrough in materials conductivity) is
2
limited, so that the maximum power densities may be limited to 250-300 mW/cm . On the
positive side, despite the modest power densities, reasonably effective use of materials is
feasible.
5-1
12347402
Conclusions and Recommendations
The high operating temperature combined with the modest volumetric power density of these
systems makes them likely unsuitable for small-scale applications such as residential
cogeneration. Typical operating temperatures for these designs range from 900 to 1000°C. Such
high temperatures, while desirable for combined cycle systems, bring additional materials and
cost challenges in the balance of stack, particularly in the recuperators needed for stack thermal
management.
The tubular or strip designs can be further categorized into high-current and high-voltage
designs. In the high current designs, such as the SW and Accumentrics designs a single tube
constitutes a single cell, and hence produces the equivalent of the single cell voltage. In the high
voltage designs (such as MHI tubular and Rolls Royce) multiple cells are fashioned on a single
tube or box in the form of strips leading to a unit voltage that is a multiple of single cell voltage.
Each of these designs is subject to the same trade-off as the one mentioned above.
Although little data has been published to provide assurance about the practical viability of
SOFCs in stationary DG applications, significant progress has been made in demonstrating the
technical capabilities. The SW tubular design is the furthest developed SOFC architecture. SW’s
tubular design has been operated for over 10,000 hours in field demonstration in the Netherlands,
while laboratory testing of single cells have reportedly exceeded 40,000 hours, each with well
under 1% degradation per 1000 hours of operation (i.e., voltage drop at a given current density).
This performance, which has not been matched by any other developer, approaches acceptable
levels for commercial products.
Based on a high-level manufacturing cost analysis, the estimated factory cost of a stack made of
tubular cells (at 250 MW per year production volume) could be around $ 280 /kW with current
technology Such a stack cost would lead to a system cost as low as $ 1100 /kW for a typical 250
kW system.
Planar Bipolar SOFCs
In these designs the electrically active materials are flat and the current flows (almost entirely)
perpendicular to the surfaces of each of these elements. The current is thus passed from one cell
to another. This design leads to minimal current conduction paths throughout the stack (~ 100
µm). If this architecture is combined with a thin electrolyte, this can lead to a low area specific
resistance. As a result the published area-specific power densities of this architecture are up to
three times higher than with the tubular designs.
However, the planar geometry inherently introduces a more complex sealing arrangement than is
the case in the tubular designs. In addition, the thermo-mechanical stability of the flat geometry
in the planar structure is inferior to that of the cylindrical structure. To tackle the sealing
problem, two key classes of cell designs have developed: planar circular designs in which the
reactants flow in a co-flowing arrangement, and planar rectangular designs in which the reactants
flow in cross-flow. In the circular designs the reactants are allowed to react at the edge of the
plates (the outlet) and this reduces the amount of sealing that is required. In the planar
rectangular designs all four stack flows have to be manifolded and thus sealed. In addition
sealing between the layers is necessary in all of the planar designs.
5-2
12347402
The high power density combined with the intermediate operating temperature of thin-electrolyte
planar bipolar SOFCs opens the possibility of their application in relatively small-scale systems
(e.g. the Sulzer-Hexis system is rated at a little more than one kW). A number of small-scale
premium applications may aid in the early commercialization of the technology, even though
these applications may be irrelevant to the electric power industry.
Not nearly as much experience has been accumulated with planar designs as with tubular
designs. Nevertheless, Global Thermoelectric and others have demonstrated several thousand
hours of operation on stacks and the ability to survive repeated thermal cycles. Lack of stack
operating data makes it difficult to make a quantitative comparison of the durability of different
stack designs. With respect to the stability of the ceramic structures it is not clear that any of the
planar designs has compelling advantages over the tubular or strip designs. In other words, the
stage of development of thin-electrolyte planar SOFC is similar to that of the S-W tubular SOFC
about seven years ago. Ultimately, experimental comparison will determine which stack designs
are most durable.
The high-level manufacturing cost analysis indicated a wide range for planar SOFC designs.
Thin-electrolyte planar designs stack costs of $ 120 to $ 190 / kW appear achievable at high
production volumes (250 MW per year). The associated system cost could be as low as $ 800
/kW.
Future Perspective
The cost reduction potential for the tubular technology appears limited. The main improvements
that could be made in the tubular or strip designs would be aimed at reducing the ohmic
resistance associated with the conduction through the electrodes (mainly cathode). Either the
development of new cathode materials or the reduction of the conduction length will be required
to achieve this. Such future improvements are likely to be made gradually. On the positive side,
technical failure of tubular technology is not likely.
The potential for significant cost reduction for the planar technologies is high, if the technology
can be shown to work in real world applications. The planar bipolar designs are expected to
convergence on thin-electrolyte systems, because of their strongly favored performance and
operating conditions. Whether circular or rectangular systems will be favored is still unclear.
Significant challenges remain in the area of interconnect design and sealing, as well as in proving
the longevity of the planar cells. As such, the required technology development has a higher risk
than that described for the tubular systems, and the possibility of technical failure of the
technology is still real.
One way in which further cost reduction in planar SOFC could be achieved, while easing the
technical challenges somewhat, is if lower-temperature operation could be achieved, especially
less than 650°C. At these low temperatures, more conventional metals retain reasonable
mechanical properties, which could significantly simplify the sealing and interconnection
challenges. While this technology development path is clearly higher-risk than the tubular SOFC
path outlined above, the ultimate result could open the door to a wide range of applications that
are out of reach for tubular technology.
5-3
12347402
The necessary operating temperature of the different designs primarily depends on the thickness
of the electrolyte, but also on the overall ASR. As a consequence, the tubular designs and thick-
electrolyte planar designs typically require an operating temperature of 900°C or more, while the
thin-electrolyte planar systems can be operated in the range between 600 – 800°C (current best-
in-class performance being achieved at around 800°C). While to the uninitiated this may seem a
relatively small difference, it has tremendous consequences for the choice of construction
materials, in particular for the interconnect and the seals. At 900°C the principal choices of
viable materials (from a thermo-mechanical perspective) are ceramics and superalloys, while at
800°C ferritic stainless steels are a viable option (though coatings may be required).
Compressive sealing arrangements would still be challenging in this temperature range because
only a limited range of materials retains good mechanical properties for cycling under load at
this temperature. This is expected to have significant consequences for the material cost (see
chapter 4). If the operating temperature can be dropped further to around 600°C a relatively wide
range of commercial stainless steels may well be used in uncoated form, further reducing the
materials cost. Perhaps more importantly, a relatively wide range of materials retains excellent
mechanical properties at this temperature, drastically widening the range of sealing options.
Despite the many significant developments and demonstrations of SOFC power plants, further
improvements in stack performance, reliability, and manufacturing methods are necessary to
translate the SOFC into a viable power generation technology. The current status, the expected
future status, and the key developments needed are summarized in Table 5-1.
As concluded in the previous section, the myriad SOFC designs currently being pursued will
converge to one of two configurations: the tubular design and planar thin-electrolyte design. The
SW design is closer to reaching the mature performance phase, thus limiting further performance
improvements. Most room for cost reduction for this technology will come from developments
in the manufacturing processes and marginal power density improvements through refined stack
architectures, or from fundamental materials breakthroughs. Therefore, the emphasis in
development of the tubular SOFC should now shift to commercialization issues. A key question
in this respect is of course how production volume can be increased while ensuring that the
system production cost stays in an acceptable relation to the acceptable price of systems (as
determined by the market).
For planar SOFC the most important challenge is still to prove that the technology can work
reliably. It may yet turn out that modified architecture (e.g. operating at lower temperatures) will
be required to achieve this. As such, our estimates are that three to six years of development will
be needed before broad commercialization can be contemplated.
SOFC Roadmap: Thoughts for the Power Industry
The electric power industry is a key market for SOFC technology. However, power industry
interests do not automatically align with those of the SOFC developers or other organizations
interested in SOFC development. For example, a number of the high-volume applications of
interest to planar SOFC developers, such as auxiliary power unit (APU) or remote power
applications, are of little interest to most power companies. The development steps required for
SOFC technology to achieve successful commercialization are listed in Table 5-1... While for
tubular SOFC the focus is on demonstration and commercialization activities, for planar
5-4
12347402
technology some fundamental technology development activities must precede demonstration

and commercialization. Hence, areas where the power industry can support SOFC developments
varies by technology:
• Demonstration of tubular SOFC systems. Opportunities for the power industry to influence
tubular SOFC technology development may be limited, given that it has already entered the
stage of technology demonstration. Some power industry players may choose to monitor the
situation, and wait for commercially available technology. However, if tubular SOFC
technology is to become available as a viable distributed generation alternative, additional
demonstrations of systems under realistic power generation conditions (both single cycle and
perhaps combined cycle) will be needed. Demonstrations in power industry markets will be
key to commercialization of tubular SOFCs. Fortunately, the technology is ready for
demonstrations at sizes that are relevant to the power industry. Unfortunately, such
demonstrations are quite costly, and thus will require some consideration to power
companies that support them. Third-party support (such as from governments) will help, but
cannot be expected to support all commercial development. Commercial sales are expected
after two to four years of technology demonstrations.
• Technology Development of Thin-Electrolyte Planar SOFC Systems. Planar thin-electrolyte
systems require improvements in stack performance before extensive field trials can begin.
For example, stack degradation during continuous duty and cycling operation must first be
reduced to less than 1% per thousand hours. This will require improvements in seal design
for some developers as well as a further improvement of the thermo-mechanical stability of
the ceramic structures. We expect that these developments will take another 2-5 years,
depending on the developer. Some power industry players may simply monitor
developments, while others may elect to invest or partner with developers. In the product
demonstration and early commercialization phase of planar systems the power industry may
play a slightly different role than in the case of tubular systems, especially for applications
outside traditional power industry “territory.” For those companies not directly participating
in the development, this may mean that the timeframe over which the technology becomes of
commercial importance is significantly longer than for tubular system: four to eight years.
Finally, given the importance of the economy of scale to SOFC production cost and hence for
market viability, there may not be room for a very large number of SOFC players in the ultimate
market. Companies that develop a head-start in demonstration and commercialization will likely
develop a strong competitive advantage. Power companies that want to actively participate in the
SOFC business should carefully consider when to enter the market and which company to align
with. Even though the timeframe for ultimate commercialization is medium term, for those
power companies that want to play a more significant role in SOFC development, today’s
choices will likely have a significant impact on the competitive advantage they ultimately derive
from SOFC technology.
5-5
12347402
Table 5-1
Summary of the Current Status, Expected Future Status, and Necessary Key
Developments for the Tubular and Planar Designs.
Key Developments
Design Current Status Future Scenario Required to Facilitate the
Future Scenarios
Tubular
• Mature stack • Power density • Reduction in current
performance: reliable marginally higher conduction path length
and stable performance • Marginally lower stack • High conductivity cathode
• Low stack power costs material
densities • Low-cost manufacturing
• Expensive manufacturing processes
• Testing of integrated • Long term testing of
multi-kW systems integrated-prototype
Planar thin
• Testing of individual • Improved stack • Demonstrate reliable and
single sub-kW sized performance will allow long term stable operation
electrolyte
stacks lower temperature • Demonstrate stable
• High power densities in operation operation even with
short time scale tests • More reliable and temperature cycling
• Lab-scale tests stable stack operation • Demonstrate stack
• Sealing/reliability issues performance with high fuel
dominate utilization
• Demonstrate integrated
systems
• Field testing of prototypes
• Optimize manufacturing
processes
Planar
• Testing of individual • Sealing/reliability
single sub-kW sized issues dominate
Electrolyte
stacks forcing developers to
Supported
• Low power densities resort to thin-
• Lab-scale tests electrolyte technology
• Sealing/reliability issues
dominate
5-6
12347402
A
APPENDIX
Development Status of the Different SOFC Designs
The information collected as part of this project also allowed us to compare the stack
development status for the different designs. The comparison is provided in Table A-1.
Table A-1
Status of Stack Testing by the Different Developers
Longest continuous operation Largest System Operated Field Tests

Date of
Developers program
Self-
inception Operating Self- Operating # of Total
Stack size sustaining Stack size
time sustaining? time units kW
?
Siemens 12, 000 15

1984 100 kWe Yes 250 kWe Yes 800 hrs + ~ 500
Westinghouse hrs + total
MHI Tubular 1984 10 kWe Yes 5, 000 hrs 10 kWe -- 7000 hrs -- --
Rolls Royce 1992 1 kWe
2, 000
MHI: Planar 1990 5 kWe No 2, 000 hrs 5 kWe No -- --
hrs
CFCL 1992 39 kWe No 400 hrs 39 kWe No 400 hrs -- --
5-20
SOFCo 1986 2 kWe Yes 10,000 hrs -- -- -- --
kWe
50,000 6
Sulzer-Hexis 1991 1 kWe Yes 1 kWe Yes -- 6
hrs+* kWe
TMI 1991 100 W -- 1600 hrs 500 W -- -- -- --
Global 5
1997 1 kWe Yes 1150 hrs 5 kWe -- -- 1
Thermoelectric kWe
Honeywell 1990 -- -- -- 400 W -- -- -- --
MSRI 1990 -- -- -- 250 W -- -- -- --
A-1
12347402
Appendix
Estimation of Installed Costs

Table A-2
Rough Estimation of the Installed Costs for the Current Tubular and Planar Anode
Supported Designs.
Tubular Anode Supported Planar
$/kW $/kW
Estimated Stack Costs 300 190
Insulation 601 40
BOP 3502 350
Mark up
140 120
(30 % of total stack cost)
Installation Cost
200 – 600 200- 600
200 – 600 $/kW
Total Installed Cost 1050 - 1550 900 - 1300
Proposed Manufacturing Processes
For the SOFC designs profiled in this report, the proposed process flows described in the
literature were reviewed and are summarized in the following figures.
1
Estimated as 20 % of stack costs for planar anode supported design from an ongoing study for SECA based on 250
MW system. The insulation for the tubular system will be somewhat higher owing to the higher operating
temperature.
2
BOP costs estimated from an ongoing study for SECA based on 250 MW planar system. The BOP for the tubular
system would be somewhat higher owing to costlier recuperators
A-2
12347402
Appendix
Interconnect
Interconnect
ma nufacturing
Anode
NiO/YS Z
powder
preparation
Electrolyte
Powder
preparation of Tape Cast Scr een-pr int
Punche d Sinter ed Fired
3YS Z and (50x150m m) electrode s
8YS Z
LSM Cathode
powder Stack
preparation Assembly
Cathode
Figure A-1
Process Proposed for CFCL’s Planar Electrolyte Design. Process Details Obtained From
[1], [2]
Interconnect
Fin Forming
Anode
Powder
Tape Cast
Pre par ation
Fabrication
Thin layer
Bilaye r electrolyte
Substrates cut Fired
forming rolled onto
anode la yer
Electrolyte
Powder
Tape Cast Cathode
Pre par ation
Applic ation
Cathode
Stack Assembly
Figure A-2
Process Proposed for Honeywell’s Planar Anode Supported Design. Process Details
Obtained From [3], [4]
A-3
12347402
Appendix
Interconnect
Surfac e treated
Me tallic foil to minimize
interc onnect eff ects of
ma nufactured oxidation
Cathode
Powder s
synthe sized
Anode Electrolyte
Powder s of NiO
Ele ctr olyte Cathode paste
and 8YSZ
prepared: slurry of prepared
mixed for 24
YSZ and EtOH
hours in EtOH
Fabrication
Ele ctr olyte Cathode paste
Sinter ed at Heated to
deposited on applied ove r the
Tape Cast 1400°C for one 1250°C for one
anode by dip- YSZ laye r and
hour hour
coating heated to 400°C;
Repeated until laye r of 50-60 µm a chieved
Stack Assembly
Figure A-3
Process Proposed for MSRI’s Planar Anode Supported Design. Process Details Obtained
From [5]
Interconnect manufactured by Plansee

Pre alloying Near Net Near Net
powders to Shaped Shaped
ma ke Cr- 5Fe - pressing and pressing and
1Y2 O3 sintering sintering
Electrolyte
Separa tor
Fabrication
Scr een Printing
QC weight by combustion QC weight
Sinter ?
check spr ay pyrolysis gain
(Pr axa ir)
Ele ctr ode ( two

layers per
electrode )
Stack Assembly
Electrode
Figure A-4
Process Proposed for Sulzer-Hexis Planar Electrolyte Supported Design. Process Details
Obtained From [6]
A-4
12347402
Appendix
Interconnect
Anode
Laminate
Anode filled via
Tape Cast interc onnects
preparation
Electrolyte Fabrication
Ele ctr olyte

Tape Cast
Scr een-Printed Laminate Fire
preparation Ele ctr odes Stacks Stacks
Cathode
Cathode
Tape Cast
preparation
Figure A-5
Process Proposed for SOFCO’s Planar Electrolyte Supported Design. Process Details
Obtained From [7]
Interconnect
Fer ritic CNC
Anode Stainless Steel ma chined with
Plates hot square gas
Anode rolled channe ls
powders
mixed with
solvent
Cathode
Powder s
Tape Cast synthe sized
Electrolyte
Heated to and
Ele ctr olyte powde r
held at Calcined and
dispersed in
decomposition ball milled
Ethanol and
temperature of
ste ric ally sta bilize d
por e forme r
Fabrication
Heated furher to Powder Cathode and 20%
produce pre sinter ed deposited on por e forming agent
Fired at 1400- Co-fired for two
body str ong enough anode by applied to
1500°C hours
for e lec trolyte vacuum slip electrolyte by screen
deposition casting* printing
Stack Assembly
Figure A-6
Process Proposed for Global Thermoelectric’s Planar Anode Supported Design. Process
Details Obtained From [8], [9]
A-5
12347402
Appendix
Anode
Cathode
Powder Green Sheet
Pre par ation Forming
Powder
Pre par ation
Green sheets Cathode

Powder Green Sheet Sinter ing at Sinter ed at
wound on wound around
Pre par ation Forming 1300-1500C 1200-1350C
substr ate tube films
Interconnect
Green Sheet Stack Assembly

Fin Forming
Forming
Figure A-7
Process Proposed for MHI’s Tubular Design. Process Details Obtained From [10]
Interconnect
Anode
Interconnect
Powder Green sheet Ma nufacturing
Pre par ation forming
Laid together
Powder Green sheet and formed
Fired at 1300C
Stack
preparation forming using metal Assembly
molds
Cathode
Powder Green sheet

preparation forming
Figure A-8
Process Proposed for MHI’s Tubular Design. Process Details Obtained From [11]
A-6
12347402
Appendix
References
2. B. Godrey, R. Gillespie, R. Bolden, and S.P.S. Badwal, Journal of Power Sources 86:68
(2000).
3. N. Q. Minh, , AlliedSignal, US, 2001.
4. N. Q. Minh, J. Guan, S. Huss, G. Lear, K. Montgomery, and E. Ong, :593.

16, 2001, p. 140.
7. SOFCo in SECA Workshop, 2001.
p. 822.

Society, Vol. 2001-16, 2001, p. 100.
10. H. Tsukuda, , Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Europe, 2001.

A-7
12347402
12347402
12347402
Target: SHRINK-WRAP LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU (LICENSEE) AND EPRIsolutions, INC., A DELAWARE
Fuel Cell Distributed Power SystemsEPRIsolutions CORPORATION (EPRIsolutions) PERTAINING TO THE MATERIALS THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT
1. DEFINITIONS
For the purpose of this shrink-wrap license agreement ("Agreement") the following definitions shall apply and shall control over any inconsistent definitions
of the same term used in any other contract or agreement associated to this Agreement.
Materials: Means the document(s) and/or computer software accompanying this Agreement which is hereby designated by EPRIsolutions to be Proprietary
Information as defined below.
Target: Means an area of research work that created the Materials.
Participant: Means an entity that funded the Target, or an entity related to the Participant, or the Participant's parent company, in which the Participant or
its parent, owns a fifty percent (50%) or greater interest and which the Participant has designated as being funder of the Target that created the Materials.
About EPRI Proprietary Information: Means the Materials and any and all information or materials (including but not limited to scientific, technical, and business
information, materials, concepts and information) disclosed in which the disclosing party has notified the receiving party is confidential, trade secret or
proprietary.
EPRI creates science and technology solutions for
Internal Use License: Means LICENSEE's use (or use by a consultant acting for LICENSEE) of the Materials for LICENSEE's own business operations.
the global energy and energy services industry. U.S. Commercial Use License: Means a license for use of the Materials by LICENSEE for performing Consulting Services for LICENSEE's clients.This does not
electric utilities established the Electric Power include the right to sublicense the Materials or any portion thereof,or to copy and distribute the Materials in violation of the copyright protections pertaining
to said Materials.
Research Institute in 1973 as a nonprofit research
LICENSEE: Means an entity that accepts the Materials accompanying this Agreement under the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
consortium for the benefit of utility members, their 2. LICENSE CLASS AND SUBORDINATION OF AGREEMENT
customers, and society. Now known simply as EPRI, The License Class for this Agreement and the Materials as specified above is in reference to the License Classes contained in the terms and conditions of
the Target Funding Agreement entered between EPRIsolutions and the Participant, which is herein incorporated by reference if applicable.
the company provides a wide range of innovative
Furthermore, this Agreement shall be subordinate to the terms of any Target Funding Agreement or any other agreement entered between LICENSEE and
products and services to more than 1000 energy- EPRIsolutions that applies to the Materials.
related organizations in 40 countries. EPRI’s 3. GRANT OF LICENSE
multidisciplinary team of scientists and engineers Accordingly having defined the License Class above, EPRIsolutions hereby grants to LICENSEE a nonexclusive, worldwide, nontransferable, perpetual, "for
cause" revocable, Internal Use and Commercial Use License to the Materials accompanying this Agreement. LICENSEE hereby agrees that EPRIsolutions
draws on a worldwide network of technical and reserves its right to terminate this Agreement immediately on a "for cause" basis if LICENSEE fails to comply with any lawful material provision of this
business expertise to help solve today’s toughest Agreement.
4. COPYRIGHT
energy and environmental problems. LICENSEE hereby acknowledges that the Materials accompanying this Agreement is owned by EPRIsolutions, is Proprietary Information, and is protected by
United States and international copyright laws. Unless stated elsewhere in this Agreement, LICENSEE may not, without the prior written permission of
EPRI. Electrify the World EPRIsolutions, reproduce, this material, in any form, in whole or in part.
5. RESTRICTIONS
LICENSEE may not rent, lease, license, disclose or give the Materials to any person or organization, or use the information contained in the Materials for any
purpose other than as specified above, unless such use is granted via written permission from EPRIsolutions. LICENSEE agrees to take all reasonable steps
to prevent unauthorized disclosure or use of the Materials and any and all Proprietary Information contained therein. Except as specified above, this
Agreement does not grant LICENSEE any other intellectual property rights or licenses in respect of the Materials.
6. TERM AND TERMINATION
This Agreement is effective until the termination of EPRIsolutions's rights in the Materials, or earlier on a "for cause" basis. LICENSEE may terminate the
rights granted herein at any time by destroying the Materials contained herein.Upon any termination,LICENSEE may destroy the Materials contained herein,
but all obligations of nondisclosure will remain in effect.
7. LIMITATION OF WARRANTIES AND LIABILITIES
EPRIsolutions warrants that it has the right to grant the licenses and rights granted in this Agreement. However, EPRIsolutions assumes no responsibility for
About EPRIsolutions abating any infringement of its copyright or other proprietary rights in the Materials.Any action taken by EPRIsolutions with respect to any such infringement
shall be at EPRIsolutions 's sole discretion.
EPRIsolutions, a wholly-owned subsidiary of EPRI, EPRIsolutions does not warrant the noninfringement by the Materials of any other copyright, patent, trademark, trade secret, or other intellectual property
right, domestic or foreign.
provides R&D, technology applications services, NEITHER EPRIsolutions, NOR ANY PARTICIPANT THAT FUNDED THE TARGET, NOR ANY PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ACTING ON BEHALF
consulting services, field test evaluations, and OF ANY OF THEM:
privately-sponsored initiatives to the power (A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,WITH RESPECT TO THE MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT OF ANY MATERIALS OR FREEDOM FROM CONTAMINATION BY COMPUTER
industry. Its areas of focus include power VIRUSES, OF THE MATERIALS; OR
generation, transmission and distribution, end use (B) ASSUMES ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO ANY USE OF THE MATERIALS OR ANY PORTION THEREOF OR WITH RESPECT
TO ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHICH MAY RESULT FROM SUCH USE.
technologies, market assessment and
LICENSEE agrees to comply with all applicable laws and regulations in the performance of this Agreement and the use of the Materials, including United
communications, facility maintenance programs, States export control laws.The aforesaid obligations shall survive any satisfaction, expiration, termination or discharge of this Agreement or any obligations
operator training, and online monitoring systems. hereunder.
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED OTHERWISE HEREIN, EPRISOLUTIONS PROVIDES NO INDEMNIFICATION TO LICENSEE.
EPRIsolutions offers a wide range of technical
8. INDEMNIFICATION FOR PARTICIPANTS ONLY
support to expand and enhance EPRI's overall For an amount up to the amount of funding the Participant contributed to the Target which created the Materials,EPRIsolutions shall indemnify,save harmless
science and technology program. and defend the Participant against all claims of liability for infringement of a third party's United States copyright or unlawful acquisition of a third party's
United States trade secrets which arises from the Participant's use of Materials in accordance with this Agreement, except to the extent that such claims
are a result of the alteration of the Materials or violation of this Agreement by Participant. Participant hereby agrees to indemnify, save harmless and defend
EPRIsolutions against all other claims of liability arising from use of the Materials by Participant. In either event, indemnitee agrees to notify indemnitor
promptly and in writing of any claims subject to indemnification, and indemnification shall cover reasonable expenses, attorney fees, costs and damages.
In no event shall either EPRIsolutions or Participant be liable to the other for any incidental, indirect, special, or consequential damages, however caused and
on any theory of liability, arising out of or related to the performance of this Agreement.
9. EXPORT
The laws and regulations of the United States restrict the export and re-export of any portion of the Materials, and LICENSEE agrees not to export or re-
export the Materials or any related technical data in any form without the appropriate United States approvals.
© 2002 EPRIsolutions, Inc. All rights reserved. EPRI is a registered
10. CHOICE OF LAW
service mark of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California as applies to transactions taking place entirely in California between California
residents.
Printed on recycled paper in the United States of America
11. INTEGRATION
LICENSEE has read and understood this Agreement, and acknowledges that it is the final, complete and exclusive agreement between LICENSEE and
1003966 EPRIsolutions concerning its subject matter, superseding any prior related understanding or agreement. No waiver, variation or different terms of this
Agreement will be enforceable against EPRIsolutions unless EPRIsolutions gives its signed, written consent.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT:
BY ACCEPTING THE MATERIALS PROVIDED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, LICENSEE AGREES TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT. IF LICENSEE
DOES NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT LICENSEE AGREES TO STOP ANY AND ALL USE OF SAID MATERIALS AND TO RETURN
THE MATERIALS TO EPRISOLUTIONS IMMEDIATELY.
EPRIsolutions • 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304 • PO Box 10414, Palo Alto, California 94303 • USA
800.313.3774 • 650.855.2121 • askepri@epri.com • www.epri.com
12347402

Assessment of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Technology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Assessment of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell

Comparison of Alternative Design Approaches

Please read the License Agreement

on the back cover before removing the document prior to publication.

the Wrapping Material.

Final Report, March 2002

EPRIsolutions Project Manager

(A) MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, (I)

(B) ASSUMES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY WHATSOEVER

ORGANIZATION(S) THAT PREPARED THIS REPORT

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

EPRIsolutions is a registered service mark of EPRIsolutions, Inc.

Copyright © 2002 EPRIsolutions, Inc. All rights reserved.

This report was prepared by

Arthur D. Little, Inc.

This report describes research sponsored by EPRIsolutions.

Assessment of Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Technology: Comparison of Alternative Design

• Analyze the performance and architecture of SOFC technologies currently under

Descriptions of Current SOFC Designs

Membrane Electrolyte Electrodes Assembly (MEA) Total

[9, 10] Porous walled, Sealing by

[11, 12] Screen printed

Cell Physical Design Stack Physical Design

Global Cross Modular 1 kW stack of 15 cells 1 kW unit

Demonstrated Performance of Current SOFC Designs

Tubular Planar Electrolyte Supported

Expected Manufacturing Cost of Current SOFC Designs

Costs per 100 cm 2 of Active Area / $ cm-2

The results of this illustrative analysis indicate that:

Tubular Design Planar Anode Supported Designs

Stack Module Cost / $ kW-1

Summary and Conclusions

SOFC Roadmap: Thoughts for the Power Industry

interested in SOFC development. For example, a number of the high-volume applications of

Key Developments Required

1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1

2 TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS..................................................................................................... 2-1

Technology Management Incorporated (TMI)..........................................................2-21

3 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................................... 3-1

4 MANUFACTURING COST ASSESSMENT................................................................................ 4-1

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 5-1

Future Perspective.................................................................................................................. 5-3

Table 1-1 Scope of Technology Assessments............................................................................... 1-2

Scope & Study Limitations

Current Vs. Future Technology and Manufacturing Volume

Current Technology Future Technology

H2 + O2- = H2O + 2 e- 1/2 O2 + 2 e- = O2-

Interconnect: The interconnect element is an electrically conductive layer that electrically

Current SOFC Technology Descriptions

establishing a thorough understanding of the performance and cost implications of architecture

Overview of the Single Cell Elements

Structure and Composition of the Ceramic MEA

Membrane Electrolyte Assembly (MEA) Total

[7, 8] Porous walled, Sealing by

[9, 10] Porous walled, Sealing by

[11, 12] Screen printed

[13-15] Info. not

[20-24] Ni + Gd YSZ + LSM + Info. not

[25, 26] Info. Not

Global [27-29] Compression

[32-35] LSM + Pressure

Cell Physical Design Stack Physical Design

30 cells per 30 W strip, 30 strips

Cross Stack of 4x4 array cells, module size of