brian_james@directedtechnologies.

com

page 1
 Presentation Outline

• Project Overview
– DFMA M Methodology
th d l – Peak Operating Point
– Operating
– Cost Breakdown
Temperature
– System Cost Trend – Bipolar Plate Costs
– Cost Sensitivities – Bipolar Plate Coatings
– System Simplification
• Trends
d & Observations
Ob i – Repeat vs. Non-
– Power Density Repeat Parts
– Catalyst
y Loadingg &
Platinum Cost • Conclusions
l i

page 2
Overview of DTI’s On-Going FC System Cost Analysis for DOE

1. Identify the lowest cost system design and manufacturing methods for an
80 kWe direct-H2 automotive PEMFC system based on 3 technology levels:
• Current (2009) status technology
• 2010 projected technology
h l
• 2015 projected technology Fuel
Storage
2. Determine costs for these 3 tech level
systems at 5 production rates: Battery Fuel Cell
• 1,000 vehicles/year System System
• 30,000 vehicles/year
• 80 000 vehicles/year
80,000
• 130,000 vehicles/year TIM
• 500,000 vehicles/year Traction
Elec. Motor
3
3. Analyze,
A l quantify
tif & document
d t impact
i t Project covers complete FC system
of system performance on cost (specifically excluding battery, traction
• Use cost results to guide future motor/inverter, and storage)
component
p development
p

Most recent report (2008) available at www.directedtechnologies.com

page 3
 DTI’s DFMA®-Style Costing Methodology
What is DFMA ?
• DFMA® (Design for Manufacturing and Assembly) is a registered trademark of Boothroyd-
Dewhurst, Inc.
• Used by hundreds of companies world-wide
• Basis of Ford Motor Co. design/costing method for past 20+ years
• DTI
practices are a blend of “Textbook” DFMA®, industry standards & practices, DFMA® software,
innovation and practicality

• Two main steps:

1. Quantify production costs via a thorough bottom-up analysis:

Estimated Cost = (Material Cost + Processing Cost + Assembly Cost) x Markup Factor

2. Identify process improvements & part redesigns:

The 3 L’s of DFMA Cost Reduction: SimpLify, SimpLify, SimpLify!

• Combine functionality, reduce parts count
• Facilitate simpler manufacturing
• Speed-up evolution of product development

• Repeat steps 1 & 2 as necessary

page 4
 System Costs vs. Annual Production Rate

• Power Density = 833 mW/cm2

• Catalyst
C t l t LLoading
di = 0.15 Pt/ 2
0 15 mgPt/cm

page 5
 Progress in the Analysis
Over the last four years of analysis:
The current technology cost projection has dropped by 42% (at 500,000 sys/year)
due to a combination of technology improvement and analysis refinement

page 6
 ost ($/kWneet) System Cost Evolution with Time

System Cost ($)

System Co

previous analyses

• Annual updates of current year technology show a downward cost trend.

page 7
 System Cost Projections
(at 500,000 systems/year)
ost ($/kWnet)

SSystem Cosst ($)

System Co

• Annual updates
p of projections
p j for 2010 and 2015 also shown a
downward cost trend.

page 8
 Power Density
• Power density is the most influential variable on system cost, because it determines
active area
• Recent technological
g improvements
p ((such as 3M’s NSTF catalyst
y application
pp method))
have yielded large cost savings

• Goal is to increase power

density while maintaining
other parameters:
• Catalyst loading (0.15
( / 2)
mgPt/cm
• Operating pressure (1.5 – 2 atm)
• Air stoichiometry (1.8 – 2.5)
• Temperature (80+°C)
• Cell voltage (0.676 V)

previous analyses

page 9
 Platinum Usage

• Areal catalyst loadings have been decreasing • What really matters is catalyst used per kW
• The g/kW level has decreased dramatically
• Pt loading is leveling out around $6/kW
• Pt impact is still appreciable, but not dominant

• Based on $1100/tr.oz. Pt cost

• y assumes ternaryy PtCoMn catalyst,
Analysis y , but non-Pt costs are negligible
g g

page 10
 Platinum Cost

• Platinum cost is highly variable:

– Fluctuated between $2,280 - $782/tr.oz. in 2008 alone

• Consistent use of $1,100/tr.oz. facilitates an “apples-to-apples” system costs comparison

• Especially for current technology, Pt is a major system cost component (12.4%)
– Reducing catalyst loading helps significantly lower system cost
– Estimates
st ates aaree highly
g y susceptible
suscept b e to Ptt cost fluctuations
uctuat o s
• Leasing & recycling options may effectively lower Pt cost impact
– Analysis suggests up to 40% reduction in catalyst cost (ie. ~$2.4/kW savings)
page 11
 Impact of Shifting the Peak Power Operating Point
(0.676 V/cell  0.6 V/cell)
2009 Polarization Curve (based on 3M data)
• At constant pressure (171 kPa), a shift to 0.6 V/cell increases
power density to 1,122 mW/cm2 2009 Status
• Cells/stack can then be dropped from 372 to 276 while Proposed
maintaining active area per cell
• Radiator & CEM grow larger (1 232 A/cm2, 0.676
(1.232 0 676 V)
• Peak power system efficiency drops from 49% to 43%, but (1.870 A/cm2, 0.6 V)
the impact over a drive cycle will be much smaller

171 kPa
2009 Status Proposed
p 80°C
Stack Eff. @ Rated Power 55% 48.8% H2/Air
System Eff. @ Rated Power 48.8% 42.8% 0.15 Pt/cm2
2
Current Density (A/cm ) 1.232 1.87
Cell Voltage (V) 0.676 0.6
2
Areal Power Density (mW/cm ) 833 1 122
1,122
Stack Cost Impact ($/kWnet) -- ($6.22)
Radiator Cost Impact ($/kWnet) -- $0.45 2009 Status Proposed
CEM Cost Impact ($/kWnet) -- $0.20 Operating Temperature (°C) 80 80
System Cost ($/kWnet) $60.96 $55.38 Heat Rejection (kW) 71.8 93.2
R di t Size
Radiator Si Increase
I -- 29 7%
29.7%
Cost Difference ($/kWnet): ($5.58) Radiator Cost ($) $150 $186

• Savings of $5.58/kWnet could be achieved by changing peak power operating point, at the
expense
p of a 30% larger
g radiator,, a 14%
% larger
g CEM,, and a slightly
g y lower system
y fuel efficiencyy

page 12
 Operating Temperature
• Previously, high temperature was desired for CO tolerance
• Increasing the operating temperature impacts
system cost in several ways:
2009 2010 2015
– Radiator size reduction (increase in ∆T) Peak Operating
Temperature (°C) 80 95 120
– Increased MEA performance
– May require new/altered membrane chemistry
• Reduction/elimination of gas humidification

• We assume 120°C
120 C membrane with high power density is available in 2015.
• What if 120°C membrane is not available & temperature is limited to 95°C ?
– Cost impact is low ( +$1.46/kW)
Based on 2015 projection at 500,000 sys/yr:
Cost Impact of dropping
from 120° to 95°C
Radiator +$0 56/kWnet
+$0.56/kW
Humification System +$0.90/kWnet
Total Impact +$1.46/kW net
page 13
 Bipolar Plates Trends
Fabrication
b i i Methods:
h d 2009 2015
• Machined graphite 316 SS Plate $4.07/kWnet $3.56/kWnet
• Embossed graphite
• Injection/compression-molded composite TreadStone $1.35/kWnet $1.26/kWnet
• Metal plates Coating
• Stamped 316 SS Plate $5.41/kWnet $4.82/kWnet
• Etched (coated)

I d t trend
Industry t d toward
t d stamped
t d metal
t l plates.
l t
Benefits of stamping: Multiple low-cost coatings being developed:
• High rate process • Au Nanoclad or other Au PVD
• Less brittle than composites • ORNL nitriding process or CrN PVD
• Lower tooling cost than injection molding • TreadStone LiteCell®
• Lower gas permeation
• Borderline corrosion resistance • Further savings might be achieved with cheaper
• High contact resistance plate materials
p
• Aluminum: $2.25/kWnet savings

Stamped 316L SS Plates: (as cost modeled)

• 4-stage progressive stamping die
• Rapid plate production (up to 80/min)
• Coating process applied to finished plates
page 14
 Simplification is Key to Cost Reduction

page 15
 Simplification is Key to Cost Reduction
Changes for 2009/2010:
• Membrane humidifier instead of
water spray humidification
• Higher temperature, smaller
radiator
• Lower pressure
• Centrifugal compressor/expander
(instead of twin-lobe compressor)

page 16
 Simplification is Key to Cost Reduction
Changes for 2015:
• Higher temperature, smaller
radiator
• No humidification
• Lower pressure
• Smaller compressor
• No expander

page 17
 Balance of Plant Cost Breakdown
2009 Technology 2015 Technology

• Increases in manufacturing rate leads to largest savings

• Simplifications of Air, Humidifier, & Coolant Loops yield majority of
technology improvement savings
savings.

page 18
 Repeat vs. Non-Repeat Parts

• Even at low system production rates, repeat

parts reach very high production rates:
At 1,000 systems/year:
• 744,000 bipolar plates
vs.
• 2,000
2 000 end
d plates
l t

• Cost savings on repeat parts

has a much greater impact
than on non-repeat parts

• Abridged to 2 cells (from 372) for clarity

• 1:1 ratio of cooling to active cells

page 19
 Stack Component Cost Distribution

Bipolar
Plates

GDL
Membranes

Catalyst Ink
& Application

• Membranes
dominate cost at low
Bipolar production
MEA Plates
Gaskets • Catalyst Ink is still
GDL highest-cost component
Catalyst Ink at high production, but
& Application
no longer
g dominates

page 20
 Sensitivity Analysis
(for 2009 technology, 500,000 systems/year)

Platinum Cost ($/tr.oz.)

Power Density (mW/cm2)

Macroporous GDL Cost ($/m2)

Air Compressor, Expander & Motor ($/system)
• Platinum Cost and
Platinum Loading (mg/cm2)
Power Density are by
Bipolar Plate Coatings ($/kWnet) far the largest elements
Labor Rate ($/hr) of cost uncertainty
Ionomer Cost ($/kg)
Stack Conditioning (hrs)

10%:
% 90%:
%
$55.08 $66.67 • Monte Carlo analysis
shows that our $60.96
cost is within ±10% of
the 10% & 90%
probability bands

page 21
 Conclusions
• Future cost projections are all below the current costs, which have
consistently moved downward with each year of the analysis

• The most important areas of cost savings are related to power

density and Balance-of-Plant simplification:
• Power density affects the size of the entire stack
• Trend of system simplification needs to continue

• Pt loading/usage is a significant but not dominant cost element

• Reduction is still important
p to reduce cost volatilityy
• Non-Pt catalyst would be of obvious benefit (but not if it reduces power density!)

• Some areas of progress (durability, freeze protection) are not

explicitly charted by our cost analysis but are vital nonetheless

• Shifting the peak power operating point will yield as much as 10% in
cost savings with only a minor effect on fuel economy

page 22
 End of Presentation

Thank you.

page 23
 What can be done to reduce system cost?

• Higher temperature operation

– may require new gaskets, new membrane
• Less expensive membrane (simpler
( i l synthesis,
h i llower cost materials)
i l)
• Reduce or eliminate GDL cost
• Continue to optimize performance characteristics for cost:
– Efficiency (shift peak power operating point)
– Operating pressure
(“
(“optimization”
” willll llikely
k l mean llowering ffor b
both
h cases))
• Simplify system, find multiple functions for components
• Reduce Pt or eliminate it entirely
• Systematic cost reduction in BOP components

page 24