F LUID CELL A DVANCE M-CHP FUEL CELL SYSTEM BASED ON A NOVEL BIO- ETHANOL F LUID IZED BED MEMBRANE REFORMER FCH JU GRANT AGREEMENT NUMBER: 621196 Start date of project: 01/04/2014 Duration: 3 years WP10 – Exploitation and Dissemination D10.9 Potentials and markets of the improved m-CHP system Application area: SP1-JTI-FCH.3: Stationary Power Generation & CHP Topic: SP1-JTI-FCH.2013.3.4 Proof of concepts and validation of whole fuel cell systems for stationary power and CHP applications at a representative scale Funding scheme: Collaborative Project Call identifier: FCH-JU-2013-1 Due date of deliverable: 31-07-2018 Actual submission date: 28-08-2018 Reference period: 01-10-2015 – 31-07-2018 Document classification code: FluidCELL-WP10-D108-DLR-ICI-28082018-v11.docx Prepared by: ICI Version DATE Changes CHECKED APPROVED v0.1 15-06-2018 First Release ICI PT v0.2 20-07-2018 Revised version HYG LR v0.3 27-07-2018 Final version after revision all partners HYG LR v1.1 28-08-2018 Approved (format) TECNALIA J.L. Viviente _________________________________________________________________________________ Acknowledgement: The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) for the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative under grant agreement n° 621196. Disclosure: The present publication reflects only the author’s views and the FCH JU and the Union are not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. Project co-funded by the FCH JU within the Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013) Dissemination Level PU Public X PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) CON Confidential, only for members of the Consortium
Transcript
FLUIDCELL
ADVANCE M-CHP FUEL CELL SYSTEM BASED ON A NOVEL BIO-ETHANOL FLUIDIZED BED
MEMBRANE REFORMER
FCH JU GRANT AGREEMENT NUMBER: 621196
Start date of project: 01/04/2014 Duration: 3 years
WP10 – Exploitation and Dissemination
D10.9 Potentials and markets of the improved m-CHP system
Application area: SP1-JTI-FCH.3: Stationary Power Generation & CHP Topic: SP1-JTI-FCH.2013.3.4 Proof of concepts and validation of whole fuel cell systems for stationary
power and CHP applications at a representative scale Funding scheme: Collaborative Project Call identifier: FCH-JU-2013-1
Due date of deliverable:
31-07-2018
Actual submission date:
28-08-2018
Reference period:
01-10-2015 – 31-07-2018
Document classification code:
FluidCELL-WP10-D108-DLR-ICI-28082018-v11.docx
Prepared by:
ICI
Version DATE Changes CHECKED APPROVED
v0.1 15-06-2018 First Release ICI PT
v0.2 20-07-2018 Revised version HYG LR
v0.3 27-07-2018 Final version after revision all partners HYG LR
Acknowledgement: The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) for the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative under grant agreement n° 621196. Disclosure: The present publication reflects only the author’s views and the FCH JU and the Union are not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
Project co-funded by the FCH JU within the Seventh Framework Programme (2007-2013)
Dissemination Level
PU Public X
PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services)
RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services)
CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services)
CON Confidential, only for members of the Consortium
2.3 Country assessment – most attractive countries ...............................................................8 2.3.1 European Countries – Cross section .......................................................................... 9
3. Comparing FLUIDCELL with existing m-CHP systems ..................................................... 11
Table 1. m-CHP systems comparison. ................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. NG and electricity price (2017) .............................................................................................................. 10
Table 3. Unit consumption per dwelling by end uses (2014 Report). .............................................................. 10
Table 4. Systems powers & efficiencies. .............................................................................................................. 11
Table 5. System costs & yearly energy produced. ............................................................................................. 12
Table 6. Market-Standard components ratio cost evolution/quantity. .............................................................. 13
Table 7. Market-Specific components ratio cost evolution/quantity. ................................................................ 14
Table 8. Market-“Immature” components ratio costs evolution/quantity. ........................................................ 14
Table 9. FluidCELL Cost per Unit. ........................................................................................................................ 14
Table 14. Off – Grid Italian Case. .......................................................................................................................... 19
Table 15. Off - Grid German Case. ....................................................................................................................... 19
1. Executive Summary The following deliverable presents an overview of the m-CHP market and main system technologies. The main system technologies for m-CHP are described along with the core components of the FluidCELL system. Next, the key variables changing across different countries are highlighted. Then an overview of the updated prices for Natural gas and Electricity, for each relevant European country, is provided. Finally, this section is completed by a summary of the average dwelling consumption rates. Afterwards, a financial analysis of the FluidCELL system is performed. The analysis is also extended to the other main m-CHP systems such as ICE and μTG to provide an overview of the available m-CHP systems. The analysis considers that to reduce the Pay Back Time the FluidCELL system should always operate at its full workload, while all the energy produced (electrical and thermal) is consumed. To achieve this, the system should be connected to multiple dwellings, thus, dwelling average consumption rate needs to be considered as well. Additionally, an Off – Grid case is also examined. In this setting FluidCELL is compared to an ICE system, both running on bio-ethanol and using a heat pump as auxiliary thermal system.
2. Market Overview The relevant system technologies for m-CHP will now be presented, this overview contributes to define the reference framework for the FluidCELL system. 2.1 Existing CHP systems European countries are implementing environmental policies to cope with the EU 20 % emission reduction target set for 2020 (from 1990 levels)1. Recently, m-CHP systems received growing interest and experienced further development, thanks to their superior performances in energy conversion. The target of this project is to develop a market research study focused on a 5 kW Fuel cell m-CHP system based on Bioethanol. Before considering the above-mentioned technology, it is useful to summarize the technologies supporting m-CHP systems. Hence, a framework of the existing technologies will now provide an overview of the state of the art m-CHP systems. The following technologies can be integrated into a m-CHP system:
Table 1 summarizes the main features of these technologies.
Table 1. m-CHP systems comparison.
Features ICE Stirling μTG ORC PV-T
Electrical Efficiency
25-30 % <20 % 25-33 % 14 % 25 %
Overall Efficiency
80-85 % 65-85 % 70-85 % 80-85 % 80-85 %
Cost €/kWe 6.000 10.000 1.500 --- ---
Availability Commercial Pre-
Commercial Commercial Under research Under research
2.1.1 ICE Internal Combustion Engine is a mature and reliable technology, thanks to the expertise coming with their establishment; m-CHP systems based on ICE are already commercially available. Such systems achieve good electrical and total efficiencies and are available in a wide range of sizes from < 1 kW to >100 kW. On the other hand, the main drawbacks of this technology are noise, vibration, polluting emissions, maintenance efforts and costs. Furthermore, higher costs are associated with smaller systems.
2.1.2 Stirling Compared to ICE, Stirling engines perform with lower emissions, noise level and vibration. Moreover, their external combustion process allows for a wide variety of fuels including solar heat. Stirling engine size can reach hundreds of kW, requiring lower investment costs for bigger systems than smaller ones. Such engines are still on an early commercial development stage due to engine costs of over 10.000 €/kWe.
2.1.3 -GT This type of engine is based on a mature and tested technology that has been already applied in the fields of automotive, aeronautical and large size stationary power. Thanks to its advanced development stage, this technology provides high efficiency with low associated costs, less than 1500 €/kWe. This type of engines is commercially available, although sizes below 30 kW are not available. 2.1.4 ORC (Organic Ranking Cycle) and PV-T These technologies are still based on few laboratory trials. Therefore, they still have a long way before reaching commercialization. Due to their embryonal stage of development, information about costs is not available, while efficiency values are still lower than other commercial CHP systems. As with Stirling engines, ORC has an advantage in external combustion but a disadvantage related to the required working fluid, which could be toxic for some systems. 2.1.5 Fuel Cell Despite their higher costs if compared to other technologies, Fuel Cells received more interest from researchers. Their main advantage is to be able to convert fuel into electricity without any combustion. This type of technology releases intrinsically no emissions while providing the user with high efficiency. Moreover, there are no moving parts, which results in very low noise levels. Fuel cells proved to be superior compared to other systems, both in terms of electrical efficiency, achieving values of over 40%, and in total efficiency, with values of 90%. Appendix A summarizes the available information on the state-of-the-art and the available systems (information based on internet search and direct contact with vendors at industry fairs). The price of these systems can reach above 14.000 €/kW, depending on the technology implemented. Since most of these systems are produced in very low quantities, relevant cost reductions could be achieved through economies of scale. Nevertheless, many systems are now available and several fuel cells based micro-CHP systems have been installed. In Europe, both German Callux project and European Enefield project have already installed some-hundreds 1 kWe systems and the PACE project target to install few thousands 1 kWe systems, while in Japan thanks to Ene-Farm project and others government contribution, over 90000 1 kWe systems have been installed. Many of these systems have an electrical production of around 1 kWe, lower than the one being developed within the FluidCELL project which is a 5 kWe. Despite this difference a system overview can still provide guidelines for defining the context in which FluidCELL is being developed and understanding the possibilities of commercial success.
2.2 FLUID-CELL system The FluidCELL system is based on a m-CHP Fuel cell unit that runs on bioethanol; the system can be broken down into its main components/subsystems. These are:
2.2.1 Fuel Bio-ethanol is gaining strength in the U.S. market; in 2016, it witnessed record production along with unprecedented demand and a growth in exports. Moreover, thanks to the new U.S. administration, it seems that many of the regulatory obstacles impeding the further ethanol growth, may be eliminated. Ethanol is also popular in Brazil and Canada, which represent the two top export consumers for the U.S. market.2 Ethanol price is significantly lower than that of gasoline on an equivalent heating value. Additionally, ethanol contains low sulphur and metal elements and it is CO2 neutral since it is produced from biomass. Ethanol has a relatively high hydrogen content, it can easily be carried and stored; finally, ethanol blend contains water, which is useful for steam reformers. On the other hand, there are some compounds which could poison or damage the reformer catalyst, including carbon formation. Indeed, bio-ethanol blend includes one-, two- and three-carbon unbranched alcohols: methanol, ethanol and propanol, four- and five-carbon branched alcohols: isobutyl alcohol and the two isomers of pentanol (also known as amyl alcohol) 2-methyl 1-butanol (active amyl alcohol) and 3-methyl, 1-butanol (isoamyl alcohol). Furthermore, ethyl acetate and, the di-ether, 1,1-diethoxyethane could be present as well. 2.2.2 Fuel Processor The Fuel Processor provides pure H2 or suitable syngas to the stacks and it is therefore the core of a m–CHP fuel cell based-system. Under current development there are systems reforming natural gas, gasoline, diesel, and renewable fuels. Companies like Precision Combustion Inc., Innovatek, WS-Reformer-GmbH provide small sized prototypes that are of interest for the project, although they are not yet fully automated, and an operator presence is still necessary. No price information is available; nevertheless, it is known that they are very expensive. Due to the small number of fuel processors produced, a reasonable price can be in the order of thousands €/Nm3 of hydrogen supplied. Thus, this technology is not yet commercial at all and only research laboratories systems are available. The fuel processor must supply pure hydrogen or the best suitable syngas to feed PEM stacks. Indeed, the fuel cell behaviour is influenced by the CO content in the syngas which cannot exceed 1% for HT-PEM and 20 ppm for LT-PEM. Thus, attention must be paid to design and build the fuel processor keeping in mind the aim is a commercial product in a competitive market. Each component and the final assembly should not be labour-intensive to avoid quality instability and a subsequent cost increase. Additionally, high costs are incurred due to the noble metals required as catalysts for the fuel processor, as an example, Palladium costs 27 €/g3. Thus, a great effort is required for determining the necessary catalyst load to achieve the hydrogen quantity demanded and its purity. Further attention should be paid to recover the catalyst once the fuel processor has reached the end of its life. Finally, the fuel processor should tolerate a small amount of impurities such as methanol, gasoline (denaturant), butanone, propanol, methyl butanol and thiophene.
2.2.3 Fuel Cells A Fuel Cell based m-CHP system requires stable, reliable and cost competitive stacks. At present, this technology is making its way through a commercial product, mature, resistant and with feasible costs. Fuel Cell manufacturers are continuously trying to develop technologies to provide a more cost-effective reduction to commercialize competitive products in market. Companies such as Ballard or Serenergy foresee a cost of around 500 €/kWe for the whole stack in the short period. But costs are still high, and not at all competitive; for example, a PEM stack costs around 1.300 €/kWe for Ballard and 1.800 €/kWe for PowerCell. The most commercially ready technologies available within fuel cells are LT-PEMs, HT-PEMs and SOFC; the last two are still a step behind the other. FluidCELL project uses the LT-PEM, which is the most mature technology available at acceptable prices, even if there are several uncertainties about its stability and duration. Using LT-PEM, poses stringent requirements on the fuel processor because this kind of cells need pure hydrogen or, according to stacks manufacturers, CO content in syngas up to 20 ppm, even if experimental data have shown that CO values less than 5 ppm give the best electrical performance. Thus, a close restriction on syngas composition is underlined. 2.2.4 Power Conditioning Power conditioning has already been largely used in solar applications, as a result, it is a well-known technology, available on a large scale and on a wide size range, and finally, it can be easily adapted to the fuel cell technology. Therefore, this component does not pose any significant problem. 2.2.5 Balance of plant The term Balance of plant identifies all the remaining m-CHP system components such as pumps, blowers, heat injectors, demineralizer and analysers. These components must be chosen from commercially available products since they offer lower costs and higher reliability than ad-hoc built ones. Failure of one BoP component causes the whole system malfunction, especially when a water management component (like pumps or valves) failure occurs. Experience proves that statistically, the main system problems come just from these components. Thus, attention must be paid towards ordinary maintenance of each element to avoid problems in normal operation. 2.2.6 Controller The development of a fully automated CHP system is the industrial final aim. Therefore, the controller plays a key role in managing the system and seems to be one of the most critical components. To analyse the correct system behaviour, several variables must be acquired and monitored. 2.3 Country assessment – most attractive countries So far, an overview of the state-of-the-art fuel cell based m-CHP technologies, has been presented. Now, the requirements for the market introduction for the m-CHP system will be considered. The aim is to find the right match both in terms of size and configuration for each country as well as establishing economic viability for the FluidCELL system. The following key variables change from one country to another:
➢ Standard and regulation; ➢ Government grant; ➢ Cost of electricity; ➢ Cost of natural gas;
➢ Dwellings average consumption of electric energy; ➢ Dwellings average consumption of hot water.
Investment and O&M costs are kept constant across of the countries being studied. Standards and regulations tend to differ across countries but all of them come from European Directives. Thus, it was decided to only consider European Standards and not those of the individual countries, assuming that, soon, all member states will implement and comply with the various European Directives regarding micro cogeneration. Reference has been made to the CHP Directive 2004/08/EC (On the promotion of cogeneration based on useful heat demand in the internal energy market)4 and its correlated documents (2007/74/EC and 2008/952/EC). Moreover, government grants differ among countries. For example, the Italian grant (ESC Energy Saving Certificate)5 corresponds to an average remuneration of 120 €/toe (0.022 €/kWh)6 for electricity produced by a high energy efficiency system. In Netherlands the grant is given by the price difference between fossil and renewable power production, up to a max price of 0.15 €/kWh. Switzerland provides grants to programs that are most efficient based on the kWhe consumption avoided7. Instead, Portugal government grants are fiscal benefits on Individual Income Tax for high energy class level homes, which are an indirect subsidy for high efficiency systems installed. Thus, for the analysis the Italian grant for all countries has been assumed, only for Netherland will be applied their own grant (the max price of 0.15 €/kWh applicable for CHP from biogas). This is due to lack of information on the other countries government grants and the difficulty to apply their own grants to Portugal and Switzerland. The choice of the Italian grant instead of the Dutch one is due to the lowest impact that it should have in the economic analysis. Energy costs and consumptions of sample countries across Europe, will be presented in next paragraph, while for the bioethanol cost, it has been assumed the same price for all countries because its market isn’t enough widespread like that of gas and electricity. The price assumed is the quoted price at the beginning of June (2018) of 1.462 $/gal8 (0.034 €/kWh). 2.3.1 European Countries – Cross section The European countries considered as sample are the participants to this project, representing different Europe areas (thus Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, The Netherlands, Switzerland), plus other countries like Germany, Finland, Poland, Austria, Greece, Ireland and Sweden, considered interesting for the electricity to natural gas price ratio (Table 2). This index identifies countries where systems like the one studied in this project could be much profitable due to high electricity price and low natural gas price. Some of these countries are also interesting for the dwelling average energy consumption rate (Table 3), which is very high. Therefore, households might be more sensible towards economic savings arising from m-CHP systems. The following tables summarize data on energy cost and consumption, useful for an economic evaluation, obtained from the European database. Data includes all taxes and levies and it is referred to the first semester (S1) of 2017.
Since within the same country a lot of variability can occur in consumption of electricity and heat, the financial analysis will account for dwelling average data about energy consumption. Indeed, in Italy, the heating consumption difference between Sicily and Alpine location is remarkable. Moreover, variables such as family size, energy class, dwelling size and seasonality can vary greatly as well. As a result, the data presented is semi-quantitative and every application must be considered individually to obtain the maximum benefit in consumption reduction. In this respect, the Energy Service Companies, ESCO, can provide ad-hoc configuration for each situation.
3. Comparing FLUIDCELL with existing m-CHP systems To provide an overview of the context in which the FluidCELL system is found, a comparison with the main technologies for m-CHP systems is now performed. The m-CHP systems analysed are the ones showed in paragraph 2.1, except for ORC and PV-T ones, since they are not yet available in the market. Table 4 provides a comparison among the systems based on electrical and thermal performances and efficiencies.
Table 5 summarizes the yearly amount of electricity and thermal energy output for each system.
3.1 Financial Analysis To perform the financial analysis for the FluidCELL system, three parameters have been considered: pay-back time (PBT), Net Present Value (NPV) and Internal Rate of Return (IRR). The rationale for establishing economic feasibility requires NPV>0, highest IRR and lowest PBT. To perform this analysis the following costs have been considered:
➢ Natural gas and electricity for separate generation; ➢ Operation and Maintenance costs of back-up boiler; ➢ Cost of Natural Gas for back-up boiler; ➢ Government grants.
Moreover, the investment cost considered the system cost, the bio-ethanol consumed by the system and the O&M costs. For the evaluation of the economic indexes the cash flow is discounted with an inflation long term forecast rate of 2%13 and a nominal real risk-free rate of 4.5%. A service lifetime of 10 years and an availability of 7.500 hours per year have been assumed. Moreover, it was assumed the system will operate 3.924 hours in winter season and 3.576 hours in summer. Since dwelling energy consumption data is an average value, a simplification on system partial load has been introduced with two periods of regulation, winter load and summer load. The financial analysis prioritized payback time (PBT) reduction to let the system become more attractive for the costumer. For doing that, it is assumed that during all seasons the system has the same (maximum) load tuned on minimum thermal requirement by the dwellings. In this way, all the electrical and thermal power is used and electricity from the grid as well as a backup boiler is also required. Even though sharing one FluidCELL system among a number of dwellings higher than 10 may not be feasible, it provides valuable information about FluidCELL financial performances in this optimistic setting. To assure the shortest PBT, the system must run 24/24 at full workload in both summer and winter and all the energy produced must be used. Thus, several dwellings are required.
12 Calculated value, see paragraph 3.2. 13 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/html/index.en.html
The three financial parameters for each CHP system and for each sample country are:
Net Present Value (NPV) = ∑𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)𝑡𝑁𝑡=0 where
Ct: Net cash flow during period t 𝑟: Rate of return t: Number of time periods
Internal rate of return (IRR) = ∑𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)𝑡𝑁𝑡=0 − 𝐶0 where
Ct: Net cash inflow during the period t C0: Cost of investment r: Rate of return t: Number of time periods
Pay-back Time (PBT) = N where N satisfy −𝐶0 + ∑ 𝐶𝑡𝑁𝑡=0 ≥ 0 where
C0: Cost of investment Ct: Cash flow during period t t: Number of time periods Therefore, PBT is identified by how many years it takes for the sum of Cashflows generated by the FluidCELL system, to repay the initial investment required to buy the system itself. 3.2 Determine the cost of the investment Table 9 includes the costs for the FluidCELL components provided by all the partners of this project for three different case scenarios, that is, for 1, 100 and 1000 units production per year. While for the Pd based membranes TECNALIA provided their own cost estimates, the price for the other components was calculated from the prototype with historic cost evolution from ICI purchasing department for new products while moving from prototype to large sales volume. The starting point for the costs analysis is to divide the components in three types of product:
➢ Market-standard components based on mature technology, the cost of this commodity doesn’t change so much with the quantity;
➢ Market-specific components based on mature technology, study-time have been spent by the supplier to reduce significantly the cost when quantity increases;
➢ Immature component that has required a lot of study time to develop, it is just a prototype phase. In the tables below are presented how the quantity of production affects the costs evolution for each component’s typology described above (cost evolution based on ICI purchasing department unit).
Table 6. Market-Standard components ratio cost evolution/quantity.
Table 7. Market-Specific components ratio cost evolution/quantity.
Table 8. Market-“Immature” components ratio costs evolution/quantity.
Additionally, the cost for the Fuel Cell is based on an estimate from the 2017 report by the Department of Energy (USA)14 that set a cost of 50 $/kWe when mass production is considered. The most cost-relevant component appears to be the Fuel Processor subsystem.
Table 9. FluidCELL Cost per Unit.
Price per 1 unit [€] Price per 100 unit [€] Price per 1000 unit [€]
3.3 FluidCELL System Analysis Results from the financial analysis of the FluidCELL system are now presented. The financial indicators implemented for the analysis are Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return and Payback Time (PBT). The investment can be considered financially interesting if it has NPV>0; while IRR is the highest and the PBT is the lowest. To decrease PBT the final user should fully consume all the electrical and thermal output of the system and run the system at full load all the time. Furthermore, efficiency is higher when working at full capacity rather than with reduced workloads. Therefore, to maximize efficiency the system should cover the energy demand of multiple dwellings, thus, it requires a back-up boiler. With this consideration and merging data from Table 2 (NG and electricity price in different European country) and Table 3 (Unit consumption per dwelling by end uses) the following Table 10 can be obtained.
Table 10. FluidCELL Financial Analysis.
Country Dwellings PBT [Years] NPV [€/Y] IRR Saving [€/Y]
AUSTRIA 14 9 2.049 1% 7.253,15
FINLAND 13 >10 - 16.224 - 7% 4.858,38
FRANCE 26 >10 -2.645 -1% 6.637,87
GERMANY 18 5 33.327 11% 11.352,16
GREECE 40 9 195 0% 7.010,16
IRELAND 14 7 12.588 5% 8.634,26
ITALY 17 8 4.492 2% 7.573,22
NETHERLANDS 19 >10 - 8.058 - 3% 5.928,54
POLAND 16 >10 - 25.245 -11% 3.676,11
PORTUGAL 19 6 16.558 6% 9.154,57
SPAIN 17 7 16.001 6% 9.081,62
SWEDEN 19 6 22.607 8% 9.947,32
SWITZERLAND 17 8 5.095 2% 7.652,33
Figure 5 visualizes how the different countries performed based on PBT. The current analysis yields a cost of 10.000 € / kWe. Germany appears to be the most attractive country according to all three financial indicators. Across the countries examined, the average Payback Time is 8 years while the life of the FluidCELL system is 10 years.
The following paragraphs consider other relevant m-CHP systems. The same financial indicators NPV, IRR and PBT are applied to provide an overview for further understanding the relevant market for FluidCELL, see Appendix B for descriptive statistics of the financial indicators for each system.
3.4 Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) 1 kW Financial Analysis The ICE 1 kW system displayed similar performances to the FluidCELL system in terms of PBT and IRR in Ireland, Italy and Spain. Moreover, Germany confirmed itself as the most interesting country with the highest NPV, highest IRR and the lowest PBT among all countries (4 years).
Table 11. ICE 1 kW Financial Analysis.
Country Dwellings PBT NPV [€] IRR Saving [€]
AUSTRIA 6 >10 -340 -1% 793,59
FINLAND 6 8 733 2% 934,15
FRANCE 8 >10 -1.605 -5% 627,76
GERMANY 7 4 6.400 17% 1.676,92
GREECE 14 9 419 1% 893,04
IRELAND 4 6 2.017 6% 1.102,48
ITALY 12 8 525 2% 906,92
NETHERLANDS 6 >10 -4.524 -19% 245,29
POLAND 6 >10 -1.290 -4% 669,15
PORTUGAL 7 8 807 2% 943,87
SPAIN 5 7 1.663 5% 1.056,09
SWEDEN 7 >10 -4.403 -18% 261,09
SWITZERLAND 6 >10 -5.026 -23% 179,42
3.5 Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) 20 kW Financial Analysis The ICE 20 kW system yielded remarkable results on all the financial indicators. Nevertheless, its main drawback is represented by the consistently higher number of dwellings required with respect to smaller systems such as FluidCELL or ICE 1 kW. Indeed, over 50% of the countries considered for ICE 20 kW required over a hundred dwellings, with an average number of dwellings of 119. Among the countries considered, Germany was the most interesting with the highest NPV, IRR and low PBT.
3.6 Micro Gas Turbine (μTG) Financial Analysis Like the ICE 20 kW system, the μTG system showed interesting results with high NPV, high IRR and low PBT. Germany is, again, the most interesting country with the highest NPV, IRR and low PBT. The main limitation concerns the number of dwellings which accounts for an average of 140.
3.7 Off – Grid Case The Off – Grid case considers another scenario from the one tested in the previous financial analysis. In this case the FluidCELL m-CHP system, is compared to the ICE one, with both systems, a Heat Pump is included as auxiliary system. The simulation will consider Italy and Germany. From this analysis the Table 14 (Italian Case) and Table 15 (German Case) are obtained. A yearly save of € 691 and € 658 based on bio-ethanol consumption reduction are obtained respectively for the two countries. For further details refer to Foresti (2017)15.
3.7.1 Italian Case The PBT for the FluidCELL system is defined as how many years it takes for the Cashflow generated by the difference between the Average Fuel Cost Saving of FluidCELL and the fuel cost of ICE, to repay the investment cost of FluidCELL. That is, since FluidCELL investment cost is set at € 50.000 and ICE is at € 10.000 the difference is € 40.000 and it will require 57,9 years for an average Cashflow of € 691 to repay the € 40.000 difference of FluidCELL investment cost. As stated above, the Cashflow is generated by the Average Fuel Cost Saving obtained with the FluidCELL system compared to the ICE one. Since for market introduction a PBT lower of 5 years is required, the Target FluidCELL investment cost can be a maximum of € 13.455. This figure considers the average Fuel Cost Saving over 5 years which is € 3.455 and is added to the ICE investment cost, which is € 10.000.
Table 14. Off – Grid Italian Case.
m-CHP system FluidCELL ICE
Auxiliary System Boiler Heat Pump Boiler Heat Pump
Like to the Italian case, the FluidCELL investment cost is estimated to be 50.000 € while the ICE system cost is € 10.000 and it will require 60,8 years for an average Cashflow of € 676 to repay the € 40.000 difference between the FluidCELL and the ICE investment cost. The Cashflow is generated by the average Fuel Cost Saving obtained with the FluidCELL system compared to the ICE one. Since for market introduction a PBT shorter of 5 years is required, the FluidCELL investment cost must be a maximum of € 13.288. This figure considers the average Fuel Cost Saving over 5 years which is € 3.288 and is added to the ICE investment cost, which is € 10.000.
Table 15. Off - Grid German Case.
m-CHP system FluidCELL ICE
Auxiliary System Boiler Heat Pump Boiler Heat Pump
15 Foresti, S. (2017). Development of a micro cogeneration system based on membrane reactor and PEM fuel cell (Phd Thesis, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy). Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10589/136231
➢ FluidCELL should provide energy to several dwellings, from the analysis emerged 19 dwellings are
associated on average with the system. Multiple dwellings have been introduced due to the necessity to let the system always operate at full workload, while also utilizing all the electrical and thermal energy produced.
➢ The system cost is 10.000 € / kWhe.
➢ The lowest PBT for the FluidCELL system has been achieved by Germany which scored a 5 years PBT, still, the average PBT for the FluidCELL system is 8 years.
➢ To achieve the target 3-year PBT, the individual component costs should be decreased.
➢ ICE 20 kw and μTG systems showed interesting results on the financial indicators, with average PayBack Time of 3,6 and 3,2 years respectively. Nonetheless, on average, they require 119 and 140 dwellings respectively, compared to the 19 dwellings of FluidCELL.
➢ Currently, the Fuel Processor is the most critical cost component for FluidCELL, accounting for 49% of the system total cost.
➢ Since production costs are still high, it is advisable to make use of government grants.
➢ If possible, to further reduce production costs, it is advisable to increase the use of standardized components.
➢ The Off – Grid Case compared the FluidCELL system with the ICE system, the simulation showed the FluidCELL superior efficiency which led to lower fuel utilisation, resulting in savings from fuel costs. Although FluidCELL investment cost is still high, the Off – Grid simulation showed how this system can offer superior performances in terms of cost savings when compared to a standard ICE system.
➢ Further work is required to reduce investment cost through research in optimization and industrialization of fuel processor and system integration.
Zsw-Bw FlexFuel41 Test PEM ? 1/? ? ? LPG, Bioethanol
Solid Power Bluegen42 Commercial SO 25,000 2/? 60 85 NG
Baxi Innotech
Gamma 143,44
Pre – Series (for demonstration)
PEM 1.0/1.7 32 85 NG
SenerTec Dachs InnoGen45,46
Commercial PEM 20,000 0.7/0.95 37.7 89.147 NG
Viessmann Vitovalor PT248
Commercial ? ? 0.75/1.1 37 92 NG
Additional Notes:
➢ Toshiba ended manufacture and sale of ENE-FARM, Residential Fuel Cell System49 ➢ Ceres power announced a Confidential partner agreement signed to develop and launch a Multi-
kW CHP product for Business sector 50 ➢ SOFC Power became SOLID power in 2014, in 2015 bought Ceramic Fuel Cells (CFC) which
produces BlueGEN. In 2016 BlueGEN production has restarted.51 ➢ Bosch/Buderus -> now m-CHP is under Bosch
