Navigant Research Blog

Stationary Fuel Cell Prices Falling Faster Than Wind, Close to PV

— August 1, 2016

CodeMany fuel cell manufacturers are stealthy about their costs and prices, protecting the data like it is intellectual property. But new data from Japan’s ENE-FARM program confirms what other analyses have shown: fuel cells are showing consistently steep cost declines as production increases.

Most technologies exhibit a similar cost decline pattern. For every doubling of cumulative installed capacity, a commensurate decline in cost is realized due to improvements in manufacturing, supply chain efficiencies, and economies of scale. Plotted on a log-log chart, this curve forms a straight line called the learning or experience curve, and the slope is correlated with the rate of cost decline. For these 0.7 kW proton exchange membrane (PEM) micro-combined heat and power fuel cells, the learning rate is 17.2%, a number in agreement with the 20% found for larger-scale fuel cells. These rates beat the 12% of wind power and approach the 23% of PV (based on global values from this meta-study). Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry also released price goals for ENE-FARM in 2019. If met, these goals will continue the trend and bring the unsubsidized payback period down to around 7 years, which could mean broad adoption in the target residential market. Europe has its own similar program ramping up as well, while the United States and South Korea are more focused on larger-scale fuel cells.

Unsubsidized Price and Capacity of ENE FARM PEM Fuel Cells, Japan: 2006-2019

AdamF_blog

(Sources: Navigant Research; Imperial College London; Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry)

Note that the ENE-FARM data is based on prices, not costs, and that the underlying marginal profitability of these units (produced mainly by Panasonic and Toshiba) is unknown. In addition, fuel cell systems have some components that are already mature and which may limit opportunities to squeeze out costs. Regardless, relative to PV and wind, fuel cells are far less commercially mature and are likely to fall faster in the near term. Each doubling in capacity becomes increasingly difficult for mature technologies. For example, at the end of 2015, wind had an installed base of 434 GW and solar PV had an installed base of 230 GW. This accounts for around 12% of global generating capacity, and even with the current fast growth rates, it is clear that future doublings will take even longer. Meanwhile, fuel cells (which have around 1 GW installed capacity) have the potential for greater price declines as adoption grows. As prices fall, these continuous output sources will become more attractive to a growing host of markets in the coming years.

 

Roller Coaster Summer Continues for Fuel Cell Incentives

— June 21, 2016

HydrogenRobust incentives in places like Germany, Japan, and the United States have expanded the market for stationary fuel cells over the past decade. Within the United States, recent changes to major incentive programs hint at the future of the industry.

The California Public Utilities Commission recently proposed changes to the Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP). If approved at the Commission’s June 23 business meeting, the wide-ranging changes would substantially restructure the program. Two key changes would specifically affect natural gas generation technologies such as fuel cells, microturbines, and generator sets. First, energy storage projects would be allotted 75% of program funds, with the remaining 25% going to generation projects, including natural gas projects, wind turbines, and others. This would be a strong pivot toward storage over generation since these categories account for 4% and 96%, respectively, of $1.1 billion in historical incentives paid. Second, beginning in 2017, natural gas projects would need to use a minimum of 10% biogas, increasing in steps to 100% in 2020. The changes are intended to strike “the right balance of the program’s goals of reducing [greenhouse gases] GHGs, providing grid support and enabling market transformation.”

The federal Business Energy Investment Tax Credit (ITC) has been another important incentive, offering as much as a 30% rebate on fuel cells and other energy technologies. Wind and solar won big with the December 2015 extension, though fuel cells and other natural gas technologies were passed over and currently expire at the end of 2016. However, recent comments from congressional leadership indicate that an extension for the overlooked technologies is likely this year and may even be approved as part of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) authorization bill, which has a deadline of July 15.

So the news for fuel cells is mixed, with California likely offering smaller incentives than in the past but the ITC likely extending beyond 2016. The goals of such programs are ever changing, though in most cases, increasing focus is placed on GHG reductions. California’s biogas requirement cuts emissions and could thus be good for the industry, provided biogas can be viably sourced in the quantities required.

Successful incentives should ultimately render themselves unnecessary by driving down costs. Fuel cell costs have been falling, though not at the rate of some other technologies like PV. The winners will be those that can creatively cut the costs of manufacturing, installation, and financing to make the systems cost-competitive with other electricity sources. Despite the GHG emissions associated with natural gas fuel cells, current developments play a role in a zero-emissions future. Today’s natural gas fuel cell research can be directly applied to the hydrogen fuel cell, a key emissions-free and dispatchable energy resource that can complement the mix of renewables that will power our future.

 

Fuel Cell Makers Seek an American Foothold

— March 18, 2015

In the United States, the topic of fuel cells is very often greeted with skepticism. One prominent fuel cell skeptic, Tesla founder Elon Musk, recently called fuel cell cars a silly idea.

So it’s interesting to compare that to the respect still given to fuel cell technology in Japan, where the 2015 FC Expo recently took place. The FC Expo is one of the largest fuel cell conferences in the world and attracts attendees from around the world. But the audience is predominantly from the Asia Pacific region, and the level of interest in the potential of fuel cells is dramatically different than in the United States. Japan and South Korea, in particular, are two of the biggest markets for fuel cell deployments to date.

Japan’s ENE FARM program has supported the deployment of 100,000 fuel cell combined heat and power systems in Japanese homes. At the Expo, companies like Toshiba, Panasonic, and Aisin Seiki spoke about their commitment to the Japanese residential fuel cell program, which aims to sell over 1 million fuel cell CHP units in Japan by 2020. South Korea’s POSCO Energy has developed the 59 MW Gyeonggi Green Energy fuel cell park and built a 200 MW capacity manufacturing plant for the molten carbonate fuel cell that utilizes FuelCell Energy’s technology.

New Beachheads

What’s most interesting is that these Japanese and South Korean companies are focused on expanding to new markets—in particular to the United States. Ironically, though skepticism toward fuel cells persists in the United States, the American market remains one of the most attractive in the world. That’s why South Korean companies have been buying up North American fuel cell companies, and their technology, over the past few years.

LG became a majority investor in Rolls Royce’s fuel cell business in 2012. In 2014, Doosan bought ClearEdge’s assets, and POSCO has continued to strengthen its relationship with FuelCell Energy. These companies bring significant resources and a long term outlook to the fuel cell sector, using their U.S.-based fuel cell businesses as a beachhead into the U.S. market.

Got a Match?

The U.S. market has many characteristics that make it a good market for fuel cells. The shale gas boom is driving interest in electricity generation that can take advantage of plentiful supplies of natural gas. High value markets, such as data centers, are growing in number and in energy demand, and companies like Apple and Microsoft are exploring using fuel cells to bring down those costs. Energy services companies are exploring ways to meet the growing demand for distributed energy resources (DER) , and are using new financing instruments to support  deployment of DER. Incentives and programs to promote fuel cells in states like California and New York are helping to bring down the costs of today’s fuel cells to where the cost of the power approaches grid parity.

It’s not certain, though, that the fuel cell market in the United States will grow beyond early niche markets. Fuel cell companies need to drive down costs and utilize financing schemes like power purchase agreements to reduce the risk to end users. What the fuel cell industry needs is a matchmaker who can bring together the companies working to develop a successful fuel cell market with the right energy company or financing partners in the United States so they can work together to expand the market for fuel cells in this country.

 

A Better Way to Extract Shale Oil

— November 5, 2014

Last month the Colorado Fuel Cell Center (CFCC) at the Colorado School of Mines hosted the first public demonstration of IEP Technology’s Geothermic Fuel Cell (GFC).  This innovative technology uses the waste heat produced by fuel cells to convert the kerogen in oil shale into unconventional hydrocarbons onsite.

Using standard fuel cell technology, the GFC flips the application on its head by taking a heat-first, power-second approach.  The system uses solid-oxide fuel cells, manufactured by Delphi Automotive, in tubular modules that can be linked end-to-end to create a long string of fuel cells encased in a steel cylinder.  The long-term plan is to insert vertical stacks that are up to 1,000 feet long into oil shale formations, spaced 10 to 15 feet apart in a grid pattern.  In this configuration, the fuel cells can generate temperatures of up to 1,200°F, which will be used to heat the formation and drive pyrolysis (thermal decomposition of the oil shale).

Giving Shale Oil a Better Name

Currently, shale oil is most commonly extracted ex situ, or offsite.  The oil shale is mined and taken to an above-ground processing facility where it is crushed, heated to temperatures suitable for pyrolysis (500-1,100°F), and the unconventional hydrocarbons (shale oil and natural gas) are collected, cooled, and refined.  This process is expensive, inefficient, and extremely damaging to the environment, and it has earned shale oil extraction a bad name.

IEP’s technology, on the other hand, performs the processing in situ, or onsite, by applying heat underground and extracting the shale oil and natural gas via wells that sit among the boreholes, leaving the formation intact.  The only byproducts are electricity that can be sold back to the grid, small amounts of clean water, and CO2.  It may seem odd to think of the electricity as a byproduct, but that’s the beauty of IEP’s approach.  If a single 1,000-foot stack contains 100 to 300 of Delphi’s 1.5 kW fuel cells, you’re talking 150 kW to 450 kW of baseload power per stack over a projected 5-year lifespan, which is no small thing when you consider the potential revenue.

IEP estimates that the gross capital and operating costs of a GFC installation will be less than $30 per barrel of shale oil when the revenue from the sale of electricity and surplus gases is taken into consideration.  This would give GFCs a significant cost advantage over the competition.  More significantly, IEP’s technology allegedly has an energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of 22:1, which would be a monumental improvement on the current best-in-class EROEI for oil shale, which is closer to 5:1.  The technology seems easy enough to replicate, but IEP has patented its idea, which should give it some protection from competitors.

The Real Cost

However, a couple of questions come to mind.  First, what will the actual installed cost of the systems be?  It could take thousands of fuel cells to develop a single formation.

Second, you have to run a fuel source out to the site, which is probably fairly remote, in order to run the GFC.  You also have to run transmission lines out to the site and build a substation in order to sell power back to the grid, and the fuel cells will only be running at that site for 5 years, so it’s a temporary installation.  How many utilities would be interested in doing that?  These questions must be addressed, and we won’t know how the economics and EROEI shake out until mid-2015, when the GFC is expected to be field-tested.  But this appears to be a very promising technology.

 

Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date

Tags

Clean Transportation, Electric Vehicles, Finance & Investing, Policy & Regulation, Renewable Energy, Smart Energy Practice, Smart Energy Program, Smart Transportation Program, Transportation Efficiencies, Utility Innovations

By Author


{"userID":"","pageName":"Fuel Cells","path":"\/tag\/fuel-cells","date":"12\/7\/2016"}