Analysis of Fuel Cell Systems

Rangan Banerjee Energy Systems Engineering IIT Bombay

Lecture in CEP Course on Fuel Cell at IIT 14th November 2007

Overview of Talk
Energy Crisis Motivation for fuel cells Criteria Listing of Pathways Vehicles Energy chain - Primary Energy Analysis Cost Analysis Renewable Hydrogen

Energy Crisis
Present energy systems fossil fuel based (~80%) Finite fossil fuel reserves (Oil-Gas ~ 50 years, coal ~100 years) Adverse local, regional and global environmental impacts Global warming (Greenhouse gas problem)

Carbon Dioxide Concentrations

Carbon Dioxide Concentrations

Hydrogen Energy
Can hydrogen energy mitigate the energy problem? How does the hydrogen energy system compare with existing energy conversion routes? Is this a sustainable solution? A- Vehicle 4 wheeler passenger car B-Distributed Power Generation

Hydrogen pathways
Solar Energy Nuclear Energy Wind Bio-Energy Fossil-Fuel

Thermal

Electricity

Gasification Fermentation

Thermo chemical Electrolysis

Photo chemical Photo biological Cracking + Shift Reaction

Hydrogen Fuel Cell

ENERGY FLOW DIAGRAM

PRIMARY ENERGY

COAL, OIL, SOLAR, GAS POWER PLANT, REFINERIES REFINED OIL, ELECTRICITY RAILWAYS, TRUCKS, PIPELINES WHAT CONSUMERS BUY DELIVERED ENERGY

ENERGY CONVERSION FACILITY

SECONDARY ENERGY

TRANSMISSION & DISTRN. SYSTEM FINAL ENERGY

AUTOMOBILE, LAMP, ENERGY UTILISATION EQUIPMENT & SYSTEMS MOTOR, STOVE

USEFUL ENERGY END USE ACTIVITIES (ENERGY SERVICES)

MOTIVE POWER RADIANT ENERGY DISTANCE TRAVELLED, ILLUMINATION,COOKED FOOD etc..

Source : Energy After Rio: UNDP Publication.

Criteria
Primary Energy Analysis primary energy/ unit output (kJ/kWh , kJ/km ) Emissions - Local, Global Cost - Initial Cost, Operating Cost, Annualised Life Cycle Cost Sustainability (Renewable?)

Primary Energy Analysis

Compare options based on primary energy input

Motivation
Fossil fuel scarcity, adverse environmental effects (local and global) Indian transport sector
22% of total commercial energy Share in total pollutant load; 70% in New Delhi, 52% in Bombay

Need for alternative transport fuels. Indian governments emphasis on biodiesel, hydrogen ..

Fuel chains
Fossil fuel chain
Crude oil production centre Intercontinental crude oil transport Refinery Petrol transport (via Rail/Truck) Filling stations (Petrol storage and delivery) Vehicle (Utilization)

Hydrogen fuel chain

Primary energy source Hydrogen production centre (Production and compression) Pipeline transport Filling stations (Hydrogen storage and delivery)

Vehicle (On-board storage and utilization)

Base case Fossil fuel based fuel chain

Small-size passenger car (Maruti 800) manufactured by Maruti Udyog Limited
Petrol fuelled, 37 bhp (27 kW) IC engine
50% share in Indian passenger vehicle-market 560,000 units sold 2005-6

Vehicle Application
Weight (excl engine +tank) 550 kg Passengers (max) 350 kg Maruti CR 0.01 CD 0.4 2m2 front area 100 km travel /day Tank Petrol CNG FC 40 kg Engine 60 kg

140 kg 60 kg 130 kg 15 M +15 FC kg

B1) PETROL ENGINE

CRUDE OIL

OIL MINING/REFINING

OM 95 % TP 97% PE 30 % TRANS 70 %

TRANSPORT OF PETROL

IC ENGINE

TRANSMISSION

SHAFT WORK

NATURAL GAS

B2) GAS ENGINE

EXTRACTION

OM 95 % TD 97% C 90% GE 40%

TR70%

NATURAL GAS TRANSPORT

COMPRESSION

CNG ENGINE

TRANSMISSION

SHAFT WORK

NATURAL GAS EXTRACTION

FUEL CELL (NG)

E 95 % GT 97 % REF 85 % FC PC

NATURAL GAS TRANSPORT

STEAM REFORMING

HYDROGEN PEM FUEL CELL

POWER CONDITIONING

40 % 95 %
SHAFT WORK

ELECTRICITY

MOTOR TRANSMISSION

m 90% TR 91%

Vehicle Comparison
A1 Overall efficiency 19.4% 3.31 kg of crude /100 km of travel A2 Overall efficiency 23.2% 3.0 kg of Natural gas/ 100 km of travel Fuel cell Overall efficiency 24.3% 2.82 kg of Natural gas/ 100 km of travel

Vehicle Carbon Emissions

A1 Crude oil (86% Carbon) 2.84 kg Carbon/100 km of travel A2- Natural gas (75% Carbon) 2.25 kg Carbon/ 100 km of travel Fuel cell ( 18 kg of Carbon / 1 GJ of Hydrogen energy SMR) FC 2.11 kg Carbon/100 km of travel

Hydrogen fuel chain different routes

Hydrogen Production
Steam methane reforming (SMR), Coal gasification, Water electrolysis, Renewable hydrogen (Photovoltaic-electrolysis, Wind power-electrolysis, Biomass gasification, Biological methods) Pipeline transport, transport via truck and rail Compressed hydrogen storage, Metal hydrides, Liquid hydrogen storage, Complex chemical hydrides Fuel cells (PEMFC), IC engine

Transmission

Storage

Utilization

Comparison criteria
Non-renewable energy consumption per km travel (MJ/km) Greenhouse gas emissions per km travel (g CO2-eq/km) Cost per km travel (Rs./km)
Annualised life cycle costing (ALCC) method Existing Indian prices. If technology is not available commercially in India, international prices are used

Resource constraints

Methodology
Life cycle assessment (LCA)
All material and energy inputs to the process are identified Total input energy required to extract, produce, and deliver a given energy output or end use

Energy use and corresponding emissions during fabrication of PV, electrolyzer, wind machine etc. are also taken into account.

Methodology contd..
Process flow charts Sizing of different equipment required Inventory (process energy and material) to produce one unit of output Total primary energy required to produce required process energy and materials Total GHG emissions in producing process energy and materials (using emission factors) GHG emissions Resource constraint Classification of total primary energy into non-renewable and renewable energy Non-renewable energy use Amount of material and other resources required to meet the current demand Cost of different equipment and material required, discount rate, life of the equipment Life cycle cost Materials and other resources such as water, land etc required to produce 1 kg of hydrogen

Resource constraint
Material supply constraint Annual requirement/Reserve Area Resource constraint Area required/Available land area

Material constraint

Annual requirement/Reserve

Other constraint

Technical constraint, water for biomass based systems etc.

No constraint Source: Manish S, Indu R Pillai, and Rangan Banerjee, "Sustainability analysis of renewables for climate change mitigation," Energy for Sustainable Development, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 25-36, 2006.

Energy analysis
Input (Drive cycle, Vehicle weight, Front area, Air density, Cd, Cr) Power required at wheels Transmission and IC engine efficiency Fuel requirement from fuel tank

IC engine vehicle
Input (Drive cycle, Vehicle weight, Front area, Air density, Cd, Cr) Power required at wheels Transmission, Fuel cell and Electric motor efficiency Fuel requirement from fuel tank

Fuel cell vehicle

Source: Manish S and Rangan Banerjee, "Techno-economic assessment of fuel cell vehicles for India," 16th World hydrogen energy conference, Lyon (France), 2006.

Indian urban drive cycle

20

Avg. speed - EUDC

18

16

14

S e d(m ) pe /s

12

10

Avg. speed IUDC

Indian urban drive cycle :-

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Time (s)

Low average speed (23.4 km/h) and rapid accelerations (1.73 to -2.1 m/s2)

European urban drive cycle :Average speed (62.4 km/h) and accelerations from 0.83 to -1.4 m/s2

Power required at wheels

Three forces acts on the vehicle (Assumption:vehicle is running on a straight road with a zero gradient). These are
Aerodynamic drag {FDrag(t)} = 0.5Av(t)2Cd Frictional resistance {FFriction(t)} = mgCr Inertial force {FInertia(t)} = mf {f=dv(t)/dt}

FTotal(t)=FDrag(t)+FFriction(t)+FInertia(t) PWheel(t)=FTotal(t)v(t)

Data used for base case vehicle

Parameter
Air density (kg/m3) Coefficient of drag resistance Coefficient of rolling resistance Cargo weight (kg) Frontal area (m2) Transmission efficiency Transmission weight (kg) IC engine weight (kg) Fuel tank weight (kg) Fuel capacity (kg) Vehicle body weight (kg) Total weight (kg)

Value
1.2 0.4 0.01 250 2 0.7 114 90 40 24 406 900

Result for base case vehicle

Parameter
Driving range (km) Cost (Rs/km) Non-renewable energy use during operation (MJ/km) GHG emissions (g/km)

Value
434 2.8 (0.34) 2.6 180

Driving range of hydrogen vehicles should be at least half (~217 kms) for their public acceptance. Average daily travel Indian urban <100 kms. Vehicle to run for 2-3 days.

Hydrogen fuel chain Options considered

Hydrogen fuel chain

Production

Transmission

Storage

Utilization

Steam methane reforming (SMR) Pipeline transport (PL) PV-electrolysis (PV) Wind-electrolysis (WE) Biomass gasification (BG)

Compressed hydrogen (C) PEM fuel cell (FC) Liquid hydrogen (L) IC engine (IC) Metal hydride (M)

Hydrogen production Steam Methane Reforming (SMR)

Feedstock - Natural Gas SMR: CH4 + 2H2O 4H2 + CO2 Life of plant 20 years Existing NG price Rs 8/Nm3, Price of Hydrogen Rs 48/ kg 4.3 Rs/Nm3 or 400 Rs/GJ

Variation of Hydrogen price with NG price

45 H y d ro g e n p ric e (R s /N m 3 ) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 Natural Gas Price (Rs/Nm3) 15 20

PV-Electrolyzer System
Water Hydrogen PV array MPPT and DC-DC converter PEM Electrolyzer Oxygen

HYSOLAR (Saudi Arabia) 350 kW Alkaline electrolyser 65 m3/h peak (German-Saudi) ~5.8 kg/hr

PV-Hydrogen
100 kg hydrogen/ day Electrolyzer efficiency 70% Annual capacity factor 20% Module area 8800 m2 1300 kWp PV, 1200 kW electrolyzer

Wind-Electrolyzer
Utsira Plant
Water AC-DC converter PEM Electrolyzer Hydrogen WECS

10 Nm3/h (~0.9kg/h) 48 kW electrolyzer Two wind turbines 600 kW (peak) each Source: Norsk Hydro

Oxygen

Wind-Electrolyzer
100 kg hydrogen/ day Electrolyzer efficiency 70% Annual capacity factor 30% 880 kW (peak), 784 kW electrolyzer

Biomass gasifier-reformer
Biomass Air Steam Gasifier Syngas Gas cleaning

Pressure swing Hydrogen adsorption

Water gas shift reaction

Methane steam reforming

Many configurations possible atmospheric, pressurised, air blown, oxygen blown No large scale systems

Comparison of hydrogen production methods

Indicator Unit SMR 182 12.8 48 PVelectrolysis 67.5 3.75 1220 WECSelectrol. 12.4 0.98 400 Biomass Gasification 67.7 5.4 44.7 Non-renewable MJ/kg energy use GHG emission kg/kg

Life cycle cost* Rs/kg

*At

10% discount rate Average load factors; PV-0.2, WECS-0.3, Biomass gasification-0.65

Hydrogen transmission
Can be transported as a compressed gas, a cryogenic liquid (and organic liquid) or as a solid metal hydride. Via pipeline, trucks, rail etc. Compressed hydrogen via pipeline
US, Canada and Europe Typical operating pressures 1-2 MPa Flow rates 300-8900 kg/h

Hydrogen transmissioncontd..
210 km long 0.25 m diameter pipeline in operation in Germany since 1939 carrying 8900 kg/h at 2 MPa The longest pipeline (400 km, from Northern France to Belgium) owned by Air Liquide. In US, total 720 km pipeline along Gulf coast and Great lakes.

Results for transmission process

For 1 million kg/day, transmission distance 100 km, supply pressure 10 bar Parameter Optimum pipe diameter Transmission cost GHG emissions
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Pipe dia (m) 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 Transmission cost (Rs/kg)

Value 1 6.93 (0.85UAH/kg) 0.99

Unit m Rs/kg kg/kg

Transmission cost vs. pipe diameter

Hydrogen on-board storage and utilization

Demo hydrogen vehicles : Daimler-Benz, Honda, Toyota, Ford, BMW, General Motors, Daimler-Chrysler, Mazda On-board storage: compressed gas, liquid hydrogen, metal hydride, organic liquid Energy conversion device: internal combustion engine, fuel cell

Vehicles with compressed hydrogen storage

Name of the vehicle/Company NEBUS (bus) (Daimler-Benz) Zebus (bus) (Ballard power systems) FCX (Car) (Honda) FCHV-4 (car) (Toyota) Model U (Ford motor co.) NECAR 2 (Daimler Benz) Energy conversion device Fuel cells 10 stacks of 25kW Fuel cells Net power output 190 kW 205 kW Storage system Range of Vehicle (km) 250 360 150 litre cylinders at 300 bar Compressed hydrogen 171 litre at 350 bar 350 bar 7 kg @690 bar Compressed gas

Fuel Cells PEM fuel cell + Battery Internal combustion Engine Fuel cell

100 kW 80 kW 113 kW @4500rpm 50 kW

570 250 -----

Vehicles with liquid hydrogen storage

Name of the vehicle/Company BMW 750-hl (BMW Corporation) Hydrogen 3 (General motors) Necar4 (Daimler Chrysler) Energy conversion device Hybrid, 12 cylinder combustion engine Fuel cell Net power output --Storage system 140 liters, cryo storage at -2530C 4.6 kg Liquid Hydrogen at -253oC --Range of Vehicle (km) 400

60 kW

400

Fuel cell

70 kW

450

Vehicles with organic liquid storage

Name of the vehicle/Company NECAR 5 (Daimler Chrysler) FC5 (Ford Motor company) Mazda Premacy (Ford Motor company) FCX-V2 (Honda Motor company) Energy conversion device Fuel cell Net power output 75 kW Storage system Methanol (On board reformer) --do---do---do--

Fuel cell Fuel cell Fuel cell

65kW 65kW 60kW

Vehicles with metal hydride storage system

Name of the vehicle/Company HRX2 (Mazda Motor Corporation) FCX-V1 (Honda Motor company) Energy conversion device Wankel Rotory Engine Fuel cell Net power output 65kW Storage system TiFe

60kW

LaNi5

On-board storage + utilization

Option On-board storage Energy conversion device Fuel cell Fuel cell Cost (Rs/km) GHG g/km NonH2 use renewable MJ/km energy use (MJ/km)

Compressed H2 Liquid H2

21.03 21.06 21.92 1.23 1.35 4.17

17.8 17.8 26.9 0* 0* 32

0.24 0.24 0.36 0* 0* 0.42

0.83 0.80 0.88 2.47 2.32 2.74

Metal hydride Fuel cell Compressed H2 Liquid H2

*Energy

IC engine IC engine

Metal hydride IC engine

use and emissions in base case vehicle manufacturing neglected

Results for hydrogen storage (at filling stations)

Parameter Delivery and storage cost GHG emissions Non-renewable energy use Compressed hydrogen 8.75 1.24 12.72 Liquid hydrogen 42.6 7.2 74 Metal hydride 33.7 0.28 3.84 Unit Rs/kg kg/kg MJ/kg

PV-PL-C-FC
Specific fuel consumption- 6.9 g/km Cost- 29.6 Rs/km GHG emissions- 59.1 BASE CASE g/km
Rs 2.6/km

Cost break-up

GHG 180g/km
Vehicle

19.9

5.8 8.6 2.6 1.2 0.0 0.1

Fuel cell Photovoltaic Electrolyzer Transmission Storage

PV-PL-C-IC
Specific fuel consumption20.6 g/km Cost- 26.7 Rs/km GHG emissions- 123.2 g/km
Cost break-up
25.5 Vehicle 17.3 1.2 7.9 0.1 0.2 Photovoltaic Electrolyzer Transmission Storage

BASE CASE Rs 2.6/km GHG 180g/km

WE-PL-C-IC
Specific fuel consumption- 20.6 g/km Cost- 9.7 Rs/km GHG emissions- 66.1 g/km
Cost break-up
8.5 2.9 1.2 5.2 0.1 0.2 Vehicle WECS Electrolyzer Transmission Storage

BASE CASE Rs 2.6/km GHG 180g/km

SMR-PL-C-IC/SMR-PL-C-FC
SMR-PL-C-IC
Specific fuel consumption- 20.6 g/km Cost- 2.5 Rs/km GHG - 310 g/km
BASE CASE Rs 2.6/km GHG 180g/km

SMR-PL-C-FC
Specific fuel consumption- 6.9 g/km Cost- 21.5 Rs/km GHG - 122 g/km

BG-PL-C-IC
Specific fuel consumption- 20.6 g/km GHG emissions- 158 g/km Cost CASE 1 Biomass freely available 2.5 Rs/km CASE 2 Biomass commercially grown Depends on land price 4.7 Rs/km
BASE CASE Rs 2.6/km GHG 180g/km

Case 1 Biomass freely available

Cost break-up

Vehicle 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.1 0.2 Production Transmission Storage

Case 2 Biomass grown commercially

Cost break-up
3.5 0.9 Vehicle Production 1.2 2.3 0.1 0.2 Land cost Transmission Storage

Hydrogen fuel chain BG-PL-C-IC

Pipeline transport

Biomass

Biomass gasification

Filling stations
Compressed Hydrogen storage and delivery Storage tank autonomy period half day Storage capacity 1 million kg Volume of storage 40 million liters @ 200 bar (40000 m3, sphere of 21.2 meter radius,) Compressor power required 143 MW (for hydrogen compression from 10 to 200 bar)

H2-IC engine Vehicle

On-board compressed hydrogen storage with IC engine Hydrogen use: 2.47 MJ/km 4.47 kg storage capacity for 217 km range Storage tank o Weight ~220 kg o Water capacity @ 200 bar 180 liters 2 million kg H2 per day for 1 million vehicles (100 km daily travel)

Production and compression Hydrogen 2 million kg per day Area for biomass growth 3800 km2 (380000 ha) Power required 124 MW (for delivery at 10 bar) Biomass gasifier rating 2000 MWe

Conclusions (Vehicles)
Renewable hydrogen based fuel chains viable based on GHG emission and non-renewable energy use criteria Cost (Rs/km) higher (for photovoltaics, electrolyzer and fuel-cell based system) than existing petrol based fuel chain. IC engine vehicles lower cost but higher energy consumption than fuel cell vehicles. Hydrogen fuel chain based on SMR process (with compressed hydrogen storage and IC engine) is economically viable. However this fuel chain has higher GHG emissions.

Conclusions
Renewable hydrogen based fuel chains viable based on GHG emission and non-renewable energy use criteria Cost (Rs/km) higher (for photovoltaics, electrolyzer and fuel-cell based system) than the existing petrol based fuel chain. IC engine vehicles have lower cost but higher energy consumption than the fuel cell vehicles. Hydrogen fuel chain based on SMR process (with compressed hydrogen storage and IC engine) is economically viable. However this fuel chain has higher GHG emissions.

B1)DIESEL ENGINE
CRUDE OIL

OIL MINING/REFINING

OM 95 % TD 97% DE 40 % GEN 95 %

TRANSPORT OF DIESEL

DIESEL ENGINE

GENERATOR

ELECTRICITY

B2) GAS ENGINE

NATURAL GAS

EXTRACTION

OM 95 % TD 97% DE 42 % GEN 95 %

NATURAL GAS TRANSPORT

GAS ENGINE

GENERATOR

ELECTRICITY

FUEL CELL (NG)

NATURAL GAS

EXTRACTION

R 95 % GT 97 % REF 85 %
40 % (50%) PC 95 %

NATURAL GAS TRANSPORT

STEAM REFORMING

HYDROGEN PEM FUEL CELL

FC

POWER CONDITIONING

ELECTRICITY

Distributed Generation
B1 Overall efficiency 35% 0.246 kg of crude /kWh of electricity B2 Overall efficiency 37% 0.25 kg of Natural gas/kWh of electricity Fuel cell Overall efficiency 30% 0.307 kg of Natural gas/kWh of electricity (37% like A2 FC eff 50%)

Carbon Emissions
B1 Crude oil (86% Carbon) 0.211 kg Carbon/kWh B2- Natural gas (75% Carbon) 0.187 kg Carbon/kWh Fuel cell ( 18 kg of Carbon / 1 GJ of Hydrogen energy SMR) FC eff 0.4 - 0.171 kg Carbon/kWh 0.5- 0.136 kg Carbon/kWh

Discount Rate
Compare investment today with expected future benefits

Discount rate represents how money today is worth more than in the future No theoretically correct value Lower bound bank interest rate

Annualised Life Cycle Cost

Annualised Life Cycle Costs (ALCC) annual cost of owning and operating equipment ALCC = C0 CRF(d,n) + AC f + AC O&M CRF (d,n) =[ d(1+d)n]/[(1+d)n-1] discount rate d, Life n years, C0 Capital Cost,AC f , AC O&M , annual cost - fuel and O&M CRF Capital recovery factor

References
P. L. Spath, M. K. Mann, Life Cycle Assessment of Renewable Hydrogen Production via Wind/Electrolyses, NREL / MP-560-35404, February 2004, Colorado, USDOE. Pehnt M, "Life-cycle assessment of fuel cell stacks," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 26, pp. 91-101, 2001. Newson E, Haueter TH, Hottinger P, Von Roth F, Scherer GWH, and Schucan TH,International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 23, no. 10, pp. 905-909, 1998. Sarkar A and Banerjee R, "Net energy analysis of hydrogen storage options," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 30, pp. 867-877, 2005. Sandrock G, "A panoramic overview of hydrogen storage alloys from a gas reaction point of view," Journal of Alloys and Compounds, no. 293-295, pp. 877-888, 1999. Syed MT, Sherif SA, Veziroglu TN, and Sheffield JW, "An economic analysis of three hydrogen liquefaction systems," International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 565-576, 1998. Manish S and Rangan Banerjee, "Techno-economic assessment of fuel cell vehicles for India," 16th World hydrogen energy conference, Lyon (France), 2006. Amos WA, "Costs of storing and transporting hydrogen," National Renewable Energy Laboratory,NREL/TP-570-25106, 1998. J. R. Bolton, Solar Photoproduction of Hydrogen, Solar Energy, Vol 57, Wol, pp 37-50, 1996. R. Hammersehlag, P. Mazza, Questioning Hydrogen, Energy Policy, 33 (2005), pp 2039-2043.

Thank you