Green Car Congress  
About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines
Tweets From the Editor
(different than @GreenCarCongres headlines)

« FHI to Show Subaru Concept Hybrid at Tokyo Show | Main | EU Likely to Miss 2010 Air Pollutant Limits; NOx the Toughest »

Print this post

New Sulfur- and Coking-Resistant Ceramic Material Could Expand Applications for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells

2 October 2009

Researchers at Georgia Tech have developed a new ceramic material for use in a solid oxide fuel cell that resists deactivation by carbon buildup (coking) from hydrocarbon fuels or by sulfur contamination (poisoning)—two of the most vexing problems facing SOFCs. The material also exhibits high ionic conductivity at relatively low temperatures of 500-700 °C. A paper on their work appears in the 2 Oct issue of the journal Science.

If the long-term durability of the new mixed ion conductor material is proven, it could expand the applications for SOFCs—devices that generate electricity directly from a wide range of liquid or gaseous fuels without the need to separate hydrogen.

The development of this material suggests that we could have a much less expensive solid oxide fuel cell, and that it could be more compact, which would increase the range of potential applications. This new material would potentially allow the fuel cells to run with dirty hydrocarbon fuels without the need to clean them and supply water.

—Meilin Liu, a Regent’s professor in the School of Materials Science and Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology

The conventional anode of a fuel cell uses a composite of yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) and the metal nickel. This anode provides excellent catalytic activity for fuel oxidation, good conductivity for collecting current generated, and compatibility with the cell’s ceramic electrolyte, which is also YSZ.

However, the YSZ material has three significant drawbacks:

  • Even small amounts of sulfur in fuel “poison” the anode to dramatically reduce efficiency (e.g., just 2.5 ppm of H2S in reformed natural gas fed to a SOFC operating at 800°C results in an observed electrochemical performance loss of 12.5%);

  • The use of hydrocarbon fuels creates carbon build-up which clogs the anode; and

  • Because YSZ has limited conductivity at low temperatures, SOFCs must operate at high temperatures.

As a result, fuels used in SOFCs, such as natural gas or propane, must be purified to remove sulfur, which increases their cost. Water in the form of steam must also be supplied to a reformer that converts hydrocarbons to hydrogen and carbon monoxide before being fed to the fuel cells, adding complexity to the overall system and reducing energy efficiency. And the high-temperature operation means the cells must be fabricated from costly exotic materials, which keeps SOFCs too expensive for many applications.

The new material developed at Georgia Tech addresses all three of those anode issues. BaZr0.1Ce0.7Y0.2–χYO3–γ, referred to as BZCYYb Barium-Zirconium-Cerium-Yttrium-Ytterbium Oxide) tolerates hydrogen sulfide in concentrations as high as 50 parts-per-million, does not accumulate carbon, and can operate efficiently at temperatures as low as 500 ° Celsius.

The BZCYYb material could be used in a variety of ways: as a coating on the traditional Ni-YSZ anode, as a replacement for the YSZ in the anode and as a replacement for the entire YSZ electrolyte system. Liu believes the first two options are more viable.

So far, the new material has provided steady performance for up to 1,000 hours of operation in a small laboratory-scale SOFC. To be commercially viable, however, the material will have to be proven in operation for up to five years—the expected lifespan of a commercial SOFC.

The researchers don’t yet understand how their new material resists deactivation by sulfur and carbon. However, they theorize that its ability to resist deactivation by sulfur and coking is linked to the mixed conductor’s enhanced catalytic activity for sulfur oxidation and hydrocarbon cracking and reforming, as well as enhanced water adsorption capability.

In addition to its tolerance of sulfur and resistance to coking, the BZCYYb material’s conductivity at lower temperature could also provide a significant advantage for SOFCs.

If we could reduce operating temperatures to 500 or 600 degrees Celsius, that would allow us to use less expensive metals as interconnects. Getting the temperature down to 300 to 400 degrees could allow use of much less expensive materials in the packaging, which would dramatically reduce the cost of these systems.

—Meilin Liu

Beyond its use in fuel cells, the material developed by Liu and his team—which also included Lei Yang, Shizhong Wang, Kevin Blinn, Mingfei Liu, Ze Liu and Zhe Cheng——could also be used for fuel reforming to feed other types of fuel cells.

In a Perspective in the same issue of Science, Dr. J. R. Selman of the Illinois Institute of Technology commented that the design approach taken by Liu and his team—using the BZCYYb material that exhibits mixed conduction but exists as a single phase—could simplify anode structure considerably.

...it has the promise of a “3-in-1 material” that resists sulfur poisoning and inhibits coking of the anode while potentially simplifying anode structure, even if nickel or copper might have to be used as an electronic and electrocatalytic backbone...Implicit in the work of Yang et al. is that the mixed rare-earth doped BaZr cerate is not only a solid electrolyte but functions as a catalyst for the anodic oxidation (somewhat like the apparent function of ceria in ceria-Ni cermet). If corroborated, this would open interesting possibilities—for SOFC technology as well as hybrid high-temperature cells that could use new design strategies.

—Selman, 2009

The research was supported by the US Department of Energy’s Basic Energy Science Catalysis Science Program under grant DE-FG02-06ER15837.

Resources

  • Lei Yang, Shizhong Wang, Kevin Blinn, Mingfei Liu, Ze Liu, Zhe Cheng, Meilin Liu (2009) Enhanced Sulfur and Coking Tolerance of a Mixed Ion Conductor for SOFCs: BaZr0.1Ce0.7Y0.2–χYO3–γ. Science Vol. 326. no. 5949, pp. 126 - 129 doi: 10.1126/science.1174811

  • J. R. Selman (2009) Poison-Tolerant Fuel Cells. Science Vol. 326. no. 5949, pp. 52 - 53 doi: 10.1126/science.1180820

October 2, 2009 in Fuel Cells | Permalink | Comments (17) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef0120a5b526b6970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference New Sulfur- and Coking-Resistant Ceramic Material Could Expand Applications for Solid Oxide Fuel Cells:

Comments

Another energy breakthrough candidate and congrads Gtech.

Franklin has had copper-ceria cells that can take hydrocarbons for years. They can run on gasoline or even diesel with little degradation and have contracts with the military for APUs.

http://franklinfuelcells.com/

Makes a Hell of a lot more sense than a hydrogen fool-cell.

There are draw backs, you may have to rebuild the SOFC every 5 years. I would not mind having my home and car SOFC rebuilt every 5 years. If I save $1000 per year and the rebuild costs $1000 every 5 years, I still come out ahead.

What would be the real differences to the world between; 50% high efficiency clean running (ICE genset) and 50% high efficiency SOFC; both using equivalent liquid fuel or NG?

Would a SOFC have minor/major environmental advantages?

Could SOFC price ever be as low as an equivalent basic clean running ICE genset?

Since we already have clean Hydro power (96%) and Wind power(3.0%)**, I prefer future quick charge modular e-storage units for PHEVs and BEVs.

** those power sources will be around 90% and 10% by 2020 and about 85% and 15% by 2030.

Where clean electricy is available now and for future generations, BEVs is by far the best solution.

For one thing, you have no NOx with the smog and negative health effects. For another, you have Combined Heat and Power for the home that uses the fuel more efficiently. For another, you have quiet and clean Vehicle to Grid that can run 24/7.

SJC, http://franklinfuelcells.com listed it's latest news as three years ago - not too current.

I agree that their current news is not current. They started in 2001 and the business environment may not have been favorable to large growth. That may be the nature of companies that are a bit ahead of their time.

Harvey is right. For transportation, the fuel-cell really is a misapplication. I think the ideal app for a SOFC is power generation in the range of 500Kw-2Mw. These could be located in urban areas close to it's load, and the heat used for District Heating.

I like 2-5kw SOFCs for home use, where you can get CHP and use natural gas more efficiently. I agree that transportation is a stretch application, but who knows.

The Santa Clara, Ca. municipal utility had a 2-3mw MCFC project more than 10 years ago. They showed that it could be done, but it was a bit ahead of its time and not practical.

Interesting development - especially for Residential Power Units. If home Combined Heat and Power technology matures - we can greatly limit the need for new power plants and expanded grids.

A SOFC with a minimum 10 year life is needed to compete with the ICE units from Honda and others. Benefit of not having to reform to H2 is valuable and could help lower the cost in mass roll outs.

Another possible benefit of SOFC is you might be able to run some of them on aqueous ethanol, which means less distilation and better well-to-wheels efficiency EROIE.

I had read that there was a problem with methanol in SOFCs, but wet ethanol may be OK. Liquid fuel makes sense, whether methanol, ethanol or even DME, which is liquid at 100 psi. The transportation, storage, distribution and energy density make them favorable for vehicles.

It's a bit ironic that much of the work in developing fuel cells is producing results that, like this, are a nail in the coffin of the H2 economy, rather than a step towards it. I'm fairly anti-hydrogen, but I do love the idea of 50% thermal efficiency in liquid fuel use.

HarveyD: If you can find a genset that runs at greater than 25% efficiency, you should tell Honda about it. For instance this Honda unit (I love Honda like everyone else)

http://www.hondapowerequipment.com/products/modeldetail.aspx?page=modeldetail&section=P2GG&modelname=EB6500&modelid=EB6500XA

Uses 6.6 gal of gas (222kWh) to produce 5.5kW for 5.3 hours (29 kWh), for an efficiency of 13%.

As Nat says, 50% efficiency and affordable may not go together for an ICE.

BUT
"A FC gives you combined heat and power for the home"

Ummm ICE gen sets always did.

And ICE gen sets will run on LOTS of different fuels.

So back to efficiency -
THAT'S the name of the game.

Given that they use rear earth in this ceramics it won't be for the mass

Nat:

I was refering to future vastly improved ICE gensets and being very generous. Some large scale models are approaching that magic figure with heat capture etc.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2012 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group