How efficient is the ammonia fuel cell?

I spoke with a fuel cell vendor yesterday in passing, and learned that essentially all current fuel cells "run" on hydrogen, but some have integral reformers for other fuels (generally with added complexity). Is this true for ammonia as well?

How reversible is the ammonia fuel cell process? A "battery" mode for a fuel cell would of course address many more applications, and integral reversibility would seem to me to be a holy grail of fuel cells.

Other more mundane considerations for ICE or fuel cell use would be the overall cycle efficiency and cost (ammonia creation from energy in to useful work out), reliability, cycle life, power load, operating characteristics, and so forth.

I know there have long been discussions about whether ammonia is "too dangerous" for refrigeration and transport applications. Is the prevailing view that it is "safe enough", compared to petro fuels, for vehicle or generator use?

I've honestly not paid attention to the ammonia fuel cell stuff. I've visited and wrote about the Hydrogen Engine Center, which has been running a Ford 300-6 on an ammonia/propane mixture in an irrigation application. They got 1,800 hours of operation this year and the only troubles were from third party components.

I will ask Dr. Holbrook about the forward/backward potential for the solid state ammonia synthesis process and I'll post his response here.

The ammonia guys think ammonia is safe enough. I missed the three presentations in this area because I had some Dakota wheat farmers cornered in the lobby talking about making ammonia from hydroelectric power. My opinion, at least from an ICE perspective, is that we ought to be running it as a farm fuel - there are the stage four requirements coming in 2011 and ammonia would dramatically reduce particulates.

My interest in alternative fuels is for telecom - not only my area of personal expertise but a necessary infrastructure asset in a post-oil world. A fuel cell at the right price point can replace backup generators today, but ammonia could potentially just run the ICE generator as well.

For these standby applications, maintenance is a significant issue, so a long-lived, high-reliability fuel cell would offer many advantages over ICE generators. With subsidies even hydrogen fuel cells come close to break-even, according to those doing trials. I need to look at cost numbers (fuel, engine/fuel cell, maintenance, support, etc.) for NH3 and better understand pros and cons.

A low-cost reversible process would permit a new set of applications that cannot be cost effectively addressed by batteries today. Peak shaving with off-peak charging would be the initial goal, followed by local charging with sporadic wind and solar. Flow batteries are the best option I've come up with so far, and I'm looking at costs for the vanadium solution now.

I'm 100% behind adding NH3 to the option list for wind storage -- that's going to be a critical need. Cost is important, but any process than can readily deal with the sporadic nature of wind can tolerate some added cost -- peak-ready loads are valuable just like on-demand generation in flattening out the supply/demand curves.

The large vanadium redox battery housed in a shed in King Island Australia seems to be a disappointment. The wind power system still requires frequent diesel backup as the battery merely buffers the output for a couple of hours. If a tungsten (scheelite) mine re-opens on the island it will be powered by an underwater alternating current cable fed from the State grid. They are also looking at seafloor mounted water turbines.

There seem to be some unpleasant intellectual property issues with vanadium, else surely more than a handful of companies directly tied to the original invention would be producing units?

On the one hand, I've seen low vanadium electrolyte costs estimated for large volumes, like $50 to $150 per kwh of capacity. On the other hand, I hear of very high system costs, and limited storage. For the example you state, it would seem to be a simple and cost-effective matter to just add a lot more vanadium flow storage, yet that seems not to be considered.

Volumes of scale and process refinement could likely help, but that requires some outside money and intellectual property access.

Here are vendor-stated costs for the vanadium battery:

The assumptions used for the cost of the 5 kW stack and the electrolyte system respectively
were:
Stack cost $5,410
Electrolyte cost $118 / KWh of storage
For example, for 8 hours or 40kWhs of energy storage, the electrolyte cost is $4,470 giving a total
capital cost of $10,150.

Unfortunately, they say this is a "target" based on volume manufacturing and a 2x sale-price mark-up. I don't know of many companies that survive on 2x for relatively high-tech products while supporting an engineering wing, so those numbers are probably a long time coming.

Note that time honoured lead-acid starter batteries for cars work out about $200 per kwh, albeit shallow draw and clunky. But no pumps, easy recycling.

The addition of capacitors to standard lead acid batteries together with some over-capacity transforms the lifespan of lead acid, as it is deep discharge which damages them:
http://alfin2100.blogspot.com/2008/01/ultracapacitor-battery-hybrid-elec...

Hi--

Fuel cells powered by ammonia are already being marketed in Europe by Diverse Energy Ltd for telecom and small diesel back-up applications. http://diverse-energy.com/who.html

These appear to be PEM type hydrogen fuel cells where the hydrogen is stored in the form of ammonia (or propane or hydrogen), and then cracked to hydrogen and nitrogen and purified for feed to the PEM fuel cell.

It is not clear at this point how the company generates the ammonia (i.e. wind, solar, or grid), but likely it is purchased merchant ammonia for now.

AFN

Thanks for the link.

Sounds complex, but a liquid fuel is sure a lot more palatable than gaseous. It will be interesting to compare full TCO for hydrogen vs ammonia or propane.

Ammonia has been used directly in solid oxide fuel cells and in cracked form (thermocatalytically split into H2 and N2) in lower-temperature polymer electrolyte fuel cells with typical 50% electrical efficiencies. Any well-designed fuel cell will be able to achieve this kind of chemical-to-electrical conversion efficiency. This efficiency level is very similar to those for hydrogen fuel cells, thanks to ammonia's small required energy for decomposition.

Nice to see a genuine expert showing up to comment on this area, since I'm pretty much helpless there.

You should write at length and further school us on this topic - a few more paragraphs wouldn't kill you, would it? :-)

Sure... I'm not much of a blogger but I'll check back now and then to see if there are any burning fuel cell questions.

But everybody should remember that a fuel cell is just the icing on the cake; using an ammonia-fueled device is the easy part - the real challenge is gaining acceptance for its use as a fuel in the first place.

A fuel cell gives you chemical-to-electric energy with less total losses than an ICE-powered genset, but at a greater capital cost. Fuel cell costs have come down quite a bit in the last several years, let's hope that trend continues!

I heard cost estimates this week of $7K per kilowatt for hydrogen fuel cells. Are NH3 cells similar? An ICE generator is of course significantly less. For low-run use, fuel cost is less significant than considerations such as fuel shelf life, genset total maintenance, run-time between planned maintenance events, and other factors that play into total cost of ownership.

Do NH3 fuel cells get the same incentives as H2?

This table illustrates fuel cell incentives for a few states, as compiled by BCI (a renewable energy vendor/integrater):

               Incentive                                        State        Federal
Federal         30% tax credit or $3,000 per KW                              30%
Connecticut     Local option property tax exemption             $405*  
Florida         75% tax credit of capital and        
                operating costs, up to $12,000 per unit         $12,000
                Sales tax exemption(6%)                         $1,169*
Maryland        30% tax credit or $1,000/kW         
                if fuel cells serve a green building            $5,000
New York        20% tax credit up to $1,500 per 
                unit; includes installation costs               $1,500
Washington      Sales tax exemption(7% -9.3%)                   $1,364*

At a fuel cell installed cost of $5K-$7K per kw, they show an advantage over batteries over the long-term for new-build application where a battery system would require a chassis and HVAC. This is perhaps not universally the case, so batteries will probably still "win" for some applications even with the incentives.