1 / 16

Evaluating Fuel Cell Performance Through Industry Collaboration

Evaluating Fuel Cell Performance Through Industry Collaboration. BCC Conference March 31, 2003. Dan Bullock Fuel Cell Program Manager Houston Advanced Research Center 281-364-6087 dbullock@harc.edu. Fuel cell performance data is. Needed by many organizations including: End-users

vern
Download Presentation

Evaluating Fuel Cell Performance Through Industry Collaboration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating Fuel Cell Performance Through Industry Collaboration BCC Conference March 31, 2003 Dan Bullock Fuel Cell Program Manager Houston Advanced Research Center 281-364-6087 dbullock@harc.edu

  2. Fuel cell performance data is . . . • Needed by many organizations including: • End-users • Sub-component manufacturers • Fuel suppliers • Financial analysts • Funding entities • Educators • Regulators • ALL INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS

  3. Why do they need accurate data? • Develop business plans • Make sales forecasts • Compare technologies • Understand cost of ownership • Evaluate benefits • Verify manufacturer’s performance claims • Oversee utility fuel cell strategies • Educate the public

  4. Lack of data can result in: • Unexpected project costs • Schedule delays • Poor partnering and investment choices • Ineffective environmental policies and results • Non-optimal utility strategies • The speed of fuel cell commercialization depends upon access to objective, accurate performance data by all stakeholders.

  5. Collaborative Testing Upside • Reduces duplication of efforts • Spreads cost across many interested parties • Participants able to leverage limited resources • Participants gain access to information in advance of non-participants • Creates a forum to generate additional collaboration • Manufacturers get exposure to many potential buyers • Multi-party process helps develop uniform test protocols and procedures

  6. Collaborative Testing Downside • Participant gives up some R&D control in return for reduced costs • If the program does not meet a participant’s R&D goals • Lose participation fees • Lose time (to complete needed research in-house) • Manufacturer’s performance is highly visible • Could highlight poor performance

  7. Collaborative R&D Considerations • What advantages do participants receive? • Do all participants have equal fees, access, and authority? • How are decisions made regarding use of funds? • Is there a well defined, written research plan? • How are intellectual property rights handled? • Is there periodic evaluation against stated goals? • Can you quit in advance and recover funds?

  8. HARC Program Overview • Established in Jan. 2000 by 5 companies • Initial 3-year term • Program focused on PEM fuel cells • Program evaluated integrated FC systems • “Black box” evaluations protect Mfger’s IP • Data of interest includes performance snapshot, trend analysis, environmental factors, and cost of ownership

  9. Program Founders • Initial Members • Southern Company • ChevronTexaco • Walt Disney Imagineering R&D • DANA Corp • Salt River Project • Other Participants • NASA Johnson Space Center (non-funded technology consulting)

  10. HARC Role • Program and technical leadership • Trusted, third-party evaluator • Neutral regarding manufacturers and technologies • Lobbying is not part of Core Program • Assist manufacturers by: • Purchasing product • Providing engineering feedback • Providing access to participants

  11. Key Objectives • Measure electrical and thermal efficiency, stack emissions, and power quality • Evaluate performance and reliability impacts from the environment (temperature, humidity, salt air, etc.) • Evaluate technology lifetime, maintenance requirements, and cost of ownership • Analyze site issues and costs to install safely, consistent with codes and permit requirements

  12. Equipment Tested

  13. Lessons Learned • Need a formal planning cycle to ensure activities are focused on specific tasks supported by all participants • Need a formal evaluation process to ensure program is meeting stated R&D goals • Need well developed (written) contingency plans to provided needed flexibility in a changing market • Need a programmatic mechanism to ensure the program is not overly dominated by a small number of participants

  14. 2003 Programmatic Changes • Program now open to all stakeholders • Program funded by an annual sponsorship fee • Sponsorship fee supports “Core” program only • Core program broadened to include four non-test activities (contingency plans) • Test plan rewritten annually with mid-year evaluation and correction • Additional sponsors reduce risk for all participants (lower fee, reduced influence, etc.)

  15. 2003 Research Goals • Acquire and test up to $400K in new fuel cells • Initiate an applications engineering effort to evaluate C&I sites along the Gulf Coast • Identify the education needs of sponsors and create at least one professional short course of interest • Enhance the website and content • Initiate two Supplemental Projects to study issues not covered in the Core Program

  16. Opportunity at HARC • Obtain the technical information needed to develop fuel cell business strategies • Obtain “hands-on” experience with fuel cell systems • Exclusive use of proprietary data • Opportunity to develop business relationships with other participants • Opportunity to interact with and influence the direction of manufacturers

More Related