BOX 3-2: Arguments in Favor of an Inexpensive PEM Fuel CellA number of advocates of light-duty vehicle applications for fuel cells believe that fuel cell vehicles can
eventually have Iifecycle costs that are fully competitive with gasoline-fueled vehicles. The basis for this contention
is, generally, that the materials and manufacturing costs of fuel cell systems will be relatively inexpensive in mass
production, and that maintenance costs will be low and system longevity high because of the inherent nature of fuel
cell operation.
Critical fuel cell materials consist of the platinum catalyst, the flow field plates (currently made of graphite), and
the polymer electrolyte membrane. An important generic argument in favor of the potential for achieving large cost
reductions is that all of the current manifestations of these components were developed for completely different
applications. Developers believe that a process that takes specific fuel cell requirements and designs the
components for those requirements, with reduced costs a key goal, should readily succeed in lowering costs.
The catalysts on the Gemini space missions cost about $57,000 for a 40 kW fuel cell, with catalyst loading about
35 mg/cm^2. Ballard’s 1993 fuel cell bus had catalyst loadings of about 4 mg/cm^2 , and catalyst loadings of 0.1
mg/cm^2 have been achieved in individual cells at Los Alamos National Laboratory. If the latter loadings can be
transferred to a complete system, catalyst cost will clearly not be a problem for fuel cells. However, substantial
further development and testing will be needed to establish this low a catalyst loading. In particular, for methanol-
based systems, a catalyst system with very light platinum loading might be very sensitive to carbon monoxide
poisoning.
According to Los Alamos National Laboratory, graphite flow field plates currently cost about $270/kW and could
eventually cost about $14/kW in mass production,^1 an unacceptably high cost if fuel cell first cost is to approach
internal combustion engine costs. Fuel cell developers hope to use less expensive materials, e.g., aluminum or
plastics, to drastically reduce costs.^2 And the polymer electrolyte membranes, which now cost about $170/kW,^3 are
made in small quantities and may be made to higher specifications than are necessary for a fuel cell. Developers
hope to utilize mass-production techniques used to manufacture other thin film materials, as well as redesign of the
membrane specifications, to reduce costs by an order of magnitude or more.^4
Fuel cell advocates believe that fuel cell manufacture will not involve close tolerances and thus should not be
high in cost. Further, advocates argue that the fuel cell stack is basically composed of large numbers of identical
elements-in sharp distinction from internal combustion engines (ICES), which are composed of large numbers of
unique elements-that should increase the probability of obtaining substantial reductions in fuel cell fabrication and
assembly costs. Fuel cell cost projections reviewed by OTA’s contractor did not, however, contain descriptions or
evaluations of fuel cell mass production procedures, and important production issues remain to be resolved, for
example, sealing.5 Consequently, claims that manufacture will be at low cost, or the use by estimators of
(fabrication cost)/(materials cost) ratios appear premature.
Finally, some analyses of fuel cell vehicle life-cycle costs project very low operating and maintenance costs, and
high system life times, based on claimed advantages including:
. lack of moving parts in the fuel cell stack;
1M. Wilson et al., Los AlamosNationalLaboratory, “A Polymer Electrolyte Fuel Cell Stack for Stationary Power Generation," paper presented at
the DOE Hydrogen Program Review Meeting Apr. 18-21, 1995, Coral Gables, FL These estimatesare not Universally accepted; Chris Borroni- Bird
of Chrysler believes that Los Alamos’ estimatedcurrent cost is substantially too low, and that mass production with current designs and materials
would yield a $130/kW cost (personalcommunication Aug. 11, 1995). Ken Dircks of Ballard agrees that current coats are much higher than
$270/kW, and characterizes the $14/kW estimate as a reasonable target given new materials and design and mass production (personal
communication, Aug. 22, 1995).
2 J.M. Ogden et al., “A Technical and Economic Assessment of Renewable Transportation Fuels and Technologies” prepared for the Office of
Technology Assessment,May 27, 1994, table 4.5.
3 Wilson et al., see footnote 1.
4 Ogden, see footnote 2.
(^5) Borroni-Bird, see footnote 1.