 Thank you, Chris. I will go for Edward, why not? Just to keep the continuity. Well, good morning, everyone. Thanks for coming. It's a pleasure to be here. I'd like to thank Sally Benson and Richard Sassoon to use up the opportunity to share with you our research work. Let me recognize my co-workers, the people on the first row actually are the ones that did the work. Michael Stewart is a post-doc. He's among the audience here carrying the microphone. He joined us about early this year. David Jonson is a graduate student in mechanical engineering. He's also in the audience. I was pleased to say that his poster got the Honorable Admission Award last night, so you can see him as well as his poster out on the lobby. If you're interested, he's mostly involved in the modeling aspect of the work that we are doing, so I'm pleased to hear that we got mentioned. Brandon Long is also in the audience sitting there on the back row. He's a graduate student in chemical engineering who just joined us about five, six months ago. I'd also like to recognize, of course, my longtime colleague and collaborator, Professor Regi Mitchell of Mechanical Engineering, who's actually the official PI on the project and is sitting right there. Without further ado, let me say that our primary focus is utilization and conversion of solid fuels in fuel cells in a more efficient and environmentally friendly manner. Of course, this presents its own challenges, and I'll walk you through some fuel cell concepts, how we will deal and handle solid fuels in a fuel cell environment, simply because a lot of the conventional fuel cells only handle gaseous fuels, and mostly hydrogen, and maybe a few based on methane and other things. But solids, handling solids or utilization of solids in a fuel cell environment poses its own challenges, and so I will walk you through some of these concepts. And of course, conversion into electricity directly in a single reactor without actually burning them provides major advantages. The ultimate goal, of course, is to go one step further in this into complexity and deal with and convert coal, which presents its own set of challenges above and beyond simple carbon or carbon issues fuels like biomass does. So the objective is to convert a dirty fuel like coal into something clean like electricity and hydrogen, and that's where the GSAP project comes in and makes it possible for us to explore this particular exciting avenue. So why do we care about coal? Coal is widely used, it provides a lot of the energy globally and about 40% of all the electricity production around the world, partly because it's still a lot cheaper than even natural gas after the shale gas discoveries, and also it's widely available at abundant in the earth. US has the largest coal reserves, more than a quarter of the world reserves, and most populous countries like China in India, they have large reserves of coal and they are using this resource for their technological and economic development. In China, about 80% of the electricity is produced from coal, and in India it's still slightly lower but still very, very high. In the United States, we're using less of coal, especially after conversion of a lot of the coal-fired plants to natural gas, but still we're averaging a little lower than 40% of our electricity coming from coal in 2012. That's the latest that I could find from EIA reports, which came down from about 45% from two years before that, but it's not expected to go much further than that, it's about 37-38% over the long ground in the next few decades. And this trend is common around the world as well, as the world is going to use less than coal in sort of percentage of the share in electricity production, but that's not a very good criteria or the parameter to work on. I think we should look at the amount of coal that is actually being used and the amount of coal is going to increase by 50% between now and 2040 or 2050 time frame. So the amount of coal is what's going to be of concern to us. And you see in this graph, although a lot of the renewables and natural gas derived power generation will be increasing or expected to increase over the years, but still coal will reign as the dominant force in electricity production. And considering that most of the coal-fired plants around the world now operate around at the low 30% conversion efficiency, only the new ones that are coming online are about a little over 35%, closer to 50%, depending upon the technology that they adapt. That's still a very low conversion efficiency in terms of how we utilize it, but more importantly, as we've seen in the previous talks as well as in some talks in the yesterday, that most of that CO2 that is produced is emitted as a small fraction of the flue stack gas composition. It's only about 10%, 15% of the flue stack is CO2. Rest of it or major portion of it is nitrogen. We have all seen from the previous talks how difficult it is to separate CO2 on energy intensive and costy, that is, in terms of separation. So there is a real incentive to think differently about coal conversion, and of course the fuel cells, what we call carbon fuel cells, provide a major opportunity in that direction. Efficiency is, of course, the key. If we can, say, increase the efficiency optimistically, if we double it, then you can do the numbers and it provides a huge incentive to look into that direction. A carbon fuel cell, this is an idealistic depiction of a carbon fuel cell. What it is is a, we have a bed of carbon or coal in the anode compartment. This is a fuel cell element. On the cathode side, we have air. We extract the oxygen from the air, oxidize it to make oxide ions. We transport these oxide ions through an electrolyte, and these oxide ions at the anode react with the carbon to form carbon dioxide, releasing their electrons, and those electrons travel through the external circuit to produce electricity, and the only reaction product, as you see, is CO2. So this electrolyte could be a ceramic electrolyte. It can be a molten carbonate or molten hydroxide, or even aqueous electrolyte. Nevertheless, the net reaction that we achieve is nothing different from burning it. It's carbon plus oxygen going to CO2, but we do this by extracting electrical work out of that system while doing this conversion, and the driving force for this reaction is about a volt. So we get about a volt of open circuit voltage in the fuel cell, which is pretty good. Thermodynamic efficiency, theoretical thermodynamic efficiency defined by delta G over delta H, where during this reaction, the entropy loss is so small that the theoretical efficiency of this conversion is 100%. So what we are gaining is a very, very high ceiling for efficiency. Of course, we will have cell losses, terrestrial losses, activation losses, and what have you, but the ceiling that we're starting up from is very, very high. So proportionately, we produce less amount of CO2, but not only that, we produce CO2 as a primary component of our fuel cell, so we don't have to separate it. You don't have to go through a pulse separation process. You've just seen the big real estate and a process plant for capturing CO2 from a coal fire plant. Also, Sally showed that same picture from Saskatchewan plant. It's a huge investment and a huge cost to do to separate CO2. And also, bear in mind that you don't see any water involved in this process. So water also is a very precious commodity and a resource. Just to give you a benchmark, about 40% of fresh water withdrawables in this country is for thermoelectric power generation. So thermoelectric electricity generation uses a lot of water. So there's a large incentive not to get water involved in it. And of course, there's no moving parts here. It operates at constant temperature. It's fuel-flexible. Lots of solid fuels that we can use here. And modularity, of course, gives us an opportunity to do this in a distributed manner. But of course, there's a caveat. There are constraints and major constraints. That's why this is so difficult. One of the major constraints is that we all know electrochemical reactions or charge transfer reaction occurs on discrete sites at the interface. And that interface is usually between the electrode and the electrolyte. And these are atomic stick or atomic scale sites that these reactions will occur because it has to collect all the participating species that reside in different phases at that interface onto that reaction site. And that's where the problem is because you've got a boulder of a carbon particle which has sizes anywhere from say 50 to 50 microns to 2 millimeters in size to be able to make a contact, an atomic scale contact at an electrode site to make this electrochemical reaction happen. So one of the techniques is to overcome part of this problem is to gasify solid fuel either using steam for steam gasification where we react with steam to form hydrogen and CO, which is a steam gas. And then oxidize this hydrogen and CO, which is through the gas diffusion, gets into the electrochemical reaction site at that interface and oxidize. What we are chose to use CO2 as a dry gasification method, CO2 is our anode reaction product. So what we do is in a way recycle that reaction product back to our system and the CO is oxidized at the electrochemical interface. So that's what happens. The CO that is formed here is oxidized by the oxygen that's coming through. We have a ceramic electrolyte, it restabilizes the cone which is commonly used in solid oxide fuel cells that transports oxide ions through the vacancy mechanism. The vacancies are formed by extrinsic doping to maintain charge neutrality in the oxide. So oxygen transports through the ceramic material only in the form of an ion, not in the form of an atom or a molecule. Then this CO2 can react with a nearby carbon in the bed and forming more CO that feeds into the anodic reaction. So this shuttle mechanism, if you like, is self-feeding and provides higher kinetics than would normally do. The end of the day, what we, again, is this carbon plus oxygen going to CO2. We generate four electrons through the external circuit for every carbon atom that is consumed in the coal bed or in the carbon bed. And we tried many different, we demonstrated this concept as a fundamentally sound concept with many different solid fuels. This is for carbon. We got about close to 220 or 30 milliwatts per square centimeter. We did this with various kinds of biomass. This is, these are rice and corn stover and almond shells and wood and so on and so forth. We also tried it with actual coal, the coal char, which gives us a lot better performance than all the others at about 450 milliwatts per square centimeter. I think this is still the highest performance based on coal usage in a carbon fuel cell. Let me build upon this concept. Using the same platform, if we just replace the air side on the cathode with steam. So we have carbon on the anode side. We have steam on the cathode side. The oxygen activity difference between the steam and the carbon is a downhill gradient. So it's higher over here than it's over here. So this provides a thermodynamic driving force of about half a volt or slightly higher than that depending upon the temperature and the steam hydrogen ratios. This provides a driving force downhill for the oxygens to be stripped from the steam transported through the electrolyte and be oxidized at the anode side. And so we're turning an electrolyzer. Steam electrolysis requires anywhere from 0.9 volts to 1.3 volts, 1.23 volts at room temperature depending upon the temperature regime. It's a very high barrier splitting process. We turned an electrolyzer which requires electricity to do chemistry. We turned that into a fuel cell which produces electricity as well as a fuel. So what we're essentially doing is steam reforming in a fuel cell but with the carbon stream and the hydrogen stream completely separated from each other. So there is no mixing and you can use this hydrogen for fan fuel cells in applications. So we have a steam carbon cell that produces hydrogen electricity but requires heat because of the endothermic reaction. We have an air carbon system that produces electricity as well as heat. So the obvious thing is to merge these two together and form a what we call a nested cell, a steam carbon air fuel cell. And that's where again the GSAP project comes in to make this happen and allow us the opportunity to explore this exciting direction. So what we accomplish here is nothing more than what is being going on in a coal gasifier. You supply oxygen to burn part of the coal to derive the energy or the heat to derive the gasification process. And we do this in the fuel cell but achieving electrical work at the same time. So the project program objectives and tasks, we have multiple items on this. Of course we are doing cell modeling for predictive studies and David's poster yesterday and also still outside is focused on this modeling work. If you're interested you can talk to him. We're of course characterizing our solid fuels in terms of their reactivity for the Woodward reaction. Needless to say about the experimental studies but the two most important parts of the program are the sulfur abatement and catalytic anode development. And in the sulfur abatement we have a two prong approach. We try to develop solid sorbents to bring down the sulfur activity to acceptable levels where the anode is going to operate without too much degradation. And of course at the same time we like to develop tolerant anodes that would take that level of sulfur and be able to do the job without degradation. So the electrode development is going to be an important portion of this project. Normally nickel, cermet and other metal anodes are used in cell oxide fuel cells but they are not of course acceptable in the presence of sulfur. What we're looking at, perovskites, these materials are very versatile and gives us an opportunity to tune ionic and electronic transport properties as well as catalytic activity. And they provide us also with the doping strategies on the A side and the B side where you can have multiple dopants if you like as long as you maintain or satisfy the Skoldschmidt criteria to maintain the perovskite structure but it provides a lot of flexibility in terms of tuning properties. And because of the versatility of this, this whole list of very interesting electronic ionic and dielectric catalytic properties that these family of perovskites exhibit and I won't go into. But many of them are actually of industrial interest and being used in the technology. So the two family of perovskites that we have identified so far are the titanate base and the vanadate base perovskites. They have not been really explored too much in the catalytic area and there is some indication in literature that these perovskites would have some stability against sulfur contamination. They have good electronic conductivity, they have reasonably matching thermal expansion coefficient so we are hopeful that these will be a step forward in that direction. We already started making and synthesizing these things and doping on the A side as well as on the B side and characterizing them with XRD and XPS. I'm not going over all the details and we started putting them into cells and making what we call MEAs, the membrane electrode assemblies. Here is the yttriadopt strontium titanate porous layer. Here is the zirconia electrolyte membrane. Here is the lanthanum strontium manganate cathode layer that we have been able to produce. But we are still a ways away in terms of actual putting in a cell and actually testing it in the presence of coal. So in the sense of the solid sorbent utilization, we have identified some of the sorbents that make sense from a cost point of view as well as from their efficacy point of view going through some thermodynamic screening both in literature as well as ourselves. What we found is that yes, most of the alkali oxides are effective solid sorbents, but their utilization is all limited to a very thin skin around the particle because of the diffusion limitations. So the obvious things that people have tried is to disperse them on inert supports. What we like to explore is something slightly different. We like to try to disperse them on reactive or consumable supports like carbon, for instance. In the same manner as the fuel in our fuel cell, we like to load them onto carbon and gather the sulfur to levels roughly below 10 ppm or so that we think our oxide-based anode materials will be stable too. So this is the SEM picture of a carbon fiber. We chose these fibers so that we could identify and see where we are in terms of their loading. It's easier to work with them rather than with powdered carbon or coal. Here is after impregnation of these fibers with the calcium oxide, calcium hydroxide, using an ammonia as a dispersion. And you can see both on the surface, these red marks or red coloring is due to the calcium from the backscattered electron image. Both on the surface as well as within the buck, we have a fair amount of penetration and impregnation of these into the materials. So lastly, just to summarize the modeling results, we have been able to show that this is a very viable approach to both electricity and hydrogen generation. And you can tune in your hydrogen and electricity production demand based on the requirements and demand of the market. And you can do this in a very, very efficient way. The primary efficiency that we have calculated or predicted based on experimental values or experimental data is roughly about 78 percent, which is the primary efficiency of both conversion into hydrogen as well as into electricity. The electrolyzers, the alkaline electrolyzers for making hydrogen, they operate around 65 to 75 percent. So they are still efficient and comparably efficient. But if you consider the round-trip efficiency, the primary efficiency, where they get their electricity from, if it's cold derived, it's about low 30 percent, which makes the primary efficiency of that electrolyzer around 20 percent rather than 78 percent. We are pretty excited about this project. We haven't made a lot of progress because it's a young one. But we feel that this is going to be a pathway to efficient conversion of coal into clean energy of electricity and hydrogen. We obtain a concentrated stream of CO2. No pulse separation is needed. There is flexibility and modularity, especially from distributed generation from local fuels in Africa or any other parts of the world where power, distributed power is badly needed. This could be a sort of a model system to develop along those directions. Provided that, of course, we have overcome and solved a lot of the challenges and there are many. This is very, very long, but they can be addressed by basic research. And some of the things that we are addressing in this program will provide insights into a few of these challenges, mechanistic understanding of the conversion reactions, the effect of coal contaminants on the performance, as well as other things that we will try to address during the project. And I'll leave you with this message that the carbon fuel cells are a viable way of going into a transition to a low carbon power generation. And we would like to thank the opportunity to be able to do this under GSEP support. So with that, I will conclude and take questions. Thanks, Target. We have about four minutes for questions. Thanks for that presentation, Target. It is very, very nice and really interesting to thermodynamics of carbon conversion. Electrochemically, I've always been attractive, so it's very neat to see this concept really being worked on. A couple of thoughts occur. Certainly, electro oxidation of CO always has higher polarization of hydrogen. Same is true, I guess, in one view from combustion reactions, CO always seems to be the last to the party. Hopefully that piece of it can be overcome somewhat. One question I guess to think about is that I'm not quite sure how you feed the fuel. It seems like it could be batch process. I'm not quite sure there. And the other piece would be related to the fact that sulfur is clearly important. It seems like there probably be some pre-fuel processing needed. It seems like there's roughly a quarter of the periodic table. It seems to be in a lump of coal. So maybe there might be some pre-fuel processing as well. Your thoughts on that? Well, let me first start with the CO. CO is not a very widely used fuel for soloxide fuel cells or for any of the fuel cells. And based on the very small single cell studies, yes, CO has a high activation barrier compared to hydrogen. But in big cells that we have measured in sort of prototype cells, the hydrogen and the CO performances in the same cell came about 5% to 10%. CO is slightly lower than hydrogen because when you get into the large systems, you get the resistive losses that dominate more the kinetics of it. In the sorbent area, we're hoping that in a steam-rich environment, hydrogen is a very, very powerful gasifier. It reacts with many of the elements that you mentioned in the periodic table, from arcene and phosphine, chlorides and so on and so forth. They're all volatile, so they diffuse and land on the anode. In a hydrogen-poor environment with a carbon-rich environment, we're hoping that the volatility and the gasification of some of these, like arcene and phosphine, for instance, will be mitigated or diminished to a certain extent. And that we will be able to capture some of that with a solid sorbent in the reactor. Now, this is a tall order, of course, and we don't know until we try it whether or how much progress we will make in that direction. But that's the thought. We have time for one more. Essentially, you sort of covered the question a little bit, mentioning these other elements, arcene, et cetera. But I'm not sure the lack of hydrogen will solve the problem because in the combustion of coal, there are lots of these elements that appear in the normal combustion process in the exhaust. I'm familiar with catalytic sensors that are used in some of these processes for CO measurement, and they actually have shown silane poisoning deep in the pores. So you'll have some issues with these kinds of elements. Half the periodic table is in coal. I'm sure you're going to end up with lots of volatile silane hydrides that might end up in your... You're absolutely right, and that's very likely that will happen. With a slight caveat that the environment in our anode is a reducing environment, whereas in the combustor, of course, it's more oxidizing. So I don't know whether that will make any difference in terms of the gasification rates of these impurities into the gas phase to land on the anode and elsewhere. We will have to see. But since the problem is so complex and so wide in terms of dealing with all the impurities in coal, we selected the major one, the sulfur, as being a primary sort of attack point, if you like. And if we can solve the sulfur problem, then hopefully we will have some headway into dealing with the other impurities in time. Great. Thanks very much, Tergut.