Noriko Hikosaka Behling

Fuel Cells

Current Technology Challenges and Future Research Needs

• Gebundenes Buch

Produktbeschreibung

This book is a one of a kind, definitive reference source for technical students and researchers, government policymakers, and business leaders. It provides an overview of past and present initiatives to improve and commercialize fuel cell technologies. It provides context and analysis to help potential investors assess current fuel cell commercialization activities and future prospects. Most important, it gives top executive policymakers and company presidents with detailed policy recommendations as to what should be done to successfully commercialize fuel cell technologies.

Produktdetails

• Verlag: Elsevier Health Sciences
• Seitenzahl: 704
• Erscheinungstermin: 5. Dezember 2012
• Englisch
• Abmessung: 244mm x 197mm x 35mm
• Gewicht: 1581g
• ISBN-13: 9780444563255
• ISBN-10: 0444563253
• Artikelnr.: 36373046

Autorenporträt

Dr. Noriko Behling graduated from Tokyo University of Education in Japan with a BA in philosophy. As a Fulbright scholar, she studied linguistics at Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Hawaii, where she earned an MA degree. Subsequently, she studied at Kyushu University in Japan and earned a PhD degree in urban and environmental engineering. She worked for the Central Intelligence Agency as a senior analyst and information officer for 20 years. She produced research papers and current assessments in many policy areas, including defense, science and technology, economic policy, and trade issues. Ms. Behling analyzed functional and technical issues, including program analysis, risk assessment, program cost estimation, and global science and technology developments. She also worked in the private sector for ten years, providing consulting services and analytic support to the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community in the areas of information technology, nuclear energy, and global environmental technology policy issues, including fuel cell technology, low emission vehicles, and hydrogen energy technology. She assisted the National Security Council to formulate two major R&D policy initiatives implemented by the Department of Energy, the FreedomCar Initiative and the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative.

Inhaltsangabe

PrefaceChapter 1. Introduction1.1. William Grove Invents the Fuel Cell1.2.
Fuel Cells: Commercial Success Remains Elusive1.3. The Unfulfilled Promise
References
Chapter 2. Fuel Cells and the Challenges Ahead 2.1. What Is A Fuel Cell?
2.1.1. The Unit Cell: A Simple But Formidable Device 2.1.2. Fuel Cell
Stacks: Planar or Tubular Designs 2.1.3. Fuel Cell Systems 2.2. Types Of
Fuel Cells: Distinct Technologies 2.3. Polymer Electrolyte Membrane Fuel
Cells 2.3.1. Principles of Operation and Characteristics 2.3.2. Another
Daunting Problem: Electrolyte Performance 2.3.3. Challenges with Transport
Applications 2.4. Direct Methanol Fuel Cells 2.4.1. Principles of Operation
and Characteristics 2.4.2. Experiencing the Same Problems as PEMFCs And
More 2.4.3. Challenges with Portable Applications 2.5. Alkaline Fuel Cells
2.5.1. Principles of Operation and Characteristics 2.5.2. An Early Success,
Major Setbacks, Then Redemption, But... 2.6. Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells
2.6.1. Principles of Operation 2.6.2. The Presumptive "First Generation"
Commercial Fuel Cell 2.6.3. Inferior and Expensive 2.7. Molten Carbonate
Fuel Cells 2.7.1. Principles of Operation 2.7.2. The Presumptive "Second
Generation" Commercial Fuel 2.7.3. Not Durable Enough and Still Expensive
2.8. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells 2.8.1. Principles of Operation and
Characteristics 2.8.2. An Early Favorite: High Temperature Tubular Cells
2.8.3. Brief Exploration of High Temperature Planar Cells 2.8.4. The
Current Target: Intermediate Temperature Planar Cells, Many Problems
Remain2.8.5. Are Alternative Cell Designs Feasible? References
Chapter 3. History of Alkaline Fuel Cells 3.1. Overview 3.2. Francis T.
Bacon Builds The First Alkaline Fuel Cell 3.3. AFC Development in the
United States 3.3.1. United Technologies Corporation Achieves Spectacular
Success with AFCs in Space 3.3.2. Union Carbide Corporation: Vigorous
Efforts but No Successes 3.3.3. Allis Chalmers: Sharing the Same Fate as
UCC 3.4. AFC Development in Europe: Decades of Work With No Significant
Consequence..But Some Field Tests Continue 3.4.1. AFC Development in
Germany 3.4.2. AFC Development in France 3.4.3. AFC Development in Belgium:
Elenco 3.4.4. AFC Development in Sweden: ASEA 3.4.5. AFC Development in UK:
AFC Energy 3.5. AFC Development in Russia: Sustained Effort, But With
Little Commercial Success 3.5.1. Kiev Research and Production Association
"KVANT" 3.5.2. S.P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation RSC "ENERGIA"
3.5.3. Ural Electrochemical Integrated Plant 3.5.4. ZAO Independent Power
Technologies 3.5.5. No Commercial Success in the Near Term 3.6. AFC
Development in Japan: Limited Activities of No Consequence..But A New
Effort Emerges 3.6.1. Fuji Electric 3.6.2. Hitachi 3.6.3. Japan Storage
Battery 3.6.4. Sanyo 3.6.5. Panasonic 3.6.6. Daihatsu Motor References
Chapter 4. History of Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells 4.1. Overview 4.2. PAFC
Development in the United States: 25 Years of Government Programs Fail to
Produce a Cost-Competitive PAFC System4.2.1. US Army's PAFC Programs4.2.2.
US Air Force PAFC Programs4.2.3. PAFC Programs for Stationary Applications:
United Technologies Corporation (UTC) Prevails4.2.3.1. TARGET
Program4.2.3.2. GRI-DOE Project4.2.3.3. FCG-1 (Fuel Cell Generator 1)
Project4.2.4. Other PAFC Programs in the United States4.2.4.1.
Engelhard4.2.4.2. Energy Research Corporation (ERC)4.2.4.3.
Westinghouse4.2.5. PAFC Programs for Transport Applications: No
Successes4.2.6. US PAFC Subsidy Programs4.2.6.1. US Department of Defense
Demonstration Program4.2.6.2. DoD Climate Change Fuel Cell Rebate
Program4.2.6.3. Federal and State Tax Credit Programs Implemented4.2.7. A
Major New Hope Emerges.But Results in Little Consequence4.3. PAFC
Development in Japan4.3.1. Japanese Private-Sector PAFC Activities Begin in
the 1960s4.3.1.1. Japanese Utility Companies Engage in Field-Testing of US
PAFC Power Plants4.3.1.2. Japanese Electric Machinery Companies Launch PAFC
Development4.3.2. Japanese Government Launches PAFC Program in 19814.3.2.1.
METI's Moonlight Project4.3.2.2. Other METI PAFC Programs4.3.3. Government
and Private Sector Join Hands in Field Test Program4.3.3.1. METI PAFC Field
Test Program 4.3.3.2. Private-Sector Field-Test Activities4.3.4. Japanese
Fuel Cell Subsidy Programs: Funding One-Third to Two-Thirds of Acquisition
Cost4.3.5. PAFC Power Plants Are Not a Commercial Success4.3.6. Government
Evaluates PAFC R&D Program as Inadequate4.4. PAFC Development in Other
Countries: Primarily Test-Operating US and Japanese PAFC Power Plants4.4.1.
European Countries4.4.2. The Rest of the World4.4.3. Again, No Measurable
Commercial SuccessReferences
Chapter 5. History of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells 5.1. MCFC Effort Starts
in the Netherlands in the 1950S5.2. MCFC Development in the United
States5.2.1. Early Efforts5.2.1.1. The US Army: Early MCFC
Supporter5.2.1.2. The Institute of Gas Technology: Early MCFC
Developer5.2.2. The Department of Energy: Initiating MCFC R&D Program in
19755.2.2.1. MCFC Development Program in the 1980s: GE and UTC Emerge as
Prime Contractors5.2.2.2. MCFC Demonstration Program in the 1990s: Fuel
Cell Energy and M-C Power as Primary Developers5.2.3. Commercial Success
Still Uncertain5.3. MCFC Development in Japan5.3.1. Government Plays
Dominant Role-Limited Activities in Private Sector5.3.2. The Ministry of
Economy, Trade, and Industry Starts MCFC Development Program in
19815.3.2.1. Phase I MCFC Development (1981-1986): Five Companies
Participate in 10kW Stack Development5.3.2.2. Phase II MCFC Development
(1987-1999): Three Companies Participate in 200 kW Internal Reforming Stack
and 1000kW Pilot Plant Development5.3.2.3. Phase III MCFC Development
(2000-2004): Only One Company Remains5.3.3. MCFC Commercialization in Japan
Hopeless5.4. MCFC Development in Europe5.4.1. The Netherlands Revives
Europe's MCFC Development Effort in 19865.4.1.1. European Union Framework
Program Starts Funding Dutch MCFC Efforts in 1987-ECN Takes the
Lead5.4.1.2. The Netherlands Ends MCFC Development in 19995.4.2. Italy
Starts MCFC R&D also in 1986-Ansaldo Ricerche Takes the Lead5.4.2.1. EU
Framework Program Supporting the Italian MCFC Effort in 19875.4.2.2.
Ansaldo's MCFC Commercialization Phase Delayed5.4.3. Germany Starts MCFC
Development in 1988-MBB (Currently CFC Solutions) Takes the Lead5.4.3.1. EU
Framework Program Begins Supporting German MCFC Effort in 19905.4.3.2.
German Government's MCFC Demonstration Programs Bolsters HotModule
Installations5.4.3.3. CFC Solutions Shuts Down its MCFC Business in
December 20105.5. MCFC Development in South Korea5.5.1. South Korea Begins
MCFC Development in 19935.5.2. South Korea More Interested in Rapid
Acquisition of Foreign MCFC Technology for Domestic Economy and Export
Growth5.5.3. POSCO's MCFC Strategy Still Unfolding.Too Early to Predict the
OutcomeReferences
Chapter 6. History of Solid Oxide Fuel Cells 6.1. Introduction6.2. US
Department of Energy Initiates SOFC R&D Program in 19776.2.1. DOE Taps
Westinghouse to be Global Leader of SOFC Technology6.2.1.1. Westinghouse
Makes Major Technological Advances in 19956.2.1.2. Siemens Acquires
Westinghouse and Launches Ambitious Commercialization Plans
(1997-2002)6.2.1.3. Siemens Westinghouse Hits Technical Barriers in the
2000s..Validation of Tubular SOFC Technology Fails6.2.1.4. Siemens
Westinghouse Abandons Tubular SOFC Commercialization, Shuts Down Fuel Cell
Business, September 30, 20106.2.2. DOE Launches SECA Program in 2001 in
Search of New SOFC Technology6.2.2.1. SECA Sets Off Renewal of Global
Interest in SOFCs6.2.2.2. SECA Soon Encounters Tough Challenges6.2.2.3.
Development of Commercially Viable SOFCs Under SECA Unlikely6.2.3.
Meanwhile, Many US Companies Launch SOFC Development Activities6.2.3.1.
Acumentrics6.2.3.2. Allied Signal Aerospace6.2.3.3. Bloom Energy6.2.3.4.
Ceramatec6.2.3.5. Cummins Power Generation6.2.3.6. Delphi6.2.3.7. FuelCell
Energy/Versa Power System6.2.3.8. General Electric6.2.3.9.
Protonex6.2.3.10. Rolls Royce Fuel Cell Systems6.2.3.11. Siemens
Westinghouse Power Corporation6.2.3.12. SOFCo6.2.3.13. Technology
Management, Inc6.2.3.14. UTC Power/Delphi6.2.3.15. Ztek6.2.4. US Global
SOFC Leadership Position Has Largely Eroded6.3. Japan Launches SOFC
Research in Wake of Oil Crisis6.3.1. METI Begins Modest Funding of Basic
SOFC Research in 19746.3.2. METI Launches Long-Term SOFC R&D Programs in
19896.3.2.1. SOFC R&D Program Phase I (1989-1991)6.3.2.2. SOFC R&D Program
Phase II (1992-1997)6.3.2.3. SOFC R&D Program Phase II Extension
(1998-2000)6.3.2.4. SOFC R&D Program Phase III (2001-2004)6.3.3. MITI
Begins Ambitious System Technology Development Program (2004-2007) in
20046.3.3.1. System Development Program (2004-2007)6.3.3.2. Component
Technology Development Program (2005-2007)6.3.3.3. The Post-Program
Evaluation Report Judges the 2004-2007 SOFC R&D Program to be an Overall
Failure6.3.4. SOFC Demonstration Research Program (2007-2010): A New Hope
for Near-Term SOFC Commercialization6.3.4.1. Program Helps SOFC Industry
Grow6.3.4.2. Program Results Are Mixed6.3.5. METI Institutes
"Back-to-Basics" Research Program (2008-2012)6.3.5.1. Program is Subject to
Serious Constraints6.3.6. Still Japanese SOFC Developers Press on with
Their Commercialization Plans6.3.6.1. Acumentrics Japan6.3.6.2. National
Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology6.3.6.3. Central
Research Institute of Electric Power Industry6.3.6.4. Fuji Electric6.3.6.5.
Fujikura Cable6.3.6.6. Kyocera: The Leading SOFC Player in Japan
Today6.3.6.7. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries6.3.6.8. Mitsubishi Materials
Corporation/Kansai Electric6.3.6.9. Mitsui Engineering and
Shipbuilding6.3.6.10. Murata Manufacturing/Osaka Gas6.3.6.11. NGK
Insulators/J-Energy/Sumitomo Precision Products6.3.6.12. NGK Spark
Plugs/AIST/Fine Ceramic Research Association/Toho Gas6.3.6.13. JX Nippon
Oil & Energy/Kyocera6.3.6.14. Nippon Telegraph and Telephone (NTT)6.3.6.15.
Sanyo Electric6.3.6.16. Toho Gas/Sumitomo Precision Products/Nippon
Shokubai/Daiichi Kigenso6.3.6.17. Tonen6.3.6.18. TOTO/Hitachi/Kyushu
Electric/Nippon Steel6.3.7. Japan's Initiatives Approach Critical Mass6.4.
Europe Restarts SOFC Development in 19866.4.1. Denmark6.4.1.1. Risø and
Haldor Topsoe: Developmental Work in Partnership6.4.1.2. Forming a
Consortium in 2001 for SOFC Commercialization6.4.1.3. Forming a Topsoe Fuel
Cell for SOFC Commercialization in 20046.4.1.4. Topsoe Fuel Cell Achieves a
Number of Milestones6.4.1.5. But No discernible commercial Success6.4.2.
Finland 6.4.2.1. Wärtsilä Starts SOFC Development in 2000 But Soon Chooses
to Outsource SOFC Stacks6.4.2.2. Wärtsilä Optimistic about
Commercialization of WFC20 and WFC50 Units6.4.2.3. But Technology Yet to be
Validated6.4.3. Germany6.4.3.1. Asea Brown Boveri (ABB): Started SOFC R&D
in 1968, Ended in 19936.4.3.2. BMW: Begins SOFC R&D in Late 1990s, Ends in
Late 2000s6.4.3.3. Dornier: Begins SOFC R&D in 1988, Ends in 19956.4.3.4.
Forschungszentrum Julich6.4.3.5. H.C. Starck/Staxera/Webasto
(Enerday)6.4.3.6. Siemens Efforts: Rise and Fall in 50 years6.4.4. The
Netherlands6.4.4.1. ECN Starts SOFC Activities in 1987 6.4.4.2. ECN forms
InDEC, a spin-off SOFC Ceramic Component Production Company, in 1999
6.4.4.3. InDEC Acquired by German Company H.C. Starck6.4.5.
Switzerland6.4.5.1. HTceramix Starts as a University Spin-Off in
20006.4.5.2. Sulzer/Sulzer Hexis/Hexis6.4.6. United Kingdom6.4.6.1. Alstom:
Started SOFC R&D in Mid-1990s, Ended in Early 2000s6.4.6.2. Ceres
Power6.4.6.3. Rolls Royce Fuel Cell Systems6.4.7. Europe Lacks Clear SOFC
Strategy6.5. Other Countries6.5.1. Australia 6.5.1.1. CSIRO establishes
Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited in 19926.5.1.2. CFCL Develops Pre-Commercial
Demonstration Units in 2005-Creates Major Interest among Utilities6.5.1.3.
CFCL Establishes Large-Scale Manufacturing Facilities and Component Supply
Chains in Europe6.5.1.4. CFCL Launches New Commercial Product-2 kW
BlueGenPower Plant6.5.1.5. Commercial Success Not Yet Guaranteed6.4.4.1.
ECN Starts SOFC Activities in 19876.4.4.2. ECN forms InDEC, a spin-off SOFC
Ceramic Component Production Company, in 1999 6.4.4.3. InDEC Acquired by
German Company H.C. Starck6.4.5. Switzerland6.4.5.1. HTceramix Starts as a
University Spin-Off in 20006.4.5.2. Sulzer/Sulzer Hexis/Hexis6.4.6. United
Kingdom6.4.6.1. Alstom: Started SOFC R&D in Mid-1990s, Ended in Early
2000s6.4.6.2. Ceres Power6.4.6.3. Rolls Royce Fuel Cell Systems6.4.7.
Europe Lacks Clear SOFC Strategy6.5. Other Countries 6.5.1. Australia
6.5.1.1. CSIRO establishes Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited in 19926.5.1.2. CFCL
Develops Pre-Commercial Demonstration Units in 2005-Creates Major Interest
among Utilities6.5.1.3. CFCL Establishes Large-Scale Manufacturing
Facilities and Component Supply Chains in Europe6.5.1.4. CFCL Launches New
Commercial Product-2 kW BlueGen Power Plant6.5.1.5. Commercial Success Not
Yet Guaranteed6.5.5. India 6.5.5.1. Central Glass and Ceramic Research
Institute6.5.5.2. Too Early to Foretell Future Outcome6.6. Japan Emerges as
the Global SOFC Leader; the United States and Europe Follow Behind6.6.1.
Japan Promotes Close Public-Private Collaboration, Greater Breadth of
Industrial Expertise and Infrastructure6.6.2. The United States Loses Its
Edge Through the Slow Erosion of Its Base6.6.3. Europe Is Fragmented,
Uncoordinated, and Ineffective6.6.4. But No Country Has a Viable SOFC
Product YetReferences
Chapter 7. History of Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells and Direct
Methanol Fuel Cells7.1. Introduction 7.2. US National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Boosts GE'S PEMFC R&D in the late 1950S 7.2.1. GE PEMFCs
Fail Manned Space Mission in the late 1960s 7.2.2. New Nafion Membrane
Increases PEMFC Efficiency. But GE Abandons PEMFC Effort in 19847.3.
Canadian Government Decides to Foster Domestic PEMFC Capabilities in the
Early 1980s 7.3.1. Canada's Defense Department Commissions Ballard to
Advance GE's PEMFC Technology in 1983 7.3.1.1. Second Contract Makes Marked
Advances toward Practical Applications of PEMFCs 7.3.2. Canada's Energy
Department Sponsors Ballard to Develop PEM Fuel Cell Bus in 1990 7.3.3.
Ballard Becomes the Global PEMFC Leader 7.3.3.1. Ballard/Daimler-Benz/Ford
Fuel Cell Car Alliance Formed in 1997 7.4. A Global Fuel Cell Race Begins
7.4.1. Major Global Automakers and Bus Manufacturers Join the Race 7.4.1.1.
Beijing LN Green Power Company (China) 7.4.1.2. Daihatsu 7.4.1.3.
Daimler-Benz (DaimlerChrysler) 7.4.1.4. Dalian Institute of Chemical
Physics (DCIP) (China) 7.4.1.5. EvoBus 7.4.1.6. Fiat 7.4.1.7. Ford7.4.1.8.
General Motors 7.4.1.9. Gillig 7.4.1.10. Hino 7.4.1.11. Honda 7.4.1.12.
Hyundai 7.4.1.13. Irisbus 7.4.1.14. Man Nutzfahrzeuge (MAN Trucks and Bus)
7.4.1.15. Mazda 7.4.1.16. Mitsubishi Motors 7.4.1.17. NEOPLAN 7.4.1.18. New
Flyer Industries 7.4.1.19. Nissan7.4.1.20. Nova Bus 7.4.1.21. PSA Peugeot
Citroen 7.4.1.22. Renault 7.4.1.23. Scania 7.4.1.24. Suzuki 7.4.1.25. Thor
Industries (ThunderPower) 7.4.1.26. Toyota 7.4.1.27. Tongji University
(China) 7.4.1.28. Tsinghua University (China) 7.4.1.29. Van Hool 7.4.1.30.
Volkswagen 7.4.2. Many Governments Join the Race to Boost Domestic PEMFC
Capabilities 7.4.2.1. Japanese Government Begins Modest R&D Investment in
1992 7.4.2.2. US Government Launches Ambitious Fuel Cell Car and Hydrogen
Technology Initiatives in 2002 7.4.2.3. Europe Recognizes Global Fuel Cell
Challenge in Late 1990s 7.4.2.4. Other Governments 7.5. The Global Fuel
Cell Race So Far Fails to Attain Commercial Success 7.5.1. Transportation
Applications 7.5.1.1. Passenger Cars 7.5.1.2. Buses 7.5.1.3. Material
Handling Vehicles 7.5.1.4. Other Transport Applications (Scooters, Bikes,
Trains, Marine Vessels, and Aircraft)...Perhaps No Near-Term Commercial
Success 7.5.2. Stationary Applications Shore up Only Two Notable Markets
7.5.2.1. Small Residential Combined Heat and Power Market in Japan
Sustained by Government Subsidies 7.5.2.2. Backup Power (UPS/Emergency
Power/Remote Power) Market in the United States... With Potential Success
in the Near Term7.5.3. Portable Fuel Cell Applications 7.5.3.1. Consumer
Electronic Devices Not Yet Commercially Viable 7.5.3.2. Major Success in
Toys and Educational Systems...and Beyond 7.5.3.3. SFC Energy: The Global
Leader in Portable Auxiliary Power Unit Applications 7.5.4. Conclusion: An
Unexpected and Disconcerting Trend 7.5.4.1. Perhaps Current Fuel Cell
Technology Is Only Adequate for Niche Market Applications 7.5.4.2. And Not
Mature Enough for Primary Market Applications 7.5.4.3. Incremental
Improvement Unlikely to Deliver Near-Term Commercial Success in Primary
MarketsReferences
Chapter 8. Strengths and Weaknesses of Major Government Fuel Cell R&D
Programs: Europe, Japan, and the United States 8.1. Fuel Cell R&D
Expenditure: Japan Invests The Most 8.1.1. Government R&D Funding: Japan
Outspends the United States and Europe 8.1.2. Private-Sector R&D
Investment: Japanese Government and Industry Together Outspend the United
States by a Factor of Two; European Government and Industry Together
Outspend the United States by 50 percent 8.2. Consistency In Policy And
Programs: Japan Is The Most Constant And Stable 8.3. Soundness Of Program
Evaluation: US Evaluation Is The Least Valuable 8.4. Resilience In
Industry: Europe Is The Least Sturdy 8.4.1. Alkaline Fuel Cells 8.4.2.
Phosphoric Acid Fuel Cells 8.4.3. Molten Carbonate Fuel Cells 8.4.4. Solid
Oxide Fuel Cells 8.4.5. Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cells 8.5. Fuel Cell
Patenting Activity 8.5.1. Japan Grants the Largest Number of Fuel Cell
Patents in 2010 8.5.2. Japanese Corporations Expand Dominance in Fuel Cell
Patent Activity During the Past Decade 8.6. The Global Fuel Cell Leader
Today References
Chapter 9. Policy Recommendations 9.1. Difficulties Of Perfecting Fuel Cell
Technology Never Understood9.2. Until Recently, Science And Physics Too
Immature For Fundamental Understanding Of Fuel Cell 9.3. Fuel Cell
Knowledge Requires Multiple Scientific Disciplines...But Few Institutions
Have Interdisciplinary Research Capabilities 9.3.1. The United States
Starts a Small Interdisciplinary PEMFC Basic Research Center in 2007 9.3.2.
Japan Launches an Interdisciplinary PEMFC Basic Research Project in 2010
9.3.3. Small Budgets, Short Deadlines, and Overarching Goal of
Commercialization Might Inhibit Basic Research 9.4. Fuel Cell Development
Requires Three Levels Of Research: Basic Research Supported By Applied
Research And Product Development 9.4.1. Forschungszentrum Julich Assigned
to Lead EU FP6 Real-SOFC Project to Address Degradation in 2004 9.4.2. AIST
Assigned to Lead SOFC Basic Research Project to Address Degradation in 2008
9.4.3. .But Basic Research Limited by Serious Constraints 9.5. Fuel Cell
Too Valuable To Abandon: Go Back To Basics Now 9.6. Learning from Past
Experience To Plan Future Course Of Action 9.6.1. Past Spending 9.6.2. An
Exemplar in History: The Manhattan Project 9.6.2.1. Preceded by Nobel
Prize-Class Nuclear Fission Basic Research in the 1930s 9.6.2.2. The
Manhattan Project-An Applied Research and Development Project-Began in 1939
9.7. Policy Recommendations: Implementation Of The National Fuel Cell
Development Project 9.7.1. Basic Research: A Central and Vital Mission
9.7.2. Budget and Research Period: $2 Billion a Year for 5 Years 9.7.3.
Giving a New Mission to National and Industry R&D Labs 9.7.3.1. Appointing
Selected National Laboratories, Universities, and Their Research Cadre for
Basic Research: At least 2000 Top-Notch Scientists and Physicists from All
Related Disciplines 9.7.3.2. Enlisting Fuel Cell Industry for Applied
Research and Product Development 9.7.4. The NFCDP as Top National Energy
Security Priority 9.7.5. Three Possible National Options for the NFCDP
Project Implementation 9.7.5.1. German Option 9.7.5.2. Japanese
Option9.7.5.3. US Option 9.7.6. The Outlook-Japan Will Likely Emerge as
First Global Fuel Cell Market Leader for the Next Decade-But the World Will
Be the Ultimate Winner References