Ultra-Clean, Efficient, Reliable Power

Electrochemical Membrane for CO2 Capture and Power Generation

No. DE-FE0007634

Hossein Ghezel-Ayagh FuelCell Energy, Inc.

2012 NETL CO2 Capture Technology Meeting

July 9, 2012 Pittsburgh, PA

FuelCell Energy, Inc.

Premier developer of stationary fuel cells with >40 years of experience

Headquarters and R&D in Danbury, CT (USA), manufacturing facility in Torrington, CT (USA)

Delivering Direct FuelCell® (DFC®) power plants for On-Site Power and Utility Grid Support

Over 80 Direct FuelCell plants generating power at more than 50 sites globally

Established commercial relationships with major distributors in the Americas, Europe, and Asia

1.4 MW plant at a municipal building

2.4 MW plant owned by an Independent power producer

600 kW plant at a food processor

11.2 MW plant - largest fuel cell park in the world

Delivering ultra-clean baseload distributed generation globally

Manufacture Sell (direct & via partners) Install Services

Electrochemical Membrane (ECM) Technology

CH4 + 2H2O 4H2 + CO2

ANODE CATALYST

CATHODE CATALYSTCATHODE

ELECTROLYTE

INTERNAL REFORMING

H2 + CO3= H2O + CO2 + 2e-

1/2O2 + CO2 + 2e- CO3=

ANODE

NATURAL GAS/BIOGAS

CO3=

e-

e-

STEAM

FLUE GAS

HEAT

CO2 DEPLETED GAS

CAPTURED CO2,H2, H2O

CH4 + 2H2O 4H2 + CO2

ANODE CATALYST

CATHODE CATALYSTCATHODE

ELECTROLYTE

INTERNAL REFORMING

H2 + CO3= H2O + CO2 + 2e-

1/2O2 + CO2 + 2e- CO3=

ANODE

NATURAL GAS/BIOGAS

CO3=

e-

e-

STEAM

FLUE GAS

HEAT

CO2 DEPLETED GAS

CAPTURED CO2,H2, H2O

Net Result • Simultaneous Power Production and CO2 Separation from Flue Gas of an Existing Facility

• Excess Process Water Byproduct • Complete Selectivity towards CO2 as Compared to N2

(CO2/N2 Selectivity = ∞)

The driving force for CO2 separation is electrochemical potential of fuel on the anode side versus pressure differential across the membrane

ECM Assembly

ECM Stack Four-Stack Module Enclosed Module

ECM Module Assembly

Planar Electrochemical Membrane Assemblies Are Stacked and Incorporated into MW-scale Modules.

ECM is a modular technology: • Ease of scale up and transport • Suitable for incremental phased applications to almost any type

of CO2-emitting plant

DE-FE0007634 Project Outline

Demonstrate the ability of FCE’s electrochemical membrane (ECM)-based system

to separate ≥ 90% of the CO2 from a simulated PC flue-gas stream and to compress the CO2 for sequestration or beneficial use

Demonstrate that the ECM system is an economical alternative for post-combustion CO2 capture in PC-based power plants, and that it meets DOE objectives for incremental cost of electricity (COE)

FuelCell Energy Inc. (FCE) System design, GAP analysis, ECM fabrication, and bench-scale testing of an 11.7 m2 area electrochemical membrane system for CO2 capture.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Test effects of flue gas contaminants on ECM.

URS Corporation Review ECM-based system design, equipment and plant costing, and flue gas clean-up system design.

Overall Project Objectives:

Project Participants:

Project Performance Dates: 10/01/2011 to 12/31/2014 Funding: Government Share = $2,434,106, FCE Cost Share = $758,527

CEPACS System Block Flow Diagram Combined Electric Power and Carbon-dioxide Separation (CEPACS) System Concept

Implementation for 550 MW Reference PC Plant (Case 9)*

* Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy Plants, Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity, Revision 2, DOE/NETL-2010/1397, November 2010.

CEPACS system design produces: • Supercritical CO2 ( 90% Carbon capture from PC Plant) • Excess Process Water • Additional 441 MW of clean AC power @ 44.4% Efficiency (based on LHV Natural Gas)

CEPACS System Performance

• CEPACS System increases power output of Baseline PC plant by 80% • PC plant retrofitted with CEPACS system is 3 percentage points more efficient

than Baseline PC Plant without carbon capture

550,020 549,960

991,172

36.80%

26.20%

39.82%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

PC w/o CO2 cap PC w/ Amine CO2 cap PC + CEPACS

Net

Pla

nt E

ffic

ienc

y, H

HV

%

Net

Pla

nt P

ower

Out

put,

kW

CEPACS System Performance: Emissions and Water Usage

0.0858

0.0017 0.0006

0.07 0.07

0.01440.013 0.013

0.0039

10.7

20.4

8.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

PC w/o CO2 cap PC w/ Amine CO2 cap PC + CEPACS

Wat

er U

sage

, gpm

/MW

net

Emis

sion

s, lb

/MM

Btu

SO2

NOx

Particulate Matter

Water Usage

• PC plant retrofitted with CEPACS system emits <40% amount of CO2 per unit of electricity (MWhr) as compared to a PC plant retrofitted with Amine scrubber

• PC plant retrofitted with CEPACS system has lower emissions of NOx, SOx, and Hg than a PC plant retrofitted with Amine scrubber for CO2 capture

• CEPACS system produces excess process water, reducing the total plant water usage

$59.89

$14.22

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

PC w/ Amine CO2cap

PC + CEPACSCo

st o

f CO

2 Ca

ptur

ed, $

/ton

CEPACS System Economics

• PC plant retrofitted with CEPACS system can meet the DOE incremental COE target of 35%

• Cost of CO2 capture for PC plant retrofitted with CEPACS system is 4x lower than for Amine scrubber case

59.4

109.6

80.5

84.3%

35.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

PC w/o CO2 cap PC w/ Amine CO2cap

PC + CEPACS

Incr

emen

tal C

OE

(Cas

e 1

Basi

s), %

COE,

mill

s/kW

h (2

007$

)

CO2 TS&M CostsCapital CostsFixed CostsVariable CostsFuel Costs

Future Project Work

Membrane Testing to Optimize System Performance

Evaluate Effects of Contaminants on ECM Performance

Detailed Thermo-Economics and GAP Analyses

Technical EH&S review to assess the environmental friendliness

Fabricate bench-scale 11.7m2 membrane module capturing carbon

dioxide and producing ~10kW Oxidant

OutPipe

Cathode OutManifold(Back)

Fuel TurnManifold

Corner ‘A’ Corner ‘D’Fuel OutManifold

CathodeIn

Face

Cathode (+)End PlateAnode (-)End Plate

FuelIn IIR

FuelOutPipe Voltage

LeadsThermalCoupleLeads

Base

OxidantOutPipe

Cathode OutManifold(Back)

Fuel TurnManifold

Corner ‘A’ Corner ‘D’Fuel OutManifold

CathodeIn

Face

Cathode (+)End PlateAnode (-)End Plate

FuelIn IIR

FuelOutPipe Voltage

LeadsThermalCoupleLeads

Base

10 kW ECM stack installed on a

base

Multiple button cells in furnace

each with individual gas

flow and electrical controls

250 cm2 ECM test cell

44 MW ECM cluster 930 ton CO2/day

Power Generation: ~1150 kWh/ton CO2

Summary & Commercialization Prospects

• ECM, derived from commercially proven Direct FuelCell® technology, provides a unique alternative for CO2 capture.

• ECM cost is coming down with the growth in manufacturing: > Growing annual production: From 4 MW

in 2003 to 56 MW in 2011.

• Utilization of ECM technology in large scale fuel cell systems demonstrates the viability of carbon capture for centralized PC and NGCC plants.

Hwaseong, South Korea 60MW system in Development

Fuel Cell Manufacturing Facility, Torrington, CT

Thank You!

Acknowledgement DOE/NETL support, with special thanks to: Jose Figueroa, Lynn Brickett, and Shailesh Vora