Fuel Cell Report

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FUEL CELL RURAL
ELECTRIFICATION IN SCATTERED AND CLUSTERED

COMMUNITIES
Final Report for Energy Systems II

Professor: Dr. Barriga
Submitted by: Stephen Welty
University of Calgary
Table of Contents
Table of Contents................................................................................................................ 2
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3
Fuel Cells............................................................................................................................ 3
Fuel cell operation ......................................................................................................... 3
Efficiencies ..................................................................................................................... 5
Applications ................................................................................................................... 6
Fuels and Methods ............................................................................................................. 7
Natural Gas.................................................................................................................... 7
Other hydrocarbons...................................................................................................... 8
Hydrogen........................................................................................................................ 8
Life cycle analysis considerations...................................................................................... 8
Economic Analysis ........................................................................................................... 10
Establishing the demand cases ................................................................................... 10
Stand alone power generation.................................................................................... 10
Clustered Community ............................................................................................... 10
Local production of fuels for fuel cells ...................................................................... 15
Waste Heat and Exhaust Recovery.................................................................................. 18
Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 19
Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... 21
List of Figures
Figure 1: Schematic for the operation of PEM and Phosphoric Acid fuel cells................ 4
Figure 2: Comparison of efficiencies for ideal heat engines and Fuel Cells with a Carnot
low temperature of 30C....................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Greenhouse Gas emissions of energy options. ................................................... 9
Figure 4: The effect on UCE for different values of installed costs for the SOFC system 15
Figure 5: Waste heat and water exhaust for different energy generation levels. ............ 18
Stephen Welty Page 3 5/26/2002
Introduction
Currently, there are roughly 2 billion inhabitants of this planet that do not have access to
electricity. In the mind of modern western man, electricity is a basic need and the lack
thereof implies a significantly lower quality of life. To accommodate those of the
roughly 2 billion people without electricity that would like to gain access to the western
way of life, a number of rural electrification schemes have been devised both from the
private sector and the government. The most common way to provide inhabitants with
electricity is with the electricity grid. However, this is not always possible or
economically feasible and other distributed energy generation methods have been
employed. This paper is aimed at evaluating a relatively new technology for this
application.
This study has as its main goal to evaluate different fuel cell technologies that would be
suitable for electricity generation in small off-grid communities. The study will consider
both scattered settlements and clustered settlements where two different power generation
schemes will have to be considered to be economically feasible. Fuel cells can use
available hydrocarbons ranging from methane to diesel but different methods will have to
be used for different fuel supply scenarios and these will be discussed.
Additionally, fuel cells can be combined with renewable energy that provides irregular
supply of energy. In this case energy would be stored in hydrogen through electrolysis
and that hydrogen would be supplied to the fuel cell to meet electricity demand.
Essentially, the proposition is that fuel cells could replace batteries in renewable energy
systems if it is economically viable.
An important possible advantage of fuel cells is supplying clean drinking water for the
community. A number of fuel cells have wastewater exiting the system as steam, which
could be condensed and used as relatively pure drinking water. This possibility will
depend on the fuel cell technology used and the purity of the fuel supply.
In this study a simple economic analysis tool was applied to give a first order view of the
economics of the fuel cell generating system compared with other available generating
systems. A brief view of the life cycle analysis of fuel cells will be discussed to
determine its real environmental impacts compared with other technologies as well as to
determine its economic feasibility in terms of reliability, durability and replacement
costs.
Fuel Cells
Fuel cell operation

A fuel cell is an electrochemical device, which produces DC electricity directly from the
chemical energy of a substance (usually hydrogen). It is very similar to a battery with the
main difference being that it is an open system with the fuel constantly supplied to the
device. Fuel cells are comprised of two electrodes, an electrolyte and an external circuit.
The electrolyte provides for ion migration from one electrode to the other. One of the
electrodes is a positive anode and the other is a negative cathode. The reactants,
hydrogen in most cases, lose electrons at the negative electrode through an oxidation
reaction and the electrons travel through an external circuit to the positive electrode. The
positively charged hydrogen ions from the oxidation reaction travel through the ionic
conductor or electrolyte to the positive electrode. At the positive electrode a reduction
reaction takes place where the electrons combine with the positively charged hydrogen
ions and oxygen to form exhaust water. In the process, heat is also released which in
some applications can be captured for useful thermal energy. This process is typical of
Proton Exchange Membrane and Phosphoric Acid fuel cells but there are other processes
using different fuels and in some cases the oxygen picks up electrons at the cathode and
then migrates to the anode to react with the positive hydrogen ions.
Figure 1: Schematic for the operation of PEM and Phosphoric Acid fuel cells1.
There are a number of different methods to produce the effects described above leading
to a number of different technologies within the fuel cell technology general field. Table
1 is a list of the different fuel cell types and some of their characteristics. The list is not
comprehensive and there are a number of differences between manufacturers materials
and methods for manufacturing fuel cells that in many cases are proprietary and
confidential. The types of fuel cells can be broken down into two different categories:
low temperature fuel cells and high temperature fuel cells. The low temperature fuel
cells include AFC, PEM and PAFC and the high temperature technologies are MCFC and
SOFC. The newest technologies are the DMFC and URFC, which are furthest from
commercialization. PAFC is the most commercially developed fuel cell type and has
been used most in stationary power supply. The PEM or SPFC technology is the most
promising technology for transport applications since it has a high power density and a
quick response time to load but it is also suitable for stationary power applications and
when it is commercialized, it is expected to be the lowest cost fuel cell technology. AFC
technology was the first developed fuel cell technology and was used in space
1
Taken from americanhistory.si.edu website.
applications in the 1960’s but the costs of this technology have been considered to be too
high for commercialization. Therefore, it has received little attention from manufacturers
and has received little funding for development. SOFC span the largest application range
and are considered slated for commercialization before 2004. They also could have the
highest efficiencies of the fuel cell technologies when combined with gas turbine energy
generation (up to 70%).
A single cell (a combination of two electrodes and an electrolyte) produces only about
0.7 volts under load. In order to achieve a practical voltage, the cells are put together into
a “stack”. To do this, an interconnect is put between the anode of one cell and the
cathode of the next cell.
Fuel Cell Type Acronym Operating Achieved Electrolyte Electrodes Fuels

Temp [ºC] Efficiencies
Alkaline AFC 150-200 40% KOH in H2O Platinum H2 and O2
catalysts Compressed
Proton PEM or 80-100 35 to 40% Solid Polymer Platinum Purified H2
Exchange SPFC catalysts
Membrane
Phosphoric PAFC 150-200 35 to 40% Phosphoric Platinum Gasoline, H2,
Acid Acid catalysts Natural Gas
Molten MCFC 650 50 to 55% Na, K or Mg Ni catalysts H2
Carbonate Carbonates
Solid Oxide SOFC 1000 45 to 50% Ca or Zi La-Mn H2 No Reformer
oxides cathode and
Ni-Zr anode
Direct DMFC 80-100 35 to 40% Solid Polymer Pt and Ru Methanol
Methanol
Regenerative URFC 80-100 35 to 40% Solid Polymer Varies Purified H2
Table 1: Fuel cell types and their characteristics. Efficiencies based on electricity out/Lower heating
value of fuel in.
Efficiencies
The efficiencies of the fuel cells listed in table 1 range from 35% to 55%. To get a better
understanding of the efficiencies it is useful to compare these efficiencies to the
maximum possible efficiencies from internal and external combustion machines. Fuel
cells are not subject to the thermodynamic efficiencies associated with the second law of
thermodynamics and the Carnot efficiency limitation. The Carnot efficiency is defined
for a heat engine whose temperature extremes are known as follows:
T − TL
Carnot = H
TH
where TH is the high temperature reservoir and TL is the low temperature reservoir. The
theoretical maximum efficiency of an electrochemical device such as the fuel cell is
defined not by its temperature extremes but by the ratio of the Gibbs free energy value
(∆Gº) over the enthalpy value (∆Hº) or total heat energy of the fuel at a given
temperature. Figure 2 is a graph comparing the two theoretical efficiencies assuming a
30ºC low temperature for the heat engines. The discontinuity in the graph of the fuel cell
efficiency at 100ºC is due to the change in phase of the exhaust water from liquid to gas.
This change in phase affects both the enthalpy of the water and the entropy, which
directly affects the Gibbs free energy value.
An important aspect of fuel cells is their low pollution. For the low temperature types, it
is critical to have a relatively pure supply of hydrogen and this results in pure exhaust
water with no pollutants such as NOx or SOx or CO2. However, in some cases the method
of extracting hydrogen from a hydrocarbon may release some pollutants but on a much
smaller scale than combustion of those fuels. With the high temperature fuel cells the
emissions are also very low though some SOx are produced and in the case of SOFC with
an operating temperature of 1000ºC, there is the possibility of forming NOx. If hydrogen
is obtained from electrolysis of water using renewable energies, then there are no
pollutants released because of the pure hydrogen. Additionally, there would be no carbon
dioxide emissions.
100.00%
Fuel Cell
90.00%
80.00%
Discontinuit y due t o change from liquid t o gas
phase of exhaust wat er (Delt a Enthalpy =
70.00%
41kJ/ mol@100C)
Efficiency %
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
Carnot Heat Engine
10.00%
0.00%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Tem perature [C]
Figure 2: Comparison of efficiencies for ideal heat engines and Fuel Cells with a Carnot low
temperature of 30ºC
Applications
The applications for fuel cells are quite broad and rather specific to fuel cell type. The
applications range from replacement of batteries in consumer electronics to large-scale
electricity generating plants. Table 2 gives an idea of the applications and reasonable
power ranges for a module of the different fuel cell types. The applications of interest for
this study are domestic power and small-scale power.
It can be seen from the table that all of the fuel cell types would be applicable to the case
of a small clustered community requiring small-scale power and most of the technologies
would be applicable for domestic power. MCFC technology would not be applicable to
domestic power because the minimum module size is reported to be 250kW, which is
much more than an individual household would need. The only technologies available
for a 1kW domestic power fuel cell are AFC, SPFC and SOFC.
Fuel cell Module size Waste heat Waste water Domestic Small-scale Large-scale Trans Battery
type range [kW] output [ºC] output power power cogeneration port Replacement
AFC <1-200 <60 liquid ! ! " ! "
SPFC <1-500 <80 liquid ! ! " ! !
PAFC 5-500 <200 Steam " ! " - "
MCFC 250-5000 600 Steam " ! ! " "
SOFC 1-5000 850 Steam ! ! ! " -
2
Table 2: Applications of different fuel cell types .
Fuels and Methods

Natural Gas
Natural gas can be obtained in a number of ways including extraction in associated and
non-associated gas fields of fossil fuels and production from biomass. If the gas is
extracted from fossil fields, then it cannot be considered a renewable energy despite the
fact that the combustion or electrochemical process of this fuel produces much less
carbon dioxide than other hydrocarbons. However, as shown in figure 3, there are
possibilities for sequestering the carbon dioxide to avoid greenhouse gas emissions. The
most environmentally friendly way of using natural gas is to produce it from biomass
through thermal gasification or biological conversion known as biogas.
Figure 3: Sequestering carbon dioxide in a fossil fuel powered fuel cell3.

In order to use natural gas in low temperature fuel cells, a reformer must be used which
separates the hydrogen from the carbon. The most common reforming method is steam
reforming which operates in two steps. In the first step the natural gas is exposed to high
2
Adapted from “An introduction to fuel cell technology and economics” by Nigel Brandon and David
Hart.
3
Taken from http://www.fuel-cell.de website.
temperature steam and broken down into hydrogen, carbon monoxide and carbon
dioxide. The second step consists of exposing the carbon monoxide from the first step to
high temperature steam and producing more hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This process
can reach efficiencies of 70 to 90%. The hydrogen and carbon dioxide are then
sequestered and stored in tanks. The hydrogen can then be used directly as a reactant for
the fuel cell. In high temperature fuel cells there is a possibility of internal reforming of
the natural gas in the fuel cell, which would not require an extra reformer. The issues for
internal reforming are the same as the external reforming case.
Other hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons such as gasoline, coal, LPG and methanol can also be used as fuels in fuel
cells. These other hydrocarbons still require a reforming process that will release even
more carbon dioxide than the reforming of methane and reduce the overall efficiency of
the system. The only advantage to using other hydrocarbons in fuel cells is the fuel
availability. The most desired hydrocarbons for hydrogen production are those fuels that
have the highest hydrogen to carbon ratio and the least amount of other components.
Natural gas is the best hydrocarbon for the production of hydrogen.
Hydrogen
Since hydrogen is the reactant used in most fuel cells it would be ideal to get the fuel
supplied directly as hydrogen. If pure hydrogen is supplied to the fuel cell the only
products will be water and heat. This would lead to a zero-emissions technology for
generating electricity, which would be very attractive in light of current environmental
concerns. The difficulty with supplying pure hydrogen to the fuel cell is its availability
and difficulties in storage. It could be obtained by electrolysis of water to obtain oxygen
and hydrogen but this process requires energy. Some advocates of this method suggest
using renewable energies to provide the energy for the electrolysis process. This would
reduce the problems associated with the intermittent nature of the availability of
renewable energy technologies such as photovoltaics, wind energy and micro hydro. In
this context, the hydrogen becomes an energy storage and transport method rather than a
fuel as such. There are other methods of obtaining hydrogen such as thermal water
splitting, thermochemical cycles which use high temperature heat to split water,
photoelectrolysis (sunlight directly splits water into hydrogen and oxygen), photobiology
(using sunlight and microorganisms), and radiolysis. Although these methods may have
future potential, they are currently a long way from commercialization.
Life cycle analysis considerations

Life cycle analysis is important in determining the economics, environmental impacts and
general feasibility of a technology. Life cycle analysis is also known as “cradle to grave”
assessment of a technology. In the case of fuel cells this includes the energy to fabricate
the device, the energy to produce hydrogen fuel, the carbon dioxide and other emissions
in the process of removing hydrogen from hydrocarbons, and the energy required to
recycle or dispose of the device at the end of its useful life. This life cycle analysis is
used to determine the environmental impact of a technology but some of these issues can
be translated into dollar costs for an economic analysis.
Figure 4: Greenhouse Gas emissions of energy options4.

Figure 4 shows the greenhouse gas emissions from given technologies per TWh of
energy produced. The lowest emitting technologies are hydro, wind, solar and nuclear.
The emissions of fuel cell technology is calculated based on a natural gas supply and are
similar to the emissions of a natural gas power plant. However, as discussed in the
previous section, other sources of hydrogen could be used which would reduce the
emissions of fuel cells to a level similar to wind and solar.
An important aspect in the life cycle analysis of a technology is the life of a device. For
instance, if an electrification program were to last 20 years and the device had a projected
life of 5 years, the devices would have to be replaced 4 times in the duration of the
project which would add to the cost of the project and to the environmental impact. For
PAFC’s, the most commercialized fuel cell technology, the life is projected to be about
40,000 hours or five years. The short life of PAFC technology seems to be characteristic
of technologies using liquid electrolytes. The MCFC technology also uses liquid
electrolytes and has a similar life expectancy. However, SOFC’s, which use a solid
ceramic as their electrolyte, are expected to have lifetimes of 10 to 20 years. PEM fuel
cells also use a solid electrolyte, which would yield longer lifetimes but they are
“poisoned” by gases from impure fuel. It is necessary to have extensive fuel processing
4
Taken from “Comparing power generation options” by Hydro Quebec.
facilities before the fuel can be used in the fuel cell, which both increases price and
reduces efficiency down to about 42%.
At this time there is not enough information on manufacturing, disposal or recycling costs
for fuel cell technologies to do an in depth life cycle analysis. It is sufficient to say that
the operational emissions and energy consumption is much less than diesel generators
and coupled with renewable energies could offer near zero operational emissions.
Economic Analysis
Establishing the demand cases
For the purposes of doing a preliminary economic analysis of fuel cells, an arbitrary
community has been devised. For the case of the clustered and scattered communities
there are 800 households each consuming 800Wh/day leading to a total energy demand
of roughly 640 kWh/D. For the clustered community it was determined to be more
economical to get a central generation station and transmit the electricity to the different
households via transmission wires. It is assumed that the transmission lines are already
in place due to a previous generation station that now needs replaced. For the scattered
community, there are no transmission lines and it is considered more economical to
generate power at each individual household.
Item Quantity Load [W] Use [h/d] Energy [Wh/d]

Lights 4 13 5 260
Radio 1 20 3 60
TV 1 30 3 90
Refrigerator 1 16 24 384
Per family Peak 55.3 Daily 794
Community Peak 28756 Daily 635200
Table 3: Distribution of Consumption for a typical household. Refrigerator consumption based on
an efficient single temperature refrigerator.
Table 3 shows the consumption of a typical household. The per family peak demand is
calculated assuming only 70% of the items will be on at the same time during the peak
hours of demand for the community. The community peak demand is calculated
assuming a 0.65 simultaneity factor. The peak demand that the generation system must
be designed for is about 29kW.
Stand alone power generation

Clustered Community
The first case to be studied will be the clustered community where the generation system
will be put in a fixed location and transmission wires will supply the community with
electricity at the point of use. As mentioned earlier this case will be studied assuming
that there was a diesel generator at the location previously and that the transmission lines
are already in place. This assumption gives an advantage to the central generation
scheme since putting in transmission wires could be a significant cost depending on the
layout of the community. However, the object of this study is not to compare central
generation to distributed-generation but to compare different technologies within a given

scheme of electrification. Table 4 gives the values for the costs associated with putting in
another diesel generator.
Total Energy Demand per day 640 kWh/D Required capacity of gen-set 37.7 kW
Peak demand for the community 29 kW Price for this gen-set $15,080
Heating Value of Diesel 42000 kJ/kg Life of the gen-set 170,000 hours
Gen-Set with efficiency of: 15.00% Maintenance/year is assumed 3% of I.C. $452 $/year
Gen-set $/kW system cost: $400 $/kW Labor per year with one person 1/4 time: $2,080 $/year
Safety factor for peak demand: 1.3 Other unforeseen costs: $1,000 $/year
Interest rate for capital 12.00% Project Duration 20 years
Conversion kg/gal of diesel 3.30 kg/gal Diesel $1.20 USD/gal
Regular overhaul every 5 years $3,000
Year Present Value of overhaul Fuel Consumption/year (345 days) Total Initial Cost $18,296 USD
5 $1,702.28 2304000 kJ/D Annuity $2,449 USD/year
10 $965.92 365.71 kg/D Yearly fuel cost $45,881 USD/year
15 $548.09 126171.43 kg/year Total yearly cost $51,862 USD/year
UCE $0.23 USD/kWh
Table 4: Unified Cost of Electricity for a Gen-Set in a clustered community with existing
transmission lines.
The yearly fuel cost for this generation scheme is about 88% of the total yearly cost,
therefore, any fluctuation in diesel price during the duration of this project could have a
significant impact on the UCE.
Another case for electrification of this community is shown in Table 5. A Phosphoric

Acid fuel cell was selected for this case because it is the only commercially available fuel
cell to date. The PC25 is a PAFC manufactured by United Technologies Company and
has a capacity of 200kW. The fuel cell needed in this case is only a 29kW fuel cell.
Although that model is not currently available, the analysis was done assuming that when
such a model is available, it would cost roughly the same in $/kW as the PC25.
However, as these fuel cells are manufactured in larger volumes, the prices will certainly
come down and different technologies will fit into different size categories. It may be the
case that a 30kW PAFC is never available but it is very likely that a SOFC or PEMFC
will be available in the near future to accommodate this size range. It is also important to
note that the expected lifetime of a PAFC is only about 40,000 hours and will require
replacement in about the same intervals as batteries in a photovoltaic system. SOFC and
PEMFC using solid electrolytes have the potential to last much longer. The calculations
shown in table 5 include the cost of replacement every 5 years and even with this, a
PAFC at 3,500$/kW has a similar unified cost of electricity as a diesel generator.
It is also important to note that the methane cost was taken at $250/thousand cubic meters
($0.35/kg), which was the cost of natural gas in the United States in 2000. In Ecuador,
for example the cost of LPG, which could also be reformed to extract the hydrogen for
use in fuel cells, is 0.10$/kg. The yearly cost of fuel in the calculations in table 5 is only
23% of the total yearly cost making this system much less susceptible to the volatility of
fossil fuel prices. Additionally, methane can be produced through thermal gasification of
biomass or in biogas digesters, which make it possible for fuel cells to be a renewable
energy and assure the security of supply for remote regions.
Total Energy Demand per day 640 kWh/D Required capacity of fuel cell 37.7 kW
Peak demand for the community 29 kW Price for this fuel cell $131,950
Heating Value of Methane 54000 kJ/kg Life of the fuel cell 40,000 hours
PAFC with efficiency of: 40.00% Maintenance/year is assumed 3% of I.C. $3,959 $/year
PAFC $/kW system cost: $3,500 $/kW Labor per year with one person 1/4 time: $2,080 $/year
Density of Methane 0.72 kg/m^3 Methane costs $0.25 USD/m^3
Inverter $5,000.00 USD
Year PV of Replacement Fuel Consumption/year (345 days) Total Initial Cost $278,413 USD
10 $42,484.37 106.67 kg/D Yearly fuel cost $12,778 USD/year
15 $24,106.77 36800 kg/year Total yearly cost $57,090 USD/year
UCE $0.26 USD/kWh
Table 5: Generation scheme using a PAFC at current market value using existing transmission lines.
The case shown in table 6 is a little more future-based than the previous two cases since
there are no commercially available SOFC to date. The reason for doing this case was to
investigate the effect on the UCE if instead of being replaced every 5 years, as the PAFC
Total Energy Demand per day 640 kWh/D Required capacity of fuel cell 37.7 kW
Peak demand for the community 29 kW Price for this fuel cell $75,400
SOFC with efficiency of: 50.00% Maintenance/year is assumed 3% of I.C. $2,262 $/year
SOFC $/kW system cost: $2,000 $/kW Labor per year with one person 1/4 time: $2,080 $/year
Regular overhaul every 5 years $5,000 Inverter $5,000.00 USD
Year Present Value of overhaul Fuel Consumption/year (345 days) Total Initial Cost $85,760 USD
10 $1,609.87 85.33 kg/D Yearly fuel cost $10,222 USD/year
15 $913.48 29440 kg/year Total yearly cost $27,046 USD/year
UCE $0.12 USD/kWh
Table 6: Unified Cost of Electricity for the case of a SOFC in the clustered community
would have to be, there was just an overhaul cost every five years. The overhaul cost is
taken as 6% of the initial cost of the equipment every five years. It is uncertain how
accurate this value is since there is no field experience available other than some field
trials, which were not available to the author for inclusion in this paper. It is reasonable
to assume, however, that the overhaul and maintenance cost of fuel cells will be much
lower than diesel generators since there are no moving parts in a fuel cell. SOFC’s also
have the potential to be from 50% to 55% efficient, reducing the fuel consumption of the
system. The UCE for this case is 0.12$/kWh which is getting competitive with large-
scale power plants supplying the grid. And this is based on a price of $2000/kW, which
is predicted by some companies to drop to $800/kW in volume production. The only way
of verifying the veracity of these statements is to wait until the technology is available.
The last case investigated for the clustered community was the use of a traditional
photovoltaic system using batteries. Table 7 shows the values used in the calculations for
this case and the results.
Total Energy Demand per day 640 kWh/D Autonomy of batteries 3.00 days
Peak demand for the community 29 kW Depth of Discharge 60.00%
Daily Solar Energy 4.2 kWh/m^2 Battery Safety Factor 1.3
D.S.E. Factor 0.65 Required capacity of batteries 4160 kWh
PV system efficiency 10% Battery price/kwh $165 $/kWh
Safety factor for peak demand: 1.3 Price for batteries $686,400 USD
Peak Wattage 234432 W(p) Life of the batteries 40,000 hours
PV system cost: $6 $/W Maintenance/year is assumed 5% of initial cost $8 $/year
Cost of PV panels $1,406,400 USD Labor per year with one person 1/30 time: $277 $/year
Required Area 2344.32 m^2 Other unforeseen costs: $20 $/year
Project Duration 20 years Interest rate for capital 12.00%
Inverter $5,000.00 USD
Year Present Value of battery replacement Total Initial Cost $2,833,687 USD
5 $389,481.79 Annuity $379,371 USD/year
10 $221,002.43 Total yearly cost $379,676 USD/year
15 $125,402.71 UCE $1.72 USD/kWh
Table 7: Photovoltaics with batteries for the clustered community with existing transmission lines.
It is clear from the results of this case that solar electricity is the least attractive
technology economically unless fuel supply is tremendously difficult. The UCE is more
than five times higher than the most expensive alternative analyzed. The main
advantages of solar power have traditionally been that no fossil fuel is required, and that
it is an environmentally friendly technology. These studies suggest that in the case of
small-scale centralized electricity generation, fuel cells may fill the niche that
photovoltaics began to fill and may in many cases displace diesel generators.
Scattered Community
The case of the scattered community requires onsite power generation at each household.
Traditionally this has been done with the use of photovoltaic panels and possibly wind
turbines. The difficulty with using diesel generators for on-site generation is the noise,
pollution and the access to fuel since many times these dwellings are in difficult to reach
areas.
Table 8 shows the case for a photovoltaic system for each household. In the central
generation schemes analyzed for the clustered community it is necessary to have a
significant amount of labor but since the worker is working to generate much more power
than the cases of the scattered community, the fraction of labor in the overall cost will be
much lower. In all of the cases analyzed for the scattered community, labor was
included, but it can be argued that with sufficient training the system can be maintained
by the homeowner with a small amount of his time. This would yield the labor costs
irrelevant. With labor costs in table 8 the UCE is $2.86/kWh and without labor costs it
would be $1.85/kWh.
Per family Energy Demand per day. 0.8 kWh/D Autonomy of batteries 3.00 days
Peak demand of the household 0.055 kW Depth of Discharge 60.00%
Daily Solar Energy 4.2 kWh/m^2 Battery Safety Factor 1.3
D.S.E. Factor 0.65 Required capacity of batteries 5.2 kWh
PV system efficiency 10% Battery price/kwh $165 $/kWh
Safety factor for peak demand: 1.3 Price for batteries $858 USD
Peak Wattage 293 W(p) Life of the batteries 40,000 hours
PV system cost: $6 $/W Maintenance/year is assumed 5% of I.C. $8 $/year
Cost of PV panels $1,800 USD Labor per year with one person 1/30 time: $277 $/year
Required Area 2.93 m^2 Other unforeseen costs: $20 $/year
Inverter $30.00 USD
Year Present Value of battery replacement Total Initial Cost $3,608 USD
5 $486.85 Annuity $483 USD/year
10 $276.25 Total yearly cost $789 USD/year
15 $156.75 UCE $2.86 USD/kWh
Table 8: Unified Cost of electricity for one household in a scattered community using a conventional
PV system.
Table 9 shows the case for a small-scale fuel cell in the scattered community. This case
also includes labor costs but the same argument could apply to this system as to the
photovoltaic system. With labor the UCE is $1.34/kWh whereas without the labor costs
the UCE would be $0.33/kWh.
Per family Energy Demand per day. 0.8 kWh/D Required capacity of fuel cell 0.0715 kW
Peak demand of the household 0.055 kW Price for this fuel cell $143
SOFC fuel cell with efficiency of: 50% Maintenance/year is assumed 5% of I.C. $7 $/year
Take SOFC to have $/kW cost of: $2,000 $/kW Labor per year with one person 1/30 time: $277 $/year
Safety factor for peak demand: 1.3 Other unforeseen costs: $20 $/year
Regular overhaul every 5 years $200 Inverter $30.00 USD
Year Present Value of overhaul Fuel Consumption/year (345 days) Total Initial Cost $387 USD
5 $113.49 2880 kJ/D Annuity $52 USD/year
10 $64.39 0.11 kg/D Yearly fuel cost $13 USD/year
15 $36.54 36.8 kg/year Total yearly cost $369 USD/year
UCE $1.34 USD/kWh
Table 9: Unified cost of electricity for one household in a scattered community using a SOFC.
This case was done using a SOFC cost of $2000/kW and assuming that the lifetime
would be 170,000 hours and the system only requires an overhaul every five years.
Since the SOFC cost is not known and there are many claims about the potential of
reducing the costs in volume production, it is instructive to investigate the effects on the
unified cost of electricity for different price ranges. Figure 5 shows the effect on the
UCE for changing values of the installed cost of the SOFC system without labor costs.
The graph shows that even for relatively expensive SOFC systems, the UCE is much
lower than that of the photovoltaic system without labor ($1.85/kWh).
$0.60
$0.50
$0.40
UCE $/kWh
$0.30
$0.20
$0.10
$0.00
$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000
Installed Cost $/kW
Figure 5: The effect on UCE for different values of installed costs for the SOFC system
Even in the on-site generation scheme investigated here, the fuel cell technology has a
clear economic advantage over photovoltaics. There are some assumptions made in the
analysis that should be emphasized again. It is assumed that fuel cell technology will be
available in these size ranges in the near future and that the lifetimes will be 170,000
hours or more so that frequent replacement is not necessary.
Local production of fuels for fuel cells

One possible disadvantage to using fuel cells in remote communities is the need for a
constant supply of fuel as in the case of the diesel generator even though the fuel required
is much less for fuel cells. However, a number of local hydrogen or methane generation
methods are possible for fuel cells. Among them are biogas from digesters, producer gas
from thermal gasification of biomass and electrolysis of water using renewable energies.
For the biogas digesters, approximately 0.5-0.6 m3 of biogas can be produced per
kilogram of volatile solids added to the digester. Biogas is composed mainly of methane
(60%) and carbon dioxide (40%) with small amounts of other gases. While it is not the
aim of this paper to do an in depth analysis of the biogas potential, it is important to note
that it is technically and economically feasible. A 3 m3 digester will produce roughly 1
m3 of biogas per day under optimal conditions. Since the digester can be constructed of
local materials and local labor, it becomes an economically feasible endeavor.
Additionally, the added social and health benefits must be considered. A properly
designed and maintained digester will eliminate over 90% of the disease causing agents
from animal and human wastes. In areas where using human waste directly as fertilizer is
a common practice there wouldn’t be much of a cultural barrier to using human waste in
the digester and it would considerably increase the quality of their foods. In areas where
human waste is not traditionally used as fertilizer, there may be some resistance to using
this technique.
For the case of the SOFC in table 6, approximately 120 m3 of methane is required which
translates to about 200 m3 of biogas at 60% methane content. This biogas supply could
be met by a community bio-digester of 600 m3 and an input of 400 kg of volatile solids
per day. For the on-site generation SOFC in table 8, a biogas supply of 0.26 m3 is
required which could be supplied by a 0.8 m3 household bio-digester with a volatile
solids input of 0.5kg per day. However, the technological complexity of a biogas
digester is rather high when one considers all of the conditions that must be met for
optimal biogas production.
Table 10 shows an analysis of using hydrogen produced from photovoltaics to run the
SOFC. An electrolysis efficiency of 80% is used along with an electrolysis device cost of
600$/kW. This case is the same as the case in table 7 for the clustered community with
the difference of using hydrogen to store the energy and fuel cells to recuperate it when
needed. The unit cost of electricity for the conventional PV system using batteries in
table 7 is 1.72$/kWh whereas with the system in table 10 the UCE is $2.25/kWh.
Total Energy Demand per day 640 kWh/D Fuel Cell Safety Factor 1.3
Peak demand for the community 29 kW Fuel Cell Capacity 37.7 kW
Daily Solar Energy 4.2 kWh/m^2 Fuel Cell Price $/kWh $3,000 $/kW
D.S.E. Factor 0.65 Price for fuel cell $113,100 USD
PV panel efficiency 13% Life of the fuel cell 170,000 hours
Safety factor for peak demand: 1.3 Maintenance/year is assumed 3% of I.C. $3,393 $/year
Peak Wattage 586081 W(p) Labor per year with one person 1/4 time: $2,080 $/year
PV system cost: $6 $/W Other unforeseen costs: $1,000 $/year
Cost of PV panels $3,516,600 USD System Overhaul every 5 years $5,000 $/year
Required Area 4508.31 m^2 Inverter $5,000 USD
Electrolysis Efficiency 80.00% Electrolysis Device $16,000.00 USD
Fuel Cell Efficiency 50.00% Hydrogen Storage Tank $12,000.00 USD
Year Present Value of battery replacement Total Initial Cost $3,668,060 USD
5 $2,837.13 Annuity $491,075 USD/year
10 $1,609.87 Total yearly cost $497,548 USD/year
15 $913.48 UCE $2.25 USD/kWh
Table 10: PV/fuel cell system using hydrogen as energy storage for the clustered community.
The main disadvantage of the PV/fuel cell system is that the efficiency of performing
electrolysis coupled with the fuel cell efficiency makes the photovoltaic panels needed
much greater. This fact is the greatest contributor to the higher electricity cost of the
system. It is likely that a system with wind turbines or micro-hydro to perform
electrolysis would be much more economically feasible than a system with photovoltaics.
The case for the scattered community is shown in table 11. Once again the main
economic disadvantage is the requirement of more PV panels. When compared to the
case in table 8 of a conventional PV system with the same demand case, it can be seen
that using fuel cells in this context yields no economic advantage increasing the UCE
from $2.86/kWh to $3.79/kWh.
Per family Energy Demand per day. 0.8 kWh/D Fuel Cell Safety Factor 1.3
Peak demand of the household 0.055 kW Required capacity of fuel Cell 0.0715 kW
Daily Solar Energy 4.2 kWh/m^2 Fuel cell price/kw $2,000 $/kW
D.S.E. Factor 0.65 Price for fuel cell $143 USD
PV panel efficiency 13% Life of the fuel cell 170,000 hours
Safety factor for peak demand: 1.3 Maintenance/year is assumed 5% of I.C. $100 $/year
Peak Wattage 733 W(p) Labor per year with one person 1/30 time: $277 $/year
PV panel cost: $6 $/W Other unforeseen costs: $20 $/year
Cost of PV panels $4,200 USD Regular overhaul every 5 years $200 $/year
Required Area 5.64 m^2 Inverter $30.00 USD
Hydrogen Storage Tank $200.00 USD Electrolysis Device $50.00 USD
Fuel Cell Efficiency 50.00% Electrolysis Efficiency 80.00%
Year Present Value of 5 year overhaul Total Initial Cost $4,837 USD
5 $113.49 Annuity $648 USD/year
10 $64.39 Total yearly cost $1,045 USD/year
15 $36.54 UCE $3.79 USD/kWh
Table 11: Scattered community PV/fuel cell system with hydrogen as energy storage.
The case for thermal gasification of biomass has more potential for being economically
feasible than the photovoltaics system of generating hydrogen. In order for producer gas
technology to be sustainable, the biomass used in the production must be harvested
sustainably. Typically, 60-70% of the energy content of the biomass is recovered in the
producer gas. Using an average energy content for the biomass as 17 MJ/kg and a daily
energy consumption of 2,300 MJ as in the case of the SOFC in table 6, the annual
consumption of biomass is 49,400 kg. But considering that only 60% of the energy
content is recovered in the producer gas the actual consumption is 82,300kg/year.
With a demand of 82,300 kg/year the area required for sustainable production can be
calculated once a few assumptions are made. The solar insolation of the area will be
assumed to be 4.2 kWh/m2 per day and the main plants grown are C3 plants with a 10
year growing cycle. C3 plants are roughly 1.5% efficient in capturing the solar radiation
so the incoming solar radiation converted to plant matter can be calculated to be 23kWh/
m2 over an entire year. Assuming these plants have a heating value of 17,000 kJ/kg, the
area per kilogram required for plant production is 4.9 kg/m2-year. For the case of the
SOFC in table 6, the required area for a 10 year plant harvested sustainably is 168,000 m2
or 16.8 hectares.
For an economic analysis of this method of fuel production, the value of the land used for
other purposes as well as labor costs should be analyzed. In many cases, this system
could prove to be both economically viable and socially acceptable within the
community.
Waste Heat and Exhaust Recovery

The products of the reaction within the fuel cell to generate electricity are water and heat.
In many cases the heat can be used for water heating or space heating. This application
would be especially useful and practical in the on-site generation schemes discussed
above where the heat does not have to be transported very far to get to its end users.
Additionally, if the exhaust water is free of contaminants it can also be used for clean
drinking water eliminating the need to boil water, which would in turn save a good deal
of primary energy. In the case of Alkaline Fuel Cells, the exhaust water has been used
for drinking water for astronauts during space missions. Depending on the technology
used and the purity of the hydrogen supply, this may not be a feasible option.
Water L/day Waste Heat
1400 60
1200 50
Recoverable Heat [kJ/s]

Water Exhaust [L/day]
1000
40
800
30
600
20
400
200 10
0 0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Energy [kWh/day]
Figure 6: Waste heat and water exhaust for different energy generation levels.
Figure 6 is a graph of the amount of exhaust water and recoverable waste heat for
different levels of daily energy generation. For the case shown in table 9 for the SOFC
the amount of water generated is only about ½ liter and the waste heat rate is 17 J/s
assuming an 800 C temperature difference. Half of a liter is not enough drinking water
for a family per day but at that heating rate 18L of water could be heated from 25C to
45C for bathing which could be sufficient for a family of two or three.
In the case of the clustered community using a SOFC (table 6), the water generated is
much more substantial. At the energy consumption rate of 640kWh/day, the amount of
water generated from the fuel cell is about 367 liters. This amount of water would not be
enough to supply the entire of community of 800 households with potable water but
could be used to reduce the amount of water that must be boiled. In this case, the waste
heat could be recovered but it would be more difficult to transport it to the location of
final use. There may be some other industrial demand in the community where the
excess heat could be used. But as the electricity demand in the community grows, a gas
turbine could be used in a combined cycle system to generate more electricity. This
combination of a high temperature SOFC and a gas turbine has the highest potential for
fuel to electricity efficiency of any electricity generation scheme currently available or
projected to be available in the near future. However, this application is limited by the
sizing of the gas turbines and is probably not available at such low steam generation
levels as studied here.
It is generally the case that once a community has a highly reliable and high quality
electricity supply the electricity usage readily increases. As the electricity demand
increases, so will the amount of water produced from the fuel cell per person, which
would make recovery of the exhaust water a more practical proposition in the on-site
generation case.
Conclusions
Rural electrification has become a priority among a number of different governments and
non-governmental organizations. As projects are identified it is important to note the
time frame of the project as well as the potential sources of energy. If the time frame is
long, it may be worth looking into cutting-edge technologies that may be available within
the time frame of the project. With the increasing concern about environmental impacts
and future possibilities of converting avoided carbon dioxide emissions into USD,
renewable energies or more clean technologies could have a marked advantage
economically as well.
The most promising technologies for domestic electricity generation are SOFC and PEM.
Both of these fuel cell technologies use solid electrolytes and are less susceptible to
corrosion than their counterparts, which makes them more rugged and gives them longer
lifetimes. The only commercially available fuel cell to date is a PAFC in the 200kW
range. The main disadvantage of this technology is its 40,000 hour expected life. For a
20 year project the fuel cell would have to be replaced three times.
SOFC technology has an advantage over PEM fuel cells in that it can tolerate a lesser
purity of hydrogen and its high temperatures can be used to steam reform the methane
into hydrogen. This translates into a lower cost and a higher efficiency for the SOFC
technology since less energy is required to reform and purify the fuel. The higher
temperatures of the SOFC also make waste heat recovery more of a possibility.
However, PEM fuel cells have a higher energy density and a much more rapid response
time, making them a favorite in the transportation sector. As PEM fuel cells are
introduced into the transportation market, it will lead to a much higher volume of
production than the SOFC, which in turn will reduce its cost.
Fuel cells, although not yet readily available in the size ranges discussed in this paper,
have had a great deal of development funding over the years. It is possible that within the
next few years these devices could be available in the size ranges discussed. If they
become available and they meet the projected costs and lifetimes, they would have a clear
advantage in a number of applications.
Technology Clustered Community Scattered Community Table #

Diesel Genset 0.23$/kWh UCE N/A Table 4
PAFC 0.26$/kWh UCE N/A Table 5
SOFC 0.12$/kWh UCE 1.34$/kWh UCE Table 6, 9
PV/battery system 1.72$/kWh UCE 2.86$/kWh UCE Table 7, 8
PV/fuel cell system 2.25$/kWh UCE 2.79$/kWh UCE Table 10, 11
Table 12: Summary of electrification cases.
Table 12 is a summary of the cases investigated and shows that the SOFC would be the
cheapest electricity alternative in the clustered community. In the case of on-site
generation for the scattered community, the diesel generator was not analyzed because of
noise and pollution problems. Instead, SOFC technology was compared to conventional
PV technology and it was found that there is a clear economic advantage for the SOFC.
Since the actual installed cost of the SOFC is unknown right now, an analysis of the
effect of the installed cost on the UCE was carried out. It was found that even for
installed costs of $5,500/kW, the UCE of the SOFC was below $0.50/kWh for the
scattered community if yearly labor costs were not included (an assumption based on the
fact that the owner could be trained to service the equipment).
An additional advantage of fuel cells is their ability to be used as renewable energy

conversion machines. If biogas or producer gas is used, the net carbon dioxide emissions
from operation could be near zero. In the case of generating hydrogen from renewable
energies, the case studied here of a photovoltaic system producing the gas proved to be
uneconomical. However, using renewable energies to produce hydrogen should not be
ruled out as it may prove to be a viable option if wind resources or hydro resources are
available.
Waste heat recovery and exhaust recovery in fuel cell systems provide for some
interesting possibilities for enhancing energy efficiency in cogeneration and potable
water that should not be overlooked. The possibilities for retrieving drinking water from
the fuel cell exhaust will depend on the purity of the fuel input and the fuel cell
technology used. Waste heat recovery for domestic use is more practical for the on-site
generation schemes studied as the heat is close to the location of end use. However, even
with the central generation station, the waste heat could be used in industry where the
heat does not need to be transported very far.
Bibliography
Brandon, Nigel and David Hart. An Introduction to fuel cell technology and economics.
Imperial College of Science and Technology. Center for Energy Policy and
Technology. July 1999. UK.
Barra, Luciano. Hydrogen technology: status and perspectives. Class Handout.
EG&G Services, Parson Inc., Science Applications International Corporation. Fuel Cell
Handbook: Fifth Edition. US DOE. October 2000, Morgantown WV.
Gagnon, Luc. Comparing Power Generation Options. Hydro-Quebec, direction-

Environment. April 2000.
Websites:
Smithsonian: National Museum of American History Behring Center.

http://americanhistory.si.edu
Brennstoffzellen in Jülich http://www.fuel-cell.de
DOE Fossil Energy website. http://www.fe.doe.gov
United Technologies Company http://www.utcfuelcells.com

Fuel Cell Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fuel Cell Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FUEL CELL RURAL

ELECTRIFICATION IN SCATTERED AND CLUSTERED

Final Report for Energy Systems II

Fuel cell operation

Fuel Cell Type Acronym Operating Achieved Electrolyte Electrodes Fuels

Tem perature [C]

Fuels and Methods

Figure 3: Sequestering carbon dioxide in a fossil fuel powered fuel cell3.

Life cycle analysis considerations

Figure 4: Greenhouse Gas emissions of energy options4.

Item Quantity Load [W] Use [h/d] Energy [Wh/d]

Stand alone power generation

generation to distributed-generation but to compare different technologies within a given

Another case for electrification of this community is shown in Table 5. A Phosphoric

UCE $0.26 USD/kWh

Local production of fuels for fuel cells

Waste Heat and Exhaust Recovery

Water L/day Waste Heat

Recoverable Heat [kJ/s]

Technology Clustered Community Scattered Community Table #

An additional advantage of fuel cells is their ability to be used as renewable energy

Barra, Luciano. Hydrogen technology: status and perspectives. Class Handout.

Gagnon, Luc. Comparing Power Generation Options. Hydro-Quebec, direction-

Smithsonian: National Museum of American History Behring Center.

You might also like