8

Fuel Cells

Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, one should be able to:

1. Describe the concept of generating energy and power from fuel cells.
2. Enumerate the various types of fuel cell systems.
3. Enumerate various input materials or feedstock that may be used for fuel cell
systems.
4. Describe the various applications of fuel cell systems.
5. Describe the various conversion efficiencies of fuel cell systems.
6. Relate the future of fuel cell technology based on overall environmental and eco-
nomic issues.

8.1 Introduction
A fuel cell is an electrochemical energy conversion device. It converts the chemical
energy of a fuel (e.g., hydrogen) directly into electrical energy. The fuel and an oxidiz-
ing agent (usually oxygen from air) are continuously but separately supplied to the
two electrodes of the cell, at which they undergo a reaction. Figure 8.1 shows the typi-
cal schematic and structure of a fuel cell that uses hydrogen gas and oxygen from the
air. This is a typical proton exchange membrane fuel cell (PEM). The hydrogen fuel is
channeled through the field flow plates to the anode on one side. The oxygen from the
air is channeled to the cathode on the other side of the cell. A platinum catalyst is used
at the anode, causing the hydrogen to split into positive hydrogen ions (protons) and
negatively charged electrons. This PEM allows only the positively charged ions to pass
through to the cathode. The negatively charged electrons must travel along the exter-
nal circuit to the cathode, creating an electrical current. The electrons and positively
charged hydrogen ions combine with oxygen at the cathode to form water, which then
flows out of the cell.
The efficiency of electricity generation using a heat engine is limited by the Carnot
Cycle efficiency, which is in the range of only 35% to 45%. Fuel electricity production is
not subject to this limitation, and practical efficiencies of 60% may be achieved. The the-
oretical conversion efficiency of an ideal fuel cell of this type is a good 83% (Larminie
and Dicks, 2013).
The main issue behind the use of fuel cells is the slow reaction rate, leading to low cur-
rents and power. Additionally, its source of input power is hydrogen gas, which nowadays

211
212 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

FIGURE 8.1
Typical design of a fuel cell (US DOE, 2018).

is produced from steam methane reforming due to the abundance of natural gas as a by-
product of the oil industry.
The other principle behind the hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell, aside from the use of plati-
num material for the electrodes, is the use of a well-conducting electrolyte. Potassium
hydroxide (KOH) or sulfuric acid (H2SO4) may be used (Brunton, et al., 2010). The
schematic details are shown in Figure 8.2. In the figure, two platinum electrodes are
immersed in the electrolyte. One electrode (the negative side) is supplied with hydro-
gen, while the other electrode is supplied with oxygen (the positive side). An electrical
potential difference of 0.90 to 1.2 volts can be measured between the two electrodes—
shown in Equation 8.1 for the negative electrode and Equation 8.2 for the positive
electrode.
In the equations shown, for every molecule of hydrogen consumed, two electrons pass
from the negative to the positive electrode, where they react with absorbed oxygen. Water
is produced by this reaction:

2 H ad → 2 H + + 2 e − (8.1)
Fuel Cells 213

FIGURE 8.2
Basic schematic of a hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell and electrolytes used.

1
O2 + 2 H + + 2 e − → H 2O (8.2)
2

Another way of looking at the fuel cell reaction is shown in Figure 8.3. Here, the overall
reaction is shown:

1
H2 + O2 → H 2O (8.3)
2

In Figure 8.3 and Equation 8.3, one will observe the “combustion” of hydrogen and oxy-
gen, whereby heat energy is released. In the electrochemical reaction between hydrogen
and oxygen in a fuel cell, electricity and heat are produced. Heat produced by combustion
is not the same as electricity produced in a fuel cell. The difference is related to the Gibbs
free energy.
The high heating value for the combustion of hydrogen is 285.8 kJ/kmol, but the
Gibbs free energy for the reaction—and therefore the maximum electricity produced
by the fuel cell—is only 237.2 kJ/kmol. The difference, which is 48.6, appears as heat
produced in the fuel cell. The practical electricity produced is around 154 kJ/kmol
(US DOE, 2013). Examples 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 show how the calculations for efficiencies
are made.

Example 8.1:  Practical Fuel Cell Conversion Efficiency

Determine the practical conversion efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell if the electricity
produced is 154 kJ/kmol and the energy content of hydrogen is 285.8 kJ/kmol.
214 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

FIGURE 8.3
Another illustration of fuel cell reactions.

SOLUTION:
a. The conversion efficiency is simply the ratio of the practical electricity gener-
ated versus the heating value of hydrogen:

kJ
154
Practical Energy Conversion Efficiency ( % ) = mol × 100% = 54%
kJ
285.8
mol

b. Hence, the practical efficiency of a hydrogen oxygen fuel cell is about 54% much
higher than the Carnot Cycle efficiency if hydrogen is burned in an engine.

Example 8.2:  Theoretical Fuel Cell Conversion Efficiency

Determine the theoretical conversion efficiency for the hydrogen fuel cell if the electric-
ity produced is 237 kJ/kmol and the energy content of hydrogen is 285.8 kJ/kmol.

SOLUTION:
a. The theoretical conversion efficiency is simply the ratio of the maximum elec-
tricity generated versus the heating value of hydrogen:

kJ
237.2
Theoretical ECE ( % ) = mol × 100% = 83%
kJ
285.8
mol
Fuel Cells 215

b. Hence, the theoretical efficiency of a hydrogen oxygen fuel cell is about 83%—
much higher than the Carnot Cycle efficiency if hydrogen is burned in an
engine.

Example 8.3:  Heat Energy Losses in Fuel Cells

Determine the percentage of energy loss for the hydrogen fuel cell if the heat produced
in a fuel cell is 48.6 kJ/kmol. The energy content of hydrogen is 285.8 kJ/kmol.

SOLUTION:
a. The percentage of energy losses is simply the ratio of the heat loss to the heat-
ing value of hydrogen:

kJ
48.6
Percentage Losses ( % ) = mol × 100% = 17%
kJ
285.8
mol

b. Hence, the theoretical efficiency of a hydrogen oxygen fuel cell is about 83%—
much higher than the Carnot Cycle efficiency if hydrogen is burned in an
engine.

8.2  The Various Types of Fuel Cells

There have been numerous types of fuel cells developed over the years (Larminie and
Dicks, 2013). The basic premise is the same: to convert the chemical energy of a fuel into
electricity. Hundreds of possibilities exist, but the economics of fuel cell technology relies
on the chemicals or gaseous materials used for the reaction. The cheaper the input feed-
stock, the better.

8.2.1  Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells

The most popular among fuel cell types is the proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel
cell, where the gaseous hydrogen is used. The selection of anode, cathode, and the elec-
trolyte will also change, and this causes complications in design and its efficiencies. The
membrane separates the anode and the electrolyte on one end and the cathode and the
electrolyte on the other end. Other carbonaceous gases may also be used, such as methane
and liquid compounds like methanol, diesel, and chemical hydrides. If hydrogen is used,
the product of reaction will be water; if a carbonaceous compound is used, the product
is mainly carbon dioxide. In the past, hydrogen was used and was produced first using
steam reforming or methane reforming.
The same principle holds with the production of electricity. The hydrogen gas dissoci-
ates into its proton and electron components. On the anode side, hydrogen diffuses to the
anode catalyst, where it later dissociates into protons and electrons. The protons react with
oxidants, in this case, oxygen. The protons are conducted through the membrane to the
cathode, but the electrons are forced to travel in an external circuit, supplying the desired
output power. This is because the membrane is electrically insulating. On the cathode
216 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

catalyst side, oxygen molecules react with the electrons and protons to produce water.
Note that these electrons have traveled through the external circuit.
Cost is again the issue in why this system has not yet been fully commercialized. The
best catalyst is platinum, a very expensive material. As a result, there is a move toward the
use of inexpensive non-metal catalysts, such as carbon nanotubes. The use of water can
also become an issue, as the process involves evaporation. This must be controlled; other-
wise, the issue of water replenishment will be a problem for larger systems. The reaction
is also exothermic, and a large quantity of heat is generated, especially by large systems.
The proton exchange fuel cells work using a polymer in the form of a thin, permeable
sheet. The efficiency is about 40% to 50%, and the operating temperature is about 180°C
[175°F]. The cell output ranges from 50 to 250 kW [67 to 335 hp] (US DOE, 2013). The solid
flexible electrolyte will not leak or crack, and these cells operate at a low temperature,
making them suitable for home use or car use. However, the fuel input must be purified,
and the solid catalyst is usually platinum, making the unit rather costly.

8.2.2  High-Temperature Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell

The high-temperature proton exchange fuel cell (HT-PEM; also called the Bacon cell) was
also discovered in 1959 by Thomas Bacon and works in the same way as the PEM discussed
above except that a higher temperature (343 K to 413 K) [617.4°R to 743.4°R] in which the
cell operates most efficiently is needed. The electrodes used consist of porous carbon elec-
trodes where novel metals such as platinum are impregnated. Some other catalysts have
been tested, such as silver (AG) and cobalt-oxygen (CoO). The electrolytes used are simply
concentrated solutions of potassium hydroxide (KOH) or sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The
elements used are hydrogen and oxygen gas. The electrical potential output of this system
is around 0.9 volts (Jungmann, 2010).

8.2.3  Direct Methanol Fuel Cell

The direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC) is in the family of proton-exchange fuel cells except
that methanol is used as a fuel. The single advantage is that methanol is more easily trans-
ported than hydrogen gas. However, the efficiency for this system is quite low such that
its targeted applications are low-power devices and portable units. There are groups that
adhere to a hypothesized methanol economy, similar to hydrogen economy advocates.
The word “direct” means that pure methanol is used instead of converting it to hydrogen:

Anode Reaction CH 3OH + H 2O → 6 H + + 6e − + CO2 (8.4)

3
Cathode Reaction O2 + 6 H + + 6e − → 3 H 2O (8.5)
2

3
Overall Reaction CH 3OH + O2 → 2 H 2O + CO2 (8.6)
2

Pure methanol is not used for the reaction. Only about 3% by mass is used (or 0.1
molar) to carry the reactant into the cell. The operating temperatures are also not
high and range from 60°C to 130°C [140°F to 266°F] (FCT, 2014a). If a high tempera-
ture is desired, the system is usually put under pressure. Higher temperatures would
Fuel Cells 217

sometimes be desired to take advantage of higher efficiencies at those conditions. The

low concentration of methanol used brings down the overall efficiency of the system.
One issue with the use of these compounds is the loss of some methanol that perme-
ates through the membrane, and the development of better membrane is warranted.
Methanol is also toxic and has the potential to cause blindness. Note also that car-
bon dioxide is produced, making the system susceptible to being categorized as a non-
sustainable environmental greenhouse gas producer. As such, there is a benefit to using
methanol if this compound is produced in a sustainable manner, like methanol derived
from wood. If methanol is produced from fossil fuel–based feedstock, then it will cease
to become a renewable technology.

Example 8.4:  Water Production in Methanol Fuel Cells

Determine the amount of water (cubic meter and liters) produced for every tonne of
methanol used if a methanol fuel cell system is used. Use the ideal Equation 8.6 for the
calculation.

SOLUTION:
a. The amount of water is simply calculated as follows:

H 2O  (1 × 2 ) + (16 × 1)  18 kg
=  = = 0.5625
CH 4O  ( 12 × 1) + ( 1 × 4 ) + ( 16 × 1)  32 kg
H 2O kg 1000 kg H 2 1, 000 L m 3
L
= 0.562 × × × = 562
CH 4O kg tonne m3 1, 000 kg tonne
H 2O L gallon 1 tonne gal
= 562 × × = 135
CH 4O tonne 3.785 L 1.1 ton ton

b. About 562 liters [135 gal] of water is produced per tonne of methanol used in
an ideal methanol fuel cell system.

8.2.4  Alkaline Electrolyte Fuel Cell

An alkaline electrolyte fuel cell (AEFC), as the name implies, uses an alkaline solution,
such as potassium hydroxide, as an electrolyte. If air is used as one compound for the reac-
tion, the aqueous alkaline does not reject carbon dioxide, and this would cause a problem
within the system. The KOH will be converted into potassium bicarbonate and render the
alkaline solution unusable or “poisoned.” Hence, these systems are usually required to
use pure oxygen as the oxidant instead of air or use purified air to scrub as much carbon
dioxide as possible without increasing the expense in removing them totally. Alkaline
was used as a fuel cell in the mid-1960s, and this type was also known as the Bacon fuel
cell after its British inventor, Thomas Bacon. Many NASA shuttles in the 1960s used this
type of fuel cell in their Apollo missions. They are among the first types of fuel cell ever
developed with efficiencies reaching 70% at most times. In this original application, pure
hydrogen and oxygen were used. Their use was justified then for their efficiency in space-
ships. AEFCs are popular due to the fact that they are the cheapest to manufacture. The
catalyst required could be any number of different chemicals that are inexpensive com-
pared with those required of other fuel cell types. The commercial aspect of this type lies
in the improvement of the use of multiple electrodes using a bi-polar plate version instead
218 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

of mono-plate versions. The world’s first fuel cell ship “HYDRA” used an AEFC system
with 5 kW net output (US DOE, 2013).
Another recent development is the use of the solid-state alkaline fuel cell. This unit uses alkali
anion exchange membranes rather than liquid. This resolves the problem of “poisoning” and
allows the development of alkaline fuel cells capable of running on safer hydrogen-rich carri-
ers, such as liquid urea solutions or metal amine complexes (Oshiba, et al., 2017).
The alkaline fuel cell has the general governing relationships shown in Equations 8.7
and 8.8 at the anode and the cathode, respectively:
At the anode

2 H 2 + 4OH − → 4 H 2O + 4e − (8.7)

At the cathode

O 2 + 4e− + 2H 2 O → 4OH − (8.8)

The OH− ions must be able to pass through the electrolyte, and there must be an electri-
cal circuit for the electrons to go from the anode to the cathode. Twice as much hydrogen
than oxygen is needed in this case.
The reactions occurring in the electrolytes are shown in Equations 8.9 and 8.10.
Equation 8.9 shows the precipitation of K2CO3—this compound blocks the electrode power.
This will lead to a decrease in the hydrophobicity of the electrode backing layer, leading to
structural degradation and electrode flooding. On the other end, the hydroxyl ions in the
electrolyte can also react with carbon dioxide, as shown in Equation 8.10, to form carbonate
species. The amount of precipitates produced per weight of potassium hydroxide is given
in Example 8.5:

CO2 + 2 KOH → K 2 CO3 + H 2 CO3 (8.9)

2OH − + CO2 → CO32 − + H 2O (8.10)

Example 8.5:  Bicarbonate Production in Alkaline Fuel Cells

Determine the amount of bicarbonates (carbonic acid, H2CO3) (in kg or lbs) produced for
every kg [lbs] of potassium hydroxide used in the alkaline fuel cell following Equation 8.9.

SOLUTION:
a. The amount of bicarbonate produced per weight of potassium hydroxide is
simply calculated as follows:

H 2 CO3  (( 1 × 2 ) + ( 12 × 1) + ( 16 × 1))  30 kg H 2 CO3

= = = 0.267
2 KOH  2 × ( 39.0983 + 16 + 1)  112.2 kg KOH

b. About 26.7% of the weight of potassium hydroxide forms into carbonate.

8.2.5  Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cell

The phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC) was first designed and introduced in 1961 by
G. V. Elmore and H. A. Tanner (FCT, 2014b). Phosphoric acid is used as a non-conductive
Fuel Cells 219

electrolyte to pass hydrogen ions from the anode to the cathode. These cells commonly
work in temperatures that range from 150°C to 200°C [302°F to 392°F]. This high tem-
perature will cause heat and energy losses if the heat is not removed or used properly.
Phosphoric acid is relatively cheap but is corrosive, and unit components must be able
to withstand its harmful effects. What to do with the heat can vary from system to sys-
tem. Some systems propose the use of heat for steam generation and ultimately power
production, thereby increasing its overall efficiency. Others use this heat for cooling or
air conditioning systems using absorption refrigeration systems. Others simply use the
heat for various thermal applications. The increase in efficiency will bring the initial effi-
ciency from 40% to 50% to as high as 80% (FCT, 2014b). Because phosphoric acid is non-
conducting, the electrons are forced to go through the circuit producing power. Hydrogen
and oxygen are still used as input gases. The hydrogen ion production rate is, however,
quite small, and some other catalysts, like platinum, are still used to increase this ioniza-
tion rate. The use of platinum would increase the initial cost of the system in this case.

8.2.6  Solid Oxide Fuel Cell, High Temperature

The solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC), as the name implies, uses solid materials such as ceram-
ics (yttria-stabilized zirconia, or YSZ) as the main structural component. These systems
require high operating temperatures of 100°C to 1,000°C [212°F to 1,832°F] (Singhal and
Kendall, 2003). A positive draw is that these systems can run on fuels other than hydro-
gen gas. Ultimately, hydrogen is needed and must be produced internally by reforming
other gases, such as methane, propane, or butane. SOFC systems are unique such that the
negatively charged oxygen ions travel from the cathode (positive side of the fuel cell) to
the anode (negative side of fuel cell) instead of positively charged ions traveling from the
anode to the cathode. Oxygen gas is fed through the cathode, where it absorbs electrons
to create oxygen ions. The oxygen ions then travel through the electrolyte to react with
hydrogen gas at the anode. The reaction at the anode produces electricity and water as by-
products. Carbon dioxide may also be a by-product depending on the fuel used, although
carbon emissions are said to be significantly lower than those of fossil fuel combustion.
The chemical reactions for an SOFC system are shown in Equations 8.11, 8.12, and 8.13:

Anode Reaction 2 H 2 + 2O 2 − → 2 H 2O + 4e − (8.11)

Cathode Reaction O2 + 4e − → 2O 2 − (8.12)

Overall Reaction 2 H 2 + O2 → 2 H 2O (8.13)

The main issue with SOFC is the high operating temperature coupled with the slow
start-up time. New developments are trying to solve this issue. In the United Kingdom, a
company called Ceres Power has developed a method that reduces the operating tempera-
ture to a lower range of 500°C to 620°C [932°F to 1,148°F] by replacing the YSZ structure
with cerium gadolinium oxide (CGO) (Green Car Congress, 2016). The lower temperature
has another advantage. They are able to use stainless steel instead of ceramics as support
material. These replacements also improve the start-up time for the system. Example 8.6
shows how much water is produced per unit weight of hydrogen used in an SOFC system.
Solid oxide fuel cells may use other hard ceramic compounds made of metal oxides, such
as calcium or zirconium, as electrolytes. In some applications, oxygen is used as electrolyte.
220 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

The efficiency is around 60%, and the operating temperatures are around 1,000°C [1,800°F],
making this a high-temperature fuel cell. The fuel cell output could be about 100 kW
[134 hp] (Singhal and Kendal, 2003). At this high temperature, a reformer to extract hydrogen
is not required, and waste heat can be recycled to make additional electricity.

Example 8.6:  Water Production in Solid Oxide Fuel Cell Systems

Determine the amount of water (cubic meter and liters) produced for every tonne of
hydrogen used if an SOFC system is used. Use the ideal Equation 8.13 for the calculation.

SOLUTION:
a. The amount of water is simply calculated as follows:

2 H 2O  ( 1 × 2 ) + ( 16 × 1)  kg 1, 000 kg H 2 1 m3 H 2O m3 H 2O
=  =9 × × =9
2H2  (1 × 2 )  kg tonne H 2 1, 000 kg H 2O tonne H 2
3
H 2O m3  3.28 ft  1 tonne 7.48 gal gal
= 9 × × × = 2, 160 3
H2 tonne  1 m  1.1 ton 1 ft 3 ft

b. About 9,000 liters [2,160 gal/ft3] of water is produced per tonne of hydrogen
used in an ideal SOFC system.

8.2.7  Solid Acid Fuel Cell

The solid acid fuel cell (SAFC) uses solid acid sulfates and selenates such as CsHSO4
or CsHSeO4 (Haile, et al., 2001). These compounds belong to a class of compounds that
exhibit super-protonic phase transitions at slightly elevated temperatures. This gives
rise to very high conductivity and proton transport that does not rely on the presence of
water and is therefore a very good electrolyte for fuel cell applications. These types are
still under research and development. Research reports show that this type of fuel cell
will remove complexity and, as a result, reduce the cost because of the impermeability of
the electrolyte through membranes used. There are still some issues to be resolved. The
sulfate and selenite–based acid compounds eventually react with hydrogen gas in the
anode chamber in the presence of fuel cell catalysts. This generates a by-product such
as hydrogen sulfide or H2Se. These compounds then poison the fuel cell, especially with
longer periods of operation. The report also shows power densities of over 400 mW/cm2
[0.5 hp/ft2].

8.2.8  Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell, High Temperature

The molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) uses lithium potassium carbonate salt as an elec-
trolyte. However, this salt requires a high temperature similar to that of the SOFC system.
Its operating temperature is reported at 650°C [1,200°F] (Bischoff, 2006). Likewise, the high
temperature is required to move the charge within the cell (the negative carbonate ions).
Similar to SOFCs, MCFCs are capable of converting fossil fuels to hydrogen-rich gas in the
anode, eliminating the need to generate hydrogen separately. The reforming processes
generate CO2 emissions. Candidate fuels for this type of process include methane, biogas
from anaerobic digestion, or gaseous compounds generated from the conversion of coal.
The hydrogen in the gas reacts with the carbonate ions from the electrolyte to produce
Fuel Cells 221

water, carbon dioxide, electrons, and other chemical by-products. The electrons travel
through an external circuit, creating electricity, and return to the cathode. There, oxygen
from the air and carbon dioxide recycled from the anode react with the electrons to form
carbonate ions that replenish the electrolyte, completing the circuit. The governing reac-
tions are shown in Equations 8.14, 8.15, and 8.16:

Anode Reaction CO32 − + H 2 → H 2O + CO2 + 2 e − (8.14)

1
Cathode Reaction CO2 + O2 + 2 e − → CO32 − (8.15)
2

1
Overall Reaction H 2 + O2 → H 2O (8.16)
2

Note the similarities with Equations 8.9 and 8.6. The same amount of water is produced.
Likewise, this type has slow start-up times and, with its corresponding high temperature,
will not be suitable for vehicles or for standby power generation. There are reports that this
system has a short shelf life as well. This is perhaps due to the corrosion of electrodes from
high temperatures. The only reported advantage of this system is its resistance to impuri-
ties, which suggests that even low-quality fuel like coal could be a potential energy source.
The other advantage is the reported high efficiency over SOFC. Efficiency was reported
close to 50%, which is superior to the phosphoric acid system with low reported efficiency
(37% to 42%). Using this system for combined heat and power (CHP) will further improve
the efficiency to over 80% (Bischoff, 2006).
A company that sells and develops MCFCs is the Fuel Cell Energy Company based in
Connecticut. They have reported power output range from 300 kW to 2.8 MW that can
achieve 45% to 47% electrical efficiency and can improve upon efficiency if the system is
used as a combined heat and power source (Bove and Moreno, 2008).

8.2.9  Regenerative Fuel Cell

The regenerative fuel cell is also called a reverse fuel cell (RFC). In short, they consume
electricity as one chemical is converted (or dissociates) into another. Any of the above
fuel cell types, when operated in reverse, fall under this category. As with the classic
reaction of a hydrogen fuel cell combining with oxygen to produce water, the reverse
could also be made to happen. In this case, water is dissociated into hydrogen gas and
oxygen gas, which is a classic electrolysis reaction. The solid oxide fuel cell operation
could also be performed in reverse, and this is called the solid oxide regenerative fuel
cell. If applied to the SOFC system, it has been found that less electricity is required
to reverse the process, perhaps due to the high required temperature. Note that in
this application, the idea of power production becomes secondary and fuel production
becomes the primary goal. Recalling the use of a solar photovoltaic cell to undergo
electrolysis, fuel cell technology perhaps becomes a better option to utilize electrical
power and produce combustible fuel (like hydrogen) from water. We are now seeing
numerous research projects identifying novel compounds for the production of hydro-
gen fuel.
A recent study in Sweden (Zhu, et al., 2006) shows that ceria-based composite electro-
lytes can produce high current output for fuel cell operation and high hydrogen output
222 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

for electrolysis operation. Zirconia doped with scandia and ceria was also investigated
as a potential electrolyte in SORFC for hydrogen production at intermediate tempera-
tures (500°C to 750°C) [932°F to 1,382°F]. The rationale behind these research projects
is the possibility of recycling the water into fuel as well as using the fuel to produce
electricity while generating water as a product. This would be a very good scenario for
unmanned vehicles that rely on both electricity for their propulsion as well as fuel for
other uses, or vice versa. This idea opens up new realms of applications and possibilities
for many unmanned vehicles that will not require refueling. Ultimately, water losses
through evaporation and leakage will cause the system to run out of this important fuel
to produce the hydrogen gas. There are numerous other applications that can be enumer-
ated for use in military operations, space travel, and even surveillance systems that are
unmanned.

8.2.10  Solid Polymer Fuel Cell

The unique characteristic of a solid polymer fuel cell (SPFC) is the use of solid polymer as
the electrolyte membrane. A fuel cell of this type is built around an ion-conducting solid
membrane, such as Nafion material. This material is a trademark for a perfluorosulfonic
acid membrane (Schumm, 2018). The electrodes are catalyzed carbon. Several construction
alignments are feasible. Solid polymer electrolyte cells function well, but cost estimates
are still rather high. The Gemini spacecraft, for example, has attested to the performance
of this type of fuel cell. Likewise, this category also includes many other fuel cell types
discussed above as long as they use solid membranes instead of liquid forms like phos-
phoric acid. System categorizations can overlap. We can also call an alkaline fuel cell a
solid polymer fuel cell if it uses a solid polymer membrane. Most literature describing
fuel cells can be so unclear in categorization that standardization may be warranted in the
future to simplify the identification of various types. Some textbooks have attempted to
start drawing the line between the many fuel cell types that are under development. It will
take many more years before a majority will agree on delineation between similar types.
Suffice it to say at this point that any researcher is welcome to differentiate his or her work
from other technologies already developed.

8.2.11  Zinc-Air Fuel Cell

The zinc-air fuel cell (ZAFC) generates electricity by the reaction between oxygen and
zinc pallets in a liquid alkaline electrolyte (Sapkota and Kim, 2009). This system was
reported to be quite efficient and cheap since cheap zinc is required in place of precious
metals. The only products produced are oxides of zinc, which are described to be benign
without harmful gaseous emissions. These applications were reported in military opera-
tion, portable gadgets, and mobile and stationary systems. Research for this system is
still in its infancy, and no commercial-scale systems have been developed. There are
still numerous technical barriers to overcome. These include longer usage of the zinc-
air modules to prolong the replacement of zinc anode cassettes. There need to be zinc
anode regeneration facilities for centralized recycling as well. Many studies are aiming
for the use of this system in vehicles. One such study combines 47 cells in a module
with an open-circuit voltage of 67 volts and a capacity of 325 Ah (ampere-hours). The
energy capacity was reported at 17.4 kWh with peak power at 8 kW [10.7 hp]. The unit
weighs 88 kg [193.6 lbs] with a space volume of 79 liters [20.9 gal]. The cell has a central
static replaceable anode cassette comprising a slurry of electrochemically generated zinc
Fuel Cells 223

particles in a potassium hydroxide solution, compacted into a current collection frame,

inserted into a separator envelope, and flanked on two sides by high-power air reduc-
tion cathodes (where oxygen is taken). This part extracts oxygen from the air for the zinc
oxidation reaction. This design was developed in the electric vehicle division of the FTA
Bus program in Germany (Goldstein, et al., 1999). The governing equation is shown in
Equation 8.17:

2 Zn + O2 → 2 ZnO ( Eo = 1.65 Volts ) (8.17)

In the equation, note that zinc becomes oxidized with time and renders the electrode
unusable at some point. Hence, it is important to recover the oxidized zinc and bring it
back into its near pure form. The use of potassium hydroxide (KOH) has been proposed for
the zinc oxide dissolution and for compacting the zinc after purification. The concept is to
use a bus battery and after some time replace the cassette in a centrally located regenera-
tion station. Example 8.7 shows the amount of oxides of zinc produced per unit weight of
pure zinc used in a zinc-air fuel cell.

Example 8.7:  Zinc Oxide Production from Zinc-Air Fuel Cell Systems
Determine the amount of zinc oxide produced (in kg) per tonne of pure zinc used in a
zinc-air fuel cell. Use the ideal Equation 8.17 for the calculation. The molecular weight
of zinc is 65.38 g/mol, and that of oxygen is 16 g/mol.

SOLUTION:
a. The amount of water is simply calculated using Equation 8.10 as follows:

2 ZnO  ( 2 × ( 65.38 + 16 ))  kg ZnO 1, 000 kg kg

=   = 1.245 × = 1, 245
2 Zn  2 × ( 65.38 )  kg Zn tonne tonne
2 ZnO kg 2.2 lbs 1 tonne lbs
= 1, 245 × × = 2, 490
2ZN tonne kg 1.1 ton ton

b. About 1.245 tonnes [2,490 lbs/ton] of the oxidized form of zinc is produced per
tonne of pure zinc used in an ideal zinc-air fuel cell system.

8.2.12  Microbial Fuel Cell

The idea of using microbes to undergo electrochemical reactions is interesting. A micro-
bial fuel cell (MFC), sometimes called a biological fuel cell, is a bio-electrochemical
conversion system that drives a current using bacteria through mimicking bacterial inter-
actions found in nature. These systems are not new. As early as the 20th century, scien-
tists demonstrated that microbes transfer electrons in the cell to the anode using what
is termed a mediator, or a special chemical that enhances the electrochemical process.
In 1911, M. Potter, a botany professor at the University of Durham, managed to generate
electricity from E. coli, although the work did not receive major publicity. Similar work
was followed upon by Barnet Cohen when he created a number of microbial fuel cells that,
when connected in series, were capable of producing over 35 volts though a current of only
2 milliamps (Jabeen and Farooq, 2017). Others used hydrogen produced by the fermenta-
tion of glucose using Clostridium acetobutylicum as the reactant at the anode of a hydrogen
224 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

and air fuel cell (Finch, et al., 2011). It was only in the 1970s that these special chemicals
were not needed for the reaction to proceed. This is because of the identification of bacteria
that have electronically active redox proteins in cytochromes on their outer membranes
that can transfer electrons directly to the anode. Several books have already been written
on this, with a very exciting vision of producing electrical power from wastewater that has
a microbial population doing the job, virtually freeing wastewater treatment plants of the
need for external power for water treatment. There are also some groups that design soil-
based microbial fuel cells. There are indeed interesting studies toward proving that desali-
nation work in the future may be solely achieved by microbial populations. Some research
studies claim that microbes produce more energy than is required for the desalination
process from wastewaters (Clark, 2015). Likewise, there are still numerous technical issues
to overcome, including scale-up of systems, contamination of other micro-types, as well
as the problem of varied output from an open air system as seasons and weather change,
including variations in loading day to day.

8.2.13 Other Fuel Cells: Biological, Formic Acid, Redox Flow

and Metal/Air Fuel Cells
There are many more fuel cell types being developed, some using newer compounds such
as formic acid or other metals besides zinc such as magnesium (for a magnesium-air fuel
cell). The possibilities are vast until innovative researchers hone in on those most viable.
It becomes complicated as each researcher finds another solid or liquid catalyst or another
fuel to use. Some researchers still doubt the future of fuel cells due to their reported lower
efficiencies compared to those of currently available battery technology. Fuel cells could
be better than engines, but they would have to compete with the very rapid development
of new batteries.
It will take more years of research and commercialization before the widespread use
of fuel cell technology. The single most important issue is the type of fuel to use for the
reactions. The use of hydrogen fuel in these systems has been universal, but the U.S.
economy has abandoned the hydrogen economy at this point—hydrogen production in
the cheapest possible way cannot be a reality until fossil fuel–based hydrogen sources
are economically competitive. It will take a major breakthrough for this technology to
become mainstream. For now, it is simply exciting to explore new concepts, new ways
to improve efficiencies, and cheaper materials that may be easily regenerated or recycled
to their original pure forms.

8.3  Data for the Different Major Types of Fuel Cells

Five different types of fuel cells have emerged, and the data are shown in Table 8.1
(US DOE, 2013). The alkaline fuel cells have been used in many space vehicles with power
ranging between 10 to 100 kW. Some portable electronics have used direct methanol fuel
cells with power ranging from a low of 100 mW to a high of only 1 kW. Molten carbon-
ate fuel cell types have larger power capacity, potentially up to 100 MW. These units are
appropriate for medium- to large-scale combined heat and power. The efficiencies of these
systems could be as high as 75%.
Fuel Cells 225

TABLE 8.1
Data for Different Types of Fuel Cells (US DOE, 2013)
Qualified
Fuel Cell Type Electrolyte Power Applications
Alkaline FC Aqueous alkaline 10–100 kW Space vehicles
solution
Proton exchange Polymer membrane 1 W–500 kW Lower-power CHP
membrane FC (ionomer)
Direct methanol FC Polymer membrane 100 mW–1 kW Portable electronics
(ionomer)
Phosphoric acid FC Molten phosphoric acid <10 MW 200 kW CHP systems
Molten carbonate FC Molten alkaline 100 MW Medium to large
carbonate scale CHP
Solid oxide FC O2− conducting ceramic <100 MW All sizes of CHP up
oxide to MW in range

8.4  Various Fuels Used for Fuel Cells and Issues

The versatility of this fuel system is that numerous other fuels may be used. Unfortunately,
most compatible fuels are still derived from fossil fuels or from fossil fuel–derived final
fuel. Enumerated below are the primary fuels already being used:

a. Petroleum products (gasoline, naptha, etc.)

b. Coal and coal gases (lignite, bituminous coal)
c. Natural gas (CH4)
d. Propane (C3H8)
e. Methanol (CH3OH)
f. Electrolysis of water (H2O)
g. Biomass producer/synthesis gas from pyrolysis and gasification (CO and H2)

The majority are still derived from fossil fuels and are therefore not sustainable. Only
the production of gases such as hydrogen or methane from biomass resources can make
these systems renewable. Electrolysis of water may also be considered sustainable and
renewable if the power used comes from renewable resources such as wind or solar energy.
All the others would have to be justified on the cost of the fossil fuels. At present, many
applications use hydrogen derived from fossil fuels such as natural gas. If steam were to be
used, the system may be considered renewable only if the steam was likewise produced from
renewable sources. For a resource to be considered renewable, the fuel used must be replen-
ished at the same rate it is used. Following this, fuel cell technologies cannot be considered
renewable. The practical efficiency of using propane in a fuel cell is shown in Example 8.8.

Example 8.8:  Practical Conversion Efficiency for Propane-Based Fuel Cells

Determine the conversion efficiency for when propane (C3H8) was used as fuel in a
fuel cell. The electricity produced was 603 mWh over 3,900 hours. The energy content
of propane was reported as 93 MJ/m3 [2,498 Btu/ft3]. During the test, some 51,870 m3
226 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

[13.7 million gal] of propane was used. Compare this efficiency with that of internal
combustion engines.

SOLUTION:
a. The conversion efficiency equation as shown in an earlier chapter is given below:

Output
Efficiency ( % ) = × 100%
Input

b. The input and output must have the same units. The input is calculated first:

MJ
Input Energy ( MJ ) = 93 × 51, 870 m3 = 4, 823, 910 MJ
m3
1 × 106 J Btu
Input Energy ( MBtu) = 4, 823, 910 MJ × × = 4, 572 MillionBtu
1 MJ 1, 055 J

c. Then the output energy is calculated:

1, 000 kWh 3.6 MJ

Output Energy ( MJ ) = 603 MWh × × = 2, 170, 800 MJ
1 MWh 1 kWh
1 × 106 J Btu
Input Energy ( MBtu) = 2, 170, 800 MJ × × = 2, 058 MillionBtu
1 MJ 1, 055 J

d. Finally, the efficiency is calculated as follows:

2, 170, 800 MJ
Efficiency ( % ) = × 100% = 45%
4, 823, 910 MJ

e. The conversion efficiency is 45% higher than the Carnot Cycle efficiency if
propane were burned in an engine.

8.5  Advantages and Disadvantages of Fuel Cells

There are many advantages in the production and adoption of fuel cell for power genera-
tion. These are as follows:

a. Greater efficiency than combustion engines

b. Small systems can be as efficient as large ones
c. Simplicity—very few moving parts, leading to high reliability and longer-lasting
systems
d. Low emissions—the by-product is pure water
e. Silence—very quiet even with fuel processing unit

The first advantage of using a fuel cell, as illustrated in the first three example
problems, is that its efficiency is by far greater than that of an internal combustion engine.
Fuel Cells 227

The second is that households may take advantage of these systems since many units can
be designed for smaller systems for residential applications without penalizing overall
efficiency. This is its simplicity. There are very few moving parts, leading to higher reli-
ability and longer-lasting systems. Such a system has low emissions and only water as the
by-product. As a plus, fuel systems are silent and unobtrusive, even with a fuel process-
ing system in place.
The disadvantages in the use of fuel cell include the high cost of the unit and the even-
tual production of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. This contribution of carbon dioxide
can further heighten the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere, which, as count-
less researchers demonstrate, increases average global temperature. The same reasoning
applies to the widespread use of fossil fuels. The main disadvantage to this system is the
source of fuel used in each fuel cell type. Hydrogen is a major fuel used but must ulti-
mately be sourced cheaply to make the system economical. Hydrogen from biomass is a
potential option, but the price of biomass feedstock may also be a barrier. In the future,
the production of cheap hydrogen gas may be realized, perhaps by a thermal conversion
system of biomass or through electrolysis of water using solar energy. Then the scarcity of
water may also be at play.

8.6  Balance of Plant

The core components of fuel cells are the electrodes, electrolytes, and the bi-polar plate.
The balance of the system—all the other components besides the fuel cell itself—are enu-
merated below:

a. Pumps or blowers, compressors, intercoolers

b. Power conditioning, DC/AC inverter
c. Electric motors, fuel storage, fuel processing systems, de-sulfurization systems
d. Control valves, pressure regulators, controller
e. Cooling systems, heat exchangers, pre-heaters

Pumps, blowers, and compressors are used to convey the liquid or gaseous materials
to the fuel cell canister. Since most reactions occur at an elevated temperature and heat
is always generated during the electrochemical reactions, intercoolers are almost always
required. The power output of a fuel cell also needs conditioning due to slight changes
in the output power as reactions occur in the fuel cell system. The primary output of a
fuel cell system is also in direct current voltage (or DC), and this must be converted into
alternating current (AC) such that appliances requiring alternating current may be used.
Likewise, if the current is transported over longer distances, they must be upgraded to
higher voltages, usually in alternating current form, to minimize transmission losses. In
most instances, voltage transformers are required to either step up the voltage or bring it
down for local applications to households or businesses. Control valves are also required
in the fuel tanks and sources to control the flow of gases or liquids, and pressure regu-
lators are needed to maintain system pressure. The heart of the electrical system is the
controller. The controller usually monitors power output and monitors system conditions,
such as temperature, pressure, and flow of fuels. Outside of the facility may be storage
228 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

tanks and containers for the standby fuel or if pre-treatment or pre-conversion takes place.
For example, some systems may not have a unit to convert higher-hydrocarbon fuels into
the basic hydrogen gas, and steam reformers or natural gas reformers are needed. Many
gases must be purified. For example, if anaerobic digestion gases are used, the hydrogen
sulfide must be scrubbed, including other gaseous or liquid compounds that have sulfur.
There will be numerous auxiliary systems in place, such as series of heat exchangers, pre-
heaters, or other cooling systems.

8.7  Existing and Emerging Markets for Fuel Cells

There are numerous potential emerging markets for fuel cells. Some are enumerated below:

a. Aerospace applications
b. Auxiliary power units for light-duty vehicles, trucks, ships, and airplanes
c. Portable applications and light traction
d. Stationary applications
e. Fuel cells for buildings
f. Transportation applications
g. Trains and internal combustion engines

The foremost applications of fuel cell technology are in aerospace applications. NASA
(2005) started most of the fuel cell research in the 1970s to address fuel and power needs
in spaceships. The cost of this type of system is not economically viable for the general
public. However, space exploration needs critical power in a small space and the use of
lightweight fuel such as hydrogen for long-distance travel. Numerous projects will be dis-
cussed in this section, including some other systems that are starting to be commercial-
ized. In addition to NASA, the U.S. military has also been experimenting with numerous
fuel cell units for their light-duty vehicles and trucks as well as ships and airplanes. The
same principle follows—these institutions want transportable power in a compact man-
ner regardless of the cost. Thus, we see numerous portable applications for infantry power
needs. One important application is standby or stationary power. In military installations,
natural gas may be available, or propane tanks are loaded in some transport trucks, and
fuel may be easily transported. When power is needed, these light gaseous fuels are used.
Instead of noisy and large-scale internal combustion engines and generators, fuel cells
would be more tactical to use.
There are numerous businesses and industrial companies that utilize cheap natural gas
and have also adopted this technology, especially if they are in an area where higher noise
levels are not allowed. Many companies use these fuel cells as standby power as well.
When the price of natural gas is lowest, it is sometimes economical to use these fuel cell
systems and generate lower-cost electricity despite the fact that the initial costs are still
quite high.
One will also see several federal projects that use fuel cells for their bus fleets and to
transport vehicles for goods. These bus fleets can take in heavy fuel cell systems while
carrying light gaseous fuel. These systems are more popular in Europe than in the United
States. Toyota and other major automobile companies have released some of their research
Fuel Cells 229

vehicles powered by fuel cells. One will see more projects of this type released in the near
future. There are reports that the railway systems can also begin to adopt these systems.

8.7.1  NASA Helios Unmanned Aviation Vehicle

NASA has also built an unmanned aviation vehicle (UAV) powered by solar energy and
fuel cell technology. The solar array produces electricity to supply the electric motor and
electrolyzer during the daytime. The electrolyzer produces hydrogen and oxygen, which
are stored in tanks on board. During nighttime, the fuel cell is fed with H2 and O2 and
delivers the power for the electric motor of the propulsion system. However, before this
power system could be tested thoroughly, the aircraft crashed due to unexpected wind
conditions during a test flight in 2003. Research is still in progress to improve the system,
primarily because it would be convenient to fly these units without the need for refueling.
Figure 8.4 shows the NASA Helios unmanned aviation vehicle powered by solar energy
and fuel cell technology (NASA, 2003).

8.7.2  Naval Research Lab Spider Lion

The Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) has also developed a UAV fuel cell–powered vehicle
named Spider Lion. This vehicle weighs 2.5 kg (5.6 lbs) and in November 2005 conducted

FIGURE 8.4
The NASA Helios Unmanned Aviation Vehicle (UAV).
230 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

FIGURE 8.5
Photo of the Naval Research Laboratory’s Spider Lion (photo courtesy of NRL).

a flight of 3 hours and 19 minutes, consuming 15 g [0.53 oz] of H2. The 100 W [0.134 hp]
fuel cell system was designed by NRL and used components developed by Protonex. The
UAV was used to simulate tests to acquire data on performance and efficiency. The long-
term goal is the development of an efficient fuel cell propulsion system for long-endurance
(8 to 24 hrs) mini-UAV applications, something that cannot be achieved with current bat-
tery technology. Figure 8.5 shows the photo of the Spider Lion (Parsch, 2006). The effi-
ciency of this system is shown in Example 8.9.

Example 8.9.  Efficiency of Spider Lion Fuel Cell

The fuel cell on a Spider Lion vehicle has an output power of 100 watts or 100 J/s
[0.134 hp]. The input energy was reported to be 15 grams [0.53 oz] of pure hydrogen
consumed in 3 hours and 19 minutes. Determine the overall efficiency of this sys-
tem assuming the energy content of pure hydrogen to be 142 MJ/kg [61,180.5 Btu/lb].
Compare the efficiency to an engine running on hydrogen gas.

SOLUTION:
a. The input energy in units of MJ is calculated:

1 kg 142 MJ
Input Power ( MJ ) = 15 g × × = 2.13 MJ [ 2, 019 Btu]
1, 000 g kg

b. The output power, converted to the same units, will be calculated:

100 J 1 MJ 3600 s
Output Power ( MJ ) = × × × 3.3167 hrs
s 1, 000, 000 J hr

= 1.194 MJ 1, 132 Btu 

c. The efficiency is calculated from the conversion efficiency equation:

Output 1.194 MJ
Efficiency ( % ) = × 100% = × 100% = 56.1%
Input 2.130 MJ

d. The efficiency of this test unit is around 56% greater than internal combustion
engine efficiency.
 Fuel Cells 231

8.7.3  The PEMFC Commercial Fuel Cell Module by Ballard (NEXA TM 1.2kW)
Ballard Power Systems (Burnaby, BC, Canada) is developing what they call state-of-the-art
fuel cell systems for numerous applications. A Ballard company called Protonex claims to
be the leading provider of advanced fuel cell technology for portable, remote, and mobile
applications in the 100 to 1,000 watt range [0.134 to 1.34 hp] (https://www.protonex.com/).
They have used their patented PEM and SOFC systems. The electrolyte of these fuel cells is
a polymeric membrane with perfluorinated sulfonic groups that must be kept wet during
operation to render the proton exchange. The catalysts used include platinum supported
over carbon or bi-functional metallic electro-catalysts based on platinum or other metals,
such as ruthenium. High-purity H2 (99.9999%) is required at the anode, but at the cathode,
air can be used instead of pure O2. Any other fuel (ethanol, natural gas, gasoline, or deriva-
tives) must be reformed into H2 (Sevjidsuren, et al., 2012). A photo of the unit is shown
in Figure 8.6, where they envision the system to be placed in transport vehicles. These
systems are said to be among the industry’s smallest, lightest, and highest-performing sys-
tems for many portable applications. The economics are justified for remote applications
where grid power is not available. This company also works with the military, deploying
some units to battlefields.

FIGURE 8.6
The PEMFC module by Ballard installed in a vehicle (Ballard, Burnaby, BC, Canada).

BK-TandF-CAPAREDA_TEXT_9780367188504-190508-Chp08.indd 231 01/08/19 4:23 PM

232 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

8.7.4  Heliocentris Fuel Cell System

Heliocentris (a company with its main headquarters in Germany) develops a wide range
of products including batteries, solar panels, conventional power generators, and fuel cells.
They have established satellite offices around the world. The Heliocentris Group based
in California has reported to have developed a commercial-scale fuel cell system called
NEXA TM 1200, also discussed above. This is a 1.2 kW [1.61 hp] fuel cell system with the
following specifications:

a. The rated current is 52 amperes.

b. The rated output is 1,200 watts [1.61 hp].
c. The output voltage is 20 to 36 volts.
d. The reported hydrogen consumption is 15 L/min [3.96 gpm].
e. The air consumption is around 3,000 L/min [793 gpm].
f. The hydrogen purity must be 99.99% or better.
g. The main unit costs $9,000, while the controller costs $3,000.

Example 8.10 shows the efficiency of this commercial unit, found to be in the order of
around 40% (Sevjidsuren, et al., 2012).

Example 8.10:  Efficiency of Commercial Heliocentris Fuel Cell

The Heliocentris fuel cell system has an output power of 1,200 watts or 1,200 J/s
[1.61 hp] The input energy was reported to be 15 liters [3.96 gpm] of pure hydrogen.
Determine the overall efficiency of this system assuming the density of pure hydro-
gen to be around 0.0899 kg/m 3 [0.00075 lbs/gal] with an energy content of 142 MJ/
kg [61,180 Btu/lb].

SOLUTION:
a. The input energy in units of J/s is calculated:

Input Power (Watts )

15 L 1 m3 142 MJ 0.0899 kg 1 × 106 J 1 min W − s
= × × × × × ×
min 1, 000 L kg m3 MJ 60 s J
= 3, 191 Watts
hp
Input Power ( Hp ) = 3, 191 W × = 4.28 hp
746 W

b. The efficiency is calculated from the conversion efficiency equation:

Output 1.200 Watts

Efficiency ( % ) = × 100% = × 100% = 37.6%
Input 3.191 Watts

c. The efficiency of this commercial unit is around 37.6%.

Fuel Cells 233

8.8  The Future of the Fuel Cell

The future of the fuel cell will depend on the price of input fuel used (e.g., hydrogen, meth-
ane, methanol, or others). The high initial capital cost (in fact, not necessarily the cost of novel
metals like platinum) will also affect its future application. The solid oxide fuel cell appears
to be the most promising technology for small electric power plants over 1 kW [1.34 hp]
(although high temperature can be an issue) (Wiens, 2010). The direct alcohol fuel cell
(DAFC) seems to be the most promising battery material for portable applications, such as
in cell phones and laptops. The PEFC is the most practical if the hydrogen (H2) economy is
to be supported by the government.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT, 2005) included the first tax incentive for fuel cell
power plants (at least 30% conversion efficiency requirement). Take note that the cost during
the 1960s–1970s space program was around $600,000/kW. The current cost is now around
$4,500/kW (compared with the diesel generator of $800 1,500/kW and the natural gas turbine
at $400/kW). The US DOE (2013) has also formed the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance
(SECA) with the goal of producing solid-state fuel cell modules that would cost no more than
$400/kW (Surdoval, 2002). During the 3rd Annual SECA workshop in 2002, the group outlined
current developments and initiatives across all U.S. DOE national labs on the following aspects:

a. Fuel processing technologies (e.g., high-temperature sulfur removal and contam-

inant-resistant electrodes)
b. Manufacturing (low-cost production of precursor materials)
c. Controls and diagnostics (development of sensors and active sealing systems)
d. Power electronics (interaction between fuel cells and its loads and DC-to-DC con-
verters for SOFC)
e. Modeling and simulation (fuel cell failure analysis and manufacturing models)
f. Materials (improved cathodes, interconnecting devices, and innovative sealing
concepts)

All U.S. DOE national labs (listed below) are involved in fuel cell development:

1. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) (SOFC component development

and modeling)
2. National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) (SOFC electrochemical modeling)
3. Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) (SOFC materials research improvement)
4. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) (development of colloidal deposi-
tion techniques for SOFC)
5. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (SOFC material property and reliability
evaluations including power electronics evaluation)

8.9 Conclusions
While fuel cell technology is quite an old energy technology, it has yet to take off commer-
cially. We have observed several companies manufacturing commercial units with very
few uses so far. The main reason is the fact that companies still rely on fossil fuel–based
234 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

input materials for conversion directly into electricity. Large car manufacturers have
embarked on ambitious fuel cell cars, although we will have to wait until they become
mainstream. Until fuel cell technology breaks from the use of fossil fuel–based input
materials and the associated fluctuations of crude oil prices, we may not reach the age of
widespread adoption. Fuel cell technology may not be considered renewable energy if the
primary fuel is sourced from fossil fuels. Of course, if the hydrogen comes from biomass,
it may be considered a renewable technology.
In a study done to compare the use of fuel cell for domestic home use and vehicle use
(Lipman, et al., 2004), it was found that domestic use is favored over vehicle use primarily
because of the favorable natural gas cost at residences coupled with the potential low value
of net metering to households. Commercial settings usually have higher natural gas costs
used in the article.
Economic cost is again the deterrent for most units being sold in the market. If low-
priced coal is used as primary fuel, there could be widespread adoption, suffering envi-
ronmental consequences.
The list of fuel cell types discussed in this chapter still show widespread interest among
research personnel, especially the promising microbial fuel cell or those that require sus-
tainable and renewable feedstock. As always, the adoption of this technology hinges on
the price of crude oil–based fossil fuels such as methane or natural gas or methanol or
hydrogen gas from steam reforming or natural gas reforming.

8.10 Problems
8.10.1  Conversion Efficiency of a Direct Methane Fuel Cell
P8.1 Determine the conversion efficiency if one uses methane (CH4) as fuel for a
fuel cell system. The heating value of methane was reported at 37.7 MJ/m3.
The electricity produced was 150 kWh. The test was done in 100 hours, and
28.65 cubic meters of methane was consumed. Comment on the conversion
efficiency compared to when methane is used in an engine. How much average
power was produced during this test?

8.10.2  Maximum Conversion Efficiency for a Direct Methane Fuel Cell

P8.2 Determine the maximum conversion efficiency for the direct methane fuel cell
if the maximum electricity produced is 8.17 kWh for every cubic meter of meth-
ane consumed. The energy content of methane is 37.7 MJ/m3.

8.10.3  Heat Energy Losses in a Direct Methane Fuel Cell

P8.3 Determine the percentage of energy loss for the direct methane fuel cell if the
heat produced in a fuel cell is 18.85 MJ for every cubic meter of methane con-
sumed. The energy content of methane is approximately 50 MJ/kg, and its den-
sity was reported at 0.754 kg/m3.
Fuel Cells 235

8.10.4  Hydrogen Needed (in kg) to Produce a Liter of Water

P8.4 Determine the theoretical amount of hydrogen needed (in kg) to produce a liter
of water from the ideal reaction between hydrogen and oxygen (Equation 8.13
or 8.16).

8.10.5  Potassium Carbonate Produced in an Alkaline Fuel Cell

P8.5 Determine the amount of potassium carbonate produced for every kg of potas-
sium hydroxide used in the alkaline fuel cell following Equation 8.9. The
molecular weight of potassium is 39.0983 g/mol.

8.10.6 Ideal Water and Carbon Dioxide Produced for a Direct

Methane Fuel Cell
P8.6 Determine the amount of water (kg or liters) and carbon dioxide produced
(kg or cubic meter) for every cubic meter of methane used in an ideal direct
methane fuel cell. Use a density of 0.754 kg/m3. Also use the ideal combustion
equation of methane in air for the calculation. Air has 79% oxygen and 21%
nitrogen.

8.10.7 Zinc Needed for Every Tonne Zinc Oxide Produced

in a Zinc-Air Fuel Cell
P8.7 Determine the amount of zinc needed (in kg) for every tonne of pure zinc
oxide produced in zinc-air fuel cell. Use the ideal Equation 8.17 for the cal-
culation. The molecular weight of zinc is 65.38 g/mol, and that of oxygen is
16 g/mol.

8.10.8 Practical Conversion Efficiency for a Direct

Methanol Fuel Cell
P8.8 Determine the conversion efficiency when methanol (CH3OH) was used as fuel
for a fuel cell system. The electricity produced was measured to be 16.2 kWh.
The energy content of methanol was reported to be 19.93 MJ/kg. During the
test, some 10 liters of methanol was used. The density of methanol at standard
conditions was 0.792 kg/L. Compare this efficiency with that of internal com-
bustion engines.

8.10.9  Efficiency of a Spider Lion Fuel Cell

P8.9 The inaugural flight of the small Spider Lion vehicle lasted for 1 hour and
43 minutes using a half tank of hydrogen. The total weight of the hydrogen gas
used was 8.7 g. The fuel cell used has an output power of 100 watts or 100 J/s.
Determine the overall efficiency of this system assuming the energy content of
pure hydrogen to be 142 MJ/kg. Compare the efficiency to an engine running
on hydrogen gas.
236 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

8.10.10  Efficiency of a Commercial Fuel Cell

P8.10 A Ballard fuel cell has the following specifications:

a. Average power produced during test = 5 kW
b. Number of hours of test = 80 hrs
c. Methanol consumption = 225 liters
d. Fuel used = 62% methanol and 38% water
Determine the overall efficiency of this system assuming the methanol mix-
ture has a density of 0.792 kg/L with the energy content of the methanol mix-
ture at 14.3 MJ/kg.

References
Bischoff, M. 2006. Molten carbonate fuel cells: a high temperature fuel cell on the edge of commer-
cialization. Journal of Power Sources 160: 842–845.
Bove, R. and A. Moreno. 2008. International status of molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)
technology. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. January. European Commission Joint
Research Centre, Institute for Energy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands. Available at: http://
publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC44203/mcfc_status.pdf. Accessed
April 24, 2018.
Boysen, D. A., T. Uda, C. R. I. Chisholm and S. M. Haile. 2003. High performance solid acid fuel cells
through humidity stabilization. Science Online Express, November 20, 2003, Science 303 68–70
(2004).
Boysen, D. A., C. R. I. Chisholm, S. M. Haile and S. R. Narayanan. 2000. Polymer solid acid composite
membranes for fuel cell applications. Journal of the Electrochemical Society 147: 3610–3614.
Brunton, J., D. J. Kennedy, F. O’Rourke and E. Coyle. 2010. Design of a single alkaline fuel cell test
bed. EEEIC, 9th International Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering, Prague,
Czech Republic, May 16–19. doi:10.1109/EEEIC.2010.5490009.
Chisholm, C. R. I., L. A. Cowan, S. M. Haile and W. T. Klooster. 2001. Synthesis, structure and prop-
erties of compounds in the NaHSO4-CsHSO4 system. 1. Crystal structures of Cs2Na(HSO4)3
and CsNa2H(SO4)3. Chemistry of Materials 13: 2574–2583.
Chisholm, C. R. I., L. A. Cowan and S. M. Haile. 2001. Synthesis, structure and properties of com-
pounds in the NaHSO4-CsHSO4 system. 2. The absence of superprotonic transitions in
Cs2Na(HSO4)3 and CsNa2H(SO4)3. Chemistry of Materials 13: 2909–2912.
Clark, H. 2015. Cleaning up wastewater from oil and gas operations using microbial-
powered battery. New Atlas Online Newsletter. March 2. Available at: https://newatlas.com/
microbe-powered-battery-purify-wastewater/36341/. Accessed April 24, 2018.
EPACT. 2005. Energy Policy Act of 2005. Public Law 109-58. August 8. Available at: https://www​
.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ58/pdf/PLAW-109publ58.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2018.
FCT. 2014a. Direct methanol fuel cell (DMFC). Fuel Cell Today. Available at: http://www​
.fuelcelltoday.com/technologies/dmfc. Accessed April 24, 2018.
FCT. 2014b. Phosphoric acid fuel cell (PAFC). Fuel Cell Today. Available at: http://www​
.fuelcelltoday.com/technologies/pafc. Accessed April 24, 2018.
Finch, A. S., T. D. Mackie, C. J. Sund and J. J. Sumner. 2011. Metabolite analysis of Clostridium
acetobutylicum: Fermentation in a microbial fuel cells. Bioresource Technology 102: 312–315.
Goldstein, J., I. Brown and B. Koretz. 1999. New developments in the electric fuel zinc-air system.
Journal of Power Sources 80, nos. 1–2 (July): 171–179.
Fuel Cells 237

Green Car Congress. 2016. Ceres Power to demonstrate SOFC stack technology for EV range extender
with Nissan; light commercial vehicle. Green Car Congress. June 28. Available at: http://www​
.greencarcongress.com/2016/06/20160628-ceres-1.html. Accessed April 24, 2018.
Haile, S. M., D. A. Boysen, C. R. I. Chisholm and R. B. Merle. 2001. Solid acid as fuel cell electrolytes.
Nature 410: 910–913.
Jabeen, G. and R. Farooq. 2017. Microbial fuel cells and their applications for cost effective water
pollution remediation. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, India Section B:
Biological Sciences 87 (3): 625–635.
Jungmann, T. 2020. HT- and LT-PEM fuel cell stacks for portable applications. Fuel Cell Systems
Group, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE). Paper presented at the Hannover
Trade Fair 2010, April 23, 2013, Hannover, Germany.
Larminie, J. and A. Dicks. 2013. Fuel Cell Systems Explained. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
doi:10.1002/9781118878330.
Lipman, T. E., J. L. Edwards and D. M. Kammen. 2004. Fuel cell systems economics: comparing the
costs of generating power with stationary and motor vehicle PEM fuel cell systems. Energy
Policy 32: 101–125.
Murray, E. Perry, T. Tsai and S. A. Barnett. 1999. A direct-methane fuel cell with ceria-based anode.
Nature 400: 649–651.
NASA. 2003. Helios prototype. Dryden Flight Research Center. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/
centers/dryden/news/ResearchUpdate/Helios/. Accessed April 24, 2018.
NASA. 2005. Fuel cells: a better energy source for earth and space. Glenn Research Center.
February 11. Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/glenn/technology/fuel_cells.html.
Accessed April 24, 2018.
Oshiba, Y., J. Hiura, Y. Suzuki and T. Yamaguchi. 2017. Improvement in the solid-state alkaline fuel
cell performance through efficient water management. Journal of Power Sources 345: 221–226.
Parsch, A. 2006. Naval Research Lab (NRL) Spider Lion. Directory of US Military Rockets and
Missiles Appendix 4: Undesignated Vehicles. NRL, Washington, DC. Available at: http://
www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/spider-lion.html. Accessed April 24, 2018.
Sapkota, P. and H. Kim. 2009. Zinc-air fuel cell, a potential candidate for alternative energy. Journal
of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry 15 (4): 445–450.
Schumm, B. 2018. Fuel cell. Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/
technology/fuel-cell#ref51258. Accessed April 24, 2018.
Sevjidsuren, G., E. Uyanga, B. Bumaa, E. Temujin, P, Altantsog and D. Sangaa. 2012. Exergy analysis
of 1.2 kW NexaTM fuel cell module. Chapter 1. October 24. Intech Open Science Publishing,
Croatia. Available at: https://www.intechopen.com/books/clean-energy-for-better-environment/
exergy-analysis-of-1-2-kw-nexatm-fuel-cell-module. Accessed April 24, 2018.
Singhal, S. C. and K. Kendall (Eds). 2003. High-Temperature Solid Oxide Fuel Cells: Fundamentals,
Design and Applications. Elsevier Science, London.
Surdoval, W. A. 2002. SECA Core Technology program. Third Annual SECA Workshop. The Solid
State Energy Conversion Alliance, Washington, DC. Available at: https://www.netl.doe.gov/
file%20library/events/2002/seca/SECA3Surdoval.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2018.
US DOE. 2013. Comparison of fuel cell technologies. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Available at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/pdfs/fc_comparison_chart.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2018.
US DOE. 2018. How fuel cells work. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy and US. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Available at: https://
fueleconomy.gov/feg/fcv_pem.shtml. Accessed April 24, 2018. Also available at www
.fueleconomy.gov, the Official Government Source for Fuel Economy Information.
Wiens, B. 2010. The future of fuel cells. Ben Wiens Energy Science Site. Available at: http://www
.benwiens.com/energy4.html. Accessed April 24, 2018.
Zhu, B., I. Albinsson, C. Andersson, K. Borsand, M. Nilsson, and B.-E. Mellander. 2006. Electrolysis
studies based on ceria-based composites. Electrochemistry Communications 8 (3): 495–498.
doi:10.1016/j.elecom.2006.01.011. Accessed February 20, 2006.