Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

New roads and challenges for fuel cells in heavy-duty transportation

Abstract

The recent release of hydrogen economy roadmaps for several major countries emphasizes the need for accelerated worldwide investment in research and development activities for hydrogen production, storage, infrastructure and utilization in transportation, industry and the electrical grid. Due to the high gravimetric energy density of hydrogen, the focus of technologies that utilize this fuel has recently shifted from light-duty automotive to heavy-duty vehicle applications. Decades of development of cost-effective and durable polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cells must now be leveraged to meet the increased efficiency and durability requirements of the heavy-duty vehicle market. This Review summarizes the latest market outlooks and targets for truck, bus, locomotive and marine applications. Required changes to the fuel-cell system and operating conditions for meeting Class 8 long-haul truck targets are presented. The necessary improvements in fuel-cell materials and integration are also discussed against the benchmark of current passenger fuel-cell electric vehicles.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Roadmap to hydrogen fuel cells for transportation.
Fig. 2: Summary of fuel-cell targets and lifetimes.
Fig. 3: System demand and strategies for a HDV fuel-cell system.
Fig. 4: Design space for fuel cells.
Fig. 5: Impact of catalyst alloying on fuel-cell performance change over lifetime.
Fig. 6: Performance–durability impact on transport resistance in fuel-cell electrodes.
Fig. 7: Current state-of-the-art materials used in passenger fuel-cell vehicles and their characterization results.

References

  1. 1.

    The Future of Hydrogen (International Energy Agency, 2019); https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogenExtensive study prepared for the G20 in Japan on the status of hydrogen in the global energy system and key near-term opportunities for rapidly expanding hydrogen use.

  2. 2.

    Road Map to a US Hydrogen Economy (Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association, 2019); http://www.fchea.org/us-hydrogen-study

  3. 3.

    Hydrogen Economy Outlook (BloombergNEF, 2020); https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/24/BNEF-Hydrogen-Economy-Outlook-Key-Messages-30-Mar-2020.pdf

  4. 4.

    Hydrogen Roadmap Europe (Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, 2019); https://www.fch.europa.eu/

  5. 5.

    Carr, J. Chinese Fuel Cell Industry Developments (Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association Newsletter, 2019); http://www.fchea.org/in-transition/2019/2/4/chinese-fuel-cell-industry-developments

  6. 6.

    The National Hydrogen Strategy (Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, 2020); https://www.bmbf.de/files/bmwi_Nationale%20Wasserstoffstrategie_Eng_s01.pdf

  7. 7.

    Fuel Cell Technologies Office Multi-Year Research, Development, and Demonstration Plan (US Department of Energy, 2013); https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/downloads/fuel-cell-technologies-office-multi-year-research-development-and-22

  8. 8.

    H2@Scale (US Department of Energy, 2017); https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2scale

  9. 9.

    Satyapal, S. Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Program Overview (Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review Proceedings, 2019); https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review19/plenary_overview_satyapal_2019.pdf

  10. 10.

    Luth, M. Fuel Cell Customers—Medium and Heavy-Duty Transportation (2019); http://www.fchea.org/in-transition/2019/9/2/fuel-cell-customers-medium-and-heavy-duty-transportation

  11. 11.

    Average Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled by Major Vehicle Category (EERE Alternative Fuels Data Center, 2020); https://afdc.energy.gov/data/

  12. 12.

    Vehicle Miles Traveled by Highway Category and Vehicle Type (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2018); https://www.bts.gov/vehicle-miles-traveled-highway-category-and-vehicle-type

  13. 13.

    Davis, S. C., Williams, S. E. & Boundy, R. G. Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 36 (Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 2017).

  14. 14.

    Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017); https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportation-greenhouse-gas-emissions

  15. 15.

    Annual Energy Outlook 2019 (US Energy Information Administration, 2019); https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/aeo2019.pdf

  16. 16.

    Ding, Y., Cano, Z. P., Yu, A., Lu, J. & Chen, Z. Automotive Li-ion batteries: current status and future perspectives. Electrochem. Energy Rev. 2, 1–28 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lutsey, N. & Nicholas, M. Update on Electric Vehicle Costs in the United States through 2030 (The International Council on Clean Transportation, 2019); https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV_cost_2020_2030_20190401.pdf

  18. 18.

    Early Markets: Fuel Cells for Material Handling Equipment (US Department of Energy, 2016); https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/fcto_early_markets_mhe_fact_sheet.pdf

  19. 19.

    Guandalini G. & Campanari S. Well-to-wheel driving cycle simulations for freight transportation: battery and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles. In Proc. International Conference of Electrical and Electronic Technologies for Automotive 1–6 (IEEE, 2018).

  20. 20.

    Eudy, L. Fuel Cell Buses in U.S. Transit Fleets: Current Status 2018 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2018); https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72208.pdf

  21. 21.

    Lozanovski, A., Whitehouse, N., Ko, N. & Whitehouse, S. Sustainability assessment of fuel cell buses in public transport. Sustainability 10, 1480–1495 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ahluwalia, R. K. et al. Total Cost of Ownership for Line Haul, Yard Switchers and Regional Passenger Locomotives—Preliminary Results (H2@Ports Workshop, 2019); https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2rail-workshop

  23. 23.

    Papadias, D., Ahluwalia, R. K., Connelly, E. & Devlin, P. Total Cost of Ownership Analysis for Hydrogen Fuel Cells in Maritime Applications: Preliminary Results (H2@Ports Workshop, 2019); https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/h2ports-workshop

  24. 24.

    Marcinkoski, J. et al. Hydrogen Class 8 Long Haul Truck Targets (US Department of Energy, 2019); https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/19006_hydrogen_class8_long_haul_truck_targets.pdfIdentifies critical technical targets for reducing the cost of ownership of hydrogen fuel cell powered Class 8 tractor-trailers to be to be competitive with diesel-powered vehicles.

  25. 25.

    Johansson, K. The Effect of Drive Cycles on the Performance of a PEM Fuel Cell System for Automotive Applications (SAE International, 2001); https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/2001-01-3454/

  26. 26.

    Dynamometer Drive Schedules (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2019); https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/dynamometer-drive-schedules

  27. 27.

    Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2 (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2016); https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-10-25/pdf/2016-21203.pdf

  28. 28.

    Franco, V., Delgado, O. & Muncrief, R. Heavy-Duty Vehicle Fuel-Efficiency Simulation: A Comparison of US and EU Tools (International Council on Clean Transportation, 2015); https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ICCT_GEM-VECTO-comparison_20150511.pdf

  29. 29.

    Ahluwalia, R. K., Wang, X. & Peng, J.-K. Fuel Cell System Modeling and Analysis (Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review Proceedings, 2020); https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review20/fc017_ahluwalia_2020_o.pdf

  30. 30.

    Yu, Y. et al. A review on performance degradation of proton exchange membrane fuel cells during startup and shutdown processes: causes, consequences, and mitigation strategies. J. Power Sources 205, 10–23 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Zhang, T., Wang, P., Chen, H. & Pei, P. A review of automotive proton exchange membrane fuel cell degradation under start-stop operating condition. Appl. Energy 223, 249–262 (2018). A comprehensive review of degradation mechanisms, accelerated lifetime tests and mitigation strategies for PEMFC start-up/shut-down.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Reiser, C. A. et al. A reverse-current decay mechanism for fuel cells. Electrochem. Solid State Lett. 8, A273 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Kojima, T. Y. A. K. Toyota MIRAI fuel cell vehicle and progress toward a future hydrogen society. Electrochem. Soc. Interface 24, 45–49 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Gittleman, C. S., Kongkanand, A., Masten, D. & Gu, W. Materials research and development focus areas for low cost automotive proton-exchange membrane fuel cells. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 18, 81–89 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Wan, Z., Chang, H., Shu, S., Wang, Y. & Tang, H. A review on cold start of proton exchange membrane fuel cells. Energies 7, 3179–3203 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Amamou, A. A., Kelouwani, S., Boulon, L. & Agbossou, K. A comprehensive review of solutions and strategies for cold start of automotive proton exchange membrane fuel cells. IEEE Access 4, 4989–5002 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Cheng, X. et al. A review of PEM hydrogen fuel cell contamination: impacts, mechanisms, and mitigation. J. Power Sources 165, 739–756 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Wang, X. X., Swihart, M. T. & Wu, G. Achievements, challenges and perspectives on cathode catalysts in proton exchange membrane fuel cells for transportation. Nat. Catal. 2, 578–589 (2019). A comprehensive review of state-of-the-art oxygen reduction reaction electrocatalysts and high-surface-area carbon supports for proton exchange membrane fuel cells.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Chung, D. Y., Yoo, J. M. & Sung, Y. E. Highly durable and active Pt-based nanoscale design for fuel-cell oxygen-reduction electrocatalysts. Adv. Mater. 30, e1704123 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Banham, D. & Ye, S. Current status and future development of catalyst materials and catalyst layers for proton exchange membrane fuel cells: an industrial perspective. ACS Energy Lett. 2, 629–638 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Thompson, S. T. & Papageorgopoulos, D. Platinum group metal-free catalysts boost cost competitiveness of fuel cell vehicles. Nat. Catal. 2, 558–561 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Sneed, B. T., Cullen, D. A., Mukundan, R., Borup, R. L. & More, K. L. PtCo cathode catalyst morphological and compositional changes after PEM fuel cell accelerated stress testing. J. Electrochem. Soc. 165, F3078–F3084 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Papadias, D. D. et al. Durability of Pt–Co alloy polymer electrolyte fuel cell cathode catalysts under accelerated stress tests. J. Electrochem. Soc. 165, F3166–F3177 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Ioroi, T., Siroma, Z., Yamazaki, S. I. & Yasuda, K. Electrocatalysts for PEM fuel cells. Adv. Energy Mat. 9, 1801284 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Yang, Z., Ball, S., Condit, D. & Gummalla, M. Systematic study on the impact of Pt particle size and operating conditions on PEMFC cathode catalyst durability. J. Electrochem. Soc. 158, B1439 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Gummalla, M. et al. Effect of particle size and operating conditions on Pt3Co PEMFC cathode catalyst durability. Catalysts 5, 926–948 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Yasuda, K., Taniguchi, A., Akita, T., Ioroi, T. & Siroma, Z. Platinum dissolution and deposition in the polymer electrolyte membrane of a PEM fuel cell as studied by potential cycling. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 8, 746–752 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Ahluwalia, R. K. et al. Potential dependence of Pt and Co dissolution from platinum–cobalt alloy PEFC catalysts using time-resolved measurements. J. Electrochem. Soc. 165, F3024–F3035 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Shao-Horn, Y. et al. Instability of supported platinum nanoparticles in low-temperature fuel cells. Top. Catal. 46, 285–305 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    de Bruijn, F. A., Dam, V. A. T. & Janssen, G. J. M. Review: durability and degradation issues of PEM fuel cell components. Fuel Cells 8, 3–22 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Meier, J. C. et al. Design criteria for stable Pt/C fuel cell catalysts. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 5, 44–67 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Cherevko, S., Kulyk, N. & Mayrhofer, K. J. J. Durability of platinum-based fuel cell electrocatalysts: dissolution of bulk and nanoscale platinum. Nano Energy 29, 275–298 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Watanabe, M., Yano, H., Uchida, H. & Tryk, D. A. Achievement of distinctively high durability at nanosized Pt catalysts supported on carbon black for fuel cell cathodes. J. Electroanal. Chem. 819, 359–364 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Xin, H. L. et al. Atomic-resolution spectroscopic imaging of ensembles of nanocatalyst particles across the life of a fuel cell. Nano Lett. 12, 490–497 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Lohse-Busch, H. et al. Technology Assessment of a Fuel Cell Vehicle: 2017 Toyota Mirai (Argonne National Laboratory, 2018).

  56. 56.

    Borup, R. L. et al. Recent developments in catalyst-related PEM fuel cell durability. Curr. Opin. Electrochem. 21, 192–200 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Braaten, J., Kongkanand, A. & Litster, S. Oxygen transport effects of cobalt cation contamination of ionomer thin films in proton exchange membrane fuel cells. ECS Trans. 80, 283–290 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Li, J. et al. Hard-magnet L10-CoPt nanoparticles advance fuel cell catalysis. Joule 3, 124–135 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Yin Xiong, Y. Y. et al. Revealing the atomic ordering of binary intermetallics using in situ heating techniques at multilength scales. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 1974–1983 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Padgett, E. et al. Mitigation of PEM fuel cell catalyst degradation with porous carbon supports. J. Electrochem. Soc. 166, F198–F207 (2019). An investigation of the impact of carbon support morphology, ranging from porous to solid, on the performance and durability of Pt and PtCo alloy nanoparticle cathode electrocatalysts.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Yarlagadda, V. et al. Boosting fuel cell performance with accessible carbon mesopores. ACS Energy Lett. 3, 618–621 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Wang, Y. J., Wilkinson, D. P. & Zhang, J. Noncarbon support materials for polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell electrocatalysts. Chem. Rev. 111, 7625–7651 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Sui, S. et al. A comprehensive review of Pt electrocatalysts for the oxygen reduction reaction: nanostructure, activity, mechanism and carbon support in PEM fuel cells. J. Mater. Chem. A 5, 1808–1825 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Qiao, Z. et al. 3D porous graphitic nanocarbon for enhancing the performance and durability of Pt catalysts: a balance between graphitization and hierarchical porosity. Energy Environ. Sci. 12, 2830–2841 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Cheng, N. et al. Extremely stable platinum nanoparticles encapsulated in a zirconia nanocage by area-selective atomic layer deposition for the oxygen reduction reaction. Adv. Mater. 27, 277–281 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Chen, Y. et al. Pt–SnO2/nitrogen-doped CNT hybrid catalysts for proton-exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFC): effects of crystalline and amorphous SnO2 by atomic layer deposition. J. Power Sources 238, 144–149 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Yamada, H., Kato, H. & Kodama, K. Cell performance and durability of Pt/C cathode catalyst covered by dopamine derived carbon thin layer for polymer electrolyte fuel cells. J. Electrochem. Soc. 167, 084508 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Schmidt, T. J. et al. Characterization of high-surface-area electrocatalysts using a rotating disk electrode configuration. J. Electrochem. Soc. 145, 2354–2358 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Gilbert, J. A. et al. In-operando anomalous small-angle X-Ray scattering investigation of Pt3Co catalyst degradation in aqueous and fuel cell environments. J. Electrochem. Soc. 162, F1487–F1497 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Tian, N. et al. Rational design and synthesis of low-temperature fuel cell clectrocatalysts. Electrochem. Energy Rev. 1, 54–83 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Yandrasits, M., Lindell, M., Schaberg, M. & Kurkowski, M. Increasing fuel cell efficiency by using ultra-low equivalent weight ionomers. Electrochem. Soc. Interface 26, 49–53 (2017). Discusses the material design paths toward lower equivalent-weight ionomers via side-chain chemistry modifications to enable higher conductivity at low humidity for increased fuel-cell efficiency.

  72. 72.

    Kusoglu, A. et al. Impact of substrate and processing on confinement of nafion thin films. Adv. Funct. Mater. 24, 4763–4774 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Gubler, L., Nauser, T., Coms, F. D., Lai, Y.-H. & Gittleman, C. S. Perspective—prospects for durable hydrocarbon-based fuel cell membranes. J. Electrochem. Soc. 165, F3100–F3103 (2018). Perspective on critical breakthroughs required to replace PFSA with hydrocarbon-based membranes that are currently limited by radical-induced degradation and mechanical failure.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Elabd, Y. A. & Hickner, M. A. Block copolymers for fuel cells. Macromolecules 44, 1–11 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Kusoglu, A. & Weber, A. Z. New insights into perfluorinated sulfonic-acid ionomers. Chem. Rev. 117, 987–1104 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Kusoglu, A., Dursch, T. J. & Weber, A. Z. Nanostructure/swelling relationships of bulk and thin-film PFSA ionomers. Adv. Funct. Mater. 26, 4961–4975 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Su, G. M. et al. Chemical and morphological origins of improved ion conductivity in perfluoro ionene chain extended ionomers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 141, 13547–13561 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Redmond, E. L., Wriston, S. M. & Szarka, J. L. III Full factorial experiment to determine and predict impact of cerium amount on fuel cell performance. ECS Trans. 80, 633–641 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Kongkanand, A. & Mathias, M. F. The priority and challenge of high-power performance of low-platinum proton-exchange membrane fuel cells. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 7, 1127–1137 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Kudo, K., Jinnouchi, R. & Morimoto, Y. Humidity and temperature dependences of oxygen transport resistance of nafion thin film on platinum electrode. Electrochim. Acta 209, 682–690 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Van Cleve, T. et al. Dictating Pt-based electrocatalyst performance in polymer electrolyte fuel cells; from formulation to application. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b17614 (2019).

  82. 82.

    Eastman, S. A. et al. Effect of confinement on structure, water solubility, and water transport in nafion thin films. Macromolecules 45, 7920–7930 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Cetinbas, F. C., Ahluwalia, R. K., Kariuki, N. N., De Andrade, V. & Myers, D. J. Effects of porous carbon morphology, agglomerate structure and relative humidity on local oxygen transport resistance. J. Electrochem. Soc. 167, 013508 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Weber, A. Z. & Kusoglu, A. Unexplained transport resistances for low-loaded fuel-cell catalyst layers. J. Mater. Chem. A 2, 17207–17211 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Kodama, K. et al. Effect of the side-chain structure of perfluoro-sulfonic acid ionomers on the oxygen reduction reaction on the surface of Pt. ACS Catal. 8, 694–700 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Nagao, Y. Proton-conductivity enhancement in polymer thin films. Langmuir 33, 12547–12558 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Jinnouchi, R., Kudo, K., Kitano, N. & Morimoto, Y. Molecular dynamics simulations on O2 permeation through nafion ionomer on platinum surface. Electrochim. Acta 188, 767–776 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Ono, Y., Ohma, A., Shinohara, K. & Fushinobu, K. Influence of equivalent weight of ionomer on local oxygen transport resistance in cathode catalyst layers. J. Electrochem. Soc. 160, F779–F787 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Kusoglu, A. in Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology (ed. Meyers, R. A.) Ch. 1021-2, 1–3 (Springer, 2018).

  90. 90.

    Tesfaye, M., MacDonald, A. N., Dudenas, P. J., Kusoglu, A. & Weber, A. Z. Exploring substrate/ionomer interaction under oxidizing and reducing environments. Electrochem. Commun. 87, 86–90 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Ohma, A. et al. Analysis of proton exchange membrane fuel cell catalyst layers for reduction of platinum loading at Nissan. Electrochim. Acta 56, 10832–10841 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Cetinbas, F. C. et al. Hybrid approach combining multiple characterization techniques and simulations for microstructural analysis of proton exchange membrane fuel cell electrodes. J. Power Sources 344, 62–73 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Chen, Y. et al. Electrochemical study of temperature and Nafion effects on interface property for oxygen reduction reaction. Ionics 24, 3905–3914 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Li, Y. et al. Modifying the electrocatalyst–ionomer interface via sulfonated poly(ionic liquid) block copolymers to enable high-performance polymer electrolyte fuel cells. ACS Energy Lett. 5, 1726–1731 (2020). Achieved ionomer-free Pt specific activity in an MEA, thereby enhancing performance across a range of relative humidity using novel ionomers and a mixed ionomer electrode.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Latorrata, S. et al. Effect of rheology controller agent addition to micro-porous layers on PEMFC performances. Solid State Ion. 216, 73–77 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Spernjak, D. et al. Enhanced water management of polymer electrolyte fuel cells with additive-containing microporous layers. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. 1, 6006–6017 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Steinbach, A. J. et al. Anode-design strategies for improved performance of polymer-electrolyte fuel cells with ultra-thin electrodes. Joule 2, 1297–1312 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    James, B. Fuel Cell Vehicle and Bus Cost Analysis (Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review Proceedings, 2016); https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review16/fc018_james_2016_o.pdf

  99. 99.

    James, B. Fuel Cell Systems Analysis (Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review Proceedings, 2020); https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review20/fc163_james_2020_o.pdf

  100. 100.

    How Hydrogen Empowers the Energy Transition (Hydrogen Council, 2017); https://hydrogencouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Hydrogen-Council-Vision-Document.pdf

  101. 101.

    Fuel Cell Truck Powertrain R&D Activities and Target Review Workshop (US Department of Energy, 2018); https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/fuel-cell-truck-powertrain-rd-activities-and-target-review-workshop-h2-scale-end-use

  102. 102.

    Geyer, H. K. & Ahluwalia, R. K. GCtool for fuel cell system design and analysis: user documentation ANL-98/8 (Argonne National Laboratory, 1998); https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/Reports/ANL-98-8.pdf

  103. 103.

    Borup, R. L. & Weber, A. Z. FC-PAD: Fuel Cell Performance and Durability Consortium (Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review Proceedings, 2020); https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review20/fc135_borup_weber_2020_o.pdf

  104. 104.

    Van Cleve, T. et al. Tailoring electrode microstructure via ink content to enable improved rated power performance for platinum cobalt/high surface area carbon based polymer electrolyte fuel cells. J. Power Sources https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2020.228889 (2021).

  105. 105.

    Greszler, T. A., Caulk, D. & Sinha, P. The impact of platinum loading on oxygen transport resistance. J. Electrochem. Soc. 159, F831–F840 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Haug, A. Novel Ionomers and Electrode Structures for Improved PEMFC Electrode Performance at Low PGM Loadings (Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review Proceedings, 2019); https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review19/fc155_haug_2019_o.pdf

  107. 107.

    Borup, R. L. & Weber, A. Z. FC-PAD: Fuel Cell Performance and Durability Consortium (Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review Proceedings, 2019); https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review19/fc135_borup_2019_o.pdf

  108. 108.

    Borup, R. L., More, K. L. & Weber, A. Z. FC-PAD: Fuel Cell Performance and Durability Consortium (Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Annual Merit Review Proceedings, 2018); https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review18/fc135_borup_2018_o.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technologies Office (HFTO), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy (DOE) through the Fuel Cell Performance and Durability (FC-PAD) and Million Mile Fuel Cell Truck (M2FCT) consortia, technology managers G. Kleen and D. Papageorgopoulos. It is also supported by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231, the Center for Nanophase Materials Sciences, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under contract no. DE-AC05-00OR22725, Los Alamos National Laboratory under contract no. 89233218CNA000001, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC, for the US DOE under contract no. DE-AC36-08GO28308 and by UChicago Argonne, LLC, Operator of Argonne National Laboratory, a US Department of Energy Office of Science laboratory operated under contract no. DE-AC02-06CH11357. The views expressed in the article do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the US government.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet Kusoglu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Energy thanks Viktor Johanek, Jiujun Zhang and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cullen, D.A., Neyerlin, K.C., Ahluwalia, R.K. et al. New roads and challenges for fuel cells in heavy-duty transportation. Nat Energy (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00775-z

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing