Did you even read how they attained 75% efficiency on the SOFC with gas turbine? They fed 25% of the fuel to the gas turbine and it was creating at least 25% of

Did you even read how they attained 75% efficiency on the SOFC with gas turbine? They fed 25% of the fuel to the gas turbine and it was creating at least 25% of the power, they then tried 45% of the fuel with a 50/50 power split. Is a gas turbine sitting next to an engine being fed half the fuel and putting out half the power a turbo charger? Did you miss the combustion chamber and generator for the gas turbine when you face-palmed? The Garrett link you presented isn't even a heat recovery turbine, it's just a electric compressor it draws electrical power from the fuel cell to compress the air. The other links are similar, they actually use power rather than generating it, they allow reduction in fuel cell size not increased efficiency: "The process temperature of modern fuel cells for cars is rather low. Therefore, the exhaust gas enthalpy provided to the turbine is not sufficient to drive the compressor. Hence, a powerful electrical motor is necessary to drive the compressor; in fact, it is an essential component of the FCAS system. Even a variant of the FCAS system without a turbine is available as part of the FCAS family." A turbo charger compresses air using heat, then rejects much of that heat in the intercooler very little of it is recovered as engine output power. Its purpose is to increase volumetric efficiency not thermal efficiency. More air + more fuel = more power with less displacement. A heat recovery turbine increases thermal efficiency not volumetric efficiency, that is the distinction between a turbo charger and heat recovery turbine in all literature I can find. They operate on similar principles and share a component (the turbine) but one is simpler than the other and they are not the same. Please show me a fuel cell using just a "simple" off the self turbocharger as a heat recovery turbine.