International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijhydene

Dynamic analyses of regenerative fuel cell power for potential use in

renewable residential applications
James D. Maclay, Jacob Brouwer , G. Scott Samuelsen
National Fuel Cell Research Center, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3550, USA
Received 24 January 2005; received in revised form 21 June 2005; accepted 19 October 2005
Available online 18 January 2006

Abstract
A model of a solar-hydrogen powered residence, in both stand-alone and grid parallel congurations, was developed using
Matlab/Simulink . The model assesses the viability of employing a regenerative fuel cell (RFC) as an energy storage device to
be used with photovoltaic (PV) electrical generation. Other modes of energy storage such as batteries and hybrid storage were
also evaluated. Analyses of various operating conditions, system congurations, and control strategies were performed. Design
requirements investigated included RFC sizing, battery sizing, charge/discharge rates, and state of charge limitations. Dynamic
load demand was found to be challenging to meet, requiring RFC and or battery sizes signicantly larger than those required
to meet average power demand. Employing a RFC with batteries in a hybrid conguration increased PV utilization and both
battery efciency and power density. Grid parallel congurations were found to alleviate many of the difculties associated with
energy storage costs and meeting peak demand.
2005 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Solar hydrogen; Regenerative fuel cell; Electrolyzer; Dynamic modeling; Energy storage; Renewable energy

1. Introduction
Solar photovoltaic (PV) arrays have been used to meet
electrical energy needs at the residential level for many
decades. However, one of the major challenges for PV
systems remains matching their sun dependent power
supply curve with that of the time dependent power demand of the residence. To solve this problem an energy
storage device must be used in conjunction with the PV
array. This device must store excess PV energy and subsequently deliver power at the desired time and rate. The
energy storage device that is most commonly used with
PV systems today is the rechargeable lead acid battery.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 949 824 7302;
fax: +1 949 824 7423.
E-mail address: jb@nfcrc.uci.edu (J. Brouwer).

With the emergence of regenerative or reversible fuel

cells (RFC), one can consider using a new energy storage device that is both analogous to rechargeable batteries and that may have unique advantages in comparison
to rechargeable batteries in this application. It is also
possible to implement a system design that uses both a
RFC and battery together in a hybrid energy storage
scenario that combines the strengths of each technology.
Unitized regenerative fuel cells use a single anode/cathode electrode pair that is bi-functional,
allowing RFC operation in both electrolysis and fuel cell
modes. This conguration is analogous to a rechargeable battery in that a single energy conversion unit can
operate under both charging and discharging conditions. In electrolysis mode the RFC takes in electricity
and water to produce hydrogen and oxygen. In fuel cell
mode the RFC takes in hydrogen and oxygen (or air) to

0360-3199/$30.00 2005 International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.10.008

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

produce electricity and water. Regenerative fuel cells

have a wide range of potential applications including
energy storage devices coupled to renewable energy
sources, power plants for automobiles and propulsion
systems for satellites [1]. They are also being considered for use in NASA missions [2].
The main advantage of using lead acid batteries with
PV arrays is that they are widely used and are therefore highly available, relatively well understood and
accepted by the public. Batteries are also efcient devices, achieving approximately 7090% round trip efciency. The main drawbacks of lead acid battery storage
technology are: (1) energy storage capacity that is proportional to battery size; (2) battery recharging duration;
(3) operational limitations such as depth of discharge
and low charge/discharge rates; (4) frequent maintenance of electrolyte levels; (5) desulphation of the
electrodes; (6) short battery life as applied to residential
duty cycles; and (7) hazardous waste handling during
battery disposal [4].
The main advantage of the RFC is that its energy storage capacity is independent of its size. Instead of chemical energy being stored internally, as in the battery, the
RFC produces hydrogen (H2 ) and oxygen (O2 ) gases
that can be stored in tanks, separate from the RFC. This
leads to longer possible energy storage capacity compared to batteries for an equivalent volume (or mass).
Also, stored H2 is a multi-functional fuel that can meet
other energy needs such as cooking and heating as well
as fuel for vehicles. Finally, a RFC may be preferred
over individual electrolyzer and fuel cell units since the
bi-functional electrodes in RFCs allow a single unit to
replace two separate units, resulting in potentially lower
costs, materials, size and weight.
Disadvantages of the RFC include: (1) low commercial availability; (2) complex systems that are currently
not well understood; (3) the hydrogen storage requirement; (4) limited hydrogen storage capacity of current
technologies; (5) system safety and reliability; and
(6) lower round-trip efciencies of approximately
3050%, using O2 . Round-trip efciency can be improved by the use of separate electrolyzer and fuel cell
units, known as a discrete reversible fuel cell. This
conguration allows independent optimization of the
electrodes for both electrolysis and fuel cell modes.

2. Background and related work

The main groups that are advancing regenerative fuel
cell systems are at NASA [2], Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory [1], Proton Energy Systems [3],

995

US Department of Energy [5], and Giner Electrochemical Systems [6]. Other groups that are more focused
on bi-functional electrode or MEA development include
researchers at AIST in Japan and the Dalian Institute of
Chemical Physics in China [79].
Although few research groups have published analyses pertaining to regenerative fuel cells as applied to
solar photovoltaic energy systems, many have analyzed
analogous systems containing fuel cells and electrolyzers as separate components [1025].
At the residential level, a single-family home in
Switzerland has operated a 5 kW PV array since
1991 to produce electrolytic H2 which is then utilized to power a stove, laundry machine, and minivan
(no fuel cell present in this system) [10]. At the building
level, a study of a solar-hydrogen powered library in
Germany outlines the challenges to systems engineering optimization in a stand-alone conguration [11].
A marine laboratory at Humboldt State University has
been powered successfully by solar-hydrogen for many
years in a stand-alone conguration [12]. A large-scale
study in Germany reiterates the difculties of systems
integration and also refers to the need for more basic
research, more development projects, better component availability, and cost reductions before widespread
hydrogen energy storage becomes practical [13].
Solmecke and Hackstein have shown system efciency and cost reduction gains that have been achieved
by integration of DCDC converters in similar systems [14]. Rahman and Tam showed that oscillations in
PV power output could be effectively smoothed out
by integration with phosphoric acid fuel cells, allowing the PV-fuel cell hybrid to successfully load follow
at the building scale [15]. Vosen and Keller developed
a model of a hybrid energy storage system containing
batteries and hydrogen that estimated the hybrid system cost at 48% of a hydrogen-only system and only
9% of a battery-only system. The minimum cost design
employed batteries for short-term storage and hydrogen
for long-term storage [16].
Many researchers have indicated that an appropriate and advanced control strategy is key to establishing
good performance. Vanhanen, Kauranen, and Lund employed a control strategy utilizing fuels cells to recharge
batteries in the winter that allowed current control of
the fuel cell and optimized fuel cell efciency [17].
PV-fuel cell power plant performance was shown to
be enhanced by using neural network and real/reactive
power controllers [18] and fuzzy logic controllers [19].
A group from King Fahd University in Saudi Arabia
has assessed the potential for solar-hydrogen to aid agricultural development by providing remote energy for

996

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

pumping and irrigation, fresh water, and fertilizers by

using H2 for ammonia synthesis [20]. Solar-hydrogen
has been proposed as a viable means of powering fuel
cell buses throughout Europe [21]. Finally, a number of
groups have focused on the economic and environmental aspects of solar-hydrogen use [2225].

3. Approach
As the Background section suggests there has been
signicant recent attention and interest in application of
electrolyzers and fuel cells (or RFCs) to renewable energy systems. The work contained here expands upon
current understanding and addresses the dynamic performance required by the systems and system components. In addition, a new simulation tool that can account for and address dynamic operation and develop
and test system control strategies was applied to renewable RFC system concepts.
In order to analyze the performance of regenerative
fuel cells as energy storage devices at the residential
level, an empirical model of a PV-RFC powered home
was constructed using MATLAB /Simulink . The
empirical model incorporates experimental data into
Simulink by using look-up tables. The ve lookup tables utilized by the model are PV power output
(kW) vs. time (s), residential power demand (kW) vs.
time (s), fuel cell power density (W/cm2 ) vs. current
density (A/cm2 ), electrolyzer power density (W/cm2 )
vs. current density (A/cm2 ), and battery voltage (V)
vs. state of charge (%) at charge/discharge rates of C/5,
C/10 and C/20. Batteries are typically rated in A-h for
20 h charge/discharge period. For example, a battery
rated for 100 A-h can deliver 5 A for 20 h. Thus, the
20 h charge/discharge rate in amps (i.e., A-h/h) for a
100 A-h battery is denoted as C/20. If the same 100
A-h battery is discharged over a period of 5 h the
C/5 charge/discharge rate would not be 20 A for the
5 h. Typically the C/5 charge/discharge rate would be
less than a C/10 or C/20 charge/discharge rate due to
inefciencies associated with increased current draw.

4. Dynamic data
The dynamic data for PV power output (kW vs. time
(s)) were determined by measurement of a Unisolar
6 kW nominal DC amorphous PV array installed at
the University of California, Irvine (Latitude: 33.6 N,
Longitude: 117.7 W). LabViewTM data acquisition software was used to collect power output data on a time

interval of every 15 min, 24 h/day. One week of data, acquired from 8/2/018/9/01, comprised the primary data
set for the analyses presented herein. These data were
directly used to develop the Simulink PV output table.
The dynamic data for residential power demand (kW
vs. time (s)) data were collected from a 6-person family
home in Irvine California (Latitude: 33.6 N, Longitude: 117.7 W) using a BMI Dranetz power quality
meter (Model 8020 PQ Node). The meter uses inductor clips applied to the 120 and the 240 V legs of the
utility grid power coming into the home as a means of
measuring power usage. BMIs PQ NodeTM data acquisition software was used to collect power usage on a
time interval of every 5 min, 24 h/day. A week of data,
acquired from 8/2/038/9/03, comprised the primary
data set for the analyses presented herein. These data
were directly used to develop the Simulink residential
power demand table. The major electrical devices used
within the residence included a stove and oven, washer
and dryer, refrigerator, coffee maker, microwave, hair
dryer, television, computers and lighting. The oven
was determined to account for some of the largest
peaks observed during evening hours. Air conditioning,
which is common to many of the residences throughout
the Western US, was not furnished in this particular
residence.

5. Model
5.1. Model components
A schematic of the renewable RFC system conguration considered in the current work is presented in
Fig. 1. The model contains eight main components, PV
power supply, residential power demand, power management, battery, RFC, utility grid power supply, and
H2 and O2 storage tanks. The model assumes RFC operation on oxygen not air. The model was run as both
a stand-alone system autonomous of the grid, where all
of the power demand in the residence is met by the PV

Residential
Power
Demand

Power Management

Utility
Grid

Battery

RFC

PV Power
Supply

H2
Storage

Fig. 1. Schematic of Simulink renewable RFC system model.

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

and the energy storage device(s) and as a grid parallel

system where power can be supplied by and fed to the
grid.
The simulated fuel cell power density (W/cm2 ) vs.
current density (A/cm2 ) and electrolyzer power density (W/cm2 ) vs. current density (A/cm2 ) operational
curves were developed using experimental PEM regenerative fuel cell data for a single cell collected by Giner
Electrochemical Systems [26]. The Giner data is presented in the form of cell voltage (V) vs. current density
(mA/cm2 ). This data was converted to the appropriate
units and assembled into Simulink tables, representing
empirical models for the fuel cell and electrolyzer. It is
assumed that the RFC is regulated to operate at the pressures given in the VI curves which are, 101 kPa during
fuel cell mode and 207 kPa during electrolysis mode.
Although Giners empirical VI curves include efciency
losses at the single cell level, they do not include efciency losses at the stack level or parasitic losses at the
system level. However, if system VI curves are available
they could easily be substituted into the model. Hydrogen crossover losses through the membrane should be
accounted for, since they are inherent to the VI curve.
Crossover should also be minimal due to low pressure
operation.
The battery voltage (V) vs. state of charge (%) conditions were based upon experimental data [27] collected from two Trojan L-16W deep cycle 6V lead-acid
batteries in series, rated at 350 A-h (20 h rate). Individual curves were used for the C/5, C/10, and C/20
charge/discharge rates.

5. Electrolyzer
6. Store H2
7. Power to Grid

1. PV Power
2. Battery Power
3. FC Power

L
o
a
d

4. Grid Power
Fig. 2. Control strategy for the Simulink renewable RFC system
model.

3.

4.

5.

6.
5.2. Model control strategy
Various power ow control strategies are under investigation in the current study. The control strategy
presented in this paper consists of a hierarchy of power
ow through the system as presented in Fig. 2.
5.3. Model control strategy & component operational
limitations
The control strategy employed for this paper, together
with various model component limitations is dened as
follows:
1. PV power is rst sent to meet residential load
demands.
2. PV power is sent next to the battery.
(a) If excess PV power is available, then charge the
battery. (However, the state of charge limitation
must be met as well as the charge rate limitation,
see #3).

997

7.

(b) If PV power cannot meet the residential load

demand, then use the battery to meet the load
(Again, the state of charge limitation must be
met as well as the discharge rate limitation,
see #3).
Battery model includes specic performance limitations as follows:
(a) State of charge (SOC) range = 8520%.
(b) Charge/discharge rates can be selected from
three specic settings = C/5, C/10, and C/20.
(Charge rate is calculated by dividing the
ampere-hour rating of the battery by time in
hours. For example, a 100 A-h battery being
charged or discharged over 20 h = C/20 = 5 A).
If there is excess power and the battery is fully
charged, power is sent to the electrolyzer to make
H2 .
If there is a decit of power and the battery performance cannot meet the residential power demand,
then the load is met by the fuel cell.
Fuel cell has specic performance limitations as
follows:
(a) In the stand-alone scenario, the fuel cell has no
current or power density limits. Although, the
lack of limits is unrealistic it will allow insight
into how the fuel cell would have to perform
if it were not controlled. This will show how
the fuel cell is affected in terms of current density and efciency when meeting the dynamic
load. Proper sizing of the fuel cell can then be
accomplished. (This logic also applies to the
electrolyzer in the stand alone scenario, with an
interest in H2 generation performance.)
(b) In the grid parallel scenario, the fuel cell is limited to a voltage level between 0.94 and 0.47 V
and a total current density range of between 50
and 1000 mA/cm2 .
Electrolyzer has specic performance limitations as
follows:
(a) In the stand-alone scenario the electrolyzer has
no current or power density limits. (See explana-

998

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

tion above in Section a) of fuel cell performance

limits.
(b) In the grid parallel scenario, the electrolyzer
requires voltages of between 1.42 and 1.75 V
and current densities of operation are limited to
the 501000 mA/cm2 range.
8. In the grid parallel scenario:
(a) Residential power demand is met by the grid
when the control limits of the battery and RFC
are not met.
(b) Excess PV power production is fed to the grid
when the control limits of the battery and electrolyzer are not met.
5.4. Model regenerative fuel cell sizing
RFC electrode size (cm2 ) was determined by choosing the maximum operating point from the cell voltage
vs. current density plot [26]. The maximum fuel cell operating point chosen was for 0.47 V at 1000 mA/cm2 .
The maximum electrolyzer operating point chosen was
for 1.75 V at 1000 mA/cm2 . This selection of operating
conditions allowed the RFC to be sized for a maximum
power output (kW) based on a single variable electrode
size input to the model. Dening electrode area with
a single value is equivalent to constructing a stack in
series.

operates between 0.9 and 22 kW. Operation without the

minimum power limitation was also analyzed in the grid
parallel conguration.
5.7. Model battery sizing
The battery design is user-dened in the current
model in terms of size in A-h, initial state of charge
(01), and number of batteries. Charge and discharge
rates for the battery were varied in the current analyses
from C/5 to C/10 to C/20 to assess the effect of these
limitations on the overall system performance. A SOC
range of 2085% was used in order to keep current
within the bulk phase charging range [28]. The reason
for this choice is two-fold: (1) bulk phase charging is
accomplished at constant current justifying the choice
of a constant charge rate and simplifying the model;
and (2) bulk phase charging allows the battery to
operate at a high and relatively constant efciency
of approximately 98% [28]. In a PV-battery system
(with no RFC) the battery would most likely be fully
recharged to a 100% SOC in an effort to capture excess PV energy whenever it is available. However,
when charging above 85% SOC the battery enters rst
absorption phase and then oat phase charging. These
processes are slow and inefcient processes, which can
be avoided in the case when an electrolyzer is included
in the system design.

5.5. Model stand-alone analysis

Two different fuel cell and electrolyzer design and
sizing strategies were analyzed in the current effort.
The rst design conguration used smaller (lower cost)
RFC components while the second conguration used
larger (more efcient) RFC components. In the rst
stand-alone conguration, a 2 kW maximum fuel cell
and 7.3 kW maximum electrolyzer based on a 4167 cm2
electrode size were analyzed. The second conguration
comprised a 5.9 kW maximum fuel cell and 22 kW maximum electrolyzer based on a 12501 cm2 electrode size.
All design point values reported in this paper are for
maximum conditions.
5.6. Model grid parallel analysis
When employed as a grid parallel device the 2 kW
fuel cell has operational limitations of 0.2 kW minimum
and 2 kW maximum and the 5.9 kW fuel cell has operational limitations of 0.6 kW minimum and 5.9 kW
maximum. When employed as a grid parallel device
the 7.3 kW electrolyzer has operational limitations of
between 0.3 and 7.3 kW while the 22 kW electrolyzer

5.8. Model solution and analyses

Electrolytic H2 production is calculated using:


I
dt,
Mol H2 =
nF

(1)

where I is current, n is the number of participating

electrons, and F is Faradays constant (=96, 485 C/mol).
Incoming PV power in watts (W) is divided by electrode area (cm2 ) and then fed into the Simulink
model as a power density (W/cm2 ) providing a resultant current density (A/cm2 ) that is then multiplied by
electrode area (cm2 ) to give amperes, allowing solution
of Eq. (1).
Electrochemical fuel cell efciency is commonly
dened using the 1st law of thermodynamics [29] as

fc =

Energy out Wout

G
=
=
,
Energy in
Qin

H

(2)

where Wout is the electrical work output, Qin is fuel

energy input,
G is the change in Gibbs free energy
and
H is the change in enthalpy through the fuel cell.

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

Electrochemical electrolyzer efciency is also commonly dened using the 1st law of thermodynamics [29]
as

ez =

Energy out Qout

H
=
,
=
Energy in
Win

G

(3)

where Win is electrical work input, Qout is fuel energy

output,
G is the change in Gibbs free energy for the
reaction and
H is the change in enthalpy for the reaction. However, this 1st law of thermodynamics analysis
for an electrolyzer can lead to efciencies exceeding
100% [30,31] as it fails to take into account the effects
of entropy generation. As a result in the current work
we dene and calculate electrochemical fuel cell and
electrolyzer efciencies using a 2nd law of thermodynamics approach as

fc =

Useful energy out

Useful energy out(theoretical)

Wout

H + T
S(theoretical)

Wout
,

G(theoretical)

ez =

Energy required(theoretical)
Actual useful energy in

H T
S(theoretical)
Win

G(theoretical)
,
Win

value reported in Table 1, which since higher than the

value at standard pressure will reduce fuel cell efciency
in proportion to the energy required to pressurize the
hydrogen. The same
G(theoretical) value was also
used in all H2 production calculations, assuming that
all H2 generated will be consumed later during fuel cell
use. RFC efciency calculations assume that the system is isothermal at 80 C and that there is no energy
loss due to ancillary system components such as H2
and O2 compressors or inverters. Thus, the results for
efciency and H2 energy reported reect RFC internal
performance only.
Since bulk phase charging of the battery is utilized,
battery efciency is assumed to be constant at 98%.
Battery energy consumed by the residence is calculated
using:
kWhbattery =

(4)

where T is temperature in Kelvin and
S is the change

in entropy for the reaction.
Table 1 summarizes the Gibbs free energy and
enthalpy values for hydrogen used in fuel cell and
electrolyzer efciency calculations.
Although this study uses 2nd law efciency
analyses, all data tables included 1st law fuel cell and
electrolyzer efciency values in parentheses. These
values in parentheses reect the results for the case
of substituting the enthalpy values in Table 1 for the
Gibbs free energy values in the model. All other results
reect 2nd law analyses. Results for system efciency
and H2 energy generated are the only other values that
will change from 2nd law to 1st law analyses and are
not shown.
The Gibbs energy value is greater during fuel cell
operation due to the higher pressure used versus electrolyzer operation [26]. This pressure effect on
G
is accounted for using the Nernst equation. The fuel
cell efciency is calculated using the
G(theoretical)

(SOCi SOCf ) (A-h) (Vd )

,
(1000 W/kW)

(6)

where SOCi is initial state of charge, SOCf is nal state

of charge, battery size is dened in Amperehour(A-h),
Vd is the discharge voltage of the battery and kWh is
energy in kilowatt-hours.
System efciency (stand-alone) was calculated using:

system =

(5)

999

kWh(load) + kWh(H2 produced)

,
kWh(PV) + kWh(battery consumed)

(7)

where the energy of the load, H2 produced, PV, and

amount of battery energy consumed are all dened in
kilowatt-hours (kWh).
System efciency (grid parallel) was calculated
using:

system =

kWh(load + H2 + to grid)
, (8)
kWh(P V + (Bi Bf ) + f rom grid)

where the energy of the load, (load) H2 produced H2 ,

and electrical energy to the grid (to grid), is divided by
electrical energy from the photovoltaics (PV), plus the
amount of battery energy consumed (Bi Bf ) and the
energy from the grid (from grid) all being dened in
kilowatt-hours (kWh).
System efciency calculations do not take PV efciency into account, since this was not a concern of this
study and since the original renewable solar energy is
both emissions and cost free. The amorphous silicon PV
arrays used in this study are generally on the order of
5% efcient in converting solar irradiance to electricity.
The system of equations and tables which dene each of the components of the integrated
system together with the logic involved with the control strategy are solved versus time in the dynamic

1000

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

Table 1
Gibbs free energy and enthalpy values for hydrogen used in fuel cell and electrolyzer efciency calculations along with equivalent higher
heating values (HHV) and cell voltages
Energy values

G(theoretical)H2 (J/mol)

HHV (kJ/kg)

Voltage (V)

Temperature ( C)

Pressure (kPa)

Fuel cell
Electrolyzer

229,800
227,705

113,988
112,949

1.19
1.18

80
80

207
101

Fuel cell
Electrolyzer

H (theoretical)H2
287,965
285,869

142,840
141,800

NA
NA

80
80

207
101

MATLAB Simulink environment. The MATLAB

integrator used to simultaneously solve the sets of
equations that describe the integrated RFC systems was
ODE45 (Dormand-Prince), using a variable step-size,
relative tolerance of 106 , absolute tolerance of 109 ,
and maximum step size of 300 seconds.
6. Results
6.1. Measured residential power demand
The residential load demand as measured in an
Irvine, California residence is presented in Fig. 3. Demand spans the week of 8/2/038/9/03. Major peaks in
the evening are believed to be due to an electric oven
and/or electric washer/dryer. It can be seen that on average a 2 kW power supply is sufcient to meet the majority of residential power demands. However, as much
as 8.1 kW is required to meet the peak demand. The
wide variation and highly dynamic behavior observed
at the residential level portends signicant challenges
for stand-alone RFC system design congurations,
capabilities and sizing.
6.2. Measured photovoltaic power supply
Photovoltaic power used in the Simulink PV model
is presented in Fig. 4. This prole of PV output power
data was measured from the 6 kW amorphous silicon
installation described above that spans the week of
8/2/018/9/01. Based on Fig. 3, there is insufcient
PV power to supply the 8.1 kW peak demand of the
residence.
The measured residential electrical energy demand
over the span of the week totals 108.1 kWh. Weekly
energy output from the PV array totals 224.8 kWh with
36.3 kWh of that total that can be used to directly power
the residence (concurrent with demand). This amounts
to 33.6% load coverage by PV and a need for 66.4% load
coverage by energy storage for the stand-alone system
conguration.

6.3. Stand-alone system analysis

In a grid autonomous or stand alone PV-battery system, the energy storage device must be properly sized to
meet all energy demand over potentially long periods of
low solar irradiance, such as in the winter, during storms
or long periods of overcast skies. Assuming an average energy demand of 15 kWh/day, the energy required
for one-week totals 105 kWh. Considering the Trojan
L-16W battery as an example, to meet this demand one
would need 50 batteries operating at 6 V and 350 A-h
(20 h rate) each, assuming 100% efciency. This translates to a surface area of 28.3 ft 2 , and batteries, being
temperature sensitive, should be stored indoors.
6.3.1. Regenerative fuel cell as sole energy storage
device.
Initial analysis focused on modeling a stand-alone
system, with all residential power demand met by a
combination of PV power and energy storage devices.
The system was rst modeled using the regenerative fuel
cell as the only means of energy storage. In this scenario
there are no maximum or minimum operational control
limits set on the fuel cell or electrolyzer. Although unrealistic, operation without control limits allows us to
study the effect of relying on the fuel cell to supply all
load demand in excess of what the PV can supply and
the effect of supplying all excess PV power production
to the electrolyzer (especially with respect to efciency,
H2 generation and current density). This was also done
as a means of accounting for all of the power supply
and load demand in the system.
The results of the stand-alone analyses of various
RFC system congurations are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that the round trip efciency
increases as the system component size increases.
This results from of the ability of the larger components (fuel cell and electrolyzer) to meet higher
power requirements that occur in the form of transient power spikes while operating at lower power

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

1001

9
8

Power Demand (kW)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
8/2/03

8/3/03

8/4/03

8/5/03

8/6/03

8/7/03

8/8/03

8/9/03

Fig. 3. Electrical load demand for a six-person family home in Irvine, California.

5
4.5
4

PV Power (kW)

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
8/2/01

8/3/01

8/4/01

8/5/01

8/6/01

8/7/01

8/8/01

8/9/01

Fig. 4. Photovoltaic electrical power supply from a Unisolar 6 kW DC nominal amorphous silicon array.

density conditions. This lower power density operation results in higher efciency for both the fuel cell
and the electrolyzer. For the system conguration
containing a 2 kW fuel cell and 7.3 kW electrolyzer
there is a decit of H2 to keep the fuel cell running. In

order to supply the residential peak demand of 8,1 kW

the 2 kW fuel cell would need to produce electricity
at a maximum power density of 1.95 W/cm2 . This
corresponds to 5.78 A/cm2 at 0.34 V according to the
expected VI performance of the fuel cell. This condition

1002

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

Table 2
Summary results from the dynamic analyses of stand-alone (not grid-connected) RFC systems as applied to a dynamic residential load
Without
battery

With battery
500 A-h

Without
battery

With battery
500 A-h

Fuel cell size

Max fuel cell power density
Min fuel cell power density
Electrolyzer size
Max electrolyzer power density
Min electrolyzer power density
(Fuel cell 1st law efciency)
(Electrolyzer 1st law efciency)
Fuel cell 2nd law efciency
Electrolyzer 2nd law efciency
Round trip efciency
System efciency
% Load powered by fuel cell
% Load powered by grid
% Load powered by PV
% Load powered by battery
% Power to grid
Energy of H2 generated

2 kW
1.95 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
7.3 kW
1.04 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
(36.9%)
(93%)
46.25%
74.09%
34.27%
41.70%
66.42%
0%
33.58%
0%
0%
14.32 kWh

2 kW
1.67 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
7.3 kW
1.04 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
(34%)
(93.4%)
41.02%
74.44%
30.54%
58.40%
35.24%
0%
33.58%
31.21%
0%
24.64 kWh

5.9 kW
0.65 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
22 kW
0.35 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
(51.4%)
(99.2%)
64.41%
78.88%
50.88%
65.33%
66.42%
0%
33.58%
0%
0%
38.79 kWh

5.9 kW
0.56 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
22 kW
0.35 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
(50.7%)
(99.4%)
63.47%
79.16%
50.24%
73.63%
38.60%
0%
33.58%
27.85%
0%
59.24 kWh

Fuel Cell Efficiency

System Effciency

Electrolyzer Efficency

H2 Storage (kWh)

100

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

80
60
40
20

H2 Storage (kWh)

is unreasonable. For the system conguration containing a 5.9 kW fuel cell the maximum power density of
0.65 W/cm2 , at 1.44 A/cm2 and 0.45 V is much more
reasonable and correspondingly leads to higher fuel cell
efciency. If the fuel cell is restricted to an operational
power density limit of 0.47 W/cm2 , at 1 A/cm2 and
0.47 V, as is done in the grid parallel scenario, then one
would need a 8.1 kW maximum fuel cell to fully meet
the 8.1 kW peak. Therefore, at the scale of the fuel cell
studied here, the power system would either have to
be grid parallel or rely on a secondary energy storage
device. The system conguration could use a RFC
together with batteries in a hybrid energy storage
system.
The next step of the study involved simulating such
a hybrid conguration by adding a battery to the
RFC system. Typically, battery operation is limited
to charge/discharge rates that range from C/5 to C/20
(as dened in the Section 3). The model restricts the
batterys state of charge to values between 20% and
85%. This SOC limit restricts battery charge/discharge
to within the bulk phase range, allowing the use of fast
charge/discharge rates. For this reason, a charge rate of
C/5 was chosen for the current analyses.
Fig. 5 explores the effect of battery size on the
stand alone system using a 2 kW fuel cell and 7.3 kW
electrolyzer. Initially, as battery size increases fuel cell
efciency decreases. This is due to a control hierarchy
that uses the battery before the fuel cell to meet load
demand resulting in battery power meeting more of

Efficiency

Stand-alone analyses

0
-20
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Battery Size (A-hr)

Fig. 5. Fuel cell, electrolyzer, system efciency, and H2 energy

production plotted against battery size for a stand-alone system with
a maximum 2 kW fuel cell and 7.3 kW electrolyzer.

the lower average power density demand. In addition,

as battery size increases fuel cell use decreases and
electrolyzer use increases. As a result system efciency
increases with increasing battery capacity since the
battery is more efcient than the fuel cell at providing
electricity and the electrolyzer receives more excess
PV power and produces more H2 . Fuel cell efciency
begins to increase when battery size becomes large
enough (around 3000 A-h) to offset high power density demand spikes normally sent to the fuel cell. It is
observed that when the battery is sized at 3500 A-h it
can supply all the necessary energy storage, and the
RFC is no longer needed. This translates to the need
for 24 Trojan L-16W batteries (2 in series and 12 in
parallel), assuming a capacity of 290 A-h when using
C/5 charge/discharge rates.

Fuel Cell Efficiency

System Effciency

Electrolyzer Efficency

H2 Storage (kWh)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

H2 Storage (kWh)

Efficiency

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

3500

Battery Size (A-hr)

Fig. 6. Fuel cell, electrolyzer, system efciency, and H2 energy

production plotted against battery size for a stand-alone system with
a maximum 5.9 kW fuel cell and 22 kW electrolyzer.

Table 2 displays the effect of adding 500 A-h of

battery capacity to the 2 kW fuel cell and 7.3 kW
electrolyzer system. The major benets are increases
in H2 production capacity and system efciency and a
decrease in the maximum power density operation required from the fuel cell. Despite the drop in maximum
power density through the fuel cell there is a decrease
in fuel cell efciency (from 46.3% to 41.0%) due to
the battery power provision to meet the lower average
power density load demands. As a result, the fuel cell
operates at an average higher power density (and lower
efciency) to meet peaks in the dynamic load demand
prole of the residence.
Fig. 6 explores the effect of battery size on the standalone system using a 5.9 kW fuel cell and 22 kW electrolyzer. Trends similar to those of Fig. 5 are observed
in Fig. 6. The main difference is that all efciencies are
increased as a result of scaling up RFC capacity. Comparing Figs. 5 and 6 in terms of the battery capacity
needed to meet all energy storage needs independent of
the RFC, there is only a slight reduction in capacity required for the 2 kW fuel cell system compared to the
5.9 kW fuel cell system (from 3500 A-h (24 batteries)
to 3400 A-h (23 batteries)). The cause of this unfavorable result is the control hierarchy that preferentially
uses batteries to meet power demand. As battery capacity increases fuel cell use decreases ultimately resulting
in the singular role of assisting the battery in meeting
the 8.1 kW peak in load demand.
Table 2 displays the effect of adding 500 A-h of battery capacity to the system containing a 5.9 kW fuel
cell and 22 kW electrolyzer. The major benets of this
system conguration (presented in the last column of
Table 2) are increases in H2 production capacity and
system efciency and a decrease in the maximum
power density through the fuel cell. Despite the drop in

1003

maximum power density through the fuel cell there is a

decrease in fuel cell efciency, due again to the battery
meeting more of the lower average power demands,
although this effect is not as pronounced as with the
2 kW fuel cell (from 64.4% to 63.5%).
6.4. Grid parallel system analysis
6.4.1. Regenerative fuel cell as sole energy storage
device
The grid parallel system was initially analyzed using
the regenerative fuel cell as the only means of energy
storage. In this scenario there are both maximum and
minimum operational control limits set for power density through the fuel cell and electrolyzer. Since the grid
can now supply energy to the home, the RFC can be
run more efciently by limiting its use to a maximum
power output. The minimum limit is used assuming that
there is a power threshold that is needed to drive the
process of electrolysis and a minimum that is desired
when using fuel cell power. The model was run both
with and without minimum limits as a means of studying the effect of their use.
The results of the grid parallel analyses are summarized in Tables 3 and 4.
Tables 3 and 4 show the results of dynamic
simulation of the home with various RFC system
congurations as grid parallel systems. These results
are highly dependent on the operational control limits
set for the RFC as shown in Tables 3 and 4, which
affects the average power density at which both electrolysis and fuel cell operation must occur to meet
dynamic power demand. For the current analyses, the
fuel cell mode of operation is restricted to between
0.940.47 V and 501000 mA/cm2 . In electrolyzer
mode, operation of the RFC is restricted to 1.421.75 V
and 501000 mA/cm2 .
In the case of using the minimum power density limit
(last column of Tables 3 and 4), as electrode size decreases for the fuel cell, more of the lower power density
load demand becomes accessible to it. Therefore, power
density through the fuel cell is lower on average when
it is sized at 2 kW (4167 cm2 electrode) than when it is
sized at 5.9 kW (12,501 cm2 electrode), making it run
more efciently at 2 kW. This trend is reversed when
the minimum power density limit is removed from the
model resulting in higher efciency for the 5.9 kW fuel
cell system conguration.
There is a 16% increase in efciency when using the
2 kW fuel cell in the grid parallel scenario compared
to the stand-alone scenario. The reason for this is that
the grid handles the power spikes associated with peak

1004

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

Table 3
Summary results from the dynamic analyses of grid-connected RFC systems as applied to a dynamic residential load for system conguration
containing a 2 kW fuel cell and 7.3 kW electrolyzer
Grid-parallel analyses

With
lower limit

Without
lower limit

With lower limit

500 A-h battery

Fuel cell size

Max fuel cell power density
Min fuel cell power density
Electrolyzer size
Max electrolyzer power density
Min electrolyzer power density
(Fuel cell 1st law efciency)
(Electrolyzer 1st law efciency)
Fuel cell 2nd law efciency
Electrolyzer 2nd law efciency
Round trip efciency
System efciency
% Load powered by fuel cell
% Load powered by grid
% Load powered by PV
% Load powered by battery
% Power to grid
Energy of H2 generated

2 kW
0.47 W/cm2
0.047 W/cm2
7.3 kW
1.75 W/cm2
0.071 W/cm2
(49.5%)
(93%)
62.06%
74.05%
45.96%
67.33%
48.78%
17.66%
33.58%
0%
0.37%
55.33 kWh

2 kW
0.47 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
7.3 kW
1.75 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
(49.9%)
(93.0%)
62.55%
74.09%
46.34%
66.78%
50.63%
15.81%
33.58%
0%
0%
53.48 kWh

2 kW
0.47 W/cm2
0.047 W/cm2
7.3 kW
1.75 W/cm2
0.071 W/cm2
(47.5%)
(93.4%)
59.55%
74.41%
44.31%
73.85%
26.58%
12.02%
33.58%
27.85%
0.19%
68.91 kWh

Table 4
Summary results from the dynamic analyses of grid-connected RFC systems as applied to a dynamic residential load for system conguration
containing a 5.9 kW fuel cell and 22 kW electrolyzer
Grid-parallel analyses

With
lower limit

Without
lower limit

With lower limit

500 A-h battery

Fuel cell size

Max fuel cell power density
Min fuel cell power density
Electrolyzer size
Max electrolyzer power density
Min electrolyzer power density
(Fuel cell 1st law efciency)
(Electrolyzer 1st law efciency)
Fuel cell 2nd law efciency
Electrolyzer 2nd law efciency
System efciency
% Load powered by fuel cell
% Load powered by grid
% Load powered by PV
% Load powered by battery
% Power to grid
Energy of H2 generated

5.9 kW
0.47 W/cm2
0.047 W/cm2
22 kW
1.75 W/cm2
0.071 W/cm2
(48.1%)
(99%)
78.88%
47.51%
73.02%
42.36%
24.09%
33.58%
0%
2.26%
70.01 kWh

5.9 kW
0.47 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
22 kW
1.75 W/cm2
0 W/cm2
(52.5%)
(98.6%)
78.99%
51.93%
66.68%
65.59%
0.85%
33.58%
0%
0%
42.44 kWh

5.9 kW
0.47 W/cm2
0.047 W/cm2
22 kW
1.75 W/cm2
0.071 W/cm2
(47.5%)
(99.3%)
79.09%
46.87%
78.25%
26.43%
8.82%
33.58%
31.21%
1.18%
74.54 kWh

load demand, allowing the fuel cell to run at an average

lower power density. There is only a 1% increase in
efciency observed for the 5.9 kW fuel cell (Table 4)
in the grid parallel scenario (upper control limit only)
compared to the stand-alone. This is due to the fact that
the grid provides less than 1% of the load demand when
using a 5.9 kW fuel cell.

As electrolyzer electrode size increases, the power

density of operation is lower on average. Therefore,
operating power density of the electrolyzer is lower on
average when it is sized at 22 kW (12,501 cm2 electrode) versus 7.3 kW (4,167 cm2 electrode), making it
more efcient at 22 kW. This result reveals the design
challenge for sizing and operating characteristics for a

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

1005

7
6

Grid Power (kW)

5
4
3
2
1
0
0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Time (s)
Fig. 7. Residential power demand supplied by the grid when using a 2 kW fuel cell and 7.3 kW electrolyzer and no battery.

2.5

Grid Power (kW)

1.5

0.5

0
0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Time (s)
Fig. 8. Residential power demand supplied by the grid when using a 5.9 kW fuel cell and 22 kW electrolyzer and no battery.

regenerative fuel cell (the bi-functional electrode size

must be the same for both modes).
Electrolyzer efciency for a given size remains relatively constant when comparing the grid parallel results
(Tables 3 and 4) to the stand-alone cases (Table 2). This
is due to the fact that the upper limit on power density through the electrolyzer is not exceeded in either
of the analyses. The electrolyzer produces more stored
H2 when the lower limit on power density is employed,
regardless of fuel cell size. This is a result of the fuel
cell being used less and therefore consuming less H2 .

6.4.2. Power demand met by the grid

The fraction of the residential load demand that is
supplied by the grid for the system conguration containing a 2 kW fuel cell 7.3 kW electrolyzer, and the
control hierarchy with both maximum and minimum
limits on power density is presented in Fig. 7. A combination of RFC electrode size and RFC operational
power density control limits requires that the grid handle load demand that is either below 0.20 kW or above
1.96 kW whenever PV power is not available. When
only the maximum power density limit is employed

the grid supplies only peak demand in excess of

1.96 kW.
The fraction of the load demand that is supplied by
the grid when using the 5.9 kW fuel cell and 22 kW electrolyzer system conguration and the control hierarchy
with both maximum and minimum limits on power density is presented in Fig. 8. A combination of RFC electrode sizing and RFC operational power density limits
requires that the grid handle load demand that is either
below 0.59 kW or above 5.88 kW, whenever PV power
is not available or sufcient. When only the maximum
power density limit is employed the grid supplies only
peak demand in excess of 5.88 kW.
Figs. 7 and 8 reveal that the grid handles mostly transient and large power spikes when a 2 kW fuel cell is
employed and handles mostly baseline power demand
when a 5.9 kW fuel cell is employed.

Fuel Cell Efficiency

System Effciency

Electrolyzer Efficency

H2 Storage (kWh)

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

H2 Storage (kWh)

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

Efficiency

1006

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Battery Size (A-hr)

Fig. 9. Fuel cell, electrolyzer, system efciency, and H2 energy

production plotted against battery size for a grid parallel system
using a maximum 2 kW fuel cell and 7.3 kW electrolyzer.

% From Grid

% Fuel Cell

% To Grid

% Battery

6.4.3. Regenerative fuel cell and batteries as hybrid

energy storage devices
Fig. 9 presents analyses results that explore the effect
of battery size on the grid parallel system comprised of a
2 kW fuel cell and 7.3 kW electrolyzer using the control
hierarchy with both maximum and minimum limits on
power density. Of course, in the grid parallel scenario,
all power and energy needs can be met, regardless of
system sizing.
There is only a slight reduction in the battery capacity needed for the 2 kW grid-parallel fuel cell conguration (Fig. 9) compared to the 2 kW stand-alone
fuel cell conguration (Fig. 5) from 3500 A-h (24 batteries) to 3400 A-h (23 batteries), respectively. As was
the case when scaling up fuel cell capacity, this result
is due to the battery having priority over the RFC and
the grid in meeting load demand within the control
hierarchy. As battery capacity increases fuel cell and
grid use both decrease, serving only the function of
assisting the battery in meeting the 8.1 kW peak inload
demand.
Fig. 10 presents simulation results that explore the
effect of battery size on percent usage of different
power source options for a grid parallel system using a
2 kW fuel cell and 7.3 kW electrolyzer. Fig. 10 provides
insight into how residential load demand is shared
between the different power sources as the battery size
is increased. The PV provides 33.6% of the load in
each case, resulting in the need for 66.4% coverage via
energy storage. The fuel cell and the battery provide
roughly equal amounts of the load demand for a battery
size of 500 A-h. Sizing the system at this point would
allow a load sharing strategy, where battery capacity
can now be reduced from 23 to 3.4 batteries.

Percent Energy Use

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Battery Size (A-hr)

Fig. 10. Percent of total energy demand provided from the grid, fuel
cell or battery as well as energy fed to the grid vs. battery size for a
grid parallel system using a 2 kW fuel cell and 7.3 kW electrolyzer.

The same benets and drawbacks as those observed

and stated for the stand-alone conguration were
observed in the grid-parallel conguration.
Fig. 11 reveals the fraction of total load demand
that is met by each power source for the week using a
system conguration comprised of a 2 kW fuel cell, a
7.3 kW electrolyzer, and a 500 A-h battery as representative of the series of simulations analyzed in the current
effort. The simulation results are plotted versus time
with 1-s resolution for the entire one-week dynamic
simulation. There is a pattern to power source usage
in this system conguration. In the dark early hours
of the morning the fully charged battery meets all load
demand, as the sun rises PV power takes over all demand until in the late day when peak demand requires
the use of all sources. As peak demand diminishes in
the late evening, the battery takes over until its SOC
reaches 20% requiring the fuel cell to power all load
demand into the next day until PV power is sufcient
to meet load demand and recharge the batteries. The
PV power output in this study represents the time of

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

PV Power

Battery Power

Fuel Cell Power

1007

Grid Power

8
7

Power (kW)

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

86564

173126

259688

346251

432814

519376

Time (s)
Fig. 11. Fraction of total load demand met by each power source (PV, battery, fuel cell and grid) for the week when using a 2 kW fuel cell,
7.3 kW electrolyzer and 500 A-h battery.

year with the strongest solar irradiance. In winter there

will be more reliance on the RFC as there is less solar
energy available to power the residence and recharge
the battery.

When energy storage demand is met by a combination of both RFC and batteries, it becomes clear that
control strategy is very important.
7.2. Grid parallel

7. Discussion
7.1. Stand-alone
The average daily PV energy supply over the week
analyzed was 32.0 kWh/day and average daily residential energy demand was 15.4 kWh/day.
Peak load demand was found to typically exist during morning and evening hours, a time when PV
power supply is often low if not zero. As a result,
stand-alone systems must incorporate energy storage
devices sized to handle the majority of peak load
demand.
Energy storage devices must possess a mixture of
both high energy density to meet energy needs over
long durations and high power density to handle
transient peaks and provide power that can meet the
highly dynamic load prole of a residence.
The model shows that when a RFC is employed as the
sole energy storage device in a stand-alone scenario,
it must operate at very high power densities which
will most likely cause irreversible damage to the cells
or at the least result in poor operational efciency.
The RFC is uncontrolled in the stand-alone analyses
which is unrealistic but instructional.

Many of the residences that utilize PV to meet electrical power needs, size the PV and batteries to minimize cost and then use the utility grid in parallel
to provide power demand in excess of what the system can provide. We modeled this conguration by
adding operational control limits to the RFC.
Only the maximum control limit should be applied
to the fuel cell.
We observed numerous advantages when operating
the 2 kW fuel cell as grid parallel verses stand-alone.
Using maximum and minimum operational power
density limits, there was a 16% increase in fuel cell
efciency, 26% increase in system efciency, and
an increase in H2 energy storage of 70 kWh, when
employing the grid parallel verses the stand-alone
conguration.
The vast improvement in fuel cell efciency is a
result of sending the major power spikes present at
peak demand to the grid.
System efciency improvements are a combination
of higher fuel cell efciency, greater H2 production
capabilities, and more reliance on the grid.
There is virtually no change in efciency for the
7.3 kW electrolyzer when comparing grid parallel
and stand alone analyses.

1008

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009

We observed both advantages and disadvantages of

operating the 5.9 kW fuel cell as grid parallel verses
stand-alone.
There was little benet in employing the battery/RFC
hybrid system in grid-parallel. Since the grid acts as a
high power density device, it is questionable whether
a battery is needed at all in this conguration.

capacity compared to our present control strategy and

energy density capacity will be lost.
These results reect only a single week of summer
operation. Winter operation may have signicantly different results and therefore a year long study should
be conducted to account for seasonal variability and to
shed light on true system component sizing needs.

8. Summary and conclusions

Acknowledgements

Benets of combining a RFC and batteries in a

hybrid energy storage conguration were found to include: (1) the RFC allows excess PV power that would
normally be lost after the batteries are fully recharged,
to now go to making H2 , increasing PV utilization; (2)
the RFC allows the battery to operate at bulk phase
charge/discharge rates, effectively raising battery power
density and efciency; (3) the RFC produces H2 that
can be stored for times of low solar irradiance, extending energy density capacity beyond that of using
batteries alone.
Drawbacks of combining a RFC and batteries in
a hybrid energy storage conguration were found to
include: (1) the efciency of the fuel cell decreases as
a result of being coupled to a battery when our control
strategy is employed; (2) system efciency decreases
as RFC size increases relative to battery size, since
batteries operate at higher efciencies than RFCs; (3)
signicant reductions in system size are not realized
employing our control strategy.
There are many trade-offs depending on the control strategy. Using the current control strategy, it is
advantageous to employ a large RFC and a small battery so that peak demand can be met during times
of low solar availability when the battery cannot
be recharged. The design of both the batteries and
the RFC are signicantly challenged by the task of
meeting the highly dynamic and relatively high peak
residential demand. Major advantages of hybrid energy
storage systems will only be realized when one of the
energy storage components has inherently high energy
density and the other, inherently high power density.
Ultra-capacitors possess power densities that generally
exceed that of batteries and thus may serve as better
devices to couple with RFCs to meet residential load
demand.
Potentially more favorable control strategies, to be
modeled and analyzed in future studies, include giving
the fuel cell priority over the battery in meeting the
load, fuel cell charging of the battery, or load sharing.
However, load sharing will lead to a reduced H2 storage

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the US

Department of Defense Fuel Cell Program of the Engineer Research and Development Center at the Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, which sponsors
this research. We especially acknowledge the support and guidance of our program manager Mr. Frank
Holcomb.
References
[1] Mitlitsky F, Myers B, Weisberg AH. Regenerative fuel cell
systems. Energ Fuels 1998;12(1):5671.
[2] Burke KA. Unitized regenerative fuel cell system development.
In: First international energy conversion engineering
conference, August 1721 2003.
[3] Smith W. The role of fuel cells in energy storage. J Power
Sources 2000;86(12):7483.
[4] Papazov G, Pavlov D. Inuence of cycling current and power
proles on the cycle life of lead/acid batteries. J Power Sources
1996;62:1939.
[5] Milliken CE, Ruhl RC. Low cost, high efciency reversible fuel
cell systems. In: Proceeding of the 2002 US DOE hydrogen
program review, 2002.
[6] Giner Electrochemical Systems. LLC delivers a lightweight,
15-kilowatt electrolyzer stack for the Helios prototype ying
wing. http://www.ginerinc.com/lightwei.htm, 2001.
[7] Chaurasia PBL, Ando Y, Tanaka T. Regenerative fuel cell with
chemical reactions. Energ Convers Manag 2003;44:61128.
[8] Zhigang S, Baolian Y, Ming H. Bifunctional electrodes with
a thin catalyst layer for unitized proton exchange membrane
regenerative fuel cell. J Power Sources 1999;79:825.
[9] Ioroi T, Oku T, Yasuda K, Kumagai N, Miyazaki Y. Inuence of
PTFE coating on gas diffusion backing for unitized regenerative
polymer electrolyte fuel cells. J Power Sources 2003;124:
3859.
[10] Hollmuller P, Joubert J, Lachal B, Yvon K. Evaluation
of a 5 kWp photovoltaic hydrogen production and storage
installation for a residential home in Switzerland. Int J
Hydrogen Energ 2000;25:97109.
[11] Barthels H, Brocke WA, Bonhoff K, Groehn HG, Heuts G,
Lennartz M. et al. Phoebus-Julich: an autonomous energy
supply system comprising photovoltaics, electrolytic hydrogen,
fuel cell. Int J Hydrogen Energ 1998;23(4):295301.
[12] Lehman PA, Chamberlin CE, Pauletto G, Rocheleau MA.
Operating experience with a photovoltaic-hydrogen energy
system. Int J Hydrogen Energ 1997;22(5):46570.

J.D. Maclay et al. / International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 994 1009
[13] Szyszka A. Ten years of solar hydrogen demonstration project
at Neunburg Vorm Wald, Germany. Int J Hydrogen Energ
1998;23(10):84960.
[14] Solmecke H, Just O, Hackstein D. Comparison of solar
hydrogen storage systems with and without power-electronic
DCDC-converters. Renew Energ 2000;19:3338.
[15] Rahman S, Tam T. A feasibility study of photovoltaic-fuel cell
hybrid energy system. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 1988;3(1):
505.
[16] Vosen SR, Keller JO. Hybrid energy storage systems for
stand-alone electric power systems: optimization of system
performance and cost through control strategies. Int J Hydrogen
Energ 1999;24:113956.
[17] Vanhanen JP, Kauranen PS, Lund PD. Operation experiences of
a phosphoric acid fuel cell in a solar hydrogen energy system.
Int J Hydrogen Energ 1997;22(7):70713.
[18] Ro K, Rahman S. Two-loop controller for maximizing
performance of a grid-connected photovoltaic-fuel cell hybrid
power plant. IEEE Trans Energy Convers 1998;13(3):27681.
[19] Eskander MN, El-Shatter TF, El-Hagry MT. Energy ow and
management of a hybrid wind/PV/fuel cell generation system.
Power Electron Special Conf 2002;1:34753.
[20] Abdel-Aal HK, Al-Naafa MA. Prospects of solar hydrogen
for desert development in the Arab world. Int J Hydrogen Energ
1998;23(2):838.
[21] Vidueira JM, Contreras A, Veziroglu TN. PV autonomous
installation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis, and its use in
FC buses. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2003;28:92737.

1009

[22] Nicoletti G. The hydrogen option for energy: a review of

technical, environmental and economic aspects. Int J Hydrogen
Energ 1995;20(10):75965.
[23] Harvey LDD. Solar-hydrogen electricity generation and global
CO2 emission reduction. Int J Hydrogen Energ 1996;21(7):
58395.
[24] Abdallah MAH, Asfour SS, Veriroglu TN. Solar-hydrogen
energy system for Egypt. Int J Hydrogen Energy 1999;24:
50517.
[25] Contreras A, Carpio J, Molero M, Veriroglu TN. Solarhydrogen: an energy system for sustainable development in
Spain. Int J Hydrogen Energ 1999;24:104152.
[26] LaConti AB, Sweete L. Special applications using PEMtechnology. Handbook of fuel cells. England: Wiley; 2003.
p. 757 [Chapter 55].
[27] Perez R. Lead-acid battery state of charge vs voltage. Home
Power 1993;36:669.
[28] C & D Technologies. Recharge time determination for dynasty
VRLA batteries. http://www.dynastybattery.com. 1999.
[29] Larminie J, Dicks A. Fuel cell systems explained. England:
Wiley; 2003.
[30] Ulleberg O. Modeling of advanced alkaline electrolyzers: a
system simulation approach. Int J Hydrogen Energ 2003;28:
2133.
[31] Rao A, Maclay J, Samuelsen S. Efciency of electrochemical
systems. J Power Sources 2004;134:1814.