Thank you for reposting the MRFC article link. Much has happened in R&D since 2010.
Since ERC is not mentioned specifically in this article, it is understood that Dr. Elod Gyenge’s remarks apply only to the Mixed Reactant Fuel Cell (MRFC)
[Swiss Roll Design/Dr. Oloman design] unless there are bona-fide articles elsewhere. This has been a little confusing in IHUB posts and hope it will be clearer here. DBFC is the general category of this new fuel cell type of which MRFC is one subset.
1. Dr. Gyenge confirmed that the MRFC of MVTG had significant cost improvements and efficiencies over other fuel cell types. This included the expensive membranes, bipolar plates and platinum anode catalysts.
2. Dr. Gyenge stated that there was a problem (challenge) with carbon monoxide poisoning of the anode catalyst which was “NOT ENTIRELY resolved” by others over 40 years. This also means that this situation was partly or mostly resolved. Nothing said it could not be resolved now.
3. Dr. Gyenge also stated that he and others are continuing to work on a much improved design that uses much less expensive/more efficient anodes. This area in conjunction with others as a total package “looks very promising” according to the article.
4. Previous PR’s, NR’s etc. have indicated that intensive R&D is continuing to be done by the professional MVTG research staff to improve, among other areas, this anode catalyst challenge of longevity, efficiency, cost, etc. In other words, move from a model T of several years ago to a Tesla. With Dr. Cyenge and others, this seems possible.
5. The MRFC is built modular, not as molded plastic single unit. Therefore, as a part may become unusable or be super-ceded by an improved version, it is fairly simple and inexpensive to replace it. The anode catalyst is one of these modular parts. A parallel example is a hot water heater with its replaceable anode. Non-platinum anodes for MRFC are much less expensive, thus becoming an operational supply item like other production machines have. I worked at the KC Bayer Agricultural Chemical Plant (Financial Analysis/Auditing/Costing some years ago and know that some of its operations had the same type of replaceable parts which were insignificant to the total cost of the equipment plant built or installed.
6. I recall that MVTG did an ROI study based on the current design of MRFC (no further anode improvements) with about a 20% annual return. If someone can supply the text or link, that would be appreciated. More improvements would increase the ROI.
7. The current non-plantinum anodes are projected to last about six months. R&D is working to significantly extend or resolve that time. (My own DD)
8. Thus EcoMike was correct. The anode situation is not a problem, durability or otherwise, just one of many items being improved upon as tests, engineering, R&D, etc. will shed light on. Whatever the current version of MRFC does in terms of efficiency or cost, one must compare that to the cost of no solution, very inefficient/expensive fuel cells (non-MRFC) or CCS. The alternatives are not pretty. Having seen the design, efficiencies, cost, etc.,… LaFarge, Alstom, Kemira, Noram and Government grants have voted with $ that this project worthy of ongoing investment as a part of their future. I trust their “hands-on” viewpoint vs others ideas.
