« Milburn and Meacher. | Main | Sure Start. »

October 02, 2005

Rolls Royce and Fuel Cells.

I’ve often said (look back through the archives if you wish) that in respect of climate change it is technology that will save us. There’s a huge amount of work going on to invent and engineer methods of electricity generation without the use of fossil fuels and this work is becoming mainstream, moving into the market place faster than people generally realise.

Take this announcement from Rolls Royce for example:

Rolls-Royce has been researching the environmentally-friendly technology since 1992, but it was only in January 2003 that the company stepped up its programme by forming a subsidiary, Rolls-Royce Fuel Cell Systems.

Earlier this year it teamed up with a consortium linked to the Singapore government to invest $100m (£55m) in a bid to commercialise the technology. Under the terms of the deal, the Singaporeans have put up 25 per cent of the money and will also contribute their expertise in ceramics, a key component of the fuel cell system.

Together, the partners aim to build a stationary power source that generates 1MW of electricity - enough to provide power for 200 households. The plan is to have a marketable product by 2008 and to sell it to utilities, hospitals, universities and industrial estates.
....

Rolls-Royce has exploited its knowledge of high-pressure, high-temperature technologies to design an electrical power system that integrates a solid oxide fuel cell - a cheaper version than current phosphoric acid and platinum systems - with a microturbine.

"The capability to design and integrate complex systems is the key," says Colin Berns, the subsidiary's chief operating officer. "Rolls-Royce brings that."

Nor are high temperatures anything special for the company. The temperature in the fuel cell will be a blazing 850 degrees centigrade, the same level as occurs in a car's catalytic converter, but this is still around 600 degrees cooler than the temperature of a Trent engine at full take-off speed. "To Rolls-Royce, it's not hot", grins Coltman.

The company's fuel cell system uses an inexpensive ceramic - similar to a plain bathroom tile - as its core element. In the pilot plant flat ceramic tubes go through various stages, including multiple screen printing and drying cycles.

This particular project is one I know about from the day job, I’ve had a number of discussions with the people running it (although they are not, as yet, customers. They might become so but only if they decide they want to get the operating temperature down to 750 0C, rather than the current 850. Boring technical reasons why they might or might not.).

The thing is that the fuel cell part of this is pretty well understood and there are any number of people making them. (It should also be noted that the UK is in the lead in a certain part of this market, the low temperature solid oxide fuel cell.)

What Rolls Royce are doing here that is unusual is the combination of the fuel cell with the micro-turbine (turbines being their core competence after all).

You can imagine that a fuel cell stack operating at 850 oC pumps out quite a bit of heat. A usual method of dealing with this is to construct combined heat and power (CHP) systems. This is, of course, only useful if you wish to have both electricity and heat in the same place at the same time. By using the turbine RR can convert the waste heat into further electricity.

(BTW, it’s not quite bathroom tile that is used, it’s stabilised zirconia, stabilised with yttria at present, perhaps with scandia in the future, thus my interest.)

Now this is only one example and there are another dozen I could reel off. The upcoming Grove Conference in London will no doubt have yet more announcements. But my point is this. That this particular technology is a lot lot closer to commercial take off than people seem to realise. The US Department of Energy set a target of $400 for the manufacturing cost of a particular unit of generating power (I think it was per KWh but that’s from memory, sorry) via SOFC and hoped to achieve it by 2010. It was reached earlier this year.

It’s all coming takers and the general public (and most especially our green friends) seem to realise.

It’s this sort of thing that makes me not worry about climate change. Yes, it is happening, yes, we are causing it, but the technologies to stop us doing so are in the works. Don’t Panic!

Technorati tag climate change.

October 2, 2005 in Climate Change | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d8348f11ae69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rolls Royce and Fuel Cells.:

Comments

TW: "Yes, it is happening, yes, we are causing it,.."

Huh! Human technological and industrial activity clearly explains why the glaciers retreated at the end of the last ice age, some, oh, 50,000 years or so ago?

Global warming, obviously nothing to do with the Sun then?

Tim adds: If you look back 5 or 10 posts then there is a discussion about the sun, yes. Might count for 20-30% of it.

Posted by: APL | Oct 2, 2005 10:56:16 AM

Sorry to be a Pedant Tim, but I suspect that you have got your units in a muddle:

$400 per KWh seems a bit steep. I think I get my supply at 7 pence per KWh.

Perhaps that you mean $400 per KW capacity? Even that seems odd: $400 of capital investment - let alone the variable costs of fuel to power it - to produce something can only supply a single 1 bar electric fire?

Toodle Pip!
PG

Tim adds: Yes, I do get horribly confused by units of measurement. No scientific education to speak of you see. The $400 is correct, the target being reached five years early is correct but the unit is obviously cocked.

Posted by: The Pedant-General | Oct 3, 2005 11:48:19 AM

But what about the total carbon budget? How does that compare to an equivalent, conventional generation source?

Ditto the fuel. Every time I read about fuel cells they go on about how they use no fossil fuels, just hydrogen and oxygen and produce only water. But neither hydrogen nor oxygen occur naturally so they must be extracted somehow. How much energy does this require?

Or am I just showing my stupidity to a wider public than normal?

RM

Tim adds: Legitimate questions so not foolish at all. The O comes from the atmosphere. H ...that’s a whole another subject. Many different methods being used, from bacteria to a sunlight/cabon/zinc oxide reaction to nuclear for electrolysis to coal gassification to TiO2 roof tiles to windmills.

Posted by: Remittance Man | Oct 3, 2005 1:57:22 PM

Thanks

It's my cynical nature, but working on the principle that theere ain't no free lunches unless you're a politician, I've always thought there must be some sort of downside environmentwise even if it is quite small.

RM

Posted by: Remittance Man | Oct 3, 2005 5:35:50 PM

Tim, is the 850C/750C the preferred operating temperature for the fuel cell, or a consequence of an inefficient conversion to electricity, and a lot of energy being wasted as heat ?
Assuming the fuel for the fuel cell is hydrogen, why is this system better than just burning the hydrogen in the turbine ?
And do you happen to know how much of the $100mn is public money ?

Sorry to sound so suspicious. I truly would love this sort of technology to work. It's just that I am deeply suspicious of what happens when government money perverts the R&D process. There is an old engineer's saying about when your only tool is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails. It seems rather appropriate when Rolls Royce have the bright idea of sticking a turbine on a fuel cell - hardly an obvious match.

Posted by: fFreddy | Oct 3, 2005 11:32:01 PM