SOFC Program Review - National Energy Technology … Library/research/coal/energy systems... ·...

SOFC Program Review11th Annual SECA Workshop

Pittsburgh, PA27 July 201027 July 2010

David Brengel - Project Manager

1

SECA Objectives

• Reduce SOFC-based electrical power generation system cost to ≤ $400/kWe (2002 dollars) for a >100MW Integrated Gasification≤ $400/kWe (2002 dollars) for a >100MW Integrated Gasification Fuel Cell (IGFC) power plant, exclusive of coal gasification and CO2 separation subsystem costs

• Achieve an overall IGFC power plant efficiency of ≥50%, from coal (HHV) to AC power (inclusive of coal gasification and carbon separation processes)

• Reduce the release of CO2 to the environment in an IGFC power plant to ≤ 10% of the carbon in the coal feedstock

• Increase SOFC stack reliability to achieve a design life of >40,000 hours

2

SOFC Team

3

UTC PowerMarkets: Buildings & TransportationMarkets: Buildings & Transportation

A world leader in developing and producing fuel cells that generate energy for buildings and transportationthat generate energy for buildings and transportation

4

Stationary Fuel Cell SolutionsSuccessful track record around the worldSuccessful track record around the world

51,277 hrs56 573 hrs61,950 hrs11,457 MWHRSHospital

61,040 hrs & 57,640 hrs11,897 MWHRS 11,033 MWHRSCasinoUncasville CT 9,141 MWHRS

Seiko Epson Ina WorksIna, Japan

56,573 hrs10,793 MWHRSChevronSan Ramon, CA

HospitalBocholt, Germany

Uncasville, CT

Fleet Leader 51,931 hrs65,615 hrs6,405 MWHRSToshibaHouston, TX 54,694 hrs

3,752 MWHRSHuis Ten BoschSasebo, Japan

9,521 MWHRSYokohama Sewage PlantYokohama, Japan

56,359 hrs62,165 hrs2,217 MWHRSCentral Park Police StationNew York City, NY

Sasebo, Japan6,321 MWHRSDistrict Heating worksHalle, Germany

5200 kW systems

Stationary Fuel Cell Solutions400 kW PureCell® system advantages

• 400 kW electric output

400 kW PureCell® system advantages

• Natural gas

• 42% electrical efficiency*

• 1 7 MMBtu/hr heat output†• 1.7 MMBtu/hr heat output†

• Up to 90% system efficiency

• Designed to meet CARB 2007 standard±

• 20-year powerplant life**

• “Dual Mode” capabilityDual Mode capability

• Modular approach for MW-size applications

6

* At beginning of life ** With overhaul at end of year 10† ~ 500 kW± California Air Resources Board 2007 emissions standard

Driving Global Innovation-In Close Collaboration with Our CustomersC ose Co abo at o t Ou Custo e s

Key Global Technical Centers

Bascharage, Lux.

Detroit, USA Krakow, Poland

Bascharage, Lux.

Juarez, Mexico Shanghai, ChinaBangalore, India

24 Technical Centers 21 Countries 16,000 Scientists & Engineers

São Paulo, Brazil

7

, & g

Core Innovations = Future PossibilitiesCore Automotive Markets Adjacent Markets

Residential/Commercial

Electrical/ElectronicArchitecture

Residential/Commercial Heating and Cooling

Electronics & Safety

Powertrain SystemsCommercial Vehicles

Military/Aerospace

Thermal Systems

8

Military/Aerospace

Aftermarket

Delphi: Committed to Innovation and ExcellenceDelphi: Committed to Innovation and Excellence Superior Engineering and

Systems Integration

Leading-Edge Technology

Quality Products and Services

World-Class Customer Support

Global, Precision Manufacturing Capabilities

Collaborative Innovation

Award Winning Performance

9

Award Winning Performance

Technical Capabilities

Physical Sciences...Chemical engineering

Thermal & Fluid Sciences...

High temperature materials

Materials analysis

Applied mechanicsAcoustics

Combustion

A li d fl id d i

Applied mechanics

Systems Applied fluid dynamics

Thermal management

Systems...Cyber physical systems

Control modeling

Embedded intelligence

Decision support

Power electronicsPower electronics

10

Outline

• Phase I Accomplishments Summary

• System concepts & stack design integration– 250-1000kW Power Module

IGFC– IGFC concepts• Atmospheric SOFC/ST• Atmospheric SOFC/GT/ST

• Verification testing– 50kW Test Stand– Test of Delphi 25kW stack

11

Phase I Accomplishments Summary

• Completed the detailed design, including an FMEA and Hazard Analysis of a Test Stand capable of testing stacks up to 50 kWAnalysis, of a Test Stand capable of testing stacks up to 50 kW

• Procured all major components, including the fully completed fluid skid, and initated the final assembly of the 50kW Test Standy

• Completed an initial downselect of the 250-1000 kW SOFC Power Module operating on pre-reformed natural gas

• Developed a conceptual design for atmospheric IGFC systems with an SOFC/GT/ST cycle achieving 57 percent (HHV) efficiency

12

250-1000kW Power Module

• Developing systems based on– Cost– Efficiency– Reliability Value proposition for customersy– Operability

13

Generic model

250-1000kW Power Module

• Efficiencies > 60% (LHV)– Largely invariant when operated at reduced load

100

SOFC Power Plant Efficiency

% Efficiency

00 25 50 75 100

14

% of Net Rated Power

IGFC OverviewBlock representationBlock representation

• Catalytic gasification: High cold gas efficiency & methane content• Catalytic gasification: High cold gas efficiency & methane content• Oxygen generation via cryogenic distillation (ASU)• Sulphur removal via Selexol or warm-gas clean-up

15

• CO2 separation via oxy-combustion

IGFC OverviewComponent representationComponent representation

16

IGFC Power Block Design

• Systems of increasing sophistication and efficiency have b d l dbeen developed– Atmospheric SOFC with Steam Turbine Cycle– Atmospheric SOFC with Gas and Steam Turbine Cyclep y– Pressurized SOFC with Gas and Steam Turbine Cycle

• Steam cycle with reheat: [1800 psig ,1050°F]G t bi M difi d P&W FT 8 t 5 t• Gas turbine: Modified P&W FT-8 at 5 atm

• Heat recovery unit maximizes re-use of waste heat from cathode exhaust and oxyburnercathode exhaust and oxyburner– Steam generator, re-heater– Cathode pre-heat

I di tl h t d t bi

17

– Indirectly heated gas turbine

IGFC Power Block DesignAtmospheric SOFC/ST

Uf,p = 70% Uf,p = 80%SOFC AC power [MW] 106 6 106 6

Atmospheric SOFC/ST

SOFC AC power [MW] 106.6 106.6

Steam cycle net power[MW] 16.3 9.7

Expander power [MW] 9.7 8.1

Total produced power [MW] 132.5 124.4

Air blower [MW] -1.7 -1.9

Recycle blower [MW] -1.9 -2.1

Refrigeration [MW] -0.7 -0.7

Cooling [MW] -1.8 -1.7

Parasitic ASU [MW] -8.0 -5.9

Parasitic other [MW] -1.6 -1.5

Total parasitics -15.7 -13.6

N t AC P [MW] 116 9 110 8Net AC Power [MW] 116.9 110.8

Coal massflow (dry) [kg/h] 27511 25005

Gross coal input power [MW] 233.3 212.1

IGFC efficiency [HHV %] 50.1 52.2

18

IGFC Power Block DesignAtmospheric SOFC/STAtmospheric SOFC/ST

AGR ParasiticsPower BlockGasifierInverter3.3

NetAC

116.9Gross

AC132.5

SOFCAC

106.6

SOFC DC

109.9CleanCoalGas

204 2

RawCoalGas

CoalFeed

Efficiency (HHV)• 50.1% net• 56.8% gross

204.2207.8233.3

AGR1.6

ASU

Expander 9.7Turbine 16.3

GasifierLoss25.5

ASU8.0

Blower4.0

Cooling2.4

WasteHeat71.7

SulfurRemoval

3.6

19

IGFC Power Block DesignAtmospheric SOFC/GT/STAtmospheric SOFC/GT/ST

Results

SOFC AC power [MW] 107.1p [ ]

FT8 net power [MW] 14.9

Steam cycle net power[MW] 7.6

Expander power [MW] 4.2

Total produced power [MW] 133.8

Recycle blower [MW] -2.1

Refrigeration [MW] -0.7

Cooling [MW] -1.7

Parasitic ASU [MW] -5.9

Parasitic other [MW] -1.5

Total parasitics -11.8

Net AC Power [MW] 122 0Net AC Power [MW] 122.0

Coal mass flow (dry) [kg/h] 25141

Gross coal input power [MW] 213.2

IGFC efficiency [HHV %] 57.2

20

Gas turbine integration offers significant efficiency gain

IGFC Power Block DesignPerformance Comparison

Atmospheric

SOFC/ST SOFC/ST SOFC/GT/ST

Performance Comparison

Uf,p = 70% Uf,p = 80% Uf,p = 80%

Net Efficiency* [%, HHV] 50.1 52.2 57.2

Net AC Power [MW] 116.9 110.8 122.0

SOFC DC [% gross] 80.4 85.7 80.1

Steam Cycle [% gross] 12.3 7.8 5.7

Coal-gas Expander [% gross] 7.3 6.5 4.2

Model Assumptions• Cold gas efficiency = 89 1%

Gas Turbine [% gross] — — 11.2

• Cold gas efficiency = 89.1%• Steam turbine efficiency** = 34.3%• Gas turbine efficiency = 85%• Inverter efficiency = 97%

21

Inverter efficiency 97%

* Efficiency includes CO2 separation (but not compression) parasitics** Based on utilized heat. Based on available heat, efficiency is 19.6%

50kW Test StandCapabilities

• Fully automated, lights-out operation

Capabilities

• Provide anode gases up to – 50kW using coal syngas, or

30 kW using 50%/50% H /N30 kW using 50%/50% H2/N2• 70% fuel utilization and up to 775°C

– 5000 sl/min cathode air up to 775°C and -40°C dewpoint

• Provide loads up to 60kW– Up to 400 amperes – Up to 600 volts

• Recuperate up to 52kW cathode energy

22

50kW Test StandTest FacilityTest Facility

6

Piping, heat exchanger and heater insulation not shown7

N45

Fluid Management Skid Test Room Load Bank Afterburner

3

Cathode Exhaust Emergency air, 4%H2

bottles Methane Bottles

21

23


24


25

50kW Test StandTest RoomTest Room

Piping, heat exchanger and heater insulation not shown4 5 6

7

Test Article (in Hot Box) Cathode Heater Cathode Recuperative Heat 1

2

3 Exchanger Anode Constituent Heaters

(obscured) Anode Supply Anode Exhaust

1 3

N

Anode Exhaust Cathode Exhaust Test Article Room (doors not

shown)8

26

50kW Test StandTest RoomTest Room

27

Test of Delphi ≥ 25kW Stack

• Comprises four 40-cell stacks using the Gen 4 cassette

28

Verification Testing Goals

PHASE I MINIMUM REQUIREMENTSSECA Coal-Based Systems

DELIVERABLE POWER RATING 25kW

COST (fuel cell system, 2002 dollars) $400 / kW

STEADY STATE TEST (Normal Operating Conditions) Δ Power < 2.0% degradation/1000 hours

1) Start-up2) P k P T t

TEST SEQUENCE2) Peak Power Test3) Steady State Test4) Shut-down

TEST DURATION 5000 hours (1500 hours in Phase I)

FUEL TYPE Simulated (subject to DOE concurrence, up to 25% CH4, dry basis)

29

OutlineOut e• Summary Highlights

• CellsCells– Scale up– Cell microstructure– Process improvements

DFMEA b d l t d t t d l t– DFMEA-based accelerated test development– Cathode development

• Gen 4 and Gen 3 stacks– Electrochemical performance of Gen 4– Comparison of Gen 4 performance data to Gen 3 data– Stack voltage tracking run chart

• Durability– Constant current durability test– Thermal cycling

SECA Conference 7/28/2010 30

– Stack tested with real hydrocarbon fuel reformate

Performance Highlights Summary for SECA Coal Based System Stack DevelopmentSystem Stack Development

• Continued scale up of cells from 105 cm2 (active area) cells to 403 cm2

without increasing cell thickness for Gen 4 stacks• Expanded cell and stack fabrication and testing capability for large footprint

Generation 4 stacks• Fabricated and tested Gen 4 stacks• Completed design for 25 kW SECA Phase 1 test article • Demonstrated 5kW Gen 4 stack module

– Produced 5064 Watts (506 mW per cm2) @ 0.81 Volts per cellProduced 5064 Watts (506 mW per cm ) @ 0.81 Volts per cell– Fuel = 48.5% H2, 3% H2O, rest N2

• Developed low cost, high volume manufacturable processes for Gen 4 stack components – stamping, laser welding p p g, g

• Demonstrated greater than 8000 hours continuous durability in Gen 3.2 stack

• Demonstrated 200 thermal cycles in Gen 3 2 stack


Demonstrated 200 thermal cycles in Gen 3.2 stack

Delphi SOFC Unreduced Cell Microstructuree p SO C U educed Ce c ost uctu e

• Gen 3.2 cell footprint is 140 mm x 98 mm (105 cm2 active area)Gen 3.2 cell footprint is 140 mm x 98 mm (105 cm2 active area)• Gen 4 cell footprint is 300 mm x 158 mm (403 cm2 active area)

Interlayer: Ceria Based Layer (~4 µm)

Cathode: LSCF (~30 µm)

Electrolyte: 8 mol. YSZ (~10 µm)

Active Anode: NiO – YSZ (~10 µm)

µm)

Bulk Anode: NiO – YSZ (~500 µm)


Cell Process Engineering Achievements Using Quality ToolsCell Process Engineering Achievements Using Quality Tools

•Design for Six Sigma – Includes Functional Modeling, Axiomatic D i FMEA D i d E i tDesign, FMEA, Designed Experiments

•Optimized cell firing techniques to improve cell electrochemical performance by about 7%

•Implementing cell manufacturing processes that reduce raw material costs by about 35% and capital investment by about 60%

•Devised improved lamination method that incorporated high volume manufacturing process, significantly reducing lamination cycle time

•Developed optimized process strategy for controlling screen printed thick film cell layers

•Developed cell to retainer seal material, process, and design approach using axiomatic design principles that increases durability and eliminates active degradation mechanisms

•Shainin Red X – Strategy for Cell Defect Reduction•Identified defect sources, elimination strategies currently under evaluation to increase first time quality


Accelerated Test Developmentcce e ated est e e op e t

Develop Validation Testing Develop AcceleratedDevelop DFMEA

Develop Validation Testing Plan to Address DFMEA Issues and Observations from Stack Testing

Develop Accelerated Testing to Address Failure Mechanisms Identified in DFMEA and Stack Testing


Cell Accelerated Degradation TestingCe cce e ated eg adat o est g

180

120

140

160

hm

Old Cell Material Set and Architecture

80

100

120

mpe

danc

e, m

oh

Improved Cell Material S t d A hit t

40

60

80

Ohm

ic Im Set and Architecture

0

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Degradation Cycles

Cathode DevelopmentCat ode e e op e t

Cathode Power (From Button Cell Performance

T i ) ) 750oC 50-50 H2 in N2 0.7VTesting)

Standard Standard

Cathode I 1

Typically > 25% Hi h Th

0.8

1.2

ity, (

W/c

m2) 2 2

Improvement 1 (HPC1)

Higher Than Standard Cathode

Cathode Improvement 2

Additional 20% Higher Than Cathode 0

0.4

Pow

er d

ensi

HPC1HPC2Standard

p(HPC2)

gImprovement 1

Cathode I t 3

Additional 10% Hi h Th C th d

00 5 10 15 20 25

Time, (h)

PImprovement 3 (HPC3)

Higher Than Cathode Improvement 2 in 4ppmv H2S


Seal and Interconnect DevelopmentSeal and Interconnect Development• Improvements in glass/ceramic seals and substrate

coatings have demonstrated good results for repeating unit to repeating unit sealing in a stackunit to repeating unit sealing in a stack – Coupon level testing has demonstrated higher shear strength and

thermal cycling stability– Multiple stacks tested with the improved repeating unit to repeating unit

seals confirmed improved thermal cycling capability with no measurableseals confirmed improved thermal cycling capability with no measurable leakage in the seals

• Low cost coatings and interconnects have been gdeveloped and implemented in stacks– Coupon level tests have demonstrated stable and acceptable ASR – Tested for > 8000 hours in Gen 3.2 stack durability

Tested for thermal cycling– Tested for thermal cycling– Process improvements ongoing


Gen 4 Stack Ge Stac• Delphi is developing its Generation 4 stack with larger footprint cell• Key stack features are:

4x active area increase– 4x active area increase– Very low pressure drop (less than 4kPa, anode and cathode)– Laser welded cassette repeating unit configuration– Stamped metallic cassette components including interconnectsp p g– Reduced part count– Low cost, conventionally processed balance of stack components

Gen 4 stack

SECA Conference 7/28/2010 38Gen 3.2 stack

Gen 4 Stack • Gen 4 stack fabrication ongoing for meeting SECA requirements


Gen 4 Stack Performance• 25-cell Gen 4 stack demonstrated predicted power density

– Produced 5.064 kW (506 mW per cm2) @ 0.81 Volts per cell with 48.5% H2, 3% H2O, rest N2

– Data shows comparison of Gen 3 2 and Gen 4 electrochemical performance

Gen4 MG735G003 - 25RU Date: 12/5/2009vs. Gen3.2 MG735C824 - 40RU Date: 2/10/2010

Stack Voltage and Power Density for Polarization Test1 2 600

– Data shows comparison of Gen 3.2 and Gen 4 electrochemical performance

1

1.2

500

600

0.6

0.8

Cel

l Vol

tage

(V)

300

400

r Den

sity

(mW

/cm

2)

0.2

0.4

C

100

200 Pow

er

G4 MeanVoltage(V)

G3.2 MeanVoltage(V)

G4 PowerDensity(mW/cm^2)

G3.2 PowerDensity(mW/cm^2)


00.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70

Current Density(A/cm^2)

0

Gen 4 Stack Performance

• Fuel utilization evaluation has demonstrated good results • Current density of 600 mA per cm2

• Fuel 48.5% H2,3% H2O, rest N2 – Data below shows minimal lowering of power density up to 85% utilization– Data shows a power density of 403 mW per cm2 at 70% fuel utilization

350

400

450

r cm

2)

150

200

250

300

Den

sity

(mW

per

0

50

100

30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00 55.00 60.00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 85.00

Utili ti (%)

Pow

er D


Utilization(%)

Generation 3.2 30-Cell Stack Run Chart• Gen 3.2 stacks is our baseline platform for evaluation of technology and components as we

scale up Gen 4 fabrication • Improvements in design and process parameters have led to consistent performance in• Improvements in design and process parameters have led to consistent performance in

stack to stack builds – translates to lessons learned for Gen 430-Cell Stack Voltage Performance Tracking

0.900

0 600

0.700

0.800

0.400

0.500

0.600

Volta

ge

Range

Average

0 100

0.200

0.300


0.000

0.100

Stack2005 2006 200920082007 2010

Gen 3.2 30-Cell Stack Durability Ge 3 30 Ce Stac u ab ty• Fuel = 48.5% H2, 3% H2O, rest N2; current = 333 mA per cm2

• > 8200 hours, continuing to run• Total degradation is 1.20% per 500 hours • Degradation after initial lowering of power and stabilization is 0.66% per 500 hours• Implementing solution to mitigate initial lowering of power

30

20

25

)

15

Stac

k Vo

ltage

(V)

5

10S


00 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Time (Hours)

Thermal CyclingThermal Cycling• Gen 3.2 30-cell stacks evaluated for thermal cycling with improved seals• 200 thermal cycles demonstrated with minimal degradation

• 2 hour heat-up• Performance evaluated at each thermal cycle• Constant current load of 285 mA per cm2 at operating temperature• Fuel of 48.5% H2, 3% H2O, rest N2

0.8

0.9

1

St k M d t

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

olta

ge (V

olts

)

Flow condition changed

Stack Moved to another stand Loadbank replaced

for calibration

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0

Vo


00 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210

Thermal Cycle Number

Stack tested with real hydrocarbon reformateStac tested t ea yd oca bo e o ate

• Gen 3.2 5-cell stack evaluated with real reformate based on different O:C mapping

MG735C819 - 5plus3 Dates: 1/21/2010 to 4/30/2010Fuel: Zero Sulfur Diesel Reformate with Simulated Recycle Flows: Approx 10 slpm**(A) 25(C)

Stack Voltage and Power Density for Constant Current Test

from hydrocarbon fuel reforming• 1000+ hours on actual hydrocarbon fuel reformate (20% H2, 24% CO, 7% H2O, 6%

CO2, rest N2) at optimized operating conditions• Voltages and pressure drop stable

Stack Voltage and Power Density for Constant Current Test

5

6

)

2

3

4

tack

Vol

tage

(V)

0

1

0.00 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1000.00 1200.00

St


Time (Hours)

StackVoltage(V)

Acknowledgements

• Travis Shultz, Briggs White, Wayne Surdoval, Heather Quedenfeld Maria Reidpath Dale Keairns Dick NewbyQuedenfeld, Maria Reidpath, Dale Keairns, Dick Newby and Shailesh Vora

• Funding provided by the US Department of EnergyFunding provided by the US Department of Energy through co-operative agreement DE-NT0003894.

46

Date post:	24-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hacong
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times

SOFC Program Review - National Energy Technology … Library/research/coal/energy systems... ·...

Documents