Commercializing fuel cells: managing risks

Abstract Commercialization of fuel cells, like any other product, entails both financial and technical risks. Most of the fuel cell literature has focussed upon technical risks, however, the most significant risks during commercialization may well be associated with the financial funding requirements of this process. Successful commercialization requires an integrated management of these risks. Like any developing technology, fuel cells face the typical ‘Catch-22’ of commercialization: “to enter the market, the production costs must come down, however, to lower these costs, the cumulative production must be greatly increased, i.e. significant market penetration must occur”. Unless explicit steps are taken to address this dilemma, fuel cell commercialization will remain slow and require large subsidies for market entry. To successfully address this commercialization dilemma, it is necessary to follow a market-driven commercialization strategy that identifies high-value entry markets while minimizing the financial and technical risks of market entry. The financial and technical risks of fuel cell commercialization are minimized, both for vendors and end-users, with the initial market entry of small-scale systems into high-value stationary applications. Small-scale systems, in the order of 1–40 kW, benefit from economies of production — as opposed to economies to scale — to attain rapid cost reductions from production learning and continuous technological innovation. These capital costs reductions will accelerate their commercialization through market pull as the fuel cell systems become progressively more viable, starting with various high-value stationary and, eventually, for high-volume mobile applications. To facilitate market penetration via market pull, fuel cell systems must meet market-derived economic and technical specifications and be compatible with existing market and fuels infrastructures. Compatibility with the fuels infrastructure is facilitated by a separation of functions between stack convention and fuel processing, i.e. external reforming using low-cost, non-catalytic under-oxidized burners. Even for fuel cell technologies capable of internal reforming, the separation of functions offers the advantage of separate optimization of the fuel cell stack and fuel processor, leading to fuel flexibility and lower systems costs. The combination of small size fuel cells, high market values, low development and demonstration costs, low market entry costs, and availability of off-the-shelf balance-of-system components, provides a low financial and technical risk scenario for fuel cell commercialization.