Catalysts for Sustainable Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles€¦ · Catalysts for Sustainable Fuel Cell...

Catalysts for Sustainable Fuel Cell Electric

Vehicles

Anusorn Kongkanand, Wenbin Gu, and Mark F. Mathias

General Motors,

Fuel Cell Business

IEA-TCP Advanced Fuel Cells, Berlin

November 15, 2017

Thanks to Kurt Wellenkotter, Venkata Yarlagadda, Mike Carpenter, Yun Cai,

Thomas E. Moylan, Wenbin Gu, Sonam Patel, Kathryn Stevick, Peter Harvey, Cristin Keary, Shruti Gondikar,

Ratandeep Kukreja, Roland Koestner, David Masten, Swami Kumaraguru

Partial Funding by the US DOE-EERE under grant DE-EE0007271

2

Electrification Technology Application Map

Light Load

ContinuousStop-and-go

High Load

City HighwayIntra-urban Highway-cycle

Drive Cycle

Du

ty C

ycle

Fuel Cell

E-REV

BEV

• Li-ion batteries and fuel cells (and combinations) have roles to play.

• The boundaries of these application spaces will be determined by economics.

2014

Cars with 120,000 milesFleet >3 M miles

GM’s Hydrogen Fuel Cell Milestones1964 to 2020+

Demonstrated progress achieving critical metrics, on path toward commercialization

Dynamic Load Following

Freeze

Power Density

300 mile Range

Fast (3 min.) Refueling

Durability

Cost Roadmap

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

✓

Investment - ManufacturingGM & Honda Announce Joint Manufacturing Venture

Gen 2 Fuel Cell System

Joint Fuel Cell Manufacturing Facility

• 50:50 Manufacturing Joint Venture (GM & Honda)• Announced January 30, 2017• Manufacturing Location: Brownstown Township, MI

• $85 Million initial investment, creating over 100 new jobs

• Fuel cell production expected around 2020• Extensive automation

• Product based upon shared Gen 2 development program

• Substantial cost reduction through design iterations & scale economies

• Technology becoming affordable for automotive applications

Emerging industrial/military applications looking to fuel cell

FUEL CELL PERFORMANCE FACTORS

STEALTH✓

HEAVY VEHICLE✓

LONG RANGE✓

FAST REFUELING✓

COLD & HOT AMBIENTS✓

• Early applications where fuel cell solves problems• Attractive in centrally fueled fleets with high vehicle usage

Extended Mission (Duration & Range – Months NOT Days)Increased Maneuvering PowerReduced Risk of Detection

• Low Acoustic & Thermal Signatures• No Smoke – Odorless (Water is Only Exhaust)

Reduced Recharging/Refueling Time (Minutes NOT Hours)Expanded Range of Operating Conditions

• Hot & Cold Environments• Without Performance Compromises

Simplified Logistics for Service/RepairIncreased Use of Diverse Energy Resources

• Undersea Hydrogen Generation & Fueling

Added Scalability• Range of Vehicle Architectures & Applications

Unmanned Undersea Fuel Cell OpportunitiesWhat can Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology Offer?

http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2016/oct/1003-zh2.html

• GM/ Army TARDEC (Tank Automotive Research, Development & Engineering Center

• Compared to HUMVEE• > off-road capability• Lower heat signature• Silent to 100 vs. 1,000 meters

• Full torque at launch• Exportable power for command or

medical facility• Produces 2 gallons of water per hour

Chevy Colorado ZH2 – Forbes, CNN, Maxim, Car & Driver, Defense News

Let’s Make Something Happen

Fuel Cell-Powered FlexibleTechnology Integration

SilentUtlityRoverUniversalSuperstructure

From Satyapal, DOE Annual Merit Review 2017

Affordable consumer vehicles are needed to grow H2 economy to the scale that drives cost down.

State-Of-The-Art Fuel Cell Vehicle

~35 gPt/vehicle

Significant reduction of Pt. But still much higher than ICE vehicles (<5 gPt/vehicle).

Requires very large radiator to reject waste heat (2x of ICE).

Cost is decreasing but very sensitive to volume.

From DOE AMR 2017, James et al. fc163

12

Mirai PtCo, 0.33 mgPt/cm2

Pt, 0.40 mgPt/cm2

H2/air, 94°C, 250/250 kPaabs,out, 65/65% RHin, st=1.5/2

DOE Target 0.44 A/mgPt

Performance of Proven Catalysts

Mirai PtCo cathode catalyst ORR mass activity is ~1.8x of Pt/C.

Shows slightly better fuel cell performance than older Pt/C electrode despite smaller Pt

loading.

Fuel Cell Propulsion System Cost Glide Path

• Now that we can build a durable and efficient fuel cell, our focus has been toward FCPS cost reduction and precious metal reduction.

14

Stack Cost and Pt Amount

As Pt loading decreases, fuel cell efficiency decreases.

Stack cost only declines until Pt loading is about 0.1 mgPt/cm2 (~10 gPt/vehicle), at which point the stack active area must rise to maintain sufficient efficiency.

Lower Pt amount does not always mean lower cost.

J. Phys. Chem. Lett. (2016) 1127.

10 g 30 g3 gPt per vehicle

15Roland Berger study, 2013

J. Phys. Chem. Lett. (2016) 1127.

❖ How much Pt in a wedding ring ?

Long-term Pt target is not about cost

Even at 10 g-Pt/veh, Pt demand/supply will shift, putting pressure on Pt price.

Need to cut Pt usage to the replacement level of IC engines (2-8 g-Pt/veh).

Is jewelry the optimal use of Pt ?

16

> 95% jewelry

80-90% industrial

50-55% automotive

5-10% electronics

Precious metal recycling >97% is technically feasible

and profitable.

Collecting components back from customers to the

refiners is the key in its life cycle.

Need change in public perspective from “waste

management” to “resource management”.

Likely need support from policy makers at many

levels.

Pt Life-Cycle

From Hagelüken, Platin. Met. Rev. 2012, 29

PEM Fuel Cell

1-3 H2O (drag)

H+

backdiffusion

H2OH2

H2O H2O

O2

2H2 4H+ + 4e‒ O2 + 4H+ + 4e‒ 2H2O

Anode CathodeMembraneDMBP BPDM

200 μm 200 μm10 μm 10 μm20 μm

e‒ e‒

Electrical Load

Normal operation

Full power Most performance loss occurs in the

cathode.

Under normal operation (low power),

mostly cathode kinetic loss

At higher power, electrode reaction

kinetics and O2/proton/water/heat

transports fully coupled.

18

a)

b) c)

H+

H2O

H2O

O2

O2 + 4H+ + 4e‒ 2H2O

CathodeMembrane BPDM

--

---

--

carbon

Pt

ionomer

O2

Large performance loss at high-current density is observed on low-Pt cathodes due to higher flux of

O2 per a given Pt area.

The ‘local O2 transport resistance’ dominates the mass transport related loss (purple) at HCD on low-

Pt electrode. Must be addressed.

Mass-transport voltage

losses at 1.75 A/cm2 on a

0.10 mgPt/cm2 cathode

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Vo

lta

ge (

V)

Current Density (A/cm²)

PtCo, 0.20

PtCo, 0.10

PtCo, 0.05

Lo

we

r P

t lo

ad

ing

Cathode

mgPt/cm2

H2/air, 94°C, 250/250 kPaabs,out, 65/65% RHin, st=1.5/2

O2

O2

J. Phys. Chem. Lett. (2016) 1127.

Challenge for Low-Pt Cathode: Local O2 Transport Resistance

19

Local Transport is Universal for all Dispersed Catalyst

𝑳𝒐𝒔𝒔 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒍𝒐𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆

∝𝑹𝑶𝟐,𝑷𝒕−𝒍𝒐𝒄𝒂𝒍

𝑬𝑪𝑺𝑨 ∙ 𝑷𝒕 𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 25 50 75 100 125

Vo

ltag

e a

t 1

.75

A/c

m2

MEA

(V)

r.f. (cm2-Pt/cm2

MEA)

Pt/CPtCo/CPtCo/C + new PFSA

NSTF

NSTF + 2nm PFSA

2 n

m io

no

mer

Improved ionomer-PtPtCo

PtNSTF

O2

O2

The ‘local O2 transport resistance’ rises inversely proportional to the available Pt area.

Voltage at high-current density drops precipitously below a roughness factor of ~50 (~0.1 mgPt/cm2 or

10 gPt/vehicle).

J. Phys. Chem. Lett. (2016) 1127.

20

For a well optimized electrode, one can predict the approximate performance at both low and high

current density from just two parameters : ORR activity and Pt surface area.

A catalyst must have a combination of oxygen reduction mass activity and Pt surface area that is

higher than these lines.

Catalysts with low surface area cannot meet the requirement.

Impact of Local Resistance on High-Power Performance

J. Phys. Chem. Lett. (2016) 1127.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 50 100 150

Mas

s A

ctiv

ity

(A/m

g Pt-

eq

v)

Pt Surface Area (m2/gPt-eqv)

0.62

0.60

0.58

0.48

0.56

0.54

Voltage at 2 A/cm2

Cathode Pt loading 0.10 mgPt/cm2

O2O2

𝑳𝒐𝒔𝒔 𝒇𝒓𝒐𝒎 𝒍𝒐𝒄𝒂𝒍 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆

∝𝑹𝑶𝟐,𝑷𝒕−𝒍𝒐𝒄𝒂𝒍

𝑬𝑪𝑺𝑨 ∙ 𝑷𝒕 𝒍𝒐𝒂𝒅𝒊𝒏𝒈RO2,local of 12 s/cm

21

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 50 100 150

Mas

s A

ctiv

ity

(A/m

g Pt-

eq

v)


0.05mg/cm2, 2.0A/cm2

0.10mg/cm2, 2.0A/cm2

0.10mg/cm2, 1.5A/cm2

NSTFMonolayer

Alloy/Dealloyed

DealloyedPtCo and

PtNi

NSTFPt3Ni7

Pt-ML/Pd

Pt-ML/PdWNi

OctahedralPtNi

Pt

0.10 mgPt/cm2, 2 A/cm2

0.10 mgPt/cm2, 1.5 A/cm2

In theory, current Pt-alloy catalyst is capable for giving 2 A/cm2 at 10 gPt system.

However, higher Pt surface area and ORR activity are needed for meeting requirement at

5 gPt system (unless we can further reduce the local resistance)

Higher ECSA and ORR activity remain highest priority.

Catalyst Roadmap for High-Power Performance

J. Phys. Chem. Lett. (2016) 1127.

~10 g of Pt per vehicle

~5 g of Pt per vehicle

RPt of 12 s/cm and 0.58 V requirement

22

A. Increase Pt surface area

B. Reduce Pt-local O2 transport resistance

C. Increase ORR activity

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 50 100 150

Mas

s A

ctiv

ity

(A/m

g Pt-

eq

v)


0.05mg/cm2, 2.0A/cm2

0.10mg/cm2, 2.0A/cm2

0.10mg/cm2, 1.5A/cm2

NSTFMonolayer

Alloy/Dealloyed

DealloyedPtCo and

PtNi

NSTFPt3Ni7

Pt-ML/Pd

Pt-ML/PdWNi

OctahedralPtNi

Pt


0.10 mgPt/cm2, 1.5 A/cm2

𝐋𝐨𝐬𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞

∝𝐑𝐎𝟐,𝐏𝐭−𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥

𝐄𝐂𝐒𝐀 ∙ 𝐏𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠

Approaches to Improve High-Power Performance

23

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 1 2

Vo

ltag

e (

V)

Current (A/cm2)

Pt

ACS Catalysis. (2016) 1578.

Still too much PGM in the core (Pd costs the same as Pt per weight, one-half per atom).

Not currently economically competitive.

Not sufficiently stable. Need improvement in core stability.

High Surface Area Catalyst Can Meet High-Power Performance

Pt: 0.05 mg/cm2

A. Increase Pt surface area

H2/air, 80°C, 150 kPaabs,out, 100% RH, high stoich

24

If we reduce the resistance by half, the requirement line will move left halfway

to the Y-axis, enabling many more catalysts.

But ‘How can we reduce local O2 resistance?’

➢ Need to know what causes it, and know how to evaluate it.

J. Phys. Chem. Lett. (2016) 1127.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 50 100 150

Mas

s A

ctiv

ity

(A/m

g Pt-

eq

v)



Reducing local O2 resistance

6 s/cm

6 s/cm

12 s/cm

12 s/cm

B. Reduce Pt-local O2 transport resistance

Implication of Lower Local O2 Resistance

25

Ionomer-Pt Interface is the Key

MD-DFT simulation showed formation of a

dense layer of ionomer adjacent to the Pt

surface reducing O2 concentration leading to

large O2 resistance.

Jinnouchi et al. EC Acta, 2016, 188, 767

MD/DFT of ionomer-Pt interface

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 25 50 75 100 125

Vo

ltag

e a

t 1

.75

A/c

m2

MEA

(V)

r.f. (cm2-Pt/cm2

MEA)


NSTFNSTF + 2nm PFSA

2 n

m io

no

mer


PtNSTF

O2

O2

JPC Lett. 2016, 7, 1127

Loss is not observed if ionomer is absent on

Pt surface.

26

Orfanidi et al. JES, 2017, 164, F418

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0 25 50 75 100 125

Vo

ltag

e a

t 1

.75

A/c

m2

MEA

(V)

r.f. (cm2-Pt/cm2

MEA)


NSTF

NSTF + 2nm PFSA

2 n

m io

no

mer


PtNSTF

Ionomer-Pt Interface is the Key

--

---

--

carbon

Pt

ionomer

a)

O2

--

--

Pt

b)

carbon

O2

Performance and stability can be improved with

alternative ionomer structures.JPC Lett. 2016, 7, 1127

Jomori et al. JES, 2013, 160, F1067

Altering carbon surface and hence ionomer

distribution may also do it.

CarbonOuter PtInner Pt

50wt%Pt / Vulcan10wt%Pt / Vulcan50wt%Pt / HSC10wt%Pt / HSC

Carbons: Catalysts can look very differentPadgett, Muller et al.

28

✓High Pt dispersion

✓High ORR activity

✓Easy to make good alloy

✓Good O2/proton transport

✓Better stability

Solid carbon

MSC (Vulcan)

Porous carbon

HSC

Carbon Supports

Porous carbon

Solid carbon

Good kinetic

Poor transport

Good transport

Poor kinetic

The type of carbon support affects not only the transport properties of the

catalyst layer but also the kinetic activity of the catalysts.

More Pt particles in porous carbon are shielded from ionomer adsorption➢ boost activity and transport ?

Porous carbon can show up to 3-4 times higher activity, resulting in higher

performance in most operating conditions.

--

---

--

carbon

Pt

ionomer

O2

Mass-transport Voltage Losses

H+, O2

1.75 A/cm2 on a 0.10

mgPt/cm2 cathode

O2 through Ionomer/Pt Interface H+ and O2 through Carbon

Micropores

Transports in Porous Carbons

Pt particles in porous carbon are not as accessible to proton and O2 and can cause

additional transport loss.

Ideally, want pores to keep ionomer away but not too far so that proton cannot get to Pt,

and the pore should not restrict O2 transport.

Questions: How accessible are the Pt to proton and O2?

What’s the proton transport mechanism in ionomer-free pores?

What is the geometry/distribution of the pores?

Carbons: Performance Characteristics

31

Carbons: Trade-off Between ORR and Transports

Proton and Local O2 transport generally correlate.

But ORR activity can break the trend.

Some porous carbon can show good activity with reasonable transport resistances.

mesopore engineering

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0

5

10

15

20

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

OR

R A

ctiv

ity

(A/m

g Pt)

Loca

l O2

Re

sist

ance

(s/

cm)

Dry Pt Utilization

Solid carbons

Porous carbons

Pt/HSC-e

Proton Accessibility

32

0.55

0.65

0.75

0.85

0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Vo

lta

ge

(V

)


H2/air, 250 kPa, 94°C, 65%RHin, stoich 1.5/2

Mirai PtCo, 0.33 mgPt/cm2

New PtCo, 0.10 mgPt/cm2

Pt, 0.40 mgPt/cm2

Old PtCo, 0.10 mgPt/cm2

PtCo Catalyst with Optimized Transport

Optimization of PtCo particles and carbon

support structure provide a path to meet

both activity and high power performance

target for 0.1 mg/cm2 Pt loading.

10 gPt/vehicle is close to reality.

DOE Target 0.44 A/mgPt




RPt of 10 s/cm

• ORR activity (41 mV)

• Local transport (18 mV)

• Local transport (67 mV)

• ORR activity (53 mV)

• Ohmic losses (39 mV)

• Bulk O2 transport (21 mV)

• Electrode proton (20 mV)

Additional losses

Additional losses

Less Pt per area

Smaller stack

Total loss 0.71 V

Total loss 0.56 VTotal loss 0.50 V

Paths to Lower Pt

Further reduction of Pt (5 gPt/vehicle) requires

higher ORR activity catalyst and electrode with

lower local transport resistance.

34

PtM3/C -------------> Pt1.5-5M/Cprecursor dealloying catalyst

e.g., acid leaching,

electrochemically dissol’n

Cross

section, Pt

in blue

Lattice compression of surface Pt layer

Jia et al. ACS Catal., 2016, 6, 928. Oezaslan et al. JACS., 2012, 134, 514.

Currently the most mature high-activity catalyst

Many factors can affect resulting structure, performance, and stability.

Larger precursor Porous

Smaller precursor Solid core-shell

The Current Best: Dealloyed Catalysts

Energy Environ. Sci., 2014.

Exceptional Durability of ORR Activity with DealloyedPtNi/HSC and PtCo/HSC

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Mas

s Act

ivity

(A/g

Pt)

Run time (hr)

JM PtCo, 0.10mg/cm2 MA(A/gPt)

JM PtNi, 0.10mg/cm2 MA(A/gPt)

Stack

DOE Final Report, 2014. https://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/1262711

• Meeting DOE ORR durability in MEA. Validated at multiple sites.

• Durable ORR kinetics in stack testing.

• Need thicker Pt shell for MEA stability (>4ML). Optimization point for is very different from RDE (~1ML).

36

Specific activity correlates with OOH surface species in lieu of OH dominating. This points to a relatively lower Pt-O bond strength.

Jia et al. ACS Catal., 2016, 6, 928; JECS 2014, 161, F1323.

Caldwell et al. JPC C, 2015, 119, 757.

Dealloyed catalysts do degrade over time.

But can maintain high activity even with substantial Ni loss.

Dealloyed catalysts decay but can maintain activity

Fuel cell operation

Up to 70x Pt activity enhancement has been demonstrated ex-situ in RDE measurements.

(11x better than the current best dealloyed PtCo/PtNi catalysts).

Can we make it work in the real world?

Strasser, Science 2015

C. Increase ORR activity

Shape-Controlled Catalysts

38

Need better understanding to determine if

these losses can be mitigated.

Loss of shape and activity in fuel cell

J. Phys. Chem. Lett. (2016) 1127.Strasser and coworkers, Nat. Mater. 2013

Current shape-controlled PtNi catalysts generally lost Ni more quickly, leading to

poor stability.

Ni-rich facets provide a weak spot for dissolution.

May need thicker Pt shell, (from 1-2 4-7 layers of Pt). But would it still give

high activity?

39

From Discovery to Realization in a Fuel Cell

o Dashed line series are the RDE and solid line series are the MEA results.

o All are the initial activity.o Filled symbols represent works that

are funded by DOE.

For concepts that worked out (dealloyed and Pt-monolayer catalysts), it took

>8 years to get from RDE to real-life MEA.

Not all emerging catalysts will work. But among those that work, they often

look different from when were first discovered in RDE.➢ Requires iterative developments in MEAs

40

False positive

(Waste time&money)

False negative

(Missed opportunity)

What else had we missed ?

For most advanced catalysts, there are little agreement between RDE and MEA.

RDE test is a poor predictor of both activity and stability.

Catalyst development should be shifted to MEA as early as possible.

Ea of 10 kJ/mol (MEA)

Ea of 25 kJ/mol (RDE)

Yarlagadda et al. (2017) JES.

Activity Measurements

41

MEA Preparation from mg of Catalyst

a) b)

GDL

ultrasonicnozzle

funnel

vacuum

sand core filter

collecting bottle

GDL

Developed two procedures to coat fuel cell

electrodes from 30 mg of catalyst powder (same

amount as an RDE ink).

Observed reasonable coating quality and fuel cell

performance.

Worked with Ketjen and Vulcan blacks.

Expedite learning cycles. No scale-up required.

Yarlagadda et al. (2017) JES.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10k 30k

EC

SA

(m

2/g

Pt)

SOA USC VF

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0 10k 30k

Mass A

cti

vit

y (

A/m

gP

t) SOA USC VF

a)

b)

c)

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Vo

lta

ge

(V

)


Thin GDL, SOA

Thin GDL, VF

Thick GDL, SOA

Thick GDL, USC

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

V

i

Number of voltage cycles

Number of voltage cycles

42

funnel

clampGDL

porous

glass

filter

Vacuum pumpCollecting bottle

Top View

GDLclamp

funnelRDE ink

Before After Filtration

Vacuum Filtration Apparatus

Typical ink

• 30 mg PtX/C

• 37 g water

• 3 g isopropanol

• D2020 ionomer (I/C of 1)

d) c)

b) a)

30 μm

MPL

Catalyst layer

Sample spacer

0.1 1 10 100

Fre

qu

en

cy

Particle Diameter (μm)

Vacuum Filtration

SEM: Top View

SEM: Cross-section

New recipe, Pt/V

43

25 s/cm RO2,local, 6x ORR




23% up

54% up

Substantial improvement at high power and stack cost reduction can be realized with

higher activity.

~23% improvement with additional 2x, ~54% with additional 11x over the current best

catalyst.

5% increase in fuel efficiency.

And most importantly, enabling 5 gPt/vehicle.

Pt: 0.05 mg/cm2

Strasser, Science 2015

How far can we go ?

44

Summary

Proven technology with 35 g of Pt per vehicle is now on the road. Next-

generation FCEVs are expected to use 10-20 g of precious metal.

Considering commercial factors, a long-term target should be comparable to

that used in automotive catalytic convertors (~5 g of precious metal).

Further reduction of Pt demands a catalyst with higher ORR activity.

Developing emerging catalysts requires proper evaluation.

Fundamental understanding of the origin of the local transport resistance is

needed in order to optimally engineer the nanostructure near the catalyst

active surfaces.

AcknowledgementsDOE

– Greg Kleen (Program Manager)

– Bahman Habibzadeh (Technology Manager)

– Shaun Onorato

General Motors

– Aida Rodrigues, Yevita Brown, Charles Gough

(Contract Managers)

– Venkata Yarlagadda

– Michael K. Carpenter

– Yun Cai

– Thomas E. Moylan

– Joseph M. Ziegelbauer

– Ratandeep Singh Kukreja

– Taylor Garrick (Univ South Carolina)

– Wenbin Gu

– Srikanth Arisetty

– Roland Koestner

– Cristin L. Keary

– Qiang Li and team

– Peter Harvey and team

– Sonam Patel, Kathryn Stevick and team

– Tim Fuller

– Shruti Gondikar

– Mohammed Atwan

– Nagappan Ramaswamy

– Dave Masten

– Swami Kumaraguru

– Craig Gittleman

– Mark F. Mathias

3M

– Dr. Andrew Haug (sub-PI)

– Matthew Lindell

– Tyler Matthews

Carnegie Mellon University

– Prof. Shawn Litster (sub-PI)

– Shohei Ogawa

– Jonathan Braaten

Cornell University

– Prof. David A. Muller (sub-PI)

– Prof. Héctor Abruña

– Elliot Padgett

– Barnaby Levin

– Yin Xiong

– Yao Yang

Drexel University

– Prof. Joshua Snyder (sub-PI)

– Yawei Li

NREL

– Dr. K.C. Neyerlin (sub-PI)

– Jason Christ

– Shaun Alia

– Jason Zack

– Shyam Kocha

– Bryan Pivovar

ANL / APS

– Dr. Deborah J. Myers

– Dr. Nancy N. Kariuki

– Dr. Ross N. Andrews (beamline 9ID)

Catalysts for Sustainable Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles€¦ · Catalysts for Sustainable Fuel Cell...

Documents

Transcript of Catalysts for Sustainable Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles€¦ · Catalysts for Sustainable Fuel Cell...