4.8 Article

Benchmarking the expected stack manufacturing cost of next generation, intermediate-temperature protonic ceramic fuel cells with solid oxide fuel cell technology

Journal

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
Volume 369, Issue -, Pages 65-77

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.09.024

Keywords

Solid-state reactive sintering; Protonic ceramic fuel cell; Techno-economic cost analysis; Manufacturing costs; Fuel cell stack economics; Solid oxide fuel cell

Funding

  1. Rebels ARPA-E [DE-AR0000493]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent progress in the performance of intermediate temperature (500-600 degrees C) protonic ceramic fuel cells (PCFCs) has demonstrated both fuel flexibility and increasing power density that approach commercial application requirements. These developments may eventually position the technology as a viable alternative to solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs) and molten carbonate fuel cells (MCFCs). The PCFCs investigated in this work are based on a BaZr0.8Y0.2O3-delta (BZY20) thin electrolyte supported by BZY20/Ni porous anodes, and a triple conducting cathode material comprised of BaCo0.4Fe0.4Zr0.1Y0.1O3-delta (BCFZY0.1). These cells are prepared using a low-cost solid-state reactive sintering (SSRS) process, and are capable of power densities of 0.156 W cm(-2) at 500 degrees C operating directly from methane fuel. We develop a manufacturing cost model to estimate the Nth generation production costs of PCFC stack technology using high volume manufacturing processes and compare them to the state-of-the-art in SOFC technology. The low-cost cell manufacturing enabled by the SSRS technique compensates for the lower PCFC power density and the trade-off between operating temperature and efficiency enables the use of lower-cost stainless steel materials. PCFC stack production cost estimates are found to be as much as 27-37% lower at 550 degrees C than SOFCs operating at 800 degrees C. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available